ever received in the Church with more truth and faithfulnes then Hereticks have done Surely the Iesuite hath payed it here for he that every where dreameth of false logicke in others doth not here speake true sence himselfe Lyrinensis maketh 1. one generall sufficient rule for all things the sacred Scriptures f Lyrinens Duplici modo munire fidem suam Domino adjuvante deberet Primo scilicet divinae legis autoritaâ—e Cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique AD OMNIA satis superque sufficiat 2ly another usefull in some cases onely g Ibid. Tum deinde ecclesiae catholicae traditione Sed neque semper neque omnes haereâ—â—s hoc modo impugnandae sunt yet never to be used in those cases without Scriptures which is the tradition of the Universall Church h Ibid. Multum necesse est propter tantos tam varij erroris anfractus ut Propheticae Apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum Ecclesiastici Catholici sensus normam dirigaâ—ur In ipsa autem catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est hoc est etenim verè proprièque catholicum The first was used by the auncient Church from the worth that is in it selfe i Ibid. Sibique ad omnia superque sufficiat the other from the perversnes of Hereticks that many times abuse the sacred rule k Ibid. Quia videlicet scripturam sacram pro ipsa sui altitudine non uno codâ—mque sensus universi accipiunt sed ejusdem eloquia aliter atque aliter alius atque alius interpretatur Aliter namque illam Novatianus aliter Sabeilius Bring us now one Scripture expounded according to Lyrinensiâ— his rule l Ibid. Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est by the universall consent of the primitive Church to prove traditions confession Purgatory prayer to Saints image-worship Free-will c. in your sence and wee will receive it if you cannot confesse the truth that you deale like hereticks and acknowledge that we follow the practise of the auncient times And here I would have the Iesuite consider how many of their owne doe cry the Scripture m Sanders Rocke of the Church chap. 8. pag. 193. They have most plaine Scriptures in all points for the Catholicke faith and none at all against the same Bristo Mot. 48 Most certain it is that from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Apocalypse there is no text that maketh for you against us but all for us though it be more Iudeorum as they templum Domini and further with greater pretended reverence kisse antiquity not that they love either but because the one is not so light as the other to lay open their errours and detect their deformities Moreover whereas Christ made it a note of his sheepe to heare his voyce this good man would have it to bee the signe and token of an Hereticke but if Hereticks make use of Scriptures this confirmes the rule to be what God made it though it cannot justifie their practise that abuse the same And for brutish and wilde interpretations of Hereticks which this Father makes woolvish let the Iesuite cast an eye to their owne and who hath dealt so grossly as they have done †See before pag. 149 â—it b. And although they bragge of Unity and interpretations of good consent yet for any thing we see it is to be suspected when their Popes could not agree about the Text that he as his schollers may faile to accord in interpretation thereof Further I could wish it were examined whether we or they faile in the Rule of interpreting the Scriptures according to the universall tradition of the Church and analogie of faith and then it would easily appeare if this be a note of Heresie who the Hereticks are For the Fathers beleived but halfe the faith according to that you interpret and to make those points traditions of the universall Church which needed decrees to authorize them 1500 yeares after Christ must needes conclude egregious vanity But who knoweth not that you had rather be tried by the Moone and seven Starres which cannot so easily detect the workes of darknes then the Scriptures the fountain of light that will declare the least errour in your doctrine or practise n Clem. Alex Serom. l. 7. Sicut improbi oueri excludunt Paedagogum ita etiam hi arcent Prophetias a suâ Ecclesâ—â suspectas â—as habentes propter repâ—eh ensionem admonitionem Quamplerima certe consarciunt mendacia figmenta ut jure videantur non admittere Scripturas So that we disclaime not the Fathers but in your Phantasies for we allowe them at all times what they ought to have and when by an universall consent they declare what the Apostles delivered to the Church wee grant them a more centrouling authoritie Yet we are not ashamed to distinguish betwixt God and man though you blush not to equall them and to make Gods ipse diceit a convincing rule which we cannot grant to man or the best of men the Fathers and Bishops of the auncient Church where they come alone without the Scriptures Our Iesuite hath done much in this Chapter to wit proved that we preferre God before men and I have shewed that we deny not to men what God hath allowed to them SECT VI. AND least Vanitie should be absent for a little here the Iesuite proceedes to take a veiw How vainely our Answerer excuseth his disclaime from the Fathers a Reply pag. 36 But how vainely he chargeth the Answerers most learned observation will presently appeare Here saith the Iesuite our Answerer meeteth us with the same auncient Father Vincentius Lirinensis who though a great Commender of the methode of confuting Heresies by the consent of holy Fathers yet is carefull herein to give us this caveat that neither alwayes nor all kinde of Heresies are to be impugned after this manner but such onely as are now and lately sprung namely when they doe first arise while by straitnes of the time it selfe they be hindred from falsifying the rules of the auncient Faith and before the time that their poyson spreading farther they attempt to corrupt the writings of the auncient But far-spred and inveterate heresies are not to bee dealt withall this way for as much as by long continuance of time a long occasion hath lyon open unto them to steale away the truth Out of which saying our Answerer inferres that our Heresies being farre-spred and of long continuance have had time enough and place to coyne and clipp and wash the 〈◊〉 of Antiquitie wherein saith hee they have not bene wanting and therefore must not be impugned by consent of holy Fathers b Reply pag. 36 Here is little Vanitie to be seene as yet how the Iesuite will make it appeare remaineth to be done and this hee will accomplish by espying
in resisting you making those articles of faith which were never of universall beleife in the Christian world But to whom doth hee tell these tales if to those of his owne profession it is idle and needlesse if to us it is most â—â—â—rue for saith hee it is well knowne that with us they bee cerâ—â—inely accounted cheife articles of faith being all of them declared for such by the sacred and infallible â—â—thâ—â—itie of the Church h Reply ibid. It is neither â—eedelesse for his owne nor untrue being delivered to your selves For the most reverend Father knowes it is his dutie dayly to perswade against faith-intrusions for the preservation of his owne neither can your Arguments make it untrue for are all things you accompt or the Trent Câ—â—ncell hath determined of so necessarie light that everie man must beleeve them You may perswade this in Peru or Mexico but your neighbours the Vâ—â—etians will not beleive you that dwell nearer home neither have all your Catholicke Children such opinion of that Councell as to receive it Now our Iesuite would have them of faith from our confession Neither can our Advâ—rsaries themselves saith hee deny that they appertaine to the substance of Faith and Religion sâ—â—ing that they condemne them for heresiâ— in us i Reply pag. 93. Heere the Iesuite will not have an Heresie to bee but in point of faith that the denyall thereof might exclude us from salvation if this be the rule by which the Iesuite will try Heresies I thinke these will not proove of that stampe in our opinions For first we deny not salvation to those which by ignorance communicate with them that imbrace these grosse follies Secondly we say not that they belong to any article of the Apostles faith but are additions that had nothing to glue them to the Creed but Babylonish Clement We take them for grosse corruptions but to make them errours in fundamentall points our Church hath not I thinke declared it Heresies of deeper errour and more elavated pride then are found in this Catalogue proclaime themselves among you those peâ—ces declare noâ— your greatest defection Who abhorres not your tyrannicall Hildebrandine insurrection whereby you trample upon Gods power the authority delegated to Kings and Bishops and the whole Preisthood of the Catholicke Church Secondly your Conscience Monarchy whereby you cast Christ out of his chaire and give the Pope Christs infallible office This Constance could not endure and k Sess 2 4 Basill l Sess â—3 thought Heresie never doubted of Who is ignorant that heresies have had their degrees which they could not have had in respect of faith if all did equally totter the foundation Augustine defines an hereticke otherwayes then from the foundation Hee is an Hereticke that for lâ—cre of any temporall commoditie aâ—d especially for his owne vaine-glory and preferments sake as your Courtiers doe doth beget or follow false or new opinions m August in libro de utilieredend caâ—s 2â— quest 3. c Haereticus 〈◊〉 qui alicujus teÌ„poralis commodi maâ—imae gloriae principatusque fui gratia falsos ac â—oâ—as opiniones vel gigniâ— vel sequitur and this may be done in points which are not fundamentall Besides how many are accounted Heretickes in this common course of appellation and yet free from denying the foundation of Faith For wee finde Leo the Xth. in his Bull against Luther * 4 Iâ—â—â—â— 1â—â—â— to style it Heresie for any man to say that the Church or himselfe hath not power statuere â—rticâ—lâ—s fidei to make new articles of faith as also that Luthers assertion was no lesse optima pâ—â—itâ—â—tia novâ— vita new lifâ— was the best repentance and yet I hope the Iesuite will reâ—oove these farre from the foundation And if the Pope may erre in his Buls to call that Heresie which is not fundamentall errour why may not you give leave to others to use the same Libertie seeing hee is the patterne of imitation unlesse you thinke the Pope above Angels and that hee may deliver what he pleaseth and make Heresie what hee list and the Anathema that thereby hee deserves himselfe by his verie pleasure should fall upon others Nay you have gone further De Consecrat dist 5. Cap. â—t jejun that hee will never bee a Christian qui confirmatione Episcopali non fuit Chrismatus Now if a man may bee counted an infidell and unbeleiver by you for omission of the Ceremonie of Confirmation why should you draw from the liberties of mens tongues an Argument that whosoever by you or our selves are styled Heretickes must needes in regard of those points erre in the foundation Doe you not know it often fals out as when you charge us that after the way which is called Heresie so doe many of the faithfull serve the Lord God of their Fathers Shall we condemne to eternall fire Irenaeus Iustine Martyr all the Millenaries and all those which consented to those points which Epiphanius Augustine or Alphâ—â—sus de Castro have styled Heresies it were too rigide a censure and more fit for the Iudges of Hell then the Preists of God So that this proves but a vaine ground to inferre these points to be of faith because they are accompted heresies and if we will observe it we may from his owne words finde that heresies have declared themselves not so much from the matter whether fundamentall or not as from the perverse manner of holding an opinion against any ones conscience being lawfully convicted of the same And therefore our Iesuite will not have them Hereticks that deny tradition Images c. simplie by a bare and naked negation but wilfully and perversly by obstinate denyall Yet will our Answerer say saith the Iesuite that by the Fathers they were held but onely as opinions and not as belonging to the substance of faith and this is but his owne opinion for wheresoever the Fathers doe professe them in their works they never tell him that they hold them for opinions rather then for points of faith Reply pag. 9â— The Iesuite speakes of the Answerers divining but here divines amisse himselfe indeed proves down-right a Deceiver for if the learned Answerer will say that the fathers held them as opinions why should he require the Iesuites proofe for their consent and therefore let him fasten this opinion upon whom he can the most reverend Primate knowes well enough that they neither held them generally as opinions or of faith neither is he so ignorant in antiquity but that he well understands those ancient Souldiers of the Catholicke Church were alwayes ignorant of the after invented marches under Roman Coloâ—â—s so that the Iesuit would perswade the reader by a trick of deceit that 〈◊〉 knowledge the Fathers generall consent in these points as opinions but not as of faith which was never dreamed of by the Church By this it will appeare that they care not by what meanes they establish their decrees nor
observed if the Truth were not before knowne The declaration doth not make it Faith but sheweth that the faithfull doe adhere unto it as revealed by God for if the truth were not there the declaration of it were an Hersie or error at least Neither doth hee produce any thing afterwards to make the Church the rule of faith Whereas he tels us that S. Augustine writing to S. Hierome requesteth him that setting downe the Catalogue of Heretickes he would joyntly expresse in what points they had beene condemned by Catholicke authoritie and againe in his Preface to the above mentioned Catalogue of Heresies hee mentioneth himselfe what the Church holdeth against such Heresies without making any mention of the authority of Scripture z Reply p. 10. I thinke the Iesuite would have a Church embracing heresie What doth the Churches adherence to truth make her the Iudge or rule of it and because Catholicke authority condemneth Herefie must therefore the contrary truth have its life from the declaration thereof Faith must then follow the Church not leade it The Iesuit may conceive that this Father meanes not by the Churches authority a power inherent in their Roman Apollo excluding all other assistance but a lawfull determination according to the Scriptures by the Bishops Preists of the Catholick Church For otherwise he must acknowledge in the Church such a domination as was amongst the Gentiles Luke 22. But sure it is that S. Augustine dreamed no more of your Iudge then the blessed Apostle S. Paul who in the enumeration of the divers degrees of the ministery Ephes 1111. v. 11. left him out Besides the Iesuite by Apostolicall directions in matters that concerne faith may see a Rule not a Iudge pointed out as having authority to guide us Phil. 3. 16. Gal. 6. 16. by which rule as the Church receiveth strength so limitation Finally saith the Iesuite observe how all the points layde down by me in my demand being declared by the Catholicke Church for articles of faith are of necessity to be beleived and held for such the contrary for dâ—â—â—able Heresie Reply p. 104 What the Iesuite doth say for the expresse declaration of all his points of Faith wil be examined in their severall places here an induction he brings us a conclusion whereby he would prove that the onely Rule to know a point of faith from an indifferent opinion in Religion is the declared determined judgment of the Church by which all the points laid down in his demand being propounded unto them for such must of necessity be accounted cheife articles of Catholick beleife b Reply p. 105. 106. But from whence the Iesuite draweth this conclusion I cannot see for if the Church command by the expresse Scripture and sense agreed on in all ages the Church then doth judge at least with undependant authority but direct calling for obedience to a former judgment if it decree in points doubtfull the Churches declaration can bind us to peace and externall obedience but here no infallible judge is allowed to make matters that were doubtfull to be of faith or to create from uncertainties a new Creed That the Church by her particular ministers and body representative hath applied the Scriptures to severall heresies thereby detected condemned them we deny not but will this make every point decreed by a Councell wilfully from their owne ends without direction or limitation to be a cheife article of Faith Your Quartadecimani were convinced of heresie by the Scripture as Alphonsus de Castro telleth us c Alphons de Castro advers Haeâ— l. 12. de Pascha Istorum ergo sententia inde convincitur haerescos quòd supra in titulo de lege oâ—tendimus esse hâ—resim asserere caeremonias judicia legis veteris obligare tempore legis evangelicae Nam Paulus reprehendens Galats co quod caeremonias legis observandas putaâ—ent inter alia dicit Dies observatis menses tempora annos but where by the naked declaratioÌ„ of Pope Victor without this rule Neither did he excommunicate all the Bishops of Asia in this cause if Alphonsus speake truth but they escaped it by Irenâ—us his chyding of your Pope d Idem ibid. Fâ—cisset nisi illum Iraeneus ob hoc redarguisset Here you see that these hereticks of the East after the Pope had condemned them had one Catholick Bishop pleading for them In like manner the Novatians e Alphons de Castro adver haer l. 12. de â—â—â—n haeâ— 3 Cum non sit alia res pluries apertius in sacris condicibus pâ—odita quà m misâ—ricordia quam Deus erga peccatorâ—s maxime poenitentes exercet illis peccatorum suorum indulgentiam tribuens might be condeÌ„ned as the Arians f Socrates Hist Eccles l. 1. c. 7. Evangelici enim Apostolici libri nâ—â—non antiquorum Prophetarum ora cula planè instruunt nos inquit Constantinus Imperator in Nicaea Synodo sensu numinis Proinde hostili politâ discordiâ sumaâ—â—us ex dictis divini Spiritus explicationes quaestionum Haec his similia memorabat ille velut amans paterni nominis filius sacerdoâ—ibus tanquam patribuâ— cupions confiteri Apostolicorum dogmatum unitatem Quibus assensus maximae conventus partis acceâ—â—it Macedonians g Theodoret. Hist Eccles l. 5. c. 9. Iam enim semel formam protulimus ut qui se Christianum profiteatur server â—a quae ab Apostolis tradita sunt quum dicat Sanctus Paâ—lus Si quis vobis annunciat aliud quam accepistis anathema esto Nestorians h Epistola Cyrilli Synodi ad Nestorium tom 1. Act. Concil Ephes Occum c. 14 Haec tenere haec sapere cum à sanctis Apostolis Evangelistis tum ab universa quoque sacra divina Scriptura tum ex veraci denique sanctorum patrum confessione edocti sumus Eâ—tich i Euagrius Histor Eccles l. 2. c. 4. Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum confitemur c. siâ—ut antiquitùs Prophetae de â—o postille ipse Christus nos docâ—â—t idem ipsum nobis Patrum Symbolum tradidit Pelagians k Concil Milevit c. 2. the Monothelites l Concil Constant Vniversale VI. Act. 1. 2. Propositis in medio Sanctis intemeratis Evangelijs but was this done by the judgement of the Church onely and absolutely surely no but by the Scriptures And it is more then cleare that the reason why you distast the Scriptures is as Clemens Alexandrinus observeth because you hold not the rule of faith Clemens Alexandr Stromat l. 7. Necesse est enim labi in maximis cos qui res maximas aggrediuâ—tur nisâ— regâ—lam veritatis ab ipsa veritate acceptam tenuâ—rint Qui autem sâ—nt ejâ—smoâ—i ut qui à recta via excideâ—int meritò etiam falluntur in pluâ—imis singularibus propterea quòd non habeant verorum â—alsoâ—um judicium planâ— exercitatum
A REIOYNDER TO THE REPLY PVBLISHED BY THE IESVITES VNDER THE NAME OF WILLIAM MALONE The First Part. Wherein the Generall Answer to the Challenge is cleared from all the IESUITES Cavills MATTH XXIII 9. 10. Call no man your FATHER upon the earth for one is your FATHER which is in Heaven Neither be yee called Masters for one is your Master even CHRIST II. TIMOTH III. 8. 9. As Iannes and Iambres withstood Moses so doe these also resist the Truth men of corrupt mindes reprobate concerning the Faith But they shall proceede no further for their folly shal be manifest unto all DUBLIN Printed by the Societie of Stationers Printers to the Kings most excellent Majestie 1632. TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE HENRY LO VISCOVNT FALKLAND ONE OF THE LORDS OF HIS MAIESTIES MOST HONOURABLE PRIVIE COUNCELL Right Honourable my singular good Lord IT was Tertullian's observation of Heretickes Nostra suffodiunt ut sua aedificent a Tertull de praescript aâ— vers haeret cap. 42. Your Lordship is well informed by experience that the Romish Clergie who disdain the stile of Hereticks are like Vnderminers like Builders For what kinde of Vndermining is left unpractised to make way ut sua aedificent that they may build up their Babell and advance their ROMAN See The Scripture the Rule of Faith they undermine by their Vnde scis allowing it neither authority nor Command but because their Cheife Pastour declares it expounds it The Church they undermine by assuming her Name defiling her Doctrine Councels by denying their lawfulnesse unlesse called and approved by Rome Bishops Preists by making them Delegates to his supposed Holyness rejecting their Commission received from CHRIST Neither cease they here but Princes and States they undermine also sometime by raising open VVarre sometime by Bosome-conspiracies Powder-plots other secret attempts Nor doe these Vnderminers looke alway like Faux in the Vault but they will appeare somtimes as it were Angels of Light Princes shall have Thousands of their Pennes b Iesuite Fisher in his Epistle to the King but I thinke rather Pen-knives They wil be strongly tyed and united to his Majesties Crowne the more familiaritie they have with him by whom Kings do raigne the more awfull will they be found unto his Holy annointed c The Iesuite in his Epistle Dedicatory and all this as the Divell to our Saviour ut sua aedificent that Princes may fall downe and worship their Beast We may goe further None escape them They undermine Populum Primates Populi by subverting their Estates Proselyting their Children and yet the keeping backe of these Vnderminers from his Majesties presence is censured by Mr Malone our Iesuite to be the fruite of waspish emulation d In his Epistle Dedicatory as if these things might be done and yet they remaine faithfull to their Prince his State and Dignitie But their Allegiance may well be discerned by their Obedience For besides their immediate addresse to Rome their acknowledging a PROTECTOVR e In a letter of LVD CAR. LVDVISIVS S. R. E. VICECANCELLARIVS superscribed thus Rev. P Pâ—i .. Praefectâ— p. P. Carâ— Excalceaterum in Regâ— Hibernia Dated Rome 10. Kal. Iâ—â—ii 1631. which is in my hands and concerneth the quarrels of the Regulars and Seculars in the points censured by the Doctors of Sâ—â—bon â—5 â—an 1631. Vt rei veritas innotesâ—at scriptum est ad quosdam illius Regni Praelatos â qu. bus expectatur informatio Interim vâ—sum est sacrae Congreg ni ut nos ex munere PROTECTORIS quo fungimur admoneamus rogemus V. 〈◊〉 ne ex dolore aut vindicta illatae ut praetenditur calumniae quid quam agat erga tumultus authores ne majâ—res â—xcitentur turbae sed offensiones injurias suas â—uorumque reâ—ittat sâ—crâ— Congreg 〈◊〉 quae plenè satisfaciet justâ censurâ corripiet ac poenâ afficiet â—â—â—â—mniae dum constire it Architectos there and abusing his Majesties Subjects by pressing their Consciences to yeeld subjection against his sacred Commaunds to none but from thence There is dayly resisting of his ROYAL Commaunds in matters that are not absolutely Spirituall For there being Publication of His Maiesties ROYALL pleasure for the changing of the Popish Calendar which ever since the times of Rebellion was observed in the Province of Vlster Did they obey This it may be they will glory in But for what other then Politick respects How was the Titular Primate advised by his Councell learned Was he not pressed to disobey Was it not reputed inconvenient to alter the same Did he not censure the receiving of the Kings command against this their disobedient practise to be no otherwise then to obey men more then GOD That if obedience should be yeelded herein their Adversaries so he stiles his sacred Majestie Councell wil be encouraged to publish more severe edicts against them sic paulatim serpet Cancer f In a letter written partly in Irish partly in Latine to the Titular Primate superscribed To his much esteemed assured loving frâ—ind Mr William Bitagh these in haste wheresoever These are the points for which it were inconvenient to alter the time heere praesâ—rtim hoc anno 〈◊〉 quod videamur obsdire hominibuâ— magis quam Deo recipiendo TEMPORALIVM Potestatum mandata contra râ—ceptam Ecclesiasticam lgem idque 〈◊〉 â—dium religionis nostrae undâ— ADVERSARII animentur ad alia magis nociva praecepta canâ—ra nos â—denda dum â—iderent nos minoribus praeceptis â—â—â—emperare sic paulatim serpet Cancer c. Doe they apprehend his Majestie Councell for Adversaries Who can then esteeme theÌ„ for Friends Shall a rebellious intrusion bee esteemed the Oracle of GOD and checke the Regall Power as proceeding from Men and yet Subjection not violated but their Obedience must remaine firme Much more in this kinde may be presented to your Lordship if it were not superfluous but by this it may appeare how that notwithstanding their pretences Princes are relished or distasted by them in ordine ad spiritualia as they countenance or exalt their Popish Faction For to omit other things the Iesuit his contemptuous reproaching of the learned defence of his Majesties supreame power made in the Castle-Chamber in the time of your Lordships Government here doth declare how inviously they heare of his Maiesties eminent and glorious Prerogatives But the more they declare themselves enemies to our Faith her Defender the more I doubt not but all sacredly affected will arme themselves to resist them in these their contrivings secret imaginations I doe not come with this Dedication to move your Lordship hereunto for it hath beene your VVorke who is or hath beene more Faithfull amongst all the Servants of my Lord the KING * 1. Sam. 2â— And for your pious affection to the true Religion I could speake more then I suppose your modesty would be willing to heare so that I doubt not but
also have defined contrarie to generall practise and custome of the Church though not in fundamentals yet in points of great consequence as your Councell of Constance * sess 13. against Communion in both kinds and your Trent Synode for private masse against the practise of primitive times a De consecr distinct â— cap peracta Peracta consecratione communicent omnes qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus sic enim Apostoli statueruntet sancta Romana tenet Ecclesia not of one particular Roman but of the vniversall body of the Catholicke Church so that there might be as good Musicke made of an emptie vessel as the impregâ—able harmonie you boast of and though there were no crosse definition against the foundation of faith yet that Pope is not hid and Councell which have made that faith from such an interpretation of scripture b Scot 4. â— 11. q 3. which Scotus could see no reason or authoritie for but what was in the sic volo sic jubeâ— of the Roman Church But further this Argument may bee retorted in their teeth if these points were not ab initio but got footing in the Church of Rome by Papall violence and decrees of Councels which were his owne then they have not the birth of Apostolicall traditions neither can they bee accounted cheife Articles c Suarez Ies dâ—trip â—iâ—t disput 5. § 4. num 4. Cum non sit vniversalis in tempore non potest per se fidem facere catholicam quae debet esse 〈◊〉 pore vniversalis but some of the points mentioned are by your owne thought to be put Iuris positivi which I thinke you will not stretch vp to the Apostles times as confession c all the rest have bene declared quibus gradibus they got footing in the church by the most learned Answerer against which the Iesuite hath in the point of Free will spoken little to all the rest materially nothing as wil be declared in the examination of them Now the Iesuite thinking hee hath performed some brave exployt concludes he hopes with triumph If we presse them to name those Popes who so 〈◊〉 from faith to infidelitie or brought in but one onely article of religion contrary to that of fore-going ages because they cannot satisfie our demaund herein it must be shuffled vp vnder the tearme of a vaine demaund d Reply pag 4. First we charge them not with decreeing contrary to the foundation interminis as that there is not one God three Persons c. but that they have added to the faith delivered by the Spirit of God many articles of their owne Neither do we say that they have forsaken the faithabsolutly for they professe it but the purity of it not contenting themselves with the auncient rule without mixtures of their own Such corruptioÌ„ such alteration of the faith they cannot deny therefore have laboured to excuse it that it is not new faith but a declaration of the old the birth of some of which â—aith was 1500. yeares after CHRIST and his Apostles had delivered the whole councell of God So that the Iesuite â—â—th marched valiantly and with Balaâ—m hath expressed his desire to curse Israell but all his hope is declared vpon which he founds his confidence that because we cannot satisfie his demaund hee is therefore secure that his demaund is not vaine when as the vanitie there of maketh it vnanswerable S â— Augustine thought it a vaine demaund to aske what God did before the creation of the world and therefore turnes it off with a menacing answere The most learned Answerer hath the same thoughts of the Iesuites Quare and casteth it off by just exception and both most rightly Yet the Iesuite inviteth vs to see SECT II. * Reply pag. 5. How vaynelie our Answerer proveth my Demaund to bee vayne IN this discourse the Iesuite is blinded and wanting reason to justifie his Demaund he will not want his good friend Frons ahenea to give some releife vnto his desperate cause The Answerer saith our Iesuite by a smooth and wylie sleight shrinketh from the Question a Reply ibid. c. But how proveth he this why in this manner Whereas I demaunded saith he What Bishop of Rome did first alter or corrupt the right faith He answereth that it is a vaine demaund to require the name of any one Bishop of Rome by whom or vnder whom this Babylonish Confusion was brought in And againe That it is a fond imagination to suppose that all such changes must be made by some Bishop or any one certaine Author And laying downe this he 〈◊〉 the 〈…〉 how wide this is from that which â—e demaunded b Reply ibid. Which I thinke the learned Answerer will not refuse for although the Iesuite would have this question which now in his iudgment is vnreasonable to have beene fâ—rged by the most reverend Primate yet it evidently appeares that it is an vnproportioned birth a deformed Embryo of his owne conceipt and that the Iesuite herein is driven not to smooth and â—ylie slâ—ights for his defence but to perverse boldnes and open outfacing For first in repeating his owne question and demaund What Bishop of Rome did first alter he not onely addes or corrupt the right faith but shamelesly omits that which woundeth him to the quicke In what Pope his dayes was the true Religion overthrowne in Rome d See the Iesuites demaund Now I would have this Iesuite to declare the difference betweene the bringing in of Babylonish Confusion and the altering the true Religion He proceedeth For saith he had he pointed vs out â—ny one Pope that had changed but one onely article of religion or true faith or brought in any one errour then had hee satisfied my demaund e Reply pag. â— That which the Iesuite here supposeth containeth two particulars first that we cannot assigne any one Pope which hath changed one onely article of Religion or true faith Secondly that we cannot assigne a Pope that hath brought any one error into the Church The first hath received answere in the precedent section The second the most learned Answerer hath satisfied in all the Demaundants particulars shewing how this Iesuites holy points of Doctrine and faith are such as the Apostles never knew the fathers scarce espied good men alwayes resisted and which came to receive authoritie amongst Papalines but were alwayes rejected by the Catholicke Church And notwithstanding the Iesuite braves it there are many other articles pretended by them to be of true Religion which are at the best but superstitious and grosse errors brought in by their holy Father or his children in after-ages to the disgrace of the true received doctrine of the Church in the first times But that which the Iesuite doth conclude herevpon is most chyldish that the pointing out any one Pope which had brought into the Church any one errour would satisfie his demand f Reply pag.
〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 â—all of the aâ—â—cient Fathers and the Councell of 〈◊〉 Canone 〈…〉 these bookes are omitted â—â—â—â— part of the 〈◊〉 Scripture Thirdly the reputed 47. Canon of the third Councell of Carthage which is their cheifest testimony by the indgemeÌ„t of their own was never determinâ—â—â—â— that Synode â—arclaij Paraenesis l. 1. c. â—1 Refertur â—ic canoâ— concil 3. Carthaginensi cui Augustinus interâ—â—it sed ex 〈◊〉 constat posterioris Concilij esse quod paulo post sub Boni â—â—cio convocaâ—â—m Fourthly in after ages they were by many rejected a never getting authority till the Trent decree Besides these bookes will by their owne light declare of what authority they are The 〈◊〉 I hope will grant that God is as true in his word as the Pope infallible in his decrees if upon this ground these bookes deserve credit let the Reader conclude first for Iudeth whether it were â—squam or ullâ—bi we cannot tell neither I thinke the Iesuite himselfe Again she honoureth that fact of Siâ—â—on * Caâ—â—s loco â—â—pra citat Constat auâ—em 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctisâ—imoâ— in contrariam sententiam 〈◊〉 qui tamen semper in Ecclesia Catholica sunt habiti Nich. Lyâ—an super 〈◊〉 â— 1. super Tobiâ—â— Abuleâ—â—â—s super Math. c. 1. D. Aâ—â—on 3. p. â— 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 loâ—â— tum maâ—ime in fine 〈◊〉 super 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etiam sex â—â—cros esse 〈◊〉 Gelaâ—â—â—â— Pâ—pa rejecit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Macha Diâ—â—â— autem Gregorius l. moral â—â— rejjoâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de Tâ—â—â—poribus Rich l. 2. Exceptioâ—â—â— c. 9. Ocham â—â— Diâ—◠〈◊〉 1. l. 3. 〈◊〉 Ac D. Aug docet aâ— Ecclesia esse quid em receptos seâ—â—â—â— certa side 〈◊〉 9. 2 and Levy which the Spirit of God abhorreth as appeares by Moses †Gen. 49. 5. And we may see that Iudeth fitting her selfe for lyes and deceit * 〈◊〉 9. 10 desireth God to give a blessing thereunto †Ver. 13. which action as it condemneth the person that doth the same so doth it disgrace this booke which speaketh â—â— directly opposite to the Apostolicall rule * Eph. 4. 25. And as Iudeth doth detect her selfe so doth Tâ—bit also by his vaine story of the Rivall Devill †Tob 6. 14. the driving away of a devill or an evill spirit which should trouble any with the smoke of the heart and the liver of a fish * Tâ—â— 6. 7 contrary to Christs doctrine that there are some devills which will not be cast out but by fasting and prayer †Mat. 17. 21. And wherefore should the Apostle Eph 6. 13. have left this out of his aâ—moury if it had bene of such forâ—â— eâ—â—icacy as is here expressed Further we have an Angell lyeing chap. 5. verse â—â— and a fish travailing on Land chap. 6. verse 2. The Maâ—chabees containe many things which declaâ—â— the author of them not to write with confidence of Godâ— Spirit asisting him as first that he was an Epitoâ—â—ist of â—â—son * 2. Maccà b 2. 23. Secondly he excuseth himselfe †2 Maccab. â—5 39. as if the holy Ghost might deserve a censure Thirdly it appeareth that his end is to delight his Reader * 2. Maccab. 2 25. 15. 40. and to get honour to himselfe †2. Maccab. 2 â—6 â—7 Lastly he justifieth Razis in killing himself * 2. Macâ—ab 14 41. 42. 43. a commendation fitter for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then the patient Marâ—â—rs of Christ as S. Augustine Aug. câ—n Gâ—ud l. c 31. Dictum est quod 〈◊〉 nobiliter merit meâ—us veller hâ—militer â—â—â— enim 〈◊〉 Illiâ—autem verbis historia gentium â—â—â—dare 〈◊〉 sed viros 〈◊〉 huius â—â—culi non martyrâ—â— Christi observeth To these many more may be added but this which hath bene spokeÌ„ will suffice to shew that they have dealt without all conscience in obtruding those bookes upon the church which were never as canonicall received from the Iewes unto whom were committed the oracles of God * Rom. 3. 2. never delivered to the primitive Church from the Apostles never aproved by any father of the church for almost 400 yeares never thought of when the Canon was repeated such which by their Physiognomy detect themselves Whence we may gather that the Church of Rome now hath varied in her judgment from the church of God then althogh we be not able to lay down the precise time when she thought her selfe wiser then her forefathers heerein Neither will his turning to the Epistles of Iames Iude the second of Peter c Reply pag. 2â— c any thing availe his cause in regard there is a great difference betwixt those Epistles these bookes of Iudeth Tâ—bit and the Macchabees for although some private men did doubt of the former yet the church in generall did receive and approve the fame * See before pag. â—5 whereas on the contrary the Iesuite after all his search cannot finde â—â—â— testimony either of Father or Councell that accounâ—â—â— the latter Canonicall for well-nigh 400 yeares after Christ And therefore most indiscreetly did the Iesuit vrge 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 to prove the like doubt to have bene held of these Epistles with those bookes which they absolutely call Apocrypha Secondly he abuseth his Reader when he would perswade that they were ouely particular Fathers that doubted of these bookes when the Iesuite cannot finde that they were received either of the Iewes or the Apostles or Primitive Fathers for certaine ages after Christ Thirdly to what thoughts of desperation is he and his fellowes driven to defend this adding to the Canon as first that doubtfull writings which have beene accompted Apocryphall for certaine hundred of yeares which our Iesuite calleth somtime may by the publick authority of the Church be declared Canonicall and secondly that particular Fathers which indeed are all the Fathers that lived in the first 300. almost 400. yeares the Iesuite citing none within that compasse but Cyprian and their bastard Calixtuâ— as hath beene formerly declared might doubt of the authority of those bookes without prejudice till the Church had declared them for Canonicall by publicke authority But if the Canon was not compleate in the first times I would know when it was made perfect and whether in those times tradition was enabled to declare the same or whether the Fathers were negligent to testifie this truth and also whether Canonicall and Apocryphall is a distinction lately invented All this the Iesuite must resolve or else acknowledge the Canon of the Church in the Primitive times to be certainely knowne and setled which will declare their vanity and change in these last times to adde unto the sacred Canon and rule of Faith upon pretence that the Church hath power to declare canonicall Scripture A Doctrine invented in after-ages by the Roman faction who as they looked for unlimited power so to defend their practises they desire an unrestrayned rule making Scriptures what
informed hee might have alledged But Luther tels us that Gods will which way soeuer it is made knowne unto us ought to be reverently embraced and therefore it is not lawfull to gainsay rashly the Bishop of Romes Supremacie And this reason is of such force that although there were no other it alone ought to bee sufficient to â—urbe the temeritie of all opposers n Reply pag â— The Argument is thus Whatsoever is permitted by God is reverently to bee embraced But the Papall altitude is permitted by God Therefore with all reverence to be embraced May not this argument serve for Pope Ioan the stewes the holy Ladie Maâ—ylda Iudas Iulian yea for all villany without exception or interruption For we must not thinke that any thing can come to passe without Gods voluntary permission God made the world shall we say that like Gallio he câ—reth for none of these things * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God hath permitted many evils many tyrannies among the Babyâ—nians Persians Grecians Romans yet this doth not justifie them in their impieties or make us reverently to embrace them therein Wee know God placed Peter in the sheepe-fould to â—eedâ— his Lambes as hee sent the the rest to the same worke but shew us that hee tooke him from the Ewes great with young to make him the King of Israell the Monarch of the Church and this is something to the purpose Yet this Argument is not the Charter by which Peter got his Primacie but those Popes that came in the last dayes For when Luther was in his best witts hee could not finde the Popes Primacie in Pasce â—ves or Oravi pro te Petre or in any other place of Scripture or from any other reason but from experience So that we perceive the Bishop of Rome hath as much right to his pretended greatnes as Nimrod to Babylon and all former Tyrants to their Usurpations Now the Iesuite addresseth himselfe to Antiquity and wherefore Because our Answerer will needes be a scholler of their maddest humours in this point wee present him heere saith he with the Doctrine of Antiquity utterly condemning the same o Reply pag. â—0 The most learned Answerer is no Scholler of Luther or of Bucer neither are their humours directories of his Faith or opinions One is his Doctor and that is Christ and as farre as Luther and Bucer follow him so farre they may have his company but no further It is your holy Brother-hood that are tyed to madde humours nay to such as a madde man would not embrace Who can presume that a Iesuite hath his wits that casting aside Gods Law in the place thereof embraceth the rule of Ignatius as if it were their Decalogue or Square for direction And for any thing we can see the Prescripts of their Generall are little lesse esteemed by them in their practise then what God himselfe appoints them p Hassenmuller Hist Ies c. 6 de voâ— Obedieniiae Impudentissimos istos homines non pudet haec sigmenta capiâ—is sui haâ— Loiolae nugaâ— ipsi Dei Deca â—â—go praeponeâ—â— quod Iacobus Crusius Novitiorum Landspergensium Rector facit Noster inquiens Decalogus eâ—â— Râ—gula voâ—orum ab Ignatio Lâ—â—â—â—â— traditâ— This goeth farre but yet all this is nothing to the requisites that they prescribe to themselves vizâ— that if the Church you know who they meane should determine white to be blacke it must not be opposed q Regulae Iesu it ad finem Histor interdict tenet regula 132. si quod oâ—ulis nostris apparet album nigrum illa esse definierit debemus itidem quod nigrâ—â— sit pronunciare Now seeing hee hath urged Bucer Luther disputing â—â— concessis he will make it cleare by Antiquity it selfe So that he will not accept that the Roman Church is the Head of all other Churches by a bare Concession or graunt of her enemies but will further make it apparant by her owne evidences and auncient Prerogatives And his first testimony is the Inscription of an Epistle of Ignatius the disciple of S. Iohn the Evangelist to the Romans where amongst other prerogatives he confesseth that it beareth sway ever all other Churches r Reply pag 10 The person cannot want authority and esteeme being an holy Bishop and Martyr Yet I am sure the Iesuite hath besmeared the face of this Epistle with falshood fraud for where will he finde this sway-bearing to be Oecumenicall and over all other Churches Bellarmine dare not be so bold but contractedly speakes in the Region of the Romans Å¿ Bellarm de Rom. Pont l. 2. c. 15. Primus igitur sit Beatus Ignatius qui Epistolam ad Romaâ—â—â— inscribiâ— Ignatius Ecclesiâ— sanctifiâ—aâ—ae quae praesideâ— in regione Romanorum and yet more largely then the truth of the Epistle will beare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in loco Regionis Romanorum and what Patriarch had not the like to beare sway in divine matters over all the Churches of the Province or Provinces that were subordinate unto him Nay further the Arch-Bishoppes of Yorke and Dublin are styled Primates the one of England the other of Ireland and yet this doth not make them Universall Swayers of the Church in those Kingdomes much lesse to obtaine headship for their Churches above all others therein So that I am perswaded if ever God had given the Roman Church such a capitall priviledge the Catholicke Church would have had plainer wordes to have declared CHRISTS favour and particular bountie unto it But you may remember who it was that tooke our Saviour to the pinacle of the Temple that offered him all the Kingdomes of the world that hee might neare sway over them and you cannot forget mitte te dâ—â—rsum If in these things you will not reject Saâ—â— with your Master take heed you fall not from the pinacle of the Temple with him that you embrace as your Lord. It is more glorious for a Bishop to bee a fatherly guide and governour then a sway-bearing President and it would more commend the Roman Bishop to attend those suburbane Churches and Provinces committed to his care by the Nicene Councell as Ruffinus â— expounds it and not to distend his holines with the vaste thoughts of universall Regiment The second Witnesse of Antiquity hee maketh Cypriâ—â— and two places he citeth out of him The first out of his third Epistle in his first booke where this Father calleth the Romane Church Cathedram Petri â—â—clesium principalem the Chaire of Peter and the cheâ—â—â— Church Ruffinus histâ—ccles l. 1. c. 6. â—t ut apud Alexandriam in urbe Roma vetusia conâ—uâ—â—â—do serâ—â—ur ut vel ille 〈◊〉 vel hic â—â—â—aroicariatum ecclesiarum solicitudinem gerat And might not the Church of Antioch have the first title or stile And yet this would not bee sufficient to give that Church such an universall headship and preheminence Reply pag. 50 For the other phrase of Ecclesiam principalem it makes it not the
otherwise Nâ—◠〈◊〉 sensum habemus they could espye errour there as well as in any other lesse eminent Church But he tells us This agreement in Communion with the Roman Church was in those primitive times held for an infallible marke of true faith aâ— appedreth most plainely by that which S. Ambrose relateth of his brother Satyrus f Reply pag. 52 It appeareth plainely that the Iesuite shootes at rovers not at the marke otherwise he would not produce a matter of fact knit to time and occasion to prove a thing absolutely and without dependance Satyrus would not communicate in the dread mysteries of the Eucharist but by the hand of a Catholicke Bishop opposite to the Luciferians who were Schismatickes at that time and to that purpose calling a certaine Bishop so him 〈◊〉 supposing that no true freindship could bee without true faith hee therefrre first of all enquired of him whethâ—â— hee did accord with the Catholicke Bishops that iâ— with the Romane Church g Reply ibid. Now the Iesuite would hereupon conclude that agreement in communion with the Romane Church was in those times held for an infallible marke of true faith h Reply ibid. In Satyrus his time the Romam Church was a good marke because by true doctrine it gave good aime but was it the same when Liberius Honorius were Romane Bishops Satyrus made not Bishops Catholicke because Romane but in regard they were opposite to Schismatickes Neither did Ambrose interprete Catholicke Bishops by the Romaâ—â— Church but because they were truely Catholick at that 〈◊〉 which were of the Roman cleargy About those times then they did choose Bishops by their agreement with the present Orthodoxall Bishops as Nectarius of Constantinople Timothieof Alexandria c. not because those Sees made their Bishops infallible and exempt from errour but because these men at that time by generall testimonie suis Ecclesijs religiose praessent did religiously governe their Churches i 〈◊〉 hist l. 7. c. 9. Hos enim imperator quo que visos cotam alloâ—â—â—tus approbavit de quibus et integra constabat fama quod suis Ecclesâ—â— religiosè praeessent The same reason made Satyrus call some Bishops Catholick and from the same ground Ambrose expoundeth Satyrus his Catholicke Bishops by the Romane Church The Iesuite commeth now to his last proofe from restaring of Bishops put out of their Bishopricks to conclude his Papall Monarchie and bringeth us onely one example and that but an attempt onely viz â— of Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria Paulus Arch-bishop of Constantinople Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra Asclepas Bishop of Gaza and Lucianus Bishop of Hadrianople who being all Patriarches and Prelates of the East Church and expelled from their places even by Councels of other Bishops came unto Rome complained unto Pope Iulius of their wrongs and were by him righted and restored As witnesse Sozomenus c k Reply pag â—â— The Bishop of Rome was a man of gâ—eat authority in regard of the Imperiall Citie whereof he was Bishop and much he might doe by perswasion advice and by the assistance of the Imperiall power yet all this will not conclude him the Monarch of the Catholicke Church And what did Iulius more then the Arch-Bishop of Canterbuâ—y ought to doe upon the like occasion Hee discussed the crimes of every one l Reply pag. â—â— And good reason for a good man ought to know the cause he would patronize much more a good Bishop Hee did receive them into his Communion finding that they all did agree to the Nicene Councell m Reply ibid. Could he have done otherwise without blame As one that had care of all by reason of the dignity of his See he did restore to every of them their owne Churches writing also to the Bishops of the East c. * Reply ibid. And what made him so confident of his power his Monarchie Surely no but because he was the Emperouâ—s Chaplaine and therefore might expect to bee graciously assisted by his Lord. And that this is not a conjecture you may conceive in regard the Bishops of the East made â— Reply pag. 53 light of his restitution returning him an answere full of scornes and threats o Sozomen Hist Eccles l 3. 2 7. Athanasi â—s autem Paulus ad suas sedes revertuntur literasque Iulit Episcopis Orientis mittunt Quibus illi graviter commoti conveniunt Antiochiae in unum epistolam verbis elegantibus ornatam disertè ut â—heto rum mos sert compositam ad Iulium scribunt eamque plenam ironiae minarum non expertem gravissimarum Neither was he ever able to bring to passe what he determined whilâ—st he used his owne power for they disdained that the greatnes of his Bishopprickâ— should make them his inferiors p Ibid-Indignati sunt se posteriores ideo ferre quòd magnitudine Ecclesiae superarentur Sozomen hist eccles l. 3. c. 9. At cum literis apud â—piscopos Orientis de rebus propter quas scripsisset nihil proficeret causam Aâ—hanasij Pauli ad Constantem retulit and therefore he sollicited his Lord by whose authoritie they were restored q Sozomen hist Eccles l. 3. c. 1â— Conâ—tans autem rebuâ— gestis in concilio Sardicensi cognitis scripsit ad fratrem Constantium literas uti Athanasio Paulo ecclesias suas redderet Vbi vâ—â—o intellexit fratrem diem de die ducere scripâ—iâ— denuo ut vel viros istos reciperet vel se ad bellum gerendum pararet Constantius igiâ—ur cùm de linere cum Episcopis Orientis communâ—casset stultum putavit obâ—eam causam bellum civile intestmum suscipere Quo quidem concilio inductus Athanasiuâ— ex Itaâ—â— acceâ—sit cap. 20. Imperator autem dimittit Athanasium in Aegyptum 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—â— literas cùm ad Episcopos et Presbytetos cujusque civitatis tùm ad populum Ecclesiae Alexandrinae quibus et vitam ejus piè actam et probitaâ—em morum commendavi◠〈◊〉 cohortatus est uti ei utpote suo antistiti pâ—rentâ— precibuses oraâ—ionibus 〈◊〉 reilgioâ—◠〈◊〉 And now the Iesuite having finished his testimonies concludes for the Papall Crowne How farre now may wee thinke doth our Answerer swarve from the auncient Fathere Pastors and Saints of the Primitive Church whilest hee by a separation from that Church which they acknowledged to bee their head and themselves to be members thereof faileth to be a member of the true body of Christ or one of his true flock forasmuch as he with-draweth himselfe from the true confessed Pastor And what wonder then that hee should dissipate and destroy all true faith and doctrine c r Reply pag. 53. It is cleare that the most learned Answerer hath with the Church that he by Gods providence governeth not swarved from the auncient Fathers Pastors and Saints of the primitive Church much lesse made a separation from the auncient Church How the Church of Rome was
not of an excellencie of Power Neither did Peter take away schisme by absolute definition as your Pope assumeth authoritie to doe but by orderly disposition with Apostolicall consent His third instance is Nazianzen b Reply ibid. But doth he give Peter what will satisfie the Iesuite a monarchy The Church cannot endure two universall Bishops two Monarchs Had Peter it by Nazianzens testimony Surely how could Iames Iohn inherite that blessing yet Nazianzen puts them together Petrus Ioannes Iacobus qui prae alijs erant numerabantur Peter and Iohn and Iames who both were and are reckoned before others c Nazianzen de moderat in disput servanda Here Nazianzen his prae alijs is not Papall not Pontificall neither then could Peters advancement be a Monarchy In like manner all that the Iesuite urgeth is nothing to the point that he ought to prove That Peter was Captaine or cheife of the Disciples as Epiphanius styles him the most excellent Prince of the Apostles in Cyrils judgement d these Reply pag 54 are but titles of excellency which were given him for his personall gifts and endowments Paul in this manner compares himselfe to the very cheife Apostles * 1. Cor. 11. v. 5. and Eusebius Emissenus or whosoever was the Author of the Homilie De Natal utriusque speaking of Peter and Paul tearmeth them Princes of Christians from their order and gifts and further saith si ille primus iste precipuus if the one was the first the other was the cheife It was familiar to give termes of excelleÌ„cy of power to those that exceeded in gifts Nicodemus is stiled Prince of the Iewes e Cyrillus l 2. In Iohannem cap. 41. Nicodemus Iudaeorum Princeps and who knowes not that Aristotle is ever mentioned as Prince of Philosophers So likewise his supposititious Ambrose speakes not of any other Primacie but of personall eminencie For he maketh Paul from his owne words to be no lesse then the first Apostles in dignitie and other excellent performances though he were after them in time which that Author presumes cannot weaken the Apostles testimonie of himselfe in regard Iohn preached before Christ and baptized CHRIST Andrew followed CHRIST before Peter who notwithstanding received the Primacie f Ambros in 12 cap. post ad Corinthios Hocerant quod Apostolus Paulus Hoc ergo dicit quia minor non est neque in praedicatione neque in signis faciendis Apostolis praecessoribus suis non dignitate sed tempore Nam si de tempore praescriben dum putatur ante coepit Ieannes praedicare quam Christus non Christus Ioannem sed Ioannes Christum baptizavit Num ergo sie judicat Deus Denique prior sequutus est Andreas Salvatorem quam Petrus tamen Primatum â—on accepit Andreas sed Petrus Heere the drift is that if Paul were as excellently qualified as the Apostles his afterbirth could not prejudge his equalitie and if Peter were more eminent in gifts then his brother Andrew Andrew his precedencie in time could not deprive Peter of his eminencie of gifts The Iesuite concludes not but bringeth Eusebius telling us Peter the Apostle by Nation a Galilean was the first Bishop of the Christians g Reply pag. 54. This the Iesuite perceived would conclude nothing and therefore added his ridiculous glosse Iames was Bishop of Hierusalem others of other places but Peter was Bishop of all the Christians h Reply ibid. Poore folly who deprived them of their Apostleships that their Bishoprickes were so contracted that they ceased to bee Bishops and Super-intendents of the Christian Church Paul professeth that the care of all Churches were upon him * 2. Cor. 11. 28. Pope Innocent called Chrysostome the great Doctour of the whole world i Canisius Fâ—com Patrum mitio Catechismi Innocentius primus pontifex in Epistola ad Arcadium Impera torem Ejecistie throno suo re non judicatâ magnum totius Orbis Doctorem and other Fathers have had these titles given them ordinarily whereby their esteeme in the Universall Church hath beene declared as Origen the next Master after the Apostles of the Church k Sixâ—us Senens l. 4 tit Origenes Didymus in primis appellat cum secundum post Apostolos Ecclesiarum magistrum so that he is preferred before your Popes Athanasius an agregious pillar of the Church whose Tenets were esteemed for the lawe of right faith l Nazianzea Orat. in laudem ejus Athanasius egregium Ecclesiae columen cujus dogmata pro orthodoxae fidei lege habebantur Basil the mouth of the Church m Greg. Nissen in vita S. Ephr. Syri Cesaream Cappadociae divino Spiritu ductus ipse Os Ecclesiae auream illam doctrinae lusciniam Basilium vidit and Hilary the Pillar of the Church of Christ n Bellarm. de Script Eccles De S. Hilario S. Hilarius Doctor maximus Ecclesiae Catholicae columna meritò habitus sit But to remove this title see whether Paul be inferior in Chrysostome judgment I lle alter Michael Christianorum Dux Alter Aaron totius mundi populis inunctus sacerdos He another Michael the Archangell or Captaine of Christians An other Aaron an annointed Preist to the people of the whole world o Chrys hom 8 de laudibus Pauli And Cyprian when he was sought for to be martyred was tearmed the Bishop of Christians p Cyprian Ep. 69. Siquis tenet vel possidet de bonis Caecilij Cypriani Episcopi Christianorum which is the same with Pontifex Christianorum so that this title gives not Peter this Universall Monarchie any more then others But the Iesuite may know those words cited by him are not truely the words of Eusebius for Scaliger delivering him truly to the world findes not there the Iesuites quotation there being neither in it natione Galilaeus nor Christianorum Pontifex wherby we see the Monarchy wil stoop to any corruptioÌ„s Neither are the Iesuites next following quotations any better For the two places cited from S. Augustine the first cited out of his 124 serm de tempore where S. Peter is termed the Head the very Crowne of the Church the second urged from the same Father or whosoever els was the Author of the questions upon the old new Testament For even as in Christ were found al the causes of mastership so after our Savior all are contained in Peter for Christ ordained him their head that he might be the Pastor of our Lords flock q Reply pag. 54 they are none of his the first being suspected by many the second rejected by all yea so despised by Bellarmine that he makes the Author no Catholick r Bellarm l. de gra primi hominis c. 3. Ex his intelligi potest auctorem quaestionum novi ac veteris testamenti non solum non esse S. Augustinum sed neque esse hominem Catholicum but an Heretick Å¿ Idem
are written by the most blessed Pope of the Roman city because S. Peter who liveth in his proper See is president in the same giveth the truth of faith to such as seeke the same a Reply pag. 59 But what is all this He perswades Eutyches to adhere to the truth of Doctrine preached by the Roman Bishops from what reason Because S. Peter who liveth in his proper See is president in the same giveth the truth of faith to such as seeke the same Who meaneth hee here by S. Peter Not the Apostle in person surely if he did they did ill to usurpe that chaire that he did presede in himselfe hereby they are debarred of succession If he meant his doctrin this might have been said of Antioch other Episcopall Sees But if they will have Peter so to remaine in the Roman city that he may give the true faith by inspiration to such as seeke the same this is too grosse to bee beleived though Leo hath some words that cast upon us this interpretation b Leo epistol â—9 ad episc Viâ—â—â— So that you see Chrysologus here speakes litle for a Monarchy by succession The Iesuite is at a pause yet before he leaves he brings forth Siricius Pope c Reply pag. 59 but doe you conceive the reason That he may make his discourse sutable and as he begun with a forged Councell so hee might conclude with a counterfeit Pope Now as if he had beene able to have pleaded the cause of those ignorant Delinquents to silence the whole Star-chamber he tels us By these authorities many more th◠〈◊〉 which might be alledged it appeareth how casilyone migâ—â— have taken up our Answerer in his Star-chamber flourish concerning this matter of S. Peters and his successourâ— universall Iurisdiction d Reply pag â—â— But let me advise the Iesuite unlesse he leaves counterfeits forgeries to keep himselfe out of that Chamber which 〈◊〉 pleaders pretenders of that kinde For although his folly and conceite may so advance the opinion he hath of his Rhetorick that he presumes he can perswade any thing Yet experience will acquaint him that he cannot so easily in that place deceive But let us veiw this Orator how he would have argued if at that time he durst have confessed S. Peter in that presence First he would have told those grave Councellors That howsoever all the Apostles were equally chosen and extraordinarily sent by Christ to preach teach and convert all nations and had herein equall jurisdiction every one over all Christiaâ— people throughout the world yet as S. Leo doth truely observe though all were elected alike yet to one was granted the preheminencie over the rest e Reply pag 60 All which had beene a slender defence unlesse hee had proved better then he hath done that Peters preheminencie was Monarchicall of power not of honour and gifts c. as we our selves acknowledge Secondly he would have said that they had then the like Apostolicall power extraordinarily given unto them over all nations but not in the same degree with Peter their power being over all yet not over one another as Peters was who was their Head f Reply pag â—â— which is a dreame and fancie as hath beene shewed in answere to his former productions Yet if the Apostles were equally chosen as the Iesuite saith and had equall jurisdiction to teach all nations throughout the world if if they had plenitudinem potestatis fulnes of power as Bellarmine confesseth g 〈◊〉 de Rom 〈◊〉 c. 11 if they were endued as before hath beene related pari consortio honoris potestatis with the like fellowship of honour and power as S. Cyprian and to the same effect other Fathers have affirmed how can this disparity arise Doth he thinke by a framed deceit that neither hath foundation from Scriptures or Fathers to controule our beleife The Apostle 1. Cor. 11. v. 5. telleth us that there were Summi Apostles cheife Apostles not one that was summus the cheife and sheweth Gal. 2. v. 9. that Peter with others gave the right hand of fellowship and Communion not of commaund to him and Barnabus Besides the Apostles shew more power over Peter then the Iesuite can shew that he exercised over them They sent him to Samaria Acts 8. v. 14. They question his actions and call him to an accompt Acts 11. Paul reproves him Gal. 2. where he fayled Paul chydes and Peter suffers saith S. Chrysostome that whilst the Master being â—hidden doth hold his peace the Schollers might verie easily change their opinion h Chrysost in Epist ad Galat c. 2. Vnde Paulus objurgat Petrus fustinet ut dum magister objurgatus obticescit facillimè discipuli mutatent sententiam An act that the glosse is perswaded would not have beene done unlesse he had thought himselfe Peters equall i Gloss Ordinar Resti Quod non auderet nisi sâ— non imparem sentiret or as Cajetan conceiveth something greater k Caietan in locum Thirdly he would have told them that they the Apostles were but as extraordinary Embassadours unto all Nations Peter was the ordinary Pastor not onely over all Nations but also over the very Apostles themselves l Reply pag. 60 But that grave Councellor would have espyed the Iesuite to have disadvantaged himselfe for in one place hee acknowledgeth that all the Apostles had the like Apostolicall power extraordinarily given unto them being Heads and Pastors of the universall Church their difference being in Degree m Reply ibid. and here he makes S. Peter not onely in degree to excell the rest of the Apostles in the Apostolicall office but gives him another different power superiour to the Apostleship which he calleth ordinary not onely over all nations but also over the verie Apostles themselves But I aske the Iesuite why it should be a good argument for Peters primacie that he was first named among the Apostles Mat. 10. v. 2. if the naming of the Apostles in the first ranke of the ministers of the Church Ephes 4. v. 11. may not obtaine from the Iesuite the same priviledge It seemeth hard that the Iesuite should so plead for the Papacy that thereby he should labour to diminish the Apostolicall power especiallie when the Rhemists will have the name of Apostle to signifie dignity regiment paternitie principalitie and primacy in the Church of GOD according to that of S. Paul 1. Cor. 12. v. 28. And GOD hath ordained some in the Church as first Apostles And that they thought the Apostleship to be no bare extraordinary power legantine but as supreame so ordinary it will appeare by their describing of it to be a calling of office governement authoritie and most high dignitie given by our Master with power to binde and loose to punish and pardon to teach and rule his Church which is called by a name expressing ordinary power in the Psalme and
he say of the ignorance or the folly of the Answerer when he upbraides him with a Creed of the new fashion compised by Pope 〈◊〉 the fourth o Reply pag. 91 Nullus sapienâ— admiratur M â— Malone and therfore take the foole with you And howsoever you thinke to defend Pins the fourth by the Practice of the Nicene Councell it will give you no shelter they did you say expresse and declare the ancient faith in a new fashion and forme of words p Reply ibid. So did Athanasius so others but this is not the thingâ— for which you are accused but it is for an Appendix of twelve new points many of which were never accounted of faith till Pius the fourth his time and therefore your ground from which you perswade us to embrace it is unsound viz â— that it was compiled after the like manner without any alteration or innovation of the auncient faith aâ— all q Reply pag. 92 The ancient faith was so necessary to be believed that Athanafius tells us Whosoever wil bee saved it is necessary that he hold the Catholicke faith but your Creed is propounded onely to schollars and cheifely to such as are to receive promotions unto Scholasticall or Ecclesiasticall dignities r Reply pag. 91. Secondly the Apostle S. Iude tells us that the Faith Catholicke was once delivered but all your Trent articles are not so but brought in in after-times by the authority and definition of your Church as Transubstantiation Å¿ 〈◊〉 4. disâ— 11. q. 3. 〈◊〉 in Can. 〈◊〉 â—ect 41. Thirdly in the unitie of the Catholicke faith layde downe t Irenaeus â— 1. â— 3. 3â— by Irenaeus all the founded Churches in Germany Spaine France the East Egypt Lybia and all the world did sweetly agree but upon many of the new articles in your Creed there have been continuall warres controversies betwixt those that you will acknowledge Catholickes as communicating in one kinde Purgatory Indulgences the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches So that these points must be additions or else the Church lost the unity of Faith for a long time together Fourthly 〈◊〉 Lirinensis u Vincen. Lirinen advers prophan novat Cùm sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat and other Fathers x S. Basil l. de vera pia fid Manifesta defectio fidei est importare quicquam â—orum quae scripta non sunt S. Hilar l. 2. ad Const Aug. fidem tandem secundum ea quae scripta sunt defiderantem hoc qui repudiat Antichristuâ— est qui simulaâ— Anathem a eâ—â— S. August l. 2. de doct Christ c. 9. In ijs quae apertè in scriptura posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi and some Schoolemen y Scotuâ— Prolog in Sent. q. 2 Scriptura sufficienter continet doctrinaÌ„ necessariaÌ„ viatori Thom. 2. 2. q. 1. a 10. ad 1. In Doctrina Christi Apostolorum veritas fidei est sufficienter explicita make the Scripture sufficient to â—each all points of faith but many articles of this Creed are confessed by you to be delivered by tradition onely not by Scripture z Coster in compend orthodoxae fidei demonstr 〈◊〉 5. c. 2p 162. so that you see you have vainely sought your defence from the practise of the Nicene Fathers It had been better I thinke Mr Malone that you had taken another kind of defence that you had justified the Pope your Church that they make new Creedes defining verities by the infolded still revelation of GOD which determinations have the force of a certaine divine revelation in respect of us as one of the learnedst of your Fraternity hath said a Suaâ—es â—om 2. p. 93. or with Stapleton that the church may define a point of faith Etiamsi nullo scripturarum aut evidenti aut probabili testimonis confirmaretur although it bee not confirmed with any evident or probable testimony of the Scriptures b Stapleton Râ—lect Cont. 4. q. 1 ar â— or with Lâ—â— the X. in his Bull against Luther that it is heresie to say immanu Ecclesia aut prorsus non esse statuere articles fidei that it is not in the hand of the Church or Pope to make articles of faith c Art 27. not to have run to expressing declaring which the Councell Pope never intended but be it as it will the Iesuite tells us that the Laytie may bee well counted Catholickes though they never so much as heard of it therefore we need not to trouble our selves about so triviall a matter especially they accounting us of the Lay number But after charges of ignorance folly and wrangling the Iesuite accuseth the most milde modest nature of the most â—overend Primate that he sticketh not maliciously to slander Maldonate and others with the crime of Perjurie d Reply pag. 92. c. He that would answere this snarling Iesuite with equall currishnes must speake with his teeth and not with his tongue But passingby his language I will consider how impudently he chargeth that with slander the truth wherof he cannot cast off with all his shifts Their Trent Creede is Neither will I ever receive or expound it vizâ— the Scripture but according to the uniforme consent of Fathers e Bulla Pij IV. p. 478. Nec eam unquam nisi juxta unanimem consensum Patrum accipiam interpretabor Now to defend Maldonate and Pererius two of his brotherhood for not practising according to faith he first reviles after his accustomed manner the most reverend Primate Secondly he denyes that Maldonatâ— ever tooke his â—ath Thirdly he expounds the article of faith for the saving of the Iesuites credite f See the Iesuites Reply pag. 9â— First for his reviling let Rabshekah rayle for Maldonats oath he tels us that the most reverend Primate cannot tell whether Maldonate tooke the oath or not gives two reasons one in the Text because he supposeth he never did the other in the margent For he lived wrote in Paris where the Tridentine Councell is not received g Reply pag. 92 A Iesuite must beleive for the Popes advantage why should wee thinke his suppositions should prejudge his cause he that must beleive white blacke if the Church injoyne it h 〈◊〉 p. 247. can suppose any thing The other reason is as vaine might as well have been spared in the margent as in the text for though the Church of France receive not the Councell of Trent yet is there any Iesuite in France that doth not subscribe unto it to submit in any other maner then the Pope prescribes is not obedience but rebellion Besides this being made a part of the Papall Creed he cannot deny his Baptisme in that faith if their faith be as auncient as the Iesuite which is not done without a vow or oath But if
of the Greekes hee mixeth Papists and Protestants and yet both put together they are not able to shew the distinct time without a circum circa and turne about for so hee expresseth it The denyall of vnleavened bread in celebration of the Sacrament was begunne about anno Domini 1053. as appeareth by Leo the 9. in his Epistle to Michael Bishop of Constantinople y Reply pag. 10 The Iesuite hath produced nothing but vanity for the finding the beginning of this notorious heresie For Leo the 9. saith no such thing viz that Michael was the first that broached this errour neither doth he cite the first author of it For it cannot follow because Michael did oppose the Azymes used in the Latin Church about the yeare 1053. therefore about that age it did beginne For that Patriarch charged the Church of Rome with other practises quod Sabbat a quadrageâ—â—mâ— observâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 quod suffocata comederunt gentiliter quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantùm in Paschate nunquam vero in quadragesimali tempore decantarent Brovius in anno 1653. All which I thinke you will not say were first distasted by Michael at that time The Iesuitè runneth from his path and vainely without any relation to the thing in controversie telleth vs that the Greeke Church doth vehemently professe to detest the Protestants Religion a Reply pag 10 c. Wherein we have no reason to beleive him in regard he bringeth not any particular out of the Authors cited by himselfe to convince the same which I make no question but hee would have done if they had fairely offered it vnto his hands Secondly there would not be that freindly entercourse betwixt some of the Patriarchs of the Greeke Church and our Bishops as there is neither would they have sent their Preists to our Vniversities for instruction omitting yours which are nearer to them neither would the Grecians that are amongst vs frequent our Chappels Churches when they avoyd yours if they conceived them equally polluted or held vs in equall detestation b Concil Lateran 4. sub Inno 3. apud Bin. c. 4. In tantum Graeci coeperunt abominari Latinos quod inter alia quae in derogationem 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 committeâ—â—â—â— si quando sacerdotes Latini super corum celebrâssent altarianon prius ipsi sacrificare vo lebant in illis quam ea tanquam per hoc inquinata lavissent Baptiâ—atos etiam à Latinis ipsi Graeci rebaptizare ausu remerario praesumebant adhuc sicut accepimus quidam agere hoc non verentum with â—â—â—â—selves Neither doe they differ from vs in the fundamentall points of Doctrine we giving them as we ought a charitable interpretation although in some of the points in the Iesuites Catalogue taken from the Divines of Wittemberge they may be censured somewhat to savour of superstition and errour And that it may appeare whether the Greeke Church doth most favour Papists or Protestants I will insert here a Confession of faith of Cyrill Patriarch of Constantinople translated into English and published at London 1629. An other translation whereof I have seene vnder which is written This Copy hath beene translated out of the originall made * * done by the hands of the most reverend Patriarch Cyrill which I know well The writing it selfe being in my hands and having examined it my owne selfe I doe testifie that it doth agree with it word for word Corneille Hague Embassadour of the vnited Provinces of the Low-Countreyes at the gate of the Grand Seignour IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SONNE AND OF THE HOLY GHOST VEE beleive one God Almightie and infinite three in Persons the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost the Father vnbegotten the Sonne begotten of the Father before the World consubstantial with the Father the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father by the Sonne having the same ofsence with the Father and the Sonne wee call these three Persons in one essence the Holy Trinity ever to bee blessed glorified and to bee worshipped of every creature Wee beleive the Holy Scripture to bee given by God to have no other Authour but the Holy Ghost which wee ought vndoubtedly to beleive for it is written Wee have a mere sure word of Prophecy to the which â—ee doe well to take â—eede as to a light shining in a darke place Besides we beleive the authority thereof to be aboue the authority of the Church It is a farre different thing for the Holy Ghost to speake and the tongue of man for the tongue of man may through ignorance erre deceiue and bee deceiued but the Word of GOD neither deceiueth nor is deceiued nor can erre but is alwayes infallible and sure Wee beleiue that the best and greatest GOD hath predestinated his Elect vnto glorie before the beginning of the World without any respect vnto their workes and that there was no other impulsiue cause to this election but onely the good will and mercy of God In like manner before the world was made hee hath rejected whom hee would of which act of reprobation if you consider the absolute dealing of God his will is the cause but if you looke vpon Gods orderly proceeding his justice is the cause for God is mercifull and Iust Wee beleive that one GOD in Trinity the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost to bee the Creator of all things visible and invisible Inuisible things wee call the Angels visible things the Heauens and all things vnder them And because the Creator is good by nature hee hath created all things good and cannot doe any evill and if there bee any euill it proceedes from the Diuell and man for it ought to bee a certaine rule to vs that GOD is not the Author of evill neither can sinne by any just reason bee imputed to him Wee beleiue that all things are governed by GODS Prouidence which wee ought rather to adore then search into sith it is beyond our capacity neither can wee truely vnderstand the reason of it from the things themselves in which matter wee suppose it better to embrace silence in humilitie then to speake many things which doe not edifie Wee beleive that the first man created by God fell in Paradise because neglecting the Commaundement of God hee yeelded to the deceitfull counsell of the Serpent from thence sprung vp originall sinne to his posterity so that no man is borne according to the flesh who doeth not beare this burthen and feele the fruits of it in his life Wee beleive that IESVS CHRIST our Lord hath made himselfe of no accompt that is hath assumed mans nature into his owne Subsistence that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost that hee was made Man in the Wombe of Mary alwayes a Virgin was borne and suffered death was buryed and glorified by his resurrection that hee brought salvation and glory to all beleivers whom wee looke for to come to judge both quicke and dead Wee beleive that our Lord IESVS CHRIST sitteth
were first brought in whether by Balaam or an Apostle though the Iesuite his fellowes could proâ—e it by Apocrypha to be as auncient as the towre of Babeâ—â— it wil be prophane and new in the opinion of any Christian iudgment and vnderstanding still And here it is not to be omitted how the Iesuite flyes to that which they coÌ„temne in us the sacred scriptures deserting the successioÌ„ of this article of glorious RomaÌ„ faith suspecting the fathers so much boasted of by him to prove it of universall beleife must we be urged then in reason to tell you at what time Purgatory and Indulgences were first brought into the Church wheÌ„as the Greeke Fathers seldome mentioned Purgatory never received it x Roâ—â—ens ar 18. Graecis ad hunc vsque diem non est creditum Purgatorium esse when some of the Latine apprehended it not y Ibid. Sed neque Latini simul omnes ac sensim huâ—us rei veritatem conceperunt when sometime it was vnknowne z Ibid. Aliquandiu Purgatorium in cognitum and but lately knowne to the Church a Ibid Sero cognitum ac receptum Ecclesiae fuerit vniversae when it got strength pedetentim by little little not from scriptures or fathers interpreting them onely but partly ex revelationibus b Ibid. by some whisperer in a trunke or a worse Gipsy But if these notable points in the opinioÌ„ of Valentia Caiâ—tan Fisher had their original froÌ„ Christ his Apostles the word of God why should the Iesuit desire any other medium to examine the truth of their report but their own levell The word of God is sufficient to canonize these of faith could you but finde them delivered there But we are sure of your disability herein vnlesse you fly vnto the ayde of your pro ratione voluntas your will-guiding Interpreter And the Iesuit might have forborn to charge the Answerer with untruth in regard he but only repeats Fisher Caietans opinions and the Iesuite himselfe thus farre jumpeth with them that there is some uncertainty when first their vse began Besides I would gladly know whether the word of God without succession be able to point us out the certaine original of the Doctrine of faith if it be what will become of his demaund if it be not where findeth he the vntruth that he doth falsly charge the Answerer withall Finally Because Fisher affirmeth that the knowledge of Purgatory came in pedetentim by little little therefore it ought not to be admitted nor esteemed For by the same Logick he may prove that S. Iames his epistle ought not to be admitted for Canonicall Scripture because as S. Hierome c Paulatim tempore procedente meruit authoritatem Hieron de vitis illust verbo Iecobus doth witnesse by little and little in processe of time it obtained authority credit d Reply pag. 13 This is another brat of the Iesuites begetting let him foster it the most learned Answerer concludeth no such thing but shewes that this profane Novelty crept pedetentim like a snaile to the height of Papall faith and therefore is not easy to be discerned But the Iesuite had a great mind to make vse of Ierome's words and without a forged preparation hee was not able to bring them in Yet as he vrgeth them there is great difference betweene these two instances For the Epistle of S. Iames was first received by the Catholike Church e Eusebius apud Sixt. Sâ—nens Bibl. Sanct lib. 7. haer 9. Noâ— tamen scimusistam epistolâ—m Iacobi cum caeteris ab omnibus Ecclesijs recipi though doubted of by some particular members thereof f Sixtuâ— Senens ibid. Nec ita perperà m sequentia verba Hieronymi interpretanda sunt ut ex his dedueamus Epistolam hanc vel temporum successu vel Ecclesiae diâ—â—imulatione divinam factam Iaâ—obo ascriptam cum tadis ipsa non esset hoc enim impossibile prorsus est sed sic potius juxta veram Hieron mi mentem exponenda sunt quod Epistolam hanc de qua primum inter ALIQVOS ambigebatur an divino spiritu aâ— ab Apostolo Iacobo scripta esset Ecclesia Christi paulatim tempore procedente â—â—mperit esse veram et canonicam etipsiâ—s Iacobi germanam But Purgatory was not received so far as they can manifest but by degrees in particular Churches only never at the best esteemed as of faith but among Romanists Secondly Purgatory partim ex revelationibus came to be beleived of some particular Churches when the Epistle of S. Iames from the worth divine light that was in it selfe meruit authoritatem got authority not in the Catholicke but amongst those doubting Churches which had not received it So that heere is the difference of paulatim and pedetentim S. Iames his Epistle was knowne and received by the Catholicke Church and did by degrees remove the jealousie of those particular Churches that suspected it Purgatory being vnknowne at sometime to the Catholick Church which must either be in the Apostles dayes or never vnlesse this point were more vnhappy then any other point of Doctrine got to be knowne afterwards in the Roman Church not from Scriptures which knew it not but by revelations and tales of a Ghost When our Answerer then c. doth demand of us whence tho foresaid points of Purgatorie Indulgences Communion in one kind have their Originals we can shew even out of the very authors alledged by himselfe that they have their Originals from the institution of our Lord howsoever it be granted that there is some uncertainty when first began their publique and frequent use g Reply pag. 13 What doth the Iesuite get by this he affordeth us matter sufficient to prove his Demaund idle For first what little reason hath he to aske What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion which wee commend in them of the first 400. yeares and In what Pope his dayes was the true Religion overthrowne in Rome when they themselves are forced to distinguish in regard of time the practise of their faith from the person that instituted the Doctrine thereof confining this vnto the age of Christ acknowledging the other to have beene brought into the Roman Church they know not when †〈◊〉 constat Secondly what ground hath the Iesuite the rest of his profession to require the circumstances of person time and place to find out heresies by but because the true auncient faith hath beene ever continued in the Church by perpetuall succession being beleived practised therein without interruption And yet here our Adversaries confesse that a doctrine may be taught by Christ yet never practised in the immediate following times but as a thing forgotten begin in particular Churches after the Apostolick times and from thence slyde into the Roman never into the Catholick at such a time which they are not able to designe
〈◊〉 Romana Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hist cap. 〈…〉 S. 〈◊〉 Basil Augustine stile thâ—se writings â—â—ving his counterfeit Calixius at Rome make these bookes Canonicall it being plaine that they were so tearmed in respect of other corrupt writings which were read in the Church at that time which practice was excepted against by the Third Councell of Carthage 〈◊〉 as it is urged by the Iesuite wherein it was decreed that nothing should be read in the Church under the name of divine Scriptures and I thinke you will not conceive this inhibition had any relation to any of those bookes we call Apocryphall they being never condemned to be read by the Church Besides Bellarmine telleth us the title of divine â—â— given by most 〈◊〉 and most 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Prayer of 〈◊〉 the 3 and 4. of 〈◊〉 the 3. and 4. of 〈◊〉 and the booke of Pastor â— c. And the calling of 〈◊〉 Propheticall Scripture by S. Ambrose is to like effect it being given to the fourth booke of Eâ—â—ras which the Iesuite will not have Canonical Scripture though it be lifted up with as great a testimony from that Faâ—her q Sixtus seneâ— Bibl. sancta lib. 1. de Esdâ—â— lib. 3. 4. Divus Ambrosius etiam quartum librum putat editum ab ipso Esdra non sine divinâ revelatione as the booke of Tobie which hee is willing to justifie But leaving Tobie with his dog the Iesuite hath some further proofe for the Macehabees They are alledged saith he as other Canonicall bookes of Scriptures are without any difference And who are the alledgers Cyprian 〈◊〉 â—en and Ambrose r Reply pag. â—â— Two things are here to be examined First whether every booke cited by a Father be Canonicall Secondly how and in what manner they be urged and cited by the Fathers First it is evident that there is no ground that the citing of a booke by a Father should turne his nature when an Apostles pen hath not that virtue in it selfe unlesse he will conclude all those Poets cited in the Scriptures and the booke of Eâ—â—ch by Iude to be reckoned within the Canon Besides if this Argument have any life in it against us why 〈◊〉 it not have the same strength against Papists to prove the booke called Pastor to be Canonicall which as Bellarmine observeth 〈◊〉 by the Fathers Irenaeus who giveth it the name of Scriptures Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen For the Bellarm de scriptor ecclesâ— Hermen five Hermes librum scripsit apud veteres valde celebrem 〈◊〉 inscripsit Pastorem Is libâ—â— quamvis à sancto 〈◊〉 reâ—â—o lib. 4 caprino Origeâ—â— et divinorum title Divine given by Cyprian and his testimony out of Augustine there needeth no further illustration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answered in substance before Our Iesuite from these grounds the principall whereof iâ— S. Hieromes ignorance beginnes his 〈◊〉 What wonder then if the Church at Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them also for Canonicall 〈…〉 The slightest cause hath two or three witnesses those without exception that directly agree one with an other in giving testimony to the proposed articles The Iesuiâ—e that pretended the auncient Church hath not given us â—â—â— compleat proofe from the same and those which he â—â—th produced are but particular men with one Provinâ—â—â—ll Councell which they themselves generally approve â—oâ— and some of his private testimonies say little to the pâ—rpose So all that our Iesuite can expect is this that in some private judgements these bookes might be judged Canonicall but never so delivered by the auncient Church which defence the booke Pastâ—r hath from 〈◊〉 confession and the fourth of Esdras by the confession of your owne Sixtuâ— Senensis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 1. de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefoâ—e there is reason sufficient that our Iesuite should 〈◊〉 doâ—â—â— his 〈◊〉 whichupon so vaine a confidence heâ— hath â—rected and acknowledge their change although they have doâ—â— it upon so good a ground as the imbracing of some private judgments three or foure hâ—â—dreth yâ—â—es after Christ leaving the streame of the ancient Church â—he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Thus the charge appâ—â—â—â—th to be 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 as the Iesuit hoped to have proved it that the Church of Rome hath leâ—â— the gâ—â—â—rall practise of the â—â—â—cient Church and hath imbracâ—◠〈◊〉 private 〈◊〉 not for love of their persons but 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 themselves they finde some shelter 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sâ—â—ing he cannot declare them scriptures by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither by the testimony of the ancient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all is sure if we cannot manifest that 〈◊〉 bookes held now 〈◊〉 by the Church of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a contrary sentence by the â—â—cient church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all his skill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—◠〈◊〉 saith the 〈◊〉 â—◠〈◊〉 thâ—â— evâ—â— the Church of God did 〈…〉 〈…〉 before the Church declared them for Canonicall by 〈◊〉 authoritie * Reply pag 2â— The Iesuit must tell us what he meâ—â—â—th by the Churches declaring them by publicke authority For if he understand a generall Councell it is idle for they never came to be so yâ— Canus loc Theol. l. â— c. â—â— Cyprianus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in expositione symboli â—osdem sex libros patrum anctoritate a quibus se 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quod idâ—◠〈◊〉 ci◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—ordium Cuâ—â—que diligeâ—ter de omnibus exploraverat omni investigatione comperit hos libâ—â—â— esse a veteris instrumenti am in Psalmum â—â—â— Sed i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril 〈◊〉 â—◠〈◊〉 Caâ— â—â— audacious in the primitive times as to claime the priviledge to â—â—eepe into the Canon Besides he is as foâ—d in the consequent that they have made no change herein froÌ„ the practise of the 〈◊〉 Church unlesse we can shewe that the ancient Church of God did give judgment or sentenâ—â— contrary to their Trent declaration in a generall councell For if this were good reason the councell of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have 〈◊〉 the 3. 4. booke of Esdras Pastor their decretall epistles Gregory Siâ—tus yea what not plead in the same manner that they had made no change they never being in your judgment I think condemned by the publicke authoritie of any generall councell in the ancient catholicke Church that did give judgment or sentence conâ—â—ry thereunto But if the Church might be said to give â—â—â— judgment against the bookes of Iudith Toby and the 〈◊〉 by keeping them out of the canoâ— as no doubt â—â— may practise being the best declareâ— of mens judgements it shal be manifested sufficieÌ„tly that they have long 〈◊〉 received their doome For first they were alwaies difâ—â—â—â—med in regard of the canon rule of faith 〈◊〉 that the Iesuit hath not produced one privat 〈◊〉 that is plaine and convincing for almost â—â—â— yeares 〈◊〉 Christ Secondly In the 〈◊〉 Catalogue
must be the measure and square of our faith Further you shall see he is taken in the traine whereby he thought to intrappe for in answering S. Augustine alleadged by the most learned Answerer he telleth us that the pretence of Scripture onely in such a matter of fact as this is 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 â—â—â—iâ—king from the question in hand r Reply pag. â—â— Indeed if the question in â—â—â—d were whether the Fathers of the primitive Church held these points or not then who would deny but it were a sâ—â—inking from the question in hand to fly to the scriptures But if the controâ—ersie heere bee concerning the rule whether the Iesuit hath rightly framed an invention to finde out true religion by then the producing of the true rule the sacred scriptures that a defective one framed by the Iesuit may be deâ—ected is neither from the matter or question in hand And if the points proposed by the Iesuite bee points of Doctrine as I doubt not but hee would have them yea doctrines of Faith and fundamentall also why should not hee try them by the Scriptures in regard hee confesseth that S. Augustine omitting the Fathers provoked the Donatists and Pelagians to the try all of Scripture for as much as he then disputed of a point of Doctrine onely Å¿ 〈…〉 29 But saith our Iesuite if it be demaunded to what pâ—â—pose then doth he fill up whole volumes with the Fathers saying if nothing but onely Scripture may suffice he answereth that he doth it to the end we should not thinks he is any whiâ—â— afraid of all whatsoeuer we can produce against him out of the Fathers and no wonder he should be so confident heerâ—â—â— when as he layeth this ground for himselfe No Father but God doe wee know upon whose bare credite wee may ground our consciences in things that are to bee beleived Reply pag. â—0 c. If the Reader please to consider he shall finde the most reverend Primate in answering the Iesuites demand to detect 2 things first the vanity of his invention in assigning a rule that God never instituted to find out points of true Religion by Secondly his foolish considence in that rule that layeth them open to heresie and shame Now by this they may know to what purpose the most learned Answâ—rer doth fill up whole volumes with the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with that sword which they 〈◊〉 to be their 〈◊〉 to wit the anncient Fathers 〈◊〉 might 〈…〉 those rayling Heresies that revile the 〈◊〉 of the â—â—â—â—ving God For although your rule be not 〈◊〉 of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherupon to ground our 〈…〉 of 〈◊〉 yet it wil be 〈◊〉 to shew that you are but 〈…〉 traditions reall 〈◊〉 prayer 〈◊〉 ◠〈◊〉 â—â—â—roso◠〈◊〉 heâ— 4. Ne mihi ca â—â—bi proferenâ—â— SIMPLICITER sidem adhibeâ—â— nisi de diviâ—â—â— Scripturis eorum quae â—â—cam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yoâ—â— Roman â—â—nce to be allowed by the 〈◊〉 Fathers And the most learned Answerer will never oppose the generall 〈◊〉 of the anncient Fathers in points of Faith which they have generally received out of the word of God but the Iesuite may consider that this is not to depend upon any authority without Scripture The Iesuite further revileth us for leaving the Fathers and cleaving to God although we most firmely adhere to them where they joyne in a generall consent with the saâ—red Scripture which is as much as the Fathers â— professe to do telling us that in appealing to scripture the most learned Answerer disagreeth with those of his own profession c. And to manifest this he bâ—â—geth in as he 〈◊〉 him Dr Hooker saying Of all things necessary the vâ—ry 〈◊〉 iâ— â—â— know what 〈◊〉 we 〈…〉 holy which 〈…〉 the Scripture i◠〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if any 〈◊〉 of Scripture did give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet still that Scripture which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the rest could require another Scripture to give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto it neither would we â—ver 〈◊〉 to any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our â—ssurance this may 〈◊〉 that unlesse 〈…〉 somthing which 〈…〉 we could not 〈◊〉 we do 〈◊〉 〈…〉 Scripture iâ— a 〈◊〉 and holy rule of 〈◊〉 This place of the learned Hooker presupposeth but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that historicall and what 〈◊〉 this against the 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉 of the Church or being a 〈◊〉 Umpier and sufficien◠〈◊〉 to square our â—aith and actions by For who knowes not that the Heavens cover all things and yet cover not themselves and what may hinder the Scriptures in like 〈◊〉 to teach all 〈◊〉 doctrines of faith and manners and yet not to point out themselves S. Augustines words are in every Papists mouth viz. that he would not beleâ—ve the scriptures unlesse the authority of the catholicke Church had moved him thereunto and yet he 〈◊〉 all things 〈◊〉 â—aith and 〈◊〉 to be 〈…〉 in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this necessary point of â—aith is a 〈◊〉 o◠〈…〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly the Iesuite abuseth his 〈◊〉 for the Churches testimony harely and alone begotteth but opinion in Hookers judgementâ— For saith â—o the more we bâ—stow 〈…〉 reading and learning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the more we 〈…〉 thing it 〈◊〉 â—â—th answere 〈◊〉 received 〈…〉 that the 〈…〉 with â—â— before 〈◊〉 â—â—w much more 〈◊〉 when the very thing 〈◊〉 ministred further 〈◊〉 And therefore Hookers words make â—â—thing against the 〈…〉 for 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 of Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 the way by 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which convinceth to beleive the scriptures to be the word of â— Lib. ◠〈◊〉 â— God 〈…〉 And thus Gods 〈…〉 give witnesse to his word doth not take 〈…〉 sâ—â—â—â—ciency to declare whose words they are and from what 〈◊〉 they 〈◊〉 any more then it doth the suffiâ—â—â—â—cy of their rule which consisteth of scripture and tradition also Whereby the 〈◊〉 may see he hath produced this worthy Author to no advantage â—â— being plaine that although there be something else to preparâ— the way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sid form dispâ— 3. sect 12. n. â—â—â— Admitti potest ex humâ—na authoritate geâ—â—rari quandam fidem humanam praeviaâ—â— ad fidem 〈◊〉 non â—â—â—quam 〈…〉 vel rationem 〈◊〉 ejus 〈◊〉 tanquam â—â—â—ditionem applicatiâ—â—â—â— objecâ—â—â— yet the minde is altogether 〈◊〉 by the â—â—ght oâ— the scriptures themselves the Church pointing 〈◊〉 ouâ— and they themselves 〈◊〉 the Churches 〈◊〉 So that the scriptures remaine the onely 〈◊〉 upon which a man 〈◊〉 his faith for any thing the Iesuite hath pickâ—â— out of this learned Divine â— D. Field 〈◊〉 his Appendiâ— to the booke of the 〈◊〉 par 2. §. ◠〈…〉 will 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â— any way 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where 〈…〉 I have in my Epistle 〈◊〉 That all mâ—◠〈◊〉 carefully 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the true 〈◊〉 that so they may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follow her directions and rest in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chargeth â—â— that â—â— my fourth 〈◊〉 following I 〈◊〉 her of almost all such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aâ— I 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto her so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 safely follow her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rest in her judgement in thâ—â— I say generall Counceâ—â— may 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church her selfe from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christian Religion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all This is a â—ad beginning being a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him I lay down 〈…〉 first that the Church including in iâ— all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ appeared in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all those 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles times i◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 happily not from all ignorance Thirdly that the Church including 〈◊〉 the â—eleivers living 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 free not onely from 〈◊〉 in such things 〈…〉 to 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈…〉 thing that any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Christian 〈◊〉 and religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without all doubt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the judgement of the Church in 〈…〉 so â—â— to the thing◠〈◊〉 in Scripture or 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that â—ath beene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 or Rome but the Vniversâ—ll Church neither that Vniversall Church which 〈◊〉 be gathered together in a generall Councell which is 〈◊〉 sometimes to have erred but that which dispersed through the world from the Baptisme of Iohn continueth to 〈◊〉 times Sixtly that in the judgment of Waldensis the Fathers successively are more certaine judges in matters of faith then a Generall Councell of Bishops though it be in a sort the highest Court of the Church as the Treatisâ—r saith But saith the Iesuite if yet for all this our Answerer will not be brought to build his conscience upon any other authority d Reply pag. 32 I perceive a little thing will beget conâ—idence 〈◊〉 Iesuite that is so lifted up with producing two old objections to little purpose but what then why majora his agreat one of our owne shall schoole him a little better Pooâ—e â—edant in what manner By telling him out of Lyriâ—ensis that the auncient consent of godly Fathers is with great carâ— not onely to be searched but also to be followed of us cheifly in the rule of Faith Reply ibid. As if the consent of Fathers were the absolute rule of Faith without Scriptures when you yourselves dare not attribute to any Fathers authority power to expresse the rule of Faith by their bare consent For Durand saith that although the Church hath power of Gâ—â— on 〈◊〉 yet that doth not exceede thâ— limitation of the Scripturâ— f Durand â—â— Dist. 44. q. 3. â— 9. Ecclesia licet habet in terris dominationem Dei. illa tamen â—on excedit limitationem Scripturae Universall extent of Doctrine is a good directory to truth but the absolute foundation of Faith are the sacred Scriptures Neither are we at all to give credit saith the Author of the imperfect worke upon Matthew amongst the workes of Chrysostome unto the Churches themselves unlesse they teach or doe those things which are agreeable to the Scriptures g 〈◊〉 Commentar in Mat. homil 49. intes operâ— S. Chrys incerto auctore Nec ipsis ecclesijs omnino â—redendum est niâ—â—â—a dicant vel faciant quae convenientia sunt Scripturis No testimonies have any strength that walk without God his word The Fathers adhere to the Scriptures therfore we ought to adhere to them so are we to embrace the authority of the ancient Doctors Councels as those that embraced the holy Scriptures in their faith doctrin and for that cause this learned Bishop coupleth them together Wee rest saith he upon the scriptures of God upon the authority of the ancient Doctors and Councels Reply pag. 31 inferring thereby that those which fixe their faith have not onely divine testimonies but also the judgement and beliefe of the best men to declare the same as good subsidiarie helps to their convincing grounds which doth not conclude that any authority besides the Scripture is necessary but that it is a faire convenient rule to bridle mens fancies least the Scriptures should be wrested by them which are too much wedded to their owne conceits to patronage their errours And what Augustine gave to Bishops and Councels this learned Bishop assenteth unto but I am assured that the Iesuite will not bee able to prove that S. Augustine ever embraced such a thought as to believe that the receiving of humane testimonies should disable the Scriptures from being the onely concluding and sufficient rule for he is of a quite contrary opinion as is apparant in many places of his writings Aâ—g â— Donat. post collat c. 1â— Quâ—si Episcoporum Concilia Scripturis Canonicis fue â—int aliquandâ— comparata Neither will our Iesuite have us in our appâ—â—le to Scripture to betray our cause by our disagreement with our selves alone but also by our agreement with ancienâ— Heretickes and who are those Hereticks The Valentinians Ennomians Marcionists Arians and others whâ— as it is well knowne saith this Iesuite were wâ—nt to reject all other authorities and to â—â—nce with Scripture onely Reply pag. â—â— If this Iesuite be not a fencer judge by his weapons both edge and point being rebated for his most powerfull performance ends not so much as in a scratch or scarre And whereas he saith we fence with Scripture onely it seemeth he knoweth not the nature thereof otherwise he would repute it with the Apostle a sword for a â—ouldiâ—r yea sharper then a two-edged sword We acknowledge many subsidiarie helpes but indeed none sufficient to controule the conscience but Scriptures onely And herein we follow these ancient Hereticks 1. Augustâ—â—â— cited by the most learned Answerer and unanswered by the Iesuite Let humane writings be removed let Gods voice sound Aug. de Pastor c. 14. Aâ—ferantur chartae humanae sonâ—â—t voâ—â—s divinae ede mihi unam Scripturae â—ocem pro parte Donati and further in his booke of the Vnity of the Church hee saith Let them declare their Church if they be able not in the speech and rumours of the Africans not in Councels of their Bishops not in the passages of their disputes not in their â—ignes deceitfull wonders because even against these things the word of God hath perswaded us to be â—aâ—y but in the Law Prophets Psalmes the Pastors voyce the Evangelists preaching and labours that is in all the canonicall authority of holy Scriptures m Aug. de Vnit. Eccle. c. 88. Ecclesiam suam demonstrant si possunt non iâ— sermonibus rumoribus Afrorum non in concilijs Episcoporum suorum non in literis 〈◊〉 libet disputatorum non in signis prodigijs â—allaâ—ibus qui etiam contra ista verbo Domini prâ—parati cautiâ—â—ddiâ—i sumus
ever beene pretended by such as not onely interpret the same to their owne lust but also reject what parcels or bookes they please and for this he cites the Marcionists rejecting the Old Testament the Manichees the New 〈◊〉 and Cerinthus the Acts of the Apostles the Ebionites the Epistles of S. Paul Luther that of S. Iames c. Yet would these men saith he be tryed by none but by the Scriptures when as they had discarded all such Sâ—riptures as were found any way to make against their Errors In like sort deale our Adversaries at this day l Reply pag. 32 But if we doe neither interpret the Scriptures after our own lusts neither deny any part of the sacred faith that was once delivered to the Saints if we adhere to that perfect rule which of it selfe is sufficient and more then sufficient ad omnia for all things m Vincen. Lyrin Cùm sit perfect â—â— Scripturarum canoâ— fibique ad omnia satiâ— superque suffielat Surely the Iesuite is a Calumniator and we are no Hereticks not so much as in similitude onely We know Hereticks both adde to the Scriptures and detract also This we see at Rome let the Iesuite espy it amongst us if he can in Ireland Further iâ—â—â—â— ignorant that Heretickes in discarding all that makes against them have rather forsaken Scriptures then pleaded tryall by them for what is this but the Preparer of an Index Expurgatorius so that we may see from whence Papists had their so profitable inventions And where can you finde a greater agreement in this kind then betwixt your selves and Heretickes for you admit no Scriptures but with your owne glosses which is as much in effect as to deny all And if the râ—â—e concerning God be as true concerning Scriptures Non est minus Deum fingere quam negare It is no losse error to feigne a God then to deny the Deitie what will your additions to the Scriptures merite You embrace not onely Apocryphall bookes but whatsoever superstitions your corrupt practice hath produced and these because God will not justifie them you will have to be Apostolicall Traditions His accusation that we admit what Scripture wee like of and cast out what displeaseth n Reply pag. 3â— us is the report of a Iesuite Italian newes a thing which he will never manifest as you may perceive by his proofe Ecclesiasticus with them is no true Scripture saith the Iesuite and why it approveth Free will too much o Reply ibid. The Iesuite argues but with his owne impudencie and no reason of ours Ecclesiasticus hath no authority to confirme points of Doctrine and therefore was justly cast off by Whitaker That it is so reputed by the Church of God is because it was never written by any of the Prophets 2. Peter 1. 19. never received by the Church of the â—ewes to whom were commended the Oracles of God Rom. 3. 2. Further it had never approbation by the Apostles in the Church of God and besides these generals there are many other particulars for which wee reject this booke as from his owne mouth who in the beginning thereof doth not assume to himselfe that honour which the Iesuite would conferre upon him for he acknowledgeth his owne weaknes and disability in translating it out of the Hebrew * In the Prologue which I thinke is not comely for that mind to doe which was assisted by the Spirit of God for when Moses said I am not eloquent God questions who made the tongue * Exod. 4. 10. 11 Besides this chap. 46. ver 23. it is not agreeable to the truth of sacred Scriptures which is there spoken of Samuels prophecying after his death and other things But I would know if your additions and traditions were not where would you finde that new Fabrick of the Roman Creed published by your infallible guide But saith our Iesuite Cyprian Ambrose August Clemens Alex. and other holy Fathers account Ecclesiasticus to be holy Scripture p Reply pag. 33 If this were proofe sufficient a small authority would suffice to prove the Canon for we may as well confirme the booke Pastor and divers others from Bellarmines q Bellarm. de script Ecclesâ— pag. 34. See this testimony cited before pag. 163. testimony as the booke of Ecclesiasticus c. for any thing he urgeth from these Fathers to determine it within the Canon in regard he acknowledgeth that it hath the same Epithites from many Fathers as he professeth this to have So that if this be the Iesuites best Apologie for Ecclesiasticus it is much beholding to his free will but nothing to his industry This manner of proceeding saith the Iesuite Tertullian doth discover in those Heretickes of his time and withall will teach us how we are to proceed with those of our dayes who tread so right the steppes of their forefathers The conflict saith he with the Scriptures is good for nothing but to turne either the stomacke or the brayne This heresie receiveth not certaine Scriptures and that which it receiveth it draweth to her owne purpose by additions and substractions and if it receive the whole Scriptures it depraveth them by divers expositions Where as the adulterous sence doth no lesse destroy the truth then doth the corrupted letter What wilt thou gaine that â—â—â— cunning in Scriptures when that which thou defendest is denyed and that which thou denyest is defended thou shalt indeed loose nothing but thy voyce with contending nor shalt thou gaine any thing but choler hearing blasphemies The Heretickes will say that â—◠〈◊〉 the Scripture and bring lyeing interpretations and that they defend the truth Therefore must not appeale be made to Scriptures nor must the conflict be in them by which the victory is either uncertaine or little certaine or none at all r Reply pag 3â— What Tertullian and other auncient Fathers thought of this rule hath beene formerly declared and this quotation doth not make Tertullian a despiser of the rule of Scriptures but proveth Hereticks to be shifters and forsakers of the same Whereby the Iesuite may espy the hereticke All that beareth any shew for the Iesuite is in the taile of his allegation Ergo non ad Scripturas as provocandum est therefore must not appeale be made to Scriptures but the Iesuite dare not put in the whole nec in ijs constituendum certamen in quibus nulla aut parum certu victoria which is as much as if I were to deale with a Papist in points of religion should urge the scripture to him it were in vain why because although they receive the Scriptures they accept them not as the rule of faith besides they adde detract and what they receive they must onely interpret They not onely corrupt the stile by a vulgar authenticke but the sence by a Papall violence and in this case what shall a man get from a Papist but cholerike blasphemie and licentious rayling Doth not the
Iesuite make this good in his owne particular calling Bibling Babling Å¿ Reply pag. â—â— We know in this sence every meane may be despised not onely Stephen * Acts 7. â—4 and Paul †Acts 28. 24. Socrates histe Eccles l. 1. c 6. Sabinus qui haerefis Macedonianâ—â— princeps est dediâ—â— operâ his refragatur immo vero cos qui Nicaeae coacti crant impetitos 〈◊〉 vocat 〈◊〉 de vita Constantini l. 2. c. 71. Magis magisque lis accrevit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 provincias mali illius imperus invaserâ—t but Christ himselfe What Councels ever choaked Hereticks but they croaked afterwards â— It is sufficient if the Scriptum est may stupifie a Devill * Math. 4. 4. 7. amaze a Pharisee †〈◊〉 17. ◠◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eccles l. 1. c. â— Cum amplius â—recenti Episcopi â—unam candemque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exquisitis legis devinâ—â— testimoniis vera fides esse confirmatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—◠〈◊〉 â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 victus ab â—â— peâ—ituâ— deâ—eiverit convict an Arian â— consume Antichrist * 2. Thess 2. 8. in the effect or judgement of others What they themselves conceive hereof is nothing to the purpose the Rule is the Rule though a perverse Hereticke cannot be made to acknowledge it Thus saith the Iesuite we may easily espy the reason why our Answerer refuseth to stand to the verdict of either Church Councell or Fatherâ— admitting onely Scriptures for the judge of his cause x Reply pag. 33 Indeed by this place of Tertullian we may easily espie it is the same reason that mooved the auncient Fathers to urge the generall tradition of the auncient Church against certaine Heretickes of their time which perswaded the most learned Answerer to make use of the like weapons against the Iesuite in regard Papists as ancient Heretickes shift off the Scriptures many times by additions substractions depravations adulterous sences corrupted stiles c But to charge this most reverend Lord with refusing to stand to the verdict of either Church Councells or Fathers c. is one of the Iesuites truths He refuseth them indeed as judges of our faith as the absolute rule seclusis sacris litaris so do your owne y Marsilius def Pa. pa. 2. c. 28. Quas vero ipsorum auctoritate propria prae ter Scripturam protulerunt sententias scripturae sive canoni consonas recipiam quas vero dissonas reverenter abjiciam Non tamen aliter quam auctoritate Scripturae cui semper innitar Aquinas 1. part sum q. 1. ar 8. Auctoritatibus autem canonicae scripturae utitur propriè ex necessitate argumentando Auctoritatibus autem aliorum doctorum Ecclesiae quasi arguendo ex proprijs sed probabi liter Innititur enim fides nostra revelationi Apostolis Prophetis factae qui canonicos libroâ— scripserunt non autem revelationi si qua fuit alijs Doctoribus facta that have any conscience but not as good testimonies to assent to the truth And so farre are they from patronizing the Popish cause that you dare not accept them nisi ex cogitato commento but with mentall reservation of a false comment or a worse interpretation z Index Expurg Belgic pag. 5. Quum igitur in Catholicis veteribus alijs plurimos feramus errores exâ—enuemus excusemus excogitato commenso persaepè negemus commodum â—â—â— sensum assingamus dum 〈◊〉 in disputationibus aut in confliction but cum adversarijs Reply pag. 33. What followes to wit that by the confession of his own forefathers masters fellow Protestants they the fathers were no better then meere Papists a is both falshood and froath for which of our accompt the fathers Papists if the Iesuite knowes them let him produce them but we beleive his weaknes wil be seene before his detection And surely he dreameth to thinke we esteeme the Fathers Papists and slaves to that Tyrant whose usurpations their writings alwayes resisted And how can this hang together Wee acknowledge that for the first 400. or 500. yeares the Church of Rome remained a true Church free from Papall impostures and yet as the Iesuit spareth not to accuse us charge the fathers of the primitive Church c. as Papists to favour of that leaven which they ever cast out and expelled But this the Iesuit hath referred to another place till which time we will leave it Yet whereas the Iesuite still insisteth upon the most learned Answerers words no other Father but God do we know upon whose bare credit we may ground our consciences in things that are to be beleived that rocke upon which alone we build our faith is the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets from which no sleight that they can devise shall ever draw us and thinketh the same are uttered for no other end but to cast by the fathers as little respecting their authority b Reply pag. 33 We take this but for a wizards surmise and a vain repetition we having shewen before that the most learned Answerer hath given the Fathers their due respect and if he should do more hee would deny to God his due reverence You that give too much to Saints and Angels dare not justifie but distinguish your worship How much better is it then to deale plainely and to give unto Fathers that which is theirs and to God and his word what belongeth to them Yea whether is it greater disparagement to the Fathers to make them stoop to God or man We doe the first you doe the last where you dare you purge them they shall not speake one word against Babylon but by inventing some device you will deny them c Vide lit â— and if such dealing will not serve then downe with their buildings giving them no honour at all d Index expurg Hispanâ—ard Quiâ—ogae edit Madilti ann 1584. in fine literae â— Deleatur tota Epistola Vdalrici Episcopi Augustini de â—â—libatu cleri Item totus liber Bertrami presbyteri de corpore sanguine Domini penitusauferatur Lastly the Iesuite saith we will now discover for conclusion of the whole how farre herein the Answerer differeth from those Fathers of the auncient Church of God with whom he pretendeth to have so great affinity And this we will declare by the expresse words of an auncient learned Father Vineâ—â—tius Lyrinensis e Reply pag. 34 c. How willingly the Iesuite would have the auncient Church to be as corrupt as themselves may appeare by this his strugling with one onely Lyrinensis whose words largely translated speake not any thing in effect to prove his intention for who is ignorant that heresies are novelties and that Hereticks would justifie their new follies by the auncient testimonies of the sacred Scriptures neither by them alone but the auncient Fathers also Yet must this prove the Answerer to differ from the Fathers of the auncient Church because with them he useth the rule that was
a manifest contradiction in his words against himselfe for above he more then once saith the Iesuite 〈◊〉 our opinions prophane novelties and hereticall novelties If Novelties how are they now become Heresies farre spred and of so long continuance that we are bold to make duration the marke of our Church c Reply ibid. The Iesuite imagineth here Contradiction and why because â—â— opinion of long continuance cannot be stiled a Noveltie So that if we can manifest that a Noveltie may bee of long continuance our Iesuite is deceived in his slippery hopes And what will he make novum in Religion but that which is not antiquissimum Our Saviour when hee would declare Pharisaicall traditions to be Novelties did not respect their long continuance in the corrupt estate of the Church but saith ab initia non fuit sic * Mat. 19â—8 that they were not from the beginning delivered by God or practised by the Church So that if the duration and antiquitie of your opinions be but humane that is not Apostolicall neither from Apostolicall grounds It â—â—inke and justly that they may be esteemed new and novelties d Terrullianâ— de praescripâ— panlo ante medium Si haec iâ—â— sint constat proâ—â— de omnem doctrinam quâ— cum illis Ecclesijs Apostolicis matricibus originalibus sidei conspiret veritati deputandam id sinc dubio tenantum quod Ecclesiae ab Apostoli Apostoâ—â— Ã Christo Christus à Dâ—â— suscepit reljquam vero omnem doctrinam de mendacio praejudicandam quae sapiaâ— contra veritatem Ecclesiarum Apostolorum Christi Dei. for a point is 〈◊〉 in religion that did not proceed from God and his blessed Spirit either in terminis or by deduction from his word that is the Ancient of dayes whatsoever pretences of duâ—â—tion and continuance may be supposed 〈◊〉 was never generally received by the Roman faction themselves before the Councell of Lateran â—corus in 4. d. 11. q. 3. apud Bellarm. de Euchil 3. c. 23. ditis ante Lateranense concilium non fuisse Dogma fidei transubstantiationem â— Rhem. An not upon the 1. of Tim. 6. â—â— and yet wee are condemned for calling this a Noveltie whereas it crept in many hundred yeares after those words which they themselves account Novelties both in the Arrians which had their Similis substantiâ— and Christ to bee ex non existentibus and also other Hereticks that had their Christiparam and such like â— new coyned tearmes agreable to their sects Wherefore it is not enough to free your doctrines from being Novelties because they are of long continuance seeing the words of ancient hereticks being of more long continuance and auncienter in birth even many hundred yeares before them might better claime that priviledge and are neverthelesse stiled Novelties by your selves And as the Rhemists acknowledg of words so we say concerning points of doctrine that wee are to esteeme their newnes or oldnes by the agreeablenes or disagreeablenes they have to the true sence of Scriptures the forme of catholick faith and doctrine â—hem ibid. c. and not because it is long since they had their birth in the world So that you see Novelties are new doctrines which are neither delivered in Scriptures openly and in expressetermes or lye couchant in the same but had their births in aftertimes being framed by the phantasticke illusions of Sathan the producer of falshoods and heresies which is conformable to the Apostles doctrine for what 1. Tim. 6. 20. he tearmeth prophane novelties Gal. 1. 8. he expresseth to be new doctrine 〈◊〉 ibid. which is not the same but besides as the Rhemists â— or against that which the Apostle did deliver to the Church And therefore our Iesuite and his contradiction contradict his imagined Vanity and not prove or confirme the same For his other Collectaneas that if they be prophant Novelties then by the Rule of Lyrinensis they ought to bee impugned by producing and confirring the agreeing sentences of auncient Doctours Secondly that the consent of auncient Father is called the rule of the auncient Faith by Lirinensis in the place alledged k Reply pag. 36 1. Wee have shewed before l See before Sect. 5. prope finem that we dissent not from Lyrinensis being rightly understood For all kind of heresies are prophane Novelties howsoever they differ in extent or age Yet all kind of Heresies are not to be impugned though prophane Novelties after this manner in Vincentius Lirinensis his judgement Besides Lirinensis maketh not the Fathers rules absolutely but because they assisted at that time the Scriptures to rule unruly hereticks that would wrest the same so that when the Fathers cannot do the worke for which they were used that is stop the Hereticks mouthes because that having corrupted antiquity they will also pretend it then he thinketh such heresies though prophane Novelties are not to be dealt withall this way And for his second observation although the Iesuit collecteth untruly yet who will deny consent of Fathers to be the rule of faith according to that Fathers meaning For in the immediate quotation following out of the same Father we finde that it hath beene the custome of Catholicks to try their faith two manner of wayes FIRST by the authoritie of the Divine Canon next by the tradition of the Catholicke Church m Vineâ—â— Lirinens adv Profanas Novationes Primò scilicet divine legis auctoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione not for that the Scripture is not sufficient in it selfe but because very many interpreting the divine word at their pleasures do conceive varying opinions and errours n Ibid Hic forsitan requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat quid opus est ut eiecclesiasticae intelligentiae iungatur autoritas Quia videlicet Scripturam sacraâ—â— pro ibsa sui altitudine non uno codemque sensu universi accipiunt quod â—â— Confideratio temporis 〈◊〉 Now in these words who doth not see that Lyrinesis doth make consent of Fathers not to be an absolute or sufficient rule of Faith as he doth the Scriptures but a directive rule to the right understanding of the absolute and sufficient rule of faith which is the holy Scriptures Neither can we otherwise confecture but that Lirinensis giveth this directive Rule for his owne time Ibid. Ad and not to all succeeding ages for by many particulars it is apparant that the foundation and ground of his whole discourse received being from those wise experiences which the present age hee lived in and precedent had afforded him Besides wee have many Mathematicall instruments which are rules in their kinde as the Globe Quadrant c and there are many bookes written to assist us in their use now I hope you will not say the rule to use the instrument is the absolute rule it selfe to draw a Conclusion in the Mathematickes And why likewise may
not the Fathers that assist and direct in understanding of the Scriptures be Rules as Vincentius Lirinensis onely stileth them in their kind yet give place unto the word of God as the absolute and sufficient rule of faith Moreover Rules Measures are either originall which we call the Standard or those which are proportioned and fitted thereby and might not this Father make the Scriptures as the Standard the onely absolute rule sufficicient of it selfe as he tearmeth it to try points of Catholick Faith and yet graunt the generall consent of all Bishops and Preists of the Catholicke Church in a generall Councell to be a Rule proportioned fitted and squared thereby Who knoweth not also that the Standard is a most absolute and controuling Rule without doubt and exception when there are many things that may call in question the truth of the other so that it may need to bee corrected thereby Now what doth the most learned Primate say that crosseth Liriuensis This auncient Father acknowledgeth the authority of the divine Canon sufficient of it selfe to trye the Catholicke Faith His learned Penne confesseth Gods Word to be that rocke alone upon which wee build our Faith Lirinensis to avoyde jarring interpretations would likewise from the Custome of Catholicks have the Traditions of the Catholick Church to wit the generall consent of Fathers to be requisite at some times to the understanding of heavenly Scriptures And for any thing I can find the most reverend Primate doth not urge a syllable against it So that untill the Iesuite can shew further then he hath done Vanitie I thinke will turne Fryar and remaine with him And although this Iesuite doth make the Fathers upon Lirinensis his experiment the absolute rule yet a further experience perswadeth them to leave Lirinensis at sometimes which although they will not doe with open face yet by covered shifts they labour to avoyde what they pretend to be his direction For they make the Fathers doctors not judges to be followed for their reason not for their authority p Bellarm. de verbo Dei l. 3. c. 10. Aliud est interpretari legem more Doctoris aliud more judicis ad explanationem more Doctoris requiritur cruditio ad explicationem more judicis requiritur auctoritas Doctor enim non proponit sententiam suam ut necessario sequendam fed SOLVM quatenus ratio suadet which destroyes their judgship to be rejected where excogitato commento they cannot helpe q Vasquez Iesâ— l. 2. de Adora disp 3. c. 2. initio Recentiores aliqui pondere hujus Concilij Elibertini quasi oppressi tanquam optimum â—ffugium elegerunt authoritatem Concilij negare quod Provinciale fuerit nec a Pontifice confirmatum c. Et sane si aliâ viâ Concilio satisfieri commodè non possit hoc nobis effugium sufficeret So Maldonate upon the xvi of Matthew r Maldonat in 16 Mat. Portae inferni non praevalebunt Quorum verborum sensus non videtur mihi esse quem omnes praeter Hilarium quos â—â—gisse mâ—mini authores putant Bellarmine upon the vi of Marke and the v. of Iames Å¿ Bellarm. de Extrem Vnct. c. z. Duae Scripturae proseâ—â—tur ab omnibus una ex cap. 6. Marci altera ex cap. 5. Iacobi De prioâ— non omnes conveniunt an cum Apostoli ungebant oleo infirmes curabant illa fuerit unctio Sacramentalis de quâ nunc disputamus an solum fuerit figura quaedam adumbratio hujus Sacramenti Qui tuentur Priorem sententiam ut Tho Waldens loco citate Alphons de castro l. de Haer verbo Extrema Vnctio ca ratione ducuntur quod Beda Theophilaâ—â—us OE cumenius in commentarijs Marci Iacobi videantur dicere eandem esse unctionem cujus fit mentio in utroque loco Sed profectò probabilior est sententia posterior que est Ruardi lansenij Dominici a Soto aliorum Et mihi certe eo etiam nomine graâ—â—â—or quod videam Lutherum Calvinum Chemnitium locis citatis esse in priore opinione existimant enim illi eandem esse unctionem Marci 6. luâ—â—â—i 5. reject the authorities of Fathers and any may tell me wherefore Besides the suspition of this rule is detected that when a wrangling Papist will question the true sence of the Fathers as it is easie to be done even where the minde is convinced how can the fathers be the assured touchstone to try all controversies when the Pope may order all matters as he pleaseth t Gregor 〈◊〉 Anal. Fidel l. 8. c 8. Quod si per sententiam Doctorum aliqua fidei controversia non 〈◊〉 commodè componi posset eo quod de illorum confensu non 〈◊〉 constareâ— â—â— tunc constat authoritas Pontifici But hereby we may see who feare the judgement of Antiquity you or our selves Wee receive them without appeale if true and not forged if cleare and not ambiguous in points that they were bound to beleive and teach from the sacred Scriptures upon paine of damnation You not at all unlesse when you please they will stoop unto and undergoe a Papall explanation Yet thirdly the Iesuite tels us Lirinensis as we see doth not so withdraw the tryall of inveterated Heresies from the consent of holy Fathers that he will have it brought to Scripture onely as our Answerer pretendeth but giveth us to understand that when they cannot sufficiently bee convinced by holy writ then the authoritie of generall Councells wherein by the consent of catholick Priests and Prelates of the Church they have beene condemned should suffice us to avoyde and detect them Reply pag. 37 Lirinensis maketh the sacred Scriptures the onelie absolute rule fit for all times and occasions x Vincen. Lirin adv profanas Novat Cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon â—â—â—ique ad omnia satis superâ—â—â— sufficiat but this directive helpe of Fathers he applieth to sometimes onely y Idem Sed noque semper neque omnes hae reses hoc mo â—â— impugnanâ—◠〈◊〉 But will the Iesuite perswade us that when Lirinensis doth withdraw the tryall of inveterated Heresies from the consent of holy Fathers it is left to other judgement on earth besides the Scriptures Surely the Iesuite did better adhere to the Fathers in his Epistle Dedicatory then in this place for there they were the assured touch stone to try all controversies betwixt us whether wee varie about the true sence of holy writ or about any Article of Christian beleife whatsoever but heere they may be suspended as hee acknowledgeth in Lirinensis his opinion and in some reserved cases neither Scriptures nor Fathers must be the rule but the authoritie of generall Councells c. So that you see their rule is that which best befreinds them The Fathers at one time shall helpe and bee the assured touchstone A generall Councell not auncient I hope but of the Popes calling when
the Fathers fayle But for the Scriptures their confidence hath not beene so great therein as to make them alone a rule for the least article of their new faith And this Iesuite that even now would perswade others to beleive that we adhere to the Scriptures onely because we would not be subject to the sentence of any judge doth here detect himselfe what judge he will allow The Scriptures must be locked up Bibling is Babling and generall Councells must do the worke well why then doe they not confirme Constance and Basill If they dare not submit to them why do they vainly pretend their authority But it may be they are not confirmed by the Pope So that you may see by the Iesuit's wavering his aime is onely to have that Exlex who ought at this time principallie to be corrected for his heresies to be both the rule and the Iudge But we are as free saith the Iesuite from the imputation of Heresie as our Adversaries are farre from finding out any such generall Councell in which wee have beene condemned z Reply pag. 17 Have you no better Apologies then this to exempt you out of the Catalogue of Hereticks The Pelagians had as good and pleaded the same against S. Augustine who answered them with scorne Aut vero congregatione Synodi opus erat ut apertu pernicies damnaretur quasi nulla haeresis aliquando nisi Synodi congregatione damnata sit a Aug. con â— Epist Pelag 4 4 c. 12. What is it needfull to assemble a Synode that a manifest corruption should be condemned as if no Heresie hath at any time beene condemned without the calling of a Synode And they are as surely branded for Novelists and Sectaries saith this Loyolist as their opinions have beene certainely condemned by many the like generall Councells b Reply pag. 37 I wonder where the Iesuite will find them nay what have they besides the names of generall Councells that may honour the assembly of their so many Bishops Some of these you dare not confirme why then should they have generall faith and esteeme amongst us If you dare not subscribe to your Councels for what reason should they have power to condemne us Some against Faith given have martyred those which you acknowledge ours Your Trent Synode hath anathematized the Catholick Church Doctrine And I am perswaded if that faction had as much power as they give to their Head the Church Catholicke should not bee long from martyrdome also Besides whose opinions have Generall Councels condemned ours Surely then our pretended Heresies are ancienter then Luther he is not the first that taught our doctrine But where are your Councels Mr Malone that condemne the holy Scriptures the foure first Generall Councels the three Creeds These are ours to them wee subscribe If these are Noveltiâ—s we are Novelists if this be doctrine of Sectâ—ries the Hereticke hath justly stiled us But if the Iesuite cannot bring Councels that have condemned God in his Word the Primitive Church in her Decrees and the generall Confessions of Faith I hope hee will upon better thoughts except Noveltie from our Faith Schisme from our Persons Neither let the Iesuite runne about as in other-places he hath done to coyne us an other Faith when as he himselfe revileth us for adhering to the Scriptures c Reply Sect. â— when as our Lawes justifie our embracing the foure first Generall Councels and our Liturgie doth enclose the Creedes The Iesuite continueth his vaine discourse And as saith he they never yet assembled any Generall Councell of Catholick Preists and Prelates of that Church which is dispersed through many Nations neither by reason of their fatall discord amongst themselves will ever beâ— able to assemble the same so wee may for ever live secure d Reply pag. â—7 Every Iesuite is not a Prophet We may have a Coâ—â—â—â—ll such a one where your Papa shall not be Presidâ—nt â—or your Cloâ—ke-bagge carry the Spirit that shall direct iâ— when the Church of Rome it selfe shall be frâ—â—â— from that Factioâ— which now doth tyrannize over it and the true Bishops thereof shall enjoy that authoritie which most truely is their owne by divine institution and Fryars and Iesuites may turâ—e Turkes for any station that they shall have in the Hierarchiâ— of the Church of God e Censura â—â—â—positionum ad sacram Facultatem Theoâ—â—giae Parisiâ—â— sem allat c. Priâ—â—a Propositio Hierarchia Ecclesiastica constat ex Pontifice Cardinalibus Archiepiscopis Episcopis Regularibus Câ—â—sura In istâ primâ— proposâ—tiâ—â—◠〈◊〉 ratio memâ—â—â—rum Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae seu sacri Principatâ—â— divinâ ordinatione instituti est manca redundaâ—â— atque inducens in errorem Finally saith the Iesuite the reason of this his â—ergivâ—rsaâ—ion from the Fathers authority is vaine and idle when hee saith that we have coyned clipped and washed their monuments And why I pray you For though saith he he endeavour to proove this by severall instances yet not one doth he produce that will serve his turne and therefore tells the most learned Answerer that he is bound to bring forth â—â—und prooâ—â— of this his accusation under paine of incuâ—ring the brand of forgerie and spitefull calumnie himselfe f Reply pag. 38 We may perceive the Iesuite is unwilling to enter into dispute concerning these particulars and therefore â—â—sts them off as wanting proofe Yet indeed the matter is so notorious in many of the instances that your owne have espied the counterfeits and branded them with their Censures But the Iesuite might have forsaken his selfe flatterie and have taken notice that there is more proofe against the particulars then hee had answered unto For is it possible that there should bee little respect given to the Church of Rome before the Councell of Nice as their Cardinall and after-Pope urged by the most reverend the Lord Primate affirmeth when wee finde the first Bishops of that Church writing such controuling Epistles Councels before that of Nice giving such unlimited power and the Romane Emperour qualifying with such unmeasurable Principalitie their Romane Bishop But because the Iesuite desires a further manifestation of these Counterfeitâ— I will take them as they are layde downe in order by the most reverend the Lord Primate beginning with your Craftie Merchant Isidorus Mereator that is justly charged with counterfeiting Decretall Epistles c. Our Iesuite hath a minde to justifie these brattâ— and to make Isidorus his merchandize to passe for good wares yet Bellarmine confesseth that they are infected with Errour script into them g Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 14. Aliquos errores in eas irrepsisse non negaverim nec indubitatas esse affirmaâ—e audeam â— Cusanus de Concord cath l. 3. c. 2. Sunt meo judicio illa de Constantino apocrypha sicut fortassis etiam quaedam alia longa magna scripta Sanctiâ— Clementi Anacleto Papâ— attributa In quibus volentes Romanam
author neither any Apostle nor any man Apostolicall c See the Answere to the Iesuites Challenge pag. 7. The Iesuite boasteth if the Fathers authoritie will not suffice hee will produce good and certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures d See the Iesuites Challenge in fine The most learned Answerer tels him if he would change his order and give the sacred Scriptures the precedency he should therein doe more right to God the author of them who well deserveth to have audience in the first place and withall ease both himselfe and us of a needelesse labour in seeking any further authoritie to compose our differences And thereupon as St Augustine the Donatists so this most reverend Lord provoketh Papists Let humane writings be removed let Gods voyce sound Produce but one cleare testimonie of the sacred Scripture for the Popes part and it shall suffice alledge what authoritie you list without Scripture and it cannot suffice e Answere to the Iesuites Challenge pag. 10. And in the same page he further expresseth himselfe And this we say not as if we feared that these men were able to produce better proofes out of the writings of the Fathers for the part of the Pope then we can doe for the Catholicke cause when we come to joyne in the particulars they shall finde it farre otherwise but partly to bring the matter unto a shorter tryal partly to give the word of God his due to declare what that rocke is upon which alone we build our faith even the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets * Ephes â— â—0 from which no sleight that they can devise shall ever drawe us Here also in the place alledged he shewes that although by reason of their corrupt dealing with antiquitie it is high time for us to listen unto the advice of Vincentius Lirinenfis and not be so forward to commit the tryall of our controversies to the writings of the Fathers who have had the ill hap to fall unto such hucksters handling Yet that you may see saith the most reverend Primate f In his Answere to the Iesuitea Challenge pag 20. how confident we are in the goodnes of our cause we will not now stand upon our right nor refuse to enter with you into this field but give you leave for this time both to be the Challenger and the appointer of your owne weapons Now let all men judge whether there can bee a more plaine expression without fast and loose without tergiversation without inconstancie when as the most learned Answerer adhereth with the auncient Fathers to the true and absolute rule the sacred Scriptures and yet to satisfie the Iesuite is willing to try our faith according to the rule proposed by the Iesuit himselfe not that our doctrine had no other foundation or testimony besides the Fathers but that the Iesuites vaine pretences of Antiquitie might be detected and made knowne and that the world might see that their Doctrine and Church is not to bee justified by the testimonies of either God or man unlesse it bee that Man of sinne who in this cause would bee both party and Iudge and in matters which hee calleth faith would have his determinations to be received without dispute The Iesuite proceeds Although we have already shewen how little right you have to stand uppon in this case yet such thankes as this your courtesie doth deserve wee willingly returne g Reply pag. 48 Palmarium Facinus What have you shewen but your shame You have declared your distast of Scriptures and if the Fathers would performe the worke you expect from them why doe you muster in their ranke such hired Souldiers Epistles Canons Bookes swolne with forged titles corrupted depraved that they might deceive but that gladiatorio animo although neither God nor good men will plead for you yet you will not leave to plead for your selves Wee have heard you say ere while saith the Iesuite that we have had opportunitie enough of time and place to falsifie the Fathers writings and to teach them the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans and that we have performed it so well by clipping washing cankering c. that thereby their complexions being altered they appeare not to be the same men they were h Reply pag. 48 And where I pray you doth the most learned Answerer unsay it O but if this be true saith the Iesuite how can the goodnes of your cause be proved by them if not true what satisfaction can you make us for your uncharitable slaunders If the Fathers bee corrupted how dare you enter into this Field if not corrupted why did you charge us wrongfullie i Reply ibid. If the most learned Answerer had not detected your frauds you had never beene charged by him with those crimes If your clipping washing cankering had not beene espied or if he had bene so credulous as to have beleived all your impostors that you can stile Fathers of Councells then might you justly have demaunded How could the goodnes of his cause bee proved by them But whenas you dare not trust God in his owne meaning nor the true ancient Fathers or lawfull decrees of Councels without the assistance of your bastard authors to helpe in time of necessity this gives him ground sufficient to justifie our cause that hath no need of such treacheries and to detect yours even they being Iudges whom you appeale unto For in the point to bee handled afterwards whether Peters Primacie did descend to all succeeding Bishops of Rome what testimony bringeth the Iesuit but Arabick canons of the Nicene Councell proved to be according to the title by an experiment from the mountaines of S. Thomas 1605 k Reply pag. â—6 and confirmed by an epistle of Athanasius to Pope Marke l Reply pag. â—7 Here is one Counterfeit brought to justifie another and all for the counterfeite authoritie of the Roman Bishop This your corrupting of antiquitie would have hindred us if the same had not beene detected but this most reverend Lord can discerne betwixt the right hand and the left and point you out those witnesses that you onely dare commit your selves unto The Councell of Nice was corrupted by the Pope for to magnifie his Chaire and sea and to make the African Fathers beleive that he had that by positive law which now they challenge by divine right but did these Fathers trust the corrupters No they sent for the true coppie and then left the pretenders May not this be done in the like manner by the most learned Answerer True it is that Gibeonites with their pretences of antiquitie and outward mustines may sometime deceive a Ioshua yet we doubt not but time and experience may reveale the fraud Iacob was deceived by Laban but it was in the night Day declared who deceived him Whilst the world was no further learned then the Pope infallible what excellent testimonies were there for the Papall triple but when the Sunne the
edita â—â—gua Sed visum est 318. patribus Sancto spiritu repletis in praeâ—â—â—â—o Concilio congregatis maximè jam dicto Alexandro Apostolicae sedis Apoâ—â—â—sarijs ut decem capitula a dunarentur alijs atque congruis locis inscrerentur ad forâ—â—â— septuaginta discipulorum vel potius totius orbis terrae linguarum sepungiâ—â—â— discipulorum tam excellentis concilij fierent capitula And if these bee not sufficient to marke out an Impostor let us heare what their owne speake and you shall find Bellarmine accompting them both viz. Athanasius his epistle and Markes â—â—â— script supposititious c Bellarm. de scriptor Eccles ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Epistolis Athanasi ad Marcum Papam Marci Papâ— ad Athanasium 〈◊〉 extratione temporis â—â—â— epistolas esse supposititiâ—s Baronius takes them as Coâ—â—entitious and forged by certaine well-willers of the Roman Church d Baron tom 3. ad an 336 〈◊〉 â—â— 59. â—◠〈◊〉 ille 〈◊〉 Architectur bene esse consultum assertion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de Nicâ—â—o Canone extra numerum vicentarium allegatum Hoâ—â—â—â—â—â—â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui ignoravit ex apertissimâ— veritate solutionem 〈◊〉 For the second Epistle to Felix c Reply pag. â— if we observe what the Iesuite urgeth out of him unlesse we be wilfully perverse wee cannot thinke Athanasius and the Bishops of Egypt to bee so farre from sence as this Epistle makes him that they dare not presume to yeeld to the Errors of their enimies the Arrians without acquainting the Pope therewithall as if with his dispensation they might adhere to any corruption whatsoever Besides the Rescript to this Epistle was dated Agario Iuliano Cass f Vide rescriptum hujusmodi apud Biâ—â—ium tom 1. conciliorum when as never any that did number the Roman Consuls did make mention of Agarius And also the Rescript declares what wee may conceive both of it and the Epistle of Athanasius to wit that they are of no better stampe then the Decretall Epistles the latter part of the Rescript being taken out of the latter part of the Epistle of Felix the first to the Bishops of Frannce And to close up this Binnius will tell this Iesuite that the Epistle it selfe is of suspected birth both from the time when it was written and other circumstances g Bin. tom 1. Concil in 〈◊〉 in Epist Athanasij c. ad Felicem Felicis ad Atha Haec Epistola sub nomine Athanasij ad Felicem ex synodo Alexandâ—â—na scripta ab Episcopis â—â—gypti Thebâ—â—dis Lybiae de fide suspecta est tum quod hoc tempore quâ— Athanasius â—â—ga clapsus in cremo latitabat 〈◊〉 â—â—â— Liberio 〈◊〉 Episcopi orthodoxi decrâ—â— Imperatoris 〈◊〉 〈…〉 quod hunc epistola ad 〈◊〉 scripta ipsum 〈◊〉 de sua ipsi â—â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reddat and Baronius doth also disparage this Epistle and derides the Merchant that maketh vse of such baggage Commodities h Baron Annal. tom â— ad Annum 217. â—â—â— 66. Quae fertur Athanasij nomine ad Felicem Romanum 〈◊〉 ex Synido Alexandrina scripta haâ—d aeque probatur c. At ipse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From whence wee may see how this Iesuite is voyde of all shame who as if he had hit the Eagle on the eye doth not onely produce these counterâ—â—its but swolne with impudencie in his wonted manner of rayling bitterly reviles the Answerer for justly telling him that the good Fathers assembled in that Synode neuer dreamed of such a busines nor established any such Decrees or Canons at all Beholde heere saith he how precisely this holy Father doth alledge the Canons and decrees of the Nicene Councill for the authority of the Roman Church and for her absolute Supremacie over all other Christian Churches throughâ—â— the world And what will not our Adversaries venture to say and doe against the Catholicke Truth when as they stick not with brasen faces to avouch that the good Fathers assembled in that Synode never dreamed oâ— such a businesse c. But I leave it to the judgment of the unpartiall Reader to determine whether the abovesaid Testimony of S. Athanasini given but twenty yeares or thereabouts after the said Nicene Councell doth not sufficiently bruise and hurst their face of brasse and force them to swallow downe againe their enormious untruthes and calumniations i Reply pag. 59 Heere wee may see a discourse fit for a Iesuite all confidence â—â—t builded upon no truth Cardinall Bellarmine confesseth the Iesuites proofe from the Epistle of Athanasius to Pope Marke and the Rescript to Athanasius to be unsound k Bellarm. de Rom Pontâ—â— l. 2. c 25. Quod illi â—anâ—nes non sunt omnes probant nonâ—â—â—lti ex Epistoâ—â— Athanasij ad Marcum Papam in quaâ—e tit exemplum Nicaeni concilij ex Romani Pontificis scrinio 〈◊〉 â—â—empla quae erant Alexandriae fuisse creâ—â—â— ab Ariaâ—â—â— Sed hoc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â— verè NON â—â— SOLIDV â—â— and what sound evidence he hath brought from his INDIAN Tale and the other Epistle to Felix hath beene declared So that the Iesuite may consider that Fures clamorem theeves may slye from his voyce but true men tremble not at the noyse He may strain himselfe against brazen faces enormious untruths calumniations but whom doth he wound but himselfe that among all the ancient Fathers cannot bring one Argument for these Arabicke Canons but these false birthes lying counter feit and yet doth swagger triumph rage and swell against him that justly putts desiance to his folly But leaving these counterfeits the Iesuite would â—â—â—swade us that he will proceede in laying downe the judgâ—â—â—â— of the anncient Fathers concerning the derivation of S. Peterâ— supreme jurisdiction unto all his lawfull Successours in the Romane See Reply pag. â— The Iesuite doth well to distinguish those that follow from those that in this point hee hath alreadie alleadged but with whom doth he beginne With him I suppose that will faile him when it commeth to tryall and that is S. Augustine m Augâ—in Psal mum contra partem Donati who expresseth what the Iesuite is to prove most plainely Reckon saith he the Preists even from Peters seat and observe who to whom hath ever succeeded in that ranke of Fathers that same is the rocke which the proud gates of hell doe not overcome n Reply pag. â—â— Loe here saith the Iesuite S. Augustine maketh the very succession of Bishops in the Roman See that invincible rocke upon which Christ built his Church forasmuch as it is grounded in Peter and thereby is partaker of the promise of Christ that the gates of hell shall not prevayle against it o Reply pag. 59 S. Augustine speaketh nothing here to the Iesuites purpose for he neither maketh Peter the Monarch of the Church nor the Pope his sole Successor in that Monarchie Neither doth S. Augustine as the Iesuit affirmeth make the very successioÌ„
f Epistol Concil Aphricam ad Papam Caelestinum Executores etiam clericos vestros quibusque petentibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concedere ne fumosum typhum seculi in Ecclesiam Christi videamur inducere ambition by others g Hieron Epist 57. A Pastore praesidium ovis flagito facessaâ— invidia Romani culminis recedat ambitio their pride being hated their motions contemned And Leâ— was no more to be excused then some of his Predecessors in these particulars seeing he rejected the Catholick Church a Councell of 〈◊〉 and â—â—â— Bishops because they would make another Patrâ—arcke equall with him h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Concil Chalcedonenâ—â— Occumenicum sive Vniversale IV. approbat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—â—centi Triginta Episcopâ— Id vero quod instigante Anatolio Constantinopolitaâ—â— Antistite ambiciose absentibus possea contradicentibus segatis de primatur 〈◊〉 Constantinopolitanae contra decreta 〈…〉 dem secundum 〈…〉 quam S. Leo Rom. â—ex plane in probavit cassa vit atque irritum reddidiâ—â—â— â—eply pag. 66. Bellarm. de sacram conâ—â—â— l. 2. c. x. Epistolae 〈…〉 apud nonnullos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ve 〈◊〉 supposititiâ—◠〈◊〉 Non sit certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quorum nomina praeserunti So that if you have no better argument then Leo his appetite to magnify Rome and to free it from spots it is but a poore and tender 〈◊〉 For we deny not Christs care of Peter neither his prayer for Peter but that all were fortified in Peter any otherwise then by example the Iesuite must proove by better grounds then hee 〈◊〉 produceth or else hee is not halfe way at his journeyes end The next witnesse is the good counterfeit Eusebius from whose plaine dealing he beginnes his triumph Could any 〈◊〉 speake more plainely for us concerning the ever during 〈◊〉 of the Catholicke Roman Church â— There is no reasoÌ„ any should for if your forgtâ— y ◠〈◊〉 you who will expect truth to pleade your causeâ— But the Iesuite tells us that S. Cyprian affordeth 〈◊〉 like testimony for that speaking of certaine Hereticks of 〈◊〉 They are bold saith he to 〈◊〉 even to the chaire of Peter and to the principall Church from whence Preistly Vnitie draweth its originall neither doe they consider how they are those Romans whose faith is commended by the Apostle and to whom persidiousnes cannot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 k Reply pag â—â— But he fayles for first hee speaketh not of the same thing 〈◊〉 in Cyprian having relation to matter of fact in discipline not doctrine Secondly if Cyprian should speake in the Iesuites sense here surely he speaketh non-sense in his bitter charges against Stephen Cornelius his Successor who received these schismaticks whose 〈◊〉 in former Popes times could not have accesse thither l Cyprian epist ad 〈◊〉 Thirdly Cyprian speakes elegantly in this place as a Rhetoritian not positively but perswasively at the Roman Souldiers and the Spanish Navye were stiled invincible not because they were truly as they were stiled but that by a superlative and excessive praise their carriage valour might be lifted up and encreased and you call your Popes generally blessed not because they are but because they should be so For his other Citation out of Cyprian The spouse of Christ cannot be defiled she is unspotted and chast m Reply pag. 67 We acknowledge as that Father saith that the spouse of Christ is uncorrupt and chast but this prooves not the Romane Church free from Heresies neither that the same which you call Peters Church shall in her succession enjoy that priviledge And what the Ancient meant when they tearmed the Church uncorrupt I told you before and the same Father shall tell you againe that it is so stiled in relation to what it shal be not what actually it is August cont Pelag. de nâ—â— gra cap. 63. Hoc agitur â—tique nunc in haec seculo ut ad â—stam quam omnes sancti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 puritatem Ecclesia sancta pervenina quae in 〈◊〉 seculo neque aliquo malorum hominum sibi permixto neque aliqua in se lâ—go 〈◊〉 resistente legi mentis dicut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vitam in 〈◊〉 divinâ— The next testimony is the learned Priest S. Hierome but what saith this their supposed Cardinall surely he is not so full mouthed as the counterfeit Popes In his Epistle to Damasus thus he writeth Apud vos solos incorruptâ— Patrum servatur haereditus With you onely is the inheritance of the Fathers kept without corruption Reply pag. 6â— Which we beleive for which of ours taints the Roman Church as an hereticall Assembly in Damasus his dayes yet when hee was dead your owne witnesse stiles Rome BABYLON the PURPLE HARLOT the Bishop and Cleargie the Pharisâ—icall Senate p Hieron ad Paulinum in lib. Didymi de Spiritu Sancto Praefat. Cùm iâ— BABYLONE versarer PVRPVRATAE MERETRICIS essem colonus volui aliquid garrire de Spiritu sancto coeptum opusculum ejusdâ—urbis Pontifici dedicate Et ecce Pharisaeorum conclamavit Senatus nullus scriba vel doctus sed omnis quasi sibi indicto praelio DoctrinaruÌ„ adversus me imperitiae factio conjuravit Damasus qui me ad hoc opuspiluâ— impulerat jam dormit 〈◊〉 Christo But to what purpose doth the Iesuite urge the latter sentence Know that the Romane faith commended by the mouth of the Apostle cannot be deceived yea though an Angel should teach otherwise then hath already beene preached yet caâ— it not be changed being defended by the authority of the Apostle S. Paul q Reply pag. 67. Here we see it is Paul that defends the Romane saith not Peter And how doth Paul performe this but by his Epistle his doctrine Now if Pauls Doctrine can defend the faith that it cannot be changed what wil the Prophets and Apostles doe altogether This is a testimony for the Scriptures not for the Pope Paul anathematizeth * â—al 1. 8. 9. all whose doctrine sounds against that delivered by himself though Peter or his Vicar should define it Vincent Lirinen div prof Novatiâ—â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioannes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnis Apostolorum 〈…〉 but you will â—â—ve no heretickes or heresie before the definition of your Pope no not Arianisme it selfe Reply pag. 10â— 103. 104. Yet if Paul befriend you you are very ungratefull that in your solemne sermons in â—â—ly have censured S. Paul for a â—ote headed person who was so transported with his pangs of zeale and eagernesse beyond all compasse in most of his disputes That there was no great reckoning to bee made of his assertions yea he was dangerous to read â—◠〈◊〉 of â—â—resie in some places and bettâ—â— perhaps he had never written t S. Edwind Sâ—â—ds his relation of the state of Religion in the Westeâ—â— parts of the woâ—â—â— Pacianus bringeth up the reare who in his first Epistle to the Hereticke Symproâ—â—â—â— saith the Iesuite speaking of the Catholicke Church hath these words When as after the Apostles divers
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
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
is 〈…〉 Fathers 〈…〉 and saying of all and 〈…〉 time 〈◊〉 Religion and therefore it will be much more 〈◊〉 to find out their generall consent that aâ—â— so lâ—ng deâ—â— And there he would â—â—ve the Reader 〈◊〉 that the agreâ—ment thou 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one 〈◊〉 which iâ— not otherwise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—â—led the generall conâ—ent of aâ—â—cient Fathers and to prove this he hath urged S. Augustine That when he dispâ—ting 〈◊〉 the Pelagâ—â—â—s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fathers he thougâ—â—â—â— had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby the common â—aith of the whâ—â—e Church And the 〈◊〉 of Ephesâ—â— having produced â—â—t â—en Fathers made no 〈◊〉 but thaâ— by theâ—â— agreeiâ—g aâ—thority the consent of the whole Church wâ—â— fâ—lly 〈◊〉 against Nestâ—riâ—â— for â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doubt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but thâ—s◠〈◊〉 did iâ— jâ—dgement agree with all the rest of their 〈◊〉 Reply pag. 94 95. But all the whâ—â—e he doth little consider that his owne doe not agree with him what makes the consent of Fathers For 〈◊〉 would haâ—e those to bee counâ—â—â— all the Doctors that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be justly 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 and the rest neglected Greg. de Valen loco supra citat Omnes esse censentur iâ— quorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnibus consideratis â—ruditionis piâ—tatis 〈◊〉 c. ut à prudentibus certè â—â—â—um solummodò ratio habeâ—i debâ—â—t câ—â—â—ris neglectis quasi nihil 〈◊〉 si cum illis 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 â—â— was of 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—llect by hiâ— practiâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he concâ—â—â—ing Augustiâ—â— who 〈◊〉 Maâ—â—chiâ—s dayâ—â—â— sacrifice of 〈◊〉 and pâ—â—yers of 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— Aâ—or inst Mor part 1. lib 10 cap. â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there be on◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doâ—â—ors â—â—â—ing thâ—â— is 〈◊〉 the rest Now if 〈◊〉 take consent of Fathers according to 〈◊〉 then wee â—inde a conseâ—t of Fathers in a point of 〈◊〉 against 〈◊〉 Catholicke Church â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aâ—brose â— Stapleton deâ—ens Ecclesiastic 〈…〉 quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ante 〈◊〉 〈…〉 non sunt â—â—sensâ— sed sententiam contrariam tradiderunt Clemâ—ns 〈◊〉 and Berâ—ard did not assent unto the 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 saith he in the 〈◊〉 of Flâ—rence 〈…〉 if you desire more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iustinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈…〉 obligandi For your coâ—sent whether it would prove better for you thâ—◠〈◊〉 hath done I cannot tell but I am sure that the Answerer who durst try the 〈◊〉 by the Fathers which hee is â—ot â—ounâ— unto their consent being not by 〈◊〉 coâ—fession the 〈◊〉 of faith â—â— conâ—ident that by them you will not finde two witnesses much lesseâ—enne that will justifie your cause without a personall or at least materiall opposition And therefore howsoever this be not their generall consent if we speake properly yet we will presume iâ— to be so for the present to see whether you bee able to performâ— any thing that so gloriously boast of so much which we are confident you cannot in regard some of your points mentioned are confessed by your owne neither to be in Fathers oâ— Scriptures at all as Adâ—â—â—tion of Images for so Massâ—â—â—â— in libelliâ— de Picturiâ— Imaginibâ—â— doth seeme to acknowledge and Roffensâ—s your Martyr hath the same opinion or but a very little better of the scorching Article of your Purgatory faith c See before pag. â—4 so that the Iesuite hath little cause to thinke that we â—eaâ—e the testimonies of Fatherâ— for the points in coâ—â—â—overâ—ie when as wise as himselfe know that they are not thâ—â—â— to be found But though wâ—â—ermit this for the preseâ—â— to see whether the Iesuite can prove any thing by his owne â—ouâ—hstone yet it will not be amisse to consider that his collection out of S. Augustine is rejected by that Fathers testimony for whereas the Iesuite insinâ—â—teth that S. Augustine was of opinion that the common faith of the whole Church may sufficiently be prâ—â—â—d by the unifâ—rme doctrine â—f 1â— cheife Fathers Yet when S. Hierome brought a â—umber of Fathers S. Augustine sticketh not to answer him in this manner I might as I beleive easily findâ— some Fathers to be of the contrary opinion if I did reade much but the very Apostle S. Paul â—ffereth himselfâ—â—â—tâ—â—eâ— for all these yâ—â— above all these To him I â—lye to him I appealâ— from all other interpreters and seeke unto him in that which he writes to the Galathians d Aâ—gust epist 1â— â—oâ—â—eâ— quâ—dem ut arbitroâ— facilè repeâ—â—râ— â—i 〈…〉 ipse 〈◊〉 â—ro his 〈◊〉 â—â—ò supra â—os omnes Apostolâ—â— Paulus â—ccuâ—â—â—â— Ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad ipsum aâ— omnibâ— qui aliud senâ—iâ—nt liteâ—â—â—â—â— ejus 〈…〉 provoâ—â—◠〈◊〉 iâ—â—â—ogaâ—◠〈◊〉 â—â— quâ—â—o in â—â— quod 〈…〉 And by this which hath beene said wee perceive that the Iesuite in a manner is urged to confesse that this Rule wants perfection and that the Fathers consent cannot bee absolutely produced but presumed onely Neither doth it please the Iesuite the other caution layde downe thâ—â— hee must prâ—â—ve that the Fathers held thâ—se points not onely generally but as appâ—rtâ—ining to the substance of faith and Religion and from hence hee would collect that the most learned Answerer feareth that they shall bee able to proove that the Fathers hâ—lde them generally indeede and therefore provideth this revye â—rgeing them to prove further that they held them as appertâ—ining to the substance of Faith and Religion e Reply p â—â— A fit collection for a wise apprehension before he tells us that in points noâ— determined shee the Church graâ—nteth free libertie unto all Catholicke Doctours to expound â—swell the Scriptures as the Fathers for the upholding of that part which themselves doe thinke to bee most probable f Reply pag 9â— In which he meanes that the Scriptures in points not determined as in the cause of Predestination and conception of the blessed Virgin might bee interpreted against the generall consent of Fathers as the two Iesuites Pererius and Maldonate have done and the Fathers themselves expounded with such a glosse as makes best for the upholding of that part Now if the generall consent of Fathers be able to determine a point that is not de fide why are they rejected by the Iesuites and the Iesuites justified by Mr Malone if the Fathers consent hath strength onely in points of Faith why doth he quarrell at this caution which he must acknowledge necessary not proceeding from feare but from a wise and prudent consideration And to prevent us herein saith the Iesuite he affirmeth before hand that the said points bee not all cheife articles of faith g Reply pag. 93. what doth he labour to prevent you in unlesse it be
doe as yet expect my sentence what I thinke fit to write concerning Easter day saith Saint Ambrose m Ambros ep 83. Meam adhuc expectant sententiam quid 〈◊〉 scribere de die Pascha But wee are not ignorant that the consent of the Patriarchall Sees was a great helpe to the advancement of Truth and repelling of errour and therefore those Bishops were sought unto to adde their assistance for suppression of innovations or arising Heresies Yet was not Rome sought unto in point of infallibilitie any otherwise then Alexandria For wee finde lovinian seeking to Athanasius that from his hand-writing hee might receive an exact exemplar or declaration of the Faith n Theodoror histor Eccless l. 4 c. 2. But what Iudgment would the Iesuite have their Innocent to have had A judgment of assent This what Bishops had not Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theoguis of Nice Heretickes exercised it o Sozom. hist Eccles l. 2. c. 15 Illa quae vestro judicio decreta sunt non contradicendo impugnare sed consentientibus animis confirmare decrevimus et hoc libello consensum illum roboramus Yea Liberius a Pope desires the Emperour that the Nicene Councell might in the same manner of all Bishops bee confirmed p Sozom. hist Eccles l. 4. c. 10. Liberius postulavit ab Imperatore ut fides in Concilio Nicaeno tradita subscriptionibus omnium obique Episcoporum confirmaretur which I am perswaded hee would not have done if he had conceived that subscriptive Confirmation had made a Iudge of Faith It may be he will have the Bishop of Romes subscription to make an Edict Why if this were graunted it were too weake to conclude him the rule of Faith for Emperors did the like with a power not usurped but sollicited and that by Councels and Popes too The first Councell of Constantinople petitioned Theodosius to ratifie the Decrees of that Councell that as by his Letters he called the Councel so by Seale he should fortifie their Decrees q Epistola Synodalis ad Theodosium Imperatorem Rogamus igitur tuam clementiam ut per literas tuâ— pietatis ratum esse jubeas confirmesque Concilij decretum et sicuti literis quibus nos convocasti Ecclesiam honore prosecutus es ita etiam summam corum quae decreta sunt conclusionem sententiâ â—tque sigillo tuo corrobores And Euagrius reports your Pope Felix to doe the like sending his Nunâ—ies to the Emperour by his authoritie to confirme the Chalcedon Councell r Enagrius histor Eccles l. 3. c. 18 Mittantur à Felice ad Zenonem Vitalius Misinus Episcopi ut ejus authoritate tum Concilium Chalcedoâ—â—â—se confirmaretur and many places to the like purpose may be urged But if the Church be the rule of Faith how many absurdities will follow thereupon As first that there must bee a Church before and so without Faith because faith in the Iesuits judgment cannot be before it is defined Secondly the Church must be the Rule of it selfe unlesse they will put forth that Article The holy Catholicke Church out of the Creed Thirdly the Church must rule the foundation upon which it is builded Ephes 2. Revel 21. Fourthly it is not denyed by the Iesuite that this rule is ruled someway by Scripture and therefore it hath not its rectitude in it selfe So that we see the Church of God hath her ministery the word of God the controule The Councell of Nice did her duty but Theodores telleth us how l. 1. c. 8 Å¿ Ibi animadversa fraudulcÌ„tia allegârunt Episcopi ex Scriptura resplendentiam soutem flumen charactera ad substantiam hoc In lumine tuo videbimus lumen Et hoc Ego Pater unum sumus luculentius deinceps ac com pendiosius conscripsere EIVS DEM CVM PATRE ESSE FILIVM ESSENTIAE And that all may perceive with how much fraud and falshood these places of Augustine are forced we may consider that the Scriptures are sufficient t August in Ioan tract 49. Cum multa fecisset Dominus Iesus non omnia scripta sunt sicut idem ipse sanctus Evan gelista testatur multa Dominum Christum dixisse fecisse quae Scripta non sunt electa sunt autem quae scriberentur quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur Serm. 38. ad fratres in Eremo inter opera August Legite sacram Scripturam in qua quid tenendum quid fugiendum sit plene invenietâ— not onely to teach faith but also to condemne heresies * See before pag. 199. in that fathers judgment and that Generall Councels themselves may be amended u See before pag. 319. Further he would never have moved to have past by the Councels of Nice and Ariminum x August con Maximin l. 3. c. 14. Neque ego Nicenum nec tu debes Ariminense tau quam praejudicaturus proferre Concilium Nec ego hujus autoritate nec illius detineris Scripturarum autoritatibus non quorumcunque proprijs sed utriusque communibus testibus res cum re caussa cum caussa ratio cum ratione decertet Reply pag. 100. if the Church had onely ruled the Faith So that the Iesuite hath concluded upon halting principles For never was the Pope acknowledged alwayes or at any time the onely Pastor of the Church neither the Roman Church the rule to find out heresies or to declare truthes neither did the auncient Bishops dreame of submitting to the Roman Church as the onely way to prevent errour neither did they thinke Arius his blasphemy onely cursed after the determination at Nice neither did Augustine ever breath forth as the Iesuit would father upon him y though with caution that an opinion which formerly was not held for a point of Faith may by the declaration of the Church be received and held for such Neither lastly did the Catholick Church expresly declare the Iesuites points for Cheifâ— articles of Faith True it is that a point of the Catholicke Faith may not be so fully preached or so openly professed or so publickely declared at one time as at another but that the same article might be no cheife point of faith at one time in the Christian Church and at another time by the Churches declaration be fundamentall is grosse and ridiculous For either the Churches declaration doth make that which was not to be of the substance of Faith giving it authoritie and credit making it of necessary beleife and so fundamentall which is too grosse to bee defended at Mid-day or else it doth declare to others what was formerly the foundation out of the Scriptures against some new arising Heresie And what doth the point gaine from the Church whether authoritie or light Authoritie they feare to say Light they cannot affirme for by the producing of it the darkenes is detected the Heresie is condemned Truth it receives not for it was there before Nay how could an Heresie against the foundation be
ibid. I have made it good before that Heresie is more ancient then the Papacy and that duration doth not exclude their opinions from being prophane and hereticall novelties c Before p. 193. 194. in which place as also hereafter the Inquisitor may receive satisfaction But hee telleth us that the most learned Answerer consequently will have us to beleive that his Religion is of more antiquity d Reply p. 106. Now as the Iesuite distasted the terme of Noveltie deservedly cast at himselfe and his so he is impatient that antiquity might any way belong to us and therefore in a disgracefull manner saith that the most learned Answerer endeavoureth to make good the antiquity of his profession first by jumping at once over a Thousand sixe hundred yeares and squaring his faith by that of the Apostles e Reply ibid. But this is not vanity if it were done unlesse the Iesuite will condemne himselfe as vaine also For in severall particulars he is forced to jumpe to the Apostolical times himselfe as hath beene before observed f Pag 86. 87 Neither dare he adhere to his touchstone the fathers but where his holy Father hath approved him g Reply p. 98. And for GODS Pen although he doth distast it yet he is willing to pretend from thence some safety though imaginarily when otherwise hee can finde no protection at all h See the direction at the letter But let the Iesuite know that he leapes short that reacheth not the Scriptures And to bee taught by any other without CHRIST and his Apostles in divine mysteries is to be deceived Give GOD and his Word the first place the Fathers will never bee denyed to be great helpes to truth and devotion and this is all that the most learned Answerer doth desire Secondly saith the Iesuite by adventuring though faintly to justifie it by that which the holy Fathers in middle ages did professe i Reply p. 106. Here the Iesuite detects himselfe that what he hath uttered before is untrue for there he chargeth the Answerer with jumping at once over a Thousand sixe hundred yeares and yet in this place he acknowledgeth him to justifie our profession by that which the holy Fathers in middle ages did professe Here we may see the reason why Mr Malone pleads the Fathers for his touchstone and accuseth us for rejecting them not because he accompts them the Rule or is confident in their tryall but because the people whom they dayly deceive are not so well able to make use of them whereby to convict their errours These are they that cry the Fathers the Fathers and yet despise them Wee keepe them under the commaund of their MASTER yet deny them not their just reverence their deserved honour We haue seene saith the Iesuite how he hath failed in the first producing no more for himselfe then all Heretickes have ever done k Reply p. 106. If the most learned Answerer had onely pretended Scripture without the truth or true sense of it he had done no more then the Devill Papists and other Heretickes have done but how will the Iesuite prove this to have beene practised by his learned Answerer The Scriptures he desires not as Papists and heretickes have abused them but in their true sence This light because you cannot endure must you therefore be a conquerour Poore fugitive How doth he dreame when he flyes from that power that prosequutes and would condemne him For the sword of the Spirit would not onely as the sword of the Angell make the Asse bruise the legge * â—â—â— â—â— â—â— but even breake the heart of the false Prophet if his eyes did behold the brightnesse of it And as vainely doth he charge the most learned Answerer with feare and shamefull tergiversation from the Fathers testimonies l Reply p. 106. when as whatsoever he hath said concerning them is the same that some Papists nay the Iesuite himselfe notwithstanding hee calls them the touchstone hath affirmed Was it not Mr Malone that rejected the Fathers generally consenting and defended them that did likewise m Reply p. 92. Who declared it lawful for every one in points that the Pope hath not made faith to presse urge the Fathers or reject them as they please n Reply p. 93. Doth not a troop of their owne exclude them from that authority in the Church which the Iesuite would seeme to give them neither affording theÌ„ the honor of a rule or touchstone either o Bellarm. â— de Concil author l. 2. c. 12. Scripta Patrum non sunt Regulae neque habent auctoritatem obligandi Wadding legat de concep Virg. Mariae sect 2. Orat. ◠§. 6. Nec enim parvum Doctorum aggerem sed Dei sapientiam spiritum pro regula rectore veritatis habet sancta haec nostra quae fallâ— non potest mater Ecclesia The Iesuite further telleth us that the Answerer in demonstration of his forwardnes taketh upon him to give the first onset himselfe But it is easie to espy saith he how this pretended hardines is nothing else but a meere cover and cloake to hyde the weaknes of his cause and to boulster out his booke with a shew of antiquitie more then with a substance of verity being flush alwayes in words and refined periods yet still failing in sound reason and judgment p Reply p. 106. What the Iesuite hath espied I presume he hath not kept secret therefore whether this conceit be not one of his selfe flatteries will be espied in the proper place where he hath declared what hee hath beene able to performe But though we should grant him saith the Iesuite whatsoever be alleadgeth out of the Fathers and that wee should confesse their sayings to make altogether for him hath not his owne mouth pronounced that all this will not be any way sufficient forasmuch as no authority but that of the Scripture can suffice And if he had reason to cry out with S. Augustine and say let humane writings bee remooved let Gods voyce sound with what sense now may he be thought to have stuffed such a deale of Paper with humane authorities It wil be answered that it is done onely to shew the confidence hee hath in his cause and that the Fathers howsoever hee esteemeth them little make wholly for him and against us q Reply p. 107. To this wee answere that iâ— his cause did not gaine by it yet the Catholicke Church is no looser when the grand deceivers of the Romane Faction are detected and their pretences of antiquity made knowne for delusions Secondly is the cause of Religion no way assisted by the writings of the auncient Fathers unlesse wee acknowledge them with the Iesuite the assured touchstone Navigators as are all that saile in the Sâ—ippe of the Church have much comfort and direction by the other Starres although the North alone infallibly direct their course and assists them to the
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