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.
5. Indeed your Religion consisteth of one point absolutely and simply Papall supremacy and we doubt not but if that were overthrowne all the Fabrick of your late Roman erection would quickly fall to the ground yet the Catholick faith is not such it consisteth not of one only article neither is it everthrowne by the intrusion of every errour for this being granted if we can shew you the time when Indulgences g Roâ—â—ens Art 18. In principio nascentis Ecclesiae nullus fuit Indulgentiarum vsus or any other errour crept into the Church of Rome you must then conclude catholick religion throughout the world was overthrowne a conclusion forced from shame And let all men judge whether this be not a desperate advantage given to free himselfe from the present danger Neither can the Iesuite from his confidence of Roman puritie glory as he heere hath done in regard he seemeth to have changed his opinion before hee printed halfe his booke curbing his lavishnes and making the Church of Rome free not from all errours as heere he doth but from spots of misbeliefe only h Sect 9. which I feare he will be forced to flye vnto hereafter when hee shall examine his owne iollity in this particular For who brought in that doctrine that the Pope is Lorâ— over all or did extend Indulgences to your Purgatory flames but Boniface the 8 if wee beleive your owne Agrippa i De vanitat scient cap 61. Hic est ille magnus Bonifacius quia tria magna grandia fecit primum falso oraculo deluso Clemente persua sit sibi cedere Apostolatum secundum condidit sextum Decretalium Papam asseruit omnium Dominum tertium instituit Iubilaeum indulgentiarum nundinas illasque primus in Purgatorium extendit Besides this in Leo k Ser. 4 de quadragesima Cùm ad tâ—gendum infidelita tem suam nostris audeant interesse mysteriis ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperant interdum ut tutius lateant ore indigno Christi corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurire omnino declinant the great his time it was a note of a Maniche to communicate in one kinde yet now wee fee it is practifed by them which would perswade the world that they are Catholickes and although they may quarrell that the cause is different yet they may see the act of omission onely condemned by Leo the Pope Also in the Primitive times the Sacrament was received by the faithfull in both kindes in the Greeke Church till Cassanders l Consult Art 22. initio Satis compertum est vniversalem Christi Ecclesiam in hunc vsque diem Occidentalem vero seu Romanam mille amplius à Christo annis in solenni praesertim ordinaâ—ia huius Sacramenti dispensatione vtramque panis vini speciem omnibus Ecclesiae Christi membris exhibuisse time in the Westerne or Roman Church for above a 1000 yeares and yet in the Councell of Constance Henricus de Piro Iohannes de Scribanis m Concil Constantien Sess 13. apud Binium stiled it Mos perversus and the whole Councell decreed against it Concupiscence the Apostle calleth sinne but yet it is now no doctrine of the Roman Church for the contrary is decreed in the Trend Councell n Concil Trident. Sess 5. Hanc concupiseentiam quam aliquando Apostolus peâ—â—atum appeilat fancta synodus declarat Ecclesiam Catholicam nunquam intellexisse peccatum appellaâ—i quod verè propriè in renatis peccatum sit sed quâ—â— ex peccato est ad peccatum inclinat Si quis autem contrarium senserit anathema sit And many more may bee found out if I did desire to muster vp your iniquities in this kinde But it shall suffice for the present to referre the Iesuite and the Reader to the Catalogue of the right reverend the Lord Bishop of Derry o Lib. 3. de Antich cap 6. Catalogus veterum haeresum quas Ecclesia Romana renovâ—â—it c. which when Mr Malone or his whole Tribe hath fully answered I may conceive he had something besides his wilfulnes to breed his confidence in this opinion In his examination of the second exception against the Demaund hee hopeth to enervate it by his observations therevpon the first whereof is that therein the Answerer supposeth our catholicke Doctrine to bee that Apostasie which the Apostle speaketh of 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. p Reply pag. 5. And here our Iesuite wisely collecteth for the learned Primate doth neither acknowledge your Roman Church either in Diocesse or ad extra for Catholick neither your additions mixtures for Catholick Doctrine any more then Saul * 1. Sam. 10. 11 for a Prophet because he got amongst the Prophets as your deceipts have crept into the Creed But yet that by your corrupt mixtures and declinings is truly accomplished that Prophecy 1 Tim 4. hee makes little doubt And what abuse is done heerein to your glorious Synagogue why should not false doctrines and novelties fall before the auncient and radicall truth as Dagon †and false gods before the Arke Nay what doth the learned * 1. Sam. 5. 3. 4. Primate suppose that was not deprecatively expressed in your Trent-Councell by a Bishop q Cornelius Bishop of â—iton â—0 of your owne for if to fall from Religion to Superstition from Faith to infidelitie from Christ to Antichrist bee not an Apostasie let the Iesuite declare what it is But the Iesuite would faine know in what sence wee take Apostasie whether as it designeth an vtter Revolt from the faith of Christ which the Iesuite is confident they cannot bee charged withall Because elsewhere the learned Primate confesseth that men dying as hee saith in our Religion doe dye vnder the mercy of God r Reply pag. 5. What doth the Iesuite meane by this Doth he thinke the most learned Answerer by their Religion did poynt out Ignatius his plat-forme or the Religion of their Holies Francis and Dominick Were any of their other Religions conjectured at which are imployed to frame Christ a Religion by policie that their Master might obtaine a Monarchie by fraude Surely whatsoever the Iesuite may conjecture these will finde but little shelter for their securitie in that sermon But if this Interpretation square not who doth hee then meane by men dying in our Religion if those that lived in the Roman Communion then his collection is vayne also For who can doubt that some may bee saved there without casheering of the Apostasie tâ—eâ—ce Many followed Absalom * 2 Sam. 15. 11. that were true of heart and yet the Iesuite will not deny a Rebellion against David and falling away of the People from him The high places were not taken away and yet Asa's †◠Chron 25. 17. heart and many others no doubt were vpright all their dayes Iudas * Acts 1. 18. may betray Christ and hang Demas †2
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
wheredomes and fornications wherewith they defiled the Court of Rome and usurie in the highest degree i Nâ—ch Cleâ—â—â—ng in lib de corrupto Ecclesiae stam c. 10. Cardinalium qui Papae assident spiritus verba tumenâ—ia gestus tam sunt insolentâ—s ut si aâ—tifex quisque vellet superbiae simulachâ—um effingere nullâ congruentius tatiâ—â—â—id facere â—osset quam Cardinalis effigiâ—â— oculis inâ—â—â—â—iâ—m objectaâ—â—o Idem c. 12. Quis â—esciâ—â— â—ctionis schismaticâ— horrend am pâ—â—â—â—m per nequitiam Cardiâ—alium in Ecclesiae grâ—mium injectam c. Idem c. tâ— Quis immensam iâ—â—â—tâ—icabiâ—em voraginem ipâ—orum concupiscentiâ— ver bis â—quare valeat c. Idem c. 12. Transâ—o Simoâ—â—â—câ—â— aâ—â—d Papaâ— intercessioneâ— patrocinia veâ—alia corruptiones aut promotioneâ—â—â—â—pisâ—imâ—â— damnaâ—isâ—â—â—s quae omnes ferè istis auctoribus suasoribus â—iâ—bant c. Neâ— enumâ—rare volo câ—rum adulteria flupra â—oâ—â—icâ—â—â—ones quibus Romanam Curiâ—â—â—â—â—am nuâ—â— incâ—â—â—ant c. Neâ— refero usuras c. quâ ex causa nâ—â—mularioâ— supreme 〈…〉 non incongruâ—nâ—er â—oâ— quidam vocant And for their Cleargie how are they esteemed amongst themselves Aventine tearmes them in his time great wolves lustfull per sons adulterers ravishers of Virgins and Nunnes theives and Vsurpers Drones leacherous perfidious perjured ignorant asses wolves hypocrites k Aveâ—iniâ— l. 6. Annal. 〈◊〉 Cuâ— Oâ—iâ—â—â—apâ—oâ— â—iâ—â—â—â— luâ—â—â— liâ—idinoâ—os adulteros virginum sacratâ—rum foeminarum â—â—upra 〈…〉 cocosâ—â—â—liâ—â—â—s latroâ—â—â— argeâ—tarioâ— numâ—xâ—â—rioâ— â—ucos pecuniarum aucupes â—uâ—â—â—â—â—ditos peâ—â—â—do◠〈◊〉 literarum omnium penitus rudes imponiâ— Non audita loquoâ— â—â— quae â—isâ—e oculis video narro c. Albertus expresseth the rulers of the Church by the messengers of Antichrist supplanters of the flocke of CHRIST l Albertus in Evangel Iohan. c. 10 And how long they have continued this good opinion amongst all men the complaints and greife of men that have had any modestie in severall ages will declare m Hoâ—oriâ—â— Aâ—gust Dial. de praedest lib. Arbit Verte te ad Cives Babyloniae vide quales sint c. Alvares Pelagiâ—s de planâ—â—â— Ecclesiae Nic. 〈◊〉 de coâ—â—â—pto Ecclesi◠〈◊〉 Neâ—â—â—â— Berâ—â—â—dâ—â— alij Neither doth this age minister unto us any hope that their Doctrine is now of better efficacie though the Papacie be honoured with more glorious titles then ever it was before in regard they doe not as Luther is by them pretended to have done tearme only some dissolure persons swyne but all their Cleargie and Laytie also for so our Irish Regulars would have the Irish Bishops to be swinâ—â—erds their flock swine this being their argumeÌ„t to prove the Provincials of the Regulars to be greater Prâ—lates then the Bishops because the Pastor is knowne by his flocke Opilio digâ—ior est sâ—bâ—â—câ— A sheephâ—â—rd is better then a sâ—yâ—eheard n Consuâ—a â—â—â—iâ—ien Proâ—â—â—â— Superiores Regularium digniores sâ—nt Episcopis siquidem digâ—â—tas Pastoris petenda est ex condition◠〈◊〉 gregiâ— quemadmodum â—â—iâ—â—o dignior â—â— â—â—bulâ—o So that if the Iesuite make loosenes of conversation in some particulars an Argument against the truth of Religion and doctrine in the reformation and would thereby take away our kinred with the Primitive Church What may we conclude from the universall leprosie that hath by their owne confession over-growne both head and members throughout the Papacie But iâ— this manner of arguing from corrupt manners to corrupt doctrines be of small force as is acknowledged by themselves in so much that no inward Vertue in Bellarmines judgment is required to make one a part of the true Church o Bellarm. de Eccles miliâ—â—â—â—â— l. 3. c. 3. Vt aliquis aliquâ— modo dici possit pars veâ—â— Ecclesiae de qua Scripturâ—â— loquâ—nâ—â—r â—on â—â—taâ—â—â—s requiri ullam internam virtâ—â—eâ— Yet I am sure it is able to moderate this Vaunter from triumphing like the Pharisee God I thanke thee I am not like other men Luke â—8 9. But here our Answerer domandeth of me saith the Iesuite whether I be able to shew one point wherein they have broken that Harmonie which Irenâ—â—s commendeth in the Catholicke Church of his time I answere that I can very easily show it and make good withall what I said in my demand and 〈◊〉 which he keepeth such a vaine stirre to wit that the â—rotestants agreewith that ancient holy Church in very few points of Religion or rather to say better that they agree not in any one point at all p Reply pag. 76 How well able the Iesuite is or hath beene to make good whaâ— he said in his demaund wil be examined in the XIth Section Here we expect what point of Doctrine hee â—an finde out held by us wherein it will appeare that we vary from that Harmony which Irenaeus commendeth in the Catholicke Church of his time And for his orderly â—andling of this matter he puts downe Irenaeus his words as his Major Proposiâ—ion That Church which is spread throughout the whole World presenteth her faith as â—â— were dwelling in one house and likewise beleiveth as it were having on soule and one heart and uniformely preacheth teacheth and delivereth this faith amongst all nations having as it were one mouth q Reply Ibid. And now as if this repetition were our confusion he telleth us Our Adversaries neither have nor beleive any such Church therefore they keepe no such Harmony The Minor he is willing to prove by a twofold Mediâ—m First by what hath beene heeretofore produced by him concerning our disagreement which I hope the Reader hath observed will not serve his turne Secondly by a farre greater dissention which happeneth saith the Iesuite betwixt them and those Protestants with whom they pretend this Harmony in other Nations r Reply ibid. So that it seemes the Iesuite will first attempt to prove that wee bee not of that Church which keepeth Irenaeus his harmony and that he will reserve unto the last place the point he should prove to wit that we deny the Catholicke Church His best argument to manifest the first is the testimonies of some Lutherans Brownists and Puritans who disâ—â—aime and discard our Answerer and his Church as the Iesuite tells us from all this pretended harmony and agreement with him Å¿ Reply Ibid. And we say if they charge us so deepely as the Iesuite affirmes that this is not sufficient to prove his undertakings seeing that Doctor Stapleton denyes the Fathers and especially S. Hieroâ—e the priviledge of testimony when they write contentiously and with passion Stapleton â—rinc Doctriâ—â—l l. 67. Distinctio de his 〈◊〉 à pâ—â—â—ibus 〈◊〉 â—â—ae coâ—tentio â— scribuntur in verbis Hiero 〈◊〉 locum 〈◊〉 and therefore these rigide Lutherans though they befriend a Iesuite cannot in their disputes be allowed an inâ—allible priviledge Besides these Lutherans which the Iesuite urgeth if their words be as hee layeth them downe for I cannot come by their bookes doe
the Councell of Basill but also whole fraternities of Orders accused and charged with Schisme or Heresie Whatsoever in this Section followeth is but the tâ—arâ— of a Crocodile or the preaching of a Foxe an Homily made of what hath beene answered before That which we are now to examine is the Iesuites ensuing Discourse wherein he promiseth to shew that SECT XI OVr Answerer by Vanitie offereth wroâ—g tâ— Truth and Charity a Reply pag 87 This our Iesuite makes the Scope of his XI Section which he doubts not to make as manifest as he hath done his former undertakings with a nil ultrà I hope wee have given sufficient satisfaction saith he unto our Answerers deâ—aâ—â—nd when he enquired whether I was able to shew one point wherein he and his have broken that Harmony which Iraeneus commendeth in the Catholicke Church of his time b Reply pag 87 Mr Malone is not so good in his payments as banqueâ—oâ—ts for they will pay debts with good words but the Iesuite thinkes he can satisfie all with invectives and with the same Method wanting matter as they money to pay quarrels with the forme or by out-facing pretends the debt satisfied when poore man he hath onely snarled a little against the specialtie for that which he tearmes to be the holy Catholicke Church hath bene declared a Schisme and that the Catholicke Church is not inclosed within the mountaines but dispersed â—ver the face of the earth with which we communicate and are members hath beene sufficiently declared to which wee referre the Reader And now saith he aâ— we have â—ully â—â—swâ—red â—ntâ— his demaund so have we just cause to complaiâ—â— that he hath not given us any reâ—â—â—â—tion of that which I propoundâ—d when I dâ—sired him to tell whether of us both have the true Religion we who doe not disagree with the auncient Church in any one point or they who agree with it in very few and disagree in almost all Observe I pray you how vainely he shapeth his answere 〈◊〉 unto c Râ—â—lâ— pag 88 c. Indeed if that which the Iesuite affirmeth for graunted could as easily be proved as it is bouldly avouched saith the most reverend Primate the question would quickely be resolved whether of us both have the true religion But he is to understand that strong conceipts are but weake proofes and that the Iesuites have not beene the first from whom such brags as these have beene heard Dioscâ—rus the hereticke was as pâ—arte when hee uttered these speeches in the Councell of Chalcedon I am cast out with the Fathers I defend the doctrine of the Fathers I transgresse them not in any point and I have their testimonies not barely but in their verie bookes d Answ pag. â—â— Lâ—e here what a flourish of words he hath unfâ—ulded and not one to the purpose c e Reply pag â—8 You see that the most reverend Primate his Answere justly conceiveth that such a Proposition as the Iesuite desires to be resolved in supposeth that by the confession of our Church either antiquitie speakes onely for them and against our selves or else that the supposition is so cleare in it selfe that it cannot be denyed Then which nothing is more ridiculous and therefore you were a little too hastie M. Malone as the most learned Answerer tels you to â—ry out Whether of us both have the true Religion and might have done well indeed to have bethought your selfe more advisedly of that which you had undertaken to performe as also to have remembred the saying of the King of Israell unto Bâ—nhâ—dâ—d Let not him that girdeth on his harnesse boast himselfe as he that putteth it off For if you can convince us that we agree not with the auncient Church in any one point we will plead guiltie and confesse our errour if you can justifie your selves by the auncient doctrine of the Catholicke Church we will recanâ— the charge of Apostasie which now we deservedly cast upon you In the meane time we know that such as you can pretend with Dioscâ—rus the doctrine of the Fathers when indeed you exclude them and foyst upon the Christian world old Gibeonitish mustinesse of Decretall Epistles and false birthes to prove you to be ex genere antique when for all this your cheifest Heraulds stagger at your Pedigree so that his learned Answere is not a flourish of words but a detection of your follie who supposing in your Challenge that to be confessed by us which is the point in controversie would vainely flatter your selfe as if you had borne us downe with the weight of the authoritie of the Fathers and so astonished us therewith that we could not tell what to say for our selves whenas you had not layde downe so much as the name of any one Father at that time But you aske the question Why may not Dioscorus his peartenes in bragging so of the holy Fathers when they least of all made for him be applied unto our Answerer vainely boasting of them in the same nature rather then to us who have alledged their assured authorities for our cause so abundantly f Reply pag. 88 This is nothing to the purpose let him be like whom he will it is apparant by Dioscorus that men may pretend a propertie in that which is none of their owne as the Divell and the Pope in the kingdomes of the world which being granted it cannot be denyed but you may also pretend that Scriptures antiquity make for you when truely and re ver â they batter you and beate you downe And although it be nothing to the point controverted that the Iesuite speakes of Dioscorus yet we may consider it without offence He tels us Dioscorus was condemned and cast out for maintaining his owne opinion against that of the whole Councell g Reply pag. 88 Not so but an hereticall opinion hee might have varied from a whole Councell in a truth as your Panormitane insinuateth h Panorm super p. Decret Deelect etelec potestate c. signif Quod si Papa movere tur melioribus rationibus et auctoritatibus quam Concilium quod standum esset sententiae suae nam et Concilium potest errare c. In concernentibus fidem etiam dictum unius privati esset praeferendum dicto PAPAE si ille moveratur melioribus rationibus eâ— auctoritatibus novi veteris testamenti quam Papâ— And had our Answerer lived in those dayes would he not thinke you have received the like censure of the said Councell for denying unto the Pope that Supremacie i Reply pag â—â— c. A fancie the Councell you dare not stand to you in part except against it and in a point that comes neere the Supremacy k Binâ—not in Conc. Chaleed verb. Concilium Decretum illud act 16. quo Patres Concil absentibus legatis postea reclamantibus Constantinopolitanae sedi primatum attribuerunt ideo quod instar Romae caputiâ—â—perij effects primatum meruerit
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
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
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
that the most reverend Primate in that Historicall explanation did not discend to the ages of Wickliâ—â— or Husse and therefore could not bring them in for Pâ—lâ—ars of his successive Church The Iesuite further telleth us that they are confessed to be damned herâ—ticks h Reply â— 11â— but bringeth not any testimony for the same He that speaketh most bittâ—rly is O sâ—aâ—der against the Waldenses who taxeth their opinions as absurd c. But I hope wee are not tyed to belâ—ive him where it is apparant hee was altogether deceived That the most learned and holy Bishop Iâ—well did cast off the Waldenses as none of ours may bee imputed to this that hee bâ—held them as their persecutors painted them out with spots of Maâ—ichâ—isme and other hereticall errours But if the Iesuite will read that discourse which hee cavils at hee shall see that the heresies imputed to thâ—m were bred in the malicious minds of Papists who did therefore fâ—igâ—â— these opinions to be theirs because they reproached their dissolute lives and no otherwise i Girard Histor Franc. lib. 10. Quam vis pravis iâ—buti â—â—erint opinionibus non hoc taâ—en tantum Papae magnorum Principum odium in â—os concitabat quantum libertas orationis quâ dicâ—oâ—um Principum atque Ecclesiasticorum vitia morâ—s dissolâ—tos culpare ipsiusque Papae vitam actionâ—â— reprehendere consâ—everunt Haec praecipua res fuit quae universorum â—is conâ—â—avit odium quaeque â—ffecit ut plures â—efariâ— affingerentur â—is opiniones à quibâ—◠〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—ant alâ—â—â—â— Thirdly saith the Iesuite both Luther himselfâ— and all his followers doe make him the first Author of Protestanâ—y k Reply pag 110. What Luther the first that ever taught the doctrine professed by Protestants Those that are better read in story then our Iesuite confesse otherwise for Poplinerius acknowledgeth the Waldenses and Protestants to differ little and that this doctrine was preached and defâ—nded throughout Europe in France Spaine England Italy Germany and other Nations also l Popliâ—er hist Franc. lib. 1. â—dit aâ— 1581. fol 7. b Hi Albigenses invitis Principibus Christianis omnibus circa annum 1100 temporibus subsequentibus doctrinam suam ab eâ quam hodie PROTESTANTES amplectuntur parùm differentem non per Galliam solum totam sedâ—â—iam per omnes pâ—nâ— Europae oraâ— disseminârunt Nam Galli Hispani Angli Scoti Itali Germani Boâ—â—mi Sâ—xonâ—â— Poloni Lithuani gentes aliae â—am ad hunc diem pertinaciter defenderunt But I need not to stand in defence of that booke which doth defend it selfe and ever will against either the Iesuite or his fellow-labourers neither hath he urged any thing worthy observation against the same For there is no question but Luther did powerfully preach against Popish corruption and by his ministery together with others whom GOD raised up with him did publish the Gospell the light whereof for a long time they did disgrace and revile It is not enough to make Luther the Author of our Religion because after your Apostasie heâ— was one that at first did publickely and zealously preach the same When the Arians persecuted the Catholicke Faith eclipsed obscured it made it reputed Hâ—resie insomuch that the whole world m See before pag â—5 lit â— in marg was an Arian and Catholicke also in her owne judgment was the Catholicke faith afterwards published with zeale and victory the birth of Christian Religion the beginning of our Creed Nothing more triviall That which the Iesuite speakes afterwards of Luthers remorse of Conscience is ridiculous and might have beene spared for who can doubt but that in his â—calous performing of his duty in publishing the Truth of the Gospell of CHRIST the Divell did as violently assault him within as the Pope without thereby he was afflicted with as many superstitious feares within as outward terrors for the same reasons I suppose in regard the preservations of their kingdomes did depend upon it Now at last that he may conclude he casts up his Audit Sâ—â—ing that our Answerer cannot tell us that which we demaâ—nded to wit when or by whom our Catholicke Religion was first brought in n Reply p. 11â— Although there is no Injunction for it as hath beene shewed that he should answere your Demaund yet hee hath in all your particulars discovered your innovations which how it hath beene avoyded wil bee examined in their due place Yet the Iesuite telleth us that he will doe the Answerer the favour to tell him briefly where when and by whom his Protestant Religion was first begun o Reply p. 113. But I aske the Iesuite whether in his Conscience he is not checked for urging Calvin c with a corrupt minde when from their words he would have it concluded that the Catholicke Faith did first bâ—gin at Wittâ—nbergâ— I hope the Iesuite can consider that the repairing of the Temple was not the laying thâ— foundation of it neither David Hâ—â—â—â—hiah or Iosiah their regulating of things amisse a bringing in of a new law Teaching for doctrine the Traditions of men this makes a beginning but let the auncient of dayes be preached in the last times this is no Novâ—ltie no new thing But saith the Iesuite Loâ— here then the place where Wittenberge the yeare 1517 the day of the moneth the xxxi of Octâ—ber the day of the weekâ— Saturday yea the very houre of the day twelve of the clocke when first Protestancie was brâ—â—â—hed by Luther p Reply p. 1â—3 Nothing more fond Luther resisted Popish abuses such a day therefore the Faith preached by Luther did then first begin What did de make a new Gospell as some of you have attempted q See before pag. 330. 331 or frame a new Creed as you have lately done r See before 359. I desire the Iesuites evidence or his modesty his evidence to convict Luther or his modesty to condemne himselfe For if the opposing of Iâ—dulgences be the beginning of our Faith as the Iesuite doth insinuate Bellarmine will shew that he hath fayled both iâ— person time and place Å¿ Bellarm. de Indulgen l. â— c. 1. Primi qâ—â— indulgentias contempserunt oppugnârunt fuâ—ruâ—â— Waldenâ—â—â— Seqâ—â—tus est Valdenses Ioannes Wicleâ—â—â— Wicleâ—um seqâ—â—ti sâ—â—â— Hussitâ— Hos MAIORES PARENTES habâ—it Maâ—tinâ—s Lutherus And although he give Luther the name yet Bzovius will not have Luther but Staâ—pitius to have first begun the worke Bzovius Annal Eccles in ann 1517. num â— Staâ—pitius quoque quamvâ—â— PRIMVâ—â—apâ—dâ—m validâ—ori postea brachio vibrandum contra Ecclesiam conjâ—â—issâ—t sectâ— tamen cujus si non â—â—ctor certè promoâ—o◠〈◊〉 â—â—â—en darâ— non potuit sed â—â—rpiâ—â—dinem hanc Luthero reliquit And notwithstanding the Iesuite telleth us so confidently that Protestancie was first brâ—ached by Luther the yeare 1517. yet the same Author affirmeth that he disputed against them in the points oâ— free-will mâ—rits and traditions the yeare before Ibid. nuâ— 1â— Superiore poâ—â—o anâ—o 1516 Idem Lutherus disputavit conâ—ra Scholasticoâ— Theologoâ— de libero aâ—â—â—trio meritâ—s bonoâ—um opâ—â—â—â— traditionibuâ— Ecclesiasticiâ— â—asque propositioâ—eâ— Toâ—o 1. opâ—â—u◠〈◊〉 â—â—serâ—it â—◠〈◊〉 â—â—ique appaâ—eâ—◠〈◊〉 jam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So punctuall the Iesuite is that in the judgment of his owne he hath in every circumstance troad awry His repetition of Aâ—gâ—stines rule That Custome which â—en looking up into former tiâ—â—s doe not finde to have beene brought in by any that lived after the Apostles is rightly beleived to havâ— beene delivered by the Apostles themselves helpes neither them nor their cause for they never have nor ever wil be able to manifest either by our confession or otherwise that Roâ—ish customes have beene universally received neither can they defend them from Noveltie in their â—â—â—rance wherefore they may well bee cast forth into thâ— Dâ—nghill as wanting the Salt of Apostolicall institution for their seasoning So that S. Augustines Rule condemneth their Novelties and the GENENERALL CONTROVERSIE is cleared but indeed no otherwise then to the detection of their Egyptian Darkenes
omitted that with one breath hee affirmes their strongest tye and Vnion to the Crowne to bee the free exercise of their Religion So that if the King should but attempt to purge the Countrey of their Idolatry and suspend their presumption therein they could quickly evacuate their obedience and as their mocke-Bishop of Chalcedon d Doctor Bishops epistle to the King saith God knoweth what the forcible weapon of necessitie will driue them to at last And now hauing presumed himselfe and his brotherhood for good subiects the next thing he intendeth to declare is that they be true Christians also For my part as one of their own spake of the Queenes supremacie if she be not Head of the Church would she were So I of Iesuites for their Religion if they be not Catholicks would they were but I confesse I am as jealous of their sinceritie as he was of the Supremacie I distaste to sweare it The meanes by which he would confirme it is the generall and vniforme consent of the fathers which hee affirmeth to be the assured touch stone to try all controuersies and would perswade in some sort that wee jump with them forced thereunto by our multitude of variances and licentious wresting of the Scripture What dare not impudencie affirme wee neuer rejected Fathers nor any other testimony of antiquity neither denyed them their due reuerence and respect nay we haue giuen them more then Papists e Lud. Vives sch in Aug. de civit dei lib 20 cap 26 Itaque illa demum eis videntur edicta et consilia quae in rem suam faciunt reliqua non pluris aestimanda quam conventum mulier cularum in textrina vel thermis Index expurg Belgit pag â— edir Antwâ— 1571. Cùm igitur in Catholicis veteribus alijs plurimos feramus errores et extenuemus excusemus excogitato commento persaepè negemus et commodum iis sensum affingamus dum opponuntur in disputationibus aut in conflictionibus cum adversariis haue done not forced thereunto as his brazen complexion would perswade but out of a due regard to their diuine knowledge and learning Yet as we thinke that none can know God but by himselfe neither how he will be worshipped but by his owne revelation So for confirming matters of faith those things that pertaine to his diuine worship no tongue can tell nor authority confirme but virtually it must receiue it strength from sacâ—ed Page This the most learned Primate hath declared and it is often repeated by the Iesuite in fitting place shal be justisied against him Hee hath not yet come to his Dixi But craues his Majesties Princely clemencie with patience to heare the evidences of each side and hopeth withall to be made happie by his vpright doome What doth this Iesuite dreame of doth he thinke our royall Princes like some of their Popes to play fast and loose with religious decrees what are his Arguments stronger then Gun-powder that he hopeth to blowe his Maiestie from his Religion or would he begge the Defender from his faith or perswade the world that his Highnesse knoweth not her innocency that he protects and defends He closeth vp and promiseth fervent vowes for his Maiesties compleat felicitie And herein I am charitable to believe that he could heartily desire that his Maiestie and all other Princes of his faithfulnes were as great Saints in heaven as kings on earth And so he remaines his Maiesties most loyall subiect which I will believe ad Graecas Calendas when Iesuites leave to turne Martyrs f Aug epist â—â— Vivunt vtlatrones moriuntur vâ— Circumcelli ones he norantur vt Martyres Cyp de simplicitate Praelat Non erit illa fi dei corona fed poena persidiae nec religiosae virtutis exitus gloriosus sed desperationis interitus occidi talis potest coronari non potest and Mr Malone imbraceth his Maiesties allegiance by his oath The next thing that is presented is a Preface to the Christian Reader What wil hereafter become of a Anth Possevin Atheismus-Protestantium b Guliel Reignald Calvino-Turcismus for let this Iesuite speake in earnest or in iest Permissu Superiorum we are Christians in Print To excuse his long delay in sending vs this Iewell hee vseth many pretences and at last as to his bulwarke he flyeth to recrimination as if it were Apologie sufficient for his vnfashionable and long expected Reply as he in effect tearmeth it that the Answere he hath replyed vnto lay groaning six whole yeares and more vnder the Authors pen and little lesse then foure in the Presse Here we shall finde newes from Creet Some ten yeares since at the intreatie of a Protestant Knight Mr Malone saith he penned a certaine demaund Little lesse then tenne yeares the answer was in compiling imprinting if wee believe the Iesuite What shall become of the three or foure yeares since it saw the light surely here is Crimen falsi either Mr Malone or the Iesuite hath read * Graecia mendaâ— Herododotus Besides it plainly appeareth by the †In the beginning of the Lord Primates Epistle to the Reader Epistle to the Reader that there were not tenne whole yeares from the Iesuites Challenge being sent 1618 to the time of the Jesuites answer printed 1627 which must needes convince the Iesuite of notorious falshood in this particular Now as the Iesuite hath many times kept backe from the most reverend Primate his deserved titles so in relating the occasion of his proposition or demand he affordeth him one that was never his owne and of a Chancellour maketh him a Deane of a new foundation Deane of Finglas What might cause this his tender respect shall we imitate him enquire whether it was his charitie Surely wee can not be taken with such a thought that pen which hath endangered his credit hath certainly crazed his Charitie it so violently raves It may be we inquire amisse whilst we seek at home did not the Iesuits fellow-labourers of an other clyme being ignorant of S. Patrick his foundation give this courtesie by escape thinke not such a thought Master Malone is a learned Divine It hath beene spread abroad by some of the Iesuites familiars that the most learned Primate was a good antiquary but for a divine Master Malone etc a transcendent Varro and yet Dignitas Decani is a booke was never in his Library But howsoever he escape heere wee haue iust ground from hence to suspect him in his farre-fetched reportes his miracles especially when truth forsaketh him within two miles of his owne home Hee ceaseth not heere but repeates his Articles and cryeth out Master Vsher hath mistearmed his worke by calling it a Iesuites Challenge when hee propounded but a simple demand I confesse here the most reverend Primate did mistake in taking him for a Champion when he proves but a Criple Yet pardon his escape hereafter he will take him as hee is fitter to aske
n Cap 21. hath published a Booke in French translated into English whereby hee hath prooved it to bee an vnjust proceeding to deny the change happened to the Church vnder pâ—â—tence that the authors time and place of it cannot be specified And also Doctor Fulke o In his answer to a counterfite Catholick ar 11. â— 24 hereto agreeth that when the Scripture telleth vs that the Mysterie of iniquitie preparing for the generall defection and revelation of Antichrist wrought even in Saint Paules time 2. Thess 2. it is folly to aske whether suddenly and in one yeare all Religion was corrupted and if Mr Malone will have more hee shall not want numbers of our owne to witnes our consent heerein May not this shamelesse Iesuite blush then to produce Fulke and Whitaker and the rest to have answered this question when they conclude it vaine and of no necessity and never dreamed of answering the same For all the Quotations of the Iesuite out of our Authors doe not expresse one word of answere to his question Fulke speaketh of the time that the Pope began to blind the world Napier of the beginning of the Popes Papisticall and Antichristian raigne Brokard of the Popes falling from Christ Leigh sheweth his opinion how long the Popes have beene Divells Winckelman relates the different opinions touching the beginning of the 42. monethâ— in the 11. of the Revelation Whitaker coniectures at the last true and godlie Bishop of the Roman Church and so in like manner the rest of the learned men mentioned by him but there is not one of them whose words he expressely layeth downe that answeres the question What Bishop of Rome did first alter that Religion which you commend in them of the first 400 yeares or In what Popes dayes was the true religion over-throwne in Rome To this question from his owne words wee may proove a consent that this observation of times seasons doth often fayle and that they are not so easie to be discerned as fooleâ— are borne in hand they are For heerein with the learned Answerer doth Powell and the learned Whitaker agree yea so consonant are they in their resolutions that the learned Answererin this Iesuites observation seemeth to be spit out of Whitaker his mouth and Mr Powell hee confesseth agreeth with them The difference is not in answering this question In what Popes dayes was the true religion over throwne but In what Popes dayes did the revelation of the Antichristian tyrannie beginne The Iesuite may know there is a distance betwixt the blading of Antichrist his tyrannie whereby it became visible and the power of it the blading was but a preparation for evill the power and authoritie it got afterwards was that which brought these frauds and corruptions in whereby it appeareth that there is great difference in these questions and that worthy Whitaker was no weather-cock as this Buzard tearmeth him Yet notwithstanding we doe not deny that as Hectick agues whose beginnings are obscure declare themselves to Physitians by divers symptomes of the bodies decay waste whereby one Physitian at one time by one signe another by an other in a different houre may judge of the disease though from divers symptomes yet all aright So have our Divines done some perceiving the symptomes of Apostacie in the Church at one time some at another have declared the appearing of this defection fore-told some from one Popes tyrannie some from another Some saw this Apostacie by symptomes of notorious pride as in Boniface the third Others by out-daring impieties when Dagon images and idols were put vp in the Church of God Others by open vilenes and prophâ—nesse visible to Parasites p Plat. in Iohan 13. Onuph annot in Plat Iohan. â— themselves when your monstra and pertenta opened heaven gates But what is this to the Iesuites demaund the question that he is to exempt from vanity concerneth the time of the alteration or overthrowe of the true or the so much commended Religion of the first 400. or 500. yeares The Apostacie or defection began indeed in the Apostles time and the seedes of Antichristianisme were layde for the sixe following ages q See the most reverend Lord Primate in his book de Christ Eccl. success statu pag. 16. 17 18. and yet no Papist to bee found no such visible alteration that thereby religion should bee overthrowne About the sixt Centurie some of these tares began to blade and yet all the good grayne not vtterly choaked whereby the Iesuites question appeareth more vaine For consider this Apostacie in its beginning or inchoation then it not apparantly altered much lesse overthrew the Catholick faith consider it in the encrease although it assaulted Religion yet neither wholly or in any fundamentall part did it alter the same consider it when it came to more perfect ripenes if there be any perfection in Apostacie as in the latter Centuries doe not thinke that we conclude the Church of God overthrowne because that Antichrist playeth the Tyrant therein So that Mr Covell sayth nothing of the alteration or overthrow of catholick faith when he speaketh of the beginning of Apostacie His last objection is taken from S. Augustine his rule that whatsoever the vniversall Church vseth if no time can be found when that vse began it must necessarily be derived from the very Apostles themselves r Reply pag 4. We need not to question this ground although S. Augustine gave this rule not to discerne points of faith by for he knew they were in the divine word plenarily contained but ceremonies and matters belonging to Ecclesiasticall practise For can we thinke the Fathers in S. Augustine his dayes were so ignorant of the catholicke rule of faith that they must leane vpon such a conjecture as this for points fundamentall of necessary beleife Shew me one Councell that decreed any point of faith by the bare strength of this rule if you can I can shew you a point of practise that had all that this rule could give it as Childrens necessary eating the Eucharist Å¿ Maldon in 6. Iohan. Aug. de peccator merit remiss lib. 1. c. 24. and yet is rejected both by the doctrine practise of your Traditiondefenders Yet may we iustly reproove this Iesuites assertion that dare affirme those points vniversally held and practised by the Church at the time as he cals it of Luthers revolt then which nothing is more grosse for if he meane the very waiters of the Roman Mistresse Sylvester Prierias his representative Church the Pope and his Cardinalls they will not be found to agree in the points mentioned but did differ amongst themselves And for the Catholicke Church let him proove it if hee bee able for bare words will not sway it Yet if this will serve their turne we shal be able to proove that in the Catholicke Church these points were never generally received take the Church for the vniversall body of the
faithfull and not for a handfull of Donatisticall Romanists Nay this may bee manifested by Romanists themselves who although they yeelded outward conformitie to the practise and held communion with the Roman Church have yet notwithstanding loathed the burden and complained of the tyrannie t In Rhemensi Concilio coram Innocentio II. anno 1131. Bernard Etsi reddenda est ratio de his quae quisque gessit in corpore suo heu quid fiet de his quae quisque gessit in corpore Christi quod est Ecclesia Ecclesia Deâ— vobisâ—â—mmissa est dicimini 〈◊〉 sitis raptores Et paticos habemus heu pastores multos autem excommunicatores Et vtinam sufficeret vobis lana lac sititis enim sanguinem Ioh Sarithur in Poly cratic lib. 6. cap 24. Romana ecclesia quae mater omnium ecclesiarum est se non tam matrem exhibet aliis quà m norercam c. Sed ipse Romanus Pontifex omnibus gravis ferè intolerabilis est c. Petr. Aliac de Reformat Eccles ad hanc statum venit Romana Ecclesia vt non esset digna regi nisi pâ—â—reprobos thereof as they have expressed in their best and most selected thoughts Secondly where he saith that we have all 〈◊〉 Records common amongst our selves the lives the names the nations tymes actes and deeds both good and bad of all Popes so carefully registred that the least Ceremonies have beene observed by whom and when they were first ordained u Reply pag. 4. We have some God be praised preserved by his gracious providence contrary to the desire of their politick Consistory yet we make no question that many were lost which would have pleaded for vs and confounded them and not a few concealed by them who were never so vnwise vnlesse by escape to publish their owne frauds for their enemies advantage Further it is improbable that the true Registers of Papall filth which could not preserve their persons from fire or tyrannie should exempt their bookes and registries from the flame So that there might be crosse-legged Popes and contradicting councels in the midst of the Roman Monarchy and yet not delivered to posterity For they themselves will perswade that things that are registred in Councels were not done and why might not we conceive with more truth and probabilitie that many things were done in Councels which were never registred Thirdly he vrgeth that not-withstanding all our curious prying into all sortes of bookes scroules papers c. yet never to this day could any one instance be brought of any Pope that defined any point of religion contrary to what his predecessors had before declared nor of any lawfull generall Councell that ever condemned any article of faith formerly established by others or yet established any that had beene before lawfully condemned Reply ibid. Who doth not see that this is a silly shift of the Iesuite to confound the vnderstanding of his Reader For to excuse Liberius their Pope that subscribed to Arianisme he puts in defined 2ly to excuse all the rest he addes contrary to what his predecessors had before declared as if any Pope in the time of lawfull generall Conncels did either decree or declare any matters of faith in this Iesuites sence And therefore casting from him and his the ragged mantle by which they would conceale their attempts and presumptions we first charge them and justly for decreeing new additionall articles of faith which were at first made practicall in the Roman Church onely and there but by degrees Secondly they obtained the opinion of customes yet no further but of the Church of Rome and afterwards were crowned as of faith by your non-erring decrees and by this meanes many came to be of faith in the Roman Church as it is declared in your whole dozen by the most learned Answerer which is sufficient I thinke to shew that you have corrupted the rule of faith Who knoweth not that never any additionall point of Popery got strength in a day in a session of Councell in a Popes tyrannie neither in a whole age For these supercilious Masters minding themselves and their temporall monarchy not that which concerned the glory of God the successor began where his predecessor ended never attempting to decree any point for doctrine till by secret and mysticall deceite those false grounds by the generality Wadding sect 2 Nec coÌ„sultum tunc putavit vltimâ sententiâ rem definire aut pro pia opinione definitionis ferre iudicium quando adhuc 〈◊〉 egregios habuit affirmative faâ—tores noluit immodicè vel amplius Adversarios exulcerare c. of the factious parasites y See the same practise of their Popes at this day in the point of immaculate conception of the blessed virgin had bene presented to and received by some of the sincerer cleargy Further we charge you not for determining against those catholicke fundamentall truthes which were originally and vniversally received for this had bene too grosse for the bringers in of the mystery of iniquity such a worke would have bene espied the person time and place by whom where and when this had bene acted would not have bene hid But this is not the thing that you are charged with neither will we say in terminis that you are guiltie of it yet although you have not bene so openly impudent your practises have not beene altogether exempted from filth though effected by more secret frauds We know it is impossible that any councels could decree contrary to these new articles of faith vnlesse they would determine negationem rei before the thing it selfe were knowne or vnderstood For doe you not charge vs that our heresies consist in the denyall of many principall points of faith calling them negative refutes z A. C. his true Relations of sundry Conferences pag. 62. c how then can that be denied by an antecedent Pope or Councell the affirmative whereof never had birth but afterwards received life by customes and decrees of men Shew mee a Canon in terminis against Aarons calfe before it was made and worshipped or against the doctrine of Balaam before it was published and we will shewe you Popes and Councels decreeing against traditions of faith carnall presence Images c. before they were ever heard of in the catholicke church So that this is but a meere device to save their credits for although the Roman Apostacy be seene aâ—well in the corruption of the doctrine of faith as manners yet this corruption is by addition which may be without any such crosse opposition as the Iesuite doth suppose For faith being like gold it may be defyled by addition or corrupt mixtures but all the tyranny of the world or gates of hell by crosse opposition cannot destroy it Yet letting those points which are specified by himselfe passe it will not be so hard a thing to proove that councels which you have accounted lawful and generall with your Pope
sim 4. 10 and others fall from heaven to earth and yet the Apostles and Diseiples adhere to their Master When the whole world in a manner communicated with the Arians were none safe but Athanasius Å¿ Athanas in epist ad solitaâ—â—am vitam agentes Christi standiosi vt magnus ille Pâ—pheta Elias abscondebantur in speluncas cavernas terrae sese abstrudebant aut in solitudine oberrantes commorabantur Hieronymâ—â—on Luciferian Ingemuerit totus Orbis Arianum se â—â—se miratus sit Gregorius Valent Analys l 6. cap. 4 § Probatio 4 Novimus c. cum Arianorum perfidia in orbe penè to to dominabatur c not those which were ignorant of their heresies who if they had knowne them would have abhorred their corruptions t Aug. epist 162. ad Donat Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam perversam nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt 〈◊〉 quam non aâ—daciâ— praesumptionis 〈◊〉 pepererunt sed à seductis aâ—qâ—e in errorem lapsis parentibus acceperunt quaerunt autem cautâ soliciâ—udine veritatem corrigi parati cum invenerint nequaquam sunt inter Haereticoâ— reputandi Were all the Papists in Queene Elizabeths time damned which joyned in Communion with the Churches of England and Ireland The learned Primate is not so vncharitable as to judge perdition to everie one in the Roman Communion and yet hee doubteth not but that the Apostasie was there Who knowes not that the Roman Pale includeth a Church as well as a Faction and though at the best it bee but a Pest-house as the most reverend Primate fitlie styles it yet hee doth not thinke it impossible but that some poore Soules which had more love to Christ then knowledge of the Doctrine of Popish faith might through the mercy of God u Cypr. Epist 63 13. Si quis de anteeessoribus nostris vel ignorantèr vel simplicitèr non hoc observavit tenuit quod nos Dominus facere exemplo magiâ—â—erio 〈◊〉 docuit potest simplicitati ejus de indulgentia Domini venia concedi nobis verò â—â—â—â—â—terit ignosci qui nunc à Domino admoniti instructi simus escape such infection and contagion which is deadly and mortall whereas the poyson of Apostasie will never leave the grand Masters till it hath brought them to confusion and ruine And this is all he speaketh for the Iesuite's Religion But hoping wee will not charge them with an vtter Revolt he enquires whether wee by Apostasie vnderstand Heresies which doe not so openly oppose the foundation of Christian faith but come cloked with Hypocrisie and vnder the name of Pietie for if wee acknowledge this then howsoever some Heresies doe oppose the foundation of Christian faith more openly then others yet all of them doe still come cloked with the name of Pietie and have beene alwayes observed by the diligent watchmen of Gods house in their very beginnings Reply pag. 6. How doth this take away the learned Primate's just exception For while he distinguisheth of Heresies that oppose the foundation some more and some lesse openly and all cloked with Pietie and vrgeth that all these open heresies were observed in their beginnings what doth hee proove but that which was confessed before For wee acknowledge that Heresie whether more or lesse openly opposite to the foundation hath beene more or lesse observed 〈◊〉 by the Pastors of the Church but yours are of an other nature they were not Heresies at the first but seedes onely or at least appeared not to be so but came in as Pietie when Heresie was closed and sealed vp in a Mysterie and not seene at all Besides this there is nothing vrged by the Iesuite of any weight to take away this Answere He sayth that all Heresies came cloked with the name of Piety and for this he bring three examples to proove his generall conclusion The first of Origen for the salvation of Divels The second he imputeth to Tertullian which was begunne by Montanus y Alphons de Castro adver Haer lib 11. De nuptiis Hujus haeresis authores sunt Cataphryges quo rum princeps fuit Montanus Eundem errorem postea docuit Tertullianusqui ersâ— prius contra Cataphryges pro hae re pugna verat posteatamen ad Caâ—aphryges iediit eorum defendens errorem Bzovius ann 172. Porro quod dogmata Montani attinet sunt haec deâ—inia quae docebat Secundas nuptias velut forâ—â—cationem damnabat c. against second Marriage The third Montanus his rigorous fasts z Pag. 6. Which kinde of arguing as it is not concludent for how followeth it that because three heresies have a shew of Pietie therefore all So the same makes nothing against the Answerer it being granted For who doubteth that Heretickes have alwayes pretended Pietie and that their birthes have beene so presented to the world that they have borne some shew of truth and further that judgments not divinely enlightened have received them many times with religious applause and yet they have beene resisted and opposed by those which had more cleare eyes and could see aright But doth it therefore follow that the bundle of Heresies included in the grand Apostasie wrought by the man of Sinne at different times in a mysterie which must expect a time for Revelation * 2. Thess 2â— 6. 7. should be detected in the first houre of their birth by circumstances of person time and place Many heresies have carried a shew of Pietie but some have beene so mystically delivered that they have received her name Some with their shewe cannot hide their substance their expresse contradiction of Scripture as those of Origen and Montanus which displeased every weake eye and therefore in these circumstances required might easily be detected But these mysticall a Anselmâ— in â— Thess 2. Mysterium quia viderur occultum quia tales operarii ostendunt se velut ministros aut famulos Christi cùm revera sint ministri Antichristi Nam iniquitas â—orum est mystica id est pictatis nomine palliâ—ta ones are of another nature so cloaked that their impietie was hid so presented to the world that they are accompted Piety if you demaund their mother as the Saracens Sarah they dare cry the Church if their Father as the Pharisees to Abraham * Ioh. 8. 39. they dare looke to heaven if you question their Antiquity they like the Gibeonites †Iosh 9. 3. â—â— pretend the Apostles and plead the Apocrypha if Vniuersalitie they are travaylers and as they say throughout the world yet this is but Orbis Romanus the Roman Church Doe you thinke these Vagrants and Wanderers which can bush and brake for their owne safetie are so easily detected as those down-right youths which in their first appearance tell what they are by their face and compleâ—â—â—â— Is there no difference betweene a face muffled with pretences barely and painted with equivocall colours It is not pretending Pietie in heresie neither
pag. 1â— This Iesuite wanteth honesty otherwise he would not observe with falshood and jealousie that for which there is no ground in the most reverend Primates words For first he speaketh not of the Iesuit alone but of all his Tribe and do you thinke it is so hard a thing to find some of you asking What yeare the Religion of the Papists came in prevailed Whether all nations suddenly and in one yeare were moved to the doctrine of the Papistes Whether in a moment the masse was said in stead of other Apostolicke communion p See Doctor Fulks answere of a true Christian to a Counterfeite catholicke Is it not your owne Demaund In what Popes dayes was true Religion overthrowne in Rome and when you come to explaine your selfe in your Reply is it not the certaine time which you demaund of us page 1. and the precise time page 14. Secondly saith the Iesuite I observe false logick to wit Because Fisher Caietan or Valentia cannot tell therefore none else can tell q Reply pag. 13 This is none of the most learned Primates inference but the Iesuites Yet I dare say that it is better logicke then the Iesuite hath usually replyed withall For may not one argue from a probable ground but it must destroy the whole Systeme of Logick drive Aristotles Topicks out of his Organon Fisher Caietan Valentia not Punies though Mr. Malone seeme to sleight them but great Rabbins of Popish Divinity nay I thinke I may say the greatest without deserving censure cannot tell therefore none can tell is a probable argument and not false Logicke as this sixt Predicable would have it For if the best learned caÌ„not find out the time when these Customes c. were first brought in it is a vehemeÌ„t if not a violent presuÌ„ption that poore Punies cannot finde that out If a Sheriffe that hath posse CoÌ„mitatus returne non est inventus vpoÌ„ a persoÌ„ a Catchpole will scarse find out the fugitive And I thinke it is good logick for I am sure it is good reasoÌ„ that if Fisher Caietan Valentia cannot tell this Iesuite as he hath done may well hold his peace Yet here is more logick theÌ„ the Iesuite 〈◊〉 see or at least theÌ„ he hath observed for Valentia saith minimè coÌ„stat it doth not appeare wheÌ„ that Custome of receiving the sacrameÌ„t in one kind did first get footing in some Churche Fisher Câ—ietan say that no certainty can be had by whoÌ„ Indulgences were first brought in or what was their original r See them veged by the most reverend the Lord Primate in his answer to the Iesuit's challenge pag. 3 therefore it will follow necessarily that all the wise men in the Roman Church are not able to set downe the precise or certaine time wherein these Novelties did first arise vnlesse the Iesuite will despise the iudgments of their learned Cardinall their highly esteemed Bishop and his owne Valentia Againe Because Valentia cannot tell when the Custome of receiving the Sacrament in one kind began in some particular Churches therefore we know not when it was first vsed in the Church at all whereas it is shewen to have beene first brought in by Christ his Apostles Å¿ Reply pag. 13 Here is impudeÌ„cy would make an Ethiop blush for what can be more fowle theÌ„ to fasteÌ„ those things vpoÌ„ this most reverend Lord which he never intended neither can bee collected froÌ„ his wordes But the Iesuite frames argumeÌ„ts that he may with more facility answer theÌ„ the most reverend Primates are not so easily digested That which hee collecteth froÌ„ Valentia is that the vse of receiving the sacrament in one kinde began first in some Churches grew to be a generall custome in the latine Church not much before the Councell of Constance in which at last to wit 200 yeares ago this custome was made a law SecoÌ„dly that it doth not appeare when first that Custome did get footing c And out of this confession c. he observeth What little reason these men have to require us to set downe the precise time wherein all their prophane novelties were first brought in seeing this is more then they themselues are able to doe * See the most reverend the Lord Primate in his answere to the Iesuites challenge pag â— Which observatioÌ„ or inference the Iesuit durst not touch as being too well guarded by the premisses if Valentia may be beleived for him to avoyd For suppose one should say speake as true as Valentia that the plague or a leprosie as heresy is did begin first in some Provinces was afterwards scattered throughout the Roman Empire and should further adde that it doth not appeare wheÌ„ first that infectioÌ„ did get footing in some Provinces Doth it not necessarily follow that all men must be ignorant when the ContagioÌ„ or Leprosie first infected the Empyre So that if this Iesuite had framed his argumeÌ„t truly according to this most reverend Lords collection it would have made him gape for an answere Valentia that speaketh truth for wee must not thinke that a Iesuit can lye telleth vs that the receiving of the SacrameÌ„t in one kind did first begin in some churches at a time that doth not appeare afterwards got by custome into the Latine being made a law by a decree at Constance therfore it is more theÌ„ your selves can do to tell wheÌ„ this custome got footing in the Church at all And further if Valentia did coÌ„tradict himselfe saying at one time that this custome was brought in by Christ and his Apostles at another that it began first in particular churches so spread at a time that doth not appeare let the Iesuite bedaube him with an excuse or condemne the waverer And againe Because Fisher Caietan grant that no certainty can be had by whom Indulgences were first brought in therefore they must be profane novelties wheÌ„ as both Fisher Caietan ground theÌ„ vpon the word of God condemning him of another untruth when he affirmeth that they give us to understand how no certainty can be had what their originall was u Reply pag. 13 Here the Iesuite is driveÌ„ to the like inventioÌ„ for the learned Answerer maketh no such infereÌ„ce His intentioÌ„ there being onely by Popish witnesses to prove that you know not the originall of some points of your faith to discover thereby your vanity in requiring of vs the precise time of their birthes Profane novelties he stileth not these alone but all your other after-byrthes also yet proveth theÌ„ prophane and new in his most learned answere following And although the most reverend Primate intended in this place no such thing yet if a Popish Martyr and Cardinall beare not false witnesse they wil be little better then prophane and novelties also by their testimonies For if Indulgences be such a point of faith that no certainty can be had what their originall was or by whom they
they list interpreting it according to the times how they pleasâ— d Epistola 2. Nich. de Cusa Card. de usu commu ad Boâ—emoâ— Ecclesia hodierna non ita ambulat in ritu communionis sicut ante ista tempora quando sanctissimi viri utriusque speciâ—i Sacramentum necessarium esse vi praecepti Christi et verbo opere aâ—â—â—uebant Poâ—â—â—â— ne tunc Ecclesia â—rrare Certè non Quod si non quomodo id â—â—diè verum non est quod tunc omnium opinione affirâ—abatur cùm non sit alia Ecclesia ista quam 〈◊〉 Ceâ—â—â— hoc te non movent quod diversis temporibus alius alius ritus sacrisiciorum at etiam 〈◊〉 stante veritate invenitur scripturasque esse ad tempus 〈◊〉 et vaâ—â—â— intellectas ita â—â—uno tempore secundùm currentem universalem 〈◊〉 â—â—poâ—â—rentur mutato 〈◊〉 iterum sententia mutaretur SECT V. How vainely our Answerer betaketh himselfe to the Scriptures againe IN all this Section we finde nothing but what the most learned Answerer before stiled a sleight a In his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge pag 11. for where will he manifest the most reverend Lord scared with the auncient Church whose testimonies he is assured afflict these worst and last times but that he might first give the sacred Scriptures the precedencie which is due to the word of God and that he might not erect a new faith which was never builded upon the foundatton of the Apostles and Prophest b Ibid. Now let us see to what purpose the Iesuite hath heere spent his paines He it should seem was willing to finde out a way whereby the true Religion might be knowne and first hee taketh it for graunted that the Primitive Church of Rome held the true Religion for the first 500. yeares Secondly that this true Church of Rome did generally hold the chiefe Articles of Religion pointed out by himselfe in his demaund and then would have men to judge of true points of Religion by the testimony of that Church c See the â—â—â—â—ites Reply pag. 29. The most learned Answerer in this place saith nothing to these things in particular but to the Iesuites whole frame which he maketh a rule to finde out true Religion by arguing it first as a needlesse labour secondly as a tedious rule in regard matters in controversie might be brought to a shorter tryall thirdly as derogating from the Word of God that Rocke upon which alone wee build our faith from which no sleight that they can devise saith he shall ever draw us d See the 〈◊〉 reverend Lord Primaâ—â— his Answer pag. 11 Vpon this the Iesuite hath almost spent a whole page to prove that the sayings and authorities of those auncient Fathers are sufficient to prove what their opinion was e Reply pag. 29. in the points controverted as if the most learned Answerer had denyed that which in the very place alledged by the Iesuite he undertaketh to make good viz r that the Fathers writings fortifie the Catholicke cause against the Pope his party And this we say saith the most learned Answerer not as if we feared that these men were able to produce better proofes out of the writings of the Fathers for the part of the Pope then we can doe for the Catholicke cause when we come to joyne in the particulars they shall find it far otherwise f In his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge â— Gregor de Valen. Analys Fidei l. 8. c. 8. Fatendum est raro accidere posse ut quae sit Doctorum omnium uno tempore viventium de religione sententia satis cognoscâ—tur Sunt enim Catholici Doctores in Ecclesia ubique diffusa plurimi qui proinde omnes nec facile congregari nec interrogari possunt quid senâ—iâ—nt Whereby it is cleare that the Iesuite hath altogether fought with his owne shadow or the Iesuite Valentiag having not assaulted either word or passage of the most learned Answerers For if this most reverend Lord had accepted the rule I doubt not but he would have acknowledged the Fathers able to relate their owne beliefe and would further have accepted them as sole Umpier but accompting this but a Iesuiticall shift to avoide the true touchstone or ground of faith the holy Scripture he tells him that alledge what authority you list without Scripture and it cannot suffice which the Iesuite did observe although he is unwilling to take notice of it in regard hee supposeth that the Answerer will not be satisfied herewith h Reply pag. 29 This dispute sheweth that the Iesuite hath not beene so well imployed as the Emperour for in all this his fishing ne musca quidem he hath not caught a Fly and therefore the good man is sleepie that thinketh the Answerer hath for got himselfe for although he should graunt the first that the primitive Church of Rome held the true Religion of Christ for the first 500. yeares it will not needes follow that whatsoever points the Fathers of that Church generally held without the Scriptures should be points of true Religion For then every point of Morality Philosophy Rhetorick 〈◊〉 should be points of true Religion and this is crossed in the Greeke Church which is a true one but yet notwithstanding may not bee justified in every particular that they generally handle Neither dare the Iesuite admit the consequent for then the points of the blessed Virgins conception in originall some k Canus â—oâ— Theol. l. 7. c. 1 n. 1. n. 3. receiving of the Sacrament by children l Rejoynder pag. 25. and the opinion of the Millenaries m Sixtus Senens Bibl. sancta l. 5. c. 233. of the vulgar reading of the Scriptures n Rejoynder p. 139. 14â— 145. communion in both kindes o Rejoynder pag. 116. that the bookes of Toâ—y Iudith and the Macchabees are Apocryphall p Rejoynder pag. 166. must be points of true Religion Nay further the Iesuite urgeth that the most learned Answerer elsewhere confesseth that those which dye in the communion of the Church of Rome at this day dye under the mercy of God q Reply pag. 5 which surely this most reverend Lord would not have granted to them if he had not beene perswaded that they beleived aright in the foundation of faith and yet he doth not take any Church since the Apostles times to have beene more corrupt or full of errour then your owne So that a particular Church as the Roman may in some of her members be true in the foundation of faith and yet tainted with many corruptions both of manners and doctrine Is not this plaine by many of S. Paul his Epistles by the Church of Pergaâ—â—s * Revel â— â—4 And therefore the Iesuite may consider how weake a rule hee would perswade us to follow as if this argument were concludent because we hold a particular Church a true Church therefore that Church
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
Pont. l 4. c. 7 Cyprianus pertinaciter restitit Stephano Pontifici doâ—â—â—ienti haereticos non rebaprixandâ—â— ut patet ex Epistola ejusdem Cypriani ad Pompeiâ—â— tamen non solum non fuit haereticus sed neque mortaliter peccavit et tamen Ecâ—â—esia Cypriaâ—um ut sanctam colit qui non videtur unquam resipuisse ab illo suo error To the African Bishops in the cause of Appeales Å¿ Epist Bonifacii â— ad Alex. Episc Aurelius enim praefatae Carthaginensis Ecclesiae olim Episcopus cum câ—llegis suiâ— instigante Diabolo superbire temporibus praedecessorum noâ—â—â—orum Bonifacii atque Coelestiâ—i contra Romanam Ecclesiam coepit Sed videâ—s se modo peccatis Aurelij Eulalius à Romanae Ecclesiae communione segregatum humiliam recognovit se pacem communionem Romanae Ecclesiae petens subscribendo non cum collegis suiâ— damnavit Apostolica auctoritate omnes Scripturas quae adversus Romanae Ecclesiae privilegia factae quoquo ingenio fuerunt Must all Africa not afford one Bishop that is catholick or Lay-man that is a right Christian and true Catholicke How are they acknowledged Martyrs How Saints Besides I wonder that this truth never appeared in Canon of Councell nor was ever registred by the Fathers in the ages mentioned with generall consent For that phrase upon this rocke I know the Church is built meaning S. Peters chaire I dare say with reverence to S. Hierome that it was either upon Christ or Peters confession of Christ to bee the Sonne of God as the Fathers in multitudes doe interprete it or upon Peter himselfe whom your owne would have thâ— rocke and not upon Peters â—haire which was not of such an unmooveable stability â—s that rocke ought to bee upon which the Church is builded Further I thinke Mr Malone will not deâ—y that the foundation of the Church was layde before Peter had any chaire either at Antioch or at Rome and if hee say S. Hierome meant not his chaire but in relation to Peter then who can deny but all the Apostles are rockes as Peter was Petrae omnes Apostoli All the Apostles are rockes upon which the Church is built saith Origen t Origen in Mat. hom 1. The Iesuite proceedes and brings two places from St Augustine if we will believe him to bee the Author of the questions of the old and new testament For to make this other then a counterfeit he shall never bee able but what saith he that may procure such an universal preheminence to this onely Father Why hee is called caput fidelium Head of the faithfull u Reply pag. 51. So may every Preist in his Parish unlesse his flocke be Infidels And for the other title Pastor gregis Dominici Pastor of our Lords flock Reply ibid. What Bishop is not Pastor of the flocke of Christ but Papall Bishops who poore Delegates have not their institution from CHRIST but as poore hirelings from the Papacie In the second place the Iesuite tels us thot S. Augustiâ—â— giveth this testimonie of the Church of Rome that the Principalitie or supremacie of the See Apostolicke hath alwayes borne sway therein y Reply pag. 52 This Father will not serve the Iesuites turne without a glosse Principalitie Supremacie must be the same so the Iesuite would have it for if this be not true Augustine forsakes his engager But the Iesuite may know that principalitie is not Papall Dominion there was a primatuâ— or principalitie of the Church of Constantinople z Theodoret. l. 2 c 27. and a primatus or primacie of the Church of Hierusalem 〈◊〉 l. 7. â— 6. into which seates ascended none of these Monarcâ—s He commeth to the principalitie of a See or Bishoprick that entereth by orderly election as Augustine acknowledgeth the Bishop of Rome to have done And a man may get a principalitie in the Church by sedition and ambition as Leo expresseth himselfe to the Bishops of Africke Leo Epist 87. ad Episc Africanos Principatus autem quem seditio exâ—orfit auâ— ambitus occupavit etiam si â—oribus atque actibus non â—ssendâ—t ip 〈◊〉 tamen iniâ—â—â—â—ui est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What hee can picke out of the word Apostolicall hath beene answered before Next to the Master he produceth the Scholler Prosper in two places but to no more purpose or advantage then the former For who will deny the Church of Rome in Prospers time in regard of her outward eminencie to bee made the head of pastorall honour unto the world c Reply pag. 52 and that she was more conspicuous by being a towre to Religion in defending the faith against hereticks then by exercising any power not temporall * No such word in the originall quotation out of Prosper as the Iesuite addeth but Ecclesiasticall that was given him by Councels Whereby we may see the difference betwixt Rome now and then their eminencie their honour then was extended arce religionis by defâ—nding the true faith Your holy Fathers now seeke advancement solio potestatis by obtaining a Monarchie and bringing all powers but hell that must triumph over you * Revel 19. â—â— into subjection under their feete But the Iesuite confident of Prosper telleth us Therefore the holy Bishop 〈◊〉 doth testifie how in his dayes The whole world agreed with Pope Siricius in one and the same fellowship of communion d Reply pag. â—â— Here is a Logicall therefore Prosper telleth us that Rome the See of Peter is made the head of pastorall honour unto the world c. therefore Optaâ—â—â— that lived many Decades of years before him doth testifie how in his dayes the whole world agreed with Pope Siriâ—â—us in one and the same fellowship of communion We will leave the inference the evidence is nothing For was there not reason that they should doe as they did to wit agree in truth with the eminentest opposing Bishop for otherwise they should have beene Donatists Make your Popes as Siricius was and we will agree with them in communion not because Popes but because they â—defend the true Doctrine against Donatisticall and hereticall rashnes Doe you thinke Hierome thought himselfe bound to Liberius his Communion when he styled him an Arian e Hieroâ— Catalog Scrip. Eccles Fortunatianus Episcopus Liberium Romanae Vrbis Episcopum ad subscriptioâ—â—â— Haereseâ—â— compuiit Ambrose would not endure to give a stupide consent to the Church of Rome itselfe unlesse he saw reason for it lib. 3. de sacram cap. 1. In omnibus cupio sequi Romaâ—â—â— Ecclesiaâ— sed tamen nos omnes sensum habeâ—â—â— Id quod alibi rectius servatur nos custodimus Heere you may see how the Auncients did adhere to the Roman Bishop not in every thing from opinion of his authoritie infallibilitie mother-hood or mistresseship for they thought in other places something might be more rightly observâ—d but so farre as they might convince them of the truth of their doctrine and profession
it be yet it being cleare that it is the Popes will that that course of interpreting shall hold their mancipiall vow oath makes them perjured that violate the same The Iesuite esteemes these but â—hifts therfore he will justifie his Fathers an other way to that end proceedeth in this maner But let us put the ease that Maldonate did â—â—kâ— that â—ath if you doe without a dispensation he must be perjured yet shall not our Answerer be able ever to shew that either he or any other Iesuite did once violat the same i Reply pag. 9â— I feare you wil be deceived for if your excuse faile Maldonate must get a learneder advocate or plead guilty and it seemes you are to seek when you flye from the words of the oath seeke reliefe from the extension of the intent thereof For I suppose he is not so ignorant saith the Iesuite but that he knoweth how the intent of that oath extends it selfe no further then to bind the taken never to interpret the word of God in matters of faith contrary to the consent of ancient Fathers k Reply pag. 9â— He should be as blind as Mr Malone if he should take his shifts for a fit glosse for this text who shal measure the exteÌ„t of this oath but they that first occasioned it the councell of Trent and wil their decree patronize his conceipt It will tell you that ad câ—â—rcenda petulantia ingonia to restrain petulans wits l Conc. Trid. sess 4. Decret 3 the Synode doth decree that Doctors shal not interpret the Scriptures contra eum sensum quem tenuit tonet sancta mater ecclesia aut contra unanimem consensum patrum against that sense which the holy mother Church hath doth hold or against the unanimous consent of Fathers m Ibid. But is this all if it were the Iesuite would think himselfe secure but we shal find that in the first place it inhibites â—t nemo prudentiae innxus sacram scripturaÌ„ ad suos sâ—nsus contorqueat that no man leaâ—ing to his own wisdome doe wrest the Scriptures to his own sense Ibid. which Maldonat doth confesse he hath don non nego me hujus interpretationis authoreÌ„ nemineÌ„ habere I do not deny saith he that I have no author of this interpretation Besides the councel condeÌ„nes interpretations contrary to the unanimous consent of fathers but the Iesuit will not have the oath bind so it be not contradictory in that point which is expounded whether the councell wants faith or the Iesuit let the Iesuit resolve The words of the oath excludes the Iesuits gloss are stricter then the Councels decree The councell condemnes interpretations that are private from a mans owne wisedome or 〈◊〉 against the Consent of Fathers o Ibid. though it be with many assistants but the oath inhibites the receiving and interpreting of the Scriptures not onely with glosses that are contra against the Fathers this were too little but with such that are not juxta unanimem consensum according to the uniforme consent of Fathers p Bulla Pij 4. Nec eam unquam nisi juxta c. So that the place of Augustine is produced to small purpose it neither shadowing nor salving the Iesuites credite for the question is not whether a Divine free and at libertie may use S. Augustines practise in the interpretation of Scripture but whether a Iesuite tyed to the oath nec eam unquam never to interpret nisi juxta unanimum consensum Patrum but according to the uniforme consent of Fathers â—ay without breach of faith enjoy this libertie this is the question But their Iesuite Pererius hath interpreted quite contrary to the consent of Fathers and this Iesuite onely affords him a good word but sweats not at all for his releife or defence So that all may see the most judicious Answerer is freed from malice slander ignorance and of bold and desperate forehead which the blistered tongue of the Iesuite would have cast upon him He wrongeth me in like sort q Reply pag. 92 saith the Iesuite If his learned pen hath done you wrong it hath beene by detecting your frauds as before the perjuries of your Order For wherein is the wrong but in shewing forth the wisedome of your insinuations For the truth is he indeavoureth not to make his Reader beleive that you should be so unreasonable as to say that a man might not dissent from the auncient Doctors so much as in an exposition of a text of Scripture without making himselfe more learned more pious and more holy then they were r See the Reply pag. 92. but shewes that you have done it enforcing the same from your reason of the Fathers learning pietie and holynes which lookes upon all points with like authoritie And suppose that according to your owne principles an interpreter should dissent from the Doctors in exposition of one text the most remoâ—est from the foundations of Faith as Tâ—bies dogge his wagging of his tayle I hope you cannot deny but by that Act if they bee not more pious and holy then the Fathers from whom they vary yet they make themselves more learned in that particular if your reason be true or sound For if the learning pietie and holinesse of the Fathers be an argument of truth in deducing points of doctrine from the Scripture they that vary from them in doctrine drawne from thence must make themselves more learned 〈◊〉 and holy then they were But upon revisall what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to confesse he doth labour to excuse and to this intent he refines his character and tels us a long story of his thoughts that he who in such points of faith as those be which I layde downe in my demaund would prefette his owne private interpretation of Scripture before the generall and uniforme agreement of holy Fathers therein could not be excused from the guilt of such like arrogancie Å¿ Reply pag. 93 Is it but arrogancie to deny the Fathers in a point of faith such as those be which you have layde downe It seemes your faith is of your owne making otherwise it would be heresie especially being perversâ—y done against so great a light and conjoyned testimonie but why more in these points that are named by you and such like then in others learning pietie and holinesse direct in every point of religiou as well as in these and therefore if it conclude arrogancie to those that oppose in these you must shew us a reason why it doth not in others also And so farre as I can see the Iesuite hath no reason against the currant of their whole Church to make learning pietie and religion causes of true interpretation of Scripture no not in points of faith when by their owne confession these three Graces were suspended from guyding the Romane faith for whole ages together t Stapl. Relect. cont 1. q. 5. A. 3. Vixullum peccatum solâ Haeresi
said so much for it as Aquinas his Cyrill Canus l 6. â— 5 Cyrillus apud Thomaâ—â—ulâ—o evidentiùs quim authores â—aeâ—eâ—i huic veritati testimonium perhibet and yet in the true Cyrill there is never a word to be found And further in the Councell of Chalcedon hath not the same Thomas l In opâ—sâ— con â—rrores Graecoâ—â—m mentioned decrees they never dreamed of and laboured to make the Greekes esteemed Hereticks by such invented forgeries that he hath brought against them and all for Appâ—aâ—â—â—â— Râ—â—â— â—or â—â—â— holinesse his universall vicarage The cause sheweth the forger and the forger confesseth the weakeâ—â—s of the cause Now not onely forging and coyning but also clipping hath bene too manifest You say your selves that Hereâ—ickes have done this and we beleive it and who are those heretickâ— if you cannot declare who those be surely they were never done the assigning of persons time and plâ—â—e by your doctrine being the mâ—dium to finde such concealâ—menâ—s out Further if the monuments of antiquitie be corrupted we may justly accuse you that pretend to bee the keepers and teachers of the Church that you would suffer such things to be done and know not whom you may truely suspect so that if you confesse corruption declare the corrupters if you know corruptions and doe not assigne them it is more then probable that you were acquainted with the worke Howsoever you may not reâ—urne this upon us whom you acknowledge to be little â—â—â—â—ienter then your order and but a little in antiquitiâ— preceding your faith So that we may conclude the injury is little the accusation being just The Iesuite nameth other injuries that he will let passe as when to shun that difficultie which pinched him saith he in my demaund he framed it fâ—â—re otherwise then it was prepâ—â—nded Reply pag 93 94. See the answere thereto whether the Iesuite played not Simplician in the demaund For the â—â—iâ— passages which he likewise complaineth of the Iesuite promiseth afterwards to discover theâ— c. To which we referre the Reader Yet one thing the Iesuite must not lâ—t passe to observe that when he said that the Answerers Religion cannot be â—â—ue because it disalloweth of mâ—â—y cheife articles which the Saynts and fâ—thers of that priâ—itive Church of Rome did generally hold â—o be true the Answerer will needes prescribe unto him what he must prove saying that it will not â—e sufficient for him that some of the Father◠〈◊〉 some of those opinions but he must prove if he will deale to the purpose that they held them generally and held them too not as opinions but 〈◊〉 dâ—â—ide as 〈◊〉 to the substance of faith and Religion Reply pag. 94 Surely if these be not fit caâ—tions for them to observe that by antiquity universalitie and consent of Fathers pretend to find the truth of doctrine let any modest nature discerne for if the Iesuite observes not these rules he may urge at pleasure but can prove nothing if they be of faith now they must have beene so in the Primitive times for that rule is unalterable and without change And besides Tertul. dâ— Virg. vel c. 1. Regula fidei una omnino est sola illa immobilis iâ—reformabilis if they were then reputed points of faith the rule to prove doctrine by consent would faile if the Fathers did not generally consent in every one of these for if Fathers did diâ—fer in grounds of Faith and Catholicke Religion where was their harmonie And if they consent not in all why should their consent be made a rule for the confirmation of any p Cal Lex Iurid Regulae ofâ—icium est exhibere nobisgeneraliter definitionem juris But wherefore doth the Iesuite distast these he shewes it is not for any just exception he can take against them but out of a jealouâ—ie from whence they proceed whether from charitie which he will not beleive or which is more likely perchance from a conceipt of his weakenes and ignorance whereby the Answerer was afrayde that he knew not himselfe what he had to prove or how it might be prâ—â—ved Reply pag. 94 which the Iesuite for his ownesake is unwilling to acknowledge For saith he though I confesse my selfe to be the weakest of a thousand yet have I no reason to thinke that he would any way support my weakenes who hath undertaken to enter into 〈◊〉 with me before such Specâ—â—tors â—â— in their veiw the â—east â—â—yle cannot be reâ—â—ived without a great disgrace r â—bid Here the Iesuite manifesteth his charitie but declareth no syllable for defence of his knowledge He makes his owne glorie the end of his quarrell and deemeth the Answerers indeavours to looke towards the same end but it i◠〈◊〉 glory â—â— disgrace that his 〈◊〉 resolution 〈◊〉 â—â— feares â—◠〈◊〉 Godâ—â—â—uth from the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 to keepâ— Christs 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 this iâ— the worke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee bee reviled by frogges and â—â—custes hee despiseth it 〈◊〉 â—e knoweâ— will 〈◊〉 in â—er 〈◊〉 and wisdome will have a time as to be justified of so to 〈◊〉 her children And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Answerer◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what hee esteemes them the Iesuites chaâ—â—ty appeaâ—â—s but small that feedes Christs flocke like the hireling for the wages of applâ—â—se and not from the ground of 〈◊〉 Pases because hee 〈◊〉 the Lord. For â—er him 〈◊〉 of the most leaâ—â—ed 〈◊〉 câ—â—â—itie to himselfe or 〈◊〉 towards the Fatheâ—â— as â—â— pleaseth I am 〈◊〉 â—e hath said nothing heere that may perswade us that hee hath swallowed downe all antiquitie or that his knowledge is so great that from the Answeâ—â—â—s learned 〈◊〉 he might not receive instruction But the Iesuite 〈◊〉 know that these are not the reasons that mooved him to perswade the obsâ—â—â—ation of these rules but their desperate impudeâ—ciâ—s for who knowes not that they can pretend Fathers for their cause that held 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by devising a 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make them their friends when they are urged against them and also make that faith which was not in the Fathers Creed neither found in any of their expositions upon the same This is the reason of giving these câ—â—tions because they use the Fathers to blind not to manifest the truth of the ancient â—aith therefore the Iesuite may see how â—ond his imaginations are how poore hâ—â— conceit But the Iesuit sees the RomaÌ„ faith to be such that he dare not undertake to prove it but bysome few and that not as points 〈◊〉 but as points held by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by presuÌ„ptioÌ„ as if in antiquity there were not a 〈◊〉 betwixt their Creed with the points therein other remote deductioÌ„s from the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from hence are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether this 〈…〉 which the 〈…〉 of Fathers Now he will give 〈…〉 wherefore he 〈◊〉 these 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 is he 〈…〉 any puâ—pose For first he confesseth it absurd that
is 〈…〉 Fathers 〈…〉 and saying of all and 〈…〉 time 〈◊〉 Religion and therefore it will be much more 〈◊〉 to find out their generall consent that aâ—â— so lâ—ng deâ—â— And there he would â—â—ve the Reader 〈◊〉 that the agreâ—ment thou 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one 〈◊〉 which iâ— not otherwise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—â—led the generall conâ—ent of aâ—â—cient Fathers and to prove this he hath urged S. Augustine That when he dispâ—ting 〈◊〉 the Pelagâ—â—â—s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fathers he thougâ—â—â—â— had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby the common â—aith of the whâ—â—e Church And the 〈◊〉 of Ephesâ—â— having produced â—â—t â—en Fathers made no 〈◊〉 but thaâ— by theâ—â— agreeiâ—g aâ—thority the consent of the whole Church wâ—â— fâ—lly 〈◊〉 against Nestâ—riâ—â— for â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doubt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but thâ—s◠〈◊〉 did iâ— jâ—dgement agree with all the rest of their 〈◊〉 Reply pag. 94 95. But all the whâ—â—e he doth little consider that his owne doe not agree with him what makes the consent of Fathers For 〈◊〉 would haâ—e those to bee counâ—â—â— all the Doctors that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be justly 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 and the rest neglected Greg. de Valen loco supra citat Omnes esse censentur iâ— quorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnibus consideratis â—ruditionis piâ—tatis 〈◊〉 c. ut à prudentibus certè â—â—â—um solummodò ratio habeâ—i debâ—â—t câ—â—â—ris neglectis quasi nihil 〈◊〉 si cum illis 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 â—â— was of 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—llect by hiâ— practiâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he concâ—â—â—ing Augustiâ—â— who 〈◊〉 Maâ—â—chiâ—s dayâ—â—â— sacrifice of 〈◊〉 and pâ—â—yers of 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— Aâ—or inst Mor part 1. lib 10 cap. â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there be on◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doâ—â—ors â—â—â—ing thâ—â— is 〈◊〉 the rest Now if 〈◊〉 take consent of Fathers according to 〈◊〉 then wee â—inde a conseâ—t of Fathers in a point of 〈◊〉 against 〈◊〉 Catholicke Church â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aâ—brose â— Stapleton deâ—ens Ecclesiastic 〈…〉 quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ante 〈◊〉 〈…〉 non sunt â—â—sensâ— sed sententiam contrariam tradiderunt Clemâ—ns 〈◊〉 and Berâ—ard did not assent unto the 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 saith he in the 〈◊〉 of Flâ—rence 〈…〉 if you desire more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iustinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈…〉 obligandi For your coâ—sent whether it would prove better for you thâ—◠〈◊〉 hath done I cannot tell but I am sure that the Answerer who durst try the 〈◊〉 by the Fathers which hee is â—ot â—ounâ— unto their consent being not by 〈◊〉 coâ—fession the 〈◊〉 of faith â—â— conâ—ident that by them you will not finde two witnesses much lesseâ—enne that will justifie your cause without a personall or at least materiall opposition And therefore howsoever this be not their generall consent if we speake properly yet we will presume iâ— to be so for the present to see whether you bee able to performâ— any thing that so gloriously boast of so much which we are confident you cannot in regard some of your points mentioned are confessed by your owne neither to be in Fathers oâ— Scriptures at all as Adâ—â—â—tion of Images for so Massâ—â—â—â— in libelliâ— de Picturiâ— Imaginibâ—â— doth seeme to acknowledge and Roffensâ—s your Martyr hath the same opinion or but a very little better of the scorching Article of your Purgatory faith c See before pag. â—4 so that the Iesuite hath little cause to thinke that we â—eaâ—e the testimonies of Fatherâ— for the points in coâ—â—â—overâ—ie when as wise as himselfe know that they are not thâ—â—â— to be found But though wâ—â—ermit this for the preseâ—â— to see whether the Iesuite can prove any thing by his owne â—ouâ—hstone yet it will not be amisse to consider that his collection out of S. Augustine is rejected by that Fathers testimony for whereas the Iesuite insinâ—â—teth that S. Augustine was of opinion that the common faith of the whole Church may sufficiently be prâ—â—â—d by the unifâ—rme doctrine â—f 1â— cheife Fathers Yet when S. Hierome brought a â—umber of Fathers S. Augustine sticketh not to answer him in this manner I might as I beleive easily findâ— some Fathers to be of the contrary opinion if I did reade much but the very Apostle S. Paul â—ffereth himselfâ—â—â—tâ—â—eâ— for all these yâ—â— above all these To him I â—lye to him I appealâ— from all other interpreters and seeke unto him in that which he writes to the Galathians d Aâ—gust epist 1â— â—oâ—â—eâ— quâ—dem ut arbitroâ— facilè repeâ—â—râ— â—i 〈…〉 ipse 〈◊〉 â—ro his 〈◊〉 â—â—ò supra â—os omnes Apostolâ—â— Paulus â—ccuâ—â—â—â— Ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad ipsum aâ— omnibâ— qui aliud senâ—iâ—nt liteâ—â—â—â—â— ejus 〈…〉 provoâ—â—◠〈◊〉 iâ—â—â—ogaâ—◠〈◊〉 â—â— quâ—â—o in â—â— quod 〈…〉 And by this which hath beene said wee perceive that the Iesuite in a manner is urged to confesse that this Rule wants perfection and that the Fathers consent cannot bee absolutely produced but presumed onely Neither doth it please the Iesuite the other caution layde downe thâ—â— hee must prâ—â—ve that the Fathers held thâ—se points not onely generally but as appâ—rtâ—ining to the substance of faith and Religion and from hence hee would collect that the most learned Answerer feareth that they shall bee able to proove that the Fathers hâ—lde them generally indeede and therefore provideth this revye â—rgeing them to prove further that they held them as appertâ—ining to the substance of Faith and Religion e Reply p â—â— A fit collection for a wise apprehension before he tells us that in points noâ— determined shee the Church graâ—nteth free libertie unto all Catholicke Doctours to expound â—swell the Scriptures as the Fathers for the upholding of that part which themselves doe thinke to bee most probable f Reply pag 9â— In which he meanes that the Scriptures in points not determined as in the cause of Predestination and conception of the blessed Virgin might bee interpreted against the generall consent of Fathers as the two Iesuites Pererius and Maldonate have done and the Fathers themselves expounded with such a glosse as makes best for the upholding of that part Now if the generall consent of Fathers be able to determine a point that is not de fide why are they rejected by the Iesuites and the Iesuites justified by Mr Malone if the Fathers consent hath strength onely in points of Faith why doth he quarrell at this caution which he must acknowledge necessary not proceeding from feare but from a wise and prudent consideration And to prevent us herein saith the Iesuite he affirmeth before hand that the said points bee not all cheife articles of faith g Reply pag. 93. what doth he labour to prevent you in unlesse it be
what fetches they use to drag the people to their opinion so they may sway in the Church of God and tyrannize with their Antichristian Scepter over the Kingdome of Saynts The Iesuite before hee leaves off would faine say something for himselfe and cause as first that wheresoever the Fathers doe professe them in their workes they never tell him that they hold them for opinions rather then for points of faith o Reply pag. 95 which wee acknowledge for indeede there is no such profession in the Fathers yet I thinke and upon good grounds if they had knowne of any such fundamentall points some would have declared them to the Church Secondly he confesseth that some of the said points were not declared by the Church in former ages to be necessary and cheife Articles of faith and Religion yet they were ever belonging to the substance of faith from the beginning and without doubt were held for such at least implicitly and virtually by the holy Fathers howsoever our Answerer upon no better ground then his divining humour doth give out the coÌ„trary p Reply pag. 9â— Surely it could not be faith at any time if not then for to the Church long before was declared the whole counsell of God so that indeed it may bee of the Popish faith which may be declared 1500. yeares after Christ but not that of the ancient Church which was once delivered to the Saints And if the Iesuite will have that of the Foundation which was never so declared or reputed till our last times let him proove ex re â—atâ— that it is so and not thinke himselfe able by his without doubt to perswade us that the Fathers held those points virtually and iâ—plicitely â—â— belonging to the substance of faith and then hee doth something for if the bare act of declaration may make an article of faith the Bishop of Rome with his â—â—â—ncell may make us an other beleife and turne Christianity into a new mould a thing much desired if more then probable grounds doe not deceive us But if these points were decreed in after-times from some inward and virtuall substance of faith which was inherent in them let him declare it and by some meanes or other helpe our eye-fight that can perceive no such thing in the points here mentioned And whereas the wisard thinkes every man of his own profession hee is deceived his conjectures are farre from the grounds that are followed by the most learned Answerer and how farre it is from divining to expresse a truth any wil apprehend that knowes that divining hath relation to things to come and not to things past But what he promiseth in the next Chapter we will examine whereby I thinke wee may come to more perfect knowledge of their Catholicke frâ—â—des though not of their 〈◊〉 as he would perswade SECT XII THe Iesuite having travailed in the defence of certaine points from the Fathers testimony that are not of the foundation of Faith and fearing to be censured by Lyrinensis who saith that the aunciâ—â—t consent of the holy Fathers is with great care to bee sâ—ught and followed by us not in every pettie question belonging to the Law of GOD but ONE 〈◊〉 at least principally in the Rule of Faith a See the testimony urged by the most reverend the Lord Primate in his Answer to the Iesuites Challenge pag. 26. doth in this Section enquire Hâ—â—â— a point of Faith may be discerned from an indifferent opinion in Religion b Reply p. 96. and declares the reason of his so doing Forasmuch saith he â—â— our Answerer affirmeth that all the points by me laid downe in my demaund be not cheife articles I thought it meet by this disputation to disproove him herein and to shâ—w that they be all such cheife articles of faith at the obstinate denyall of any of them depriveth a man of all true beleife and maketh him a faithlesse Hereticke For performance whereof we are first to enquire which is the way or certaine Rule to know an article of Faith from an indifferent opinion and that being found out by squaring the said points thereby we shall easily understand whether they be theife articles yea or â—â— c Reply pag. 96 Now in this passage the Iesuite meeteth not at all with the most learned Answerers observation For he denyes all the points propounded by the Iesuite to be cheife articles in regard of those which are more necessary fundamentall which onely are to be enquired of by consent of Fathers in Lirinensis his judgment d See above lit â— and not because in their owne nature they are indifferent for if he should conceite them such why should he style you Heretickes for your false declarations concerning them nay why should there be controversies at all betwixt us Secondly all that the Iesuite urgeth here satisfieth not the most learned Answerer in shew onely For unlesse he can prove that these points were according to his Rule declared by the Catholicke Romane Church for cheife Articles of Faith before those Fathers times which he urgeth in Lirinensis his judgment all his quotations of antiquitie in defence of them are to no purpose And I would willingly see where the Romane Catholicke Church by her declaration hath defined these points de fide before the Ages of those Fathers which the Iesuite produceth for confirmation of the same But notwithstanding hee goeth a by way and followeth not his Answerer yet I will not leave him but take some breife veiwe of this discourse also And first he excepts against the Scriptures These must bee no Rule whereby to discerne cheife Articles of Faith from indifferent opinions in Religion nay to make Scriptures the Rule is but to shake hands with all condemned Heretickes Reply pag. 96 And this hee telleth us he hath already discovered but fearing least it be in conceit and opinion onely hee is heere resolved further to prosequute the same and layeth this for his ground There be many confessed points of Faith which are not in any sort expressed or as much as once touched by the Scripture f Ibid. Sure they are of the Popish Creed or not at all for the Catholicke Church taught none as necessary to salvation but what were contained in the Scriptures g Bellarm. de verbo Dei non scripto l. 4. c. 11 Dico illa omnia scripta esse ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus necessaria quae ipsi palam omnibus vulgo praedicaverant Yet hee will proove his proposition from Augustine The Apostles truly saith S. Augustine as he is urged by the Iesuite have not delivered any thing concerning this point but that custome which was alledged against Cyprian ought to be held to have beene derived from their tradition b Reply pag. 96 But what point is this Rebaptization a point as farre from the foundation as Rome from Heaven that only concernes the manner forâ—â— of 〈◊〉 Baptisme What points else