a manifest contradiction in his words against himselfe for above he more then once saith the Iesuite 〈◊〉 our opinions prophane novelties and hereticall novelties If Novelties how are they now become Heresies farre spred and of so long continuance that we are bold to make duration the marke of our Church c Reply ibid. The Iesuite imagineth here Contradiction and why because â—â— opinion of long continuance cannot be stiled a Noveltie So that if we can manifest that a Noveltie may bee of long continuance our Iesuite is deceived in his slippery hopes And what will he make novum in Religion but that which is not antiquissimum Our Saviour when hee would declare Pharisaicall traditions to be Novelties did not respect their long continuance in the corrupt estate of the Church but saith ab initia non fuit sic * Mat. 19â—8 that they were not from the beginning delivered by God or practised by the Church So that if the duration and antiquitie of your opinions be but humane that is not Apostolicall neither from Apostolicall grounds It â—â—inke and justly that they may be esteemed new and novelties d Terrullianâ— de praescripâ— panlo ante medium Si haec iâ—â— sint constat proâ—â— de omnem doctrinam quâ— cum illis Ecclesijs Apostolicis matricibus originalibus sidei conspiret veritati deputandam id sinc dubio tenantum quod Ecclesiae ab Apostoli Apostoâ—â— Ã Christo Christus à Dâ—â— suscepit reljquam vero omnem doctrinam de mendacio praejudicandam quae sapiaâ— contra veritatem Ecclesiarum Apostolorum Christi Dei. for a point is 〈◊〉 in religion that did not proceed from God and his blessed Spirit either in terminis or by deduction from his word that is the Ancient of dayes whatsoever pretences of duâ—â—tion and continuance may be supposed 〈◊〉 was never generally received by the Roman faction themselves before the Councell of Lateran â—corus in 4. d. 11. q. 3. apud Bellarm. de Euchil 3. c. 23. ditis ante Lateranense concilium non fuisse Dogma fidei transubstantiationem â— Rhem. An not upon the 1. of Tim. 6. â—â— and yet wee are condemned for calling this a Noveltie whereas it crept in many hundred yeares after those words which they themselves account Novelties both in the Arrians which had their Similis substantiâ— and Christ to bee ex non existentibus and also other Hereticks that had their Christiparam and such like â— new coyned tearmes agreable to their sects Wherefore it is not enough to free your doctrines from being Novelties because they are of long continuance seeing the words of ancient hereticks being of more long continuance and auncienter in birth even many hundred yeares before them might better claime that priviledge and are neverthelesse stiled Novelties by your selves And as the Rhemists acknowledg of words so we say concerning points of doctrine that wee are to esteeme their newnes or oldnes by the agreeablenes or disagreeablenes they have to the true sence of Scriptures the forme of catholick faith and doctrine â—hem ibid. c. and not because it is long since they had their birth in the world So that you see Novelties are new doctrines which are neither delivered in Scriptures openly and in expressetermes or lye couchant in the same but had their births in aftertimes being framed by the phantasticke illusions of Sathan the producer of falshoods and heresies which is conformable to the Apostles doctrine for what 1. Tim. 6. 20. he tearmeth prophane novelties Gal. 1. 8. he expresseth to be new doctrine 〈◊〉 ibid. which is not the same but besides as the Rhemists â— or against that which the Apostle did deliver to the Church And therefore our Iesuite and his contradiction contradict his imagined Vanity and not prove or confirme the same For his other Collectaneas that if they be prophant Novelties then by the Rule of Lyrinensis they ought to bee impugned by producing and confirring the agreeing sentences of auncient Doctours Secondly that the consent of auncient Father is called the rule of the auncient Faith by Lirinensis in the place alledged k Reply pag. 36 1. Wee have shewed before l See before Sect. 5. prope finem that we dissent not from Lyrinensis being rightly understood For all kind of heresies are prophane Novelties howsoever they differ in extent or age Yet all kind of Heresies are not to be impugned though prophane Novelties after this manner in Vincentius Lirinensis his judgement Besides Lirinensis maketh not the Fathers rules absolutely but because they assisted at that time the Scriptures to rule unruly hereticks that would wrest the same so that when the Fathers cannot do the worke for which they were used that is stop the Hereticks mouthes because that having corrupted antiquity they will also pretend it then he thinketh such heresies though prophane Novelties are not to be dealt withall this way And for his second observation although the Iesuit collecteth untruly yet who will deny consent of Fathers to be the rule of faith according to that Fathers meaning For in the immediate quotation following out of the same Father we finde that it hath beene the custome of Catholicks to try their faith two manner of wayes FIRST by the authoritie of the Divine Canon next by the tradition of the Catholicke Church m Vineâ—â— Lirinens adv Profanas Novationes Primò scilicet divine legis auctoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione not for that the Scripture is not sufficient in it selfe but because very many interpreting the divine word at their pleasures do conceive varying opinions and errours n Ibid Hic forsitan requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat quid opus est ut eiecclesiasticae intelligentiae iungatur autoritas Quia videlicet Scripturam sacraâ—â— pro ibsa sui altitudine non uno codemque sensu universi accipiunt quod â—â— Confideratio temporis 〈◊〉 Now in these words who doth not see that Lyrinesis doth make consent of Fathers not to be an absolute or sufficient rule of Faith as he doth the Scriptures but a directive rule to the right understanding of the absolute and sufficient rule of faith which is the holy Scriptures Neither can we otherwise confecture but that Lirinensis giveth this directive Rule for his owne time Ibid. Ad and not to all succeeding ages for by many particulars it is apparant that the foundation and ground of his whole discourse received being from those wise experiences which the present age hee lived in and precedent had afforded him Besides wee have many Mathematicall instruments which are rules in their kinde as the Globe Quadrant c and there are many bookes written to assist us in their use now I hope you will not say the rule to use the instrument is the absolute rule it selfe to draw a Conclusion in the Mathematickes And why likewise may
not the Fathers that assist and direct in understanding of the Scriptures be Rules as Vincentius Lirinensis onely stileth them in their kind yet give place unto the word of God as the absolute and sufficient rule of faith Moreover Rules Measures are either originall which we call the Standard or those which are proportioned and fitted thereby and might not this Father make the Scriptures as the Standard the onely absolute rule sufficicient of it selfe as he tearmeth it to try points of Catholick Faith and yet graunt the generall consent of all Bishops and Preists of the Catholicke Church in a generall Councell to be a Rule proportioned fitted and squared thereby Who knoweth not also that the Standard is a most absolute and controuling Rule without doubt and exception when there are many things that may call in question the truth of the other so that it may need to bee corrected thereby Now what doth the most learned Primate say that crosseth Liriuensis This auncient Father acknowledgeth the authority of the divine Canon sufficient of it selfe to trye the Catholicke Faith His learned Penne confesseth Gods Word to be that rocke alone upon which wee build our Faith Lirinensis to avoyde jarring interpretations would likewise from the Custome of Catholicks have the Traditions of the Catholick Church to wit the generall consent of Fathers to be requisite at some times to the understanding of heavenly Scriptures And for any thing I can find the most reverend Primate doth not urge a syllable against it So that untill the Iesuite can shew further then he hath done Vanitie I thinke will turne Fryar and remaine with him And although this Iesuite doth make the Fathers upon Lirinensis his experiment the absolute rule yet a further experience perswadeth them to leave Lirinensis at sometimes which although they will not doe with open face yet by covered shifts they labour to avoyde what they pretend to be his direction For they make the Fathers doctors not judges to be followed for their reason not for their authority p Bellarm. de verbo Dei l. 3. c. 10. Aliud est interpretari legem more Doctoris aliud more judicis ad explanationem more Doctoris requiritur cruditio ad explicationem more judicis requiritur auctoritas Doctor enim non proponit sententiam suam ut necessario sequendam fed SOLVM quatenus ratio suadet which destroyes their judgship to be rejected where excogitato commento they cannot helpe q Vasquez Iesâ— l. 2. de Adora disp 3. c. 2. initio Recentiores aliqui pondere hujus Concilij Elibertini quasi oppressi tanquam optimum â—ffugium elegerunt authoritatem Concilij negare quod Provinciale fuerit nec a Pontifice confirmatum c. Et sane si aliâ viâ Concilio satisfieri commodè non possit hoc nobis effugium sufficeret So Maldonate upon the xvi of Matthew r Maldonat in 16 Mat. Portae inferni non praevalebunt Quorum verborum sensus non videtur mihi esse quem omnes praeter Hilarium quos â—â—gisse mâ—mini authores putant Bellarmine upon the vi of Marke and the v. of Iames Å¿ Bellarm. de Extrem Vnct. c. z. Duae Scripturae proseâ—â—tur ab omnibus una ex cap. 6. Marci altera ex cap. 5. Iacobi De prioâ— non omnes conveniunt an cum Apostoli ungebant oleo infirmes curabant illa fuerit unctio Sacramentalis de quâ nunc disputamus an solum fuerit figura quaedam adumbratio hujus Sacramenti Qui tuentur Priorem sententiam ut Tho Waldens loco citate Alphons de castro l. de Haer verbo Extrema Vnctio ca ratione ducuntur quod Beda Theophilaâ—â—us OE cumenius in commentarijs Marci Iacobi videantur dicere eandem esse unctionem cujus fit mentio in utroque loco Sed profectò probabilior est sententia posterior que est Ruardi lansenij Dominici a Soto aliorum Et mihi certe eo etiam nomine graâ—â—â—or quod videam Lutherum Calvinum Chemnitium locis citatis esse in priore opinione existimant enim illi eandem esse unctionem Marci 6. luâ—â—â—i 5. reject the authorities of Fathers and any may tell me wherefore Besides the suspition of this rule is detected that when a wrangling Papist will question the true sence of the Fathers as it is easie to be done even where the minde is convinced how can the fathers be the assured touchstone to try all controversies when the Pope may order all matters as he pleaseth t Gregor 〈◊〉 Anal. Fidel l. 8. c 8. Quod si per sententiam Doctorum aliqua fidei controversia non 〈◊〉 commodè componi posset eo quod de illorum confensu non 〈◊〉 constareâ— â—â— tunc constat authoritas Pontifici But hereby we may see who feare the judgement of Antiquity you or our selves Wee receive them without appeale if true and not forged if cleare and not ambiguous in points that they were bound to beleive and teach from the sacred Scriptures upon paine of damnation You not at all unlesse when you please they will stoop unto and undergoe a Papall explanation Yet thirdly the Iesuite tels us Lirinensis as we see doth not so withdraw the tryall of inveterated Heresies from the consent of holy Fathers that he will have it brought to Scripture onely as our Answerer pretendeth but giveth us to understand that when they cannot sufficiently bee convinced by holy writ then the authoritie of generall Councells wherein by the consent of catholick Priests and Prelates of the Church they have beene condemned should suffice us to avoyde and detect them Reply pag. 37 Lirinensis maketh the sacred Scriptures the onelie absolute rule fit for all times and occasions x Vincen. Lirin adv profanas Novat Cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon â—â—â—ique ad omnia satis superâ—â—â— sufficiat but this directive helpe of Fathers he applieth to sometimes onely y Idem Sed noque semper neque omnes hae reses hoc mo â—â— impugnanâ—◠〈◊〉 But will the Iesuite perswade us that when Lirinensis doth withdraw the tryall of inveterated Heresies from the consent of holy Fathers it is left to other judgement on earth besides the Scriptures Surely the Iesuite did better adhere to the Fathers in his Epistle Dedicatory then in this place for there they were the assured touch stone to try all controversies betwixt us whether wee varie about the true sence of holy writ or about any Article of Christian beleife whatsoever but heere they may be suspended as hee acknowledgeth in Lirinensis his opinion and in some reserved cases neither Scriptures nor Fathers must be the rule but the authoritie of generall Councells c. So that you see their rule is that which best befreinds them The Fathers at one time shall helpe and bee the assured touchstone A generall Councell not auncient I hope but of the Popes calling when
excepta cogitari potest quo illa sedes turpiter ma culata non fuerit maxime ab an no â—00 and therefore it were better to acknowledge the miracle with Bellarmine Bellarm. in Chronolog an 970. Vide seculum infelix in quo nulli Scriptores illustres nulla Concilia Pontifices parum solliciti de republâ— Sed divina providentia fecit ut nullae surgerent haereses novae from thence perswade obedience then from leâ—â—ning piâ—tiâ— or holinesse at all which you neither acknowledg requisite †Papiâ—ius Massonius in vita Pauli 3. In Pontificibus nemo hodiè sanctitatem requirit optimi putantur si vel leviter mali sint vel minùs boni quam â—aeteri mortales esse solent or assistant to the guider of your Catholicke faith And thus you see distinctions of points of faith left indifferent determined cannot preserve the Iesuite from his unsound and unreasonable supposition the reason being alike for both So that there needs no consideration of the points nor satisfaction to the Persons mentioned the mistake presupposed by the Iesuite being a just charge But he proceeds and tels us that through the like mistake the Answerer chargeth him with boldnes when he offered to produce good and certaine grâ—â—nds out of the sacred Scriptures in confirmation of such points of Religion as he layde downe y Reply pag. 93 M. Malone this is bouldnes beleive it and such which the best of your owne notwithstanding your flourishes will not adventure to defend therefore it is justly so stiled by the most reverend Primate It is apparant that your confidence herein had no other prop at first but ignorance to conceipt your ability howsoever your shame hath now attracted impudency for your further assistance if your answere to this be not meere blockish you shall tryumph everlastingly In your challenge your promise for the confirmation of all the therein mentioned points of your religion to produce good and certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures if the Fathers authority will not suffice And further you desire any Protestant to alleage any one text out of the said Scripture which condemneth any of the above written points z See the Iesuites challenge This rash escape begets in the most learned Answerer a just derision of your boldnes ignorance who against the coÌ„sent of your learned councell will attempt to prove confession prayers to Saints image worship Limbus patrum Purgatory c. by good certaine grounds out of the sacred Scriptures whenas some of those points are coÌ„fessed neither expresse nor involutè to be coÌ„tained therein a â—annes 2. 2 q 1 â— 10 all of them referred to the tradition of the universall Church b Gloss in Gratian de Poeniâ—en d 5 c. 1. in poenitentia Canus loâ— thâ—olâ— â— c 4 Coster in compend orthodoâ—ae fidei Demonstr propos 5 c. 2 p. 162. Is not here cause sufficient to deride your boldnes hath not your evasive answer confessed your ignorance who sees not an amazed Iesuite He dares not deny the truth that this doctrine is not delivered in Scripture neither hath he the modesty to confesse his lapse and therefore frames such an answere that justly makes him ridiculous unto all When by by saith he we shal come to dispute of Traditions we will prove even by good grounds of Scripture that such divine traditioÌ„s are no lesse to be beleived of us then are those points of faith which be expresly mentioned in holy Writ and then it will appeare how it was a confidence of the truth which did beget this boldnes in me and nothing else but partialitiâ— which begot in him that sinister suspicion c Reply pag. 93 Is not here wisedome merus Logicus is a better rational then we finde here He will prove by Scriptures traditionâ— are no lesse to be beleived then points of faith expressed in holy Writ will it follow therefore confession image-worship c. may be proved by good certain grounds out of sacred scriptures Where were your Canonists schoolemen late Iesuites their eyes or wits that they could neither see nor find out this but rather reckoned these points amongst traditions not laid downe in Scripture d See before lit â— They saw what you pretended your Arguments are no newes they used them to the same purpose with as much wilynes as you either have or can doe yet they could never prove those points that are acknowledged to be received from tradition to have good certain grounds out of the sacred scriptures Besides the points specified either have good certain grouÌ„ds out of scriptures or they have none If they have none how can the Iesuit produce them if they have any why doth your church perswade their beleif froÌ„ the word not written the tradition of the universall Church Neither will this evasion deceive a purblind sight for if he prove traditions of as necessary beleif as points expressed in scriptures what gaines hath he for he doth it in grosse this proves there are traditioÌ„s but not confâ—rmes any of the points by good grouÌ„ds out of sacred scriptures or in particular that confession Prayers â—o Saints Image-Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Purgatâ—riâ— c. are divine traditions And thâ—n the Iesuitâ— hath not performed what he promised in handling â—raditions no not in his endeavours neither will he ever doe if â—is owne guesse aright The Iesuite tels us he will forbear to urge any more â—hâ—â— other injurie whereby he charged us with forging câ—yning and clipping the â—â—nâ—ments of antiquity e Reply pag. 93 And doe you not thinke it had bene better his forbearance had begun before But let us examine this injury and it will not be any great trouble to make the Iesuite impudent or a confessionary of such frauds And first to begin with the first of forging and coyning not to name all this were to much but some of most kindes First Dâ—â—ation as Constantiues for his temporall Patrimonie f See before â— â—05 â—06 Secondly Councels as Conciliuâ— Siâ—â—â—â—â—an 〈◊〉 suâ— Sylvestrâ— g See before p 203. 204. 20â— Thirdly Canons as those of Nice pretended to the Bishops of Africke and the Arabian to the whole world h See before p. â—73 Epistles as your Deâ—â—â—â—â—ls never heard of in antiquitie but invented by your Merchant when Rome had forgot to speake in her auncient â—legancy i See before p 202 Besides false titles have beene given to Bookes but by whom for whose benefit you can judge If this be not forging and â—â—yâ—ing charge â—s with falshood But if I should at large proseqâ—â—te this it would trouble patience it selfe to attend Besides is it not forging and câ—yning to cite from a father that which he never spâ—keâ— as your Aquinas hath doâ—e from S. Cyrillâ— Thesaurus in the point of Supremacy an evidence applauded beyond all other For saith Canus all other anthors never
of Scriptures as the divell used them in his allegations against our Saviour or Popes in their 〈◊〉 corruptly and 〈◊〉 and not according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and true meaning of the text Yet that Scriptures are the onely sufficient rule was so generally a received truth that never any Hereticke denyed the same for although many of them denyed some Scriptures yet they confessed those which they acknowledged divine to bee delivered to the Church to reveale Gods will and to determine all doctrines in the Church and controversies of Faith by And whereas this wisest of his Brethren would perswade that we to cloake our errours with a shew of Pietie will not be subject to the sentence of any Iudge whatsoever but the sacred Scriptures Reply pag. 32 The Iesuite is here in a mist and sees nothing for wee refuse not the judgment of any whether Fathers Councels or consent of the Catholicke Church to judge us by the doctrine of Faith the sacred Scriptures but to be tryed without the Scriptures were to be tryed in the darke Tertullian calling Heretickes Flyers from the light of the sacred Scriptures Tertullian de resurrect carnis c. 47. Qualiter accipiunt Lucifugae isti scripturarum in his prescription against Heretickes he telleth us that they have a faith without Scriptures that they may believe against Scriptures c Idem praescript con Haeret cap. 23. Credunt fine scripturis ut credant adversus scripturas And what the Iesuite would make the note of an Heretick the contrary thereof did point them out in old Ireâ—â—us his time Hereticks were then known by the path wherein our Iesuite treades in rayling accusing the Scriptures when they are convinced by them as if they were not upright nor of authority and because they are ambigâ—â—â—â— and cannot afford the 〈◊〉 to them that are ignorant of Tradition d Irâ—â—eus lib. 3. cap. 2. Haeretici cùm ex scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum scripturarum quasi non reâ—â—e habeant neque sunt ex authoritate quia variae sunt dictas quia non possit ex his invenire veritas ab his qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You see Hereticks and their practises they hate the Scriptures because they beare witnesse of them that both their workes and doctrine are unsound and evill Now as if he would make it appeare to every weake eye that we submitting to Scriptures as the onely rocke whereon we build our faith doe thereby anoyde all tryall he prosequutes this with a simile For we see saith he in the temporall Courts besides the Law there must 〈◊〉 be a Iudge who must declare the true meaning of the Law and pronounce his sentence in matters of controversie according to the same e Reply pag. â—â— So likewise the same forme must be observed in the spirituall regencie of the Conscience if credit may be given to this Iesuite concerning the written Law of God If all this were true what maketh it against the sole rule of Scriptures Iudges doe not Ius dare but dicere and if they doe attempt more they usurpe which your controuling Iudge doth for he will declare what he pleaseth for Scriptures and will prove what he pleaseth by them nay our Iesuite himself can prove doctrines by Scriptures that were never knowne but by tradition f Reply Sect. x If a temporall Iudge trench against the law of Man as your infallible Guide doth against the Law of God his sentence may be disanulled revoked and the Iudge himselfe is not free from reproofe And wee know that the makers of a law may interprete it or give power to others to performe the same But Gods law is not made by man neither hath man received power to be such an infallible Iudge g August Confess l. 13. c. 23. Non enim oportet de tam sublimi autoritate judicaâ— neque enim de ipso libro tuo etiamsi quod ibi non lucet quoniam submittimus ci nostrum intellectum certumque habemus etiam quod clausium est aspectiâ—â—â— nostris rectè veraciterque dictum esse Siceâ—â—â— homo licet jam spiritualis renovâ—â—â—â— in 〈◊〉 Dei secundùm imaginem ejus qui creavit eum FACTOR tamen legis debet esse non IVDEX De his enim judicare nunc dicitur in quibus et corrigendi potestaâ—â—m habet Clemens Alexandrinus strom l. 7 Non enim absolutè eâ—â—â—ciantibus hominibus fidem habucrimus quibus licet etiam câ—â—tiare contrarium Sed oporteâ—etiam probare quod dictum est non expectamus testimonium quod datur ab hominibus sed voce Domini probamus quod quaeritur quae est magis side digâ—â— quam quaevis Demonstrationes Ibid. Hâc ergo ratione non sunt pij ut qui divinis praeceptis non acquiescant hoc est Spiritui sancto Quia est ergo ex scipso fidelis Dominicâ scripturâ voce est fide dignus quae per Dominum 〈◊〉 ad hominum beneficium Ipsa autem Iudice utimur ad res inâ— niendas Wadding Lâ—gat Philippi 3. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 multa sunt hujusmodi quae reâ—â—agantibus aut circâ—ca 〈◊〉 Doctor 〈◊〉 sunt à Pontificibus nec enim parvum Doctorum aggerem sed Dei sapientiam et spiritum pro regula etrectore veritatis habet â—â—â—cta haec 〈◊〉 quae falli non potest Mater Ecclesia That which God hath left his Church is the blessed Spirit in his word â— which Christ hath promised shall direct his owne in all at least fundamentall truth And what if some desperat men follow deceitfull guides must this of necessity make the true guiding of his Spirit contemptible Or must the Scriptures be uncertaine in their direction because we have men that will not see that will interpret by their owne passion not yeeld to the truth or absolute demonstration Besides how vaine is it 〈◊〉 to expect the Romane Iudge for our Determiner who â—â—y make us a new rule of faith as large as the Decretals pretending the Scriptures or tradition for it and yet never be an Heretick For if he might be an Hereticke it must be for denying some truth before defined but he cannot be â—◠〈◊〉 for defining any new matters saith your Cardinall Bellarmine for then hee doth not believe against any thing defined by the Church k Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 7. Nam Pontifex si possit esse Haereticus solum erit ne gando aliquam veritatem antea definitam non autem potest esse haereticus dum ipse aliquid novi definit tunc enim non senâ—it contra aliquid deâ—â—nitum ab Ecclesia And suppose he could not erre in expounding the Scriptures may not they which receive his exposition miâ—interpret the same and the people upon report be carried out of the Romane faith Our Iesuite proceedes It will be worth the marking also to observe how this manner of tryall by onely Scripture hath
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
ever received in the Church with more truth and faithfulnes then Hereticks have done Surely the Iesuite hath payed it here for he that every where dreameth of false logicke in others doth not here speake true sence himselfe Lyrinensis maketh 1. one generall sufficient rule for all things the sacred Scriptures f Lyrinens Duplici modo munire fidem suam Domino adjuvante deberet Primo scilicet divinae legis autoritaâ—e Cum sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique AD OMNIA satis superque sufficiat 2ly another usefull in some cases onely g Ibid. Tum deinde ecclesiae catholicae traditione Sed neque semper neque omnes haereâ—â—s hoc modo impugnandae sunt yet never to be used in those cases without Scriptures which is the tradition of the Universall Church h Ibid. Multum necesse est propter tantos tam varij erroris anfractus ut Propheticae Apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum Ecclesiastici Catholici sensus normam dirigaâ—ur In ipsa autem catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est hoc est etenim verè proprièque catholicum The first was used by the auncient Church from the worth that is in it selfe i Ibid. Sibique ad omnia superque sufficiat the other from the perversnes of Hereticks that many times abuse the sacred rule k Ibid. Quia videlicet scripturam sacram pro ipsa sui altitudine non uno codâ—mque sensus universi accipiunt sed ejusdem eloquia aliter atque aliter alius atque alius interpretatur Aliter namque illam Novatianus aliter Sabeilius Bring us now one Scripture expounded according to Lyrinensiâ— his rule l Ibid. Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est by the universall consent of the primitive Church to prove traditions confession Purgatory prayer to Saints image-worship Free-will c. in your sence and wee will receive it if you cannot confesse the truth that you deale like hereticks and acknowledge that we follow the practise of the auncient times And here I would have the Iesuite consider how many of their owne doe cry the Scripture m Sanders Rocke of the Church chap. 8. pag. 193. They have most plaine Scriptures in all points for the Catholicke faith and none at all against the same Bristo Mot. 48 Most certain it is that from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Apocalypse there is no text that maketh for you against us but all for us though it be more Iudeorum as they templum Domini and further with greater pretended reverence kisse antiquity not that they love either but because the one is not so light as the other to lay open their errours and detect their deformities Moreover whereas Christ made it a note of his sheepe to heare his voyce this good man would have it to bee the signe and token of an Hereticke but if Hereticks make use of Scriptures this confirmes the rule to be what God made it though it cannot justifie their practise that abuse the same And for brutish and wilde interpretations of Hereticks which this Father makes woolvish let the Iesuite cast an eye to their owne and who hath dealt so grossly as they have done †See before pag. 149 â—it b. And although they bragge of Unity and interpretations of good consent yet for any thing we see it is to be suspected when their Popes could not agree about the Text that he as his schollers may faile to accord in interpretation thereof Further I could wish it were examined whether we or they faile in the Rule of interpreting the Scriptures according to the universall tradition of the Church and analogie of faith and then it would easily appeare if this be a note of Heresie who the Hereticks are For the Fathers beleived but halfe the faith according to that you interpret and to make those points traditions of the universall Church which needed decrees to authorize them 1500 yeares after Christ must needes conclude egregious vanity But who knoweth not that you had rather be tried by the Moone and seven Starres which cannot so easily detect the workes of darknes then the Scriptures the fountain of light that will declare the least errour in your doctrine or practise n Clem. Alex Serom. l. 7. Sicut improbi oueri excludunt Paedagogum ita etiam hi arcent Prophetias a suâ Ecclesâ—â suspectas â—as habentes propter repâ—eh ensionem admonitionem Quamplerima certe consarciunt mendacia figmenta ut jure videantur non admittere Scripturas So that we disclaime not the Fathers but in your Phantasies for we allowe them at all times what they ought to have and when by an universall consent they declare what the Apostles delivered to the Church wee grant them a more centrouling authoritie Yet we are not ashamed to distinguish betwixt God and man though you blush not to equall them and to make Gods ipse diceit a convincing rule which we cannot grant to man or the best of men the Fathers and Bishops of the auncient Church where they come alone without the Scriptures Our Iesuite hath done much in this Chapter to wit proved that we preferre God before men and I have shewed that we deny not to men what God hath allowed to them SECT VI. AND least Vanitie should be absent for a little here the Iesuite proceedes to take a veiw How vainely our Answerer excuseth his disclaime from the Fathers a Reply pag. 36 But how vainely he chargeth the Answerers most learned observation will presently appeare Here saith the Iesuite our Answerer meeteth us with the same auncient Father Vincentius Lirinensis who though a great Commender of the methode of confuting Heresies by the consent of holy Fathers yet is carefull herein to give us this caveat that neither alwayes nor all kinde of Heresies are to be impugned after this manner but such onely as are now and lately sprung namely when they doe first arise while by straitnes of the time it selfe they be hindred from falsifying the rules of the auncient Faith and before the time that their poyson spreading farther they attempt to corrupt the writings of the auncient But far-spred and inveterate heresies are not to bee dealt withall this way for as much as by long continuance of time a long occasion hath lyon open unto them to steale away the truth Out of which saying our Answerer inferres that our Heresies being farre-spred and of long continuance have had time enough and place to coyne and clipp and wash the 〈◊〉 of Antiquitie wherein saith hee they have not bene wanting and therefore must not be impugned by consent of holy Fathers b Reply pag. 36 Here is little Vanitie to be seene as yet how the Iesuite will make it appeare remaineth to be done and this hee will accomplish by espying
he say of the ignorance or the folly of the Answerer when he upbraides him with a Creed of the new fashion compised by Pope 〈◊〉 the fourth o Reply pag. 91 Nullus sapienâ— admiratur M â— Malone and therfore take the foole with you And howsoever you thinke to defend Pins the fourth by the Practice of the Nicene Councell it will give you no shelter they did you say expresse and declare the ancient faith in a new fashion and forme of words p Reply ibid. So did Athanasius so others but this is not the thingâ— for which you are accused but it is for an Appendix of twelve new points many of which were never accounted of faith till Pius the fourth his time and therefore your ground from which you perswade us to embrace it is unsound viz â— that it was compiled after the like manner without any alteration or innovation of the auncient faith aâ— all q Reply pag. 92 The ancient faith was so necessary to be believed that Athanafius tells us Whosoever wil bee saved it is necessary that he hold the Catholicke faith but your Creed is propounded onely to schollars and cheifely to such as are to receive promotions unto Scholasticall or Ecclesiasticall dignities r Reply pag. 91. Secondly the Apostle S. Iude tells us that the Faith Catholicke was once delivered but all your Trent articles are not so but brought in in after-times by the authority and definition of your Church as Transubstantiation Å¿ 〈◊〉 4. disâ— 11. q. 3. 〈◊〉 in Can. 〈◊〉 â—ect 41. Thirdly in the unitie of the Catholicke faith layde downe t Irenaeus â— 1. â— 3. 3â— by Irenaeus all the founded Churches in Germany Spaine France the East Egypt Lybia and all the world did sweetly agree but upon many of the new articles in your Creed there have been continuall warres controversies betwixt those that you will acknowledge Catholickes as communicating in one kinde Purgatory Indulgences the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches So that these points must be additions or else the Church lost the unity of Faith for a long time together Fourthly 〈◊〉 Lirinensis u Vincen. Lirinen advers prophan novat Cùm sit perfectus Scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat and other Fathers x S. Basil l. de vera pia fid Manifesta defectio fidei est importare quicquam â—orum quae scripta non sunt S. Hilar l. 2. ad Const Aug. fidem tandem secundum ea quae scripta sunt defiderantem hoc qui repudiat Antichristuâ— est qui simulaâ— Anathem a eâ—â— S. August l. 2. de doct Christ c. 9. In ijs quae apertè in scriptura posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi and some Schoolemen y Scotuâ— Prolog in Sent. q. 2 Scriptura sufficienter continet doctrinaÌ„ necessariaÌ„ viatori Thom. 2. 2. q. 1. a 10. ad 1. In Doctrina Christi Apostolorum veritas fidei est sufficienter explicita make the Scripture sufficient to â—each all points of faith but many articles of this Creed are confessed by you to be delivered by tradition onely not by Scripture z Coster in compend orthodoxae fidei demonstr 〈◊〉 5. c. 2p 162. so that you see you have vainely sought your defence from the practise of the Nicene Fathers It had been better I thinke Mr Malone that you had taken another kind of defence that you had justified the Pope your Church that they make new Creedes defining verities by the infolded still revelation of GOD which determinations have the force of a certaine divine revelation in respect of us as one of the learnedst of your Fraternity hath said a Suaâ—es â—om 2. p. 93. or with Stapleton that the church may define a point of faith Etiamsi nullo scripturarum aut evidenti aut probabili testimonis confirmaretur although it bee not confirmed with any evident or probable testimony of the Scriptures b Stapleton Râ—lect Cont. 4. q. 1 ar â— or with Lâ—â— the X. in his Bull against Luther that it is heresie to say immanu Ecclesia aut prorsus non esse statuere articles fidei that it is not in the hand of the Church or Pope to make articles of faith c Art 27. not to have run to expressing declaring which the Councell Pope never intended but be it as it will the Iesuite tells us that the Laytie may bee well counted Catholickes though they never so much as heard of it therefore we need not to trouble our selves about so triviall a matter especially they accounting us of the Lay number But after charges of ignorance folly and wrangling the Iesuite accuseth the most milde modest nature of the most â—overend Primate that he sticketh not maliciously to slander Maldonate and others with the crime of Perjurie d Reply pag. 92. c. He that would answere this snarling Iesuite with equall currishnes must speake with his teeth and not with his tongue But passingby his language I will consider how impudently he chargeth that with slander the truth wherof he cannot cast off with all his shifts Their Trent Creede is Neither will I ever receive or expound it vizâ— the Scripture but according to the uniforme consent of Fathers e Bulla Pij IV. p. 478. Nec eam unquam nisi juxta unanimem consensum Patrum accipiam interpretabor Now to defend Maldonate and Pererius two of his brotherhood for not practising according to faith he first reviles after his accustomed manner the most reverend Primate Secondly he denyes that Maldonatâ— ever tooke his â—ath Thirdly he expounds the article of faith for the saving of the Iesuites credite f See the Iesuites Reply pag. 9â— First for his reviling let Rabshekah rayle for Maldonats oath he tels us that the most reverend Primate cannot tell whether Maldonate tooke the oath or not gives two reasons one in the Text because he supposeth he never did the other in the margent For he lived wrote in Paris where the Tridentine Councell is not received g Reply pag. 92 A Iesuite must beleive for the Popes advantage why should wee thinke his suppositions should prejudge his cause he that must beleive white blacke if the Church injoyne it h 〈◊〉 p. 247. can suppose any thing The other reason is as vaine might as well have been spared in the margent as in the text for though the Church of France receive not the Councell of Trent yet is there any Iesuite in France that doth not subscribe unto it to submit in any other maner then the Pope prescribes is not obedience but rebellion Besides this being made a part of the Papall Creed he cannot deny his Baptisme in that faith if their faith be as auncient as the Iesuite which is not done without a vow or oath But if
who being not justified doe dye are appointed for euerlasting punishments By which it is evident that the fiction of Purgatory is not to be admitted but in the truth it is determined that every one ought to repent in this life to obtaine remission of his sinnes by our Lord Iesus Christ if he will be saved And let this be the end This compendious and briefe Confession of vs we conjecture wil be a contradiction to them who are pleased to slander maliciously accuse vs and vnjustly persecute vs But we trust in our Lord Iesus Christ and hope that he will not relinquish the cause of his faithfull ones nor let the rod of wickednes lye vpon the lot of the righteous Dated in Constantinople in the Moneth of March 1629. CYRILL Patriarch of Constantinople OVr Iesuite is charged by the most reverend Primate Some things are maintained by you which have not beene delivered for Catholicke Doctrine in the primitive times but brought in afterwards your selves know not when The Iesuite pumping for an answere herevnto talketh of ambiguity doubtfull phrases fighting in a cloud As if a man could deale more plainely with the Roman faction then to tell them that there are many points held now of faith by them which the first times never received for Catholicke doctrine and that they themselves know not when many of them were first broached in the Roman Church But the Iesuite fearing least he should be espied in opposing so manifest a truth would here raife a myst or fogge that he might the better steale out of danger for he indeavoureth to perswade That by those words the Answerer goeth about to make his simple Reader beleive that we maintaine doctrine contrary to that of primitive times because forsooth we maintaine now somethings which were not expresly declared nor delivered as necessary articles of Christian faith c Reply pag. 11 He were a simple reader indeed that would beleive this Iesuite either in his faith or doctrine if it have no better support then the declaration of some of their late Councels to confirme it But he were more then simple that can pick the Iesuite his collection from the learned Answerer his words Simple men interprete the Bels as they imagine and imagination hath directed the Iesuite heere and not the truth For what hath the words of the most reverend Primate to doe with the species of opposition where chargeth he you with maintaining doctrine contrarie to that of primitive times where doth he insinuate so much He that discovered your intrufions to have been brought in vnder the name of Piety was not so forgetfull to judge those points contrary to the received doctrine of faith You teach new faith this is the charge You deny not the old professedly in any point this were too grosse and fit for the fooles your brethren open Heretickes and not for the wisest sonne that can promote his fathers kingdome by a more secret and mysticall fraud So that let his words be softer then oyle or sharper then darts I am sure heerein the Iesuite fayles when hee thinketh them to be shot at the innocent The Iesuite would speake more to purpose to free himselfe and his faction and to this end he delivereth to us two propositions 1. We maintaine some things as Articles of faith which were not in primitive times expressely determined declared delivered for such And 2. Wee maintaine some things as articles of our faith which are contrary to that which hath beene declared for Catholick doctrine in primitive times would have vs know that there is a great difference betwixt these two sayings d Ibid. But as the Iesuite granteth the former to be true of themselves so the most learned Answerer in this place doth not charge them with this latter at all For I doubt not but that the most reverend Primate will yeeld so farre vnto you that in shew at least you holde the Apostles Creed and with the Pharisees give it the first place of honour as they Moses law yet notwithstanding your additions have cast contumely many times vpon the ancient faith as Pharisaicall traditions vpon Moses law * Mat. 25. â— 9. That which Roffensis sayth may be acknowledged in a right sence that there were many points universally held by the Primitive Church in beleife and practise the which with explanation were defended against contradicting Hereticks that arose in after-times But what is this to new doctrine never universally received nor anciently knowne or what argument is heere perswading you to declare that for ancient faith which was never delivered from the Apostâ—â—s c. or received by the Primitive Church But the Iesuite that he might gaine credit to his first proposition tels vs. Before the Nicen Councell some books of Canonicall Scripture were doubted of yea and rejected from the Canon by some of the Ancient without any blame at all which after the said Councel could not lawfully be called in quèstioÌ„ e Reply pag. 11 And all to very little purpose For first the Nicene Councell did not declare doubtfull books for Canonical Scripture nor point out the Canon which the Catholick Church did universally receive neither doth it make at all against their universall receipt of those bookes that some privat men or Church doubted of or rejected them For the Iesuite will have his doctrine generally received if affirmed by ten or eleven Fathers †Valentia if by the choysest Why shall f Reply pag. 94 not Gods booke have equall priviledge with a Papall Indulgence when the first is acknowledged in a manner by most this never taken notice of nor acknowledged at all Besides suppose that some private men or some few Churches did not receive some booke of the Canon yet this can no way hinder the universal receipt of the whole more then a mountaine or a wave the Globes roâ—undity Secondly although they were not blame worthy as the Iesuite would have it which should not receive some bookes of the New Testament which is false yet they were not without blemish for if it were an honour to the Iewes especially to the tribes of Iudah Benjamin that to them wholly intirely were commended the Oracles of God * Rom. 3 2. it must needes bee a dishonour to the ten tribes to have rejected all but the five bookes of Moses Thirdly although those bookes were doubted of yet they were doubtingly received for you cannot finde them by any Church canonically rejected Fourthly it had bin as foule an errour to have decreed any thing against the authority of those books before the Nicen Councel as afterwards For if the Iesuit will take it to bee such a tye that all are bound to stand vnto the declaration of a Councel why did not the Councel of Laodicea f Carran in sum Concilâ— can 59. performe their obligatioÌ„ but in the repetition of the Canon leave the book of Iudith to be placed amoÌ„gst the Apocrypha not
must be the measure and square of our faith Further you shall see he is taken in the traine whereby he thought to intrappe for in answering S. Augustine alleadged by the most learned Answerer he telleth us that the pretence of Scripture onely in such a matter of fact as this is 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 â—â—â—iâ—king from the question in hand r Reply pag. â—â— Indeed if the question in â—â—â—d were whether the Fathers of the primitive Church held these points or not then who would deny but it were a sâ—â—inking from the question in hand to fly to the scriptures But if the controâ—ersie heere bee concerning the rule whether the Iesuit hath rightly framed an invention to finde out true religion by then the producing of the true rule the sacred scriptures that a defective one framed by the Iesuit may be deâ—ected is neither from the matter or question in hand And if the points proposed by the Iesuite bee points of Doctrine as I doubt not but hee would have them yea doctrines of Faith and fundamentall also why should not hee try them by the Scriptures in regard hee confesseth that S. Augustine omitting the Fathers provoked the Donatists and Pelagians to the try all of Scripture for as much as he then disputed of a point of Doctrine onely Å¿ 〈…〉 29 But saith our Iesuite if it be demaunded to what pâ—â—pose then doth he fill up whole volumes with the Fathers saying if nothing but onely Scripture may suffice he answereth that he doth it to the end we should not thinks he is any whiâ—â— afraid of all whatsoeuer we can produce against him out of the Fathers and no wonder he should be so confident heerâ—â—â— when as he layeth this ground for himselfe No Father but God doe wee know upon whose bare credite wee may ground our consciences in things that are to bee beleived Reply pag. â—0 c. If the Reader please to consider he shall finde the most reverend Primate in answering the Iesuites demand to detect 2 things first the vanity of his invention in assigning a rule that God never instituted to find out points of true Religion by Secondly his foolish considence in that rule that layeth them open to heresie and shame Now by this they may know to what purpose the most learned Answâ—rer doth fill up whole volumes with the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with that sword which they 〈◊〉 to be their 〈◊〉 to wit the anncient Fathers 〈◊〉 might 〈…〉 those rayling Heresies that revile the 〈◊〉 of the â—â—â—â—ving God For although your rule be not 〈◊〉 of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherupon to ground our 〈…〉 of 〈◊〉 yet it wil be 〈◊〉 to shew that you are but 〈…〉 traditions reall 〈◊〉 prayer 〈◊〉 ◠〈◊〉 â—â—â—roso◠〈◊〉 heâ— 4. Ne mihi ca â—â—bi proferenâ—â— SIMPLICITER sidem adhibeâ—â— nisi de diviâ—â—â— Scripturis eorum quae â—â—cam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yoâ—â— Roman â—â—nce to be allowed by the 〈◊〉 Fathers And the most learned Answerer will never oppose the generall 〈◊〉 of the anncient Fathers in points of Faith which they have generally received out of the word of God but the Iesuite may consider that this is not to depend upon any authority without Scripture The Iesuite further revileth us for leaving the Fathers and cleaving to God although we most firmely adhere to them where they joyne in a generall consent with the saâ—red Scripture which is as much as the Fathers â— professe to do telling us that in appealing to scripture the most learned Answerer disagreeth with those of his own profession c. And to manifest this he bâ—â—geth in as he 〈◊〉 him Dr Hooker saying Of all things necessary the vâ—ry 〈◊〉 iâ— â—â— know what 〈◊〉 we 〈…〉 holy which 〈…〉 the Scripture i◠〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if any 〈◊〉 of Scripture did give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet still that Scripture which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the rest could require another Scripture to give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto it neither would we â—ver 〈◊〉 to any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our â—ssurance this may 〈◊〉 that unlesse 〈…〉 somthing which 〈…〉 we could not 〈◊〉 we do 〈◊〉 〈…〉 Scripture iâ— a 〈◊〉 and holy rule of 〈◊〉 This place of the learned Hooker presupposeth but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that historicall and what 〈◊〉 this against the 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉 of the Church or being a 〈◊〉 Umpier and sufficien◠〈◊〉 to square our â—aith and actions by For who knowes not that the Heavens cover all things and yet cover not themselves and what may hinder the Scriptures in like 〈◊〉 to teach all 〈◊〉 doctrines of faith and manners and yet not to point out themselves S. Augustines words are in every Papists mouth viz. that he would not beleâ—ve the scriptures unlesse the authority of the catholicke Church had moved him thereunto and yet he 〈◊〉 all things 〈◊〉 â—aith and 〈◊〉 to be 〈…〉 in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this necessary point of â—aith is a 〈◊〉 o◠〈…〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly the Iesuite abuseth his 〈◊〉 for the Churches testimony harely and alone begotteth but opinion in Hookers judgementâ— For saith â—o the more we bâ—stow 〈…〉 reading and learning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the more we 〈…〉 thing it 〈◊〉 â—â—th answere 〈◊〉 received 〈…〉 that the 〈…〉 with â—â— before 〈◊〉 â—â—w much more 〈◊〉 when the very thing 〈◊〉 ministred further 〈◊〉 And therefore Hookers words make â—â—thing against the 〈…〉 for 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 of Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 the way by 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which convinceth to beleive the scriptures to be the word of â— Lib. ◠〈◊〉 â— God 〈…〉 And thus Gods 〈…〉 give witnesse to his word doth not take 〈…〉 sâ—â—â—â—ciency to declare whose words they are and from what 〈◊〉 they 〈◊〉 any more then it doth the suffiâ—â—â—â—cy of their rule which consisteth of scripture and tradition also Whereby the 〈◊〉 may see he hath produced this worthy Author to no advantage â—â— being plaine that although there be something else to preparâ— the way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sid form dispâ— 3. sect 12. n. â—â—â— Admitti potest ex humâ—na authoritate geâ—â—rari quandam fidem humanam praeviaâ—â— ad fidem 〈◊〉 non â—â—â—quam 〈…〉 vel rationem 〈◊〉 ejus 〈◊〉 tanquam â—â—â—ditionem applicatiâ—â—â—â— objecâ—â—â— yet the minde is altogether 〈◊〉 by the â—â—ght oâ— the scriptures themselves the Church pointing 〈◊〉 ouâ— and they themselves 〈◊〉 the Churches 〈◊〉 So that the scriptures remaine the onely 〈◊〉 upon which a man 〈◊〉 his faith for any thing the Iesuite hath pickâ—â— out of this learned Divine â— D. Field 〈◊〉 his Appendiâ— to the booke of the 〈◊〉 par 2. §. ◠〈…〉 will 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â— any way 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where 〈…〉 I have in my Epistle 〈◊〉 That all mâ—◠〈◊〉 carefully 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the true 〈◊〉 that so they may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follow her directions and rest in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chargeth â—â— that â—â— my fourth 〈◊〉 following I 〈◊〉 her of almost all such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aâ— I 〈◊〉
Iesuite make this good in his owne particular calling Bibling Babling Å¿ Reply pag. â—â— We know in this sence every meane may be despised not onely Stephen * Acts 7. â—4 and Paul †Acts 28. 24. Socrates histe Eccles l. 1. c 6. Sabinus qui haerefis Macedonianâ—â— princeps est dediâ—â— operâ his refragatur immo vero cos qui Nicaeae coacti crant impetitos 〈◊〉 vocat 〈◊〉 de vita Constantini l. 2. c. 71. Magis magisque lis accrevit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 provincias mali illius imperus invaserâ—t but Christ himselfe What Councels ever choaked Hereticks but they croaked afterwards â— It is sufficient if the Scriptum est may stupifie a Devill * Math. 4. 4. 7. amaze a Pharisee †〈◊〉 17. ◠◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eccles l. 1. c. â— Cum amplius â—recenti Episcopi â—unam candemque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exquisitis legis devinâ—â— testimoniis vera fides esse confirmatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—◠〈◊〉 â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 victus ab â—â— peâ—ituâ— deâ—eiverit convict an Arian â— consume Antichrist * 2. Thess 2. 8. in the effect or judgement of others What they themselves conceive hereof is nothing to the purpose the Rule is the Rule though a perverse Hereticke cannot be made to acknowledge it Thus saith the Iesuite we may easily espy the reason why our Answerer refuseth to stand to the verdict of either Church Councell or Fatherâ— admitting onely Scriptures for the judge of his cause x Reply pag. 33 Indeed by this place of Tertullian we may easily espie it is the same reason that mooved the auncient Fathers to urge the generall tradition of the auncient Church against certaine Heretickes of their time which perswaded the most learned Answerer to make use of the like weapons against the Iesuite in regard Papists as ancient Heretickes shift off the Scriptures many times by additions substractions depravations adulterous sences corrupted stiles c But to charge this most reverend Lord with refusing to stand to the verdict of either Church Councells or Fathers c. is one of the Iesuites truths He refuseth them indeed as judges of our faith as the absolute rule seclusis sacris litaris so do your owne y Marsilius def Pa. pa. 2. c. 28. Quas vero ipsorum auctoritate propria prae ter Scripturam protulerunt sententias scripturae sive canoni consonas recipiam quas vero dissonas reverenter abjiciam Non tamen aliter quam auctoritate Scripturae cui semper innitar Aquinas 1. part sum q. 1. ar 8. Auctoritatibus autem canonicae scripturae utitur propriè ex necessitate argumentando Auctoritatibus autem aliorum doctorum Ecclesiae quasi arguendo ex proprijs sed probabi liter Innititur enim fides nostra revelationi Apostolis Prophetis factae qui canonicos libroâ— scripserunt non autem revelationi si qua fuit alijs Doctoribus facta that have any conscience but not as good testimonies to assent to the truth And so farre are they from patronizing the Popish cause that you dare not accept them nisi ex cogitato commento but with mentall reservation of a false comment or a worse interpretation z Index Expurg Belgic pag. 5. Quum igitur in Catholicis veteribus alijs plurimos feramus errores exâ—enuemus excusemus excogitato commenso persaepè negemus commodum â—â—â— sensum assingamus dum 〈◊〉 in disputationibus aut in confliction but cum adversarijs Reply pag. 33. What followes to wit that by the confession of his own forefathers masters fellow Protestants they the fathers were no better then meere Papists a is both falshood and froath for which of our accompt the fathers Papists if the Iesuite knowes them let him produce them but we beleive his weaknes wil be seene before his detection And surely he dreameth to thinke we esteeme the Fathers Papists and slaves to that Tyrant whose usurpations their writings alwayes resisted And how can this hang together Wee acknowledge that for the first 400. or 500. yeares the Church of Rome remained a true Church free from Papall impostures and yet as the Iesuit spareth not to accuse us charge the fathers of the primitive Church c. as Papists to favour of that leaven which they ever cast out and expelled But this the Iesuit hath referred to another place till which time we will leave it Yet whereas the Iesuite still insisteth upon the most learned Answerers words no other Father but God do we know upon whose bare credit we may ground our consciences in things that are to be beleived that rocke upon which alone we build our faith is the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets from which no sleight that they can devise shall ever draw us and thinketh the same are uttered for no other end but to cast by the fathers as little respecting their authority b Reply pag. 33 We take this but for a wizards surmise and a vain repetition we having shewen before that the most learned Answerer hath given the Fathers their due respect and if he should do more hee would deny to God his due reverence You that give too much to Saints and Angels dare not justifie but distinguish your worship How much better is it then to deale plainely and to give unto Fathers that which is theirs and to God and his word what belongeth to them Yea whether is it greater disparagement to the Fathers to make them stoop to God or man We doe the first you doe the last where you dare you purge them they shall not speake one word against Babylon but by inventing some device you will deny them c Vide lit â— and if such dealing will not serve then downe with their buildings giving them no honour at all d Index expurg Hispanâ—ard Quiâ—ogae edit Madilti ann 1584. in fine literae â— Deleatur tota Epistola Vdalrici Episcopi Augustini de â—â—libatu cleri Item totus liber Bertrami presbyteri de corpore sanguine Domini penitusauferatur Lastly the Iesuite saith we will now discover for conclusion of the whole how farre herein the Answerer differeth from those Fathers of the auncient Church of God with whom he pretendeth to have so great affinity And this we will declare by the expresse words of an auncient learned Father Vineâ—â—tius Lyrinensis e Reply pag. 34 c. How willingly the Iesuite would have the auncient Church to be as corrupt as themselves may appeare by this his strugling with one onely Lyrinensis whose words largely translated speake not any thing in effect to prove his intention for who is ignorant that heresies are novelties and that Hereticks would justifie their new follies by the auncient testimonies of the sacred Scriptures neither by them alone but the auncient Fathers also Yet must this prove the Answerer to differ from the Fathers of the auncient Church because with them he useth the rule that was
coâ— qui 〈◊〉 animarum zelantes ardenter sacris studijs procurantes multos in Ecclesia Dei operantur spirituales profectus magnum faciant ibi fructum their bookes burnt r Ibid Diâ—â—icte praecipientes ut quicunque libellum ipsum habuerit cum prorsus in toto in qualibeâ— sui parte comburere abolere procuret the Fryars preserved from the flame the Fryars made inquisitors of heresies Å¿ Bulla Alexandri IV. inter liter Ponâ—iâ—â—c pro officio Inquisit à â—â— Pegâ—à edit Rom. an 1585. pag. 5051. Alexander Episcopus servus servorum Dei Dilectis filijs universis fratribus Praedicatorum Minorum ordinum Inquisitoribus â—aereticae pravitatis c. Praesentium vobis auctoritate mandamus 〈◊〉 in â—odem negotiâ— de divino eâ— Apostolico favore confisi omnj humanâ— tractare deposito constanter ac â—ntrepide procedentes cirea extirpandam haereticam pravitatem câ—m omni vigilantiâ— omnique â—â—â—dio laboretis Prateol de haer in Guileâ— de S. Aâ—â—â—e Gault sec 13. these censured as forsaking the faith I will not for all this say that there were no members of CHRIST in the Church of Rome yet I dare say that all these Factionists against the Person Ghospell Preisthood of CHRIST were members of the Divell Neither is Dissention at this day such a fugitive from the Roman Church as the Iesuite would have us to beleive The Regulars of Ireland yesterday would excommunicate the Seculars out of the Hierarchie and preferre their Prelates before their Bishops for this reason because their Bishops are Subulci Swyneheards their flockes swyne Censura Paris Propos 2. Sacerdotes sunt meri saeculares Ibid. Propos â— Superiores Regularium digniores sunt Episcopis siquidem dignitas Pastoris peten da est ex conditione sui gregis quemadmodum opilio dignior est subulco The Sorbonists that cry loudest in this Heard make the Regulars as hath beene before related in their positions to be schismaticall inept hereticall * See before pag. 136. c. Now we may see what reason the Iesuite hath to use his interlineall glosses or to demaund with what reason the Answerer pretends harmony in Religion u Reply pag. 79 seeing it is apparant that the quarrels of Protestants are but in ceremonies or at worst in points of no absolute consequence that their differences are in matters that concerne the life of Religion unlesse they thinke the Church may subsist without CHRIST his Gospell or his Preisthood We may complaine with Ioseph that our brethren or those which should be so are too hard hearted that will offer to cast us into the pit of Death and Heresie for such pettie and small differences that being scanned with charitie would not appeare to be materiall when as your Variances Mr Malone would burst into scisme nisi ignis securis in officio contineret x Spal contra Suar. c. x. nu 30 Schisma proculdubiò facerent etiam nostrae Romanenâ—â—umsectae modo à me nominatae nisi illos ignis securis in officio contineret unlesse your Peacemonger tyed you to Unity by the faggot and the hangman So that his declamation out of Chrysostome doth torture himselfe not punish us for who barely seemes to have CHRIST but the Principall of Papists And what Alcoran denyes him more then their eternall Gospell Who mixeth the Gospell with decrees of men Have they forgot them who will have traditions to be received with the Scriptures pari pietatis affectu y Conc. Triden sess 4. Omnes libros tam veteris quam novi Testamenti neenon Tradiones ipsas pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiá suscipit â—c veneratur Are they not at Trent and Rome And therefore wee condemne you not because you are at oddes with Heretickes but because you are at peace with Hell and contention against the Faith But although the Iesuite hath fayled in his first attempt to make our dissentions such as either drive us from the Church or the Church from us yet hee ceaseth not but proceedes to manifest that the most learned Answerer in his Sermon at Wansted did seeke to shake off the palpable badge and cause of discord from himselfe by laying all upon the Pope and his universall superioritie as may appeare saith the Iesuite by his words Neither indeede is there any hope that wee shall see a generall peace for matters of Religion settled to the Christian World as long as this supercilious Master the Pope shall bee suffered to keepe this rule in Gods house But is not this saith the Iesuite just as if malefactors should give out that they can never live in quiet peace whilst Iustice beareth sway Or yet as if the damned spirits should complaine that they can never finde rest in Hell while God in Heaven beareth rule z Reply pag â—0 It is just as like as the Pope is either like to God or Iustice It is true as I have shewed before that the Divell is somthing lesse ambitious then the Pope For if the Scripture do point out that wicked one he would be but similis altissimo like unto the most High yet the Pope doth so farre disdaine to bee like GOD that he must be GOD himselfe No sooner Pope but he must bee placed upon the Altur and be worshipped lib. 1. ceremon sect 1. pag. 16 a Bis super altare collocatur cum mitra ibi que adoratur If in the Chaire who governes but a Celestiall Prince b Carer de potest Rom. Pon. 2. c. 24. n. 19. Hâc itaque in re Itali maximè se divino mâ—nere extollant super omnes nationes quod habuerintprin cipem coelestem Pontificem scil Romanum Talke of his power it is Omnipotent c Theses Pauli 3. Dicatâ— Vicedeum Christianâ— reipublicae Monarcham invictissimum et pontificiae omnipotentiae conservatorem acerrimum His Act the act of GOD d Panor in cap inter corpcralia de trans Episc His Tribunall one with God e Hostiens de trans Episc c. quanto n. 11. from whom there is no Appeale to GOD f Aug Triumph quaeâ—â— 6. 1. Nulla appellatio tenet facta aÌ„ Papà ad Deum quia unum Consistorium est ipsius Papâ— ipsius Dej because this presupposeth a superiour The Vnity and Trinitie of his Deitie I have shewed before out of Morinus g See before pag. 135. lit â— Besides he is as like to Iustice as he is truely GOD and no further I will not say that like Ziâ—â—ri hee â— surped his Monarchie by killing of his Master but by actions in our Saviours testimony equally unjust as by butchering his servants slaughtering his Saints Iustice gives Hee takes from every man his due His actions are the measure of Iustice not measured by it Princes and Preists the most glorious witnesses of the world whose prerogatives he covets and usurpes can witnesse this Shall wee thinke that all
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
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
hath he thaâ—â—â— not concludent from the Scripture Not one unlesse you suppose that he keeps them as concealements yet he thinkes he doth something when he tels us from Hierome that the scriptures consist not in reading but in the true understanding of their sence meaning that by an evill interpretatioÌ„ the Gospell is no more the word of God but the word of man yea which is worse the word of the Divell i Reply ibid. As if this were not the matter that we complaine of that Popes will interpret as they please presume to say this shal be the sence of the Holy Ghost But to fit himselfe for performance of what he hath undertakes he saith that there be â—â—â— three meanes or wayes by which a Conclusion deduced from the scripture may be pretended to be infallible k Reply pag. 97 But what is this to the foundation of Faith I hope every infallible proposition is not of such necessary beleife that a maâ— must beleive it on paine of damnation You told us but 〈◊〉 that your new Creed was propounded onely to Scholleâ—s and cheifely unto such as are to receive promotions unto Scholasticall or Ecclosiasticall dignity l Reply pag. 98 what are all lay-men Clerks or is the nature of your faith changed Now the Iesuite nameth his three onely meanes the first humane discourse the second Private inspiration the third the authority of some externe meane ordained by GOD betwixt the Scripture and us c m Reply pag. 97 To avoyde the two first he makes a long discourse but he fights with his owne shadow for wee make not the Scripture of private interpretation as being against the Apostles rule * 2 Pet. 1. 20. neither doe we make our reason the onely Inquisitor to finde out the sence of Scripture knowing that the carnall man perceiveth noâ— the the things that are of GOD Yet this we say that reason being assisted by grace becomes a divine instrument whereby the scriptures may be used to saving knowledge and to finde out the mysteries of our Faith Now seeing that neither humane discourse saith the Iesuite 〈…〉 by God betwixt the Scripture and â—â— such as is the authority of the Magistrate 〈…〉 the Princes law and the people that it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and propound unto us all decisions and 〈◊〉 whatsoever Reply pag. 97 The Iesuite shall never finde that there is any such exterâ—â— infallible means 〈◊〉 by GOD betwixt the Scripture and â—â— to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and propound unto us all decisions and conclusions whatsoever that we are bound to beleive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Neither when they come to point it out are they agreed who it is For sometime it is the generall and uniforme consent of auncient Fathers that is the assured Touch-stone to try all controversies betwixt us o See the Iesuites Epistle to the King and this generall consent may consist of 〈…〉 fathers p Reply pag. 94 â—â—â— sometimes of fewer as in 〈◊〉 of the Commandements and leaving out the Second they cannot find the one halfe to reckon them after that sortâ— sometime the practise of the Church sometime the rule of Faith sometime the Councels interpretations and sometime all must vanish and that which the Head determineth is a knowne truth that which the Head condemneth is a knowne error q Hart colloque cum Rainolds pag. 44. Now which of all these are infallible For Consent of fathers Cajetan will tell us that God hath not tyed the exposition of the Scriptures to the sence of the Fathers and therefore he resolves to follow a new sence agreeable to the Text. 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alienus though it be repugnant to the streame of the sacred Doctors t Cajetan in Prooem comment in Genes In like manner Andradius Andradius Defens Triden Fid. l. 2. pag. â—â—â— Non 〈◊〉 debentur eorum explicationibus addicti alligarâ— quin sit 〈◊〉 omnibus illis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quid Dei praesidijs adjuti explicando valeamus sensum alium 〈◊〉 etiam dissimilem afferre atque noris explicationibus 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae sanctorum 〈◊〉 fidem atque pietatem illustraâ—â— For the practise of the Church if they meane the Roman it is no good direction in regard as we have shewed before it is very subject to varietie as in the point of Childrens receiving of the Eucharist t See before pag. 25. â— See before pag. 10â— and in the point of Iudges and the like all which are full of uncertainty For their rule of faith we see that this may be in the Roman Church enlarged extended yea we have wits in the Church of Rome that can censure it making it in some considerations standalous hereticall x Censura Symboli Apostolorum censur ar 3. Tota Haec propositio equivocatione laâ—orat quae inducere potest in haeresim propter ambiguas particulas de ex quia ordinaria de habitudinem importat principij componentis c. Ideo propositio in hoc sensu falsa est scandalosa haeretica 〈◊〉 y Censur ar 4. Haec propositio ambigua est aliquo sensu haeretica Periculosa est propositio 〈◊〉 obrium illum sensum intellectâ— quasâ— diviniâ—as aliquid passa aut â—â—â—tua fuctit non solum haeretica est sed etiam impis â— blasphema deceitfull z Censur ar 2. Tota haec propositio captiosa est â—â—llax blasphemous z See before lit erroneous See hereafter lit â— false c See before lit â— dangerous d See before lit 7. absurd Censura ar 9. Absurda ambiguous See before lit â— contrary to the word of GOD the common sence of the Fathers and of the universall Church g Censura ar 7. Propositio 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 falsa erronea nec non verbo Dei communi Patrum totiusque Ecclesia sensui contraria â— Wadding Legat. Phil. 3. Sect. 2. orat 9. § 9. Pro Petro in fide Petrâ— succedentibus non pjo Concilio oravit exoravit Adversus hoâ— adversus Ecclesiam in Petro in illisque fundatam non adversus Concilium dixit infernum non praevalituram 〈◊〉 â—oncilia errâsse viderimus quando à suo capitâ— Ã quo 〈◊〉 sanctius veritatis influentia recesserant vel dissenâ—â—râ—nt Non â—â—â—buit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—em Pontifici sed à Pontifice habet Concilitum ut sit ratum ac 〈◊〉 For Councels interpretations we shall have as much to doe for to finde out the sence of a Councell as of the Scripture it selfe Besides how many weake particulars may suspend a Councell from her pretended infallible authoritie as if not rightly called rightly headed c So that there remaines none but the Pope for whom Christ prayed It is he that gives authoritie to a Councell not the Councell to him But if this Lord that would be of our conferences prove a Lord of Mis-rule where then shall we