The Ancient Doctrine of the Church of England, Part 1 · Section 12
Concerning the Fathers, whether Proteſtants or Papiſts attribute more unto them; Spectacles, chap. 12. a page 405. uſ que ad 434.
IT cannot be unknown to any man of learning, or that hath but any the leaſt acquaintance with the Controverſies of this age, what great advantage wee Catholikes have by the writings of the ancient Fathers, how highly wee eſteeme them, what confidence wee place in them, and how wee appeale to them for deciſion of our Controverſies; and how ſmall reſpect on the other ſide Heritikes ſhew, either to their perſons or writings, as being in their opinions but men, and ſubject to errour. Or rather how contemtibly they ſpeake of them; for proofe whereof, a man need not goe no farther than that little Treatiſe of Campian's ten reaſons, the fift of which is of the Fathers.
In the thirteene Inſtances, by which the Knight will prove, that Bellarmine, and Stapleton, and Senenſis, and Gregorie de Valentia, and Sanders, and Ribera, and Canus, and Salmeron, either elude or reject the Fathers, the Knight dealeth not ſquarely. For, though hee quote the words for the moſt part truly, yet hee concealeth their reaſons which they give of their anſwers. Neither doe thoſe Writers inſist onelyonly upon thoſe anſwers to the places objected out of the Fathers, but adde many other unto them, to give the Reader better ſatisfaction, as will appeare by the particular examination of each paſſage.
The Hammer.
ALthough in this Chapter the Ieſuit lye as open to the laſh, as in any of the former; yet partly becauſe hee is like him in the Poet, that was ſo tawed and fleade with rods, that there was no skin left on his body for a new ſtroke to fetch off: partly becauſe, Page 406, hee confeſſeth hee cannot tell what to ſay to the Knight; but eſpecially, becauſe the Argument of this Chapter is moſt fully and accurately handled by Dr. Humphrey, and Dr. Whitaker, in their anſwer to Campian his fift reaſon, and in a ſingular Treatiſe lately ſet forth by Laurentius, intituled, Reverentia Eccleſiae Romanae erga ſanctos patres. I will forbeare to examine the ſeverall Paragraphs in this Chapter, (wherein, whatſoever is materiall, is refuted in the anſwers to the former Sections) onelyonly I will point at ſome notorious falſities and abſurdities, if not to rectifie the Ieſuits judgement, yet to diſabuſe the credulous Reader. Firſt, hee denieth not that the Romane Doctors above mentioned, utter thoſe diſgracefull ſpeeches of Saint Auſten, Origen, Theodoret, Cyprian, Tertullian, and the reſt, but he addeth that they gave other anſwers to our objections out of thoſe Fathers. What is that to the purpoſe, or againſt the Knight? who denieth not that Popiſh writers have other ſhifts and evaſions to our arguments drawne from the teſtimony of ancient Fathers beſids thoſe, which are here ſet down in this chapter, which are refuted by Chamierus, Iunius: and for the better part of them by me in the former Sections: but he produced theſe paſſages onelyonly to ſhew the Romaniſts diſreſpect and ſleightening of the ancient Fathers, if in any thing they croſſe their Trent Faith. Secondly, to touch upon ſome particulars, how ridiculouſly and abſurdly doth the Ieſuit ſpeake, Pag. 417. Epiphanius ſaith in plaine manner, that the Image which he ſaw hang in the Church at Anablatha, and tare downe the vale in which it was drawne, was not the Image of Chriſt or any Saint, but the Image of a man, he knew not whom; which if it had bin Chriſts, or any Saints he would have knowne whoſe it was, neither would he have called the Image of Chriſt or any Saint the Image of a man. Why I pray you? is not Chriſt a man? were not Saints men? What ſhould Epiphanius have ſaid elſe, who ſaw there the repreſentation of the feature, and liniaments of a man, but knew not what man that was? he ſaith, he ſaw a vaile having on it the Image as if it had beene of Chriſt, or ſome Saint, for he knew not whoſe it was. If he knew not whoſe it was, for ought he knew it might be made for the Image of Chriſt, or any Saint. VponUpon what ground then doth the Ieſuit ſay, that it was neither the Image of Chriſt nor of any Saint? P. 423.Thirdly, he ſaith it is evident that Saint Chryſoſtome did ſay Maſſe every day; whereas neither in that place quoted by him, neither in any place in all his workes can it be gathered, that he ever ſaid Maſſe, or adminiſtred the Sacrament without communicants: the Romiſh Maſſe is of a farre later date, then the age of Saint Chryſoſtome. P. 425.Fourthly, he moſt ſhamefully and falſely traduceth the Proteſtants (whom he tearmes the Haeretikes of this age) that they ſpeake generally, very meanely and contemptibly of the moſt ſacred Virgine. I marvaile his heart did not ſmite him, when his hand wrote theſe words ſo directly againſt the truth, and his owne conſcience. For he cannot be ignorant that King Iames in his admonition to all Princes, ſet forth in Latine, French, and Engliſh, and our Church in the booke of Common Prayer, ſpeake moſt honourably and reverently of that moſt Sacred and bleſſed Virgine, religiouſly obſerving the feaſts of her Annuntiation, and Purification, and rehearſing at every Evenſong, her Magnificat. P. 427.Fiftly, he ſaith that Saint Ierome alloweth the the booke of Judith to be Canonicall Scripture: whereas in the place quoted by him, the preface to Iudith he ſaith onelyonly that it is read, or that he had read ſomewhere, that the Nicene Synod did reckon the booke of Judith among the holy Scriptures, but for himſelfe he ſaith in that very Preface, that this booke is not fit to be alleaged for the confirmation of thoſe things that are in controverſie. And in his Preface to the booke of Proverbs, he ſaith expreſſely, that the booke of Judith is not accounted by the Church for Canonicall. Iudith & Tobie, P. 430.& Machabeorum libros legit quidem eccleſia, ſed cos inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit. Sixtly, he affirmeth that there is no controverſie betweene them and us concerning the immaculate conception of our Lady; whereas both Chemnitius and Reynolds, & many other Proteſtant writers have overthrowne the ground of their feaſt of the immaculate conception of our Lady; and all reformed Churches in generall have ſtrucke that feaſt out of the Calender, and the title of the 15. Article of religion of Chriſt alone without ſinne, ſheweth to the world, that we beleeve it to be the prerogative of our bleſſed Saviour, among all the Sonnes of Adam, that he alone was free from all originall and actuall ſinne. And now Maſter Flood, ſith you are taken in ſo many and fowle untruths in one Chapter; I hope the Reader will not envie you that Guerdon, which Ariſtotle beſtowes upon a lewd and lowd Lyer, not to be credited when he ſpeaketh the truth.