A Case for the Spectacles, Chapter 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? Thirdly,P. 423. 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. Fourthly,P. 425. 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. Fiftly,P. 427. 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 eos 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.