is now forbidden as a thing vngodly 11. That there are any Sacraments of the New Testament instituted by Christ for the good of mans Soule Lastly to omit some others 12. That before the ending of the world Antichrist shall come who shal be a designed Enemy of Christ and shall labour to subuert and ouerthrow all Christian Religion All these points both Protestant and Catholike do belieue and hould that the beliefe of them is necessary to Saluation And yet not any of these Articles are expressed or set downe in the Creed Whence I conclude that the Apostles Creed cannot be a sufficient boundary to containe and limit an auayleable Fayth Animaduersion LXII THe bitter Inuectiues of the Protestants one against another are of sufficient force to discouer their dissentions in doctrine as where Luther sayth We (n) Luther in Thes Cont. Louaniens Thes 21. seriously iuâ—ge the Swinglians and Sacramentaries to be Heretiks and Aliens from the Church of God And to confront this Swinglius thus retorteth vpon Luther Luther (o) Swingl tom 2. in resp ad Luther fol 458. is guilty of high blasphemy against the nature and essence of God c. To descend to the Puritans and Protestants in England we find that the booke entituled Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiasticall printed anno â—604 doth ipso facto excommunicate the Puritans for their maintaining of these positions following as they are there set downe in the Booke The worship of the Church of England is corrupt superstitions vnlawfull repugnant to the Scriptures The Articles of the Bishops Religion are Erroneous their Rites Antichristian c. Now the Protestants do thus râ—quite the Puritans saying The (p) M. Powell in hâ—s consiâ—erations Puritans are notorious and manifest Schismaticks cut of from the Church And againe The (q) M. Paâ—ks in his Ep. Deâ—ic Puritans seeke to vndermyne the foundation of fayth Now add hereto that although infinite other passages might be brought to shew the great discord in fayth among the forraine Protestants yet there is no one more short Argument to conuince this point then to recur to the foure Catalogues of ProtestaÌ„t Books set downe in the later end of the Booke called The Protestants Apology of the Roman Church In which 4. Catalogues one may find about three hundred Bookes written in great acerbity of stile by one Protestant against another The names of all which books are taken out of Coccius his Thesaurus or from Hospinian both which Authouâ—s dyed many yeares since Now if so mâ—â—y Bookes of disagreements in fayth among the Protestants were made within so sport a Tyme how many hundred more might be alledged if one did know all other Bookes written by the Protestant against the Protestant since the death of those two former men Animaduersion LXIII MAny vulgar and vnlearned Protestants and especially the Caluinists Puritans do condemne the Catholike Roman Religion because it defendeth and practizeth diuers Ceremonyes they ignorantly tearming such Ceremonyes Idolatrous and superstitious And there is no one argument more preuayling with such men to auert them from our Catholike Religion theâ— this Now to take a way this scandall oâ— stumbling block I say that if it were God good pleasure to haue his Fayth and Religion of the old Testament which for the tyme was the true Religion to consisâ— much in Ceremonyes as we see it did faâ—â— out in the seuerall Sacrifices appoynted by God In the Tabernacle with the appurtenances and of what matter number and qualityes all things should be as also with prouiâ—ion of Oyle and Lampes The Arke The propitiatory the Consecration of priests the Institution of all vestures vessels and other holy things then belonging to the seruice of God all these to be made performed and done after a strange and different manner as we reade in Exodus As also the Institution of Circumcision consisting in paring away a piece of flesh which serued for freeing Man in that tyme from Originâ— Sinne the preparing and eating of the Paschall Lambe sprinkling the dores with the bloud thereof and infinit other Ceremonies recorded in the foresaid booke of Exodus I say if this was Gods vnsearcheable Will to ordaine these things during the tyme of the Old Law wherein he would haue the Honour Seruice and worship exhibited to â—im partly to consist why then may not our Sauiour institute the Religion fayth of Christians belieuing in him to be attended on with diuers Ceremonyes and yet this without any Superstition or Idolatry Now our Aduersaryes common euasion to this our Argument is to say that God instituted Ceremonyes in the Old Law to serue as figures or Types of things which were after to fall out in the New Law which Ceremonyes were theÌ„ to end vpon the promulgation of the fayth of Christ. This answeare is most impertinent First because not all the Ceremonyes in the Old Law but only some did serue as figures or Adumbrations of things to happen in the New Testament Secondly because the Question heere is not why or to what end the Ceremonyes of the Old Law were instituted but only whether Ceremonyes tending to the worship of God be pious lawfull Therefore I conclude that seeing the Ceremonies in the Old Law were instituted by Gods direction for the worship of him as we read in Exodus c. 8 Ostendas populo Caeremonias ritus colendi let the other secondary end of them be what it will that therefore and by force of Gods proceeding in the Old Law we Christians may not thinke strange that our Sauiour being God and Man would now in the New Law institute and giue to his Church the like power some Ceremonies and pâ—blike Rites wherewith he will be worshipped and wherin part of Christian religion shall consist Now therefore let our Aduâ—â—saries if they can giue any true reasoâ— why the Ceremâ—nies of the Old Law bâ—ing incomparably more in number shall be accounted lawfull and yet the Ceremonies of the New Law or Testament as long as they are reputed but Ceremonies must be râ—puted superstitions aâ— Idolatrous Animaduersion LXIV WE Catholikes charge the Protestaâ—â—â— with ancient Heresies For example wâ— shew how the Manichees according to S Austin depriued Man (r) L. de Haeres cap. 4â— of Freewill Hoâ— â—ouinian (s) Ier. l 1. cont Iâ—â—in Aug l. Haeres cap. taught that Fasting was not mâ—ritorious and Virginity was no better theâ— wedlock or mariage How Aerius (t) Austin l. de Haeres c. 33. taugâ— it to be most vnlawfull to pray or offerâ—â— Sacrifice for the Dead How the Arians (u) L. 1. cont Marin cap. â— reiected all vnwritten Traditions who aâ—â—â— (x) Athanas in Apolog. pro fuga perpetrated Sacrilege against the Sacraments Altars Priests and Religious person How the (y) Austin l. â— Vnitate cap. 12. Donatists taught the Churcâ— of Christ to be Jnuisible How the Deniall 〈◊〉 the Reall Presence was condemned by certaine ancient Heretiks
Treatise vpon the Reuelation p. 68. Betweene the yeares of Christ three hundred and 316. the Antichristian Papisticall reigne began reigning vniuersally without any debatable contradiction one thouand two hundred and sixty yeares M. Napper practised vniuersally throughout all Christendome almost the space of the foresaid fourteene hundred years by the learneder sort of ProtestaÌ„ts granted to be sufficient (l) That the Catholike sayth is suffiâ—ient to saluation is confessed by Cartwright in his reply to D. Whitgifts defence pa. 82. by D. Feild of the Church l. 36. 46. by D. Couell in his defence of M. Hooker p. 77. and by many others to Saluation was punished with losse of goods inprisonment and often losse of life And thus farre in an eauâ—n libration of the Lawes by which Sectaryes were punished in Q Maryes dayes and of the Statutes by which the Catholikes were persecuted in Q. Elizabeth her raigne Only â—ad hereto that it according to M. Nappers confession our Catholike Religion did raigne vniuersally from the yeares of Christ 316. yeares then it euidently followeth that it did not first then begin but was vndoubtedly in being long before it could possibly become so confessedly vniuersâ—ll which said tiâ—e so long before coâ—d not be short of the Apostle times Animaduersion X. DIuers of our Aduersaries being pressed to shew when any change of the Roman Religion came in as an innouation not being able to instance in any one dogmaticall Poynt so introduced the more easely to cast dust in the eyes of the ignorant do (m) Thus answereth D Whitaker contra Camp rat 7. saying Pilinon subito omnes canescunt And againe In Eâ—clesia Romana accidit quemâ—dmodum magno aedificio videmus enenire quod â—â—mes alâ—quo loco incipit agere c. Ita Romana Eâ—clesia temporum successione c. answere that the changes of Fayth in the Church of Rome vnespiedly did comâ— in euen as hayres of a Mans head inseâ—sibly do grow gray and as houses and edifices 〈◊〉 without any obseruation of the tyme become ruâ—nous and decaying yet certaine it is that the hayres change their former colour to gray anâ— that Houses become ruinous To examine these resemblances as mere impostures and desperate Euasions I first say that the first decay in building the first shew of whitnes in hayre is imperceptible not to be discerned whereas euery change in faith though but in one poynt or Article is most markable and subiect to obseruatioÌ„ Secondly the whitnes of the hayres of the head and the ruins of a house do not happen but by degrees and therefore at the first cannot be discerned Whereas euery Opinion in Doctrine is at the first either true or false and therfore is for such at the First to be apprehended by the vnderstanding Thirdly not any haue the charge or care imposed vpon them to obserue the changes in these petty Matters But in the Church of Christ there are euer appoynted Pastours and Doctours whose office is to marke the first begining of any innouation in Doctrine and accordingly to labour to suppresse the same Lastly these deceytfull resemblances being truly weighed do recoyle back with disaduantage to the Protestants For although we cannot shew when the first hayre began to be whyte or the first slifter in a house beganne to be a slifter yet any notable degrees of the said whytnes in the hayres or of the slifters in a house are easily discerned And therefore the Protestants are obliged euen from the nature of these their owne similitudes to tell vs at what time some sensible degrees increase of this supposed change did happeÌ„ And the manifestation of the degrees is to be made by naming the time the Persons when and by whom such or such a particular point of the Roman Religion was first sensibly introduced into the Church of Rome The which not any Protestant hitherto hath bene able to shew Animaduersion XI IT is Euident that in the ancient times diuers Innouatours did rise denying this or that Catholike Article as for example The Doctrine of the reall presence was first denyed by certaine Heretikes in (n) As witneseth Theod. Dial. 3. Ignatius his dayes which Ignatius was scholler to the Apostles The denyall of freewill taught by the Manichees as (o) Auctin l. de Haeres cap. 46. Austin witnesseth and therein condemneth them The like may be said of more then twenty articles of our Catholike Religion denied by the ancient Heretikes as els where in this Treatise is shewed Now from hence I demonstratiuely conclude that this deniall of the said Caâ—hâ—â—ike points in those ancient times doth necessarily imply that the said Catholike points were affirmatiuely belieued generally taught both in and before the times And thus through the old Heretâ— denying and impugning of our said poiâ—â— of fayth is necessarily presupposed a preâ—stency of those said affirmatiue doctrinâ— the Reall presence Freewill and of the râ—â— wherof those ancieÌ„t Heretiks Tenets are mâ—rely Negatiues I meane they preadmit a former more ancient beliefe of our said Câ—tholike doctrines For why should any Sâ—ctaries in those dayes rise vp to deny aâ— this by writing any of the said doctrineâ— if those doctrines had not beene then aâ—â— before belieued Animaduersion XII SVch frontlesse Protestants as will maintaine the Visibility of their Church for a ages undertaking to giue ExaÌ„ples of seuerall Protestants in such ages do commonly vse this Height and imposture That is they begin to instance in Luther and so vpwards to Waldo who liued about 400. years since And then they arriuing to that time though all those Examples be meerely false and impertinent shift off the instancing from that 400. yeares to the Apostles dayes which containes aboue twelue hundred yeares by saying We shall (p) So answeareth the Author of a Treatise entituled of the perpetuall visibility and succession of the true Church in all ages pa. 89. printed anno 1614. not need to ascend any higher then to Waldo which otherwise is easy to make playne thus leauing a thousand and one hundred yeares without giuing any one Example of ProtestaÌ„ts during all that long period of Ages Now â—ere I say the Protestants imposture is this To begin with Luther vpward and not downeward towards Luther therby the better to conceale from a vulgar eye the small number of those ages or Centuries for which they endeauour to proue the imaginary Visibility of the ProtestaÌ„t Church For if they had begun in instancing with Waldo who as is said liued but some 400. yeares since then euery simple man might haue discerned at the first that they had passed ouer eleuen or twelue hundred years at the least to wit from the Apostles dayes to waldo without pretending so much as one Example of Protestancy during all that large circuite of tyme and so might haue iustly challenged them for their pretermitting of so many Ages In some sort answerably hereto Card. Bellarmine chargeth
discipline and M. Beza J do thinke of them as their writings do deserue but yet I thinke better of the ancient Fathers And with this I end touching the libration or ballancing of the Fathers of the primatiue Church with our Protestant Doctours Animaduersion XLII THere is one sleight vsed by our Aduersaryes which deserues Annotation It is this They are vnwilling openly to breake with the Fathers so long as they can preteÌ„d any shew of coniunction agreement with them Therfore when they fynd any of our Catholike points to be mantayned by the Fathers they gently tearme them Naeuos Nenia and at most Errores blemishes and errours Thus fauorably they depresse in the Fathers our Catholike Doctrines because they would seeme to continue members of the same Church whereof the Fathers were But now they stile the same Opinions and Doctrines as they are belieued by vs no lesse then Heresyes blasphemyes Jdolatry c. thereby to shew that the Members of the Church of Rome are not members of Christs Church This deceitfull and different appellation is precisely kept and practised by the Centuryes Jllyricus Doctour Whytaker and diuers other Protestant Wryters Animaduersion XLIII OVr Aduersaryes deportment towards the Fathers is most full of imposture and deceyte And they vse certaine stepps or gradatious therein For first they labour to euade the authority or testimony of a Father by shaping some seeming answere to it yet still admitting the authority produced Next if the testimony obiected by vs out of any Father be for its perspicuity not capable of any euading answere then they labour to weaken the authority of the said Father by making him seeme to contradict himselfe in some other place of the same point or els to be contradicted therein by other Fathers After this manner doth D. Whitaker in question of Traditions say of (h) D. Whit. l. de Sacr. Script pag. 670. Basill Basilius secum pugnat as also chargeth S. Austin (i) D. Whit. vbi supra â—8â— with the like contrariety in iudgement touching the same doctrine of Traditions But when they are told that it is most improbable that the Fathers being such learned men as they were should without any acknoledged retractation of their former writings crosse themselues in their later wrytings our Aduersaryes then vnmaske themselues plainly calling the Fathers Superstitious blynd and open mantayners of Papistry which poynt shaâ— be made euident by these testimonyes of the Protestants passed vpon them And to begin with Luther he thus writeth of the Fathers in generall The (k) Luth. de seruo arbitrio printed anno 15â—1 pag. 4â—4 Fathers of so many ages haue beene plainly blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures They haue erred all their life tyme and vnlesse they were amended before their deaths they were neither Saints nor pertaining to the Church Melancthon ioyneth hands with Luther herein (l) Melancth in 1. Cor. cap 31. in these words Presently from the beginning of the Church the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning Iustification by fayth increased Ceremonies and deuised peculiar worships With both whome to omit the like condemning speeches of others passed vpon the Fathers conspires D. Whitaker thus scurrilously writing Ex patrum (m) Contra â—uâ—aeum p. 4â—3 erroribus ille Pontificiae religionis Cento consutus est The religion of the Papists is a patched Cloath of the Fatâ—ers â—rrours sowed together Thus â—ar of the seuerall peculiar deliueries of our Aduersaries against the Fathers Animaduersion XLIV TOuching the Controuersy whether the Blessed Virgin was conceaued in Originall sinne such Catholikes as deny the same hould the deniall thereof only as a probable and pious Opinion and not as matter of fayth we therfore are to conceaue that the Sinne of the first Parent is communicated to his Sonnes and posterity three manner of wayes First then the Sonnes of Adam are said to haue sinned in Adam himselfe in that Adam did transgresse the precept of God in Paradise And because the Sonnes of Adam were not then in actu but in potentia only therfore that sinne they contracted not in actu but only in potentia And in this sense it may be said that the B. Virgin sinned in Adam Secondly all the Children of Adam are said to be conceaued in Sinne as soone as the child beginnes to exist in the Mothers Wombe although it be then vnformed and without life because a Man then beginneth truly to exist in respect of one of his parts that part hath its beginning from a corrupt Nature and may be said to be truly vitiated by force of its generation And in this sense also we acknowledg that the Blessed Virgin had her beginning from a corrupt Nature and that by force of such generation it was due that Sinne should be contracted as soone as her Rationall soule was ioyned to her Body The third and last manner whereby men are said to be conceaued in Sinne is when their Soules are inspired into their bodies since at that tyme they beginne properly really to become Men and to haue their Wâ—â— naked of Originall Justice and consequently auerted from God and in it selfe deformed Now touching this third and last kind we hould it most probable that the Soule of the Blessed Virgin euen at the first instant of its creation and infusion into the Body was so without spot of Originall Sinne as that person of hers actually existing had neuer any Sinne she herein differing from all others in that she was freed from Originall Sinne euen in the very instant of her Animation Now here it is to be noted that the texts of Scripture vrged by the Protestants to proue that the Blessed Virgin was conceiued in Originall Sinne haue respect reference only to one or other of the first two kinds touching the propagation of Originall Sinne in Man but they haue not any true reference to this last kynd Animaduersion XLV IT is most wonderfull to obserue the great contempt and little respect our Aduersaryes giue to our Blessed Lady Diuers of theÌ„ speaking of Caluin Beza two Sodomits euen by the Protestants (n) See Schlusselburge l â— fol. 121. l. 1 fol. 93. Confessions with great obseruancy stile them (*) So D Banâ—râ—ss stileth Caluin and Beza in his Suruey of the pretended disâ—ipline M. Caluin M. Beza In like manner speaking of Luther that wicked Monke they feare not to call him the Elias (o) Fox Act. Mon. pa. 416. Conductour Chariot of Jsrael But when they come to name our Blessed Lady who is an intâ—merate Virgin the Queene of Heauen an instrument of mans Redemption the Mother of God and Sauiour of the world most of them bluntly and rudely stile her without any addition of Honour only Mary O contempt most sacrilegious and insufferable Animaduersion XLVI IN the Hymne of our Ladyes office thus begining Aue Mariâ— stella c. two passages much distast our Aduersaryes The first 〈◊〉 this Solue
as gold and Spirituall or single life as dung We further teach and commend Voluntary Pouerty the contrary to which doctrine D. Willet teacheth in these words He (4) Willet in Synops pag. 245. is an Enemy to the glory of God who changeth his rich estate wherein he may serue God for a poore So iust reason had S. Edwin Sands a most forward Protestant thus to write euen out of his owne experience in Trauell Let the (m) In his relation of Reâ—igiâ—ns Protestants looke with the eye of Charity vpon those of the Papacy and they shall find some excellent Orders of Gouerment some singular helpes for increase of Godlines and Deuotion for the Conquering of sinne for the profitting in Vertue Thus far for a tast whether the Catholike Religion or the Protestants do more enclyne a Man to Vertue or Vice Animaduersion LXVI IT is granted by our Aduersaries that Austin Ierome Epiphanius c. and the rest of the Fathers of those ages were maintayners of Papistry as they call it And according hereto we find Luther to say I (n) Luth tom 2. contra Regem Angliae fol. 344. regard not if a thousand Austins stood against me of Jerome he thus writeth Jn the (o) In Colloq Mensal de Patrib lib. de seruo arbitrio writings of Jerome there is not one word of true fayth in Christ and perfect Religion Finally he thus concludeth The (p) Luther vbi supra Apology of Philip Melancthon doth far exceede all the Doctours of the Church yea euen Austin himself Well I noâ— infer from all this that all the Articles of our Catholike Religion were belieued in the dayes of Tertullian Origen and Cyprian all which three Fathers liued presently after the Second Age. Thus I dispute Austin (q) Austin against Origen in Haeres 43. against Tertull in Haeres 86. against Cyprian in tom 3. lib. de Baptism 2. cap. 7. See also Ierome in lib. contra Iouinian Vigilanm Epipha l. de Haeres Jerome Epiphanius and others did write against Origen for his teaching that the Deuills in the end should be saued against Tertulliâ—n for denying second mariages against Cyprian for his maintayning Rebaptization Now here I insist Yf Origen Tertullian and Cyprian had dissented from Austin Jerome Epiphanius and other Fathers in those Catholike Articles wherewith they are truly charged by the Protestants then without all doubt Austin Ierome and the rest would in their Catalogues of Heresies and other their writings haue as well registred other their opinions for Heresies in which Origen Tertullian and Cyprian had dissented from them as they did register the three foresaid Heresies But no such condemnation is extant in their writings from which consideration we ineuitably conclude that what Articles of our Roman Religion were taught by Austin Ierome and the rest of those ages writing of the Heresies of those tymes all the same Catholike points were also indifferently taught and maintayned by the foresaid most ancient Fathers Origen Tertullian and Cyprian Animaduersion LXVII WHereas some of our Aduersaryes labour what they can to keep entercourse with the auncient Fathers knowing that it is a foule blemish to their Religion absolutely to break with them and that therupon they endeauour to detort diuers of their authorityes against our Catholike fayth therefore for the better preuenting in generall of all such misaplyed testimonyes I haue thought good to set downe these ensuing Premonitions The first that seeing the Fathers could not foresee what Opinions of fayth would ryse in these tymes that therefore they could not wryte of all things now questioned so distintly and clearely as now could be wished And touching the Fathers impossibility hereof It is acknowledged by (r) Beza in Epist. Theolog. Epist. 82. p. 382. Kempnitius Exa part 1. fol 80. D. Whyte in his way to the true Church Preface to the Read Sect. 7. Beza Kempnitius D. Whyte and other Protestants Now therefore it cannot be expected with any shew of Reason that the Fathers should condemne most articulately fully punctually or ex professo euery poynt mantayned by the Protestants at this day The second Obseruation That we are to vnderstand any obscure saying of a Father agreably to his more many playne and more cleere sayings And mâ—ch more then that we ought not to insist vpon any seeming doubtfull saying against many more which are plaine and for such confessed And therefore Snecanus the Protestant sayth well herein in these words touching the authorityes alledged out of Tertullian It is (s) Snecanus Method descript pag. 424. fitting that the fewer be vnderstoode by the more and lest one speecâ— should ouerthrow many that one is to be expounded according to all rather then against aâ— Which assertion is most true grounded euen vpon force of Reason The third Obseruation That we ought to vnderstand the Fathers doubtfull Saying according to the then common receaded Opinion of the other Fathers This caution is obserued precisely by S. Austin For whereas Iulianus the Heretike to proue that Children were without Originall Sinne obiected this sentence out of Saint Chrysostome We baptize Jnfants though they haue no sinnes S. Austin teacheth how to vnderstand this obscure sentence saying Jntellige (t) Austin com 7. contra Iulian. Pelag. lib. â— c. 6. propria vnderstand it of sinnes of their owne or actuall and there is no contention But thou wilt say why did not Chrysostome add this word Propria The reason was because Chrysostome disputing in a Catholike Church he thought he should not be otherwise vnderstood No body was then troubled with such a Question you not as then wrangling he spake securely Thus far S. Austin The fourth obseruation We ought according to our Aduersaries owne rule to distinguish when a Father writeth Doctrinally and Dogmatically or sententially and ex professo from that which the same Father writeth Antagonistiâ—è and in heate of dispute For that in this later kind the Fathers speaking ad personam and being more attent and busied how to conuince and ouercome their Aduersaries then alwaies precisely obseruant or circumspect of their manner of speaking which they neuer doubted would be vnderstood otherwise then according to the Catholike receaued sense their meaning may the more colourably be mistaken According hereto some of the ancient Fathers writing against Pelagius and his Sect who ascribed ouermuch to Free-will did not perhaps so fully dispute in the defence of the Catholike Doctrine of Free-will as they might haue done This course the Fathers did sometimes take of which the (u) Kemp nit Exa part 1. fol. 80. D. Humfrey in Iesuitism part 2. rat 5. Protestants make aduantage that thereby they might the more easely conuince their Aduersaries Heresy resting so much on the contrary syde The fift obseruation which in part conspireth with the former The Fathers somtymes in a Rhetoricall and amplifying manner do vse certaine transcendent speeches as also some more moderate Catholikes
Prouince c. hath the bynding force of a Law or Precept And yet the same custome once ceasing the bond of all authority produced in defence of the said custome doth also cease 3. Thirdly In the allegation of any authority for Communion vnder both kinds we are diligently to obserue whether the same maketh mention of Formes or kinds to wit of bread and wyne or only of the things contained vnder the said kinds to wit the Body and Bloud of Christ. For in the examples of the first we shall seldome or neuer find any one which importeth a Precept or Necessity And though of the later innumerable authorities may be brought yet they are all impertinent seeing the Body and Bloud of Christ are as truly receaued vnder either kind alone as vnder both And the Precept in that Case determineth only the thing and not the Kind 4. Fourthly diuers authorities alledged for Laicall Communion vnder both kinds are vnderstood only of Spirituall not Sacramentall receauing 5. Fiftly though the Fathers sometimes signify the Communion to be most complete and perfect when it is administred and receaued vnder both kinds in regard that the effects thereof are more liuely expressed yet this perfection is but only accidentall and therefore from hence cannot be inferred a Precept or Necessity For for example innumerable thâ—ngs there are which accidentally would conduce to Grace and Saluation which yet do not fall vnder any bond or Command 6. Sixtly the Fathers sometimes reprouing such as abstayned from the Chalice do only speake against the Manichees and some other Heretikes who vpon a certaine superstition abhorred Wyne as foolishly thinking it to be the gaule of the Deuill as S. Austin (k) Austin de â—aeres cap. 46. relateth and withall denied Christ our Sauiour to haue had true bloud which nothing concerneth this our Catholike Doctrine 7. Seauently which is greatly to be noted that whereas the only point iâ— Controuersy is whether Christ our Sauiour gaue absolute command not only to Priests but also to the Laity to receaue vnder both kinds As also whether the Primitiue Church did vniuersally for tyme place and as matter of necessity obserue the same yet no one testimony of Scripture or Doctour can be produced either expressely or by necessary consequence affirming the same 8. Eightly and lastly admit any authority could be produced from a Doctor moâ—â— ancient and learned which expressly and iâ— direct termes should contradict our Catholike Doctrine yet the same with any maâ— of iudgment and vertue could beare 〈◊〉 force against the infallible Decrees of Oecâ—menicall and Generall Councells of Godâ— Church Seeing not the Church vnto thâ— Doctours but the Doctours and their wrâ—tings ought and are to be submitted to thâ— Church And this obseruation hath iâ— waight and force in many other points 〈◊〉 Controuersies Thus far touching the seuâ—rall obseruations concerning Communiâ— vnder both or one kind only Animaduersion LXXVII THat sentence of Chrysostome is most truâ— Prout (l) Homil 33. in act Apost Haeresiarchae nomen ita Secta vâ—catur To whose iudgment herein D. Fâ—â— subscribes in these words Surely (m) Of the Church l. 2. c. 9. it is 〈◊〉 â—o be denied but that the naming after the name of Men was in the time of the primitiue Church peculiar and proper to Heretiks and Schismatiks Which sentences do deadly wound the Innouatours of these tymes who take their Denomination from Luther Swinglius Caluin c. And so for distinction sake they are termed Lutherans Swinglians Caluinists c. as signifying thereby that they take their doctrine and fayth from those particular men Neither can our Aduersaries retort vpon vs this Argument by saying that the Word Papist is imposed vpon vs. This proueth nothing seeing as in those ancient Heretiks I meane the Arians Entichians Manichees so in our Sectaries to wit the Lutherans Swinglians Caluinists c. these names are giuen only out of necessity to distinguish their doctrines from all other doctrines But now the name Papist was â—oyned but lately by Luther and this not out of necessity but of reproach our fayth â—nd Doctrine being acknowledged to haue â—eene in the world many hundred yeares before Luthers tyme. Againe the word Papist is not restrayned to any one Pope or to any peculiar Doctrine taught by the present Church of Rome but it is indifferently extended to all Popes and to all the Doctrines taught by the said Popes And 〈◊〉 for the names of Franciscans Bernardins c. in the Catholike Church it is cleare that these Names are not imposed for change of Fayth but only for Institution of seuerall Degrees of a Vertuous and Religious Life Animaduersion LXXVIII IN any notable change of Religion these things following are to be demonstrated or pointed out First the Authour of such a change as aboue is intimated Secondly the New Opinion or Doctrine Thirdly the tyme in which this new Doctrine was broached Fourthly the place in which it was taught Fiftly and lastly the Persons who did oppugne and resist this New Doctrine at its first appearance None of all which circumstances can be shewed concerning our Catholike Religion since the tymes of Christ and his Apostles But all these Circumstances can be made playne and discouered in the Protestant Religion therfore it demonstratiuely followeth that the Catholike Religion is the sole ancient Religion first vnchangeably proceeding from the Institution of our Sauiour that Protestancy is but Innouation and Nouelty as but lately receauing its being from some other particular Innouatours Animaduersion LXXIX NO Protestant hath more laboured to search into the change of our Catholike Religion then D. Whitaker hath done who insisteth in diuers particular Catholike Doctrines vndertaking to shew by whom as Innouations they were first brought in Therefore I will touch all his Instances shewing them to be more ancient euen by the Confession of other learned ProtestaÌ„â—s then the persons or tymes to whom they be ascribed by the said D. Whitaker Only for greater breuity I will content my selfe with one only acknowledgment insteed of many of one learned Protestant in ech example To begin D. Whitaker sayth 1. It is (n) D. Whitak Cont. Duraeum l. 7. pag. 480. manifest that who first deliuered Purgatory for a certaine Doctrine was Gregory the Great But against this bare testimony I oppose the acknowledgment of D. Fuâ—ke thus writing (o) In his Confutation of Purgatory p. 36â— pag. 303. 303. Tertullian Austin Cyprian Ierome all more ancient then Gregory the Great and a great many more do witnes that Sacrifice for the Dead and consequently the doctrine of Purgatory is the Tradition of the Apostles (p) Whitak contra Duraeum p. 490. Secondly D. Whitaker sayth Innocentius the third was the first that instituted auricular Confession for Necessary This Jnnocentius liued in the yeare 1200. To free this Pope the (q) Centurists Cent. 3. c. 6. col 127 Centurists speaking of the ancient Churches
and Religion Animaduersion LXXXVI STriue to be more conuersant and ready if oportunity will not suffer you to be ready in all in such Controuersies which consist in practice as about Praying to Saints Jndulgences worshipping of Images Adoration of the most B. Sacrament Communion vnder one kind c. then in others which test only in beliefe and Speculation seeing the vulgar Protestant soonest taketh exception against these former and will expect greater satisfaction from you in them Because these being subiect to their sense in regard of the daily practise of them come neeâ—est within the compasse of their narrow Capâ—city are by them often charged through the calumny of their chiefe Maisters abusing their Credulity with many supposed abuses Whereas other points of Fayth which consist chiefly in Theory and speculation are further remoued from their apprehensioÌ„s and consequently they are least intangled with the doubts thereof Animaduersion LXXXVII TOuching those Articles or Controuersies which chiefly rest in speculation be well traualled in the Question touchiâ—â— the Jnfallibility of Gods Church as also 〈◊〉 that other Question That the Scriptuâ—â— without the Churches attestation cannot proâ—â— it selfe to be Scripture and that all points of beliefe do not receaue their proofe from Scriptuâ—â— alone seeing these two Controuersies potentially include most of all other Controuersies within themselues Also be most reâ—dy in the Question touching the continuâ— Visibility of the Protestant Church seeing tâ—â— Protestants must seeke to proue thâ—â— Church euer to haue beene Visible if thâ— will auer it to be the true Church of Chriâ—â— Whereas indeed you shall find euen by tâ—â— Confession of his owne Brethren as is eâ—â—â— where in this Treatise made cleere that tâ— Protestant is not able to instance for maâ— Centuries and Ages together so much a the being but of one Protestant Animaduersion LXXXVIII THere is scarsly any one Argument oâ— Credibility which more strongly and irrâ—pliably proueth the Antiquity and thereâ—â— the truth of the Roman Religion and the Nouelty and latenes of Protestancy and consequently the falshood therof then this following There cannot be alledged any one Protestant speaking of such Protestants as are out of Controuersy and acknowledged for such both by the Catholikes and Protestants who was not either in himself or in his forefathers first a Catholike and who by dogmatizing some Protestant Opinions afore neuer generally taught did separate himself depart from the Catholike Church afore then in Being Of which sort of men those words in S. Iohn are vnderstood Exierunt (t) 1. Ioan. 1. ex nobis the very stampe or signature of Innouatours in doctrine This Assertion is most true And to exemplify it in the chiefest Protestants or maintayners but of some points of Protestancy I meane Luther Swinglius Ochinus Ierome of Prage Waldo Wicleffe Albigenses Berengarius and to rise to the Heretikes of higher tymes as Acrius Iouinian Manicheuâ— and the rest it is certaine that all these wâ—re Originally Catholikes and by introduciâ—g of some Nouelismes did depart from the Catholike Church That all these and all such others as might be alledged were originally Catholikes is demonstratiuely proued from the implicite Confessions of the learned Protestants themselues acknowledging the Inuisibility of their owne Church for so many ages together Thus for example writeth Sebastianus Francus the Protestant as aboue is sâ—ewed For (u) In Ep. de abrogandis in vniuersum omnibus Statut. Eccles certaine through the worke of Antichrist the externall Church together with the fayth and Sacraments vanished away presently after the Apostles departure and that for these foureteene hundred yeares the Church he meaning his owne Protestant Church hath not beene externall and visible with whom agreeth D. Fuâ—ke saying The (x) Fulke in his answere to a CouÌ„terfeyte Cathol p. â—i Church decâ—yed immediatly after the Apostles dayes Furthermore to enlarge my selfe in the Protestants Confession herein M. Perkins the Protestant sayth thus Before (1) Perkins in his Exposition of the Creed p. 400. the dayes of Luther for the space of many hundred yeares an vniuersall Apostasy ouerspread the whole face of the earth and that our Church was not then visible to the world M. Napper in like manner thus writeth God (2) Napper vpon Reuel in c. 11. 12. l. 2. c. 2. p. 25. hath withdrawne his visible Church from open assemb ies to the harts of particular godly men c. during the space of 〈◊〉 hundred sixty yeares the true Church abyding â—â—tâ—nt inuisible But M. Brocard conâ—esseth further in these words During (3) Broc vpon the Reuel p. 1â—0 euen the second and third age meaning after Christ the true Church of God and light of the Gospell was obscured by the Roman Antichrist himselfe I â—ill here conclude with D. Downam thus aueâ—ring The (4) D. Down lib. de Antichrist Generall defection of the Visibâ—e Church foretould 2. Thessal 2. begun to worke in the Apostles tymes So luxuriant are the Protestants in confessing the Inuisibility of their owne Church for many ages together So as we see that by the Confession of these learned Protestants it is cleere that all the former alledged Protestants or any others which could be though falsely suggested for such were Originall Catholikes Now I hence conclude that if on the one syde it be proued that euery Protestant did Originally come out and departe by venting of some Protestanticall Positions from our Catholike Church afore enioying a Priority of Being and that on the othersyde our Aduersaries cannot shew any visible Society of men professing the true Christian fayth from which as more ancient the present Roman Religion departed as it is impossible for them to do I say I hence conclude that our Catholike fayth is most ancient and therefore true and Protestancy in respect thereof but late Innouations and therefore false Animaduersion LXXXIX I Will here rest in some Animaduersions touching the Doctrine of the Reall Presence And touching the saluing of the Difficulties thereof we are to recur to Gods Power which may in part be explicated in these ensuing Propositions The first Proposition God is able to do euery thing which Mans vnderstanding is able to conceaue The Reason hereof being in that Ens Verum in generall are the Obiects of our mind and therefore what may be conceaued or vnderstood may really exist and consequently be performed The second proposition All Christian Philosophers affirme that not only things which man is able to apprehend in his mind but also many other things incomprehensibâ—e in mans vnderstanding God can effect forseing say they that Totum Ens is Intelligible and to be conceaued and that which is not Ens cannot be conceaued and that the imbecility of Mans vnderstanding is such that it supposeth many things cannot exist or be and consequently cannot be apprehended by the vnderstanding which may indeed exist and so may be performed by God Therefore say they that things incomprehensible in
do still remayne at one tyme though far remote one from another whereas these Precedent and future tymes in both which one and the same Jnstant of Duration or Eternity is are euer in a flowing and departing Motion and consequently cannot by any possibility remayne together For we see that the tyme past doth euer giue place to the tyme to come Thus far of these former Animaduersions in this place to shew that it is possible that Christs Boâ—â— may be in seuerall places at one and thâ— same tyme. Animaduersion LXXXXIV IN all Positiue and Affirmatiue Points oâ— fayth the Protestants do agree with the Catholiks the Protestants borrowing thâ— said Affirmatiue points from the Church of Rome According hereto we find Luthâ—â— thus to wryte We (y) Luther lib. Contra Ana. baptist confesse that there is vnder the Papacy most of the Christian Good yâ—â— rather all the Christian Good and that from thence it came to vs. We confesse that there is iâ— the Papacy true Scripture true Baptisme the true Sacrament of the Altar the true keyes to the remission of sinnes the true office of preaching true Catechisme c. I say further there is in thâ— Papacy true Christianity or rather the truâ— kernell of Christianity Thus Luther To the former position I adioyne this following In such points of fayth wherin Protestancy dissenteth from the Roman Church all the said points are merrely Negations to the contrary Affirmatiue Articles belieued by the Church of Rome As for example Deniall of Reall Presence Deniall of praying to Saints Deniall of Freewill and so of the rest Now from these two propositions do result these Inferences or Conclusions following The first that the Protestant as he belieueth any affirmatiue Articles with the Church of Rome in that respect he is not a Protestant but rather a Catholike as â—king the beliefe of them from the Caâ—â—olike Church as is aboue said The seâ—ond Inference That Protestancy as Proâ—stancy consisteth in Deniall of such Affirâ—atiue points which the Church of Rome â—ffirmes to be true and not in belieuing â—ith the said Church certaine chiefe points â—f Christianity The third Inference Seeing â—he reduplicatiue formality of Protestancy reâ—teth in Negations or priuations of an Affirmatiue fayth and seing Negations or priâ—â—tions haue no Entity subsistence or reall being that therfore Protestancy as Protestancy hath no reality of Being but is in it selfe a meere Non-entity or nothing consequently it followeth that Protestancy cannot proceed from God who is the Authour of things and of that which is but not of that which is not or is Nothing The last Inference shal be That Protestants by their Deniall of so many Affirmatiue Articles of Christianity may seeme to beare great Reference to Antichrist who at his comming shall by his Deniall of all points of Christian Religion seeke what in him lyeth to annihilate and ouerthrow all Christian Religion And for such his proceeding some ancient Fathers do coÌ„iecture that his name shal be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying Nego as Hyppolitus Martyr writeth in Oratione de consummatione mundi And this both by reason that this Greeke Word maketh vp the number to wit 666. which is ascribed peculiarly to Antichrist in the Apocalyps cap. 13. as also in that Antichrist his Ministers at his comming both in their Dâ—nialls and workes shall labour mightely to euert Christian Religion Animaduersion LXXXXV THough Protestancy seeme to maintaine some Affirmatiue Positions as Parity of Ministers Mariage of Priests and other Votaries Reprobation Christs only Mediatorship by way of Jntercession Christ suffering in Soule yet it is euident that these poutions are only Affirmatiue in words but merely Negatiue in sense since they are Negatiues to the Monarchy of the Churches Gouermentâ— to vowed Chastity to vniuersality of Grace to the Intercession of Saincts and to the all sufficiency of Christs Corporall Death All which our Catholike points are Affirmatiue Such is the subtility of Innouation in Doctrine as for the greater honour to inuest their Negatiue Tenets in Affirmatiue Titles Animaduersion LXXXXVI THough in shew of words Falshood as is aboue shewed may be deliuered in Affirmatiues so I here say that Truth sometimes is deliuered in Negatiue Words notwithstanding Truth is euer Affirmatiue and Falshood Negatiue and therfore the Schoolemen truly teach Intellectus (z) S. Thomas part 1. q. 17. decipituâ— non circa quid est sed circa quid non est To exemplify this Animaduersion To say God is cruel or Man is blind though these sayings be deliuered in Affirmatiue termes and false yet they are in sense and vnderstanding meerely Negatiue since Cruelty is exclusiue to Mercy and blindnes to sight so on the contrary to say God is not Cruell and Man is not blynd though they be in termes Negatiue true yet they are in sense Affirmatiue only as denying the Negation of Mercy in God and of Blindnes in Man Animaduersion LXXXXVII OVr Aduersaries cannot agree among themselues what Doctrines be Protestancy and who ought to be truly termed Protestants Can their Religion then be true and descend from Heauen Here then I will first shew within what narrow Limits our Aduersaries do confine Protestancy and the members of the Protestant Church Next then I will discouer such is the fluctuating and wauering iudgment of them herein how they are content at other times to extend and enlarge those bounds by affording Protestancâ— and the members therof a greater space or compasse as I may say to expatiate and walke in And to begin D. Whitaker thus sayth of the Papists J will (a) L. 2. contra Duraum Sect. 1. not allow the very name of a lawfull Church vnto the Roman Church because it hath nothing which a true Chuâ—â—â— ought to haue The Confession of Ausburg excludes the Anabaptists in these words we (b) Cap. â— condemne the Anabaptists who disallow the Baptisme of Infants and thinke them to be saâ—â—â— without Baptisme to which sentence the Confession of Switzerland (c) Cap. 20. subscribeth The Arians are excluded from being Protestants by the foresaid Confession of Ausburg in these termes We (d) Act. 1. condemne all Heresies rising against this Article meaning the Article of the Trinity as the Manichees Arians Eunomians c. All Heretikes are excluded out of the number of Protestants for thus D. Suâ—cliffe teacheth Heretikes (e) In his first Booke of the Church c. 1. are not of the Church meaning of the true Church and consequently in his iudgment of the Protestant Church With whom agrees D. White saying All (f) In his way to the Church pag. 10. Heretiks teach the truth in some things yet we deny them to be of the Church of God That Schismatikes are not of the Protestant Church is taught for thus writeth D. Fulke (g) Of the succession of the Church What skilleth it whether one being drawne by Heresy or Schisme from thâ— body of Christ be subiect to eternall
5. with vs touching Patronage and intercession of Angells that therfore D. Whitaker doth accordingly confesse and say thereof Jllum (h) Whitak in respons ad rat Camp rat 1. p. 15. verò Tobiae Raphaelem c. Litle do we regard the Example of Raphaell the Angell mentioned in Toby c. All this is different from the Canonicall Scriptures c. Concerning the force of Merit of Almes and other good works proceeding from true fayth in the Messias The Doctrine of the Ancient Iewes is deliuered in the Booke of Tobyâ— Almes (i) Tob. 1â— doth deliuer from Death and doth purge all sinne and in the foresaid booke of Ecclesiasticus As water (k) Eccles 3. quenceth burning fyer So Almes expiateth sinne Touching vnwritten Traditions (l) Orig. hom 5. in Numer Hilar. in Psalm 2. Origen and Hilary do affirme that Moyses did leaue many things vnwritten the knowledge whereof was continued by tradition And Rabby Iudas affirmeth the same of Moyses a thing so euident that the doctrine of the Tradition of the Iewes is confessed by (m) writing vpon the Booke in Capitulis patrum Paulus Phagius the Protestant That Monasticall Lyfe was not altogether wanting but in some sort professed among the ancient Iewes is witnessed by Iosephus thus writing The (n) Ioseph antiquitaâ—um Iudaicarum l. 18. c. â— righteousnes of the Essenes is meruaylous c. They enioy their riches in Common c. And in this course aboue foure thousand men do liue hauing neither wyfes nor seruants c. And in another place Triall (o) Ioseph l. de bello Iudaito l. 2. cap. 7. is had of a mans continency and his other manners are for two yeares tryed and then he is taken into the Company Lastly to omit for greater breuity the Doctrine of Vowes the doctrine of one Visible high Priest head of the Church in those Jewish tymes the Doctrine of the Iewes in remitting the ending of Controuersyes not to the Scripture but to a certaine visible and liuely Judge the doctrine of the Iewes concerning Confession of sinne all these being related by (p) Gala. in areanis Cathol veritatis l. 10 v. 3. Galatinus I will close this passage with Melchisedech his offering of bread and Wyne in sacrifice and the prefiguration thereby of our Sacrifice of the New Testament Of this point Rabby Phinees thus sayth Jn (q) Phinees in cap. 28. Numer the tyme of the Messias all Sacrifice shall cease but the Sacrifice of bread and Wyne shall not cease c. as it is said Psalm 100. Thou art a Priest for euer according to the Order of Melchisedech Rabby (r) Hasardan in Bereschit Rabbi ad cap. 14. Gen. Hasardan Rabby (s) Samuel in Bereschit Rabbi ad cap. 14. Genes Samuel say the like of Melchisedech his offering vp of bread and wyne in figure of the Sacrifice now in the tyme of the New Testament a point so euident that (t) Bibliander de SS Trinitote l. 2. pag. 89. Bibliander the remarkable Protestant doth not doubt to confesse the same of the old Jewish Rabins Thus far of the doctrines of the ancient Iewes before Christ his Incarnation which doctrines we Catholiks at this day hold All which doctrines are meerely Dogmaticall points without any Type or reference to Christ his comming that only of Melchisedech excepted and therefore it cannot be answered that the said doctrines should now cease vpon our Sauiours comming in flesh into the world as some ignorant men would suggest but it must needs be that the said Doctrines if they were true then they must be also true now By which so many foresaid Examples of our Catholike fayth thus affirmed by the ancient Iewes it is made most certaine that our Religion â—s not New or lately inuented but most ancient and vndoubtedly Apostolike Animaduersion LXXXXIX IT is a most impudent assertion of D. Field who thus writeth We (*) D. Fâ—â—ld in his Book of the Church l. 3. c 8. p. 76. firmely belieue that all the Churches of the world wherein our Fathers liued and dyed to haue beene the true Protestant Churches of God c. and that they which taught imbraced and belieued those damnable Errours which the Romanist do defend against vs were only a faction But see now this most vast Lye is controuled First then D. Iewell thus acknowledgeth The (u) Iewel in his Apology of the Church part 4. c. 4. Truth was vnknowne at that tyme and vnheard of when Martin Luther and Hulderick Swinglius first came vnto the knowledg and preaching of the Gospel And therefore (x) Buâ—ter in Ep. anno 36. ad Episc Hereford Bucer stileth Luther The first Apostle to vs of the reformed Doctrine And Schlusselburg the great Protestant thus contesteth the same Jt (y) In Theolog. Calu. l. 2. fol. 130. is impudency to affirme that many leâ—ned men in Germany before Luther did hold tâ—â— Doctrine of the Gospell Yea Luther himselfe thus vaunteth of himself Christum (z) Luther Ep. ad Argentinens à nobis primo vulgatum audemus gloriari And truly the force of reason assureth vs that there were no Protestants at or immediatly before the breaking out of Luther For if any were why did they lye hid and vnknowne at Luthers Rising No other pretext can be alledged but feare of persecution But this cannot be alledged For the Protestants if any then were might securely step out and ioyne themselues with Luther considering that then diuers Magistrats and Commonwealths had openly vndertaken the Patronage of Luthers Doctrine and Religion Animaduersion C. IN all points of faith the Authority of the Priuate Spirit is to be contemned as begetting nothing but Noueltyes and Innouation And let ech good Catholike anchor his iudgement vpon the authority of Christs visible Church and the chiefe Head therof assuring himselfe that although Simon the fisher was not able to determine Matters of fayth yet that Simon Peter and his Successours assisted with competency of meanes haue euer an impeacheable Soueraignty granted to them and a delegated authority from Christ himselfe for the absolute discussing and deciding of all Controuersyes in Religion Tu (a) Math. 16. es Petrus super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam portae Jnferi non praeualabunt aduersus eum And truly if the visible Church of Christ and the Supreme Iudge therof could err in matter of fayth how could God be excused from Cruelty by threatning to all Men eternall Perdition if we be not obedient to the Church of God Dic (b) Math 18. Ecclesiae si Ecclesiam non audierit sit sicut Ethnicus Publicanus Furthermore as the Apostle saith (*) Hebr. 8. Our Testament is established in better Promisses c. meaning then the Testament of the Jewes But if it was said in the tyme of the Old Law that he who (c) Deuteron 17. presumptuously refuseth to obey the CommandemeÌ„t of
the Pryest that by Decree of the Iudge that man should dye what punishment theÌ„ is he to vndergoe who in Matters of faith and Religion contemneth the authority of the High Pryest of Christ his Church aduancing his owne priuate iudgement aboue the said Authority Animaduersion CI. IT is most certaine that Luther himself was not a perfect and entire Protestant such I meane as the present Church of England acknowledgeth for a true Protestant my Reasons are these First because Luther after his rising and euer vnto his death retayned and belieued diuers of our Catholike Doctrines disclaymed from by the Protestants of England Secondly because Luther taught and maintayned seuerall Heresies I meane Heresies euen in the iudgmeâ—â— of our now Protestants To begin with the first branch Luther euer maintayned to hâ—s deaâ—h the Reall Presence as the whole worâ—â— knoweth and therefore his followers in thâ—â— doctrine are called for distinction lake Lutherans by Swinglius and Caluin Luther taught the Doctrine of (d) Luther l. de Assertionibus Art 30. Euaâ—gelicall Councells to wit that a man may do more then that he is commanded Luther taught the Doctrine of Purgatory of which point see Tom. 1. Wittenberg 〈◊〉 Jndulgentijs And answerably to this ground he is confessed by (e) Vrbanus Regius in 1 part Operum formulae cautè loquendi de sanct cultu Vrbanus Regiâ—s a Protestant to defend Prayer for the Dead Luther defended Prayer to Saints of which point he thus writeth De (f) Luther in purgat quorundam Articulorum in Epist ad Gregorium Spalat intercissione Dinorum cum tota Ecclesia Christiana sentio iudico Sanctos à nobis honorandos esse atque indicandos Luther taught and approued the vse of Jmages as is witnessed by Beza (g) Beza in resp ad Colloq Montisbelg parâ— altera in praef Touching the making the signe of the Crosse vpon our forehead Iohannes Creucliâ—â— a Lutheran thus writeth Cùm (h) Creuelius in hiâ— refut Caeremoniâ—rum missae printed Magdeburg 163. pag 118. imus cuâ—â—tum fine surgimus è Lecto cruce nos iuxta Lâ—theri altorum piorum institutioncâ—â— signamus Finally to omit some other points wherin Luther neuer dissented from the Church of Rome Luther euer mantained that the gouerment of the Church is Monarchiall neither Aristocraticall nor Popular as appeareth out of his owne (i) Vide Luther in loc Com. Class 1. c. 3. 7. pag. 107. words Now to come to relate Luthers Heresies and such as are reputed for Heresies and some of them for blasphemies both by Catholiks and Protestants which he euer maintained without any after retraction I first alledg his impious Doctrine touching the most Blessed Trinity concerning which he thus speaketh (k) So relateth Swinglius of Luther so speaking to 2. ad respons Confut Luther fol. 474. The Diuinity is threefold as the three Persons be c. And according to this he expungeth out of the Litany this sentence Holy (l) Luth. in Euchir precum anno 1543. Trinity one very God haue mercy vpon vs and he further sayth Anima (m) Luth contra Iacobum Laetomum tom 1. wittemberg Latinê edit anno 1551. mea odit Homousion or Consubstantialis Briefly Luthers Blasphemy was so odious execrable against the B. Trinity that Swinglius (n) Swinglius tom 2. in respons ad Confutat Lutheri did purposely write against Luther touching this very point Touching the Euent of things Luther holdeth contrary to all Christian fayth that all things come to passe through a certaine Stoicall and fatall Necessity thus writing hereof Nullius (o) Luther in Assert damnat per Leonem Decimum Art 30. est in manu c. It is in no mans power to thinke Good or Euill but all things as Wicleffs Article condemned at Constance did rightly teach proceede from absolute Necessity Luther taught an Heresy wherby the propagation of Christian Religion is much hindred to wit that it was not lawfull to wage war against the Turk His words are Praeliari (p) Luth in tom 2. Wittenberg in Assert Damnat per Leonem decimum Assert 34. contra Turcas est repugnare Deo visitanti iniquitates nostras per illos Luther denyed all temporall Magistrates thus teaching hereof Among (q) Luther de saeculari potestate in â—â— 6 Germ. Christians no man can or ought to be a Magistrate but euery one is to another equally subiect Touching fayth and good works Luther thus endoctrinateth his followers Fides (r) Luther to 1 propos 3. nisi sit sine c. Except fayth be without good works it doth not iustify nay it is not fayth And further No (s) Luther in his Sermons Englished pag â—76 worke is disalowed by God except the Authour thereof be disalowed before Luther further taught as D. Couell witnesseth that (t) These be D. Couells words in defence of M. Hooker Art 15. p. 101. the Sacraments were effectuall though they were administred by Satan himself Of which point Hospinian the Protestant thus also writeth Lutherus (u) In hist Sacr. part altera fol. 14. coâ—sque progreditur c. Luther proceedeth so far herein that he maintaineth the Sacrament to be a true Sacrament etiamsi è Diabolo conficeretur though it were to be consecrated by the Deuill To conclude Luther so disualewed the sufficiency of Christ suffering in body for vs as that he most blasphemously teacheth that Christ did not suffer only in body but also his Diuinity suffered for vs His words hereof are these Cùm (x) Luther in Confess Maiore in Caena Domini credo quod sola humana Natura pro me passa est Christus vilis nec magni praetij Saluator est c. Yf J belieue that only the humane Nature suffered for me then is Christ a Sauiour but of a base small worth and himself needeth a Sauiour Thus far now in Demonstration that Luther was not an entyre Protestant and such as is allowed by the present Church of England Animaduersion CII TWo things among others concur as is in this last Animaduersion exemplifyed in Luther to make a perfect Protestant to wit That he doth maintayne all chiefe points of Protestancy Thus he is not to hould only some few points of Prorestancy and in the rest being more in number and of greater importance to partake with the Catholikes The second thing necessary to a Protestant that he doth not hould perâ—inaciously any mayne Heresy or Paradoxe wholy impugned and contradicted both by Catholiks and Protestants For this man in this respect is rather to be styled an open Heretike then a Protestant euen in the Censure of the Protestants themselues Here now I auer that this Animaduersion clearely euicteth that Husse Waldo Wicliffe and the rest so much vrged for ProtestaÌ„ts for the proofe of the visibility of the Protestant Church in those ages were no Protestants at all and consequently that the Protestant Church
Body and that Christ was true Man Thus far Osiander of the Albigenses in the place cited in the margent I will conclude with Berengarius who liued anno 1051. who is challenged for a (z) Act. Mon. pa. 23. Protestant for his deniall of Transubstantiation though he after recanted this his Heresy Now Berengarius did hould diuers Heresyes so as the ProtestaÌ„t Oâ—eolampadius (*) In Oecolam Swinglij Epistolis l. 3. pag. 710. thus writeth of him Berengarius nonnulla affirmat aduersus Baptismum parnulorum Coniugium Againe Damnata est Berengarij opinio Sacerdotio Christiano parum nimis tribuenâ— Thus farre of all these former Heretykes to wit Hus Wicleff Waldo and the rest whereby the indifferent Reader may rest assured that they cannot with any iust shew of Reason and iudgemeÌ„t be alledged for Protestants as our Aduersaryes are accustomed to alledge them for the prouing of the visibility of the Protetestant Church in former Ages Animaduersion CIV ADmitting for the tyme that all these former Innouatours were entyre ProtestaÌ„ts in all Poynts not comparting with the Catholikes in any poynt of the Roman Religion Admitting also that not any of them did hould any one explorate Heresy by all sydes condemned yet are the examples of them most insufficient for the supporting of the Protestants Churches visibility My Reasons are these First The Scriptures (a) Esay 60. 40.1 Timoth. Eph. 4. besydes many other do proue that the Church of Christ must not at one only tyme or other but in all tymes and in all ages without the least interruption or discontinuance much lesse without interruption of many hundred yeares together be most visible and conspicuous This being granted I then demand what Protestants can be alledged liuing betweene Anno six hundred and seauen and anno 1220. Heere are about six hundred yeares betweene these two tymes during all which period as also for euery yeare thereof our Aduersaryes stand obliged to alledge Protestants for the Continuance of the visibility of the Protestant Church But this they are not able to effect And therefore D. Fulke with iust cause thus complayneth of the Inuisibility of the Protestant Church (b) D. Fuâ—ke in his answere to a Counterfeyt Catholikâ— pag. â—0 The Church in the tyme of Boniface the third which was anno 607. was inuisible and fled into the wildernes there to remayne a long season Secondly All the former men I meane Husse Wicleffe Waldo c. were originally Catholikes and after by forging of new Doctrine they deuided themselues from the Church then in Being and so thereby they iustifyed in themselues those words of S. Iohn (c) Ioan. 9. They went out of vs. Now this departure or going out of the Church implyeth in lieu of the continuance and visibility of their Church an interruption discontinuance defection of their Church and consequently a want of the visibility of the said Church Since it infallibly proueth that the Doctrines taught by these Men after their departure were not taught by the Church afore in being For if they had bene taught by it these Men needed not to leaue the then knowne Church for their defending and teaching of the said Doctrines Thirdly The Protestants wiâ—l say no doubt that Husse Wicleffe c. did preach the word of God and administer the Sacraments Heare then I demand seing no man taketh to himself the honour of priesthood but he that is called (d) Hebâ— 5. of God as Aaron was Who then did call Husse Wicleff Berengarius the Waldenses c. to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments or by whom were they sent But here our Aduersaries are at a stand flying to an immediat imaginary and aëry Calling For thus doth Caluin seeke to salue this difficulty Quia (e) Lascit the Protestant reciteth this saying of Caluin lib. de Russor Muscouit c. religione c. 23. Papae tyrannide c. Because through the tyranny of the Pope true succession of ordination was broken of therefore we stand in need of a new Course herein And this function or calling was altogether extraordinary With whom agreeth M. Perkins saying The (*) M. Perkins in his works printed 1605. fol. 916. calling of Wicliffe Husse Luther Oecolampadius Peter Martyr c. was extraordinary An exorbitant and phantasticall Conceite Animaduersion CV THere are two Reasons among others which euidently proue that our Aduersaries are conscious and guilty of their owne Churches Inuisibility One in that they discouer a wounderfull reluctation backwardnes when they are pressed by the Catholikes to name the Protestants liuing in such and such ages sortably hereto we find D. Fulke thus to complayne Proferre (f) Fulke de succes Eccles p. 89. me iubes toto Orbe latitantes vah quam iniquum postulas Thou willest we to produce and name those men who did lye hidd throghout the World How vniust a thing dost thou here demand And D. Wotton complayning in the like manner thus concludeth Proue (g) In his answere to a Popish Pamphlet p. 11. you that our Religion was no where helds This stands vpon you to disproue which when you do by particular Records you shall haue particular Answere Then which what can be first more absurdly spoken as expecting record of things which neuer were in being He furthermore transferring the part of prouing vpon Catholikes to which himself and his fellows only stand obliged The second Reason discouering their tergiuersation herein is in that when they are prest to instance in Protestants for seuerall ages they in lieu of Instancing flye to the Scripture then disputing the true Church of Christ must euer be Visible but theirs is the true Church as is proued out of the Scriptures Therefore their Church was euer visible A most strang and despayring Circulation Animaduersion CVI. THe like guiltines of our Aduersaries is shewed touching the supposed change of the Fayth of the Church of Rome For though this if any such change were be to be proued as being matter of fact from History yet our Aduersaries disclame from all History herein For D. Whitaker thus writeth Jt is not (h) Whitak contra Duraeum p. 177. needfull to search out of Histories the beginning of this change And againe It is (i) Whitak contra Duraeum p. 478. sufficient by comparing the Popish opinions with the Scripture to discouer the disparity of fayth betweene them and vs And as for Historiographers we giue them liberty to write what they will Thus bringing the Question as they did aboue touching the visibility of the Protestant Church to the Scriptures and their owne interpretation of the said Scriptures Which disclaming of theirs from History herein is most vnusuall and vnaccustomed since it hath bene euer the Office of Historiographers generall Councells to register and record any new arising Heresy or change in Fayth and Religion Animaduersion CVII IT cannot be denied but that a Catholike may commonly become sooner
Superstitious then a Protestant And a Protestant sooner becom an Atheist then a Catholike The Reason of both is euident And first whereas the Catholike Religion besides the beliefe of many dogmaticall points of fayth retayneth the practise of many Ceremonies the true vse of which Ceremonies as being first instituted by the primitiue Church are most lawfull but now if the ignorant Catholike through want of due instruction do ascribe more to them then is due or do put greater cōfidence in them then he ought as forgetting them to be but Ceremonies then perhaps he may haue a superstitious conceite of them as it happened in the Brazen Serpent though otherwise seruing as the figure of Christ To which the Iewes through abuse thereof in ascribing more worship to it then they ought at length bare a Superstitions respect But now touching the Protestants greater propension to Atheisme the reason is in that Protestancy euer refynes it selfe by Negatiues Thus for example The Caluinist or Puritan denies more then Lutheran or the moderate Protestāt The Anabaptist more then the Puritan The Anti-trinitarians more then the Anabaptists the Iew or Turks more then the Anti-trinitarians and for the last sublimation through deniall of all Iudaisme and Turcisme resolues into Atheisme And hereupon we find that whereas many Protestants by their often refyning of their Religion and all by Negatiues do in the end become Atheists denying euen the being of a Deity that few or no Catholikes immediatly from Catholike Religion euer fall into the open Blasphemy of Atheisme Animaduersion CVIII THe preaching of the Word and Sacraments supposing them to be Notes of the Church as our Aduersaries do suggest proue only the Place where the Church is but not which is the Church For the Church consisteth of men and we cannot tell who they are that receaue the Word truly preached or the Sacraments truly administred Againe whereas as Lubbertus (k) L. 4. de Eccles cap. 1. a Protestant truly teacheth Notius est duplex vnum Naturae alterum nobis Now here the Question is only of such Notes as are Notes in respect of vs for our better informing which is the true Church and not as they are Notes in respect of Nature For here we are instructed a posteriori and according to the measure of that knowledg which God vouchsafes to afford to vs. Now in reference hereto we freely grant that the true preaching of the word and Administration of the Sacraments may be termed Notes of the Church but not Notes to vs which is only the point here stood vpon For though they be Notes in Nature of the truth of the Church yet what doth this auayle vs since they are not Notes to vs for our direction to find which is the true Church Againe the true preaching of the word and the Administration of the Sacraments cannot be Notes to vs which is the true Church seeing the Scripture it selfe cannot be made knowne to vs for Scripture but only by the attestation of the Church as M. Hooker testifieth in these words Of (l) Hooker in Eccles Pol. saec 14. l. 1. pag. 86. things necessary the very chiefest is to know what Bookes we are to esteeme holy which is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And againe We (m) Vbi supra l. 3. p. 146. all know the first outward Motiue to esteeme of the Scripture is the authority of the Church Thus he Now this being granted it ineuitably followeth that first we must know which is the true Church to giue this approbation of the Scripture before we can know which is the Scripture and much more then before we can be assured of the true preaching of the Word and which is the true construction of the Scripture To these former Arguments I adioyne this pertinent obseruation It is this When the Catholikes demand to set downe the true Notes of the Church our Aduersaries answering That is the true Church which enioyeth a true preaching of the Word and an auayleable administration of the Sacraments Now I here affirme that this description of Notes is but our owne Question returned vs back in other termes and consequently but a Sophisme consisting in an idle circulation of the same point inuested with a new forme of words For when I demand which is the true Church I vertually implicitly and according to the immediate meaning of my words demand which Church is that which enioyeth the true preaching of the word and the true vse of the Sacraments since only the true Church is honored with this kind of preaching and distribution of the Sacraments Thus far touching the Notes prostituted by our Aduersaries as the true Notes of Christ his Church Animaduersion CIX SVch Protestants as do mantayne that there were Protestants in all ages before Luther giue the reason that the feare of Persecution was the cause why the said Protestants did then lye latent and became not visible to the world But this is a meere aēry suggestion For thus I argue The Church of God vnder persecution either communicateth openly with a false visible Church in participation of Sacraments and externall professiō of fayth Or els she doth refrayne from all such externall Communion if she do communicate with a false Idolatrous Church as diuers of our Aduersaryes repute the Church of Rome to be then is she not the true Church since the true Church cannot brooke any such dissimulation For we read With the hart a (n) Rom. 10. Mā belieueth vnto Iustice and with the mouth confesseth vnto Saluation If she doth not communicate with it then by such her forbearing she is made knowne and consequently is become thereby visible for who are persecuted but Men that are knowne Or how can one lying secretly and hiddenly be said to be persecuted The truth of this point is further warrantable from the examples of the persecution in the primitiue Church which of all other pressures of the Church was incomparably the greatest And yet we fynd that the particular Bishops Confessours and Martyrs are euen to this day made knowne who they were what false Opinions and Heresyes they impugned And the like may be said of the English Catholikes persecuted in Queene Elizabeths reigne since the names and memoryes of those reuerend Pryests and others of the Laity to speake nothing of many worthy Confessours and other suffering great losses and disgraces who lost their lyues in her dayes only for Religion are euen to this day fresh and recorded Therefore I heare demaund that if the Catholiks in this our Country being but a small part of Christendome could not but for some few nūbers of yeares in comparison escape the search and hands of their persecutours and become thereby most visible knowne How could then the Protestants being supposed to be dispersed thtoughout many Nations lye hid and auoyd for so many ages together as is pretended the force of that persecution which is affirmed by
our Aduersaryes to haue beene more grieuous then euer this of England was Animaduersion CX WHereas our Aduersaries do further vrge in behalfe of the being of Protestants in former Ages that it is often obserued that a little quantity of Copper is in a couÌ„terfeyte Coyne of Gold chaffe is mingled with Corne and yet neither is the Copper Gold nor the Chaffe Corne so say they the Protestant Church was in former ages in the Papacy The Papacy was in the Protestant Church and yet the Protestant Church was not in the Papacy According hereto M. Perkins saith The (o) In his reformed Catholike pag. 328. 329. Church of Rome may be said to be in the Church of God the Church of God in the Church of Rome with whom agreeth Beza thus writing Voluit (p) In Epist. Theol. Epist 1. pag. 15. Deus in Papatu seruare Ecclesiam etsi Papatus non est Ecclesia And D. Whitaker (q) Whiâ—ak l. de Eccles pag. 165. Ecclesia vera fuit in papatu sed papatus non fuit Ecclesia To this I reply and say it is but a froath of words artificially put together Howsoeuer many of our Aduersaries much please themselues with this conceited Answere Therfore for the better examining thereof we are here to conceaue that the sense and meaning of these words is not that the Protestant Church had in those tymes a latent and hidden being in Catholike Countries without hauing entercourse communion with the then knowne and visible Church in the Sacraments for so the true Church could not be said to be in the papacy no more then at this day in respect of its like aboad in Turkish Countries it can be said to be in Turcisme Therefore the particular manner of this strange mixture as it appeares in shew of words is thus truly expressed by Osiander the Protestant in this manner (r) In Epitom Cent. 16. part altera p. 1070. 1072. Quod semper sub Papatu aliqui pij homines fuerint c. No man denyeth but that there were vnder the papacy some holy men who disliked the Errours of the Popes although they durst not openly professe so much nisi ardere aut ad minimum exulare velint except they would burne for their Religion or at least suffer banishment Thus we see the last sublimated sense of the former quaynt sentence resolues to this point To wit that the Protestant Church in those former tymes being in or vnder the Papacy did through feare of burning or banishment dissemble their Religion and communicate in all externall right with the Church of Rome Animaduersion CXI THe Confessed Inuisibility of the Protestant Church aboue set downe during so many former ages doth potentially and vertually include the proofe of the visibility of the Roman Church during all the said ages Seing the Jnuisibility of the Protestant Church for so long a tyme is ascribed by the Protestants themselues to the worke of Antichrist they meaning therby the Pope and the Church of Rome as appeareth by seuerall testimonyes of our Aduersaryes els where in this Treatise expressed particularly of M. Napper thus saying Betweene (s) Napper in his Treatise vpon the Reuelat. pag. 68. the yeares of Christ 300. and 316. the Antichristian Papisticall reigne began reigning vniuersally without any debatable contradiction 1260. yeares And accordingly the Centurists (t) See this in Cent. 4. and so successiuely in Euery Century charge all the ages from Constantine till Luther with Papistry Thus an acknoledged defection of the Protestant Church for many Centuryes doth by our Aduersaryes owne Confession necessarily include and imply a Continuall visibility of the Catholike Roman Church during all the said Centuryes Animaduersion CXII TOuching the supposed change of the fayth of Rome I will deuyde in these three next Animaduersions all the Ages from the Apostles euen to Luthers days into three seuerall Stations or Periods of tymes First then we will see how long it is granted by the Protestants that Rome did perseuere without any alteration of her Primitiue faith Secondly we will set downe the acknowledged continuance of that tyme during all which season the now present fayth of Rome hath continued that is how long Papistry as our Aduersaries terme it hath bene publikly professed throughout all Christendome Thirdly and lastly we will then take a view of the tymes betweene these two former seuerall tymes For these two tymes being once acknowledged on all sydes to wit the tyme during which the Church of Rome confessedly kept her first fayth taught by the Apostles and the tyme during which the present Roman fayth hath continued from this day vpward it ineuitably followeth that this supposed change in Religion did either happen in the Jnterstitium and meane tyme betweene these two former Periods of tymes or els that there happened no such change of Religion in the Church of Rome at all Now concerning the first of these tymes it is granted by the Protestants that Rome retayned her purity of fayth without any alteration from the Apostles tymes till after the death of Optatus Epiphanius and Austin which is during the space of foure hundred and fourty yeares after Christ This I thus proue Wheras our Catholike writers haue much insisted for proofe of their Religion in the succession of the Bishop of Rome euen vntill Austins dayes by the Example of Jrenaus Cyprian Optatus Jerome Vincentius Lyrinensis and Austin D. Fulke answereth in behalfe of these Fathers in this sort That (*) Fulke in his confutation of Purgatory p. 372. these Fathers especially named the Church of Rome it was because the Church of Rome at that tyme as it was founded by the Apostles so it continued in the Doctrine of the Apostles which Doctour in another place thus further writeth The (*) D. Fulke in his Retentiue pag. 85. Popâ—â—â— Church c. departed from the vniuersall Chuâ—ch of Christ long after Austins departure out of this Lyfe Thus he granting that till after Austins death the Church of Rome remayned the true Church In like manner D. Iewell accordeth with D. Fulke herein touching the Argument drawne by those foresaid Fathers from succession of the Bishops of Rome saying As (u) D. Iewell in his reply to D. Harding pag. 246. well Austin as also other godly Fathers rightly yeilded Reuerence to the Sea of Rome c. For the purity of Religion which was there preserued a long tyme without spot To conclude Caluin himselfe maketh good the foresaid Argument taken from the Succession of the Bishops of Rome insisted vpon by Jrenaeus Pertullian Origen Cyprian Austin and Epiphanius in these words Cum (x) Instit l. 4. cap. 2. Sect. 3. extra controuersiam erat nihil á principio vsque ad aetatem illam mutatum fuisse in Doctrina c. Seeing it was a point out of Controuersy that nothing in Doctrine from the begining to that very age was changed these holy
vpon vs doth not please me for it tasteth of Barbarism Now to come to the text impoysoned by his Constructions and first that markable passage J and (e) Ioan. 10. the Father are vnum vz. one thing euer mainly insisted vpon by the Ancient (f) Chrysost in hunc locum Austin in hunc locum many others Fathers against the Arians for proofe of the Diuinity of Christ is thus auoyded by Caluin (g) Caluin in Ioan. ca. 10. Abusi sunt hoc â—xo Veteres vt probarent Christum esse Patri Homousion neque enim Christus de vnitate sùbstantiae disputat sed de consensu The ancient Fathers haue abused this place to proue that Christ is Consubstantiall to his Father For Christ here disputeth not of the vnity of Essence but of the vnity of Consent and will Againe that passage There (h) 1. Ioan 5. be three that giue testimony in Heauen the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three be one Which text the ancient Fathers euer expounded of the Trinity Caluin thus answereth Quod (i) Caluin in hunc locum dicitur tres esse vnum ad essenâ—iam non refertur sed ad consensum potiùs That is where it is said these three are One these words are not to be referred to One in respect of Essence but rather of Consent In like manner that place Thou (k) Psal 2. art my Sonne bodie this day I haue begotten thee Calâ—iâ— (l) In Psalm 2. interpreteth with the Arians against the Diuinity of Christ This point I meane of Caluins interpreting the chiefe passages of Scripture euer vrged by the Ancient Fathers for proofe of Christs Diuinity with the Arians to impugne Christs Diuinity is so câ—eere and confessed as that Aegidius Hunnius a most markable and learned Protestant writeth a booke against Caluin of this subiect thus entituling it Caluinus Indaizans hoc est Iudaicae glossae corruptelae quibus Joannes Caluinus illustrissima scriptura sacra loca testimonia de gloriosa Trinitate c. detestandum in moâ—um corrumpere non exhorrait With this blaspheâ—y against the Blessed Trinity Caluin is further charged by Conradus (m) In Theolog. Caluinist l 2. fol. 38. 39. sequent Sclusselburg by (n) In his Admonit de Arianis Pelargus by Stancarus (o) Scâ—nkarus contra ministros Geneuens Tyguriâ—oâ— and lastly by Ioannes Mathaeus all eminent Protestants which Mathaeus did write a booke against Caluin for teaching Arianisme stiling it de Cauendo Caluinistarum fermento c. Animaduersion CXXXIX FRom the confessed Inuisibility of the ProtestaÌ„t Church during so many ages aboue granted it is proued that the Protestant Church is not the true Church of Christ by this Medium following The Prophesyes do fore shew that the Church of Christ in the tyme of the New testament shall conuert to its faith the Gentils their Nations and kingdomes thus accordingly we read Esay to fortell of the Church (p) Esay c. 60. vide etiam cap. 54. The Iles shall waite for thee meaning the Church Their kings shall minister vnto thee and thy Gates shal be continually open neither day nor night shal they be shut that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentils with whom accordeth the Roiall Prophet speaking in the persoÌ„ of the Church (q) Psal 2. I will giue thee the Heathens for thy inheritance and the ends of the earth for thy possession That these places of Scripture besydes diuers others are vnderstood of the enlargement of Christs Church and the coÌ„uersion of kingdomes and nations vnto it is warranted by the acknowledgement of (r) Oâ—colamp vpon Ieremy Occolampadius (s) In his defâ—nce p. 400. D. Whitguist D. Whitaker (t) In his answere to M. William Reynoâ—â—â— and others as also by the Annotations of the Protestants owne English (u) Printed in the yeare 1576. Bibles Now for proofe that the Protestant Church neuer yet conuerted any Gentils or Heathen Kingdomes and Nations to its fayth we will begin first from Luthers tyme and so ascend by degrees vp to the Apostles And first from Luthers days to Gregory the Great or Boniface the third which contayneth a thousand yeares it is euident that during all this tyme the ProtestaÌ„t Church remained wholy Jnuisible as is aboue demonstrated from the acknowledgments of Protestants and therefore could not conuert any Countryes or Kingdomes to its religion Againe touching all these Countryes here expressed to wit The Danes (x) Cant. 8.9 10.11.12.13.14.15 Morauians Polonians Slauonians Bulgars Hunnes Normans Bohemians Noruegians Saxons Germans and diuers others here omitted the Conuersions of all these happened within this last thousand yeares and therefore were conuerted by the Church of Rome and to the present Roman fayth euen by free acknowledgment of the Magdeburgians or Centurists according as the Bishops of Rome liued within those seuerall ages Neither can our Aduersaries name any one Heathen Country in Christendome conuerted to Christianity by the Protestant Church And hence it ryseth that D. Whitaker doth stile the Conuersion of all the former Countryes as granting them to be conuerted to our present Roman fayth impure (y) Whitak l de Eccles contra Bellarm. § 336. and corrupt Conuersions Now to ascend from these last thousand yeares vpwards to the other next three hundred yeares I meane to the dayes or the first Christian Emperour during the space of which three hundred yeares no Countryes or Kingdomes were conuerted at all to Christian Religion either by Catholikes or any others for it is euident that in those daies there were no Kings professing the Christian Religion the Emperours of the East only excepted among whom some were false (z) As Valens Constantius constans Christians as being defiled with Arianisme others (a) IuliaÌ„ Apostates Now concerning the tyme it selfe of Constantine it is so certaine that neither himself nor any Country by his meanes was conuerted to the Protestant Religion as that the Magdeburgenses all Protestants recording the state of the Church in Constantynes tyme do charge Constantine with all our Catholike points at this day professed by the Church of Rome styling them The (b) Cent. 4. Errours of Constantine and of his Age. Now to ryse higher in tymes to wit from the tymes of Constantine to that of Christ our Sauiour it is witnessed by all Historiographers that the Church of God was in such violent Persecutions as that it had no meanes to inlarge it selfe by conuerting to it Kings or Kingdomes and if it had at that tyme conuerted any yet the Question would then follow whether such a Conuersion had beene made to the Protestant or to the Roman Church But the euidency of this point appeareth both from the writings of the Protestant Deuines of Wittenbâ—rg (c) In the booke Disputationes c. as also from the testimony of D. Barlow who thus discourseth hereof (d) Barlow in his defence
they are most erroneous in the immediaâ— Obiect Animaduersion CXLII WHen the Catholikes do alledge certaiâ—â— Notes of the Church as Antiquity Vniuersality Succession Conuersion of Heathâ—â— c. our Aduersaryes seeke to auoyde thâ— force of some of these Notes and particularly of Succession and Conuersion of Gentils since they say these two Notes are claymâ—â— by confessedly false Churches seing thâ— Greeke Church houldeth Succession and thâ— Arians haue conuerted the Gothes anâ— Vandals To answere hereto I first say thesâ— two Instances are false for the Greeke Churcâ— hath its Succession as interrupted and begunne from those Intruders who begaâ— their owne separation from the Romaâ— Church about the Holy Ghosts proceeding And as concerning the supposed Conuersâ—ons of the Goths and Vandals by the Arians it is only pretended Seing the Gothes weâ—â— not at the first conuerted by the Arians buâ— being conuerted before were after by them peruerted as appeareth out of Zozomen l. 6. c. 37. and Theodoret l. 4. cap. vlt. Secondly I reply to the former Euasion That the Catholikes rather to preuent the impostures of our Aduersaryes obiecting hereto theÌ„ out of any absolute necessity of the said Notes do propound the foresaid Marks or notes not as proper alone to the true Church but only as markes inseparable though not conuertible from it so they vndertaking thereby not to set downe in the affirmatiue that where any such of these in separably marks be there the true Church certainly is but rather in the Negatiue that where these be wanting there the true Church is not But certaine it is that these Notes are wanting in the ProtestaÌ„t Church Animaduersion CXLIII I grant that the Catholike Religion is inuolued with farre more difficultyes as may be exemplifyed in the doctrine of the Reall presence then the Protestant Religion the reason therof being in that our Religion consisteth of Affirmatiue Articles the Protestants fayth so far forth as it differeth from the Catholike of Negatiues Yet to recompence this we fynd that the Protestant fayth is attended on coÌ„trary to the Catholike faith herein with diuers grosse absurdityes necessarily and immediatly flowing from the Protestants Tenets or Assertions I heere passe ouer how (9) Luth. l. de capt Babil c. de Baptism Luther houldeth that Infants at the tyme of their Baptizing haue an articulate and actual faith of all the chiefe Misteryes of Christianity That our Aduersaryes howsoeuer they disclayme from it in words teach (10) Luther in Assert damuat per Leonem Art 36. Beza in his display of Popish practises pag. 202. Sumglius to 1. de Prodentia fol. 366. that God is the Author of sinne These and many other such like absurd Doctrines I heere passe ouer only I will a little insist how (*) Luther in Assert art 32. sayth That all good works God iudging them are mortall sinne Luther and the rest do mantayne that all the good works of iust Men are Sinnes Now the absurdity of this doctrine how transparent is it Since from it would follow that the worke of fayth by which we are iustifyed should be Sinne as also that prayer wherein we pray Dimitte nobis debita nostra should be a sinne But is it not most absurd that man should be iustified by Sinne and that he should seeke by Sinne to obtaine the remission of sinne Againe from this fountayne we might thus truly Syllogize and reason All good works are to be done but some mortall sinnes are good Works Therefore some mortall sinnes are to be done Againe No mortall sinne is to be committed but all good works are mortall sinnes Therefore no good Worke is to be done These Loe are the inferences of the former absurdity to wit that all good works are mortall Sinnes that some mortall Sinnes are to be committed and that no good worke is to be donne Now whereas by way of retortion our Aduersaries and particularly Kempnitius in his Examen Concilij â—rident vpbraid vs that we teach a more blasphemous doctrine in maintayning that we are iustifyed by our owne works and not by Christ his Passion To this I reply thar in obiecting of this appeares either extreme malice in our Aduersaries or at least most wilfull ignorance Therefore to remoue this stumbling block we say that we are iustifyed by an inherent Iustice or Renouation of life in vs as by the formall Cause but we are also iustifyed by the merits of Christ his Passion as by the meritoriour Cause both which different causes may stand together without any derogation of the one to the other contrary to the intended fraud of our Aduersaries herein in seeking to confound these two different Causes Animaduersion CXLIV YF it be demanded how Luther first being instructed of the Deuill concerning his doctrine as also being of a vicious life as â—n this Treatise is in part elswhere shewed â—hould for his doctrine be so much applauâ—ed repayred vnto by the broken memâ—ers of the Catholike Church To this may â—e answered that Luther his select choice â—reparing of his doctrine to entertayne and â—t the then seuerall affected humours of â—ch peculiar declining estate and degree â—his being accompanied with the Visitation â—f Gods heauy iudgments hanging ouer â—he preuayling Sinnes of those degenerate â—â—mes was the chiefe Allectiue for the more easy imbracing of Luthers Doctrine Noâ— the choycnes of Luthers doctrine consisted to insist in some particulars in mantayning liberty of pretended Mariage in Clergy men in his exposing of Monasteries and other rich spoyles of the Church to the greedy appetite of the temporal Magistrate and finally in deluding of the simple sinfull Laity with his other licentious doctrines of Saluation by only fayth and disclayming from the necessity of Good Workâ— as houlding them needles as aboue out of his owne particular sayings we haue proued In the seuerall imbracing of all whicâ— as S. Jerome (1) Ierome contra Vigilantium in like manner said of Vigilantius his followers Luthers followers fauored not so much him as their owne Vâ—â—â— These are the fatall steps of Luthers suddaâ—â—â— rising greatnes And this is the lesse to 〈◊〉 wondred at seeing we see that the like câ— rather far greater progresse was made 〈◊〉 this kind by Mahomet through his absurd and licentious Doctrines wherewith so many Nations are euen at this day infected Animaduersion CXLV YF in retaliation of what is said in thâ—â— last aboue Animaduersion our Aduersaries shall labour to distract their Discipleâ— with vnequall obiecting insteed of answere the supposed wicked liues of certaine Popes I reply hereto that admitting for the tyme the said wicked liues of the Popes to be true and not forged yet the disparity here resteth in that those Popes were not the first Restorers of our Religion to light since they liued many ages after our Catholike Religion was vniuersally professed as appeareth aboue from the confessed antiquity of the Catholike Roman Fayth Againe I say the Question heere is not whether the high
Priests of the Old Law or the High Priests now haue after the establishment of Religion beene sometimes wicked Men or not but the touch of the Question here issuable is whether the truth of Religion hauing beene extinct as is supposed or to the World latent and inuisible for so many hundred yeares as is in this Treatise confessed by our Aduersaries to haue beene extinct and inuisible may with any probability be thought to be reuealed or restored to the world by men of flagitious and wicked Liues I meane by Luther Swinglius Caluin (2) Caluin charged with Sodomy by the publike records of the City of Noyon in FraÌ„ce yet extant and by Conradus Schlusselburg a Protestant in Theolog Caluinist printed 1594. l. Law 1. fol. 72. and Beza (3) Beza charged with Sodomy by the fore said Schlusseiburg vbi suprà and l. 1. fol. 9â— Hessbusius a Protestant in his booke entituled Verae sanâ— Confessionis c. both which last two are condemned of the execrable Sinne of Sodomy euen by other Protestants their brethren And heere the doubt or Question resteth Animaduersion CXLVI THe Prophet speaking with difference of the Synagogue of the Iewes in the Old Law and of the Church of Christ in the Neâ— thus writeth The glory (4) Aggeus â— of this last houâ—â— meaning the Church of Christ shal be greater then the first with whom conspireth the Apostle saying with reference to the Iewish Law and the Law of Christ (5) Hebr. 8. Christ is a mediatour of a better Testament which is established vpon better promisses Now from these passages of Scripture I demonstratiuely deduce that the Protestant Church is not the true Church of Christ since touching its visibility it is much inferiour to the Synagogue of the Iewes I meane which is a Circumstance here chiefly to be obserued euen since the comming of the Messias which was the appointed tyme of the Synagogues Decay and the Christian Churches increase For it is fully confessed heretofore that for the thousand yeares last before Luther or rather some seuerall ages more before the said thousand yeares the Protestant Church hath continued vnknowne latent and inuisible Whereas on the other part it appeareth by sufficient authority of Histories in all tymes that the Jewes during all those ages and euer since Christs tyme haue had their Synagogue though vnder some kind of restraint yet dispersed knowne and Visible in the most notable Prouinces of the world as Greece Italy Spayne France Germany England c. And thus we see that the scandall or scruple hence arysing hath beene an argument for some Protestants to apostatate from Christian Religion and to become Iewes as Bernardine Ochine Neuserus chiefe Pastour of Heidelburg and others as I haue shewed elswhere since these men altogether reiecting the Catholike Church as false and Idolatrous did well obserue that the former Prophesy of the Visibility of the Church of God was not fullfilled in their Protestant Church Animaduersion CXLVII YF we might rest vpon the seuerall iudgments of the Protestants it would follow that most of the chiefest Controuersies betweene vs and them should be but points of Jndifferency and the contrary houlding them off either syde should not be preiudiciall to Mans Saluation which course is indeed to introduce a Neutrality of Religion or rather a contempt of all Religion I will exempâ—ify in diuers particulars And 1 first concerning satisfaction and merit of works D. Whitaker thus writeth The (6) Whitak contra Rat. Camp p. 78. and in his answere to M. William Reynolds cap. 6. pag. 135. ancient Fathers thought by their externall discipline of life to pay the paynes due for sinne c. Which though it be an errâ—ur yet were they notwithstanding good Men and holy Fathers Therefore I conclude their beliefe and practise of the said points were no hindrance to their Saluation 2. Touching the Popes primacy thus fauorably Melancthon writeth thereof The (7) In his Ep extant in the Book entituled Centuria Epistol Theolog. Epist 74 Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is profitable to this end that consent 〈◊〉 be retayned Wherefore an agreement might easâ—ly be established in this Article of the Popes Prâ—macy if other Articles could be agreed vpon Touching our Lady being preserued froâ— Originall Sinne and worshipping of Jmageâ— M. Bunny thus writeth In these (8) Bunny in his pacification sect 17. pag. 104. or suâ—â— like whosoeuer will condemne all those to be noâ— of the Church that are not fully persuaded therein as we are c. committeth an vncharitabâ—â— part towards his brethren 4. Concerning receauing vnder one or both kinds Luther thus teacheth Si (9) Luth. de vtraque specie Sacramenti veneris ad locum vbi tantuâ— vna species ministratur cum alijs vna tantuâ— specie vtere c. 5. Concerning the Doctrine of the Reall Presence D. Reynolds sayth The (10) Reynolds in his fifth Conclusion annexed to his Conference pag. 722. Doctrine of the Reall Presence is but as it were the grudging of a litle ague if otherwise the party hould the Christian fayth 6. Of Inuocation of Saints D. Goad (11) In their Disputation had in the Tower wiâ—h F. Campian the 1. dayes Conference Arg. 8. Rat. 11. 111. D. Fulke affirme that it doth not exclude from being members of the Church c. 7. of Honoring Saints Relikes and Prayer for the dead M. Spark thus discourseth We are (12) Sparke in his answere to M. Iohn d' Albines pag 382. not so hasty to pronounce condemnation of any such Errours for you know well inough that we make not these matters such as that either we thinke that all must be saued that hould the one way or all condemned that hould the other 8. Of Freewill and prayer for the Dead and some other points M. Cartwright thus censureth The Indifferency (13) Cartwright in his Reply p. 14. Sect. 1. â— of the Doctrines of Freeâ—â—â—l prayer for the Dead a number of others necessary Doctrines is such wherein men being â—â—sted haue notwithstanding beene saued 9. Lastly concerning Masse Luther thus writeth Priuate Masse (14) Luther in Colloq Germanicis ca. de Missa hath deceaued many Sâ—incts and earryed them away into Errour frâ—m the tyme of Gregory for 800. yeares Thus far for a tast touching many points euen of greatest consequence betweene the Church of Rome and the Protestants houlden by the Protestants to be of that Adiaphorous indifferent Nature as that the belieuing of them or deniall of them is no hinderance to the Saluation of the Soule So ready we fynd euen the most learned Protestants against the Nature of true fayth and of the practise of the primitiue Church to dogâ—etize a Neutrality of Christian Religion Animaduersion CXLVIII THe Antimoni who denied the Law of Moyses and the Libertines who teach all sensualicy all most impure wicked Heretikes may in a true iudgment be rightly said
Church of Christ Thou (37) Esay c. â—0 shalt sucke the milke of the Gentills and the breasts of Kings And againe it is prophesied of the Church by the Kingly Prophet J (38) Psal â— will giue thee the Heathens 〈◊〉 thy inheritance and the End of the Earth for sâ—â— thy possession Now two things are cleare the first that many Heathen Kingdomes hâ—â—e beene conuerted to Christianity by the Pope and his ministers This is proued from the coÌ„fession of D. Whitaker who acknowledging the conuersion of many Countryes made by the Church of Rome thus debaseth them The (39) Whitak l. de Eccles pag. 336. Conuersion of so many Nations after the tyme of Gregory haue not beene pure but corrupt Now that the Protestant Church neuer conuerted any Gentill King or Nation to the fayth of Christ appeareth from its coÌ„fessed Inuisibility for so many ages till Luthers tyme aboue set downe Thus then I here aâ—gue The predictions of conuerting Kings and Kingdoms to the fayth of Christ were performed by the Pope only and his Substituts and not by the Protestants Therefore the predictions for the enlarging of Christ his Church by conuerting Gentills vnto it were performed by Antichrist Christs designed Enemy How do these stand together and yet do these incompatibilityes necessarily result out of the former Assertions Animaduersion CLIV. THe example of Paphnutius his standing in the Nicene Councell in defence of Priests mariage so much insisted vpon by so many eminent Protestants is misapplied and withall in all likely hood most false It is misapplyed because where it is vrged in proofe of Priests Mariage it proueth the contrary For though perhaps Paphnutius might be persuaded that Priesthood did not dissolue Mariage afore contracted yet he sayth plainly Those (40) So relateth Socrates l. 1. ca. 8. who are made Priests before they are maried cannot after marry And this Paphnutius calleth Veterem Ecclesiae traditionem The ancient tradition of the Church So far was Paphnutius from ascribing the doctrine of Priests not marrying after the Order of Priesthood taken to the Councell of Nice Now that this example of Paphnutius is vntrue many probabilities may be vrged First because there is not so much as any Mention of this matter concerning Paphnutius made by any who did wryte of the Nicene Councell before Socrates tyme who first relateth the words of Paphnutius For neither did Eusebius Athanasius Epiphanius Theodoret nor yet Ruffinus himselfe who writ many things of Paphnutius and of the Nicene Councell all being more ancient then Socrates make any mention of this matter Now I here demaÌ„d could all these be silent in so great a busines and so earnestly debated in the Nicene Councell Secondly this example of Paphnutius seemeth to be against the third Canon of the said Nycene Councell which altogether forbiddeth Priests to haue dwelling with them any Woman other then their Mother Sister their Fathers sister their Mothers sister c. Now if as Socrates reporteth in the example of Paphnutius the Councell had left liberty for married Laymen afterwards made Priests to haue kept still their former Wynes why then was not the wyse first placed here in the exception but altogether omitted This example of Paphnutius is so much suspected to be false that Frigeuilleus (41) In his palmâ— Christiana p. 103. Ganuius a Protestant doth plainly ascribe it to the forgery of Socrates Animaduersion CLV IT will not be amisse to obserue the Protestants Method in disputing with the Catholikes touching the Reall Presence as it is taught by the Church of Rome For the Question of the Reall Presence being but propounded they quickly tell vs that Christ neuer intended or willed it which answere is made to omit all other Protestants by (42) In his Decads in English serm 8. p. 971. Bullinger And when to declare Christs Will therein we alledge his words they make then a new question of his power as denying such to be his will or sense of words vnder pretence that it is (43) So answereth whitak in his answ to M. William Reynolds pa 179. contradictory to the truth and Nature of his humane body now in Heauen and so is therby impossible And when in reply therto we proue to them directly that it is not impossible then returning per circuitum to their firster Euasion they answere that the Question (44) So answereth D. Whitak in his answere to M. Reynolds refutation pag. 192. is not of his power but only of his Will and so dancing in a round they triffle and delude vs by a subtle escape of an endles Circulation Animaduersion CLVI IT is most certaine that the doctrine of many of our Aduersaries touching the Reall Presence is inuolued with greater shew of Impossibility then our Catholike doctrine thereof is for whereas they teach that Christs reall body is really (45) So teach besides many others M. Perkins in his reformed Catholike pag. 187. and D. Fulke against the Rhâ—mish Testam in 1. Cor. 15. and truly present and yet not bodily and corporally but only Spiritually present By which word Spiritually they do not exclude the true and reall presence of his body Now how this should be free from repugnancy and meere contradiction and therfore impossible I cannot discerne For to affirme that Christs very body and not only a figure or efficacy thereof should be truly and really present and yet not bodily but spiritually present is in it selfe inexplicable and as Swinglius (46) Swimglius co 2. de vera falsa religionâ— fol. â—06 in confutation therof truly obserueth is vpon the matter no other thing then to turne his body into a Spirit For as the true substance of Christs Spirit cannot be said to be present to vs only corporally or bodily and not spiritually because it is a spirit and no Body so neither may the substance it selfe of Christs very body be said to be present to vs not bodily but only Spiritually nor at all spiritually vnlesse we do which is impertinent to the matter in hand vnderstand the word Spirituall as the Apostle doth 1. Cor. 15. because it is a true and reall body no Spirit Animaduersion CLVII VNiuersality of our Catholike Doctrine in all chiefest points dispersed througout all Nations euen by the acknowledgment of our Aduersaries as appeareth from their confessed Inuisibility of their owne Church and Religion for so many ages is a most strong Argument of the truth of our Catholike Religion My reason hereof is in that the doctrine of the Roman Church could not by any pretended corruption be deriued from that Church to so many Nations so far remote and distant ech from other Sundry of which Nations were vnknowne to the Latin Church and many of them at variance therewith in some small points Therefore from hence I conclude that our Catholike fayth was the Primitiue fayth first taught by the Apostles in all those far different Nations wherein
no lesse then in some other principall points of fayth imbraced both by the Catholike and the Protestant such as is the Trinity the Baptisme of Infants and such like the foresaid Nations did and yet do agree notwithstanding their disagreement in lesser Matters Animaduersion CLVIII DIuers of the Iewish Ceremonies may be still maintained though as contrary in iudgment hereto D. Reynolds (47) D. Reynolds in his Conference with M. Hart pa. 570. and 571. is not abashed to obiect against vs many Ceremonies of the Jewes as if we did offend sinne in our Ceremonies bearing some resemblance to the said Iewish Ceremonies But against this errour of his and other Protestants I alledge first that as D. Gardiner (48) D. Gardiner in his Dialogue betweene Irenaeus and Antimachus of the rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England printed at London 1605. fol. b. 3. though our Aduersary truly teacheth the Iewish Ceremonies which haue ceased and may not now be retayned are most properly those which were ordained to signify some thing as being Future and to be accomplished in Christ as for example the Paschall Lambe which signified his Passion to come But as concerning Ceremonies of other kind that in the ancient Fathers iudgment they might be lawfully retained or vsed and so accordingly were by them vsed in the celebration of the publike Liturgy is confessed by (49) Caluin de Caena Domini in tract Theol. printed 2597. pag. 7. Caluin Secondly we giue instance of sundry Ceremonies vsed in the Old Testament and yet now retayned as paying of Tythes Our Churches with reference to their Temples Pentecost Holydayes Eleuation of hands and genuflection in tyme of prayer Jmposition of hands diuers others Thirdly that the Church of Christ might and did in the Apostles tymes borrow Rytes from the Old Testament is confessed by (50) Caluin l. 4. Inâ—tit c. 3. sect 16. Caluin and others yea Peter Martyr thus plainly writeth hereof Many (51) Peter Martyr in his Epistles annexed to his Common places in English p. 118. things the Church hath borrowed from the Decrees of Moyses yea and that from the first tymes Now these Ceremonies as also others are vsed chiefly to stir vp in vs deuotion and that how forcible they are thereto I will content my selfe with the Authority of S. Austin herein who thus writeth There (52) Austin Epist 5. ad Marcellum post initium are certaine signes he meaning Ceremonyes by the celebration and vse thereof not to God but to vs profitable offices of Piety are exercised Againe (53) Austin to 4 de cura â—ro Mortuis c. 5. When we kneele downe when we stretch out our hands when we lye prostrate vpon the ground c. a man by these doth better stir vp himself to pray Thus Austin Animaduersion CLIX. THough the doctrine of the Masse hath beene briefly discoursed of before in some Animaduersions yet I hould it conuenient heere to relate the Antiquity of the word Masse still retayned by vs. First then Peter Martyr thus writeth Austin (54) Peter Martyr in his Common places Englished par 4 p. 515. maketh mention of the word Masse in his 237. sermon de Tempore as also in his 91. serm de Tempore In like manner the Century writers (55) Cent. 4. col 295 reproue S. Ambrose for mentioning the word Masse D. Fulke (56) Fulk in his Retentiue p. 60. acknowledgeth that Victor who liued within the first fiue hundred yeares doth in his History vse the terme of Masse by which sayth D. Fulke was meant the celebration of the CoÌ„munion memory of the Sacrifice of Christ. Now if ouâ— Aduersaries will reply to all this saying the Word Masse is not found in the Scripture therefore it auaileth not that the Fathers did vse it let them as is aboue touched in full answere of this condemned Sophisme remember that although both we and they do professe to belieue the Trinity or Personâ— yet themselues cannot fynd the word Trâ—nity mentioned in the Scriptures neither the word Person according to the foresaâ— sense Animaduersion CLX IT is euident by all obseruation examples of former tymes that the liues 〈◊〉 those men were euermore austere and saâ—ctifyed whom God did chuse to be the fiâ—â—â— publishers or Restorers of Religion or reformers of his Church This is verifyed 〈◊〉 the Example of Moyses in the Old Law and of the Apostles in the first preaching of the Euangelicall Law all of them being meâ— most pious most religious and most seueâ— to themselues in their manners and Coâ—uersation This then being as a presumeâ— ground principle we are to call to mind what aboue is granted by our Aduersariâ—â— to wit that Luther and his schollars aftâ—â— following were the first restorers of thâ— Protestants fayth their Church for so manages afore being latent and inuisible He 〈◊〉 further we are to call to mynd that next 〈◊〉 â—r Luther the chiefest Protestants for enâ—â—ging of Protestancy and spreading of â—heir supposed Gospell were these followâ—g Swinglius Melancthon Carolostadius Iaâ—â—bus Andrâ—â—as Bucer Ochinus Caluin and 〈◊〉 Now in this next place we are to weigh 〈◊〉 nether these men were licentious dissoâ—â—te and wicked in their Conuersation or vertuâ—us and religious in their Courses but it is more then euident that Luther and all the rest of these were of most flagitious dissolute manners The truth of which point through the largenes of the subiect here in expresse words to set downe this â—lace is not capable of Since in these my Animaduersions I affect all breuity Thereâ—â—re I most earnestly intreate the sâ—udious Reader to peruse the booke entituled Luthers Lyfe written by the Authour of the Protestants Apology The Subiect of that â—ooke is to lay open the enormous bad â—es particularly of Luther Swinglius â—elâ—nâ—con Carolostadius Jacobus Andraeas Bucer â—chinus Caluin and Beza And what is there â—â—liuered is not deliuered from the pens â—â—sertions of the Catholikes for that Course would be held suspected and parâ—â—all but from the pens and Relations of tâ—e Protestants themselues I assure the Reaâ—â—r that in that booke he shall find some 〈◊〉 those former men to be charged with Fornication Adultery others with Sodomy oâ—hers againe charged with Epicurism broaching of blasphemous doctrines and others againe apostating from Christianity making themselues by Circumcision open Turkâ—â— Jewes and all this as aboue said there produced from the Protestants owne accusations of them they thus prophanely liuing after their beginning to preach their Gospell Now here I refer to any Man carefull of his Saluation whether he can be persuaded that God would euer out of his goodnes and prouideÌ„ce choose such facinorous impious and detestable men to be the Reuealers or restorers of the truth of Religion supposing it were till that tyme abolished and extinct and the rather Since men do (37) Mat. 7. not gather grappes of thornes nor figs of thisles Once more I
exhort the Reader to the perusing of the foresaid Booke Animaduersion CLXI GRammaticall and literall construction of the words of Scripture is euer houlden the best and securest euen in the iudgment of our learned Aduersaries for thus D. Whitaker writes of this point Qui (58) Whitak de sacra scriptura coÌ„tra Bellarm controu 1. q. 4 pa. 381. potest Grammaticum sensum Scripturae vbique assequi is optimè proculdubio Scripturas explanabit atque interpretabitur And Melancthon accordeth thereunto saying (59) Melancth l. 1. Epist. Iusto Ionae pag. 455. Multas magnat res antea inuolutas Syntaxis profert expouit The syntax doth explayne many things afore inuolued with difficulties Lastly to omit others (60) Zanchius de sacra scriptura p. 388. Zanchius the great Protestant much relyeth vpon the Grammaticall and Literall sense of the Scripture Now this principle and ground being granted as in reason it ought to be how great is our Aduantage herein against our Aduersaries who reiecting the Grammaticall and literall Sense of the passages of Scripture by vs insisted vpon do euer seeke to interpret them figuratiuely or allegorically For Example we rest in the Grammaticall sense and construction of that passage This is (61) Mat. 16. my body c. This is my bloud c. In like sort for the Primacy of Peter we vrge the literall sense of that passage Thou (62) Mat. 16. art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not preuaile against it Also for remission of Sinnes by man Whose sinnes (63) Ioan. 20. you shall forgiue they are forgiuen them and whose sinnes you shall retayne they are retayned And more touching works Do you not see that (64) Luc. 3. man is iustifyed by Works and not by fayth only Finally to omit infinit other testimonies that perspicuous place for remitting of Originall sinne by Baptisme Except a man (65) Ioan. 3. be borne againe of Water and the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heauen In all which places we do vrge the Grammaticall playne and literall sense whereas our Aduersaries seeke to expound all the said diuine Authorities by figures and Tropes Add hereto that the Protestants in their vrging of Scripture against vs do for the most part alledge it not in its literall or immediat Grammaticall sense but in some secondary sense seconded by Inferences and deductions at most but probable though often absurd and false Animaduersion CLXII THe prayses giuen to S. Austin by the Protestants are most great For first Luther thus speaketh of him Since (66) Luther in tom 7. wittenb fol. 405. the Apostles tymes the Church neuer had a better Doctour then S. Austin And againe After the (67) Luth loc com class p. 45. sacred Scriptures there is no Doctour in the Church who is to be compared to Austin D. Fyeld thus extolleth him Austin the (68) Of the Church l. 3 fol. 170. greatest of all the Fathers and worthiest Deuine the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times D. Couell Austin (69) D. Couell in his answere to Iohn Burges p. 3. was a man far beyond all that euer went before him or shall in likâ—lyhood follow after him both for Diuine and humane learning M. Forrester a Protestant styleth Austin That (70) â—orrester in Monas Tessagraphica c 〈◊〉 proaemio par 3. Monarch of the Fathers S. Austin Gomarus another Protestant thus celebrateth S. Austin (71) Gomarus in his spec verae Ecclesia p. 96. Austin of all the Fathers is houlden most pure in thâ— opinion of all Finally Caluin thus writeth Austin (72) Calu. Instâ—â— l. 3 cap. 3. sect 10. only is sufficient to shew the iudgment of the ancient Church Now in this next place let vs take a view of what Religion S. Austin was I meanâ— whether a Papist as we are termed or a Protestant and this euen from the writingâ— and Confessions of the Protestants themselues And first in proofe that Gods foreknowledge doth not necessitate or restrayne the 〈◊〉 in her actions contrary to the Iudgâ—ent of most Protestants Saint Austin is so â—â—ll therein that Polanus (73) Pol. in his Symphonia c. 2. p. 114. the Proteâ—â—ant alledgeth seueral authorities out of Austin in defence thereof 2. Touching the induration of Pharoes hart â—y God S. Austin teacheth that this was â—nly through Permission and not through â—y Positiue actuall working of God and â—â—erefore this Father is reprehended by Calâ—â—s saying (74) Caluin Inst. l. 2. c. 4. sect 3. Austin was not free from that â—â—erstition where he sayth that Induration â—iâ—â—ration pertaine not to the working of God â—â—to his foreknowledg â— S. Austin is so expresse and euident that Gods Commandements are not impossible that â—elancthon forbeareth not to confesse and â—prehend to vse his owne words Imagiâ—â—tionem (75) Melancthon l. 1. Ep. p. 290. Augustini de impletione legis 4. S. Austin taught that Christ from his â—atiuity was free from Ignorance This is â—â—nfessed by Danaeus the great Protestant 〈◊〉 these words (76) Danaeus respons ad Bellarm. ad 2. Controu c. 1. p. 145. Austin l. 2. c. 29. de pec 〈◊〉 denyeth Christ to haue taken Childrens inâ—â—nities and ignorance which to be false with â—â—ue of so great a man J haue shewed before 5. That Christ after his Death descended inâ— Hell Doctour (77) Bilson in his Suruey of Christs suffering pag. 616. 598. 599. Bilson produceth teâ—â—monies out of S. Austin in proofe thereof 6. That Christ penetrated the Dores when 〈◊〉 came to his disciples so as his body at â—ut tyme was without all circumscription (78) RuÌ„gius in disput 11 ex Epist. ad Cor. 1. fol. 83. Rungius the Protestant affirmeth it to be the doctrine of S. Austin 7. That the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumpted vp into Heauen according to the iudgment of Austin is confessed by the Centurists who professing to set downe a Catalogue of Bookes written by S. Austin do number and place among his other Bookes (79) Centur 5. c. 10. col 1122. one booke thus entituled De Assumptione Viâ—ginis Mariae l. 1. 8. In like sort the Centurists do alledge confesse out of S. Austin touching the Blessed Virgin being free from Originall sinne in this manner As (80) Centur 5. c. 4. col 499. touching Originall sinne forasmuch as concerneth Mary Austin writeth Excepting the holy Virgin Mary of whom in honour of our Lord when we treat of sinnes J will haue no question at all c. This therefore Virgin Mary excepted c. Thus much do the Centurists alledge out of S. Austin 9. That Austin taught that the Blessed Virgin vowed Chastity is confessed by D. Fulke who most scornfully chargeth S. Austin therein with a Non (81) Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Luc c 1. sequitur saying although S. Austin gathered she vowed
and 5. Luke â— 16 both who leaue out this exposition saying thus absolutely Whosoeuer putteth aâ—ay his wyfe and marrieth another committeth adultery And this exposition is giuen by S. Thomas Sent. in 4. distinct 35. quaest vnica art 5. So as in these former words of Math. 1â— a Parenthesis is to be vnderstood after this manner Whosoeuer putteth away his wyfe which is not lawfull except it be for fornication marrieth another committeth adultery Now that the exposition of our Aduersaries of the said text was coÌ„demned throughout all ages of the primitiue Church is most cleere since the Fathers of ech such age euâ—â— taught that a man putting away his wife â—pon any occasion yea for Fornication couâ—â— not marry any other Woman For examâ—â— thus in the first Age Clemens teacheth 〈◊〉 Canon Apostol can 48. In the secoâ— Age Iustinus Martyr in Apolog. pro Christ. nis In the third Tertullian l. 4. in Marcâ—nem In the fourth Age the Councell of Eâ—â—â—ris can 9. In the fifth Concil Mileuitanâ—â— can 17. and S. Austin lib. de adulterinis conâ—gijs In the sixt age Primasius in Comment 〈◊〉 cap. 7. prioris ad Corinth Now here I vrâ— that if the former exposition of the Cathâ—likes be false then did the Primitiue Chuâ—â—â— wholy erre therein which is most absurdâ— maintayne In like manner the Primitâ—â— Church of Christ did then wrong maâ— Christians in not suffering them to vse â—pon occasion of the wyues Fornication tâ—â— priuiledg which Christ may seeme to graâ— to them I may add hereto that diuers leâ—â—ned Protestants by maintayning that 〈◊〉 case of Diuorce vpon adultery the innoceâ— party cannot marry againe do reiect câ— Aduersaries exposition of the former 〈◊〉 of Matthew 19. According hereto to â—mit many other moderate Protestants tâ—â—ching the same with vs Catholikes D. Hâ—â—son in his tertia Thesi printed 1602. maintâ—â—neth the same publikely in Oxford In lâ—â— sort some thirty yeares since more or leâ—â— the same Doctrine was preached at Paâ— Crrsse by D. Doueâ— Now to all this aboue â—aid I may adioyne the exposition of S. Auâ—â—in in l. 1. de adulterinis coniugijs cap. 9. of the â—oresaid text who there sayth That the â—ords in Math. 19. vz. nisi ob fornicationem â—ught to be taken negatiuè non exceptiuè by â—ay of negation not of exception So as the sense of them may be this Whosoeuer shall put away his wyfe nisi ob fornicationem that is extra causam fornicationis without the cause of fornication and shall marry another commitâ—â—th adultery From which exposition the Aâ—ultery of him is affirmed who putting away his wyfe without the cause of fornicaâ—â—on shall marry another But nothing is â—ere said of him who putting away his wyfe â—y reason of fornication shall marry anoâ—her Thus far of this Text. Animaduersion CLXXX AS the Inuisibility and Latency of the Protestants Church hath beene fully aboue demonstrated so here I hould it not imperâ—â—nent if I proue the Continuall and vninâ—â—rrupted visibility of our Catholike Church â—nd consequently that it is that Church of God to which so many Prophesyes haue â—eene made of its vneclipsed splendour and â—â—diancy Thy (46) Esa 60. Gates shal be contiâ—â—ally open neither day nor night shall they be â—â—nt c. Now this verity is proued seuerall wayes â—nd first from the confessed Jnuisibility of the Protestant Church during all former ages till Luthers insurrection And this the rather seeing the learned Protestants confesse that all the former Inuisibility of the Protestant Church was wrought by the labour power and diligence of the Catholike Roman Church Now how could the Roman Church effect so much for so long a tyme except it selfe during all that tyme were most visible According to this assertion we find M. Napper to confesse the same reason of his Churches Jnuisibility in these words During (47) Napper vpon the Reuelations caps 11. 12. euen the second thâ—s age meaning since Christ the true Churâ—â— of God and the light of the Gospel was obscureâ— by the Roman Antichrist himselfe Secondly the euer Visibility of the Catholike Church is proued from the acknowledged succession of Pastours in oâ—â— Catholike Church euer since the Apostles since those visible Pastours were the visible and most eminent members of our said Church preaching and instructing others who in this respect must become also viâ—itâ— and knowne Now this our visible succession of Pastours in our Roman Church is confessed euen by our Aduersaries for thus D. Fulke exprobrateth the Catholiks in these words You (48) D. Fulke in his answere to a Counterfayte Catholike p. 27. can name chiefe Personages in all ages marke these words in all ages and their gouerment and ministery and especially the succession of the Popes you haue vpon your fingars Thus D. Fulke Thirdly and lastly the same is thus proued Yf the most ancient and reuerend Fathers of the primitiue Church I meane Ignatius Dionysius Areopagita Iustinus Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Cyprian Athanasius Hilarius the Cyrills the Gregories Ambrose Basill Opratus Gandentius Chrysostome Ierome Austin and diuers others be accounted by our Aduersaries most earnest Professours of our Catholike Roman fayth then it follâ—weth most consequently that our Catholike Church was most coÌ„spicuous in those tymes since those Fathers were the visible Pastours of the Church then in Being Now that the Fathers of those primitiue tâ—mes were Papists professing the present Roman fayth appeareth besides from what is already most fully confessed by our Aduersaries in that behalfe euen from that acknowledgment of Peter Martyr saying As long (49) Peter Martyr l. de votis p. 476. as we insist in the fathers so long we shal be conuersaÌ„t in the Papists errours Now that our Catholike Church hath beene further also most visible since the tymes of those primitiue Fathers I meane for these last thousand yeares is so fully confessed by our Aduersaryes in this Treatise as that I hould it ouer wearisome and fastidious so often to repeate such their Confessions Animaduersion CLXXXI THe mayne ArgumeÌ„t drawne from Reason which our Aduersaryes vrge against vnwritten Traditions is this It seemeth say they impossible that vnwritten Traditions can be kept and conserued since there are diuers hinderances thereof as Forgetfulnes Jgnorance negligence peruersnes of mens Natures and the like And hence it is that we see that such Sentences which Lycurgus Pythagoras and others deliuered only in words and not in wryting are at this day lost and perished To this I answere that I hould it impossible that Apostolicall Traditions should not be preserued since this care is not properly incumbent vpon Man but vpon God who gouerneth the Church Now besydes the prouidence of God which is the chiefe cause of preseruing the Traditions of the Church there are foure other inferiour or subordinate Causes for their preseruation The first is the committing of Traditions to wryting For although they be not set downe in Holy writ I meane in the