then to other works is deliuered by the â—ouncell (q) Sess 6 c. 8. of Trent To wit beâ—â—use Fides est initium gratuitae Justificationis fayth is the beginning of a gratuit and free Juâ—ification Animaduersion CLXXXX â—Hat so much prostituted passage of Scripture by our Aduersaries in proofe of â—n absolute Reprobation of some men euen â—â—om their Mothers wombe without any â—â—ference or preuision of their works in a cleare iudgmeÌ„t proueth nothing for which it vs vrged The place is this Jacob (r) Rom. â— dileâ—â— Esau autem odio habui Now to this place I thus answere First this sentence is not to be vnderstood of those particular persons Iacob and Esau but of the two people to wit the Jsraelits the Idumeans And what here is spoken oâ— Loue and Hate is not to be vnderstood of Eternall Election or Reprobation but of the good and bad tymes of this Lyfe This is thus proued For when in Malachy 1. God said these words I loued Iacob and hated Esau he explayneth himselfe how he doth loue and hate saying I haue (s) Malach 1. made his Mountaines to wit Esau wast anâ— his heritage a wildernes for Dragons Therforâ— God loued Jacob because he gaue to him Country flowing with milke and hony and he hated Esau because God gaue to him a sterill and desart Country The same poiâ—â— is further also thus proued When (t) Genes 25. Rebeâ—ca did demaund of God why the two Chiâ—dren to wit Jacob and Esau which she barâ— in her wombe did striue together she waâ— thus answered two Nations are in thy wombe and two sorts of people shall be deuided out oâ— thy bowells and the one people shall be mightâ—â— then the other and the Elder shall serue the younger Secondly admit that those words Esau autem odio habui were to be vnderstood particularly of Esau yet they cannot be vnderstood of the person of Esau without all preuision of his works For Esau as being a man was as all other things are the handiworke of God and we read the Wiseman to say of God (*) Sapient 11. Nihil odisti corum quae fecisti thou natest nothing of those things which thou hast made Therfore what God hated in Esau was only the Sinne of Esau and not his Person Thirdly and lastly I answere that admit the former words were to be vnderstood of the person of Esau yet it followeth not that any Positiue hatred should be meant thereby but only a lesse Loue to â—sau then to Iacob Euen as we read Si quis (u) Luc. 14. venit ad me non oâ—it patrem suum c. Yf any man come to me and hateth nâ—t his Father and Mother and Wyfe and Chiâ—dren c. yea and his owne life besides he cannot be my Disciple In which words there is not commanded any Positiue hatred of Father Mother Wyfe c. but is commanded only a lesse degree of loue towards these things then towards God Thus far in explication of this former so often alledged Text. Animaduersion CLXXXXI IT is the custome of many of our Aduersaries euen Scholers when they see themselues defectiue either in answering our Catholike Arguments vrgâ—d against Protestancy or impugning of our Catholike fayth do make their laâ—t Refuge to the Cloath of State as I maâ— say shadowing themselues and their Cause vnder it my meaning is this That they seeke to charge our Religion with teaching disobedience disloyalty against our naturall Princes Now to vindicate our selues from thiâ— false imputation I will insist in the doctrine taught of this point by our Aduersaries far more dangerous then any Doctrine of this point maintayned by any learned Catholikes For example For first against all soueraignty of Princes we fynd Luther thus to wryte Among (1) Luther de saecular potest Tom. 9. Christians no man can or ought to be a Magistrate but ech one is to other equally subiect Swinglius thus teacheth Quaâ—â—o (2) Swingl tom 1 in expâ—anat art 42. perfidè c. Whâ—n Princes do enâ— and contrary to the rule of Christ they may be deposed To be short in pretermitting the like Censures of Beza and diuers other eminent Protestants Caluin in these words subscribeth to the former Protestants Abâ—â—cant (3) Caluin in Daniel cap. 6. sâ— potestate terreni principes c. Earthly Princes do depriue themselues of authority when they erect themselues against God yea they are vnworthy to be accounted in the number of men And we had rather to spit vpon their faces then to obey them Thus Caluin Now hoâ— far are the Catholiks from comparting ioyning with the former Protestants in this their doctrine of Rebellion since we willingly remember that it is written We (4) 1. Pet. 3. ought to be subiect to the King as exceding And that who (5) Rom. 13. resisteth power resisteth the ordinance of God But to descend more particularly and to parallell in part the doctrine the Actions or proceedings of the Catholikes and Protestants herein The former Protestants with many others of their Religion do extend this power of deposing Princes to euery poore Parochiall Superintendent who is Pope at least would be so within his owne Circuite or Parish and in want of such to euery turbulent fellow and to the promiscuous multitude The Catholike Deuines those I meane who most defend such transcendency of proceedings do ascribe the doing of it to the Pope who is a Stranger and therefore further of from any such sudden attempt To come to the Attempts on both sydes The Protestants haue actually deposed seuerall Kings Qâ—eenes Soueraignes Thus is the King of Spayne deposed of a great part of the Low Countries The Kings of France heretofore of certaine Cittyes in France The Lord of Geneua of his Territory belonging to that Citty The Emperour of many Cittyes in Germany Finally his Maiesties Grandmother and Great Grandmother of the kingdome of Scotland And all this by Protestants The Pope and the Catholikes haue neuer yet to this day actually deposed any one absolute ProtestaÌ„t Prince or King from their States Territories throughout Christendome The greatest matters of this Nature which can be alledged is the Excommunication of king Henry the Eight of England Queene Elizabeth his Daughter King Henry of France the Fourth The Protestants haue come into the fyeld against their Catholike Princes in many huge Armyes hundred thousands of Men as appeareth by the warres made by them in the Low Countryes France and Germany The Catholiks neuer yet leuied any such Armâ—es against their Protestant Prince Lastly the Protestants haue not only deposed their Catholike Princes of seuerall States and Countryes but which is far more they haue absolutly impatronized themselues of the said States and kept them in their owne possession as is ouer manifestly euident by the example heretofore of Rochell in Fance and at this present of Geneua Hol. and Zeland and seuerall parts of
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
of the Articles of the Protâ—stant Religion pag. 24. the Primitiue Nonage of the Church this promisse of Kings allegiance thereunto was not so fully accomplished because in those days that prophesy of our Sauiour was rather verified You shal be brought before Kings for my name sake by them to be persecuted euen vnto death Now to reflect vpon this argument deduced from the prophesyes that the true Church of Christ shall conuert to it the Gentills their Kings and Kingdomes heâ—â— aboue we see euen from the pens of our Aduersaries that many Countryes Kings and Kingdomes haue beene conuerted to Christianity by the Roman Catholike Church but not any one Heathen king or Counâ—ry by the Protestant Church whether then oâ— these two Churches is the true Church 〈◊〉 Christ Here to reply and say that these prophesyes are to be fulfilled not before bâ—â— after the preaching of Luthers Gospell 〈◊〉 controuled by the iudgment of all learneâ— men and by Experience it selfe and therefore D. Whitaker had iust reason thus to confesse of this point Whatsoeuer (e) Whitak l. 7. contra Duraeum pa. 472. the aâ—cient Prophets haue foretould of the enlargement amplitude and glory of the Church The same to haue beene already performed is most euident out of Histories Thus far of this Demonstration to proue that the Protestant Church is not that Church to which the former prophesyes of conuerting Gentills Kings and Nations do truly appertayne Animaduersion CXL GOod Reader in this one Animaduersion 〈◊〉 intreate thy peculiar lattention This then I say Luther thus chargeth Moyses De (1) Luth. tom 3. Wittin in Psal 46. fol. 423. you collect together all the Wisdome of Moyses and of Heathen Philosophers and you shall find them to be before God either Idolatry or Hypocriticall wisdome c. Away therfore with Moyses Of S. Paul the Magdeburgians thus speake Paul (2) Magdeb Cent. 1. l. 2. ca. 10. doth turne to James the Apoâ—â—â—â— and a Synod of Presbyters being called toâ—â—her he is persuaded by Iames and the rest â—t for the offended Iewes he should purify himâ—fe in the Temple whereunto Paul yeeldeth â—â—ich certainly was no small slyding of so great a Doctour as not hauing sufficient reason thereof Moyses Law being abrogated In the like condemnation of some other Apostles we â—d Brentius the great Protestant thus to â—each *) Brentius in Apolog. Confess c. de Concilijs pag. 900. S. Peter chiefe of the Apostles also Barnabas after the Holy Ghost receaued â—â—gether with the Church of Jerusalem erâ—â—d That the whole Church of Christ may â—tre D. Fulke thus literally auerreth The (*) D. Fu ke in his answere to a Counterfeyt Catholike pag. 86. â—hole Church militant as euery part thereof â—â—y altogether erre Touching generall Counâ—lâ— Peter Martyr thus speaketh As (3) Lib. de vocis long 〈◊〉 we insist in Generall Councells so long we shall â—sist in the Papists errors Of particular Faâ—â—ers D. Whitaker thus censureth Papistarum (4) Contra Duraeum l. 6 p. 421. religio est Cento c. The popish Religion is â—patched Couerlet of the Fathers Errours sowed â—gether Finally Christ himselfe both God Man and Redeemer of the world is â—harged with ignorance by the ProtestaÌ„ts â—r thus Caluin writeth Insanus (s) Caluin in ca 14. Math. foret qui â—grauatim ignorantiae subijceret quam ne ipse â—idem Dei filius nostra causa subire abnuit c. â—hat maÌ„ were mad who with discontent shouâ—d â—knowledg himselfe to be subiect to ignorance â—nce the Sonne of God himself for our sake â—ould not refuse to be ignorant And further Caluin speaking of Christ his prayer in tâ—â— Garden thus chargeth our Sauiour Chriâ— (6) Calu. in 26. Math. oratio in horto fuit abruptum votum sâ—bitò elapsum quod castigauit reuocauit 〈◊〉 prayer of Christ in the Garden was abrupt not premeditated which vow at vnawares â—â—â—ping from our Sauiour he after reuoked ananâ— called Thus now I wind vp my Premisses Yâ— particular Fathers Yf Generall Councells Yâ— the whole Church militant of Christ â—f the Blessed Apostles and this after the desceâ—ding downe of the Holy Ghost Yf Moyâ— finally if Christ himselfe may erre as aâ— this is aboue though falsly taught by oâ— Aduersaries what indiscretion then whâ—â— weaknes of iudgment what motley foolishnes or rather Lunacy is it to ascribe aâ— infallibility of iudgment to Luther an incestuous Monke to Swinglius an Apostatâ— Priest to Caluin and Beza two Sodomits euen by the acknowledgment of their owne (7) Caluin and Beza are charged with Sodomy by Conradus Schlusselb a great Protestant in Theolog. Caluin printed 1504. l. 2. fol. 72. l. 1. ol 91. Brethren to any other Sectary whosoeuer or finally to the priuat reuealing Spirâ—â— of ech illiterate man who holds himselfe through his owne pryde and ignorance to be afflatus or possessed with the Holy Ghost or what Reason had D. Whitaker thâ—â— ambitiously to paint out this Priuat Spiritâ— these words An (8) Whitak in Controu q. 5. ca. 3. 1â— inward perswasion of the Holy Ghost wrought in the closet of the belieueâ—â— hart Animaduersion CXLI WHen we Charge the Protestants with diuers Innouations of the auncient Heâ—â—tykes they in Recrimination thereof laâ—our to insimulate vs with the Doctrines of â—he Gentils or Heathens as appeareth from (*) Reinolds lib. de Rom. Idolatria p. 168. 248. 381. The same is obiected by Kempnitius Examen part 3. pag. 83. D. Reynolds pen And heere they chieâ—â—y insist in two poynts to wit in the Doâ—ryne of Sacrifice and of vowes both which Doctrynes were euer belieued practized and are euen at this present by the Genâ—â—â— and Heathens Heere I thus wype away â—â—is aspersion yet withall I freely grant â—hat we mantayne both Sacrifice and vowes 〈◊〉 do withall acknoledge that the Heathens â—d the like but now to the point To haue â—acrifice and to haue Vowes is deriued to â—en from the light of Nature since euen 〈◊〉 the Law of Nature Men as Men endued â—ith reason not as Heathens euer belieâ—ed the doctrine hereof and practized the â—me In like manner the Heathens only by â—e light of Nature belieued that there was God as the Apostle sheweth shall we Caâ—olykes therefore dissent from the Heaâ—ens in the beliefe therof Now that the â—eathens erred in the Obiect of their Saâ—ifices and Vowes to wit in sacrifizing of men and making improfitable and foolish â—owes this proceeded from the Nature of man corrupted by Originall Sinne and not repayred in them by Christ Euen as they erred in the immediat Obiect of God as noâ— belieuing in one only true God but repâ—ting the Sunne and Moone as Gods Noâ— heere I say it is lawfull to agree with the Heathens in the generalityes of the two former doctrines since the Instinct of Nature impressed by God in MaÌ„ teacheth so much but not in the particularityes of theÌ„ seing
Germany Sweueland Transiluanta c. The Catholikes to this very day haue not made themselues Lords of any one Towne or Citty much lesse of any State or kingdomâ— which haue belonged to their Protestant Princes And thus far though briefly for the more full stopping of the mouths of our Aduersaries touching the libration weighing in an eauen hand the doctrine taught and the Attemps practized by the Protestants Catholikes in point of Disloyalty against their lawfull dread Soueraigns of a different Religion And here before lend the more fully to discouer the loyalty of the Lay Catholikes of England and of vs Priests to his Maiesty our dread Soueraigne I the Authour of this Treatise in the person and name of vs all do make bold to offer this our ensuing ioynt prayer as a spirituall Sacrifice to the Almighty in behalfe of our most Worthy Kâ—ng Charles his most illustrious Spouse Queene Mary God who is the Protectour of Kings and the first Authour of all true Soueraignty and supreme domination per me (1) Prouerb 8. reges regnant preserue them both and their noble issue vnder the wings of his Diuine care prouidence Defend them from their Enemyes either domesticall or foraine Grant vnto them a long and most happy reigne ouer vs And after the dissolution of their bodies bring their soules into that most blessed state where they once leauing this terrene Kingdome may heare those ioyfull words of our Sauiour as spoken to them touching their fruition of the Celestiall Kingdome Venite (2) Mat. 25. possiâ—ete paratum vobis regnum And this our Common Prayer most Heauenly soueraigne we humbly beseech thee to heare euen by the force of that title which is peculiar to thy selfe and incommunicable to any other king Rex (3) Apocal 19. regum Dominus dominantium Animaduersion CLXXXXII THe Calumny subtilty of our first Aduersaries in their definition of Christs Church was very great and obseruable They (1) Calu. Instit. l. 4. cap. 1. num 2 3. defined the Church to consist only of such as are Just and predestinated but who such are it is not knowne to any man and therefore to remayne in a continuall Latency But what was the reason of this their proceeding Obserue Both the Old and New Testament giue great prayses and Elogia of the Church of Christ For we read that it is called (2) Apocal 2 A holy Citty A (3) Psal 7. fructiferous vine A mighty (4) Esay 2. high mountayne (5) Esay 32. streight way The only (6) Cantic 6. Doue The (7) Cant. 4. spouse Body (8) Ep 5 of Christ The pillar of Truth (9) 1. Timoth 3. Finally â—to omit much more that Society against which who is contumacious and refractory is to be accounted no better then a Heathen (10) Math. 18. or Publican Now in regard of these panegyricke prayses giuen by the written word of God to the Church our first Aduersaryes dared not in expresse words openly to impugne the Church Therefore most â—ubttlly the name of the Church they retayned but the thing it selfe by defining it they did ouerthrowe For as is aboue said they define it to consist only of the Elect and Predestinated and consequently since we cannot tell who are of the number of the Elect and predestinate euer to be in a hidden Latency And to this they were forced because as in many of the former Animaduersions it is expressed it is granted by most of our learned Aduersaryes tâ—at the ProtestaÌ„t Church hath for the space of twelue or thirteene huÌ„dred yeares layne wholy latent inuisible And yet such a Church if any such were may be said in shew of words to be capable of the former definition of the Church See here the serpentine subtilty of our Aduersaryes Animaduersion CLXXXXIII IT is to be much feared that there are many in England who maske themselues vnder the name of Protestants yet in their harts are no better then Atheists as not acknowledging a Deity Yf it chance therfore that this Treatise shall come to any such mens hands I haue purposely thought good to close it vp with certaine Animaduersions for the proofe of so supreme a Truth wishing such Readers to peruse the Booke entituled Rawleighs Ghost first written in Latin by the learned Iesuite Lessius for his greater confirmation out of which booke I grant I haue selected most of these ensuing Animaduersions all which of this Nature though contrary to my Method houlden hitherto in this Discourse I haue ranged together and reduced to one head Now whereas such men that are tainted with so foule a blasphemy and execrable Madnes to whom those words of Cyprian are truly applyed Quae haec (*) Cyprian lib. de Idolorum vanitate summa delictî nolle illum agnoscere quem ignorare non possis do especially if they he Schollers hould that the world was not created of God but was from all Eternity therefore I will first remoue this stumbling Block and will purposely insist only in two Arguments or rather two vnanswerable Demonstrations in disproofe thereof which lye subiect to ech mans apprehension First then from our owne experience we reason thus It is a truth confirmed by triall of all tymes that the quantityes of Mens bodies haue a perceiuable impayring as also the length and continuance of their liues So that if in that infinite space of foregoing tyme I meane from Eternity Men had a being as without question the world was neuer voyd of men the principall and most noble member therof then through continuall and incessant Decay their bodies had beene brought before this day to as litle a quantity as they are capable of if not cleane consumed But we see their quantity is not yet come to the lowest Therefore I conclude that they had not a being from Euerlasting My second Demonstration is this Had this world beene from Euerlasting from all Eternity then Infinite also had beene the propagatioÌ„ of Man And so we should bring into the world an actuall Infinitenesse as absurd in Nature as Paralogismes be in Logicke For in this infinite space and generation there had beene an infinite number of mens Soules which being by Nature incapable of Mortality we cannot say that as one Soule was created another was destroyed And therefore it would follow supposing the world to be ab aeterno that there should be an Infinitnesse in regard of Number actually subsisting in Nature Thus farre for impugning that the world cannot possibly â—xist from all Eternity Omitting many oâ—her more abstruse demoÌ„strations drawne from Phylosophy not subiect to the capaâ—ity of the Ignorant Animaduersion CLXXXXIV ALl those Men who deny the Jmmortality of Mans Soule do withall deny a Deity or being of God Therefore the Immortality of the Soule is first thus proued from Naturall Philosophy the soule of Man hath in it selfe no principles or ground of Corruption seeing
â—â—gurae illae verborum offendunt Jndurabo Coâ— Pharaonis similes Certum ect enim Hebraâ—â—phrazi significare Permissionem non voluntatem efficacem That is these formes of words 〈◊〉 not offend vs for it is certaine that in the Hebrew phraze they signify only permission and nâ—â— any efficacious will Add hereto how repugnant our Aduersaries exposition of this 〈◊〉 diuers other such Texts is to the words of God deliuered by Ezechiell cap. 33. which words may serue as a Syntax or Comment to paraphraze al the threatning passages set downe in Scripture against Sinners and against the doctrine of Reprobation shewing that all such comminations are only Conâ—â—tional Thus then Ezechiel in the Person of God Si dixero impio c. Yf J shall say to the wicked Thou shalt dye the death and he do pâ—â—nance for his Sinne and do Judgment and Iâ—stice liuing he shall liue and shall not dye Animaduersion CLI THe example of Elias is much prostituted by our Aduersaries for the warranting of their owne Churches Inuisibility for so many ages but how impertinently it is vrged obserue what followeth First I say this example maketh wholy against the Protestants seing the words of Elias Relictus sum (27) Reg. 1. solus were not spoken generally of all the Iewish people but only in regard of the Country of Israell and accordingly God answered the complaint of Elias with restraint to that only Country the Scripture saying immediatly after I haue left to me in Jsraell seauen thousand which haue not bowed vnto Baal Add hereto that in those very tymes the Church did greatly florish in the adioyning Countryes of Iuda as was to Elias then knowne and visible vnder the reigne of Asa and Iosaphat And thus is this obiection so much prized by diuers of our Aduersaries answered by (28) In corpore Doctrinae pag. 530. Melancthon Enoch (29) In his Soueraigne remedy pag. 17. Clappam Againe admitting these seauen thousand were vnknowne to Elias yet followeth it not that they were vnknowne to all others at that tyme Much lesse then is this example of force to proue that the Church of God may be latent and inuisible for many hundred yeares together not to one Elias only but to the whole World But for a further discouering of the weakenes of this Example let vs grant for the tyme that the Iewish Synagogue was in the dayes of Elias wholy inuisible yet is this example most defectiuely alledged as applyed to the Church of Christ Since the predictions and promisses made to the Church of Christ whose (30) Hebr cap. 8. testament is established in better promises are far greater and more worthy then those of the Iewish Synagogue Againe the foresaid Example doth not extend to the whole Châ—rch of God before Christ but only to the Iewish Synagogue as being a part or member therof for besides the Iewes there were diuers others faythfull as Melchisedech Cornelius the Eunuch of the Queene of Candace c. Thus far in solution of this obiection Animaduersion CLII. OVr Aduersaries do first teach that concerning Matter of fayth they are to belieue nothing for certaine but only the holy Scripture Secondly they teach that (31) So writeth D. Reynolds in his Conference with M. Hart. pa. 68. it is not the shew but the sense of the worâ—â— of Scripture that must decide Controuersies And that herein the Scripture doth not instruct them of it self but by certaine meanes as M. Hooker (32) In Eccles Policy l. 2 pa. 116. affirmeth Thirdly these Meanes are affirmed to be the reading (33) These meanes are set downe by D. Reynolds in his Conference p. 83. 84. sequentib and by D. Whitaker de sacra scriptura p. 521 522. 523. thereof the Conference of places the weighing of the circumstances of the Text skill iâ— tongues diligence and prayer Fourthly they affirme that these being Actions on their behalfe are but humane Endeauours and such wherein euery man without extraordinary priuiledge from God is subiect to Errour Fiftly they teach that these meanes according to the Nature of themselues afford a necessary doubtfulnes and vncertainty of opinion and therfore D. Whitaker thus writeth hereof Qualia (34) D. Whitak de Eccles contra Bellarm. Controu 2. q. 4. p. 227. illa media sunt talem ipsam interpretationem esse necesse est at media interpretandi loca obscura sunt incerta dubia ambigua Ergo fieri non potest quin ipsa etiam interpretatio incerta sit Si incerta tunc esse potest falsa Thus D. Whitaker discourseth of the foresaid meanes of interpreting the Scripture Now these being the confessed grounds and principles of our Aduersaries Doctrine they do appeare to be no other but as it were linked chaynes or naked connexions of vnauoydable vncertainty which point appeareth more fully from the example of Luther Swinglius Caluin all who vanted that they did vse the foresaid meanes in interpreting these few words Hoc est corpus meum and yet the end was that they deliuered mere contrary constructions of the said words so as supposing one of their constructions to be true it followeth necessarily that the other Construction is false Animaduersion CLIII THe Absurdities necessarily accompaning the doctrine of the Pope being Antichrist are many and great For the more cleere vnderstanding whereof we are here to repeate what was aboue deliuered vpon other occasions First then Luther thus writeth We (35) Luth lib. contra Anabaptist Confesse that there is vnder the Papacy most of the Christian good yea rather all the Christian Good and that from thence it came to vs. Verily we confesse that in the Papacy thâ—â—â— is true Scripture true baptisme the true Sacrament of the Altar the true Kâ—yes of Remission of sinnes c. Yea further that there is in the Papacy true Christianity or rather the true Kernâ—â— of Christianity Thuâ— fâ—r Luther with whom to omit diuers other Protestants D. Doâ—â— conspireth saying (36) D Doue in his persuasion to English Recusants pag. 23. We hold the Creed of the Apostles of Athanasius of Nice of Ephesus of Constantinople and the same Bible which 〈◊〉 receaued from them Now marke the ineuitable absurdity rysing from the premisses Yf the Pope being the head of the Papacy 〈◊〉 Antichrist as our Aduersaries do dreame doth it not then inauoydably follow that with Antichrist there is all the Christian Good that from Antichrist the Protestants receaue the true Scripture true Baptisme the true vse of other Sacraments to wit of the Altar and Absolution of our sinnes Finally that from Antichrist they receaue the Apostles Creed and the other Creeds aboue specifyed What impossibilityes are these and is not this potentially and implicitly to turne Christ into Antichrist Againe the Scripture prophesyeth that the Church of Christ as I haue shewed aboue shall conuert Kings and Kingdomes of the Gentills vnto it according to those words of Esay speaking of the
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