vincula reis profer lumeÌ„ caecis c which acts say they are peculiar to Christ And againe in the same Hymne they obiect those words Monstra te esse Matrem as implying a mother and awfull authority ouer Christ. In explication of the first we demaÌ„d that our Lady would loose our Sinnes and bring light to the blynd only by her impâ—tration and praying to her blessed Sonne not otherwyse and therfore in most of our set pâ—ayers to her we adioyne these words following Per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum Touching the second sentence We do not wish her to impose any command or Motherly authority ouer her Some But we only vnderstand hereby shew thy selfe a Mother by appeasing thy sonne in our behalfe this by the remembrance of all thy Motherly tender care and loue towards him in his Infancy through the whole course of his life that by thee he may receaue our prayers and therefore it immediatly followeth in the same Hymne sumat per te preces But now if these words be such an eye-sore to the ProtestaÌ„ts what will they say to those words of S. Paul Omnibus (p) 1. Cor. 9. omnia factus sum vt omnes facerem saluos J am become to all men all things that I may saue all Where the Apostle in words assumeth to himselfe the Saluation of others In like manner in that Antiphone in our Ladies office beginning Salue Regina c. Our Apuersaries insist in those words Et Iesum benedictum fructum ventris tui nobis post hoc exilium ostende And shew to vs after this our exile Jesus c. To which I answere That it is lesse to say To shew the Sauiour vnto men then to say To saue men And yet we read the Apostle thus to say Et teipsum (q) 1. Tim. 4. saluam facies eos quite auâ—iunt Thou shalt â—â—ue thy selfe and them that do heare thee Moreouer it is obiected out of that Antiphone that the B. Virgin is stiled Spes nostra Our Hope To this I say that these words are vsed because next after our Lord Iesus Christ being God and Man we chiefly place our confidence in the mediation of the Blâ—sâ—â—d Virgin Since our Hope is not to be placed only in the Authours of our Good but also in the Intercessours and ministers thereof And according hereto when our Loâ—d said to the Iewes It (r) Iohn 5. is Moyses who accusâ—s you in quo speratis in whom you hopâ— Our Sauiour did not reprehend the Iewes in that they hoped in Moyses but because they did not belieue Moyses Finally our Aduersaries cannot brooke our Lady to be called Mater misericordiae because say they God is the Father of Mercy therefore the B. Virgin cannot nor ought to be called so But this is no good consequence for we read that Christ is called Lux (s) Iohn 9. mundi and yet Christ sayth of his Apostles Vos (t) Math. 5. estis lux mundi Thus such titles may be giuen to God and men in a different relation without any dishonour to God Animaduersion XLVII THe puritans do most maliciously peruert seuerall texts of Scripture in dishonour of our B. Lady For example First they obiect as seeming at least to rest doubtfull of the continuance of our B. Ladyes Virginity that Text Et non (u) Math 1. cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium primogenitum which words say they seeme to afford a double Argument The first is taken from the word Donec inferring from thence that after the byrth of her Sonne she should carnally know Joseph The second from the words following Filium primogenitum seeing Primogenitus properly signifieth that sonne which is first borne in reference to those Sonnes or children which are after borne I answere first touching the word Donec which word as also the word vsque doth not euer signify an affirmation after the time expressed if a Negation did goe before neither alwayes do they signify a Negation when an affirmation did precede For example Sede a (x) Psal 109. dextris mâ—is donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pectum tuorum Sit at my right hand vntill J make thy Enemyes thy footestoole Now these words do not import that after he shall not fit at the right hand of his Father The like sentences to these are these following Donec (y) Math 5. transeat Caelum Terra iota vnum aut vnus apex non praeteribit á lege And againe Ego (z) Math. 28. vobiscum sum vsque ad consummationem mundi In all which locutions sentences of Scripture that which is doubtfull is expressed but that which is certaine is not expressed or spoken of Now touching the word Primogenitus Epiphanius (a) Haeres 78. denieth that Christ was called Primogenitus Mariae the first borne of Mary for the Euangelist sayth not Primogenitum suum but he sayth Fitium suum primogenitum signifying therby that he was the Sonne of the B Virgin but withall the first begotten Sonne of God Seing accordingly we thus read Ipse (b) Coloss 1. namque est primogenitus omnis Creaturae He to wit Christ was the first borne of all Creatures S. Ierome sayth that Christ was called (c) Adueâ—s Heluid Primogenitus Mariae not because she brought forth any other Sonne after him but because before him she brought forth no other Sonne For it is the phrase of Scripture that those who are Vnigeniti are called Primogeniti So S Paul calleth Christ Primogenitus (d) Heb. 6. Dei for the only-begotten sonne of God Lastly they vrge that sentence Jnter (e) Math. 11. natos mulicrum non surrexit maior Iohanne Baptista There hath not risen among the borne of women a greater then John the Baptist intimating hereby that the Blessed Virgin is inferiour in dignity to S. Iohn Baptist. This is easely answered First if the words as they lye be literally taken as our Aduersaries pretend then should John Baptist be greater then Christ Secondly because S. Iohn Baptist in those words spoken by Christ is compared only with the Holy men of the old Testament but Christ and his Mother as also the Apostles belong to the new Testament Animaduersion XLVIII DIuers Protestants as aboue is shewed do hould such bookes to be Scripture which other Protestants reiect as Apocryphall therefore it followeth that the Scripture it selfe cannot shew at least to vs which is the point controuerted which is Scripture which doubt is only to be referred to the Authority of the Church And therefore M. Hooker truly sayth Of things (f) Eccles Pol. lâ—â— 1 Sect. 14. p. 8â— necessâ—ry the very chiefest is to know what Bookes we are to esteeme Holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And againe It is (g) Ibidem l. 2. Sect. 4. p. 102 â—4â— and D. Couell in defence of M. Hooker art 4. pag. 31.
the supposed answering of those few chosen and picked out by him must serue through the partiality of iudgement in his followers to disgrace all the rest of the Corruptions or falsifications vrged by you Animaduersion LII THe Protestants in falsly alledging the authorityes of Authours do abuse their Readers chiefly foure seuerall wayes First which is the most vsuall by concealing some part of the alledged authority SecoÌ„dly by adding some words of his owne to make the produced Authour or Father to speake like a Protestant Thirdly by transposing the words of an authority thereby to make the sense different from the Authors true meaning Fourthly by a wilfull mistaking or confusion of tymes I will exemplify these foure sorts in the wryting of D. White a great Impostour in his Scripts in his booke called The way to the true Churcâ— Well then the said Protestant in p. 119. oâ— his said Booke produceth a place out of the Rhemists to proue that the Church of Româ— can make that Scripture which is not anâ— vnmake that to be Scripture which is Scripture To proue this he produceth the Rhâ—mists (y) Gaelat 1. thus saying The Scriptures are 〈◊〉 knowne to be true neither are Christians bonâ—â— to receiue them without the attestation of thâ— Church Now heere marke the true wordâ— of the Rhemists and therein obserue his impurity of dealing committed by concealing part of the Sentence iust crossing his intended drift of vrging that authority Their true words are these The Scriptures whicâ— are indeed of the Holy Ghosts inditing being pâ—â— into the Churches triall are found proued anâ— testifyed vnto the World to be such and not maâ—â— true altered or amended by the same Since the Holy Scriptures in themselues were alwayes true before but not so knowne to be to all Christians All these are the words of the Rhemists where you see the wilfull concealement of this Parcell The Scriptures are nâ—â— made true altered or amended by the Church as also that other the Holy Scripturs in themselues were alwaies true meaning without the attestation of the Church Now all that can truly be gathered out of this authority is that the Scriptures though most sacred and true in themselues cannot be so made knowne to vs in which words lyeth the touch of the point without the Churches attestation But how farre off is this from M. Whytes vrging of this place Touching his imposture committed in â—dding of words this one place shall serue Thus then the said D. White produceth Bellarmine in contempt of the Churches authority saying Other meanes may deceiue me but nothing is more knowne nothing more certaine then the Scriptures That it were the greatest madnes in the world not te belieue theÌ„ c. Now in this sentence these words viz. Other meanes may deceiue me are not in Bellarmine but most subtily added to the begining of Bellarmines words and caused to be printed in the same kynd of Character or letter wherein the other words of Bellarmine are printed thereby to make the Reader belieue that they are words of Bellarmine wheras they are added as I about insinuated for the more depressing of the Churches Authority Now the whole sentence of Bellarmine was directed against the Swinkseldians who absolutely denyed Scripture and against whom Bellarmine in that place disputeth Touching the fraud consisting in a cuÌ„ning transposition of words without adding any words to the authority alledged or concealing any parcell therof this example of the foresaid M. Whyte may serue In pag. 344. of his way to the true Church he produceth for the ouerthrow of the religious vse of Images the Councell of Eliberis thus saying No (z) Can. 36. Picture is to be made in the Church lest that be adored which is painted on the walls But the true words of the Canon are these Placâ—â—â— picturas in Ecclesia non habere ne quod coliâ—â— adoretur in parietibus depingatur Jt pleaseth the Councell that pictures should not be in the Church lest that which is worshipped anâ— adored be painted on the Walls The nyce difference in words resteth thus Lest that which is worshipped be painted and as Mâ— Whyte translateth Lest that which is painted be worshipped Where the words of the Councell acknowledging the worship of Images maketh the worship due to them to be the cause why they are not painted on the walls to wit because they were subiect to be defaced either by inuasion of Enemyes or rayne c. Now M. Whites translation only by a subtill transposition of the words imports that Pictures are not to be worshipped at all Lastly concerning the Calumny resting in a wilfull confusion of tymes The said Protestant in pag. 61. for proofe of Priests lawfull mariage produceth a Testimony from Sinesius Bishop of Ptolemais thus writing of himselfe to a friend The sacred hand of Theophilus hath giuen me a wyfe and hereupon Iustify to all men that J will neither forsake her nor priuily as an adulterer keep her Company but I will pray to God to send me by her many and good children This Epistle is at large set downe in (a) Eccl. hist l. 14. c. 55. Nicephorus Now heere tâ—e fraud lyeth that at the tyme when this Epistle was written Sinesius was but a Lay-man but eminent for learning Now after he made himselfe priest and was created Bishop of Ptolemais he euer liued separated from the company of his wyfe as fully appeareth out of Nicephorus in the place aboue alledged Here then the Ministers deceit lyeth in applying that to him as if he had beene then Bishop which was spoken by him being a Layman and so M. White most fraudulently confoundeth those two different tymes together as if all had hapned at one and the same tyme. Animaduersion LIII YF your Aduersary will vant that he will proue all by Scripture only as most of them giue it out they will then force him to draw both his Premisses I meane both his Propositions if so they should be reduced to a forme of Argument from the Scripture alone of which Method within two Arguments at least he is certaine to fayle For if he take either of his Propositions from humane Authority or from naturall Reason you may tell him he leaueth his vndertaken of prouing by Scripture alone and consequently you may deny his force of Argument though Logicall in forme Here I further aduertize that if your Aduersary vndertake the part of an Opponent tye him precisely euer to Oppose which Scene perhaps he being brought to a Non-plus would flyely transferre vpon you In like sort if he taketh vpon him to answere suffer him not to oppose thought he labour so to do to free himselfe from answering Thus be sure that ech of you keepe your chosen Station Animaduersion LIV. IF the Protestant should seeke to expouÌ„d by way of conference of places those words of our Sauiour This is my body this is my Bloud figuratiuely by those other words of his J
Virginity yet it followeth not c. 10. That the Scriptures are to be discerned so far as coÌ„cerns our taking notice of theÌ„ by the authority of the Church Austin most fully teacheth and is therefore condemned by Swinglius in these words Here (82) Swingl tom 1. fol. 135. J intreat your indifferent Iudgments that you freely speake whether this saying of Austin meaning about the discerning of Scripture by the authority of the Church be thought more audacious then fitting or to haue beene vttered imprudently 11. Touching the Bookes of Toby Iudith Hester Machabees S. Austin doth admit them all for true diuine and Canonical Scripture and for such his doing is reprehended by Hospinian (83) Hospinian hist Sacr. part 1. p. 160. ZaÌ„chius de sacra scriptura pag 32. 33. D. Fyeld of the Church l. 4. c. 23. p. 246. D. Reynolds in his conclusions annexed to his Conference conclus 2 p. 699. 700. Zanchius D. Fyeld and Doctour Reynolds 12. S. Austin is so full for the Doctrine of Traditions that they are to be receaued as that M. Cartwright speaking of one Tradition which Austin defended thus bursteth out To allow (84) Cartwrights in M. Whitguiftt Defence p. â—6â— S. Austins saying is to bring in Popery againe and further he thus speaking of S. Austin herein Yf (85) In Cartwright his second Reply part 1. pag. 84. 85. 86. S. Austins iudgment be a good iudgment then there be some things Commanded of God which are not in the Scriptures and thereupon no sufficient Doctrine contained in the Scripture 13. Touching the Sacraments conferring Grace to the worthy Receauer S. Austin for teaching our Catholike Doctrine therein is reprehended by (86) Luth. l. contra Coelaeum and Caluin lib. Instit 4. c. 14 sect vlt. Luther and Caluin 14. That Children could not be saued without being baptized Cartwright thus speaketh of S Austin herein Austin (87) Cartwright in whitguifts defence pag. 5â—1 was of mind that Children could not be saued without baptisme And hereupon then Cartwright chargeth S. Austin with Absurdity (88) Vbi supra p 516. Now in regard of this absolute Nâ—ceâ—sity of Baptisme to Children B zâ— (89) Beza in respons ad Act. Colloq Montisbelg par 2. p. 143. confesseth that Austin taught that in case of necessity it is lawfull for the Layty to baâ—â—ize 15. Touching the Reall Presence taught by S. Austin Hospinian (90) Hist Sacramen par 1. l. 4. pa. 292. 293. the Protestant chargeth and reprehâ—ndeth S. Austin therefore and particularly for these words of S. Austin When (91) Austin tom 8. in Psal 33. Christ said This is my body then that his body was carryed in his hands 16. That Austin taught that the wicked contrary to the Doctrine of the Protestants did receaue the body of Christ is confessed and reprehended by Bucer in these words How (92) Script Anglic pag. 619. often doth Austin write thaâ— euen Judas receaued the very body and bloud of our Lord Now further that Austin taught that the Sacrament ought to be taken fâ—sting is confessed by Hospinian in Hist Sacram part 1. pag. 48 In like manner that Austin taught that Holy bread was to be giuen to the Catechumeni D. Fulke confesseth thus answering therto terming iâ— A superstitioâ—â— bread giuen in S. Austins tyme to those tesâ— were Catechumeni insteed of the Sacrament Fulke against Heskins c. l. 3 c. 23. pag. 377. To passe further that the body of Christ in respect of his being in the Sacrament is to be adored in the Sacrament D. Bilson reprehendeth S. Austin for such his Doctrine Bilsâ—â— in his true difference par 4. pag. 536. To conclude touching the B. Sacrament of the Eucharist whereas S. Austin teacheth in tom 3. in Enchirid. cap. 110. saying The Sacrifice of Christs body and bloud is propitious or auaileable for the soules in Purgatory this sentence being confessed by Hutterus the Protestant and in lieu of full answere therto he sayth Jn aeternum defendi non potest This saying of Austin can neuer be defended Hutterus l. de sacrificio Missatico l 2. c. 7. p. 525. 17. S. Austin was so earnest in defence of Freewill and Vniuersall Grace that he is therfore acknowledged and dislyked by the Century (93) Cent. 5. c. 4. col 900. 501. writers The Centurists (94) Centur 5. ca. 10. col 113â— and whitak ad Rat. Camp rat 1. pa. 12. D. Whitaker do acknowledg that Iustification by works is in like manner taught by S. Austin 18. Touching the doctrine of merit of works thus writeth Osiander of S. Austin Austin sometymes in the Article of Iustification seemeth to attribute ouermuch to the merit of works c. Cent. 4. l. 4. cap. 23. 19. Touching Prayer for the Dead thus D. Fulke auoucheth Austin (95) D. Fulk in confut of Purg. pa. 349. defended prayer for the dead And that S. Austin did hould Purgatory is in like manner confessed by (96) Fulk ib. pa. 78. D. Fulke 20. Touching Inuocation of Saints S. Austin is so fully Catholike that himselfe doubteth not to pray to S. Cyprian being long before martyred which action Kempnitius thus repreheÌ„deth (97) Exa par 3. pa. 211. Austin did this without Scripture yielding to the tyme and custome 21. In proofe that Images may be worshipped Hospinian (98) Sacram part â— l. 5. c. 8. though a Protestant yet agreeing with S. Austin herein alledgeth him in proofe hereof 22. Touching the fast of Lent and other fasts S. Austin is reprehended by the Centurist Cent. 5. c. 6. col 686. 687. 23. Touching vowing of Monasticall life the Centurists (99) Cent. 5. col 710 charge S. Austin with the Doctrine thereof and Hospinian thus writeth of Austin herein Austin (100) Hosp de origine Monach. fol. 33. was a great louer of Monasticall profession according to the custome of that age To conclude this long Animaduersion Austin taught that Antichrist should be but one only man and that therfore the Popes being many cannot be truly accounted Antichrist this is confessed and dislyked by the (101) Cent. 1. l. â— col 435 Centurists Thus farre now of this passage from whence we may conclude that that Father to whom so many learned Protestants did aboue giue so high commendation and praise was in all poynts of our Catholike Roman ReligioÌ„ euen by the acknowledgment of the Protestants an entyre Roman Catholike or Papist and hereupon I referre to the iudgement of any man carefull of his saluation whether it be not more secure for one to range himselfe in faith Religion with so worthy a member of Christs Church as Austin was euen in the confession of our Aduersaryes who notwithstanding their Diuersity of Religion from him euen in relating of his Catholike Doctrynes for the most part do giue him the tytle of Saint then to dissent from him in fayth and to ioyne himselfe in Religion
â—hrist This man is God Oecolampadius (a) L. de genuina explicat Vâ—rb â—cknowledgeth not any Trope either in the â—ronoune Hoc or in the Verbe Est but in â—orpus thus interpreting the words by the â—gure Metonymia Hoc est corpus meum id est â—ic panis est figura corporis mei Finally to â—mit others Caluin (b) Câ—lâ— l 4. Inst c 17. §. â—â— admitteth with â—ecolampadius the figure to be in the word â—orpus but withall he addeth that the bread of the Eucharist is not a naked signe of the body of Christ but it is a signe or fiâ—ure which doth truly exhibit the thing it selfe to wit the body of Christ Thus we see what diuers interpretations and all false our Aduersaries do giue of the words of the Jnstitution And thus as they all reiect our Catholike interpretation of them so â—ot any one of the former ProtestaÌ„ts doth 〈◊〉 holy imbrace the exposition of another Animaduersion XXV DO not admit this Inference as good Some Fathers do interpret this or that text of Scripture figuratiuely Therefore the said Fathers do teach that such Texts are not to be expounded literally This is a meere Sophisâ— for seeing diuers texts of Scripture beside the literall are capable of allegoricall sense as all learned men both Catholicks anâ— Protestants do teach therefore the figuratiue sense doth not exclude but rather often presuppose and admit of the literall According hereto S. Austin passing ouer a presumed and granted the literall sense 〈◊〉 those words Qui (c) Iohn â— bibit meum sanguineâ— c. allegorically expoundeth them in thâ— sort Bibere sanguinem Christi est credere 〈◊〉 Christum to drinke the bloud of Christ is to belieue in Christ. In like sort also do not approue this kind of disputing for it is a meere Schiomachia or fighting with a shadow The Scriptures speake honourably oâ— Mariage which all we Catholiks do willingly acknowledg therefore vowed virginity is not to be allowed our Aduersaries here laboring to disualew the worth of Virginity by the acknowledged dignity of Mariage its opposit For the worth of both these may stand together the one not crossing the other and in things that are good we must acknowledg there are degrees of goodnes and accordingly we here say Mariage is good but yet vowed virginity is better In like sort our Aduersaries vse another fraudulent kind of reasoning called Logomachia where leauing the sense childishly contend with the naked word for exaÌ„ple find say they the word Purgatory or Masse 〈◊〉 the Scripture if you can But what â—lloweth from hence for are the words â—rinity Person Consubstantiality c. in the â—cripture they are not must we therefore â—â—iect the doctrine of them To proceed â—â—other captious arguing of our aduersaâ—es is taking hold of the very letter conâ—â—ary to the approued mind of the Church â—r example the word Presbyter in Greeke 〈◊〉 nothing but a Seniour therefore in the â—hurch of the new Testament there are no â—riests so truly called But S. Thomas in 1. â—art quaest 13. shall salue this Argument â—ying we are to obserue in words non tam a â—o quam ad quid not so much from whence â—hey are deriued as to what by a warrantaâ—e custome they are applied Animaduersion XXVI THe peruersity of our Aduersaries is such who lighting vpon some few straying â—assages in the Fathers writings where the â—ucharist is called bread they mainely câ—y â—ut that in the Fathers Iudgment it is noâ—hing but materiall bread And yet when in â—uery leafe or page of the Fathers works â—pon this matter they find it termed The body and bloud of Christ all such places or els we wrong them must be interpreted figuratiuely Thus they insisting much in those â—phrazes which are but rare in the Fathers and passing ouer with a censuring neglect such forme of speeches as most frequently occurre in their Bookes Now the Eucharist may be called bread by the Fathers afteâ— consecration without any preiudice to our Catholike doctrine for seuerall reasons the Fathers borrowing this kind oâ— phraze from the Scripture Panis (e) 1. Cor. 10. queâ— frangimus c. First because it is an accustomed Dialect of the Scripture to call a thing by that name which afore it was Thus it Genes 3. Eua is called the bone of Adam because she was made thereof and the Serpents of Moyses in Exod. 7. are termed wandes because the wandes were turned into serpents so for this very reason the Eucharist is somtimes termed bread by the Fathers Another reason why the Eucharist may be called bread by the Scriptures and consequently by the Fathers is in regard of the similitude which it hath with bread I meane in nourishing the soule as bread doth nourish the body A third reason in that the Scripture and in like manner the Fathers do often call things as they do externally appeare to the Eye so the Scripture calls Angels who appeared in humane shape Men and the Brazen serpent a serpent c. Therefore the Eucharist may be termed bread and Wyne either by the Scripture or the Fathers in that to the eye it seemeth only Bread and Wyne Animaduersion XXVII IF it be not lawfull to pray to Saincts the reason hereof must be either because they will not heare vs praying to them But this cannot be seeing they are now endued with more Charity then when they here conuersed vpon earth and being secure of their owne felicity are more sollicitous of our spirituall good and health Or els because the Saints cannot helpe vs. But neither this For if they could help vs with their prayers while they were pilgrimes in this world much more are they now able being arriued to their owne Country Or because they do not know what we pray But not this because from what ground the Angells do know the conuersion of sinners for which conuersion they so much reioyce as is said in Luke 15. from the same ground the Saints do know our prayers Or lastly which is the most ordinary reason giuen by our Aduersaries because an Jniury is committed against God if any other be prayed inuoked vnto then he But not this for then it were vnlawfull to inuocate and pray to the liuing and consequently S. Paul sinned and offended God when he writ thus to the f Romans Brethren I beseech you that you would helpe me in your prayers for me to God Which kind of prayer the Apostle vseth in his Epistle to the Ephesians c. 6. in the first to the Thessalonians c. 5. in his Epistle to the Colossians c. 4. finally in his Epistle to the Hebrews c. 13. Animaduersion XXVIII TOuching Communion vnder one kind oâ— vnder both the true state of this Question is not whether Christ did institute thâ— Eucharist vnder both kinds or whetheâ— himselfe and the Apostles at the first Instiâ—ution of it receaued â—t vnder both kindâ— or whether the Apoâ—â—les and the Father afterwards at sundry tymes
any impugned part or branch of their Religion From which vndaunted resolution of theirs we certainely collect that this their constant determination of defending the least point of their Religion proceedeth partly from a generall instinct of God impressed in mans soule teaching ech man that death it selfe is rather to be suffered then we are to deny any part of fayth and Religion in generall And thus according hereto we find that the Athenians who were Heathens though they did erre touching the particular Obiect therin as worshipping false Gods were most cautelous that no one point should be infringed or violated touching the worshipping of their Gods The like religious seuerity was practised by the Iewes as Iosephus (s) Ioseph contra Apion witnesseth Now from these Premisses we deduce against our Adiaphorists or Neutralls in Religion either Catholike or Protestant that no points of true Religion are of that cold Indifferency as that they are not to be much regarded either in beliefe or in profession but that they are of that Nature worth and dignity as a man is obliged to vndergoe all torments yea death it selfe before he yeald or suffer the least relaps in denying any of the said verities or in any externall Profession contrary thereto Animaduersion CXXI FOr the further impugning of the indifferency of seuerall Religions and to shew that euery religion among Christians is not capable of Saluation I will drawe one demonstration out of Scripture The text is this In the (t) 1. Timoth cap. 4. larer tymes certaine shall depart from the fayth attending to spirits of Errour and Doctrine of Deuils forbidding to Marry to abstaine from Meates Heere the Apostle prophesyeth according to the iudgement of S. Chrysestome (u) Hom. 12. in Timoth Ambrose (x) In hunc locum Ierome (y) L. contra Iouinian c. 7. and (z) Haer. 25. 40. Austin of the Heretykes Encratites Marcionists Ebionites and such like who denyed Matrimony as a thing altogether vnlawfull and prohibited absolutely at all tymes and the eating of certaine Meates as Creatures impure Now these Heretykes belieued in the Trinity the Incarnation and other Supreme poynts of Christian Religion And yet eueÌ„ for these two former Heresyes touching Marriage and eating of Meates and not for their misbeleife in the Trinity Incarnation c. they are said by the Apostle to depart from the fayth of Christ and to attend to the Doctrine of Deuils But such as leaue the fayth of Christ and attend to the doctrine of the Diuels are not in state of Saluation Now these Errours heere mentioned by the Apostle are of as little or lesser consequence then the Controuersyes betweene the Catholiks the ProtestaÌ„ts therefore it standeth vpon ech Christian if so he expect to saue his soule to professe entirely and wholy the true Religion Animaduersion CXXII TOuching the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the B. Sacrament of the Eucharist the auncient Fathers are most full therin euen by the acknoledgement of the ProtestaÌ„ts themselues First then Gregory the great is coÌ„fessed by D. Humfrey (a) In Iesuitism part 2. rat 5. to haue broght in Transubstantiation into England at his first planting of Christianity in this Country as is aboue shewed Chrysostome is reprehended by the Centurists to vse their owne words (b) Cent. 5. col 517. Quia parum commodè de Transubstantiatione dixit (c) Cent. 4. c. 4. col 295. S. Ambrose is affirmed by the Centurists in the booke ascribed to Ambrose to confirme the Doctrine of Transubstantiation which Father for the said Doctrine is also taxed by (d) L Ep. Oecolampad Swinglij l. 3. Oecolampadius S. Cyrill is reprehended by Peter (e) Ep. ad Bezam annexed to his Common places Martyr in these words I will not easely subscribe to Cyrill who affirmed such a Communion as thereby euen the flesh and bloud of Christ is ioyned to the Blessings for so he calleth the holy bread c. S. Cyprian is charged in the booke ascribed to Vrsinus the Protestant entituled Coâ—monefactio cuiusdam Theologi de sancta Caenâ— who there thus writeth (f) Pag. 111. â—18 In Cyprian are many things which seeme to affirme Transubstantiation Lastly Ignatius is acknoledged by Keâ—pnitius (g) Exa part 1. p. 94. to haue confirmed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in that eminent place of his (h) Ep. ad Smirnenses Eucharistias oblationes noÌ„ admittuÌ„t quòd non confiteantur eucharistiam esse carnem saluatoris quae pro peccatis nostris passa est c. The truth of the Fathers iudgment touching the Reall presence is so fully confessed by our Aduersaryes as that Antony de Adamo a markable Protestant thus acknoledgeth hereof (i) In his Anatomy of the Masse p. 236. J haue not hitherto beene able to know when this Opinion of the Reall bodily being of Christ in the Eucharist did first beginne With whome conspireth Adamus Francisci another Pro estant saying Commentum (k) In Margarita Theol. pag. 156. Papistarum c. The Papists inuention touching Transubstantiation crept earely into the Church Thuâ— farre of the Protestants Confessions in this poynt whereunto we may add that these Fathers heere aboue charged with the rest of the Fathers of those Ages were the chiefe Pastours Doctours of the Primitiue Church which Church belieued herein according as it was taught by the said Fathers If then these Fathers should erre in the Doctrine of TraÌ„substantiation then should it follow that the primitiue Church yea and the vniuersall Church of Christ contrary â—o Christs (l) Math 1â— promisse therein should erre Animaduersion CXXIII YF we do take into due consideration 〈◊〉 seuerall chiefe heades and points when vnto the sentences and authorities of 〈◊〉 ancient Fathers touching the Eucharist 〈◊〉 be reduced we cannot otherwise be perâ—â—ded but that the Fathers taught vnaâ—â—mously the Doctrine of the Reall Presence and Transubstantiation seing those Heads 〈◊〉 the Fathers sentences are so agreeable aâ—â—fortable to Christs Reall being in the Sacrament and so incompetent and disproportionable to a bare Typicall Presence or being of him therein To begin then The First Head of the Fathers authorityes may be the Appellatâ—â— or Names which the Fathers giue to the Blessed Sacrament far differently from the Sacramentaryes which is an argument that Sacramentaryes differ from the Fathers iâ— beleife therein Thus the Fathers call the Sacrament The body bloud of our Lord Thâ— precious body tremenda Mysteria the fearefuâ—â— Misteries the pledge of our Saluation Our priâ—â— whereas the Sacramentaryes vsuall phraâ—â— is to call the Eucharist the Symboll or signâ— of the body and bloud of the Lord. The second Classe or Head is taken from the Comparison of this Sacrament with other things for they compare it with the Manna Paschall Lamb with Panis Propositionis and the lyke saying The Eucharist doth differ from all these things as the Truth differs froÌ„ â—â—gures the body
to be really in the Eucharist since by this reason say they it may become rotten and mouldy and be eaten by myce should passe to the belly and so to the common passage To this I answeare that these supposed indignityes do not touch the body of Christ but only affect the species and forme of the Eucharist which is ioyned with the body Againe seeing our Christian fayth teacheth vs that Christ was included for a long tyme within the Wombe of the Blessed Virgin being a Woman that he was swadled and lapped in Cloaths that then he might fall vpon the earth and might also haue beene eaten with beasts or burnt if so by miracle he were not preserued from such mischances if rheÌ„ he was truly and in his owne person subiect to all these difficultyes without any dishonour what dishonour is it to him if he did vndergo in another forme the former supposed Indecencyes vrged by our Aduersaryes Againe the former Indignityes do no more truly and properly touch the body of Christ then the Diuinity which being in all places can be said to be burnt it being in the fyre or being rotten it being in bodyes that are rotten c. Animaduersion CXXIX OVr Aduersaries draw another argument taken from the vnprofitablenes of the Reall Presence in the Eucharist Thus they dispute The reall being of Christs body in the Eucharist is needles in that seeing the end and fruite of the Eucharist is to nourish the Soule and this nourishment consisting in fayth and Charity may as auayleably be performed by apprehending Christ by fayth as he is only in Heauen it therefore followeth that no profit aryseth from the Catholike doctrine herein which is not by other meanes as well effected To this I answere first that it is false to say that the same fruite is reaped by Christ in Heauen as by receauing him really into our bodies since Experience doth witnesse that by this receauing him in the Eucharist our Fayth Charity Deuotion and Reuerence are more encreased Besides our reall coniunction with Christ affordeth many benefits to the soule which Christ giueth not without this Coniunction no otherwise then he cured all such who touched the Hemme of his garment whom he would not haue cured though otherwise he could if they had not touched it Secondly I affirme It is a false â—â—â—ation to conclude It was not conuenient that Christ should be really in the Eucharist because the fruite reaped thereby may be obtained by other meanes For that is profitable which doth confer any Good though the same good may be obtayned otherwise For one drop of Christs bloud or any other laborious worke vndertakâ—n by him for our good had beene sufficient for our Redemption yet it followeth not that all his paines labours effusion of bloud yea death it selfe were vnprofitably and bootelesly performed Yea God could haue redeemed the world without the Incarnation of Christâ— shall we therefore say that the Incarnation of Christ was needles inconuenient and vnprofitable Animaduersion CXXX WHereas aboue there haue beene alledged diuers testimonies out of the Iewes and ancient Rabins in proofe of diuers Articles of our Roman Catholike fayth particularly of the Sacrifice which the Rabins say the Messias shall make at his comming our Aduersaries seeke to euade the force of all the Iewish Rabins authorities by saying that those testimonies of the Rabins were first forged by Galatinus and fathered vpon the Iewes for their greater credit And according hereto we find D. Whitaker thus to answere Dureus who vrged some Jewish sentences out of Galatinus for proofe of the Reall Presence and Sacrifice Tuum (h) Whitak contra Duraeum pag. 818. in hac causa Petrum Galatinum minimè profectò desideramus nec Haebreorum testimonijs illis indigemus Now to free Galatinus from suspition of forging all such sentences of the Rabins in fauour of Christianity and of Articles of our Roman Religion I answere hereto and say that one Hieronymus de Sancta fide being a Jew and conuerted to Christianity in the tyme before Galatinus whose Physitian he was did write a booke entituling it Hebraeo-mastrix or vindex impietatis perfidiae Iudaicae wherein he proueth diuers points of Christianity from the there allâ—dged â—estimonies and sentences of the said formâ—r Iewes mentioned by Galatinus This booke of his was printed at Franckford anno 1602. Animaduersion CXXXI IT is much obserued how our Aduersaries in answering to Catholike Bookes often giue slip to the argument or authority produced and in lieu thereof either by degrees flye to the state of the Question as though afore it were not acknowledged or to the Scripture themselues only interpreting the same where they may range vp and downe ar large or to some by circumstance meerely accessory to the Question and difficulty disputed of or do vse deceytefull resemblance and exchange of matter subtilly conueyed and brought in by tedious entertainment of prolonged discourse and all this to hold the Reader therewith that so vnespiedly they may diuert the Readers eye and memory being thus fixed vpon their digressions from the authority and reason alledged Here also may alledge their accustomed practize in printing the Catholikes Books at large their answere conioyned thereto in the same bulke or volume Their vsuall imposture then is to cause the Catholike authors words to be set downe in a most little obscure and darke letter or Character thereby to withdraw the Readers eye from perusing and reading it at large whereas their answere thereto they procure to be printed in a fayre and great Character or letter that so they may more easely inuite the Reader to the full perusing of it And this sleight is particularly besides in others manifested in D. Whitakers Answere to B. Father Câ—â—pian his ten Reasons in his Challenge to the two Vniuersities also in D. White his Booke against his Aduersaries entituled The way to the true Church Animaduersion CXXXII YF many miracles were wrought concerning Christs body before and whiles he here conuersed vpon earth may not then a man be more easely induced to belieue the great Miracle of his body in the Institution of the Eucharist A litle before the Natiuity thereof we reade Coâ—ceptus est de Spiritis Sancto At the very instant of his birth Natus est ex Maria Virgine some small tyme after his deathe Tertia die resurrexit vpon his last departure from vs Ascendit ad Caelos In all which passages Nature herselfe was if not dissolued at least suspended yea whi es he here conuersed vpon earth the samâ— sacred body of Christ was sometimes nourished without (i) To wit during Christs fast of forty dayes eating at other tymes did eate without (k) WheÌ„ he did eate with his Apostles after his Resurrection any nourishment thereby furthermore the same body remayning Visible (l) According to Luc. 4. Ipse transient peâ— medium illorum ibat became Jnuisible To conclude â—hrist blessed body did walke (m)
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
concerne Merit of workes as in Luc. 20. and 21. 2. Thess 1. wherein those said words are vsed they translate them To seeme to be worthy or to seeme only to be made worthy therby to weaken such texts for the prouing of Merit of works But in other Texts not touching the Doctrine of Merit they can be content to translate those words truly that is to be worthy and to be worthy indeed as in this Text O how (*) Heb. 20. much sorer punishment shall he be worthy of who treadeth vnderfoote the Sonne of God Thus much for a Tast Animaduersion CLXXIV THe English Protestant Translation of the Bible is not only by the Catholiks ackâ—owledged to be corrupt and impure but â—so by many Protestant themselues M. â—urges thus censureth of that Translation â—ying How (17) M. Burges in his Apology sect 6. shall I approue vnder my haÌ„d 〈◊〉 Translation which hath many omissions many â—dditioÌ„s which sometymes obscureth sometymes peruerteth the sense being sometymes sensles sometymes contrary To whose Iudgment herein subscribe diuers Ministers in their ioint consent thereof in these words A (18) The ministers in their abridgment of a Booke deliuered to king Iames. pag. 11. 12. Translation that taketh away from the Text that addeth to the Text and this sometymes to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost And againe A Translation which is absurd and sensles peruerting in many places the meaning of the Holy Ghost All whose Censures herein agree with the like censure of D. Reynolds deliuered in King Iames his presence in Hampton Court who refused to subscribe to the Communion booke because said he it warranted a false corrupt translation of the Bible Now from hence I thus deduce The Protestants by their owne ConfessioÌ„s haue had as yet neuer any true English Translation of the Scriptures Therefore as yet the English Protestants neuer enioyed according to their owne Principles a sufficient and competent Iudge of Controuersies Since admitting the Scripture were the sole Iudge of Controuersyes in fayth yet this of necessity must be vnderstood of the Scripture as it is pure and incorrupt not 〈◊〉 it is impure and abastarded with false Translations From the Scripture I will descend to the English Communion booke or Booke of Common Prayer This Communion booke as it is euen at this present we fynd to be thus condemned by Protestanâ—s Twenty two preachers in London in (19) The Booke is intituled The Petition of twenty two Ministers in London one Petition did thus charge the Common Prayer Booke saying Many things in the Communion Booke are repugnant to the word of God And againe In the Communion Booke there be things of which there is no reasonable sense There is contradiction in it euen in necessary and essentiall points of Religion The holy Scripture is at graced by it A point so euident that D. Couell rebuketh and censureth other Protestants herein saying The (20) D. Couell in his Examen pag. 179. Communion Booke is boldly despised meaning by the Puritans Grosse errours and manifest impietyes meaning in their opinion are in the Communion Booke So he redargueth his owne brethren Now here in like manner as aboue I do thus argue Yf the English Protestants haue had no forme of Common Prayer published to them but such as is repugnant to the Scripture and in which there is contradiction euen in the necessary points of Religion them followeth that euen to this day the ignorant English Protestant neuer prayed to God auayleably For it is Prayer sorting to the word of God and not what is accompanied with errours which is piercing in Gods eaâ—es See here what dangerous Resuâ—tancies proceed to the English Protestants from their own Brethrens Confessions though most true that as yet they enioy not the Scripture as truly translated nor a pâ—ouâ— set forme of Prayer or Communion Booke Animaduersion CLXXV SEeing we who professe the Roman religion are commonly yea often euen by our Aduersaries called Catholikes therfore I will here briefly shew by laying open the Antiquity of that Title how much we are honored by being so styled whereas other false Doctrines commonly take thâ—ir Denomination from the first Authour thereof or from the Doctrine it selfe Well then (21) Cyril Cateâ—his 18. Cyrill thus writeth hereof Si iueris in aliquam vrbem c. Yf thou shalt goe into any Citty thou demaundest not wherâ— is the Church or house of God for euen the Heretikes say they haue the house of God the Church sed petas vbi sit Catholica Ecclesia c. quasi dicas si hoc petas nullus Haereticorum suam Ecclesiam ostendet But thou demaundest where the Catholike Church is for that name is peculiar to this holy Church the mother of vs all as if thou shouldest say if thou demaundest this no Heretike will â—hew to thee his Church Pacianus Christianus (22) In Epist. ad Sympronianum quae est de Nomine Catholico mihi nomen est Catholicus vero cognomen illud me nuncupat istud me ostendit A Christian is my Name a Catholike my surname by the former J am named by this other J am knowne or discerned And againe Catholicum istud nec Marcionem nec Apellem c. This Name Catholike neither doth it sound or meane Marcion or Apelles or Montanus nec haereticos sumit authores neither doth it admit any Hereticall Authours Now on the other syde how Heresies and their Professours take their appellation this one testimony of Chrysostome for greater breuity shall serue Illi habent (23) Chrysost hom 33. in acta Apost ol quosdam à quibus appellantur prout enim Haerefiarchae nomen ita secta vocatur c. Those men meaning Heretikes haue some men from whom they take their Name for as the Name of the Arch-Heretike is so is the sect called Which saying we find verifyed euen at this day by the words Lutheran Swinglian Caluinist c. Now whereas our Aduersaries by way of retortion call vs Papists To this I answere as is aboue in this Treatise touched that this word Papist is not deriued from any knowne Authour or Arch-Heretike as the words Lutheran Swinglian Caluinist c. but from the Pope and such was S. Peter yea Christ himself Add hereto that (24) Homil 33. in Act 4. Chrysostome as if it were by way of foreseeing we should be called Papists sayth Jt is not hurtfull if Catholikes be called by the name of those who gouerne the Church in the name of Christ so that they receaue not their name from any particular man as Heretikes are named Thus S. Chrysostome To conclude it is to be obserued that we are called Papists only by the Lutherans in Germany and Heretikes in some neere Countryes but we are not so called to omit Jtaly and Spayne in Greece Asia Affrike or in the Jndyes Animaduersion CLXXVI THough the many Controuersyes agitated betweene
which we Catholikes call the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction But to proceede further in this point touching the Booke of Common Prayer in those dayes I will alledge the words of M. Done an eminent Protestant who thus writeth hereof Concerning (38) M. Doue in hit persuasion to English Recusants pag. 31. the Booke of Common prayer when the Masse was first put downe K. Henry had his English Liturgy and that was iudged absolute and without exception But when King Edward came to the Crowne that was condemned and another in the place was made which Peter Martyr and Bucer did approue as very consonant to Gods word When Queene Elizabeth began to reigne the former was iudged to be full of imperfections and a new deuised and allowed by consent of the Clergy But about the middle of her reigne we grew weary of that Booke and great meanes hath beene made to abandon that and establish another Which though it was not obtayned yet do we at the least at euery change of Prince change our Booke of CoÌ„mon prayer We be so wanton that we know not what we would haue Thus this ProtestaÌ„t Now from hence I conclude First that Protestancy here in England is not so ancient as from king Edwards dayes Secondly that it was not at perfection in the middle of Queen Elizabeths reigne For if it had then beene perfect and complete there had beene no neede of a new Common Prayer-Booke For at euery change of the Common booke of prayer there was a change of points of fayth according to which points the former CoÌ„munion Booke was to be reformed corrected And therfore according to the iudgment of men of those tymes it is thus said by M. Parker The day-starre (39) M. Parker against Symbolizing part 2. cap. 5. pag. 4. was not risen so high in their dayes when yet Queene Elizabeth reformed the defects of King Edwards Communion Booke c. Yet so altered (40) Ibidem pag. 37. as that when it was proposed to be confirmed by the Parliament it was refused Animaduersion CLXXVIII THe Doctrine of Recusancy is taught both by Protestants and Catholikes Since both of them hould it a most wicked thing and not to be donne but vnder payne of damnation without finall repentance that a man should communicate only in going to the Church and to heare but a sermon contrary to that Religion which himselfe belieueth to be true For though this Act may seeme to be couered vnder pretence of obseruing the Princes commandement for feare of losing our temporall estates yet in very deed this Act of going to the Church virtually and potentially includeth a conformity in all points to the religion of that Church to the which a Man goeth and so â—t comes to be a dissimulation or rather an absolute Abnegation of that Religion which a man houlds in his soule to be the only true Religion Now that the Protestants do teach the Doctrine of Recusancy I meane not to be present at the sermons or Prayers of a different Religion I proue from (41) Caluin de vitandis superstitionibus extat in tract Theolog. pag. 584. Caluin from the Deuines (42) The Deuines of Germany alledged in this point by Sleydan in Comment Englished l. 7 fol. 87. of Germany from Melancthon (43) Melancth in Concâ— Theolog. pa. 618. from Peter (44) Peter Martyr in his discourse hereof recited in Melancth Treatise de Concil Theolog. p. 394. Martyr and to omit others from D. (45) Wâ—â—eâ— in Synops. printed 1600. pag. 612. 613. c. Willet That the Catholikes do with the like or greater feruour preach and practice thâ— same Doctrine of Recusancy is cleare by the Example in our owne Country where sinne Protestancy was first planted some scores besides of the Laity of Venerable learned priests haue chosen rather to suffâ—â— death in Queene Elizabeth her Reigne then once to goe to the Protestant Church their liues being commonly proffered them if they would conforme themselues and leaue their Recusancy But they loathed such Conditions For the more full proofe of this Verity I add the Testimonies of three most eminent most remarkable Men whose iudgments some yeares past being demanded whether the Catholikes of England might for sauing their goods liuings go to the Protestant Church to heare a Sermon did ioyntly condemne the same as most vnlawfull and impious The men were these Cardinall Bellarmine Cardinall Baronius and Mutiâ—â—Vitellescus now generall of the Order of the Society of Iesus I will heere set downe their owne words The Judgment of Cardinall Bellarmine COnsideratis rationibus pro vtraqueparte allatis existimo non licere viris Catholicis in Anglia Haereticorum adire Ecclesias multó minùs concionibus ipsorum interesse minimè autem omnium cum ipsis in precibus vel Psalmodia alijsque ipsorum Ecclesiasticis ritibus conuenire Ideo propria manu subscripsi Robertus Bellarminus Sanctae R. Ecclesiae Presbyter Cardinalis tituli Sanctae Mariae in via The iudgment of Cardinall Baronius VIsis consideratis quae superiùs diligenti peruestigatione in vtramque partem disputata reiectis omnino exufflatis quae pro parâ—e affirmatiua fuere proposita quòd scilicet liceret Catholicis adire Ecclesias Haereticorum vt superiùs sunt proposita inhaeremus saniori sententie posteriori ab Ecclesia Catholica antiquitùs recepta vsu probata quod scilicet ita facere pâ—â— non liceat quam rogo nostros Catholicos Anglâ—â— amplecti ex animo Caesar Cardinalis Baronius titul SS Nerei Achillei Presb. The iudgmeÌ„t of Mutius Vitellescus then Prouinciall now Generall of the Order of the Jesuits VJdi rationes quae in hoc Scripto pro vtraque parte afferuntur existimo non licere vâ— Catholicis in Anglia Ecclesias Haereticorâ—s adire c. Et puto hoc debere esse extra Contrâ—â—ersiam Mutius Vitellescus Prouincialis Romaâ— Prouin Societatis Iesu Thus much in generall touching the Doctrine of Recusancy mantayned by diueâ— learned Protestants and practised with losâ— of life by many Reuerend Priests here 〈◊〉 England and fortifyed with the iudgmeâ—â— of these three former most learned pious and godly Men. Animaduersion CLXXIX â—He most common abuse in England of taking a second wyfe during the lyfe of â—e first committing fornication induceth â—e to expound those words of our Sauiour â—om whence the offenders herein seeme to â—arrant their sensuall proceedings for thus â—â—r Sauiour in Mathew 19. speaketh Whosoeâ—er shall put away his wyfe except it be for forâ—â—tation and shall marry another doth commit â—dultery from which words our Aduersaâ—es seeme to infer that who doth put away â—s wyfe for fornication and marrieth anoâ—her doth not commit Adultery But this is â—hus answered To wit that this exception 〈◊〉 Fornication is only to shew that for this â—use a man may put away his wyfe for eâ—er but not that he may marry another as 〈◊〉 most playne in 5. Mark c. 10.
mâ—n forcible to wring out Confession then any racâ—â— torment For the proofe of this verity I refer the studious Reader to the Booke of the Protestants Apology where beginning at the Page 684. sâ—quentib at the letter M. in the margent he shall find fyfty at least of our Affirmatiue and Catholike Doctrines defended and maintayned by the most learned Protestants that euer did write I will here only reckon the tiles of diuers of the said Articles so belieued and taught by the Protestants viz. 1. Real presence 2. That Sacraments do confer grace 3. The sufficiency of Chricts corporall Death 4. That Christ descended in soule into Limbus Patrum 5. The continuall Visibility of the Church 6. The Necessity of Good works to Saluation 7. Euangelicall Counsells 8. The Doctrine of vniuersality of Grace 9. That God doth only permit sinne but decreeth it not 10. That men are not certaine of their Election 11. That to Children of the faythfull dying vnbaptized saluation is not promised 12. Free-will 13. That in regard of Christs Passion and promisse our Good works are meritorious 14. TeÌ„porall punishment reserued by God in Iustice after the sinne is remitted 15. Peters Primacy 16. Intercession of Angells 17. Intercession of Saincts 18. Jnuocation of Saincts 19. Vowed Chastity 20. Voluntary â—ouerty Chastity and Obedience 21. Prayer for the Dead 22. Purgatory 23. Limbus Patrum 24. Images in Churches 25. Worshipping of Images 26. Reuerence and bowing at the name of Jesus 27. That the good Works of one may help another 28. Power of a priest to remit sinnes 29. Confession of sinnes 30. Distinction of mortall and veniall sinne 31. The indifferency of Communion vnder one kind 32. Sacrifice of the New Testament according to the Order of Melchisedech 33. The possibâ—lity of the Commandements 34. Transubstantiation 35. That Christ is God of God 36. Thaâ— Christ as Man was from his Natiuity free from Ignorance and was full of knowledg 37 Baptisme of Women and Lay persons in tyme oâ— Necessity 38. Seauen Sacraments 39. Implicitâ— fayth called Fides implicita 40. That Antichrist is yet to come 41. Patronage and protection of certaine Angells ouer certaine Countryes and Kingd mes 42. That the Obseruation of Sunday for our â—abaoth is not alterable 43 That the alteration of the â—aboth from Saturdâ—â— to Sunday not proued by Scripture 44. Set tymes of fasting 45. The true visible Church cannot erre 46. Externall iudgment and not onâ—y Scripture appointed for determining of Contrâ—uersies 47. That the gouerment of the Church is Monarchicall 48. Which is true Scripture determined to vs only by the Church 49. That the Church of Rome is a part of the house of God 50. Vnwritten Traditions besides some other Catholike points taught by the learned Protestants Here now I demand that if the Protestants Proselyts and followers do belieue their Grand-maisters in diuers points of their owne Religion why then should not they belieue the learned Protestants maintayning our Catholike doctrines â—ntâ— abstracting from the authority of the Church both the said seuerall sorts of Protestants do maintayne their contrary Tenets euen with equall and indifferent priuiledg of their owne Priuate Spirit Animaduersion CLXXXVIII AS aboue I compared Luther being Catholike touching manners and Conuersation of Lyfe with Luther being Protestant So heere I will make another comparatiue betweene the Liues of Catholikes and of Protestants And here it is to be obserued that I will not compare the most pious men in former tymes with the best of the Protestants nor the worst men for life of the one Religion with the worst of the other but for the greater confronting of our Aduersaries and aduantage to our Catholike Cause I will compare the declining state of Catholike tymes with the best tymes of Protestancy which is presumed to be at the first entrance and beginning of Protestancy when the first Protestants enioyed the â—rimitiae and first fruites of their Religion This point will be made euident euen from the confessions of the Protestants themselues First then we fynd Luther himself thus to write From (n) Luth in postill super Euangel Dominiâ—ae primae Aduentus the tyme in which the pure Doctrine of the Gospell was first reuealed to light the world hath growne dayly worse Men are more reuengefull couetous licentious then they were euer before in the Papacy With whom Musculus agreeth thus complayning hereof Vt verum (o) Musculus in loc com in cap de Decalog pag. 62. essâ— fateor c. To confesse the truth men are become so vâ—â—ike themselues that whereas in the Pâ—pacy they were religious in their Errours and Superstition now in the light of the knowne truth they are more prophaâ—â— then the very Sonnes of the world I wiâ—â— conclude with the testimony of Erasmus thus discoursing of this point Quos (p) Erasmus Ep. ad fratres Inferioris Germaniae aâ—tea noueram c. Such men as I knew to be before vpright candid modest and sincere in theâ— Conuersation after they had embraced thâ—â— new Sect meaning of the Gospell they iâ—stantly begun to talke of young Women to playâ— dice to leaue of prayer to be most impatient reuengfull of Iniuries and to conclude to abaâ—don all humanity expertus loquor Thus far â—rvsmus And thus much of the balancing oâ— men of these two seuerall Religions Noâ— I heere refer to an indifferent Iudgmenâ— whether it be not a great blemish to Protestancy that it is confessed by the Protâ—stants that the Professours thereof euen 〈◊〉 their best tymes were far worse and moâ— wicked in manners then the Catholikâ—â— their worst and most declyning tymes Animaduersion CLXXXIX THe Protestants much solace themselâ—â— in alledging certaine Texts of Scriptâ—â— in proofe of Iustification by fayth only whâ—â— passages being truly weighed are found 〈◊〉 be most weakely or rather impertineâ—â— alledged as in Math. 9. Thy fayth hath sâ—â— thee Iohn 3 Who belieueth in the Sonne hâ— eternall Lyfe Finally to omit some oâ—â— such seeming Texts Rom. 5. We being â—â—â—fyed by fayth let vs haue peace towards God Tâ— these and such like I answere and deny that it followeth That Fayth only iustifyeth though only Fayth be named For sometymes also other Vertues are only named or the Sacraments For example Luc. 7. we read Many sinnes are forgiuen her because she loued much Iob. 12. Almes deeds freeth from death Rom. 8. By hope we are saued Finally Titus 3. He hath saued vs by the Lawes of regeneration besydes many other such passages And yet no man will gather from theâ—e authorities that Charity or Almesdeeds or Hope or Baptisme do iustiâ—y without Fayth Therfore when many different causes concur to produce one Effect the Scripture ascribeth the same Effect sometymes to one Cause sometymes to another and yet the Scripture doth not intend thereby to signiâ—y that one cause is sufficient without the other causes Now the reason why the Apostle more frequently attributes Iustification to fayth