5. with vs touching Patronage and intercession of Angells that therfore D. Whitaker doth accordingly confesse and say thereof Jllum (h) Whitak in respons ad rat Camp rat 1. p. 15. verò Tobiae Raphaelem c. Litle do we regard the Example of Raphaell the Angell mentioned in Toby c. All this is different from the Canonicall Scriptures c. Concerning the force of Merit of Almes and other good works proceeding from true fayth in the Messias The Doctrine of the Ancient Iewes is deliuered in the Booke of Tobyâ— Almes (i) Tob. 1â— doth deliuer from Death and doth purge all sinne and in the foresaid booke of Ecclesiasticus As water (k) Eccles 3. quenceth burning fyer So Almes expiateth sinne Touching vnwritten Traditions (l) Orig. hom 5. in Numer Hilar. in Psalm 2. Origen and Hilary do affirme that Moyses did leaue many things vnwritten the knowledge whereof was continued by tradition And Rabby Iudas affirmeth the same of Moyses a thing so euident that the doctrine of the Tradition of the Iewes is confessed by (m) writing vpon the Booke in Capitulis patrum Paulus Phagius the Protestant That Monasticall Lyfe was not altogether wanting but in some sort professed among the ancient Iewes is witnessed by Iosephus thus writing The (n) Ioseph antiquitaâ—um Iudaicarum l. 18. c. â— righteousnes of the Essenes is meruaylous c. They enioy their riches in Common c. And in this course aboue foure thousand men do liue hauing neither wyfes nor seruants c. And in another place Triall (o) Ioseph l. de bello Iudaito l. 2. cap. 7. is had of a mans continency and his other manners are for two yeares tryed and then he is taken into the Company Lastly to omit for greater breuity the Doctrine of Vowes the doctrine of one Visible high Priest head of the Church in those Jewish tymes the Doctrine of the Iewes in remitting the ending of Controuersyes not to the Scripture but to a certaine visible and liuely Judge the doctrine of the Iewes concerning Confession of sinne all these being related by (p) Gala. in areanis Cathol veritatis l. 10 v. 3. Galatinus I will close this passage with Melchisedech his offering of bread and Wyne in sacrifice and the prefiguration thereby of our Sacrifice of the New Testament Of this point Rabby Phinees thus sayth Jn (q) Phinees in cap. 28. Numer the tyme of the Messias all Sacrifice shall cease but the Sacrifice of bread and Wyne shall not cease c. as it is said Psalm 100. Thou art a Priest for euer according to the Order of Melchisedech Rabby (r) Hasardan in Bereschit Rabbi ad cap. 14. Gen. Hasardan Rabby (s) Samuel in Bereschit Rabbi ad cap. 14. Genes Samuel say the like of Melchisedech his offering vp of bread and wyne in figure of the Sacrifice now in the tyme of the New Testament a point so euident that (t) Bibliander de SS Trinitote l. 2. pag. 89. Bibliander the remarkable Protestant doth not doubt to confesse the same of the old Jewish Rabins Thus far of the doctrines of the ancient Iewes before Christ his Incarnation which doctrines we Catholiks at this day hold All which doctrines are meerely Dogmaticall points without any Type or reference to Christ his comming that only of Melchisedech excepted and therefore it cannot be answered that the said doctrines should now cease vpon our Sauiours comming in flesh into the world as some ignorant men would suggest but it must needs be that the said Doctrines if they were true then they must be also true now By which so many foresaid Examples of our Catholike fayth thus affirmed by the ancient Iewes it is made most certaine that our Religion â—s not New or lately inuented but most ancient and vndoubtedly Apostolike Animaduersion LXXXXIX IT is a most impudent assertion of D. Field who thus writeth We (*) D. Fâ—â—ld in his Book of the Church l. 3. c 8. p. 76. firmely belieue that all the Churches of the world wherein our Fathers liued and dyed to haue beene the true Protestant Churches of God c. and that they which taught imbraced and belieued those damnable Errours which the Romanist do defend against vs were only a faction But see now this most vast Lye is controuled First then D. Iewell thus acknowledgeth The (u) Iewel in his Apology of the Church part 4. c. 4. Truth was vnknowne at that tyme and vnheard of when Martin Luther and Hulderick Swinglius first came vnto the knowledg and preaching of the Gospel And therefore (x) Buâ—ter in Ep. anno 36. ad Episc Hereford Bucer stileth Luther The first Apostle to vs of the reformed Doctrine And Schlusselburg the great Protestant thus contesteth the same Jt (y) In Theolog. Calu. l. 2. fol. 130. is impudency to affirme that many leâ—ned men in Germany before Luther did hold tâ—â— Doctrine of the Gospell Yea Luther himselfe thus vaunteth of himself Christum (z) Luther Ep. ad Argentinens à nobis primo vulgatum audemus gloriari And truly the force of reason assureth vs that there were no Protestants at or immediatly before the breaking out of Luther For if any were why did they lye hid and vnknowne at Luthers Rising No other pretext can be alledged but feare of persecution But this cannot be alledged For the Protestants if any then were might securely step out and ioyne themselues with Luther considering that then diuers Magistrats and Commonwealths had openly vndertaken the Patronage of Luthers Doctrine and Religion Animaduersion C. IN all points of faith the Authority of the Priuate Spirit is to be contemned as begetting nothing but Noueltyes and Innouation And let ech good Catholike anchor his iudgement vpon the authority of Christs visible Church and the chiefe Head therof assuring himselfe that although Simon the fisher was not able to determine Matters of fayth yet that Simon Peter and his Successours assisted with competency of meanes haue euer an impeacheable Soueraignty granted to them and a delegated authority from Christ himselfe for the absolute discussing and deciding of all Controuersyes in Religion Tu (a) Math. 16. es Petrus super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam portae Jnferi non praeualabunt aduersus eum And truly if the visible Church of Christ and the Supreme Iudge therof could err in matter of fayth how could God be excused from Cruelty by threatning to all Men eternall Perdition if we be not obedient to the Church of God Dic (b) Math 18. Ecclesiae si Ecclesiam non audierit sit sicut Ethnicus Publicanus Furthermore as the Apostle saith (*) Hebr. 8. Our Testament is established in better Promisses c. meaning then the Testament of the Jewes But if it was said in the tyme of the Old Law that he who (c) Deuteron 17. presumptuously refuseth to obey the CommandemeÌ„t of
Damnatioâ— And D. Whitaker thus auerreth It (h) Controuers 2. q. 5. cap. 9. is false that Hereticall and Schismaticall Churches are true Churches Thus far of our Aduersaries excluding Papists Anabaptists Arians Heretikes and Schismatiks from the Protestant Church and not acknowledging them to be members thereof nor their Doctrines Protestancy Now we will obserue what change and mutability of iudgment herein our Aduersaries shew at other tymes in willingly embracing all these former sort of men and some others also as good Protestants and in state of Saluation And first of the Papists Luther sayth In (i) In Ep. contra Anabapt the Popery there is true Christianity yea the Kernell of Christianity many pious great Saincts M. Hooker (k) L. Eccles Pol. 3. c. 1â—8 we gladly acknowledg them of Rome to be of the family of Iesus Christ and M. Bunny we (l) In his Treatise of pacification sect 18. are no seuerall Church from the Papists nor they from vs. The Anabaptists are admitted for good Protestants by Oecolampadius saying (m) L. 2. Ep. p. 63. Baptisme is an externall thing which by Law of Charity may be dispensed with And D. (n) In his answere to the Protest Apol. l. 4 cap. 3. sect 10. Morton we Protestants iudge the state of the Anabaptists not to be vtterly desperate The Arians are acknowledged by M. Morton to be of the same Church of which the Protestants are and he giueth his reason in these words Because (o) In his booke of the kingdom of Isâ—ael and the Church pag. â—4 the Arians hould the foundation of the Gospell And M. Hooker seemeth to intimate the same in these words The (p) Eccles Pol. lib. 4 p. 181. Arians in the reformed Churches of Poland c. hereby insinuating that those Protestant Churches of Poland did acknowledg the Arians to be members of their Church Of Idolaters M. Hooker thus fauorably writeth Christians (q) Eccles Pol. l. 3 pag. 1â—0 by externall profession they are all whose marke of recognizance hath in it those things which we haue mentioned yea although they be impious Idolaters wicked Hâ—tikes c. Infideâ—ls are also in our Aduersaâ—â—â— iudgments mâ—mbers of a sauing Churchâ— fayth for thus writeth Swinglius Ethâ—â—â— (r) Swingl Ep Oecolam l. 1. p 39 si piam mentem domi fouerit Christianus 〈◊〉 etiamsi hristum ignoret And hereupon Sâ—â—glius concluâ—eth that (s) Swingâ— tom 2. fol. 118. 559. Hercules Socrates â—ristides are now in Heauen as is in anothâ—â— place shewed Finally the Protestants are 〈◊〉 courteous as that they are content to â—â—corporate Antichrist within their Church 〈◊〉 state of Saluation This I thus proue I◠〈◊〉 ouermuch knowne and diuulged that mâ—ny Protestants do teach with full moutâ— that the Pope is Antichrist Now then let 〈◊〉 see how at other times they write of hiâ— whom they hould to be Antichrist and 〈◊〉 Religion Antichristianity Here then we fâ—â—â— D. Whitaker thus to acknowledg I will (t) D White in his answere to the first Demonstration of D. Sanders not say that from the tyme that Papistry begâ—â— to be Antichristianity the Popes themseâ—â—â— haue beene all damned And yet D. Whitaker 〈◊〉 where confidently auerreth the Pope to be Antichrist In like sort M. Powell hath the like sentence saying I will (u) In his answere to the last Demonstration of D. Sanders in no wise say that all the Popes from the tyme that papistry was first reuealed to be Antichristianity aâ—â— damned Thus much of this point whereby we may discerne the wounderfull and vnheard mutability of our Aduersaries Iudgments touching who are Protestants and Professours of that Church wherein a man may be saued A demonstration vnansâ—erabâ—e â—â—le and irrepliable to proue that the Proâ—â—â—â—ant Church and fayth such as these forâ—â—r men do restrayne or enlarge it is 〈◊〉 capable of Saluation And how then can Christian know if he will rely vpon the â—â—gments of Protestants herein to what 〈◊〉 of Protestants or within what Church 〈◊〉 may range himself for the Saluation of 〈◊〉 Soule Animaduersion LXXXXVIII â—N that there are many Catholike Articles the which the Iewes before the comâ—ing of Christ did belieue therefore it folâ—â—weth euidently that the said Articles canâ—ot be reputed to be Innouations or lately â—â—uented Doctrines but as ancient as the â—ymes before our Sauiours Incarnation I â—ill exemplify in some The Booke Eccleâ—â—asticus admit for the tyme it be not Scripture speaketh directly of our Sauiours â—â—scending into Hell in those words where it â—s said in his person I (x Eccles 24. will pierce through â—â—e sower parts of the Earth J will looke vpon all such as be a sleepe and will lighten all them that â—â—ust in the Lord A saying so pertinent for proofe of Limbus Patrum that D. Whitaker (y) Contra Duraeum l. 8 pag. 5â—7 acknowledging the true sense thereof auoydeth it by saying the Booke is not Canonicall which at this present is impertiâ—ent since here I seeke only to proue the â—â—uth of diuers of our Catholike points as being belieued by the Ancient Iewes before our Sauiours tyme in their writings whether Canonicall or not Canonicall Touching Prayer for the Dead It is warranted by the example of Iudas (z) Machab 2. Machabaeus the true seruant of God as also is taught by Rabbi Simeon who liued before Christ and diuers other ancient Rabbyes Rabbi Simeon thus writing of such as are temporally punished after this life After (a) In lib. Zoar. in cap 13. Genesis they are purged from the filth of their sinnes then doth God cause them to ascend out of that place Touching Gods Induration or hardning of Pharaos hart the Iewish Rabins so conspire in affirming with vs the same to be by Gods permission only and not by his working that Peter (b) Peter Martyr in Epist. ad Roman c. 9. Martyr and Munster (c) Munster in Annot. in Exod. c. 7. do accordingly acknowledg this Exposition Concerning Freewill that place in Eccâ—esiasticus (d) Ecclesiast 1â— to wit Say not thou he hath câ—â—sed me to erre Yf thou wilt thou shalt obserue the Commandements He hath set water and fyre before thee stretch out thy hand to which thou wilt Before man is life and death Good Euâ—â—â— what lyketh him shal be giuen him This testimony I say is so euident for Freewill that D. Whitaker in answere thereto reiecteth the authority saying De loco (e) In resp ad ras Camp rat 1 p. 25. Ecclesiasticiparùm laboro c. J make small account of Ecclesiasticus Philo the learned Iew who liued in Christ his tyme thus writeth Man (f) Philo in lib. quod Deus fit immutabelis hath Freewill to which purpose is extant the Oracle in Deuteronomy I haue placed before thee Lyfe and Death Good and Euill chuse Lyfe Concerning Angells Saints the Booke of Tobias written before Christ is so playne (g) Tob.
exhort the Reader to the perusing of the foresaid Booke Animaduersion CLXI GRammaticall and literall construction of the words of Scripture is euer houlden the best and securest euen in the iudgment of our learned Aduersaries for thus D. Whitaker writes of this point Qui (58) Whitak de sacra scriptura coÌ„tra Bellarm controu 1. q. 4 pa. 381. potest Grammaticum sensum Scripturae vbique assequi is optimè proculdubio Scripturas explanabit atque interpretabitur And Melancthon accordeth thereunto saying (59) Melancth l. 1. Epist. Iusto Ionae pag. 455. Multas magnat res antea inuolutas Syntaxis profert expouit The syntax doth explayne many things afore inuolued with difficulties Lastly to omit others (60) Zanchius de sacra scriptura p. 388. Zanchius the great Protestant much relyeth vpon the Grammaticall and Literall sense of the Scripture Now this principle and ground being granted as in reason it ought to be how great is our Aduantage herein against our Aduersaries who reiecting the Grammaticall and literall Sense of the passages of Scripture by vs insisted vpon do euer seeke to interpret them figuratiuely or allegorically For Example we rest in the Grammaticall sense and construction of that passage This is (61) Mat. 16. my body c. This is my bloud c. In like sort for the Primacy of Peter we vrge the literall sense of that passage Thou (62) Mat. 16. art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not preuaile against it Also for remission of Sinnes by man Whose sinnes (63) Ioan. 20. you shall forgiue they are forgiuen them and whose sinnes you shall retayne they are retayned And more touching works Do you not see that (64) Luc. 3. man is iustifyed by Works and not by fayth only Finally to omit infinit other testimonies that perspicuous place for remitting of Originall sinne by Baptisme Except a man (65) Ioan. 3. be borne againe of Water and the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heauen In all which places we do vrge the Grammaticall playne and literall sense whereas our Aduersaries seeke to expound all the said diuine Authorities by figures and Tropes Add hereto that the Protestants in their vrging of Scripture against vs do for the most part alledge it not in its literall or immediat Grammaticall sense but in some secondary sense seconded by Inferences and deductions at most but probable though often absurd and false Animaduersion CLXII THe prayses giuen to S. Austin by the Protestants are most great For first Luther thus speaketh of him Since (66) Luther in tom 7. wittenb fol. 405. the Apostles tymes the Church neuer had a better Doctour then S. Austin And againe After the (67) Luth loc com class p. 45. sacred Scriptures there is no Doctour in the Church who is to be compared to Austin D. Fyeld thus extolleth him Austin the (68) Of the Church l. 3 fol. 170. greatest of all the Fathers and worthiest Deuine the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times D. Couell Austin (69) D. Couell in his answere to Iohn Burges p. 3. was a man far beyond all that euer went before him or shall in likâ—lyhood follow after him both for Diuine and humane learning M. Forrester a Protestant styleth Austin That (70) â—orrester in Monas Tessagraphica c 〈◊〉 proaemio par 3. Monarch of the Fathers S. Austin Gomarus another Protestant thus celebrateth S. Austin (71) Gomarus in his spec verae Ecclesia p. 96. Austin of all the Fathers is houlden most pure in thâ— opinion of all Finally Caluin thus writeth Austin (72) Calu. Instâ—â— l. 3 cap. 3. sect 10. only is sufficient to shew the iudgment of the ancient Church Now in this next place let vs take a view of what Religion S. Austin was I meanâ— whether a Papist as we are termed or a Protestant and this euen from the writingâ— and Confessions of the Protestants themselues And first in proofe that Gods foreknowledge doth not necessitate or restrayne the 〈◊〉 in her actions contrary to the Iudgâ—ent of most Protestants Saint Austin is so â—â—ll therein that Polanus (73) Pol. in his Symphonia c. 2. p. 114. the Proteâ—â—ant alledgeth seueral authorities out of Austin in defence thereof 2. Touching the induration of Pharoes hart â—y God S. Austin teacheth that this was â—nly through Permission and not through â—y Positiue actuall working of God and â—â—erefore this Father is reprehended by Calâ—â—s saying (74) Caluin Inst. l. 2. c. 4. sect 3. Austin was not free from that â—â—erstition where he sayth that Induration â—iâ—â—ration pertaine not to the working of God â—â—to his foreknowledg â— S. Austin is so expresse and euident that Gods Commandements are not impossible that â—elancthon forbeareth not to confesse and â—prehend to vse his owne words Imagiâ—â—tionem (75) Melancthon l. 1. Ep. p. 290. Augustini de impletione legis 4. S. Austin taught that Christ from his â—atiuity was free from Ignorance This is â—â—nfessed by Danaeus the great Protestant 〈◊〉 these words (76) Danaeus respons ad Bellarm. ad 2. Controu c. 1. p. 145. Austin l. 2. c. 29. de pec 〈◊〉 denyeth Christ to haue taken Childrens inâ—â—nities and ignorance which to be false with â—â—ue of so great a man J haue shewed before 5. That Christ after his Death descended inâ— Hell Doctour (77) Bilson in his Suruey of Christs suffering pag. 616. 598. 599. Bilson produceth teâ—â—monies out of S. Austin in proofe thereof 6. That Christ penetrated the Dores when 〈◊〉 came to his disciples so as his body at â—ut tyme was without all circumscription (78) RuÌ„gius in disput 11 ex Epist. ad Cor. 1. fol. 83. Rungius the Protestant affirmeth it to be the doctrine of S. Austin 7. That the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumpted vp into Heauen according to the iudgment of Austin is confessed by the Centurists who professing to set downe a Catalogue of Bookes written by S. Austin do number and place among his other Bookes (79) Centur 5. c. 10. col 1122. one booke thus entituled De Assumptione Viâ—ginis Mariae l. 1. 8. In like sort the Centurists do alledge confesse out of S. Austin touching the Blessed Virgin being free from Originall sinne in this manner As (80) Centur 5. c. 4. col 499. touching Originall sinne forasmuch as concerneth Mary Austin writeth Excepting the holy Virgin Mary of whom in honour of our Lord when we treat of sinnes J will haue no question at all c. This therefore Virgin Mary excepted c. Thus much do the Centurists alledge out of S. Austin 9. That Austin taught that the Blessed Virgin vowed Chastity is confessed by D. Fulke who most scornfully chargeth S. Austin therein with a Non (81) Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Luc c 1. sequitur saying although S. Austin gathered she vowed
good prayers is so vehemâ—â—â—â—â—d vnaffected as that I earnestly beseech you euen 〈◊〉 the most precious Passion of our Lord and â—auiour suffered for the cancelling of our sinnes by â—ur owne charitable Disposition towards others for â—resume those words of the Apostle to be imprinted 〈◊〉 your soules (a) Rom. 5. Charitas Dei diffusa est in â—â—ordibus vestris Finally by what is most sacred and holy that yoâ— would vouchsafe now and then your particular remembrance of me either yet aliue or hereafter dead in that your most retired and Religious Memento vsed in the celebration of the most Blessed and Reuerend Sacrifice of the Masse for the expiating of my manyfold sinnes This I humbly beseech this in all prostration of soule I implore and begge aâ— your hands and in such your performance ech of yoâ— iustly may comfort your selues in those words of ouâ— Sauiour Beati (b) Matt. 5. misericordes quoniam ipsi misericordiam consequentur And thus in thâ— good hope thereof I cease referring you to the perusall of the Treatise it selfe Yours in our Lord Iesus N. N. P. MISCELLANIA Contayning certaine Controuersiall Animaduersions Animaduersion I. I WILL begin with the approuall or reiecting what is or hath beene accounted the Scripture or the written Word of God which point concernes the Bookes of Ecclesiasticus Toby Judith Hester Machabees c. Where we are to vnderstand that the Canonicall Scriptures are to vs at this day discerned and made knowne not by that which either the Iewes for a time or certaine Fathers do omit deny or doubt of in their Canon of Scripture but by that which many Fathers do constantly affirme Since otherwise and vpon the conâ—rary ground we might deny with the Lutherans the Epistle of Iames Iude the second of Peter the 2. and 3. of Iohn the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalyps seeing all these bookes (a) Ofiand in Epic. Cent. 4. p. 299. are denied by the Lutherans Now the reason of this Thesis or Proposition is because in the Primitiue Church the Canonicall Scriptures were not generally all at once receaued but in so great a variety of pretended Scriptures great care and search was requisite wherby to determine which Scriptures were Canonicall which not wherby it came to passe that sundry bookes were for the tyme misdoubted oâ— by some Fathers or Councells omitted oâ— not receaued which yet afterwards were vpon greater search and consideration generally acknowledged And according herto D. Bilson Bishop (b) In his suruey of â—hrists suffering printed 1604. pag. 664. of Winchester thus truly sayth The Scriptures were not receaued in all places at once no not in Eusebius his â—yme Animaduersion II. D. Whitakers (c) In his answ to M. Reynolds â—efut p. 2â— 23. and other of our Aduersaries do reiect the former bookes of the Old TestameÌ„t to wit Ecclesiasticus Toby c. because they were not first written in Hebrew and in that they had not for their knowne Authours those whom God had declared to be his Prophets This Argument is weake For it is a rash assertion so to measure the Scriptures by the tongue wherein they are written as to restrayne the Spirit of God to one only language The â—anity of which said assertion is sufficiently disproued by Example of Daniel a great part whereof to wit from cap. 2. vers 4. vâ—que ad â—â—em cap. 7. though not written in Hebrew is yet by our Aduersaries acknowledged for Canonicall And touching the second point of this Argument it cannot be proued that God would direct by his holy Spirit no Authors in their Writings but such as were knowne and also further declared by certaine testimonies to be Prophets For our Aduersaries cannot yet tell who writ the seuerall bookes of Judges the third and fourth of the Kings the two of Chronicles the booke of Ruth and Iob all which bookes neuerthelesse they admit for true and Canonicall Scripture And hereupon it is that D. Whitakers though crossing his former assertion thus writeth (d) L. de sacra Script â—ag 603. Multorum librorum authores ignorantur c. The authors of many bookes of Scripture are vnknowne as of Iosue Ruth Paralipomenon Hester c. Thus he To whose iudgment D. Willet subscribeth saying We (e) In his Synops p. 4. receaue many bokes in the Old Testament the Authours whereof are not perfectly knowne Animaduersion III. AGainst the writings of the Ancient Fathers the Protestants pretend seuerall difficultyes For example D. (f) Contra Duraeum l. 5. p. 300. Kâ—mpu in his Exam. part 1. p. â—4 Whitakers and others obiect against the Epistles of Ignatius that (g) Dial. â— Theodoreâ— and (h) Dial. 3. contra Pâ—lag Ierome do alledge certaine testimonies from Ignatius his Epistle ad Smirnenses which are not found in that or any other of Ignatius his Epistles Wherto I answere First that the Auncient (i) By Austin in Psalm 95. by Tertull. lib. adu Iudaeos versus finem By Iustin in Triphon circa medium Fathers haue in like maner cited this sentence reguauit a ligno Deus as the saying of Dauid in his Psalms which yet is at this day wanting in them And in like manner some Sentences are alledged from Tully and Plato and the same are not to be found in their wrytings now extant Therfore this former Obiection only argueth that certaine parts of Ignatius his Epistles may be lost but maketh nothing against those now remaining In like sort our Aduersaryes do reiect as counterfeyte the writings of Dionysius Arcopagita as confessed to make for our Catholike Doctrine their chiefe argument is in that these his writings are neuer mentioned by Eusebius and Ierome To this may be answered that (k) Euseb hist l. 5. c. 29. Ierom. in Catal. prope init Eusebius Ierome do confesse that there are many bookes and Authors which neuer came to their knowledge A thing not vnlike if we but remember as incident to those precedent tymes the knowne want of printing and great difficulty of Manuscripts through the violent persecutions which then raigned Finally touching the Lyturgies of Chrysostome they vrge it making altogether for seuerall poynts of our Catholike and Roman fayth that as M. Jewell obiecteth (l) Iewell in his repâ—y pag. 10. Chrysostomes Masse prayeth for Pope Nicolas who was Pope seuerall huÌ„dred yeres after Chrysostome that also it prayeth for the Emperour Alexius who liued in like manner many ages after Chrysostome These are but friuolous Cauils For in all ould Lyturgies or Bookes of CoÌ„mon prayer prayer is specially appointed to be made for Princes and Bishops for the names of whom are certayne places reserued which are subiect to alteration according to the change of succeeding tymes and persons The lyke course wherof for Princes we may discerne in the English Communion Booke composed in K. Edwards tyme where according to the change of succeeding gouerment are inserted the names of Queene Elizabeth
in some Copyes and of King James in other Copyes and yet both of them reigned long after K. Edward Animaduersion IV. WE ought not to reiect the Authority of ancient approued Authors because there appeare some seeming repugnances in their wrytings For vpon this ground an vnbelieuing Atheist might bring the Holy Scriptures into question For example in Matth. 27. words are alledged vnder the name of Jeremy which are not found in Ieremy but in Zachary c. 11. In like sort in Mark our Sauiour is sayd to be crucifyed in the third hower whereas in Iohn 19. we read that Pilate sate in iudgement vpoÌ„ him about the sixt hower Therefore whereas our Aduersaryes vpon the former ground of incertainty of Mens writings do in like sort seek to impugne S. Peters being at Rome because diuers Historiographers do not agree of the time of his coÌ„ming to Rome his stay there we must content our selues in sobriety with acknowledging that receaued Axiome amoÌ„g the learned That is Saepâ— constat de re quando non constat de modo rei Since otherwise we shold not acknowledge that Hester had any husband or that at any tyme Iudith did liue For the opinions of the Iewes are various both touching the persons and the time herein yet we all acknowledge that Hester had a husband that there was such a woman as Iudith The like vncertainty of the tymes wherein actions were performed though the thing it selfe be most certaine is made euident euen from our owne Cronicles for example touching King Iohn his death whereof see the seuerall opinions in Holinshead in his last Edition 3. volume pag. 1â—4 Animaduersion V. IT is worthy consideration to obserue First how the Protestants in seuerall points make the same Arguments against some articles of our Religion which the Iewes were accustomed to make against the same Secondly how the Protestants somtimes vse the same answers to our Arguments which the Jewes did For example touching the Reall Presence and our receauing of Christs body in the Sacrament the Protestants chiefe Argument is taken from the impossibility therof to wit that God cannot performe all those points aboue nature which are found therein And is not this obiection borrowed from the Jewes against Christ giuing his body to eate in these wordes Quomodo (m) Iohn 6. potest hic nobis carnem suam dare ad manducandum Againe The Puritans especially condemne the confession of Sinnes to Man vpon this ground that only God can remit sinne And do they not compart with the Iewes herein demanding Quis (n) Marc. 1. potest dimittere peccata nisi solus Deus And where it is vulgarly obiected by the ignorant that man cannot remember all his sinnes to man therfore his Confession of them is imperfect and maymed I say by this reason we should not coÌ„fesse them to God since we cannot number them to God no more then to man Now to shew how our Aduersaries in like manner borrow from the Iewes their Answers to our Catholike Arguments one instance in place of many shall serue We Catholikes in proofe of our Religion do vrge one chiefe Argument drawne from Miracles exhibited by God in warrant of the same All which testimonies taken from the patration of infinite Miracles recorded by both Ancient and Moderne Authours our Aduersaries do euade by stiling them Antichristian (o) Ofiand cens 10.11 1â— Cent. 4. col 1445. Cent. 5. col 1486. wonders and lying signes and as wrought by the assistance of the Diuell how conspiring is this answere wâ—â— the Answere of the Iewes against the Miâ—cles of Christ Hie (p) Mat. 11. non eijcit Daemonia 〈◊〉 in Beelzebub Principe Daemoniorum Animaduersion VI. AS here aboue we haue shewed how oâ— Aduersaries conspire with the Ieweâ— both in obiecting and answering so I hoâ— it will not be impertinent to discouer in lyne or two how that the Protestants 〈◊〉 agree with the Ancient and condemnâ— Heretiks in obiecting the arguments agaiâ— vs obiected long since by the said Heretiks in impugning our said Catholiâ— points as also how our Aduersaries do coâ—sociate with the very Gentills or Heathenâ— â—gainst the Catholiks yea against our belieâ—â— in Christ. For touching the first we 〈◊〉 find that place to be obiected by Fauâ—â—â— the old Heretike against Abstinence aâ—â— single life and so recorded by Austin In (q) Austin l. 30. c. 4. contra Faust Manich. the later dayes (r) 1. Ti. c. 4. there shall come some forbâ—ding to Marry and to abstaine from certaiâ— Meates A passage of Scripture wherein tâ— Protestants chiefly insist against single lâ—â— and Abstiâ—ence Againe to omit many â—ther such like instances Iustinus (s) Iust Dial. cum Triphon Euseb l. hist 5. c. 1. Marâ—â— recordeth that the Heretikes of his day did as in respect of the Sacrament charâ—â— the true Christians with the grosse and câ—â—nall eating of human flesh with which veâ—â— point the Protestants do at this present 〈◊〉 â—â—aid vs Catholikes Now concerning the Heathens it is cleare that the Heathens and â—ur Aduersaries do mutually agree in denying many points maintained and affirmed by the Catholike Roman Church For both the Heathens and the Protestants do promiscuously deny Freewill Purgatory Jnuocation of Saints vniuersality of Grace Euangelicall Counsells Merit of workes Sacrifice of the Masse and many other Catholike and â—ffirmatiue articles taught by the present Church of Rome But to come to the Seâ—ond point to wit the deniall of the necessity of Christian Religion do we not find Swinglius himself thus to geÌ„tilize with the Heathens Ethnicus (t) Zuin. in Epist. Zuingliâ— Oecolamp l. 1. pag. 30. si piam mentem domi foueat Christianus est etiamsi Christum ignoret and hereupon Zwinglius particularly auerreth that (u) Zuin glâ—tom 1. in exposit fideâ— Christ fol. 150. Hercules Theseus Socrates Aristides all Heathens are now in Heauen which said Blasphemy is in like sort taught by (x) Gualter in Apol pro Zuing. Gualter (y) â—ullinger as is reâ—orded by Simlerus a Protestant in vita Bullingeri Bullinger and other Protestants Thus farre for this present of the strict association and commerce of the Protestants with the Iewes the ancient stigmatized Heretikes and the Heathens or Pagans touching matter of Religion Animaduersion VII THe doctrine of the Reall Presence to the mouth of Fayth is maintained against â—he Puritans by Doctor Whitaker (z) D. Whiâ—ak contra Duraum pag. 168. Bucer in Script Angl. p. 548. c. and diâ—ers other learned Protestants all which men do hould our Catholike Doctrine far more probable then the doctrine of the others who only acknowledge a typicall presence of Christ in the Sacrament Againe many moderate and learned Protestants (a) In his booke of Eccles policy pag. 188. D. Couâ—â— in his defence of â—â—â—er p. 77. do teach the Church of Rome to be the true Church of God and that men dying in
Caluin with an accustomed sl ight in this manner When Caluin vndertaketh to answere many texts of Scripture vrged in proofe of some Catholike Article or point Caluin begins to answere two or three of such texts as may seeme in an ignorant eye to be best capabâ—e of some shew of answere and for the other passages of Scripture which are most conuincing for the point vrged in which we Catholikes chiefly insist and wherunto Caluin cannot pretend any answere he passeth them ouer commonly in these words The chiefest passages J haue â—wered as for the other texts of Scripture wrâ—â— by the Papists to the same end they are so imâ—â—tinently alledged as that it were but tyme loâ—â— answere them therfore I passe them ouer as 〈◊〉 worthy of answere Here is Serpentiue craft 〈◊〉 the Card. calls it For Caluin thought it bâ—â—ter policy not to conceale the chiefe 〈◊〉 by vs vrged for that might argue a guâ—nes in Caluin but to take particular noâ— of them and so by slâ—ighting the force all such passages to make the ignorant â—â—der bâ—lieue that they nothing conduce the Catholike point for which they pretended Dolus an virtus quis in hoste quirat Animaduersion XIII THe Protestants do set downe the 〈◊〉 preaching of the Word and the true Aâ—â—â—nistration of the Sacraments to be the Maâ—â— of the Church The reason of this thâ— proceeding is double First herby to reâ—â— the Cathoâ—ikes Notes of the Church 〈◊〉 meane Antiquity Visibility Succession Vâ— c. seeing they are not able to iustâ— these Notes in their owne Church Sâ—coÌ„dly because by erecting their owne Notâ— of preaching the Word and administring 〈◊〉 Sacraments they reduce to their owne Ceâ—sure only reiecting all other Authorities which is the true Church For they will acknowledge the word to be truly preached at the Sacraments rightly administred onâ— such places and after such manner and â—els where or otherwise as themselues 〈◊〉 to thinke and determine And yet by their proceeding they are mightily â—â—nded And here I will briefly recur to â—t D. Whitaker sayth of these Notes These (q) Whitak contia CaÌ„p rat 3. Notes being present do constitute a Church â—eing absent do subuert it Now the Proteâ—ants during many Centuries haue wanted â—hese Notes therefore during all that time 〈◊〉 Church hath beene wholy extinct and â—nihilated That the Protestant Church â—uring many ages hath beene depriued of â—hese Notes I meane of preaching the word â—nd administring the Sacraments is euicted â—ut of the confessed Inuisibility of the Proâ—estant Church for many Ages for thus acâ—ordingly Sebastianus (r) Eâ— de abrogand in vniuersum omnibus statut Ecclesiast Francus a great â—rotestant writeth For certaine through the â—â—orke of Antichrist the externall Church togeâ—her with the fayth and Sacrament vanished aâ—ay presently after the Apostles With whom â—greeth Caluin thus acknowledging Factum (s) Inst 4. c. 1. sect 11. est vt per aliquot secula c. It was brought â—o passe that the true preaching of the word of â—od did vanish away for the space of certaine â—ges Animaduersion XIV A Weake and confused Iudgment may suggest or conceaue difficulties but it is a cleare â—dgment that must resolue them The reason of the disparity herein is this To 〈◊〉 one thing for another or to erre in the pâ—â—per nature essence of things is the soâ— of doubts and questions but to be able range and marshall together things of 〈◊〉 nature and to deuide and seuer things sunder which carry a great likenes oneâ— another for such resemblance of particâ—lars euer begets mistaking as also to knâ— what essentially is agreeing to the naâ—â— of any thing and what but accidentally companieth the same is a worke of the lâ—dicious This I write that vnlearned 〈◊〉 may learne Humility in beliefe and 〈◊〉 seeke to apprehend with their weake iuâ—ments the high Misteries of Christian Râ—gion especially the Articles of the B. â—râ—â—â— the Jncarnation and of the Reall presence Christs body in the holy Eucharist Animaduersion XV. IT sometymes may fall out that the 〈◊〉 Inuentour of a false Opinion may be 〈◊〉 Heretike as mantayning it before it be câ—demned by the Church whereas the Professours of it after its condemnation bâ—come Heretikes according to that sentenâ— of Vincentius (t) L. de Haeresib Lyrinensis O admiraâ— change of things The Authours of one and 〈◊〉 same Opinion are esteemed Catholikes the followers Heretikes Thus we see that it is coâ—tumacy against the Definitions and Decree of the Church of Christ which consummate an Heresy Animaduersion XVI WE are to call to mind that the Ceremonyes in the celebration of the Masse were successiuely and at seuerall times added and first brought in by seuerall Popes And accordingly we fynd that the (u) The Relicks of Rome or the Anatomy of the Masse by â—ntony de Adaâ—o prinâ—ed 1â—56 Hospinâ—â—n Histor Saâ—â—amâ—nt â— â— c. 4. 5. 6. 7. Aduersaryes of the Church of Rome as willing to discouer our Innouations though in the smallest Matters and but in points of Indifferency haue most dilligently and painefully recorded them in their seuerall bookes written of this very subiect with all due circumstances both of the Popes introducing them and the tymes wherein they were introduced Here now I vrge if the Enemyes of the present Church of Rome weâ—e thus diligent and solicitous in noting the begining of ech Ceremony of the Masse all such Ceremonyes being meerely accidentall to the Masse and without which it may as truly and effectually be celebrated as with them If they I say could haue discouered any Innouation in the maine doctrine of the Masse as the doctrine of the Reall Presence the Sacrifice of Christs Body there offered vp c. would they haue beene silent therin Or rather would they not haue loaded their Bookes with relation of all such Innouations they consisting not in small Ceremonies but in most sublime and high points of Christian Religion Animaduersion XVII THe Protestants are so various or rathâ— contrary in their Positions writings as that a man may borrow from their â—â—uerall Confessions both the propositions 〈◊〉 premises out of which the Conclusion shâ— rise wholy making agâ—inst their Religion For example D. Humfrey thus wryteth (x) D. Humfâ— Iâ— sâ—â—s in part 2. c. 3. Oportet Ecclesiam esse Conspicuam Concluâ— est Clarissima Jt is an euident Conclusion thâ— the Church of God ought to be conspicuous 〈◊〉 visible And M. Hooker God hath and caâ— shall haue some visible Church vpon the eartâ— But of the coÌ„fessed visibility of the Churcâ— of God more fully I will shew hereafteâ— Now touching the Inuisibility of the Protestants Church we reade M. Napper thâ— to confesse (y) V. pâ—â— the Reueâ—â—t in c 11 12. God hath with drawne his vâ—sible Church from opâ—n assemblies to the hartâ—â— particular godly men And D. Fulke confessetâ— thus (z) D. Fuâ—ke in his answer to a counterfeyt Cach p. 16. The
Church in the time of Boniface thâ— third which was anno 607. was inuisible fled into wildernes there to remaine a long season Now to reduce all these Confessionâ— into an Argument Thus then I dispute D. Humfrey M. Hooker and diuers others here omitted doe generally teach that the Church of Christ must necessarily euer be visible But D. Fulke M. Napper and many other Protestants for breuity here passed oue râ—â— ingenuously confesse that the Protestant Church hath for many ages beene wholy Inuisible Therfore euen in the Iudgement of the Protestants themselues the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ This kind of arguing in many other Questions may become familiar to him who is conuersant in the Proâ—estaÌ„ts bookes or in that Catholike Booke called The Protestants Apology wherein a man may see euen thousands of ProtestaÌ„ts Confessions against themselues Now to this I annex this following that wheras the Scripture teacheth the necessary visibility of the true Church of God as also wheras diuers learned ProtestaÌ„ts do truly acknowledge that the Protestant Church hath for many ages beene wholy inuisible Therefore diuers other learned ProtestaÌ„ts throgh their inueterate malice to our Catholike Religion and as confessing the predictions in Scripture of the euer visibility and enlargment of the true Church of God not to haue beene accomplished in the Protestants Church haue flatly renounced their Christianity charging Christ our Sauiour as a seducer themselues so becomming Iewes and Turks I will exemplify this point to omit some others in these men following all before their Apostacy most eminent Protestants First then Dauid (1) See the hiâ— ory of Dauid George printed at Antwerp 1568. published by the Deuines of Basill George once Professour at Basill became a blasphemous Apostata Ochinus (2) Of Ochinus his Apostâ—â—y Zanchius witnesseth in his booke de Tribus Elohim who with Peter Martyr first planced Protestancy in England in like sort denied Christ and taught circumcision as Zanchius the Protestant confesseth (3) Of Neuserus his Deniall of Christ Osiander the Protestant witnesseth Cent. 16. part 2. pag. 8â—8 Neuserus once Superintendent of Heidelburge turned Turk anâ— was circumcised at Constantinople as Osiander the Protestant affirmeth (4) Touching Alamannus see Beza in Eâ—ist 65. pag. 308. Alamaâ—nus a Swinglian and once deare to Beza became a Jew as Beza himselfe sayth Laeliâ— (5) The Bookes of Laelius Socinus against the Trinity are yet extant Socinus a scholar in the schoole of Geneua did write whole Bookes against the B. Trinity Finally to omit many other eminent Protestants Georgius (6) That Georgius Paulus denyed the Trinity with the Turks is witnessed by Stancarus the Protest lib. de Mediat fol. 38. Paule minister of Cracouia denied the Triniâ—â— with the Turks Thus of Instances for thâ— point Animaduersion XVIII A Man cannot auoide the force of the former kind of Dispute consisting 〈◊〉 the Confessions of the Protestants by replying that other learned Protestants dâ— maintayne the contrary in the same poinâ— to the Protestanâ—s aboue by me alledged This answere is most weake thâ— reason thereof being in that there is greaâ— disparity betweene learned Protestant confessing some points which do aduantagâ— the Catholike fayth and others thougâ— as learned Protestants maintaining thâ— contrary seeing the first sort of men speak against themselues and their cause who being iudicious and learned men would neuer do but as being conuinced with the Euidency of the truth therein Whereas theâ—â— second kind of men do not admit the confessions of their brethren but speake only in behalfe of their owne Religion and so such their denyalls are to be reputed more partiall And this Animaduersion is to be remembred in many other points confessed by some Protestants and denied by other Protestants Now of what force the Argument from the authority or confession of â—n Aduersary is appeareth both from the testimony of the ancient Fathers and the Protestants themselues First then Irenaeus thus writeth hereof Jt is (a) L. 4. c. 14. an vnanswerable proofe which bringeth attestation from the Aduersaries themselues with whom conspireth Nazianzene saying Jt (b) Orat. de S. Basil is the greatest cunning and wisdome of speech to bynd the Aduersary with his owne words Now touching the Protestants acknowledging the same we find Osiander the Protestant thus to write The (c) In Ep. Eucharist confession testimony of an Aduersary is of greatest authority And Peter Martyr Among (d) Loc. tit ce Iudaeis fol. 300. other testimonies that is of the greatest weight which is giuen by the Eneâ—ies Finally D. Whitaker The (e) Contra Bellar l. de Eccles controu 2. q 5. Argument â—ust needs be strong and efficacions which is â—â—ken from the Confession of the Aduersaries And I do freely acknowledg that truth it selfe is able to extort testimonies euen from its enemies Thus much hereof Therefore I here only conclude that as a testimony of a friend against a friend so of an Aduersary in behalfe of an Aduersary is of great force and most conuincing So certaine are those words of Tertullian (f) In Apolog. Magis fides prona est in aduersus semetipsos confitentes quam pro semetipsâ— negantes Animaduersion XIX THere is great difference to be made betweene ProtestaÌ„ts speaking against themselues and yet belieuing the Protestant doctrine and Conclusion touching some circumstances wherof the Confessions are betweene some others who afore were Catholiks and after do defend some one or other point of Protestancy Since their later men do not speake against themselues but in defence of some such Protestant doctrine then newly entertained by them and consequently in defence of their ownâ— opinions And therfore such their authorities are not to ballance equally with the Confessions of the former Protestants Thâ—â— Animaduersion is giuen with reference to Erasmus Cassander Cornelius Agrippa Polideâ—Virgill Nilus and some others euery onâ— of which imbraced some one Protestanâ— Tenet or other though diuers of them after recoÌ„ciled themselues before their deatâ— to the Catholike Church by abandoninâ— their former receaued Innouations Animaduersion XX. CHoose rather to dispute with a Protestant touching matter of Fact in whicâ— may be proued the falshood of the Protestant Religion then touching any Dogmaticall point of fayth or Doctrine as receauing its proofe from the Scripture This I speake not but that the Scripture maketh most clearely for the Catholiks against the Protestants but because your Aduersary in dispute will euer cauill at your exposition of Scripture reducing it in the end against all Antiquity of the Fathers and tradition of the Church to the interpretation of his owne priuate and reuealing Spirit Now in matter of fact your Aduersary is forced to stand to the Authorities deduced from Ecclesiasticall History and other humane proofes And therefore he must either shape a probable if not a sufficient answere to them which he cannot do they wholy making against him euen
by his owne learned Brethrens Confessions or else he must rest silent And this is the reason why the Protestants are so loath to dispute of the Church Since this Question compreheÌ„deth in it selfe diuers points of fact as of its continuall Visibility Antiquity Succession Ordination and Mission of Pastours c. All which Questions receaue their proofes from particular Instances warranted from History by shewing the particular Tymes Persons and other circumstances concerning matter of Fact Animaduersion XXI WE Catholikes charge the Protestants with a vicious Circle of dispute between the Scripture and the spirit and in requitall hereof the Protestants do reciprocally insimulate vs Catholiks within the said vicious circular argumentation betweene the Scripture and the Church Now let vs see whether of vs stand truly chargeable herewith That the Catholikes are free from this kind of arguing I thus proue The Catholikes touching the Scripture and the Church do euer make their proofes in seuerall kinds of Causes and by a partiall manner of proofe and therby do still proue one thing by another more knowne to those persons to whom it is to be proued The actuall assent and beliefe it selfe is wrought wherby we infallibly belieue the Mysteries reuealed though we belieue the verity of the Scriptures reuelation by the authority of the Church propounding the Churches proposition for the authority of the Scriptures reuealing wherby the Scripture reuealing doth giue vs testimony of the Church propounding againe the Church propounding of the Scriptures reuealing Neuerthelesse this reciprocall testimony and proofe is not any proper vicious circle First because it is in diuerso genere causae in diuers kinds of causes for the testimonies of the Scriptures reuelation to the infallibility of the Churches proposition is causa formalis the formall cause by the which we assent to the Churches proposition But the Churches proposition is only Causa conditionalis or as we vse to speake Conditio fine qua non to know the Scriptures Reuelation and so they are reciprocall in a different manner of proofe the one that is Scripture à Priori as including diuine reuelation the other that is the Church à Posteriori required only as a condition The former as a formall precedent Cause the later as a subsequent annexed condition Secondly this reciprocall proofe is not adomnino idem as Aristotle requires to a Circle that is the one is not the totall and sole cause of knowing the other for the Churches proposition is not knowne only by the Scriptures reuelation and not otherwise but also by other proofes signes and testimoâ—ies to wit Miracles Consent Sanctity c. all which conuince that the Churches authority is necessary and infallible to distinguish the true sense of the Scripture from false and to end Controuersies about Scripture But now to cast our eye vpon the Protestants Circle prouing the Scripture by the priuate Spirit and the priuat Spirit from the Scripture it is euident that they proue the Scripture by the Spirit and Spirit by the Scripture in one the same kind of Cause and by one sole whole manner of proofe For demaund of a Protestant how and by what meanes he vnderstaÌ„deth the Scripture He answeres by the Spirit and so knowes the Scripture by the Spirit And aske him by what meanes he knowes he hath the true spirit he answeres the Scripture assures himselfe therof since he is one of the Elect. And thus this his proofe is truly Circular and vicious as being deliuered in eodem genere Causae and omnino ad idem Animaduersion XXII IT is most certaine that Protestants deny all Authorities of all affirmatiue heads making their last refuge to their owne priuaâ— Spirit and Iudgement For example if we insist in the affirmatiue Notes and Marks of the Church to wit vniuersality visibility vnity c. ouâ— aduersaryes as is aboue said discard the testimonyes of all these heads by erecting for Notes the preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments so reducing to their owne iudgment only when the word is truly preached and the Sacramâ—nts rightly administred Yf in matters of fact we recurre to History I meane concerning visibility Succession vocation c. they reiect this authority by saying Sufficit (g) Whitak contra Duraeum l. 7 p. 478. nobis c. To vs it is sufficient by comparing the Popish opinions with the Scrâ—pture to discouer the disparity of faith betweene them and vs. And as for Historiographers we giue them liberty to wryte what they will If we produce the testimonyes of particular Fathers of the Primitiue Church marke how Luther depresseth them (h) Luth. de seruo arbis 1551. pag. 434. The Fathers of so many ages haue beene plainly blind most ignorant in the Scriptures they haue erred all their life time vnlesse they were amended before their death they were neither Saincts nor pertayning to the Church If we produce Generall Councels they answere saying (i) Petâ—â— Martyr l. de votis pa. 476. As long as we insist in Generall Councels so long we shall continue in the Popish Errors If we passe to Apostolicall Traditions Cartwright in depressing Traditions maintained by S. Austin thus wryteth To (k) Sâ—â— Cartwright in whitgifts defence p. 103. allow S. Austins saying touching Traditions is to bring in popery If we alledge diuers passages of Scripture as out of Toby Ecclesiasticus the Machabees the Protestants with full voyce deny them to be Canonicall and style them only Apocriphal If we take our authorityes out of such books of Scripture as are acknoledged for Scripture on both sydes the Protestants deny the Translation of the Scripture to be true sincere which point appeareth both from the Protestants mutual condemning one anothers translation of Scripture as also from the most bitter censure giuen by our English Puritans against our English Translaiion whereof seuerall books writteÌ„ by them are yet extaÌ„t If we Catholikes proceed further in insisting in the Originall of both the Testaments the Protestants deny that the Originalis are at this present true Thus for example in Math c. 10. we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first Peter Beza (l) Beza in Annotat noui Testam 1556 denyeth the Originall herein mantayning that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was inserted into the text by some one fauoring the Popes Primacy In like sort (m) Beza vâ—i supra Beza denyeth that the Greeke Originall in Math. 22. is at this present the same as it was penned by the Euangelist mantayning that it is corrupted in fauour of the Realâ— presence If we yet ascending further entrench our selfe in such books of Scripture whose Originals Translations are accepted on ech party as true and incorrupted and tel our Aduersaryes that the whole Church of God in her primitiue and purest tymes interpreted the passages of Scripture in that sense in which they are at this present by the Catholikes alledged the Protestants
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
to make an Opposition betweeâ— the Scripture and the Fathers maintaining that to follow the iudgment of the Father is to reiect and abandon Scripture thâ—â— themselues are to be pardoned for prefeâ—ring the Scripture before the Fathers Bâ— to this you mâ—y answere that seeing tâ— Fathers do vrge admit and reuerence tâ— Scripture in as high a degree as the Protâ—stants do the mayne question and douâ—â— here is not whether the Scripture is to 〈◊〉 aduanced aboue the Authority of the Fâ—thers which we all Catholikes do fuâ—â— acknowledg should be but only Whethâ—â— the Fathers or the Protestants do more truly expound the Scripture Animaduersion XLI THe Fathers haue many aduantages aâ—â— priuiledges for interpreting of Scriptuâ—â— and for true or perfect fayth of which tâ— Protestants are altogether depriued Firâ—â— the Fathers liued neare to Christ some coâ—uersing with his Apostles others in succeâ—ding ages and therefore more easy it wâ—â— for them to know what exposition wâ—â— then deliuered of the Scriptures and whâ—â— fayth was first preached Add hereto thâ—â— the very practise of their Religion then 〈◊〉 â—â—d the Church then remayning by the â—cknowledgment of our Aduersaries in her â—â—rity of fayth serued as a Comment to â—hem of the Scriptures Secondly diuers of these Fathers euen â—rom their Mothers breasts did suck those â—ongues wherein a great part of the Scripâ—ure was written And therefore they were â—uch aduantaged for picking out the true â—eaning thereof whereas our Aduersaries â—nowledg of the said tongues is gotten onâ—y by Art and Industry which euer subscribes to Nature Thirdly the Fathers deliuered their senâ—ence and interpretation of Scriptures many â—ges before the points of fayth Doctrine 〈◊〉 for which they were vrged were euer brought in question or doubt and therefore what they writ was free from all partiality of iudgment they not knowing what Innouations were to rise in these our dayes Our Protestant Ministers their â—emporall states being wholy interessed â—herein must now of necessity shape the construction of the Scriptures to the maintenance of the Religion now introduced The Fathers though writing in seuerall ages seuerall tongues vpon seuerall occasions do notwithstanding vnanimously conspire together in their writings for non est Deus dissensionis sed pacis and if any one by chance did vary from the rest he was reprehended by them But the Protestants are so contrary in their writings in maintayning meere contradictory and opposite doctrines as is most wonderfull to obserue of which point who seeeketh further to be satisfied let him peruse such bookes as are lately written vpon that subiect The Fathers did cut of all lets and impediments which might hinder either Deuotion or study Hence it is that they imbraced perpetuall Chastity contemned all riches Honours chastized their bodies with fasting prayer and other spirituall disciplines How far different our ProtestaÌ„t Doctours are from such courses I leaue to the world to iudge The Fathers I meane diuers of them did worke many true and stupendious Vide Cyprian serm de lapsis Ambr. de obitu Satyr c. 7. Optat l. cont Donat. Aug. de Ciuit. l. 22. Chrysost cont Gentiles Eusebius l. 7. c. 14. Miracles which gift of exhibiting Miracles God bestoweth only vpon them who are gracious in his sight and who truly serue him But no man can serue God truly with a false fayth The Protestant Doctours neuer yet wrought any one Miracle in confirmation of their Fayth the euidency of which point appeareth from the liberall Confession of the Protestants themselues For D. Fulke thus acknowledgeth Jt is (y) Against the Rhemish Testam in Apoc. c. 13. knowne that Caluin and the rest whom the Papists call Arch-Heretiks do worke no miracles to whose confession D. Sutcliffe subscribeth saying We do (z) In his Examen of D. Kellisons Suruey printed 1606. p. 8. not practise Miracles nor do we teach that the truth of Doctrine is to be confirmed with miracles The Fathers I speake of diuers (a) As Ignatius Polycarpus Cyprian and others of them for professing only their Christian fayth and religion haue endured with inuincible courage and immoueable resolution which they could neuer haue done but only through the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost most exquisite tormeÌ„ts yea Martyrdome it selfe of whom it may be truly said Paradisi clauis sanguis Martyris Our Sectarie Doctours excepting some Mechanicall and ignorant fellows burn't for their obstinacy in Queene Maries tyme are so far from suffering any pressures for professing their fayth as that most of them haue made their Religion a ladder to clyme vp to worldly preferments they by it only enioying as through want of its losing riches honours other such temporall aduancements The Fathers of the Primitiue Church did represent the body of the whole Church of Christ in those tymes For of necessity it must be granted that all the seuerall members of the Church of God did belieue and practise the same Religion which Gregory Theodores Austin Jerome Chrysostome Epiphanius the Gregories the Cyrills Basill Ambrose Hilary Optatus Cyprian Irenaeus Ignatius and the like did teach since in them according to the seuerall ages wherein they liued those words of the Apostle were fulfilled (b) Ephes 4. Christ hath placed iâ— his Church Pastours and Doctours c. Now all this granted it doth ineuitably follow that if the Fathers of those seuerall ages did iointly erre in their interpretation of Scripture and doctrine of fayth and beliefe resulting from thence that then the whole visible Church of Christ did damnably erre in fayth during all those ages but this mainly crosseth both the command as also the promises of Christ the first in those words Dic Ecclesiae (c) Math. 18. the second in that sentence Behould I am with you all dayes euen to the consummation of the world for neither wold Christ euer send men to a false Church nor can he be said to be euer with his Church if he suffer it to professe for many ages a false and erroneous fayth nor vpon such a supposall could the Church be truly stiled Columna (d) 1. Timoth 3.9 firmamentum veritatis Lastly the more learned Protestants do ascribe all Excellency to the Primitiue Church for purity of fayth and consequently to the Fathers and Pastours of the Church of those tymes for thus we find them to write Kempnitius thus sayth We (e) Exa Concil Trid. part 1. pag. 74. doubt not but that the Primitiue Church receaued from the Apostles and Apostolicall men not only the Text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sense thereof D. Iewell The primitiue (f) In his defence of the Apology Church which was vnder the Apostles and Martyrs hath euer beene accounted the purest of all others without exception Finally to contract this point D. Bancroft heretofore the Archbishop of Canterbury thus writeth touching Caluin and Beza For M. Caluin (g) In his Suruey of the pretended
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.
not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs we do well to thinke it is his word Nâ—w if the Scriptures be confessedly vnable to afford vs certaine proofe of themselues then in all true consequence of Reason much lesse are they able to direct exempt vs in case of doubt and question infallibly from Errour the rather as D. Reynolds truly confesseth in (h) Confer c. 2. Diuis 2. pag. 68. that it is not the shew but the sense of the Scripture that must decide Controuersies Now from this I infer that if according to the learned (i) The Authour of the Treatise of the Scripture and the Church cap. 16. fol. 75. Whita con Staplet l. 2. c. 4. p. 203. Kempn in Exam. part 1. pag. 69. and diuers others Protestants here cited it is to be determined to vs which is Scripture by the iudgment of the Church which confessedly hath the assistance of the Holy Ghost in infallibly discerning to vs which Books of Scripture are sacred and which not then necessarily followeth the Churches no lesse needfull assistance of the same Spirit in her like discerning vnto vs the sense of the said Scripture for what auayleth it vs to be made certaine of the Bookes and least vncertaine of the Sense Or what reason can our Aduersaries alledg whereby to acknowledge the Churches priuiledg in the one and deny it where it is no lesse needfull in the other This inference being granted vtterly ouerthroweth the Priuate spirit in its interpretation of Scripture Animaduersion XLIX IT is a demonstration in confutation of the Priuate spirit interpreting the Scrippture to obserue the different or rather contrary constructions which Luther and Caluin and others giue of that short sentence Hoc est Corpus meum c. Hic est sanguit meus And yet they all do vant of their enioying the said Spirit And therfore it is the lesse wonder that S. Austin (k) Austin cont Maximum Arian l. 1. affirmeth that it hath euer beene the custome of all Heretikes to flie to Scripture alone as it is interpreted by this Priuat Spirit The absurdity of which opinion more euidently appeares since it is certaine that among diuers meere contrary or coÌ„tradictory pointâ— of fayth the Scripture condemneth the onâ— And yet both the maintainers of the said contrary doctrines do flie to the Scripture as Iudge Now what madnes is it for 〈◊〉 man willingly to couet to appeale to that Iudg by whom it is certaine his cause shal be condemned Neither can either of the Litigants put any confidence in the meanes of truly interpreting the Scripture to wit Prayer Conference of places of Scripture knowledg in the Tongues c. since all these meaneâ— are most vncertaine euen by the Confession of D. Whitaker thus writing (l) Whitak l. 2. de Eccles cont Bellar. contr 1. quaest 4 Medâ—â— interpretandi â—oca scripturae sunt incerta c. The meanes of interpreting the obscure places oâ— Scripture are vncertaine doubtfuâ—l and ambiguous Therfore it cannot be otherwise but the interpretation it selfe must be vncertaine Si incerta tum potest essâ— falsa if the interpretation be vncertaine then may it be false Thus far the said Doctour Animaduersion L. TOuching the depressing of General Councells Peter Martyr thus writeth As long (m) L. de votis pag. 476. as we insist in Generall Councells so long we shall continue in the Papists Errours with whom D. Whitaker conspires in these words Generall (n) Lib. de Concil cont Bellar. q. 6. Councells may erre Now let vs see the great and many disparities wherby a Generall Councell is infinitly aduantaged in respect of not erring aboue the Priuate Spirit of any one man First then a Councell I heere only speake of Generall Councells is in S. Austins (o) So doth S. Austin terme a Generall Councell Ep. 161. iudgment The supreme Tribunall in the Church of God The Priuate Spirit hath but his owne braynes for the Seate of his Iudicature A CouÌ„cell receaues its promise from (p) Where two or three are gathered together in my name c. Math. 18. Christ that his assisting presence shall not be wanting thereto The priuate Spirit euen by Gods (q) No prophesy is of any priuate interpretation 2. Per. c. 1. owne sentence wanteth the certainty of expounding the Word truly A Councell is much reuerenced by the ancient (r) Ierom. l. cont Lucifer Ambr. Ep. 32. Athan Epist ad Epicterum Fathers and acknowledged by diuers of our learned (s) D. Couel in his modest Exam. p. 110. c. Aduersaries to be the only certaine meanes of determining Controuersies The Priuate Spirit it that of which we are (t) Dearely beloued belieue not euery Spirit c. commanded to doubt and of whose seducing (u) These things I haue written to you concerning those who deâ—eaue you Iohn 1. c. 2. God himselfe in Scripture premonisheth vs And which is much condemned euen by the more moderate (x) D. Couell in his defence of Hooker p. 86. D. Sarauia contra Respons Bezae pag 306. and others Protestant A Councell consisteth of many hundred venerable Doctours Pastours gathered from the most remote nations of Christendome and therfore the lesse subiect vpon such their meeting iointly and with mutuall consent 〈◊〉 stampe any Nouelismes in Doctrine presenting that only to be belieued in theâ—â— Canons which is decreed by the mutuaâ— consent of all or the greatest number of them The priuat Spirit is but its owne only weening oftentimes dissenting from others of his Brethren in diuers points of fayth To conclude A Councell as being composed of seuerall hundreds of Bishops Doctours hath many members of it most eminent for vertue readines of the Scriptures skill in the Tongues they all besieging the eares of God with their daily prayers accompanied with many corporall austerities and all to the end that God would be pleased so to guyde their tongues and pens as that they may decree only such doctrines as are agreable to Gods holy Word The Priuate spirit as being but one man doth want for the most part not only Vertue but also those other gifts of the Vnderstanding aboue specified as Learning knowledg in the Scriptures c. And as for Prayer and other meanes of pleasing God it reiecteth all this as superstitious and Papisticall relying in lieu therof vpon his owne Enthusiasmes illuminations from the Lord. And thus much touching the balancing of a Generall Councell with the Protestanticall Priuate Spirit Animaduersion LI. IF you attempt to charge a Protestant-writer with Corruptions or lyes in their wrytings of which Impostures their books are most luxuriant rather insist in a few those manifest and vnanswerable then in a great number seing if your Aduersary can make shew to salue but three or foure of a greater number the which he may the more easely do by how much the number of his falsifications is greater
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
is now forbidden as a thing vngodly 11. That there are any Sacraments of the New Testament instituted by Christ for the good of mans Soule Lastly to omit some others 12. That before the ending of the world Antichrist shall come who shal be a designed Enemy of Christ and shall labour to subuert and ouerthrow all Christian Religion All these points both Protestant and Catholike do belieue and hould that the beliefe of them is necessary to Saluation And yet not any of these Articles are expressed or set downe in the Creed Whence I conclude that the Apostles Creed cannot be a sufficient boundary to containe and limit an auayleable Fayth Animaduersion LXII THe bitter Inuectiues of the Protestants one against another are of sufficient force to discouer their dissentions in doctrine as where Luther sayth We (n) Luther in Thes Cont. Louaniens Thes 21. seriously iuâ—ge the Swinglians and Sacramentaries to be Heretiks and Aliens from the Church of God And to confront this Swinglius thus retorteth vpon Luther Luther (o) Swingl tom 2. in resp ad Luther fol 458. is guilty of high blasphemy against the nature and essence of God c. To descend to the Puritans and Protestants in England we find that the booke entituled Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiasticall printed anno â—604 doth ipso facto excommunicate the Puritans for their maintaining of these positions following as they are there set downe in the Booke The worship of the Church of England is corrupt superstitions vnlawfull repugnant to the Scriptures The Articles of the Bishops Religion are Erroneous their Rites Antichristian c. Now the Protestants do thus râ—quite the Puritans saying The (p) M. Powell in hâ—s consiâ—erations Puritans are notorious and manifest Schismaticks cut of from the Church And againe The (q) M. Paâ—ks in his Ep. Deâ—ic Puritans seeke to vndermyne the foundation of fayth Now add hereto that although infinite other passages might be brought to shew the great discord in fayth among the forraine Protestants yet there is no one more short Argument to conuince this point then to recur to the foure Catalogues of ProtestaÌ„t Books set downe in the later end of the Booke called The Protestants Apology of the Roman Church In which 4. Catalogues one may find about three hundred Bookes written in great acerbity of stile by one Protestant against another The names of all which books are taken out of Coccius his Thesaurus or from Hospinian both which Authouâ—s dyed many yeares since Now if so mâ—â—y Bookes of disagreements in fayth among the Protestants were made within so sport a Tyme how many hundred more might be alledged if one did know all other Bookes written by the Protestant against the Protestant since the death of those two former men Animaduersion LXIII MAny vulgar and vnlearned Protestants and especially the Caluinists Puritans do condemne the Catholike Roman Religion because it defendeth and practizeth diuers Ceremonyes they ignorantly tearming such Ceremonyes Idolatrous and superstitious And there is no one argument more preuayling with such men to auert them from our Catholike Religion theâ— this Now to take a way this scandall oâ— stumbling block I say that if it were God good pleasure to haue his Fayth and Religion of the old Testament which for the tyme was the true Religion to consisâ— much in Ceremonyes as we see it did faâ—â— out in the seuerall Sacrifices appoynted by God In the Tabernacle with the appurtenances and of what matter number and qualityes all things should be as also with prouiâ—ion of Oyle and Lampes The Arke The propitiatory the Consecration of priests the Institution of all vestures vessels and other holy things then belonging to the seruice of God all these to be made performed and done after a strange and different manner as we reade in Exodus As also the Institution of Circumcision consisting in paring away a piece of flesh which serued for freeing Man in that tyme from Originâ— Sinne the preparing and eating of the Paschall Lambe sprinkling the dores with the bloud thereof and infinit other Ceremonies recorded in the foresaid booke of Exodus I say if this was Gods vnsearcheable Will to ordaine these things during the tyme of the Old Law wherein he would haue the Honour Seruice and worship exhibited to â—im partly to consist why then may not our Sauiour institute the Religion fayth of Christians belieuing in him to be attended on with diuers Ceremonyes and yet this without any Superstition or Idolatry Now our Aduersaryes common euasion to this our Argument is to say that God instituted Ceremonyes in the Old Law to serue as figures or Types of things which were after to fall out in the New Law which Ceremonyes were theÌ„ to end vpon the promulgation of the fayth of Christ. This answeare is most impertinent First because not all the Ceremonyes in the Old Law but only some did serue as figures or Adumbrations of things to happen in the New Testament Secondly because the Question heere is not why or to what end the Ceremonyes of the Old Law were instituted but only whether Ceremonyes tending to the worship of God be pious lawfull Therefore I conclude that seeing the Ceremonies in the Old Law were instituted by Gods direction for the worship of him as we read in Exodus c. 8 Ostendas populo Caeremonias ritus colendi let the other secondary end of them be what it will that therefore and by force of Gods proceeding in the Old Law we Christians may not thinke strange that our Sauiour being God and Man would now in the New Law institute and giue to his Church the like power some Ceremonies and pâ—blike Rites wherewith he will be worshipped and wherin part of Christian religion shall consist Now therefore let our Aduâ—â—saries if they can giue any true reasoâ— why the Ceremâ—nies of the Old Law bâ—ing incomparably more in number shall be accounted lawfull and yet the Ceremonies of the New Law or Testament as long as they are reputed but Ceremonies must be râ—puted superstitions aâ— Idolatrous Animaduersion LXIV WE Catholikes charge the Protestaâ—â—â— with ancient Heresies For example wâ— shew how the Manichees according to S Austin depriued Man (r) L. de Haeres cap. 4â— of Freewill Hoâ— â—ouinian (s) Ier. l 1. cont Iâ—â—in Aug l. Haeres cap. taught that Fasting was not mâ—ritorious and Virginity was no better theâ— wedlock or mariage How Aerius (t) Austin l. de Haeres c. 33. taugâ— it to be most vnlawfull to pray or offerâ—â— Sacrifice for the Dead How the Arians (u) L. 1. cont Marin cap. â— reiected all vnwritten Traditions who aâ—â—â— (x) Athanas in Apolog. pro fuga perpetrated Sacrilege against the Sacraments Altars Priests and Religious person How the (y) Austin l. â— Vnitate cap. 12. Donatists taught the Churcâ— of Christ to be Jnuisible How the Deniall 〈◊〉 the Reall Presence was condemned by certaine ancient Heretiks
haue done in prayse of our Blessed Lady or in honour of the Crosse or the like then being taken literally can well be iustifyed But they were more bold so to write because they as then hauing no Aduersaries to their Catholike doctrine in those points might rest assured that their words would be taken in that pious sense wherein they deliuered them Of which kind of their writing our Aduersaries take hould against the said Fathers The last obseruation heere shal be that when the Catholikes do alledg the Fathers the Protestants seeke to charge the said Fathers so alleged with some one Errour or other and therefore say they his authority is to be reiected in any other point which especially happeneth in Tertullian Origen Cyprian as is aboue intimated But to this you may answere that you produce the Fathers only in such Catholike points touching the which they were not written against by any other Father and therefore their authority therein is of force since it is presumed hereby that all the other Fathers and consequently all the Church of God agreed with them therein Animaduersion LXVIII YF your Aduersaries pretend that all the wrytings and memory of Protestants in former ages were extinguished by the Popes of the said and after succeeding ages you may shew how absurd this Assertion is And the reason hereof is in that the Popes of those tymes could not presage that Protestancy should in these our tymes sway more then any other Heresies condemned in their very tymes which other Heresies remayne yet registred to this very day by the acknowledgment of the Protestants Againe the personall (x) Benedictus the third was written against by the Councell of Constance Gregory the sâ—auenth by Benno Eugeniuâ— the Pope was written against by the Councell of Basill vices and faults of some Popes are recorded in histories yet to be read Is it then probable that the Popes were so solicitous to extinguish all remembrance of the Protestant fayth yet content to suffer their owne lesse iustifiable liues of themselues and their predecessours to be registred for all ages after to peruse Lastly in the Canons of ech age there is made mention of all particular Heresies of those tymes condemned by the said Councells Stands it then with any shew of Reason that the Pope and the Councells should be so voyd of iudgment as carefully to register all other impugned Heresies and on the other syde as carefully to suppresse all arising opinions of Protestancy Animaduersion LXIX YF you intend to bring and obiect any foule and wicked sayings especially out of Luther against the Blessed Trinity or about his acknowledged Lust and sensuality be carefull to note the Edition of the Booke wherein such sayings are to be found For in some later Editions of his workes many such sentences are for very shame left out and vnprinted And thereupon there are diuers Protestants who vtterly deny that euer any such wicked or sensuall words were written by him Animaduersion LXX OVr Aduersaryes labour by seueral wayes to depresse the force of Miracles exhibited in proofe of the Roman Religion For first some of them do deny the working of all Miracles and to fortify this their denyall they thinke it sufficient if they can produce but any one or two strange relations supposed to be Miracles and yet after discouered to be but forgeryes to the disgracing of all true Miracles but this euasion is weake seeing by force thereof we should deny all the bookes of Scripture because some false wrytings were in the Primitiue Church obtruded vnder the names of the Apostles as (y) Cont Aduers log prophet l. 1. c. 20. Austin and (z) Hist l. 3. c 19. Eusebius do record Againe if they will deny all Miracles they may also by the same reason deny all History eyther prophane or Ecclesiasticall Therefore if we will ascribe so much confidence to the wrytings of Eusebius Zozomene Austin Ierome and others as we do to the lyues of Liuy or Commentaryes of Cesar or to Speeds Cronicle we cannot reiect all Miracles for forgeryes vntruths Other of our Aduersaryes confesse the doing of many Miracles vrged by the Catholykes but then they ascribe them to the power of the Diuell and do commonly style them Antichristian (a) So do the Cent. call them Cent. 4. col 1445. Cent. 5 1486. In like manner Osiand also stileth them Cent. 10. 11. 12. wounders and lying signes But against this subterfugion I say it cannot be applyed to the Miracles wrought in the primitiue Church and eecorded by Zozomene Austin Ierome and others long before the comming of Antichrist since most of our Aduersaryes do place Antichrists first comming in (b) So doth D. Willet teach in his Synop. p. 160. D. Fulke in his answere to a counterf Cath. p. 36. D. Downenam in but his Treatise of Antichrist lib. 2. pag. 4. Boniface who was Pope in the yeare 1006. loÌ„g after the dayes of the former Fathers Secondly I say that our Aduersaryes in ascribing the Miracles to the working of Antichrist consequently of the Diuell do ouer neere interleage with the Iewes condemning the Miracles of Christ in these wordes This man (c) Math. 1. casteth not out Deuills but by Belsebub the Prince of Deuills Agaiâ—â— I say that the Protestant Vrsinus trulâ— sayth that the (d) In Comment Catech. 21. Power of the Miracles oâ— Antichrist are not true Miracles but such aâ— the Order of Nature obserued may be effected by the deceyte of men or Deuills But diuers miracles are recorded which transcend the power of the Deuill as to stay the flux and reflux of the sea or to cure incurable diseases without applying any secondary meanes and such like c. Of which there are many miracles recorded by the former Fathers Thirdly I auer that the Miracles of the Deuill are euer done to some vaine and pernicious end and not for the good of the particular person vpon whom they are wrought Fourthly if the Deuill could effect such stupendious workes how chanceth it that he would neuer concurre with condemned and on all sydes acknowledged miscreants to strenghthen and countenance thereby those mens misbeliefe and Heresies I meane with Simon Magus Porphiry Iulian the Apostata Mahomet c. and other Sects condemned euen by the Protestants for most erroneous Lastly I conclude that our Aduersaries in condemning all Miracles either but as forgeries or as the Works of the Deuill do charge diuers Princes Commonwealths Ecclesiasticall persons and infinite multitudes of people both of former and later tymes with extreme simplicity yea Lunacy in suffering such forgeries and delusions to be obtruded vpon them I will adioyne hereto the miraculous preseruation for many hundred yeares of certaine Relicks I will passe ouer the vncorrupted bodies of many Saints euen till this day and will insist in the miraculous preseruation of the Eucharist stabbed with knyfes by the Iewes many scores of yeares since if not
some hundreds and yet remaining to be yearely seene euen with spots of bloud at the chiefe Church in Brussells in the lowe Countryes What can our Aduersaries answere herero Yf they grant the miracle they withall grant the truth of the Doctrine of the Reall Presence To deny it by saying that when one hoast is corrupted through tyme another is secretly thrust in the former place is more then absurd For would the Princes of those Countryes the Lords Bishops Prelates other Religious persons and the whole Communalty suffer themselues to be thus abused from tyme to tyme with such impostures but that they would be most desirous to find out and discry all such wicked stratagemes and deuises Truly I do not see what answere in full weight of Reason can be giuen hereto to conuince the iudgment of any sufficient Man Animaduersion LXXI THat Catholike Religion affordeth Saluation to the Professours thereof is proued seuerall wayes euen from our Aduersaries owne pennes And first Because oâ—â— Aduersaries do reach that the Church oâ— Rome notwithstanding her presumed Eâ—rours is the true Church of Christ consequently her Professours capable of Saâ—uation According hereto thus writeth D. Field (d) L. of the Church c. 46. We doubt not but that Church â—t which the Bishop of Rome with more then Luâ—â—ferlike pryde exalted himselfe was notwithstanding the true Church of God and that it held a sauing profession of the truth in Christ. D. Sâ—â—â— auerreth the same verity in these words (e) In his Defence against Penry pag. 176. you thinke that all the Popish sort wheâ—â— dyed in the popish Church are damned yâ—â— thinke absurdly and do dissent from the iudgment of all learned Protestants With theâ—â— conspireth to omit others D. Couell thâ—â— writing We (f) In his Defence of M. Hooâ—er pag. 77. affirme them of tâ—e Churchâ— Rome to be a part of the true Church of Chriâ—â— and that those that liue dye in that Churcâ— may be saued Another Reason may be taken from the lawfulnes euen in the iudgment of the learned Protestants of Chiâ—dren of Papists as we are stiled whether they be Baptized by Catholike Priests 〈◊〉 Protestant Ministers And the cause of thâ— lawfulnes thereof is deliuered by the Protestants in these words Because (g) So teach the Deuines of Geneua in their propositions and principles disputed at Gen. p. 178. the same is taught by D. Whitgâ—â—fe in 〈◊〉 Defence pa. â—23 by M. Hooker Eccles poâ— l. 3. p. 131. by otheâ— we affirme that those Children are comprehenâ— within the Couenant of eternall life by meanes of the fayth of their Parents A third Reason of the Protestants true iudgment herein concerneth the Fathers of the Primitiue Church in generall who that they liued dyed Papists is most euident by what hath beene confessed aboue by our Aduersaries Now of them Cartwrighâ— thus writeth I (h) Cartwright in his Reply in D. Whitguifts Defence p. 82 doubt not but that diuers Fathers of the Greeke Church who were patrones of Freewill are saued The like charitable opinion of the Fathers though Papists both liuing dying is deliuered by (i) Contra Raâ— Camp pag. 78. D. Whitaker notwithstanding the Fathers Doctrine touching Satisfaction and Merit of Works Finally the Protestants iudgement is also herein manifested in their commonly giuing in their writings and speaches to Austin Ierome Ambrose and the rest whom they acknowledge to Professe and dye in our Catholike fayth and Religion the name and title of Saint as S. Austin S. Jerome c. Animaduersion LXXII YF it be vrged that the Deniall of Freewill for exaÌ„ple was taught by Manicheus and consequently that the Protestant fayth therein is as ancient as those Primitiue tymes It may be replyed that this particular Heretike or that particular Heretike did teach but one or other Protestant Article in those dayes and were sustantly written against for such their Innouations the said Innouatours being Catholike in all other points And therefore you may truâ—â— infer that the vrging of such examples is merely impertinent either for the proofe of the Antiquity of the Protestant Religion or for the Visibility of the Protestant Church in those dayes Animaduersion LXXIII YF you dispute with any Protestant by writing or enterchange of letters write nothing but Matter with as much compendiousneâ— as the Subiect will beare without any Verball Excursions or digressions For this proceeding will force your Aduersary to reply if he will reply to the Maâ—ter For otherwise leauing the materialâ— point which is chiefly issuable and to be handled he will shape a reply to other lesse necessary stuffe deliuered by you And then his Reply must passe abroad by the help of many partiall tongues for a full answere to your whole Discourse Animaduersion LXXIV WHereas you may alledge diuers acknowledged Heresies both in the iudgment of Protestants Catholiks out of the Bookes concerning diuers persons who belieued some few points of Protestancy recorded in the said Bookes here I speake of Wâ—â—ldo Wiclife c. Now if here your Aduersary Disputant doth auouch as many Protestants do that these Heresies were falsly obtruded and fathered vpon the said presumed Protestants by their Enemies you may here reply that to affirme this is against the force of all Reason For seeing the same Bookes do make indifferent mention both of the Protestant opinions and of the other Heresies defended by the same Men either the said Bookes are to be belieued in both or to be reiected concerning both Yf the first then it is certaine that those men did belieue those acknowledged Heresies Yf the later then the said Bookes are not of sufficient authority to proue that there were any Protestants in those ages Animaduersion LXXV IN your proofes drawne from Scripture labour to be much practised in the Protestant Translation of it of which infinite places make for the Catholike Cause euen as the Scripture is translated by the Protestant For this Course gauleth them far more then if you insisted only in the Catholike Translation Animaduersion LXXVI I Will here set downe certaine Obseruations which will easely solue all difficulties or Argument whatsoeuer rising from Scripture or Fathers against Communion vnder one kind only 1. First whereas sundry places of Scripture and Fathers do speake indifferently oâ— only make mention of Communion vnder both kinds or do affirme the vse thereof to be lawfull yet from hence which is the point issuable cannot be inferred any precept of Christ as necessary to Saluation 2. Secondly when such places are vrged which contayne in them a Precept the same places are either vnderstood of Priests who do sacrifice whose bond is different from theirs of the Laity Or els they concerne only the tyme and place when 〈◊〉 where that custome of both kinds was obserued for the custome of the Church whether it be generall in the whole Church or particular in some notable place thereof aâ— in one Country Kingdome
Superstitious then a Protestant And a Protestant sooner becom an Atheist then a Catholike The Reason of both is euident And first whereas the Catholike Religion besides the beliefe of many dogmaticall points of fayth retayneth the practise of many Ceremonies the true vse of which Ceremonies as being first instituted by the primitiue Church are most lawfull but now if the ignorant Catholike through want of due instruction do ascribe more to them then is due or do put greater cōfidence in them then he ought as forgetting them to be but Ceremonies then perhaps he may haue a superstitious conceite of them as it happened in the Brazen Serpent though otherwise seruing as the figure of Christ To which the Iewes through abuse thereof in ascribing more worship to it then they ought at length bare a Superstitions respect But now touching the Protestants greater propension to Atheisme the reason is in that Protestancy euer refynes it selfe by Negatiues Thus for example The Caluinist or Puritan denies more then Lutheran or the moderate Protestāt The Anabaptist more then the Puritan The Anti-trinitarians more then the Anabaptists the Iew or Turks more then the Anti-trinitarians and for the last sublimation through deniall of all Iudaisme and Turcisme resolues into Atheisme And hereupon we find that whereas many Protestants by their often refyning of their Religion and all by Negatiues do in the end become Atheists denying euen the being of a Deity that few or no Catholikes immediatly from Catholike Religion euer fall into the open Blasphemy of Atheisme Animaduersion CVIII THe preaching of the Word and Sacraments supposing them to be Notes of the Church as our Aduersaries do suggest proue only the Place where the Church is but not which is the Church For the Church consisteth of men and we cannot tell who they are that receaue the Word truly preached or the Sacraments truly administred Againe whereas as Lubbertus (k) L. 4. de Eccles cap. 1. a Protestant truly teacheth Notius est duplex vnum Naturae alterum nobis Now here the Question is only of such Notes as are Notes in respect of vs for our better informing which is the true Church and not as they are Notes in respect of Nature For here we are instructed a posteriori and according to the measure of that knowledg which God vouchsafes to afford to vs. Now in reference hereto we freely grant that the true preaching of the word and Administration of the Sacraments may be termed Notes of the Church but not Notes to vs which is only the point here stood vpon For though they be Notes in Nature of the truth of the Church yet what doth this auayle vs since they are not Notes to vs for our direction to find which is the true Church Againe the true preaching of the word and the Administration of the Sacraments cannot be Notes to vs which is the true Church seeing the Scripture it selfe cannot be made knowne to vs for Scripture but only by the attestation of the Church as M. Hooker testifieth in these words Of (l) Hooker in Eccles Pol. saec 14. l. 1. pag. 86. things necessary the very chiefest is to know what Bookes we are to esteeme holy which is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And againe We (m) Vbi supra l. 3. p. 146. all know the first outward Motiue to esteeme of the Scripture is the authority of the Church Thus he Now this being granted it ineuitably followeth that first we must know which is the true Church to giue this approbation of the Scripture before we can know which is the Scripture and much more then before we can be assured of the true preaching of the Word and which is the true construction of the Scripture To these former Arguments I adioyne this pertinent obseruation It is this When the Catholikes demand to set downe the true Notes of the Church our Aduersaries answering That is the true Church which enioyeth a true preaching of the Word and an auayleable administration of the Sacraments Now I here affirme that this description of Notes is but our owne Question returned vs back in other termes and consequently but a Sophisme consisting in an idle circulation of the same point inuested with a new forme of words For when I demand which is the true Church I vertually implicitly and according to the immediate meaning of my words demand which Church is that which enioyeth the true preaching of the word and the true vse of the Sacraments since only the true Church is honored with this kind of preaching and distribution of the Sacraments Thus far touching the Notes prostituted by our Aduersaries as the true Notes of Christ his Church Animaduersion CIX SVch Protestants as do mantayne that there were Protestants in all ages before Luther giue the reason that the feare of Persecution was the cause why the said Protestants did then lye latent and became not visible to the world But this is a meere aēry suggestion For thus I argue The Church of God vnder persecution either communicateth openly with a false visible Church in participation of Sacraments and externall professiō of fayth Or els she doth refrayne from all such externall Communion if she do communicate with a false Idolatrous Church as diuers of our Aduersaryes repute the Church of Rome to be then is she not the true Church since the true Church cannot brooke any such dissimulation For we read With the hart a (n) Rom. 10. Mā belieueth vnto Iustice and with the mouth confesseth vnto Saluation If she doth not communicate with it then by such her forbearing she is made knowne and consequently is become thereby visible for who are persecuted but Men that are knowne Or how can one lying secretly and hiddenly be said to be persecuted The truth of this point is further warrantable from the examples of the persecution in the primitiue Church which of all other pressures of the Church was incomparably the greatest And yet we fynd that the particular Bishops Confessours and Martyrs are euen to this day made knowne who they were what false Opinions and Heresyes they impugned And the like may be said of the English Catholikes persecuted in Queene Elizabeths reigne since the names and memoryes of those reuerend Pryests and others of the Laity to speake nothing of many worthy Confessours and other suffering great losses and disgraces who lost their lyues in her dayes only for Religion are euen to this day fresh and recorded Therefore I heare demaund that if the Catholiks in this our Country being but a small part of Christendome could not but for some few nūbers of yeares in comparison escape the search and hands of their persecutours and become thereby most visible knowne How could then the Protestants being supposed to be dispersed thtoughout many Nations lye hid and auoyd for so many ages together as is pretended the force of that persecution which is affirmed by
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)
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
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
the Catholikes the Protestants afford a most conuincing Argument that both the partyes during their continuaÌ„ce of such their contrary beliefes cannot expect saluation yet this point is made more demonstrable if we insist only in such controuersyes betweene our Aduersaryes and vs the subiect of which are taught by the one syde to be vnder Christ the immediate meanes of our grace saluation and denyed by the other party to be of such force and efficacy for the soules euerlasting Good and consequently in regard of their subiect are one way necessarily to be belieued So as if it be shewed that the Catholikes and the Protestants do mainly dissent in the meanes of obtayning Grace purchasing of Heauen it must of necessity be inferred that both the Catholikes and Protestants continuing in such their different states cannot obtayne Grace and saluation Since Philosophy and naturall Reason teacheth vs that he shall neuer attaine the End he aymeth at who vseth not the same meanes which are only and necessarily instituted to the gaying of the said End Now to come to the Articles of this kynd First Concerning the Sacraments in Generall the Catholikes belieue that all of them where no iust impediment is do conferre Grace vnto the Soule of man by the helpe continuance of which Grace the soule in the end obtaineth its saluation The Protestant doth not ascribe any such supernaturall effect vnto them To come more particularly to the Sacraments Touching Baptisme the Catholikes belieue that Children being borne in Originall Sinne cannot be saued except they be baptized with Water The (25) Caluin and Beza most frequently teach so Protestants belieue that Infants dying vnbaptized may be saued Touching the Sacrament of Penance or Confession the Catholikes belieue that after a Christian hath committed any Mortall Sinne that Sinne cannot be forgiuen him but at least in Voto by confessing the said Sinne to a Priest answerably to that in S. John 20. Whose sinnes you shall forgiue they are forgiuen them c. The ProtestaÌ„ts belieue that neither the Confession of sinnes to man nor the absolution of them giuen by man is necessary for the remitting of them but that it is sufficient to confesse them only to God And thus according to the diuersity of Doctrine either the Protestant for want of this Sacrament after he hath mortally sinned cannot be saued or the Catholikes for wrongfully imposing this yoake vpon Christians do lose their Saluation Touching the most B. Sacrament of the Eucharist The Catholikes belieue that the very body and bloud of Christ do lye latently vnder the formes of bread and wyne Math. 26. and that vnlesse we eate his body and drinke his bloud in the Eucharist we shall not haue lyfe euerlasting Iohn 6. Finally that we are to adore Christ his body in the Eucharist being accompanied there with his Diuinity The Protestants belieue that Christs true body as neuer leauing Heauen cannot possibly be vnder the formes of bread and wyne and consequently they belieue that the reall eating of his body and drinking of his bloud in the Sacrament is not necessary to Saluation finally they hould our adoration of the Sacrament to be open Idolatry Fiftly touching the meanes of our Iustification the Catholikes belieue that not only fayth but works also do iustify The Protestants do ascribe their Iustification only to Fayth and not to works Touching Grace without which a man cannot be saued the Catholikes belieue that God out of the depth of his infinite mercy offereth to euery Christian sufficient Grace whereby he may be saued The Protestants teach that God giueth not sufficient Grace to euery one but to certaine men only and according hereto Beza most blasphemously thus writeth of this point (26) Beza in his Display of Popery pag. 17. 31. 76. 116. c. God decreeth some men to destruction createth to perdition and predestinateth to his hatred destruction Touching the ten Commandements the Catholikes belieue that except a Christian do keepe them he cannot be saued according to our Sauiour Yf thou wilt enter into lyfe keep the Commandments Math. 19. The Protestants do teach an absolute impossibility of keeping them and thereupon Luther thus writeth The ten (27) Luther ser de Moyse Commandements do not belong vnto vs. Finally touching the Pope or Bishop of Rome the Catholikes do belieue that he is vnder Christ the supreme Pastour vpon earth that who do not communicate in Sacraments and Doctrine with him yielding him all true obedience in subiecting their iudgments in Matter of fayth to his sententionall Definitions cannot be saued The Protestants do teach that the Pope is that Antichrist which is deciphered by the (28) 2. Thess 2. c. Apostle and that who so imbraceth his Doctrine or yieldeth their assents to his Cathedrall Decrees cannot be saued Thus far of these points omitting some others of like nature Now here I vrge as aboue Yf these former Doctrines as they are belieued by the Catholikes do immediately concerne Saluation and become necessary meanes thereof then cannot the Protestants as reiecting all such doctrines and all such necessary meanes both in beliefe and practice be saued But if by supposall the said Doctrines be not of that Nature but false in themselues and the contrary Doctrines true then cannot the Catholikes as belieuing false Doctrines immediatly touching mans Saluation and accordingly practizing them be saued From whence it ineuitably followeth that the different Professours of these contrary Doctrines the one part belieuing the other part not belieuing the said Doctrines cannot both be saued Animaduersion CLXXVII SOme Protestants will maintaine that Protestancy for its greater antiquity was at its full and perfect state here in England in King Edwards dayes But this is most vnaduisedly spoken The falsehood of which bold Assertion I proue from the Communion Booke set out in K. Edwards tyme with approbation allowance of Peter Martyr Which Booke was further warranted in King Edwards tyme by Act of Parliament Now this Booke or publike Liturgy of the fayth of England in those dayes being printed in folio by Edward Whitchurch anno 1549. prescribeth that the Eucharist shal be consecrated with the (29) Fol. 265. signe of the Crosse It commandeth consecration (30) Fol. 2â—2 of the Water of Baptisme with the signe of the Crosse In that Booke mention is made of Prayer (31) Fol. 116. for the Dead offering vp of our prayers by (32) Fol. 117. Angells It defendeth Baptisme being giuen by Lay (33) Fol. 119. Persons in tyme of Necessity and the Grace (34) Ibidem of that Sacrament It alloweth Priests absolution of the sick penitent in these words By the authority committed (35) Fol. 142. vnto me I absolue thee of all thy Sinnes It menâ—ioneth a speciall and particular (36) Fol. 143. Confession of the Sicke Penitent Briefly to omit some other points It commandeth the (37) Fol. 143. annoynting of the Sick person
it is most probable that such is the common iudgment of all the Fathers therein since it hath beene euer obserued that when any one of the ancient Fathers hath erred in a matter of weight and importance that the same Father was euer contradicted by diuers others The fifth That doubtlesly is to be belieued to descend from Apostolicall Tradition which hath beene houlden for such in those Churches in which Churches there hath beene an entyre and continuall succession from the Apostles This rule is deliuered by (4) Irenaeus l. 3. cap. 3. Jrenaeus and (5) Tertull lib. de praescript Tertullian The reason of this rule is because the Apostles did deliuer to their Successours with the Episcopall gouerment the true doctrine also of Religion Thus far touching the Rules for the better discerning of Apostolicall Traditions Animaduersion CLXIX TOuching Prayer in a strange tongue Caluin and other Sectaries wholy dislike it because that Prayer being not vnderstood by the Ignorant people no profit say they comes thereby to the people But this is false seeing the Prayer of the Church is not made to the people but to God for the people Therefore it is not necessarily conducing to the Spirituall profit of the people that they vnderstand the prayer but it is sufficient if God vnderstand it Euen as if one shold petition to the king in the Latin tongue in behalfe of some rustick and ignorant man doubtlesly this ignorant man might receaue profit thereby although he did not vnderstand the petition or Prayer of his Aduocate Furthermore the Church prayeth not in rayne for the faythfull being absent for other Sinners How much more then doth not the Church pray in vayne for the faithfull being present and desiring that they may be prayed for in their Necessities But to proceede The ignorant people may not only receaue profit from the Prayer of another though they do not vnderstand it but also euen from that Prayer whâ— themselues do powre out to God thoâ— they do not vnderstand it This poinâ— thus proued The Jewes according to 〈◊〉 opinion of (6) L 3. Doctrine Christian ca. 9. S. Austin did not in vayâ— worship God in Figures and diuers Cereâ—â—nies although diuers of the Iewes did 〈◊〉 vnderstand the signification and meanâ— of the said Figures and â—eremonies then 〈◊〉 ignorant people do vnderstaÌ„d Latin Prayâ—â— Againe it it be necessary for all those wâ— pray to Gâ—d or prayse and honour him 〈◊〉 Hymnes to vnderstand what they say thâ— very few or none at all would be fouâ— who should without sinne recite or singâ—â— Psalmes of Dauid and the Prophets or shoâ— read the Apostles in diuine prayer Since thâ— man cannot be named who vnderstandeâ— the true intended sense of the Psalmâ— Prophets and the Apostles Neither are the two places of Scripture so much vrged 〈◊〉 our Aduersaries repugnant to what is heâ— said Populus (7) Mat. 15. hic labijs me honorat c And againe Yff pray (8) 1. Cor. 14. with the tongue 〈◊〉 spirit prayeth but my vnderstanding is withâ—â— fruite Since the first of these texts is not vâ—derstood of Prayer or of reading diuine Seruice but it is meant of those who profeâ—â—â— piety with their tongue and in words saying they loue God but yet do the contrary in their Actions as (9) Ierome in c. 29. Isa Ierome and (10) Austin in lib. 22. contra Faustum cap. 25. Aâ—stin do expound But admitting the worâ—â— of this text to be vnderstood of Men praying theÌ„ may we answere that those are here â—rehended who praying in a knowne and â—gar tongue beare during the tyme of â—r praying no intention to what they 〈◊〉 but suffer at that present great distraâ—n and euagation of thoughts Concerâ—g this later passage of Scripture I ansâ—re that that Prayer is not reprehended â—ich is not vnderstood but only that â—ayer is preferred before it which is vnderâ—od For the Apostle sayth not that the â—ayer is without fruite but that the mind 〈◊〉 vnderstanding is without fruite in that 〈◊〉 is not instructed thereby Now that this â—nd of Praying is not reprehended by the â—postle as Euill or altogether fruitles and â—nprofitable appeareth from those words a â—tle after following For thou indeed giuest â—hanks well c. Animaduersion CLXX YF Christ and his Apostles had determined to restrayne the word of God only to â—he Scripture then it followeth that Christ would openly haue commanded a thing of so great moment and the Apostles would in some one place or other of Scripture haue testifyed that they did write by the commandement of our Lord as they taught throughout the world as is recorded in Scripture by the commandement of our Lord But this commandement of writing to be imposed by Christ vpon his Apostles we read not in any place of Scâ—â—pture Furthermore the Apostles did not â—â—pect or stay for any proffered occasion 〈◊〉 preach the Gospell viua voce but they 〈◊〉 vndertake the charge of preaching the waâ— freely and of their owne accord and dispâ—sition 2Whereas to write the Scripture thâ— were moued thereto through a certaâ—â— kind of Necessity and vrging occurrence Thus S. Mathew as Eusebius (11) Lib. 3 hist c. 24. recoâ—deth did write vpon occasion becauâ— when he had preached to the Iewes and dâ—termined to goe to the Gentills he deemed 〈◊〉 to be conuenient and profitable to leaâ— behind him to those some memoriall 〈◊〉 his doctrine and preaching from whom 〈◊〉 body and corporall presence he had depaâ—ted S. Marke as the same Eusebius (12) L. 2. histor cap. 15. reâ—â—teth did write his Gospell neither of 〈◊〉 owne accord nor by the commandemeâ— of S. Peter whose disciple he was but onâ— through the forcible persuasion of the Râ—mans S. Luke as also (13) Euseb l. 3. hist. c. 14. Eusebius shewetâ— was only moued to write his Gospell bâ—cause he saw many other men rashly presâ—ming to write the life and actions of Chriâ—â— which themselues did not perfectly knoâ— And therefore S. Luke did write thereby 〈◊〉 withdraw vs from the vncertaine relatioâ— of others S. Iohn as Eusebius (14) Euseb vbi suprà affirmeth dâ— preach the Ghospell without committing 〈◊〉 to wryting euen to his old decrepit agâ— (15) Ierome l. de Scripâ— Eccles S. Ierome sayth that at length he was â—pelled as it were by the Bishops of â—a to write his Ghospell by reason of Heresy of the Ebionites then begining â—erefore except the Heresy of the Ebionits 〈◊〉 not then begunne to spring vp perhaps 〈◊〉 should not at all haue had the Ghospell of â—ohn neither perhaps the other three â—ospels but in regard of the foresaid ocâ—ions in those tymes occuring Now from this it is is euident that the mayne inâ—tion of the Apostles was not to wryte 〈◊〉 Ghospell but to preach it Furthermore â—x professo they had determined to commit â—eir doctrine to wryting they would haue â—â—de some Catechisme therof or some such
â—e booke But they did wryte either a â—â—tory as the Euangelists did or Epistles â—on some speciall occasion as Peter Paul â—â—es Iudas Iohn and in the same did disâ—te or discourse of dogmaticall points of â—yth only obiter and as circumstances inâ—eed them Animaduersion CLXXI. â—He first Proposition touching Indulgences The foundation and groundworke of â—he Doctrine of Indulgences is that there reâ—ayneth in the Church of Christ a certaine â—pirituall Treasury of the satisfactions of â—hrist and his Saincts which may be applied â—o those who stand subiect to temporal puâ—ishment after the guilt of eternall punishment is remitted in the Sacrament of Penance for the better explicating of which doctrine these following propositions are to be deliuered The first proposition In one and the samâ— good action or worke of a iust man a double price or value is assigned to it the one of Merit the other of Satisfaction For example the one and same act of giuing of Almes is Satisfactory in that it is a laborious or penalâ— worke It is also Meritorious because it is a good worke proceeding from Charity Now the giuing of Almes proceeding from charity is not lesse good because it is laborious and penall vpon the same reason theâ— it followeth that the same prayer may be both impetratory and meritorious The second Proposition A good worke in that respect as it is meritorious cannot be applyed to another but it may be applyed as it iâ— Satisfactory The first part of this proposition is proued because it cannot come to passe that in respect that one doth worke well another should be said to worke well in the said Action The second part is proued because satisfaction is a compensation of the punishment or paying of what iâ— due but it is euident that one man may make compensation of punishment for another man or pay the debt of another man The third Proposition There remayneth in the Church an infinit Treasury of Christs satisfactions which can neuer be exhausted or dryed vp This is euident since the passion of Christ 〈◊〉 of an infinite worth price and dignity â—or it was the Passion of an infinite Person 〈◊〉 wit of the Word Incarnated for he was 〈◊〉 who shed his bloud for the Church â—ut did shee l it in Mans flesh Hypostaticalâ— assumpted Now the dignity of satisfaâ—ion receaues its measure from the dignity 〈◊〉 the person satisfying euen as the greatâ—es of the offence taketh its proportion â—om the dignity of the person offended â—herefore from hence it is inferred that â—â—ere is yet remayning a great part of the â—orth and price of the Passion of Christ â—â—ich may alwayes be applyed to Man The fourth proposition To this superaâ—â—dant Treasury of the satisfactions of Christ â—â—ng the passions or sufferings of the B. Virgin â—as a such other Saints who haue suffered more 〈◊〉 this world then their sins haue deserued For 〈◊〉 is euident not to speake of other Saints â—â—t the Blessed Virgin neuer committed any â—â—tuall Sinne yet it is said that the sword 〈◊〉 griefe pierced her soule Luc. 2. In like sort 〈◊〉 Iohn Baptist being sanctifyed in his moâ—ers wombe did lead a most innocent life â—â—d stood obnoxious to most few and most â—ght or small Sinnes and yet in defence of â—â—e truth hee was beheaded Therefore it â—â—nnot be doubted but that a great heape â—f passions and sufferings of the B. Virgin 〈◊〉 S. Iohn Baptist were vpon their deaths reâ—ayning of which themselues did not staÌ„d in need for the satisfying for any temporall punishment All which superabundanâ—â— of satisfactioÌ„s were layed vp in the Treasâ—â— house of the Church Thus farre of thâ— poynt only I add that so the person mâ—â— be capable of Jndulgences two things are required The first that he be in state of Grace the second that he performe all that whicâ— is inioyned to him for the obtayning of the Jndulgence Animaduersion CLXXII WHen it is said Indulgences do profit the soules of the departed only per moduâ— suffragij the meaning hereof is because Jndulgences do not profit the departed by way of Iuridicall absolution but by way of solution or payment that is by way of Satisfaction Thus when a Man giueth Almes or fasteth or goeth on pilgrimage to holy places for the reliefe of a soule departed he doth not absolue that soule from the guilt of punishment but he only offereth vp that satisfaction that God accepting thereof would free and deliuer it from the due punishment which otherwise it were to suffer Euen so the Pope doth not absolue the departed soule but out of the Treasury of satisfactions remayning in the Church offereth vp so much to God as is needfull to free and deliuer the soule For the close of these Animaduersions touching the Doctrine of Indulgences the Reader is to take particular notice and the rather through the wlilfull malitious mistaking of our Aduersaries â—ho do mightily calumniate vs in this question of Jndulgences that we teach the guilt of eternall damnation being remitted only by the Sacrament of Confession or by most perfect contrition in lieu therof when there is not oportunity of the other the subiect of an Indulgence is only a temporall punishment due to be suffered after the guilt of damnation is remitted which temporall punishment by meanes of Indulgences we hold may be either lessened or wholy taken away in a Man who is in state of Grace but not if he be in state of Mortall Sinne. Animaduersion CLXXIII IT is certaine that the English Translations of the New Testament made by the Protestants are most corrupt and in diuers places most different from the Greeke in which tongue either all or most of the New Testament was first written I will exemplify in two passages The New Testament makes mention of good or pious Traditions of wicked and Iewish Traditions expressing them both by one the same Greeke word to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifyeth Traditio Now the imposture here resteth For our English Protestant Translations in such Texts wherein are vnderstood Good and profitable Traditions as in 1. Cor. 2. and 2. Thess 2. do translate insteed of the word Traditions the word Ordinances But where the Texts speake of wicked and friuolous Traditions there our Aduersaries put downe most punctually as it Math. 15. in their Translation the right word Traditions Now this calumny is vsed in dislike of Apostolicall Traditions that so the ignorant Reader should neuer find the word Tradition in Scripture in a good sense but alwayes in a bad and disalowed though now in their last Translation but not in any former for the better saluing of their credit they put only in the Margent of such Texts speaking of godly Traditions the word Traditions The like course they hould in translating the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying dignus in English Worthy and the Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be made worthy For in those Texts which