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
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
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
diuine Scriptures yet they are recorded and written in the Monuments of the auncient Authours and in Ecclesiasticall bookes The second reason may be the continuall vse of them For diuers Traditions are in continuall obseruation practise as the Rites and Ceremonyes of administring the Sacraments Holy-dayes appoynted tymes of fasting the Celebration of the Masse and of Diuine office or prayers and such like The third cause are certaine externall Monuments which continue for a most long tyme as most ancient TeÌ„ples or Churches in which are Altars the Holy Fonts for Baptisme the Memorialls or Toumbs of Saincts Crosses Images Ecclesiasticall bookes c. The fourth Reason is Heresy it selfe For God doth wonderfully vse the Enemyes of the Church to the preseruation of the Church For because as in euery age there haue risen vp some Heretyks who haue impugned diuers dogmaticall Traditions of the Church So hath God in ech age raysed certaine learned Orthodoxall Men who that they might better resist the Heretykes haue with most great diligence and labour searched out the Doctrine of the Church and ancient Traditions and haue transmitted them in wryting to all posterity I will ad this following obseruation in fuller warrant of vnwritten Traditions against such who restrayne the proofe of all poynts to the Scripture it selfe To wit that it is one thing for an Article of fayth to be expressed in Scripture Another thing for an Article of fayth to be grounded vpon â—cripture All Christian doctrine is not expressed in Scripture yet euery Christian doctrine is so grounded on Scripture that it may in somâ— sort or other be proued from Scripture And in this sense all Traditions receaued by the vniuersall Church of Christ may be said to be grounded on Scripture since they are grouÌ„ded vpon the authority of the Church admitting them To which Church Christ himselfe hath promised an infallibility of Truth and of not erring according to that Ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus vsque Consummationem saeculi Math. 18. And againe Portae inferi non praeualebunt aduersum eam Math. 16. to wit against the Church of Christ Animaduersion CLXXXII PRotestancy is proued to be an intentionall thing in it selfe and voyde of all Reall fayth This is proued from the Definition of Fayth giuen by the Apostle thus defining fayth fides est sperandarum substantia rerum argumentum non apparentium That is fayth is the (50) Heb. 11. substance of things to be hoped for the argument of things not appearing This definition sheweth that fayth is a supernaturall Vertue and the Obiect thereof is that which through its owne abstrusenes sublimity cannot be apprehended or conceaued by force of Mans owne wit it transcending all Naturall Reason This we see exemplyfyed in the two supreme Articles of the Trinity and the Incarnation the Mysteryes and difficulties of which transcend all humane reason or light of Nature And hence it is that the Conclusion of the Schoole Deuines is this Quae (51) S. Thomas part 1. 2. quaest 1. fidei sunt non possunt esse scita Now to apply this Yf Protestancy be a supernaturall fayth or els it is no true sauing fayth then the Obiect of this Protestanticall fayth is of that difficult Nature as that Man through the force of Naturall reason only cannot giue any assent thereto without the speciall concurrency of Gods Grace But here I demand that seeing the Obiect of Protestancy as Protestancy is meere Negatiues and denialls as deniall of Reall Presence deniall of Purgatory deniall of Freewill deniall of praying to Saincts briefly deniall of most of the affirmatiue points taught by our Catholike Church here I say I demand what supernaturality or force of Gods speciall concurrency is required that man should giue an assent to these Negations or denyalls Nay I here say that mans naturall reason euen of it selfe without any externaâ—l help is propense and inclyning to belieue these and other such like Negations except the Affirmatiues to those Negations can be conuinced as for true either by Diuine or Humane proofe and Authority Thus it followeth that Protestancy euen from the Definition of Fayth giuen by the Apostle is no supernaturall Fayth but in respect of such a Fayth is a meere Irreality and wast of fayth Animaduersion CLXXXIII THe reasons which S. Thomas Aquinas (52) S. Thom in 3. part quaest 27. Artic 4. doth insist vpon being most probable inducements for freeing the Blessed Virgin Mary from Originall Sinne are these following The first Seeing God did decree to aduance the Blessed Virgin to so supreme dignity that she should excell euen the Angells themselues therfore it was most sutable agreeable that no priuiledg should be conferred vpon any pure Creature which was not conferred vpon the B. Virgin except such a priuiledg were repugnant to the condition state Nature or Sex But to be sanctifyed in the first instant of Creation was giuen to our First Parents As also to be sanctifyed in the first instant of Creation and neuer to be polluted with any Sinne was giuen to the holy Angells But this priuiledg is in no sort repugnant to the condition state Nature or Sex of the B. Virgin Therefore it is a pious thing to belieue that the Mother of God did not want this priuiledge Secondly because that testimony of the Heauenly Spouse ought in all probability to be accomplished and fulfilled in the Blessed Virgin Tota (53) Can. 4. pulchra es amica mea macula non est in te Thirdly because the Mother of Christ hath a singular Affinity and Coniunction with Christ himselfe Fourthly in that the Sonne of God who is the wisdome of the Father did as it were inhabitate in the wombe of the Mother after a most peculiar and wonderfull manner But it is said in holy Scripture In maleuolam (54) Wisdoms c. 1. animam c. Wisdome cannot enter into a wicked hart nor dwell in the body which is subiect to sinne Lastly because as well the honour as the ignominy of the Mother redoundeth to the Sonne Now touching the proofe of the Assumption of our B. Lady both in Body Soule pretermitting the Authority of the (55) S. Ierome writeth a sermon styling it de Eesto assumptionis Mariae The Centurists alledge that S. Austin did write a Book-entituling it de Assumptione Virginis Mariae Ancient Fathers herin I will at this present content my selfe with the Argument of S. Bernard in proofe thereof who thus disputeth Seeing God hath discouered and reuealed the Bodies of many Saincts which lay hid in diuers places that they might be honored of faythful Christians It then ineuitably followeth that if the sacred Body of the Blessed Virgin had beene still on earth he would in like maÌ„ner haue made knowne no doubt in what place or Country it did lye But it not being certainly knowne where that Body or any part thereof is in any place of the world it may irrâ—pliably
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
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.
any impugned part or branch of their Religion From which vndaunted resolution of theirs we certainely collect that this their constant determination of defending the least point of their Religion proceedeth partly from a generall instinct of God impressed in mans soule teaching ech man that death it selfe is rather to be suffered then we are to deny any part of fayth and Religion in generall And thus according hereto we find that the Athenians who were Heathens though they did erre touching the particular Obiect therin as worshipping false Gods were most cautelous that no one point should be infringed or violated touching the worshipping of their Gods The like religious seuerity was practised by the Iewes as Iosephus (s) Ioseph contra Apion witnesseth Now from these Premisses we deduce against our Adiaphorists or Neutralls in Religion either Catholike or Protestant that no points of true Religion are of that cold Indifferency as that they are not to be much regarded either in beliefe or in profession but that they are of that Nature worth and dignity as a man is obliged to vndergoe all torments yea death it selfe before he yeald or suffer the least relaps in denying any of the said verities or in any externall Profession contrary thereto Animaduersion CXXI FOr the further impugning of the indifferency of seuerall Religions and to shew that euery religion among Christians is not capable of Saluation I will drawe one demonstration out of Scripture The text is this In the (t) 1. Timoth cap. 4. larer tymes certaine shall depart from the fayth attending to spirits of Errour and Doctrine of Deuils forbidding to Marry to abstaine from Meates Heere the Apostle prophesyeth according to the iudgement of S. Chrysestome (u) Hom. 12. in Timoth Ambrose (x) In hunc locum Ierome (y) L. contra Iouinian c. 7. and (z) Haer. 25. 40. Austin of the Heretykes Encratites Marcionists Ebionites and such like who denyed Matrimony as a thing altogether vnlawfull and prohibited absolutely at all tymes and the eating of certaine Meates as Creatures impure Now these Heretykes belieued in the Trinity the Incarnation and other Supreme poynts of Christian Religion And yet eueÌ„ for these two former Heresyes touching Marriage and eating of Meates and not for their misbeleife in the Trinity Incarnation c. they are said by the Apostle to depart from the fayth of Christ and to attend to the Doctrine of Deuils But such as leaue the fayth of Christ and attend to the doctrine of the Diuels are not in state of Saluation Now these Errours heere mentioned by the Apostle are of as little or lesser consequence then the Controuersyes betweene the Catholiks the ProtestaÌ„ts therefore it standeth vpon ech Christian if so he expect to saue his soule to professe entirely and wholy the true Religion Animaduersion CXXII TOuching the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the B. Sacrament of the Eucharist the auncient Fathers are most full therin euen by the acknoledgement of the ProtestaÌ„ts themselues First then Gregory the great is coÌ„fessed by D. Humfrey (a) In Iesuitism part 2. rat 5. to haue broght in Transubstantiation into England at his first planting of Christianity in this Country as is aboue shewed Chrysostome is reprehended by the Centurists to vse their owne words (b) Cent. 5. col 517. Quia parum commodè de Transubstantiatione dixit (c) Cent. 4. c. 4. col 295. S. Ambrose is affirmed by the Centurists in the booke ascribed to Ambrose to confirme the Doctrine of Transubstantiation which Father for the said Doctrine is also taxed by (d) L Ep. Oecolampad Swinglij l. 3. Oecolampadius S. Cyrill is reprehended by Peter (e) Ep. ad Bezam annexed to his Common places Martyr in these words I will not easely subscribe to Cyrill who affirmed such a Communion as thereby euen the flesh and bloud of Christ is ioyned to the Blessings for so he calleth the holy bread c. S. Cyprian is charged in the booke ascribed to Vrsinus the Protestant entituled Coâ—monefactio cuiusdam Theologi de sancta Caenâ— who there thus writeth (f) Pag. 111. â—18 In Cyprian are many things which seeme to affirme Transubstantiation Lastly Ignatius is acknoledged by Keâ—pnitius (g) Exa part 1. p. 94. to haue confirmed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in that eminent place of his (h) Ep. ad Smirnenses Eucharistias oblationes noÌ„ admittuÌ„t quòd non confiteantur eucharistiam esse carnem saluatoris quae pro peccatis nostris passa est c. The truth of the Fathers iudgment touching the Reall presence is so fully confessed by our Aduersaryes as that Antony de Adamo a markable Protestant thus acknoledgeth hereof (i) In his Anatomy of the Masse p. 236. J haue not hitherto beene able to know when this Opinion of the Reall bodily being of Christ in the Eucharist did first beginne With whome conspireth Adamus Francisci another Pro estant saying Commentum (k) In Margarita Theol. pag. 156. Papistarum c. The Papists inuention touching Transubstantiation crept earely into the Church Thuâ— farre of the Protestants Confessions in this poynt whereunto we may add that these Fathers heere aboue charged with the rest of the Fathers of those Ages were the chiefe Pastours Doctours of the Primitiue Church which Church belieued herein according as it was taught by the said Fathers If then these Fathers should erre in the Doctrine of TraÌ„substantiation then should it follow that the primitiue Church yea and the vniuersall Church of Christ contrary â—o Christs (l) Math 1â— promisse therein should erre Animaduersion CXXIII YF we do take into due consideration 〈◊〉 seuerall chiefe heades and points when vnto the sentences and authorities of 〈◊〉 ancient Fathers touching the Eucharist 〈◊〉 be reduced we cannot otherwise be perâ—â—ded but that the Fathers taught vnaâ—â—mously the Doctrine of the Reall Presence and Transubstantiation seing those Heads 〈◊〉 the Fathers sentences are so agreeable aâ—â—fortable to Christs Reall being in the Sacrament and so incompetent and disproportionable to a bare Typicall Presence or being of him therein To begin then The First Head of the Fathers authorityes may be the Appellatâ—â— or Names which the Fathers giue to the Blessed Sacrament far differently from the Sacramentaryes which is an argument that Sacramentaryes differ from the Fathers iâ— beleife therein Thus the Fathers call the Sacrament The body bloud of our Lord Thâ— precious body tremenda Mysteria the fearefuâ—â— Misteries the pledge of our Saluation Our priâ—â— whereas the Sacramentaryes vsuall phraâ—â— is to call the Eucharist the Symboll or signâ— of the body and bloud of the Lord. The second Classe or Head is taken from the Comparison of this Sacrament with other things for they compare it with the Manna Paschall Lamb with Panis Propositionis and the lyke saying The Eucharist doth differ from all these things as the Truth differs froÌ„ â—â—gures the body
Priests of the Old Law or the High Priests now haue after the establishment of Religion beene sometimes wicked Men or not but the touch of the Question here issuable is whether the truth of Religion hauing beene extinct as is supposed or to the World latent and inuisible for so many hundred yeares as is in this Treatise confessed by our Aduersaries to haue beene extinct and inuisible may with any probability be thought to be reuealed or restored to the world by men of flagitious and wicked Liues I meane by Luther Swinglius Caluin (2) Caluin charged with Sodomy by the publike records of the City of Noyon in FraÌ„ce yet extant and by Conradus Schlusselburg a Protestant in Theolog Caluinist printed 1594. l. Law 1. fol. 72. and Beza (3) Beza charged with Sodomy by the fore said Schlusseiburg vbi suprà and l. 1. fol. 9â— Hessbusius a Protestant in his booke entituled Verae sanâ— Confessionis c. both which last two are condemned of the execrable Sinne of Sodomy euen by other Protestants their brethren And heere the doubt or Question resteth Animaduersion CXLVI THe Prophet speaking with difference of the Synagogue of the Iewes in the Old Law and of the Church of Christ in the Neâ— thus writeth The glory (4) Aggeus â— of this last houâ—â— meaning the Church of Christ shal be greater then the first with whom conspireth the Apostle saying with reference to the Iewish Law and the Law of Christ (5) Hebr. 8. Christ is a mediatour of a better Testament which is established vpon better promisses Now from these passages of Scripture I demonstratiuely deduce that the Protestant Church is not the true Church of Christ since touching its visibility it is much inferiour to the Synagogue of the Iewes I meane which is a Circumstance here chiefly to be obserued euen since the comming of the Messias which was the appointed tyme of the Synagogues Decay and the Christian Churches increase For it is fully confessed heretofore that for the thousand yeares last before Luther or rather some seuerall ages more before the said thousand yeares the Protestant Church hath continued vnknowne latent and inuisible Whereas on the other part it appeareth by sufficient authority of Histories in all tymes that the Jewes during all those ages and euer since Christs tyme haue had their Synagogue though vnder some kind of restraint yet dispersed knowne and Visible in the most notable Prouinces of the world as Greece Italy Spayne France Germany England c. And thus we see that the scandall or scruple hence arysing hath beene an argument for some Protestants to apostatate from Christian Religion and to become Iewes as Bernardine Ochine Neuserus chiefe Pastour of Heidelburg and others as I haue shewed elswhere since these men altogether reiecting the Catholike Church as false and Idolatrous did well obserue that the former Prophesy of the Visibility of the Church of God was not fullfilled in their Protestant Church Animaduersion CXLVII YF we might rest vpon the seuerall iudgments of the Protestants it would follow that most of the chiefest Controuersies betweene vs and them should be but points of Jndifferency and the contrary houlding them off either syde should not be preiudiciall to Mans Saluation which course is indeed to introduce a Neutrality of Religion or rather a contempt of all Religion I will exempâ—ify in diuers particulars And 1 first concerning satisfaction and merit of works D. Whitaker thus writeth The (6) Whitak contra Rat. Camp p. 78. and in his answere to M. William Reynolds cap. 6. pag. 135. ancient Fathers thought by their externall discipline of life to pay the paynes due for sinne c. Which though it be an errâ—ur yet were they notwithstanding good Men and holy Fathers Therefore I conclude their beliefe and practise of the said points were no hindrance to their Saluation 2. Touching the Popes primacy thus fauorably Melancthon writeth thereof The (7) In his Ep extant in the Book entituled Centuria Epistol Theolog. Epist 74 Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is profitable to this end that consent 〈◊〉 be retayned Wherefore an agreement might easâ—ly be established in this Article of the Popes Prâ—macy if other Articles could be agreed vpon Touching our Lady being preserued froâ— Originall Sinne and worshipping of Jmageâ— M. Bunny thus writeth In these (8) Bunny in his pacification sect 17. pag. 104. or suâ—â— like whosoeuer will condemne all those to be noâ— of the Church that are not fully persuaded therein as we are c. committeth an vncharitabâ—â— part towards his brethren 4. Concerning receauing vnder one or both kinds Luther thus teacheth Si (9) Luth. de vtraque specie Sacramenti veneris ad locum vbi tantuâ— vna species ministratur cum alijs vna tantuâ— specie vtere c. 5. Concerning the Doctrine of the Reall Presence D. Reynolds sayth The (10) Reynolds in his fifth Conclusion annexed to his Conference pag. 722. Doctrine of the Reall Presence is but as it were the grudging of a litle ague if otherwise the party hould the Christian fayth 6. Of Inuocation of Saints D. Goad (11) In their Disputation had in the Tower wiâ—h F. Campian the 1. dayes Conference Arg. 8. Rat. 11. 111. D. Fulke affirme that it doth not exclude from being members of the Church c. 7. of Honoring Saints Relikes and Prayer for the dead M. Spark thus discourseth We are (12) Sparke in his answere to M. Iohn d' Albines pag 382. not so hasty to pronounce condemnation of any such Errours for you know well inough that we make not these matters such as that either we thinke that all must be saued that hould the one way or all condemned that hould the other 8. Of Freewill and prayer for the Dead and some other points M. Cartwright thus censureth The Indifferency (13) Cartwright in his Reply p. 14. Sect. 1. â— of the Doctrines of Freeâ—â—â—l prayer for the Dead a number of others necessary Doctrines is such wherein men being â—â—sted haue notwithstanding beene saued 9. Lastly concerning Masse Luther thus writeth Priuate Masse (14) Luther in Colloq Germanicis ca. de Missa hath deceaued many Sâ—incts and earryed them away into Errour frâ—m the tyme of Gregory for 800. yeares Thus far for a tast touching many points euen of greatest consequence betweene the Church of Rome and the Protestants houlden by the Protestants to be of that Adiaphorous indifferent Nature as that the belieuing of them or deniall of them is no hinderance to the Saluation of the Soule So ready we fynd euen the most learned Protestants against the Nature of true fayth and of the practise of the primitiue Church to dogâ—etize a Neutrality of Christian Religion Animaduersion CXLVIII THe Antimoni who denied the Law of Moyses and the Libertines who teach all sensualicy all most impure wicked Heretikes may in a true iudgment be rightly said
and 5. Luke â— 16 both who leaue out this exposition saying thus absolutely Whosoeuer putteth aâ—ay his wyfe and marrieth another committeth adultery And this exposition is giuen by S. Thomas Sent. in 4. distinct 35. quaest vnica art 5. So as in these former words of Math. 1â— a Parenthesis is to be vnderstood after this manner Whosoeuer putteth away his wyfe which is not lawfull except it be for fornication marrieth another committeth adultery Now that the exposition of our Aduersaries of the said text was coÌ„demned throughout all ages of the primitiue Church is most cleere since the Fathers of ech such age euâ—â— taught that a man putting away his wife â—pon any occasion yea for Fornication couâ—â— not marry any other Woman For examâ—â— thus in the first Age Clemens teacheth 〈◊〉 Canon Apostol can 48. In the secoâ— Age Iustinus Martyr in Apolog. pro Christ. nis In the third Tertullian l. 4. in Marcâ—nem In the fourth Age the Councell of Eâ—â—â—ris can 9. In the fifth Concil Mileuitanâ—â— can 17. and S. Austin lib. de adulterinis conâ—gijs In the sixt age Primasius in Comment 〈◊〉 cap. 7. prioris ad Corinth Now here I vrâ— that if the former exposition of the Cathâ—likes be false then did the Primitiue Chuâ—â—â— wholy erre therein which is most absurdâ— maintayne In like manner the Primitâ—â— Church of Christ did then wrong maâ— Christians in not suffering them to vse â—pon occasion of the wyues Fornication tâ—â— priuiledg which Christ may seeme to graâ— to them I may add hereto that diuers leâ—â—ned Protestants by maintayning that 〈◊〉 case of Diuorce vpon adultery the innoceâ— party cannot marry againe do reiect câ— Aduersaries exposition of the former 〈◊〉 of Matthew 19. According hereto to â—mit many other moderate Protestants tâ—â—ching the same with vs Catholikes D. Hâ—â—son in his tertia Thesi printed 1602. maintâ—â—neth the same publikely in Oxford In lâ—â— sort some thirty yeares since more or leâ—â— the same Doctrine was preached at Paâ— Crrsse by D. Doueâ— Now to all this aboue â—aid I may adioyne the exposition of S. Auâ—â—in in l. 1. de adulterinis coniugijs cap. 9. of the â—oresaid text who there sayth That the â—ords in Math. 19. vz. nisi ob fornicationem â—ught to be taken negatiuè non exceptiuè by â—ay of negation not of exception So as the sense of them may be this Whosoeuer shall put away his wyfe nisi ob fornicationem that is extra causam fornicationis without the cause of fornication and shall marry another commitâ—â—th adultery From which exposition the Aâ—ultery of him is affirmed who putting away his wyfe without the cause of fornicaâ—â—on shall marry another But nothing is â—ere said of him who putting away his wyfe â—y reason of fornication shall marry anoâ—her Thus far of this Text. Animaduersion CLXXX AS the Inuisibility and Latency of the Protestants Church hath beene fully aboue demonstrated so here I hould it not imperâ—â—nent if I proue the Continuall and vninâ—â—rrupted visibility of our Catholike Church â—nd consequently that it is that Church of God to which so many Prophesyes haue â—eene made of its vneclipsed splendour and â—â—diancy Thy (46) Esa 60. Gates shal be contiâ—â—ally open neither day nor night shall they be â—â—nt c. Now this verity is proued seuerall wayes â—nd first from the confessed Jnuisibility of the Protestant Church during all former ages till Luthers insurrection And this the rather seeing the learned Protestants confesse that all the former Inuisibility of the Protestant Church was wrought by the labour power and diligence of the Catholike Roman Church Now how could the Roman Church effect so much for so long a tyme except it selfe during all that tyme were most visible According to this assertion we find M. Napper to confesse the same reason of his Churches Jnuisibility in these words During (47) Napper vpon the Reuelations caps 11. 12. euen the second thâ—s age meaning since Christ the true Churâ—â— of God and the light of the Gospel was obscureâ— by the Roman Antichrist himselfe Secondly the euer Visibility of the Catholike Church is proued from the acknowledged succession of Pastours in oâ—â— Catholike Church euer since the Apostles since those visible Pastours were the visible and most eminent members of our said Church preaching and instructing others who in this respect must become also viâ—itâ— and knowne Now this our visible succession of Pastours in our Roman Church is confessed euen by our Aduersaries for thus D. Fulke exprobrateth the Catholiks in these words You (48) D. Fulke in his answere to a Counterfayte Catholike p. 27. can name chiefe Personages in all ages marke these words in all ages and their gouerment and ministery and especially the succession of the Popes you haue vpon your fingars Thus D. Fulke Thirdly and lastly the same is thus proued Yf the most ancient and reuerend Fathers of the primitiue Church I meane Ignatius Dionysius Areopagita Iustinus Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Cyprian Athanasius Hilarius the Cyrills the Gregories Ambrose Basill Opratus Gandentius Chrysostome Ierome Austin and diuers others be accounted by our Aduersaries most earnest Professours of our Catholike Roman fayth then it follâ—weth most consequently that our Catholike Church was most coÌ„spicuous in those tymes since those Fathers were the visible Pastours of the Church then in Being Now that the Fathers of those primitiue tâ—mes were Papists professing the present Roman fayth appeareth besides from what is already most fully confessed by our Aduersaries in that behalfe euen from that acknowledgment of Peter Martyr saying As long (49) Peter Martyr l. de votis p. 476. as we insist in the fathers so long we shal be conuersaÌ„t in the Papists errours Now that our Catholike Church hath beene further also most visible since the tymes of those primitiue Fathers I meane for these last thousand yeares is so fully confessed by our Aduersaryes in this Treatise as that I hould it ouer wearisome and fastidious so often to repeate such their Confessions Animaduersion CLXXXI THe mayne ArgumeÌ„t drawne from Reason which our Aduersaryes vrge against vnwritten Traditions is this It seemeth say they impossible that vnwritten Traditions can be kept and conserued since there are diuers hinderances thereof as Forgetfulnes Jgnorance negligence peruersnes of mens Natures and the like And hence it is that we see that such Sentences which Lycurgus Pythagoras and others deliuered only in words and not in wryting are at this day lost and perished To this I answere that I hould it impossible that Apostolicall Traditions should not be preserued since this care is not properly incumbent vpon Man but vpon God who gouerneth the Church Now besydes the prouidence of God which is the chiefe cause of preseruing the Traditions of the Church there are foure other inferiour or subordinate Causes for their preseruation The first is the committing of Traditions to wryting For although they be not set downe in Holy writ I meane in the