vsage do charge Cyprian and Tertullian who liued in the second and third age For their teaching priuate Confession euen of thoughts and lesser sinnes Thirdly D. Whitaker (r) D. Whita l. contra Duâ—aeum pa. 480. affirmeth that Pope Siricius was the first that annexed perpetuall Chastity to the Clergy men or Ministers of the word This Instance is ouerthrowne by the Confession of Kempnitius (s) Kemp nit in Exam. Concil Trid. p. 50. 601. who doth reprehend Ierome Epiphanius Origen Ambrose all far more ancient then this Siricius for their impugning the supposed lawfulnes of Priests Mariage Fourthly D. Whitâ—ker sayth Qui (t) D. Whit. vbi supra pa. 480. Transubstantiationem primus excogitauit it fuit Innocentius tertius in Concilio Lateranensi who first inuented Transubstantiation was Innocentius the third in the Councell of Lateran which Councell was houlden in the yeare 1215. But I take this obiection away by the authority of D. (u) Iesuitism part 2. rat 5 pa. 628. Humfrey as els where I haue shewed who writeth that Gregory the Great and Austin both which liued a thousand yeares since at their first plantation of Christian Religion here in England to vse the Doctours owne words Jnuexerunt Transubstantiationem Fiftly the D. further proceedeth saying Who (x) Contra Duraeum l. 7. c. 480. first inuented to say that the body of Christ frangitur sensibiliter tractatur dentibus atteritur was Nicolaus the Second To this I answere saying it is but a verball obiection and quarreleth at certain phrases words which words are to be vnderstood in a sober and restrayned construction and therefore we find the like Phrases to be vsed by S. Chrysostome far more ancient then Nicolaus the second saying Christus non (y) Chrysost in Ioan. Homil. 45. se tantum videri permittit defiderantibus sed tangi manduçari dentes â—arni suae infigi Christ doth not only permit himself to be seene of those who desire to see him but also to be touched and eaten by them and their teeth to be fastned in his flesh A point so true that Jacobus Andraeas a famous Protestant but a Lutheran answereth this very obiection of Nicolaus saying (z) Andraeat in confutat Ioannis Gâ—inaei p. 274. 275. Nicolaus nihil continet quod in scriptis Orthodoxorum Patrum Chrysostomi inprimis non continetur Sixtly D. Whitaker (a) D. Whitak vbi supra pa. 480. instanceth in Pope Calixtus for introducing the Fast of Lent and of Quatuor Temporum But Kempnitius thus writeth hereof Ambrose (b) Kempnit in Exam. Concil Trid. part 2. pag. 8â— Maximus Taurinensis Theophilus Ierome and others do affirme the fast of Lent to be an Apostolicall Tradition and thus they make it more ancient by the Confession of Kempnitius then the tymes of Calixtus Seauenthly and lastly D. Whitaker thus writeth Boniface (c) D. Whita vbi supra pag. 480. the third was the first that entituled the Roman Church to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum The Head of all Churches But this is refuted by D. Whitaker himself who affirmeth that (d) D. Whitak vbi supra pag. 480. Zozimus Bonifacius and Celestinus did challenge superiority ouer other Bishops by forging a Canon of the Nicene Councell so inconstant is this Doctour in his Instances which later assertion of his touching Zozimus Bonifacius and Celestine though it be most false so far as concernes any forging of a Canon and only inuented by our Aduersaries yet it frees Boniface the third from this supposed Innouation Thus far now of D. Whitakers Instances where we are to vnderstand that some of the former Popes did command a more strict obseruation in some points as in not Marrying of Priests touching Auricular Confession touching the Fast of Lent then afore was obserued Now D. Whitakers calumny here lyeth in a willfull confounding of the First Institution of a thing with a Renouation or practise of the same thing which imposture is aboue noted Animaduersion LXXX I Will here draw a Porisma or Resultancy out of this last Animaduersion It is this Whereas we see such Protestant Doctours and those of the greatest Rank who labour by all reading and meanes whatsoeuer to shew the beginning of our Catholike points and after all their disquisition and search they cannot find any colour or pretext to insist in more then Fiue or sixt points to be innouated and yet such their Instances euidently discouered to be of no force but most falsely alledged Therefore the Reader may here iustly presume that no instances of Innouation can be but suggested or imagined to be giuen of the Change of the Church of Rome touching the doctrines here following To wit 1. Visibility of the Church 2 Praying to Saints 3. Freewill 4. Merit of Workes 5. Workes of Supererogation 6. Indulgences 7. Monachism 8. Limbus Patrum 9. Images the 10. Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament 11. Communion vnder one kind 12. Vniuersality of Grace 13. The Necessity and vertue of the Sacrament 14. Inherent Iustice 15. the knowledge of Christ as Man 16. His being God of God and diuers others Here I say no colour how little soeuer can be giuen of Innouation or change in any of these our Catholike Articles For if any pretext or shadow could be afforded of any change of these or of any other doctrines here not specified D. Whitaker or some other of our learned Aduersaries would not haue beene altogether silent therein Animaduersion LXXXI THe Catholike Doctrine touching Praïng to Saints is chiefly deliuered in these ensuing propositions The first It is not lawfull to pray to Saincts as Authours or principall dispensers of Diuine Benefits to obtaine from them either Grace or Glory or the meanes of obtayning eternall felicity since so to pray to them were to make them Gods And therefore when it is said Our Lady helpe me c. we are not to insist in the naked words but in the sense which is Our Lady help me by her intercession and prayers to her Sonne no otherwise then S. Paul sayth of himself To (e) 1. Cor. 9. vt omnes facâ—rem saluos all men I am become all things that I may saue all meaning by his preaching and prayers for them The second Saincts are not our immediaâ—â— Mediatours by way of Jntercession to God bâ—â— whatsoeuer they demand or obtayne for vs they demand and obtaine it through Christ and his Merits and according hereto we find thaâ— all prayers of the Church made to Saincts end with this clause Per Christum Dominuâ— nostrum The third The Saincts which reigne with God do pray for vs not only in generall but it particular This is proued from those words in Ieremy Yf Moyses (f) Ieremy c. 15. and Samuell thaâ— stand before me my soule is not towards thâ—â— people From whence it is inferred that Moyses and Samuel then being dead might were accustomed to pray for the people of Israel I
Church of Christ Thou (37) Esay c. â—0 shalt sucke the milke of the Gentills and the breasts of Kings And againe it is prophesied of the Church by the Kingly Prophet J (38) Psal â— will giue thee the Heathens 〈◊〉 thy inheritance and the End of the Earth for sâ—â— thy possession Now two things are cleare the first that many Heathen Kingdomes hâ—â—e beene conuerted to Christianity by the Pope and his ministers This is proued from the coÌ„fession of D. Whitaker who acknowledging the conuersion of many Countryes made by the Church of Rome thus debaseth them The (39) Whitak l. de Eccles pag. 336. Conuersion of so many Nations after the tyme of Gregory haue not beene pure but corrupt Now that the Protestant Church neuer conuerted any Gentill King or Nation to the fayth of Christ appeareth from its coÌ„fessed Inuisibility for so many ages till Luthers tyme aboue set downe Thus then I here aâ—gue The predictions of conuerting Kings and Kingdoms to the fayth of Christ were performed by the Pope only and his Substituts and not by the Protestants Therefore the predictions for the enlarging of Christ his Church by conuerting Gentills vnto it were performed by Antichrist Christs designed Enemy How do these stand together and yet do these incompatibilityes necessarily result out of the former Assertions Animaduersion CLIV. THe example of Paphnutius his standing in the Nicene Councell in defence of Priests mariage so much insisted vpon by so many eminent Protestants is misapplied and withall in all likely hood most false It is misapplyed because where it is vrged in proofe of Priests Mariage it proueth the contrary For though perhaps Paphnutius might be persuaded that Priesthood did not dissolue Mariage afore contracted yet he sayth plainly Those (40) So relateth Socrates l. 1. ca. 8. who are made Priests before they are maried cannot after marry And this Paphnutius calleth Veterem Ecclesiae traditionem The ancient tradition of the Church So far was Paphnutius from ascribing the doctrine of Priests not marrying after the Order of Priesthood taken to the Councell of Nice Now that this example of Paphnutius is vntrue many probabilities may be vrged First because there is not so much as any Mention of this matter concerning Paphnutius made by any who did wryte of the Nicene Councell before Socrates tyme who first relateth the words of Paphnutius For neither did Eusebius Athanasius Epiphanius Theodoret nor yet Ruffinus himselfe who writ many things of Paphnutius and of the Nicene Councell all being more ancient then Socrates make any mention of this matter Now I here demaÌ„d could all these be silent in so great a busines and so earnestly debated in the Nicene Councell Secondly this example of Paphnutius seemeth to be against the third Canon of the said Nycene Councell which altogether forbiddeth Priests to haue dwelling with them any Woman other then their Mother Sister their Fathers sister their Mothers sister c. Now if as Socrates reporteth in the example of Paphnutius the Councell had left liberty for married Laymen afterwards made Priests to haue kept still their former Wynes why then was not the wyse first placed here in the exception but altogether omitted This example of Paphnutius is so much suspected to be false that Frigeuilleus (41) In his palmâ— Christiana p. 103. Ganuius a Protestant doth plainly ascribe it to the forgery of Socrates Animaduersion CLV IT will not be amisse to obserue the Protestants Method in disputing with the Catholikes touching the Reall Presence as it is taught by the Church of Rome For the Question of the Reall Presence being but propounded they quickly tell vs that Christ neuer intended or willed it which answere is made to omit all other Protestants by (42) In his Decads in English serm 8. p. 971. Bullinger And when to declare Christs Will therein we alledge his words they make then a new question of his power as denying such to be his will or sense of words vnder pretence that it is (43) So answereth whitak in his answ to M. William Reynolds pa 179. contradictory to the truth and Nature of his humane body now in Heauen and so is therby impossible And when in reply therto we proue to them directly that it is not impossible then returning per circuitum to their firster Euasion they answere that the Question (44) So answereth D. Whitak in his answere to M. Reynolds refutation pag. 192. is not of his power but only of his Will and so dancing in a round they triffle and delude vs by a subtle escape of an endles Circulation Animaduersion CLVI IT is most certaine that the doctrine of many of our Aduersaries touching the Reall Presence is inuolued with greater shew of Impossibility then our Catholike doctrine thereof is for whereas they teach that Christs reall body is really (45) So teach besides many others M. Perkins in his reformed Catholike pag. 187. and D. Fulke against the Rhâ—mish Testam in 1. Cor. 15. and truly present and yet not bodily and corporally but only Spiritually present By which word Spiritually they do not exclude the true and reall presence of his body Now how this should be free from repugnancy and meere contradiction and therfore impossible I cannot discerne For to affirme that Christs very body and not only a figure or efficacy thereof should be truly and really present and yet not bodily but spiritually present is in it selfe inexplicable and as Swinglius (46) Swimglius co 2. de vera falsa religionâ— fol. â—06 in confutation therof truly obserueth is vpon the matter no other thing then to turne his body into a Spirit For as the true substance of Christs Spirit cannot be said to be present to vs only corporally or bodily and not spiritually because it is a spirit and no Body so neither may the substance it selfe of Christs very body be said to be present to vs not bodily but only Spiritually nor at all spiritually vnlesse we do which is impertinent to the matter in hand vnderstand the word Spirituall as the Apostle doth 1. Cor. 15. because it is a true and reall body no Spirit Animaduersion CLVII VNiuersality of our Catholike Doctrine in all chiefest points dispersed througout all Nations euen by the acknowledgment of our Aduersaries as appeareth from their confessed Inuisibility of their owne Church and Religion for so many ages is a most strong Argument of the truth of our Catholike Religion My reason hereof is in that the doctrine of the Roman Church could not by any pretended corruption be deriued from that Church to so many Nations so far remote and distant ech from other Sundry of which Nations were vnknowne to the Latin Church and many of them at variance therewith in some small points Therefore from hence I conclude that our Catholike fayth was the Primitiue fayth first taught by the Apostles in all those far different Nations wherein
God in their prayers tâ— their Princes or kings and to their ownâ— Parents yet with disparity of honour tâ— ech of these And heere is the source oâ— fountaine of the Protestants mistaking who hearing that Catholikes do somtimâ— exhibit part of that externall worship tâ— Creatures which is giuen to God do instantly exclame forth that Papists do commit Idolatry to Creatures Poore men 〈◊〉 commiserate their ignorance who so much mistake the true meaning of Catholike practise herein Animaduersion XXXV THe seuerall different tymes of the firâ—â— comming of Antichrist assigned by ouâ— Aduersaryes do euidently proue that Antâ—christ is not yet come consequently that â—he Pope is not Antichrist as they in the â—oame of their malice do teach For (q) Vpon the reuel in c. 20. Iuniâ—â— the eminent Protestant affirmes that â—ildebrand who was Pope anno Domini â—â—4 was the first Antichrist With whom â—nspireth D. Downeham (r) In his Treatise concerning Antichrist ca. 110. Bullinger (s) Vpon the Apo. sâ—rm 16. p. 198. afâ—rmeth that Antichrist came in the yeare â—63 he therefore tearming that yeare The â—all yeare D (t) In his answ to a Counterfeyt Cath. pa. 30. Fulke and D. (u) In his Synops pag. 100. Willet do â—ace his comming in the yeare 607. and â—ake Boniface the third to be the first Antiâ—â—rist D. Whytaker thus wryteth of this â—oynt saying (x) De Eccles cont â—eilarâ— contr 9â— qu. a. p. 〈◊〉 2. Gregory the great was the â—â—t true and holy Bishop of the Church therâ—â— because our Aduersaries demaund of vs the â—me when he first came in we designe and set â—wne to them the very tyme of his comming â—za (y) Confess General cap. 7. sect 12. teacheth that he came in anno â—40 thus writing of Leo who liued in that â—â—e Leo did clearely breath forth the arroganâ—â— of the Antichristian Sea M. Napper (z) Vpon the Reuelat. â—g 66. asâ—â—ding higher iustifyes Antichrist his comâ—ng to haue been in the yeare 313. so maâ—ing Siluester the Pope the first Antichrist But Sebastianus Francus a remarkable Protestant not content therewith thus auerâ—eth (a) In Epist. de abrogoâ— l. in vniuer omnibus statut â—cclesiast For certaine through the worke of Antichrist the externall Church together with the sayth and Sacraments vanished away presently after the Apostles departure Now meere diametrically and crosse to all the former Protestants teaching that the Pope is Anâ—ichrist Melancthon (b) So is Melancthon alledged by M. Haruey in his Theol. discourse p. 102. Bucer and M. Fox (c) Act. Mon. of the yeare 1676. pa. 53â— do teach that the Turke is Antichrist and according hereto Bucâ—r stileth the Turke (d) Bucer in his lib. Psal quinque Psal 22. fol. 146. 147. ipfissimus Antichristus Thus much touching the disagreement of our Aduersaries in this point Animaduersion XXXVI THe planting of the Christian Religion is England by Ioseph of Arimathia doth afford an vnanswerable demonstration of the truth of our Catholike and Roman Religion Of this point we first fynd that not only S. Bede who did write the History thereof but M. Cambden also recâ—râ—etâ— that the Brittans of Wales were first conuerted to Christianity by Joseph of Arimathia M. Cambden thus speaking thereof Certum (e) In his Brit. pa. 40. 57. est Britannos in ipsa Ecclesiae infantia Christianam Religionem imbibisse he thus further writing Hie floruit Monasterium Glastenburtense c. Here florished the Monastery of Glastenbury which taketh its ancient beginning of Ioseph of Arimathia Thus M. Cambden The same verity is acknowledged by D. Iewell (f) In his Pageant of Popes and D. Fulke (g) In his booke against Hiskins Sanders pag. 561. Secondly we find that D. Jewell confesseth thus the Britans (h) In his Pageant of Popes being conuerted by Ioseph of Arimathia held that fayth at Austins comming he meaning that Austin who was sent by Pope Gregory to plant his religion among vs English In like manner D. Fulke thus writeth hereof The Catholike Britans (i) Against the Rhemish Testam in 2. Cor. 12. with whom Christian Religion had continued in succession from the Apostles tymes would not receaue Austin From which seuerall Testimonies we gather that till Austins comming into England the Religion planted by Ioseph of Aâ—imathia among the Brittans continued vnchangeable without alteration Thirdly we read that the greatest differences of fayth Religion which at that tyme were found betweene the Britan Bishops Augustin are recorded to be these following for S. Bede (k) Beda l. 2. ca. 2. relateth how Austin and the Britan Bishops did meete at a place called in his tyme Augustinâ—zat for conferring of their Religions together the mention of which meeting is in like manner auerred by Holinshead (l) In his great Chronicle of the last Eâ—ttou l. 5. c. 22. and M. Fox (m) Act Mon. printed 1576. pag. 120. who setteth downe S. Austins Answere to the Britan Bishops in these words Si in tribus his obtemperare mihi vultis vt Pascha suo tempore celebreâ—is vt ministerium Baptizandi iuxta morem Romanae Apostolicae Ecclesiae compleatis vt Genti Anglorum vna nobiscum praedicetis verbum Domini caetera quae agitis aequanimiter cuncta tolerabimus That is if you Britan Bishops will obey me in these three things to wit in celebrating Easter day in due tyme in conferring of Baptisme according to the rites of the Roman Apostolicall Church and in helping vs to preach to the English all other matters which you 〈◊〉 contrary to our manners we will tolerate â—â—suster Thus far S. Bede Fourthly and lastly it is confessed by D. Humfrey what Religioâ— Austin brought into England in thesâ— words Jn Ecclesiam (n) Humfred in Iesuit part 2. ras 5. pa. 5. 627. vero quid inuexerna Gregorius Augustinu Onus caeremoniarâ—â— c. intulerunt pattium Episcopale ad sola missarum solemnta Purgatorium c. Oblationeâ— salutaris Hostiae preces pro demortuis c. reliquias c. â—ransubstantiationem c. Nouâ— templorum conscerationes c. Ex quibus omnibus quid aliud quaesitum est quam vt Indulgentiae Monachatus Papatus reliquumue Pontificiae Chaos extruatur Haec Augustinus magnus Monachus a Gregorio Monacho edoctâ— importauit Anglis Thus far D. Humfrey with whom conspiâ—e herein the (o) In the Alphabeticall table of the 6 Century in the fiâ—st Edition at the word Gregory Centurists and (p) Epit. hist Ecclel cent 6 p. 289. Osiander Now from all these premisses I thus collect First that the true Christian Religion was planted in Britany by Joseph of Arimathia who liued in our Sauiours tyme. Secondly that the same Religion remayned pure and vncorrupted at Austins conueâ—ting of England Thirdly that the differences betweene Austin and the Britans were but about two or three small poynts or Ceremonyes Lastly that
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
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
our Aduersaryes to haue beene more grieuous then euer this of England was Animaduersion CX WHereas our Aduersaries do further vrge in behalfe of the being of Protestants in former Ages that it is often obserued that a little quantity of Copper is in a couÌ„terfeyte Coyne of Gold chaffe is mingled with Corne and yet neither is the Copper Gold nor the Chaffe Corne so say they the Protestant Church was in former ages in the Papacy The Papacy was in the Protestant Church and yet the Protestant Church was not in the Papacy According hereto M. Perkins saith The (o) In his reformed Catholike pag. 328. 329. Church of Rome may be said to be in the Church of God the Church of God in the Church of Rome with whom agreeth Beza thus writing Voluit (p) In Epist. Theol. Epist 1. pag. 15. Deus in Papatu seruare Ecclesiam etsi Papatus non est Ecclesia And D. Whitaker (q) Whiâ—ak l. de Eccles pag. 165. Ecclesia vera fuit in papatu sed papatus non fuit Ecclesia To this I reply and say it is but a froath of words artificially put together Howsoeuer many of our Aduersaries much please themselues with this conceited Answere Therfore for the better examining thereof we are here to conceaue that the sense and meaning of these words is not that the Protestant Church had in those tymes a latent and hidden being in Catholike Countries without hauing entercourse communion with the then knowne and visible Church in the Sacraments for so the true Church could not be said to be in the papacy no more then at this day in respect of its like aboad in Turkish Countries it can be said to be in Turcisme Therefore the particular manner of this strange mixture as it appeares in shew of words is thus truly expressed by Osiander the Protestant in this manner (r) In Epitom Cent. 16. part altera p. 1070. 1072. Quod semper sub Papatu aliqui pij homines fuerint c. No man denyeth but that there were vnder the papacy some holy men who disliked the Errours of the Popes although they durst not openly professe so much nisi ardere aut ad minimum exulare velint except they would burne for their Religion or at least suffer banishment Thus we see the last sublimated sense of the former quaynt sentence resolues to this point To wit that the Protestant Church in those former tymes being in or vnder the Papacy did through feare of burning or banishment dissemble their Religion and communicate in all externall right with the Church of Rome Animaduersion CXI THe Confessed Inuisibility of the Protestant Church aboue set downe during so many former ages doth potentially and vertually include the proofe of the visibility of the Roman Church during all the said ages Seing the Jnuisibility of the Protestant Church for so long a tyme is ascribed by the Protestants themselues to the worke of Antichrist they meaning therby the Pope and the Church of Rome as appeareth by seuerall testimonyes of our Aduersaryes els where in this Treatise expressed particularly of M. Napper thus saying Betweene (s) Napper in his Treatise vpon the Reuelat. pag. 68. the yeares of Christ 300. and 316. the Antichristian Papisticall reigne began reigning vniuersally without any debatable contradiction 1260. yeares And accordingly the Centurists (t) See this in Cent. 4. and so successiuely in Euery Century charge all the ages from Constantine till Luther with Papistry Thus an acknoledged defection of the Protestant Church for many Centuryes doth by our Aduersaryes owne Confession necessarily include and imply a Continuall visibility of the Catholike Roman Church during all the said Centuryes Animaduersion CXII TOuching the supposed change of the fayth of Rome I will deuyde in these three next Animaduersions all the Ages from the Apostles euen to Luthers days into three seuerall Stations or Periods of tymes First then we will see how long it is granted by the Protestants that Rome did perseuere without any alteration of her Primitiue faith Secondly we will set downe the acknowledged continuance of that tyme during all which season the now present fayth of Rome hath continued that is how long Papistry as our Aduersaries terme it hath bene publikly professed throughout all Christendome Thirdly and lastly we will then take a view of the tymes betweene these two former seuerall tymes For these two tymes being once acknowledged on all sydes to wit the tyme during which the Church of Rome confessedly kept her first fayth taught by the Apostles and the tyme during which the present Roman fayth hath continued from this day vpward it ineuitably followeth that this supposed change in Religion did either happen in the Jnterstitium and meane tyme betweene these two former Periods of tymes or els that there happened no such change of Religion in the Church of Rome at all Now concerning the first of these tymes it is granted by the Protestants that Rome retayned her purity of fayth without any alteration from the Apostles tymes till after the death of Optatus Epiphanius and Austin which is during the space of foure hundred and fourty yeares after Christ This I thus proue Wheras our Catholike writers haue much insisted for proofe of their Religion in the succession of the Bishop of Rome euen vntill Austins dayes by the Example of Jrenaus Cyprian Optatus Jerome Vincentius Lyrinensis and Austin D. Fulke answereth in behalfe of these Fathers in this sort That (*) Fulke in his confutation of Purgatory p. 372. these Fathers especially named the Church of Rome it was because the Church of Rome at that tyme as it was founded by the Apostles so it continued in the Doctrine of the Apostles which Doctour in another place thus further writeth The (*) D. Fulke in his Retentiue pag. 85. Popâ—â—â— Church c. departed from the vniuersall Chuâ—ch of Christ long after Austins departure out of this Lyfe Thus he granting that till after Austins death the Church of Rome remayned the true Church In like manner D. Iewell accordeth with D. Fulke herein touching the Argument drawne by those foresaid Fathers from succession of the Bishops of Rome saying As (u) D. Iewell in his reply to D. Harding pag. 246. well Austin as also other godly Fathers rightly yeilded Reuerence to the Sea of Rome c. For the purity of Religion which was there preserued a long tyme without spot To conclude Caluin himselfe maketh good the foresaid Argument taken from the Succession of the Bishops of Rome insisted vpon by Jrenaeus Pertullian Origen Cyprian Austin and Epiphanius in these words Cum (x) Instit l. 4. cap. 2. Sect. 3. extra controuersiam erat nihil á principio vsque ad aetatem illam mutatum fuisse in Doctrina c. Seeing it was a point out of Controuersy that nothing in Doctrine from the begining to that very age was changed these holy
vpon vs doth not please me for it tasteth of Barbarism Now to come to the text impoysoned by his Constructions and first that markable passage J and (e) Ioan. 10. the Father are vnum vz. one thing euer mainly insisted vpon by the Ancient (f) Chrysost in hunc locum Austin in hunc locum many others Fathers against the Arians for proofe of the Diuinity of Christ is thus auoyded by Caluin (g) Caluin in Ioan. ca. 10. Abusi sunt hoc â—xo Veteres vt probarent Christum esse Patri Homousion neque enim Christus de vnitate sùbstantiae disputat sed de consensu The ancient Fathers haue abused this place to proue that Christ is Consubstantiall to his Father For Christ here disputeth not of the vnity of Essence but of the vnity of Consent and will Againe that passage There (h) 1. Ioan 5. be three that giue testimony in Heauen the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three be one Which text the ancient Fathers euer expounded of the Trinity Caluin thus answereth Quod (i) Caluin in hunc locum dicitur tres esse vnum ad essenâ—iam non refertur sed ad consensum potiùs That is where it is said these three are One these words are not to be referred to One in respect of Essence but rather of Consent In like manner that place Thou (k) Psal 2. art my Sonne bodie this day I haue begotten thee Calâ—iâ— (l) In Psalm 2. interpreteth with the Arians against the Diuinity of Christ This point I meane of Caluins interpreting the chiefe passages of Scripture euer vrged by the Ancient Fathers for proofe of Christs Diuinity with the Arians to impugne Christs Diuinity is so câ—eere and confessed as that Aegidius Hunnius a most markable and learned Protestant writeth a booke against Caluin of this subiect thus entituling it Caluinus Indaizans hoc est Iudaicae glossae corruptelae quibus Joannes Caluinus illustrissima scriptura sacra loca testimonia de gloriosa Trinitate c. detestandum in moâ—um corrumpere non exhorrait With this blaspheâ—y against the Blessed Trinity Caluin is further charged by Conradus (m) In Theolog. Caluinist l 2. fol. 38. 39. sequent Sclusselburg by (n) In his Admonit de Arianis Pelargus by Stancarus (o) Scâ—nkarus contra ministros Geneuens Tyguriâ—oâ— and lastly by Ioannes Mathaeus all eminent Protestants which Mathaeus did write a booke against Caluin for teaching Arianisme stiling it de Cauendo Caluinistarum fermento c. Animaduersion CXXXIX FRom the confessed Inuisibility of the ProtestaÌ„t Church during so many ages aboue granted it is proued that the Protestant Church is not the true Church of Christ by this Medium following The Prophesyes do fore shew that the Church of Christ in the tyme of the New testament shall conuert to its faith the Gentils their Nations and kingdomes thus accordingly we read Esay to fortell of the Church (p) Esay c. 60. vide etiam cap. 54. The Iles shall waite for thee meaning the Church Their kings shall minister vnto thee and thy Gates shal be continually open neither day nor night shal they be shut that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentils with whom accordeth the Roiall Prophet speaking in the persoÌ„ of the Church (q) Psal 2. I will giue thee the Heathens for thy inheritance and the ends of the earth for thy possession That these places of Scripture besydes diuers others are vnderstood of the enlargement of Christs Church and the coÌ„uersion of kingdomes and nations vnto it is warranted by the acknowledgement of (r) Oâ—colamp vpon Ieremy Occolampadius (s) In his defâ—nce p. 400. D. Whitguist D. Whitaker (t) In his answere to M. William Reynoâ—â—â— and others as also by the Annotations of the Protestants owne English (u) Printed in the yeare 1576. Bibles Now for proofe that the Protestant Church neuer yet conuerted any Gentils or Heathen Kingdomes and Nations to its fayth we will begin first from Luthers tyme and so ascend by degrees vp to the Apostles And first from Luthers days to Gregory the Great or Boniface the third which contayneth a thousand yeares it is euident that during all this tyme the ProtestaÌ„t Church remained wholy Jnuisible as is aboue demonstrated from the acknowledgments of Protestants and therefore could not conuert any Countryes or Kingdomes to its religion Againe touching all these Countryes here expressed to wit The Danes (x) Cant. 8.9 10.11.12.13.14.15 Morauians Polonians Slauonians Bulgars Hunnes Normans Bohemians Noruegians Saxons Germans and diuers others here omitted the Conuersions of all these happened within this last thousand yeares and therefore were conuerted by the Church of Rome and to the present Roman fayth euen by free acknowledgment of the Magdeburgians or Centurists according as the Bishops of Rome liued within those seuerall ages Neither can our Aduersaries name any one Heathen Country in Christendome conuerted to Christianity by the Protestant Church And hence it ryseth that D. Whitaker doth stile the Conuersion of all the former Countryes as granting them to be conuerted to our present Roman fayth impure (y) Whitak l de Eccles contra Bellarm. § 336. and corrupt Conuersions Now to ascend from these last thousand yeares vpwards to the other next three hundred yeares I meane to the dayes or the first Christian Emperour during the space of which three hundred yeares no Countryes or Kingdomes were conuerted at all to Christian Religion either by Catholikes or any others for it is euident that in those daies there were no Kings professing the Christian Religion the Emperours of the East only excepted among whom some were false (z) As Valens Constantius constans Christians as being defiled with Arianisme others (a) IuliaÌ„ Apostates Now concerning the tyme it selfe of Constantine it is so certaine that neither himself nor any Country by his meanes was conuerted to the Protestant Religion as that the Magdeburgenses all Protestants recording the state of the Church in Constantynes tyme do charge Constantine with all our Catholike points at this day professed by the Church of Rome styling them The (b) Cent. 4. Errours of Constantine and of his Age. Now to ryse higher in tymes to wit from the tymes of Constantine to that of Christ our Sauiour it is witnessed by all Historiographers that the Church of God was in such violent Persecutions as that it had no meanes to inlarge it selfe by conuerting to it Kings or Kingdomes and if it had at that tyme conuerted any yet the Question would then follow whether such a Conuersion had beene made to the Protestant or to the Roman Church But the euidency of this point appeareth both from the writings of the Protestant Deuines of Wittenbâ—rg (c) In the booke Disputationes c. as also from the testimony of D. Barlow who thus discourseth hereof (d) Barlow in his defence