Adoration or Jnuocation or in any other sort To this Peter (10) Peter Martyr lib. contra Gardin part 1. obiect 150. Martyr and others do answere that if any such reuerence was exhibited by the Fathers to the Eucharist this reuerence was not terminated in the Eucharist it selfe but directed to Christ signifyed therein and so by the mediation of those earthly elements transferred vnto him No otherwyse tâ—â— when the Papists for thus do they partâ—câ—larly instance praying before Jmages 〈◊〉 not their prayers to the Images but to Christ 〈◊〉 the Saint represented therein But against tâ— Euasion I first aske what secret intelligâ— haue our Aduersaryes with the Fathers â—tention herein since the Fathers words gâ— not the least intimation thereof Seconâ— I say that (11) L de Hierarch Eccles c. 3. part 3. saying O Diuinissimum Sacrosanctum Sacram. c. Dionysius doth inuoke 〈◊〉 Sacrament it selfe and not Christ only â—fore the Sacrament Thirdly this their â—sweare admitting it for true doth waâ— euen in their iudgements the Catholâ—â— praying before Images and the reuereâ—â— giuen to them which Doctrine the Proâ—stants do so much inueigh against Animaduersion CLXVII THe Scripture is most difficult for three â—spects First in regard of its multiplieâ— of the Senses of one and the same passage Scripture Secondly in respect of the phrâ—â— wherein the Scripture is deliuered Thirdâ— by reason of the height of the subiect wheâ— the Scripture intreateth To touch all tâ—â— briefly First concerning the Sense Tâ—â— are in diuers passages of Scripture three â—uerall senses besydes the literall all iâ—â—ded by the Holy Ghost The senses are â—led Allegoricus Tropologicus and Anagogâ— Now how shall an ignorant maÌ„ know 〈◊〉 texts of Scripture be capable of all these 〈◊〉 of them The Style of the Scripture is â—â—de difficult as being stored with figures 〈◊〉 Allegoryes and full of Hebrew phrazes 〈◊〉 Dialects as appeareth in perusing the â—â—lms and the Apocalyps The subiect of the â—â—â—ipture is most high as discoursing of the â—â—eation of the world of Nothing of the â—ysteryes of the Trinity and the Incarnatiâ—â— besides many other Dogmatical points 〈◊〉 transcending the light of mans naturall â—â—prehension And therefore S. Ambrose had â—â—od cause thus to pronounce of the holy â—â—â—ipture Mare (12) Ambros Ep. 44. ad Constantium est scriptura Diuina haâ—â—s in se sensus profundos Ad hereto that the â—â—â—ipture hath to an ignorant eye diuers seeâ—ng contrarietyes though in theÌ„selues they are most true and reconcileable For example these two texts (13) Ezec. 18. Filius non portabit iâ—quitatem patris anima quae peccauerit ipsa â—â—rietur And this other Visitans (14) Exod 10. iniâ—â—tatem patrum in filios in tertiam quartaÌ„â—â—nerationem how can an ignorant man or â—o man reconcile these passages And what â—â—ity then may one discerne in a Mechaniâ—â—l fellow or silly woman who can only â—t reade carrying the bible vnder their â—â—me to the Church and vaunting of the â—ines of the Scripture and auerring that â—â—emselues are able to vnfould expound â—e most abstrusest passages there O pride â—â—d ignorance Ad finally that in the Scripâ—â—e the plurall number is sometymes vsed for â—â—e singular number as Marc. 15. we read they that were crucifyed with him rayled at hiâ— and yet we know it was but only one of the theeues that did so the good thiefe honoring our Sauiour See the like hereto touching this kynd of phraze of the Scripture besydes other places in Hebr. 7. Againe the Scripture in diuers texts doth vnderstaÌ„â— by the word Omnis only quidam For example in Math. 27. we reade dicunt omnâ— vt crucifigatur and yet the B. Virgin S. Maâ— magdelen the Apostles and diuers others dâ— not so cry out against our Sauiour The liâ— phraze is in those words Omnes quae sâ— sunt querunt Philip. 2. yet the Apostles and many other good Christians were eâ—empted out of this sentence But now heâ—â— I demand how can an vnlearned man râ—concile these and the like sentences wâ—â— the true meaning of the Holy Ghost in tâ— Scripture Animaduersion CLXVIII THe Catholike Church deliuereth câ—taine Rules for the more perfect knoâ—ledg of true Traditions The first When 〈◊〉 vniuersall Church doth imbrace any doctriâ— as a point of fayth the which is not found in 〈◊〉 holy Scriptures it is necessary to say that thesâ— point proceedeth from the Tradition of the Aâ—â—stles The reason hereof is in that the vniuâ—â—sall Church as being the (1) 1. Timoth 3. pillar and fouâ—dation of truth cannot erre And therefâ— what the Church belieueth to be of fayâ— â—e same doubtlesly is of fayth But no â—int or Article is of fayth but what God â—th reuealed either by the Apostles or Proâ—ts since at this present the Church is not â—ouerned with new Reuelations The second When the vniuersall Church â—h obserue any thing which not any but only â—d had power to institute and yet which is not â—nd written in the Scripture the same we are â—resume to be deliuered from Christ and his â—ostles the reason hereof is like to the reaâ—n of the former Rule to wit in that the â—iuersall Church cannot erre either in belieâ—g or in working especially if the worâ—g doth concerne any rite of diuine worâ—â— And such is the Baptisme of Infants The third That which is obserued throughâ— the vniuersall Church and cannot fynd any 〈◊〉 institution thereof in the most ancient tymes same we are to belieue that it was first ordâ—yâ—â— by the Apostles though it be of that nature that the Church had power firct to ordayne it â—is is the rule of (2) Lib. 4 contra Donat. cap. 24. S. Austin The fast of â—t may be an example hereof For this fast â—ght haue been instituted by the Church Christ or his Apostles had not afore instiâ—ed it Yet we maintayne that it was instiâ—ed by Christ or his Apostles because asâ—ding vp to higher tymes and seeking afâ— the first Origen therof we find no beâ—ning thereof but only in the tyme of Apostles The fourth When all the Doctours of the Church being gathered together either in a generall Councell or in their seuerall writings and bookes do teach with a common consent that such or such a point descendeth from Apostolicall Tradition we are to belieue that it is an Apostolicall Tradition The reason of this rule is because if all the Doctors of the Church shold erre then followeth it that the whole Church should erre since she is obliged to follow her Pastours and Doctours Now where we speake of the Fathers touching any point in their seuerall writings here we are to vnderstand that we hould it not necessary that all the Fathers should write therof but it is sufficient if some Fathers of the chiefest note and eminency do expressely affirme the point in writing and that other Fathers do not contradict them therein taking notize of such their writings Here we say
Church in the time of Boniface thâ— third which was anno 607. was inuisible fled into wildernes there to remaine a long season Now to reduce all these Confessionâ— into an Argument Thus then I dispute D. Humfrey M. Hooker and diuers others here omitted doe generally teach that the Church of Christ must necessarily euer be visible But D. Fulke M. Napper and many other Protestants for breuity here passed oue râ—â— ingenuously confesse that the Protestant Church hath for many ages beene wholy Inuisible Therfore euen in the Iudgement of the Protestants themselues the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ This kind of arguing in many other Questions may become familiar to him who is conuersant in the Proâ—estaÌ„ts bookes or in that Catholike Booke called The Protestants Apology wherein a man may see euen thousands of ProtestaÌ„ts Confessions against themselues Now to this I annex this following that wheras the Scripture teacheth the necessary visibility of the true Church of God as also wheras diuers learned ProtestaÌ„ts do truly acknowledge that the Protestant Church hath for many ages beene wholy inuisible Therefore diuers other learned ProtestaÌ„ts throgh their inueterate malice to our Catholike Religion and as confessing the predictions in Scripture of the euer visibility and enlargment of the true Church of God not to haue beene accomplished in the Protestants Church haue flatly renounced their Christianity charging Christ our Sauiour as a seducer themselues so becomming Iewes and Turks I will exemplify this point to omit some others in these men following all before their Apostacy most eminent Protestants First then Dauid (1) See the hiâ— ory of Dauid George printed at Antwerp 1568. published by the Deuines of Basill George once Professour at Basill became a blasphemous Apostata Ochinus (2) Of Ochinus his Apostâ—â—y Zanchius witnesseth in his booke de Tribus Elohim who with Peter Martyr first planced Protestancy in England in like sort denied Christ and taught circumcision as Zanchius the Protestant confesseth (3) Of Neuserus his Deniall of Christ Osiander the Protestant witnesseth Cent. 16. part 2. pag. 8â—8 Neuserus once Superintendent of Heidelburge turned Turk anâ— was circumcised at Constantinople as Osiander the Protestant affirmeth (4) Touching Alamannus see Beza in Eâ—ist 65. pag. 308. Alamaâ—nus a Swinglian and once deare to Beza became a Jew as Beza himselfe sayth Laeliâ— (5) The Bookes of Laelius Socinus against the Trinity are yet extant Socinus a scholar in the schoole of Geneua did write whole Bookes against the B. Trinity Finally to omit many other eminent Protestants Georgius (6) That Georgius Paulus denyed the Trinity with the Turks is witnessed by Stancarus the Protest lib. de Mediat fol. 38. Paule minister of Cracouia denied the Triniâ—â— with the Turks Thus of Instances for thâ— point Animaduersion XVIII A Man cannot auoide the force of the former kind of Dispute consisting 〈◊〉 the Confessions of the Protestants by replying that other learned Protestants dâ— maintayne the contrary in the same poinâ— to the Protestanâ—s aboue by me alledged This answere is most weake thâ— reason thereof being in that there is greaâ— disparity betweene learned Protestant confessing some points which do aduantagâ— the Catholike fayth and others thougâ— as learned Protestants maintaining thâ— contrary seeing the first sort of men speak against themselues and their cause who being iudicious and learned men would neuer do but as being conuinced with the Euidency of the truth therein Whereas theâ—â— second kind of men do not admit the confessions of their brethren but speake only in behalfe of their owne Religion and so such their denyalls are to be reputed more partiall And this Animaduersion is to be remembred in many other points confessed by some Protestants and denied by other Protestants Now of what force the Argument from the authority or confession of â—n Aduersary is appeareth both from the testimony of the ancient Fathers and the Protestants themselues First then Irenaeus thus writeth hereof Jt is (a) L. 4. c. 14. an vnanswerable proofe which bringeth attestation from the Aduersaries themselues with whom conspireth Nazianzene saying Jt (b) Orat. de S. Basil is the greatest cunning and wisdome of speech to bynd the Aduersary with his owne words Now touching the Protestants acknowledging the same we find Osiander the Protestant thus to write The (c) In Ep. Eucharist confession testimony of an Aduersary is of greatest authority And Peter Martyr Among (d) Loc. tit ce Iudaeis fol. 300. other testimonies that is of the greatest weight which is giuen by the Eneâ—ies Finally D. Whitaker The (e) Contra Bellar l. de Eccles controu 2. q 5. Argument â—ust needs be strong and efficacions which is â—â—ken from the Confession of the Aduersaries And I do freely acknowledg that truth it selfe is able to extort testimonies euen from its enemies Thus much hereof Therefore I here only conclude that as a testimony of a friend against a friend so of an Aduersary in behalfe of an Aduersary is of great force and most conuincing So certaine are those words of Tertullian (f) In Apolog. Magis fides prona est in aduersus semetipsos confitentes quam pro semetipsâ— negantes Animaduersion XIX THere is great difference to be made betweene ProtestaÌ„ts speaking against themselues and yet belieuing the Protestant doctrine and Conclusion touching some circumstances wherof the Confessions are betweene some others who afore were Catholiks and after do defend some one or other point of Protestancy Since their later men do not speake against themselues but in defence of some such Protestant doctrine then newly entertained by them and consequently in defence of their ownâ— opinions And therfore such their authorities are not to ballance equally with the Confessions of the former Protestants Thâ—â— Animaduersion is giuen with reference to Erasmus Cassander Cornelius Agrippa Polideâ—Virgill Nilus and some others euery onâ— of which imbraced some one Protestanâ— Tenet or other though diuers of them after recoÌ„ciled themselues before their deatâ— to the Catholike Church by abandoninâ— their former receaued Innouations Animaduersion XX. CHoose rather to dispute with a Protestant touching matter of Fact in whicâ— may be proued the falshood of the Protestant Religion then touching any Dogmaticall point of fayth or Doctrine as receauing its proofe from the Scripture This I speake not but that the Scripture maketh most clearely for the Catholiks against the Protestants but because your Aduersary in dispute will euer cauill at your exposition of Scripture reducing it in the end against all Antiquity of the Fathers and tradition of the Church to the interpretation of his owne priuate and reuealing Spirit Now in matter of fact your Aduersary is forced to stand to the Authorities deduced from Ecclesiasticall History and other humane proofes And therefore he must either shape a probable if not a sufficient answere to them which he cannot do they wholy making against him euen
from a shadow a celestiall Diuine and inconsumptible thing from a terrene and consumptible They in like manner compare the Eucharist with the mysteryes of the Incarnation They compare Christ as he is vpon the Altar in the Eucharist with Christ as he was in the Cribbe or Manger They in like manner compare Christ in the Eucharist with Angels appearing in corporall formes Finally they compare those men who vnworthily do handle or receaue the Eucharist with those men who killed Christ. The thâ—rd is taken from the change of bread which mutation the Fathers seuerall wayes proue to be Reall First they say the bread doth not remayne after Consecration Secondly that the Sense is deceaued herein Thirdly they compare the change here made with the reall mutations of Water into Wyne and of the wandes of Moyses into Serpents Fourthly the Fathers affirme that the Omnipotency of God is necessarily required to performe this mutation The fourth Head is taken from the most high Mystery which the Fathers did acknowledg to be in the Eucharist For first they say it cannot be apprehended without fayth Secondly they did exhort Christians to an infallible constancy in beliefe of the truth of this mistery Thirdly they taught that the miracle therein exceeded mans capacity and apprehension Fourthly the Fathers did forbeare in reuerence thereof to speake of the Eucharist before Heathens or those which were only Catechumeni except couertly in these words Norunt fideles Fiftly they bâ—ing demanded how the mystery of the Eucharist could be performed their answere was to refer it to the Omnipotency of God The fift Branch is taken from the Veneration and worship giuen to the Eucharist For first they did adore the Eucharist Secondly they did Jnnoke it or did say that it was to be inuoked Thirdly they were most cautelous that no part thereof should fall vpon the Earth Fourthly they would not suffer it to be seene of Heathens or Catechumeni Fiftly they auerred that Angells did stand neere vnto the Altar whilst this Sacrifice is performed yea Chrysostome plainly sayth that Angells did stand in the presence of the Eucharist capite inclinato with bowing downe their Heades The sixt Classe is taken from the Effects which the Fathers ascribe to the Eucharist For first they teach that by it we are corporally vnited with Christ. Secondly they affirme that our bodies are to suffer Resurrection because they are vnited with the body of Christ. Thirdly Chrysostome sayth that Christ doth giue himselfe in the Eucharist that we may haue him truly within our selues Euen as men do couet yet cannot giue themselues to those whom they loue Fourthly the Fathers say that when we receaue Christ in the Eucharist Christ is ioyned with vs not only by Fayth and Charity but also reipsa in very deede Fiftly they teach that by the perception or receauing of this Sacrament we are made Consortes diuinae naturae partakers of the Diuine Nature Now if the Reader do desire to see the Fathers in particular who affirme such and such points set downe in this Animaduersion I refer him to the 39. Chapter of the second booke de Eucharistia in Bellarmine from which place I do acknowledg I haue taken this Animaduersion Now what can be replied against the Fathers Sentences herein It cannot be said that they deliuered these Encomia and lauds of the Blessed Sacrament by way of Rhetoricall amplification exaggeration or Hyperbolicall speeches First because not any one Father among so many doth but intimate any such manner of writing in their workes Secondly in that some of them do write to the contrary affirming that the sense of the words touching the B. Sacrament are literally to be taken as they are written for thus doth Hilarius by way of preuention touching the Fathers meaning write hereof Non est (m) Hilarius cap. 8. de Trinitate humano aut saeculi sensu in Dei rebus loquendum neque per violentam impudentem praedicationem caelestium dictorum sanitati alienae atqus impiae intelligentiae extorquenda peruersitas est Quae scripta sunt legamus quae legiâ—â—s intelligamus tunc perfectae fidei officio fungemur de naturali enim in nobis Christi veritate quae dicimus nisi ab eo discimus stultè atque impiè dicimus ipse enim ait Caro mea verè est esca c. And thus much touching this Father censuring of his owne writings and of other Fathers also concerning the Blessed Sacrament and that the Sentences deliuered of it ought to be taken literally and plainly and not Hyperbolically or figuratiuely and as amplifications Animaduersion CXXIV AS aboue is shewed that the auncient Fathers euen by the Confession of the Protestants taught the Doctrine of TransubstaÌ„tiation in the Eucharist so also in this Animaduersion I hold it conuenient to discouer the like iudgement of the Fathers that the Eucharist is a true and Reall Sacrifice offered vp to God and this from the penns of our Aduersaryes First theÌ„ Symmachus was Bishop of Rome of whom the Centurists thus write (n) Cent. 6 cap. 10. col 664. Notas Antichristi c. â—ymmachus had the Notes of Antichrist for he brought the Masse into a forme Of Ambrose the Certurists thus confesse (o) Cent. 4. c. 4. col 295. Ambrosius locutionibus vtitur quibus ante cum ex patriâ—us nemo vsus est vt Missam facere offerre Sacrificium Ambrose doth vse certaine speeches the which no other Father before him did vse as to say Masse to offer vp Sacrifice c. The Councell of Carthage whereat S. Austin was present is in these words depressed by Pelargus a Protestant (p) In his Schoâ—la fidei tract de Concil pag. 13. Haec Synodus Carthaginensis Intercessionem MissaÌ„ pro defuuctis iniunxit This Synod of Carthage â—id ordaine intercession of prayers and Masse for the Dead Cyrill of Jerusalem is thus taxed by Hospiâ—ian the Protestant (q) Hospinian hist Sacrament pag. 167. Quoad Cyrilium Hicrosolymitanum attinet c. Cyrill of Ierusalem saith indeed according to the vse of his tyme that the Sacrifice of the Altar is a great help to soules Gregory Nyssene is thus charged by Crastoâ—ius a Protesâ—ant Nyssenus (r) L. de opificio missae 164. ille ait Cùm â—ederit Christus discipulis suis corpus suum ad comedendum c. tam latenter inâ—ffaâ—â—â—â—ter inuisibiliter Corpus immolatum erat c. When Christ gaue to his disciples his body to â—â—te c. that then his body was immolated and offered vp latently ineffably and inuisibly Cyprian who liued an 240. the Centurists do thus reprehend Sacerdotem (s) Cent. 3. c. 4. col 33. Cyprianus inquit vice Christi fungi Deo patri Sacrificium offerri and from hence they charge Cyprian with (t) Centurists in the Alphabeticall Table of the third Century vnder the letter S. Superstition Tertullian who liued anno 220. Osiander thus accuseth
be concluded that her Body is not to be found in Earth but only in Heauen this is S. Bernards demonstration in this point Animaduersion CLXXXIV BEza as aboue is shewed thus writeth of the Doctrine of reprobation God (a) Beza in his Display c. pag. 17. 31 76. c. decreeth to destruction createth to perdition and predestinateth to his hatred and Destruction with whom accordeth Caluin as elswhere is shewed in these words (b) Calu Instit l. 3. cap. 23. paragr 6. God by his Councell and appointment doth so ordaine that amongst men some be borne destined to certainâ— death from their Mothers Wombe who by their perdition may glorify his Name Now heere I wish the diligent Reader to obserue the dangerous resulâ—ancyes and Absurdity 〈◊〉 necessary following from this their doctrine of Reprobation First it is a mayne hinderance to Vertue and encouragement to Vice as aboue I haue declared Since iâ— teacheth that that man who is reprobated cannot preuent his reprobation by any piouâ— lyfe how vertuous soeuer why then should that man abstaine from exercise of wickednes seeing his wickednes doth not in any sort further his damnation it being by the Protestants Dâ—ctrine decreed from a Eternity without respect of any worke good or bad Secondly this Doctrine maketh God a Lyar and dissembler For to omit infiniâ—â— other texts of Scripture we find his Prophets thus to speake of God God (c) Ezech 33. willinâ— the death of the wicked And again He (d) 2. Peter 3. wâ— not haue any to perish And yet more God (e) 1. Timoth 2. would haue all men saued and come to the knowledg of the truth Now I say if God createth some men absolutely from their Mothers wombe without respect of his Sinnes to eternall damnation are not these his fayre speeches to be interpreted but Dissimulation and vntruths and followeth it not then consequently that this their blasphemous doctrine labours to transforme God into the Deuill by making him to vtter lyes and speake false for of the Deuill we thus read It is (f) 1. Ioan. 3. he who speakes Lyes of himself is a lyer the Father of Lyes Animaduersion CLXXXV YF we take into our consideration that other Doctrine of our Aduersaries which teacheth that God is the Authour of sinne which Doctrine we haue aboue shewed to be mantayned by the Protestants the inferences vnauoydably proceeding from that Doctrine are no lesse blasphemous then the former For first it maketh God to be the only sinner and that the Deuill and Man are innocent and no sinners at all For if the thiefe for example be compelled by God to steale who compells the Deuill to set on the thiefe as Swinglius (g) Swingl Serm. de prouident affirmes then is not God in this case the only Sinner This is proued since the goodnes badnes of the worke in euery Action is chiefly to be attributed to the Principall Authour willer and worker of it and not to the Instrument And this the rather since Austin sayth Sinne is so voluntary that except it be voluntary it is no sinne But sinne is only voluntary in God according to the doctrine of our Aduersaries and not in Man in whom it is necessary Therefore hence I conclude that according to this their blasphemy Sinne is only in God and not in Man Secondly this Doctrine of God being the Authour of Sinne ascribeth the proprieties of the Deuill to God For it is the office of the Deuill to tempt man and therefore in the Holy (h) Mat. 4. writ the Deuill is called a Tempter But this is more peculiar to God according to the foresaid Doctrine then to the Deuill Since God in the iudgment of the Protestants so forcibly tempteth man to sinne as that it is not in his power to resist or withstand the temptation which is more then the Deuill can performe Thirdly it is the property of the Deuill to sow Tares or ill weedes of sinne in the Fyeld of our Harts according to those words The Enemy (i) Mat. 13. comes and sowes tares But God doth this according to the former Doctrine more then the Deuill For God as Caluin affirmes doth excecate (k) Caluin 1. Instit 18. 24. 4. Instit 14. and obdurate the minds of men doth strike them with a spirit of errour giddines and madnes and this not by permission but by operation Thus Caluin Animaduersion CLXXXVI THe Protestants Doctrine of the infallibility of only fayth iustifying a Man and of some other of their positions takes away the force of all Prayer making it either needles or fruitlesse Needles as of things certaine which need not to be asked Fruitles as of things impossible which cannot be obtained The first point is thus proued That Prayer is needles which prayes for that which cannot fayle vs as either already past or assuredly possest or to come Therefore according to the Protestants grounds they ought not to pray for Remission of Sinnes for the fauour of God for perseuerance in fayth or for the glory of Heauen since euery Protestant by his speciall fayth belieueth in his iudgment most certainly that his Sinnes are forgiuen him and that he shall perseuer in fayth and come to Heauen The second point to wit of the Fruitlesnes of Prayer is in like wise thus euicted To pray for the keeping of the Ten Commandements is fruitles since our Aduersaries teach as I haue aboue shewed that the keeping of them is impossible In like manner it is Fruitles to pray for the Preuenting of any Euill whether it be Malum culpae as sinne or Malum paenae as punishment or whether it be any temporall affliction whatsoeuer And the reason is because as our Aduersaries do teach All Euill as well as Good shall infallibly fall out as Goâ— hath according to his owne irrespectiue immutable and ineuitable will pleasurâ— decreed and appointed it For sorting here to to omit the like authorities of many others in this point Luther thus writeth 〈◊〉 a Fatall Necessity of things Nullius (l) Luther in Assert damnat per Leonem Art 36. est 〈◊〉 manu c. Jt is in no mans power to thinke God or Euill but all things proceed from absoluâ— Necessity Thus we see that it ineuitably 〈◊〉 most consequently may be gathered froâ— the Protestants Theorems and principles thaâ— all Prayer is either Needles or Fruitles inauayleable Animaduersion CLXXXVII MAny of the learned Protestants weâ—ghing the emptines of their owne Religion as consisting only of Tenets whicâ— are but an Annihilation of all positiue and true fayth haue therefore vpon mature deliberation in diuers weighty points whoâ—y reiected the Negatiue Religion of our Aduersaries and in place therof haue fully imbraced the contrary Affirmatiue Catholike Articles of fayth euer and at this day maintayned by the Church of Rome So trâ—â— is that saying of S. Austin Truth (m) Contra Donat post coll c. 24. is
they are most erroneous in the immediaâ— Obiect Animaduersion CXLII WHen the Catholikes do alledge certaiâ—â— Notes of the Church as Antiquity Vniuersality Succession Conuersion of Heathâ—â— c. our Aduersaryes seeke to auoyde thâ— force of some of these Notes and particularly of Succession and Conuersion of Gentils since they say these two Notes are claymâ—â— by confessedly false Churches seing thâ— Greeke Church houldeth Succession and thâ— Arians haue conuerted the Gothes anâ— Vandals To answere hereto I first say thesâ— two Instances are false for the Greeke Churcâ— hath its Succession as interrupted and begunne from those Intruders who begaâ— their owne separation from the Romaâ— Church about the Holy Ghosts proceeding And as concerning the supposed Conuersâ—ons of the Goths and Vandals by the Arians it is only pretended Seing the Gothes weâ—â— not at the first conuerted by the Arians buâ— being conuerted before were after by them peruerted as appeareth out of Zozomen l. 6. c. 37. and Theodoret l. 4. cap. vlt. Secondly I reply to the former Euasion That the Catholikes rather to preuent the impostures of our Aduersaryes obiecting hereto theÌ„ out of any absolute necessity of the said Notes do propound the foresaid Marks or notes not as proper alone to the true Church but only as markes inseparable though not conuertible from it so they vndertaking thereby not to set downe in the affirmatiue that where any such of these in separably marks be there the true Church certainly is but rather in the Negatiue that where these be wanting there the true Church is not But certaine it is that these Notes are wanting in the ProtestaÌ„t Church Animaduersion CXLIII I grant that the Catholike Religion is inuolued with farre more difficultyes as may be exemplifyed in the doctrine of the Reall presence then the Protestant Religion the reason therof being in that our Religion consisteth of Affirmatiue Articles the Protestants fayth so far forth as it differeth from the Catholike of Negatiues Yet to recompence this we fynd that the Protestant fayth is attended on coÌ„trary to the Catholike faith herein with diuers grosse absurdityes necessarily and immediatly flowing from the Protestants Tenets or Assertions I heere passe ouer how (9) Luth. l. de capt Babil c. de Baptism Luther houldeth that Infants at the tyme of their Baptizing haue an articulate and actual faith of all the chiefe Misteryes of Christianity That our Aduersaryes howsoeuer they disclayme from it in words teach (10) Luther in Assert damuat per Leonem Art 36. Beza in his display of Popish practises pag. 202. Sumglius to 1. de Prodentia fol. 366. that God is the Author of sinne These and many other such like absurd Doctrines I heere passe ouer only I will a little insist how (*) Luther in Assert art 32. sayth That all good works God iudging them are mortall sinne Luther and the rest do mantayne that all the good works of iust Men are Sinnes Now the absurdity of this doctrine how transparent is it Since from it would follow that the worke of fayth by which we are iustifyed should be Sinne as also that prayer wherein we pray Dimitte nobis debita nostra should be a sinne But is it not most absurd that man should be iustified by Sinne and that he should seeke by Sinne to obtaine the remission of sinne Againe from this fountayne we might thus truly Syllogize and reason All good works are to be done but some mortall sinnes are good Works Therefore some mortall sinnes are to be done Againe No mortall sinne is to be committed but all good works are mortall sinnes Therefore no good Worke is to be done These Loe are the inferences of the former absurdity to wit that all good works are mortall Sinnes that some mortall Sinnes are to be committed and that no good worke is to be donne Now whereas by way of retortion our Aduersaries and particularly Kempnitius in his Examen Concilij â—rident vpbraid vs that we teach a more blasphemous doctrine in maintayning that we are iustifyed by our owne works and not by Christ his Passion To this I reply thar in obiecting of this appeares either extreme malice in our Aduersaries or at least most wilfull ignorance Therefore to remoue this stumbling block we say that we are iustifyed by an inherent Iustice or Renouation of life in vs as by the formall Cause but we are also iustifyed by the merits of Christ his Passion as by the meritoriour Cause both which different causes may stand together without any derogation of the one to the other contrary to the intended fraud of our Aduersaries herein in seeking to confound these two different Causes Animaduersion CXLIV YF it be demanded how Luther first being instructed of the Deuill concerning his doctrine as also being of a vicious life as â—n this Treatise is in part elswhere shewed â—hould for his doctrine be so much applauâ—ed repayred vnto by the broken memâ—ers of the Catholike Church To this may â—e answered that Luther his select choice â—reparing of his doctrine to entertayne and â—t the then seuerall affected humours of â—ch peculiar declining estate and degree â—his being accompanied with the Visitation â—f Gods heauy iudgments hanging ouer â—he preuayling Sinnes of those degenerate â—â—mes was the chiefe Allectiue for the more easy imbracing of Luthers Doctrine Noâ— the choycnes of Luthers doctrine consisted to insist in some particulars in mantayning liberty of pretended Mariage in Clergy men in his exposing of Monasteries and other rich spoyles of the Church to the greedy appetite of the temporal Magistrate and finally in deluding of the simple sinfull Laity with his other licentious doctrines of Saluation by only fayth and disclayming from the necessity of Good Workâ— as houlding them needles as aboue out of his owne particular sayings we haue proued In the seuerall imbracing of all whicâ— as S. Jerome (1) Ierome contra Vigilantium in like manner said of Vigilantius his followers Luthers followers fauored not so much him as their owne Vâ—â—â— These are the fatall steps of Luthers suddaâ—â—â— rising greatnes And this is the lesse to 〈◊〉 wondred at seeing we see that the like câ— rather far greater progresse was made 〈◊〉 this kind by Mahomet through his absurd and licentious Doctrines wherewith so many Nations are euen at this day infected Animaduersion CXLV YF in retaliation of what is said in thâ—â— last aboue Animaduersion our Aduersaries shall labour to distract their Discipleâ— with vnequall obiecting insteed of answere the supposed wicked liues of certaine Popes I reply hereto that admitting for the tyme the said wicked liues of the Popes to be true and not forged yet the disparity here resteth in that those Popes were not the first Restorers of our Religion to light since they liued many ages after our Catholike Religion was vniuersally professed as appeareth aboue from the confessed antiquity of the Catholike Roman Fayth Againe I say the Question heere is not whether the high
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