Apostles and consequently that I contrary to your L. supposall do heere instruct the Academians in the same fayth and Religion which first florished in those primatiue tymes Now that neuer any change was made at Rome in poynts of fayth and Religion your Lordship may be fully satisfyed by perusing the former Dialogue betweene the Honorable Cardinall and Doctour Whitakers VICE-CHANCELOVR My Lord. Michaeas will tyre you with his wearisome speeches and if you would suffer him will perorate whole dayes togeather for he hath a peculiar deliuery of himselfe in seeking to decline his accusations by framing his tedious discourses touching the supposed honour of his owne Religion wholy impertinent to that for which he now stands arraigned Therefore to cut off all such exhorbitancyes of speeches I now in your L. presence to the greater accumulation of his former crymes do in this last place accuse him of being a Popish Priest a pernicious state of Men and such as your Lordship well knowes is incompatible with the Lawes of our Realme Thus we may obserue how the ouershadowing Prouidence of God hath disposed in these matters that if by supposall his former faults might passe vncorrected yet this last breaketh through the bounds of all Commiseration and Pitty Therefore your L. may do well to examyne him strictly hereof and cause him to answere without any reserued sense of equiuocation the peculiar Dialect of the Papists in like cases L. CHEIFE-IVSTICE Perceaue you not heere Michaeas how in your accusation one cryme is euer at the backe of an other like waues following one another till they all ouerflow and ouerwhelme you You are heere lastly accused to be one of that state of Men I meane a Romish Priest which are insufferable in our Nation and whom as guilty of many foule transgressions our Lawes do most seuerely punish Tell me therefore directly whether you be a Priest or no. MICHAEAS Sweete Iesus what sallyes of Malice hath your tongue M. Vice-Chancelour made in this your long Processe of my accusation First by charging me with reall disobedience to the supreme Magistrate then with penning the foresaid Catholicke Treatises and now for the close of all with being a Priest Where I see howsoeuer my cause be good yet I must be reputed Euill But leauing that and to answere to my Lords last Question Since then I am demaunded thereof I will not conceale my greatest honour I grant I am a Catholicke and Roman Priest created by the reuerend hand of the most illustrious and learned Bellarmine But is the very name of a Priest though otherwise not to be charged with any fault so distastfull in this place Or shall it be at any tyme heere asked Cur de solo nomine punitis facta Your Lordshipps iudgment no dowbt would hearein be altered if so you would vouchsafe to take into your Consideration the antiquity of the holy Order of Pryesthood since our Sauiour hymselfe was the first Priest in the tyme of Grace typically adumbrated by that of Melchisadech Tu es Sacerdos socundum ordinem Melchisadech Of which poynt the goldentonged Father thus wryteth Videns typum cogita oro veritatem Thus Christ was the supreme Priest Man but the Ministeriall Priest O how reuerently do the auncient Fathers speake of Priesthood Nazianzene tearmeth a Priest the Mediatour betweene God and Man Chrysostome honored Prieshood so much as that he did wryte a booke entituling it De Sacerdotio among infinit other passages of which subiect he thus saith Non Angelus non Archangelus non alia quaeuis creata potentia sed ipso Paracleâ—us Ordinem eiusmodi disposuit Neither Angel nor Archangell nor any created Power but only our Aduocate Comforter Meaning Christ did institute this Order of Pryesthood Ambrose in like sort did wryte of this subiect styling his Treatise De dignitate Sacerdotale In which booke speaking of the manner how a Priest is created thus wryteth in the first Chapter thereof Homo imponit manum Deus langitur gratium Sacerdos imponit simplicem dexteram Deus benedicit potenti dexiera Man doth impose the hand but God giueth the grace The Priest doth lay his humble hand meaning vpon hym who is to be made Pryest But God doth blesse with his pouerfull hand Leo the first thus worthely wryteth hereof Omnium Sacerdotum tam excellens est electio vt haec quae in alijs membris Ecclesiae vacant a culpa in illis tamen habeantur illicita The state of all Pryests is so noble as that some things theare are meaning mariadge of Pryests which being lawfull in other members of the Church are neuerthelesse prohibited in them To be short Pacâ—nus thus amplifieth vpon this poynt Plebi vnde Spiritus quam non consignat vnctus Sacerdos How can that Society or company of Men receaue the Holy Ghost if the annoynted Priest doth not signe blesse them Thus farre in generall of the dignity of Pryesthood which I hope in modesty and without the lest tuche of Vanity I may alledge forbearinge many more authorityes of lyke nature lest my producing of them might be misconstiued my selfe being a Priest and therefore interressed in them by some one or other deprauing tongue VICE-CHANCELOVR What you haue heare Michaeas alledged out of Antiquity in honour of Priesthood we willingly acknowledge since it was then ment and now is truly applyed to the Ministers of the Ghospell and others of the faythfull in regard of the spirituall sacrifices of Prayer dayly offered vp by them who therefore in a metaphorical and improper acceptance of the word Pryest and as the phraze is are tearmed Pryests MICHAEAS M. Vice-Chancelour You are fowly mistaken heerein willing it seemes you are to vendicate to your owne Ministerial function the prayses due to Priesthood But I hope you will stand to the iudgment of S. Austin and other Fathers herein S. Austin then thus speaketh of this poynt Soli Episcopi Presbiteri propriè vocantur in Ecclesia Sacerdot s. Thus Austin by expressely calling Bishops Presbyters only Priests excludeth this secondary and improper signification of the word Priest which you seeme heare to mantayne and which in your sense may be truly extended to Weomen who offer vp the Sacrifice or prayer to God as well as Men. And according hereto it is that Ireneus acknowledging with you that in a restrayned sense all iust Men may be called Priests doth further teach a peculiar Pryesthood of the Apostles different from the former kynd of Pryesthood which saith he dayly attends vpon God and the Altar And hence also it is that the greeke Word 〈…〉 ereus which properly signifieth Sacerdos is applyed to Christian Pryests by Eusebius Ierome Ignatius and finally to omit others by Dionysius Areopagita I may ad in further warrant of this Truth that the auncient Fathers do make frequent mention of Altars now to be in the Church of Christ But
of this your instance And therfore I referre you to my answeres touching theÌ„ aboue specified Yet because this verball Instance consisteth cheifly in the phrase of Caput omnium Ecclesiarum you shall therfore for your fuller satrâ—saction know that this very Title of being Head of the Church is acknowledged and giuen to the Church of Rome by many both Latine and Greeke Farhers who liued diuers hundred of yeares before this Boniface the third who raigned about the yeare 507. And first Vincentius Lyrinensis who was almost three hundred yeares before this Boniface calls the Bishop of Rome Caput Orbis the Head of the Christian World S. Hierome sayth that Damasus then Bishop of Rome est Rector domus Dei quae est Ecclesia eins Damasus is the Reciour or gouernour of the house of God which is his Church But if Damasus was the gonernour of the Church then was he the head of the Church Finally for greater contraction of this poynt in the Councell of Chalcedon consisting of many reuerend Doctours and Bishops and celebrated an hundred fifty yeares before this Bonifâ—ce his tyme we thus reade Papae Vrbis Romae quae est Caput omnium Ecclesiarum precept a habemus See the like phrase vsed and giuen to the Pope and the Church of Rome by the Emperour Iustinian Prosper Victor Vticensis and to pretermit others by S. Leo. So fowly M. Doctour you were deceaued in alleadging this Bonifacius and the phrase of Caput Ecclesiarum D. WHITAKERS Who knoweth not Ioh of Constantinople first challenged to himfelfe the name of Vniuersnll Bishop But Gregorie the Great then Bishop of Rome eigrauissime conflantissimè restitit quousque vixit most grauely and constaÌ„tly resifled him as long as he liued affirming him to be the Precursor of Antichrist who should arrogate this tytle of Vniuersall Bishop to himselfe But now my Lord euery Pope since Gregories time styleth himselfe Vniuersall Bishop and therfore euery such Pope in the iudgment of the sayd Gregory is the Precursor of Antichrist and consequently euery such Pope hath made no smal change in this mayne point from the Fayth first planted by Christ for what commerce and association in Fayth can there be betweene Christ and Antichrist CARD BELLARM. Yet M. Doctour more of these froathy Instances Who hath not read or heard that Gregory the Great liued in the yeare 590. and therefore some thousand yeares since or more whereas the former alleadged Victor Zozimus Benifacius the first Celestinus and Bonifacius the third liued many yeares afore him and some of them seuerall hundred of yeares were his ancients How theÌ„ could they assume a SupreaÌ„e Authority ouer all Churches as you afore haue vrged and haue the title of Head of the Church giuen them if Iohn of CoÌ„stantinople were either the first that tooke this title to himfelfe or that Gregory the Great did dislike it in that sense wherein you insist Therfore what censorious temerity is this in you M. Doctour and how hardly can you vindicate your name by this your comportment from all iust blemish and disreputation But suppose this reprehension giuen by S. Gregory were true this only argueth a change to haue bin in Iohn of Constantinople but not in the Bishop of Rome which is the only poynt here questioned Againe I cannot but obserue how in this place for your aduantage you can commend Gregory for his humility and vertue whom at other tymes you are not afrayd to tearme Antichrist and whose first Conuersion of you English to Christianity you haue elsewhere stiled Corrupt and Impure see how ready you protestants are to turne the sayles of of your speach to euery winde D. WHITAKERS Will you deny that Iohn of Constantinopee did take this title of Vniuersall Bishop to himselfe or that Gregory the Great did not reprehend him for the same There are ancient Histories recording no lesse CARD BELLARM. No. I do not deny it But I say the deceipt lyeth in the equiuocation of the word Vniuersall Bishop This worde lyeth open to a double acceptance either to signify that hee who is the Vniuersall Bishop is sole Bishop so as it excludeth all others from being Bishops in which sense S. Gregory did tearme it sacrtlegious prophane and Antichristian Or else to signify one who hath the cheife care and gouerment of the Vniuersall Church by which signification others are not excluded from being Bishops That in the first sense Gregory did take the worde Vniuersall Bishop is most euident euen out of Gregoryes owne works for thus he writeth hereof If one be Vniuersall Bishop it remayneth that you be no Bishops And agayne If one be called the Vniuersall Patriarch the name of Patriarch is taken away from the rest In this sense did Gregory take the word and in this sense did Iohn of Constantinople labour to haue the word applyed to himselfe endeauouring to be thought the cheife Bishop of the world to vse your owne D. Feilds words because his Citty was the cheife Citty of the world Thus you see M. Doctour how weakly or rather how so Phistically you argue from the ambiguous acceptance of the phrase of Vniuersall Bishop But your fault is here the greater since you being a scholler are not ignorant that Sophistry is only by incidency and for caution to be known but not to be practised so Phisitions know for greater warines the venemous nature of certayne hearbs or druggs D. WHITAKERS Howsoeuer Gregory might take this word in your former restrayned sense yet seeing he did forbeare to exercise that foueraignty ouer other Bishops and Churches which now the Bishops of Rome do practise it followeth therefore that he wholy disliked this swolne domination and Primacy so much thirsted after by your Popes CARD BELLARM. It seemes M. Doctour you are a stranger in your owne supposed Israell I meane you are not acquainted with your owne learned Brethrens writings for what poynr of Primacy and Soueraignty ouer other Churches and Bishops is there which Gregory the Great did not exercise and this by the acknowledgment of your owne Ceeturists For though he was a most religious Pope and so great an Enemy to Pride as that he might be truly sayd to haue bin euen ambitious of Humility yet in respect of his Papall Iurisdiction it is thus written of him He chalenged to himselfe power to commaÌ„d Arcbishops to ordayne or depose Bishops at his pleasure Hee tooke vpon him right to cyte Arcbishops that they should declare their cause before him when they were by any accused Hee placed in other Bishops Prouinces Legats to konw and end the causes of those who made their appeale ta Rome He vsurped power of calling Synods in the provinces of other Bishops Thus do the Centurists write of Gregory collecting the Premisses out of his owne writings To be short they further in generall thus write of him saying Gregorius dicit sedem
thereof Lastly this Inference drawne from the state of the old Testament and applyed to the New is most inconsequent Both because the New Testament is better established then the old seing to it is promised that the gates of Hell shall not preuayle against Christs Church And also it is styled The pillar and foundation of truth And finally in that the Peoples of the Iewes were not the Vniuersal Church of God as the People of the Christians are And therefore out of the Iewish Synagogue there were diuers others of the faythfull and Iust as Melchisedech Iob Cornelius the Centurion the Eueuch of Queen of Candice c. This ended this Triffler in pag. 6. seuerall other places meÌ„tioneth the vsuall Obiection taken from the words of Elias saying relictu sum solus But this is fully satisfyed in the first part or begining of the former Dialogue In the next place to wit pag. 10. he commeth to depres the glory of the Church of Christ during his aboade here vpon earth and tyme of his Passion but all this most impertinently seing the radiant splendour and Visibility of Christ his Church was cheiffly to beginne and then for euer after to continue till the worlds end after the descending of the Holy Ghost and not before This done the Authour commeth to the tymes of the Tenn Persecutions by the Heathen Emperours prouing from thence the obscurity of Christs Church in pag. 25. To which I answere that these Persecutions according to the nature of persecution were so far from making the Church of Christ in those dayes inuisible as that it became thereby most visible seeing none are persecuted but visible Men And the very names of the cheiffe Martyrs of those dayes are yet most fresh and honorable in the memoryes of all good Christians euen to this very hower they remayning yet registred in the Ecclesiasticall Historyes both of Catholicks and Protestants In pag. 26. he instanceth in the tymes of the Arians and produceth Saint Ieromes testimony and words to wit The whole World did sâ—ght and wounder that it was Arian from which authority he would proue the Inuisibility of Christs Church in those dayes But here the Authour discouereth his ignorance For here First Ierome calleth that by the figâ—â—e Synecdoche the whole World which is but a part of the World S Ierome meaning only of certaine parts of Christen 〈◊〉 Secondly S. Ierome here taketh the word Arian in a secundarye signification For here he calleth them improperly and Abusiue Arians who through Ignorance did subscrybe to the Arian Heresy For he speaketh of that great number of Bishops which came out of all parts of Christendum to Arimine and were deceaued by the Arians through their mistaking of the greeke Word Omosios and there vpon Materially only they subscrybed to the Heresy of the Arians But the same Bishopps being after admonished of their errour did instantly correct the same and bewayled their mistaking with teares and penance Thus we se the true relation of this poynt really proueth an actuall Visibility of the Orthodoxall Christians at that very tyme. Pag. 27. He insisteth in Athanasius and Liberius as the only defendours in those dayes of Christs Diuinitie and consequently that the Church of Christ did only rest in them two For thus he wryteth The Church for any externall show was brought low for if any body held it vp it was Athanasius who then played least in sight and durst not appeare Heere is strang and wilfull mistaking for though it be granted that Athanasius in regard of his feruour and learning was more persecuted by the Arians then any other Bishop yet to â—auer that himselfe alone or Liberius did only impugne the Heresy of Arius and that there were no other Orthodoxall Beleiuers at that tyme is most improbable or rather most absurd This is proued first from the Councell which was assembled cheifly for the suppressing of the Arian Heresy at which Councell Athanasius hymselfe was present This Councell consisted of three hundred Bishopps and more the greatest part whereof by their voyces did absolutly condemne the Arian Heresy Now how can it be conceaued that all the said Bishopps speaking nothing of the Orthodoxall Laity of that tyme excepting only Athanasius should instantly either a fore or after apostatate or through feare of Persecution externally profes the Arian Heresy Againe the truth of this poynt is further confirmed from the Epistle which Athanasius and the Bishops of Thebes and Lybia gathered together in the Councell of Alexandria did wryte to Pope Paelix the Second of that name wherein they vnanimously protest to defend with all Christian resolution their Orthodoxall fayth against their Enemyes the Arians Thirdly the falshood of the former Assertion is euicted from that that many Fathers and Doctours liuing in the very age of Aâ—hanasius and Libertus and diuers of them euen in the dayes of Athanasius and well knowne to hym did refute and contradict ex professo the Arian Heresy in their learned wrytings As for example Basil Gregory Nazianzene Gregory Nyssene Cyrill of Ierusalem Hilarius Ambrose Epiphanius and some others Now in respect of the Premisses can it be but dreamed that there should be no Professours of the Diuinity of Christ in those dayes but only Athanasius or Liberius Pag. 25. The Pamphleter leauing examples authorityes descendeth to Reason thus arguing Faith doth much consist of things which are not seene Therefore seing we beleiue the Holy Church as an article of our fayth it followeth that it needs not to be euer eminently visible or apparently sensible vnto vs. Learnedly concluded Therefore for the better instruction of this Pamphleter he is to vnderstand that in the Church of God there is something to be seene and something to be beleiued We do see that company of men which is the Church and therein the Church is euer visible But that that Company or Society is the true visible Church of God that we see not but only beleiue Euen as the Apostles did see that very Man which is Christ the Sonne of God but that he was the Sonne of God this the Apostles did not see but only beleiue In pag. 28. and 29. as also in some other pages afore he much insisteth in the words spoken of the Woman in the Reuelations cap. 12. of whom it was prophecyed that she should flye into the Wildernes affirming that by the Woman is vnderstood the Church which is not to be seene in tyme of persecution To this I answere first this passage being taken from out of the Reuelations cannot as euidently to vs men proue any thing seing the Reuelations being deliuered in visions prophecyes many of them being yet vnaccomplished and figuratiue speeches we cannot so easily apprehend the true sense meaning of them Secondly What diuers learned Catholicks and some Protestants do vnderstand by the Woman in the reuelations differently from the vrging of
Faith Secondly we will enquire and set downe the acknowledged continuance of that time during all which season the now present Faith of Rome hath continued That is how longe Papistry as you commonly tearme it hath bene publikly professed and taught throughout all Christendome Thirdly and lastly we will then take a view of the times betweene these two former seuerall times for these two times being once acknowliged on all sides to wit the time during which the Church of Rome confessedly kept her first Faith taught by the Apostles and the time during which the present Romane Faith hath continued from this day vpward it ineuitably followeth that this supposed change of Religion did either happen in the interstitium and meane time betweene the two former Periods of times or els that there hapened no such chang in Religion in the Church of Rome at all Now concerning the first of these times how long in the Protestants iudgements M. Doctour did the Church of Rome retayne without staine or alteration in any point of moment or Article of beliefe for that only is to be enquired the Faith first deseminated by the Apostles D. WHITAKERS I will confesse in all ingenuity that diuers of our owne learned Brethren do teach that Rome retained her purity of Fayth without any such alteration by you intimated till after the deaths of Optatus Epiphanius and Augustine which is during the space of foure hundred and forty yeares after Christ CARD BELLARMINE You say most truely and I do like your playnesse herein since he is truely politike espetially in matters of Religion which require all candour in theire menaging who is not politicke For wheras our Catholicke writers haue much insisted that Tertullian prouoked the Heretickes of his daies to the Succession of the Bishops of Rome your owne D. Fulke giueth this reason touching such his prouocation in these words The argument then drawne from Succession was good because the Church of Rome retained by Succession vntill Tettullians dates that Faith which it did first receaue from the Apostles To whose iudgment in this particular reason your selfe M. Doctour in your booke writen against me subscribs thus saying from hence we do vnderstaÌ„d why TertulliaÌ„ did appeale to those Churches to wit because the Churches did then hould the Apostolicall Doctrine by a perpetuall succession But to descend further in time touching the graunted preseruation of the Faith of Rome wheras in like manner some Chatholicke Authors haue alledged the same argumeÌ„t drawne from the Succession of Bishops by the example of Irenaeus Cyprian Optatus Hierome Vincentius Lyrinensis and Augustine all which Fathers most rested in the Succession of the Bishops of Rome still continued till their daies your foresaid D. Fulke answereth in behalfe of the sayd Fathers in this sort That these Fathers especially named the Church of Rome it was because the Church of Rome at that time as it was founded by the Apostles so it continued in the Doctrine of the Apostles With whome accordeth D. lewell saying Aswell Augustine as also other godly Fathers rightly yealded reuerence to the Sea of Rome c. for the purity of Religion which was there preserued a loÌ„g time without spot To conclude Caluine himselfe euen in the same manner answereth the foresayd argument of Succession of Bishops in the Church of Romê insisted vpon by Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Augustine Optatus Epiphanius and others for thus Caluine speaketh Cùm extra controuersiam esset nihil à principio vsque ad aetâ—â—tem illam mutatum fuisse in doctrina c. Seing it was a Poynt out of Controuersy that nothing in doctrine froÌ„ the beginning to that very age was changed these holy Fathers did take that which they thought sufficient for the destroying of all new Errours to wit the doctrine constantly and with an vnanimous consent retayned euen from the Apostles dayes till their tymes Thus Caluine To these fromer I may alledge that Sentence out of D. Fulke saying The Popish Church c. departed from the Vniuersall Church of Christ long since Augustins departure out of this lyfe Thus he granting that till S. Augustins death the Church of Rome was the true Church so euident and clere we se it is that the Church of Rome neuer changed her Religion from the Apostles first Planting of it vntill the times of S. Augustin Epiphanius Optatus c. which was as is aboue sayd foure hundred and forty yeares after Christ Thus farre M. Doctor concerning the durance of the tymes euen by the Protestants frequent confessions that no change of fayth was made in the Church of Rome Tonching which poynt Irefere you for greater satisfaction to certaine quoted places of the aforesayed Fathers to wit of Hierome Ireâ—aeus Augustine Vincentius Lyrâ—neâ—sis Ambrose c. All which Fathers in their writings do constantly auerre that the Faith preached in their dayes in the Church of Rome was the true Fayth and consequently was neither then nor afore subiect to change or alteration Now all this being made thus euident it followeth according to our designed Method that we consider the number of those ages during the lenght of all which from this day vpwards the present Roman Fayth hath by the lyke Confession of the Learned Protestants bene generally taught Seing how long the Protestants bene generally taught Seing how long the Protestants do grant that the Church of Rome hath from this day contined in her present Faith so long it followeth by their owne implicit censures and most necessary inferences that the Church of Rome neuer altered her Fayth Therfore M. Doctour I would know of you what your learned Men do generally teach about the continuance and antiquity of our present Roman and Catholicke Religion D. WHITAKERS I will not deny but that our Doctours do ascrybe an antiquity to your Popish Fayth for a thousand yeares at least For first D. Humfry my worthy sy'mmachos cai symmy'stes shewing what Religion Augustine planted in England being sent by Gregory the Great then Pope of Rome who liued in the yeare 590 thus instanceth in the particular points of the then Roman Religion In Ecclesiam verò quid inuexerunt Gregorius et Augustinus Onus ceremoniarum c. what did Gregory and Angustine bringé into the Church They did bring a burden of Ceremonies They did bring in the Archiepiscopall Pall for the solemnization of the Masse They did bring in Purgatory c. the oblation of the Healthfull Oast and prayer for the dead c. Relicks Transubstantiation c. a new conscecratioÌ„ of Temples c. from all which what other thing is effected then the introducing of Indulgences Monachisme Papisme and the rest of the Chäos of Popish Superstition all this did Augustine the great Monke being instructed herein by Gregory the Monke bring to the English men Thus farre D. Humfry CARD BELLARM. Well then M. Doctour it clearely appeares by this that
Ministers of the ghospel D. Fulke D. Iewell and M. Henoch Clapham do ioyntly teach the same neither did I euer read any one authentical writer to deny it CARD BELLARM. How long M. Doctour do your writers confesse that the Britons did preserue their Fayth receaued in the Apostles tymes free from all change or mixture of innouatioÌ„s D. VVHITAKERS We do confesse that they preserued it pure and not stayned with any Errours til Augustine his comming into England who was sent by Pope Gregory to plant his religioÌ„ amoÌ„g vs English for first thus I finde D. Iewell to auer The Britons being conuerted by Ioseph of Aramathia held that Fayth at Augustins comming as also D. Fulke saying The Catholick Britans with whom Christian Religion had continued in succession from the Apostles tymes would not receaue Augustine To these we may adioyne the like words of M. Fox The Britons after the receauing of the Fayth neuer forsooke it for any manner of false preaching nor for tormeÌ„ts and finally that acknowledgment of D. Humfrey Habuerunt Britanni templa sibi non Romanis c. The Britons had temples and Churches peculiar to themselues not common with the Romans they not subiecting theÌ„selues to the yoake of the Romans CARD BLLARM Well M. Doctour you deale with integrity and playnes hitherto openly discouering what your reading and iudgement are able to deliâ—er herein And your Prayse in so doing is the greater since there are some men so cautelous in their proceedings and speaches and of such an impenetrable closenes of disposition as that we can neuer knowe their minde by their words the one for the most part standing neutrall to the other or rather the Aspect of a Diametricall Opposition But M. Doctour let me enquire further of you You know that there was an interuiew of meeting betweene this Augustine and the Bishops of Britanny or Walles for the conferring of their Religions together at a place called in S. Bede his time Augustineizat which point is further recorded by your Holinshead M. Fox and diuers others Now here I would intreate you sincerely to set downe the greatest differences of Fayth and Religon which at that meeting were found to be betweene the Briton Bishops and the foresayd Augustine D. WHITAKERS I will and my tongue shall truly subscribe to all that which of this point I haue heretofore read And first S. Bede will fully determine this point who relating how Augustine answered the Briton Bishops setteth his answere downe in thâ—se words Si in tribus his obtemperare mihi vultis vt Pascha suo tempore celebretis vt Ministerium Baptizandi quo Deo renascimur iuxta morem Romanae Apostolicae Ecclesiae compleatis vt Genti Anglorum vnà nobiscum praedicetis verbum Domini cetera quae agitis quamuis moribus nostris contraria eaquanimiter cuncta toller abimus that is If you Briton celebratingâ—aster â—aster day in it due tyme in conferring of Baptisme by the which we are reborne to God according to the Rites of the Roman and Apostolicall Church and in helping vs to preach to the English all other matters which you do though contrary to our manners we wil tollerate and suffer Thus far S. Bede But to what end my Lord Cardinall do you make so many demaunds touching this matter of the Britons Since I cannot see your proiect herein they neither preiudicing vs Protestants nor aduantaginge you Papists CARD BELLARM. M. Doctour you shal quickly discouer the drift of these my seuerall demaunds which resemble a Torrent stopped for a time that it may in the end ouerflow with greater violence Now to your former acknowledgmeÌ„ts we may adde touching only the three former differences the like Confessions of Holinshead M. Goodwin and the ProtestaÌ„t Authour of the History of great Briton whose words are these The Briton Bishops conformed themselues to the Doctrine Ceremonies of the Church of Rome without difference in any thing specially remembred saue only in the celebration of the feast of Easter c. Now M. Doctour in this last place I would haue you cal to minde what is aboue related touching the Fayth planted by Augustine of D. Humfrey the Centurists and Osiander D. Humfrey his words herin though the iteration of them may perhaps seeme vnpleasing I wil once more repeate for greater weight of our ensuing argument who speaking of Augustins Religion planted in England thus writeth In Ecclesiam verè quid inuexerunt Gregorius Augustinus onus Caeremoniarum c. intulerunt Pallium Episcopale ad sola Missarum solemnia Purgatorium c Oblationem salutaris hostiae Preces pro demortuis c. reliquias c. Transubstantiationem c. nouas templorum consecrationes c. Ex quibus omnibus quid aliud quaesitum est quam vt Indulgentiae Monachaâ—us Paptus reliquuÌ„que Pontificiae superstitionis Chaös extruatur Haec autem Augustinus Magnus Monachus a Gregorio Monacho edoctus importauit Anglis Thus D. Humfrey Are not these his owne words And are not the Centurists and Osiander aboue cited most cleare that Augustine at his comming into England preached the present Roman Religion in all chiefe points to you English D. WHITAKERS It cannot be denyed but that all the foresayd Protestants as also all Histories discoursing of this poynt do coÌ„fidently auerre the same Which said Gregory as he brought in some true wholsome poynts of Christian Fayth so did he mingle them with diuers poisonous superstitions worthily to be avoyded by all good Christians Phármaca pollà mén 〈…〉 esthlà memieména pollà de lyerà for it is most cleare that Augustine in this his plantation of Religion in England did greatly labour ' ar ' ' rostia quadam dianoias with an infirmity or sicknes of iudgment CARD BELLARM. Wel M. Doctour touching the venom you spit out against Augustines Religion I holde it but as fome froth of a distempered stomack and therfore I passe it ouer but to returne to my argument Here now I wil be seruiceable vnto you and by the mixture of all these former Ingredients I will present you with a wholsome Electuary compounded of them all for indeede I holde the demonstration issuing out of the premisses so vnauoydable as that it precludeth and forestalleth the aduersary of all shew of Reply First then it is graunted that the Britons were coÌ„uerted to the Fayth of Christ by Ioseph of Aramathia who as he had the honour to interre our Sauiour lay his sacred Body in a new monument cut out of a rock as the Euangelist speaketh so enioyed he the happines to bury al former infidelity in the Britons and to cloath or infolde their afore stony and rocky harts within the cleane Syndon of a pure Fayth in our Sauiour But to proceed Secondly it is confessed that the Britons retayned this their first Fayth spotles and without change till
Therfore I would now wish you to proceede to your proofes and to alleadg such arguments against our former Conclusion as your owne reading hath at any time best ministred vnto you Do not rest only in generally saying that the Church of Rome hath altered her Religion except withal you insist in the particular instances when that Church imbraced such such a Doctrine as an innouation and repugnant to the Faith planted by the Apostles And remember that the Truth or falshood of generalities in speech do receiue their best illustration from a curious and precise dissecting of the Particulars This office now is particularly incumbent vpon you for seeing you maintaine that the Church of Rome hath changed its Faith since the Apostles times you are obliged to insist in the particular Doctrines supposed to be changed in the Person and Popes by whom this change was made in the time in which these alterations are presumed to haue happened and the like as aboue I intimated in the beginning of this discourse Therfore M. Doctour begin and I will reply to your Obiections as far as my owne reading and iudgment will afford D. WHITAKERS My Lord I willingly take holde of your prescribed Method and will giue many instances of seuerall Doctrines euen of the greatest moment now in question betweene you and vs when they were first introduced into the Church and by what Popes they were so brought in and I hope that a due and mature ponderation of them will be able to shake and disioynt or rather to lay leuell to the ground the whole Systima and frame of your former large discourse Well then the first Instance of this vndoubted Change which I will alleadge shal be Pope Siritius who was the first that annexed Perpetuall Chastity to the ministers of the word And I hope that it is to be accoÌ„pted no smale change to barre our Clergy of their Christian liberty in so great a matter since we are taught by him who in these later times first taught vs Protestantcy that nothing is more sweeâ—e or louing vpon earth then is the loue of a Woman if a Man can obtaine it And that he who resolueth to be without a Woman let him lay aside from him the name of a man making himselfe a plaine Angell or Spirit CARD BELLARM. M. Doctour before I come to apply particuler answeres to your particuler instances following I must tell you that the force of all such your instaÌ„ces is already ouerthrowne by what is deliuered aboue For if it be already demonstrated that no chaÌ„ge of faith hath bin made at any time in the church of Rome partly by freeing euery age of the Church since Christs time from any change in Religion euen by the acknowledgment of the learned Protestants partly by manifesting that neither the Church of Christ neuer made any resistance against the first supposed change as both in duety it was bound to do and as the holy Scripture prophesieth that it should euer do at the innouatioÌ„ of any new Doctrine neither doth any Historiographer record in his History any such chaÌ„ge partly by discouering the vncertaine iudgments of your owne Brethren touching Antichrists first comming at what time this so much pressed Innouation of Faith is taught to haue happened and finally partly by diuers other reasons aboue discussed and disputed I say if all this hath bin aboue prooued as I hope it is then doth it follow that all pretended Instances and Examples vpon which you may hereafter seeme in an ignorant eye to insist are impertinent friuolous and wholy by you mistaken Neuertheles for the fuller content of this our Learned IeW I will with peculiar answeres refell euery one of your peculiar Examples And first to your first Where it seemes that the Doctrine of vowed Chastity in Cleargy Men toucheth you neare in regard of your Ministers coniugall liues seeing you begin there with And here by the way I must make bold to say that you Protestants God be thanked cannot iustly be charged with being reputed superstitious Votaries and wilfull Eunuchs as Catholick Priests are styled by some of your Brethren to be so carefull you are of your owne reputation herein but the lesse meruayle since the very Body of Protestancy is Sensuality pardon me M. Doctour for speaking that which Experience and your owne Theorems depose to be true as the soule of it is an assumed height of mind and controule of all Authority But now to your example wherof you produce no authority of any ancient Father affirming so much but only your owne naked assertion This of Siricius is wrongfully alleadged for seuerall respects first in that we finde S. Hierome who liued before Siricius to write of this point in this sort If marryed men like not of this meaning of the single life of the Cleargy let them not be angry with me but with the holy Scriptures with all Bishops Priests and Deacons who know they cannot offer vp Sacrifice if they vse the act of Marryage Thus we see S. Hierome reduceth this point of Priests not marrying euen to the Scripture it selfe Which Father in further proofe thereof appealeth to the generall Practise of the whole Church therein saying quid faciunt Orientis Ecclesiae quid Egypti Sedis Apostolicae quae aut Virgines Clericos accipiunt aut cominentes aut si vxores habuerint mariti esse desinunt With Hierome to omit other Fathers Epiphanius ancient to Hierome conspireth who reprehending the abuse of some Deacons and Sub-deacons for accompanying their Wiues whom they had espoused before their Orders taken concludeth thus At hoc non est iuxta Canonem This is against the Canion So he implying that there was a former Canon against the marriage of Priests To conclude Origen who liued before these oâ—her Fathers thus writeth hereof Mihi videtur quòd illius est solius offerre Sacrificium indesinens qui indesinenti perpetuae se deuouerit castitati I am of iudgment that that man only is to offer vp perpetuall Sacrifice who hath deuoted himselfe to perpetuall Chastity This point is so euident that your owne KeÌ„pnitius doth repreheÌ„d the foresayd Hierome Epiphanius Origen as also Ambrose for their impugning the supposed lawfulnes of Priests marriage We may adde for close hereof the CouÌ„cell of Carthage wherat S. Augustine was present the CouÌ„cell in expresse words sayth thus Omnibus placet vt Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi c. ab vxoribus se abstineant It is allowed by all that Bishops Priests and Deacons do abstaine from hauing wiues And then immediatly after the CouÌ„cell giueth the reason therof in these words Vt quod Apostoli docuerunt ipsa seruauit antiquitas nos custodiamus to the end that we may keepe what the Apostles haue ordayned herein and antiquity obserued Now I referre to any Mans indifferent iudgment with what colour M. Doctour you can auerre that Siricius was the first who imposed single
RomanaÌ„ speculationem suam toti orbi indicere Gregory sayth that the Roman Sea appoynteth her watches ouer the whole world Now by all this here deliuered M. Doctour you may see whether or no Gregory did practise the Authority of an Vniuersall Bishop as the word is taken in a sober and in the Latter aboue mentioned construction And thus much of the Example of Iohn of Constantinople and of Gregory the Greate which is so often enforced and vrged though with extreame wilfull or at least ignorant mistaking by many of your Protestant doctours MICHEAS Our Law of Moyses euer enioyed one Supreame Priest and therfore seeing the tyme of the new Testament is much superiour to the tyme of the Law I do not see but now in theiyme of Grace there should be one Supreame Bishop ouer the whole Church of Christ and consequently the acknowledgmeÌ„t of such an Vniuersall Bishop should not be reputed any Innouation in Religion or change made from the first Institution of such a Pastour by Christ hymselfe CARD BELLARM. Michaeas you speake according to the Truth and no more then certaine Puritan protestants do teach who wryte thus thereof The high Priest of the Iewes was typically and in a figure the supreme heade of the whole Catholyke Church with whom as other Protestant thus iumpeth saying That forme of gouerment which maketh our Sauiour Christ inferioâ—r to Moâ—ses is an impious vngodly and vnlawfull gouerment contrary to the Word c. But M. D. proceede on further D. VVHITAKERS Our best Controuersists which as I may terme them aâ— the Infantaria of our Protestant Churches Souldiers do teach that touching your Sacrament of Confession Innocentius the Third was the first that instituted auricular Confession for necessary Now this Innocentius liued not past some foure hundred yeares since so late and fresh yow fee your Doctryne of Auricular Confession is And admitting this yonr Article touching Confession were not so new but for more ancient yet this Circumstance here auayleth litle since we are to call to minde that Haereses nonâ—am Nouitas quam veritas reuincit CARD BELLARM. I graunt willingly that many of your Controuersists among whom I also raÌ„ge yourfelfe are accounted meÌ„ of learning And therefore I rest the more amazed to see yow here perhaps with resolued willfullnes against the Truth obiect this example to vs for Nouelty But I feare your and their learninge is cheifly in obtruding errours and misstakings for warrantable Truths and such a knowledge is not to be preferred before simple Ignorance But to cleare this Innocentius from all innouation herein and not to oppresse yow with multitude of Authorities We finde S. Bernard who liued before Innocentius the third thus to wryte of this point Sed dicis sufficit mihi soli Deo confiteri c. But thou saiest it is sufficient for me to confesse my sinnes only vn to God because a Preist without him cannot absolue me from my sinnes To Which thy argument not I but S. Iames answereth Confesse your sinnes one to an other But to ascend higher S. Leo. who liued anno 440. describing the vse of the Latin Church in this poynt thus saith Christus hanc Ecclesiae Prepositis tradidit potestatem c. Christ did deliuer this power to the Prelates of his Church that they should impose penance vpon them that confessed their sinnes that so they being purged through a healthfull satisfaction might be admitted by Way of reconciliation to the communion of the Sacraments In lyke sort S. Basil S. Leo his ancient discoursing of the vse of the Greeke Church herein and teaching that a Ghostly Father in tymeof CoÌ„fession is an other from himselfe thus writeth Necessariò peccata eis aperiri debeÌ„t c. Our sinns are necessarily see heere the Necessity of Confession to be opened to those to whoÌ„ the dispensation of the Mysteries of Christ are giueÌ„ for indeede we find that all the AncieÌ„ts did follow this course in Penance To be breife Cypryan and Tertullian of so greate antiquity is Auricular Confession are charged by your owne Centurists to teach priuate Confession and this euen of thoughts and lesser sinnes and that such Confession was then commanded and thought necessary Thus far of this point Where by the way I must tell you that since protestaÌ„cy had it first source froÌ„ sence and sensuality the lesse wounder it is that Confession of sinnes made to a preist being so vngratfull to mans nature should be so vnpleasing to all protestants and so basely esteemed of for we all know that the water will ascend no higher then is the leuell of its first spring MICHNS I must acknowledg that our AncieÌ„t Iewes did vse particular Confession of sinns to a Preist Galatinus who hath collecteda summary of our Iewish Religion sheweth in diuers parts of his Writings our continual practise therof Adde hereto that the prefiguration of Auricular Confession is not wanting in Leuiticus for seeing there were then appovnted different Sacrifices to be offered vp by the Priest for different sinns and offences how could the Priest know what kind of Sacrifice he were to offer except he knew the particular sinne for which it is to be offered Now then in regard of our Iewish practise hereof seing there is no reasoÌ„ why now in the New Testament it should be wholy abrogated I cannot be induced to think that the vse therof is to be accompted as an innouation and change different from the doctrine first planted in Rome by the Apostles D. WHITAKERS Your doctrine of Transubstantiatinn was first inuented by Innocentius the third in the Councell of Lateran for before that tyme not any one of the ancient Fathers did hold it for where euer in any of their writings was made any mention of Transubstantiation CARD BELLARM. Good God how poore and needy in proofe are you M. Doctour For indeed you greatly wrong your selfe and this presence in suggesting such vnwarrantable Assertions True it it is that if you insist in the word Transubstantiation wee grant that it was first inuented and imposed vpon the Doctrine of the Reall Presence in the councell of Lateran But then this is but a verball litigation of you for though the Word was then first formed to expresse the Doctrine of the Church therein yet the doctrine it selfe was generally beleeued in all ages before And still you allow M. Doctour by reseÌ„blance this illation as good and necessary The VVord ' omousios or Consubstantialis was first inuented in the Councell of Nice to expresse the Doctrine of the Church touching the Trinity Ergo the Doctrine of the Trinity was not beleeued before the Councell of Nice Idly and inconsequently concluded Therfore M. Doctour let your iudgment herein draw equally with your learning But to come particulerly to the doctrine it selfe and to omit that S. Augustine sayth vocatur caro quod non capit caro And in another place
a Protestant Church preaching the Word and administring the Sacraments vpon the face of the earth to be seene or heard of But hereat I meruayle not since Philosophy reacheth vs to speake by all â—sion that where the Obiect is wanting there the sense suspendeth it operation DOCTOVR REYNOLDS Admitting all that you say to be true touching the first twenty yeares before Luther yet it is most euâ—cent that Iohn Hus who liued anno 1400. and not very many yeares before those 20. yeares was a good and true Protestant for him I fynd registred for a most holy Martyr by M. Fox and D. Downeham MICHAEAS Iohn Hus did liue in the yeare 1400. Who first was a Catholicke Priest The cause of his death was in that he taught the Necessity of Communion vnder both kinds and the seditious doctrine touching Princes Bishops and Priests being in mortall sinne But to make a more particular dissection of this Instance The Articles wherein his followers the Bohemians dissented from the Church of Rome were these following which M. Fox thus relateth The Bohemians being demanded in what poynts they did differ from the Church of Rome the only Propositions which they propounded were these foure Articles first Communion vnder both kinds The second that al Ciuil dominiou was forbidden to the Clergy The third that the preaching of the Word was free for all Men and in al places The fourth that open crymes are in no wyse to be suffered for auoyding of greater euill Thus M. Fox of the Hussite who we see as comparting with the Church of Rome in all other points cannot possibly be alledged for visible members of the Protestant Church D. REYNOLDS But what do you say of Iohn Hus himselfe was not he a Protestant and dyed in defence of the Protestant fayth MICHAEAS M. D The testimonies of Luther and M. Fox shall decide this point betweene vs. And first M. Fox thus saith of him Quid vnquam docuit aut in concilio defendit Hussius c. What did Hus defend at any tyme or taught in the councel wherein he might not seeme euen superstitiously to agree with the Papists What doth the Popish fayth teach concerning Transubstantiation which he did not in like sort confirme with the Papists Who did celebrate Masses more religiously then he Or who more chastly did keep the vowes of Priestly single life Add hereto that touching freeâ—â—l fayth predeâ—â—nation the cause of iustification merit of Works what other thing taught he then was taught at Rome What Image of any saint did he cast out at Bethleem therefore what can we say for which he deserued death touching the which he is not a like to be condemned with the Sea of Rome or with it to be freed and absolued Thus far M. Fox with whom agreeth Luther thus writing of Hus The papists burned Hus when as he departed not a fingars breadth from the papacy for he taught the same which the papists do only he did find fault with their vices and wicked life agaynst the Pope he did nothing Thus Luther Besides all the Catholicke doctrines mantained by Hus he taught as aboue is touched the Heresy of Wiclef to wit that there are no Princes Priests or Bishopps whyle they are in mortall sinne as M. Fox recordeth with whom agreeth the Protestant Osiander thus wryting Nullus est Dominus ciuilis nullus est Praelatus nullus est Episcopus dum est in mortali peccato Haec propositio approhart non potest sed passus est Ioannes Hus hac in parte aliquid humani There is no Ciuill Prince no Prelate or Bishop whiles he is in mortall sinne This proposition cannot be approued but Iohn Hus suffered herein the infirmity of Man Now I cannot but admire the incredible boldnes of M. Fox who acknowledging the former Heresy mantayned by Hus but especially granting as shewed out of his owne words that Hus did hould all the cheise points and frame of the present Roman Religion was neuerthelesse not ashamed to pronounce Iohn Hus for a most holy Martyr as aboue is expressed meaning a martyr of his owne Protestant Church So gladly you Protestants for the supporting of the continuance and visibility of your Church do make clayme to any Catholicke or hereticke whosoeuer who in one only point of Religion though dissenting in all others may seeme to compart and interleague with you Thus far of Hus whom to legitimate for a Protestant you see it is impossible OCHINVS I must here agree in iudgment with Michaeas And this Instance had far better bene forborne then obtruded And indeed it is no small blemish to our Church to insist in such weake and insufficient examples But M. Doctour Let vs entreate you to rise vp to Higher tymes in your discourse D. REYNOLDS I will satisfy your desire The next then in whom I will instance shal be our owne Contryman Wicklef Whom all the world I hope will euen dispose that he was a perfect Protestant and that himselfe and his followers enioyed the administration of the Word and Sacraments the practize of which is acknowledged to be an essentiall note of the Churches Visibility This my opinion touching Wicklef being a Protestant is not myne alone but it is warranted with the authorityes of M. Fox and the learned Crispinus MICHAEAS Indeede M D. M. Fox Crispinus I grant do so teach but how truly Obserue what followeth and then geue vp your eauen and impartiall iudgment And yet before I come to the tuche of this point I must put you in mind what thy two former Protestants grant in the places by you cited that at Wickleffs reuolt supposing him to be a Protestant the Protestant Church was wholy inuisible for thus M. Fox writeth In the tyme of horrible darknes when there seemed in a manner to be no one so little sparke of pure doctrine left or remayning Wicklef by Gods prouidence rosevp through whom the Lord would first awaken raize vp againe the World Thus he This Wicklef being an Englishman as you know M. D. was a Catholicke Priest and Person of Lutterworth in Leicestershirs and as Stow relateth He first inueighed against the Church of Rome because he had bene depriued by the Archbishop of Canterbury from a certaine benefice He liued anno 1370. Now that Wicklef cannot be truly claymed for a Protestant I proue in that besides he was a Catholicke Priest and no Church of the Protestants then knowne to him he still retayned many Catholicke Opinions and withall taught diuers notorious Heresyes Touching his Catholicke Opinions still beleiued by him I will alledge diuers out of his owne Wrytings First he beleiued seauen Sacraments thus writing of them Quaedam sacramentaper se promulgauit Christus c. Certaine sacraments Christ did promulgate by himself as Baptisme the Eucharist the sacrament of Orders and of Penance certaine also by his Apostles as the sacraments of Confirmation and of Extreme
God for which you suffer See the like texts noted in the margent That the auncient Fathers mantayned the doctrine of merit of works see for greater breuity Ignatius Ireneus Basill Chrysostome Nazianz Nyssene Cyprian Ambrose Austin Ierome The iudgment of the auncient Fathers touching merit of works is discouered besides by their owne testimonyes euen from the acknowledgment of the Protestants For first we find D Humfrey to confesse in this s 〈…〉 rt Ireneus Clemens and others called Apostolicall haue in their wrytings merit of Works In like sort the Centurists thus charge Chrysostome Chrysostome handleth impurely the doctrine of iustification and attributeth merit to works They also t 〈…〉 censure Origen Origen made works the cause of our iustification Brentius in like sort saith that Austin taught assiance in mans merits towards remission of Sinns Luther styleth Ierome Ambrose Austin and others Iustice Workers of the old Papacy D. Whitakers thus wryteth of the age of Cyprian Not only Cyprian but almost all the most holy Fathers of that tyme were in that errour as thinking so to â—ay the payne due to sinne and to satisfy Gods iustice D. Whitguift as afore of praying to Saincts so of merit of works thus confesseth Almost all the Bishopps and Wryters of the greeke Church and Latin also were spotted with doctrine of merit Bullenger confesseth the great antiquity of the doctrine of merit in these words The doctrine of Merit satisfaction and iustification of works did incontinently after the Apostles tyme lay their first foundation To conclude this point M. Wotton no obscure Protestant reiecteth the authority of Ignetius the Apostles scholar touching merit of works in this sort I say plainly this Mans testimony is nothing worth because he was of little iudgment in Diuinity Thus farre touching our Aduersary acknowledgments of the Fathers iudgment herein Now that some learned Protestants do teach and beleiue the doctrine of Merit of Works to be true and Orthodoxall doctrine is no lesse euident then the former point For it is taught as true doctrine by the Publike Confessions in their Harmony by M. Hooker by Melanctâ—on and by Spandeburge the Protestant To the former doctrine of merit of Works I will adioyne the doctryne touching works of Supererogation Which doctrine is greatly exagirated and depraued by many Protestants who are not ashamed to traduce the Catholicks and to diuulge both by penne and in Pulpit that the Catholicks do hould that their works can do more then merit Heauen But this is the Protestant◠〈…〉 lumny since the Catholicks do not hould or beleiue any such thing Therefore I will sette downe the true definition of an Euangelical Counsell distinguished from a Precept seing vpon Euangelicall Counsells works of Supererogation are grounded An Euangelicall Counsell of Perfection is called any good Worke Which is not commanded by Christ but only commended by him and poynted on to vs by hym As the Vowe of Chastity of Pouerty of Obedience and diuers other good Works not commanded by God It differeth from a Precept First because the subiect of a Precept is more facill and easy then that of a Councell Secondly in that a Counsel doth include in it the Performance of a Precept and something more then a Precept Thirdly in that Precepts are common to all Men to performe Counsells are not so Fourthly Precepts of their owne nature do oblige Men to their performance Counsells are in the choyce of one to performe or not performe Lastly Precepts being obserued are rewarded being not obserued the transgression is punished Whereas Counsells being obserued and kept haue a greater reward being not kept no punishment followeth Thus far touching the definition of an Euangelicall Counsell Which in other words may be also thus defined An Euangelical Counsell is any such good Worke of high Perfection to the performance whereof we are not bownd as that we sinne in not doing of it Now whereas it is commonly obiected against the doctrine of Euangelicall Councells That we are so obbliged to God as that we cannot euer do more then we ought to do It is therefore heare to be conceaued that if we consider Gods benefitts bestowed vpon vs we willingly acknowledge that Man can not do more good then he ought no not the thousand part of that he ought to do in that Man cannot render or retaliate any thing of equall valew and worth to Gods benefitts Neuerthelesse Yf we consider the Law and Commande imposed by God vpon vs then man may be sayd to do more then indeede he is obliged by Gods Law to do For although Man cannot exceede or equall Gods benefits with his owne works yet he is not become guilty hearby seing Men is not obliged to performe more then that only which God commaundeth Euangelicall Councells take the cheife and first proufe from sacred Scripture As wheare it is said There are certaine Eunuchs who haue gelded themselfs for the Kyngdome of Heauen Which place is expounded of the Euangelicall Counsell of Chastity by Cyprian Chrysostome Austin and others A second text to omit diuers others for breuity is that where our Sauiour sayth to the yong Man Yf thou wilt be perfect go and sell all that thou hast and giue it to the poore and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen Which text is interpreted of the Euangelicall Counsell of pouerty by S. Ambrose S. Ierome and S Austin The foresayd doctrine is further confirmed by the authority of the auncient Fathers For b 〈…〉 es their expositions of the foresaid places of Scripture this doctrine is further taught by Origen Athanasius Basil Chrysostome Nazianzene Cyprian Ambrose Ierome and finally by Austin who speaking of Precepts and Counsells vseth the very Word Supererogation thus saying of precepts and Counsells Dominus debitum imperat nobis in his autem si quid amplius supererogaueritis in reddendo reddet nobis The doctrine of Euangelicall Councells is warranted and taught besydes by the former auncient fathers of the Primatiue Church euen by diuers learned Protestants According hearto we find it is mantayned for true doctryne by M. Hooker by D. Coâ—ell and by Bucer And thus fâ—r breifly of Iustification by Works of merit of Works and of works of Supererogation The Catholicke Doctrine touching Indulgences THe Viâ—ulency of Protestants against the doctrine of Indulgences is most remarkable Wherefore for their better conceauing of the state of this Question or Indulgences this following in the Catholicke Doctrine First that Mortall sinne is remitted by the Sacrament of Confession so far forth only as concerneth the guilt or offence of God and the punishment of eternall damnation yet so that this eternall punishment by Gods Mercy is turned into temporall punishment as appeareth by the example
Creatour of all flesh did suffer in flesh For our Sauiour being at his last suffer did then first institute it when â—e deliuered to his Apostles his owne body and bloud saying This is my body This is my Bloud c. With reference to which institution the Apostle calleth the table vpon which this sacrifice is made _____ to wit an Altar being deriued of the verb. _____ signifying Sacrifice But let vs see in what dialect Antiquity speaketh hereof Some few places among infinit I will heare select first then we find S Austin thus to say Quid gratius osserriaâ—t sâ—scipi possit quam câ—râ— sacrificij nostri corpus effectum Sacerdotis nostri What can be offered vp or accepted more thankfully then the flesh of our sacrifiâ— being made the body of our Priest Chrysostome thus wryteth Per id tempus Angeli Sacerdoti assident c. At that tyme the Angells draw neare vnto the Pryest and the whole order of the heauenly Powers causeth greate voyces and the place neare vnto the Alâ—â—r is full of qâ—ears of Angells in illius honorem qui inâ—molatur by reason of the honour of hym who is theare 〈…〉 d or offered vp which thing we may fully beleiue vel extanto illi sacrificio quod iunc peragitur in regard of so great a sacrifice then performed Gregory Nyssene Dominus praeoccupans impetum iudeorum c. Our Lord preuenting the violence of the Iewes being both Priest and Lambe made hymselfe a sacrifice But thou demandest of me when this did happen Euen then when he gaue to his disciples his body to eate and his bloud to drink Optatus Miliuitanus thus discourseth Quid est tam sacrilegum quam altaria â—ei in quibus aliquando nos obtulistis frangere radre 〈…〉 e in quïbus vot a Populi membra Christi partata sâ—ni c What is so sacrilegious as to breake or scrape or to remoue and take away the Altâ—â—s of God vpon which your selfs somtymes haue offered in the which the vowes of the People and the members of Christ are borne And further the said Father Quid est altari nisi sides corporis sanguints Christi What is the Altar but the seate of the body and bloud of Christ S. Ambrose Etsi nunc Christus non videatur offerre ipse tamen â—ffertur in terris cum corpus eius offertur And againe Cum Sacrisicamus Christus est presens Christus immolatur When we do sacrifize Christ is present Christ is sacrifized or immolated Ephrem Quid scrutaris inscrutabilia c Why dosâ— thou search into things not to be searched after c. Be thou faythfull and innocent and participate thou of the immaculate body of thy Lord with a most full fayth being assured that thou dost eate the whole Lambe Cyprian Caena disposita inter Sacramentales epuâ—as c. The supper being prepared the auncient and new Institutions did meete together among the Sacramentall 〈◊〉 eats And the Lambe which auncient Tradition did set vpon the table being consâ—med the Maister doth giue to his Disciples an inconsumption meate Tertulian and Dionisius make frequent mention of Altars and consequently of Sacrifice To conclude this passage as auoyding prolexity Eyppolitus Martyr introduceth Christ speaking to Bishops and Pryests in these words Venite Pontifices Sacerdotes qui praeciosum corpus sanguinem meum quoâ—die immolastis Come hither youâ— hâ—â—fe Pryests and other Pryests who haue dayly immoluted and offered vp my precious body and bloud Now M. Vice Chancelour in regard of the perspicâ—ity of thes sentences of the former Fathers and of diuers others such authorityes of the said and other â—athers of the Primatiue Church heare through br 〈…〉 y preteâ—nitted It is the lesse wonder that your owne learned Protestants do ingenuously confesse the truth of those Fathers iudgments hearin For to omit that the Centurists do particularly charge S. Ambrose with this very phraze Massam 〈…〉 ere vsed by vs Pryests at this very day do wee not fine Calumn himselfe thus to acknoledge of them in generall Veteres illos video c. I do see that those auncient Fathers did wrest the memory of the Lords supper otherwyse then was agreeing to the institution of the Lord. Since the Fathers supper did beare the show and resemblance of a renewed Oblation c they imitating more nearely the 〈◊〉 maner of sacrificing then either Christ did ordayne or the nature of the Gospell would suffer And hereupon it is that Caluin in an other place thus chargeth the Fathers The Fathers did adulterate the supper of the Lord by adding of Sacrifice vnto it Neither can theese words of Caluin be restrayned to those Fathers only who liued either in the midest or towards the end of the Primatiue Church First because they are deliuered without exception of the Fathers in generall Secondly by reason that other learned Protestants do charge the Fathers some of them liuing immediatly after the Apostles others 〈…〉 g euen in the dayes of the Apostles with the said doctrine of sacrifice Thus consorting hearto we find Sebastianus Francus an eminent Protestant to vse theese words Statim post Apostolos omnia inuersa sunt c. Presently after the Apostles departure all things were inuerted c. Et caena Domini in sacrificium transfâ—rmata est and the supper of the Lord was changed into a sacrifice But Hospinian that famous Protestant useth higher in tyme thus confessing I am tum primo illo seculo viuentibus adhuc Apostolts c. Even in the very first age the Apostles yet liuing the deuill labored to seduce Men more about this Sacrament meaning touching the â—athers supposed adding of sacrifice to the Sacrament of the Eucharist Then about Baptisme withdrawing Men from the first former thereof Thus farre of the Fathers cleare sentences and of the learned Protestants confessing no lesse touching the doctrine of Sacrifice VICEC-HANCELOVR It lâ—tle preiudizeth vs Michaas who professe the Ghospell though the Fathers did teach the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Masse For seing it is granted both by vs and you Papists that diuers Fathers erred in other paticular poynts why might they not alyke erre in the doctrine of the Sacrifice And seing we are not obliged to embrace their other acknowledged Errours why should we be forced to entertaine this their errour MICHAEAS O M. Vice-Chancelour the difference is great and subiect euen to a vulgar iudgment For we grant with you that some particular Fathers did e 〈…〉 certaine poynts yet were those their errours presently condemned and written against by other Ortodoxall Fathers Thus for exemple did Austin Ierome and Epiphanius wryte against Origen teaching that the Deuills were at the last day to be saued against Tertullian denying second Mariadges against Cyprian mantayning Rebaptization Now heare wee grant that such particular Fathers might and did