A Retentive to Stay Good Christians, Title page · Motive 26 – Motive 28
The 26. Motiue is the 18. 13. and 14. demaund.
By what religion hath Idolatrie bene destroyed. Prophecies for our religion. Protestantes be possessed with deuills. Bristow.Churches confirmed by miracles. Deuills expelled by reliques. Deuills are in heretikes. S. Hierome of our religion. The martyrs of our religion. Vigilantius aliue againe in Protestants. S. Augustine & Chrysostome of our religion. The honor and vertue of Sainctes reliques. S. Augustines motiue for which Christ is to be beleued. Our religion an inuincible motiue to forsake idolls and beleue in Christ, who is to be beleued for the vertue of the signe of his crosse, which working miracles, was the motiue of Lactantius. The reall presence of Christ in the sacrament. The crosse and the masse confirmed by S. Bernard, in Italy. S. Cyprian of our religion. The Iewes religion chaunged into ours by Christ &c.
In this motiue is much babling, but no matter at all. Fulke.The summe of that he would proue is this. That Popery is not idolatrie, as we charge it because by Popery Idolatrie hath bene destroyed. Although this argument is naught, because one kinde of Idolatrie may destroy an other, yet it is falsely affirmed, that Poperie hath destroyed all idolatry. That Popery hath destroyed idolatry: Bristow wil proue by three examples, the one of the reliques of Sainctes, and the honor of them, the other of the signe of the crosse and the honorthereof, and the last by the reall presence in the Sacrament, which he calleth his Lord and his God. But our Lord and God is in heauen according to the Psalm. 115. The destruction of idolatrie by Christ in deede was prophecied therefore the Pope setting vp and mainteyning as grosse idolatrie almost as euer was any of the Paganes, sheweth him selfe to be a verie Antichrist. But to the purpose Hierom lib. 28. in Isa. cap. 65. sayth that the heretikes in Fraunce were possessed with the deuill which could not abide the might and whips of the holy ashes. If he spake this against Vigilātius, & other godly men, which reproued the immoderate honoring of reliques and other superstitions, he spake of his owne iudgement, and not of the iudgement of the church. For he only of all writers of his time, counted Vigilantius an heretike as he did Ruffinus also, which yet is takē for as good a Catholike as he. It is knowne how he taunteth and scoffeth at Augustine. Wherefore his censure is not sufficient to make Vigilantius opinion heresie, nor them heretikes which were of his iudgemēt. But admit this iudgement of Hierom to be sounde, yet was not the honor and estimation of reliques which he defendeth, against Vigilantius the same, which is in Poperie, but much differing there frō. For thus he writeth ad R…panum contr. Vigilant. Nos autem non dico martyrum reliquias, sed ne solem quidem & …unam, non Angelos non Archangelos non Cherubin, non Seraphim, & omne nomen quod nominatur & in pr…esenti saeculo & in futuro colimus & adoramus, ne seruiamus potius creaturae quā creatori qui est benedictus in saecula. But we worship and adore. I say not the reliques of the martyrs, but not the sunne & the moone, not the Angells not Archangels, not Cherubin, not Seraphim, & eueryevery name that is named both in this world, and in the world to come least we should serue the creaturerather then the creator which is blessed for euer.
By this you may see that the honor they gaue to reliques was but a reuerent estimatiō of them, for Christs sake, whose seruaunts the Martyrs were, and a lesse honor then they gaue to the Sunne and the Moone, as is manifest by his gradation, and consequently no religious worship. As the Papistes vse and mayntayne of the reliques, not of Saynctes, but oftentymes of deuills incarnate, of beasts and all manner of fayned bables. Nether is there any thing more monstrous in popery, then their shameles fayning of infinite reliques. That Augustine writeth that deuils were tormented and expelled, at the memories or burialls of the martyrs, where somtimes idolls were worshipped, it proueth that idols were destroyed by Poperie. For if God wrought miracles at such places, where the bodies of his Martyrs slept to cō firme the faith, for which they died, doth this make any thing for Popery? But the same Augustine to the Maudaurenses that were Pagans, and other heathen men vseth the argument of the greater honor and reuerence doone by Kings and Emperours at the tombes and memories of the Saintes and Martyrs, and of miracles wrought at the same places, to shew the power of Christe to the confusion of idolatrie. This wee graunt, but how doth Popery ouerthrowe Idolatrie? There reuerence although in sōe respects superstitious, was far from popish Idolatrie, of worshipping of Saints, Images, bones, &c, as wee hauehave shewed euen now out of Hierom the most eger defender of those vses and abuses in his time: The miracles approued none other doctrine, then the ma…tyrs died for, who died for none other doctrine, but such as is contayned in the holy Scriptures, in which Poperie hath no ground. The like I say of the storie of the bodie of Babycas the martyr, in presence wherof, the oracle of Apollo could not speake. But Chrysostom to draw m…n from all kind of idolatrie, sent them from reliques. In Gen. Hom. 15, Nay he sent them to the churches and houses of prayer, & to the graues of the martyrs not to worship them, as Papistes doe, but by such things to receaue blessing and to kepe them selues from being entāgled with the snares of the deuill, while they be put in mind of the vertue of the martyrs, to follow their godly cōuersation. And albeit there were some superstitiō in that regard of martyrs troubles & memories, as in that age there was, yet doth it not follow, there was all Popery, nor such grosse idolatry as Papistes doe commit with their counterfait rehques. Finally the miracles wroght by God at the dead bodies of the Saincts, might wel be vsed by Augustin, Chrysostom, & Theodoret against the Gētills, asan argument to ouerthrow their idolatrie, euen as the example of the miracles wrought by God at the dead body of Elizeus against the idolatrous Israelits Reg. but it followeth not therof, that idols should be made of their lawes, by worshipping them as the Papists do. For ye bones of Elizeus were not for that miracle takē out of his graue & shined in gold, deuided into many churches worshiped, licked, and kissed, as the Popish guise is. The same aunswere I make concerning miracles wrought by God with the signe of the crosse, which was the motiue of Lactantius. I say they proue not that the signe of the crosse should be worshipped, no more then the miracles wrought by God, with the brasen serpēt, were any cause why the Israelits should worship the brasen serpent. Reg.
And as touching the blessed Sacrament, which Bristow blasphemously calleth his Lord and God, although the reall presence and transsubstantiation were graunted, forasmuch as the Papists thē selues affirme the Sacrament to consist of accidents as the signe, but no accidēts are God or in God: If any miracles were wrought by God at the celebration therof, as Augustine and Cyprian seeme to auouch, yet neither is the reall presence proued by those miracles, nor they tryed to be Papists, for writing of such miracles, of which if any man will see more, let him resorte to mine aunswere vntounto Heskins lib. 1. cap. 24. & lib. 3. cap. 42.
VntoUnto the storie of S. Bernards life we geue no credit, as to a counterfait fable, and as litle to the reporte of M. Poynts, i… his booke of the reall presence testifying the casting out of many deuils, by vertue of the same sacrament. Finally it is alltogeather false, that he sayeth, the Iewes religion was chaynged by Christ into Popery. For the sacrifice of Christes death, against which the sacrifice of the Popish masse is blasphemous, hath taken away all sacrifices & ceremonies of the law. Heb. 9. Concerning the Altar which Christians hauehave, whereof they hauehave no power to ca…e which serue the Tabernacle, Heb. 13. mine aunswere is against Heskins. lib. 3. cap. 60. where that text & argument is handeled of purpose.
The 27. motiue is the 35. demaund.
Vnity of the church a motiue to beleue in Christ. The discord Bristow.of Protestantes, the inconstancy of Protestantes.
Our Sauiour Christ praieth that his disciples may be Fulke.one in God & him theyr redeemer. And this vnitye all Protestantes retaine, notwithstanding diuersity of opinion in one article, & any contention about ceremonies. Euen as the Apostles were one, in one God and Christ, although there was variaunce about Circumcision & ceremonies. Ciprian & Cornelius, the Romayne church & the church of Carthage, were at vnitye in Christ, although the one of them erred in the sacramēt of baptisme. So were Hierome, & Augustine, allthough they mayneteyned contrary opinions about Peters dissembling & translation of the Scripture. From this verily I except such schi…inaties, as delight in contencion, which hauehave allwayes bene against the true church. As for the vnity of the Papistes, seeing it is not in the doctrine of Christ, it proueth no more, that they are those for whom Christ prayed, then the vnity of the Mahometistes which for these thousand yeares, hauehave kept greater vnity then the Papists, whose church hath bene rent a sunder into so many heades as there hauehave bene Popes at once, and that very often and for many yeares together there hauehave bene Pope against Pope, coūcel against coūcell, Doctors against Doctors, orders against orders, Canonists against Diuines, dissēting in articles of faith, as of the Popes supremacy, of original sinne, of transubstantiation &c. Wherefore Christian vnity, is as vntruly denyed vntounto vsus, as falsely challenged vntounto them whatsoeuer he prateth of Lutherans, Zwinglians, Caluinists, Protestants and Puritans.
The 28. and 29. motiues are conteined in the 34. demaund.
Iudges infallible in cases of controuersie. The churches Bristow.iudgemēt is alwayes infallible. Obedience of Catholiks to their superiors both ecclesiasticall and temperall. Trinitaries.
Bristrow braggeth that their church hath iudges infallible in cases of controuersie, and ours hath not. But Fulke.who be their iudges? The Pope or the generall councell? Whether soeuer of these be, nether is irrefragable. For both hauehave bene controlled and found fault withall, as I hauehave shewed before, and they them selues are together by the eares, whether of these is irrefragable, because the councell hath deposed the Pope, & the Pope hath not obeyed the councell, as it is manifest betwene Eugenius the 4. and the councell of Basil. How infallible the churches iudgement is and alwayes hath bene, it serueth not the Romish synagogue, vntill she proue her doctrine to be agreable to the Scriptures, which seeing she neither can doe, nor dare abyde the triall of them, she sheweth plainly, that she is not the church of Christ. As for the auctoritie of synodes such as that of the Apostles was, which determined the controuersy by auctority of the holy Scriptures, Protestāts do gladly acknowledge, how necessary it is for the church to decide controuersies and do willingly submit them selues thereto. The subiection of Papists to their indges, doth no more proue their religion to be true, then the obedience of the Mahometistes to their superiors, both in cases of religion, and of the common wealth, doth iustifie their sect to be the religion of God. What Trinitaries & other sectaries be in Polonia, or elswhere, that wil not submit themselues to any auctority, as they are no parte of our church, so we hauehave no cause to excuse or defende them. In the demaunde, Bristow complaineth of an vnlearned Christian, which hath bene suffered to write a vaine libell against the auctority of the church of God, which is a vaine lye, for there is no true Christian learned or vnlearned, which will hold against the church of God, so lōg as she is directed by the word of God, as the true church is in all matters necessarie vntounto saluation. But perhaps the vnlearned Christian hath challenged the church of Rome to approue her doctrine by auctority of Gods word. Which because the Papists dare not attēpt, Bristow requireth I can not tel what approbation & priuiledge of the sayd libell, to shew a bad shift better then none at all, why they wil not answere it. For Popish libells that are but cast abroad in writing, we require no approbation nor priuiledge, & dare not the Papists confute a printed libell before it hauehave approbation & priuiledge?