The Ancient Doctrine of the Church of England, Part 1 · Section 16
Concerning Romiſh Martyrs; Spectacles, Chapter 16. a page 485. uſque ad 490.
THE bleſſed Martyr Edward Campian in his tenth reaſon, bringing all ſorts of witneſſes for proofe of the Catholike Faith, beginneth with Martyrs; thoſe particularly, who being Paſtours of the Roman Church, ſuffered Martyrdome ſucceſsively one after another, to the number of thirty three. Theſe (ſaith Campian) were ours, and nameth ſome of them, as Teleſphorus, Victor, Sixtus, Cornelius, with the particular points, which they held conformably with us againſt Proteſtants.
That theſe Martyrs are ours, notwithſtanding they died not for any of thoſe points the Knight mentioneth, is plaine, becauſe they profeſſed the ſame Catholike Faith which wee doe; which wee alſo prove by the Faith of their ſucceſſour Vrban the eigth, who, as hee holdeth their ſeat, ſo alſo their Faith; for Peters Chaire and Faith goe together, as the very Heretike Pelagius confeſſed to Pope Sozimus, ſaying to him, Tu qui Petri fidem & ſedem tenes. Not to ſtand here upon the moſt effectuall and infallible Prayer of our Saviour himſelfe, Oravi pro te Petre ut non deficiat fides tua: which proofe muſt ſtand firme till Sir Humphrey can tell us what Pope began to vary from his predeceſſors.
For adoration of Images, whereas the Knight asketh whether any of theſe three and thirty were canonized for it: though there be no ſpeciall mention of any of theſe three and thirty, their adoration of Images, yet there is very pregnant preſumption thereof by this, that Pope Sylveſter, who was the very next after the three and thirtieth, and was Pope in time of Conſtantines converſion, had the pictures of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, which it is moſt like, he received from his Predeceſſors.
Moreover it is plaine, that thoſe three and thirty were ours, by their owne decretall Epiſtles, which are ſo full of thoſe points which Father Campian citeth, that the Heretikes have no other ſhift, but to denie the authority of the ſame Epistles.
That the conſecrated Bread depending upon the Prieſts intention, is the reall Fleſh of Chriſt: or that this Prieſt, Garnet by name, hath power to conſecrate, is no matter of Faith; but that in the Sacrament, the matter, forme, intentton, and all things requiſite concurring, the Bread and Wine is really and truely converted into the Body and Blood of Chriſt: this is a matter of Faith, and this a man is to die for. Neither maketh it any matter whether any man have died for it, or not; for that is more in the perſecutors power, to appoint what point of a mans Faith hee will put him to death for, than in the Martyrs owne, who muſt be readie to die for all and every one, as well for one as for another.
The Hammer.
IN this Chapter the Knight pulleth the garland of Red Roſes off from the heads of all Papiſts: I meane the Crowne of Martyrdome, by three moſt forcible arguments, which may thus be reduced into Syllogiſticall forme.
1.
None of thoſe who ſuffered death for the common Articles of the Chriſtian Faith, which we all profeſſe: are to be accounted Popiſh Martyrs.
But the 33. Popes and all the Martyrs in the Primitive Church, ſuffered death for the common Articles of faith, which we all profeſſe.
Ergo none of them were Popiſh Martyrs: neither can they lay any more or better claime to them then we, if ſo good.
2.
All that may be tearmed truely Popiſh Martyrs, muſt ſuffer death either for the profeſſion of the Trent Faith in generall, or ſome ſpeciall point of it, wherein they differ from the reformed Churches.
But none of the Primitive Martyrs ſuffered death for the profeſſion of the Trent Faith in generall, or any point thereof wherein they differ from the beliefe of the reformed Churches.
Ergo, none of the Primitive Martyrs were Popiſh.
3.
If the Articles of the Romiſh Creed publiſhed by Pope Pius were either unknowne to the Primitive Church, or not then declared to be de fide, none in thoſe dayes could ſuffer Martyrdome for them.
But the twelve new Articles of Pope Pius his Creed were altogether unknowne to the Primitive Church, or not then declared and defined to be de fide, as the Ieſuit Page 490. in part acknowledgeth.
Ergo, none in the Primitive Church could ſuffer Martyrdome for them.
What wards the Ieſuit hath for theſe blowes, we ſhall ſee in the examination of the particular exceptions before mentioned.
To the firſt. It is as true that thoſe 33. martyred Popes were Martyrs of the Romiſh Religion, as that Campion the Ieſuit, who ſuffered death for Treaſon againſt Queene Elizabeth, was a Martyr. The truth is, that although Campion in his tenth Reaſon, ſearch Heaven, and rake Hell alſo, for witneſſes to prove the truth of the Romiſh Religion, yet he findeth none, as D. Whitaker clearely demonſtrateth in his anſwer to that tenth reaſon, and his defence thereof againſt Dureus. To let others paſſe, thoſe 33. Biſhops of Rome, the Ieſuit mentioneth, who now weare Crownes of Martyrdome in Heaven, never ware the Popes triple Crowne on Earth.P. 486. l. 16. I anſwer that thoſe Martyrs ſuffered death not for the points now in controverſie with Haeretikes, but for the profeſsion of Chriſtianity at the hands of the enemies of Chriſt. They ſate as Biſhops of Rome, they ſate not as Lords over the whole Church: neither was the cauſe of their death any conteſtation with Princes for Soveraignty, nor the maintenance of any points now in controverſie, as the Ieſuit himſelfe confeſſeth, but the profeſſion of Chriſtianity. They were not therefore Martyrs of the Roman Church as ſhe is at this preſent, nor of their Trent Creed; but of the Catholike Church and the common faith once given to Saints.
To the ſecond. The Ieſuits argument drawne from theſe 33. Biſhops of Rome to Pope Vrbane the eighth fall ſhort at leaſt by 1300. yeares. If he ſhould thus argue in the Schooles: Pope Vrbane the eighth, in the yeare of our Lord, 1633. held the Trent faith, and beleeved Pope Pius the fourth his Creed: therefore the 33. Biſhops that ſuffered Martyrdome under the Heathen Emperours within 300. yeares after Chriſt, held the ſame faith, and ſubſcribed to the ſame Articles of Trent; he would be ſtampt at, and hiſſed out by all preſent; for who knoweth not that George the Arian immediatly ſucceeded Athanaſius the moſt Orthodox Biſhop, and that all the Arian Biſhops in Conſtantius his time, held the Sees of thoſe Orthodox Biſhops, who in the firſt Councell at Nice condemned that blaſphemous haereſie. In our memory, did not Cardinall Poole a Papiſt, ſucceede Cranmer, a Proteſtant Biſhop and Martyr? againe, did not Parker, in Q. Elizabeths daies, a learned Proteſtant ſucceed Cardinall Poole an Arch-papiſt, in his Arch-biſhoprick of Canterbury? What a wooden Argument then is this, to inferre ſucceſſion in Doctrine from ſucceſſion in the ſame Chaire? This wretched Argument the Ieſuit proves as lewdly, by the teſtimonie of Pelagius the Heretike. This is indeed to Aske his brother if he be a thiefe, or no: to aske an Heretike whether your Romiſh Doctrine be not hereticall. Yet ſo unfortunate is hee in his proofe, that even this his onelyonly witneſſe, how liable ſoever to exception, ſaith nothing for him: Pelagius was not ſo abſurd as to hold this poſition, that Peters Chaire and Faith goe alwaies together; but only ſpake in a glozing manner thus to Pope Sozimus, Thou holdeſt Peters Chaire and Faith: and will the Ieſuit inferre an univerſall from a particular? Pope Sozimus held Peters Chaire and Faith: therfore all that hold Peters Chaire, hold his Faith. What holdeth theſe two together?Luke 22.32. Queſt. vet. & N. Teſt. q. 75. Quid ambigitur pro Petro rogabat & pro Iacobo et Iohā ne non rogabat? ut caeteros taceam manifeſtum eſt in Petro omnes contineri. a moſt ſtrong and effectuall Bond, ſaith the Ieſuit, namely, Chriſts promiſe to Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy Faith faile not. The time will faile me to declare particularly how many waies this Argument of the Ieſuit failes: firſt, Chriſt prayed not here for Peter onelyonly, as Saint Auſtine affirmeth, What doth any man make queſtion hereof? did Chriſt pray for Peter, and not for James and John? To ſay nothing of the reſt, it is manifeſt, that in Peter all the reſt are contained. This prayer then no more privilegeth the See of Rome from error, than of Ieruſalem or of Epheſus, or any other See of the Apoſtles. Secondly, Chriſt prayed not that Peter might not erre, who afterwards erred,Gal. 2.14. and was reproved by Saint Paul, Galathians the ſecond: but that his Faith might not faile, that is, be overcome in that fearfull temptation, in ſuch ſort, that hee might not riſe againe after his fall. Thirdly, Chriſts prayer is for Peter himſelfe in his perſon, and the Apoſtles whom Satan winnowed, not for his See. Fourthly, if this promiſe any way belonged to his Succeſſors, certainly no more to thoſe of Rome, than Antiochia; ſo infirme is this the Ieſuits proofe, which yet hee ſaith, Muſt ſtand firme, till Sir Humphrey can tell what Pope began to varie from his Predeceſſours. Agreed: Sir Humphrey ſhall preſently tell him by name, Liberius the Arrian, Vigilius the Eutychian, Honorius the Monothelite condemned in three generall Councels ſixth, ſeventh, and eighth; Iohn the three and twenty, depoſed in the Councell at Conſtance: as for other enormous crimes, ſo for this his damnable hereſie, that Hee denied the immortalitie of the ſoule, and the life to come. To which, after the Ieſuit hath replied, inſtance ſhall be given in many other Popes, which have beene branded with the note of hereſie in like manner.
To the third. A ſtrange and looſe inference, three and thirty Popes adored Images becauſe their Predeceſſor had the pictures of Saint Peter and Saint Paul. Pope Gregorie allowed of the ſtanding of pictures in the Church,Vid. ſupr. yet would have them by no meanes adored: Helena the mother of Conſtantine had the wood of Chriſts croſſe, yet adored it not, ſaith Saint Ambroſe. If to have the picture of Saint Peter, or Saint Paul, nay, or of Chriſt himſelfe, maketh a man an Idolater, or a Papiſt, then not onelyonly all the Lutherans generally, but very many of the moſt orthodoxe Divines in our, and other reformed Churches, will be proved as good Papiſts as Pope Sylveſter.
To the fourth. Not only Proteſtants, whom the Ieſuit nick-nameth Heretikes, but alſo Contius, and other Romaniſts have diſparaged theſe Epiſtles: and if the Ieſuits noſe be not very flat, and ſtuffed alſo, hee may ſmell the forgerie of theſe Decretals by the barbariſme of the ſtile, diſagreeing to thoſe times, and many abſurdities and contradictions noted in them by Coqueus and others.
To the fift. If it be no matter of Faith, that this particular Prieſt Tranſubſtantiateth the Bread, becauſe no man knowes his intention, nor that particular Prieſt, Et ſic de caeteris: It followeth, that it is no matter of Faith to beleeve, that any Prieſt in the Roman Church, by the words of Conſecration, turneth the Bread into Chriſts Body. As for that, hee addeth, that it is no matter whether any ever died for this point in particular; I anſwer, it is a matter of great moment: for if Garnet would not take it upon his ſalvation, that this Bread hee conſecrated, immediately before the death, was turned into Chriſts Body; nor any ever would, or did pawne his life for Tranſubſtantiation: it is evident, that Papiſts themſelves doubt of the certainty of that Article. On the contrarie, wee can produce hundreds, nay thouſands, who for denying Tranſubſtantiation, have beene put to death, and have ſigned the truth of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, concerning the Sacrament with their blood: and therefore the Doctrine of the Proteſtants in this point, is of more credit than the contrarie, becauſe it is ſtrengthened and fortified by a Noble armie of Martyrs.