IESVIT. [ C]

In the same manner, Catholickes doe sufficiently answere Protestants, that bring places of Fathers against the recei∣ued Traditions of the Church: as the reall Presence, Inuo∣cation of Saints, and other the like, to wit, that Tradition, deliuered these Doctrines, as the vniforme consent of the Fathers, and neuer noted such oppositions as Protestants frame out of their writings, which is a cleare signe, that Protestants either mis-alleadge their words, or mistake [ D] their meaning. For were that contradiction reall; Why did not Antiquitie famously note it, as it noted and con∣ueyed by fame to posteritie, their differences about dispu∣table matters? This Answere is full, and a certaine ground of persuasion; else (as I said) common people could ne∣uer know the assured Tradition of their Ancestours, vpon which, they (as I prooued) build their Christian beleefe: seeing, as Doctour Field also noteth, there bee few, and * [ E] verie few, that haue leasure and strength of iudgement, to examine particular controuersies by Scriptures or Fa∣thers, but needs must rest in that doctrine which the Church deliuers, as a Tradition neuer contradicted.

Page  143 To discredit therefore a constant receiued Tradition, [ A] it is necessarie to bring an Orthodox contradiction there∣of; not newly found out by reading the Fathers, but a contradiction by the fame of Antiquitie deliuered vnto Posteritie: which kind of contradiction they cannot find, against any point of Catholike Doctrine. For let them name but one Father, whom Antiquitie doth acknowledge as a contradictor of Inuocation of Saints, Adoration of the Sacrament, Reall presence, Prayer for the Dead; [ B] they cannot certainely, though they bring diuerse places to prooue (a thing which Antiquitie neuer noted, or knew of before) that the Fathers be various, and wauering about these Points.