A replie to Iesuit Fishers answere to certain questions propou[n]ded by his most gratious Matie: King Iames By Francis White D: of Div· deane of Carlile, chaplaine to his Matie. Hereunto is annexed, a conference of the right: R:B: of St Dauids wth the same Iesuit*

ANSWER.

The Doctrine of Reall Presence, by way of Transubstan∣tiation, and the Doctrine of Inuocation of Saints, imposed [ C] as an Article of the Creed, &c. were neuer deliuered by any vniforme consent of the antient Fathers, neither hath antient Tradition affirmed, That the Fathers vniformely taught and beleeued these points. And as for later Tradition, the autho∣ritie thereof is doubtfull, deseruing no credit, further than it confirmeth that which it deliuereth, by the testimonie of Wit∣nesses more infallible than it selfe. They which haue liued in succeeding Ages, haue no certaine meanes to assure them what the antient Fathers taught, but either their owne Bookes and Monuments, or the testimonie of their Coaeualls. And later [ D] Traditioners may both corrupt the Writings of the Fathers a 1.1, and also by report, impose a false Tenet vpon them.

Our Aduersarie therefore beats the ayre, when he laboureth to gayne the Fathers vnto his part, vpon the sole Testimonie of latter Tradition, and vpon a Negatiue Argument b 1.2, taken from the silence of the Romane Church, omitting (in parti∣alitie towards it selfe) the Narration of such Collections, and [ E] Oppositions, as were made against the Doctrine thereof, out of the Fathers.

But when wee charge the Papalls with Noueltie, wee pro∣ceed [ A] vpon more euident grounds: First wee prooue, that the Romish Faith, opposed by vs, hath no foundation or warrant in sacred Scripture: Secondly, the same is an addition to the antient Rule of Faith a 1.3: Thirdly, the said Doctrine is not de∣riued by perpetuall and vniforme Tradition, from the Apo∣stles: Fourthly, the primitiue Fathers vertually opposed this Doctrine: For although these Popish Articles, as they are now explicitely maintained, were not in perfect being in the dayes of the antient Fathers, and therefore they could not so pun∣ctually [ B] or literally oppose them, as wee doe; yet in their Dis∣putations, Tractats, and exposition of Scripture, they vtter many things, from which wee may collect that they beleeued not these Articles, and that the same were no part of the Ca∣tholike Faith, in their dayes; and that if such Opinions had beene thrust vpon the Church (for Articles of Faith) in their dayes (as now they are) they would haue opposed them.

But our Aduersarie pleaseth himselfe immoderately with his Negatiue Argument, concluding, That because no Histori∣call and expresse opposition was made against these Doctrines [ C] by the antient Fathers, therefore the Tradition of the present Romane Church, concerning these Doctrines, is Apostolicall. As if a man should conclude, That because no expresse opposi∣tion was made against the Pharisees by the antient Iewish Church, therefore their Traditions were diuine.

But if the sequele of this Argument be good, then the Pro∣position following is necessarie, to wit, Euerie Doctrine against which the antient Fathers haue not made expresse and literall opposi∣tion, is Apostolicall. But this is false, because some Heresies sprang vp in the Church after the decease of the antient Fathers; and against those they could make no such opposition, vnlesse they [ D] had beene endued with Propheticall inspiration.

But if (as our Aduersarie obiecteth) euerie Doctrine is Apo∣stolicall, against which the antient Fathers made no expresse and Historicall opposition, then the Articles following (which Protestants maintaine) are Apostolicall; to wit, The Romane Bishop and Councell may erre, The substance of Bread and Wine re∣maine in the holy Eucharist, after consecration, The common Prayer and Seruice of the Church, which the vnlearned frequent, ought to be vttered in a knowne Language. These (I say) and the like Arti∣cles, according to the Iesuits Argument, must be Apostolicall, [ E] because no expresse Historicall or literall opposition was made against them by the antient Fathers.

But the Iesuit will peraduenture except, That euerie Doctrine deliuered by the Tradition of the Romane Church, against

which the Fathers haue made no expresse opposition, is Apo∣stolicall, [ A] and not euerie other Doctrine.

This verily, or any thing else as wilde and absurd, may be pretended; but it must be prooued; before it can merit any credit a 1.4. And if the Romane Church may erre, and change her Doctrine, after the decease of the antient Fathers, then the Doctrine deliuered by the Tradition of the Romane Church, is of the same qualitie with the Doctrine deliuered by the Tra∣dition of other Churches.

But the first is true, Rom. 11. 22. and there is nothing pro∣mised [ B] in Diuine Writ to the Romane Church, to free the same from Error, more than to the Churches of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Anti∣och, Ephesus, &c. For Hierusalem was the prime Mother Church, Esa. 2. 3. Luc. 24. 47. and the first Seat of all the A∣postles; Ephesus was the Episcopall Sea of S. Iohn, and it was once a Ground and Pillar of Truth, 1. Tim. 3. 15. and Antioch was the Episcopall Sea of S. Peter b 1.5, Baron. Annal. to. 1. anno 39. nu. 20. And yet euerie one of these Apostolicall Churches are departed from their antient integritie. Wherefore, except Ro∣mists [ C] can demonstrate by diuine testimonie, that their Prelates and Pontifes haue singular and ample promises beyond other Apostolicall Churches, they begge the question, when they arrogate sole perfection, infallibilitie, and immutabilitie to themselues c 1.6.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Pammel. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Cyprian. sup. Concil. Carthag. nu. 1. Vnde colligimus Cypriani scripta, vt & aliorum veterum, à librarijs, varie fuisse interpolata.
• b 1.2

  Gillius, Com. Theol. d. Sac. Doct. & Deo, lib. 1. tr. 7. cap. 14. Argumen∣tum 〈◊〉〈◊〉, non est firmum ad con∣uellendum Dogma aliquod siue 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉: Argumentum negatiuum est, cum ex eo quod patres aliquid non dixerint, aut hoc vel illo loquendi genere non vsi fuerint, concludit aliquis.
• a 1.3

  Albert. 1. sent. dist. 11. ar. 7. Regula fidei, est concors, Scripturatum sen∣sus, cum articulis fidei (in Symbolo Apost.) Quia illis duobus regularibus Praeceptis, regitur Theologus.
• a 1.4

  August. c. Par∣men. Lib. 1. cap. 2. Ipse sine documen∣tis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 quitur, & vult nihil probans cre∣di sibi. Idem, c. Do∣natist. Lib. 7. cap. 48. Hic quia nullam rationem, aut testimonium Scripturarum attulit, diu nos tenere non debet.
• b 1.5

  Martyrolog. Rom. Notat. Ga∣lesin. 8. Cal. Martij, Cathedra. S. Petri Apost. Huius Ca∣thedrae Antiochi∣nae. S. Ignatius me∣minit in Epistola ad Magnefianos, Historiamque nar∣rat. S. Clemens, Lib. 10. Recogniti∣onum. Eam beatus Petrus fundasse & instituisse traditur anno Christi Dom. 38. vt ab Eusebio Annalium Moni∣mentis proditum est. Septem autem annis ad illius gubernacula sedit.
• c 1.6

  Lorich. Institut. Cath. in Symb. ar. 10. pag. 49. Non tamen 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sedis (Rom.) Rectores, se statim efferant, tanquam illa sola Ecclesia sit, & vt lo∣quuntur, exclusiue Ecclesia Catholica sit, quasi oporteat sine iudicio, continuo probatum iri, quicquid ex illa sede enatum fuerit, & ad omnes Doctrinas & Constitutiones Pontificis, nihil sit ad ferendum, nisi ipse dixit. Hoc si illi sedi tribuerimus, omnibus erroribus Ecclesiam Catholicam exposuerimus. [ D]