conscience and true knowledge would also dedicate your further labours I doubt not but you would become a dutiful Child to your Mother-Church and a paineful labourer in Christ's Vinyeard for which I wil not cease to entreate his Infinit Goodnes and wil euer rest Yours in him N. N. THE FIRST BOOKE WHERIN IS PROVED BY THE CONFESSION OF PROTESTANTS THAT THE CATHOLICK ROMAN CHVRCH hath continued Euer most Knowne and Vniuersal euen from Christs verie Time vntil the Date hereof THE ANTIQVITIE OF THE TRVE Church and the force of the Argument drawne from the Authoritie thereof As also of the great necessitie of finding-out this true Church CHAP. I. AS we may not doubt but that the Church of God speaking in general is equal in Ancestrie with our first Parents in Paradise so in regard of her Birth-right prime Antiquitie long precedent and preferred before the Scriptures themselues so euen of the Church of Christians it may not be denyed but that as in the same instant with Christ her Head and Spouse she receaued her first being life and birth in this world according to that of (1) Ad c. 3. Lucae S. Ambrose God built his Church in the chief Corner-stone CHRIST IESVS so was this her greatest nobilitie of birth not only to cōtinue for some few generatiōs but euer to remayne for al posteritie Agreable to which the Prophet Daniel foretold of the Church (2) cap. 2.4 that it is A kingdome that shal neuer be destroyed but shal stand for euer And so shal be according to Esay as (3) cap 60.15 An eternal glorie and ioy from generation to generation So that in steed of further discussing the Ancientest Birth-right and not-interrupted continuance of Christ his Church I wil now only treat of the force of that Argumēt which is drawne from the Authoritie Determinatiō of the sayd so Noble Anciēt a Church Wherein for greater expeditiō I wil pretermit most plentiful proofes both from sacred Scriptures and learnedst Fathers in steed therof wil for the present rest satisfyed with the freest Grants and ample Acknowledgements of the learnedst Protestants who first as they euer pretend to build their whole Faith Religion vpon the Written Word so do they further aknowledge the same to be only knowne and discerned from forged and adulterat Scriptures by the sacred Authoritie and Testimonie of the Church of Christ In which respect (4) Ans to a Counterf catho pag. 5. D. Fulk auoucheth that The Church of Christ hath Iudgemēt to discerne true writings from counterfait and the Word of God from the writings of men and this Iudgemēt she hath of the Holie-Ghost With whom accordeth (5) Def. of the Apolog. p. 201. D. Iewel affirming that The Church of God hath the Spirit of wisdome whereby to discerne true Scriptures from false In like sort M. (6) Ecc. Pol. pag. 86. Hooker teacheth that of things necessarie the verie chiefest is to know what books we are bound to esteeme holie which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture itself to teach Whereof he further sayth (7) Ib pa. 102. It is not the Word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs that we do wel to think it is his word for if anie one Book of Scripture did giue testimonie of al yet stil that Scripture which giueth credit to the rest would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it Neither could we come vnto anie pause whereon to rest vnles besides Scripture there were something which might assure vs c. which something afterwards he acknowledgeth (8) Ib. pa. 146. 116. And see Aretius his examen p. 24. And Bachmanus his Centuriae tres c. p. 267. To be the authoritie of Gods Church Agreably hereunto D. whitaker doth confesse that this weightiest controuersie concerning Canonical Scriptures is to vs determined not by (9) Cōt Staplet p. 370. 357. HooK Eccl. Pol. p. 147. Testimonie of the Spirit the which sayth he being priuat and secret is vnfit to teach and refel others but as he further teacheth (10) Ibi. p. 300. 298. 24. 25. And against Raynolds p. 44. by the Ecclestical Tradition An argument whereby may be argued and conuinced what books be Canonical and what not And another Protestant Writer (11) Auth. of the scripture and the church f. 71 72. 73. 74 75. much commended by (12) Ibid. in the Preface Bullinger affirmeth that The church is endued with the Spirit of God and that The diligence authoritie of the Church is to be acknowledged herein which hath partly giuen forth her Testimonie of the assured writings and hath partly by her Spiritual Iudgement refused the writings which are vnworthie Yea he further assureth vs with (13) Tom 6. cōt ep fund cap. 5. Tert. lib. 1 de Praescrip cap. 6. S. Augustin and Tertullian that (14) Scrip. and the church p. 72 74. 75. And see Melancthon in epist ad Rom cap. 14. pa 358 359. we could not beleeue the Ghospel were it not that the Church taught vs and witnessed that this doctrine was deliuered by the Apostles So that the authoritie of Gods true Church is so great as that by her warrāt we are only assured of the Written Word of God itself and for such by her wisedome giuen by the Holie-Ghost discerned to vs from al forged Apocryphal and counterfait writings A power and authoritie then which none stronger seing the certain knowledge of the true word of God is the chiefest foundation of our Christian Faith Now if in this question so important we may securely follow and beleeue the Sentence and Determination of the Church how much more then in other doubts of smaller respect Adde further hereunto in surest confirmation of the Churches authoritie that it is likewise granted and taught by the learnedst Protestants that the true visible Church can not wholy erre in matters of Faith Insomuch as they expresly confesse of this verie point that (15) Bertr de Loque in his discourse of the church p. 198. Phil. Act. mon. p. 1401. Bilney ibid. p. 464. Ridley 16. pag. 1361. 1286. Baynhā ib. p 493. Fox ib. pag. 999. Bancroft in his sermon preached 8. Febr. 1588. pag. 42. 43. The Diuines of Geneua in their Propositions and Principles disputed c. p. 142. Zanchius de Relig pa. 157. Rhegius in Discus The. p. 213. Hunnius in Act. Colloq Ratisb fol. 205. KecKermannus in System Theol. pag. 387. Povvel of things indifferent p. 7 The controuersie c. is not of the Catholick or vniuersall Church for we al agree say they herein that she cannot orre touching Faith c. wherefore this question is touching only a particular church Now if the true Church can not erre in matters of Faith Religion then is her Authoritie sacred her Decrees infallible her Children secured and al difficulties arising easily composed Yea from hence also may we iustly collect amongst al
Councel And agayne (2) Ib. p. 19. Neither is that speach altogeather to be disliked that a Councel is the Church Representatiue M. Ridley further auoucheth that (3) Act. Mon. p. 1288. Councels do indeed represent the vniuersal Church and being so gathered togeather in the name of Christ they haue a promise of the guift and guyding of his Spirit into al truth And the same Doctrine is proued by D. Bilson saying (4) Perpetual Gouernement p. 392. As in Ciuil Policie not al Persons are called togeather but certayne Chiefe to represent the State and consult for the whole Common-wealth So in the Gouernement of the Church it is as sufficient in right that some of euerie place excelling others in dignitie should be sent from euerie Realme far distant and by that meanes they had the consent of the whole world to the Decrees of their Councels The Councel thus liuely representing the Church it is herevpon further granted by D. Bilson that as (5) Ib. p 372. To haue no Iudge for the ending of Ecclesiastical contentions were the vtter subuersion of al peace so according to him (6) Ib. p. 370 Synods are an external iudicial meanes to discerne errour the same being as he teacheth (7) Ib. p. 372. strengthned with the Promise of our Sauiour and accordingly obserued by the ancient Fathers who sayth he (8) Ib. p. 374. In al Ages aswel before as since the great Councel of Nice haue approued and practised this course as the surest meanes to decide Doubts With whom agreeth Melancthon saying (9) In Concil Theol. par 2. p. 1. Let them assemble General or National Councels c. Because it is written Tel the Church This was the custome in the Church from the verie beginning c. And Councels are the proper Iudgements of the Church And (10) Ib. p. 2. And see l. 1. Epist. p. 211. It is requisit that there be Iudgements in the Church neither can other Nations but be scandalized if they shal heare that we refuse the Iudgements of al Synods And wheras some obiect that Councels may erre M. Hooker (11) Ecc. Pol. p. 27. answereth therto himself and further concludeth that (12) Ib. p. 28. The wil of God is to haue vs do whatsoeuer the Sentence of Iudicial and Final Decision shal determine yea though it seeme in our priuate opinion to swarue vtterly from that which is right c. And that without this it is almost impossible we should auoyd confusion or euer hope to attayne peace And this Sentence sayth he (13) Ib. p. 28. is ground sufficient for anie reasonable mans conscience to build vpon whatsoeuer his owne opinion were as touching the matter before in question The same truth is taught by his dearest friend D. Couel assuring vs that If (14) Modest Examination p. 110. Synods want the Church neither at anie time was nor indeed can safely be without Tempests yea sundrie Protestants do ioyntly teach and gather from the Councel of the Apostles mentioned in their Acts (15) Act. 15.2 c. the necessitie of Councels (16a) Vvhite in his Def. p. 661. Carthwr 16. p. 678. Raynolds in his Confer p. 254. 255 Bilson in his Perpet Gouern. p. 373. for the deciding of Controuersies and further acknowledge the presence and assistance of the (16b) Bilson ib. p. 372. 373. 374. Ridley Act. Mon. p. 1288. Holie Ghost in direction of them into al truth From hence it is that sundrie Protestants do nothing doubt to submit themselues and their writings to the Iudgement and Determination of a general Councel So their learnedst Beza in a Preface (17) Ad Acta Colloq Montisbel Resp p. 1. p. 2. to one of his books thus submitteth himself Let al these be submitted to the Iudgements of al true Doctours and Orthodoxal Diuines and especially of a free holie and lawful Synod if God shal grant it at anie time M. Hooker testifyeth that (18) Pref. to Eccl. Pol. p. 28 2◠M. Beza in his last book but one professeth himself to be now wearie of such combats and encounters whether by word or writing insomuch as he findeth that Controuersies are therby made but brawles and therfore wisheth that in some common lawful assemblie of Church al these strifes may be at once decided (19) Diuers Degrees of Ministers in his Epistle to the Ministers of the Low-countries B. 3. fine I hartily wish sayth D. Sarauia that there may be a general Councel that as it becommeth me I refuse not to be iudged of my Iudgement But if otherwise c. Let vs expect the Iudgement of God And another Protestant Writer testifyeth of himself and of his other Brethren that (20) Authour of Cath. Traditions p. 57. And see Hospin Concord Discord fol. 186. The learned and greatest men among them do protest to submit themselues to a general and free Councel In like sort D. Sutclif auoucheth in behalf of Protestants in general that (21) Reuievv of Kellisons Suruey p 42. It is false that Protestants wil admit no Iudge but Scriptures For we appeale sayth he stil to a lawful general Councel c. And In the meane time we content ourselues with National Councels and their Determinations As also (22) Ib p. 102. Priuate men do submit themselues to the Determination of a free general Councel and in the meane while to their National Churches Lastly the authoritie of general Councels is so great and the scandal in contemning them so offensiue that a Protestant Writer ingenuously confesseth that (23) Cath. Traditions p. 58. A man can not now adayes read the writings of the ancient Fathers nor the Histories of the Apostolick Churches no not the holie Scripture it self without finding verie manie ceremonies and fashions of speaking not vsed among the Protestants of France from whence it hapneth that manie do change their beleef being offended at the contemning of Councels c. From al which I wil briefly conclude that seing by the free testimonies of so manie of the learned Protestants both strāgers and neighbours General Councels do truly represent the Church of Christ and are the surest meanes for the deciding of Ecclesiastical Controuersies being therin directed and inspired by the Holie-Ghost himself and so freed from errour in the decrees of Faith and manners And seing also for these strongest Reasons Protestants pretend to submit themselues their writings and their doubts finally also to their Determination that therfore for the decision of Controuersies in Religion Catholiks and so manie learned Protestants do ioyntly agree herein That the Authoritie of Oecumenical Councels is sacred infallible and most powerful and for such acknowledged and respected by the humble submission thereto of either Partie THAT THE ARGVMENT DRAVVNE FROM the Authoritie of the Primitiue Church of Christ and of her Doctours Pastours is an Argument of force And for such approued by sundrie learned Protestants CHAPTER II. THere is
no period or difference of time wherin the Church of Christ hath more gloriously shined either for puritie of Faith or Sanctitie of life then during the time of her primitiue being which according to the accompt (1) Ievvel in his Sermon at Paules Crosse And in his Reply p. 1. Humfrey in vita Iuelli p. 123. 124. VvitaKer Resp ad Ranones Campiani p. 90. of the learnedst ProtestaÌ„ts extended itself to the ful tearme of the first six hundred years after Christ our Sauiour his glorious Ascension In greatest confidence wherof D. Iewel whom M. Mason (2) Consecration of English Bish. p. 267 styleth and esteemeth a Iewel made his so aduenturous a Challenge when he publickly exclaimed at Pauls Crosse O Gregorie O Austin O Hierom O Chrysostom O Leo O Denis O Anaclet O Calixt O Paul O Christ If we be deceaued you haue deceaued vs this you taught vs c. And As I sayd before so I say now againe I am content to yeald and subscribe if anie of our learned Aduersaries or if al the learned men that be aliue be able to bring anie one sufficient Sentence out of anie old Catholick Doctour or Father or out of anie old General Councel c. for the space of 600. yeares after Christ which maketh agaynst anie one of 27. Articles by him there repeated and defended And this he protested to preach not as carryed away with the heate of Zeale but as moued with the simple truth This proffer of D. Iewel was so pleasing to D. Whitaker that he most valiantly renewed it in behalf of al Protestants (3) Resp ad Rat. CaÌ„p p. 90. And see p. 9. saying to our glorious Martyr Campian Attend Campian the speach of Iewel was most true and constant when prouoking you to the Antiquitie of the first six hundred years he offered that if you could shew but anie one cleare and playne Saying out of anie one Father or Councel he would grant you the victorie It is the offer of vs al The same do we al promise and we wil performe it With like courage steppeth forth (4) Of the Church l. 5. in his Appendix therto Part. 1. p. 33. D. Field We say sayth he with Bishop Iewel in his worthie Challenge that al the learned Papists in the world can not proue that either Gregorie or Austin held anie of these twentie seauen Articles of Popish Religion mentioned by him Neither wil D. Morton yeald a foot herein stoutly auouching that (5) Prot. Appeal p. 354. It hath been the common and constant profession of al Protestants to stand vnto the Iudgement of Antiquitie for the continuance of the first foure hundred years and more in al things Yea he further publickly professeth that (6) Protest Appeale p. 573. 574. Protestants in oppugning Doctrines which they cal new and not Catholick c. are so far from suffring the limitation of the first 440. years that they giue the Romanists the scope of the first fiue hundred or six hundred years as our Aduersaries themselues do acknowledge For D. Stapleton writing of the opinion of Luther Caluin and Melancthon sayth that they did yeald vnto the tryal of truth by the testimonie of Antiquitie for the space of the first Fiue or Six hundred yeares M. Campian a Iesuit reporting the Challenge of Bishop Iewel for the mayntenance of these Articles which he then propounded for Catholik sayth that he appealed vnto the Iudgement of Antiquitie for the first six hundred years And againe (7) Ibid. p. 512 Protestants in the disquisition of truth do not absolutely bound the name of Antiquitie within the compasse of the first Centurie of years but are content to allow it a longer extent and therfore in al Doctrines which are truly Catholick c. they refuse not to be tryed by the testimonies of the ancient Fathers in the first fiue hundred years after Christ Yea (8) Ib. p. 680. we repose our securitie in those two impregnable fortresses of the Catholick Faith one is the ancient Tradition of the Primitiue Church as the Protestants are confessed to professe c. So willingly do the learned Protestants prouoke and appeale to the Primitiue Church of Christ for the certayne tryal of truth in matters of Faith and Religion Al which they pretend to do because as Luther sayth (9) Tom. 2. Germ. f. 243. Epist ad Marchionem Branâ—eburg It is dangerous and horrible to heare or beleeue anie thing which is contrarie to the vnanimous testimonie of Faith and to the doctrine of the holie and Catholick Church which she from the beginning agreably kept for aboue One thousand fiue hundred years And as Chemnitius truly obserueth (10) Exam. par 1. f. 74. No man doubteth but the Primitiue Church receaued from the Apostles and Apostolical men not only the Text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sense therof wherupon sayth he (11) Ibid. p. 64. we are greatly confirmed in the true and sound sense of Scripture by testimonie of the ancient Church Which according also to other Protestants (12) Harmonie of Confess p. 400. Is the true and best Mistresse of Posteritie and going before lâ—adeth vs the way Yea sayth D. Beard (13) Retractiue from Romish ReligioÌ„ p. 372 without al question al truth was taught by the Apostles to the Primitiue Church and no part therof was left vnreuealed c. Besides it is as certayn that that Church which next succeeded the Apostles was the most pure and absolute Church whether for doctrine or manners matter or forme that euer was in the world and therefore to degenerate from that must needs be to degenerate from the puritie and sanctitie of Religion And againe it can not be denyed that c. though the Primitiue Age of the Church after the Apostles was most pestered with Hereticks yet euermore the truth preuayled both in regard of birthright and predominance D. Morton Declareth that (14) Protestant Appeale p. 513. In the maine question of discerning the true bookes of holie Writ the Protestants do appeale c. vnto the IudgemeÌ„t of the Primitiue Church attributing vnto it the right and Authoritie of assigning and determining what is the perfect Canon of Scriptures With whom agreeth Chemnitius saying (15) Exam. part 1. p. 69. Andradius affirmeth that the testimonie of the Church is either alwayes to be reiected or alwayes to be receaued I answer c. where the Fathers set downe this Tradition of the books of Scripture they proue it by testimonies of the Primitiue Church if with the same course of certayntie they shal do the like of other Traditions wherof sometimes they make mention it is to be respected and they are to be receaued by the same law D. Sarauia confirmeth the authoritie of the Primitiue Church from her special assistance by the Holie-Ghost saying The (16) De diuersis Ministrorum Gradibus p. 8. Holie-Ghost who gouerneth the Church is the best interpreter
that Pelagius Celestius Iulianus al of them Hereticks do see and Hilarie Gregorie Ambrose c. are blind This so worthie a Saying of S. Austin being alleaged against the Puritans by D. Bancroft he therupon inferreth (32) Suruey p. 352. 353. 351. Surely I do not perceiue why I may not without offence apply the same wordes to those men in those dayes c. Were there neuer learned men before you were taught the Principles of the Geneua Discipline c. Do you know what was in the Apostles times better then they who succeded the Apostles c. Is the light that shewed it self so manie wayes in the Ancient Fathers become such darknes that Carthwright Trauerse Fenner to whom I might as truly adde Luther Zuinglius Caluin Beza c. and such like should be thought so clearlie-sighted And shal Ireneus Tertulian Cyprian Ambrose Hierom Chrysostom Austin Gregorie Hilarie and al the rest of those whorthie men be reckned blind So cleerly doth D. Bancroft the Protestant late Primate of England acknowledge the shining light and glorie of the ancient Fathers and defend their authoritie from the imputations of Nouelists D. Morton ioyfully acknowledgeth (33) Prot. Appeal p. 33. That the ancient Fathers c. did obtayne in the Church of Christ honourable Titles as Augustin the great Mall or hammer against Hereticks Basil the light of the world Chrysostome The Doctour of the whole world Athanasius the Pillar as it were of the Church Nazianzene by a phrase of excellencie the Diuine Origen the Maister of the churches Cyprian the President of the whole world And lastly Ambrose A man called by God vnto an Apostolical Presidencie Now as for the Confidence which Catholicks place in the ancient Fathers D. Morton testifyeth for vs that (34) Ib. p 348 Neuer did the ancient Iewes more boast of their original and descent from father Abraham then do the Romanists glory in their pretended consent of ancient Fathers And though it be true that the ancient Fathers were men yet (35) Eccl. Pol. p. 115. The strength of mans Authoritie in M. Hookers iudgement is affirmatiuely such that the weightiest affaires in the world depend therupon Yea (36) Ib. p. 116. whatsoeuer we beleeue concerning saluation by Christ although the Scripture be therin the ground of our beleef yet is mans Authoritie sayth he the key that openeth the doore c. The Scripture could not teach vs these things vnles we beleeued men And wheras the sacred Scriptures do foretel sundrie things to be performed by the Church of Christ in succeeding Ages the answerable accomplishment therof in particular being matter of fact can be to vs at this day no otherwise made knowne then vpon the Credit of humane Testimonie commended to vs by Ecclesiastical Histories In which respect D. Whitaker truly teacheth that (37) Cont. Duraeum l. 7. p. 472. Historie plainly testifyeth al that to be accomplished which the ancient Prophets haue foretold concerning the Propagation amplitude and glorie of the Church So that there is no doubt sayth he but that Ecclesiastical Historie doth strengthen the Predictions of the Prophets Now from the Premisses we may briefly remember that not only al Catholicks but euen the Primest ProtestaÌ„ts that euer were do thus willingly appeale for the decision of Controuersies in Faith and Religion to the Censure and Determination of the Church of Christ which for the first six hundred yeares was confessedly sincere holie and religious Acknowledging withal the integritie and puritie of the Roman Church during the sayd time and professing to beleeue and teach no other Faith and religion then that which was taught and beleeued by the ancient Fathers of the same Church This then supposed I wil now descend in particular to the chiefest articles of Faith disputed at this day between Catholicks and Protestants And wil only examine whether the Roman or Protestant Church is now more agreable with the confessed Faith and Religion of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church in the foresayd poynts And for the cleerest preuenting of the manifold shiftes and euasions vsed by ProtestaÌ„ts when they are vrged in this kind I wil only produce such proofe from the Primitiue Church and Fathers as is recorded and confessed by Protestants and by them disliked and reiected as agreeing with our Roman Faith and condemning Protestancie THAT THE FATHERS AND DOCTOVRS OF the Primitiue Church beleeued and taught that S. Peter was ordayned by Christ the Head of the Apostles and of the whole Church and that the Church was founded vpon S. Peter it is Confessed by Protestants themselues CHAPTER III. BEcause the deciding of this present Controuersie of the Churches Primacie is indeed the speediest and most certaine meanes for the final dissoluing of al doubts in Religion either already begun or hereafter to arise I wil therfore more particularly and at large set downe the manifest and confessed Doctrine and practice of the Primitiue Church concerning the same And first as al gouernment whether Politick or Ecclesiastical the more it reseÌ„bleth the gouernment of this world by the Creatour therof ONE GOD or the gouernment of the Church during our Sauiours aboad vpon earth by ONE CHRIST the more it is to be approued coÌ„mended and followed so nothing is holden more Soueraigne or more needful for the procuring or preseruing of vnitie and concord in anie Bodie or Communitie then the vnitie of one Head or gouernment Monarchical Herevpon the (1) Bel. de Rom. Pont l. 1. c. 10. l. 2. c 12. Catholick Church doth beleeue and teach That S. Peter was ordayned by Christ the Supreme Ecclesiastical Head not only ouer the rest of the Apostles but euen ouer the whole Church And that the Bishop of Rome succeedeth him in the same Power and Authoritie The direct (2) Luther l de Potestate Papae in assertione Art 25. Calu. l. 4 Instit c 6. Morton in his Appeale l. 2. c. 5. Sect. 11. Negatiue wherof is not only taught by the protestant-Protestant-Church but withal it further beleeueth maintayneth that the Bâ—shop of Rome in steed of being the true Successour of S. Peter and the Vicar of Christ is the true Antichrist or Man of Sinne wherof so much is foretold in the sacred Scriptures To discouer now the Faith and practise of the Primitiue Church and to begin with the confessed Primacie of S. Peter And first that for the preseruing of vnitie and preuenting of Schismes he was appoynted by Christ the Supreme Head of that slender Bodie or litle Church of the twelue Apostles Wheras S. Hierom l. 1. cont Iouinianum teacheth that Amongst the Twelue one is chosen that a Head appoynted the occasion of Schisme should be taken away From hence (3) In his Examination c. against the Plea of the Innocent p. 106. 107. D. Couel hauing spoken of the necessitie of One aboue the rest to suppresse the seed of dissention thus argueth most strongly If this were the Principal
of the Old Testament now in question And that the foresayd Epistles of S. Peter S. Iames S. Iohn S. Iude and the Apocalyps were doubted of by some Fathers of the Primitiue Church and not generally receaued by al it is further confessed by the Deanes of Paules and Windsor who in the Towers Disputation had with that Ornament of our Nation and most victorious Martyr Edmund Campian do thus report of themselues (40) The first Dayâ—s Conf. D. 1. For proofe hereof we alleadged the testimonie of Hierom in Catal. where he thus writeth The Epistle of Iames is sayd to be published by some other vnder his name and of the 2. of Peter he sayth that it is denyed of manie to be his we also alledged Eusebius writing thus Those Bookes that be gaynsaid though they be knowne to manie be these the Epistle attributed to Iames the Epistle of Iude the latter of Peter the 2. and 3. of Iohn And D. Walker in the same Disputation affirmeth 41) 4. Dayes Confâ—r fâ—l 2. 6. that S. Hierom saith concerning that Epistle which is written to the Hebrewes manie haue doubted of it And also concerning the 2. of Peter he sayth it was doubted of by manie and so with some were the two last Epistles of Iohn c. Now if the Bookes of Machabees Tobie c. be not Canonical because as Protestants before obiected they were reiected or doubted by some ancient Writers then by the same reason Protestants must likewise reiect the Epistle to the Hebrewâ—s the Epistles of S Peter S. Iames S. Iude S. Iohn and the Apocalyps because these also were no lesse doubted reiected by sundrie ancient Writers Wherefore the weaknes and ensuing absurditie of this obiection being thus discouered we are to obserue that the Canonical Scriptures are to vs at this day discerned and made knowne not by that which some ancient Writers omit deny or doubt of but by that which most of the Fathers constantly affirme and chiefly by that which is iudged and decreed by the Catholick Church lawfully assembled in General Councel Thirdly some obiect that there are in the foresayd Bookes diuers repugnances or Contradictions and consequently that they are not inspired by the holie-Ghost But to omit that in those Scriptures which are beleeued by al to be Canonical there are manie hidden difficulties and seeming (42) See Mat. 10.10 Mar. 6.8 1. Reg. 8.9 2. Par. 5.10 Hebr. 9.4 Act. 9.7 Act 22.9 Math. 26.34 Marc 14.68 Mar. 15.25 Io. 19.14 Luc. 3.35.36 Gen. 11.12 And see Iewel Def. c. p. 361. repugnances which yet notwithstaÌ„ding we are bound to acknowledge the sayd Scriptures to be true and sacred I wil for breuitie only alledge what other Protestants think and answer themselues to the foresayd pretended Contradictions in the Bookes of Machabee Tobie c. D. Couel (43) Answ to Burges p. 85. writeth We could without violence haue afforded them the Reconcilement of other Scriptures and vndoubtedly haue proued them to be most true Yea he particularly answereth certaine of the pretended repugnances In like sort Conradus Pelican (45) Ep. Dedic Professour at Tigure writing his Commentarie vpon the foresayd Bookes sayth I easily yeelded c. especially seing those Bookes were alwayes accompted so Ecclesiastical and Biblical that euen from the Apostles times they were read in the Catholick Church with much reuerence although they were not produced in authoritie against the Iewes as Canonical who receiued not these into their Sacred Canon wheras they do not only not contradict in anie thing the writings of the Law and the Prophets (44) Ib. p. 87 88. 89. 90. but also c. for the most part they cleerly carry the right style of the holie-Ghost certain knots or difficulties intermingled which are sound more easie to be loosed then some haue thought c. Wherupon they were euer reuerenced and read by holie men yea the Sayings therof are found to be alledged by the Apostles Agreably hereto M. Hutton (46) 2. Parte of the Answ p. 238. 239. at large answereth and cleereth the common obiection against Iudith and the like in behalf of Ecclesiasticus (47) Ibid. p. 247. and (48) Ibid. p. 246. And see Bucers scripta Anglic p. 713. Daniel So weake and impertinent are the Contradictions pretended by Protestants against the foresayd Bookes Now from the premisses that by the CoÌ„fessions of our Aduersaries we may collect that the foresayd Bookes of Scripture were only not approued for truly Canonical by S. Austin Innocentius Gelasius and al the Fathers and Bishops of the 3. Carthage Councel but also were approued as partes of the Old Testament by the Apostles and for such alledged by them and so from the Apostles times were read in the Catholick Church with much reuerence Witnesses wherof are the Protestant Writers Hiperius Lubbertus Zanchius Hospiman Trelcatius Hoe Scelico Brentius Bibliander Lascicius Pelican Raynolds Parker Field Couel Bancroft Hutton Parkes D. Bilson al of them affording their helping hands in maintayning and defending the foresayd Bookes by true Antiquitie It is acknowledged by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church beleeued and taught our now Catholick Doctrine concerning Traditions CHAPTER VI. THE Catholick Doctrine concerning (1) Bellarm. de Verb. Dei non Scripto l. 4 c 3. Traditions is that the sacred Scriptures or written Word of God do not expresly containe al poynts or matters concerning Faith and manners And therfore besides the same is necessarily required the not written Word of God that is Diuine and Apostolical Traditions To the Contrarie Protestants (2) Luth. in Comment c. 1. ad Gal. Caluin Inst l. 4. c. 8. sec 8 directly teach that al things necessarie to Saluation are set downe in the sacred Scriptures And that we are not bound to beleeue or do anie thing which is not taught and commanded thereby Now what the Primitiue Church beleeued and whether the present Roman or Protestant Church doth Symbolize and agree therewith the Sequele only taken from the free and liberal testimonies of Protestants themselues shal euidently demonstrate And to begin with S. Gregorie D. Morton confesseth that (3) Prot. Appeale l. 4. p 62. He vseth to confirme some things by Tradition S. Augustin also whom D. Field (4) Of the Church l. 3. p. 170. tearmeth Austin the greatest of al the Fathers and worthiest Diuine the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times This indeed most worthie Diuine endeauouring to proue that those who are Baptised by Hereticks should not be rebaptised freely confesseth that (5) De Bapt. cont Don. l. 5. c. 23. The Apostles commanded nothing hereof but that Custome which was opposed herein against Cyprian is to be beleeued to proceed from their Tradition as manie things be which the whole Church holdeth and are therefore wel beleeued to be commanded of the Apostles although they be not written A Saying so euident
of free Iustification was as then almost oppressed with the Comments of the Grecian Bishops c. At the same time the Inuocation of the Dead preuailed and the foolish opinion of single life which shameful errours Hierom openly defendeth the multitude also of Ceremonies then encreased c. And al for the most admired the Monks in Aegypt Syria c. no otherwise then if they had been Angels Prayers also for the Dead began then more freely to be vsed and the Platonical question risen concerning Purgatorie c. So ancient and general amongst al the holie Fathers were al the foresayd Articles of our present Roman Faith 26. So that our Catholick Roman Faith concerning the Sacraments conferring grace of Confession of Pardons of Transubstantiation of Holie-Orders of Extreme-Vnction of the Masse of S. Peter's and the Pope's Primacie of the Pope not being Antichrist of Traditions of Purgatorie and Prayer for the Dead of Limbus Patrum of Inuocation of Saints Reuerencing of Relicks Images and the Crosse Vowes of Chastitie single life of Priests Monastical life prescribed Fasts Free-wil Merit of Works and the Ceremonies of the Church was the general receaued Faith of al ancient Fathers and other Christians Witnesses wherof in our behalf are Luther Caluin Zuinglius the Centurists Rhegius Melancthon Adamus Francisci Antonie de Adamo Bucer Crastouius Philippus Nicolai Chemnitius Functius Osiander Peter Martyr Beza Brightman Field Humfrey Fulk Cartwright Whiteguift Couel Fox Gifford Iacob Parker Parkins Wotton Beard Calfhil whitaker and Iewel THAT PROTESTANTS DO NOT ONLY disclaime from al the ancient Fathers as Papists but do further reiect the authoritie of the sacred Scriptures and of the Apostles themselues as being erroneous and that therefore they do not found their Faith or Religion vpon Sacred Scriptures or Christ his Apostles CHAPTER III. I haue laboured often and long for the finding out of some ground work Argument or Principle wherupon the Protestant Church should be builded and sustained And stil obseruing al proofs whatsoeuer drawne either from Histories Fathers Councels Church or Antiquitie to be al of them contemned and despised by them as meerly Papistical I retired and tyed my thoughts at last to that surest Ancker of God's heauenlie Word proposed vnto vs in the sacred writings of his Prophets and Apostles nothing doubting but that the credit authoritie therof would in the iudgement and verie beleef of al Protestants be euer admitted acknowledged and reuerenced as Diuine infallible and inspired from God the Holie-Ghost himself And yet frustrate in this my last expectation I find the verie writings of the Prophets and Apostles to be censured and reiected and the Prophets and Apostles themselues to be scorned disgraced disallowed by the learnedst Protestant Writers And to begin first with the scriptures of the old Testament omitting also Tobie Iudith c. and the rest which Protestants generally reiect for Apocryphal wheras Moyses was confessedly the first that writ anie part of sacred Scripture yea that writ the Law of God or Ten Commandments in Tables of stone he and the sayd Commandments are al of them reiected by our new Protestants 1) Tom. 3. Germ f. 40. 41. And in Colâ—oq Mensal Gâ—rm fol. 152. 153. We wil neither heare nor see Moyses sayth D. Luther for he was giuen only to the Iewes neither doth he belong anie thing to vs. Let him be to the Iewes as the Law of the Saxons and let him not disquiet or trouble vs Gentils As France regardeth not the Law of the Saxons so the Law of Moyses doth not bind vs. If anie propose vnto thee Moyses with his Lawes and would compel thee to keep them then shalt thou say Go to the Iewes with thy Moyses I am no Iew thou shalt not enwrap me with Moyses And againe 2) In Colloq Mensal c. de Leg. Euang. I wil not receaue Moyses with his Law for he is the enemie of Christ If he shal come with me to examination I wil reiect him in the name of God and wil say Let Christ stand heer 3) Fâ—l 118. Moyses is the maister of al hangmen no man matcheth him in terrifying streightning tyranizing threatning and thundring he cruelly assaulteth the consciences he terrifyeth tormenteth and teareth the hart 4) Ad Ps 46. Away therefore with Moyses to obstinate and cruel men and prowd Saints whome he may terrifye humble 5) Tom. 3. Witemb in Ps 45. f. 423. And see 422. And in Colloq Mens Ger. f. 152. 153. Moyses indeed had lips but profunda great ones vnpleasant stopped angrie in which there is not a word of grace but of anger death and sinne Gather al the wisedomes of Moyses and of the Heathen Philosophers and you shal find them to be in God's sight either Idolatrie or hypocritical wisdome or if it be Politick yet the wisedome of wrath c. For Moyses hath his lips ful of gal and anger c. Away therefore with Moyses c. Moyses being thus discarded Away likewise say Protestants with the Law and Commandments 6) Tom. 3. Germ. fol. 121. The Law sayth Luther is a true Labyrinth which only casteth consciences into errour The iustice of the Law is the monster Minotaurus that is a meer fable not leading to saluation but to the waters of Acheron 7) In Colloq Mensal Germ. f. 152. 153. To the Iewes belongeth the Law of Moyses it doth not bind vs c. I wil not haue Moyses with his Law for he is the enemie of Christ our Lord yea 8) Tom. 3. Wittemb f. 6. 7. the Decalogue itself testifyeth that Moyses doth not oblige the Gentils And his owne Brethren alleadge him saying 9) Admonitio Christiana p. 211 And see Hospin concord discord f. 225. As France respecteth not the Law of the Saxons so let not Moyses be thrust vpon vs we in the New Testament wil neither see nor heare Moyses And as for the Ten CoÌ„mandments themselues Luther expresly teacheth that 10) Serm. de Mose the Ten Commandments pertaine not to Christians 11) In Conuiual Colloq cited by Aurifab cap. de lege And therefore saith he Let the Ten Commandments be altogether reiected and al Heresies wil presently cease For the Ten Commandments are as it were the fountain from whence al Heresies spring According to which Islebius Luther's owne scholler 12) Cent. 6. p. 311. 312. 310. taught as Osiander relateth that the Decalogue was not to be taught in the Church c. He dispersed in publick writings his Antinomian errour and drew into errour some learned Protestants He seemeth to haue taken occasion of this errour from the writings of Luther not rightly vnderstood And 13) Act. Colloq Aldeburg p. 94 being great in the Court he preached earnestly for the Antinomian libertie These Antinomians 14) Sleidan Hist l. 12. f. 262. receauing their first beginning from Islebius Luther's scholler publickly taught as other Protestants confesse 15)
Apostles withal and the Euangelists themselues euen after their receauing of the Holie-Ghost did write teach and defend seueral errours how can anie Christian build an infaillible sauing Faith vpon the Ghospels or other Apostolical writings How then can they be acerteyned of anie one true sentence of God's Word if the writers and deliuerers therof were not infallibly guided by the Holie-Ghost into al truth and so freed from al errour ignorance misprision or falshood And if some peraduenture except that these so Atheistical and Sacrilegious reproaches imposed vpon the sacred Scriptures and the Blessed Euangelists and Apostles be not the ordinarie opinions or practise of Protestants but peraduenture only of some few either ignorant or not endowed with the spirit the falshood and vanitie of this euasion is most apparent for who of forraine Protestants were euer reputed more learned or more enlightned with the spirit then Luther Caluin Beza Chemnitius Islebius Illiricus with the other Centurie-writers Castalio Zuinglius Musculus Brentius Andreas Friccius Adamus Francisci Bullinger and sundrie such others al of them highly esteemed of by their other Protestant Brethren Or who at home more honoured then Tyndal Iewel Goad Fotherbie Fulk Whitaker c. and yet al of those being indeed the primest men that euer they had do ioyntly conspire in this greatest impietie of censuring controuling correcting or reiecting some one part or other of the forenamed Canonical Scriptures or els of condemning the Euangelists and Apostles of seueral errours infirmities and sliding in matters of faith and Religion Which foule proceeding of so manie and so learned Protestants doth euidently according to D. Fulk's Rule conuince them to be perfect Hereticks For (88) Confut. of Purgatorie p. 214. whosoeuer sayth he denieth the authoritie of the Holy Scriptures thereby bewrayeth himself to be an Heretick Laus Deo B. V. Mariae FINIS A TABLE OF THE BOOKES AND CHAPTERS THE FIRST BOOKE WHERIN IS PROVED BY THE Confession of Protestants that the Catholick Roman Church hath continued Euer most Knowne and Vniuersal euen from Christs verie Time vntil the Date hereof THE antiquitie of the true Church and the force of the Argument drawne from the Authoritie thereof As also of these great necessitie of finding-out this true Church chap. 1. fol. 1. That the present Roman Church and Religion for the last thousand yeares after Christ haue stil continued most Knowne and Vniuersal throughout the Christian world chap. 2. fol. 4. A further confirmation of the vniuersal continuance of our Roman Church Religiō for these last thousand yeares is taken from the Confessed belief and profession of such Persons as liuing within the foresayd time were most Famous and Notorious in one respect or other chap. 3. fol. 8. That the faith of S. Gregorie S. Augustin and whereto England was by them conuerted was our Roman Catholick and not Protestant chap. 4. fol. 10. That the present Roman Church and Religion continued and flourished during the whole time of the Primitiue Church contayning the first six hundred yeares after Christ chap. 5. fol. 20. A further proof of the present Roman Religions Continuance from the Apostles time to these dayes is taken from the Christian belief of the Indians Armenians Grecians and Brittans al of them Conuerted in the dayes of the Apostles chap. 6. fol. 27. THE SECOND BOOKE Wherin is proued through al the chief Articles of Religion and that by the Confessions of Protestants that the same Faith which is now taught by the Roman Church was anciently taught by the Primitiue Church of Christ THat General Councels do truly represent the Church of Christ And of the Credit and Authoritie giuen by Protestants to the sayd Councels chap. 1. fol. 1. That the argument drawne from the Authoritie of the Primitiue Church of Christ and of her Doctours and Pastours is an Argument of force And for such approued by sundrie learned Protestants chap. 2. fol. 3. That the Fathers and Doctours of the Primitiue Church beleeued and taught that S. Peter was ordayned by Christ the Head of the Apostles and of the whole Church and that the Church was founded vpon S. Peter it is Confessed by Protestants themselues chap. 3. fol. 8. It is Confessed by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church beleeued taught the Bishop of Rome to succeed S. Peter in the Primacie of the whole Church chap. 4. fol. 11. It is confessed by Protestants that the Primitiue Church of Christ beleeued the Bookes of Tobie Iudith Ester Sapientia Ecclesiasticus and two first of Machabees to be truly Canonical Scripture chap. 5. fol. 25. It is acknowledged by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church beleeued taught our now Catholick Doctrine concerning Traditions chap. 6. fol. 30. It is Confessed by Protestants that according to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church the Sacraments do truly conferre Grace and Remission of sinnes And that they are in number seauen chap. 7. fol. 32. It is Confessed by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church beleeued and taught the Real Presence of Christs true Bodie and Bloud in the Eucharist As also our further Catholick Doctrines of Transubstantiation Adoration Reseruation and the like chap. 8. fol. 35. Protestants confesse that the Primitiue Church of Christ beleeued taught practised the Sacrifice of the Masse as also that it is a Sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech and truly Propitiatory for the liuing the dead chap. 9. fol. 41. It is acknowledged by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church taught and beleeued the Power of Priests to Remission of Sinnes The necessitie of Auricular Confession The Imposition of Pennance and satisfaction to God thereby As also our Roman Doctrine of Pardons or Indulgences chap. 10. fol. 46. It is granted by Protestants that the Catholick Doctrine of Purgatorie of Prayer and Sacrifice for the dead was beleeued taught and practised by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church chap. 11. fol. 50. It is confessed by Protestants that the. Fathers of the Primitiue Church beleeued and taught our Catholick Doctrine of Christs Descending into Hel. chap. 12. fol. 55. It is confessed by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church beleeued and practised our Catholick Doctrine of praying to Angels and Saints chap. 13. fol. 57. It is confessed by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church allowed the vse of Christs Image and his Saincts placing them euen in churches and Reuerencing them chap. 14. fol. 60. It is acknowledged by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church did specially honour reuerence the holie Relicks of Martyrs and other Saints carrying them in Processions and making Pilgrimages vnto them at which also manie Miracles were wrought chap. 15. fol. 63. It is confessed by Protestants that the holie Doctours of the Primitiue Church not only vsed the signe of the Crosse but likewise worshiped the same attributing great efficacie power and vertue thervnto chap.
meanes to preuent Schismes dissentions in the Primitiue Church when the Graces of God were far more abundant and eminent then now they are Nay if the Twelue were not like to agree except there had been one Chief among them for sayth Hierom among the Twelue one was therefore chosen that a Chief being appoynted occasion of dissention might be preuented How can they think that equalitie would keep al the Pastours in the world in peace and vnitie c. For in al Societies Authoritie which can not be where al are equal must procure vnitie and obedience In like sort the (4) Cen. 4. Col. 556. Centurists confesse that Optatus l. 2. cont Donat. writeth It can not be denyed but that thou knowest in the Cittie of Rome the Episcopal Chaire to haue been first bestowed vpon Peter in which Peter the Head of al the Apostles sate wherupon he is called Cephas In which one Chaire vnitie should be kept by al least the other Apostles should euerie one defend his owne So that he should be esteemed a Schismatick and sinner who should erect another against that singular Sea therfore there is one Chaire c. (5) Cent. 4. Col. 1100. They also reprehend him for that he extolleth ouermuch the Chaire of Peter and the Succession of the Roman Bishops And (6) In his Retentiue c. p. 248. D. Fulk chargeth Optatus with absurditie for saying of Peter He deserued to be preferred before al the Apostles and he alone receaued the Keyes of the kingdome of heauen to be communicated to the rest (7) Retentiue against Bristows Motiues p. 248. D. Fulk (7) Retentiue against Bristows Motiues p. 248. speaking of S. Leo and S. Gregorie Bishops of Rome confesseth that The mysterie of iniquitie hauing wrought in that Seate neer fiue or six hundred yeares before them so anciently before them did the Roman Sea in his opinion begin to be Papal and then greatly encreased they were so deceaued with long continuance of errour that they thought the dignitie of Peter was much more ouer the rest of his fellow Apostles then the holie Scriptures of God do allow Yea the (8) Cent. 3. col 85. Centurists recite and reproue Origen hom 17. in Lucam for calling Peter the Prince of the Apostles And D. Raynolds (9) In his Cōference p. 485. citeth S. Dionysius de diuinis nominibus c. 3. tearming Peter the chief and most ancient Top or Head of the Apostles (10) Apocalypsis in cap. 13. p. 343. This poynt is so euident in the Fathers that M. Brightman thinketh It hath its original from a corrupt Doctrine to wit the false boasted Authoritie of the Chaire of Peter wherof almost at euerie word the Roman Bishop braggeth and which the Ancient Saints Tertullian Cyprian and others extolled with immoderate prayses not knowing with what impietie they prepared the way c. But the Fathers further proceed teaching that the whole Church was built or founded vpon S. Peter To which purpose the Rhemists citing S. Gregorie D. Fulk answereth The (11) Ag. Rhem. Test in Math. 16.19 Authoritie of Gregorie c. being a Bishop of Rome himself and so neer the time of the open reuelation of Antichrist in the Romish Sea is partial in this case and therefore not to be heard And againe Leo (12) Ibid. vers 18. Bishop of Rome striuing for the dignitie of his Sea as his Predecessours Zosimus Boniface and Celestin had done before c. is no equal Iudge in this case The (13. Cent. 8. col 555. Centurists charge S. Hilarie that he speaketh incommodiously of Peter the Apostle that he lyeth vnder the building of the Church and is made the Foundation therof They (14) Cent. 4. col 557. see col 1250. likewise affirme that S. Hierom sayth incommodiously of Peter that our Lord built his Church vpon him And for the like Saying they (15) Cent. 4. col 558. and see col 1250. reproue Nazianzene Yea they (16) Cent. 3. col 84. charge Tertullian that not without errour he seemeth to think that the Keyes were committed only to Peter and that the Church was built vpon him And they (17) Cent. 3. col 84. confesse that Cyprian in manie places affirmeth the Church to be founded vpon Peter as l. 1. ep 3. l. 4. ep 9. c. And they (18) Cent. 3. col 85. charge Origen Tract 5. in Math. to say Peter by promise deserued to be made the foundation of the Church (19) Resp Ad Bellar. disp part 1. p. 277. Danaeus reproueth the Fathers in general for that they sayth he naughtily expounded of the Person of Peter that Saying of Christ Math. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I wil build my Church (20) Instit l. 4. c. 6. sec 6. Caluin sayth The Church to be built vpon Peter because it is sayd vpon this Rock c. some of the Fathers haue so expounded but the whole Scripture gaynsayeth Yea the Fathers kept a yearely Festiual day in honour of S. Peters Sea or Chaire which poynt Bellarmine confirming by the testimonies of sundrie Fathers Danaeus (21) In Resp ad Bellar. Disp part 1. p. 275. 276. only answereth that the Fathers assertion therof was the Iudgements and Testimonies of the Church then corrupted and bewitched or made blind with this errour And wheras Anacletus ep 3. Leo ep 53. and Gregorie l. 6. ep 37. do al of them teach a special preheminence to be giuen euen to the Seas of Alexandria and Antioch before other Apostolical or Patriarchal Seas in respect of S. Peter who first founded them Danaeus (22) In Resp ad Bell. part 1. p 275. in his answer to Bellarmin obiecting them in steed of a better euasion barely writeth What he bringeth out of Anacletus Leo and Gregorie is in vaine seing they plead for themselues in their owne cause But D. Field (23) of the Church l. 5. c. 31. p. 162. ingenuously confesseth that There were in the beginning only Three Patriarcks to wit the Bishop of Rome Alexandria and Antioch The reason as some think why the Bishops of these Seas were preferred before others and made Patriarcks was in respect had to blessed S. Peter who was in sort before expressed in order and honour the First and Chiefest of the Apostles c. Al Churches are rightly called Apostolick but these more specially in which the Apostle Peter sate And in proof of this he alleageth Anacletus Leo and Gregorie before mentioned D. Fulk (24) In his Confut. of Papists quarrels c. p. 4. affirmeth in general that manie of the ancient Fathers were deceaued to think something more of Peters Prerogatiue and the Bishop of Romes dignitie then by the word of God was giuen to either of them Hence then we see that Catholicks defending S. Peter to haue been appoynted by Christ the Head of the Apostles and of the whole Church As also the Church
Leo Foelix Gelasius the Fathers of the Councel of Chalcedon of Africk and the 6. of Carthage of Sardis Sixtus Innocentius Siricius Sozimus Damasus Iulius Stephen Denis Cyprian Victor Anicetus Cornelius Ireneus Papias Peter and the other Apostles The Protestants producing and reprouing the foresayd Fathers are the Centurie-writers Danaeus Caluin Bucer Philippus Nicolai Peter Martyr Carion Bullinger Melancthon Osiander Friccius Beza Crispinus Tilenus Frigiuilleus Gauuius Bibliander Amandus Polanus Hamelmannus Illyricus Lubbertus Sarauia Napper Mornay Whitguift Carthwright Whitaker Fulk Bilson Trige Rainolds Brightman Bale Symonides Bunnie Spark Midleton Fox Morton and Field euerie one wherof do cite and reproue some Father or Councel before mentioned concerning some branch of the Bishop of Romes Primacie It is confessed by Protestants that the Primitiue Church of Christ beleeued the Bookes of Tobie Iudith Esther Sapientia Ecclesiasticus and two first of Machabees to be truly Canonical Scriptures CHAPTER V. AS it is vndoubted by al that the true Scriptures Prophetical and Apostolical are most sacred diuine and of infallible authoritie so it remayneth stil in Controuersie which Bookes be the sayd Prophetical Apostolical and Canonical Scriptures for as the (1) Concil Carthag 3. Can. 47. Trid. sess 4. Catholick Church hath defyned the Bookes of Esther Iudith Tobie two of the Machabees Wisdome and Ecclesiasticus to be sacred Canonical and of infallible authoritie so are al the sayd Bookes reiected by Protestants (2) Luth. Zuingl Praef. Bibl. a se CoÌ„uers Calu. Inst l. 1. c. 12. §. 8. l. 2. c. 5. §. 18. l. 3. c. 5. §. 8. as merely apocryphal and only human Now to decide this so waightie a Controuersie by the Primitiue Church Wheras in the Third Carthage Councel wherat S. Austin and sundrie other Fathers and Bishops were present and subscribed it is expresly defined that (3) Can. 47 Nothing be read in the Church vnder the name of diuine Scriptures besides Canonical Scriptures And the Canonical Scriptures are Genesis Exodus c. fiue bookes of Salomon c. Tobie Iudith Hester two bookes of Esdras two bookes of Machabees c. Wheras also the same Canon of Scriptures is made and numbred particulerly by S. Austin (4) De Doct. Christi l. 2. c. 8 Innoc. ep ad Exup c. 7. Gel. To. 1. Concil in Decret cum 70. Ep. Isid l 6. Etymol c. 1. Rabanus l. 2. Instit cler Cassiod l. 2. diuinarum Lect. himself as also by Innocentius Gelasius and other ancient Writers the truth hereof is so manifest that the same is confessed by sundrie Protestant Writers and the same Councel and Fathers in steed of better answere seuerely reprehended for the same Hiperius (5) Meth. Theol. l. 1. p. 46. auoucheth that In the Third Carthage Councel there are added to the Canon c. Sapientia and Ecclesiasticus two bookes of Machabees Tobie Iudith c. Al which bookes in the same order numbreth Augustin Innocentius Gelasius for which he at large afterwards reiecteth their iudgement In like sort (6) de Princip Christ Dogm l. 1. c. 4. p. 8. Lubbertus I grant sayth he certaine of these bookes to be admitted by the Carthaginians but I deny that therfore they are the Word of God for no Councels haue that Authoritie But to be brief the Third Carthage Councel is acknowledged and reproued for this verie doctrine by D. Raynolds (7) Conclus annex to his Conf p 699 700. Zan de Sacr. p. 32. 33. Hosp hist Sacram. p. 1. p. 160. Trelc loc com p. 15. Hoe Tract Tripart Theol. p. 46. Park ag Symb. part 2. p 60. Field of the Church p. 246. 247. Zanchius Hospinian Trelcatius Mathias Hoe M. Parker and D. Field And so likewise is S. Austin and other ancient Fathers herein acknowledged and reiected by Hospinian 8) Hist sacr part 1. p. 161. Hip. Meth. Theol. p. 46. Zanch. de sacra-Scrip p. 32. 33. Field of the Church p. 246. Hâ—perius Zanchius D. Field But Brentius auoucheth more in general that (9) Apol. Confess Wittemb See Bucers Scripta Angl p. 7â—3 There are some of the ancient Fathers who receiue sayth he these Apocryphal Bookes into the number of Canonical Scriptures And in like sort some Councels command them to be acknowledged as Canonical I am not ignorant what was done but I demand whether it was rightly and Canonically done Lastly D. Couel not only most plainly confesseth S. Austins like Iudgement had of the Booke of Wisdome but withal further affirmeth (11) Ib. p 87 of al these Bookes that If Ruffinus be not deceaued they were approued as partes of the Old Testawent by the Apostles So cleer it is that this foresayd Bookes were confessedly beleeued to be Canonical by the Primitiue Church Adde hereunto that (12) Of the Church p. 245. 246. Hut 2. part of his Answ p 176. D. Field M. Hutton both of them teaching that some of the ancient Iewes receiued the foresayd Bookes for truly Canonical though others of them did not beleeue and receaue the same accordingly yet are the sayd Iewes therfore expresly reproued by Protestants themselues Bibliander tearming it The rashnes of the Iewes in which his censure he is approued by the Protestant Sceltco in his booke of the Second coming of Christ Englished by M. Rogers (13) fol. 6. for the supposed worth therof D. Bancroft (14) p. 60. in the verie Conference before his Maiestie reiecteth the obiections of the Iewes made against these Bookes tearming them The old cauils of the Iewes renewed by Hierom who was the first that gaue them the name of Apocrypha which opinion vpon Ruffiâ—us his challenge he after a sort disclaymed Yea D. Bancroft is so ful with Catholicks in Defence of the sayd Bookes as that other of his owne Brethren charge him further to say (15) The 2. parte of the Ministers Def. p. 108. that The Apocrypha were giuen by inspiration from God which is al one as to affirme them to be truly diuine and Canonical And as concerning the booke Ecclesiasticus it is defended to be truly Canonical by the Protestant Writers (16) Ep. ad Volanum Lascicius and Parker of which later D. Willet (17) LoÌ„doro mastix p. 69 sayth How audacious is this fellow that contrarie to the determination of this Church of England dare make Ecclesiasticus a book of Canonical Scripture 10) Against Burges p. 76 77. Furthermore seing it is expresly taught and defended by sundrie Protestants that this waightiest Controuersie of discerning true Scripture from forged can not be decided by the (18) Hook Ecol Pol. l. 1 p. 86. Scriptures themselues neither by Testimonie (19) Whit. cont Staplet p. 370. 357. Hook vbi sup p 147. of the Spirit but (20) Hook ib. p. 146. 116. Aretiu Exam p. 24. by the authoritie of Gods Church Hence it necessarily followeth that the Church of Christ hauing decided and determined this foresayd Controuersie and
that not only by General Churches of later times but euen by the Councels Tradition of the true Primitiue Church that therfore al parties are bound to approue beleeue the foresayd Bookes to be truly Canonical Al which wil yet be made much more euident by our easie Refutation of their chiefest arguments vsually vrged against them For first it is obiected by D. Whitaker (21) Answ to Rayn p. 22. 23. that therfore they are not Canonical because They were written in Greek or some other forraine language and not in Hebrew nor had for their knowne Authours those whom God hath declared to be his Prophets But neither of these are of force for it is no litle temeritie so to measure the Scriptures by the tongue wherein they are written as to restrayne the Spirit of God to one only language The further falsehood and vanitie wherof is abundantly disproued by example of Daniel a great part wherof (22) to wit from Chap. 2 vers 4. to the end of the 7. chap. though not written in Hebrew is yet by our Aduersaries themselues acknowledged for Canonical Neither likewise is it true that God would direct by his holie Spirit no Authours in their writings but such as were knowne and also further declared by certaine testimonie to be Prophets For Protestants themselues can not yet tel who were Authours of the seueral Bookes of Iudges the Third and Fourth of Kings the Two of Chronicles and the Bookes of Ruth and Iob Euen D. Whitaker (23) De sacra Scrip. p 603. himself doth directly answer his owne obiection saying The Authours of manie Bookes are not knowne as of Iosue Ruth Paralipomenon Hester c. And we receiue sayth D. Willet 24) Syn p. 4 manie Bookss in the old Testament the Authours wherof are not perfectly knowne Yea Caluin Beza and the publishers of certaine of our English Bibles in the Preface or Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrewes do al of them professe to rest doubtful of the Authour therof Caluin Beza there affirming that it is not written by S. Paul So that though the foresayd Bookes be not written in the Hebrew nor haue their Authours or Penners knowne yet by like example of other approued Scriptures it maketh nothing against their Sacred and Diuine Authoritie (25) of Anno 1584. 1578 See Calu. in c 2. Heb ver 2. Secondly it is obiected that the sayd Bookes were reiected or doubted of by sundrie of the ancient Fathers as namely by Origen (26) In Ps 1 apud Euseb Hist l. 6. c. 19. Epiph. de Pondere Mens Haer. 8. Epicureorū Hier Pref. in l Regum Epiphanius and Hierom who agreed therein with the ancient Iewes But first these Fathers in the places cited do not speak of their owne opinion but do only report what was the opinion of certaine of the Iewes therin for Origen was so far from according herein with the Hebrewes that he expresly defended (27) Ep. ad Iulium hom 1. in Leuit. against Iulius Africanus who doubted therof the Historie of Susanna which Iewes and Protestants reiect Yea he auerreth )28) Ep. ad Iulium that part of Esther to be Canonical which Protestants refuse as not being in the Hebrewes Canon In like sort S. Epiphanius 29) Haer. 76 numbreth Sapientia and Ecclesiasticus among the Diuine Scriptures and referreth (30) Lib. de Pond Mensura post init Sapientia vnto Salomon As concerning S. Hierom wheras he vnto an vnwarie (31) Praef. in Daniel Reader may seem to seclude certaine Chapters of Daniel as not being in the Hebrewes Canon insomuch that Ruffinus mistaking herein S. Hierom's meaning doth therfore as Protestants (32) Whit. cont Camp p. 18. stil doe reproue and charge him with refusal of these foresayd parts of Daniel S. Hierome (33) Apol 2. cont Ruffin fin answereth and explaineth himself saying Truly I did not set downe what myself thought but what the Hebrewes are accustomed to say against vs herein calling there further Ruffinus and in him our Protestants a foolish Sycophant for mistaking and charging him herein with the Hebrewes opinion Yea S. Hierom's thus explaining himself is a matter certaine that it is accordingly confessed by D. Couel (34) Answ to Burges p. 87. Banc. in the Conf. before his Maiestie p. 60. D. Bancroft And it is further euident that S. Hierom placed the Bookes of Machabees bees (35) Prolog in Machab. among the Stories of diuine Scripture (33) Apol 2. cont Ruffin fin And of the Booke of Iudith he sayth (36) Pref. in Iudith with the Hebrewes the book of Iudith is read among the Hagiographal writings whose authoritie to strengthen those things which fal in Contention to wit with the Iewes may be thought lesse fit c. But because we read that the Nycene Councel accompted this in the number of holie Scriptures (34) Answ to Burges p. 87. Banc. in the Conf. before his Maiestie p 60. I haue yeelded c. So cleer it is that the Fathers obiected did only relate in the foresayd places the opinion of the Hebrewes from which themselues did yet disclayme Secondly supposing it for true that the foresayd Fathers haue doubted or reiected the foresayd Bookes yet neither hence wil it follow that they are not truly Canonical it being certaine that in the Primitiue Church the Canonical Scriptures were not generally receaued al at once but in great varietie of pretended 37) 2. Thes 2.2 Euseb hist l. 3. c. 19 l. 6. c. 10. Aug. cont Aduers Leg Proph l. 1. c. 20. Gelas in Decret cū 70. Episc Sozom hist l. 7. c. 19. Hamelman de Tradit Apostol 1. part l 1. col 251 part 3 col 841. Scriptures special care and search was requisite whereby it came to passe that sundrie Bookes were for the time misdoubted or by some Fathers or Councels (38) Conc. Laodic can vlt. omitted or not receiued which yet afterwards were vpon greater search and consideration generally acknowledged A poynt so euident that D. Bilson testifyeth in our behalf that (39 Suruey of Christs suffrings p. 664. The Scriptures were not fully receiued in al places no not in Eusebius time He sayth the Epistles of Iames Iude the 2. of Peter the 2. and 3. of Iohn are contradicted as not written by the Apostles the Epistle to the Hebrewes was for a while contradicted c. The Churches of Syria did not receaue the 2. Epistle of Peter nor the 2. and 3. of Iohn nor the Epistle of Iude nor the Apocalyps c. The like might be sayd for the Churches of Arabia wil you hence conclude saith D. Bilson that those partes of Scripture were not Apostolick or that we need not to receaue them now because they were formerly doubted of So fully doth this Protestant Doctour answear his owne Brethrens like vsual obiection had against the Machabees and the other Bookes
seemeth to shew in the 9. Chapter howsoeuer whether his wife dyed or he left her for the Ghospel of his owne accord it is certaine that then he liued as a widower who before was marryed Peter Martyr (47) De Coelâ—bata votis p 54. acknowledgeth that S. Ambrose and Epiphanius deriue professed chastitie from the Institution of S. Paul And D. Fulk (48) Against Rhem Test in 1. Tim. 5. fol 381. Danaeus coÌ„t Bellarm. 1. partis aleâ—ra parte p. 1811 Maior in ep 1. ad Tim. in c. 5 fol. 249. Danaeus and Georgius Maior doe al of them grant that by the first faith mentioned 1. Tim. 5 11.12 most of the ancient Fathers do expound the vow or promise of Continencie Hamelmannus (49) De Traditionious Ap st o. 460 and see col 254. Aud Bugchagius in Ionam c. 3. auoucheth that after the death of Iohn the Apostle who by the Fathers is much commended and esteemed for his Virginitie presently began reuolting from the Faith c. forbidding of Mariages and meates vowes single life c. D. Fulk speaking of our B. Ladies vowing Chastitie opposeth himself to S. Austin S. Gregorie Nyssen therein saying (50) Ag. Rhem. Test in Luc. 1. sec 13 Though S. Austin gather she vowed Virginitie yet it followeth not c. And although Gregorie Nyssen be of Austins opinion c. But D. Fulks Non sequitur wil neuer counterpoyse the contrarie Collection of so worthie Fathers But to speake of the ancientest Ages and Fathers in general Peter Martyr (53) De Caelib votis p. 477. thinketh that forthwith after the Apostles times too much was attributed to single life And Caluin (54) Instit l. 4. c. 13. sec 17. speaking hereof sayth This say they was obserued from furthest memorie that those who would dedicate themselues wholy to the Lord should bind themselues to the vow of contineÌ„cie I confesse this custome was anciently receaued but I do not grant that Age to be free from al vice In like sort answereth M. Wotton (55) In his Def. of M. Perkins p 491. saying But the Fathers are not for vs what then Is nothing true that cannot be confirmed by their testimonies c. Indeed it is one of the blemishes of the ancieÌ„t Writers that they were too highly conceited of single life c. Therefore it is not to be looked for that Antiquitie should afford vs Protestants anie testimonie herein against the practise and iudgement of those dayes And wheras Bellarmin to this purpose produceth manie Sayings of the ancient Fathers Danaeus (56) In 1. partis a t. parte p. 1034 his best answer thereto is that those Fathers thought so being blinded with the cloud and enchantment of that errour of the lawful Vow of perpetual continencie So likewise M. Iewel (57) In his Def of the Apol p 164. speaking concerning the Fathers opinion against Mariage of Priests sayth Here I grant Mr Harding is like to find some good aduantage as hauing vndoubtedly a great number of holie Fathers on his side Adde lastly that the Fathers herein were so firme and constant as that D. Fulk (58) In his Answer to a Counterf Cath p. 45. acknowledgeth that Iouinian was condemned by them for that among other things He taught that such as could not contayne though they had vowed virginitie should neuerthelesse be maryed So euident confessed it is that the vowes of Chastitie and the single life of the Clergie was allowed and practised in the purest times of the Primitiue Church Now wheras it is Law decreed and obserued by the Roman Church that Bigamus or he that hath been twice maryed is not to be admitted to holie Orders without special dispensation therin M. Bale (59) In Act. Rom p. 44. 45 46. 47. acknowledgeth that S Gregorie the Great prohibited that he that was Bigamus should be made Priest And D Fulk (60) In his Retentiue against Bristow c. p. 164. granteth that He who had had two wiues could not be a Priest in Hieroms time And the Centurists (61) Cent. 4. col 847 And see col 303. 877. 1293. And see Cent 3. col 85 86. Carthwright in his 2. Reply part 1. p. 509. speaking of that Fourth Age affirme that it was decreed that ordination to Priesthood should not be bestowed of those who were Bigami But Beza (62) De Polig p. 211. reprehendeth herein ancient Origen saying Origen were ancient then al Councels excepting that of the Apostles writeth in Luc. hom â—7 that not only fornication but also Mariage doth hinder from Ecclesiastical dignities to wit second Mariage c. But here I affirme that Origen is to be altogether reiected as contradicting the doctrine of the Apostles Yea he further (63) In nou Test in 1. Tim 5.9 p. 333. sayth of Bigamie In the case of widowes If any shal oppose to me the authoritie of certain Fathers I appeal to the Word of God For which his appeale he is reproued by (64) In his Suruey p. 220. D. Bancroft And the Centurists (65) Cent 3. col 85. 86. doe alledge both Tertullian and Origen against Bigamie in the Clergie The Particulars then concerning Vowes thus confessedly taught by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church are First that Vowes of things not coÌ„manded but indifferent as of perpetual Chastitie are lawful commendable Secondly that though for some time as then it was permitted that such as were maryed before their taking of holie Orders should continue and liue with their wiues in the state of wedlocke yet was the same afterwards euen during the precinct of those purest times prohibited and disallowed But neuer in anie time or by anie Father was it allowed to the Clergie to contract Mariage after Orders taken a thing now so ordinarie with our Protestant Ministers Thirdly it was neuer suffred that those who were Bigami or twice maryed should afterwards be admitted to holie Orders without particular dispensation therin Now the Fathers produced reproued by Protestants for these forsayd Catholick Articles are S. Gregorie Austin Ambrose Hierom Leo Innocentius Chrysostom Epiphanius Siricius Socrates Sozomene Eusebius Basil Cyprian Nyssen Origen Tertulian Clement Ignatius S. Paule the Apostle with the B. Virgin Marie S. Pauls widowes As likewise the Councels of Neece of Arles of Neocesaraea of Eliberis of Toledo of Carthage and seueral others The Protestants accusing the forsayd Fathers are Luther the Centurists Carion Chemnitius Molitor Danaus Osiander Gaunius Crispinus Hospinian Beza Schulterus Peter Martyr Maior Hamelmannus Caluin Symondes Bale Humfrey Carthwright Fulk Bancroft Wotton Parkins Morton Field Whitaker and Iewel It is confessed by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church allowed and practised the Religious State of Monastical life And that manie Christians of those purest times both men and women did strictly obserue professe the same CHAPTER XVIII BVT now to come to that which to our Protestants
good But yet further they doubt not to affirme the argument or consequence vrged from the (22) Puricans Answ to D. Downham's ser p. 92. receiued opinion in the Church of God euen from the Apostles time vnto our Age to be lyable to iust exception So that though the Fathers of al Ages vp to the Apostles themselues do al of them ioyntly agree with our Roman faith in their Expositions and deliuerie of the sense of Scripture yet may one illuminated Protestant except contemne and reiect them al as not hauing the Spirit nor interpreting according to the Analogie of the Protestant faith But O most miserable and lamentable times O insolencie most impious and incredible What the receiued opinion in the Church of God euen from the Apostles time vnto our Age to be lyable to iust exception The Fathers of al Ages during 1600. yeares of al Countries though most distant in place and different in language and other conditions of nature and gouerment al of them to conspire in one opinion of truth doctrine and yet al of them so fowly and so grosly to erre as that a new-found Protestant is able to discouer it This this may a Protestant often declaime but no man of iudgement can possibly beleeue him Yea our Protestants are so far out of loue and liking with the Fathers as they painfully labour to make the world to think that their Cōmentaries books and beleef were directly contrarie to the Sacred Scriptures and therefore to these they wil euer appeale from the writings of men Captaine Luther 23) L. contra Henricum 8. Regem Angliae saith Against the sayings of Fathers Men Angels and Diuels I place not ancient consent nor the multitude of men but the Ghospel being the Word of One Eternal Maiestie which themselues are enforced to allow Here I stand here I sit here I abide here I glorie here I triumph here I insult ouer Papists Thomists Henricians and al the Gates of Hel much more ouer the sayings of men though neuer so holy and deceauable custome The word of God is aboue al Diuine Maiestie maketh with me so that I care not if a thousand Augustins a thousand Tertullians a thousand Henries or Papistical Churches should stand against me God can not erre and deceiue Austin and Cyprian as also al the Elect may and haue erred My Doctrines shal stand the Pope shal fal Here we haue a man of liuelie Faith but yet heare him further 24) In Comment in ep ad Gal. No other doctrine is to be deliuered or heard in the Church then the pure word of God that is the Sacred Scripture Let other Doctours and Auditours be accursed with their learning but here wanteth Charitie Neither is Luther in this alone for Zuinglius likewise declaymeth 25( In Explanat Artic. 64. Presently thou beginnest to cry Fathers Fathers the Fathers haue so deliuered But I do not ask of thee Fathers or Mothers but I require the word of God In like sort Peter Martyr 26) De Votis p. 462. As concerning the Fathers iudgement because our Aduersaries the Papists are accustomed in this and other Controuersies alwayes to prouoke to them I therfore declare that to me it seemeth not the part of a Christian to prouoke to the iudgements of men from the Scriptures of God Yea saith he 27) Ibid. p. 476. As long as we rest in Councels or Fathers we shal alwayes be conuersant in the same errours And the like is taught by Summerus saying 28) Contr. Carolum l. 1. c. 1. Antiquitie by which they affirme we are condemned is of no force for if they speak of a right beleeuing Antiquitie by which we vnderstand Christ and his Apostles the matter itself cryeth that it is for vs but if they wil vnderstand the same of the authoritie of the Fathers we do not take it il that the word of God is condemned by them Agreably heerunto writeth D. Whitaker 29) Contra Sander p. 92. If you argue from the testimonies of men be they neuer so learned and ancient we yeeld no more to their words in cause of Religion then we perceiue to be agreable to Scripture Neither think your self to haue proued any thing though you bring against vs the whole swarme of Fathers except that which they say be iustifyed not by the voice of men but by God himself And againe 30) Answ to Camp Reas 2. p. 70. And see the like in Abbots in his Answ to His. Reas 10 p. 371. We are not the Seruants of the Fathers but the Sonnes when they prescribe vs anie thing out of the Law and Diuine authoritie we obey them as our parents if they enioyne anie thing against the voice of the heauenlie truth we haue learned not to hearken to them but to God You Papists as vassals and base seruants receiue whatsoeuer the Fathers say without iudgement or reason being affrayd as I think either of the whip or the halter if euerie thing they speake be not Ghospel with you Againe 31) Against Sanders de Antichristo p. 21. We repose no such confidence in the Fathers writings that we take any certain proof of our Protestant Religion from them because we place al our Faith and Religion not in humane but in Diuine authoritie If therefore thou bring vs what some one Father hath thought or what the Fathers vniuersally altogeather haue deliuered the same except it be approued by testimonies of Scriptures it auaileth nothing it gaineth nothing it conuinceth nothing for the Fathers are such witnesses as they also haue need of the Scriptures to be their witnesses If deceiued by errour they giue forth their testimonie disagreeging from Scriptures albeit they may be pardoned erring for want of wisdome we can not be pardoned being green-witted Protestants if because they erred we also wil erre with them Thus doth this Protestant Doctour defend his reiecting the ancient Fathers as writing contrarie to the Scriptures and vpbrayd vs Catholicks for our due estimation of the same and so do Protestants stil labour in derogation of the Fathers to oppose the Sacred Scriptures and holie Fathers as contrarie one to another But al in vaine for who euer more duly reuerenced or more carefully preserued those heauenlie writings then the ancient Bishops and Doctours of the Primitiue Church Who more truly translated them to their greatest paines for the good of al succeeding Ages then those learnedst Fathers Who in searching the deepest difficulties so frequent in them did more submit and captiuate their iudgements then these holy Fathers Who euer more pressed Hereticks with the weight of God's word then those zealous Fathers Who euer writ more large or more learned Commentaries and explanations therof then the aged Fathers And is it then possible that the sayd Fathers should so directly contradict the Sacred Scriptures as our Protestants pretend But this so desperate so vnworthie dealing against the Fathers doth cleerly conuince that
is so copiously preached by vs that truly in the Apostles time it was not so cleare And seing 48) Tom 2. lib. Cont. Reg. Angliae f. 344. God's word is aboue al the Diuine Maiestie maketh for me So that I passe not if 100. Austins 1000. Cyprians 1000. King Harrie 's Churches stood against me Wherefore 49) Lib. de Seruo Arb. And see Cnoglerus his Symbolatria p. 152. Cast you off what armour the ancient Orthodoxal Fathers shal afford or the schooles of Diuines the authoritie of Councels Bishops the consent of so manie Ages of al Christian People we receiue nothing but Scriptures but yet so that the infallible authoritie of interpreting is only in vs what we expound that the Holy-Ghost thinketh what others though great though manie bring it commeth from the spirit of Sathan and a mind distracted Yea the Pope 50) L. aduersus Papatum Romae à Satana fundatum f. 1. knoweth saith Luther that by the singular guift and bountie of God I am more learned in the Scriptures then himself and al his Asses But if Luther himself doth so fully mouthe his owne prayses and deserts we may presume his disciples and followers are not sparing in the like And so indeed writeth Alberus 51) Contra Carolostadianos l. 7. I doubt not but that if Austin were now liuing he would not be ashamed to professe himself Martin Luther's Scholler But Musculus lasheth far further for 52) Praef. in Libellum Ger. de Diaboli Tyramide since the Apostles times saith he there liued not in the world a greater then Luther And it may be sayd that God powred al his guifts vpon this only man and that there is as great difference betwixt the ancient Doctours and Luther as betwixt the light of the Sunne and of the Moone Neither is it to be doubted but that the ancient Fathers euen those that are chief and best among them as Hilarie and Austin if they had liued and taught in the same time with Luther would without blushing haue carried the lanterne before him as his Schollers or Ministers And another professeth that 53) In Hos in Hist Sacra part alt f. 346. He preferreth one leaf in Luther before the writings of al Fathers So that if we beleeue either Luther or his Schollers not only Austin and Hilarie and Ambrose but euen al the Fathers since the Apostles times must giue place to Luther in regard of his profoundest knowledge and learning But not only Luther himself thus far excelleth the ancient Fathers but in his opinion the onlie 54) In Col. mensa c. de Patribus Eccl. Apologie of Philip Melancthon doth far excel al the Doctours of the Church and exceed euen Austin himself Beza in like sort affirmeth 55) Praef. in nouum Testament dicat Principi Condiensi Caluin to haue far exceeded al the ancient and later writers in interpreting of the Scriptures wth varietie of words and allegation of reasons Yea saith he 56) Epist Theol. ep 1 p. 5. I haue been accustomed to say and not without cause as I take it that whilst I compare those verie times next the Apostles with our times they had then more conscience lesse knowledge And on the other side we haue now more knowledge and lesse conscience This is my opinion c. Agreably herevnto saith D. Whiteguift in his 57) Defence c. p. 472. Brief Comparison between the Protestants Bishops of our time and the Bishops of Primitiue Church The doctrine taught and professed by our Bishops at this day is much more perfect and sound then it commonly was in anie Age after the Apostles times 58) Ibid. p. 473. Surely you are not able to reckon in anie Age since the Apostles time anie company of Bishops that taught and held so perfect and sound doctrine in al poynts as â—he Bishops of England do at this time Yea in the truth of doctrine our Bishops be not only comparable with the old Bishops but in many degrees to be preferred before them In like sort saith Zanchius 59) De Sacra Scriptura p. 411. Christ hath now giuen to vs more excellent Interpreters then euer heretofore stnce the Apostles Yea saith M. Iacob 60) Defence of Treatise of Christ's sufferings p. 146. And see the Answ to Downham's sermon p. 20. this is the profit that comes by ordinarie flanting with the Fathers c. if in this case we were to looke after anie man surely we haue more cause to regard our late faithful teachers rather then those of old who being equal with the best of them in anie of the excellent graces of God's Spirit c. By which we may see the smal account made by Protestants of ancient Doctours not blushing thus to equal yea much to preferre their owne latest Writers before al the Fathers since the Apostles times But what should I vrge thus much their dislike disclaiming and disgracing of ancient Fathers when they spare not to reiect and contemne the authoritie of al Councels though neuer so general neuer so ancient And first doth not Luther affirme in general 61) In Asser Articulorum per Leonem X. damnat Art 29. That the way is made to vs Protestants of weakning the authoritie of Councels and of freely contradicting their decrees and of iudging their Acts and of confessing confidently whatsoeuer seemeth true to Protestants whether it be approued or reproued by anie Councel Doth not Beza affirme that 62) Praef. in nouum Testam ad Princ. C ndiens euen in the best times the ambition ignorance and lewdnes of Bishops was such that the verie blind may easily perceaue how that Sathan was president in their assemblies or Councels Doth not D. Humfrey disclaime from the Councels celebrated in the first 600. years saying 63) De vita Iuelli p. 212. What concerneth it vs what the false Synods of Bishops as then shal ordayne And doth not M. Carthwright reiect as erroneous euen the first Nycene Councel saying 64) 2. Reply part 1. p. 509. We haue good cause to hould for suspect whatsoeuer either in gouernment or doctrine those times left vnto vs not confirmed by substantial proofs out of the Word c. This appeareth in the first Councel of Nyce where the most errours decreed vpon c. besides the vngodlie custome which may appeare to haue occupyed almost al the Churches touching the forbidding of the second Marriage of Ministers before that Councel And againe 65) Ibid. p. 484. In the same Councel appeareth that to those chosen to the Ministerie vnmarried it was not lawful to take anie wife afterwards c. Paphnutius sheweth that not only this was before that Councel but was an ancient Tradition in the Church in which both himself and the whole Councel rested c. If the ancient Tradition of the Church saith Cartwright cannot authorize this neither can ancient custome authorize the other to wit of Metropolitans Luther
Confess Mansfelden Ministror tit de Antinomis f. 89. 90. that the Law of God is not worthie to be called the Word of God If thou beest a where a whore-mungar if an adulterer or otherwise a sinner beleeue and thou walkest in the way of saluation When thou art drowned in sinne euen to the bottom if thou beleeuest thou art in the midst of happines Al that busie themselues about Moyses that is the Ten Commandments belong to the Diuel to the gallowes with Moyses In like sort Illiricus the chief of the Centurie-writers and whom M. Bel termeth 16) Regim of the Chur. p. 28. a very famous Writer and most worthie defender of the Christian truth this so famous defender of Protestancie is accused of these Antinomian errours by his owne Brethren saying 17) Act. Colloq Aldeburg p. 94. After the death of Luther when Flaccus Illiricus and manie other factious Companions of his had begun againe those Antinomian filthinesses c. And with no litle applause of the multitude c. had dispersed them abroad c. Yea D. Hutter publick Professour at Wittenberg addeth yet further saying 18) Concord explicat Art 5. c. 1. p. 478. And see Art 6. p. 535. 536. c. But neither did that errour rest in a narrow compasse but presently getting strength crept abroad c. In so much that Melancthon in the last Edition of his CoÌ„mon Places hath plainly renewed the same errour c. And An. 59. the later Antinomians who named themselues the Schole-men of Wittemberg publikly and before the whole Church vndertook the Defence of that errour Yea that Antinomian furie encreased so much that also An. 70. in this our Wittemberg some Diuines for the obtaining of the highest degree in Diuinitie c. propounded publickly that errour and endeauoured to defend it as it appeareth by the 38 and 39. Theses of that Disputation Some Protestants also teach that 19) Act. Mon. p. 1335. And see the Parable of the wicked Mammon wherof Tindal is sayd to be Authour p. 573. 486. the Commandments were giuen vs not to do them but to know our damnation and to cal for mercie to God And D. Whitaker sayth accordingly 20) Cont. Camp par 8. p. 153. Christ proposeth to vs another more easie condition Beleeue and thou shalt be saued By this new league the old one is taken away that whosoeuer beleeueth the Ghospel is freed from the condition of the Law For those who beleeue are not vnder the Law but vnder Grace what need I say more Christians are freed from the curse of the Law not from the obedience But if Christians be deliuered from the condition curse of the Law how can they be bound to the obedience of it Or what can the breach therof be preiudicial vnto them So that if Catholicks do at anie time vrge against Protestants the authoritie of Moyses or of his Law or the Ten Commandments sundrie of the chiefest Protestants haue alreadie answered I wil not heare Moyses he is Christ's enemie he is the maister of hangmen Away with Moyses therefore to the gallowes His Law is a fable leading to Acheron or the pit of Hel. The Ten Commondments do not pertaine to Christians they are the fountain of al Heresies and are not to be taught in Churches The Law of God is not worthie to be called the Word of God Yea if thou be an adulterer or drowned in the depth of sinne do but beleeue and thou art in the midst of felicitie And so al Arguments drawne from Moyses or his writings are of no force or esteeme in the iudgement of Protestants But to proceed to other Scriptures Luther further affirmeth that 21) In Ser. Conuin tit de Patriar Prophet he doth not beleeue al things to be so done as they are related in the booke of Iob. And againe 22) Tit. de libr. Vet. Nou. Testa the booke of Iob is as it were the argument of a fable to propose the example of Patience And when Luther had read ouer the booke of Ecclesiastes his graue censure was 23) Pet. Robenstock lib. 2. Colloq Lat. Luâ—her c. de Vet. Test This Booke is not perfect manie things are taken away it wanteth bootes and spurres that is it hath no perfect sentence It rideth vpon a long reed as I when I was a Monk was wont to do in the Monasterie And as for the Canticles which our English Protestants terme the Ballet of Ballets of Salomon 24) Bible of An. 1595. Luther was of opinion that they imported no further but only a familiar 25) In Exordio fuarum Annot. in Cant. conference between Salomon and the Common-wealth of the Iewes inuiting Salomon to raigne ouer her But Castalio proceedeth further iudging this Book to be only 26) In his Laâ— Transl of the Bib. Praef. in Cant. the first Edit And see Beza in Praef. ante Comment Calu. in Iosue a loue-communication betweene Salomon and his Mistris Sulamitha for which he citeth those words Returne Sulamitha returne and let vs looke vpon thee adding also in the Margent Sulamitha the Mistris and spouse of Salomon And Beza testifyeth of Castalio that 27) In Vita Caluini And see Vvhitak poorest euasion hereof cont Dur. l. 1. p. 121. he commanded the Canticles of Salomon to be thrust out of the Canon as an impure and obscene Song reuiling with bitter reproches such Ministers as resisted him therin Yea this so impious reiecting this parcel of Canonical Scripture was so grosse in Castalio a Caluinist that now since in the later Editions of his Bible at Basil the Protestant publishers therof haue for verie shame altered it But now to passe from the Old Testament to the New and to omit that Caluin 28) Instit l. 2. c. 16. §. 18. resteth doubtful whether the Creed commonly called the Apostles Creed was made and published by the Apostles or no and consequently whether it be of infallible authoritie and beleef He further chargeth S. Mathew's Ghospel with errour saying 29) In Matth. 27. vers 9. Surely the name of Hieremie to be erroneously put for Zacharie the thing itself sheweth because no such thing is read in Hieremie but that other place vnlesse it be dexterously applyed may seeme to be drawne into a contrarie sense c. And wheras Math. 20.16 Christ sayth Manie are called but few are chosen Caluin reiecteth it saying 30) Harm in Math. 20.16 Minimè quadrat quae à quibusdam inseritur sententia Multi vocati pauci electi That sentence Manie are called few are chosen which by some is inserted doth not agree Which words doth not agree he expoundeth in French is nothing to the purpose M. Iewel likewise affirmeth 31) Def. of the Apol. p. 361. that S. Mark alleadgeth Abiathar for Abimelech and S. Mathew Hieremias for Zacharius 32) Bible of An. 1592. Our English Church Math. 6. receaues as Canonical scripture these
words for thine is the kingdome the power and the glorie which they adde at the end of our Lord's Prayer And yet Bullenger heerin reproueth them saying 33) Decad. 5. serm 5. Their rashnes was to be reproued who durst presume to peece on their owne to the Lord's Prayer Clebitius a Caluinist impugneth S. Luke's report in the Historie of our Sauiour's Passion saying 34) Victoria Veritatis Ruina Papatus Saxon. arg 5. Mark and Mathew deliuer the contrarie therefore to Mathew and Mark being two witnesses more credit is to be giuen then to one Luke who was not present at the last super as Mathew was Beza 35) Beza in his Trans And the Engl. Bib. of An. 1595. and our English Protestants seeme to confesse that S. Luke c. 3.36 in his Ghospel erred in making Arphaxad the father of Cainan and Cainan of Sale wheras in the Book of Genesis Arphaxad is sayd to haue been the Father of Sale for if S. Luke did not erre why do they notwithstanding that al Copies both Latin and Greek in this agree thrust out of the Text these words who was of Cainan and so make S. Luke to say that Arphaxad was the father of Sale And wheras Christ sayd Luke 6.40 The disciple is not aboue his maister Caluin affirmeth 36) Harm in Luc. 6.40 that Luke in the 6. Chapter relateth this sentence without connexion vttered amongst other speaches as it were of the sudden Concerning some part of S. Iohn's Ghospel Beza sayth 37) Ad c. 8. Ioan. As concerning myself I do not dissemble that to me it seemeth iustly to be suspected that which the Ancients with such consent haue either reiected or been ignorant of Besides in that he telleth Iesus to haue been left alone in the Temple with the woman I know not how probable it is And that he writeth Iesus to haue written with his fingar vpon the earth it seemeth to me a new and vnusual thing neither can I imagin how it may be fitly declared Beza further 38) See the New Test Trans by Beza of An. 1556. and 1565. And in English of An. 1580. in one Edition of his New Testament in the end of the eigth Chapter of S. Iohn's Ghospel putteth in these words Iesus passing through the midst of them c. which in another Edition with great vehemencie he reiecteth Wherefore although Beza in his Edition of the yeare 1556. leaue the sayd words out yet in Beza's Englished Testament of An. 1580. they are admitted such freedome by the Spirit hath this Caluinist in admitting and expunging of Scripture But Luther is so slenderly affected to the three Ghospels of S. Mathew S. Mark and S. Luke because they write much of the good works done by Christ our Sauiour as that he spareth not to write 39) In 2. Praef. Nou. Test primae Editionis Because Ihon writeth verie few works of Christ but manie things of his preaching of the contrarie the other three Euangelists set downe manie things of his works but few of his words the Ghospel of Ihon is the only delicate true and chiefest Ghospel and far to be preferred before the other three and more loudly to be preached So neer were those three Ghospels to be banished by Luther for recording good works though done by Christ himself But not to rest only in the Ghospel Luther in plaine tearmes accuseth S. Stephen of errour 40) In cap. 46. Genes in following the 70. Interpreters who as he saith erred concerning the number of those that went downe into Aegypt To come now to S. Paul and his Epistles Zuinglius saith 41) Tom. 2. Elench f. 10. This is your ignorance that you think the Commentaries of the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles to haue been then in Authoritie when Paul did write those things as though Paul then did attribute so much to his Epistles that whatsoeuer was contained in them was sacred c. Which thing saith Zuinglius were to impute immoderate arrogancie to the Apostle In like sort saith D. Fotherbie 42) In his 4 sermons ser 2. p. 50. The Apostle twice in one Chapter professed that this he speaketh and not the Lord he is very wel content that where he lackes the warrant of the expresse Word of God that part of his writings should be esteemed but as the word of man So supposing some parcels of S. Paul's Epistles not to be sacred and diuine The Centurists likewise feare not to say 43) Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. col 580. Paul doth turne to Iames the Apostle and a Synode of al the Presbyters being called togeather he is perswaded by Iames and the rest that for the offended Iewes he should purify himself in the temple whervnto Paul yeeldeth which certainly was no smal sliding in so great a Doctour 44) In Act. 21. Mr. Gualter also reproueth S. Paul for shauing his head Luther telleth vs that 45) In Isay c. 64. S. Paul 1. Cor. 2.9 doth finely writh or wrest a certaine sentence of the Prophet Isay But Peter Martyr auoucheth that 46) In 1. Cor. 2. f. 46. he mistooke the Hebrew word And as for S. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrewes Luther thought that 47) In 1. Nou. Test Ger. Editione This Epistle was not written by Paul or anie of the Apostles but composed by a certain learned man out of manie Fathers And though it lay not the foundation of true faith yet it fitly buildeth vp gold siluer and pretious stones Therefore it ought not to trouble vs that wood hay straw are mingled therewith This was so certainly the iudgement of Luther herin that Oecolampadius obseruing the same saith 48) In Ep. ad Heb. in Praef. f. 4. Luther in his Preface saith thus This Epistle seemeth to me to be patched togeather of manie and not to handle the same thing in order He addeth also that it layeth not downe the foundation of faith c. The Magdeburgians also do follow their Maister Luther heerin writing 49) Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. It is easie to obserue that the Epistle to the Hebrewes doth not beare Paul's phrase c. It was not hard to iudge those things which in the 7. and 10. chapter are plainly to that end produced that such who are once conuerted to Christ if they fal againe cannot be recouered by serious repentance not to be the Doctrine of Paul nor of the other Apostles nor of Christ Through those and such like reasons prudent Antiquitie seemeth deseruedly to haue doubted of the Epistle to the Hebrewes 50) In Heb. c. 10 p. 963. Caluin likewise saith The Grecians haue deliuered that which the Apostle heer mentioneth which partly agreeth with the mind of the Prophet and partly impugneth the same So making the Prophet and Apostle to varie amongst themselues But indeed at some time of the Moone S. Paul is in so slender esteeme with Protestants that one of them confidently
auoucheth 51) In D. Bancrofts Suruey p. 373. that if Paul should come to Geneua and preach the same hower that Caluin did I would leaue saith he Paul and heare Caluin And 52) Ibid. p. 372. another in Basile did attribute no lesse to Farellus then to Paul Yea some of Luthers schollers 35 not the meanest among their Doctours sayd 53) Lauaterus Hist sacram p. 18. see Schlusselb Theol. Cal. l. 2. f. 146. they had rather doubt of S. Paul's doctrine theÌ„ of Luther or the Confession of Augusta And yet the doctrine of Luther is often so absurd so impure and scandalous as that some Protestants themselues as much ashamed therof haue reiected the same And the Confession of Augusta hath been often impugned by sundrie Caluinists But preaduenture S. Peter is in better credit then S. Paul And yet I find him rebuked by Protestants for his claime of Primacie 54) Catalog Testium veritatis to 1. p. 27. It cannot be denyed say they but that sometimes Peter laboured with Ambition and desire of greatnes c. Wherefore this so peruerse Ambition of Peter and ignorance and negligence of Diuine matters c. But Luther saith further 55) In Epist ad Gal. c. 1. Be it that the Church Austin and other Doctours also Peter Apollo yea and an Angel from Heauen teach otherwise yet is my doctrine such as setteth forth God's only glorie c. Peter the chief of the Apostles did liue and teach besides the Word of God And againe 56) Tom. 5. Vvittemb f. 290. Whether S. Cyprian Ambrose Austin or S. Peter S. Paul yea an Angel from Heauen teach otherwise yet I know this certainly that I do not perswade humane but Diuine things Caluin likewise affirmeth that Peter's pretended erring was 57) In omnes Pauli Epist in Gal. c. 2. p. 510. 511. 37 To the Schisme of the Church the endangering of Christian libertie and the ouerthrow of the Grace of God 38 D. Fulk chargeth S. Peter with errour of ignorance and against the truth of the Gospel And that this pretended erring of S. Peter 58) Against Rhem. Test in Gal. 2. f. 322. was euen after the descending of the Holie-Ghost vpon him D. Goad auoucheth saying 59) Tower Disp 2. Confer Arg. 6. Pâ—ter did erre in faith and that after the sending downe of the Holie-Ghost vpon him Brentius likewise affirmeth that 60) In Apol. Conf. c. de CoÌ„cilijs p. 900. S. Peter chief of the Apostles and also Barnabas after the Holie-Ghost receaued togeather with the Church of Hierusalem erred In like sort saith D. Whitaker 61) De Eccl. cont Bellar. Controu 2. q. 4. p. 223. But peraduenture they wil say Christ had not yet ascended and the Holie-Ghost was not yet giuen to the Apostles whereto he immediately thus replyeth what did they not erre afterwards Yea it is euident that after Christ's Ascension and the descension of the Holie-Ghost vpon the Apostles the whole Church not only the common sort of Christians but also euen the Apostles themselues erred concerning the calling of the Gentils c. Yea Peter also erred concerning the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law c. And this was a matter of faith and in this Peter erred He furthermore also erred in manners c. And these were great errours and yet we see these to haue been in the Apostles euen after the Holie-Ghost descending vpon them So that S. Peter is of as smal authoritie with Protestants as S. Paul before was To come now to S. Iames Andreas Friuius a Caluinist whom 62) Com. Plac. in Engl. part 4. p. 77. Peter Martyr tearmeth an excellent learned man affirmeth that 63) Ib. 2. de Eccl. c. 2. p. 411. Christ at his last supper ioyned wine with bread if therefore the Church separate these she is not to be heard The Church of Hierusalem did separate these S. Iames as some dare affirme gaue only one kind to the people of Hierusalem what then The Word of God is plaine and manifest Eate and drink This is to be heard of vs and preferred before al Iames words of the Church And 64) De Captiuit Bab. c. de Extr. vnct tom 2. wittemb f 86. further say saith Luther that if in anie place it be erred in this place especially concerning Extreame-Vnction it is erred c. But though this were the Epistle of Iames I would answer that it is not lawful for an Apostle by his authoritie to institute a Sacrament this appertaineth to Christ alone As though S. Iames would institute or publish a Sacrament without warrant from Christ And the Centurists before affirmed that S. Paul was drawne into errour by S. Iames and the rest of the Apostles Now as concerning S. Iames his Epistle Luther auoucheth that 65) Praef. in Epist Iacobi in Edit Ien. The Epistle of Iames is contentious swelling dry strawie and vnworthie an Apostolical spirit As also 66) Adc. 22. Gen. Abraham was iust by Faith before he was knowne to be so by God Therefore Iames concludeth il c. It doth not follow as Iames doateth c. Let our Aduersaries therfore be packing with their Iames whom they obiect so often vnto vs. Againe 67) In Coll. Mensal lat tom 2. de lib. nou Test Manie haue much laboured in the Epistle of Iames that they might accord it with Paul as Philip tryed in his Apologie but without successe for they are contrarie Faith iustifieth Faith iustifieth not Agreably heervnto also saith Musculus 68) Loc. com c de Iustific The Papists obiect the Epistle of Iames But he whosoeuer he was the Brother of Christ and a Pillar amongst the Apostles and a great Apostle aboue measure yet he alone cannot preiudice the truth of Faith And after the disagreement between S. Paul and S. Iames according to his imagination shewed at large he thus schooleth and correcteth S. Iames He alleadgeth the example of Abraham nothing to the purpose where he saith wilt thou know ô vaine man that Faith without works is dead c. He confoundeth the word Faith How much better had it been for him diligently and plainly to haue distinguished the true and properly Christian Faith which the Apostle euer preached from that which is common both to Iewes and Christians Turks and Diuels then to confound them both and set downe his sentence so different from the Apostolical doctrine whereby as concluding he saith you see that a man is iustified by works and not by Faith alone wheras the Apostle out of the same place disputeth thus c. where hauing made S. Paul to speak as he thinketh best he inferreth Thus saith the Apostle of whose Doctrine we doubt not Compare me now with this argument of the Apostle the Conclusion of this Iames A man therefore is iustifyed by works and not by Faith only and see how much it differeth wheras he should more rightly haue concluded thus c.
So peremptorie is Musculus the Sacramentarie against S. Iames the Apostle In like sort writeth Illiricus 69) In Pref. in Iac. Epi. Luther in his Preface vpon Iames's Epistle giueth great reasons why this Epistle ought in no case to be accounted for a writing of Apostolical authoritie 70) In Enchyr. p. 63 And see Exam. part 1. p. 55. vnto which reasons I think euerie godlie man ought to yeeld But to annexe heervnto the Epistles of S. Peter S. Ihon and S. Iude Chemnitius Luther's chief Scholler affirmeth that 76) Vpon the Apoc. Engl. c. 1. ser 1. f. 2. The second Epistle of Peter the second and third of Ihon the Epistle to the Hebrewes the Epistle of S. Iames the Epistle of Iude and the Apocalyps of Ihon are Apocryphal As 71) Exam. p. 1. p. 56. not hauing sufficient testimonie of their authoritie and that therefore 72) Ib. p. 57. Nothing in Controuersie may be proued out of these books Agreably wherunto saith also Adamus Francisci 73) Margarita Theol. p. 448. The Apocryphal Books of the new Testament are The Epistle to the Hebrewes The Epistle of Iames the second and third of Ihon the second of Peter the Epistle of Iude and the Apocalyps Concerning which last of the Apocalyps of S. Ihon Bullinger expresly auoucheth 74) In Apo. c. 19. serm 84. f. 260. 259. That S. Ihon was intangled with errour And Luther thinketh this Book 75) Pref. in Apo. prioris Edit Neither to be Apostolical nor Prophetical c. nor that it was made by the Holy Ghost c. Therin neither Christ is taught nor acknowledged saith he An errour so manifest in Luther that Bullinger testifyeth the same saying 76) Vpon the Apoc. Engl. c. 1. ser 1. f. 2. D. Martin Luther hath as it were sticked his Book by a sharp Prefac set before his first Edition of the new Testament in Dutch for which his iudgement good and learned men were offended with him 77) In Apol. Confess Wittemb c. de sacra Scriptura Being to speake saith Brentius of the authoritie of sacred Scripture we wil first run ouer the Apocryphal Books which are in the Vulgar Edition of the Bible and which the Papists obtrude vpon vs for truly Canonical Amongst which he then numbreth the Epistle to the Hebrewes of Iames of Iude the second of Peter and the Apocalyps c. and then adioyneth saying Some of these are tearmed dreames some fables Of so smal account with Protestants is this so Diuine and mystical Book of the Apocalyps written by S. Ihon the Euangelist Lastly Zuinglius being impugned for denying prayer for the dead and pressed with the authoritie of Fathers especially of S. Chrysostome and S. Augustin who deriue this custome from the Apostles answereth thus (78) Tom. 1. Epiâ—hâ—rae de Can. Mis f. 186. And see Tom 2. in Elench contra Anabap f. 10. If it be so as Augustin and Chrysostome report I think that the Apostles suffered certain to pray for the dead for no other cause then to condescend to their infirmitie So insimulating the Apostles wilfully to haue permitted others to erre according to the errours of Protestants in praying for the dead which they could not do without errour in themselues Adde only heervnto that seeing according to Brentius other Lutherans as also according to our English Protestants those Books of Scripture are only to be acknowledged Canonical (79) Brent in Confâ—ss Wittemb c. de sacra script Conuocat Lond. Anno 1562. 1604. ar 6. Whitack against Camp Reas 1. p. 28. of whose authoritie there was neuer anie doubt made in the Church then by the sayd Rule our English Protestants Church doth reiect as Apocryphal the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrewes the Epistle of S. Iames and S. Iude the second of S. Peter and the second and third of S. Ihon to eather with the Apocalyps sithence al these haue been doubted of formerly in the Church as is confessed by sundrie (80) Towers Disput with F. Campian in the 4. Dayes conference English Protestants amongst whom M. Rogers hauing sayd (81) Vpon the 6. Art Propos 4. p. 26. In the name of the holy Scripture we do vnderstand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament of whose authoritie was neuer doubt in the Church himself yet further confesseth that (82) Ib. p. 31. Some of the ancient Fathers and Doctours accepted not al the Books contayned within the volume of the New Testament for Canonical So giddie and inconstant are our Ministers in impugning the truth Now if some deny the plainest premisses notwithstanding D. Whitaker and (83) Wâ—itak Answ to Camp Reas 1. Rogers vpon the 6. Artic. p 30. M. Rogers that Luther and the Lutherans did reiect the foresayd Books of the new Testament besides their owne cleerest words particularly before cited out of their owne writings Whitaker himself saith (84) Vvhitack de sacra Sâ—ript Controu 1. q. 1. c. 6. If Luther or some that haue followed Luther haue taught or written otherwise let them answer for themselues this is nothing to vs who in this matter neither follow Luther nor defend him but are led by a better reason Rogers also alleadgeth (85) Vbi supra p. 32. two principal Lutherans Wygandus and Heshusius accusing them both of errour the one for refusing the first and second Epistles of S. Iohn with the Epistle of S. Iude the other for reiecting the Apocalyps And Caluin acknowledgeth that 86) In Argum Epist Iacobi In his time there were some Protestants that iudged the Epistle of S. Iames not Canonical Oecolampadius testifyeth the same touching the Apocalyps and affirmeth himself to (87) lib. 2. ad cap. 12. Daniel wonder that some with rash iudgement reiected S. Iohn in this Book as a dreamer a mad man and a writer vnprofitable to the Church So cleer it is against Whitakers and Rogers euen by the testimonies of themselues and their other Brethren that Luther and his brood reiected the foresayd Scriptures as not Canonical But now to recapitulate or briefly to reuiew this so strange proceeding of our new Ghospellers with the sacred Scriptures If Christians be to reiect Moses and his writings as the Books of Genesis Exodus Leuiticus c. yea the verie Ten Commandments which comprehend not only the Ceremonial but also the Moral Law as also the Book of Iob with Ecclesiastes and Canticles of Salomon and Tobie Iudith Hester Sapientia Ecclesiasticus Baruch some chapters of Daniel the first and second of Machabees how slender then is the remnant of the old Testament left behind And if al the foure Ghospels be censured as before for erroneous and the Epistles to the Hebrewes of Iames Peter Iohn Iude and the Apocalyps be al of them reiected as Apocryphal how diminutiue a volume wil our new Testament remaine Besides if not only al the foresayd Books be erroneous but the