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
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
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
to that solemnitie Certain Councels also cal the Masse a Sacrifice as the Councel of Antioch the Seauenth of Carthage the Sixth of Constantinople the Councel of Arles Hospinian (12) In Concord discord in Prolog fol. 5. writeth That it appeareth out of S. Gregorie himself that in the Age wherein he flourished which was about the yeare Six hundred after S. Augustin one hundred fiftie seauen the oblation of the Supper as a Sacrifice for the liuing and dead was deeply seated rooted in the minds of men And againe (13) Hist Sacr. part 1. l. 2. p 159. The Enemy of mankind brought into the Church of Christ by Gregorie the Roman Bishop this pernicious errour of Sacrifice for the dead as a certain thick cloud couering the whole Heauens In like sort Chytraeus (14) Apoc. in c. 9. p 199 chargeth S. Gregorie that he established manie foule errours especially the Idolatrous inuocation of Saincts Masses for the Dead which from that time as a Deluge haue ouerflowed the whole Church And agayne (15) De Baeptismo Euch. p. 453. And see Pelargus in Schola fidei fol. 8. And Praetor de Sacr p. 280. In the times of Gregorie the Great were ordayned priuat Masses Finally M. Fox reporteth that about the yeare Seauen hundred and eightie Pope Adrian ratifyed the order of S. Gregories Masse (16) Act. Mon p. 130. at what time sayth he this vsual Masse of the Papists began to be vniuersal vniforme generally receaued in al Churches But now to free most clearly S. Gregorie and his Age from al innouation or first beginning of this so material a poynt of Faith Ancient to him was Gregorie Turonensis who according to the confession (17) Cent. 6. col 336. of the Centurists mentioneth in his Fourth book c. 30. Chapter a certaine Priest of France named Cato (18) Loc. conc de Caena Domini p. 339. who the plague being great stayed there sayd Masses That you may vnderstand say the Centurists that the Celebration of Masses had then fulfilled al places Predecessour to S. Gregorie in the Popedome was Pelagius of whom Musculus reporteth that Pelagius placed in the Secret of the Canon of the Masse the Commemoration of the dead c. that the vertue efficacie of the Masse may be communicated to the dead And he is further charged with the opinion of Masse helping the dead by (19) Vpon the Reuel p 81. M. Symonides Before him was Symmachus Bishop of Rome of whom the Magdeburgians (20) Cent 6. c. 10. c. 664. say He had the Markes of Antichrist for he brought the Masse into forme or order which forme was so agreable to the Masse at this day that Hieronymus (21) In his Eusebius Captiuus c. in Act. 3. diei f. 142. Marius auoucheth that Symmachus brought the Masse into that order wherein we see it disposed at this day Before him gouerned S. Leo of whom M. Bale (22) In his Pageant of Popes f. 27. And see in Act. Rom Pont. p. 32. 33. writeth Leo the First allowed the Sacrifice of the Masse not without great blasphemie to God Before Leo was the Carthage Councel this Pelargus reproueth saying (23) Schola fidâ—i c. in tract de Concil p. 13. The Fift Councel of Carthage brought in prayer and Masse for the dead And Osiander (24) Cent. 4. p. 16. sayth of the Seauentie ninth Canon of the Fourth Carthage Councel wherat S. Austin was present This Canon if it be not forged shewed at that time prayers Sacrifices to be made for the dead Before these Councels was S. Ambrose whom the Centurists (25) Cent 4 e 4. c. 295. charge with not writing wel of Transubstantiation application for the dead And that He vseth speeches which none of the Fathers before him vsed as to say Masse to offer Sacrifice c. Before him liued Gregorie Nyssene of whom Crastouius (26) De opificio Missae l. 1 sec 164. p. 8 And see Whit. cont Du oeâ—m l. 4. p 320. writing against Bellarmin sayth Doth he not know that the opinion of Nyssen is of itself absurd c. for Nyssene sayth when therefore Christ gaue to his D sciples his bodie to eate c. then hiddenly vnspeakably inuisibly his Bodie was sacrificed c. Before him was Cyril of Hierusalem of whom Hospinian reporteth (27) Hist Sa r p. 167. saying As concerning Cyril of Hierusalem he sayth indeed according to the receaued custome of his time that the Sacrifice of the Aultar is the greatest help of Soules Before these times liued S. Cyprian whom the Centurists (28) Cent. 3â— c. 4. col 83. reproue saying Cyprian sayth the Priest exerciseth the office of Christ and Sacrifice is offred to God the Father Insomuch as they further (29) In the Index of the 3. Centurie vnder the letter 5. say Cyprian affirmeth Superstitiously that the Priest exerciseth the office of Christ in the supper of the Lord. Tertullian is charged by Osiander (30) Cent 3 l. 1. p 10. Fulk in his Confutation of Purgatory p 265. Cent. 3. c. 5. c. 138. the Centurie-writers and D. Fulk for that He approued Sacrifice for the dead Origen is reproued by Chemnitius (31) Exam. p. 3. p. 50. 58 for teaching that It is certaine that the dayly Sacrifice is hindred to them who serue the necessities of Wedlock wherupon it seemeth to me that he only is to offer the dayly Sacrifice who hath vowed himself to dayly perpetual chastitie Before these liued Ireneus him Caluin (32) Lib de vera Eccl. Reformat extant in Tract Theo. Caluin c. p. 389. reiecteth for that he expoundeth the place of Malachie c. 1. 10. 11. of the Sacrifice of the Masse And the Centurists (33) Cent. 2 c. 4 col 63. auouch that He seemeth to speake verie incommodiously of Sacrifice l. 4. c. 32. when he sayth Christ taught a new Sacrifice of the new Testament which the Church receauing from the Apostles offreth to God ouer the whole world In the same time liued Alexander the First of whom Szegedine 34) Graues aliquot quaestiones fol. 162. And fee Hierom Maerius in Eusebius Capt. in Act. 3. oieide Missae p. 143. writeth Alexander the First taught that which was receiued from the Heathens to be blotted out by this Sacrifice Yea Szegedine vndertaking to set downe the framers of the Masse beginneth with the Fathers from the Apostles times and the more ancient Councels of the Primitiue Church saying (35) In speculo Pontif. p. 68. The framers of the Papistical Masse were Clemens Anacletus Alexander c. And the (36) Ibid. p. 69. Councels of Bishops for the Papistical Masse were the Councels of Ephesus Antioch the Second of Carthage of Constantinople of Arles c. Before al these liued S. Ignatius of whom the Centurists (37) Cent. 2 c. 4. col 63.
think one litle word of Scripture hath more weight with me then a thousand Sayings of Fathers without Scriptures Therfore thou art not to expect that I seuerally wash away those errours of the Fathers So according to the custome of al Hereticks for their last refuge appealing to only Scripture and disclayming from the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers M. Iacob (6) In Bilsons ful RedeÌ„pt p. 188 And see Iacob in Def. of the Treat of Christs fuffringes p 199. 200. honestly acknowledgeth that Al the Fathers with one consent affirme that Christ deliuered the Soules of the Patriarcks and Prophets out of hel at his coming thither and so spoyled Satan of those that were in his present possession with whom agreeth herein D. Bilson (7) Vbi sup p. 189. And in his Suruey p. 656. And D. Barlow (8) Def. of the Articles of Prot. Relig p. 173. testifyeth that This passeth most rife among the Fathers who taking Inferi for Abrahams bosome expound it that Christ went thither ad liberandum liberandos to conuey the Fathers deceased before his Resurrection into the place where now they are A French Protestant (9) Catholick Tradit p. 112. 113. Writer not only affirmeth this to be the doctrine of Chrysostom a very true sayth he Catholick teacher but also of the now present Apostolick Churches of the East whereto sayth he In likelyhood the Christians of Affrick do consent And wheras S. Ignatius (10) Ep. ad Trallianos post med doth cleerly teach the same Doctrine the same is acknowledged in him (11) Def. of his Article c. fol. 22 Bislons Suruey p 657. 658. by D. Hil D. Bilson yea the Poloman (12) De Russorum c. Religione p. 122. 123. Protestant Lascicius doubteth not to affirme and deriue the Doctrine therof not only from S. Ignatius S. Iohns Scholler but also from S. Thadaeus one of the twelue Apostles (13) Math. 10 3. And withal answerably testifyeth herein the opinion and doctrine of the Hebrewes (14) Vbi sup p. 123. of the remote Christians both in Syria Aethiopia And the like acknowledgement of S. Thadaeus his opinion herein is made by (15) Palma Christiana p. 74. And see Eus Hist l 1. c vlt. Frigiuillaeus Gruuâ—us who speaking therof affirmeth that we haue the testimonie of Eusebius Pamphylus who in the Historie of Agbar King of the Edessens testifyeth Thadaeus the Apostle to haue preached before Agbar and others amongst other things the Descension of Christ to Hel c. And then further defending this Historie for Authentical he concludeth No man of mature iudgement wil impugne those things which Eusebius deliuereth of the preaching of Thadaeus at Edessa and the conuersion of Agbar to Christ Finally this testimonie of the holie Apostle Thadaeus is further defended by D. Bilson and sundrie times alledged and vrged by D Hil. The ancient Iewes did so certainly beleeue the Doctrine of Lymbus Patrum and the same is so cleerly taught (17) c. 24. 37. in the booke of Ecclesiasticus that D. Whitaker for his best answer finally betaketh himself to the reiecting (18) Conc. Dur. l. 8. p. 567. of the sayd booke for not Canonical But the falshood herof being formerly (19) See bef l. 2 c. 5. proued (16) Suruey of Christs suffrings p. 653. 654. 657. 660. 661. c. Hil Def. of this Art Christ DesceÌ„d c. and that from the Confession of other Protestants it sufficeth for this present that the sayd booke being but a true Historie doth yet fully manifest the Doctrine herin of the Ancient Iewes who liued before Christ In which regard also D. Beard (20) Retractâ—ue from Rom. Relig p. 78. affirmeth Catholicks to Iudaize in their doctrine of Lymbus Patrum and Purgatorie This Article then of our Creed that Christ after his death truly descended into Hel we see was the confessed Doctrine of S. Austin Leo Fulgentius Chrysostom Prudentius Hierom Ruffine Ambrose Hilarie Gaudentius Epiphanius Iustin Clemens Hippolytus Irenaeus Ignatius Thadaeus the Apostle and of al the Fathers and the ancient Iewes Now the Protestants producing and acknowledging the Fathers Doctrine herin to be Roman Catholick are Danaeus Lascicius Frigiuillaeus Gruuius Whitaker Bilson Hil Iacob Barlow Beard and others 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. XIII ALthough the glorious Angels and blessed Saincts do not require or need in regard of themselues anie human Apologie for their deserued honour they being seated in the highest and strongest turrets of the kingdome of Heauen wherin new Triumphs they dayly winne against their Enemies and being as (a) l. de Mortalitate S. Cyprian sayth now secure of their owne immortalitie are yet careful of our securetie Yet if we respect either the general Calumnies and contempts of our modern Hereticks against them or our bounden duties by reason of so manie celestial Graces through their charitable suffrages bestowed vpon vs it may iustly be thought expedient or rather necessarie in their due defence and for sa isfaction of the Aduersarie briefly to set downe the confessed Doctrine and beleef of the Primitiue Church honouring and inuocating the sayd Angels and Saincts as Intercessours agreably as the Roman Church stil doth directly contrarie to our Modern Protestants refusing and impugning the same First then touching S. Gregorie the Great the Protestant Chronicler Carion affirmeth that (1) Chron. l. 4. p. 567. 568. Gregorie ordaâ—ned the publick Rite of Inuocation of Saincts M. Symonds only auoucheth that (2) Vpon the Reuelations p. 83.84.85.86 Gregorie increased two pernicious things in the Church Inuocation of the Dead aâ—d Prayer for the dead And that he wrote to Leontia to make S. Peter Protectour of the Empire in earth and Intercessour in Heauen c. He Sent Austin into England to conuert the English they which were sent spread forth a Banner with a painted Crucifix and so came in Procession to the king singing Litanies in a strange tongue Now one chief part of the Litanie contayneth Inuocation of Saincts Luke Osiander (3) Cent. 6. p. 288. reciting manie Catholick poynts of Faith taught and beleeued by S. Gregorie numbreth amongst the rest that He approued cloaked and defended the Inuocation of Saincts and their worship (4) In the Index of the sixt Century at the word Gregory The Centurie writers numbring vp in like sort the pretended Popish Errours of S. Gregorie charge him with Inuocation of Saints Wâ—th whom agreeth (5) In Iesuitis part 2. r at 5. p. 5. 627. D. Humfrey reprehending S. Gregorie for publick Inuocation of Saints and their worship (6) Cent. 6. c. 131. col 17. And the Centurists further confesse that Gregorie the Great reciteth manie miracles c. which plainly confirme Superstition as confidence in Saints Inuocation of the dead c. Wee need not therefore
Ireneus and are repugnant to the Scriptures In like sort Osiander 22) Cent. 2. p. 5. 6. And see the Centurists Cent. 2. col 207. reproueth Iustin saying Iustine extolled too much the libertie of mans Wil in obseruing the Commandments of God And it is granted 23) Cent. 2. c. 4. col 59. And see Caluin Inst l. 2 c. 2 §. 4. that Clemens euerie where defendeth Freewil so that it may appeare say they that not only al the Doctours of that Age were in such darknes but also that the same after increased in the later Doctours D. Abbots 24) In defence of the Reformed Catholick part 1. p. 114. speaking of the booke of Hermes entituled Pastor and some others forged according to his opinion in the Apostles times sayth The poyson which Satan had conueyed into such counterfaite books was receiued as wholesome food and sundrie errours and superstitious fancies of vowed Virginitie and Prayer for the dead of Freewil of Inuocation of Saincts of Antichrist and the Assumption of Marie and such like by litle and litle got footing in the Church And here was indeed sayth Abbot the true beginning of manie doctrines of Poperie c. The Centurists 25) Cent. 2. c. 4. 4 coâ— 58. speaking of the times next after the Apostles doe acknowledge That almost no poynt of Doctrine began so soon to be obscured as this of Freewil Yea it is confessed 26) So say the Puritanes cyted in D. Bancrostes Sermon p. 23. that the Protestants know that euer since the Apostles time in a manner it flourished euerie where vntil Martin Luther took the sword in hand against it A true so euident that D. Humfrey 27) Iesuit part 2. p. 530. thinketh It may not be denyed but that Ireneus Clemens and others quos vocant Apostolicos whom they cal Apostolical in respect of the time in which they liued haue in their writings the opinions of Freewil c. Yea sayth M. Caluin 28) Instit l. 2. c. 2. § 9. Al Ecclesiastical Writers excepting Augustin haue written so ambiguously and differently in this matter of Freewil that nothing certain can be gathered from their wrytings And they were ouer ful in extolling Freewil Lastly D. Whiteguift 29) In his Defence against the Reply of Carthwright p. 472. 473. discoursing of Doctrine taught in anie Age since the Apostles time affirmeth without anie other exception of Age or Father that to vse his words almost 30) Ibid. p. 473. And see the lyke in Whitak de Eccl. Con. Bellar. Controu 2. p. 299. al the Bishops and learned Writers of the Greek Church and Latin also for the most part were spotted with doctrines of Freewil of Merit of Inuocation of Saincts and such like And the same also almost in the same words is confessed by D. Couel saying 30) In his Exam. c. 9. p. 120. Diuers both of the Greek and Latin Church were spotted with errours about Freewil Merits Inuocation of Saincts c. Yea the ancient Iewes did so firmely beleeue our Doctrine of Freewil that to omit the 31) c. 15. 12. 15. 16. 17. cleerest words of Ecclesiasticus which D. Whitakers had no other wayes 32) Resp ad Camp Rat. 1. p. 15. to euade but by denying the sayd booke to be Canonical Scripture D. Fulk tearmeth 33) Defence of the Eng. Transl p. 320. The Iewish Rabbins Patrons of Freewil which D. Morton 34) Prot. Appeal l. 2. p. 371. iustifyeth and further sayth 35) Ibid. p. 370. What if it be confessed that some Rabbins maintayned the libertie of mans Wil as Rabbi Moses did Yea M. Hal chargeth the Pharisees 36) Pharisaisme p. 50. with Freewil and Merit which is more then either Christ or his Apostles did who yet in other respects spared not to discouer their true Errours Wel then our Catholick Doctrine of Freewil is the Primitiue Doctrine taught by S. Gregorie Hierome Epiphanius Nazianzene Basil the Councel of Nice Chrysostome Athanasius Lactantius Cyprian Origen Tertulian Theophilus Iustine Athenagoras Tatianus Clemens Alexand. Ireneus Hermes and by al the Fathers since the Apostles vntil Luthers time Our strongest witnesses herof are the Protestant Writers The Centurists Beza Osiander Hamelmannus Schultetus Calum Humfrey Abbot Hal Morton Whiteguift Fulk and Whitaker Jt is graunted by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church taught not only Faith but likewise Good works truly to iustify And that the sayd works are meritorious of Grace and Glorie CHAP. XXI COncerning Good-works It is the general (1) Se Bellarmin De Iustificatione l. 1. 4. 5. and receiued doctrine of the Roman Church First that the works of the iust are truly good and not of their owne nature sinne Secondly that not only Faith but likewise good works doe truly iustifie a man obtaine remission of sinnes Thirdly that the same good works do truly merit or deserue Grace in this world and glorie in the next Directly 2) Luther in Assert art 31. 32. 36. Caluin Instit l. 3. c. â—◠§ 4. and c. 41. §. 9. c. 19. §. 2. 4. 7. c. 15. § 2. contrarie to al the forsayd poynts concerning Good-works is the ordinarie doctrine of our new Protestants First affirming that the best works of the iust are of their owne natures deadlie sinne Sâ—condly that only Faith doth iustify Thirdly and lastly that works do neither merit Grace nor glorie To come now to the doctrine and Faith of the Primitiue Church The 3) Cenâ— 6. c. 10. col 748. Centurists making a Catalogue of S. Gregories pretended errours amongst the rest number his Errour of good workes and Iustification And 4) Cent. 6. p. 288. Osiander much reproueth him for that he attributeth ouer much to good works S. Augustin is reiected by 5) In Confess Wittemb Brentius for that the taught Affiance in mans merits towards remission of Sinnes The 6) Harmony of Confess in English sec 16. p. 509. Diuines of Wittemberg affirme that These reasons which Augustin bringeth for his opinion of Purgatorie doe seem to leane to this foundation That we obtaine remission of our sinnes and life not only for Christ his sake through Faith but also for the merits of our works And for the same doctrine of Merit of works he is further reprehended by 7) Cent. 4. p. 520. Osiander the 8) Cent. 5. col 507. 1133. Centurists 9) Instit l. 3. c. 11. § 15. Caluin 10) l. 1. Ep. p. 290 in Consil Theol. p. 240. And see Colloq Altemberg fol. 307. Field of the Church l. 3. c. 42 p. 170. Melancthon and D. Field So likewise the 11) Cent. 5. col 1178. Centurie-writers speaking of S. Chrysostom affirme that Chrysostom handleth impurely the doctrine of Iustification and attributeth merit to works They likewise say of Prosper 12) Cent. 5. c. 10. col 1363. that he retayned not a few freckles of his Age Such an
one litle part or other but Apostasie hath auerted the whole bodie from Christ By which it appeareth that euen at these first beginnings of Luther not only one member or parcel but euen the whole bodie of Christianitie was auerted from Protestancie the Church of Protestants as then not being being knowne to haue the least Being in the smalest parcel or member of the same bodie The like obscuritie or nullitie of the Protestant Church at Wicclifs first reuolt from the Catholick Faith is confessed by (22) Act. mon p. 85. M. Fox in these wordes Out of al doubt al the world was in a desperate and vile estate and lamentable ignorance and darkenes of Gods truth had ouershaddowed the whole earth when Iohn Wiccliffe stepped forth as the morning starre in the midst of a cloud And againe (23.‖ Act. mon p 391. In times of horrible darkenes when there seemed in a manner to be no one so litle sparke of pure Protestant doctrine left or remaining Wiccliffe by Gods prouidence rose vp through whom the Lord would first awaken and raise vp againe the world c. ‖24‖ Estate of the Church p. 418. Crispinus also auoucheth that Ihon Wiccliffe beganne as from a deepe night to draw out the truth of the doctrine of the Sonne of God And D. ‖25‖ Vita Iuelli p 263 Humfrey affirmeth that Ihon Wiccliffe in these last times was almost the first Trumpeter of this Ghospel In so much that ‖26.‖ Cent. 9. 10. 11. p. 439. Osiander confesseth that he as then had not so much as anie Companions of that time brotherly to admonish him So assured we may rest that at Wiccliffs time the Protestant Church was ouershaddowed with horrible darkenes not so much as one litle spark of pure Protestancie appearing in the world But yet neither was Wiccliffe himself Protestant for besides his sundrie Catholick opinions before proued it is testifyed of Wiccliffe to the contrarie by Melancthon ‖k‖ Ep. 〈◊〉 Frider. micō inter ep Suinglii p. 612. saying I haue looked into Wiccliffe who maketh a great ado about this Controuersie of the Eucharist but I haue found manie other errours in him by which we may iudge of his Spirit surely he neither vnderstood nor held the Iustice of Faith which onlie point is so necessarie to the Saluation of Protestants that Luther sayth therof ‖l‖ Praefat. Ep. ad Gal. If article of Iustification by onlie Faith be once lost then is al true Christian doctrine lost And as manie as hold not that doctrine are Iewes Turkes Papists or Hereticks Againe by this only doctrine the Church is built and in this it consisteth ‖m‖ In c. 1. ad Gal. If we neglect the article of Iustification we loose al togeather For ‖n‖ In c. 2. ad Gal. it is the principal article of al Christian doctrine al other articles are comprehended in it It is the foundation sayth M. ‖o‖ Act. mon p. 840 Fox of al Christianitie and the ‖p‖ Ibid. p. 770. only origin of our Saluation It is the ‖q‖ Tovver Desp soule of the Church sayth D. Chark Now this soule foundation principal Article of Protestancie Wiccliffe did not beleeue Yea such were the demerits of Wiccliffe that D. ‖r‖ Antiqu. l 2. p. 268. Caius obiecteth him to the Oxonians as a disgrace to their Vniuersitie And Melancthon censureth him to haue been ‖s‖ Loc. com Tit de Pot. Eccl. A mad man and sundrie his grosse errours and Paradoxes condemned both by Catholicks and Protestants wil discouer hereafter so litle cause haue the Protestants to appeale to Wiccliffe for the continuance of their Church in his time Now as concerning Waldo 27‖ Estate of the Church p. 338. Crispinus confesseth Waldo his beginning to haue been in time of thick darkenes and as a first little begining of the instauration of Christian Religion But whereas Father Campian Rat. 3. affirmeth that the Protestants cannot for manie Ages togeather giue exāple so much as of anie one Cittie village or house professing their doctrine ‖28‖ Resp. ad rat Cāpiani rat 3 p. 48. D. Whittaker coming to answer thy very point telleth in general that in the worst times manie Faithful were found and that all Histories do witnesse this But being prouoked to giue particular instance out of anie one Historie either of time or person he becometh mute affirming in the same place directly to the contrarie that In the times of the Apostles al Churches al Citties al Townes al Families embraced the same Religion which we Protestants professe Afterwards by litle and litle the purritie of doctrine began to be corrupted and much superstition more and more to be spred abroad to which yet the most holie Fathers resisted what they could vntil that mysterie of iniquitie which tooke roote euen in the Apostles Age went through al the partes of the Church and so at last possessed the whole Church So true it is that for manie Ages togeather insteed of anie Instance of the Protestant Churches being Popish pretended superstition possessed euen the whole Church But some may say the Protest Churches inuisibilitie for these last 1000. yeares is a point vndoubted and for such by themselues formerly and fully confessed But it is the Primatiue Church of the first 600. yeares wherein they glory their Church was most splendent knowne and conspicuous Now of al the Ages of the Primitiue Church none is more famous or better knowne or wherein Christian Religion more clearly shined ouer the whole face of the earth then the Age of Constantin whereof say the ‖29‖ Cent. 4 Ep. dedic Reginae Elizabeth Centurists The state of the Church at Constantins time illustrated the whole world with her splendour And D. Morton styleth Constantin himself The ‖a‖ Prot. Appeal l. 2. p. 328 great and first Christian Emperour so greatly honoured in the first and most famous Synode of Nice And yet in so great a Sun-shine of Christs true Church it was impossible as then to see a Protestant Chappel for M. ‖30‖ In Apocalyp in his synopsis before the Booke A 1. § 11 Brightman teacheth that the Protestant Church from the times of Constantin for 1260. yeares was hid c. And ‖31‖ Ib A. 2 §. 14. And see p. 383. againe for 1000. yeares from Constantin the was conuersant with Christ in most hidden dens Yea as 32) Ibid. p. 326. then there were no Protestant publick assemblies wherein the Diuine Institutions did wholy flourish So Constantin a sonne of the Church saith he did more hurt then an Enemie As 33) Ibid. p. 577. see p. 341. also the want of publick Religion hath been manie Ages to wit from Constantin the Great to this day al which time Antichrist raigned whilst the Woman the Protestant Church liued in the desert To the same effect sayth M. Napper 34) Vpon the Reuelat. p. 161. From the yeare of Christ 316. God hath withdrawne his
that he might answer it Secondly the Roman 62) Zonaras Cedrenus Paulus Diac. in vita Leonis Isauri Bishops Gregorie the Third Adrian the First and Leo the Third Excommunicated the Grecian Emperours and transferred the Empire from them to the French cheifly for that they patronised the Heresie against Images whereas the French persisted euer constant in the ancient Catholick Faith wherefore it is most improbable that Charles should write in defence of the Grecian errour against the Pope of Rome Thirdly 63) L. 1. de cultu Imaginum Ionas Aurelianensis who liued in the Raigne of Ludouicus sonne to Charles testifyeth that Claudius Taurinensis a special Patrone of the Heresie durst neuer open his mouth therein during the life of Charles Fourthly Pope 64) Paulus Aemil. l. 2. Franc. And see cent 8. c. 9. col 570. Stephen holding a Councel at Rome against the sayd Errour Charles himselfe sent 12. of the cheifest Bishops of his Kingdome to assist him therein And D. Cowper 65) Chron. 174. reporteth that certaine Bishops were sent by Adrian to Charles who held a Councel in France against the condemnation of Images Fiftly this most famous Emperour Charles was so wholy Roman Catholick as that 66) Ep. ded Hist Sacra Hospinian recordeth of him 67) Epist Hist Eccl. Cent. 8. p. 101. Crisp of the Estate of the Church p. 221. 216. Bul. in 2. Thess c. 2. p 533. Cowp Chron. f. 173. 195. Foxin Apoc. p. 436. that he not only cōmanded by publick Edicts that the verie Ceremonies Rites and Latin Masse of the Roman Church as also the Decrees Lawes and Ordinances of the Roman Bishop should be obserued through his whole Empire but himself by imprisonments and diuers kinds of punishments compelled Churches to the same The like whereof is confessed of him by Osiander Crispinus Bullinger D. Cowper and M. Fox So vnlike was he to write against the Roman Church concerning Images Sixtly Caluin himself insinuateth this Booke to be forged about Charlemaines time saying 68) Iust l. 1. c. 11. sec 14. There is extant a refuting Booke vnder the name of Charles the Great which by the words thereof we may gather to haue bene made at the same time Seauently wheras Charles was knowne to be verie skilful both in Greek Latin learned ingenious in this booke there are manie absurdities committed as where it affirmeth Constantinople to be a Citty most knowne in Bythinia whereas indeed it is in Thracia as also that at Constantinople there was a Councel celebrated in defence of the worshipping of Images whereas the sayd Councel was celebrated at Nice And that the Nicene Councel tearmed the Eucharist the Image of Christs bodie whereas directly and purposely they refute and condemne the sayd speech Eightly supposing for the time against al the premisses that it had been Charles his Booke yet nothing would it auaile but much preiudice Protestants for therein is expressely taught that the last sentence in Controuersies of Faith belongeth to the Roman Bishop And that he hath his Primacie not from Councels but from God himself It prescribeth also Exorcismes to be vsed in Baptisme Churches to be dedicated with special Rites That we are to pray for the dead and Inuocate Saincts and their Relicks to be worshipped That Chrisme and Holie-water are to be vsed That in the Eucharist there is the true Bodie of Christ and the same to be worshipped yea to be offred as a true and proper Sacrifice Al which do mainely impugne Protestant Religion And therefore if they wil haue vs to beleeue this Booke teaching that the Councel of Nice erred concerning Images let them beleeue it teaching the other Catholick poynts next recited Lastly if it could be proued that Charles himself had made this Book that he had been a perfect Protestant in al poynts yet how would it hence follow that the Roman Church had changed her Faith in the time of Charles Or what would the testimonie of a Lay-man auaile them seing according to 69) Orat. 2. de Imag. Damascen Christ committed not his Church to Kings and Emperours but to Bishops and Pastours But we haue seene sufficiently before that Charles was a Prince wholy deuoted to the Roman Church and a special Patron of Images and consequently the Booke written against them and imposed vpon him is meerly forged and of no authoritie And so likewise is no lesse forged that other vnder the name of Lewes his Sonne which for such is condēned by the Catholick Church Neither 70) Index lib. prohibit doth our Doctour affoard vs the least colour of proof for the legitimation of either of these Bookes but only sayth that they are extant as though it were rare among Hereticks to finde manie spurious adulterine Bookes And so I cōclude that seing our Ministers proofs for the Roman Churches change in these 50. yeares are al of them in seueral respects either most impertinent or most false that therefore the Roman Church during the same time did not change After 800 800. to 850. I name sayth our Cataloguer Ioannes Scotus c. who resisting the Real presence c. was therefore murdred The same time Berthram also writ against it c. Claudius Bishop of Towres resisted Images worship of Saincts and Pilgrimage Lotharius the Emperour reduced the Pope to the obedience of the Empire c. These are the examples of the Roman Change in this time But let vs examine them As concerning Scotus that he resisted the Real presence M. White proueth it only by the testimonie of Daneus who being a formal Protestant of these times his testimonie is insufficient as bearing witnesse in his owne Cause therefore al further answer were needles But yet I do acknowledge that about the same time there was one Scotus not the subtil Doctour who liued some Ages after but an other who writ something doubtfully in this poynt but his Booke was condemned in the Councel at Vercella as testifyeth Lantfrancus (a) lib. de verit Corp. Et sang Domini in Eucharistia And he is obserued to be the first in the Latin Church who writ suspiciously against the Real Presence And as for Bertram though the Booke extant vnder his name doth vse some doubteful and obscure words as Figure Spiritual and Mysterie yet at other times doth it speak as plainly Affirming the Presence of Christs Bodie vnder the veyle or couerture of Bread Yea the Centurists confesse that Bertram 71) Cent. 9. c. 4. Col. 212. in the sayd Book hath the seeds of Transubstantiation Secondly this sayd Book being set forth lately by Oecolampadius may iustly be suspected and rather in that Pantaleon 72) p. 65. in his Chronograph mentioning Bertram and his other writings forbeareth yet to mention this Booke or to charge him with this pretended opinion Thirdly Illiricus making a Catalogue of Protestant witnesses to whom our Minister for this of his is no litle beholding
iure diuino Yea M. Mason himself acknowledgeth and that from M. Fox that amongst (54) Consecration of the Bishops in England p. 264 And see Fox Act. Mon. Vol. 2. p. 1295. The Articles sent by Queen Marie to Bishop Bonner one was this Item Touching such persons as were heretofore promoted to anie Orders after the new sort and fashion of Orders Considering they were not ordered in verie deed the Bishop of the Diocesse finding otherwise sufficiencie and abilitie in these men may supply that thing which wanted in them before and then according to his discretion admit them to Minister Here though M. Mason would gladly inforce a different Glosse yet the words are most plaine that Queen Marie and the Church in her time censured such as were promoted to anie Orders after the new sort and fashion of Protestant Orders in K Edwards time were not ordered in verie deed So that stil it deserueth further search whence our present English Clergie as also other forraine Ministers haue obtayned true power and authoritie to preach administer Sacraments And as for Forainers as the Ministers in Germanie Denmark Holland the rest they are so cleerely and confessedly destitute of al true Ordination that M. Mason acknowledgeth that (55) Consec of Engl. Bish. Ep. Dedic wheras other Reformed Churches were constrained by necessitie to admit extraordinarie Fathers that is to receaue ordination from Presbiters or Ministers rather then to suffer the fabrick of the Lord Iesus to be dissolued The Church of England had alwayes Bishops to conferre Sacred Orders according to the ordinarie and most warrantable Custome of the Church of Christ So that no Protestant Ministers in the world haue anie ordinarie Calling or Ordination by Bishops but only the Ministers of England who yet beg and deriue al that which they haue from their imagined Antichrist himself as now shal be shewed Some Protestants therfore teach that they haue their Calling Ordination from the Church of Rome so D. Bridges (56) Defence of the GouernmeÌ„t p. 1276. speaking of our Catholick Bishops and their Calling vrgeth thus in our behalf If our Protestant Brethren wil make them but meer Lay-men then are neither they nor we anie Ministers at al but meer Lay-men also for who ordayned vs Ministers but such Ministers as were either themselues of their Ministerie or at least were made Ministers of those Ministers Except they wil say the people can make Ministers c. yea some (57) SileÌ„ced Ministers supplication of Anno 1609. p. 9. 10. 17. Puritans do reproue their Protestant Brethren for deriuing their Ministerie from the Church of Rome But (58) Cont. Dur. l. 9. p. 820. D. Whitaker exemplifyeth the same saying Luther was a Priest and Doctour according to your Rite or ordination c. And it is manifest that so also was Zuinglius Bucer Oecolampadius and innumerable others c. M. Parkins (59) Vol. 1. p. 737. speaking of the Calling of the first Preachers of the Protestant Ghospel argueth thus If they had no Calling neither haue we that are their followers But They had their Callings c. from the Romish Church itself for they were either Priests or Schoole-Doctours as in England Wiccliffe in Germanie Luther in Bohemia Iohn Husse and Hierom of Prage at Basil Oecolampadius in Italie Peter Martyr others And therefore these with manie others were ordayned either in Popish Churches or in Schooles c. And agayne We say the first restorers of the Ghospel in our times had their first Callings of them to wit the Papists M. Mason discoursing at large of this verie poynt of Ordination and in particular of the Ordination of our English Protestant Clergie confesseth first that the Roman Church hath euer had true power of Ordination (60) Consecration of the Bishops of England Ep. Dedic Such was the goodnes of God saith he that euen in the darknes of Poperie as Baptisme so the Ministerial function c. was wonderfully preserued for the Church of Rome by Gods special prouidence in her ordination of Priests retayned such Euangelical words as in their true and natiue sense include a Ghostlie Ministerial power to forgiue sinnes c. Thus the Church of Rome gaue power to her Priests to teach the truth c. which (61) Ibid. p. 262. Power saith he is a Rose which is found in the Romish wildernes but the plants therof were deriued from the garden of God It is a Riuer which runneth in Aegipt but the fountaine and Spring of it is in Paradise It is a Beame which is seen in Babilon but the original of it is from the Sphere of the Heauen Wherefore when your Priests returne to vs our Church paring away their Pollutions suffereth them to exercise their Ministerial function according to the true meaning of Christs word And agayne (62) Ibid. p. 262. we being content with their calling and commission of their function already committed vnto them do not reiterate their ordination and Imposition of hands And as Catholick Priâ—sts Apostated only through vice are here allowed for sufficient Ministers without al new ordination from anie Protestant SuperinteÌ„dent so doth M. Mason most seriously labour throughout his whole Booke to proue the ordination of the Protestant English Clergie to haue been certainly deriued from our Catholick Roman Church To which end acknowledging that (63) Ibid. p. 64. 65. 66. The whole Clergie of England at this day deriueth their Consecration from Cranmer he painfully laboureth to proue that Cranmer was appoynted by Pope Clement to be Archbishop of Canterburie and that he was Consecrated by three Catholick Bishops which Consecration was performed with wonted Ceremonies according to the vsual forme of the Romane Church which saith he continued al the dayes of King Henrie the Eighth euen when the Pope was banished yea he expresly concludeth his book thus (64) p. 267. Thus it appeareth that although we receaued our Orders from such as were Popish Priests yet our Calling is lawful So cleer it is that M. Mason would be glad to wring his Ministers Ordering from our Roman Church And the like is acknowledged taught by (è) Cath. Trad. p. 183. Buca loc com p. 509. Bernard in his Diswasion from Brownisme p. 144. Whyte in his way to the Church p. 404. Fotherby his Answer annexed to his 4. Sermons p. 81. Sutcliffe against D. Kellison p. 5. Sarauia of diuers Degrees of Ministers p. 9. sundrie other Protestants But here I can not but obserue by the way how strange it is that Protestants should thus much delight and please themselues in their Ordination from Cranmer a man so vicious inconstant and treacherous both to God and man Doth not D Godwin relate that (65) In Cranmsr p. 123. Being yet verie young he â—aryed and so lost his fellowship in Iesus Colledge in Cambridge Doth not Fox report that being Archbishop in his returne from Rome he brought with him a Dutch
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
40) Retractiue from Romish Religion p. 66. Hieroms Age this Superstition of Candles lighted in the day-time began to grow vpon the Church Yea the 41) Cent. 4. col 454. Centurists acknowledge that Waxe candles were accustomed to be carryed at Burials And that Priests did carry before the Corse Lamps and wax-candles 42) Cent. 4. col 453. And that Funeral-rites and Ceremonies in this Age of Constantin Superstition say they increasing were heaped vp partly from Heathenisme partly from Iudaisme Seauenthly as for the vse of Images in Churches in the time of the Primitiue Church the same is prooued at large in the Chapter (a) See before l. 2. c. 14. of Images Eightly D. Raynolds 43) In his Conference with M. Har. p. 552. coÌ„fesseth that Altars Sacrifice are linked by nature in Relation and mutual dependance one of another Wherupon it doth euidently follow that Aultars being vsed in Churches in the ancientest times true external Sacrifice was likewise vsed which Sacrifice to haue been the Sacrifice of the Masse I haue largely proued in the (b) See before l. 2. c. 9. Chapter of Masse Now because true and proper Sacrifice can not be offred at the Altar but by a Priest therfore in the Primitiue Church there were true Priests whose Ordination was euer by a Bishop and not by the Laïtie The 44) Cent. 4. col 435. Centurists confesse that The Constitutions of the Laodicen Councel forbad Ordinations by the iudgement of the multitude And that They were desired of that Bishop who had authoritie to giue Orders as appeareth say they by the Fourth Epistle of Basil to Gregorie and the Thirtith to the Cesareans And else-where 45) Cent. 4. col 489. they say expresly that The ordination of Ministers was proper to the Bishop And as for the word Priest so hateful now to our Protestant Clergie it was so vsual in the Primitiue Church as that 46) In his Defence p. 411. D. Whiteguift saith This name Priest is vsually applyed to the Minister of the Ghospel in al Histories Fathers and Writers of Antiquitie The like is acknowleged by 47) L. 9. cont Dur. p. 813. D. Whitaker who only answereth that the Fathers vsed the word Sacerdos Priest not properly but by abuse of speech an answere directly contrarie to the expresse words of S. Austin himself De Ciuit. Dei l. 20. c. 10. But D. Fulk 48) Against Rhem. Test in Act. 14. see 4. f. 210. Willet in his Synop. Controu 13. p. 482. and D. Willet do both of them reproue the Fathers for their vsing the word Priest properly Yea the Priests of the Primitiue Church were as ours stil are specially anoynted in so much as S. Cyprian in his Sermon de Chrismate mentioning the same is therefore reproued by 49) Exam. part 2. p. 247. Chemnitius They had also their Crownes shauen for M. Brightman 50) Apoc. in c. 9. p. 249. confesseth that the Fathers vsed to entreate Priests by their Tonsure or shauing as now we may see in the Epistles of Hierome and Augustin And 51) Medulla Patrum p. 484. Schultetus affirmeth that Dyonisius the Areopagite in his book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchie writeth manie things of Temples Altars Sacred-places the Quier Consecration of Moâ—ks the Tonsure and shauing of heads Ninthly the Priests vsed also consecrated vestments and vessels for the celebration of Masse and other offices of the Church The 52) Cent. 4 col 504. Centurists affirme that S. Athanasius mentioneth Ecclesiastical vestments and ornaments and other things necessarie for the Church 53) De Sacramentis p. 44. Zepperus auoucheth that The Ministers or Priests vsed in the celebration of this Mysterie of the Eucharist a peculiar kind of apparel which they tearmed holie neither was it lawful for Priests to weare them but in the celebration of the Eucharist yea they were not to be touched by anie persons but such as were sacred which inuention the first Decretal Epistle of Pope Stephen referreth to himself 54) Of the Crosse part 1. sec 36. p. 52. And see Hut 2 in his 2. part of the Answ and p. 194. 195. 196. Whiteguift in his Def. p. 268. 270. M. Parker granteth in general The Fathers wil haue the Garments to be Religious that are vsed in the Church in proofe wherof he citeth in the Margent Origen and Hierome And to descend to particulars wheras Theodoret l. 2. c. 27. reporteth that Constantin gaue to the Bishop of Hierusalem a Cope or pretious garment wrought with gold to administer Baptisme the same is confessed by 55) In his Persuasion to vniformity c. 5. p. 19. whyteg in his Def. p. 269. M. Sparke and D. Whiteguift in so much as 56) Ibid. p. 268. M. Carthwright testifyeth Theodoret maketh mention of a golden Cope The Centurists 57) Cent. 4. col 876. confesse that in the Fourth Age the Albe was vsed and 58) In his Persuasion to vniform c. 5. p. 19. M. Spark alleageth sundrie ancient Fathers al mentioning the Albe D. Raynolds 59) In his Confer c. 8. diuis 4. acknowledgeth that in the Liturgies of S. Basil S. Chrysostome are mentioned the Amice the Girdle the Chisible the Fanel The Centurists 60) Cenâ— 4. col 835. likewise confesse that as then was vsed the Stole And D. Whiteguift 61) In his Def. p. 269. 270. admitteth the Dalmatica to be vsed in S. Cyprians time alleageth Peter Martyr to be of the same mind who 62) In his Epistles annexed to his com plac in Engl. p. 119. And Whiteg in his Def. p. 264. 268. likewise relateth that as then was vsed the Bishops Pontifical Plate or Miter and 63) Ibid. p. 269. D. Whiteguift auoucheth the same to haue been worne by S. Cyprian The Centurists 64) Cent. 4. col 835. And Osian cent 4. p. 391. likewise report that in the Fourth Age were vsed by Priests in Churches Holie vessels which Subdeacons and Lay persons might not touch And 65) Cent. 4. col 490. they mention the then Careful committing of the holie Chalice to the Priests Custodie D. Sutilisse 66) De Mâ—ssa Papist ca. l. 5. c. 7. f. 96. sayth We do not deny the Church as Chrysostome sayth hom 4. in Math. and de S. Babila to haue had holie vessels and the same not to be touched by lay-men Yea the Centurists 67) Cent. 4. col 504. And see col 409. And Chem. Exam. part p. 26. affirme that Theodoret l. 3. c. 12. sheweth that the Church of Antioch had manie pretious vessels which Constantin and Constantius gaue to it And they mention 68) Cent. 4. col 873. 874. likewise the yet controuerted rites of Chalice Paten Cruet ful of water Towel Wax-candle for Church lights book of Exorcismes c. Tenthly the Priests thus furnished with sacred vestments and vessels not only offred Sacrifice but likewise obserued Canonical Houres of
prayer in the Church In so much as the Centurists 69) Cent. 4. col 433. And see Bullingers Decades Decr. 5. p. 937. charge the Fourth Age with obseruation of Canonical Houres And with 70) Cent. 4. col 433. Rising in the night to prayer And with 71) Cent. 4. col 459. vsing set forme of Prayer And Litanies 72) Ib. col 433. 414. 411. As also with 73) Cent. 4. col 1329. And Osiand cent 4. p. 454. numbring prayers vpon litle stones or beades yea they 74) Cent. 3. col 134. charge the Third Age saying Tertullian in his booke of Fasting affirmeth those Three Houres to wit the Third the Sixt the Ninth to haue been more famous in diuine prayers And Cyprian in the Lords prayer calleth the Prime the Third the Sixt and Ninth the Houres of praying anciently obserued And they 75) Cent. 3. col 135. further Confesse that as theÌ„ Christians prayed with their face turned towards the East as Tertulian affirmeth in his Apologie c. And that in the holie Sacrifice some prayers were sayd in Secret others audibly In so much as Osiander recyteth and dislyketh these words of the Laodicen Councel Let three prayers be sayd one in silence the second and third vocally or andibly and then let the kisse of Peace be giuen And after the Priests haue giuen the Pax to the Bishop then let it be giuen to the Laïtie and so the Sacrifice offred But let it be allowed only to the Clergie to come vnto the Altar and there Communicate Eleuenthly amongst other prayers vsed by the Priests in the Church were ordinarie such wherby Sundrie Creatures were hallowed and consecrated as Water Bread Oyle Ashes the Font for Baptisme and the like S. Gregorie is reproued by the Centurists and Osiander for his vsing and Sprinkling of Holie-water D. Morton affirmeth that 78) Prot. Appeal l 1. p. 56. True it is that Aqua lustralis Holie-water was vsed but c. as an Inuention of Pope Alexander who liued Anno 109. after Christ c. And it was applyed in the dayes of Gregorie by Augustin to the Consecration of Churches togeather with prayers for the casting out of the filth of Idols and Diuels And of further vse of Holie-water in the Primitiue Church see D. Fulk 79) Fulk against RheÌ„ Test in 1. Ti. 4. sec 13. fol. 378. Parkins in Problem p. 136. and M. Parkins Holie-bread is affirmed so plainly by S. Austin de pec merit remiss l. 2. c. 26. that D. Fulk 80) Against Heâ—kins c. p. 377. doth therfore tearme it A Superstitious bread giuen in S. Austins time to those that were Catechumens insteed of the Sacrament And 81) Of the Masse p. 51. Philip Morney chargeth S. Basils Liturgie with Holie-bread distributed after Seruice to such as had not Communicated And as for Holie oyle or Chrisme the Centurists 82) Cent. 6. col 367. charge S. Gregorie out of his owne wrytings with Consecration of Chrisme and oyle Yea they 83) Cent. 4. col 865 503 1274 869. confesse that in the Fourth Age there was Consecration of Chrisme by a Bishop only And that 84) Cent. 4. col 420. Optatus sheweth that Chrisme was accustomed to be kept in a bottle Yea they 85) Cent. 5. col 1386. relate of S. Martin that A Mayde dumbe from her Mothers wombe being brought vnto him powring Holie oyle into her praying he made her speak wel But Hamelmanus 86) De Tradit Apost 707. 737. Parkar against Symbolizing c part 1. sec 11. p. 76. and M. Parker do both of them confesse that S. Denys the Areopagite maketh mention in his writings of Chrisme In like Sort is S. Gregorie reproued by M. Bale 87) In Act. Rom. Pont. p. 44. c. for Consecration of Ashes c. And for Dedicating the beginning of Lentfast with sprinkling of Ashes 12. But most obserued sundrie were the Ceremonies of Baptisme S. Gregorie is charged by the Centurists 88) Cent. 6. col 367. with Consecration of the Font of Baptisme And they charge the Fathers of the 89) Cent. 4. col 415. Fourth and 90) Cent. 3. col 82. third Age with consecration of the water of Baptisme with Abrenunciation Exorcisme Anoyling threefold Immersion And they 92) Cent. 3. col 8â— say expresly of S. Cyprian that he In his first booke and tweluth Epistle affirmeth that the water must be first purifyed and Sanctifyed by the Priest that it may by baptisme wash away the sinnes of the man that is baptised for which very saying he is also reproued by M. Parker 93) Against Symbolizing c. prat 1 sec 35. p. 112 113. Hamelman de Tradit Apost l. 2. c. 7. col 97. and Hamelmannus In Baptisme was likewise vsed the signe of the Crosse So the Centurists 94) Cent. 3. col 125. And M. Spark in his Persuasion to vniform p. 23. confesse that Origen in his 2. Hom. vpon the 38. Ps sheweth that those who were Baptysed were accustomed to be signed with the signe of the Crosse of which Rite Tertulian also maketh mention in his booke De Resurrectione Carnis And Cyprian also in his booke of baptizing Hereticks mentioneth the Imposition of hands with prayer Siging And D. Beard coÌ„fesseth that 95) Retractiue from Romish Relig. p. 391. The Crosse anoynting in Baptisme are of great Antiquitie Such as were Baptised were also anoyled with holie Chrisme 96) Instit l. 4. c. 17. sec 43. Caluin sayth If anie man wil defend those Inuentions with antiquitie I am not ignorant how ancient the vse of Chrisme exufflation is in baptisme how litle from the Apostles Age the supper of the Lord was touched withrust c. Perkins 97) In the 2. vol. of his works p. 653. confesseth that 76) Cent. 4. p. 390. This Vnction pertained to Baptysme in the West til aboue 300. yeares after Christ 77) Cent. 6. col 364. 365. Osiand cent 6. p. 289. 290. And Zepperus 98) Politia Eccl. l. 1. c. 12. p 123. mentioning Holie-water oyle salt exorcisme spitle c. sayth I confesse these Superstitious Ceremonies are very ancient in the Church not manie Ages after the Apostles times in further (99) Ibid. p. 124. 125 proofe therof he alleageth those most famous ancient Fathers S. Austin S. Cyprian and Tertullian And as concerning Exorcismes Exufflations other ancient rites of Baptisme (100) Compend loc 33. p. 264. Gesnerus auoucheth that Exorcisme in Baptisme is much more ancieÌ„t then Papistrie for Nazianzene Cyril Cyprian Ambrose Austin make mention therof in manie places The like acknowledgement wherof is also made by (101) Common places part 4. c. 9. see 14. 15. p. 132. 133. Peter Martyr M. Parker affirmeth from the manie testimonies of Cyprian Tertulian by him alleaged in the MargeÌ„t saying (102) Against Symbolizing wiâ—â—