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
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
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
Learning and Iudgment c. So willing indeed is M. Doctour to detract from the Authoritie and testimonies of his owne deare Brethren M. Napper and M. Brocard And where he would gladly mince the matter by affirming that they were but Two the perusal of this Chapter and other parcels of this booke wil clearly discouer that there were manie more Twoes of this opinion Wherfore to proceed M. Brightman (11) Apoc. p. 503. thus vrgeth Bellarmine As concerning the continuance of the Apostacie from the true Faith we haue learned by the Apocalypse that the same hath preuayled more then 1260. yeares and that more cleerly then anie of your Subtilties can euade (12) Ibid. p. 539. And againe Antichrist hath raigned from the time of Constantin the Great to this day wherof the Apocalypse affordeth such Demonstrations as neuer anie Iesuit can confute Yea (13) Ibid. p. 477. further The Pope of Rome is the Beast which 1300. yeares receiued power c. therefore from 1300. yeares he is the Antichrist So certain it is by M. Brightmans strongest Demonstrations grounded vpon Scripture that the present Roman Religion hath continued for these last 1300. yeares during which time the Pope in his opinion hath raigned as Antichrist Answerably herevnto (14) Against Staplet Martial p. 25. D. Fulk relateth that some Protestants haue written that the Pope hath blinded the world these manie hundred yeares some say 1000. some 1200. some 900. c. And (15) In Apoc. p. 263. Winckelmanus speaking of the begining and end of the Churches persecution by Antichrist reporteth that there are some Protestant Writers who make the end Anno 1517. when M. Luther first began and so the beginning should be Anno 257. others place the end Anno Christi 1521. when Luther at the Assemblies at Wormes excellently gaue testimonie to the truth and so the beginning should be from Anno Christi 261. c. (16) De Antichristo p. 96. Danaeus also speaking of Antichrists first coming confesseth that some Protestant Writers teach that he came in the Yeare 1000. others 500. others 400. from Christs birth So clear it is that the Pope of Rome for these 1300. yeares in the opinion of Protestants hath raigned as Antichrist But as the Popes for these last 1300. yeares are thus censured for Antichrists so are the most ancient and first Christian Emperours condemned for Papists and fauourers of Antichrist For though D. Morton speaking of the Popes authoritie affirmeth that it hath been (17) Prot. Appeal p. 661. often and notoriously contradicted in Antiquitie c. by right Christian and renowned Emperours Yet M. Brightman speaking of the verie first most ancient and Christian Emperours auerreth the contrarie saying (18) Apoc. p. 344. Into which Catalogue come Constantin the Great Constantius Constans Constantin and their Sonnes Iulian Iouinian Valentinian Gratian Valentinian the Second Theodosius c. for these then raigning the Beast was notably defended and his dignitie much increased Agreably sayth (19) Reioynd to Bristow p. 2. D. Fulk I neuer ment to acknowledge the Emperours Constantin Iouinian Valentinian c. to be such as I would wish for For both in their Religion and manners diuers things are found which I could wiâ—h had been more agreable to the Word of God So that for the second 300. yeares after Christ it resteth euident and for such acknowledged that The Pope and his Clergie possessed the outward visible Church of Christians neuer suffring for 1000. yeares after Syluester the First anie to be seen vouchable or visible of the Protestant Church For which verie cause al the Popes of those Ages are censured for Antichrists and the verie first Christian Emperours for their fauourers and defenders To make now the like trial of the Roman Churches Continuance and her vniuersal and publick profession and practise of her Faith and Religion for the first 300. yeares after Christ to wit from his blessed Apostles to Pope Siluester the First and Constantin the Great Wheras our Catholick Writers do often obiect the Custom of the ancient Fathers in prouoking the Hereticks of their times with the Succession of the Roman Bishops according to the example of Ireneus Cyprian Tertullian Optatus Hierom Augustin and Vincentius Lyrinensis (20) Against Purgat p. 373. D. Fulk for his best answear is enforced to confesse saying That these men specially named the Church of Rome it was because the Church of Rome at that time as it was founded by the Apostles so it continued in the doctrine of the Apostles (21) ConfereÌ„ce vvith M. Hart. p. 442. D. Raynolds being prouoked in the like kind acknowledgeth in like manner that The succession of the Roman Bishops was a proof of the true Faith in the time of Augustin Epiphanius Optatus Tertullian and Irenaeus c. (22) Instit l. 4. c. 2. sec 2. 3. And Caluin himself setting downe our foresayd Allegation affirmeth of Catholicks that They indeed set forth their Church verie gloriously c. They report out of Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Augustin and others how highly they esteemed this Succession wherto he giueth the like answear and reason saying Considering it was a matter out of al doubt that from the beginning euen vntil that time nothing was changed in Doctrine the forsayd Doctours took in argument that which was sufficient for the ouerthrowing of al new errours to wit that the Hereticks oppugned the doctrine which euen from the verie Apostles themselues had been inuiolable and with one consent retayned And in his book of Institutions set forth in French he writeth expresly that It was a thing notorious and without doubt that after the Apostles Age vntil those foresayd times no change was made in doctrine neither at Rome nor other Citties In like sort sayth Zanchius (23) De vera Relig. p. 148. In times past the Roman Church and the succession of their Bishops vntil the times of Irenaeus Tertullian Cyprian Some others was such as that not vndeseruedly these Fathers were accustomed to prouoke and cite the Hereticks of their time to her and others such like (24) De Ecclesia p. 278. D. Whitaker speaking of certain Apostolical Churches and amongst them of Rome by Name collecteth thus From whence we vnderstand why Tertullian prouoked to these Churches to wit because as then by perpetual succession they kept the Doctrine of the Apostles Agreably to which almost in the same words sayth (25) Against Purgat p. 374 D. Fulk The Church of Rome retayned by succession vntil Tertullians dayes that Faith which it did first receiue of the Apostles (26) Fox his Act. Mon. p. 1359. M. Ridley auoucheth that The Patriarch of Rome in the Apostles time and long after was a great maintayner and Setter forth of Christs glorie in the which aboue al other Countries and Regions was preached the true Ghospel the Sacraments were most duly administred c. After the Emperours became Christians
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
answer After 750. 750. to 800. I name saith he the Councel of Constantinople vnder Constant Copronymus and of Franckford vnder Charles the Great against Images and the booke yet extant that he caused to be made against the 2. Nicene Councel with another set forth by Ludonicus his Sonne to the same effect A great tooth stil hath our Minister against Images but it neuer biteth for tâ—is Councel of Constantinople was likewise neuer confirmed but expressely condemned in the Seauenth Synod (47) Act. 6. Paul Diac. l. 21. 22 de Rib. Rom. Zonoras in Annalibus And being assembled only of Grecians who in the doctrine of Images were manie of them diuided from the Roman Church the testimonie thereof is of no force as I haue shewed before But besides it is not worthie of obseruation that as neither of these Councels of Constantinople so often vrged by our Doctour were euer confirmed by the Bishop of Rome without whose allowance according to the first Councel (48) Socrat. l. 2. c. 13. of Nice it was not lawful to assemble General Councels so neither did anie of the Patriarchs themselues euer assent vnto them as is manifest by Zonoras Cedrenus Paulus Diaconus and other Writers hereof Yea further al Authours who write of General Councels as Psellus Photins Zonoras Nicephorus Cedrenus Nycetas Paulus Diaconus Rhegino Ado Sigebert Abbas Vspergensis and others do either not number these two of Constantinople amongst the Councels of the Church or els do expressely reproue them and the 2. Councel of Nice which was truly General and plenarie did directly abrogate and condemne them Adde hereunto in fauour of our Doctour who is so far in loue with these Councels that in that vnder Constantin is decreed (49) Can. 15. those to be accursed who do not inuocate the B. Virgin Marie As also 50) Can. 17. those who do not worship and Inuocate the rest of the Saincts And 51) Can. 18. those who do not beleeue that God wil giue eternal life for merits of works according to the iust waight of his Iudgement al which Catholike Canons are 52) Cent. 8. c. 9. col 639 recited by the Centurists Now if M. White wil vrge this Councel against Images in which respect it was impugned and contradicted by seueral means why may not I much more vrge it for these other poynts wherein it was neuer reproued by any Councel or other Writers Now as concerning the Councel of Franckford vrged here and by sundrie other Protestants against Images First the a) Cen. 8. c. 9. col 639. Magdeburgians themselues acknowledge that Pope Adrian then Bishop of Rome neuer consented vnto it but both himself and his Legates resisted it Now neuer 53) Galasius Temo de vinâ—ulo Anathematis was there anie one Councel holden lawful whereunto the Roman Bishop resisted In so much that this Councel of Franckford itself decreed 54) In lib. Catolino That the last Iudgement of Controuersies belonged to the Roman Bishop and with this verie argument cheifly it endeauoured to confute the seauenth Synode imagining this to haue been assembled without the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome So that this Councel of Franckford by the testimonie of the Centurists destroyeth it selfe Secondly the Centurists in the same place teach that the 2. Nicene Synod was confirmed by Pope Adrian but the Councel of Franckford reiecteth only such Synods as are assembled without the Popes Authoritie wherefore according to the Magdeburgians not the Councel of Nice wherein Images were approued but some other was reproued by the Councel of Franckford Thirdly The Centurists further confesse that the Councel of Franckford did not decree that Images should be taken out of the Churches but remayning in the Churches that they should not be adored Wherefore then do Protestants pul down Images and break them Wherefore do not themselues obserue the Decree of the Councel Yea this verie Councel thundreth Anathema 55) l. Carol. Hincmarus Magdeburg to al such as deface break pul down Images how then wil our Protestants escape this bolt Fourthly the Councel of Franckford did indeed impugne 56) l. Carol. Hincmarus two Councels one of Constantinople which decreed against Images and the other of Nice which was for Images But the impugning of this latter was only through errour and materially euen as the Councel of Ariminum condemned the word Homousios for the Authour of the Bookes vnder the name of Charles had obtruded vnto the same Councel of Franckford two vntruths 57) In praef lib. Carol. First that the Councel of Nice had decreed that Images should be worshipped with the honour of Latria or that which is due only to God 58) l. Carol. The second that this decree was made by the Grecians without the consent of the Bishop of Rome Now these two lyes supposed for truths it is no wonder though the Councel of Franckford resisted the Councel of Nice And that these were mere Impostures falsly imposed vpon the Councel of Nice it is euident aswel in that the Legates of the Roman Bishop subscribed to euerie Act as also in that the Epistles of Pope Adrian himself for Images 59) Act. 2. were read in the Councel it self And so likewise that the sayd Councel did not decree Images to be worshiped with Latria is further manifest in that Basil of Ancyra who was formerly an Heretick being now conuerted and professing the Catholick Faith the (60) Act. 1. whole Councel hearing him and approuing him affirmed that he did worship Images but not with Latria seing that was due only to God And the like (61) Act 3.4.7 was professed by Constantin Bishop of Constance and other Bishops in the Seauenth Synode Neither let it seeme improbable that such vntruths could be forged against a general Councel so lately before celebrated Wheras most Protestants dare now affirme that Catholicks adore Images as Gods whereas almost thousands of Catholick Writers and the General Councel of Trent celebrated in the Confins of Germanie do declaime the contrarie what wonder then if the like be forged of a Greek Synod which few could read and vnderstand and which was celebrated in the Oriental parts being far distant Lastly it is to be remembred that though this Councel of Franckford did erre yet was it not in matter of Faith but only in fact condemning vpon false information the Councel of Nice neither was it euer confirmed but expressely reiected by the Bishop of Rome and therefore the errour thereof doth nothing preiudice the infallible authoritie of lawful approued General Councels So manie wayes doth it appeare that this thredworne Argument from the Councel of Franckford against Images is altogeather impertinent And now to come to the bastard Booke fathered vpon Charles the Great First the Booke of Adrian the First to Charles is extant whereby it appeareth that the sayd Booke was written by some Heretick and sent from Charles to Adrian
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
ancient Papists In like for argueth Mr. Carth wright saying That (9) Reply part 1. p. 18. the argument of the authoritie of men which haue interpreted the Scriptures is the best reason in Controuersies of Diuinitie was neuer heard of but by Papists whose strongest towers are in the testimonies of the Doctours c. There is nothing more Papistical then this Assertion So that if Protestants commit themselues to the trial by Fathers they yeeld themselues prisoners to the strongest Towers and Castles of the Papists their Enemies wherin what can they expect but ruine and confusion D. Whitaker affirmeth (10) Cont. Dur. li. 6. p. 423. The Popish Religion to be a patched couerlet of the Fathers errours sowed togeather Wel then if our Religion was beleeued by the Fathers from them deliuered to vs I am perswaded that D. Whitaker admitting this would place litle hope in appealing to Fathers for Confutation of Popish Religion And though he falsely tearmeth our Religion the Fathers errours yet therby he plainly granteth the Fathers to haue beleeued and taught the same Religion which we now professe and Protestants impugne Now the ancient Fathers being thus acknowledged for Papists I do not wonder that Protestants contemne their authoritie and seeke their disgrace with al contumelies possible Why may not D. Luther affirme (11) To. 2. Wittemb l. de Seruo Arb. p. 434. And the same booke printed in 8. p. 72. 73. 276. 337. The Fathers of so many Ages to haue beene plainly blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures to haue erred al their life time and that vnles they were amended before their deaths wherof neuer Protestant had yet the least intelligence they were neyther Saints nor pertayning to the Church but no doubt according to Luther damned Papists Why might not he further auouch That (12) In Colloq mensalibus c. de Patrib Ecclesiae in the writings of Hierome there is not a word of true faith in Christ and sound Religion Tertullian is very superfluous I haue houlden Origen long since accursed Of Chrysostome I make no account Basil is of no worth he is wholy a Monk I weigh him not a haire Cyprian is a weake Diuine c. See how our old Papists are betrampled by a yong Protestant And yet no lesse resolute against them is (13) In Ionam Pomerane Our Fathers whether Saints or no I care not ô zeale and reuerence Protestantical they were blinded with the Spirit of Montanus by humane traditions and the doctrines of Diuels c. they teach not purely of Iustification c. neither are they careful to teach IESVS CHRIST according to his Ghospel Stil are the Fathers reiected as men blinded with Papistical opinions The Centurists endeauouring to discredit the whole multitude of Doctours and Fathers in euerie Age begin euen with the first Age next after the Apostles saying 14) Cent. 2 c. 4. p. 55. Albeit this Age was neerest to the Apostles yet the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles began to be not a litle darkned therin and many monstrous and incommodious opinions to Protestants are euerie where found to be spread by the Doctours therof Perhaps some cause therof may be for that the guift of the Holie Ghost in these Doctours did begin to decay for the ingratitude of the world towards the Protestant Truth Now as for the Doctours of al Ages succeeding they make a Principle that The 15) Cent 3. c. 4. p. 17. further we go of from the Apostles Age the more stubble shal we find to haue been added to the puritie of Christian doctrine So that al Doctours and Fathers since the very first Age of the Apostles are discarded by the Centurists for stubble and Papistical But Luther wil not rest vntil he hath brought these stubble-Doctours to Hel for teaching Papistrie (16) In Deut. c. 13. p. 102. Sathan sayth he hath hitherto deluded vs by signes and lying wonders c. whilst contrarie to the Ghospel we haue admired Pilgrimages Apparitions of Spirits and cures at certaine Sepuchers in so much that Saints also erred herin as Augustin Bernard Hierome and many others c. certainly damned as Wicclif sayd vnles they repented So that if Papists be damned for beleeuing the Catholick faith they haue for their Companions Hierome Augustin Bernard and many others most renowned Doctours of Christs Church and Saints From this true conceipt of the ancient Fathers being Roman Catholicks Protestants further disclayme from their Interpretations and expositions of Scripture refusing to stand to their iudgments for the true vnderstanding therof Thus then they write The Sacred Scripture saith Polanus (17) Symphonia c. 1. Thes 6. p. 56. is not to be interpreted by Fathers neither is the Interpretation of Scripture to be iudged by Fathers the Fathers are not the rule of expounding the sacred Scripture c. what is here sayd of euerie Father alone is to be vnderstood of al the Fathers ioyned togeather as also of Councels That is though al Fathers and Councels conspire togeather in their Expositions of Scripture agreably to the Doctrine and beleef of the Catholick Roman Church yet Protestants wil not subscribe or admit the same but wil valiantly maintayne al such expositions though most contrarie therto as are last coyned at Geneua or Wittemberg or newliest extracted by some Brother more illuminated In like and most prouident manner argue our English Puritans against Doctour Downham obiecting against them That none of the Fathers did euer vnderstand the Text then in question as Puritans do (18) The Puritans in their answ to D. Downham Doth not Mr. Doctour know say they that to argue negatiuely concerning the sense of Scriptures from the authoritie of Fathers is the practise of Papists only and taxed by learned writers against them c. If that manner of disputing be good we shal often loose more truth in taking their Interpretations c. Carthwright tearmeth the seeking into the holy Fathers writings a 19) In Bancrofts suruey of Pretend Discipl p. 331. 337 and see chap. 4. p. 64. Raking of ditches and the bringing in of their authorities the mouing and summoning of Hel. Parker assureth vs that (20) Pref. to his Answer Limbomastix and see Iacob's Treatise p. 1. 3 54. 81. 68. Bilson's sermons Ps 323. Answ to Broughâ—on's Letter p. 17. If you alleadge the ancient Fathers against them they wil tel you roundly that their opinions are nothing els but the corrupt fancies of vaine Imaginations of men toyish fables fond absurd without sense and reason And some stick not to cal the Fathers of the Latin Church the plague of Diuinitie Hence it is that the French Protestants haue enacted it for a (21) Disciplina Magistrorum Galliae art 4. law that no place be giuen to the writings of the old Doctours for the iudgement ad determination of Doctrine So cleerly is Protestancie at an end if the Fathers Interpretation of Scriptures may stand for
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.
16. f. 65. It is confessed by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church allowed and practised the vow of Chastitie and that they neuer allowed such as were of the Clergie afterwards to marrie or such as had been twice married to be admitted to holie Orders without special dispensation chap. 17. fol. 69. It is confessed by Protestants that the Fathers of the Promitiue Church allowed practised the Religious State of Monastical life and that manie Christians of those purest times both men and women did strictly obserue and professe the same chap. 18. f. 74. It is acknowledged by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church allowed practised prescribed fasts and abstinence from certaine meats vpon dayes and times appointed holding the same obligatorie vnder sinne condemning also our Puritan Sabboath Fasts chap. 19. fol. 80. It is admitted by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church expresly taught our Catholick Doctrine concerning Free wil. chap. 20. fol. 84 It is granted by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church taught not only Faith but likewise Good works truly to iustifye that the sayd works are meritorious of Grace and Glorie chap. 21. fol. 86. It is acknowledged by Protestants that the Ceremonies now vsed in the Roman Church in the ministring of seruice or Sacrifice as also of the Sacraments were formerly vsed by the Bishops Priests and Fathers of the Primitiue Church chap. 22. fol. 89 THE THIRD BOOK WHERIN is proued that the Church of Protestants was neuer knowne or in Being before the d yes of Luther And that the Articles of Religion now taught by the Protestant Congregation were Heresies condemned by the Primitiue Church of Christ IT is confessed by Protestants that from the dayes of the Apostles vntil the tyme of Luther themselues neuer had any knowne Church or Congregatiō in anie part of the vniuersal World chap. 1. fol. 1. A Further conuincing proof of the Protestant Churches not being during the first 600. yeares is taken from the Fathers Condemning in the ancient Hereticks the chiefest articles of the Protestant Religion and our Protestants Confessing the same And First Concerning the Sacraments chap. 2. fol. 6. That the Fathers condemned in ancient Hereticks the opinions of Protestants concerning the Scriptures and the Church Militant and Triumphant chap. 3. fol. 9. That the Fathers condemned in ancient Hereticks the opinions of Protestants concerning Monachisme the mariage of Priests and prescribed Fasts chap. 4. fol. 12. That the Fathers condemned in ancient Hereticks the opinions of Protestants concerning Free-wil Faith Good works the Commandments sinne and the knowledge and Death of Christ chap. 5. fol. 14. Protestants Vsual recrimination of obiecting old Heresies to the Catholick Roman Church is cleerly examined discouered confuted by their owne acknowledgements chap. 6. fol. 17. A Further trial is Made Whether Catholicks or Protestants be true Hereticks and this by sundrie knowne badges or markes of Heresie chap. 7. fol. 23. A brief Suruey of D. Whites Catalogue wherin contrary to the Confessed truth in the precedent Chapter of no knowne beginning or change of our Romane Faith in anye Age he vndertaketh according to his Title therof to shew That the present Religion of the Roman Church was obserued resisted in al Ages as it came in and increased naming withal the Persons that made the Resistance And the poynts wherin And the time when from fiftie yeares to fiftie through-out al Ages since Christ chap. 8. fol. 35. THE FOVRTH BOOK WHERIN is proued by the Confession of Protestants that according to the Sacred Scriptures the Roman Church is the true Church of Christ And so to haue euer continued from his time vntil the Date hereof And of the contrary the Protestants Church to be only a Sect Heretical and neuer to haue been before the dayes of Luther PRotestants flying to the sacred Scriptures in proof defence of their Church and Religion it is shewed the sayd flight not only in itself to be dishonourable but also to be the ordinarie flight of al moderne Hereticks chap. 1. fol. 1. That euen the Sacred Scriptures themselues do most plentifully testify our Romane Church to be the Church of of Christ and the Congregation or Church of Protestants to be no true Church but a Sect Heretical most contrarie to the said Scriptures And that first by the Churches necessarie continuance and vniuersalitie chap. 2. fol. 5. The second Proof from sacred Scriptures in cōfirmation of the Roman Church and Confutation of the Protestant is taken from the Euer visibilitie of Christ's Church chap. 3. fol. 10. The third Proof from Sacred Scriptures in Cōfirmation of the Roman Church and Confutation of the Protestant is taken from the Churches Pastours which must euer continue with lawful Calling and Succession and with Administration of Word and Sacraments chap. 4. fol. 13. The fourth Proof from sacred Scriptures in confirmation of the Roman Church and Confutation of the Protestant is taken from the Conuersion of Heathen Kings and Nations to the Faith of Christ chap. 5. fol. 24. A Discouerie or brief Examination of sundrie sleights and Euasions vsed by Protestant Writers in Excuse of the manifest confessed want of their Churches fulfilling the foresaid Scripiures concerning the continuance vniuersalitie and visibilitie of Christs true Church chap. 6. fol. 33. THE FIFT BOOK WHERIN is shewed that Protestants in the Decision of Controuersies between them and Catholicks do absolutly disclaime from Antiquitie reiecting the Ancient Fathers and Councels for Papistical and the Sacred Scriptures for erroneous THat Protestants Disclaime from al Antiquitie since the Apostles and further reiect and condemne as Papistical the Ancient Fathers and General Councels chap. 1. fol. 1. That the Protestant Church disclaimeth from the Fathers of the Primitiue Church it is further proued by the Protestants condemning al the ancient Fathers in general for beleeuing teaching and practising the seueral particular actions of our Catholick Roman Faith and Religion chap. 2. fol. 12. 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 chap. 3. fol. 18. A TABLE SHEWING THE particular matters handled in this Booke A. AELfricus no Protestant l. 3. c. 8. pag. 51. Albigenses taught sundrie errours lib. 1. c. 3. pag. 12. Almaricus his errours l. 3. c. 8. p. 55. Antiquitie commended Praef. to the Reader and lib. 5. c. 1. pag. 1. 2. Antiquitie reiected by Protestants as a Popish Argument l. 1. c. 5. pag. 26. Anthonie the Monk commended l. 2. c. 18. Apostles according to Protestants erred in Faith euen after the comming of the Holie-Ghost l. 5. c. 3. p. 23. 25. Apocalyps reiected by Protestants lib. 5 c. 3. p. 24. Armenia conuerted by the Apostles lib. 1. c. 6. p.
S. Gregorie (36) See before l. 2. c. 4. for his Predecessours Pelagius Celestine Leo Gelasius Sixtus Siricius Innocentius Sozimus Damasus Iulius Steuen Dionisius Victor c. yea S. Peter himself are al of them reproued by Protestant Writers for the foresayd Primacie So confessed it is that the Primacie of the Roman Church did not first begin in the time of S. Gregorie Now whereas D. White further added that the whole Greek Church complayned when Phocas had first conferred it on Boniface that their complaint supposing it for true is nothing material for they being as then diuided in this poynt from the Roman Church assuming to themselues the sayd Primacie their testimonie in their owne Cause is of no account But neither is it true that Phocas did first conferre it on Boniface for though he did by his Edict declare that the Roman Church was the Head of al Churches as testify S. Bede and others (37) l. de Sex Aetatibus in Phoca Ado in Chron. Paulus Diacon l. 18. de Rebus Roman yet is there no intimation that he first bestowed it yea further they affirme that the reason of the sayd Edict was the pride of the Bishops of Constantinople who iniuriously styling themselues vniuersal Bishops and contemning the Excommunications denounced against them by S. Gregorie Pelagius the Emperour therefore thought it necessarie to interpose his owne authoritie which the Grecians much more feared And he is so free from innouating in this Cause that besides the late premisses of the ancientest Popes euer claiming the same Iustinianus (38) Ep. ad Ioann 2. the elder ancient to Phocas by 70. yeares affirmeth the Roman Church to be Head of al Churches And Valentinian who preceded Phocas 140. yeares auoucheth that the Roman Bishop hath euer had the Principalitie of Preisthood aboue al others Yea in fullest satisfaction hereof it is plainly coÌ„fessed by Protestants theÌ„selues that Constantin our first Christian Emperour elder to Phocas almost 300. yeares (39) Before l. 2. c. 4. attributed Primacie to the Roman Bishop before al. So free was Phocas from first conferring Primacie to the Roman Church and so cleerly she resteth acquitted of these pretended Changes Innouations in the first 50. yeares After 650. 650. to 700. I name sayth D. White the Sixt general Councel decreing the marriage of Priests against the Church of Rome labouring to restraine it for which he citeth Can. 13. But the truth is there are not anie such Canons in the Councel cited for the true Sixt General Councel put forth no Canons as it is euident by the Seauenth (40) Act. 4. 5. Synod Wherefore after the Sixt Synode certaine Bishops assembled at Constantinople who in the Emperour Iustiniâ—n the Second his Pallace called Trullum published those Canons vnder the name of the sixt Synode which were neuer approued by anie Roman Bishop but to the contrarie then contradicted by Pope Sergius (41) Beda l. de Sex Aetatibus in Iustiniano Caulus Diacon l. 8. c. 9. de Rebus Rom. But though these Canons were authentical yet litle would they auaile our marrying Ministers not one of them allowing anie Clergie-man to marry after Orders taken and only permitting such to keepe their wiues as had them before they were of the Clergie and neither (42) Can. 6. 12. 48. this do they allow to Bishops but only to others of inferiour Orders Yea the Roman Church is so free from making anie change in this respect at the time prescribed that sundrie (43) Before l. 2. c. 17. Protestants for the self same prohibition of marriage to the Clergie do reproue manie more ancient and confirmed Councels as the 2. Councel of Arles holden in the time of Constantin the Councel of Neocesaraea of Eliberis the first of Nice and sundrie others As also for the same cause they reprehended the ancient Popes Leo Innocentius Calixtus Siricius c. and the learnedst Doctours of those times as S. Hierome S. Ambrose Origen with manie others so that at the time of the 6. Councel of Constantinople no changee at al was made by the Roman Church concerning the Single life of the Clergie But D. White further vrgeth that the sayd â— Councel forbiddeth to make the Holie-Ghost in likenes of a Doue But neither is this true for though it did preferre other Pictures before the Picture of Christ in the figure of a Lambe and the Picture of Holie-Ghost in forme of a Doue yet doth it not condemne these (45) Act. 5. And in the 7. Synod 44 the Image of the Holie-Ghost in forme of Doue is expresly approued Yea therin was also read the Epistle of Adrian to Tharasius in which it is sayd that in the 6. Synod was commended the Image of Christ in forme of a Lambe And that the Roman Church long before those times allowed Images it is euident enough by that which is before sayd concerning Serenus But our Doctour yet vrgeth that at this time there was a Councel holden in Portugal where the Cup is appointed to be ministred to the people against the practise of some that vsed to dip the bread and so to giue it which was one begining of the half Communion But this Councel being the third Councel of (45) Can. 1. Brach did iustly forbid that dipping in that it was neither so instituted by Christ nor could be confirmed by anie testimonie or example from Scripture yet doth it not command both kinds to be giuen And though it had yet were the obiecting thereof impertinent seing as then it was free lawful to vse both kinds Now that CoÌ„munion vnder one kind was sometimes vsed in much more ancient Ages it might easily be proued by Sozomene (46) Hist l. 8. c. 5. Niceph. hist l. 13. c. 7. Hieron Apol. pro l. in Iouin Cypr. Serm. de lapsis Tertul. l. 2. ad vxor Clem. Al. l. 1. strom 700. Nicephorus S. Hierome S. Cyprian Tertullian and others So that D. Whites Examples for the Roman Churches change in this 50. yeares are altogeather friuolous After 700. to 750. I name saith M. White the General Councel of Constantinople vnder Leo Isaurus against Images This Councel was neuer confirmed but reiected for none of the Patriarchs were present S. German only excepted who would not consent therevnto and thereupon was depriued of his Sea of Constantinople Wherefore this only proueth that some of the Grecians changed their Faith concerning Images for which they were contradicted not only by the Latin Church but by sundrie also of the greatest Doctours of the Greek Church In this Age also he nameth Clemens Scotus and Adelbartus who saith he preached against the Supremacie Traditions Images and in the defence of Priests marriage also against Purgatorie Masses for the dead c. And al this he proueth only by one of his lawful witnesses his Protestant Brother Illiricus which being wholy destitute of al other Authoritie I may lawfully forebeare it al further