against the poyson of the Swinglians Thus far of these twenty Titles of the Protestant venemous kind of writing one against another And here we may say with the Poet ex vno discite omnes that is from Consideration of these twenty titles only we may make the like coniecture of many scores of bookes by them written Only this I may note that if the Titles of the foresaid bookes be so fraught with Malice what spleenfull sentences full of Rancour may in all probability be thought to occur here and there in the said bookes The III. Paragraph BVt what doth the Scene of the Protestants Disagreements rest only in words and writing one against another No for it passeth further finally into extreme and barbarous outrages For first they are not content to call one another Heretikes as by many afore alledged testimonies are euident but with all they prohibit the sale reading of ech others books For thus Hospinian the Protestant writeth touching the restraint made in Sxony Edictum promulgatum (m) In histor Sacrament part altera fol. 393. est c. An edict is promulgated diuulged by the which not only the reading but also the selling of all bookes written by the Caluinists is prohibited And the Lutherans do charge the Caluinists in this sort Biblia (n) Hospinian vbi suprà fol. 3â—4 Catechismum Lutheri c. The Caluinists haue prohibited the Bibles and the Catechisme approued by Luther and his followers Secondly they banish ech other from their Territories not suffering them to enter therein as Crispinus (o) In his booke of the state of the Church pag. 697. Osiander (p) In Epitom histor Eccles Cent. 16. part altera pag. 803. 860. Conradus (q) In Catalogo Haret l. 13. vltimo pag. 828. 847. Schlusselburg all Protestants and others do witnes Thirdly they appoint Articles of Visitation and Enquiry concerning the discouery and apprehending of ech other For thus the foresaid Hospinian writeth of this point shewing how the Saxons made a petition to their Duke Vt famosos (r) Hospinian in histor Sacrament part altera fol. â—93 Sacramentariorum libros prohiberet c. That he would forbid all markable Bookes of the Sacramentaries and that he would chastice the Authours of them with due Punishments And that in the next visitation he would giue directions that All Caluinists should be cast out from the Schooles Churches from all Magistracy or publike gouerment Fourthly They commit them to imprisonment of which point Hospinian thus recordeth (s) Hospinian vbi supra Nicolaus Crellius Saxoniae Cancellarius in vincula conijcitur Nicolaus Crellius being Chancelour of Saxony is cast into bonds or Prison And againe in the foresayd place Theologi nonnulli c. Many Deuines being apprehended in seuerall places are cast into bonds Fifthly they will not affoard ech other Common entertaynement vsuall to all Strangers in euery Country This course of the Lutherans against the Caluinists is reported by the foresaid Hospinian (t) In histor Sacramen part 2 fol. 399. and by Osiander (u) In Epirom c. Cent. 16. pag. 6. 8. And on the other syde by the Caluinists against the Lutherans the same is related by (x) In Catalog Haeret l. 13. vltimo p. 828. Conradus Schlusselburge Sixtly they enter into Armes one syde against another For that the Lutherans did hastily and tumultuously assault the Caluinists is recorded by Hospinian (y) Vbi supra p. 395. And that the Caluinists did actually attempt the like against the Lutherans is witnessed by Osiander (z) Epitom Cent. 16. pag. 7â—â— p. 803. This is further euident by the Example of the Arminians and Gomorists not many yeares since in Holland where one called Barneuille being the head of one of the Factions was beheaded Lastly the implacable Dissentions haue beene so violent exceeding all humane Nature as that the Lutherans haue extended their malice towards the dead Corps of the Caluinists This is verified by Hospinian Cum (a) In histor Sacrament part 2. fol. 308. impetu occurrentes Sandapilam c. The Lutherans assaulting one called Sandapila by force in humanely vsing his body did expose it to be eaten by Dogs See here the Vatinian and irreconcileable hatred of the Protestants against the Protestants Now here the Reader is to be aduertized that the different Names of Lutherans Swinglians Sacramentaries Caluinists Puritans c. are not inuented for disgrace and contumely to the different Professours but euen of necessity for the better distinguishment of their different Doctrines And according hereto M. Parkes thus writeth touching the name of Puritans Neither (b) In his Apology vnder the title of Quaerulous Motions pag. 30. do I see any sufficient reason why those among vs whom singularity in Affection and Nouelty in Faction haue denominated Puritans should not be distinguished by that Name Bu. Conradus Schlusselburg passeth more fully into the subdiuision of the word Protestant thus writing (c) In Catalog Haeret l. 13. vltim de Interemistis p. 866. Neque verò nostra partis Theologi c. Neither do the Deuines of our syde name their Aduersaries Swinglians Caluinists Sacramentaries through detraction or bate neither when we our selues are called Lutherans Finally Hospinian thus writeth Schismatica (d) In histor Sacrament par altera throughout his whole-booke he vseth these different Names ista c. I hate these Schismaticall Names of Lutherans Swinglians Caluinists and yet I vse them in this my history for the better distinguishing of their doctrines and instructing the Reader So clearely appeares the great disparity of the seuerall Religions among them euen from the seuerall appellations imposed vpon the seuerall Professours Hauing in the precedent passages discoursed of the almost incredible Dissentions in Religion betweene seuerall sorts of Protestants and this chiefly from the alledging of wordes full of contumely disgrace and rancour one against another only for matter of Religion and from the tetricall harsh and opprobrious titles of twenty of their Bookes written in great acerbity of style and lastly from their externall comportment and yet all of them promiscuously assuming to themselues in generall the Name of Protestants I hould it now conuenient in this next place to descend more particularly to the different points of Religion in which these seuerall Sects maynely dissent among themselues one syde not approuing but wholy reiecting the iudgment of the other side The IV. Paragraph I Will begin touching the Question of the Word of God or Scripture And first touching such Bookes of Scripture as are reiected by some Protestants but approued and allowed for Scripture by other Protestants Secondly the Protestants disagreements in the Translation of confessed Scripture Thirdly touching their dissentions in the interpretation of such places or texts which are on all sydes confessed to be Canonicall Scripture and truly translated And to begin with the New Testament
begin Luther the first Parent of Protestancy thus disgoâ—geth hiâ— venome against his owne brood for the Swinglians and Caluinists primitiuely descended from his loynes We (a) Thes â—1 contra Louaniens seriously iudge the Swinglians and Sacramentariâ—s to be Hereticks and Aliens from the Church of God And more We will (b) Luth. tom 7. in defens Verbor Coena Domini fol. 38â— reproue and condemne them meaning the Sacramentaries for Idolaters Corrupters of Gods word blasphemers and deceiuers And of them as of the Enemyes of the Ghospell we will sustayne persecution and spoyle of our goods c. And yet more The-Sacramentaries began their Opinion with Lyes and with Lyes they defend it And further (c) Luth. Epist. ad Ioan. Heruag Typograph Argentin I do protest (d) Luth. tom 7. Wittenb fol. 383. before God and the world that I do not agree with them meaning the Swinglians nor euer will whyles the world standeth but will haue my hand cleare from the bloud of those sheepe which these Heretiks do driue from Christ deceaue and kill c. And after in the same place Cursed (e) Vbi suprà be the Charity and Concord of Sacramentaries for euer and euer to all Eternity And to conclude Luther being as he thought neere to his graue leaueth as his Legacy these ensuing charitable words I hauing (f) Luth. de Coena Domin tom 2. now one of my feet in the graue will carry this testimony and glory to the Tribunall of God that I will with all my hart condemne and eschew Carolostactius Swinglius Decolampadius and their schollars German fol. 174. which words are also reported of Luther by the Tigur Deuines tract 3. fol. 108. nor will haue with any of them Familiarity neither by letters or writings neither by word or Deed as the Lord hath Commanded Thus much to let passe much more of Luthers Charity towards Swinglius and his party And this his Charity towards the Sacramentaries the Lutherans being of the next descent from him seeme to inherit for Brentius the Lutheran thus writeth All the (g) In recognit Prophet Swinglian workes are full of deprauations cunning deceits and slaunders Westphalus a Lutheran thus auerreth All (h) Apolog contra Caluinum p 430. c. 1â— the Caluinian Works are stuffed with taunts curses and lyes he further maintayning in the same place That there are certaine pages of Caluins Workes of which euery one contayneth at least twenty lyes and taunts Hunnius the eminent Lutheran chargeth Caluin that he (i) In his Epist Dedicat to the Confutation of Caluins deprauat wresteth the Scriptures horribly from their true sense to the ouerthrow of himselfe and others Conradus Schlusselburg the Lutheran The Caluinists (k) In Prafati Theolog. Caluinist do nourish Arian and Turkish Impieties in their harts which doth not seldome at fit tymes openly disclose it selfe To Conclude Luke Osiander thus blaseth the Caluinists concerning certaine Assertions touching Christ But heere Gentle (l) Enchirid contra Calu. cap. 7. Reader beyond and aboue the blasphemous things which in the discourse afore we haue heard against the sonne of God out of the Opinions of our Aduersaries the Caluinists there openeth it selfe a gulfe of Hell of Caluinian Doctrine in which God it said to be the Authour of sinne c. Stankarus (*) Stankarus contrâ— Caluinum 14. a Lutheran thus writeth to Caluin What Diuell O Caluin hath seduced thee to speake with Arius against the sonne of God And againe he thus sayth Beware O Christian Reader and especially all you Ministers beware of the Bookes of Caluin and principally in the Articles of the Trinity Incarnation Mediatour the Sacrament of Baptisme Thus far for some tast of Luther and the Lutherans Deportments in words and writing against the Swinglians Sacramentarians and the Caluinists Now let vs see with what Retaliation of kindnes do the Sacramentaries or Caluinists requite the Lutherans 2. First then we fynd that Swinglius thus inueighs against Luther Thou (m) In Respons ad Luther l. de Sacrament fol. 401. Luther shalt be enforced either to deny the whole Scriptures of the New Testament or to acknowledge Marcions Heresy And in the same place he thus further writes En vt totum istum hominem Satan occupare conetur Behould how the Deuill laboreth wholy to possesse this Man meaning Luther Againe Swinglius through contempt calleth Luther Marcion (n) Swingl tom 2. in respons ad Luther Confess fol. 458. 40â— the old Heretike and further concludeth in these words to wit that Luther is guilty of high blasphemy against the Nature and essence of God in that he taught that Christ dyed according to his Diuinity And Swinglius in the foresaid alledged place thus This can be by no reason explayned or excused for Luther clearely and manifestly confesseth that he will not acknowledge Christ to be his Sauiour if only his Humanity had suffered Finally Swinglius thus concludeth of Luthers wordes In verbis (*) Swinglius tom 2. in respons Luther fol. 474. Lutheri c. In the wordes of Luther there lye most great Errours when I read Luthers Booke it seemeth to me that a beastly Hogg doth gruntle in a garden beset with most fragrant flowers So impurely so vnlike to a Deuine Luther disputeth of God and all holy things Thus Swinglius But to leaue Swinglius and to descend to other Sacramentaries Campanus a Sacramentary thus fully and resolutely pronounceth of Luther As (o) In Colloq lat Luth. com 2. cap. de Aduers Certaine as God is God so certaine it is that Luther was a diuelish Lyar. Oecolampadius the Sacramentary thus fearefully speaketh of Luther himselfe Let Luther (p) In Respons ad Confess Luther take heed least being puffed with Pride he be deceiued by Satan The said Oecolampadius thus censureth of the Lutherans in generall The (q) In Dialog contra Melancth Lutherans bring forth only a colour or shadow of the Word of God as all Heretikes commonly are accustomed to do they bring not the Word of God and yet they will seeme to build vpon the Word of God The Tigurine Deuines being Swinglians or Caluinists thus recriminate Luther Nos (r) Tigurin tract 3 contra supremant Lutheri Confess condemnatam execrabilem vocat Sectam Lutherus c. Luther calleth vs a damnable and execrable sect But let him looke that he do not declare himselfe an Arch-Heretike seeing he will not nor cannot haue Society with those that confesse Christ. But how meruelously doth Luther bewray himselfe with his Deuills c. For he sayth that the Deuill dwelleth both now and euer in the Swinglians and that they haue a blasphemous Breast Insatanized Supersatanized and Persatanized c. Did euer any man heare such speaches passe from a furious Diuell himselfe Thus far the Tigurine Deuines I will Conclude with Caluin who thus exclaymeth against the Lutherans in Generall By the Lutherans (s) Instit.
the leafe and see how the more moderate English Protestant recompenseth the English Puritans Charity herein And First we find that M. Barks thus auerreth confidently The Puritans (f) In his Epist. Dedicat p. 3. are beadstrong and hardened in errour They stryke at the mayne points of fayth Shaking the very foundation it selfe Heauen and Hell The Diniuity and Humanity Yea the very soule and Saluation of our Sauiour And yet more plainely in the foresaid place They haue pestilent Heresies And finally They are hereticall and sacrilegious And further the said M. Parks thus discourseth The Creed (*) M. Parks vbi supra it selfe which alwayes hath beene the badg or cognisance whereby to discerne and know the faythfull from vnbelieuers c. is the mayne poynt in question betweene vs and the Puritans D. Couell speaking of certaine fiery English Puritans thus deliuereth his words The (g) In his Examen pag. 1. first English Ministers so far descended that some bookes and the greatest Part of Christendome was filled with vnreuerent vnholy and vnnaturall Contentions c. M. Powell is very playne with them for thus he writeth The (h) Powell in his considerations Puritans are notorious and manifest Schismatiks cut from the Church of God To forbeare diuers others like Censure passed vpon our English Puritans I will alledg these few following First of the foresayd D. Couell who registring the positions of the English Puritans among other of their positions setteth downe these following The (i) In his defence of Hooker p. 65. 74.75 statute Congregations of England are no true Church And againe The Protestant Church of England hath no forme of a Church We also thus read in the Booke of The Suruey of the pretended Discipline The (k) C. 5. c. â—4 c. 35. Puritans peruert the true meaning of certaine places both of Scripture Fathers to serue their owne turnes And againe The word of God is troubled with such choppers and changers of it Lastly besides diuers other such reprehensions of them we thus read The Catebraulls pittifull Distractions and Confusions among the Puritans proceed from such intollerable presumption as is vsed by peruerting false interpretation of holy Scripture Now by all this touching the immortall dissentions betweene our English Protestants and English Puritans we may discerne the Vanity of the Protestants answere to the Catholikes charging them in England with Controuersies in fayth the Protestants replying that their Dissentions rest only touching gouerment and other Indifferencyes but touching the mayne Articles of Protestancy they haue no Differencye at all O os impudens So ingenuously truly doth M. Parks confesse hereof saying The Protestants deceaue (l) M. Parks in his Epiâ—t Dedic the world and make men belieue That there is agreement in all substantiall Points They affirme that there is no question among them of the Truth Now the mayne Differences in doctrine betweene the Caluinists especially betweene the forraine Protestants amoÌ„g themselues and the English Protestans and the Puritans be among others these following 1. Whether the Ecclesiasticall Minister doth truly forgiue sinne or but only pronounce the remission thereof 2. Touching the Churches Visibility and Inuisibility 3. Whether in case of adultery the innocent party may marry agayne 4. Whether Christs body be really and substantially present to the Mouth of Fayth as D. Whitaker and M. Hooker do hould or but Sacramentally only present as the Puritans do teach 5. Touching Reprobation and vniuersality of Grace 6. Christs suffering in soule the paynes of Hell His descending into Hell after his death 7. Baptisme by lay persons in tyme of Neressity 8. Whether Ministers should be ordayned by imposition of handes or by the Election of the Presbytery 9. Whether Vsury be lawfull 10. Whether the Sacraments do confer Grace or but only signify it 11. Whether there hath beene since the Apostles tyme any extraordinary Calling Or whether such Calling may be 12. Whether vowes are now to be abrogated as supposed to be but Ceremoniall and parcell of the old Law 13. Whether the Roman Church be a true Church affording saluation 14. Whether the Ciuill Magistrate may be head of the Church 15. Whether the Communion ought euer to be deliuered vnder both kinds 16. Finally to omit somâ— others touching the vse of the signe of the Crosse of the Surplisse of Organs in the Church c. The II. Paragraph NOw hauing displayed in part the great Differences betweene the Protestants of all kinds among themselues and this but only from the particular sentences and wordes found here and there scattered in their writings In this next place I will demonstrate the same more fully euen from the many scores if not some hundreds of Bookes written all by Protestants against Protestants of which one Catalogue of them comprehends such bookes as are written by the Caluinists against the Lutherans Another Catalogue of bookes written by the Lutherans against the Caluinists A third by the Lutherans against the Lutherans All which three Catalogues of bookes may be found in Iodocus Coccius his Thesaurus Tom. 2. The fourth Catalogue containes the bookes written by the Protestants one against another touching the Question only of the Sacrament The Catalogue of which bookes is taken from the Protestant Wryter Hospinianus in his historiae Sacrament part 2. And all these were made betweene the yeare of our Lord 1574. and 1598. Since which tyme diuers other bookes of that subiect haue beene written by other Protestants against their owne Brethren Now in regard of the multiplicity of the said bookes of the seuerall same Catalogues and for greater breuity I refer the Reader to the two foresaid Authours Coccius and Hospinian in the places aboue alledged Yet for some delibation and tast of all the rest I will set here downe the particular titles only of twenty of the said Bookes from the vitulency and bitternes of which Titles the Reader may coniecture of all the other bookes in what spirit of Charity or rather of Serpentyne hatred and malignity they are written by Protestants against Protestants Of which twenty Bookes here alledged not any doth touch the question of the Reall presence maintayned by the Lutherans because I haue purposely forborne that subiect in relation of the Bookes here alledged in that the Lutherans agree with vs Catholikes therein 1. The First Booke then which I alledge is entituled Alberti Grauari bellum Ioannis Caluini Iesu Christi Printed Braptae Anno Domini 1598. The warr betweene Iohn Caluin and Iesus Christ written by Albertus Grauerus 2. Antiparaeus hoc est Refutatio venenati scriptià Dauide Paraeo editi in defensionem stropharum corruptelarum quibus Ioannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae testimonia de Mysterio Trinitatis nec non oracula Prophetarum de Christo detestandum in modum corrupit Printed Franeo-furti Anno 1598. Antipaeraeus that is a Refutation of a venemous writing published and made by Dauid Paraeus
in defence of the deceits and falsifications with which Iohn Caluin in a detestable manner hath corrupted the most illustrious or cleare testimonies of Scripture touching the mistery of the Trinity as also the Oracles of the Prophets concerning Christ 3. Demonstratio imposturarum fraudum quibus Aegidâ—us Hunnius Ecclesiae Othodoxae doctrinam petulanter corrumpere pergit Brema 1592. A demonstration of the impostures and deceits with the which Egidius Hunnius proceedeth perulantly to corrupt the doctrine of the Orthodoxall Church 4. Oratio de Incarnatione filij Dei contra impios blasphemos Errores Swinglianorum Caluinisturum Tubingae 1586. An Oration or Discourse of the Incarnation of the Sonne of God against the wicked blasphemous Errours of the Swinglians and the Caluinists 5. Aegidij Hunnij Caluinus Iudaicans Hoc est Iudaicae Glossae corruptelae quibus Ioannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae sacra loca testimonia de gloriosa Trinitate Deitate Christi spiritus Sancti Cum primiâ— autem vaticinia Prophetarum de Aduentu Messiae natiuitate eius Passione Resurrectione Ascensione ad Caelos Sestiane ad Dexiram Dei detestandum in modum corrumpere non abhorruit Wittembergae 1593. Caluinus Iudâ—iâ—ans written by Egidius Humnius That is a declaration of the Iudaicall expositions and falsifications with the which Iohn Caluin was not afraid detustâ—â—bly to corrupt the most cleare places and testimonies of Holy Scripture against the glorious Trinity the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost As also the Prophesies touching the Incarnation of the Messias his Natiuity Passion Resurrection Ascension to Heauen and his sitting at the right hand of God 6. Pia defensio aduersus Ioannis Caluini Petri Boquini Theodori Bezae Willielmi Clebitij c. similium Calumnias Item Refutatio Pelagiani seu Anabaptistici Caluinistarum Erroris de Baptismo peccato Originali Adduntur Collectanea plurimoruÌ„ Caluins contra Deum eius Prouâ—dentiam Praedestinationem Printed Errordiae 1583. A godly Defence against the Calumnies or deceits of Iohn Caluin Peter Boquinus Theodorus Beza Willielmus Clebitius and such others c. Also a Refutation of the Pelagian or Anabaptisticall errour of the Caluinists concerning Baptisme and Originall sinne Here are also adioyned certaine Collections out of Caluin against God and his Prouidence and Predestination 7. Veritatis Victoria ruina Papatus Saxonici Printed Losannae 1563. The Victory of the Truth and the ruine of the Papacy of Saxony 8. Conradi Schlusselburgi Theologiae Caluinisticae libri tres in quibus seu in tabula quadam quasi ad oculum plusquam ex ducentis viginti triâ—us Sacramentariorum publicis scriptis pagellis verbis proprijs Authorum Nominibus indicatis demonstratur eos de nullo ferè Christianae Fidei articulo rectè sentire Francoforti 1594. Three bookes written by Conradus Schlusselburg touching Caluinisticall Diuinity in which as in a table to the very eye is demonstrated from more then two hundred twenty three publike writings of the Sacramentaries with setting downe the pages their owne words and the Names of the Authors that the Caluinists do scarsly belieue truly any one Article of Christian Fayth 9. Argumentorum Obiectorum de praecipuis articulis doctrinae Christianae cum Responsionibus quae sunt collecta ex scriptis Philippi Melancthonis additis scholijs illustrantibus vsum singularum responsionum partes septem Neap oli 1578. Seauen partes or Heades touching the Arguments and Obiections of the principall articles of Christian Religion with their Answeres Which Answeres are gathered out of the writings of Philipp Melancthon with the illustration of the vse of all the Answeres 10. Responsio triplex ad Fratres Tubingenses triplex eorum scriptum de tribus grauissimiâ— Quaestionibus de Coena Domini de Maiestate hominis Christi de non damnandis Ecclesijs Dei nec auditis nec vocatis Geneuae 1582. A threefould Answere to the brethren of Tubing and their threefould writing touching three most weighty Questions to wit of the supper of our Lord of the Maiesty of Christs as man and of not condemning the Churches of God before they be heard and called to answere for themselues 11. Gulielmi Zepperi Dillenbergensis Ecclesia Pastoris Institutio de tribus Religionis summis Capitibus quae inter Euangelicos in Controuersiam vocantur Hanoniae 1596. An Institution or Discourse made by Gulielmus Zepperus Pastour of the Church of Dillinberg concerning three chiefe Heades or points of Religion which are called into Controuersy by the Professours of the Gospell 12. Apologia ad omnes Germaniae Ecclesias reformatas quae sub Swingliani Caluiniani Nominis inuidia vim iniuriam patiuntur Tiguri 1578. An Apology to all the reformed Churches of Germany the professours whereof suffer wrong and iniury vnder the title of being Swinglians or Caluinists 13. Ad Ioannis Brentij argumenta Iacobi Andreae Theses quibus Carnis Christi omni-praesentiam nituntur confirmare Id est aduersum renouatos Nestorij Eutichetis Errores responsum Geneuae 1570. An Answere to the arguments of Iohn Brentius and to the Theses of Iacobus Andreas by the which they labour to confirme the omni-presence of Christs Flesh That is against the reuiued Errours of Nestorius and Eutiches 14. Colloqui Montisbelgardensis inter Iacobum Andream Theodorum Bezam Acta Tubingae 1584. The Acts of the Conference at Mont-belgard betweene Iacobus Andreas and Theodorus Beza 15. Christophori Pezelij Apologia verae doctrinae de definitione Euangelij apposita Thrasonicit prastigijs Ioannis Wigandi Wittembergae 1572. An Apology of Christopher Pezelius touching the true doctrine of the definition of the Gospell opposed against the Thrasonicall and boasting sleights and impostures of Ioannes Wigandus 16. Hamelmannia siue Aries Theologizans Dialogus appositus duabus Narrationibus Historicis Hamelmanni Neostadij 1582. Hamelmannia Or a Theologizing Ramme being a Dialogue impugning two historicall Narrations of Hermannus Hamelmannus 17. Hieremiae Victoris vera dilucida demonstratio quod Swingliani Caluinistae nunquam se subiecerunt Confessioni Augustanae exhibita Carolo Quinto Anno 1530. Germ. Francofurti 1591. A true and euident Demonstration prouing that the Swinglians and the Caluinists did neuer submit themselues to the Confession of Augusta exhibited in tyme of Charles the Fifth 18. Christiani Kittelmanni decem graues perniciosi Errores Swinglianorum in doctrina de peccatis Baptismo ex proprijs eorum libris Collecti refutati Madelburgi 1592. Ten weighty and pernicious Errours of the Swinglians concerning the doctrine of sinne Baptisme being taken out of their owne Bookes and refuted by Christianus Kittelmanus 19. Responsio ad scriptum quod Theologi Bremenses aduersus Collectores Apologiae formula Concordiae publicarunt Lipsiae 1585. An answere to the writing which the Deuines of Brema published against the Collectours of the Apology of the forme of Concord 20. Ioannis Mosellani Praeseruatiua contra venenum Swinglianorum Tubingae 1586. A Preseruatiue of Ioannes Mossellanus
Luther and the Lutheran Churches the oblation of the Sacrifice excepted was so agreable and consenting with the Roman Church that the Confession of Augusta thus speaketh thereof Our (d) Cap. de missa sâ— also Osiander Cent 16. pag. 163. Churches are wrongfully accused for abolishing the Masse for the Masse is still retayned among vs and celebrated with great Reuerence c. But this Liturgy or Common Booke of Prayer being reiected in England another was made in King Edward the Sixt his raigne by the aduice of Bucer Peter Martyr and Cramner and presumed as the (e) In the Statutes 2.3 of K. Edw. 6.6.1 Statutes affirme to be done by the ayde of the Holy Ghost and ratifyed by the Authority of the high Court of Parlament This Booke of Common prayer printed by Edward Whitchurch Cum priuilegio ad imprimendum solùm anno 1549 maketh speciall defence of (f) Fol. 116. Prayer for the Dead and Intercession (g) Fol. 117. and offering of our prayers by Angells of (h) Fol. 129. Baptisme by Lay persons in tyme of necessity and of the (i) Ibidem Grace of that Sacrament of the (k) Fol. 137. 139. Priests absolution of the Sicke Penitent and the Priests blessing of the bryde brydegrome Of the (l) Fol. 144. Annointing of the Sicke Of Confirmation (m) Fol. 132. of Children Of (n) Fol. 116. consecrating the Eucharist with the signe of the Crosse Finally to omit some other Catholike points confirmed and practised in that Communion Booke Of the (o) Fol. 1â—8 Chrisme and the Childs annoynting and of (p) Fol. 126. Exorcisme Now no sooner Queene Elizabeth came to the Crowne but that the former Liturgy of King Edward being wholy abolished another was made Yet not so perfect in all points but that M. Parker thus speaketh hereof The Day (q) Against Symboliâ—ing part 1. ca. 5. sect 1. pag. 4. starre was not risen so high in their dayes when yet Queene Elizabeth reformed the defects of King Edwards Communion Booke And further he sayth It is (r) Ibidem Sect. 17. pag. 39. not the same Booke with thaâ— of King Edwards but it is altered in very many sundry Places Yea so altered as when it was proposed to be Confirmed by the Parlament it was refused This point of altering the Communion Booke of Prayer is so euident that M. Cartwright acknowledgeth it in these words The (s) 2. Reply part 1. pag. 41. Church of England changed the Booke of Common Prayer twyce or thryce after it had receaued the knowledge of the Ghospell Now all what is aboue set downe touching the Communion Booke I thinke good briefly to recapitulate in the words of Doctour Doue an eminent Protestant thus fully discoursing of this point (t) Persuasion to English Recuâ—ants pa. â—â— Concerning the Booke of Common Prayer when the Masse was fi st put downe King Henry had his English Liturgy and that was iudged absolute and without exception But when King Edward came to the Crownâ— that was condemned and another set forth in the place which Peter Martyr and Bucer did approue as very consonant to the word of God When Queene Elizabeth began her reigne the forsaid Booke was iudged to be full of imperfections and a new deuised and allowed by the Consent of the Clergy But about the middle of her reigne we grew weary of that Booke and great meanes haue beene wrought to abandon that and establish another which although it was not obtayned yet we do at the least at euery change of Prince change our Booke of Common Prayers We be so wanton that we know not what we would haue Thus far D Doue touching our English Protestants disagreements for the approuing or reiecting of their Liturgy or Common Booke of Prayer Now how yet the Puritans rest affected towards the last Edition of the Communion Booke in Queeene Elizabeth her Dayes may appeare from their censuring it in these words The (u) These words are related by D. Whitguift as spoken by the Puritans in his Defence pag. 474. forme of the Communion Booke is taken from the Church of Antichrist as the reading of the Epistles the Gospells c. The most of the Prayers the manner of ministring the Sacraments c. Againe our more late Puritans do thus Syndicate and condemne the Communion Booke Many (x) In the booke entituled The Petition of twenty two Preachers in London things in the Communion Booke are repugnant to the word of God And more In the Communion Booke there are things of which there is no sense there is Contradiction in it euen of necessary and essentiall points of Religion Other Puritans thus write against it The (y) These words are alledged in the Suruey pag. â—0 14. Communion Booke is not agreeable to the Word of God in many things And yet more The (z) Certaine Considerations printed anno 1605. f. 10 11. 17. Protestants Communion Booke and seruice is naught it hath grosse and palpable repugnancy in it This point is further made euident by the Authority of Doctour Couell who being an Aduersary to the Puritans deliuereth their Sentence touching their extreme dislyke of the Communion Booke in these words The (a) D. Couell in his Exam pa. 1â—8 Communion Booke is bouldly despised Grosse errours and manifest impietyes meaning in the iudgment of the Puritans are in the Communion Booke Thus far of the Protestants irreconciliable Disagreements touching the seuerall Formes of Liturgyes or CoÌ„munion Bookes of Prayer since the Catholike Religion was first abolished in England From whence it ineuitably followeth that during all these seuerall yeares of alterations of their Communion Bookes they neuer enioyed if their owne Censures and iudgments be perfect a true forme how to pray to Allmighty God The VI. Paragraph I Will next come to their Disagreements touching Christ our Redeemer And 1. touching Christs Nature (b) Beza l. de Vnitate Eccles Beza differently from most other Protestants teacheth that two Hypostaticall Vnions are constituted in Christ the one of the Soule with the Body the other of the Diuinity with the Humanity (c) Beza in Hesbusium Beza further teacheth that Christ is not begotten of the Substance of the Father That Christ is not Consubstantiall with his Father Luther thus writeth Anima (d) Luth. contra Latimer mea odit hoc verbum Homousion My very Soule hateth this word Homousios or Consubstantialis 2. That Christ by his Workes did merit nothing to himselfe contrary to the iudgments almost of all Christians is maintayned by Caluin who tearmeth this Doctrine A Foolish (e) Instit l. 2. c. 17. §. 10. Curiosity and rash Opinion The same blasphemy is maintayned by (f) In his booke entituled the wicked Mammon Tindall and by Iohn (g) Act. Mon. pag. 487. Teuxbury 3. That Christ suffered not only according to his Humane Nature but also according to his Diuinity is defended by
dreaming him already to haue beene come he first appeared But I hasten to other Points The IX Paragraph I Will next intreate of the Church and First of the Visibility of the Protestant Church seuerally mantayned by seuerall of our Aduersaries Secondly whether in the Protestant Church there hath beene Personall succession and Vocation of Ministers Thirdly who be the Persons of Members that Constitute the Protestants Church Fourthly whether the present Roman Church be the true Church of God and the same Church with the Protestants Lastly whether Papists as the Protestants call the Catholiks dying Papists may be saued In all which seuerall points the Reader shall fynd strang Dissentions in the Protestants writings touching them 1. And to begin with the Visibility of the Protestant Church we fynd most Protestants confidently to iustify the Visibility of it in all Ages And according hereto D. Field with a most frontles impudency thus writeth We (q) D. Field in his booke of the Church l. 3. c. 8. pag. 76. firmely belieue all the Churches of the World wherein our Fathers liued and dyed to haue beene true Protestant Churches of God c. And that they who taught imbraced and belieued those damnable Errours which the Romanists defend against vs were only a Faction Which words necessarily imply that the Protestant Church was in his iudgment euer visible In like sort a litle Booke written in the yeare 1624. and intituled A Treatise of the Perpetuall visibility and succession of the true Church in all ages written as is thought by the last pretended Archbishop of Canterbury D. Abbots or els by D. Whyte or D. Featly in proofe of the vninterrupted visibility of the Protestant Church iustifyeth their like iudgment herein Finally D. White and D. Featly in their priuate Conference in London some yeares since with M. Fisher and M. Sweet of the Society of Iesus with great venditation in words auerred the continuall Visibility of the Protestant Church in all ages and the greater Part of Protestants do mantayne the same Now let vs see how these men are crossed and impugned in this their Tenet by other learned Protestants First D. Iewell merely crossing D. Fields former most bold shameles assertion thus sayth The (r) In his Apology of the Church part 4. l. 4. truth meaning the Protestant Fayth and Religion was vnknowne at that tyme and vnheard of when Martin Luther and Hulderick Swinglius first came vnto the knowledge and preaching of the Gospell And vpon this it proceedeth that Bucer styleth Luther The (s) In Epist Anno 36. ad Episcopum Hereford first Apostle to vs of the reformed Doctrine With these former agree Benedictus Morgensterne the Protestant thus saying It is ridiculous (t) Tract de Ecclesia pag. 145. to say that any before the tyme of Luther had the purity of the Gospell And Conradus Schlusselburg the Lutheran is no lesse feruent in this point thus auerring It is (u) In Theolog. Caluinist l. 2. fol. 130. impudency to affirme that any learned men before Luther did hould the Doctrine of the Gospell From all which authorities it appeareth that before Luthers first breaking out the Protestant Church was inuisible throughout the whole world But let vs see what more the Protestants confesse contrary to the assertions of infinite other their Brethren touching the inuisibility of the Protestant Church during the seuerall ages before Luther First then Caelius secundus Curio a learned Protestant thus teacheth Factum (x) De amplitudine regni Dei p. 212. est vt per multos iam annos Ecclesia latuerit c. It is brought to passe that the Church for many yeares hath beene latent and that the Citizens of this Kingdome could scarsly ac ne vix quidem and indeed not at all be knowne of others In the same Dialect writeth M. Perkins saying We (y) In his exposition of the Creed pag. 44â— say that before the dayes of Luther for the space of many hundred yeares an vniuersall Apostacy ouerspred the whole face of the earth and that our Church was not then visible to the World Doctour Fulke speaketh heere of more particularly touching the time of the Protestants Churches Inuisibility saying The (z) In his answere to a Counterfeyte Catholike p. 16. Church in tyme of Boniface the third it being anno 607. was inuisible and fled into wildernes thereto remayne a long season The forsaid D. Perkins in another of his Bookes writes more expresly of this point his words are these During (a) In his exposition of the Creed the space of nyne hundred yeares the popish Heresy hath spred it selfe ouer the whole earth M. Napper riseth higher acknowledging thus (b) In his Treatise vpon the Reuelation pag. â—8 Betweene the yeares of Christ 300. and 316. the Antichristian and Papisticall reigne began reigning vniuersally without any debatible Contradiction one thousand two hundred and sixty yeares Yea the said M. Napper in another place ascendeth to higher tymes thus writing During (c) Vpon the Reuel in c. 11. 12. euen the second and third age to wit after Christ the true Church of God and light of the Gospell was obscured by the Roman Antichrist himselfe with whome conspireth M. Brocard saying During (d) Vpon the Reuelat pag. 100. the second and third age after Christ the true Temple of God and light of the Gospell was obscured by the Roman Antichrist Sebastianus Francus a great Protestant more liberally acknowledgeth of this point writing in this manner For (e) In Epistol de â—brogandis in vniuersum omnibus statutis Ecclesiast certaine through the worke of Antichrist the externall Church together with the Fayth and Sacraments vanished away presently after the Apostles departure And that for these Foureteene hundred yeares the Church hath not beene externall and Visible With whom D. Fulke as forgetting what before he had written touching anno 607. fully agreeth auerring thus The true (f) In his answere to a Counterfeyte Catholike p. â—3 Church decayed immediatly after the Apostles tyme. Thus much concerning the Protestant Church where we see that whereas most Protestants do teach that it hath in all ages continued Visible diuers others most remarkable Protestants do not only dissent from these former in teaching the contrary Doctrine to wit that the Protestant Church hath beene wholy inuisible for many ages But also these later disagree among themselues touching the tyme of the Latency of their Church Some of them designing a shorter tyme others a longer tyme of its Inuisibility Yea one and the same Authour at seuerall tymes writeth seuerally of the tyme of their Churches Inuisibility as appeareth by the aboue alledged different iudgments of Doctour Fulke and M. Napper So wonderfull are their contentions herein 2. In this Passage I come to the Doctrine of Personall succession and vocation of Ministers in the Protestant Church differently mantayned by different Protestants For first Caluin challengeth to himselfe
l. 4. cap. 17. §. 16. Marcion is raised out of Hell And in like sort Caluin thus more writeth The (t) Admonit 3. ad Westâ—y balum Lutherans are forgets and Lyars These implacable and mutuall dissentions betweene the Lutherans and the Caluinists are so great and irreconcileable as that Conradus (u) Schlusselburg in Theolog. Caluinist in his Catalogue praecipuorum Doctrinae Capitum c. Schlusselburg the great Lutheran reciteth three and thirty seuerall Articles of Doctrine in question and controuerted betweene the Lutherans whom he defendeth and the Caluinists against whom he writeth And Luke Osiander the Protestant did write a Treatise bearing this title Enchiridion Controuersiarum quas Augustanae Confessionis Theologi habent cum Caluinianis Printed Tubingae 1603. And Hubberus a learned Lutheran wrote a booke in Dutch printed Regiomonti 1592. hauing this title The Opposition of the Lutheran and Caluinian Doctrine in certaine chiefe Articles of Fayth So iust reason had Nicolaus Gallus the Protestant and superintendent at Ratisbone thus to complayne of the Contentions betweene his owne Brethren all Protestants Non (x) In Thesibus of Hypoiâ—esibus sunt leues c. The dissentions that are among vs are not of light matters but of the greatest articles of Christian Doctrine of the Law and the Gospell of Iustification and good Workes c. And finally Pappus the Protestant hath no lesse resentment and feeling touching this point thus writing Etsi (y) Papipus in Theolog. Caluinist l 1. Art 28. initio de vno tantùm articulo c. Although in the beginning one only Article was called into doubt notwithstanding the Caluinists are now so far gone as they call in doubt neither few neither the least Articles of Christian Doctrine c. With whome conspites Bullinger the Protestant in these words Ipsi inter (*) Bullinger in his â—undamentum fiâ—mum cap. 1. pag. 5. se Euangelici acriter pungunt pugnant c. Those alone who are professours of the Gospell do vehemently prick and feight one against another And from hence are hard among vs those vnfortunate names or appellations of the Lutherans and the Swinglians 3. In this next place let vs behould how the Lutherans do agree among themselues Their contentions are so great that Conradus Schlussenburg (z) Schlussâ—lb in Catal. Haeret nostri temporis l. 2. the most eminent Lutheran placeth six sorts of his owne Lutherans in the Catalogue of Heretikes And from this seuerall sort of Lutherans did first rise that distinction of Molles Lutherant and Rigidi Lutherani These seuerall Kinds of Lutherans had seuerall appellations or names for some of them were called Substantarij for teaching sinne to be of the essence and nature of Man Others opposite to these were tearmed Accidentarij who impugned the former Opinion Some called Vbiquitarij for confounding Christs Humanity with his Diuinity Some called Osiandrians in regard of their different Doctrine of Iustification Some others were styled Maiorists of Gregorius Maior in respect of the necessity of Good Workes Others Flaccians of Flaccus Illyricus who oppugned the Maiorists therein Finally others were denominated Adiaphorists for maintayning the indifferency of Rites and Ceremonies wherein they are greatly written against by the Flaccians Now all these as aboue is said are Lutherans and do imbrace and acknowledg the Confession of Augusta which Confession of fayth the Caluinists do wholy reiect And yet these Seuerall sorts of Lutherans haue written and published seuerall Bookes one against another in defence of their seuerall maintayned different Doctrines 4. To come to the Sacramentaries or Caluinists alone we find that Castalio the Sacramentary or Caluinist condemneth Caluin himselfe for his presumed Doctrine of God being the Authour of sinne thus writing hereof By this (a) Castal l. ad Caluinum de Praedestinat meanes not the Deuill but the God of Caluin is the Father of Lyes But that God which the holy Scripture teacheth is altogether contrary to this God of Caluin And then after The true God came to destroy the workes of the Caluinian God And these two Gods as they be contrary in Nature one to another so they beget and bring forth Children of contrary disposition to wit that God of Caluin Children without mercy proud c. Thus the foresaid Castalio In like sort Caluin (1) L. de Coena Dom. l. 4 Instit c. 15. sect 1 wholy condemneth Swinglius for his teaching that the Sacraments are bare externall signes and (2) Epist. ad quandam Germaniae Ciuitatem fol. 196. Swinglius reciprocally condemneth Caluin for his teaching that to the Sacraments more is attributed then to externall signes According to these dissentions of the Protestants or Sacramentaries among themselues Doctour Willet a formall Protestant thus reprehendeth M. Hooker D. Couell and others in these words From this Fountayne (b) In his meditat vpon the 12â— Psalme haue sprung forth those and such other whirlepooles and bubbles of new doctrine c. and then after Thus haue some beene bould to teach and write who as some Schismatikes meaning the Puritans haue disturbed the peace of the Church one way in externall matters concerning Discipline they haue troubled the Church another way by opposing themselues by new quirks and deuises to the soundnes of Doctrine among Protestants Thus far D. Willet of the strifes among the moderate Protestants themselues In this last passage we will descend more particularly to the doctrinall contentions of English moderate Protestants and English Puritans And to begin the English Puritans writing against the English Protestants thus say If (c) In a Treatise entituled A Christian and modest offer p. 11. we be in errour and the Prelats on the contrary side haue the truth we protest to all the World that the Pope and the Church of Rome and in them God and Christ haue great wrong and indignity offered vnto them in that they are reiected c. And more the English Puritans thus complayn hereof Do we (d) In the mild defence of the silenced Ministers supplication to the high Court of ParlameÌ„t vary from the sincere doctrine of the Scripture Nay rather many of them meaning the Bishops and their Adherents do much swarue from the same touching generall Grace and the death of Christ for euery particular person c. Touching the manner of Christs presence in the Eucharist c. Finally the English Puritans do more fully dismaske themselues thus bursting out and maintayning that the (e) These Positions of the Puritans are verbally recited and condemned in the booke entituled Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiasticall printed anno 1604 Worship of the Church of England is corrupt superstitious vnlawfull repugnant to the Scriptures Againe The Articles of the Bishops Religion are erroneous their rites Antichristian Aâ—d yet more The gouerment of the Church of England vnder his Maiesty by Archbishops and Deanes is Antichristian and repugnant to the word of God 6. Now to turne ouer
directed to her Excellent Maiesty of the Psalmes compared in our Booke of Common Prayer doth in Addition Substraction and Alteration differ from the truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at least M. Parkes censureth the English Bibles with the Notes of Geneua in these words As for (d) In his Apology concerning Christes descending into Hell those Bibles it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifould Errours which are both in the Text and Margent or els vtterly prohibited To conclude with M. Broughtons Condemnation of the English Bibles This great Hebritian thus expresly writeth The publike (e) In his Aduertisment to the Bishops Translation of the Scripture in English is such as that it peruerteth the Text of the Old Testament in eight hundred forty and eight places and it causeth Millions of Millions to reiect the New Testament and to runne into eternull Flames And hence it is that D Reynolds in the Conference at Hampton-Court being the speaker for the Puritans openly denyed before the King to subscribe to the Communion Booke because said he It warranted a corrupt and false Translation of the Bible Thus far of the immortall Disagreements of the Protestants both touching the Authority of the many Bookes of Scripture and of the Translations of the Scriptures made by the Protestants 3. I will here in this next place rest in the easines and difficulty of the Scripture seuerally maintayned by seuerall Protestants We find (f) In Prolegomâ— contra Patrum à Soto Brentins to write that it belongeth through the easines of Scripture to euery man to iudge from the Scripture of the Doctrine of Religion and to discerne truth from falshood In like sort D Whitaker thus writeth touching ech vnlearned Mans reading the Scripture The (g) de sacra script p. 529. vnlearned in the exposition of Scripture is to demand the Opinion of the learned and to read the Commentaries of Interpreters but they must take heed ne nimis illis tribuant that they do not ascribe too much to them but so as that in the meane tyme they retaine their owne liberty that is that euery illiterate fellow must finally iudge of the sense of the Scripture This point needeth no further allegations for we see that euery Mechanicall Fellow if so he can but read and thinks himselfe to be of the number of the Faythfull vanteth of his easy vnderstanding of the Scripture And this deportment is the Character of ech ignorant Puritan Yea ech silly ignorant Puritan-Woman will assume so much to herselfe in the interpretation of Scripture And yet to crosse this their Vanity we find Luther thus to write Scio (h) In praefat in Psalm esse impudentissimae temeritatis c. I know it to be a signe of most shameles temerity and rashnes for any Man to professe that he truly vnderstandeth in all places but any one booke of the Scriptures And D. Field maintayneth the same and sheweth Reasons in defence thereof thus writing There is no (i) L. 4. of the Church cap. 15. Question but that therebe many difficulties of the Holy Scriptures proceeding partly from the high and excellent things therein contayned which are without the compasse of Naturall Vnderstanding so are hidden from naturall Men c partly out of the ignorance of tongues c. And the truth of this point is warranted from the practise of the learned Protestants many of whom haue written Commentaries and Expositions of most bookes of Scripture which Commentaries and Expositions had beene needlesly vndertaken if the Scripture were of that facility and easines as the Puritans seeme to suggest Here now in this last place concerning the Protestants disagreements about Scripture I will descend to shew how they disagree in seuerally expounding seuerall texts of Scripture To goe through all such texts of their disagreements would be most laboursome and needles therefore I will insist in some few And First to begin with those words of the Institution of the blessed Eucharist Hoc est corpus meum Touching which text after all the Protestants haue wholy disclaymed from the Catholikes exposition thereof they presently dissent among themselues 1. For First (k) In lib. suo caâ—â—o Basiliae anno 1526. Carolostadius the Protestant will haue the Aduerb Hîc to be vnderstood by the Pronoune Hoc he thus meaning Hîc sedet corpus meum 2. Bucer (l) In Râ—tractâ—â— suis affirmeth that the Pronoune Hoc signifieth the whole action of the supper So as the sense must be This action signifyeth my body 3. Swinglius (m) L. dâ— vera falsa Religiâ— cap. de Eucharistia teacheth that the words of the Institution are to be taken Figuratiuely And the Figure to consist not in the Pronoune Hoc but in the Verb Est Which ought sayth he to be taken for the word Significat he thus meaning This signifyeth my body 4. Petrus (n) In examen libri Hothusiâ— propâ—iâ—â—tium Boquinus affirmeth that the bread is truly called the Body of Christ propter communicationem Idiomatum as by the same forme of speach we truly say of Christ This Man is God 5. Oecolampadius (o) In lib. de genuine exposit horum verborum doth not rely either in the Pronoune Hoc nor in the verb Est but in the Substantiue Body For he maintayneth that the bread is called the Body by the Figure Metonymia by which Figure the name of the thing signified is attributed to the signe So as the sense sayth he is this Hoc est corpus meum that is this bread is a Figure of my body 6. Caluin (p) Lib. 〈◊〉 Instit. c. 17. â— 11. teacheth in part with Oecolampadius that the Figure Metonymia lyeth in the word Corpus But withall he addeth that the bread of the Eucharist is not a naked Figure of Christs body but it is a Figure which doth exhibit and present the thing it selfe And therefore Christ did not say This bread is a Figure of my Body but is the body it self And Peter (q) L. de ver aque natura Christi Martyr conspireth with Caluin herein 7. Certaine other Caluinists mentioned though their names not expressed by Cornelius (r) In Comment cap. 59. Concord in illa veâ—ba Nisi manducaueritis Iansenius do teach that the word Corpus ought to be taken for the Mysticall body of Christ that is for the Church So as the sense of the words of the Institution should be this This is my body that is you Disciples are my body 8. Iohannes (s) Vti testatur Lutherus insua breâ—i Confess edita anno 46. Campanus a Sacramentary thus expoundeth the words of the Institution This is my body that is This body is created and made by me See here Good Reader the wonderfull disagreements of the Protestants in the exposition of these few words who all conspire togeather in reiecting the Catholike Interpretation but then
tymes of the Apostles my iudgment is that those tymes had plus conscientiae scientiae minus and we scientia plus conscientiae minus The Archbishop of Canterbury thus vanteth against those ancient tymes The (m) In his Defence of the answere to the Admonition pag. 472. 473. Doctrine taught professed by our Bishops at this day is more perfect and sounder then it was in any age after the Apostles I will close vp the Aristarchian and censuring iudgments of the Protestants against the ancient Fathers merely contrary to the former alledged Protestants with the scurrilous and depressing words of Luther passed vpon them who thus in one place writeth The (n) Tom. 2. Wittenb anno 1551. lib. de seruo arbitrio Fathers of so many ages haue beene plainly blynd and most ignorant in the Scriptures they haue erred all their lyfe tyme and vnlesse they were amended before their deaths they were neither Saints nor appertayning to the Church And further The (o) In Colloq mensal lib. de seruo arbitrio Apology of Philip Melancthon doth far excell all the Doctours of the Church and exceedes euen Austin himselfe And of his owne iudgment with reference to their iudgments he thus Thrasonically boasteth I (p) Contra Henricum regem Angliae eare not if a thousand Austins a thousand Cyprians a thousand Churches stood against me But to come to particular Fathers marke how Luther showers downe words of reproach against them In the (q) In Colloq mensa lib cap de Patribus Ecclesia writings of Ierome there is not a word of true Fayth in Christ sound Religion Tertullian is very superstitious I haue houlden Origen long since accursed Of Chrysostome I make no account Basill is of no worth he is wholy a Monke I waygh him not of a hayre Thus Luther and with this I end this Paragraph aduertising the Reader that besides the dissentions which these last alledged Protestants haue with the former Protestants acknowledging the Fathers authorities and worth these sharpe censures deliuered in so full a manner against the Fathers make greatly in proofe of our ancient Catholike and Romay Fayth Seeing they irreplyably proue that those most blessed and learned Fathers so neere to the dayes of our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles were Papists in Fayth and Religion and not Protestants The XI Paragraph CEasing to discourse further of particular Fathers how they are admitted by some Protestants and reiected by others I will ascend to speake of Generall Councells which consist of the Assembly and confluence of many hundred of Fathers touching which point we shall fynd great contrariety of opinions among the Protestants And first for the reiecting of the authority of Generall Councels we fynd D. Whitaker thus expresly to say (r) L. dâ— Concil contra Bellarm. q. 6. Generall Councels may erre But Peter Martyr is more full and plaine herein shewing the reason why Councells are not to be admitted thus writing As long (s) L. de rotis pag. 476. as we insist in Generall Councells so long we shall continue in the Papists Errours In like manner D. Fulke thus depresseth the authority of Generall Councels The (t) In his answere to a Counterfeyt Catholike p. â—0 90. and p. 86. whole Church militant may erre altogether as euery part thereof Beza actually chargeth the Primitiue Generall Councells with errour saying (u) In his Preface vpon the New Testament Dedicated to the Prince of Condy. anno 1587. Euen in the best tymes meaning the Primitiue tymes the ambition ignorance and lewdnes of Bishops was such that the very blynd may easely perceaue how that Satan was President in their Assemblies But now obserue how other learned Protestants contradict their former brethrens sentences herein And first Doctour Bilson discouâ—sing of the meanes to decyde Controuersies in Fayth thus writeth To haue (x) In his perpetuall Gouerment c. pag. 37â— no Iudge for the ending of Ecclesiasticall contentions were the vtter subuersion of all peace thereupon the said Doctour concludes thus Synods (y) Vbi suprà p. 370. are an externall Iudiciall meanes to discerne errours and the surest meanes to decide doubts And he further thus writeth Yf (z) Vbi suprà pag. 374. Synods were not the Church neither at any tyme was nor indeed safely can be without tempests D. Sutcliffe as not allowing triall of Controuersies only by Scripture thus writeth (a) In his reuiew of his Examination of D. Kellisons Suruey printed 1â—06 p. 41. It is false that we will admit no iudge but Scripture for mâ— appeale still to a lawfull Generall Councell M. Hooker (b) In his Preface to his booke of Ecclesiast Policy relateth now Beza as being tyred with disputs only from Scripture submitteth himselfe finally to a lawfull Assembly or Councell And the said M. Hooker in the place aboue alledged thus further writeth We are sure of this that Nature Scripture and Experience haue taught the world for the ending of Controuersies to submit it selfe vnto some iudieâ— all and definitiue sentence meaning to the iudgment or a Generall Councell D. Field conspireth with M. Hooker herein thus writing (c) In his Treatise of the Church in his Epist. Dedicat. Seeing the controuersies in Religion in our tyme are growne so many in number and in nature so intricate that few haue tyme leasure and strength to examine them what remayneth for man desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the Societies of the men in the World is that blessed Company of Holy ones that househould of Fayth that spouse of Christ that Church of the liuing God c. He meaning the iudgment of the Church deliuered in a Generall Councell To conclude an Externall iudgment or Definitiue Sentence besides the Scripture which is chiefly the sentence of a Generall Councell is further taught by D. Baneroft (d) In his Sermon preached 1. February 1588 pag. 4â— D. Couell (e) In his modest Examination pag. 108. and 109. and finally to omit others euen by the Puritanes of whose iudgment herein sâ—e D. Baneroftâ— (f) Pag. 1â—4 Suruey The XII Paragraph TO come to Traditions That they are reiected by most Protestants it will be needlesse much to labour therein Seeing they are so luxuriant especially the Puritans and the most forward Protestants and abundant in the condemnation of all Traditions yet obserue (k) L. â— pistol Swinglij Oecolamp pag. 301. how diuers points of Christian Fayth not taught in the Scriptures are acknowledged by other learned Protestants to be Apostolicall Traditions And to begin (g) Tom. â— l. de Baptism fol. 9â— Swinglius and h Oecolampadius confesse that Baptisme of Infants is not taught in the Scripture to whose iudgment D. Field subscribeth in these words (i) Of the Church pag. â—1â— Baptisme of Infants is a Tradition because it is not expresly deliuered in Scripture
that the Apostles did Baptâ—ze Infants nor any expresse precept there found that they should so do M Hooker (k) Eccles pol. l. 2 sect 7. p. 1â—8 is so full in acknowledging the Doctrine of Traditions as that he maketh speciall answere to the Fathers obiected against Traditions by diuers Protestants D. (l) In his Defence pag. 539. Whitguift proueth most fully the Tradition of Easter day from the Apostles D Couell affirmeth to vse his owne words that the (m) In his Answere to Iohn Burges pag. 130. moderate vse of the Crosse is an Apostolicall Constitution The said D. Couell doth also refer the word of Archbishop vnto (n) In his Exâ—minat against thâ— Plea of the Innocent c 9. pag. 104. Apostolicall ordination The alteration of the Sabaoth from Saturday to Sunday is acknowledged by the Deâ—tines of Geneua to set downe their owne words for (o) In their Propositions and Principles pag. 80. sect 13. an Apostolicall Tradition to be perpetually obserued Of the same iudgment touching the change of the Sabaoth day to omit others is Vrsinus the great Protestant saying Hanc (p) In Doctrinae Christian Compend in Prolegom pag 36. esse Apostolicam Traditionem credimus For greater breuity I will conclude with M. Hooker and D. Whitaker touching Canonicall Scripture of which point M. Hooker thus discourseth Of (q) Eccles pol. l. 1. sect 14. pag. 86. things necessary the very chiefe is to know what bookes we are bound to esteeme holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach So he referring it to Tradition D. Whitaker speaking of the same subiect thus writeth Canonicall Scripture is not (r) Aduers Stapleton l 2. cap. 6. pag. 170. l. 2. c. 4. pag. 1â—0 tryed by testimony of spirit but by the Ecclesiasticall Tradition c. Thus far touching different iudgments of Protestants concerning the Doctrine of Traditions The XIII Paragraph TOuching the Sacraments no lesse are their DisagreemeÌ„ts And first touching the number of them whereas most Protestants acknowledge but two Sacraments to wit Baptisme and the Eucharist yet the Protestant Deuines assembled at Ratisbone anno 1541. do teach in that their Conference that there are seauen Sacraments of which point Bucer complayneth saying (s) Bâ—cer 〈◊〉 Art Colloq Râ—â—isbâ—n Protestantes non grauatim admiserunt septem sacramenta The Protestants meaning at their meeting at Ratisbone haue not vnwillingly admitted or approued seauen Sacraments In like sort the number of seauen Sacraments is taught by the Protestant Deuines in their Conference at Lypsia where they were assembled This is auerred by (t) Illyric in adhâ—rtatione ad Constantiam in aguita Christi râ—ligion printed in 8. Magdeburgae 1550 paulâ— post initium paulo post medium Illiricus 2. That the knowne Intention of the Church is necessary to the administration of the Sacraments is denyed by certaine English (u) In their Christ Let. to M. Hooker pag. 29. 30. Protestants condemning M. Hooker for mantayning the contrary Opinion as appeareth out of M. Hookers owne (x) Eccles pol. l. 3â— â— sect â—3â— pâ— 120. writings As also the same Doctrine is mantayned by D. Couell (y) In his Defence of M. Hooker p. 10â— and almost by all moderate English Protestants And yet it is so condemned by Luther as that D. Couell (*) D. Couel in his Defence of M Hooker Art 5. p. 101. The same is auerred of Luther by Hospinian in his Histor Sacrament part altera fol. 14. chargeth Luther with teaching That the Sacraments are effectuall though administred by Satan himselfe 3. That certaine Sacraments do imprint an indeleble character in the Receauers of them is denied by M. Willet (z) In Synop. p. 419. and by most Puritan Protestants yet affirmed by D. Couell (a) In his Defence of M. Hooker pag. 87 â—1 and by M. Hooker who is reprehended therein by M. Willet (b) In his Meditation vpon 122 Psalm printed 16â—3 p. â—1 In like sort it is affirmed by most moderate Protestants 4. That Sacraments do not only signify but also confer grace is affirmed by Melancthon who thus writeth thereof (c) In c. 4. Epist ad Roman after the first Edition Repudianda est Swinglij opinio qua tantùm ciuili mode indicat de signis c. That Opinion of Swinglius is to be reiected which teacheth that Sacraments are only Netes and signes of our Profession The same is also mantayned affirmatiuely by Osiander (d) In Eucheirid coher 〈◊〉 fiar quas Augustanae Confessionis Theologi habene cum Caluinianis p. 27â— D. Whitaker (e) Contra Duraeum l. 8. p. â—61 664 M Hooker (f) Eccles polic l. 5. sect 57. p. 226. 527. D. Bilson (g) In his true Difference part 4. pag. 539. 5â—â— 368. and many others yet it is denyed reiected for Popish by D. Fulke (h) Against Purgatory pag. 35. M. Willet (i) In his Synops p. 415. who (k) In his meditation vpon the 122. Psalm pag. 92. reprehendeth some Pâ—o â—stants for their mantayning the coÌ„trary Doctrine by the Suruey (l) Pag. 103. 104. of the booke of Common Prayer and by most English Puritans The XIV Paragraph 1. TO speake particularly of the Sacrament of Baptisme Luther houldeth Baptisme to be of no force thus writing Si habes (m) Luther l. de Captiuit Babilon benè c. If thou be Baptized it is well if thou wantest it no losse Belieue and thoâ—â—ri saued before thou be baptized And Caluin (n) Lib 4. Iustin cap. 15. 〈◊〉 7. prizeth Baptisme at no higher worth then the Ceremony thereof performed by S. Iohn Baptist And of the same iudgment are the (o) Cent. 2. c. 4. Centurists thus writing before we will ascribe any Operation to the Sacrament of Baptisme we will mantayne that Infants haue Fayth by which they are saued And according here to Luther thus concludeth It is (p) Luth. aduers Coeâ—â—â—um better to omit the baptising of an Infant since his oblation if he do not belieue is vnprofitable The same opinion of the inefficacy of Baptisme to omit Caluin Beza c. teaching the same is mantayned by most Puritanes And conspiringly hereto D Whitaker as is aboue alledged thus teacheth We (q) Contâ—â— 4.9 â—2 pag. 716. may abstayne from Baptisme if there be no contempt or scandall following Now that there are other Protestants who ascribe an Efficacy to Baptisme is euident for we fynd that to the Children of the Faythfull dying vnbaptized saluation is not promised to be taught by the Confession of Ausburg (r) In the Harmony pag. 403. by D. Bilson (s) In his true Difference part 4. pag. 36â— by Vrbanus (t) â—n 1. part operum Catech minor fol. 105. Regius the learned Protestant by (u) In loc Common 238. 239. c. Sarcerius the Protestant by the (x) Pag. 16 Conference
sinne being the euill Example to our neighbour How doth this Doctrine open the sluse to all Impurity Wickednes and Libertinisme the maintayners of which Doctrine are in the number of those who as S. Iude sayth transfer (c) Iude Epist vers 14. the grace of God into wantonnesse Now this Doctrine of extenuating and lessing sinne is so mainly contradicted and gainsaid by all morall and Ciuill Protestants as that it were needles to set downe the names of them In like sort it is implicitly impugned by all those particular Protestants aboue alledged who requyre goodworkes at least to accompany Fayth For it sinne cannot be preiudiciall to Fayth to what end then should the former Protestants teach that good workes of necessity must accompany Fayth In this last place concerning Sinne I will set downe the disagreements of Protestants of which some do teach that God is the Authour of sinne Other Protestants condemning this Doctrine as most blasphemous and iniurious to God And to begin with such as really teach God to be the Authour of sinne I produce Luther thus saying How (d) Luth. in â—ssert damnat per Leonem art 36. can man prepare himselfe to good seeing it is not in his power to make his wayes euill Nam mala opera in impijs Deus operatur for God worketh the wicked workâ— in the wicked Beza thus writeth God (e) In his Display of Popish practises p. 202. exciteth the wicked will of one Thiefe to kill another guideth his hand and weapon iustly inforcing the Will of the thiefe M. Willet thus (f) In Synops pag. 563. God not only permitteth but leadeth into temptation euen with an actiue power and not permissiuely only D. Barrow thus (g) In his Treatise of Gods Prouidence in English c. 4. God doth truly and by his determinate purpose harden make blynd leade into temptation and enclyne the hart to euill Swinglius thus God (h) Swiâ—gl tom 1. de Prouidentia Dei fol. 366. moueth the Thiefe to kill and the Thiefe killeth God procuring him And againe The (i) Swinglius vbi saprà Where he sayth Aâ— inquus coactus est aâ— peccandum peâ—e mitto thiefe is inforced to sinne And more Deo impulsore (k) Swinglius vbi suprà occidit The thiefe killeth God mouing and inforcing him thereto Melancthon thus The Adultery (l) Melancth in Rom. 8. of Dauid was the proper worke of God as was the Conuersion of Paul Finally that Caluin teacheth the said Doctrine appeareth not only from Castaliâ— charging him therewith in these words by this meanes not the Deuill but the God of Caluin is Authour of Lyes but also from the places of Caluins (n) Instit l. 2 c. 4. sect 3. 4. 5. et l. 1. c. 18. sect 1. owne bookes here noted in the Margent Now this Doctrine is mainly contradicted and this most deseruedly by other Protestants And first D. Whitaker as maintayning the contrary Doctrine and in defence that not any Protestant teacheth this foresaid doctrine thus prouoketh his Aduersary in most confident words (o) Whitaker contra Camp rat 8. pag. â—15 Yf Caluin Peter Martyr Melancthon or Luther or any of ours affirme God to be the Authour of sinne I will not deny but that we are all guilty of horrible blasphemy and wickednes So much doth this Dâ—ctour dislike the foresaid Doctrine and so gladly would he vindicate and free his Protestant Brethren if he could from maintayning the said wicked Position In like sort Hemingius (p) Hemingius l. de Vniuersal Grat pag. 109. as maintayning this contrary Doctrine chargeth and reprehendeth the Caluinists for their teaching that God is the Authour of sinne The Caluinists are also condemned for this their impious Doctrine by Sitzlinus (q) In his Disputat Theolog. de prouidentia Dei sect 141. the Protestant by Iacobus Andraeas the remarkable Protestant who in expresse words thus writeth Deus (x) Andraeas in Epitom Colloq Montisblegar pa. 47. 49. 53. est authour peccati secundum Bezam This point is so euident as that the Magistrates of (s) Vide literas Senatus Bernensis ad ministros c. 1555. Berna decreed it to be punishable by their Lawes for any to preach Caluins Doctrine hereof within their owne Territories Iurisdiction or for the people to read any of Caluins Bookes of that subiect The foresaid Doctrine of God being the Authour of sinne is further contradicted condemned by (t) Lib. ad Caluinum de Praedestinat Castalio by Amandus (u) Polanus in partition Theolog. l. 1. pag. 46. Polanus by M. (x) Gibbens in his Questions vpon Genesis pag. 108. Gibbens by the Booke entituled Corpus doctrina c. printed 1561. in folio pag. 618. It is further condemned not only almost by all the Lutherans but euen by all moderate and temperate Protestants So disagreeing are the Protestants touching this Tenet The XIX Paragraph TOuching the Doctrine which denyes we ought to haue any absolute Princes or Magistrates now in the tyme of the Gospell Luther thus teacheth Among (y) Luth. de secular potestat in tom 9. German Christiâ—â—â—en none is Superiour saue one and only Christ And yet more fully Among (z) Luth. vbi supra Christians no man can or ought to be a Magistrate but ech one is to other equally subiect And further (a) Luth. Sermons Englished and printed 1579. pag 97. As Christ cannot suffer himselfe to be tyed or bound by Lawes c. So ought not the Conscience of a Christian to suffer them Other Protestants though they do not write so absolutely against Princes and all Magistracy yet they wounderfully seeke to depresse and lessen their Authority for thus Swinglius indoctrinateth his followers Quando (b) Swing tom 1. in explanat Art 41. perfidè extra regulam Christi egerint Principes c. When Princes do euill and contrary to the Law of Christ they may be deposed Againe Swinglius thus further teacheth Romanum (c) Sâ—ing in l. Epist Oecolamp Suing l. 4. Epist â—â—nhardo â—omio Imperium imò quoduiâ— aliud imperium c. Yf the Roman Emperour or any other Prince or Soueraigne shall begin to oppresse the sincere Religion nas illud negligenter patimur c And we negligently suffer the same we shall stand charged with the contempt thereof as much as euen the oppressours themselues Now this sentence is so much displeasing to moderate and loyall Protestants as that Doctour Bilson in place of further answere to them thus sayth As I (d) In his true difference part 3. pag. 273. muse at Swinglius his wordes so I like not his iudgment (e) Caluin in Daniel c. â— Caluin conspireth with Swinglius thus affirming Earthly Princes de depriue themselues of authority when they erect themselues against God Yea they are vnworthy to be accounted among the number of men and we are rather to spit vpon their faces then to
obey them With these words of Caluin Doctour Wilkes doth vpbrayde the Puritans saying They were (f) Wilks in his obedience of Ecclesiast Vnion pa. 60. your teachers who account those Princes who are not refined by your spirit vnworthy to be accounted among the number of men and therefore rather to be spitted vpon then obeyed Beza according to his former brethren much betrampleth vpon Christian Princes for he did write a booke bearing this title De iure Magistratuum in subdites A booke much disliked and condemned by D. Bancroft (g) In his Suruey of the Pretended Discipline p. 48. and D. Succliffe of which booke D. Succliffe thus censureth Beza (h) In his Answere to a certain libel supplicatory pag. 75. in his booke of the Power of Magistrates doth arme the subiects against their Princes in these cases c. And the same Doctour thus further inlargeth himselfe in his dislike of that booke saying (i) D. Sutcliffe vbi supra pag. 98. A bookâ— which ouerthroweth in effect all authority of Christian Magistrates The writings of Caluin and Beza touching the Magistracy and authority of Princes is so violent and indeed traiterous as that the foresaid D. Bancroft thus passeth his iudgment of them He that (k) In his Suruey of the pretended Discipline pag. 41. shall reade M. Caluins and M. Bezaes two bookes of Epistles c. Would certainly meruayle to vnderstand into what actions dealings they put themselues of War of Peace of subiection of reformation without staying for the Magistrate Knox of Scotland thus answerably teacheth Yf Princes (l) Knoâ— to England and Scotland fol. 76. be Tyrants against God and his Truth their subiects are freed from the Oath of Obedience Bucanan his familiar friend thus vnanimously writeth The (m) L. de iure Regni pag. 13. People haue right to bestow the Crowne at their pleasure And yet more If (n) Suâ—â—â—am vbi suprà pag. 40. were good that rewards were appointed by the People for such as should kill Tyrants as commonly there are for those which haue killed Wolues These two Scottish writers were so strong and headlong in this their Doctrine as that the Bishop of Rochester in his Sermon at Paules Crosse calleth these two men The two (o) Preached the tenth of Nouember and printeâ— 16â—â— fiery spirits of the Church and Nation of Scotland Thus much for a tast of the Doctrine of some turbulent Protestants against the soueraingty of Princes and contradicted by the former more moderate Protestants as also by all other graue and loyall Protestant writers The XX. Paragraph TOuching Poligamy or hauing many wiues at one tyme Luther thus writeth hereof Poligamy (p) Luth. in Propos de Bigamiae Episcop Edit anno 1528. Propos 62. 65 66. is no more abrogated then is the rest of Moyses Law and it is free as being neither cammanded nor forbidden Whose doctrine herein Bucer did so much imbrace as that he thus writeth Whosoeuer (q) Bucer in his scripta Anglicana de regno Christi cap. 28. pa. 101. will not induce his mynd to loue his wyfe and to treate her with coniugall Charity that man is commanded by God to put her away and marry another And this (r) Bucer vbi suprà pag. 100. being commanded in the old Law pertayneth also to Christians The Doctrine of Poligamy was defended by Bernardine Ochine of which subiect he did write certaine Dialogues And (s) Musculus in Ep. Pauli ad Philip. Colos c. in â— Tim. 5. pag. â—96 Musculus thinketh Polygamy was tolerated in the Apostles tyme. And from hence it riseth that Bucer alloweth liberty of diuorce and to take another wife in case of the ones departure (t) Bucor in hic scripta Anglic. de regno Dei l. 2. c. 26. pag. 104. froÌ„ the other Of (u) Bucer vbi supra l. 2. cap. 37. c. 40. Homicide or theft Of but repayring to the Company (x) Vbi supra c. 37. p. 115. or banquets of immodest PersoÌ„s Or in case of incurable infirmity of the woman by Child-birth or of the Mans Lunacy or otherwayes whereby either is made vnable to render Nuptiall right And then Bucer concludeth the lawfullnes (z) Vbi supra p. 124. of Diuorce and mariage againe and sayth It is verbo Dei (a) Vbi supra p. 124. and see pag. 120. consentienter agreeable to the Word of God Furthermore (y) Vbi supra c. 42. p. 123. 124. It was decreed in Geneua that if the Husband were (b) Vide Canones Gener. lâ—â— Geneuenses anno 1560. absent the wife might cause a prefixed tyme of his returne to be proclaymed and if he returned not within that tyme the Minister might giue the wife licence to take another Husband Which kind of Diuorce and second Marying againe is also defended by Beza (c) L. de repudiâ— 5. pag. â—85 by Amandus (d) In partitionib Theolog. pag. 730. Polanus by M. Willet (e) In his Synops of Anno 1600. Yea this kind of diuorce is so defended by Bucer as that he teacheth the wife may so proceed in case only of one yeares voluntary absence of the Husband Now this former Doctrine of Poligamy and of Diuorce through the causes alledged is as we see impugned by almost all other modest writers as that it needeth not to set downe their particular Names since the contrary Practise is obserued euen in all Protestant Countries among men of any integrity and honesty in manners and Conuersation Yea that euen in case of Diuorce vpon Adultery the innocent Party could not mary againe was preached at Paules Church by D. Doue and was after defended in the Vniuersity of Oxford by D. Howson (f) In tertia Thesâ— printed anno 16â—â— and it is the professed doctrine of most others And thus much touching the Protestants Disagreement concerning the Doctrine of Poligamy and Diuorce The XXI Paragraph NOw after I haue discouered the great and irreconcileable dissentions of the points aboue set downe I will descend to certaine Catholike Articles different from some Catholike points aboue touched in which diuers Protestants do compart with vs Catholikes therein and many more do dissent from their other Brethren teaching with vs. And because I will make choyse to set downe twenty Catholike Articles besides those aboue intreated of some one or two only excepted of which it is discoursed aboue wherin the Protestants do mainly differ from the Protestants in regard therfore of the multiplicity of the Articles and because I feare I haue allready dulled the cares of the Reader with a fastidious tediousnes in discouering the particular sentences and words of the Protestants either affirming or condemning the foresayd points aboue treated of I will content my selfe in these Catholike points following only to refer the Reader to such places of the Protestants Writings and bookes wherein these ensuing Catholike Points are either defended or impugned forbearing
whether he belieue it or not Luthers iudgment is the like herein touching Transubstantiation as he is cited by AmaÌ„dus (x) In his Syllog Thesium Theolog. pag. 464. Polanus 3. Touching Receauing vnder one or both kinds Luther thus writeth Quamuis (y) Luth. in Epist. ad Bobemos pulcrum quidem esset c. Although it were very seemely to vse both the kinds in the Eucharist and though Christ in this matter did not command any thing as necessary yet it were better to affect Peace then to contend about the species or Formes of this Sacrament And Luther further thus writeth Si (z) Luth. de vtraque specie Sacramenti veneris ad locum vbi tantum vna species ministratur cum alijs vna tantum specie vtere c. Yf thou come to such a place where one only species or Forme is ministred then with such men vse only one Forme or species And the same Indifferency of receauing vnder one or both kinds is further taught by (a) Melancthon in â—ent Eâ—ist Theolog. p. 252. Melancthon and other (b) See these other Protestants houlding the indifferency of this point alledged and by M. Iewell not denyed in his Replye pag. 110. 106. Protestants And yet euery man knoweth that almost all Puritan-Protestants do seeke to charge the Catholiks with breach as they pretend of our Sauiours Precept in receauing the SacrameÌ„t only vnder one kind 4. Concerning Freewill M. Perkins thus teacheth A weaking Errour is that the houlding whereof doth not ouerturne any point in the Foundation of Saluation as the Errour of Freewill and other such like Of the same iudgment is M. Cartwright (d) In his Reply 14 sect 1.2 and in M. Whitguifts Defence p. â—2 touching Freewill Prayer for the Dead and a number of others as necessary Doctrines wherein sayth he Men being nusled haue notwithstanding beene saued And M. Cartwright a litle before in the place alledged thus wryteth (c) In his Exposition of the Creed pag. 402. Yf you meane by matters of Fayth and necessary to Saluation those without which a man cannot be saued then the Doctrine which teacheth there is no Freewill or Prayer for the Dead is not within your Compasse For I doubt not but Diuers Fathers of the Greeke Church who were great Patrones of Freewill are saued The same indifferency of Prayer for the Dead is maintayned by D. Fulke (e) Confutation of Purgatory pa. 336. by Penry (f) Penry in his booke entituled M. Some laid open p. â—â— by Iohn (g) Frith Act. men pag. 501. Frith and others 5. Concerning the Indifferency of honouring Saintes Relikes and prayer for the Dead M. Sparks thus writeth We (h) Answere to M. Albins p. 382. are not so hasty to pronounce sentence of Damnation for any such Errours For you know well inough that we make not these matters such as that either we thinke all must he saued that hould the one way or all condemned that hould the other 6. Touching our B. Ladies being preserued from Originall sinns and the worshipping of Images M. Bunny houldeth these Points as mere Indifferences thus writing In (i) In his Pacification sect 12. p. 104. 105. these points and such like whosoeuer will condemne all those to be none of the Church that are not fully perswaded herein as we are c. committeth an vncharitable Acte to those his brethren 7. Concerning Satisfaction and Merit of works D Whitaker thus writeth The Fathers (k) Contra Camp p. 7â— And M. Willam Reynolds c. â— p. 135. 136. thought by their externall Discipline of lyfe to pay the paynes due for sinne wherin they derogated not a litle from Christ his Death c. which though it be an Errour yet were they notwithstanding good Men and holy Fathers 8. Concerning the Popes Primacy M. Wotton (l) Answere to a Popish 〈◊〉 denieth That to hould the Kings Supremacy is an essentiall Point of Fayth But Luther thus extenuateth this point saying The Popes (m) Luth. in Assert art 36. Primacy is among those vnnecessarie trifles wherein the Popes leuity and foolishnes is to be borne withall And Melancthon is no lesse indifferent in this Article thus writing The (n) Melancth in his Epistle extant in the booke entituled Centuria Epistolar Theologicarum Epist 74. pag. 245. Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is profitable to this end that consent may be retayned wherefore an agreement might easely be established in this article of the Popes Primacy if other Articles could be agreed vpon 9. Touching Masse Luther thus speaketh of the Indifferency thereof Priuate (o) Luth. in Colloq Germâ—nic cap. de Missa Masse hath deceaued many Saints and carryed them away into Errour from the tyme of Gregory for eight hundred yeares And Tindall thus speakes hereof I doubt (p) Act. Mon. pag. 1338. not but that S. Bernard Francis and many other holy Men erred as concerning Masse So well in his iudgment did Masse staÌ„d with holines 10. In this last place touching the Indifferency of Masse and diuers other points of Fayth Benedict Morgensterne thus writeth Condonanda (q) In tract de Eccles pa. 41. there writing of former tymes erant pijs c. These things were pardonable in the godly who held the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ and head of the Church Saints for Mediatours and the Masse for the Supper of our Lord. In like sort M. Francis Iohnson the Protestant thus writeth Did not Iohn (r) In M. Iacobs Defence of the Church and Ministery of England pag. 13. Husse that worthy ChaÌ„pion of Christ others also of the Martyrs of foretimes say heare Masse eueÌ„ to their dying Day c. Did not diuers of them acknowledge some the Popes calling and Supremacy some seauen Sacraments some auricular Confession c. Thus far these Protestants touching the Indifferency of these former Catholike Points teaching most differently from the iudgmeÌ„ts of other Protestants maintayning that the beliefe of the said Points stand not with Saluation And thus far touching the incredible Dissentions and Diametricall oppositions of the Protestants among themselues concerning so many Articles of Christian Fayth displayed layed open throughout this whole Treatise And here now I refer to the Censure of the Iudicious as I did in the Front of this Discourse whether that a man solicitous and carefull of his Saluation can with any shew of Reason Communicate with that Church which is thus deuided with the maintenance of such crosse and contradictory Opinions as we fynd the Protestants in these few leaues to be And where perhaps it may be here replyed for Errour is glad of a weake Sanctuary by some one or other in this sort as is intimated in the Preface I Professe my selfe to be a Protestant according to the Forme of English Protestancy what for ayne Protestants do write or how they do differ among themselues I am not to