obiection our due reuerence therto not withstanding the wicked liues of any Popes (n) Tom. 2. ep 165. ante med although saith he any traitor in those times had crept into that rancke of Bishops which is continued from Peter himselfe to Anastasius who now sitteth in the same chaire it would nothing hurt the Church and innocent Christians for whom our Lord prouiding saith of euil Pastors what they say do ye but what they do do ye not Lastly this wholsome councel he geueth vnto al heretickes (o) Tom. 7. in Psal contra partem Donati versus finem come ye brethren if you wil be ingrafted in the vine it is a greife when we see you cut of so to lye number the Preistes euen from the Sea of Peter and see in that rancke of Fathers who succeedeth another that is the Rocke which the proud gates of hel do not ouercome S. Austin denyeth Ecclesiastical Primacy to Emperours and Kinges SECTION 6. THe Milleuitan Councel wherat S. Austin was presēt (a) In the last Canon of rhe Mileuitan Councel prescribed decreed in the case of cleargy mē that (b) Can. 19. whosoeuer should aske of the Emperour the knowledge or hearing of publicke iudgements should be depriued of his honour Of which Canon (c) Cent. 5. c. 33. p. 152. Osiander saith It is not worthy of commendation And wheras M. Iewel (d) Reply art 4. p. 272. obiecteth the testimony of S. Austin concerning Constantine the great vndertaking the iudgements of Bishops and their causes vpon appeale made to him in that behalfe S. Austin him selfe shal geue him his answeare in these wordes (e) Tom. 2. ep 162. multo post med The Emperour graunted them another iudgement at Arles to wit of other Bishops not because it was needful but yealding to their importunities c. for neither durst the Christian Emperour so receiue their tumultuous and deceiptful complaints that him selfe would iudge of the sentence of Bishops which sate at Rome but as I haue said he graunted other Bishops frō whom they also chose to appeale againe to the Emperour wherein you haue heard how he detested them c. And as he had yealded to thē to iudge of their cause after the Bishops afterwardes he asked pardon of the holy Prelates Yea S. Austin saith further that (f) Ep. 166. ante med because Constantine durst not iudge of the cause of a Bishop he committed the same to be discussed and ended by Bishops Optatus also who liued with S. Austin alledging Constantines answeare to the Bishops that appealed to him saith (g) Lib. 1. versus finem Constantine with great anger answeared c. you aske of me iudgement in the world when I except the iudgement of Christ And a litle after Donatus thinketh that he may appeale from Bishops to which appeale Constantine thus answeared O outragious bouldnes of fury as in the causes of Gentiles c. Yea this is so cleare in S. Austin that M Carthwright answeareth to M. Whitguifts like obiecting hereof saying (h) 2. Reply part 2. p. 163. Austin saith that the Emperour was driuen by the Donatistes importunity who made no end of appealing vnto him to geue sentence in that matter for the which also he was to craue pardon of the Bishops c. Lastly S. Athanasius reporteth that the Bishop Hosius said to Constantine (i) In ep ad solitariam vitam agentes I beseech thee to cease and remember thou art mortal c. do not entermedle in Ecclesiastical matters nor do thou commaund vs in this kind God haith committed to thee the Empyre to vs those thinges which concerne the Church c. Take heede lest that drawing to thee those thinges which concerne the Church thou be guilty of great crime c. And againe who seeing him in decreeing to make him selfe the prince of Bishops to be president in Ecclesiastical iudgements may not deseruedly say that he is that abhomination of desolation which was foretold by Daniel Concerning the Sacraments CHAPTER 5. S. Austin teacheth that the Sacraments do not only signify but truly confer grace to the worthy receiuer SECTION 1. THough (k) Fulke against Purgat p. 35. Willet in his Sinopsis p. 415. Perkins in his reformed Catholicke p. 294. 298. Iewel in his defence p. 201. Protestants vsually teach that Sacraments do signify grace but not confer it yet S. Austin with vs Catholickes teacheth the contrary saying (l) Tom. 9. in Iohn tract 80. versus finem from whence is that so great vertue of the water that touching the body it washeth the heart but the word working it c. Clensing therefore would not be attributed to the liquid and slippery element if it were not added in the word And he proueth by example of Circumcision the force of Baptisme to children though they want faith saying (m) Tom. 7. l. 4. de Bapt. cont Don. c. 24. post init The Sacrament of it selfe was of great force But this doctrine is so clearly S. Austines that Luther answeareth to Cochlaeus his obiecting of S. Austin in this manner (n) Lib. cont Cochlaeum But if there be any of the Fathers who haue thought the Sacraments to iustify by their owne vertue though it be Austin as Cochlaeus contendeth I nothing care they are the sayinges of men Agreeably to which also writeth Caluin (o) Lib. 4. Instit c. 14. sec vlt. peraduenture those immoderate commendations of the Sacraments which are read in the auncient writers as that of Austin c. haith deceiued those miserable Sophisters And whearas (p) Willet in his sinopsis p. 418. Protestants do further teach that the Sacraments of the old law are equal in force to ours S. Austin with vs to the contrary auoucheth that (q) Tom. 8. in Psal 73. multo ante med There are some sacraments geuing saluation others promising the Sauiour the Sacraments of the new Testament geue saluation the Sacraments of the old Testament promise the Sauiour A saying so pregnant against Protestants that if we beleeue (r) Loc. com p. 299. and see Caluin l. 4. institut c. 14. sec vlt. Musculus it was spoken inconsideratly by Austin Yea saith Caluin (s) Lib. 4. instit c. 15. sec 7. And see Chemnitius examen part 2. p. 38. Let it trouble no man that the auncient Fathers striue to make a difference betweene the one and the other their authority ought not to be such as to shake the infallibility of Scripture c. Neither is that quircke of Austin to be approued that by the Baptisme of Iohn sinnes are forgeuen in hope but by the Baptisme of Christ sinnes are forgeuen indeede S. Austin teacheth that certaine of the Sacraments do imprint a Character or marke in the soule of the receiuer SECTION 2. THough D. (t) Sinopsis p. 419. and vpon the 112. Psal p. 91. Willet with other Protestants vtterly deny al such Character yet
for this belongeth to Christ alone And the selfe same is defended by (g) De Sacramentis c. 7. p. 95. Hunnius Lastly the auncient practise of this Extreame vnction was so vndoubted in the Primitiue Church that M. Whitaker confesseth respectiuely therof saying (h) Contra Duraeum l. 8 p. 650. I acknowledge the superstitious custome of this annoyling to haue remained longer in the Church then was meete Concerning the Sacrament of Orders wherein S. Austin teacheth that they are properly a Sacrament geuen only by a Bishop who haith authority to excommunicate eueÌ„ the dead and that Preistes may not marry or be one that was Bigamus CHAPTER 11. SAinct Austin comparing Baptisme with Order and prouing that Orders once receiued cannot be lost no more then Baptisme geueth for the reason hereof that (i) Tom. 7. cent epist Parmen l. 2. c. 13. ante med both are Sacraments and both are geuen to man with certaine consecrition that when he is baptised this when he is ordained And againe (k) Ibidem post med and see Tom. 7. de bapt contra Don. l. 1. c. 1. circa med And Tom. 6. de bono coniugali c. 24. ante med for if both be Sacraments which no man doubteth why is not that lost and this is neither Sacrament is to be iniured But S. Austin not onely thus plainly acknowledgeth Orders to be a Sactament but withal reprehendeth and as it were pointeth at the promiscuous tumultuary parety and ordination now affected by the Puritan Cleargy saying of certaine heretickes that (l) Tom. 5. ex quaest vet et noui Testam q. 110. ante med They trouble the Order begun by Peter the Apostle and obserued euen vntil this time by the continuance of Bishops succeeding one another chalenging to them selues Order without beginning that is professing a body without a head wherupon it is meete to cal their Seathe chaire of pestilence S. Austin likewise affirmeth (m) Tom. 6. de haeresibus haer 53. de Arianis circa med the equaling of Presbiters with Bishops to be the condemned error of the Arians in so much as Danaeus confesseth that (n) De haeresibus c. 53. fol. 175. Epiphanius Austin and Isidore haue enrouled the Arians within the Catalogue of heretickes in that they made the dignity of a Preist a Bishop alike And the same is yet further confessed of Austin and Epiphanius by M. (o) In his 2. reply part 1. p. 619. Carthwright And wheras M. Whitaker affirmeth that (p) Contra Duraeum l. 9. p. 813. Presbiters are named Preistes not properly but improperly S. Austin expounding certaine wordes of the Apocalipâ— affirmeth to the contrary that (q) Tom. 5. de ciuit Dei l. 20. c. 10. post med They are not onely vnderstood of Bishops and Presbiters who now in the Church are properly called Preistes He further likewise teacheth against the Puritans the ciuil iurisdiction of Bishops wherof M. Whitguift concludeth from sundry his sayinges by him alledged that (r) In his defence tract 23. p. 771. 772. Austin heareth ciuil cases Austin a iudge in worldly matters Austin thinketh that the holy Ghost haith bound Bishops vnto ciuil cases to which purpose he also produceth other Fathers who with S. Austin are further reprehended for this very cause by (s) In omnes Pauli epistolas in 1. Cor. 6.4 p. 254. Caluin S. Austin likewise mencioneth the Bishops blessing in these wordes (t) Tom. 5. de ciuit Dei lib. 22. c. 8. ante med we rise and receiuing the Bishops blessing departed yea he reprehendeth the Pelagians for impugning the same saying (u) Tom. 2. ep 90. ad Innocent post med see Sozomen hist l. 8. c. 18. Chrisost orat 4. cont Iudaeos Conc. 3. Aurelian Can. 22. et Regiense can 4. et Agathen c. 30. Bode hist l. 5. c. 4. 6. by the contention of these Pelagians our blâ—ssing is contradicted that so we may be thought to speake in vaine ouer the people He reserueth as peculiar to Bishops the Consecration of virgins and Chrisme for in the third Councel of Carthage wherat S. Austin was present and subscribed it was decreed (x) Can. 36. that a Preist should not consecrate Virgins without the aduise of the Bishop and that he should neuer make or hallow Chrisme And the like reseruation of Orders to be geuen only by a Bishop is defyned in the fourth (y) Can. 3. 4. Carthage Councel and so confessed by D. (z) Sermon at Lambeth p. 40. Downham S. Austin attributeth the power of excommunication as appartayning not as (a) Carthwright in his 2. reply part 2. p. 77. 78. c. Puritans thinke vnto the Presbitery or Congregation but to the Bishop him selfe to such purpose excommunicating (b) Tom. 2. ep 187. ad Bonif. fine Bonifacius and therupon affirmeth (c) Tom. 7. de corrept et gratia c. 15. the Episcopal iudgement to be the greatest penalty in the Church teaching likewise that (d) Tom. 2. ep 118. ad Ianuar prope initium by the authority of the Bishop euery one offending ought to be remoued from the Altar to do penance and by the same authority reconcyled againe A point so cleare that D. Whitwhiguift proueth from S. Austin the Carthage Councels others that (e) Defence tract 18. p. 676. 677. the Bishop alone did excommunicate Yea S. Austin was so ful herin that he threatned excommunication in case of desert euen to those that were dead in these wordes (f) Tom. 2. ep 50 ad Bonif. post init If those thinges should be true which are obiected by them against Caecilianus and could at any time be showed vnto vs we would excommunicate him euen being deade wherof also report the Centuristes that (g) Cent. 5. c. 6. col 666. The seuerity of this discipline went so far that it spared not the dead So Arsacius successor to Chrisostome was Excommunicated after his death c. after the same maner Austin saith of Caecilianus that he would excommunicate him though he were deade if those thinges could be proued which were obiected against him by the authorities in ep ad Bonifacium 50. And according to this Innocentius liuing in the same age with S. Austin saith (h) In ep ad Archadium We do excomunicate Arsacius euen after his death whom you in steede of great Iohn brought into the Episcopal throne And this is so certaine that it is recorded and acknowledged by the (i) Cent. 5. c. 6. col 663. Centuristes Now answearably to this practise of S. Austin in the Primitiue Church the Catholicke Church of latter times haith proceeded to take vp burne the deade bodies of some condemned heretickes as of Wicclife Bucer and others which though by our aduersaries it be tragicaly obiected and amplifyed yet is it by them selues vpon the like ground occasion accordingly put in practise for Osiander reporteth that (k) Cent. 16. l. 2. c. 4. p.
9. p. 208. of the house haunted with spirits and cleared by the Preist saying Masse in it To conclude therefore this passage concerning the miracles most of them done in Affrica at the memorial of S. Stephâ—n reported by S. Austin in his foresaid booke de ciu Dei it is yet further to be obserued that the same are also acknowledged and recorded by Euodius of whom thus writeth S. Austin at (m) Lib. 22 de ciu Dei c. 8. and after the engl trans p. 888. Vzaly neare Vtica haue many miracles bâ—ne wrought by power of the said martyr Stephen where Bishop Euodius erected his memorial long before this of ours The same Euodius did accordingly publish a special treatise in 2. bookes de miraculis Protomartyris Stephani extant in S. Austins workes Tom. 10. Also Sigebert Gâ—mblacensis 500. yeares since in l. de illust (n) Cap. 15. Eccles script maketh mention of this Euodius and of his treatise of S. Stephans miracles and the Century writers say from (o) Cent. 5. c. 10. col 1137. Trithemius there is a booke of Euodius extant of the miracles done in Affricke by the reâ—iques of S. Stephen of which miracles mencion is also made by S. (p) Tom. 10. de diuers ser 51. Austin elswhere by (q) In script Eccles in Luciano c. 46. in Auito c. 47. in Orosio c. 39. Bede l. Rerract in act Apost c. 5. 8. et in l. de tempor ratione Nicep hist l. 14. c. 9. Genadius Bede and Nicephorus A truth so cleare that Hospinian confesseth that (r) De Templis p. 301. Austin telleth many true miracles done by the signe of the Crosse the deuil put to flight de ciu Dei l. 22. c. 8. Yea he further saith (s) Pag. 138. hither b long those other true miracles which other Fathers mention as also Austin de ciu Dei l. 22. c. 8. And wheras Duraeus obiecteth these foresaid miracles D. Whitaker denyeth not but confesseth saying (t) Reply to Duraeus p. 886. I do not thinke these miracles vaine and therfore not forged which are affirmed to haue bene done at the monuments of the martyrs Moreouer our aduersaries them selues haue in such like respect not forborne to translate and publish in english S. Austines foresaid booke of miracles In further confirmation of al which I might yet ad sundry other miracles mencioned by S. Austin in sundry (u) Tom. 1. l. 1. Retract c. 13. post med tom 7. de vnit Eccles c. 19. ante med Tom. 1. l. 9. confes c. 7. Tom. 9. in Ioan. tract 120. circ med other of his writinges as also by (x) Orat. in mamant Naz. orat in Cipri Chrisost l. contra Gentiles Amb. ser de S. Geruas et Protas Hier. cont Vigilan ep ad Eustochium and in vita Hilarion Sulpt in vita Martini and see Cent. 5. c. 13. from col 1478. til 1493. cent 4. c. 13. froÌ„ col 1433. til col 1456. S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Chrisostome S. Ambrose S. Hierome Sulpitius and the Century writers against al which if any yet vnsatisfyed shal oppose his owne bare vnwarranted denyal we leaue that man as much more worthy of contempt then further reply And thus much breifly concerning such miracles collected from S. Austin as do clearly conuince what religion it was whether Catholicke or Protestant which was by him professed and by miracles thus confirmed Concerning such sayinges of S. Austin as are vsually obiected by our aduersaries against his former Catholicke doctrines confessed for such by Protestantes and confirmed by miracles CHAPTER 19. Such places are answeared as are vrged against the Canonical Scriptures against Traditions and the authority of Councels SECTION 1. AGainst the booke of Machabees M. Moulin obiecteth that S. Austin saith (a) Defence p. 152. The booke of Machabees is receiued not vnprofitably of the Church if men read it soberly M. Moulin in the same place geueth the answeare him selfe which in substance is that S. Austin said this as in respect of Razes killing himselfe whose example the Donatistes of indiscret zeale followed in reguard wherof S. Austin required this sobriety explaning further there and elswhere (b) Tom. 2. ep 61. post med which Moulin omitteth that The Scripture of the Machabees haith touching Razes death tould how it was done but not commended it as though it were to be done And in the booke of Iudges (c) Cap. 16.30 is reported the like of Sampson whom yet the Apostle (d) Hebrewes 11.32 and Aug. de ciu Dei l. 1. c. 21. commendeth Wheras M. Carthwright (e) In Hookers Eccles pol. l. 2. sec 7. p. 118. 119. obiecteth against vnwritten traditions certaine obscure sayinges of S. Austin and other Fathers M. Hooker forbeareth not in our so cleare a case by his special explication and answeare to explaine and cleare them to our handes D. Fulke (e) In Hookers Eccles pol. l. 2. sec 7. p. 118. 119. obiecteth against the authority of Councels that S. Austin teacheth that (f) Answeare to a counterf Cath. p. 89. And Aug. tom 7. de Bapt. cont Don. l. 2. c. 3. post med general Councels themselues may be often amended the former by the later when by some experience of thinges that is opened which before was shut and that knowen which before was vnknowen But his meaning here is onely concerning matters of fact or at most but concerning such pointes of faith as were by former Councels not erroneously determined but onely left vndefyned and afterwardes resolued vpon by later Councels for S. Austins wordes of Amendment argue him not to speake of faith seeing faith or heresy is not properly said to be amended but of matters of fact which are subiect to amendment A truth yet more euident in that this amendment is here said to come to passe by the experience of thinges vnto which experience not doctrine of faith but matters of fact be properly subiâ—ct M. Iewel obiecteth (g) Reply art 4. p. 272. the testimony of S. Austin concerning Constantine the great vndertaking the iudgement of Bishops and their cause vpon appeale made to him in that behalfe but M. (h) 2. Reply part 2. p. 163. Carthwright answeareth hereto in our behalfe that Austin saith that the Emperour was driuen by the Donatistes importunity who made no end of appealing vnto him to geue sentence in that matter for the which also he was to craue pardon of the Bishops To which purpose also S. Austin and Optatus haue (i) See before c. chapter 4. sec 6. formerly made their seueral answeares Such places are answeared as are obiected from S. Austin against Baptisme by women in case of necessity And against the real presence SECTION 2. MAister Carthwright obiecteth against Baptisme by women the 4. (k) Can. 100. Carthage Councel saying (l) In Whitguiftes def tract 9. c. 5. p. 523. Let not a woman presume to Baptise But his answeare is geuen him by
c. 14. sec 3. Beza in ep theol ep 28. p. 174. herein the error of the auncient Fathers cannot be excused In like sort concerning the canonical Scriptures the Protestant Poliander saith (d) See before c. 3. sec 2. to come now to the error of some Councels the Councels of Carthage and Florence hauing rouled for Canonical bookes and as diuinely inspired c. the bookes of Tobie Iudith Wisdome Ecclesiasticus and the Machabees c. and the Popes Innocentius and Gelasius haue reckoned these bookes among the canonical And the like is formerly confessed by sundry other Protestants Traditions are so fully taught by the Fathers as that for teaching the same D. Raynoldes (e) Conclusions annexed to hiâ— confer conclus 1. p. 689. reproueth S. Basil and S. Epiphanius Chemnitius reprehendeth (f) Examen part 1. p. 87. 89. 90. Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Epiphanius Ambrose Hierome Maximus Theophilus Basil Damascen D. Fulke acknowledgeth as much of (g) Confut. of Purg. p. 362. 303. 397. and against Martial p 170. 178. against Bristowes motiues p. 35. 36. Chrisostome Tertulan CipriaÌ„ AustiÌ„ Hierom. D. Whitaker confesseth the like of (h) De sacra Script p. 678. 681. 683. 685. 690. 695. 696. 668. 670. and see Schrodâ—â—us in opusc theol p. 72. Chrisostome Epiphanius Tertulian Ciprian Austin Innocentius Leo Basil Eusebius Damascen The Fathers in general are confessed to teach the Primacy Ecclesiastical of of Peter and the Bishops of Rome As also to deny supreme Ecclesiastical gouernment to temporal Princes and that the Pope is not Antichrist SECTION 2. COncerning S. Peter and his then successors Bishops of Rome in the foresaid auncient times sundry of the Fathers are by Protestants reprehended for their affirming the Church to be builded vpon Peter wherof Caluin saith (i) Instit l. 4. e. 6. parag 6. Some of the Fathers haue so expounded those wordes super hanc Petram but al the Scripture cryeth the contrary Danaeus also saith of the Fathers (k) Resp ad Bellar part 1. p. â—77 the saying of Christ thou art Peter c. they haue noughtily expounded of the person of Peter And the (l) Cent. 3. col 84. 85. cent 4 col 1250. col 1141. col 555. 557. 558. Centuristes do expresly reprehend and charge many of the auncient Fathers with this opinion D. Fulke affirmeth that not some few (m) Confut of the Papistes quarrels p. 4. but many of the auncient Fathers c. were deceiued to thinke something more of Peters prerogatiue and the Bishops of Romes dignity then by the word of God was geuen to either of them In so much as in reguard of the Roman Bishops then câ—aimed and enioyed Primacy Protestantes feare not to affirme that the Roman Bishops in the time of Constantine the great were very Antichristes whereof writeth M. (n) In Apocalip p. 539. Brightman Antichrist haith raigned from the time of Constantine the great to this very day And speaking of the Pope of Rome he saith (o) Ibidem p. 477. and see p. 471. for these thousand three hundred yeares he is that Antichrist whom M. Nappier nameth (p) Vpon the reuel p. 362. 85 88. 75. 68. And see Gauuius in Palma Christiana p. 34. to be Siluester the first But Protestants forbeare not to reproue and charge with affected vsurped Primacy euen S. Peter him selfe and the other next to him succeeding bishops of Rome for of this certaine Caluinistes write thus (q) Catalogus testium veritatis tom 1. p. 27. It may not be denyed but that Peter was somtimes faulty in ambition and desire of power c. by which infirmity of Peter doubtles it was signifyed that those Bishops which bragged of Peters succession were to be faulty of the like yea with greater ambition by infinit degrees c. wherfore this so peruerse abition of Peter and ignorance of heauenly thinges and negligence withal c. did without doubt signify that the Roman Bishop because he would be cheife and heire of Peters priuiledges was to be ignorant and a contemner of heauenly thinges and one desirous of human riches power and pleasures To which purpose also auoucheth another Protestant writer that (r) Philippus Nicholai in comment de regno Christi p. 221. The affectation of Primacy was a common infirmity of the Apostles as also of the first Bishops of the Citie of Rome Hence also it is that the auncient Fathers did confessedly reproue some Emperours of their times for vsurping of Ecclesiastical gouernment of which thus write the Centuristes (s) Cent. 4. c. 7. col 54â— The Emperours also did somtimes assume to them selues vnseasonably the iudgement of matters of faith which Athanasius reprehendeth in Constantius and Ambrose in Valentinian of which latter also saith (t) Cent. 4. l. 4. c. 9. p. 477. And D. Downham in his defence l. 1. c. 8. p. 162. 163. Osiander Ambrose answeared o Emperour do not trouble thy selfe to thinke that thou hast any imperial right ouer heauenly thinges do not extol thy selfe c. with whom agreeth M. (u) 2. Reply part 2. p. 161. 162. 155. 156. Carthwright adding further Ambrose saith it was not read nor hâ—ard of before that any Emperour was iudge ouer a Bishop in a cause of faith which was not the iudgment of Ambrose onely but of other Bishops round about Of which point also Polanus alledgeth (x) Symphonica e. 22. Thes 2. p. 836. 837. 838. 839. 841. 842. 843. 844. 849. sundry testimonies of the auncient Fathers Concerning Antichrist whose comming person and continuance were no doubt plainly and faithfuly deliuered by the Apostles to their followers and from them successiuely continued in the Church of God in better forewarning and discouery of the monster when he should appeare And first as touching the time of his comming foretould not to be before the end of the Roman Empire M. Fulke confesseth saying (y) Against Rhem. test in 2. Thes 2.3 sec 4. Indeed most of the auncient Fathers did iudge that the Roman Empire should first be decayed before Antichrist were reueled wherof also saith Caluin (z) In 2. Thes 2.3 for as much as they haue expounded this place of the defection of the Roman Empire it is more friuolous then that it needeth any long confutation and I do maruel that so many writers otherwise learned and witty haue beene deceiued in so easy a thing but that when one had erred the rest without iudgment followed in troupes which their pretended error was for sooth because they did not agree in the said exposition with the (a) Fulke in his answeare to a counterf Cath. p. 27. 36. Downham of Antichrist l. 1. p. 4. Willet in synops p. 160. Perkins vpon the Creede p. 307. Danaeus resp ad Bel. part 1. p. 371. Whitak de Eccles controu 2. quaest 4. p. 144. Powel de Antichristo in praefat p. 1. Protetestants late nouel opinion concerning