it is no faith Which saying of his D. Covell specially acknowledgeth and reciteth tearming it [f] Covell in his defence of Hookers five Books of Ecclesiastical Policie pag. 42. ante med harsh and justly called in question by the Church of Rome He also further taught that [g] Luther tom 2. Wittemberg de captivit Babylon fol. 74. and see further hereof in the Treatise against the defence of the censure p. 198. a Christian or Baptized person is so rich that although he would he cannot lose his salvation by any sin how great soever unless he will not believe Whereof he giveth this reason elsewhere saying As nothing justifyeth but faith so nothing sinneth but unbelief Luther in loc com c. class 5. c. 27. pag. 68. initio and in 2. part Postill Germ. Printed Argentorati Anno 1537. fol. 140. b. he saith No sin is so great which can condemn a man for only infidelity condemneth all men that are condemned and on the contrary only faith maketh all men blessed 19. As concerning [h] Brereley tract 2. cap. 2. sect 10. subdivis 4. good Works Luther teacheth in his Sermons Englished c. pag. 147. antemed that works take their goodness of the worker and pag. 278. that no work is disallowed of God unless the Author thereof be disallowed before saying thereof further such a one worketh nothing but good works neither can it be but good which he being good before shall do And as concerning the necessity of good works affirmed against him by English Protestants as Willet Whitaker c. whereof see Brereley pag. 392. 1. it is so far disclaimed in by him and his followers that they deny [i] Illyricus in praefat ad Rom. vide Schlusselburg in Catalog Haereticorum l. 13. ult pag 819. circa med good works to be so much as causa sine qua non of salvation affirming the controversie with the [k] Illyricus in praefat ad Rom. And see Colloquium Altembergense fol. 210. a. b. and 231.324.382 and 352. Papists to be not only whether good works do justify but also whether they be in any respect necessary to salvation Which last position they call [l] Illyricus ubi supra a Papistical error terming it the [m] Illyricus ibidem Doctrine of the new Papists as pernicious as the old to say as English Protestants do that the Apostle meant to exclude good works from justification not simply and as due but only as meritorious and causes efficient They will not in the point of our justification grant [n] Schlusselburg in Catalog Hâ—ereticorum l. 13. in Epist dedicatoria pag. 22. paulò post med good works to be necessary necessitate praesentiae so much as with necessity of presence condemning their Brethrens contrary Doctrine for [o] Illyricus de originali just tia ac injustitia in appendice pag. 163. worse then is the Papists Doctrine and they fortifie themselves herein with the testimony of [o] See Luthers sayings alleged in Actis Colloquii Aldeburgensis pag. 8. circa med and in Illyricus in praefat ad Rom. Luther and have proceeded so far against all necessity of good works that some of them as namely Amsdorphius a Protestant Divine of great [q] Dresserus in Millenario Sexto Printed 1598. pag. 187. post med saith Nicholaus Amsdorphius Wittembâ—rgae primum cum Luthero Philâ—ppo Theologâ—ae stadia coluit postea Episcopatui Numburgico à Frederico Electore praefectus est à Luthero inauguratus Pu. Consecrated Bishop by Luther who was no Bishop And Luther com 2. Wittemberg writeth to him specially tearming him Optime Vir fol. 487. initio And in libro Concordiae bound in quatto Lipsiae 1581. pag. 72. ante med it is said is inter caetera fecit mentionem Nicholai Amsdorphii de quo Lutherus dâ—xisser Spiritus meus requiescet in Amsdorphio Wellerus Nemo tantum hausit de Spiritu Lutheri ac Amsâ—orphius And see yet the very same affirmed of Luther and Wellerus concerning Amsdorphius by Chemnitius alleged by Hospinian in his Concord discor Printed 1607. fol. 102. b. fine note and by Luther much esteemed doubt not to affirm that [r] Hereof see Acta Colloquii Aldeburgensis pag. 120. Sect. 11. initio pag 443. paulo post initium pag. 293. paulo ante medium And see Nicholaus Amsdorphius speciall Book of this argument inâ—ituled Quod bona opera sint perniciosa ad salutem good works are not only not necessary to salvation but also hurtful to it [s] Vide Acta Colloq Aldeburg pag. 205. post med fiâ—e alleging Luther in proof of this opinion [t] Ibidem pag. 293. paulo ante med it is said Scripsit Amsdorphius post eum vel per eum Flaccius non solum non necessaria sed perniciosa esse opera ad salutem pag. 120. sect 11 it is said Hanc detestandam propositionem Amsdorphii quam Flaccius approbat editis scriptis propugnat quod bona opera non solum non sunt necessaria sed etiam perniciosa ad salutem c. Amsdorphius in suo libro â— 4. Flaccius in Annotatione super repet Major the which Illyricus whom Mr. Bell in his Regiment of the Church pag. 25. fine tearmeth a very famous Writer and most worthy defender of the Christian truth doth allow and defend by publick writing And all this so grosly and intolerably that sundry other Protestant Writers who acknowledge Amsdorphius [u] Amsdorphius plae memoriae so called ibidem pag. 206. circa medium for a man otherwise of godly memory do yet nevertheless in this profess [x] Ibid. pag. 205. fine 206. nitio it is said hereof Nos quidem ipsos Lutherum Amidorphium inter se committimus hanc propositâ—onem non usurpaturi And Osiander in Epitom Hist Eccles centur 16. pag. 609. saith Nicholaus Amsdorphius Theologus Lutheranus dum falsam D. Maioris propositionem de necessitate bonorum operum ad salutem evertere conatur in alterum extremum impegit defendere conatus est hanc absurdam propositionem Bona opera ad salutem esse perniciosa to leave both him and Luther to themselves Which foresaid extenuating of good works is yet nevertheless so grateful to some of the Calvinists that their blessed [y] So is he tearmed by D. Bulkley in his Apology for Religion c. pag. 46. initio man of God and constant Martyr of Jesus Christ Master Tindall so greatly by them yet otherwise [z] Commended Acts Mon. pag. 514. b. fine 515. a. 519. initio 521. b. initio commended was so careful to prevent all merit of good works that in his Book intituled the wicked [a] That Tindal was the Authour of this Book see Act. mon. pag. 573. b. prope finem 486. a. initio b. post med Mammon he doubteth not to affirm that [b] Act. Mon pag. 486. b. fine Christ with
the Fathers with one consent affirm that Christ delivered the souls of the Patriarchs and Prophets out of Hell at his comming thither and so spoyled Satan of those that were in his present possession Whereunto might be added the like liberal and plain [o] M. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 567. fine answereth to Duraeus his testimonies from the Fathers concerning Lymbus Patrum saying Quod Scripturis evincere minùs potuisti id Patrum testimoniis proculdubio conficies de quibus ut tibi quod sentio liberè breviterque respondeam apud me una Scripturae vocula plus habet ponderis quam mille Patrum sine Scripturis pronuntiata itaque non expectabis dum singulatim hos Patrum errores diluo And see further Mr. Whitaker ibid. pag. 773. initio And D. Barlow in his defence of the Articles of the Protestant Religion pag. 173. post med saith hereof This passeth most rife among the Fathers who taking Inferi for Abrahams bosome expound it that christ went thither ad liberandum liberandos to convey the Fathers deceased before his resurrection into the place where now they are confession of Mr. Whitaker and Mr. D. Barlow In so much as Joannes Lascicius a learned Protestant of Polonia doubteth not to affirm [p] Joannes Lascicius in his Book entituled De Ruscorum Muscovitarum Tartarorum Religione pag. 122. initio 123. and derive the Doctrin thereof from manifest [q] See the testimony of Ignatius in his Epistle ad Trallianos paulo post med It is acknowledged by Mr. D. Hill in his defence of the Article That Christ descended into Hell fol. 22. a. circa med and by Mr. Bilson in his Survey of Christs sufferings c. pag. 657. 658. And see the like testimony of Thaddaeus apud Euseb hist l. 1. c. ult It is also alleged and defended by Mr. Bilson in his Survey c. pag. 657. 658. 660. testimonies of Ignatius [r] Mr. Whitgift in his defence c. pag. 408. ante med who was Scholar to St. John as also of Thaddaeus who was one of the [s] Matth. 10.3 twelve The authority and credit of which last testimony [t] Frigevillaeus Gauvius in his Palma Christiana pag. 74. post med Frigevillaeus Gauvius an other Protestant Writer undertaketh specally to defend 5. Fiftly as concerning Freewill it is affirmed that the most antient [u] Centur. 2. c. 10. col 221. lin 51. vide ibid. col 58. lin 49. and col 43. lin 58. and see D. Humfrey in Jesuitismi part 2. â—at 5. pag. 527. fine and Osiander Centur. 2. l. 4. c. 4. pag. 84. fine Irenaeus admitteth Freewill even in spiritual actions that Justin [x] Osiander centur 2. pag. 56. paulo post med and the Century Writers centur 2. col 207. lin 49. extolled too much the liberty of mans will in observing the Commandements of God And yet further of Freewill that Protestants [y] So say the Puritans in their brief discovery of untruths c. conteined in D. Bancrosts Sermon pag. 203. fine And the Contury Writers cent 2. c. 4. col 58. lin 30. speaking of the times next after the Apostles say Nullus ferè doctrinae locus est qui tam citò obscurari caeperit atque hic de libero arbitrio ibid. col 59. lin 11. they further say of those times Eodem modo Clemens liberum arbitrium ubique asserit ut appareat in ejusmodi tenebris non tantum fuisse omnes ejus seculi Doctores verùm etiam in posterioribus cas subinde crevisse c. know that ever since the Apostles time in a manner it flourished every where until Martin Luther took the sword in hand against it And that accordingly the most antient Fathers namely [z] Hereof see Abraham Schultetus in medulla Theologiae Patrum pag. 39. post med 304. post med 466. fine 151. paulo ante med 105. circa med 98. circa med 48. prope initium fine 66. fine 73. initio 40. ante med And see the Century Writers cent 2. c. 4. col 58. lin 30. col 59. lin 11. cent 3. c. 4. col 77. 78. col 48. lin 15. Cyprian Theophilus Tertullian Origen Clemens Alexandrinus Justin Irenaeus Athenagor as Tatianus c. erred therein 6. Sixtly as concerning freewil and merit of works [a] Humfred Iesuitismi part 2. pag. 530. ante med And concerning the confessed Doctrin of merit of works in Clemens Alexandrinus Theophilus Cyprian Iustin Martyr c. See Abraham Schultetus ubi supra pag. 48. ante med 132. post med 151. post med and the Century Writers cent 2. c. 4. cent 3. c. 4. M. D. Humfrey saith It may not be denyed but that Irenaeus Clement and others quos vocant Apostolicos called Apostolical in respect of the time in which they lived have in their writings the opinions of Freewill and merit of works And in like manner do our learned Adversaries affirm that Austin taught [b] See Brentius in confess Wittemberg And Osiander cent 4. pag. 520. post med and the Divines of Wittemberg in the English Harmony of Confessions pag. 509. post med and the Century Vriters cent 5. col 507. lin 40. col 1133. lin 26. and Melancthon l. 1. Epist pag. 290. a. initio b. initio affiance in mans merits towards remission of sins [c] The Centurists cent 3. col 265. lin 54. and col 266. initio that Origen made good works the cause of justification that [d] Cent. 5. col 1178. Chrysostom handleth impurely the Doctrin of justification and attributeth merit to works that not [e] Mr. Whitaker in respons ad rat Camp rat 5. pag. 78. and see him in Mr. Fulks defence of the English translations pag. 368. ante med Cyprian only but almost all the most holy Fathers of that time were in that error as thinking so to pay the pain due to sin and to satisfy Gods Justice In so much as Luther doth therefore call [f] Luther in Gal. c. 4. and after the English translation fol. 220. a. post med b. ante post med Where for the Latin word Iustitiarios the English translateth Merit-mongers Hierom Ambrose Austin and others Justice-workers of the old Papacy And Bullinger doth also acknowledge that [g] Bullinger upon the Apoc serm 87. fol. 217. b. prope initium the Doctrin of merits satisfaction and justification of works did incontinently after the Astles time lay their first foundations And Mr. Wotton forbeareth not to taxe for this very point [h] See Ignatius his saying concerning merit extant in his Epistle to the Romans alleged in Mr. Wottons defence of Perkins c. pag. 339. fine of merit [i] Irenaeus who lived almost 1500. years since doth l. 5. adv haer versus finem apud Euseb l. 3. c. 30. versus finem allege a saying of Ignatius yet to be found
Theodoret himself in his Epâ—stle to Leo placed before his Commentaries upon Pauls Epistle saith Behold after all this travail and sweat I am condemned being not so much as accused But I look for the sentence of your Apostolick Sea and I humbly beseech and require your Holiness in this case to aid me justum vestrum rectum appellanti judicium appealing to your right and just judgement and command me to come before you c. And in his Epistle ad Renatum Praesbyterum he further saith Nudarunt me Sacerdotio c. Dâ—pâ—ecor teut sanctissimo Archiepiscopi Leoni sundeas ut Apostolica authoritate utatur jubeatque ad vestrum adire Concil um tenet enim sancta ista sedes gubernacula regendarum cuncti Orbis Ecclesiarum c. did accordingly make his appeal to Pope Leo and was thereupon by him [g] Cent. 5. col 1013. lin 26. it is said Restituit Theodoreto Episcopatum Sanctissimus Leo. And see the same in Concilio Chalcedonensi act 1. restored to his Bishoprick that [h] Chrysostom in Ep. ad Innocentium saith I beseech you write that these things so wrongfully done in my absence and I not refusing judgement may not be of force as of their own nature they are not and that those who have done wrong may be subject to the penalty of the Ecclestastical Laws c. and command us to be restored to our Church c. See this in Palladius in vita Chrysostomi extat in Aloysio Lipomanno tom 2. l. 3. part 2. And Chrysostom Ep. 2. ad Innocentium desireth that his enemies if they will repent may not be excommunicated Chrysostom did the like to Innocentius who thereupon [i] See in Cent. 5. col 663. lin 36. Pope Innocentius his Epistle to Arcadius the Emperor and his wife who were adverse to Chrysostom and took part with Theophilus where he saith I the least of all and a sinner having yet the Throne of the great Apostle Peter committed to me do separate and remove thee and her from receiving the immaculate mysteries of Christ our God and every Bishop or any other of the Clergy which shall presume to Minister or give to you those holy mysteries after the time that you have read the present letters of my bond I pronounce them void of their dignity c. Arsacius whom you placed in the Bishoplicke Throne in Chrysostoms room though he be dead we depose and command that his name be not written in theroll of Bishops In like manner we depose all other Bishops which of purposed advise have communicated with him c. To the deposing of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria we adde excommunication c. decreed Chrysostomus adversary Theophilus to be excommunicated and deposed that lastly the famous and [k] So it is tearmed by Mr. Thomas Bell in his regiment of the Church pag. 158. initio antient Council of Sardis consisting of [l] See Socrates history l. 2. cap. 16. initio Zozomen l. 2. cap. 11. 300. Bishops and above assembled from [m] See Cent. 4. col 747. lin 50. and Theodoret hist l. 2. cap. 8. Spain France Italy Sardinia Greece Egypt Thebais Libia Palestine Arabia c. and most other parts of the Christian world and whereat sundry Fathers of the Nicene Council were [n] Of this presence thereat see Theodoret hist l. 2. cap. 7. Socrates hist l. 2. cap. 16. and Carion in Chro ni pag. 282. post med present [o] The seventh Canon of this Council acknowledged and recited by the Centurists Cent. 4. col 764. l. 6. And by Osiander in epitom c. pag. 294. is Placuit ut si Episcopus c. It hath sermed good to us that if a Bishop be accused if the Bishops of the Province assembled together have judged the matter and have deprived him if the party deprived do appeal and fly to the Bishop of Rome c. If the party accused desiring his cause to be heard once again do intreat the Bishop of Rome ut è Latera suo Praesbyteros mittat to send Legates from his side it shall be in the power of the Bishop to do as he shall think good c. And see also in those Authors the 4. and 5. Canons of the said Council decreed appeals to the Bishop of Rome And so confessedly that the same is accordingly granted and the said Council therefore reproved by [p] Osiander in Epitom c. pag. 294. circa med a pud Brereley tract 2. cap. 1. sect 3. at 104. margent speaking of the Council of Saâ—dis decreeing appeals to Rome professeth to deliver the then common received opinion and reason thereof saying Inveteratus communis de manu traditus fuit error quod Petrus fuerit Romae primus Episcopus ideo hunc honorem habendum censuit successori Petri juxta communionem opinionem c. Osiander Calvin [q] Of Calvin and Peter Martyr see in Brereley tract 1. sect 7. in the mrgent at d. subd or exemple 2. Peter Martyr [r] Frigevillaeus Gauvius in his Palma Christiana pag. 30. 122. 124. circa med Trigevillaus Gauvius and [s] The Centurists do confess and recite this Canon ut supra at 70. the Century Writers In so much that whereas the Arians had expelled Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria Paulus Bishop of Constantinople and divers other Catholick Bishops of the East Church it is testified that Julius Bishop of Rome upon the Arians first accusation made to him against Athanasius [t] Nicephorus l. 9. c. 6. and Hâ—st Tripartit l. 4. c. 6. it is said Ipsis Romam vâ—nire praecepit venerabâ—lem Athanasium ad judicâ—um regulariter evocavâ—t ille continuo evocatione suscepta venit c. And see Theoâ—oret hist l. 2. c. 4. summoned Athanasius the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Canons And afterwards upon relation had from Athanasius of the truth of the matter [u] Hist Tripartâ—t l. 4. c. 15. and see Zozomâ—n hist l. 3. c. 7. Julius hearing the accusations and complaint of each one c. Commanded certain of the Bishops of the East to appear before him at a certain day c. And as the Centurists confess [x] Cent. 4. col 550. lin 20. and see this further in Socrates hist l. 2. c. 11. prope initium And Zozomen hist l. 3. c. 7. initio saith of Julius Accum propter sedis dâ—gnitatem cura omnium ad ipsum spectaret singulis suam Ecclesiam restituit restored every one of those foresaid other wronged Bishops to their own place or Bishoprick and that not by intreaty or arbitrably but as the Centurists say fretus Ecclesiae Romanae praerogativa [y] Cent. 4. col 550. lin 15. and Zozomen ut supra and see Socrates l. 2. c. 11. and Hist Tripartit l. 4. c. 15. Also D. Philippus Nicolai dâ— Regno Christi l. 2. pag. 149. circa med saith of this matter Julius Pontifex
as well as they Therefore we Catholicks have the life and substance of Religion pag. 60. In the prime grounds or Principles of Christian Religion we have not forsaken the Church of Rome Therefore he grants that we have the prime grounds or Fundamentall Articles of Religion pag. 11. For those Catholick verities which she the Roman Church retains we yield her a member of the Catholick though one of the most unsound and corrupt members In this sense the Romanists may be called Catholicks Behold we are members of the Catholick Church which could not be if we erred in any one Fundamentall Point By the way If the Romanists may be called Catholicks why may not the Roman Church be termed Catholick And yet this is that Argument which Protestants are wont to urge against us and Potter in particular in this very place not considering that he impugns himself whiles he speaks against us not distinguishing between universall as Logicians speak of it which signifies one common thing abstracting or abstracted from all particulars and Catholick as it is taken in true Divinity for the Church spread over the whole world that is all Churches which agree with the Roman and upon that vain conceit telling his unlearned Reader that universall and particular are tearms repugnant and consequently one cannot be affirmed of the other that is say I Catholick cannot be affirmed of D. Potter nor D. Potter said to be a Catholick because a particular cannot be said to be universall or an universall pag. 75. To depart from the Church of Rome in some doctrines and Practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation pag. 70. They the Roman Doctors confesse that setting aside all matters controverted the main positive truths wherein all agree are abundantly sufficient to every good Christian both for his knowledge and for his practise teaching him what to believe and how to live so as he may be saved His saying that the Roman Doctors confess that setting aside all matters controverted c. is very untrue it being manifest that Catholicks believe Protestants to erre damnably both in matters of faith and practise yet his words convince ad hominem that we have all that is necessary yea and abundantly sufficient both for knowledge and practise for us to be saved And then he discoursing of the Doctrines wherein we differ from Protestants saith pag. 74. If the Mistaker will suppose his Roman Church and Religion purged from these and the like confessed excesses and novelties he shall find in that which remains little difference of importance between us Therefore de facto we believe all things of importance which Protestants believe After these words without any interruption he goes forward and sayes pag. 75. But by this discourse the Mistaker happily may believe his cause to be advantaged and may reply If Rome want nothing essentiall to Religion or to a Church how then can the Reformers justify their separation from that Church or free themselves from damnable Schisme Doth not this discourse prove and the Objection which he raises from it suppose that we want nothing essentiall to Religion Otherwise this Objection which he makes to himself were clearly impertinent and foolish if he could have dispatched all by saying we erre in essentiall points which had been an evident and more then a just cause to justify their separation which yet appears further by his Answer to the said Objection That to depart from a particular Church and namely from the Church of Rome in some Doctrines and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation And afterward in the next pag. 76. speaking of the Church of Rome he saith expresly Her Communion we forsake not no more than the Body of Christ whereof we acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a member though corrupted And this clears us from the imputation of Schism whose propertie it is to cut off from the Body of Christ the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates But if she did erre in any one Fundamentall point by that very errour she would cease to be a member of the Body of Christ and should be cut off from the hope of salvation therefore she doth not erre in any Fundamental point p. 83. We were never disjoyned from her the Church of Rome in those main essentiall truths which give her the name and essence of a Church You must then say that she errs not in any Fundamental Point For the essence of a Church cannot subsist with any such error And that it may appear how desirous he is that it should be believed Catholicks Protestants not to differ in the essence of Religion he adds these words immediately after those which we have last cited Whereof if the mistaker doubt he may be better informed by some late Roman Catholick writers One of France who hath purposely in a large Treatise proved as he believes the Hugonots and Catholicks of that Kingdom to be all of the same Church and Religion because of truths agreed upon by both And another of our Country as it is said who hath lately published a large Catalogue of learned Authors both Papists and Protestants who are all of the same mind Thus you see he ransacks all kind of proofs to shew that Catholicks and Protestants differ not in the substance and essence of Faith and to that end cites for Catholick writers those two who can be no Catholicks as Charity Maintained part 1. chap. 3. pag. 104. Shews the former in particular to be a plain Heretick or rather Atheist Lucian-like jesting at all Religion Pag. 78. he saith We hope and think very well of all those holy and devout souls which in former Ages lived and dyed in the Church of Rome Nay our Charity reaches further to all those at this day who in simplicity of heart believe the Roman Religion and professe it To these words of the Doctor if we subsume But it were impossible that any can be saved even by Ignorance or any simplicitie of heart if he erre in a Fundamentall point because as by every such error a Church ceases to be a Church so every particular person ceases to be a member of the true Church the Conclusion will be that we doe not erre in any Fundamentall point Nay pag. 79. he saith further We believe it the Roman Religion safe that is by Gods great Mercy not damnable to some such as believe what they professe But we believe it not safe but very dangerous if not certainly damnable to such as professe it when they believe or if their hearts were upright and not perversly obstinate might believe the contrary Behold we are not only in a possibility to be saved we are even safe upon condition we believe that Faith to be true which we professe and for which we have suffered so long so great and so many