regard This refuge and tergiuersation is most poore First in that there is no more reason why a man should be rather an English Protestant then any other kind of Protestant Since all kinds of Protestancy as reiecting the authority of Gods vniuersall Church proceed Originally from the priuate Spirit to the which Protestancy euen commits Idolatry And yet there is no more reason why an English ProtestaÌ„t should assume to himselfe an infallibility of his priuate Spirit then any other foraine Protestant of other Country SecoÌ„dly because the English Protestants haue no reason to disclayme from the Protestants of other Countries if so we will belieue the English Protestants themselues for D. Iewell though most falsly thus teacheth The Lutherans and the Swinglians (s) D. Iewell in his Apology of the Church of England p. 101. within which number the English Protestants are comprehended are good friends they vary not betweene themselues vpon the principles and Foundations of their Religion but only vpon one Question which is neither waighty nor great With whom agreeth D. Whitaker speaking to his Aduersary Father Campian for his conioyning together the Lutherans and Swinglians in Fayth and Religion for this Doctour thus writeth Quòd (t) In respons ad rationes Camp rat 8. versus â—â—em autem Lutheranâ—s cum Swinglianis coniungere voluisti in eo nos quidem nequaquam offendisti c. In that thou dost conioyne and vnite the Lutherans the Swinglians together thou dost not offend vs for we willingly honour Luther as our Father and all them meaning the Lutherans and the Swinglians as our most Deare Brethren in Christ Thirdly the inueterate Dissentions euen among the English moderate Protestants themselues as also betweene the English moderate Protestants against the English Puritans both touching the Translation of the English Bible the Common booke of prayer and diuers other points of Controuersies aboue displayed manifesteth the shallownes of this former Replye Thus much concerning the auoyding of this seely Refuge I haue thought good to insist in the discouering the vanity of it in this place though it be aboue touched in the Preface only by mentioning of it because it is the ordinary Asyle or Sanctuary whitherunto many Protestants do flye when they heare the Catholikes to vpbraid them with mutuall Dissentions in the Articles of Protestancy The XXIII Paragraph NOw before I close vp this Treatise I will draw certaine Inferences or Resultancies out of the former Premisses 1. The First whereof may concerne the beliefe of the former Catholike Points by Protestants which beliefe is indeed no supernaturall beliefe I meane it is not any of the three supernaturall vertues but only it is in them a meere priuate opinion or inducement to giue a naturall consent to that which is true For the better and more cleere illustration of which point the Reader is to conceaue that two things do necessarily concurre to the producing of the Vertue of supernaturall Fayth The one is Prima (u) S. Thomas part 2. q. 8. veritas reuelans which is God The other is called the authority of the Church This prima veritas reuelans being God is otherwise called by the Deuines Obiectum formale Fidei This prima veritas doth reueale all true points of Fayth The second to wit The Authority of the Church is called Amussit Regula or the Propounder because it propoundeth to the members of the Church all such points to be belieued which God reuealed to the Church to be belieued Now to applye this to our purpose This Prima veritas reuelant as also this Propounder do indifferently propound to the Members of the Church all points of Fayth to be belieued as well as any one only point and the Persons to whom such points of Fayth are reuealed and propounded to be belieued do through the same authority of the Church belieue all points of Fayth to be reuealed alike Therefore seeing the former Protestants belieuing the former particular Catholike Articles do belieue them not through the Authority of the Church propounding them to be belieued for if they did belieue them by force thereof they would in like sort belieue all other Catholike points seeing all of them are alike reuealed by God to the Church and alike propounded by the Church to Christians to be belieued Therefore from hence it followeth that the former Protestants do belieue the foresayd Catholike Points only through the force of their owne priuate spirit which intertayneth them as points probable and true And thus the Close of all is that the said Protestants do belieue or rather giue assent vnto Truths falsly so mans Ghostly Enemy when he speaketh the truth he lyes that is they belieue truths vpon false Grounds and Principles For they belieue certaine Catholike Doctrines but they belieue not the Church teaching those Doctrines Thus much touching the first Porisma 2. The second shal be the scandall and stumbing block which these great Dissentions among the Protestants do beget in the minds of other ProtestaÌ„ts to wit a forsaking of the Protestant Religion and imbracing the Catholike Religion To begin We fynd Duditius the markable Protestant thus to confesse of this point The (x) Beza in his Epistol Theolog. Epist ad Andraeam Duditium p. 13. relaâ—teth Duditius thus to say Protestants are caryed about with euery wynd of Doctrine now to this part now to that whose religion what it is to day you may perhaps knowe but what it wil be to morrow neither you nor they can certainly tell Thus Duditius And Syr Edwin Sands in like manner thus writeth Protestants (a) In his relation c. fol. 8. are as seuered or rather scattered troupes ech drawing aduerseway c. In like sort Georgint Maior a great Lutheran thus disconsolately writeth Obijciunt (b) In Orat de Confusionibus Dogmatum veteribus recentibus nobis Papistae c. The Papists do obiect to vs Scandals and Dissentions I do freely acknowledge such to be as cannot be sufficiently lamented And Melancthon thus complayneth hereof as is aboue noted Nulla (c) Melanch in Concil Theolog. part 1. pag. 245. res aequè deterret homines ab Euangelio ac nostra Discordia no one thing deterreth and withdraweth men more from the Gospell then the Discord among our selues And vpon this ground it is that Dresserus the Protestant thus speaketh of Staphylus who was once a Protestant Oh Theologorum dissidia (d) Dresserus in Millenar â— pa. 214. ad Catholicos defecit Staphylus Staphylus reuolted to the Catholiks by reason of the Disagreements among the Protestant Deuines And dare our Aduersaries notwithstanding suggest the Protestant Church to be the true Church it being thus depriued of Vnity the inseparable marke of the true Church 3. A third may be that whereas many Protestants aboue alledged do approue and allow many Articles of our Catholike Fayth that such Confessions euen of the Aduersaries themselues do much aduantage
Of which Controuersy D. Field thus sayth Touching (e) D. Field l. 2 â—f the Church â— 9. pag. 58. Contradictory Opinions some were named Thomists other Scotists in Controuersyes of Religion not yet determined by consent of the Vniuersall Church So idly and impertinently do the Protestants diuerberate the ayre in vpbrayding the Catholikes with this Controuersy touching the Conception of our B. Lady 4. Another Obseruation of which I thinke good to aduertise the Reader concernes certaine forlorne and broken Men yet competently learned who once were Catholiks but after did apostate from the Catholike Church by entertayning some one or other Opinion of Nouelism condemned by the said Church With euery one of which we may well expostulate in the Dialect of Josue Noster (f) Iosuâ— c. 5. es an Aduersariorum yet before their deaths most of them abandoned their said Innouations and so by their finall submission they dyed Members of our Catholike Church Such were these few following Erasmus Berengarius Aeneas Siluius Polidor Virgil Laurentius Valla Wicelius Cassander and one or two oâ—her Pseudo-Catholiks out of all which Doctour Morton (g) In his â—â—olog Cathoâ— is not ashamed to vrge that they being Papists are deuided in doctrine among themselues Now to this I answere This Obiection is of no force because the former Men did maintayne but some one or other Point against the Church comparting and interleaging in all the rest with the Catholiks But after the most part of them relinquishing their former Errours dyed Catholiks and in regard of their submission before their deaths to the Church of Rome and not otherwise they are accounted Catholiks Secondly I say that whiles these former Men did persist in their Nouelismes during all that tyme they were condemned by the Church of Rome for Heretiks and therefore it cannot be vrged that these Men were Papists at that tyme of their dissenting from the Vniuersall Church for by such their Schisme they were cut off from the Catholike Church and wholy reiected for members thereof And I freely grant that a Catholike or Papist as we are opprobriously called may become an Heretike by entertayning some Innouations But then I say he ceaseth to be a Catholike or Papist But the Case is far otherwise with the Protestants vrged in this following Treatise For first the Protestants heere produced being incomparably far greater in number then the former named Sectaries do not disagree in one or two or three Points only of Protestancy among themselues but they are distracted almost in all points of Protestancy Againe I say the Protestants by me vrged though reciprocally crossing one another contrary to the state of Berengarius Erasmus and the rest aboue specified yet during he same time of maintayning their coÌ„tradictory Opinions do still remayne Protestants accordingly they are all promiscuously acknowledged as good Members of the ProtestaÌ„t Church So great is the disparity betweene the former vrged Authours by D. Morton and the Protestants hereafter by me alledged That these Protestants whether they be Lutherans or Swinglians vnder whom are comprehended Caluinists which I am to produce notwithstanding their great discrepancy and dissentions in Fayth do remayne still Members of the Protestant Church appeareth from the iudgmeÌ„t of D. Whitaker who thus writeth to his Aduersary Father Campian happy Man who pledged his bloud for the fayth of Christ Quod (h) In respons ad rationes Campiani rat 8. autem Lutheranos cum Swingliants coniungis c. In that thou dost conioyne and vnite the Lutherans and the Swinglians together thou dost not offend vs For we willingly honour Luther as our Father and all them meaning the Lutherans Swinglians and Caluinists as our most deare brethren in Christ. And according to this tenour D. Iewell affirmeth saying The (i) In his Apolog. of the Church of England pag. 101. Swinglians and Lutherans are good friends they vary not among themselues vpon the Principles and foundation of our Religion but vpon only one Question which is neither weighty nor great And thus far of the transparency of the former Obiection touching Berengarius Erasmus c. Hitherto may be adioyned that whereas the Protestants are hereafter charged with great dissentions inconstancy touching their often altering their Common Booke of Prayer D. Doue acknowledging so much seekes to auoyd this blemish by saying The (k) D. Dâ—ne in his persuasion to English Recusants pag. 11. Papists haue done the like c. How many tymes haue their Breuiaryes beene altered But good Reader see the great difference herein The Protestants altering their Communion Booke do withall alter some points of Beliefe and doctrine seing the change of their Communion Booke resteth only in change of doctrine the later Communion Booke euer reiecting certaine Articles of Fayth which the former did allow off Now the altering of the Breuiaries consists only in inserting certaine prayers in the later which were not in the former throgh occasion of Canonization of Saints or some other vrgent Cause But there is not any alteration or change or Articles of Fayth in their different Breuiaries which is the point only here to be insisted vpon Now these Premonitions being afore acknowledged for true whereby are preuented some weake Obiections of which diuers of our Aduersaries haue made vse to seeke to proue the Catholiks disagreements in matter of Fayth it is lesse strange that some of them haue not forborne such is the scarsity and want of them to alledge (l) This obiection of different Orders in the Church of Rome is vrged by D. Fulke in his answere to a Counterfeyte Catholike p. â—5 By D. Iewell in his Apology of the Church of England pag. â—â— and by others for matter of Controuersyes that among the Papists some are called Franciscans some Benedictines others Augustines c. These do sometymes eate flesh those other feede only vpon fish most idly and ignorantly insisted vpon For what do these differences concerne matter of Fayth and Religion Do not all these seuerall Orders of Gods Church belieue all the Articles of our Catholike and Roman Fayth They only differ among themselues in liuing in a more strict or remisse course of life And this Answere is giuen by D. Field in these Words We must (m) Of the Church l. 2. c. 9. pag. 58. obserue that they who professe the Fayth of Christ haue beene sometimes in these later Ages of the Church called after the speciall names of such Men as were the Authours Beginners and Deuisers of such courses of Monasticall Profession as they made choyce to follow as Benedictins such like Thus D. Field Therefore I conclude that in regard of want of true Arguments in proofe of dissentions amoÌ„g Catholiks touching meerely matters of Religion I cannot but much approue the ingenuous and playne Confessions of some of our Aduersaries heere in our be halfe And fortably hereto we fynd D. Whitaker thus to confesse of this Point The dissentions
patiatur O remember That euery thing is short which is measured with the yard of Tyme and Eternity only long Striue therefore in a Christian contempt of Temporalities to say in zeale of spirit with S. Austin Fecisti (m) L. 1. Confess c. 1. nos Domine ad te inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te And assure your selues that what thing soeuer is as I may say out of God soone breedeth a fastidious saciety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus forbearing further surplusage of Words I commit you to his Holy Protection of whom through the boundles sea of his Mercy it is said If any (n) Apocalyp â— Man will heare his voyce and open the Gate he will come into him and suppe with him I beseech his Diuine Maiesty that you may auayleably interest your selues in this most comfortable Inuitation Yours in all Christian Loue and Charity B. C. Aduertisment to the Reader THIS Treatise is entituled Adelphomachia which Greeke Word signifieth A fight among Brethren because it sheweth the DISSENTIONS among the Protestants themselues touching matter of Fayth and Religion All which Protestants whether they be Lutherans Swinglians or Caluinists which are comprehended vnder the name of Swinglians do hold one another for Brethren For Doctour Whitaker in respons ad rationes Campiani rat 8. thus confesseth of this Point We willingly honour Luther for our Father and the Lutherans and the Swinglians as our most deare Brethren in Christ. A TABLE OF Such disagreements of the Protestants in matter of Fayth and Religion as are handled and set downe in the ensuing Treatise § 1. THe Contentions deliuered in most contumetious Words of one Protestant against another Protestant And first of the Lutherans against the Sacramentaries or Swinglians and Caluinists Secondly of the Swinglians or Caluinists against the Lutherans Thirdly of the Lutherans among themselues Fourthly the Caluinists among themselues Fyftly The Puritans against the moderate Protestants Sixtly the Moderate Protestants against the Puritans Within which Clause are comprehended the English moderate Protestants and the English Puritans § 2. The most splenefull Titles full of malignity of twenty Bookes made by Protestants against other Protestants their Brethren § 3. Touching other externall Comportment of the Protestants among themselues And first the prohibiting of the Sale and Reading of ech others Bookes 2. The banishing of ech other from their Territories 3. The appointing of Articles of Visitation and enquiry concerning the discouery and apprehending of ech other 4. Their committing of ech other to Prison 5. The entring into open Armes of one Party against another 6. The inhumane deportment of some Protestants against the dead Bodies of other Protestants All which seuerall kinds of Violent Proceedings are only for matter of Religion among the Protestants § 4 Disagreements touching the Scripture First what Bookes be Scripture what not 2. Touching the Translation of acknowledged Scripture either in Latin or in English 3. Touching the supposed easinesse or difficulty of the sense of the Scripture § 5. The English Protestant disagreements touching their Communion Booke of Prayer § 6. The Protestants disagreements touching Christ First touching the Nature of Christ 2. Whether Christ did merit any thing for himselfe or not 3. According to what Nature Christ suffered 4. Whether Christ dyed for all the World or but for the Elect only 5. Whether Heathens not belieuing in Christ can be saued § 7. Disagreements touching the Primacy of Peter and his successours § 8. Whether the Pope be Antichrist or not 2. Supposing him to be Antichrist at what tyme Antichrist did come § 9. Disagreements touching the Church First whether the Protestant Church hath euer beene Visible 2. Whether in the Protestant Church there euer hath beene a Perpetuall Succession and Vocation of Ministers 3. Who be the Persons that constitute the Protestant Church 4. Whether Papists dying Papists and members of the present Roman Church can be saued § 10. Disagreements Whether the Ancient Fathers of the Primatiue Church are to be admitted or reiected § 11. Whether the Authority of Generall Councells are to be admitted or reiected § 12. Whether there be any Apostolicall Traditions or not § 13. Disagreements touching the Sacraments First of the number of the Sacraments 2. Whether the knowne intention of the Church be necessary to the Administration of the Sacraments 3. Whether any of the Sacraments do imprint any indeleble Character in the Receauers of them 4. Whether the Sacraments do only signify or withall conferre Grace § 14. Baptisme in particular First Whether Baptisme be absolutly Necessary or not 2. Whether any particular forme of Words be necessary in Baptizing or not 3. Whether Lay Persons and Women in tyme of Necessity may administer Baptisme § 15. Disagreemenâ—â— whether Man hath Freewill or not § 16. Disagreements touching the doctrine of certainty of Reprobation of Predestination and of the certainty of Iustification § 17. Disagreements touching the doctrine of good Works First Whether good Works do merit or not or at least be necessary to saluation 2. Whether Perpetuall Chastity Fasting and Pouerty be gratfull and pleasing to God or not 3. Whether Vowes be now lawfull in these tymes of Christianity § 18. Disagreements touching the doctrine of Sinne First What Sinne is in its owne Nature 2. Touching the distinction of Veniall and Mortall sinne 3. Whether all sinnes be equaâ—l or not 4. Whether sinne be hurtfull to him that belieueth 5. Whether God be the Authour of sinne § 19. Disagreements Whether Absolute Princes and Magistrates ought to be now in the tyme of the Gospell and how their Authority may be resisted § 20. Disagreements touching Polygamy First whether a Man may haue many Wyues at one tyme 2. Touching diuorse and the Occasions thereof § 21. Other disagreements of Protestants touching twenty Catholike Points besides those aboue intreated of which points some Protestants belieue as true others reiect them as false The point are these following 1. Touching Christs descending into Hell presently after his Corporal death 2. Touching â—â—bus Patrum 3. Touching 〈◊〉 â—cession of Saints 4. Touching intercession of Angells 5. Touching Inuocation of Saintes 6. Touching Prayer for the dead 7. Touching the Possibility of the Ten Commandements 8. Touching the Patronage of certaine Angells ouer certaine Countryes 9. Touching Images to be in the Churches 10. Touching reuerence and bowing downe to the Name of IESVS 11. Whether the good Works of one may help another 12. Whether Christ as Man was from his Natiuity freed from Ignorance 13. Touching Euangelicall Counsells or Works of Supererogation 14. Whether it can be knowne to vs without the Churches Tradition What Scriptures be Canonicall what not 15. Whether Jnfants haue actuall Fayth in the tyme of their Baptising 16. Whether the Sacraments of the Old Testament be of equall force and vertue with the Sacraments of the New Testament 17. Touching Auricular Confession 18. VVhether temporall Punishment be reserued for sinne already remitted
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
extraordinary calling as being sent from no Man but only from God in these words Quia (g) Lascitius the Protestant reciteth this saying of Caluin l. de Russorum Muscouit Religione c. 13. Papa tyrannide c. Because through the tyranny of the Pope true succession of Ordination was broken of Therefore we stand in neede of a new Course herein and this Function or calling was altogether extraordinary In this Opinion conspire most other Protestants especially of the more earnest sort According hereto M. Perkins (h) In his workes printed anno 605. fol. 916. writeth that the calling of Wicliffe Hus Luther Oecolampadius Peter Martyr c. was exâ—raordinary And Doctour Fulke iumpeth with the former saying The (i) Against stapleton Martiall pag. 2. Protestants that first preached in these dayes had extraordinary calling Thus far in Defence of extraordinary calling in these dayes Now the Reader shall see how others more sober Protestants do wholy reiect this extraordinary calling immediatly from God â—xcept it be confirmed with miracles as it was in the Apostles First M. Cartwright thus writeth To (k) In his second Reply part 2. pa. 14â— minister the Sacraments is an hoâ—our in the Church which none can take to him â—ut he which is called vnto it as Aaron was Musculus the great Protestant writeth thus Vecatio (l) In loc Comm. pag. 394. quae immediatè est à Christo iam in vsu non est vt erat olim c. The calling immediatly from Christ is not now in vse as it was in former tymes The Bishop of Winchester thus teacheth They (m) In his perpetuall gouerment of the Church l. â— p. 111. can haue no part of Apostolicall commission that haue no shew of Apostolicall succession D. Sarauia agrees with the former saying Speciem (n) In defens tract contra respons Beza p. 306. 307 illam extraordinariae vocationis ad Ecclesiae ministerium non admitto c. I do not approue that shew of extraordinary calling seing it is not warranted with any authority of Scripture or certaine example Now whereas diuers other Protestants do teach that all extraordinary calling to the ministery is accompanyed with working of Miracles or els is a meere illusion In this manner and restriction writeth Luther saying Vnde (o) Tom. 3. len Germ. fol. 491. venis quis te misit vbi sigilla quod ab hominibus missus sis Vbi miracula c. And Amandus (p) In partitionib Theol. l. 1. p. 308. Polanus (q) In his soueraigne Remedy against Schism p. â—5 Henoch Clapham (r) In loc Comm. p. 304. Musculus and many others too loÌ„g to write do maintayne the same Yet this wholy makes against the calling of Luther himselfe Caluin and all other Sectaries of this age touching their vocation Seing it is granted by Doctour Fulke in these words It is (s) Against the Rhemish Testam in Apoc. 13. knowne that Caluin and the rest whom Papists call Archheretiks do worke no miracles with whom D. Sutcliffe conspireth saying We (t) In his Exam. of D. Kellisons Suruey printed 1606. pag. 8. do not practise miracles nor do we teach that the Doctrine of Truth is to be confirmed with miracles Thus much touching the contrary and Crossing-Iudgments of the Protestants concerning the necessity of Personall Succession in the Church of Christ 3. I next come to discouer their disagreements touching such persons as they acknowledge to be members of the Protestant Church in which point we shall fynd wonderfull opposition among the Protestants First I will shew all such sorts of persons which many Protestants exclude from being members of their Protestant Church And First we find all Heretikes to be excluded and herein I will begin with the iudgment of the Lutherans then of the Caluinists Touching the Lutherans the Centurists thus write (u) Cent. 6. in the Preface Neither Heretiks nor deuisers of Phanaticall Opinions are of Christ but they are of Antichrist and the Deuill And Luther is of the same iudgment saying (x) In his Explicat of the Creed Neither Gentill Iew Heretike or any sinner can be saued vnlesse he make attonement with the Church and in all things do teach the same he meaning his owne Protestant Church To come to the Sacramentaries Caluin thus teacheth (y) Instit l. 2. c. 15. Num. 1. Rightly Austin denyeth Heretiks to haue the same Foundation with the Godly albeit they Preach the name of Christ. D. White All (z) In his way to the Church p. 10. Heretiks teach the truth in some things Yet we deny them to be of the Church of God The Confession of Basil (a) Art 24. We driue away all whosoeuer dissenting from the Society of the holy Church do bring in or follow strange wicked Doctrines To conclude D. Sutcliffe (b) In his booke of the Church c. 1. Heretiks are not of the Church Now here I am to aduertise the Reader that seeing most of these Testimonies as also diuers other following do speake literally of the true Church of God that therefore the Protestants meane thereby their owne Protestant Church seeing they teach it alone to be the true Church of God To come to Schismatiks they are in like sort reiected from being members of the Protestant Church For first Luther thus writeth I belieue (c) Luther in his great Catech. tom 5. pag. 628. there is on earth a little Congregation of Saintes agreeing in all things without Sects or schismes Melancthon Neither (d) In his booke against Swenkfeld tom 2. pa. â—01 is there more then one Church of Christ Neither doth this Company consist of diuers sects D. Fulke thus accordingly teacheth What (e) Of the Succession of the Church skilleth it whether one being drawne by Heresy or schisme from the body of Christ be subiect to eternall damnation D. Whitaker It is (f) Controuers 2. q. 9. c. 9. false that Hereticall and Schismaticall Churches are true Churches To conclude with D. Field The name (g) Of the Church l. 1. cap. 7. of the Catholike Church he thereby vnderstanding his owne Protestant Church is applyed to distinguish men houlding the Fayth in the Vnity from Schismatikes The Anabaptists are in like manner by diuers Protestants disclaymed from being members of their Protestant Church For thus doth the Confession of Switzerland teach We (h) Cap. 20. condemne Anabaptists who maintayne that Infants are not to he baptized The Confession of Ausburg teacheth the same saying We (i) Cap. 9. condemne the Anabaptists who disalow the Baptisme of Infants and thinke them to be saued without Baptisme Which Confession of Ausburg doth in like sort eliminate and exclude the Arians from their Church in these words We (k) Act. 1. condemne all Heresies rising against this Article meaning the Article of the Trinity as the Maniches Arians Eunomians c. That the Papists as the
Catholikes are contumeliously called are excluded from the members of the Protestant Church is so generally taught and but truly taught as that I need not to insist therein only D. Whitakers words shall serue at this tyme thus scurrilously rayling I (l) Contro Duraeum 2. sect 2. will not allow the very name of a lawfull Church vnto the Roman Church because it hath nothing which a true Church ought to haue Thus far to shew what men are not acknowledged by most Protestants and in part most truly to be members of the Protestant Church But now we will see how they are contradicted by other Protestants and sometimes by their owne pens And first we fynd the Anabaptists to be accounted mēbers of the Protestants Church for D. Whitaker thus writeth We (m) Controuers 4. 9. c. 2. p. 716. may abstaine from Baptisme so there be no contempt thereof Oecolampadius Baptisme (n) L. 2. Epist pag. 363. is an externall thing which by the Law of charity may be dispensed with and D. Morton seemes to enclyne to the same iudgment thus saying We (o) In his answere to the Protestants Apology l. 4. c. 1. sect 10. Protestants iudge the state of the Anabaptists not to be vtterly desperate Touching the Arians M. Morton iustifyeth that the Arians are of the Protestant Church because to vse his owne words the Arians (p) In his booke of of the kingdome of Israel the Church p. 94. hould the foundation of the Gospell M. Hookers words are these The Arians (q) Eccles polic l. 4. pag. 181. in the reformed Churches of Poland c. Now these Reformed Churches in Poland are Protestanticall Churches therefore the Arians are included as members of the said Protestanticall Churches Touching Idolaters whether they be of the Protestant Church or no heare what the said M Hooker writeth (r) Eccles pol. l. 3. p. 216. Christians by ezternall Profession they are all whose marke of recognizance hath in it those things which we haue mentioned yea although they he impious Idolaters wicked Heretikes c. Thus he Touching Infidells M. Fox relateth how a Protestant of Eminency for learning did thus teach A Turke (s) Act. Mon. pag. 493. Saracene or any Mahometan whatsoeuer may be saued if he trust in one God and keep the Law But if such a man may be saued then followeth that he is of the Protestant Church seeing most Protestants teach that the Protestant Church only affordeth Saluation And (t) Cent. 6. pag. 404. Bale admonisheth vs to be wary in condemning ouer rashly any Turke Finally this their most wicked opinion is already made euident by the aboue alledged testimonies of Swinglius and others who teach that Heathens dying Heathens and not belieuing in Christ may be saued That the Papists and the Protestants are members of one and the same Protestant Church is taught though most falsly by these Protestants following The Confession of Ausburge speaking of the Catholiks and the Protestants thus belieue say We (u) In Praefat. are all souldiers vnder one Christ. And Luther thus In (x) Luther in Epist. contra Anabapt Popery there is true Christianity yea the kernel of Christianity c. M. Hooker we (y) L. Eccl. pol. 3. c. 118. gladly acknowledge them of Rome to be of the Family of Iesus Christ M. Bunny We (z) In his Treatise of Pacificat are no seuerall Church from them meaning the Papists nor they from vs. D. Whitguift The (a) In his answere to the Admonition pag 40. Papists do belieue the same Articles of Faith which we do Finally D. Whyte In the (b) In defence of the way c. 38. substantiall Articles of our Fayth we agree with the Papists From all which testimonies it followeth that these said Protestants thus teaching do hould the Catholiks to be members of their Protestant Church I will conclude shewing that whom diuers Protestants hould to be Antichrist other Protestants acknowledge the same man to be in state of Saluation and consequently a member of the supposed true Protestant Church This I proue thus Most Protestants teach that the Pope is Antichrist as is well knowne yet other Protestants confesse that some Popes euen since they began to be Antichrist are saued But none are saued but such as are members of the true Church And according hereto I find M. Powell thus to write I will in (c) L. de Antichr c. 33. pag. 338. no wyse say that all the Popes from the tyme wherein Papistry was reuealed to be Antichristianity are damned With whom D. Whitaker euen in the same words thus affirmes I (d) In his answere to the first Demonstration of D. Sanders will not say that from the tyme that Papistry began to be Antichristianity the Popes themselues haue beene all damned And yet we see euen by these two last testimonies that both D. Whitaker and M. Powell teach that the Pope is Antichrist by the reason of the Word Antichristianity by them both vsed in their said testimonies I will shut vp their Disagreements touching the members of the Protestant Church with the malicious Asseueration of Musculus thus writing I imbrace (e) In loc comm de Coena pag. 552. all for brethren in the Lord howsoeuer they disagree from me or among themselues as long as they maintayne not the Popish Impiety Thus far of Protestants contrary iudgments touching who are members of the Protestant Church and who are not I will conclude their dissentions touching the Church whether the Papists as we are styled dying Papists though in part it hath beene all ready displayed out of the Protestant Church may be saued Euery man knoweth that all the Puritans as houlding Papists Religion to be idolatrous and superstitious and the Pope to be Antichrist deny to them all Hope of saluation Yet D. Some thus censureth of this point Yf (m) In his Defence against Penry p. 176. you thinke that all the Popish sort which dyed in the Popish Church are damned you thinke absurdly and do dissent from the iudgment of all learned Protestants D. Barrow I dare (n) In his 4. Sermons and two Questions disputed ad Clorum p. 448. not deny the name of Christians to the Romanists sith the learneder Writers do acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Church of God M. Cartwright I doubt (o) In his Reply to D. Whitguifts Defence p. 82. not but diuers Fathers of the Greeke Church and who were Patrones of Freewill are saued And the same sentence is deliuered by D. Whitaker (p) Contra rat Camp pa. 74. touching the Saluation of the Ancient Fathers notwithstanding their doctrine of Iustification and merit of works D. Field We doubt (q) Of the Church l. 3. c. 46. not but that the Church in which the Bishop of Rome with more then a Luciferian pryde exalted himselfe was notwithstanding the true Church of God and that is held a sauing
necessity of Baptisme M. Cartwright thus confesseth Austin (u) In D. Whitgifts defence pa. 1227. was of mynd that Children could not be saued without Baptisme Scultetus the Protestant writeth thus (x) In medulla Theolog pag. 30. The blemish noted in Cyprian c. is that he thinketh Baptisme to be absolutly and simply necessary Vrbanus Rhegius confidently auerreth that (y) in part 1. operum Catheâ—his minor fol. 105. the Scripture and the Authority of the ancient Church constrayned him to belieue that Children vnbaptized are damned And hence it is that Caluin thus confesseth Almost (z) L. Instit 4. c. â—5 sect 20. from the beginning of the Church Baptisme by Lay Persons was vsed in danger of death Thus much of the Sacraments 11. That the doctrine of Limbus Paetrum was taught by the Primitiue Church and Fathers First I will produce the words of D. Whitaker against whom when Duraeus his Aduersary had alledged testimonies from the Fathers for the proofe of Limbus Patrum the said Doctour thus answereth him Quod (a) Contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 557. Scripturis euincere minùs potuisti c. That which thou could lesse proue by Scriptures that thou doubtlesly wilt euince from the testimonies of the Fathers But touching this I answere thee briefly what I conceaue That is that one Word of Scripture carrieth more force with me then the Sentences and Iudgments of a thousand Fathers without Scripture therfore do not expect that I will make particular Answeres to the seuerall erroneous testimonies of the Fathers alledged by thee Thus D. Whitaker confessing that the Fathers vnanimously taught the doctrine of Limbus Patrum D. Barlow thus writeth This (b) In his Defence of the Articles of the Protestant Religion pag. 173. passeth most ryfe among the Fathers Who taking Inferi for Abrahams bosome expound it that Christ went thither ad liberandum liberandos to conuay the Fathers deceased before the Resurrection into that place where now they are In like manner M. Iacob the Protestant thus most fully acknowledgeth All the (c) See this in D. Bilsons booke of the full Redemption of Mankind pag. 188. Fathers with one consent affirme that Christ deliuered the soules of the Patriarchs Prophets out of Hell at his comming thither and so spoyled Satan of those who were in his present Possession To close vp this point whereas Cardinal Bellarmine (d) Bellarm tom 1. l. 4. de Châ—isti Animae c. 14. alledgeth in proofe of Limbus Patrum the testimonies of the Greeke Fathers to wit of Iustinus Irenaeus Clemens Origen Eusebius Basill Nazianzene Nicene Epiphanius Chrysostome c. As also of the Latin (e) Bellarm vbi suprà Fathers namely Tertullian Hyppolitus Cyprian Hillary Gaudentius Prudentius Ambrose Ierome Ruffinus Austin Leo Fulgentius c. Danaeus the Protestant acknowledging all this for true answereth only thus As concerning (f) Danaeus ad Roberti Bellar. disput part pag 176. these Fathers they were not instructed out of Gods word Neither do they confirme their Opinion from it but only from their owne Coniectures c. Thus Danaeus 12. That the Primitiue Fathers did conspiringly teach the doctrine of Freewill is most perspicuous For the Centurists reciting the sayings of Lactantius Athanasius Basill Nazianzene Epiphanius Ierome c. in defence of Freewill thus contemne all their Testimonies Patres omnes (g) Cent. 4 col 29â— ferè huius aetatis c. Almost all the Fathers of this Age do speake confusedly of Freewill In like sort (h) In meâ—ulla Theoâ—og Patrum pag. 379. 304 466. c. Scultetus the former Protestant reprehendeth Cyprian Theophilas Tertullian Origen Clemens Alexandrinus Iustine Irenaeus Athanagoras Tatianus c. for their teaching of freewill In like manner certaine English Puritans thus largely confesse hereof saying Freewill (i) This saying of the Puritans is related in their briefe discouery of Vntruths c. contained in D Bancrofts Sermon pag. 203. euer since the Apostles times in a manner florished euery where till Martin Luther tooke the sword in hand against it So true is that Confession of D. Humfrey a testimony vpon other occasion aboue alledged It may not be denyed but (k) In Iesuitism part 2. pag. 530. that Ireneus Clemens and others called Apostolicall men haue in their Writings the Opinions of freewill c. According hereto the Centurists speaking of the tymes next to the Apostles thus freely say Nullus (l) Cent. 4. cap. 4. col â—8 ferè doctrinae locus c. Almost no one Point of doctrine so quickly began to be obscured as the doctrine Whether man had Freewill or no And thus much briefly of the Protestants Confessions touching Freewill of which point as also of all the former doctrines aboue discoursed of in this Appendix I haue not set downe the halfe of what the Protestants do acknowledge therein touching the ancient Fathers beliefe and doctrines in the said Points 13. Touching Peters Primacy aboue the rest of the Apostles The antiquity of this doctrine is so great that The Centurists do reprehend Ierome (m) Cent. 4 col 11 15. (n) Cent. 4. col 555. Hilary (o) Cent. 4. col 558. Nazianzen (p) Cent. 3. col 84. Tertullian (q) Cent. 3. p. 84. Cyprian (r) Cent. 3. col 85. Origen and in generall many other Fathers for teaching that the Church was built vpon Peter Their wordes touching Cyprian are these in the place aboue alledged Passim dicit Cypriaenus super Petrum Ecclesiam fundatam esse Caluin thus writeth In Petro (s) lib. 4. instit cap. â— sect 6. fundatam esse Ecclesiam c. diuers Fathers did expound that the Church was founded vpon Peter because it is sayd Super hanc Petram c. But the whole Scripture maketh agaynst this their exposition Thus Caluin The Centurists (t) Cent. 4. col 5â—â— do further charge Optatus for saying Petrus Apostolorum caput vnde Cephas appellatur D. Reynolds (u) In his Conference pag. 485. rebuketh Dionysius for styling Peter the chiefe and most ancient topp or head of the Apostles To conclude D. Fulke speaking of S. Leo and S. Gregory Bishops of Rome sayth The mystery (x) In his retentiue against Bristowe motiues pag. 248. of iniquity did worke in that seate neere fiue or six hundred yeares before them which must be in the Aposties dayes or presently after and then greatly increased they were so deceaued with long continuance of Errour that they thought the dignity of Peter was much more ouer the rest of his fellow Apostles then the Holy Scriptures of God do allow 14. Now that the Bishop of Rome is Peters Successour in the iudgment of the Fathers is no lesse certayne for D. Bilson confesseth it plainly in these words The (y) In his difference part 1. pag 1â—7 ancient and learned Fathers call the Roman Bishop Peters Successour The CeÌ„turists charge Leo in this
maÌ„ner Leo (z) Cent. 5. col 1262. paynfully goeth about to proue that singular preeminence was giuen to Peter aboue the other Apostles and that thence did rise the Primacy of the Roman Church D. Cowper (a) In his Chronicles calleth Linus first Bishop of Rome after Peter To conclude Bucer thus freely sayth We (b) In prae paratorijs ad Concil plainely confesse that among the auncient fathers the RomaÌ„ Church obtayned Primacy aboue others as that which hath the Chayre of S. Peter and whose Bishops haue almost alwayes beene accounted the successours of Peter Thus Bucer 15. Touching the Catholike Ceremonies of Funerals and other Ecclesiasticall customâ—â— we thus fynd confessed The Centurists acknowledge that (c) Cent. â— col 454. Solebant Cerei proferri funeri c. Wax candels were accustomed to be brought in the tyme of the funeralls And the Centurists do also graÌ„t that it was (d) Cent. 4 col 455. the custostome to couer the graue with flowers The sayd Centurists further make mention of minning dayes in these words Celebris (e) Cent. 4. col 455. ob defuncti memoriam fuit dies quadragesimus post obitum the fortith day after the death of the party was kept with solemnity Lastly they recorde those words of Tertullian We (f) Cent 3. col 138. offer vp sacrifices oblations euery anniuersary day for the dead 16. That prayer was made towards the East in those ancient times is confessed by the (g) Gent. 4. col 432 Centurists That Canonicall (h) Cent. 4. col 433. howres of Prayers were then vsed the Centurists confesse They also record that there was in those primitiue times (i) Cent. 4 col 459. rising in the night to prayer Also that the (k) Cent. col 433. Lyturgy was then accustomed to be recited That (l) Cent. 4. col 1326 prayers were then made by nuÌ„bring them vpon litle stones which is the same as in these dayes by numbring prayers with beades 17. D. Fulke (m) Against Heskinâ— c. pag. â—57 confesseth that the Crosse by report of Paulinus was by the Bishop of Ierusalem his appointment at Easter yearly to be worshipped by the people But heer we are to note that Paulinus did not meane any idolatrous worship to be giuen to the Crosse as the Protestants do most wrongly charge vs Catholiks to exhibite to it but only a Christian reuerence and respect as being an Instrument vpon which the Sauiour of the world suffered for Mans Redemption 18. That set tymes of fasting were vsed in those ancient tymes is cleare for first touching the fast of Lent KeÌ„pnitius (n) In Examen part 1. pa. 8â— coÌ„fesseth that Ambrose Maximus Taurinensis Theophilâ—â— Ierome and others do affirme the fast of Lent to be an Apostolicall Tradition Yea Scultetus thus sayth The (o) In medulla Theolog. p. 440. superstitious fast of Lent was allowed and commanded by Ignatius Now Ignatius was in the Apostle dayes M. Cartwright is alledged by M. Whitguift (*) In D. Whitguifts defence pag. 100. to reproue S. Ambrose for saying It is a sinne not to fast in Lent Touching the fast of Quatuor Tempora (*) Whitak contra Duraeum l. 7. p. 80. D. Whitaker confessetht it to be as auncieÌ„t as Calixtus the Pope who was immediate Successour to Pope Victor who liued in the third Century 19. I will conclude the Protestants Confessions touching the ancient Fathers in the doctrine of Religious Persons And first touching Monkes the Centurists (p) Cent. 4. col 46â— vnder the title de Consecratione Mâ—nachi acknowledge Monkes to haue beene in those Primitiue Tymes D. Humfrey thus writeth of Gregory the Great These (q) In Iesuitis par 2. rat 5. things Austin the MoÌ„ke taught by Gregory the great Monke brought in Thus the Doctour acknowledging Mâ—nachisme in those dayes M. Cartwright thus confesseth (r) In D. Whitguifts defence pag. 344. Ruffinus Theodoret Sozomene Socrates c. do mention Monks almost in euery Page In like manner the Centurists speaking of the age wherein Constantine liued (s) Cent. 4. c. 10. col 1294. do confesse that there were Monks throughout Syria Palestine Bithinia and other places of Asia The Centurists further acknowledging a place of S. Basil in prayse of Monasticall life thus censure him All which (t) Cent. 4. p. 300. 3â—â— words meaning of Basil are both besydes and contrary to the Holy Scripture 20. The Centurists (u) Cent. 4. c. 6. col 404. 466. also make mention of Monasteries wherein the Monks did dwell The Centurists finally record the Monasteries (x) Cent. 4. col 467. 479. â—335 c. of Virgins The like mention the Monasteries of Virgins is made by (y) Osiander cent 4. pa. 507. 503. c. Osiander Thus far of all the former Points of Catholike Fayth and Religion that they were taught and practized by the ancient Fathers euen in our Aduersaries Iudgment I could proue the like by the Confessions of the learned Protestants in all other Articles controuerted betweene vs and the Protestants But I trust that these former Articles being of greatest Moment may serue in lieu of all the rest which are of lesser Consequence Only I thinke good to adioyne here this ensuing Animaduersion To wit That whereas in the producing of the former Authorities of the Fathers in behalfe of the Catholike Religion all Fathers are not brought in by the Confession of the Protestants to teach the said Catholike Articles Now the reason of this is in that euery ancient Father did not wryte of euery particular Article of Catholike Religion and consequently such could not be alledged by the Protestants confessions in proofe of the Articles omitted by them Neuerthelesse it vnauoidably followeth by all true inference of Reason that all other Fathers in such particular points of Catholike Religion as are omitted by the Protestants do agree and conspire with the former Fathers aboue confessed The reason iâ— this Yf the other Fathers aboue omitted and not spoken of had maintayned contrary doctrines to the former produced Fatâ—ers they then would haue beene written against by some other more Orthodoxall Writers and Fathers touching the said points As we see that certaine Errours in Origen Tertullian Cyprian to omit the like Examples in Donatus Iouinian Pelagius and sundry such other Nouelists were instantly impugned by Austin Ierome Epiphanius Theodoret c. But no such writing was against the former confessed Fathers in this Treatise for their houlding the foresaid Catholike Points Therefore it is certaine that all other Fathers of the Primitiue Church did jointly teach and belieue the said Catholike doctrines with the aboue confessed Fathers Againe the alledged Fathers in this Appendix were the chiefe Pastours in God Church in those dayes in whom the Church of Christ was peculiarly and more markably personated Therefore all other Inferiour Members of the Church did agree with them in the beliefe