6. fine in his Treatise tending to Pacification sect 14. circa med pag. 89. acknowledgeth a particular blessing of God in the Church of Rome and an evident work of the Holy Ghost saying That the Church of Rome hath ever continued after a sort in profession of the faith since the time that by the Apostles it was delivered to them c. and hath also in some manner preserved and hitherto maintained both the Word and Sacraments that Christ himself did leave unto us which surely saith he is a very special blessing of God and an evident work of the Holy Ghost c. To make good saith Brereley ibidem in the margent at †M. Bunny's words of the evident work of the Holy Ghost in preservation of the Roman Sea the same hath appeared many waies extraordinary and admirable As first in that the other four Patriarchal Seas are noted and known to have been pestered every one of them with confessed Arch-hereticks or Inventers of new doctrines against some principal Article of our Christian faith As at Antioch Paulus Samosetanus at Hierusalem Joannes and Arsenius at Alexandria Dioscorus at Constantinople Macedonius and Nestorius onely the Sea of Rome hath been preserved free from all such known note or touch For howsoever our Adversaries do pretend some one or other Pope to have had his private errour yet to charge any Pope with being an Arch heretick as before-said they have not any colour Secondly in that the Cities of all the other Patriarchal Seas and the Bishops belonging to them now are and of long have been oppressed with Infidels and their succession is either none or but inglorious whereas God hath yet hitherto disposed otherwise of the City and Sea of Rome Thirdly in the example of so many great Christian Kingdomes and Countryes in Asia Africk and Europe which forsaking the Communion of this Sea became not long afterwards barbarous and subject to Infidels accordingly as it is foretold of the true Churches prerogative The Nation and Kingdome that will not serve thee shall perish and those Nations shall be utterly destroyed Esay 60.12 Fourthly in that this is the onely Sea or Church which is confessed by our Adversaries to have continued known and visible for these last thousand or 1300 years whereof see Brereley tract 1. sect 2. at k. l. sect 8. in the margent at c. tract 2. c. 2. sect 7. fine at 3 4 5 6 c. converting also to the Christian faith during all that time by its Legats and Preachers so many confessed Nations and Kingdomes of the Gentiles agreeable to the predictions of the Prophets in that behalf whereof see Brereley tract 2. c. 1. sect 4. initio in the margent at* Fifthly in that this Sea hath been persecuted by the contrary factions of so many Christian Princes by the very Citizens and Cardinals of Rome by the Schisms Factions and wicked lives of the Popes themselves by the implacable hatred and contradiction of so many confessed heresies and hereticks of every age conspiring all of them howsoever divided otherwise among themselves to malign and impugn this Sea as the principal object of their daily continued malice So Hell gates may be said to have assaulted her and yet not prevailed Matth. 16.18 Upon which consideration but duely had of all Hereticks though divided among themselves yet joyning so together in malice against the Roman Sea how can that out-faced opinion of our Adversaries be possibly true which M. D. Downham in his treatise concerning Antichrist l. 2. pag. 22. ante med delivereth saying We hold Antichrist to be the whole body of Hereticks in the last age of the world c. The head of which body is the Papacie The Pope to be their Head and yet he ever against them all and they all ever against him is it possible 6. Pu. Besides what hath been said out of Brereley of this point that Protestants confess that the Roman Church wants nothing necessary to salvation I will shew the same yet more at large D. Potter in his Answer to Charity mistaken pag. 63. saith The most necessary and fundamentall Truths which constitute a Church are on both sides unquestioned And for that reason learned Protestants yield them Romanists as he calls us the name and substance of a Christian Church Where we see that he saith in generall learned Protestants yield them c. In proof whereof he cites in his margent Iunius D. Reinolds and sayes See the judgement of many other writers in the advertisement annexed to the old Religion by the Reverend Bishop of Exeter and adds The very Anabaptists grant it Fr. Johnson in his Christian Plea pag. 123. So that with this one Testimonie of Potter we have many other even of our greatest Adversaries And pag. 62. he saith To those twelve Articles which the Apostles in their Creed esteemed a sufficient Summary of wholsome Doctrine they Catholicks have added many more Such are for instance their Apocryphall Scriptures and unwritten dogmaticall Traditions their Transubstantiation and dry Communion their Purgatory Invocation of Saints Worship of the Images Latine service trafficke of Indulgences and shortly the other new doctrines and decrees canonized in their late Synod of Trent Upon these and the like new Articles is all the contestation between the Romanists and Protestants And then he adds the words which we have cited The most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church are on both sides unquestioned and for that c. Where we see he grants we believe the twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed which he teaches at large to contain all Fundamentall Points of Faith and that we hold all the most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church Therefore those Points of our Doctrine which he gives for instance are no Fundamentall errors nor the contrary Articles necessary and Fundamentall truths and yet he names all the chiefest Points controverted between us and Protestants even Transubstantiation Communion in one kind and Latine Service which are the things they are wont most to oppose Yea he comprises all the Doctrines and Decrees of the Councill of Trent Therefore we are free from Fundamentall errors by the confession of our Adversaries pag. 59. he further saith The Protestants never intended to erect a new Church but to purge the old The reformation did not change the substance of Religion but only cleansed it from corrupt and impure qualities If the Protestants erected not a new Church then ours is still the old Church and if it were only cleansed from corrupt qualities without change of the substance the substance must be still the same it was and that which was must be still the same with that which is pag. 61. The things which the Protestants believe on their part and wherein they judge the life and substance of Religion to be comprized are most if not all of them so evidently and indisputably true that their Adversaries themselves do avow and receive them
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
intercession to his Father both according to his Humanity and Divinity n. 41. p. 117 18 19 20 1. That Christ suffered all the torments due to the damned and despaired for fear they should be eternal yea refused to be obey his Father in Redeeming Man n. 46. p. 131 2 3. He calls it a foolish curiosity to question whether Christ merited for himself and a timer arious definition to merit n. 19. p. 67. t. m. He furiously railed saith Grotius at the opposer of his Doctrine n. 47. p. 133 4. He contemptibly condemns the antient Fathers for averring the sacrifice of the Masse n. 39. p. 111 12 13. He died calling desperately upon the Devill eaten up with Lice and other Vermin n. 37. p. 107.110 Calvinists held it lawfull to lie for the Glory of God n. 53. p. 155. t. m. Of Canonicall Scriptures the sense of the holy Fathers and the Protestants reprehending them for it c. 2. n. 12. p. 234 to 242. inclusivè t. m. Canonicall Scripture onely determined by the Church p. 240. t. m. c. Carolostadius pretended Visions and Conference with God for his Doctrine c 1. n. 23. p. 79. t. m. Of Catholike Religion as Protestants confesse no beginning can be assigned after the Apostles times c. 2. n. 15. p. 255. t. m. It is by them judged safe c. 5. per totam shewed by their clear Testimonies n. 1. p. 437.8 9. Ceremonies practised by the Fathers c. 2 n. 8. p. 205 6. t. m. and n. 12. p. 234. Most of the now used acknowledged by Protestants to have been then used n. 13. p. 247. t. m. The Chancel prohibited to the Laity c. 3. n. 89. p. 366. Chillingworth confutes himself n. 87. p. 363. With reason he excepts against painting the Irinity for he denies the Trinity n. 92. p. 377. His ridiculous objection of an Oblation by way of Consumption n. 95. p. 375. Divers other of his impertinent objections in the Numbers and pages precedent and following particulars about the immaculate conception of our blessed Lady n. 99. p. 378.9 His many testimonies that the Catholike Church is saving and his contradicting himself c. 5. n. 7 8. p. 459 60 1 2 3 4 5. Chrisme or Confirmation gives grace c. 2. n. 8. p. 205.6 Clement vide John Clement Confession as now used avowed by the antient Fathers n. 9. p. 206 7. and n. 19. p. 269. c. Confirmed by Miracles c. 4. n. 2. p. 407. Consecrating of Creatures c. 2. n. 12. p. 244 5 6. t. m. c. Constantine the great allwaies had with him a portable consecrated Tabernacle or Church with Priests and Deacons not to be forced against the then practice of the Church to celebrate Divine Mysteries in prophane places n. 23. p. 292. t. m. The Lord Cromwell professed at his death to believe in all with the Church of Rome c. 5. n. 2. p. 439 40. Use of the Cross c. 2. n. 8. p. 205 6. m. In practise with the holy Fathers reprehended by Protestants n. 12. p. 243. t. m. The vertue of it confirmed by Miracles c. 4. n. 2. p. 406. St. Cutbert's Miracles and miraculous integrity after his death n. 4. p. 412 13. D Almes Prayer Sacrifice for the Dead c. 2. n. 3 4. p. 196.7.8 t. m. Delrius cleared from Morton's falsification c. n. 7. p. 26. 7. t. m. E Equivocation beyond all limits held and taught by Protestants c. 3. n. 72. p. 348 9 50 1 2. English inconstant in Doctrine c. 1. n. 28. p. 85 6 7. Errors affirmed by Protestants to have crept into the Catholike Church but no beginning of them can be assigned since the Apostles time c. 2. n. 15. p. 255. c. t. m. wherefore they impute them to the Apostles time n. 14. p. 251. c. t. m. Eucharist consecrated by vertue of the words n. 2. p. 179. t. m. In round Wafers of which use no beginning can be shewed p. 178. t. m. Transubstantiation held by the antient Fathers p. 179 80 1 2. t. m. 't was carefully conserved in the Church p. 181 2. in one kind onely so also carried in long journies c. 3. n. 83. p. 356. Water mingled with the Wine in consecration c. 2. n. 2. p. 182 3. It must be received fasting p. 183 4. And Chastly wherefore Priests are not to marry p. 184. c. t. m. F In the antient Fathers the now Catholike Doctrines acknowledged and reprehended by Protestants Vide Protestants The Faith of Catholikes judged saving by Protestants c. 5. per totam Their clear testimonies of it n. 1. p. 447 8 9. Fasts obligatory c. 2. n. 12. p. 229 30 31. t. m. Held an Heresie by many Fathers to fast on Sunday ibid. Fathers so evident for all Catholike Tenets that Protestants rebuke one another for citing of them and cry out that if their Authority be acknowledged the Protestant Church is undone n. 14. p. 249. c. t. m. Fox's Revelation concerning the 42 Moneths in the Apocalyps rejected c. 1. n. 23. p. 80. His fraud to cover Dr. Barnes his acknowledgment of Transubstantiation c. 3. n. 37. p. 320. St. Francis his Miracles Wounds and austere life c. 4. n. 5. p. 418 19. t. m. Freewill and merit of Good Works frequent in the holy Fathers c. 2 n. 5 6. p. 200. c. Fulke held Christ according to his Deity to be his fathers Priest c. 1. n. 41. p. 120. and the Arrians to be a true Church of God n. 42. p. 122. t. m. G GRegory the great introduced by St. Austine Rites and Ceremonies in England c. 2. n. 12. p. 244 5 6. Grotius his censure of Calvin's furious railing against the Opposers of his Doctrine c. 1. n. 47. p. 133 4. He stands in most points for Catholikes c. 3. n. 85. p. 359 60 1 2. H KIng Henry the Eigth kept to his death the Doctrine of Rome c. 5. n. 2. p. 439. Heretikes fraud in citing Authors c. 2. n. 18. p. 267. They moulter away by Divisions amongst themselves c. 3. n. 112. p. 391 2. t. m. Holy-Water confirmed by miracle c. 4. n. 2. p. 417. Hus no Protestant c. 3. n. 80. p. 355. I JAcobus Andreas vide Andreas King James his censure of John Knox c. 1. n. 60. p. 166. And of the English translations of the Bible n 33. p. 95. Jewell affirms Christ according to his Deity to be his Fathers Priest n. 41. p. 120. His impudent imposture upon Fathers Apostles and Christ himself c 2. n 22. p. 281 2 3. Thirty eight Jewes burnt in the Marchy of Brandenburgh and all the rest banished for stabbing the B. Sacrament c. 4. n 5. p. 421 t m 422 m. John Clement's miraculous cure at our B. Ladies of Sichem p 423 4 5. Images used by the antient holy Fathers c 2. n 12. p 243. Confirmed by miracle c 4. n 2. p. 404 5. t. m. Innocentius the third falsly taxed to have first brought up Transubstantiation c 2. n 16. p 257. t.
all his works did not deserve Heaven Which sentence their Martyr John Teuxbury defendeth for [c] Act mon. ibidem plain enough and [d] Act Mon. pag. 487. b. pauâ—o post med true as it lyeth to omit that Calvin himself condemneth this Doctrine of Christs meriting to himself though expressed in Scripture [e] Calvin Institut l. 2. c. 17. sect 6. saith Quaerere an sibi meruerit Christus non minus stulta est curiositas quam temeâ—aâ— a definitio And a little after Quibus enim meritis affequi poâ—uit homo ut jâ—dex esset â—â—undi caput Angelorum And see further Calvin in Epistolas Pauli in Philip. 2 ver 9. pag. 466. b 467. a. in so much that in his Books of Institutions l. 2. c. 17. sect 1. He saith against Christs meriting for us Equidem fateor si quis simpliciter per se Christum apponere vellet judicio Dei non fore merito locum quia non reperietur in homâ—ne dignitas quae possit Deum promereri for a foolish curiosity and rash opinion the said Tindall was so much bent against all opinion of Good Works that he affirmed and taught that as concerning [f] Acts Monu pag. 488. a. initio the preaching of the Work and washing of dishes there is no difference as touching to please God Which saying as their foresaid Martyr Teuxbury affirmeth is a [g] Acts Mon. pag. 488. a. initio plain Text as needing no further explication and that as for pleasing God saith he all is one for saith Tindall [h] Acts Mon. pag. 1336. a. ante med there is no work better than other as touching to please God to make water to wash dishes to be a Sowter or an Apostle all is one to please God 20 Having at length written out what Brereley delivers concerning Luther's Doctrine and Manners [i] Finally we may conclude the life of Luther with the words of Erasmus a man highly esteemed by Protestants writing to Luther Anno 1526 11. Aprilis in these words Optarem tibi meliorem mentem nisi tua tibi tam valde placeret Mihi optabis quod voles modo ne tuam mentem nisi tibi Dominus istam mutaverit taking his proofs from witnesses above all exception that is from his own words and the writings of Protestants themselves as I could not without a deep sense of grief reflect how many have been and are yet deceived in that unhappy man whom they conceive to have been sent by God to the World for Reformation thereof so now in order to the help of persons so seduced I must beg of them to ponder well these ensuing Reflections First as for his Doctrine whether they can acknowledge him for their Father or Brother or a Protestant in any degree who taught Doctrines so wicked Carnal Absurd Temporizing Inconstant Seditious and Blasphemous as both Protestants and Catholicks and all Christians yea and all men of common Reason and human Civility must abhorr and detest whether I say this man can be said to have been of the Protestant Religion and consequently that their Church remained without any being no less after than before Luther appeared Secondly For his Life and Manners by his own Confession and the Testimonie of Protestants after he undertook to reform the whole Church of God they grew to be so abhominable and shameless as we may well judge that God Almighty out of his Wildome Goodnes and Justice permitted him to fall so openly and shamefully that whosover did follow his Doctrine should become inexcusable it being a thing very evident that men chosen by the Holy Ghost to enlighten and reform others are first to be freed from intollerable Errours in their Understanding and Viciousnes in their Will and not to fail notoriously in both even upon their very begining that pretended great worke having before led a commendable life as Luther did which cannot but manifest to the World that his pretended Reformation could not proceed from God but from that Enemy who perpetually seeks whom he may devour And although all the followers of Luther were inexcusable in adhering to such a man against the whole Church of God united in Peace and Union for as much as concerned Faith and Religion yet they who persevere still to embrace and pursue such a Reformation are less excusable than they who followed him in the begining when men came to the knowledg of his Vices and abhominable Errours in Faith not all at once but by degrees as he day by day profited to the worse whereas now every one may at one view see his Vices and Heresies put together published and acknowledged by his own confession and the confession of Protestants themselves When the Holy Ghost moves us to some worke he doth it suaviter fortiter with Sweetness and Efficacie inspiring Constancy Perseverance Meekness Humility and Satisfaction to the Soul according to that of the Apostle The Gifts of God are without Repentance Whereas we have seen that Luther confessed himself to have opposed Indulgences when he knew not what the name meant and would have renounced his reforming the World if for sooth he might have done it with his credit and wished that he never had begun that business in Coll. mensal affirming futher that he fell Into those troubles casually and against his will Casu non voluntate in has turbas incidi Deum ipsum testor not so much as dreaming or suspecting any change which might happen Act. Mon. pag. 404. whereby it appears that Luther was moved by Ambition Pride Lust and Envy and not led by any true desire of Reformation which if he judged to be aecessary what a huge wickednes was it in him to promise silence if his Adversaries would do the like or to submit himself to the Pope so that he might not be compelled to Recant or if the Reformation were not necessary as certainly the Church can never need Reformation for matters of Faith how can he and they who follow him be excused from damnable Schism and Heresie And accordingly it is no wonder if he fell into that deep sense of remorse and perplexity of Soul so farr as to wish his Books were all abolished as we have seen above It is also reported Oecolampadium à Landgravio privatim admonitum de perspicuitate ac certitudine verborum Christi cum gemitu respondisse optare se dextram sibi fuisse praecisam antequam de hac Controversia scribere quicquam ordiretur But let us now with Brereley go on to other chief Protestants Of Jacobus Andreas 21 AS concerning [k] Brereley tract 2. cap. 3. sect 9. sudivis 2. Jacobus Andreas the prime Lutheran of this age and the greatest enlarger of Luther's Doctrine and Chancelor of the Universitie of Iubinge no less honored and famous in Germany than ever was Calvin or Beza at Geneva The Protestant writer Hospinianus discoursing briefly of his life from testimony of the learned
784. a. initio Ingenuè tradimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dei nomen Patri propriè ascribi insinuating so thereby that the name of God is attributed to the Son and the Holy Ghost but improperly and as it were after a secondary respect And ibid. pag. 773. b. post med Absurdum negamus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dei nomen interdum Patri ascribi quia ut alibi dictum est fons est ac principium Divinitatis In like manner he forbeareth not to call Christ the Vicar of God occupying the second degree of honour saying in Harmon in Matth. 26. v. 64. Dicitur autem Christus sedere ad dextram Patris quia summus Rex constitutus quasi secundam ab eo honor is imperii sedèm obtinet sedet ergo ad Patris dexteram quia ejus est vicarius c. And in admonit ad Polenos extant in tract Theolog. c. pag. 794. b. initio he saith Sententia Christi Pater major me est restricta fuit ad humanam ejus naturam ego verò non dubito ad totum complexum extendere And see there pag. 792 a. initio And in Matth. 22. v. 44. and in 1 Cor. 15. v. 27. As also Amlungus a prime Calvinist did let fall that Christ was inferior to his Father according to his Divinity Osiander in Epitom c. cent 16. pag. 965. initio reporting the conference at Hertzburg Anno 1585. between the Divines of Saxony and the Calvinists of Hennalt and in his praecipuus Anâ—lâ—â—ngus of whom Amlungus saith he was the chief saith Inter caetera Amlungo haec impia vox excidit Christum etiam secundum Divinitatem esse minorem Patre There are also other sayings of our Adversaries which seem to sound dangerously against the equality and consubstantiality with God the Father Master Jewel and Master Fulk affirm that [y] Of this confessed opinion of Mr. Jewel and Mr. Fulks retentive pag. 89. paulo ante med and see his confutation of the Papists quarrels Printed 1583. pag. 64 65. Christ was according to his Deity his Fathers Priest and [z] See Fulk against the Remish Testament in Hebr. 5. in sexto sect 4. fol. 399. b. paulo post mâ—d offered Sacrifice not only according to his Manhood but also according to his Godhead An error confuted by St. Austine in Psalm 109. saying According to that he is born of God the Father God with God c. all with him who begetteth him he is not a Priest but a Priest for his flesh assumpted And Theodoret in Psalm 109. saith accordingly Christ exerciseth Priesthood as man and receiveth Sacrifice as God In respect of sundry which premises Stancarus in most other things a Calvinist doubted not to affirm contra Ministros Genevenses Tigurinos fol. 94.95 and fol. 118.123 that the reformed Churches professing the Faith of Geneva and Tigure be Arian And he further saith Conclusum est ô Calvine Doctrinam tuam de Filio Dei esse planè Arianam à quâ resilias quà m primùm te oro atque obtestor It is concluded ô Calvin that thy Doctrin concerning the Son of God is wholly Arian which I earnestly beseech thee to abandon with all speed 42. To which further purpose is no less apt and memorable the further confessed testimony of Adam Neuserus a learned Calvinist and [a] The Protestant Writer Osiander in Epitom c. centur 16. pag. 818. fine saith Adam Neuserus Pastor Heydelbergensis ex Calvinismo prolapsus est in Arianismum And Conradus Schlusselburg Theolog. Calvinist l 1. art 2. fol. 9. b. tearmeth him Adâ—m Neuseruâ— olim Heydelbergensis Ecclesiae primarius Pastor c. chief pastor at Heydelberg who after his revolt unto Arianism and from thence again unto Mahometism [b] See this thus reported by Osiander in Epitom c. cent 16. pag. 208. fine and Osiander there pag. 209. initio affirmeth that D. Gerlachius hath at Tubinga the original writing or letter it self so written to him by Neuserus did write to Doctor Gerlachius a Protestant Preacher from Constantinople 2. Junii Anno 1574. saying None is known in our time to be made an Atian who was not first a Calvinist as Servetus Blandrata Paulus Alciatus Franciscus David Gentilis Grebaldus Silvanus and others all of them Calvinists revolted to Arianism Therefore who so feareth to fall into Arianism let him take heed of Calvinism Thus far Neuserus Neither may it suffice here for our adversaries to answer that Calvin and the fore-alleged Protestant Writers do notwithstanding their foresaid sayings all of them acknowledge the Doctrin of the three Persons and one God for in vain or at least not well but coldly is that acknowledged in general which is either reputed for matter of [c] Fulk in answer to a countersect Catholick pag. 15. prope finem affirmeth that the true Church under the Emperours Constantine Constans and Valens was greatly infected with the Heresy of the Arians as though the Church with Arianism could be a true Church What else is this but to repute Arianism for a matter of â—ndifferency Also Mr. Thomas Morton in his treatise of the kingdom of Israel and of the Church dedicated to Queen Elizabeth pag. 94. fine affirmeth that the Churches of Arians are to be accompted the Churches of God because they do hold the foundation of the Gospel which is faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God and Saviour of the world And ibid. p. 91. ante med be further saith Whensoever a company of men do jointly and publickly by worshipping the true God in Christ profess the substance of Christian Religion which is faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God and Saviour of the world which as before in his opinion the Arians do that there is a true Church notwithstanding any corruption whatsoever c. So evidently doth he affirm the Arians Church to be the Church of God and a true Church indifferency or else again impugned by other contrary inferring particulars which are as before so many and divers in the forenamed Protestants that sundry of their own [d] The learned Lutheran Pelragus in admonitione de Arianis having pag. 41.42.43 excused in what be can Melancthons dangerous sayings doth yet pag 45. say Non hic Calvinianos in praecipuis de Divinitate Christi locis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 laboriosè ostendam non Adami Neuseri non Blandratae non Pauli Alciati Francisci Davidis Gentilis Grebaldi Silvani aliorum facilem è Calvini Schola ad Arianos lapsum progressum commemorabo And Jacobus Andraeas in praefat refutationis Apologiae Danaei pag. 54. saith Minimè mirandum est ex Calvinianis in Polonia Transilvania Hungaria aliisque in locis quam plurimos ad Arianismum quosdam etiam ad Mahometismum accessisse quorum impietati haec Calviniana doctrina iter parat And see the like affirmed by Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvinist l. 1. Art 2. fol. 9.2 post med And Hunnius in his
other beginning or beginners of Protestancy than those whom hitherto they have taken for their glorious Fathers and persons qualified with such gifts and endowments as make them fit to reform the whole Christian world and these being once removed from the rank of their Forefathers how will they answer this question Who in particular were the first beginners of their Protestant Church at what time and in what place did they live To which demand I am sure they cannot answer with satisfaction but perforce they must be content to be like the Donatists of whom St. Optatus sayd that they were Filii sine Patre Sonns without Father and every one must be to himself a begining of his Faith and Religion A dreadfull point in the business of an Eternity and necessary subject to that weighty saying of St. Bernard Qui se sibi magistrum constituit stulto se discipulum subdit He who will be his own Master shall be Scholler to a Fool. Secondly For Manners who can imagin that God being Truth Purity and Peace it self would choose for Reformation of the World such men as confessedly have shamefully erred against Truth for Doctrin and against not only Purity but common honesty and morality and against Peace by being both for their Doctrines and Practises Authors of Tumults Seditions and Rebellions Thirdly it ought to be considered with deepest grief and Tears what a lamentable thing it was that people should have been seduced from that antient Religion which the World professed with the specious names of Dr. Luther c. and with a fair but false and lying title of Reformation by men who indeed were such as hath been declared and proved from their own Writings and the expresse and direct Assertions of their own brethren Fourthly since we have found them to be most inconstant in their Doctrine in matters of highest concernment expresly professing to have temporized accommodated themselves to the times and not to that which even themselves judged true who can rely on them unless he first resolve not to be settled in any truth but to be ranked among those who circumferuntur omni vento doctrinae which in effect is no better than to have no true Faith at all Fiftly seeing they cannot nor ever could agree with those whom they stile Brethren and which is the main point have no possble means of agreement no men in wisdome can join themselves to the common generall name of Protestants not knowing which of them in particular hold the Truth nor who are or are not Protestants nor why they should believe one sect of them more than another neither is it possible to join with them all they believing and professing to believe contradictory Tenents some of which must needs be false Sixtly Seing those first Reformers are confessed to hold Doctrines in themselves damnable and detested even by Protestants how can they be excused from Heresy And seing they left the whole Catholick Church extant before Luther upon pretence of Errous in Doctrine of lesse moment than those wherin they thus differ among themselves and yet forsake not one another but will needs be Brethren and of one Communion how can they be excused from Schism by their division from the Communion of all Churches But now having declared what kind of men the Progenitots of Protestants were let us in the next place examine of what Fathers we Catholicks may deservedly glory even by the Confession of our Adversaries who by evidence of Truth are forced to confesse that the Antient Holy Fathers taught the same Doctrines and practised the same things which Protestants disprove in us and for the Reformation whereof they pretend to have forsaken our Church This then according to the order prescribed in the Preface must be the subject of the next Consideration THE SECOND CONSIDERATION By the Confession of Protestants the Antient Holy Fathers believed and practised the same things which we believe and practise against Protestants 1. FIrst saith Brereley tract 1. sect 3. subdivis 1. concerning Vows it is confessed that the Fathers did allow Vows of perpetual Chastity affirming them to be obligatory Non ignoramus saith Chemnitius exam part 3. pag. 14. ante med quod Patres vota perpetui caelibatûs probent quodque illa obligatoria etiam agnoscant In so much as he Chemnitius doth thereupon specially recite and reject in this behalf the several sayings of Basil [q] Chemnitius ibid. pag. 40. a. ante med Ambrose and Chrysostom Also of [r] Ibid. pag. 42. a. Epiphanins Austine and [s] Ibid. pag. 42. b. ante med Innocentius And it is likewise yet further affirmed that the [t] Peter Martyr de Votis pag. 490. saith Erant ergo Clementis aetate professiones vota fateor I am tune incaeperant homines deflectere à Verbo Dei c. With whom agreeth Mr. Parkins in Problem c. pag. 191. initio saying In antedictis saeculis stipulationes de continentia publice in Ecclesia fieri solebant nam Anno Christi 170. Clemens Alex. l. 3 stromat ait c. profession and Vows of Chastity were extant among Christians in the time of Clement Bishop of Alexandria who by [u] Euseb hist l. 6. c. 11. paulâ—ante med saith Clemens de se ipso loquitur quod prope ad Apostolorum tempoâ—a successerit his own testimony lived neer to the Apostles times that [x] Peter Martyr ibid. pag. 524 fine saith Scio Epiphanium cum multis aliis ex Patribus in eo errare quod peccatum esse dicunt votum hujusmodi violare cum onufuerit malè illum id referre in traditiones Apostolicas Epiphanius and many other Fathers erred therein that [y] Cent. 3. c. 6. col 140. linea 27. cent 3. c. 7. col 176. lâ—ea 39. Tertullian and Cyprian taught Vows of Chastity that the famous antient [z] Iustus Molitor de Ecclesia militante c. pag. 80. fine saith Chalcedonense Concilium contra Spiritus Sancti oracula Monachis Virginibus monialibus usum conjugii interdixit Council of Chalcedon did hereupon forbid Marriage to Monks and Nuns that St. Augustine and all the Fathers assembled with him in the Carthage Council [a] So saith Danaeus contra Bellarm. primae partis altera parte pag. 1011. initio And see Concil 4. Carthag can 104. and 1 Tim. 5.9 10 11 12. abused manifestly the word of God saying upon the Apostles words If any Widow how young soever c. hath vowed her self to God left her secular habit and under the testimony of the Bishop and Church appeared in a religious weed if afterward she go to secular Marriage she shall according to the Apostle have damnation because she dared to make void the vow of Chastity which she made to God that [b] Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in 1 Tim. 5. fol. 381. b. sect 10. initio And see Danaeus contra Belar 1. partis altera parte pag.
Concil 3. Brach. can 1. Concil Trib. can 21. Concil African can 4. ex capitulis Graec. Syn. c. 55. Concil 6. Constantinop can 32. of all ages and Countries that Mr. Whitgift saith [s] Mr. Whitgift in his defence c. pag. 473. prope initium Cyprian was greatly overseen in making it a matter so necessary in Celebration of the Lords Supper to have water mingled with wine which was at that time no doubt common to more than to him Mr. Cartwright likewise acknowledgeth that [t] Mr. Cartwright alleged in Mr. Whitgifts foresaid defence pag. 525. fine in the mingling of water with Wine a necessity and great mystery was placed as may appear saith he both by Justin Martyr and Cyprian And Mr. Jewel speaking of this mixture confesseth in like manner saying [u] Mr. Iewel in his reply pag. 34. paulo ante med indeed St. Cyprian and certain old Fathers spake of it and force it much Adde but now hereto that the Armenians being the first we read of that denyed this mixture affirming with our Adversaries that only Wine was to be used were therefore specially condemned of errour as witness [x] Theoph lact in Ioan. cap. 19. mâ—nâ—ioning the water and bloud which issued from Christs side saith Confundantur Armeni qui non admiscent in mysterris aquam vino non enim credunt ut videtur quod aqua ex latere egressa sit Theophilact and the Fathers of the sixt Council [y] Concil 6. Constantinop can 32. saith Novimus quod in Armenianorum Regione vinum tantum in sacra mensa offerunt aquam illi non miscentes qui Sacrificium incruentum peragunt which their usage that Council there condemneth saying there further against it Nam Iacobus Domini nostri Iesu Christi frater c. Basilius Coesariae Archiepiscopus c. mystico nobis in scripto tradito Sacrificio ita peragendum in Sacro Mysterio ex aqua vino sacrum poculum ediderunt of Constantinople who about a thousand years since alleged against them [z] Ibid. ut supra St. James his Liturgy in proof of the soresaid mixture As concerning the receiving of the Sacrament fasting St. Austine saith [a] Aug. in Ep. 118. c. 6. vide Concil 3. Carthag can 29. 48. And Brereley in his omissions of pag. 85. saith See this confessed by Hospinian in hist Sacram. part 1. l. 2. pag. 48. ante med where having alleged this saying of Austin he saith thereof Non obscurè innuit Augustinus jejunium hoc traditionem Apostolicam esse It pleased the Holy Ghost and was universally observed that our Lords Body should enter into the mouth of a Christian before other meats as Tertullian saith thereof [b] Tertul. l. 2. ad Vxâ—rem and see this in the Centurists cent 3. col 132. line 10. ante omnem cibum before all meat the reason wherof St. Austin affirmeth to be [c] Aug. in Ep. 118. c. 6. see Hospinian in hist Sacram part 1. pag. 48. 25. in honorem tanti Sacramenti in honour of so great a Sacrament As concerning injoyned Chastity upon receiving of the Sacrament the words of St. [d] Hierom. adv Iovin Apol. saith I appeal to their conscience who the same day after carnal copulation do communicate and as Persius saith purge the night with water why dare they not go to the Martyrs vide Concil Elibertinum apud Osiandium in Epitom cent 4. pag. 181. fine Hierom do so plainly testify observed Chastity by the Laity before the time of their Communion that Mr. Fulk in this case acknowledgeth [e] Mr. Fulk against Heskines Sanders c. pag. 458. paulo post med Hieroms admonition given to married Persons to abstain from company with their wives c. which he there tearmeth [f] Mr. Fulk ibid. paulo post unworthy and [g] Mr. Fulk ibid. Popish Divinity Which said Popishness was yet by the other Fathers religiously observed as is confessed further by [h] Hospinianus in historia Sacramentaria l. 2. pag. 46. circa med saith In primitiva Ecclesia Eucharistia sumpta fuerat castè And he doth there demonstrate this particulary in sundry antient Fathers Hospinianus And as the Laity at their certain times of receiving were thus enjoyned so likewise to Priests in regard of their daily celebration was the observation of their chastity daily enjoyned [i] Brereley tract 1. sâ—ct 7. subd 3. And whereas Mr. Whitaker giveth example in Pope Siricius saying [k] Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 7. pag. 480. ante med And whereas Mr. Morton in Apolog. Cathol c. 73. pag. 219. allegeth testimony to prove that Siricius did make the first decree thereof this though admitted only argueth some then late precedent negligence in not observing the then before observed rule of Chastity but it argueth no more the Doctrin thereof to be then first begun than did the Fathers of the Nycene Council in their Decree of homousion argue thereby the Doctrine thereof to be first as then begun Siricius was the first that annexed perpetual chastity to the Ministers of the word whereto we answer first that Mr. Whitaker allegeth no proof that Siricius was the first neither doth he or can he name any one Catholick writer of that time so reporting Secondly we allege most plainly to the contrary how that Optatus who lived in the same time with Siricius affirmeth that [l] Optatus l. 2. contra Donatistas saith Cum Siricio totus Orbis in una communionis societate concordat all the world joyned in Communion with Sircius so far was he from being then reputed an Innovator St. Hierom also who lived in the time of Damasus Predecessor to Siricius saith of the very point now in question [m] Hieron in Apolog. ad Pamach c. 3. and the same Doctrin doth he affirm in cap. 1. ad Titum l. 1. c. 19. adversus lovin if marryed men like not this let them not be angry with me but with the holy Scriptures with all Bishops Priests and Deacons who know they cannot offer Sacrifice if they use the act of marriage And this opinion was then not first begun but to the contrary so universal that St. Hierom affirmeth it to be the general Doctrin and practice of the Churches in Asia Africk Europ As namely of [n] Hieron contra Vigilantium c. 1. saith Quid faciunt Orientis Ecclesiae quid Egypti sedis Apostolicae quae aut Virgines clericos accipiunt aut continentes aut si uxores habuerint mariti esse desinunt the Churches in the East of Egypt and the Sea Apostolick And in like manner was the marriage of Priests long before these times so plainly impugned for unlawful even in the Greek Church by [o] Epiphanius haer 59. after other plain words had hereof saith At dices mihi in quibusdam locis adhuc liberos gignere Praesbyteros Diaconos Hypodiaconos at
c. 9. col 656. lin 44 and by Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Matth. 8. sect 3. fol. 14. a. post med that Paphnutius though he thought that Priesthood did not dissolve marriage contracted before Orders given yet he affirmed to the Nycene Council that those who were made Priests before they were married should not afterwards marry alleging for this veterem Ecclesiae traditionem the antient tradition of the Church So plainly doth Paphnutius hereby acknowledge that this Doctrin was then holden for the Churches antient Doctrin our learned Adversaries doubt not therefore to [s] So Chemnitius in his examen Concil Trid. part 3. reprehendeth Hierom Ambrose and Origen pag. 50. a. ante med And Epiphanius pag. 62. a. initio and Trigivillaeus Gauvius in his Palma Christiana pag. 103. reprehendeth Socrates and Zozomene for their report of Paphnutius saying thereof Socrates hoc à â—o temerè adjecit c. Socrates added this report rashly of his own devising c. with like falshood did he wrest the saying of Paphnutius in the Nycene Council c. And Zâ—zomen following after Socrates followeth his explication in maintenance of the Doctrin of Dâ—â—â—â—s condemned by Paul 1 Tim. 4. reprehend the said Fathers And as Epiphanius and Paphnutius in their cited testimonies hereof do in plain tearms rest upon the Churches Doctrin before their times so likewise the Fathers of the [t] Concil 2. Carthag can 2. saith Omâ—â—bus placet ut Episcopi Praeâ—byteri Diaconi c. ab uxoribus se abstinâ—â— â—nd for this reason there set down ut quod Apostoli docuerant ipsa servav tantiquitas nos custodiamus Carthage Council whereat St. Austin was present doubt not in like manner to ground this point upon antiquity and the Apostles Doctrin So evident thereby it is that Siricius in his foresaid Doctrin hereof brought in no innovation or change 3. Thirdly [u] Brereley tract 1. sect 3. subd 3. as concerning Anti-christ and also Altars and Sacrifices which he is foretold to [x] Daniel 12.11 take away Mr. Whitaker confesseth touching Anti-christ saying [y] Whitaker l. de Antichristo pag. 21. And M. Cartwright in his 2. Reply part 1. pag. 508. post med saith Divers of the antient and the chiefest of them imagined fondly of Antichrist as of one singular person The Fathers for the most part thought that Anti-christ should be but one man but in that as in many other things they erred Concerning the short time of his persecution or reign gathered from the Scriptures Mr. Fox confesseth that [z] Fox in Apocal. c. 12. pag. 345. fine post med almost all the holy and learned Interpreters do by a time times and half a time understand only three years and a half affirming further this to be [a] Fox in Apocal. c. 13. pag. 392. fine the consent and opinion of almost all the holy Fathers As concerning Altras and Sacrifice which as Dr. Reynolds granteth are [b] Dr. Reynolds in his conference with Mr. Hart. pag. 552. fine linked by nature in relation and mutual dependance one of other so as the one being proved the other is thereby established and first concerning Altars in respect whereof the other was termed [c] See hereafter in this consideration num 23. in the margent at * next before 13. See also the Sacrament tearmed the Sacrifice of the Altar by St. Austin in Enchirid. cap. 110. de cura pro mortuâ—s cap. 18. and by Greg. in Lucam hom 37. and by Hierom Ep. 59. ad Paulinum in solut 5. quaestionis And by Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus in his words alleged hereafter in this Consideration num 17. in the margent under t. at Anno 320. the Sacrifice of the Altar Peter Martyr reproveth the antient Fathers saying [d] Peter Martyr in his Common places in English part 4. pag. 225. b. post med Petrus Alexandrinus attributeth more to the outward Altar than to the lively Temples of Christ And yet further against [e] Peter martyr ibid. pag. 226. a initio Optatus Optatus l. 6. against Permenianus saith What is the Altar even the seat of the Body and Bloud of Christ [f] Ibid. such sayings as these saith Peter Martyr edified not the people c. And in no less plain manner is Optatus foresaid saying mentioned and reproved [g] Centur. 4. cap. 6. col 409. l. 25. by the Century Writers As also Peter Martyr reproveth the Fathers in general saying [h] Peter Martyr in his Common places part 4. pag. 225. b. ante med And Mr. Cartwright in his second Reply the last part pag. 264. circa med saith The antient Writers abuse herein may easily appear in that in this too great liberty of speech they used to call the holy Supper of the Lord a Sacrifice and the Communion table an Altar And see Praetorius de Sacramentis pag. 287. post med where he saith Anno 262. Sixtus secundus abrogavit mensas hactenus usitatas constituit Altaria quae magis repraesentant Judaismum quam Christianismum The Fathers should not with so much liberty have seemed here and there to have abused the name Altar A word nevertheless so frequent with the antient Fathers that Ignatius the Apostles undoubted Scholar is by Master Cartwright and Mr. Jacob [i] Mr. Cartwright in his 2. Reply part 1. pag. 517. prope finem saith Ignatius calleth the Communion Table unproperly an Altar Mr. Cartwright placing in his margent there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And see the like mention of this word in Ignatius confessed by Mr. Jacob in his reasons taken out of Gods word c. pag. 58. post med And see the same word accordingly used by Ignatius in Epist ad Philadelph confessed to have used the same accordingly Now as concerning Sacrifice in respect whereof the Ecclesiastical Minister was by the Fathers [k] See hereafter in this Consideration num 17. initio at 5. called properly a Priest it is affirmed by our learned Adversaries that the more antient Fathers namely [l] See this affirmed by Calvin hereafter in this Consideration num 17. in the margent under the letter t. And M. D. Field l. 3. of the Church c. 19. pag. 107. post med saith in excuse of Calvin The reason doubtless that moved the Fathers so much to urge that mystical Sacrifice of Christ in the blessed Sacrament was for that they lived in the midst of Jews and Gentiles both whose Religion consisted principally in Sacrifice the Fathers therefore to shew that Christian Keligion is not without Sacrifice and that of a more excellent nature than theirs were did much urge that Christ once offered for the sins of the world upon the Altar of the Cross is daily in mystery offered stain and his bloud powred out on the holy Table and that this Sacrifice of Christ stain for the sins of the world thus continually represented and living in our memories is the Sacrifice of Christians Thus confesseth he the
Hieronymus alii affirmant esse traditionem Apostolicam Ambrose Maximus Taurinensis Theophilus Hierom and others do affirm the fast of Lent to be an Apostolical tradition In more undoubted proof whereof other Protestant Writers do not only affirm [l] See this in Abraham Scultetus in Medul Theologiae Patrum pag. 440. initio the superstition of Lent and fasting to have been allowed and commanded by Ignatius [m] Mr. Whitgist in his defence c. pag. 408. circa med who was Scholar to St. John but do also defend [n] See Abraham Scultetus ubi supra and the same Epistle of Ignatius being ad Philippensâ—s is in like manner cited and acknowledged by Mr. Whitgift in his defence pag. 102. ante med and by Mr. Cartwright alleged ibid. pag. 99. prope finem And Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy l. 5. sect 72. pag. 209. circa mod answereth our Adversaries usual objection made against it And so likewise doth Mr. Whitgift in his desence c. pag. 102. that very Epistle of Ignatius in which this Doctrin is extant to be his true Epistle and not counterfeit Adde but now hereunto that our learned adversaries do acknowledge how that in the Primitive Church [o] Whereas Epiphanius haer 75. ante med reporting the errors of Aerius affirmeth of him that he said Neither shall fasting be appointed for these things be Judaical and under the law of bondage If at all I will fast I will choose any day of my self and I will fast for liberty And see the like in St. Augustin haer 53. and confessed by Mr. Fulk and Pantaleon hereafter in this Consideration num 21. in the margent at c. This opinion of Aerius though thus condemned was yet so agreeable and the very same with the new doctrin of Protestants that Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 9. pag. 830. initio saith De jejunio nihil a fide Catholica alienum docuit Aerius And see this condemned opinion of Aerius yet further defended by Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 45. initio And by Danaeus de haeresibus cap. 53. fol. 175. b. 177. a. b. though yet others who distike our adversaries over-plain Novellism herein do specially condemn Acrius and his foresaid defended doctrin as doth namely Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy l. 5. sect 72. pag. 210. paulo post med And the Protestant Author of the book intituled Querimonia Ecclesiae Printed Londini 1592. pag. 31. fine 94. ante med 103. fine Hereof see hereafter in this Consideration in the place before cited Aug. haer 53. and Epiphamus haer 75. ante med And Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 44. fine and 45. initio confesseth this saying I will not dissemble that which you think the greatest matter Aerius taught that prayer for the dead was unprofitable as witness both Epiphanius and Austin which they count for an error Also he taught that fasting-days are not to be observed And Mr. Field of the Church l. 3. c. 29. pag. 138. prope finem saith The eleventh is the heresy of Aerius He condemned the custom of the Church in naming the dead at the Altar and offering the sacrifice of the Eucharist that is of thanksgiving for them He disliked set fasts and would not admit any difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter c. He was justly condemned c. And see this confessed in like manner by Pantalcon in Chronographia pag. 28. initio And Osiander in Epitom c. cent 4. pag. 434. reciteth the condemned errors of Aerius saying Item non oporrere orare vel offerre pro mortuis oblationem Jejunia ordinata non esse obiervanda c. jejunandum esse cum quis voluerit propter libertatem Aerius was specially condemned for his then impugning of our Doctrin concerning the Churches appointed Fasts and that also they themselves do in our behalf give true and full answer to our other adversaries common and misapplyed objecting of the mistaken example of [o] Whereas Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Matth. c. 15. fol. 28. a. versus finem in Act. Apost c. 13. sect 5. fol. 208. a. fine Arerius in loc commun pag. 272. versus finem and many others do commonly object that Montanus the Heretick was the first that appointed laws of fasting Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastieal Policy l. 5. sect 72. pag. 209. fine 210. initio answereth with us that the Montanists were reprehended only for that they brought in sundry unaccustomed days of fasting continued their fasts a great deal longer and made them more rigorons c. Whereupon Tertullian maintaining Montanism wrote a book in defence of the new fast c. And the foresaid Protestant Author of Querimonia Ecclesiae pag. 110. initio answereth in like manner saying Eusebâ—um inquiunt Montanum primas de jejuniis tuliffe leges manifestò docet sed falluntur graviter in hac re ut in aliis c. Abrogatis Ecclesiae jejuniis novum inducit Montanus jejunandi morem c. See this answer more at large in the book it self Montanus and wrested saying of [q] Whereas Mr. Fulk against the Rhem. Test in 1 Tim. 4.3 and commonly most Protestants do object the saying of St. Paul 1 Tim. 4.3 against our Catholick Doctrin of fasting from certain meats Mr. Hâ—oker in his Ecclesiastical Policy l. 5. sect 72. pag. 209. post med saith with us hereof Against those Hereticks which have urged perpetual abstinence from certain meats as being in their very nature unclean the Church hath still bâ—nt her self as an enemy St. Paul giving charge to take heed of them c. And the foresaid Author of Querimonia Ecclesiae pag. 106. 107. giveth the same answer to the said saying of St. Paul as likewise doth St. Austin contra Faustum Manich. l. 30. cap. 4. c. 6. contra Adimant Manic c. 14. An answer so evidently true that Mr. Jacob the Puritan in his defence of the Church and Ministry of England pag. 59. initio acknowledgeth that the place of Paul 1 Tim. 4.3 is understood of Marcion and Tatianus who did absolutely condemn Marriage and certain meats and so saith he are in no comparison with the Papists if they erred in nothing else St. Paul 1 Tim. 4.3 12. Twelfly concerning unwritten traditions and Ceremonies the Canonical Scriptures Images Relicks and consecration or hallowing of Creatures And first concerning unwritten Traditions it is confessed as followeth Whereas St. Chrysostom saith [r] Chrysost in 2. Thess hom 4. The Apostles did not deliver all things by writing but many things without and these be as worthy of credit as the other Master Whitaker in answer thereof saith [s] Whitaker de sacra Scriptura pag. 678. paulo post med I answer that this is an inconsiderat speech and unworthy so great a Father And whereas Epiphanius saith [t] Epiphanius haer 61. circa med We must use Traditions
for the Scripture hath not all things and therefore the Apostles delivered certain things by writing and certain by Tradition with whom agreeth St. Basil saying [u] Basil de Spir. Sanct. c. 27. Some things we have from Scripture other things from the Apostles Tradition c. both which have like force unto godliness Mr. Doctor Reynolds answering to these foresaid sayings of Basil and Epiphanius saith [x] D. Reynolds in his conclusions annexed to his conference the 1. Conclusion pag. 689. I take not upon me to controle them but let the Church judge if they considered with advice enough c. Whereunto might be added the like further confessed [y] Where Eusebius l. 1. Demonstr Evang. cap. 8. is objected to say That the Apostles published their Doctrin partly by writing partly without writing as it were by a certain unwritten Law Mr. Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura pag. 668. fine saith thereto I answer that this testimony is plain enough but in no force to be received because it is against the Scriptures And whereas Dâ—onysius de Eccles Hierarch c. 1. versus finem saith That the Apostles dâ—d deliver their Doctrin partly by writing partly without writing c. Mr. Whitaker hereafter alleged in this Consideration num 13. aâ— t. de Sacra Scriptura pag. 655. ante med saith I do acknowledge that Dâ—onysius is in many places a great Patron of Traditions testimony from Eusebius and from Dyonysius Areopagita the Apostles Scholar And thus much briefly concerning the Fathers of the Greek Church Now as concerning the like confessed Doctrin in the Fathers of the Latin Church to avoid tediousness St. Austin only as being most [z] Gomarus in speculo verae Ecclesiae c. pag. 96. ante med saith Augustâ—us Patrum omnium communi sententâ—a purissimus habetur Also M. D. Field of the Church l. 3. pag. 170. fine tearmeth Austin the greatest of all the Fathers worthiest Divine the Church of God ever had since the Apostles times approved by our Adversaries shall serve for all who labouring to prove that those who are Baptized by Hereticks should not be re-baptized saith [a] Aug. de Bap. contra Don. l. 5. c. 23. The Apostles commanded nothing hereof but that custom which was opposed herein against Cyprian is to be believed to proceed from their tradition as many things be which the whole Church holdeth and are therefore well believed to be commanded of the Apostles although they be not written Wherein and [b] See the like saying in St. Austin Epist 118. ad Januarium other his like sayings his meaning is so evident and confessed that M. Cartwright speaking thereof saith [c] See Mr. Cartwright in Mr. Whitgifts defence c. pag. 103. ante med To allow St. Austins saying is to bring in Popery again And that [d] See Mr. Cartwrights words alleged ubi supra And see his further assertion hereof in his 2. Reply against Master Whitgift part 1. pag. 84. fine 85. 86. If St. Austins judgement be a good judgement then there be some things commanded of God which are not in the Scriptures and thereupon no sufficient Doctrin conteined in the Scriptures Adde but now hereunto that [e] See Chemnitius examen part 1. pag. 87. 89 90. Chemnitius reproveth for their like testimony of unwritten traditions Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Epiphanius Ambrose Hierom Maximus Theophilus Basil Damascene c. That Mr. Fulk [f] See Mr. Fulk against Purgatory pag. 362. ante med 303. 397. and against Martial pag. 170 178. and against Bristows Motives pag. 35. 36. also confesseth as much of Chrysostom Tertullian Cyprian Augustin Hierom c. That lastly M. Whit. [g] See Mr. Whâ—taker de Sacra Scriptura pag. 678. 681. 683. 685. 690. 695. 696. 670. 668. acknowledgeth the like of Chrysostom Epiphanius Tertullian Cyprian Augustine Innocentius Leo Basil Eusebius Damascen c. Now as concerning Ceremonies Mr. Calfehil to omit others affirmeth that [h] See this saying of Master Calfchil in Mr. Fulks rejoynder to Martials Râ—ply Printed 1580. pag. 131. fine 132. initio the Fathers declined all from the simplicity of the Gospel in Ceremonies In like manner concerning the Machabees Ecclesiasticus Toby and other the Books of the old Testament [i] Unworthily so sâ—cluded by Mr. Whitaker in his answer to Mr. Reynolds refutation pag. 22. 23. for it is a rash assertion so to measure the Scriptures by the â—ongue wherein they are written as to restrain the Spirit of God to one only Language The known vanity of which said asserâ—ion is sufficiently further disproved by example of Daniel a great part whereof viz. from cap. 2. ver 4 u que ad finem cap. 7. though not written in Hebrew is yet by our adversaries themselves acknowledged for Canonical Neither is it approved that God would direct by his holy Spirit no Authors in their writings but such as were known and also further declared by certain testimony to be Prophets For our adversaries cannot yet tell who were Authors of the several Books of Judges the third and fourth of Kings the two of Chron cles and the Books of Ruth and Job even Mr. Whâ—taker himself in disput de Sacra Scriptura pag. 603. post med saith hereof Multoâ—um lâ—brorum authores ignorantur ut â—osuae Ruth Paralâ—ppomenon Hester c. And Mr. Willâ—t in his Synopsis pag. 4. post med saith We receive many Books â—n the old Testament the Aâ—thors whereof are not perfectly known Also Calvâ—n Bâ—za and the publishers of the English Bâ—bles of Anno 1584. 1579. in the Preface or Argument upon the Epâ—stle to the Hâ—brews do all of them profess to rest doubtful of the Author thereof Calvin and Beza there affirming that it is not written by Paul whereof see also Calvin further in cap. 2. Hebr. ver 3. fine unworthily secluded by Mr. Whitaker from the Canon for thaâ— saith he they were written in Greek or some other forein language and not in Hebrew nor had for their known Authors those whom God had declared to be his Prophets that these Books were nevertheless holden for Sacred and Canonical by St. Austin the third Council of Carthage and other Fathers is made evident by their manifest [k] St. Austin de doctrina Christiana l. 2. c. 8. saith Totus Canon Scripturarum his libris continâ—tur Qâ—nque Moylcos c. Job Tobias Hester Judith Machabaeoâ—um lâ—bâ—i duo Esdrae duo c. Illi duo libri unus qui Sapientia alius qui Ecclesiasticus inscribitur de quadam fimilitudine Salomonis esse dicuntur Nam Jesus filius Syracheos conscripsisse constantissimè perhibetur qui tamen quoniam in authoritatem recipi meruerunt inter Propheticos numerandi sunt reliqui sunt c. Also the third Council of Carthage can 47. saith Placuit ut praeter Scripturas Canonicas nihil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum
D. Humfrey did grievously reprehend Mr. Jewel for his so bold appealing to the Fathers affirming therefore of Mr. Jewel that herein [2.] Humfredus in libel de vita Jewell Printed Londini pag. 212. And see the same also in Mr. Fulks retentive against Bristow pag. 55. circa med he gave the Papists too large a scope was injurious to himself and after a manner spoyled himself and the Church which like disclaim in the antient Fathers is no less plainly professed by Jacobus Acontius in his treatise [3.] Jacobus Acontius in Stratagematum Satanae l. 6. pag. 296. saith of the Protestants allegation of the Fathers Quidam eo redierunt ut Patrum authoritatibus omnia denuò replerent quod utinam tam secundo fecissent successu quam bona spe aggressi sunt c. Equidem perniciosissimam omninoque fugiendam hanc offe abitror consuetudinem And see the like in Peter Martyr de Votis pag. 462. circa med dedicated to her late Majesty and by sundry [4.] Lutherus tom 2. Wittemberg Anno 1551. lib. de servo arbitrio pag. 434. affirmeth the Fathers of so many ages to have been plainly blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures to have erred all their life time and that unless they were amended before their deaths they were neither Saints nor pertaining to the Church And see further Luthers Book de servo arbitrio Printed in Octavo 1603. pag. 72.73 337. Also in Colloquiis Mensalibus cap. de Patribus Ecclesiae Luther saith of sundry Fathers in particular In the writings of Hierom there is not a word of true faith in Christ and sound Religion Tertullian is very superstitious I have holden Origen long since accursed Of Chrysostom I make no accompt Basil is of no worth he is wholly a Monk I weigh him not of a hair Cyprian is a weak Divine c. affirming there yet further that the Church did degenerate in the Apostles age and that the Apology of Philip Melancthon doth far excel all the Doctors of the Church and exceed even Austin himself And Pomerane in Joannam saith Nostri Patres sive sancti sive non sancti nihil moror excaecati sunt Montanico Spiritu per traditiones humanas doctrinas Daemoniorum c. non purè docent de Justicatione c. Nec solliciti quidem sunt ut Jesum Christum per Evangelium suum verè doceant And Beza in his Preface upon the new Testament dedicated to the Prince of Condy Anno 1587. affirmeth that Even in the best times the ambition ignorance and lewdness of Bishops was such that the very blind may easely perceive how that Sathan was President in their assemblies or Councils other Protestant Writers many of them not doubting specially to reprove even those Fathers that lived next to the Apostles times Mr. Whitaker and others to such purpose [5.] Abusing for where as Euseb l. 3. c. 26. fine allegeth Egesippus saying Till those times the Church remained a pure Virgin and incorrupt for if any then were willing to deprave or corrupt the sincere rule of healthful doctrin they lay hid in the obscure corners of darkness But after the Apostles death c. then certainly the false and subtil conspiracy of wicked errors took beginning through the fraud and craft of those who laboured to disperse false doctrine c. Mr. Whitaker in resp ad rationes Campian rat 7. pag. 102. and contra Duraeum l. 7. pag. 490. 491. urgeth this to prove that presently after the Apostles times the true Church was no longer a chast Virgin but became adulterous and corrupt An inference many ways most absurd For first Egesippus only meaneth that during the Apostles times the Church remained a Virgin that is not so much as assaulted openly by Hereticks who then lay secret and lurking where as after the Apostles times they stepped forth and gave open and violent assaults invading sometimes and usurping even upon Bishops Seas and corrupting or altering with their damnable heresies many of the Churches revolted Children which yet no more made the visible true Church to be as then heretical or unchast than Luthers like late dispersion of his doctrine and infecting therewith of many who were formerly Catholicks maketh our now Church to be Lutheran Secondly if otherwise the Church so presently after the Apostles times ceased to be a Virgin and so became adulterous and corrupt who seeth not then the blasphemy thence ensuing For in what one age since the Apostles times to this present may the Church then be thought to be preserved chast Thirdly it is against manifest Scripture as where it is said of the Church I will marry thee to me for ever c. I will marry thee to me in saithfulness and thou shalt know the Lord. Osee 2.19 20. and I will make this my Covenant saith the Lord my Spirit that is upon thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed from henceforth for evermore Isa 59.21 Very pertinenently therefore saith St. Cyprian to the contrary Adulterari non potest sponsa Christi incorrupta est pudica c. l. de unitate Ecclesiae post initium abusing the mistaken testimony of Egesippus To this end also doth M. Napper in his discourse hereof to his late Majesty not only condemn all the Fathers that lived for [6.] Brereley tract 2. c. 1. sect 4. at q. r. s t. saith Mr. John Napper in his treatise upon the Revelations pag. 43. versus finem affirmeth that the Popes Kingdom hath bad power over all Christians from the time of Pope Silvester and the Emperour Constantine for these thousand two hundred and sixty years and that ibid. pag. 145. col 3. fine from the time of Constantine until these our days even 1260. years the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the outward visible Church of Christians That also ibid. pag. 68. versus finem between the year of Christ 300. and 316. the Antichristian and Papistical reign began reigning universally and without any debatable contradiction 1260. years Gods true Church most certainly abiding so long latent and invisible Ibid. pag. 191. initio pag. 161. col 3. circa med pag. 156. ante med 237. paulo post med 23. fine pag. 188. ante med 1260. years last before Luther but doth also proceed yet further affirming that [7.] Mr. Napper upon the Revelations pag. 191. initio and see the Century Writers cent 2. cap. ◠col 125. lin 49. During even the second and third ages next after Christ the trne temple of God and light of the Gospel was obscured by the Roman Antichrist himself In like manner doth M. Fulk averre [8.] Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 35. prope finem the true Church decayed immediatly after the Apostles times and that
[*] Mr. Fulk ubi supra prope initium immediatly after the Apostles times errors and abuses crept into the true Church With whom agreeth Mr. Downham affirming that [9.] Mr. Downham in his treatise of Antichrist l. 2. c. 2. pag. 25. prope finem This mystery of iniquity which St. Paul 2 Thess 2. ver 7. affirmeth to be working in his times is more than boldly perverted by Mr. Downham and our other Adversaries to be as then working in the Church of Christ directly against St. Paul himself who tearmeth the Church the pillar and stay of Truth 1 Tim. 3.15 The working therefore of this mystery of iniquity in the Apostles times was not in the Church but in the Churches then persecutors and sundry heresies of those first times As also it is yet working in the heresies of this time the same being as some Divines hold the very next and ultima or at least penultima myst cal working before the Revelation of Antichrist himself the general defection of the visible Church foretold 2. Thess 2. began to work in the Apostles times And Melancthon saith accordingly that [10.] Melancthon in 2 Cor. cap. 3. Hamelmannus de traditionibus col 460. saith Post mortem Joannis Apostoli caeperunt defectiones a fide doctrinae daemoniorum sub specie verbi Dei prohibitiones nuptiarum ciboruth vota caelibatus c. presently from the beginning of the Church the antient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the justice of faith increased Ceremonies and devised peculiar worships As also Peter Martyr affirmeth in like manner that in the Church [11.] Martyr de Votis pag. 477. errors did begin immediatly after the Apostles times And that [12.] Martyr de Votis pag. 490. fine presently after their Age men began to decline from the word of God and that therefore [13.] Martyr de Votis pag. 476. paulo post med saith Quamdâ—â— consist mus in Conciliis Patribus versabimur semper in iisdem orroribus so long as we do insist upon Councils and Fathers we shall be alwaies conversant in the same errors In so much as Beza and others doubted not if not most arrogantly read and judge to prefer in [14.] Beza in Epist Theol. Ep. 1. pag. 5. initio saith Itaque dicere nee immerito quidem ut opinor consuevi dum illa tempoâ—a Apostolicis etianâ— proâ—ima cum nostris comparo plus illos conscientiae scientiae minâ—s hâ—buiffe nos contra scientiae plus conscientiae minus habere haec mea sententia est c. And Mr. Whitgift in his defence of the answer to the admonition pag. 472. fine pag. 473. ante med saith to Mr. Cartwright The doctrine taught and professed by our Bishops at this day is more perfect and sounder than it commonly was in any age after the Apostles c. how greatly were almost all the Bishops and learned writers of the Greek Church and Latines also for the most part spotted with Doctrines of Freewil of Merits of invocation of Saints and such like other points of Popery surely you are not able to reekon in any age since the Apostles times any company of Bishops that taught and held so sound and perfect Doctrine in all points as the Bishops of England do at this day knowledge of the truth their now Protestant Writers even before those other that flourished immediatly and next after the Apostles times Caelius Secundus Curio a principal Protestant writer expressing further to that end [15.] Caelius Secundus Curio in his Book de amplitudine regni Dei lib. 1. pag. 43. circa med which said Book is greatly commended by Beza in Epist Theolog. pag. 232. saith An ignoramus quantis in tenebris quantaque caecitate ignorantia versatus sit mundus ab Apostolorum fere aetate usque ad haec tempora in quibus Dominus praeter omnem expectationem se ipse caepit apetire in how great darkness blindess and ignorance the world hath continued almost from the Apostles age to these very times in which above all expectation our Lord began to manifest himself And an other learned Protestant writer affirmeth accordingly that [16.] The Author of the Book intituled Antichristus sive Prognostica finis mundi apud Brereley tract 2. c. 1. sect 6. subd 1. at g. pag. 12. fine saith Spiritus qui annunciat futura non operatur nisi eunte Evangelio quod sub finem ex confesso Lutherus primus invexit And pag. 13. post med he further saith Non manifestatur autem Psuedo propherarum surrectio nisi Evangelio quod inde primitivo Apostolorum Evangelâ—o ante Lutherum ut diximus nunquam ivit Ne quis autem Hussiticuâ— Evangelium pertinere huâ— putâ—t id prohibet â—uod Christus illud Evangelium edicit quod sub finem per universum forbem esseâ— ituâ—um Porro Hâ—â—â—ticum Evangelium â—ohemis tantum venit signo orgo esse non potest Naâ— commune Orbis Evangelium signo esse voluit non illud unius gentis Lutheri Evangelium per Orbem volat tam voce quam prelo from the Apostles times till Luther the Gospel had never open passage not so much as in Huss his time In respect of which their so common received opinion Sebastianus Francus concluded for certain that [17.] Sâ—bastianus Francus in Epistola de abrogandis in universum omnibus statutis Ecclesiasticis If our Adversaries do hereunto answer that this Sebastianus Francus denyed the Baptism of Infants and being so an Anabaptist his testimony is not to be regarded it is replyed thereto First that being otherwise a learned writer and no less enemy to us than our Adversaries his testimony as against himself and them is therewith of no less force than theirs Secondly that the denyal of Childrens Baptism till they be of years of belief is osspecially by our adversaries who deny the necessity of Baptism to infants excepted against unworthily in comparison of their own far greater differences concerning Real presence Christs descent into Hell his suffering in soul the pains of Hell Reprobation and many more of like consequence notwithstanding which they yet profess to be Brethren of one Church Thirdly that accordingly Zuinglius and Oecolampadius do affirm the Baptism of Infants to be but a matter of indifferency and such at the Church may worthily omit and rightly take away For Zuinglius apud Brereley tract 2. cap. 3. sect 9. subd 3. at e. f. tom 2. l. de Baptismo fol. 96. a circa med saith Num enim tanti momenti res haec est ut tantas turbas diffidia propter hane excitâ—re conveniat etiamsi parvulorum Baptismus nullis omnino Scripturarum testimoniis inniteretur Externum quiddam est ceremonale quo ut aliis rebus externis Ecclesia dignè honestè uti potest vel idem hoc omittere rite tollere c. And in Zuinglii Oecolampadii Epistolarum libro secundo pag. 363. post med Oecolampadius
saith of Baptism of Infants Cogitare illos decebat rem externam effe quae charitatis lege dispensabilis est ad aedificationem proximi fatemur non esse legem Baptizandi pueros sed etiam non est lex quae arceat pueros And see him further pag. 301. prope finem And so accordingly Peter Martyr in his Epistles annexed to his Common places in English Ep. 34. to Robert Cooch pag. 133. b. circa med tearmeth him his dear friend in the Lord his dear friend in Christ Ibid. pag. 115. a. initio and yet did the said Robert as appeareth there pag. 114. b. circa med deny Baptism to Infants as likewise Oecolampadius in libro Epistolarum Oecolampadii Zuinglii pag. 300. prope finem writeth of this very point to Baltazar Pacimontanus tearming him there Charissime Frater and yet was he a chief Anabaptist Fourthly this Sebastianus Franeus was so far enemy to the other barbarous Anabaptists that be specially reprehendeth them apud Brereley tract 2. cap. 3. sect 5. subd 1. at x. Chron. part 111. fol. 236. b. seq where also he numbreth up seventy of the Anabaptists different opinions and concludeth their further differences to be so great as no man can either know or number them affirming further that scarce two of them are found to agree in all things Statim post Apostolos omnia inversa sunt c. Presently after the Apostles times all things were turned upside down c. And that for certain through the work of Antichrist the external Church together with the Faith and Sacraments vanished away presently after the Apostles departure and that for these 1400. years the Church hath been no where external and visible 15. Fifteenthly to seal up as it were the premisses whereas Master Whitgift doth against Mr. Cartwright learnedly and truly urge this general rule or proof of Apostolick Doctrine saying [m] Mr. Whitgift in his defence pag. 351. post med And see also further hereof D. Field of the Church l. 4. cap. 21. pag. 242. the title of that Chapter being Of the Rulâ—s whereby true traditions may be known from counterfeâ— For so much as the Original and beginning of these names Metropolitan Arch-Bishop c. such is their antiquity cannot be found so far as I have read is to be supposed they have their Original from the Apostles themselves for as I remember St. Austin hath this rule in his 118. Epistle In so much as he yet further saith in proof of this rule [n] Mr. Whitgift ubi supra pag. 352. ante med and sce Zuinglius his words hereof tom 2. fol. 94. b. circa med it is of credit with the writers of our time namely with Master Zuinglius Master Calvin and Master Gualter and surely I think no learned man doth dissent from them It is now by the premisses and by manifest [*.] Mr. Whitaker in resp ad Camp rat 7. pag. 101. initio confesseth that the time of the Roman churches change cannot easily be told And Master Gabriel Powel in his consideration of the Papists supplication pag. 43. circa post med being provoked that if our Catholick Doctrin be error then to tell us when it came in who was the Author of it c. answereth thereto acknowledging and saying We cannot tell by whom or at what time the enemy did sow it c. Neither indeed do we know who was the first Author of every one of your blasphemous opinions c. confession of sundry learned Protestants made more than evident that the several Doctrines of our Faith are according to this rule no less free from all noted and known beginning fince the Apostles times then are the other foresaid Doctrines of Metropolitans and Bishops a thing so manifest that Master Cartwright though our adversary doubteth not yet further to acknowledge the same saying therefore of this very rule in plain words [o] Mr. Cartwright his words in Mr. Whitgifts foresaid Defence c. pag. 352. initio that thereby a window is open to bring in all Popery And [o] Mr. Cartwriâ—ht alleged ibid. pag. 103. paulo ante med I appeal saith he to the judgement of all men if this be not to bring in Popery again to allow of St. Austins saying c. So evidently do our learned adversaries and the [2.] Apparent probability For seeing Pastors and Doctors must be in the Church till the end of the world Ephes 4.11 12 13. and Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Ephes 4. fol. 335. a. initio and that they shall not be silent Esay 62.6 and the marginal notes of the English Bible in Esay 62.6 but shall alwaies resist all false opinions with open reprehension Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 11. initio and 92. ante med And that the Religion being of God no fear of man shall keep them back Mr. Dearing in his Reading upon the Epistle to the Hebrews in c. 2. ver 12. lect 10. cirea med and seeing also that all new and strange Doctrine is at its first beginning against and contrary to the other then before general received opinion as being for the time but private and singular in the first teacher thereof Yet it doth therefore upon these premises most evidently follow as well that all such new doctrine was ever at its first beginning resisted and openly withstood as also that by reason of such open and known resistance such said beginning is discovered and left known to posterity Which point as it is abundantly verified in the many examples of all such confessed heresies as are out of question between our adversaries and us whose resistance and secondary beginning since the Apostles times is yet to us discovered and left known So again to think that it should hold in all other and fail only in these matters now in controversy between our adversaries and us may be thought no less than very partial strange and inforced Vpon all which is necessarily deduced that according to Master Whitgifts foresaid rule and assertion whatsoever opinion is not known to have begun since the Apostles times the same is not new or secondary but received its Original from the Apostles themselves apparent probability of this foresaid rule in it self confirm and prove our foresaid Catholick Religion whereto we were so many ages since converted to be not new or secondary to the Apostles times but only Primitive and undoubtedly Apostolick 16. As [*.] Brereley tract 1. sect 7. subd 4. concerning Transubstantiation Master Whitaker giveth example in Innocentius the third saying [o] Whitaker l. 7. contra Duraeum pag. 480. circa ined saith Qui transubstantiationem primus excogitavit is fuit Innocentius tertius in Lateranesi Concilio And Brereley in his Omissions of pag. 183. saith And Mr. Sutcliff de Mâ—ssa Papistica l. 2. c. 5. fol. 196. b. circa med saith Transubstantiationis nomen Incentius 3. primùm publicè recipendum decrevit nec rem nec
nomen ante illud tempus notum fuisse conseat He that first invented Transubstantiation was Innocent the third in the Laterane Council whereto we answer first that Mr. Whitaker barely affirmeth but proveth not this assertion neither doth he allege so much as one Author of those times charging this Pope Innocent or that Council with any Innovation or change of Doctrine in this matter And we further say that Mr. Whitaker urgeth this example howsoever against his knowledge and learning yet most clearly against all evidence of truth For this Council of Laterane was holden Anno 1215. and as appeareth by the said Council and further testimony of [*.] Crespinus in his Book of the Estate of the Church pag. 345. fine Protestants there were present thereat the Patriarchs of Hierusalem and Constantinople 70. Metropolitans 400. Bishops and 800. Conventual Priors Now that so many learned men of so many several remote Nations of the Christian world as were here assembled should all of them agree to decree Transubstantiation and yet the same to be an Innovation as Mr. Whitaker saith then first invented is more then improbable The truth hereof therefore was most plainly to the contrary that in the age before that Council the doctrine of Transubstantiation was publick and general only Berengarius as then impugned the same and was therein publickly contradicted and specially written against by divers [o] There did in that age write purposely in proof of the Real presence Anselmus Lanfrancus Guitmundus Adelmannus Algerus Hugo Lingonensis and others In so much that Papyr Masson Annal. Francorum l. 3. in Henrico Rege testifieth saying Berengario omnes illius temporis Theologi bellum indixere And Oecolampadius in lib. Epist Oecolampadii Zuinglii l. 3. pag. 712. fine saith Vivo Berengario multi contra ipsum scripserunt Fathers of several Nations in that age In so much as the foresaid Council of Lateran was at length then afterwards assembled against that this new seeming opinion A thing so evident that Master [q] Fox act mon. Printed 1576. pag. 1121. b. circa med And Joachim Camerarius in his Historiae narratio c. pag. 161. paulo post med saith Transubstationis dogma de evanescentia panis post annum Christi 850. tanquam in quieta possessione mansit usque ad Berengarii tempora annum Christi circiter 150. Nam etsi antea privatis scriptis quorundam notata res fuit publica tamen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à Berengario prima extitit Fox confesseth and saith thereof About the year of our Lord 1660. the denying of Transubstantiation began to be accompted heresy and in that number was first one Berengarius who lived about Anno 1060. So far was Transubstantiation from being as Mr. Whitaker pretendeth first affirmed or invented afterwards in the Council of Lateran Anno 1215. Secondly we say that also the many sayings over tedious here to recite of the other much more antient Fathers who lived long before the Lateran Council are so plain and pregnant for Transubstantiation that the learned Protestants themselves do in plain tearms accordingly acknowledge the same and therefore reprehend the said Fathers To omit the plain testimony [*] Osiander in Epitom Hist Eccles cent 9 10 11. pag. 95. fine saith Anno. 950. exorta est in Clero Cantuariensi acris contentio de pane Eucharistico Alii enâ—m asseverabant priorem panis substantiam remanere nihilominus simul ibi verum Christi corpus porrigi Alii verò pugnabant recitatis verbis Domini priorem substantiam elementorum prorsus evanescere atque transire in corpus Domim c. And Crispinus in his Book of the estate of the Church pag. 286. circa med pag. 289. initio 323. post med confesseth that Paschasius who lived Anno Dom. 880. taught Transubstantiation herein of Osiander and some others in this sort it is confessed and affirmed that [r] Affirmed by Mr. Carlile in his book that Christ descended not into Hell fol. 58. and by Oecolampadius in libro Epistolarum Oecolampadii Zuinglii l. 3. pag. 661. And see Mr. Fulk against Heskins pag. 217. post med 204. ante med 296. fine And by Carion in Chronic. pag. 451. initio Damascen taught Transubstantiation that both [s] See Vrsinus his treatiseâ—ntituled Commonefact cujusdam Theologi de Sacra Domini Coena ejusdam commonefactionis consideratio pag. 211. post med where it is said Theophilactus Damascenus planè inclinant ad Transubstantiationem vide Chemnicium examen part 2 pag. 83. a. paulo post med pag. 90. b. circa med Damascen and Theophilact do evidently incline to Transubstantiation that [t] Humfredus in Jesuitismi part 2. rat 5. pag. 626. saith In Ecclesiam verò quid invexerunt Gregorius Augustinus Intulerunt c. Transubstantiationem c. Gregory the Great and Austin brought into England Transubstantiation that [u] The Century Writers cent 4. c. 10. col 985. lin 30. say of Euâ—â—bius Emissenus that parùm commodè de Transubstantiatione dixit c. Eusebius Emissenus did speak unprofitably of Transubstantiation that [x] The Century Writers undertaking in their fift Century c. 4. col 496. lin 4. to set down Errores Doctorum hujus Saeculi do therein col 517. lin 23. say Chrysostomus Transubstantiationem videtur confirmare â—am ita scribit in sermone de Eucharistia Num vides panem num vinumâ—num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt Absit ne sic cogites Quemadmodum enim siâ—cera igni adhibita illi assimilatur nihil substantiae remanet nihil superfluit sic hic puta mysteria consumi corporis substantia Chrysostom doth seem to confirm Transubstantiation whereto sundry other like examples might be added A thing so evident that Adamus Francisci a Protestant Writer doth therefore acknowledge how that [y] Adamus Francisci in Margarita Theologica pag. 256. post med saith Commentum Papistarum de Transubstantiatione maturè in Ecclesiam irrepsit Transubstantiation entred early into the Church 17. The [*] Brereley tract 1. sect 4. subd 11. in the text and margent at 2. 3. antient Fathers of the Primitive Church are likewise by our learned adversaries confessed to have believed Melchisedechs offering of Bread and Wine in Sacrifice to have been a prefiguration of our new Sacrifice of the new Testament For Mr. Fulk against Heskins c. pag. 99. post med saith I confess that divers of the old Fathers were of opinion that the Bread and Wine which Melchisedech brought forth was sacrificed by him and that it was a figure of the Sacrament which they improperly call a Sacrifice And see the Fathers further reproved herein by Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Haebr c. 7. sect 8. fol. 405. b. fine and by Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum pag. 818. and 819. and Master Fulk against Heskins pag. 100. circa med confesseth how the Fathers
other plain testimonies of this kind [f] Aug. de verbâ—s Apost Serm. 34. saith Orationibus vero Sanctae Ecclesiae Sacrificio salutari Elcemosynâ—s quae pro corum spiritibus erogantur non est dubitandum moriuos adjuvari ut cumâ—eis misericordiùs agatur a Domino quam corum peccata merucrunt hoc enim à Patribus traditum universa observat Ecclesia And in his Book de cura pro mortuis c. 1. he saith of prayer for the dead Non parva est universae Ecclesiae quae in hac consuetudine claret authoritas It is not to be doubted but the dead are holpen by the prayers of the holy Church and the healthful Sacrifice and alms which are imployed for their souls that God will deal with them more mercifully then their sins deserved For this doth the Universal Church observe as delivered from our Forefathers And else where he saith no less certainly [g] Aug. in Enchirid. c. 10. saith Neque negandum est defunctorum animas pictate suorum viventium relevari cum pro illis Sacrificium Mediatoris offertur It may not be denyed but that the souls of the deceased are relieved by the piety of their living friends when for them is offered the Sacrifice of the Mediator c. In so much that he for the Latin Church doubted not to [h] Aug. haer 35. saith of Aerius Fertur quoque propria dogmata addidiffe nonnulla dicens Orare vel offerre pro mortuis oblationem non oportere censure Aerius for an Heretick for his denyal of this doctrine As also Epiphanius for the Greek Church condemneth Aerius in like sort saying against him in defence of Prayer and oblation for the dead [i] Epiphanius haer 75. and ibid. versus finem he further saith Ecclesia necessario hoc perficit traditione à Patribus accepta The Church hath received this through the wide world it was agreed upon before Aerius was Hence it is that Mr. Fulk confesseth and saith [k] Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 44. fine Aerius taught that Prayer for the dead was unprofitable as witness both Epiphanius and Austin which they compt for an error Also he acknowledgeth that [l] Mr. Fulk in his confutation of Purgatory pag. 320. ante med pag. 326. initio 349. circa post med Ambrose Chrysostom and Austin allowed Prayer for the dead that [m] Mr. Fulk ubi supra pag. 320. ante med pag. 326. initio 349. post med pag. 78. fine it was the common error of their times that [n] Mr. Fulk ubi supra pag. 161. ante med And he yet further affirmeth ibid. pag. 78. fine saying Austin speaketh of the amending fire in the place by Mr. Allen alleged He doth so indeed but Austin had no ground of that fire but in the common error of his time So confessedly was the amending fire of purgatory the common doctrin of St. Austins time the error of Purgatory was somewhat ryfly budded in Austins time that [o] Mr. Fulk ubi supra pag. 362. ante med vide ibid. pag. 303. circa med 303. post med Tertullian Austin Cyprian Hierom and a great many more do witness that Sacrifice for the dead is the tradition of the Apostles In like manner Mr. Gifford affirmeth that even [o] Mr. George Gifford in his plain demonstration that our Brownists be full Donatists c. pag. 38. initio And Arnobius lib. 4. contra Gentes sub finem saith Cur immaniter c. Why deserved our Churches to be pulled down barbarously in which the highest God is prayed unto peace and pardon is asked for all men for Magistrats for friends for enemies for the living and for the dead in the Churches publick worship to Pray for the souls of the dead was general in the Church long before the days of Austin as appeareth in Cyprian and Tertullian which was before him and nearer to the time of the Apostles Whereunto might be added like testimony from [q] Calvin Institut l. 3. c. 5. sect 10. acknowledgeth that ante mille trecentos annos usu receptum suit ut precationes fierent pro defunctis and a little after sed fateor in errorem abrepti fuerunt c. And Brereley in Omissions of pag. 190. saith And Calvin de vera Ecclesiae reformat rat extant in his Tract Theolog. pag. 394. b. ante med further saith Superest alter ordo mortuorum quorum mentionem in Coena fieri volunt ut detur illis locus refrigerii lucis pacis non nego hanc fuisse vetustissimam consuetudinem quoniam magna est vis consuetudinis aut potius regnum ideò ejusmodi preces fateor Chrysostomo Epiphanio Augustino similibus probatas suisse quod à majoribus quasi per manus tradita essent Calvin So clearly is Gregory who lived so many ages after these Fathers discharged from all innovation in this point 19. Likewise beside what hath been said before in this Consideration num 9. that Protestant writers acknowledge the Fathers to have held and taught Confession even of Venial or lesser sins Brereley saith tract 3. sect 1. at a. b. that Fathers and Protestants do acknowledge Confession of our sins At a. in the margent he saith thus To omit the plentiful testimonies of the Fathers St. Leo describeth the usage of the Latin Church in Epist 91. ad Theodorum Foro-Julii Episcopum saying Christus hanc Ecclesiae Praepositis tradidit potestatem ut confitentibus actionem poenitentiae darent eosdem salubri satisfactione purgatos ad communionem Sacramentorum per jaâ—uam reconciliationis admitterent And Epist 80. ad Episcopos Campaniae he further saith Cum reatus Conscientiarum sufficiat solis Sacerdotibus indicari confessione secreta And it is said in the antient ripartite History lib. 9. cap. 35. Ad hanc causam Presbyterum bonae conversationis servantemque secretum ac sapientem virum statuerunt ad quem accidentes hi qui delinquebant delicta propria fatebantur At ille secundùm uniuscujusque culpam indicebat mulctam quod etiam hactenus diligenter in Occidentalibus servatur Ecclesi is maximè apud Romam ubi etiam locus est certus Poenitentium And St. Basile signifieth the like doctrin of the Greek Church in quaestionibus brevieribus intâ—rrogat 288. saying Necessariò peccata iis aperiri debent quibus credita est dispensatio mysteriorum Dei siquidem rationem hanc in poenitentia etiam veteres illos cernimus sequutos fuisse c. And the Century Writers cent 3. cap. 6. col 127. lin 29 30 31 c. describe the like doctrin and usage of the Church of Africk out of the writings of Cyprian and Tertullian and see further hereof in Brereley tract 1. sect 7. subd 7. in the margent there at the letters r. s t. u. x. y c. and in this Consideration num 9. at 10. Also here at b.
Brereley saith Sarcerius in loc commun de confessione fol. 289. b. saith It is an error adserere confessionem quae coram Deo fit sufficere ita ut contemnas claves absolutionem per fratrem Hic error prorsus tollit usum clavium absolutionis c. Falsum ergo est confessionem quae coram Deo fit tollere confessionem privatam c. In like plain manner is private Confession defended most earnestly against our Adversaries by sundry of their own other Brethren as namely by Lobechius in Disputat Theolog. pag. 295. sect 4. By Conradus Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvinistarum l. 2. fol. 147. a. By Melancthon l. 1. Epistolarum pag. 234. ante med By the Confessions of Saxonie and Boheme in the Harmony of Confessions pag. 231. circa med pag. 357. 358. initio and by many others 20. Finally we may conclude how far the antient Fathers stand for us out of the ensuing words of Andraeas Duditius apud Brereley tract 2. c. 3. sect 5. subd 6. at m. n. o. p. who is by Beza in Epistolis Theolog. Ep. 1. ad Andraeum Duditium pag. 13. ante med tearmed Clarissimus Ornatissimus Vir a most eminent and adorned man and ibid. pag. 23. circa med observantly beloved of Beza for his piety learning and elegant wit and by him ibidem pag. 2. initio 3. ante med saluted with Frater the acknowledgement and title of a Brother This Andraeas Duditius confesseth for all that of the Roman Church that it is not divided with so many dissentions but hath the plausible appearance of venerable antiquity ordinary Succession and perpetual consent Beza in Epist Theolog. pag. 13. paulo ante med repeateth his words saying Etsi inquis multa eaque horrenda propugnantur in Romana Ecclesia quae infirmo putrido fundamento nituntur tamen non ita multis dissensionibus scinditur habet vetustatis venerandae successionis ordinariae consensûs perpetui speciem plausibilem si veritas est quam veteres Patres mutuo consensu sunt professi ea Pontificiis tota stabit c. Haec tu de Pontificiis At Nostri quales tandem sunt Palantes inquis omni doctrinae vento agitati in altum sublati modò ad hanc modò ad illam partem deferuntur horum quae sit hodie de religione sententia scire fortasse possis sed quae cras de eadem futurae sit opinio neque tu certò affirmare queas In quo tandem Religionis capite congruunt inter se Ecclesiae quae Romano Pontifici bellum indixerunt A capite ad calcem si percurr as omnia nihil propemodum reperias ab uno affirmari quod alter statim non impium esse clamitet Haec tu in nos mi Duditi totidem verbis c. 21. Besides that divers Protestants confess and acknowledge the doctrine and practise of the Church of Rome at this present in the most principal points of difference between them and us to have been taught and practised by the most antient Fathers they confess moreover divers points which they teach and practise to have been condemned by the antient Fathers for heretical and those who taught and practised such points contrary to our now professed Catholick Faith who have been censured as Hereticks [*] Brereley tract 1. sect 8. subd 2. pag. 214. lin 5. in the text The undoubted examples whereof to be alleged not rackedly or impertinently as [*] Mr. Willet in his tetrastylon Papismi p. 107 108 109 c. Mr. Willet most intollerably hath done against us but directly and plainly are many and by our very Adversaries acknowledged So in the first 440. years next after Christ was as is confessed the denyal of prayer and offering Sacrifice for the dead and of our appointed fasts condemned as singular novelty in [c] Hereof see Aug. haer 53. And Epiphanius haer 75. ante med And Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeâ—t Catholick pag. 44. fine 45. initio confesseth this saying I will not dissemble that which you think the greatest matter Aerius taught that prayer for the dead was unprofitable as witness both Epiphanius and Austin which they count for an error Also he taught that fasting-days are not to be observed And Mr. Field of the Church l. 3. c. 29. pag. 138. prope finem saith The eleventh is the Heresy of Aerius he condemned the custom of the Church in naming the dead at the Altar and offering the Sacrifice of the Eucharist that is of thank sgiving for them He disliked set Fasts and would not admit any difference between a Bishop und a Presbyter c. And see this confessed in like manner by Pantaleon in Chronographia pag. 28. initio And Osiander in epitom c. centur 4. pag. 434. reciteth the condemned errors of Aerius saying Item non oportere orare vel offerre pro mortuis oblationem Jejunia ordinata non esse observanda c. jejunandum esse cum quis voluerit propter libertatem Aerius So also was the denyal of prayer to Saints and worshipping of Saints Relicks condemned likewise as then in [d] Hieron contra Vigilantium c. 2. 3. and Mr. Fulk confesseth this likewise ubi supra pag. 46. paulo ante med saying Last of all Vigilantius shall be brought in who wrote against invocation of Saints superstition of Relicks and other ceremonies him Hierom reproveth Vide centur 4. col 1250. lin 45. and Osiander in Epitom cent 4. l. 4. pag. 506. ante med And see thiâ— further confessed by Crispinus in his discourse of the estate of the Church pag. 131. post med And Austin de Eccles dogm c. 73. saith accordingly Sanctorum corpora praecipuè beatorum Martyrum reliquias ac si Christi membra sincerissimè honoranda c. credimus si quis contra hanc sententiam venerit non Christianus sed Eunomianus Vigilantianus creditur Also Saravia in defens tractat de diversis c. pag. 349. paulo post initium and Beza ibidem pag. 346. circa med do both of them affirm that Aerius was likewise charged and condemned by the Fathers for his then affirming that the Saints departed are not to be prayed unto Vigilantius In the same times were condemned in like manner the denyal of Images in [*] Functius a Protestant Writer in lib. 7. Commentariorum in praecedent Chronologiam at Anno Christi 494. confesseth saying Porro is Xenaias primus in Ecclesia bellum contra imagines excitavit And Nicephorus in hist Eccles l. 16. c. 27. saith Xenaias iste primus ô audacem animam os â—mpudens vocemillam evomuit Christi â—orum qui alli placuere in agines venâ—â—andas non esse And see also hereof Codrenus in compendio histor Xenaias and the denyal of voluntary poverty and monastical profession in (e) Hiero me contra Vigilaâ—â—â—um prope finem saith Quod autem asseris eos melius facerâ— qui utuntur rebus
eternal memory And whereas according to histories he was born in Britain and of British Progeny and governed that Kingdom with great piety and vertue he now returneth to your Highness representing to you that State of the Church which in his time illustrated the whole world with the splendour thereof That man must needs have an iron heart which is not moved with the godly succesful and laudable proceedings of his Ancestors Seeing therefore your Majesty is adorned with all good learning we doubt not but that Constantines Ecclesiastical history shall be to your Highness most pleasant and grateful c. 24. Pu. Now good Reader out of the foresaid Premises that the antient holy Fathers are even by Protestants themselves confessed to stand for us thou canst not but conclude First That either our Doctrines do not exclude Salvation or else that all those whom even Prostestants stile Holy and Antient and acknowledge them to be Saints in Heaven were incapable of Salvation which to affirm is no less than most temerarious and cruel blasphemy implying that our Blessed Saviour had no true Church on earth when Luther appeared and that Gentiles were converted to Christian Religion from Paganism and worship of false Gods with no better effect than to be damned 25. Secondly That no man who hath care of his soul will not judge that for interpreting Scripture and in matters of Faith more credit is to be given to the Fathers who were so neer yea who were of the Primitive Church and holy mortifyed and induced with all dispositions making them capable of Gods holy impressions and inspirations than to Luther and other Novellists appearing so lately for time and for doctrine and manners teaching and living so carnally and wickedly as Protestants cannot dissemble it as hath been proved in the first Consideration and consequently more open to receive the suggestions of Satan than the motions of the Ho-Ghost 26. Thirdly that if Luther and his followers could not have been excused from Heresie and Schism if they had lived in those antient days and had opposed the Doctrine and forsaken the Communion of those Fathers so neither can they avoid the just imputation of Heresie and Schism in opposing the Doctrine and abandoning the Communion of us Catholicks who are confessed to agree with the Fathers and antient Christians of those times 27. Fourthly that in a word we cannot but be safe since our very Adversaries confess that we agree with those holy Fathers whom they confess to be saved 28. Fiftly that this our agreement with Antiquity and of Antiquity with Truth is so manifest and forcible that among all the chief points wherin Protestants do disagree from us there is not any one of moment wherein divers chief learned Protestants do not agree with us against their pretended Brethren so that by the confession of all sides if either Antient Fathers or modern Sectaries cannot be saved we are secure And that this agreement of Protestants with us is truly affirmed by me the Reader will find evidently proved in the next Consideration THE THIRD CONSIDERATION Chief Protestants stand for us in the most important points of Religion against their Protestant Brethren BRereley tract 3. sect 7. saith The sundry Articles of our Catholick Faith defended and that most earnestly against the other opinions of our learned Adversaries by sundry of their own no less learned Brethren and all this by either party upon pretended certainty from the Scriptures are many known and evident as may appear by the seventy and above examples thereof here particularly alleged 1 First as concerning the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament to the bodily mouth it is affirmed by Luther and Lutherans and contradicted for Popish by Calvin and his followers Secondly the Reall presence not only of the efficacy of Christs body but also of the body it self after a wonderfull and incomprehensible manner to the mouth of Faith is affirmed by Calvin Institut l. 4. c. 17. sect 7. 10. 32. by Mr. Rider in his friendly Caveat c. the third leaf a. circa med And by Mr D. Whittaker contra Duraeum pag. 169. by the confession of Belgia in the English Harmony pag. 431. By Bucer in Script Anglican pag. 548. post med 549. And by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall Polity l. 5. sect 67. pag. 174. circa medium pag. 177 post med vide Apolog. modest ad acta conventus quindecim Theolog. Torgae nuper habit c. pag. 19. pag. 13. initio 23 47. And contradicted as inclining to Popery to omit the known Doctrine of Oecolampadius and Zuinglius whereof see Mr. Hooker l. 5. sect 67. pag. 174. ante med Lavat in Hist Sacramentar pag. 4. Calvin in libello de Coen Dom. versus finem extant in Calvin's tract Theolog. pag. 12. a. Schlusselburg in Theol. Calvinist l. 1. fol. 78. b. 82. b. by Peter Martyr in his Epistles annexed to his common-places in English pag. 107. b. Ep. 25. ibidem pag. 98. a. pag. 108. a. for which Bucer in his Scripta Anglicana pag. 548. post med 549 ante post medium reproveth Peter Martyr Also by Aretius Serm. 3. de Coena by Szegedine in loc commun pag. 182. at 12. 15. and by our English Puritans in their Christian letter to M. R. Hooker pag. 35. paulo post medium and by certain French Protestants mentioned by Hospinian in hist Sacramt par altera fol. 344. a. post med b. initio And by others mentioned by Mr. Rogers in his Catholick Doctrine c. pag. 176. circa med And by Ludevicus Alemannus in positionibus apud Lugdunenses editis Anno 1566. who said hereof neque etiam per fidem seu incomprehensibili modo ut vocant quia hoc totum imaginarium repugnat appertissimè Dei Verbo of whose opinion see further Beza Epist 5. Thirdly that Sacraments do not only signifie but also confer Grace is affirmed by Osiander in Enchirid. Controversiarum quas Augustanae Confess Theol. habent cum Calvinianis pag. 272 post medium in Epitom Histor Eccles c. centur 16 pag. 527.529.531 538. by Jacob. Andraeas in Epit. Colloquii Montisbelgar pag. 58. prope initium pag. 42 initio and by M. D. Bilson in his true difference c. part 4. pag. 539. ante med and 592. post medium 368 post medium by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall Polity l. 5. sect 57. pag. 127 128. and by M. D. Whittaker contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 662. paulo ante medium 664. post medium Melancthon in c. 4. Ep. ad Rom. after the first Edition saith Repudienda est Zuinglii opinio qui tantum civili modo judicat de signis scilicet Sacramenta tantum notas esse professionis c. apud Ulembergium causa 20. pag 697. And contradicted for Popish by the Survey of the book of Common prayer pag. 103 104. by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis
in Epistolas Pauli ad Phil. Colloss Thess pag. 246. a. and in his Miscellaniorum libri tres c. printed Neapoli Palatinorum An. 1582. pag. 298 299. read the places And concerning the like judgment of others Mr. Dove in his Sermon of the second coming of Christ c. versus finem confesseth that some Protestants make a doubt whether Antichrist be yet revealed or no. Insomuch as the Puritans in their mild defence of the silenced Ministers Supplication to the high Court of Parliament do therfore specially charge the Protestants with affirming that the Pope is not Antichrist saying concerning themselves and the Protestants Doe we vary from the sincere Doctrine of the Scriptures Nay rather many of them do much more swarve from the same touching generall Grace and the death of Christ for every particular person touching Images in the Church for devotion touching the manner of Christs presence in the Eucharist that the Pope is not Antichrist concerning the necessity of Baptism touching Auricular Confession c. See also these words thus further alleged by Mr. Powell in his Rejoynder to the milde defence annexed to his book of things indifferent c. printed 1607. pag. 118. post med and impugned generally by those other who pretend the Pope to be Antichrist 54 Certain distinct degrees and orders of Angells and Arch-Angells c. affirmed by Mr. Hutton in his second part of the answer to the Reasons c. pag. 168 169 170. throughout and by Trigevillaeus Gauvius in his Palma Christiana pag. 39. and by Kekermannus in System Theolog. pag. 159. fine 160. initio 163. ante med by Piscator in volum 1. Thes pag. 93. ante med and by Peter Martyr in his Common-places in English part 1. pag. 120. b. paulo post med and see Marloret his Enchirid. printed Londini 1591. pag. 20. post med Yet contradicted by Calvin Instit l. 1. c. 14. sect 5 6. where he maketh the diversity to consist only in diversitie of Names or Callings given to them all in general diversly according to the diversitie of their imployment and with him in opinion herein Hiperius in Method Theolog. pag. 287. initio paulo poâ— medium 288. paulo ante post med and many others do agree insomuch as the Ministers of Lincoln Diocesse in their Abridgment c. pag. 74. post medium will not grant that there are Arch-Angells 55 The Patronage and protection of certain Angells over certain Countries and Kingdomes affirmed by Calvin Instit l. 1. c. 14. sect 7. and by Hiperius in Method Theolog. pag. 291. initio and by Peter Martyr in his Common-places in English part pag. 120. a paulo post med and in the margent there and contradicted by M. D. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Revelat. 1.20 sect 9. fol. 464. a. paulo ante medium and by M. D. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 294. paulo post initium and many others 56 That by Michael the Arch-Angell is meant not Christ but a very Angell affirmed by the English Communion-Book which appointeth a peculiar Collect for St. Michael and by Marloret in his Enchiridion printed Londini 1591. p. 20. post med and by Wygandus Matthaeus Judex in their Syntagma c. ex Novo Testament printed Basil 1585. pag. 509. initio Yet contradicted by M. D. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 293. fine 294. initio and by Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Revel 1. sect 9. fol. 464. a. ante med ibidem in c. 12. sect 3. fol. 477. a fine and by the Ministers of Lincoln Diocesse in their Abrigement c. pag. 74. circa med reprehending there the Communion-book because say they it affirmeth that Michael mentioned Revelat. 12. is a created Angell 57 That the observation of Sunday for our Sabath is not alterabâ—e to any other Day affirmed by Mr. Whitgift in his Defence c. pag. 89. fine and by Mr. Cartwright alleged ibidem pag. 89. paulo ante med and by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 382. ante med and in his Edition of Anno 1600. pag. 431 circa med by M. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Revelat. 1. sect 6. fol. 463. b. ante med and by the Divines of Geneva in their Propositions and Principles c. cap. 33. pag. 80. sect 12 13. Yet most clearly contradicted by Calvin in his book of Institutions And see his other Edition l. 2. c. 8. sect 34. by Peter Martyr in 1 Cor. 16. and in his Common places in English part 2. pag. 375. b. circa med by Ursinus in his Doctrin Christian compend pag. 775. initio 777. circa med and by Mr Thomas Bell in his Survey of Popery printed 1596. l. 3. part 1. c. 5. pag. 117. 58 That the alteration of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday is not proved by Scripture but is therefore Apostolike tradition affirmed by Bullinger in his Decads c. Englished Decad. 2. serm 4. pag. 140. b. initio by Mr. Whitgift in his defence c. pag. 88. fine 89. post med and most fully and at large by Mr. Thomas Bell in his said Survey of Popery l. 3. part 1. c. 5. p. 116. Insomuch as it is acknowledged for an Apostolike tradition to be perpetually observed by the Divines of Geneva in their said Propositions and principles c. pag. â—o sect 13. and see Mr. Fulk in Revelat. 1. sect 6. fol. 463. a. prope finem and Ursinus in his Doctrin Christianae compendium in prolegom pag. 36. saith thereof Hanc esse Apostolicam traditionem credimus Yet contradicted by Hieron Zanchius de Sacra Scriptura printed 1593 pag. 123 124. and by many others 59 Set time of fasting and from certain meats appointed not only for politick Order but for spiritual Considerations affirmed by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity l. 5. sect 72. initio pag. 204. fine 205. initio Insomuch as pag. 209. fine he answereth the vulgar objection of Montanns ibidem post med he likewise answereth the common objection from St. Paul 1 Tim. 4.3 and pag. 210. paulo post med he saith Aerius was worthily condemned for his opposition against Fasting with whom agreeth the Protestant Author of the Treatise intituled Querimonia Ecclesiae printed Londini 1592. reproving in like manner Aerius pag. 31. fine 94. ante med 103. fine answering also the said objection of Montanus pag. 110. ante post med and answering likewise the said objection from St. Paul pag. 106. circa med Yet contradicted by Mr. Fulk who to the contrary objecteth Montanus against the Rhemish Testament in Matth. 15. sect 3. fol. 28. a. post med in Acta Apost c. 13. sect 5. fol. 208. a. fine defendeth Aerius in his Answer to a counterfait Catholick pag. 45. initio as also doth Mr. Whitaker more fully contra Duraeum l. 9. pag. 830. initio and objecteth 1 Tim. 4.3 to prove this fasting to be the Doctrine of Devills in 1 Tim. 4.
hold as we do and so as I said his verball denyall is a real proof of our Doctrin and Practise Let us examin his particulars 88 First he specifies the Doctrin of the Communion in one kind But of this we have shewed that the Doctrin of Catholikes which is that the Communion of the Laity in one kind is neither commanded nor forbidden but of it self indifferent is defended to be indifferent by many of the chiefest and most learned and of greatest authority among Protestants 89 Secondly he names the lawfulness and expediency of the Latine service I wonder how he durst question the lawfulness of Latin service it being practised in the Universities And in Queen Elizabeths time in Wales the service was read in English where the people understand it not Yea Nichol. Harpsfield in Hist Wiccleffianorum c. 16. inter caetera saith Ex aliis dogmatibus quae Wiccliffianis communia erant quae Licestriani isti sectabantur fuit illud non licere Missas aut Horas Matutinas sive Vespertinas sonore alta voce in Ecclesia Templis recitare Cardinal Richilieu deservedly taxes hereticall Ministers for reading in certain Countries the Service in a language not understood by the people of those Countries saying in his book called Defensio praecipuorum fidei Catholicae Capitum c. 4. sect 2. pag. 121. to the Ministers of Charanton Populum universum quae dicuntur intelligere pugnatis oportere tamen sectatores vestri qui in Bearnia Gallia Marbonensi Provincia Fasconia degunt non sunt Gallicae linguae peritiores quam latinae populi qui in Ecclesia Catholica vivunt tamen illarum regionum Ministri Gallicam in officiis linguam usurpant non autem illarum Provinciarum linguam The same Cardinal sect 1. pag. 111. saith Habendum esse aliquem hominum delectum neque omnia omnibus passim proponenda nemo dubitat inquit Whitakerus l. contra Duraeum sect 15. Evangelii doctrina multos reddit perversiores improbiores addit idem Whitakerus Controvers 1. q. 2. c. 17. The Reader may be pleased to see what we have said above about promiscuous reading of Scripture in English as not permitted in K. Edwards time and [d] Consideration 1. num 29. disallowed by D. Collins The greater the Authority of Scripture is with greater obstinacy men stick to their Errors falsly pretended to be contained in Scripture read or heard Besides D. Potter pag. 62. 63. puts Latine service among those points which are not fundamental nor necessary to constitute a Church and in King Edward's time Stow Chron. pag. 594. reporteth The French King being deceased c. also the Church of St. Paul in London being hanged with black and a sumptuous Herse set up in the Quire a Dirige was there sung and on the next morrow the Arch-bishop of Canterbury Cranmer assisted of Eight Bishops all in rich Myters and other their Pontificalls did sing a Masse of Requiem c. The Protestant Hospinianus in Hist Sacramentar part 2. fol 33. saith Docet Lutherus liberum esse sive in vulgari sive in peregrina lingua celebrare Which is the very Doctrine of Catholikes who teach that there as no Divine Precept or prohibition to celebrate publick Offices in a learned or vulgar language and therefore it must be left to the power and Ordinance of the Church which we are commanded to hear and of which we must learn what in particular circumstances is most expedient for the Common good Of this point I will allege what Brereley hath in his Liturgie of the Masse tract 5. sect 4. subd 3. pag. 449. 450. 451. 452. 453. where he saith The more antient proof and reason of celebrating the publike Liturgy in Latin is establisht and certain for seing it is heretofore made plain that in the other much more antient times the Chancell in which the Priest did celebrate the publike Liturgy was so [e] Apud Brereley in the Liturgy c. tract 1. sect 2. subd 1. in the margent at m. o. Concil 6. Const Can. 69. saith Nulli omnium qui sit in laicorum numero liceat intra sacrum Altare ingredi c. ex antiquissima traditione Hist Tripartit l. 9. c. 30. versus finem It is reported concerning Chancels how that Ambrosius non quievit sed differentiam locorum edocuit And that St. Ambrose said thereupon O Imperator interiora loca tantum sacerdotibus sunt collata quae caeteri nec ingredi nec contingere permittuntur egredere igitur c. And see further concerning Chancells Socrates Hist l. 5. c. 17. versus finem And Zozomen Hist l. 7. c. 24. And Concil Laodicen can 19. and Concil Agathens can 66. And Germanus Constantinopolitanus in Theoria paulo post initium saith Cancelli locum orationis designant quosque extrinsecus populus accedit intrinsecus autem sunt sancta sanctorum solis Sacerdotibus pervia And apud Brereley in the Preface sect 7. initio at e. D. Reynolds in his Conference c. pag. 488. allegeth that Dionysius maketh mention of Churches and Chancels therein severed with such sanctification from the rest of the Church that Lay-men might not enter thereinto See more hereof in Brereley ubi supra tract 1. sect 2. subd 1. in the margent at n. severall to the Clergy as that the Lay people might not enter thereto and that also divers parts of the publike prayers usuall there in Mass-time were [f] Apud Brereley in the Liturgy c. in the Preface sect 14. at the second h. In Basil 's Liturgy fol. 38. at g. and fol. 41. b. Pontifex secretè and the same yet further there fol. 34. b. 38. a. b. 39. a. b. 41. b. 45. b. 43. b. And in Chrysostom 's Liturgy fol. 56. a. fine fol. 50. b. it is said dicit sacerdos remissa voce and fol. 59. a. it is said dicit orationem hanc sacerdos sedatissima voce and see there fol. 61. circa med and apud Brereley in the Liturgy c. tract 5. sect 3. at e. in the margent it is said In Basil 's Liturgy it is said tunc elevans manus Pontifex dicit secretè fol. 38. vide ibidem fol. 36. 39. 40. 42. 43. c. And this ceremony is further mentioned in Chrysostom 's Liturgy fol. 56. 61. and the antient Laodicen Councill can 19. saith hereof tres orationes fiant prima per silentium secunda tertia per vocis pronuntiationem tunc demum of culum pacis dari debere And see Innocentius Epist 1. ad Decentium c. 1. whose testimony in this point â—s so plain that Hutterus de Sacrificio Mâ—ssatico pag. 590. answering thereto saith thereof Innocentii primi authoritatem merito explodimus quippe ab hoste veritatis petitum and before all these see St. Clement the Apastles Scholar in constit Apost after the Antwerp print of 1604 l. 2. c. 61. fol. 56. Hereto also is not impertinent the Veil used of antient
any such objection as this at that time when Protestants did much affect the use of lights Altars Pictures in their Churches In the meane time who would not I know not whether to say laugh or conceive just indignation to see so great a Champion as M. Chillingworth was esteemed to object such matters as these and as causes sufficient to forsake Gods Church 96. Ninthly he specifyes our saying of Pater-nosters and Creeds to the hono◠of Saints and of Ave-Maries to the honor of other Saints besides the Blessed Virgin This is not unlike to the former neither can I imagine what difficulty he can find that any good work as saying of Pater-nosters and Creeds is even in the account of Protestants and the saying of Ave-Maries must be sapposed to be in the opinion of these Protestants who allow prayers made to Saints may be offered in honor of Saints What will he say to the known doctrine of S. Augustine that although Sacrifice be offered to God only yet it may be offered in honor of Saints And much more why may not Pater-nosters and Creeds be offered in honour of Saints and Ave-Maries in honor of other Saints though the words be directed only to the Blessed Virgin In the mean time I return to say can such matters as these be alleged in the day of judgement as sufficient to excuse Luther and his followers from the grievous sin of Schism in forsaking the Communion of all Churches then extant 97. Tenthly He names the infallibilitie of the Bishop or Church of Rome Answer It cannot be expected that Protestants or any other divided from the Church of Rome will in expresse termes acknowledge her to be infallible under that word of Infallible but it hath been shewed that if they will speak with consequence to themselves they cannot deny her to be infallible while they give her such titles and grant her such Prerogatives as we have seen heretofore and deny not but that the ancient Fathers yielded her a preheminence before all other Churches and took her Doctrine and Practise for a Rule and proof of the Truth or falshood of what was believed or practised through all Christian Churches Yea and we have heard Protestants confessing that the Popes Authority for conserving unity and deciding Controversies in matters of faith is altogether necessary and that there cannot be expected any peace and union among Christians except by submitting to the Pope Besides Protestants commonly grant that the true Church is infallible in fundamental points and we must either say that the Roman Church was the true Church when Luther appeared or that Christ had no true Church on earth at that time nor hath any at this present seeing even the chiefest Protestants agree with us in many of those very points for which the first Protestants pretended to forsake all Churches extant when they appeared 98. Eleaventhly He objects our prohibiting the Scripture to be read publickely in the Church in such languages as all may understand Of this we have spoken heretofore Neither is it true that there is any general prohibition to read any Scripture in the Church in such a language as all may understand for some Preachers are wont to read in a vulgar language the Gospell of which they are to preach but our doctrine is that there is no Divine precept to use vulgar languages in the Liturgy or publick Offices recited in the name of the Church But what would he say to the custome which I have understood to have been used in Ireland of forcing people of that Nation to be present even at Sermons made in English of which they understand not one word which is a case far different from the use of an unknown tongue in the Liturgie or publick Offices ordained to the publick worship of God by the Church and not referred immediately for a Catechism or Instruction of the people as Sermons are 99. Twelfthly He strangely mentions our doctrine of the Blessed Virgines immunity from actual sin and our doctrine and worship of her immaculate Conception Answer It is a sign you want better matter while you object these points Your conscience cannot but tell you that you know we are so farr from making the immaculate Conception a point of Faith that there is a severe prohibition that neither part censure the other of Heresie Error or the like so that this Instance is manifestly impertinent The reader may be pleased to read Bellarmine tom 4. de amissione Gratiae statu peccati lib. 4. cap. 15. where he saith Quod ad primum scilicet non haberi apud Catholicos pro re certa explorata ac fide Catholica tenenda beatam Virginem sine peccato fuisse conceptam Joannes Pomeranus unus ex primis Lutheri discipulis in comment cap. 1. 44. Hierem. scribere ausus est pro articulo fidei apud Catholicos haberi B. Virginem sine ullo peccato immo etiam de Spiritu Sancto fuisse conceptam Sed hoc impudentissimum mendacium satis apertè refellunt duae Pontificum constitutiones Concilii aecumenici decretum quibus constitutionibus ac decretis Catholici omnes libenter obediunt Sixtus IV. Pontifex Max. in ea Constitutione quae incipit Gravè nimis de reliquiis veneratione Sanctorum desirtis verbis pronuntiat nondum esse quaestionem istam de Conceptione B. Virginis ab Ecclesia Romana Apostolica sede definitam ideò paenam excommunicationis statuit in eos qui alterutram sententiam ut haereticam damnare audent Judicium Sixti Pontificis sequutum est Concilium TRIDENTINUM ses 5. ac demum nostro tempore PIUS V. in constitutione quam edidit de conceptione Beatissimae Virginis Mariae Besides Protestants themselves acknowledge this point to be a thing indifferent excusable and not defined as may be seen in the fift Consideration num 4. at †next after f. in the margent at Fifthly and as Brereley tract 2. c. 2. sect 14. in the margent at †next after f. at Fifthly tract 2. c. 3. sect 5. subd 2. at f. in the margent proves saying Touching our B. Ladies being preserved from Original sin and the worshipping of Images Mr. Bunny in his Treatise tending to pacification sect 17. pag. 104. paulo ante med pag. 105. saith If any think it more honor able for the Blessed Virgin yea for Christ himself that took flesh of her to have been without sin and thereuppon for his part do rather think that by special praerogative she also was preserved from original corruption c. in these or such like whosoever will condemn all those that are not perswaded as we are committeth an uncharitable part towards those his brethren And D. Field ibid. apud Brereley pag. 499. in the margent at * expresly affirmes lib. 3. of the Church c. 42. pag. 174. post med the point concerning the Conception of our Blessed Lady to be a controversie not [ſ] Not defined saith M.
is so patently insufficient that directly it may be retorted by saying that although it were supposed but in no wise granted that they who were first acquainted with the arguments of Luther against us might be excused by ignorance yet none can be excused at this time seeing not only we Catholicks but also the best learned Protestants upon further advice better Consideration long accurate strict and even partial and passionate examination of the doctrines and grounds of Luther and other pretended Reformers have finally forsaken them and are come to us and therefore they who at this day oppose themselves to all Christian Churches extant when Luther appeared and to us of this time and even to their own learned Protestant brethren cannot pretend ignorance or any other lawfull or probable excuse 109. Fifthly The demand which even now we made concerning Heresie may be with proportion applyed to Schism by asking whether the Communion of those Protestants who hold with us against their pretended brethren ought to be forsaken or no by those who intirely and constantly dissent from us in all points controverted at this day if there can be imagined any one such as it is not easy to believe there is or morally speaking can be any considering the great liberty which Protestants for want of an infallible visible guide have to believe what they apprehend as true to day with freedome to forsake it to morrow If their Communion must be forsaken Protestants will be divided into nothing by perpetually forsaking one another yea the same man by forsaking himself at different times If they need not be forsaken for such doctrines we inferr that the first pretended Reformers could not forsake our Communion for the very same doctrines which now chiefest Protestants hold and yet are not forsaken by the rest and therefore Luther could not be excused from the grievous sin of Schism in forsaking our Communion 110. Sixthly It is very carefully to be observed that all the different Sects of Protestants and every single person of these Sects whether they agree with us against other Protestants or disagree one from an other and also from us or the same man at different times disagree from himself It is I say to be observed that in all these differences and contrarieties against us against their brethren and against themselves they still pretend evident Texts of Scripture in favour of their opinions for the then present time wherein seeing it is clear they must be deceived it being impossible that the word of God can deliver contradictions we must evidently conclude that Scripture alone cannot be to them a sufficient Rule of Faith but that we must finally acknowledge a living judge of Controversies namely the Church of God which therefore must be believed to be absolutely infallible in all her Definitions concerning matters of faith Otherwise we can have no certainty in Articles of Religion 111. Seaventhly Considering what hath been said in the next precedent second Consideration That many learned Protestants acknowledge the Ancient Fathers to stand with us against Protestants we may by the confession of our Adversaries with all truth and sincerity use that exclamation and Protestation which in M. Jewell was false hypocritical reprehended even by his greatest earned'st Protestant friend as we have seen heretofore O Gregory O Austine O Hierome O Chrysostom O Leo O Dionyse O Anacletus O Calixtus c. If we be deceived you have deceived us this our Adversaries confess you taught us c. and further considering what hath been proved in this third Consideration That many of the most learned Protestants in many of the most important points of faith agree with us against other Protestants we may use an other more strange and unexpected exclamation and truely say O Luther O Calvin O you other most famous Protestants if we were deceived you are deceived this you teach with us and you teach with us those very points which your brethren are wont to call Popish and for which a thing to be well considered the first Reformers took a pretence to divide themselves from all Churches of Christ extant before Luthers time 112. Eightly every one who hath care of his eternall salvation is deeply to consider That this agreement of protestants with us against their brethren demonstrates that they are not the Church of which unity in matters of Faith is a most inseparable necessary and essentiall note Whereof Brereley tract 2. cap. 3. sect 5. subd 1. saith As concerning unity in doctrine it is said [y] 1. Cor. 1.10 I beseech you that you all speak one thing be yee knit together in one mind and one judgement [z] Ephes 4.3 endeavouring to keep the unity of Spirit in the bond of peace [a] Philip. 1.27 1. Pet. 3.8 continue in one spirit and one mind [b] Philip. 2.2 of one accord and of one judgement Thus in the first times [c] Act. 4.32 1.14 were the multitude of them that believed of one heart and one soul Thus our Saviour in his special prayer [d] Hebr. 5.7 heard no doubt for his reverence instantly prayeth for the members of his Church [e] Joan. 17.11 that they may be one And thus the holy Ghost describeth the Church of Christ saying [f] Cantic 6.8 My Dove is one As also on the contrary it is said of dissention [g] 2 Cor. 1.10 I beseech you brethren that there be no dissentions among you [h] Hebr. 10.25 not for saking the fellowship that we have among our selves [i] Proverb 6.16 19. God hateth him that raiseth up contentions among Brethren This want of Unity is so improper to God that he is therefore tearmed [k] 1 Cor. 14 33. the God not of dissention but of Peace and it is so certainly the means to dissolve continuance that the holy Scriptures which cannot lye say thereof [*] Galat. 5.15 If you bite one another take heed you be not consumed one of another [l] Luc. 11.17 Every Kingdome divided in it self shall perish [m] Psalm 55.9 see Gen. 11.6 7 9. Destroy O Lord and divide their Tongues [n] Osee 10. â— Their heart is divided they shall now perish c. By this Brand or mark of want of Unity did the antient Fathers [o] Irenaus l. 1. c. 5. initio saith Videmus nunc corum inconstantem sententiam cum sint dâ—o veltres quen admodum de â—â—dem cadem non dicant And cap. 18. fine he saith Cum autem discrepant ab invicâ—â—â— doctrina traditione qui recentiores 〈◊〉 adnoscuntur affâ—ctant per singulos dieâ— norum aliquid invenire c. Darum est enim omnium describere sententias Irenaeus [p] Tertullian de Praescrip advers haerer c. 42. saith Mâ—ntior si non etiam à regulis suâ—â— variant inter se dum unusquisque proinde modulatur quae accepâ—t quâ—â—nadmodum de suo arbitrio
Bellarminum pag. 369. paulo post medium saith Bernardum verè sanctum suisse existimo He was Abbot of Clairevaux as testifieth Simon de Voyon upon the Catalogue c. pag. 126. and ho acknowledged so plainly the Popes Primacy whereof see S. Bernard l. 2. de consider ad Eugenium l. 3. c. 8. and Epist 125. 131. 190. ad Innocentium that he is therefore reproved by D. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Luc. 22. sect 11. fol. 133. b. post initium and by M. Whitaker lib. 2. contra Duraeum pag. 154. ante med and was so evidently a professed Catholick that Gomarus in speculo Ecclesiae pag. 23. versus finem allegeth him to us saying Bernardus Sanctus vester and M. Whitaker in respons ad rat Camp rat 7. pag. 105. ante med saith Bernardus quem Ecclesia vestra multis annis unum tulit pium virum c. And the Century-writers cont 12. c. 10. say of S. Bernard that coluit Deum Maozim ad novissimum vitae iuae articulum acerrimus fuit propugnator Sedis Antichristi c. And the Lutherans in libro Germanico quo causas recusati Concilâ—i Tridentini reddunt sol 257. do tearm S. Bernard an impudent writer heaving the Pope up into an Idoll a corrupter of Gods honour and preacher of Antichrist Lastly this point is made yet surther evident both in Malachias and Bernard that it is manifest that they both lived Anno Domini 1140. When the profession of our new Catholick faith was most storishing Which thing M. Jewell in his defence of the Apology printed 1571. pag. 557. paulò ante med confesseth saying S. Bernard lived in the midst of the Popes rout and Tyrannie Whereupon it followeth that for so much as neither of them is found to have been troubled for any one point of Doctrine disagreeing from those times but were to the contrary both of them in high favour as then with the Roman Sea the one of them being the Popes Legate the other an Abbot that therefore they were agreeable in Religion to the professed Doctrine of those times so improbably do our adversaries pretend S. Bernard to have been a member of their Church for his only then zealous reproving the corruption of life and manners in the Clergy of that age members of our now professed Catholick faith 2. This [h] Brereley tract 2. c. 3. sect 7. per totam gift of Miracles is so necessary to the Conversion of the Heathen in all ages that the Apostles therefore made speciall [i] Act. 4.29.30 prayer for this gift and our Saviour saith accordingly [k] Joan. 15.24 If I had not done among them the works which no other man did they had not sinned In so much as S. Austine placeth the same among those [l] Aug. tom 6. contra Ep. Manich c. 4. and in his l. 22 de Civ Dei c. 8. initio he ossâ—â—metâ— that before the world believed Mâ—racles wâ—â—e necessary to this end that the world should believe Pu If miracles be necessary to convert Nations much more necessary must they be to reverse what all Christ an Churches have once embraced and therefore it was inexcusable temerity to follow the first pretended Resormers who did not so much as pretend Mira cles against the whole Church extant before their time Even amongst men Possession is a string Plea many things which most justly held me in the Churches bosome Thus did this gift of Miracles accordingly continue and that most wonderfully in the times of [m] See this heretofore in the precedent num at * Irenaeus and no less wonderfully afterwards for four hundred years after Christ as appeareth by [n] Zozom hist l. 7. c. 26. post med see the words alleged in the precedent num of this Consideration at â— next after m. Zozomene and also by St. Austine who speaking of the Miracles of his time telleth how [a] Aug. l. 9. Confess cap. 7. S. Hierome in vita Hilarionis telleth how the dead body of Hilarion was after ten months found uncorrupted yielding forth a fragrant smell And see the like miracle testifyed by S. Bede of S. Cuthbert l. 4. hist c. 30. the dead Bodies of Gervasius and Protasius were after many years found uncorrupted and that [b] Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. inicio at their dead Bodies a blind man received his sight A Miracle saith St. Austine done at Milan where the said Bodies lay when I was there a great number of people being witness thereof In like manner doth he make mention of sundry persons who being dead were by God [c] Aug. de Civit Dei l. 22. c. 8. post med restored to life at the Monument of St. Stephen and mentioneth further [d] Aug. ibidem versus finem another Miracle done saith he with us so known and manifest as I think there is none in Hippo the City where it was done who either had not seen or learned it This miracle by his report made thereof more at large was that ten infirm persons were in presence of himself and the whole people miraculously cured at the said Monument of St. Stephen These miracles were so evident in his time and the number of them so many that having already mentioned divers others he yet saith [e] Aug. ibidem post medium saith Quid faciam Vrget hujus operis implendi promissio ut non hic possim omnia commemorare quae scâ—ò proculdubio plaerique nostrum cum haec legent dolebunt metam multa pretermisisse quae utique mecum sciunt ques jam nunc uâ— ignoscant rogo c. Quid faciam c. What must I do I am not able to remember all that I know and doubtlesse sundry of ours when they read these will grieve that I have omitted so many which likewise they know as well as I and concludeth that it would require [f] Aug. ibidem saith Si enim miracula saâ—itatum ut alia taceam modò velim scribere quae per liunc Martyrem id est gloriosissimum Stephanum facta sunt in coloÌ„nia Calamensi in nostra plurimi conficiendi sunt libri nec tamen omnia colligi poterunt sed tantum de quibus libelli datâ— sunt qui recitarentur in populis c. many books to set down the miracles of healings to omit others done only at the memory or monument of S. Stephen Thus much briefly out of S. Austine only And like mention of other miracles in this kind is further made by sundry other [g] See Basil orat in Mamant Nazianzen orat in Cyprianum Chrysostom in lib. contra Gentiles fine and Ambrose in serm de S Gervas Protas Hierome contra Vigilantium in Epist ad Eustochâ—um de vita Paulae and in vita Hilarionis and Sulpitius in vita Martini Fathers of that age in so much as M. Whitaker saith hereof to Duraeus * Whitaker contra Duraeum
25. Also Sigwartus in his 23. disputationes Theolog. c. pag. 207. sect 8. saith Haec vocatio semper extraordinaria quaedam divina dona comitantia habet quae sunt tanquam sigilla doctrinae c. cuâ—usmodi suerunt miracula c. And D. Saravia in defens tract c. contra respons Bezae c. 2. pag. 38. ante med saith Ea verò quae proximè à Deo est vocatio nunquam sine aliquo externo visibili signo aut visione facta legitur And see further hereof Saravia in his English book of the divers degrees of Ministers c. 2. pag. 7. and M. Fenner in his Sacra Theologia pag. 119. b. Also Bullinger adversus Anabaptist l. 3. c. 7. saith to the Anabaptists Quod si dicitis vos instar Apostolorum peculiarem vocationem habere probate eam signis miraculâ—s c. hoc autem nunquam facietis ideoque vocatio vestra nihili imò pernitiosa est Ecciesiae Christi See this saying alleged to this end by M. Thomas Bell in his Regiment of the Church pag. 137. initio miracles as necessary to prove that it is from God yet is the gift of miracles which is to them according to their own doctrine so needfull in proof of their said pretended extraordinary calling so confessedly wanting and defective in their Church that M. Fulk thereof saith [h] M. Fulk against the Rhâ—msh Testament in Apocalyp cap. 13. sect 3. fol. 478. a. post med It is known that Calvin and the rest whom the Papists call Arch-hereticks do work no miracles And M. Sutcliff saith accordingly [i] M. Sutcliff in his examination of Kellison 's Survey printed 1606. pag. 8. post med Neither do we practice miracles nor do we teach that the doctrine of truth is to be confirmed with miracles Insomuch as certain others discerning the necessity of miracles and themselves unable to afford any true example thereof in their Church do lastly urge and name for miraculous [k] Fox act mon. printed 1596. pag. 789. a. lin 59. And Sigwartus in Disp Theol. pag. 170. and Sutcliff de vera Catholica Christi Ecclesia pag. 313. and Philip Mornay in his Treatise of the Church englished Anno 1581. cap. 11. pag. 351. and Justus Molitor de Ecclesia militante pag. 159. Luther 's so large dispersion of his Doctrine maugre the malice of the Pope and all his Adherents which as it is against the evident confession of their own brethren who disclaim as before in all miracles shewed by Luther Calvin c. and as the learned †Theologi Casmâ—riani in admonit sua de libro Concordiae Bergensis cap. 6. and after the edition of Neustadii 1581. pag. 203. post med say Scimus istos Theologos c. magnis clamoâ—ibus regerere Lutherum esse Prophetam quia ipse immediatè extra ordinem à Deo excitatus c. quia miracula fuerint res ipâ—â—us gestae successus multa futura praedixerit c. Whereto they answer among other things saying Miraculum quod ediderit nullum audivimus Nam fortunatio defensio curriculi ipsius fuit beneficium Dei ordinarium secundum promissiones datas ipsum timentibus c. quod autem praedicit de paenis ingrati udinis pro luce Evangelii donata vel similia non sunt nova oracula sed veterum oraculorum Scripturae ad nostra tempora accommodatio Calvinists confess is withall [*] The learned Protestants dâ—sinâ— a miracle to be signum supra naturae ordinem effectum So doth Amandus Polanus in partition Theolog. pag. 228. And see others hereafter in this Consideration num 7. at * next after k. no miracle in it self as not being against or above the power of nature and secondary causes so also by like instance might the proceeding of Arius and Mahomet be much more probably said to be miraculous for that their errours were from no less small beginning [l] More generally dispersed For whereas Lutheranism holdeth only in the Northern parts of the world and also but in a corner of those said Northern parts which are but a parcel of Europe Aâ—ianism was far more universal as extending it self into sundry parts of Asia Africk and Europe Hereof Daniel Camierus in epist Jesuâ—tic part altera pag. 49. paulò post initium saith Arianorum venenum non portiunculam quandam sed paenè totum orbem contamâ—na verat And see Joannes Pappus in epitom histor Eccles pag. 412 413. And the like inlargement in short time of Mahometanism is evident and confessed by Melancthon chronic l. 3. a pag. 311. ad pag. 317. by Illyricus in Apoc. c. 9. a versu 13. ad finem more generally for the time dispersed than ever was the doctrine of Luther And thus much concerning the confessed want of miracles in our Adversaries Church 4. As concerning now our Catholick Church the * M.D. Downham in his Treatise of Antichrist l. 1. c. 7. pag. 111. propè initium saith Neither Turks nor Jews nor any other Churches of Christians but only the Pope and Church of Rome do vaunt of miracles which onely confessedly challengeth the gift of miracles the known examples of her true and undoubted Miracles are plentifully testified As first for the thousand years last past it is confessed that we Englishmen were so long since [m] See Brereley tract 1. sect 1. converted to our now professed Catholick Faith Insomuch as they charge Austin with his then converting us to [n] See Brereley tract 1. sect 1. at 9. Popery and to [o] See ibid. at e. the Papistical faith for which say they [o] See ibid. at 6. he went undoubtedly to Hell after his death And yet are the undoubted miracles which God wrought by the same Austin in proof of his doctrine sufficiently confirmed with the credible [q] See heretofore in this Consideration num 1. at r. s t. testimony of those very times with like [r] See heretofore ibid. at n. q. * testimony also of S. Bede who lived in the age next after and are thereupon reported and [Å¿] See ibid. at u. and see M. Fox act mon. printed Anno 1576. pag. 117. a. prope finem where he saith of Austin and those that came with him to the Conversion of England The King was moved with the miracles wrought through Gods hand by them acknowledged as true undoubted by our very Adversaries themselves In the same age also lived Holy Oswald King of Northumberland whose undoubted miracles are by like credible [t] Concerning Oswald Beda hist l. 3. c. 2. affirmeth that the place where he with religious prayer obtained victory was after called Heavens field in regard of the innumerable miracles there done That also usque hodie c. even till Bede's time diseased persons were thereby restored to health Among whom was saith Beda one Bothelmus yet living restored miraculously to health ante paucos annos but some
miracula sunt fiunt à Deo quidem solo ad ejusdem solius laudem c. solus enim Deus id potest propriè quod est supra naturam creatam c. 6. pag. 43. Miraculum Christianum est opus Dei ipsius totius naturae creatae vires facultates superans quod invocato Dei nomine ad verae fidei confirmationem fit And see the like affirmed by Amandus Polanus in Partition Theolog. l. 1. pag. 228 229. And by Hierom Zanchius in D. Pauli Epistolas ad Philip. Colloss Thessal pag. 241 242. And by Zegedinus in loc commun pag. 188. Antichrists miracles are but such as the order of nature observed may be brought to pass by the deceit of Men or Devils c. whereas the miracles wherewith God garnished his Church are works besides or against the order of nature and secondary causes and therefore done onely by the Divine power of which kind are to cure diseases without means of physick and many other such like whereof we have heretofore given plentifull examples All this being to them evident and not to be denyed to what refuge now do they lastly betake themselves To name one prime man instead of many M. Whitaker the matter being reduced or straitned to this issue rather than he will acknowledge our Catholick Church in which such true miracles are as before most plentifully evident doubteth not to betake himself to this extreamest despair rather than hopefull refuge as seriously to affirm that although it be indeed certain that [l] Whitaker de Ecclesia pag. 348. circa med saith Respondeo me minimè ignorare vera miracula nulla vi nisi divina fieri posse true miracles cannot be done but by the Divine power which to Antichrist or Satan were to acknowledge them for God yet as it were to supply in this want the Devils confessed defect or unableness to work such miracles he is not abashed against the * Sigwartus in disput Theologic pag. 172. initio saith Pseudo-doctores vel etiam ipsum Satanam ad stabiliendas haereses prodigia verè divina designare posâ—e pernegamuâ— And that false Prophets can do no true miracles see further heretofore in this Consideration num 1. initio in the margent at e. And next heretofore in the margent at * next before l. To which Brereley in his Omissions c. of pag. 551. lin 25. addeth Also M. Anthony Wotton in his trial of the Romish Clergies title c. pag. 115. ante med accordingly saith For my own part under correction I speak it I am not perswaded that ever any true miracle was or shall be wrought for confirmation of false doctrine c. I see no sufficient cause to imagine that God will employ his infinite power to the countenancing of any untruth doctrine of other Protestants to conclude and say observe we beseech your Majestie for it is a Monster that [m] Whitaker ubi supra pag. 349. further saith that true miracles are not of force to demonstrate true doctrine whereof be giveth this reason saying Nam possunt vera miraracula etiam à falsis Doctoribus Pseudoprophetis fieri sed tamen Dei non illorum virtute c. Constat enim Deum non modo veris sed falsis Doctoribus vim tribuere hujusmodi faciendi miracula non tamen quò confirmet illorum falsa dogmata sed quò tentet eos ad quos mittantur And see the like in Danaeus in his respons ad Bellaâ—mini disput c. part 1. pag. 784. God himself doth give power of working such true miracles unto false teachers not to confirm their false opinions but to tempt those unto whom they be sent In colour of which paradox he forbeareth not to [n] Misapply For Deut. 13.1 2. by him there alleged doth not speak of Gods enabling false Prophets but of permitting them in trial of his people neither doth it concern their foretelling of things simply future by immediate revelation from God but only of such other future effects as are depending upon their precedent known causes and are also in them foreseen or else of such other future things as depend but upon probability of conjecture collâ—cted from circumstances of persons time and place which do though not ever certainly yet often times casually happen and so accordingly it is but said with condition If there arise a Prophet and give thee a sign and the sign which he hath told thee come to pass it is not said shall come to pass but if it do come to pass and withall he saith Let us go after other Gods thou shalt not hearken to his words Secondly though some of those who have true Revelations from God or of those who cast out Devils or work true miracles be reprobates whereof see heretofore in this Consideration num 1. initio at f. g. h. yet have they those gifts not as false teachers nor to the confirmation of any false doctrine but of Gods truth themselves being otherwise reprobates in regard of their wicked life Which premises observed sufficeth to explain and prevent many impertinent objections commonly urged in this behalf mis-apply the Scriptures inferring thereupon that [o] Whitaker ubi supra pag. 349. ante med having divided miracles into true and false saith Dico ex neutro genere miraculorum posse sufficiens testimonium sumi aut certum argumentum collâ—gi pro vera doctrina c. no sufficient testimony can be taken or certain argument collected for true doctrine from neither kind of miracles true or false directly against the Scriptures themselves which affirm of true miracles that they [p] Our Lord confirming the Word with signs following Marc. 16.20 do confirm and [q] God withall testifying by signs and miracles Hebr. 2.4 witness the truth tearming them also therefore [r] The signs of my Apostleship have been done among you in signs and wonders 2 Cor. 12.12 signs and [Å¿] I have a greater testimony than John the very works which I do give testimony of me that the Father hath sent me Joan. 5.36 testimonies thereof And thus much but briefly respecting the length of the matter concerning miracles and to whether Church Catholick or the foresaid Protestant Church the same have been confessedly appertaining or wanting and consequently that our Church whose doctrines have been confirmed by perpetual great and manifest miracles before any Protestant appeared in the world and therefore could not be feigned or recorded upon any particular design against them and their Heresies cannot be false but the onely true Church of Christ THE FIFTH CONSIDERATION By the Confession of Protestants We Catholicks may be saved though we live and dye in the belief and profession of those Articles wherein Protestants disagree from us ALL †Brereley tract 1. sect 6. paulò post initium the learned Protestants of sober judgement have afforded us Catholicks the promises of hopefull salvation as
appeareth most plainly 1. By their own most evident testimonies 2. By their like confessed examples thereof given And 3. By their undoubted answerable practice To give proof of every of these parts 1. And first concerning their testimonies in this kind M. D. Baro saith [e] M. D. Baro in his four Sermons and two Questions dispâ—ted ad Clerum c. Serm. 3. pag. 448. fine I dare 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 And M. Hooker also saith [f] M. Hooker in his fist Book of Ecclesiastical Policy pag. 188. initio and Joannes Regius in his Libeâ— Apologeticus c. in considerat Censurae c. pag. 95. saith In Papatu autem cùm suerit Ecclesia vera c. The Church of Rome is to be reputed a part of the House of God a limb of the visible Church of Christ and [g] M. Hooker ubi supra pag. 130. ante med We gladly acknowledge them to be of the Family of Jesus Christ M. Bunny likewise saith of Catholicks and Protestants [h] M. Bunny in his Treatise tending to Pacification sect 18. pag. 109. circa med Neither of us may justly account the other to be none of the Church of God [i] M. Bunny ubi supra pag. 113. post med we are no several Church from them nor they from us In like sort doth M. D. Some in defence thereof against Penry the Puritan say [k] M. D. Some in his defence against M. Penry and refutation of many absurdities c. in M. Penry 's treatise pag. 164. ante med That the Papists are not altogether aliens from Gods covenant I have shewed before for [l] M. D. Some ubi supra pag. 182. iâ—icio in the judgement of all learned men and all reformed Churches there is in Popery a Church a Ministry a true Christ c. [m] M. D. Some ubi supra pag. 176. propè finem If you think that all the Popish sort which dyed in the Popish Church are damned you think absurdly and dissent from the judgement of the learned Protestants Also M. D. Field saith †M. D. Field Of the Church l. 3. cap. 46. fine pag. 182. initio We doubt not but the Church in which the Bishop of Rome with more than Luciferlike pride exalted himself was notwithstanding the true Church of God that it held a saving profession of the truth in Christ and by force thereof did convert many from errour c. In like sort doth M. Thomas Morton affirm in express words that †M. Morton in his Treatise of the Kingdome of Israel and of the Church pag. 94. fine Papists are to be accounted the Church of God because saith he they do hold the foundation of the Gospel which is faith in Christ Jesus the Son of God and Saviour of the world Lastly to omit many * Peter Martyr as it appeareth by his Epistles annexed to his Common Places in English pag. 153. a fine desired at the Conference had at Poisy between the Catholicks Protestants that they should not for diversity of opinion break brotherly charity nor call one another Hereticks And see the same opinion yet further affirmed by the Protestant writer against Nicholas Machiavel printed at London 1602. pag. 80. post med 83. paulò post med 85. propè finem others M. D. Covel in his late Treatise published by authority and dedicated to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury defendeth this opinion at large and concludeth saying [n] M. D. Covel in his defence of M. Hooker 's five Books of Ecclesiastical Policy published by authority pag. 77. ante med We affirm them of the Church of Rome to be parts of the Church of Christ and that those that live and dye in that Church may notwithstanding be saved Insomuch as he doubteth not to charge the Puritans with [o] M. D. Covel ubi supra pag. 68. paulò post med ignorance for their contrary opinion Hitherto concerning their testimonies before undertaken 2. Secondly as concerning now their like confessed examples we will out of very many allege onely some few It will not we think be denied but that our late Soveraign King Henry the eighth did after his breach with Rome believe and maintain the whole frame and substance of our Catholick faith the Article of the Popes Primacy onely excepted To which end their own Author Sleydan saith of him [2] Sleydan in English l. 13. fol. 174. a. initio He exiled the name of the Bishop of Rome but kept still his doctrine and M. Fox saith accordingly [3] Fox Act. Mon. pag. 1472. b. fine He set forth and by full consent of Parliament established the Book of six Articles containing the sum of Popish Religion And it is evident that he himself in person not onely as then disputed [4] Act. Mon. pag. 530. a. 〈◊〉 b. initio but also [5] Act. Mon. pag. 533. a. circa med commanded [5] Act. Mon. pag. 533. a. circa med sentence to be pronounced against Lambert as also the Lord Cromwel read and [6] Act. Mon. pag. 533. a. pronounced that sentence and at his own death protested himself [7] Act. Mon. pag. 598. b. circa med and see Holinsheads Chronicle pag. 591. to dye in the Catholick faith not doubting in any Article of faith or Sacrament of the Church though saith he many have slandered me to the contrary And yet he is commended by M. Fox to dye as [8] Act. Mon. pag. 598. b. post med a valiant Souldier and Captain of Christ As also the Church under the reign of King Henry the eighth is by M. Fulk affirmed to be a true [9] M. Fulk against Hâ—â—kitâ—s Sanders c. pag. 564. sect 80 82. Church and the King himself acknowledged in like manner for [10] Fulk ubi supra sect 82. and se D. Humfrey in jesuitismi part 2. rat 3. pag. 304. circa med a member of the Catholick Church of Christ In like sort [11] Osiander cent 12. pag. 309. post med S. Bernard lived some 400 years since as M. Jewel confesseth even [12] Jewel in his defence of the Apology printed 1571. pag. 557. paulò ante med and see Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 2. pag. 154. ante med in the midst of the Popes rout and tyrannie And as we find he was not troubled or gainsaid so much as in any one Article different from the doctrine of the Roman Church at that time so we find confessed to the contrary that he acknowledged even the [13] Bernard l. 2. de considerat 2d Eugenium vide Epist 125. 131. epist 190. ad Innocentium and see this confessed by M. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Luc. 22. sect 11. fol. 133. b. post initium and by M. Whitaker l. 2. contra Duraeum pag. 154 ante med Popes
Supremacy and was so conformable to the Doctrine of the Roman Church that he was made [14] Osiander in epitom c. cent 12. pag. 309. Simon de Voyon in his Catalog c. Abbot of Clairevaux being also [15] Ofiander abi supra pag. 309. fine saith Centum quadradraginta monafteriorum Author fulsse creditur and Danaeus in primae partis altera parte contra Bellarminum pag. 940. saith Hieronymus Bernardus suerunt monachi istius erroris Authores Fautores Author of many Monasteries both in France and Flanders Insomuch as our Adversaries alleging him to us do call him Sanctus vester [16] Gomarus in speculo Ecclesiae pag. 23. fine our Saint and [17] Whitaker in respons ad rat Campianiâ— â—at 7. pag. 105. ante med saith Bernardus quem Ecclesia vesâ—ia multis annis unum tulit piuni virum a man brought forth by our Church who in regard of Christian communion was dearly [18] Osiander â—bid See his words heretofore in the fourth Consideration num 1. sine in the margâ—nt at the figure 3. initio familiar to Muiachias whom our Adversaries reject for a confessed Catholick or Papist As also the * The Câ—rturists câ—rt 12. col 1637. l n. 45. â—o say therefore of S. Bernard Coâ—uâ—t Deum Mâ—ozim ad novissimum vitae suae articulum col 1638. lin 16. they say farther of him Acerrimus propugnator Sedis Antichristi suir c. Centurists do for such in most plain tearms reject S. Bernard and yet this his known Religion notwithstanding our Adversaries do acknowledge him for [20] Whitaker de Ecclesia pag. 369. paulò post med saith Ego quidem Bernardum verè fuisse Sanctum ex stimo And see the like in Whitaker against M. William Reynolds pag. 125 126. a true Saint [21] Osiander cent 12. pag. 309. post med a very good man [22] See this in Pasquds return into England pag. 8. 13. a good Father and one of the Lamps of the Church of God In like manner S. Bede who lived about 900 years since was so evidently of our Religion that our Adversary Osiander therefore saith of him [23] Osiander in epitom c. cent 8. l. 2. c. 3. pag. 58. initio Beda was wrapped in all the Popish errours wherein we at this day dissent from the Pope for he admired and embraced the worship of Images the Popish Mass invocation of Saints c. Which thing appeareth also yet more undoubtedly to omit his evident writings by his [24] See M. Fox Act. Mon. printed 1576. pag. 128 129. confessed credit and estimation had with the Popes of that age whom M. Fulk tearmeth * M. Fulk in his retentive against Bristow c. pag. 278. post med reciteth Bede ' s authority saying The last testimony out of Beda who lived under the tyrannie of Antichrist I will not stand upon M. Sanders may have great store of such c. Antichrists and yet is he all this notwithstanding acknowledged by our Adversaries to have been [25] Osiander cent 8. pag. 58. ante med a good man [26] M. Cowper in his Chronicle at the year of our Lord 734. fol. 171. b. renowned in all the world for his learning and godly life for which he was also privileged with the sirname of [27] Of this title see Holinshead 's Chronicle at the year 735. and M. Cowper in his Chronicle at the year 724. fol. 168. b. and M. Fox Act. Mon. printed 1576. pag. 128. b. vide 129. a. Oecolampadius in libro Epist Zuinglii Oecolampadii pag. 654. post med Reverend and by D. Humfrey specially registred among [28] Hum fredus in Jesuitismi part 2. rat 3. pag. 326. initio the godly men raised up by the Holy Ghost Hitherto also appertaineth the like examples of Gregory and Austin both of them acknowledged for [29] Hereof see Brereley tract 1. sect 2. aâ—d 2. 3. e. confessed Popish Catholicks and yet is one of them called by our Adversaries [30] M. Godwin in his Catalogue of Bishops pag. 3. ante med that blessed and holy Fatner S. Gregory and the other [31] M. Godwin ubi supra pag. 7. initio ante med S. Austin our Apostle Whereunto to omit others might be added the fore-mentioned example of your Highness dearest Mother whose undoubted Salvation her known Religion notwithstanding was even in that opposition of time by the learned Adversary as before [32] See Brereley in the beginning of this 6. section of tract 1. at z. publickly acknowledged What now can our Adversaries answer unto these confessed examples Is there [33] James 1.17 with God variableness or [34] Ephes 6.9 Deut. 10.17 Ro. 2.11 1 Pet. 1.17 any acception of persons or is he [35] Num. 23.19 as the Son of man that he should change so as one and the same Religion which was before in them holy should now be in us damnable And thus much briefly concerning certain undoubted examples of this kind 3. Thirdly to make this point more evident as yet by the like confessed answerable practice of almost all the Protestant reformed Churches Whereas they hold that [p] In the Propositions and Principles disputed in the university of Geneva pag. 166. 25. the Sacraments are onely to be administred to those that are taken for known members of the Church which no man can be without faith because that [q] Hebr. 11.6 without faith it is impossible to please God for which cause they teach concerning Infants who in their opinion have not [r] That Children have not faith is affirmed by M. Cartwright in M. Whitgifts defence pag. 611. and by Beza in respons ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgar part 2. pag. 124. initio and in the Propositions and Principles disputed in the university of Geneva pag. 178. sect 4. and by Jacobus Kimedoncius in his redemption of mankind l. 2. c. 15. pag. 164. fine and by M. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 682. initio faith which as the Scriptures witness [Å¿] Râ—m 10.17 cometh by hearing which Infants cannot accomplish that [t] So say the Divines of Geneva in the foresaid Propositions and Principles disputed pag. 178. sect 4. Also Oecolampadius in libro Epistolarum Oâ—colampadii Zuinglii l. 2. pag. 301. circa med saith hereof Parentum compatrum fides pueros sanctificat And Praetorius l. de Sacramentis pag. 108. saith Respectu fidelium parentum infantes fideles habentur c. credunt igitur infantes sed in parentibus they are comprehended within the Covenant of eternal life by means of the faith of their Parents and * In the Propositions c. pag. 178. Luther l. de praeparatione cordis pro suscipiendo Sacramento Eucharistiae saith Parvulus alienae fidei merito baptizatur salvatur and see him further tom 2. de captiv Babyl fol. 77. a. fine And
in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians englished fol. 35. circa med kept chastity poverty and obedience was onely given to fasting watching praying saying of Mass and such like and (x) Luther ibid. fol. 35. a. circa med honoured the Pope of meer conscience c. and was so thereby most undoubtedly a professed member of our Catholick or as they tearm it Popish Church So likewise upon his pretended reformation or preaching afterward against the Pope he did not say they thereby (y) M. D. Covel in his defence of M. Hooker Art 11. pag. 73. post med saith As it is strange for any man to deny them of Rome to be of the Church so I cannot but wonder that they of Rome will ask where our Church was before Luther as if any were of opinion that Luther did erect a new Church c. And see the like saying in M. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy l. 3. pag. 129. post med erect a new Church then before not in being for that were most directly against themselves and therefore did not depart from the Church he was of before but continued still a member thereof Which thing both M. Hooker and M. D. Covel speaking thereof do very plainly (z) M. Hooker l. 3. pag. 130. M. D. Covel in his defence of M. Hooker pag. 68. say We gladly acknowledge them of Rome to be of the Family of Jesus Christ therefore we hope that to reform our selves is not to sever our selves from the Church we were of before In the Church we were and are so still as also we say that they of Rome notwithstanding their manifold defects are to be held a part of the House of God a limb of the visible Church of Christ acknowledge to the great (a) In the Christian Letter of certain English Protestants unto that Reverend man M. Hooker pag. 18 19. they reprove at large M. Hooker for this opinion of not severing themselves from the Church they were of before dislike of the Puritans as also M. Bunny prosecuteth the same more at large affirming therefore (b) M. Bunny in his Treatise tending to Pacification sect 18. pag. 108. paulò post med that of departing from the Church there ought to be no question at all among us (c) Ibidem pag. 113. post med We are saith he no several Church from them nor they from us and therefore there is no departing at all out of the Church for any to depart from them to us nor from us to them all the difference between us is concerning the truer members whether we or they may be found more worthy of that account As for the other we allow no such question Insomuch as he doubteth not to say (d) Ibidem pag. 109. circa med It was evil done of them who first urged such a separation confessing further our great (e) Ibidem sect 15. pag. 92. circa med he saith of this separation Our Adversaries see themselves to have advantage if they can win us to acknowledge it advantage given thereby which our advantage he afterwards very plainly to this purpose expresseth to be (f) Ibid. pag. 96. circa med For that saith he it is great probability with them that so we make our selves answerable for to find out a distinct and several Church from them which continued from the Apostles age to this present else that needs we must acknowledge that our Church is sprung up of late or since theirs And hence perhaps it is that their learned writers to the better enabling of our Church to be howsoever according to their opinion in part erroneous yet withall a true Church doubt not to affirm of the sundry points of our Catholick faith in particular that they are though in their opinion errours yet not †To give some few and chief examples hereof First M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed pag. 402. saith A weakning errour is that the holding whereof doth not overturn any point in the foundation of salvation as the errour of Free will and sundry such like M. Cartwright in his reply pag. 14. sect 1 2 and in M. Whitgists defence pag. 82. post med affirmeth the like indifferency of the doctrines of Free-will Prayer for the dead and a number of other as necessary doctrines wherein saith he men being mis-led have notwithstanding been saved And a little there before he further saith If you mean by matters of faith and necessary to salvation those without which a man cannot be saved then the doctrine which teacheth there is no Free-will or Prayer for the Dead is not within your compass For I doubt not but divers Fathers of the Greek Church who were great Patrons of Free-will are saved And the like is yet further affirmed of Prayer for the Dead by John Frith Act. Mon. pag. 501. by M. Fulk in his Confut. of Purgatory pag. 336. ante med and by M. Penry in his Book entituled M. Some laid open in his colours pag. 99. Secondly M. Spark in his answer to M. John d'Abbines pag. 382. ante med discoursing of the honouring of Saints Reliques and Prayer for the Dead saith thereof to his Adversary We are not so hasty to pronounce sentence of condemnation of any for such errours for you know well enough that we make not these matters such as that either we think that all must be saved that hold the one way or all condemned that hold the other As touching invocation of Saints M. D. Goade and Fulk do in the disputation had in the Tower with Edm. Campian the 2. daies conference Arg. 8. R. 11. R. 111. affirm thereof that it doth not exclude from being members of the Church c. Thirdly concerning the Real Presence Jacobus Acontius in lib. 3. Stratagematum Satanae pag. 135. paulò ante med saith It is evident concerning as well those who hold the Real Presence of Christs body in the bread as those others which deny it that although of necessity the one part do erre yet both are in way of salvation if in other things they be obedient to God And M. D. Reynolds in his 5. Conclusion annexed to his Conference c. pag. 722. affirmeth the Real Presence to be as it were the grudging of a little ague if otherwise the party hold the Christian faith And John Frith Act. Mon. pag. 503. a. fine saith hereof The matter touching the substance of the Sacrament bindeth no man of necessity to salvation or damnation whether he believe it or not And see Luthers like judgement of Transubstantiation in magna Confessione cited by Amandus Polanus in his Sylog Thesium Theologicarum pag. 464. initio and in the Book entituled Orthodoxus consensus printed Tiguri 1578. in folio fol. 12. b. initio Fourthly as concerning the receiving under one or both kinds Luther in epistola ad Bohemos saith thereof Quamvis pulchrum quidem esset utraque specie in Eucharistia uti Christus hac
that many learned Protestants do not believe all such Doctrines and consequently are not capable of Salvation Pag. 269. n. 45. A man may possibly leave some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himself and others and continue still a member of that Church Provided that what he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the Essence of a Church consists For this cause he saith That although Protestants leave the external Communion of the Church yet they left not the Church because they left her not in any thing essential to a Church as Fundamental points are Therfore he supposeth the Church before Luther did not erre in any Fundamental Article Otherwise Protestants had left her that is they had disagreed from her in a Fundamental point P. 272. n. 52 and pag. 283. n. 73. He denies that Protestants divided themselves from the Church absolutely and simply in all things that is ceased to be a member of it which still supposes that the Church before Luther believed all essential and fundamental Points which Protestants also pretend to hold and for that cause say they left not the Church Pag. 272. n. 52. He saith In the reason of our separation from the external Communion of your Church you are mistaken For it was not so much because she your Church as because your Churches external Communion was corrupted and needed Reformation But if we erred in Fundamental points Protestants must have forsaken us chiefly for that reason that our Church was corrupted with Fundamental errours of Faith Therefore he grants that we erred not in any such necessary Points Pag. 401. n. 26. He confesseth that D. Potter saith indeed that our not cutting off your Church from the Body of Christ and hope of salvation frees us from the imputation of Schism Pag. 133. n. 12. He saith expresly By confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation It is well he makes so open a confession that we believe much more than is simply necessary to salvation But as I said before we will not because we cannot yield so much to Protestants And here I must ask again how he could say Pag. 401. n. 27. As for our freeing you from damnable Heresie and yielding you salvation neither D. Potter nor any other Protestant is guilty of it Seeing he saith that by the confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation If we believe much more than is necessary to salvation by what Logick will he deduce that we believe not as much as is necessary 8. These so many and so clear words of D. Potter and M. Chillingworth may justly make any man wonder with what pretence of truth or modesty he could say Pag. 280. n. 95. As for your pretence that your errours are confessed not to be Fundamental it is an affected mistake as I have often told you And Pag. 308. 108. As for your obtruding upon us that we believe the Points of difference not Fundamental or necessary you have been often told it is a calumny The oftner the worse it being a Saying void of all truth and a shamefull calumny in him 9. To these testimonies of Potter and Chillingworth many other might be alleged out of other Protestants as we have seen divers other alleged by Potter D. Laud in his book against Fisher Pag. 299. saith I doe acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church But so as that which I grant to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they believe the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himself Behold not only a possibility of salvation but also the reason thereof because we believe the Creed c. which is the very reason for which Protestants hold that they themselves may be saved though they differ in many points from one another This I say is the reason of D. Laud which other Protestants must approve though in true Divinity it be of no force at all for though one believe the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himself that is that he is God and Saviour of the world yet if he deny any point evidently delivered in Scripture or otherwise sufficiently propounded as revealed by God he cannot be saved even according to Protestants who therefore doe in this as in many other things speak inconsequently and contradict themselves Pag. 376. he saith The Religion of the Protestants and the Romanists Religion is the same nor doe the Church of Rome and the Protestants set up a different Religion for the Christian Religion is the same to both but they differ in the same Religion Therefore say I we hold no Fundamental errors wherein whosoever differ cannot be of the same but must be of a different Religion And Pag. 129. The Protestants have not left the Church of Rome in her Essence not in the things which constitute a Church And Pag. 282. he saith The possibility of salvation in the Roman Church I think cannot be denyed and in proof hereof Pag. 281. he alleges Luther Field Joseph Hall Geor Abbot Hooker Mornaeus Prideaux Calvin And D. Jeremie Taylor in his liberty of Prophecying Pag. 251. sect 20. teaches that we keep the foundation and believe many more truths than can be proved to be of simple and original necessity to Salvation And therefore all the wisest Personages of the adverse party allowed to them possibility of Salvation whilst their errors are not faults of their will but weaknesses and deceptions of the understanding which as I said may easily be believed of us Catholicks who suffer so much for our Religion so that there is nothing in the foundation of Faith that can reasonably hinder them to be permitted The foundation of Faith stands secure enough for all their vain and unhandsome superstructures And in particular he shews that Prayer for the dead and the doctrine of Transubstantiation are not Fundamental errours and also saith these two be in stead of the rest Yea he affirmes Pag. 258 that there is implyed as great difficulty in the mystery of the B. Trinity as in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and shewes that we are not in any danger of sinning by Idolatrie in adoring the Sacrament 10. Thus good Reader having proved out of the Confession of Protestants That the first Protestants who pretended to reform all Churches extant when they appeared led such lives and taught such Doctrines as no man of judgement can think them to have been fit Instruments for that Work That Protestants confesse the Ancient Holy Fathers to stand for us That the chiefest Protestant Writers joyn with Catholicks against other Protestants in the most principal Articles of Religion Yea even in those very points for which Luther and his followers opposed our Doctrine and forsook our Communion which deserves well to be considered That our Doctrines have been confirmed by Miracles and finally That all
m. The Invisibility of the Protestant Church before Luther c 4. n 3. p 408. t. m. â—ish forced to hear English Sermons which they understood not c 3. n 98. p 377. K OF John Knox c 1. n 60 1. from p 165. to 170. inclusivè Why many particulars of his turbulent seditious spirit are omitted p 165. King James his censure of him p 166. His dreadfull death ibidem L Dr. Laud acknowledges Catholike Faith to be saving c 5. n 9. p 465 6. Lent held of obligation by the Fathers c 2. n 12. p 211 12 13. Limbus Patrum held by antient Fathers n 3. p 198 9. t. m. Lyturgy in an unknown tongue c 3. n 87. p 364. c. Of Luther c 1. from n 1. to 20. from p 1. to 71. inclusivè His own testimonie of his pious and penitent life before his Apostacy n 1. p 2. His raging Lust described by himself p 2 3 4 t. m. His blasphemy that no Sin Lust or other can separate from Christ p 4. Whence he gave scope to all villany ibid. He secretly to the disgust of his friends married Katherine Bore a Nun and iâ— such heat that he could not expect untill next morning when the forbidden time for marriage expired p 4 5. t. m. This shamelesly excused by Melancthon Luther himselâ— acknowledging that he did not professe good life but Doctrine p 5. t. m. Hence Protestants when they will be licentious say This day we will live Luther like p 6. t. m. His inclination to Poligamy n 2. p 7 8. t. m. His contempt of superiority His hideous railing against K. Henry the Eigth and other Princes forced the Protestant Lansgrave to disallow his Writings by a publike Manifest p 9 10 11. t. m. He hired Corolostadius to rail against him n 3. p 12. t m He gives as much power to Lay-men yea to Women concerning the Sacraments as to Priests n 4. p 12 13 t m and n 7 p 27 He saies that the Divell can truly consecrate the Sacrament of the Altar n 4. p 13. m. and n 7. p 34. For his opinion of Baptism vide Baptism He held that had not Christs Divinity suffered we had had but a base Redeemer n 5. p 15. That Christ's Soul suffered in Hell after death p 16. He boasted of more truth in his Doctrin than in the Fathers or Apostles n 6 p 16 17. t. m. His contempt of the Fathers p 18. His Doctrine as certainly divine must judge Angells not be judged by them ibid. and p 19. Chief Protestants do sharply reprove this his pride p. 19 20 1 2 3. His inconstancy in Doctrine n 4. p 14 15. He was taught by the Devill to impugn the Mass n 7. p 23. t. m. and that by bodily conference not by spiritual fight as Fulke would have it nor by dream as Sutcliff saies both against Luther's expresse words p. 22. to 36. inclusivè he was grievously haunted frighted by an evill spirit p. 23 22. He affirms the Emp. Oecolampadius and others were slain by evill spirits appearing to them p. 24 25. He denies obedience to spirituall Pastors and G. Councills and right to judge of Doctrine and grants it Lay-people n. 8. p. 37.8 He teaches that whatsoever a Generall Councill commands the contrary is to be done n. 12. p. 44 5. He affirms that when one dies the Soul sleeps as Insensibly as the Body and denies Purgatory and prayer to Saints n 9. p 39. t. m. He puts three Divinities as three persons and praises the Arrians for rejecting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n 10. p 39 40. t.m. His wicked Doctrine concerning the Author of sin n 11. p 40 1 2. His Blasphemy that God crowns and damns without desert p 42. By these Doctrines he opened the way to all lewdness p 43. To have his will he stuck not to contradict himself and Scripture n 12. p 43. He acknowledgeth that he believed not what he preached p 46. He acknowledgeth his fall to have been Pride and wilfullness and speaks of it with great perplexity and terror of Conscience p 47 8. Yet false Flatterers will call him Saint ibid. He is deeply taxed by Zuinglius Oecolampadius and all Calvinists for his unchristian bitterness against them n 14. p 49 50 1. He most arrogantly conceived himself the onely man opposed by Satan as the first teacher of Christianity and sole right understander of the Gospell n 15. p 51 2. His wicked Doctrine in favour of the Turke and disesteem of Christianity n 16. p 53 55 54 56. His Schollars ashamed of divers things in his Works corrupted them in the edition at Wittenburg n 17. p 57 58. t. m. alibi ipse His wilfull corruptions and impudent censures of Scriptures and holy Writers makes them of no credit p 57 to 64. t. m. inclusivè He acknowledges that the manifold translations of Scripture will force to receive Councills n 34. p 97. He teacheth that onely Infidelity condemns and onely Faith which cannot be without Good works justifies n 18 19. p 64 5. That who is good can do nothing but good that good works neither justifie nor are any way necessary to salvation p. 65. but hurtfull to it p. 66 7. t. m. Erasmus his saying of him n. 20. p 68. m. He cannot be held a Protestant p 68 9. His vild Doctrine and Manners are now so notorious as none can be excusable in following him p 69. He preferrs Melancthon to all the Doctors of the Church n 54. p 155. His Blasphemies against the Holy Ghost c 1. n 2. p 187 8. By his Life and Doctrine many Protestants held Lewdnes to be an Evangelicall Institution and serious Christian Discipline a new Popery c 1. n 1. p 6. M St. Malacias his Miracles c 4. n 1. p 400. i. t. m. and n 4. p 414 15. Calumniated as wrought by the Divel n 1. p 400. m. Dying he gave his Blessing to St. Bernard n 4. p 414. m. Marriage forbidden to Priests from the Apostles time c 2. n 7. p 166 7. t. m. Like for Monks p 167. t. m. Masse and the sacrifice of it most antient n 17 p 267. t. m. Of Melancthon c 1. n 55 6. p 156 7 8 9. He held three Divinities He perswaded Polygamy to King Henry the eight n 56. p 156. He taught that in case of Divorce the offending partie might marry another p 157. He changed from Lutheranisme to Calvinisme n 57. p 157. Yet he perswaded others to remain Catholikes and wished he had rather lost a Finger than wrote of Divinity p 159. Melchisedeck and his sacrifice presigured Christ and his sacrifice c 2. n 17. p 260. c. Merit of Good Workes n 5 6. p 200. c. Of Miracles c 4. per totam wrought in confirmation of points believed by Catholicks Protestants and are testimonies of true Faith although wrought by wicked men they being of that kind which cannot naturally be done n 1 p. 396 7. t. m. The gift
of Miracles necessary to the conversion of the World m 2. p 401 2. Much more necessary to reverse what by infinite miracles the whole world had imbraced p. 402. m. No miracles wrought by Luther Calvin c. n. 3. p. 408. t. m. Yet they pretend an extraordinary calling which they confesse must be proved by Miracles p. 409 10. t. m. No miracle that Luther's sensuall Doctrine should suddainly spread p. 410. t. m. Many miracles acknowledged by Protestants wrought by Catholike Priests for the conversion of Con. n. 1. p. 397 8. By St. Xaverius in the Indies The miraculous incorruption of his body ibid. Wrought by St. Austin at the conversion of England p. 398 9 400. t. m. and n. 4. p. 411 12 13. t. m. Many of which St. Austin the Dr. was an eye-witnes n. 2. p. 402 3. t. m. Undoubted miracles recounted by the Centurists to have been done in each of the thirteen ages next after Christ p. 404. t. m. c. Many of them by Monks of most austeer life Many in confirmation of points now controverted ibid. One of the B. Sacrament stabbed by the Jewes n. 5. p. 421 2. t. m. Another also of the B. Sacrament n. 2. p. 405 6. t. m. True miracles defended against the shifts and impostures of Protestants n 7. p. 427. c. to the end of the fourth Con. Monasteries of professed Virgins in St. Ignatius the Martyrs time c. 2. n. 1. p. 173 4. t. m. Montanus falsly said to be the first Author of Fasts n. 11. p. 230 1. Mortons shameles falsifying of Delrius to cloake Luther's Conference with the Divell c. 1. n. 7. p. 26 7. t. m. He accounts the Arrians a true Church n. 48. p. 140 1. Moâ—ives to convince Protestants of the safety of the Catholike Religion c. 3. n. 105. p. 383 c. N NIcene Councill censured by Luther c. 2. n. 2. p. 187 8. It gave no liberty for married men to keep their Wives after Priesthood p. 186. c. O OEcolampadius wished his right hand cut off on condition he had never wrote of Controversies c. 2. n. 20. p. 7. He pretended Visions and was in one slain by the Devill n. 23. p. 79. t. m. He was the first that disswacted Luther from saying Masse p. 80. Holy Oyle confirmed by miracle c. 4. n. 2. p. 407 Osiander's Nonsence c. 2. n. 2. p. 187. King Oswald's miracles c. 4. n. 4. p. 412. t. m. P PAphnutius defended against Socrates c. 2. n. 2. p. 186. c. Dr. Potters large verdict that Catholike Faith is saving c. 5. n. 6. p. 453 4 5 6 7 8 9. Prayer in an unknown tongue as now used not gainsayed 1 Cor. 14. c. 3. n. 89. p. 370 1 2. t. m. Prayer directed by the words to one party may be offered to another n. 96. p. 375 6. Prayer to Saints and for the dead confirmed by miracle c. 4. n. 2. p. 405 6. t. m. Reflexions for Protestants to ponder c. 1. n. 61. p. 167 to 170. inclusivè Protestants are Children without a Father p. 167 8. They acknowledge the antient holy Fathers to hold with us against them c. 2. per totam For Vows of perpetual Chastity n. 1. p. 171 2 3 4. t. m. Priests forbidden to marry p. 174 5. t. m. Or to have any woman living with them except their Mothers Sister Fathers fister Mothers sister n. 2 p. 186. And that if they had been married before Priest hood they must not after accompany or live in the house with their Wife p. 186 7. c. Religious Vows n. 1. p. 176. t. m. Prayer to Saints n. 2. p. 202 3 4. Purgatory n. 18. p. 265 6 7 8 9. t. m. Saint Peter's Primacy of which Protestants finding no beginning nor of the Popes exercising all that now he does they ascribe it to St. Peter's Ambition n. 10. p. 207. t. m. c. They acknowledge the name and office of a Priest as most antient n. 17. p. 261. t. m. c. The uniform Doctrine of the Roman Church and division of their own n. 20. p. 271. 2 3. Many of their Tenets to have been condemned for Heresies and the Abetters of them for Heriticks within the first six hundred years n. 21. p. 273. c. Had those that now are lived then they would likewise have been condemned n. 26. p. 318. Yet they impudently challenge the holy Fathers for theirs and falsify all sorts of Writers old and new yea of their own Brethren n 22. p. 281. t. m. c. They must confesse the present Doctrine of Catholikes not repugnant to salvation or damne the antient Fathers whom they hold to be Saints n. 24. p. 317. see many other points noted in their Alphabeticall Order Protestants confuted and the now Catholike Religion proved by the practise in the great Constantin's time n. 23. p. 291. t. m. c. Chief Protestants in the following most important points stand for us against their brethren c. 3. p. 301. per totam The reall presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament and not onely inefficacy n 1 2. p. 301 2. Sacraments do not onely signify but conferre Grace n. 2. p. 303. The Church must be continually visible p. 303 c. Good works necessary for salvation n. 5. p. 307 8. Christ died for and gives grace to all n. 7. p. 308. God onely permits sinn n. 8. p. 309. Men uncertain of their Election and may finally fall from the state of Grace n. 9. p. 309 19. In divorce the innocent party cannot marry again n. 10. p. 310. No salvation promised to the Children of the Faithfull dying unbaptised n. 12. p. 310 11. Free-will n. 12. p. 312. Good works with Faith meritory n. 13. ibid. Temporall punishment for sinremitted n. 14. p. 311 12. No Civill Magistrate head of the Church universall or particular n. 16. p. 312 13. Invocation of Saints their and Angells intercession n. 17 18 19. p. 313. Vows of Chastitie n. 28. p. 313 14. Of Poverty n. 21. p. 314. Prayer for the dead Purgatory Limbus Patrum n. 22 3 4. p. 315 16. Images in the Church worship of them bowing at the name of Jesus Good works of one may help another n. 25 6 7 8. p. 316 17. Priests truly give remission of sinnes Confession to Priests Distinction of Mortall and veniall Sinn n. 29 30 1. p. 317 18. Communion under one or both kinds Sacrifice of the New Testament according to the order of Melchisedeck n. 32 3. p. 319. The first motions of Concupisence not consented to are no sin n. 34. p. 319 20. The Commandements not impossible n. 35. p. 220. No Widdow bigama professed n. 36. Transubstantiation n. 37. p. 321. Christ Consubstantiall to his Father n. 38. p. 321 2 3. As man full of knowledge from his Nativity He descended with his Soul into Hell but suffered nothing there n. 39 40 1. p. 323 4 5. The Sacraments of the old Testament inferiour in operation to
losses in all kinds which if we did undergoe for externall profession of that Faith which we doe not inwardly believe to be true we should deserve rather to be begged for fools then persecuted for our Religion In the mean time every Catholick hath this comfort that he is safe even by the confession of an Adversary if he be not a foolish dissembler which would be cause of damnation in a Protestant or any other Even the profession of a truth believed to be false is a sin But I return to say it were impossible for any Roman Catholick to be safe upon what condition soever if we erre in any one Fundamentall Article of Faith 7. With D. Potter agreeth M. William Chillingworth in his book intituled The Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation For whereas Charity Mantained part 1. pag. 15. n. 13. saith Since D. Potter will be forced to grant that there can be assigned no visible true Church of Christ distinct from the Church of Rome and such Churches as agreed with her when Luther first appeared I desire him to declare whether it doth not follow that she hath not erred Fundamentally because every such errour destroyes the nature and being of a Church and so our Saviour Christ should have had no visibly Church on earth To these words which he thought fit to set down very imperfectly he answers pag. 16. n. 20. in this manner I say in our sense of the word Fundamentall it does follow For if it be true that there was then no Church distinct from the Roman then it must be either because there was no Church at all which we deny or because the Roman Church was the whole Church which we also deny Or because she was part of the whole which we grant And if she were a true part of the Church then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation and held no errours which were inevitably and unpardonably destructive of it For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholick In our sense therefore of the word Fundamentall I hope she erred not Fundamentally But in your sense of the word I fear she did That is she held some thing to be Divine Revelation which was not something not to be which was He hath spoken so clearly and fully in favour of the Roman Church and not only affirmed but proved that she did not erre in any Fundamentall Point that I need not say one word to ponder his words or declare the force of them Pag. 7. n. 3. He expresly approves the saying of D. Potter That both sides by the confession of both sides agree in more Points than are simply and indispensably necessary to salvation and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary Therefore doe we inferr Catholicks believe all that is precisely necessary to salvation and more But we never yield so much to you Protestants Pag. 85. n. 89. He confesseth the Roman Church to be a part of the Catholick Church and pag. 16. n. 20. he saith If she were a true part of the Church then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation and held no errours which were unevitably and unpardonably destructive of it For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholick Pag. 163. n. 56. He saith From Scripture we collect our hope that the Truths she The Roman Church retains and the practise of them may prove an Antidote to her against the errours which she maintaines in such persons as in simplicity of heart follow this Absalon These points of Christianity which have in them the nature of Antidotes against the poyson of all sins and errours the Church of Rome though otherwise much corrupted still retains therefore we hope she erreth not Fundamentally but still remaines a part of the Church But this can be no warrant to us to think with her in all things Seeing the very same Scripture which puts us in hope she erres not Fundamentally mark how he professeth to learn out of Scripture that we erre not Fundamentally assures us that in many things and those of great moment she errs very grievously And these errors though to them that believe them we hope they will not be pernicious yet the professing of them against Conscience could not but bring us certain damnation Therefore the Points in which we differ from Protestants being acknowledged not to be Fundamental and in other Points professing nothing against our conscience we are safe by his own confession If we did not believe as we professe we were no Roman Catholicks In the same place he saith expresly De facto we hope the Roman Church does not erre in Fundamentalls Yea he saith line 33. Perhaps she does not erre damnably the contrary whereof he affirmes so often His example of Absalon was very ill applied to the Roman Church which did not rebell from Protestants but they against the whole Church the Mother of all Christians more sacrilegiously than Absalon behaved himself wickedly toward his Father Pag. 404. n. 29. He approves Dr. Potters saying pag. 79 which I cited above that the Roman Religion is safe that is not damnable to some such as believe what they profess And in the same place he saith Wee may hope that she retains those Truths which are simply absolutely and indispensably necessary to Salvation Pag. 401. n. 7. VVe approve those fundamental and simply necessary Truths which you retain by which some good souls among you may be saved but abhor your many superstitions and Heresies The Truths you retain are good and as we hope sufficient to bring good ignorant souls among you to salvation yet are not to be sought for in the Conventicle of Papists If any Soul may be saved in our Religion It is clear we hold not any fundamental Error with which no soul can be saved Pag. 277. n. 61. he saith The simple defect of some Truths profitable only and not simply necessary may consist with salvation Seeing therefore he hath so often confessed that we erre not in fundamental points our Errors in some Truths profitable only and not fundamental may consist with salvation How then doth he say to Catholicks pag. 401. n. 27. As for our freeing you from damnable Heresie and yielding you salvation neither he Dr. Potter nor any other Protestant is guilty of it Pag. 219. n. 50. Speaking of Protestants he saith They do not differ at all in matters of Faith if you take the word in the highest sense and meanby matters of Faith such Doctrines as are necessary to salvation to be believed or not to be believed Now you know well that in points of greatest moment which Catholicks believe against some Protestants other Protestants stand for us against their pretended Brethren And therefore he must either say that we believe all such Doctrines as are absolutely necessary to salvation or