tymes of the Apostles my iudgment is that those tymes had plus conscientiae scientiae minus and we scientia plus conscientiae minus The Archbishop of Canterbury thus vanteth against those ancient tymes The (m) In his Defence of the answere to the Admonition pag. 472. 473. Doctrine taught professed by our Bishops at this day is more perfect and sounder then it was in any age after the Apostles I will close vp the Aristarchian and censuring iudgments of the Protestants against the ancient Fathers merely contrary to the former alledged Protestants with the scurrilous and depressing words of Luther passed vpon them who thus in one place writeth The (n) Tom. 2. Wittenb anno 1551. lib. de seruo arbitrio Fathers of so many ages haue beene plainly blynd and most ignorant in the Scriptures they haue erred all their lyfe tyme and vnlesse they were amended before their deaths they were neither Saints nor appertayning to the Church And further The (o) In Colloq mensal lib. de seruo arbitrio Apology of Philip Melancthon doth far excell all the Doctours of the Church and exceedes euen Austin himselfe And of his owne iudgment with reference to their iudgments he thus Thrasonically boasteth I (p) Contra Henricum regem Angliae eare not if a thousand Austins a thousand Cyprians a thousand Churches stood against me But to come to particular Fathers marke how Luther showers downe words of reproach against them In the (q) In Colloq mensa lib cap de Patribus Ecclesia writings of Ierome there is not a word of true Fayth in Christ sound Religion Tertullian is very superstitious I haue houlden Origen long since accursed Of Chrysostome I make no account Basill is of no worth he is wholy a Monke I waygh him not of a hayre Thus Luther and with this I end this Paragraph aduertising the Reader that besides the dissentions which these last alledged Protestants haue with the former Protestants acknowledging the Fathers authorities and worth these sharpe censures deliuered in so full a manner against the Fathers make greatly in proofe of our ancient Catholike and Romay Fayth Seeing they irreplyably proue that those most blessed and learned Fathers so neere to the dayes of our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles were Papists in Fayth and Religion and not Protestants The XI Paragraph CEasing to discourse further of particular Fathers how they are admitted by some Protestants and reiected by others I will ascend to speake of Generall Councells which consist of the Assembly and confluence of many hundred of Fathers touching which point we shall fynd great contrariety of opinions among the Protestants And first for the reiecting of the authority of Generall Councels we fynd D. Whitaker thus expresly to say (r) L. dâ— Concil contra Bellarm. q. 6. Generall Councels may erre But Peter Martyr is more full and plaine herein shewing the reason why Councells are not to be admitted thus writing As long (s) L. de rotis pag. 476. as we insist in Generall Councells so long we shall continue in the Papists Errours In like manner D. Fulke thus depresseth the authority of Generall Councels The (t) In his answere to a Counterfeyt Catholike p. â—0 90. and p. 86. whole Church militant may erre altogether as euery part thereof Beza actually chargeth the Primitiue Generall Councells with errour saying (u) In his Preface vpon the New Testament Dedicated to the Prince of Condy. anno 1587. Euen in the best tymes meaning the Primitiue tymes the ambition ignorance and lewdnes of Bishops was such that the very blynd may easely perceaue how that Satan was President in their Assemblies But now obserue how other learned Protestants contradict their former brethrens sentences herein And first Doctour Bilson discouâ—sing of the meanes to decyde Controuersies in Fayth thus writeth To haue (x) In his perpetuall Gouerment c. pag. 37â— no Iudge for the ending of Ecclesiasticall contentions were the vtter subuersion of all peace thereupon the said Doctour concludes thus Synods (y) Vbi suprà p. 370. are an externall Iudiciall meanes to discerne errours and the surest meanes to decide doubts And he further thus writeth Yf (z) Vbi suprà pag. 374. Synods were not the Church neither at any tyme was nor indeed safely can be without tempests D. Sutcliffe as not allowing triall of Controuersies only by Scripture thus writeth (a) In his reuiew of his Examination of D. Kellisons Suruey printed 1â—06 p. 41. It is false that we will admit no iudge but Scripture for mâ— appeale still to a lawfull Generall Councell M. Hooker (b) In his Preface to his booke of Ecclesiast Policy relateth now Beza as being tyred with disputs only from Scripture submitteth himselfe finally to a lawfull Assembly or Councell And the said M. Hooker in the place aboue alledged thus further writeth We are sure of this that Nature Scripture and Experience haue taught the world for the ending of Controuersies to submit it selfe vnto some iudieâ— all and definitiue sentence meaning to the iudgment or a Generall Councell D. Field conspireth with M. Hooker herein thus writing (c) In his Treatise of the Church in his Epist. Dedicat. Seeing the controuersies in Religion in our tyme are growne so many in number and in nature so intricate that few haue tyme leasure and strength to examine them what remayneth for man desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the Societies of the men in the World is that blessed Company of Holy ones that househould of Fayth that spouse of Christ that Church of the liuing God c. He meaning the iudgment of the Church deliuered in a Generall Councell To conclude an Externall iudgment or Definitiue Sentence besides the Scripture which is chiefly the sentence of a Generall Councell is further taught by D. Baneroft (d) In his Sermon preached 1. February 1588 pag. 4â— D. Couell (e) In his modest Examination pag. 108. and 109. and finally to omit others euen by the Puritanes of whose iudgment herein sâ—e D. Baneroftâ— (f) Pag. 1â—4 Suruey The XII Paragraph TO come to Traditions That they are reiected by most Protestants it will be needlesse much to labour therein Seeing they are so luxuriant especially the Puritans and the most forward Protestants and abundant in the condemnation of all Traditions yet obserue (k) L. â— pistol Swinglij Oecolamp pag. 301. how diuers points of Christian Fayth not taught in the Scriptures are acknowledged by other learned Protestants to be Apostolicall Traditions And to begin (g) Tom. â— l. de Baptism fol. 9â— Swinglius and h Oecolampadius confesse that Baptisme of Infants is not taught in the Scripture to whose iudgment D. Field subscribeth in these words (i) Of the Church pag. â—1â— Baptisme of Infants is a Tradition because it is not expresly deliuered in Scripture
euideÌ„t that Caluin thus writeth Ante (e) Instit lib. 3. cap 5. sect 10. mille trecentos annos c. More then thirteene hundred yeares since it was receaued that prayers were made for the dead c. But I will graunt those tymes were in errour I wil conclude this point with the Confession of M. Gifford thus writing (f) In his plaine demonstration that our Brownists are Donatists pag. 38. Publike worship to pray for the soules of the dead and to offer Oblations for the dead was generally in the Church before the dayes of Austin as appeareth in Cyprian Tertullian which were before him and nearer to the tymes of the Apostles 5. Touching Vnwritten Traditions Whereas S. Chrysostome sayth The (g) In 2. Thessal hom 4. Apostles did not deliuer all things by writing but many things without D. Whitaker in answere heerto fayth I (h) De sacra Scriptura pag. 478. answere that this is an inconsiderate speech and vnworthy so great a Father Of which saying of Chrysostome as also of S. Basil speaking the lyke D. Reynolds thus censureth I take (i) In his conclusions annexed to his ConfereÌ„ce Conclus pag. 689. not vpon me to controule them meaning the two former Fathers but let the Church iudge if they considered with aduice inough Wheras S. Austine maintayneth the Doctrine of vnwritten Traditions M. Cartwright thus censureth him therefore If (k) In M Whitguifts defence pag. 103. S. Austins Iudgment be a good iudgment then there be some things commaunded of God which are not in the Scriptures and thereupon no sufficient doctrine contayned in the Scriptares And further To allow (l) Cartwright vbi suprà S. Austins saying is to bring in Popery agayne D. Whitaker (m) De sacra Scriptura pag 678. 681. 683. 689. 690. 695. 696. chargeth Chrysostome Epiphanius Tertullian Cyprian Austin Innocentius Leo Basill Eusebius Damascene c. with maintayning the Doctrine of Traditions To conclude (*) Exem Concil Trid. part 1. pag. 87. 89. 90. Kemnitius reprehendeth Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Epiphanius Ambrose Ierome c. for their teaching the same Doctrine 6. As concerning Images We fynd that (n) L. Iustit 2 c. â—1 num 5. Caluin affirmeth that Gregory the great was not taught in the holy Ghost because he called Images Laymens Bookes In lyke sort the foresaid Father S. Gregory is reprehended by (o) In his Common Places part 2 p. 343. Peter Martyr (p) In his Exam. part 4 p. 3â— Kempnitius and (q) Cent. 6. p. 288. Ostander for his lawfull vse of Images (r) In his Pageant of Popes fol. 33. Bale maintained that Leo allowed worshipping of Images Chrysostome is charged for giuing reuerence to Christ his Image by D. (s) Against Heskins c. Fulke Lactantius is coÌ„deÌ„ned by the (t) Cent. 4. col 408 409. CeÌ„turists for that say they he affirmeth many superstitious things coÌ„cerning the efficacy of Christs Image D. Morton thus writeth of the antiquity of Images in Churches About (u) In Protest Appeale p. 586. the foureteenth hundred yeare Images crept out of priuat mens Houses and went into publike Churches there standing c. To conclude touching the vse of Images the Centurists (x) Cent. 4. col 409. Kempnitius (y) In Examen part 4. p. â—6 2â— 30. and Peter (z) Parker against Symbolizing part 2. pag. 32. Martyr do confesse the same from diuers testimonies of Zozomen Athanasius Prudentius diuers others 7. Touching Relikes of Martys And first touching Reuerence exhibited to them by the ancient Fathers first we fynd by the Confession of (*) In Iesuitism rat 5. D. Humfrey that Gregory and Austin at their first planting of Christianity in England did among other points of Catholike Doctrine bring in the doctrine of Relikes The which point (*) Doct. Fulke against the Rhemish Testam in Apocal. 6. D. Fulke acknowledging as true thus auoydeth Gregory i being so neer to the Reuelation of Antichrist it is no meruaile though he be superstitious to Relikes To ascend to higher tymes S. Hierome (*) Ierome contra Vigilant affirmeth that the Emperour Constantine did translate the holy Relickes of Andrew Luke and Timothy to Constanninople at which sayth he the deuills did roare Now Bullinger not approuing his iudgment thus writeth (a) De Origins Erroris fol. 67. 58. Ierome is ouer full in that he sayth the diuels do roare at the holy Relickes of Andrew S. Ambrose hauing made a pious discourse touching the reuerencing of Martyrs Tombes the Centurists thus iudge thereof Let (b) Cent. 4. p. 301. the godly reader consider how horrible these things are vttered by Ambrose The Centurists thus reprehend Constantine the first Christian Emperour With (c) Cent. 4. col 50. 29. lyke superstition Constantine is sayd to haue translated to Constantinople certayne Relickes of the Crosse found by Helene that the Crosse might preserue that Citty Kempnitius (d) In Exam. part 4. pag. 10. acknowledgeth the ancient vse of carrying of Relickes in tyme of Procession in these wordes from Translation of Relickes forthwith was vsed the carrying of them as is to be seene in Ierome and Austin Touching Pilgrimages to Relicks and Holy Places we thus fynd confessed by the Centurists Concerning Pilgrimages (e) Cent. 4. col 457. to holy places that in this age vnder Constantine first began the places of the Holy Land c. to be had in esteeme Helen Mother of Constantine a superstitious Woman going thither to worship In like sort Kempnitius sayth Pilgrimages (f) Exam. Trid. part 4. p. 10. were made he meaning in those Primitiue tymes where men heard were Relicks famous (g) In his Retractiue from Romish Religion pa. 197. 198. renowned for Miracles D. Beard thus confesseth In former tymes they placed the Relicks of Saincts vnder the Altar as Ambrose witnesseth of the Relicks of Geruasius and Protasius Touching Miracles exhibited at the Monuments and Relicks of Saints Kempnitius thus writeth Mention is (h) Exam. part 4. pag. 10. made in Austin that a blynd Woman receaued sight at the Translation of the Relicks of Steuen (i) Contra Duraeum l. 10. pag. 860. that sometimes certaine Miracles were wrought at Relicks c. D. Whitaker sayth I do not thinke those Miracles vayne which are reported to be done at the Monuments of Martyrs Finally M. Fox (k) Act. Mon. pag. 61. and seâ— Crispinus of the Estate of the Church pag. 13â— reporteth out of Chrysostome contra gentiles and Theodoret mentioneth the same how after the bringing of the dead body of Babilas Martyr into the Temple of an Idol the Idol ceased to giue any more Oracles saying that for the body of Babilas he could giue no more Answeres In this last place touching the signe of the Crosse That it was worshipped by the anâ—ient Fathers and by others of those Primiâ—ue tymes as also that great
of the said Catholike Doctrines or otherwise by their deniall of them they did cease to be members of the said Church of God Cum (z) Cyprian l. Vnitate Ecclesiae Deo manere non possunt qui in Ecclesia Dei vnanimes esse noluerunt Now to descend to the secoÌ„d Part of this Appendix which is touching the Comparison made betweene the ancient Fathers and the Protestant Doctours and Wryters for the fynding out of the intended sense of the Holy Ghost in the exposition of the sacred Scripture In the consideration of which point I grant I am finally moued to a iust and warrantable Anger since the want thereof vpon so vrgent an occasion might well be reputed but stupidity and an insensiblenes of the indignities and wrongs offered to those blessed and happy Saints Therefore let the Reader pardon me if I here sharpen my Pen which can hardly spend its inke vpon a more worthy and noble subiect and if I become somewhat more luxuriant in defence of these Champions of Christ his Church vpon whom diuers Protestants as in the former Treatise is shewed do euen showre downe infinit words of reproach contumely and do throwe vpon their honorable Memories the durte and filth of their owne most intemperate and gaulefull Language But first I thinke it conuenient to take away the vulgar stumbling-Block which most of our Aduersaries haue layed betweene the Truth and the eyes of the ignorant and credulous Protestant Which is as the Protestants most wrongfully and to themselues consciously suggest That seing the Scripture as being the vndoubted Word of God is to be aduanced before the Authority of the Fathers they being but men and seeing the Protestants say they relye only vpon Scripture the Fathers vpon their owne and oâ—her humane Authorities Why then should not the Scripture be pryzed aboue the Authorities of the said Fathers Now to dispell and dissipate this weake smoake from the Eyes of the Ignorant I do auer this their answere to be a mere Elench of Fallacy called by the Logitians Petitio Principij since here it is falsly presumed that the Protestants do relye only vpon the true sense of the Scripture and the Fathers do reiect the Scripture Whereas indeed the Fathers with all Reuerence and honour do affect the Scripture and most humbly submit themselues to it And therefore the life and touch of the doubt in this point only consisteth To wit whether the Fathers who buyld the Articles of their Fayth vpon the Scriptures are to be preferred before the Protestants interpreting the said Scriptures in a contrary Sense And thus the Antithesis or opposition is here to be made not betweene the Fathers and the Scripture as our Aduersaries do calumniously pretend but betwene the Constructions giuen by the Fathers of certayne Texts of holy Scripture and the different or contrary constructions of the sayd Text giuen by the Protestants The lyke subtility our aduersaries to wit the Centurists D. Whitaker Illyricus and others do vse when the call Catholike doctrines as they are maintained by vs Idolatry Heresies Blasphemies c. thereby to intimate that the Papists are no members of Christs Church which very doctrines as they are taught by the ancient Fathers the Protestants stile but nauos naenia errores c. with intention to shew that the Protestants do not deuide themselues from the Church of which the Fathers were members O incredible and serpentine Craft and Imposture But to launce further in discoursing of the Comparison betweene the Fathers and the Protestants For I hould it my honour to be their poore Aduocate vpon earth and I hope that in their Seraphicall and burning Charity they wil be my Adocate in Heauen and will vouchsafe to intercede to his Diuine Maiesty for the remission of my infinite sinnes and transgressions Heere I say that any true and zealous Christian ought to haue a sensible griefe and religious Resent to see that Saphyrs should be preferred before Diamonds the lowest Shrubs to dare to contend in height with the Cedars of Lybanus vpstart Innouation to take the wall as I may say of reuerend and gray-hayrd Antiquity I meane that Luther Swinglius Melancthon Caluin Beza and such refuse of men should shoulder out of the due Seatâ— of Honour and Authority Austin Ierome Epiphanius the Gregories the Cyrills Basil Ambrose Hylary Optatus Athanasius Cyprian Ephrem Irenaeus Ignatius Polycarpus and diuers other Fathers of those Primitiue and purest tymes But to descend more particularly to the dissecting of this point I hould it most conducing to present to the Readers Eye certaine forcible Circumstances aduantaging the ancient Fathers much aboue the Protestants for the searching and picking out the true and intended sense of the Holy Ghost in the Texts of sacred Writ produced either by the Catholiks or the Protestants Thus I meane to Parallele the Fathers with the ProtestaÌ„ts not as Plutarch did by comparing Worthy Men with Worthy Men but by ballancing the ancient graue and most literate Doctours with certaine Nouellizing and but competently learned Sectaries 1. And to beginne Our first Circumstance may be taken from the different times wherein the Fathers and the former Protestants did liue The Fathers as is knowne florished in those pure tymes neere to Christ and his Apostles when his Spouse I meane his Church remayned intemerate and incontaminate as then not brooking any defiled touch but of one Heretike We may adioyne hereto that in regard of their proximity in tyme to Christ for some of them liued in the (a) Ignatius Dionysius Areopagita liued in the dayes of the Apostles Apostles dayes others in the next (b) Iustinus Martyr Pope Pius Ireneus liued in the second age Origen Tertullian Cyprian c. in the third age Athanasius Hilarius Cyrill of Ierusalem Ambrose Basil Optatus Gregorius Nyssenus Gregorius Nazianzenus Ephrem Epiphanius c. in the fourth Age in which age was celebrated the Councell of Nyce Gaudentius Chrysostome Ierome Austin Cyrill of Alexandria Proclus Constantinopolitanus Theodoret Gelasius Leo Pope Hilarius Eusebius Emyssenus in the fifth age Gregory the Great and Austin our Apostle in the sixt age ensuing ages the true Fayth and Doctrine and consequently the true meaning of the Scripture might well be Paraphrazed by force of Tradition during that short desceÌ„t of the Church ech man receauing from his Predecessour euen from hand to hand the practise of the true Religion so as such Men as then would not acknowledge the splendour of the Catholike Religion in those firster Tymes may well resemble the stars when they are darkened through ouer much light This far of this Circumstance in behalfe of the Fathers from whence we may gather that diuers of them liued a thousand yeares since others more then fifteene hundred But now let vs cast our eye vpon the other End of the Ballance Haue our Protestant Writers beene in Rerum Natura fifteene hundred yeares since Haue they beene a thousand yeares Haue they beene
l. 4. cap. 17. §. 16. Marcion is raised out of Hell And in like sort Caluin thus more writeth The (t) Admonit 3. ad Westâ—y balum Lutherans are forgets and Lyars These implacable and mutuall dissentions betweene the Lutherans and the Caluinists are so great and irreconcileable as that Conradus (u) Schlusselburg in Theolog. Caluinist in his Catalogue praecipuorum Doctrinae Capitum c. Schlusselburg the great Lutheran reciteth three and thirty seuerall Articles of Doctrine in question and controuerted betweene the Lutherans whom he defendeth and the Caluinists against whom he writeth And Luke Osiander the Protestant did write a Treatise bearing this title Enchiridion Controuersiarum quas Augustanae Confessionis Theologi habent cum Caluinianis Printed Tubingae 1603. And Hubberus a learned Lutheran wrote a booke in Dutch printed Regiomonti 1592. hauing this title The Opposition of the Lutheran and Caluinian Doctrine in certaine chiefe Articles of Fayth So iust reason had Nicolaus Gallus the Protestant and superintendent at Ratisbone thus to complayne of the Contentions betweene his owne Brethren all Protestants Non (x) In Thesibus of Hypoiâ—esibus sunt leues c. The dissentions that are among vs are not of light matters but of the greatest articles of Christian Doctrine of the Law and the Gospell of Iustification and good Workes c. And finally Pappus the Protestant hath no lesse resentment and feeling touching this point thus writing Etsi (y) Papipus in Theolog. Caluinist l 1. Art 28. initio de vno tantùm articulo c. Although in the beginning one only Article was called into doubt notwithstanding the Caluinists are now so far gone as they call in doubt neither few neither the least Articles of Christian Doctrine c. With whome conspites Bullinger the Protestant in these words Ipsi inter (*) Bullinger in his â—undamentum fiâ—mum cap. 1. pag. 5. se Euangelici acriter pungunt pugnant c. Those alone who are professours of the Gospell do vehemently prick and feight one against another And from hence are hard among vs those vnfortunate names or appellations of the Lutherans and the Swinglians 3. In this next place let vs behould how the Lutherans do agree among themselues Their contentions are so great that Conradus Schlussenburg (z) Schlussâ—lb in Catal. Haeret nostri temporis l. 2. the most eminent Lutheran placeth six sorts of his owne Lutherans in the Catalogue of Heretikes And from this seuerall sort of Lutherans did first rise that distinction of Molles Lutherant and Rigidi Lutherani These seuerall Kinds of Lutherans had seuerall appellations or names for some of them were called Substantarij for teaching sinne to be of the essence and nature of Man Others opposite to these were tearmed Accidentarij who impugned the former Opinion Some called Vbiquitarij for confounding Christs Humanity with his Diuinity Some called Osiandrians in regard of their different Doctrine of Iustification Some others were styled Maiorists of Gregorius Maior in respect of the necessity of Good Workes Others Flaccians of Flaccus Illyricus who oppugned the Maiorists therein Finally others were denominated Adiaphorists for maintayning the indifferency of Rites and Ceremonies wherein they are greatly written against by the Flaccians Now all these as aboue is said are Lutherans and do imbrace and acknowledg the Confession of Augusta which Confession of fayth the Caluinists do wholy reiect And yet these Seuerall sorts of Lutherans haue written and published seuerall Bookes one against another in defence of their seuerall maintayned different Doctrines 4. To come to the Sacramentaries or Caluinists alone we find that Castalio the Sacramentary or Caluinist condemneth Caluin himselfe for his presumed Doctrine of God being the Authour of sinne thus writing hereof By this (a) Castal l. ad Caluinum de Praedestinat meanes not the Deuill but the God of Caluin is the Father of Lyes But that God which the holy Scripture teacheth is altogether contrary to this God of Caluin And then after The true God came to destroy the workes of the Caluinian God And these two Gods as they be contrary in Nature one to another so they beget and bring forth Children of contrary disposition to wit that God of Caluin Children without mercy proud c. Thus the foresaid Castalio In like sort Caluin (1) L. de Coena Dom. l. 4 Instit c. 15. sect 1 wholy condemneth Swinglius for his teaching that the Sacraments are bare externall signes and (2) Epist. ad quandam Germaniae Ciuitatem fol. 196. Swinglius reciprocally condemneth Caluin for his teaching that to the Sacraments more is attributed then to externall signes According to these dissentions of the Protestants or Sacramentaries among themselues Doctour Willet a formall Protestant thus reprehendeth M. Hooker D. Couell and others in these words From this Fountayne (b) In his meditat vpon the 12â— Psalme haue sprung forth those and such other whirlepooles and bubbles of new doctrine c. and then after Thus haue some beene bould to teach and write who as some Schismatikes meaning the Puritans haue disturbed the peace of the Church one way in externall matters concerning Discipline they haue troubled the Church another way by opposing themselues by new quirks and deuises to the soundnes of Doctrine among Protestants Thus far D. Willet of the strifes among the moderate Protestants themselues In this last passage we will descend more particularly to the doctrinall contentions of English moderate Protestants and English Puritans And to begin the English Puritans writing against the English Protestants thus say If (c) In a Treatise entituled A Christian and modest offer p. 11. we be in errour and the Prelats on the contrary side haue the truth we protest to all the World that the Pope and the Church of Rome and in them God and Christ haue great wrong and indignity offered vnto them in that they are reiected c. And more the English Puritans thus complayn hereof Do we (d) In the mild defence of the silenced Ministers supplication to the high Court of ParlameÌ„t vary from the sincere doctrine of the Scripture Nay rather many of them meaning the Bishops and their Adherents do much swarue from the same touching generall Grace and the death of Christ for euery particular person c. Touching the manner of Christs presence in the Eucharist c. Finally the English Puritans do more fully dismaske themselues thus bursting out and maintayning that the (e) These Positions of the Puritans are verbally recited and condemned in the booke entituled Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiasticall printed anno 1604 Worship of the Church of England is corrupt superstitious vnlawfull repugnant to the Scriptures Againe The Articles of the Bishops Religion are erroneous their rites Antichristian Aâ—d yet more The gouerment of the Church of England vnder his Maiesty by Archbishops and Deanes is Antichristian and repugnant to the word of God 6. Now to turne ouer
so to ascend to the Old we find touching Luthers Condemnation of the Apocalyps Bullinger thus to complayne Doctour Martin (e) Vpon the Apocalips Englished cap. 1. serm 1. fol. 2. Luther hath as it were sticked this booke by a sharpe Preface set before his first Edition of the New Testament in Dutch for which his iudgment good and learned Men were offended with him With Luther herein agree Kempnitius and Brentius in the places next hereaâ—ter noted in the Margent and yet Caluin and the Protestants in England admit it for Canonicall In like sort the Epistle of Iames is tearmed by Luther Epistola (f) In pro legom bâ—ius Epist straminea An Epistle swelling Contentions Strawy and vnworthy altogether an Apostolicall spirit In the same manner the Magdeburgenses (g) Cent. l. 2. c. 4. col 55. Kempnitius (h) Exam. 4. Sess Concil Trident. and Brentius (i) Confess Witiemberg l. de sacra Scriptura do condemne the same Epistle with Luther as Apocryphall notwithstanding Caluin the Church of England acknowledge it for Canonicall Scripture In like sort Luther (k) Luther in Annotat. in hanc Epistol the Centurists Kempnitius and Brentius in the places aboue noted in the Margent condemne as Apocryphall the Epistle of Iude the second Epistle of Peter they rest vncertaine and doubtfull of the Authority of the second and third Epistle of Iohn But Erasmus more fully speaketh thereof his words are these The (l) In Prolegem ad hanc Epist Second and Third Epistle of Iohn are not to be taken as his Epistles but as written by some other man And yet all these are acknowledged for Scripture by Caluin the Caluinists and the Church of England Beza reiecteth the History of the adulterous Woman recorded in the Gospell of S. Iohn c. 8. And Bullinger (m) He is so charged by Laurentius Valla. a Sacramentary reiecteth that addition to our Lords Prayer For thyne is the Kingdome the power and glory c. And yet these parcells are taken for Scripture by other Sacramentaries Luther in like manner discanoneth the Epistle to the Hebrews (n) Prolegom Epist ad Haebreos maintayning that it was not written either by S. Paul or by any other Apostle for it contayneth sayth Luther certaine things contrary to the Apostolicall Doctrine With him conspire in iudgment Brentius Kempnitius the Magdeburgians in the places aboue quoted Touching the Foure Ghospells Luther to (o) Luth. Praefat. in Nouum Testam lib. de Scripturae Ecclesiae authoritate c. 3. extenuate depresse the Authority of three of them ceÌ„sureth that the Gospell of Iohn is the only fayre and true Gospell and to be preferred before the other three by many degrees he further maintayning that the generall Opinion of foure Gospells ought to be abandoned and relinquished he protesting that he ascribeth more Reuerence to the Epistles of Paul and Peter then to the other three Euangelists To come to the Old Testament The Booke of Baruch is accounted as Apocryphall by (p) L. 3. Instit. c. 10. §. 8. Caluin and (q) In Exam. 4. Sess Concil Trid. Kempnitius and yet is taken as Canonicall by most other Protestants since we do not find it in their writings to be reiected by them The Canticles is wholy reiected by (r) In Translat Latin suorum Bibliorum Castalio who maintaynes that it contaynes matter of wanton loue for which his Censure he is grieuously and sharpely reprehended euen by Beza (s) Beza in Praefat. in Iosue The Booke entituled Ecclesiastes is thus scurrilously traduced by Luther The Authour (t) Luther in Conuiuialibus titulo de Patriarchis Prophetis of Ecclesiastes seemes to ryde without spurrs or bootes only with bare stockings Yet is it taken for Scripture generally by the Caluinists The Booke of Iob is reuerenced for Canonicall Scripture by the Protestants of EnglaÌ„d and by Caluin and the Caluinists and yet Luther so contemneth it as that he thus plainly condemneth the said Booke The Argument (u) In Conuiuialibus ser titulo de Patriarâ— is Prophetis of Iob is a meere fiction inuented only for the setting downe of a true and liuely example of Patience Thus far of such parts only of the New and Old Testament which some Protestants repute as Apocryphall and therefore reiect them other Protestants acknowledg them as Canonicall and therefore take them for the true and vndoubted word of God Here before I leaue speaking of the reiecting or approuing of the Scripture I will adioyne thereto that whereas the most learned and moderate Protestants do so reuerence Moyses and the Apostles teaching and belieuing that their Pens were so directed by the Holy Ghost as that they did not nor could erre in their writings yet heare what is said to the contrary by other Protestants And first Luther thus conuitiateth Moyses Moyses (x) Luthâ—â— tom 3. Wittenberg in Psalm 41. fol. 423. tom 3. German fol. 40. in Colloq mensal German fol. 152. 153. had his lipps vnpleasant stopped angry c. Do you collect all the Wisdome of Moyses and of the Heathen Philosophers and you shall fynd them to be before God either Idolatry or Hypocriticall Wisdome or if it be politick the wisdome of wrath c. Moyses had his Lips full of gaule and anger c. Away therefore with Moyses Luther and other Protestants further rayle in great acerbity of language and intemperate words at the Apostles for thus he writeth expresly against S. Peter Peter (y) Luther in Epist. ad Galat. c. 1. after the English Translation fol. 33. 34. tom 5. Wittenbeg anno 1554. fol. 290. the chiefe of the Apostles did liue and teach extra verbum Dei besides the Word of God The Centuristi thus taxe S. Paul Paul doth turne (z) Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. col 580. to Iames the Apostle and a Synod of Presbyters being called together he is perswaded by Iames and the rest that for the offended Iewes he should purify himselfe in the Temple whereunto Paul yeeldeth which certainly is no small slyding of so great a Doctour D. Bancroft alledgeth out of Zanchius his Epistles that a Caluinist thus said Yf (a) In his Suruey of the pretended Discipline pag. 37â— Paul should come to Geneua and preach the same houre that Caluin did I would leaue Paul and heare Caluin Caluin thus bouldly affirmeth of S. Peter Peter (b) In Comment in omnes Pauli Epistoâ—as p. 510. erred to the schisme of the Church to the endangering of Christian liberty and the oâ—erthrow of the grace of God Conradus Schluffeth 〈◊〉 chargeth Caluin to maintayne and say that The Apostles (c) In Theolog. Caluinist l. 2. fol 40. alledged the Prophets in anothâ—â— sense then was meant Brentius playnely writeth thus S. Peter (d) In Apol Confess de Conâ—tâ—ijs p. 900. chiefe of the Apostles and Barnabas after the Holy Ghost receaued
directed to her Excellent Maiesty of the Psalmes compared in our Booke of Common Prayer doth in Addition Substraction and Alteration differ from the truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at least M. Parkes censureth the English Bibles with the Notes of Geneua in these words As for (d) In his Apology concerning Christes descending into Hell those Bibles it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifould Errours which are both in the Text and Margent or els vtterly prohibited To conclude with M. Broughtons Condemnation of the English Bibles This great Hebritian thus expresly writeth The publike (e) In his Aduertisment to the Bishops Translation of the Scripture in English is such as that it peruerteth the Text of the Old Testament in eight hundred forty and eight places and it causeth Millions of Millions to reiect the New Testament and to runne into eternull Flames And hence it is that D Reynolds in the Conference at Hampton-Court being the speaker for the Puritans openly denyed before the King to subscribe to the Communion Booke because said he It warranted a corrupt and false Translation of the Bible Thus far of the immortall Disagreements of the Protestants both touching the Authority of the many Bookes of Scripture and of the Translations of the Scriptures made by the Protestants 3. I will here in this next place rest in the easines and difficulty of the Scripture seuerally maintayned by seuerall Protestants We find (f) In Prolegomâ— contra Patrum à Soto Brentins to write that it belongeth through the easines of Scripture to euery man to iudge from the Scripture of the Doctrine of Religion and to discerne truth from falshood In like sort D Whitaker thus writeth touching ech vnlearned Mans reading the Scripture The (g) de sacra script p. 529. vnlearned in the exposition of Scripture is to demand the Opinion of the learned and to read the Commentaries of Interpreters but they must take heed ne nimis illis tribuant that they do not ascribe too much to them but so as that in the meane tyme they retaine their owne liberty that is that euery illiterate fellow must finally iudge of the sense of the Scripture This point needeth no further allegations for we see that euery Mechanicall Fellow if so he can but read and thinks himselfe to be of the number of the Faythfull vanteth of his easy vnderstanding of the Scripture And this deportment is the Character of ech ignorant Puritan Yea ech silly ignorant Puritan-Woman will assume so much to herselfe in the interpretation of Scripture And yet to crosse this their Vanity we find Luther thus to write Scio (h) In praefat in Psalm esse impudentissimae temeritatis c. I know it to be a signe of most shameles temerity and rashnes for any Man to professe that he truly vnderstandeth in all places but any one booke of the Scriptures And D. Field maintayneth the same and sheweth Reasons in defence thereof thus writing There is no (i) L. 4. of the Church cap. 15. Question but that therebe many difficulties of the Holy Scriptures proceeding partly from the high and excellent things therein contayned which are without the compasse of Naturall Vnderstanding so are hidden from naturall Men c partly out of the ignorance of tongues c. And the truth of this point is warranted from the practise of the learned Protestants many of whom haue written Commentaries and Expositions of most bookes of Scripture which Commentaries and Expositions had beene needlesly vndertaken if the Scripture were of that facility and easines as the Puritans seeme to suggest Here now in this last place concerning the Protestants disagreements about Scripture I will descend to shew how they disagree in seuerally expounding seuerall texts of Scripture To goe through all such texts of their disagreements would be most laboursome and needles therefore I will insist in some few And First to begin with those words of the Institution of the blessed Eucharist Hoc est corpus meum Touching which text after all the Protestants haue wholy disclaymed from the Catholikes exposition thereof they presently dissent among themselues 1. For First (k) In lib. suo caâ—â—o Basiliae anno 1526. Carolostadius the Protestant will haue the Aduerb Hîc to be vnderstood by the Pronoune Hoc he thus meaning Hîc sedet corpus meum 2. Bucer (l) In Râ—tractâ—â— suis affirmeth that the Pronoune Hoc signifieth the whole action of the supper So as the sense must be This action signifyeth my body 3. Swinglius (m) L. dâ— vera falsa Religiâ— cap. de Eucharistia teacheth that the words of the Institution are to be taken Figuratiuely And the Figure to consist not in the Pronoune Hoc but in the Verb Est Which ought sayth he to be taken for the word Significat he thus meaning This signifyeth my body 4. Petrus (n) In examen libri Hothusiâ— propâ—iâ—â—tium Boquinus affirmeth that the bread is truly called the Body of Christ propter communicationem Idiomatum as by the same forme of speach we truly say of Christ This Man is God 5. Oecolampadius (o) In lib. de genuine exposit horum verborum doth not rely either in the Pronoune Hoc nor in the verb Est but in the Substantiue Body For he maintayneth that the bread is called the Body by the Figure Metonymia by which Figure the name of the thing signified is attributed to the signe So as the sense sayth he is this Hoc est corpus meum that is this bread is a Figure of my body 6. Caluin (p) Lib. 〈◊〉 Instit. c. 17. â— 11. teacheth in part with Oecolampadius that the Figure Metonymia lyeth in the word Corpus But withall he addeth that the bread of the Eucharist is not a naked Figure of Christs body but it is a Figure which doth exhibit and present the thing it selfe And therefore Christ did not say This bread is a Figure of my Body but is the body it self And Peter (q) L. de ver aque natura Christi Martyr conspireth with Caluin herein 7. Certaine other Caluinists mentioned though their names not expressed by Cornelius (r) In Comment cap. 59. Concord in illa veâ—ba Nisi manducaueritis Iansenius do teach that the word Corpus ought to be taken for the Mysticall body of Christ that is for the Church So as the sense of the words of the Institution should be this This is my body that is you Disciples are my body 8. Iohannes (s) Vti testatur Lutherus insua breâ—i Confess edita anno 46. Campanus a Sacramentary thus expoundeth the words of the Institution This is my body that is This body is created and made by me See here Good Reader the wonderfull disagreements of the Protestants in the exposition of these few words who all conspire togeather in reiecting the Catholike Interpretation but then
Profession of the truth of Christ. To contract this point D. Couell thus expresly teacheth We (r) In his Defence of M. Hooker pag. 77. affirme them of the Church of Rome to be parts of the Church of God and that those who liue and dye in that Church may notwithstanding be saued charging other Protestants teaching the contrary to vse his owne words with ignorant Zeale Thus much touching the dissentions of the Puritans and the moderate Protestants concerning the saluation of Papists dying Papists coÌ„cluding this point with the iudgment of the Deuiues of Geneua contrary to other their brethren who teach that the Baptisme of Catholike Children either by Protestant Ministers or Catholike Priests is aualeable because say they the (s) So teach the Deuines of Geneua in the Propositions and Principles disputed 〈◊〉 Geneua p. 128. Children are comprehended within the Couenant of eternall life by meanes of the Fayth of their Parents Which very point is in like manner taught to the great dislike of many Puritans by D. Whitguift (t) In his Defence pag. 62â— and M. Hooker (u) Eccles pol. l. 5. pag. 1â—â— For most if not all the Puritans teach that Papists dying Papists cannot be saued seeing say they their Fayth is Idolatry and superstition The X. Paragraph I Next come to the Ancient Fathers because they were the most learned and eminent members of the Ancient Church where we shall see the strang diuersity of the Protestants Iudgments of them Some of the Protestants reuerencing and imbracing their Authorities others wholy betrampling their testimonies and entertayning them with all contempt and scorne And First we will alledge the iudgments of diuers Protestants admitting their Authorities and worth according hereto we fynd that D. Iewell in his Sermon at Paules Crosse thus cryed out O Gregory O Austin O Ierome c. if we be deceaued you haue deceaued vs And after in the said Sermon As I said before so I say againe I am content to yield and subscribe if any of our learned Aduersaries or if all the learned men that be aliue be able to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any old Catholike Doctour or Father or out of any old Generall Councell for the space of six hundred yeares after Christ Which challenge D. Whitaker after iustified in these words writing to Father Campian Audi (x) Whitak in respons ad ration Camp rat 5. Campiane c. Heare O Campian that most true and constant Challenge which Iewell that day made when he appealed to the antiquity of the first six hundred yeares c. That is the proffer and Challenge of vs all we do promise the same with Iewell and we will make it good D. Sutcliffe thus auerreth The (y) In his Exam. of D. KellisoÌ„s suruey Fathers in all points are for vs and not for the Pope D. Willet is no lesse confident herein thus protesting I take (z) In his Antilog p. 263. God to witnes before whom I must render an account c. that the same Fayth and Religion which I defend is taught and confirmed in the more substantiall points by those Histories Councells and Fathers that liued within fyue or six hundred yeares after Christ. Kempnitius We (a) In Exam. Concil Trident. part 1. pag. 74. doubt not but that the Primitiue Church receaued from the Apostles and Apostolicall men not only the text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sense thereof And againe We are greatly confirmed in the true and sound sense of the Scripture by the testimony of the ancient Church The Confession of Bohemia The (b) In the Harmony of Confessions pag. 400. ancient Church is the true and best Mistris of posterity and going before leadeth vs the way D. Bancroft speaking of Caluin and Beza thus sayth For (c) In his Suruey of the pretended holy Discipline M. Caluin and M. Beza I do thinke of them as their Writings do deserue But yet I thinke better of the ancient Fathers I must confesse I will conclude this their acknowledgment of the Primitiue Church and Fathers with D. Iewell with whom I first did begin he thus writing The Primitiue (d) In his Defence of the Apology Church which was vnder the Apostles and Martyrs hath euer beene accounted the Purest of all others without exception But now let vs see how Diametrically and repugnantly other Protestants stand to these former Protestants touching the Authority and dignity of the ancient Fathers And to forbeare the former Confessions of Protestants touching the Inuisibility of their Church during the first fiue or six hundred yeares after Christ aboue related which euidently demonstrateth that such Protestants who teach so long an Inuisibility do consequently teach and grant that the Fathers of those tymes were in iudgment Papists and not Protestants for if they had beene Protestants then the Protestanticall Church had most remarkably beene visible and conspicuous in the said Fathers To forbeare the iteration I say therof I will descend to the particular Reproualls giuen by the Protestants against them And first do we not find the same D. Whitaker obserue the inconstancy of this man who aboue so much maintayned D Iewells appeale thus to write Ex (e) Whitak contra Duraeum l. 6. p. 423. Patrum erroribus vester ille religionis Cento consutus est Your Popish Religion is but a patched Couerlet of the Fathers errours sowed together Pomeran the Protestants thus writeth Nostri Patres siue sancti fiue non sancti c. Our (g) Pomeran in Ioâ—au ancient Fathers whether they were holy or not holy I not much rest vpon were blinded with the spirit of Montanus and through humane Traditions Doctrines of the Deuills c. they did not teach purely of Iustification c. Neither were they sollicitous to preach Iesus Christ in his Gospell Iacobus Acontius the Protestant thus condemneth the Fathers Quidem (h) In stratagem Satanae l. c. p. 196. eò redierunt c. Certaine men meaning Protestants are gone so far as that they would haue all points to be tryed by the authorities of the Fathers c. But this custome I hould to be most pernicious and altogether to be auoided D. Humfrey so smally pryaeth the Fathers as that he rebuked D. Whitaker for renewing D. Iewels challenge in appealing to the ancient Fathers aboue related in this manner D. Whitaker (i) Lib. de vita Iewel li. printed at London pag. 212. gaue the Papists too large a scope was iniurious to himselfe and after a manner spoyled himselfe and the Church Melancthon (k) In 1. Cor. cap. 3. Presently (k) In 1. Cor. cap. 3. from the beginning of the Church the ancient Fathers obscured the Doctrine concerning Iustification by Fayth encreased Ceremonyes and deuised peculiar worships Beza thus ballanceth the Fathers with the Protestants of this age saving Yf we (l) In Epist Theolog Ep. 1. compare our tymes next to the
for greater breuity to produce their particular Words and Authorities 1. And I will begin with Christ his descending into Hell presently after his Corporall Death This is taught by D. Hill (l) In his speciall of that â—ila and by Melancthon M. Newell and Aretius all Protestants all which Authours are alledged by the said Doctour (m) D. Hill vbi supra fol. 33. 44. Hill yet is this Doctrine impugned for popish by Beza (n) In Act. 2. Bucer (o) In Math. 26. and infinite others 2. Limbus Patrum is in like sort taught by Oecolampadius (p) In l. Epist Swinglij Oecolampad l. 1. p. 19. by (q) Swinglius in his Epist. Swinglij Oecolampadij l. 3. p. 560. 561. Swinglius by Peter (r) In his Common places Englished part 2 cap. 18 pag. 161. Martyr by Lascitius (s) In his booke entituled de Russorum Muscouit relig pag. 122. 123. the Protestant and by Bullinger (t) In his Decads fol. 66. But contradicted by most other Protestants 3. Intercession of Saincts defended by Oecolampadius (u) Oecolampad ad Orat. 1. Chrysostomy de Iuuentio Maximo Martyr by M. Latimer (x) Act. Hon. pag. 1322. and others yet impugned by D. Whitaker (y) Contra Duraum pag. 793. and most other Protestants 4. Intercession of Angells maintayned by Caluin (z) Instit. l. 1. c. 14. sect 6. 7. Melancthon (a) In Apolog. Confess August fol. 179. M. Hooker (b) L. 5. sect 23. pag. 52. 53 D. Couell (c) In his answere to M. Iohn Burges pag. 90. Peter Martyr and by the Communion (e) Printed 1549. fol. 117. booke in King Edwards tyme Impugned by most Protestants 5. Inuocation of Saincts allowed by Luther who sayth De inuocatione (f) In purgatione quorundam Articulorum Sanctorum cum tota Ecclesia Christiana sentio iudico Sanctos esse inuocandos By Oecolampadius (g) In Orat. 1. Chrysostom de Iuuentio Maximo by certaine Protestants in Polonia whereof see (h) In Loc. Theolog. l. 3. stat 4. loc 5. pag. 463. Hafferenferus by Latimer (i) Act. Mon. pag. 1312. by Thomas Bilney (k) Act. Mon pag. 462. contradicted by most other Protestants 6. Payer for the Dead taught by Luther and Vrbanus Regius (d) alledged by D. Couell in the place aboue cited as Vrbanus (l) In prima parte Operum in Formula cautè loquenoi cap. de Sanctorum cultu Regius doth witnes by the (m) Printed 1549. fol. 116. Communion Booke in king Edwards tyme by (n) Act. mon. pag. 149. William Thorpe and by Martin Bucer (o) In his Script Anglican p. 450. Heereto may be annexed the Doctrine of Purgatory taught by Luther (p) Luther tom 1. Wittenberg in resolut de Indulgentijs conclus 15. fol. 112. and taught in Disputatione Lipsica cum Ickio and by Latiner (q) Act. Mon. pag. 1313 1315. 7. That the ten Commandements are not Impossible taught by M. Perkins (r) In his reformed Catholike p. 26. 51. by M. Hooker (s) Ecclesiast policy l. 2. pag. 101. who is reprehended therefore by certaine English Protestants in their Christian Letter to that Reuerend man M. R. Hooker Taught also by M. (t) In his meditation vpon the 122. psal printed 160â— Willet by Castalio (u) de Perfecta Obedient legis Dei the eminent Protestant who is therfore impugned by Doctour (x) In his second Conclusion annexed to his Conference pa. 697. Reynolds 8. Patronage of certaine Angells ouer certaine Countryes and Kingdomes maintayned by Caluin (z) Caluin Instit l. 1. cap. 14. sect 7. by Peter (a) In his Common places in English part 1. pag. 1â—0 Martyr by Hyperius (b) In Method Theolog. pag. 297. the Protestant others yet impugned by M. Willet (c) In Synops. pa. 264. D. Fulke (d) Against the Rhemish Testament in Reuel 1. and many others 9. Images to be in Churches maintayned by Luther and Brentius as (e) Beza so sayth in respons ad act Colloq Montis belgar part altera in Praefat. pag. 12. Beza witnesseth by Iacobus (f) in Epitom Colloq Montis belg pag. 39. Andraeas by (g) In his Examen part 4. pag. 14 p. 33. Kempnitius by (h) In Cent. Exercitas Theolog. pag. 270. Bachmannus c. yet contradicted by D. (i) Against the Rhemish Testament in 1. Epist Ioan. cap. 1. fol. 456. Fulke and almost all the Puritans 10. Touching Reuerence and bowing downe at the name of Iesus which is the same to the eare which Images are to the eye This Reuerence is defended by Doctour Whitguift (k) In his Defence pag. 742. by Musculus (l) In loc Comm. pag. 59. the Great Protestant by the learned (m) In Epist. Pauli ad Philip. Coloss c. 2. fol. 123. Zanchius by Leonard (n) In his Summon for sleepers Wright the Protestant Finally by Queene Elizabeths (o) Art 52. Iniunctions Contradicted for Popish by all the most forward Protestants 11. That the Good workes of one may help another is maintayned by (p) In loc com de Eucharistico sacrificio in his Edition of anno 1561. pag. 425. Melancthon and by the Harmony of Confessions p. 298. yet impugned by the greater nuÌ„ber of Protestants 12. That Christ as man was from his Natiuity freed from Ignorance is defended by Iacobus Andraeas (*) In Epitom Colloq Montisbelg p 33. by Osiander (r) In Euchirid controuers printed Tubingae 1603. p. 146 147. and generally affirmed by most of the Lutheran Protestants ouer many to recite And yet impugned by Beza (s) In resp ad Acta Colloq Montisbelg part 1. pag. 147. 148. D. Willet (t) D. Willet in his Synops p. 199. p. 600 and M. Sutcliffe (u) M. Sutcliffe in his reuiew and Examination of D. Kellisons Suruey printed 1606. p. 55. who will not ascribe to the Humane Nature of Christ fulnes of knowledge in respect of its Personal Vnion with the God-head but thus sayth to the contrary Yf Christ as Man by the Vnion be Omniscient why is he not Omnipresent and in all places 13. Euangelicall Counsels to wit that a Man may do and performe more then he is commanded taught by (x) Luther in Assorâ— ar 36. Luther by D. Couell (y) In his DefeÌ„ce of M. Hooker Art â— p. 49. 50. 51. 52 by M. z Hooker Impugned by M. Willet (z) Ecclesiast policy l. 3. sect 8. p. 140. who particularly (a) In his Meditation vpon the 122. Psal p. 91. chargeth M. Hooker with his Defence of this and other Catholike Opinions In like sort impugned by M. Perkins (b) In his reformed Catholike p. 241. and many others 14. That it cannot be knowne to vs which Scriptures be sacred which not otherwise then by the Churches Tradition
necessity of Baptisme M. Cartwright thus confesseth Austin (u) In D. Whitgifts defence pa. 1227. was of mynd that Children could not be saued without Baptisme Scultetus the Protestant writeth thus (x) In medulla Theolog pag. 30. The blemish noted in Cyprian c. is that he thinketh Baptisme to be absolutly and simply necessary Vrbanus Rhegius confidently auerreth that (y) in part 1. operum Catheâ—his minor fol. 105. the Scripture and the Authority of the ancient Church constrayned him to belieue that Children vnbaptized are damned And hence it is that Caluin thus confesseth Almost (z) L. Instit 4. c. â—5 sect 20. from the beginning of the Church Baptisme by Lay Persons was vsed in danger of death Thus much of the Sacraments 11. That the doctrine of Limbus Paetrum was taught by the Primitiue Church and Fathers First I will produce the words of D. Whitaker against whom when Duraeus his Aduersary had alledged testimonies from the Fathers for the proofe of Limbus Patrum the said Doctour thus answereth him Quod (a) Contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 557. Scripturis euincere minùs potuisti c. That which thou could lesse proue by Scriptures that thou doubtlesly wilt euince from the testimonies of the Fathers But touching this I answere thee briefly what I conceaue That is that one Word of Scripture carrieth more force with me then the Sentences and Iudgments of a thousand Fathers without Scripture therfore do not expect that I will make particular Answeres to the seuerall erroneous testimonies of the Fathers alledged by thee Thus D. Whitaker confessing that the Fathers vnanimously taught the doctrine of Limbus Patrum D. Barlow thus writeth This (b) In his Defence of the Articles of the Protestant Religion pag. 173. passeth most ryfe among the Fathers Who taking Inferi for Abrahams bosome expound it that Christ went thither ad liberandum liberandos to conuay the Fathers deceased before the Resurrection into that place where now they are In like manner M. Iacob the Protestant thus most fully acknowledgeth All the (c) See this in D. Bilsons booke of the full Redemption of Mankind pag. 188. Fathers with one consent affirme that Christ deliuered the soules of the Patriarchs Prophets out of Hell at his comming thither and so spoyled Satan of those who were in his present Possession To close vp this point whereas Cardinal Bellarmine (d) Bellarm tom 1. l. 4. de Châ—isti Animae c. 14. alledgeth in proofe of Limbus Patrum the testimonies of the Greeke Fathers to wit of Iustinus Irenaeus Clemens Origen Eusebius Basill Nazianzene Nicene Epiphanius Chrysostome c. As also of the Latin (e) Bellarm vbi suprà Fathers namely Tertullian Hyppolitus Cyprian Hillary Gaudentius Prudentius Ambrose Ierome Ruffinus Austin Leo Fulgentius c. Danaeus the Protestant acknowledging all this for true answereth only thus As concerning (f) Danaeus ad Roberti Bellar. disput part pag 176. these Fathers they were not instructed out of Gods word Neither do they confirme their Opinion from it but only from their owne Coniectures c. Thus Danaeus 12. That the Primitiue Fathers did conspiringly teach the doctrine of Freewill is most perspicuous For the Centurists reciting the sayings of Lactantius Athanasius Basill Nazianzene Epiphanius Ierome c. in defence of Freewill thus contemne all their Testimonies Patres omnes (g) Cent. 4 col 29â— ferè huius aetatis c. Almost all the Fathers of this Age do speake confusedly of Freewill In like sort (h) In meâ—ulla Theoâ—og Patrum pag. 379. 304 466. c. Scultetus the former Protestant reprehendeth Cyprian Theophilas Tertullian Origen Clemens Alexandrinus Iustine Irenaeus Athanagoras Tatianus c. for their teaching of freewill In like manner certaine English Puritans thus largely confesse hereof saying Freewill (i) This saying of the Puritans is related in their briefe discouery of Vntruths c. contained in D Bancrofts Sermon pag. 203. euer since the Apostles times in a manner florished euery where till Martin Luther tooke the sword in hand against it So true is that Confession of D. Humfrey a testimony vpon other occasion aboue alledged It may not be denyed but (k) In Iesuitism part 2. pag. 530. that Ireneus Clemens and others called Apostolicall men haue in their Writings the Opinions of freewill c. According hereto the Centurists speaking of the tymes next to the Apostles thus freely say Nullus (l) Cent. 4. cap. 4. col â—8 ferè doctrinae locus c. Almost no one Point of doctrine so quickly began to be obscured as the doctrine Whether man had Freewill or no And thus much briefly of the Protestants Confessions touching Freewill of which point as also of all the former doctrines aboue discoursed of in this Appendix I haue not set downe the halfe of what the Protestants do acknowledge therein touching the ancient Fathers beliefe and doctrines in the said Points 13. Touching Peters Primacy aboue the rest of the Apostles The antiquity of this doctrine is so great that The Centurists do reprehend Ierome (m) Cent. 4 col 11 15. (n) Cent. 4. col 555. Hilary (o) Cent. 4. col 558. Nazianzen (p) Cent. 3. col 84. Tertullian (q) Cent. 3. p. 84. Cyprian (r) Cent. 3. col 85. Origen and in generall many other Fathers for teaching that the Church was built vpon Peter Their wordes touching Cyprian are these in the place aboue alledged Passim dicit Cypriaenus super Petrum Ecclesiam fundatam esse Caluin thus writeth In Petro (s) lib. 4. instit cap. â— sect 6. fundatam esse Ecclesiam c. diuers Fathers did expound that the Church was founded vpon Peter because it is sayd Super hanc Petram c. But the whole Scripture maketh agaynst this their exposition Thus Caluin The Centurists (t) Cent. 4. col 5â—â— do further charge Optatus for saying Petrus Apostolorum caput vnde Cephas appellatur D. Reynolds (u) In his Conference pag. 485. rebuketh Dionysius for styling Peter the chiefe and most ancient topp or head of the Apostles To conclude D. Fulke speaking of S. Leo and S. Gregory Bishops of Rome sayth The mystery (x) In his retentiue against Bristowe motiues pag. 248. of iniquity did worke in that seate neere fiue or six hundred yeares before them which must be in the Aposties dayes or presently after and then greatly increased they were so deceaued with long continuance of Errour that they thought the dignity of Peter was much more ouer the rest of his fellow Apostles then the Holy Scriptures of God do allow 14. Now that the Bishop of Rome is Peters Successour in the iudgment of the Fathers is no lesse certayne for D. Bilson confesseth it plainly in these words The (y) In his difference part 1. pag 1â—7 ancient and learned Fathers call the Roman Bishop Peters Successour The CeÌ„turists charge Leo in this