extraordinary calling as being sent from no Man but only from God in these words Quia (g) Lascitius the Protestant reciteth this saying of Caluin l. de Russorum Muscouit Religione c. 13. Papa tyrannide c. Because through the tyranny of the Pope true succession of Ordination was broken of Therefore we stand in neede of a new Course herein and this Function or calling was altogether extraordinary In this Opinion conspire most other Protestants especially of the more earnest sort According hereto M. Perkins (h) In his workes printed anno 605. fol. 916. writeth that the calling of Wicliffe Hus Luther Oecolampadius Peter Martyr c. was exâ—raordinary And Doctour Fulke iumpeth with the former saying The (i) Against stapleton Martiall pag. 2. Protestants that first preached in these dayes had extraordinary calling Thus far in Defence of extraordinary calling in these dayes Now the Reader shall see how others more sober Protestants do wholy reiect this extraordinary calling immediatly from God â—xcept it be confirmed with miracles as it was in the Apostles First M. Cartwright thus writeth To (k) In his second Reply part 2. pa. 14â— minister the Sacraments is an hoâ—our in the Church which none can take to him â—ut he which is called vnto it as Aaron was Musculus the great Protestant writeth thus Vecatio (l) In loc Comm. pag. 394. quae immediatè est à Christo iam in vsu non est vt erat olim c. The calling immediatly from Christ is not now in vse as it was in former tymes The Bishop of Winchester thus teacheth They (m) In his perpetuall gouerment of the Church l. â— p. 111. can haue no part of Apostolicall commission that haue no shew of Apostolicall succession D. Sarauia agrees with the former saying Speciem (n) In defens tract contra respons Beza p. 306. 307 illam extraordinariae vocationis ad Ecclesiae ministerium non admitto c. I do not approue that shew of extraordinary calling seing it is not warranted with any authority of Scripture or certaine example Now whereas diuers other Protestants do teach that all extraordinary calling to the ministery is accompanyed with working of Miracles or els is a meere illusion In this manner and restriction writeth Luther saying Vnde (o) Tom. 3. len Germ. fol. 491. venis quis te misit vbi sigilla quod ab hominibus missus sis Vbi miracula c. And Amandus (p) In partitionib Theol. l. 1. p. 308. Polanus (q) In his soueraigne Remedy against Schism p. â—5 Henoch Clapham (r) In loc Comm. p. 304. Musculus and many others too loÌ„g to write do maintayne the same Yet this wholy makes against the calling of Luther himselfe Caluin and all other Sectaries of this age touching their vocation Seing it is granted by Doctour Fulke in these words It is (s) Against the Rhemish Testam in Apoc. 13. knowne that Caluin and the rest whom Papists call Archheretiks do worke no miracles with whom D. Sutcliffe conspireth saying We (t) In his Exam. of D. Kellisons Suruey printed 1606. pag. 8. do not practise miracles nor do we teach that the Doctrine of Truth is to be confirmed with miracles Thus much touching the contrary and Crossing-Iudgments of the Protestants concerning the necessity of Personall Succession in the Church of Christ 3. I next come to discouer their disagreements touching such persons as they acknowledge to be members of the Protestant Church in which point we shall fynd wonderfull opposition among the Protestants First I will shew all such sorts of persons which many Protestants exclude from being members of their Protestant Church And First we find all Heretikes to be excluded and herein I will begin with the iudgment of the Lutherans then of the Caluinists Touching the Lutherans the Centurists thus write (u) Cent. 6. in the Preface Neither Heretiks nor deuisers of Phanaticall Opinions are of Christ but they are of Antichrist and the Deuill And Luther is of the same iudgment saying (x) In his Explicat of the Creed Neither Gentill Iew Heretike or any sinner can be saued vnlesse he make attonement with the Church and in all things do teach the same he meaning his owne Protestant Church To come to the Sacramentaries Caluin thus teacheth (y) Instit l. 2. c. 15. Num. 1. Rightly Austin denyeth Heretiks to haue the same Foundation with the Godly albeit they Preach the name of Christ. D. White All (z) In his way to the Church p. 10. Heretiks teach the truth in some things Yet we deny them to be of the Church of God The Confession of Basil (a) Art 24. We driue away all whosoeuer dissenting from the Society of the holy Church do bring in or follow strange wicked Doctrines To conclude D. Sutcliffe (b) In his booke of the Church c. 1. Heretiks are not of the Church Now here I am to aduertise the Reader that seeing most of these Testimonies as also diuers other following do speake literally of the true Church of God that therefore the Protestants meane thereby their owne Protestant Church seeing they teach it alone to be the true Church of God To come to Schismatiks they are in like sort reiected from being members of the Protestant Church For first Luther thus writeth I belieue (c) Luther in his great Catech. tom 5. pag. 628. there is on earth a little Congregation of Saintes agreeing in all things without Sects or schismes Melancthon Neither (d) In his booke against Swenkfeld tom 2. pa. â—01 is there more then one Church of Christ Neither doth this Company consist of diuers sects D. Fulke thus accordingly teacheth What (e) Of the Succession of the Church skilleth it whether one being drawne by Heresy or schisme from the body of Christ be subiect to eternall damnation D. Whitaker It is (f) Controuers 2. q. 9. c. 9. false that Hereticall and Schismaticall Churches are true Churches To conclude with D. Field The name (g) Of the Church l. 1. cap. 7. of the Catholike Church he thereby vnderstanding his owne Protestant Church is applyed to distinguish men houlding the Fayth in the Vnity from Schismatikes The Anabaptists are in like manner by diuers Protestants disclaymed from being members of their Protestant Church For thus doth the Confession of Switzerland teach We (h) Cap. 20. condemne Anabaptists who maintayne that Infants are not to he baptized The Confession of Ausburg teacheth the same saying We (i) Cap. 9. condemne the Anabaptists who disalow the Baptisme of Infants and thinke them to be saued without Baptisme Which Confession of Ausburg doth in like sort eliminate and exclude the Arians from their Church in these words We (k) Act. 1. condemne all Heresies rising against this Article meaning the Article of the Trinity as the Maniches Arians Eunomians c. That the Papists as the
dreaming him already to haue beene come he first appeared But I hasten to other Points The IX Paragraph I Will next intreate of the Church and First of the Visibility of the Protestant Church seuerally mantayned by seuerall of our Aduersaries Secondly whether in the Protestant Church there hath beene Personall succession and Vocation of Ministers Thirdly who be the Persons of Members that Constitute the Protestants Church Fourthly whether the present Roman Church be the true Church of God and the same Church with the Protestants Lastly whether Papists as the Protestants call the Catholiks dying Papists may be saued In all which seuerall points the Reader shall fynd strang Dissentions in the Protestants writings touching them 1. And to begin with the Visibility of the Protestant Church we fynd most Protestants confidently to iustify the Visibility of it in all Ages And according hereto D. Field with a most frontles impudency thus writeth We (q) D. Field in his booke of the Church l. 3. c. 8. pag. 76. firmely belieue all the Churches of the World wherein our Fathers liued and dyed to haue beene true Protestant Churches of God c. And that they who taught imbraced and belieued those damnable Errours which the Romanists defend against vs were only a Faction Which words necessarily imply that the Protestant Church was in his iudgment euer visible In like sort a litle Booke written in the yeare 1624. and intituled A Treatise of the Perpetuall visibility and succession of the true Church in all ages written as is thought by the last pretended Archbishop of Canterbury D. Abbots or els by D. Whyte or D. Featly in proofe of the vninterrupted visibility of the Protestant Church iustifyeth their like iudgment herein Finally D. White and D. Featly in their priuate Conference in London some yeares since with M. Fisher and M. Sweet of the Society of Iesus with great venditation in words auerred the continuall Visibility of the Protestant Church in all ages and the greater Part of Protestants do mantayne the same Now let vs see how these men are crossed and impugned in this their Tenet by other learned Protestants First D. Iewell merely crossing D. Fields former most bold shameles assertion thus sayth The (r) In his Apology of the Church part 4. l. 4. truth meaning the Protestant Fayth and Religion was vnknowne at that tyme and vnheard of when Martin Luther and Hulderick Swinglius first came vnto the knowledge and preaching of the Gospell And vpon this it proceedeth that Bucer styleth Luther The (s) In Epist Anno 36. ad Episcopum Hereford first Apostle to vs of the reformed Doctrine With these former agree Benedictus Morgensterne the Protestant thus saying It is ridiculous (t) Tract de Ecclesia pag. 145. to say that any before the tyme of Luther had the purity of the Gospell And Conradus Schlusselburg the Lutheran is no lesse feruent in this point thus auerring It is (u) In Theolog. Caluinist l. 2. fol. 130. impudency to affirme that any learned men before Luther did hould the Doctrine of the Gospell From all which authorities it appeareth that before Luthers first breaking out the Protestant Church was inuisible throughout the whole world But let vs see what more the Protestants confesse contrary to the assertions of infinite other their Brethren touching the inuisibility of the Protestant Church during the seuerall ages before Luther First then Caelius secundus Curio a learned Protestant thus teacheth Factum (x) De amplitudine regni Dei p. 212. est vt per multos iam annos Ecclesia latuerit c. It is brought to passe that the Church for many yeares hath beene latent and that the Citizens of this Kingdome could scarsly ac ne vix quidem and indeed not at all be knowne of others In the same Dialect writeth M. Perkins saying We (y) In his exposition of the Creed pag. 44â— say that before the dayes of Luther for the space of many hundred yeares an vniuersall Apostacy ouerspred the whole face of the earth and that our Church was not then visible to the World Doctour Fulke speaketh heere of more particularly touching the time of the Protestants Churches Inuisibility saying The (z) In his answere to a Counterfeyte Catholike p. 16. Church in tyme of Boniface the third it being anno 607. was inuisible and fled into wildernes thereto remayne a long season The forsaid D. Perkins in another of his Bookes writes more expresly of this point his words are these During (a) In his exposition of the Creed the space of nyne hundred yeares the popish Heresy hath spred it selfe ouer the whole earth M. Napper riseth higher acknowledging thus (b) In his Treatise vpon the Reuelation pag. â—8 Betweene the yeares of Christ 300. and 316. the Antichristian and Papisticall reigne began reigning vniuersally without any debatible Contradiction one thousand two hundred and sixty yeares Yea the said M. Napper in another place ascendeth to higher tymes thus writing During (c) Vpon the Reuel in c. 11. 12. euen the second and third age to wit after Christ the true Church of God and light of the Gospell was obscured by the Roman Antichrist himselfe with whome conspireth M. Brocard saying During (d) Vpon the Reuelat pag. 100. the second and third age after Christ the true Temple of God and light of the Gospell was obscured by the Roman Antichrist Sebastianus Francus a great Protestant more liberally acknowledgeth of this point writing in this manner For (e) In Epistol de â—brogandis in vniuersum omnibus statutis Ecclesiast certaine through the worke of Antichrist the externall Church together with the Fayth and Sacraments vanished away presently after the Apostles departure And that for these Foureteene hundred yeares the Church hath not beene externall and Visible With whom D. Fulke as forgetting what before he had written touching anno 607. fully agreeth auerring thus The true (f) In his answere to a Counterfeyte Catholike p. â—3 Church decayed immediatly after the Apostles tyme. Thus much concerning the Protestant Church where we see that whereas most Protestants do teach that it hath in all ages continued Visible diuers others most remarkable Protestants do not only dissent from these former in teaching the contrary Doctrine to wit that the Protestant Church hath beene wholy inuisible for many ages But also these later disagree among themselues touching the tyme of the Latency of their Church Some of them designing a shorter tyme others a longer tyme of its Inuisibility Yea one and the same Authour at seuerall tymes writeth seuerally of the tyme of their Churches Inuisibility as appeareth by the aboue alledged different iudgments of Doctour Fulke and M. Napper So wonderfull are their contentions herein 2. In this Passage I come to the Doctrine of Personall succession and vocation of Ministers in the Protestant Church differently mantayned by different Protestants For first Caluin challengeth to himselfe
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
19. VVhether the Visible Church of God can wholy erre or not 20. VVhether set tymes of fasting from certaine meates be appointed only for Polytick order but with all for spirituall Considerations § 22. Besides the former disagreements touching the twenty Catholike Articles aboue recited There are certaine Catholike Points maintayned by diuers Protestants to be of that indifferency of Nature as that the belieuing or not belieuing of them it not in any sort necessarily to be exacted through any danger to the party belieuing them or not belieuing them The beliefe of which Points in particular other Protestants do hould as most impious superstitious and not standing with the Saluation of the party belieuing them The Articles are these following 1. Touching the Beliefe of Praying to Saintes 2. Touching the beliefe of the Reall Presence 3. Touching receauing vnder Both or One kind only 4. Concerning Freewill 5. Concerning the Indifferency of honoring the Reliques of Saintes 6. Touching our B. Lady being preserued from Originall sinne 7. Touching Satisfaction and Merit of Works 8. Concerning the Popes Primacy 9. Touching the Indifferency of Priuate Masse 10. Touching not only the Indifferency of Priuate Masse but of seuerall other Catholike Points so iointly maintayned in the Protestant Writings § 23. Now to all these former disagreements among the Protestants are adioyned certaine Porismata or Resultancyes ineuitably rising from a true Consideration of diuers of the said dissentions and Disagreements THE PREFACE Wherein First are discouered the seuerall sleights vsed by Protestants to charge the Church of Rome with Dissentions in doctrine Secondly it is proued that the Necessity of Vnity in Fayth ought to be in the Church of Christ. HORRENTIA Martis Arma Virumque cano Vndertaking to record the vnnaturall and blouddy Wars which the Protestant wageth against the Protestant in matter of Fayth And intending in this Ensuing discourse to dismantle and lay open to the view of all the naked state of Protestancy so far forth as it concernes its want of Vnity and the immortall Dissentions among the Professours thereof and further well remembring that our Aduersaries through their Serpentine calumny of some among them are euer ready pressed by way of Recrimination to obtrude though most wrongfully the like dissentions vpon vs Catholiks Therefore I haue thought good in the front hereof to remoue such Replies and surprize all Obiections by preuention as may seeme to fix vpon the Catholiks that blemish or Scar wherewith Protestancy lyes here iustly chargeable I herein imitating the proceeding of a carefull Generall in the Wars who first labours to preclude and forestall the Enemy of all Passages and Wayes whereby the approach of his forces might endanger him and then drawes out his owne Troupes for the assaulting of his said Enemy Well then to the point 1. First we are to obserue which the yawning and heedles Reader perhaps will not espye that in doctrines there are to be considered two things as Beza (a) Beza â—n Epist Theolog. Epist 18. sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explicandum sempe◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nunquam nisi sobriè prudenter attingenâ—um well noteth to wit The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying a Categoricall or Positiue assertion that such a thing is true in doctrine hath euer reference to the Conclusion As for example That Saintes in Heauen do heare vs. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath respect only to the Manner or some other Circumstance of the Conclusion As whether the Saintes do heare vs by behoulding all things intuitiuely in God in whom they see all things Or that they heare our Prayers through their celerity and incredible speedines of the Motion of their soules who in the smallest tyme are able to descend and ascend from Heauen to earth This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Conclusion in Fayth is that in which all Catholikes continuing Catholiks do vnanimously agree But touching the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or manner of such a point or Conclusion they dissent sometymes among themselues Because the manner of a point in doctrine is for the most part of that Adiaphorous and indifferent Nature as that seuerall learned Men may teach seuerally touching the said Manner without any breach of Fayth And we are thus warned from being ouercurious and searching into the Manner of the Conclusion by an ancient Father who sayth (b) Nazianzeâ—â— Orat 1. 〈◊〉 Theologia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thus accordingly hereto all Men are obliged to belieue all decreed Articles of Fayth yet not euer to belieue the particular Manner or Reason thereof Which manner being a Point but of Indifferency is often reduced for triall to some Scholasticall subtilty or apprehension 2. I am to aduertize the Reader that whereas there is Questio Juris and Questio Facti we are heere to obserue that matter of Fact but not matter of Fayth may be controuerted among Deuines without any want of Vnity in doctrine because the Sentences determinations passed vpon matter of Fact may and ought to be altered vpon later and better Informations touching the matter of Fact And in this sense and vpon this Occasion were alterable the Decrees obiected against vs by some Protestants of Pope Formosas by Pope Steuen the 6. and Pope Sergius the 3. Which decrees were after confirmed againe by Pope Romanus Theodorus 2. and Iohn 10. Now the reason of altering the said decrees originally proceeded from matter of Fact to wit whether Formosus was truly and Canonically elected Pope and consequently had full power to make those decrees or was but only a schismaticall Pope And thus these other Popes maintayned seuerall Opinions touching his Election being but matter of Fact and according to their different iudgments therein did abrogate or confirme the decrees of the said Formosus 3. A Third Obseruation may heere be taken from the authority of S. Austin thus writing Sometimes (c) S. Austin l. de Baptismo Contra Iulian. Telag l. 1. c. 2. the most learned and best defenders of the Catholik Rule do without breaking the Frame of Fayth not accord And more Diuers (d) August de Baptism contra Donat l. â—â— c. 18. men be of diuers iudgments without breach of Peace vntill a Generall Councell allow some one part for cleare pure Thus according hereto we are instructed that if any doubt of Points concerning Fayth and Religion do occur and rise neuer before determined by the Authority of Gods Church Christians may maintayne different Opinions touching the same Points vntill the Voyce of Gods Church hath definitiuely and sententionally decreed the said Points one only way And according to this Caution the Controuersy houlden betweene the Thomists and Scotists concerning the Conception of our Blessed Lady much insisted vpon against vs by our Aduersaries may be houlden without any violence to Vnity in Fayth seing this Controuersy is not yet determined and defined by the Church
Of which Controuersy D. Field thus sayth Touching (e) D. Field l. 2 â—f the Church â— 9. pag. 58. Contradictory Opinions some were named Thomists other Scotists in Controuersyes of Religion not yet determined by consent of the Vniuersall Church So idly and impertinently do the Protestants diuerberate the ayre in vpbrayding the Catholikes with this Controuersy touching the Conception of our B. Lady 4. Another Obseruation of which I thinke good to aduertise the Reader concernes certaine forlorne and broken Men yet competently learned who once were Catholiks but after did apostate from the Catholike Church by entertayning some one or other Opinion of Nouelism condemned by the said Church With euery one of which we may well expostulate in the Dialect of Josue Noster (f) Iosuâ— c. 5. es an Aduersariorum yet before their deaths most of them abandoned their said Innouations and so by their finall submission they dyed Members of our Catholike Church Such were these few following Erasmus Berengarius Aeneas Siluius Polidor Virgil Laurentius Valla Wicelius Cassander and one or two oâ—her Pseudo-Catholiks out of all which Doctour Morton (g) In his â—â—olog Cathoâ— is not ashamed to vrge that they being Papists are deuided in doctrine among themselues Now to this I answere This Obiection is of no force because the former Men did maintayne but some one or other Point against the Church comparting and interleaging in all the rest with the Catholiks But after the most part of them relinquishing their former Errours dyed Catholiks and in regard of their submission before their deaths to the Church of Rome and not otherwise they are accounted Catholiks Secondly I say that whiles these former Men did persist in their Nouelismes during all that tyme they were condemned by the Church of Rome for Heretiks and therefore it cannot be vrged that these Men were Papists at that tyme of their dissenting from the Vniuersall Church for by such their Schisme they were cut off from the Catholike Church and wholy reiected for members thereof And I freely grant that a Catholike or Papist as we are opprobriously called may become an Heretike by entertayning some Innouations But then I say he ceaseth to be a Catholike or Papist But the Case is far otherwise with the Protestants vrged in this following Treatise For first the Protestants heere produced being incomparably far greater in number then the former named Sectaries do not disagree in one or two or three Points only of Protestancy among themselues but they are distracted almost in all points of Protestancy Againe I say the Protestants by me vrged though reciprocally crossing one another contrary to the state of Berengarius Erasmus and the rest aboue specified yet during he same time of maintayning their coÌ„tradictory Opinions do still remayne Protestants accordingly they are all promiscuously acknowledged as good Members of the ProtestaÌ„t Church So great is the disparity betweene the former vrged Authours by D. Morton and the Protestants hereafter by me alledged That these Protestants whether they be Lutherans or Swinglians vnder whom are comprehended Caluinists which I am to produce notwithstanding their great discrepancy and dissentions in Fayth do remayne still Members of the Protestant Church appeareth from the iudgmeÌ„t of D. Whitaker who thus writeth to his Aduersary Father Campian happy Man who pledged his bloud for the fayth of Christ Quod (h) In respons ad rationes Campiani rat 8. autem Lutheranos cum Swingliants coniungis c. In that thou dost conioyne and vnite the Lutherans and the Swinglians together thou dost not offend vs For we willingly honour Luther as our Father and all them meaning the Lutherans Swinglians and Caluinists as our most deare brethren in Christ. And according to this tenour D. Iewell affirmeth saying The (i) In his Apolog. of the Church of England pag. 101. Swinglians and Lutherans are good friends they vary not among themselues vpon the Principles and foundation of our Religion but vpon only one Question which is neither weighty nor great And thus far of the transparency of the former Obiection touching Berengarius Erasmus c. Hitherto may be adioyned that whereas the Protestants are hereafter charged with great dissentions inconstancy touching their often altering their Common Booke of Prayer D. Doue acknowledging so much seekes to auoyd this blemish by saying The (k) D. Dâ—ne in his persuasion to English Recusants pag. 11. Papists haue done the like c. How many tymes haue their Breuiaryes beene altered But good Reader see the great difference herein The Protestants altering their Communion Booke do withall alter some points of Beliefe and doctrine seing the change of their Communion Booke resteth only in change of doctrine the later Communion Booke euer reiecting certaine Articles of Fayth which the former did allow off Now the altering of the Breuiaries consists only in inserting certaine prayers in the later which were not in the former throgh occasion of Canonization of Saints or some other vrgent Cause But there is not any alteration or change or Articles of Fayth in their different Breuiaries which is the point only here to be insisted vpon Now these Premonitions being afore acknowledged for true whereby are preuented some weake Obiections of which diuers of our Aduersaries haue made vse to seeke to proue the Catholiks disagreements in matter of Fayth it is lesse strange that some of them haue not forborne such is the scarsity and want of them to alledge (l) This obiection of different Orders in the Church of Rome is vrged by D. Fulke in his answere to a Counterfeyte Catholike p. â—5 By D. Iewell in his Apology of the Church of England pag. â—â— and by others for matter of Controuersyes that among the Papists some are called Franciscans some Benedictines others Augustines c. These do sometymes eate flesh those other feede only vpon fish most idly and ignorantly insisted vpon For what do these differences concerne matter of Fayth and Religion Do not all these seuerall Orders of Gods Church belieue all the Articles of our Catholike and Roman Fayth They only differ among themselues in liuing in a more strict or remisse course of life And this Answere is giuen by D. Field in these Words We must (m) Of the Church l. 2. c. 9. pag. 58. obserue that they who professe the Fayth of Christ haue beene sometimes in these later Ages of the Church called after the speciall names of such Men as were the Authours Beginners and Deuisers of such courses of Monasticall Profession as they made choyce to follow as Benedictins such like Thus D. Field Therefore I conclude that in regard of want of true Arguments in proofe of dissentions amoÌ„g Catholiks touching meerely matters of Religion I cannot but much approue the ingenuous and playne Confessions of some of our Aduersaries heere in our be halfe And fortably hereto we fynd D. Whitaker thus to confesse of this Point The dissentions
(n) De Eccles contra Bellarm. controuer 2. q 5. pag. 327. among the Papists are but futiles concerning things of small importance And D. Fulke agreeth with him saying As for the (o) Against Heskins Sanders c. pag. 295. consent and peace of the Popish Church it proueth nothing but that the Diuell had all things at his Will and therefore might sleepe thus truly acknowledging Vnity in Fayth in the Roman Church but most maliciously transferring the Cause therof to him who is the chiefe Enemy to Vnity But Syr Edwin Sands a most remarkable Protestant doth not only acknowledge all war of dissention in our Catholike Church but also giueth his reason thereof in these Words The Papists (p) In his Relation fol. 8. haue the Pope as a common Father Aduiser and Conductour to reconcile their iarres to decide their differences to draw their Religion by consent of Councells to Vnity c. To whose Iudgment herein subscribeth Andraeas Duditius the Protestant aboue mentioned in the Epistle Dedicatory who thus writeth The Roman (q) Beza reporteth these words of Duditius in his Epist Theolog. Epist. ad Duditium Church is not deuided with so many Dissâ—ntions but it hath the plausible apparence of Venerable Antiquity Ordinary Succession and Perpetuall Consent Thus Duditius And thus farre by way of Preuention of all such Arguments as the Protestant Wryters may seeme to vrge thereby to make their Ignorant followers belieue that the Catholiks do labour with one and the same disease with themselues touching disagreements in points of Fayth and Religion Only before I passe further I thinke good to relate that ordinary and common refuge and tergiuersation which diuers Protestants of England being vpbrayded with disagreements in Fayth among themselues are accustomed to fly vnto who thus reason I am an English Protestant I litle regard how forraine Protestants disagree among themselues I am content to range my selfe vnder our English learned Protestants who I am assured maintayne the Truth of Fayth without any contradiction or dissention among themselues Now because this point requyreth a large and full Answere therefore as willing to contract this Preface in as few words as conueniently I may I refer the Reader for his full satisfaction herein to the latter end of this ensuing Treatise viz. at 22. Paragraph where he shall see the Vanity of this silly euasion fully layed open and answered Before I come to any other Passages of this Preface I hould it not amisse to relate for the benefit of others what happened touching these former Points to my selfe In my being in Spayne a Chaplayne of the English Embassadours there resyding being my former familiar acquaintance in England oftentimes came to the place where I there studied and did much solicite and diswade me from entring into Holy Orders for then I was not Priest His chiefest argument by him alledged was taken out of D. Mortons Apologia Catholica which booke it seemes he had studyed diâ—igently touching the dissentions in doctrine of some few broken Catholiks aboue alledged as Erasmus Nilus Cassander c. as also from the dissention of the Thomists and Scotists touching the Conception of our B. Lady the Chaplaine much vrging and inferring that our Catholike Religion as wanting Vnity in doctrine in the Professours thereof could not be true This his Argument for a tyme I grant seemed very strong to me I then being but yong and not conuersant in the Protestants owne bookes thereby to discerne their dissentions in doctrine and did cause me to defer my taking of Priesthood a yeare or more longer then afore I was determined to haue done But after acquainting others of my daily familiars much read in the Protestants Writings with this my doubt they fully resolued and satisfyed me touching those Pseudo Catholiks to wit what kind of Men they were how vpon what grounds they for the tyme dissented from the then Common doctrine of the Catholike Church As also I was then informed how the Question of the immaculate Conception of the B. Virgin was not defined on either syde by the Church and that therefore it was lawfull without any breach of Vnity to maintayne either part Vpon whose learned Resolution all my former doubt instantly vanished away And indeed this Accident first be got a desire in me to looke into the Protestants Works more fully to see whether they had thy disagreements in Fayth amoÌ„g them So forcible we see the Argument drawne from waÌ„t of Vnity in Fayth though but indirectly and with mistaking vrged seemes to proue that Religion which wanteth Vnity in Fayth and doctrine cannot be the true Religion instituted by our Sauiour Iesus Christ But to recall my selfe and to proceed further In the next place of this my Preface I will demonstrate the absolute necessity of Vnion touching Matters of Fayth in the Church of God it being an acknowledged and inseparable Marke thereof and how incompatible dissentions and Errours in Fayth are with the said true Church Adulterari (r) August lib. de Vnitate Ecclesia non potest sponsa Christi Incorrupta est pudica This I will euict both from humane and diuine Authorities and will begin with humane proofes and so ascend in weight of proofes to the diuine Scriptures And first I will alledge some testimonies of Protestants themselues For do we not fynd Luther thus to teach A Kingdome (s) Luther tom 3. Witten berg in Psalm 5. fol. 166. deuided in it selfe shall not stand Neither haue any Heretiks at any tyme beene ouercome by force or Subtilty but by mutuall dissention Neither doth Christ fight with them otherwise then with a spirit of giddinesse and disagreement And more The Authours (t) Luth. tom 5. Witten berg in Galat. c. 5. fol. 416. of Schismes are disagreeing among themselues c. They byte and deuours one another c. till at the last they perish c. O see how truly his owne Words do recoyle vpon himselfe The Like want of this Vnity in doctrine do the Deuines of Manifold vrge as a Marke of a false Church against the Sacramentaries to impugne their doctrine those deuines thus writing We haue (u) Theologi Mansfeldenses in Confessione Mansfeldica Latina fol. 110. iust reason to hold in suspition the doctrine of the Sacramentaries in that they are not concordant in one and the same sentence or iudgment but are among themselues deuided so as some of them are called Carolostadians others Swinglians Occolampadians Caluinists c. And the same kind of argument is vsed by the Deuines of Heidelberge all Protestants against the Anabaptists thus vrging Si (x) Proâ—ocollo Frankaltalensi nâ— Praefatad Anabaptistas vobis Ecclesiae titulum concedere vellemus c. Yf we would grant to you the name of a Church what Sect among you should be reputed the Church of God seing you are deuided into so many Sects To come in this next place to the
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
(h) Luth. in Confess maiore in cana Domini Luther contrary to all Christians both Protestants and Catholiks Luther thus speaking of this point When I belieue that the only Humane Nature suffered for me then is Christ a Sauiour but of a base and small worth and himselfe needeth a Sauiour 4. That Christ did not dye for all the world but only for the Elect being most contrary not only to the sacred Scripture which sayth Christ (i) 1. Ioan. 2. 1. Tim. 2. dyed for the sinnes of the whole World but also almost to all learned Protestants is maintayned by (k) Calu. de arcana Dei Prouident p. 155. Caluin (l) Beza in respons ad Act. Colloq Montisbelgar part altâ—ra p. 215. 221. Beza 5. That men not belieuing in Christ may be saued a most horrid blasphemy is maintayned by Swinglius who thus writeth thereof (m) Swingl in l. Ep. Swinglij Oecol l. 1. p. 39. Ethnicus si piam mentem domi fouerit Christianus est etiamsi Christum ignoret A Heathen if he beare within him a pious mind is a Christian though he be ignorant of Christ And herevpon Swinglius concludeth That (n) Swing tom 2. fol. 18. 559. Hercules Theseus Socrates Arist des c. are now in Heauen A point so euident that Echarius a learned Protestant thus writeth thereof Quod (o) In his Fasciculut Controu printed Lipsiae anno 1â—â—9 Socrates Aristides Numa Camillus Hercules Scipiones Catones alij Gentiles c. That Socrates Aristides Numa Camillus Hercules the Scipio'es the Cato'es and other Gentills are partakers of Heauen or eternall lyfe Swinglius writeth to the King of France whom the Tigurin Deuines Bullinger Gualterus and Hardenburgius c. do defend for this his Doctrine Thus far this Protestant That (p) In his Apol. fol. 27. prafix â— tom Swingl Gualterus (q) In Confess Eccles Bullinger (r) In vita Bulling Simlerus the (s) Bullinger in his preface of allowance to Swinglius his Exposition Tigurin Deuines maintayned this former Heresy with Swinglius appeareth from the references here set downe in the Margent From Christ. I come to Christs Successour to wit S. Peter Now the Primacy of S. Peter is maintayned by Caluin thus confessing The (t) Caluin is alledged thus to say in D. Whitguifts Defence p. 173. twelue Apostles had one among them to gouerne the rest Musculus thus teacheth The (u) Musculus so alledged by Whit. guift vbi sup à pag. 66. Celestiall spirits are not equall The Apostles themselues were not equall Peter is found in many places to haue beene chiefe among the rest And D. Whitguift himselfe thus auerreth Among (x) D. Whitguift vbi suâ—rd pag. 1â—â— the Apostles themselues there was one Chiefe c. that had chiefe authority ouer the rest c. that Schismes might be compounded Yet is this doctrine wholy denyed by most other Protestant writers The VII Paragraph TOuching more particularly the Bishop or Pope of Rome being S. Peters successour that the Popes Primacy is aboue other Bishops is maintayned by Melancthon thus writing Quemadmodum (y) Melanct in the Booke entituled Câ—nturia Epistolar Theologie Epist 74. sunt aliqui Episcopi qui prasunt pluribus Ecclesijs c. As certaine Bishops are president ouer many Churches so the Bishop of Rome is President ouer all Bishops And this Canonicall policy no wise man I thinke doth or ought to disalow The same Doctrine is also defended by Iohn Husse as Luther writeth thus saying Ioannes Husse (z) In. 〈◊〉 sert Act. â—0 â—on repugnare videtur c. Iohn Husse seemeth not to contradict why the Monarchy of the Pope should not be So much different are these former Authorities to the iudgments of all other Protestants who wholy reiect the Popes Primacy Now touching the Pope being Antichrist the Protestants do thus differ from among themselues First some of them teach Antichrist is not yet come to wit (a) In Ep. â—auli Cole los Thessal pag. â—40 Zanchius Franciscus (b) In his Prognostiâ—on fâ—nis noudi p. 74. Lambertus and some others And hereupon it is that M Doue (c) In his Sermon of his second comming of Christ versus finâ—m chargeth some Protestants in this sort Some Protestants make a doubt whether Antichrist be yet reuealed or no. Now some others do thinke that Antichrist is come but that the Turke is this Antichrist Of this opinion is Melancthon for so he is alledged to thinke by M. (d) In his Theolog. Discourses p 1â—8 Haruey Of the same iudgmeÌ„t also iâ— Bucer who tearmeth the Turke Ipsissimus (e) In his lib. psalm 5. psalm 22. fâ— 146. Antichristus as also M. Fox (f) In Act. Mon. of anno 1â—76 pag. â—â—â— The VIII Paragraph TOuching those Protestants who belieue that the Pope is Antichrist obserue heere their great Dissentions concerning the tyme of Antichrists comming And first D. Willet (g) In Syn. p. â—00 placeth Antichrists first comming in the yeare 607. making Boniface the third to be the first Antichrist With whom agrees D. Whitaker saying (h) De Eccl. contrâ— Bellar. Contro 8â— Quaest 4. pag. 141. Gregory the Great was the last true and holy Bishop of that Church c Therefore because our Aduersaries demand of vs the tyme of Antichrists first comming we designe and set downe to them the very tyme of his comming With whom conspires (i) In his Answere to a Counterfayte Catholike p. 36. D. Fulke Iulius (k) Vpon the Reuel 5.10 the great Protestant maketh Hildebrand who was Pope anno 1074. to be the first Antichrist with whom D. Downam seeme to conspire in these wordes (l) In his Treatise concerning Antichrist pag. 1â—0 Gregory the seauenth alias Hildebrand was the first of the Popes who was openly acknowledged to be Antichrist Beza teacheth that Leo who was Pope anno Domini 440. did clearly (m) Beza Confess gener 7. Sect. 21. breath forth the arrogancy of the Antichristian Sea But M. Napper (n) Vpon the Reuel p. 66. ascendeth to higher tymes affirming that Antichrist came in anno Domini 313. and maintayning that Siluester the Pope was the first Antichrist But the Reformed Churches of (o) So relateth M. Hooker in his Ecclesiestic Policy Transiluania ascribe a greater antiquity to the comming of Antichrist who confidently auer that his first comming was in the yeare 200. Yet Sebastianus Francus no vulgar Protestant riseth higher placing Antichrists first comming in the dayes immediatly after the Apostles for thus he writeth For certaine (p) In Epist. de abrogundis in vniuersum statutis Ecclesiast throgh the worke of Antichrist the externall Church together with the Fayth and Sacraments vanished away presently after the Apostles departure Spectatum admissi risum teneatis So incredible and indeed ridiculous are the Dissentions of the Protestants touching who is Antichrist and at what tyme
Catholikes are contumeliously called are excluded from the members of the Protestant Church is so generally taught and but truly taught as that I need not to insist therein only D. Whitakers words shall serue at this tyme thus scurrilously rayling I (l) Contro Duraeum 2. sect 2. will not allow the very name of a lawfull Church vnto the Roman Church because it hath nothing which a true Church ought to haue Thus far to shew what men are not acknowledged by most Protestants and in part most truly to be members of the Protestant Church But now we will see how they are contradicted by other Protestants and sometimes by their owne pens And first we fynd the Anabaptists to be accounted mēbers of the Protestants Church for D. Whitaker thus writeth We (m) Controuers 4. 9. c. 2. p. 716. may abstaine from Baptisme so there be no contempt thereof Oecolampadius Baptisme (n) L. 2. Epist pag. 363. is an externall thing which by the Law of charity may be dispensed with and D. Morton seemes to enclyne to the same iudgment thus saying We (o) In his answere to the Protestants Apology l. 4. c. 1. sect 10. Protestants iudge the state of the Anabaptists not to be vtterly desperate Touching the Arians M. Morton iustifyeth that the Arians are of the Protestant Church because to vse his owne words the Arians (p) In his booke of of the kingdome of Israel the Church p. 94. hould the foundation of the Gospell M. Hookers words are these The Arians (q) Eccles polic l. 4. pag. 181. in the reformed Churches of Poland c. Now these Reformed Churches in Poland are Protestanticall Churches therefore the Arians are included as members of the said Protestanticall Churches Touching Idolaters whether they be of the Protestant Church or no heare what the said M Hooker writeth (r) Eccles pol. l. 3. p. 216. Christians by ezternall Profession they are all whose marke of recognizance hath in it those things which we haue mentioned yea although they he impious Idolaters wicked Heretikes c. Thus he Touching Infidells M. Fox relateth how a Protestant of Eminency for learning did thus teach A Turke (s) Act. Mon. pag. 493. Saracene or any Mahometan whatsoeuer may be saued if he trust in one God and keep the Law But if such a man may be saued then followeth that he is of the Protestant Church seeing most Protestants teach that the Protestant Church only affordeth Saluation And (t) Cent. 6. pag. 404. Bale admonisheth vs to be wary in condemning ouer rashly any Turke Finally this their most wicked opinion is already made euident by the aboue alledged testimonies of Swinglius and others who teach that Heathens dying Heathens and not belieuing in Christ may be saued That the Papists and the Protestants are members of one and the same Protestant Church is taught though most falsly by these Protestants following The Confession of Ausburge speaking of the Catholiks and the Protestants thus belieue say We (u) In Praefat. are all souldiers vnder one Christ. And Luther thus In (x) Luther in Epist. contra Anabapt Popery there is true Christianity yea the kernel of Christianity c. M. Hooker we (y) L. Eccl. pol. 3. c. 118. gladly acknowledge them of Rome to be of the Family of Iesus Christ M. Bunny We (z) In his Treatise of Pacificat are no seuerall Church from them meaning the Papists nor they from vs. D. Whitguift The (a) In his answere to the Admonition pag 40. Papists do belieue the same Articles of Faith which we do Finally D. Whyte In the (b) In defence of the way c. 38. substantiall Articles of our Fayth we agree with the Papists From all which testimonies it followeth that these said Protestants thus teaching do hould the Catholiks to be members of their Protestant Church I will conclude shewing that whom diuers Protestants hould to be Antichrist other Protestants acknowledge the same man to be in state of Saluation and consequently a member of the supposed true Protestant Church This I proue thus Most Protestants teach that the Pope is Antichrist as is well knowne yet other Protestants confesse that some Popes euen since they began to be Antichrist are saued But none are saued but such as are members of the true Church And according hereto I find M. Powell thus to write I will in (c) L. de Antichr c. 33. pag. 338. no wyse say that all the Popes from the tyme wherein Papistry was reuealed to be Antichristianity are damned With whom D. Whitaker euen in the same words thus affirmes I (d) In his answere to the first Demonstration of D. Sanders will not say that from the tyme that Papistry began to be Antichristianity the Popes themselues haue beene all damned And yet we see euen by these two last testimonies that both D. Whitaker and M. Powell teach that the Pope is Antichrist by the reason of the Word Antichristianity by them both vsed in their said testimonies I will shut vp their Disagreements touching the members of the Protestant Church with the malicious Asseueration of Musculus thus writing I imbrace (e) In loc comm de Coena pag. 552. all for brethren in the Lord howsoeuer they disagree from me or among themselues as long as they maintayne not the Popish Impiety Thus far of Protestants contrary iudgments touching who are members of the Protestant Church and who are not I will conclude their dissentions touching the Church whether the Papists as we are styled dying Papists though in part it hath beene all ready displayed out of the Protestant Church may be saued Euery man knoweth that all the Puritans as houlding Papists Religion to be idolatrous and superstitious and the Pope to be Antichrist deny to them all Hope of saluation Yet D. Some thus censureth of this point Yf (m) In his Defence against Penry p. 176. you thinke that all the Popish sort which dyed in the Popish Church are damned you thinke absurdly and do dissent from the iudgment of all learned Protestants D. Barrow I dare (n) In his 4. Sermons and two Questions disputed ad Clorum p. 448. not deny the name of Christians to the Romanists sith the learneder Writers do acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Church of God M. Cartwright I doubt (o) In his Reply to D. Whitguifts Defence p. 82. not but diuers Fathers of the Greeke Church and who were Patrones of Freewill are saued And the same sentence is deliuered by D. Whitaker (p) Contra rat Camp pa. 74. touching the Saluation of the Ancient Fathers notwithstanding their doctrine of Iustification and merit of works D. Field We doubt (q) Of the Church l. 3. c. 46. not but that the Church in which the Bishop of Rome with more then a Luciferian pryde exalted himselfe was notwithstanding the true Church of God and that is held a sauing
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
obey them With these words of Caluin Doctour Wilkes doth vpbrayde the Puritans saying They were (f) Wilks in his obedience of Ecclesiast Vnion pa. 60. your teachers who account those Princes who are not refined by your spirit vnworthy to be accounted among the number of men and therefore rather to be spitted vpon then obeyed Beza according to his former brethren much betrampleth vpon Christian Princes for he did write a booke bearing this title De iure Magistratuum in subdites A booke much disliked and condemned by D. Bancroft (g) In his Suruey of the Pretended Discipline p. 48. and D. Succliffe of which booke D. Succliffe thus censureth Beza (h) In his Answere to a certain libel supplicatory pag. 75. in his booke of the Power of Magistrates doth arme the subiects against their Princes in these cases c. And the same Doctour thus further inlargeth himselfe in his dislike of that booke saying (i) D. Sutcliffe vbi supra pag. 98. A bookâ— which ouerthroweth in effect all authority of Christian Magistrates The writings of Caluin and Beza touching the Magistracy and authority of Princes is so violent and indeed traiterous as that the foresaid D. Bancroft thus passeth his iudgment of them He that (k) In his Suruey of the pretended Discipline pag. 41. shall reade M. Caluins and M. Bezaes two bookes of Epistles c. Would certainly meruayle to vnderstand into what actions dealings they put themselues of War of Peace of subiection of reformation without staying for the Magistrate Knox of Scotland thus answerably teacheth Yf Princes (l) Knoâ— to England and Scotland fol. 76. be Tyrants against God and his Truth their subiects are freed from the Oath of Obedience Bucanan his familiar friend thus vnanimously writeth The (m) L. de iure Regni pag. 13. People haue right to bestow the Crowne at their pleasure And yet more If (n) Suâ—â—â—am vbi suprà pag. 40. were good that rewards were appointed by the People for such as should kill Tyrants as commonly there are for those which haue killed Wolues These two Scottish writers were so strong and headlong in this their Doctrine as that the Bishop of Rochester in his Sermon at Paules Crosse calleth these two men The two (o) Preached the tenth of Nouember and printeâ— 16â—â— fiery spirits of the Church and Nation of Scotland Thus much for a tast of the Doctrine of some turbulent Protestants against the soueraingty of Princes and contradicted by the former more moderate Protestants as also by all other graue and loyall Protestant writers The XX. Paragraph TOuching Poligamy or hauing many wiues at one tyme Luther thus writeth hereof Poligamy (p) Luth. in Propos de Bigamiae Episcop Edit anno 1528. Propos 62. 65 66. is no more abrogated then is the rest of Moyses Law and it is free as being neither cammanded nor forbidden Whose doctrine herein Bucer did so much imbrace as that he thus writeth Whosoeuer (q) Bucer in his scripta Anglicana de regno Christi cap. 28. pa. 101. will not induce his mynd to loue his wyfe and to treate her with coniugall Charity that man is commanded by God to put her away and marry another And this (r) Bucer vbi suprà pag. 100. being commanded in the old Law pertayneth also to Christians The Doctrine of Poligamy was defended by Bernardine Ochine of which subiect he did write certaine Dialogues And (s) Musculus in Ep. Pauli ad Philip. Colos c. in â— Tim. 5. pag. â—96 Musculus thinketh Polygamy was tolerated in the Apostles tyme. And from hence it riseth that Bucer alloweth liberty of diuorce and to take another wife in case of the ones departure (t) Bucor in hic scripta Anglic. de regno Dei l. 2. c. 26. pag. 104. froÌ„ the other Of (u) Bucer vbi supra l. 2. cap. 37. c. 40. Homicide or theft Of but repayring to the Company (x) Vbi supra c. 37. p. 115. or banquets of immodest PersoÌ„s Or in case of incurable infirmity of the woman by Child-birth or of the Mans Lunacy or otherwayes whereby either is made vnable to render Nuptiall right And then Bucer concludeth the lawfullnes (z) Vbi supra p. 124. of Diuorce and mariage againe and sayth It is verbo Dei (a) Vbi supra p. 124. and see pag. 120. consentienter agreeable to the Word of God Furthermore (y) Vbi supra c. 42. p. 123. 124. It was decreed in Geneua that if the Husband were (b) Vide Canones Gener. lâ—â— Geneuenses anno 1560. absent the wife might cause a prefixed tyme of his returne to be proclaymed and if he returned not within that tyme the Minister might giue the wife licence to take another Husband Which kind of Diuorce and second Marying againe is also defended by Beza (c) L. de repudiâ— 5. pag. â—85 by Amandus (d) In partitionib Theolog. pag. 730. Polanus by M. Willet (e) In his Synops of Anno 1600. Yea this kind of diuorce is so defended by Bucer as that he teacheth the wife may so proceed in case only of one yeares voluntary absence of the Husband Now this former Doctrine of Poligamy and of Diuorce through the causes alledged is as we see impugned by almost all other modest writers as that it needeth not to set downe their particular Names since the contrary Practise is obserued euen in all Protestant Countries among men of any integrity and honesty in manners and Conuersation Yea that euen in case of Diuorce vpon Adultery the innocent Party could not mary againe was preached at Paules Church by D. Doue and was after defended in the Vniuersity of Oxford by D. Howson (f) In tertia Thesâ— printed anno 16â—â— and it is the professed doctrine of most others And thus much touching the Protestants Disagreement concerning the Doctrine of Poligamy and Diuorce The XXI Paragraph NOw after I haue discouered the great and irreconcileable dissentions of the points aboue set downe I will descend to certaine Catholike Articles different from some Catholike points aboue touched in which diuers Protestants do compart with vs Catholikes therein and many more do dissent from their other Brethren teaching with vs. And because I will make choyse to set downe twenty Catholike Articles besides those aboue intreated of some one or two only excepted of which it is discoursed aboue wherin the Protestants do mainly differ from the Protestants in regard therfore of the multiplicity of the Articles and because I feare I haue allready dulled the cares of the Reader with a fastidious tediousnes in discouering the particular sentences and words of the Protestants either affirming or condemning the foresayd points aboue treated of I will content my selfe in these Catholike points following only to refer the Reader to such places of the Protestants Writings and bookes wherein these ensuing Catholike Points are either defended or impugned forbearing
affirmed by Peter Martyr (c) In his com places pa. 1. c. â— sect 8. by Lubbertus (d) De Princip Chrstian Dogm l. 1. c. 4. p. 18. the Protestant by D. Whitaker (e) Aduersus Stapletonum l. 2. cap. 6. p. 370. p. 357. l. 2. c. 4. p. 300. p. 298. by M. Hooker (f) Eccl. Pol. l. 1. sect 14. p. 86. l. 2. sect 4. p. 102. l. 3. sect 8. p. 147. and some others Yet impugned by (g) Inst l. 1. c. 7. Sect. 4. Caluin Vrsinus (h) Vrsinus in his doctrinae Christianae compend in Proleg p. 13. the Protestant as also by certaine English (i) In their Christian Letter to M. Hooker p. 9. 10. Protestants 15. That Infants haue not actuall Fayth in the tyme of their Baptizing is affirmed by D. Whitaker (k) D. Whita contra Duraeum l. 8. p. 6â—1 by Beza (l) In resp ad Act. Montisbelg part 2. p. 124. by M. Cartwright (m) In D. Whitguifts Defence p. 611. by Iacob Kimzdocus (n) In his Redemption of mankind l. 〈◊〉 15. p. 654. the Protestant and by most other ProtestaÌ„ts Yet impugned by Luther (o) Luther in loc com Class 2. p. 122. by Andraeas (p) See Andraeas his words in Beza his resp ad Act. Colloq Montisb part â— p. 124. and generally by the Lutherans 16. That the Sacraments of the Old Testament were not equall in working and effect with the Sacraments of the New Testament affirmed for the most part by the Lutherans whereof see Schlusselburg (q) In Theol. Caluin l. 1 fol. 95. Luther (r) Loc. Com. Class 1. p. 88. and Osiander (s) In Epit. Cent. 11. p. 411. yet the contrary maintayned by the Caluinists of which point see (t) In his Synops p. 418. M. Willet 17. Auricular Confession of sinnes taught by (u) In loc Com. de Confessione fol. 289. Sarcerius the Protestant thus writing Falsum est c. It is false to affirme that Confession which is made to God should take away all Priuate Confession The same is taught by Lobechius (x) In Disput Theol. pa. 295. sect 4. by Schlusselburg (y) In Theolog. Caluinist l. 2. fol. 147. by Melancthon (z) Lib. Epist pag. 234. by the Confessions (a) In the Harmony of confessions pag. 231. p. 357. 358. of Saxony and Bohemia and diuers others yet impugned for Popish by most of the Puritans 18. That Temporall punishment is reserued for sinne remitted by Gods Iustice is affirmed by Iohn Knox (b) In his answere against the Aduersaries of Gods Predestination pag. 215. 216 217. by Gasper Oleuianus (c) In Symbolum pag. 8. the Protestant and by the Publike Confessions of the Protestants yet contradicted for Popish as implying the Doctrine of Purgatory by M. Willet (e) In Synops pag. 514. by Caluin Beza c. and most other earnest Protestants 19. That the true Visible Church cannot wholy erre affirmed by D. Bancroft (f) In a Sermon preached by D. Bancroft by the Deuines of Geneua (g) In their Propositions and Principles disputed pag. 141 sect 12. 13. by M. Fox (h) Act. Mon. pag. 999. and others Impugned by D. Fulke (i) In his answere to a Counterfeyte Catholike pag. 8â— who thus writeth The whole Church Militant consisting of men which all are lyars may erre altogeather as euery part thereof And impugned in like sort by the Puritans who in their briefe Discouery of vntruths (k) Pag. 34. do reproue D. Bancroft for his teaching the contrary Doctrine in a Sermon preached by the said Doctour 1588. pag. 34. 20. That set tymes of Fasting and from (d) In the Harmony of Confess pag. 229. certaine meates appointed not only for polytick Order but for spirituall considerations is affirmed by the Protestant Authour of the booke entituled Quaerimonia (l) Pag. 31. 94. and 103. Ecclesiae printed Londini 1592. who reproueth Arius for his denying of all religious Fasting who also answereth the Obiection of Montanus It is also affirmed by M. Hooker (m) Eccles polic l. 5. sect 72. p. 204. 205. in so much as he (n) M. Hooker vbi suprà 209. answereth the vulgar obiection of Montanus and the Common obiection from S. Paul 1. Timoth. 4. and thus concludeth Arius was worthily condemned for his opposition against Fasting Yet is this Doctrine gainsaid for Popish by D. Whitaker (o) Contra Duraeum l. 9. pag. 830. who obiecteth 1. Timoth. 4. to proue this Fasting to be the Doctrine of the Diuells In like sort the foresayd Doctrine is condemned as Popish by D. Fulke who to the contrary obiecteth (p) D. Fulke against the Rhemish Testament in Math. 15. sect 5. fol. 28. Montanus and defendeth Arius (q) D. Fulke in his Answere to a Counterfeyte Catholike pag. 45. Thus far touching these former twenty Points of Catholike Religion maintayned by diuers learned Protestants and contradicted in great Dissention of spirit by other Protestants The XXII Paragraph IN this last place of Displaying the Protestants Disagreements I will insist in certaine Catholike Points the which though the Protestants which are to be alledged do not wholy imbrace and intertayne them as absolutly true as the former Protestants aboue cited haue done touching the twenty Articles allready discoursed of yet they hould them to be of that Adiaphorous Nature and indifferency as that either by denying or affirming them the said Protestants hereafter to be produced do hould them to stand compatible with mans Saluation though other more seuere Protestants do altogether condemne the said Articles as Popish and do exclude the Belieuers of them from all hope of Saluation So irresolute and contradicting the Protestants are among themselues in their different and irreconcileable Iudgments and Censures herein 1. To begin First touching prayer to Saints D. Goad (r) D. Goad D Fulke in the Disputation had in the Tower with Fat Campian 2. dayes conference argum 8. rat 111. and D Fulke thus write It doth not exclude from being members of the Church c. 2. Touching the Reall Presence D. Reynolds thus sayth the Reall (s) In his 5. Conclusion annexed to his Conference pag. 722. Presence is but as it were the grudging of a former Ague if the Party otherwise hould the Christian Fayth Iacobus Acontius a learned Protestant thus accordeth with D. Reynolds saying It is (t) In l. 3. Stratagem Satanae p. 135. euident as well concerning those who hould the Reall 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 the way of Saluation if in other things they be obedient And Frith one of M. Fox his Martyrs sayth The (u) Act. Mon. pag. 503. matter touching the substance of the Sacrament bindeth no man of necessity to Saluation or Damnation
regard This refuge and tergiuersation is most poore First in that there is no more reason why a man should be rather an English Protestant then any other kind of Protestant Since all kinds of Protestancy as reiecting the authority of Gods vniuersall Church proceed Originally from the priuate Spirit to the which Protestancy euen commits Idolatry And yet there is no more reason why an English ProtestaÌ„t should assume to himselfe an infallibility of his priuate Spirit then any other foraine Protestant of other Country SecoÌ„dly because the English Protestants haue no reason to disclayme from the Protestants of other Countries if so we will belieue the English Protestants themselues for D. Iewell though most falsly thus teacheth The Lutherans and the Swinglians (s) D. Iewell in his Apology of the Church of England p. 101. within which number the English Protestants are comprehended are good friends they vary not betweene themselues vpon the principles and Foundations of their Religion but only vpon one Question which is neither waighty nor great With whom agreeth D. Whitaker speaking to his Aduersary Father Campian for his conioyning together the Lutherans and Swinglians in Fayth and Religion for this Doctour thus writeth Quòd (t) In respons ad rationes Camp rat 8. versus â—â—em autem Lutheranâ—s cum Swinglianis coniungere voluisti in eo nos quidem nequaquam offendisti c. In that thou dost conioyne and vnite the Lutherans the Swinglians together thou dost not offend vs for we willingly honour Luther as our Father and all them meaning the Lutherans and the Swinglians as our most Deare Brethren in Christ Thirdly the inueterate Dissentions euen among the English moderate Protestants themselues as also betweene the English moderate Protestants against the English Puritans both touching the Translation of the English Bible the Common booke of prayer and diuers other points of Controuersies aboue displayed manifesteth the shallownes of this former Replye Thus much concerning the auoyding of this seely Refuge I haue thought good to insist in the discouering the vanity of it in this place though it be aboue touched in the Preface only by mentioning of it because it is the ordinary Asyle or Sanctuary whitherunto many Protestants do flye when they heare the Catholikes to vpbraid them with mutuall Dissentions in the Articles of Protestancy The XXIII Paragraph NOw before I close vp this Treatise I will draw certaine Inferences or Resultancies out of the former Premisses 1. The First whereof may concerne the beliefe of the former Catholike Points by Protestants which beliefe is indeed no supernaturall beliefe I meane it is not any of the three supernaturall vertues but only it is in them a meere priuate opinion or inducement to giue a naturall consent to that which is true For the better and more cleere illustration of which point the Reader is to conceaue that two things do necessarily concurre to the producing of the Vertue of supernaturall Fayth The one is Prima (u) S. Thomas part 2. q. 8. veritas reuelans which is God The other is called the authority of the Church This prima veritas reuelans being God is otherwise called by the Deuines Obiectum formale Fidei This prima veritas doth reueale all true points of Fayth The second to wit The Authority of the Church is called Amussit Regula or the Propounder because it propoundeth to the members of the Church all such points to be belieued which God reuealed to the Church to be belieued Now to applye this to our purpose This Prima veritas reuelant as also this Propounder do indifferently propound to the Members of the Church all points of Fayth to be belieued as well as any one only point and the Persons to whom such points of Fayth are reuealed and propounded to be belieued do through the same authority of the Church belieue all points of Fayth to be reuealed alike Therefore seeing the former Protestants belieuing the former particular Catholike Articles do belieue them not through the Authority of the Church propounding them to be belieued for if they did belieue them by force thereof they would in like sort belieue all other Catholike points seeing all of them are alike reuealed by God to the Church and alike propounded by the Church to Christians to be belieued Therefore from hence it followeth that the former Protestants do belieue the foresayd Catholike Points only through the force of their owne priuate spirit which intertayneth them as points probable and true And thus the Close of all is that the said Protestants do belieue or rather giue assent vnto Truths falsly so mans Ghostly Enemy when he speaketh the truth he lyes that is they belieue truths vpon false Grounds and Principles For they belieue certaine Catholike Doctrines but they belieue not the Church teaching those Doctrines Thus much touching the first Porisma 2. The second shal be the scandall and stumbing block which these great Dissentions among the Protestants do beget in the minds of other ProtestaÌ„ts to wit a forsaking of the Protestant Religion and imbracing the Catholike Religion To begin We fynd Duditius the markable Protestant thus to confesse of this point The (x) Beza in his Epistol Theolog. Epist ad Andraeam Duditium p. 13. relaâ—teth Duditius thus to say Protestants are caryed about with euery wynd of Doctrine now to this part now to that whose religion what it is to day you may perhaps knowe but what it wil be to morrow neither you nor they can certainly tell Thus Duditius And Syr Edwin Sands in like manner thus writeth Protestants (a) In his relation c. fol. 8. are as seuered or rather scattered troupes ech drawing aduerseway c. In like sort Georgint Maior a great Lutheran thus disconsolately writeth Obijciunt (b) In Orat de Confusionibus Dogmatum veteribus recentibus nobis Papistae c. The Papists do obiect to vs Scandals and Dissentions I do freely acknowledge such to be as cannot be sufficiently lamented And Melancthon thus complayneth hereof as is aboue noted Nulla (c) Melanch in Concil Theolog. part 1. pag. 245. res aequè deterret homines ab Euangelio ac nostra Discordia no one thing deterreth and withdraweth men more from the Gospell then the Discord among our selues And vpon this ground it is that Dresserus the Protestant thus speaketh of Staphylus who was once a Protestant Oh Theologorum dissidia (d) Dresserus in Millenar â— pa. 214. ad Catholicos defecit Staphylus Staphylus reuolted to the Catholiks by reason of the Disagreements among the Protestant Deuines And dare our Aduersaries notwithstanding suggest the Protestant Church to be the true Church it being thus depriued of Vnity the inseparable marke of the true Church 3. A third may be that whereas many Protestants aboue alledged do approue and allow many Articles of our Catholike Fayth that such Confessions euen of the Aduersaries themselues do much aduantage
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
efficacy power and vertue was ascribed thereto we fynd thus coÌ„fessed First then M. Perkins acknowledgeth (l) In his Problem pag. 83. thus About foure hundred yeares after Christ the Crosse began by litle and litle to be adored And in proofe hereof M. Perkins alledgeth Prudentius Ierome Euagrius Peter (m) In his Common places part 2. c. 5. Martyr affirmeth that Constantine made the signe of the Crosse in gould Osiander (n) Cent. 4. l 2. c. 30. relateth out of (o) In Vita Constant l. 1. c. 2. Eusebius that Constantine affirmed that the signe of the Crosse appeared to him in the after noone in great light aboue the Sunne and a Writing therein with these Words In hoc vinces Danaeus the Protestant auerreth thus (p) In 1. parte altara part ad Bellarm pag. 14. 15. Cyrill and sundry other Fathers were plainly superstitious and blynded with this enchantment of the Crosses adoration The Centurists (q) Cent. 4. col 302. rebuke Ephrem they thus saying He attributeth too much to the signe of the Crosse Touching the Miracles wrought by the signe of the Crosse we fynd Peter (r) In his Common places part 2. c. 5. Martyr thus to write I deny not but certaine Miracles haue sometimes beene wrought by the signe of the Crosse as S. Austin reporteth l. 2. de Ciuitate Dei c. 28. D. Parker (s) Against Symbolizing part 1. c. 3. pag 154. reporteth certaine Miracles done by the signe of the Crosse To conclude this passage D. Couell thus acknowledgeth No (t) In his Answere to M. Burges p. 138. man can deny but that God after the death of his sonne manifested his power to the amazement of the World in this contemptible signe as being the Instrument of many Miracles 8. I will in this next place touch the doctrine of good Works concerning Iustification and Merit And first that Works do iustify by the iudgment of the ancient Fathers is euident For we read that the (u) Cent. 6. c. 10. col 748. Centurists do charge S. Gregory with this doctrine of Good Works Iustification Brentius thus reprehendeth S. Austin Austin (x) In Confess Wittemberg taught affiance in Mans Works touching Remission of sinnes Chrysostome is thus controuled by the Centurists Chrysostome (y) Cent. 5. col 1178. handleth impurely the doctrine of Iustification and attributeth merit to Workes Luther in contempt styleth Ierome Ambrose Austin and other Fathers Iustice-Workers (z) In Galat c. 4. after the English Translation of the Old Papacy Melancthons words are these (a) In Rom. â— 591. Origen and many following him imagined that men were iust by reason of their Workes And the (b) Cent. 3. col 240. Centurists (b) Cent. 3. col 240. confesse the same of Tertullian D. Humfrey thus freely writeth It (c) Iesuitism part 2. pag. 530. may not be denied but that Ierome Clemens and others called Apostolicall men haue in their Writings the Opinion of Merit of Works Bullinger ascendeth thus high in tyme saying The doctrine (d) In Apocalyp Serm. 87. fol. 270. of merit satisfaction and Iustification of works did incontinently after the Apostles tyme lay their first foundation I Will conclude with D. Couell His Confession in generall is this Diuers (e) In his Examen c. 9. p. 120. both of the Greeke and Latin Church were spotted with Errours about Freewill Merit c. Hereto I will adioyne the doctrine of Works of Supererogation or Euangelicall Counsells That vowed Chastity was taught and practized in those Primitiue tymes the Centurists (f) Cent. 4. col 488. do witnesse They also acknowledge the doctrine and practise in those Primitiue tymes of voluntary (g) Cent. 4. col 30. Pouerty of Abstinence from Wyne (h) Cent. 4. col 471. flesh and certaine other Meates Of their going barefoote (i) Cent. 4. col 474. lying on the ground wearing sack-cloath c. and diuers other such Austerities 9. Concerning Auricular Confession of sinnes to a Priest It is euident that the Centurists (k) Cent. 6. c. 10. p. 748. do reprehend Gregory the Great for teaching Confession of Sinnes Penance and Satisfaction S. Leo is charged by M. Simonds (l) Vpon the Reuelat pag 57. with the doctrine of auricular Confession The Centurists acknowledge (m) Cent. 3. c. 6. col 27. that in the tymes of Cyprian and Tertullian was vsed priuate Confession of thoughts and lesser sinnes and that the same was thought necessary Yea the Centurists do further confesse that Penance (n) Cent. 3. col 127. and satisfaction was enioyned according to the offence And fortably hereto D. Whitaker (o) Contra Camp rat 5. thus acknowledgeth Cyprian and Tertullian thought by their externall discipline of life to pay the paynes due for sinne and to satisfy Gods Iustice And not only Cyprian but almost all the Fathers of that tyme were in that Errour Thus this Doctour To conclude this point Kempnitius (p) Exam. part 4. pag. â—8 chargeth the ancient Fathers in generall saying I am not ignorant that the old Fathers do somtimes ouer largly and with words ouervaunting command that Canonicall Discipline As that Tertullian sayth By these satisfactions sinnes are purged Cyprian sayth By these sinnes are redeemed washed and cured Ambrose By them the paynes of Hell are recompensed Austin God by them is pacifyed for sinnes past Thus far Kempnitius Who neuer calleth to mynd that the Fathers meaning only is that Satisfactions not as they are considered in their owne Nature but only as they receaue their force and vertue from Christ his Passion and his promisse to them and not otherwise do purge and redeeme sinnes 10. Touching the Sacraments And first that there are seauen Sacraments in the iudgement of the ancient Fathers D. Humfrey thus writeth of Dionysius At dices (q) In Iesuitism part 2. pa. 51â— quid ad Dionysium dices c. But thou wilt say What sayst thou to Dionysius who numbreth six Sacraments I answere that among the Ancients this only one Father teacheth that there are seauen Sacraments although he omitting Matrimony do only speake of six Sacraments That Grace is giuen and confirmed by the Sacraments Whereas S. Austin thus writeth The (r) In psal 79. coÌ„tra Paustum lib. 1â— cap. 13. Sacrament of the new Testament gaue Saluation The Sacrament of the old Testament did but promise the Sauiour Musculus answereth heerto saying This (s) In loc comm pag. 299. was spoken by Austin without consideration Yea the sayd Musculus chargeth all the Fathers in generall with the said doctrine in these words The Fathers attribute greater efficacy to our Sacraments then to the Sacraments of the old TestameÌ„t (t) Musc vbi supra affirming ours to be effectuall signes of grace not â—nly by signifying the same as the others did but also by conferring and giuing grace and saluation Now touching the
maÌ„ner Leo (z) Cent. 5. col 1262. paynfully goeth about to proue that singular preeminence was giuen to Peter aboue the other Apostles and that thence did rise the Primacy of the Roman Church D. Cowper (a) In his Chronicles calleth Linus first Bishop of Rome after Peter To conclude Bucer thus freely sayth We (b) In prae paratorijs ad Concil plainely confesse that among the auncient fathers the RomaÌ„ Church obtayned Primacy aboue others as that which hath the Chayre of S. Peter and whose Bishops haue almost alwayes beene accounted the successours of Peter Thus Bucer 15. Touching the Catholike Ceremonies of Funerals and other Ecclesiasticall customâ—â— we thus fynd confessed The Centurists acknowledge that (c) Cent. â— col 454. Solebant Cerei proferri funeri c. Wax candels were accustomed to be brought in the tyme of the funeralls And the Centurists do also graÌ„t that it was (d) Cent. 4 col 455. the custostome to couer the graue with flowers The sayd Centurists further make mention of minning dayes in these words Celebris (e) Cent. 4. col 455. ob defuncti memoriam fuit dies quadragesimus post obitum the fortith day after the death of the party was kept with solemnity Lastly they recorde those words of Tertullian We (f) Cent 3. col 138. offer vp sacrifices oblations euery anniuersary day for the dead 16. That prayer was made towards the East in those ancient times is confessed by the (g) Gent. 4. col 432 Centurists That Canonicall (h) Cent. 4. col 433. howres of Prayers were then vsed the Centurists confesse They also record that there was in those primitiue times (i) Cent. 4 col 459. rising in the night to prayer Also that the (k) Cent. col 433. Lyturgy was then accustomed to be recited That (l) Cent. 4. col 1326 prayers were then made by nuÌ„bring them vpon litle stones which is the same as in these dayes by numbring prayers with beades 17. D. Fulke (m) Against Heskinâ— c. pag. â—57 confesseth that the Crosse by report of Paulinus was by the Bishop of Ierusalem his appointment at Easter yearly to be worshipped by the people But heer we are to note that Paulinus did not meane any idolatrous worship to be giuen to the Crosse as the Protestants do most wrongly charge vs Catholiks to exhibite to it but only a Christian reuerence and respect as being an Instrument vpon which the Sauiour of the world suffered for Mans Redemption 18. That set tymes of fasting were vsed in those ancient tymes is cleare for first touching the fast of Lent KeÌ„pnitius (n) In Examen part 1. pa. 8â— coÌ„fesseth that Ambrose Maximus Taurinensis Theophilâ—â— Ierome and others do affirme the fast of Lent to be an Apostolicall Tradition Yea Scultetus thus sayth The (o) In medulla Theolog. p. 440. superstitious fast of Lent was allowed and commanded by Ignatius Now Ignatius was in the Apostle dayes M. Cartwright is alledged by M. Whitguift (*) In D. Whitguifts defence pag. 100. to reproue S. Ambrose for saying It is a sinne not to fast in Lent Touching the fast of Quatuor Tempora (*) Whitak contra Duraeum l. 7. p. 80. D. Whitaker confessetht it to be as auncieÌ„t as Calixtus the Pope who was immediate Successour to Pope Victor who liued in the third Century 19. I will conclude the Protestants Confessions touching the ancient Fathers in the doctrine of Religious Persons And first touching Monkes the Centurists (p) Cent. 4. col 46â— vnder the title de Consecratione Mâ—nachi acknowledge Monkes to haue beene in those Primitiue Tymes D. Humfrey thus writeth of Gregory the Great These (q) In Iesuitis par 2. rat 5. things Austin the MoÌ„ke taught by Gregory the great Monke brought in Thus the Doctour acknowledging Mâ—nachisme in those dayes M. Cartwright thus confesseth (r) In D. Whitguifts defence pag. 344. Ruffinus Theodoret Sozomene Socrates c. do mention Monks almost in euery Page In like manner the Centurists speaking of the age wherein Constantine liued (s) Cent. 4. c. 10. col 1294. do confesse that there were Monks throughout Syria Palestine Bithinia and other places of Asia The Centurists further acknowledging a place of S. Basil in prayse of Monasticall life thus censure him All which (t) Cent. 4. p. 300. 3â—â— words meaning of Basil are both besydes and contrary to the Holy Scripture 20. The Centurists (u) Cent. 4. c. 6. col 404. 466. also make mention of Monasteries wherein the Monks did dwell The Centurists finally record the Monasteries (x) Cent. 4. col 467. 479. â—335 c. of Virgins The like mention the Monasteries of Virgins is made by (y) Osiander cent 4. pa. 507. 503. c. Osiander Thus far of all the former Points of Catholike Fayth and Religion that they were taught and practized by the ancient Fathers euen in our Aduersaries Iudgment I could proue the like by the Confessions of the learned Protestants in all other Articles controuerted betweene vs and the Protestants But I trust that these former Articles being of greatest Moment may serue in lieu of all the rest which are of lesser Consequence Only I thinke good to adioyne here this ensuing Animaduersion To wit That whereas in the producing of the former Authorities of the Fathers in behalfe of the Catholike Religion all Fathers are not brought in by the Confession of the Protestants to teach the said Catholike Articles Now the reason of this is in that euery ancient Father did not wryte of euery particular Article of Catholike Religion and consequently such could not be alledged by the Protestants confessions in proofe of the Articles omitted by them Neuerthelesse it vnauoidably followeth by all true inference of Reason that all other Fathers in such particular points of Catholike Religion as are omitted by the Protestants do agree and conspire with the former Fathers aboue confessed The reason iâ— this Yf the other Fathers aboue omitted and not spoken of had maintayned contrary doctrines to the former produced Fatâ—ers they then would haue beene written against by some other more Orthodoxall Writers and Fathers touching the said points As we see that certaine Errours in Origen Tertullian Cyprian to omit the like Examples in Donatus Iouinian Pelagius and sundry such other Nouelists were instantly impugned by Austin Ierome Epiphanius Theodoret c. But no such writing was against the former confessed Fathers in this Treatise for their houlding the foresaid Catholike Points Therefore it is certaine that all other Fathers of the Primitiue Church did jointly teach and belieue the said Catholike doctrines with the aboue confessed Fathers Againe the alledged Fathers in this Appendix were the chiefe Pastours in God Church in those dayes in whom the Church of Christ was peculiarly and more markably personated Therefore all other Inferiour Members of the Church did agree with them in the beliefe
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
Authoriries of the ancient Fathers Whose Pens were euer imployed against euery then new arising Doctrine not bearing Vnity to the Fayth of Gods Vniuersall Church we fynd S. Athanasius thus to Wryte Jllud (y) Orat. 1. contra Arianos quoque prorsus admirabile c. This also is very wonderfull that all Heresyes in coyning diuers things do differ in themselues and do iointly agree in defence of falshood S. Chrysostome sharpeneth his penne in this sort against the Enemyes of Vnity in Fayth Omnes Infideles (z) Opera imperfect in Math. hom 20. qui sub diabolo sunt c. All such Infidells or Misbelieuers which are in the power of the Diuell are not vnited but are deuided through diuersity of Opinions And such is the want of Fayth among Hereticks who neuer agree in one consent of Things but maintayne as seuerall Opinions as themselues are seuerall in number Thus S. Chrysostome S. Hilarius in this sort pensilleth out the face and countenance of disagreing Heretiks (a) L. 7. dâ— Trinitate Haeretici omnes contra Ecclesiam veniunt c. All Heretiks do assault the Church But whiles Heretiks do mutually ouercome one another they ouercome nothing therin since their Victory when one Heresy doth euen fight against another is finally become the TriuÌ„ph of the Church Tertullian (b) L. de Praescription aduersus Haeres 41. writes of this point in this manner Inspectae Haereses omnes c. All Heresyes being truly looked into are deprehended to dissent in many things euen with thiâ— owne Authours I will conclude with Irenaeus Videmus (c) L. 1. c. 5. in initio nunc corum inconstantem sententiam c. We now see their inconstant iudgment who if they be but two or three in number how diuersly they teach the same things And further the said Father Durum (d) Vbi supra c. 1â— est omnium describere sententias c. Jt is a difficult thing to set downe the different Sentences of all Hereticks For greater breuity of this point I refer the Reader to the testimonies of S. Ierome (e) In Math. â—4 S. Austin (f) Contra Epist Parmenian l. 3. c. 4. S. Ambrose (g) L. de fide ad Gratianum c. â— and the Councell of (h) In de cretis Synod Niâ—e nae contra Haeresâ—m Arianam Nyce And thus far touching the Fathers herein Now in this last place to ascend to the sacred Authorities of Gods Word which are the stamps sealing vp the Truth of all the former Humane Authorities which testimonies I reserue hitherto wherewith to close yp the Iudgment of the Reader herein And first to shew the Vglines of Dissention we read (i) Luc. 11. Euery Kingdome deuided in it selfe shall perish And vpon this ground the Prophet thus prayeth Destroy (k) Psalm â—5 O Lord and deuide their Tongues implying hereby that their deuided Tongues in iudgment shall occasion their destruction And another Prophet in further proofe of this point thus hath left recorded Their (l) Ose â—0 Hart is deuided they shall now perish And the Wiseman instructeth vs in these Words God (m) Prouerb 6. hateth him that raiseth vp Contentions among Brethren All which Scripturall Authorities as they shew the malice wickednes of Disunion and Dissention in generall so they implicitly and potentially proue that Want of Vnity in Doctrine cannot stand with true Fayth Therefore the more reason had the Apostle S. Paul to vse this his feruerous admonition to the Christians of his tyme saying I beseech (n) 1. Cor. 1. you Brethren that there be no dissentions among you Not forsaking (o) Hebr. 10. the fellowship which we haue among our selues Neither is the Apostle lesse slow in recommending the Vertue of Vnity in expresse words though this be coincident with the former for thus he instructeth his followers I beseech (p) 1. Cor. 1. you that you all speake one thing be you knit togeather in one mind and one iudgment (q) Ephes 4. Endeuoring to keep the Vnity of spirit in the band of peace God is the God (r) 1. Cor. 14. not of diuision but of Peace And according hereto we read that our Sauiour prayed for the Members of his Church that they may be One (s) Ioan. 17. And to conclude according to this his prayer it is recorded that the Multitude of them which belieued were (t) Act. 4. of One Hart and One Soule so luxuriant abounding we fynd the sacred Scriptures to be â—or the extirpation of all Dissention and Diâ—ision out of the society of Christians and â—or the entertayning of Vnity among them in all Matters of Religion Now then hauing thus demonstrated the Necessity of Vnion in matters of Fayth both from diuine and humane Authorities and withall hauing in the beginning aboue as it were beset all wayes passages by which our Aduersaries might in a vulgar iudgment seeme to assault vs by their pretence of some weake and feeble Reasons (u) Szegedin the Protestant in loc om pag. 1â—4 thus saith Vnity one of the Notes of the Church for proofe of Diuision in Fayth to be in our Catholike Church it remayneth that we hasten to shew whether Vnity in Fayth as being a Marke of the true Church euen by the iudgment of Protestants themselues can be found in Protestancy Or in place thereof implacable and irreconcileable Disagreements and Warres A most foule scarre or moale to remayne vpon the Fayth of the supposed Chiefe Professours of the Ghospell So indisputably true it is that Protestancy lyes exposed or rather becomes thrall to all Fluctuation Inconstancy in doctrine And with this I say I will hasten to present to the sight of the Reader that face which is ingendred of so many Contradictions in Fayth and I will be content for the tyme to become the Protestants Herauld in blasing the Armes of their Contentions So shall the Reader withall discerne that the Protestants Pens are euer prest and ready to discharge vpon their owne Brethren for matter of Fayth and Religion euen whole Volleys of shot of most reproachfull Words and intemperate Language ΑΔΕΛΦΟΜΑΧΙΑ OR THE WARRS OF PROTESTANCY The I. Paragraph BEFORE we enter into the distentions of the Protestants touching particular Doctrines seuerally maintayned by seuerall sydes of them I will first lay open with what kind and brotherly language one Sect of them and yet all good Protestants doth entertayne another Now this Discors Concordia this disagreeing Harmony of theirs consisteth of many parts To wit First of the Lutherans against the Sacramentaries I meane the Swinglians and Caluinists then reciprocally of the Caluinists against the Lutherans Secondly The Lutherans among themselues Thirdly The Caluinists among them selues Fourthly The Moderate Protestant against the Puritan and the Puritan against the Moderate Protestant within which Clause are comprehended the Eâ—gâ—â—sh Moderate Protestants and the English Puritans 1 And to