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
Grace of this Redemption do appertaine equally to all the posterity of Adam or be restrayned to a certaine number I answere that the incredulity of men not the default of the Lambe maketh this restraint D. Willet much complayneth that this Doctrine is so generall among Protestants thus writing (g) In Synops p. 784. Vniuersality of grace which potentially includes that God for his part reprobates no man to damnation seemeth much to be approued by our owne Countrymen and hath already gotten some Patrones in our Church Bullinger thus confidently writeth of this point The (h) Vpon the Reuelations Englished c. 5. fol. 79. Lord dyed for all but that all men are not made partakers of this Redemption is through their owne Fault for the Lord excludeth no man Amandus Polanus the great Caluinist God (i) In partitionib Theolog. p. 11. â—â— by his Conditionall will would haue all men saued I will conclude with Hemingius a learned Caluinist who thus fully discourses of this point Pugnat cum verbo Dei vâ—cantâ— c. This opinion to wit which teacheth that God doth Reprobat man from his mothers wombe feighteth with the word of God calling and inuiting all men to repentance It (k) In lib de vniuersali Gratia pag. 111. maketh men partly sluggish partly secure and partly desperate for many are driuen to despayre whites by this Opinion is ouerthrowne the Doctrine of Vniuersall Grace in which all men are commanded by Fayth to include themselues Thus far Hemingius And thus much touching the contrary opinions of the Protestants concerning Reprobation Now concerning the Doctrine of the Certainty of Mans Iustification and of Predestination the Protestants are litle lesse concordant among themselues then we see they are in the Doctrines of Freewill and Reprobation And as touching those who maintayne that Iustifying Fayth once had cannot be lost and consequently that a man once hauing this Iustifying Fayth is certainely and infallibly predestinated and assured of his saluation We first will alledge D. Willet who thus reprehendeth such Protestants as teach the contrary These (l) In Synops p. 811. Patrones of vniuersall Grace and conditionall Election do consequently hould that men may loose their Election and Fayth Hemingius p. 30. the same is also maintayned by Snecanus Thus D. Willet But to proceede to others D. Whitaker thus teacheth Si quis (m) L de Eccles pag. 31. actum fidei haebet c. He who maketh an act of fayth his sinnes cannot hurt him Beza thus conspiringly instructeth his followers He (n) Andraaes the Protestant reporteth these words of Beza in Epist Colloq Montisbelg pa. 48. 44. who ones belieueth cannot afterwards fall from the grace of God or loose his Fayth by Adultery or any other like sinnes From whence it followeth that a man once hauing true Fayth is infallibly assured of his saluation Luther thus Catechiseth his Schollers A Christian (o) Lib. di Captiuit Babylon This saying of Luther is also mentioned by the Protestant Authour in his treatise against Defence of the Censure p. 198. or baptized Person is so rich as although he would he cannot lose his Saluation by any sinnes how greatsoeuer vnlesse he will not belieue In like sort the said Luther hath further thus left written in defence of the certainty of Predestination As (p) Luth. in Loc. Comm. printed Magdeburg 1594. Class 5. c. 27 p. 68. nothing iustifyeth but Fayth so nothing sinneth but vnbeliefe Yea some Protestants thus strangly write for certainty of Predestination We (*) See the Acts and Monuments pag. 1563. pag. 488. cannot be damned except Christ be damned with vs. M. Perkins earnestly (q) M. Perkins in his reformed Catholike p. 3â— 55. maintayneth the said Doctrine as also it is taught by Caluin and finally by most Puritans and the most forward Protestants in these dayes Now let vs see how crosse Antipodes-like do other Protestants as maintayning the contrary tread to their former Brethren I will begin with the Lutherans and first with Kempnitius who thus writeth True (r) In Exam Concil Trident. printed 1578. part 2. p. 1â—3 liuely iustifying Fayth may be lost and the party made guilty of eternall Damnation The Confession of (s) In the Harmony of Confessions in English pag. 214 Ausburg condemneth the contrary Doctrine for Anabaptisme The Protestant Deuines of Saxony do also thus teach It is (t) Ibid. p. 80. and see p. 223. manifest that some who are regenerate c. are againe reiected of God and made subiect to eternall Punishment And more Iustification (u) In the Harmony c. pag. â—95 and regeneration may be shaken of and we lose eternall life This doctrine of the vncertainty of Saluation is in like manner taught by diuers other Lutherans whose sayings were ouer long here to set downe as by (x) In his Disputat Theolog. p. 117. 318. Lobechius Doctour and Professour in the Vniuersity of Rostock by Conradus (y) In Theolog. Caluinist l. 2. art 14. fol. 45. Schlusselburg by Iacobus (z) In Epitom Colloq Moutisberg Editio tertia p. 73. 74. c. Andreas by (a) In his Disput 17 pro â—aâ—ctiss Lib. Concord Disput 16. pag. 650. Gesnerus Doctour and Professour at Wittemberg and finally to omit many other Lutherans for greater expedition by Philip Melancthon who thus writeth (b) In Concil Theolog. pag 3â—â— Excidunt homines à gratia aciustificantem fidem amittunt Men do fall from grace and lose their iustifying Fayth To come to the Caluinists teaching the same Doctrine And first M. Perkins thus confesseth hereof This (c) In his foure Treatises necessarily to be considered of all Christians Treatise fourth Sect. 14. testimony of being persuaded that we are Adopted and Chosen in Christ is weake in most men and scarsly can be perceaued Musculus the great and famous Protestant thus teacheth Yf (d) In loc Com. loc de peccato sect 5. he who hath beene made partaker of heauenly Grace do fall from that Grace and of a iust and faythfull man become vniust and vnfaythfull c. this mans conscience the purity of Fayth being lost is made guilty vnto Damnation M. Robert Rollocke Rectour of the Vniuersity of Edenburgh and greatly praysed by Beza thus teacheth I tell thee (e) In his booke of Lectures vpon the Epist of Paul to the Coloss l. 3. p. 64. that notwithstanding thou art redeemed and by the bloud of Christ freed from sinne and death yet if thou take delight in sinne the greater shal be thy Damnation The same Doctrine is maintayned by seuerall English learned Protestants as by D. Oueral (f) In the Conference before his Maiesty p. 4â— by D. Harsenet (g) D. Harsenet did preach of this very subiect at Paules Crosse and by all those who are at this present called among vs by the name of Arminians Thus far touching the mutuall Disagreements of 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
Protestants in the Doctrines of Freewill Reprobation and Predestination aduertizing the Reader that such Protestants who maintayne the Doctrine of Freewill do consequently and potentially teach the vncertainty both of Reprobation and Predestination The reason hereof being in that the foundation of the contrary Doctrines to wit of the certainty of Reprobation and Predestinatioâ— is chiefly grounded vpon the deniall of the Doctrine of Freewill The XVII Paragraph IN this next place I will descend to the Doctrine of good workes And First I will set downe the opinions of diuers learned moderate Protestants some approuing euen the merit of works others at least the necessity of them to Iustification and Saluation And to begin with this later point The necessity of good workes at least to accompany Fayth though not as cause of our Iustification is taught by D. Fulke (h) Against the Rhemish Testament in 2. Petr. 2. by D. Whitaker (i) Against M. Reynolds by D. Willet (k) In his Tetraâ—lylon Papisint pag. â—0 And of this point speciall mention is made of the great Dissentions had betweene the Deuiâ—â—â— (l) This is related in Colloq Altenberg fol. 168. and iâ— Artit Colloq Alâ—â—burg p. 101. 48â— of England and the Lutherans in Germaâ—â— the one side maintayning the necessity of good workes the other denying the same Noâ— that other learned Protestants do not only teach the necessity and presence of good workes but also that our good workes are meritorious in regard of Christs Passion and promise to them is affirmed by M. Hooker (m) Eccles Fol. l. 5. sect 72. pa. 208. by Melancthon (n) Loc. Comm. de bonis Operibus circa medium by Spandeburg (o) In Margarit Theol. pag. 48. â—0 â—he Protestant and by the (p) Pag. 495. 273. Confessions in the Harmony 2. To descend more particularly to good workes And first we find that Vowed Chastity is defended by Augustin Marloret the Protestant saying The (q) In â— Timoth. c. 5. Widowes he meaning those mentioned by S. Paul did giue their â—ayth to Christ their spouse willingly barring themselues from Mariadge by the Protestant Authour of the booke entituled Antichristus (r) Pag. 148. 149. siue Prognosticon finis mundi by M. Alison (s) In his Confutat of Brownisme p. 71. the Protestant all which Protestants do maintayne and affirme the votary resolution of the said widowes Yea M. Alison expresly thus writeth This place meaning of S. Paul touching the said widowes is thus expounded by Bullinger Claudius and others In like sort Vowed Chastity is taught by M. Hooker as lawfull who further thus writeth of the vow of Pouerty Anauias (t) Eccles pol. l. 2. p. 103. his solemne row to God did strictly bynd him to the giuing of his Possession to the Churches vse Yea Christian Vowes in generall are maintayned by Musculus (u) In loc Comm. de votis p. 524. by M. Willet (x) In Synops pag. 241. by Amandus (y) In partitionib Theol. l. 2. p. 3â—4 Polanus and to omit otherâ— by M. Perkins thus writing Now (z) In his reformed Catholike p. 157. in the new Testament we haue like manner to vow c. Of this kind are the vowes to keep set fastings c. But now let vs cast our eye another way and see how other Protestants do impugne and crosse these their brethren and how fiery and violent they are in depressing and betrampling of all good works in generall as also of Vowes And first we fynd Luther thus to write It (a) Vpon the Galat. English c. 2. is impiety to affirme that Fayth except it be adorned with Charity iustifyeth not Yea Luther further proceedeth thus teaching Fides (b) Tom. 1. Propos 3. nisi sit sine c. Fayth except it be without the least good works doth not iustify nay it is not Fayth And according hereto Amsdorphius a Protestant writeth a booke entituling it Quod bona opera sint perniciosa ad salutem Agreably hereto Schlusselburg the Lutheran teacheth in this manner Good (c) In Catalog Haeret l 23. in Epist. Dedicat pag. 22. workes are not necessary necessitate praesentiae so much as with a necessity of Presence In like manner Illyricus affirmeth Good works (d) In Praefat. ad Rom. are not so much as Causa sine qua non of Saluation The said Illyricus further proceedeth saying The (e) Iâ—ly ricus vbi suprà Controuersy with the Papists is not only whether workes do iustify but whether they be in any respect necessary to saluation which later point to maintayne sayth he is a Papisticall Errour And yet more in these words The Doctrine of the New Papists is as pernicious as the Old to say that the Apostle meant to exclude good works from Iustification not simply and as due but only as meritorious and causes efficient Yea some Protestants are so far from granting merit of works as that Caluin himselfe affirmeth To (f) Instit. l. 2. c. 17. sect â— maintayne that Christ did merit any thing to himselfe non minus stulta est curiositas quà m temeraria definitio is no lesse a foolish curiosity then a rash sentence And according hereto Tyndall the Protestant Martyr writeth thus Christ (g) Fox Act. Mon. pag. 486. with all his works did not deserue Heauen which said Tyndall is so far gone against good workes as thus M Fox hath registred him to say As for (h) Act. Mon. pag. 1136. pleasing God there is no worke better then another As touching to please God to make water to wash dishes to be a sower or an Apostle all is one Now to come more particularly to the good works of perpetuall Chastity voluntary Pouerty and Fasting The Protestants contrary to their former Brethren thus teach Luther thus maintayneth in expresse words touching Chastity or perpetuall Virginity If we (i) Luth. Tom. 1. Wittenberg ad cap. 7.1 Cor. fol. 107. respect the nature of Matrimony and single lyfe in themselues matrimony is as gould and the spirituall state of single life as dung To whom D. Whitaker subscribes in these words (k) Contra Camp rat 8. Virginity is not simply good but after a certaine manner Touching Fasting M. Perkins sayth (l) In his reformed Catholike pag. 220. Fasting in it selfe is a thing indifferent as is eating and drinking And M. Willet affirmeth that Neither (m) Synop. p. 241. is God better worshipped by eating or not eating Lastly concerning voluntary Pouerty the same M. Willet thus teacheth He is an (n) In his Syneps p. 145. Enemy to the glory of God that changeth his rich estate wherein he may serue God for a poore thus he not making difference betweene a Stoicall dulnes and a Christian contempt of transitory things himselfe belike being so greedy to haue for a tyme the gouerment and rule of a litle peece of the entralls of the earth To
sinne being the euill Example to our neighbour How doth this Doctrine open the sluse to all Impurity Wickednes and Libertinisme the maintayners of which Doctrine are in the number of those who as S. Iude sayth transfer (c) Iude Epist vers 14. the grace of God into wantonnesse Now this Doctrine of extenuating and lessing sinne is so mainly contradicted and gainsaid by all morall and Ciuill Protestants as that it were needles to set downe the names of them In like sort it is implicitly impugned by all those particular Protestants aboue alledged who requyre goodworkes at least to accompany Fayth For it sinne cannot be preiudiciall to Fayth to what end then should the former Protestants teach that good workes of necessity must accompany Fayth In this last place concerning Sinne I will set downe the disagreements of Protestants of which some do teach that God is the Authour of sinne Other Protestants condemning this Doctrine as most blasphemous and iniurious to God And to begin with such as really teach God to be the Authour of sinne I produce Luther thus saying How (d) Luth. in â—ssert damnat per Leonem art 36. can man prepare himselfe to good seeing it is not in his power to make his wayes euill Nam mala opera in impijs Deus operatur for God worketh the wicked workâ— in the wicked Beza thus writeth God (e) In his Display of Popish practises p. 202. exciteth the wicked will of one Thiefe to kill another guideth his hand and weapon iustly inforcing the Will of the thiefe M. Willet thus (f) In Synops pag. 563. God not only permitteth but leadeth into temptation euen with an actiue power and not permissiuely only D. Barrow thus (g) In his Treatise of Gods Prouidence in English c. 4. God doth truly and by his determinate purpose harden make blynd leade into temptation and enclyne the hart to euill Swinglius thus God (h) Swiâ—gl tom 1. de Prouidentia Dei fol. 366. moueth the Thiefe to kill and the Thiefe killeth God procuring him And againe The (i) Swinglius vbi saprà Where he sayth Aâ— inquus coactus est aâ— peccandum peâ—e mitto thiefe is inforced to sinne And more Deo impulsore (k) Swinglius vbi suprà occidit The thiefe killeth God mouing and inforcing him thereto Melancthon thus The Adultery (l) Melancth in Rom. 8. of Dauid was the proper worke of God as was the Conuersion of Paul Finally that Caluin teacheth the said Doctrine appeareth not only from Castaliâ— charging him therewith in these words by this meanes not the Deuill but the God of Caluin is Authour of Lyes but also from the places of Caluins (n) Instit l. 2 c. 4. sect 3. 4. 5. et l. 1. c. 18. sect 1. owne bookes here noted in the Margent Now this Doctrine is mainly contradicted and this most deseruedly by other Protestants And first D. Whitaker as maintayning the contrary Doctrine and in defence that not any Protestant teacheth this foresaid doctrine thus prouoketh his Aduersary in most confident words (o) Whitaker contra Camp rat 8. pag. â—15 Yf Caluin Peter Martyr Melancthon or Luther or any of ours affirme God to be the Authour of sinne I will not deny but that we are all guilty of horrible blasphemy and wickednes So much doth this Dâ—ctour dislike the foresaid Doctrine and so gladly would he vindicate and free his Protestant Brethren if he could from maintayning the said wicked Position In like sort Hemingius (p) Hemingius l. de Vniuersal Grat pag. 109. as maintayning this contrary Doctrine chargeth and reprehendeth the Caluinists for their teaching that God is the Authour of sinne The Caluinists are also condemned for this their impious Doctrine by Sitzlinus (q) In his Disputat Theolog. de prouidentia Dei sect 141. the Protestant by Iacobus Andraeas the remarkable Protestant who in expresse words thus writeth Deus (x) Andraeas in Epitom Colloq Montisblegar pa. 47. 49. 53. est authour peccati secundum Bezam This point is so euident as that the Magistrates of (s) Vide literas Senatus Bernensis ad ministros c. 1555. Berna decreed it to be punishable by their Lawes for any to preach Caluins Doctrine hereof within their owne Territories Iurisdiction or for the people to read any of Caluins Bookes of that subiect The foresaid Doctrine of God being the Authour of sinne is further contradicted condemned by (t) Lib. ad Caluinum de Praedestinat Castalio by Amandus (u) Polanus in partition Theolog. l. 1. pag. 46. Polanus by M. (x) Gibbens in his Questions vpon Genesis pag. 108. Gibbens by the Booke entituled Corpus doctrina c. printed 1561. in folio pag. 618. It is further condemned not only almost by all the Lutherans but euen by all moderate and temperate Protestants So disagreeing are the Protestants touching this Tenet The XIX Paragraph TOuching the Doctrine which denyes we ought to haue any absolute Princes or Magistrates now in the tyme of the Gospell Luther thus teacheth Among (y) Luth. de secular potestat in tom 9. German Christiâ—â—â—en none is Superiour saue one and only Christ And yet more fully Among (z) Luth. vbi supra Christians no man can or ought to be a Magistrate but ech one is to other equally subiect And further (a) Luth. Sermons Englished and printed 1579. pag 97. As Christ cannot suffer himselfe to be tyed or bound by Lawes c. So ought not the Conscience of a Christian to suffer them Other Protestants though they do not write so absolutely against Princes and all Magistracy yet they wounderfully seeke to depresse and lessen their Authority for thus Swinglius indoctrinateth his followers Quando (b) Swing tom 1. in explanat Art 41. perfidè extra regulam Christi egerint Principes c. When Princes do euill and contrary to the Law of Christ they may be deposed Againe Swinglius thus further teacheth Romanum (c) Sâ—ing in l. Epist Oecolamp Suing l. 4. Epist â—â—nhardo â—omio Imperium imò quoduiâ— aliud imperium c. Yf the Roman Emperour or any other Prince or Soueraigne shall begin to oppresse the sincere Religion nas illud negligenter patimur c And we negligently suffer the same we shall stand charged with the contempt thereof as much as euen the oppressours themselues Now this sentence is so much displeasing to moderate and loyall Protestants as that Doctour Bilson in place of further answere to them thus sayth As I (d) In his true difference part 3. pag. 273. muse at Swinglius his wordes so I like not his iudgment (e) Caluin in Daniel c. â— Caluin conspireth with Swinglius thus affirming Earthly Princes de depriue themselues of authority when they erect themselues against God Yea they are vnworthy to be accounted among the number of men and we are rather to spit vpon their faces then to
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
patiatur O remember That euery thing is short which is measured with the yard of Tyme and Eternity only long Striue therefore in a Christian contempt of Temporalities to say in zeale of spirit with S. Austin Fecisti (m) L. 1. Confess c. 1. nos Domine ad te inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te And assure your selues that what thing soeuer is as I may say out of God soone breedeth a fastidious saciety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus forbearing further surplusage of Words I commit you to his Holy Protection of whom through the boundles sea of his Mercy it is said If any (n) Apocalyp â— Man will heare his voyce and open the Gate he will come into him and suppe with him I beseech his Diuine Maiesty that you may auayleably interest your selues in this most comfortable Inuitation Yours in all Christian Loue and Charity B. C. Aduertisment to the Reader THIS Treatise is entituled Adelphomachia which Greeke Word signifieth A fight among Brethren because it sheweth the DISSENTIONS among the Protestants themselues touching matter of Fayth and Religion All which Protestants whether they be Lutherans Swinglians or Caluinists which are comprehended vnder the name of Swinglians do hold one another for Brethren For Doctour Whitaker in respons ad rationes Campiani rat 8. thus confesseth of this Point We willingly honour Luther for our Father and the Lutherans and the Swinglians as our most deare Brethren in Christ. A TABLE OF Such disagreements of the Protestants in matter of Fayth and Religion as are handled and set downe in the ensuing Treatise § 1. THe Contentions deliuered in most contumetious Words of one Protestant against another Protestant And first of the Lutherans against the Sacramentaries or Swinglians and Caluinists Secondly of the Swinglians or Caluinists against the Lutherans Thirdly of the Lutherans among themselues Fourthly the Caluinists among themselues Fyftly The Puritans against the moderate Protestants Sixtly the Moderate Protestants against the Puritans Within which Clause are comprehended the English moderate Protestants and the English Puritans § 2. The most splenefull Titles full of malignity of twenty Bookes made by Protestants against other Protestants their Brethren § 3. Touching other externall Comportment of the Protestants among themselues And first the prohibiting of the Sale and Reading of ech others Bookes 2. The banishing of ech other from their Territories 3. The appointing of Articles of Visitation and enquiry concerning the discouery and apprehending of ech other 4. Their committing of ech other to Prison 5. The entring into open Armes of one Party against another 6. The inhumane deportment of some Protestants against the dead Bodies of other Protestants All which seuerall kinds of Violent Proceedings are only for matter of Religion among the Protestants § 4 Disagreements touching the Scripture First what Bookes be Scripture what not 2. Touching the Translation of acknowledged Scripture either in Latin or in English 3. Touching the supposed easinesse or difficulty of the sense of the Scripture § 5. The English Protestant disagreements touching their Communion Booke of Prayer § 6. The Protestants disagreements touching Christ First touching the Nature of Christ 2. Whether Christ did merit any thing for himselfe or not 3. According to what Nature Christ suffered 4. Whether Christ dyed for all the World or but for the Elect only 5. Whether Heathens not belieuing in Christ can be saued § 7. Disagreements touching the Primacy of Peter and his successours § 8. Whether the Pope be Antichrist or not 2. Supposing him to be Antichrist at what tyme Antichrist did come § 9. Disagreements touching the Church First whether the Protestant Church hath euer beene Visible 2. Whether in the Protestant Church there euer hath beene a Perpetuall Succession and Vocation of Ministers 3. Who be the Persons that constitute the Protestant Church 4. Whether Papists dying Papists and members of the present Roman Church can be saued § 10. Disagreements Whether the Ancient Fathers of the Primatiue Church are to be admitted or reiected § 11. Whether the Authority of Generall Councells are to be admitted or reiected § 12. Whether there be any Apostolicall Traditions or not § 13. Disagreements touching the Sacraments First of the number of the Sacraments 2. Whether the knowne intention of the Church be necessary to the Administration of the Sacraments 3. Whether any of the Sacraments do imprint any indeleble Character in the Receauers of them 4. Whether the Sacraments do only signify or withall conferre Grace § 14. Baptisme in particular First Whether Baptisme be absolutly Necessary or not 2. Whether any particular forme of Words be necessary in Baptizing or not 3. Whether Lay Persons and Women in tyme of Necessity may administer Baptisme § 15. Disagreemenâ—â— whether Man hath Freewill or not § 16. Disagreements touching the doctrine of certainty of Reprobation of Predestination and of the certainty of Iustification § 17. Disagreements touching the doctrine of good Works First Whether good Works do merit or not or at least be necessary to saluation 2. Whether Perpetuall Chastity Fasting and Pouerty be gratfull and pleasing to God or not 3. Whether Vowes be now lawfull in these tymes of Christianity § 18. Disagreements touching the doctrine of Sinne First What Sinne is in its owne Nature 2. Touching the distinction of Veniall and Mortall sinne 3. Whether all sinnes be equaâ—l or not 4. Whether sinne be hurtfull to him that belieueth 5. Whether God be the Authour of sinne § 19. Disagreements Whether Absolute Princes and Magistrates ought to be now in the tyme of the Gospell and how their Authority may be resisted § 20. Disagreements touching Polygamy First whether a Man may haue many Wyues at one tyme 2. Touching diuorse and the Occasions thereof § 21. Other disagreements of Protestants touching twenty Catholike Points besides those aboue intreated of which points some Protestants belieue as true others reiect them as false The point are these following 1. Touching Christs descending into Hell presently after his Corporal death 2. Touching â—â—bus Patrum 3. Touching 〈◊〉 â—cession of Saints 4. Touching intercession of Angells 5. Touching Inuocation of Saintes 6. Touching Prayer for the dead 7. Touching the Possibility of the Ten Commandements 8. Touching the Patronage of certaine Angells ouer certaine Countryes 9. Touching Images to be in the Churches 10. Touching reuerence and bowing downe to the Name of IESVS 11. Whether the good Works of one may help another 12. Whether Christ as Man was from his Natiuity freed from Ignorance 13. Touching Euangelicall Counsells or Works of Supererogation 14. Whether it can be knowne to vs without the Churches Tradition What Scriptures be Canonicall what not 15. Whether Jnfants haue actuall Fayth in the tyme of their Baptising 16. Whether the Sacraments of the Old Testament be of equall force and vertue with the Sacraments of the New Testament 17. Touching Auricular Confession 18. VVhether temporall Punishment be reserued for sinne already remitted
in defence of the deceits and falsifications with which Iohn Caluin in a detestable manner hath corrupted the most illustrious or cleare testimonies of Scripture touching the mistery of the Trinity as also the Oracles of the Prophets concerning Christ 3. Demonstratio imposturarum fraudum quibus Aegidâ—us Hunnius Ecclesiae Othodoxae doctrinam petulanter corrumpere pergit Brema 1592. A demonstration of the impostures and deceits with the which Egidius Hunnius proceedeth perulantly to corrupt the doctrine of the Orthodoxall Church 4. Oratio de Incarnatione filij Dei contra impios blasphemos Errores Swinglianorum Caluinisturum Tubingae 1586. An Oration or Discourse of the Incarnation of the Sonne of God against the wicked blasphemous Errours of the Swinglians and the Caluinists 5. Aegidij Hunnij Caluinus Iudaicans Hoc est Iudaicae Glossae corruptelae quibus Ioannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae sacra loca testimonia de gloriosa Trinitate Deitate Christi spiritus Sancti Cum primiâ— autem vaticinia Prophetarum de Aduentu Messiae natiuitate eius Passione Resurrectione Ascensione ad Caelos Sestiane ad Dexiram Dei detestandum in modum corrumpere non abhorruit Wittembergae 1593. Caluinus Iudâ—iâ—ans written by Egidius Humnius That is a declaration of the Iudaicall expositions and falsifications with the which Iohn Caluin was not afraid detustâ—â—bly to corrupt the most cleare places and testimonies of Holy Scripture against the glorious Trinity the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost As also the Prophesies touching the Incarnation of the Messias his Natiuity Passion Resurrection Ascension to Heauen and his sitting at the right hand of God 6. Pia defensio aduersus Ioannis Caluini Petri Boquini Theodori Bezae Willielmi Clebitij c. similium Calumnias Item Refutatio Pelagiani seu Anabaptistici Caluinistarum Erroris de Baptismo peccato Originali Adduntur Collectanea plurimoruÌ„ Caluins contra Deum eius Prouâ—dentiam Praedestinationem Printed Errordiae 1583. A godly Defence against the Calumnies or deceits of Iohn Caluin Peter Boquinus Theodorus Beza Willielmus Clebitius and such others c. Also a Refutation of the Pelagian or Anabaptisticall errour of the Caluinists concerning Baptisme and Originall sinne Here are also adioyned certaine Collections out of Caluin against God and his Prouidence and Predestination 7. Veritatis Victoria ruina Papatus Saxonici Printed Losannae 1563. The Victory of the Truth and the ruine of the Papacy of Saxony 8. Conradi Schlusselburgi Theologiae Caluinisticae libri tres in quibus seu in tabula quadam quasi ad oculum plusquam ex ducentis viginti triâ—us Sacramentariorum publicis scriptis pagellis verbis proprijs Authorum Nominibus indicatis demonstratur eos de nullo ferè Christianae Fidei articulo rectè sentire Francoforti 1594. Three bookes written by Conradus Schlusselburg touching Caluinisticall Diuinity in which as in a table to the very eye is demonstrated from more then two hundred twenty three publike writings of the Sacramentaries with setting downe the pages their owne words and the Names of the Authors that the Caluinists do scarsly belieue truly any one Article of Christian Fayth 9. Argumentorum Obiectorum de praecipuis articulis doctrinae Christianae cum Responsionibus quae sunt collecta ex scriptis Philippi Melancthonis additis scholijs illustrantibus vsum singularum responsionum partes septem Neap oli 1578. Seauen partes or Heades touching the Arguments and Obiections of the principall articles of Christian Religion with their Answeres Which Answeres are gathered out of the writings of Philipp Melancthon with the illustration of the vse of all the Answeres 10. Responsio triplex ad Fratres Tubingenses triplex eorum scriptum de tribus grauissimiâ— Quaestionibus de Coena Domini de Maiestate hominis Christi de non damnandis Ecclesijs Dei nec auditis nec vocatis Geneuae 1582. A threefould Answere to the brethren of Tubing and their threefould writing touching three most weighty Questions to wit of the supper of our Lord of the Maiesty of Christs as man and of not condemning the Churches of God before they be heard and called to answere for themselues 11. Gulielmi Zepperi Dillenbergensis Ecclesia Pastoris Institutio de tribus Religionis summis Capitibus quae inter Euangelicos in Controuersiam vocantur Hanoniae 1596. An Institution or Discourse made by Gulielmus Zepperus Pastour of the Church of Dillinberg concerning three chiefe Heades or points of Religion which are called into Controuersy by the Professours of the Gospell 12. Apologia ad omnes Germaniae Ecclesias reformatas quae sub Swingliani Caluiniani Nominis inuidia vim iniuriam patiuntur Tiguri 1578. An Apology to all the reformed Churches of Germany the professours whereof suffer wrong and iniury vnder the title of being Swinglians or Caluinists 13. Ad Ioannis Brentij argumenta Iacobi Andreae Theses quibus Carnis Christi omni-praesentiam nituntur confirmare Id est aduersum renouatos Nestorij Eutichetis Errores responsum Geneuae 1570. An Answere to the arguments of Iohn Brentius and to the Theses of Iacobus Andreas by the which they labour to confirme the omni-presence of Christs Flesh That is against the reuiued Errours of Nestorius and Eutiches 14. Colloqui Montisbelgardensis inter Iacobum Andream Theodorum Bezam Acta Tubingae 1584. The Acts of the Conference at Mont-belgard betweene Iacobus Andreas and Theodorus Beza 15. Christophori Pezelij Apologia verae doctrinae de definitione Euangelij apposita Thrasonicit prastigijs Ioannis Wigandi Wittembergae 1572. An Apology of Christopher Pezelius touching the true doctrine of the definition of the Gospell opposed against the Thrasonicall and boasting sleights and impostures of Ioannes Wigandus 16. Hamelmannia siue Aries Theologizans Dialogus appositus duabus Narrationibus Historicis Hamelmanni Neostadij 1582. Hamelmannia Or a Theologizing Ramme being a Dialogue impugning two historicall Narrations of Hermannus Hamelmannus 17. Hieremiae Victoris vera dilucida demonstratio quod Swingliani Caluinistae nunquam se subiecerunt Confessioni Augustanae exhibita Carolo Quinto Anno 1530. Germ. Francofurti 1591. A true and euident Demonstration prouing that the Swinglians and the Caluinists did neuer submit themselues to the Confession of Augusta exhibited in tyme of Charles the Fifth 18. Christiani Kittelmanni decem graues perniciosi Errores Swinglianorum in doctrina de peccatis Baptismo ex proprijs eorum libris Collecti refutati Madelburgi 1592. Ten weighty and pernicious Errours of the Swinglians concerning the doctrine of sinne Baptisme being taken out of their owne Bookes and refuted by Christianus Kittelmanus 19. Responsio ad scriptum quod Theologi Bremenses aduersus Collectores Apologiae formula Concordiae publicarunt Lipsiae 1585. An answere to the writing which the Deuines of Brema published against the Collectours of the Apology of the forme of Concord 20. Ioannis Mosellani Praeseruatiua contra venenum Swinglianorum Tubingae 1586. A Preseruatiue of Ioannes Mossellanus
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
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
that the Apostles did Baptâ—ze Infants nor any expresse precept there found that they should so do M Hooker (k) Eccles pol. l. 2 sect 7. p. 1â—8 is so full in acknowledging the Doctrine of Traditions as that he maketh speciall answere to the Fathers obiected against Traditions by diuers Protestants D. (l) In his Defence pag. 539. Whitguift proueth most fully the Tradition of Easter day from the Apostles D Couell affirmeth to vse his owne words that the (m) In his Answere to Iohn Burges pag. 130. moderate vse of the Crosse is an Apostolicall Constitution The said D. Couell doth also refer the word of Archbishop vnto (n) In his Exâ—minat against thâ— Plea of the Innocent c 9. pag. 104. Apostolicall ordination The alteration of the Sabaoth from Saturday to Sunday is acknowledged by the Deâ—tines of Geneua to set downe their owne words for (o) In their Propositions and Principles pag. 80. sect 13. an Apostolicall Tradition to be perpetually obserued Of the same iudgment touching the change of the Sabaoth day to omit others is Vrsinus the great Protestant saying Hanc (p) In Doctrinae Christian Compend in Prolegom pag 36. esse Apostolicam Traditionem credimus For greater breuity I will conclude with M. Hooker and D. Whitaker touching Canonicall Scripture of which point M. Hooker thus discourseth Of (q) Eccles pol. l. 1. sect 14. pag. 86. things necessary the very chiefe is to know what bookes we are bound to esteeme holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach So he referring it to Tradition D. Whitaker speaking of the same subiect thus writeth Canonicall Scripture is not (r) Aduers Stapleton l 2. cap. 6. pag. 170. l. 2. c. 4. pag. 1â—0 tryed by testimony of spirit but by the Ecclesiasticall Tradition c. Thus far touching different iudgments of Protestants concerning the Doctrine of Traditions The XIII Paragraph TOuching the Sacraments no lesse are their DisagreemeÌ„ts And first touching the number of them whereas most Protestants acknowledge but two Sacraments to wit Baptisme and the Eucharist yet the Protestant Deuines assembled at Ratisbone anno 1541. do teach in that their Conference that there are seauen Sacraments of which point Bucer complayneth saying (s) Bâ—cer 〈◊〉 Art Colloq Râ—â—isbâ—n Protestantes non grauatim admiserunt septem sacramenta The Protestants meaning at their meeting at Ratisbone haue not vnwillingly admitted or approued seauen Sacraments In like sort the number of seauen Sacraments is taught by the Protestant Deuines in their Conference at Lypsia where they were assembled This is auerred by (t) Illyric in adhâ—rtatione ad Constantiam in aguita Christi râ—ligion printed in 8. Magdeburgae 1550 paulâ— post initium paulo post medium Illiricus 2. That the knowne Intention of the Church is necessary to the administration of the Sacraments is denyed by certaine English (u) In their Christ Let. to M. Hooker pag. 29. 30. Protestants condemning M. Hooker for mantayning the contrary Opinion as appeareth out of M. Hookers owne (x) Eccles pol. l. 3â— â— sect â—3â— pâ— 120. writings As also the same Doctrine is mantayned by D. Couell (y) In his Defence of M. Hooker p. 10â— and almost by all moderate English Protestants And yet it is so condemned by Luther as that D. Couell (*) D. Couel in his Defence of M Hooker Art 5. p. 101. The same is auerred of Luther by Hospinian in his Histor Sacrament part altera fol. 14. chargeth Luther with teaching That the Sacraments are effectuall though administred by Satan himselfe 3. That certaine Sacraments do imprint an indeleble character in the Receauers of them is denied by M. Willet (z) In Synop. p. 419. and by most Puritan Protestants yet affirmed by D. Couell (a) In his Defence of M. Hooker pag. 87 â—1 and by M. Hooker who is reprehended therein by M. Willet (b) In his Meditation vpon 122 Psalm printed 16â—3 p. â—1 In like sort it is affirmed by most moderate Protestants 4. That Sacraments do not only signify but also confer grace is affirmed by Melancthon who thus writeth thereof (c) In c. 4. Epist ad Roman after the first Edition Repudianda est Swinglij opinio qua tantùm ciuili mode indicat de signis c. That Opinion of Swinglius is to be reiected which teacheth that Sacraments are only Netes and signes of our Profession The same is also mantayned affirmatiuely by Osiander (d) In Eucheirid coher 〈◊〉 fiar quas Augustanae Confessionis Theologi habene cum Caluinianis p. 27â— D. Whitaker (e) Contra Duraeum l. 8. p. â—61 664 M Hooker (f) Eccles polic l. 5. sect 57. p. 226. 527. D. Bilson (g) In his true Difference part 4. pag. 539. 5â—â— 368. and many others yet it is denyed reiected for Popish by D. Fulke (h) Against Purgatory pag. 35. M. Willet (i) In his Synops p. 415. who (k) In his meditation vpon the 122. Psalm pag. 92. reprehendeth some Pâ—o â—stants for their mantayning the coÌ„trary Doctrine by the Suruey (l) Pag. 103. 104. of the booke of Common Prayer and by most English Puritans The XIV Paragraph 1. TO speake particularly of the Sacrament of Baptisme Luther houldeth Baptisme to be of no force thus writing Si habes (m) Luther l. de Captiuit Babilon benè c. If thou be Baptized it is well if thou wantest it no losse Belieue and thoâ—â—ri saued before thou be baptized And Caluin (n) Lib 4. Iustin cap. 15. 〈◊〉 7. prizeth Baptisme at no higher worth then the Ceremony thereof performed by S. Iohn Baptist And of the same iudgment are the (o) Cent. 2. c. 4. Centurists thus writing before we will ascribe any Operation to the Sacrament of Baptisme we will mantayne that Infants haue Fayth by which they are saued And according here to Luther thus concludeth It is (p) Luth. aduers Coeâ—â—â—um better to omit the baptising of an Infant since his oblation if he do not belieue is vnprofitable The same opinion of the inefficacy of Baptisme to omit Caluin Beza c. teaching the same is mantayned by most Puritanes And conspiringly hereto D Whitaker as is aboue alledged thus teacheth We (q) Contâ—â— 4.9 â—2 pag. 716. may abstayne from Baptisme if there be no contempt or scandall following Now that there are other Protestants who ascribe an Efficacy to Baptisme is euident for we fynd that to the Children of the Faythfull dying vnbaptized saluation is not promised to be taught by the Confession of Ausburg (r) In the Harmony pag. 403. by D. Bilson (s) In his true Difference part 4. pag. 36â— by Vrbanus (t) â—n 1. part operum Catech minor fol. 105. Regius the learned Protestant by (u) In loc Common 238. 239. c. Sarcerius the Protestant by the (x) Pag. 16 Conference
before King Iames and finally by the most of the more temperate Protestants 2. Againe whereas all Protestants for the most part do vse in Baptizing of Children these precise and particular words I baptize thee in the name of the Father the sonne the Holy Ghost there are diuers other Protestants who teach that no particular forme of words is necessary thereto For first Luther mantayneth that Baptisme is auayleably ministred in what words soeuer so that as sayth he the (y) Tom. 2. Wittenberg in 〈◊〉 de Captiuit Babilon c. 〈◊〉 Baptism fol. 75. same be not in the name of Man but of God The same thing of not vsing any peculiar and set forme of words is taught by (z) In Catechis cap. de Baptismo Brentius by Swinglius who thus writeth (a) Swing tom 2 l. de Baptism fol. 〈◊〉 Christus Baptismi formulam quâ vteremur his verbis non iustituit c. Christ did not ordayne that forme of Baptisme in words which we 〈◊〉 vse as the Deuines hither to haue falsly deliuered Finally the same is iustifyed by many other Protestants ouer long here to be set downe 3. To conclude Baptisme in tyme of Necessity ministred by lay Persons and Women it iustified warranted by Schlusselburge (b) In Theoâ—og Caluinist l. â— fol 68. 61. by M. Hooker (c) L. 5. sect â—1 pag. 137. by D. Couel (d) In his Defence of M. Hooker p. 518. by Iacobus (e) In Epitom Colloq Montisbelgar pa. 64. Andraas and by diuers others Yet it it impugned by D. Willet (f) In his Synops p. 4â—2 by Caluin (g) So is Caluin alledged by Schlusselburg in Theolog. Caluinist l. 1. fol. 60. 61. and infinite others Thus far touching the great Dissentions of the Protestants concerning the Doctrine of the Sacraments both in generall and in particular The XV. Paragraph IN this next place I will examine the like disagreements of our Aduersaries touching the Doctrine of Freewill Predestination and Reprobation And to begin with Freewill That most Protestants as Caluin Beza infinite others deny Freewill in Man is ouer euident therefore needlesse it were to insist in their Authorities words therein Therefore I will alledge some other eminent Protestants contrary to their former brethrens iudgments teaching and maintayning the Doctrine of Freewill And first I alledge Castalio the learned Caluinist as iustifying Freewill in Man most vehemently to charge Beza for falsly translating and corrupting the first Chapter of S. Iohns Gospell a place aboue by me alledged in deniall of Freewill touching the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth Liberty or Freedom and yet translated by Beza Dignity thereby to weaken this place for the proofe of Freewill of which his translating Castalio thus complayneth The (h) In Defence Translat pag. 183. word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here vsed signifieth Power but neuer Dignity Now seeing Beza would not haue that Christians should haue this power from Christ what other thing is this then to enuy at the benefits of Christ bestowed vpon Christians Molinaus the remarkable Protestant is so great a defendour of Freewill as that Peter Martyr thus rebuketh him Molinaeus (i) In his Epistles annexed to his Common places Englished In his Epistle to Caluin adiudgeth certaine things amisse touching Free-will M. Perkins though at other tymes may seeme to impugne Freewill yet in the close he thus expresly writeth (k) In his reformed Catholike pag. 26. Because God giues men Commandement to repent and belieue therefore they haue power to repent and belieue God with his (l) Vbi supra pa. 5â— commandement giuing grace that the thing prescribed may be done D. Willet aduerse to the Doctrine of Freewill doth charge Hemingius and Snecanus Protestants of note for their defending of the Doctrine of Freewill in these words They (m) In his Synops pag. 808. 810. meaning the two former Protestants are more erroneous concerning Freewill then are the Papists M. Hooker thus writeth of Freewill (n) Eccles polic l. 5. p. 101. Distributiuely at the least all grieuous actuall offences may be auoyded so that in this sense to be preserued from all sinne it is not impossible which words necessarily implye freedome of will With M. Hooker accords D. Couell (o) In defence of M. Hooker c. art 5. herein To be briefe the Doctrine of Freewill is in like sort taught by (p) Ceut 16. p. 814. Osiander the Protestant and by some Protestants recorded by M. Fox (q) Act. Mon. pag. 1533. 1605. The XVI Paragraph TO come to the Doctrine of Reprobation and Predestination Beza thus writeth of this point (r) In his treatise englished and intituled A display of Popish practises p. 17. 38. God doth create some men to perdition appointeth and decreeth them to his hatred and destruction And thereupon he teacheth that God (s) In respons ad act Colloq Montisbel p. 285. 2â—1 did not suffer death for such men With whom agreeth Caluin thus teaching or rather blaspheming God (t) Instit. l. 3. c 13. sect 6. doth ordayne by his Counsell and decree that among men some be borne destined to certaine Damnation from their Mothers Wombe who by their destruction may glorify God with these former conspireth M. Willet thus saying God (u) In Synops pag. 554. hath ordayned some to be vessells of wrath without any respect had to their Works either Good or Bad. And hereupon Peter Martyr concludeth thus Sinnes (x) In his Common Places part 3. pag. 12. foreseene are not the cause of Reprobation Now see how these are crossed and impugned by a whole army of other learned Protestants both Lutherans Caluinists their brethren For first to begin with the Lutherans (y) In respons Beza ad Colloq Montisbelg part altera pag. 251. Iacobus Andreas Conradus Schlusselburg (z) In Theolog. Cald. l. 1. art 12. Kempnitius (a) In Eucheirid pag. 158. The (b) In the harmony of Confessions in English pag. 268. 269. Confession of Ausburg The Century (c) In loc Comm. pag. 140. writers and finally to omit diuers other Lutherans euen Melancthon himselfe though for a time in the beginning he maintayned the contrary Doctrine do iointly reiect this former doctrine of Reprobation To come to Caluinists M. Hooker thus writeth (d) Eccles polic pag. 104. Gods generall inclination is that all men might be saued D Couel God hath (e) In his Defence of M. Hooker p. 62. 63. a generall inclination to saue all men c. And that with a conditionall Will he willeth all men to be saued Who therefore that they are not saued is not his decree but their owne fault M. Fox is also full herein thus teaching (f) In Apocalyps pag. 473. Seeing the benefit of Redemption which taketh away the sinnes of the world is an vniuersall thing It is demanded whether the
conclude with deniall of the Doctrine of rowes contrary to the iudgments of the former aboue alledged Protestants First then Peter Martyr writeth a booke against single life and vowes stiling it de Calibatu voâ—is In like sort Swinglius sayth (o) Part. 1. in explanat art 30. fol. 6â— Concerning vowes I say that all vowes are abolished by Christs comming To whose iudgment herein subscribes Bullinger (p) In his Decads in English pag 380. saying Vowes belong to the Iewish Ceremonies of the same mind is D. Fulke (q) In his Retentiue to Bristowes Motiues pag. 153. and diuers others Thus much concerning the great discrepancy and diuersity of the Protestants among themselues touching the Doctrine of Good Workes and of Vowes The XVIII Paragraph IN this place I will display the Protestants like difference touching Sinne and the Nature thereof And first concerning what Sinne is Not only all Catholikes but also many learned Protestants teach that Sinne in its owne Nature is a meere Non Ens or only Priuation of what should be and therefore God neuer made Sinne who made only Entia And hereupon the said both Catholiks and Protestants conclude that sinne as being a Non Ens or priuation hath no Efficient but only a Deficient cause I will alledge Peter Martyr thus discoursing of this point An (r) Peter Martyr in loc Comm. places in English part 1. cap. 17. sect 12. pag. 1â—4 Euill thing and such is sinne hath no efficient but a deficient cause If any will search out this efficient cause it is euen like as if he would see the darknes with his eyes or comprehend silence with his eares which being Priuations it is no need that they should haue efficient causes Thus Peter Martyr with whom conspire herein Szegedinus (s) Szegedinus Loc. Com. pag. 230. and Keckermannus (t) In his Systema sacrae Theologiae l. 2 p. 248. 249. c. both remarkable Protestants besides diuers others Now other Protestants meerely crossing these former do seuerally teach hereof for D. Whitaker (u) Whit. contra Campian rat 8. teacheth Sinne to be an Accident or Quality But Illyricus (x) Illyricus varijs libris de peccato Originali the chiefe of the Magdeburgenses affirmes sinne to be a Substance See also Heshusius hereof in Epist ad Illyricum An peccatum sit substantia See also Piscator hereof in volum 1. Thesaur Theologic l. 7. p. 169. sect 104. And according hereto the foresaid Illyricus in the place next aboue alledged defineth Originall sinne to be after the fall of Adam the internall substance which the Deuill doth worke or cause and which he transformeth into himselfe 2. Concerning the distinction of Sinne into Veniall and Mortall sinne All the Protestants do admit this distinction in words but in the explication of this Distinction they maynely differ For most of the more forward Protestants teach that this Difference of sinne lyeth not in the diuersity of the sinnes themselues but in the diuersity of the partyes committing them According hereto Musculus the pryme Protestant thus writeth (y) Musculus in loc Com. de peccato sect 5. de discrimine peccati venia is mortalis pag. 28. Sciendum est magis in hac causa personas peccantium quam ipsa peccata esse considerandas We are to know that in this point rather the persons of such as sinne then the sinnes themselues are to be considered And hence it riseth that many Protestants teach to wit to omit others Caluin and Doctour Fulke that All sinnes how great soeuer to the Faythfull Professours are (z) So teach Caluin Instit l 2. c. 4. sect 28. D. Fulke against the Rhemiâ—h Testam in Epist Ioan fol. 447. Veniall and to others M. Willet (a) M. Willet in his Synops. p. 560. and Musculus (b) Musculus in loc cem pag. 28. affirme all sinnes how small soeuer are mortall And vpon this ground are builded Luthers words No (c) Luth. in his Sermons Englished printed anno 1578. pag. 167. worke it disalowed of God except the Authour thereof be disalowed before But now contrary to this explication of the former distinction most of the more sober Protestants teach that this distinction of Sinne is in one and the same Person and therefore they place this diuersity of Sinne to consist in the disparity of the sinnes themselues and not in the diuersity of the Persons committing the said sinnes This is taught by Iacobus Andraeas so alledged and reprehended by Beza (d) In respons ad 〈◊〉 Colloq Montisbesgar p. 64. The same doctrine is further iustifyed by (e) In Ceâ—cil Theol. pag. 546. Melancthon by Adamus (f) In his Margarit Theol. pag. 469. Francisci by Hemingius (g) In Encheirid pag. 103. printed Londini anno 1577. and to pretermit many others by the (h) Pag. 80 70. Harmony of Confessions That all sinnes are equall is maintayned by Caluin (i) Caluin in Antidot Concil Trident. by Wicliff (k) Wiclef apud Waldens l. de Sacrament c. 1â—4 and some ohers yet contradicted herein by Doctour Whitaker (l) D. Whitaker contra Campian in rat â— and almost all the more temperate Protestants I will next descend to that Doctrine maintayned by some Protestants though wholy reiected by others who teach that no sinne is hurtfull to that man who belieueth And first we fynd Luther thus to write A Christian (m) Luth in tom 2. Wittenberg de Captiuit Babilon fol. 74. or Baptized person is so rich that although he would he cannot losâ— his saluation by any sinne how great soeuer vnlesse he will not belieue And further Luther thus reacheth As (n) Luth. in loc Coâ—naelass 25. c. 27. nothing iustifyeth but Fayth so nothing sinneth but vnbeliefe Others according here to teach that sinnes are not hurtfull to him that belieueth for thus D. Whitaker writes as is aboue noted Nos dicimus si quis actum fidei habeat c. We (x) D. Whitak de Eccles contra Bellarm. Controu 2. q. 3. pag. â—01 maimayne that if a man doth exercise an act of fayth to that man sinne is not hurtfull D. Fulke teacheth thus When Dauid (y) D. Fulke in the Tower disputat with Edm. Camp the second dayes confereÌ„ce committed adultery he was and remayned the child of God Yea they further teach thus saying He that (z) See this in Epitom Colloq Montisbilgar pa. 44. 48. once truly belieues cannot after fall from the grace of God or lose his Fayth by his Adultery or any other like sinnes Others againe say thus Sinne is (a) So sayth M. Wotton in his answere to the late Popish Articles pag. 9â— pardoned as soone as it is committed Finally to omit many other such like sentences and authorities of them they thus conclude When (b) See this in Act. Mon. pag. 1338. we sinne we diminish not the glory of God all the danger in our
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
themselues Petra Scandali who to all good Christians is Lapis angulularis 7. Touching the Diuersity of Persons which are included within the members of the Protestant Church aboue defended by some Protestants and denyed by others Their disagreements are so vncertaine as that some admit Papists Anabaptists Arians Heretâ—kes Infidells yea by supposall Antichrist himselfe So making their Church to consist of certaine mungreâ—l Persons whereas other Protestants do exclude all these kinds from being members of the Protestant Church Now I say their irresolution and vncertainty of Iudgment is so wonderfull herein as that no Protestant can assure himselfe with what kind of men he may communicate in practise of Fayth Religion and from what men he ought to abstayne in all such spirituall entercourse and association 8. Touching the deniall of Freewill the certainty of Reprobation and of Predestination and both without any reference to our good or bad works Contrary to other learned Protestants Iudgments How do all these Doctrines most forcibly impell men to the perpetrating of the most flagitious crymes whatsoeuer Seeing vpon these their grouÌ„ds granting them by supposall for true they may iustly Apologize for themselues First that they are to be pardoned in all such their Enormous actions seeing they had not Free-will to forbeare the committing of them punishment euen in force of Reason belongeth to such only in whose power it is to do or not to do such or such a wicked thing Secondly they may Reply that seeing by their former Doctrines of Predestination and Reprobation a vicious lyfe is no way preiudiciall to a mans predestination not a vertuous life for the preuenting of ReprobatioÌ„ why may they not then liue yea become thrall to all pleasure voluptuousnes sensuality without any remorse or sting of CoÌ„science Againe by their sayd Doctrines of Predestination and Reprobation we yearely see many most lamentable Tragedies of diuers shortning their owne dayes by violent deaths wrought by their owne Hands some euen butchering themselues through a vayne hope and expectation of ariuing the sooner to Heauen And others agayne perpetrating the lyke through a most wicked and desperate conceyt of their Reprobation that it is not in their power concurring with Gods grace to preuent it so forgetful these men are of those most comfortable words of holy Scripture (i) Ezech. 18.31.32 Cast away all your transgressions c. for I desire not the death of him that dyeth This speaketh he who hath placed his (1) Psalm 18. Tabernacle in the Sunne and who himselfe being Sol increatus is not inexorable but wil lend a willing eare to him who hath true penitency of his sinnes saying to such Deleui (2) Isa 44. vt nubem iniquitates tuas quasi nebulam peccata tua 9. In lyke sort touching their Doctrines that good workes are not auaylable towards IustificatioÌ„ nor are respected by God nor sinnes or bad workes any way exitiall or hurtfull to Saluation as also that Tenet of diuers Protestants that God is the Authour of all our Sinnes what a sluce and fludgate do these Doctrines open to all turpitude in maÌ„ners and Conuersation For seeing it is nauseous and vngratefull to mans nature to weary himselfe out in the exercise of a vertuous lyfe if such a life as wanting all pleasing motiues thereto be no wayes beneficiall to his Soule as on the contrary most sweet to man to liue in all voluptuousnes pleasure and Iouialisme if so this course cannot be in any sort dangerous to him and this the more seeing he is indoctrinated by diuers Protestants that what sinnes are coÌ„mitted by him God is the Authour of them himselfe but Gods bare instrument therein they by such their beliefe running vpon the Dint of those words spoken by the Psalmist in the Person of God (l) Psalm 128. supra dorsum meuÌ„ fabricauerunt peccatores As if I would say they haue transferred the committing of their sinnes euen vpon me Thus they making God who dyed for sinne to be the Patrone of sinne 10. The Doctrine of Polygamy and Diuorce according to Swinglius and others most different from the iudgment of other Protestants how doth it sow the seeds of dissention betweene husband and wyfe to repudiate one the other and to part a sunder vpon the least dislike or discontent on eyther side boâ—h of them to mary againe they being warranted by this Doctrine to take vpon occasion of such discontents as many wyues and husbands as they will so both the parties liuing after their first Diuorce in a continuall state of Adultery and begetting and bringing forth seuerall broods of bastards 11. The Positions of some Protestants aboue alledged that no Princes or Magistrates are now to be in the tymes of the new Testament ingendreth nothing but a tumultuous Anarchy intestine simulties warrs and Traiterous insurrections of the Subiects against their Prince threating vipar-lyke an vtter euisceration of their owne Country And woe be to that Nation or Realme which nourisheth such Monsters of sedition and disloyalty and which placeth all Soueraingty and Principality in the common people the many Headed-Tyrant of Mankind since the certaine euent thereof will be that a mans owne Country shall finally become a Golgathae or field of bloud And with this my Pen giues it last pause to this short discourse AN APPENDIX In which is proued First that the ancient Fathers by the acknowledgements of the learned Protestants taught our Catholike and Roman Fayth Secondly that the said Fathers haue diuers aduantages aboue the Protestant Writers for fynding out the true sense of the Scripture WHEREAS in this former Treatise I meane in the tenth Paragraph we haue shewed how most Protestants do contemne the ancient Fathers exercising their fomy language in the eiuculation of most gaulfull words agaynst them though the sayd Fathers be by other more moderate Protestants respected reuerenced Now heere in this short Appendix I thinke it to be much conuenient First to shew the reason more particularly why the Protestants do rest disaffected agaynst the Fathers It being though aboue in part intimated in that it is ackowledged by the ProtestaÌ„ts themselues that all the Articles of Catholike Religion were with an Vniformity of Iudgment belieued taught and practised by the sayd Fathers in those most pure tymes Secondly I will make it euident euen with seuerall choaching Reasons why euery Christian Man solicitous of entertayning a true faith should prefer the ancient Fathers in the ExpositioÌ„ of the Scriptures from whence they draw of theirs and our Catholike fayth and Religion before the different or contrary expositions of them giuen by the ProtestaÌ„t Doctours The discouery of which later Point shall rest in setting down diuers conducing and auaylable Circumstances in behalf of the Fathers but altogether preiudiciall and incompetent to the Protestants Which two former Points shall be the Subiect of this short Appendix Now to begin with the first I meane in