our said Religion For why should their iudgments agree with the Catholike Church therein but that the force of the Truth constrayneth them thereto and therefore it is truly said of D. Whitaker The (e) Whitak contra Bellarm. l. de Eccles Controuers 2. q. 5. c. 14. argument must be strong and efficacious which is taken from the Confessions of the Aduersaries And I do freely acknowledge that Truth is able to extort testimonies euen from its Enemies Whose Sentence herein is agreable to the iudgment of Irenaeus thus writing It is (f) Lib. 4. c. 14 an vnanswerable prooffe that bringeth attestation from the Aduersaries themselues And further it may be inferred that seeing most Protestants do reiect the Doctrine of Traditions that therefore those Protestants who are related aboue to giue an assent to our Catholike Positions do consequently belieue that the said Articles are most agreeable to the Holy Scriptures seeing these Protestants will belieue nothing as matter of Fayth but what hath its proofe from Scripture 4. A Fourth is their reiecting of parts of true Scripture and their contentions touching the seuerall translations of confessed Scripture Now it bring once granted that it is not certainly knowne what bookes be Scripture and that all translations of Scripture yet extant are false how preiudiciall must this be to the Protestants who erect the Scripture alone for the sole Iudge of all Controuersies in Fayth Seeing admitting that the Scripture should be this Iudge yet this is to be vnderstood of those writings which are infallibly Diuine Scripture and are truly and faythfully translated Since otherwise such bookes of the Bibles which are Spurious and not the true Word of God and such Translations of true Scripture which are adulterated and made contrary to the Sense of the Holy Ghost therein should become this Iudge And thus it followeth that the Protestants till this day euen by their owne implicit Censure neuer enioyed a true Iudge for the decyding of Controuersies in sayth 5. Touching the imaginary facility in fynding out the true sense of the Scripture iustifyed not only by some learned Protestants but also by euery silly Puritanicall Woman and Mechanicall fellow that can out read vanting themselues to be as it were possessed with the Holy Ghost how dangerously doth this assertion lye open to the defence of any Heresy I will here set downe some few Texts wherof the literall words may seeme to iustify strang Errours and Heresies so certaine Drugs taken in their grosse substance are hurtfull to a mans health which being extracted become most medicinable The texts shal be these 1. The King of Kings and Lord of Lords who only hath Immortality 1. Timoth. c. 6. Now from this place one might seeme to argue that since God alone is immortall the soule of Man is not immortall but dyeth with the body an Atheisticall blasphemy 2. He that striketh thee on the Cheeke offer also the other and him that taketh away thy Cloake forbid not to take thy Coate also Luke 6. Which words of our Sauiour seeme to implye that we must offer vpon such an occasion the other cheeke to be strocken and suffer our Coate to be taken away with our Cloake And if we do not this we sinne since it is a sinne not to obserue the precept of Christ 3. Call no man your Father vpon earth Math. 23. c. Which words seeme to sound that the sonne ought not to call that man which begot him Father 4. Yf any man come to me and hateth not his Father and mother and Wyfe and brethren and sisters c. he cannot be my Disciple Luc. 14. Here the naked words sound that whereas in the ten Commandements we are taught to honour our Father and mother as also obliged to loue our wyues and friends yet here the next way to serue Christ truly is to hate our Parents our Wyues other our nearest Friends 5. Vanum est vobis ante lucem surgere Psalm 126. It is but vayne for you to ryse before it he light thus it seemes a man ought not to ryse before Sunne-rising A good pretence for sluggards 6. Melchisedech King of Salem c. Without Father without mother without Genealogy hauing neither beginning of Dayes or end of Lyfe Hebr. 7. A text from whence if one rest only in the naked Words an illiterate man may seeme to euict that this Melchisedech being a man is neuerthelesse as it were another God as neither hauing beginning nor ending as being sempiternall And also that he is another Adam as not begotten by any Carnall Copulation 7. I do accomplish those things quae desunt passionum Christi that want of the Passions of Christ in my flesh for his body which is the Church Colos 1. From whence the poore Puritan-Reader might be induced to thinke that the Apostle did here speake no lesse then blasphemy as intimating that something were wanting or defectiue in the Passion of Christ which himselfe was to fullfill and make perfect 8. Lastly to turne my Pen more particularly to our She-ignorant Puritans who by carrying the Bible they thinke they can vnderstand any part thereof Now how would these ignorant Fooles vnderstand this text against themselues Melior est iniquitas viri quam mulier benefaciens The Iniquity or wickednes of a man is better then a Woman doing good Ecclesiast 42. by which words the Puritan-Woman must be forced to confesse vnderstanding the words as they simply lye that a man fraught with all wickednes is to be preferred before herselfe who seemes to be full of the spirit and the written word Thus far these few examples for instance sake to the which many hundred more may be adioyned All which are most true in the sacred and intended sense of the Holy Ghost yet they conuince that the Scriptures are not of that facility and easines for the perfect vnderstanding of them as diuers Protestants alledged towards the beginning of this Treatise merely contrary to the more graue iudgments of other Protestants their brethren do make shew to teach 6. In this next place we may call to mynd what Indignity and dishonour that most blasphemous and miscreant Opinion and Sentence of Swinglius and his Companions as so many Charons seruing to wast soules ouer to Hell do offer to the Christian Fayth by teaching as is aboue shewed most differently from all their owne Christian Protestant Brethren That a man though not belieuing in Christ so that he lead not a wicked lyfe may be saued For who houldeth this for true litle pryseth the Passion of Christ they being in the number of those of whom it is said They deny (g) 1. Petr. 2. him that bought them the Lord bringing vpon themselues speedy Damnation So forgetfulll they are of that other sacred Sentence There is no (h) Iohn 1. other Name vnder Heauen giuen vnto men then that of Iesus wherein we must be saued And thus these men make him to become to
of the said Catholike Doctrines or otherwise by their deniall of them they did cease to be members of the said Church of God Cum (z) Cyprian l. Vnitate Ecclesiae Deo manere non possunt qui in Ecclesia Dei vnanimes esse noluerunt Now to descend to the secoÌ„d Part of this Appendix which is touching the Comparison made betweene the ancient Fathers and the Protestant Doctours and Wryters for the fynding out of the intended sense of the Holy Ghost in the exposition of the sacred Scripture In the consideration of which point I grant I am finally moued to a iust and warrantable Anger since the want thereof vpon so vrgent an occasion might well be reputed but stupidity and an insensiblenes of the indignities and wrongs offered to those blessed and happy Saints Therefore let the Reader pardon me if I here sharpen my Pen which can hardly spend its inke vpon a more worthy and noble subiect and if I become somewhat more luxuriant in defence of these Champions of Christ his Church vpon whom diuers Protestants as in the former Treatise is shewed do euen showre downe infinit words of reproach contumely and do throwe vpon their honorable Memories the durte and filth of their owne most intemperate and gaulefull Language But first I thinke it conuenient to take away the vulgar stumbling-Block which most of our Aduersaries haue layed betweene the Truth and the eyes of the ignorant and credulous Protestant Which is as the Protestants most wrongfully and to themselues consciously suggest That seing the Scripture as being the vndoubted Word of God is to be aduanced before the Authority of the Fathers they being but men and seeing the Protestants say they relye only vpon Scripture the Fathers vpon their owne and oâ—her humane Authorities Why then should not the Scripture be pryzed aboue the Authorities of the said Fathers Now to dispell and dissipate this weake smoake from the Eyes of the Ignorant I do auer this their answere to be a mere Elench of Fallacy called by the Logitians Petitio Principij since here it is falsly presumed that the Protestants do relye only vpon the true sense of the Scripture and the Fathers do reiect the Scripture Whereas indeed the Fathers with all Reuerence and honour do affect the Scripture and most humbly submit themselues to it And therefore the life and touch of the doubt in this point only consisteth To wit whether the Fathers who buyld the Articles of their Fayth vpon the Scriptures are to be preferred before the Protestants interpreting the said Scriptures in a contrary Sense And thus the Antithesis or opposition is here to be made not betweene the Fathers and the Scripture as our Aduersaries do calumniously pretend but betwene the Constructions giuen by the Fathers of certayne Texts of holy Scripture and the different or contrary constructions of the sayd Text giuen by the Protestants The lyke subtility our aduersaries to wit the Centurists D. Whitaker Illyricus and others do vse when the call Catholike doctrines as they are maintained by vs Idolatry Heresies Blasphemies c. thereby to intimate that the Papists are no members of Christs Church which very doctrines as they are taught by the ancient Fathers the Protestants stile but nauos naenia errores c. with intention to shew that the Protestants do not deuide themselues from the Church of which the Fathers were members O incredible and serpentine Craft and Imposture But to launce further in discoursing of the Comparison betweene the Fathers and the Protestants For I hould it my honour to be their poore Aduocate vpon earth and I hope that in their Seraphicall and burning Charity they wil be my Adocate in Heauen and will vouchsafe to intercede to his Diuine Maiesty for the remission of my infinite sinnes and transgressions Heere I say that any true and zealous Christian ought to haue a sensible griefe and religious Resent to see that Saphyrs should be preferred before Diamonds the lowest Shrubs to dare to contend in height with the Cedars of Lybanus vpstart Innouation to take the wall as I may say of reuerend and gray-hayrd Antiquity I meane that Luther Swinglius Melancthon Caluin Beza and such refuse of men should shoulder out of the due Seatâ— of Honour and Authority Austin Ierome Epiphanius the Gregories the Cyrills Basil Ambrose Hylary Optatus Athanasius Cyprian Ephrem Irenaeus Ignatius Polycarpus and diuers other Fathers of those Primitiue and purest tymes But to descend more particularly to the dissecting of this point I hould it most conducing to present to the Readers Eye certaine forcible Circumstances aduantaging the ancient Fathers much aboue the Protestants for the searching and picking out the true and intended sense of the Holy Ghost in the Texts of sacred Writ produced either by the Catholiks or the Protestants Thus I meane to Parallele the Fathers with the ProtestaÌ„ts not as Plutarch did by comparing Worthy Men with Worthy Men but by ballancing the ancient graue and most literate Doctours with certaine Nouellizing and but competently learned Sectaries 1. And to beginne Our first Circumstance may be taken from the different times wherein the Fathers and the former Protestants did liue The Fathers as is knowne florished in those pure tymes neere to Christ and his Apostles when his Spouse I meane his Church remayned intemerate and incontaminate as then not brooking any defiled touch but of one Heretike We may adioyne hereto that in regard of their proximity in tyme to Christ for some of them liued in the (a) Ignatius Dionysius Areopagita liued in the dayes of the Apostles Apostles dayes others in the next (b) Iustinus Martyr Pope Pius Ireneus liued in the second age Origen Tertullian Cyprian c. in the third age Athanasius Hilarius Cyrill of Ierusalem Ambrose Basil Optatus Gregorius Nyssenus Gregorius Nazianzenus Ephrem Epiphanius c. in the fourth Age in which age was celebrated the Councell of Nyce Gaudentius Chrysostome Ierome Austin Cyrill of Alexandria Proclus Constantinopolitanus Theodoret Gelasius Leo Pope Hilarius Eusebius Emyssenus in the fifth age Gregory the Great and Austin our Apostle in the sixt age ensuing ages the true Fayth and Doctrine and consequently the true meaning of the Scripture might well be Paraphrazed by force of Tradition during that short desceÌ„t of the Church ech man receauing from his Predecessour euen from hand to hand the practise of the true Religion so as such Men as then would not acknowledge the splendour of the Catholike Religion in those firster Tymes may well resemble the stars when they are darkened through ouer much light This far of this Circumstance in behalfe of the Fathers from whence we may gather that diuers of them liued a thousand yeares since others more then fifteene hundred But now let vs cast our eye vpon the other End of the Ballance Haue our Protestant Writers beene in Rerum Natura fifteene hundred yeares since Haue they beene a thousand yeares Haue they beene
euideÌ„t that Caluin thus writeth Ante (e) Instit lib. 3. cap 5. sect 10. mille trecentos annos c. More then thirteene hundred yeares since it was receaued that prayers were made for the dead c. But I will graunt those tymes were in errour I wil conclude this point with the Confession of M. Gifford thus writing (f) In his plaine demonstration that our Brownists are Donatists pag. 38. Publike worship to pray for the soules of the dead and to offer Oblations for the dead was generally in the Church before the dayes of Austin as appeareth in Cyprian Tertullian which were before him and nearer to the tymes of the Apostles 5. Touching Vnwritten Traditions Whereas S. Chrysostome sayth The (g) In 2. Thessal hom 4. Apostles did not deliuer all things by writing but many things without D. Whitaker in answere heerto fayth I (h) De sacra Scriptura pag. 478. answere that this is an inconsiderate speech and vnworthy so great a Father Of which saying of Chrysostome as also of S. Basil speaking the lyke D. Reynolds thus censureth I take (i) In his conclusions annexed to his ConfereÌ„ce Conclus pag. 689. not vpon me to controule them meaning the two former Fathers but let the Church iudge if they considered with aduice inough Wheras S. Austine maintayneth the Doctrine of vnwritten Traditions M. Cartwright thus censureth him therefore If (k) In M Whitguifts defence pag. 103. S. Austins Iudgment be a good iudgment then there be some things commaunded of God which are not in the Scriptures and thereupon no sufficient doctrine contayned in the Scriptares And further To allow (l) Cartwright vbi suprà S. Austins saying is to bring in Popery agayne D. Whitaker (m) De sacra Scriptura pag 678. 681. 683. 689. 690. 695. 696. chargeth Chrysostome Epiphanius Tertullian Cyprian Austin Innocentius Leo Basill Eusebius Damascene c. with maintayning the Doctrine of Traditions To conclude (*) Exem Concil Trid. part 1. pag. 87. 89. 90. Kemnitius reprehendeth Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Epiphanius Ambrose Ierome c. for their teaching the same Doctrine 6. As concerning Images We fynd that (n) L. Iustit 2 c. â—1 num 5. Caluin affirmeth that Gregory the great was not taught in the holy Ghost because he called Images Laymens Bookes In lyke sort the foresaid Father S. Gregory is reprehended by (o) In his Common Places part 2 p. 343. Peter Martyr (p) In his Exam. part 4 p. 3â— Kempnitius and (q) Cent. 6. p. 288. Ostander for his lawfull vse of Images (r) In his Pageant of Popes fol. 33. Bale maintained that Leo allowed worshipping of Images Chrysostome is charged for giuing reuerence to Christ his Image by D. (s) Against Heskins c. Fulke Lactantius is coÌ„deÌ„ned by the (t) Cent. 4. col 408 409. CeÌ„turists for that say they he affirmeth many superstitious things coÌ„cerning the efficacy of Christs Image D. Morton thus writeth of the antiquity of Images in Churches About (u) In Protest Appeale p. 586. the foureteenth hundred yeare Images crept out of priuat mens Houses and went into publike Churches there standing c. To conclude touching the vse of Images the Centurists (x) Cent. 4. col 409. Kempnitius (y) In Examen part 4. p. â—6 2â— 30. and Peter (z) Parker against Symbolizing part 2. pag. 32. Martyr do confesse the same from diuers testimonies of Zozomen Athanasius Prudentius diuers others 7. Touching Relikes of Martys And first touching Reuerence exhibited to them by the ancient Fathers first we fynd by the Confession of (*) In Iesuitism rat 5. D. Humfrey that Gregory and Austin at their first planting of Christianity in England did among other points of Catholike Doctrine bring in the doctrine of Relikes The which point (*) Doct. Fulke against the Rhemish Testam in Apocal. 6. D. Fulke acknowledging as true thus auoydeth Gregory i being so neer to the Reuelation of Antichrist it is no meruaile though he be superstitious to Relikes To ascend to higher tymes S. Hierome (*) Ierome contra Vigilant affirmeth that the Emperour Constantine did translate the holy Relickes of Andrew Luke and Timothy to Constanninople at which sayth he the deuills did roare Now Bullinger not approuing his iudgment thus writeth (a) De Origins Erroris fol. 67. 58. Ierome is ouer full in that he sayth the diuels do roare at the holy Relickes of Andrew S. Ambrose hauing made a pious discourse touching the reuerencing of Martyrs Tombes the Centurists thus iudge thereof Let (b) Cent. 4. p. 301. the godly reader consider how horrible these things are vttered by Ambrose The Centurists thus reprehend Constantine the first Christian Emperour With (c) Cent. 4. col 50. 29. lyke superstition Constantine is sayd to haue translated to Constantinople certayne Relickes of the Crosse found by Helene that the Crosse might preserue that Citty Kempnitius (d) In Exam. part 4. pag. 10. acknowledgeth the ancient vse of carrying of Relickes in tyme of Procession in these wordes from Translation of Relickes forthwith was vsed the carrying of them as is to be seene in Ierome and Austin Touching Pilgrimages to Relicks and Holy Places we thus fynd confessed by the Centurists Concerning Pilgrimages (e) Cent. 4. col 457. to holy places that in this age vnder Constantine first began the places of the Holy Land c. to be had in esteeme Helen Mother of Constantine a superstitious Woman going thither to worship In like sort Kempnitius sayth Pilgrimages (f) Exam. Trid. part 4. p. 10. were made he meaning in those Primitiue tymes where men heard were Relicks famous (g) In his Retractiue from Romish Religion pa. 197. 198. renowned for Miracles D. Beard thus confesseth In former tymes they placed the Relicks of Saincts vnder the Altar as Ambrose witnesseth of the Relicks of Geruasius and Protasius Touching Miracles exhibited at the Monuments and Relicks of Saints Kempnitius thus writeth Mention is (h) Exam. part 4. pag. 10. made in Austin that a blynd Woman receaued sight at the Translation of the Relicks of Steuen (i) Contra Duraeum l. 10. pag. 860. that sometimes certaine Miracles were wrought at Relicks c. D. Whitaker sayth I do not thinke those Miracles vayne which are reported to be done at the Monuments of Martyrs Finally M. Fox (k) Act. Mon. pag. 61. and seâ— Crispinus of the Estate of the Church pag. 13â— reporteth out of Chrysostome contra gentiles and Theodoret mentioneth the same how after the bringing of the dead body of Babilas Martyr into the Temple of an Idol the Idol ceased to giue any more Oracles saying that for the body of Babilas he could giue no more Answeres In this last place touching the signe of the Crosse That it was worshipped by the anâ—ient Fathers and by others of those Primiâ—ue tymes as also that great
(n) De Eccles contra Bellarm. controuer 2. q 5. pag. 327. among the Papists are but futiles concerning things of small importance And D. Fulke agreeth with him saying As for the (o) Against Heskins Sanders c. pag. 295. consent and peace of the Popish Church it proueth nothing but that the Diuell had all things at his Will and therefore might sleepe thus truly acknowledging Vnity in Fayth in the Roman Church but most maliciously transferring the Cause therof to him who is the chiefe Enemy to Vnity But Syr Edwin Sands a most remarkable Protestant doth not only acknowledge all war of dissention in our Catholike Church but also giueth his reason thereof in these Words The Papists (p) In his Relation fol. 8. haue the Pope as a common Father Aduiser and Conductour to reconcile their iarres to decide their differences to draw their Religion by consent of Councells to Vnity c. To whose Iudgment herein subscribeth Andraeas Duditius the Protestant aboue mentioned in the Epistle Dedicatory who thus writeth The Roman (q) Beza reporteth these words of Duditius in his Epist Theolog. Epist. ad Duditium Church is not deuided with so many Dissâ—ntions but it hath the plausible apparence of Venerable Antiquity Ordinary Succession and Perpetuall Consent Thus Duditius And thus farre by way of Preuention of all such Arguments as the Protestant Wryters may seeme to vrge thereby to make their Ignorant followers belieue that the Catholiks do labour with one and the same disease with themselues touching disagreements in points of Fayth and Religion Only before I passe further I thinke good to relate that ordinary and common refuge and tergiuersation which diuers Protestants of England being vpbrayded with disagreements in Fayth among themselues are accustomed to fly vnto who thus reason I am an English Protestant I litle regard how forraine Protestants disagree among themselues I am content to range my selfe vnder our English learned Protestants who I am assured maintayne the Truth of Fayth without any contradiction or dissention among themselues Now because this point requyreth a large and full Answere therefore as willing to contract this Preface in as few words as conueniently I may I refer the Reader for his full satisfaction herein to the latter end of this ensuing Treatise viz. at 22. Paragraph where he shall see the Vanity of this silly euasion fully layed open and answered Before I come to any other Passages of this Preface I hould it not amisse to relate for the benefit of others what happened touching these former Points to my selfe In my being in Spayne a Chaplayne of the English Embassadours there resyding being my former familiar acquaintance in England oftentimes came to the place where I there studied and did much solicite and diswade me from entring into Holy Orders for then I was not Priest His chiefest argument by him alledged was taken out of D. Mortons Apologia Catholica which booke it seemes he had studyed diâ—igently touching the dissentions in doctrine of some few broken Catholiks aboue alledged as Erasmus Nilus Cassander c. as also from the dissention of the Thomists and Scotists touching the Conception of our B. Lady the Chaplaine much vrging and inferring that our Catholike Religion as wanting Vnity in doctrine in the Professours thereof could not be true This his Argument for a tyme I grant seemed very strong to me I then being but yong and not conuersant in the Protestants owne bookes thereby to discerne their dissentions in doctrine and did cause me to defer my taking of Priesthood a yeare or more longer then afore I was determined to haue done But after acquainting others of my daily familiars much read in the Protestants Writings with this my doubt they fully resolued and satisfyed me touching those Pseudo Catholiks to wit what kind of Men they were how vpon what grounds they for the tyme dissented from the then Common doctrine of the Catholike Church As also I was then informed how the Question of the immaculate Conception of the B. Virgin was not defined on either syde by the Church and that therefore it was lawfull without any breach of Vnity to maintayne either part Vpon whose learned Resolution all my former doubt instantly vanished away And indeed this Accident first be got a desire in me to looke into the Protestants Works more fully to see whether they had thy disagreements in Fayth amoÌ„g them So forcible we see the Argument drawne from waÌ„t of Vnity in Fayth though but indirectly and with mistaking vrged seemes to proue that Religion which wanteth Vnity in Fayth and doctrine cannot be the true Religion instituted by our Sauiour Iesus Christ But to recall my selfe and to proceed further In the next place of this my Preface I will demonstrate the absolute necessity of Vnion touching Matters of Fayth in the Church of God it being an acknowledged and inseparable Marke thereof and how incompatible dissentions and Errours in Fayth are with the said true Church Adulterari (r) August lib. de Vnitate Ecclesia non potest sponsa Christi Incorrupta est pudica This I will euict both from humane and diuine Authorities and will begin with humane proofes and so ascend in weight of proofes to the diuine Scriptures And first I will alledge some testimonies of Protestants themselues For do we not fynd Luther thus to teach A Kingdome (s) Luther tom 3. Witten berg in Psalm 5. fol. 166. deuided in it selfe shall not stand Neither haue any Heretiks at any tyme beene ouercome by force or Subtilty but by mutuall dissention Neither doth Christ fight with them otherwise then with a spirit of giddinesse and disagreement And more The Authours (t) Luth. tom 5. Witten berg in Galat. c. 5. fol. 416. of Schismes are disagreeing among themselues c. They byte and deuours one another c. till at the last they perish c. O see how truly his owne Words do recoyle vpon himselfe The Like want of this Vnity in doctrine do the Deuines of Manifold vrge as a Marke of a false Church against the Sacramentaries to impugne their doctrine those deuines thus writing We haue (u) Theologi Mansfeldenses in Confessione Mansfeldica Latina fol. 110. iust reason to hold in suspition the doctrine of the Sacramentaries in that they are not concordant in one and the same sentence or iudgment but are among themselues deuided so as some of them are called Carolostadians others Swinglians Occolampadians Caluinists c. And the same kind of argument is vsed by the Deuines of Heidelberge all Protestants against the Anabaptists thus vrging Si (x) Proâ—ocollo Frankaltalensi nâ— Praefatad Anabaptistas vobis Ecclesiae titulum concedere vellemus c. Yf we would grant to you the name of a Church what Sect among you should be reputed the Church of God seing you are deuided into so many Sects To come in this next place to the
extraordinary calling as being sent from no Man but only from God in these words Quia (g) Lascitius the Protestant reciteth this saying of Caluin l. de Russorum Muscouit Religione c. 13. Papa tyrannide c. Because through the tyranny of the Pope true succession of Ordination was broken of Therefore we stand in neede of a new Course herein and this Function or calling was altogether extraordinary In this Opinion conspire most other Protestants especially of the more earnest sort According hereto M. Perkins (h) In his workes printed anno 605. fol. 916. writeth that the calling of Wicliffe Hus Luther Oecolampadius Peter Martyr c. was exâ—raordinary And Doctour Fulke iumpeth with the former saying The (i) Against stapleton Martiall pag. 2. Protestants that first preached in these dayes had extraordinary calling Thus far in Defence of extraordinary calling in these dayes Now the Reader shall see how others more sober Protestants do wholy reiect this extraordinary calling immediatly from God â—xcept it be confirmed with miracles as it was in the Apostles First M. Cartwright thus writeth To (k) In his second Reply part 2. pa. 14â— minister the Sacraments is an hoâ—our in the Church which none can take to him â—ut he which is called vnto it as Aaron was Musculus the great Protestant writeth thus Vecatio (l) In loc Comm. pag. 394. quae immediatè est à Christo iam in vsu non est vt erat olim c. The calling immediatly from Christ is not now in vse as it was in former tymes The Bishop of Winchester thus teacheth They (m) In his perpetuall gouerment of the Church l. â— p. 111. can haue no part of Apostolicall commission that haue no shew of Apostolicall succession D. Sarauia agrees with the former saying Speciem (n) In defens tract contra respons Beza p. 306. 307 illam extraordinariae vocationis ad Ecclesiae ministerium non admitto c. I do not approue that shew of extraordinary calling seing it is not warranted with any authority of Scripture or certaine example Now whereas diuers other Protestants do teach that all extraordinary calling to the ministery is accompanyed with working of Miracles or els is a meere illusion In this manner and restriction writeth Luther saying Vnde (o) Tom. 3. len Germ. fol. 491. venis quis te misit vbi sigilla quod ab hominibus missus sis Vbi miracula c. And Amandus (p) In partitionib Theol. l. 1. p. 308. Polanus (q) In his soueraigne Remedy against Schism p. â—5 Henoch Clapham (r) In loc Comm. p. 304. Musculus and many others too loÌ„g to write do maintayne the same Yet this wholy makes against the calling of Luther himselfe Caluin and all other Sectaries of this age touching their vocation Seing it is granted by Doctour Fulke in these words It is (s) Against the Rhemish Testam in Apoc. 13. knowne that Caluin and the rest whom Papists call Archheretiks do worke no miracles with whom D. Sutcliffe conspireth saying We (t) In his Exam. of D. Kellisons Suruey printed 1606. pag. 8. do not practise miracles nor do we teach that the Doctrine of Truth is to be confirmed with miracles Thus much touching the contrary and Crossing-Iudgments of the Protestants concerning the necessity of Personall Succession in the Church of Christ 3. I next come to discouer their disagreements touching such persons as they acknowledge to be members of the Protestant Church in which point we shall fynd wonderfull opposition among the Protestants First I will shew all such sorts of persons which many Protestants exclude from being members of their Protestant Church And First we find all Heretikes to be excluded and herein I will begin with the iudgment of the Lutherans then of the Caluinists Touching the Lutherans the Centurists thus write (u) Cent. 6. in the Preface Neither Heretiks nor deuisers of Phanaticall Opinions are of Christ but they are of Antichrist and the Deuill And Luther is of the same iudgment saying (x) In his Explicat of the Creed Neither Gentill Iew Heretike or any sinner can be saued vnlesse he make attonement with the Church and in all things do teach the same he meaning his owne Protestant Church To come to the Sacramentaries Caluin thus teacheth (y) Instit l. 2. c. 15. Num. 1. Rightly Austin denyeth Heretiks to haue the same Foundation with the Godly albeit they Preach the name of Christ. D. White All (z) In his way to the Church p. 10. Heretiks teach the truth in some things Yet we deny them to be of the Church of God The Confession of Basil (a) Art 24. We driue away all whosoeuer dissenting from the Society of the holy Church do bring in or follow strange wicked Doctrines To conclude D. Sutcliffe (b) In his booke of the Church c. 1. Heretiks are not of the Church Now here I am to aduertise the Reader that seeing most of these Testimonies as also diuers other following do speake literally of the true Church of God that therefore the Protestants meane thereby their owne Protestant Church seeing they teach it alone to be the true Church of God To come to Schismatiks they are in like sort reiected from being members of the Protestant Church For first Luther thus writeth I belieue (c) Luther in his great Catech. tom 5. pag. 628. there is on earth a little Congregation of Saintes agreeing in all things without Sects or schismes Melancthon Neither (d) In his booke against Swenkfeld tom 2. pa. â—01 is there more then one Church of Christ Neither doth this Company consist of diuers sects D. Fulke thus accordingly teacheth What (e) Of the Succession of the Church skilleth it whether one being drawne by Heresy or schisme from the body of Christ be subiect to eternall damnation D. Whitaker It is (f) Controuers 2. q. 9. c. 9. false that Hereticall and Schismaticall Churches are true Churches To conclude with D. Field The name (g) Of the Church l. 1. cap. 7. of the Catholike Church he thereby vnderstanding his owne Protestant Church is applyed to distinguish men houlding the Fayth in the Vnity from Schismatikes The Anabaptists are in like manner by diuers Protestants disclaymed from being members of their Protestant Church For thus doth the Confession of Switzerland teach We (h) Cap. 20. condemne Anabaptists who maintayne that Infants are not to he baptized The Confession of Ausburg teacheth the same saying We (i) Cap. 9. condemne the Anabaptists who disalow the Baptisme of Infants and thinke them to be saued without Baptisme Which Confession of Ausburg doth in like sort eliminate and exclude the Arians from their Church in these words We (k) Act. 1. condemne all Heresies rising against this Article meaning the Article of the Trinity as the Maniches Arians Eunomians c. That the Papists as the
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
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
laying open the acknowledgment of the learned Protestants that our Catholike Articles are generally taught by the Primitiue Fathers of Christs Church 1. And first touching the Real presence we find the CeÌ„turists thus to write (a) Cent. 4. cap. 10. col 985. Eusebius Emissenus did speake vnprofitably of Transubstantiation And the sayd CeÌ„turists thus coÌ„fesse of Chrysostome (b) Cent. 5. Col. 577. Chrysostomus TransubstaÌ„tiationem videtur confirmare naÌ„ ita scribit c. Chrysostom may be thought to coÌ„firme Transubstantiation for thus he writeth c. Peter Martyr thus chargeth Cyril (c) In his Epistles annexed to his commoÌ„ places in his Epistle to Beza pag. 106. I will not easily subscribe to Cyril who affirmeth such a Communion as thereby euen the substance of the flesh and bloud of Christ is ioyned to the Blessings for so he calleth the holy bread Cyprian is no lesse charged by the Protestants herein for one of them thus writeth In (d) In the Treatise attributed to Vrsinus Cyprian are many sayings which seeme to affirme Transubstantiation D. Humfrey chargeth S. Gregory who first by the labour of S. Austin conuerted England to Christianity in this sort In EcclesiaÌ„ (e) Iesuitism rat 5. quid inâ—exerunt Gregorius Augustinus Intulerunt onus Caremoniarum Oblationem salutaris Hostiae c. Transubstantiationem The (f) Cent. 4. c. 4. col 295. Centurists repreheÌ„d Ambrose for not writing well of Transubstantiation To proceed a litle further whereas the Christians in the dayes of Tertullian Cyprian and Origen were accused that they killed Infants and did eate mans flesh This calumny (g) Osiander Cent. 3. lib. 2. c. â—â— pag. 6. sayth Osiander the Protestant vndoubtedly first arrised in that Christians belieued and confessed that in the sacred supper of our Lord the body of Christ was eaten and his bloud drunk To conclude this point as most euident we find Adamus Francisci a Protestant thus to write (h) In Margarit Theolog. pag. 250. The Papists Inuention touching Transubstantiation crept earely into the Church And Antonius de Adamo another Protestant thus acknowledgeth of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation I haue (i) In his Anatomy of the Masse not beene able to know when the Opinion of the Reall and bodily being of Christ in the Eucharist did first begin 2. To descend to the Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Masse which riseth from the former doctrine of Transubstantiation we first fynd the Centurists thus to charge (k) Cent. 4. c. 4. col 295. S. Ambrose Ambrosius locutionibus vtitur c. vt Missam facere offerre sacrificium c. Ambrose vseth those kind of speacheâ— c. as to say Maâ—â—â— to offer vâ— Sacrifice c. Cyrill of Ierusalem is thus reprehended by Hospinian (l) Lib. Sacram. pag. â—67 Quod ad Cyrillum Hieresolymitanum attinet c. As concerning Cyrill of Ierusalem be indeed affirmed according to the custome of his tymes that the Sacrifice of the Altar was a great help of the soules Crastouius the Protestant An ignoramus (m) De Opifiâ—i Missae sect 164. opinionem Nysseni c. Are we ignorant that the Opinion of Nyssene is of it selfe absurd who said that when Christ gaue his body to his Disciples to eate that then his Body was latently ineffably and inuisibly sacrifized vp D. (n) Contra Duraeum l. 4. pag. 310. Whitaker chargeth him with the same doctrine Cyprian is also insimulated within the supposed errour of Sacrifice by the Centurists in this manner Sacerdotem (o) Cent. 3. c. 4. col 83. inquit Cyprianus c. Cyprian affirmeth that the Priest doth enioy the place of Christ and offereth Sacrifice to God the Father Ignatius the Apostles Scholler is thus controuled Certaine (p) The Centurists so write of him in Cent. 2. cap. 4. col â—3 things occur in this Fathers writings which are ambiguous and incommodiously spoken as in the Epistle of Ignatius ad Smirnenses Where Ignatius sayth that it is not lawfull without a Bishop neither to offer or to immolate the Sacrifice I will conclude this point with the large Confession of Caluin who comprehends the ancient Fathers in generall with teaching the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Masse His words are these Veteres (q) Instit 4. c. 18. quoque illos video c. And I see that those ancient Fathers did wrest otherwise the memory hereof he meaning of the Lords supper then was agreeing to the Institution of the Lord for their supper maketh shew of an iterated or at least renewed Sacrifice c. For they haue imitated more neerely the Iewish manner of sacrifizing then either Christ ordayned or the Ghospell could well suffer Thus Caluin And thus far of the Protestants Confession touching the Fathers in this point of Sacrifice 3. As concerning Inuocation of Saintes D. (r) Iesuitism part 2. rat 5. Humfrey confesseth that Gregory the great at his first Conuersion of England among other points of the Roman Fayth taught Inuocation of Saincts Kempnitius alledgeth S. Austin praying to S. Cyprian of which Act Kempnitius thus censureth These things (s) In Exam. part 3. pag. 211. Austin did without Scripture yielding to the tymes and custome D. Fulke thus writeth I (t) In his Reioinder to Bristow c. confesse that Ambrose Austin and Ierome held inuocation of Saincts to be lawfull The said Doctour confesseth also more in these words In (u) Against the Rhâ—mish Testam in 1. Petr. c. 1. Nazianzen Basil and Chrysostom is mention of Inuocation of Saincts The (x) Cent. 5. c. 6. col 635. Centurists charge S. Chrysostomes Lyturgy with inuocation of our B. Lady by name But the Centurists (z) Cent. 3. col 84. do not rest here for they alledge sundry examples of Prayer to Saincts in Athanasius Basill Nazianzene Ambrose Prudentius Epiphanius and Ephrem S. Cyprian is acknowledged by the Centurists to teach (a) Cent. 3. Col. 83. (y) Cent. 4. col 295. 296. 297. That Martyrs and dead Saincts do pray for the liuing yea they confesse that Origen prayed to holy Iob. Thus far to omit many other like Confessions of the Protestants touching both the doctrine and practise of Inuocation of Saincts in the Writings of the ancient Fathers 4. The Doctrine of Purgatory is confessedly taught by the ancient Fathers D. Fulke thus sayth Acrius (b) In his answere to a counterfeyte Catholike pag. 44. taught that prayer for the dead was vnprofitable as witnes both Epiphanius and S. Austin which they count for an Errour The said Doctour thus further confesseth (c) In his Confutation of Purgatory pa. 320. 149. 326. 349. Ambrose Chrysostome and S. Austin allowed prayer for the dead And yet more (d) Fulke vbi supra pag. 362. Tertullian Austin Cyprian Ierome and a great many more do witnesse that sacrifice for the dead is the Tradition of the Apostles A point so