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
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
tymes of the Apostles my iudgment is that those tymes had plus conscientiae scientiae minus and we scientia plus conscientiae minus The Archbishop of Canterbury thus vanteth against those ancient tymes The (m) In his Defence of the answere to the Admonition pag. 472. 473. Doctrine taught professed by our Bishops at this day is more perfect and sounder then it was in any age after the Apostles I will close vp the Aristarchian and censuring iudgments of the Protestants against the ancient Fathers merely contrary to the former alledged Protestants with the scurrilous and depressing words of Luther passed vpon them who thus in one place writeth The (n) Tom. 2. Wittenb anno 1551. lib. de seruo arbitrio Fathers of so many ages haue beene plainly blynd and most ignorant in the Scriptures they haue erred all their lyfe tyme and vnlesse they were amended before their deaths they were neither Saints nor appertayning to the Church And further The (o) In Colloq mensal lib. de seruo arbitrio Apology of Philip Melancthon doth far excell all the Doctours of the Church and exceedes euen Austin himselfe And of his owne iudgment with reference to their iudgments he thus Thrasonically boasteth I (p) Contra Henricum regem Angliae eare not if a thousand Austins a thousand Cyprians a thousand Churches stood against me But to come to particular Fathers marke how Luther showers downe words of reproach against them In the (q) In Colloq mensa lib cap de Patribus Ecclesia writings of Ierome there is not a word of true Fayth in Christ sound Religion Tertullian is very superstitious I haue houlden Origen long since accursed Of Chrysostome I make no account Basill is of no worth he is wholy a Monke I waygh him not of a hayre Thus Luther and with this I end this Paragraph aduertising the Reader that besides the dissentions which these last alledged Protestants haue with the former Protestants acknowledging the Fathers authorities and worth these sharpe censures deliuered in so full a manner against the Fathers make greatly in proofe of our ancient Catholike and Romay Fayth Seeing they irreplyably proue that those most blessed and learned Fathers so neere to the dayes of our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles were Papists in Fayth and Religion and not Protestants The XI Paragraph CEasing to discourse further of particular Fathers how they are admitted by some Protestants and reiected by others I will ascend to speake of Generall Councells which consist of the Assembly and confluence of many hundred of Fathers touching which point we shall fynd great contrariety of opinions among the Protestants And first for the reiecting of the authority of Generall Councels we fynd D. Whitaker thus expresly to say (r) L. dâ— Concil contra Bellarm. q. 6. Generall Councels may erre But Peter Martyr is more full and plaine herein shewing the reason why Councells are not to be admitted thus writing As long (s) L. de rotis pag. 476. as we insist in Generall Councells so long we shall continue in the Papists Errours In like manner D. Fulke thus depresseth the authority of Generall Councels The (t) In his answere to a Counterfeyt Catholike p. â—0 90. and p. 86. whole Church militant may erre altogether as euery part thereof Beza actually chargeth the Primitiue Generall Councells with errour saying (u) In his Preface vpon the New Testament Dedicated to the Prince of Condy. anno 1587. Euen in the best tymes meaning the Primitiue tymes the ambition ignorance and lewdnes of Bishops was such that the very blynd may easely perceaue how that Satan was President in their Assemblies But now obserue how other learned Protestants contradict their former brethrens sentences herein And first Doctour Bilson discouâ—sing of the meanes to decyde Controuersies in Fayth thus writeth To haue (x) In his perpetuall Gouerment c. pag. 37â— no Iudge for the ending of Ecclesiasticall contentions were the vtter subuersion of all peace thereupon the said Doctour concludes thus Synods (y) Vbi suprà p. 370. are an externall Iudiciall meanes to discerne errours and the surest meanes to decide doubts And he further thus writeth Yf (z) Vbi suprà pag. 374. Synods were not the Church neither at any tyme was nor indeed safely can be without tempests D. Sutcliffe as not allowing triall of Controuersies only by Scripture thus writeth (a) In his reuiew of his Examination of D. Kellisons Suruey printed 1â—06 p. 41. It is false that we will admit no iudge but Scripture for mâ— appeale still to a lawfull Generall Councell M. Hooker (b) In his Preface to his booke of Ecclesiast Policy relateth now Beza as being tyred with disputs only from Scripture submitteth himselfe finally to a lawfull Assembly or Councell And the said M. Hooker in the place aboue alledged thus further writeth We are sure of this that Nature Scripture and Experience haue taught the world for the ending of Controuersies to submit it selfe vnto some iudieâ— all and definitiue sentence meaning to the iudgment or a Generall Councell D. Field conspireth with M. Hooker herein thus writing (c) In his Treatise of the Church in his Epist. Dedicat. Seeing the controuersies in Religion in our tyme are growne so many in number and in nature so intricate that few haue tyme leasure and strength to examine them what remayneth for man desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the Societies of the men in the World is that blessed Company of Holy ones that househould of Fayth that spouse of Christ that Church of the liuing God c. He meaning the iudgment of the Church deliuered in a Generall Councell To conclude an Externall iudgment or Definitiue Sentence besides the Scripture which is chiefly the sentence of a Generall Councell is further taught by D. Baneroft (d) In his Sermon preached 1. February 1588 pag. 4â— D. Couell (e) In his modest Examination pag. 108. and 109. and finally to omit others euen by the Puritanes of whose iudgment herein sâ—e D. Baneroftâ— (f) Pag. 1â—4 Suruey The XII Paragraph TO come to Traditions That they are reiected by most Protestants it will be needlesse much to labour therein Seeing they are so luxuriant especially the Puritans and the most forward Protestants and abundant in the condemnation of all Traditions yet obserue (k) L. â— pistol Swinglij Oecolamp pag. 301. how diuers points of Christian Fayth not taught in the Scriptures are acknowledged by other learned Protestants to be Apostolicall Traditions And to begin (g) Tom. â— l. de Baptism fol. 9â— Swinglius and h Oecolampadius confesse that Baptisme of Infants is not taught in the Scripture to whose iudgment D. Field subscribeth in these words (i) Of the Church pag. â—1â— Baptisme of Infants is a Tradition because it is not expresly deliuered in Scripture
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
for greater breuity to produce their particular Words and Authorities 1. And I will begin with Christ his descending into Hell presently after his Corporall Death This is taught by D. Hill (l) In his speciall of that â—ila and by Melancthon M. Newell and Aretius all Protestants all which Authours are alledged by the said Doctour (m) D. Hill vbi supra fol. 33. 44. Hill yet is this Doctrine impugned for popish by Beza (n) In Act. 2. Bucer (o) In Math. 26. and infinite others 2. Limbus Patrum is in like sort taught by Oecolampadius (p) In l. Epist Swinglij Oecolampad l. 1. p. 19. by (q) Swinglius in his Epist. Swinglij Oecolampadij l. 3. p. 560. 561. Swinglius by Peter (r) In his Common places Englished part 2 cap. 18 pag. 161. Martyr by Lascitius (s) In his booke entituled de Russorum Muscouit relig pag. 122. 123. the Protestant and by Bullinger (t) In his Decads fol. 66. But contradicted by most other Protestants 3. Intercession of Saincts defended by Oecolampadius (u) Oecolampad ad Orat. 1. Chrysostomy de Iuuentio Maximo Martyr by M. Latimer (x) Act. Hon. pag. 1322. and others yet impugned by D. Whitaker (y) Contra Duraum pag. 793. and most other Protestants 4. Intercession of Angells maintayned by Caluin (z) Instit. l. 1. c. 14. sect 6. 7. Melancthon (a) In Apolog. Confess August fol. 179. M. Hooker (b) L. 5. sect 23. pag. 52. 53 D. Couell (c) In his answere to M. Iohn Burges pag. 90. Peter Martyr and by the Communion (e) Printed 1549. fol. 117. booke in King Edwards tyme Impugned by most Protestants 5. Inuocation of Saincts allowed by Luther who sayth De inuocatione (f) In purgatione quorundam Articulorum Sanctorum cum tota Ecclesia Christiana sentio iudico Sanctos esse inuocandos By Oecolampadius (g) In Orat. 1. Chrysostom de Iuuentio Maximo by certaine Protestants in Polonia whereof see (h) In Loc. Theolog. l. 3. stat 4. loc 5. pag. 463. Hafferenferus by Latimer (i) Act. Mon. pag. 1312. by Thomas Bilney (k) Act. Mon pag. 462. contradicted by most other Protestants 6. Payer for the Dead taught by Luther and Vrbanus Regius (d) alledged by D. Couell in the place aboue cited as Vrbanus (l) In prima parte Operum in Formula cautè loquenoi cap. de Sanctorum cultu Regius doth witnes by the (m) Printed 1549. fol. 116. Communion Booke in king Edwards tyme by (n) Act. mon. pag. 149. William Thorpe and by Martin Bucer (o) In his Script Anglican p. 450. Heereto may be annexed the Doctrine of Purgatory taught by Luther (p) Luther tom 1. Wittenberg in resolut de Indulgentijs conclus 15. fol. 112. and taught in Disputatione Lipsica cum Ickio and by Latiner (q) Act. Mon. pag. 1313 1315. 7. That the ten Commandements are not Impossible taught by M. Perkins (r) In his reformed Catholike p. 26. 51. by M. Hooker (s) Ecclesiast policy l. 2. pag. 101. who is reprehended therefore by certaine English Protestants in their Christian Letter to that Reuerend man M. R. Hooker Taught also by M. (t) In his meditation vpon the 122. psal printed 160â— Willet by Castalio (u) de Perfecta Obedient legis Dei the eminent Protestant who is therfore impugned by Doctour (x) In his second Conclusion annexed to his Conference pa. 697. Reynolds 8. Patronage of certaine Angells ouer certaine Countryes and Kingdomes maintayned by Caluin (z) Caluin Instit l. 1. cap. 14. sect 7. by Peter (a) In his Common places in English part 1. pag. 1â—0 Martyr by Hyperius (b) In Method Theolog. pag. 297. the Protestant others yet impugned by M. Willet (c) In Synops. pa. 264. D. Fulke (d) Against the Rhemish Testament in Reuel 1. and many others 9. Images to be in Churches maintayned by Luther and Brentius as (e) Beza so sayth in respons ad act Colloq Montis belgar part altera in Praefat. pag. 12. Beza witnesseth by Iacobus (f) in Epitom Colloq Montis belg pag. 39. Andraeas by (g) In his Examen part 4. pag. 14 p. 33. Kempnitius by (h) In Cent. Exercitas Theolog. pag. 270. Bachmannus c. yet contradicted by D. (i) Against the Rhemish Testament in 1. Epist Ioan. cap. 1. fol. 456. Fulke and almost all the Puritans 10. Touching Reuerence and bowing downe at the name of Iesus which is the same to the eare which Images are to the eye This Reuerence is defended by Doctour Whitguift (k) In his Defence pag. 742. by Musculus (l) In loc Comm. pag. 59. the Great Protestant by the learned (m) In Epist. Pauli ad Philip. Coloss c. 2. fol. 123. Zanchius by Leonard (n) In his Summon for sleepers Wright the Protestant Finally by Queene Elizabeths (o) Art 52. Iniunctions Contradicted for Popish by all the most forward Protestants 11. That the Good workes of one may help another is maintayned by (p) In loc com de Eucharistico sacrificio in his Edition of anno 1561. pag. 425. Melancthon and by the Harmony of Confessions p. 298. yet impugned by the greater nuÌ„ber of Protestants 12. That Christ as man was from his Natiuity freed from Ignorance is defended by Iacobus Andraeas (*) In Epitom Colloq Montisbelg p 33. by Osiander (r) In Euchirid controuers printed Tubingae 1603. p. 146 147. and generally affirmed by most of the Lutheran Protestants ouer many to recite And yet impugned by Beza (s) In resp ad Acta Colloq Montisbelg part 1. pag. 147. 148. D. Willet (t) D. Willet in his Synops p. 199. p. 600 and M. Sutcliffe (u) M. Sutcliffe in his reuiew and Examination of D. Kellisons Suruey printed 1606. p. 55. who will not ascribe to the Humane Nature of Christ fulnes of knowledge in respect of its Personal Vnion with the God-head but thus sayth to the contrary Yf Christ as Man by the Vnion be Omniscient why is he not Omnipresent and in all places 13. Euangelicall Counsels to wit that a Man may do and performe more then he is commanded taught by (x) Luther in Assorâ— ar 36. Luther by D. Couell (y) In his DefeÌ„ce of M. Hooker Art â— p. 49. 50. 51. 52 by M. z Hooker Impugned by M. Willet (z) Ecclesiast policy l. 3. sect 8. p. 140. who particularly (a) In his Meditation vpon the 122. Psal p. 91. chargeth M. Hooker with his Defence of this and other Catholike Opinions In like sort impugned by M. Perkins (b) In his reformed Catholike p. 241. and many others 14. That it cannot be knowne to vs which Scriptures be sacred which not otherwise then by the Churches Tradition
together with the Church of Ierusalem erred And D. Fulke speaking of the same matter is no lesse sparing thus saying Peter (e) Against the Rhemish Testament in Galat. 2. erred in Ignorance against the Gospell I will conclude these their wonderful Inuectiues against the Apostles with D. Whitakers accusation of them thus writing It is (f) D. Whitaker de Eccles contra Bellarm Controu 2. quaest 4. p. 213. manifest that euen after Christ his Ascension and the Holy Ghost descending vpon the Apostles not only the Common sort but euen the Apostles themselues erred in the vocation of the Gentills c. Yea Peter also erred concerning the abrogation of the Ceremoniall Law and this was a matter of Fayth Thus D. Whitaker Would any Christian euer thinke that such horrid words as these any Protestant contrary to the iudgment of other their brethren should disgorge against the Apostles themselues 2. I now hasten to the seuerall Translations of the sacred Scriptures about which there is no lesse contention among the Protestants then is touching which is true Scripture and which is forged and so to speake abastarded And First touching that translation which is commonly called the Vulgar Translation made by S. Hierome though it be much disliked by most Protestants and accordingly hereto D. Whitaker calleth it An ould (g) In his Answere to M. Reynolds Preface pag. 2. 26. rotten translation c. full of faults errours and corruptions of all sortes Yet Carolus Molinaeus a learned Protestant thus approueth it I can (h) In Nouo Testam pag. 30. very hardly depart from the vulgar and accustomed reading which also I am accustomed earnestly to defend His wordes in Latin are these Agerrimè à vulgari consuetaque lectione recedo quam etiam enixè defendere soleo Yea this Molinaeus further sayth I prefer (i) Molinas in Luc. 17. the Vulgar Edition before Erasmus Bucer Bullinger Brentius the Tigurine Translations also before Iohn Caluin his translation and all others D. Couell plainly affirmeth that he preferreth (k) In his answere to M. Iohn Burges pag. 94. the vulgar Translation before all others To conclude euen Beza himselfe contrary to most other Caluinists doth in these words aduance the vulgar Translation The vulgar (l) In praefat Noui Testament anno 155â— Edition I do for the most part imbrace and prefer before all others But now leauing the vulgar Translation the which some Protestants as we see do allow far more do reiect so great disparity there is in their iudgments Let vs come to such Translations of Scripture as haue beene made by the Protestants themselues and let vs obserue what mutuall and interchangeable entertaynemeÌ„t the said Translations haue receaued from the Pens of others their brethren And to begin Luther made a Translation of the Holy Scripture yet this his Translation is condemned by Swinglius in this sort Thou Luther (m) To. 2. ad Luth. lib. de Sacr. p. 412. 413. dost corrupt the Word of God Thou art seene to be a manifest corrupter and peruerter of the Holy Scriptures How much are we ashamed of thee c. And Kekermannus the Protestant thus censureth this Translation of Luther (n) In System 55. Theolog. l. 1. p. 188. Lutheri versio Germanica c. The Translation of Luther of the Scripture in Dutch c. especially in Iob and the Prophets hath no small blemishes And the said Translation is in like manner condemned by Osiander (o) Osiander his condemnation is mentioned by Luther in Colloq Mensal Germ. fol. 245. The Deuines of Basill and Oecolampadius did compyle a Translation yet it is censured in these words by Beza The (p) Beza in respons ad defens resp Castal Translation of Basill is in many places wicked and altogether differing from the mynd of the Holy Ghost The Swinglians vndertooke to translate the Scriptures against the authours of which Translation Luther thus belcheth They (q) Vbi supra 388. are Fooles Asses Antichristes Deceauers and of Asslyke vnderstandings In so much as when a Copy of that Translation was sent to Luther he would not receiue it but reiected it as Hospinian (r) In Hist Sacram. part altera fol. 1â—3 witnesseth Castalio his Translation is censured by Beza to be (s) Beza in Test â—â—eâ—i 1558. in praefat Sacrilegious wicked and Ethnicall Caluins Translation is also reiected for Carolus Molinaeus the forsaid markable Protestant sayth thus thereof Caluin in (t) In sua Translat Test Noui part â—1 fol. 110. his Harmony maketh the Text of the Gospell to leape vp and downe He vseth violence to the letter of the Gospell and besides he addeth to the Text. Beza also for the vp shot of all made a Translation of which translation the foresaid Molinaeus thus speaketh Beza (u) In Translat Testam Noui. pag. 64. 65. 66. de facto textum mutat Beza euen actually changeth the text of the Scripture And Castalio the foresaid Protestant by way of retaliation thus writeth thereof To note (x) In defens Translat pag. 170. the errours of Beza his Translation would require a great volume And Castalio particularly insisteth in that false Translation of Beza against Freewill in the first Chapter of Iohn where it is in the Greeke As many at receaued him he gaue them Power to be made the sonnes of God Beza translating Dignity to be the sonnes of God Castalio thus saying Beza (*) Castalio vbi supra pulcherrimum maximique momenti locum deprauat c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est Potestas nunquam Dignitas c. Now touching our English Translations of the Bible The Disagreements of our English Protestants are no lesse violent implacable For First we find one English Authour thus to condemne them The English Translations (y) Carleyle lib. That Christ descended not into Hell pag. 116. 117. 118. haue depraued the sense obscured the Truth and deceaued the ignorant and in many places they detort the Scripture from its true sense Another Protestant thus censureth them How (z) M. Burges in his Apology Sect. 6. can I approue vnder my hand a Translation which hath many Omissions many Additions which sometimes obscureth sometimes peruerteth the sense being sometimes sensles sometimes contrary The Ministers of Lincolne Diocesse thus write The English (a) In the Abridgment of a booke deliuered to King Iames by the said Ministers pag. 11. 12. Translation taketh away from the Text addeth to the Text and this sometimes to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost They further enlarging themselues in these words A Translation (b) Vbi supra which is absurd and sensles peruerting in many places the meaning of the Holy Ghost Other Puritans are no lesse sparing in their Censures for diuers Puritans with one consent thus write only of the Translation of the Psalmes Our Translation (c) In a Treatise entituled A Treatise
necessity of Baptisme M. Cartwright thus confesseth Austin (u) In D. Whitgifts defence pa. 1227. was of mynd that Children could not be saued without Baptisme Scultetus the Protestant writeth thus (x) In medulla Theolog pag. 30. The blemish noted in Cyprian c. is that he thinketh Baptisme to be absolutly and simply necessary Vrbanus Rhegius confidently auerreth that (y) in part 1. operum Catheâ—his minor fol. 105. the Scripture and the Authority of the ancient Church constrayned him to belieue that Children vnbaptized are damned And hence it is that Caluin thus confesseth Almost (z) L. Instit 4. c. â—5 sect 20. from the beginning of the Church Baptisme by Lay Persons was vsed in danger of death Thus much of the Sacraments 11. That the doctrine of Limbus Paetrum was taught by the Primitiue Church and Fathers First I will produce the words of D. Whitaker against whom when Duraeus his Aduersary had alledged testimonies from the Fathers for the proofe of Limbus Patrum the said Doctour thus answereth him Quod (a) Contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 557. Scripturis euincere minùs potuisti c. That which thou could lesse proue by Scriptures that thou doubtlesly wilt euince from the testimonies of the Fathers But touching this I answere thee briefly what I conceaue That is that one Word of Scripture carrieth more force with me then the Sentences and Iudgments of a thousand Fathers without Scripture therfore do not expect that I will make particular Answeres to the seuerall erroneous testimonies of the Fathers alledged by thee Thus D. Whitaker confessing that the Fathers vnanimously taught the doctrine of Limbus Patrum D. Barlow thus writeth This (b) In his Defence of the Articles of the Protestant Religion pag. 173. passeth most ryfe among the Fathers Who taking Inferi for Abrahams bosome expound it that Christ went thither ad liberandum liberandos to conuay the Fathers deceased before the Resurrection into that place where now they are In like manner M. Iacob the Protestant thus most fully acknowledgeth All the (c) See this in D. Bilsons booke of the full Redemption of Mankind pag. 188. Fathers with one consent affirme that Christ deliuered the soules of the Patriarchs Prophets out of Hell at his comming thither and so spoyled Satan of those who were in his present Possession To close vp this point whereas Cardinal Bellarmine (d) Bellarm tom 1. l. 4. de Châ—isti Animae c. 14. alledgeth in proofe of Limbus Patrum the testimonies of the Greeke Fathers to wit of Iustinus Irenaeus Clemens Origen Eusebius Basill Nazianzene Nicene Epiphanius Chrysostome c. As also of the Latin (e) Bellarm vbi suprà Fathers namely Tertullian Hyppolitus Cyprian Hillary Gaudentius Prudentius Ambrose Ierome Ruffinus Austin Leo Fulgentius c. Danaeus the Protestant acknowledging all this for true answereth only thus As concerning (f) Danaeus ad Roberti Bellar. disput part pag 176. these Fathers they were not instructed out of Gods word Neither do they confirme their Opinion from it but only from their owne Coniectures c. Thus Danaeus 12. That the Primitiue Fathers did conspiringly teach the doctrine of Freewill is most perspicuous For the Centurists reciting the sayings of Lactantius Athanasius Basill Nazianzene Epiphanius Ierome c. in defence of Freewill thus contemne all their Testimonies Patres omnes (g) Cent. 4 col 29â— ferè huius aetatis c. Almost all the Fathers of this Age do speake confusedly of Freewill In like sort (h) In meâ—ulla Theoâ—og Patrum pag. 379. 304 466. c. Scultetus the former Protestant reprehendeth Cyprian Theophilas Tertullian Origen Clemens Alexandrinus Iustine Irenaeus Athanagoras Tatianus c. for their teaching of freewill In like manner certaine English Puritans thus largely confesse hereof saying Freewill (i) This saying of the Puritans is related in their briefe discouery of Vntruths c. contained in D Bancrofts Sermon pag. 203. euer since the Apostles times in a manner florished euery where till Martin Luther tooke the sword in hand against it So true is that Confession of D. Humfrey a testimony vpon other occasion aboue alledged It may not be denyed but (k) In Iesuitism part 2. pag. 530. that Ireneus Clemens and others called Apostolicall men haue in their Writings the Opinions of freewill c. According hereto the Centurists speaking of the tymes next to the Apostles thus freely say Nullus (l) Cent. 4. cap. 4. col â—8 ferè doctrinae locus c. Almost no one Point of doctrine so quickly began to be obscured as the doctrine Whether man had Freewill or no And thus much briefly of the Protestants Confessions touching Freewill of which point as also of all the former doctrines aboue discoursed of in this Appendix I haue not set downe the halfe of what the Protestants do acknowledge therein touching the ancient Fathers beliefe and doctrines in the said Points 13. Touching Peters Primacy aboue the rest of the Apostles The antiquity of this doctrine is so great that The Centurists do reprehend Ierome (m) Cent. 4 col 11 15. (n) Cent. 4. col 555. Hilary (o) Cent. 4. col 558. Nazianzen (p) Cent. 3. col 84. Tertullian (q) Cent. 3. p. 84. Cyprian (r) Cent. 3. col 85. Origen and in generall many other Fathers for teaching that the Church was built vpon Peter Their wordes touching Cyprian are these in the place aboue alledged Passim dicit Cypriaenus super Petrum Ecclesiam fundatam esse Caluin thus writeth In Petro (s) lib. 4. instit cap. â— sect 6. fundatam esse Ecclesiam c. diuers Fathers did expound that the Church was founded vpon Peter because it is sayd Super hanc Petram c. But the whole Scripture maketh agaynst this their exposition Thus Caluin The Centurists (t) Cent. 4. col 5â—â— do further charge Optatus for saying Petrus Apostolorum caput vnde Cephas appellatur D. Reynolds (u) In his Conference pag. 485. rebuketh Dionysius for styling Peter the chiefe and most ancient topp or head of the Apostles To conclude D. Fulke speaking of S. Leo and S. Gregory Bishops of Rome sayth The mystery (x) In his retentiue against Bristowe motiues pag. 248. of iniquity did worke in that seate neere fiue or six hundred yeares before them which must be in the Aposties dayes or presently after and then greatly increased they were so deceaued with long continuance of Errour that they thought the dignity of Peter was much more ouer the rest of his fellow Apostles then the Holy Scriptures of God do allow 14. Now that the Bishop of Rome is Peters Successour in the iudgment of the Fathers is no lesse certayne for D. Bilson confesseth it plainly in these words The (y) In his difference part 1. pag 1â—7 ancient and learned Fathers call the Roman Bishop Peters Successour The CeÌ„turists charge Leo in this