Fathers were no Protestants but meerly Papists wherin we may glorie as reuerencing their sanctitie admiring their learning and honouring their Antiquitie Neither is it true as Protestants vse to suggest that Catholicks distrusting their cause if it be committed to trial by Scripture do therefore fly from it to Fathers and Doctours for as for al such poynts as are contayned in Scripture to Scripture we appeale it is that we vrge her literal sense and words hath made vs Papists We therefore only recurre to Fathers eyther for the better finding-out and vnderstanding the true meaning of sundrie difficult passages and texts of Scripture or for the true discerning of seueral Ecclesiastical Traditions and doctrines taught and practised by the Church and yet no where mentioned in the Writen Word And as this is not most impiously to oppose Fathers to Scriptures or to fly from Scriptures to Fathers So is it in these respects the most assured meanes to giue vs satisfaction For as none euer left more liuelie Monuments of rarest wit profundest knowledge or more shining testimonies of greatest puritie and sanctitie in life or more astonishing wonders and miracles in confirmation of their Faith and doctrine then these ancient Fathers so were there none euer furnished with so good means eithers of knowing the Apostles or the Apostles preaching as the Apostles first heires and next successours the sweetest fruits of their labours our holie Fathers But to prosecute yet further this so lunatick proceeding of Protestants against these grauest Sages of Christ's Catholick Church what more indigne or iniurious can be vttered then that these so great Doctours al of them vnited members of one Catholick Church should be at deadlie warres and dissention amongst themselues in important articles of Faith Religion Yea that one and the same Doctour should contradict himself that in matters fundamental of greatest consequence And yet Caluin blusheth not to say 32) In Inst in Praef. ad Reg. Galliae p. 7. Those holie men were ignorant of manie things they often fight amongst themselues and sometimes with themselues Beza likewise speaking of the ancient Fathers in Theodosius his time sayth 32) In Inst in Praef. ad Reg. Galliae p. 7. I confesse as then there were most learned Bishops 33) In nou Test Praef. ad Princip Condens p. 4. but this also I affirme c. that scarce anie of them can be named who dissenteth not both from himself and others in manie things and those of greatest moment A thing incredible in such learned Bishops if Caluin and Beza were not the Broachers who seldome tel truth 34) Ep. ad Rom. c. 14. p. 419. Melancthon also thus writeth of the Fathers Seing they sometimes speak contrarie things they must pardon vs if we reprehend certain things in them And 35) Devotis p. 463. Though the Fathers were wise and learned and saw many things sayth Peter Martyr yet they were men and could erre And that chiefly is to be obserued that the Fathers do not always agree amongst themselues and sometimes one dissenteth from himself Those Fathers saith 36) Retractiue from Romish Religion p. 223. 224. D. Beard that liued in the next two hundred yeares after the first speak of this mater of Inuocation of Saints very variously and doubtfully as if it were a Doctrine which they knew not what to say to and were not fully resolued in Thirdly of those Fathers which he alleadgeth though in some places they seeme to allow that custome which was then brought into the Church yet in other places they disallow the same yea and they are disapproued also of others that liued in the same Age. Thus true Athanasius condēneth Inuocation of Saints c. false Athanasius alloweth it c. Basil approueth it but Nazianzene doubteth of it and Epiphanius c. vtterly condemneth it Chrysostome in some places seemeth to allow of it in others he speaketh against it and so doth Augustine and the rest The like contradition D. Whitaker instanceth in S. Basil saying 37) De Sacra Scrip. p. 670. Basil fighteth with himself And 38) De Princip Christ Dog l. 2. c. 10. p. 675. I oppose saith Lubbertus Basil against Basil And 39) Ib. p. 678. Damascene is contrarie to himself Yea 40) Ib. p. 676. I oppose Chrysostome against Chrysostome of whom also saith Whitaker 41) De Sacra Scrip. p. 678. he is at variance with himself And 42) Ibid. p. 676. Let vs not attend what Cyprian sayd but let vs examin him by his owne law Yea of S. Augustin Whitaker blusheth not to say 43) Ibid. p. 690. Although in this he may be thought to fauour Traditions yet in other places he defendeth earnestly the perfection of the Scriptures Of whom also sayth D. Beard 44) Retractiue from Romish Religione 413. Augustin whom they challenge for the greatest Patrone of this fire yet defineth nothing determinately of it but speaketh doubtingly and problematically and if he affirme it in some one place he leaueth it in suspence in others and vtterly denyeth it in a third D. Morton acknowledgeth that Protestants 45) Prot. Appeal l. 2. p. 201. 202. haue particularly and by name obserued that Iustinus Ireneus Clemens Tertullian Origen Cyprian and others albeit manie times they pleaded for the free wil of the corrupt nature of man yet were they sometime reduced vnto the more Orthodoxal hold writing therof more commodiously belike as denying Free-wil But this being only a Protestant or lying obseruation I must inferre that as this so base proceeding against the Fathers doth euidently demonstrate and discouer the vnablenes of Protestants in alleadging the Fathers further against vs then they are pretended to be against themselues which al of iudgement wil confesse to be nothing So doth it alfo no lesse cleerly conuince that Protestants in their owne consciences do find and know the Fathers directly to condemne their opinions and to patronize Papistrie for otherwise they would neuer endeauour so fowly to blemish them by vrging contradiction with themselues which the meanest Writer though in triuial matters doth euer scorne as too cleer an argument of grosse obliuion or worse inconstancie Now from this conceipt of the Fathers ignorance and contradiction to themselues Protestants doubt not to preferre their owne moderne writers for iudgement knowledge and learning before the greatest ancientest Doctours of the Primitiue Church So Luther in his Protestant humilitie thus speaketh of himself 46) Lib. ad Ducem Georgium And see Colloq lat c. de Consolatione Since the Apostles times no Doctour or writer hath so excellently and cleerly confirmed instructed and comforted the consciences of the secular States as I haue done by the singular grace of God This certainly I know that neither Austin not Ambrose who are yet in this matter the best are equal to me heerin 47) Tom. 7. Serm. de Euersione Hierusalem f. 271. The Ghospel
ancient Papists In like for argueth Mr. Carth wright saying That (9) Reply part 1. p. 18. the argument of the authoritie of men which haue interpreted the Scriptures is the best reason in Controuersies of Diuinitie was neuer heard of but by Papists whose strongest towers are in the testimonies of the Doctours c. There is nothing more Papistical then this Assertion So that if Protestants commit themselues to the trial by Fathers they yeeld themselues prisoners to the strongest Towers and Castles of the Papists their Enemies wherin what can they expect but ruine and confusion D. Whitaker affirmeth (10) Cont. Dur. li. 6. p. 423. The Popish Religion to be a patched couerlet of the Fathers errours sowed togeather Wel then if our Religion was beleeued by the Fathers from them deliuered to vs I am perswaded that D. Whitaker admitting this would place litle hope in appealing to Fathers for Confutation of Popish Religion And though he falsely tearmeth our Religion the Fathers errours yet therby he plainly granteth the Fathers to haue beleeued and taught the same Religion which we now professe and Protestants impugne Now the ancient Fathers being thus acknowledged for Papists I do not wonder that Protestants contemne their authoritie and seeke their disgrace with al contumelies possible Why may not D. Luther affirme (11) To. 2. Wittemb l. de Seruo Arb. p. 434. And the same booke printed in 8. p. 72. 73. 276. 337. The Fathers of so many Ages to haue beene plainly blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures to haue erred al their life time and that vnles they were amended before their deaths wherof neuer Protestant had yet the least intelligence they were neyther Saints nor pertayning to the Church but no doubt according to Luther damned Papists Why might not he further auouch That (12) In Colloq mensalibus c. de Patrib Ecclesiae in the writings of Hierome there is not a word of true faith in Christ and sound Religion Tertullian is very superfluous I haue houlden Origen long since accursed Of Chrysostome I make no account Basil is of no worth he is wholy a Monk I weigh him not a haire Cyprian is a weake Diuine c. See how our old Papists are betrampled by a yong Protestant And yet no lesse resolute against them is (13) In Ionam Pomerane Our Fathers whether Saints or no I care not ô zeale and reuerence Protestantical they were blinded with the Spirit of Montanus by humane traditions and the doctrines of Diuels c. they teach not purely of Iustification c. neither are they careful to teach IESVS CHRIST according to his Ghospel Stil are the Fathers reiected as men blinded with Papistical opinions The Centurists endeauouring to discredit the whole multitude of Doctours and Fathers in euerie Age begin euen with the first Age next after the Apostles saying 14) Cent. 2 c. 4. p. 55. Albeit this Age was neerest to the Apostles yet the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles began to be not a litle darkned therin and many monstrous and incommodious opinions to Protestants are euerie where found to be spread by the Doctours therof Perhaps some cause therof may be for that the guift of the Holie Ghost in these Doctours did begin to decay for the ingratitude of the world towards the Protestant Truth Now as for the Doctours of al Ages succeeding they make a Principle that The 15) Cent 3. c. 4. p. 17. further we go of from the Apostles Age the more stubble shal we find to haue been added to the puritie of Christian doctrine So that al Doctours and Fathers since the very first Age of the Apostles are discarded by the Centurists for stubble and Papistical But Luther wil not rest vntil he hath brought these stubble-Doctours to Hel for teaching Papistrie (16) In Deut. c. 13. p. 102. Sathan sayth he hath hitherto deluded vs by signes and lying wonders c. whilst contrarie to the Ghospel we haue admired Pilgrimages Apparitions of Spirits and cures at certaine Sepuchers in so much that Saints also erred herin as Augustin Bernard Hierome and many others c. certainly damned as Wicclif sayd vnles they repented So that if Papists be damned for beleeuing the Catholick faith they haue for their Companions Hierome Augustin Bernard and many others most renowned Doctours of Christs Church and Saints From this true conceipt of the ancient Fathers being Roman Catholicks Protestants further disclayme from their Interpretations and expositions of Scripture refusing to stand to their iudgments for the true vnderstanding therof Thus then they write The Sacred Scripture saith Polanus (17) Symphonia c. 1. Thes 6. p. 56. is not to be interpreted by Fathers neither is the Interpretation of Scripture to be iudged by Fathers the Fathers are not the rule of expounding the sacred Scripture c. what is here sayd of euerie Father alone is to be vnderstood of al the Fathers ioyned togeather as also of Councels That is though al Fathers and Councels conspire togeather in their Expositions of Scripture agreably to the Doctrine and beleef of the Catholick Roman Church yet Protestants wil not subscribe or admit the same but wil valiantly maintayne al such expositions though most contrarie therto as are last coyned at Geneua or Wittemberg or newliest extracted by some Brother more illuminated In like and most prouident manner argue our English Puritans against Doctour Downham obiecting against them That none of the Fathers did euer vnderstand the Text then in question as Puritans do (18) The Puritans in their answ to D. Downham Doth not Mr. Doctour know say they that to argue negatiuely concerning the sense of Scriptures from the authoritie of Fathers is the practise of Papists only and taxed by learned writers against them c. If that manner of disputing be good we shal often loose more truth in taking their Interpretations c. Carthwright tearmeth the seeking into the holy Fathers writings a 19) In Bancrofts suruey of Pretend Discipl p. 331. 337 and see chap. 4. p. 64. Raking of ditches and the bringing in of their authorities the mouing and summoning of Hel. Parker assureth vs that (20) Pref. to his Answer Limbomastix and see Iacob's Treatise p. 1. 3 54. 81. 68. Bilson's sermons Ps 323. Answ to Broughâ—on's Letter p. 17. If you alleadge the ancient Fathers against them they wil tel you roundly that their opinions are nothing els but the corrupt fancies of vaine Imaginations of men toyish fables fond absurd without sense and reason And some stick not to cal the Fathers of the Latin Church the plague of Diuinitie Hence it is that the French Protestants haue enacted it for a (21) Disciplina Magistrorum Galliae art 4. law that no place be giuen to the writings of the old Doctours for the iudgement ad determination of Doctrine So cleerly is Protestancie at an end if the Fathers Interpretation of Scriptures may stand for
good But yet further they doubt not to affirme the argument or consequence vrged from the (22) Puricans Answ to D. Downham's ser p. 92. receiued opinion in the Church of God euen from the Apostles time vnto our Age to be lyable to iust exception So that though the Fathers of al Ages vp to the Apostles themselues do al of them ioyntly agree with our Roman faith in their Expositions and deliuerie of the sense of Scripture yet may one illuminated Protestant except contemne and reiect them al as not hauing the Spirit nor interpreting according to the Analogie of the Protestant faith But O most miserable and lamentable times O insolencie most impious and incredible What the receiued opinion in the Church of God euen from the Apostles time vnto our Age to be lyable to iust exception The Fathers of al Ages during 1600. yeares of al Countries though most distant in place and different in language and other conditions of nature and gouerment al of them to conspire in one opinion of truth doctrine and yet al of them so fowly and so grosly to erre as that a new-found Protestant is able to discouer it This this may a Protestant often declaime but no man of iudgement can possibly beleeue him Yea our Protestants are so far out of loue and liking with the Fathers as they painfully labour to make the world to think that their Cōmentaries books and beleef were directly contrarie to the Sacred Scriptures and therefore to these they wil euer appeale from the writings of men Captaine Luther 23) L. contra Henricum 8. Regem Angliae saith Against the sayings of Fathers Men Angels and Diuels I place not ancient consent nor the multitude of men but the Ghospel being the Word of One Eternal Maiestie which themselues are enforced to allow Here I stand here I sit here I abide here I glorie here I triumph here I insult ouer Papists Thomists Henricians and al the Gates of Hel much more ouer the sayings of men though neuer so holy and deceauable custome The word of God is aboue al Diuine Maiestie maketh with me so that I care not if a thousand Augustins a thousand Tertullians a thousand Henries or Papistical Churches should stand against me God can not erre and deceiue Austin and Cyprian as also al the Elect may and haue erred My Doctrines shal stand the Pope shal fal Here we haue a man of liuelie Faith but yet heare him further 24) In Comment in ep ad Gal. No other doctrine is to be deliuered or heard in the Church then the pure word of God that is the Sacred Scripture Let other Doctours and Auditours be accursed with their learning but here wanteth Charitie Neither is Luther in this alone for Zuinglius likewise declaymeth 25( In Explanat Artic. 64. Presently thou beginnest to cry Fathers Fathers the Fathers haue so deliuered But I do not ask of thee Fathers or Mothers but I require the word of God In like sort Peter Martyr 26) De Votis p. 462. As concerning the Fathers iudgement because our Aduersaries the Papists are accustomed in this and other Controuersies alwayes to prouoke to them I therfore declare that to me it seemeth not the part of a Christian to prouoke to the iudgements of men from the Scriptures of God Yea saith he 27) Ibid. p. 476. As long as we rest in Councels or Fathers we shal alwayes be conuersant in the same errours And the like is taught by Summerus saying 28) Contr. Carolum l. 1. c. 1. Antiquitie by which they affirme we are condemned is of no force for if they speak of a right beleeuing Antiquitie by which we vnderstand Christ and his Apostles the matter itself cryeth that it is for vs but if they wil vnderstand the same of the authoritie of the Fathers we do not take it il that the word of God is condemned by them Agreably heerunto writeth D. Whitaker 29) Contra Sander p. 92. If you argue from the testimonies of men be they neuer so learned and ancient we yeeld no more to their words in cause of Religion then we perceiue to be agreable to Scripture Neither think your self to haue proued any thing though you bring against vs the whole swarme of Fathers except that which they say be iustifyed not by the voice of men but by God himself And againe 30) Answ to Camp Reas 2. p. 70. And see the like in Abbots in his Answ to His. Reas 10 p. 371. We are not the Seruants of the Fathers but the Sonnes when they prescribe vs anie thing out of the Law and Diuine authoritie we obey them as our parents if they enioyne anie thing against the voice of the heauenlie truth we haue learned not to hearken to them but to God You Papists as vassals and base seruants receiue whatsoeuer the Fathers say without iudgement or reason being affrayd as I think either of the whip or the halter if euerie thing they speake be not Ghospel with you Againe 31) Against Sanders de Antichristo p. 21. We repose no such confidence in the Fathers writings that we take any certain proof of our Protestant Religion from them because we place al our Faith and Religion not in humane but in Diuine authoritie If therefore thou bring vs what some one Father hath thought or what the Fathers vniuersally altogeather haue deliuered the same except it be approued by testimonies of Scriptures it auaileth nothing it gaineth nothing it conuinceth nothing for the Fathers are such witnesses as they also haue need of the Scriptures to be their witnesses If deceiued by errour they giue forth their testimonie disagreeging from Scriptures albeit they may be pardoned erring for want of wisdome we can not be pardoned being green-witted Protestants if because they erred we also wil erre with them Thus doth this Protestant Doctour defend his reiecting the ancient Fathers as writing contrarie to the Scriptures and vpbrayd vs Catholicks for our due estimation of the same and so do Protestants stil labour in derogation of the Fathers to oppose the Sacred Scriptures and holie Fathers as contrarie one to another But al in vaine for who euer more duly reuerenced or more carefully preserued those heauenlie writings then the ancient Bishops and Doctours of the Primitiue Church Who more truly translated them to their greatest paines for the good of al succeeding Ages then those learnedst Fathers Who in searching the deepest difficulties so frequent in them did more submit and captiuate their iudgements then these holy Fathers Who euer more pressed Hereticks with the weight of God's word then those zealous Fathers Who euer writ more large or more learned Commentaries and explanations therof then the aged Fathers And is it then possible that the sayd Fathers should so directly contradict the Sacred Scriptures as our Protestants pretend But this so desperate so vnworthie dealing against the Fathers doth cleerly conuince that
haue a good warrant to dissent from him You further admit that Inuocation of Saincts was the doctrine (14) Ib pag. 27. of S. Gregorie and that his (15) Ib pag. 28. not suffring Images to be broken when there was so publick and general Idolatrie committed with them seemed vnto your Osiander although not a direct yet an occasional approuing of Idolatrie or rather a cloaking therof Yea you admit further that (16] Ib pag. 586. about the foure hundredth yeare Images erept out of priuate mens houses and went into the publick churches standing there And as for Relicks you (17) Ib pag. 583. wish that Hierome had been a Vigilantius in the case of the Relicks of Saints You further affirme that the [18] Ib pag. 38. Apologists do truly obiect that Osiander noted S. Gregorie to haue been a vehement vrger of single life in the Clergie You confesse that [19) Ib pag. 604. Vigilantius and Iouinian are condemned for impugning the vnmarried life of Priests and that the (20) Ib. pag. 480. Councel of Nice restrayneth them from marriage who were vnmarried when they entred into Orders And (21) Ib. pag. 88. we finde say you that the Age next abutting vpon the Apostles time did practise a perpetual vow of Virginitie You likewise auouch that (22) Ib pag. 46. Monachisme is a state of life greatly commended by S. Gregorie who had been himself a Monk And speaking of ancient (23) Ib pag. 89. Votaries you write that the Apostle requireth in his widowes the age of three score yeares and after times would not admit Virgins vnder 25. yeares old nor veyled Nunnes til fourtie for which you cite seueral Councels As touching the Fast of Lent you write [24) Ib pag. 303. This Fast we confesse was of great antiquitie and c. had in general vse and obseruation which S. Ambrose teacheth to haue been ordayned by the Diuine institution of Christ And (25) Ib. pag. 04. S. Augustin doth sometimes write of the fourtie dayes Fast that it hath a Diuine authoritie And where other Protestants do charge vs with the Heresies of the Manichees and Tatianists for abstaining from certain meates vpon prescribed dayes (26) Ib pag. â—00 yourself doth cleare vs and defend vs therin as also against the Heresie of the Manichees [27) Ib pag. 139. 140. Communicating vnder one kind And as concerning Ceremonies you auouch that (28] Ib. pag. 53. in the innouating and multiplying of new Rites Gregorie himself was not the least agent And [29] Ib. pag. 58. Be it knowne to al our Aduersaries that the too manie Ceremonies vsed by Gregorie cannot excuse their now farre more multitudes nor can some of his not good c. You charge him further to haue vsed (30) Ibid. p. 53. Superstitious manner of Consecration of Churches In which [31] Ibid. p. 57. he indeed requireth lights And as for Holie-water you say that (32) Ibid. p. 5â— true it is that Aqua lustralis was vsed but c. as an inuention of Pope Alexander who liued An. 109. And it was applyed in the dayes of Gregorie by Augustin to the Consecration of Churches togeather with Prayers for the casting out of the filth of Idols and Diuels And so likewise concerning the mingling of water with wine in the Chalice (33) Ibid. p. 142. you referre this new Romish custome vnto the sayd Pope Alexander the supposed authour therof Lastly as touching Free-wil you acknowledge that (34) Ibid. p. 201. 201. Protestants haue particularly and by name obserued that Iustinus Ireneus Clemens Tertulian Origen Cyprian and others albeit manie times they pleaded for the Free-wil of the corrupt nature of man c. Thus not being able to giue other answer yourself confesse with M. Brierlie that our Catholick doctrines of the Pope's primacie of the Pope not being Antichrist of vnwritten Traditions of Purgatorie and Prayer for the dead of Inuocation of Saints of Images Relicks of the vnmarried life of Priests of Monks and Nunnes of the Fast of lent of mingling water with wine in the Chalice of Consecration of Churches of lights in Churches of Holie-water and Free-wil were al of them taught in the times of the Primitiue Church of Christ and that not by anie infamous and condemned Hereticks but euen by the clearest Lamps of those Ages namely by S. Gregorie S. Augustin S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Leo S. Cyprian Iustinus Tertulian Origen Victor Alexander Clemens Ireneus the Councel of Nice the 3. of Carthage and others And so to conclude this first obseruation you see yourself that in steed of Answer you make a good Apologie for the Roman Church But to leaue this your so plaine dealing and to come to some of your more slipperie tricks wheras M. Brierlie obiecteth sundrie Protestant Writers confessing and reprouing the Fathers of the Primitiue Church for the self same points and conclusions of Faith which the Roman Church now beleeueth and practiseth you for your easiest answer most commonly passe ouer al or most of the said Testimonies with deepest silence not answering anie thing at al vnto them so that as vnanswerable you concealed them in your Answer But what child or Idiot professing Arianisme Pelagianisme Donatisme or the like might not with like facilitie haue answered al the bookes and proofes made by S. Athanasius S. Augustin S. Hilarie and other learnedst Doctours against the foresayd heresies Now to giue you example heerof euen in the first entrance M. Brierlie in his 1. Section intending to proue that the Faith of S. Gregorie and wherunto England was conuerted by S. Austin was the same with our now Catholick Faith confirmeth the same by the testimonies and grants of D. Humfrie Osiander the Centurie-writers of Magdeburg D. Fulk Daneus M. Harrison and M. Bale the three first instancing the same by manie particular points of Religion and the rest confessing in general that our Conuersion by S. Gregorie and S. Austin was to Poperie or the Papistical faith Now al this being comprehended by M. Brierlie his Booke within the compasse of lesse then one quarter of a sheet of paper you spend in answer thereto aboue 60. pages and yet in neuer one therof do you fully and directly answer to anie of your said Authours cited against you yea some of them you do not so much as mention or take the least notice of and the like might I shew throughout your whole Booke At other times you admit that the Protestant Writers alleadged by M. Brierlie did indeed reproue the Fathers for seueral points of Papistrie but therewith you are displeased and oppose yourself against your owne deare Brethren charging them to haue done the same without iust cause and with greatest wrong and iniurie to the said Fathers But now you go by the eares with very manie Protestants no lesse if not more renowned then yourself And what man of ordinarie sense and reason wil not giue more credit to