so to ascend to the Old we find touching Luthers Condemnation of the Apocalyps Bullinger thus to complayne Doctour Martin (e) Vpon the Apocalips Englished cap. 1. serm 1. fol. 2. Luther hath as it were sticked this booke by a sharpe Preface set before his first Edition of the New Testament in Dutch for which his iudgment good and learned Men were offended with him With Luther herein agree Kempnitius and Brentius in the places next hereaâ—ter noted in the Margent and yet Caluin and the Protestants in England admit it for Canonicall In like sort the Epistle of Iames is tearmed by Luther Epistola (f) In pro legom bâ—ius Epist straminea An Epistle swelling Contentions Strawy and vnworthy altogether an Apostolicall spirit In the same manner the Magdeburgenses (g) Cent. l. 2. c. 4. col 55. Kempnitius (h) Exam. 4. Sess Concil Trident. and Brentius (i) Confess Witiemberg l. de sacra Scriptura do condemne the same Epistle with Luther as Apocryphall notwithstanding Caluin the Church of England acknowledge it for Canonicall Scripture In like sort Luther (k) Luther in Annotat. in hanc Epistol the Centurists Kempnitius and Brentius in the places aboue noted in the Margent condemne as Apocryphall the Epistle of Iude the second Epistle of Peter they rest vncertaine and doubtfull of the Authority of the second and third Epistle of Iohn But Erasmus more fully speaketh thereof his words are these The (l) In Prolegem ad hanc Epist Second and Third Epistle of Iohn are not to be taken as his Epistles but as written by some other man And yet all these are acknowledged for Scripture by Caluin the Caluinists and the Church of England Beza reiecteth the History of the adulterous Woman recorded in the Gospell of S. Iohn c. 8. And Bullinger (m) He is so charged by Laurentius Valla. a Sacramentary reiecteth that addition to our Lords Prayer For thyne is the Kingdome the power and glory c. And yet these parcells are taken for Scripture by other Sacramentaries Luther in like manner discanoneth the Epistle to the Hebrews (n) Prolegom Epist ad Haebreos maintayning that it was not written either by S. Paul or by any other Apostle for it contayneth sayth Luther certaine things contrary to the Apostolicall Doctrine With him conspire in iudgment Brentius Kempnitius the Magdeburgians in the places aboue quoted Touching the Foure Ghospells Luther to (o) Luth. Praefat. in Nouum Testam lib. de Scripturae Ecclesiae authoritate c. 3. extenuate depresse the Authority of three of them ceÌ„sureth that the Gospell of Iohn is the only fayre and true Gospell and to be preferred before the other three by many degrees he further maintayning that the generall Opinion of foure Gospells ought to be abandoned and relinquished he protesting that he ascribeth more Reuerence to the Epistles of Paul and Peter then to the other three Euangelists To come to the Old Testament The Booke of Baruch is accounted as Apocryphall by (p) L. 3. Instit. c. 10. §. 8. Caluin and (q) In Exam. 4. Sess Concil Trid. Kempnitius and yet is taken as Canonicall by most other Protestants since we do not find it in their writings to be reiected by them The Canticles is wholy reiected by (r) In Translat Latin suorum Bibliorum Castalio who maintaynes that it contaynes matter of wanton loue for which his Censure he is grieuously and sharpely reprehended euen by Beza (s) Beza in Praefat. in Iosue The Booke entituled Ecclesiastes is thus scurrilously traduced by Luther The Authour (t) Luther in Conuiuialibus titulo de Patriarchis Prophetis of Ecclesiastes seemes to ryde without spurrs or bootes only with bare stockings Yet is it taken for Scripture generally by the Caluinists The Booke of Iob is reuerenced for Canonicall Scripture by the Protestants of EnglaÌ„d and by Caluin and the Caluinists and yet Luther so contemneth it as that he thus plainly condemneth the said Booke The Argument (u) In Conuiuialibus ser titulo de Patriarâ— is Prophetis of Iob is a meere fiction inuented only for the setting downe of a true and liuely example of Patience Thus far of such parts only of the New and Old Testament which some Protestants repute as Apocryphall and therefore reiect them other Protestants acknowledg them as Canonicall and therefore take them for the true and vndoubted word of God Here before I leaue speaking of the reiecting or approuing of the Scripture I will adioyne thereto that whereas the most learned and moderate Protestants do so reuerence Moyses and the Apostles teaching and belieuing that their Pens were so directed by the Holy Ghost as that they did not nor could erre in their writings yet heare what is said to the contrary by other Protestants And first Luther thus conuitiateth Moyses Moyses (x) Luthâ—â— tom 3. Wittenberg in Psalm 41. fol. 423. tom 3. German fol. 40. in Colloq mensal German fol. 152. 153. had his lipps vnpleasant stopped angry c. Do you collect all the Wisdome of Moyses and of the Heathen Philosophers and you shall fynd them to be before God either Idolatry or Hypocriticall Wisdome or if it be politick the wisdome of wrath c. Moyses had his Lips full of gaule and anger c. Away therefore with Moyses Luther and other Protestants further rayle in great acerbity of language and intemperate words at the Apostles for thus he writeth expresly against S. Peter Peter (y) Luther in Epist. ad Galat. c. 1. after the English Translation fol. 33. 34. tom 5. Wittenbeg anno 1554. fol. 290. the chiefe of the Apostles did liue and teach extra verbum Dei besides the Word of God The Centuristi thus taxe S. Paul Paul doth turne (z) Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. col 580. to Iames the Apostle and a Synod of Presbyters being called together he is perswaded by Iames and the rest that for the offended Iewes he should purify himselfe in the Temple whereunto Paul yeeldeth which certainly is no small slyding of so great a Doctour D. Bancroft alledgeth out of Zanchius his Epistles that a Caluinist thus said Yf (a) In his Suruey of the pretended Discipline pag. 37â— Paul should come to Geneua and preach the same houre that Caluin did I would leaue Paul and heare Caluin Caluin thus bouldly affirmeth of S. Peter Peter (b) In Comment in omnes Pauli Epistoâ—as p. 510. erred to the schisme of the Church to the endangering of Christian liberty and the oâ—erthrow of the grace of God Conradus Schluffeth 〈◊〉 chargeth Caluin to maintayne and say that The Apostles (c) In Theolog. Caluinist l. 2. fol 40. alledged the Prophets in anothâ—â— sense then was meant Brentius playnely writeth thus S. Peter (d) In Apol Confess de Conâ—tâ—ijs p. 900. chiefe of the Apostles and Barnabas after the Holy Ghost receaued
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
l. 4. cap. 17. §. 16. Marcion is raised out of Hell And in like sort Caluin thus more writeth The (t) Admonit 3. ad Westâ—y balum Lutherans are forgets and Lyars These implacable and mutuall dissentions betweene the Lutherans and the Caluinists are so great and irreconcileable as that Conradus (u) Schlusselburg in Theolog. Caluinist in his Catalogue praecipuorum Doctrinae Capitum c. Schlusselburg the great Lutheran reciteth three and thirty seuerall Articles of Doctrine in question and controuerted betweene the Lutherans whom he defendeth and the Caluinists against whom he writeth And Luke Osiander the Protestant did write a Treatise bearing this title Enchiridion Controuersiarum quas Augustanae Confessionis Theologi habent cum Caluinianis Printed Tubingae 1603. And Hubberus a learned Lutheran wrote a booke in Dutch printed Regiomonti 1592. hauing this title The Opposition of the Lutheran and Caluinian Doctrine in certaine chiefe Articles of Fayth So iust reason had Nicolaus Gallus the Protestant and superintendent at Ratisbone thus to complayne of the Contentions betweene his owne Brethren all Protestants Non (x) In Thesibus of Hypoiâ—esibus sunt leues c. The dissentions that are among vs are not of light matters but of the greatest articles of Christian Doctrine of the Law and the Gospell of Iustification and good Workes c. And finally Pappus the Protestant hath no lesse resentment and feeling touching this point thus writing Etsi (y) Papipus in Theolog. Caluinist l 1. Art 28. initio de vno tantùm articulo c. Although in the beginning one only Article was called into doubt notwithstanding the Caluinists are now so far gone as they call in doubt neither few neither the least Articles of Christian Doctrine c. With whome conspites Bullinger the Protestant in these words Ipsi inter (*) Bullinger in his â—undamentum fiâ—mum cap. 1. pag. 5. se Euangelici acriter pungunt pugnant c. Those alone who are professours of the Gospell do vehemently prick and feight one against another And from hence are hard among vs those vnfortunate names or appellations of the Lutherans and the Swinglians 3. In this next place let vs behould how the Lutherans do agree among themselues Their contentions are so great that Conradus Schlussenburg (z) Schlussâ—lb in Catal. Haeret nostri temporis l. 2. the most eminent Lutheran placeth six sorts of his owne Lutherans in the Catalogue of Heretikes And from this seuerall sort of Lutherans did first rise that distinction of Molles Lutherant and Rigidi Lutherani These seuerall Kinds of Lutherans had seuerall appellations or names for some of them were called Substantarij for teaching sinne to be of the essence and nature of Man Others opposite to these were tearmed Accidentarij who impugned the former Opinion Some called Vbiquitarij for confounding Christs Humanity with his Diuinity Some called Osiandrians in regard of their different Doctrine of Iustification Some others were styled Maiorists of Gregorius Maior in respect of the necessity of Good Workes Others Flaccians of Flaccus Illyricus who oppugned the Maiorists therein Finally others were denominated Adiaphorists for maintayning the indifferency of Rites and Ceremonies wherein they are greatly written against by the Flaccians Now all these as aboue is said are Lutherans and do imbrace and acknowledg the Confession of Augusta which Confession of fayth the Caluinists do wholy reiect And yet these Seuerall sorts of Lutherans haue written and published seuerall Bookes one against another in defence of their seuerall maintayned different Doctrines 4. To come to the Sacramentaries or Caluinists alone we find that Castalio the Sacramentary or Caluinist condemneth Caluin himselfe for his presumed Doctrine of God being the Authour of sinne thus writing hereof By this (a) Castal l. ad Caluinum de Praedestinat meanes not the Deuill but the God of Caluin is the Father of Lyes But that God which the holy Scripture teacheth is altogether contrary to this God of Caluin And then after The true God came to destroy the workes of the Caluinian God And these two Gods as they be contrary in Nature one to another so they beget and bring forth Children of contrary disposition to wit that God of Caluin Children without mercy proud c. Thus the foresaid Castalio In like sort Caluin (1) L. de Coena Dom. l. 4 Instit c. 15. sect 1 wholy condemneth Swinglius for his teaching that the Sacraments are bare externall signes and (2) Epist. ad quandam Germaniae Ciuitatem fol. 196. Swinglius reciprocally condemneth Caluin for his teaching that to the Sacraments more is attributed then to externall signes According to these dissentions of the Protestants or Sacramentaries among themselues Doctour Willet a formall Protestant thus reprehendeth M. Hooker D. Couell and others in these words From this Fountayne (b) In his meditat vpon the 12â— Psalme haue sprung forth those and such other whirlepooles and bubbles of new doctrine c. and then after Thus haue some beene bould to teach and write who as some Schismatikes meaning the Puritans haue disturbed the peace of the Church one way in externall matters concerning Discipline they haue troubled the Church another way by opposing themselues by new quirks and deuises to the soundnes of Doctrine among Protestants Thus far D. Willet of the strifes among the moderate Protestants themselues In this last passage we will descend more particularly to the doctrinall contentions of English moderate Protestants and English Puritans And to begin the English Puritans writing against the English Protestants thus say If (c) In a Treatise entituled A Christian and modest offer p. 11. we be in errour and the Prelats on the contrary side haue the truth we protest to all the World that the Pope and the Church of Rome and in them God and Christ haue great wrong and indignity offered vnto them in that they are reiected c. And more the English Puritans thus complayn hereof Do we (d) In the mild defence of the silenced Ministers supplication to the high Court of ParlameÌ„t vary from the sincere doctrine of the Scripture Nay rather many of them meaning the Bishops and their Adherents do much swarue from the same touching generall Grace and the death of Christ for euery particular person c. Touching the manner of Christs presence in the Eucharist c. Finally the English Puritans do more fully dismaske themselues thus bursting out and maintayning that the (e) These Positions of the Puritans are verbally recited and condemned in the booke entituled Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiasticall printed anno 1604 Worship of the Church of England is corrupt superstitious vnlawfull repugnant to the Scriptures Againe The Articles of the Bishops Religion are erroneous their rites Antichristian Aâ—d yet more The gouerment of the Church of England vnder his Maiesty by Archbishops and Deanes is Antichristian and repugnant to the word of God 6. Now to turne ouer
the leafe and see how the more moderate English Protestant recompenseth the English Puritans Charity herein And First we find that M. Barks thus auerreth confidently The Puritans (f) In his Epist. Dedicat p. 3. are beadstrong and hardened in errour They stryke at the mayne points of fayth Shaking the very foundation it selfe Heauen and Hell The Diniuity and Humanity Yea the very soule and Saluation of our Sauiour And yet more plainely in the foresaid place They haue pestilent Heresies And finally They are hereticall and sacrilegious And further the said M. Parks thus discourseth The Creed (*) M. Parks vbi supra it selfe which alwayes hath beene the badg or cognisance whereby to discerne and know the faythfull from vnbelieuers c. is the mayne poynt in question betweene vs and the Puritans D. Couell speaking of certaine fiery English Puritans thus deliuereth his words The (g) In his Examen pag. 1. first English Ministers so far descended that some bookes and the greatest Part of Christendome was filled with vnreuerent vnholy and vnnaturall Contentions c. M. Powell is very playne with them for thus he writeth The (h) Powell in his considerations Puritans are notorious and manifest Schismatiks cut from the Church of God To forbeare diuers others like Censure passed vpon our English Puritans I will alledg these few following First of the foresayd D. Couell who registring the positions of the English Puritans among other of their positions setteth downe these following The (i) In his defence of Hooker p. 65. 74.75 statute Congregations of England are no true Church And againe The Protestant Church of England hath no forme of a Church We also thus read in the Booke of The Suruey of the pretended Discipline The (k) C. 5. c. â—4 c. 35. Puritans peruert the true meaning of certaine places both of Scripture Fathers to serue their owne turnes And againe The word of God is troubled with such choppers and changers of it Lastly besides diuers other such reprehensions of them we thus read The Catebraulls pittifull Distractions and Confusions among the Puritans proceed from such intollerable presumption as is vsed by peruerting false interpretation of holy Scripture Now by all this touching the immortall dissentions betweene our English Protestants and English Puritans we may discerne the Vanity of the Protestants answere to the Catholikes charging them in England with Controuersies in fayth the Protestants replying that their Dissentions rest only touching gouerment and other Indifferencyes but touching the mayne Articles of Protestancy they haue no Differencye at all O os impudens So ingenuously truly doth M. Parks confesse hereof saying The Protestants deceaue (l) M. Parks in his Epiâ—t Dedic the world and make men belieue That there is agreement in all substantiall Points They affirme that there is no question among them of the Truth Now the mayne Differences in doctrine betweene the Caluinists especially betweene the forraine Protestants amoÌ„g themselues and the English Protestans and the Puritans be among others these following 1. Whether the Ecclesiasticall Minister doth truly forgiue sinne or but only pronounce the remission thereof 2. Touching the Churches Visibility and Inuisibility 3. Whether in case of adultery the innocent party may marry agayne 4. Whether Christs body be really and substantially present to the Mouth of Fayth as D. Whitaker and M. Hooker do hould or but Sacramentally only present as the Puritans do teach 5. Touching Reprobation and vniuersality of Grace 6. Christs suffering in soule the paynes of Hell His descending into Hell after his death 7. Baptisme by lay persons in tyme of Neressity 8. Whether Ministers should be ordayned by imposition of handes or by the Election of the Presbytery 9. Whether Vsury be lawfull 10. Whether the Sacraments do confer Grace or but only signify it 11. Whether there hath beene since the Apostles tyme any extraordinary Calling Or whether such Calling may be 12. Whether vowes are now to be abrogated as supposed to be but Ceremoniall and parcell of the old Law 13. Whether the Roman Church be a true Church affording saluation 14. Whether the Ciuill Magistrate may be head of the Church 15. Whether the Communion ought euer to be deliuered vnder both kinds 16. Finally to omit somâ— others touching the vse of the signe of the Crosse of the Surplisse of Organs in the Church c. The II. Paragraph NOw hauing displayed in part the great Differences betweene the Protestants of all kinds among themselues and this but only from the particular sentences and wordes found here and there scattered in their writings In this next place I will demonstrate the same more fully euen from the many scores if not some hundreds of Bookes written all by Protestants against Protestants of which one Catalogue of them comprehends such bookes as are written by the Caluinists against the Lutherans Another Catalogue of bookes written by the Lutherans against the Caluinists A third by the Lutherans against the Lutherans All which three Catalogues of bookes may be found in Iodocus Coccius his Thesaurus Tom. 2. The fourth Catalogue containes the bookes written by the Protestants one against another touching the Question only of the Sacrament The Catalogue of which bookes is taken from the Protestant Wryter Hospinianus in his historiae Sacrament part 2. And all these were made betweene the yeare of our Lord 1574. and 1598. Since which tyme diuers other bookes of that subiect haue beene written by other Protestants against their owne Brethren Now in regard of the multiplicity of the said bookes of the seuerall same Catalogues and for greater breuity I refer the Reader to the two foresaid Authours Coccius and Hospinian in the places aboue alledged Yet for some delibation and tast of all the rest I will set here downe the particular titles only of twenty of the said Bookes from the vitulency and bitternes of which Titles the Reader may coniecture of all the other bookes in what spirit of Charity or rather of Serpentyne hatred and malignity they are written by Protestants against Protestants Of which twenty Bookes here alledged not any doth touch the question of the Reall presence maintayned by the Lutherans because I haue purposely forborne that subiect in relation of the Bookes here alledged in that the Lutherans agree with vs Catholikes therein 1. The First Booke then which I alledge is entituled Alberti Grauari bellum Ioannis Caluini Iesu Christi Printed Braptae Anno Domini 1598. The warr betweene Iohn Caluin and Iesus Christ written by Albertus Grauerus 2. Antiparaeus hoc est Refutatio venenati scriptià Dauide Paraeo editi in defensionem stropharum corruptelarum quibus Ioannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae testimonia de Mysterio Trinitatis nec non oracula Prophetarum de Christo detestandum in modum corrupit Printed Franeo-furti Anno 1598. Antipaeraeus that is a Refutation of a venemous writing published and made by Dauid Paraeus
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
directed to her Excellent Maiesty of the Psalmes compared in our Booke of Common Prayer doth in Addition Substraction and Alteration differ from the truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at least M. Parkes censureth the English Bibles with the Notes of Geneua in these words As for (d) In his Apology concerning Christes descending into Hell those Bibles it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifould Errours which are both in the Text and Margent or els vtterly prohibited To conclude with M. Broughtons Condemnation of the English Bibles This great Hebritian thus expresly writeth The publike (e) In his Aduertisment to the Bishops Translation of the Scripture in English is such as that it peruerteth the Text of the Old Testament in eight hundred forty and eight places and it causeth Millions of Millions to reiect the New Testament and to runne into eternull Flames And hence it is that D Reynolds in the Conference at Hampton-Court being the speaker for the Puritans openly denyed before the King to subscribe to the Communion Booke because said he It warranted a corrupt and false Translation of the Bible Thus far of the immortall Disagreements of the Protestants both touching the Authority of the many Bookes of Scripture and of the Translations of the Scriptures made by the Protestants 3. I will here in this next place rest in the easines and difficulty of the Scripture seuerally maintayned by seuerall Protestants We find (f) In Prolegomâ— contra Patrum à Soto Brentins to write that it belongeth through the easines of Scripture to euery man to iudge from the Scripture of the Doctrine of Religion and to discerne truth from falshood In like sort D Whitaker thus writeth touching ech vnlearned Mans reading the Scripture The (g) de sacra script p. 529. vnlearned in the exposition of Scripture is to demand the Opinion of the learned and to read the Commentaries of Interpreters but they must take heed ne nimis illis tribuant that they do not ascribe too much to them but so as that in the meane tyme they retaine their owne liberty that is that euery illiterate fellow must finally iudge of the sense of the Scripture This point needeth no further allegations for we see that euery Mechanicall Fellow if so he can but read and thinks himselfe to be of the number of the Faythfull vanteth of his easy vnderstanding of the Scripture And this deportment is the Character of ech ignorant Puritan Yea ech silly ignorant Puritan-Woman will assume so much to herselfe in the interpretation of Scripture And yet to crosse this their Vanity we find Luther thus to write Scio (h) In praefat in Psalm esse impudentissimae temeritatis c. I know it to be a signe of most shameles temerity and rashnes for any Man to professe that he truly vnderstandeth in all places but any one booke of the Scriptures And D. Field maintayneth the same and sheweth Reasons in defence thereof thus writing There is no (i) L. 4. of the Church cap. 15. Question but that therebe many difficulties of the Holy Scriptures proceeding partly from the high and excellent things therein contayned which are without the compasse of Naturall Vnderstanding so are hidden from naturall Men c partly out of the ignorance of tongues c. And the truth of this point is warranted from the practise of the learned Protestants many of whom haue written Commentaries and Expositions of most bookes of Scripture which Commentaries and Expositions had beene needlesly vndertaken if the Scripture were of that facility and easines as the Puritans seeme to suggest Here now in this last place concerning the Protestants disagreements about Scripture I will descend to shew how they disagree in seuerally expounding seuerall texts of Scripture To goe through all such texts of their disagreements would be most laboursome and needles therefore I will insist in some few And First to begin with those words of the Institution of the blessed Eucharist Hoc est corpus meum Touching which text after all the Protestants haue wholy disclaymed from the Catholikes exposition thereof they presently dissent among themselues 1. For First (k) In lib. suo caâ—â—o Basiliae anno 1526. Carolostadius the Protestant will haue the Aduerb Hîc to be vnderstood by the Pronoune Hoc he thus meaning Hîc sedet corpus meum 2. Bucer (l) In Râ—tractâ—â— suis affirmeth that the Pronoune Hoc signifieth the whole action of the supper So as the sense must be This action signifyeth my body 3. Swinglius (m) L. dâ— vera falsa Religiâ— cap. de Eucharistia teacheth that the words of the Institution are to be taken Figuratiuely And the Figure to consist not in the Pronoune Hoc but in the Verb Est Which ought sayth he to be taken for the word Significat he thus meaning This signifyeth my body 4. Petrus (n) In examen libri Hothusiâ— propâ—iâ—â—tium Boquinus affirmeth that the bread is truly called the Body of Christ propter communicationem Idiomatum as by the same forme of speach we truly say of Christ This Man is God 5. Oecolampadius (o) In lib. de genuine exposit horum verborum doth not rely either in the Pronoune Hoc nor in the verb Est but in the Substantiue Body For he maintayneth that the bread is called the Body by the Figure Metonymia by which Figure the name of the thing signified is attributed to the signe So as the sense sayth he is this Hoc est corpus meum that is this bread is a Figure of my body 6. Caluin (p) Lib. 〈◊〉 Instit. c. 17. â— 11. teacheth in part with Oecolampadius that the Figure Metonymia lyeth in the word Corpus But withall he addeth that the bread of the Eucharist is not a naked Figure of Christs body but it is a Figure which doth exhibit and present the thing it selfe And therefore Christ did not say This bread is a Figure of my Body but is the body it self And Peter (q) L. de ver aque natura Christi Martyr conspireth with Caluin herein 7. Certaine other Caluinists mentioned though their names not expressed by Cornelius (r) In Comment cap. 59. Concord in illa veâ—ba Nisi manducaueritis Iansenius do teach that the word Corpus ought to be taken for the Mysticall body of Christ that is for the Church So as the sense of the words of the Institution should be this This is my body that is you Disciples are my body 8. Iohannes (s) Vti testatur Lutherus insua breâ—i Confess edita anno 46. Campanus a Sacramentary thus expoundeth the words of the Institution This is my body that is This body is created and made by me See here Good Reader the wonderfull disagreements of the Protestants in the exposition of these few words who all conspire togeather in reiecting the Catholike Interpretation but then
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
themselues Petra Scandali who to all good Christians is Lapis angulularis 7. Touching the Diuersity of Persons which are included within the members of the Protestant Church aboue defended by some Protestants and denyed by others Their disagreements are so vncertaine as that some admit Papists Anabaptists Arians Heretâ—kes Infidells yea by supposall Antichrist himselfe So making their Church to consist of certaine mungreâ—l Persons whereas other Protestants do exclude all these kinds from being members of the Protestant Church Now I say their irresolution and vncertainty of Iudgment is so wonderfull herein as that no Protestant can assure himselfe with what kind of men he may communicate in practise of Fayth Religion and from what men he ought to abstayne in all such spirituall entercourse and association 8. Touching the deniall of Freewill the certainty of Reprobation and of Predestination and both without any reference to our good or bad works Contrary to other learned Protestants Iudgments How do all these Doctrines most forcibly impell men to the perpetrating of the most flagitious crymes whatsoeuer Seeing vpon these their grouÌ„ds granting them by supposall for true they may iustly Apologize for themselues First that they are to be pardoned in all such their Enormous actions seeing they had not Free-will to forbeare the committing of them punishment euen in force of Reason belongeth to such only in whose power it is to do or not to do such or such a wicked thing Secondly they may Reply that seeing by their former Doctrines of Predestination and Reprobation a vicious lyfe is no way preiudiciall to a mans predestination not a vertuous life for the preuenting of ReprobatioÌ„ why may they not then liue yea become thrall to all pleasure voluptuousnes sensuality without any remorse or sting of CoÌ„science Againe by their sayd Doctrines of Predestination and Reprobation we yearely see many most lamentable Tragedies of diuers shortning their owne dayes by violent deaths wrought by their owne Hands some euen butchering themselues through a vayne hope and expectation of ariuing the sooner to Heauen And others agayne perpetrating the lyke through a most wicked and desperate conceyt of their Reprobation that it is not in their power concurring with Gods grace to preuent it so forgetful these men are of those most comfortable words of holy Scripture (i) Ezech. 18.31.32 Cast away all your transgressions c. for I desire not the death of him that dyeth This speaketh he who hath placed his (1) Psalm 18. Tabernacle in the Sunne and who himselfe being Sol increatus is not inexorable but wil lend a willing eare to him who hath true penitency of his sinnes saying to such Deleui (2) Isa 44. vt nubem iniquitates tuas quasi nebulam peccata tua 9. In lyke sort touching their Doctrines that good workes are not auaylable towards IustificatioÌ„ nor are respected by God nor sinnes or bad workes any way exitiall or hurtfull to Saluation as also that Tenet of diuers Protestants that God is the Authour of all our Sinnes what a sluce and fludgate do these Doctrines open to all turpitude in maÌ„ners and Conuersation For seeing it is nauseous and vngratefull to mans nature to weary himselfe out in the exercise of a vertuous lyfe if such a life as wanting all pleasing motiues thereto be no wayes beneficiall to his Soule as on the contrary most sweet to man to liue in all voluptuousnes pleasure and Iouialisme if so this course cannot be in any sort dangerous to him and this the more seeing he is indoctrinated by diuers Protestants that what sinnes are coÌ„mitted by him God is the Authour of them himselfe but Gods bare instrument therein they by such their beliefe running vpon the Dint of those words spoken by the Psalmist in the Person of God (l) Psalm 128. supra dorsum meuÌ„ fabricauerunt peccatores As if I would say they haue transferred the committing of their sinnes euen vpon me Thus they making God who dyed for sinne to be the Patrone of sinne 10. The Doctrine of Polygamy and Diuorce according to Swinglius and others most different from the iudgment of other Protestants how doth it sow the seeds of dissention betweene husband and wyfe to repudiate one the other and to part a sunder vpon the least dislike or discontent on eyther side boâ—h of them to mary againe they being warranted by this Doctrine to take vpon occasion of such discontents as many wyues and husbands as they will so both the parties liuing after their first Diuorce in a continuall state of Adultery and begetting and bringing forth seuerall broods of bastards 11. The Positions of some Protestants aboue alledged that no Princes or Magistrates are now to be in the tymes of the new Testament ingendreth nothing but a tumultuous Anarchy intestine simulties warrs and Traiterous insurrections of the Subiects against their Prince threating vipar-lyke an vtter euisceration of their owne Country And woe be to that Nation or Realme which nourisheth such Monsters of sedition and disloyalty and which placeth all Soueraingty and Principality in the common people the many Headed-Tyrant of Mankind since the certaine euent thereof will be that a mans owne Country shall finally become a Golgathae or field of bloud And with this my Pen giues it last pause to this short discourse AN APPENDIX In which is proued First that the ancient Fathers by the acknowledgements of the learned Protestants taught our Catholike and Roman Fayth Secondly that the said Fathers haue diuers aduantages aboue the Protestant Writers for fynding out the true sense of the Scripture WHEREAS in this former Treatise I meane in the tenth Paragraph we haue shewed how most Protestants do contemne the ancient Fathers exercising their fomy language in the eiuculation of most gaulfull words agaynst them though the sayd Fathers be by other more moderate Protestants respected reuerenced Now heere in this short Appendix I thinke it to be much conuenient First to shew the reason more particularly why the Protestants do rest disaffected agaynst the Fathers It being though aboue in part intimated in that it is ackowledged by the ProtestaÌ„ts themselues that all the Articles of Catholike Religion were with an Vniformity of Iudgment belieued taught and practised by the sayd Fathers in those most pure tymes Secondly I will make it euident euen with seuerall choaching Reasons why euery Christian Man solicitous of entertayning a true faith should prefer the ancient Fathers in the ExpositioÌ„ of the Scriptures from whence they draw of theirs and our Catholike fayth and Religion before the different or contrary expositions of them giuen by the ProtestaÌ„t Doctours The discouery of which later Point shall rest in setting down diuers conducing and auaylable Circumstances in behalf of the Fathers but altogether preiudiciall and incompetent to the Protestants Which two former Points shall be the Subiect of this short Appendix Now to begin with the first I meane in
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
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
maÌ„ner Leo (z) Cent. 5. col 1262. paynfully goeth about to proue that singular preeminence was giuen to Peter aboue the other Apostles and that thence did rise the Primacy of the Roman Church D. Cowper (a) In his Chronicles calleth Linus first Bishop of Rome after Peter To conclude Bucer thus freely sayth We (b) In prae paratorijs ad Concil plainely confesse that among the auncient fathers the RomaÌ„ Church obtayned Primacy aboue others as that which hath the Chayre of S. Peter and whose Bishops haue almost alwayes beene accounted the successours of Peter Thus Bucer 15. Touching the Catholike Ceremonies of Funerals and other Ecclesiasticall customâ—â— we thus fynd confessed The Centurists acknowledge that (c) Cent. â— col 454. Solebant Cerei proferri funeri c. Wax candels were accustomed to be brought in the tyme of the funeralls And the Centurists do also graÌ„t that it was (d) Cent. 4 col 455. the custostome to couer the graue with flowers The sayd Centurists further make mention of minning dayes in these words Celebris (e) Cent. 4. col 455. ob defuncti memoriam fuit dies quadragesimus post obitum the fortith day after the death of the party was kept with solemnity Lastly they recorde those words of Tertullian We (f) Cent 3. col 138. offer vp sacrifices oblations euery anniuersary day for the dead 16. That prayer was made towards the East in those ancient times is confessed by the (g) Gent. 4. col 432 Centurists That Canonicall (h) Cent. 4. col 433. howres of Prayers were then vsed the Centurists confesse They also record that there was in those primitiue times (i) Cent. 4 col 459. rising in the night to prayer Also that the (k) Cent. col 433. Lyturgy was then accustomed to be recited That (l) Cent. 4. col 1326 prayers were then made by nuÌ„bring them vpon litle stones which is the same as in these dayes by numbring prayers with beades 17. D. Fulke (m) Against Heskinâ— c. pag. â—57 confesseth that the Crosse by report of Paulinus was by the Bishop of Ierusalem his appointment at Easter yearly to be worshipped by the people But heer we are to note that Paulinus did not meane any idolatrous worship to be giuen to the Crosse as the Protestants do most wrongly charge vs Catholiks to exhibite to it but only a Christian reuerence and respect as being an Instrument vpon which the Sauiour of the world suffered for Mans Redemption 18. That set tymes of fasting were vsed in those ancient tymes is cleare for first touching the fast of Lent KeÌ„pnitius (n) In Examen part 1. pa. 8â— coÌ„fesseth that Ambrose Maximus Taurinensis Theophilâ—â— Ierome and others do affirme the fast of Lent to be an Apostolicall Tradition Yea Scultetus thus sayth The (o) In medulla Theolog. p. 440. superstitious fast of Lent was allowed and commanded by Ignatius Now Ignatius was in the Apostle dayes M. Cartwright is alledged by M. Whitguift (*) In D. Whitguifts defence pag. 100. to reproue S. Ambrose for saying It is a sinne not to fast in Lent Touching the fast of Quatuor Tempora (*) Whitak contra Duraeum l. 7. p. 80. D. Whitaker confessetht it to be as auncieÌ„t as Calixtus the Pope who was immediate Successour to Pope Victor who liued in the third Century 19. I will conclude the Protestants Confessions touching the ancient Fathers in the doctrine of Religious Persons And first touching Monkes the Centurists (p) Cent. 4. col 46â— vnder the title de Consecratione Mâ—nachi acknowledge Monkes to haue beene in those Primitiue Tymes D. Humfrey thus writeth of Gregory the Great These (q) In Iesuitis par 2. rat 5. things Austin the MoÌ„ke taught by Gregory the great Monke brought in Thus the Doctour acknowledging Mâ—nachisme in those dayes M. Cartwright thus confesseth (r) In D. Whitguifts defence pag. 344. Ruffinus Theodoret Sozomene Socrates c. do mention Monks almost in euery Page In like manner the Centurists speaking of the age wherein Constantine liued (s) Cent. 4. c. 10. col 1294. do confesse that there were Monks throughout Syria Palestine Bithinia and other places of Asia The Centurists further acknowledging a place of S. Basil in prayse of Monasticall life thus censure him All which (t) Cent. 4. p. 300. 3â—â— words meaning of Basil are both besydes and contrary to the Holy Scripture 20. The Centurists (u) Cent. 4. c. 6. col 404. 466. also make mention of Monasteries wherein the Monks did dwell The Centurists finally record the Monasteries (x) Cent. 4. col 467. 479. â—335 c. of Virgins The like mention the Monasteries of Virgins is made by (y) Osiander cent 4. pa. 507. 503. c. Osiander Thus far of all the former Points of Catholike Fayth and Religion that they were taught and practized by the ancient Fathers euen in our Aduersaries Iudgment I could proue the like by the Confessions of the learned Protestants in all other Articles controuerted betweene vs and the Protestants But I trust that these former Articles being of greatest Moment may serue in lieu of all the rest which are of lesser Consequence Only I thinke good to adioyne here this ensuing Animaduersion To wit That whereas in the producing of the former Authorities of the Fathers in behalfe of the Catholike Religion all Fathers are not brought in by the Confession of the Protestants to teach the said Catholike Articles Now the reason of this is in that euery ancient Father did not wryte of euery particular Article of Catholike Religion and consequently such could not be alledged by the Protestants confessions in proofe of the Articles omitted by them Neuerthelesse it vnauoidably followeth by all true inference of Reason that all other Fathers in such particular points of Catholike Religion as are omitted by the Protestants do agree and conspire with the former Fathers aboue confessed The reason iâ— this Yf the other Fathers aboue omitted and not spoken of had maintayned contrary doctrines to the former produced Fatâ—ers they then would haue beene written against by some other more Orthodoxall Writers and Fathers touching the said points As we see that certaine Errours in Origen Tertullian Cyprian to omit the like Examples in Donatus Iouinian Pelagius and sundry such other Nouelists were instantly impugned by Austin Ierome Epiphanius Theodoret c. But no such writing was against the former confessed Fathers in this Treatise for their houlding the foresaid Catholike Points Therefore it is certaine that all other Fathers of the Primitiue Church did jointly teach and belieue the said Catholike doctrines with the aboue confessed Fathers Againe the alledged Fathers in this Appendix were the chiefe Pastours in God Church in those dayes in whom the Church of Christ was peculiarly and more markably personated Therefore all other Inferiour Members of the Church did agree with them in the beliefe
of the said Catholike Doctrines or otherwise by their deniall of them they did cease to be members of the said Church of God Cum (z) Cyprian l. Vnitate Ecclesiae Deo manere non possunt qui in Ecclesia Dei vnanimes esse noluerunt Now to descend to the secoÌ„d Part of this Appendix which is touching the Comparison made betweene the ancient Fathers and the Protestant Doctours and Wryters for the fynding out of the intended sense of the Holy Ghost in the exposition of the sacred Scripture In the consideration of which point I grant I am finally moued to a iust and warrantable Anger since the want thereof vpon so vrgent an occasion might well be reputed but stupidity and an insensiblenes of the indignities and wrongs offered to those blessed and happy Saints Therefore let the Reader pardon me if I here sharpen my Pen which can hardly spend its inke vpon a more worthy and noble subiect and if I become somewhat more luxuriant in defence of these Champions of Christ his Church vpon whom diuers Protestants as in the former Treatise is shewed do euen showre downe infinit words of reproach contumely and do throwe vpon their honorable Memories the durte and filth of their owne most intemperate and gaulefull Language But first I thinke it conuenient to take away the vulgar stumbling-Block which most of our Aduersaries haue layed betweene the Truth and the eyes of the ignorant and credulous Protestant Which is as the Protestants most wrongfully and to themselues consciously suggest That seing the Scripture as being the vndoubted Word of God is to be aduanced before the Authority of the Fathers they being but men and seeing the Protestants say they relye only vpon Scripture the Fathers vpon their owne and oâ—her humane Authorities Why then should not the Scripture be pryzed aboue the Authorities of the said Fathers Now to dispell and dissipate this weake smoake from the Eyes of the Ignorant I do auer this their answere to be a mere Elench of Fallacy called by the Logitians Petitio Principij since here it is falsly presumed that the Protestants do relye only vpon the true sense of the Scripture and the Fathers do reiect the Scripture Whereas indeed the Fathers with all Reuerence and honour do affect the Scripture and most humbly submit themselues to it And therefore the life and touch of the doubt in this point only consisteth To wit whether the Fathers who buyld the Articles of their Fayth vpon the Scriptures are to be preferred before the Protestants interpreting the said Scriptures in a contrary Sense And thus the Antithesis or opposition is here to be made not betweene the Fathers and the Scripture as our Aduersaries do calumniously pretend but betwene the Constructions giuen by the Fathers of certayne Texts of holy Scripture and the different or contrary constructions of the sayd Text giuen by the Protestants The lyke subtility our aduersaries to wit the Centurists D. Whitaker Illyricus and others do vse when the call Catholike doctrines as they are maintained by vs Idolatry Heresies Blasphemies c. thereby to intimate that the Papists are no members of Christs Church which very doctrines as they are taught by the ancient Fathers the Protestants stile but nauos naenia errores c. with intention to shew that the Protestants do not deuide themselues from the Church of which the Fathers were members O incredible and serpentine Craft and Imposture But to launce further in discoursing of the Comparison betweene the Fathers and the Protestants For I hould it my honour to be their poore Aduocate vpon earth and I hope that in their Seraphicall and burning Charity they wil be my Adocate in Heauen and will vouchsafe to intercede to his Diuine Maiesty for the remission of my infinite sinnes and transgressions Heere I say that any true and zealous Christian ought to haue a sensible griefe and religious Resent to see that Saphyrs should be preferred before Diamonds the lowest Shrubs to dare to contend in height with the Cedars of Lybanus vpstart Innouation to take the wall as I may say of reuerend and gray-hayrd Antiquity I meane that Luther Swinglius Melancthon Caluin Beza and such refuse of men should shoulder out of the due Seatâ— of Honour and Authority Austin Ierome Epiphanius the Gregories the Cyrills Basil Ambrose Hylary Optatus Athanasius Cyprian Ephrem Irenaeus Ignatius Polycarpus and diuers other Fathers of those Primitiue and purest tymes But to descend more particularly to the dissecting of this point I hould it most conducing to present to the Readers Eye certaine forcible Circumstances aduantaging the ancient Fathers much aboue the Protestants for the searching and picking out the true and intended sense of the Holy Ghost in the Texts of sacred Writ produced either by the Catholiks or the Protestants Thus I meane to Parallele the Fathers with the ProtestaÌ„ts not as Plutarch did by comparing Worthy Men with Worthy Men but by ballancing the ancient graue and most literate Doctours with certaine Nouellizing and but competently learned Sectaries 1. And to beginne Our first Circumstance may be taken from the different times wherein the Fathers and the former Protestants did liue The Fathers as is knowne florished in those pure tymes neere to Christ and his Apostles when his Spouse I meane his Church remayned intemerate and incontaminate as then not brooking any defiled touch but of one Heretike We may adioyne hereto that in regard of their proximity in tyme to Christ for some of them liued in the (a) Ignatius Dionysius Areopagita liued in the dayes of the Apostles Apostles dayes others in the next (b) Iustinus Martyr Pope Pius Ireneus liued in the second age Origen Tertullian Cyprian c. in the third age Athanasius Hilarius Cyrill of Ierusalem Ambrose Basil Optatus Gregorius Nyssenus Gregorius Nazianzenus Ephrem Epiphanius c. in the fourth Age in which age was celebrated the Councell of Nyce Gaudentius Chrysostome Ierome Austin Cyrill of Alexandria Proclus Constantinopolitanus Theodoret Gelasius Leo Pope Hilarius Eusebius Emyssenus in the fifth age Gregory the Great and Austin our Apostle in the sixt age ensuing ages the true Fayth and Doctrine and consequently the true meaning of the Scripture might well be Paraphrazed by force of Tradition during that short desceÌ„t of the Church ech man receauing from his Predecessour euen from hand to hand the practise of the true Religion so as such Men as then would not acknowledge the splendour of the Catholike Religion in those firster Tymes may well resemble the stars when they are darkened through ouer much light This far of this Circumstance in behalfe of the Fathers from whence we may gather that diuers of them liued a thousand yeares since others more then fifteene hundred But now let vs cast our eye vpon the other End of the Ballance Haue our Protestant Writers beene in Rerum Natura fifteene hundred yeares since Haue they beene a thousand yeares Haue they beene