intercession to his Father both according to his Humanity and Divinity n. 41. p. 117 18 19 20 1. That Christ suffered all the torments due to the damned and despaired for fear they should be eternal yea refused to be obey his Father in Redeeming Man n. 46. p. 131 2 3. He calls it a foolish curiosity to question whether Christ merited for himself and a timer arious definition to merit n. 19. p. 67. t. m. He furiously railed saith Grotius at the opposer of his Doctrine n. 47. p. 133 4. He contemptibly condemns the antient Fathers for averring the sacrifice of the Masse n. 39. p. 111 12 13. He died calling desperately upon the Devill eaten up with Lice and other Vermin n. 37. p. 107.110 Calvinists held it lawfull to lie for the Glory of God n. 53. p. 155. t. m. Of Canonicall Scriptures the sense of the holy Fathers and the Protestants reprehending them for it c. 2. n. 12. p. 234 to 242. inclusivè t. m. Canonicall Scripture onely determined by the Church p. 240. t. m. c. Carolostadius pretended Visions and Conference with God for his Doctrine c 1. n. 23. p. 79. t. m. Of Catholike Religion as Protestants confesse no beginning can be assigned after the Apostles times c. 2. n. 15. p. 255. t. m. It is by them judged safe c. 5. per totam shewed by their clear Testimonies n. 1. p. 437.8 9. Ceremonies practised by the Fathers c. 2 n. 8. p. 205 6. t. m. and n. 12. p. 234. Most of the now used acknowledged by Protestants to have been then used n. 13. p. 247. t. m. The Chancel prohibited to the Laity c. 3. n. 89. p. 366. Chillingworth confutes himself n. 87. p. 363. With reason he excepts against painting the Irinity for he denies the Trinity n. 92. p. 377. His ridiculous objection of an Oblation by way of Consumption n. 95. p. 375. Divers other of his impertinent objections in the Numbers and pages precedent and following particulars about the immaculate conception of our blessed Lady n. 99. p. 378.9 His many testimonies that the Catholike Church is saving and his contradicting himself c. 5. n. 7 8. p. 459 60 1 2 3 4 5. Chrisme or Confirmation gives grace c. 2. n. 8. p. 205.6 Clement vide John Clement Confession as now used avowed by the antient Fathers n. 9. p. 206 7. and n. 19. p. 269. c. Confirmed by Miracles c. 4. n. 2. p. 407. Consecrating of Creatures c. 2. n. 12. p. 244 5 6. t. m. c. Constantine the great allwaies had with him a portable consecrated Tabernacle or Church with Priests and Deacons not to be forced against the then practice of the Church to celebrate Divine Mysteries in prophane places n. 23. p. 292. t. m. The Lord Cromwell professed at his death to believe in all with the Church of Rome c. 5. n. 2. p. 439 40. Use of the Cross c. 2. n. 8. p. 205 6. m. In practise with the holy Fathers reprehended by Protestants n. 12. p. 243. t. m. The vertue of it confirmed by Miracles c. 4. n. 2. p. 406. St. Cutbert's Miracles and miraculous integrity after his death n. 4. p. 412 13. D Almes Prayer Sacrifice for the Dead c. 2. n. 3 4. p. 196.7.8 t. m. Delrius cleared from Morton's falsification c. n. 7. p. 26. 7. t. m. E Equivocation beyond all limits held and taught by Protestants c. 3. n. 72. p. 348 9 50 1 2. English inconstant in Doctrine c. 1. n. 28. p. 85 6 7. Errors affirmed by Protestants to have crept into the Catholike Church but no beginning of them can be assigned since the Apostles time c. 2. n. 15. p. 255. c. t. m. wherefore they impute them to the Apostles time n. 14. p. 251. c. t. m. Eucharist consecrated by vertue of the words n. 2. p. 179. t. m. In round Wafers of which use no beginning can be shewed p. 178. t. m. Transubstantiation held by the antient Fathers p. 179 80 1 2. t. m. 't was carefully conserved in the Church p. 181 2. in one kind onely so also carried in long journies c. 3. n. 83. p. 356. Water mingled with the Wine in consecration c. 2. n. 2. p. 182 3. It must be received fasting p. 183 4. And Chastly wherefore Priests are not to marry p. 184. c. t. m. F In the antient Fathers the now Catholike Doctrines acknowledged and reprehended by Protestants Vide Protestants The Faith of Catholikes judged saving by Protestants c. 5. per totam Their clear testimonies of it n. 1. p. 447 8 9. Fasts obligatory c. 2. n. 12. p. 229 30 31. t. m. Held an Heresie by many Fathers to fast on Sunday ibid. Fathers so evident for all Catholike Tenets that Protestants rebuke one another for citing of them and cry out that if their Authority be acknowledged the Protestant Church is undone n. 14. p. 249. c. t. m. Fox's Revelation concerning the 42 Moneths in the Apocalyps rejected c. 1. n. 23. p. 80. His fraud to cover Dr. Barnes his acknowledgment of Transubstantiation c. 3. n. 37. p. 320. St. Francis his Miracles Wounds and austere life c. 4. n. 5. p. 418 19. t. m. Freewill and merit of Good Works frequent in the holy Fathers c. 2 n. 5 6. p. 200. c. Fulke held Christ according to his Deity to be his fathers Priest c. 1. n. 41. p. 120. and the Arrians to be a true Church of God n. 42. p. 122. t. m. G GRegory the great introduced by St. Austine Rites and Ceremonies in England c. 2. n. 12. p. 244 5 6. Grotius his censure of Calvin's furious railing against the Opposers of his Doctrine c. 1. n. 47. p. 133 4. He stands in most points for Catholikes c. 3. n. 85. p. 359 60 1 2. H KIng Henry the Eigth kept to his death the Doctrine of Rome c. 5. n. 2. p. 439. Heretikes fraud in citing Authors c. 2. n. 18. p. 267. They moulter away by Divisions amongst themselves c. 3. n. 112. p. 391 2. t. m. Holy-Water confirmed by miracle c. 4. n. 2. p. 417. Hus no Protestant c. 3. n. 80. p. 355. I JAcobus Andreas vide Andreas King James his censure of John Knox c. 1. n. 60. p. 166. And of the English translations of the Bible n 33. p. 95. Jewell affirms Christ according to his Deity to be his Fathers Priest n. 41. p. 120. His impudent imposture upon Fathers Apostles and Christ himself c 2. n 22. p. 281 2 3. Thirty eight Jewes burnt in the Marchy of Brandenburgh and all the rest banished for stabbing the B. Sacrament c. 4. n 5. p. 421 t m 422 m. John Clement's miraculous cure at our B. Ladies of Sichem p 423 4 5. Images used by the antient holy Fathers c 2. n 12. p 243. Confirmed by miracle c 4. n 2. p. 404 5. t. m. Innocentius the third falsly taxed to have first brought up Transubstantiation c 2. n 16. p 257. t.
comisisse scelera ut propter turpitudinem suam non possit aut denique incurabili impediri impotentia quo minus per corporis vires illa valeat conjugii officia persolvere Moreover Bucer concludeth the lawfulnes of Divorce and marriage again to be Verbo Dei consentienter Agreeable to the word of God ibidem pag. 124. versus finem and see pag. 120 prope finem And all this in that very book of his de Regno Christi which is by our learned Adversaries highly magnifyed of which book Nicholas Car in epist de obitu Buceri ad Joannem Checum extant in Bucer's Scripta Anglicana pag. 873. fine saith Liber Buceri de Regno Christi editus continebat absolutissimam perfectissimam totius Doctrinae Christianae effigiem In like manner also in case of the Husbands one years voluntary absence the Opinion of Bucer in Script Anglic. pag. 122 ante medium is that it is lawfull for the Wife to marry again An Errour so manifest and confessed that it being objected to Mr. Whittaker by Dureus contra Whittakerum printed at Paris 1581. fol. 287. b. fine Mr. Whittaker in his Reply to that Booke and very folio forbeareth all mention and defence thereof 59 As concerning divers [p] Brereley tract 3. sect 7. in the margent at †notable Inconstancies for which Luther in Ep. ad Joan. Har. Typ Arg. calleth Bucer a very Monster charging him further with Perfidia in Lutheri Locis Comm. quinta Class fol. 50. antemed See further Osiander in Epitom c. Centur. 16. pag. 249 initio That after his first Apostacy from our Religion he defended with Luther the Reall-Presence is in it self evident and confessed by Peter Martyr in his Treatise of the Lords Supper annexed to his Common Places in English 138. ae fine after which he became a Zuinglian as appeareth by Bucer himself in Epist ad Norimb ad esseingenses After which he revoked that Opinion and joyned again with Luther as appeareth by the Acts of the Synod holden at Luther's House in Wittemberg Anno 1536. And is further confessed by Osiander in Epit. c. Centur. 16. pag. 246 post med and by Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvanist l. 2. fol. 17. b. ante med and by Lavaterus in Hist Sacrament pag. 31. alleged also by Schlusselburg ubi supra Insomuch as Lavaterus in Hist Sacrament allegeth by Schlusselburg l. 2. fol. 129. a. post medium saith of Bucer non parum abalienatus a Tigurinis esse visus est quos ante amârat plurimum singulare quâdam pietate coluerat And see there also fol. 129. b. circa med where it is further said Bucerus a Tygurinis Zuinglianis omnino abalienatus est And see Bucer's first Edition of his Commentaries upon the sixt of John and the 26 of Matthew where he asketh Pardon of God and the Church for that he deceived so many with the Errour of Zuinglius And see further also Functius in Chronic. And for his fourth change after all this into Zuinglianism again at his coming to Cambridge it is to all men evident and he therefore noted by the Protestant Writer Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvin l. 2. fol. 70. b. fine where he saith Idem tamen Bucerus Anno 1551 Cantabrigiae in Anglia iterum ad Zuinglianorum haeresim deficit And ibidem fol. 17. b. circa med it is further said Bucerus Anno 1551 Cantabrigiae in Anglia rursus parva cum honestate ad Calvanistas defecit So evidently he did change his Doctrine First to Lutheranism and from thence afterwards to Calvinism from thence back again to Lutheranism and from thence lasty again to Calvinism And all this thus done both by Melancthon and Bucer with solemn Profession and shew at every such change of all full confidence and resolution of opinion and the same with great vehemency pretended evermore as plain and evident from the Scriptures Pu. Which shewes that Scripture alone cannot be a perfect Rule of Faith but that we must have recourse to a living infallible Judge of Controversies Of Knox. 60 THE most turbulent and seditious Doctrines and Deeds of John Knox the pretended Reformer of Religion in Scotland are so notorious and known and exorbitant that I have no mind to set them down in particular nor can any man of a quiet spirit take pleasure in recitall of them Yet if any desire to be further informed he may read Brerely in his Preface to the Reader particularly besides other places sect 14. Here therefore I will only set down that which a person of honour of worth and truth relates namely that when King James came first into England being received and entertained by a person of eminent rank at that time took occasion one day at dinner where at least a hundred persons attended to see and serve him to inveigh in earnest manner against some kind of disobedient seditious and mutinous persons upon which subject he was large and as for Knox in particular I remember well saith the foresaid most worthy person the Relator hereof who then was present and so well that I am able to depose it that the King sayd in particular of him that God thought fit to set a visible mark of Reprobation upon him even in this life before he went to the Devill which was that being sick in his Bed with a good fire of coales by him a candle light upon the table a woman or maid of his sitting by him he told her that he was extreamly thirsty and therefore willed her to fetch him some drink She went and returned quickly but found the Room all in darkness For not only the Candle but the Cole-fire also was utterly extinct and she by that light which her self brought in imediatly after saw the body of Knox lying dead in the middle of the floor and with a most gastly horrid countenance as if his body were to shew the condition of his Soul 61 Pu. Holy Scripture saying Prov. 17. v. 6 The Glory of Children their Fathers I beseech the Protestant Reader to weigh unpartially what Fathers the Protestant pretend Religion hath by reflecting upon what we have demonstrated even out of learned Protestants concerning the Doctrins and Lives of their first Reformers and if they find them to be such as indeed they were they ought to resolve speedily to forsake such infamous Fathers and return to that Religion from which those Sectaries departed to which end these ensuing Reflections may help if they be pondered not cursarily nor with prejudice or a Resolution to find out some kind of answer to all that may be objected but uprightly and with a harty desire to find the Truth for attayning the salvation of their Souls Consider then and collect from what we have said First that as I said heretofore seeing they taught Doctrines which Protestants themselves do not only reject but detest and abhorr they cannot be said to have been of the Protestant Religion and so Protestants must find some
plain Doctrin of the Fathers pretending only them to have thus urged Sacrifice against the Jews and Gentiles whereas it is evident that their frequent assertions of Sacrifice are in their Commentaries upon the Scripture and such other their writings as concern nothing at all either Jew or Gentil but meerly and only the instruction of Christians In respect whereof Mr. Fulk affirmeth that the Fathers received their confessed Doctrin of Sacrifice from the Jews and Gentils saying in his rejoynder to Bristowes reply c. pag. 28. ante med The name of Sacrifice which the Fathers used commonly for celebration of the Lords Supper they took of the Gentiles and Jews but how prove you they had it from the Scriptures Athanasius Ambrose Austin Arnobius c. erred herein and so fully that their Supper is therefore said to have carried the face of a renewed oblation imitating over verily the Jewish manner of Sacrificing c. and that they [m] Calvin in omnes Pauli Epist in Haebr c. 7. ver 9. pag. 924. b. saith Quo magis tot veteres Ecclesiae Doctores hac opinione occupatos fuisse miror c. certè ut error errorem trahere solet cum ipsi Sacrificium in Christi caena nullo ejus mandato finxissent adeoque caenam adulterassent addito Sacrificio colores postea hinc inde accersere conati sunt quibus errorem suum fucassent And in his Book de vera Ecclesiae reformat extant in tract Theologic Calvini pag. 389. b. fine he further saith Veteres excusandi non sunt quatenus scilicet ipsos apparet a puro genuino Christi instituto deflexisse nam cum in hunc finem celebranda fit caena ut Sacrificio Christi communicemus eo non contenti oblationem quoque addiderunt hoc auctarium vitiosum fuisse dico c. forged a Sacrifice in the Lords Supper without his Commandement and so adulterated the Supper with adding of Sacrifice That Cyprians judgement herein is [n] The Century Writers in their third Century col 83. lin 34. reprove Cyprian saying Sacerdotem inquit Cyprianus vice Christi fungi Deo Patri Sacrificium offerri And in their Alphabetical Table of that Century at the Letter S. they say hereof Sacerdotem vice Christi fungi in Caena Domini superstitiosè asserit Cyprianus 83.34 superstitious That also the writings of Irenaeus and Ignatius who are most antient are herein [o] The Centurists cent 2. c. 4. coll 55. lin 43. undertaking to set down the declining peculiar incommodious opinions and errors of the Doctors of those times do in their said tract of this matter col 63. prope initium say Et si Doctores hujus saeculi de Sacrificio incruento in Eucharistia Deo faciendo nihil habeant tamen quaedam ambiguè incommodè dicta in quibusdam occurrunt ut in Epist Ignatii ad Smyrnenses Non licet inquit Ignatius sine Episcopo neque offerre neque Sacrificium immolare neque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which words they do afterwards col 167. lin 17. affirm to he periculosa quasi errorum semina And col 63. lin 20. they say in like manner of Irenaeus De oblatione porrò Irenaeus l. 4. c. 32. c. satis videtur loqui incommodè cum ait Novi Testamenti novam docuit Christus oblationem quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert Deo In so much as they have no other colour to excuse Irenaeus foresaid saying but to think that he hereby only meant the oblation of bread offered by the people to the use of the Lords Supper and afterwards the remainder thereof to the use of the Priests and the poor as though Christ in his oblation made in his institution of the Sacrament whereof Irenaeus expresly here professeth for to speak did to use Irenaeus his words teach or prescribe this foresaid offering to the use of the poor to be the new oblation of the new Testament this being no less than open violence to Irenaeus word and meaning the Centurists do therefore col 113. lin 23. plainly charge him to have been neghigent and improper in his speaking c. often calling the Eucharist an oblation Lastly these foresaid sayings of Ignatius and Irenaeus are so plain in the Centurists that although they be accordingly extant in all Copies and Libraries the Centurists yet blush not to say of Ignatius his saying that they do partly suspect it as inserted col 113. lin 9. and of Irenaeus his foresaid saying they say Si tamen locus fraude mendo vacat col 63. lin 22. Which extreamest shift they would never have thus undergone had not the said sayings appeared plain and manifest with us and against them in this question of Sacrifice For which cause they do as before place them in their foresaid special tract or recital of the Doctors errors of those times affirming withall as before Ignatius his foresaid words to be incommodè dicta periculosa quasi errorum semina And of Irenaeus that satis videtur loqui incommodè c. Which said reprehension made by the Centurists is in them so evident and not to be excused that Mr. Sutcliff doth accordingly confess the same in his subversion of the three conversions pag. 32. circa med incommodious and dangerous and that [p] Sebastianus Francus in his Epist de abrogandis in universum omnibus statutis Ecclesiasticis presently after the Apostles times the Supper of our Lord was turned into a Sacrifice In so much as some of our Adversaries doubt not to charge the most antient Fathers even with [q] Andraeas Chrastonius â— de Opificio Missae pag. 167. initio reciting the Fathers opinion hereof saith Dicta autem Patrum non solum impetrationem sed etiam intrinsecam quandam vim placandi innuunt Origines hom 13. in Leviticum ait Ista est Commemoratio sola quae propitium facit Deum hominibus Athana sius in sermone de defunctis apud Damascenum ait Incruentae hostâ—ae oblatio propitiatio est To which end he allegeth likewise further the particular sayings of Ambrose Chrysostom Augustine Gregory Bede and of the third Council of Brach. And concerning the Fathers further testimonies for Mass see more hereafter in this consideration num 17. in the margent at the Letter t. propitiatory Sacrifice and Sacrifice for the dead And with further acknowledgement that Sacrifice for the dead is the tradition of the Apostles which point of Sacrifice is so confessedly antient that our learned Adversary Mr. Ascham is enforced to acknowledge that [r] Ascham in Apolog. pro Caena Domini c. pag. 31. post med saith Quibus temporibus per quos homines Caena Dominica de possessione sua per Missam deturbata sit verissimè sciri non potest c. puto tamen originem Missae partim ex Sacrificils illis dimanasse quae impii Sacerdotes Iudaei supra modum auxerunt c. existimo etiam magnam
Scripturarum Sunt autem Canonicae Scripturae Genesis Eâ—odus Levitâ—cus c. Salomonis libriquinque c. Tobias Judith Hester Esdrae libri duo Machabaeorum libri duo c. And see the like accompt made by Innocent us in Epist ad Exuperium cap. 7. By Gelasius tom 1. Concil decret cum 70. Episcopis By Isidor l. 6. Etymolog cap. 1. By Rabanus l. 2. Instit Clerâ—corum and by Cassiodorus l. 2. divin lectionum sayings had thereof And howsoever certain of our learned Adversaries were not abashed in the Tower disputation publickly and seriously to evade and answer that St. Anstin in his sayings hereof used the word Canonical [l] In the Tower disputation with F. Campian Anno 1581. the first days conference improperly the very contrary thereof is so evident not only in St. Austin and the third Council of Carthage whereat St. Austin was present and [m] In Concil 3. Carthag fine it is said Augustinus Epâ—scopus plebis Hipponae subscripsi subscribed but also in sundry other Fathers that the same is plainly confessed in divers of the same Fathers by [n] Mr. Reynolds in his Conclusions annexed to his conference the second Conclusion pag. 699. post med 700. initio reproveth herein the third Council of Carthage D. Reynolds [o] Zanchius de Sacra Scriptura pag. 32. 33. acknowledgeth the foresaid like Judgement of the Carthage Council Innocentius and Gelasius Zanchius [p] Hospinianus in Hist Sacramentar part 1. pag. 160. paulo ante med rejecteth herein the Judgement of the Carthage Council And ibid. post med pag. 161. ante med he likewise rejecteth Innocentius Gelasius pag. 161. post med he reproveth St. Austin Hospinianus [q] Lubbertus dâ— principiis Christian dogm l. 1. cap. 4. pag. 8. prope finem saâ—th Concedo quosdam ex his libris à Carthaginenâ—ibus admissos sâ—d nego eos propterea esse verbum Dei. Nulla enim Cono lia habent istam authorâ—â—atem Lubbertus [r] Hiperius in Method Theolog. l. 1. pag. 46. fine saith In Concilio Carthagâ—ensi tertio adduntur ad Canonem c. Sapientia Ecclesiasticus libri duo Machabaeorum Tobias Judith c. quos libros omnes eodem ordine numerat Augustinus Innocentius Gelasius And then afterwards more at large reciteth their Judgement Hipertus [s] D. Field of the Church l. 4. c. 23. pag. 246. circa med 247. circa med acknowledgeth the like judgement herein of St. Austin Innocentius and the third Council of Carthage D. Field and [t] See D. Covel against Burges pag. 76. fine 77. most plainly confessing St. Austins like judgement had of the Book of Wisedom and ibid. pag. 87. ante med he further saith of all these Books If Ruffinus be not deceived they were approved as parts of the old Testament by the Apostles D. Covel And whereas our Adversaries do object that [u] Origen in Psalm 1. apud Eusebium Hist l. 6. c. 19. Origen and [x] Epiphanius de pond mensur and also Haer. 8. Epicureorum circa med Epiphanius do in their mentioning the Scriptures of the old Testament seclude these from the Canon and that [y] Hieron praefat in lib. Regum St. Hierom affirmeth them to be Apocryphal it is answered thereto First that the Fathers in those places do not speak of their own opinion but do only report what was the opinion of the Hebrews and what Books they thought Canonical From which now defended opinion of the Hebrews [z] Origen was so far from the Hebrews opinion hereof that he doubted not to defend for sacred against Julius Africanus who doubted thereof the History of Susanna which the Hebrews and Protestans reject hereof see Origen in Epist ad Julium Africanum and hom 1. in Leviticum He doth likewise in Epist ad Julium Africanum affirm that part of Hester to be sacred and Canonical which the Protestants refuse as not being in the Hebrews Canon Origen [a] Epiphanius haer 76. ante med numbreth Sapientia and Ecclesiasticus among the divine Scriptures and in libro de pond niensur paulo post init he referreth Sapientia unto Salomon as Author thereof Epiphanius Hierom [b] As concerning Hierom whereas he in praefat Daniel unto an unwary Reader may seem to seclude certain Chapters of Daniel rejected by Protestants as not being in the Hebrews Canon In so much that Ruffinus mistaking herein as the Protestants do Hieroms meaning doth reprehend and charge Hierom with refusal of these foresaid parts of Daniel accordingly also as doth Mr. Whitaker contra Camp rat 1. pag. 18. circa med allege the foresaid place of Hierom against those Chapters of Daniel St. Hierom. Apol. 2. adv Ruffinum circa finem answereth and explaineth himself saying Non enim quid ipse sentirem c. Truly I did not set down what my self thought but what the Hebrews are accustomed to say against us herein calling there fierther Ruffinus stultum Sycophantem a foolish Sycophant for mistaking and charging him with the Hebrews opinion See yet this point of St. Hierom thus explaining himself confessed by Mr. D. Covel in his answer to Master John Burges c. pag. 87. circa med And see the conference of Hampton Court pag. 60. Also St. Hieromâ—n prolog in Machab. most expresly placeth the Books of Machabees rejected by the Hebrews among the stories of divine Scripture And Hier. in praefat in Judith saith of that Book Apud Haebraeos liber Judith inter Agiographa legitur cujus authoritas ad roboranda illa quae in contentionem veniunt to wil with the Jews minùs idonea judicatur c. Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero Sanctarum Scripturarum legitur computasse acquievi c. and sundry other [c] St. Austin de Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 36. saith Among which are the Books of Machabees which not the Jews but the Church accounteth for Canonical And St. Isidore l. 6. Etymolog c. 1. saith of the Machabees Though the Hebrews do not receive them into their Canon yet the Church of Christ doth honour them among the divine Books So clearly did the antient Fathers disclaim from the Hebrews Catalogue which our adversaries profess to maintain and follow Fathers were most clearly dissenting many of them to the contrary usually alleging and citing these Books and to prevent all evasion and Cavil not under the naked and only name of Scripture in general but with such further circumstance or Epithets [d] So is the Book of Wisedom alleged by Cyprian l. 4. Ep. 1. de habitu Virginum ante med de exhort Martyrii cap. 12. initio de mortalitate prope finem By Fulgentius ad Trasimundum Regem l. 1. c. 5. l. 2. c. 9. ad Feram Diaconum resp ad quaest 1. prope initium by Cyril l. 2. in Julianum ultra med By Clemens Alexandrinus l. 4. Strom. By
suum ad comedendum c. jam latenter c. ineffabiliter invisibiliter corpus immolatum erat c. And see further hereof Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 4. pag. 320. fine Also Cyril of Hierusalem another Father of the Greek Church flourished Anno 320. whom Hospinianus in historia Sacramentaria pag. 167. initio chargeth and reproveth saying Quod ad Cyrillum Hierosolymitanum attinet dicit ille quidem prosui jam temporis recepta consuetudine sacr ficium altaris maximum juvamen esse animarum And Calvin in libro de vera Ecclesiae reformatione extant in Tract Theolog. Calvini c. pag. 389. a. fine b. initio saith of the Fathers of this age Solemne esse nebulonibus istis meaning us Catholicks quicquid vitiosum in Patribus legitur corradere c. cum ergo objiciunt locum Malachiaede Missae Sacrificio ab Irenaeo exponi oblationem Melchisedech sic tractari ab Athanasio Ambrosio Augustino Arnobio breviter responsum sit eosdem illos Scriptores alibi quoque panem interpretari corpus Christi sed ita ridiculè ut dissentire nos cogat ratio veritas c. And in his Book of Institutions Printed Argentorati 1539. pag. 350. ante med and after the other Edition l b. 4. Institut cap. 18. sect 11. he further saith Veteres quoque illos video hanc memoriam aliò detorsisse quam institutioni Domini conveniebat quod nescio quam repetitae aut saltem renovatae imolationis faciem eorum coena prae se ferebat c. Imitati enim sunt propiùs Judaicum sacrificandi morem quamaut ordinaverat Christus aut Evangelii ratio ferebat And see heretofore in this Consideration num 3. at sect after 12. where he expresly chargeth the Fathers with forging a Sacrifice in the Lords Supper without his commandement and of adulterating the Supper with a Sacrifice Before these times lived St. Cyprian Anno 240. whom the Century writers cent 3. cap. 4. col 83. lin 34. reprove saying Sacerdotum inquit Cyprianus vice Christi fungi Deo Patri sacrificium offerri In so much as that in their Index or Alphabetical Table in the end of that 3. Century under the letter S. it is said Sacerdotem vice Christi fungi in Coena Domini superstitiosè asserit Cyprianus col 83. lin 34. And Mr. Fulk against Heskins Sanders c. pag. 100. circa med saith It is granted that Cyprian thought the Bread and Wine brought forth by Melchisedech to be a figure of the Sacrament and that herein also Melchisedech resembled the Priesthood of Christ Also Tertuilian lived Anno 220. him doth Luc. Osiander centur 3. lib. 1. cap. 5. pag. 10. circaâ—med reprove saying Tertullianus approbavit oblationes pro defunctis orationes annuas pro natalitiis In like sort is here reproved by the Century writers cent 3. cap. 5. col 138. lin 56. and no less plainly by Mr. Fulk in his confutation of purgatory pag. 265. circa post med Before Tertullian lived Irenaeus Anno 170. him Calvin reproveth as before and the Century Writers cent 2. cap. 4. col 63. lin 20. charge saying De oblatione porrò Irenaeus l. 4. cap. 32. c. satis videtur loqui incommodè cum ait novi Testamenti novam docuit Christus oblationem quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert Deo Before him lived Ignatius the Apostles undoubted Scholar Anno 90. of whom the Century Writers in cent 2. cap. 4. col 63. lin 9. say Quaedam ambigua incommodè dicta in quibusdam occurrunt ut in Epistola Ignatii ad Smirnenses Non licet inquit Ignatius fine Episcopo neque offerre neque facrificium immolare And cent 2. cap. 10. col 167. lin 17. the Century Writers affirm these words of Ignatius to be perriculosa quasi errorum semina Lastly Mr. Beacon in his foresaid Treatise fol. 344. a. post med saith seriously The Mass was begotten conceived and born anon after the Apostles times if all be true that Historiographers write And Hospinianus in Historia Sacramentaria lib. 1. cap. 6. pag. 20. fine saith Jam tum primo illo saeculo viventibus adhuc Apostolis magis huic Sacramento quam Baptismo insidiari ausus sit Daemon homines à prima illa forma sensim abduxerit c. and Sebastianus Francus in Epistola de ebrogandis in universum omnibus statutis Ecclesiasticis saith most plainly Statim post Apostolos omnia inversa sunt c coena Domini in sacrificium transformata est In so much as Mr. Ascham a prime Protestant in his Apolog. pro Coena Dom. pag. 31. post med acknowledgeth that no beginning thereof after the Apostles time can be shewed saying Quibus temporibus per quos homines Coena Dominica de possessione sua per Missam deturbata sit verissimè sciri non potest c. Vouchsafeth now your Majesty but to adde hereunto the answerable Doctrin of the antient Jews saith Brereley tract 1. sect 4. subd 11. 12. that the words of Scripture are literally answerable also hereunto Matth. 26.28 Marc. 14.24 Luc. 22.19 20. 1 Cor. 11.24 saying not which shall be given or offered but which is given and not to you but for you That also the Apostle calleth our Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Altar for sacrifice Haebr 13.10 A word confessedly likewise used by Ignatius heretofore in this Consideration num 3. at 11. that the Prophet Esay 66. ver 21. foretelling the Ecclesiastical Ministers of the New Testament tearmeth them Priests hereof see the English Bible of 1576. in Esay 66.21 and Master Hooker l. 5. sect 78. pag. 236. post med And Mr. D. Reynolds in his conference with Mr. Hart pag. 544. paulo post med that the holy Ghost also foretelleth Priestood and Sacrifice and the same not the offering upon the Cross which is now in Act of sacrifice transitory and past but to continue for ever and not in a bloudy manner but accordingly to the Order of Melchisedech Psal 110.4 that likewise the Prophet Malachy cap. 1. ver 10. 11. foreshewing the rejecting of the legal Priestood and Sacrifice foretelleth the now Sacrifice of the Christian Gentiles to succeed which he tearmeth a clean oblation that the Prophet Daniel foreshewing likewise the end of the world and Antichrists then comming foretelleth in like manner that as then the daly Sacrifice shall be taken away cap. 12. ver 11. which one sacrifice cannot be meant of the many spiritual sacrifices of prayer and thanksgiving for that Antichrists persecution shall rather increase than take those away As neither can Malachies prediction of that one clean oblation be taken to signify those said spiritual sacrifices because they are many and but improperly called sacrifices and were not new or peculiar only to the Gentiles but were also belonging to those of the old Testament no less than now to us learned Protestants to have been for such accordingly offered not only
to be good with whatsoever words it be ministred so the same be not in the name of Man but God So Luther tom 2. Wittemberg in lib de captivit Babylon cap. de Baptismo fol. 75. a. initio saith Quocunque modo tradatur Baptismus modo non in nomine Hominis sed in nomine Domini tradatur verè salvum facit imô non dubitem siquis in nomine Domini suscipiat etiamsi impius Minister non det in nomine Domini verè Baptizatum esse in Nomine Domini 5 Concerning the [r] Brereley tract 2. cap. 2. sect 10. subdivis 8. sufficiency of our Redemption by our Saviours Passion in his humane nature upon the Cross Luther taught thus far to the contrary as that not only the Humane Nature of Christ sufferd for us for saith he in affirming but so much Christ is a Saviour of vile and small accompt and needeth himself also a Saviour [Å¿] Luther in confessione majori de Coena Domini Cum credo quod sola humana natura pro me passa est Christus ille vilis nec magni pretii Salvator est Imo ipse quoque Salvatore opus habet but also that the [t] Luther de Consiliis Part. 2. saith of the Zuingliand Pertinacissimè contra me pugnabant quod Divinitas Christi pati non posset Divinity of Christ did suffer which is so intollerable and grosse that it is specially contradicted by divers learned Protestants as Zuinglius Hospinianus D. Barnes Beza Czecanorius in Brereley pag. 403 404. and affirmed to be an old condemned opinion in Apollinarius and Eutiches and contrary to the Prophets Apostles and all true Believers To this we may adde Luther's wicked Doctrine concerning our Saviour's descending into Hell there also for to suffer Torments in Soul after his death Thus Luther tom 3. Wittemberg in Psalm 16. fol. 279. a. post med saith Christus sicut cum summo dolore mortuus est ita videtur dolores post mortem in inferno sustinuisse ut nobis omnia superaret c. And see this opinion confessed in Luther by Fulke in his defence of the English translation of the Bible cap. 7. pag. 204. See Brereley tract 2. cap. 2. sect 10. sub 8. at 16. pag. 205. it should be 405 6 Conterning Luther's [u] Brereley tract 2. cap. 2. sect 10. subdi 9. contempt of the antient Fathers and his own great undertaking knowledge he saith [x] Luther in libro ad Ducem Georgium And see his like saying in Colloquiis Litinis cap. de consolatione And ad cap. 1. dd Galatas tom 5. Wittemberg fol. 290 b. He saith Esto Ecclesia Augustinus alii Doctores item Petrus Apollo imo Angelus è Caelo diversum doceant tamen mea Doctrina est ejusmodi quae solius Dei gloriam illustrat c. Petrus Apostolorum summus vivebat docet extra Verbum Dei And after the English Translation fol. 33. b. paulo post med and 34. a. initio and in libro de servo arbitrio contra Erasmum in the first Edition thereof He saith if not most arrogantly judge Deponite quicquid armaturae suppeditabunt Orthodoxi veteres Theologorum Scholae authoritas Conciliorum Pontificum consensus tot saeculorum ac totius populi Christiani nihil recipimus nisi Scripturas sed fic ut penes nos solos sit certa Authoritas interpretandi Quod nos interpretamur hoc sensit Spiritus Sanctus quod afferunt alii quamvis magni quamvis multi à Spiritu Satanae â—lienata mente profectum est See this Saying alleged in Nullus Nemo G. 6. pag. 153. And in Cnoglerus his Symbola tria pag. 152. And Luther tom 2 Wittemberg fol. 486. b. fine saith Ego verò hoc libro non contuli sed asserui assero ac penes nullum volo esse judicium sed omnibus suadeo ut praestent obsequium Since the Apostles times no Doctor or Writer hath so excellently and cleerly confirmed instructed and comforted the Consciences of the Secular States as I have done by the singular grace of God This certainly I know that neither Austine nor Ambrose who yet are in this matter the best are equall to me herein And again tom 7. in serm de eversione Hierusalem fol. 271. a. The Gospel is so copiously preacht by us that truly in the Apostles time it was not so clear And apud Brereley trect 1. sect 3. subd vis 14. initio in the Margent at the figure 4. he affirms tom 2. Wittemberg Anno 1551. lib. de servo Arbitrio pag. 434. the Fathers of so many Ages to have been plainly blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures to have erred all their life time and that unless they were amended before their deaths they were neither Saints nor partaining to the Church See further Luther's Book de servio arbitrio printed in octavo 1603. pag. 72 73 276 and 337. Also in Colloquiis Mensalibus cap de Patribus Ecclesiae Luther saith of sundry Fathers in particular In the writings of Hierom there is not a word of true Faith Christ and sound Religion Tertullian is very superstitious I have holden Origen long since accursed Of Chrysostom I make no account Bazil is of no worth he is wholly a Monk I weigh him not of a hair Cyprian is a weak Divine c. affirming there yet further that the Church did degenerate in the Apostles age and that the Apologie of Phillip Melancthon doth far excell all the Doctors of the Church and exceeds even Augustin himself [y] See Brereley Tract 2. c. 2. sect 10. subdivis 9. How highly he esteemeth of such Doctrine as himself collecteth from the Scriptures and how much he preferreth himself therein before the Fathers himself signifieth saying tom 2. l. contra Regem Angliae fol. 344. b. Gods Word is above all the Divine Majestie maketh for me so as I pass not if a thousand Austins a thousand Cyprians a thousand King Harry Churches stood against me Nay he doubteth not in plain tearms to exempt his Doctrine from all judgment of Men and Angels making himself therby judge of both saying Adversus falso nominatum Ecclesiasticum statum Scire vos volo quod in posterum non amplius hoc honore dignabor ut sinam vel vos vel ipsos Angelos de Caelo de mea doctrina judicare c. nec volo meam doctrinam à quoquam judicari atque adeone ab Angelis quidem cum enim certus de ea sim per eam vester Angelorum judex esse volo And see these words though somwhat altered in the late edition of Wittemberg tom 2. fol. 306. a. fine And apud Brereley tract 3. sect 7. pag. 681. marg at e. tom 2. Wittemberg lib. contra Regem Angliae fol. 333. a. fine he saith Certus enim sum dogmata mea habere me de Caelo c. dogmata mea stabunt c. And will our English Divines allow this in
videtur mortuos sic dormire ut prorsus nihil sciant plane credo non esse in scriptura locum fortiorem pro mortuis dormientibus c. contra sanctorum invocationem purgatorii fictionem fol. 36. b. câ—rca med And see Sleidan 's further report hereof concerning Luther lib. 9. Anno 1534. fol. 116. a. initio after the English Translation but read the Latine Luther tom 4. Wittemb fol. 37. b. ante med saith Sensit ergo Solomon mortuos omnino dormire nihil prorsus sentire jacent ibi mortui non numerantes Dies vel Annos c. Anima abit in locum suum ut intelligas infernum dici ubi continentur animae quasi quoddam sepulchrum animae extra hunc corporalem mundum sicut terra est sepulchrum corporis the Soul to sleep to this end saying the dead sleep c. they altogether sleep and feel nothing they lie there dead neither numbring Daies nor Years c. with much more to this purpose 10 As concerning even the most [f] Brereley tract 2 cap. 2. sect 10. subdivis 13. blessed and holy Trinity Luther taught thus far to the contrary as that the Divinity is three-fold even as the three Persons be c. And the same so grosly as he is therein specially confuted by Zuinglius tom 2. in resp ad confes Lutheri fol. 474. b. fine saying Nec enim hunc Lutheri Sermonem immodestius vel ferocius exagitabo quo sic inquit Hic de sola unica Divinitate dicitur quod illa triplex vel trium sit generum quemadmodum tres personae c. In quibus verbis gravissimi errores latitant c. mihi certè cum librum istum Lutheri lego porcum quendam impurum in horto floribus consito fragrantis simis hinc inde grunnire videre videor tam impurè tam parum theologicè tam impropriè de Deo sacris omnibus disputat Lutherus c. And upon this ground perhaps it was that where the Scripture saith 1 Joh. 5.7 There be three wich give witness in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three be one This being a most evident place in proof of the Trinity is nevertheless quite omitted by Luther in his Dutch [g] Brereley tract 2. cap. 2. sect 10. subdivis 14. Bibles As also he likewise put forth of the [h] Vide Enchirid. prec Anni 1543. Letanies this verse Holy Trinity one very God have mercy upon us affirming that the word [i] Luther in postil majore Basiliae apud Herruagium in enarrat Evang Dominicae Trinitatis And see further Examples of this kind mentioned by Cnoglerus in his Symbola tria pag. 121 122. and by Ulembergius in his Graves justae causae c. Printed 1589. pag. 534. Where he allegeth Luther 's foresaid words at large out of the second part of his Postil printed Anno 1537. fol. 158. b. Trinity is but a humane invention and soundeth coldly and concludeth that his Soul hateth the word Homousion 11 As concerning the [k] Luther in lib. contra Jacobum Laâ—omum tom 2. Wittemb latinè Edito An. 155â— saith Anima mea odit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 optimè exegerunt Arriani ne vocem illam prophanam novam regulis sidei statui liceret We know saith Brereley here Luther 's late Editions to be herein altered and corrupted by his Scholars whereof see the like in this present section 10. subdivis 2. and more subdivis 14. at z. a b therefore we so specially cite the first Edition Author of our Sinns Luther teacheth thus dangerously saying in assertionibus damnatis per Leonem Art 36. [l] Brereley tract 2. cap. 2 sect 10. subdiv 14. Quomodo potest sese ad bonum praeparare cum nec in potestate sit suas vias malas facere Nam mala opera in impiis Deus operatur ut prov 16. dicitur omnia propter semetipsum operatus est Dominus etiam impium ad diem malum How can Man prepare himself to good seeing it is not so much as in his power to make his wayes evill for God worketh the wicked work in the wicked c. Thus stand Luthers words in the antient Editions of his workes at Wittemburg and also at Basill 1521. and so recited by Roffensis in his Confutatio assertionis Lutheranae c. printed at Antwerp 1523. Art 36. fol. 204. a. fine Whereas in the latter corrupted editions of Wittemberg tom 2. Anno 1592. fol. 112. a. fine his Scholars have instead of the word operatur thrust in regit And again ubi supra art 36. he saith Nulli est in manu sua quippiam cogitare mali aut boni sed omnia ut Wyccleffi articulus Constantiae damnatus rectè docet de necessitate absoluta eveniunt quod Poëta voluit quando dixit Certa stant omnia lege It is in no mans power to think Good or Evill but all things as Wiccliffs article condemned at Constance doth rightly teach proceed from absolute necessity c. This saying thus extant in the Editions and in Roffensis before alleged are corrupted altered in the foresaid last Edition of Wittemberg tom 2 fol. 112. b. fine Yet more de servo arbitrio cap. 32 Luther saith Christiani non libero arbitrio sed spiritu Dei aguntur Rom. 8. Agi verè non est agere sed rapi quemadmodum serra aut securis à fabro agitur Et hic ne quis dubitet Lutherum tam absurda dicere verba ejus recitat Diatribe quae sane agnosco Fateor enim articulum illum Wyccleffi omnia necessitate fieri esse falso damnatum in Constantiensi Conciliabulo c. These words of Luther being extant in the Editions of Luther's life time and so apparently his known words that they are accordingly verbatim extant in this very Treatise of Luther de servo arbitrio set forth by that prime Calvinist Jacobus Kimedoncius and printed 1603 Neustadii in Palatinatu fol. 195. circa med are yet neverthe less altered and corrupted in Luthers Editions of Wittemberg tom 2. printed 1562. fol. 455. a. post med And see Luther's like Doctrine in the foresaid Book de servo arbitrio set forth by Kimedoncius pag. 3â— Much more might be alleged from Luther and his Scholars in this behalf Brereley in the Omissions of pag. 428. adds Also Brentius whom Mr. Jewell in his defence c. pag. 473. termeth a grave and learned Father in his Commentarie upon Amos printed Hagonae 1530. with Luther's Preface thereto in cap. 3. saith of Gods secret Will Omnia à Deo potenti manu efficaci fiunt sive mala culpae sive mala poenae Deus enim est qui obduravit Pharaonem c. And Luther himself de servo arbitrio saith Deus indignos coronat immeritos damnat quomodo hoc justum sit incomprehensibile est modò videbimus autem cum illic venerimus See these
defence of their foresaid Doctrine For they alleage Amos 3.6 and Esay 45.7 apud Calvinum ubi supra pag. 542. b. ante med 1 Reg. 22.21 p. 346. a. ante med and Hieremie 10.32 apud Calvinum ubi supra pag. 541. b. post med ad Epist ad Rom. c 7. ubi supra pag. 542. a. initio 1 Joan. 3.9 ubi supra pag. 547. b. post med with testimonies of Scriptures all [u] Calvin ubi supra pag. 527. b. post med pag 543. a. ante med Epicurism and impure liberty of life I sayd upon the very foresaid grounds For it appeareth by Calvins report of their words in tract Theologic pag. 540. a. circa med their chief reason to be cùm Deus rerum omnium author sit nullum jam boni mali discrimen esse habendum sed quicquid agitur bonum esse because whatsoever God doth is good And Calvin ibidem pag. 518. a. ante med saith of the same Libertines Temulenti isti à Deo fieri omnia perstrepentes eum mali Authorem constituunt Deinde quasi immutetur mali natura cùm sub hoc nominis velo tegitur bonum esse affirmant c. And Calvin also ubi supra pag. 542. b. paulo post medium saith furthermore of one of their chief men Persuadet nihil esse mali in stupris adulteriis cùm à Deo fieri omnia cognoscimus And again ibidem pag. 543. a. paulo ante medium he saith yet further of him In summa huc tantùm spectat ut discrimen tollat boni mali ut nemini quidvis facere aut perpetrare Religio sit cùm omnia Deo tribuat And like as Calvin excuseth the absurdity of his like Doctrin pretending it to be inexplicable and above understanding requiring therefore our humble belief thereto saying Instit l. 1. c. 18 sect 3. Ubi non capimus quomodo fieri velit Deus quod facere vetat veniat nobis in memoriam nostra imbecillitas simul reputemus lucem quam inhabitat non frustra vo ari inaccessam quia caligine obducta est so they in like excuse of their Doctrine say as Calvin ubi supra pag. 540. a. prope finem reporteth their words Omnes nostri sensus Deo subjiciendi sunt nec quicquam de sapientia nostra persuasum habere debemus mens nostra subigenda ut veluti captiva Christo morem gerat So agreeable verbatim almost are they with the foresaid reason delivered by Calvin that Calvin immediatly upon his foresaid recital of their said words addeth saying thereof Quod ipsi fatemur imò nullo utitur apparatu hic impostor quem ex Doctrina nostra furatus non sit So confessedly doth their Doctrine jump and agree with Calvin in the very first grounds and reasons thereof 41. Although [x] See Brereley tract 2. cap. 2. sect 10. subdivis 13. initio the Nycene Councel and Athanasius his received Creed be that Christ is very God of very God Yet saith Whitaker contra Camp 208. pag. 121. circa med of Calvins opinion to the contrary which condemneth this for barbarous Howsoever the Fathers of the Nycene Councel affirm Christ to be God of God Calvin nevertheless affirmeth that we are strongly to believe that Christ is God himself Utcunque Patres illi Niceni Christum esse dixerint Deum de Deo tamen firmissimè tenendum esse confirmat Calvinus Christum ex se habere ut Deus sit nisi volumus Christum sua Divinitate spoliare And Danaeus contra Bellarminum part 1. ad Controvers 2. cap. 19. pag. 121. saith Hanc phrasin Deus de Deo verè sensit scripsit Calvinus impropriam esse ac barbariem redolere And which is most fearful that if the Father have his essence of himself the Son his of the Father and the Spirit from them both do not then three Essences hereupon arise Si Pater saith Calvin in admonitione ad Polonos extant in tract Theologic pag. 793. b. fine suum esse habet à seipso Filius suum esse à Patre Spiritus ab utroque annon tres Essentiae emergent All which to forbear the Fathers is contrary to the testimony both of Scripture Christ saying as the Father hath life in himself so likewise hath he given to the Son to have life in himself John 5.26 And again As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father John 6.57 and to the other more sober learned Protestants For Szegedinus in loc com pag. 634. paulo post med saith directly Dicendum est Filium eam ipsam Deitatem quae est Patris habere non ex sese sed ex Patre Also Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy l. 5. pag. 113. initio saith The Father alone is originally that Deity which Christ is not And see him further pag. 106. fine 113. ante medium Which his assertion D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker pag. 16.17 specially defendeth affirming further pag. 17. initio that Christ hath received his substance by the gift of eternal generation pag. 18. ante med that Christ is God by being of God light by issuing out of light and more plainly yet ibid. pag. 121. Also Mr. Fox Apoc. pag. 474. initio saith Christus Deus ex Deo And Lobecius in disput 30. Theolog pag. 49. saith Filius non solum id quo Filius dicitur habet à Patre verum etiam suam Essentiam Solus enim Pater vitam seu Essentiam habet à seipso And D. Dove in his Confutation of Atheism pag. 37. fine saith God the Father from everlasting understanding himself begat his Son coeternal with himself c. And the confession of Belgia in the Harmony c. pag. 34. initio saith We believe that Christ in respect of his Divine Nature is the only Son of God And Melancthon in loc com of An. 1561. pag. 24. fine saith Pater aeternus sese intuens gignit cogitationem sui quae est imago ipsius dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quia cogitatione generatur and ibid. pag. 25. initio he saith Secunda Persona filius dicitur quia de substantia Patris natus est Moreover Calvin Epist 2. ad Polonos extant in his tract Theolog. c. pag. 396. a. paulo ante medium saith Precatio vulgo trita est Sancta Trinitas unus Deus miserere nostri mihi non placet ac omninò barbariem sapit Calvin also affirms that the Son hath his substance distinct from the Father in Act. Serveti pag. 872. and passim Hereof see also Cnoglerus in his tria symbola pag. 34. and he Calvin also saith that according to his Divinity he maketh intercession to God the Father in Ep. ad Polones and see also his words in respons ad Polonos extant in tract Theolog. c. pag. 791. b. fine and that the name of God is properly attributed to the Father by way of excellency in tract Theolog. c. in explicat perfid Gentilis pag.
Antiparaeus pag. 97. initio saith Tot celebres Antitrinitarii ex Calvinianorum Scholis Ecclesiis prodierunt Writers do therefore affirm them to have been the true and next occasion of these so late new uprising and many daily increasing Arians in [e] Beza in Epist Theolog Ep. 81. pag. 303. paulo post med saith hereof Hinc illud incendium quod tota jam vastata Polonia in Transilvaniam quoque pervasit And Ep. 16. pag. 122. post med be saith hereof Poloniam totam Transilvaniam in hunc miserrimum statum redactam vides Polonia Hungary and Transilvania A thing as yet more probable in that the principal Heads or beginners of these late Arians were as Neuserus confesseth all of them at first Calvinists and so to this present in most other points do these Arian Churches yet continue thinking themselves hereby more reformed than others of whom Mr. Hooker therefore saith in his Ecclesiastical Policy l. 4. pag. 183. fine The Arians in the Reformed Churches of Poland think the very belief of the Trinity to be a part of Antichristian corruption and that the Popes triple Crown is a sensible mark whereby the world might know him to be that mystical Beast spoken of in the Revelation in no respect so much as in his Doctrine of the Trinity 43. And the Protestant Writer Luc. Osiander in Epitom c. centur 16. pag. 269. fine saith of these Reformed Arians Asserunt Deum unum in Essentia trinum in Personis esse commentum Anti-Christi esse triplicem Cerberum esse Deum Baal Moloch c. Symbolum Athanasii vocant fidem doctrinam Satanasii vanissimè insuper jactitant Lutherum vix tectum Babylonicae turris detexisse se verò ex imis fundamentis eam exscindere thinking the vulgar Protestant to be over Popish and as far short of Reformation in respect of the Trinity as do the Puritans think him to be in regard of Bishops and Ceremonies In defence of which their horrible Heresie they do daily Print and publish their many [f] Gratianus Prosper a principal Arian publâ—shed in defence of Arianism a Book of this title Instrumentum doctrinarum Aristo elicum in usum Christianarum Scholarum exemplis Theologicis illustratum per Gratianum Prosperum Losci Anno 86. Wherein are reduced into form of argument all or most of the Scriptures usually alleged in proof of Christs Divinity and by him undertaken there to be answered As also he propoundeth very many other Scriptures and reasons reduced into like form of argument against the Divinity of Christ As also Socinus another Arian published lately his Book thereof against Volanus And the other published writings of Gentilis Servetus Blandrata and many other late Arians are known and many Books taking advantage to follow Calvins example in their like perverting of the Scriptures c. proudly [g] See this in Brereley tract 1. sect 10. subd 2. at i. k. And whereas the Calvinists in Polonia did dispute against the Antitrinitaries there and charged them with arguments taken out of the Fathers the Antitrinitaries answered the Calvinists from themselves saying Hi sunt vetusti panni quosâ—vos ipsi primi lacerastis in aliis fidei articulis c. lacerata jamdudum calceamenta See this in Nullus nemo H. 9. rejecting the produced testimonies of the Fathers and in [h] Symlerus de aeterno Dei Filio l. 1. c. 2. saith of the Arians Hienim nos ad Scripturas provocant quia omnem antiquitatem sibi adversari non ignorant omnes sine exceptione rejiciunt And see Brereley tract 1. sect 10. subdivis 2. at i. k. the like appeal of other Arians to only Scripture expresly pretending the same by like examples of the Calvinists appealing from them with shew of great confidence to only Scripture In their allegations whereof they are as were the old Arians [i] St. Austine apud Brereley tract 1. sect 10. atâ—g contra Maximinum Arâ—aâ—um Episc l. 1. initio induceth the Hereticks saying then to Catholicks as Protestants do now Si quid de Divinis Scripturis protuleris quod commune est cum omnibus necesse est ut audiamus Hae vero voces quae extra Scripturam sunt nullo casu à nobis susc piuntur Cum ipse Dominus moneat nos dicat Sine causa colunt me docentes mandata praecepta hominum And again ibid. versus finem libri the Heretick further saith Oro opto Discipulus esse Divinarum Scripturarum c. Si affirmaveris de Divinis Scripturis si alicubi Scripti lectionem protuleris nos Divinarum Scripturarum optamus inveniri Discipuli See the very many Scriptures alleged only by the Arian Gratianus Prosper in his Book intituled Instrumentum doctrinarum c. very frequent and plentiful as also no less prompt in making answer as Calvin doth and by imitation of his example unto sundry those very texts of greatest importance which were heretofore by the Fathers and are now by us urg'd in proof of Christs Divinity In so much as many and some of them very learned Protestants and of great reputation in their Churches quite contrary to M. D. [k] M. D. Field of the Churcâ— l. 3. c. 29. initio pag. 138. ante med saith The tenth imputation is of Arianism which Heresy we accurse to the pit of Hell with all the vile calumniations of damned slanderers that charge us with it Neither did any of our men incline to it Fields untrue and bold denyal are fully perswaded that Arianism or further infidelity is as it were the Materia prima or very last end or center whereto the poyse or Bias in this behalf of Calvinism is by the proper direction of its genius daily more and more moving and inclining In most other points the Antitrinitarians and Arians continue yet Protestants as appeareth by Gratianus Prosper the Arian in his Book intituled Instrumentum Doctrinarum c. Printed Losci Anno 86. wherein he setteth down their several opinions to be The inequality of Christ with God the Father That Children are not to be Baptized till they be of discretion to answer for themselves which Zuinglius and Oecolampadius think to be but a matter of indifferency as is declared in Brereley tract 2. cap. 3. sect 9. subd 3. at e. f. And that the Roman Church may not in any sense be called the Church of Christ 44. Pu. Mark here who be they who are most opposite to the Roman Church namely they who deny the Blessed Trinity and our Saviours Divinity in respect whereof they tearm themselves the Reformed Church condemning the other Protestants for Popish and superstitious And as to Puritans common Protestants were esteemed Popish so Puritans who believe the Trinity and the Consubstantiality of our Saviour with his Father are also tearmed Popish and now even they who deny the Trinity c. will be judged Popish by other Sects who will pretend to be more Reform'd for example
by Independents Anti-Presbyterians c. So that indeed Protestants are nothing but an heterogenious Body consisting of persons whereof every part or member must think themselves obliged not to communicate with the rest that is their Community must be an aggregate of Schisms and Schismaticks 45. Concerning the known Texts of Scripture usually alleged in proof of the Trinity and misapplyed otherwise by Calvin to allege some few examples insteed of many First concerning this known text I and the Father are unum one thing Joan. 10.30 Calvin avoydeth it saying Abusi [l] Pu. Mark how Calvin contemns Antiquity in a matter of greatest moment and in favour of wicked Arianism sunt hoc loco veteres ut probarent Christum esse Patri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neque enim Christus de unitate substantiae disputat sed de consensu Calvin in Joan. c. 10. v. 30. Which exposition of Calvin being the old condemned answer of Arius is defended by Whitaker contra Camp rat 8. pag. 123. fine Secondly concerning the word Eloim Gen. 1. v. 1. Mr. Willet upon Gen. in cap. 1. pag. 19. fine 20. initio confesseth and urgeth saying Against the Jews that deny the Trinity we have evident proof in this Chapter ver 1. Where the word Eloim c. And in like manner it is thus urged by Zanchius in Hunnius his Antiparaeus c. pag. 16.17 And by Peter Martyr ibidem pag. 14. and by very many other Protestant Writers alleged in that tract Yet is this so common and known place avoyded by Calvin in Gen. c. 1. saying Ex verbo Eloim colligere solent hic notari in Deo tres Personas sed quia mihi parum solida videtur tantae rei probatio ego in voce non insistam quin potius monendi sunt lectores ut sibi à violentis hujusmodi glossis caveant Thirdly concerning Gen. c. 19. v. 24. it is said The Lord rained upon Sodom fire from the Lord c. Upon which place Mr. Willet upon Genes c. 19. v. 24. pag. 214. paulo ante med saith This place is well urged by the Fathers to prove the Eternity of Christ Yet Calvin in Gen. c. 19. saith to the contrary and against the Fathers quod veteres Christi Divinitatem hoc testimonio probare conati sunt minimè firmum est c. And see Calvin in tract theolog c. pag. 793. b. ante medium Fourthly concerning Psalm 2. v. 7. where it is said Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee although not only the Fathers but the Apostle also Hebrae 1.5 do allege this in proof of Christs Divinity yet Calvin in Psalm 2. saith to the contrary thereof Scio hunc locum de aeterna Christi generatione à multis fuisse expositum qui in verbo hodie argutè Philosophati sunt sed c. And again Hebr. c. 1. v. 5. he further saith [m] Pu. See what respect Calvin bears to St. Austine whom even Protestants do so much esteem frivola enim Augustini argutia est qui hodie aeternum continuum fingit Christus certè aeternusest c. Sed hoc nihil ad praesentem locum c. Fifthly concerning Psalm 33. v. 6. where it is said By the word of the Lord the Heavens were made and all the hoast of them by the spirit of his mouth Calvin rejected the exposition herein of the Fathers in behalf of the Trinity saying Instit l. 1. c. 13. sect 15. Sciens volens supersedeo à multis testimoniis quibus usi sunt Veteres Plausibile illis visum est citare ex Davidis Psalm 33. c. ut probarent Spiritus Sancti Divinitatem sed illa ratio infirma fuit See further concerning this place Hunnius in his Antiparaeus pag. 59.60 c. Sixtly concerning that known place 1 Joan. 5.7 where it is said There be three that give testimony in Heaven the Father the Word and Holy Ghost and these three be one Calvin upon this place saith Quod dicit tres esse unum ad Essentiam non refertur sed ad consensum potius Thereof see further Hunnius in his Antiparaeus pag. 112.113 c. The further examples of Calvins expositions in this kind are so exceeding many as would grow to a great volume and are for such accordingly collected and digested into special volumes not by us but by that famous and learned Protestant Preacher Aegidius Hunnius in his three special volumes of this argument one of them intituled Calvinus Judaizans hoc est judaicae glossoe corruptelae quibus Joannes Calvinus illustrissima Scripturae sacrae loca testimonia de gloriosa Trinitate c. detestandum in modum corrumpere non exhorruit c. per Aegidium Hunnium S. Theol. Doctorem professorem in Academia Wittembergensi Anno 1595. Another of them intituled Antiparaeus c. Printed Wittembergae 1603. And the third intituled Antiparaeus alter Printed ut supra And see like observation and collection made of sundry Scriptures depraved as before by Calvin in sundry other Protestant Writers of great note as in Conradus Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvinist l. 2. fol. 38.39.40.41 42. a. And in the Book there alleged of D. Joannis Matthaeus l. de Cavendo Calvinistarū fermento And in Pelargus his admonitio de Arianis p. 50.51 c. And if our adversaries hereto answer that Calvin all this notwithstanding professed to believe the Doctrin of the Trinity yet seemeth this but verbal seeing he really evadeth so very many of those chiefest places usually alleged in behalf of the Trinity and by such his evasion directed the Arians how to avoid the rest For the very same kind of evasion or answer is as strong against the other as against these To forbear as over-infinite the particular examples of those very same evasions or answers made by sundry Arians which Calvin maketh to the alleged Scriptures concerning the Trinity and to speak thereof only but in general Hunnius in his Calvinus Judaizans pag. 44. saith hereof Hanc glossam c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excipiunt amplexantur exosculantur Franciscus Davidis Blandrata caeterique juratissimi perfidissimique hostes adorandae Trinitatis And Pelargus an other Protestant Writer of great note in his admonitio de Arianis c. pag. 45. ante med saith Non hic Calvinum in plurimis Scripturae expositionibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non Calvinianos in praecipuis de Divinitate Christi locis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 laboriosè estendam c. ex ipsis Arianorum libris ubi sua posuerint latibula ubi parata sibi cognoscunt receptacula paucis referam And see there pag. 50. the Arians words avoyding under the express alleged authority of Calvins name and exposition certain of the fore-alleged Scriptures And see there further pag. 51. 52. 46. [m] See Brereley tract 2. cap. 2. sect 10. subd 8. Concerning Calvins Doctrin concerning our Saviour Christ he teacheth that Christ at and
c. 9. col 656. lin 44 and by Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Matth. 8. sect 3. fol. 14. a. post med that Paphnutius though he thought that Priesthood did not dissolve marriage contracted before Orders given yet he affirmed to the Nycene Council that those who were made Priests before they were married should not afterwards marry alleging for this veterem Ecclesiae traditionem the antient tradition of the Church So plainly doth Paphnutius hereby acknowledge that this Doctrin was then holden for the Churches antient Doctrin our learned Adversaries doubt not therefore to [s] So Chemnitius in his examen Concil Trid. part 3. reprehendeth Hierom Ambrose and Origen pag. 50. a. ante med And Epiphanius pag. 62. a. initio and Trigivillaeus Gauvius in his Palma Christiana pag. 103. reprehendeth Socrates and Zozomene for their report of Paphnutius saying thereof Socrates hoc à â—o temerè adjecit c. Socrates added this report rashly of his own devising c. with like falshood did he wrest the saying of Paphnutius in the Nycene Council c. And Zâ—zomen following after Socrates followeth his explication in maintenance of the Doctrin of Dâ—â—â—â—s condemned by Paul 1 Tim. 4. reprehend the said Fathers And as Epiphanius and Paphnutius in their cited testimonies hereof do in plain tearms rest upon the Churches Doctrin before their times so likewise the Fathers of the [t] Concil 2. Carthag can 2. saith Omâ—â—bus placet ut Episcopi Praeâ—byteri Diaconi c. ab uxoribus se abstinâ—â— â—nd for this reason there set down ut quod Apostoli docuerant ipsa servav tantiquitas nos custodiamus Carthage Council whereat St. Austin was present doubt not in like manner to ground this point upon antiquity and the Apostles Doctrin So evident thereby it is that Siricius in his foresaid Doctrin hereof brought in no innovation or change 3. Thirdly [u] Brereley tract 1. sect 3. subd 3. as concerning Anti-christ and also Altars and Sacrifices which he is foretold to [x] Daniel 12.11 take away Mr. Whitaker confesseth touching Anti-christ saying [y] Whitaker l. de Antichristo pag. 21. And M. Cartwright in his 2. Reply part 1. pag. 508. post med saith Divers of the antient and the chiefest of them imagined fondly of Antichrist as of one singular person The Fathers for the most part thought that Anti-christ should be but one man but in that as in many other things they erred Concerning the short time of his persecution or reign gathered from the Scriptures Mr. Fox confesseth that [z] Fox in Apocal. c. 12. pag. 345. fine post med almost all the holy and learned Interpreters do by a time times and half a time understand only three years and a half affirming further this to be [a] Fox in Apocal. c. 13. pag. 392. fine the consent and opinion of almost all the holy Fathers As concerning Altras and Sacrifice which as Dr. Reynolds granteth are [b] Dr. Reynolds in his conference with Mr. Hart. pag. 552. fine linked by nature in relation and mutual dependance one of other so as the one being proved the other is thereby established and first concerning Altars in respect whereof the other was termed [c] See hereafter in this consideration num 23. in the margent at * next before 13. See also the Sacrament tearmed the Sacrifice of the Altar by St. Austin in Enchirid. cap. 110. de cura pro mortuâ—s cap. 18. and by Greg. in Lucam hom 37. and by Hierom Ep. 59. ad Paulinum in solut 5. quaestionis And by Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus in his words alleged hereafter in this Consideration num 17. in the margent under t. at Anno 320. the Sacrifice of the Altar Peter Martyr reproveth the antient Fathers saying [d] Peter Martyr in his Common places in English part 4. pag. 225. b. post med Petrus Alexandrinus attributeth more to the outward Altar than to the lively Temples of Christ And yet further against [e] Peter martyr ibid. pag. 226. a initio Optatus Optatus l. 6. against Permenianus saith What is the Altar even the seat of the Body and Bloud of Christ [f] Ibid. such sayings as these saith Peter Martyr edified not the people c. And in no less plain manner is Optatus foresaid saying mentioned and reproved [g] Centur. 4. cap. 6. col 409. l. 25. by the Century Writers As also Peter Martyr reproveth the Fathers in general saying [h] Peter Martyr in his Common places part 4. pag. 225. b. ante med And Mr. Cartwright in his second Reply the last part pag. 264. circa med saith The antient Writers abuse herein may easily appear in that in this too great liberty of speech they used to call the holy Supper of the Lord a Sacrifice and the Communion table an Altar And see Praetorius de Sacramentis pag. 287. post med where he saith Anno 262. Sixtus secundus abrogavit mensas hactenus usitatas constituit Altaria quae magis repraesentant Judaismum quam Christianismum The Fathers should not with so much liberty have seemed here and there to have abused the name Altar A word nevertheless so frequent with the antient Fathers that Ignatius the Apostles undoubted Scholar is by Master Cartwright and Mr. Jacob [i] Mr. Cartwright in his 2. Reply part 1. pag. 517. prope finem saith Ignatius calleth the Communion Table unproperly an Altar Mr. Cartwright placing in his margent there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And see the like mention of this word in Ignatius confessed by Mr. Jacob in his reasons taken out of Gods word c. pag. 58. post med And see the same word accordingly used by Ignatius in Epist ad Philadelph confessed to have used the same accordingly Now as concerning Sacrifice in respect whereof the Ecclesiastical Minister was by the Fathers [k] See hereafter in this Consideration num 17. initio at 5. called properly a Priest it is affirmed by our learned Adversaries that the more antient Fathers namely [l] See this affirmed by Calvin hereafter in this Consideration num 17. in the margent under the letter t. And M. D. Field l. 3. of the Church c. 19. pag. 107. post med saith in excuse of Calvin The reason doubtless that moved the Fathers so much to urge that mystical Sacrifice of Christ in the blessed Sacrament was for that they lived in the midst of Jews and Gentiles both whose Religion consisted principally in Sacrifice the Fathers therefore to shew that Christian Keligion is not without Sacrifice and that of a more excellent nature than theirs were did much urge that Christ once offered for the sins of the world upon the Altar of the Cross is daily in mystery offered stain and his bloud powred out on the holy Table and that this Sacrifice of Christ stain for the sins of the world thus continually represented and living in our memories is the Sacrifice of Christians Thus confesseth he the
of Scripture sbjected by our other Adversaries against Peters Primacy learned Protestants the anriquity of this opinion is fully confessed by Mr. Fulk who speaking of Leo and Gregory Bishops of Rome the first of them about Anno Domini 440. and the other about 59â— saith [h] Mr. Fulk in his Retentive against Bristows moâ—tives c. pag. 248. fine the mystery of iniquity having wrought in that seat of Rome neer five or six hundred years before them so antiently before them did the Roman Sea in his opinion begin to be Papal and then greatly encreased they were so deceived with long continuance of error that they thought the dignity of Peter was much more over the rest of his fellow-Apostles than the holy Scriptures of God do allow So confessedly antient and of long continuance was this opinion of Peters Primacy even in those elder times of Leo and Gregory A thing so evident that our other learned Adversaries reprehend sundry of the other much more antient Fathers for their affirming the Church to be built upon Peter namely [i] Conturists cent 4. col 1250. l. 2. Hierom [k] Cent. 4. col 555. lin 30. Hilary [l] Cent. 4. col 558. l. 54. Nazianzen [m] Cent. 3. col 84. lin 73. it is said Tertullianus non sine errore sentire videtur Claves soli Petro commissas Ecclesiam super ipsum extructam esse Tertullian [n] Centur. 3. col 84. lin 59. saith Passim dicit Cyprianus super Petrum Ecclesiam fundatam esse ut l. 1. Epist 3. l. 4. Ep. 9. c. Cyprian [o] Cent. 3. col 85. lin 3. it is said Origines tract 5. in Matth. dicit Petrus per promissionem meruit fieri Ecclesiae fundamentum Idem hom 17. in Lucam Petrum vocat Apostolorum Principem Origen and in general [p] Calvin institut l. 4. c. 6. sect 6. saith In Petro fundatam esse Ecclesiam quia dictum sit super hanc Petram c. At nonnulli ex Patribus sic exposuerunt sed reclamat tota Scriptura c. And Danaeus in respons ad Bellarmin disput part 1. pag. 277. post med saith of the Fathers Dictum en im Christi Matth. 16. Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram c. pessimè de persona Petri sunt interpretati c. many Fathers reproving also others for their entituling Peter the [q] Cent. 4. col 556. lin 17. they allege Optatus calling Peter Apostolorum Caput unde Cephas appellatur and see next heretofore at 10. where they allege Origen calling Peter Apostorum Principem And Mr. Fulk in his Retentive c. pag. 248. chargeth Optatus with absurdity for saying of Peter praeferri omnibus Apostolis moruit c. he deserved to be preferred before all the Apostles and he alone received the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven to be communicated to the rest vide ibid. fine in like manner is Peter called Prince of the Apostles by Cyril of Hierusalem Catech. 2. Prince and Head of the rest by Cyril of Alexandria l. 12. in Ioan. c. 64. The Pastor and Head of the Church placed by Christ over the whole earth by Chrysostom in Matth. hom 55. ante med and Apostolorum vertex in the same homily circa med The Master of the whole world by Chrysostom in Ioan. hom 87. paulo ante med ad Pop. hom 80. ante med The rock and top of the Catholick Church in the Council of Chalcedonact 3 Head of the Apostles and [r] Cent. 4. col 554. lin 32. col 1074. lin 13. Arnobius is reprehended for tearming him Episcoporum Episcopus in respect whereof the Centurists do there further say de Petro minus commodè loquitur the Bishop of Bishops In so much that whereas the Fathers doubted not publickly to celebrate a yearly [s] Concil 2. Turonense can 16. saith Sunt etiam qui in festivitate Cathedrae Domini Petri Apostoli c. See this confessed Centur. 6. col 580. lin 2. And S. Austine serm 15. de Sanctis saith Institutio solemnitatis hodiernae a Senioribus nostris Cathedrae nomen accepit c. rectè ergo Ecclesiae natalem illius sedis colunt quam Apostolus pro Ecclesiarum salute suscepit dicente Domino Tu es Petrus c. ideo dignè fundamentum hoc Ecclesia coliâ— And see further mention hereof in Beda in Martyrologio festival day in honour of Peters Sea which respect had thereto is more than we find had to any other Sea of any other Apostle Danaeus answering hereunto affirmeth the Fathers assertion hereof to be [t] Danaeus in resp ad Bellar disput part 1. pag. 275. fine 276. initio the judgements and testimonies of the Church then corrupted and bewitched or made blind with this error And thus much concerning Peters Primacy confessedly as before taught by the Fathers and acknowledged by Mr. Whitgift and sundry other Protestants Mr. D. Covel not only further [u] Mr. Covel in his examination c. against the plea of the innocent Printed 1604. having spoken pag. 106. post med of one above the rest to suppress the seeds of dissention saith further thereof pag. 107. prope initium If this were the principal means to prevent Schisms and dissentions in the Primitive Church when the graces of God were far more abundant and eminent than now they are Nay if the twelve were not like to agree except there had been one chief among them for saith Hierom among the twelve one was therefore chosen that a chief being appointed occasion of dissention might be prevented c. affirming it in particular but also as laying down the general received reason thereof saith to the Puritans [x] Ibid in the words there next following How can they think that equality would keep all the Pastors in the world in peace and unity c. for in all Societies authority which cannot be where all are equal must procure unity and obedience And that this authority of Church-Government by him affirmed in the Apostles times was not then so personally tyed to any one as to dy with him but was to survive and continue to the Churches good himself further signifieth saying expresly of the Apostolick Church-Government in general That it was not to [y] Mr. Covel ibid. pag. 106. circa med saith If it concern all persons and ages in the Church of Christ as surely it doth the Government must not cease with the Apostles but so much of that authority must remain to them who from time to time are to supply that charge cease with the Apostles most evidently so by these premises implying an eminent authority continued in the Church of God and residing in one whereby to prove unity and obedience and to keep all the obedient Pastors of the world in peace whereto also [z] See Martin Luthers saying most pertinent to this purpose and alleged next hereafter in the margent under *
Dâ—onysius de Eccles Hierarch c. 2. By Egesippus apud Eusebium l. 4. c. 22. By Mel to apud Euseb Hist l. 4. c. 26. fine By St. Austin de praedest Sanctorum l. â— c. 14. and see Synod Alexandrin in Epist ad omnes ubique Ecclesias And it is yet further referred to Salomon as Author thereof by Epiphanius haer 76. Ambrose serm 8. in Psalm 118. Hâ—lary in Psalm 127. Tertul. de praescript Melito apud Euseb l. 4. c. 26. So likewise is the Book of Ecclesiasticus alleged by Fulgentius de remiss pec l. 1. c. 12. 29. l. 2. c. 4. and de fide ad Petrum c. 3. and de Incarn Gra. Christi cap. 28. Cyprian de mortalitate post initium and serm de Eleemosyna initio l. 3. Epist 9. Austin de Doctrina Christiana l. 22. c. 8. and de Civit. Dei l. 17. c. 20. Ambros l. 4. de fide cap. 4. serm 30. l. de Nabath Jezraelita cap. 12. fine lib. de Tobia c. 1. Hier. Ep. 33. Maximus Taurinensis hom 1. de Eleemosyna Epiphanius haer 76. ante med Junilius de part divin leg c. 3. 5. 6. and which further proveth they thought it Canonical it it referred to Salomon as Author thereof by Hilary in Matth. can 7. Cyprian l. 3. Epist 9. ad Guirinum c. 35.61.69 Serm. de Eleemof prope initium Basil l. 4. contra Eunomium Ambr. in 1 Cor. c. 7. Chrysost de decollat Joannis Baptistae initio hom 3. imperfect in Matth. Innoc. Ep. ad Exuperium Gregor l. 10. Moral c. 14. Clemens Alex. l. 7. Strom. and Concil 3. Carthag can 47. So also is the Book of To by alleged by Cyprian Serm. 1. de Eleemosyna â—nâ—tâ—o de orat dom prope finem Ambr. l. de Tobâ—a c. 1. l. 6. exam c. 4. l. 10. Ep. 82. Austâ—n Ep. 120. c. 29. Ep. 121. c. 9 de diligendo Deo c. 3. Hâ—lary in Psalm 129. circa med And Irenaeus l. 1. cap. 34. numbreth Toby among the other Prophets of whom the Hereticks called Gnostioi did feign certaâ—n soolish devices The like might be further alleged of the other controverted Books but this place is not capable thereof of divine Scripture wherein the Holy Ghost speaketh or such other like as are peculiar only to those Scriptures that be Canonical Secondly though we should suppose that these Fathers had omitted or denyed all or some of these Books in their Catalogue of the Scriptures accordingly as the Protestants object that the [e] Concil Laodicen can ult Laodicen Council doth in its Catalogue of the Scriptures omit all those Books as indeed the same Council doth also there likewise omit the Apocalyps yet is the objection hereof though supposed for true of no force because it is evident that in the Primitive Church the Canonical Scriptures were not generally received all at once but in so great variety [f] Of the great variety of pretended Scriptures see in Brereley tract 2. cap. 3. sect 7. subd 6. in the margent under the letter b. where he saith Of the very many writings forged under the Apostles names see Euseb hist l. 3. c. 19. l. 6. c. 10. St. Austin contra advers Leg. Prophet l. 1. c. 20. Gelasius in decret cum 70. Episcopis Zozomen hist l. 7. c. 19. post med and see also the Protestant Writer Hamâ—lmannus de traditionibus Apostolicis c. primae partis l. 1. col 251. part 3. l. 3. col 841. lin 15. 22. In which places mention is severally made of sundry writings forged under the names of Paul Peter Barnabas Thomas Matthew Andrew John and divers others and St. Paul 2 Thess 2.2 insinuateth the then forging of Epistles in his name of pretended Scriptures great care and search was requisite whereby to determine which Scriptures were Canonical and which not whereby it came to pass that sundry Books were for the time misdoubted or by some Fathers or Councils omitted or not received which yet afterwards upon greater search and consideration generally acknowledged A thing so evident that our learned Adversasaries themselves do accordingly confess and illustrate the same by many confessed and known [g] In the Tower disp 1581. the first days conference D. 1. The Deans of Pauls and Windsor say Euscbius affirmeth plainly the Epistle of St. James to be a counterfeit or basâ—ard Eorstle Also Mr. Bilson in his Survey of Christs sufferings c. Printed 1604. pag. 664. paulo post initium saith The Scriptures were not fully received in all places no not in Eusebius time He saith the Epistles of James Jude the second of Peter the second and third of John are contradicted as not written by the Apostles the Epistle to the Hebrews was for a while contradicted c. the Churches of Syria did not receive the second Epistle of Peter nor the second and third of John nor the Epistle of Judâ— nor the Apocalys c. The like might be said for the Churches of Arabia will â—ou hence conclude that these parts of Scripture were not Apostolick or that we need not to receive them now because they were formerly doubted of So fully doth Mr. Bâ—lson answer our Adversaries like usual objection had against the Machabâ—es and the other Bâ—nks of the old Testament now in question More confessed examples her of alleged by Protestants Brereley recâ—teth tract 2. cap. 3. sect 7. subd 6. in the margent at the Letter c. saâ—ing In the Tower d. sp Anno 1581. had with Edm. Campian the first days conference D. 1. the Deans of Pauls and Windâ—or do thus report of themselves for proof whereof we allege the testimony of Hierom in Catal. where he thus writeth The Epistle of James is said to be published by some other undâ—r his name and of the 2. of Peter he saith that it is denyed of many to he â—â—s we also alleged Eusebius writing thus thes Books that be gainsaid though they be known to many he these the Epistle attributed to James the Epistle of jude the later of Peter the second and third of John And in the fourth days conference fol. 2. b. M. D. Walker saith Hierom saith concerning that Epistle which is written to the Hebrews many have doubted of it And also concerning the 2. of Peter he saith it was doubtâ—d of by many and so with some were the two last Epistles of John c. examples Mr. Bilson thereupon [h] Mr. Bilson in his saying alleged next heretofore in the margent under g. concluding that this denyal or omission made by certain Fathers of certain Scriptures is no argument against the said Scriptures Whereupon it necessarily followeth as well by Master Bilsons foresaid conclusion as by unavoydable sequel of the other premisses that the Canonical Scriptures are to us at this day discerned and made known not by that which certain Fathers do omit deny or doubt of for so should
we upon this ground deny also with the Lutherans the [i] Osiander a prime Lutheran speaking of the last Canon of the Laodicen Council commonly objected by our Adversaries wherein are omitted the Books now in question and the Apocalyps saith in his Epitom c. cent 4. pag. 299. fine Non recitantur libri Machabaeorum rectè quidem In eo autem erratum est quod Epistolam Jacobi Judae posteriores duas Joannis inter Canonica Scripta numerant quae Scripta non longè post Apostolorum tempora non pro Scriptis Canonicis habita sunt c. Rectè autem omissa est Apocalypsis ea enim non est Joannis Apostoli c. And see this point more fully in Brereley tract 1. sect 10. subdivis 3. fine at a. and tract 2. c. 2. sect 10. subdivis 2. initio in the text and margent there at o. p. q. r. s t. u. And see at large in the Protestant Authors themselves the places there cited wherein they reject these Scriptures under colour and pretence that they were denyed or doubted of in the Primitive Church Epistles of James Jude the second of Peter the 2. and 3. of John the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalyps no less than the other Books now in question but by that which many of the Fathers do constantly affirm And seeing the Churches assertion as being in the judgement of our very [k] Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 5. initio saith the Church of Christ hath judgement to discern true writings from counterfeit and the word of God from the writings of men and this judgement she hath of the Holy Ghost And Mr. Jewel in his defence of the Apology pag. 201. and after the other Edition of 1571. pag. 242. circa med saith The Church of God hath the spirit of Wisedom whereby to discern true Scripture from false The Protestant Author of the Scripture and the Church which Bullinger so greatly commendeth in his Preface thereof to the Reader doth cap. 15. fol. 71.72 cap. 16. fol. 74.75 affirm that The Church is indued with the Spirit of God and that the diligence and authority of the Church is to be acknowledged herein which hath partly given forth her testimony of the assured writings and hath partly by her Spiritual judgement refused the writings which are unworthy And afterwards he further saith We could not believe the Gospel were it not that the Church taught us and witnessed that this doctrin was delivered by the Apostles To this end Mr. Hooker in his first Book of Ecclesiastical Policy sect 14. pag. 86. ante med saith apud Brereley tract 1. sect 10. subd 3. Of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what Books we are bound to esteem holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it self to teach whereof he giveth a very sensible demonstration ibid. l. 2. sect 4. pag. 102. fine saying It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it his word for if any one Book of Scripture did give testimony of all yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest would require an other Scripture to give credit unto it Neither could we come to any pause wherein to rest unless besides Scripture there were some thing which might assure us c. Which he acknowledgeth to be the authority of Gods Church l. 3. sect 8. pag. 146. fine l. 2. sect 7. pag. 116. ante med And Brereley tract 2. cap. 3. sect 11. subd 1. at s allegeth further the like judgement of Mr. D. Covel in his defence of Mr. Hookers five Books art 4. c. pag. 31. ante med saying Doubtless it is a tolerable opinion of the Church of Rome if they go no further as some of them do not to affirm that the Scriptures are holy and divine in themselves but so esteemed by us for the authority of the Church And after in the same page It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it is the word of God the first outward motion leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the authority of Gods Church which teacheth us to receive Marks Gospel who was not an Apostle and to refuse the Gospel of Thomas who was an Apostle and to retain Lukes Gospel who saw not Christ and to reject the Gospel of Nicodemus that saw him Adversaries an infallible and sure direction to us in this question of the Canonical Scriptures is as heretofore positively delivered and made plain to us by no less testimony than of St. Isidoâ—e Innocentius Gelasius the Fathers of the Carthage Council and to omit others of St. Austin himself who in our Adversaries confessed judgement was [l] M. D. Covel in his answer to John Burges pag. 3. fine saith Saint Austin a man far beyond all that ever were before him or shall in likelihood follow after him both for humane and divine learning those being excepted that were inspired Also M. D. Field of the Church l. 3. fol. 170. fine saith Austin the greatest of all the Fathers and worthiest Divine the Church of God ever had since the Apostles times And Gomarus in speculo verae Ecclesiae c. pag. 96. ante med saith Augustinus Patrum omnium communi sententia purissimus habetur chief and best of all the Fathers what can be more clear and convincing herein for us and against our Adversaries than that which is as heretofore though but briefly yet plainly thus delivered from the not doubtful but confessed judgement of St. Austin and those other many antient Fathers Mr. D. [m] M. D. Covel in his answer to Mr. John Burges pag. 85. fine saith of the untruths or repugnances supposed to be in these Books now in question We could without violence have afforded them the reconcilement of other Scriptures and undoubtedly have proved them to be most true And pag. 87. fine 88 89 90. â—e maketh special answer to certain such objected repugnances Covel a prime man among our Adversaries not forbearing in this case to undertake special defence and answer against such weak seeming repugnances or contradictions occuring [n] Concerning the like seeming repugnancy of other Scriptures Mr. Jewel in his defence c. pag. 361. fine affirmeth that St. Mark alleged Abiathar for Abimelech and that St. Matthew nameth Hieremias for Zacharias and in St. Matthew 27.9 are words alleged under the name of Hieremy which are not found in Hieremy but in Zachary 11.13 Also in Mark 15.25 our Saviour is said to be crucified in the third hour whereas in John 19.14 Pilate sate in judgement upon him about the sixt hour In like manner Luke 3.35 36. affirmeth Sale to be the son of Caynan and Caynan the son of Arphaxad and so Arphaxad was Grandfather to Sale whereas in Genesis 11.12 it is said that Arphaxad lived 35.
doth casually and obiter among other things make mention over and besides the foresaid doctrine of prayer for the dead of [s] Hamelmannus de Traditionibus Apostolicis col 707. lin 27. col 736. lin 56. And Mr. Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura pag. 655. ante med saith I do acknowledge that Dionysius is in many places a great Patron of Traditions Apostolick unwritten Traditions of [t] Hamelmannus ubi supra col 707. l. 4. col 737. l. 51. Chrysm [u] Hamelmannus ubi supra col 707. l. 49. col 743. l. 4. And D. Reynolds in his conference pag. 488. post med Consecration of Monks of [x] Mr. Reynolds in his conference with Mr. Hart pag. 488. post med Chancels severed with sanctification from the rest of the Church of [y] Hamelmannus de Traditionibus col 741. post med Altars places sanctified and sundry Ceremoniâ—â— of the peoples [z] Hamelmannus ibid. col 742. circa med mutual salutation upon the Pax pronounced of [a] Scultetus in his Medulla Patrum pag. 484. circa med saith In libro de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia multa scribit de Templis de Altaribus de locis Sacris de choro de consecratione MonachoruÌ„ de Tonsura rasione capitum the tonsure and rasure of Priests heads of perfuming or [b] Hospinianus in hist Sacramentaria lib. 1. pag. 104. post med burning Incense at the Altar and of [c] Humfred Jesuitismi part 2. pag. 519. circa med and Luther tom 2. Wittemberg Anno 1562. de captiv Babyl fol. 84. b. ante med saith At dices Quid ad-Dionysium dices qui sex enumerat Sacramenta c. Respondeo scio hunc solum haberi ex antiquis pro septenario Sacramentorum licet Matrimonio omisso senarium tantum dederit As concerning the number of Sacraments mentioned by the Fathers it is to be noted that the Fathers do speak of them but casually and as occasion is ministred So sometimes they do in some places but mention one Sacrament in other places two in others three in some place Baptism only in an other Order in a third Confirmation In this sort St. Austin contra literas Petil. l. 2. c. 104. affirmeth The Sacrament of Chrism or Confirmation to be in the kind of visible sings and sacred even as Baptism it self And in Epist Joan. tract 6. he mentioneth not only the Sacrament thereof but also the vertue of the Sacrament In an other place namely tom 7. l. 2. contra Epist Parmen c. 13. he mentioneth Baptism and Order And to prove that Orders once received cannot be lost no more than Baptism he saith Sâ— enâ—m utrumque Sacramentum est quod nemo dubitat cur illud non amittitur illud amittitur Neutri Sacramento injuria facienda est And again Vtruâ—que enim Sacramentum est c. In like manner St. Cyprian inserm de ablut pedum initio saith Docetur quae sit Baptismi asiorum Sacramentorum stabilâ—tas mentioning therewith all sundry of them And so plainly that Chemnitius speaking thereof in examen part 2. pag. 7. b. post med confesseth that quinque numerat he there reckoneth up five Sacraments Only answering thereto for his refuge that Cyprian was not Author of that Treatise The vanity of which his answer against that Treatise of Sermons extant under Cyrians name is sufficiently refelled heretofore in this Consideration num 2. at 7. In like manner doth Innocentius the first-mention extreme Vnction in so much as Bale in his Pageant of Popes fol. 26. and Szegedine in speculo Pontificum pag. 33. ante med reprehend Innocentius for that he affirmed Annoyling of the sick to be a Sacrament Six of our Sacraments that the Book of Hermes entituled Pastor affordeth in like manner testimony or ground-work of [d] Abraham Scultetus in medulla Theolog. c. pag. 467. post med Free-will and Monastical solitude of [e] Hamelmannus de trad Apost col 252. fine col 253. initio col 254. lin 38. Abraham Scultetus ubi supra pag. 467. post med Purgatory and prayer for the dead of [f] Hamelmanus ubi supra col 253. l. 54. col 254. lin 49. Hamelmannus ubi supra col 251. lin 48. col 254. lin 30. merit and justification of works of professed chastity in Ministers of fasting [g] Hamelmannus ubi supra col 254. lin 36. from certain meats of [h] Ibidem col 253. lin 46. the Innocent parties remaining unmarried in case of adultery of [i] Chemnitius examen Concil Trid. part 4. pag. 127. prope finem works of Supererogation and of [k] Hamelmannus ubi supra col 254. lin 53. saith Fuit igitur borum Papismi â—nitium impurus ille liber Pastoris vel Hermetis Popery And though in the Primitive Church some question [l] Vide Eusebium hist lib. 3. c. 3. prope finem was made of this Book as whether it were Canonical Scripture or not many Fathers [m] It was thought to be sacred and for such alleged by Origen l. 10. in Epist ad Rom. Tertul. l. de oratione Clemens Alex. l. 6. Strom. Athanasius in libro de Decretis Nicen. Synod Cassianus Collat. 13. c. 12. by Iraeneus l. 4. c. 37. thinking it was yet is it confessed to have been received at the least for [n] Hamelmannus ubi supra col 254. lin 24. saith illum pro Ecclesiastico habuerunt quidem Patres and col 730. lin 25. he saith Hermetis libellus qui dicitur Pastor est olim aliquando in numerum Ecclesiasticorunâ— librorum relatus And see the same yet further confessed by Mr. Hooker l. 3. pag. 34. prope initium In so much as Eusebius hist l. 5. c. 3. Rufinus in Symbolum Hieron in Catal. do commend this book for profitable and so Mr. Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura pag. 93. fine confesseth of Hierom. Ecclesiastical And the authority thereof to have been by so many since specially alleged by [o] Hamelmannus ubi supra col 253. lin 10. saith Liber Pastoris videtur receptus esse ab Irenaeo Clemente And col 255. lin 42. he saith Ostendit Euseblus à quibusdam librum Pastoris receptum esse imprimis ab Irenaeo sic Origines l. 1. de Principiis c. 3. citat quaedam ex libro Pastoris ejusque libri lectionem commendat hom 13. in Ezech. Origen Clement and Irenaeus who lived next to those Apostolick times 14. Fourteenthly this confessed continued current of Testimonies from the Fathers is so certain and evident that sundry of our learned Adversaries doubt not therefore to make general disclaim in the antient Fathers Hence it is that Mr. Whitaker affirmeth [1.] Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 6. pag. 243. fine saith Ex Patrum erroribus vester ille Pontificiae religionis Cento consutus est The Popish Religion to be a patched Coverlet of the Fathers errours sewed together And that also M.
places he defendeth earnestly the perfection of the Scriptures Thus much of certain plain examples given but in this one only question of Traditions which their incredible boldness towards the antient Fathers is to be less marvailed at seeing they are not abashed to intreat also no less boldly their own Protestant Authors of these very times inforcedly urging and alleging them against their confessed and known meanings As in the example of the Lutherans who are known and confessed to defend the Real being of Christs Body in the Sacrament [r] Hereof see Mr. D. Covel in his defence of Mr. Hooker c. pag. 118. prope finem before participation and present also [s] Affirmed by the fifteen Lutheran Divines as appeareth by their words in the answer made to them intituled Apolog. modest ad Acta Conventus quindecim Theologorum Torgae nuper habit pag. 35. fine 48. fine And see Luther there alleged affirming the same pag 36. paulo post med to the bodily mouth even [t] That the wicked receive truly Christs body is affirmed by Jacobus Andraeas in confut disput Joan. Jacobi Grinaei pag. 110. circa med 115. 244. initio And by Chemnitius in his Enchiridion pag. 345. And by Adamus Francisci in Margarita Theologica pag. 260. 261. and by Marpachius in Peter Martyrs Epistles annexed to his Common places in English pag. 96. a. post med And see Luther alleged by Peter Martyr in his collections annexed to his Common places in English and his Treatise there of the Lords Supper pag. 138. a. fine b. initio of the unworthy receiver In so much as they [u] That the Lutherans do adore the Sacrament during the use thereof see Chemnitius in his examen part 2. pag. 91. b. circa med and Benedict Morgenstern tract de Ecclesia pag. 147. 149. 135. Apolog. modest ad Acta Conventus quindecim Theologorum Torgae nuper habit pag. 40. circa med And Luther tom 7. Wittemberg fol. 335. a. ante med Schlusselburg in Catal. haeret l. 3. pag. 867. adore it Mr. Fulk is not abashed most boldly and untruly to affirm that [x] Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick art 17. pag. 61. fine the Lutherans and Zuinglians do both consent in this that the body of Christ is received spiritually not corporally with the heart not with the mouth And to pass over the no less incredible boldness herein of [*] M. D. Field of the Church l. 3. c. 42. pag. 170. ante med saith Yea I dare confidently pronounce that after due and full examination of each others meaning there shall be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament the Vbiquitary Presence or the like between the Churches reformed by Luthers Ministry in Germany and other places and those whom some mens malice called Sacramentaries M. D. Field Peter Martyr affirmeth upon report (y) Peter Martyr in his Common places part 4. pag. 188. fine of credit that Luther judged not so grosly of this matter c. and (z) Peter Martyr ibid. pag. 195. b. ante med that he in very deed put no other conjunction but Sacramental between the body of Christ and the signs As though the hot tragical (a) Of the great contentions concerning the Real presence had between the Lutherans and Zuinglians see Luc. Osiander in Epitom cent Eccles cent 16. see l. 2. c. 10. pag. 133 134 135 c. And Peter Martyr in his Epistles annexed to his Common places pag. 137. b. 139. a. And Mr. Cowper in his Chronicle fol. 284. b. 290. b. 370. b. and Mr. Whitaker de Ecclesia pag. 322. and they are yet further notified by the very many writings by them published to the world one against an other mentioned in Brereley in the last Catalogue of Protestants Books contentions had and yet to this day continued about the Sacrament between the Lutherans and Zuinglians were to the world unknown or but only a dream or an imaginary fiction And hence it is that the Lutherans do grievously complain against our adversaries [b] Gerhardus Giesekenius a Lutheran in his Book De veritate corpor is Christi in Caena contra Pezelium pag. 93. so chargeth the Calvinists because say they that you allege Luthers words against his meaning Which thing as Luther did in his life time perceive by experience and grievously thereof [c] Lutherus in praefat in Smalcaldicos articulos extant in Luc. Osiander Epitom cent Eccles cent 16. pag. 253. saith there pag. 254. citca med Quid dicam quomodo querelam instituam adhuc superstes sum scribo conciones habeo praelego publicè quotidiè tamen virulenti homines non tantum ex Adversariis sed etiam falsi fratres qui nobiscum sentire se aiunt mea scripta doctrinam meam simpliciter contra me adferre allegare audent me vivente vidente audiente eriamsi sciant me aliter docere volunt virus suum meo labore exornare c. Qâ—id ergo bone Deus post obitum meum siet complain so also did he specially foresee and a little before his death [d] Ibid. next after he saith Deberem quidem ad omnia respondere dum adhuc vivo c. And the Tigurine Divines in Confess Orthodox Eccles Tigur tract 3. fol. 108. allege Luthers Confession made a little before his death wherein Luther saith Ego quidem sepulchro vicinus c. I that walk now nigh to my grave will carry this testimony and glory to the Tribunal seat of Christ my Saviour that I have with all carefulness condemned and avoided those fanatical men and enemies of the Sacrament Zuinglius Oecolampadius Swinckfeldius and their Scholars whether they be at Zurick or in what other place soever under the Sun forewarn against the same In like manner do the Lutherans charge our Adversaries for that with like extream boldness (e) Gerhardus Giesekenius l. de veritate corporis Christi in caena pag. 76. fine saith Zuinglianam Augustanam Confessionem reddere conantur sed tam manifestis mendaciis conspicua falsitate c. And see there further pag. 118. ante med And see in Luc. Osiander in centur 16. pag. 146. post med the like or worse complaint against the Zuinglians concerning the Confession of Augusta In like manner whereas the Confession of Ausburg was exhibited by the same Divines and in the same year and to the same Emperour Charls the V. as was the Confession of Augusta as appeareth by comparing of Luc. Osiander cent 16. pag. 144. 145. with the Catalogue of Confessions initio set before the Harmony of Confessions in English and their doctrin of the Real Presence is delivered in the very same words as in the Confession of Augusta Yet Mr. Chatterton or who else soever was Author of the Observations upon the Harmony of Confessions in English is not abashed in his
eternal memory And whereas according to histories he was born in Britain and of British Progeny and governed that Kingdom with great piety and vertue he now returneth to your Highness representing to you that State of the Church which in his time illustrated the whole world with the splendour thereof That man must needs have an iron heart which is not moved with the godly succesful and laudable proceedings of his Ancestors Seeing therefore your Majesty is adorned with all good learning we doubt not but that Constantines Ecclesiastical history shall be to your Highness most pleasant and grateful c. 24. Pu. Now good Reader out of the foresaid Premises that the antient holy Fathers are even by Protestants themselves confessed to stand for us thou canst not but conclude First That either our Doctrines do not exclude Salvation or else that all those whom even Prostestants stile Holy and Antient and acknowledge them to be Saints in Heaven were incapable of Salvation which to affirm is no less than most temerarious and cruel blasphemy implying that our Blessed Saviour had no true Church on earth when Luther appeared and that Gentiles were converted to Christian Religion from Paganism and worship of false Gods with no better effect than to be damned 25. Secondly That no man who hath care of his soul will not judge that for interpreting Scripture and in matters of Faith more credit is to be given to the Fathers who were so neer yea who were of the Primitive Church and holy mortifyed and induced with all dispositions making them capable of Gods holy impressions and inspirations than to Luther and other Novellists appearing so lately for time and for doctrine and manners teaching and living so carnally and wickedly as Protestants cannot dissemble it as hath been proved in the first Consideration and consequently more open to receive the suggestions of Satan than the motions of the Ho-Ghost 26. Thirdly that if Luther and his followers could not have been excused from Heresie and Schism if they had lived in those antient days and had opposed the Doctrine and forsaken the Communion of those Fathers so neither can they avoid the just imputation of Heresie and Schism in opposing the Doctrine and abandoning the Communion of us Catholicks who are confessed to agree with the Fathers and antient Christians of those times 27. Fourthly that in a word we cannot but be safe since our very Adversaries confess that we agree with those holy Fathers whom they confess to be saved 28. Fiftly that this our agreement with Antiquity and of Antiquity with Truth is so manifest and forcible that among all the chief points wherin Protestants do disagree from us there is not any one of moment wherein divers chief learned Protestants do not agree with us against their pretended Brethren so that by the confession of all sides if either Antient Fathers or modern Sectaries cannot be saved we are secure And that this agreement of Protestants with us is truly affirmed by me the Reader will find evidently proved in the next Consideration THE THIRD CONSIDERATION Chief Protestants stand for us in the most important points of Religion against their Protestant Brethren BRereley tract 3. sect 7. saith The sundry Articles of our Catholick Faith defended and that most earnestly against the other opinions of our learned Adversaries by sundry of their own no less learned Brethren and all this by either party upon pretended certainty from the Scriptures are many known and evident as may appear by the seventy and above examples thereof here particularly alleged 1 First as concerning the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament to the bodily mouth it is affirmed by Luther and Lutherans and contradicted for Popish by Calvin and his followers Secondly the Reall presence not only of the efficacy of Christs body but also of the body it self after a wonderfull and incomprehensible manner to the mouth of Faith is affirmed by Calvin Institut l. 4. c. 17. sect 7. 10. 32. by Mr. Rider in his friendly Caveat c. the third leaf a. circa med And by Mr D. Whittaker contra Duraeum pag. 169. by the confession of Belgia in the English Harmony pag. 431. By Bucer in Script Anglican pag. 548. post med 549. And by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall Polity l. 5. sect 67. pag. 174. circa medium pag. 177 post med vide Apolog. modest ad acta conventus quindecim Theolog. Torgae nuper habit c. pag. 19. pag. 13. initio 23 47. And contradicted as inclining to Popery to omit the known Doctrine of Oecolampadius and Zuinglius whereof see Mr. Hooker l. 5. sect 67. pag. 174. ante med Lavat in Hist Sacramentar pag. 4. Calvin in libello de Coen Dom. versus finem extant in Calvin's tract Theolog. pag. 12. a. Schlusselburg in Theol. Calvinist l. 1. fol. 78. b. 82. b. by Peter Martyr in his Epistles annexed to his common-places in English pag. 107. b. Ep. 25. ibidem pag. 98. a. pag. 108. a. for which Bucer in his Scripta Anglicana pag. 548. post med 549 ante post medium reproveth Peter Martyr Also by Aretius Serm. 3. de Coena by Szegedine in loc commun pag. 182. at 12. 15. and by our English Puritans in their Christian letter to M. R. Hooker pag. 35. paulo post medium and by certain French Protestants mentioned by Hospinian in hist Sacramt par altera fol. 344. a. post med b. initio And by others mentioned by Mr. Rogers in his Catholick Doctrine c. pag. 176. circa med And by Ludevicus Alemannus in positionibus apud Lugdunenses editis Anno 1566. who said hereof neque etiam per fidem seu incomprehensibili modo ut vocant quia hoc totum imaginarium repugnat appertissimè Dei Verbo of whose opinion see further Beza Epist 5. Thirdly that Sacraments do not only signifie but also confer Grace is affirmed by Osiander in Enchirid. Controversiarum quas Augustanae Confess Theol. habent cum Calvinianis pag. 272 post medium in Epitom Histor Eccles c. centur 16 pag. 527.529.531 538. by Jacob. Andraeas in Epit. Colloquii Montisbelgar pag. 58. prope initium pag. 42 initio and by M. D. Bilson in his true difference c. part 4. pag. 539. ante med and 592. post medium 368 post medium by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall Polity l. 5. sect 57. pag. 127 128. and by M. D. Whittaker contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 662. paulo ante medium 664. post medium Melancthon in c. 4. Ep. ad Rom. after the first Edition saith Repudienda est Zuinglii opinio qui tantum civili modo judicat de signis scilicet Sacramenta tantum notas esse professionis c. apud Ulembergium causa 20. pag 697. And contradicted for Popish by the Survey of the book of Common prayer pag. 103 104. by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis
Scripture may have divers understandings and all of them true against our Adversaries practise who to make the same plain by one example for many if they can shew that St. Augustin or some other Father doth by Fire 1 Cor. 13.15 upon occasion of other application understand the tribulation of this life do therefore urge this Exposiâ—ion thus given against the other common received sense of Purgatory though also given elswhere by the very same and other Fathers which the said Fathers by their other foresaid firster sense never meant to gainsay This slight being usuall by our Adversaries is hereby once for all prevented affirmed by the Translator of the English Bible published 1576. in his Epistle to the Brethren of England Scotland and Ireland circa med by the Divines of Geneva in their Propositions and Principles disputed in Geneva c. cap. 52. pag. 149. post med by Hierome Zanchius de facra Scriptura pag. 422. fine 424 425. and by Aretius in loc com loc 59. pag. 187. circa med pag. 177. circa med with whom herein agreeth St. Augustine de Civit. Dei l. 11. c. 19. initio l. 12. confess c. 31. de Doct. Christ l 3. c. 27. lib. 1. c. 36. de util cred c. 3. de Gen. ad lit l. 1. c. 21 Yet contradaicted by Mr. Fulk in his confutation of Purgatory pag. 151. and M. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 26 fine 65 The distinction of Order and Jurisdiction whereby the greatest Archbishop and the meanest Bishop or Priest are said to be equal or unequal the equality being in respect of Order and the inequality in respect of Jurisdiction which distinction serveth to explain the seeming repugnant sayings whether of Scripture or Fathers which otherwise might be thought to affirm somtimes a superiority at other times an equality between Peter and the other Apostles and so likewise between the Pope and other Bishops Affirmed by Mr. Whitgift and [y] Brereley tract 2. c. 3 sect 10. subd 2. sine in the margent at m. Mr. Bridges in his defence c. pag. 313. 445.446 1156. fine and Mr. Whitgift acknowledgeth this distinction affirming in his defence of the Answer to the Admonition pag. 303. post med that Archbishops quoad ministerium doe not differ from other Pastors but touching Government affirming also pag. 386. ante med and answering to a common objection out of Hierome who equalleth the meanest Bishop with the Pope that they are equal quoad Mnisterium but not quoad politiam And see him there further pag. 320. fine 461. initio pag. 390. prope initium and contradicted for Popish by Mr. Cartwright alleged in Mr. Whitgift's defence pag. 389. prope finem and by many others 66 That the true visible Church cannot wholly erre affirmed by Mr. Fox in his Martyrs as by Philpot Act. Mon. pag. 1401. a. prope finem by Bilney Act. Mon. 464. b. art 4. by Ridley Act. Mon. pag. 1361. b. post med pag. 1286. b. prope finem by James Baynham Act. Mon. pag. 493. b. prope finem also by Mr. Fox himself Act. Mon. pag. 999. a. fine at art 36. by Mr. Bancroft in his Sermon and page mentioned next hereafter in number 67. by the Divines of Geneva in their Propositions and Principles disputed c. pag. 141. sect 12. 13. and most expresly by Bertrand de Loque Minister of Delphinine who in his discourse of the Church c. 12. pag. 198. saith of this very question The Controversie in my judgement is not of the Catholike or universal Church for we all agree herein that she cannot erre touching Faith c. wherefore this question is touching only a particular Church Impugned by Mr. Fulk who in his answer to a counterfait Cathotholike pag. 8â— fine saith The whole Church militant consisting of men which are all liars may erre altogether as every part thereof And by the Puritans who in their Brief Discovery of untruths in a Sermon preached 1588. by D. Bancroft pag. 34. do expresly reprove Mr. Bancroft for his teaching our Catholike Doctrine herein 67 An external Judgment or difinitive sentence and not only Scripture appointed for the ending of Controversies affirmed by Mr. D. Field in his words alleged heretofore in this Consideration num 51. by M. Bilson in his perpetual government c. pag. 372. initio by Mr. Bancroft in his Sermon preached February 8. 1588. pag. 42 43. see his saying alleged and reprehended in the Puritans foresaid Discovery c. pag. 34. by Mr. D. Covell in his Modest Examination c. pag. 108. paulo ante med 109. prope finem by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity in the Preface sect 6. initio pag. 26. circa med pag. 28. ante med by Melancthon in Consil Theolog. part 2. pag. 1. 2. And in the end after much winding in and out by Mr. D. Reynolds in his Conference with Mr. Hart pag. 99. post medium and by the Puritans whereof see M. Bancroft's Survey c. pag. 304. fine Yet contradicted vulgarly by over many to be named Sectaries of all sorts who thereby to exempt themselves from all triall do pretend that the Church may erre and therefore that only Scripture is to be our Judge See this at large pretended by the Protestants throughout the late Conference at Ratisbon printed Lavingae Anno 1602. 68 Those that be learned know that the Government of the Church is neither Popular nor Aristocratical but a Monarchy affirmed in these words by Mr. Whitgift in his defence c. pag. 641. post medium by M. D. Covell in his Examination c. against the Plea of the Innocent pag. 109. 107. alleged heretofore in the second Consideration num 10. after 15. at a. b. c. e. by Luther alleged there afterwards in the margent under * next before 18. and vulgarly by many other Protestants who affirm the temporal Magistrate to be the head of the Church But yet many others who discern the known difference between the several Common-wealths of forein Nations governed by several Princes and the particular Churches of those Nations as namely that those sundry Common-wealths be each of them of it self a several absolute politike body governed severally by distinct lawes whereas yet all those several National Churches professing all of them one Faith and Religion make but one Catholike Church one Body Ephesians 2.16 3.16 One visible Church of Christ Hooker l. 3. sect 1. pag. 126. prope finem do therefore impugn Mr. Whitgift's foresaid Assertion foreseeing that by sequell thereof the several Churches of Forein Nations making as aforesaid all of them but one visible Church one Body should be accordingly governed by one visible Ecclesiastical Head or Monarch And hence it is that Mr. Jacob in his Reasons taken out of Gods word retorteth how probably we refer to judgement Mr. Hookers Assertions saying there pag. 24. paulo ante med It followeth from this necessarily that there ought to be a Catholike