Councel And agayne (2) Ib. p. 19. Neither is that speach altogeather to be disliked that a Councel is the Church Representatiue M. Ridley further auoucheth that (3) Act. Mon. p. 1288. Councels do indeed represent the vniuersal Church and being so gathered togeather in the name of Christ they haue a promise of the guift and guyding of his Spirit into al truth And the same Doctrine is proued by D. Bilson saying (4) Perpetual Gouernement p. 392. As in Ciuil Policie not al Persons are called togeather but certayne Chiefe to represent the State and consult for the whole Common-wealth So in the Gouernement of the Church it is as sufficient in right that some of euerie place excelling others in dignitie should be sent from euerie Realme far distant and by that meanes they had the consent of the whole world to the Decrees of their Councels The Councel thus liuely representing the Church it is herevpon further granted by D. Bilson that as (5) Ib. p 372. To haue no Iudge for the ending of Ecclesiastical contentions were the vtter subuersion of al peace so according to him (6) Ib. p. 370 Synods are an external iudicial meanes to discerne errour the same being as he teacheth (7) Ib. p. 372. strengthned with the Promise of our Sauiour and accordingly obserued by the ancient Fathers who sayth he (8) Ib. p. 374. In al Ages aswel before as since the great Councel of Nice haue approued and practised this course as the surest meanes to decide Doubts With whom agreeth Melancthon saying (9) In Concil Theol. par 2. p. 1. Let them assemble General or National Councels c. Because it is written Tel the Church This was the custome in the Church from the verie beginning c. And Councels are the proper Iudgements of the Church And (10) Ib. p. 2. And see l. 1. Epist. p. 211. It is requisit that there be Iudgements in the Church neither can other Nations but be scandalized if they shal heare that we refuse the Iudgements of al Synods And wheras some obiect that Councels may erre M. Hooker (11) Ecc. Pol. p. 27. answereth therto himself and further concludeth that (12) Ib. p. 28. The wil of God is to haue vs do whatsoeuer the Sentence of Iudicial and Final Decision shal determine yea though it seeme in our priuate opinion to swarue vtterly from that which is right c. And that without this it is almost impossible we should auoyd confusion or euer hope to attayne peace And this Sentence sayth he (13) Ib. p. 28. is ground sufficient for anie reasonable mans conscience to build vpon whatsoeuer his owne opinion were as touching the matter before in question The same truth is taught by his dearest friend D. Couel assuring vs that If (14) Modest Examination p. 110. Synods want the Church neither at anie time was nor indeed can safely be without Tempests yea sundrie Protestants do ioyntly teach and gather from the Councel of the Apostles mentioned in their Acts (15) Act. 15.2 c. the necessitie of Councels (16a) Vvhite in his Def. p. 661. Carthwr 16. p. 678. Raynolds in his Confer p. 254. 255 Bilson in his Perpet Gouern. p. 373. for the deciding of Controuersies and further acknowledge the presence and assistance of the (16b) Bilson ib. p. 372. 373. 374. Ridley Act. Mon. p. 1288. Holie Ghost in direction of them into al truth From hence it is that sundrie Protestants do nothing doubt to submit themselues and their writings to the Iudgement and Determination of a general Councel So their learnedst Beza in a Preface (17) Ad Acta Colloq Montisbel Resp p. 1. p. 2. to one of his books thus submitteth himself Let al these be submitted to the Iudgements of al true Doctours and Orthodoxal Diuines and especially of a free holie and lawful Synod if God shal grant it at anie time M. Hooker testifyeth that (18) Pref. to Eccl. Pol. p. 28 2◠M. Beza in his last book but one professeth himself to be now wearie of such combats and encounters whether by word or writing insomuch as he findeth that Controuersies are therby made but brawles and therfore wisheth that in some common lawful assemblie of Church al these strifes may be at once decided (19) Diuers Degrees of Ministers in his Epistle to the Ministers of the Low-countries B. 3. fine I hartily wish sayth D. Sarauia that there may be a general Councel that as it becommeth me I refuse not to be iudged of my Iudgement But if otherwise c. Let vs expect the Iudgement of God And another Protestant Writer testifyeth of himself and of his other Brethren that (20) Authour of Cath. Traditions p. 57. And see Hospin Concord Discord fol. 186. The learned and greatest men among them do protest to submit themselues to a general and free Councel In like sort D. Sutclif auoucheth in behalf of Protestants in general that (21) Reuievv of Kellisons Suruey p 42. It is false that Protestants wil admit no Iudge but Scriptures For we appeale sayth he stil to a lawful general Councel c. And In the meane time we content ourselues with National Councels and their Determinations As also (22) Ib p. 102. Priuate men do submit themselues to the Determination of a free general Councel and in the meane while to their National Churches Lastly the authoritie of general Councels is so great and the scandal in contemning them so offensiue that a Protestant Writer ingenuously confesseth that (23) Cath. Traditions p. 58. A man can not now adayes read the writings of the ancient Fathers nor the Histories of the Apostolick Churches no not the holie Scripture it self without finding verie manie ceremonies and fashions of speaking not vsed among the Protestants of France from whence it hapneth that manie do change their beleef being offended at the contemning of Councels c. From al which I wil briefly conclude that seing by the free testimonies of so manie of the learned Protestants both strāgers and neighbours General Councels do truly represent the Church of Christ and are the surest meanes for the deciding of Ecclesiastical Controuersies being therin directed and inspired by the Holie-Ghost himself and so freed from errour in the decrees of Faith and manners And seing also for these strongest Reasons Protestants pretend to submit themselues their writings and their doubts finally also to their Determination that therfore for the decision of Controuersies in Religion Catholiks and so manie learned Protestants do ioyntly agree herein That the Authoritie of Oecumenical Councels is sacred infallible and most powerful and for such acknowledged and respected by the humble submission thereto of either Partie THAT THE ARGVMENT DRAVVNE FROM the Authoritie of the Primitiue Church of Christ and of her Doctours Pastours is an Argument of force And for such approued by sundrie learned Protestants CHAPTER II. THere is
no period or difference of time wherin the Church of Christ hath more gloriously shined either for puritie of Faith or Sanctitie of life then during the time of her primitiue being which according to the accompt (1) Ievvel in his Sermon at Paules Crosse And in his Reply p. 1. Humfrey in vita Iuelli p. 123. 124. VvitaKer Resp ad Ranones Campiani p. 90. of the learnedst ProtestaÌ„ts extended itself to the ful tearme of the first six hundred years after Christ our Sauiour his glorious Ascension In greatest confidence wherof D. Iewel whom M. Mason (2) Consecration of English Bish. p. 267 styleth and esteemeth a Iewel made his so aduenturous a Challenge when he publickly exclaimed at Pauls Crosse O Gregorie O Austin O Hierom O Chrysostom O Leo O Denis O Anaclet O Calixt O Paul O Christ If we be deceaued you haue deceaued vs this you taught vs c. And As I sayd before so I say now againe I am content to yeald and subscribe if anie of our learned Aduersaries or if al the learned men that be aliue be able to bring anie one sufficient Sentence out of anie old Catholick Doctour or Father or out of anie old General Councel c. for the space of 600. yeares after Christ which maketh agaynst anie one of 27. Articles by him there repeated and defended And this he protested to preach not as carryed away with the heate of Zeale but as moued with the simple truth This proffer of D. Iewel was so pleasing to D. Whitaker that he most valiantly renewed it in behalf of al Protestants (3) Resp ad Rat. CaÌ„p p. 90. And see p. 9. saying to our glorious Martyr Campian Attend Campian the speach of Iewel was most true and constant when prouoking you to the Antiquitie of the first six hundred years he offered that if you could shew but anie one cleare and playne Saying out of anie one Father or Councel he would grant you the victorie It is the offer of vs al The same do we al promise and we wil performe it With like courage steppeth forth (4) Of the Church l. 5. in his Appendix therto Part. 1. p. 33. D. Field We say sayth he with Bishop Iewel in his worthie Challenge that al the learned Papists in the world can not proue that either Gregorie or Austin held anie of these twentie seauen Articles of Popish Religion mentioned by him Neither wil D. Morton yeald a foot herein stoutly auouching that (5) Prot. Appeal p. 354. It hath been the common and constant profession of al Protestants to stand vnto the Iudgement of Antiquitie for the continuance of the first foure hundred years and more in al things Yea he further publickly professeth that (6) Protest Appeale p. 573. 574. Protestants in oppugning Doctrines which they cal new and not Catholick c. are so far from suffring the limitation of the first 440. years that they giue the Romanists the scope of the first fiue hundred or six hundred years as our Aduersaries themselues do acknowledge For D. Stapleton writing of the opinion of Luther Caluin and Melancthon sayth that they did yeald vnto the tryal of truth by the testimonie of Antiquitie for the space of the first Fiue or Six hundred yeares M. Campian a Iesuit reporting the Challenge of Bishop Iewel for the mayntenance of these Articles which he then propounded for Catholik sayth that he appealed vnto the Iudgement of Antiquitie for the first six hundred years And againe (7) Ibid. p. 512 Protestants in the disquisition of truth do not absolutely bound the name of Antiquitie within the compasse of the first Centurie of years but are content to allow it a longer extent and therfore in al Doctrines which are truly Catholick c. they refuse not to be tryed by the testimonies of the ancient Fathers in the first fiue hundred years after Christ Yea (8) Ib. p. 680. we repose our securitie in those two impregnable fortresses of the Catholick Faith one is the ancient Tradition of the Primitiue Church as the Protestants are confessed to professe c. So willingly do the learned Protestants prouoke and appeale to the Primitiue Church of Christ for the certayne tryal of truth in matters of Faith and Religion Al which they pretend to do because as Luther sayth (9) Tom. 2. Germ. f. 243. Epist ad Marchionem Branâ—eburg It is dangerous and horrible to heare or beleeue anie thing which is contrarie to the vnanimous testimonie of Faith and to the doctrine of the holie and Catholick Church which she from the beginning agreably kept for aboue One thousand fiue hundred years And as Chemnitius truly obserueth (10) Exam. par 1. f. 74. No man doubteth but the Primitiue Church receaued from the Apostles and Apostolical men not only the Text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sense therof wherupon sayth he (11) Ibid. p. 64. we are greatly confirmed in the true and sound sense of Scripture by testimonie of the ancient Church Which according also to other Protestants (12) Harmonie of Confess p. 400. Is the true and best Mistresse of Posteritie and going before lâ—adeth vs the way Yea sayth D. Beard (13) Retractiue from Romish ReligioÌ„ p. 372 without al question al truth was taught by the Apostles to the Primitiue Church and no part therof was left vnreuealed c. Besides it is as certayn that that Church which next succeeded the Apostles was the most pure and absolute Church whether for doctrine or manners matter or forme that euer was in the world and therefore to degenerate from that must needs be to degenerate from the puritie and sanctitie of Religion And againe it can not be denyed that c. though the Primitiue Age of the Church after the Apostles was most pestered with Hereticks yet euermore the truth preuayled both in regard of birthright and predominance D. Morton Declareth that (14) Protestant Appeale p. 513. In the maine question of discerning the true bookes of holie Writ the Protestants do appeale c. vnto the IudgemeÌ„t of the Primitiue Church attributing vnto it the right and Authoritie of assigning and determining what is the perfect Canon of Scriptures With whom agreeth Chemnitius saying (15) Exam. part 1. p. 69. Andradius affirmeth that the testimonie of the Church is either alwayes to be reiected or alwayes to be receaued I answer c. where the Fathers set downe this Tradition of the books of Scripture they proue it by testimonies of the Primitiue Church if with the same course of certayntie they shal do the like of other Traditions wherof sometimes they make mention it is to be respected and they are to be receaued by the same law D. Sarauia confirmeth the authoritie of the Primitiue Church from her special assistance by the Holie-Ghost saying The (16) De diuersis Ministrorum Gradibus p. 8. Holie-Ghost who gouerneth the Church is the best interpreter
conscience and true knowledge would also dedicate your further labours I doubt not but you would become a dutiful Child to your Mother-Church and a paineful labourer in Christ's Vinyeard for which I wil not cease to entreate his Infinit Goodnes and wil euer rest Yours in him N. N. THE FIRST BOOKE WHERIN IS PROVED BY THE CONFESSION OF PROTESTANTS THAT THE CATHOLICK ROMAN CHVRCH hath continued Euer most Knowne and Vniuersal euen from Christs verie Time vntil the Date hereof THE ANTIQVITIE OF THE TRVE Church and the force of the Argument drawne from the Authoritie thereof As also of the great necessitie of finding-out this true Church CHAP. I. AS we may not doubt but that the Church of God speaking in general is equal in Ancestrie with our first Parents in Paradise so in regard of her Birth-right prime Antiquitie long precedent and preferred before the Scriptures themselues so euen of the Church of Christians it may not be denyed but that as in the same instant with Christ her Head and Spouse she receaued her first being life and birth in this world according to that of (1) Ad c. 3. Lucae S. Ambrose God built his Church in the chief Corner-stone CHRIST IESVS so was this her greatest nobilitie of birth not only to cōtinue for some few generatiōs but euer to remayne for al posteritie Agreable to which the Prophet Daniel foretold of the Church (2) cap. 2.4 that it is A kingdome that shal neuer be destroyed but shal stand for euer And so shal be according to Esay as (3) cap 60.15 An eternal glorie and ioy from generation to generation So that in steed of further discussing the Ancientest Birth-right and not-interrupted continuance of Christ his Church I wil now only treat of the force of that Argumēt which is drawne from the Authoritie Determinatiō of the sayd so Noble Anciēt a Church Wherein for greater expeditiō I wil pretermit most plentiful proofes both from sacred Scriptures and learnedst Fathers in steed therof wil for the present rest satisfyed with the freest Grants and ample Acknowledgements of the learnedst Protestants who first as they euer pretend to build their whole Faith Religion vpon the Written Word so do they further aknowledge the same to be only knowne and discerned from forged and adulterat Scriptures by the sacred Authoritie and Testimonie of the Church of Christ In which respect (4) Ans to a Counterf catho pag. 5. D. Fulk auoucheth that The Church of Christ hath Iudgemēt to discerne true writings from counterfait and the Word of God from the writings of men and this Iudgemēt she hath of the Holie-Ghost With whom accordeth (5) Def. of the Apolog. p. 201. D. Iewel affirming that The Church of God hath the Spirit of wisdome whereby to discerne true Scriptures from false In like sort M. (6) Ecc. Pol. pag. 86. Hooker teacheth that of things necessarie the verie chiefest is to know what books we are bound to esteeme holie which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture itself to teach Whereof he further sayth (7) Ib pa. 102. It is not the Word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs that we do wel to think it is his word for if anie one Book of Scripture did giue testimonie of al yet stil that Scripture which giueth credit to the rest would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it Neither could we come vnto anie pause whereon to rest vnles besides Scripture there were something which might assure vs c. which something afterwards he acknowledgeth (8) Ib. pa. 146. 116. And see Aretius his examen p. 24. And Bachmanus his Centuriae tres c. p. 267. To be the authoritie of Gods Church Agreably hereunto D. whitaker doth confesse that this weightiest controuersie concerning Canonical Scriptures is to vs determined not by (9) Cōt Staplet p. 370. 357. HooK Eccl. Pol. p. 147. Testimonie of the Spirit the which sayth he being priuat and secret is vnfit to teach and refel others but as he further teacheth (10) Ibi. p. 300. 298. 24. 25. And against Raynolds p. 44. by the Ecclestical Tradition An argument whereby may be argued and conuinced what books be Canonical and what not And another Protestant Writer (11) Auth. of the scripture and the church f. 71 72. 73. 74 75. much commended by (12) Ibid. in the Preface Bullinger affirmeth that The church is endued with the Spirit of God and that The diligence authoritie of the Church is to be acknowledged herein which hath partly giuen forth her Testimonie of the assured writings and hath partly by her Spiritual Iudgement refused the writings which are vnworthie Yea he further assureth vs with (13) Tom 6. cōt ep fund cap. 5. Tert. lib. 1 de Praescrip cap. 6. S. Augustin and Tertullian that (14) Scrip. and the church p. 72 74. 75. And see Melancthon in epist ad Rom cap. 14. pa 358 359. we could not beleeue the Ghospel were it not that the Church taught vs and witnessed that this doctrine was deliuered by the Apostles So that the authoritie of Gods true Church is so great as that by her warrāt we are only assured of the Written Word of God itself and for such by her wisedome giuen by the Holie-Ghost discerned to vs from al forged Apocryphal and counterfait writings A power and authoritie then which none stronger seing the certain knowledge of the true word of God is the chiefest foundation of our Christian Faith Now if in this question so important we may securely follow and beleeue the Sentence and Determination of the Church how much more then in other doubts of smaller respect Adde further hereunto in surest confirmation of the Churches authoritie that it is likewise granted and taught by the learnedst Protestants that the true visible Church can not wholy erre in matters of Faith Insomuch as they expresly confesse of this verie point that (15) Bertr de Loque in his discourse of the church p. 198. Phil. Act. mon. p. 1401. Bilney ibid. p. 464. Ridley 16. pag. 1361. 1286. Baynhā ib. p 493. Fox ib. pag. 999. Bancroft in his sermon preached 8. Febr. 1588. pag. 42. 43. The Diuines of Geneua in their Propositions and Principles disputed c. p. 142. Zanchius de Relig pa. 157. Rhegius in Discus The. p. 213. Hunnius in Act. Colloq Ratisb fol. 205. KecKermannus in System Theol. pag. 387. Povvel of things indifferent p. 7 The controuersie c. is not of the Catholick or vniuersall Church for we al agree say they herein that she cannot orre touching Faith c. wherefore this question is touching only a particular church Now if the true Church can not erre in matters of Faith Religion then is her Authoritie sacred her Decrees infallible her Children secured and al difficulties arising easily composed Yea from hence also may we iustly collect amongst al
of the Old Testament now in question And that the foresayd Epistles of S. Peter S. Iames S. Iohn S. Iude and the Apocalyps were doubted of by some Fathers of the Primitiue Church and not generally receaued by al it is further confessed by the Deanes of Paules and Windsor who in the Towers Disputation had with that Ornament of our Nation and most victorious Martyr Edmund Campian do thus report of themselues (40) The first Dayâ—s Conf. D. 1. For proofe hereof we alleadged the testimonie of Hierom in Catal. where he thus writeth The Epistle of Iames is sayd to be published by some other vnder his name and of the 2. of Peter he sayth that it is denyed of manie to be his we also alledged Eusebius writing thus Those Bookes that be gaynsaid though they be knowne to manie be these the Epistle attributed to Iames the Epistle of Iude the latter of Peter the 2. and 3. of Iohn And D. Walker in the same Disputation affirmeth 41) 4. Dayes Confâ—r fâ—l 2. 6. that S. Hierom saith concerning that Epistle which is written to the Hebrewes manie haue doubted of it And also concerning the 2. of Peter he sayth it was doubted of by manie and so with some were the two last Epistles of Iohn c. Now if the Bookes of Machabees Tobie c. be not Canonical because as Protestants before obiected they were reiected or doubted by some ancient Writers then by the same reason Protestants must likewise reiect the Epistle to the Hebrewâ—s the Epistles of S Peter S. Iames S. Iude S. Iohn and the Apocalyps because these also were no lesse doubted reiected by sundrie ancient Writers Wherefore the weaknes and ensuing absurditie of this obiection being thus discouered we are to obserue that the Canonical Scriptures are to vs at this day discerned and made knowne not by that which some ancient Writers omit deny or doubt of but by that which most of the Fathers constantly affirme and chiefly by that which is iudged and decreed by the Catholick Church lawfully assembled in General Councel Thirdly some obiect that there are in the foresayd Bookes diuers repugnances or Contradictions and consequently that they are not inspired by the holie-Ghost But to omit that in those Scriptures which are beleeued by al to be Canonical there are manie hidden difficulties and seeming (42) See Mat. 10.10 Mar. 6.8 1. Reg. 8.9 2. Par. 5.10 Hebr. 9.4 Act. 9.7 Act 22.9 Math. 26.34 Marc 14.68 Mar. 15.25 Io. 19.14 Luc. 3.35.36 Gen. 11.12 And see Iewel Def. c. p. 361. repugnances which yet notwithstaÌ„ding we are bound to acknowledge the sayd Scriptures to be true and sacred I wil for breuitie only alledge what other Protestants think and answer themselues to the foresayd pretended Contradictions in the Bookes of Machabee Tobie c. D. Couel (43) Answ to Burges p. 85. writeth We could without violence haue afforded them the Reconcilement of other Scriptures and vndoubtedly haue proued them to be most true Yea he particularly answereth certaine of the pretended repugnances In like sort Conradus Pelican (45) Ep. Dedic Professour at Tigure writing his Commentarie vpon the foresayd Bookes sayth I easily yeelded c. especially seing those Bookes were alwayes accompted so Ecclesiastical and Biblical that euen from the Apostles times they were read in the Catholick Church with much reuerence although they were not produced in authoritie against the Iewes as Canonical who receiued not these into their Sacred Canon wheras they do not only not contradict in anie thing the writings of the Law and the Prophets (44) Ib. p. 87 88. 89. 90. but also c. for the most part they cleerly carry the right style of the holie-Ghost certain knots or difficulties intermingled which are sound more easie to be loosed then some haue thought c. Wherupon they were euer reuerenced and read by holie men yea the Sayings therof are found to be alledged by the Apostles Agreably hereto M. Hutton (46) 2. Parte of the Answ p. 238. 239. at large answereth and cleereth the common obiection against Iudith and the like in behalf of Ecclesiasticus (47) Ibid. p. 247. and (48) Ibid. p. 246. And see Bucers scripta Anglic p. 713. Daniel So weake and impertinent are the Contradictions pretended by Protestants against the foresayd Bookes Now from the premisses that by the CoÌ„fessions of our Aduersaries we may collect that the foresayd Bookes of Scripture were only not approued for truly Canonical by S. Austin Innocentius Gelasius and al the Fathers and Bishops of the 3. Carthage Councel but also were approued as partes of the Old Testament by the Apostles and for such alledged by them and so from the Apostles times were read in the Catholick Church with much reuerence Witnesses wherof are the Protestant Writers Hiperius Lubbertus Zanchius Hospiman Trelcatius Hoe Scelico Brentius Bibliander Lascicius Pelican Raynolds Parker Field Couel Bancroft Hutton Parkes D. Bilson al of them affording their helping hands in maintayning and defending the foresayd Bookes by true Antiquitie It is acknowledged by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church beleeued and taught our now Catholick Doctrine concerning Traditions CHAPTER VI. THE Catholick Doctrine concerning (1) Bellarm. de Verb. Dei non Scripto l. 4 c 3. Traditions is that the sacred Scriptures or written Word of God do not expresly containe al poynts or matters concerning Faith and manners And therfore besides the same is necessarily required the not written Word of God that is Diuine and Apostolical Traditions To the Contrarie Protestants (2) Luth. in Comment c. 1. ad Gal. Caluin Inst l. 4. c. 8. sec 8 directly teach that al things necessarie to Saluation are set downe in the sacred Scriptures And that we are not bound to beleeue or do anie thing which is not taught and commanded thereby Now what the Primitiue Church beleeued and whether the present Roman or Protestant Church doth Symbolize and agree therewith the Sequele only taken from the free and liberal testimonies of Protestants themselues shal euidently demonstrate And to begin with S. Gregorie D. Morton confesseth that (3) Prot. Appeale l. 4. p 62. He vseth to confirme some things by Tradition S. Augustin also whom D. Field (4) Of the Church l. 3. p. 170. tearmeth Austin the greatest of al the Fathers and worthiest Diuine the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times This indeed most worthie Diuine endeauouring to proue that those who are Baptised by Hereticks should not be rebaptised freely confesseth that (5) De Bapt. cont Don. l. 5. c. 23. The Apostles commanded nothing hereof but that Custome which was opposed herein against Cyprian is to be beleeued to proceed from their Tradition as manie things be which the whole Church holdeth and are therefore wel beleeued to be commanded of the Apostles although they be not written A Saying so euident
for our present Controuersie and manie others that M Carthwright (6) In Whit. Def. p. 103. And in his 2. Reply against Whit. part 1 p 84-85 86. sayth therof To allow of Austin's Saying is to bring in Poperie againe And if S. Austins Iudgement be a good Iudgement then there be some things commanded of God which are not in the Scriptures and therupon no sufficient doctrine contayned in the Scriptures Caluin also acknowledgeth the same words of S. Austin yet confesseth (7) Inst l 4. c. 10. § 20. not to respect them affirming also that Austin hath nothing besides coniectures In like sort S. Chrysostom in expresse words teaching (8) In 2. Thes hom 4. that The Apostles did not deliuer al things by writing but manie things without these be as worthie of credit as the other D. Whitaker (9) De sacra Scriptura p. 678. in answer hereto sayth I answer that this is an inconsiderat speach and vnworthie of so great a Father And wheras Epiphanius haer 6â— teacheth that we must vse Traditions for the Scripture hath not al things and therfore the Apostles deliuered certain things by writing and certain by Tradition with whom agreeth S. Basil de Spiritu Sancto c. 27. saying Some things we haue from Scripture other things from the Apostles Tadition c. both which haue like force vnto Godlines D. Raynolds (10) In his Conclusions to his Conf. Conc. 1. p. 689. his answer to these foresayd Sayings of S. Basil Epiphanius is I take not vpon me to controle them but let the Church iudge if they considered with aduise enough c. In like sort Eusebius affirming l. 1. Demonstr Euang. c. 8 that the Apostles published their Doctrine partly by writing partly without writing as it were by a certaine vnwritten Law D. Whitaker (11) De sacra Scriptura p 668. sayth hereof I answer that this Testimonie is plaine enough but in no force ta be receiued because it is against the Scriptures Chemnitius (12) Exam. part 1. p. 87. 89. 90. reproueth for their like testimonie of vnwritten Traditions Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Epiphanius Ambrose Hierom Maximus Theophilus Basil c. And M. Fulk (13) Against Purg. p. 302 303. 397 And agâ—inst Martial p. 170. 178. Anâ— against Bristowes Moâ—â—â—s p. 35. 36. confesseth as much of Chrysostome Tertulian Cyprian Augustin Hierom c. Schrederus (14) Opusc Theol. p. 72. acknowledgeth that Origen and Basil in his book of the holie-Ghost and Hierom against the Luciferians do relate manie Customes which they cal Doctrines receaued by Tradition without writing as Threefold immersion in Baptisme Prayer towards the East the words of Inuocation when the Bread of the Eucharist is shewed c. prohibition to Fast on Sunday c. Sacrifices for the dead c. And D. Whitaker (15) De sacra Script p. 678 681. 683 685. 690. 695. 696. 670. 668. acknowledgeth and reproueth for their like doctrine of Traditions Chrysostom Epiphanius Tertulian Cyprian Augustin Innocentius Leo Basil Eusebius c. The Centurists (16) Cent 4. p 299. condemne al the Fathers of the Fourth Age one by one reciting their Sentences and reiecting them Chemnitius reciting and reiecting the Sayings of Origen (17) Exâ—m part 1. p. 87. concludeth thus So Origen iudgeth that there are Apostolical Traditions And D. Fulk 18) Agaâ—â—st Purg. p. 393 confesseth that Tertulian taught Sacrifice and prayer for the dead vpon Traditions from the Apostles D. Whitaker (19) De sacra Script p. 685. being to answer S. Cyprians playne Sayings for Traditions writeth thus I answer first Cyprian was no Apostle and therefore his words are to be examined and not al things forthwith to be receaued c. therfore let vs not regard what he sayth c. Lastly wheras S. Dyonisius de Eccles Hierarchia c. 1. S. Paul's Schollar affirmeth that the Apostles did deliuer their Doctrine partly by writing partly without writing c. D. Whitaker (20) De sacra Script p. 655. deuoyd of al answear or euasion sayth I do acknowledge that Dionisius is in manie places a great Patrone of Traditions And D. Fulk (21) In his Answear to a Count. Cath p. 35. confessing that Papias was Scholler to S. Iohn yet M. Midleton 22) Papisto-mastix p. 200. affirmeth that Papias was the first Father and Founder of Traditions But Before al these liued the ancient Iewes of whom Paulus Fagius writeth that (23) Comment in Cap. Patrum The Iewes are of opinion that Moses receiued from God in Mount Sinai a double Law the one which they cal the Law deliuered in writing the other which they cal the Law which is in the mouth or deliuered by word of mouth And this last they affirme to be deriued by Moyses to posteritie by a certain order of Succession And the self same is confessed by D. Beard (24) Rotract from Rom. Relig. â— 73 74. M. Rollock likewise auoucheth that (25) Treatise of Gods effectual calling p. 241. The Church after Moyses had both the Tradition or sound of a liuely voice and of the Scripture and written Word of God And the same Doctrine of Traditions in the Iewes is confessed by Buxdorfius (26) Synagoga Iudaica p. 13 21. 48 67. a Protestant Hebrew Reader in Basile D. Morton admitteth that (27) Prot. Appeal l. 2. p 377. The Protestants wil as readily confesse that the Iewes pretended vnwritten Traditions as could either Egesippus or Anatolius but whether they did make that boast vniustly or iustly that sayth he is worthie our m st diligent Scanne Wel then the Fathers here confessed and disliked by Protestants for our Catholick Doctrine of Traditions are S. Gregorie Austin Ambrose Hierome Chrysostom Epiphanius Basil Eusebius Maximus Theophilus Innocentius Leo Cyprian Origen Tertulian Clemens Alexandrinus Dionisius Areopagita Papias and the faithful Iewes before Christ The Protestants citing and reprouing the sayd Fathers herein are Chemnitius Caluin Schrederus Buxdorfius Whitaker Carthwright Morton Beard Rollock Fulk and Rainolds So Apparent it is that our present Roman Church in the Doctrine of Traditions doth stil insist in the steps of the Primitiue Church It is Confessed by Protestants that according to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church the Sacraments do truly conferre Grace Remission of sinnes And that they are in number seauen CHAPTER VII PRotestants (1) Luth. in Assert 1. Articuli teaching Faith alone to iustify do consequently affirme the Sacraments to be but bare Signes not causes of our Iustification seruing either euen as preaching for an obiect to stir vp and nourish our Faith or for certaine markes whereby the Faithful are discerned from Infidels But contrarie hereto the Catholick Church (2) Conc. Florent ln Institut ArmenoruÌ„ Trid sess 7. can 1. hath defined the Sacraments to giue or conferre Grace to the worthie receiuer and that they joyntly with Faith and other vertues concurre to our
Fathers were no Protestants but meerly Papists wherin we may glorie as reuerencing their sanctitie admiring their learning and honouring their Antiquitie Neither is it true as Protestants vse to suggest that Catholicks distrusting their cause if it be committed to trial by Scripture do therefore fly from it to Fathers and Doctours for as for al such poynts as are contayned in Scripture to Scripture we appeale it is that we vrge her literal sense and words hath made vs Papists We therefore only recurre to Fathers eyther for the better finding-out and vnderstanding the true meaning of sundrie difficult passages and texts of Scripture or for the true discerning of seueral Ecclesiastical Traditions and doctrines taught and practised by the Church and yet no where mentioned in the Writen Word And as this is not most impiously to oppose Fathers to Scriptures or to fly from Scriptures to Fathers So is it in these respects the most assured meanes to giue vs satisfaction For as none euer left more liuelie Monuments of rarest wit profundest knowledge or more shining testimonies of greatest puritie and sanctitie in life or more astonishing wonders and miracles in confirmation of their Faith and doctrine then these ancient Fathers so were there none euer furnished with so good means eithers of knowing the Apostles or the Apostles preaching as the Apostles first heires and next successours the sweetest fruits of their labours our holie Fathers But to prosecute yet further this so lunatick proceeding of Protestants against these grauest Sages of Christ's Catholick Church what more indigne or iniurious can be vttered then that these so great Doctours al of them vnited members of one Catholick Church should be at deadlie warres and dissention amongst themselues in important articles of Faith Religion Yea that one and the same Doctour should contradict himself that in matters fundamental of greatest consequence And yet Caluin blusheth not to say 32) In Inst in Praef. ad Reg. Galliae p. 7. Those holie men were ignorant of manie things they often fight amongst themselues and sometimes with themselues Beza likewise speaking of the ancient Fathers in Theodosius his time sayth 32) In Inst in Praef. ad Reg. Galliae p. 7. I confesse as then there were most learned Bishops 33) In nou Test Praef. ad Princip Condens p. 4. but this also I affirme c. that scarce anie of them can be named who dissenteth not both from himself and others in manie things and those of greatest moment A thing incredible in such learned Bishops if Caluin and Beza were not the Broachers who seldome tel truth 34) Ep. ad Rom. c. 14. p. 419. Melancthon also thus writeth of the Fathers Seing they sometimes speak contrarie things they must pardon vs if we reprehend certain things in them And 35) Devotis p. 463. Though the Fathers were wise and learned and saw many things sayth Peter Martyr yet they were men and could erre And that chiefly is to be obserued that the Fathers do not always agree amongst themselues and sometimes one dissenteth from himself Those Fathers saith 36) Retractiue from Romish Religion p. 223. 224. D. Beard that liued in the next two hundred yeares after the first speak of this mater of Inuocation of Saints very variously and doubtfully as if it were a Doctrine which they knew not what to say to and were not fully resolued in Thirdly of those Fathers which he alleadgeth though in some places they seeme to allow that custome which was then brought into the Church yet in other places they disallow the same yea and they are disapproued also of others that liued in the same Age. Thus true Athanasius condēneth Inuocation of Saints c. false Athanasius alloweth it c. Basil approueth it but Nazianzene doubteth of it and Epiphanius c. vtterly condemneth it Chrysostome in some places seemeth to allow of it in others he speaketh against it and so doth Augustine and the rest The like contradition D. Whitaker instanceth in S. Basil saying 37) De Sacra Scrip. p. 670. Basil fighteth with himself And 38) De Princip Christ Dog l. 2. c. 10. p. 675. I oppose saith Lubbertus Basil against Basil And 39) Ib. p. 678. Damascene is contrarie to himself Yea 40) Ib. p. 676. I oppose Chrysostome against Chrysostome of whom also saith Whitaker 41) De Sacra Scrip. p. 678. he is at variance with himself And 42) Ibid. p. 676. Let vs not attend what Cyprian sayd but let vs examin him by his owne law Yea of S. Augustin Whitaker blusheth not to say 43) Ibid. p. 690. Although in this he may be thought to fauour Traditions yet in other places he defendeth earnestly the perfection of the Scriptures Of whom also sayth D. Beard 44) Retractiue from Romish Religione 413. Augustin whom they challenge for the greatest Patrone of this fire yet defineth nothing determinately of it but speaketh doubtingly and problematically and if he affirme it in some one place he leaueth it in suspence in others and vtterly denyeth it in a third D. Morton acknowledgeth that Protestants 45) Prot. Appeal l. 2. p. 201. 202. haue particularly and by name obserued that Iustinus Ireneus Clemens Tertullian Origen Cyprian and others albeit manie times they pleaded for the free wil of the corrupt nature of man yet were they sometime reduced vnto the more Orthodoxal hold writing therof more commodiously belike as denying Free-wil But this being only a Protestant or lying obseruation I must inferre that as this so base proceeding against the Fathers doth euidently demonstrate and discouer the vnablenes of Protestants in alleadging the Fathers further against vs then they are pretended to be against themselues which al of iudgement wil confesse to be nothing So doth it alfo no lesse cleerly conuince that Protestants in their owne consciences do find and know the Fathers directly to condemne their opinions and to patronize Papistrie for otherwise they would neuer endeauour so fowly to blemish them by vrging contradiction with themselues which the meanest Writer though in triuial matters doth euer scorne as too cleer an argument of grosse obliuion or worse inconstancie Now from this conceipt of the Fathers ignorance and contradiction to themselues Protestants doubt not to preferre their owne moderne writers for iudgement knowledge and learning before the greatest ancientest Doctours of the Primitiue Church So Luther in his Protestant humilitie thus speaketh of himself 46) Lib. ad Ducem Georgium And see Colloq lat c. de Consolatione Since the Apostles times no Doctour or writer hath so excellently and cleerly confirmed instructed and comforted the consciences of the secular States as I haue done by the singular grace of God This certainly I know that neither Austin not Ambrose who are yet in this matter the best are equal to me heerin 47) Tom. 7. Serm. de Euersione Hierusalem f. 271. The Ghospel
Leo Foelix Gelasius the Fathers of the Councel of Chalcedon of Africk and the 6. of Carthage of Sardis Sixtus Innocentius Siricius Sozimus Damasus Iulius Stephen Denis Cyprian Victor Anicetus Cornelius Ireneus Papias Peter and the other Apostles The Protestants producing and reprouing the foresayd Fathers are the Centurie-writers Danaeus Caluin Bucer Philippus Nicolai Peter Martyr Carion Bullinger Melancthon Osiander Friccius Beza Crispinus Tilenus Frigiuilleus Gauuius Bibliander Amandus Polanus Hamelmannus Illyricus Lubbertus Sarauia Napper Mornay Whitguift Carthwright Whitaker Fulk Bilson Trige Rainolds Brightman Bale Symonides Bunnie Spark Midleton Fox Morton and Field euerie one wherof do cite and reproue some Father or Councel before mentioned concerning some branch of the Bishop of Romes Primacie It is confessed by Protestants that the Primitiue Church of Christ beleeued the Bookes of Tobie Iudith Esther Sapientia Ecclesiasticus and two first of Machabees to be truly Canonical Scriptures CHAPTER V. AS it is vndoubted by al that the true Scriptures Prophetical and Apostolical are most sacred diuine and of infallible authoritie so it remayneth stil in Controuersie which Bookes be the sayd Prophetical Apostolical and Canonical Scriptures for as the (1) Concil Carthag 3. Can. 47. Trid. sess 4. Catholick Church hath defyned the Bookes of Esther Iudith Tobie two of the Machabees Wisdome and Ecclesiasticus to be sacred Canonical and of infallible authoritie so are al the sayd Bookes reiected by Protestants (2) Luth. Zuingl Praef. Bibl. a se CoÌ„uers Calu. Inst l. 1. c. 12. §. 8. l. 2. c. 5. §. 18. l. 3. c. 5. §. 8. as merely apocryphal and only human Now to decide this so waightie a Controuersie by the Primitiue Church Wheras in the Third Carthage Councel wherat S. Austin and sundrie other Fathers and Bishops were present and subscribed it is expresly defined that (3) Can. 47 Nothing be read in the Church vnder the name of diuine Scriptures besides Canonical Scriptures And the Canonical Scriptures are Genesis Exodus c. fiue bookes of Salomon c. Tobie Iudith Hester two bookes of Esdras two bookes of Machabees c. Wheras also the same Canon of Scriptures is made and numbred particulerly by S. Austin (4) De Doct. Christi l. 2. c. 8 Innoc. ep ad Exup c. 7. Gel. To. 1. Concil in Decret cum 70. Ep. Isid l 6. Etymol c. 1. Rabanus l. 2. Instit cler Cassiod l. 2. diuinarum Lect. himself as also by Innocentius Gelasius and other ancient Writers the truth hereof is so manifest that the same is confessed by sundrie Protestant Writers and the same Councel and Fathers in steed of better answere seuerely reprehended for the same Hiperius (5) Meth. Theol. l. 1. p. 46. auoucheth that In the Third Carthage Councel there are added to the Canon c. Sapientia and Ecclesiasticus two bookes of Machabees Tobie Iudith c. Al which bookes in the same order numbreth Augustin Innocentius Gelasius for which he at large afterwards reiecteth their iudgement In like sort (6) de Princip Christ Dogm l. 1. c. 4. p. 8. Lubbertus I grant sayth he certaine of these bookes to be admitted by the Carthaginians but I deny that therfore they are the Word of God for no Councels haue that Authoritie But to be brief the Third Carthage Councel is acknowledged and reproued for this verie doctrine by D. Raynolds (7) Conclus annex to his Conf p 699 700. Zan de Sacr. p. 32. 33. Hosp hist Sacram. p. 1. p. 160. Trelc loc com p. 15. Hoe Tract Tripart Theol. p. 46. Park ag Symb. part 2. p 60. Field of the Church p. 246. 247. Zanchius Hospinian Trelcatius Mathias Hoe M. Parker and D. Field And so likewise is S. Austin and other ancient Fathers herein acknowledged and reiected by Hospinian 8) Hist sacr part 1. p. 161. Hip. Meth. Theol. p. 46. Zanch. de sacra-Scrip p. 32. 33. Field of the Church p. 246. Hâ—perius Zanchius D. Field But Brentius auoucheth more in general that (9) Apol. Confess Wittemb See Bucers Scripta Angl p. 7â—3 There are some of the ancient Fathers who receiue sayth he these Apocryphal Bookes into the number of Canonical Scriptures And in like sort some Councels command them to be acknowledged as Canonical I am not ignorant what was done but I demand whether it was rightly and Canonically done Lastly D. Couel not only most plainly confesseth S. Austins like Iudgement had of the Booke of Wisdome but withal further affirmeth (11) Ib. p 87 of al these Bookes that If Ruffinus be not deceaued they were approued as partes of the Old Testawent by the Apostles So cleer it is that this foresayd Bookes were confessedly beleeued to be Canonical by the Primitiue Church Adde hereunto that (12) Of the Church p. 245. 246. Hut 2. part of his Answ p 176. D. Field M. Hutton both of them teaching that some of the ancient Iewes receiued the foresayd Bookes for truly Canonical though others of them did not beleeue and receaue the same accordingly yet are the sayd Iewes therfore expresly reproued by Protestants themselues Bibliander tearming it The rashnes of the Iewes in which his censure he is approued by the Protestant Sceltco in his booke of the Second coming of Christ Englished by M. Rogers (13) fol. 6. for the supposed worth therof D. Bancroft (14) p. 60. in the verie Conference before his Maiestie reiecteth the obiections of the Iewes made against these Bookes tearming them The old cauils of the Iewes renewed by Hierom who was the first that gaue them the name of Apocrypha which opinion vpon Ruffiâ—us his challenge he after a sort disclaymed Yea D. Bancroft is so ful with Catholicks in Defence of the sayd Bookes as that other of his owne Brethren charge him further to say (15) The 2. parte of the Ministers Def. p. 108. that The Apocrypha were giuen by inspiration from God which is al one as to affirme them to be truly diuine and Canonical And as concerning the booke Ecclesiasticus it is defended to be truly Canonical by the Protestant Writers (16) Ep. ad Volanum Lascicius and Parker of which later D. Willet (17) LoÌ„doro mastix p. 69 sayth How audacious is this fellow that contrarie to the determination of this Church of England dare make Ecclesiasticus a book of Canonical Scripture 10) Against Burges p. 76 77. Furthermore seing it is expresly taught and defended by sundrie Protestants that this waightiest Controuersie of discerning true Scripture from forged can not be decided by the (18) Hook Ecol Pol. l. 1 p. 86. Scriptures themselues neither by Testimonie (19) Whit. cont Staplet p. 370. 357. Hook vbi sup p 147. of the Spirit but (20) Hook ib. p. 146. 116. Aretiu Exam p. 24. by the authoritie of Gods Church Hence it necessarily followeth that the Church of Christ hauing decided and determined this foresayd Controuersie and
that not only by General Churches of later times but euen by the Councels Tradition of the true Primitiue Church that therfore al parties are bound to approue beleeue the foresayd Bookes to be truly Canonical Al which wil yet be made much more euident by our easie Refutation of their chiefest arguments vsually vrged against them For first it is obiected by D. Whitaker (21) Answ to Rayn p. 22. 23. that therfore they are not Canonical because They were written in Greek or some other forraine language and not in Hebrew nor had for their knowne Authours those whom God hath declared to be his Prophets But neither of these are of force for it is no litle temeritie so to measure the Scriptures by the tongue wherein they are written as to restrayne the Spirit of God to one only language The further falsehood and vanitie wherof is abundantly disproued by example of Daniel a great part wherof (22) to wit from Chap. 2 vers 4. to the end of the 7. chap. though not written in Hebrew is yet by our Aduersaries themselues acknowledged for Canonical Neither likewise is it true that God would direct by his holie Spirit no Authours in their writings but such as were knowne and also further declared by certaine testimonie to be Prophets For Protestants themselues can not yet tel who were Authours of the seueral Bookes of Iudges the Third and Fourth of Kings the Two of Chronicles and the Bookes of Ruth and Iob Euen D. Whitaker (23) De sacra Scrip. p 603. himself doth directly answer his owne obiection saying The Authours of manie Bookes are not knowne as of Iosue Ruth Paralipomenon Hester c. And we receiue sayth D. Willet 24) Syn p. 4 manie Bookss in the old Testament the Authours wherof are not perfectly knowne Yea Caluin Beza and the publishers of certaine of our English Bibles in the Preface or Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrewes do al of them professe to rest doubtful of the Authour therof Caluin Beza there affirming that it is not written by S. Paul So that though the foresayd Bookes be not written in the Hebrew nor haue their Authours or Penners knowne yet by like example of other approued Scriptures it maketh nothing against their Sacred and Diuine Authoritie (25) of Anno 1584. 1578 See Calu. in c 2. Heb ver 2. Secondly it is obiected that the sayd Bookes were reiected or doubted of by sundrie of the ancient Fathers as namely by Origen (26) In Ps 1 apud Euseb Hist l. 6. c. 19. Epiph. de Pondere Mens Haer. 8. Epicureorū Hier Pref. in l Regum Epiphanius and Hierom who agreed therein with the ancient Iewes But first these Fathers in the places cited do not speak of their owne opinion but do only report what was the opinion of certaine of the Iewes therin for Origen was so far from according herein with the Hebrewes that he expresly defended (27) Ep. ad Iulium hom 1. in Leuit. against Iulius Africanus who doubted therof the Historie of Susanna which Iewes and Protestants reiect Yea he auerreth )28) Ep. ad Iulium that part of Esther to be Canonical which Protestants refuse as not being in the Hebrewes Canon In like sort S. Epiphanius 29) Haer. 76 numbreth Sapientia and Ecclesiasticus among the Diuine Scriptures and referreth (30) Lib. de Pond Mensura post init Sapientia vnto Salomon As concerning S. Hierom wheras he vnto an vnwarie (31) Praef. in Daniel Reader may seem to seclude certaine Chapters of Daniel as not being in the Hebrewes Canon insomuch that Ruffinus mistaking herein S. Hierom's meaning doth therfore as Protestants (32) Whit. cont Camp p. 18. stil doe reproue and charge him with refusal of these foresayd parts of Daniel S. Hierome (33) Apol 2. cont Ruffin fin answereth and explaineth himself saying Truly I did not set downe what myself thought but what the Hebrewes are accustomed to say against vs herein calling there further Ruffinus and in him our Protestants a foolish Sycophant for mistaking and charging him herein with the Hebrewes opinion Yea S. Hierom's thus explaining himself is a matter certaine that it is accordingly confessed by D. Couel (34) Answ to Burges p. 87. Banc. in the Conf. before his Maiestie p. 60. D. Bancroft And it is further euident that S. Hierom placed the Bookes of Machabees bees (35) Prolog in Machab. among the Stories of diuine Scripture (33) Apol 2. cont Ruffin fin And of the Booke of Iudith he sayth (36) Pref. in Iudith with the Hebrewes the book of Iudith is read among the Hagiographal writings whose authoritie to strengthen those things which fal in Contention to wit with the Iewes may be thought lesse fit c. But because we read that the Nycene Councel accompted this in the number of holie Scriptures (34) Answ to Burges p. 87. Banc. in the Conf. before his Maiestie p 60. I haue yeelded c. So cleer it is that the Fathers obiected did only relate in the foresayd places the opinion of the Hebrewes from which themselues did yet disclayme Secondly supposing it for true that the foresayd Fathers haue doubted or reiected the foresayd Bookes yet neither hence wil it follow that they are not truly Canonical it being certaine that in the Primitiue Church the Canonical Scriptures were not generally receaued al at once but in great varietie of pretended 37) 2. Thes 2.2 Euseb hist l. 3. c. 19 l. 6. c. 10. Aug. cont Aduers Leg Proph l. 1. c. 20. Gelas in Decret cū 70. Episc Sozom hist l. 7. c. 19. Hamelman de Tradit Apostol 1. part l 1. col 251 part 3 col 841. Scriptures special care and search was requisite whereby it came to passe that sundrie Bookes were for the time misdoubted or by some Fathers or Councels (38) Conc. Laodic can vlt. omitted or not receiued which yet afterwards were vpon greater search and consideration generally acknowledged A poynt so euident that D. Bilson testifyeth in our behalf that (39 Suruey of Christs suffrings p. 664. The Scriptures were not fully receiued in al places no not in Eusebius time He sayth the Epistles of Iames Iude the 2. of Peter the 2. and 3. of Iohn are contradicted as not written by the Apostles the Epistle to the Hebrewes was for a while contradicted c. The Churches of Syria did not receaue the 2. Epistle of Peter nor the 2. and 3. of Iohn nor the Epistle of Iude nor the Apocalyps c. The like might be sayd for the Churches of Arabia wil you hence conclude saith D. Bilson that those partes of Scripture were not Apostolick or that we need not to receaue them now because they were formerly doubted of So fully doth this Protestant Doctour answear his owne Brethrens like vsual obiection had against the Machabees and the other Bookes