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
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
Apostles withal and the Euangelists themselues euen after their receauing of the Holie-Ghost did write teach and defend seueral errours how can anie Christian build an infaillible sauing Faith vpon the Ghospels or other Apostolical writings How then can they be acerteyned of anie one true sentence of God's Word if the writers and deliuerers therof were not infallibly guided by the Holie-Ghost into al truth and so freed from al errour ignorance misprision or falshood And if some peraduenture except that these so Atheistical and Sacrilegious reproaches imposed vpon the sacred Scriptures and the Blessed Euangelists and Apostles be not the ordinarie opinions or practise of Protestants but peraduenture only of some few either ignorant or not endowed with the spirit the falshood and vanitie of this euasion is most apparent for who of forraine Protestants were euer reputed more learned or more enlightned with the spirit then Luther Caluin Beza Chemnitius Islebius Illiricus with the other Centurie-writers Castalio Zuinglius Musculus Brentius Andreas Friccius Adamus Francisci Bullinger and sundrie such others al of them highly esteemed of by their other Protestant Brethren Or who at home more honoured then Tyndal Iewel Goad Fotherbie Fulk Whitaker c. and yet al of those being indeed the primest men that euer they had do ioyntly conspire in this greatest impietie of censuring controuling correcting or reiecting some one part or other of the forenamed Canonical Scriptures or els of condemning the Euangelists and Apostles of seueral errours infirmities and sliding in matters of faith and Religion Which foule proceeding of so manie and so learned Protestants doth euidently according to D. Fulk's Rule conuince them to be perfect Hereticks For (88) Confut. of Purgatorie p. 214. whosoeuer sayth he denieth the authoritie of the Holy Scriptures thereby bewrayeth himself to be an Heretick Laus Deo B. V. Mariae FINIS A TABLE OF THE BOOKES AND CHAPTERS THE FIRST BOOKE WHERIN IS PROVED BY THE Confession of Protestants that the Catholick Roman Church hath continued Euer most Knowne and Vniuersal euen from Christs verie Time vntil the Date hereof THE antiquitie of the true Church and the force of the Argument drawne from the Authoritie thereof As also of these great necessitie of finding-out this true Church chap. 1. fol. 1. That the present Roman Church and Religion for the last thousand yeares after Christ haue stil continued most Knowne and Vniuersal throughout the Christian world chap. 2. fol. 4. A further confirmation of the vniuersal continuance of our Roman Church Religiō for these last thousand yeares is taken from the Confessed belief and profession of such Persons as liuing within the foresayd time were most Famous and Notorious in one respect or other chap. 3. fol. 8. That the faith of S. Gregorie S. Augustin and whereto England was by them conuerted was our Roman Catholick and not Protestant chap. 4. fol. 10. That the present Roman Church and Religion continued and flourished during the whole time of the Primitiue Church contayning the first six hundred yeares after Christ chap. 5. fol. 20. A further proof of the present Roman Religions Continuance from the Apostles time to these dayes is taken from the Christian belief of the Indians Armenians Grecians and Brittans al of them Conuerted in the dayes of the Apostles chap. 6. fol. 27. THE SECOND BOOKE Wherin is proued through al the chief Articles of Religion and that by the Confessions of Protestants that the same Faith which is now taught by the Roman Church was anciently taught by the Primitiue Church of Christ THat General Councels do truly represent the Church of Christ And of the Credit and Authoritie giuen by Protestants to the sayd Councels chap. 1. fol. 1. That the argument drawne from the Authoritie of the Primitiue Church of Christ and of her Doctours and Pastours is an Argument of force And for such approued by sundrie learned Protestants chap. 2. fol. 3. That the Fathers and Doctours of the Primitiue Church beleeued and taught that S. Peter was ordayned by Christ the Head of the Apostles and of the whole Church and that the Church was founded vpon S. Peter it is Confessed by Protestants themselues chap. 3. fol. 8. It is Confessed by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church beleeued taught the Bishop of Rome to succeed S. Peter in the Primacie of the whole Church chap. 4. fol. 11. It is confessed by Protestants that the Primitiue Church of Christ beleeued the Bookes of Tobie Iudith Ester Sapientia Ecclesiasticus and two first of Machabees to be truly Canonical Scripture chap. 5. fol. 25. It is acknowledged by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church beleeued taught our now Catholick Doctrine concerning Traditions chap. 6. fol. 30. It is Confessed by Protestants that according to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church the Sacraments do truly conferre Grace and Remission of sinnes And that they are in number seauen chap. 7. fol. 32. It is Confessed by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church beleeued and taught the Real Presence of Christs true Bodie and Bloud in the Eucharist As also our further Catholick Doctrines of Transubstantiation Adoration Reseruation and the like chap. 8. fol. 35. Protestants confesse that the Primitiue Church of Christ beleeued taught practised the Sacrifice of the Masse as also that it is a Sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech and truly Propitiatory for the liuing the dead chap. 9. fol. 41. It is acknowledged by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church taught and beleeued the Power of Priests to Remission of Sinnes The necessitie of Auricular Confession The Imposition of Pennance and satisfaction to God thereby As also our Roman Doctrine of Pardons or Indulgences chap. 10. fol. 46. It is granted by Protestants that the Catholick Doctrine of Purgatorie of Prayer and Sacrifice for the dead was beleeued taught and practised by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church chap. 11. fol. 50. It is confessed by Protestants that the. Fathers of the Primitiue Church beleeued and taught our Catholick Doctrine of Christs Descending into Hel. chap. 12. fol. 55. It is confessed by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church beleeued and practised our Catholick Doctrine of praying to Angels and Saints chap. 13. fol. 57. It is confessed by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church allowed the vse of Christs Image and his Saincts placing them euen in churches and Reuerencing them chap. 14. fol. 60. It is acknowledged by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church did specially honour reuerence the holie Relicks of Martyrs and other Saints carrying them in Processions and making Pilgrimages vnto them at which also manie Miracles were wrought chap. 15. fol. 63. It is confessed by Protestants that the holie Doctours of the Primitiue Church not only vsed the signe of the Crosse but likewise worshiped the same attributing great efficacie power and vertue thervnto chap.
of al General Councels the credible Histories of al times and places the surest records of al Lawes and Countries yea al monuments of greatest Antiquitie doe ioyntly contest and depose not only for the vniuersal and vninterrupted continuance of our Roman Faith from Christ's verie time vntil the Date heerof but also for the sympathie or rather Identitie of our same Faith with the Faith of the Apostles and their first Disciples M. Brierlie often obseruing al these our honours and helps to haue been so strangely defaced blemished and obscured by the art and malice of the foresayd Emissaries as that their true face and beautie were neuer suffred to be seen or knowne to vulgar Protestants purposely therefore forbare to presente Antiquitie only in her natiue colours and chiefly to rest contented with that stayned dye and luster which the Protestant pencil through her clearest splendour durst not denye her producing to that end the plentiful and clearest testimonies of almost al the primest Writers that euer Protestancie brought forth al of them as it were conspiring in flat charging reprouing and impugning the learnedst Doctours and most renowned Bishops of the eldest and purest times for the self-same doctrines and practise of Religion which the Roman Church at this day exerciseth Now supposing M. Brierlie his sincere and faithful demeanour heerin what could the wit of man produce more palpable and concluding for our foresayd harmonie with the Primitiue Church For if the volumes of Fathers and Councels be so clear in themselues for our Catholick Roman and Papistical Faith that the learnedst Protestans most playnly studying and perusing the same are finally enforced through euidence of their words and deeds to acknowledge and reproue the self-same Doctours and Bishops for Roman Catholicks then M. Brierlie his desire and intent of prouing our Roman Faith and Church to continue most agreable with the Primitiue Faith and Church of Christ and his Apostles is fully accomplished And that M. Brierlie his candour may more clearly shine and his so vnanswerable Arguments be the better conceaued I wil therefore dispel those thick clowdes wherewith yourself M. Morton hath most painefully laboured to couer or darken the foresayd brightnes What then must we expect from you for an Answer pertinent and direct and as proceeding from a iudicious and learned Doctour yea from a Minister of simple truth but either ingenuously to confesse with the Puritans and so manie your other Protestant Brethren cited by M. Brierlie that the sayd Primitiue and purest Church of Christ was one and the same for Faith and Religion with our now Roman or else that M. Brierlie had cunningly corrupted maymed and defaced the sayings and writings of your foresayd Brethren in his owne behalf If you seing the first to be most true would haue honestly subscribed therunto as manie more learned Protestants then yourself had formerly done then your Answer or Appeale had been altogeather needles The second you durst not auouch knowing right wel that M. Brierlie his affected nicenes and precisenes in so particularly quoting his Aduersaries Bookes Chapters Pages lines or letters would ouer strongly contest for his Religious integritie industrie and fidelitie in handling the same What then is imaginable for you M. Doctour to answer against such pregnant testimonies of other Protestant Doctours Nothing at al but what M. Brierlie foresaw and accordingly premonished and wherof yourself also taketh notice in the beginning of your Appeale would be only trifeling vnworthie extrauagant and impertinent As first when your other Brethren are plentifully produced confessing and reprouing the Fathers for teaching our Roman Faith yourself often very honestly ioyne with them acknowledging the same in our behalf and against yourself so that in this Case in steed of Answer or Appeale you make a strong Apologie for M. Brierlie and the Romish Church Doe not you yourself speaking of the Antiquitie of our Doctrine concerning the Popes Primacie confesse and say [1) Prot. Apol. p. 72. Be it granted for so it is that the Papal Primacie beginning in Boniface the Third is now 900. yeares old Doe you not arise and write of S. Gregorie that (2) Ibid. p. 31. whether or how farre c. S. Gregorie did reach his arm of Iurisdiction beyond his Dioces is a question by reason of his diuers obscure speaches and some particular practises diuersly answered of our Protestant Authours Doe you not charge S. Leo to haue been in this respect (3) Ibid p. 283 285. peremptorie and ambitious and that he was so 4 Ib. 294. 295. peremptorie that for his presumption he found in his time brotherlie checks Yea doe you not confesse that certain (5) Ib. 294. 295. Sentences of S. Cyprian may seeme at their first view vnto the vnexpert Reader to obserue in the Church of Rome both a Grace of impossibilitie of erring and also a prerogatiue of the Mother-Church of al others But though yourself may be deemed an Expert Reader yet no otherwise doe you euade those cleerest sentences then by affirming that such like speaches are but the languages of Rhetorical Amplification which commonly the Fathers vse by way of perswasion rather then by asseueration And seing you admit that the Fathers did commonly vse such speaches by way of perswasion you must needs admit that they being holie and learned men did also beleeue and affirme the same Yea you approue such (6) Ib. pag. 300. Protestant Authours as reprehēd Victor for arrogācie transgressing the bounds of his Iurisdiction in Excōmunicating the Churches of Asia Lastly wheras in proof of Antichrist's short raigne (7) Ib. pag. 143. M. Brierlie produceth M. Fox teaching that almost al the holie and learned Interpreters doe by a time times and half a time vnderstand only three yeares and a half affirming further this to be the consent and opinion of almost al the ancient Fathers Doe not you likewise subscribe therunto and say (8) Ib pag 144. Now therefore c. why might not these Fathers be sayd to haue erred in prefining the time of Antichrist c. So that you are inforced to confesse that in the Fathers opinions al our precedent Popes are cleered from being Antichrists In like sort concerning Vnwritten Traditions you grant that S. Gregorie vseth (9) Ib. pag. 62. to confirme some things by Tradition and that the ancient beleeuing Iewes (10) Ib pag. 377. pretended vnwritten Traditions As teaching Purgatorie and Prayer for the Dead you reproue S. Gregorie touching that (11) Ib pag. 19. 20. the Sacrifice of the Altar is profitable for the Soules departed And againe (12) Ib p. 498. S. Austin speaketh with a Peraduenture but S. Gregorie kindled the fire with a Credo But you somewhat passed Peraduenture when you writ that Protestant (13) Ib. pag. 495. Authours haue obserued S. Augustin to haue been the first who opened the window vnto the doctrine of Purgatorie by whose owne direction say you we
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
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
before this Age of ours for 1500. yeares togeather after Christ so was it only coyned by our new Protestants and that not vpon anie necessitie for the professours of our Religion were in being knowne by the name of Catholicks in al the foresayd Ages before the name of Papists was euer heard of Besides neither doth it point to anie one or other special Pope or new supposed Doctrine in particular but most strongly for our Iustification in this behalf to al Popes and doctrines alike in general Whereas it is most euident and for such acknowledged that sundrie Popes haue been truly Religious and Catholick and their Doctrines answerable And whereas D. Fulk vrgeth against 76) Answ to a Count. Cath. p. 65. vs the names of Benedictines Franciscans c. as also of Scotists and Thomists he shal receiue his answer only from his owne Brother D. Field saying 77) Of the Churâ—h l. 2. c. 9 p. â—8 We must obserue that they which professe the Faith of Christ haue been sometimes in these later Ages of the Church called affter the special name of such men as the Authours Beginners and Diuisers of such courses of Monastical profession as they made choice to follow as Benedictines and such like So plainly acknowledging these names not to import anie change or newnes of Faith but only these seueral Rules and orders of Monasticel and Religious life And so likewise he further affirmeth the differences between Scotists and Thomists to haue been in the Controuersies of Religion not yet determined by consent of the vniuersal Church So that no name was euer appropriated to Catholicks with truly imported anie Innouation in matter of Faith And therefore if D. Field in excuse of the name of Lutherans might say 78) Of the Chuâ—ch p. 59. neither was it possible that so so great an alteration c. should be effected and not carry some remembrance of them by whom it was procured At what great and most apparent want are now our Protestants who charge the Roman Church with the greatest alteration before Luthers time the euer was either for longest continuance of time as being confessedly for 1260. yeares togeather or for multitude of Countries raigning vniuersally or for number and weight of cheifest Articles of Faith and yet for el this cannot al of them find so much as anie step or signe thereof by any then new deuised or imposed name either from Doctrine Person or Pope Whereas to the contrarie it is more then euident that the seueral names of Protestants Puritans Lutherans Zuinglians Sacramentaries and Caluinists are al of them imposed either through Innouation of Doctrine or from the first Authour of the sayd sect So the verie name of Protestants was at first giuen to certaine of the Lutherans who opposing themselues against the decrees of the Empire made in behalf of Catholick Religion protesting they wovld stand in defense of their owne were for such their protesting named Protestanto A truth so certaine that it is accordingly acknowledged and recorded by sundry Protestants 79) Sley hist l. 6. f. 81. 82. Osiand cent 6. p. 131. Schlus selb Theol. cal l. 2 f. 155 Fulk Answ to a Count. Cath p. 65. themselues Yea the name Protestanâ— wherwith our new Ghospellers is are best pleased is so certainly new and since the reuolt of Luther as that I dare challenge the oldest or learnedst Protestant liuing to giue the least instance or example of anie such name in anie Age precedent vp to the Apostles So lately were they christened by the name of Protestants And as for Puritans M. Parker told vs before that they were so denominated through singularitie in affection and noueltie in faction The newnes whereof is such as that it was but heard of after Protestancie itself from whence they went out departed now are become a Sect so different aduerse froÌ„ the former as that to be vnderstood a distinction of names is necessarily required Now that Lutherans sprong from Luther Zuinglians or Sacramentaires from Zuinglius and Caluinists from Caluin it is too cleer to require anie proof Only we cannot but obserue that the foresayd seueral names are not imposed by Catholicks for reproach and disgrace vpon Protestants but are vsed and required by themselues for necessarie distinction and knowledge of their seueral and most dissenting Sects So sayth D. Whitaker 80) Answ to Rainolds Pref. p. 44. For distinction sake we are inforced to vse the name of Protestants Conradus Schlusselburg sayth 81) Catal. Heret l. 13. vet p. 866. When the Diuines of our side do cal their aduersaries Zuinglians Caluinians and Sacramentaries they do it not for reproach or detraction as neither of the contrarie when they name themselues and the Defenders of their opinions Lutherans But as Grauerus further giueth the reason saying 82) Absurda Absurdor Praefat. f. 3. This only is therefore done that we Lutherans may be distinguished from Caluinists and Papists from whom either by the common name either of Christians or true beleeuers or Catholicks we cannot be distinguished So by this means we distinguish ourselues from Caluinists In like sort sayth Hospinian 83) Hist Sacram part alt in Prol. Lauather Hist Sacr. Praefat. I do abhorre those Schismatical names of Lutherans Zuinglians and Caluinists yet in this Historie I vse those names docendi gratia to be vnderstood Rungius speaking of the name of Lutherans sayth 84) Disp 17. Ex Ep. ad Corinth Disp 2. par 3. sect 4. And Piscat his Analysis Logica Ep. Pauli p. 143. These names are vsed for distinction sake that c. they may he knowne from other men of different Religions Papists Caluinists Anabaptists and the like Zanchius complaineth that 85) â—n Epist l. 1. p. 32. l. 2. p. 539. in the reformed Churches some are not ashamed to say we are Lutheranes but others are called Caluinistes or Zuinglians hence sayth he the Churches are diuided among themselues An other Protestant confesseth that 86) Cathol Traditions Praef. f. B. 3. the Reformed haue no Primate in common neither anie general Synodes c. Thence haue entred amongst them c. the names of Hussites Lutherans Caluinists Puritans Of which last D. Downham saith 87) Denfen l 3. c. 1. p. 8. I did tearme them Presbyterians not knowing how to speake of them as dissenting from vs Protestants more charitably So confessed it is that these seueral names of Lutherans Zuinglians Caluinists Puritans Protestants are al of them imposed by themselues and that vpon vrgent necessitie that so their difference in Faith Profession and Religion might be known and discerned by their seueral names expressing the same then which what can be alleaged more conuincing either to proue their dissentions amongst themselues or the point now insisted vpon their palpable Innouation and change in faith and the verie pointing and naming of the verie first Authours and Broachers thereof and consequently their
S. Gregorie (36) See before l. 2. c. 4. for his Predecessours Pelagius Celestine Leo Gelasius Sixtus Siricius Innocentius Sozimus Damasus Iulius Steuen Dionisius Victor c. yea S. Peter himself are al of them reproued by Protestant Writers for the foresayd Primacie So confessed it is that the Primacie of the Roman Church did not first begin in the time of S. Gregorie Now whereas D. White further added that the whole Greek Church complayned when Phocas had first conferred it on Boniface that their complaint supposing it for true is nothing material for they being as then diuided in this poynt from the Roman Church assuming to themselues the sayd Primacie their testimonie in their owne Cause is of no account But neither is it true that Phocas did first conferre it on Boniface for though he did by his Edict declare that the Roman Church was the Head of al Churches as testify S. Bede and others (37) l. de Sex Aetatibus in Phoca Ado in Chron. Paulus Diacon l. 18. de Rebus Roman yet is there no intimation that he first bestowed it yea further they affirme that the reason of the sayd Edict was the pride of the Bishops of Constantinople who iniuriously styling themselues vniuersal Bishops and contemning the Excommunications denounced against them by S. Gregorie Pelagius the Emperour therefore thought it necessarie to interpose his owne authoritie which the Grecians much more feared And he is so free from innouating in this Cause that besides the late premisses of the ancientest Popes euer claiming the same Iustinianus (38) Ep. ad Ioann 2. the elder ancient to Phocas by 70. yeares affirmeth the Roman Church to be Head of al Churches And Valentinian who preceded Phocas 140. yeares auoucheth that the Roman Bishop hath euer had the Principalitie of Preisthood aboue al others Yea in fullest satisfaction hereof it is plainly coÌ„fessed by Protestants theÌ„selues that Constantin our first Christian Emperour elder to Phocas almost 300. yeares (39) Before l. 2. c. 4. attributed Primacie to the Roman Bishop before al. So free was Phocas from first conferring Primacie to the Roman Church and so cleerly she resteth acquitted of these pretended Changes Innouations in the first 50. yeares After 650. 650. to 700. I name sayth D. White the Sixt general Councel decreing the marriage of Priests against the Church of Rome labouring to restraine it for which he citeth Can. 13. But the truth is there are not anie such Canons in the Councel cited for the true Sixt General Councel put forth no Canons as it is euident by the Seauenth (40) Act. 4. 5. Synod Wherefore after the Sixt Synode certaine Bishops assembled at Constantinople who in the Emperour Iustiniâ—n the Second his Pallace called Trullum published those Canons vnder the name of the sixt Synode which were neuer approued by anie Roman Bishop but to the contrarie then contradicted by Pope Sergius (41) Beda l. de Sex Aetatibus in Iustiniano Caulus Diacon l. 8. c. 9. de Rebus Rom. But though these Canons were authentical yet litle would they auaile our marrying Ministers not one of them allowing anie Clergie-man to marry after Orders taken and only permitting such to keepe their wiues as had them before they were of the Clergie and neither (42) Can. 6. 12. 48. this do they allow to Bishops but only to others of inferiour Orders Yea the Roman Church is so free from making anie change in this respect at the time prescribed that sundrie (43) Before l. 2. c. 17. Protestants for the self same prohibition of marriage to the Clergie do reproue manie more ancient and confirmed Councels as the 2. Councel of Arles holden in the time of Constantin the Councel of Neocesaraea of Eliberis the first of Nice and sundrie others As also for the same cause they reprehended the ancient Popes Leo Innocentius Calixtus Siricius c. and the learnedst Doctours of those times as S. Hierome S. Ambrose Origen with manie others so that at the time of the 6. Councel of Constantinople no changee at al was made by the Roman Church concerning the Single life of the Clergie But D. White further vrgeth that the sayd â— Councel forbiddeth to make the Holie-Ghost in likenes of a Doue But neither is this true for though it did preferre other Pictures before the Picture of Christ in the figure of a Lambe and the Picture of Holie-Ghost in forme of a Doue yet doth it not condemne these (45) Act. 5. And in the 7. Synod 44 the Image of the Holie-Ghost in forme of Doue is expresly approued Yea therin was also read the Epistle of Adrian to Tharasius in which it is sayd that in the 6. Synod was commended the Image of Christ in forme of a Lambe And that the Roman Church long before those times allowed Images it is euident enough by that which is before sayd concerning Serenus But our Doctour yet vrgeth that at this time there was a Councel holden in Portugal where the Cup is appointed to be ministred to the people against the practise of some that vsed to dip the bread and so to giue it which was one begining of the half Communion But this Councel being the third Councel of (45) Can. 1. Brach did iustly forbid that dipping in that it was neither so instituted by Christ nor could be confirmed by anie testimonie or example from Scripture yet doth it not command both kinds to be giuen And though it had yet were the obiecting thereof impertinent seing as then it was free lawful to vse both kinds Now that CoÌ„munion vnder one kind was sometimes vsed in much more ancient Ages it might easily be proued by Sozomene (46) Hist l. 8. c. 5. Niceph. hist l. 13. c. 7. Hieron Apol. pro l. in Iouin Cypr. Serm. de lapsis Tertul. l. 2. ad vxor Clem. Al. l. 1. strom 700. Nicephorus S. Hierome S. Cyprian Tertullian and others So that D. Whites Examples for the Roman Churches change in this 50. yeares are altogeather friuolous After 700. to 750. I name saith M. White the General Councel of Constantinople vnder Leo Isaurus against Images This Councel was neuer confirmed but reiected for none of the Patriarchs were present S. German only excepted who would not consent therevnto and thereupon was depriued of his Sea of Constantinople Wherefore this only proueth that some of the Grecians changed their Faith concerning Images for which they were contradicted not only by the Latin Church but by sundrie also of the greatest Doctours of the Greek Church In this Age also he nameth Clemens Scotus and Adelbartus who saith he preached against the Supremacie Traditions Images and in the defence of Priests marriage also against Purgatorie Masses for the dead c. And al this he proueth only by one of his lawful witnesses his Protestant Brother Illiricus which being wholy destitute of al other Authoritie I may lawfully forebeare it al further
is so copiously preached by vs that truly in the Apostles time it was not so cleare And seing 48) Tom 2. lib. Cont. Reg. Angliae f. 344. God's word is aboue al the Diuine Maiestie maketh for me So that I passe not if 100. Austins 1000. Cyprians 1000. King Harrie 's Churches stood against me Wherefore 49) Lib. de Seruo Arb. And see Cnoglerus his Symbolatria p. 152. Cast you off what armour the ancient Orthodoxal Fathers shal afford or the schooles of Diuines the authoritie of Councels Bishops the consent of so manie Ages of al Christian People we receiue nothing but Scriptures but yet so that the infallible authoritie of interpreting is only in vs what we expound that the Holy-Ghost thinketh what others though great though manie bring it commeth from the spirit of Sathan and a mind distracted Yea the Pope 50) L. aduersus Papatum Romae à Satana fundatum f. 1. knoweth saith Luther that by the singular guift and bountie of God I am more learned in the Scriptures then himself and al his Asses But if Luther himself doth so fully mouthe his owne prayses and deserts we may presume his disciples and followers are not sparing in the like And so indeed writeth Alberus 51) Contra Carolostadianos l. 7. I doubt not but that if Austin were now liuing he would not be ashamed to professe himself Martin Luther's Scholler But Musculus lasheth far further for 52) Praef. in Libellum Ger. de Diaboli Tyramide since the Apostles times saith he there liued not in the world a greater then Luther And it may be sayd that God powred al his guifts vpon this only man and that there is as great difference betwixt the ancient Doctours and Luther as betwixt the light of the Sunne and of the Moone Neither is it to be doubted but that the ancient Fathers euen those that are chief and best among them as Hilarie and Austin if they had liued and taught in the same time with Luther would without blushing haue carried the lanterne before him as his Schollers or Ministers And another professeth that 53) In Hos in Hist Sacra part alt f. 346. He preferreth one leaf in Luther before the writings of al Fathers So that if we beleeue either Luther or his Schollers not only Austin and Hilarie and Ambrose but euen al the Fathers since the Apostles times must giue place to Luther in regard of his profoundest knowledge and learning But not only Luther himself thus far excelleth the ancient Fathers but in his opinion the onlie 54) In Col. mensa c. de Patribus Eccl. Apologie of Philip Melancthon doth far excel al the Doctours of the Church and exceed euen Austin himself Beza in like sort affirmeth 55) Praef. in nouum Testament dicat Principi Condiensi Caluin to haue far exceeded al the ancient and later writers in interpreting of the Scriptures wth varietie of words and allegation of reasons Yea saith he 56) Epist Theol. ep 1 p. 5. I haue been accustomed to say and not without cause as I take it that whilst I compare those verie times next the Apostles with our times they had then more conscience lesse knowledge And on the other side we haue now more knowledge and lesse conscience This is my opinion c. Agreably herevnto saith D. Whiteguift in his 57) Defence c. p. 472. Brief Comparison between the Protestants Bishops of our time and the Bishops of Primitiue Church The doctrine taught and professed by our Bishops at this day is much more perfect and sound then it commonly was in anie Age after the Apostles times 58) Ibid. p. 473. Surely you are not able to reckon in anie Age since the Apostles time anie company of Bishops that taught and held so perfect and sound doctrine in al poynts as â—he Bishops of England do at this time Yea in the truth of doctrine our Bishops be not only comparable with the old Bishops but in many degrees to be preferred before them In like sort saith Zanchius 59) De Sacra Scriptura p. 411. Christ hath now giuen to vs more excellent Interpreters then euer heretofore stnce the Apostles Yea saith M. Iacob 60) Defence of Treatise of Christ's sufferings p. 146. And see the Answ to Downham's sermon p. 20. this is the profit that comes by ordinarie flanting with the Fathers c. if in this case we were to looke after anie man surely we haue more cause to regard our late faithful teachers rather then those of old who being equal with the best of them in anie of the excellent graces of God's Spirit c. By which we may see the smal account made by Protestants of ancient Doctours not blushing thus to equal yea much to preferre their owne latest Writers before al the Fathers since the Apostles times But what should I vrge thus much their dislike disclaiming and disgracing of ancient Fathers when they spare not to reiect and contemne the authoritie of al Councels though neuer so general neuer so ancient And first doth not Luther affirme in general 61) In Asser Articulorum per Leonem X. damnat Art 29. That the way is made to vs Protestants of weakning the authoritie of Councels and of freely contradicting their decrees and of iudging their Acts and of confessing confidently whatsoeuer seemeth true to Protestants whether it be approued or reproued by anie Councel Doth not Beza affirme that 62) Praef. in nouum Testam ad Princ. C ndiens euen in the best times the ambition ignorance and lewdnes of Bishops was such that the verie blind may easily perceaue how that Sathan was president in their assemblies or Councels Doth not D. Humfrey disclaime from the Councels celebrated in the first 600. years saying 63) De vita Iuelli p. 212. What concerneth it vs what the false Synods of Bishops as then shal ordayne And doth not M. Carthwright reiect as erroneous euen the first Nycene Councel saying 64) 2. Reply part 1. p. 509. We haue good cause to hould for suspect whatsoeuer either in gouernment or doctrine those times left vnto vs not confirmed by substantial proofs out of the Word c. This appeareth in the first Councel of Nyce where the most errours decreed vpon c. besides the vngodlie custome which may appeare to haue occupyed almost al the Churches touching the forbidding of the second Marriage of Ministers before that Councel And againe 65) Ibid. p. 484. In the same Councel appeareth that to those chosen to the Ministerie vnmarried it was not lawful to take anie wife afterwards c. Paphnutius sheweth that not only this was before that Councel but was an ancient Tradition in the Church in which both himself and the whole Councel rested c. If the ancient Tradition of the Church saith Cartwright cannot authorize this neither can ancient custome authorize the other to wit of Metropolitans Luther
the Sacrament which they improperly cal a Sacrifice Yea saith Chrastouius 20) De Opificio Misse l. 1. p. 167. The sayings of the Fathers do not only import impetration or prayer but a certayn intrinsecal force of appeasing God's Iustice For which verie point of the Masse being a Propitiatorie sacrifice he produceth the sayings of Origen Athanasius Chrysostome Ambrose Austin Gregorie and others al which were no lesse Massing Priests then the Roman Priests of these times 7. That the ancient Fathers thought that S. Peter was the Head of the Church and the Bishop of Rome his successour therin D. Field testifyeth saying 21) Confut. of the Papists quarrels p. 4. Manie of the ancient Fathers c. were deceaued to think something more of Peter's prerogatiue and the Bishop of Rome's dignitie then by the word of God was giuen to either of them And Philippus Nicolai vndertaking to speake 22) De Regno Christi p. 221. of the beginning and encrease of the Pope's dignitie auoucheth that the desire of Primacie was the common infirmitie of the Apostles and of the first Bishops of Rome 8. That the Pope is not Antichrist D. Whitaker confesseth that 23) Lib. de Antichr p. 21. the Fathers for the most part thought that Antichrist should be but one man but in that as in manie other things they erred sayth he And M. Cartwright affirmeth that diuers 24) 2. Reply part 1. p. 508. of the ancient and chiefest of them imagined fondly of Antichrist as of one singular person And as for the time of Antichrist's continuance M. Fox acknowledgeth that 25) In Apoc. c. 12. p. 345. almost al the holie and learned Interpreters doe by a time times and half a time vnderstand only three yeares and a half 9. Vnwritten Traditions are so plainly taught and defended by the Fathers as that Chemnitius reproueth for the same 26) Exam. part 1. p. 87. 89. 90. Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Epiphanius Ambrose Hierome Maximus Theophilus Basil c. D. Fulk confesseth the same 27) Against Purg. p. 362 303. 397. Against Marcial p. 170. 178. Against Brist mot p. 35. 36. of Tertullian Cyprian Chrysostome Augustin Hierome c. And D. Whitaker reprehendeth for the same 28) De Sac. Scrip◠p. 678. 681. 683. 685. 690. 695. 696. 670. 668. Chrysostome Epiphanius Tertullian Cyprian Augustin Innocentius Leo Basil Eusebius c. 10. Purgatorie Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead were so ordinarily and generally taught by the Fathers as that D. Gifford confesseth 29) Demōst that Brownists be Donatists p. 38. that in the Churches Worship to pray for the soules of the dead and to offer oblation for the dead was general in the Church long before the dayes of Austin as appeareth in Cyprian and Tertullian D. Fulk acknowledgeth that 30) Ag. Purgat p. 362. Tertullian Cyprian Austin Hierome and a great manie more doe witnes that Sacrifice for the Dead is the Tradition of the Apostles And he further affirmeth that 31) Ib. p. 161 the errour of Purgatorie was somewhat rifely budded in Austin's time And that it was the common errour of his time 11. Lymbus Patrum or Christ's descending into Hel was so generally belieued by the Fathers that M. Iacob witnesseth that 33) In Bilson's ful Redempt p. 188. Al the Fathers with one consent affirme that Christ deliuered the soules of the Patriarcks and Prophets out of Hel at his coming thither and so spoiled Sathan of those that were in his present possession 12. Inuocation of Saints was so vniuersally belieued in the Primitiue Church that D. Whiteguift and D. Couel do both of them confesse that 34) Def. ag Cartwr Reply p. 473. Couel in his Exem c. 9. p. 120. almost al the Bishops and learned writers of the Greek Church and Latin also for the most port were spotted with the doctrines c. of Inuocation of Saints and such like And D. Brightman reproueth for the same doctrine 35) In Apocal. c. 14. p. 382. S. Athanasius S. Basil S. Chrysostome S. Gregoire Nazianzen S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Austin c. And 36) Exam. par 3. p. 211. Chemnitius alledgeth S. Augustin inuocating S. Cyprian wherin sayth he he yealded to the times and custome D. Beard speaking of the Fathers opinion heerin sayth 37) Retract frō Romish Relig. p. 224. First the Fathers if they did allow of this Inuocation yet it was in their priuate Deuotions not sayth he though vntruly in the publick Liturgie of the Church c. vntil Gregorie the First 's time c. Secondly the Fathers though they may seeme to haue prayed sometimes vnto the Saints out of the heat of their deuotion yet it was but now and then and as it were by the way c. Thirdly the Fathers albeit they directed their prayers sometimes to the Saints yet they reposed most confidence in their prayers to God So confessedly did the Fathers themselues pray vnto Saints 13. For worshipping of Saints Relicks S. Basil S. Athanasius S. Chrysostome S. Gregorie Nazianzen S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Austin c. are al of them reproued 38) In Apoc. p. 382. by D. Brightman The Centurists charge the Fathers of the fourth Age with 39) Cent. 4. c. 6. col 456. publick Translation of Saints Relicks And Chemnitius chargeth the Fathers indefinitly not only 40) Exam. par 4. p. 10. with Translation and Circumgestation of Saints Relicks alledging in proof therof the testimonies of S. Austin S. Hierom and Lucillus but yet further also with Pilgrimage to the Relicks of Saints 14. Images were then so generally vsed as that sundrie examples of their verie placing in churches are giuen by 41) Against symbol par 1. p. 32. Cent. 4. col 409. Exam. part 4. p. 26. 29. 30. M. Parker the Centurists and Chemnitius out of the writings of Sozomen Athanasius Prudentius and others And Functius plainly confesseth 42) L. 7. Comment in Chronol f. 6. at An. 464. that An. 494. Xenaias was the first in the Church that stirred vp warre against Images so general and peaceable was the vse of Images for the first 464. yeares after the Apostles 15. Concerning the Crosse M. Burges acknowledgeth that 43) In Couels Answer to Burges p. 130. 136. there is nothing ascribed to the Crosse in or out of Baptisme by the ranckest Papists but the Fathers are as deeply engaged in the same so as if we wil vse it as the Fathers did c. we take the soule to be fenced by Crossing of the bodie and the Crosse to haue vertue of Consecrating the Sacrament driuing away Diuels witchcraft c. In proof wherof he there alledgeth sundrie ancient Fathers Yea the worshipping of the Crosse was so vniuersal as that M. Parkins reporteth that 44) Vol. 2. p. 596. Paulinus Epist 11. sayth The Bishop of Hierusalem yearly at Easter set forth the Crosse for the people to worship himself being the
p. 23. Primacie Ecclesiastical denyed to Emperours by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church l. 2. c. 4. p. 23. l. 3. c. 3. p. 9. 10. Priests ordained by Bishops l. 2. c. 22. Priests are to liue chast l. 2. c. 17. p. 69. Hereticks impugning the same condemned l. 2. c. 17. l. 3. c. 8. p. 42. 48. Priests anoynted at their Consecration l. 2. c. 22. Priests haue power from God to remit sinne l. 2. c. 10. p. 46. Priests crownes shauen in the Primitiue Church l. 2. c. 22. The Primitiue Church her authoritie l. 2. c. 2. p. 3. seq To the Primitiue Church some Protestants pretend to appeale l. 2. c. 2. p. 3. 4. Other Protestants dislike the foresaid Appeale l. 5. c. 1. p. 2. Protestant Church inuisible at S. Gregorie's time l. 3. c. 1. p. 1. Inuisible al these last 1000. yeares Ib. p. 1. at Luther's time Ib. p. 2. at Wicklifes time Ib. p. 3. at at Waldo's time Ib. p. 4. at Constantine's time and since Ib. p. 4. 5. In the Apostles time and after to Constantine Ib. p. 5. Protestants went out of the Catholick Church l. 3. c. 7. p. 24. Protestants neuer wrought miracles l. 4. c. 4. p. 22. 23. Protestants confessed external dissimulation in matters of ReligioÌ„ l. 4. c. 6. p. 38. Protestant Writers preferred by Protesstants before S. Peter and S. Paul l. 5. c. 3. p. 22. 23. The name Protestant from whence first l. 3. c. 7. p. 32. The name Puritan from whence first Ib. 32. Protestants are enforced to vse diuers names for distinction of their Religion and opinions Ibid. p. 33. The name Papist whence Ibid. p. 31. Purgatorie Prayer and Sacrifice for the dead confessedly taught by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church l. 2. c. 11. p. 50. seq l 5. c. 2. p. 14. Purgatorie belieued by the ancient belieuing Iewes l. 2. c. 11. p. 53. Purgatorie denyed by Aerius and he condemned for the same by the Fathers l. 2. c. 11. p. 52. l. 3. c. 3. p. 11. R. RElicks confessedly reuerenced by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church l. 2. c. 15. l. 5. c. 2. p. 15. By Relicks miracles wrought l. 2. c. 15. To Relicks Pilgrimages made in the Primitiue Church Ibidem Relicks translated Ibidem Relicks impugned by Vigilantius and he condemned for the same by the Fathers l. 3. c. 3. p. 10. Roman Church continued confessedly a pure Church for the first 600. yeares l. 1. c. 5. p. 21. 22. l. 2. c. 2. Roman Church continued vniuersally these last 1000. yeares l. 1. c. 2. p. 4. Roman Church continued vniuersally since Constantine l. 1. c. 5. p. 26. Roman Church continued the first 300. yeares after Christ l. 1. c. 5. p. 22. Roman-Church hath no knowne beginning since the Apostles l. 1. c. 5. p. 26. Roman Church her beginning is ascribed to the Apostles times Ib. p. 20. S. SAcraments to conferre grace is the confessed doctrine of the Primitiue Church l 2. c. 7. p. 32. Seauen Sacraments taught by the Primitiue Church l. 2. c. 7. p. 32. Saints to be prayed vnto is the confessed doctrine of the ancient Fathers l. 2. c. 13. p. 57. Saints to be prayed vnto was taught by the ancient Iewes l. 2. c. 13. p. 59. Vigilantius and Aerius denying the same were condemned by the Fathers l 2 c. 13 p. 58. l. 3. c. 3. p. 10. Scotus obiected against the Real presence and answered l. 3. c. 8. p. 46 47. Scriptures appealed vnto by al Hereticks l. 3. c. 3. p. 9. l. 4. c. 1. p. 2. Scripture hath seeming repugnances l. 2. c. 5. p. Scriptures discerned for Canonical by the Church l. 1. c. 1. p. 2. Simeon the Monk commended l. 2. c. 18. p. Sinne attributed to God as the Authour condemned l. 3. c. 5. p. 15. Sigebert l. 3 c. 8. p. 52. T. TRaditions confessedly taught by the Primitiue Church l. 2. c. 6. p. 30. Traditions taught by the ancient belieuing Iewes Ibid. p. 31. Transubstantiation confessedly taught by the Fathers of the Priuitiue Church l. 2. c. 8. p. 34. V. VEstments Vessels consecrated to Church vses l. 2. c. 22. Vow of Chastitie approued and practised by the Primitiue Chuch l. 2 c. 17. p. 69. Iouinian condemned for denyal therof l. 3. c. 4. p. 13. W. WAldo no Protestant l. 1. c. 3. p. 12. Wales conuerted to Christianitie in the Apostles times l. 1. c. 6. p. 18. The VVelch-men or ancient Brittans were Roman Catholicks l. 1. c. 6. p. 28. They changed not their Faith before S. Austin's coming l. 1. c. 6. p. 30. VViccliff no Protestant l. 1. c. 3. p. 11. 12. VVorkes to iustifye and merit confessedly taught by the Primitiue Church l. 2. c. 21. p. 86. Heretiks denying the same condemned l. 3. c. 5. p. 14. FINIS FAVLTS ESCAPED Epist Ded. Parag. Now supposing for plainly read painfully Lib. 1. c. 1. pag. 2. lin 26. for Ccclestical read Ecclesiastical p. 3. for ea read and. cap. 2. p. 4. lin antepen for Confirmation read Confutation Lib 2. c. 1. p 2. lin vlt. for Church read Churches c. 4 p. 17. lin anteantep for which read with p. 18. lin 18. for Athasius read Athanasius p 19. lin 40. for 20 read second hundred cap. 5. p. 26. lin 42. for Churches read Councels p. 29. lin 33. for only not read not only cap. 8. p. 37. lin 10. for purposely to read purposely profâ—sseâ—h to p. 38. lin 13. for or read of cap. 10 p. 48. for command read commend Lib. 3. c. 1. p. 4. lin 21. for thy read this cap. 4 p. 13. lin 34. for Arians read Aerians cap. 6. p. 2. lin 14. for roriter read writer cap. 7. p. 23. lin ante p adde 9 p. 26. lin 6. for with read which p. 31. lin 24. for that read the. p. 32. lin 14. for the read that cap. 8. p. 37. lin 36. for Turctisme read Turcisme p. 48. lin 1. for contracted read contradicted lin 17. for 66 read 26 p. 43. lin 29. for noâ— worthie read not vnworthie Lib. 4. c. 2. p. 5. lin 25. v. Dauid adde 7 lin 27. v. Church adde 8 p. 6. lin 2. v. Vvittemberg adde 17 p. 7. lin 36. v. VvhitaKer adde 34 p 8. lin 1. for often read after lin pen for Scriptures read Scriptures cap 4. p. 13. lin pen. p. 14. lin 27. for Vzias read Ozias lin 9. p. 20. lin 9. for had read and p. 24. lin 3 for ad read al lin 35. for Chapter 4. read Chapters Lib. 5. c. 1. pag. 3. lin 1. sor read sort c. 1. pag. 4. lin 3. ad read and. pag. 10. lin penult beshabken read beshaken lib. 5.
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