THE PROGENIE OF CATHOLICKS AND PROTESTANTS. Whereby On the one side is proued the lineal Descent of Catholicks, for the Roman Faith and Religion, from the holie Fathers of the Primitiue Church, euen from Christ's verie time vntil these our dayes: AND On the other, the neuer-Being of Protestants or their nouel Sect during al the foresayd time, otherwise then in confessed and condemned Hereticks. And al this is conuinced by the manifold and clearest acknowledgements of Protestant Writers, both forrain and domesticks.

By thine owne mouth I iudge thee, naughtie seruant.

Luc. 19.22.

At ROVEN, By the WIDOW of NICOLAS COVRANT. M.DC.XXXIII.

THE PREFACE TO THE CHRISTIAN READER.

I Haue euer been of opinion (good Chri­stian Reader) that as nothing in this world is more pleasing to the eye of a Christian soule, then a pure aspect or knowledge of the true Church, which is the louelie and most beautiful Spouse of CHRIST himself, and the onlie Arke of Man's saluation; so is the same neuer more clearly represented vnto vs, then in the cristallin glasse of reuerend Antiquitie, the puritie and truth wherof was euer so highly esteemed, as that it was not only requiredCensori­nus de Die Nat. c. 1. by the Lying Gods of the Gentils, that al the firstlings of the people should yearely be offred in Sacrifice vnto them, but it was further like­wise approued andExod. 22 29. prescribed by the only-true and euer­liuing GOD, that the first-fruits yea and the first-borne both of men and beasts, in regard of their primacie being his worthiest creatu­res, should peculiarly be applyed, offred, and deuoted to the highest seruice of his Greatest Maiestie. In best proof and example wher­of the perfectColoss. 1.15. Image of the inuisible God, the first-borne of al creature, CHRIST IESVS, was not only offred to God himself in the Temple, and there redeemed, but also offred vpon the Crosse for [Page] the Redemption of others, as the sweetest Holocaust to his Hea­uenlie Father.

Yea this Prioritie or Ancestrie is so specially affected by the wis­dome of God, and so directly maligned by the Enemie of man, as that in the verie first planting of the Church of Christ it is sayd, that he first sowed Matth. 13.24.25. good seed in his field, and after the enemie came, and ouer­sowed cockle; thereby not obscurely intimating vnto vs, that true Faith, Religion, and the Word of God, which is thisMatth 13.19. Luc. 8.12. good seed, was first and ancient to Sects and Heresies. And so, as in temporal Nobilitie that Stemme is most honourable, which is lineally deri­ued from the ancientest bloud; and in earthlie possessions that Title strongest, which pleadeth longest Prescription or ancientest Eui­dence; and as also it may not be denyed, but that Truth hath pre­cedencie to falshood, and substance to shadowes: so must it needs be granted or rather supposed as an infallible truth, that that Ghos­pel, Faith, and Church, which is first or eldest, is the only true Ghospel, Faith, and Church of CHRIST, and al other Congrega­tions afterwards arising or going out from thence, are but only the malignant inuentions of the Enemie, who euen from the begin­ning of the world was chiefly euer busyed in obscuring, peruer­ting, and detorting that, which at first was alwaies createdGenes. 1.31. very good, very gracious, and most pleasing in the al-seing Eye of the Omnipotent Maker.

In which respect for the euer finding out of the prime truth in al occurring difficulties, we are specially forewarned, as to re­curre to Antiquitie, so to suspect Noueltie. Moyses a litle before his death desiring to leaue some holesome documents to the Chil­dren of Israel, directeth them, saying:Deut. 32.7. Remember the old dayes; thinke vpon euerie generation; aske thy father, and he wil declare to thee; thy elders, and they wil tel thee. In like sort Baldad (Iob's friend) aduised him in his greatest extremities, toIob 8.8. aske the old generation, and search diligently the memorie of the fathers; for we are (sayth he) but as yesterday, &c. Yea wisest Salomon his aduise is:Eccles. 8 11.12. Let not the narra­tion of the ancients escape thee; for they learned of their fathers; because of them thou shalt learne vnderstanding, and in time of necessitie to giue answer. According to which, God himself by the Prophet Hieremie teacheth:c. 6.16 Stand ye vpon the wayes, and see, and aske of the old pathes, which is the good way, and walke ye in it, and you shal finde refreshing to your soules. So that the old way is the way of truth; and the same is to be learned by our Elders and Fathers.

Now of the contrarie, God reproueth such asIer 18.15. [Page] walke, &c. in a way not trodden; and Salomon's lesson is, that thouProu. 22 28. transgresse not the ancient bounds, which thy fathers haue put. From whence I take it to be, that as in the Scriptures our true God is calledDan. 2.23 & 3.26.52. 1. Tim 4 10 the God of the Fathers and of the Faithful, so false Gods and new doc­trines are termedDeut. 32.17. New and fresh ones, whome their fathers worship­ped not.

Agreably heerunto S. Paul likewise aduiseth S. Timothie 1. Tim. 6.20.21. to keepe the Depositum, auoyding the prophane nouelties of voices and oppositions of falsely called knowledge; which certain promising haue erred about the fayth: thereby shewing prophane innouation to be the shipwrack of fayth. Vpon which place likewise thus writeth that worthie Patron of Antiquitie Vincentius Lyrinensis:lib. ad­uers proph. nouit. He sayd not antiquities, he sayd not Ancientnes, but prophane Nouelties. For if noueltie is to be auoyded, antiqui­tie is to be kept; if noueltie be prophane, ancientnes is holie & sacred. And againe: This with al Heresies is as it were solemne and allowed, that in prophane nouelties they may alwaies reioyce, and scorne the decrees of Antiquitie: But on the contrarie, to Catholicks this is almost proper, to keepe the things left and committed by holie Fathers, and to condemne prophane nouelties &c. Wherupon he sayth of Nouelists: What doe they promise but new and vnknowne doctrine? For you may heare some of them to say: Come, ô you foolish and wretched, who commonly are cal­led Catholicks, and learne the true fayth, which none but we do know, which for ma­nie former ages lay hid, but now of late is reuealed and shewen &c. Are not these the words of that Drab? sayth Vincentius.

But indeed it was ordinarie with the ancient Fathers to confute Hereticks by their owne Innouation. So Tertullian vpon this ground reproueth the Nouellists of his time for their then vsur­ping and intruding by their latter vpstart doctrine vpon the then more ancient Catholick possession, saying to that end vnto them:De Prescrip. c. 37. Who are you? When, and from whence came you? What do you in my [grounds] not mine? By what right [Marcion] dost thou cut downe my woods? By what licence [Valentine] dost thou ouerthrow my fountains? &c. It is my possession; long since I possessed it; I possessed it first. Yea he prescribeth in generallib. cont. Prax. that to be true, which is first; that false, which is later.

Answerably vnto which writeth S. Hierome of the Luciferians: Cont. Lucifer fin. In this that they are afterwards begun, they shew themselues to be those, which the Apostle foretold were to come, to wit, Hereticks; of whome he deman­deth further:Ep. ad Pamach. et Ocean. Why doe you go about after 400. yeares to teach that, which we knew not before? vntil this day the world was Christian without that doctrine. With whome agreeth S. Gregorie Nazianzen saying:Ep 2. ad Chelid. They tel vs (as Protestants stil doe) of a wisdome hidden since Christ; a thing deseruing teares. For if Faith began within these 30. yeares, seing almost 400. yeares (and as I may now say 1600. yeares) are past, since Christ was openly [Page] knowne, so long then was the Ghospel in vaine, in vaine also our fayth, in vaine Mar­tyrs suffred death, in vaine also such and so great Bishops did gouerne the people.

From this verie Argument of Innouation S. Athanasius confuteth the Arians in these words:de De­cret Nycen. Synod. Behold, we haue proued this doctrine to haue been deliuered to vs from fathers to fathers: But you (new Iewes, and the sonnes of Caiphas) what progenitours of your name are you able to shew? Of whome also sayth S. Hilarie: Lib. 6. de Trin. ant. med. This our fourth Age hath brought forth ouer late for me these [pretended] most godlie Doctours.

S. Austin writing against Donatus vp braydeth his new or late birth in this manner:Lib. 3. de Bap cont. Donat. c. 2. From whence hath Donatus appeared? Out of what earth hath he budded? From what sea hath he swum? From what heauen hath he fallen? And he obiecteth thus vnto the Manichees:de Vti­litate Cred. c. 14. But you being so few, so turbulent, and so new, euerie man knoweth, you can produce nothing worthie of credit. In like sort writing against the Pelagians he vrgethCont. Iulian. Pe­lag. l. 2 c. l. that Christian people ought to preferre the sayings of Saints before your profane Nouelties, and rather choose to adhere to them, then to you. Yea Cassiodorus relateth, that theDiuin. Instit lib. 1. p. 11. most holie Fathers not suffering the true Faith to be wronged, ordayned Ec­clesiastical Rules in the Councel of Chalcedon, striking with the Diuine sword (of Excommunication) the obstinate Inuentours of new Heresies; And, Decreing that none ought to bring-in new questions; but content with the authoritie of the old approued Doctours, should obey the holesome Decrees without deceipt and fals­hood; for there are some, who thinke it commendable, if they can conceaue anie thing against the ancient (writers) and inuent something new, wherof they may be deemed skilful. But I wil cōclude this with this sweetest saying of S. Bernard: Ep. 174. Against the custome of the Church nothing at al wil please me presumed Noueltie, the mother of Temeritie, the sister of Superstition, and the daughter of Leuitie. What I haue receaued from the Church, I securely deliuer. So secure it is, in al ari­sing difficulties to recurre to Antiquitie, and to eschew Nouel­tie.

And as thus we haue seen from Scriptures and Fathers the spe­cial account euer made of reuerend Antiquitie or Ancestrie, and the sharp reprehensions of prophane Noueltie: so are there none, who seeme more ioyfully to applaude and approue the force of the foresayd Argument, then the learnedst Protestants of these our dayes: amongst whome for breuitie in a Case so manifest to pro­duce only one of our owne domesticks, who for his supposed worth in iudgement and learning may suffise for manie, D. Morton affirmethAp­peale for Protestants p. s 11. See also White in the Way to the Chur. Pref. to the Reader n. 17. that our Sauiour Christ by his Parable of the diuers seedes, first wheate in the day, and then tares in the night, doth teach vs, that Truth may challenge prioritie of Errour yealding principalitie vnto Truth, sayth Tertulian, and poste­ritie vnto lying. And so it must needs be; because as there must be first iron, before there can be rust, which canckereth the iron; so must there be a virgin-truth before errour, which is nothing else but an adulteration therof. So that Primum and Verum, [Page] that is, primarie Antiquitie and Truth are both inseparable twins, begot and bred in the same instant. And againeIbid p. 512. But tel vs, what is Noueltie? When the A­postle exhorted his Timothie to keepe that, which was committed vnto him, and to take heed of profane Nouelties, he did in effect instruct him to preserue the doctrine re­ceaued, not to suggest anie doctrines newly conceaued, as sayth Lyrinensis, who accounteth it (according vnto Salomon's description) a whorish trick, to cal anie out of the ancient and beaten way, and to say, Come vnto me. In like sortIbid p. 679. As it becometh the children of God, who commanded that the first-borne euen of the woman that was hated, should be respected before the yonger sonne of the beloued wife, we, albeit hated by our Romish Aduersaries, yet only desire, that they would hold (as S. Chrysos­tome teacheth) [...], that is, euerie Noueltie a vanitie; and in al Con­trouersies suffer the first-borne to finde a preheminence, by preferring each doctrine according vnto the prime antiquitie.

Now in this desire of preferring Antiquitie, al Catholicks most ioyfully wil ioyne hands with M. Doctour Morton, desiring nothing more, then that al Questions at this day controuerted between the Roman Church and the Protestant Congregation might strictly be examined and finally decided by the square of Antiquitie. And for this cause haue I compiled this Treatise following, intending thereby to set downe the true Progenie both of Catholicks and Pro­testants, from what Ancesters they are lineally descended, and of what continuance their names and families haue formerly been. And although the guard and strength of Truth in this point of Antiquitie is euer such, that she resteth stil accompanyed, atten­ded, and fortified with surest friends, strongest towers, and best munition, yet neuer may she repose in greater quiet, or more glo­riously appeare with greater honour, then when her soueraigne right, titles, and prerogatiues are plainly admitted, granted, and acknowledged by the sworne and professed enemies of Truth. And yet, according to that of S. Austin, Cont. Donatist. post. collat c. 24. Truth is more forcible to wring out confession, then anie rack or torment.

No wit of man can finde out Arguments more conuincing in themselues the truth of Religion, then the plaine Texts and literal sense of holie Writ, the infallible decrees of the Church and Gene­ral Councels, the vnanimous consent of ancient Fathers and Hi­stories, and often the common light of Nature and Reason itself; yet ad hominem (as the Schoole-men terme it) and for the final pre­uention of al further Plea, shifts, and euasions in the Aduersarie, no course more speedie, no victorie more certain, no obiection more vnanswerable, then the plaine, simple, and sincere confes­sion of the Aduersarie himself.

In Ciuil and temporal differences concerning lands and posses­sions, [Page] very forcible and hopeful are the Arguments drawne from the ancient and authentical Euidences, from lawful and vninter­rupted Prescription, from the plaine and literal word and sense of the Law, from the swarming consent of Iudges and Councel learned, and from sufficient testimonie of most credible aad ap­proued witnesses; yet not one, no nor al of these ioyntly concur­ring, are anie thing so potent for the speediest and surest decision of the Cause, as the free acknowledgement and assent of the Ad­uersarie, only enforced through the rack of clear and vndenyable Truth.

So Moyses hauing sundrie wayes proued the Goodnes and Power of God Almightie aboue the Gods of the Gentils, vrgeth as the strongest argument, that the Gentils hisDeut. 32.31. Enemies are also Iudges in his behalf. Which course likewise obserued S. Paul against the Ido­latrous Athenians, vrging to the same purpose the authoritie of their owneAct. 17.28. Poets; and against the Cretensians he argueth, thatTit. 1.12. one of them sayd, their owne proper Prophet: The Cretensians alwayes lyers, naughtie beasts, slouthful bellies. This testimonie (sayth S. Paul) is true.

But this kind of reasoning learned this blessed Doctour from his best Maister Christ our Sauiour, who at the last day wil vrge as the clearest proof against the Naughtie seruant his owne confession, saying:Luc. 19.22. By thine owne mouth I iudge thee, naughtie seruant. Yea this kind of victorie as most glorious in itself, and most disgracious to the enemie, God himself vsed against his owne enemies, when he caused the Madianit [...]s Iudges 7.22. with their owne swords to murther one another; as also against the Aegyptians, when he sayd:Esay 19.2. I wil make the Aegyptians to runne togeather against the Aegyptians; and a man shal fight against his brother, and euerie man against his friend, cittie against cittie, kingdome against kingdome. A confusion and ruine, then which none greater. So like­wise when the Amalachite had confessed to Dauid, that he had killed Saul, Dauid commanded him to be slaine saying:2. Reg. 11.16. Thy bloud be vpon thine owne head; for thine owne mouth hath spoken against thee saying: I haue slaine the annoynted of our Lord.

And as the Prophets and Apostles thus affected this kind of Ar­gument, so was it stil pursued by the ancient Fathers. So S. Ireneus disputing sundrie wayes, how God the Sonne reuealeth vnto vs his Father, affirmethAd­uers Haeres. l. 4. c. 14. that it is necessarie, that the truth receaue testimo­nie from al &c. from domesticals, because they are friends; from externals, because they are enemies; for that proof is true and without contradiction (sayth he) which produceth testimonie from the Aduersaries themselues. Agreably said Nouatian [Page] (whilst he was Catholick) Firme is that kind of proof De Trinit. c. 18. which is taken euen from the aduersaries of truth. S. Augustin endeauouring to proue against the Iewes, that some that liued before Christ's time were saued that were not Iewes, affirmeth thatli 18. de Ciuit. Dei. c. 47. nothing is stronger to conuince al others, if they shal contend heerof, or to confirme ours, if they shal conceaue aright, then that [...]hese diuine Prophecies concerning Christ be produced, which are written in the bookes of the Iewes themselues.

Tertulian auoucheth, thatIn A­pologet. none wil lye to his owne shame, but rather for his honour; and that therefore more credit is to be giuen to such as denye in behalf of themselues. And Tullie vrgeth his Aduersarie, saying:Orat. P. Quint. Thy testimonie, which in another man's cause is smal worth, against thyself is weightie. So that the Argument drawne from the confession of the Aduer­saries is the proof most conuincing against the Aduersarie him­self.

A truth so cleare, that none more fully acknowledge the same, then our moderne Protestants, amongst whome writeth D. Morton thus:Ap­peale Ep. Ded. Which kind of assistance of learned Aduersaries the Apologists them­selues haue layd downe for the greatest reason of satisfaction; and we do accordingly admit. For if it be held an excellent point of Physick, Ex vipera theriacum, to turne poyson into an antidote against poyson; and in God accounted a high degree of vengeance, to turne the Aegyptians against the Aegyptians; and in Dauid celebrated as a principal matter of triumph, to cut of Goliah his head with his owne sword; and in Christ obserued as an vnanswerable kind of conuiction, to iudge the euil seruant from his owne mouth; and acknowledged in S. Paul as the most expedite meanes of confutation in the men of Crete, to oppose against them their owne Poet, whome he calleth their Prophet; then may we iustly presume better of our cause, wherin our Ro­mish Aduersaries wil proue our rightful Aduocats. For it must needs be ac­knowledged (say otherAca­dem. Ne mens. Resp. p. 84. Protestants) for a great peece of work, to conuince the Aduersarie from himself. In like sort sayth D. Whitaker:De Ec­cles. Contr. 2 q 5. p. 366 Bellarmine maketh the confession of the Aduersaries to be the Thirteenth Mark (of the Church) Surely the argument must needs be strong, which is taken from hence &c. For the testimonie of the Aduersaries wil be effectual against themselues &c. And truly I doe acknowledge, that Truth enforceth testimonie euen from her enemies &c. With him agreeth D. Field saying:Of the Church. p. 182. The next Note, whereby Bellarmine endeauoureth to proue the Romish Synago­gue to be the true Church of God, is our owne confession. ‘Surely if he can proue, that we confesse it to be the Church, he needeth not to vse anie other arguments.’

Com­mon Places. Part. 2 p. 329. Doubtles (sayth Peter Martyr) among al testimonies, that testimonie is of greatest account, which is testifyed by the enemies. Peace of Rome. Ep. Dedic. fol. 1. I offer to your Highnes (sayth M. Hal) their fight against themselues, and therin for vs. What can be more aduantage to vs, or shame to them? One blow of an enemie delt to his brother, is more worth then manie from an aduerse hand. Al our Apologies cannot hurt them so much, [Page] as their owne diuisions. And M. Cooke acknowledgeth, that the testimonie (15) of a friend against a friend, In his Pope Ioane. Pref. And see Dilingam cont. Bel­larm. ep. Dedic. and of an enemie for an enemie, is inuincible. Lastly our late and most liberal Writer D. Beard auouchethRetrac­tiue f [...]om Romish Re­ligion p 149. see White in the Way to the Chur. Pref. to the Reader. n. 18. that Truth like a chast matrone, though it be slandred, yet is so bold and powerful, that it feareth not to be tryed by those that are the greatest enemies therof.

Now this kind of inuincible and vnanswerable argument haue I specially chosen and pursued throughout this Treatise following, as wel thereby to take the most speedie & surest course for the final deciding of Cōtrouersies, as also clearly to preuent the endles shifts, euasions, and deceipts, so generally and so cunningly practised by al kind of Sectaries. For who would not thinke, but that anie man of iudgement and learning diligently perusing the large and learned Works but only of Cardinal Bellarmine and Iodocus Coccius, men so studious, payneful, and sincere in describing the pedigree of the Church of Christ, but that he would easily see, iudge, and confesse the ancient primitiue Church, Faith, and Religion, the most approued General Councels, and learnedst Doctours, the most authentical Records, Histories, and Monuments of those pu­rest times, al of them to testifye, to depose, and confirme the self-same Truth, Faith, and Religion, which the present Roman Church at this day beleeueth, practiseth, and professeth? And yet what a world of tricks, fallacies, and inuentions hath the Enemie suggested to our moderne Hereticks, for the blemishing and obscuring of that clearest glasse of the Primitiue Church, wherin our present Roman is so liuely represented? Who would thinke it equal to oppose a dark and casual saying of S. Austin (for example) against his knowne practise and laboured proof to the contrarie? And who would not blush to oppose S. Austin (to his fowlest dis­grace) as contrarie to himself? What more desperate course can be taken, then to censure his most certain writings for counterfet, because they contradict and confute their impious Nouelties? What greater schisme can be raised against the Church, then to pretend her chiefest Bishops, Doctours, and Pastours in the chie­fest articles of Faith to be at mutual and deadlie warres amongst themselues? What more audacious temeritie and base ingratitude can Malice itself offer to those our so noble Progenitours, then to alter and corrupt their learnedst writings, which as clearest eui­dences for the Catholick Faith they bequeathed to Posteritie? And yet these and manie more then these are the ordinarie Sophismes of our late Sectaries. For the surest and final preuention of al which, what shorter or more expedite course can I take, then [Page] (Protestants for example appealing to the Primitiue Church, and her Doctours and Pastours) to produce themselues confessing al these to be their Enemies, and the Teachers and Patrons of Papi­strie? How more vnanswerably can I conuince, that S. Austin beleeued & taught our Catholick doctrine of Purgatorie, & Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead, then if sundrie Protestants of greatest knowledge and reading, not beleeuing the same doctrine them­selues, doe yet acknowledge and reproue the same in S. Austin? Now whether in this Treatise following I performe this, and that by the confessions not of few, or of those of the least esteeme, but of very manie, and those of the primest Protestants that are or euer were, and these not only reprouing S. Austin, but with him S. Ambrose, S. Gregorie, S. Hierome, S. Chrysostom, S. Leo, S. Epiphanius, S. Gre­gorie Nazianzen, S. Gregorie Nyssen, S. Cyril, S. Hilarie, S. Basil, S. Cyprian, S. Ireneus, S. Ignatius, S. Dionisius, and the rest of the most renowned Doctours of the purest and most approued times, and this not only in the Doctrine of Purgatorie, but in al the points of chie­fest weight; I remit myself wholy to the seuerest Censures of al Iudicious and Diligent Readers.

THE EPISTLE DEDICATORIE. TO M. DOCTOVR MORTON SVPERINTENDENT OF LICHFIELD AND COVENTRIE.

GOOD M. Doctour, As yourself were occasio­nally the principal motour for me to compose this Treatise following, so haue seueral reasons since summoned themselues to my serious thoughts, for the further presenting of the same vnto you. For who now more renowned in the new English Church for his supposed learning, then yourself? Who more paynefully hath laboured for the promoting of the Protes­tant Ghospel, then D. Morton? Who higher aduanced meerly for the former respects from his lowest fortunes, then the Superintendent of Lichfield? And therefore I cannot but expect, tbat your kinde acceptan­ce wil afford some luster vnto it, at least in the eyes of your illumina­ted Brethren. Wherof I rest also very confident, in that the method generally obserued therin, by concluding my intent from the confes­sion of my Aduersaries, is the course specially affected and studyed by yourself in al your writings, which cannot but beget some better liking in your setled iudgement therof.

But that indeed, Sir, which did chiefly induce me aboue the rest both to compile and dedicate this Work, as you see, was your Appeale for Protestants made in answer to the Protestāts Apologie for the Roman Church. For hauing diligently perused and examined this our Apologie, and finding the Arguments there framed to be most concluding, the testi­monies produced to be most pertinent, and al this euer to be backed [Page] and strengthned with the answerable acknowledgements of Protes­tants themselues, I must confesse, my thirsting curiositie was such, as that neither my thoughts nor desires were at rest, vntil with like dili­gēce I had perused and examined your Protestants Appeale. Which finding to be such, as I wil shortly describe, I was hēce encouraged, to make yet further vse of the foresayd Apologie, conioyning therewith some la­bours of my owne in that kind; which as I desire they may be profita­ble to al, so to yourself most earnestly I wish.

And so now briefly to discouer to yourself and al other iudicious Readers the manner of your answer vsed throughout your whole Ap­peale, M. Brierlie, a Catholick Roman Priest, presuming to present vnto his Maiestie of Great Britanie our Soueraigne Lord King Iames, his hum­ble Petition in behalf of the Catholicks of England, so grieuously pressed and persecuted, during the Raigne of Q. Elizabeth his late Predecessour, amongst innumerable Motiues, which as so manie darts would pre­sently wound a hart so sensible of his Subiects miseries, iniuries, and oppressions, he specially selected the sweetest harmonie and most plea­sing concord in matters Diuine and Celestial, between the Ancient, Apostolick, and Catholick Faith of the Primitiue Church of Christ, and our present Roman; nothing doubting, but that the bare presen­ting of the louelie face of so gray Antiquitie would timely beget in so generous and noble a Mind an immouable loue and liking to al her true heires and lawful posteritie.

But M. Brierlie further knowing the malignant Enemie his ordina­rie imposture, in sending forth Emissaries for the dazeling and deluding of the best aspects, in preuention therof and al other imaginable deceit in that kind, the self-same Emissaries, his greatest enemies, he specially picked for his chiefest Aduocats; strangely, but indeed most strongly affecting the equitie of his Cause to be finally decided by no other Iudge then the Aduersarie therof. For wheras the indubitate writings of the ancientest Fathers, the sacred Decrees 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 [Page] 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:Prot. Apol. p. 72. Be it granted [Page] (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 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 respectIbid p. 283 285. peremptorie and ambitious; and that he was soIb. 294. 295. peremptorie, that for his presumption he found in his time brotherlie checks? Yea doe you not confesse, that certainIb. 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 suchIb. 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 raigneIb. 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: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 vsethIb. pag. 62. to confirme some things by Tradition; and that the ancient beleeuing IewesIb pag. 377. pretended vnwritten Traditions. As teaching Pur­gatorie and Prayer for the Dead, you reproue S. Gregorie touching, thatIb pag. 19. 20. the Sacrifice of the Altar is profitable for the Soules departed. And againeIb 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 Pro­testantIb. 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 haue a good warrant to dissent from him.

You further admit, that Inuocation of Saincts was the doctrine Ib pag. 27. of S. Gregorie; and that his Ib pag. 28. not suffring Images to be broken, when there was so publick and general Idolatrie committed with them, seemed vnto (your) Osiander although not a direct, yet an occasional approuing of Idolatrie, or rather a cloaking therof. Yea you admit further, thatIb pag. 586. about the foure hundredth yeare Ima­ges erept out of priuate mens houses, and went into the publick churches standing there. And as for Relicks, you Ib pag. 583. wish that Hierome had been a Vigilantius in the case of the Relicks of Saints.

You further affirme, that the Ib pag. 38. Apologists do truly obiect, that Osiander noted S. Gregorie to haue been a vehement vrger of single life in the Clergie. You confesse, thatIb pag. 604. Vigilantius and Iouinian are condemned for impugning the vnmarried life of Priests; and that the Ib. pag. 480. Councel (of Nice) restrayneth them from marriage, who were vnmarried, when they entred into Orders; AndIb. pag. 88. we finde (say you) that the Age next abutting vpon the Apostles time did practise a perpetual vow of Virginitie. You likewise auouch, thatIb pag. 46. Monachisme is a state of life greatly commended by S. Gregorie, who had been himself a Monk. And speaking of ancient Ib pag. 89. Votaries, you write that the Apostle requireth in his widowes the age of three score yeares; and after times would not admit Virgins vnder 25. yeares old, nor veyled Nunnes til fourtie; for which you cite seueral Councels.

As touching the Fast of Lent, you write:Ib pag. 303. This Fast we confesse was of great antiquitie, and &c. had in general vse and obseruation; which S. Ambrose teacheth to haue been ordayned by the Diuine institution of Christ. AndIb. pag. 04. S. Au­gustin doth sometimes write of the fourtie dayes Fast, that it hath a Diuine authoritie. And where other Protestants do charge vs with the Heresies of the Manichees and Tatianists for abstaining from certain meates vpon prescribed dayesIb pag. [...]00. yourself doth cleare vs and defend vs therin; as also against the Heresie of the Manichees Ib pag. 139. 140. Communicating vnder one kind. And as concerning Ceremonies, you auouch thatIb. pag. 53. in the innouating and multiplying of new Rites Gregorie himself was not the least agent. AndIb. pag. 58. Be it knowne to al our Aduersaries, that the too manie Ceremonies vsed by Gregorie cannot excuse their now farre more multitudes; nor can some of his not good &c. You charge him further to haue vsedIbid. p. 53. Superstitious manner of Consecration of Churches; In whichIbid. p. 57. he indeed requireth lights. And as for Holie-water, you say, thatIbid. p. 5 [...]. true it is, that Aqua lustralis was vsed, but &c. as an inuention of Pope Alexander, who liued An. 109. And it was applyed in the dayes of Gregorie by Augustin to the Consecration of Churches, togeather with Prayers for the casting out of the filth of Idols and Diuels. And so likewise concerning the mingling of water with wine in the Chalice Ibid. p. 142. you referre this new Romish custome vnto (the sayd) Pope Alexander the supposed authour therof.

Lastly as touching Free-wil, you acknowledge, thatIbid. p. 201. 201. Protestants haue particularly and by name obserued, that Iustinus, Ireneus, Clemens, Tertulian, Origen, Cyprian, and others, albeit manie times they pleaded for the Free-wil of the corrupt nature of man &c. Thus not being able to giue other answer, your­self confesse with M. Brierlie, that our Catholick doctrines of the Pope's primacie, of the Pope not being Antichrist, of vnwritten Traditions, of Purgatorie and Prayer for the dead, of Inuocation of Saints, of Images, Relicks, of the vnmar­ried life of Priests, of Monks and Nunnes, of the Fast of lent, of mingling water with wine in the Chalice, of Consecration of Churches, of lights in Churches, of Holie-water, and Free-wil, were al of them taught in the times of the Pri­mitiue Church of Christ; and that not by anie infamous and condem­ned Hereticks, but euen by the clearest Lamps of those Ages, namely by S. Gregorie, S. Augustin, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Leo, S. Cyprian, Iustinus, [Page] Tertulian, Origen, Victor, Alexander, Clemens, Ireneus, the Councel of Nice, the 3. of Carthage and others. And so to conclude this first obseruation, you see yourself, that in steed of Answer you make a good Apologie for the Roman Church.

But to leaue this your so plaine dealing, and to come to some of your more slipperie tricks: wheras M. Brierlie obiecteth sundrie Protestant Writers confessing and reprouing the Fathers of the Primitiue Church for the self same points and conclusions of Faith, which the Roman Church now beleeueth and practiseth; you for your easiest answer most commonly passe ouer al or most of the said Testimonies with deepest silence, not answering anie thing at al vnto them; so that as vn­answerable you concealed them in your Answer. But what child or Idiot professing Arianisme, Pelagianisme, Donatisme, or the like, might not with like facilitie haue answered al the bookes and proofes made by S. Athanasius, S. Augustin, S. Hilarie, and other learnedst Doctours against the foresayd heresies? Now to giue you example heerof, euen in the first entrance M. Brierlie in his 1. Section intending to proue that the Faith of S. Gregorie, and wherunto England was conuerted by S. Austin, was the same with our now Catholick Faith, confirmeth the same by the testi­monies and grants of D. Humfrie, Osiander, the Centurie-writers of Magdeburg, D. Fulk, Daneus, M. Harrison, and M. Bale, the three first instancing the same by manie particular points of Religion, and the rest confessing in general, that our Conuersion by S. Gregorie and S. Austin was to Poperie or the Papistical faith; Now al this being comprehen­ded by M. Brierlie his Booke within the compasse of lesse then one quarter of a sheet of paper, you spend in answer thereto aboue 60. pa­ges, and yet in neuer one therof do you fully and directly answer to anie of your said Authours cited against you, yea some of them you do not so much as mention or take the least notice of; and the like might I shew throughout your whole Booke.

At other times you admit, that the Protestant Writers alleadged by M. Brierlie did indeed reproue the Fathers for seueral points of Papistrie; but therewith you are displeased, and oppose yourself against your owne deare Brethren, charging them to haue done the same without iust cause, and with greatest wrong and iniurie to the said Fathers. But now you go by the eares with very manie Protestants, no lesse, if not more, renowned, then yourself. And what man of ordinarie sense and reason wil not giue more credit to manie of the primest Protes­tants, inhabiting seueral nations, through euidence of truth, thus wri­ting and confessing against themselues, and in behalf of Catholicks, then to you, M. Morton, through want of good conscience or solid iud­gement, impugning the truth and your more ancient and learned Pro­testants?

Againe, you being vnable directly & punctually to answer the fore­said testimonies of your Brethren acknowledging and reprouing the Fathers for teaching our Catholick Faith, you thinke to bleare the eye [Page] of an ignorant Reader, by obiecting sundrie sayings of the sayd Fa­thers, as making against those seueral points of Fayth, for which they were formerly confessed by other Protestants; and this is an ordinarie shift throughout your whole Booke. But yet this doth lesse satisfye then al the rest; for first if the other Protestants perusing the Fathers writings, no doubt with as great diligence as yourself hath done, had found such pregnant places in behalf of thēselues, as you now pretend, they would neuer haue written and diuulged the direct contrarie ther­of to the vtter ruine of their Cause and the eternal shame of themsel­ues. Besides, sundrie Protestants citing seueral Texts of the Fathers as making for Papistrie, and you heer alleadging seueral others as impug­ning the same and making for Protestancie, what should this inferre, but that the Doctours & Bishops euen of the Primitiue Church should make mutual contradiction and warres amongst themselues in the chiefest articles of our Christian Faith and Religion? yea, which is more absurd, it would further conclude one and the same Father, S. Austin (for Example) to be contrarie to himself; for as you do heer of­ten alleadge him in proof of seueral particulars of your new Reformed Faith, so do manie Protestants produce him as impugning the sayd particulars. Now what more grosse absurditie can be vttered, then that S. Austin not in one but in manie points of Faith should thus con­tradict himself? Lastly such sayings of Fathers as you heer produce in behalf of yourself, are but the knowne obiections made and answered by Cardinal Bellarmin and other Catholick Writers.

M. Brierlie affecting through his whole Booke to confirme and con­uince his wished intent by the clearest testimonies of his Protestant Aduersaries, you wil needs follow the same course, producing in that behalf the plentiful sayings of our Catholick Writers; but with a dou­ble difference, your Conscience wel knew. For first M. Brierlie allead­ged such Protestants as for learning and iudgement were most renow­ned and respected through the whole Protestant Church; such were Luther, Melancthon, Oecolampadius, Zuinglius, Chemnitius, the Centurists, Caluin, Beza, Whitguift, Bale, Whitaker, Iewel, Humfrie, Reynolds, Parkins and sundrie such others. Secondly, these Protestants he produceth as confessing the Fathers to agree with vs Catholicks, not only in matters of dispu­te, indifferencie, or such as are not yet determined by the Church or General Councel, but euen in the chiefest and most important Arti­cles and Conclusions of Faith, controuerted at this day between Ca­tholicks and Protestants.

Now as for the Catholick Writers alledged by you, M. Morton, a great part of them are such as for their knowne errours haue their writings already censured and condemned by their Mother-Church; such were Erasmus, Valla, Cassander, Nilus, Agrippa and such like; and from these only doe you fetch such testimonies as concerne matter of some moment; for as for other approued Catholick Writers, as S. Thomas, S. Bonauenture, Lombard, Scotus, Bellarmine, Sanders, Allen, Parsons, and innu­merable [Page] others, though you cite them often, yet neuer as denying anie one Article or Conclusion of Faith, defined at anie time by the Church of Christ, but only as dissenting amongst themselues in matters dispu­table and indifferent; nor euer as confessing the Fathers of the Primi­tiue Church to make for Protestants in matters of Faith, as now con­trouerted between them and Catholicks.

And as for the testimonies gathered from the former and worser rank of Catholicks, they can nothing preiudice our Catholick Cause. For first, as before, their errours and bookes are censured, condemned, and prohibited by that verie Church, wherin they were Baptized or first became Christians, to wit, the Roman. Secondly, most of the sayd Authours finally recanted their errours, submitting themselues and their writings to the Censure of the Catholick Church. And lastly, as it may not be denyed, but that in the State Politick the Prince with his Councel may iustly punish, censure, and correct such men with their errours, as shal seeke to innouate in anie thing against the former receaued and established lawes of the whole kingdome; so much more is the like iustifyable, expedient, and necessarie in the Spiritual gouer­ment of the Church of Christ.

I might heer proceed to sundrie other such like euasions of yours; but I feare to exceed the ordinarie bounds, and therefore wil con­clude, assuring the iudicious and impartial Reader, who shal diligently peruse your swelling and ample Appeale written in answer to a smal part of M. Brierlie his first and least Apologie, that certainly he may expect in lieu of a Due and satisfyable Answer, first, that yourself is often enforced to confesse with M. Brierlie and against yourself, that the ancient Fa­thers in seueral important points of Religion were Roman Catho­liks. Secondly, that manie of the strongest allegations brought by M. Brierlie are not so much as named, and much lesse answered by your dumb Spirit. Thirdly, that you are often compelled to impugne and disgrace your owne Protestant Brethren, vtterly denying and disclai­ming in that, which they through the Sunne-shine and splendour of truth haue plentifully acknowledged, though against themselues, you so Appealing from them no lesse then from M. Brierlie himself. Fourthly, that finding yourself not able to euade such conuincing proofes taken only from Protestant Doctours by anie direct and pertinent Answer, you fil vp your paper with such Sayings of Fathers, as are either cor­rupted by yourself, or frequently alreadie answered by Catholick Wri­ters; which is no other answer neither, but that Protestants amongst themselues do alledge the Fathers, yea one and the self-same Father as fighting with himself; the affirming wherof is as grosse an absurditie, as my self would desire my greatest Aduersarie to be plunged in. And lastly, that for such testimonies as you draw from Catholick Writers, they are either such, as are already condemned by the Catholick Church, or els are not concerning anie Article or Conclusion of Faith, but only matters indifferent and disputable in Schooles.

Now as euerie one of ordinarie iudgement may clearly see, that these poore shifts patched togeather are but beggarlie rags seruing to hide or couer from the weake sight of an ignorant Reader, the loth­some sores and shameful deformities of your diseased Bodie, the Pro­testant Church; so hath M. Brierlie his sincere and solid proceeding not only encouraged others to make the whole world acquainted with so precious a iewel, by translating his Apologie into Latin, but hath also in­duced me to make further vse therof for the special good, as I hope, of our owne Countrie: To which if you also out of 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 ofAd 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 Churchcap. 2.4. that it is A kingdome that shal neuer be destroyed, but shal stand for euer. And so shal be according to Esay, ascap 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 [Page 2] 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 respectAns. 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 accordethDef. 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. 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,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.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 byCōt. 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 teachethIbi. 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,Auth. of the scri­pture and the church. f. 71 72. 73. 74 75. much commended byIbid. 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 withTom 6. cōt. ep fund. cap. 5. Tert. lib. 1 de Prae­scrip cap. 6. S. Augustin and Tertullian, thatScrip. 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, thatBertr. 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 [Page 3] 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 controuersies what­soeuer, the absolute necessitie of finding-out the true Church; seing the fin­ding-out therof, is the surest finding of the right path, which leadeth directly vnto al truth. In which regard sayth D. Field most iudiciouslyEpi. de­dicat. of the church. The conside­ration of vnhappie diuisions of the Christian world, and the infinit distractions of mens minds, not knowing in so great varietie of opinions, what to think or to whom to ioyne themselues &c. hath made me euer to think, that there is no part of heauenlie know­ledge more necessarie, then that which concerneth the Church: For seing the controuersies of Religion in our time are growne in number so manie, and in nature so intricate, that few haue time and leasure, fewer strength of vnderstanding, to examine them; what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out, which, amōg al the Societies of men in the world, is &c. that Spouse of Christ, and Church of the liuing God, which is the Pillar and Ground of truth, that so they may imbrace her communion, follow her direction, and rest in her iudgement? But what Ca­tholick can speak more plainly and fully then D. Field here doth either for the necessitie of finding-out the true Church, or for our following and obser­uing her directions and Sentence when she is found? And agreably hereunto D. White speaking of the Common-people, saythEp ded. to the vvay to the true church. And see ParKins on the reuel. p. 344. And Iames his re­traite soūded to Brovv­nists. fol. 1. 6. If by certain markes, they could find which is the true Church, there would remaine little difficultie in the rest, for­somuch as therein they should find the truth in euerie controuersie: The like necessitie vrgeth Caluin saying,Inst. li. 4. c. 1. sec. 4. Because I haue now determined to dispute of the visible Church, let vs learne by the onlie testimonie of our Mothers praise, how profitable, ea how necessarie to vs is the knowledge therof, seing there is no other entrance into life, vnles she conceaue vs in her womb, vnles she bring vs forth, vnles &c. vnder her custodie and protection she defend vs vntil we dye &c. Adde that out of her bosome no Remission of sinnes is to be hoped for. With whom agreeth M. Mornay, of the chur. p. 1. God would (saith he) that the Church should be honoured for the Mother of al those, of whom he vouchsafeth to be Father. Seing therefore that God alloweth none for his chil­dren but those that are borne againe and brought-vp in this Church; if we desire our sal­uation, it is necessarie we know her, in whose lap we haue it &c. we must not seek sal­uation for anie but in her. And againe,vol. 1. 3. Into the visible Church al they must retire themselues in this world, that wil be gathered in the inuisible Church in the world to come. M. Parkins confesseth thatIb pa. pag. 308. The Arke out of which al perished, figured the Church, out of which al are condemned &c. out of the Militant Church there are no meanes of Saluation, no preaching of the Word, no inuocation of Gods name, no Sa­craments, and therefore no Saluation. And speaking of such as be, without, that is, saith he, forth of the Church, they are dogs, enchanters, whoremongers, adulterers &c.

Now from al this I wil only briefly conclude, that the Church of God is not only most ancient, and in that regard greatly to be honoured, reueren­ced, and preferred, but being likewise confessedly directed by the Spirit of God, in discerning & iudging the truth in matters of Faith, that therefore in al doubts arising in matters of Religion, we may with greatest safetie and quiet [Page 4] to our minds, repose our soules and consciences vpon the Authoritie, Iudge­ment, and Determination of the sayd Church.

Yea further seing it is agreed vpon by al parties, that out of the true Church there is no Saluation; how lamentable is the state of obstinat Hereticks, who through pertinacie in errour and infidelitie, are quite cut-of & cast out of the Church? And how much to be deplored are vncharitable Schismaticks? who for false, fraile, and earthlie respects, do foolishly diuide themselues from the Arke of Saluation, liuing continually like brute beasts, without al spiritual food and nutriment to their soules, depriued of supernal grace, conueyed by Christs holie Sacraments, debarred from the sweetest communion, and pu­rest conuersation with their dearest Mother, and al this, for no other respect or pretence, then that only, which by S. Iohn was blamed in the Pharisees, whoIo. 12.42 43. did not confesse (Christ) that they might not be cast out of the Synago­gue. For they loued the glorie of men, more then the glorie of God.

THAT THE PRESENT ROMAN CHVRCH, AND Religion, for these last thousand yeares after Christ, haue stil continued most Knowne, and Vniuersal, throughout the Christian world. CHAPTER. II.

NOW for our certaine finding-out of this true Church so ne­cessarie to Saluation, we are to suppose for the present, that the true Church is euer to continue euen from Christs time, vntil the end of the world: wherefore to make this good in our behalf, and against our Aduersaries: Sundrie and strongest are the proofes, wherewith the Euer-during and Vniuersal continuance, of the Roman Catholick Religion, for these last thousand yeares, might euidently be conuinced; As the Catholick Coronations and State-gouernment of al Christiā Emperours, Kings, and Princes: The fairest Records of al Lawes, Canon, Ciuil, or Municipal: The ancient Seas of Bishops and Archbishops: The famous Monuments of Monasteries, Hospitals, Churches, and the like: And al Doctours, and men most renowned either for Learning or Sanctitie, who by their writings or workes haue testifyed to al posteritie, that the Religion of their dayes, and seueral Countries wherin they liued, and which themselues belieued and professed, was one and the same with our present Roman.

Yet to omit al these, and much more which might be vrged to the same effect: In a case so manifest and confessed, I wil content my self with the plentiful acknowledgements of my greatest Aduersaries, who through the clearest splendour of our Roman Religion and Piety, during al the foresaid Ages, are enforced, euen by the rack of truth, and strōgest Euidences, though to the foulest disgrace of themselues, and manifest confirmation & condem­nation of their Sect or Religion, plainly to admit, grant, and confesse the foresayd continuance of our Roman Religion, and that most Vniuersal in al Nations for these last thousand yeares.

For though D. Morton ouer-boldly attempteth to affirme, that M. Brierly his passage Prot. App. p. 574. from the dayes of Gregorie &c. vnto these present times &c. for the inuio­lable cōtinuāce of our now Romish Faith, is praecipitare, nō descēdere: an issue voyd of consent, and a reckoning (as we say) without their Hoste; yet what Bellarmin, or other Iesuit in the world, could speake more fully for vs Catholicks in this behalf, then doth the ProtestātIn his cōsideration of the Pa­pists reasons pag. 105. M. Powel in these wordes? I grāt that from the yeare of Christ 605. the Professant companie of Poperie, hath been verie visible and perspi­cuous? OrIn his discourse vpō the Catalo. of Doc. ī the epi. to the Reader. Simon de Voyon affirming that, Anno 605. when Pope Boniface was stalled in the Papal Throne, thē falsehood got the victorie &c. Thē was the whole world ouerwhelmed with the dregs of Antichristian filthines, abominable supersti­stions and Traditions of the Pope, then was that vniuersal Apostacie from the Faith, foretold by Paul. AndIn his exposition of the Creed. v. 1. pag. 266. M. Parkins hauing spoken of the second signe of Christs comming, which there he maketh to be the reuealing of Antichrist in Boniface Anno 607. alleageth thē next after, as a third signe, and as being distinct frō the other, a general departing of most men from the Faith, saying respectiuely thereof, during the space of nine hundred yeares &c. the Popish Heresie (so do Hereticks stile it) hath spred it self ouer the earth (and so vniuersally in his opinion through-out al parts of Faith, that sayth he next afterwards) and the faithful seruants of God, were but as a handful of wheat in a mountaine of chaffe, In his Reioynder to Bristow p. 34 which can scarce be discerned. And againe,Ib. p. 310. we say for the space of manie hundred yeares, an vniuersal Apostacie ouerspred the whole face of the earth, and that our (Prote­stant) Church was not then visible to the world, but lay hid vnder the chaffe of Po­perie; and the truth of this, the Records of al Ages manifest.

M. Morton Protest. Apeale p. 71. would euade these testimonies of M. Parkins, by answering, that he speaketh this only of the Article of the Popes Primacie, and not in re­gard of so large continuance, and general belief of the other points of our now Catholick Faith, which yet is most vntrue, Parkins speaking in general, of a general departing from the Faith, and of an vniuersal Apostacie, In so much as the Protestant church or Religion was not, according to Parkins, then visible to the world. In which sense alsoIn his Ansvver to a counterf. Cath [...]. p. 36. D. Fulk confesseth that The (very) Reli­giō of the Papists came in and preuailed Anno Dom. 607. &c. And so vniuersally, that, saith he, The reuelatiō of Antichrist, with the Churches flight into the wilder­nes, was Anno 607. So clear and cōfessed it is, that our now Roman Religion hath cōtinued vniuersally for these last thousand yeares. A truth so euidēt also, that most Protestāts do from thence inferre and auouch, that al the Popes of Rome for these last 1000. yeares haue been Antichrists.De An­tichrist. in praef. p. 1. 2. M. Powel affirmeth that the Pope hath been Antichrist at al times since Gregorie the Great. Accor­ding toCont. Bellar. par. 1. pag. 371. Danaeus, The Kingdome of that Antichrist hath now manifestly cōtinued more then nine hundred yeares, from the Emperour Phocas to the time af Luther. D. whitaker De Ec­cles. cōt. Bel­lar. p. 144. affirmeth Boniface the Third (who liued Anno 607) and al his suc­cessours, to haue been Antichrists In his Answ. to a counterf. catho. pa. 27. and in his confut. of Purgatory pa. 344 and ParKins v. 1. pag. 266. D. Fulk auoucheth, that the Popes from Bo­niface the Third, were blaspemous Hereticks and Antichrists. In his treatise of Antic. p. 4. D. Downeham auerreth, that The whole row or rable of Popes, frō Boniface the Third downeward, were Antichrists. In his Tryal of the Romish cler. pa. 330. M. wotton tearmeth Boniface the Third, the first reuealed Antichrist. AndHist. sacr. par. p. 189. Hospinian censureth him, and al his successours, to be verissimos Antichristos, most true Antichrists.

D. whitaker De eccl. cōt. 8. l. cōtro. 2. q. 4. p. 144. deliuering his owne, and other Protestants opinion herein, sayth: [Page 6] we affirme Gregorie the Great, to haue been the last true, and holie Bishop of that Church &c. For those that followed were true Antichrists &c. And because they aske and demand of vs some certain time, we assigne them this, to wit, of Anti­christ's first comming. So manifest it is, that al the Roman Bishops after these last thousand yeares, being thus censured by so many Protestants for Antichrists, haue no lesse professed and maintayned the present Roman Re­ligion, then Gregorie the Fifteenth, who now gouerneth that Sea, and is charged by Protestants, to be Antichrist himself.

And as al the Popes for these last thousand yeares, are thus censured for Antichrists, so is the article of the Popes Primacie or supreme authoritie, ouer the whole Church in al matters Ecclesiastical plainly acknowledged by D. Morton himself to be no lesse ancient: For wheras M. Brierlie produceth the te­stimonies of Parkins, Napper, and Broccard, for the continuance of our Ro­man Religion in general for these last thousand yeares, D. Morton restraineth their meaning (though vndeseruedly) only to the point of the Popes Pri­macie saying:Prot. Appeal. p. 71 The alleaged Authours speak of the Primacie of the Pope. And againe,Ibid p. 72▪ Be it granted (for so it is) that the Papal Primacie beginning in Bo­niface the Third, is now nine hundred yeares old. So ancient and vniuersal is this so transcendent Article of the Popes Primacie in matters Spiritual. A point of such importāce that D. Reynolds affirmeth, therein,confe. p. 568. the very being and es­sence of a Papist to consist. And D. Whitaker auoucheth thatcontra Duroe. pag. 503. It is the head of Popish Religion, of which almost al the rest depend.

But what more forcibly can be produced for the further confirming of our Churches foresayd cōtinuāce for these last 1000. yeares, then the publick exercise of our Churches Liturgie the holy Sacrifice of the Masse, during the foresayd time? Seing not only according to D. Sutclif, An­swear to Exceptions. pa. 11. In the Masse the verie Soule of Poperie doth consist; as also according to D. Whitaker, contra. Duroe. pag. 426. Nothing is more holie and diuine in our conceipt: But withal the Masse including sundrie articles of our Catholick Faith; as true external Sacrifice, the Real presence of Christs Bodie and Bloud in the Eucharist, Priesthood, Prayer to An­gels and Saints, Prayer and Sacrifice for the dead and sundrie such like, thereby doth plainely conuince the vniuersal continuāce of our Catholick Religion. D. Luther In col­loquiis Ger. de Missae. affirmeth that Priuat Masse hath deceiued many Saints, and carried them away into errour, frō the time of Gregorie, for 800. yeares. With him agreeth M. Tindal Act. Mon. p. 1338 in these words: I doubt not but S. Bernard, Francis, and manie other holie men, erred as concerning Masse: Osiander saith of S. Bede Cent. 8. p. 58. He was wrapped in al the Popish errours in which we dissent at this day from the Pope, for &c. he admired and followed Popish Masses. And yet sayth Osiander, He was a good man. In Iae­cobs defence of the churc. &c pag. 13. M. Iohnson sayth, Did not Iohn Husse, that worthie champion of Christ, and others also of the Martyrs of foretimes say, and heare Masse, euen to their dying day? &c. did not diuers of them acknowledge, some the Popes calling and Su­premacie, some seauen Sacraments, some auricular Confession? &c.

The Centurists, speaking of the eleuenth Age after Christ, confesse and sayCēt. 11 c. 4. col. 233. The Idolatrical Masse did bewitch al the Doctours of this Age. And they charge the tenth AgeCēt. 10. c. 6. col. 307. with the Stage-like spectacle & Sacrifice for the liuing and the dead. Cent. 9 c. 6. col. 245. 246. They affirme likewise the same of the ninth Age, numbring vp the ceremonies of the Masse yet to this day vsual. The eight Age likewise [Page 7] is reproued by thē for thecent 8. c. 6. col. 361. Stage-like spectacle & Sacrifice for the liuing and the dead. The seauenth Age is reproued for the vse ofcent. 7. c. 6. col. 154. 457. & Osi­ander con. 7. pa. 189. Masse celebrated in Latin, and for vsingcent. 7. c. 4. col. 113. Osiand. cent. 7. col. 186. Masse for the dead. And the like they affirme of the other Centuries.

D. Doue In his defence of Church-go­uern. pa. 68. acknowledgeth yet further in plainest tearmes, that, Al our Parish-churches were not only the Popes ordinance, but also ordayned for celebra­tion of Masse, and so employed from their first erection vntil this late reformation of the Church &c. De Sa­crif. Miss. pag. 377. D. Hutter publick Professour in the Vniuersitie of Wit­temberg sayth: I do willingly grant the Popish mad Idolatrie the very Sinew (or strength) wherof, is the Sacrifice of the Masse, to haue inuaded almost the whole world, especially these last thousand yeares. But from thence I gather most euidently this Masse to haue been the cup wherewith the Roman Antichrist infected & bewit­ched al the Kings of the earth, and almost the whole world. In his reliques of Rome. f. 344. M. Beacon (whom otherThe Ministers of Lyncolnsh. in their Abridgment &c. p. 65. Protestants affirme to be a Diuine of chiefe note in their church) is of opinion, that, The Masse was fully finished by Pope Gregorie the First, about Anno Domini 600. &c. and frō Charles the Great, vnto Charles the Fift, the Masse raigned as a most mightie Queen in al the churches of the West part of the world. And the like is confessed byDe An­tich p. 101. Danaeus saying: From the yeare of Christ's Pas­sion 666. that blasphemous kingdome of Antichrist was openly, and publickly established in the Church of God, which the Spirit of God foretold: verily this verie time and yeare that execrable, and Papistical Masse &c. began to be celebrated euery where in Latin. ButIn A­pocal. in 9 p. 199. Chiltraeus chargeth S. Gregorie that he established manie foule errours, and especially the Idolatrous Inuocation of Saints, and Masses for the dead, which from that time as a Deluge haue ouerflowed the whole Church. D. Hutter, De Sa­cr. Miss l 1. c. 6. p. 103. & p. 377. in this questiō of Masse and Sacrifice, giueth a Supersedeas to al the Fathers that liued after the first fiue hundred yeares, saying, we do not res­pect later (Fathers) then of the first fiue Ages. De captiuit. Ba­byl. c. 1. Luther acknowledgeth that, The Masse is beleeued euerie where to be a Sacrifice which is offered to God. To these agree the Sayings of holie Fathers, so manie examples, and so great practice con­stantly obserued through the world. And a litle after Luther further sayth, Let it not trouble thee that the whole world thinketh and doth the contrarie. But though Luther laboured, not to be troubled at his despising and reiecting of the Masse, when the whole world did think, and do the contrarie; yet I hope sundrie other Protestants, not of so seared consciences, obseruing themselues to haue thus Apostated from the whole world, in this so important a Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Masse, wil not only be troubled, but much incited to re-vnite themselues to the whole Christian world. Neither was this so general pra­ctice of the Masse only vsed or allowed by the Clergie, or vulgar people; for Caluin Instit. li 4. c. 18 sec. 18. affirmeth, that The abomination of the Masse hath made drunk (or be­sotted) al the Kings and people of the earth, from the greatest to the least; And agayne,Ib. sect. 1. 43. Hist. Sa­cram epsti. dedicat. 1. The Roman Antichrist, and his Prophets haue taught the whole world this opinion. In like manner sayth (43) Hospinian: Al the Kings, Prin­ces, & people of the earth hitherto from the first six hundred yeares, were made drunk with the Masse, as with a certain enchanted cup. The like wherof was confessed before by D. Hutter. So clear it is that the publick seruice vsed in al churches for these last thousand yeares, and whereunto al kings, Princes, and people were vsed to resort, was the holie Liturgie, or Sacrifice of the Masse.

From the premisses then we haue our Protestants Apologie, for the most vi­sible and vniuersal cōtinuance of our Roman Church and Religion for these last thousand yeares; the splendour whereof being such and so generally ex­tended, as that their Protestāt Church, themselues confesse, was not so much as then visible to the world. Secondly the Faith & doctrine taught by al Popes during the foresayd time, was so wholy consonant to ours at this day, as that therfore they are no lesse censured for Antichrists, then our Pope now raig­ning. Thirdly, the Popes Supremacie in matters Ecclesiastical, and the Sa­crifice of the Masse, being the two weightiest points of al matters now cōtro­uerted, are here confessed to haue been generally belieued, and practised du­ring the same precinct. Fourthly it is likewise grāted, that euē Al our Parish-churches, were the Popes ordinance, and for celebration of Masse, and so employed from their first erection, vntil this late pretended Reformation of the Church by Luther. The truth of al which is so palpable, as that I haue vsed no other proofes in confirmation thereof, then only the clear testimonies & free gran­tes of the greatest Aduersaries to the Roman Churh; as for externals, of Luther, Caluin, the Centurie-writers, Osiander, Hospinian, Danaeus, Simon de Voyon, Hutterus, Chytraeus, For domesticks, of Whitaker, Fulk, Downeham, Parkins, Powel, Wotton, Tyndal, Iohnson, Doue, Beacon & Morton.

A FVRTHER CONFIRMATION OF THE VNIVERSAL continuance of our now Roman Church and Religion, 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. CHAPTER III.

IN further euidence then of our Catholick Chur­ches Raigne, and general Dominion for these last thousand yeares, I wil descend to particular statiōs or periods of time, and such especially, as for some importāt respect, are most knowne and notorious: And first I wil begin with the time of Luther himself at his first appearing Protestant, when I find the whole face of the world to be so Romā Catholick, as that himself was anTom. 7. Vvitt. f. 228 anoynted Priest and an Simō de Voyon in his discourse vpō the Catalog. &c. p. 180. and Luther ad Gal. c. 1. fol. 35 after the English translation. Augustin-Friar &c. And, liued in his Monasterie, punishing his bodie with watching, fasting and prayer, Luther ibidem. Honoured the Pope of meer conscience, Kept Chasti­tie, Pouertie, and Obediēce; And, whatsoeuer (sayth he,) I did, I did it with a single hart, of good Zeale, and for the glorie of God. But when he fel into his Apostacie, so directly contrarie to the then present or precedent profession of Religion ouer the world, his troubled conscience burst out into these words:Luth. to. 2. Germ. fo. 9. and tom 2. Vvittemb. de Abrogā ­da Missa priuata. fol. 244. How often did my trembling hart beate within me, and reprehending me, obiect against me that strong argument: Art thou only wise? Do so manie worlds erre? Were so manie Ages ignorant? What if thou errest, and drawest so manie into errour to be damned [Page 9] with thee eternally? AndTom. 5. Annot. breuiss. againe: Dost thou, ô sole man and of no accōpt, take vpō thee so great matters? What if thou being but one offendest? If God permit such, and so manie, and al to erre; why may he not permit thee to erre? Hitherto appertayne these arguments, the Church the Church; the Fathers the Fathers, the Councels; the Customes; the Multitudes and Greatnes of wise men: whom do not these Hils of arguments, these Clouds, yea these Seas of Examples ouerwhelme? sayth Luther. And againeTom. 1. Vvitemb. Pref. At the first I was alone, Tom. 2. fol. 63. and alone rolled the stone, yea Loc. com. class. 4. cap. 30. pag. 51. vndertook so great a busines vpon me alone: And confessed it is, that Luther at his first reuolt from being a Catholick Fryar, was the first, sole, and only man, that began Protestancie; thereby departing (as himself confesseth) from the Church, from Fathers, Councels, and so many Worlds, so many Ages precedent.

This poynt is so certain, that M. Iewel In his Apologie of the Church of Eng. part. 4. c. 4. And in his Def. of the Apol. pa. 426. confesseth, That the (Protestant) truth was vnknowne at that time, and vnheard-of, when Martin Luther and Hul­derick Suinglius first came vnto the knowledge and preaching of the Ghospel: And Bucer In Epist. An. 36. ad Episc. Heref. praefix. Enar­rat. Buceri in 4. Euang. calleth Luther, The first Apostle to vs of the purer Ghospel; yea the Lutherans Schlussel­burge Theol. Caluin. li. 2. fol 130. do affirme it impudencie, to say, that manie learned men in Ger­manie before Luther did hold the doctrine of the Ghospel. In Au­gustan. confes. explic. Arti 7. de Eccl. p. 137. 138. Georgius Miluis argueth that, If there had been right beleeuers that went before Luther in his of­fice &c. there had then been no need of a Lutheran Reformation: therefore we say that Luther was raysed-vp by Gods special appointement and extraordinarily. So likewiseTrac. de Eccl. pag. 145. Morgensterne iudgeth it ridiculous (to think) that in the time be­fore Luther, anie had the puritie of doctrine; and that Luther should receaue it from them, and not they from Luther. Considering (sayth he) it is manifest to the whole Christian world, that before Luthers time, al churches were ouerwhelmed with more then Cimmerian darknes; and that, Luther was diuinely raysed vp to dis­couer the same, and to restore the light of true doctrine: In so much asEpist. ad Argentinenses & in Praef. in corp. doctrinae. Lu­ther sayth of himself, we dare glorie that Christ was first made knowne by vs. And he tearmethIn Deu­tronom. in pref. fol. 2. his doctrine, resurgens vel potius oriens Euangelium, the Ghospel rising agayne, or rather first beginning. A truth so clear thatDe frae­trū Orthodox. Eccl. pa. 264. Ca­merarius auouching Wicliffe to haue been holpen, or instructed, by the walden­ses, and Husse by Wiccliffe; speaking yet of Luther, affirmeth to the contrarie, that Luther receiued his doctrine neither from Husse or Wiccliffe, but was instructed of himself, as he declareth of himself in his writings. In wh [...]ch respect also sayth M. Wotton, Luther might truly say, that he was the first which had in these times published Christ, especially in the chief poynt of the Ghospel, which is, In his Trial of the Romish Clerg. Title. pa. 392. Iustification by faith in Christ; and in this respect it is an honour to Luther to haue been a Sonne without a Father, a Disciple without a Maister. Agreably wherunto also sayth M.Act Mon. pa. 770. Fox: Luther pluckt downe the fondation of Papistrie, by opening one veine long hid before, the touchstone of al truth, and the only principal origen of our sal­uation, which is, our free Iustification by Faith only: yea Luther is so confessedly the first Authour or Beginner of Protestancie, that one of his owne Brood writeth that,Progno­stica finis mun­di. The Spirit which telleth things to come, worketh not but in time of the Ghospel; which Luther, as it is confessed, towards the end of the world did first bring-in. And againe,Ibid. pa. 13. The seduction of false Prophets is not manifest but vnder the Ghospel; which before Luther, as we sayd, neuer went since the Pri­mitiue [Page 10] time of the Apostles. Some Protestants In his Articles. Art. 19. p. 130. Doue in his Recu­sancie pa. 32. (sayth D. Couel) make Lu­ther and Caluin Authours of the Religion among vs.

By al which it appeareth that Luther was borne and bred a Catholick, and that at the same time, the Religion knowne and practised ouer the Christian world, was the present Roman; from which Luther then reuol­ting, confesseth himself to be the sole and only man who first preached the Protestant Ghospel, and so is confessed by other Protestants to be the first Authour of their Religion, to be their first Apostle, and to be a Sonne without a Father, a Disciple without a Maister. At the same time of Luther raigned here in England King Henrie the Eight, in whose time our Roman Religion was so vniuersal, that D. Willet confesseth thatAntilog. p. 273. In King Henries the Eight time the Masse continued, and the whole bodie of the Roman doctrine, the Supre­macie excepted. Sleidan also sayth of K. Henrie: Sleidan in Engl. l. 13. fol. 174. He exiled the name of the Bishop of Rome, but kept stil his doctrine. Yea saith M. Fox, Act. Mon. p. 1472. He set forth, and by ful consent of Parlament established the book of Six Articles, con­tayning the summe of Popish Religion. In which he was so resolute as that himself in Person not onlyIb p. 530. disputed, but also commandedIb. p. 533 Sen­tence to be pronounced against the Protestant Lambert. And this notwith­standing, the Popish Church vnder his Raigne is, by D. Fulk Against HesKins &c. p. 564 acknow­ledged to be a true Church, and the King himself to beIb. sect. 82 And Humf. Iesuit. part. 2. p. 304. A member of the Catholick Church of Christ; yea sayth M. Hal, the Church as then was A true Apologie against Brow­nists. c. 11. p. 30 visible Church of God. And for asmuch (saythConse­cration of En­glish Bish. p. 67. M. Mason) as it is the custom of Papists to brand the Raigne of King Henrie the Eight, with the odious name of Schisme, let me a litle dispel those clouds and mists, wherwith they darken the glorie of that Heroical Prince. So gratefull are they to K. Henrie, though wel they know, that sundrie of their Protestant Predecessours he burned for their Heresies.

In the Age next before Luther and K. Henrie liued Iohn Husse, who though some Protestants (through their greatest penurie) make bold to challenge for a member of their Church, yet is it to the contrarie confessed byIn Collo­quiis Germ. c. de Antichristo Luther himself, that The Papists burned Iohn Husse, when as yet he departed not a finger-breadth from the Papacie; for he taught the same which the Papists do, only he found fault with their vices and wicked life; against the Pope he com­mitted nothing: Agayne, They do not wel (saythExplicaet. Art. 30 Luther) who make me a Hussite, for he held not with me. Tom. 1. p. 493. He taught horrible and diuelish blasphemies.

Agreably saythIn Apoc. c. 11. p. 290. M. Fox: The Papists traduce Husse and Hierom of Prague (who liued in the same Age) as Hereticks; why so I beseech you? &c. I adde further, if he be an Heretick who varieth from the Decrees of the Roman Church, what dit Husse at any time teach or defend in the Councel, wherin he did not rather seem superstitiously to consent with the Papists? What did the Popish Faith decree concerning Transubstantiation, which he likewise with the Papists did not confirme? Who celebrated Masse more religiously then he? or more chastlie obserued the vowes of Priestly Chastitie? Adde further that in doctrine of Catholicks concer­ning Free-wil, Predestination, Informed Faith the cause of iustification, and Merit of good works, what other thing did he hold then is taught at Rome? what Image of any Sainct did he euer cast out of his Church at Bethlem? &c. what [Page 11] therfore shal we say him to haue committed, for which he is not togeather with the Roman Sea to be condemned, or with it to be absolued? In like ful sort, sayth D. Field In his Appendix to the 5. booKe of the Church part. 1. p. 87. touching Iohn Husse and Hierom of Prague, I could neuer yet find, in what poynt of Faith they dissented from the doctrine of the Church then constantly resolued on: but they bitterly inueighed against the Ambition, Pride, Coueteousnes, and negligence of the Clergie. And more in particular M. Fox Act. Mon. p. 216. confesseth that Husse beleeued the seauen Sacraments, and Act. Mon. p. 209. & 197. Transubstantiation; M. Iacob Def. of the Churches &c. p. 13. And Act. Mon. p. 227. 216. addeth the Popes Primacie; wherof also saythIn Asser­tionibus art. 30 Luther, Iohn Husse seemeth not to withstand, but that the Monarchie of the Pope may be; yea he further there affirmeth, that Husse attributeth much to the Roman Idol. Lastly Husse being a Catholick Priest,Def. of the Churches &c. p. 13. M. Iacob affirmeth, that he sayd Masse to his dying day. So manifest it is that in the Age of Iohn Husse, the publick Seruice of the Church, was the Sacrifice of the Masse, and the Re­ligion then knowne, and beleeued by Husse and others, was our present Roman.

Where I can not but much admire the absurditie and beggerie of M. Fox and others, inAct. Mon. p. 190. & 241. And D. Downham of Antichrist. p. 40. registring Iohn Husse for a most holie Martyr of their Pro­testant Church, and furtherIn Apoc. c. 11. p. 249. affirming, that It can not seem otherwise, but that Iohn Husse, and Hierom of Prague, are without al controuersie, the two witnesses &c. wherof the Prophet speaketh properly and expresly in this place, to wit, of the Apocalipse: wheras it is most certain that Husse was condemned and burned, chieflySee Simō de Voyon vpon the Catalog. of Doctours. p. 159. Fox Act. Mon. p. 230. Osiand. cent. 15. p. 469. for his vrging of Communion to the Lay-people vnder both kindes, and for maintayning Wicclifs seditious Doctrine against Princes, Priestes, and Bishops if they committed mortal Sinne; in other poynts of Faith liuing and dying a Roman Catholick. In the Age precedent to Iohn Husse liued Iohn Wiccliffe, who was a Catholick Priest,Stows Annales p. 464 euen the Parson of Lutterworth in Lecestershier, who according to M. Stow Ib. p. 425 first inueighed against the Church, for that he had been depriued by the Archbishop of Canterburie, from a certain Benefice &c. And hauing vpon this occasion seuered himself from the Church in which he formerly was, He with his Disciples went barefooted, and basely cloathed in coorse russet garments downe to the heeles; and,Ib. p. 426 seemed to contemne al temporal goods, for the loue of eternal riches; adioyning himself to the begging Friars, approuing their pouertie, and extolling their perfection: Reteyning stil his former Catholick opinions concerningVviccleus de Blasphe. c. 17 Holie-water, Vviccl. de Euchar. c. 9. the Worshipping of Relicks and Images, theSerm de Assumptione. Intercession of our B. Lady S. Mary, theDe Apo­stasia c. 18. Rites and Ceremonies of the Masse, wherofIn Pro­fessione fidei. c. 28. Przibauus (an Heretick who liued neer the same time) sayth: Iohn Wiccliffe, in his booke of Apostacie, and eighteenth chapter, alloweth al the Rites of Masse from the beginning almost to the end &c. In 1. ad Cor. c. 1. Wiccliffe himself calleth Extreame Vnction a medecine to cure sinne; as appeareth (sayth he) Iames. 1 And he affirmeth that it is made with oyle of oliue consecrated by a Bishop: In Po­stilla super ca. 15. Marci. and super. 1. Cor. 1. yea he els-where numbreth and mentioneth al the seauen Sacraments: And lastly in his epistle to Pope Vrban (written not three yeares before his death) endeauouring to purge himself to the Pope, he plainly acknow­ledgeth that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ vpon earth: Adding thus further, If I haue erred in anie of these poynts, I wil submit my self to [Page 12] correction euen by death if necessitie so require. By al which we may see that Iohn Wiccliffe in al the former poynts (now contradicted by Protestants) was wholy Catholick; As also the Age wherin he liued: A truth so euident, that Osiander Cent. 6. 10. 11. p. 439. confesseth that, Wiccliffe had no companions of the same time, who might brotherly admonish him &c. and D. Humfrey In vita Iuelli. p. 263. acknow­ledgeth that, In these last times he was almost the first Trumpeter of this Ghospel of Protestants. So litle did the fame or infamie of Protestancie sound in the Christian world at Wiccliffs first beginning.

In the Age before Iohn Wiccliffe liued the Hereticks Albigenses, who because they were in opinion and Sect wholyFulK de successione Ec­cles. cont. Sta­plet. p. 332. 333. SparK. in his Ansvv. to Al­bines p. 58. Abbots against D. Hil. p. 57. More in his Tables. p. 173. agreing with the Wal­denses, and only differing in Titles and Names according to the diuersitie of places and times wherin they liued; I wil therefore, omitting them, come to the Waldenses, who receiued their name from Waldo a Catholick Lay­man,Act. mon. p. 628. a rich Marchand of Lyons, and one so vnlearned (sayth M. Fox) that he gaue rewards to certaine learned men to translate the holie Scriptures for him, and certain other workes of the Doctours: by which he did conferre the forme of Religion in his time, to the infallible Word of God: wherupon (sayth M. Fox Further)Act. Mon. p. 41. sprung vp the doctrine and name of those which are called Waldenses. But Waldo being destitute of al ordinarie calling, and despayring to obtayne it from the Church of Rome (out of which he was gone forth) contemning the same, he taught thatIlliri­cus in Catal. Test. veritatis p. 731. 732. 740. 745. Lay-men and women might con­secrate (the Sacraments) and preach: for the practice wherof the Waldenses and Albigenses wereSimons on the Reuel. p 165. excommunicated by the Pope: And yet this their reuolt from the Roman Sea notwithstanding,In Iesuit. part. 2. rat. 3. p. 270. Fox Act. Mon. p. 628. D. Humfrey and M. Fox do both grant, that Waldo did forsake al things, that being poore he might follow Christ, and the Euangelical perfection, which D. Fulk Against Rhem. Test. in Math. 19. f. 38. ParKins in his Reform. Cath. p. 241. and M. Parkins reiect for Popish: In so much thatChronogr. p. 94. Pantaleon affirmeth, that he and his followers were a very order or Profession of begging Fryars, wher­upon according to M. Fox, Act mon. p. 41. 629. they were called, The poor men of Lyons, professing, asIn Iesuit. part. 2. p. 270. D. Humfrey vrgeth, a kind of Monastical life; wherin they were so forward, that they afterwards madeVrsperg. in chron. Ar. 12 [...]2. meanes to Innocentius the Third then Pope, to haue their Order by him confirmed, but could not preuayle: It is further confessed byIn ep. 244 p 4 [...]0 Caluin, that they beleeued the Real presence, and byAgainst Symbolizing part. 1. c 3. p. 162. M. Parker that, they retayned the Signe of the Crosse in the blessing of their meates. AndDe Ec­clesia p 24. Morgensterne speaking vnto them, sayth: You confirme the decree of Antichrist concerning the number of the Sacraments; though that you haue also often done in other articles; as in the Doctrine of Single life, of Vowes, of the sacred Scripture, of good Workes, of Iustification, Baptisme of Children, and Purgatorie.

Now from these premises it euidently ensueth, that Waldo, immediatly before his Apostacie, was a Roman Catholick, and not a member of anie other Church to him then knowne, or in being; and so his first proceedings are confessed byOf the Estate of the Church p. 338. Crispinus to haue been in time of thick darknes (of Poperie) and as a first and litle beginning, of the instauration of the Christian Re­ligion, to wit, the Protestant. So vndoubted it resteth, that the Religion [Page 13] vniuersally and publickly professed in the time of Waldo, was not anie Pro­testant, but the Roman Religion.

In the same Age liued S. Bernard, of whon sayth D. Whitaker De Eccl. p. 369. & against Rai­nolds p. 125. 126. I do think Bernard was truly a Sainct. And other Protestants ackdowledge, that he wasOsiand cent. 12. p. 309. A verie good man: Pasquils Returne into England. p. 8. 130. A good Father, and one of the Lāps of the Church of God. D. Morton demandeth:Prot. Appeal. p. 458 Why may not Protestants acknowledge S. Bernard for his life a Saint, and for his doctrine a Lamp? &c. This then, so true a Sainct, good man, and clearest Lamp, was so wholy Roman Catholick, as that D. Whitaker speaking to vs, sayth:Resp. ad Camp. p. 105. Bernard, whom your Church these manie yeares hath brought forth one godly man &c. And Gomarus alleageth him to vsIn specu­lo Eccl. Bernard your Sainct. Yea he wasSimon de Voyon in his catal. p. 126. the Abbot of Clarauaux, and so deare to the Pope, that M. Bel tearmeth him,Challeng. &c. p. 148. And see Ab­bot in his 3. parte of the def. &c. In his Aduertisment therto anne­xed. pag. 20. Vvotton in his Trial of the Romane cler­gie p. 265. Tossanus in Synopsi de Pa­tribus. p. 58. The Popes deare Monk and Reuerend Abbot: Osiander and Hospinian report, thatCent. 12. p. 309. Hos­pini. de origin. Monach. f 175 He was the founder of a hundred and fortie Monasteries. And Danaeus affirmeth, that1. part. alt. parte cont. Bellar. p. 440. Hierom and Bernard were Monks, and Authours and fauourers of that errour. And though D. White Vvay to the true church p. 388. blush not to obiect his Authoritie against the Popes Primacie, yet his Writings, Doctrine, and Practice were so direct to the contrarie, that therefore he is expresly reproued byAgainst Rhem. Test in Luc 22. F. 133. VvhitaK. li. 2. cont. Dur. p. 154. D. Fulk, and D. Whitaker: The Centurists also, auouch thatCent. 12. Col. 1637. He worshipped the God of Maozim, euen vnto the last breath of his life, he was a most sharp defender of the Sea of Antichrist &c. For which by other Protestāts, he is tearmedLib. Ger­man. quo cau­sas recusati concilij Trid. reddunt f. 257. An impudent Writer, heauing the Pope vp into an Idol, a corrupter of Gods honour, and preacher of Antichrist: Yea so sincerely was he affected to the Pope and the Church of Rome, that the Centurists report him toCent. 12. Col. 1639. say to the Count of Aquitaine, whatsoeuer is out of the Roman Church, that by Gods iudgement is of necessitie to perish, euen as those things which were out of the Ark were drow­ned in the Deluge &c. As also, he that persecuteth the pope of Rome (whom the Centurists here cal Antichrist) he persecuteth (sayth S. Bernard) the Sonne of God himself. Neither was anie of this Papistrie noted as then to be singu­lar in S. Bernard, but to the contrarie it is confessed by M. Iewel and M. Whi­taker, that S. Bernard liued in the midst of the Popes Rout and Tyrannie: D. Morton as formerly, calling S. Bernard for his life a Sainct, and for his doctrine a Lamp, to preuēt obiections thereby arising against him, prouidently addeth that, he neither was Sainct nor Lamp Prot. Appeal p. 458. Simply, as vnspotted with errours, but Com­paratiuely or &c. in his generation, that is, in respect of the Age wherin he liued: when a deluge of iniquities, and mist of Popish Superstition had ouerspred the outward face of the Church: So truly Papistical was S. Bernard. At this time of S. Bernard, liued also S. Malachias, of whom Osiander writeth thusCent. 12. p. 315. 256. Malachias an Archbishop in Ireland, from his childhood was giuen to learning and Religion, and at length intreated and much inforced, he vndertook to be the Arch­bishop of Ireland. He was verie familiar with S. Bernard, admiring and imitating his Monachisme, and embracing Popish superstitions. He worshipped the Pope of Rome for God. To him verie manie miracles are ascribed &c. So truly Roman Catholick was S. Malachias. Def. of the Apol. p 557. Vvhit. cont. Dur. l. 2. p. 154.

In the Age precedent to these liued Berengarius, who being a Catholick Priest, and the Archdeacon of Angiers, dissented afterwards from the Roman Church, in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; which yet before his death he so fullyFox Act. Monu. p. 13. Vvestphalus his Apologe­tica &c. fol. 6. Osiand. Cent. 11. p. 158. Cen­turie-writers. Cent. 11. col. 458. recanted, and conformed himself to the Roman Church, as that the same is plainly acknowledged by M. Fox, by Westphalus, Osiander, and the Centurists, who record his recantation verbatim as it was.

Before him liued the most renowned Emperour Charles the Great, who was so wholy deuoted to the Roman Religion, as that the same is plen­tifully aknowledged byOsiand. in ep. cent. 8 p. 101. Cowpers Chron. fol 173. Fox in Apoc. p. 436. Crispi­nus of the Estate of the Church p. 221. Bulling. in 2. Thess. p. 533. Osiander, D. Cowper, M. Fox, Crispinus, and Bullinger. In somuch thatIn Epist. Dedic. Hist. Sacram. Hospinian affirmeth, that The Emperour (Charles the Great) commanded not only by publick Edicts, that the Ceremonies and Rites, as also the Latin Masse of the Roman Church, and the other Decrees, Statutes, and Ordinances of the Roman Bishop should be obserued; but himself also by imprisonnents, and other kindes of punishments, compelled Churches to the same. Yea such was the vnion between the Popes of Rome, and Charles the Great, in matters of Faith and friendship, as that, according to D. Cowpers Chron. f. 174. relation, there were Certain Bishops sent by Adrian to Charles, who held a Councel in France against the condemnation of Images &c. And of the other side, wheras Paulus Lib. 2. Hist. Franc. Aemilius relateth, that Charles the Great sent twelue Bishops vnto a Councel holden at Rome by Pope Stephen, in confutation of the errour of the Greeks against Images, the same is so true, that the like report therof is made by theCent. 8. col. 570. Centurie-writers. So assured it is that this Age in the opinion of Protestants, was most superstitious and Papistical.

Before Charles liued S. Bede, whomCent. 8. p. 58. Osiander tearmeth a good man; and D. Cowper Chron. f. 171. confesseth, that he was Renowned in al the world for his learning and godly life: For which he was also priuiledged with the Surname of Reuerend Hollinsh. Chron at An. 735. Covvpers Chron. at An. 724 fol. 168. Fox Act. Mon. p. 128. and by D. Iesuit. part. 2. p. 326. Humfrey, is specially registred among The Godlie men raised-vp by the Holie-Ghost. D. Morton saythProt. Ap­peal. l. 1. p. 70. Although we deny not that Bede did hold diuers Romish Doctrines, yet do we find sufficient cause in his writings, why we may allow him his Title, of Venerable and good man. M. Bale further testifyeth, that S. Bede Cent. 2. c. 1. was so practised in prophane Authours, that he scarce had his match in that Age: He learned Physick and Me­taphysick out of the purest fountaines: He knew the Mysteries of the Christian Faith so soundly, that for his exact knowledge both of Greek and Latin, manie pre­ferred him before Gregorie the Great: There is scarce anie thing worth reading to be found in al Antiquitie, which in due places is not read in Bede: If he had liued in the times of Augustin, Hierom, Chrysostom; I doubt not but he might haue contended for Equalitie with them: He put forth manie bookes ful of al kind of Learning. M. Fox acknowledgeth that,Act. Mon. p. 127. He was a man of worthie and memorable memorie, and famous learning; The whole Latin Church at that time gaue him the Maistrie in Iudgement, and knowledge of the holie Scripture. M. Bel grantethDownfal. that Bede for vertue and learning (was) renowned in al the world. And M. Cambden recordeth, that Bede. Descrip. Brit. p. 670. the singular glorie of England, by Pietie and Erudition, obtayned the name of Venerable; wrot many volumes most leardnedly. So truly godlie, learned, and renowned was S. Bede, euen in the iudgement of Protestants.

But now to obserue in particular, whether the Faith and Religion taught, beleeued, and practised by this so worthie a man, was Roman Catholick, or English Protestant;Cent. 8. p. 58. Osiander (who before called him A good man) in expresse tearmes confesseth, that Bede was wrapped in al the Popish Errours, wherin we (Protestants) at this day dissent from the Pope: For he admired and embraced the worship of Images; the Popish Masse; Inuocation of Saincts &c. In which respect also M. Fox Act. Mon. p. 128. 129. acknowledgeth, that he liued in great credit and esteem with the Popes of that Age, whom M. Fulk Reten­tiue ag. Bris­tovv p. 278. tearmeth, Antichrists, and therupon reiecteth S. Bedes authoritie, saying: The last Testi­monie out of Bede, who liued vnder the Tyrannie of Antichrist, I wil not stand vpon; M. Sanders may haue great store of such. For Against Rhem. Test. in Heb. 10.11. Bede liued in a su­perstitious time, long after Antichrist did openly shew himself &c. He affirmed that, Men vnderstood that the healthful Sacrifice, auayled to Redemption both of bodie and soul euerlasting; and,Ib. in 1. Pet. 3.19. In some things (was) carryed away with the errours and corruptions of his time. By which it clearly appeareth, that in the Age of S. Bede, the Popes of Rome were so Roman Catholick, and the external gouernment of the Church thereto so answerable, that our moderne Protestants do therfore traduce those ancient Popes for Antichrists, and their Gouernment for Tyrannie.

In the Age before S. Bede liued the two most famous Brethren named Eualdi, whom M. Bale tearmethIn Catal. Scrip. &c. Cēt. 14. p. 145. Osi­and. Cent. 7. p. 559. Papistical Martyrs suffring for Pa­pistrie. And though D. Morton Prot. Appeal p. 67. 68. endeauoureth to obscure this by affir­ming, that Protestant Writers were doubtful whether the sayd Brethren dyed by the hands of Christians or Infidels, which later himself thinketh more probable, yet this hindreth not, but, according to his Brother Bale, and Osiāder cited by himself, that they dyed for our Roman Faith. Yea so litle was this doubt, that D. Morton himself sayth: If notwithstanding (Catholicks) shal insist in their clayme of these Two, suffring death in maintenāce of Papal Iurisdiction ouer forraine Churches, miserable wil be their issue; especially considering that we haue manie Twoes to oppose against these, euen a thousand and two hundred religious Britans, who in a resolute resistāce of that Iurisdictiō and Authoritie of Austin the Legate of S. Gregorie, dyed vnder the hands of Pagans, and (as Galfrid speaketh) suffred Martyrdome. But to omit that ProtestantsCarth­vvright in his 2. Reply. part. 1. p. 475. themselues charge this Galfrid with vntruth; and too too childish errours, wherof his owneSee l. 8. c. 19. & l. 9. c. 4. & l. 10. c. 3. & l. 12. c. 4. &c. writings wil be best witnesses, as also that D. Morton doth vntruly and vn­deseruedly, referre the death of these religious Britans, occasionally to S. Au­gustin; I can not yet but obserue the greatest penurie of ancient Protestant Martyrs, when D. Morton is glad to clayme for such, those who liued and dyed Catholick Monks, euen the Monks of Bangor: So great a Bangor doth our Doctour make, in making Protestants Ministers and Martyrs of Re­ligious Monks.

THAT THE FAITH OF S. GREGORIE AND S. Augustin, and whereto England was by them conuerted, was our Roman Catholick, and not Protestant. CHAPTER. IV.

TO arise euen to the height or beginning of these last thousand yeares, and first to examine the Faith of S. Gregorie and his time: Concerning him D. Morton writethProt. Ap­peal. p 5. wee willingly cōfesse that S. Gregorie was an happie Father of the Faith of manie, and deliue­red to thē the sauing knowledge of Christ crucifyed. And as cōcerning our Countries Conuersion by him, he further sayth:Prot. Ap­peal. p. 60. This happines of our English Conuersion to the Faith of Christ, and worthines of our Conuerter S. Gre­gorie, we could easily acknowledge without anie further adoe &c, And againe, our (Protestants) Authours looking on their right hand, beholding how Pagans and Heathnish people &c. by the light of the Ghospel, through the Ministerie of Austin the Legat of S. Gregorie, were brought vnto the Fold of Christ, did togeather with the Angels of heauen, reioyce in remembrance of this their happines, and therefore called it a gratious Conuersion: And that most iustly, seing our sayd Conuersion was confessedly from Paganisme to the true Faith of Christ; for so Hollin­shead testifyeth that,Descri­ption of Bri­tannie l. 11. c. 7. S. Austin was sent by Gregorie to preach to En­glish-men the Word of God; who were yet blind in Pagan superstition. And Anno 596. Gregorie sent Austin into this Ile to preach the Christian Faith vnto the English Saxons; which Nation as yet had not receaued the Ghospel. Agreably also hereunto sayth M. Cambden: Descript. Britan. p. 104. Austin hauing rooted-out the Monsters of Heathnish superstition, ingrafting Christ in English-mens minds, with most happie successe conuerted them to the Faith. And the like is acknowledged by M. Fox Act. Mon. 110. 115. 172. Bale Cent. 1. c. 73. Cent. c. 1. VvitaKer cont. Dur. p. 394. Cooper. chron. anno 599. Stovv. 596. M. Bale, D. Whitaker, D. Cowper.

Now this Faith was so certainly the Faith planted by Christ and his Apostles, that M. Fox calleth itAct. Mon. p. 111. 120. 122 The Christian Faith Ib. p. 115. 116. the Faith and Do­ctrine of Christ: Ib p. 121. Christs Religion, and that Church, The Church of Christ, and The Ib. p. 112. perfect Faith of Christ. Cowper styleth it,Chron. anno 636. The right Beleef: Stow, Chron. p. 9. The Christian Faith and Ibid. p. 72. pure and incorrupted Christianitie. Cambden, Descript. Brit. p. 519. The true Religion of Christ. In vit. Paulin. Godwine, The Ghospel; and sundrie such like.

Now this our Conuersion to this Faith of Christ by the meanes of Saint Gregorie, was in truth, a Blessing so great, thatCont. Duraeum l. 5. p. 394. 502. 397. D. Whitaker most humbly thus writeth therof; we wil euer most gratefully remember that great benefit which Gregorie bestowed vpon vs: And, I confesse S. Gregorie to haue been a good and holie man &c. He was a learned and holie Bishop. Iesuit. p. 2. p. 624. D. Humfrey tearmeth him therefore, Gregorie in name Great, and indeed Great; and M. Bel Suruey of Poperie p. 187. calleth him, S. Gregorie surnamed the Great, the holie and learned Bishop of Rome. According toCent. 1. c. 68. M. Bale, He was the most excellent of al the Bishops of Rome [Page 17] for learning and life: That against his wil, and striuing to the contrarie, and at last compelled, he succeeded Pope Pelagius: That he was a learned and good man, founded Hospitals, inuited Pilgrims to his Table, sent things necessarie to the Monkes of Hierusalem, and maintayned three thousand Virgins. Ibid. c. 7. He reduced the Gothes from Arianisme to the Church, professed himself by writing the Seruant of Gods seruants, that thereby he might appeare most far from al Ambition and desire of command. In like sort is S. Augustin honoured by M. Godwine Catalog. of Bish. p. 7. and See Cābd. Descript. Brit. p 515. & 178. Bale Cent. 13. c. 7. Cent. 14. c. 13. with the Title of our Apostle. Wherof also sayth M. Mason Conse­cration of En­glish Bishops p. 57. 58. for as much as Lethardus gathered but a few clusters, and the mayne Vintage was reserued for Austin, let vs enlarge the signification of the word, Apostle, and extend it to Austin; and moreouer (though improperly) to Gregorie and Eleutherius &c. whose proceedings towards the Prince were Chistian, honest, and orderlie. They came to plant the Faith of Christ &c. They came to preach obedience &c. Their Ghospel was a Ghospel of peace &c. They cōuerted People &c. They sought to build the Church &c. Yea S. Austins desire to conuert the Pagans, and his dutiful respect to the Prince, deserue to be written in Letters of gold. So worthily doth this Prostant here think of S. Eleutherius, S. Gregorie, and S. Austin. And no lesse are his most deserued prayses blazed by M. Hollinshead recording thatHistorie of Engl. Austin and his companie arriued at Canterburie, where he made his abode by the Kings permission, exercised the life of Apostles, in fasting, watching, and prayers; preaching the word of God to as manie as they could, despising al worldlie pleasures as not appertayning to them &c. Also Ethelbert was persuaded by the good example of S. Austin and his companie, and by miracles shewed, to be Baptized: The like hereof is testifyed byAct. Mon. p. 105. 116. M. Fox. D. Bilson also acknowledgeth thatof Obe­dience p. 57. Austin and his fellowes came with Religion to God, and submission to Princes. Stow reporteth thatChron. p. 65. S. Austin and his fellowes liued in the feare of God. And D. Godwine acknowledgeth thatVita August. He was a Monk of great vertue; calling him S. Austin.

But now to be satisfied, what was the Faith and Religion taught by these two so holie men, S. Gregorie, and S. Austin; or what the vniuersal and publick profession of Christians al ouer the world at those times was, whether Catholick or Protestant, I wil appeale to our Protestant Doctours: Amongst whom writeth M. Bale, thatCent 1. c. 68. &c. 70. Gregorie burdned the Church and Religion of God more then al, with more then Iewish ceremonies: He ordered the Rites of Masse, commanded Masses to be sayd ouer the dead bodies of the Apostles, deuised Litanies and Procession, permitted the Image of the Blessed Virgin to be carryed about, confirmed Pilgrimage to Images by Indulgences for the peoples De­uotions: He was maintayner of Pardons, granted Indulgences to those that visit Churches on certain dayes, made foure Books of Dialogues for strengthning Purgato­rie, admitted Adoration of the Crosse, and Masses for the Dead, called Englishmen to Romish Rites by Austin the Monk Cent. 1. fol. 3. who was sent from Gregorie to season the English Saxons with the Popish Faith. AndIesuit. part. 2. rat. 5. p. 5. & 627. D Humfrey affirmeth, that they brought into England the whole Chaos of Popish superstition. M. Harison chargethDescrip­tiō of Britanie before Holinsh. Chron. vol. 1. p [...]7. Austin to haue conuerted the Saxons from Paganisme, to no lesse hurtful superstition then they did know before, making a [...] Exchange from open, [...] secret Idolatrie. In so much as heIbid. p. 29. 27. concludeth in playne [...]ea [...]es, tha [...] [Page 18] Augustin came and brought-in Poperie. In like sortApologia pro coena Do­mini p. 33. M. Ascham chargeth him to be The ouerthrower of true Religion, and the establisher of al Popish Doc­trine. D. Abbots tearming S. Austin Answ. to. D. Bishop. p. 197. A black Monk, affirmeth, that thisIbid. p. 20 Italian Monk brought new obseruations from Rome, and the English receaued the same: And that, thisIbi. p. 198 Romish Priest requireth the British Bishops to be subiect to his Romish Authoritie: And, this Romish Archbishop brought-in Nouelties and Superstitions, and did contaminate the Faith of Christ; Mellitus, Laurentius, Iustus, al of Austins Companie, and condition. D. Fulk affirmeth thatAgainst Rhem. Test. in 1. Cor. 4. Austin did not beget the Nation of English-men to Christ by the pure Ghospel &c. but with mixture of mens Traditions: And that Christian Religion which he found in the Britans, he laboured to corrupt with Romish Inuentions. M. Bale auoucheth thatCent. 1. c. 70. Austin entred not with the Ghospel of Christian peace, but with the Banner of his Apostleship, with a Siluer Crosse, Litanies, Procession, Images, painted Pictures, Reliques, and Ritual bookes. And thatIb. c. 73. King Ethelbert first of al English men receiued of Gregorie the First, Bishop of Rome, by Austin, the opinion of the Roman Religion, with al in­posture or deceit; and dyed the One and twentith of his receaued Papisme. As also thatCent. 8. c. 85. Austin brought-in Popish Monkerie, and besides the Popes Traditions (ô Heretical mouth) brought nothing but mans dung. Cent. 13. c. 1. Austin the Roman brought hither Romish rites without sound doctrine. The King receaued Roma­nisme with the annexed Idolatries: He brought in Monks, Altars, Vestments, Images, Masses, Chalices, Crosses, Candlesticks, Banners, Holie (as they cal them) Vessels, holie Water, and Bookes of Roman Customes: Their chiefest studies were about the oblations of Masses. Cent. 14. c. 31. Yea Austin disposed al things in England to the forme of the Synagogue of Rome, and made Englishmen honourers of the Pope. FinallyCatal. Scrip. Illust. cent. 14. p. 117. Austin by his interpreters taught our people the Papistical Faith. Wherupon D. Fulk tearmeth ourAgainst. Purgat. p 333. Conuersion from Infidelitie, our per­uersion. Resp. ad Bellar. p. 1. p. 780. And Danaeus calleth it, The inebriation of the whore (of Babilon) mentioned Apoc. 17. Concerning these two last testimonies of D. Fulk and Danaeus, D. Morton saythProt. Appeal. p. 60. These Apologists with more art then truth, do obiect vnto vs, our owne Authours calling it a peruersion and inebriation, herein peruerting their direct meaning, and propounding their testimonies as spoken ab­solutely concerning euerie particular point of Roman Faith, which was only respe­ctiuely, and restraynedly intended: But as this Glosse is only his voluntarie Imagination, and indeed a direct peruerting of his owne Brethren, so is it sufficiently confuted by so manie Protestant Doctours last cited, and next following, who most agreably confesse, that the Faith (speaking in ge­neral) taught here by Austin, was the Popish Faith, the whole chaos of Popish Superstition: Yea Poperie it self.

Wherfore to proceedTrial of the Romish. Clergie. p. 377. M. Wotton auoucheth that, Neither was England conuerted by your proud Monk Austin, but peruerted rather. AndAnsw. to. a Popish Ap­pologie. f. 8. D. Fulk affirmeth that, Austin an vnlearned Monk came into the Land to corrupt the sinceritie of the Faith, which the Britans had receiued &c. Yea S. Augustin was so wholy ours that2. Reply. part 1. p 301. M. Cartwright calleth him, Romish Augustin. AndTetrasty­lon Papismi. p. 122. D. Willet expresly placeth Augustin and Gregorie among the first Fathers of superstition, and Captaines and Ring-leaders of Popish Di­uines. [Page 19] Sir Edward Hobbie tearmeth himIn his Letter to M. Higgons. p. 92. Proud and insolent Augustin, your Great Gregories delegate. M. Price styleth him, thatA [...]sw. to. Leech. l. 1. c. 4. p. 69. Proud pettie Monk Austin. And M. Iewel affirmeth that Austin wasReply. Art. 3. p. 185. Neither of Apostolick spirit, nor anie way worthie to be called a Sainct, but an Hypocrite, a superstitious man, cruel, bloudie, and proud aboue measure. M. Mason affirmeth that, His superfluitie of ceremonies might wel haue been spared. He was too forward to display the Popes Banner, Conse­cration of Eng. Bishops. p. 58. and his behauiour towards the Brittans was ful of Pride and disdaine. TheCent. 6. c. 10. col [...]49. Centurists write: when (Austin) had troubled the Britan Churches Thirteen yeares, and subdued them to the Roman Antichrist he dyed &c. ButCent. 6. p. 290. Osiander proceedeth much further, affir­ming that, He Subdued England to the lust of the Roman Antichrist; and ther­fore after his death went vndoubtedly to Hel, there to receaue his reward. A reward vniust, and a Sentence ouer-cruel for so great benefits as he bestowed vpon vs, euen by D. Whitakers, and other Protestants most grateful former aknowledgement. But hence it clearly appeareth that the Faith of S. Gre­gorie, S. Austin, and whereto England was by them conuerted, was Roman Catholick.

Neither was this pretended Popish superstition the priuat opinions of S. Gregorie and S. Austin, but the vniuersal Doctrine and beleef of that Age. Insomuch thatHist. Sa­cram. l. 2. p. 157 Hospinian confesseth that, In the Age of Gregorie the Great, al kind of superstition and Idolatrie as a certain Sea owerflowed, ouerwhelmed, and wholy ouerdrowned almost al the Christian world; No man not only not resisting, but al adding and affording rather what strength they could. AndDefence of the Answ. to the Admo­nition p. 442. D. Whitguift speaking of Anno Domini 659. so wholy distrusteth the Doctours of those times, that he resolutely auoucheth: He would be loath to alleage anie Councel of that time, to proue anie thing in Controuersie. So confes­sedly was the vniuersal Church of Christians, at the time of S. Gregorie S. Austin, and Englands Conuersion, in the opinion of Protestants, altogeather Popish, Antichristian, and Romish; and indeed, the One, Holie, Catholick, and Apostolick Church, prescribed by our Creed: The Sect of Protestants during the same time, being not so much as diuised, stamped, heard-of, or being in anie, though most base, or obscurest part of the world.

Now al this, as wel of the high and most deserued prayses giuen to S. Gregorie and S. Austin, for their vertue, learning, and other singular guifts; as also, that the Faith and Religion which themselues professed, and whereto they conuerted this our Natiue Countrey from execrable Paganisme, was truly the perfect Faith of Christ, and pure and incorrupted Christianitie: And lastly, that this so pure Faith, was our now Roman Catholick Faith; I haue here conuinced by the testimonies and acknowledgments euen of her grea­test Enemies; as namely by Osiander, Danaeus, the Magdeburgians, Hospinian, Hollinshead, Cambden, Foxe, Bale, Whitaker, Cowper, Humfrey, Bel, Godwine, Bilson, Stow, Mason, Abbots, Fulk, Harison, Ascham, Wotton, Carthwright, Willet, Hobby, Price, Iewel, Whitguift, and Morton; al of them Protestant Writers.

THAT THE PRESENT ROMAN CHVRCH AND Religion, continued and Flourished during the whole time of the Primitiue Church, contayning the first Six hundred yeares after Christ. CHAPTER. V.

HAuing thus prooued the confessed being, and publick general practice and profession for these last thousand yeares, of our Roman Faith and Religion; I wil now endeauour the selfe same proof and confirmation for the first Six hundred yeares after Christ: Which for greater perspicuitie, I wil diuide into two seueral Stations or times; The First, from Constantin the Great, to Gregorie the Great; the Second, from Christ and his Apostles, to Constantin agayne.

In which behalf I find it affirmed byVpon the Reuel. f. 110. M. Brocard, that The Pope fel from Christ in the time of Syluester (who liued with Constantin) and that for a Thousād two hundred and sixtie yeares, the Church was oppressed and troden downe by the Papacie, euen from Syluesters time to these dayes. In like sort auoucheth M. Brightman In Apoc. p. 462. that euer since the time of Constantin the Great, Rome hath been the whore of Babylon, and the Roman Bishop hath been the Beast, and Antichrist Ibid. p. 471 And againe sayth he: As aboue we haue made manifest, it neces­sarily followeth, since the time of the Heathen Emperours, the Pope of Rome to haue been that greatest Antichrist, of whom the Scriptures haue so diligently forewarned, and the Cittie of Rome from that time, to haue been the Whore &c. foretold in the Apocalypse. M. Leigh Great Bri­tanies great Deliuerie f. B. 2 addeth hereunto that, The Popes euer since the first Three hundred yeares after Christ haue been Diuels. But no man speaketh more plainly then M. Napper (whomVpon the Reuel. p. 262. M. Dent tearmeth a learned Writer, and an excellent man) This so learned a Writer plentifully acknowledgethVpon the Reuel. p. 68. And See p. 43. that Between the yeare of Christ 300. and 316. the An­tichristian and Papistical raigne began, raigning vniuersally and without anie de­batable contradiction 1260. And thatIbid. p. 145 Euen 1260. yeares, the Pope and his Clergie, hath possessed the outward visible Church of Christians. Ibid. p. 239 Neuer suffring for the space of 1000. yeares after Syluester the First, anie to be seen vouchable or visible of the true (Protestant) Church &c. I wil not here stay to confute the wilful vanitie of D. Morton, who for his best answer to this so cleer te­stimonie of M. Napper writeth thusProt. Ap­peale p. 72. But this witnes (alas for the darknes of Iudgement of these Apologists) speaketh not of the whole Profession of the Romish Church, but only of one article predominant therin, namely the Doctrine of Popedom &c. But seing he speaketh in general of the outward visible Church of Christians, which includeth al Poynts beleeued by that Church; and that the same Church during the sayd time, was so wholy possessed by the Pope and his Clergie, that not so much as anie one of the Protestant Church was then to be seen, I may more iustly say: Alas for want of honestie, or learning, or both in D. Morton. And this the more I might inculcate, seing [Page 21] his owne guiltie Conscience at last bewrayeth himself sayingIbid. p. 662. If one of our Aduersaries themselues (when six of their principal Doctours were produced against him) was licenced to except against them &c. how much more lawful might it be for vs, to deny the testimonies but of two Authours, not of eminent note for Learning and Iudgment &c. So willing indeed is M. Doctour to detract from the Authoritie and testimonies of his owne deare Brethren, M. Napper, and M. Brocard: And where he would gladly mince the matter, by affirming that they were but Two, the perusal of this Chapter, and other parcels of this booke, wil clearly discouer, that there were manie more Twoes of this opinion. Wherfore to proceed, M. Brightman Apoc. p. 503. thus vrgeth Bellarmine: As concerning the continuance of the Apostacie (from the true Faith) we haue learned by the Apocalypse that the same hath preuayled more then 1260. yeares, and that more cleerly then anie of your Subtilties can euade. Ibid. p. 539. And againe: Antichrist hath raigned from the time of Constantin the Great, to this day; wherof the Apocalypse affordeth such Demonstrations, as neuer anie Iesuit can confute. YeaIbid. p. 477. further: The Pope of Rome is the Beast, which 1300. yeares receiued power &c. therefore from 1300. yeares he is the Antichrist. So certain it is, by M. Brightmans strongest Demonstrations, grounded vpon Scripture, that the present Roman Religion, hath continued for these last 1300. yeares; during which time the Pope in his opinion hath raigned as Antichrist.

Answerably herevntoAgainst Staplet. & Martial. p. 25. D. Fulk relateth, that some Protestants haue written that the Pope hath blinded the world these manie hundred yeares; some say 1000. some 1200. some 900. &c. AndIn Apoc. p. 263. Winckelmanus speaking of the begi­ning and end of the Churches persecution by Antichrist, reporteth that there are some Protestant Writers who make the end Anno 1517. when M. Luther first began, and so the beginning should be Anno 257. others place the end Anno Christi 1521. when Luther at the Assemblies at Wormes excellently gaue testimonie to the truth; and so the beginning should be from Anno Christi 261. &c. De An­tichristo. p. 96. Danaeus also, speaking of Antichrists first coming, confesseth that some Protestant Writers teach, that he came in the Yeare 1000. others 500. others 400. from Christs birth. So clear it is, that the Pope of Rome, for these 1300. yeares, in the opinion of Protestants, hath raigned as Antichrist.

But as the Popes for these last 1300. yeares, are thus censured for Anti­christs, so are the most ancient and first Christian Emperours, condemned for Papists and fauourers of Antichrist. For though D. Morton, speaking of the Popes authoritie, affirmeth that it hath beenProt. Appeal. p. 661. often and notoriously con­tradicted in Antiquitie &c. by right Christian and renowned Emperours: Yet M. Brightman speaking of the verie first most ancient and Christian Empe­rours auerreth the contrarie, sayingApoc. p. 344. Into which Catalogue come Constan­tin the Great, Constantius, Constans, Constantin; and their Sonnes, Iulian, Iouinian, Valentinian, Gratian, Valentinian the Second, Theodosius &c. for these then raigning, the Beast was notably defended, and his dignitie much in­creased. Agreably saythReioynd. to Bristow. p. 2. D. Fulk: I neuer ment to acknowledge the Em­perours Constantin, Iouinian, Valentinian &c. to be such as I would wish for: For both in their Religion and manners, diuers things are found, which I could wi [...]h had been more agreable to the Word of God. So that for the second 300. yeares [Page 22] after Christ it resteth euident, and for such acknowledged, that The Pope and his Clergie, possessed the outward visible Church of Christians; neuer suffring for 1000. yeares after Syluester the First, anie to be seen vouchable or visible of the (Protestant) Church. For which verie cause al the Popes of those Ages are censured for Antichrists, and the verie first Christian Emperours, for their fauourers and defenders.

To make now the like trial of the Roman Churches Continuance, and her vniuersal and publick profession and practise of her Faith and Religion for the first 300. yeares after Christ, to wit, from his blessed Apostles to Pope Siluester the First, and Constantin the Great: Wheras our Catholick Writers do often obiect the Custom of the ancient Fathers in prouoking the Hereticks of their times with the Succession of the Roman Bishops, ac­cording to the example of Ireneus, Cyprian, Tertullian, Optatus, Hierom, Augustin, and Vincentius Lyrinensis Against Purgat. p. 373. D. Fulk for his best answear, is enforced to confesse, saying: That these men specially named the Church of Rome, it was because the Church of Rome at that time, as it was founded by the Apostles, so it continued in the doctrine of the Apostles. Confe­rēce vvith M. Hart. p. 442. D. Raynolds being prouo­ked in the like kind, acknowledgeth in like manner that, The succession of the Roman Bishops was a proof of the true Faith in the time of Augustin, Epipha­nius, Optatus, Tertullian, and Irenaeus &c.Instit. l. 4. c. 2. sec. 2. 3. And Caluin himself setting downe our foresayd Allegation, affirmeth of Catholicks that, They indeed set forth their Church verie gloriously &c. They report out of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Augustin, and others, how highly they esteemed this Succession; wherto he giueth the like answear and reason, saying: Considering it was a matter out of al doubt, that from the beginning euen vntil that time, nothing was changed in Doctrine; the forsayd Doctours took in argument, that which was sufficient for the ouerthrowing of al new errours, to wit, that the Hereticks oppugned the doctrine which euen from the verie Apostles themselues had been inuiolable, and with one consent retayned. And in his book of Institutions set forth in French, he writeth expresly, that, It was a thing notorious, and without doubt, that after the Apostles Age vntil those (foresayd) times, no change was made in doctrine, neither at Rome, nor other Citties.

In like sort sayth Zanchius De vera Relig. p. 148. In times past, the Roman Church and the succession of their Bishops, vntil the times of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, & Some others, was (such) as that not vndeseruedly these Fathers were accustomed to prouoke and cite the Hereticks of their time to her, and others such like De Eccle­sia p. 278. D. Whitaker speaking of certain Apostolical Churches, and amongst them of Rome by Name, collecteth thus: From whence we vnderstand why Tertullian prouoked to these Churches, to wit, because as then by perpetual succession they kept the Doctrine of the Apostles. Agreably to which, almost in the same words saythAgainst. Purgat. p. 374 D. Fulk: The Church of Rome retayned by succession, vntil Tertullians dayes, that Faith which it did first receiue of the Apostles Fox his Act. & Mon. p. 1359. M. Ridley auoucheth that, The Patriarch of Rome in the Apostles time, and long after, was a great maintayner and Setter forth of Christs glorie; in the which, aboue al other Countries and Regions, was preached the true Ghospel, the Sacra­ments were most duly administred &c. After the Emperours became Christians [Page 23] the Ghospel there flourished most. AndReply to Harding. p. 246. D. Iewel freely granteth, that Aswel S. Austin, as also other godlie Fathers, rightly yeelded Reuerence to the Sea of Rome &c. for the puritie of Religion which was there preserued a long time without Spot. And agayneIbid. p. 628. The godlie Fathers (of those foresayd times) sought to the Church of Rome, which then for puritie in Religion, and Constancie in the same, was most famous aboue al others. Suruey of the Popes supremacie p. 85. M. Bunnie speaking of the verie same times affirmeth that, At that time, there was no Church that did more sincerely keep that which the Apostles taught &c.

These so frequent, and free testimonies of our Aduersaries, for Romes Continuance in the true Faith and Religion, from the Apostles vntil the time of S. Austin, are so clear from al exception and further Comment, that D. Morton in steed of other answer saythProt. Ap­peal. p. 573. This general consent of our so profoundly Iudicious Protestants, in appealing vnto the Primitiue Church for the space of the first Foure hundred and fortie yeares after Christ, thus acknowledged by our Aduersaries, may wel serue for a iust reproof of their slaunder, who vsually vpbrayd Protestants with Contempt of al Antiquitie; for here euen old Rome is commended by Protestants. By al which it is most euident, not only that the Roman Church with continual succession of Bishops, hath stil continued euen from the Apostles vntil the times of S. Augustin, Epiphanius, Optatus, &c. which was for Foure hundred and fortie yeares after Christ; but withal during the same time, for puritie in Religion and constancie in the same, she continued most famous aboue al other Churches.

But to ariseVpon the Reuelat. p. 191. And See Cent. 2. c. 4. col. 55. M. Napper auoucheth that, During euen the Second and Third Ages (next after Christ) the true temple of God, & light of the (Prote­stant) Ghospel was obscured by the Roman Antichrist himself. Whereto are assentingIn Ban­crofts Suruey c. 27. p. 343. M. Carthwright and Beza; AndAgainst Symbolizing vvith Anti­christ part. 2. sec. 8. p. 128. M. Parker sayth: I know right wel, that within the Two hundred yeares after Christ, there were crept into the Church manie idle Ceremonies &c. There began in this mixt Age, Exufflation of the Baptized: Consecration of the Font with oyle and Crosse: Oyle in Baptisme: the Reseruing of the Sacrament: Exorcisme: Offring and prayer for the dead: Fasting on certain dayes, with opinion of Necessitie and Satisfaction: and the seeds of Monkerie: See then among what weeds the Crosse grew vp, and in what a dunged soyle of manie supersti ions! sayth M. Parker. ButEpist. de Abrogandis in vniuersum omnibus sta­tutis Eccles. Sebastianus Francus auerreth for most certaine that, Presently after the Apostles times, al things were turned vpside downe &c. And that for certain, through the work of Antichrist, the external Church, togeather with the Faith and Sacraments, vanished away presently after the Apostles departure &c.

M. Bunnie Treatise tending to Pa­cification. sec. 14. p. 89. vsing al warines to acknowledge more then of necessitie he must, confesseth yet (as inforced) of the whole time since the Apostles to this present, that The Church of Rome hath euer continued after a sort in profession of the Faith, since the time that by the Apostles it was deliuered to them &c. And hath also in some manner preserued, and hitherto maintayned both the Word and Sacraments, that Christ himself did leaue vnto vs; which surely (sayth he) is a verie special blessing of God, and an euident work of the Holie Ghost.

D. Field Of the Church. l. 3. c. 6. p. 72. speaking of the Latin or Roman Church before Luthers [Page 24] appearing, affirmeth that, It is friuolous that some demand, where our Church was before Luther began; for we say, it was, where now it is. If they aske vs which? we answer, it was the knowne and apparent Church in the world, wherin al our Fathers liued and dyed, wherin Luther and the rest were Baptized, receiued their Christianitie, Ordination &c. Not forbearing to make his Title of that Chapter in these words: Of the Latin Church that it continued the true Church of God til our time &c Now it is plentifully heretofore confessed, that the knowne and apparent Church of the world for many hundred yeares togeather before Luther, and wherin Luther was Baptized, ordayned Priest, and a Professed Austin-fryar, was the onlie Roman, or Latin Church, which as then raigned vniuersally; the Protestant Church, during the sayd time, being confessedly latent, vnknowne, inuisible, and indeed not in being; as shal be proued at large hereafter.

But for the surer sealing-vp of al which hath been sayd in this behalf, I desire lastly to be obserued, that wheras D. Whiteguift Defence &c. p. 351. iustly vrgeth against M. Carthwright, this general rule or proofe of Apostolick Doctrine, saying: For so much as the original or beginning of these names, Metropolitan, Archbishop &c such is their Antiquitie, can not be found, so far as I haue read; it is to be supposed they haue their original from the Apostles themselues; for as I remember S. Austin hath this rule in his hundred and eighteenth Epistle. And it is of Ibid. p. 552. And see Suinglius tom. 2. fol. 94. credit with the Writers of our time, namely with M. Suinglius, M. Caluin, and M. Gualter; and surely I think no learned man doth dissent from them. In like sort saythAnsvver to obiections against the Crosse in Ba­ptisme p. 26. D. Fotherby in behalf of the Crosse: If it be but an humane Inuention, let vs know I pray you the first Inuenter of it, and when it was first decreed, and how it came so soon to be so generally obserued, which if you can not shew vs, I think we may with greater probabilitie esteem it to be an Apostolical tradition: And so of the contrarie according toContra Duraeuml. 7. p. 479. D. Whi­takers opinion, no man denyeth, but that it much auayleth to the confuting of He­resies to know their beginning.

Now according to these Rules, it is so certaine, that the present Ro­man Religion was deliuered by the Apostles, and thus continued to vs, thatIn Vvhitegu Def. p. 352. M. Carthwright inferreth from the foresayd Rule, That therby a window is open to bring in al Poperie. And, I appeale (sayth he) to the iudgement of al men, if this be not to bring in Poperie agayne, to allow of S. Austins Saying &c. But now a litle to obserue, what our last Refiner M. D. Morton, de­termineth concerning this foresayd Rule of S. Austin: Wheras D. Whiteguift (whom M. Morton styleth theirProt. Appeal. l. 2. p. 228. learned Archbishop, and an Ibid. p. 225. Au­thour of worth) did formerly auouch that the sayd Rule was of Credit, euen with (the Protestant) Writers of our time, namely with M. Suinglius, M. Caluin, and M. Gualter, and that he thinketh no learned man doth dissent from them: Yet M. Morton) who would take it vnkindly, and that de­seruedly, to be censured for Vnlearned) doth thus far aduenture directly to discredit and disauthorize the foresayd Rule, as shamefully to curtle it, both in bredth and depth: The Ibid. p. 345. bredth (sayth he, though most vntruly) reacheth no further then vnto matters of Ceremonies and other Customes of the Church &c. Secondly, the depth of the same position, if it be rightly sounded, wil be found [Page 25] to be a truth of strong Probabilitie only, and not of an absolute infallibilitie: which is to say in good English, that the sayd Rule only concerneth trifles, and matters of smal moment, as also, that it is not a certain true Rule, but peraduenture true, and peraduenture false: which strongly implyeth, that our Doctour, in matters of faith and moment, now disputed between Catho­licks and Protestants would be loath to be squared and tryed thereby: And so in substance acknowledgeth that which he reproueth in M. Carthwright, that thereby a window is open to bring in al Poperie. So euidently in deed doth the forsayd Rule prescribed by S. Austin, and approued by so manie of the learned Protestants, strongly confirme and conuince the vninterrupted Cur­rent, and continuance of our Roman Religion, from the Apostles themsel­ues to these our dayes.

Agreably to the premissesConside­ration of the Papists suppli­cation p. 43. M. Powel expresly, and ingenuously con­fesseth: We can not tel by whom, or at what time (sayth he) the enemie did sow (the Papists Doctrine) &c. Neither indeed do we know who was the first Authour of euerie one of your blasphemous opinions. Reioyn­der to Bristow p. 265. D. Fulk answering to the demand of the Roman Churches change sayth thereto: I answer, my Text sayth, it was a mysterie not reuealed, and therefore could not be at first openly preached against &c. And though D. Whitaker taught before, that, No man denyed, but that it much auayled for the confuting of Heresies to haue knowne their beginning, Yet the sameResp. ad Rat. Comp. p. 101. D. Whitaker is inforced to confesse, that, The time of the Roman Churches change can not easily be told; Yea to such ab­surdities are Protestants brought in this poynt, that, Vrbanus Rhegius being vrged to shew wherin the Roman Church had changed her Faith, at last betaketh himself to this desperat boldnes, sayingIn lib. Apologet. p. 192. But to conclude though it were true, that the Roman Church had changed nothing in Religion, would it therefore presently follow, that she were a true Church? I think not, sayth he. And yet I think hardly any one Protestant can be picked out so ignorant or impudent as wil openly auouch, that the Roman Church was not a true Church, when S. Paul writ vnto the Romans in these wordsEp. Ad Rom c. 11. vers. 5.6.7.8.9.11.12. By (Christ) we receaued Grace and Apostleship, for obedience to the Faith in al Nations &c. among whom are you also the called of Iesus Christ. To al that are at Rome the beloued of God, called to be Saints. Grace to you, and Peace from God our Father and our Lord Iesus Christ. First I giue thanks to my God &c. for al you, because your Faith is renowned in the whole world &c. without intermission I make a memorie of you alwayes in my prayers &c. And, I desire to see you, that I may impart vnto you some spiritual grace to confirme you; that is to say, to be comforted togeather in you by that which is common to vs both, your Faith and mine. Now if the Roman Churches Faith was once thus the same with S. Paules Faith, then if she neuer changed her sayd Faith (as this Protestant supposeth) she must needs continue a true Church.

Al this Sun shine notwithstanding, D. Morton wil needs defend his brother Rhegius herein, becauseProt. App. p. 675. diuers Hereticks who liued in the Apos­tles times, such as were the Simonians, Basilidians, Nicolaitans, albeit they liued in the dayes of the Apostles, yet did they not professe the Doctrine of the Apostles, which sufficiently demonstrateth the infirmitie of the Consequence: [Page 26] But I must confesse, I did not expect such weake Demonstrations from D. Morton; for the Consequence was not, that Hereticks liued in the Apostles dayes, therefore their Doctrine, is the doctrine of the Apostles; as our Doctour would abuse an vncautelous or vnlearned Reader, but as himself before thus confessed: The Church of Rome hath not altered anie article of Faith since the Apostles times, ergo the now Faith of the Church of Rome is the same with that which was taught by the Apostles. This Consequence is so cleer (suppo­sing that the Church of Rome in Saint Pauls time professed the true Faith, which I haue formerly proued, and no Protestant dare deny) as that al fur­ther proof would discouer no lesse tediousnes in the Writer, then the denying therof, hath bewrayed ignorance and temeritie in M. Doctour. So cleer it is, that no Protestant whosoeuer, is able to assigne anie knowne beginning of our Roman Religion since the Apostles times.

Wherefore in playne tearmes they ascribe the beginning therof to S. Pauls time. To this effect sayth D. Willet Synopsis Controu. 2. q. 3. p. 56. Therefore S. Paul calleth Papistrie a mysterie of iniquitie which began euen to work in his dayes. M. Midleton Papisto-mastix. p. 193. auoucheth, that we are sure that the Mysterie of inquitie did work in Pauls time, and fel not a sleep so soone as Paul was dead, waking againe 600. yeares after, when this Mysterie was disclosed &c. And therfore no maruaile, though, perusing Councels, Fathers, and Stories from the Apostles forward, we find the print of the Popes feet &c. M. Parkins desiring Reformed Cath. p. 329. To stop the mouths of Papists, who demand of vs (sayth he) where our Church was foure-score yeares before Luther: They are answered (sayth he) that our Church hath been since the dayes of the Apostles, and that in the verie midst of the Papacie. So suppo­sing the Papacie, or Roman Church, to haue continued since the dayes of the Apostles.

Lastly the truth hereof is so certayne, that the same is acknowledged by our seuerestSuruey of the BooK of common prayer in the Preface to the King p. 18. Puritans, who speaking to the Kings Maiestie giue this wholsome persuasion: Let not your Maiestie be now deceiued by the Popish Ar­gument of supposed Antiquitie, as Ioseph was with the old and mouldie bread of the Gibeonites &c. And the rather (ô christian King) take heed, because An­tichrist began to work euen in the Apostles dayes. So vndoubted, and to be supposed it is, that the Argument drawne from the longest Continuance and greatest Antiquitie is a Popish Argument; And the Doctrine of the Pope or Church of Rome was so timely working, as that it was in being euen in the Apostles dayes.

For our Conclusion then, we haue it here confessed, that euer since the time of Constantin, and Pope Siluester, which contayneth some 1300 yeares, al Popes, and the Church of Rome, haue been so agreable in Doctrine and Faith with our Present Pope and Church, that therefore they are al censured for Antichrists, & Rome for Babylon; the imagined Protestant Church, during the same time, not hauing anie one visible member in the world: And not only this, but that euen our first Christian Emperours are reproued by Protestants, in regard of their very Religion, and their honouring and de­fending of the foresayd Popes. And as for the Roman Churches continuance from Christs time vntil the Raygne of Constantin, it is plentifully ac­knowledged, [Page 27] that as she was founded by the Apostles, so she continued in the doctrine of the Apostles, euen vntil the verie times of S. Augustin, who flourished almost 100. yeares after Constantin; in so much as during al the sayd time, the verie Succession of Roman Bishops, is granted by Protes­tants, to haue been a good proof of the true Faith.

And wheras S. Austins Rule of making al such Doctrine truly Aposto­lical, as hath no knowne beginning since the Apostles, is approued, and applauded by the learnedst Protestants; yet themselues likewise confesse, that the allowance of this Rule, is the opening of a window to bring in al Poperie, so truly Apostolical is the Doctrine of Papists. Adde lastly, that the Anti­quitie of our present Papistrie, is confessedly no lesse gray-headed then the times of S. Paul, and the other Apostles, and the continuance therof euer since such, as that perusing Councels, Fathers, and Stories from the Apostles, we stil find the print of the Popes feet. Now my kindest Aduocats in this so important a Plea, are no other then Caluin, Suinglius, Zanchius, Danaeus, Beza, Winckelmanus, Sebastianus Francus, Rhegius, Brocard, Brightman, Leigh, Napper, Parkins, Whitaker, Powel, Fulk, Raynolds, Ridley, Iewel, Bunnie, Carthwright, Parker, Field, Whitguift, Fotherbie, Willet, Midleton, and Morton, al of them Protestant Writers, and men much renowned by their other Bre­thren.

A FVRTHER PROOF OF THE PRESENT ROMAN Religions Continuance from the Apostles times to these dayes, is taken from the Christian belief of the Indians, Armenians, Grecians & Brittans, al of them Conuerted in the dayes of the Apostles. CHAPTER. VI.

IT is recorded by sundrie Historiographers, and acknowledged for most true by the learnedst Protestants, that manie Heathen Nations were conuerted by the Apostles themselues to the Faith of Christ, whereof peculiar instance is giuen of India, Armenia, Graecia, Britanie &c. The Conuersion of India is confessed byCent. 1. p. 37. Osiander, andComment. de Regno Chri­sti p. 45. Nicolaus Phillippi affirmeth S. Thomas to haue been their first Apostle Chemnitius Exam. part. 2. p. 7. teacheth, that S. Bartholomew preached the Ghospel to the Ar­menians. And as for the Conuersion of Greece, it clearly appeareth by Saint Pauls Epistles to sundrie of that Nation, as to the Corinthians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, and by the Apocalypse chap. 1. vers. 11. Now as concerning the first Conuersion of Britanie, it was so vndoubtedly Apostolick, as thatBritannia &c. p. 40. M. Cambden auoucheth that, It is certayne that the Brittans receiued the Chri­stian Religion in the verie infancie of the Church: In proof wherof he there [Page 28] alleageth sundrie ancient Authorities:Ibid. p. 157. And See M. Hal in his A­pologie against the Brovvnists. p. 58. Further also teaching, that in (Bri­tannie) flourished the Monasterie of Glassenburie, which taketh its ancient begin­ning from Ioseph of Arimathia &c. for this the ancientest Monuments of this Monasterie do testify &c. Neither is there cause why we should doubt thereof. In like sort saythDescription of Britanie an­nexed vnto Hol­inshead &c. v. 1. p. 23. M. Harison, That Ioseph preached here in England in the Apostles times, his Sepulchre yet in Glassenburie, and Epitaph affixed thereto is proof sufficient. Remedie against Schis­me p. 24. M. Henoch Clapham is so confident of the Britans con­uersion in the Apostles times, as that he auoucheth, that our Schismatikes may aswel ask me, what assurance I haue there was a King Henrie, as demand what assurance I haue of the other? Against Rhem. Test. in 2. Cor. 12. fol. 316. D. Fulk thefore calleth them, The Catholick Brittans, with whom Christian Religion had continued in succession since the Apostles times.

This then supposed, that al the former Countries were conuerted to Christianitie, by Christ, his Apostles, and disciples themselues: The next point to be examined is, whether the sayd Faith and Religion which as then they learned, receaued, and beleeued, and which for sundrie succeding Ages they practised and professed, is more agreable to the present Roman or Prote­stant Faith.

And first as concerning the Indians Comment. de Regno Chri­sti. l. 1. p. 45. 46. D. Philippus Nicolai relateth, that, India in sundrie places is inhabited by them in great number, who receiued the doc­trine of the Ghospel from S. Thomas the Apostle &c. vpon the seauenth day according to our custome they meete in the Churches, that they may be present at the Sacrifices, & heare Sermons: they vse in their Sacrifices wine made of dryed Grapes, giuing bread, they not only giue the bodie of Christ, but also by drinking of the consecrated Chalice, they giue his bloud, hauing before made confession of their sinnes &c. At the entrance of the church, like vnto the Papists, they are sprinkled with holie water; with the same rite and the same religion they burie the dead &c. praying vnto Christ for their eternal Saluation &c. The Priests are so shauen vpon the head, that they haue vpon the crowne the Image of the Crosse. Amongst them there are Societies of Monks, and companies of Sacred Virgins, shut vp in seueral houses. Chastitie is kept by al them with a great desire of ho­nestie, abstinence, and religion &c. They strictly obserue the fasts of Aduent, and Lent &c. And In the honour of S. Thomas they keep a Festiual day. Yea he further writethIbid. p. 64. of the remote Cataians of India, that they haue their chappels, in which for the safetie of their Marchants trauayling in strang countries, Sacrifice is offred with Popish ceremonies and Masses. Now by this testimonie of so learned a Protestant, it appeareth that the Indian Christians first conuerted by S. Thomas, retayne yet and practise these Catholick poynts of Faith: The real presence of Christs Bodie and Bloud in the Eucharist: Confession of sinnes before Receiuing: Sprinkling with holie water: prayer for the dead; Shauing Priestes Crownes: The Image of the Crosse: Companies of Monks and Nunnes, their Chastitie and abstinence: The Feasts of Aduent and Lent: The keeping of holie dayes in honour of Saincts: And lastly, The Popish Masse and Ceremonies.

To come now to the Armenians Cent. 15. p. 477. Osiander confesseth that, In the yeare On thousand foure hundred and thirtie (Pope) Eugenius then called a Councel at Florence &c. To which Councel the Grecians, Armenians, Iacobins assented. [Page 29] M. Marbeck Com. Pla­ces. p. 258. acknowledgeth, that at the Councel of Florence the Chris­tians of Armenia and India consented to the Roman Church, and that the Greeks agreed: And where asVol. 2. Generat. 39. Nauclerus recordeth that Anno. 1145. The Embassa­dours of the Armenian Bishops, as also their Catholick, that is, their vniuersal Metropolitan, who hath vnder him more then a thousand Bishops, came to Pope Eugenius being at Viterbo, and hauing ended their iourney after a yeare and a half, they offred their Subiection to the Apostolical Sea; the same historie is mentioned by M. Symondes Vpon the Reuel. p. 223. 150. 250. And See Volater. Geograph l. 10. and other Writers. And of the great agreement between the Armenians and the Roman Church we may read Gomarus Speculum Ecclesiae p. 163 172. andl. 2 c. 23. fol. 183. Villamont in his voyages printed in French. But D. Philip descendeth more particularly, and sayth of the Armenians: They haue their blemishes; For in the forme of their Liturgie mention is made of Inuocation, Comment. de Regno Chri­sti l. 1. p. 35. And see Ca­thol. Tradit. p. 207. and Intercession of Saincts; and of oblation of the Sacrament: As alsoIbid. p 22. Let the Christian Readers know this, that not only the churches of the Graecians, but also Rutans, Georgians, and Armenians, and Indians, & Aethiopians, who are become Christians, do hold the true and Real Presence of the Bodie and Bloud of our Lord, wheresoeuer the Eucharist is celebrated &c. AndIbid. p. 56. agayne: There are not wanting, who think that as yet there remayne in sundrie places of Arabia some Mozarabes Christians, whom it is euident, in Africk and Spayne in former Ages, to haue embraced the Religion of Christians, not much vnlike to the Popish Rites. By al which it appeareth, that the anciēt Armenians receiuing their Religion from the Apostles, do agree with vs Catholicks in Inuocation of Saincts: Cent. 16. p. 970. The Real Presence: The oblation or Sacrifice of Christs Bodie: In acknowledging their obe­dience to the Church of Rome, and in brief, in their Religion in general, not much vnlike to that of the Papists.

Now as touching the Grecians Estate of the Church. p. 253. Crispinus affirmeth, that,Acta Theologorum Vvittemb. & Ieremiae Pa­triarchae Con­stantinop. de Augustana Confes. p. 55. 102. 128. Anno. 870. the Greek and Latin Churches became diuided only for the Primacie, and di­uersitie of Ceremonies: so fully did they at that time consent in al other poynts. Osiander speaking of the other Oriental Churches further remote, auerreth that, Anno 1585. the Christians who inhabit neer to Mount Libanus, became at last conquered, and subiect to the Turkish Empire: Neither is that to be maruailed at, for the Christians in the East haue not sincere Religion, but are, in most part of Ar­ticles, Popish. Sir Edwin Sandes In his last leafe but fiue. in his Relation of the State of Religion vsed in the West partes of the world, auoucheth that, The Greek Church doth con­curre with Rome in opinion of Transubstantiation, and generally in the Sacrifice, and whole bodie of the Masse: In praying to Saincts, and Auricular confession in offring Sacrifice and prayer for the dead, Purgatorie, and worshiping of Pictures &c. Yea the Protestant Diuines of Wittemberg do fully testify, that the Greek Church yet to this day professeth and teacheth, Inuocation of Saincts and Angels Ib. p. 243. 368. Reliques Ib. p 243. 244 247. 251. Worshipping of Images Ib. p. 86. 96. 100. 240. 380. Transubstantia­tion p. 102. 104 And see Cath. Tradit. p. 129. 137. Sacrifice The signifying p. 97. 99. 100. Ceremonies of the Masse: p. 87. 10. & in Prefat. Auri­cular Confession p. 79 89. Inioyned Satisfaction p. 78 238 Confirmation with Chrisme p. 242. 326. Extreme Vnction p. 77. 242. And Cath. Trad. p. 197. and al the seauen Sacraments: Also p. 93. 102. 109. Prayer for the dead p. 93. 104. Sacrifice for the Dead p. 93. 109. Almes for the dead: [Page 30] p. 224. 296. 367. Freewil p. 132. 257. Monachisme p 111. 129. 135. vowes of Chastitie p 126. The fast of Lent, and other set Fasting-dayes: That p. 129. Priests may not marry after Orders taken: And lastly, to omit manie others, That p. 131. 138. 142. the Tradition and doctrine of the Fathers is to be kept. So plainly in al these chief Articles of Faith, doth the Grecian Church remayne vnchanged, and wholy consonant with the Roman.

But now at last to come to our Neighbours the Britans, whom we haue proued before to haue been conuerted in the Apostles times; concerning them I wil only declare two things: First, that the Faith which at first they re­ceaued, they kept for six hundred yeares, euen vntil the comming of S. Augustin into England, vnchanged, and the same, in al matters of weight and substance. The Second, that the Faith and Religion which S. Augustin taught in England (and which is formerly confessed to haue been altogether Catholick or Romish) was the self same Faith and Religion, which the Bri­tans beleeued and professed, some Ceremonies excepted.

Now as touching the First; M.Pageant of Popes. Cent. 1. c. 70. Bale confesseth that, The Brittans being conuerted by Ioseph of Arimathia, held that Faith at Austins comming. AndCent. 1. c. 90. There was alwayes amongst the Brittans preaching of Truth, most sure Doctrine, and such Worship, as was by Gods commandment, giuen of the Apostles to the Churches: wherupon he calleth the then Brittan ChurchCent. 1. c. 73. the true Church of Christ. D. Fulk Answ. to a Counterf. Cath. p. 49. affirmeth that, The Brittans before Austins comming, continued in the Faith of Christ, euen from the Apostles times; yea he calleth the Brittans of S. Austins timeIn 2. Cor. 12.12. Catholicks &c. with whom Chris­tian Religion had continued in Succession since the Apostles time. M. Fox Act. Mon. p. 463. auoucheth that, The Brittans after the receiuing of the Faith, neuer forsook it for anie manner of false preaching of other, nor for torments; and that In his Protestat. Religion re­mained in the Brittans vncorrupt and the Word of Christ truly preached til the comming of S. Austin. But M. Midleton Papisto-mastix p. 202. confirmeth this poynt further by succeeding testimonies of the ancient Fathers, almost in euerie Age before that, in which Gregorie liued, saying: The Religion cleerly taught in the Word of God brought hither first by Simon Zelotes (Niceph. l. 2. c. 4.) Ioseph of Arima­thia (Gild [...]s) S. Paul the Apostle (Theodoret de Curand. Graec. affect. l. 9.) al or some of them (was) watred stil on in the dayes of Tertullian (l. cont. Iudaeos) Origen (in Ezech. hom. 4.) Athanasius (Apol. 2.) Hilarie (l. de Synod. cont. Arian.) Chysostom (hom. quod Christus sit Deus) Theodoret (Hist. l. 1. c. 10. & l. 4. c. 3.) Al which Ancient Fathers speak honourably of the Church, Religion, and Prelates of Brittanie. So exceeding far were the Brittans from being chan­ged in their Religion before the time when S. Augustin came into England.

Therfore to come to the second and mayne point, which is the true harmonie and agreement between the Apostolick Faith of the Brittans, and the Catholick Roman Faith of S. Augustin. D. Morton labouring purposely to shewProt. Appeal. p. 75. what, and of how great importance, the differences were between the Brittan Bishops, and the Church of Rome, at Austins comming, can only in­stance in the difference of Ceremonies, or ministring of Baptisme, in keeping of Easter, and in denial of Subiection vnto Austin: which though he much endea­uour to proue to be matters of great importance, yet if they be considered in [Page 31] themselues, and without pertinacie in the Defenders, they may with M. Brierlie most truly be sayd to be few and smal points: And the more if they should once be compared with our other Roman Arti­cles of Real Presence, Adoration of the Sacrament, Masse, Confession, Freewil, Merit &c. In anie one wherof D. Morton was not able to giue the least Instance of difference between the foresayd Brit­tans and S. Austin: Wherfore to proceed in this same poynt: It is reported by Hollinshead (out of S. Bede, hist. l. 2. c. 2) that S. Austin by the help of King Edilbert obtayned a meeting with the Brittish Bishops and Doctours; where he sayd vnto themBeda hist. l. 2. c. 2. Hol­linsh. vol. 1. p. 103. Godwine in his Cata­logue of Bish. p. 6. If you wil obey me in these three things: That you wil celebrate Easter at the due time: That you wil minister Baptisme, wherwith wee are borne againe to God, according to the custome of the Roman and Apostolick Church: That you wil preach with vs the Word of God to the Nation of the English: Al other things which you doe, though they be contrarie to our customes, we wil peaceably suffer. In like sort sayth thel. 3. c. 13. p. 133. Authour of the Historie of Great Brittanie: The Brittan Bishops conformed themselues to the doctrine and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, without difference in anie thing specially remembred, saue only in the Celebration of the Feast of Easter &c. Ibid p. 219. And See Cābdens Britā. in English. p. 578. And agayne, when they perceaued the Saxons in some measure to approue it, they began to make open Profession of it, as seeming therin to agree euen with their Enemies (the Saxons) howsoeuer otherwise in respect of language, situation, or Law of Nations, they were diuided. Yea theBeda hist. l. 2. c. 2. Hollinsh. vol. 1. p. 102. Brittan Bishops after conference had with S. Austin, confessed that they vn­derstood, that it was the true way of iustice which Austin preached: Wherupon as Confut. of Purgat. p. 335. D. Fulk acknowledgeth, Saint Austin did at the last obtayne the ayde of the Brittish Bishops to the Conuersion of the Saxons Catalo­gue of Bishops. p. 11. Lastly D. Godwin, writing of Theodore (who was Archbishop of Canterburie some Fiftie or Sixtie yeares after S. Augustin) auoucheth, that vnto him, al the Brittish Bishops, and generally al Britanie yealded obedience, and vnder him conformed themselues in al things vnto the Rites and discipline of the Church of Rome. So euidently doth that Primitiue Faith of the Brittans in al most sub­stantial poynts wholy agree with that Faith which S. Austin taught vs, and which the Protestants haue fully acknowledged to be Catholick, Roman, or Popish: And yet is the sayd Faith taught vs by S. Gregorie and S. Austin, tearmed byChron. f. 161. D. Cowper, the right beleefe: And by Act. Mon. p. 112. M. Fox, the perfect Faith of Christ Ibid. p. 124. and the true Faith of Christ: And thus from the premisses it necessarily followeth, that our present Roman Religion, being so consonant, or rather the same with that first Faith, which the In­dians, Armenians, Graecians, and Brittans, receiued from the Apostles them­selues, that therfore no lesse ancient, or continuing is our Roman Religion, then the Religion of the Apostles.

M. Brierly hauing produced diuers testimonies of Protestants, in proof that the Indians, Graecians, and Armenians were conuerted to the Faith of Christ in the Apostles times, as also, that the remnant of Christian Religion which they yet preserue, is Roman Catholick, not Protestant: M. Morton directing a large Reply hereto, doth not so much as answer to any one of the [Page 32] foresayd testimonies of his Brethren, Osiander excepted; of whom he saythProp. Appeal. p. 79. We approue not Osianders censure &c. concerning the Christians in Mount Libanus, tearming them Popish, for some flying speach. But he may now aswel say, we do not only, not approue Osianders censure, but neither the Censures, and opinions of D. Philip, Nicolai, Gomarus, Willamont, Crispinus, the Diuines of Wittemberg, Cambden, Harison, Hollinshead, Hal, Clapham, Fulk, Marbeck, Symondes, Sandes, Bale, Foxe, Midleton, Godwine, and Cowper; al of them Protestants, and yet al of them thus affording their helping hands, for the proof of our agreement in Faith and Religion, with the Doctrine deliuered by the Apostles themselues.

THE SECOND BOOKE, WHERIN IS PROVED THROVGH 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, vvas anciently taught by the Primitiue Church of Christ.

THAT GENERAL COVNCELS DO TRVLY represent the Church of Christ: And of the Credit and Authoritie giuen by Protestants to the sayd Councels. CHAPTER I.

AS in Politick gouernement, our Parlament, consisting of Prince, Peeres, Knights, and Burgesses, doth truly represent the whole Bodie of the Common-wealth; and withal is endowed with ful power and authoritie to enact and establish Lawes, which euerie particular Subiect is bound to obey and obserue: So in gouernement Ecclesiastical, a General Councel, consisting of the Head of the Church, the Bishops, and Pastours, doth truly represent vnto vs the whole Bodie of the Church itself; and in like sort is enriched with plenarie power and vertue, to create Decrees and Statutes, which may bind the soules and consciences, of euery particular member of the sayd Church.

To which purpose D. Whitaker confesseth expresly thatDe Conci­liis p. 1. 10. The Church is represented in a General Councel. And agayneIb. p. 19. Neither is that speach altogeather to be disliked, that a Councel is the Church Representatiue. M. Ridley [Page 2] further auoucheth thatAct. 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 sayingPerpetual 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 Common­wealth: 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, asIb. p 372. To haue no Iudge for the ending of Ecclesiasti­cal contentions were the vtter subuersion of al peace: so, according to himIb. p. 370 Synods (are) an external iudicial meanes to discerne errour; the same being as he teachethIb. p. 372. strengthned with the Promise of our Sauiour; and accordingly obserued by the ancient Fathers, who, sayth heIb. 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 sayingIn 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. AndIb. 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 Ecc. Pol. p. 27. an­swereth therto himself, and further concludeth thatIb. 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 heIb. 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 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 Act. 15.2. &c. the necessitie of Councels 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 theBilson 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 PrefaceAd 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 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 Diuers Degrees of Mi­nisters in his Epistle to the Ministers of the Low-coun­tries. B. 3. fine I hartily wish [Page 3] (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, thatAuthour 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, thatReuievv 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 alsoIb 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 thatCath. 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 accomptIevvel 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 Protestāts, 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 Consecra­tion of English. Bish. p. 267, styleth and esteemeth a Iewel) made [Page 4] 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 ProtestantsResp. ad Rat. Cāp. 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 forthOf 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 thatProt. 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 thatProtest. 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 againeIbid. 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. YeaIb. 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 saythTom. 2. Germ. f. 243. Epist. ad Mar­chionem Bran­ [...]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. [Page 5] And as Chemnitius truly obseruethExam. 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 heIbid. 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 ProtestantsHarmo­nie of Confess. p. 400. Is the true and best Mistresse of Posteritie, and going before l [...]adeth vs the way. Yea sayth D. Beard Retracti­ue from Romish Religiō. 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 thatProte­stant Appeale p. 513. In the maine question of discer­ning the true bookes of holie Writ, the Protestants do appeale &c. vnto the Iudgemēt 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 sayingExam. 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 De diuer­sis Ministro­rum Gradibus. p. 8. Holie-Ghost, who gouerneth the Church, is the best in­terpreter of Scriptures; from him therfore is the true interpretation to be sought; and seing he can not be contrarie to himself, who ruled the Primitiue Church, and gouerned it by Bishops, it is not agreable to truth, now to cast them off. D. Iewel ac­knowledgeth in general thatDef. of the Apologie p. 35. The Primitiue Church which was vnder the Apostles and Martyrs, hath euermore been accounted the purest of al others without exception. D. White testifieth thatway to the Church Ep. Dedic. nu. 8 The Primitiue Church, and al the Doctours therof, would neuer yeald, I wil not say in an opinion, but not so much as in a forme of speach, or in the change of a letter, sounding against the Orthodoxal Faith: wherof he further giueth sundrie pertinent examples, concluding that, So religious were they that had Religion; that they would not exchange a letter, or a Syllable of the Faith, wherwith our Sauiour had put them in trust. And in another place he auoucheth thatIbid. p. 385. In the first six hundred yeares, there was no sub­stantial or fundamental innouation receiued into the Church. So plentifully are the deseruedst prayses of the Primitiue Church, during the first six hundred yeares, freely giuen and set forth by our greatest Protestants, thus much ac­knowledging and admiring the puritie of her Doctrine, and appealing to her Tribunal, for the Determination of their doubts.

And I can not but here admire, the potent force & violence of truth, which racketh from her deadliest Enemies, the true Confession thereof: For what Church during those primitiue and purest times, was, euen in the iudgement [Page 6] of Protestants, so faithful, so chast, so constant in soundnes of Faith, and since­ritie of manners, as the Catholick Roman Church? What Bishops euer so re­nowned either for feeding of their flocks, or for patient suffring of so manie and so cruel torments, yea and death it self, as the Popes and Bishops of Rome?Ep. Ded. of. F. Persons in his Ansvv. to him. Doth not Sir Ed. Cooke himself say? We do not deny but that Rome was the Mother Church, and had thirtie two Virginal Martyrs of her Popes arow: What Doctours, what Fathers, what Pastours, more duly honoured by al Posteritie, then such as were strictly linked in Faith and Communion, with the then Roman Church? D. Whitaker, being to answer D. Sanders his truest assertion, that the Roman Church was not changed during the first six hundred yeares after Christ, through clearest euidence of truth, acknowled­geth the same, sayingl. De An­tichrist p. 35. &c. During al that time, the Church was pure and flou­rishing, and inuiolably taught and defended, the Faith deliuered from the Apo­stles. D. Iewel confesseth thatReply to Harding. p. 246. Aswel S. Austin, as also other godlie Fathers rightly yealded Reuerence to the Sea of Rome &c. for the puritie of Religion, which was there preserued along time without spot. And that, The Godlie Fathers (of those gray-headed times) sought to the Church of Rome, which then for puritie in Religion, and constancie in the same, was most famous aboue al others, Sundrie other such like testimonies, duely dignifying the ancient Roman Church, I willingly pretermit, hauing treated elsewhere of the same subiect more at large.

But who likewise more peremptorily pretend, the truest harmonie between their Doctrine, and the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers, as also the iust defence and patronage of their due credit and esteeme, then our Moderne Protestants? For to omit D. Iewels former complaint, that if Protestants be deceaued, it was Gregorie, Austin, Hierom, Chrysostom &c. that deceaued them; not anie one Sentence, in anie one Father or Councel of the first six hundred yeares, making, in his opinion, against Protestancie: D. Sutcliffe confidently auou­cheth thatExami­nation of Kel­lisons Suruey p. 17. The Fathers, in al poynts of Faith, are for vs (sayth he) and not for the Pope. D. Willet maketh his solemne ProtestationAntilog. p. 263. I take God to witnes, before whom I must render accompt &c. that the same Faith and Re­ligion which I defend, is taught and confirmed, in the more Substantial Points, by those Histories, Councels, and Fathers, that liued within fiue or six hundred yeares after Christ. And againeIb. p. 264. It is most notoriously euident, that for the grossest poynts of Poperie, as Transubstantiation, Sacrifice of the Masse, Worshipping of Images, Iustification by workes, the Supremacie of the Pope, Pro­hibition of Mariage, and such other, they (to wit the Papists) haue no shew at al, of anie euidence from the Fathers within fiue hundred yeares after Christ. Pierre de Moulin, a French Protestāt, is so vndertaking herein, thatDefenc. against Coef­teau p. 139. In this Challenge (sayth he) I wil lay downe my Ministers cloake, readie to be frocked in a Monks Cowle, if I shal find a man that wil satisfy me in this point. Melancthon saythEp. ad Cratonem. for the setling of our minds, I think the consent of Antiquitie to be of great force &c. The best Maisters and guides to vs, may be, Ireneus, Tertullian, Augustin, who left to Posteritie manie things of this kind. AndEpist. ad Frider. Mico­nium. As I willing­ly aduise with such (writers) liuing, as haue some vse of Spiritual things: So I think these Ancients, whose writings are approued, are likewise to be consulted. [Page 7] For I think, the Church generally beleeued that, which they haue writen: And, it is not secure, to depart from the common opinion of the old Church. Yea others tearme it in some of their Brethren, Paradoxical, to disclayme and dissent from the ancient Fathers, wherof one saythThe Au­thour of a Brief Answ. to certaine ob­iect. ag. the Descension of christ into Hel. p 1. where you say we must build our Faith, on the Word of Faith, tying vs to Scripture only, you giue iust occasion to think, that you neither haue the ancient Fathers of Christs Church, nor their Sonnes succeding them, agreeing with you in this point, which implyeth a defence of some strange Paradox. D. Bancroft, doubteth not to preferre the ancient Fathers, before the learnedst ProtestantsSuruey p. 378. & p. 64. For M. Caluin, and M. Beza, I do think of them (sayth he) as their writings deserue; but yet I think better of the ancient Fathers, I must confesse it. Yea, he purposely vndertaketh their iust defence against the Puritans; for where S. Austin sayd to Iulian the PelagianContra Iulian. l. 2. c. 10 Truly I haue what to do, I haue whither to fly, for I may prouoke from these Pelagian darknes to these so cleare Catholick Lights (of the Fathers) which I now do. But tel me what wilt thou do, whither wilt thou fly? I from the Pelagians to these, thou from these to whom? &c. But thou darest cal them blind; And hath time so confounded lowest things with highest? Are darknes called light, and light darknes, that Pelagius, Celestius, Iulianus (al of them Hereticks) do see, and Hilarie, Gregorie, Ambrose &c. are blind? This so worthie a Saying of S. Austin, being alleaged against the Puritans, by D. Bancroft, he therupon in­ferrethSuruey. p. 352. 353. 351. Surely I do not perceiue, why I may not without offence, apply the same wordes to those men in those dayes &c. Were there neuer learned men, before you were taught the Principles of the Geneua Discipline? &c. Do you know what was in the Apostles times, better then they, who succeded the Apostles &c. Is the light that shewed it self so manie wayes in the Ancient Fathers, become such darknes, that Carthwright, Trauerse, Fenner (to whom I might as truly adde, Luther, Zuinglius, Caluin, Beza &c.) and such like, should be thought so clearlie-sighted? And shal Ireneus, Tertulian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Hierom, Chrysostom, Austin, Gregorie, Hilarie, and al the rest of those whorthie men be reckned blind? So cleerly doth D. Bancroft the Protestant, late Primate of England, acknowledge the shining light and glorie of the ancient Fathers, and defend their authoritie, from the imputations of Nouelists.

D. Morton ioyfully acknowledgethProt. Ap­peal. p. 33. That the ancient Fathers &c. did obtayne in the Church of Christ, honourable Titles; as Augustin, the great Mall, or hammer against Hereticks. Basil, the light of the world: Chrysostome The Doctour of the whole world: Athanasius, the Pillar, as it were, of the Church: Nazianzene, by a phrase of excellencie, the Diuine: Origen, the Maister of the churches: Cyprian, the President of the whole world: And lastly, Ambrose; A man called by God, vnto an Apostolical Presidencie. Now as for the Con­fidence which Catholicks place in the ancient Fathers, D. Morton testifyeth for vs, thatIb. p 348 Neuer did the ancient Iewes more boast, of their original and descent from father Abraham, then do the Romanists glory, in their pretended con­sent of ancient Fathers.

And though it be true, that the ancient Fathers were men: yetEccl. Pol. p. 115. The strength of mans Authoritie (in M. Hookers iudgement) is affirmatiuely such, that the weightiest affaires in the world depend therupon. YeaIb. p. 116. whatsoeuer [Page 8] we beleeue concerning saluation by Christ, although the Scripture be therin the ground of our beleef, yet is mans Authoritie (sayth he) the key that openeth the doore &c. The Scripture could not teach vs these things, vnles we beleeued men.

And wheras the sacred Scriptures do foretel, sundrie things to be perfor­med by the Church of Christ in succeeding Ages, the answerable accom­plishment therof in particular, being matter of fact, can be to vs at this day no otherwise made knowne, then vpon the Credit of humane Testimonie, commended to vs by Ecclesiastical Histories: In which respect D. Whitaker truly teacheth thatCont. Duraeum l. 7. p. 472. Historie plainly testifyeth, al that to be accomplished which the ancient Prophets haue foretold, concerning the Propagation, amplitude, and glorie of the Church: So that there is no doubt (sayth he) but that Ecclesiastical Historie, doth strengthen the Predictions of the Prophets. Now from the Premis­ses we may briefly remember, that not only al Catholicks, but euen the Pri­mest Protestāts that euer were, do thus willingly appeale, for the decision of Controuersies in Faith and Religion, to the Censure and Determination of the Church of Christ; which for the first six hundred yeares was confessedly sincere, holie, and religious: Acknowledging withal, the integritie and puritie of the Roman Church during the sayd time, and professing, to beleeue and teach no other Faith and religion, then that which was taught and beleeued, by the ancient Fathers of the same Church.

This then supposed, I wil now descend in particular to the chiefest articles of Faith, disputed at this day between Catholicks and Protestants: And wil only examine, whether the Roman, or Protestant Church, is now more agreable with the confessed Faith and Religion, of the Fathers of the Pri­mitiue Church, in the foresayd poynts. And for the cleerest preuenting of the manifold shiftes and euasions, vsed by Protestāts when they are vrged in this kind, I wil only produce such proofe from the Primitiue Church and Fa­thers, as is recorded and confessed by Protestants, and by them disliked and reiected, as agreeing with our Roman Faith, and condemning Protestancie.

THAT THE FATHERS AND DOCTOVRS 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. CHAPTER. III.

BEcause the deciding of this present Controuersie of the Chur­ches Primacie, is indeed the speediest, and most certaine meanes, for the final dissoluing of al doubts in Religion, either already begun, or hereafter to arise: I wil therfore more particularly, and at large, set downe the manifest, and confessed Doctrine and practice of the Primitiue Church, concerning the same.

And first, as al gouernment whether Politick or Ecclesiastical, the more it resēbleth the gouernment of this world, by the Creatour therof, ONE GOD, or the gouernment of the Church, during our Sauiours aboad vpon earth, by ONE CHRIST, the more it is to be approued, cōmended, and followed: so nothing is holden more Soueraigne, or more needful for the procuring or preseruing of vnitie and concord, in anie Bodie or Communitie, then the vnitie of one Head, or gouernment Monarchical.

Herevpon theBel. de Rom. Pont l. 1. c. 10. & l. 2. c 12. Catholick Church doth beleeue and teach: That S. Peter was ordayned by Christ the Supreme Ecclesiastical Head, not only ouer the rest of the Apostles, but euen ouer the whole Church: And that the Bishop of Rome succeedeth him in the same Power and Authoritie. The directLuther l de Potestate Papae & in asser­tione Art. 25. Calu. l. 4 In­stit. c 6. Mor­ton in his Ap­peale l. 2. c. 5. Sect. 11. Negatiue wherof, is not only taught by the Protestant-Church, but withal it further beleeueth & maintayneth, that the B [...]shop of Rome, in steed of being the true Successour of S. Peter, and the Vicar of Christ, is the true Antichrist, or Man of Sinne, wherof so much is foretold in the sacred Scri­ptures.

To discouer now the Faith and practise of the Primitiue Church, and to begin with the confessed Primacie of S. Peter: And first, that for the pre­seruing of vnitie and preuenting of Schismes, he was appoynted by Christ the Supreme Head of that slender Bodie, or litle Church of the twelue Apostles. Wheras S. Hierom (l. 1. cont. Iouinianum.) teacheth, that Amongst the Twelue one is chosen, that a Head appoynted, the occasion of Schisme should be taken away. From henceIn his Examination &c. against the Plea of the Innocent. p. 106. 107. D. Couel, hauing spoken of the necessitie of One aboue the rest, to suppresse the seed of dissention, thus argueth most strongly: If this were the Principal meanes to preuent Schismes & dissentions in the Primitiue Church, when the Graces of God were far more abundant, and eminent then now they are: Nay, if the Twelue were not like to agree, except there had been one Chief among them (for sayth Hierom, among the Twelue one was therefore chosen, that a Chief being appoynted, occasion of dissention might be preuented.) How can they think, that equalitie would keep al the Pastours in the world in peace and vnitie &c. For in al Societies Authoritie (which can not be, where al are equal) must procure vnitie and obedience.

In like sort theCen. 4. Col. 556. Centurists confesse, that Optatus l. 2. cont. Donat. writeth: It can not be denyed, but that thou knowest in the Cittie of Rome, the Episcopal Chaire to haue been first bestowed vpon Peter, in which Peter, the Head of al the Apostles, sate, wherupon he is called Cephas; In which one Chaire vnitie should be kept by al, least the other Apostles should euerie one defend his owne; So that he should be esteemed a Schismatick and sinner, who should erect another against that singular Sea; therfore there is one Chaire &c. Cent. 4. Col. 1100. They also re­prehend him, for that he extolleth ouermuch the Chaire of Peter, and the Succession of the Roman Bishops. AndIn his Re­tentiue &c. p. 248. D. Fulk chargeth Optatus with absurditie, for saying of Peter: He deserued to be preferred before al the Apostles, and he alone receaued the Keyes of the kingdome of heauen, to be communicated to the rest. Retentiue against Bris­tows Motiues p. 248. D. Fulk Retentiue against Bris­tows Motiues p. 248. speaking of S. Leo and S. Gregorie Bishops of Rome, confesseth that, The mysterie of iniquitie hauing wrought in that Seate neer fiue or six hundred yeares before them (so anciently before them did the Roman Sea in his [Page 10] opinion begin to be Papal) and then greatly encreased, they were so deceaued with long continuance of errour, that they thought the dignitie of Peter was much more ouer the rest of his fellow Apostles, then the holie Scriptures of God do allow. Yea theCent. 3. col. 85. Centurists recite and reproue Origen (hom. 17. in Lucam) for calling Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. And D. Raynolds In his Cō ­ference p. 485. citeth S. Dio­nysius (de diuinis nominibus. c. 3.) tearming Peter, the chief and most ancient Top (or Head) of the Apostles. Apocalypsis in cap. 13. p. 343. This poynt is so euident in the Fathers, that M. Brightman thinketh, It hath its original from a corrupt Doctrine, to wit, the false boasted Authoritie of the Chaire of Peter, wherof almost at euerie word the Roman Bishop braggeth; and which the Ancient Saints Tertullian, Cyprian and others, extolled with immoderate prayses, not knowing with what impietie they prepared the way &c.

But the Fathers further proceed, teaching that the whole Church was built or founded vpon S. Peter. To which purpose the Rhemists citing S. Gregorie, D. Fulk answereth: The Ag. Rhem. Test. in Math. 16.19. Authoritie of Gregorie &c. being a Bishop of Rome himself, and so neer the time of the open reuelation of Antichrist in the Romish Sea, is partial in this case, and therefore not to be heard. And againe Leo Ibid. vers. 18. Bishop of Rome, striuing for the dignitie of his Sea, as his Predecessours Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestin, had done before &c. is no equal Iudge in this case. TheCent. 8. col. 555. Centurists charge S. Hilarie, that he speaketh incommodiously of Peter the Apostle, that he lyeth vnder the building of the Church, and is made the Foundation therof. TheyCent. 4. col. 557. & see col. 1250. likewise affirme, that S. Hierom sayth incommo­diously of Peter, that our Lord built his Church vpon him: And for the like Saying, theyCent. 4. col. 558. and see col. 1250. reproue Nazianzene. Yea theyCent. 3. col. 84. charge Tertullian, that, not without errour he seemeth to think that the Keyes were committed only to Peter, and that the Church was built vpon him. And theyCent. 3. col. 84. confesse, that, Cyprian in manie places affirmeth, the Church to be founded vpon Peter, as l. 1. ep. 3. l. 4. ep. 9. &c. And theyCent. 3. col. 85. charge Origen Tract. 5. in Math. to say, Peter by promise deserued to be made the foundation of the Church Resp. Ad Bellar. disp. part. 1. p. 277. Danaeus repro­ueth the Fathers in general, for that, they (sayth he) naughtily expounded of the Person of Peter, that Saying of Christ, Math. 16. Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rock, I wil build my Church Instit. l. 4. c. 6. sec. 6. Caluin sayth: The Church to be built vpon Peter, because it is sayd, vpon this Rock &c. some of the Fathers haue so expoun­ded, but the whole Scripture gaynsayeth. Yea the Fathers kept a yearely Fes­tiual day in honour of S. Peters Sea or Chaire: which poynt Bellarmine con­firming by the testimonies of sundrie Fathers, Danaeus In Resp. ad Bellar. Disp. part. 1. p. 275. 276. only answereth, that the Fathers assertion therof, was the Iudgements and Testimonies of the Church then corrupted and bewitched, or made blind with this errour.

And wheras Anacletus ep. 3. Leo ep. 53. and Gregorie l. 6. ep. 37. do al of them teach, a special preheminence to be giuen euen to the Seas of Alexan­dria and Antioch, before other Apostolical or Patriarchal Seas, in respect of S. Peter, who first founded them, Danaeus In Resp. ad Bell. part. 1. p 275. in his answer to Bellarmin obiecting them, in steed of a better euasion, barely writeth: What he bringeth out of Anacletus, Leo, and Gregorie, is in vaine, seing they plead for themselues in their owne cause. But D. Fieldof the Church l. 5. c. 31. p. 162. ingenuously confesseth, that There were in the beginning only Three Patriarcks, to wit, the Bishop of Rome, Alex­andria, [Page 11] and Antioch: The reason, as some think, why the Bishops of these Seas were preferred before others, and made Patriarcks, was in respect had to blessed S. Peter, who was, in sort before expressed, in order and honour the First and Chiefest of the Apostles &c. Al Churches are rightly called Apostolick, but these more specially, in which the Apostle Peter sate: And in proof of this he alleageth Anacletus, Leo, and Gregorie before mentioned. D. Fulk In his Confut. of Pa­pists quarrels. &c. p. 4. affirmeth in general, that manie of the ancient Fathers were deceaued, to think something more of (Peters) Prerogatiue, and the Bishop of Romes dignitie, then by the word of God was giuen to either of them.

Hence then we see, that Catholicks defending S. Peter to haue been ap­poynted by Christ the Head of the Apostles, and of the whole Church: As also the Church to haue been built or founded vpon Peter, and in this regard Peters Sea to haue been preferred before the Seas of al other Patriarcks; do herein but symbolize with the ancient Fathers, Gregorie, Leo, Optatus, Hierom, Hilarie, Origen, Cyprian, Tertullian, Dionysius Areopagita, and the other Fathers in general, who are here produced and reproued in these respects, by the Pro­testant Writers, the Centurists, Caluin, Danaeus, Brightman, Fulk, Field, Couel and Raynolds.

IT IS CONFESSED BY PROTESTANTS, that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church beleeued and taught, the Bishop of Rome to Succeed S. Peter in the Primacie of the whole Church. CHAPTER IV.

HAuing hitherto proued the Primacie of S. Peter ouer the whole Church; the next point to be considered, is, whe­ther the sayd Primacie, not being personally tyed to him, as to dye with him, but rather being to suruiue and con­tinue in his Successours, to the Churches good, euen to the end of the world; whether, I say, the sayd Primacie, is deriued to the Bishop of Rome, as the Successour of S. Peter. And herein D. BilsonIn his true difference &c. part. 1. p. 147. confesseth most playnly, and in general, that The Ancient and Learned Fathers, cal the Roman Bishop, Peters Successour. The Centurists Cent. 5. col. 1262. charge S. Leo, that, He painfully goeth about to proue, that sin­gular preheminence was giuen to Peter aboue the other Apostles, and that thence rose the Primacie of the Roman Church. And the like is confessed of S. Leo by D. Raynolds In his con­ference p. 42. 43. who further granteth, thatConferen­ce p. 218. 219. The Fathers say, Peter was Bishop of Rome, naming Hierom, Eusebius, Ireneus. AndChron. D. Cowper calleth Linus, first Bishop of Rome after Peter. Osiander Cent. 4. p. 294. speaking of the an­cient Councel of Sardis decreing Appeales to Rome, professeth to deliuer the then common opinion, and reason therof, saying: It was the ancient, common, and receaued errour, that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, therefore this honour was thought due to the Successour of Peter, according to the common opi­nion [Page 12] &c. Bucer In Prae­paratorijs ad Concilium. sayth: We plainly confesse, that among the ancient Fathers, the Roman Church obtayned Primacie aboue others, as that which hath the Chaire of S. Peter, and whose Bishops haue almost alwayes been accounted the Successours of Peter. Yea the ancient Fathers were so confident herein, that they taught the Primacie of the Roman Bishop, to be the ordinance of Christ himself, and not anie Humane or Ecclesiastical Institution. So Gelasius (In Decretis cum 70. Episcopis) teaching that, The Roman Church is preferred before the other Churches, not by anie Synodical Constitutions, but hath obtayned the Primacie, by the Euangelical voyce of our Lord saying: Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rock I wil build my Church. TheCent. 5. col. 1274. Centurists hereupon inferre, and confesse that, Gelasius contended that the Roman Church, by the law of God, was the First (or Chief) of al Churches. In like sortDe Regno Christi l. 2. p. 149. Philippus Nicolai granteth that, Pope Iulius (who liued Anno. 370.) as Socrates and Sozomene relate, sent Letters to the Eastern Churches, in which, as the Letters witnesse, he often declareth the right of calling General Councels, to belong to him alone, who by singular Priui­ledge, euen by Gods ordinance, is the Prelate of the first Sea &c. to wit, the Roman.

This Diuine ordinance was so beleeued, reuerenced, and obeyed by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church, as that, nothing is more manifest in al their writings, or other histories, and Records of Antiquitie, nor more fully ac­knowledged and disliked by the greatest Enemies therof, the Protestant Writers. And to begin with S. Gregorie, whom M. Bale In Act. Rom. Pont. p. 44. styleth Gregorie the Great, of al the Roman Patriarks, the most excellent in life and learning: This so excellent a Patriark, is charged out of his owne writings by the Centurists, Cent. 6. col. 425. 426. 427. 428. 429. 430 431. 432. &c. with clayme and exercise of Iurisdiction and Primacie, ouer al Churches. Carion Chron. l. 4. p 567 568. affirmeth, that, Though he tragically declaymeth himself to abhorre the name of Vniuersal Bishop, yet indeed he sheweth himself earnestly to desire that which the Title importeth. And Peter In Cap. 8. Iudicum. And see the liKe in Philippus Ni­colai De Regno Christi. l. 2. p. 66. Martyr in this scoffing manner reprehendeth him, saying: This litle Saint Gregorie, would haue the thing it self of Vniuersal Bishop, although he streightned the name and Title: For as the Histories of those times teach, and his owne Epistles witnesse, he did not abstayne from gouer­ning other Churches.

M. Bale In his Image of both Churches fol. 11. See Bullin­ger in 2. Thess. 2. p. 531. And Melancton in Ep. Ad Rom. p. 405. q. 2. p. 17. acknowledgeth, that, Iohn of Constantinople, contended with Gregorie of Rome, for the Supremacie; in which contention Gregorie layd for himself S. Peters keyes, with manie other sore arguments and reasons. The Protestant Au­thour (15) of Catholick Traditions reporteth, that Maurice the Emperour would haue taken away the Primacie from Gregorie Bishop of Rome, and giuen it to Iohn Bishop of Constātinople &c. Gregorie did oppose himselfe against him, least he should loose his place, vrging how insolent that Title was. The CenturistsCent. 6. col 425 con­fesse, that Gregorie, vpon the fourth Penitential Psalme, greatly inueigheth against the Emperour, who challenged to himself the Roman Church, being the Head of al Churches, and would make her a seruant, being the Mistresse of Nations; Christ also saying: I wil giue to thee the Keyes. And,Cent. 6. col. 425. Gregorie glorieth that the Emperour, and Eusebius his fellow-Bishop (of Constantinople) do both of them ac­knowledge, that the Church of Constantinople, is subiect to the Apostolick Sea. Yet the Magdeburgians do further charge S. Gregorie, and by collection out of his [Page 13] owne writings by them particularly alleadged, thatCent. 6. col. 426. He challenged to himself power to command Archbishops, to ordayne or depose Bishops at his plea­sure: AndCent. 6. col. 427. tooke vpon him right to cite Archbishops to declare their cause before him, when they were accused: And alsocol. 427. to Excommunicate and Depose them: Giuing col 428 Commission to theyr Neighbour (Bishops) to proceed against them: Thatcol. 428. & 401 In theyr Prouinces he placed his Legats to know, and end the causes of such as appealed to the Roman sea: Thatcol. 428. He vsurped power of appoynting Synods in theyr Prouinces col 429. And see more col. 430. 432. 433. 434. 435. 436. 437. 438. And required other Archbishops, that if anie cause of greater importance fel out, they should referre the same to him &c. appoynting in Prouinces, his Vicars ouer other Churches to end smaller matters, and to reserue the greater causes to himself.

Caluin, Instit. l. 4. c. 7. sec. 12. auoucheth that, There is no word in the writings of Gregorie wherin more proudly he boasteth of the greatnes of his Primacie, then this, to wit, I know not what Bishop is not subiect to the Apostolick Sea, when he is found faultie &c. He assumeth to himself power to punish those who offend. D. Raynolds findeth no better shift for the foresayd Saying of S. Gregorie, then impudently to say thatConfe­rence. p. 547. Either Gregorie wrot not so, or he wrot an vntruth, to cheer vp his Subiects Cent. 6. p. 289. See Phi­lippus Nicolai de Regno Chri­sti. li. 2. p. 67. & 351. Osiander acknowledgeth that, Augustin was sent from Gre­gorie the Great Bishop of Rome, into England, that he might subdue the same to the Iurisdiction of the Roman Bishop Cent. 6. p. 290. and to the lust of the Roman Antichrist; for which (sayth Osiander) Austin was after his death vndoubtedly damned to Hel. Yea D. Morton Prot. Appeal. l. 1. sec. 28. p. 31. a man most sparing to tel the truth, yet yeel­deth thus far, saying: Whether, or how far, Two hundred yeares after, S. Gregorie did reach his Arme of Iurisdiction beyond the limits of his Diocesse, is a question, by reason of his diuers obscure speeches, and some particular practises, diuersly cen­sured of our Authours. But besides the cleerest premisses, this Question of D. Morton, is made none by D. Raynodls, teaching, thatConfer. p. 550 The Primacie which Gregorie, Leo, and others giue to the Sea of Rome, doth so exceed the truth that &c. AndIbid. p. 545. that Gregorie is somwhat large that way: Yea that he and al the Popes for three hundred yeares before himIb. p. 549 auouch more of their Sea, then is true and right, in the opinion of Protestants: With whom accor­deth D. Fulk saying: Gregorie In 2. Thess. 2. was a great worker and furtherer of the Sea of Antichrist, and of the mysterie of iniquitie. AndIn Iohn. 21. we go not about to cleer Gregorie from al vsurpation of Iurisdiction, more then to his Sea appertayned. So certayne and out of al question it is, that S. Gregorie the Great, was a true Roman Catholick, in his Doctrine, and practise of the Popes Primacie.

By the premisses then it is euident, that the obiection so much vrged byContrae Camp. rat. 6. p 97. FulK in his Answer to a Counterf. Cath. Iewel in his Reply. art. 4. p. 225. 226. 227. Mortons Appeal l 1. c. 2. sec. 29. p. 32. D. Whitaker, D. Fulk, D. Iewel, D. Morton and sundrie other Prote­stants, from S. Gregorie his reiecting and disliking of the Title of Vniuersal Bishop, is altogeather impertinent; seing S. Gregorie reiected the same in that sense, which Iohn Bishop of Constantinople applyed to himself, to wit, that he was the sole Bishop, and none Bishop but he. A thing so euident, that the ProtestantDe Ec­clesia l. 2. c. 10. p. 570. Andreas Friccius (whomIn his com. Places. part. 4. p. 77. Peter Martyr tearmeth an excellent learned man) in like sort expresseth the same, saying: Some there be &c. that obiect the Authoritie of Gregorie, who sayth, that such a Title pertayneth to the Precursour of Antichrist, but the reason of Gregorie is to be knowne, and it may be gathered of his wordes, which he repeateth in manie Epistles, that [Page 14] the Title of vniuersal Bishop is contrarie to, and doth gainsay, the Grace which is commonly powred vpon al Bishops. He therfore that calleth himself the onlie Bishop, taketh the Bishoplike power from the rest; wherfore this Title he would haue to be reiected &c. But it is neuertheles euident by other places, that Gregorie thought that the charge and Principalitie of the whole Church was committed to Peter &c. And yet for this cause Gregorie thought not, that Peter was the fore­runner of Antichrist. So plainly doth this Protestant answer this so often vrged obiection from S. Gregorie; and so euident also it is, that S. Gregorie himself claymed and defended the Primacie of the Roman Bishop and Church ouer al other Bishops and Churches whatsoeuer. But to arise from S. Gregorie to other Doctours and Fathers more ancient, his next predeces­sour Pope Pelagius is for the self same cause much reproued by Osiāder Cent. 6. p. 242, in these words: Pelagius greatly inueigheth against Iohn of Constantinople, because he assumed to himselfe the Title of Vniuersal Patriarch, and shewed by that prophane Title of Vniuersal, to abolish the name of other Patriarchs &c. But in the meane time he contendeth the Roman Church to be the Head of al other Churches, and he bableth manie things of the Priuiledges giuen by Christ to S. Peter.

The Centurie-writers speaking of the Fathers errours which liued in the fift Age, playnly and at large confesseCent. 5. col. 774. that, In this fift Age the Roman Bishops applyed themselues to get and establish dominion ouer other Churches. So they acknowledge that Pope Celestin (of whomIn his Defence. p. 588. D. Whitguift sayth, He was a godly Bishop) gaue priuiledge of vsing the Title of Pope and the Miter to Ciril of Alexandria, whom he had substituted in his place to be President in the Councel of Ephesus. He is also charged by M. Carthwright In his 2. Reply. part. 1. p. 512. to haue claymed superioritie ouer al Churches, taking vpon him as it were the name of Vniuersal Bishop. Cent. 5. col. 1246. Osiander affirmeth that, He contended in behalf of the Roman Churches Primacie more impudently then did his Predecessours. Cent. 5. col. 1285. Ne­storius (the Heretick) then Bishop of Constantinople, he allotted ten dayes space to repent, which if he did not, he should not only be excommunicated, but (his name) should be blotted out of the Catalogue of Priests. And for the ac­complishment of the premises, he made Cyril of Alexandria his Legat. The Centurists Cent. 5. col. 778. charge the Popes of those times, that, They vsurped to them­selues power of commanding other Bishops, that whom they would, and should propose in forraine Churches, they might ordayne Bishop, or whom they would not haue, might depose. So Celestin in his Epistle to Cyril of Alexandria, and Iohn of Antioch, and Rufus of Thessalonica, commandeth them, that they designe Proclus Bishop at Constantinople.

D. Raynolds affirmeth, that theConfe­rence. p. 457. Popes of the Second Three hundred yeares after Christ, claymed some Soueraintie ouer Bishops. And thatIb. p. 383. Sozimus, Boniface, Celestin, did vsurp ouer the churches of Africk, while S. Austine was aliue &c. Ib. p. 544. They would haue Bishops and Elders appeale to Rome. And thatIb. p. 550. Popes (namely Innocent, Leo, Gelasius, Vigilius, Gregorie) taught that the Fa­thers by the Sentence of God decreed, that whatsoeuer was done in Prouinces far of, should not be concluded before it came to the notice of the Sea of Rome. And this they say, al churches took their beginning from the Roman, that al Bishops had their honour from Peter. And herewith he confesseth that in those times, Popes Ibid. p. 540. were learned, and Catholicks, and were Ibid. p. 552. 554. 555. sued vnto by S. Basil, [Page 15] S. Chrysostom, and S. Austin; and the African Bishops sought vnto them for their aduise and counsel, for their authoritie and credit.

To come to S. Leo, for whomof the Church. l. 5. p. 284. D. Field (speaking of this verie poynt) profereth thus largely: Surely if they can shew, that Leo sayth anie such thing as the former Popes are taught to say, we wil most willingly listen to them; for we acknowledge Leo to haue been a most worthie Bishop, and the things that go vnder his name, to be his indubitate workes. And M. Mason Conse­cration of En­gli. Bishops p. 115. tearmeth him, Pope Leo, a holie and learned Pope.

Now for D. Fields and al other Protestants further satisfaction in this poynt, I wil but only recite what other Protestant Writers acknowledge and censure of that most worthie Bishop Leo. In Con­fess Geneu. c. 7. sect. 12. Beza affirmeth that, It is manifest, that Leo in his Epistles doth cleerly breath-forth the arrogancie of the Antichristian Roman Sea. In his Conference vvith Hart. p. 50. D. Raynolds writeth, I do freely professe, that I mislike those haughtie speaches in Leo, and I think that the Mysterie of iniquitie so wrought through his so ambitious aduancing Peter, that &c.De Con­ciliis contra Bellarm p. 37. D. Whitakers censure is, As for Leo the First, I litle care; he was a great Architect of the Antichristian kingdome. And yet this notwithstanding the sameIbid. p. 34. D. Whitaker acknowledgeth, that, Leo was a learned and godly Bishop, but yet (sayth he) ouer ambitious. TheCent. 5. col. 1013. Centurists report, how that Theodoret a Greek Father, being deposed by the Second Councel of Ephesus, did make his appeale to Pope Leo, and that thereupon the most godlie Leo restored to Theodoret his Bishoprick. They likewiseCent. 5. col. 778. con­fesse, that Leo confirmed Maximus Bishop of Antiochia in his Bishoprick: and established to Pro [...]erius Bishop of Alexandria the ancient rights of that Sea ac­cording to the Canons and Priuiledges, as is shewed in the 68. and 69. Epistle of Leo. And they affirmeCent. 5. col. 779. that the Popes of those times, took vnto themselues power to excommunicate other Archbishops and Churches: So Leo excommunicated the Eastern (Bishops) and Foelix Acacius, Gelasius condem­ned Acatius and Peter, sending letters into the East; And thatCent. 5. col. 780. They endeauoured to challenge that Authoritie ouer Archbishops, that if they did anie thing, they should be thought to do it by Authoritie of the Roman Bishop, as though they were his seruants and slaues. So Leo Epist. 84. sheweth that the Bishops of Thessalonica alwayes supplyed the place of the Apostolick sea, and he admonished Anastasius (then their Bishop) that in remote Prouinces, in some sort he should visit himself, and decree nothing, but what he knew would be approued by him. Also They Cent. 5. col. 779. dared to exact of Archbishops, that if there were anie thing they could not determine by their owne Iudgments, they should referre it to them. So Leo epist. 84. prescribeth this law to the (Bishop) of Thessalonica. In like sort, theyCent. 5. col. 781. assumed to themselues power to cal General Councels, as appeareth in the 93. epist. of Leo &c. And they reiected as vnlawful such Synods as were assembled without their Authoritie &c. Leo sent Paschasius Bishop of Sicilie to be President in the Councel of Chalcedon. AndCol. 782 The Fathers often for honour sake desired theyr Decrees to be confirmed by them. So the Councel of Chalcedon writeth to Leo: we desire that thou wilt honour our Iudgement with thy Decrees, and as we desirous of good haue agreed, so thy Height (or greatnes) may fulfil in thy sonnes what is fitting. And yet D. Raynolds confesseth of this Councel,Conf. p. 563. that it (67) was a companie of 630. Bishops, sound in Religion and Zealous of the glorie of God: [Page 16] affirming further, that the sayd CouncelIb. p. 562 named Pope Leo their Head; and that he was, President of the Councel. But to conclude this of Leo, wherin for D. Fields further satisfaction, I haue been the larger, it is playnly confes­sed by the Centurists Cent. 5. col. 12. 62. that Leo, verie paynfully goeth about to proue, that sin­gular preheminence was giuen to Peter aboue the other Apostles, and that thence rose the Primacie of the Roman Church. For which verie cause, D. Morton char­geth S. Leo, to haue beenProt. Appeal. l. 2. p. 283. 285. Peremptorie &c. and ambitious. As for Pope Leo Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 294. 295. (sayth he) he was so peremptorie that for his presumption he found in his time some Brotherlie checks. To proceed, Prosper (de ingratis c. 2.) affir­ming Rome to be the seat of Peter, and the Head of Pastoral Honour ouer the world, is censured for the same byResp. ad Bellar. par. 1. p. 594. Danaeus, to be the Popes flatterer. In like sort, Vincentius aduersus Haer. is chargedIbid. p. 313. by him, to haue plainly flat­tered the Pope of Rome, when he tearmed S. Faelix and S. Iulius, Bishops of Rome, to be the Head of the world, and S. Cyprian and S. Amhrose, the Sides.

But to passe to others, theCent. 5. col. 778. Centurists affirme, that Gelasius in his epistle to Faustus, doth impudently lye (affirming) that it is established in the Ca­nons, that Appeales of the whole Church should be brought to the Examen of the Roman Sea, and from her in no place Appeale should be made. And agayne,Cent. 5. col. 780. Gelasius in his epistle to the Dardanians, affirmeth that he hath giuen the charge of the Church of Alexandria, to Acacius of Constantinople, and therefore that he ought to relate al things vnto him. YeaCent. 5. col. 779. they further confesse, that Gelasius, in the Tome of Excommunications, denyeth that Peter of Alexandria, Bishop of the second Sea, can be absolued by anie then the Bishop of the first Sea, to wit, the Roman. As alsoCent. 5. col. 1274. & M. Symondes vpō the Reuel. c. 5. p. 58. Gelasius held, that Councels are subiect to the Pope, and that al should appeale to him, but none from him.

TheyCent. 5. col. 778. And Symondes vpon the Re­uel. p. 57. likewise charge Pope Sixtus, that In his 3. Epistle to the Eastern (Bishops) and 5. chapter, he decreeth, that against a Bishop, appealing to the Sea Apostolick, nothing shal be determined, but what the Roman Bishop iudgeth. But to omit sundrie other particular PopesIn his Tryal of the Popes Title. p. 117. M. Bunnie confesseth, that, Innocentius telleth the Bishops of Macedonia, that they should haue regard to the Church of Rome, as to their Head, and that it is wronged, because they did not at first yeald to his Iudgement &c. The Bishops of Rome gaue also out Decrees, which they would bind al to obserue, as appeareth in Siricius and Innocentius: It sauou­reth of too great arrogancie, that Sozimus threatneth seueritie, if anie despise the Apostolick authoritie, So did Leo; what should I seek to speak of euerie one, their owne Decretals do sufficiently beare witnes.

Yea it is acknowledged in generalCent. 5. col. 778. that the Popes of this fift Age, ordayned and required, that in the causes of Bishops, it might be lawful to appeale to them, as is manifest by the Acts of the 6. Carthage Councel. AndIn his Def. p. 342. D. Whit­guift auoucheth, that, It is certaine that then (Viz. in the time of the Carthage and African Councels) the Bishops of Rome began at least to clayme Superioritie ouer al Churches. Now the Councel of Carthage was assembled about Anno 419. and the African Anno 423. Yea it is granted byIn his second Reply. part. 1. p. 510. VVhitguift in his Def. p 344 Sarauia de diuersis gra­dibus &c. p. 493. M. Carthwright, and other Protestant Writers, that the Councel of Chalcedon (whose au­thoritie is established to our Aduersaries by Act of Parlament, Anno 1. Eli­sabeth. c. 1.) did offer the name of vniuersal Bishop, to the Bishop of Rome.

And hence it is that the Centurists Cent. 5. col. 774. affirme of these ancient Roman Bishops, that, They had flatterers, who affirmed, that without permission of the Roman Bishop, none might vndertake the person of a Iudge Cent. 5. col. 775. Who then like­wise auerred that, Antiquitie had attributed the Principalitie of Priesthood, to the Roman Bishop aboue al. And accordingly, that Turbius Asturiensis, flattered Pope Leo, and acknowledged his superioritie. And wheras Theodoret speaking of the Roman Sea, sayth: That holy Sea hath the Gouernment of al the Churches of the world, M. Iewel findeth no better answer hereto, then to sayArt. 4. Diu. 21. That man naturally aduanceth his power, at whose hands he seeketh help: As though Theo­doret would giue an Antichristian Title (for so Protestants account it) for auarice, or S. Leo would accept it for flatterie. Thus much as touching those Fathers and Bishops who liued in the Fift Age after Christ, and their con­fessed testimonies, of the Iurisdiction really executed by the Popes of those times, not only ouer their Neighbour Churches and Bishops in Italie, but ouer remote Countries, and the other greatest Archbishops and Patriarcks of the world, as of Antioch, Hierusalem, Alexandria, and Constantinople, and by them then, accordingly acknowledged and obeyed.

To come now to the Fathers that liued in the Age precedent, which is the time wherin Constantin the Great, liued, although the Church began as then, but as it were, to take breath, from her former long endured persecutions, whereby neither her Writers were so manie, nor her face of outward Go­uernment so knowne, as in the times succeeding: Yet is there not wanting euen for that time, sufficient confessed testimonie in this kind.

In this Age liued Pope Damasus, a man for vertue and learning so highly deseruing, as thatDecades in English. on the page next before the first Decade. Bullinger, not only calleth him, Blessed Damasus Bishop of Rome &c. but withal setteth downe the Imperial Decree of the Emperours Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, for the embracing of the Religion, taught by Damasus, and Peter of Alexandria In his Def. &c. p 345 M. Whiteguift confesseth that, Da­masus, was a Vertuous, Learned, and Godlie Bishop The Estate of the Church p. 137. And Crispinus reporteth how much he was esteemed of, by Hierom, Athanasius, and Nazianzen. This so much esteemed a Pope for learning and vertue, is charged by M. Cart­wright In his Reply part. 1. p. 502. to speak in the Dragons voice, when he shameth not to write, that the Bishop of Romes Sentence, was aboue al other to be attended for in a synod. Crispinus The Estate of the Church p 137. chargeth Damasus, that he was, too much giuen to eleuate the Dignitie of his Sea: For (sayth he) he begimeth his sayd Epistle to them of Con­stantinople: In the Reuerence, deare children, which you owe to the Apostolick Sea, you do much for your selues &c. Vpon the Reuel. c. 5. p. 54. and See Cent. 4. col. 550 M. Symondes acknowledgeth, that Da­masus wrote to the Councels of Africk, that the Iudgement of the causes of Bishops, and al other Matters of great importance, may not be determined, but by the autho­ritie of the Apostolick Sea. And wheras Socrates (l. 4. c. 30.) reporteth, that Peter, Patriarch of Alexandria, being thence expulsed by the Arians, was vpon his iourney and request to Damasus, Bishop of Rome, and returne from thence which Damasus his letters, restored and confirmed thereby in his Sea of Alexandria: This same Historie is acknowledged by theCent. 4. col. 1367. & col. 532. Centurists. And M. Bunnie In his Tryal of the Popes Title. p. 117. acknowledgeth that, Damasus in his 4. Epistle to Prosper and other Bishops of Numidia, commandeth them, that in al doubtful matters they [Page 18] referre themselues to him as to the Head &c. Siricius taketh vpon him to threaten to pronounce Sentence against such as wil do otherwise then he would haue them. So firme was Damasus in defence and execution of the Popes Primacie.

In this same Age liued also Pope Iulius, of whō In his 2. Reply. par. 1. p. 510. M. Carthwright writeth: Iulius Bishop of Rome sayth, it was decreed by the Lawes of the Church, and immediatly after the Nicen Councel, that the Bishop of Rome must be called to the Sinod, and that that was voyd, which was done there besides his Sentence. De Con­ciliis quest. 2. p. 42. 43. 44. D. Whitaker relating the Ecclesiastical Canon of those times, wherby it was decreed, That no Councel should be celebrated without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome, confesseth further, that, Iulius challenged to himself the like authoritie. And wheras Bellarmin doth obiect this example of Iulius, and other Bishops of Rome, alleaging this CanonResp. ad Bellarm. part. 1. p. 595. Danaeus his onlie answear is, that this obiection, is of no moment, because it is produced from the testimonie of a Roman Bishop, that is, from a Partie in his owne cause. And M. Carthwright In his 2. Reply. part. 1. p. 501. auou­cheth, that Iulius Bishop of Rome at the Councel of Antioch outreached in claiming the hearing of causes, that appertayned not to him. TheCent. 4. col. 529. Centurists confesse, that, The Roman Bishops made a Law, that they might command al things first to be written to them, as appeareth by the Epistle of Iulius in Atha­sius Apologia secunda. For Iulius sayth: Are you ignorant this to be the custome, that first we be written vnto &c. Vpon the Reuel. c. 5. p. 53. And see Mornay of the Church in English. p. 264. M. Symonides testifye [...]h that, Iulius decreed, that whosoeuer suspected his Iudge, might appeale to the Sea of Rome. In so much that wheras the Arians had expelled Athanasius B [...]shop of Ale­xandria, Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, and diuers other Catholick Bishops of the East Church, it isCent. 4. col. 530. testifyed, that, Iulius commanded the Arians to come to Rome, and appoynted also a day to Athanasius. Theodoret. l. 2. c. 4. &c. where hearing euerie mans accusations andCent. 4. col. 550. compl [...]ynt, He restored euerie one of these (wronged Bishops) to his owne place, or Bishoprick; and that not by intreatie, or arbitrably, but, as theCent. 4. col. 550. & 530 Centurists confesse, by Prerogatiue of the Roman Sea. Al which might as ye be made much more eui­dent by Iulius his vndoubted Epistle extant in A [...]hanasius his second Apolo­gie, and alledged by the Centurists Cent. 4. col. 735. who mention theircol 737 & 742. Citation euen vnto Iudgement col 739. 740. and at a certayne day, and greatly reprehending thiscol. 529 And see D. field of the Church l 5. p. 178. Saying of Iulius, Are ye ignorant this to be the custome, that first we be written vnto, that from hence that which is right may be defined? &c. for what we haue receaued frō the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify vnto you. To cōclude this of Pope Iulius, Doctour Philippus Nicolai De Re­gno Christi. l. 2. p. 149. auoucheth that, Pope Iulius as Socrates and Sozomene relate, sent letters to the Eastern (Bishops) in which, as the letters witnes, he often affirmeth, the right of calling general Councels by a certain singular Priuiledge, euen by Diuine Precept, to belong to himself alone, who, as he sayth, is the Prelate of the first Sea. He also affirmeth that it no lesse appertayneth vnto him being the Bishop of that Cittie, that he be acquaynted with the affaires of Bishops, and other waightie businesses of that kind. After the same manner and with like ambition Damasus &c. and afterwards Innocentius &c. Thus far the Protestant Philippus. To whom I wil only adde M. Fox confessing thatAct. Mon. l. 1. p. 1. The Church of Rome in al those Ages aboue specifyed (from the Apostles) challen­ged to it self the Title and ring-leading of the whole vniuersal Church on earth, by whose direction al other Churches haue been gouerned. AndIbid. p. 8. whatsoeuer was [Page 19] done in other places, cōmonly the manner was to write to the Roman Bishop for his approbation. The testimonie of the Roman Bishop was sometimes wont to be desired in those dayes (of Pope Iulius) for admitting Bishops in other Churches, wherof we haue examples in Socrates l. 4. c. 37. when Bishops of anie other Prouinces were at anie dissension, they appealed to the Bishop of Rome. Neither was this only the priuate opinion of some particuler Popes of those times, but it was the general receaued doctrine of other Bishops and Fathers: In so much as the Councel of Sardis (which M. Bel In his Regiment of the Church. p 158. tearmeth The famous and ancient Councel of Sardis) cōsisting of 300. Bishops and aboue, assembled from SpaineCent. 4. col. 747. & Theodoret. hist. l 2. c. 8. Frāce, Italie, Greece, AEgipt, Thebais, Palestine, Arabia &c. and most other parts of the Christian world, & wherat sundrie Fathers of the Nicene Coūcel wereCarion in his Chron. p. 282. presentCent. 4. col. 764. decreed Appeales to the Bishop of Rome: Insomuch as theIbid. Cen­turists andEpitome p. 294. Osiander do both of them acknowledge and recite this 7. Ca­non of that Councel: It hath seemed good to vs, that if a Bishop be accused, if the Bishops of the Prouince assembled togeather haue iudged the matter, and haue depri­ued him, if the Partie depriued do appeale and fly to the Bishop of Rome &c. if the Partie accused desiring his cause to be heard once againe, do intreate the Bishop of Rome to send Legats (à latere suo) from him; it shal be in the power of the Bishop to do as he shal think good &c. Antich. Disp. bipart. p. 31. sect. 103. Tilenus speaking hereof auoucheth that, The Decree of the Coūcel of Sardis of Appealing to Rome, made the Roman Bishop more bould. And in regard of this Decree, this so anciēt a Councel is much reprouedInstit. l. 4. c. 7. sect. 9. by Caluin In his com. places in English. p. 4. p. 39. Peter Martyr Palma Christiana. p. 30. 122. 124. Frigiuilleus Gaunius, and Cent 4. p. 294. Osian­der. But to end this Centurie wherin our first Christian Emperour Constantin the Great liued & ruled. The Protest. writerPalma Christiana p. 35. Frigiuilleus Gaunius plainly confesseth, that the sayd Constantin himself attributed Primacie to the Roman (Bishop) before al. & thatIbid p. 34. Therby it appeared to be fatal, that Cōstātin would giue power to the Beast, which (Pope) Iulius forthwith put in practise: for Constantin the Great carryed in his Ensignes the Dragon for his Armes &c. so that he was the Dragon Apoc. 13.2.Fidelis Relatio &c. p. 19. Bibliander acknowledgeth, that Constantin the Great raigning &c. Siluester the Bishop of Rome began to lay the foundations of the Papi­stical Monarchie &c. M. Bale hath almost the same words sayingCent. 1. c. 36. In these times (of Cōstantin) Syluester began to lay the foundation of the Popes Monarchie, and finding the key of the depth, he opened the pit, if it be true which Papists write of him. Yea al the Popes after Syluester to Bonif. 3. he tearmeth Mitred Bishops pre­paring by their Canōs and Decrees the seat for the great Antichrist. TheCent. 4. col. 549. Cētu­rists cōfesse in general, that In this age the Mysterie of iniquitie was not idle Cent. 4 [...] col. 550. And that, The Bishop of Rome challenged by Ecclesiastical Canon, the dissallowing of those Synods, wherat they were absent: So cleer it is, that the Fathers, Bishops and Councels of this Age agreed with vs Catholicks in the doctrine & practise of the Popes Primacie. Now as cōcerning the Age next ensuing the 20. yeares after Christ, in which persecution so raged, as the Churches gouernment was thereby much the more obscured▪ yet it is confessedCent 3. col. 168. that Pope Stephen in this Age (did) threaten Excōmunicatiō to Helenus & Firmilianus, & al (others) throughout Cilicia, Cappadocia, for rebaptizing Hereticks Apo­calypsis &c. c. 7. p. 193, yea M. Brightman is of opinion that, scarcely would anie beleeue those proud brags of the Roman Sea, wherwith the Decretal Epistles abound, not to haue been forged by succeding Popes [Page 20] and so falsely ascribed to the more ancient, they are so impudent and vayne, but that Firmilianus assureth they were theyr owne, at least a great part of them whose names they beare; for speaking of Stephen then Bishop of Rome, who (sayth he) so braggeth of the place of his Bishoprick, and contendeth himself to hold the Succession of Peter, vpon whom the foundations of the Church were placed, and he declareth abundantly how boasting the Bishops then were, amongst the Epistles of Cyprian ep. 75.

TheCent. 3. c. 7. col. 168. Centurists confesse that, Dionysius Bishop of Rome, through the false accusation of some, excommunicated Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria; but Dionysius of Alexandria made his Apologie, and refuted the errours falsely ob­iected vnto him, as Athanasius reporteth. Hereby appeareth not only the au­thoritie of the Bishop of Rome in excommunicating, but also the obsequi­ousnes of the Bishop of Alexandria in not contemning, but making his Apo­logie vnto him.

TheyCent. 3. col. 84. likewise reproue S. Cyprian for teaching that, There ought to be one Bishop in the Catholick Church, And, for his callingIbid. Peters Chayre the principal Church from whence Priestly vnitie ariseth Vpon Iude p. 285. M. Trig repre­hendeth S. Cyprian, saying: Cyprian giueth more priuiledges to the Roman Church; he calleth it the chief Church from whence Priestlie vnitie began &c. And to which infidelitie cannot haue accesse. Wherupon M. Trig thus infer­reth: Here we may note, what certaintie it is, to build our Faith on the Fathers &c And theCent. 3. col. 84. And See Brightman in his Apocalyp­sis in c. 13. p. 343. Centurists charge him, for teaching (say they) without anie foundation of Scripture, that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of al other, for the Mother and root of the Catholick Church. Yea D. Morton Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 294. 295. pro­fessing willingly to admit S. Cyprians Iudgement as Vmpier in this controuersie, is yet inforced to say: Although the next sentences of S. Cyprian may seem, 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, and are therefore censured by our Centurists for speeches inconuenient: Yet no man exercised and conuersant in his writings, and other Fathers, can be igno­rant, that such like speeches are but the languages of Rhetorical Amplification, which commonly they vse by way of persuasion, rather then by asseueration.

But what testimonie, though neuer so cleer in anie matter whatsoeuer, may not easily be euaded, if it wil suffice to answer, that it was but the language of Rhetorical Amplification, or demy-lying? Or for what cause should S. Cyprian and other Fathers, vtter the foresayd Sayings, by way of Persuasion, in behalf of the Roman Churches Prerogatiues, if they had thought in their owne Iudgements and Consciences, that the sayd Prero­gatiues had not been due vnto her? So vndoubted it is, that S. Cyprian and the other Fathers of his Age, beleeued and acknowledged the Pri­macie of the Roman Church.

But as touching the Age next after the Apostles themselues, wherof as M. Hutton In his ansvver to the 2. par. of the Reasons of Refusal to Subscription p. 105. obserueth, but few Monuments are now remay­ning: As then liued Pope Victor, who in D. Whiteguifts In his Defence &c. p. 510. opinion was a godlie Bishop and Martyr, and the Church at that time in great puritie: And yet of him sayth D. Whitaker Cont. Duraeum l. 7. p. 480. FulK in his Ansvv. to a counterf. Cath. p. 36. with D. Fulk, The first that exercised [Page 21] Iurisdiction vpon forraine Bishops, was Victor: Insomuch as he excommunica­ting the Bishops of Asia for not obseruing the Feast of Easter-day according to the vse of the Latin Church, D. Fulk Ibid. chargeth him that, He passed the bounds of his authoritie. Amandus Polanus In Sillog. Thes. Theol. p. 165 accuseth him, to haue shewed a Papal mind and arrogancie. And M. Spark Against Iohn de Al­bines in his Answer to the Preface. And see Osiander cent. 2. p. 87. & 96. affirmeth that, somewhat Pope-like he exceeded his bounds, when he took vpon him to excommunicate the Bishops of the East. Beza Pref. ad Princip. Condensem. before his Translation of the New Testament. tearmeth Victor the most foolish and most ambitious Bishop of Rome. AndOf the state of the Church p. 47 Crispinus speaking of this Age, auoucheth, that The Roman Bishops now became more audacious to forge new Ceremonies, yea and to force vpon other Churches &c. Victor in his 2. Decretal calleth himself Archbishop of the Roman and vniuersal Church. D Fulk A­gainst the Rhem. Test. in 2. Thess. 2. sec. 9. p. 659. maketh the Mysterie of iniquitie to work in Peters Sea in the times of Anicetus, Victor, and Cornelius. In like sort D. Morton iustifyeth such Protestant Authors asProt. Appeal. l. 2. p. 300. reprehend Victor for arrogancie, and transgressing the bounds of his Iurisdiction, in excommunicating the Churches of Asia &c.

The Centurists record, thatCent. 2. c. 7. col. 159. Anacletus in the Epistles which heare his name, in the general regiment of Churches, so loyneth them togeather, that to the Roman Church he attributeth Primacie and excellencie of power ouer al Churches, and ouer the whole flock of the Christian People, and that by the authoritie of Christ saying to Peter: Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rock wil I build my Church &c. The Bishop of Rome is placed first, as the supreame Head of the Church: who though he erre, yet wil he not haue him to be iudged of others &c. He sayth also, that certaine Citties receaued Primates from the Blessed Apostles, and from S. Clement &c. He prescribeth that, If greater diffi­culties arise, or causes fal out among the Bishops and Primates themselues, let them be brought to the Sea Apostolick, if such Appeale be made: for so the Apostles ordayned by the appoyntment of our Sauiour, that the greater and harder questiōs should alwayes be brought to the Apostolick Sea, vpon which Christ built his vniuersal Church. Math. 16. In like sort they say of Xistus, that In his 2, Epistle (he) nameth himself the Bishop of the vniuersal Apostolick Church: And willeth others to appeale to the Apo­stolick Sea as to the Head. Whereby it is euident that the ancient Popes, Victor, Anacletus, Xistus, and our Gregorie xv. do wholy agree in their due clayme of Primacie. In like māner holie Ireneus, who according to Hamelmanus, De Traditioni­bus col. 528. might yet remember the Apostles owne liuelie preaching, affirming l. 3. c. 3. that, It is necessary that al Churches do accord to the Roman Church, in regard of a more power­able principalitie, is charged for the same by the Centurists, In the Alphabeti­cal Table of the 2. Cent. at the word, Ireneus. with a corrupt Saying, concerning the Primacie of the Roman Church.

But to arise yet euen to the times of the blessed Apostles themselues: wheras Papias, as appeareth by the testimonie of Ireneus, alleadged by the Centurists, Cent. 2 col. 172. liued in the Apostles time &, as D. Fulk In his Answ to A Counterf. Cath. p 35. confesseth, was Schollar to S. Iohn, yet doth M. Midleton Pa­pisto-Mastix p. 200. charge him saying: Papias was the first Father and Founder of Traditions, and Peters Primacie or Romish Episcopa­litie: De Scrip. Auth. l. 2. c. 20. fol. 166. Bullinger reporteth that, forthwith from the verie times of the Apostles, especially from the gouernment of Constantin the Great (vnder whom some say the first poysen was powred into the Church) the desire of gouerning was often put in practise by certain Roman Bishops &c. D. Downeham An­tichristi l. 2. c. 8. p. 79. acknowledgeth, though not the then open Exercise of the (Popes) vniuersal Dominion, yet the priuate Doctrine therof, saying: The Antichrist which is to be destroyed at the second coming of Christ, was come euen in the Apostles time, although he was not reuealed [Page 22] by exercising openly a Soueraigne and vniuersal Dominion. M. Midleton Pa­pisto-mastix. p. 193. affir­meth confidently that, we are sure that the Mysterie of iniquitie did work in Pauls time, and fel not a-sleep so soone as Paul was dead, waking againe six hundred yeares after, when this Mysterie was disclosed &c. And therefore no maruaile though peru­sing Councels, Fathers, and Stories from the Apostles foreward, we find the print of the Popes feet &c.

But Philippus De Regno Chri­sti p. 221. Nicolai vndertaking to speak of the beginning and in­crease of the Popes Dignitie, auoucheth yet further, that The desire of Primacie was the common Infirmitie of the Apostles, Catal. Testium ve­ritatis. Tom. 1. p. 27. and of the first Bishops of the Cittie of Rome. Yea some Protestants doubt not to deriue from S. Peter himself (as being the prognosticon or type therof) the confessed clayme of his Successours the Bishops of Rome, saying to this purpose: It can not be denyed, but that Peter sometimes was subiect to ambition, and desire of Rule &c. By which infirmitie of Peter it was vndoubtedly signifyed, that these Bishops who boasted of Peters succession, were to be subiect to the like, yea to greater ambition by infinit degrees &c. wherfore this so corrupt ambition of Peter, and ignorance and negligence of diuine matters &c. without douht did foreshew, that the Bishop of Rome, in that he wil be the Chief and the Heire of Peters Priuiledges, was to be ignorant and a contemner of heauenlie things, and a louer of human riches, power, and pleasures. And D. Whitaker blusheth not to write, that,De Concil. p. 37. The mysterie of iniquitie did work in the Sea of Rome in Peters time, and did shew itself in Anicetus, Victor, Cornelius, Sozimus, Bonifacius, Celestinus.

Now if it be true which Caluin affirmeth that,Resp. ad Sado­letum. It is playne & conspi­cuous both to learned and vnlearned, that the Kingdome of Christ (by which he meaneth the Protestant Church) was ouerthrowne when the Primacie of the Roman Bishop was erected, then seing the sayd Primacie confessedly began in S. Peter himself, and since hath euer continued in his Successours the Bishops of Rome, it followeth, that therfore the Protestant Church hath been ouer­throwne and ruinated euer since the time of S. Peter; then which what can be produced more conuincing in proof, that the Protestant Church indeed neuer was? But to conclude this with that Princely testimonie of K. Henrie. Luther In Assertione 7. aduersus Luther. Art. 2. cannot deny (sayth he) but that al the Church of the faithful acknow­ledge and reuerence the holie Roman Sea as their Mother and Chief, if they be not debar­red accesse by distance of places, or by dangers in the Way. And yet if they speak truth, which come hither from India, the verie Indians themselues, distant by so manie parts of the Earth, of the Seas, of the deserts, do yet submit themselues to the Bishop of Rome. Therefore if the Pope hath obtayned, neither by the commandment of God, nor by the assent of men, so great and so vniuersal power, but hath challenged the same to himself by his owne power: Let Luther tel me, when he burst into possession of so great Dominion: Can the beginning of so great power be obscure, especially if it began within the me­morie of man? but if he say, that it was aboue one or two Ages agoe, let him make vs re­member the same out of Historie; for otherwise if it be so ancient, that the beginning of so great a matter be blotted out, let him know, that it is prouided by the Lawes, that whose right (or Title) so surpasseth al memorie of men, that it cannot be knowne what beginning it had, it is iudged to haue had a lawful beginning: And it is clearly forbidden by the consent of al Nations, that those things be not changed, which haue long continued without change. So vndoubted it is, that this our Catholick [Page 23] doctrine of the Bishops of Romes Primacie hath been generally taught and practised time out of mind, euen from S. Peter himself, euen to the end of the Primitiue Church, and euer since: as hath been formerly proued.

To come now to the Gouernment of the Church before Christs time, The Puritans themselues do confesse that,Engl. Puritan. p. 16. And Hook. Eccl. Pol. l. 5. p. 235. The high Priest of the Iewes was typi­cally and in a figure the supreame Head of the whole Catholick Church, which though (say they) it were visible only in the Prouince and Nation of Iewrie, yet those of other Nations and Countries (as appeareth by the Historie of the Acts, euen though they were Aethiopians) were vnder this High Priest, and acknowledged homage vnto him. So that he was &c. in verie deed an Oecumenical & vniuersal Bishop of the whole world. yea, sayth M. Iacob, Rea­sons taken out of Gods word p 5. The Iewish Church vnder the Law was National and only One in the world vnder one high Priest. Cent. 4. col. 549. And see Carthwright in Wh [...]tguift Def. p 700. See Osiand. cent. 4. p. 477. Amā ­dus Polanus Symphonia p 841. & 849. And as the Fathers were thus direct and ful for the Bishop of Romes Primacie, so did they answerably reiect al pretended spiritual Primacie in anie temporal Magistrate. So the Centurie-writers confesse, that Emperours assumed to themselues vnseasonably the iudgement of matters of Faith, which thing Athanasius reprehendeth in Constantius, & Ambrose in Valentinian. YeaOf the Estate of the Churcb p. 99 Crispinus confesseth, that our first Christian Empe­rour Constantin sayd; God hath ordayned you Bishops, and hath giuen you power to iudge of yourselues; by meanes wherof we yeeld ourselues to your iudgement. Men may not iudge you, but God alone. YeaIbid. p. 93 And see the A­bridgement of Fox his Acts & Mon. p 67. Crispinus further acknowledgeth, that, he gaue power vnto Clerks for to appeale from Ciuil Magistrats to Bishops. And othersIn the sayd Abrid­gement p. 66 grant that, He freed them from al manner of publick duties and burdens. As also that,Nap­per. vpon the Reu [...]l. p. 145. He subdued al Christian Churches to Pope Syluester; AndFrigi­uilleus Gan­uius in his Palma Christ. p. 35. Attributed Primacie to the Roman Bishop before al. And such was his respect to Ecclesiastical Gouernours, as that the Centurists Cent. 4 col. 4 [...]0. relate that, It is knowne what reuerence and obseruance he had to Bishops in the Councel of Nyce, where he would not sit downe vntil the Bishops willed him: And then asChron. p. 274. And Lubbertus de Concilijs. Carion repor­teth, Constantin sate downe on a lower Seat amongst the Bishops. So far was this most renowned and Christian Prince from challenging to himself Supre­macie in causes Ecclesiastical.

The Centurists Cent. 5. col. 663. doe acknowledge and recite Pope Innocentius his Epistle to Arcadius the Emperour and his wife, who were aduerse to Chryso­stom, and took part with Theophilus, where he thus writeth: I the least of al and a Sinner, hauing yet the Throne of the Great Apostle Peter committed to me, do separate and remoue thee and her, from receiuing the immaculate Mysteries of Christ our God: And euerie Bishop or anie other of the Clergie which shal presume to minister or giue to you those holy mysteries, after the time that you haue read the present letters of my bound, pronounce them voyd of their dignitie &c. Arsacius whom you placed in the Bishop-like Throne in Chrysostoms roome, though he be dead, we depose and command that his name be not written in the role of Bishops. In like manner we depose al other Bishops who deliberatly haue communicated with him &c. To the deposing of Theophilus we adde Excommunication &c. From hence then it appeareth that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church not only denyed euen to the greatest Emperours al pretended Supremacie in Ecclesiastical matters, but that also Constantin himself disclaymed from the same, and when other Emperours offended against the Church, the same Church spared not to punish them for the same.

The premisses likewise do most fully conuince, that the Primitiue Church neuer thought anie Pope or succession of Popes to be Antichrist. But con­trarie to Protestants, (making al Popes for manie hundred yeares past to be Antichrists) it is confessed by D. Whitaker l. De Antichristo p. 21. that, The Fathers for the most part thought that Antichrist should be but one man, but in that (sayth he) as in manie other things they erred, either because they yeelded too much to the common opinion concerning Antichrist, or because they waighed not the Scriptures so diligently as they ought: And as M. Whitaker forsooth hath done; M. Carthwright's In his 2. Reply part. 1. p. 508. See Gracerus his Historia Antichristi p. 11. cen­sure is, that Diuers of the ancient and the chiefest of them imagined fondly of Anti­christ, as of one singular Person. And as for the time of his coming and conti­nuance, M. Fox In Apoc. c. 12 p. 345. acknowledgeth that, Almost al the holie and learned In­terpreters, doe by a Time, Times, and halfe a Time, vnderstand only Three yeares and a halfe: AndIn Apoc. c. 13. p. 362. that this is the consent & opinion of almost al the ancient Fa­thers. Bullinger In Reuel. c. 11. ser. 46. f. 142 auoucheth, that, Doubtlesse al Expositours grounding them­selues vpon this Text, haue attributed to the Kingdome of Antichrist, and to his most cruel persecutions no more then Three yeares and a halfe. This shortest time of An­tichrists raigne was so cleerly the Doctrine & beleef of the ancient Fathers, that D. Morton for his truest answere confesseth the same, reprouing them al of Errour, saying:Prot. Appeal. l 2. p. 144. Why might not these Fathers be sayd, to haue erred in pre­fining the time of Antichrist who haue been thus farr ouerseen in reporting his Tribe? So confessedly do the Fathers cleer al our Popes from being Antichrists.Of the Church. 9. p. 286 Philip Mornay proueth at large that Antichrist is not to come during the continuance of the Roman Empire, in which behalf he alleadgeth the agreable Sayings of S. Ambrose, Hierom, Austin, Chrysostom, and S. Paul. By al which it is most euident, that in the opinion of the ancient Fathers Antichrist is to be but one man, and the continuance of his Raigne to be Three yeares and a halfe before the ending of the world, before which the Roman Empire must cease.

To reuiew then the truest harmonie between the Primitiue and our pre­sent Roman Church in this principal Controuersie concerning the Popes Supremacie in Causes Spiritual and Ecclesiastical; The Fathers and Bishops as then taught: First, that the Bishop of Rome was S. Peters successour, and that this Succession was not anie humane or Synodical Constitution, but euen the ordinance of God himself. Secondly, that therfore Popes might Exercise their Iurisdiction & Primacie ouer al Churches. Thirdly, And so accordingly they did ordaine, Excom­municate, depose, restore, and cite other forraine Bishops & Archbishops. Fourthly, they placed their Legats or Vicars in other Countries to end smaller matters, reseruing the greater causes to thēselues. Fiftly, Appeales were made to them from al Christian Kingdomes. Six [...]ly, and they not only had power to cal General Councels, but they also appoynted Presidents in the same: Yea Councels were then so subiect vnto them, as that no Councel was holden lawful which was not assembled & approued by their authoritie. Seauenthly, Princes & Emperours were subiect to their Spiritual Censures: And yet no Father, Bishop, or King of those times did euer tra­duce anie one of those Popes with that fowlest note or stayne of Anti­christ.

Now the ancient holie Doctours and Bishops which are here acknow­ledged and reproued for the foresayd seueral poynts and priuiledges of the [Page 25] Popes Primacie are, Gregorie, Pelagius, Celestin, 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 theConcil. 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 ProtestantsLuth. & Zuingl. Praef. Bibl. a se Cōuers. 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,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 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 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, [Page 26] for which he at large afterwards reiecteth their iudgement. In like sortde 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, 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, Hist. sacr. part. 1. p. 161. Hip. Meth. Theol. p. 46. Zanch. de sacra-Scrip. p. 32. 33. Field of the Church. p. 246. H [...]perius, Zanchius & D. Field. But Brentius auoucheth more in general, that,Apol. Confess. Wittemb See Bucers Scripta Angl. p. 7 [...]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 affirmethIb. 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, thatOf 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 fol. 6. for the supposed worth therof. D. Bancroft 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 Ruffi [...]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,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 WritersEp. ad Volanum. Lascicius and Parker, of which later D. Willet Lōdoro 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? 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 theHook. Ecol. Pol. l. 1 p. 86. Scriptures themselues, neither by Testi­monie Whit. cont. Staplet. p. 370. 357. Hook vbi sup. p 147. of the Spirit, butHook. 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 [Page 27] D. Whitaker 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,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 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)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.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 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 defendedEp. ad Iulium & hom. 1. in Leuit. against Iulius Africanus (who doubted therof) the Historie of Susanna, which Iewes and Protestants reiect: Yea he auerrethEp. ad Iulium. that part of Esther to be Cano­nical, which Protestants refuse as not being in the Hebrewes Canon. In like sort S. Epiphanius Haer. 76 numbreth Sapientia and Ecclesiasticus among the Diuine Scriptures, and referrethLib. de Pond. & Mensura. post init. Sapientia vnto Salomon.

As concerning S. Hierom, wheras he vnto an vnwariePraef. 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 ProtestantsWhit. cont Camp. p. 18. stil doe) reproue and charge him with refusal of these foresayd parts of Daniel, S. Hierome 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 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 [Page 28] bees Prolog. in Machab. among the Stories of diuine Scripture. Apol 2. cont. Ruffin. fin And of the Booke of Iudith he sayth,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, 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 pretended2. 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 CouncelsConc. 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, thatSuruey 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 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 them­seluesThe first Day [...]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,4. Dayes Conf [...]r. f [...]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 Hebrew [...]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 [Page 29] 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 seemingSee 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 notwithstāding, 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 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 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, 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 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 Ibid. p. 247. andIbid. 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 Cōfessions 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 concerningBellarm. 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, ProtestantsLuth. 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,Prot. Appeale l. 4. p 62. He vseth to confirme some things by Tradition. S. Augustin also, whom D. Field 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, thatDe 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 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 confessethInst. 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 teachingIn 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 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. 6 [...]. 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 [Page 31] things from the Apostles Tadition &c. both which haue like force vnto Godlines. D. Raynolds 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 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 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 Against Purg. p. 302 303. 397 And ag [...]inst Martial p. 170. 178. An [...] against Bristowes Mo [...]s p. 35. 36. confesseth as much of Chrysostome, Tertulian, Cyprian, Augustin, Hierom, &c. Schrederus 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 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 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, Ex [...]m. part. 1. p. 87. concludeth thus: So Origen iudgeth that there are Apo­stolical Traditions. And D. Fulk Aga [...]st Purg. p. 393 confesseth, that Tertulian taught Sacri­fice and prayer for the dead, vpon Traditions from the Apostles. D. Whitaker 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 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 In his Answear to a Count. Cath p. 35. confessing that Papias was Scholler to S. Iohn, yet M. Midleton Papisto­mastix 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,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 Ro­tract. from Rom. Relig. [...]. 73 74. M. Rollock likewise auoucheth that,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 Syna­goga Iudai­ca, p. 13 21. 48, 67. a Protestant Hebrew Reader in Basile. D. Morton admitteth that,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.

PRotestantsLuth. 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 ChurchConc. Florent. ln Institut. Armenorū. 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 Iustification. In like sort where Protestants teach only Baptisme and the Lords Supper to be Sacra­ments, the Catholick Church beleeueth Seauen, to wit, Baptisme, Confir­mation, Pennance, Eucharist, Orders, Matrimonie, and Extreme Vnction.

To examine now what is confessed herein from the Faith and Doctrine of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church, and first concerning the effica­cie of Sacraments; S. Austin expressing the difference between the Sacra­ments of the Old Testament and ours, affirmeth that,In Ps. 73 And cont. Faust. l. 19. c. 13. In Ps. 72. In Io tract. 11. & 41. The Sacraments of the New Testament giue Saluation, whereas The Sacraments of the Old Testa­ment did but promise the Sauiour. This his saying is so direct against Prote­stants, that Musculus blusheth not to say;loc. com. p. 299. It was spoken by Austine without consideration. And the like reprehension is made by Caluin. ButInst. l. 4 c. 15. Sect. 7 Musculus not satisfyed with reproof only of S. Augustin, reprehendeth further the Fathers in General, for that, sayth he,loc. com. p. 299. They attribute greater efficacie to our Sac aments, then to the Sacraments of the Old Testament, affirming ours to be effec ual signes of Grace, not o [...]ly signifying the same as the others did, but also con­ferring and giuing Grace and Saluation.

This efficacie or conferring of Grace, the Fathers exemplify in Baptisme; insomuch that the Centurists write thus:Cent 3. c. 4. col 82. Cyprian dareth to affirme that the person baptizing giueth the Holie-Ghost, and inwardly sanctifyeth him, that is baptized: AndCens. 3. col. 247. Cyprian thinketh al sinnes to be taken away in Baptisme: AndCent. 3. col 260. Origen truly taught concerning the effect of Baptisme, that the filth of Sinne was taken away thereby. Trac. 35. in Math. and hom. 15. in Iosuam. In like sort of other Fathers most ancient, as Iustin, Clement, &c. it is confessed by the Centurists, that theyCent 2. c. 4. col. 47. Thought Regeneration to be wrought by baptisme & the word, vnto which (two) ioyned togeather, they attribute efficacie, that is to say, remission of sinnes. But Zuinglius auoucheth in general that,Tom. 2 de bap. f. 70. And see Luth. To 2. fol. 229. It was a great errour of the old Doctours, in that they supposed the external water of Baptisme to be of anie value towards the purging of sinne. But the Fathers were so ful herein, that (as D. Whit [...]k r l 10. cont. Dur. p. 883. Sarc. loc. com. [...]om 1. f. 232 and Sarcerius acknowledge) they condemned the Ma­nichees amongst other errours, in that They did deny that sinnes were remitted, and Grace conferred in Baptisme.

From hence the ancient Doctours taught so great necessitie of Baptisme, that they firmely beleeued that Childrē dying vnbaptised could not be saued. M. Carthwright testifyeth, thatIn Whitguift Def p. [...]22. S. Austin was of mind, that children could not be saued without baptisme. For which his opinion he further chargeth him withIbid. p 516. Absurditie. And the same is acknowledged byDisp. Ratisb. p 398. Bul. Dec. 5. Ser. 8. p. 1049. Dil. Disp. breu. p. 4. 5. Bucer, Bullinger & Dilingam, who alledgeth to this end sundrie particular Sayings of S. Austin. And Musculus confesseth,Loc. com. p. 308. that Austin and some other Fathers were of the same opinion. S. Cyprian also is reproued for the same Doctrine by Scultetus Medulla Theol. p 370 saying: These blemishes are noted in Cyprian &c. that he thinketh Baptisme to be absolutely and simply necessarie. Vrbanus Rhegius affirmeth, that,In parte 1. oper. in Catechismo min. f. 105. The Scripture and Authoritie of the ancient Church constraine him to beleeue, that litle chil­dren dying vnbaptized are damned.

And by reason of this necessitie, the Fathers doubted not, as Caluin saythInst. l 4 c. 15. sec. 20. almost from the verie beginning of the Church, to vse the Baptisme of Lay-persons in danger of death.

Concerning the number of the Sacraments, it is to be obserued, that the Fa­thers not foreknowing our present Controuersie therof did but speake of them, as also of other poynts of Faith, casually, & as occasion was ministred, and so accordingly S. Austin sometimes mentioneth but one, sometimes two and sometimes more,In Ps 103. Con. 1. & De Bap. cont. Don. l. 5. c. 20. & ep. 119. c. 7. therfore it is sufficient, if the Fathers in this sort do make mention of al our Sacraments.

And yet in our behalf the testimonie of Luther is verie strong, who wri­ting of this poynt obiecteth thus:Tom 2. Wittemb. de Capt. Babyl. f. 84. But thou wilt say, what do you answer to Dionisius, who numbreth vp six Sacraments? &c. I answer (sayth Luther) that he alone of the old (Writers) is to be had for seauen Sacraments, although omitting Ma­trimonie he only reciteth six. And the like is confessed by him of D. Humfrey Iesuit. part. 2. p. 519. who affirmeth that S. Dionisius in this respect displeased Luther. Exam. part. 2. p. 7. Chemnitius confesseth out of S. Cyprian, that he numbrelh fiue Sacraments, and only eua­deth that the Sermon de Ablutione Pedum, is not S. Cyprians, but forged vnder his name.

In like sort where Tertulian casually mentioneth diuers of our Sacra­ments, namely Baptisme, Extreme Vnction, Confirmation, Orders & the Eucharist, saying most wittilyl. De Resur. Car­nis. c. 8. The flesh is washed, that the soule may be cleansed, the [Page 34] flesh is annoyled that the soule may be consecrated; the flesh is signed that the soule may be armed, The flesh is couered with Imposition of hands that the soule may be enlightned with the Spirit; the flesh eateth the Body and Bloud of Christ, that the soule may be fat­ted to God. This Saying is so displeasing to Protestants, that M. Parker in great choller demandeth:Against Symb. part. 1 sec. 11. p. 77 & p. 2. sec. 10. p. 132. Who can brooke it? But more in particular concer­ning Chrisme or Confirmation, sundrie ProtestantsMini­sters of Lin­colne Dioc. in their A­bridgment. p. 40. And see Park against Symbol. p. 1. p. 133. reproue Tertulian, Cyprian, Ambrose, with errour of vsing the Crosse in Confirming those that were bap­tised. M. Parkins sayth:Vol. 2 p 653. This vnction pertayned to Baptisme in the West, til aboue Three hundred yeares after Christ, for then was there another Confirmatorie vnction deuised by Melchiades, or as some say before him by Vrbane the first, who liued about Anno 223. S. Cyprian teaching that,l 1. ep. 12 It is necessarie that he who is Baptised, receiuing Chrisme should also be annoynted, theCent. 2 col. 125. Centurists reproue him for the same, affirming further, that in these ancient times, vnction and imposition of hands followed Baptisme, of which Tertulian &c. which custome Cyprian erroneously maketh necessarie. Chemnitius Exam. part. 2 p. 58 also reprehendeth S. Cyprian for saying of Baptisme and Confirmation: Then they may be clearly sanctifyed and become the sonnes of God, if they be borne of both Sacraments. Against Symb p. 133. M. Parker reprouethEp. ad Iubaianum. S. Cyprian for tearming The Oyle, Signaculum Domini­cum; our Lords Seale. And Chemnitius Exam. part. 2 p. 58. 64. 65. chargeth not only S. Cyprian, but also the Laodicen Councel, Melchiades, Cornelius and Tertulian for the Sacra­ment of Confirmation: For which also Danaeus Resp. ad Tom 2. Bell. p. 451. 452. reciteth and reiecteth sun­drie of the ancient Fathers.

Concerning holie Orders, to omit that already it is confessed here, that S. Cyprian, Tertulian, and S. Denis did teach them to be truly a Sacrament, numbring them amongst the rest: the verie Minores Ordines, inferiour Orders of Deacons, Subdeacons, Readers, Exorcists, Acolytes are so plainly taught in the Primitiue Church, that D. Field makethOf the Church l. 5. p. 121 Osiād. cent 1. p. 131. no question but these Minour Orders were verie ancient, alledging in proof therof the testimonies of Cyprian, Cornelius, and Ignatius; And for the same, theCent. 4. col. 873. p. 874. Centurists alledge the Fa­thers of the Fourth Age.Tom. 6. Wittemb. fol. 53. But Luther confesseth that S. Denis (S. Pauls Scholler) affirmeth that there are in the Church, Bishops, Deacons, Subdeacons, Lectours, Exorcistes &c.

Lastly as touching Extreame vnction, Innocentius is reproued byPageāt of Popes. fol. 26. Szeged in Speculo Pontif. p 33. M. Bale & Szegedine, for that he affirmed Anoyling of the Sick to be a Sacrament.

Wel then, the Poynts here confessedly taught by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church, are that the Sacraments do not only signify, but truly conferre Grace, Iustification, and Remission of sinnes: That Infants dying vnbaptised can not be saued: That in case of necessitie Lay-persons may baptize, and that the Sacraments are seauen in number. Now the Fathers produced and reproued by Protestants for these Poynts, are, S. Austin, Innocentius, Cyprian, Origen, Ter­tulian, Iustin, Clement, Vrban, the Councel of Laodicea, Melchiades, Cornelius, Igna­tius & S. Denis. The Protestants charging the foresayd Fathers, are Luther, Caluin, Musculus, the M [...]gdeburgians, Zuinglius, Sarcerius, Bucer, Bullinger, Scul­tetus, Rhegius, Chemnitius, Danaeus, Osiander, Whitaker, Carthwright, Hum­frey, Parker, Field, & Bale. So euident it is, that the Primitiue and our now Roman Church, do most truly agree in the Doctrine & number of the holie Sacraments.

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. CHAPTER VIII.

IT is theConc. Trid s ss 1 [...] c. 1. & 4. certaine and general Decree of the Catholick Church, that in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, after the Consecration of bread and wine, our Lord IESVS CHRIST God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contayned vnder the formes of those sensible creatures. And that the whole Substance of bread is conuerted into the Substance of Christs Bodie, and the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Bloud; which Conuersion is fitly called Transubstantiation. Protestants herein being much diuided amongst themselues: TheLuth. l. de Captiuit. Babyl. c. de Euchar. Chemn. l. duabus Christi naturis. Lutherans teach the Real Presence no lesse plainly then Catholicks; only with this difference, that they think withal the bread and wine to remayne after Consecration with the Bodie and Bloud; which alteration is called Consubstantiation. Zuingl. l De vera & falsa Relig. Zuinglians are of opinion, that Eucharist is only a signe, figure or remembrance of Christs Bodie, no wayes truly contayning the same. Caluinists Cvlu. l. de Coena Domini. Beza de Caena Do­mini. seem in shew more liberal, admitting the Bodie of Christ to be truly and really in the Sacra­ment, and that the Sacrament is not only a Signe or figure, or that thereby is only giuen to vs the fruits & merits of Christs Bodie, but euen the Bodie itself, yet with this qualification, that the same is not receiued by the bodilie mouth of the Cōmunicant, but only by his Faith: Neither that the bread & wine cease to be, or are conuerted into the Bodie and Bloud of Christ, but that, when the bread and wine are receaued with the bodily mouth, at the same time the bodie & bloud of Christ are receaued spiritually, mystically, and by Faith.

Now in one thing herein I wil accord with D. Morton, thatProt. Appeal. l. 2. p. 105. This question of Transubstantiation being of so great consequence, that if it be defensible, Protestants must stand chargeable of Heresie; but it may be confuted, the Romanists must necessarily be condemned of Idolatrie: That therfore we (both) think it our bounden dutie to consult more exactly with the Senat of Antiquitie, which I wil now only performe from the free grants & confessions of D. Morton's owne Brethren.

And so to begin with S. Gregorie, D. Humfrey Iesuit. parr. 2. rat. 5 p. 627. speaking of him and S. Augustin demandeth, what Gregorie and Augustin brought into the (English) Church? To which himself answereth, that They brought (with manie other Catholick poynts by him there recited) Transubstantiation.

To arise to S. Chrysostome, the Centurists Cent. 5. col. 517. confesse, that he seemeth to teach Transubstantiation. And Musculus Loc. com. p 336. reciteth and reproueth a Saying of S. Chrysostom's for the Real presence. The Centurists Cent. 4. c 10 col. 985 295. likewise affirme that Eusebius Emissenus did speak vnprofitably of Transubstantiation. AndAntony de Adamo in his Ana­tomy of the Masse. f. 222 And see Cent 4. c. 4. col. 295. Oecolamp. lib. Epist. p. 756. Vadiā. de Euchar. Aphor. l. 5. p. 150 & 151 many Protestant Writers do greatly reproue the Bookes of Sacraments (truly) ascri­bed to S. Ambrose, for affirming the opinion of Christs bodilie Presence in the Sacra­ment. Insomuch that the Centurists Cent 4. c. 4. col 295 charge S. Ambrose for not writing wel of Transubstantiation, and Application for the dead. In this respect also Peter Martyr In de fens. obiect. Gardin p 4. p. 124. professeth to dislike the iudgement of S. Cyril: AndIn his Epistles an­nexed to his Common Places. ep. to Beza p. 106. & p. 98 further annexeth, I wil not so easily subscribe to Cyril, who affirmeth such a Communion, as thereby euen the Substance of the Flesh and Bloud of Christ, first is ioyned to the blessing (for so he calleth the holie bread) &c. Insomuch as in his second Alphabetical Table, at the word Heresie, is set downe, Heresie of Cyril touching our Communion with Christ. And in his Epistle to Caluin he further reproueth for this Doc­trine, Cyril, and some other Fathers. Caluin Lib. Ep. & Resp. ep. 208 p. 392. speaking of the Real Pre­sence writeth thus: Although I see the ancient Fathers, and especially Hilarie and Cyril to haue gone further then was fitting &c. They in their ignorance catched, fly to a miserable refuge &c. But lest these new (fusores) forgers should vrge their authority, it shal be sufficient for me not to subscribe &c. So likewiseIn A­polog. Conf. August. fol. 128. Melancthon alled­geth a Saying of S. Cyril, as affirming the Real and corporal presence; And the like doth Bucer In his scripta Angl. p 616. 617 both of S. Hilarie and S. Cyril.

But to arise yet to more ancient times, the ProtestantCom­mon [...]factio cuiusdam Th ologi de S Caena &c. p. 211. & 2 [...]8 Vrsinus affir­meth that, In Cyprian are manie Sayings which seem to affirme Transubstantiation, D. Beard sayth: Wheras the Papists reply, Rect [...]a. from Romish Re igion. p. 245. that they teach no more then Cy­prian did Thirteen hundred yeares since, who sayd that Christ did beare himself in his owne hands at the last Supper, I answer (sayth he) that Cyprian in that place, and the rest of the Fathers els-where, did often vse hyperbolical speaches to extol the digni­tie of the Sacrament. So voyd is D. Beard of better answer to so cleer words of S. Cyprian in proof of Transubstantiation. And wheras S. Cyprian himself testifyeth that, That bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples, not in shew but in nature changed, by the omnipotencie of the Word, is made flesh, theCent 3. col. 247. Centurists say herof, Cyprian in his sermon de Caena Domini, thinketh that in the supper there is the true Bodie and Bloud of Christ. And the same also do theyCent. 3. col. 58. 260. affirme of Tertulian and Origen. Yea it is reported and acknowledged by manie Pro­testant writers, that in those verie times of Tertulian, Cyprian, and Origen, Christians were accused that they killed Infants, and eate mens flesh, which ca­lumnie vndoubtedly thence arised (sayth Osiander) in that Christians beleeued and conf [...]ssed, that in the sacred Supper of our Lord the Bodie of Christ was eaten, and his Bloud drunk.

Moreouer S. Ignatius, who by the confession of M Whiteguift In his Def against Carthwright p. 408. was S. Iohn's Scholler, and liued in Christ's time, sayd of Hereticks of his time (accor­dingly as is acknowledged by sundrie Protestants)Hamel­manus de Tradit Apo. c. 746. Chem. Exā. part. 1. p. 94 Recitationes de Concilio Scripti libri Cōcor. p. 177 They do not admit Eucharists and oblations, because they do not confesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, which flesh suffred for our sinnes. Marg. Theol. p. 256 Adamus Franci [...]ci confesseth accordingly, that Transubstantiation entred early into the Church. And Antonie de Adamo In his Anat. of the masse. p. 236 freely confesseth that, He hath not yet hitherto been able to know, when this opinion of the Real and Bodilie being of Christ in [Page 37] the Sacrament did begin. Melancthon (for his supposed worth in learning tear­med by Lauatherus, Hist. Sacr. f. 47. the Phoenix of his Age) writeth hereof saying:lib. 3. Ep Zuingl. & Oecolāp f. 132. There is no care that hath more troubled my mind, then this of the Eucharist: And not only myself haue weighed what might be said on either side, Osiand. Cent. 3. l. 1. c. 3. p. 6. The Cent. cent. 2. c. 3. col. 26. 30. &c. 7. col. 123. And Cent. 3 c 3. col 10. Vad. Aphor. a [...] Euchar. l. 6. fol. 198. but I haue also sought out the iudgement of the old writers touching the same. And when I haue layd al togeather, I find no good Reason that may satisfy a Conscience departing from the Propriety of Christs words, THIS IS MY BODY. BucerScripta Eruditorum aliquot viro­rū de Caena Domini. p. 37. And see Hospinian part. 1 p. 292. Buca­nus loc. com. p. 714. speaking also of the Fathers in general confesseth, that their words & sayings are with vs Catholicks, and so euidently, that he therfore pur­posely to auoyd their termes, as being (sayth he) Seruiceable to Antichrist, and ouer much varying from the Scriptures. ButSix godlie Treat trans. into Engl. p 48. Let no man think it strange (sayth a French Protestant) that the Successours of the Apostles haue from time to time corrupted the true vse of this holie Sacrament of the Eucharist &c. AndIb. p. 66 How was it possible that the first Bishops of Rome should draw the Princes, Senatours and Romans vnto the Ghospel during (the first) Three hundred or Foure hundred yeares after Christ, seing they did not labour, but to corrupt the vse of the holie Sa­craments, and to restore the Iudaical Cere [...]onies, and the Idolatries of the Heathen? So displeasing to Protestants was the doctrine & practise of the verie imme­diat Successours of the Apostles concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Now from this beleef of the Real presence of Christs Bodie and Bloud in the Sacrament, proceeded first a most special care and warines least anie particle therof should fall vpon the ground. S. Cyril of Hierusalem (Catech. 5.) speaking hereof thus premonisheth: Take heed lest anie thing of it fal from thee &c. A Saying so plaine, that D. Fulk Ib. p. 66 in lieu of better answear, tearmeth it a meer Superstitious precept. And wheras S. Austin (l. 50. homil. hom. 26.) wri­teth thus of the reuerend respect of those times in this behalf: With what so­licitude doe we obserue, when the Bodie is administred vnto vs, that nothing therof fal vpon the earth? And Tertulian (l. de corona militis) we take it heauily that anie of our Chalice or Bread do fal vpon the ground. And Origen (hom. 3. in Exod) you that are accustomed to be present at the diuine mysteries, doe know that when you receaue the Bodie of our Lord, you doe with al warines and reuerence take heed that no litle therof fal downe &c. These so learned and ancient Fathers are for these Sayings reproued by M. Parker Against Symb. part. 1. p. 148. Vadians Aphoris. de Euch f 230. and others▪ And Oecolampadius speakingLib. Ep. Oecolampa­dij & Zuing. p. 690. of Reseruation of the Sacrament, therupon inferreth that, Hence was the Religion of the ancient Fathers, who took it heauily the Eucharist to fal vpon the earth.

Secondly, from the same beleef of the Real presence proceeded a spe­cial Reuerence, worship, and adoration therof by the ancient Fathers. In­somuch that Chemnitius Exam. part. 2 p. 92. And see Chytreus de Bap. & Eu­char p. 472. alledgeth the seueral Sayings of Austin, Am­brose, and Nazianzene, al of them affirming in his opinion, The Adoration of the Sacrament. And wheras Nazianzene orat. 11. telleth, how his diseased Sister Gorgonia, prostrated herself befor [...] the Aulter, and calling vpon him who is worshipped on it; O miracle (sayth he) she departed presently receauing health; D. Fulk In Resp ad Sta­pleton de Success [...]one Eccl. p. 230. merely trifleth in his answear hereto, being inforced to say, that The Eucharist vpon the Aulter was not adored by her, although it was had in great reuerence, and peraduenture not without Superstition: But Hospinian Hist. Sacr. part. 1. p. 470. plainly tearmeth Gorgonia's fact, wicked and Superstitious. S. Ambrose in orat. praepar. [Page 38] ad Missam, In his Reioynder to Bristow, & answere to Sanders. p. 687. is so plaine in this poynt, that the Centurists Cent. 4. col. 437. do therfore affir­me of those prayers of S. Ambrose, that They contayne the Adoration of the Bread in the Sacrament: And the same is acknowledged by M. Parkins In his Probl p. 21. Crispi. of the Church p. 87 & Crispinus. And yet are those prayers acknowledged and alledged for the writings of S Ambrose In his true Differ. par. 4. p 622. by D. Bilson. Lastly, the general custome of the Primitiue Church in this poynt is acknowledgedAssert. Theol part. sec. 47. by Mar­bachius in these words: As concerning the most ancient custome, which the Church vsed in shewing to the People the Eucharist to be adored in the Masse &c.

Thirdly, In regard of this Adoration, Consecration being made, the Eucharist was Eleuated, that the people might see and adore it, accordingly as is now vsed in the Roman Church. Insomuch that the Protestant Pelargus Schola fidei. Art. 10. fol 1. 5. relateth that, Basile maketh mention in his book of the Holie-Ghost or [...] or shewing, but this was no other then the Papists Eleuation, vsed in the times of Basil &c. And Altkircharus De Mystico & In [...]ruento Saerifi [...]io p. 79. 348. reciting these words of S. Basile de Spiritu Sancto c. 27. who hath left in writing the words of Inuocation when the bread of the Eucharist and Cup of benediction is shewed, affirmeth the answerable performance therof to be In Eleuatione, in the Eleuation: yea he alledgethIbid. p. 105. both S. Basile & S. Chrysostome as mentioning and affirming the holie Eleuation.

Fourthly, from the same root of Real presence, proceeded that ancient custome in the holie Fathers of receiuing the Eucharist fasting, according to that of S. Austin ep. 118. c. 6. It pleased the Holie-Ghost, and was vniuersally obserued, that our Lords Bodie should enter into the mouth of a Christian before other meates, and that for this reason sayth he, In honorem tanti Sacramenti: In ho­nour of so great a Sacrament. Hist. Sacr. part. 1. l 2 p 48. Sepperus de Sa [...]r p. 804. Hospinian hauing alledged this verie Saying, affirmeth therof, that Austine insinuateth not obscurely this fast to haue been an Apostolical Tradition. And wheras Tertulian l. 2. ad Vxor. affirmeth that, the Eucharist is to be receaued before al meate, the same is confessed in him by theCent 3 col 132. Centurists.

Fiftly, in those ancient times in due Reuerence to this most holie Sa­crament, the Laytie before Receiuing forbore for some time the companie of their wiues. A Doctrine so manifest in S. Hierome, that D. Fulk Against Heskins, Sanders &c. p. 458. in this case acknowledgeth Hieroms admonition giuen to marryed persons to abstayne from companie with their wiues &c. which he there tearmeth, vnworthie, and Popish Diuinitie. And yet Hospinian Hist. Sacr. part. 1. l. 2. p. 46. see Osiād. Cent. 4 p. 180. confesseth in general that, In the Primitiue Church the Eucharist was receiued chastly; And this particularly he de­monstrateth in sundrie ancient Fathers: for which verie poynt also Zepperus De Sa­cram p. 805 reprehendeth the Elibertine Councel, Tertulian & Hierome: and S. Hieroms sundrie Sayings to the same effect are confessed and reprehended by theCent. 4 c. 7. col 487. Chemnit. Exam part. 3. p. 61. Centurists; & Chemnitius Exam. part. 3 p. 50. 58. for the same reproueth Origen. But Hos inian Hist. Sacr part. 1. l. 2. p. 132. reprehendeth and alledgeth herein Siricius, Innocentius, Calixtus, Vrbanus, the 2. Councel of Arles, the Councels of Neocesarea & Carthage.

Sixtly, wheras according to Protestants Doctrine, the Eucharist is no Sacrament, vnles it be receaued; our contrarie Catholic [...] Doctrine and practise of Reseruation is so agreable with the Primitiue Church, that D. Fulk Against Heskins &c. p 77. confesseth hereof saying: That the Sacrament (of some) was reserued in the elder dayes of the Church, is not so great a Controuersie, as whether it ought to be [Page 39] reserued: And Caluin Instit. l. 4. c. 17. sec. 39. acknowledgeth, The Reseruation of the Sacrament (to be) the example of the ancient Church. Chemnitius Exam. part. 2. p. 102. also testifyeth, that witnesses of this custome of priuate Reformation of the Eucharist, are Tertulian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Hierome, Basile &c. And that, certain of the ancient Fathers greatly commended the same, as Nazianzene, Ambrose &c. And that it was, an ancient Custome spread abroad and long continued: Insomuch as Peter Martyr can not but acknowledge that (by the testimonie of Cyril) the Anthropo­morphites were specially condemned for their impugning of the Sacraments Reseruation: For wheras S. Cyril ad Calosyrium, sayth, I heare they say, that the mystical blessing, if anie remnants therof do remayne til the next day fol­lowing, is vnprofitable to sanctification; but they are mad in so saying; for Christ is not made another, neither shal his Bodie be changed, but the vertue of blessing and liuelie Grace doth alwayes remayne in it. Peter Martyr Contrae Gardiner. de Euchar. obiect. 213. col 838. mentioning this verie sentence of S. Cyril affirmeth therof, that wheras it is added, that the Remnants of the Eucharist reserued til the day following, doe not cease from Sanctifi­cation, this I think belongeth to a certaine receaued custome &c. which Custome though it sauour of some Superstition, yet Cyril and others subscribed vnto it; for forthwith, euen from the times of the Apostles, by litle & litle it began to degenerat from that ancient simplicitie of Gods worship. Willee in his Synop. p. 460. Crispinus Of the Estate of the Church. p. 87. speaking of Con­stantins time affirmeth that, Such as made anie great voyage by Sea or Land, car­ryed the Eucharist. D. Field confesseth that,Of the Church. l. 3. c. 34. p. 149. In the Primitiue Church the manner of manie was to receaue the Sacrament, and not to be partakers of it pre­sently, but to carry it home with them, and to receiue it priuatly when they were disposed, as Tertulian & others do report. And that, The manner was to send it by the Deacons to them, that by sicknes or other necessarie impediment were forced to be absent, & to strangers. Yea for this purpose, they did in such places, where they communicated not euerie day, reserue some part of the sanctifyed Elements, to be sent to the Sick, & such as were in danger of death. Yea as then was vsual the Pixe for the reseruing or carrying therof; in so much thatAssert. Theol. part. 2 sec. 47. Marba­chius confesseth, that S. Basile reserued the Eucharist in a golden Doue. And wheras D. Harding obiecteth for the Pixe, the plaine testimonies of Sym­machus, Gregorius Romanus, Gregorius Turonensis & Theodorus; the same are acknowledged by M. Iewel In his Reply Art. 9 p. 420. Fulk against Staplet. p. 150, 151. & D. Fulk.

Lastly, the Roman Church doth so directly follow the Doctrine and practise of the Primitiue Church in this so waightie a matter of the Eucha­rist, as that she obserueth the external forme or figure therof vsed in the ancient Church. D. Bilson In his true Differ. p. 4. p. 566. acknowledgeth from S. Epiphanius in Anco­rato, that the Eucharist was round in figure: And M. Carthwright In Whytguift. Def. p. 593 And see Proet. de Sa­cram p 287. & 281. con­fesseth, that it was a round wafer-cake brought in by Pope Alexander, which Pope liued, as Osiander Cent. 2. p▪ 10. Whit­gift. in his Def. p. 594. and D. Whiteguift confesse, Anno Christ 111. which is now aboue 500. yeares. Hospinian Hist. Sacram. l. 4. p. 370. auoucheth that, It can not certainly be knowne, when (Christians) first began either at home or in the Churche [...] to prepare of floure or bread, litle & round Hostes & morcels, like peeces of siluer &c. Epiphanius maketh mention of round bread in the Supper &c.

The ancient Iew s also did most plainly foretel the Real presence of Christs Bodie in the Eucharist, and the Sacrifice therof; for wheras Duraeus [Page 40] vrgeth from Galatinus, the Hebrewes most plaine and plentiful Sayings i [...] behalf therof, D. Whitaker answering thereto, neither confesseth, nor yet denyeth, but only shufleth them off, saying:Cont. Dur. l. 9. p. [...]18. In this matter we do not desire thy Peter Galatin, neither do we need those testimonies of the Hebrewes: so not denying, but rather supposing the truth of the forsayd testimo­nies euidently foreshewing and affirming the Real presence and Sacrifice of Christs blessed Bodie in the Sacrament. And thus we see the Fathers and Doctours of the Primitiue Church to haue symbolized with vs Ca­tholicks in the doctrine of the Eucharist, teaching expresly: First, Transub­stantiation itself: Secondly, and prescribing a most diligent care that no part therof do fal vpon the ground: Thirdly, yea and adoring it with special reue­rence: Fourthly, and in that regard vsing Eleuation therof at Masse time, as we stil continue: Fiftly, for which case they receaue fasting; Sixtly, the Marryed Laytie also forbearing the Companie of their wiues for some tyme before Receiuing. Seauenthly, Besides they not only kept and reserued the same for the sick, and other such necessi­ties; But also vsed the verie forme & figure of a round wafer-Cake obserued at this day. Now the Fathers produced and reproued by Protestant Wri­ters for the forsayd poynts are, S. Gregorie, Chrysostom, Eusebius Emisse­nus, Cyril, Ambrose, Hilarie, Austine, Nazianzene, Basile, Hierom, Siricius, Innocentius, Calixtus, Vrbanus, Symmachus, Gregorius Turonensis, Epiphanius, Cyprian, Origen, Tertulian, Ignatius, & the Fathers in general. The Protestants citing and confessing the foresayd Fathers are, the Centurists, Musculus, Oecolampadius, Vadian, Anthonie de Adamo, Peter Martyr, Caluin, Me­lancthon, Bucer, Osiander, Vrsinus, Hamelmanus, Adamus Francisci, H [...] ­spinian, Bucanus, Chemnitius, Chytreus, Crispinus, Marbachius, Pelargus, Altkircherus, Zepperus, Humfrey, Whitaker, Fulk, Parker, Parkins, Carth­wright, Willet, Iewel, Field, and Beard. And now I appeale to al indiffe­rent Readers, whether Protestants themselues haue not sufficiently con­fessed, that, by the Sentence or Doome of the Senate of Antiquitie, D. Morton and his Brethren are chargeable with Heresie, as also the Roma­nists acquitted of Idolatrie.

Protestants confesse, that the Primitiue Church of Christ belee­ued, taught, and practised the Sacrifice of the Masse, as also that it is a Sacrifice according to the order of Melchi­sedech; and truly Propitiary for the liuing and the dead. CHAPTER IX.

IT is the generalCon [...]. Trident. sess. 22. c. 9. and certaine Decree of the Catholick Church, that Christ our Sauiour at his last Supper insti­tuted a true and proper Sacrifice of his owne Bodie & Bloud, and that he gaue power and authoritie to his Apostles and to Priests their Successours to offer the same, aswel for the Liuing as the Dead.

ProtestantsLuth. de Capt Babyl. c. de Eucha. Chemnit. Exam part. 2. Caluin. Instit. l. 4. c. 18. §. 1. & 2 deny al true, proper, and external Sacrifice to be ordained by Christ, or to be vsed in the time of the Ghospel, but only the spiritual Sacrifices of Prayse, thankes-giuing, and the like.

Now because D. Morton wisheth that,Prot. Appeale. l. 2. p. 169. These two questions, whether the Eucharist be a true essential Sacrifice, & whether it be properly Propitiatorie & auaylable in itself for remission of Sinnes, or no, might be decided (amongst other meanes) by the verdict of ancient Fathers, I wil therfore ioyne with him therein, and that only from the verdict giuen by his owne Brethren.

S. Gregorie the Great, is much reproued by manie Protestant Writers for his Doctrine and practise of the Sacrifice of the Masse. M. Beacon The Reliques of Rome. p 344 affir­meth, that the Masse was fully finished by Pope Gregory the first, about Anno Domini 600. Melancthon l. 4 Chr. in Henri i. 4 fol. 186. 187 confesseth that, He allowed by publick Autho­ritie the Sacrifice of Christs Bodie & Bloud, not only for the liuing but also for the dead. D. Humfrey In Iesuit. part. 2. rat. 5 p. 5 & 627. acknowledgeth that, S. Gregorie & S. Austin brought (into England) the Archbishops Palle for Solemne Masses. Carion Chr. l 4. p 567. 568. auoucheth that Gregorie &c. approued the oblation of the Bodie & Bloud for the dead. M. Bale Cent. 1. p. 68. granteth that Gregorie ordered the (verie) Ceremonies of the Masse, & made vp the Canon therof; And that He commanded Act. Rom. Pontif. p. 44. 45. 46. 47. Masses to be celebrated vpon the dead Bodies of the Apostles. And theCent. 6 col 369. 370 69 [...]. 694. Centurists charge him with Celebration of Masse. Szegedine writeth that, Gregorie is sayd to be the first Authour of this propitiatorie Sacrifice about the yeare Six hundred; for he appoynted certain dayes in which Sacrifice should be offred with Solemnitie in the Church, Graues aliquot Quaestiones printed with Brunlerus fol. 161. 162. & promised ardon of sinnes to such as came to that solemnitie. Certain Councels also cal the Masse a Sacrifice, as the Councel of Antioch, the Seauenth of Carthage, the Sixth of Constantinople, & the Councel of Arles. Hospinian In Con­cord, discord, in Prolog. fol. 5. writeth, That it appeareth out of S. Gregorie himself, that in the Age wherein he flourished, which was about the yeare Six hundred [Page 42] after S. Augustin, one hundred fiftie seauen, the oblation of the Supper, as a Sacrifice for the liuing and dead, was deeply seated & rooted in the minds of men. And againeHist. Sacr. part. 1. l. 2. p 159. The Enemy of mankind brought into the Church of Christ by Gregorie the Roman Bishop, this pernicious errour (of Sacrifice for the dead) as a certain thick cloud couering the whole Heauens. In like sort Chytraeus Apoc. in c. 9. p 199 chargeth S. Gre­gorie, that he established manie foule errours, & especially the Idolatrous inuoca­tion of Saincts, & Masses for the Dead, which from that time, as a Deluge, haue ouerflowed the whole Church. And agayne:De Baeptismo & Euch. p. 453. And see Pelargus in Schola fidei fol. 8. And Praetor. de Sacr p. 280. In the times of Gregorie the Great were ordayned priuat Masses. Finally M. Fox reporteth that about the yeare Seauen hundred and eightie Pope Adrian ratifyed the order of S. Gregories Masse; Act. Mon p. 130. at what time (sayth he) this vsual Masse of the Papists began to be vniuersal & vniforme & generally receaued in al Churches.

But now to free most clearly S. Gregorie and his Age, from al innoua­tion, or first beginning of this so material a poynt of Faith: Ancient to him was Gregorie Turonensis, who, according to the confessionCent. 6. col. 336. of the Cen­turists, mentioneth in his Fourth book, &c. 30. Chapter a certaine Priest of France named Cato; Loc. conc. de Cae­na Domini. p. 339. who, the plague being great, stayed there & sayd Masses: That you may vnderstand (say the Centurists) that the Celebration of Masses had then fulfilled al places.

Predecessour to S. Gregorie in the Popedome was Pelagius, of whom Musculus reporteth that, Pelagius placed in the Secret of the Canon of the Masse the Commemoration of the dead &c. that the vertue & efficacie of the Masse may be communicated to the dead. And he is further charged with the opinion of Masse helping the dead, by Vpon the Reuel. p 81. M. Symonides.

Before him was Symmachus Bishop of Rome, of whom the Magdebur­gians Cent 6. c. 10. c. 664. say: He had the Markes of Antichrist, for he brought the Masse into forme or order: which forme was so agreable to the Masse at this day, that Hieronymus In his Eusebius Captiuus &c. in Act. 3. diei f. 142. Marius auoucheth, that Symmachus brought the Masse into that order, wherein we see it disposed at this day.

Before him gouerned S. Leo, of whom M. Bale In his Pageant of Popes f. 27. And see in Act. Rom Pont. p. 32. 33. writeth: Leo the First, allowed the Sacrifice of the Masse not without great blasphemie to God.

Before Leo was the Carthage Councel; this Pelargus reproueth saying:Schola fid [...]i &c. in tract de Concil p. 13. The Fift Councel of Carthage brought in prayer and Masse for the dead. And Osiander Cent. 4. p. 16. sayth of the Seauentie ninth Canon of the Fourth Carthage Councel, (wherat S. Austin was present) This Canon (if it be not forged) shewed at that time prayers & Sacrifices to be made for the dead. Before these Councels was S. Ambrose, whom the Centurists Cent 4 e 4. c. 295. charge with not writing wel of Transubstantiation & application for the dead: And that, He vseth speeches, which none of the Fathers before him vsed, as to say Masse, to offer Sacrifice &c.

Before him liued Gregorie Nyssene, of whom Crastouius De opi­ficio Missae. l. 1 sec 164. p. 8 And see Whit. cont. Du oe [...]m. l. 4. p 320. writing against Bellarmin, sayth: Doth he not know that the opinion of Nyssen is of itself absurd &c. for Nyssene sayth, when therefore Christ gaue to his D sciples his bodie to eate &c. then hiddenly, vnspeakably, & inuisibly his Bodie was sa­crificed &c.

Before him was Cyril of Hierusalem, of whom Hospinian reporteth,Hist. Sa r p. 167. saying: As concerning Cyril of Hierusalem, he sayth indeed, according to [Page 43] the receaued custome of his time, that the Sacrifice of the Aultar is the greatest help of Soules.

Before these times liued S. Cyprian, whom the Centurists Cent. 3 [...] c. 4. col. 83. reproue saying: Cyprian sayth, the Priest exerciseth the office of Christ, and Sacrifice is offred to God the Father: Insomuch as they furtherIn the Index of the 3. Centurie vnder the letter. 5. say, Cyprian affirmeth Superstitiously, that the Priest exerciseth the office of Christ in the supper of the Lord.

Tertullian is charged by Osiander, Cent 3 l. 1. p 10. Fulk in his Confutation of Purgatory p 265. Cent. 3. c. 5. c. 138. the Centurie-writers, and D. Fulk, for that, He approued Sacrifice for the dead. Origen is reproued by Chemnitius Exam. p. 3. p. 50. & 58 for teaching that, It is certaine that the dayly Sacrifice is hindred to them who serue the necessities of Wedlock; wherupon it seemeth to me, that he only is to offer the dayly Sacrifice, who hath vowed himself to dayly & perpetual chastitie.

Before these liued Ireneus; him Caluin Lib de vera Eccl. Reformat. extant. in Tract Theo. Caluin &c. p. 389. reiecteth, for that he expoun­deth the place of Malachie (c. 1. 10. 11.) of the Sacrifice of the Masse. And the Centurists Cent. 2 c. 4 col. 63. auouch that, He seemeth to speake verie incommodiously of Sacrifice l. 4. c. 32. when he sayth, (Christ) taught a new Sacrifice of the new Testament, which the Church receauing from the Apostles offreth to God ouer the whole world. In the same time liued Alexander the First, of whom Szegedine Graues aliquot quaestiones. fol. 162. And fee Hierom Mae­rius in Eu­sebius Capt. in Act. 3. oieide Missae p. 143. writeth, Alexander the First taught, that which was receiued from the Heathens, to be blot­ted out by this Sacrifice. Yea Szegedine vndertaking to set downe the framers of the Masse, beginneth with the Fathers from the Apostles times, and the more ancient Councels of the Primitiue Church, saying:In spe­culo Pontif. p. 68. The framers of the Papistical Masse were Clemens, Anacletus, Alexander &c. And, theIbid. p. 69. Councels of Bishops for the Papistical Masse were the Councels of Ephesus, Antioch, the Second of Carthage, of Constantinople, of Arles &c.

Before al these liued S. Ignatius, of whom the Centurists Cent. 2 c. 4. col. 63. say: Cer­taine doubtful & incommodious speeches occurre in some (Fathers) As in the Epistle of Ignatius ad Smyrnenses Ignatius sayth; It is not lawful without a Bi­shop, to offer, or Sacrifice: Which words they censureIbid. col 167. to be dangerous & as the seeds of errour. But M. Beacon Reliq. of Rome. fol. 344. confesseth, that The Masse was begotten, conceaued, & borne anone after the Apostles times, if al be true that Historiographers write. In like sortEpist. de Abrogā ­dis Statutis Eccl siae. Sebastiaenus Francus confesseth that, Presently after the Apostles, al things were turned vpside downe &c. the Supper of the Lord was turned into a Sacrifice. And another Protestant (41) Writer speaking of the first Roman Bishops after S. Peter, sayth: Let no man think it strange that the Successours of the Apostles haue from time to time corrupted the true vse of this holie Sacrament of the Eucharist. And agayne:A French wry­ten in his six godly Treat. Engl. p. 48. How was it possible that the first Bishops of Rome should draw the Princes, Senatours, and Romans vnto the Ghospel during (the first) 300. or 400. yeares after Christ, seing they did not labour but to corrupt the vse of the holie Sacraments, and to restore the Iudaical Ceremonies, & the Idolatries of the Heathen? meaning therby External Sacrifice and the Ceremonies therof. In which sense also Hospinian Hist. Sacram. l. 1. c. 6. p. 20. affirmeth that, Euen in the first Age, the Apostles yet liuing, (the Diuel) dared to lay snares more to this Sacrament then to Baptisme, & by litle & litle did withdraw men from the first forme therof. And M. Ascham Apol. pro caena Domini p. 31 (a Prime Pro­testant) [Page 44] plainly acknowledgeth,Ibid. p. 66. that no beginning of Sacrifice after the Apostles time can be shewed, saying: At what time, or by what men the Supper of the Lord was cast out of possession by the Masse, can not truly be knowne.

Thus haue we seen the Fathers in particular euen vp to the Apostles times acknowledged and reproued by Protestant Writers for their doc­trine and practise of the Sacrifice of the Masse: But the truth herein is so euident, and the Fathers doctrine so general, as that for greater bre­uitie they are in grosse reiected by Caluin De vera Eccl. Reform. extant in Tractat. Theolog. Theol. Calu. p. 389. The ancient Fathers (sayth he) are not to be excused, so far forth as it appeareth, that they are al­tered from the pure & proper institution of Christ: for seing the Supper was to be celebrated to this end, that we might communicate with Christs Sacrifice, they not content therwith, added also oblation: this Addition I affirme to be faultie &c. And againe,In omnes Pauli Epist. in Heb. c. 7. p 924. speaking in general of the ancient Doctours of the Church possessed with this opinion, he further addeth, verily as Errour is accustomed to draw errour with it, when they had forged a Sacrifice in the Supper of Christ, without his commandment, & so adulterated the Supper with adding of Sacrifice, afterwards they endeauoured of euerie side to procure colours (or pretences) wherwith to cloak their errour. As also,Inst l. 4 c. 18. sec. 11. I see those old (Fathers) to haue detorted this Memorie otherwise then was agreable to the Institution of our Lord, in that their Supper carryed the face of I know not what re [...]te [...]ated, or at least renewed Sacrifice &c▪ for they more neerly imitated the Iewish manner of Sacrificing, then either Christ had ordayned, or the rule of the Ghospel per­mitted.

In like sort sayth D. Fulk: Reioyn­der to Bri­stowes Reply p. 28. See Z [...]pperus de Sacr. p. 47. & Hospi­nian H st. Sacr. p 592. The name of Sacrifice, which the Fathers vsed commonly for celebration of the Lords Supper, they took of the Gentils and Iewes; but how proue you they had it from the Scriptures? And D. Field Of the Church. l. 3. c. 19 p. 107 for his best euasion affirmeth that, The reason doubtles that moued the Fathers so much to vrge that mystical Sacrifice of Christ in the blessed S [...]crament, was, for that they liued in the midst of Iewes & Gentils, both whose Religions consisted prin­cipally in Sacrifice: The Fathers therfore to shew that Christian Religion is not without Sacrifice, & that of a more excellent nature then theyrs were, did much vrge, that Christ once offred for the Sinnes of the world vpon the Altar of his Crosse, is daily in mysterie offred, slayne, & his bloud powred out on the holie Ta­ble: And that this Sacrifice of Christ, slayne for the sinnes of the world, thus continually represented, & liuing in our memories, is the Sacrifice of Christians.

But the Fathers are so ful herein, as that they further teach that the Sacrifice of the Masse is propitiatorie or able to appease Gods wrath, and cause remission of sinnes.Cent. 4 col. 295. De Opificio Missae. p. 167. Chrastouius reciting the Fathers opinion hereof confesseth that, The sayings of the Fathers do not only import Impetration, but a certain intrinsecal force of appeasing. Origen. hom. 13. in Leuitie. sayth: This is the only Commemoration, which maketh God propitious to men. Atha­nasius (in serm. de Defunctis apud Damascenum) sayth: The oblation of the vn­bloudie Hoste is a P [...]opitiation. To which end he alledgeth likewise further the particular Sayings of Ambrose, Chrisostom, Augustin, Gregorie, B [...]de, and of the Third Councel of B [...]ach. S. Cyril of Hierusalem Catech. 5. calling [Page 45] it in this sense, The Hoste of Propitiation, And, the greatest help of Soules (departed) for which it is offered, is therfore reproued by Hospinian, Hist. Sacr. p 167. See Osiand. cent. 4. p. 227. Hutt. c [...] Sacrif. Miss. p 525. who withal confesseth, that it was the receaued Custome of S. Cyrils time. And for the same doctrine is reiected S. Ambrose, Cent. 4. col. 295. S. Cyprian Cent. 3. col. 138. 139 And see Osiand. cent. 3. p. 10. & Tertulian by the Centurists. In like sort the Fathers describe in particular this Sacrifice, to be a Sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech, which was of bread and wine; wherein S. Austin is so cleare, that D. Morton in his veryProt. Appeale. p. 166. obiecting of him, yet acknowledgeth that S. Austin held, That Melchisedechs offering was a Sacrifice.Lib. de vera Eccl. Reform. p. 389. Caluin auoucheth that, It is vsual to those knaues (meaning Catholick Writers) to scrape togeather whatsoeuer is corrupt in the Fathers &c. when therefore they obiect to vs the place of Malachie to be expounded by Ireneus of the Sacrifice of the Masse, the Sacrifice of Melchisedech to be so handled by Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustin, Arnobius, let it be briefly answered, the self same Writers els-where also to expound bread to be the Bodie of Christ, but so ridiculously, that reason & truth compelleth vs to dissent from them. And agayne,In omnes Pauli Epist. in Hebr. 7. p. 924. How much the more do I admire so manie old Doctours of the Church to be possessed with this opinion, that they wil persist in the oblation of Bread & wine; for thus they say, Christ is a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, but Melchisedech offred bread & wine, therefore the Sacrifice of Bread and wine agreeth to the Sacrifice of Christ. D. Fulk Against Hoskins &c. p 100. admitteth that It is granted, that Cyprian thought the bread & wine brought forth by Melchisedech to be a figure of the Sacrament, & that herein also Melchisedech resembled the Priesthood of Christ. And agayneAgainst Heskins &c. p. 99. And see against Rhem. T [...]st. in Hebr. c. 7. sec. 8. f. 405. Whitak. cont. Dur. p. 818. 819. more in general: I confesse that diuers of the old Fathers, were of opinion, that the bread & wine which Melchisedech brought forth was sacrificed by him, & that it was a figure of the Sacrament, which they improperly cal a Sa­crifice. De opi­ficio Missae. l. 1. p 28. It is not lawful (sayth Chrastouius) for Christian Pastours to cast away the consent & harmonie of Interpretation, & that both for the neernes of the Apostolical Age, as also for the singular agreement of al, which is had in al places &c. Al as it were conspiring, that the Sacred oblation of Melchisedech is proposed, that not only it may be thought to be offred to the Souldiers of Abraham, but also an vnbloudy Sacrifice to God. The ancient Iewes also were so agre­able with vs herein that the Protestant Bibliander doubteth not to affirme, thatDe S. Trinitate l. 2. p. 89. with the Ancient Iewes it was a most receiued opinion, that at the c [...] ­ming of the blessed Messias al Legal Sacrifices were to cease, & only the Sacrifice Thoda of thankes-giuing to be celebrated &c. and that to be done with bread & wine, In his Defence &c. p 473. See Parker against Sym­bolizing part. 1. c. 2. p. 103. euen as Melchisedech King of Salem & Priest &c. brought forth bread and wine.

The Fathers also likewise much vrge the necessitie of mingling water with wine in the Chalice before oblation and consecration. D. Whitguift affirmeth, that Cyprian was greatly ouerseen, in making it a matter so neces­sarie in Celebration of the Lords Supper, to haue water mingled with wine, which was at that time no doubt, Common [...]o more then to him. Carthwright In Whitguift. Def. p. 525. acknowledgeth that, In the mingling of water with wine, a necessitie & great mysterie was placed, as may appeare both by Iustin Martyr & Cyprian. And M▪ Iewel In his Reply p. 34. See Schulte­tus in Med. Theo. p. [...]70. also confesseth that, Indeed S. Cyprian, & certain old Fathers spake of it, & force it much: wheras not one new Protestant doth either [Page 46] allow or practise the same. But D. Morton Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 142. is content to refer this new Romish Custome vnto Pope Alexander the supposed Authour thereof, sayth he. But may not D. Morton blush to cal it New Romish Custome, and yet re­ferre it to Pope Alexander, who liued almost within a Hundred yeares after Christ?

Here then we may conclude, that our Sacrifice of the Masse, was not only allowed and vsed by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church, but withal acknowledged by them to be truly a Sacrifice Propitiatorie for the remission of sinnes: As also that the same was truly represented by the Sacrifice of Melchisedech offring bread and wine. Now the Fathers confessed and re­proued by Protestants for our forsayd doctrine of Masse, are S. Gregorie, Gregorie Turonensis, Pelagius, Symmachus, Leo, Austin, Ambrose, Nyssene, Cyril, Arnobius, Athanasius, Cyprian, Origen, Tertulian, Ireneus, Alexander, Clemens, Anacletus, Ignatius: As also the Councels of Ephesus, Antioch, the Se­cond and Fourth of Carthage, of Constantinople, & of Arles, & the Fathers in general.

The Protestants acknowledging and reprouing the forsayd Fathers are the Centurists, Caluin, Melancthon, Carion, Szegedine, Hospinian, Chitraeus, Musculus, Marcus, Pelargus, Osiander, Chrastouius, Chemnitius, Sebastianus Francus, Zepperus, Schultetus, Fox, Whitaker, Symonides, Ascham, Fulk, Field, Whiteguift, Iewel & Morton.

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. CHAPTER X.

COncerning the Sacrament of Pennance, theBellarm. de Paenitent. l. 1. c. 10. & l. 3. c. 2. & l. 4. c. 5. Catholick Church teacheth. First, That God hath giuen truly and pro­perly to Bishops and Priests, as his instruments, Power and Authoritie to forgiue sinne. Secondly, That sinners are bound to confesse their Sinnes in particular to Priests. Thirdly, That the sayd Priests are to impose Pennance or punishment vpon the Penitent after Confession of his Sinnes, and that the Penitent in satisfaction is to per­forme the same by Prayer, Fasting, Almes-deeds and the like.

Now the Protestant Church hauing no true Subsistence, but being a mere Negation or denial of true Religion, directlyInstit. l. 4 c. 19 §. 15 B za in Cōf. fi [...]ci. 7. art. 11. denyeth al the fore­sayd [Page 47] Poynts taught and practised by the Roman Church.

What the Primitiue Church beleeued and practised herein, I wholy referre to the plentiful Confe sions and testimonies euen of Protestant Writers. And to begin with S. Gregorie, Osiander Cent. 6. p. 288. chargeth him, that he teacheth vntruly of Pennance. And the Centurists Cent. 6. c. 10 p. 748. reprehend him for his opinion of Confession &c. Pennance, & Satisfaction. D. Morton acknow­ledgeth that, S. Gregorie Prot Appeale l. 1 sec. 23. p. 26. indeed requireth, that after man hath confessed his sinnes, he should take reuenge of himself by penitential exercises &c. S. Hierome tearming Pennance, The second Table after Shipwrack, Caluin Inst l 4. c. 19. §. 17. reproueth him saying: But it is the Saying of Hierome; whose soeuer it is, it can not be denyed but that it is plainly impious, if it be expounded in their sense.

And as concerning the Power and Authoritie of Priests to remit sinne, the denyal therof was reprehended in Acesius by the Emperour Constantin; for the Centurists Cent. [...]. col. 653. report that Acesius his opinion was, that al men should be exhorted to Pennance, but the hope of remission of sinnes should be expected not from Priests, but from God: But when Acesius had sayd these things, the Emperour added; [...] Acesius, set a Ladder, and clime alone to heauen: This Historie is likewise confessed by Osiander Cent. 4. p. 119. & Chemnitius. Exam. part. [...] p. 188 & part. 2. p. 193. Now because Priests without knowledge and Confession of sinnes can not dis­cerne or iudge when or what Sinnes are to be remitted or retayned; It is further likewise confessed, that in the Primitiue Church, Confession auri­cular and particular of sinnes to the Priest was taught and practised. And thoughContra Duraeum. l. 7. p. 490. D. Whitaker doth affirme, that Innocentius the Third was the first that instituted Auricular Confession for necessarie, yet S. Leo who liued almost eight hundred yeares before this Innocentius, is charged with like Innouation by M. Symonides, Vpon the Reuel. p. 57. saying: Leo the First, first brought-in Auri­cular Confession: And then presently after he citeth S. Leo his owne words for Auricular Confession. And wheras long before Innocentius, the Iacobites were condemned for affirming, that we are to confesse our sinnes to God only; And that, Confession of Sinnes to a Priest is not needful, this is acknowledged by the Protestantp. 126. Authour of Catholick Traditions.

But to clear also S. Leo of al Nouellisme in this hehalf; It is confessed by the Centurists Cent. 4. col. 425. And see col. 426. that euen in the time of Constantin, who liued aboue One hundred yeares before S. Leo, that the Christians as then To this end had a Priest &c. appoynted, to whom those coming who had sinned, should con­fesse the sinnes they had committed &c. And the Priest vpon that condition ab­solued those who Confessed, that they should desire from him Pennance for their Sinnes.

Yea they arise higher, and plainly confesse,Cent. 3. c. 6. col. [...]27. that in the times of Cyprian & Tertulian priuat Confession of thoughts, and lesser sinnes, was vsed and thought necessarie; and their words are these: Absolution from sinnes was so giuen, that those who did Pennance, first confessed their sinnes; For so doth Tertulian greatly vrge Confession in his book of Pennance; and that priuat Confession was vsual, wherein they confessed their crimes, as also their wicked thoughts, it appeareth by some places of Cyprian, as in the Fift Sermon de Lapsis, & third book of Epistles. ep. 14. & 16. where he plainly [Page 48] sayth: Euen for lesser sinnes, which are not committed (directly) against God, it is needful to go to Confession, and this he commandeth to be done often. l. 1. ep. 3. &c. Thus far the Centurists,

Confession being made by the Penitent to the Priest, the Centurists Cent. 3. col. 127▪ & 81. 38. 49. 82. And see Caluin Instit l. 4. c. 12. §. 8. And Conc. Laodicenum Can. 2. apud Osiand cēt 4 p 386. further confesse that, Pennance (or) Satisfaction was enioyned according to the offence. And that the Priest, Cent. 4. col. 425. 426. And see col 491. 834. 868. did absolue those who confessed their sinnes vpon that condition that they would demand punishment for the same. And D. Whitaker Cont. Camp rat. 5. p. 78. acknowledgeth that, Cyprian & Tertulian thought by (such) their external discipline of life, to pay the paynes due for sinnes, and to satisfy Gods Iustice; And that, Not Cyprian only, but almost al the most Holie Fa­thers of that time were in that errour. So likewise Melancthon In his Libelli ali­quot fol. 10. 11. 16. disliketh that, Cyprian vrgeth Canonical Pennance &c. and confirmeth the opinion as though they were necessarie, & that for them sinnes are forgiuen &c. In like sort the whole Nycene Councel ouercome with the consent of the multitude and time, approued the Canons of Pennance. And for the same doctrine he re­proueth theIbid. fol. 19. & 28. Carthage Councel & S. Chrysostome.

Chemnitius Exam. part. 4. p. 68. chargeth the Fathers in general, saying: I am not ignorant that the Old Fathers do sometimes ouer largely and with words ouer loftie command that Canonical discipline. As that Tertulian sayth, by these Satisfactions sinnes are purged; Cyprian sayth, by them sinnes are redeemed, washed, cured; Ambrose, by them the paynes of Hel are recompensed; Augu­stin, God by them is pacifyed for sinnes past: And such like (Sayings) there are, which with true Faith neither can, nor ought to be taken as they sound. And Hamelmanus auoucheth that, Cyprian seemeth fouly to haue erred con­cerning Satisfaction. Yea sayth Caluin: Pref. Inst. ad Reg. Galliae. And see Inst. l. 3. c. 4. §. 38. Those things, which euerie foot occurre in the works of the Old Writers or Fathers touching Satisfaction, moue me but litle: De Tradit. l. 2. c. 7. col. 97. for I see that diuers of them (I wil say simply as it is) almost al whose works are extant, either haue erred in this matter, or haue spoken ouer crabbedly & hardly. And agayne:Inst. l. 3 4 c. 12. §. 8. The immoderate Austeritie of the an­cient (Fathers) can no wayes be excused, it differed wholy from the Command­ment of our Lord, & was verie dangerous; here their wisdome was to be re­quired. As also:Inst. l. 3 c 3. §. 16. The ancient Writers exceeded measure, with [...]mmoderat prayses they commended that corporal Discipline: They were more seuere in exac­ting chastisements, then Ecclesiastical lenitie doth permit. And the Centurists speaking of the Third Age affirme that,Cent. 3. p. 81. Most of the Doctours of this Age do wonderfully depraue the doctrine of Pennance, yea they spare not to say of the Age next to the Apostles, thatCent. 2. p. 62. Euen then this part of Doc­trine concerning Pennance began to be weakned. Now as concerning Indul­gences or Pardons of temporal punishment, It is confessed by M. Symonides Vpon the Reuel. p. 84. that, S. Gregorie remitted Canonical Penance, & promised clean re­mission of sinnes, to such as frequented Churches on set dayes. M. Bale In Act. Rom. Pontif. p. 46 47. affirmeth that, Gregorie confirmed by Indulgences Pilgrimages to Images for the deuotion of the people: And that, He was a defender of Pardons, yet not a seller: As also that, He first granted Pardons for set dayes, and to such as visited Churches. In like manner Pantaleon In Chr. p. 48. auoucheth of him that, He first granted pardon of sinnes to the people visiting Churches vpon set dayes; [Page 49] In Decret. & in 3. psal. Paenit. In his Euseb Capt. published by P [...]zelius, vnder the Title of Act. 1. diei de Indulgentijs fol. 48. Hieronymus Marius thinketh that, Gre­gorie the First, and Boniface the Eigth were the chief authours of Pardons. Cyprian In his Treatise of the liues of Popes Engl. p. 32. also Valera confesseth of S. Grogorie, that he granted Pardons but sold them not. And D. Humfrey In Ie­suit. part. 2. rat. 5. p 5. & 627. repeating sundrie Catholick poynts of Faith taught and brought into England by S. Gregorie & S. Austin, inferreth from them in these words: From al which what els is intended, but that Pardons, Monachisme, Papistrie, and (euen) the whole Chaos of Popish Su­perstition be builded vp.

But to cleare S. Gregorie of al Innouation in this point of Doctrine: The Centurists acknowledge thatCent. 5. c. 6. col 692. S. Chrysostom mentioneth dayes of In­dulgence and Pardon. And D. Field Of the Church. l. 1. c. 17. p. 33. confesseth that, The Ancient Bishops were wont to cut off great partes of enioyned Pennance, which remission was called an Indulgence.

Now to conclude, Confession being made and Pennance inioyned, the Priest (as the Centurists confesse for the practise of the Third Age) did afterwards absolue the Penitent (euen) with the (now-like) vsed ceremonie of imposing his hand. So that the Primitiue and our present Roman Church do confessedly agree in the doctrine of Pennance; First, As that Priests haue truly Power to remit Sinnes. Secondly, that Auricular Confession is neces­sarie. Thirdly, that after Confession Pennance is to be imposed. Fourthly,Cent. 3 col. 127. that the same is truly Satisfactorie. Fiftly, after Pennance, Absolution is giuen, with Imposition of hands. Sixtly, yea Pardons and Indulgences are acknow­ledged to be granted and vsed in those purest times of the Church Pri­mitiue.

Now the Fathers cited and reproued by Protestants for our foresayd doctrines, are S. Gregorie, Leo, Chrysostom, the Doctours in the Age of Constantin, Ambrose, Augustin, Cyprian, Tertulian, the Carthage Councel, the 1. Councel of Neece, and the Fathers in general.

The Protestants accusing them, are the Centurie-writers, Caluin, Chem­nitius, Melancthon, Hamelmanus, Osiander, Hieronimus Marius, Pantaleon, Va­lera, Symonides, Bale, Humfrey, Field, Morton and Whitaker.

It is granted by Protestants, that the Catholick Doctrine of Purgatorie, and of Prayer and Sacrifice for the dead, was beleeued, taught, and practised by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church. CHAPTER XI.

WHAT more generally disliked by Protestants then our Catholick doctrine of Purgatorie, and our charitable prac­ise of Praying & Sacrificing for the dead? And yet what more generally confessed by Protestants to haue been the beleef and custome of the Primitiue Church, then Purga­torie, Prayer, and Sacrifice for the dead?

Concerning S. Gregorie, D. Humfrey In Iesuit. part. 2. rat 5 p. 5. & 627. acknowledgeth, that he taught vs Englishmen by the preaching of S. Austin the doctrine of Pur­gatorie &c. the oblation of the healthful Sacrifice, & Prayers for the dead. In Chro. l. 4. p. 567. 568. Carion confesseth, that he approued the opinion of the oblation of Christs Bodie & Bloud to be made for the dead.

Iohn Bale In Act. Rom. Pontif. p. 44. 45. 46. 47. is of opinion, that he made his foure books of Dialogues for the vpholding of Purgatorie &c. and admitted (euen) Masses for the dead. The Magdeburgians In the Index of the 6. Centurie at the word Gregorie. charge him out of his owne writings with the Doctrine of Purgatorie &c.Cent. 6. col. 373. and with oblation of Sacrifice for the dead. D. Fulk Ag. Rhem. Test. in 1 Cor. 3. sayth: In the dayes of Gregorie &c. the opinion of Purgatorie had gotten some ground in the Latin Church &c. yet in the place by (the Rhemistes) quoted, he granteth it, but for very smal offences. D. Sutcliffe auoucheth that, Gregorie Subuer­sion. c. 4. vsed Litanies, allowed Purgatorie &c. And wheras D. Whitakers confi­dently auoucheth, that,Contra Duraeum l. 7. p. 480. He that first deliuered Purgatorie for a certaine Doc­trine, was Gregorie the Great: Yet M. Symonides Vpon the Reuel. p 83. only chargeth him, not with beginning, but with increasing two pernitious things in the Church, Inuo­cation of the Dead, and Prayer for the dead▪ yea D. Morton confesseth that, S. Gregory Prot. Appeale l 1. Sec. 17. p. 19. [...]0 frameth thus his conclusions: Because such Soules (departed appearing after) desire the help of the liuing, the Sacrifice of the Altar is profitahle for them. Wherupon our Doctour concludeth, saying: This, doth giue vs cause to obserue in him a deep plunge into Superstition. And againe: S. Augustin spake with a Peraduenture, but S. Gregorie kindled the fire with a Credo &c. And now of late, the Romanists haue blow [...]e the flame with an Anathema. So hotly do Roman Catholicks follow the Sent giuen by S Gregorie and S. Augustin. But to clear S. Gregorie of al Innouation in this poynt;Ibid. p. 498. I wil ascend to his predecessours and Ancients. And to begin with S. Augustin, whom though D. Morton pretendeth to speak hereof, only with a Paraduenture or doubtfully, yet Bullinger, hauing perused [Page 51] diuers places of S. Augustins writings concerning this poynt, auoucheth:De ori­g [...] Er­rori [...] f. 223. That, not in one, but in manie places, Augustin maketh mention of Sa­crifice for the dead &c. in Enchirid. c. 109. for it is not to be denyed (sayth he) but that the Soules of the dead are releeued by the pietie of their liuing friends, when the Sacrifice of the Mediatour is offered for them &c. And in his 32. sermon de Verbis Apostoli, This, sayth he, deliuered from the Fa­thers, the whole Church obserueth, that prayer be made for them, who dyed in the Communion of the Bodie and Bloud of Christ, when in their place they are remembred in the Sacrifice, and the Sacrifice also is offered for them. This therfore (sayth Bullinger) I set downe more at large, that thou mayst vnder­stand this custome of Sacrificing for the dead to be ordayned, not by the Apostles, but by the holie Fathers.

D. Willet affirmeth: That diuers of the ancient Fathers, Tetra­stylon part. 3. p. 97. did incline too much to maintayne and commend prayer for the dead, with which errour (sayth he) S. Austin seemeth somewhat to be infected. Augustine (sayrh Caluin Inst [...]t. l. 3. c. 5. § 10 in his books of Confessions telleth, that his mother Monica earnestly desired that Memorie of her might be made at the Altar in performing the mysteries. An old womans desire (sayth Caluin) which her Sonne squared not by the rule of Scrip­ture, but through affection of Nature would haue it approued to others. D. Fulk confesseth that,In his Confut of Purgat. p. 1 [...]0. Austin de Ciuitate Dei. l. 21. c. 13. concludeth verie clearly, that some suffer temporal paynes after this life, this may not be denyed: Yea he boldly auoucheth, that Austin Ibid. p 313. blindly defended prayer for the dead. D. Morton affirmeth, that Protestant Authours Prot. Appeal. p. 495. haue obserued S. Augustin to haue been the first who opened the window vnto the doctrine of Pur­gatorie, by whose owne direction (sayth he) we haue a good warrant to dissent from him &c. So admitting S. Austin for Purgatorie, but most disgra­ciously insinuating, that therin he is contrarie to himself; which as most palpably vntrue, I forbeare to confute; and only proceed cleerly to shew, that neither S. Austin was first, nor the sole man that opened the window herein, as our Doctour with his other Brethren haue blindly obserued.

To which effect D. Fulk acknowledgeth that, S. Ambrose In his Confutation of Purgat. p 78. 320. 326 202. allowed prayer for the Dead, and that it was the common errour of his time. As also,Ibid. p 194. And see Cent. 5. c. 6. col. 675. that Chrysostom & Hierome allowed prayer for the dead. And Chemnitius confesseth the same of Ambrose, Exam. part 3. p. 93. 94. Prudentius & Hierome, and further reprehendeth S. Epiphanius, Ibid. p. 107. as not daring to refute such opinions of the common people: as also S. Augustin & S. Chrysostom for yeelding ouer much herein to the custome of the time, and the receaued opinions of the vulgar. De Ra­tione Refor. Eccl. Edic. Gal. I do not deny (sayth Caluin) these prayers (for the Dead) to haue been receiued by S. Chrysostom, Epiphanius & S. Austin and such others, because they had them from their Predecessours &c. But these good men whom I haue named with ouer much credulitie, without al discretion & Iudgement followed that which within short time had gotten authoritie. Osiander testifyeth, that (23) Pelagius the Second decreed that Memorie of the dead should be made in euerie Masse, after the Eleuation of the healthful Hoste. Which decree is ob­serued euen vnto this day. Melancthon chargeth the whole Councel of [Page 52] Carthage herewith, saying:In his Libelli ali­quot &c. f. 19. and see Apol. Conf Aug c. de vocabulis Missae f. 216 The fourth Carthage Councel contayneth a Decree of Prayer & Sacrifice for the dead, in these words &c.

D. Fulk acknowledgeth, that this forefatherIn his Answer to a Counterf. Cath. p. 44. Aerius taught, that prayer for the Dead was vprofitable, as witnes (sayth he) both Epiphanius & Austin; which they count for an errour. Hereunto agreeth Hospinian, saying:Hist. Sacr part. 1. fol. 155. It was the common opinion of the vulgar, that the Soules of the dead might something be holpen by the prayers, Almes, & Sacrifices which are done vpon earth, as is euidently vnderstood by the disputation of Epipha­nius with Aërius. D. Fulk not only reprehendethIn his Confut. of Purgat p. 320. 294. 326. 349. Ambrose, Chry­sostome & Austin for allowing Prayer for the dead; but withal he ad­mitteth, that itIbid. p. 320. 326. 34 [...]. 78. was the common errour of their times, and that the er­rour of Purgatorie was somewhat rifely budded in Austins time: Ibid. p. 161. Yea answering to D. Allen, he granteth, thatIbid. p. 78. Austin speaketh of the Amending fire in the place by M. Allen alledged: He doth so indeed (sayth D. Fulk) but Austin had no ground of that fire, but in the common errour of his time. So confessedly was the Amending fire of Purgatorie the common doctrine of S. Austins time.

A truth so certayne, that Chemnitius for the self same doctrine reprehendethExam. part. 3. p. 92. Clemens Alexandrinus, Ibid. p. 93. Ambrose, Hierom, Ibid. p. 94. & Prudentius. Ibid. And Fulk speaking of Constantin the Great, who liued somewhat before these Fathers, affirmeth that,In his Confut of Purg. p. 313. In the burial of Constantin there is mention of Prayer for his soule according to the errour of his time. In like sort the Centurists obserue, thatCent. 4. col. 454. a great multitude of people powred out their prayers with teares for the Soule of the Emperour. And for the same doctrine of Purgatorie they accuseCent. 4. c. 4. p. 304. Lactantius, Prudentius & S. Hierome. D. Beard speaking of Those fathers Retrac­tiue from Romish Re­ligion p. 414. which do patronize Purgatorie, mentioneth from Bellarmine, Athanasius, Basil, & Gregorie Nazianzene.

Neither was this so general practise of the people or vniforme consent in doctrine of these ancient Fathers anie Innouation, or first beginning errour of their times: For it is further confessed by D. Fulk, that the doctrine of Purgatorie, not began, butIn his Retentiue &c. p. [...]06. preuayled (sayth he) within three hundred yeares after Christ. And M. Gifford In his Demōstratiō that our Brownistes be ful Dona­tistes p. 38. granteth that, In the (Churches) publick 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 (sayth he) in Cyprian & Tertulian, which was before him, and neerer to the times of the Apostles. So likewise Caluin Inst l 3 c. 5. sec. 10. acknowledgeth that, aboue One thousand three hundred yeares since, it was vsual, that prayers should be made for the dead; whatsoeuer hereof is read in the Ancient (Writers) was yeelded to the publick custome, and to the ignorance of the people &c. I confesse they were drawne headlong into Errour: euen as inconsiderat Credulitie doth vsually depriue the minds of men, of Iudgement. And relating the Custome of ma­king Commemoration of the dead in the Supper, or Sacrifice, that place of ease, light and peace might be giuen to them: he further sayth, I do not deny this to haue been a most ancient Custome, and because great is the force [Page 53] of Custome, or rather Tyrannie, therfore I confesse these prayers to haue been ap­proued by Chrysostome, Epiphanius, Augustin and the like, because as by hands, they were deliuered to them from their Ancestours.

Beza speaking of the times of Cyprian, Austin and Chrysostom, con­fesseth, that as then,Praef. in nouum Test. ad Princ. Cond. Prayers for the dead were begun to be vsed more freely. The ProtestantIn Apoc. p. 206 Ioannes Winkelmannus auoucheth that, Origen decreed a Purgatorie wherin after this life some sinnes are purged. The Centu­rists Cent. 3. col 87. report that, Thou mayst see some seedes of Purgatorie spread abroad in some places of Origen, as hom. 2. in psal. 36. yea in the same place they al­ledge sundrie of Origens sayings affirming Purgatorie. AndCent. 3 col. 265. in another place they acknowledge that, Origen in his bookes de Principijs, decreeth Purgatorie to be the punishment of Sinnes. And for the same doctrine, they reprehendCent. 3. col 138. 139. both Cyprian and Tertullian. Yea other Protestants affirme of S. Cyprian, S. Augustin, & S. Iohn Damascene, in that they defend Prayer for the dead, that,Clypeus fidei. Dial. 11. p. 449. they are mere fooleries which they haue written of this matter: And that such their doctrine is to be ascribed to ihe rash stupi­ditie wherewith their heades were moued, seing they were deuoyd of the Holie-Ghost.

Chemnitius granteth that in the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, who was conuerted by the Apostles, mention is made of Prayer Exam. part. 3. p. 110. for the dead in the Church. And the like is acknowledged of Dionysius by Me­lancthon, In ali­quot libel. &c. fol. 23. & D. Fulk, Against Purgatory p. 353. which D. Fulk in plainest words teacheth that, Tertulian Against Purgat p. 3 [...]2. & see p 303. 393. Cyprian, Austin, Hierom, and a great manie more do wit­nesse, that Sacrifice for the dead is the Tradition of the Apostles. Wherunto Bucer accordeth,In Enarrat. in Sacra, qua­tuor Euan­gel in Math. c. 12. p 311. affirming that prayer and almes were made for the dead almost from the verie beginning of the Church. Lastly, Zuinglius being impugned for denying Prayer for the dead, and pressed with the Autho­ritie of Fathers (especially of S. Chrysostom & S. Augustin, who deriue this Custome from the Apostles) answereth thus:Tom. 1. Epicheroe. de Can. Miss. f. 186. And see Tom. 2. in Elench. contra Ana­bap. f. 10. If it be so as Au­gustin and Chrysostom report, I think that the Apostles suffred certayne to pray for the dead, for no other cause then to condescend to their infirmitie. So insi­mulating the Apostles, wilfully to haue permitted others to erre (accor­ding to the errours of Protestants) in praying for the Dead, which they could not do without errour in themselues.

Yea the Doctrine of Purgatorie and Prayer for thē dead, was be­leeued and practised by the ancient true beleeuing Iewes: For whereas M. Morton speaking of the Church before the coming of Christ, affir­meth, the doctrine then taught by the Iewes, to be now knowne (among other Reasons)Treat. of Israel & the Church. p. 93. 94. By the open Confession of the Iewes in al Ages since the coming of Christ. For (sayth he) it is plaine that they hold euen to this day those opinions which they receaued from their Ancestours, and were commonly held of that Nation. Yea say the Centurists: Cent. 8. col. 885. The Iewes are constant in their opi­nions. And Pet. Martyr writeth that,Com. plac. in Engl. part. 2. p. 599. The Iewes as yet continue, and kept in so great aduersities, in so diuers, and gri [...]uous Captiuities, and Dispersions, they hold stil their Religion. Doubtles no ancient Troians, Lumbards, Hunnes, or Vandals haue so held their owne &c. and could shew their original & Historie [Page 54] set forth in most true writing: and being euerie where dispersed as they were, could neuertheles keep their owne Ordinances &c.

Now concerning these Iewes so constant in their Faith; and admit­ting the bookes of Machabees but only for a true Historie: it is euident thereby, that Iudas Machabeus (a holie and iust man) procured2. Ma­chab. 2.43.45. Sa­crifice for the dead, and that the Priests of Hierusalem (then true beleeuers) offred the same; wherein also our later Iewes are so conformable, that D. Whitaker confesseth the same in these words:Cont. Dur. l. 1. p. 85. I know that the Iewes haue (libros memoriales) books of Commemorations, which they read in their Synago­gues; and I am not ignorant that now they are accustomed to vse certaine prayers for the Dead. Insomuch that, Buxdorsius also reporteth their knowne and confessed doctrine of Purgatorie Syna­goga Iudai­ca. p. 24. 505. 506. 508. 275. D. Beard auoucheth that,Retrac­tiue from the Romish Religion. p. 77. The Romanists are like vnto the Iewes in their doctrine and practise of Prayer for the dead; for they hold and teach that prayer & Sacrifice is to be offered for the dead; grounding their opinion, partly vpon the example of Iudas Machabeus, who as they affirme procured Sacrifice to be offered by the Priests for the dead &c. and partly vpon the Thalmudical Traditions of diuers of their ancient Rabbins.

From the Premisses then we may remember, that the ancient Fathers did confessedly beleeue a place of Purgatorie after this life. Secondly, wherin Sinnes were punished and remitted. Thirdly, for which Remission they vsed to Pray, giue Almes, and offer the most precious Sacrifice of Christs Bodie and Bloud.

Now the Fathers acknowledged and reprehended by Protestants for the forsayd Poynts, are S. Gregorie, Austin, Ambrose, Hierome, Chryso­stom, Prudentius, Epiphaenius, Pelagius, the Fourth Carthage Councel, Cyprian, Tertullian, Origin, Clemens Alexandrinus, Dionysius the Areopagite, the Apostles, and the ancient beleeuing Iewes.

The Protestant Writers obseruing and disliking in the sayd Fathers the forsayd Poynts, are, Caluin, Beza, Bullinger, Zuinglius, the Centurie-wri­ters, Carion, Chemnitius, Osiander, Melancthon, Hospinian, Winkelmannus, Buxdorsius, Bucer, Symondes, Bale, Sutcliffe, Humfrey, Fulk, Whitaker, Gif­ford, Willet & Morton.

It is confessed by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Pri­mitiue Church beleeued and taught our Catholick Doctrine of Christs Descending into Hel. CHAPTER XII.

ACcording to the Article of our Creed: He descended into hel; Catholicks generally teach, that the Soule of Christ, presently after his death, descended into Hel, or Lymbus Patrum, or Abrahams Bosome, there to deliuer and redeeme the Captiue Soules of the holie Patriarks, Prophets and other Iust, who liued before his time.

But Protestants being diuided amongst themselues,Bu [...]er in c. 27. Mat. Beza in c. 2. Act. some of them teach that by the foresayd Article, is only vnderstood, that Christ des­cended to his Graue; Calu. Instit. l. 2. c. 16. § 8 9. 10. 11. 12▪ others that he suffred the paynes of the Damned Soules.

Now do decide this Controuersie by the beleef and Doctrine of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church, and that by the confessed acknow­ledgement of our Aduersaries, who in a case so euident liberally con­fesse the general streame of ancient Doctours to be most aduerse vnto them in this verie Article of our Faith: wheras that most holie and euer renowmed Cardinal Bellarmine, in proofe of this Article alledgedTom. 1. l 4. de Chri. Anima. c. 14 the plaine testimonies of the Greek Fathers, as namely of Iustin, Ireneus, Clemens, Origen, Eusebius, Basil, Nazianzen, Nyssen, Epiphanius, Chrysostome &c. And of the Latin Fathers, Tertulian, Hypolitus, Cyprian, Hilarie, Gaudentius, Prudentius, Ambrose, Hierome, Ruffinus, Austin, Leo, Fulgentius &c, The Pro­testantAd Bel­larm Disput part. 1. p. 176. Danaeus in answer to so manie most famous Fathers testimonies, most barely affirmeth that, As concerning them, they were not instructed out of Gods word, neither do they confirme their opinion from it, but only from their owne con­iectures &c. Thus supposing their Catholick opinion herein, and therefore reiecting al their iudgements, as confirming their Faith only by their owne coniectures in Danaeus his opinion; which as no lesse absurd in itself then improbable to al Iudicious, I omit as an answer purely Protestantical.

In like plaine mannerConc. Dur. l 8. p. 567 And see p. 773. D. Whitaker in answer to the like testi­monies of the Fathers vrged by our Catholick Writer Duraeus, writeth thus: That which thou couldest not do by Scriptures, no doubt thou wilt performe by the testimonies of the Fathers: of whom, that I may freely and briefly answer thee what I think, one litle word of Scripture hath more weight with me, then a thousand Sayings of Fathers without Scriptures. Therfore thou art not to expect that I seuerally wash away those errours of the Fathers. So according to the custome of al Hereticks for their last refuge, appealing to only Scripture, and disclay­ming from the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers.

M. Iacob In Bil­sons ful Re­dēpt. p. 188▪ And see Iacob in Def. of the Treat. of Christs fuffringes. p 199. 200. honestly acknowledgeth that, 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 spoyled Satan of those that were in his present possession: with whom agreeth, herein D. Bilson. Vbi sup. p. 189. And in his Sur­uey. p. 656. And D. Barlow Def. of the Articles of Prot. Re­lig. p. 173. te­stifyeth that, This passeth most rife among the Fathers, who taking, (Inferi,) for Abrahams bosome, expound it, that Christ went thither, ad liberandum liberandos, to conuey the Fathers deceased before his Resurrection into the place where now they are.

A French ProtestantCatho­lick Tradit. p. 112. 113. Writer not only affirmeth this to be the doctrine of Chrysostom, a very true (sayth he) Catholick teacher, but also of the now present Apostolick Churches of the East, whereto sayth he, In likelyhood the Christians of Affrick do consent. And wheras S. Ignatius Ep. ad Trallianos post med. doth cleerly teach the same Doctrine, the same is acknowledged in himDef. of his Article &c. fol. 22 Bislons Sur­uey p 657. 658. by D. Hil, & D. Bilson. yea the Poloman De Rus­sorum &c. Religione. p. 122. 123. Protestant Lascicius doubteth not to affirme and deriue the Doctrine therof not only from S. Ignatius S. Iohns Scholler, but also from S. Thadaeus one of the twelue Apostles, Math. 10 3. And withal an­swerably testifyeth herein the opinion and doctrine of the Hebrewes, Vbi sup. p. 123. & of the remote Christians both in Syria & Aethiopia. And the like acknow­ledgement of S. Thadaeus his opinion herein is made byPalma Christiana. p. 74. And see Eus. Hist. l▪ 1. c vlt. Frigiuillaeus Gruu [...]us, who speaking therof affirmeth that, we haue the testimonie of Eusebius Pamphylus, who in the Historie of Agbar, King of the Edessens testifyeth Thadaeus the Apostle to haue preached before Agbar and others, amongst other things, the Des­cension of Christ to Hel &c. And then further defending this Historie for Au­thentical, he concludeth: No man of mature iudgement wil impugne those things which Eusebius deliuereth of the preaching of Thadaeus at Edessa, and the conuersion of Agbar to Christ: Finally this testimonie of the holie Apostle Thadaeus, is further defended by D. Bilson, and sundrie times alledged and vrged by D, Hil.

The ancient Iewes did so certainly beleeue the Doctrine of Lymbus Patrum, and the same is so cleerly taughtc. 24. 37. in the booke of Ecclesiasticus, that D. Whitaker for his best answer finally betaketh himself to the reiec­tingConc. Dur. l. 8. p. 567. of the sayd booke for not Canonical; But the falshood herof being formerlySee bef. l. 2 c. 5. proued,Suruey of Christs suffrings p. 653. 654. 657. 660. 661. &c. Hil Def. of this Art. Christ Descēd. &c. and that from the Confession of other Protestants, it sufficeth for this present that the sayd booke being but a true Historie, doth yet fully manifest the Doctrine herin of the Ancient Iewes who liued be­fore Christ. In which regard also D. Beard Re­tract [...]ue from Rom. Relig p. 78. affirmeth Catholicks, to Iudaize in their doctrine of Lymbus Patrum and Purgatorie. This Article then of our Creed, that Christ after his death truly descended into Hel, we see was the confessed Doctrine of S. Austin, Leo, Fulgentius, Chrysostom, Prudentius, Hierom, Ruffine, Ambrose, Hilarie, Gaudentius, Epiphanius, Iustin, Clemens, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Thadaeus the Apostle, and of al the Fathers, and the ancient Iewes.

Now the Protestants producing and acknowledging the Fathers Doc­trine herin to be Roman Catholick, are Danaeus, Lascicius, Frigiuillaeus Gru­uius, Whitaker, Bilson, Hil, Iacob, Barlow, Beard, and others.

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. XIII.

ALthough the glorious Angels and blessed Saincts do not re­quire, or need, in regard of themselues, anie human Apologie for their deserued honour; they being seated in the highest and strongest turrets of the kingdome of Heauen, wherin new Triumphs they dayly winne against their Enemies, and being (asl. de Mor­talitate. S. Cyprian sayth) now secure of their owne immortalitie, are yet careful of our securetie: Yet if we respect either the general Calumnies and contempts of our modern Hereticks against them, or our bounden duties by reason of so manie celestial Graces through their charitable suffrages bestowed vpon vs, it may iustly be thought expedient, or rather necessarie in their due de­fence, and for sa isfaction of the Aduersarie, briefly to set downe the confes­sed Doctrine and beleef of the Primitiue Church honouring and inuocating the sayd Angels and Saincts as Intercessours, agreably as the Roman Church stil doth; directly contrarie to our Modern Protestants refusing and im­pugning the same.

First then touching S. Gregorie the Great, the Protestant Chronicler Carion affirmeth thatChron. l. 4. p. 567. 568. Gregorie orda [...]ned the publick Rite of Inuocation of Saincts. M. Symonds only auoucheth thatVpon the Reuelations. p. 83.84.85.86. Gregorie increased two pernicious things in the Church, Inuocation of the Dead, a [...]d Prayer for the dead, And that, he wrote to Leontia to make S. Peter Protectour of the Empire in earth, and Intercessour in Heauen, &c. He Sent Austin into England to conuert the English; they which were sent, spread forth a Banner with a painted Crucifix, and so came in Procession to the king, singing Litanies in a strange tongue: Now one chief part of the Litanie contayneth Inuocation of Saincts.

Luke Osiander Cent. 6. p. 288. reciting manie Catholick poynts of Faith, taught and beleeued by S. Gregorie, numbreth amongst the rest that, He approued, cloaked, and defended the Inuocation of Saincts and their worship. In the In­dex of the sixt Century, at the word, Gregory. The Cen­turie writers numbring vp in like sort the pretended Popish Errours of S. Gregorie charge him with Inuocation of Saints. W [...]th whom agreethIn Iesuitis part. 2. r at. 5. p. 5. & 627. D. Humfrey, reprehending S. Gregorie for publick Inuocation of Saints and their worship. Cent. 6. c. 131. col. 17. And the Centurists further confesse, that Gregorie the Great re­citeth manie miracles &c. which plainly confirme Superstition, as confidence in Saints, Inuocation of the dead &c. Wee need not therefore, (sayth D. Morton) Prot. Ap­peal. l. 1. sec. 24 p. 27. be greatly moued with the contrarie Doctrine of S. Gregorie (allowing praying to Saincts) &c. And agayne: Neuertheles as we find in him very rarely anie prayer vnto Saints &c So desiring to mince, but not daring to deny a truth so manifest, and for such confessed by so manie of his other Brethren, of S. Gregorie his defending Inuocation of Saints.

But to ascend from S. Gregorie to other more ancient Doctours,Exam. part. 3. p. 211. Chem­nitius alleageth S. Austin inuocating S. Cyprian, and cōcludeth saying therof: These things (did) Augustin without scripture, yeelding to the times and custome. Prudentius I grant (sayth D. Whitaker)Answer to Campian Reas. 5. p. 140. 141. as a Poet somtims called vpon the Martyrs, whose Acts he describeth in verse; And the superstitious Custome of praying to Saints, had now taken deep root in the Church, which as a Tyrant haled somtimes the holie Fathers into the same errour. In his Reioynder to Bristow p 5. D. Fulk spareth not to speak thus plainly, I confesse (sayth he) that Ambrose, Austin, and Hierom held In­uocation of Saints to be lawful: And thatAgainst the Rhem. Test. in 2. Pet. c. 1. sec. 3. fol. 443. In Nazianzene, Basil, and Chry­ostome, is mention of Inuocation of Saints; And that, Theodoret also speaketh of prayers vnto Martyrs: As also that, Leo ascribeth much to the prayers of S. Peter for him: And in brief, that manie of the ancient Fathers held, that the Saints de­parted pray for vs. Cent. 5. c. 6. col. 675. The Centurists charge S. Chrysostom's Lyturgie with In­uocation of our B. Ladye by name.

Chemnitius Exam. part. 3. 200. auoucheth, that About the yeare of our Lord three hundred and seauentie, Inuo [...]a [...]ion of Saints began to be brought into the publick assemblies of the Church by Basile, Nyssen, and Nazianzene: Ibid. p. 211. And he reprehendeth for the same Doctrine, Theodoret and Hierome. A French Protestant answering to the testimonie of S. Gregorie Nazianzene, writethClypeus fidei Dial. 8. p. 258. In that thou citest S. Gre­gorie praying to S. Basil (dead) that he would pray for him, I wil let thee know, that Gregorie knew not what he sayd, when he sayd so. Belike this Protestant thought that greatest Diuine S. Gregorie Nazianzen to haue been ouertaken with drinke, when he prayed so, as we may iustly suspect this giddie French Protestant was when he writ thus.

But the Centurie-writers Cent. 4. col. 295. 296. 297. alledge sundrie examples of prayer to Saincts Athanasius, Basil, Nazianzene, Ambrose, Prudentius, Epiphanius, and Ephrem. Apocal. in c. 14 p. 382. M. Brightman hauing named Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Nazianzen, Ambrose, Hierom, Austin &c. reproueth them, as in words condemning Idolatrie, but indeed establishing it by Inuocation of Saints, worshipping of Relicks, and such like wicked Superstitions &c. sayth he. And wheras D. Bishop alleageth S. Chrisostom affirming the Emperour Constantin to haue prayed to Saincts,p. 17. M. Wotton in his book against D. Bishop only answereth, by barely reiecting the Saying for suspected and forged yetIn his Ansvver to. D. Bishop. p. 174. D. Abbot acknowledgeth the contrarie, saying: We deny not Chrysostom to be authour of the words: And then inuenteth an answer no lesse false then impertinent, to wit,Ibid. that Chri­sostom thereby meaneth the Emperour Arcadius, who was Emperour aboue sixtie yeares after Constantin: but of Constantin it is (sayth he) that we enquire; for what others did after the time of Constantin, Superstition more and more increasing, is nothing concerning him. But yet to omit al other answere, this may so much concerne anie indifferent man, that it may sufficiently assure him, that Inuo­cation of Saincts was confessedly vsed in the Church at least about Anno Domini 398. when Arcadius raigned.

Yea this Doctrine was so general, and so certainly beleeued in the Primi­tiue Church, that the holie Fathers are reproued by our young Protestant writers for condemning the contrarie Protestant Doctrine as Heretical in Vigilantius and Aerius. D. Fulk sayth:In his ansvver to a counterf Cath. p. 46 Last of al Vigilantius shal be [Page 59] brought in, who wrot against the Inuocation of Saincts &c. Him Hierom reprooueth: AndIn defen. tract. de Di­uers. p. 349. D. Sarauia and Beza Ibid. p. 346. do both of them affirme, that Aërius was likewise charged and condemned by the Fathers, for his then affirming, that the Saincts departed are not to be prayed vnto.

But to arise yet somwhat higher, and a litle to view the times neer Christ and his Apostles, Beza speaking of the times of Cyprian, Austin, and Chryso­stom acknowledgeth, that Prefat. nou. Test. ad Princip. Con­dens. then preuayled Inuocation of the Dead. The Centurie writers speaking ofCent. 3 col. 84. S. Cyprian say thus: Verily Cyprian in the end of his first Epistle of his first book doth not obscurely think, that Martyrs and Saincts departed do pray for the liuing. Cent. 3 col. 83. Yea they further charge Origen for praying: O holie Iob pray for vs wretches: And for teaching hom. 1. in Ezech. that Angels are to be prayed vnto. But to auoyd tediousnes in reciting the other particuler Fathers of that Age, they in grosse confesse,Cent. 3. c. 4. col. 83. that, There are manifest steps of Inuocation of Saincts in the Doctours of that ancient Age, which was the third Age or hundred yeares after Christ. And wherasl. 5. c. 19. S. Ireneus termeth the B. Virgin Marie, Eues Aduocat, some Caluinists auouch that these were the wordsClype [...] fidei. Dial. 8. p. 277 Edi [...] Gall. rather of some Idolater, or if they were the words of Ireneus, Ireneus had not the true vnderstanding of the confession of the holie Faith of Christian Religion. But if so ancient and holie Ireneus wanted true vnderstanding of Faith and Christian Religion, we may assure our selues that new borne Protestants are wholy blind therin.

But without al restraint of Age or time,In his Examination &c c. 9. p 120. D. Couel affirmeth, that Di­uers both of the Greek and Latin Church were spotted with errours about Free-wil, Merits, Inuocation of Saincts &c. Yea D. Whitguift discoursing ofIn h is Def. &c. against the Reply of Carthwright p. 472. 473. Doctrine taught in anie Age since the Apostles time, affirmeth without any exception either of Age or Father, that (to vse his owne words)Ibid. p. 473. almost al the Bishops and learned writers of the Greek Church and Latin also, for the most part, were spotted with Doctrines of Free wil, of Merit, of Inuocation of Saincts, and such like.

Now the Doctrine and practise herof in the ancient Iewes is so cleerly re­corded in the books ofc. 5. 5. 12. 13. 15. 18. Tobie and Macchabees 2 Ma. 15 12.13.14 & 3.33. & 4.34. that no better answer thereto canAd Rat. Camp. p. 15. 16. D. Whitaker find, then barely to reiect them as not Cano­nical. D. Beard affirmeth that CatholicksRetra­ctiue from Ro­mish Religion. p. 80. ioyne hands with the Iewes in their Doctrines of Freewil, Inuocation of Angels and Saincts, and Merit of good works: Al which the Moderne Rabbins hold as Articles of their Creed, deriuing them from their Predecessours the Pharisees that went before them. And yet we neuer read, that the Pharisees were reproued by Christ or anie of his Apostles for the foresayd poynts, who yet noted their smallest errours.

This then our Catholick Doctrine of praying to Angels and Saincts, is thus by the Confession of Protestants the ancient Catholick Doctrine and Practise of S. Gregorie, Austin, Leo, Ambrose, Hierome, Chrysostome, Nyssen, Na­zianzene, Basil, Theodoret, Athanasius, Prudentius, Cyprian, Origen, and of almost al (say they) the Greek and Latin Fathers.

Now the Protestants acknowledging and disliking this in the sayd Fa­thers, are the Centurists, Osiander, Carion Chemnitius, Beza, Sarauia, Symonds, Brightman, Humfrey, Fulk, Abbot, Couel, Whitguift, Beard, and Morton.

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. XIV.

THoughConc. Tri­dent sess. 25. Images may not be worshipped with Inuocation or by placing anie confidence in them, as though they were en­dowed with any Diuinitie; yet that otherwise they may be worshiped, as by kissing them, kneeling downe, and praying before them, placing them in Churches, translating and the like, the Catholick Church doth teach and practise. But Protestants denying al worship to Saincts, do much more deny al reuerence or respect to their Images.

Wherfore to decide this Controuersie by the Doctours of the Primitiue Church, I find the holie Fathers euen often reproued by Protestants for their special deuotion and Reuerence towards holie Images. So S. Gregorie is re­prehended by M. Bale In Act. Rom. Pont p. 44. 41 46 47. for that he suffred the Image of the Blessed Virgin to be carryed about &c. And that he confirmed by Indulgences, Pilgrimages to Images, for the Deuotion of the People. Cent. 6. p. 289 290 Osiander affirmeth that Austin (sent by Gre­gorie) thrust vpon the English Churches the Roman Rites and customes, to wit, Altars, Vestmentes, Images &c. Vpon the Reuelations. p. 83.84.85 86. M. Symondes confesseth that, S. Gregorie was angrie for breaking of Images, and called thē Lay mens books &c. He did worse (sayth he) then the Hereticks called Collyridiani, that worshiped the Virgin Marie, Instit. l. 1. c. 11. § 5. carryed the Image of the Virgin Marie in Procession &c. He sent Austin into England to conuert the English; they which were sent, spread forth a Banner with a painted Crucifix, and so came in Procession to the king &c. D. Fulk confesseth thatAgainst Rhem. Test. in Mat. 4. Gregory allowed of Images: Ibid. In Hebr 11. Allowed Images to be in Churches: Ibid. in Act. 17. Allowed Images to be Lay-mens books, for which verie point: Caluin affir­meth that, S. Gregorie was not taught in the Schoole of the Holie Ghost. And Osiander Cent. 6 p. 288. affirming, that S. Gregorie was fowly and Popishly deceaued in manie Articles, besides sundrie other particulars there by him mentioned, auoucheth, that he approued, cloaked, and defended the Idolatrical worshipping of Images. For which worshipping of Images, and defending the same, he is cited and reproued byIn his [...]ō ­mon. plac. part. 2. p. 343. Peter Martyr, Exam. part 4. p. 32. Chemnitius, Cent. 6. p. 288. Osiander, and Iohn Bale. In his Pageant of Popes. fol 33. And though D. Morton wil not so ingenuously confesse with his former Brethren, that S. Gregorie approued the worshipping of Images, yet himselfeProt Ap­peal l 1 sect. 25. p. 28. reporteth and citeth S. Gregorie reprehending Serenus Bishop of Marseils for breaking downe Pictures in Churches &c. And further thinketh, that his not suffring Images to be broken, when there was so publick and general Idolatrie committed with them, seemed vnto our Osiander, although not a direct, yet an occa­sional approuing of Idolatries, or rather a cloaking therof, &c.

But to goe to the more ancient Doctours,In his Pageant of Popes. p. 24. 27 And see Osiander cent. 5. p. [...]3. M. Bale confesseth, that S. Leo [Page 61] allowed the worshiping of Images: Yea sayth M. Symonds Vpon the Reuel. p. 57. Leo decreed that reuerence should be giuen to Images &c. And S. Chrysostom Problem. pag. 27. Fulk against Heskins. p. 673. is charged by M. Parkins and D. Fulk with worshiping of Christs Image.

D. Fulk Against Heskins. &c. pag. 672. 47. 675. acknowledgeth, that Paulinus caused Images to be paynted on Church wales. And of the vse of Images confessedly in Churches in those ancient times, sundrie examples are giuen byAgainst Symbolizing. ‖ part 1. pag. 32. M. Parker, the Cen­turie-writers, Cent. 4. col. 409. and Chemnitius Exam. part. 4 pa. 26. 29. 30. from the seueral testimonies of Sozomen, Athanasius, Prudentius and others. D. Morton confesseth thatProt. Appeal. pag. 586. About the Foure hundreth yeare Images crept out of priuat man houses, and went into the publick Churches, standing there &c.

Now wheras according to Protestants al Religious worship is to be exhibited only to God, and none to anie Creature, yet as Catholicks now, so S. Austin before, deuided Religious worship into two kinds: the first, which is proper only to God, he called Latria; the second, which is com­municable to creatures, Dulia. Hereof the Protestant Hospinian sayth:De Tem­plis. pag. [...]07. Blessed Augustin first forged the Dinstinction of Dulia and Latria &c. Amongst Religious worships in this sort he distinguished; that which was due only to God, he called Latria, and that which was lawful to giue to creatures, he named Dulia: And presently afterwards he citeth the special places hereof out of S. Austin, condemning withal this distinction, as being, sayth he, a Defence of Super­stition and Idolatrie. Chemnitius Exam. part. 4. pa. 29. confesseth, that in the Tripartite Historie, and in Nicephorus, there are certain places which seem to tend, as though in the time of Constantin, certain Statues, or Images, began to be placed in Temples, but of this (sayth he) I wil not much contend.

But Lactantius, who was yet ancient, is reproued by the Centurie-writers, for that, say they, he affirmeth manie Superstitious things concerning the efficacie of Christs Image: WhichCent. 4. col. 408. & 409. & Cent. 4. c. 2. col. 33. Centurists also, do make report of that strange Miracle at large recorded byLibro de Passione Ima­ginis Christi. And although some doubt be made vvhether this book be made by S. Athanasius, yet it is cited as a most ancient historie by the seauenth Sy­nod. Act. 4. S. Athanasius, of a certaine holie Image of Christ our Sauiour, left in a house where a Christian had in­habited a litle before, and at his remoual had forgot the same; which the Iewes finding, in derision of Christ Crucifyed, spit vpon it, buffeted it with their hands, nayled the hands and feet vpon a Crosse, offred it vineger mingled with gaul, crowned it with a crowne of thornes, strock the head therof with a reed, and at the last pearced the right side therof with a lance, from whence forth­with issued out water and bloud: Which the Iewes perceiuing, caused a vessel to be set vnder, which presently was filled: But they remouing it into theyr Sy­nagogue, intending therby to offer the greatest disgrace to Christ our Lord, assembled thither al the disease and infirme which they could find, which annoynting therwith, there were cured the Sick of the palsie, the blind, the lame, the deaf, the dumbe, the leapers and others: Which the Iewes themselues seeing, beleeued in Christ our Lord, and went vnto the Catholick Church in that Cittie; where prostrating themselues at the feet of the Metropolitan Bishop, confessed their Sinnes, and related al the Historie passed. Wherupon the Bishop caused the Christian who had inhabited the house before, to be brought vnto him, and enquiring of him how he came to the Image, he answered, Nicodemus who came to Iesus by night, made it with his owne hands, and dying gaue it to Gamaliel, who [Page 62] dying left it to Iames, and Iames to Symeon, and Symeon to Zachaeus, and so by theyr Successours it continued in Hierusalem vntil two yeares before the Sub­uersion therof by Titus and Vespasian: When the Christians admonished by the holie-Ghost left the cittie, and comming into Syria, they brought with them al things which belonged to the worship of Religion: At which time the Image being brought amongst other things which concerned the Church, remayned vntil this day in Syria, which I receauing from my Parents departing this life, haue vntil this time possessed by right of inheritance. The Bishop hearing this was verie ioyful, and instructing the Iewes in the Christian Doctrine, after three dayes fast, baptised them al; and at their intreatie consecrated their Synagogue into a church in honour of the Sauiour of the world. Afterwardes consulting what to doe with the sacred liquour of water and Bloud in the vessel, resolued to send the same in bottles of glasse made of purpose to al churches through Asia, Africa, and Europe: Exacting this of them, that euerie yeare vpon the ninth of Nouember the like Solemnitie should be vsed, as vpon the dayes of Christmas and Easter. This (sayth S. Athanasius) is the true and verie credible Historie of the bloud of the side of our Sauiour, which issued out of his holie Image, which was crucifyed in Syria in the citie Berithus. Here wil I leaue our Protestants condemning S. Athanasius of Credulitie and Superstitious Papistrie.

Now to proceed, Functius confesseth, thatLib. 7. commentario­rum in praeced. chron. fol. 6. Anno 494. Xenaias was the first in the church that stirred vp warre against Images. So quiet possession had they in the Church before that time.Exam. part. 4 pa. 26. Chemnitius sayth: In one and only Tertulian, I haue obserued the historie of the Sheepheard calling and seeking his wandring sheep, to be paynted and grauen vpon holie Chalices. In like sort sayth D. Beard Retra­ctiue from Ro­mish Religion. pag 401. Indeed we confesse, that there was in these primitiue times of the church an historical vse of Images, as may appeare by that Statue of our Sauiour at Cesarea, mentioned by Eusebius, and the pictures of Peter and Paul, in the same Authour: And of the good shepheard feeking the lost sheep paynted vpon the Cha­lices in Tertulian.

Another Protestant discoursing of the Religion taught and professed publickly by the Graecians and Abissines, reciting amongst the rest, their ha­uingIn his Catholick. Tradictions. pag. 212. 214. Pictures in their Churches, and inclining and howing before the Images of Saints, doth from thence conclude in these wordsIbid. pa. 216. It seemes that this is the greatest accusation which Protestants haue against the Churches of the East and Africa; neuertheles &c. the ancient Doctours which destroyed the Pagans Idola­trie, haue approued it, their deuotion did lead them vnto it &c.

So cleerly therfore may we conclude, that our Catholick vsage of Pictures, in placing them in Churches, and reuerencing them, doth most truly accord with the like practise and Deuotion of S. Gregorie, Leo, Paulinus, Prudentius, Austin, Chrisostome, Nicephorus, Sozomene, Athanasius, Tertulian, Lastantius. Witnesses wherof are the Protestant writers, the Centurists, Osiander, Chemnitius, Peter Martyr, Hospinian, Functius, Symonds, Bale, Fulk, Parker, Parkins, Beard, and Morton.

IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED BY PROTESTANTS, that the Fathers of the Primitiue Chuch did specially honour and reuerence the holie Relicks of Martirs, and other Saincts, carying them in Processions, and making Pilgrimages vnto them: At which also manie Miracles were wrought. CHAP. XV.

AS it is to be supposed, that such Here [...]icks as deny the due worship and Inuocation of Saincts, wil much more deny al reuerent respect or worship to be giuen to the Relicks of their dead Bodies; So we may as confidently expect that al holie fathers, who so confessedly before, exhibited honour to the Blessed Saincts or Soules in Heauen, wil likewise performe their answerable respect to their sacred Bodies vpon earth.

And to begin with S. Gregorie: It is acknowledged byIn Act. Rom. Pontif. p. 44. &c. M. Iohn Bale, that Gregorie the great, &c. commanded Masses to be celebrated ouer the dead bodies of the Apostles: And Carion Chron. l. 4. p. 567. 568. auoucheth that, He dedicated Chur­ches to the bones and Ashes of Saincts. Cent. 6. Col. 381. The Centurie-writers charge him with Translation of Reliques: In Iesuit. part. 2. rat 5. p. 5. & 627. And D. Humfrey reciting sundrie particu­lar poynts of Catholick Doctrine which S. Gregorie and S. Austine brought into England, amongst the rest doth number, Relicks. D. Fulk auoucheth thatAg Rhē. Test. in Apoc. 6. Gregorie liuing so neer the Reuelation of Antichrist, it is no maruaile though he be more superstitious in Relicks. And AgaineIb. in 1. Tim. 4. Gregorie indeed willeth &c. Altars to be built, and Relicks to be layd-vp; Gregorie indeed did send manie Superstitious tokens &c. He sendeth a litle Key frō the bodie of S. Peter for his blessing, in which is enclosed the iron of his chaynes &c. Such was the practise and reuerence giuen to the Relicks of Saincts by S. Gregorie.

But to proceed; S. Ambrose hauing made a godlie speech about the pious honouring of Martyrs Tombes, the Centurists thus censure therof:Cent. 4. p. 301. Let the godlie Reader consider, how horrible these things are, vttered by Ambrose: And wherasContra vigilans. S. Hierome auoucheth, that The Emperour Constantin transla­ted the holie Reliques of Andrew, Luke, and Timothie to Constantinople, at which (sayth he) the Diuels roare; Bullinger disliking the same, affirmeth that,De origin [...] Erroris. fol. 67. and fol. 58. Hierom is ouer ful in that he sayth, that Diuels roare at the holie Reliques of Andrew: Which Saying is likewise acknowledged and reproued byExam. part 4. p. 8. Chemnitius. ButDe origin [...] Erronis. p. 67. Bullinger further alledgeth and reprehendeth S. Hierom saying: Hierom saith, If it be not lawful to translate the Reliques of Saincts, and to lay them in Golden coffers, Then was Arcadius with Constantine Sa­crilegious, yea al Bishops were to be censured, not only as Sacrilegious, but also as foolish, who carryed in a Vessel (or Reliquarie) of God and silk; a thing (sayth Bullinger) most vile, and loose Ashes: Now to this opinon of S. Hierom, and to the practise of Constantin, Arcadius, and [Page 64] the Bishops of those times, Bullinger only answereth: I wil not obscure the renowned glorie of those holie men of God (Constantino diuo, Arcadio Sancto) Holie Constantin and Holie Arcadius &c. but I testify for them that they haue the loue of God, not according to knowledge: so acknowledging their Sanctitie, and censuring their knowledge; which how euil it becommeth an ignorant Minister, I leaue to the censure of an indifferent Reader.

This Deuotion of Constantin to holie Reliques, was so certaine, thatExam. part. 4. p. 8. and see Crispinus of the Estate of the church. p. 93 Chemnitius auoucheth, that Translation of Reliques began vnder Con­stantin the Great. And M. Brightman In Apoc. in c. 12. p. 325. And see Hos­piniā de Tem­plis. p. 109. 110. 111. speaking of Constantins comming in, affirmeth, that then was the time of seeking the Reliques of Saincts, and consecrating Churches to Martyrs &c. The Centurie-writers likewise reproue him, for that, say they;Cent. 4. Col. 15.29. with like Superstition Constantin is sayd to haue translated to Constantinople, certayne Reliques of the Crosse found by Helen, that the Crosse might preserue the cittie. And as now in Catholick Countries it is vsual in their greatest feasts and Solemnities, to carry in their Processions the holie Reliques of Saincts, so was the same likewise practised in the Primitiue Church, as witnesse both S. Hierom and S. Austin, alledged and reproued by Chemnitius in these words:Exam. part 4. p. 10. From Translation of Reliques, forth with was vsed the carying of them, as is to be seen in Hierome and Austin &c.

Neither is confessed testimonies of Pilgrimages to Reliques and holie places wanting. D. Beard freely grāteth:Retracti­ue from Ro­mish Religion. p. 207. that vowes & Pilgrimages vnto places famous for the Relicks of Martyrs, were in old time profitable, whilst that the Memorie of the Martyrs was yet fresh and certayne, and as long as God by vn­doubted Miracles did manifest that their Soules did liue, who were thought to be dead: So supposing vowes and Pilgrimages vnto places famous for Relicks, to haue been vsual and allowed in old time, and that Miracles were wrought thereby. And theCent. 4. col. 457. see also Cripspinus of the Estate of the Church p. 111. and Hosp. detēplis. p. 365. Centurists record, Concerning Pilgrimages to holie places, that in this Age Vnder Constantin, first began the places of the Holie Land &c. to be had in esteem &c. Helen Mother of the Emperour (in He­reticks opinion) a Superstitious woman going thither to worship &c. And Chemnitius, Exam. part. 4 p. 10. And Osiander cant. 4 p. 393. and cent. 4. col. 457. acknowledgeth, that the Christians of those times made Pilgrimages to such places, where they heard were Relicks famous and renowned with Miracles. D. Beard auoucheth thatRetra­ctiue from Ro­mish Relig. p. 197. 198. In former times &c. they placed the Relicks of Saincts vnder the Aultar, as Ambrose (whom he callethIbi. p. 181. This good father) witnesseth of the Relicks of Geruasius and Protasius, Christ was vpon the Aultar who suffred for al, the Relicks of them vnder the Aultar, who were redeemed with his Bloud &c. Yea he further confesseth that, The first bringers-in of that custome &c. placed them vnder the Aultar in a Religious manner. And indeed the reuerent respect hereto was such from the holie and ancient Doctours, as that, they not only earnestly defended the same, but withal censured and condemned the despisers thereof for Hereticks.Epit. cēt. 4 p. 506. and see the centu­ristes. cent. 4. col. 1250 Osiander hereupon reproueth S. Hierom for that, sayth he, S. Hierom did foolishly contend that the Relicks of Saincts were to be worshiped. And D. Fulk saythIn his Ansvver to a counterf. cath. p. 46. and see cent 4. col. 1250. Osiand. cent. 4. l. 4. p. 506. Parker against Sym­bolizing vvith Antichrist. part 4. p. 74. 83. Crispinus of the Estate of the Church. p. 131. Last of al, Vigilantius shal be brought-in, who wrot against Inuocation of Saincts, Superstition of Relicks, and other Ceremonies: Him Hierom reproueth.

Lastly plentiful are the reports confessed from the Fathers of manie mi­racles, wrought at the Monuments and Relicks of Saincts.Exam. part. 4 p. 10. Chemnitius confesseth that, Mention is made in Augustin, that a blind woman receaued sight at the Translation of the Relicks of Stephen: And sometimes certaine Miracles were wrought at Relicks &e. TheCent. 4. col. 457. Centurists acknowledge that, If we beleeue Ambrose, the sick were cured by touching with the hand, the garments of Saincts, and the obsessed were deliuered &c. De Sacra­mentis. p. 738. Zepperus reporteth that, At the memories of Martyrs certayne Miracles were wrought, which without doubt (sayth he) God himself wrought &c. And, I do not think those Miracles vayne (saythCom. Duraeum l 10. p 866. D. Whitaker) which are reported to be done at the Monu­ments of Martyrs. In his Eusebius Cap­tiuus. act. 2. diei. de Imagi­nibus. fol. 104. Hieronimus Marius confesseth, that Miracles were done by God at the Sepulchers of Martyrs, and other Saincts of Christ &c. That by these signes God himself might testify of their Doctrine, Faith, and Sanctitie. M. Fox Act. Mon p. 61. And see Cri­spinus of the Estate of the Church p. 133. reporteth (out of S. Chrisostom l. contra Gentiles, and Theodoret l. 3. c. 9.) how that, after the bringing of the (dead) bodie of Babylas (Martyr) into the Temple (of an Idol) the Idol ceased to giue anie more oracles, saying, that for the bodie of Babylas, he could giue no more answeres.

But to conclude, the antiquitie of this Reuerence giuen to Relicks is so great, as thatExam. part. 4. p. 7. Chemnitius confesseth, that Hierom writeth that the He­reticks Caiani were condemned by Tertullian, for that they would not honour the Relicks of Martyrs. From al which it appeareth, that most special Reue­rence was giuen to the holie Relicks of Saincts by the Fathers of the Primi­tiue Church of Christ, who celebrated Masses ouer them, Dedicated Churches in their honour, Translated them, carryed them in Processions, made Pilgri­mages vnto them, and frequently make mention of the manie and strange Miracles wrought by them.

The Fathers cited and reproued by Protestants for the foresayd poynts, are S. Gregorie, Hierom, the Emperours Constantin and Arcadius, Augustin, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret and Tertullian: The Protestants their Ac­cusers, are the Centurists, Carion, Bullinger, Chemnitius, Crispinus, Hospinian, Osiander, Zepperus, Marius, Bale, Humfrey, Brightman, Parker, Fulk, Fox, Beard, and Whitaker.

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 thereto. CHAP. XVI.

ALthough the CROSSE OF CHRIST, by reason of that dignitie which it obtayned by touching the Bodie and Bloud of Christ, may truly be esteemed amongst [...]he most pre­cious Relicks; As also in that it representeth the figure of our Lord Crucifyed, it may rightly be numbred amongst the honest Images: Yet because withal, it is indeed the high Altar of the chiefest [Page 66] Sacrifice, wherby the wrath and Iustice of God was satisfyed, the ladder wherby Christ himself ascended into heauen, the worthiest Instrument of mans Redemption, and Satans foyle; and as now, is the fairest Marke wherat our Modern Hereticks do leuel and direct their poynsoned arrowes of foulest Contumelies, Iniuries, and Disgraces, I wil therefore seuerally treat thereof, and that from the confessed testimonies, practise, and beleef of the most holie learned, and ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church.

Luke Cent. 6. p. 289. 290 Osiander discoursing of the seueral articles of the Catholick Roman Religion taught by S. Gregorie, and S. Austin, amongst the rest doth number the allowance, and vse of holie Crosses, In Act. Rom. Pontif p. 44.45.4 [...]. M. Bale acknow­ledgeth that he admitted worshipping or adoration of the Crosse: But M. Symondes chargeth him,Vpon the Reuel. p. 83.84 85 86. that, He instituted the worship of the Crosse barefoote on Good Fryday. And Peter Martyr In his com­mon places in Englih part. 2. c. 5. sec. 14. p. 343. yet further affirmeth that, Gregorie of Rome the Patron (sayth he) of Superstitions, sayth in his prayers, Grant vnto vs Lord that they which come to the Adoring of thy Holie Crosse, may be deliuered from the bonds of their sinnes. For which poynt of Adoration or worship of the Crosse, Conwal King of Scotland, who liued within the first six hundred yeares, is reproued byIn the later Edition p 107. Hollinshead in his Cronicle of Scotland.

But to arise; M. Parkins In his Problem p. 83. confesseth that, About the foure hundreth yeare after Christ, the Crosse began by litle and litle to be adored: For which time he there alledgeth the direct testimonies of Prudentius, Hierom and Euagrius. And he also granteth else where,In volume 1. p. 681. that sundrie priuat men, and particular Churches, after Foure hundred yeares, began religiously, or ra her (sayth he) Superstitiously to adore the wood of the Crosse, and the peeces therof &c. Caluin relating that S. Augustin (tract. 50 in Ioan.) affirmeth, that the faithful haue Christ by the signe of the Crosse, by the Sacrament of Baptisme, and by the meat and drink of the Aultar; he presently affirmeth, that Augustin Inst. l. 4. c. 17. § 28. numbred that Superstitious Rite amongst the Symbols of the Presence of Christ. d. Abbots In his Answer to D. Bishop. p. 168. aknowledgeth and translateth those words of Eusebius (in his 3. book of the lyfe of Constantin) Atque interdum vultum salutari illa Passionis signauit nota; in this sort, He signed his face with the signe of the Crosse. In his cōmon places. part. 2 c. 5. sec. 20. p 349. Peter Martyr writeth, that Constantin made the signe of the Crosse in gold, I allow not &c. And wherasDe vita Constant. l. 1. c. 22. Eusebius relateth, and that from the mouth of Constantin himselfe, who confirmed the same with oath that, The Signe of the Crosse appeared to him in the afternoone in great light aboue the Sunne, and a writing therin with those words: In hoc vinces, In this (signe) thou shalt ouercome. The same Historie is reported out of Eusebius Cent. 4 l. 1. c. 30. by Osiander, In Apo­cal. c. 16. p 604. M. Fox, In M. Trigs true Ca­tholicK p. 295 M. Gualter and M. Trigge, al Protestant Writers. And agayneHist. l. 1. c. 8. Zo­zomene and Eusebius De vita Constant. l. 2. c. 7. relating, that In what part of the Armie the Standard of the Crosse was seen, there the Enemies fled, and the Conquerours pursued; which the Emperour vnderstanding, when he saw anie part of his Armie lan­guishing, there he commanded the Standard to be placed, as a certayne helpe for the obtayning of victorie; and by the help wherof, the victorie was forthwith ob­tayned, by a certayn diuine power, the strength of his Souldiers being much con­firmed: Al this is acknowledged byIn Apoc. in c 12 p. 326.327. M. Brightman De Tem­plis p. 165. and Hospi­nianus.

D. Fulk Agaist HesKins &c. p. 657. affirmeth that, by Report of Paulinus, the Crosse was by the Bishop of Hierusalem brought forth at Easter (yearely) to be worshiped of the people: Yea saythVol. 2. p. 596. M. Parkins, The Bishop himself was the chief of the worshippers &c. This Paulinus liued in the fourth Age, and was as Osiander confessethCent. 5. l. 3. c. 20 p. 386. verie familiar with Hierome, Ambrose and Augustin.

Danaeus In 1 par­tis altera parte ad Bellarm. p. 1415. auoucheth that Cyril, and sundrie other Fathers were plainly Superstitious and blinded with this inchantment of the Crosses Adoration: For which poynt of Adoration M. Parker Against Symbolizing part. 1. p 14 & part. 2. c. 6. p. 61. alledgeth the Saying of Photius, Sedulius, Chrisostom, Propertius, Paulinus, Hierom and Euagrius, al whom he re­prehendeth for the same.

TheCent. 4. col 302. Centurists say of Ephrem, that he attributeth ouer much to the signe of the Crosse: And D. Fulk Against HesKins &c. p. 657. affirmeth that, Ruffinus and Cyril, had a Superstitious estimation of the signe of the Crosse. And theCent. 4. col. 459. Centurists charge them for that, At euerie foot they signed their forhead with the signe of the Crosse, which signing was so ordinarie in those times, as that Osiander Cent. 4. p. 326. acknowledgeth, that Iulian the Apostata being afrighted, out of his cu­stome which he had being a Christian, made the signe of the Crosse vpon his forhead, wherat the Diuels suddenly vanished away.

M. Burges In Couel his Answer to Burger. p. 130. discoursing of the Fathers opinion of the Crosse (with exception only to the poynt of Adoration) affirmeth, that there is nothing ascribed to the Crosse, in or out of Baptisme by the rankest Papists, but the Fathers are as deeply ingaged 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. Yea in proof of this, he alledgeth in his Margent, diuers Fathers who liued in the fourth Age.

The Puritans In their short Treatise of the signe of the Crosse p. 21 confesse that, The Fathers deliuered to vs the signe of the Crosse, with an opinion of vertue and efficacie, not only in the Act of blessing our selues, and in the expelling of Diuels, but euen in the Consecration of the most Blessed Sacraments: To which purpose they do there alledge the special sayings of S. Austin, S. Hierom, S. Cyprian, Lactantius, and Tertullian. And S. Austin is also reprehended byAgainst Symbolizing part 1. p. 133. & 76. M. Parker for his opinion of the Crosse. Catholicks obiecting, as D. Beard relateth them, that, theRetra­ctiue from Ro­mish Religion. p. 238. Fathers held the Crosse in great Reuerence, and the Image of the Crosse, and worshiped them; he answereth, True, they reuerenced them, and held them in great estimation▪ but yet there was no worship giuen vnto them, vntil neer foure hundred yeares after Christ. About that time began this superstition &c.

But the Fathers in this poynt were so resolute, as that they doubted not by their writings to commend to all Posteritie the manie and strange Miracles wrought by the Crosse, and the signe therof.In his Answer to M. Burges. p. 138. D. Couel speaking of the ancient times, affirmeth that, No man can deny, but that God after the death of his Sonne, manifested his power to the amazement of the world in this contēptible signe, as being the instrument of manie Miracles In his Common pla­ces. part. 2. c. 5. p. 349. Peter Martyr sayth, I deny not but certain Miracles haue somtimes been wrought by the signe of the Crosse, as S. Austin reporteth l. 2. de ciuit. Dei. c. 28. And M. Parker Against Symbolizing &c part 1. c. 3. p. 154. reporteth certain Miracles done with the s [...]gne of the Crosse. D. Beard produceth Catholicks [Page 68] obiecting that,Retra­ctiue from Rom. Relig. p. 238. 239. 240. Manie and Strange Miracles haue been wrought by the signe of the Crosse, therefore it is to be worshiped: To which he answereth, The Argu­mēt is naught; for if euerie worker of Miracles should be worshiped &c. So grāting the Antecedent, that, manie and strange Miracles haue been wrought by the signe of the Crosse. To which he addeth that, The Miracles that were done at, or before this signe, were effected by the power of the Faith, and Inuocation of Christ Cruci­fyed, and not by the bare Signe of the Crosse &c. And therefore the (Fathers) signing of themselues with the Crosse, was a secret kind of Inuocation of Christ crucifyed. Lastly, sayth he, we confesse that there was a holie and commendable vse of the transeant signe of the Crosse, in the Primitiue Church: to wit as a badge of Christian profession, to signify that they were not ashamed of their Crucifyed God, which the heathen and wiked Iewes vsed to cast in their teeth: And so of the permanent Crosse erected in publick places, to be as it were a Trophee and monument of the Exaltation of him that dyed on the Crosse. So confessedly did the Fathers of the Primitiue Church signe themselues with the signe of the Crosse, and Erect Crosses in the honour of Christ crucifyed; al which with new Protestants is pure Superstition, and therefore as they neuer vse the sayd signe them­selues, so further do they pul downe and breake such Crosses, as haue been anciently Erected.

But yet much more ancyent was the vse of the Crosse, for theCent. 3. col. 121. Centu­rists confesse, that Tertulian seemeth to tel, that Christians had the Image of the Crosse aswel in the places of their publick assemblies, as in their priuat houses. AndMedullae Theol. p. 229. sec. 7. Schultetus alledgeth Tertulian, saying: At euerie going forward, comming in, or going forth, we make the signe of the Crosse vpon the forehead. And to include manie in one, wheras it isIn the Treatise of Ca­tholique Tra­ditions. p. 215. confessed that the Graetians and Abyssines do bow their heads before the Crosse, a Protestant Writer sayth hereof, It seemes that this is the greatest accusation which Protestants haue against the Churches of the East and Africa, neuertheles &c. the ancient Do­ctours which destroyed the Pagans Idolatrie, haue approoued it, their Deuotion did lead them to it &c.

The Primitiue Church then, no lesse then our present Roman, had euer the Crosse, and the Signe therof in special Estimation: Christians as then, not only signing their foreheades therwith, but also Consecrating their Sacraments, expelling diuels, Witch crafts and the like: Yea as then the Crosse it self was specially worshiped, as also placed not only in priuate howses, but likewise in their publick assemblies. And many Miracles haue confessedly been wrought both by the Crosse it self, and the signe therof.

Now the Fathers disliked and acknowledged for the foresaid points, are S. Gregorie, Prudentius, Euagrius, Eusebius, Paulinus, Austin, Hierome, the Em­perour Constantine, Sozemene, Cyril, Photius, Sedulius, Chrisostom, Propertius, Ephrem, Ruffinus, Cyprian, Lactantius, and Tertulian. The Protestāts producing and reprouing them, are the Centurist, Peter Martyr, Osiander, Caluin, Hospnian Danaeus, Schultetus, Bale, Symondes, Hollinsead, Parkins, Abbots, Fox, Gualter, Trigge, Brightman, Parker, Bourges, Beard, Fulk and Couel.

It is confessed by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church allowed and practised the vow of Chastitie. And that they neuer allowed such as were once of the Clergie, afterwards to marry: or such as had bene twice maried, to be admitted to Holie Orders without special Dispensation. CHAPTER XVII.

THree special points concerning vowes are taught and prac­tised by the Catholick Church. First, in generalBellar. de Monachis. l. 1. c. 16. that Vowes of things not commanded, but of Counsayle and perfection, are lawful, godlie, and commendable. Secondly, thatBellarm. de Clericis. l. 1. c. 19. the vowe of Chastitie, is to be annexed to holie Orders, and so to be obserued by the Clergie. And that such as haue been twice maried should not be admitted to holie Orders without special dispensation. Thirdly, that the vowes ofBellar. de Monach. l. 2 c. 20. &c. Monkes and other Religious concerning Chastitie, Pouertie, and Obedience, and their strick order of life are likewise lawful, holie and laudable.

DirectlyLuth. l. de Votis Monasticis. Caluin. Inst. l. 4 c. 13. &c. 12. contrarie to al which, is the Doctrine and practise of the Protestant Church, which First teacheth, that no vowes are to be made to the honour of God, but such as are of things already commanded. Secondly, that it is lawful for the Clergie or Ministerie euen after Orders taken to marry wiues. Thirdly, that the Vowes of al Religious Persons, with their manner of life, are impious, vaine, Superstitious, and not to be kept. Now how repugnant are our Moderne Libertines herein to the ancient Fathers, and wholy agreable our present Roman, with the Primitiue Church, let these few lines following, serue for fullest proof.

Luke Cent. 6. p. 208. Osiander numbring vp manie Catholick poynts of Faith wherwith he chargeth S. Gregorie the Great, to haue been fouly and Popishly deluded, amongst the rest affirmeth, that he Sharply vrged the single life of the Ministers of the Church. D. Morton accordingly sayth hereof:Prot. Appeal. l. 1. sec. 52. p. 38. The Apologists do truly obiect, that our Osiander noted S. Gregorie to haue been a vehement vrger of Single life of the Clergie. And concerning such of the Clergie as were married before their Orders ta­ken, M. Symond [...] Vpon the Reuel. p. 83. 84 85. 86. reproueth him, for that, He decreed that the Clergie should not haue knowledge of their wiues &c. Carion Carion in Chron. l. 4 p 567. 568. reciting his seueral pretended Catholick errours, repeateth his errour of Vowes and Single life.

But to leaue S. Gregorie, and to arise to S. Augustin & other ancient Fathers, I know (saythde Votis p. 524. Peter Martyr) & declared no lesse to my Auditours in Oxford, that Epiphanius with manie others of the Fathers, erred in that they hold it a Sinne to break the Vow of virginitie, & they do il to number it amongst the Apostolical Tra­ditions. Chemnitius Exam. part. 3. p. 41. 40. 42. in general confesseth saying: We are not ignorant that the Fathers allow the vowes of perpetual Chastitie, & acknowledge them to be obliga­torie. [Page 70] Insomuch as he doth specially recite and reiect in this behalf, the seue­ral sayings of S. Basil, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, S. Epiphanius, S. Austin, and S. Innocentius. And Iustus Molitor De Ec­clesia Milit. p. 80. reproueth the whole Councel of Chalcedon, which was most famous and ancient, for that, It forbad to Monks and Nunnes the vse of Mariage. In like sort S. Augustin, and al the Fathers assembled with him in the Carthage Councel, are reiected by Danaeus, Contrae Bellarm. 1. part. alterae parte p. 10 11 for that, sayth he, they abused manifestly the Word of God, saying vpon the Apostles words: If anie widowes, how young soeuer &c. haue vowed themselues to God, left their Laical habit, and vnder the testimonie of the Bishop & Church appeared in Religious weed, if after­wards they go to Secular mariage, they shal according to the Apostle haue damnation, because they dared make voyd the vow of Chastitie which they made to God. And Osiander Cent. 5. l. 1. c. 1. p. 20. for the same respect confesseth, and at large reprehendeth the forsayd Canon of the Carthage Councel.

Yea the Councel of Nice, wherof D. Whitguift In his Def. p. 330 sayth: That notable & famous Councel of Nyce, which is of al wise and learned men reuerenced, esteemed, and imbraced next to the Scriptures themselues; this so famous a Councel, did (as M. Carthwright, In his 2. Reply part. 1 p. 485. D. Bancroft in his Suruey &c. p. 386. Centurists Cent. 4. c. 9. col. 656. D. Fulk against Rhem. Test in Math. 8. fol. 14. and sundrie other Protestant Writers acknowledge) af­firme and teach, that vnto those that were chosen to the Ministrie vnmarryed, it was not lawful to take anie wife afterwards: only being marryed before entrance into the Ministrie, it was lawful for them to vse the benefit of that (precedent) Marriage. And Paphnutius, one of the Councel sheweth cōcerning Priests vnlawfulnes to marry after Priesthood vndertaken, that not only this was before that Councel, but was also yet further, an ancient tradition of the Church, in which both himself and the rest of the Councel Thus farre M. Carthwright. Luther Tom. [...]. Germ Ienae f 97. & de Concil. part. 1. p. 92. like wise much disgusted with the forsayd Councel of Neece, reiecteth the same saying: I do not acknowledge the holie Ghost in this Nicene Councel, because it forbiddeth him who hath gelded himself to be made Priest, and also commandeth the Clergie to haue none dwelling with them, but their Mother, Sister &c. Had the Holie Ghost no other thing to do in Councels, but to bind his Ministers to such imposed, dangerous, and not necessarie Lawes?

Frigiuillaeus Gaunius Palma Christiana. p 103. reprehendeth Socrates and Sozomene, for their report of Paphnutius, saying: Socrates added this report rashly of his owne deuising &c. w [...]th like falshood did he wrest the Saying of Paphnutius in the Nicene Councel &c. And Sozomene following after Socrates, followeth his explication in maintenance of the doctrine of Diuels, cōdemned by Paul. 1. Tim. 4. And the Centurie-writers Cent. 4. c. 9. col. 656. & D. Fulk Ag. Rhem. Test. in Math. 8. sec. 3 fol. 14. doe both of them confesse, that Paphnutius though he thought that Priesthood did not dissolue Mariage contracted before Orders giuen, yet he affirmed to the Nycene Councel, that Those who were made Priests before they were marryed, should not afterwards marry, alledging for this, veterem Ecclesiae consuetudinem, the ancient Tradition of the Church.

In like sort say our Puritans: A brief Discouery of vntruthes in D. Bancrofts serm. p. 21. We must needs confesse, that not only this Gouernment of the Church, but also manie other poynts of greatest weight in Religion fel to decay long before the councel of Neece &c. besides manie other Corruptions which w [...]re past ouer, yea and established at that Councel &c. Paphnutius alone was infor­ced to stand vp against the whole Synod in the cause of the Mariage of Mini [...]ers, which notwithstanding he &c. so defended, that he would not haue him that were a Minister being vnmarryed, euer after to be ioyned to a wife. Agreable hereunto sayth D. [Page 71] Morton. Prot. Appeal. p. 480. The Councel (of Neece) restrayneth them from mariage, who were vnmarryed when they entred into Orders.

But to proceed, the Magdeburgians Cent 4. col. 704. And see further Cris­pinus of the Estate of the Church. p. 107. confessing that the second Synod of Arles, being celebrated in the time of the Emperour Constantin, and (Pope) Syluester, they repeat and dislike the Second Canon therof, which was, That no marryed man ought to be admitted to Priesthood, nisi fuerit promissa Conuersio, vnlesse his Con­uersion, or leauing of his wife, was (first) promised. Yea they furtherCent. 4. col. 616. And see col. 486. 303. 704. 2293. con­fesse that the ancient Councel of Neocesarea decreed: That if a Priest should marry, he should be deposed from his Orders. But this prohibition of Priests Ma­riage was so general in the ancient Fathers, as that Hospinian Hist. Sacr part 1 p. 132. acknow­ledgeth the same in Siricius, Innocentius, Calixtus, the second Councel of Arles, the Councel of Neocesarea. And M. Parkins Volum. 2. p. 658. reproueth for the same the Councel of Ancyra, which was before the Nicene Councel, as also S. Hierom, Ibid. p. 661. Siricius, Leo, Ambrose, Isidore, Arator &c. D. Field Of the Church l 3. p. 475. reiecteth likewise herein the Councel of Eliberis, which was holden Twentie yeares before the Nicene Councel. But Osiander Cent. 4. p. 46. in Can. 1. And see p. 195. 167. 45. 122. 156 298. 365. 406. reproueth the same in the Councel of Neocesaria, in the second Councel of Arles, in the Councel of Eliberis, in the first Toletane Councel, in the Councel of Agatha, in the Fifth Councel of Carthage, in the First Arausican Councel, in the Councels called Turonense, and Venetica.

Beza In nou. Test. in Praef. ad Principem Condensem. speaking of the times of Cyprian, Austin and Chrysostom, con­fesseth that, There was in vse the Inuocation of the dead, and the foolish opi­nion of single life, which shameful errours (sayth he) Hierom plainly defen­deth. Yea S. Hierom preferring Single life before Mariage, is therfore cēsured by Caluin Her­monia in Math. 19.11 to haue giuen a clear proof of a malignant & peruerse disposi­tion. Againe,In 1. Cor. 7.7.9. whilest the chiefest Doctours are wholy busied in extol­ling Virginitie, forgetting man's frailtie, they neglect this Admonition of Paul, yea of Christ himself. But Hierom blinded I know not with what zeale, doth not only slide into such false opinions, but runneth headlong.

But because D. Whitaker Cont. Duraeum. l. 7. p. 480. Mort Prot. App p 477 & D. Morton affirme, that Siricius (who liued about Anno 384) was the first that annexed perpetual Chastitie to the Mini­sters of the Word, I wil therfore search further into the times more ancient; And I find the Centurists Cent. 4 col. 467. to acknowledge, that, it is euident by the Fourth book of Eusebius of the life of Constantin, that there were before Cōstantins time (who liued aboue sixtie yeares before Siricius) virgins & women conti­nent, & that professed perpetual chastitie: Where also (say they) Eusebius af­firmeth, that the Emperour Constantin did greatly approue that kind of discipline, Insomuch as he often went vnto them. And Socrates testifyeth l. 1. c. 17. that Helen mother of Constantin, found at Hierusalem Virgins conse­crated to God, whose profession she liked so much, that she made her selfe seruant vnto them. Yea the Centurists Cent. 3. c. 6. col. 140. &c. 7. col. 176. further confesse, that Cyprian in his first book and 9. and 11. Epistles, declareth that among Christians there were Virgins consecrated vnto God, which would & could keep chastitie &c. And that, Tertulian in his booke of the cloathing of Virgins expresly men­tioneth the vow of Chastitie. And that, It was decreed by Cyprian & his fel­low Bishops, l. 1. ep. 11. that Virgins vowing chastitie ought not to dwel with men.

And wheras Origen in Numer. hom. 23. sayth: It is certaine that the continual [Page 72] Sacrifice is hindred to them who serue the necessities of wedlock, wherupon it seemeth to me, that he alone is to offer the continual Sacrifice who hath vowed himself to continual & perpetual Chastitie: This Saying is confessed & reiected, as being euidētly against Priest, Mariage by Chemnitius: Exam. part. 3. p. 50. And see p. 58. And so likewise in the same case is S. Cyprian Med. Theol. p. 357 by Schultetus.

But before them liued S. Clement, of whose time Peter Martyr De votis. p. 490 wri­teth: I confesse there were in the time of Clement Professions and vowes of Chastitie &c. And M. Parkins In Probl. p. 191. acknowledgeth that, In the foresayd Ages, promises of Continencie were accustomed to be made publickly in the Church: For in the yeare of Christ One hundred seauentie, Clemens Alex. l. 3. Strom, sayth &c. In like sort Hospinian, De ori­gine Mona­chetus f. 104 I wil grant that in the time of this Clement, that is, about the yeare of Christ, One hundred seauentie fiue, there were Professions & vowes of Virginitie or continencie & single life.

But before Clement liued, S. Ignatius Scholler to S. Iohn the Euangelist, about the yeare One hundred and nine, of whose time the Centurists Cent. 2 c. 4. col. 64. say: It appeareth by the Epistles of Ignatius, that euen then men began some­what more earnestly to loue and reuerence the desire of Virginitie, for in the Epistle ad Antiochenses he sayth, Virgines videant cuise consecrauerint, Let Virgins see (or remember) to whom they haue consecrated themselues. And wheras, in his Epistle ad Tarsenses, he aduiseth thus, Honour yet those who are Virgins (Sicut Sacras Christi) as the Sacred (or consecrated) to Christ, and reuerence the chast widowes, Sicut Sacrarium Dei, as the vestrie (or Tem­ple) of God: This his Saying is reprouedCent. 1. l. 3. c. 23. p. 131. by Osianders, And the Centurists Cent 2 c. 10. col. 167. charge him, that he speaketh incommodiously of Virginitie and that his foresayd SayingsCent. 2. p. 65. were an occasion, and opened the way to those things, which afterwards were therupon founded, concerning Cloysters, Vowes &c. Shulterus Med. Theol. p. 450. alledgeth, Ignatius writing ad Philippenses, I salute the Col­ledge of Virgins; wherupon he immediatly inferreth: Were there then in that floure of the Church, Virgins which professed perpetual Chastitie and Continencie? There were truly &c. sayth he. D. Morton also acknowledgeth that,Prot. Appeal. l. 1. p. 88. we find that the Age next abutting vpon the Apostles time, did practise a perpetual vow of virginitie, which being guarded with a iust mo­deration, may be iudged both commendable and conuenient.

But to passe from the Schollers to the Maisters themselues, to wit, the blessed Apostles; Luther Tom 5. Wittemb. fol. 108. inferreth this Doctrine from the example of S. Paul himself, saying: Dicendum est &c. It is to be sayd, that either Pauls wife dyed, or that she was dismissed from him by her owne assent, that he might not carry her about with him, & so in matrimonie to haue liued a single life, as he seemeth to shew in the 9. Chapter: howsoeuer whether his wife dyed, or he left her for the Ghospel of his owne accord, it is certaine that then he liued as a widower, who before was marryed.

Peter Martyr De Coel [...]bata & votis. p 54. acknowledgeth, that S. Ambrose and Epiphanius deriue professed chastitie from the Institution of S. Paul. And D. Fulk Against Rhem Test. in 1. Tim. 5. fol 381. Danaeus cōt. Bellarm. 1. partis ale [...]ra parte. p. 1811 Maior in ep. 1. ad Tim. in c. 5 fol. 249. Danaeus and Georgius Maior doe al of them grant, that by the first faith (mentioned 1. Tim. 5 11.12) most of the ancient Fathers, do expound the vow or promise of Continencie.

Hamelmannus De Traditioni­ous Ap st. o. 460 and see col. 254. Aud Bug­chagius in Ionam c. 3. auoucheth that, after the death of Iohn the Apostle [Page 73] who by the Fathers is much commended and esteemed for his Virginitie, presently began reuolting from the Faith &c. forbidding of Mariages, and meates, vowes, single life &c. D. Fulk speaking of our B. Ladies vowing Chastitie, opposeth himself to S. Austin & S. Gregorie Nyssen therein saying:Ag. Rhem. Test. in Luc. 1. sec. 13 Though S. Austin gather she vowed Virginitie, yet it followeth not &c. And although Gregorie Nyssen be of Austins opinion &c. But D. Fulks Non sequitur, wil neuer counterpoyse the contrarie Collection of so worthie Fathers.

But to speake of the ancientest Ages and Fathers in general, Peter Martyr De Cae­lib & votis p. 477. thinketh that, forthwith after the Apostles times too much was attri­buted to single life. And Caluin Instit. l. 4. c. 13. sec. 17. speaking hereof, sayth: This say they was obserued from furthest memorie, that those who would dedicate them­selues wholy to the Lord, should bind themselues to the vow of continēcie: I confesse this custome was anciently receaued, but I do not grant that Age to be free from al vice. In like sort answereth M. Wotton In his Def. of M. Perkins. p 491. saying: But the Fathers are not for vs, what then? Is nothing true that cannot be con­firmed by their testimonies &c. Indeed it is one of the blemishes of the an­ciēt Writers, that they were too highly conceited of single life &c. Therefore it is not to be looked for, that Antiquitie should afford vs (Protestants) anie testimonie herein against the practise and iudgement of those dayes.

And wheras Bellarmin to this purpose, produceth manie Sayings of the ancient Fathers, Danaeus In 1. partis a t. parte. p. 1034 his best answer thereto is, that those Fathers thought so, being blinded with the cloud and enchantment of that errour of the lawful Vow of perpetual continencie. So likewise M. Iewel In his Def of the Apol p 164. speaking concerning the Fathers opinion against Mariage of Priests, sayth, Here I grant Mr Harding is like to find some good aduantage, as hauing vndoubtedly a great number of holie Fathers on his side. Adde lastly that the Fathers herein were so firme and constant, as that D. Fulk In his Answer to a Counterf. Cath p. 45. acknowled­geth that Iouinian was condemned by them, for that among other things. He taught that such as could not contayne, though they had vowed virgi­nitie should neuerthelesse be maryed. So euident & confessed it is, that the vowes of Chastitie and the single life of the Clergie was allowed and practi­sed in the purest times of the Primitiue Church.

Now wheras it is Law decreed and obserued by the Roman Church, that Bigamus, or he that hath been twice maryed, is not to be admitted to holie Orders without special dispensation therin: ‘M. Bale In Act. Rom p. 44. 45 46. 47. acknowled­geth, that, S Gregorie the Great, prohibited that he that was Bigamus, should be made Priest. And D Fulk In his Retentiue against Bristow &c. p. 164. granteth that, He who had had two wiues could not be a Priest in Hieroms time. And the Centurists Cent. 4. col. 847 And see col. 303. 877. 1293. And see Cent 3. col. 85 86. & Carthwright in his 2. Re­ply. part. 1. p. 509. speaking of that Fourth Age, affirme that it was decreed, that ordination to Priest­hood should not be bestowed of those who were Bigami But Beza De Po­lig p. 211. re­prehendeth herein ancient Origen saying: Origen were ancient then al Coun­cels, excepting that of the Apostles, writeth (in Luc. hom [...]7) that not only fornication, but also Mariage doth hinder from Ecclesiastical dignities, to wit, second Mariage &c. But here I affirme that Origen is to be altogether reiected, as contradicting the doctrine of the Apostles. Yea he furtherIn nou. Test. in 1. Tim 5.9. p. 333. sayth of Bigamie, In the case of widowes If any shal oppose to me the autho­ritie of certain Fathers, I appeal to the Word of God.’ For which his appeale [Page 74] he is reproued byIn his Suruey p. 220. D. Bancroft. And the Centurists Cent 3. col. 85. 86. doe alledge both Tertullian and Origen, against Bigamie in the Clergie.

The Particulars then concerning Vowes thus confessedly taught by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church are, First, that Vowes of things not cōman­ded, but indifferent, as of perpetual Chastitie, are lawful & commendable. Se­condly, that though for some time as then it was permitted, that such as were maryed before their taking of holie Orders, should continue and liue with their wiues in the state of wedlocke: yet was the same afterwards, euen during the precinct of those purest times prohibited and disallowed: But ne­uer in anie time, or by anie Father was it allowed to the Clergie to contract Mariage after Orders taken; a thing now so ordinarie with our Protestant Ministers. Thirdly, it was neuer suffred, that those who were Bigami or twice maryed, should afterwards be admitted to holie Orders without particular dispensation therin. Now the Fathers produced & reproued by Protestants for these forsayd Catholick Articles, are S. Gregorie, Austin, Ambrose, Hie­rom, Leo, Innocentius, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Siricius, Socrates, Sozomene, Euse­bius, Basil, Cyprian, Nyssen, Origen, Tertulian, Clement, Ignatius, S. Paule the Apostle, with the B. Virgin Marie & S. Pauls widowes. As likewise the Coun­cels of Neece, of Arles, of Neocesaraea, of Eliberis, of Toledo, of Carthage, and seue­ral others.

The Protestants accusing the forsayd Fathers are, Luther, the Centurists, Carion, Chemnitius, Molitor, Danaus, Osiander, Gaunius, Crispinus, Hospinian, Beza, Schulterus, Peter Martyr, Maior, Hamelmannus, Caluin, Symondes, Bale, Humfrey, Carthwright, Fulk, Bancroft, Wotton, Parkins, Morton, Field, Whitaker, and Iewel.

It is confessed by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church, allowed and practised the Religious State of Monastical life: And that manie Christians of those purest times both men and women, did strictly obserue & professe the same. CHAPTER XVIII.

BVT now to come to that which to our Protestants is most hateful and displeasing, as being most repugnant to their new Euangelical libertie and licentiousnes of life, to wit, the holie, austere, and Monastical life of Religious men & women, prac­tised & approued by the primitiue Church. And first to begin with S. Gregorie, D. Humfrey hauing recited manie particulers of our Catho­lick Faith, wherwith he chargeth him and S. Austin, at length concludeth thus:Iesuit. part. 2. rat 5. p 5. & 62 [...]. These hath Augustin the great Monk taught by Gregorie the Monk, brought to the English: yea S. Gregorie was so deuoted to the State of Monachisme, as that M. Bale thus accordeth of him:In Act R [...]m Pontif. p. 44 Gregorie the Great, of al the Roman Pa­triarcks the most excellent in life and learning &c. altered the houses of his Parents into [Page 75] Monasteries &c. built six Monasteries, and Commanded (which Command is stil in force and obserued in Catholick Countries) that women should not enter the Cloysters of Monks, nor Monks the houses of Nunnes. And according to Carion In C [...]. l. 4. p. 567. 568. He much increased (sayth he (the false Conceit of Monachisme.

D. Morton Prot. Appeal l 4. sec. 37. p 46. auoucheth that, Monachisme is a State of life greatly commended by S. Gregorie, who had been himself a Monk. Yea he sayth further of ancient Votaries, Ibid. l. 2. p. 89. or Religious women, that, The Apostle required in his widowes, the age of threescore yeares, and often times would not admit Virgins vnder Twentie fiue yeares old, nor veyled Nunnes til fortie; for which he citeth the Third Carthage Councel holden about Anno 398. and the Councels Agathense & Caesarau­gustanum assembled in the Fift Century: So supposing that the widowes spoken of by S. Paul, had vowed Chastitie or single life, & that in the Fourth and Fift Centurie after Christ, there were in the Church vowed and veyled Nunnes.

But to arise yet higher, M. Carthwright In Whitguift. Def. p 344. confesseth, that Ruffine, Theo­doret, Sozomene, Socrates &c. do mention Monks almost in euerie page. And the Cen­turists Cent. 4. c. 10 col. 129 [...]. speaking of the Age wherin Constantin liued, acknowledge that there were Monks throughout Syria, Palestina, Bithinia, & other places of Asia. Also throughout Africa Cent. 4. col. 1036. and Europe: Ibid. col. 1331. Insomuch that they begin a spe­cialCent. 4. col 1294. Tract, the Title wherof is; Monks throughout Syria, Palestin, Birthinia, & other partes of Asia vnder Constantin the Great. As also anotherIbid. col. 1306. Tract, the Title wherof is, The African Monks throughout Aegypt vnder Constantin the Great. Other Protestants acknowledge, that,In the brief Discourse of the Churches Estate an­nexed to Crispinus of the Estate of the Church. And see his fidelis Relig. p. 19. 136. About the end of this period (which continued vntil Constantin) the loue of Solitude and Monkerie, the absti­nence from Mariage, and from certaine meates on particular dayes, manie Feasts and other seeds of Superstition after succeeding, took a maruailous root: So the commence­ment of Prayer for the dead, and Sacrifice of the Masse did discouer themselues &c.

But the Centurists hauing alledged a long place of S. Basil in prayse of Mo­nastical life, they add this Censure:Cent. 4. p. 300. 301. Al which words (of S. Basil) are both besides and contrarie to holie Scripture. As also, S. Ambrose doth pronounce too too insolently of the merits of Virgins. And wheras Ephrem sayd, That al pious people shal come merrily in the day of Iudgement before the face of Christ: but especially Monks, & other such as haue liued in desert in chastitie, labours, watchings, fastings and the like; these words are so distastful to Protestāts, that the Magdeburgians say therof: What can be spoken more monstrously against the merit of Christ? The Centurists Cent. 4. c. 6. col 464. 466. 474. likewise confesse, that these Monks had Monasteries to dwel in: And they makeCent. 4. col. 467. 479 1335. 5337. a special Title: Of the Monasteries of Virgins: wherof also mention is made byCent. 4. p. 507. 503. 161. Osiander.

In these Monasteries, one was appoynted for Superiour ouer the rest: So Osiander Cent 4. p. 503. And see the Cen­turists Cent. 4. col. l 335. acknowledgeth, that, Paula was Gouernesse, or Abbesse of their Monasteries which were of Virgins. And the Centurists giue like instance of Pu­blia, a most noble woman, who was Mistresse of the companie of Virgins, who professed chastitie.

There were vsed at those times a special Consecration of Monasteries, and Monks, and Nunnes: Insomuch as the Centurie-writers Cent 4. col. 466. haue a par­ticular Title, De consecratione Monachi, of Consecration of a Monke. And else [Page 76] whereCent. 4 col. 865. 869 874. in playne tearmes they mention Consecration of Virgins. And whe­ras the Councel of Chalcedon Can. Cent 4. col. 125. 24. sayth, wee decree that such Monasteries as are once Consecrated with the allowance of their Bishop, shal remaine so perpetual &c. neither after shal be vsed for secular houses: this Councel is mentioned and com­mended by the Centurists. Cent. 4 col. 855. 667. 515. But Hamelmannus De Traditioni­bus Apost. 1. col. 707. 743. & D. Regnolds In his conf. p 488. doe mētion & reproue in S. Dionysius the Areopagite, Consecration of Monks.

These Monks and Nunnes vsed a Religious habit, different from that of Secular people: For the Magdeburgians Cent 4. col. 472. doe affirme, that in the Fourth Age, they vsed a certaine Couer for the head, which they cal the Cowle; which is, vsed at this day. And,Cent. 4 col. 468. & 867. 874. 870. And see Hosp [...]nian de Origine Monach. fol. 111. It may be obserued (say they) out of the same book what was the Custome of Cloathing Virgins, for first they were cloathed in the Church be­fore the Altar vpon Ester day, in presence of the solemne assemblie, Candles being ligh­ted &c. But now to touch their professed Pouertie and Austeritie of life, the Centurists Cent. 4 col. 301. speaking of the Monks which liued in the Fourth Age, plainly acknowledge that, It is euident that those who were to professe Monastical life, did first distribute their goods. Basil sayth, It behooueth a Monk before al things to em­brace that kind of life, that he possesse nothing. And as concerning their diet, they likewise grant,Cent. 4. col. 474. & 471. That some abstaine from fowle, vsing egges & fish; others abstaine from fish, and eate cheese; others do not take cheese: and yet there are others who abstaine from bread: As also,Cent 4 col. 475. that some liue with bread, pulse, & hearbes, which are boyled only with Salt. In like sort theyCent. 4. col. 474. acknowledge, that, Manie sleep vpon the ground, others go barefoot, & weare Sackcloth secretly vpon their bodies: Yea they mentionCent 4 col. 465. their going barefoot out of Nazianzen. And M. Willet Synopsis Cont 6 q 6. part. i. p. 258. maketh a special Tract against the austeritie of those ancient times, saying: ‘The solitarie life of Eremites in flying the comfortable socie­tie of men, and the rigorous manner in the vnnatural chastising of their bo­dies, is contrarie to the rule of the Ghospel. And againe: That cruel and inhumane kind of chastising their bodies, by fasting and other discipline, is vtterly vnlawful. And afterwards he there reproueth S Basil & S Grego­rie Nazianzene, for plucking downe themselues by immoderate fasting. Yea the Austeritie and sanctitie of the ancient Monks were such, that Luther sayth therof:Vpon the Epistle to th [...] Galat. Engl in c. 1 vers 30. fol. 220. If the Papacie had the same holines and austeritie of life, which it had in the time of the ancient Fathers, Hierom, Ambrose, Austin & others &c. what could we do now against the Papacie by our Doctrine (of only Faith? Caluin Instit. l 4. c. 12. s [...]ct. 8. much disliketh the ancient Fathers confessed austeritie, saying: In which respect the immoderat austeritie of the Ancient (Fathers) can no wayes be excused, which both altogether dissented from the rules of our Lord, and also is verie dangerous. And agayne,Instit. l. 3 c 4. sec. 38 Litle do those things moue me which euery where occurre in the writings of the old (Fathers) concerning Satisfaction, for I see some of them, yea I wil speake plainly, almost al whose bookes are extant, either herein to haue been deceaued, or els to haue spoken ouer sharply and roughly.’

And to giue example in some few; Osiander Cent. 4. p. 99. speaking of S Anthonie, who liued in Constantins time, much reprehendeth him in these words: ‘When in a certain Sermon (Anthonie) had heard that saying of Christ re­peated, If thou wilt be perfect, goe and sel al which thou hast, and giue vnto [Page 77] the poore, & follow me, This Saying he impertinently applyed to himself, selling those things which be had by inheritance &c. choosing a Solitary life. And being about thirtie fiue yeares old, he went into the desert that there he might lead a more strict life. His meate was only bread & Salt, his drink water, his time of dinner Sun-setting, wheras often he fasted two dayes or more togeather, he watched whole nights in prayer &c. His Garment inwardly was hairecloth &c.’ Therfore (sayth Osiander) the life of Antonie wanted not much Superstition. And againe,Ibid. p. 103. that Antonie was the first beginner of Monastical life in in Aegipt, that he punished his bodie ouer much, & such like, they are to be numbred amongst the stubble, wherof Paul speaketh. In like sort sayth D. Beard: Retrar­tiue from Rom. Relig. p. 375. The first Hermite was one Antonie, who liued three hundred yeares after Christ, who taught others that State of life.

And as concerning S. Anton.'s house or Celle, Osiander Cent. 4. p. 100. likewise confesseth, that it was Seated vpon a high mountaine &c. and that the square therof was no larger then a man might lay himself downe to sleep. And as for his bed, he vsed a matte spread vpon the ground, and often the ground itself.

Like instance may be giuen in S. Symeon, whose great austeritie reported by Theodoret, the Protestant Iunius Anim­aduersiones ad Contro­uersiam 3. de Membris Eccl. p. 611. 612. 613. 614. reprehendeth, tearming him, Melā ­cholie, ignorant and superstitious Symeon, and condemning his miraculous fast of Fortie dayes for counterfait &c, his daily continued prayer at the pillar for battalogie &c. his miracles for magical, &c. And his Prophecying as done by human Iudgement, or suggestion from the Diuel. What now could Lucian, or Porphyrie vtter more prophanely? And yet the like is affir­med of this holie Symeon by Hospinian. De Mo­nach. f. 24. But now to come to the vowed Chastitie of Monkes & Nunnes of those ancient times: Wheras it is de­creed in the Councel of Chalcedon. Can. 15. that, If anie Virgin or Monk shal dedicate themselues to God, it is not lawful for them to marry: This so famous a Councel, is reprehended for this verie Decree by D. Whitaker, Cont. Camp rat. 4 p. 62. Osiād. Cent. 5. l. 32 c. 13 p. 356. 359. Iustus Mo­litor de Eccl. Milit. p. 80. Osiander, & Iustus Molitor. The Centurie-writers Cent. 4. col 467. And see col. 706. 483. 847. 301. And Cent. 3 col. 140. acknowledge that, Ruffine l. 2. c. 9. declareth, that Basil built Monasteries in the Citties of Pon­tus, and ordayned that Virgins should vow Chastitie: And concerning the virgins of Europe, they confesse in the same place that, Ambrose telleth that the vow of Virginitie was common with that sexe.

Yea such was the Sanctitie of the Religious of those times, that it is confessed, that they shined with the guifts of miracles: The Centurists Cent 4 [...]ol 493. And see col. 1445. & 493. say: There were amongst the Monks and Ermites in this (Fourth) Age, men who were famous with the guift of Miracles, as Antonie and his Disci­ples, Macharius, Isidorus, Heraclides, &c. And such was the holie conceipt of the ancient Fathers concerning the perfection of Monasticall life, that they doubted not to condemne Vigilantius and others of errour for impugning the same: For thus, by the confession of Crispinus, Of the Estate of the Church. ep. 131. 132. writeth S. Hierom against, Vigilantius: In that thou affirm [...]st those to doe better, who vse their goods, and by litle & litle distribute the fruits of their possessiōs to the poore, then those who selling their possessions giue al at once; the answer shal be giuen, not from me, but from our Lord; If thou wilt be perfect, goe and sel al things which thou hast, and giue to the poore, & come follow me. He speaketh to him who wil be perfect &c. That degree which thou praysest is [Page 78] the Second and Third, which also wee allow, whilst wee know the first to be preferred before the second and Third. Neither are Monks to be ter­rifyed by thee from their deuotion, with they viperous tongue, and cruel biting, of whom thou arguest and sayest. If al shal shut themselues vp, and be in the deserts, who shal frequent the Churches?

These premises supposed and obserued, it is no maruaile though M. Carth­wright In his 2. Reply. part. 1. p. 502. affirme, that Monks are Antichristian, notwithstanding their anciencie: And that,Ibid. p. 510. Hieroms Monks, Hermites, and Anchorets were at that time verie grosse. As also thoughInstit. l. 4. c. 13. sec. 16. Caluin say, I doe not dissemble, that in that ancient forme (of Monachisme) which Augustin commendeth, there is something which litle plea­seth me. And yet this notwithstanding Beza In his nou Test. in prefat. ad Principem Condensem. speaking of the times of Cyprian, Augustin & Chrysostom, acknowledgeth that the Christians as then, Admired the Monks of Aegipt and Syria &c. as if they were Angels. And such was the Emperour Constantins opinion of S. Anthonie his sanctitie, that Cris­pinus Of the Estate of the Church. p. 106. And see Cent. 4. col. 470. confesseth, that Antonie being in Aegipt in the wildernes, Constantin wrote to him, for to pray to God for him & his children. Adde hereunto, that Chemni­tius reproueth the Fathers for referring Monastical profession to Apostolick Exam. part. 3. p. 54 Institution.

To touch now the Monastical life of the anciēt beleeuing Iewes, De ori­gine Monae­chatus f. 10. Hospi­nian reporteth, that S. Hierom maketh the sonnes of the Prophets, the Monks of the Old Testament, for in his Epistle to Rusticus he sayth: The sonnes of the Prophets, whom wee read were Monks in the old Testament, built for themselues Cottages neer the Riuer of Iordan, & leauing the Citties did feed vpon barlie bread & wild herbes. And in his Epistle to Paulinus speaking of Monks, he sayth, our guides the sonnes of the Prophets who dw [...]lled in fields and Deserts, & made themselues Tabernacles neer the riuer Ior­dan. And againeIbid. fol. 11. S. Ambrose in his book of Virgins, writeth that the Iewes kept certain Virgins in the Temple of Hierusalem &c. But Ambrose I think had this (sayth Hospinian) from the 2. book of Machabees and 3 Chapter, where mention is made of virgins shut vp togither, but these bookes of Machabees are not to be beleeued So not being able otherwise to deny this ancient Monachisme in the Iewes, but by reiecting the bookes of Machabees for not Canonical.

In like sort concerning the Pharisees, wherof S. Paul affirmeth himself to haue been one,Act. Ap. 26. 5. tearming it, The most sure sect of the (Iewes) Religion, or as Protestāts translate the most straite sect &c.Phae­risaisme. p. 15. These Pharisees (sayth M. Hal) were a Fraternitie or Colledge of extraordinarie Deuotion, whose rule was Tradition, whose practise voluntarie Pouertie, and who according to D. Beard beleeuedRetrac­tiue from Romish. Rel. p. 80. Freewil, Inuocation of Angels, & Saincts, and Merit of good works.

The Nazarites also (wherof though some were but temporarie, yet others according to M. Parkins wereVpon the Hebr. c. 11. p 501. And iunius in Anim­aduers. p 216. perpetual) were so agreable to our Mo­nastical & Religious life, that Bullinger writeth thus of them.Dec. 3. sec. 6. p. 380. Because they should more freely attend vpon God, they did of their owne accord take vpon them a more strict trade of life then the common people vsed: And so wereIbid. p. 381. consecrated to the Lord by a certain peculiar kind of liuing. To the same effect writeth D. Beard, Retrac­tiue from Rom. Relig. p, 70. 71. As touching their Friars and Anchorets, how like are they to the Naza­rites of the Law? the Nazarites might not drink wine nor strong drink: no more may di­uers of the Religious Shauelings by the Rules of their Order. They were tyed by a vow which they might not breake without sinne; so are these at their first entrance into their Cloysters and Cels &c. They might not medle with worldlie affaires, during the time [Page 79] of their separation: no more, may some of these Romish Votaries &c. And yet he confesseth further of the Nazarites, that, They were true worshipers of God, and their Order was Gods ordinance. Yea the Scriptures themselues doNumb. c. 6. relate their peculiar Consecration to God, their Vow, their Abstinence from wine, and other such Circumstances belonging thereunto.

And as concerning certaine of the Iewes called the Essenes, Iosephus wri­teth thus of them.Anti­quit. Iud. l. 18. c. 2. The righteousnes of the Essenes is maruailous &c. They enioy their riches in common &c. And in this course aboue foure thousand men do liue, ha­uing neither wiues nor Seruants &c. They De Bello Iud. l. 2. c. 7. are Iewes by nation, and do obserue continencie, auoyd Mariage, are contemnens of riches, and enioy things in common, none being richer then other. And before anie be admitted amongst them, Trial is had of his continencie, and his other manners are for two yeares proued, & then he is taken into the Companie M. Hal acknowledgeth these Essenes, affirming that there were of themPha­ris. p. 15. Parkins in Hebr. c. 11. p. 501. both Collegiat & Eremitical. AndDe Oriegine Mon f. 29. & see p. 5. 6. 7. 8. I deny not (sayth Hospinian) the Institute, or rather Superstitions of these Essenes to haue crept into the Church as a certain gangrene; of their single life & Virginitie no man may doubt. D. Beard testifyeth, that the Iewes Re­tract. from Rom. Relig. p. 81. 82. had those that professed a Monastical and Single life, which were called Essaeans, from the Greek word [...], that is, Saincts or holie men, as some suppose &c. And those as Iosephus & Philo testify, professed Conti­nencie from Mariage, communitie in goods, and abstinence from meates &c. And do not the Romanists imitate them in the same kind? &c. Let then the Iewish Essaeans, & the Romish Monks walk together &c.

Philo also liuing in the Apostles times mentioneth those who thenDe vitae Contempl. forsaking their goods did dwel without the walles, louing solitarines &c. He mentio­neth likewise their Monasteries, where being solitarie they studied the mysteries of holie life, as also theirApud Euseb. hist. l. 2. c. 16. extraordinarie fasting from meate. Al which is so certaine that the Centurists. Cent. 1. l 2. col. 18. Rayn. in hic Conf. p. 488. & D. Raynolds do acknowledge the same, and can only euade the force therof by affirming, that it was Iewish, and the Professours therof Iewes, directly contrarie to S. Hierome De Script. Eccl. verbo Phile. Euseb. hist. l. 2. c. 16. & Euschius who think they were Christian Professours.

Lastly S. Iohn Baptist did in manie thingsMarc. 1.2. prepare the way to our Christian Doctrine, so amongst others, by his kind of Monastical Conuer­sation: his aboad to such purpose being inMath. 3.1. & 11.7. Marc. 1.4. Luc. 3.4. the Desert, hisMath. 3.4. Marc 1.6. Rayment of Camels haire: hisMat. 3.4 Mar. 1.6. Girdle of (a beasts) skinne about his loynes: And his absti­nence extraordinarie from meates, other thenMat. 3.4 Locusts and wild honie. In respect wherof it is sayd of him that,Math. 11.18. He came neither eating nor drinking: Yea it was prophecyed of him by an Angel that he shouldLuc. 1.15. Neither drink wine, nor strong drink. Al which his austerities and stricter Course of life, are thus specially described by the holie Euangelists to his greatest Commenda­tion. Yea in these regards the ancient Father tearming himChrys. hom. 1. in Marc. & hom de Io. Bapt. Hier. ad Eustoch de virg Seruanda. Sozom. hist. l. 1. c. 12. Cass. col. 18. c. 5. The Prince (or beginner) of Monastical life, they are therfore reproued byCent. 5. col. 711. Fulk ag. Def. of the cens. p. 82. Hospin de Origine Mo­nach. l. 2 f. 17. Osiand. cont. 3 p 84. Park. in Problem p. 225. the Cen­turists, by D. Fulk, Hospinian, Osiander & M. Parkins.

Thus then we see, that the Religious of these dayes, haue taken their Insti­tute and manner of life from their worthiest Predecessours of the Primitiue Church, First who no lesse then now, did confessedly build Monasteries both for men and women. Secondly, which also they specially consecrated or hal­lowed. Thirdly, the Monks and Nunnes wearing a distinct habit from Secular [Page 80] people. Fourthly, vsing extraordinarie Austeritie in their Apparel, Diet, Bed, and the like: Examples wherof are acknowledged in S. Antonie & S. Symeon. Fiftly, they likewise vowed Chastitie the violating wherof was holden most sinful, & punishable. Sixtly, yea such was their Sanctitie, that the cōfessedly shined with the Guifts of Miracles. Seauenthly, and so highly were they re­uerenced in these best times, that their Impugners and despisers were con­demned by the Fathers for wicked Hereticks. Eightly, adde hereunto, that sundrie truly beleeuing Iewes both before & since Christ did likewise prac­tise a kind of Monastical life, and were therfore as it were the Prototypon of our future Religious.

Now the Fathers cited and reiected by Protestāts for the foresayd poynts, are, S. Gregorie, Augustin, Ambrose, Hierom, Ruffine, Theodoret, Sozomene, Socra­tes, the Fathers of the Councel of Chalcedon, Basil, Nazianzene, Antonie, Symeon, Macarius, and the ancient beleeuing Iewes. The Protestants summoning them are Luther, Caluin, the Centurists, Carion, Osiander, Hamelmannus, Hospinian, Iunius, Molitor, Crispinus, Beza, Chemnitius, Bale, Humfrey, Carthwright, Ray­nolds, Willet, Hal, Parkins, Morton, Beard, and Whitaker.

It is acknowledged by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church allowed and practised prescribed fasts, and Abstinence from certain meates, vpon dayes and times appointed: holding the same to be obliga­torie vnder sinne. Condemning also our Puritan Sabaoth fasts. CHAPTER XIX.

COncerning fasting: The Doctrine of the Catholick Church is contayned in foure seueral poynts. First, that fastingBellar. de bonis eperi­hus in Par­tical. l. 2. c 5 6. 7. & 23. in ge­neral is commanded by God. Secondly, that fasting vpon cer­tain dayes, and from certain meates, is not only lawful, but being appoynted and commanded by the Church is also obli­gatorie vnder sinne. Thirdly, that no meates of their owne nature are vn­cleane, or vnlawful to be eaten. Fourthly, that in honour of Christ our Sauiours Resurrection, Sunday is not fasted.

The Protestant Church herein teacheth. First,Caluin. Inst l. 4. c. 12 Chemn. Exam. part. 4 p. 440. that fasting is not com­manded by God, but left free to the wil and deuotion euerie man. Secondly,Caluin l 4 Instit. c. 12. Luth de Libertate Christiana that the Church hath no Authoritie to command certaine dayes, or absti­nēce from certaine meates, nor Christians bound to obey her therin. Thirdly,Chemn. Exam part. 4. p 400 Protestants falsely teach, that Catholicks forbeare certaine meates as of their owne nature vncleane or vnlawful. Fourthly, the most refined Prote­stants do keep their strictest Fastes vpon the Sunday.

Now what the Primitiue Church taught and practised concerning fasting, I wil appeale to Protestants as witnesses impartial and free from al exception in this case. ‘First then, M. Bale Iu Act Rom Pontif. p. 44 &c. confesseth, that S. Gregorie the Great con­secrated the beginning of Lent-fast with sprinkling of ashes &c. And for­bad to those that fasted the vse of flesh, milk, cheese, butter and egges. M. [Page 81] Symonides reporteth that,Vpon the Reuel. p. 85 86. He wrote to Austin that the Clergie should in Quinquagesima abstaine from flesh, milke, and egges &c. Wheras S. Am­brose Serm. 25 34. 36. teacheth that, It is sinne not to fast in Lent, he is reproued for the same by M. Carth-wright In Whit. Def p. 100.. And Melancthon In libelli aliquot &c. fol. 9. affirmeth that, Ambrose sayth of the fast of Lent &c. This is of necessitie. This opinion (sayth Me­lancthon) is stubble added to the doctrine of Faith. He likewise reprehēdethIn Ep. ad Rom. c. 14. p. 389. S. Austin for teaching abstinence from flesh & wine in Lent. For which verie poynt the Centurists Cent. 4. col. 1057. reiect Theophilus Alexandrinus. D. Morton spea­king of the fast of Lent, sayth;Prot. Appeal. l. 2 p 303. This fast, we confesse, was of great An­tiquitie, and &c. had in general vse and obseruation, which S. Ambrose tea­cheth to haue been ordayned by the diuine Institution of Christ &c. And S. Augustin doth sometime write of the fortie dayes fast, that it hath a diuine Authoritie &c.’

M. Trigge not only alloweth himself prescribed and appoynted dayes of fast, but alledgeth for the same S. Cyril, In his true Cathol. p. 600. as also S.Ibid. p. 304. Ambrose Ibid. 601. 602. for fa­sting in Lent, wednesdayes & fridayes; and withal sayth: I would to God at this day al Christians would solemnly euerie week fast wednesday & fri­day &c. let vs obserue the fast of Lent, and of wednesdayes & fridayes &c. The Centurists confesse that, Epiphanius affirmeth haer. 75. that the fast of wednesdayes & fridayes vntil the Ninth houre was decreed in al Countries of the world,Cent. 4 col. 440. and that he referreth the authoritie of that Decree vnto the Apostles. They likewiseCent. 4 col. 44. admit, that Gregorie Nyssen relateth the fasting from flesh & wine in Lent. And speaking of the Fourth AgeCent. 5. col. 44. in general, they acknowledge, that Histories testify, that Christians of this Age did obserue fastes, and that more Religiously, or (say the Centurists) more su­perstitiously then in former Ages.

But the Fathers in this poynt were so resolute, as that they doubted not to condemne Aerius for his contrarie Protestant Doctrine. D. Fulk In his Answer to a counterf. Cath. p. 44. 45 and see Pantaleon in his Chron. p. 28. sayth, I wil not dissemble that which you think the greatest matter; Aerius taught that prayer for the dead was vnprofitable, as witnesse both Epiphanius & Austin, which they count for an errour. Also he taught that fasting dayes are not to be obserued. D. Field Of the Church. l. 3. c. 22. p 138. likewise writeth: The eleuenth is the heresy of Aerius &c. He disliked set Fastes &c. He was iustly condemned &c. Osiander Cent. 4. p. 434. reciting the condemned errours of Aerius, amongst the rest numbred, appoynted Fastes not to be kept &c And that fasting is to be when a man wil, according to his libertie. And wheras S. Epiphanius her 75. affir­meth of Aerius, that he sayth: Neither shal fasting be appoynted, for these things be Iudaical and vnder the Law of Bondage: If at al I wil fast, I wil choose anie of myself, and I wil fast for libertie. Al this is acknowled­ged by Pantaleon, In his Chronogr. p. 28. and is so agreable with the now Doctrine of Prote­stants, that D. Whitaker Contra Duraeum. l. 9. p. 830. auoucheth, that Aerius taught nothing concer­ning fasting different from the Catholick Faith: by which he meaneth the Protestant Faith. Insomuch that Aerius herein is defended by Danaeus De ha­resibus. c. 53. f. 175. 177. & D. Fulk; Answ. to a countor. Cath. p. 45. Though M Hooker Eccles. Pol. l. 5. p. 210. And the Author of Quaerim. Eccles. p. 31. 94 103. and other Protestant Writers doe no lesse condemne him herein of errour then Catholicks doe.

‘In like sort wheras D. Fulk Against Rhem. Test. in Math. c. 15 fol. 28. And Are­tius loc. com. p. [...]72. and other Protestant Writers, doe com­monly obiect against Catholicks, that Montanus the Heretick, was the first that [Page 78] appoynted lawes of fasting.’ M. Hooker Eccles. Pol l. 5. p. 209. 210. himself answereth with vs, that the Montanists were reprehended only, for that they brought in sundrie vnaccustomed dayes of fasting, continued their fastes a great deale longer, & made them more rigorous &c. wherupon Tertulian maintayning Montanisme, wrote a book in defence of the new fast. And the like answer is giuen by another ProtestantQuae­rimonia Ec­cl. p. 110. saying: Prote­stants say that Eusebius manifestly teacheth, that Montanus made the first lawes of fa­sting: but they are greatly deceaued in this as in other things &c. Montanus bringeth in a new Custome of fasting, hauing abrogated the Fastes of the Church &c. And of this new Custome in particular, Chemnitius Exam. part 4. p. 143. recordeth that, The Montanists make three Lents in the yeare, as though three Sauiours suffred in the yeare; which is altogeather impertinent to Catholicks.

Agayne, wheras it is ordinarily vrged against Catholicks, that they abso­lutely condemne certaine meates, contrarie to S. Paul 1. Tim. 4.3, M. Iacob Def. of the Church & Ministry of England. p. 59. a Puritan acknowledgeth that, The place of Paul is vnderstood of Marcion & Ta­tianus, who did absolutely condemne Mariage & certaine meates: And so (sayth he) are in no comparison with the Papists, if they erred in nothing els.

But to proceed yet to Fathers more ancient; The Centurists Cent. 3 col. 136. write that, Origen hom. 10. in Leuiticum, mentioneth the 40. Dayes, or Lent, consecrated to fasting, as also Wenesday & Friday, in which sayth he, were solemne Fasts: D. Whitaker Cont. Duraeum. l. 7. p. 480. Mort. Prot. App. p. 506 & D Morton charge Pope Calixtus, who liued about Anno Do­mini 218. that, He was the first that ordayned Ieiunium quatuor Temporum, or Ember dayes. And Hamelmannus De Trad. Apost. col. 254. speaking of Hermes, of whom S. Paul maketh mention Rom. 16 14 affirmeth. that in his book intituled Pastor, is recorded the then Fasting from certaine meates. Abraham Schultetus In Me­dulla Theol. Patrum. p. 440. doth not only affirme (to vse his words) the superstition of Lent & Fasting to haue been allowed & commanded by Ignatius, Vbi supra and Whitguift in his Def. p. 102. Hooker Eccl. Pol. l. 5. p. 209. but doth also, as doth likewise D. Whitguift & M. Hooker, defend that verie Epistle of Ignatius, being ad Philip­penses, in which this Doctrine is extant, to be his true Epistle, & not counter­faite.

Chemnitius Exam. part. 1. p. 89. confesseth, that Ambrose, Maximus Tauroninsis, Theophilus, Hierom, & others, do affirme the fast of Lent to be an Apostolical Tradition. And the like almost in the same words is acknowledged by Schrederus, Opuscul. Theol p. 71. saying, Ambrose, Theophilus, Hierom & others, do decree that Lent hath descended from Apostolical Tradition. Adde lastly that, Caluin Insti. l. 4. c. 12. sec. 19. speaking of fasting, con­fesseth in general, that, he dareth not wholy excuse the Old Fathers, but that they sowed some seedes of Superstition. And thatIbid. sec. 20. euerie where the obseruation of superstitious Lent was in force. Hamelmannus affirmeth that,De Trae­dit. col. 460. After the death of Iohn the Apostle, there began fallings away from the Faith, Doctrines of Diuels, vnder pretence of the Word of God, forbidding of Mariages & meates, vowes, single life &c. And the Centurists do confesse & report fromCent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. col. 581. the testimonie of Clemens Alexandrinus, Egesippus, & Iosephus, concerning the abstinence of the blessed Apostle S. Iames, thatIbid. col. 582. wine & sicer he did not drink, that he did not feed of anie liuing creature &c. that he wore not wollen garments, but was attired in Syndon, that he prayed so continually vpon his knees, that Camel-like they had lost their feeling. So strict were the Fasts and other austerities of the ancientest Fathers and Apostles.

But to touch briefly our Puritan or Sabaoth Fastes, wheras M. Welch, In his Rep. against Browne. p. 196. [Page 83] speaking of himself and his Brethren, sayth: We think it not Heresie to fast on the Lords, more then other dayes; The Fourth Carthage Councel Can. 64. is reprehen­ded by Osiander, Cent. 5. p. 13. for decreeing that, He that aduisedly (or of purpose) fasted vpon the Sunday, should not be esteemed a Catholick. And wheras Epiphanius haer. 75. reciting and condemning the errour of the Aerians herein, affi [...] ­meth that, They affect rather to fast vpon the Sunday, and to eate vpon the We­nesday & Friday (in which respect, our moderne Protestants are their docible Schollers) M. Midleton, alledgeth to the same purpose, not only the seueral testimonies of Epiphanius, but also of Tertulian & Ignatius, freely confessing, that Sundayes fast was cōdemned in Eustathius, & the Aerians. In like sort S. Austin ep. 86. ad Casulanum, affirming that To fast on Sunday is a great offence, In h s Papistoma­stix. p. 35. especially since the detestable Heresie of the Manichees &c. who appoynt vnto their hearers this day as lawful to be fasted vpon. This saying is alledged by D. White­guift In his Def. p. 102. & the Centurie-writers, Cent. 4. col. 445. as also is S. Ambrose for the same pur­pose by M. Parker. Against Symbol part. 2. c. 5. sec. 16 p. 38. And where Clement l. 5. Constit. Apost. c. vlt. & Igna­tius ep. ad Philippenses, do but both of them affirme that, He is guiltie of sinne, who fasteth vpon Sunday: The same is confessed by M. Carthwright: In Whit. Def. p. 99. who also with M. Midleton, In his Papistoma­stix. p. 35. & M. Parker Against Symbol. &c. part. 1. c. 4. p. 171. confesseth the same of Tertulian de Corona Militis c. 3. Yea M. Parker reciteth the seueral sayings to this pur­pose of Tertulian, Ignatius & Austin And M. Wilet Synopsis controuers. 9. q. 8 p. 384 sayth, wee grant this opinion is verie ancient, and that in Tertulians time, it was receaued in manie Churches.

Thus then our Roman Church doth truly Symbolize with the Primi­tiue. First, in teaching that the fast of Lent is obligatorie and vnder sinne. Se­condly, as also, that certain meates are to be abstained from vpon certaine dayes and times. Thirdly, for the contrarie Doctrine wherof, the Fathers censured Aerius for an Heretick. Fourthly, and with him Eustachius, for their Sundayes fast. Fiftly, Catholicks being confessedly cleared from the imputed Heresies of Montanus, Marcion, & Tatianus.

Now the Fathers acknowledged and reproued by Protestants for our foresayd Doctrine of fasting, are S. Gregorie, Ambrose, Austin, Hierom, Theophi­lus, Maximus Taurinensis, Cyril, Epiphanius, Nyssene, Origen, Calixtus, Tertulian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Egesippus, Iosephus, Ignatius, Hermes, & al the Fathers of the Fourth Carthage Councel. The Protestants citing them are, The Cen­turists, Melancthon, Pantaleon, Danaeus, Aretius, Chemnitius, Hamelmannus, Schultetus, Schrederus, Caluin, Osiander, Symondes, Bale, Trigge, Carthwright, Fulk, Field, Hooker, Iacob, Welch, Midleton, Parker, Willet, Morton, White­guift & Whitaker.

It is admitted by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church expresly taught our Catholick Doctrine concerning freewil. CHAPTER XX.

WHeras it is generally taught by CatholicksSee Bel­larmine in his boo 1. s de Gratia & libero Arbit. that man, euen after the fal of Adam, hath freewil and libertie, not only in actions natural, or ciuil, but likewise in moral and superna­tural, Gods Grace concurring. Directly to the contrarie the learnedst ProtestantsCaluin. Inst. l. 1. art. 16. §. 8 & l. 2. c. 4. §. 6. And see 3. §. 7. teach, that man in the state of Nature now corrupted is not endowed with Freewil in anie action natural, ciuil, moral, or supernatural.

The Primitiue Church is so wholy Roman Catholick in this poynt of Faith concerning Freewil, as that the same is most plentifully confessed by manie Protestants. Luke Osiander Cent. 6. p. 288. speaking of S. Gregorie affirmeth that, In manie articles he was fowlly & Popishly deceaued: for he attributed ouermuch to Freewil &c. And the Centurie-writers, Cent 6. c. 10. col. 748. repeating manie pretēded errours of his, amongst the rest doe number Freewil.

But the Centurists Cent. 4. col. 291. proceed further, for speaking of the Fourth Age, they confesse, in general that, Almost al the Fathers of this Age, speake con­fusedly of Freewil &c. And contrarie to the manifest testimonies of holie Scripture. And immediatly after they doe there recite and reiect the particular Sayings of Lactantius, Athanasius, Basil, Nazianzene, Epiphanius, Hierom &c. saying: They were al deceaued, al in darknes, al washed about the doctrine of Man's Freewil, Beza In his Nou. Test. in Praef. ad Principem Condensem. discoursing of the times of Austin, Chrysostom and Cyprian, affirmeth that then was in vse the opinion of Freewil. Caluin affirmeth in general that, TheInst. l. 2 c. 2. §. 4. Grecians aboue others, and amongst them Chrysostom, notably ex­ceed measure in extolling the facultie of man's wil. And agayneInst. l. 2. c. 1. §. 10. It is necessarie, that be reiected, which is so often repeated by Chrysostome, Quem trahit, volentem trahit, whom he draweth, he draweth willing.

Yea the famous Councel of Neece was so cleer for Freewil, that our Puri­tans spare not to say:A brief Discouery of vntruths in D. Bācrofts serm. p. 21. We must needs confesse, that not only this gouernment of the Church, but also manie other poynts of greatest waight in Religion, fel to decay long before the Councel of Neece &c. Man's Freewil & abilitie to fulfil the Law of God &c. was winked at or buryed &c. at the time of the Councel of Neece. So that if this Argument (taken from the Councel of Neece) be good &c. it is also powre­ful to ouerthrow the mayne poynt of our Iustification by Faith &c. The Centurie-writers Cent 3. col. 247. arise yet higher, affirming that S. Cyprian is euerie where a vehe­ment defender of Freewil. And againe,Cent. 3. col. 77. The same thinketh Cyprian l. 3. ep. 3. Man (sayth he) left to his owne libertie, and placed in his owne power, either desireth death to himself, or life. And they recite & reiect sūdrie other of his like sayings: which sayings also are confessed and reiected by D. Humfrey. In his Iesuit part. 2. p. 540.

It is likewiseCent. 3. col. 77. confessed, that Origen hom. 9. in Numeros, thinketh that our wil can choose good things, that it may be a vessel to honour; or euil and earthlie things, that it may be a vessel to reproach. Yea they further alleage and reiect manie other of his like Sayings. And els whereCent. 3. col. 2 [...]8. they reproue Origen herein, and al the Doctours of the then precedent Age. Yea speaking of Tertulian, Origen, Cyprian, and Methodius, their modest Cen­sure is that,Cent. 3. c. 4. p. 77. They do abuse the Scriptures intollerably for the maintenance thereof. And as for Tertulian, theyCent. 3. col. 240. acknowledge that, he In manie and large Sentences attributeth Frewil to man, euen after the corruption of Na­ture by Adams fal. And inCent. 3. col. 77. another place they reiect Tertulians sun­drie testimonies of Frewil. But Hamalmannus De Tra­ditionibus l. 2. c. 7. col. 93. confesseth that, Tertulian and Ireneus with manie followers defend Freewil &c. Yea Schultetus Medulla Theol. Pa­trum. p. 369. 304. 466. 151. 105. 98. 48. 66. 73. 40. And see Cent. 2. c. 4. col. 58. 59. And Cent. 3. c. 4. col. 77. 78. 48. for the selfe same Doctrine of Freewil reproueth of errour, Cyprian, Theophilus, Tertulian, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Iustin, Ireneus, Athenagoras, Tatianus &c. And the Centurie-writers Cent. 2. c. 10 col. 221. And see col. 58. 43. And Humfrey in Iesuit. part. 2. p. 527. And Osiand. cent. 2. l. 4. p. 84. confesse that, Ireneus admitteh Free­wil (euen) in spiritual actions. And that, Ireneus Cent. 2. c. 4. p. 53. disputes not dissinctly, and wresteth the speeches of Christ, and of S. Paul in fauour of Freewil, saying, that there is Freewil also in faith and beleef. But these things (say he Cen­turists) are spaken grossly (by Ireneus) and are repugnant to the Scriptures.

In like sort Osiander Cent. 2. p. 5. 6. And see the Cen­turists. Cent. 2. col. 207. reproueth Iustin saying: Iustine extolled too much the libertie of mans Wil in obseruing the Commandments of God. And it is grantedCent. 2. c. 4. col. 59. And see Caluin Inst. l. 2 c. 2 §. 4. that Clemens euerie where defendeth Freewil, so that it may appeare (say they) that not only al the Doctours of that Age were in such darknes, but also that the same after increased in the later Doctours. D. Abbots In de­fence of the Reformed Catholick. part. 1. p. 114. speaking of the booke of Hermes, entituled Pastor, (and some others, forged ac­cording to his opinion in the Apostles times) sayth: The poyson which Satan had conueyed into such counterfaite books, was receiued as wholesome food, and sundrie errours and superstitious fancies of vowed Virginitie and Prayer for the dead, of Freewil, of Inuocation of Saincts, of Antichrist, and the Assum­ption of Marie, and such like by litle and litle got footing in the Church. And here was indeed (sayth Abbot) the true beginning of manie doctrines of Poperie &c. The Centurists Cent. 2. c. 4. 4 co [...]. 58. speaking of the times next after the Apostles, doe acknowledge, That almost no poynt of Doctrine began so soon to be obscured, as this of Freewil. Yea it is confessed,So say the Purita­nes cyted in D. Bancro­stes Sermon. p. 23. that the Protestants know that euer since the Apostles time, in a manner it flourished euerie where, vntil Martin Luther took the sword in hand against it. A true so euident, that D. Hum­frey Iesuit. part. 2. p. 530. thinketh, It may not be denyed, but that Ireneus, Clemens, and others (quos vocant Apostolicos) whom they cal Apostolical (in respect of the time in which they liued) haue in their writings the opinions of Freewil &c. Yea sayth M. Caluin, Instit. l. 2. c. 2. § 9. Al Ecclesiastical Writers, excepting Augustin, haue written so ambiguously and differently in this matter (of Freewil) that no­thing certain can be gathered from their wrytings: And they were ouer ful in extolling Freewil. Lastly. D. Whiteguift In his Defence against the Reply of Carthw­right. p. 472. 473. discoursing of Doctrine taught in anie Age since the Apostles time, affirmeth without anie other exception, of Age or Father, that (to vse his words) almost Ibid. p. 473. And see the lyke in Whitak. de Eccl. Con. Bellar. Controu. 2. p. 299. al the Bishops, and learned Writers of the Greek Church and Latin also for the most part, were spot­ted with doctrines of Freewil, of Merit, of Inuocation of Saincts and such like. [Page 86] And the same also almost in the same words is confessed by D. Couel, saying:In his Exam. c. 9. p. 120. Diuers both of the Greek and Latin Church, were spotted with errours about Freewil, Merits, Inuocation of Saincts &c.

Yea the ancient Iewes did so firmely beleeue our Doctrine of Free­wil, that to omit thec. 15. 12. 15. 16. 17. cleerest words of Ecclesiasticus, which D. Whitakers had no other wayesResp ad Camp. Rat. 1. p. 15. to euade, but by denying the sayd booke to be Canonical Scripture: D. Fulk tearmeth:Defence of the Eng. Transl. p. 320. The Iewish Rabbins, Patrons of Freewil; which D. Morton Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 371. iustifyeth, and further sayth:Ibid. p. 370. What if it be confessed that some Rabbins maintayned the libertie of mans Wil, as Rabbi Moses did? Yea M. Hal chargeth the Pharisees Phari­saisme. p. 50. with Freewil and Merit, which is more then either Christ or his Apostles did, who yet in other respects spared not to discouer their true Errours.

Wel then, our Catholick Doctrine of Freewil, is the Primitiue Doctrine taught by S. Gregorie, Hierome, Epiphanius, Nazianzene, Basil, the Councel of Nice, Chrysostome, Athanasius, Lactantius, Cyprian, Origen, Tertulian, Theo­philus, Iustine, Athenagoras, Tatianus, Clemens Alexand. Ireneus, Hermes, and by al the Fathers since the Apostles vntil Luthers time. Our strongest wit­nesses herof, are the Protestant Writers: The Centurists, Beza, Osiander, Hamelmannus, Schultetus, Calum, Humfrey, Abbot, Hal, Morton, Whiteguift, Fulk and Whitaker.

Jt is graunted by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church, taught not only Faith, but likewise Good works truly to iustify: And that the sayd works are meritorious of Grace and Glorie. CHAP. XXI.

COncerning Good-works: It is the generalSe Bel­larmin. De Iustificatione l. 1. 4. 5. and receiued doctrine of the Roman Church, First, that the works of the iust are truly good, and not of their owne nature sinne. Se­condly, that not only Faith, but likewise good works doe truly iustifie a man & obtaine remission of sinnes. Thirdly that the same good works do truly merit or deserue Grace in this world, and glorie in the next.

DirectlyLuther. in Assert. art. 31. 32. 36. Caluin. Instit. l. 3. c. [...]. § 4. and c. 41. §. 9. &c. 19. §. 2. 4. 7. &c. 15. § 2. contrarie to al the forsayd poynts concerning Good­works, is the ordinarie doctrine of our new Protestants; First, affirming that the best works of the iust, are of their owne natures deadlie sinne. S [...]condly, that only Faith doth iustify. Thirdly, and lastly, that works do neither merit Grace nor glorie.

To come now to the doctrine and Faith of the Primitiue Church; TheCen [...]. 6. c. 10. col. 748. Centurists making a Catalogue of S. Gregories pretended errours, amongst the rest number his Errour of good workes and Iustification. AndCent. 6. p. 288. Osiander much reproueth him for that, he attributeth ouer much to good works. S. Augustin is reiected byIn Con­fess. Wit­temb. Brentius, for that the taught, [Page 87] Affiance in mans merits towards remission of Sinnes. TheHarmony of Confess in English. sec. 16. p. 509. Diuines of Wittemberg affirme that, These reasons which Augustin bringeth for his opinion of Purgatorie, doe seem to leane to this foundation: That we obtaine remission of our sinnes and life, not only for Christ his sake, through Faith; but also for the merits of our works. And for the same doctrine of Merit of works, he is further reprehended byCent. 4. p. 520. Osiander, theCent. 5. col. 507. 1133. Centurists, Instit. l. 3. c. 11. § 15. Caluin, l. 1. Ep. p. 290 & in Consil. Theol. p. 240. And see Colloq. Altemberg. fol. 307. Field of the Church. l. 3. c. 42 p. 170. Melancthon, and D. Field. So likewise theCent. 5. col. 1178. Centurie-writers speaking of S. Chrysostom affirme, that, Chrysostom handleth impurely the doctrine of Iustification, and attributeth merit to works. They likewise say of Prosper, Cent. 5. c. 10. col. 1363. that, he retayned not a few freckles of his Age: Such an one is, that Faith only doth not iustify. Luther In Gal. c. 4. And after the English Translation fol. 220. tearmeth S. Hierom, Ambrose, Austin and others, Iustice-worke [...]s (or as the English Translation therof hath, Merit-mongers) of the old Papacie. And because he and his children con­firme their doctrine of sole Faith by certaine sentences, especially taken out of S. Pauls Epistles to the Romans and Galathians, which they wrest to another sense, then euer was giuen by the ancient Fathers, hence he maketh this complaint saying:In Col­loq. Conui­ual. c. de Patribus Ecclesiae. Neither are there anie works extant of the Fathers vpon the Epistle either to the Romans or to the Galathians, in which anie thing pure and sincere may be found. But of S. Hierome in parti­cular, because he contrarieth his Exposition of the sayd Epistles, he auoucheth, thatTom. 5. in Ep. ad Gal. c. 3. f. 348. & Tom 2. de seruo Arbitrio. f. 473. Et in Ep. ad Bren­tium quae praefixa est Brentii Com. in Oseam. And see him in c. 5. ad Gal. he was deceaued by Origen, and that he vnderstood nothing at al in S. Paul, but depraued the Iustice of only Faith: And that this one errour of his was so great, that it alone was sufficient to destroy the Ghospel, by which if it had not been (saith Luther) through the singular Grace of God, Hierome had merited rather Hel then Heauen.

The Centurists hauing proued at large, that neither Lactantius, Chro­matius, Ephrem, Theophilus, S. Hierome, S. Gregorie Nyssene, S. Gregorie Nazianzene, S. Hilarie, nor S. Ambrose euer acknowledged their manner of Iustification by Faith only, inferre therupon:Cent. 4. col. 292. 293. Now let the Godlie Reader imagine with himself, how far this Age touching this Article went astray from the doctrine of the Apostles. And see the Fathers of the Fourth Age, further disliked therein byCent. 4. p. 102 506 520. 430. 70 Osiander and Exam. part. 4. p. 110. Chemnitius.

But to arise to the Third Age,In Rom. p. 391. Melancthon affirmeth that, Origen, and manie (others) following him, imagined that men were iust by reason of their workes. TheCent. 3. col 265. 266 Centurists plainly confesse, that, Origen made good workes the cause of Iustification. Ibid. col 79. And speaking of the Fathers of that Age, they ackno­wledge that, They attributed to good works, Iustice before God; as Origen l. 1. in Iob. &c. And that as then, for the most part this cheefest article of Iustifi­cation seemeth to haue been obscured. In Apoc. p. 206. Winkelmannus doth cleerly grant that, Origen ascribeth to works, the cause of Iustification. Yea the Centurists C [...]nt. 3. col. 80 affirme that, Origen in manie places ascribeth to works, the preparation and cause of Saluation, as trac. in Math. & hom. [...]4. in Iosuam & 26. he as­cribeth to our merits Gods dwelling in vs, by his Grace. In which respect also Beza accuseth Origen In Act. c. 10 46. of horrible blasphemie. The Centurists speaking of this Third Age, auouch that, [...]ent 3. c. 4. col. 53 79 80 8. & Cent. 4. c. 4. col. 292. Cent. 5. c. 4. col 504. &c. 10. This Article (of Iustification by only Faith) was almost altogeather obscured, and that the Doctours of that time declined more from the true doctrine of Christ and of the Apostles, then of [Page 88] the Age before. Hence among others of this and the succeeding Age that they pretend to haue erred herin, they name S. Clement, Tertulian, Origen, S. Cyprian, S. Augustin, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Chrysostom, S. Cyril, Theo­philus, Lactantius, Eusebius, Chromatius, Ephrem, S. Gregorie Nyssene, S. Gregorie Nazianzene, S. Hilarie, S. Leo, Saluianus, Esichius, Prosper, Maximus and Pau­linus. In like sort they report of S. Cyprian that, He attributeth ouermuch to good wooks. AndMedul­la Theol. p. 370. Schultetus reprehendeth him, for that, In his Sermon de Lapsis, he ascribeth forgiuenes of sinnes to Satisfactions. And theCent. 3. col. 240. Centurists confesse the same in the selfe same words of Tertulian. But D. Whitaker In Resp ad rat. Cam. rat. 5. p. 78 with Chemnitius Exam. part. 4 p. 110. and Melancthon In suis libelli ali­quot. fol. 25. do al of them auouch that, Not Cyprian only but almost al the most holie Fathers of that time were in that errour, as thinking so to pay the paine due to sinne, and to satisfy Gods Iustice. Melancthon acknowledgeth that,In 1. Cor. c. 3. Presently from the beginning of the Church, the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the Iustice of Faith &c. So likewise in general it is confessed by theCent. 3. col. 80. Centurists, that, The Doctours of this Age declined from the true doctrine of Christ and his Apostles concerning works.

But to ascend yet higher: The Centurists speaking of the second Age after Christ, affirme that,Cent. 2. c. 4. col. 60. 61. The Doctrine of Iustification was deliuered more negligently and obscurely by the Doctours of this Age. As also, This Article, the highest and chiefest of al, by litle & litle through the craft of the Diuel, began to be obscured. And againe say they, It appeareth out of the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus, that in his Age, the Doctrine concerning the end of good workes, began to be obscured. Finally, The times ensuing declare sufficiently, that the doctrine of Faith iustifying without works, began forthwith to be more and more varied and obscured.

Schultetus Medul­la Theol. p. 48. 122. 151. And see Cent. 2. c. 4. and Cent. 3. c. 4. confesseth the Doctrine of Merit of works, in Clemens Alexan­drinus, Theophilus, Cyprian, Iustin Martyr &c. And D. Humfrey Iesuit. part. 2. p. 530. his opinion is that,Cent. 3. col. 247. It may not be denyed, but that Ireneus, Clemens, and others called Apostolical, haue in their writings the opinions of Freewil, and Merit of works. Schultetus Medul. Theol. p. 467. also chargeth the booke of Hermes entituled Pastor, with Merit and iustification of works. AndIn his Defend. of Parkins p. 339. 340. M. Wotton not forbeareth to taxe for this verie poynt of Merit, Ignatius cyting for the same his Epistle to the Romans, and only answering in this vnworthie namer: I say plainly this mans testimonie is nothing worth, because he was of litle iudgement in Diuinitie. But what may then be thought of M. Woottons no diuinitie or of Woottons greatest impudencie thus censuring that ancientest Martyr of Christ, and schollar of S. Iohn.

Yea this Doctrine of Merit was so vniuersal as that D. Couel In his Exam. c. 9. p. 120. writeth that, Diuers both of the Greek and Latin Church, were spotted with errours about Freewil, Merits &c. Luther after his Censure giuen agaynst diuers of the Fathers in particular, pronounceth of them in general thus:In Col. Conuiual. c. De Patribus Ecclesiae. See ye what darknes there is in the Fathers writings concerning Faith; for when that Article of the Iustification of men is couered with darknes, it can by no meanes be, that greater errours he auoyded. Bullinger dothIn Apoc. Serm. 87. fol. 270. acknowledge that, The doctrine of Merits, satisfaction, and Iustification of works did incontinently after the Apostles time lay their first foundations Caluin affirmeth in general that,Inst. l. 3. c. 25. §. 2. The ancient [Page 89] Writers of the Church vsing euerie where the word (Merit) gaue occasion of errour to posteritie therby. Adde lastly, that D. Whiteguift In his Def. against the Reply of Carthw. p. 472. 473. treating of Doctrine taught in anie Age since the Apostles time, affirmeth without al other exception either of Age or Father that, Almost al the Bishops and learned Writers of the Greek Church, and Latin also, for the most part were spotted with doctrines of Freewil of Merits &c. And the same is likewise taught byDe Eccl. cont. Bellar. p. 299. D. Whitakers.

Now concerning the ancient Iewes: The Books ofc. 12 9. & 4.10. Tobie and Ec­clesiasticus c. 3. 33. are so pregnant for the Merit of works, that sundrie Pro­testants say therof:Minist. of Lincolne Dioces. in their Abridgment. p. 76. The two places of Tobie and Ecclesiasticus tend dan­gerously to the Iustifying of the Merit of Almes-deeds. And others writing against the booke of Homilies say: [...]ilenced Ministers in the 2. Part of Def. p. 164. The book of Homilies whereto we are required to subscribe &c. expoundes Tobie, saying, that Almes is profitable to purge the soule from the spots of sinne, alleaging these words of Tobie 4.10. and 12.19. &c. and out of Ecclesiasticus &c. Yea they further say, This Ib. p. 166. place of Tobie were it Canonical &c. is verie pregnant for the Merit of works, and as strong for it, as the Scriptures are for the merit of Christ.

Buxdorfius also writeth of the Rabbins thatSynagog. Iudaica. p. 23. They perswade themselues that they may satisfy for their sinnes by doing pennance vpon their skinnes, and that they may easily merit eternal life by keeping of the Commandments, and Good works. And the same also is acknowledged in them byPhari­saisme p. 13. 50. M. Hal. I may then con­clude, that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church are our firmest Patrons for our Catholick Doctrine concerning Good-works, confessedly teaching: First, that Good-works do truly iustify: Secondly, Meriting Grace and Remission of sinnes in this life, and eternal glorie in the next: For which verie doctrine the Fathers acknowledged by Protestants, are S. Gregorie, Chrysostom, Augustin, Prosper, Ambrose, Hierom, Nyssene, Nazianzene, Hilarie, Ephrem, Cyprian, Origen, Tertulian, Theophilus, Lactantius, Iustin, Clemens Alex. Ireneus, Hermes, Ignatius, and the ancient beleeuing Iewes.

The Protestant Writers producing and charging the forsayd Fathers are Luther, the Centurists, Brentius, the Diuines of Wittemberg, Osiander, Caluin, Melancthon, Chemnitius, Winkilmamus, Schultetus, Bullinger, Buxdorfeus, Wotton, Whitaker, Humfrey, Couel, and Whiteguift.

It is acknowledged by Protestants that the Ceremonies now vsed by the Roman Church in the ministring of seruice or Sacrifice, as also of the Sacraments, were formerlie vsed by the Bishops, Priests and Fathers of the Primitiue Church. CHAP. XXII.

HAuing thus passed through so manie particular Controuer­sies of greatest weight, and finding in al of them a perfect agreement and sweetest harmonie between the ancient, most holie and Primitiue Church, and the present Roman Catholick Church, and this by no weaker proofes or euidences, then [Page 90] the free grants, Confessions, and acknowledgments of our sworne and professed Aduersaries; I wil now, for my Conclusion in this kind, only examen one poynt further, which being not purely Do­ctrinal but most sensible and external, wil therby not only prooue most accommodate to the sense and capacitie of the meanest Reader, but withal wil most euidently declare and make manifest, the out­ward gracious and beautiful face of Christian Religion practised by the ancient, learned, and holie Bishops, Doctours and people of the Primitiue Church.

Nothing is better knowne either to those of greater yeares, who as yet may wel remember the Ecclesiastical rites and Customes of our owne kingdome, or to others more moderne, who haue trauailed for­raine Nations, then the external Ceremonies vsed in Material Chur­ches, in Celebration of Seruice, and Administration of the most holie Sacraments: For who knoweth not that when Catholick Churches are erected, they are specially consecrated, and dedicated either to Christ, or some of his Saincts? That in them are seueral Chancels, and Vestries, as also Altars, Candles, Reliques and Images? that there are truly Priests who offer daily external Sacrifice at the Altar? Whose Vestments and vessels are specially hallowed? who likewise obserue Canonical houres, saying some prayers in Secret, others with a loud voice? sometimes giuing the people their benediction, and burning Incense at the Altar? In the Church likewise there is a Font, specially hallowed for the administration of Baptisme, which is holden necessarie to Saluation, and the same is ministred with the Signe of the Crosse, with holie Oyles, and sundrie other Ceremonies hereafter specifyed: And to omit sundrie other; In the Church is blessed by the Priest, Holiewater, Holie-bread, Candles, Ashes &c. I need not describe the naked walles of Protestants Churches, or the bare black coates of their wedded Ministers, both of them deuoyd of al grace, ornament, puritie and state, duly befitting places and per­sons Ecclesiastical: And therfore I hasten to the confessed practise of the Primitiue Church.

Wherein I first find, that when Material Churches were first built, they were specially hallowed by the Bishop; so much as S. Gregorie and S. Austin are reproued by D. Humfrey In Iesuit. part. 2. rat. 5. p. 5. & 627. for bringing into England, the new Consecration of Churches. And theCent. 6. col. 364. 365. Centurie-writers do charge S. Gre­gorie out of his owne writings with Consecration of Churches. D. Morton affirmeth that he vsedProt. Appeal. l. 1. p. 53. Superstitious manner of Consecration of Churches. Yea theCent. 4. col. 408. further confesse, that Athanasius in his Apologie to Con­stantin plainly sheweth that Christians did not assemble togeather in Churches not consecrated. And that in the Fourth Age, the Fathers vsedCent. 4. col. 497. Sumptuous Churches consecrated, and Superstitious Insolencie in celebrating of Masse, appoin­ted to be sayd in no places but such as were hallowed by a Bishop. Cent. 4. col. 497. Yea they reprooue Constantin himselfe, for that (say they) concerning Consecra­tion of Churches new built, proud adorning of them, and other Superstitious things the greatest part Constantine inuented and spread abrode in many Churches. [Page 85] And wheras Sozomene hist. l. 1. c. 8. reporteth that Constantin, when he went to the warres, vsed to carry about with him a Tabernacle made in forme of a Church, to the end that a Consecrated house should not be wanting either to himself liuing in the Deserts, or to his Armie &c. And that, Priests and Deacons did daily attend vpon the Tabernacle; the truth herof is so certaine, that it is confessed by Crispinus. Of the Estate of the Church. p. 89. But for further testimonie of hallowing of Churches in those ancient times, see D. Fulk Against Rhem. Test. in 1. Thim. 4. see 13. fol. 378. the Centurie-writers Cent. 4. col. 408. and Crispinus. Of the Estate of the Church. p. 93.

Secondly, these Consecrated Churches were dedicated in memorie of Christ or some of his Saincts: In which respect, S. Gregorie is charged byChron. l. 4. p. 567. 568. Carion to haue Commanded Churches to be dedicated to the bones and Ashes of Saincts. M. Mason affirmeth that,Conse­cration of Engl. Bishops p. 57. In Canterburie the Regal Cittie, euen when Austin arriued, there was a Christian Church built in the time of the Romans, dedicated to the Memorie of S. Martin. And wheras Eusebius de vita Constantini l. 3. c. 47. relateth, that, Constantin erected Churches in the honour of Martyrs, And (l. 4. c. 58. 59.) dedicated a most sumptious Church in Me­morie of our Sauiour's Apostles; theCent. 4. col. 408. Centurists speaking hereof, say: These Dedications seem to haue sprong from Iudaisme without anie Commandment of God, YeaCent. 4. col. 452. they further confesse, that, Constantin appointed a verie Solemne Feast for the Dedication of the Church. And Brightman Apoc. in c. 12. p. 325. acknowledgeth that at Constantins comming in &c. Temples were Consecra­ted to Martyrs. Yea sayth D. Beard:Retra­ctiue from Romish Re­ligion. p. 388 389. The Annual Feastes of Dedica­tion of Churches grew from a sinister imitation of Constantin the Great, who be­cause he kept a Solemne day at the Dedication of a certain Church, which he had built, therfore it was receaued as a law &c. to solemnize euerie yeare a Holiday vpon the day of the Dedication of their Church.

Thirdly, in the Churches was built a place seueral, for the laying vp of holie things, called the Vestrie; wherof the Centurists Cent. 4. col. 835. alleage the Laodicen Councel saying: It is not fit that Subdeacons haue libertie to goe into the Vestrie, and touch our Lords vessels. Yea theyCent. 4. col. 409. And see Osiand. cent. 5. p. 391. acknowledge the Vestrie to be mentioned by S. Ambrose l. 1. offic. c. 50.

Fourthly, as concerning Chancels, D. Raynolds In his Conference with M. Hart p. 488. confesseth from S. Denis the Areopagite, that in his time there were Chancels seuered with Sanctification from the rest of the Church. And Hospinian De Templis p. 85. makeh mention of Chancels vsed in Constantins time. And the Centurists Cent. 4. col. 1165. Hospin. do Templis p. 85. 86. 87. affirme that Lay-persons were prohibited to come into the Chancels. Osiander Cent. 4. p. 390. chargeth the Laodicen Councel as Superstitious herein.

Fiftly, but nothing was more diligently regarded and obserued in Churches then sacred Altars: S. Gregory is charged by the Centurists Cent. 6. col. 369. with Consecration of Altars. And Osiander Cent. 6. p 289. 290. affirmeth that Augustin (sent by S. Gregorye) thrust vpon the English Churches the Roman Rites and Customes, to wit, Altars &c. Peter Martyr In his Common places in English. part. 4. p. 225. writeth that, Petrus Alex­andrinus attributeth more to the outward Altar, then to the liuelie temples of Christ. He furtherIbid. p. 226. confesseth that, Optatus l. 6. against Parmenianus sayth, what is the Altar? Euen the Seate of the bodie and bloud of Christ. Such sayings as these (sayth Peter Martyr) edifyed not the people: And for the selfe same Saying, is Optatus reproued by the Centurie-writers. Cent. 4. c. 6. col. 409. Hos­pinian de Tem­plis. p. 98. And see p. 101. 459. 460 100. [Page 86] sayth, I dare not deny but that in the time of Constantin the great, Statelie Temples, Statelie and beautiful Altars took their beginning, and the same were fixed, and of stone. The Centurists Cent. 4. col. 409. speaking of the same Age, affirme that, The Histories of this time testify that there were Al­tars in the Churches &c. but this Custome came into the Church of Christ from the Iewish custome. But Praetorius De Sa­cramentis. 287. ariseth higher, auouching that Anno 262. Pope Sixtus the Second abrogated the tables hitherto vsed, and erected Al­tars, which (sayth he) better represent Iudaisme then Christianisme. M. Car­thwright [...]n his 2. Reply part. 1. p. 517. And see Iacob in his Reasons taken out of Gods word &c. p. 58. thinketh that, Ignatius calleth the Communion Table vnpro­perly an Altar. Yea he [...]n his 2. Reply part. last. p. 264 reproueth the Fathers in general saying: The ancient Writers abuse herein, may easily appeare, in that, in this too great libertie of speech, they vsed to cal the holie supper of the Lord, a Sacrifice, and the Communion table, an Altar. In like sort sayth Peter Martyr, In his Com. plac. part. 4. p. 225. The Fathers should not with so much libertie haue seemed here and there to haue abused the name (Aultar.) So plaine it is, that Altars consecrated were vsed in those ancientest times of the Primitiue Church.

Sixtly, vpon these Altars were placed lights or Candles: M. Bale In Act. Rom. pontif. p. 44. confesseth that S. Gregory gaue lights to Churches. And D. Morton sayth of him:Prot. Appeal. l. 1. p. 57. Mar­gin. He indeed requireth lights, but not that therby he might burne day &c. Which may seem to haue been rather the institution of his Successour Sabinianus, for &c. But our late Writer, D. Beard proueth the same fromRetra­ctiue from Rom. Relig. p. 65. the decree of (our) owne Popes Gregorie the First, and Sabinian his Successour; the one of which ap­pointed certaine lands for the maintenance of waxe-c [...]ndles and Lampes in Churches; & the other ordayned, that burning lampes should be alwayes kept in their Churches. TheCent. 4. col. 487. Centurists charge Constantin, that He ordayned the burning of Candles in the Churches in the day-time. And againe sayCent. 4. col. 410. they: Eusebius hath reported that wax-Candles and Lamps were burned in the day-time, in the places of the Assem­blies by Constantin the great. In like sort Crispinus Of the Estate of the Chu [...]ch. p. 93. thinketh that, In Constantines time manie Ceremonies il-agreing with Gods Word were brought in; as Candles lighted in the day-time. M. Beard affirmeth that, In Retra­ctiue from Romish Re­ligion p. 66. Hieroms Age this Superstition (of Candles lighted in the day-time) began to grow vpon the Church. Yea theCent. 4. col. 454. Centurists acknowledge that, Waxe candles were ac­customed to be carryed at Burials. And that, Priests did carry before the Corse, Lamps and wax-candles: Cent. 4. col. 453. And that, Funeral-rites and Ceremonies in this Age (of Constantin) Superstition (say they) increasing, were heaped vp, partly from Heathe­nisme, partly from Iudaisme. Seauenthly, as for the vse of Images in Churches, in the time of the Primitiue Church, the same is prooued at large in the ChapterSee be­fore l. 2. c. 14. of Images.

Eightly, D. Raynolds In his Conference with M. Har. p. 552. cōfesseth that, Altars & Sacrifice are linked by nature in Relation and mutual dependance one of another; Wherupon it doth euidently follow, that Aultars being vsed in Churches in the ancientest times, true external Sacrifice was likewise vsed, which Sacrifice to haue been the Sa­crifice of the Masse, I haue largely proued in theSee be­fore. l. 2. c. 9. Chapter of Masse. Now because true and proper Sacrifice can not be offred at the Altar but by a Priest, therfore in the Primitiue Church there were true Priests, whose Ordination was euer by a Bishop, and not by the Laïtie. TheCent. 4. col. 435. Centurists confesse that, The Constitutions of the Laodicen Councel forbad Ordinations by the [Page 87] iudgement of the multitude: And that, They were desired of that Bishop who had authoritie to giue Orders, as appeareth (say they) by the Fourth Epistle of Basil to Gregorie, and the Thirtith, to the Cesareans. And else-whereCent. 4. col. 489. they say ex­presly that, The ordination of Ministers was proper to the Bishop. And as for the word, Priest (so hateful now to our Protestant Clergie) it was so vsual in the Primitiue Church, as thatIn his Defence p. 411. D. Whiteguift saith: This name, Priest, is vsually applyed to the Minister of the Ghospel in al Histories, Fathers, and Writers of Antiquitie. The like is acknowleged byL. 9. cont. Dur. p. 813. D. Whitaker, who only answe­reth, that the Fathers vsed the word, Sacerdos, Priest, not properly, but by abuse of speech; an answere directly contrarie to the expresse words of S. Austin himself De Ciuit. Dei l. 20. c. 10. But D. Fulk Against Rhem. Test. in Act. 14. see 4. f. 210. Willet. in his Synop. Controu. 13. p. 482. and D. Willet do both of them reproue the Fathers, for their vsing the word, Priest, properly.

Yea the Priests of the Primitiue Church were (as ours stil are) specially anoynted, in so much as S. Cyprian in his Sermon de Chrismate, mentioning the same, is therefore reproued byExam. part. 2. p. 247. Chemnitius. They had also their Crownes shauen, for M. Brightman Apoc. in c. 9. p. 249. confesseth, that the Fathers vsed to entreate Priests, by their Tonsure or shauing, as now (we may see) in the Epistles of Hierome and Augustin. AndMedulla Patrum. p. 484. Schultetus affirmeth that, Dyonisius the Areopagite, in his book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchie, writeth manie things of Temples, Altars, Sacred-places, the Quier, Consecration of Mo [...]ks, the Tonsure and shauing of heads.

Ninthly, the Priests vsed also consecrated vestments, and vessels, for the celebration of Masse, and other offices of the Church. TheCent. 4 col. 504. Centurists affirme that, S. Athanasius mentioneth Ecclesiastical vestments, and ornaments, and other things necessarie for the Church. De Sa­cramentis p. 44. Zepperus auoucheth that, The Ministers (or Priests) vsed in the celebration of this Mysterie (of the Eucharist) a peculiar kind of apparel, which they tearmed holie; neither was it lawful for Priests to weare them, but in the celebration of the Eucharist; yea they were not to be touched by anie (persons) but such as were sacred; which inuention the first Decretal Epistle of Pope Stephen referreth to himself. Of the Crosse part. 1. sec. 36. p. 52. And see Hut. 2 in his 2. part. of the Answ. and p. 194. 195. 196. Whiteguift in his Def. p. 268. 270. M. Parker granteth in general, The Fathers wil haue the Garments to be Religious, that are vsed in the Church; in proofe wherof he citeth in the Margent, Origen and Hierome.

And to descend to particulars, wheras Theodoret l. 2. c. 27. reporteth that, Constantin gaue to the Bishop of Hierusalem a (Cope) or pretious garment, wrought with gold to administer Baptisme, the same is confessed byIn his Persuasion to vniformi­ty. c. 5. p. 19. whyteg. in his Def. p. 269. M. Sparke and D. Whiteguift; in so much asIbid. p. 268. M. Carthwright testifyeth: Theodoret maketh mention of a golden Cope. The Centurists Cent. 4. col. 876. confesse, that in the Fourth Age the Albe was vsed, andIn his Persuasion to vniform. c. 5. p. 19. M. Spark alleageth sundrie ancient Fathers, al mentioning the Albe. D. Raynolds In his Confer. c. 8. diuis. 4. acknowledgeth, that in the Liturgies of S. Basil & S. Chrysostome, are mentioned the Amice, the Girdle, the Chisible & the Fa­nel: The Centurists Cen [...]. 4. col. 835. likewise confesse, that as then, was vsed the Stole: And D. Whiteguift In his Def. p. 269. 270. admitteth the Dalmatica to be vsed in S. Cyprians time, & allea­geth Peter Martyr to be of the same mind; whoIn his Epistles annexed to his com. plac. in Engl. p. 119. And Whi­teg. in his Def. p. 264. 268. likewise relateth, that as then was vsed the Bishops Pontifical Plate, or Miter: andIbid. p. 269. D. Whiteguift auoucheth the same to haue been worne by S. Cyprian.

The Centurists Cent. 4. col. 835. And Osian. cent. 4. p. 391. likewise report, that in the Fourth Age, were vsed by Priests in Churches, Holie vessels, which Subdeacons (and Lay persons) might not touch, AndCent. 4. col. 490. they mention the then Careful committing of the holie Chalice, [Page 88] to the Priests Custodie. D. Sutilisse De M [...]ssa Papist. ca. l. 5. c. 7. f. 96. sayth: We do not deny the Church, as Chry­sostome sayth, hom. 4. in Math. and de S. Babila, to haue had holie vessels, and the same not to be touched by lay-men. Yea the Centurists Cent. 4. col. 504. And see col. 409. And Chem. Exam. part. p. 26. affirme, that Theodoret, l. 3. c. 12. sheweth, that the Church of Antioch, had manie pretious vessels, which Con­stantin and Constantius gaue to it. And they mentionCent. 4. col. 873. 874. likewise, the yet controuerted rites of Chalice, Paten, Cruet ful of water, Towel, Wax-candle for Church lights, book of Exorcismes &c.

Tenthly, the Priests, thus furnished with sacred vestments and vessels, not only offred Sacrifice, but likewise obserued Canonical Houres of prayer in the Church: In so much as the Centurists, Cent. 4. col. 433. And see Bullingers Decades. Decr. 5. p. 937. charge the Fourth Age, with obseruation of Canonical Houres: And withCent. 4. col. 433. Rising in the night to prayer: And withCent. 4. col. 459. vsing set forme of Prayer: And Litanies Ib. col. 433. 414. 411. As also, withCent. 4. col. 1329. And Osiand. cent. 4. p. 454. num­bring prayers vpon litle stones (or beades) yea theyCent. 3. col. 134. charge the Third Age, saying: Tertullian, in his booke of Fasting, affirmeth those Three Houres, to wit, the Third, the Sixt, & the Ninth to haue been more famous in diuine prayers. And Cyprian in the Lords prayer, calleth the Prime, the Third, the Sixt, and Ninth, the Houres of praying anciently obserued. And theyCent. 3. col. 135. further Confesse, that as thē, Christi­ans prayed with their face turned towards the East; as Tertulian affirmeth in his Apo­logie &c. And that in the holie Sacrifice some prayers were sayd in Secret, others audibly. In so much as Osiander recyteth, and dislyketh these words of the Laodicen Councel: Let three prayers be sayd; one in silence, the second, and third, vocally (or andibly) and then let the kisse of Peace be giuen: And after the Priests haue giuen the Pax to the Bishop, then let it be giuen to the Laïtie, and so the Sa­crifice offred: But let it be allowed only to the Clergie, to come vnto the Altar, and there Communicate.

Eleuenthly, amongst other prayers vsed by the Priests in the Church, were ordinarie such, wherby Sundrie Creatures were hallowed and con­secrated, as Water, Bread, Oyle, Ashes, the Font for Baptisme, and the like. S. Gregorie is reproued by the Centurists, and Osiander, for his vsing and Sprinkling of Holie-water. D. Morton affirmeth that,Prot. Appeal. l 1. p. 56. True it is, that Aqua lustralis (Holie-water) was vsed, but &c. as an Inuention of Pope Alexander; who liued Anno 109. after Christ &c. And it was applyed in the dayes of Gregorie by Augustin, to the Consecration of Churches, togeather with prayers for the casting out of the filth of Idols and Diuels. And of further vse of Holie-water in the Primitiue Church, see D. Fulk Fulk against Rhē. Test. in 1. Ti. 4. sec. 13. fol. 378. Parkins in Problem. p. 136. and M. Parkins.

Holie-bread is affirmed so plainly by S. Austin (de pec. merit. & remiss. l. 2. c. 26.) that D. Fulk Against He [...]kins &c. p. 377. doth therfore tearme it: A Superstitious bread, giuen in S. Austins time, to those that were Catechumens, insteed of the Sacrament. AndOf the Masse p. 51. Philip Morney chargeth S. Basils Liturgie, with Holie-bread, distributed after Ser­uice, to such as had not Communicated.

And as for Holie oyle, or Chrisme, the Centurists Cent. 6. col 367. charge S. Gregorie, out of his owne wrytings, with Consecration of Chrisme and oyle. Yea theyCent. 4. col. 865 503 1274 869. con­fesse, that in the Fourth Age, there was Consecration of Chrisme by a Bishop only: And that,Cent. 4. col. 420. Optatus sheweth that Chrisme was accustomed to be kept in a bottle. Yea theyCent. 5. col. 1386. relate of S. Martin that, A Mayde dumbe from her Mothers wombe. being brought vnto him, powring Holie oyle into her, & praying, he made her speak wel. But Hamelmanus De Tra­dit. Apost. 707. 737. Parkar against Sym­bolizing &c part. 1. sec. 11. p. 76. and M. Parker do both of them confesse, that S. Denys the Areopagite, maketh mention in his writings of Chrisme.

In like Sort is S. Gregorie reproued by M. Bale, In Act. Rom. Pont. p. 44. &c. for Consecration of Ashes &c. And for Dedicating the beginning of Lentfast, with sprinkling of Ashes.

12. But most obserued, & sundrie were the Ceremonies of Baptisme. S. Gregorie is charged by the Centurists, Cent. 6. col. 367. with Consecration of the Font of Baptisme. And they charge the Fathers of theCent. 4. col. 415. Fourth andCent. 3. col. 82. third Age, with consecration of the water of Ba­ptisme, with Abrenunciation, Exorcisme, Anoyling, threefold Immersion: And theyCent. 3. col. 8 [...]. say expresly of S. Cyprian, that he, In his first booke, and tweluth Epistle affirmeth, that the water must be first purifyed and Sanctifyed by the Priest, that it may by baptisme, wash away the sinnes of the man that is baptised; for which very saying, he is also reproued by M. Parker Against Symbolizing &c. prat. 1 sec. 35. p. 112 113. Hamel­man. de Tradit. Apost. l. 2. c. 7. col. 97. and Hamelmannus.

In Baptisme was likewise vsed the signe of the Crosse: So the Centurists Cent. 3. col. 125. And M. Spark in his Persua­sion to vni­form. p. 23. confesse, that Origen in his 2. Hom. vpon the 38. Ps. sheweth, that those who were Baptysed, were accustomed to be signed with the signe of the Crosse: of which Rite, Tertulian also maketh mention, in his booke De Resurrectione Carnis: And Cyprian also, in his booke of baptizing Hereticks, mentioneth the Impo­sition of hands, with prayer & Siging. And D. Beard cōfesseth that,Retra­ctiue from Romish Relig. p. 391. The Crosse & anoynting (in Baptisme) are of great Antiquitie. Such as were Baptised were also anoyled with holie Chrisme. Instit. l. 4. c. 17. sec. 43. Caluin sayth: If anie man wil defend those Inuentions with antiquitie, I am not ignorant, how ancient the vse of Chrisme, & exufflation, is in baptisme; how litle from the Apostles Age, the supper of the Lord was touched withrust &c. Perkins In the 2. vol. of his works. p. 653. confesseth that,Cent. 4. p. 390. This Vnction pertained to Baptysme in the West, til aboue 300. yeares after Christ. Cent. 6. col. 364. 365. Osiand. cent. 6. p. 289. 290. And Zepperus Politia Eccl. l. 1. c. 12. p 123. men­tioning Holie-water, oyle, salt, exorcisme, spitle &c. sayth: I confesse, these Superstitious Ceremonies are very ancient in the Church, & not manie Ages after the Apostles times; & in fur­therIbid. p. 124. 125 proofe therof, he alleageth those most famous & ancient Fathers S. Austin, S. Cyprian, and Tertullian.

And as concerning Exorcismes, Exufflations & other ancient rites of Baptisme,Compend. loc. 33. p. 264. Gesnerus auoucheth that, Exorcisme in Baptisme is much more anciēt then Papistrie; for Nazian­zene, Cyril, Cyprian, Ambrose & Austin make mention therof in manie places. The like ackno­wledgement wherof is also made byCommon places part. 4. c. 9. see 14. 15. p. 132. 133. Peter Martyr. M. Parker affirmeth, from the manie testimonies of Cyprian & Tertulian, by him alleaged in the Margēt, saying:Against Symbolizing wi [...] Antichrist. part. 2. sec. 8▪ p. 128 I know right wel, that within the 200. yeares after Christ, there were crept into the Church manie idle Ceremonies &c. There began in this mixt Age, Exufflation of the Baptised: Consecration of the Font with Oyle & Crosse: Oyle in Baptisme: The reseruing of the Sacrament: Exorcisme: Offring, & Prayer for the dead: Fasting on certaine dayes with opinion of necessitie & Satisfaction, and the seed of Monkerie: See then (sayth M. Parker) among what weeds the Crosse grew vp and in what a danged soyle of manie Superstitions &c. Ib. part. 1. p. 152. And part. 2 p 131. Yea he further alleageth Nazianzene reporting, that, Iulian agreably to our present Protestants) laught at the Sufflations of Baptisme. But Beza In Epist. Theol. ep. 8. p. 79. sayth in general, I can not sufficiently admire al that decking, wherwith euen the most ancient (Fathers) thought they could adorne Baptisme, & the Lordes Supper. And hauing recited sundrie of the former Rites, vsed as himself confesseth, euen by the most ancient, he yet tearmeth them, Stage-playes, follies; And further thus concludeth: Verily those that make the Apostles Authors of these follies, need no confutation, though they be neuer so ancient Writers: So insinuating the former Ceremonies to be ascribed euen to the Apostles themselues by most ancient Writers.

But to conclude, so great was the respect, which ancient Fathers had to holie Cere­monies, as that with the planting of true Faith & religiō, special care was had of Sacred Rites & Ceremonies, as an external ornament therof.Iesuit. part. 2 [...] 5. p. 5. & 627. D. Humfrey demanding, what Gregorie & Austin brought into the (English) Church? answereth, A burden of Ceremonies &c. They brought in the Archbishops Palle for the Solemnities of Masse, Purgatorie &c. The oblation of the wholesome Host, & prayers for the dead &c. Reliques &c. Transubstantiation &c. new Con­secrations [Page 90] of Temples &c. of al which, what els was sought, then that Indulgences, Monachisme, Pa­pistrie, & the whole Chaos of Popish Superstition should be built? These things Augustin the grea [...] Monk, taught by Gregorie the Monk, brought vnto the English. But yet more particularly saithCent. 6. p. 289. 290. Luke Osiander; Augustin thrust vpon the English Churches, the Roman Rates and Custome [...] to wit, Altars, Vestments, Images, Masses, Chalices, Crosses, Candlesticks, Censors, Bāners, Sacred vessels, Holie waters, and euen the bookes of Roman Ceremonies. Accordingly saithProt Appeal. l. 1. p 53 58. D. Morton; In the Innouating, and multiplying of new Rites, Gregorie himself was not the lea [...] Agent. As also, Be it knowne to al our Aduersaries, that the too manie Ceremonies vsed by S. Gre­gorie, can not excuse their now far more multitudes, nor can some of his not good, iustify their [...] worse Rites &c. In Praef. noui Testam, ad Principem Condenser Beza speaking of the times of Augustin, Chrysostome, & Cypria [...] affirmeth that,Cent. 4. col. 417. 418 419. & cent. 3. col. 114. 115 116. And see Eobanus in his libel. Theolog. p. 230. Some Bishops &c. applyed themselues to the building of Statelie Temples &c. [...] the increasing of Ceremonies &c. And that others, would not only not represse open Superstitio [...] arising, but also would mayntaine them. And a litle after he aoucheth directly that, At th [...] same time &c. the multitude of Ceremonies increased.

But I wil end with M. Calfehil, who, asIn his Reioynd to Martials Reply p. 131. 132 D. Fulk relateth of him, auoucheth is general that, The Fathers declined al from the Simplicitie of the Ghospel in Ceremonies. And withIn 1. Cor. c. 3. Melancthon who auerreth, that presently from the beginning of the Church, the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the iustice of Faith, encreased Ceremonies, and deuised peculiar worships. So disliking to our Protestants, was the Doctrine and Cere­monies vsed by the Fathers, euen from the beginning of the Church of Christ.

Here then we haue, besides the former more substancial poynts of Faith & Religion, euen the verie outward semblance & face of our present Roman Church, confessedly most like or agreeing to the ancient Primitiue, both of them teaching & vsing. First Hallowing or Consecration of Churches. Secondly, Dedication also of thē to Christ or some of his Saincts. Thirdly, Seuering thē also with vestries & Chancels. Fourthly, Placing in them Altars. Fyftly, with wax-candles & lamps burning in the day time. Sixtly, which also were vsed at Burials. Seauenthly, there were also in the Church, placed Images of Christ & his Saincts. Eightly, At the Altars serued Priests, who offered the Sacrifice of the Masse, & who at their Consecration were specially anoyn­ted, hauing afterwards their Crownes shauen. Ninthly the vestments & vessels vsed by the Priests in administration of the Sacrifice and Sacraments, were so peculiarly reuerenced, as that they were not to be touched by the Laitie. Tenthly, the Priests in time of Sacrifice sayd some prayers secretly, others audibly. Eleuenthly they kept also the Canonical Houres of Prime, Third, Sixt & Ninth. Tweluethly, with prayer also they hallowed water, bread, oyle, ashes & sundrie other creatures. Thirteenthly, as also the Font, & water of Baptisme, vsing in Baptisme the signe of the Crosse, Anoyling, Exorcismes, & sundrie such like, vsed euen at this day by the Roman Church; though greatly impugned and contemned by the Protestant Congregation.

Now the Doctours alleadged, & reiected by Protestants for the foresayd points, are S. Gregorie, Ambrose, Optatus, Petrus Alexand. Augustin, the Fathers of the Laodices Councel, Hierom, Theodoret, Naziazene, Cyril, Basil, Chrysostom, Eusebius, Sixtus, Cyprian, Atha­nasius, Stephen, Tertulian, Origen, and S. Denys, Scholler to S. Paule.

The Protestans producing and reiecting the foresaid Fathers, are the Centurists Crispinus, Carion, Osiander, Hospinian, Peter Martyr, Praetorius, Chemnitius, Schultetus, Zepperus, Bullinger, Mornay, Hamelmanus, Caluin, Gesnerus, Beza, Melancthon, Humfrey, Brightman, Fulk Raynolds, Bale, Carthwright, Iacob, Hutton, Spark, Willet, Whiteguift, Whitaker, Beard, Parker, Morton, Mason, Calfehil and Parkins.

THE THIRD BOOK, VVHERIN IS PROVED THAT THE CHVRCH OF PROTESTANTS vvas neuer knovvne or in Being before the dayes of Luther: And that the Articles of Religion novv taught by the Protestant Congregation, vvere Heresies condemned by the Primitiue Church of Christ.

IT IS CONFESSED BY PROTESTANTS, that from the dayes of the Apostles vntil the tyme of Luther, themselues neuer had any knovvne Church or Congregation, in anie part of the vniuersall Ʋvorld. CHAPTER I.

SEING contraries placed togeather do more clearely ap­peare, hauing hither to offred to the view of the indifferēt Reader, the clearest continuance of our Catholick Church, from the Apostles tymes to these our dayes: as also the cō ­fessed agreement throughout particular Congrouersies be­twene our present Roman, and the ancient Primitiue Church of Christians; I will now in further manifestation of the truth, no lesse clearely discouer the Protestant Churches inuisibilite, or rather nullitie & not-being, during the forsayd time from the Apostles to Luther.

The Proof whereof for these last thousand yeares, is so easie & obuious, as thatReioyn­der to Bri­stovv p. 341. D. Fulk plainly teacheth, that the Reuelation of Anti-Christ, vvith the (Protestant) Churches flight into vvildernes, was Anno 607. AndCata­logue of Doctours in the ep. to the Reader. Simon de Voyon affirmeth, that Anno 605. vvhen Pope Boniface vvas sealled in the Papal throne, then falsehood got the victorie, &c. then was that vniuersal Apostasie from the Faith foretold by Paule. Hist. Sacram. l. 2. p. 157. Hospinian assureth vs, that in the Age of Gregorie the Great, al kind of superstition and Idolatrie, as a sea ouerflovved, ouervvhelmed, and vvholy ouerdrovvned almost the vvhole Christian vvorld; no man not only not re­sisting, but al rather adding, and affording vvhat strength they could. So cleare it is, [Page 2] that in the verie time of S. Gregorie, no one Protestant was known to the Christian world, and much lesse was seene to resist, or hinder the swelling sea of Roman Religion.

But to proceed,Expo­sitio of the Creed. p. 307. M. Parkins auoucheth, that during the space of 900. yeares the Popish Heresie (for so do Hereticks stile it) hath spread itself ouer the vvhole earth, and the faithful seruants of God vvere but as a handful of vvheat in a mountaine of chaffe, vvhich can scarse be discerned Idib. p. 400. And againe, vve say, that for the space of manie hundred yeares, an vniuersal Apostasie ouerspred the vvhole face of the earth, and that our Prot. Church vvas not then visible to the vvorld, but lay hid vnder the chaffe of Poperie. M. Bale affirmeth, that from the yeare 607. puritie of Heauenlie (or Protestāt) doctrine, Cent. 1. p. 69. vanished in the Church. Cent. 1. p. 65. And that, after Gregorie the First, puritie of doctrine perished. And that from Phocas (the Em­perour, who liued Anno 602.) til the renevving of the Ghospel (by Luther) the doctrine of Christ, vvas for that space among Idiots, and in lurking holes. In hy­potes. pos. Theolog. l. 3. p. 110. 111. Brumlerus acknowledgeth, that the Prot. Church begunne to lie hid An. 800. an vniuersal Apostacie being made, Antichrist being placed in the Temple of God, the Church fled into the desert, and there fed by God for a time, & times, and halfe a time. And whereas the true Church cannot consist without true Pastours,Tract. Theolog. p. 374. and preaching; yet M. Caluin confesseth, that so for some Ages the (Prot.) Church was torne and pulled in sunder, that she had no true Pastours; and that for some Ages the pure preaching of the word vanished away. Now if I should demand of Caluin, or anie his Followers, how the pretended Protestant people of those Ages could possibly beleeue, and so be saued, if during those Ages, they neither had preaching, nor Pastours to preach and minister Sacra­ments, I might expect for my best answer the deepest silence.

But the more I wade herein, the lesse do I find anie bottome of the Protestant Churches latencie, or not-being: For examining the verie time of Luthers first beginning, I find it directly cōfessed byApo­logie of the Church of Engl. part. 4. c. 4 And his defen. of the Apol. p. 426. D. Ievvel, that the Protestant Truth vvas vnknovvne at that time, and vnheard of, when Martin Luther, and Vlderick Suinglius first came vnto the Knovvledge and preaching of the Ghospel. In Au­gust. Cōfess. explicat. c. 7. de Eccle. p. 137. Miluius argueth thus: If there had bene right beleeuers that vvent before Luther in his office, &c. there had then been no need of a Lutheran reformation.

De Eccl. p 145. Morgensterne censureth it ridiculous, to thinke that in the time before Lu­ther anie had the puritie of doctrine; and that Luther should receiue it from them, and not they from Luther. Considering (saith he) it is manifest to the whole Christian world, that before Luthers time al Churches were ouerwhelmed with more then Cim­merian darkenes. Liber Apologet. p. 176. Regius being vrged to tel what Congregation or Pro­testant Clergie Luther found in the world at his reuolt, answereth that before Luther there was a Clergie of the true Religion, which agreed with Luther in al things. But being to answer where this Congregation was then to be found, he hath no other help but to confesse, that is was not knowne by the Papists; neither through the Tyrānie of the Pope could peraduenture be visibly showne. A strāge answer, that it should be vnknowne to the Papists, & yet the per­secution by the Pope should make it vnknowne, as though Fairies inui­sible could be persecuted by Papists. But he goeth forward saying: Therefore when the Iesuites vrge, that Luther should shew (verae Religionis asseclam Ecclesiam) his fellow-Church of the true Religion, they wil that Luther demonstrate contradi­ction [Page 3] in tearmes; and that he proue that which is inuisible to be visible. So cleare a Contradiction to the truth it is, to affirme the Protestant-visibilitie at Lu­thers first beginning.

To the former demand, the like answere is giuen byIn A­pocal. c. 11. p. 283. M. Brightman, Contra Bell. contr. 2. q. 5. p. 261. saying: The Church before Luther, was in Gods hidden Vestrie; and byVpon the Reuela. p, 199. M. Dent affirming, that as then Christ had his little flock in the wildernes; and by D.Tom. Vvittemb. in praefat. & see Tom. 2. Vvitēb fol. 63 & Tom. 3. fol. 555. Whitaker teaching, that the Church then lay hid in the wildernes.

But none acknowledgeth this truth more plainly then Luther, himself saying: At the first I was alone. And, I dare glory that Christ was made first knowne by me; but with the denial hereof Suinglius doth dishonour me. YeaLoc. com. class. 5. c. 15. p. 50. speaking of the Sacramentaries, he glorieth and sayth: without vs, and before vs, they were nothing; truly they durst not mutter; now puffed vp with our victorie, they bend their force against vs. And in this regard,In praefat. in corpus do­ctrinae Lyp­siae 1561. & Epist. ad Argentinē ­ses. Ep. ad Episcop. Hereford. praefix. E­narrat. Eu­ceri in E­uang. and see his scri­pta Angli­cana. p. 675 Bucer tearmeth Lu­ther, the first Apostle to vs of the purer Ghospel. YeaEpist. 141 p. 273. Caluin speaking of the same times sayth: Seing we are compelled to make a departure from the whole world, it is absurd one to disagree with another. So clearly was the Protestant Religion as then, dissenting from the Religion of the whole world.

In like ful manner saythEpist. Iesuit. part. alt. p. 49. Cannerus: The poyson of the Arrians infected not some litle part, but almost the whole world &c. we are come vnto those times, which euen exceed the confusion of the Arrian furie: Errour hath possessed not one litle part or other, but Apostasie hath auerted the whole bodie from Christ. By which it appea­reth, that euen at these first beginnings of Luther, not only one member or parcel, but euen the whole bodie of Christianitie, was auerted from Pro­testancie, the Church of Protestants as then not being being knowne to haue the least Being, in the smalest parcel or member of the same bodie.

The like obscuritie, or nullitie of the Protestant Church, at Wicclifs first reuolt from the Catholick Faith, is confessed byAct. mon p. 85. M. Fox in these wordes: Out of al doubt, al the world was in a desperate and vile estate, and lamentable ignorance, and darkenes of Gods truth had ouershaddowed the whole earth, when Iohn Wiccliffe stepped forth, as the morning starre in the midst of a cloud. And againeAct. mon p 391. In times of horrible darkenes, when there seemed in a manner to be no one so litle sparke of pure Protestant doctrine left or remaining, Wiccliffe by Gods prouidence rose vp, through whom the Lord would first awaken and raise vp againe the world &c.Estate of the Chur­ch. p. 418. Crispinus also auoucheth that Ihon Wiccliffe beganne as from a deepe night, to draw out the truth of the doctrine of the Sonne of God. And D.Vita Iuelli p 263 Humfrey affirmeth, that Ihon Wiccliffe in these last times was almost the first Trum­peter of this Ghospel: In so much thatCent. 9. 10. 11. p. 439. Osiander confesseth, that he as then had not (so much as anie) Companions of that time brotherly to admonish him. So assured we may rest, that at Wiccliffs time, the Protestant Church was ouershaddowed with horrible darkenes, not so much as one litle spark of pure Protestancie, appearing in the world.

But yet neither was Wiccliffe himself Protestant; for besides his sundrie Catholick opinions before proued, it is testifyed of Wiccliffe to the con­trarie, by Melancthon Ep. [...] Frider. mi­cō inter ep. Suinglii p. 612. saying: I haue looked into Wiccliffe, who maketh a great ado about this Controuersie (of the Eucharist) but I haue found manie other errours in him, by which we may iudge of his Spirit; surely he neither vnderstood, nor held the Iustice of Faith; which onlie point is so necessarie to the Saluation of [Page 4] Protestants, that Luther sayth therof:Praefat. Ep. ad Gal. If article of Iustification (by onlie Faith) be once lost, then is al true Christian doctrine lost: And as manie as hold not that doctrine, are Iewes, Turkes, Papists, or Hereticks. Againe, by this only doctrine the Church is built, and in this it consisteth. In c. 1. ad Gal. If we neglect the article of Iustifica­tion, we loose al togeather. ForIn c. 2. ad Gal. it is the principal article of al Christian do­ctrine; al other articles are comprehended in it. It is the foundation (sayth M.Act. mon p. 840 Fox) of al Christianitie: and the Ibid. p. 770. only origin of our Saluation. It is the Tovver Desp. soule of the Church, sayth D. Chark. Now this soule, foundation, principal Article of Prote­stancie, Wiccliffe did not beleeue. Yea such were the demerits of Wiccliffe, that D.Antiqu. l 2. p. 268. Caius obiecteth him to the Oxonians, as a disgrace to their Vni­uersitie. And Melancthon censureth him to haue beenLoc. com Tit de Pot. Eccl. A mad man; and sundrie his grosse errours and Paradoxes condemned both by Catholicks and Protestants wil discouer hereafter; so litle cause haue the Protestants to appeale to Wiccliffe for the continuance of their Church in his time.

Now as concerning Waldo Estate of the Church. p. 338. Crispinus confesseth, Waldo his beginning, to haue been in time of thick darkenes, and as a first & little begining, of the instau­ration of Christian Religion.

But whereas Father Campian, Rat. 3. affirmeth, that the Protestants can­not for manie Ages togeather, giue exāple so much as of anie one Cittie, vil­lage, or house, professing their doctrine; Resp. ad rat. Cā ­piani rat. 3 p. 48. D. Whittaker coming to answer thy very point, telleth in general, that in the worst times manie Faithful were found, and that all Histories do witnesse this: But being prouoked to giue par­ticular instance out of anie one Historie, either of time, or person, he be­cometh mute; affirming in the same place directly to the contrarie that, In the times of the Apostles al Churches, al Citties, al Townes, al Families embraced the same Religion which we (Protestants) professe: Afterwards by litle and litle, the purritie of doctrine began to be corrupted, and much superstition more and more to be spred abroad; to which yet the most holie Fathers resisted what they could, vntil that mysterie of iniquitie, which tooke roote euen in the Apostles Age, went through al the partes of the Church, and so at last possessed the whole Church. So true it is that for manie Ages togeather, insteed of anie Instance of the Prote­stant Churches being, Popish pretended superstition possessed euen the whole Church.

But some may say, the Protest. Churches inuisibilitie for these last 1000. yeares, is a point vndoubted, and for such by themselues formerly and fully confessed: But it is the Primatiue Church of the first 600. yeares, wherein they glory their Church was most splendent, knowne, and conspicuous.

Now of al the Ages of the Primitiue Church, none is more famous or better knowne, or wherein Christian Religion more clearly shined ouer the whole face of the earth, then the Age of Constantin, whereof say theCent. 4 Ep. dedic. Reginae Eli­zabeth. Centurists: The state of the Church at (Constantins) time illustrated the whole world with her splendour. And D. Morton styleth Constantin himself: TheProt. Appeal. l. 2. p. 328 great and first Christian Emperour, so greatly honoured in the first and most famous Synode of Nice. And yet in so great a Sun-shine of Christs true Church, it was impossible as then, to see a Protestant Chappel; for M.In A­pocalyp. in his synopsis before the Booke. A 1. § 11 Brightman teacheth, that the Protestant Church, from the times of Constantin, for 1260. yeares, was hid &c. AndIb A. 2 §. 14. And see p. 383. againe, for 1000. yeares from Constantin, the [Page 5] was conuersant with Christ in most hidden dens: Yea, asIbid. p. 326. then there were no Protestant publick assemblies, wherein the Diuine Institutions did wholy flourish: So Constantin, a sonne of the Church (saith he) did more hurt, then an Enemie: AsIbid. p. 577. & see p. 341. also, the want of publick Religion hath been manie Ages, to wit, from Constantin the Great, to this day; al which time Antichrist raigned, whilst the Woman (the Pro­testant Church) liued in the desert. To the same effect sayth M. Napper: Vpon the Reuelat. p. 161. From the yeare of Christ 316. God hath withdrawne his visible Church, from outward assemblies, to the harts of particular godlie men &c. during the space of 1260. yeares Gods true Ibid. p. 191. Church most certainly abiding so long latent and Ibid. p. 161. 156. 237. 23. 188. inuisible; the Pope Ibid. p. 145. and his Clergie, during al that time, possessing the outward visible Church of Christians; And,Ibid. p. 239. neuer suffering, for the space of a 1000. yeares after Syluester the First, anie to be seene vouchable or visible, of the true Church. Whereby it is confessed as most certaine, that at Constantins time, and euer since vntil Luthers, there was neuer anie publick Church of Protestants, or their poorest Congregation, seen or knowne in the world.

But to enquire yet further for a Protestant Church, in anie Age betweene Constantin and the Apostles: It is likewise acknowledged by M. Napper, Vpon the Reuelat. p. 191. and see cent. 2. c. 4. coll. 35. that during euen the second, and third Ages (next after Christ) the true temple of God, and light of the Ghospel, was obscured by the Roman Antichrist himself; whereto assentIn Bā ­crofts sur­uey c. 27. p. 343. both M. Cartwright & Beza. D. Fulke Answ. to a Counter. Cath. p. 35. auoucheth, that the true Church (of Protestants) decayed immediatly after the Apostles times. AndDe am­plitudine regni Dei. l. 1. p. 43. Caelius Secundus Curio, further sayth: Are we ignorant in how great darknes, blindenes, and ignorance, the world hath continued, almost from the Apostles Age, to these verie times, in which aboue al expectation the Lord began to manifest himself? In like sort it is affirmed by anotherAnti-Christus siue prognostica finis mundi. p. 13. Protestant, that from the Apostles time til Luther, the Ghospel neuer had open passage. Ep. de Abrogandi statutis Ec­clesiasticis. Sebastianus Francus auerreth that, Presently after the Apostles, al things were turned vpside downe &c. And that for certayne through the worke of Antichrst, the external Protestant Church, togeather with the Faith and Sacraments, vanished away presently after the Apostles departure. And that, for these 1400. yeares, the (Protestant) Church hath been no where external & visible. Lastly D. Downeham Antip l. 2. p. 25. teacheth that the general defectiō of the visible Church (foretold 2. Thessal. 2.) began to work in the Apostles times. Most certainly then we may conclude, that the Church of Protestants was wan­ting and vnknowne, euen in S. Pauls time; and so continued in the darkest lakes of Auernus, vntil Luther sent out by Pluto, enlighetned the world, by the comfortable beames of his libertine Ghospel.

So cleare and vndoubted then it is, that this new Protestant Congre­gation was neuer knowne to the world, before the dayes of Luther, that we produce only in proofe therof for witnesses the Protestant writers, the Centurists, Hospinian, Simon de Voyon, Bumlerus, Luther, Caluin, Beza, Miluius, Morgensterne, Rhegius, Bucer, Camerus, Crispinus, Osiander, Curio, Sebastianus Francus, Humfrey, Fulk, Parkins, Brightman, Dent, Fox, Napper, Cartwright, Downham, Whittaker, and Iewel.

A FVRTHER CONVINCING PROOF OF THE Protestant Churches not being, during the first 600. yeares, is taken from the Fathers Condemning in the ancient Hereticks the chiefest articles of the Protestant Religion, and our Protestants Confessing the same. And First Concerning the Sacraments. CHAPTER II.

AS it is most certaine, that the Protestant Church and Reli­gion, was neuer hard or knowne of, in anie Age whatsoeuer precedent to ours: So it may not be denied, but that in se­ueral Ages, there haue some gone out of our Catholick Church, who teaching or professing some one or other ar­ticle contrarie to the same, were euer condemned by the Doctours and Pastours of the sayd Church for Hereticks,Cent. 5. col. 585. and their opinions for Here­tical; amongst which to treat only of such as are now renewed, defended, and beleeued by the Protestant Church, I wil beginne with the holie Sacraments.

And first concerning Baptisme; wheras Caluin, Beza, Morton, and other Protestants, do al of them teach, that children dying vnbaptized may be saued: This errour was condemned in the Pelagians by S. Augustin, who reporteth that amongst other their errours, they taught that children might haue life Haer. 88. contra Iul. Pelag. l. 6. c. 7. euerlasting, although they were not Baptized; which opinionIn rescr. ad Meleuit. Concil. and Leo ep. 86. Innocentius tearmeth in them to be very foolish: This errour of Pelagians is so certaine, that it is confessed and reported by the Centurie-writers, and byLoc. com. fol. 88. Sarcerius. In like sortSynopsis 415. & vpō the 122. Ps. Fulk against Purgatorie p. 35. D. Willet, & D. Fulk denying remission of sinnes, and grace to be giuen by Baptisme, are condemned in the Manichees by the acknowledgement ofContra Dureum l. 10. 883. & Sarcerius loc. com. Tom. 1. de Baptismo fol 232. D. Whitaker, saying of him selfe, & some other Pro­testants: Wee beleeue and teach, that Sinnes are forgiuen, and grace conferred in Baptisme; which the Manichees were accustomed to deny.

The denial of Exorcisme and Exsufflation vsed in Baptisme, was con­demned in Iulianus the Pelagian, wherof saythDe impe­rijs & con­cupis. li. 2. c. 29. &c. 17. & cont. Iulian Pela. l. 6. c. 2. S. Augustin: Iulian reproa­cheth the most ancient tradition of the Church, wherby children are exorcised, and breathed vpon. AndAgainst Symbolizin. part. 1. sect. 13 p. 152. & part. 2. sect. 9. p. 131. M. Parker alleageth Nazianzen reporting, that Iulian laught at the sufflations of Baptisme.

To come to the Eucharist, Theo­doret dial. 3. S. Ignatius affirmeth of certaine Hereticks of his time: That they do not admit Eucharists and oblations, because they do not confesse, the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sinnes. These words are acknowledged and cited for the saying of S. Ignatius, byde Tradit Apost. col. 746. Chem. Exam. part. 1. p. 94. Simon method. ali­quot locor. part. 3. fol. 172. Reci­tationes de Concilo Scripti libri Concord. p. 177. Hamelmannus, Chemnitius, Symon Pauli, and other Protestants.

Communion vnder both kindes, was condemned in Nestorius; Vrbanus Rhegius [Page 7] sayth hereof:Loc. com. fol. 56. Nestorius communicated the Laïtie vnder both kindes, (but) the Councel of Ephesus withstood him.

The denial of the B. Sacraments Reseruation (which Protestants now ge­nerally deny) was condemned in the Anthropomorphites, of whom sayth S. Cyril: I heare Ad Ca­losyrium. they say that the mystical blessing, if anie remnants therof do remaine, til the next day following, is vnprofitable to sanctification; but they are mad in so saying; for Christ is not made an other; neither shal his bodie be changed, but the vertue of blessing and liuely grace, do alwayes remaine in it. This censure of S. Cyril is confessed and disliked byCont Gandiner Ecl. 838. Peter Martyr, as also byAg. Hoskins. p. 83. Oecolam. lib. 3. Epist. p. 689. D. Fulk; and Oecolampadius, who answering hereunto sayd: Cyril wrote this against the Anthropomorphites, who taught that the bodie of Christ was corrupted, if the remnants of the Sacraments were corrupted. But this most strongly confirmeth both Reseruation, and Real presence; for how could the Anthropomorphites think Christs bodie to haue been corrupted, the Sacrament being corrupted, had they not thought, Christs bodie to haue been in the Sacrament, & the same as then vsually reserued?

The denial of Priests power to remit sinne in the Sacrament of Pennance, was condemned in the Nouatians, against whom writeth S. Ambrose l. 1. de Remit. c. 2. &c. 7. thus: They say they giue the reuerence to God, to whom alone, they reserue the power of forgiuing sinnes: but none do greater iniurie vnto him, then those who wil breake his commandments; for seing our Lord himself in his Ghospel hath sayd: Receaue you the Holie-Ghost, whose sinnes you shal remit, they shal be remitted &c. who doth more honour him, he who obeyeth his commandments, or who resisteth?

To omit the like censure giuen by Pacianus Ep. 1. ad Sympron. against Sympronianus the Nouatian; Socrates relateth the Heretick Acesius to haue sayd, that sinners Hist. Trip. l. 2. c. 13. were to be inuited to Pennance, but the hope of Remission they were not to haue from Pirests, but from God alone, who hath power to forgiue sinnes; which when he had spoken, the Emperour sayd, O Acesius, set a ladder, and if thou canst, ascend alone to Heauen. So strange and singular in those times, was this opinion of the Nouatians; and yet this Historie is so true, that it is recorded and con­fessed byCent. 4. p. 119. Chē. Exam. part. 1. p. 188. & part. 2. p. 193. Cent. 4. col. 653. Osiander, Chemnitius, and the Centurie-writers: And M. Dilingam Disp de natura P [...]n. p. 12. granteth that, The Nouatians did reserue to God alone the power of forgiuing sinnes; do so Protestants? sayth he: And may not I rather say, and that most truly, that Protestants do so: and therin are right Nouations? For what Protestants in England dare publickly now auouch, that Ministers haue power, not onely to declare, but truly to forgiue sinne, and that remission of sinnes is not reserued to God alone?

In like sorte, concerning Pennance inioyned after Confession, Theodoret reproueth the Hereticks Audiam, l. 4. her. Fab. de Au­diant. for that: They giue remission to such as are confessed, without prescribing time for Pennance, as the Lawes of the Church com­mande. Concerning the Sacrament of Confirmation or Chrisme, the Nouatians, as Theodoret testifieth, were farther condemned, for that They l. 3. her. fab. 2. [...]aue not holie Chrisme, to those who were Baptized by them. And Eusebius testifieth, that Nouatius himself being Baptized, was not confirmed by a Bishop, which he wan­ting, sayth Eusebius, how could he obtayne the holy Ghost? Optatus reprouethl. 2. con­tra Dona­tistas. the Donatists, for that they caused the reserued Eucharist, to be throwne to dogs, which dogs, thervpon al raging, rent in peeces their Maisters, as guiltie of [Page 8] the holie Bodie: They also threw out of the window a vial (or litle bottle) of Chrisme, to the intent to breake it, Hist. li. 6. c. 35. & see M. Parker against Sym­bolyzing p. 77. 96. 97. the which being stayed by an Angels hand, God preseruing it, light safe amongst the stones.

For the denial of the external Sacrifice of the Masse, Ignatius before cen­sured certain Hereticks, saying: They do not admit Eucharists and oblations, because they do not confesse the Eucharist, to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesus Christ &c. And S. Augustin Tom. 6. cont. Aduen legis and Prophet. c. 19. condemneth the Manichees, for denying external sacrifice; of whom he further sayth: The Tom. 6. cont. faust. Manich. l. 20. c. 18. Manichees being ignorant, what is to be condemned in the Sacrifices of the Gentils, and what to be vnderstood in the Sa­crifices of the Hebrewes, and what to be holden or obserued in the Sacrifice of Christians, do Sacrifice their owne vanitye to the Diuel.

Yea, the Armenians Conc. 6. Constātinop. can. 32. were condemned, for not mingling water with wine in the Chalice in time of the Sacrifice; against whom was vrged the authoritie of S. Iames and S. Basil: And S. Cyprian (28) affirmeth, against the Hereticks Aquarij, that in the chalice of our Lord, water alone cannot be offred, neither wine alone &c.

And as concerning Altars, vpon which this sacrifice was offred, Optatus L. 6. cont. Dona­tist. sayth vnto the Donatists: What is so Sacrilegious, as to breake, scrape, and remoue the Altars of God, in which sometimes yourselues haue offred? For what is the Altar, but the seat of the Bodie and Bloud of Christ? These al your furie hath scraped, or broken, or remoued &c. What hath Christ offended you, whose Bodie and Bloud there resided at certaine times? l. 2. Ep. 3 What haue your selues offended, that you should breake those Altars &c. So clearly, was our Protestants furie and malice in ruining Altars, long before condemned, in the Heretical Donatists.

And thus we see our moderne Protestants, agreeing first with the Pe­lagians, in denying the necessitie of Baptisme, and grace, & remission of sinnes to be giuen thereby; as also the Ceremonies of Exorcisme and Exsufflation, to be therefore in them, and the Manichees, condemned for Hereticks by S. Augustin. Secondly, their denying of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, was con­demned in most ancient Hereticks by S. Ignatius. Thirdly, their denying of Cōmunion vnder one kinde, was condemned in the Nestorians by the Councel of Ephesus. Fourthly, Their denyal the B. Sacraments Reseruation, was condemned in the Anthropomorphites by S. Ciril. Fiftly, the denial of Priests power to remit sinne, was condemned in the Nouatians by S. Ambrose. Sixtly, in whom also was condemned the denial of Confirmation and Chrisme, by Theodoret and others. Seauenthly, the denial of External Sacrifice, was condemned in the Manichees by S. Augustin, and in others by S. Ignatius. Eightly, the not min­gling of water with wine in the Chalice, was condemned in the Armenians by the 6. Councel of Constantinople, and in the Aquarij by S. Cyprian. Ninthly, & the breaking and casting downe of Altars, was condemned in the Donatists by Optatus. And so I leaue it to the iudgement of anie indifferent man, whe­ther it standeth with more discretion and securitie, concerning the former points of Faith and Religion, to ioyne in profession and beleef, with S. Ignatius, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Augustin, S. Cyril, Theodoret, Optatus, and the present Catholik Roman Church, or with the most infamous and condem­ned Hereticks, the Pelagians, the Manichees, the Donatists, the Nestorians, the Nouatians, the Antropomorphites, the Aquarij, the Armenians, and the present Pro­testant Church.

THAT THE FATHERS CONDEMNED in ancient Hereticks the opinions of Protestants con­cerning the Scriptures, and the Church Mili­tant, and Triumphant. CHAPTER. III.

TO examine now such doctrines, as concerne the sacred Scripures, and the Church both Militant, and Triumphant: It hath been obserued in al Hereticks, to pretend only Scrip­ture in defence of their errours, therby to euade the mani­fest and most conuincing arguments from Councels, Fa­thers, and Histories. So S. Hilarie Orat. 2. cont. Con­stantium. wisheth vs to remember, (that there) is no Heretick, (which) doth not faigne, that the blasphemies which he teacheth, are according to the Scripture. And S. Austin L. 1. de Trinit. c. 3. affirmeth, that al Hereticks endeuour to defend their false and deceiptful opinions, out of the Scriptures: Yea he reprouethL. 1. con. Maxim. Maximinus the Arian, for saying (as Protestants now do) If thou shal bring anie thing from the sacred Scripture, which is common to al, it is needful we heare you: But these wordes which are out of the scripture, in no case are to be receaued of vs. In like sort, sayth S. Vincent: L. 1. cōt. haeret. If one shal aske anie Heretick &c. from whence do you proue, from whence do you teach, that I ought to forsake the vniuersal and an­cient Faith of the Catholick Church? Presently he (answereth) for it is written; and forth with he prepareth a thousand testimonies, a thousand examples, a thousand autho­rities, from the Law, from the Apostles, from the Prophets &c. Agreeably here­vnto the Arrians denied, the Sonne of God to be consubstantial to his Fa­ther, because the word Consubstantial is no where in the Scriptures, as S. Athanasius, S. Austin, and S. Hierome testifie in sundry places writing against them.

The Macedonians Basil. de Spiritu Sancto c. 25. & l. 1. contr. Eu­nomium. and Eunomians denyed, the Holie-Ghost to be equal with the Father and the Sonne, because in their opinion, it is no where expresly set downe in the Scriptures. TheCyril. Socrates and others writing of the Ne­storians. Nestorians denyed, the B. Virgin Marie to be the Mother of God, because these wordes are not ex­presly in Scripture: And the selfe same pretense of only Scripture, is stil vsed now by Protestants, as I haue proued at large els-where.

The continuance and visibilitie of the Church of Christ, was denied by the Donatists, of whom S. Austin affirmeth, that they vsed to collect cer­taine places of Scripture, and to wrest them against the church of God, that so it might be thought, to haue fayled and perished out of the whole world. And as Pro­testants say now, of the Church before Luthers time,de vnita. Eccl. c. 2. so sayd the Donatists before:August. in Ps. 101. Conc. 2. The Church hath reuolted and perished out of al Countries: But this (saith S. Austin) say they, who are not in it; Or impudent speech! The claime of Eccle­siastical Primacie was condemded in the Emperour Constantius, to whom [Page 10] Osius Athan. Epist. ad Solit. vit. agentes. Ambr. Ep. 32. 33. Sozom. l. 6. c. 7. Conc. 3. Carthag. can. 9. Aug. Ep 48. 50. 162. 165. sayd: I. beseech thee cease, and remember thou art mortal; be fearful of the day of Iudgement; keepe thyself pure against that day; do not intermedle in Eccle­siastical affaires, neither commande vs in this kind, but rather learne those things from vs. God hath committed the Empire to thee; and to vs, those things which belong to the Churches. Take heede least drawing vnto thee such things as concerne the Church, thou be guiltie of great crimes. And againe; for who, seeing him in decreeing to make himself the Prince of Bishops, and to be cheef Iudge in Ecclesiastical Iudgement, wil not iustly say, that he is that abhomination of Desolation which was foretold by Daniel? Herof also theCent. 4 col. 549. Polanus in Symphonia p. 836. 837. 8 [...]8. 839. 841. 842. 843. 844. 849. Cart­wright in whiteg. def. p. 700. Osiand. cent. 4. p. 477. Centurists: Emperours also sometimes vnfittingly assumed to themselues the Iudgement of matters of Faith, which thing Athanasius reprehendeth in Constantius, and Ambrose in Valentinian &c.

The denial of Inuocation of Saints, was condemned in Vigilantius the He­retick, of whomAnswer to a Count. Cath. p. 46. Par. against Symb. part. 1. p. 74. 83. Cent. 4. col. 1250. Crisp. his Estate of the Church p. 131. Osian. cent. 4. p. 506. D. Fulk sayth: Last of al Vigilantius shal be brought in, who wrot against Inuocation of Saints, Superstition of Reliques, and other Ceremonies; him Hierome reproueth. And the same is confessed of Vigilantius, by M. Parker, the Centurists, Crispinus, and Osiander. In like sorte D. Sarauia, and Beza do both of them affirme, that Aerius was likewise condemned by the Fathers, for his then teaching, that the Saincts departed are not to be prayed vnto. The which also is acknowledged byLoc. com. p. 514 Bucanus, against Aerius.

The denial and contemning of Saincts Reliques, is condemned in Eu­nomius, and Vigilantius; whereof saythDe Ecl. dog. c. 73 see Chemnit. Exam. part. 4. p. 7. S. Austin: We beleeue that the bodies of Saincts, and especially the Reliques of Blessed Martyrs, are most intirely to be honoured if anie man contradict this, he is supposed not to be a Christian; a but an Eunomian, and Vigilantian. So likewise the Arrians and Vigilantius, denying the Diuels to be tormented by the Reliques of Martyrs, are condemned therefore, the first by S. Ambrose Ser. 93. De Inuent. corpo. S. Geruasij & Protasij. the second byContr. Vigil. c. 4. S. Hierome.

The denial of the Images of Christ, and his Saincts, was condemned in Xenaias, of whom saythHist. Eccl. lib. 16. c. 27. Nicephorus: That Xenaias first (ô audacious soule, and impudent mouth) vomited forth that speech: That the Images of Christ, and those who haue pleased him, are not to be worshipped. According to which the ProtestantCom­ment. in proc. Chronol. l. 7. at Antichr. 494. see Cedemus in Compend. hist. Functius confesseth that,Defen. Tract. de diuersi. p. 349. 346. Xenaias first raised warres in the Church against Images.

The denial of the signe of the Crosse, was condemned in some ancient Magicians, of whom thus writethHist. li. 3. c. 3. Theodoret; The Diuels appearing in their accustomed shape, feare compelled Iulian (the Emperour) to signe his forehead with the signe of the Crosse; whereupon the Diuels, beholding the figure of our Lords victorie, and remembring their owne ruine, forthwith vanished away &c. Iulian affirmed, that he greatly admired the vertue of the Crosse, and that the Diuels fled away, because they could not endure the signe therof; to whom the Magician sayd; Do not so think; for they do not feare for that reason which you alleage, but detesting your fact, they with­drew themselues from our sight. Wherupon (sayth Theodoret) so wretched Iulian was deceaued by him &c. And yet the ProtestantCent. 4. p. 326. Osiander is not ashamed, to iustify this foresayd speech of the Magician, affirming of this example, that the Diuels by dissembling their flying away, would confirme the superstition of the people, as though (sayth he) Diuels were driuen away, by the signe of the Crosse. And whereas manie miracles haue been wrought in the Church, by the signe of the Crosse, by the Relicks of Saincts, and sundrie other such holie helpes; the Arrians vsed, to attribute the same to witchraft, and deceits [Page 11] of the Diuel; hereof saythSerm. 93. de Sāctis Geruasio & Protasio. S. Ambrose: The Diuels say to Martyrs, you are come to destroy vs; the Arrians say, these are not true torments of Diuels, but only faigned and affected scoffes. For the same causeCont. Vigil. c. 4. S. Hierome reproueth Vigilantius, saying: According to the custome of the Gentils, and of wicked Porphorie, and Eunomius, thou faignest these to be the sleights of the Diuels, and that the Diuels do not truly crye, but only counterfaite their torments &c. AndDe per­secut. Van­dal. l. 2. Victor reporting, how the Catholick Bishop Eugenius, hauing restored sight to one Felix that was blind, signing his eies with the Standard of the Crosse, a thing (sayth he) manifest to al the Congregation, he farther reporteth, that the Arrian Bishops sayd, that Eugenius did this by witchcraft. And the selfe same answer, is giuen to S. Martius Miracles, by the Centurie writers, and to the Miracles of holie Symeon, byAni­maduers. p. 612. 613. 614. Hosp. de monach. fol. 24. Funius, and Hospinian, and to the Miracles of B. Aman, by In Ep. Parte alt. Part. Cont. Bellar. 1066 Daneus.

The denial of Purgatorie, of prayers, and Sacrifice for the dead, was con­demned in Aerius, by S. Austin, Haer. 53. Epiph. haer. 75. and S. Epiphanius, wherof sayth D. Fulk: Answ. to a coun­terfait Cath. p. 44. 45. I wil not dissemble that, which you thinke the greatest matter; Aerius taught that prayer for the dead was vnprofitable, as witnesse both Epiphanius, and Austin, which they count for an errour. Cent. 5. col. 1393. Cent. 4. p. 434. Osiander reciting the condemned errours of Aerius, amongst the rest numbreth this, That we ought not to pray, or offer Sacri­fice for the dead. And D. Field sayth: The eleuenth, is the Heresie of Aerius, he con­demned the custome of the Church, in naming the dead at the Altar, and offring of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist &c. He was iustly condemned. And the same errour in Aerius, is expresly confessed byChrono. p. 28. Bul. de enigm. erro­ris fol. 222. Hosp. hist. Sacr. par. 1. p. 155. Abb. in Defence of the refor. Cath. part. 3. in his aduer­tisment the­rio ann [...]xed p. 106. Pantaleon, by Bullinger, by Hospinian, and D. Abbot.

From the premisses then we may obserue, First, that our moderne Pro­testants appealing to only Scripture, are condemned in the Arrians, by S. Austin; and in other Hereticks, by S. Hylarie, and other Fathers; and in the Ma­cedonians and Eunomians, by S. Basil; and in the Nestorians, by S. Cyril. Secondly, their denying the visibilitie of Christs Church, was condemned in the Dona­tists, by S. Austin. Thirdly their, giuing Ecclesiastical Primacie to temporal Princes, was condemned in Constantius by S. Athanasius; and in Valentinian, by S. Am­brose. Fourthly, their denying of Inuocation of Saints, was condēned in Vigilan­tius by S. Hierome. Fiftly, the dishonouring of Saints Reliques, was condemned in Eunomius and Vigilantius, by S. Austin, and S. Hierome; and in the Arrians by S. Ambrose. Sixtly, the denying of holie Images, was condemned in Xenaias, Of the Church. li. 3. p. 138. by Nicephorus. Seauenthly, the denying of the signe of the Crosse, and the vertue thereof, was condemned in Magicians, by Theodoret. Eightly, denying of Miracles, and imputing them to witchcraft and the deceipts of the Diuel, was condemned in the Arrians, by S. Ambrose, & in Vigilantius by S. Hierome. Ninthly, the denial of Purgatorie, and Praier for the dead, was condemned in Aerius, by S. Austin and S. Epiphanius. Now let the Iudicious Reader make choice, whether in the foresaid points of doctrine, he wil ioyne in vnion of Faith, with S. Athanasius, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Austin, S. Hilarie, S. Basil, S. Cyril, Theodoret, Socrates, Sozomene, Vincent, and the present Roman Church; or with the condemned Hereticks, Arrians, Macedonians, Eunomians, Nestorians, Donatists, Vigilantians, Aerians, Image-breakers, Magicians, and the present Protestant Church.

THAT THE FATHERS CONDEMNED in ancient Hereticks the opinions of Protestants, con­cerning Monachisme, the mariage of Priests, and prescribed Fasts. CHAPTFR IIII.

TO make the like trial of such articles, as concerne the state of perfection, as Euangelical Counsels, Vowes, Mortification, and the like: And first concerning Monks and Montastical life, In Ps. 132. S. Austin reproueth the Cercumcellians, for that they accusto­med to say, what meaneth the name of Monks? And againe, what then say they, who insulte against vs, for the name of Monks &c. who say vnto vs, shew where the name of Monks is written (in the Scriptures?) And writingCont. liter. Petil l. 3. c. 40. against Petilianus, he affirmeth, That he proceeded with cursed mouth in dispraise of Monks, and Monasteries. In like sort,Cont. Vigil. prope fin. S. Hierome answereth Vigilantius, saying: Whereas thou affirmest those to be better, who vse their goods, and by litle and litle diuide the fruits of their possessions to the poore, then those who selling their posses­sions, giue al at once, thou shalt be answered, not from me, but from our Lord: If thou wil [...] be perfect, go and sel al which thou hast, and giue to the poore, and come follow me. He speaketh to him, who wil be perfect &c. That degree which thou praysest is the second and third, which we also allow, whilest yet we know to preferre the first, before the second and third. Neither are Monks to be terrified from their studie (or labour) by thy viperous tongue, and cruel byting, against whom thou arguest and sayest: If al shal shut vp themselues, and be in the deserts, who shal frequent the Churches? This reproofe of Vigilantius by S. Hierome, is so certaine, that it is further plainly confessed byOf the Estate of the Church p. 131. 132. Crispinus.

Concerning Virginitye, the equalling of marriage therewith, was con­demned in Iouinian, byL. 1. cō [...]. Iouin. c. 2. S. Hierome saying; Iouinian taught that Marriage and Virginitie were of equal merit. A point so certaine that M. Wotton, in defence of Iouinian boldlyDef. of Parkins p. 500. auoucheth, that herein the Christian Fathers delt vn­christianly with Iouinian; Retra­ctiue from Romish Re­ligion p. 312. againe; Iouinian worthily denyed, al difference of merit betwixt a married and single life, which no enemie of Iouinian can disproue. And the same is confessed in Iouinian, Chron. p. 32. and cent 5. col. 5 [...]8. by Pantaleon, and the Centurists. And yet D. Beard acknowledgeth, that S. Austin doth preferre Virginitie (before Marriage) as a greater good. But Luther Tom. 5 Wittemb. in 1. Cor. c. 7. fol. 107. much exceedeth Iouinian herein saying: I do conclude that matrimonie is as gold, and the spiritual state (of single life) is as dung: In which absurditie and impuritie he is also defended byCont. Camp. Rat. 8. p. 151. D. Whitaker.

The single life of Priests was impugned by Vigilantius, whom thereforeCont. Vigil. c. 1. S. Hierome reproueth in these words: What do the Churches of the East, of Aegypt, and the Sea Apostolick, who take Clergie-men either such as are Virgins, or continent, [Page 13] or if they haue wiues, yet cease to be as husband.

Agreably hereunto D. Fulk Answ to a Count Cath. p. 45. & see Hier. l. 1. cont. Iouinis: c. 14 and 19. and Apol. ad Pamachius c. 8. Epiph. her. 59. confesseth that, Iouinian also was condem­ned for that he taught, that such as could not containe, though they had vowed Vir­ginitie, should neuerthelesse be married. And D. Morton confesseth, thatAppeal. p. 604. Vigilan­tius and Iouinian are condemned by S. Hierome, for impugning the vnmarried life of Priests,

The impugning of prescribed Fasts, was condemned in Aerius, of whom confesseth D. Fulk, that he taught that fasting-dayes are not to be obserued. D. Feild (17) sayth: He disliked set Fasts &c. He was iustly condemned. Osiander cent. 4. p. 434. re­porteth him to say that, set Fasts are not to be obserued &c. According to libertie, a man is to fast, when he wil. This errour was reproued in Aerius, by S. Austin, her. 53. Epiphan. her. 75. and S. Epiphanius. And S. Austin her. 82. reporteth Iouinian to say: Fasts, answer. to a Count. Cath. p. 44. 45. or abstinence from certaine meates, do nothing profit. Yea hede Eccl. dog. c. 68. auoucheth further, that to beeleeue, that such as abstaine from wine and flesh, haue no greater merit, is not the part of a Christian, but of a Iouinian; which Censure of S. Austin, is con­fessed in him by Chemnitius. of the Church. l. 3. p. 138. Exam. part. 4. p. 142.

And whereas Protestants keepe their strictest Fasts vpon Sundayes, S. Epiphanius her. 75. witnesseth, that the Aerians desired rather to fast vpon Sunday, & to eat vpon Wednesday, and Friday: And S. Austin Ep. 86. affirmeth, that to fast on the Lords day, is a great offence, especially since the detestable Heresie of the Manichees &c. who appoint vnto their hearers, this day, as lawful to be fasted vpon. This saying of S. Austin, is alleaged by D. Whitguift, Defen. p. 502. and cent. 4. col. 445. 401. and the Centurists, and the like of S. Ambrose, byAgainst Symbo. part. 2. p. 38. M. Parker.

From these few premisses, I may inferre, first, that the Protestants im­pugning Monkes and Monastical life, are condemned in the Hereticks Circum­cellians, Petilianus, and Vigilantius, by S. Austin, and S. Hierome. Secondly, their impugning of voluntarie pouerty, is condemned in Vigilantius, by S. Hie­rome. Thirdly, their equalling of marriage with Virginitie, was condemned in Iouinian, by the same S. Hierome. Fourthly, their impugning the vnmaried life of Priests, was condemned in Vigilantius also by S. Hierome. Fiftly, their denyal of set Fasts, and abstinence from certaine meats, is condemned in Aerius, by S Au­stin, and S. Epiphanius, and in Iouinian, by S. Austin. Lastly, our Protestants Sunday-fast, was condemned in the Manichees, by S. Austin; and in the Arians, by S. Epiphanius; So perfect harmonye we euer finde, between the ancient Hereticks, Vigilantius, Petilianus, Iouinian, Aerius, and the Manichees, and our Moderne Protestants: And between the ancient Doctours, S. Au­stin, S. Hierome, S. Epiphanius, and the present Roman Church.

THAT THE FATHERS CONDEMNED in ancient Hereticks the opinions of Protestants, con­cerning Free-wil, Faith, Good works, the Com­mandments, sinne, and the knowledge and Death of Christ. CHAPTER V.

BVT now to come to the cheifest articles of mans Freewil, Faith, good workes, and the possibilitie of the Commandments, sinne, and the like: The denyal of Freewil, was condemned in the Manichees by S. Hierome, in Proē. lib. cont. Pelagianos fin. saying, it is proper to the Manichees to condemne mans nature, and to take away Freewil, and the assistance of God; of whom also sayth S. Austine: de fide cont. Ma­nich. c. 9. The Manichees bark against these with wonted blindenes, and when they are conuinced, that Nature is not an euil thing, and that it is in the power of man to do wel or euil, they say, that the soule hath not Freewil, and they see not their blindnes. Herevpon it is, that Hemingius de vni­uersali gra­tia p. 109. char­geth his other Protestant Brethren denying Freewil, with the doctrine of the Manichees and the Stoicks. And wheras some answer hereunto, that the Manichees condemned Nature, which Protestants do not, we reply againe that we do not charge them therwith, but only with the denial of Freewil and Gods grace, for the denial wherof the Manichees were condemned; and though it were vpon other grounds then Protestants doe, yet that excuseth not, since the very denial of Freewil was condemned in them by the Fathers. As likewise the denial of any article of Faith (vpon what reason or ground soeuer it be) is notwithstanding to be condemned for errour. The pretended sufficiencie of onlie Faith, was condemned in Eunomius by S. Austin, her. 54. who reporteth Eunomius to haue taught, That the commit­ting of anie sinnes whatsoeuer, and continuance in them, would nothing hurt a man, if he was partaker of that Faith wich was taught by him. Agreably to whom sayth D. Whitaker; de Eccl. p. 301. we affirme that if one haue an act of Faith, sinnes do not hurt him; this Luther affirmed, and this we al say. The denial in general of the diuersitie of merits, was condemned in Iouinian by S. Austin, de Tem. ser. 191. saying: We condemne the errour of Iouinian, who sayd there Was no difference of merits in the world to come. And S. Ambrose, Conc. Telense & Rescript. Ambrosij & aliorum ad Siricium Papā ibid. and others tearme it, A rude houling &c. to confound al things promiscuously &c. and to take away the degrees of different merits.

The denyal of the possibilitie of keeping the Commandments, was condemned in certaine Hereticks by S. Hierome In expl. symb. ad Damas. saying: We accurse the blasphemie of them, who say, that anie thing impossible is commanded by God to man. And the same words vseth S. Austin, De tem. ser. 191. in so much that the Protestant Hoffman ra­ther accurseth S. Hierome, saying:Cōment. de penit. l. 1. fol. 55. Hierome writes, let him be accursed [Page 15] who hath sayd, God to haue commanded impossible things; but why is not Hieromera­ther accursed, who so audaciously thinketh against God? And in the like sort, is this saying of S. Hierome alleadged and reiected by Luther, and by the Cen­turists, as also by Caluin saying:Inst. l. 2. c. 7 §. 5. The opinion of the impossibilitie of keeping the Commandments, is commonly thought to be most absurd, so that Hierome doubted not to denounce Anathema to it; what seemed to Hierome, I nothing care. Tom. 2. Wittemb. f. 216 Cent. 4. col. 1248.

The denyal of Inherent Iustice, was condemned in Iulian the Pelagian by S. Austin Cont. Iul. Pelag. l. 6. c. 11. saying: Thou dost not depart from thy opinion, wherein thou affirmest the grace of God to consist in the only remission of sinne. And the same errour is condemnedEpist. 1. c. 10. Conc. Mileu. c. 3. & August. l. 1. Retract. c. 13. & ep. 106. by Celestinus and the Mileuitan Councel.

The affirming of God to be the Authour of sinne, was condemned in Simon Magus, whereof sayth Vincentius: Lib. cont. haer. post. med. Who before Simon Magus &c. durst affir­me, God the Creatour to be the Authour of our wicked deeds? &c. And who before Nouatianus (taught) that God would rather the death of him that dyeth, then that he should returne and liue? Hereof also sayth S. Austin: It is a hateful and abhomi­nable opinion, to beleeue, that God is the authour of anie euil wil, or action. And yet this so abhominable opinion is beleeued by Luther In assert. art. 36. asking: How man can prepare himself to good, seing it is not (so much) as in his owne power, to make his wayes euil; for God worketh the wicked worke in the wicked. As also by Caluin In l. 3. c. 23. sect. 6. teaching that, God doth ordaine by his Counsel and decree, that among men some be borne destined to certaine damnation from their mothers womb; who by their destruction may glorify God. And Suinglius Tom. de Prouid. Dei fol. 365. expresly affirmeth that,Ad art. sibi falso impet art. 10. Dauids adulterie pertayned to God as Authour. Melanchton In Rom. 8. auoucheth, that the Adulterie of Dauid, was the proper worke of God; as was the Conuersion of Paul. Ia­cobus Andreas Epit. Colloq. mon­tisb. p. 47. auerreth, that according to Beza, God is the Authour of sinne. And yet al these plaine testimonies notwithstanding,Cont. Camp. rat. 8. p. 115. D. Whi­taker blusheth not to say: If Caluin, Pet. Martir, Melancthon, Luther, or any of ours affirme, God to be the Authour of sinne, I wil not deny, but that we are al guiltie of horrible blasphemie and wickednes.

And as Protestants thus ioyne with Simon Magus in making God the Authour of sinne; so likewise do they with Apollinaris and Eutyches affirme, the verie Godhead of Christ to haue suffred and died. D. Barnes Vit. Rom. Pon­tific. p. 46. 103 Resp. ad act. col. montisbel. part. 1. p 82 reporteth one of the condemned Heresies of Apollinaris to haue bene; that Christ being dead for three dayes, the Diuinitie dyed withal. AndIn Cō ­fessione ma­iore de canae Dom [...]ni. Beza confesseth, that Eutyches affirmed, the Godhead of Christ to haue suffred. Agreably to these,In Cre [...]anor. Dial. de corrup. mu­ribus &c. f. 5. D. Luther sayth: When I thinke that only the humane Nature suffred for me, Christ is of vile and smal price, yea himself hath also need of a Sauiour. Yea he reproueth the Zuinglians, for that, sayth he, most obstinately they vrge against me, that the Diuinitie of Christ could not suffer. And the same blasphemie or rather Atheisme, is taught by Musculus, Islebius, Cont. Busaeum. p. 24 126. Gerlabius, Iacobus R [...]sp. ad act. Col. Montisb. p. 82. 92. Andreas, and the other Lutherans. And yet D. Abbot Def. ad Park. 3. p. 240. is not abashed to giue D. Bishop the lye, for his obiecting that, Luther affirmed the Godhead itself to suffer.

In like sorte, Ireneus l. 1. c. 17. condemning the Gnosticks for teaching Christ to haue beene ignorant, and to haue learned his A. B. C. vnder a Maister; and S. Gregorie l. 3. Indict. 3. Ep 42. confuting the same errour in the Agnoites: The same errour is yet taught byResp. ad act. Col. Montisb. part. 1 147. 148. 134. Buc. & Caluin. in Math 24. wil Synop. p. 599. 600. Sunt. Re­uiew of D. Kellisons suruey p. 55. Beza, Bucer, Caluin, D. Willet, D. Sutclif and other Pro­testant [Page 16] writers. I might produce sundrie other ancient condemned Here­sies, now renewed and defended by our new Protestant Church; but it may suffice to the eternal infamie thereof, First, that denying Frewil, it is condemned in the Manichees, by S. Hierome, and S. Austin. Secondly affirming only Faith to be sufficient to saluation, it is condemned in Eunomius Defen­ce of Par­kins. part. 3. in the ad­uertisment annexed p. 60. by S. Austin. Thirdly, that denying of the diuersitie of Merits, it is condemned in Iouinian, by S. Austin and S. Ambrose. Fourthly Impugning the possibilitie of keeping the commandments, it is condemned in certaine old Hereticks, by S. Hierome & S. Austin. Fiftly, denying Inherent Iustice, it is condemned in the Pelagians, by S. Austin. Sixtly, Affirming God to be the Authour of sinne, it is condemned in Simon Magus by Vincentius, and by S. Austin. Seauenthly, teaching the God­head of Christ to haue suffred and dyed, it is condemned in Apollinaris, and Eutyches. Lastly, teaching Christ to haue been ignorant, it is condemned in the Gnosticks by S. Ireneus; & in the Agnoïtes by S. Gregorie; So that we stil finde a sympathie and vnion in sundrie of the chiefest points of Religion, between the ancient Hereticks, Manicheus, Eunomius, Iouinian, Pelagius, Simon Magus, Apollinaris, Eutyches, the Gnosticks, and Agnoites, and nouel Protestants of the on syde; and the ancient most holie Fathers, S. Hierome, Gregorie, Vincent, Austin and Ambrose, and the Roman Church, of the other side.

Yea so grateful schollars are our Protestants to their old Maisters, and so otherwise naked of better answer, that they doubt not to reproue the ancient Doctours and Fathers of the Primitiue Church, and to commend and defend the condemned Hereticks of the same time; so professing to disclaime from the Faith and Religion taught by the old Fathers, and to adhere and embrace the grosse & wicked errours broached by Hereticks. D. Abbot Defen­ce of Par­kins. part. 3. in the ad­uertisment annexed p. 60. professeth, That though Hierome and Austin haue for some points taxed Iouinian, and Vigilantius, (as Hereticks) and Epiphanius, in an other point Aerius; yet is that no sufficient motiue for vs (saith he) to forsake those opinions of Ioui­nian, Aerius and Vigilantius. In like sorte sayth (112) D. Willet; Some of these as they are imputed to Protestants, we deny to be Heresies at al, as that of Vigilantius, that Relickes are not to be adored; of Iouinians, that neither fasting nor Virginitie is meritorious; of Aerius, that prayer is not to be made for the dead &c. Tetra­stylon. p. 97. And if Aerius held no worse opinions, we see no cause why they should condemne him for an Heretick &c. Anti­log. p. 23. (11) But neither was Vigilantius an Heretick, nor his opinions Heresies. Loc. com. loc. 42. p. 513. Bucanus demandeth, whether the Fathers deseruedly numbred amongst He­reticks the opinion of Aerius, who sayd there was no difference between a Bishop and a Priest? Ib. p. 99. Wherto himself answereth, no truly, no more then these which were his opinions: First, that we ought not to pray and Sacrifice for the dead. Secondly, that Saincts departed are not to be prayed vnto. Thirdly, that certaine dayes of Fasts are not to he appointed: Of which last saythCont. Dur. l. 9. p. 830. D. Whitaker, Aerius taught nothing concerning fasting different from the Catholick Faith; whereby he meaneth the Pro­testant. Faith Yea Aerius and his errours, are further defended against the Fathers by D. Fulk, Answ. to a Count. Cath. p. 45 Dan. de hae­res. f. 175. 177. Osiand. cent. 4. p. 434. Park. against Sym. part. 1. p. 60 cent. 4 Col. 401. by Daneus, Osiander, M. Parker, and the Centurie-Wr ters. And Iouinian is defended against S. Hierome, and S. Austin, by theCent. 4. Col. 381. Dan. Part. alt. p. 938. Lut. Thom. 2. f. 282. Centurists, by Daneus, and Luther; as also Vigilantius, against S. Hierome, by the Magdeburgians, and by D. Morton Prot. Appeal. p. 583. saying; Concerning that, Vigilantius intended only the honour of God by expelling Idolatrie, then may we wish that S. [Page 17] Hierome had been a Vigilantius, in the case of Relicks of Saints. Yea (saith D. Fulk Against Rhem. Test. in apoc. 6. Hierome in this case, is a partial witnes, inueighing against Vigilantius, which was as good a Catholick, as he &c. who did iustly mislike the superstious estimation of Relicks, and write a booke against it; which Hierome doth not confute with arguments so much, as with rayling &c. S. Hierome defending against Vigilantius, the Christian custome of burning Candles at the Monuments of Saints, is therfore censu­red by the French Protestant for (6) an Idolater, and defender of Idolatrie; who also further addes, that Vigilantius laughing at that custome, did proue himself more Christian, and more faithful to God, then Hierome &c. Yea if I knew Hierome to haue dyed in that errour, I would neuer cal him Sainct, but as damned as the Diuel. In like forte, S. Hierome writing against Vigilantius for prayer to Saints, the same Pro­testant sayth:Ibi. p. 239. I thinke Hierom when he writ these words against Vigilantius, Cent. 4. col. 601. was driuen into rage, and depriued of sense and vnderstanding. So greeuously displea­sing was S. Hierome, to both old and new borne Hereticks.

The Armenians not mingling water with wine in the Chalice are defended by D. Fulk, Def. of the English Transl. c. 17. p. 458. saying: The Armenians are commendable in this point, that they would neuer yeald to custome. Lastly the Magician himself is defended against Theodoret by Osiander, Cent. 4. p. 326. for denying the signe of the Crosse, Clypeus fid. Dial. 8. p. 223. and the vertue and power therof against Diuels. So cleere it is, euen by the ful confessions of our Protestants them selues, that the doctrines condemned in the old Hereticks, by the Doctours and Fathers of the primitiue church, are now renewed, defended, and beleeued by Protestants themselues.

PROTESTANTS VSVAL RECRIMINATION of obiecting old Heresies to the Catholick Roman church, is cleerly examined, discouered, and confuted by their owne acknowledgements. CHAPTER. VI.

PRotestants being vnable to cleere themselues of so foule a stayne, as teaching and beleeuing so manie absurd and con­demned Heresies, do subtilly endeauer to diuerte or ex­tenuate their so great reproach, by falsly intruding vpon the Roman Church, the like defense of sundrie condemned errours. But for our easy disburdning thereof: It is to be obserued, that Heresie is not an open Enemie to truth and religion; but a subtile Depra­uer thereof, by subtracting from it, or adding therto: So as Truth & Er­rour hauing but one obiect, are diuided though euer really, yet oftentimes but, as it were, by a seeming slender nicetie, or difference of words. In which respect he that wil obiect pertinently in this kinde, must obiect not anie resemblance or likelihood, but an Identitie of opinion; for otherwise, as D. Couel Def. of Hooker. p. 49. teacheth not vnaptly to this purpose: The neernes [Page 18] oftentimes to euil, is warrant enough for suspicion to accuse of euil; and because al errours are not equally distant from truth, some men (as now in this case we Catholicks) are in their true assertions, by weak Iudgements (of such like as the vulgar Pro­testants) supposed, not to differ at al from errours. And hence I take it to be, that D. Morton as but dareth to beginne his obiection in this kind against vs, with a neerenes Prot. Appeal. p. 675. vnto Heresie. As also sayth he vnto Catholicks: Let Ib. 675. 676. them tel vs, whether they haue not (we say not an absolute, but yet) a greater affinitie with those foresayd Heresies, then haue the Protestants &c. Where, for M. Do­ctours better satisfaction, I wil tel him, that sundrie of his other Bre­thren, nothing inferiour to himself, haue plainly acknowledged in the precedent Chapter, an absolute Identitie in steed of Affinitie with former Hereticks; therevpon not sparing bitterly to reproue the learnedst, and most ancient Fathers, for their so censuring and condemning our Pro­testants true Progenitours, the ancient Hereticks. And that al pretended affinity, between our Catholick Religion, and old condemned Heresies, is nothing els, but the ignorant or malitious traducement of Protestant Writers, this present Chapter shal fully demonstrate.

First then D. Fulk Answ. to a Counterf. Cath. p. 22. obiecteth vnto vs: To make the Images of Christ, and of the Apostles, and to cense them: you learned of the Hereticks called Gnostici, and Carpocratites. Epiph. L. 1. Tom. 2. Secondly, of the Valentinians, you learned to haue in price, the signe of the Crosse. Thirdly, of the Heracleonites, you learned to an­noint men at point of death; and to cast water vpon dead men with Inuocation. Epiphan. Her. 36. Fourthly, of the Cainans you learned to cal vpon Angels. Epiph. Haer. 38. Fiftly, of the Marcionists you learned to giue women leaue to Baptize: Epiph. Haer. 42. Sixtly, of the Collindians you learned to make Images of the Virgin Marye, and to worship them and her with offring of Candels, as they did of Cakes. Epiph. Haer. 79. Seauenthly, of the Messalanians, you learned to let your lockes grow long: Epiph. Haer. 80. Eightly, of the Pharisees you receaued your superstitious Massing-garments, which you cal Amictus, D [...]lmatica, and Pallia &c. Thus far D. Fulk.

First in general I answer hereto, that al this is most impertinently vrged, seing there is not anie of the forsayd Examples, which being truly deliue­red, is not at this day condemned by the Roman Church, as being not slenderly, or obscurely, but most strongly and manifestly different from our Catholick doctrine, either by certaine excesse, or defect thereto. But to descend to particulars: To the first against Images I answer with S. Epi­phanius, that those Hereticks were reproued, for that togeather Epiph. her. 27. Iren. l. 1. c. 24. with the Images of Philosophers, Pithagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and others, they did set vp the Images of Iesus, and did then adore them, and celebrate the mysteries of the Pagans; al which the Catholik Church doth censure for damnable idolatrie.

To the second, against the signe of the Crosse, the Valentinians are reprehended by S. Ireneus, Iren. l. 1. c. 1. Epiph. her. 31. & S. Epiphanius, for inuenting 30. Gods, which they called Aones, and in them two Christs, one of which they named Crux; but against the signe of the Crosse, they do not so much as insinuate anie one word.

As to the third, against Extreme Vnction, prayer for the dead, and sprinkling thē with Holie-water, S. Epiphanius Her. 36. Iren. l. 1. c. 18. answereth: That the Heracleonites thin­king to redeeme those, who were seduced by them, at the end of their life, some of them powred vpon the head of the Partie departed, oyle mingled with water; others an [Page 19] oyntment which is called the Iuice of Balme, and water; yet both vsing this common Inuocation &c. Nessia, Vphareg, Namepsaeman, Chaldaeam, Mosomedea, Acplirane, Pseuua, Iesu Nazaria: And this they do that those, who haue these inuocations at the end of their life, with water, and oyle, or an oyntment mingled, may be incomprehen­sible and enuisible to supernal Principalities and Powers. Thus far S. Epiphanius, and the same is taught by S. Ireneus. Al which is most impertinent & dissonant to our knowne doctrines of Extreme Vnction, Prayer for the dead, and Holie-water.

To the Fourth, against Inuocation of Angels; S. Epiphanius Haebr. 3. cited, plainly testifyeth, that the Cainans worshiped Caïn and Iudas, glorying that they were allyed to them: As also to the Sodomites, Esau, and Core; affirming that others could not be saued, except they went through al sinnes, referring their particular abhomina­tions, either to Angels, or to such as falsly by them were called Angels, attributing to euery one of them, some haynous sinne, applying their action to the name of the Angel, whom they wil. And when they do these things, they say: O Angel, I vse thy worke; ô Power, I do thy action. Al which is condemned by Catholicks, as most ridi­culous and impious.

To the Fifth, against Baptisme by women in case of necessitie; S. Epiphanius Haer. 42 testifyeth, that Marcion held, that a man might be thrice Baptized; & that he made women no lesse then men, the publick and ordinarie Ministers of Baptisme. Now that women may Baptize in case of necessitie, it is de­fended byHook. Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sec. 61. 62. Schlusel­burg. Theol. Cal. f. 68. Lambert. Act. mon. p. 541. Woodman. Ib. p. 1590. Sarcerius loc. com. f. 229. sec. Whiteg. Def. p. 518. 522. 523. 518. sundrie Protestants. And more then this, the Roman Church doth not teach herein.

To the Sixt, against the Images, and worship of our B. Ladye, S. Epiphanius Haer. 79. writeth, that certaine women decking a square table, and spreading a linen cloth ouer it, vpon a solemne day of the yeare, did set on bread, and offer it, in the name of Marye; so taking vpon them, to be her Priests, and to offer Sacrifice to her: Which S. Epiphanius condemneth, in that, sayth he, from the begining of the world, neuer waman Sacrificed to God, no not Eue; as also in that God only, is to be honoured with Sacrifice. Al which is also reiected by the Roman Church, which only alloweth Sacrifice to God.

To the Seauenth, against long haire, I do not vnderstand why it is vrged more against vs, then against themselues: But as for the Messalians, Haer. 80. S. Epiphanius recordeth that they suffred their heads to grow at length like women; which I haue neither seene, nor heard to be practised in any Catholick Countrey.

To the Eighth, against Church-garments; S. Epiphanius Haer. 15.16. writeth that the Scribes and Pharisees wore in their common daily garments, Cassacks with dilated Philacteries, and inlarged fringes; which vse also our Sauiour Mat. 23.5. des­cribeth in them, as noting thereby their hypocrisie. But what maketh this against Church apparel, which Protestant Ministers, and Bishops them­selues vse, and which D. Whiteguift Def. p. 264. defendeth, deriuing the vse thereof from the Apostles times?

But D. Fulk Against Purgatorie p. 419. yet farther vrgeth against Catholicks that, They take prescript times of fasting, and vnmeasurable extolling of single life in the Ministers of the Church from the Manichees, Tatianists, and Montanists. Secondly, Prayer for the dead, of the Montanists. Thirdly Purgatorie-fire, of the Origenists. Fourthly, Of [Page 20] Answ. to a Count. Cath. p. 21. 22. the Essenes, the superstition of Relicks; for they vsed to take the spittle, and other filth from the bodies of Marthis, and Marthana, which were of the seed of Elxai, that is, great Saints with them, and vsed them to cure diseases. Fiftly, of the sayd Elxai, to command the people to pray in a strange tongue.

But al this is as idle and impertinent as the former. And so to the first against prescribed times of fast, D. Fulk shal receaue his answere from his owne Brethren,Eccl. Pol. l 5. p. 209. 210. M. Hooker answereth, that the Montanists were repre­hended only, for that they brought in sundrie vnaccustomed dayes of fasting; continued their fasting a great deal longer, and made them more rigorous &c. Whereupon Tertullian maintayning Montanisme, wrote a booke in defence of the new Fast. Exam. part. 4 p. 143. Chemnitius cōfesseth more particularly, that the Montanists make three Lents in the yeare, as though three Sauiours had suffred in the yeare. And he further chargeth them for ieiunia propria; for Fasts peculiar to themselues. In like sort, an otherQueri­monia Eccl. p. 110. Protestant roriter answereth saying: They say that Eusebius plainly teacheth that Montanus made the first lawes of fasting; but they are gratly deceaued in this, as in other things &c, Montanus abrogating the Fasts of the Church, brought in a new custome of fasting. Herein also D. Morton is our kind Aduocate.Prot. Appeal. p. 309. We obiect not (sayth he) vnto our Aduersaries the grossenes of the Montanists, who held three lents; wherin they imposed only an abstinence from drie me [...]ts; vpon an opinion &c. that those things had an euil beginning: Now if D. Fulk be comprehended in D. Mortons (We) then did he vndeseruedly obiect against Catholicks, the errour of the Montanists. So wholy impertinent is the obiection from Mon­tanus.

And as to the abstinence from flesh, and marriage; the Manichees and Tatianists condemned flesh & marriage, as pertaining to the il God: according to the Heresie of the Valentinian before them. To this end saythAd Quod vult-Deu. haer. 25. 40. 53. S. Austin of the Tatianists or Encratites: They condemne marriages, and esteeme of them al alike as of fornication, and other pollutions; neither admit they to their number, anie that vse marriage. They eat [...] flesh, but account al flesh as abhominable. A thing so euident, that the Puritan M. Iacob Def. of the Chur­ches Mini­sterie of Eng. p. 59. answerably acknowledgeth in our behalf, that Marcion the Heretick, and Tatamus, did absolutely condemne marriage, and certaine meates, and so are in no comparison with the Papists, if they erred in nothing els. In like sort sayth D. Morton; our Aduersaries Prot. Appeal. p. 600. feared the eating of certaine meates, as the Heretical Tatianists and Manichees anciently had done; but with a difference; for the foresayd Hereticks taught, that men might not eate certaine sortes of meats, because they thought they were not made of the good God, but of the Euil; for the which cause they were condemned in Councels. But abstinence from certaine meates is appointed in our Church (say the Rhemists) for chastising the bodie with Pennance; Heerby acording vnto vs, that it is not alwayes Quid, but Quo; that is, not the same Action, but the diuers principles and intentions of the Action, do distinguish truth from Heresie. So confessed a difference there is, euen in D. Mortons Iudgement, between our Catholick truth, and the Heresie of the Tatianists, and Manichees con­cerning abstinence from certaine meates.

To come then to the second, against Prayer for the dead; D. Fulk barely af­firmeth; that it is taken from Montanus, not being able to alleage anie one testimonie, of anie one Father, witnessing the same, or charging Mon­tanus with errour in that respect. Yea his owne conscience did tel him the [Page 21] contrarie, when he confessed that he vttered this but ofAgainst Purgat. p. 417. thought, and Ib. p. 263. coniecture, and as a thing that may wel be so: Whereas I haue proued(25) at large, that Prayer for the dead, was taught by S. Cyprian, & other Fathers liuing with, and before Montanus.

To the third against Purgatorie fire; Origens errour was, that Hel-fire was not euerlasting, but temporal; which (as S. Austin Ad. quod vult. haer. 43. relateth) should in time purge not only them, that had ended their liues in most horrible sinnes; but also the Diuels themselues: Which opinion maketh so litle, or rather truly nothing against Purgatorie, that S. Austin, and S. Epiphanus, who confute the errours of Origen, do yetSee before. l. 2. c. 11. confessedly beleeue and defend the Catholick doctrine of Purgatorie, and Prayer for the dead.

To the fourth against worshiping of Relicks of Saincts; haer. 19. S. Epiphanius repor­teth, that the Essenes were a sect of Iewes, & that Marthis being the kinswoman of Elxat, and Marthana his sister, they were in the countrey of the Essenes adored for Gods, for that they were of Elxais stock; The spitle of which woman, and the filthes of their bodies, the Hereticks of that countrey did take to them, therby to cure diseases, but yet without anie effect at al. Now, as this follie of the Essenes maketh nothing at al, against the Act. 19.12. napkins, or handkerchefs, which being brought from Paules bodie to the sick, the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out; so neither doth it make anie thing against the Religious estimation of Saincts Relicks, and the Miraculous cures, which God hath shewed by them; according to the vndoubted and confessed report, andSee be­fore. l. 2. c. 15. testimonie of the ancient Doctours.

To the fift against the vulgar peoples praying in Latin, or other vnknowne tongue; S. Epiphanius relateth, amongst the other errours of Elxai, haer. 19. that he prescribed this prayer: Abir, anid moib nochile daasin ani daasin nochile moib anid abar selan: which prayer being interpreted as S. Epiphanius affirmeth, it was nothing but vaine words. But what maketh this against godlie prayers allowed and prescribed by the Pastours of Christs Church? So that D. Fulks preten­ded errours against the Catholick Church are nothing els, being duly examined, but malicious, forged, and idle inuentions of his owne braine.

Other ProtestantsWhi­taker contra Duraeum. l. 7. fol. 480. obiect, that we take from the Manichees, Commu­nion vnder one kinde. But this also is most vntrue, forExam. part. 2. p. 145. Zep­perus de Sacrament. p. 41. Chemnitius himself truly explaineth this, and sayth: The Manichees, because they detested wine, as an abhominable thing, and imagined the bodie of Christ, as only phantastical, not to haue had true bloud, they endeuoured to bring in the receiuing only of one kinde; for which errours they were condemned, by S. Leo, and Gelasius; and are stil by al Catholick Doctours. And we are further cleered herein at large byProt. Appeal. l. 2. p. 139 140. D. Morton in these words: Knowing that the Manichees did heretically celebrate the Eucharist only in one kinde, the bread, but the wine they did not allow, because they imagined wine to haue been created by an euil spirit, and were therefore anciently con­demned for Hereticks; would now the Apologists hold it conscionable in Protestants, to accuse the Romanists of that Heresie of the Manichees, because they distribute not the Eucharist in both the elements bread and wine? Nay would they not rather reiect this accusation, as altogeather iniurious saying: It was not the Manichees abstinence from the wine, but the reason of that forbearance, which was iudged heretical? So kind [Page 22] is M. Morton here to Catholicks; and so scrupulous in conscience, least they should be iniured, with this so vnworthie imputation. But where was his conscience, or ordinarie senses, when directly contrarie to the pre­misses, in the same booke of the Appeal, himself produceth D. Whitaker, and ioyneth with him, charging vs Catholicks with the sayd imputed He­resie of the Manichees? saying: But Ib. p. 505. M. Whitaker in the same place, did further more note the administration of the Eucharist but in one kind, now vsed in the Romish Church to haue had the original from the Manichees, &c. Where now then was his want? Shal it not be rather imputed to the Apologists, who haue not answered vnto those points, which they haue so willingly concealed, then vnto our Doctours, who hath ob­iected so many &c? Thus confessing D. Whitaker to haue obiected to Catho­licks the foresaid Heresie of the Manichees; and himself reprouing our Apologists, for not answering him therein, and as not able (sayth he) wil­lingly concealing the same. But where was conscience now when D. Mor­ton writ this? Sure I am not in himself, howsoeuer in D. Whitakers; for him­self confessed before, that it was not conscionable in Protestants, to accuse the Ro­manists, of that Heresie of the Manichees, which yet himself doth, citing, and iustifying D. Whitakers therein.

I might produce such like impertinent matter pretended by Protestants: but because it is rather vrged by them, to delude the ignorant and vnlear­ned, then vpon anie conscience or confidence of truth, I wil therefore conclude, with the more sincere proceeding of their owne Brother in this kinde M. Parker, and that in his owne words:Against Symbol. part. 1. p. 149. we lay (saith he) to the Papists charge a Communion with Carpocrates, in worshiping Images; with the Hera­cleonites in annoynting the dead with oyle, with the Tatiam in abstaining frō marriage, with the Peputiani in suffring women to be Priests; with the Manichees in abstaining frō meates; with the Angelici in worshiping Angels; with the Apostolici and Hieraclites in their Monks, Nunnes, and Friars with the like (being the examples obiected by D. Fulk, D. Willet D. Morton, and others) when yet our harts (sayth M. Parker) do know they can shift with distinctions, to make appeare, for manner and meaning, a certaine distance between these Hereticks, and themselues. Now if the harts and Consciences of Protestants do know, that both for manner & meaning, Catholicks can make appeare, a certaine distance or difference between the obiected Hereticks and themselues; what impenitent harts and obdu­rate Consciences beare they, stil thus endeauoring by studied sleights and forgeries, euer to obscure and disgrace, the knowne and most renowned truth of Catholick Faith and Religion? Wherefore I may truly say to them, as S. Stephen sayd to the Iewes: Act. 7.51. You stif-necked and vncircumsised harts and eares, you alwayes resist the Holie Ghost: As your fathers (the old Hereticks) your selues also.

A FVRTHER TRIAL IS MADE, Whether Catholicks or Protestants be true Hereticks; and this by sundrie knowne badges or markes of Heresie. CHAPTER VII.

D. Morton is of opinion, thatAppeale p. 577. Heresie is the Helen of Greece, engendring dissention for some carnal respects; the Diuels Concubine, conceiuing deformed shapes of errour; an Adder writhing itself into perplexed senses and contradictions; and an Ape, imitating only the tearmes of truth: Both Protestants and Romanists (sayth he) would be loath to be patterned by these Hieroglyphicks; We are now to trie them both by their owne certaine scantlings. After I had much wondred to see the man thus madly to describe his owne shame; I was further hence encouraged to giue him an other most certaine scantling, of his owne Infancy and miserie in this behalfe. It hath euer been holden, an infallible Badge of an Heretick, being originally or formally a member of Christs true Church, to goe out or departe from thence to new Sects or Congregrations by their damnable Apostasie, of whom thus reporteth S. Paul: Act. 20.39.30. I know that after my depar­ture, there wil rauening wolues enter in amongst you, not sparing the flock: And out of your owneselues shal arise men speaking peruerse things, to draw away Disciples after themselues. In preuention whereof, his best aduise is, thatHebr. 10.23.25. we hold the Confession of our hope vndeclining &c. not forsaking our assemblie, as some are accusto­med. S. Iohn speaking of Hereticks, the forerunners of Antichrist; for our better notice, he brandeth them with this marke:1. Io. 2.19. They went out from vs. S. Iude vers. 18.19. affirmeth, that in the last time shal come mockers, according to their owne desires, walking in impieties; and then he nameth them, saying; These are they which segregate themselues. Yea the Apostles and Priests of Hierusalem, being assembled togeather in Councel, toAct. 15.5. represse the Heresie of the Pharisees and others, teaching Circumcision, and commanding the Law of Moyses to be kept; they expresly say of these Hereticks,Act. 15.24. Because we haue heard, that certaine going forth from vs, haue troubled you, with words subuerting your soule &c. Yea Christ himself foretelling the comming of Hereticks, fore­warneth vs against them, saying;Math 24 26. If they shal say vnto you, Behould (Christ) is in the desert (of our inuisible Church) goe ye not out: to wit, from your former knowne Church.Gal. 5.19.20. Tit. 3.10. 2. Cor. 11.19. So that the sacred Scriptures haue left vs for the special Marke and Character of Heresie; The going-out, or Aposta­ring from the knowne visible Church of Christe. In so much as the word, Heresie, (in Scripture so odious) being in Greek, HERESIS doth truly signify singular Election and separation, as both Peter Com. Places. Par. 2. p. 330. Muscu. loc. com. p. 552. Martyr and Musculus confesse.

Most answerably hereunto saith S. Austine: Tract. 3. in Ep. Ioan. Al Hereticks, al Schis­maticks haue gone out from vs, that is they go out of the Church. And giuing the reason why the Prophets spake more plainly of the Church then of Christ, he sayth:In Psal. 30. conc. 2. & Tom. 8. in ps. 106. I think therefore it was because they foresaw in spirit, that men would make factions against the Church, and not contend so much concerning Christ, being to rayse vp great strifes about the Church: Therefore that was more plainly foretold and prophecyed, about which there was to be greater dissensions, that so it might serue to them for iudgement (or condemnation) who haue seene her, and fled out from her. Optatus aduiseth that,L. 1. It is to be obserued who remainenth in the Root with the whole world, who goeth forth. AndAduer­s [...] haer. c. 34. Vincentius demandeth: Who euer hegun Heresies, but he who first seuered himself from the vnion of the vniuersalitie and Antiquitie of the Catholick Church? which to be so, examples make knowne more cleere then the Sunne.

But this point is so cleer, that the truth thereof is accordingly acknow­ledged and approued by Protestant Doctours. So D. Field maketh this peculiarOf the Church l. 1. c. 13. p. 25. 26 Alison in his con­fut. of Brownisme. p. 1. vnto Schismaticks and Hereticks: To depart, and go out from the Church of God. In Osiander Cent. 1. p. 78. it is sayd: Obserue, Hereticks go out of the Church. M. Clapham speaking of our Sauiours former words,Reme­die against Schisme p. 23 affirmeth: That thereby our Sauiour forbiddes going out vnto such desert and corner Ghospels. And wil Chrono­logical dis­course. c. 7. And vpon the song of songes fol 3. And see Zanchius in miscela­nea. p. 55. 56. 57. we not reuerence before Gods iudgement, and take heed of Going out, as our Sauiour premonished? Pantaleon sayth:Ep. nuncu pat. Christi Chronogr. we haue assigned the third place to He­reticks, who haue Gone out of the elect people of God, but were not of them. So that Scriptures Fathers and Protestants do al of them agree: That the Going out or departing from the Church, is the Badge of Heresie; and Persons so Going out, are thereby marked Hereticks. Examples heerof we haue in al former Hereticks; in Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Pelagius, Eutyches, Donatus, waldo, Wicclif, Husse &c. who al of them, being at first Roman Catholicks, through Innouation of opinions, afterwards seuered themselues from their mother Church, going out from her to new Congregations.

But now to apply this to Catholicks and Protestants and breefly to examine whether companie hath gone or departed out of a former knowne Church, the true Church of Christ; and first to giue M. D. Morton, a short scantling concerning himself & his Brethren; his owne neighbour M. Mason, answering certaine demands of Catholicks in this kinde saith:Consecrat of English Bishopes p. 41. When it pleased him, which causeth the light to spring out of darknes, we did spring from yourselues, being stil content to be yours, so you would be Christs. In like sort saythApol. p. 288. D. Iewel: We haue indeed gone from the Pope, we haue shaken of the yoake of the Bishop of Rome. It is true (saythAct. mon. p. 3. M. Fox) we are remoued from the Church of Rome. And D. Rainolds In his Conclusions annexed to his Confe­rence. maketh this one of his Conclusions: That the reformed Churches in England, Scotland, France, Germanie, and other kingdomes, and Common-wealthes haue seuered themselues, lawfully (sayth he) from the Church of Rome. And as for Luther himself, he was at first so Roman Ca­tholick, as that (sayth, heIn Ep ad Gal. fol. 38. and see 37. 188. I did so highly esteeme the Popes authoritie, that to dissent from him, euen in the least point, I thought it a sinne, worthy of euerlasting death, and would my selfe in the defence of the Popes Authoritie, haue ministred fire and sword. Caluin speaking of Protestants in general expresly sayth:In Ep. 141. p. 273. we were infor­ced to make a departure from the whole world; yea we Instit. l. 4. c. 6. § 1. haue departed, sayth he, [Page 25] from her, to wit, the Roman Church. And so accordingly it is so euident, that Waldo, Wicliffe, Husse, Luther, Caluin, Zuinglius &c. were first borne, baptised, and brought vp in the Catholick Church, from whence after­wards through Noueltie & Libertie they went out, & became Apostates, as that to endeauour anie special proof therof, might iustly be censured of no lesse idle vanitie, then to seeme to deny it, of greatest ignorance or impudencie. And so leauing our Protestants thus confessedly Going out of our former Catholick Roman Church, and thereby branding themselues with the infamous Mark of Hereticks: I wil examine what Protestants think of the Roman Church in this behalf. And indeed this crime of Going out, is in it self so foule a blemish, as that some Protestants much desire to stayne our Roman puritie therewith. So D. Fulk would haue the world to thinke, ThatReten­tiue p. 85. the Popish Church, is but an Heretical Assemblie, departed from the vniuersal Church, long since Augustins departure out of this life. With whom agreeth his Brother blindbyard D. Sutclif, affirming, ThatSuruey of Poper p. 315. the Papists are a sect going out of Christs Church, and rising long after Christs time. But these great Doctours speake much, but proue nothing; for it behoued them, to assigne a former Church, from whence the Papists thus reuolted, as also the persons, who; the time, when; with other Circumstances; of al which they rest silent.

Wherefore to cleere our Roman Church of this so foule Imputation, & that to the perfect sight of the blearedst eye; And first to omit al former testimonies, plentifully exhibited in proof of her confessed, knowne, and vn-interrupted Conrinuance from the Apostles times to these of ours; as also to forbeare, that ancient Doctours and Writers in al Ages do specially mention and register vp, al notorious departures made by any Hereticks from the true Church, not insinuating the least concerning our Roman:

Our Innocencie herein is so notoriously apparent, as that sundrie Pro­testants being prouoked in this kind to giue the least Instance of anie such departure in our Roman Church, are euer inforced in their answer ther­unto, only to fly to our pretended departure from the sacred Scriptures; so passing ouer al precedent Ages, without anie colour of Examples to be vrged against vs. So M. Knewstubs Answer to certaine assertions &c. p. 35. answereth: you require to know, if our doctrine were the same, which they in the Primitiue Church professed, who they were that did at that time note our Going out &c. This question is altogeather vnnecessarie; for when an offender is taken with the manner, it is needlesse to stand vpon Examination of them, who were at the deed doing: We haue taken you with the manner; that is to say, with Doctrine diuerse from the Apostles; and therefore neither Law nor conscience can force vs to examine, who were witnesses of your first departing. With whom agreeth M. Powel, only answering, that the Roman Church, is Conside­ration of the Papistes supplication p. 36. fallen from the doctrine comprehended in the writings of the Apostles. But to omit, that this answer is a base and shameles begging of the thing it self in question, to wit, that we are departed from the Scriptures, which, as most vntrue, we euer do deny: It is further most impertinent to the point now vrged, which is, whether the Roman Church, hath gone out from anie other knowne Church; yea it most strongly argueth the contrarie, seing they much desiring to exemplify against vs herein, for want of al Instance [Page 26] during these 1600. yeares, constrained to iumpe them ouer, and only to insist in the writings of the Apostles; then which what more strongly can be vrged in our behalf?

And yet in like sort for want of better answer, D. Sutclif Answer to the mass. Priestes supplicat. c. 7. sayth: Neither is it material that the Roman Church neuer went out of anie knowne Christian Societie: So insinuating her neuer Going out, with is the only thing I here desire to proue. But if this be not material with D. Sutclif, yet is it most ma­terial and conuincing with al men of iudgement; for if the Roman Church or anie other Church, hauing once been confessed members of the true ancient visible Church of Christ, did neuer depart, or Go out of the sayd true Church; then are they stil yet within it, and members of it; Now that the Romam Church was not only a true Church in the Apostles times, but also vnto the time of S. Austin and further, it is abundantly al­ready confessed; and therefore seing she hath confessedly neuer departed out; the sequele is euident, that stil she continueth t [...]e true Church; then which, what can be vrged more material either in our defence, or more disgraceful against al Protestants?

But the truth hereof is so palpable, as that the learnedst Protestants, in colour and excuse of their Church not departing out of the knowne vi­sible Church, do chiefly vrge and pretend their owne communion with the Roman Church in al Ages whatsoeuer. So M. Bunnie verie wisely tea­cheth that,Treat. to pacific. see 18. p. 108. Of departing from the Church there ought to be no question at al amongst vs &c. we Ib. p. 113. are no seueral Church from them, nor they from vs, and there­fore there is no departing at al out of the Church, for anie to depart from them to vs, nor from vs to them: Al the difference between vs, is concerning the truer members, whe­ther we, or they may be found more worthie of that account: As for the other, we allow no such question. In so much that he affirmeth; thatIb. p. 109. it was il done of them, who first vrged such a separation, cōfessing further, our aduantage Sec. 15. p. 92. giuen therby; for that [...]b. p. 96. (sayth he) it is great probabilitie with them, that so we make ourselues answerable for to finde out a distinct and seueral Church from them, which continued from the Apostles Age to this present; else, that needs we must acknowledge, that our Church is sprong vp of late, or since theirs. So earnestly doth he labour his Chur­ches not Departing from the Roman Church; and thereby supposeth the Roman Churches neuer departing from anie other, for if the Roman Church had euer departed her self, then were it no proofe, but rather a conuiction of the Protestant Churches most certaine departure.

But insteed of al such pretended departure, D. Field acknowledgeth further, That Of the Church. p. 88. the Roman Church held stil Communion with those other (Chur­ches) which neuer fel into errour, and so were both of one Communion: Which eui­dently proueth she neuer went out of the true Church, but stil preserued Communion and Societie with her.

So euident it is, that our Roman Church is freed from that infamous Marke of Heresie of Going out of the Church; which yet Protestants haue so cleerly done, going out of our Roman Church, and that our honour, and their infamie therin, is proclaymed to the world, by men condemned thereby, euen by Luther, Caluin, Osiander, Pantaleon, Clapham, Alison, Mason, Fox, Rainolds, Iewel, Fulk, Sutclif, Knewstubs, Powel, Bunnie and Field.

But to giue M. D. Morton yet another scantling, whether Catholicks or Protestants be truly Hereticks: It is a supposed principle taught by S. Hie­rome: Ad Ctesiphont and Vincent Lyri. cont. haereses c. 4. That to reduce an Heresie to it beginning, is a confuting of it. Thus S. Ireneus refuted the Valentinians, and Marcionists, saying.L. 3. c. 4. Before Valentine, there were not anie which are from Valentine; neither before Marcion, were they which are from Marcion. And D. Whitaker auoucheth, That Cont. Duraeum l. 7. p. 479. no man denyeth, but that it much auayleth to the confuting of Heresies to haue knowne their beginning. In like sort D. Fotherbie, in behalf of the Crosse, argueth thus: If Answ. to obiect against the Crosse in Bap. p. 26. it be but an humane inuention, let vs know, I pray you, the first Inuentour of it, and when it was first decreed, and how it came so soone to be so generally obserued; which if you cannot shew vs, I think we may with greater probabilitie esteeme it to be an Apostoltcal Tradition. D. Sarauia sayth vpon an other occasion:In def. Tract. de diuers minist. Grad. c. 23. p. 361. I answer it is not enough to say so, but it must be shewed out of Histories, which were those schismes, and where, and when they sprong vp; and how from thence so general a custome came. Agreably writeth M. Bel Regimēt of the Church p. 26. 27. If anie man deny this old custome, let that man shew, when it came in. And D. Iewel vrgeth D. Harding, concerning an errour of former times alleaged by him.Reply p. 112. If there had been anie shew of truth in it, M. Harding would haue layd out al the Circumstances, when this strange errour first began, where, and how long it continued, who wrot against it &c? Verily this great silence declareth some want. D. Bilson sayth:Suruey of Christs suff [...]ings, p. 660. The report of Eusebius proueth this clause, of Christs descending to Hades, to haue been anciently and openly professed in the primitiue Church; otherwise the Religious of those Ages, that liued with, and after Eusebius, if he had broached anie new point of Faith, as in dutie they were bound, so no doubt they would haue refuted and resisted them. D. Whiteguift, defending Cathe­dral Churches against M. Cartwright, demandeth accordingly of him:Denfen. p. 747. From what Pope they came, or in what time they were first inuented? Yea he further teacheth:Ibid. p. 351. That as for so much as the original and begining of these names, Me­tropolitan, Archibishop &c. such is their antiquitie, cannot be found, so farre as I haue read, it is to be supposed, they haue their original from the Apostles themselues; for as I remember S. Austin hath this Rule in his 118 Epistle. And,Ibid. p 352. It is of credit with the writers of our time, namely, with M. Zuinglius, M. Caluin, and M. Gualter, and surely I think no learned man doth dissent from them. Lastly sayth D. Morton Prot. Appeal. p. 465. We willingly ioyne issue, and if we cannot proue, that the Roman Church hath in manie weightie points of Religion degenerated from herself, then shal we no more decline from her, as from a malignant stepdame, but deuoutly yeeld vnto her al due acknowled­gement, as vnto a Mother-church.

And now to ioyne issue herein with M. Doctour, and so to square hereby the truth of Roman, or Protestant Religion: Our Catholicke Faith is so confessedly free, from anie knowne beginning since the Apostles, and so wholy agreable with S. Austins foresayd Rule, as thatIb. Thereby (in M. Cartwrights opinion) a window is open to bring in al Poperie; yea Ibid. p. 103. I appeale to the iudgement of al men, if this be not to bring in Poperie againe, to allow of S. Austins saying. So euident it is, that Poperie is without anie knowne begin­ning, and consequently no Heresie.

In like sort M. Powel being prouoked, that ifConsi­deration of the Pap sts Supplic. p. 43. our Doctrine be errour, then to tel vs when it came in, who was the Authour of it &c. answereth therto directly in our behalf saying: We cannot tel by whom, or at what time the Enemie did sow it &c. Neither indeed do we know, who was the Authour of euerie one of [Page 28] your blasphemous epinions. And so D. Whitaker confesseth:Resp. ad Camp. Rat. 7. p. 101. That the time of the Roman Churches change cannot easily be told: Yea wel foreknowing the im­possibilitie of anie such time to be assigned, he only euadeth by affirming, That Protestants Lib. 3. Cont. Dur. p. 277. are not bound to answer, in what Age Superstition crept into the Church. And; It is not needful for Protestants to search out in Histories the begining of this change. With whom agreeth Buchanus, saying:loc. com. p. 466. It belongeth not to vs to assigne what time the Church begunne to fade away. But if this be not needful for D. Whitaker or other Protestants to finde out; why did D. Whitaker be­fore teach, that no man denyeth but that it much auayleth, for the confuting of He­resis, to haue knowne their beginning: So forcible is the truth of the Roman Churches neuer changing in Faith and Religion.

D. Field being vrged to giue Instance of anie Contradiction made against the Roman Church, vpon the example but of anie one first known change in Doctrine; in steed of answer, acknowledgeth, thatOf the Church l. 3. [...]. 13. p. 89. the aberration in the Church of Rome in matters of Doctrine, was in such things, and so carried in the beginings, that the Authours of these new and false opinions, were not disclaimed and noted as damnable Hereticks: Yea the Authours of these errours, and they that were free from them, were, notwithstanding these differences, both of our Communion; and therefore the Circumstances (of the first Authour, and his Contradiction &c.) cannot be shewed. Here though it pleased M. Doctour to tearme our Catho­lick points of Doctrine errours, yet is he further pleased in our behalfe plainly to acknowledge, that no first Authour or begining can be shewed of these pretended errours, which is the point we desire. D. Fulk likewise being vrged to giue anie example of the time when, or by whom, our Roman Faith was contradicted, or charged with Innouarion, only sayth:Rtioin­der to Bristow p. 265. I answer, my text sayth, it was a Mysterie not reuealed, and therefore could not be openly preached against. But though the Iniquitie or Apostasie foretold by2 Thess. 2.7. S. Paul, whereof D. Fulk speaketh, be a Mysterie in t [...]e prediction; yet this nothing letteth, but that it may be conspicuous and most marka­ble in he euent; as the accomplishment of al predictions are. Yea this truth, of no knowne begining or change in our Roman Faith, is so certaine, as that sundrie Protestants earnestly labour to finde out seueral pretenses or excuses, why anie such change or Innouation was neuer noted, or obserued; so supposing and granting their ignorance of al such imaginarie change; and only seeking to euade by mere fallacies, and im­pertinent examples.

Thus D. Fulk examining, why our Religion entred the Primitiue Church without Contradiction, resolueth,Answ. to a Conter­faite Cath. p. 43. that it entred by smal degrees at the first, and was therefore lesse espied by the true Pastours, who were earnestly occupyed against greater Heresies, as the Valentinians, Marcionists, and Manichees: And therefore Against Purgatorie p. 256. either had no leisure to espie, or els made lesse account to reforme the same. But this is most idle; for the Fathers were most watchful and readie to suppresse al errours, euen of much lesser importance in themselues, then are, or were our Catholick Doctrines of Masse, Real Presence, Adoration of the Sacrament, Confession, Iustification by work &c. t [...]ough we should for the time, suppose them to be errours. Examples hereof might be giuen, about the keeping of Easter-dayIgnat. Ep. ad Phi­lip. Euseb. l. 2. c. 22. 23. in the time of Victor, and before; about [Page 29] prescript dayes ofEpiph. haer. 75. fasting; about mingling of water56) with wine in the Chalice; about the verie ceremonies57) of Exorcisme and Exuf­flation in Baptisme, and sundrie such like, which I purposely pretermit; D. Couel himself granting, thatExami­nation &c. p. 64. 65. great and violent dissentions haue risen in the Church for Ceremonies; and that Councels haue condemned (some) as Hereticks, only for being opposit in this kinde.

But D. Fulk vrgeth further that some of our opinions, as namely Prayer for the dead, Answer to a Count. Cath. p. 39. deceiued simple men the sooner, because it had a pretence of charitie, and shew Against Purgat. p. 386. of pietie confirmed by custome, wherby it was at length allowed of by Austin, and others, who neuer weighed the matter by Scripture. But what errours had more pretence of pietie or charitie, then Origens; for the Saluation of Diuels; Tertullians for chastitie, S. Cyprians against Baptisme by Here­ticks, Montanus for austere Fastings, and Papias for Christs raigninge vpon earth a thousand yeares aster the Resurrection? and yet al these, Montanus only excepted, being principal men, and of special deseruings in the Church of Christ, were greeuously contradicted and reproued by the Catholick Doctours of theirs and succeding times for these verie errours.

But M. Woton persisteth, saying, to Catholicks:Trial of the Romā Clergie p. 378. It is ridiculous for you to challenge vs to shew, when the Faith receiued by the Church of Rome from the Apostles, began to faile in it; it was done, as our Sauiour speakes in the like case, while men slept: And the same sleepie argument is vrged by D. White Way to the true Church p. 371. But this is cleerly to contradict God himself, who sayd,Isa. 62.6. vpon thy walles ô Hierusalem, haue I set watch men; al the day and al the inght for euer, they shal not hold their peace. Now, if they were al asleep when so manie and so great pretended errours of Catholick Doctrines, as are supposed to haue begun, and that in seueral times and Ages, how could they be more silent, or how could they be sayd to watch, either day or inght? How could that saying of S. Austin be true:Ep. 119. c. 19. The Church of God beset with chaffe and cockle, although she tolerate many thinges (which she is not able to redresse) yet such things as be against Faith, or good life, she neither alloweth, nor passeth ouer in silence? Or how is that verified of D. Fulk, Answ. to a Count. Cath. p. 11. and 92. that the true Church hath alwayes resisted al false opinion, with open reprehension? Or how is that true which White himself auoucheth saying:Way to the true Church Ep. Ded. sec. 8. The primitiue Church, and al the Doctours thereof would ne­uer yeeld, I wil not say in an opinion, but not so much as in a forme of speech, or in the change of a letter sounding against the orthodoxal Faith &c. YeaIb. sec. 6. the vigilancie, zeale, & courrage of the Primitiue Bishops was admirable &c. There could no Heresie harbour vnder them, but they droue it out. So cleer it is, that the true Churches Pastours, are neuer so sleepie, as to suffer anie errours to be published or practised without their resistance.

But D. White, M. Woton and other Protestants, obseruing that this pre­tence of sleeping, would nothing auayle them, do therefore acknow­ledge, that such was the nicenes of our imagined Inuentions, that they could not be seene or discerned; so faith M. Wooton, Trial of the Romā clergy. p. 383. You presse vs, that if there had been anie alteration of Religion, it would haue been recorded; but how should it haue been recorded, when it was not seen? The alteration grew so nicely, that few, or none could discerne it. D. White exemplifyeth this, saying:Way to the true Churhc p. 370. The Ro­mish Faith came into the true Church, as sickenes doth in to the bodie, and ruin to a [Page 30] house which appeareth not by and by at the first, but then when it is ripened. D. Whi­taker instanceth in the haires of a Cont. Camp. Rat. 7. p. 101. 102. mans head, which waxe not white sud­dainly; and in slifters entring into a building, at first not to be perceiued. But to omit that, as Peter Martyr confessethEpist. anex. to his com. plac. in Engl. p. 131. vnles a man do diligently examine similitudes, he shal easily be deceaued by them: This argument being taken frō excrements, diseases, and ruines, is no lesse vnworthie, infirme, and ruinous itself; for first in none of these is the change made, instantly and at the first, but by degrees and in successe of time; whereas in Doctrine euerie opinion is at the first, either true or false. Secondly, the first whitnes of haires, or the first decay in health, or building, cannot at the first he discerned, though they were most precisely regarded, which is euidently otherwise in change of Doctrine, and practise thereof. Thirdly, none are specially appointed, neither is there anye such vrging necessitie to marke the first change of the haires, and the like; whereas it is the special charge, and command, not of few, but of al the Churches Pastours, not only to obserue, but also publickly to withstand the other, with the vttermost of their power and learning.

But admitting for the time, that the foresaid similitudes were pertinent, and that we were not to vrge Protestants to shew the first begining of our so great a change, as is by them imagined; Yet we are in al reason to ex­pect, that as, though the first white haire, or slifter, or degree of disease, be not discerned, yet the further degrees and encrease of them being most markable & to be seen, that therefore they are to discouer, & describe to vs, some sensible proceedings, & encrease of this our supposed change. And if they wil say, it was not made al at once, but by litle, & litle, sometimes in on point of Faith, sometimes in an other, then stil must we vrge them to shew those seueral litle changes, as what points of doctrine were so by de­grees changed? Who were the Authours of the change? What Popes be­gun or first allowed them? by what Doctours; and Pastours were they first contradicted? Or els, they in al these being most silent, we may most strongly conclude, that our Roman Church, being thus free from al knowne change or Innouation, since the Apostles times, that therefore she is not anie Heretical sect, Going out or departing from a former Church, nor her doctrine Heretical, no one Article thereof being lyable to that foulest stayne of Innouation.

Whereas to the contrarie, the verie first beginings, changes, and Apo­stasies, made by Waldo, Wicclif, Husse, Luther, Suinglius, Caluin, or anie other pretended Protestant, in anie Age whatsoeuer, were euer so obserued, contradicted, and condemned by the watchful Pastours of the Roman Church, as that euerie particular, both of Person, time, place, and opinion, are euerie where to be seene in sundrie Writers, both Catholick and Pro­testant.

But to reach M. D. Morton yet an other scantling of an Heretick, we must obserue, that this name Christian, giuen at first to al beleeuers, was espe­cially taken to distinguish them from the Iewes and Gentils, which belee­ued not at al in Christ. But when Hereticks began to arise from among the Christians, who professed stil Christs name, and sundrie Articles of Faith, [Page 31] the name Christian was too general to seuer Hereticks from true beleeuers. And therefore the Apostles imposed the name Catholick vpon al such as in al points were obedient to the Churches Doctrine. Hereof saith expresly M. Wotton Trial of the Romish clergy p. 285. 286. The reason of the name, Catholick, was at first, that there might be a title, to distinguish sound Christians, and true churches, from Hereticks.

And of the contrarie in al Ages it was euer vsual that euerie Sect or Companie, embracing new Doctrine, though but in some one or other point contrarie to the Catholicke fayth, receiued thervpon the like an­swerable alteration of name; sometimes from the Doctrines so newly em­braced, sometimes, and that more vsually, from the first Authour and Inuentour himself. And it was thought meet, saith M. Woton Ib. p. 286. That Hereticks should be called by some special name, either of their Authour, or of some points of errour which they held. In like sort D. Field doubteth not to say:Of the Church l. 2. c. 9. p. 57. Surely it is not to be denyed, but the naming after the names of men, was in the time of the Primitiue Church, peculiar and proper to Hereticks and Schismaticks only. Neither Apolo­gie &c. p. 30. 31. do I see (saith M. Parker) anie sufficient reason, why those among vs, whom sin­gularitie in affection, and noueltie in faction haue denomitated Puritans, should not be distinguished by that name &c. for in truth such new names haue in al former Ages for distinction sake been attributed vnto al such, who defended new opinions, either deuised by themselues, or others, contrarie to the receiued doctrine of the whole Church.

Thus from the erroneous Doctrines, which they broached & defended, were named the Heretical Monothelites, Aquarians, Agnoites, Theopaschites, Catabaptists &c. And according to Hospinian Concord d [...]scord. f. 131. the Enthusiastes, Anabaptistes, Antimonians, and Sacramentaries; And from that Authours themselues were named the Nicolaites, the Manichees, the Arians, the Pelagians, the Donatists, the Nestorians, the Eutichians, the Waldenses, the Wiccliuists, the Hussites, the Lutherans, the Caluinists, the Suinglians.

To examine now both Catholicks and Protestants about this point: The name, Catholick, we haue seen was imposed to distinguish sound Christians, and true Churches, from Hereticks; and was for the same cause inserted into the Creed by the Apostles themselues; and so accor­dingly, it hath been vsed, and vnderstood by al FathersCyril Catech. 18. Aug. Cont. Ep. fundam. c. 4. & de vera Rel. c. 7. Patianur Ep. ad Sym­pron. and Writers in former Ages.

And as for the name Papist, as it was neuer heard of, 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 againstAnsw. 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 sayingOf the Chur [...]h l. 2. c. 9 p. [...]8. We must obserue, that they which professe the Faith of Christ, haue been sometimes in these later Ages of the Church called [Page 32] 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:Of the Chu [...]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 ProtestantsSley. 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, Protestan [...] (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 frō 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 Answ. to Rainolds Pref. p. 44. For distinction sake we are inforced to vse the name of Protestants. Conradus Schlusselburg saythCatal. 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 [Page 33] when they name themselues and the Defenders of their opinions Lutherans. But as Grauerus further giueth the reason saying: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. 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: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 [...]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, thatCathol. 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: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 Sect to be Heretical, seing the reducing of an Heresie to it begining, is confessedly a confuting of it.

But now some Protestants hereby perceauing our Roman Church to be thus free from al noted change or Innouation, as also their owne errours to be easily traced to their first beginings and first Authours; for their preuenting hereby that so odious name of Hereticks▪ they endeauour to proue eu [...]n against their other Brethren, that a Sect or Heretical profession may be published or followed, without note of anie known begining, either of the doctrine, or the Authour. So D. Fulk obiecteth that,Against Purgat. p. 388. There was an Heresie of them, that were called Acephalt, because there was noe Head knowne of them. But D. Fulk bewrayeth here most grosly his ignorance; for these Hereticks, were so named of Seuerus Conc. Nycen. 2. p. 62. Tom. 3 Niceph. l. 16 c. 27. & l. 28 c. 45. Acephalus Bishop of Antioche, who was their Head; and they were but a part of the Eutychians, whose Head was Eutyches. In so much as the Protestant Pappus sayth most directly contrarie to D. Fulk: Epist. Hist. Eccl. p. 494. And see Omerod in his picture of a Puritant p. 12. The Ac [...]phali were so named, not because the first Authour of their Errour was vnknowne, but bec [...]use &c. But besides, though their first Authour could not be named, yet is this no proof that their first begining is not knowne, which begining being othe [...]wise proued, the naming of the first Authour needeth not, the Authour being only sought for, thereby to know the begining.

In like sort, where D. Fulk alleageth there also, the example of the Chiliasts, the Ophites, the Caineans, the Scethites, the Adamites, the Melchisedacheans, [Page 34] the Apostolicks, the Emerobaptists &c. whose first Authours cannot be named; this in like respect is most impertinent, as wel, in that these and manie other Heresies receiued their name, not from their first Authour, but from the errour it self; as also for that the point here cheifly insi­sted vpon, is not so much of the first Authour being knowne, as of the first begining being known, and therevpon contradicted: Which begining and contradiction being discouered, the naming of the first Authour is not necessarie, we only seeking the Authour, as is sayd before, therby to know the begining; now that al these, had a known secondarie begining after the Apostles times, and ware therevpon contradicted, appeareth by S. Epiphanius and S. Austin in their seueral Bookes of Heresies, & the same is confessed by the Cent. 2. & 3. c. 5. Pap. Epist. Hist. Eccl. p. 324. 325. 326. 327. 328. 340. Centurie-writers and their Brother Pappus.

The like obiection is made by D. Field, producing sundrieOf the Church l. 3. c. 14. p. 89. Examples, whose first Authour (saith he) cannot be named; But besides that, diuers of them (such is his want) are not matters of Faith, or such as by the Church are not hitherto determined; yet in that himself alleageth Contradiction to haue been made against al such as were material, himself therein affoardeth most ful answer to his owne obiection.

Wherefore seing manie Articles of our Catholick Faith, in the opinion of Protestants, are most grieuous errors, and yet they not able to shew when anie one of them first came in with Contradiction, but in al want thereof, are inforced to betake themselues to the obscure Exāples of other opinions neuer taught, but impugned by the Roman Church, neither euer generally diuulged, but abortiue and perished in their first Birth, most of them also arising in the Churches begining, when by reason of the general per­secutions then raging, and the want of printing, few monuments of those times are now remaining; and yet al this notwithstanding, their begining with Contradiction, is now to vs knowne and testifyed. Whereupon I may conclude, that it is more then probable, that if so manie of our fore­sayd Catholick Doctrines, hauing been so generally dispersed, had euer so begun with Innouation contradicted, the same would then haue been in some one point or other, in some one countrie or other, by some one man or other, knowne, discerned, and recorded. So cleer it is, that the Roman Church, thus confessedly neuer going out of anie other known Church; not anie change or begining of anie point of her Faith euer obserued or con­tradicted, that therfore according to the former scantlings, giuen and squared euen by Protestants themselues, she cannot be a Church nouel and Heretical. And so of the contrarie, the Protestants Sect most apparantly and confessedly going out of our Roman Church, as also the first Authours, begining, and progresse thereof, being at al times knowne, contradicted, and condemned; the sequel is euident, that Protestancie according to al the former scantlings, is a Sect Heretical. And so according to D. Mortons former description: She is the Helene of Greece, engendring dissention for carnal respects, the Diuels Concubine, conceiuing deformed shapes of errour; an Adder writhing itself into perplexed senses and Contradictions; and an Ape, imitating only the tearmes of truth. May not Protestants now be much ashamed and confounded to be patterned by those so odious Hieroglyphicks?

A BRIEF SVRVEY OF D. WHITES CATA­logue; wherin Contrary to the Confessed truth in the precedent Chapter, of no knowne beginning or change of our Romane Faith in anye Age; He vndertaketh (according to his Title therof) to shew, That the present Religion of the Roman Church was ob­serued & resisted in al Ages, as it came in, & increased: naming withal the Persons that made the Resistance: And the poynts wherin: And the time when; from fiftie yeares to fiftie, through­out al Ages since Christ. CHAPTER VIII.

HERE I must confesse M. Doctour giueth vs a goodly Brauado, and if his deeds do answer what his words engage him, the foyle shal be mine, and the feild his; but if he only barke, and doth not bite, and lurke away when he should enter the list, then shal ignorance, falshood, temeritie, shame, & confusion be al of them, his.

For trial then of his strength and art in this combat vndertaken, I do intend him a double assault; first by discouering in general his weake performance; and then by answering in particular his shaddowed blowes. First then, where he vndertaketh, in the verie Title of his Challenge, to shew: that the present Religion of the Roman Church was obserued and resisted in al Ages since Christ, as it came in, and increased, and that for more precisenes, by Semicenturies, or euerie fifty yeares, at the first iumpe, he ouerleapeth the first 600. yeares after Christ, confessing thatIb. p. 385. in the first 600. yeares there was no substantial or fundamental Innouation, receiued into the Church; wherevpon he beginneth his Catalogue thus: After 600. yeares were expired, that the seueral points of the true Faith began, one after another, to be more grossely corrupted, and changed by the Church of Rome. In the first fiftie I name &c. Now how was it possible for this great Champion, by one only blow, to giue a greater ad­uantage to vs, or more dangerous wound to himselfe, then at the verie first footing or encounter, to yeeld so much homage and honour to the Roman Church, as that for the first 600. yeares entire, she remained constant and immoueable in her Faith, receiued from Christ and his Apo­stles? And that more especially, and altogeather vnanswerably, seing the very particulars of our Roman Faith, wherein D. White cheifly insisteth for his pretended Innouation and change, as our Doctrines of Images, of Primacie, of the vnmarried life of Priests, of Real presence, of merits &c. are al of themSee be­fore. l. 2. acknowledged by the most of the learnedst Protestants to haue been the verie Doctrines, beleefe, and practise of the Primitiue Church; [Page 36] not some few only, but al or most of the ancient Fathers being therefore reproued in general as agreeing with vs Catholiks in the points forenamed? The second thing I intend to obserue, is, the strange indiscretion, or pal­pable ignorance, discouered in M. White, by his thus appealing to these last 1000. yeares, for proofe of change and noueltie in our Roman Faith; for what period of time is more generally confessed by al other Protestants to haue been wholy Papistical, then these last 1000. yeares?See be­fore. l. c. 2. Do not D. Fulk, M. Parkins, M. Powel, and manie others, al of them confesse, that for these 1000. yeares (to speake in their Dialect) the Popish Heresie hath spread itself ouer the whole earth; the Protestant Church during that time being not visible to the world, but lying hid vnder the chaffe of Poperie? Yea do not our Pro­testants further confesse to the contrarie saying:See be­fore. l. 1. c. 5. Between the yeare of Christ 300. and 316. the Antichristian and Papistical Raigne began, raigning vniuersally & without anie debatable contradiction 1260. &c. neuer suffring for the space of 1000. yeares after Syluester the First, anie to be seen vouchable or visible of the true Church? And it is so cleare, that during the foresayd time our Roman Church was not resisted, or charged with anie Innouation, by anie imagined Pro­testant, that directly likewise to the verie contrary, it is acknowledged, that the faigned Protestants of those times, did in al external shew and profession, conformeSee he­reafter. l. 4. c. 6. themselues to the Roman Church; whereof to omit others, D. White sayth himselfe:Way to the true Church p. 371. Protestants did not alwayes abandon the Communion of the Roman Church &c. the Tyrannie of Rome suppressed them so, that they could not manifest abroad to the world their dislike &c. but by force and violence were constrained to deuoure their owne sorrow in the societie of their aduersaries. So sociable and good fellowes were those Platonical Protestants, who in­steed of resisting the Roman Church for anie conceited Innouation, ac­cording likewise to Osiander, Cent. 8. Ep. Ded. p. 3 with a common Custome, as with a violent streame, were carried away to do the same things with the Papists: Which things he numbreth to be theirCent. 16 p. 1073. & cent. 8. Ep. ded. p. 2. Communion in the Ministerie of the Ghospel or preaching, in the Bible, in Baptisme, in the Lords supper, in taking of Orders &c. such (saith he) as those times did affoard. Then which, what can be sayd more forcible to free our Roman Church, from al change or contradiction, during the foresayd times?

Thirdly, it is to be obserued, that whereas D. White vndertaketh to shew, that the present Religion of the Roman Church was obserued and resisted in al Ages, as it came in, and increased; naming &c. to that end, the time when it so came in and increased; he faileth so fouly in his performance thereof, that among so manie examples by him produced, he doth not, nor could giue Instance of the first noted begining of anie one, or of the first contradictiō made therevnto In clerest conuiction whereof, I wil euidently shew here after, that euerie particular point of Doctrine by him instanced for our pre­tended first change and Protestant resisting, was formerly in much more ancient Ages taught and beleeued in the Roman Church; and so conse­quently, that D. White doth not performe his promise made, of naming The time, when our present Religion of the Roman Church, was obserued and resisted in al Ages, as it came in and increased.

Now to passe from the Time, to the Persons, which D. White nameth [Page 37] to haue made the Resistance, himself diuideth them into three parts or ranks, saying:Way to the true Church p. 393. one part of them is the Greek Church; an other part is some an­cient Diuines of their owne Church; a third part is such as the Roman Church perse­cuted. The first (sayth he) are sound and lawful witnesses, being the true Church of God to this day, though polluted with some errours. The second, though Papists in ma­nie points, yet shew against al exception those points, wherein they were no Papists, to haue been no part of the Catholick Faith, so called in their time; for then they would not haue resisted them, but embrace them as they do al the rest. The third part I graunt the Church of Rome then persecuted, and now calleth Hereticks (to wit, vs Protestants) but that is the question &c.

But now to examine the force of the argument, thus taken from this triple testimonie produced by our Doctour: First I do constantly auerre that no one part of the three, no nor anie one man of that one part can be assigned which was not originally at his first birth and breeding, a Ro­man Catholick, and not Protestant: And therefore though Going out of the Roman Church, he afterwardes contradicted the same in some one respect or other, yet this nothing proueth that the Roman Church did change her Faith but only that the sayd mā so Going out from her, did change his Faith which she had formerly taught him, & he beleeued. Secondly I do as resolutely auouch, that not anie one man of al those which D. White produceth, as obseruers & impugners of the pretended change of Roman Church, was not only at the first, but neuer after through his whole life truly P [...]otestant, dissenting much more in Doctrine and profession of life from moderne Protestants, then from Roman Catholicks. And therefore if their testimonie be good against vs in regard of some one or other opinion, wherein they haue Apostated from vs, agreing yet in the rest; how much more forcible wil it be against Protestants, from whom they wholy disclaime in most, and most important Articles of Faith?

For example, the first part of D. Whites Spyes, which obserued and re­sisted our conceited change, is the Greek Church, which, sayth he, are sound and lawful witnesses, being the true Church of God to this day &c. Now concerning these so sound witnesses, first it is certaine, that as there haue been seueralNice­phonus, Zo­noras, Gli­cas, Hum­bertus and Crispinus. Of the Esta­te of the Church p. 364. 253. Osiād. cent. 9. 10. 11. &c p. 144. 156. 261 262. Spark ag. Albine [...] p. 158 Kecker­man System. Theol. p. 68. 69. defections of the Greek Church from the Roman in these later times, yet haue the Grecians at manie seueral times reformed & submitted them­selues to the Roman Church, though at the last falling againe, they were therevpon oppressed with barbarous Turckisme. Secondly, their few er­rours, wherein they dissent from vs, are most notorious, both for their first begining, and the contradiction made vnto them: So their denial of sub­iection to the Roman Church, was begun by Ihon of Constantinople, but therein he was contradicted by S. Gregorie, l. 4. Ep. 34. 36. l. 7. Ep. 36.64. and byEp. vniuersis Episcopis. Pelagius: Their denial of prayer for the dead was begun by Aerius, but it was contradicted in him by S. Epiphanius haer 75. a Grecian, as also by S. Austin haer. 53 a Latin Do­ctour, and yet in both these doctrines they conformed themselues to Rome; as witnesse M. Spark, Ag. Albines p. 1 [...]8 Osiand. cent. 1 [...]. p. 477. Crisp. of the Estate of the Chur. p. 451. Osiander, and Crispinus. In like sort their defence of marriage of Priests was contradicted in them by S. Epiphanius haer. 59 and particularly in Theodorus by S. Chrisostome Ep 6. ad Theodor. mon. also a Grecian. Their denial of the Holie-Ghost proceding from the Father and the Sonne, was begun, and [Page 38] cōtracted about Anno 764 as testifieth Keckermanus System. Theol p. 68. Their denial of vnlea­uened bread in Celebration of the Eucharist, was begun about Anno 1053. as appeareth by Leo Ep. ad Michael Episc. Con­stantinop. c. 5. the Ninth, Osiander, Cent. 11. p. 156. & the Centurists Cent. 11. c. 8. Other few and lesser errours they had, which according to Crisp [...]nus vbi su­pra. p. 253. did Anno Domini 870. consist but only in the Primacie, and diuersitie of Ce [...]emonies.

But now as the Grocians did differ in the former points from Catholicks, wherin yet was their inconstancie most notorious, as also their first be­gining and contradiction, euen by the learnedst Grecians, euer markable; so did they incomparably much more differ from Protestants, as I haue formerlyl. 1. c. 6. proued more at large; agreing with vs, as Sir Edwin Sandes Relation of Religion in the last lease but fi [...]e. confesseth, In opinion of Transubstantiation, and generally in the Sacrifice and whole bodie of the Masse, in praying to Saints, in auricular confession, in offring Sacri­fice and prayer for the dead, Purgatorie, and worshiping of Pictures &c. To which other Protestant Writers before added al the seauen Sacraments, Relicks, Freewil, Monachisme, Vowes of Chastitie; Fast of Lent and other set fasting-dayes, that Priestes may not marry after O [...]de [...]s taken, and others. Yea at this day, they so much detest Protestant Religion, as that therein they vtterly refused (66) al Commerce and Communion, which with great sollicitation and sub­mission was offred them by Protestants. And now hence to returne to D. White, whose first part of sound and lawful witnesses against the Roman Church, was the Greek Church, the same being (sayth he) the Church of God to this day. For first, how can those be sayd to be sound and lawful witnesses for those verie points wherein they dissent from vs? Wherein may they be more iustly disclaimed from, or suspected of partiality, then when they speake in their owne Cause, and in behalfe of their owne opinions? Of what Credit and authoritie with Protestants is the opinion and Doctrine of a Catholick? Or wil they possibly esteeme him a sound and lawful wit­nes against themselues? If not, how can the Greek Church be produced as a sound and lawful witnes against the Roman, for those verie doct [...]i­nes wherin she hath departed from her, and for which she was contra­dicted by the cheifest Doctours and Pastours both of the Greek and Ro­man Church, and in which also as seing her errour, she hath often recan­ted and submitted her self?

See he­reof l. 4. c. 6.And againe, with what Iudgement doth D. White appeal to the Greek Church, as sound and lawful witnesses in defence of his owne, and against the Roman; which detesteth and refuseth al spiritual Communion with the Protestant sect, as being nouel and contrarie to the ancient Fathers, and which agreeth wholy with our Catholick Church, their former few errours only excepted?

And lastly how could the Doctour afford the Greek Church, so high a Title of being the true Church of God to this day, seing that it accordeth much more with the Roman, then the Protestant Church, and yet dis­senteth from both? But al this was to point out his sound and lawful witnesses against vs, whereas indeed in the most and weightiest Controuersies, they may be truly tearmed his sound and lawful Aduersaries. And thus much of the first part of D. Whites sound witnesses, summoned by him for the making of his Catalogue of his Protestant Doctours, obseruing and resisting the [Page 39] present Roman Religion, as it came in, and increased in al Ages.

To come now to the second part of witnesses; who though Papists (saith he) in manie points, yet shew against al exception those po [...]nts wherein they were no Papists, to haue been no Part of the Catholick Faith, so called in their time; for then they would not haue resisted them, but embrace them as they do al the rest. Here our Doctour dealeth plainly with vs, confessing that these his witnesses are Papists in manie points; but he might if it had pleased him, haue coupled the Grecians with them, who are confessedly no lesse Papists in most points then these. But it seemeth he was willing to rayse vp the number, which yet being examined, wil end in A. O.

For first, if these be lawful witnesses for the Protestant Church, because in some points they dissented from the Roman, then much more may they be sound witnesses against Protestants themselues, seing from them they dissent and continue aduerse in most, & most weightie points whatsoeuer. And whereas M. White vrgeth, that Against al exception these points, wherin they were no Papists, were no part of the Catholick Faith; because then they would not haue resist [...]d them, but embrace them as they do al the rest; this is so subiect to al exception and answer, that euerie child may except against it; for whe­ther is it more likelie that but some one or other man, thus resisting the Roman Church, did innouate himself, and change, and depart from his former Faith; or that the whole Church did alter or change from the sayd man and his singular Faith? For example, if I should argue thus in be­half of Puritans, that though they be Protestants in manie points, yet they shew against al exception those points, wherein they are no Protestants, to haue been no part of the Protestant Faith, for then they would not haue resisted them, but embrace them as they do al the rest; this kind of arguing as it would be grateful to them, so would it proue most disgraceful and distastful to Protestants; for hence would it follow that in those verie points wherin Puritans are diuided from Protestants, the Protestant Church should be changed, and the Pu­ritans should be the men who should obserue & resist the same; for accor­ding to our Doctours wise reasoning▪ if the Puritan poynts had been part of the Protestant Faith, then would they not haue resisted the Protestant Articles, but embrace them as they do al the rest. The which also may be vrged in behalf of Bro [...]nists, Anabaptists, and al other Sectaries whatsoeuer; for according to M. White, if the Protestant Church were not changed, the Purit [...]ns, Brownists, Anabaptists &c. would not haue resisted it in some points, but embrace them also, as they do in al the rest; then which no­thing can be vttered more absurd in it self, or more aduantagious to al He­reticks euer arising.

And so I passe to the last and worst part of D. Whites witnesses produ­ced against vs, and in behalf of himself; that is, to those whom (sayth he) the Church of Rome then persecuted, and now calleth Hereticks, that is, Protestants; which in his Catalogue he nameth to be Berengarius, Bertram, Ahnaricus, the Waldenses, Wicclinists, Lollards and Hussites; al which he coupleth togeather like Sampsons foxes, to make them good witnesses against the Roman Church. But first in what Court or Tribunal wil anie mans naked testi­monie be auailable against his Aduersarie, and especially of a conuicted [Page 40] offender against his Iudge, when he speaketh only for his owne priuate▪ Who may not disclaime and reiect as suspected, anie mans bare word in his own cause? This is the case of our last witnesses, who going out and departing from our Roman Church, as al other Hereticks haue euer done, were alwaies noted, contradicted, and condemned for the same: What then can the force of their testimonie be against vs, but as of a Felon or Traytour against his lawful Iudge or Prince, hauing denounced sentence of death against him.

Besides, I wil make it manifest that these who are produced as Pro­testants resisting the Roman Church in al Ages, were not Protestants, but cleerly dissenting from them in manie fundamental points. And lastly I would gladly know how possibly D. White could haue so good Intelli­gence of Protestants resisting in al those seueral Ages our Roman Church, when as I haue largely conuincedl. 3. c. 1. before, by the ful testimonies of manie and the most learnedst Protestants that euer were, that during al the foresaid Ages by him instanced, there was neuer any one Protestant known, and visibile to the world before the dayes of Luther?

Wherefore after good examining, I doubt not but my Doctours Pro­testants resisting in al Ages our Roman Church, wil finally resolue into his owne idle fancies; which if they were as forcible to proue, as his fond imagination is fertil to frame them, the ruine of Catholicks were in­euitable, and their verie memorie hateful.

But to leaue now a while these so sound and lawful witnesses, and to come to the poynts wherin they made resistance, I wil only obserue that sundrie of the poynts instanced by D. White, are either matters of indiffe­rencie, or not of Faith, neuer yet determined by the Church of God; or els of fact, and not of right, or lastly only of life and conuersation; al which is most impertinent in proof of anie change in Faith and Religion; which is the only point here to be proued by our Doctour.

Wherefore now to graple neerer with our Catalogue-Maker, and to examine the points instanced in euerie Semicenturie for the Roman Churches change: After 600. yeares were expired (saith he) the seueral poynts of true Faith began one after another to be more grossely corrupted, and changed by the Church of Rome. In the first fiftie, I name Serenus Bishop of Marseils in France, who brake the Images that began to be set vp in his Diocesse. But at the verie first M. Doctour iuggleth with vs; for whereas this matter concerning Serenus, was written first by S. Gregorie the great,l. 7. Ep. 111. he doth not anie thing in­sinuate that Images began then to be set vp in the Churches of Marseils in France, but only obserueth, that Serenus perceauing some Christians lately conuerted to adore the Images in the Church as though they were Gods, through Zeale did breake them, and cast them downe; for which verie fact was he yet seuerely reproued by S. Gregorie himself, writing thus vnto him: Pictures are vsed in Churches that those who are vnlearned, at least should read by seing in the walles those things which they could not read in bookes. Thy Brotherhood therfore ought to haue preserued the Pictures, and to haue hindred the people from their adoration, that so the ignorant might haue from whence to gather knowled e of the Historie, and the people not sinne in adoration of the Picture: Further also affirming, [Page 41] that not without cause l. 9. Ep. 9. Antiquitie admitted Histories, to be painted in the vene­rahle places, or Churches of Saincts. So cleer it is, that the placing of Images in Churches did not as then first begin. A truth further so euident, that sundrie Protestant WritersBefore l. 2. c. 14. haue largely heretofore acknowledged the vse and placing of Images in Churches, during the purest times of the Primitiue Church; alleaging to that end seueral examples from Sozomene, Athanasius, Prudentius, Nicephorus, Tertullian and others, who al of them li­ued some Ages before Serenus was borne.

But to proceed: In the same 50. yeares, sayth he, Gregory the Bishop of Rome resisted the Supremacie; for which hel. 4. Ep. 32. 34. 38. 39. citeth certaine Epistles of S. Gregorie, al written against Iohn Bishop of Constantinople, who as then assumed to himself the name of Vniuersal Bishop; which as he deseruedly reproued in him, so was he so farre from denying his owne Primacie, as that M. Bale reporteth to the contrarie,Image of both Chur. f. 11. that Iohn of Constantinople con­tended with Gregorie of Rome for the Supremacie, in which contention Gregorie layd for himself, S. Peters keyes, with manie other sore arguments and reasons. The which also is granted by manie otherSee be­fore l. 2. c. 4. Protestants, amongst whom one repor­teth, that whereasCath. Traditions q. 2. p. 17. the Emperour Maurice, would haue taken away the Pri­macie from Gregorie, and giuen it to Iohn Bishop of Constantinople &c. Gregorie did oppose himself against him. And the Centurists adde further thatCent. 6. col. 425. Gregorie glo­ried, that the Emperour and Eusebius his fellow Bishop (of Constantinople) did both of them acknowledge, that the Church of Constantinople was subiect io the Apostolick Sea of Rome.

Neither was this Primacie first begun by S. Gregorie; 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,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 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 [Page 42] of Preisthood aboue al others. Yea in fullest satisfaction hereof, it is plainly cōfessed by Protestants thēselues, that Constantin our first Christian Emperour, elder to Phocas almost 300. yeares,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 SeauenthAct. 4. & 5. Synod. Wherefore after the Sixt Synode, certaine Bishops assembled at Constantinople, who in the Emperour Iustini [...]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. 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 neitherCan. 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 sundrieBefore 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 [...]. 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.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 ofCan. 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 [Page 43] were the obiecting thereof impertinent, seing as then it was free & lawful to vse both kinds. Now, that Cōmunion vnder one kind, was sometimes vsed in much more ancient Ages, it might easily be proued by Sozomene, 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 answer.

After 750.750. to 800. I name (saith he) the Councel of Constantinople vnder Con­stant. Copronymus, and of Franckford vnder Charles the Great, against Images, and the booke yet extant that he caused to be made against the 2. Nicene Councel; with another set forth by Ludonicus his Sonne to the same effect. A great tooth stil hath our Minister against Images, but it neuer biteth; for t [...]is Councel of Constantinople was likewise neuer confirmed, but expressely condemned in the Seauenth Synod:Act. 6. & Paul. Diac. l. 21. 22 de Rib. Rom. Zono­ras in An­nalibus. And being assembled only of Grecians, who in the doctrine of Images, were manie of them diuided from the Roman Church, the testimonie thereof is of no force, as I haue shewed before. But besides, it is not worthie of obseruation, that as neither of these Councels of Constan­tinople so often vrged by our Doctour were euer confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, without whose allowance, according to the first CouncelSocrat. l. 2. c. 13. of Nice, it was not lawful to assemble General Councels; so neither did anie of the Patriarchs themselues euer assent vnto them, as is manifest by Zonoras, Cedrenus, Paulus Diaconus, and other Writers hereof. Yea further al Authours who write of General Councels, as Psellus, Photins, Zonoras, Nicephorus, Cedrenus, Nycetas, Paulus Diaconus, Rhegino, Ado, Sigebert, Abbas Vspergensis and others, do either not number these two of Constantinople amongst the Councels of the Church, or els do expressely reproue them; and the 2. Councel of Nice, which was truly General and plenarie, did directly abrogate and condemne them.

Adde hereunto in fauour of our Doctour, who is so far in loue with these Councels, that in that vnder Constantin is decreed,Can. 15. those to be accursed, who do not inuocate the B. Virgin Marie: As also,Can. 17. those who do not worship and Inuocate the rest of the Saincts: AndCan. 18. those who do not beleeue, that God wil giue eternal life for merits of works, according to the iust waight of his Iudge­ment; al which Catholike Canons areCent. 8. c. 9. col. 639 recited by the Centurists. Now [Page 44] if M. White wil vrge this Councel against Images, in which respect it was impugned and contradicted by seueral means, why may not I much more vrge it for these other poynts, wherein it was neuer reproued by any Councel or other Writers?

Now as concerning the Councel of Franckford, vrged here and by sundrie other Protestants against Images: First theCen. 8. c. 9. col. 639. Magdeburgians them­selues acknowledge, that Pope Adrian then Bishop of Rome, neuer con­sented vnto it, but both himself and his Legates resisted it. Now neuerGalasius Temo de vin [...]ulo Anathe­matis. was there anie one Councel holden lawful, whereunto the Roman Bishop resisted: In so much that this Councel of Franckford itself decreed,In lib. Catolino. That the last Iudgement of Controuersies belonged to the Roman Bishop; and with this verie argument cheifly it endeauoured to confute the seauenth Synode, imagining this to haue been assembled without the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome. So that this Councel of Franckford, by the testimonie of the Centurists, destroyeth it selfe.

Secondly, the Centurists in the same place teach, that the 2. Nicene Synod was confirmed by Pope Adrian; but the Councel of Franckford re­iecteth only such Synods as are assembled without the Popes Authoritie; wherefore according to the Magdeburgians not the Councel of Nice, wherein Images were approued, but some other was reproued by the Councel of Franckford. Thirdly, The Centurists further confesse, that the Councel of Franckford did not decree, that Images should be taken out of the Churches, but remayning in the Churches, that they should not be adored. Where­fore then do Protestants pul down Images, and break them? Wherefore do not themselues obserue the Decree of the Councel? Yea this verie Councel thundreth Anathemal. Carol. Hincmarus & Magde­burg. to al such as deface, break, & pul down Images; how then wil our Protestants escape this bolt?

Fourthly, the Councel of Franckford did indeed impugnel. Carol. & Hinc­marus. two Councels, one of Constantinople, which decreed against Images, and the other of Nice which was for Images. But the impugning of this latter was only through errour and materially, euen as the Councel of Ariminum con­demned the word Homousios; for the Authour of the Bookes vnder the name of Charles, had obtruded vnto the same Councel of Franckford two vntruths;In praef. lib. Carol. First, that the Councel of Nice had decreed, that Images should be worshipped with the honour of Latria, or that which is due only to God:l. Carol. The second, that this decree was made by the Grecians without the consent of the Bishop of Rome. Now these two lyes supposed for truths, it is no wonder, though the Councel of Franckford resisted the Councel of Nice. And that these were mere Impostures falsly imposed vpon the Councel of Nice, it is euident, aswel in that the Legates of the Roman Bishop subscribed to euerie Act, as also in that the Epistles of Pope Adrian himself for Images,Act. 2. were read in the Councel it self. And so likewise that the sayd Councel did not decree Images, to be worshiped with Latria, is further manifest, in that Basil of Ancyra, who was formerly an Heretick, being now conuerted and professing the Catholick Faith, theAct. 1. whole Councel hearing him and approuing him, affirmed that he did worship Images, but not with Latria, seing that was due only to God: And the like [Page 45] Act 3.4.7. was professed by Constantin Bishop of Constance, and other Bishops in the Seauenth Synode.

Neither let it seeme improbable, that such vntruths could be forged against a general Councel so lately before celebrated: Wheras most Pro­testants dare now affirme, that Catholicks adore Images as Gods, whereas almost thousands of Catholick Writers and the General Councel of Trent celebrated in the Confins of Germanie, do declaime the contrarie; what wonder then if the like be forged of a Greek Synod, which few could read and vnderstand, and which was celebrated in the Oriental parts, being far distant?

Lastly it is to be remembred, that though this Councel of Franckford did erre, yet was it not in matter of Faith, but only in fact, condemning vpon false information the Councel of Nice; neither was it euer confirmed, but expressely reiected by the Bishop of Rome; and therefore the errour thereof doth nothing preiudice the infallible authoritie of lawful approued General Councels. So manie wayes doth it appeare, that this thred­worne Argument from the Councel of Franckford against Images, is al­togeather impertinent.

And now to come to the bastard Booke fathered vpon Charles the Great: First, the Booke of Adrian the First to Charles is extant, whereby it appea­reth that the sayd Booke was written by some Heretick, and sent from Charles to Adrian, that he might answer it. Secondly, the RomanZonaras Cedrenus & Paulus Diac. in vita Leonis Isauri. Bishops, Gregorie the Third, Adrian the First, and Leo the Third Excommu­nicated the Grecian Emperours, and transferred the Empire from them, to the French; cheifly for that they patronised the Heresie against Images, whereas the French persisted euer constant in the ancient Catholick Faith; wherefore it is most improbable, that Charles should write in defence of the Grecian errour against the Pope of Rome. ThirdlyL. 1. de cultu Ima­ginum. Ionas Aurelianensis (who liued in the Raigne of Ludouicus sonne to Charles) testifyeth that Claudius Taurinensis, a special Patrone of the Heresie, durst neuer open his mouth therein, during the life of Charles. Fourthly, PopePaulus Aemil. l. 2. Franc. And see cent. 8. c. 9. col. 570. Stephen holding a Councel at Rome against the sayd Errour, Charles himselfe sent 12. of the cheifest Bishops of his Kingdome to assist him therein: And D. Cowper Chron. 174. reporteth that certaine Bishops were sent by Adrian to Charles, who held a Councel in France against the condemnation of Images. Fiftly, this most famous Emperour Charles, was so wholy Roman Catholick, as thatEp. ded. Hist. Sacra. Hospinian recordeth of him,Epist. Hist. Eccl. Cent. 8. p. 101. Crisp. of the Estate of the Church. p. 221. 216. Bul. in 2. Thess. c. 2. p 533. Cowp. Chron. f. 173. 195. Foxin Apoc. p. 436. that he not only cōmanded by publick Edicts that the verie Ceremonies, Rites, and Latin Masse of the Roman Church, as also the Decrees, Lawes and Ordinances of the Roman Bishop, should be obserued through his whole Empire, but himself by imprisonments and diuers kinds of punishments compelled Churches to the same. The like whereof, is confessed of him by Osiander, Crispi­nus, Bullinger, D. Cowper and M. Fox. So vnlike was he to write against the Roman Church concerning Images.

Sixtly, Caluin himself insinuateth this Booke to be forged about Charlemaines time saying:Iust. l. 1. c. 11. sec 14. There is extant a refuting Booke, vnder the name of Charles the Great, which by the words thereof we may gather to haue bene made at the same time. Seauently, wheras Charles was knowne to be verie skilful both in [Page 46] Greek & Latin, learned, & ingenious, in this booke there are manie absur­dities committed; as where it affirmeth, Constantinople to be a Citty most knowne in Bythinia, whereas indeed it is in Thracia: as also that at Constan­tinople there was a Councel celebrated in defence of the worshipping of Images, whereas the sayd Councel was celebrated at Nice: And that the Nicene Councel tearmed the Eucharist the Image of Christs bodie, whereas directly and purposely they refute and condemne the sayd speech.

Eightly, supposing for the time, against al the premisses, that it had been Charles his Booke, yet nothing would it auaile, but much preiudice Protestants; for therein is expressely taught, that the last sentence in Con­trouersies of Faith belongeth to the Roman Bishop: And that he hath his Primacie not from Councels, but from God himself. It prescribeth also Exorcismes to be vsed in Baptisme, Churches to be dedicated with special Rites: That we are to pray for the dead, and Inuocate Saincts, and their Relicks to be worshipped: That Chrisme and Holie-water are to be vsed: That in the Eucharist there is the true Bodie of Christ, and the same to be worshipped, yea to be offred as a true and proper Sacrifice: Al which do mainely impugne Protestant Religion: And therefore if they wil haue vs to beleeue this Booke, teaching that the Councel of Nice erred concerning Images; let them beleeue it teaching the other Catholick poynts next re­cited.

Lastly, if it could be proued that Charles himself had made this Book, & that he had been a perfect Protestant in al poynts; yet how would it hence follow, that the Roman Church had changed her Faith in the time of Charles? Or what would the testimonie of a Lay-man auaile them, seing according toOrat. 2. de Imag. Damascen, Christ committed not his Church to Kings and Emperours, but to Bishops and Pastours? But we haue seene sufficiently before, that Charles was a Prince wholy deuoted to the Roman Church, and a special Patron of Images, and consequently the Booke written against them, and imposed vpon him, is meerly forged and of no authoritie.

And so likewise is no lesse forged that other, vnder the name of Lewes his Sonne, which for such is condēned by the Catholick Church: NeitherIndex lib. pro­hibit. doth our Doctour affoard vs the least colour of proof, for the legitimation of either of these Bookes, but only sayth, that they are extant, as though it were rare among Hereticks to finde manie spurious & adulterine Bookes. And so I cōclude, that seing our Ministers proofs for the Roman Churches change in these 50. yeares, are al of them in seueral respects, either most impertinent, or most false, that therefore the Roman Church during the same time did not change.

After 800800. to 850. I name (sayth our Cataloguer) Ioannes Scotus, &c. who resisting the Real presence &c. was therefore murdred: The same time Berthram also writ against it &c. Claudius Bishop of Towres resisted Images, worship of Saincts, and Pilgrimage; Lotharius the Emperour reduced the Pope to the obedience of the Em­pire &c. These are the examples of the Roman Change in this time: But let vs examine them.

As concerning Scotus, that he resisted the Real presence, M. White pro­ueth it only by the testimonie of Daneus, who being a formal Protestant of [Page 47] these times, his testimonie is insufficient, as bearing witnesse in his owne Cause, & therefore al further answer were needles. But yet I do acknow­ledge, that about the same time there was one Scotus (not the subtil Do­ctour who liued some Ages after) but an other who writ something doubt­fully in this poynt, but his Booke was condemned in the Councel at Ver­cella, as testifyeth Lantfrancus: lib. de verit. Corp. Et sang. Domini in Eucharistia. And he is obserued to be the first in the Latin Church, who writ suspiciously against the Real Presence. And as for Bertram, though the Booke extant vnder his name doth vse some doubteful, and obscure words, as Figure, Spiritual, and Mysterie, yet at other times doth it speak as plainly: Affirming the Presence of Christs Bodie, vnder the veyle or couerture of Bread. Yea the Centurists confesse that Bertram Cent. 9. c. 4. Col. 212. (in the sayd Book) hath the seeds of Transubstantiation. Secondly, this sayd Book being set forth lately by Oecolampadius may iustly be suspected; and rather, in that Pantaleon p. 65. in his Chronograph, mentioning Bertram and his other writings, forbeareth yet to mention this Booke, or to charge him with this pretended opinion. Thirdly, Illiricus making a Catalogue of Prote­stant witnesses (to whom our Minister, for this of his, is no litle beholding) doth yet forebeare altogeather to name him therein, but it seemes our Mi­nister ment to make al good flesh, that he cast into the pot. Fourthly, Ber­tram was a Monke, and so continued vntil his dying day, not teaching anie one point of Protestancie in his life, as may appeare byverbo Bertramus. Sander. de visibil. Mo­narchia. haer. 133. Tritemius and others that writ of him. Fiftly, supposing for the time that Scotus & Bertram did both of them beleeue and write directly contrarie to the Real Presence, yet what doth this proue, that the Roman Church as then did change her Faith, or make anie Innouation concerning this poynt? But rather that these two dissenting then in this from the whole Christian world, did change, and begin themselues this their so singular and presently condem­ned opinion. Sixtly, the Roman Church is so free in this Age from chan­ging her Faith concerning the Real Presence, that the verie Doctrine thereof is formerlyl. 2. c. 8. acknowledged by sundrie Protestants, to haue been taught by S. Gregorie, S. Ambrose, S. Hilarie, S. Cyril, S. Cyprian, and sundrie others most ancient and approued Fathers.

And as for Claudius Taurinensis in this Age resisting images, it is graun­ted; as also that heIonas Aureol. de Cultu Imag. Praefat. ad Carolum. endeauored to reuiue the Arian Heresie long before dead,Cent. 9. c. 10. Col. 498. & forgotten; but he was presently noted & condemned of sin­gularitie and Errour. Neither did Claudius resist anie pretended begining, or change in the Roman Church; but only cast out of the Churches of his Diocesse Images and Crosses, which peraduenture were there erected long before Claudius was borne: But I need not insist anie longer herein, this poynt being fully cleered in the example of Serenus.

Now as for Lotharius the Emperour reducing Pope Sergius to the obe­dience of the Empire: First, this concerneth only gouernment & Policie, not Faith and Religion, which M. White vndertook to shew, as it came in euerie Age. Secondly, Lotharius was so Roman Catholick, as that ac­cording to the Centurists Cent. 9. c. 10. Col. 498. themselues, Pope Sergius himself crowned him, & created his Sonne Lewis King of the Longobards: And the Sonnes of Lewis being at discord about the Kingdom, he pacifyed by his Legats, and allowed the partition of the [Page 48] Kingdome. Now what signes were these that the Pope was subiect; or re­duced to the obedience of the Empire, but rather to the contrarie [...] & that the more,Lib. Pon [...]si [...]alis in vita Sergij 2. N [...]uclerus in Chron. Generat 39 in that Lewis being sent by his father Lotharius with diuers Archbishops and Bishops to Pope Sergius at Rome, to moue him that he would permit the Roman Nobilitie to sweare fidelitie to him; as he had permitted them to do it to his father Lotharius; The Magdeburgians report his answer to be this:Cent 9. c. [...]9. Col. 498. If you desire that this oath be made to Lotharius the Emperour, I am content and permit it: but that it be done to Lewis his Sonne, neither I, nor the Nobilitie do consent. So litle obedience doth he acknowledge to the Emperour, and so false it is, that the Pope was reduced to the obedience of the Empire, or that he was confuted by the Bishops sent with Lewis.

After 850.850. to 900. I name Volutianus a Bishop, that wrot to Nicolas the First, in the defence of Priests mariage, Michael the Emperour, and Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople resisting the Popes Supremacie, as also did the Bishop of Rauenna. But first D. White barely affirmeth this of Volutianus not citing anie Authour, or yealding the least proof thereof; and therefore it may be suspected to be only his owne inuention: And the rather in that no mention at al is made of anie such man, either in the Acts of Nicolas the First, or in the Records of those times. But it may be that our Minister mistaketh Volutianus for Vlricus, who hath been often obiected by Protestants to haue written to Pope Nicolas, in defence of Priests marriage; whereas it is certaine,Onu­phrius l. de Rom Pontif. Anastas. Bibl. de vitis Rom. Pontif. Pantaleon in Chronol. p. 70. that Pope Nicolas the First was made Pope Anno 858. and dyed Anno 867. And vlrick was not made Bishopvrsper. Chron. Chitraeus in Chro. Pant. Chron. p. 75. of Augusta til after the death of Pope Nicolas, to wit Anno 924. and continuing Bishop 50. yeares dyedBeut. l. faster. p. 209. Pant. Chron. p. 75. Osiander Cent. 9. 10. & p. 99. 100. Anno 973. By which accompt this Epistle was written either before that Vlrick was borne, or els after that Pope Nicolas was dead. So clear it is, that this Epistle printed lately at Basil, is only forged vnder the name of Vlrick. And though it were not Apocryphal, yet would it much more presse Protestans then Catholicks; for therin is taught, that the Roman Bishop is Head of al; and that from al, obedience is due vnto him: As also that he is to compel Priests and Monks not to marry, and if they do marry after the vow of Continencie, that they are to be separated.

And as for Michael the Emperour, and Photius the Patriarch of Constanti­nople resisting the Popes Supremacie; the truth of that Historie is breifly this, related more at large by Nycetas and others both Greek and Latin Writers. Ignatius Ioan. Curopalates Nycaetas, Nicolaus in diuers Epistles Anastasius. Patriarch of Constantinople hauing Excommunicated Bardas (one of the principal men vnder Michael the Emperour) for dis­missing his own lawful wife, and taking his own kinswoman in her steed; Bardas therevpon being much incensed, endeauored by al meanes to cast him out of the Sea of Constantinople; to which purpose he suggested vnto the Emperour, manie things most false against Ignatius, wherevpon the Em­perour caused him to be bannished into the Iland Terebinthus, & through the sollicitation of Bardas, appointed that Photius, as then a Courtier and Secular man, should be ordained and placed in his Sea; a man altogeather vnlearned, who for his better Confirmation entreated the Emperour, that he would send an Embassadour to Pope Nicolas, desiring that some Legats might be sent from him, for the correcting and redressing of some faults in [Page 49] the Church, and in particular he pretended the Heresie of Iconoclasts, or breakers of Images; signifying further himself by his false letters to the sayd Pope, that Ignatius by reason of his old age and infirmities, had of his own free accord resigned vp his Sea, and betaken himself to a Monasterie in a certaine Iland, where he continued much honoured and respected both by the Emperour, and the whole Cittie. The Embassedours sent by the Emperour, were certaine Bishops and a Lay-man named Arsa, who carried manie and verie rich Tokens to the Pope; of whom being receiued, he returned with the two Bishops Rodoaldus and Zacharias for his Legats, with particular charge to examine matters, but to define nothing before his notice; and withal not to communicate with Photius as a Bishop, but only as a Secular man, being ordayned contrarie to the Canons, and ha­uing vniustly deposed Ignatius: which when Photius perceuied, he hindred the sayd Legats for conferring with anie, but only their own followers, and withal assembled a Synod, wherein through the power of the Empe­rour, he further confirmed the Deposition of Ignatius, and his own Crea­tion, threatning also the Popes Legats, that vnles they also would sub­scribe to the sayd Councel, the Emperour would bannish them into re­mote Countries, where for verie hunger they should be inforced to eate lice; Through which terrours, and also through bribes from Photius, the Legats, contrarie to the Popes command, subscribed to the condemnation of Ignatius and establishment of Photius: Which when Pope Nicolas truly vnderstood, assembling a Councel in Rome, he excommunicated Photius and his own Legats, and deposed them al, restoring Ignatius to his Sea: Which Basil the Emperour, succeding Michael, according to the Popes de­termination, fully executed.

Now what doth anie of this make against the Popes Supremacie, but rather confirme the same, seing that both Michael and Photius sent Embas­sedours to the Pope, entreating that he would send Legats from himself, for the redressing of abuses at Constantinople? And when themselues were found cheifly faultie, the Emperour was seuerely reprehended by the Pope, and Photius excommunicated and deposed. Adde hereunto that the Greek Writers themselues do generally testifye, that both Michael and Photius were men extremely addicted to manie and most enormous vices, and therefore their resisting the Pope, is of no greater Authoritie, then of an offender or Rebel, resisting his lawful Iudge or Prince.

So likewise concerning the Bishop of Rauenna's resisting the Pope, Anastasius, cited by M. White in proof thereof, reporteth,In Ni­colao. 1. that sun­drie Persons going to Pope Nicolas, with manie complaints of greiuous wrongs and dommages done vnto them by the sayd Bishop, the Pope therevpon, did by his Legats and letters admonish him to surcease the same, and to make satisfaction. Which the Bishop neglecting, and adding stil more to his former impieties; he further commanded him to repaire to Rome there in the Synod to answer in his own behalf, which he like­wise refusing and contemning to do, he was therevpon Excommuni­cated by the same Councel: Yea the Pope himself, vpon the earnest in­treatie [Page 50] of the people of Rauenna, went to the same Cittie, where presently he restored manie things taken wrongfully by the Bishop, who hauing Intelligence before hand of the Popes comming, was fled to Papia, there to desire Ludonicus the Emperours help and backing against the Pope: But as the people there in the streets did eschew his companie, hearing that he was Excommunicated by Pope Nicolas, so the Emperours answer was only this by his Messenger: Let him go, and laying pride aside, let him humble himself to the Pope, to whom both we and al the Church are subiect: Which when the Bishop heard, despayring of al other meanes, he went to Rome, where submitting himself to the Pope, and promising reforma­tion, and performance of sundrie matters enioyned him, and com­manded by the same Pope, he was therevpon absolued from his Excom­munication, and suspension from saying Masse.

This being the truth of the Storie concerning the Bishop of Rauenna his resisting the Pope; I referre it to the Iudgement of anie impartial Rea­der, whether this doth not strongly confirme the Primacie of the Bishop of Rome.

But to proceed after 900.900. to 950.950. and so forward, D. White vrgeth sundrie abuses noted as then in the Church of Rome; But those by him spe­cifyed, concerning only matter of life and manners, are altogeather improper and insufficient to proue any change in Faith and Doctrine; which was the only point pertinent to be proued: Yea Baronius, by him, alleaged speaketh only of such abuses as were brought into the Church by Anti-Popes and Intruders, not by true Popes.

And whereas further it is obiected, that certaine of the English Clergie, maintayned the Sacrament to be only a figure of the Bodie & bloud of Christ, against the Real Presence then increasing: Besides that the confirmation hereof depen­deth vpon the testimonie of the old Fabler Fox, I haue shewed here­tofore, in the Examples of Scotus and Bertram, that our Catholick Doctrine of Real Presence, was confessedly beleeued and taught in the purest times of the Primitiue Church.

After 950.950. to 1000. we haue (fayth D. White) Otho the Great, that de­posed Iohn the Pope, and assumed into his hands the nominating and making of Popes hereafter &c. But this only proueth what was done, not with what right it was done; for though through the solicitation of a false Synod, Otho assented to the deposition of Iohn, by reason of manie cri­mes obiected against him: Yet the proceeding therin was in sundrie respects not Iuridical, but directly contrarie to the much more ancient practise and decrees of the Church, as Baronius proueth at large Anno 963. Neither is it true, that Otho assumed into his hands the nomina­ting and making of Popes hereafter; for no sooner was Iohn deposed, but immediatly in the hearing of the Emperour, the Bishops assembled i [...] the same Synod, sayd: We choose Leo our Pastour, that he may be the cheif and vniuersal Pope of the Roman Church; to which though the Emperour afterwardes assented, yet did he neither first nominate or elect him.

In this Semi-centurie M. White further vrgeth, that Aelfricus Arch­bishop [Page 51] of Canterburie, preached and published his Homilies against the Real Pre­sence comming in. But first Aelfricus the Archbishop of Canterburie, was so Roman Catholick, that D. Godwin testifieth,Catal. of Bishops. p. 23. that he was brought vp in Glassenburie. And M. Bale assureth vs, that he was Schollar to S. Ethwald and Abbot of Abingdon; and for his craftie Cent. 2. c. 41. (sayth he) in promoting Pa­pistrie, made Archbishop of Canterburie. Secondly, the Protestants whichIn the Preface be­fore it. published that Sermon, confesse that the Authour thereof was no Archbishop of Canterburie. And it is more likely to be true which M. Fox Act. mon. p. 1148 & 1040. sayth, that it was Aelfrick surnamed Bara, an Heretick, who, as S. Dunstan appearing to one in a vision sayd (as reporteth Osberne) at­tempted to disinherit his Church, but I haue stopped him, (sayth S. Dunstan) and he could not preuaile. Thirdly, that Sermon diligently read, maketh as much for Transubstantiation as against it. Lastly though we should sup­pose for the present, that Aelfricus did preach or publish such Homilies, yet was that doctrine so far from comming in as then, as that the best and ancientest Fathers of the Primitiue Church, are formerly confessed and reproued for the same doctrine by sundrie Protestant Writers.

In like sort though Arnulphus, a man vicious, inueighed against the Pope, vrging, that if he be voyd of charitie, puffed vp only with knowledge, he is Antichrist &c. but if he want both charitie, and knowledge, then is he an Idol: Yet doth he not anie where absolutely affirme the Pope to be Antichrist, and especially that Antichrist which the Scriptures foretel shal come a litle before the end of the world, and so he only tearmeth him Antichrist in that sense of S. Iohn, 1. Io. 2.18. Now there are become manie Antichrists.

After a 1000.1000. to a 1050. yeares, I name (sayth he) Rodulphus Ardeus preaching against Merits &c. Glaber Rodulphus against the Popes Primacie, and Leuthericus denying the Real Presence. But for breuitie admitting al this for true, yet doth it not hence follow, that the Roman Church made anie change or Innouation in the foresayd poynts, seing the same were al of them taught and beleeued generally by the Church in times muchBefore. l. 2. c. 21. 4. 8. more ancient and approued.

After a 1050.1050. to 1100. I name (sayth he) Nycetas an Abbot and the Bishops of Italie, France and Germanie, resisting Hildebrand, and deposing him, when he would restraine the Clergie from Marriage; Henrye the Third &c. withstanding the Popes Supremacy &c. and iudging him to be deposed. Sigebert &c. noting the Popes Excommunicating Princes, and absoluing their subiets from their obedience, tearming it a noueltie and Heresie: Berengarius resisted the real Presence &c. But as for Nycetas, as I do confesse, that he writ manie things against the Roman Church, and in particular in behalf of Priests marriage, so yet did he afterwardes soBaron Anno 1054 nun. 19. much repent himself thereof, as that in presence of the Emperour Constantinus Monomachus and the Popes Legats, he recalled and accursed al his sayd writings; as also al such he accur­sed as denyed the Roman Church, to be cheif of al Churches, or presumed to impugne in any thing the Orthodoxal Faith thereof: [Page 52] wherevpon immediately the Emperour caused the said Books to be bur­ned in the sight of al. So that the argument here drawen from Nycetas is most fully answered by Nycetas himself.

And as for sundry Bishops, and Henry the Third, the Emperour, withstanding Pope Hildebrand, and iudging him to be deposed, it is altogeather immaterial; for the sayd Bishops adhering schismatically to the Emperour, for the whichBaro: Anno 1076. num. 15. themselues were Excommunicated, and the Emperour also for his manie enormous vices, it is no maruaile, though such men would endeauour their best for his deposing: And yet the EmperourIb. Anno 10 [...]7 num. 10. & 18. after submitted himself, going to the Pope bare­footed, and after foure dayes fasting, was admitted to his speech, and vpon certaine Conditions was absolued by the Pope from his Excom­munication: Yea it is obserued from the Writers of those times, that the Bishops and other Principal men who withstood the Pope, during the sayd Schisme, were most or al of them seuerely punnished by God in this world: amongst whom William Bishop of Virick being the Ring-leader, and one who, as Lambertus recordeth, vsually vpon Festiual dayes at Masse-time publickly inueighed against the Pope; this man being suddainly taken with a greuous infirmitie, with miserable houling before al that were present cryed out, that by the iust Iud ement of God, he had lost both this present and eternal life; in that with al his power he had concurred with the King, in al things which he wickedly intended, and for desire of his fauour had wittingly and willingly vttered greiuous Contumelies against the Roman Bishop, a man most holie and of Apostolical vertues: which when he had sayd, (as the report is) he d [...]ed without Receiuing or anie Satis­faction. Thus far Lambertus: ButIn Chronico Citicensi. Langius addeth further that, In the verie place wherin he detracted from the Roman Bishop, he fel sick, where he continued vntil the miserable end of his life; and his disease stil encreasing, one of the Kings seruants, asking him that he might returne to the King with his Com­mand: I send (answered he) to the King this Command: That he, and I, and al that fauour his Iniquitie are damned for euer; yea when he was admonished by some of his Clergie, that he would not say so, he replyed, what should I say, but that which I visibly see to be true? for behold the Diuels do compasse my bed about, that when I dy they may presently catch me. Wherefore I desire you, and al faithful people, not to trouble themselues with praying for me after my death. Now by this we must briefly note, what wretched and most damnable witnesses our Minister stil produceth against the Roman Church, and in defence of his owne.

As for Sigebert he was knowne to be one of the followers and flatterers of Henrie the fourth the Emperour, and therefore his testimonie in this case is of no force. But besides, his affirming the Popes Excom­municating of Princes &c. to be a noueltie and Heresie, is most absurd and vntrue; as might be proued at large by the much more ancient Examples of Pope Leo the Third, translating the Empire from the Grecians to the Germans; and of Pope Zacharie deposing King Childe­ricus, & creating Pepinus; of S. Gregorie the Second, excommunicating the [Page 53] Emperour Leo; of S. Ambrose Excommunicating the Emperour Theodosius; and sundrie such like.

Lastly, concerning Berengarius as he resisted for a time the Real Presence, so did he publicklyFox Act Mon. p. 146. recant the same. Yea his Errour was so great, and his Condemnation so iust, that the Centurists thus write thereof:Cent. 11. c. 10. p. 527. Leo the Ninth, deserued in this one thing, no smal praise aboue his predecessours, that presently at the begining he condemned the Heresie of Berengarius, togeather with the Authour in a Synod at Rome. But I haue sufficiently be­fore cleered our Roman Church of al pretended change in this behalf. After 1100.1100. to 1150. I name (saith M. White) Henrie the Fift the Emperour, who against Paschalis then Pope, maintained his right of making Bishops, and other priuiledges &c. Chron. Casmense l. 4. But who doubteth that anie Prince may not defend his right? Yet that which was done in the case proposed, was done by fraud and violence, by the Emperour against the Pope, who for the quiet of the Church, yeelded in some respects concerning the same Priuiledges, much bloud hauing been shead of either side, and great warres l [...]kely to ensue. And yet the sayd Emperour vpon the same agreement swore vnto the Pope, that he would restore such Lands and possessions of the Roman Church as he had taken away, or which the Pope ought to haue, and that he would obey the Pope, the honour of his Kingdome and Empire euer preserued. After which, the Pope saying Masse, when himself and those of the Clergie as­sisting at the Altar had Communicated, the Emperour also Receiued at the hands of the Pope. Now by this it sufficiently appeareth, that this Example of the Emperour, doth nothing proue any Innouation in the Roman Church, but rather to the contrarie, doth plainly shew his vnion and Communion therewith in matters of faith and Religion.

In like sort where he obiecteth, that S. Bernard freely noted diuers Corruptions then comming in; it is so vnprobable, yea so grossely vntrue, as that to the contrarieL. 2. Cont. Dur. p 154. Fulk against. Rhem. Test. f. 133. D. Whitaker, and D. Fulk, both of them confesse, that he taught the Popes Supremacie, and D. Whitaker Ad Rat. Camp. rat. 7. p. 105. aknowledgeth, that he was of our Church. In specul. Eccl. p. 23. Gomarus calleth him our S. Bernard. The Centurists affirme, that he was [...]ent 12. c. 10. col. 1637. a most earnest Defender of the Sea of Antichrist. Bel Chal­lenge &c. p. 148. tearmeth him, Bernard, the Popes deare Monk and reuerend Abbot. Yea the Centurists further report, That he sayd Cent. 12. col. 1939. to the Duke of Aquitaine, whatsoeuer is out of the Roman Church, by the Iudgement of God is certainly to perish, euen as those things which were out of the Ark, were drowned in the diluge: As also he that persecuteth the Pope of Rome, persecuteth the Sonne of God. Now by this, al of it confessed by sundrie and much more learned Protestants then M. White, it more then cleerly appeareth, that S. Bernard was no fit witnes to be produced against the Roman Church, nor that he himself, did differ in anie one point of Faith from her, much lesse did note anie pretended corruption of Faith comming in: And as for the feast of the Conception, or the Doctrine concerning the Virgin Maries freedome from original sinne, it is not yet to this day defined by the Church as a matter of Faith.

But where he further vrgeth that S. Berna [...]d was against Merits, Iustificat [...]on by works, Freewil, keeping the Law, Seauen Sacraments and vncertantie of our Saluation, and the Popes greatnes in Temporalities, it is al of it most vntrue, as himself might haue plainly shewed, if he had been pleased to haue set downe the answers out of Cardinal Bellarmine, as he was to haue his obiections.

In like sorte, that which he obiecteth concerning Arnulph, pertai­neth only to matter of life and manners, not to Faith or doctrine, and therefore it maketh nothing to proue anie Innouation or change in our present Roman Religion; As also, though as then one preached in Ant­werp, against the Real Presence; yet I haue before freed our Church from al Innouation therein, in far more ancient times.

And as for Honorius his noting the bringing in of Wafers into the Sacrament in this Age, it is so vntrue that M. Cartwright See before l. 2. c. 8. con­fesseth that it was brought in by Pope Alexander, who liued Anno 111. which is some thousand yeares before the time now ob­iected.

After 1150. to 1200. I name (saith M. White) the Emperour Frederick Bar­barossa forbidding Appeales to Rome, and the comming of Legats from Rome into Germanie &c. But though the Emperour did this, being as then at discord with the Pope, yet his fact was so faultie, as that he was thervpon, and for other iniuries, Excommunicated: From whichBaron. Anno 1160. num. 31. 32. & Anno 1168. num. 60. after, vpon his submissionBaron. Anno 1177. num. 22. and promise of obedience, he was absolued, and permitted to come to the Pope, whose feet the Emperour kissed, and bowing his head receiued reuerently his be­nediction: And that the Roman Church as then, made no Inno­uation concerning Appeales, or sending of Legats, it is most cleere by general practise & allowance thereof in the purest times of the Primitiue Church, proued at largeBefore l. 2. c. 4. heretofore.

And as for Lincolniensis noting as then the Noueltie and Heresie of Friars, M. White only barely saith it without al further proof: yea though as then the Institution of Friars had been but new, yet neither was it in anie thing Heretical, nor proued anie Innouation in the Church, in Faith and doctrine.

But to come to the Waldenses, who, according to D. White, were dispersed ouer al this part of the world, and in most substantial poynts resisted the Papacie &c. as it is not denyed, but that in some poynts they reuolted from the Roman Faith, so haue I shewedBefore l. 1. c. 3. before, that in sundrie other weighty Articles of Religion, they agreed with Catholicks against Protestants. And it is verie easie further to proue, that indeed they beleeued sundrie grosse errours, though M. White would make the world to think, That the sayd errours were falsly imposed vpon them. Ibid. p. 729. 747. 760. For Illiricus himselfeCatal. Test. verit. p 731. 745. 730. 732. testifyeth that they taught, That Laymen and women might Consecrate (the Sacrament) and preach: That Clergie men should haue no possessions or proprieties: That Ibid. p. 731. 743. married Per­sons mortally sinned, who accompanied togeather without hope of Issue: That [Page 55] neither Priest Ibid. p. 760. 740. & Osiand. Cent. 9. 10. 11. p. 440. nor Ciuil Magistrat being guiltie of mortal sinne, did enioy their dignitie, or were to be obeyed. And to omit manyIbid. p. 734. others; they went to the Catholick Churches dissembling, and offered, confessed, and com­municated dissemblingly. And now must M. White either charge his owne Brother Illiricus, to haue falsely imposed these errours vpon them, or els must he confesse that these so dissembling and ignorant witnesses, are altogeather insufficient to proue anie change in the Roman Church, out of which themselues went out.

After 1200.1200. to 1250. I name (sayth M. White) Almaricus a Doctour of Paris, that was bu [...]ned for withstanding Altars, Images &c. It is not denyed but that Almaricus was an Heretick, falling from the Roman Church: But yet I hope D. White wil be ashamed to clayme him for a Protestant; for he was condemned first by the Vniuersitie of Paris, after by Innocentius and a Synod at Rome, for these propositions following:Cesarius Dial. l. 5, That there is no Resurrection of bod [...]es. Secondly, that there is no Paradise norhel Thirdly, that the bodie of Christ is no more in the Sacrament, after the words of Consecra­tion, then in a stone or horse. Fourthly, that God spake as much in Ouid, as in Austin, and other such to the number of 20. for which he was burned openly in Paris with certaine other blasphemous Hereticks against the Persons of the B. Trinitie; saythLib. 6. Hist. Franc. and see Gers. Tract. 3. in Math. Aemilius li. 6. Hist. Gal. Gene­brad in Chro. Anno 1208. Gagninus. Besides I haueBe­fore lib. 2. c. 14. 22. proued before, that the foresayd Catholick poynts, vrged to be denyed by Almaricus, were yet al of them taught and beleeued by the Fathers of the Primi­tiue Church, so that no Innouation therein could be obserued or re­proued by Almaricus. In like sorte though Robert Bishop of Lincolne with­stood the Popes proceedings in England; yet this nothing proueth anie change or first comming in, of anie point of Faith in the Roman Church obserued or resisted by the sayd Robert. Besides D. Godwine reporteth that a Cardinal sayd to the Pope concerning him: He Catalo. of Bishop of England. p. 240. is for Religion a Catholick as wel as we: And so dying, he gaue al his bookes (an excellent Librarie) vnto the Friar Minors at Oxford. So charitable was he to Friars, and consequently so Roman Catholick euen at his verie death. And where he affirmeth that Ioakim Abbas sayd, that Antichrist was borne at Rome, and should sit in the Apostolick sea; It is so vntrue, that, in his Epistle prefiged to his Exposition vpon the Apocalypse, he submitteth his wri­tings to the Censure of the Sea Apostolick, affirming further that he firmely beleeueth, that the Gates of Hel cannot preuaile against the Roman Church, and that her Faith shal not perish before the end of the world. Yea in his Exposition vpon the 6. Chapter and 11. verse, he calleth such the Sonnes of Babylon, who impugne the Church of Peter. And vpon the 7. Chapter and 2. verse, by the Angel ascending from the East, hauing the signe of the liuing God, he vnderstandeth the Bishop of Rome, who with his fellow-Bishops, with the signe of the Crosse wil arme the Elect in that last tribulation which Antichrist shal rayse: So litle cause there is to vrge this Abbot against the Pope. And indeed al that truly can be vrged against him, is that being an old man, and half out of his wits, he was censured by the Pope for certaine fonde Pro­phecies, [Page 56] and some errours also about the B. Trinitie, as appeareth by the Decree extant in the Canon Law against him, and by other Authours that haue written of him.

And as for Fidericus the Second Emperour resisting the Popes Supre­macie, it proueth no more, but that euen the most vicious Emperours were most aduerse to the Pope: For he being a Prince of most scan­dalous and wicked life, was after due admonitions excommunicated, as also deposed by Pope Innocent the Fourth in a general Councel hol­den at Lyons; so that his resisting in this regard the Supremacie, is only a guiltie and conuicted Persons resisting of al such lawful Autho­ritie, whereby he is censured and punished. Concerning Arnoldus Villanouanus speaking against Friars, the Sacrifice of the Masse, and Papal De­crees: This M. White only proueth by the testimonies of the Magde­burgians, and Osiander; which being Protestants, are no competent witnesses against Catholicks; But besides, I haue prouedl. 2. c. 9. 4. be­fore, that the Sacrifice of the Masse, and the Popes Authoritie were beleeued, and practised in much more ancient times; As also that the Institution of Friars, proueth no Innouation in Faith and Religion. Euerardus broaching those foule and false reproaches against Pope Gregorie the Seauenth, called Hildebrand, proueth nothing but his owne disobedience and impatience, hauing been by the sameGreg. 7. Ep. 18. Pope for his owne demerits, iustly suspended from his Episcopal function.

After 1250.1250. to 1300. I name Gulielmus de S. Amore withstanding Friars and their abuses; but how impertinent this is, I haue shewed sufficiently before. The Preachers also (saith he) in Sweden, that publickly taught the Pope and his Bishops to be Hereticks: But M. White receiuing this Re­lation from Illiricus, no further answer wil be requisit. Dantes also (saith he) writ, that the Empire descended not from the Pope: But Dantes being only a Poet, intermedling in other matters committedSee Bellar. in Append. ad lib. de Sum. Pont c. 14. manie grosse errours; for which his bookes are condemned, and prohibited by the Church, yea he liued in faction against someIbid. c. 12. Popes, and therefore his writing against them is of no force.

As for Gulielmus Altisiodorensis, M. White producing nothing in parti­cular out of him against the Roman Church, but only affirming, that in his Summes are found manie things confuted that then were comming in, no further particular answer can be expected; and though he referre him­self for particulars to this his own Booke, yet citing no page or place thereof, I hould it vnworthie of so paineful search; it being also wel knowne that Altisiodorensis only differed from other Schoole-men, in matters disputable and not defined.

After 1300.1300. to 1350. I name (sayth he) Marcilius Patauinus, that wrot against the Popes Supremacie. But he being a knowne condemned Here­tick, a flatterer of the Schismatical Emperour, and his Bookes con­demned by the Church; as also the Popes Primacie being formerly [Page 57] acknowledged in the Primitiue Church, his testimonie is sundrie wayes insufficient. And the like is to be answered to Ocham, Tri­the [...]nius & Genebrard l. 4. Chron. who was purposely hyred by the Emperour to write against the Pope; who was also Excommunicated and his Bookes prohibited; & Gregorius Ari­minensis his differences, were only in Schoole points not determined by the Church.

And as for the Vniuersitie of Paris condemning the Popes Pardons, it is most vntrue; and therefere M. White did wel to father it only vpon his Brother Illiricus, whom he knew to be expert in the art of forging.

After 1350.1350. to 1400. I name (sayth he) Alu [...]rus Pelagius, who wrot a Book of the L mentation of the Church, wherein he reproueth diuerse abuses of his times. But who denyeth but that in the Militant Church consisting of good and euil, there are manie abuses in life and conuersation? But as for abuse or Innouation in matter of Doctrine and Faith. Aluarus maketh no mention at al in his sayd Booke. And as for Montziger dis­puting against [...]ransubstantiation, and Adoration of the Sacrament, and Ce­senas calling the Pope Antichrist, besides that the truth hereof dependeth only of the testimonie of Fox, and Ill [...]ricus, both of them Protestants, I haue sufficiently before cleered both these poynts from al Innoua­tion in Ages much more ancient.

Now as for Iohn Wiceliffe, as I haue shewedl. 1. c. 3. before, that in sundrie poynts of Faith he agreed with Catholicks, which Prote­stants now impugne; so it is euident that he taught sundrie grosse errours, which both Catholicks and Protestants do detest, as that, If a Fox Act. M [...]n. p. 96. Bishop or Priest be in deadly sinne, he doth not Order, consecrate, or Baptize: that, Al Osiand cent. 9. 10. 11. p. 459. oathes are vnlawful: That Osiand cent. 15. p. 457. al things come to passe by absolute necessitie: That there Ib. p. 454. is no Ciuil Migistrate whilest he is in mortal sinne, and sundrie others; in regard of which, ProtestantsPant. Chronol. p. 119. Ma­thias Hoe. in his Tract, duo. Tract. 1. p. 27. themselues ranke him in the Catalogue of Hereticks. So that smal Credit or succour wil M. White purchase for producing Wiccliffe, as one of his witnesses against the Roman Church.

After 1400.1400. to 1450. I name (sayth he) the Lollardes in England &c. that were persecuted at that time: And that very iustly, M. White; for besi­des, that they held the former Heresies of the Wiccliuists, they furtherTri­them. in Chr. Anno. 1315. impugned the Sacraments of Baptisme, and the Eucharist; they held that Lucifer with the rest of his Angels, were iniuriously thrust out of Heauen by Michael and his Angels, and consequently to be restored againe at the day of Iudgement; and that Michael and his Angels are for the sayd in­iurie to be damned from the day of Iudgement for euer: That our B. Ladie could not beare Christ, and remaine a Virgin: That anie thing done vnder the earth in Caues and Cellars, is not punnishable, with other such like: Which if M. White did know in them, and remember, greatly might he be ashamed, to number them amongst his sound and lawful witnesses for the Protestant Church.

Now as for Plowmans tale, reporting that Chaucer expressly writ, the Pope and his Clergie to be Antichrist; as vnworthie of other answer, I leaue [Page 58] it for a Tale fit for Plowmen to tel in a winters night, hauing also spoken of this point before.

Neither doth Nilus his writing against Purgatorie, and the Popes Supremacie, anie thing aduantage the Protestant Church, or impugne the Roman; for both these Doctrines I haue formerly proued to haue been the general beleef of the Primitiue Church. Besides Nilus was one of the Greek Church, which sometimes in the foresaid points was diuided from the Roman; yea he was condemned for an Here­tick, and therevpon enrolled by Illiricus Cata­log. Test. verit. Tom. 2. p. 876. amongst the witnesses of the Truth of Protestancie. Concerning Iohn Husse, and Hierome of Prage, D. White confessing, that their Doctrine was the same with that of the waldenses, the former answer to them, may serue also for this. Be­sides I hauel. 1. c. 3. conuinced heertofore, that Husse wholy agreed with Catholicks in sundrie Articles, earnestly now impugned by Protestants.

As for Sauanarola, his writings are condemned by the Church of Christ: Neither did he impugne anie one point of our Catholick Faith, which I haue not formerly shewed to haue been taught by the ancient Fathers. And therefore his resisting the Roman Church, doth nothing proue anie change or Innouation made by her. And the selfe same answer is to be giuen to Wesselus Groningensis, whose Bookes are prohibited; As also to Ioannes de Vessalia, who defended the Heresie of the Grecians, concerning the proceeding of the Holie-Ghost: who yet in the end, recanted al his opinions held against the Church of Rome.

And where M. White further affirmeth, that in England also and Bo­hemia, liued those which followed the Doctrine of Wiccliffe and Husse continuing the same til Luther: Supposing this for true (the contrarie whereof I haue prouedl. 1. c. 3. already at large) yet doth it proue no more then the Examples of Wiccliffe and Husse themselues, which lately we haue seen to proue nothing at al in behalf of Protestants.

And when 1500.1500. yeares were expired, arose (sayth M. White) Luther, Suinglius, Tindal, and diuers others, whom God raysed vp to cal his people out of Babylon &c. These I must confesse were faithful witnesses for M. Whites Church, and great Resisters of the Roman: But I cannot confesse that God, but the Diuel only raised them vp; for so Luther confessethTom 7. Wittem l. de Missa f. 443. that Satan disswaded him from the Masse: AndTom. 2 l. de sub­sid. Euchar. f. 249. Suinglius acknowledgeth that he was instructed in the night, by an Admonisher, whether white or black he remembreth not: And the same might be shewed of sundrie others first broachers of Protestancie. But as now I wil purposely for beare, hauing waded ouer long in this so vn­sauourie a Pudle of D. Whites Catalogue: In which, as he hath not proued by anie one Instance, anie knowne begining or change in our present Roman Faith since the Apostles times, so I cannot but obserue, that amongst al the witnesses by him produced against the Roman Church, not one can be picked out, which was not [Page 59] a man vitious and of a scandalous life, or els infected with Schisme and Heresie, for which he was euer noted, reproued, and con­demned, euen by the Doctours and Writers of the same time wherein he liued. And so I stil conclude, that our Roman Church, hauing neuer Gone out of anie other Church, nor euer been no­ted of Innouation and change in Faith, that therefore she is not anie Nouel or Heretical Sect, but the One, True, Catholick, and Apo­stolick Church of Christ.

THE FOVRTH BOOK, WHERIN IS PROVED BY THE CONFESSION OF PROTESTANTS, that, according to the Sacred Scriptures, the Roman Church is the true Church of Christ: And so to haue euer continued from his time, vntil the Date hereof: And of the contrarie, the Protestants Church to be only a Sect Heretical, & neuer to haue been before the dayes of Luther.

PROTESTANTS FLYING TO THE sacred Scriptures in proof and defence of their Church and Religion, it is shewed, the sayd flight, not only in itself to be dishonourable, but also to be the ordinarie flight of al moderne Hereticks. CHAPTER I.

HAVING laboured thus far with al diligence, to search for the finding out of Christs true Church, and her ne­cessarie continuance and visibilitie through-out al Ages; and euer finding the present Roman Church and Reli­gion, to haue been at al times the only knowne, publick, and professed Church of Christians in al Countries what­soeuer: The Protestant Congregation in the meane time being indeed not in Being, and by their owne former acknowledgments not knowne, visible, or heard-of in the Christian world; I begun further to think with myself, what strange euasion, colour, or pretence our Protestants [Page 2] could inuent for their further maintaining of their new-sprong Faith. And reading casually inl. 7. p. 478. D. Whitakers book against the Iesuit Duraeus, I found him expresly to hold and teach, that it is sufficient for vs Protestants, by com­paring the Popish doctrine and Scriptures togeather, to know their difference and disa­greing; we leave it free for Historiographers (sayth he) to write what they list. And agreably hereto, I since foundIn Ban­croftes Sur­uey. p. 219. Beza to say: If any shal oppose against my ex­position the authoritie of certaine of the ancient Fathers, I do appeale to the word of God. So that the Protestants last refuge and appeale, is, to the only written word of God, distrusting and renouncing al proof or testimonie either from ancient Councels, Fathers, or Histories; for they willinglyMidle­ton in his Papisto-Mastix p. 193. confesse, that perusing Councels, Fathers, and Stories from the Apostles forward, they find the Print of the Popes feet.

Now for the clearer discouerie of the grosse absurditie, and greatest insufficiencie of this desperate answer, I wil make proofe of two seueral truthes: First, that the sayd answer hath euer been, and is stil, the ordinarie answer of al Hereticks, thereby inten­ding to escape, not only the foulest stayne of Nouellisme or Innouation, but withal to pre­uent al strongest arguments drawne from general Councels though neuer so lawful, from ancient Doctours though neuer so learned, and from Ecclesiastical Histories though neuer so true. The second truth is, that their so appealing to the Sacred Scriptures, is the thru­sting their owne throates againsts the sharpest poynts of their Enemies swords. For by them I wil euidently proue the Roman Church and Religion to be the only true Church and Religion of Christ and his Apostles: As also the Congregation of Protestants and their profession, to be most aduerse and disagreing with the Scriptures themselues, and so in itself to be nouel, heretical, and damnable.

And to omit the ordinarie custome of elder Hereticks in appealing from al other proofes to only Scripture, obserued and reproued in them, by the ancientest and lear­nedst lib. De Prescript. c. 15. Hieron. ep. ad Pau­lin. & tom. 3 cont. Luci­fer. Augu. cont. Faust. Manic. l. 32 c. 19 & l. 1. de Trinit. c. 3. & ep. 222. Hilar. l ad Const. Vincent. Lyrin. l. aduers. hae­res. c. 35. Ambr. in c. vlt. ad Tit. Orig. hom. 7. in Ezech. Doctours and Fathers of the Primitiue Church, namely Tertulian, Hie­rome, Augustin, Hilarie, Vincentius Lyrinensis, and others: And only to ob­serue, how the refinedst Sectaries of these our dayes, with the same pretence of Scripture, do dayly reuolt and rebel from their other Brethren. And first concerning the Puritans agaynst the Protestants, D. white guift alleaging and vrging in behalf of Metropoli­tanes, the authoritie of the Nicene Councel, In his 2. Reply. part. 1. p. 484. M. Cartwright replyeth: Tou­ching the perfect vnitie of Substance of our Sauiour Christ with God the Father, it giuing Sentence vpon the infallible Word of God, is worthily to be reuerenced: But if the Doctours wil haue their soundnes in that poynt to authorize the rest &c. it is that which we can by no meanes assent vnto. And that it may appeare, how iustly we cal this Canon of the Councel (touching Metropolitanes) vnto the touchstone of the word of God; Let it be conside­red &c. yea the same In Whi­teg. Def. p. 111. M. Cartwright alloweth the iudgment of his learnedst father Caluin, but with this restraynt: So far (sayth he) as we can esteeme, that that, which M. Caluin sayth, doth agree with the Canonical Scriptures. This practise is so ordinarie with the Puritans, that D. Bancroft in his Suruey of pretended Discipline, spendeth wholy his 27. Chapter in obseruing and reprouing the same.

In like sort the In their Apologie. p. 103. 4. 98. 99. 100. And see M. Ayns­worth in his Counterpoy­son. p. 15. 154. Brownists of Amsterdam, answering to D. Bilsons allega­tions from the Fathers, resolutely affirme and say: Let M. Bilson with these Doc­tours know, that vnles they can approue by the word of God their Prelacie, [Page 3] &c. Al the colour they bring out of former times and writers, is of no mo­ment in this case.

And as for the Anabaptistes,Eccl. Pol. pref. p. 38. M. Hooker reporteth of them, that the Book of God, they for the most part so admired, that other disputation against their opinions, then only by allegation of Scripture, they would not heare; for which verie poynt and errour, they are reproued by Tract. Theol p. 171 in Psyco­phannichiae. p. 451. And in his In­structiō ad­uersus A­nabap p. 478. M. Caluin in these words: Because sillie Christians, who haue some zeale towards God, can be seduced by no shew or appearance more faire, then when the word of God is pretended and alleaged, the Anabaptists, against whom we now write, haue it alwayes in their mouths, and they alwayes solemnly recite it &c. And agayne, The Deuil himself armed himself with the word of God, and girded himself with that sword to inuade and assault Christ. And we find true by experience, that he doth daily vse these guiles or artes, by organs or instru­ments, to depraue the truth, and so to lead miserable Soules to destruction. So ordinarie it is with the Anabaptists and the Diuel himself, in defence of their errours, euer to appeale to the only written word.

The same answer is likewise giuen by the Protestant Arians of these times; insomuch as Lib de Christi Na­turae. p. 222. Socinus in defence of his errour agaynst the Diuinitie of Christ, answereth his Protestant Aduersarie Volanus in these wordes: We propound to vs in this question none for Maister or Interpreter, but only the Holie-Ghost &c. we do not thinke, that we are to stand to the iudgement of anie men, though neuer so learned; of anie Councels, though in shew neuer so holie, and law­fully assembled; of anie visible Church, though neuer so perfect and vniuer­sal. SimlerusDe aeterno De [...] filio. l. 1. c. 2. writeth of the Arians: They prouoke vs to Scriptures, and because they know al Antiquitie to be against them, they reiect al without exception. And In ep. Theol. ep. 15. p. 119. 120. Beza sayth to the Arian Statorius (who was sometime Be­zas Scholler, and deare to him) Oughtest thou not to remember from whom, to whom thou hast reuolted? But thou saist: I do not depend of men, but of the word of God. Very wel: But doth the word of God teach thee &c. that he can be a Sauiour &c, who is not God? So that our moderne Puritans, Brow­nists, Anabaptists and Arians, do al of them in defence of their seueral errours, being vrged by other Protestants with the authoritie of the Church, Fathers, and Coun­cels, euer appeale vnto the only written word.

But who would not thinke, but that our ordinarie Protestants, thus reprouing in their reuolting Brethren, their contempt of the Church, Fathers, and Councels, and their running to only Scripture, would not be found faultie herein themselues? And yet when their learnedst Bishops and Doctours are vrged vpon seueral occasions by our Catholick writers, with the authoritie of Church, Fathers, and Councels, none more readie then themselues to refuse, disgrace, and reiect the same, and that euer with pretence and ap­peal to only Scripture.

A truth so euident, that their forsayd rebellious Brethren do playnly acknow­ledge, that this their course of appealing to only Scripture, was taught and defended by themselues; for thus say the Simlerus De filio Dei. in Bullingers pref. there fol. 4. And in Simlerus his other Priface. fol. 1. Antitrinitarians to the Tigurine Protestans: You haue taught vs, that nothing is to be receaued besides the Scriptures; ther­fore we demand, where it is written in the Scriptures? &c. Except you shew this, according to your Rule, we reiect and condemne those things: ther­fore we haue learned of you to contemne the Fathers. And SocinusLib. de Christi Nat. p. 21. the [Page 4] Arian answering his Protestant Aduersarie Volanus, demandeth: To what purpose should I answer that which thou borrowest from the Papists &c. especially where thou opposest to vs the perpetual Consent of the Church? Very excellently doubtles in this behalf hath Hosius (the Papist) discoursed against you, wounding you with your owne sword. And therfore you are no lesse deceaued in vrging against vs the Churches perpetual Consent, then are the Papists in their vrging therof, both against you & vs. And againe Ibid. p. 222. Euen Volanus himself, disputing against the Iesuits, is enforced to reiect the Examples, Sayings and Deeds of Athanasius, Hierom, Austin, Theodoret, and other Fathers, whose authoritie he now opposeth against vs as sacred. Thus much haue I thought good to remember, that Volanus may receiue answer from himself, when he so often inforceth against vs the authoritie of learned men, and consent of the Church. In like sort sayd In Bancrofts Suruey p. 219. Beza before: If anie shal oppose against my Exposition the authoritie of certaine of the ancient Fathers, I do appeale to the word of God. With whom agreed Cont. Duraum. l. 7. p. 478. D. Whitaker teaching, that It is sufficient for (Protestants) by comparing the Popish Doctrine and Scriptures togeather, to know their difference; we leaue it free for Historiographers to write what they list. And yet the same Ibid. p. 472. D. Whitaker in the self same book affordeth this credit & authoritie to Histo­ries, that (sayth he) Whatsoeuer the old Prophets haue foretold of the propa­gation, largenes, and glorie of the Church, that to be performed, Historie most cleerly testifieth: So that there is no Controuersie, but that Ecclesiasti­cal Historie doth giue testimonie to the predictions of the Prophets. Yea this foule flight from Histories, Fathers, and Councels, thus practised by al sortes of Protestants, is an Argument most conuincing, that the said Histories, Fathers, and Councels make directly against them; insomuch as one The Author of A brief answer to certaine obiections against the Descension of Christ into Hel. p. 1. of our English Protestant Writers, being ashamed of this course, reproueth herein his other Protestant Brother, saying: Where you say, we must build our Faith on the Word of Faith, tying vs to Scripture only, you giue iust occasion to think, that you neither haue the ancient Fathers of Christs Church, nor their Sonnes succeeding them, agreing with you in this point, which implyeth a defence of some strange Paradox.

By al which, we may see this miserable shift of al kind of Hereticks, in refusing al proofes but only Scripture, to be no lesse in itself then a strongest argument, that al Hereticks are deuoyd of al other proofes.

THAT EVEN THE SACRED SCRIPTVRES themselues do most plentifully testify our Romane Church to be the Church of Christ: And the Congregation or Church of Protestants, to be no true Church, but a Sect Heretical, and most contrarie to the said Scriptures: And that, first by the Churches neces­sarie continuance and vniuersalitie. CHAPTER II.

AS it hath been euer most frequent, so to me stil it is most strange, why al Hereticks both ancient and moderne, for their last Refuge, do euer betake themselues to the sacred Scriptures: Seing, as nothing is of greater power and autho­ritie in itself to iudge & condemne, so nothing more strongly confuteth Heresies, then the forsayd Scriptures, if either they be taken in their literal sense, or according to the exposition of the Primitiue Church.

The Sacred Scriptures do plainly teach, that the true Church of Christ is euer to continue, euen from Christs time vntil the end of the world, and that not in one particular Nation or Countrey, but that most vniuersally, & with plentiful increase. In which respect the Church of Christ is foretold to beDan. 21.44. A Kingdome that shal neuer be destroyed (but) shal stand for euer: Esay. 60.15. As an eternal glorie and ioy from generation to generation Act. 5.52. That so, being of God it shal not to be dissolued. Yea further it is sayd of the Church, thatEs. 6.20. A litle one shal become as a thousand, and a smal one as a strong Nation: thatEs. 2.2. Al Nations shal flow to it; which place is expounded by ProtestantsIn the Marginal Notes of the English Bib. of An. 1370 in Es. 2 2. of the Church of Christ to be enlarged. Ps. 2.8. This is vn­derstood of Christes Church by the Marg. Notes of the Engl. Bib. of 3576. And the Prophet Dauid foretelleth, that It shal haue the end of the earth for it possession Ps 72 8. from Sea to Sea. And Christ himself sayth of his Church;Math. 13 51. Mat 4.3 [...]. And see the Marg. notes of Dan. 2.45. The Kingdome of Heauen is like to a Mustard-seed, the least of al seedes; but when it is growne, it is the greatest amongst hearbes, and is made a tree, so as the fowles of the aire may come and dwel vnder the shadow therof. And concerningIn the Engl. Bib. the Contents of the 60. ch. of Esay. the Gentils coming to the Church in abundance, it is saydEs. 60.5 Thou shalt see and shine, thy hart shal be astonyed and enlarged, because the multitude of the Sea shal be conuerted to thee. Es. 60.9 The Iles shal waite for thee Esa. 60.11. And see Psal. 102.15.22. & Esay. 62.2. Their Kings shal minister to thee, and thy Gates shal be continually open, neither day nor night shal they be shut, that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentils. And in the person of the Church it is saydEsay. 49 20. The place is streight for me, giue roome that I may inhabit. And againe to the ChurchEsa. 54.2.3. And see there the Contents of the Engl. Bib. Enlarge the place of thy Tents, spread out the Curtaines of thy habitation; for thou shalt encrease on the right hand, and on the left: thy seed shal possesse the Gentils, and inhabit the desolate Citties.

From these and sundrie other such places, Protestants themselues collect & inferre most truly, that the Church of Christ is to cōtinue for euer. Against Raynolds in his Answ. to the Pref. p. 33. D. Whitaker sayth; We beleeue to the comfort of our soules, that Christs Church hath con­tinued, & neuer shal faile so long as the world endureth. And, We account it a prophane [Page 6] Heresie to teach, that Christs Catholick Church hath perished from the earth at anie time; for this assertion shaketh the foundation of al faith. The Diuines of Wittemberg do firmely beleeue, the Church to haue continued vpon earth without interruption, and with perpetual Succession from the Ascension (of Christ) to these times; Ibid. p. 1065. as also that, The true Church is to continue vpon earth against al the furies of Sathan, euen vntil the comming of Christ at the last Iudgement. Insomuch asTrast. Theol. &c. in Refut. Errorum Ser. p. 762. Caluin vpon this knowne principle of the Churches Continuance thus vrgeth Seruetus: I haue not touched that continual banishment from the earth which he faigneth of the Church, in which he playnly argueth God of lying &c. He faigneth the Church for 1260. yeares to haue been banished from the world, so that Heauen should be her place of exile &c. Againe, God otherwise should haue lyed, who promised a certaine people alwayes to himself, as long as the Sun and Moone shal shine in Heauen: we know what the Pro­phets haue in sundrie places testifyed of the eternal kingdome of Christ. Do they place the seate therof in the Heauens? yea they foretel, that our Lord wil shew a far-of her Scepter from Sion, wherewith She may rule from the East to the west, and her inheritance may be the whole world.

The ProtestantHarm. of Confess. p. 321. Confession of Belgia teaecheth, that there is one Catho­lick or vniuersal Church &c. which as it hath been from the beginning of the world, so it shal continue vnto the end therof: The which appeareth by this, that Christ is our eternal King, who can neuer be without subiects. And, to conclude, this holie Church is not si­tuated or limited in anie set or certaine place; nor yet bound and tyed to anie certaine and peculiar persons; but spread ouer the face of the whole earth &c. The ProtestantIbid. p. 306. 307. Confession of Heluetia in the same behalf argueth thus:In Osiād. cont. 16. p. 1064. Forasmuch as God from the beginning, would haue men to be saued, and to come to the knowledge of truth, therfore it is necessarie, that alwayes from the beginning, at this day, & to the end of the world, there should be a Church &c. As also, Seing that there is alwayes but one God, & one Mediatour &c it followeth necessarily, that there is but one Church, which we therfore cal Catholick, because it is vniuersal, spread abroad through al parts and quarters of the world, and reacheth vnto al times, and is not limited within the compasse either of time or place. But none is more ful heerin thenThe way to the true Church. p. 85. 86. D. white, saying: we confesse the Church neuer ceaseth to be, but continueth alwayes without interruption to the worlds end: And that so vniuersally, thatIn his Defence. p. 465. D. Whiteguift auoucheth that, The Church of Christ is dispersed through the whole world, and can not now be shut vp in one King­dome, for that he termeth an impossibilitie. In his Defence. p. 465. D. Whitaker confesseth of the fore-alleaged Scriptures, that, The promises of God concerning the largenes and beautie of his Church, haue been accomplished.

And in this regard, of the Churches euer continuance and vniuersalitie, thus plainly taught by the Scriptures, and beleeued by Protestants, the holie Apostles in their Creed gaue vnto the Church the Surname of Catholick, that is vniuersal; for so saithSoue­raigne Remedie against S [...]hisme. p. 23. M. Clapham: the Church was to enlarge her Tents, & stretch her Cordes vniuersally through the earth, Answ. to Raynolds in the Pref. p. 37. for which cause it is called Catholick.

But now to examine, whether the Roman or Protestant Church, is this Apostolick Church, thus plainly taught by the sacred Scriptures, and the ac­knowledgments of Protestants, euer to continue euen from Christs time, to the end of the world, and that not in one or other particular Nation, but euen vniuersally ouer the whole world:

First concerning the Protestant Church, it hath so litle performed [Page 7] the fore-sayd predictions of the Sacred Scriptures, for the Churches euer Continuance and Vniuersalitie, as that to the contrarieR [...]sp. ad Camp. rat. 3. p. 48. D. Whitaker confesseth, that The Mysterie of iniquitie, which took roote in the Apostles times, went through al the partes of the Church, and at length possessed the whole Church. Now if the whole Church of Protestants and al the parts therof were thus possessed with the mysterie of iniquitie, what true Church was then left in being or con­tinuing in the world?

Agreably hereto teachethIn epist. Iesuit. part. alt. p. 49. Cannerus: we are come to these times which euen exceed the confusion of the Arian furie; errour hath possessed not one or other litle part, but Apostasie hath auerted the whole bodie from true Christ: So that in these times the Protestant Church consisted without a bodie. In like sort writethVpon the Creed. p. 400. M. Parkins: we say that before the dayes of Luther for the space of manie hun­dred yeares, an vniuersal Apostacie ouerspred the whole face of the earth. Which ne­cessarily inferreth the Protestant Churches not being, during the foresayd Apostacie.

But D. Willet obseruing the certaine discontinuance, or not-being of his Church for many former Ages, is not ashamed for his best help, contrarie to the foresayd Scriptures, and his other Brethren, boldly to impugne and deny the euer certayne Continuance of Christs Church vpon earth; forSynop­sis. p. 54. thus he sayth: A visible Church we desire to be a congregation of men, among whom the Word is truly preached, and the Sacraments administred: Such a Church hath not alwayes been, neither can we be assured that it shalbe alwayes found vpon the earth &c. concluding of the time of Antichrist, that then, shal the visible Church fayle vpon earth. With whom agreethAnsw. to a Coun­terf. Cath. p. 79. D. Fulk affirming, that the visible Church may become an Adulteresse, and be diuorced from Christ: And whichAnswer to a Popish Pamphlet. p. 100 M. Woodcock acknowledgeth, that Protestāts haue often wanted in their assemblies worshipping of God in the Word, Sacraments, and Prayer. Now from these premisses doth vnauoydably follow the real im­pugning of the certaine continuance of Christs Church vpon earth; for if according to D. Willet here, the Churches visibilitie doth consist in admi­nistration of Word and Sacraments, of which himself saithSynops. p. 71. These markes can not be absent from the Church; and it is no longer a true Church then it hath those markes; for as he furtherIb. p. 69 auoucheth, the only absence of them do make a Nul­litie of the Church: Then, if the visible Church may fayle vpon earth, who then so dul, as discerneth not, that, by necessarie sequele hereof, the true Church may also fayle vpon earth?Against M. Raynolds in his Answ. to the Pref. p. 33. Directly contrarie to which D. Whitaker sayd before, We beleeue that Christs Church shal neuer fayle, and we accompt it a prophane Heresie to teach that Christs Catholick Church hath perished from the earth at anie time; for this Assertion shaketh the foundation of al faith. Into such miserable streights & manifest cōtradictions are the learnedst Protestants driuen, through want of their Churches continuance and vniuersalitie.

Yea vpon the self same ground of the Protestant Churches not fulfil­ling the predictions of the Churches continuance,In his Preface of the great Latine Bible dedicated to K. Edward the Sixt. Castalio bursteth out into these words: Verily we must confesse, either that those things shal be per­formed hereafter, or haue been already, or that God is to be accused of lying. If any man answer, that they haue been performed, I wil demand of him, when? If he say in the Apostles time, I wil demand, how it chanceth, that neither then the knowledge of [Page 8] God was altogeather perfect, and often in so [...]bort space vanished away, which was promised to be eternal, and more abundant then the flouds of the Sea? And agayne, The more I do peruse the Scriptures, the lesse do I find the same performed, howsoeuer you vnderstand the sayd Prophecies.

ButAp­calypsis in­signium ali­quot Haer [...] ­siarcharum. fol. 4. nu. 8. Dauid George a Protestant at Basile proceeded much further vpon the self same cause, as is recorded by one of his brethren, who introduceth him disputing thus: If the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles had been most true, and most powerful to Saluation, the Church, by their Doctrine they had framed and confirmed, should not haue been torne asunder; for against the Church the Gates of Hel (Christ himself witnessing) can not preuayle; But now it is euident, that the building of Christ and his Apostles is vtterly ouerthrowne by Antichrist, as is abun­dantly seen in the Papacye. From whence he necessarily concludeth the Doctrine of the Apostles to haue been torne and discontinued &c. To the same effect it is reported in his HistorieHisto­ria Georgij Dauidis. published by the Diuines of Basile, that he thus disputed: If the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles had been true and perfect, the Church which they planted &c. should haue continued &c. But now it is manifest that Antichrist hath subuerted the Doctrine of the Apostles and the Church by them begun, as is euident in the Papacie; therefore the Doctrine of the Apostles was false and imperfect. Not much lesse dangerously writethIn praef suorum Dialogorum. Bernardine Ockin: When I did consider how Christ by his power, wisdome, and goodnes, had founded and established his Church, washed it with his bloud, and enriched it with his Spirit; And againe dis­cerned how the same was vtterly ouer-throwne; I could not but wonder, and being desirous to know the cause, I found there had been Popes. So playne it is, that the Church of Protestants, which themselues suppose to be the Church of Christ, directly contrarie to the forsayd Scriptures, hath not continued, but hath been vtterly ouerthrowne. A truth so certaine and plaine, that ther­fore Christ, his Apostles, and Doctrine, are al of them accused of lying, through want of accomplishment of the forsayd Prophecies in the Pro­testant Churches continuance and vniuersalitie.

And heer, I can not but admire the follie and impudencie of D. White, The way to the Church. p. 85. who directly contrarie to his other brethrens cōfessions & to al Histo­ries, writeth thus audaciously; We confesse the Church neuer ceaseth to be, but continueth alwayes without Interruption to the worlds end; and against al Papists we make it good, that this verie Faith we now professe, hath successiuely continued in al Ages since Christ, and was neuer interrupted so much as one yeare, moneth, or day; and to confesse the contrarie were sufficient to proue vs no part of the Church of God &c. And yet the Contrarie is plainly confessed by D. Whitaker before, affirming the mysterie of Iniquitie to haue possessed the whole Church; by Cannerus, confessing Apostacie to haue auerted the whole bodie (of the Church) from Christ; by M. Pa [...]kins, confessing, for manie hundred yeares an vniuersal Apostacie; by D. Willet, defending, that the Church, in which the Word is truly preached, and Sacraments administred, hath not alwayes been; by Castalio, confessing, that the Pro­phecies of the Churches Continuance he cannot find performed in the Pro­testant Church; by Dauid George confessing that the Protestant Church hath been vtterly ouerthrowne, & not continued; and by Bernardine Ockin, teaching the very same. So cleer it is, that the Church of Protestants is not the Church of Christ, which, according to the Shriptures, is euer to continue, euen from Christs time vnto the end of the world.

But now to examine, whether in our Roman Catholick Church the forsayd Scriptures are truly verifyed by her perpetual Continuance euen from Christs time to these our dayes, I hold it superfluous, seing I haue pro­ued the same at large heretofore through euery Centurie or Age, and that by no weaker proofes then the plainest acknowledgements of manie and the learnedst Protestants; as namelySee before l. 1. c. 2. for these last 1000. yeares, by M. Parkins, Powel, Wotton, Tindal, Iohnson, Doue, Beacon, Fulk, Downham, Whitakers, Luther, Caluin, the Centurists, Osiander, Hospinian, Danaeus, and sundrie others: And for the like Continuance of our Roman Church for the first 600. yearesSee before l. 1. c. 5. by Zanchius, Zuinglius, Caluin, Beza, Danaeus, Francus, Rhegius, Broccard, Brightman, Napper, Fulk, Powel, Leigh, Morton, Midleton, Parkins, Bunnie, Iewel and manie others.

Now whereas the Apostles in their Creed do giue to the Church the Surname of Catholick, and that for this verie reason, according toThe Harmonie of Confess. p. 307. Clapham in his Soue­raigne Re­medy. p. 23. Pro­testants themselues, because it is vniuersal, spread abroad through al parts and quarters of the world, and reacheth vnto al times &c. This name, Catholick, is so peculiar and appropriat to the Roman Church, and her Professours, as that it is applyed only vnto them by their greatest Enemies.Act. Mon. p. 613. M. F [...]x tearmeth our aduersaries Protestants, and vs Catholicks. l. 7. fol. 96. & l. 10. fol 127. Sleydan recordeth that Luther and others differed only in opinion touching the Lords Supper, which the Catholicks reioyced at, and the rest much lamented. And the same name is applyed to vs by M.Re [...]sōs taken out of Gods word. p. 5. 23. 24. 73. 74. Willet in his Obedience &c. p. 29. Humfrey vita Iuelli. p. 202. Iacob, D. Willet, D. Humfrey and others.

Yea the sayd name is so dissorting from the Prot. Church, & so agreable to the Roman, that therefore it is hateful and disliked by Protestans: Inso­much as Luther translating the Apostles Creed into Dutch, thrust out the word, Catholick, and in steed therof put-in Christian. And of the like course obserued by Lutherans Against Rhem. Test. in Act. 11. f [...]l 377. D. Fulk himself acknowledgeth and saith: It is not to be allowed. Yea in the Synod holden at Altemberg betweene the Di­uines of the Palsgraue of Rhene, and the Duke of Wittemberg, when the one Partie obiected a saying of Luther, the other Partie vpon perusal of the pla­ces finding therin the word, Catholick, thervpon reiected the whole for coun­terfayte, saying thereofColloq. Altemberg. fol 154 these words (vz. Catholickly vnderstood) do not tast of the phrase of Luther: And againe, It is not the phrase of Luther, that anie thing ought to be vnderstood Catholickly.

But not only Lutherans but likewise Caluinists are much out of loue and liking with the word, Catholick, as may be seen in Beza, Pref. non Test. Iacob in his Reasons &c. p. 5. 7. 24. 23 M. Iacob, and others: And yet al this notwithstanding,Trial of the Ro­mish Clergy. p. 285. 286. M. Wotton confesseth that,Ibid. fol. 355. The Reason of the name, Catholick, was at first, that there might be a Title to distin­guish sound Christians, and true Churches, from Haereticks.

Out of the Premisses then we may necessarily inferre, that the sacred Scriptures assuring vs, that the true Catholick Church of Christ must euer continue, euen from Christs time vntil the end of the world; and the same truth being likewise acknowledged by the learned Protestants: As also, that the Roman Church hath accordingly so continued, knowne and vniuersal in al precedent Ages, the Protestant Congregation being confessedly vn­knowne in anie Age precedent to this of ours; that therefore our Romane Church is the only true Church of Christ, so formerly described by the for­sayd [Page 10] Scriptures; the Protestant Church remayning only a Sect Heretical, nothing performing the forsayd Oracles.

The second Proof from sacred Scriptures, in Confirmation of the Roman Church, and Confutation of the Protestant, is taken from the Euer-visibilitie of Christ's Church. CHAPTER III.

THE Churches continuance is by nothing more plainly taught in the sacred Scriptures, then Euer-visibilitie, which is euermore to accompany the true Church of Christ: In which respect it is resembled by the ProphetC. 2. 2. Micheas 4. 1. Esay, to a Mountaine prepared in the top of mountaines, and exalted aboue (other) hills: that is, asIn the Marginal Notes of the Engl. Bib. of An. 1576 in Esay. 2. 2. Protestants expound the same, in an euident place to be seen & discerned. It is likewise compared to the Sunne, wherof it is sayd: herEsa. 60.20. Sunne shal not be set, nor her Moone hid. And concer­ning her publick and knowne Professours, God himself promiseth saying:Es. 61.9. I wil make an euerlasting Couenant with them &c. Al that see them, shal know them, that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed.

In like sortMath. 5.5. Christ himself speaking of his Church, compareth it to a Cittie placed vpon a hil, that can not be hid. And prescribing a Soueraigne reme­die against dissentions dayly arising between Brother and Brother, he di­recteth the Partie grieued, that he shouldMath. 18.15 16.17 tel the Church, which he can not accomplish, vnles she may be to him dayly knowne and discerned. And so this remedie being by our Sauiour appointed in help of a daylie con­tinuing disease, argueth that as the disease is continual, so likewise that the remedie thereof so appointed by him, should be in like manner continual. The prescript therefore of this continual remedie being, to tel the Church, which we can not performe, vnles the Church be to vs in her Pastours visi­ble and knowne, proueth euidently, that the Church must accordingly con­tinue visible and knowne.

Yea our Sauiour himself doth specially forwarne vs against al pretended inuisible Congregations, saying:Math. 24.26. If therefore they shal say vnto you, behold he is in the d [...]sert, go you not forth; behold he is in secret places, beleeue it not. Wher­vpon M. Clapham Remedie against Schisme. p. 23. teacheth that, our Sauiour forbids going out vnto such desert and corner-Ghospels. Math. 24.23.24.

Now as these most infallible Oracles of sacred Writ, do thus plainly teach vs the Churches Euer-visibilitie, so is the same truth answerably vn­derstood, beleeued, and defended by the learnedst Protestants that euer were; and that from the Scriptures themselues. To this end M. Clapham Remedie against Schisme. p. 17. writeth: Contrarie to al Scriptures they do affirme, that there hath been no visibilitie of the Church for former hundreds of yeares; which position is against Ps. 72.3.17. Esay. 59.21. yea hauing alleadged manie proofes from the Scriptures & otherwise, [Page 11] he concludeth thus: Not only al Ancients euer hold the Churches Euer-visibilitie, but also al learned men of our Age. Loc. com c. de Eccl. p. 354. 360. Melācthon directeth, that, whensoeuer we think of the Church, let vs behold the Companie of such men as are gathered togeather, which [...]s the visible Church: Neither let vs dreame that the Elect of God are to be found in anie [...]ther place, then in this visible Societie; for neither wil God be called-vpon or acknow­edged, otherwise then he hath reuealed himself; neither hath he reuealed himself els where, saue only in the visible Church, in which only the voice of the Ghospel soundeth. Neither let vs imagine of anie other inuisible Church, but let vs know, that the voice of he Ghospel must sound openly amongst men, according as it is written psal. 18. Their [...]ound is gone forth into al the earth &c. And then alleadging sūdrie other places [...]f Scripture, he addeth: which places and other the like speak not of Plato's Idea, but [...]f a visible Church. Againe,Pref. in Corpus Christ. Doct. It is of necessitie that we confesse a visible Church, whereof the Sonne of God saith, Math. 18. Tel the Church; and whereof Paul saith, [...]. Cor. 4. we are made a spectacle to the whole world, to Angels and to men. What Spectacle I beseech you is that which is not seen? And wherunto tendeth this Mon­uous speech, which denyeth the visible Church? It abolisheth al testimonies of Anti­ [...]itie; it taketh away al Iudgements; it causeth an endlesse Confusion; and induceth Common-wealth of vnrulie Ruffians, wherin no one careth for another. Al which to [...]e most true, the Protestants of these dayes do ouer-strongly confirme.

Agreably hereunto saythIesuit. part. 2. cat. 3. p. 240. D. Humfrey: I haue declared that we do not [...]lace the Church in the aire, but vpon the earth; we confesse the Church to be a Cittie [...]laced vpon a hil, which can not be hid. Math. 5. To be a high Mountaine of the house of God, higher then other hils, to which al Nations shal flow. Esay. 2. &c. And againe,Ibid. p. 241. It is visible for the exercises of pietie, which are seen of al in the Church; for whilst Ministers teach, others learne; they minister Sacraments, these Communicate &c. Who seeth not these things, is blinder then a mole &c. And lastlyIbid. p. 281. he con­cludeth of the Church Militant, which is the only point in question, that It is a most cleer Conclusion, that the Church must be visible. Com­pend. loc. 24. p. 201. Gesnerus auoucheth that, The external and visible Companie of those who are called, Baptized, and professe the name of Christ, whereof Christ speaketh Math. 1.14. was neuer hid. And a litle before he affirmeth that, It can not be hid and be obscure. Serm. 4. fol. 90. M. Web likewise in his Sermons vpon the 2. Psalme inferreth the like from Math. 1.4.

Crāmerus Scholae Propheticae. p. 381. teacheth that, The State of the Church is painted out by simili­tude of a Mountaine, whereby the Church is signified, which neuer was nor can be hid; but as a high Mountaine easily yeeldeth itself to be seen of al, as Christ (Math. 5.14.) saith of a Cittie, which placed vpon a Mountaine can not be hid. These and sundrie other Protestants do not only defend the Churches Euer-visibilitie; but they defend the same, euen from the Scriptures themselues; condemning the contrarie opinion of the Churches Inuisibilitie, as contrarie to Scriptures and al ancient and moderne Writers.

From this so certaine and confessed a truth, of the Churches Euer-visi­bilitie, sundrie Protestants of special note do further inferre, and teach the absolute necessitie of the Churches Euer-visibilitie to the remission of Sin­nes, and the Saluation of man; plainly condemning to eternal damnation, al such as liue and dye out of the visible Church of Christ. To this endInstit. l. 4. c. 1. Sac. 4. Caluin writeth: Because I intend to dispute of the visible Church, let vs learne, though with this one testimonie of our Mothers prayse, how profitable, yea how necessarie is [Page 12] the knowledge of her vnto vs, seing there is no other entrance into life, except she con­ceiue vs in her wombe, except she bring vs forth, except &c. to conclude, she defend vs vnder her custodie and gouernment, vntil we dying &c. Adde hereunto, that out of her bosome no remission of sinnes is to be hoped for. M. Parkins Vol. 1. p. 308. teacheth that, The Arke, out of which al perished, figured the Church, out of which al are condemned &c. out of the Militant Church there are no meanes of Saluation, no preaching of the Word, no Inuocation of Gods name, no Sacraments, and therefore no Saluation: For this cause euerie man must be admonished euermore to ioyne himself to some particular Church &c. D. Humfrey Iesuit. part. 2. p. 242. cōfesseth that, Secret aboades are not the Christian Conuocation &c. because this Cōmunion of Saints is an open testification of Christia­nitie; which open testification is necessarie to Saluation.De Ec­clesia Milit. p. 36. 38. Molitox testifyeth that, The inuisible Church of the Elect is latent in the visible Church, and out of it can not be found, as it is truly sayd, out of the Church (to wit, the visible Church) there is no Saluation &c.

Keckermanus System. Theolog. p. 408. vrgeth that, The Church of the new Testament, by reason of her Markes and external forme, must alwayes be sensible and visible, that so other Nations, who are yet out of the Church, may know to what Church they ought to adhere &c.Meth. Theolog. p. 552. Hiperius thus iustly demandeth: Verily except these Signes were, and that the true Church could be apprehended by Senses, how could a man know to what Companie he should adhere for the obtayning of Saluation? Of the Church l. 1. c. 1. p. 3. Philip Mornay auoucheth that, Into the visible Church al must retire themselues in this world, that wil be gathered in the inuisible Church in the world to come. Al this supposeth the necessarie visibilitie of the Church in al Ages, seing in al Ages, God hath prouided sufficient meanes for man's Saluation. Yea it further conuinceth, that supposing the Church could be inuisible at anie time, that as then al the Professours and members therof dying should incurre damnation, seing ac­cording to the truth and the iudgement of so manie Protestants, out of the visible Church there is no Saluation.

To apply then this so certaine and necessarie Doctrine to the Roman and Protestant Church, I haue formerly proued the Inuisibilitie of the Protestant Church in al Ages before Luther: As namely euen at Luthers first appearing,See be­fore l. 3. c. 1. by the testimonies of Luther himself, of Morgēsterne, Rhegius, Miluius, Bucer, Caluin, Camierus, Dent, Brightman, Whitaker and Iewel; as also in al Ages for these last 1000. yeares, by theSee aboue l. 3. c. 1 confessions of D. Fulk, Parkins, Bale, Bramlerus, Simon de Voyon, Powel and others: And that it was no lesse inuisible during the time of the Primitiue Church,See be­fore l. 3. c. 1. it is formerly acknowledged by M. Brightman, Nappeir, Carthwright, Beza, Fulk, Cario, Francus & others.

Now to the contrarie, the cleerest visibilitie of our Roman Church during al Ages since Christ, is most plentifully testifyed, and first for these last 1000. yearesSee be­fore l. 1. c. 2. by Powel, Symon de Voyon, Parkins, Fulk, Danaus, Whitaker, Dowaham, Wotton, Hospinian, and manie others: And for the first 600. yearesSee be­fore l. 1. c. 5. by Broccard, Brightman, Leigh, Napper, Winckelmanus, Danaus, Fulk, Raynolds, Caluin, Zanchius, Whitaker, Ridley, Iewel, Bunnie, Morton, Parker, Francus, Field, and seueral others. So that my Conclusion may truly be, that seing according to plaine Scriptures, and the answerable acknowledgemēts of Protestant Writers, the Church of Christ must euer continue visible in al Ages and times, which the Roman Church hath euer, & the Protestant [Page 13] neuer performed, that therefore not the Protestant, but the Catholick Ro­man Church, is the only true Church of Christ described in the Scriptures.

The third Proof from sacred Scriptures, in Confirmation of the Roman Church and Confutation of the Protestant, is taken from the Churches Pastours which must euer continue with lawful Calling & Succession, and with Administration of Word and Sacraments. CHAPTER IIII.

THE sacred Scriptures do plentifully further shew the ne­cessarie Being, Continuance, Calling, and Succession of Ec­clesiastical Pastours; In which respect God himself thus pro­miseth to his Church:Esay. 59.2 [...]. My Spirit which is vpon thee, and the words which I haue put in thy mouth, shal not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, from henceforth for euer. As alsoPs. 45.16. In steed of fathers, children shal be borne to thee; thou shalt make them Princes through al the earth. Esa. 62.6. And, vpon thy walles, Ierusalem, I haue appoynted watchmen, al the day and al the night, for euer they shal not hold their peace. S. Paule Ephes. 4.11.12. assureth vs that, our Sauiour hath pla­ced Pastours (to continue in his Church) to the Consummation of Saincts, til we al meet in vnitie of Faith, that is for euer, according to the exposition hereof by D. Fulk, Against Rhem. Test. fol. 335. Caluin Inst. c. de fide. sec. 37. 38. p. 233. 234. Melan. loc. com. c. de Ecclesiae. Caluin & Melancthon.

Hence it is, thatCalu. vbi sup. Whitak. de Ecclesia. p. 281. 285. Caluin & D. Whitaker do affirme that, The Church can neuer want Pastours and Doctours. And which is more, D. Fulk is of opinion that, Christ wil suffer no particular Church to continue without a seruant to ouersee it. Ib p. 536. And that Pastours and Doctours must be in the Church til the end of the world, euen Ib. p 569 from Christs time til Luthers Age. M. Spark Answ. to Albines p. 11. affirmeth that, The Church of Christ hath alwayes had, and shal haue to the end successiuely in al Ages, in one place or other, such as haue shewed the truth fully vnto others, Against Hoskins &c. p 359. as haue shined as Lights in their dayes set vpon a Candlestick. And D. Field Of the Church. c 6. p. 51 auoucheth that, Lawful and holie Ministrie is an inseparable and perpetual note of a true Church, and that no Church can be without it.

Secondly the holie S [...]riptures teach, that these Pastours which must euer continue, must not vndertake the charge by vsurpation without sending, but by lawful Calling. According to that of S. Paul Heb. 5.4 No man taketh to him­self the honour (of Priesthood) but he that is called of G [...]d as Aaron was, to wit visibly and by peculiar Consecration. And againe,Ro 10.14 How shal they preach, except they be sen [...]? Christ himself auoucheth that,Ioh 10.1 who so en [...]r [...]th not by the doore into the sheepfold, but climeth another way, is a theef. And God Almightie saith by the Prophet Hieremie: c. 23.21 I haue not sent these Prophets, yet they ranne. c 14.14 1 [...] & 27. 15 The Prophets prophecy lyes in my name; I haue not sent them. c. 29.31. Semetas hath prophecyed to you, and I sent him not. Insomuch2. Pa­ralip. c. 26.16.18.19. as Vzias presuming to vsurp the Priests office, was therefore reprehended and stroken with Leprosie, [Page 14] wherof other like examples are not wanting in the2. Reg. 6.6.7. & 1. Paralip. 13.9.10. Scriptures.

Now agreably to these Scriptures Protestants teach, that this personal Succession of Pastours is to be continued in the Church no otherwise then by lawful sending or calling by man's Ministerie. Luther Vpon the Epistle to the Galath. fol. 10. teacheth that, God calleth vs at this day to the Ministerie of his Word, not immediatly himself, but by man. As also,Tom. 5. Wittemb. in c. 1. Gal. fol. 376. God calleth vs at this day to the Ministerie of the Word by Mediate vocation, which is done by meanes, that is, by man &c. that vocation hath continued euen til these times, and shal continue til the end of the world. Piscator Vol. 1. Thes. Theol. p. 405. auoucheth that, God after the Apostles times hath called, and as yet doth cal, and to the end of the world is to cal Pastours, Doctours, and Priests by the Church. D. Bilson Perpe­tual Go­uernment &c. c. 9. p. 111. affirmeth that, The Moderation of the keyes, and Imposition of hands were at first setled in the Apostles; and that, They can haue no part of Aposto­lick commission, that haue no shew of Apostolick succession. And therefore that, Pastours do receaue by Succession the power and charge of the Word and Sacraments from, and in the first Apostles. Whereto assenteth also M. Bernard saying:Plaine Euidences &c. p. 184. 185. In the Scripture of the new Testament there is none allowed to ordayne a Minister, but a Minister &c. In the new Testament, al the Apostles time, the Ministrie was by Succession, Ministers, as it were, begetting Ministers, by Ordination, & by laying on of hands; let (but) one Instance be giuen to the contrarie. After their time, like Succession hath been kept from time to time, Bishop after Bishop, and Ministers ordayned by them &c. The Scriptures promising the same to the worlds end &c. Thus by plaine Historical narration both of God and Man, we see a Succession of the Ministerie, from one Minister to another. M. Cartwright 2. Reply part. 2. p. 128. auoucheth that, It is forbidden that anie should take honour to himself, but he which is called of God, as was Aaron. What greater apparence of necessitie of Sacrificing could be, then when Saul took vpon him to Sacrifice? 2. Sam. 13.11. &c. Likewise what greater apparence of necessitie, then when Vzias stayed the Arke readie to haue fallen? 2. Sam. 6.6.7▪ yet these necessities notwithstanding, for so much as they tooke vpon them that, whereto they were not called, they receaued the reward of their bold­nes. And agayne,2. Reply part 2. p. 141. A Pastour can no more preach now in a particular congre­gation without a sending, then an Apostle could then in al the world &c. affirming yet further that, one not sent, may not preach, although he speake the words of Scrip­ture; yeaVpon the Epistle to the Galath. Eng. in c. 1. f. 10. It is not enough (sayth Luther) for a man to haue the Word, and pu­ritie of Doctrine, but also he must be assured of his Calling; and he that entreth without this, certainly entreth to no other end but to kil. M. Mason Conse­cration of Engl. Bi­shops. p. 9. not only affirmeth it to be impossible to be a lawful Minister without a lawful calling; but withal confirmeth the same from seueral texts of Scripture, & from the testimonie of Beza, saying: This is an order appoynted in the Church by the Sonne of God, and obserued inuiolably by al true Prophets and Apostles; That no man may teach in the Church, vnles he be called. So that according to holie Scriptures, and Prote­stants themselues, the true Church must euer haue Pastours endued with lawful callin [...] and ordinarie Succession.

Thirdly the same Scriptures do teach, that the sayd Pastours must not be silent, but must preach the Word, and administer the Sacraments. The Pro­phet Esay Esa. 62.6. fortelleth of the Churches Watchmen, that they shal not hold their peace. And S. Paul Rom. 10.14.15. setteth downe the necessitie of Preaching in these words: How shal they beleeue him whom they haue not heard? And how shal they [Page 15] heare without a Preacher? But how shal they preach, vnles they be sent? Rom. 10.17.18. Faith then is by hearing, and hearing is by the word of Christ. And certes into al the earth, hath the sound of them gone forth, and vnto the ends of the whole world the words of them. And as concerning the administration of Sacraments, it is so to con­tinue vntil the end of the world, that expressely it is sayd of the Eucharist; 1. Cor. 11.26. As often as you shal eate this Bread, and drink the Chalice, you shal shew the death of our Lord, vntil he come, to wit, at the day of Iudgement.

Answerably to these Scriptures, Protestants teach concerning Preachers, that,Fulk in his Answ. to Counterf. Cath. p. 100. The truth can not be continued in the world but by their Ministrie, & that therefore,Proposi­tions dispu­ted in Gen. p. 845. The Ministerie is an essential Mark of the true Church. M. Deering Vpon the Epist. to the Heb. c. 3. lect. 15. 16. teacheth that, Saluation springeth in preaching of the Ghospel, and is shut vp againe with ceasing of it And that, Take away preaching, you take away Faith; for which he citeth manie Scriptures. D. Fulk Answ. to a Counter. Cath. p. 11. & 92. affirmeth, that the Chur­ches Pastours shal alwayes resist al false opinions with open reprehension. And M. Deering Vpō the Hebr. in c. 2 lect. 10. is of opinion that, The Religion being of God, no feare of man shal keep them back; because, that were to k [...]ep the honour of God for corners and soli­tarie places. For▪ as theRom. 10.10. Apostle prescribeth, with the hart we beleeue vnto Iustice: but with the mouth Confession is made to Saluation. Sermōs vpon the Canticles Englished. p 79. 80. Beza confesseth, that there must be Pastours and Doctours to the end of the world, for the administra­tion of the Word and Sacraments. And,See the Survay of the Holy pretēded &c p. 440. 441. The Ministrie of the Word and Sacra­ments are in absolute degree of Necessitie to Saluation. D. Whitaker Cont. Duraeum. l 3 p. 260. assureth vs that, they are Essential Notes of the Church. Ibid. p. 249. which being present, they do constitute a Church, and being absent do subuert it. And D. Willet Sy­nopsis p. 71. auoucheth that, These Markes can not be absent from the Church, and it is no longer a true Church then it hath these Markes; forIb. p. 69 as he further saith: The only absence of them do make a nullitie of the Church. Lobechius Disput. Theo p. 213. speaking of these Markes, and of the Church, affirmeth that, They are coupled togeather with so streight and indiss [...]luble a knot, that in the assemblies of those who are called, the one can not be without the other, and the one denyed, the other of necessitie is to be denyed. Hiperius Meth. Th p. [...]48. 557. teacheth that, These Notes are needful to distinguish the true Church from the false, that men careful of their Saluation may know where the true Church is, and to which Companie chiefly they ought to adioyne themselues.

By the premisses now it is euident, aswel by the sacred Scriptures, as by the manifest Confessions of Protestant Writers, that the Church of Christ must euer haue in her, Ecclesiastical Pastours and Preachers, which must be lawfully sent, and ordinarily called by the Church, and which must preach the true Word and Faith, and administer the holie Sacraments.

The only poynt therefore resting to be examined, is, whether the Ro­man or Protestant Church hath euer had in al Ages the forsayd Pastours lawfully called, and succeeding one another, truly preaching the holie Word, and administring the Sacraments.

And first concerning the Protestant Church: Al personal Succession of Pastours hath been so interrupted, or rather altogeather want [...]ng, that in steed of anie Successi [...]n of Pastours to be named, it is at large confessed before,Before l. 3. c. 1. that their Church hath been wholy Inuisible and vnknowne for manie hundred of yeares togeather. Yea Caluin In Lascicius de Russor &c. R [...]lig. p. [...]3 And see Caluin Inst. l 4. c 3. sec. 4. Danaeus Isagog part. 4. p. 36. plainly confesseth that, Through the Tyrannie of the P [...]pe, the true Succession of ordination was broken [Page 16] off in the Protestant Church. And agayne,Tract. Th. p. 374. The Church of God for some Ages was so torne, and pulled a-sunder, that she was destitute of true (Protestant) Pastours. Ep. Theol. ep. 5. Beza acknowledgeth, that among them, ordinarie vocation was no where extant. AndDispu­tationes Theol. p. 719 Sadel relateth that sundrie Protestants, who acknow­ledge the doctrine which their Church doth embrace, to be true, and grounded vpon the expresse word of God, do yet affirme the Ministers with them to be destitute of lawful calling, as not hauing a continued visible Succession from the Apostles times, which they do attribute only to the Papists. In like sort saith Bullinger: Vpon the Apoca­lyps. ser. 145 fol. 137. S [...]e Libauius in his Gretze­rus triumph. p. 102. and knewstubs in Confut. of the principal pointes of Popery p. 38 Albeit we can not at this day referre our calling to the Pope and Bishops, which brag of lawful Succession: yet for so much as we can proue, that our Doctrine is Christs Doctrine, and therefore that our Ministerie is lawful, we care not a whit &c. So confessedly is the Protestant Church destitute of lawful Calling.

And to touch breefly the Calling and Succession of our English Mini­sterie, wheras D. Barlow in his Sermon before the King at Hampton Court, publickly taught that, The Apostles reserued Ordination to themselues, and con­ueyed it to Bishops &c. Neither would the Church of Christ succeeding admit anie other but Bishops to that busines, as not iustifyable for the Presbiters, either by reason, example, or Scripture &c. Not one Example (sayth he) is to be showed through the whole Storie Ecclesiastical, that anie besides a Bishop did it; if some one of the infe­rior rank presumed to do it, his act was reuersed for vnlawful. It is so certaine that our Catholick Bishops after the death of Queen Marie, were so far from Consecrating those other, which were for such named by Q. Elizabe [...]h at her entrie to the Crowne, and from whom sithence al the Protestant Cler­gie of England deriueth itself, that thep 177. Protestant Writer of The Asser­tion for true Christian Church-Policie, auoucheth that, It cannot be proued that anie Lord Spiritual was (so much as) present in Parlament, or gaue anie assent to the Enacting of Statutes made Anno primo Elizabethae. Yea in supply therof, there was a Statute made An. 8. Eliz. c. 1 the Title therof being, An Act decla­ring the manner of making and Consecrating Archbishops of this Realme, to be good. And towards the end of that Statute, it is enacted that, Al Acts done by anie Person about anie Consecration &c. by vertue of the Queens Maiesties Letters Pa­tents shal be good &c. And that al Persons that haue been, or shal be Consecrated Archbishops &c. shal be Archbishops &c. But the then Parlament, or her late Highnes Letters Patents could not enable the first Protestant Bishops to be true Bishops, because that function is not Ciuil, but Spiritual, and ex iure diuino. Yea M. Mason himself acknowledgeth, and that from M. Fox, that amongstConse­cration of the Bishops in England. p. 264 And see Fox Act. Mon. Vol. 2. p. 1295. The Articles sent by Queen Marie to Bishop Bonner, one was this: Item, Touching such persons, as were heretofore promoted to anie Orders after the new sort and fashion of Orders: Considering they were not ordered in verie deed, the Bishop of the Diocesse, finding otherwise sufficiencie and abilitie in these men, may supply that thing which wanted in them before, and then according to his discretion, admit them to Minister. Here, though M. Mason would gladly inforce a different Glosse, yet the words are most plaine, that Queen Marie and the Church in her time censured such as were promoted to anie Orders after the new sort and fashion of Protestant Orders in K Edwards time, were not ordered in verie deed. So that stil it deserueth further search, whence our present English Clergie, [Page 17] as also other forraine Ministers, haue obtayned true power and authoritie to preach & administer Sacraments.

And as for Forainers, as the Ministers in Germanie, Denmark, Holland & the rest, they are so cleerely and confessedly destitute of al true Ordination, that M. Mason acknowledgeth that,Consec. of Engl. Bish. Ep. Dedic. wheras other Reformed Churches were constrained by necessitie to admit extraordinarie Fathers, that is, to receaue ordination from Presbiters (or Ministers) rather then to suffer the fabrick of the Lord Iesus to be dissolued: The Church of England had alwayes Bishops to conferre Sacred Orders ac­cording to the ordinarie and most warrantable Custome of the Church of Christ: So that, no Protestant Ministers in the world, haue anie ordinarie Calling or Ordination by Bishops, but only the Ministers of England, who yet beg and deriue al that which they haue, from their imagined Antichrist himself, as now shal be shewed.

Some Protestants therfore teach, that they haue their Calling & Ordina­tion from the Church of Rome; so D. Bridges De­fence of the Gouernmēt. p. 1276. speaking of our Catholick Bishops, and their Calling, vrgeth thus in our behalf; If our (Protestant) Brethren wil make them but meer Lay-men, then are neither they, nor we, anie Mini­sters at al, but meer Lay-men also; for who ordayned vs Ministers, but such Ministers as were either themselues of their Ministerie, or at least were made Ministers of those Ministers? Except they wil say, the people can make Ministers &c. yea someSilēced Ministers supplication of Anno 1609. p. 9. 10. 17. Puritans do reproue their Protestant Brethren, for deriuing their Ministerie from the Church of Rome. ButCont. Dur. l. 9. p. 820. D. Whitaker exemplifyeth the same, saying: Luther was a Priest, and Doctour according to your Rite or ordination &c. And it is manifest, that so also was Zuinglius, Bucer, Oecolampadius, and innumerable others &c. M. Parkins Vol. 1. p. 737. speaking of the Calling of the first Preachers of the (Protestant) Ghospel, argueth thus: If they had no Calling, neither haue we that are their followers: But, They had their Callings &c. from the Romish Church itself; for they were either Priests or Schoole-Doctours, as in England Wiccliffe, in Germanie Luther, in Bohemia Iohn Husse and Hierom of Prage, at Basil Oecolampadius, in Italie Peter Martyr, & others. And therefore these with manie others were ordayned either in Popish Churches, or in Schooles &c. And agayne, We say, the first restorers of the Ghospel in our times, had their first Callings of them, to wit, the Papists.

M. Mason discoursing at large of this verie poynt of Ordination, and in particular of the Ordination of our English Protestant Clergie, confesseth first, that the Roman Church hath euer had true power of Ordination:Conse­cration of the Bishops of England. Ep. Dedic. Such was the goodnes of God (saith he) that euen in the darknes of Poperie, as Baptis­me, so the Ministerial function &c. was wonderfully preserued; for the Church of Rome by Gods special prouidence, in her ordination of Priests, retayned such Euangelical words, as in their true and natiue sense, include a Ghostlie Ministerial power to forgiue sinnes &c. Thus the Church of Rome gaue power to her Priests to teach the truth &c. whichIbid. p. 262. Power (saith he) is a Rose, which is found in the Romish wildernes, but the plants therof were deriued from the garden of God: It is a Riuer which runneth in Aegipt, but the fountaine and Spring of it, is in Paradise: It is a Beame which is seen in Babilon, but the original of it is from the Sphere of the Heauen. Wherefore when your Priests returne to vs, our Church paring away their Pollutions, suffereth them to exercise their Ministerial function, according to the true meaning of Christs word. And agayne,Ibid. p. 262. we being content with their calling, and commission of [Page 18] their function already committed vnto them, do not reiterate their ordination and Im­position of hands. And as Catholick Pri [...]sts Apostated only through vice, are here allowed for sufficient Ministers without al new ordination from anie Protestant Superintēdent, so doth M. Mason most seriously labour through­out his whole Booke, to proue the ordination of the Protestant English Clergie, to haue been certainly deriued from our Catholick Roman Church. To which end acknowledging thatIbid. p. 64. 65. 66. The whole Clergie of England at this day, deriueth their Consecration from Cranmer, he painfully laboureth to proue, that Cranmer was appoynted by Pope Clement to be Archbishop of Canter­burie, and that he was Consecrated by three Catholick Bishops; which Conse­cration was performed with wonted Ceremonies, according to the vsual forme of (the Romane) Church; which (saith he) continued al the dayes of King Henrie the Eighth, euen when the Pope was banished, yea he expresly concludeth his book thus:p. 267. Thus it appeareth, that although we receaued our Orders from such as were Popish Priests, yet our Calling is lawful. So cleer it is, that M. Mason would be glad to wring his Ministers Ordering from our Roman Church. And the like is acknowledged & taught byCath. Trad. p. 183. Buca. loc. com. p. 509. Bernard in his Diswasion from Brownisme. p. 144. Whyte in his way to the Church p. 404. Fo­therby his Answer annexed to his 4. Ser­mons. p. 81. Sutcliffe against D. Kellison p. 5. Sarauia of diuers De­grees of Mi­nisters. p. 9. sundrie other Protestants. But here I can not but obserue by the way how strange it is, that Protestants should thus much delight and please themselues in their Ordination from Cranmer, a man so vicious, inconstant, and treacherous both to God and man. Doth not D Godwin relate that,In Cranmsr. p. 123. Being yet verie young he [...]aryed, and so lost his fellowship in Iesus Colledge in Cambridge? Doth not Fox report, that being Archbishop, in his returne from Rome he brought with him a Dutch woman,Act. Mon. p 1037 to whom (saith Fox) it is supposed he was maryed? yet cer­taine it is, that no shew therof was made in K. Henries time, when he car­ryed her vp and downe in a trunck, marying her afterwards in K. Edwards time. He was also most treacherous to his Prince; for albeit he had been so greatly exalted by K. Henrie, and by him appoynted one of the Executours of his Wil, yet presently after his death he assented to the breaking thereof. And after K. Edwards death, endeauoured al he could to the aduancing of Q. Iane, and vtter excluding from the Crowne of K. Henries lawful daughter Queene Marie: To whose dis-inheriting he first subscribed, as also to that re­bellious letter, which he and his complices sent to Queen Marie, and which to his euerlasting infamie and confusion,Act. Mon. p. 1299 Fox himself hath recorded. And although from his cradle he was a Roman Catholick vntil his being Archbishop, which honour he receaued from the Pope, taking the vsual oath of fidelitie vnto him: Yet in the next yeare after, K. Henrie by Parla­ment procuring himself to be tearmed Head of the Church, he also forsook the Pope, and forswore himself in that poynt, agreing yet, as also the King, in al other with him, and both by words and deeds persecuting Protestants, as is euident in the death of Lambert and others, written by M. Fox. Yea in K. Edwards time (as Stow Chron. p. 594. reporteth) The French King being deceased &c. also the Church of S. Paul in London being hanged with black, and a sumptuous Herse set vp in the Quire, a Dirge was there song, and on the next morrow, the Archbishop of Canterburie (Cranmer) assisted of 8. Bishops, al in rich Miters and other their Pontifi­cals, did sing a Masse of Requiem &c. yet after this, he fel to Lutheranisme, pu­blishing a Catechisme, wherin with Luther he taught the Real Presence; which [Page 19] not long after impugning, he turned with the Duke of Somerset to Zuinglia­nisme, setting forth another Catechisme against the Real Presence. And yet after al this vnderAct. Mon p. 1710 Q. Marie, he recanted for hope of life, al his Prote­stantisme, & both by tongue & pen professed the Roman Catholick Faith: But perceiuing that he must dye, & choosing rather to dye in the opinion of vulgar Protestants a Martyr, then in the true iudgement both of Protestāts and Catholicks as a Malefactor and Traytour, he finally dyed in Zuinglia­nisme, being both condemned for Heresy against God, and for Rebellion against his Prince, as M. Fox Act. Mon p. 1698 confesseth. So infamous was the life and death of the first Protestant Bishop that euer England had, and from whom al our English Ecclesiastical frie do deriue their Ordination, and other good conditions not vnlike vnto his.

But to returne from whence we haue digressed, al this begging, by M. Mason and the rest forenamed, of Protestant Orders from the Church of Rome, is directly contradicted and loathed by others of their Brethren, as thinking the Bishop of Rome to be Antichrist himself, and the Roman Church to be the whore of Babylon. M. Powel De Antich. p. 6. & 310. tearmeth our Catho­lick Orders, the Mark of the Beast. D. Downham Of Antichrist. l. 2. p. 108. spareth not to say: I say their Priesthood is Antichristian. The Diuines of Geneua Pro­positions Disputed &c. p. 245. affirme, that There is in Babylon (thereby meaning the Roman Church) no holie Order or Ministrie indeed no lawful Calling, but a meer vsurpation. M. Penrie writing against the Protestant Calling disputeth thus: From whence haue they their calling? had they it not from those which sit in the Chaire of Antichrist? Vpon the 122. Ps. fol. D. 8. yea how manie are in al Christendome? &c. but their ordination haue come from Popish Pre­lacie within three or foure generations at the most &c. Can an vnlawful calling bring forth a lawful, though it descend from one to another a hundred or thousand times? Therefore vnles they can approue the lawfulnes of their calling vnder some other title then that which they now haue by the Clergie, it wil fal out there shal hardly be found a Minister duly called in al the world &c. In like sort D. Fulk Answ. to a Coun­terf. Cath. p. 50. answereth to vs Catholicks: you are highly deceaued, if you think we esteeme your offices of Bi­shops, Priests, and Deacons anie better then Lay-men, and you presume to much to think that we receiue your ordering to be lawful. And agayne,Reten­tiue. p. 67. with al our hart we defy, abhorre, detest and spit at your stinking, greasie, Antichristian Orders &c. In like modest sort saith Beza: Apud Sarauiam. in Defens. Tract. &c. p. 56. Popish Orders are nothing els, then the impurest buying and selling of the Roman Stewes. AndConsi­deration of the Papistes Reasons. p. 71. M. Gabriel Powel auoucheth that, The Popish ordination is nothing els, but mere prophanation &c. there is no true Ecclesiastical Vocation in the Papacie. We iudge no otherwise (saith D. Whitaker)Cont. Dur p 635. of your Priests, then of Christs Aduersaries, and enemies of his Priesthood: Ibid. p. 662. You haue neither lawful Bishops, nor Priests, nor Deacons. And according to D. Sutcliffe, Answ. to Ey [...]pt. p. 82 The Pope (himself) is neither true Bishop nor Priest, for he was or­dayned Priest but to offer Sacrifice and to say Masse for the quick and the Dead. But this Ordination (sayth he) doth not make a Priest, nor had true Priests and Elders euer anie such Ordination. Therefore,Ib p. 87 And see his Cha [...]leng. p. 35: The Romish Church is not the true Church, hauing no Bishops nor Priests at al, but only in name

Now if the Protestant Clergie wil not deriue their Vocation and Or­dination from the Church of Rome, as the former Protestants do refuse, and in reason they cannot, supposing their absurd Doctrine of the Pope being [Page 20] Antichrist; for what more ridiculous then that Christs Ministers should re­ceaue their spiritual power and Commission from Antichrist? Then stil we are to demand, from whence the Protestant Clergie hath their Calling and Commission, seing according to the former Scriptures, the true Churches Past ours must be lawfully called, sent, and ordayned?

In these so extreme straytes some Protestants acknowledge and defend their Ordination and calling to be from the Laitie itself, as from the tempo­ral Magistrate, and their hearers & followers.His two Letters con [...]erning the Earl of Lauale Eng. fol. c. 3. D. Tilanus teacheth that, Farel had his sending of the people sf Geneua, who had right had authoritie (saith he) to institute and depose Ministers, And, The reformed Churches and their calling partly from God, and partly from the people, as by lawful instruments. M Dilingam p. 78. writing against M. Hil, saith: our Preachers were called by Christian Magistrates, whose allowance they had, which to be warrantable you can not deny. D. Sutcliffe Against D. Kellison. p. 5. is not abashed to teach, that in case of necessitie, such as Protestants had at Luthers first reuolt, The multitude of Christians without Ministers, haue power to appoynt Ministers among themselues. And M. Symondes Vpon the Reuel. p. 123. auoucheth, A Calling to preach by the Ciuil Magistrate, A holie and sufficient calling (saith he) in the time of these confusions.

Now according to this strange Doctrine hath been the answerable prac­tise of Protestants; for M. Mornay Trea­tise of the Church. p. 371. saith: Some of our men in such a corrupt State of the Church, as we haue seen in our time &c. did at first preach without this former calling, and afterward were chosen and called to the holie Ministerie by the Churches which they had taught: A practise preposterous and directly contrarie to the order set downe by S. Paul Rom. 10.14. saying: How shal they inuocate in whom they haue not beleeued? How shal they beleeue whom they haue not heard? How shal they heare without a Preacher? And how shal they preach except they be sent? So euidently is sending or calling, and Ordination precedent in order to prea­ching. Yea agreably hereunto writeth M. Mason: Consec. of Engl. Bishops. p. 3. It is cleere that the Presb [...]terie here mentioned, ordayned Timothie by Imposition of hands, which no Lay­men may do. But besides, how absurd is it to affirme, that mere Lay and tem­poral men, as Shoomakers, Taylours, B [...]acksmithes, and the like, can bestow vpon others that most Spiritual and highest power and Iurisdiction of preaching true Faith, and administring the most holie and celestial Sacra­ments, wherof they are wholy deuoyd & destitute themselues?

The indignitie, disgrace, and absurditie then of this base begging of Calling from the Laitie, being discerned by other Protestants, as much asha­med therof, they wholy disclayme from it as also in al other ordinarie and Mediate Calling and Succession, betaking themselues for their last refuge to extraordinarie and immediate Vocation from God. So D. Fulk Against Staples. &c. p. 2. confes­seth that, The Protestant [...], that first preached in these last dayes, had extraordinarie calling. And,Reten­tiue &c. p. 300. In the State of the Church so miserably deceaued as in Luthers time, God sendeth extraordinarily, immediatly from himself, as Elias and Elizeus, and the Prophets were sent &c. So Christ sent his Apostles and Euangelists, and so was Luther, and such as he, sent to repaire the ruines of the Church &c. Agreably hereunto are those words of M. Cartwright: In Whiteg. Def. p. 217. When the Churches haue been by Antichrist euen razed from the foundation, God hath stirred Euangelists euen imme­diatly by his Spirit, without any calling of men, to restore his Church againe; as [Page 21] Wiccliffe, Husse, Luther, Zuinglius. In like words saith M. Parkins: In his works prin­ted. 1605. fol. 916. The calling of Wiccliffe, Husse, Luther, Oecolampadius, Peter Martyr &c. was extra­ordinarie. Ramus Com­mentaries of France En­glish. p 74. reporteth the French Protestants to say: We beleeue it is vnlawful for anie, of his owne authoritie to take vpon him gouernment of the Church, without lawful Election, if so it may be had: We add this (if) because some-time (as in our time also) when the Church hath been persecuted, manie haue been constrayned without ordinarie calling, by motion of the Spirit &c. Caluin In Lascicius de Russor. &c. Relig. p. 23. Calu. Inst. l. 4. c. 3. sec. 4. also writeth: Because the true Succession of Ordination hath been broken off by the Tyrannie of the Pope, a new help is now needful &c. and (therefore) this office was altogeather extraordinarie, which the Lord hath enioyned vnto vs. And Beza In Sa­rauia his Def. tract. &c. p. 56. 60. 74. in the Con­ference at Poysie, being demanded of the Calling of himself, and his other then Associats, affirmed the same to be Extraordinarie. Ep. Theol. ep▪ 5. p. 49. And in his Epistle to Alemannus he further vrgeth: Verily thou canst not pretend ordinarie Vocation; for who chose thee? therefore let vs see of Extraordinarie: But to this, then only do we giue place, when there is none, or almost no ordinarie vocation, as hath happened in our times in the Papacie, when ordinarie Vocation, which was no where, neither ought nor could be expected. So that in the opinion of Beza, Caluin, Fulk, Parkins and sundrie other Protestants, al the calling which the first Protestant Preachers had, was only extraordinarie & immediate from God.

But now to discouer the great insufficiencie, and manifest falshood of this their last Euasion, and thereby plainly to discouer al our Protestant Clergie, euen to this day, to be destitute of al lawful Calling and Mission, and so to proue al our Ministers to be vsurpers, intruders, and meer Lay-men; First, according also to Beza his former Doctrine, it is certaine, that extraordinarie Vocation taketh not place, but when ordinarie is wanting; which is also taught by M. Parkins Vol. 1. p. 738. vsing the same words: Extraordinarie calling neuer hath place, but when ordinarie calling fayleth. Wherefore our Protestants pre­tending for themselues extraordinarie calling, do thereby disclayme, and debarre themselues of al ordinarie, which is directly against the former Scriptures, and sundrie of their learnedst Brethren before cited, amongst whom Luther sayd: God calleth vs at this day to the Ministerie of his Word, not im­mediatly by himself, but by man.

Secondly, extraordinarie Calling is alwayes accompanied & confirmed by extraordinarie signes and wonders. So saithLoc. com. class. 4. c. 20 p. 58 Luther (whom our Pro­testants most pretend to haue been extraordinarily called) Try this whether they can proue their Vocation; for neuer hath God sent anie, but either called by man, or declared by signes, no not his owne Sonne. Tom. 5. Ien. Germ. fol. 491. And againe: From whence commest thou? Who sent thee? Where are the Seales, that thou art sent from men? Where are the Miracles which testify thee to be sent from God? Tom 3 Ien. Germ. f. 455. 456. In like sort he admonished the Senat of Milhouse against Munster the Anabaptist, saying: If he say, he was sent from God and his Spirit, as the Apostles were, let him proue this by working of Signes and Miracles, or els do not suffer him to preach; for wheresoeuer God doth change the ordinarie way, there alwayes he worketh Miracles. In like manner are the Anabaptists vrged by Bullinger; Cont. Anabap. l. 3. c. 7. If you say, you haue a peculiar Vocation like vnto the Apostles, proue it by signes and Mira­cles &c. but this you wil neuer do, therefore your calling is of no worth, yea it is per­nicious to the Church of Christ. D. Sarauia Def. Tract. cont. Bezam p. 38 And see his Diuers Degrees of Mi­nisters. p. 7. And Fenner in his sacra Theol p. 119 also teacheth that, That vocation [Page 22] which is immediatly from God, is neuer read to be made without some external and visible signe and vision. Disp. th. 23 p. 207 Sigwartus auoucheth that, This vocation hath alw [...]yes certaine and extraordinarie guifts attending it, which are as it were the Seales of Doctrine &c. of which sort were Miracles &c. Part. Theol. l. 1. p. 308 Polanus auerreth that, of Ministers extraordinarily called, there were also extraordinarie guifts, to wit, of Prophecie, of working Miracles &c.Loc. com p. 394. Musculus assureth vs that, The calling which is immediatly from God, is not now in vse, as it was in times past; it had its signes whereby it might be knowne, wherof Mark the Euangelist maketh mention in his last Chapter, saying: They preached &c. with Signes following. And M. Clapham Soue­raign Reme­dy &c. p 25. vpon the same ground reprehendeth Browne, for that he did take vpon him extraordinarie calling and wonted Miracles. M. Parkins Vol 3 part. 2. p. 395. & 441. And Luther in D [...]uteron in t. 13, fol 102 Aretius loc. com loc. 63. p. 198. Me­lancthon in Christ doct p. 884. Clapham in Chro. c. 7. f. L. 2. Maior in ep. 1. ad Tim. in c. 3. fol. 177. confesseth that, We may iustly require more and more wonderful Signes of an extraordinarie calling afore we beleeue it &c. The Church in these dayes hath much more cause to doubt, and to require manie and extraordinarie signes, afore it acknowledge anie such extraordinarie calling &c. So that our Protestant Clergie challenging vnto themselues extraordinarie Calling, thereby do oblige themselues to proue the same by extraordinarie Signes and Miracles.

But to the contrarie it is most certaine that not anie Minister, no nor other Protestant in the world, euer wrought anie Miracle: And so also is it cōfessed by Sir Edward Hobbie, saying:Letter to Higgons. p. 102 And Tinleyes 2. Serm. p 66. Wotton in his Tryal of the Romish Clerg. p. 355 We are not ashamed to confesse, that we haue no other Miracles, then those which were wrought by Christ, the Prophets, and Apostles. But Sir Edward may then be much ashamed of his painted Ministers, who only pretend for themselues extraordinarie Calling, which, as before, must euer haue Miracles annexed. Agreably hereunto writeth M. Mason, saying:Conse­crat of Engl: Bish. p 11. We teach the same doctrine for substance, which Moses and the Pro­phets, Christ and his Apostles both taught and confirmed by Miracles. And in this sense al the Miracles of Moses, and the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles, are ours &c. But if the question be concerning our Persons, then we confesse that we can work no Miracles, we take no such matter vpon vs; neither is it necessarie, because both our Calling and Doctrine are ordinarie. So flatly doth he disclayme from al Prote­stants Miracles, or extraordinarie Calling. In like sort acknowledged D. Sutcliffe: Exa­mination of Kellisons Suruey. p. 8. Neither do we (Ministers) practise Miracles, nor do we teach that the doctrine of truth is to be confirmed with Miracles. D. Fulk Ag Rhem. Te. in Apoc. c. 13. fol. 478. confesseth that, It is knowne that Caluin and the rest, whom the Papists cal Arch-hereticks, do work no Miracles.

And as concerning Luther himself, whom al pretend to be most extra­ordinarily called,Ad­monitio de libro Concor­diae p. 202. 203. the Protestants of the Count Palatine do expresly say of him: We haue not heard anie miracle which he hath done. Yea himselfTom. 4. in Esay. c 35. fol. 157. endeauouring to answer this strongest argument made against him, is enforced to confesse and say: They laugh at vs, and obiect, that not so much as a lame horse hath been cured by Lutherans, and that we are altogeather destitute of the guift of Miracles; But it is written; The impious seeth not the glorie of God (and now reporteth he his Miracles) for as now the blind do see, when they are reduced to the knowledge of Christ &c. the deafe heare the Ghospel, the lame who sate in Superstition, and the Idolatrous, go wel and walk with pleasant Faith &c. whom do not these Miracles moue? &c. for they are no lesse, then to raise the dead, or to giue sight: So that the greatest Miracle that Luther wrought was to make (for exāple) [Page 23] Catharine Bore to see the libertie and pleasure of his new Ghospel, she being before blinded with the austeritie and Mortification of a Religious Nunne; and to make her heare his lasciuious & scurril discourses, being before deafe to al speeches, but such as tended to Charitie and deuotion; & lastly to make her walke with pleasant faith from her Monasterie to the Tauerne, being before mured within the walles of her Nunnerie: which are Miracles ordi­narily wrought by anie Heretick whosoeuer. Besides these blind, deafe, lame, whom Luther did so miraculously cure by reducing them to the knowledg of Christ, were those, who were indeed already Christians, whom he seduced by his greatest libertie offred, from their ancient Faith: for as for his Con­uersion of one Heathen, Pagan, or Idolater from Infidelitie to the Christian Faith, no Instance can be giuen, as shal be shewed at large in the Chapter subsequent.

Besides, it is the certaine and true Doctrine euen of sundrie Protestants that, asVol. 1. Thesien Theol. loc. 23 p. 364. Bale Examen Re­citationum. p. 386. Lub­bertus de Principijs Christ. Dogm p. 562. Pol. Part. Theol. l. 1. p. 308. Beamlerus Hypost. Theol l. 3. fol. 109. Piscator saith, whom God calleth by himself immediatly, those he is accustomed to furnish with singular guifts, that it may appeare they are sent from God: And these only haue testimonie that they can not erre in Doctrine. Now it is euidēt, and for such at large acknowledged by Protestants, that Luther beleeued and taught sundrieSee this at large in the Prot. Apology. Tract▪ 2. c. 2▪ Sec. 10. Subd. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. grosse and most dangerous errours and Heresies, as that the Apocalypse, the Epistles to the Hebrewes and of S. Iames are not Canonical: That, Faith vnles it be without euen the least good words, doth not iustify, nay is no Faith: and that nothing sinneth but vnbelief: and that, Good works are hurtful to Saluation: That, The Husband, if the wife wil not, may take the mayde, and may haue ten or more wiues at once: That the Lay-people may preach, Baptise, Consecrate and minister the B. Sacrament; that the Diuinitie of Christ did suffer &c. with sun­drie such like, ouer tedious to recite.

But here by the way, I cannot omit the strange Encomium giuen of Luther by D. Morton in these words:Pro­test. Appeale p. 615. This is our Aduersaries guise, when­soeuer they light vpon anie tooth of this dead Lion, they tread vpon it with contempt; Neuer considering, that as out of the Iudg. 14▪14. Strong came sweetnes, so in those Sentences of Luther, which they most traduce, there is commonly inclosed the most Sacred truth ful of as diuine comfort as man's hart can ruminate vpon. But if the former and innumerable such like Sentences of the Protestants Lyon, Luther, be so com­fortable to D. Morton, sure I am, that they are odious, and loathsome to chast and Christian eares, and for such are taxed by sundrieSee Ezecanomiꝰ de corruptis moribus. Wygandus de bonis & malis Germ. Hospin. [...]ōc. discord. 99. Couel D [...]f. of Hook. p. 101. Saying. Tom. 2. in Resp. ad Conf. Luth. f. 458. & sundrie lothers. of his owne brood, euen Protestant Writers, who rested much scandalized thereby: And therefore M. Morton patronizing so vnpardonable errours, may giue ouer iust suspicion of his owne guilt in the like.

But to returne, from the Premisses therefore it euidently followeth, our Protestant Clergie to be wholy destitute of al lawful Calling, seing it is al­ready proued, euen by their owne confessions, that their Succession hath been interrupted, and that they haue not ordinarie Calling, and therefore do fly to extraordinarie, which also they are deuoyd of, through their confessed want of Miracles and truth of Doctrine, or freedome from errour, which doth euer certainly accompany the same.

Now the sacred Scriptures concerning the Churches Pastours Calling, preaching, and administration of Sacraments, not being fulfilled, and performed [Page 24] in the Protestant Church: It only remayneth to be examined, whether the same are verifyed and accomplished in the Catholick Roman Church. And first, the same is confirmed by ad such Arguments asBefore 4. 1. c. 23. 4. heretofore we haue vsed in prooff of the Roman Churches Euer-visibilitie, which doth euer suppose the like cōtinuance of Ecclesiastical Pastours, with administration of Word and Sacraments.

Secondly, the same is euidently supposed and confessed by al such Prote­stants asSee Before l. 3. c. 4. formerly acknowledged & deriued their Succession and Ordi­nation from the Church of Rome; for if the Roman Pastours succession & Ordination were not good or interrupted, then were it fruitles and absurd, for the Protestants Clergie to deriue their owne succession & Ordination from them.

Thirdly, the Centurie writers of Magdeburg in the tenth Chapter of euerie seueral Centurie, do make special mention of the Bishops and Doctours of the Roman Church, who liued ahd flourished in euerie Age.

FourthlyDe rebus gra­uiss contr. Disp. p. 719. M. Sadel plainly confesseth sundrie Protestāts not only to affirme the Ministers with them to be destitute of lawful Calling, seing they haue not a perpetual & visible Succession from the Apostles to these times; but also they attribute this only to the Papists, whom therefore in this question they preferre before vs. In like direct sort D. Fulk Answ to a Count. Cath p. 27. And in his Reioynder to Bristow. p. 343. acknowledgeth vnto vs, saying: You can name the notable persons in al Ages in their government and Ministrie, and especially the Suc­cession of the Popes you can rehearse in order vpon your fingars. M. Mason gran­teth that,Cons. of the Engl. Bish. p. 52. The Church of Rome &c. was planted by two so great Apostles Peter and Paul. And thatIbid. p. 41. The Priesthood which the Apostles conferred &c. being conueyed to Posteritie successiuely by Ordination, is found at this day in some sort in the Church of Rome, in regard wherof you may be said to succeed the Apostles &c. So certaine it is, that the Bishops of the Roman Church, haue euer successiuely continued in al Ages, euen from Christs time to this, and that true Ordination hath been euer in the sayd Church since the Apostles: The poore Protestant Familie being meerly Laical, as being confessedly destitute of al Calling either ordinarie or extraordinarie.

The fourth Proof from sacred Scriptures, in Confirmation of the Roman Church, and Confutation of the Protestant, is taken from the Conuersion of Heathen Kings and Nations to the Faith of Chtist. CHAPTER IIII.

IT is most cleerly taught vs by the sacred Scriptures, that the Church of Christ shal conuert manie Heathen Kings & Coun­tries to the Faith of Christ. The Prophet Esay Esa. 60.16. speaking of the Church of Christians saith: Thou shalt suck the milk of the Gentils, and the breasts of Kings. And,Esa. 60.11. Their Kings shal mi­nister to thee, and thy gates shal be continually open, neither day nor night shal they be [Page 25] shut, that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentils. And that their Kings may be brought &c.Esa. 49.23. Kings shal be thy nursing Fathers, and Queens thy Mothers: vpon which place in the Annotations of the English Bible of Anno 1576. it is sayd, The meaning is, that Kings shal be conuerted to the Ghospel, and bestow their power and authoritie for preseruation of the Church.

Yea God almightie hath further promised that,Esa. 2 2 Al nations shal flow vnto it. And that,Psal. 2.8 He wil giue the Heathen for thy inheritance, and the end of the earth for thy possession. Yea it was sayd toApoc. 10.11. S. Iohn (and in him to other Pastours) Thou must prophecy againe vnto Nations, peoples, tongues, and manie kings. Es. 62 2. As also, The Gentils shal see thy Iustice, and al Kings thy glorie, and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of our Lord shal name. Ps. 102.15. Then the Heathen shal feare the name of our Lord, and al the Kings of the earth his glorie. These and sundrie other such places are so cōuincing for the Cōuersion of the Heathen Kings and Nations by the Church of Christ, that Protestants themselues do endeauour to confirme the same truth from the sacred Scriptures.

Luther Tom. 4. Wittemb. in Es. 60. fol. 234. writing vpon the Prophet Esay, chap. 60. affirmeth that, Kings shal obey and beleeue the Ghospel &c. the Church is in perpetual vse of conuerting others to the Faith &c. for this is signifyed by her gates being continually open. And Oeco­lampadius In Hier. c. 33. writeth vpon Hieremie, that God speaketh heer of the eternitie of Christs Kingdome &c. he shal haue Kings and Priests, and that for euer, and not a few, but as the stars of heauen &c. for their multitude. Tabulae Analyticae. in Es. c. 60. p. 126. Szegedine affirmeth that the Prophet Esay fortelleth, that Gentils and Kings shal embrace with great desire the religion of Gods people, which ought to be referred to the Kingdome of Christ, where he foretelleth the coming of the Gentils, and that in such number, as that it should make the beholders amazed. In like sort teachethMeth. D [...]script. p. 583. 584. Snecanus, saying: Hitherto apper­tayne Ps. 72.9. and Esay. 49.2.23. & 60.4. In these places the Prophets describe the Kingdome of Christ vnder the new Testament, and the office of the Gentils, and espe­cially of Kings flowing to the Church &c. that they may be Nurces to the Church of Christ &c. vnles therefore our Aduersaries wil accuse God and the Holie-Ghost of lying &c. It is necessarie that they grant to the Church of the New Testament her Nurces, pious Kings and Queens, who shal bowe themselues to Christ &c. And these predictions of the Prophets of Kings to be in the Church of Christ may suffice.

This then supposed as a most certaine truth, that the Church of Christ was to conuert Heathen Nations and Princes from their Infidelitie and Ido­latrie, to the true Faith of Christ; That then which resteth to be examined, is, whether the sayd Conuersions haue been performed by the Roman or Protestant Church. But first it is to be granted, that during al the time after Christ vntil Constantin's Conuersion, the true Church remayned so vnder persecution, as that the foresayd glorie and amplitude foretold of her, con­cerning her great encrease of beleeuers, and of Kings and Queens to serue her, was not as then fulfilled: In which respect, D. Barlow Def. of the Articles of Prot. Relig p. 34. auoucheth that, In the primitiue Nonage of the Church▪ is promise of Kings allegeance therunto, was not fully accomplished, because in those dayes, that Prophecie of our Sauiour was rather verifyed: you shal be brought before Kings for my names sake, by them to be persecuted euen vnto death &c. In like sort saithAgainst Stapl [...]t. Mart. p. 51. D. Fulk: Let him, I say, poynt out with his finger, what Kings in euerie Age for the space of the first 300. yeares did walk in the brightnes of the Church arising.

To examine then the subsequent time from Constantine to Luther, and to begin with the Protestant Church: It is so far from accomplishing the foresayd Prophecies, that to the contrarie, it is at large acknowledged be­foreSee before l. 3. c. 1. to haue been Inuisible itself, euen from Constantins time to Luthers; And so accordingly D. Barlow Def. of the Art. p. 34. being vrged to answer this very point concerning the Protestant Churches bringing forth Kings, which should be, as Esay prophecyed, foster-fathers, and Queens to be noursing-mothers to the Church, confesseth, as before, that in the Primitiue nonage of the Church this was not accom­plished: And speaking of the times succeeding,Ib. p. 35 he affirmeth that, The promise by Esay prophecyed was accomplished, and the number so encreased, though stil inuisibly, that as her Loue sayd in the Canticles: there are threescore Queenes &c. But I wil not vrge how absurd it is to affirme, that manie Kings, Queens, and Kingdomes themselues should be conuerted, and yet al this to be in­uisible.

It is likewise not vnworthie of obseruation, that wheras Martin Bucer De Regno Dei. l. 1. c. 1. 3. maketh a special Tract of the sundrie Prophecies by himself alleadged in this behalf, he doth not yet in accomplishment of them, giue instance, though so prouoked thereto by the argument of his sayd Treatise, so much as but in anie one heathen King or Kingdome, conuerted accordingly by Protestants, to the Faith of Christ. Yea to the contrarie, sundrie Protestāts are enforced, through their manifest want of fulfilling the foresayd Pro­phecies in anie Age before Luthers, to referre, or rather deferre the Con­uersion of Heathen Kings and Countries vnto the now later times, wherin their supposed Antichrist is publickly withstood. So M. Symondes Vpon the Reuel. p. 123. tearmeth these later times, The dayes of the seauenth Angel, that conuerteth Kings to the Ghospel. And M. Willet Synop. Ep. Dedic. affirmeth that, The Prophecie of Esay is fulfilled in these our dayes, who saith concerning the Church: Kings shal be thy Nursing Fathers, and Queens thy Nursing Mothers, Esa. 49.23. &c. for now who seeth not, that many Christian Princes in the world are become the children of the Church? &c. And the same is taught byIn his Apoca in c. 20 p. 656. M. Brightman, Playne Euidences &c. p. 72. 73. 81. and M. Bernards.

Yea in this respect Protestants disclayming from al former Conuersions of England, Germany, Heluetia, France and Poland, doubt not therefore to make Tindal, Epistle to England written from Brasile. p. 71. Luther, Zuinglius, Caluin and Iohn à Lasco the first Conuerters or Apostles of those seueral Nations. So M. Stalbridge auoucheth that, God raysed vp W [...]lliam Tindal, the first true Apostle of Christ after Iohn Wiccliffe. M. Wetenhal Dis­course of Abuses p. 134. tearmeth Tindal our English Euangelist. And M. Fox Act Mon p 883. styleth him, M. William Tindal the true Apostle of our later dayes. And yet this so great an Apostle was burned for Heresie in the time of K. Henrie the Eighth. In like sort saith Zanchius to Iohn a Lasco: In his Epistles l. 2. p 232. God hath hitherto pre­serued thee, that as Luther was the Apostle to his Germanie, Zuinglius to his Heluetia, Caluin to his France, so thou mayst be an Apostle to thy Polonie. Therefore the Lord strengthen thee &c. vntil thou shalt consummate thy Apostleship &c.

But al this is most insufficient, and impertinent; for first, euen since Luthers time, not so much as anie one King or Kingdome of the Gentils, is yet hitherto conuerted from Paganisme by Luther, or anie other Protestant euer extant in the world; as shal be proued next hereafter in this Chapter. [Page 27] Secondly, it is incredible to think, that the wisedome and goodnes of Christ would suspend the foresayd promises of his Churches happy & plen­tiful Conuersion of Kings and Countries to serue her, during both the be­ginning and midle-time of the same, and would but fulfil the same in her most decaying, declining, and decrepite Age. Lastly, this Euasion is plainly reiected and contradicted by al such Protestants, as freely confesse and teach the foresayd Prophecies and promises of the Church her conuerting of Kings and Nations, to haue been fully accomplished in former Ages. Amongst whomCont. Duraeum l. 7. p. 472. D. Whitaker saith: Whatsoeuer the ancient Prophets foretold of the propagation, amplitude, and glorie of the Church, that Historie most plainly testifyeth to haue been performed.

But now to examine only the time since Luther, of the Protestant Chur­ches conuerting of anie one Heathen King or Kingdome to the Faith of Christ, I wil first say vnto our Protestants, as D. Whiteguift Def. &c. p. 33. saith vnto the Puritans and Anabaptists: Tel me, I pray you, in what Church hath any of them setled themselues in, but in such wherein the Ghospel hath been wel planted before? What Country was euer originally conuerted from Paganisme by the Protestant Church, or rather only seduced and withdrawen from the an­cient Catholick Faith by secondarie Innouation? As in like resemblance, afterMath. 13.25. The good seed was sowne in the field, the Enemie came and sowed tares among the wheat. In which respect Tertulian l. de Prescrip. c. 42. sayth excellent wel of al Nouelists that, Their Endeauour is not to conuert the Heathen, but to ouerthrow ours (who are conuerted) They glory more to cast those downe who stand, then to lift vp those who lye.

Wherefore Protestants are so farre from conuerting any one Heathen Countrey to Christian beleef, that their diuided Church, neuer yet, before or since Luthers time, so much as but passed the Seas, with taking hold in anie one Countrey of Asia, Africk, or America, the three greatest knowne parts of the world: No Protestant as yet, euer being able to giue the least instance of their Church in anie one of al these three parts. Yea it remay­neth as now (though being in its greatest height of encrease) so narrowly shut vp or confined within our Northern parts of the world, being but an only corner of Europe (the fourth, and incomparably the least part of al the rest) that euen in the farre greater part of this one least part, is not so much as anie appearing profession, either of Lutherans or Caluinists, knowne to be remayning, or in being.

Yea it is most worthie of al diligent obseruation, that wheras certaine Protestants haue endeauoured the Conuersion of some Heathen Natiōs, the euent was euer such, through their owne demerits, either of mutual dissen­tions amongst themselues in matters of Faith & Religion, or of foule enor­mous and most scandalous life and conuersation, that their trauail and la­bour was euer spent without fruit and commodity, and their returne ac­companyed with shame and disgrace. In this time is right famous the endea­uour made of late times by Caluin, & the Church of Geneua, in their sending Richerus the Caluinist (whomIn Icon. Beza tearmeth a man of tryed godlines and learning) into Gallia Antartica, to conuert the Heathens there:In Calu. Epist. ep. 237. But how voyd of al successe it was, and that to their lasting discredit, is plainly related and [Page 28] confessed by their owne Brethren; for first Richerus (32) himself writeth thus vnto Caluin concerning the people of that Country: They are ignorant whether there be a God, so far are they from keeping his Law, or admiring his power and goodnes, whereby we are deuoyd of al hope of gayning them to Christ &c. But much more fully is this reported by Villegaignon, who being then chief Captaine of the French Nauie, and one so feruent and forward in planting Protestancie in those Countries, that the next day after his arriual, he not only (asIbid. p. 438. Richerus mentioneth) commanded the Word of God to be publickly preached, and the week following the holie Supper of the Lord to be ministred, which himself with some of his familie religiously receaued &c. but withal gaue certaine yong men to the people of that Nation to be instructed in their Language; that so they might afterwards preach vnto them. This so zealous a GhospellerEpist. before his book, intitu­led, Les Propositions Contētienses &c. written after his Returne from Gallia Antarctica. rela­teth the bad successe and cause therof in these words; Christian Reader, M. Iohn Caluin vnderstanding that I was gone to Brasile, with intent to plant the Faith there, moued with the old acquaintance had between vs, sent vnto me as wel in his owne, as in the name of the whole Cittie of Geneva, certaine Ministers of his Religion, the best learned that could be found, with certaine crafts-men in their companie, wel furnished with al such books as Caluin had written, or anie other which might serue for their people. As they passed by Paris, certaine other (Protestants) ioyned with them, and among the rest a reuolted Iacobin named Iohn Comtate, a man of prompt and subtil wit. These men coming to Brasile, adorned themselues with a faire Title, calling them­selues: The Reformed Church. By reason wherof they were of me receaued with al possible curtesie, hoping they would haue been profitable to me in my enterprise. But whē they began to execute their fūction, I then found they had vsurped a wrōg Title &c. They agreed not amōg themselues, nor continued long in their owne doctrine, but as they learned euerie day, so they stil added something thereto. The Iacobin would follow a doctrine by himself, vndertaking to defend and publish the Confession of Augusta; and without dissimulation to impugne the Doctrine of Caluin, wherby the contention among them grew so great, that no other remedie could be had, but by sending away one of the Ministers of Geneua. But Villegaignon himself discerning through their mutual disagreements, and inordinate accomplishedSee Launay, En la Replique Chrestienne. l 2. c. 16. f 251. And Villegaignō aduers. Art. Richeri l. 1. c. 90. lusts not to be named, the whole action of conuerting that Countrey to be frustrated, re­ceiued thereupon sufficient motiue to abandon their Religion.

To the same effect it is reported by D. Philip Nicolai, Cōmēt. de Regno Christi l. 1. p. 395. that the French men, hauing for their Captayne Nicolas Villegaignon, being happily arriued in Brasile, through fatal mis-fortune and dissension, lost their Regiment and Castle built therin, being cast out by the Spaniards: As in like sort afterwards, when with a new Armie they came to Florida, Iohn Ribautius being their Captaine &c. The English also, For­bisher being Captayne, opened the Northern side of the new world, but they returned home &c. And of the bad successe of this Sir Martin Forbisher & other En­glish in the Conuersion of the remote Northern Nations, M. Hacklute Voy [...]ges & Discoue­ries &c. p. 680. writeth thus: The euents do shew, that either Gods cause hath not been chiefly pre­ferred by them, or els God hath not permitted so abundant grace, as the light of his Word and knowledge of him to be yet reuealed to those Infidels before the appoynted time.

And wheras some Protestants in Germanie did insinuate with the Church of Greece, writing to the Patriarch in this humble manner with title of [Page 29] Direction:Acta Theol. Wi­temb. & Pa­tria [...] hae Con [...]tantin. &c. p. 2. To the most Holie and Oecumenical Patriarch, the Lord Hieremie Archbishop of Constantinople of New Rome, a pious Lord: And renewing againeIbid. p. 144. the same Direction, in steed of Pious Lord, they adde, our most Reuerend Lord: Ib. p. 4 Concluding with, farewel most Holy Lord &c. and vouchsafing vs pardon, and receiuing vs fauourably into thy Fatherlie care &c. with much more insinuating submission and desire of Communion with him: Al this yet notwithstanding, after much conference, writing, and labour in vanie spent, the Patriarch reiected them as most vnworthieIbid. p. 350. saying: We were determined to be altogeather silent to those your (demands) neither to giue you anie answer, who so plainly alter according to your wil both the Scriptures, and interpreta­tions of holie Doctours, seing we haue Paul thus exhorting vs: Eschiew an Heretical man, after one or two admonitions &c. we are fully assured by your writings, that you can neuer agree with vs, or rather with the truth &c And therefore,Ibid. p. 370. we desire you hereafter not to be troublesome vnto vs &c. for the Diuines, which were the Lights of the Church, you diuersly handle; in words you honour them, and extol them, but in deeds you reiect them &c. wherefore forasmuch as concerneth you, you haue freed vs from cares. So litle successe had our Germane Protestants, and so disgraciously were they repulsed euen by the Schismatical Grecians. But such is the knowne want of al successe in this behalf in the Protestāt Church, that, Beza In Sa­rauia his Def. Tract. De diuersis grad. Minist. p. 309. specially disclaymeth from labouring the conuersion of remote Nations, leauing that (expresly) to the Iesuits.

Wherefore hauing thus fully discouered the manifest and confessed want in the Protestant Church, in fulfilling the foresayd predictions from the Scriptures, of the true Church of Christ, her conuerting of Heathen Kings and Countries to the true Faith: It resteth now to proue, that the foresayd Prophecies haue been fully performed in the Catholick Roman Church, and consequently that the sayd Church is the Church of Christ described in the Scriptures.

And to begin with the Conuersion of the most famous Emperour or King that euer was, Constantin the Great, who liued about Anno Domini 311. First, it is confessed by our Protestant Aduersaries, that Constantin was the first King that euer professed the Christian Faith; so M. Bunny Suruey of the Popes Supremacy. p. 121. tearmeth him, Constantin the first Emperour that publickly allowed of Christian Profession. And M Brightman Apoc. p. 323. auoucheth that Constantin was (he) who first of the Roman Emperours vndertook the open Patronage of the truth; and that, a Male-child was not borne before Constantin. Bibliander fidelis Relatio. p 22 teacheth that, Constantin first of the Roman Emperours embraced Christian Religion with true Faith. And the like is taught by Simlerus De filio Dei in Pref. and others.

Secondly it is most agreably reported by al Historiographers, that this our first Christian Emperour was Baptised by Pope Siluester then Bishop of Rome.

And thirdly, it is beforeSee before l. 1. c. 5. proued at large, that the Religion deliuered to Constantin by Pope Siluester, and which they both beleeued, and publickly professed, was the present Roman Religion, now taught by Pope Vrbane the Eighth. So cleer it is, that the Roman Church fulfilled the former pre­dictions of the Scriptures in the Conuersion of K. Constantin.

As for the other Christian Emperours succeeding Constantin, as Constātius, [Page 30] Constans, Constantin, Iulian, Iouinian, Valentinian, Gratian, Valentinian the Second, Theodosius &c. they were so certainly conuerted, or rather borne & brought vp in the Roman Church, that they are greatly disliked and condemned byBright­mans Apoc. p 344▪ 477. Fulkes Re­ioynder &c. p. 2. Protestant Writers, as special Patrons and maintainers of the pretended Antichrist, the Pope of Rome.

But to descend to the manifold Conuersions of Kings and Countries made by the Roman Church in these last 1000. yeares: It is confessed and reported by the Centurie-writers, that our Catholick Roman Church con­uerted Germanie, Cent. 8 col. 20. the Vandals, Cent. 9. col. 15. the Bulgarians, Cent. 9. col. 18. Sclauonians, Polonians, the D [...]nes and M [...]rau [...]ans, and Cent 10 col 18. 19. sundrie Kings and Kingdomes, and a great Cent. 11 col 27. part of Hungarie, as also the Noruegians. Cent 12 Osiander likewise mentioneth our conuerting of the Danes, Ep. hist. p. 16. 94. M [...]rauians, Ibid. p. 16. Polonians, p. 36. Sclauonians, p. 36. 16. the Bulgares, p. 36. the Hunnes, p. 37. the Normans, p. 72. the Bohemians, p. 77. the Suecians, p. 21. 9 the Noruegians, p 86. Liuonians and Saxons, the Vagarians, p. 104. the Rugij p. 99. & Thuscans, them of p. 111. Scandia & Matorica, p. 341. of Tunes in Africa, p. 377. and of sundrie other Nations. p. 342. M. Brightman Apoc. p 100. likewise reporteth that, famous Conuersions are read of at this time of the Polonians, Saxons, Danes, Suecians, Noruegians &c. And though those Conuersions were done by the paines of Superstitious men (the Papists) yet was it the Seale of God, and profitable to his elect. Now al these Countries being summed vp togeather, may wel be thought to make a ful accomplishmēt of the foresayd prophecies in their sayd Conuersions by our Roman Church from Heathnish Infidelitie to the Faith of Christ.

But I wil yet further descend to particulars, and first begin with Ger­manie, wherin Protestancie with Luther first appeared: It was so cer­tainly conuerted at first from Infidelitie to Christian Religion by the Rom. Church, that the Centurie-writers, Cent. 8. Ep. Dedic. writing therof, do affirme, that Anti­christ hath his notable Postes or Runners &c. Such a Poste was that Boniface, called the Apostle of the Germans, who with greatest studie, art, and power applyed himself to this only, that he might reduce al Germanie to the Power of the Pope of Rome; but although he is reported to haue abolished in some places Heathnish Idolatrie, yet he sowed not Christian Religion pure and incorrupt, for he ouerthrew and cast downe that hinge of al pietie of free Iustification by only Faith in Christ &c. wherfore he often mentioneth the blemishes of Antichrist, that is, the corruptions of the articles of Faith &c. with such insolencie was that false Apostle puffed vp. So cleer it is that Germanie was conuerted by S. Boniface from Idolatrie to the Roman Faith: Yea Protestāt Religion was so vnknowne to the Christian Germans before the Apostacie of Luther, that Luther In Deut [...]ron. in pref. fol 3. himself saith: I am of opinion that the (Protestant) Ghospel was neuer reuealed to Germanie before this Age. As also,Enar rationes seu Postillae. fol. 271. I am ignorant, whether Germanie euer heard the Word of God; indeed we haue heard the Word of the Pope, which no man can deny. So plainly in Germany had our Roman Faith her being and precedence before al Protestancie.

But now to come to the late Conuersion of the remotest Indians, it was so certainly performed by Friars, Iesuits, and other knowne Members of the Roman Church, that D Philip Nicolai writing a special book of this verie argument, and therin professing to set downe the accomplishment of the sacred Prophecies in this behalf, is enforced, in proofe of the same, wholy [Page 31] to insist vpon such Conuersions from Paganisme, as haue been performed by our Catholick Church: Amōgst which speaking of the Indians, he iustlyCōmēt. de Regno Christi. l. 1. p. 315. confesseth, that, Spaine hath shewed itself careful and painful, that the remotest Nations, the people of the East, West, and South, should be Baptised, and the name of Christ made knowne to those Barbarians: According to the diuersitie of Countries (to which the Portugesses and the Castilians do sayle) they diuulge in diuers languages the ten Commandments, the Lords Prayer, the Creed of the Apostles, in Mauritania, in the Atlantick coast, in Guinea, in the Kingdomes of the Nigrites, Armutium, Goa, Narsinga, Aurea, Chersonesus, China, Taprobona, the Ilandes of Molocca, Ame­rica, Mexico, Peru, Brasile &c. wherby those Countries abiuring Paganisme, and reiecting the Superstitions of Mahomet, are conuerted to Christ; wherfore now Christ is preached to Kingdomes far distant from our world, and heretofore vnknowne, so that there are gayned to the Kingdome of Christ a great part of Africa, to wit, Manicongrū, Guinea, manie Kingdomes of the Nigrites, almost reaching to the mountaines of Luna, as also Zofala, Deanamataxa, Quiola and Meluida, then in the remote Orient, the Persian Gulfe, and manie Kingdomes of the Indians, Cheul, Dabal, Bauda. And what should I recite more? The religion of Christ is dispersed euen to the Kings of Narsinga, Honorus, Batecalla, Otisa, Delus, Cananorus, Colochus, Cochinus, and the S [...]cylane Ilandes, and beyond Ganges, through the Kingdomes of Bengalla, Pegna, Scanus, to the great Cittie of Malaccha, and the Iland Sumatris, then to the lesse and greater Iana, and the Ilandes Iaponia, Bauda, Molucca, Borneum, also through China, Lequios, America, new Spaine, Florida, the Kingdome of Peru, Brasile, Cambals, and the Ilands adioyning &c.

Yea so grounded and hopeful of continuance are the Conuersions of these so manie forenamed Countries, as that in sundrie of them, not only Churches, but also Monasteries, Colledges, and other Religious houses are richly built and founded: Insomuch that the foresayd Protestant DoctourIbid. l. 1. p. 52. Philip Nicolai confesseth most truly, that the Spaniards haue founded manie C [...]lledges in sundrie places, the greatest wherof the Iesuits possesse in the Cittie of God, a Cittie abounding with men of sundrie Countries: In which Colledge it is reported aboue 600. children of most different Nations, to be diligently instructed in pietie and learning, as the Brachmans, Persians, Arabians, Aethiopians, Cafies, Canarians, those of Guzarotes, Decamios, Malauares, Beagolones, Canareos, Pegnos, Patanas, Chingales, Iauenses, Malaios, Marancabas, Macazaios, Maluchos, Siomos, Mauros, Simos, and sundrie others of that kind. But besides this Colledge of Goa, manie others are also numbred, as the Colledge Cochinense, Bozainense, Salsetanum, Malacakense, and Bungense of the Iaeponies. Besides these there are thirteen Residences of the Iesuits, Cherana, of S. Thomas Damanensis, Tannensis, Bandoronensis, Calanae, Traxancort, C [...]morinensis, Manarinensis, Sinensis, Aethiopiae, Ambrinensis, and of the Holie Trinitye: to which may be added those of Iaponia, as Meacensis, Emurensis, and certaine others.

Much more might I recite, of the seueral Conuersions made by our Roman Church in the EastMaff. Hist. Indic. l. 16. Hackluite Principal Nauigatiōs in the 2. part of the vol. p. 88. & WestAcost. de Naturae noui Orbis. Indies, as also in Africa; Hartwels Report of the Kingdome of Congo. And his Epistie there to the Reader. but I wil forbeare, it being also (besides the Premisses) most fully confessed by the Protestants Lythus, Respon. altera ad alterum Gretseri Apologiam. p. 331. that the only Iesuits within the space of a few yeares &c. not content with the Coastes of Europe, haue filled Asia, Africa, and America with their Idols, that is, with the Catholick Roman Faith and Religion.

Only I wil now further adde to the greatest honour and confirmation of our Catholick Church, that the foresayd Conuersions of so manie Hea­then Countries, so happily wrought by her, haue been often accompanied with vndoubted and confessed Miracles; For so our foresayd D. Phtlip Nicolai Cōmēt. de Regno Christ. p. 91. acknowledgeth and writeth that, The Iesuits & Popish Priests by publishing the Articles of Christian Faith, of the ten Commandments, and of the Lords Prayer, as also by diuulging the texts of the Sundayes Ghospels & Epistles, and by Administra­tion of Baptisme, like vnto the Bileamites, do build the Church of Christ, and in the name of God amongst the Indians & Americans do happily expel the Idols & Diuels of the Gentils, & do work great wonders. And in the same place he likewise af­firmeth that, Though the Iesuits & Papists be Idolaters, yet through the name of Christ they can prophecy, cast out Diuels, & work great Miracles amongst the Indians & Americans.

And wheras it is most credibly testifyed,Rerum in Oriente Gestarum Cemmenta­rius. fol. 8. 9. that the Iesuit S. Franciscus Xauerius going to the East Indies for the Conuersion of those Pagans to the Catholick Faith, in testimonie and proofe of the same Faith by him then preached, cured miraculously the dumbe, the lame, the deafe, & with his word healed the sick, & raysed sundrie dead persons to life: And after his death, the graue being opened, to the end his naked bones might be carryed from thence to God, Ibid. fol. 14. they found his Bodie not only vnconsumed, but also yeelding forth fragrant smels; from whence they carryed it to God, & placed it there in the Church of S. Paul, where yet to this day (saith the Authour) it remaineth free from corruption. This Historie for matter of fact is so certaine, that D. Whitaker De Eccl. p. 353. in his answer thereto doth not rest in denyal of the thing, but only sayth: Let not Bellarmine think, that I do altogeather contemne these Miracles. I answer it may be, that in the Popish Kingdome (or Church) there haue been such Miracles & now are: Ibid. p. 354. And, The Diuel might preserue the Bodie of Xauerius for a time vncorrupted, & smelling sweetly. So not denying these Miracles wrought by a Iesuite in the Conuersion of the Heathen to the Roman Faith, but most blasphemously and damnably referring the same to the Diuels work: wheras as yet to the contrarie M. Hachluite, a Protestant Preacher, doubted not to affoard most commendable mention of thatPrincipal Nauigatiōs the 2. parte of the 2. vol. p. 88. Holie man (Xauerius) his particu­lar vertues, & wonderful works in that Region.

As concerning Africa; It is likewise acknowledged and reported by M. Hartwel, Report of the Kingdome of Congo &c. l. 2. c. 2. 3. that in the Kingdome of Congo, a region therof, was conuer­ted to the Christian Faith, and that by great and vndoubted Miracles shewed in the presence of a whole Armie. Now the Persons by whom the sayd Conuersion and Miracles were wrought, were so certainly Catholick Ro­man Priests, that the same M. Hartwel Ibid. Ep. to the Reader. confesseth, that this Conuersion of Congo was accomplished (by Massing Priests) & after the Romish manner: And that action (saith he) which tendeth to the glorie of God, shal it be concealed & not committed to Memorie, because it was performed by Popish Priests & Popish meanes? God forbid. p. 410. yea M. Pory in his Geographical Historie of Affrick, acknow­ledgeth and mentioneth the sayd Miracles; Ibid. p. 413. And much commendeth M. Hartwel for publishing his forsayd Treatise.

I do forbeare heer to speak of the Conuersions of our owne Countrey by Eleutherius, or Gregorie, both Popes of Rome, sending holie and learned men [Page 33] from them for the effecting therof, the same being largely recorded by seueral English Writers both Catholick & Protestāt, & hauing myself before spoken sufficiently of the latter, aswel concerning the Persons of them that conuerted vs, as also of the Faith and Religion to which we were by them conuerted: Only I wil adde that S. Austin sent hither by S. Gregorie did confessedly work manie and vndoubted Miracles for the Conuersion of our Countrie; for so S. Bede & our Protestant Chroniclers witnes that, S. Austin Bed. hist. l. 1. c. 2. Hollinsh. Chron. vol. 1. l. 5. c. 21. p. 102. to proue his opi­niō good, wrought a Miracle in restoring sight to one that was blind, wherat the Brittās, being then present, were so moued, that They confessed they perceiued, it was the true way of Iustice which Austin preached. wherof also saith D. Godwine, Catal. of Bishops. p. 5. Austin wrought a M racle by healing a blind man for Confirmation of his Doctrine, as you may read in Bede his Hist. l. 2. c. 2. Yea it is likewise recorded,Bed. hist. l. 1. c. 26 Hollinsh. vbi sup. p. 100. Fox Act. Mon. p 117. that S. Austin perswaded K. Ethelbert to his Religion by diuers Miracles shewed: which were as then also so publickly knowne, that it was,Bed. hist. l. 2. c. 3. Stowes An­nal. p. 66. written in the Epitaph vpon his Tomb, that he was strengthned by God with the working of Miracles: And S Gregorie himself not only takethBed. hist. l. 2. c. 1. notice therof, but also by hisHollin. vbi sup. p. 192. 102. Letters dated Anno 602. did specially write to S. Austin touching the Miracles shewed by him, aduising him not to glory therin; but rather to consider, that God gaue him the guift, for the good of those to whom he was sent: And withal, (as D. Godwine Catal. of Bishops. p 4. testifyeth) ex­horted him to diligēce in his calling, & to take heed, least the Miracles which God wrought by him for the Cōuersion of this people, should make him proud. Ibid. p. 414. yea I doubt not (saith D. Godwine) but God affoarded manie Miracles to the first Infancie of our Church. In like sort S. Bede, Hist l. 2. c. 12. Fox Act Mon. p. 121. 122. Holl. Chron. vol 1 p. 108 109 M. Fox, and M. Hollinshead do al of them mention the Mi­raculous Conuersion of Edwin K. of the Northumbers, which hapned some 26. yeares after Augustin's foresayd coming into England; M. Fox not doubting to place the same in hisAlph. Table of his Acts and Mon. at the word, Mi­racles. Catalogue of true Miracles. So cleer, and for such con­fessed, it is, that S. Austin the Monk conuerted England to our Roman Faith by manie Miracles.

These so manie Conuersions of Heathen Countries, & so confirmed by vn­doubted Miracles, being confessedly performed only by the Roman Church, & none at al by the Protestant: It wil not suffice to answer (as somePhil. Nicolaus De Regno Christi. p. 53. 91. Protest. do) that, The Iesuits in the first Conuersion of the Indians & Oriental Ilanders, shewed themselues to be Lutherans: for who knoweth not that al Iesuits without exceptiō haue euer holden Lutherans to be Hereticks most damnable, & so their Faith & Religion to be altogeather vnauaylable to the Conuersion of the Heathen, or working of Miracles? Or who is ignorant, that Numbers of Iesuits haue freely shead their bloud for not communicating in matters of Religion with Lutherans & Caluinists? And therefore in steed of further answer, I hold it only worthie of contempt, laughter, & scorne.

A Discouerie or brief Examination of sundrie sleights & Euasions vsed by Protestant Writers in Excuse of the manifest confessed want of their Churches fulfilling the foresaid Scriptures concerning the continuance, vniuersalitie, & visibilitie of Christs true Church. CHAPTER VI.

HAuing thus far laboured in ful discouerie of the perfect agreement of our Roman Church with the sacred Scriptures, & of the opposite cōtrarietie [Page 34] of our Protestant Congregation with the same; I wil now only examine the extreamest & most desperate shifts & euasions, which the learnedst Protestāts are inforced to make, in colour and pretence of their Churches not fulfilling, or agreeing with the forsayd Scriptures.

As first, wheras the former Scriptures did manifestly teach, that the Church of the new Testament must euer continue euen from Christs time vntil the end of the world, Protestants being vrged by vs to shew the like continuance of their Church,Sadel. de Rebus grauiss. Contr. p. 783 Fulk in A [...]oc. c. 12. f. 69. they answer, that in al Ages it did continue with Pastours and Doctours in it, for the administration of the Word and Sacraments, but yet (through Persecution) vnknowne & inuisible to the world; euen as those3. Reg. 19.18. 7000. faithful, though vnknowne to Elias, when he thought3. Reg. 19.10. himself alone, were yet neuertheles at the same time reserued and remayning.

But the falshood & insufficiencie of this answer, is sundrie wayes apparēt. For first, it is directly against the sacred ScripturesSee before l. 4. c. 3 plentifully produced before in proof of the Churches Euer-visibilitie. Secondly, it is contradicted by most of the learnedst Protestants, who formerly from the sayd Scriptures do proue & maintayne the Euer-visibilitie of Christs Church.See before l. 4. c. 3. Thirdly, the argu­ments drawne from the Iewish Synagogue are impertinent to those manie greater predictions & promises made to the Church of Christ, whoseHeb. 8.6 Testa­ment is established in better promises, & therfore though the Church had been in­uisible in Elias his time, yet this inferreth not the like of the Church of Christ at these times. Fourthly, Neither doth this example of Elias extend to the vni­uersal Church before Christ, but only, admitting the most, to the particular Nation of the Iewes, besides whom were extant manie other faithful, as appea­reth by the sundrie examples of Melchisedech, Iob &c. And afterwards of Corne­lius See Act. 10.1. & 8.27.11.18. & 13.14 42.43. & 14.1. & 18.4 8.9. the Eunuch &c. yet the ProtestantSyntag­ma ex veteri Test. col. 1232 1233. Wigandus sheweth by very manie examples of Scripture, that the Iewish Synagogue before Christs time, was dispersed in sundrie other Nations, besides that of the Iewes: Now amongst these the Church might in Elias time be visible, though it had been then inuisi­ble among the Iewes. Fiftly, though those 7000. of that one special time were vnknowne as then to Elias, yet this proueth not (which is the poynt only per­tinent to be proued) that therfore they should be as then vnknowne also to al others of the same time: And much lesse therfore can this particular example proue, that al the Faithful, not of one special time only, but also of so manie se­ueral hundred yeares, (as are heerSee before l. 3. c. 1. before confessed for the Prot. Churches inuisibilitie should al of them, during al those Ages, continue so generally la­tēt & vnknowne (not to one Elias only,) but to the whole world, as that there should remayne no memorie or notice of the needful preaching & administra­tion of Sacraments, to haue been performed so much, as by one of them, in anie one Nation of the earth for anie one moment of al those times. Sixtly, this ob­iection of Elias maketh fully for vs, & against our Aduersaries; for it is euident, that Elias flying 3. Reg. 19 2.3.8.9. theface of Iesabel wife to Achab, who sought his life, lay thervpon secret in a Caue vpon Mount Horeb, at the time of his complayning that he was left alone; the which cōplaynt he made in regard only of that Countrey of Israel, which was the kingdome of Achab (wherin he then a strāger lay secret) as appeareth most plainly aswel in that God himself accordingly answered his sayd complaint with like respect to that only Countrey, saying: I haue left to me in [Page 35] Israel 7000. &c. Of one hundred wherof Elias himself had then special3. Reg. 18.13. no­tice giuen him before by Obedias, to whom therefore the Church was thē, euen in that verie Countrey, knowne & visible; which only poynt quite dissolueth al the supposed force of this so often re-enforced obiectiō. Besides in those verie times, the Church flourished in the next adioyning Kingdome of Iuda, and was there as then to Elias both knowne & visible, vnder two good Kings, Asa and Iosaphat who raigned euen in the time3. Reg. 22.41. of Achab: At what time the number of the Faithful was there so exceeding great, that the Souldiars only were num­bred to2. Par. 14.8 9. & 17.14.15.16.17.18 19 manie hundred thousands: And thus is this very obiection answered by M. Henoch Soue­raigne Re­medy &c. p. 17. 18. Clapham saying, our ignorāt Reformists say, the Church was inuisible in the time of Elias, but, The Holy Ghost recordeth Elias to haue spoken this against Israel, not against Iuda; for as he knew that good Iosaphat at that time raigned in Iuda, so he wel knew, that there was not only the Church visible, but also mightily reformed. yeaIn Cor­pore Doctri­nae. p. 530. 532 And in Morgenster­ne Tract. de Eccl. p. 4. Melancthon expoundeth those verie words obiected, I haue left to me 7000 &c. of the visible Church. And wherasDef. of the Answ. p. 645. Whitguift writeth that, Sometimes the Church of God is where there is no good Pastour, as in the time of Elias, Last part of the 2. Reply. p. 63. M. Carth­wright answereth, This is vntrue; for there were an hundred Prophets then kept of one man alone. 1. Reg. 18.13. So manie wayes is it euident that the Church in the time of Elias his complaint, was visible not only in Iuda, but also in Israel.

Now wheras our Aduersaries do make for the reason of their Churches inuisibilitie, Persecution: This poore euasion implyeth in termes; for what ma­keth the Church more knowne & famous then Persecution? Or who can be persecuted but men knowne & seen to others? Doth not M. Iewel Reply. p. 506. And Def. of the Apolog. p. 33. 34. hereupon affirme that, The Church is placed vpon a mount, her persecutions can not be hid? Doth not M. Carthwright In Whytguift. Def p 174. And see D. Babington vpō Exodus. p 10. cōfesse, that the Church vnder Persecutiō, is visible and sensible; for els (sayth he) how could it be persecuted? As also, what a Conclusion is this: the Churches were few in number, because they were vnder the Crosse? &c. To let passe both Scriptures and Stories Ecclesiastical, haue you forgotten what is sayd in the first of Exodus, that the more the children of Israel were persecuted, the more they increased? But in cleer demonstration hereof, is it not further euidēt, that though the Primitiue Church, during the first 300. yeares after Christ, enduredFox Act. Mon. p. 34. &c. The Centu­ristes Cent. 1. col 24, &c. & Cent 2. col. 10. &c. & Cent. 3. col. 10. &c. incomparably the most vniuersal & violēt persecutions that euer were, yet, the same notwith­stāding, euen Protestāt writersCent. 1. 2. 3. throughout Pantaleon. in Chronogr. Functius in Chr. Osiand. cent 1. 2 3. Dresserus in Millen. 5. p. 11. 12. Fulk de Successione Eccl. p. 246. do at this day take certaine & particular notice of the Catholick Bishops and Pastours by name in euerie one of those Ages, of their administration of the Word and Sacraments, and their open impugning of Heresies?

But besides al this, al sides must acknowledge of the Church vnder Perse­cution, that either she doth make Professiō of her Faith, as also openly refrayne the external communion of al Idolatrie, false doctrine and Sacraments; or els that she doth not professe and refrayne as before sayd: If the latter, then (as is heretofore proued) she is not the true Church; for as D. Field Of the Church. l. 3. p. 19. further saith: Seing the Church is the multitude of them that shal be saued, & no man can be saued vnles he make Cōfession vnto Saluation (for faith hid in the hart & concealed, doth not suffice:) it cannot be, but they that are of the true Church, must by the Profession of the truth make themselues knowne in such sort, that by their profession and practise they may be discerned from other men: If then the first, then is she thereby made most knowne & visi­ble; for besides her foresayd Profession consisting in administration of the [Page 36] Word & Sacramēts, & impugning of errours, which being done, though neuer so priuatly, is impossible to be in so manie seueral Countries kept secret for anie smaller time, much lesse for so manie Ages togeather: wherof D. Humfrey Iesuit. part. 2. rat. 3 p 241. saith most truly: Whilst Ministers teach, others learne; they administer Sacraments, these communicate, al cal vpon God, & professe their Faith: Who seeth not these things, is blinder then a Mole; I say besides this, her only open refrayning or Recusancie (whereto she is euen by the iudgement of ProtestantsWillet Synop. p. 612 613 614 Act. Mon. p. 1283. 1150. 1151. Melancth. in Consil. Theol. p. 628 Pet. Mart. ib. p. 634. 635. Bu [...]er. 16. p. 632. 633 634. Caluin ib p. 635. And Caluin Tract. Th. p 584. The Deuines of Germany in Sleydans Comment. Engl. f. 87. no lesse in dutie bound) lyeth euermore most open & easie to be discerned; yea by how much the persecution is more grieuous, so much the lesse can this Recusancie be kept secret or vnespyed, as appeareth most plainly in the example only of our owne times & Nations; for if during but these last 20. yeares, we of this one Nation in cōparison but few, could not so escape the search of Protestāt Magistrats, but that by our only Recusancie we were dayly discerned, presented, indited, cōuicted, sundrie wayes persecuted, & some Martyred: Could then a Protestāts pretended to be dispersed throughout so manie Nations of the world, escape for so manie hundred yeares togeather, that Inquisition of the Roman Church, which Protestants affirme to haue been vniuersal, and far more grieuous?

Wherefore to end this inexplicable & contradictorie poynt, of the Protestāt Churches Being or continuance, but yet vnknowne & inuisible for many hun­dred yeares togeather, & that through the greatest persecutions therof by the Pope of Rome; I wil only demand with D. Field, Of the Church. l. 1. p. 19. How (possibly) there should be a Church in the world (the perpetuitie wherof, al most constantly defend) and none found (seene or knowne) to professe the Sauing truth of God? Or as M. Iewel (26) saith of Heresie, so, in his words, wil I say of his Church, It must needes be a very strange Church, that had neither beginning, nor ending, nor defender, nor reprouer, nor mouth to vtter it, nor eare to heare it, nor pen to write it, nor time to last in, nor place to rest in; of which strāge kind of Church, was our pretēded Protestāt Church for manie hundred yeares togeather, no knowne beginning being assigned of her Inuisibilitie, no man defending or reprouing her, during the sayd latencie, no Pastour of hers preaching, or sheep hearing her doctrine, no pen writing her Monumēts, or her pretended pressures & suffrings, no one houre knowne wherin she had being, or corner, or cottage in the world, wherin she r [...]sided.

Wherefore the absurditie and insufficiencie of this former answer being in so manie respects so easily discouered, other Protestants disclayming from this, do auouch, that their Church according to the Scriptures hath euer continued, and that visible and knowne in al former Ages; but now sithence, through the late violence of the Pope and his Clergie, al testimonie, Monumēt, & Record therof is vtterly suppressed and made away.

But the idle vanitie of this naked conceipt is manie wayes appearing; for first, this is but a mere Imagination, destitute of al testimonie or proofe in con­firmation therof. Secondly, al proofe & experience is directly to the contrarie, seing the very books of Husse and Wiccliffe are yet extant to our aduersaries, as also the Epistle of Vlrick in defence of Priests marriage, & the pretended books of Charlemaine against Images, & Bertram concerning the Eucharist, & the like: And yet in none of these is the least mention afforded of anie Protestāt Congre­gation though neuer so slender, to haue been formerly residing in anie caue or corner of the earth, though neuer so streight; And yet these are the ancientest [Page 37] Records wherin they can insist, either in defence of themselues, or impugning of vs.

Thirdly, our General and Prouincial Councels holden in most seueral Nations, did euer recite and condemne al new arising Sects & Heresies cōtrarie to the Roman Faith, and yet in none of these is there the least mention or Re­cord to be found of the Church of Protestants.

Fourthly, our Catholick Writers, in euerie Age, haue plentifully recited, and at large cōfuted al appearing doctrines contrarie to the Roman Church, & yet as for anie Protestāt Religion knowne before Luther, they are wholy silēt.

Fiftly, from hence do sundrie Protestant Writers take notice, and in their owne writingsThe Cent. Pant. in Chron. Osiād. Epit. Eccl. Hist. Illiricus Catalogus Testam. &c. Whitak. cont. Dur. p. 276. 469. make mētion of the daily opiniōs, not passed ouer in silēce, or wholy suppressed from the view of Posteritie, but directly to the contrarie most expresly mentioned, recorded, and condemned in euerie Age, by the Church of Rome: Of which opinions, certaine also (which maketh this point most euident) were oftentimes euen some one or other special Doctrine, now sithence taught by Protestants, and heretofore seuerally professed by some one or other particular condemned person of those times. And yet was neuer Protestant hitherto euer able to nominate or assigne a Protestant Church be­fore the dayes of Luther, truly agreing in matters of Faith and Religion with our now reformed Church of England.

Sixtly, this confessed general suppression of the Protestant Church, and al her Records for so manie hundred yeares, doth euidently conuince the sayd Church, not to be the Church of Christ, but some Heretical Conuenticle; for the Scriptures testify of the true Church, that herEsa. 60.20. Sunne should not be set, nor her Moone hid; that sheDan. 2 44. should not be giuen ouer to another people, but should stand for euer, as anEsa. 60.15.16. eternal glorie and ioy, from generation to generation.

Lastly, euerie vprising Sect, though neuer so grosse, may as easily, and with as much probabilitie, pretend for itself, the continuance & visibilitie of their Church for al former Ages, only adding (with our Protestants) the Imagi­ginarie suppression and ruine of al testimonies, proofes, and Records of the same, through the power and malice of the Church of Rome, then which no­thing more dangerous to affirme, or more absurd to maintayne.

The falshood of the two former Answers being thus easily displayed, and seene to be most palpable and sensible, euen to the meanest iudgements, a third remayneth, in matter and substance of no greater force then the former, but through affected obscuritie of words, more difficult and perplexed to an igno­rant Hearer: As namely, that during al those confessed manie Ages, wherin no knowledge is had of the Protestant Church, her Pastours, or administra­tion of Word, or anie one Sacrament,Whitak. de Ecelesia p. 165. Perkins in his Refor­med Cathol. p. 328. 329. Osiād. Cent. 16. part alt. p. 1072. Calu. l. epist. ep 104. p. 222. Rhegius lib. Apolog. p. 95. Beza in ep. Theol. ep. 1. p. 15. The (Protestant) Church was in the Papacie, and the Papacie was in the Church, and yet the Papacie was not the Church. An answer not much vnlike to that Censure giuen vpon D. Playford his strange diuiding the Text of his Sermon, to wit, that it was as A Pye, A Pudding: A Pudding and a Pye: A Pye pudding: And a Pudding Pye: Being indeed no other but a mere Tergiuersation, and idle Battologie of distracted, perplexed, and obstinate men, not willing to yeeld or acknowledge the truth, and yet not able a deny the certaintie therof: Much agreable to that instabilitie and doubtfulnes, whichInstit. c. de fide. p 148. And his like per­plexed Sayings, see Inst. l. 4. c. 2. sec. 11. 12. Caluin in the same matter expresseth in [Page 38] other words, professing: Neither simply to grant, nor plainly to deny our Catholick Church, to be the Church of God. And yet such Confidence is placed in this extre­mest Refuge, that in M. Parkins Reform Cath. p 329. Whitak. de Eccl. p. 165. Beza in Ep. Theol. ep. 1. p. 15. Calu. lib. Epist. ep. 104 p. 222. his opinion, it wil serue to stop the mouths of Papists, who demand of vs, where our Church was fourscore yeares before Luther. For, sayth he, hereby They are answered, that our Church hath been since the dayes of the Apostles, and that in the verie midst of the Papacie. But to omit, that hereby is plainly granted and supposed, that Papacie, or the Roman Religion hath euer been since the dayes of the Apostles, I wil now lay open this last receptacle wher­into our Enemies do so confidently retire.

And first, when they say their Church was in the Papacie since the Apostles dayes; they either meane, that their Church continued in Popish Countries amongst the Papists without al external Communion with them in Church or Sacraments, euen as Catholicks doe at this day in England, Scotland, Holland, Turkie &c. Or els, that their Church was in the Papacie, because she did Communicate with the Papists Church in al external offices, Seruice, and Sacraments thereof, not being in anie external respect to be discerned from the Papists, only reseruing in their inmost thoughts and secret Conscien­ces, the Faith of Protestants.

If they intend the first, then had it been more congruously sayd, that their Church was without the Papacie, or neer to the Papacie, or among the Papists, or in Popish Countries, but at no hand in the Papacie, that implying the verie Faith and Religion of the Papists, no more then a Catholick can endure to heare that the Roman Church or Religion, is in the Protestancie, Puritanisme, Turcisme or the like. Besides if the Protestant Church had been thus stil in Popish Countries with external Recusancie of al Popish Seruice & Sacraments, then we vrge againe, as before, for some one testimonie, proofe, or but shadow therof from anie one Writer, Record, or Monument of al those former Ages; but herein they are most silent through their knowne con­fessed want of al such helpes. And therefore they betake themselues to the se­cond meaning of their Church being in the Papacie, that is, not being only in Popish Countries, but in al external Communion and Profession either of Seruice, Sacraments, or other matters of Faith and Religion, being and shewing itself only Papistical. Agreably hereunto M. Parkins expounded him­self saying:Reform. Cath. p 328. The true Church hath been in the Roman Church, as Corne in the heape of Chaffe: And not seuered each from other in outward profession,Ib. p. 329. but mixed togeather for external societie, like Chaffe and corne in one heape: In which sense Osiander (so great an Enemie of our Catholick Church, that by no meanesEpit. Hist. Eccl. Ep. Dedic. & Cent. 6. p. 290. & Cent. 7. 331 he wil acknowledge it for a true Church) yet affirmeth, that,Ep. Dedic. Cent. 8. p. 2. In those darkned times, the true Church was vnder the Papacie: And that so, that thoughCent. 16. part. alt. p. 1076. some godlie men (inwardly) disliked the Popish errours, and Idolatrous Sacrifices, yet they durst not alwayes openly professe the same: Ibid. 1072. Neither durst they freely professe their owne opinions, except they would be burned, or at least ba­nished: Yea these so godlie men, sayth he,Cent. 8. Ep. Ded p 3. though they gaue not their mind to these Popish Idolatries, yet they did not altogeather neglect the external rites, and with a common custome, as with a violent Streame, they were carried away to do the same things with the Papists: Many, through feare of the Popish Tyrannie, not da­ring to professe that they disliked the Popish worships, whose infirmitie God tollerated and [Page 39] pardoned. And so, sayth he, they communicated with the Popish Church, inCent. 16 p. 1073. & Cent 8. Ep Ded p 2. Ministerie of the Ghospel (or the Word) in the Bible, in Baptisme, in the Lords supper, in taking Orders &c. such (saith he) as those times did affoard &c. And so thereby were most euidently no other then plaine Papists in al exter­nal Profession. And according to this, D. White also confesseth, that these godlie men did not Way to the Church. p. 371. alwayes abandon the Communion of the Roman Church &c. the Tyrannie of Rome suppressed them so, that they could not manifest abroad to the world their dislike &c. but by force and violence were constrayned to deuoure their owne Sorrow in the societie of their Aduersaries. This external societie of Protestants with Papists in matters of Religion is further granted by the Protestant Molitor, Disqui­sitiones de Eccl. &c. p. 114. who writing hereof sayth: We affirme the Church in former Ages to haue layne hid in the midst of the Papistrie, as in Caues, neither durst it, through the abominable Tyrannie of the Sonne of Perdition, come forth to light: Euen as yet to this day many faithful are in the midst of the Romish Ba­bylon, who lye hid there as in a Prison, and for feare of danger dare not pu­blickly professe the name of Christianitie. So that the verie true and last resolued sense of the Protestant Churches being in the Papacie euer since the dayes of the Apostles, importeth no more, but that in the secretest corners of their harts, they beleeued Protestancie, and in al external Communion, societie, and conuersation they liued and dyed Roman Papists.

But if men had long studied for an answer most foolish and wicked, what more apt then this? For first, no instance or proofe doe they or can they produce, whereby to proue these external Papists, to haue been indeed internal Protestants, this being only a fiction or Imagination of their owne, deuoyd of al testimonie, Record, or probabilitie whatsoeuer. Se­condly, supposing it to be true, doth it import, or conclude anie lesse, but that the sayd Imagined Church of Protestants in this sort being in the Papacie, was a most dissembling and adulterous Church, publickly de­nying in word and deed that verie Faith and Religion, which inwardly it beleeued only to be true, and committing and practising both in life and death manie foule supposed Superstitions and Idolatries with the Popish Church, which they firmely beleeued to be most wicked and damnable? And is it possible that an hypocritical Church is the Church of Christ? Or that Godlie men would for feare of anie persecution, not only deny Christ before men, but withal commit Adulterie with the pretended whore of Babylon, in partaking with her in al her superstitions, Idolatries, and abo­minations? what more forcible can be desired, or vrged against the sayd imagined Church, that she was not the Church of Christ, then her owne confession of grosse and palpable dissimulation in the weightiest matters of Faith and Religion? Doth not Christ himself auouch & say,Math. 10.33. who­soeuer shal deny me before men, him wil I also deny before my father in heauen? And his Apostle teachethRom. 10.10. that, with the hart a man beleeueth vnto Iustice, and with the mouth confesseth to Saluation: And how possibly could theMath. 16.18. Gates of Hel more strongly preuayle against the Church of Christ, then by making her to commit Idolatrie and Superstition, and that for manie hundred yeares togeather? Wheras in steed of these,Psal. 86.3. glorious [Page 40] things are foretold of the Church of Christ, as that,Esa. 60.11. her Gates should be continually open, herEsa. 62.6. Pastours neuer silent, her Dan. 2.44. Kingdome not giuen ouer to another people, but should stand for euer, asEsa. 60.15.16. an eternal glorie and ioy from generation to generation. So that the censure which by this last answer is imposed vpon the Protestant Church, and that by her owne Chil­dren, is, that in steed of Christs Church, she is a dissembling Church, a Church denying Christ and his Religion, a Church for temporal respects committing manie Idolatries, and Superstitions, and so by most true conse­quence no Church at al.

THE FIFT BOOK, WHERIN IS SHEVVED, THAT PROTESTANTS IN THE Decision of Controuersies betvveen them and CatholicKs, do absolutly disclaime from An­tiquitie, reiecting the Ancient Fathers and Councels for Papistical, and the Sacred Scriptures for erroneous.

THAT PROTESTANTS DISCLAIME from al Antiquitie since the Apostles; and further reiect and condemne as Papistical the Ancient Fathers and General Councels. CHAPTER I.

SO foule is the stayne of Noueltie in anie profession of Reli­gion, as that some Protestants haue aduentured to charge our Roman Church with the deformitie and crime therof; Mr. Hal therupon auouching, thatPeace of Rome p. 24. Poperie is but a new fashion; and D. Way to the true Church. p. 341. 342. White vndertaking to proue it contrarie to the primitiue Church. But as nothing can be more grateful to a Christian Reader, then a cleere and sincere trial of this point, to wit, whether the ancient Fathers of the primitiue Church were the true Progenitours and Fathers of Catholicks or Protestants; so among manie meanes and arguments, al of them able most cleerly to determine the same, I wil only make choice for this time of the free grants, acknowledgements, and confessions of Pro­testants themselues: And this chiefly concerning their owne bastardie, degenerating, and disclaiming from those so ancient, so noble, so worthie Peeres of those purest times.

And first concerning the Argument drawne from Antiquitie in general, it is acknowledged to be a Popish Argument, and for such to be auoyded and taken heede of: so do some careful Ministers prescribe to the King's Maiestie himself, saying: Let Suruey of the Booke of common prayer. p. 18. not your Maiestie be now deceiued by the Popish Argument of supposed Antiquitie, as Iosue was with the old and mouldie bread of the Gibeonites &c. And now followeth the reason of this so necessarie preuen­tion, And the rather, O Christian King, take heed, because Antichrist began to work euen in the Apostles dayes: Yea, sayth D. Willet, Papistrie Synop. Controu. 2. q. p. 56. &c. began to work in S. Paul's dayes. So that Papistrie being as old as S. Peter and S. Paule, it behooueth Protestants in al good policie to reiect and vtterly abandon Antiquitie as a Popish argument, and as the old and mouldie bread which the poore Papists feed on. The like prouident and most necessarie preuention for Protestants vsed the Maddeburgians Pref. ep. Dedicat. ad Elizab. Angliae. Reg. in Cen. 4. before to Q. Elizabeth, to whom pretending to bring Antiquitie for her Maiestie to looke vpon, yet at the first premonish, that few Doctours in ancient times did write Luculenter et cum iudicio, perspicuously and witb iudgement: And withal complayne, that very manie are as it were so bewitched with the holie title of Antiquitie, that without al attention and true iudgement they do giue willingly consent to neuer so foule errours, if they be set downe by Antiquitie; so fearful are these deepest Diuers and Searchers into Antiquitie to be tryed therby.

Iust cause had then D. Humfrey to reproue Mr. Iewel for his so bold ap­pealing to the first 600. yeares, saying: Iewel De vita Iewelli. p. 212. And see the like in Fulks Retentiue. p. 55. prouoked to al that Antiquitie, but he was ouer liberal, and yeelded more then reason, and was ouer iniurious to him­self &c. and in a manner spoiled himself and his (Protestant Church) &c. It is sufficient for a Christian to say, So saith the Lord &c. What haue we to do with Fathers, with flesh or bloud? or what belongeth it to vs (Protestants) what the false Synodes of Bishops shal ordaine? Here our Doctour wisely controuleth Mr. Iewel for his so rash appealing to the primitiue Church, as seeing plainly that his new Protestant familie would be vtterly spoyled and vndone therby. And the like dislike sheweth Iacobus Acontius against some Protestants alleadging the Fathers in their owne behalf saying:Stratag. li. 6. p. 296. Some are come to that, that they wil fil al their writings with the authoritie of Fathers, which I would to God they had performed with as prosperous successe, as they hopefully attempted it &c. I do verily think that this custome is most dangerous, and altogeather to be eschewed. So that in this Doctours iudgement, it is no wisdome but imminent danger for Pro­testants to meddle with the Fathers.

Now if any desire to know the true cause of this danger hanging ouer Protestants by appealing thus to Fathers, it is confessed to be no other, but because the sayd Fathers were Papists. We are sure (saith Mr. Papisto-mastix. p. 193. Midleton) that the mysterie of iniquitie did work in Paul's time; and fel not a-sleep so soone as Paule was dead, waking againe 600. yeares after, when this mysterie was disclosed &c. and therfore no maruaile, though perusing Councels, Fathers, and Stories from the Apostles forward, we find the print of the Popes feet. O how firme and during are the Pope's steps, or our Roman faith, which at this day are presented vnto vs by Councels, Fathers, and stories from the Apostles times; al of them recording to vs their Posteritie the Popish Faith to be the Faith of their times! What reason then haue Protestants to appeale to such ancient Papists?

In like for argueth Mr. Carth wright saying: That Reply part. 1. p. 18. the argument of the authoritie of men which haue interpreted the Scriptures, is the best reason in Controuersies of Diuinitie, was neuer heard of but by Papists, whose strongest towers are in the testimonies of the Doctours &c. There is nothing more Papistical then this Assertion. So that if Protestants commit themselues to the trial by Fathers, they yeeld themselues prisoners to the strongest Towers and Castles of the Papists their Enemies, wherin what can they expect but ruine and confusion?

D. Whitaker affirmethCont. Dur. li. 6. p. 423. The Popish Religion to be a patched couerlet of the Fathers errours sowed togeather. Wel then if our Religion was beleeued by the Fathers, & from them deliuered to vs, I am perswaded that D. Whitaker admitting this, would place litle hope in appealing to Fathers for Con­futation of Popish Religion. And though he falsely tearmeth our Religion the Fathers errours, yet therby he plainly granteth the Fathers to haue be­leeued and taught the same Religion which we now professe, and Pro­testants impugne.

Now the ancient Fathers being thus acknowledged for Papists, I do not wonder that Protestants contemne their authoritie, and seeke their disgrace with al contumelies possible. Why may not D. Luther affirmeTo. 2. Wittemb. l. de Seruo Arb. p. 434. And the same booke prin­ted in 8. p. 72. 73. 276. 337. The Fathers of so many Ages to haue beene plainly blind, and most ignorant in the Scriptures; to haue erred al their life time; and that vnles they were amended before their deaths (wherof neuer Protestant had yet the least intelligence) they were neyther Saints nor pertayning to the Church, but no doubt (according to Luther) damned Papists? Why might not he further auouch: That In Col­loq. mensa­libus c. de Patrib. Ecclesiae. in the writings of Hie­rome there is not a word of true faith in Christ and sound Religion? Tertullian is very superfluous. I haue houlden Origen long since accursed. Of Chrysostome I make no account. Basil is of no worth, he is wholy a Monk, I weigh him not a haire. Cyprian is a weake Diuine &c. See how our old Papists are betrampled by a yong Protestant?

And yet no lesse resolute against them isIn Ionam. Pomerane: Our Fathers whether Saints or no I care not (ô zeale and reuerence Protestantical!) they were blinded with the Spirit of Montanus by humane traditions, and the doctrines of Diuels &c. they teach not purely of Iustification &c. neither are they careful to teach IESVS CHRIST according to his Ghospel. Stil are the Fathers reiected as men blinded with Papistical opinions. The Centurists endeauouring to dis­credit the whole multitude of Doctours and Fathers in euerie Age begin euen with the first Age next after the Apostles, saying,Cent. 2 c. 4. p. 55. Albeit this Age was neerest to the Apostles, yet the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles began to be not a litle darkned therin, and many monstrous and incommodious opinions (to Protestants) are euerie where found to be spread by the Doctours therof. Perhaps some cause therof may be, for that the guift of the Holie Ghost in these Doctours did begin to decay for the ingratitude of the world towards the (Protestant) Truth. Now as for the Doctours of al Ages succeeding, they make a Principle, that The Cent 3. c. 4. p. 17. further we go of from the Apostles Age, the more stubble shal we find to haue been added to the puritie of Christian doctrine: So that al Doctours and Fathers since the very first Age of the Apostles are discarded by the Centurists for stubble and Papistical.

But Luther wil not rest, vntil he hath brought these stubble-Doctours to Hel for teaching Papistrie:In Deut. c. 13. p. 102. Sathan (sayth he) hath hitherto deluded vs by [Page 4] signes and lying wonders &c. whilst contrarie to the Ghospel, we haue admired Pilgri­mages, Apparitions of Spirits, and cures at certaine Sepuchers, in so much that Saints also erred herin, as Augustin, Bernard, Hierome and many others &c. certainly damned (as Wicclif sayd) vnles they repented. So that if Papists be damned for be­leeuing the Catholick faith, they haue for their Companions Hierome, Augustin, Bernard, and many others most renowned Doctours of Christs Church, and Saints. From this true conceipt of the ancient Fathers being Roman Catholicks, Protestants further disclayme from their Interpreta­tions and expositions of Scripture, refusing to stand to their iudgments for the true vnderstanding therof. Thus then they write: The Sacred Scripture (saith Polanus) Sym­phonia c. 1. Thes. 6. p. 56. is not to be interpreted by Fathers; neither is the Interpretation of Scripture to be iudged by Fathers; the Fathers are not the rule of expounding the sacred Scripture &c. what is here sayd of euerie Father alone, is to be vnderstood of al the Fathers ioyned togeather, as also of Councels, That is, though al Fathers and Councels conspire togeather in their Expositions of Scripture, agreably to the Doctrine and beleef of the Catholick Roman Church, yet Pro­testants wil not subscribe or admit the same, but wil valiantly maintayne al such expositions, though most contrarie therto, as are last coyned at Geneua or Wittemberg, or newliest extracted by some Brother more illumi­nated. In like and most prouident manner argue our English Puritans against Doctour Downham obiecting against them, That none of the Fathers did euer vnderstand the Text (then in question) as Puritans do. The Puritans in their answ. to D. Down­ham. Doth not Mr. Doctour know (say they) that to argue negatiuely concerning the sense of Scriptures from the authoritie of Fathers, is the practise of Papists only, and taxed by learned writers against them? &c. If that manner of disputing be good, we shal often loose more truth in taking their Interpretations &c. Carthwright tearmeth the seeking into the holy Fathers writings a In Ban­crofts sur­uey of Pretend. Discipl. p. 331. 337 and see chap. 4. p. 64. Raking of ditches, and the bringing in of their authorities the mouing and summoning of Hel. Parker assureth vs that,Pref. to his Answer Limbomas­tix and see Iacob's Treatise p. 1. 3 54. 81. 68. Bilson's sermons Ps. 323. Answ. to Brough­ [...]on's Letter p. 17. If you alleadge the ancient Fathers against them, they wil tel you roundly, that their opinions are nothing els but the corrupt fancies of vaine Imaginations of men, toyish fables, fond, absurd, without sense and reason. And some stick not to cal the Fathers of the Latin Church the plague of Diuinitie. Hence it is, that the French Protestants haue enacted it for aDisci­plina Ma­gistrorum Galliae art. 4. law, that no place be giuen to the writings of the old Doctours, for the iudgement ad determination of Doctrine. So cleerly is Protestancie at an end, if the Fathers Interpretation of Scriptures may stand for good.

But yet further they doubt not to affirme the argument or consequence vrged from thePuri­cans Answ. to D. Down­ham's ser. p. 92. receiued opinion in the Church of God, euen from the Apostles time vnto our Age, to be lyable to iust exception. So that though the Fathers of al Ages vp to the Apostles themselues do al of them ioyntly agree with our Roman faith in their Expositions and deliuerie of the sense of Scripture, yet may one illuminated Protestant except, contemne, and reiect them al, as not hauing the Spirit nor interpreting according to the Analogie of the Protestant faith. But O most miserable and lamentable times! O inso­lencie most impious and incredible! What? the receiued opinion in the Church of God euen from the Apostles time vnto our Age, to be lyable to iust exception? The Fathers of al Ages during 1600. yeares of al Countries, though most [Page 5] distant in place, and different in language, and other conditions of nature and gouerment, al of them to conspire in one opinion of truth & doctrine, and yet al of them so fowly and so grosly to erre, as that a new-found Protestant is able to discouer it? This, this may a Protestant often de­claime, but no man of iudgement can possibly beleeue him.

Yea, our Protestants are so far out of loue and liking with the Fathers, as they painfully labour to make the world to think, that their Cōmentaries, books, and beleef were directly contrarie to the Sacred Scriptures, and therefore to these they wil euer appeale from the writings of men. Captai­ne Luther L. contra Henricum 8. Regem Angliae. saith: Against the sayings of Fathers, Men, Angels, and Diuels, I place not ancient consent, nor the multitude of men, but the Ghospel being the Word of One Eternal Maiestie, which themselues are enforced to allow: Here I stand, here I sit, here I abide, here I glorie, here I triumph, here I insult ouer Papists, Thomists, Henricians, and al the Gates of Hel, much more ouer the sayings of men, though neuer so holy and deceauable custome. The word of God is aboue al; Diuine Maiestie maketh with me; so that I care not if a thousand Augustins, a thousand Tertullians, a thousand Henries or (Papistical) Churches should stand against me. God can not erre and deceiue; Austin, and Cyprian, as also al the Elect may, and haue erred. My Doctrines shal stand, the Pope shal fal. Here we haue a man of liuelie Faith; but yet heare him further:In Com­ment. in ep. ad Gal. No other doctrine is to be deliuered or heard in the Church, then the pure word of God, that is, the Sacred Scripture; Let other Doctours and Auditours be accur­sed with their learning; but here wanteth Charitie.

Neither is Luther in this alone, for Zuinglius likewise declaymeth:In Ex­planat. Artic. 64. Presently thou beginnest to cry, Fathers, Fathers, the Fathers haue so deliuered: But I do not ask of thee, Fathers or Mothers, but I require the word of God. In like sort Peter Martyr: De Votis. p. 462. As concerning the Fathers iudgement, because our Aduersaries (the Papists) are accustomed in this and other Controuersies alwayes to prouoke to them, I (therfore) declare, that to me it seemeth not the part of a Christian to prouoke to the iudgements of men, from the Scriptures of God. Yea (saith he)Ibid. p. 476. As long as we rest in Councels or Fathers we shal alwayes be conuersant in the same errours. And the like is taught by Summerus saying:Contr. Carolum. l. 1. c. 1. Antiquitie, by which they affirme we are condemned, is of no force; for if they speak of a right beleeuing Antiquitie, by which we vnderstand Christ and his Apostles, the matter itself cryeth, that it is for vs; but if they wil vnderstand the same of the authoritie of the Fathers, we do not take it il, that the word of God is condemned by them.

Agreably heerunto writeth D. Whitaker: Contra Sander. p. 92. If you argue from the testimonies of men, be they neuer so learned and ancient, we yeeld no more to their words in cause of Religion, then we perceiue to be agreable to Scripture: Neither think your self to haue proued any thing, though you bring against vs the whole swarme of Fathers, except that which they say, be iustifyed not by the voice of men, but by God himself. And againe:Answ. to. Camp. Reas. 2. p. 70. And see the like in Abbots in his Answ. to His. Reas. 10 p. 371. We are not the Seruants of the Fathers, but the Sonnes; when they prescribe vs anie thing out of the Law and Diuine authoritie, we obey them as our parents; if they enioyne anie thing against the voice of the heauenlie truth, we haue learned not to hearken to them, but to God. You (Papists) as vassals and base seruants receiue whatsoeuer the Fathers say, without iudgement or reason, being affrayd (as I think) either of the whip, or the halter, if euerie thing they speake be not Ghospel with you. Againe:Against Sanders de Antichristo p. 21. We repose no such confidence in the Fathers writings, that we take any certain proof of our [Page 6] (Protestant) Religion from them, because we place al our Faith and Religion, not in humane but in Diuine authoritie. If therefore thou bring vs, what some one Father hath thought, or what the Fathers vniuersally altogeather haue deliuered, the same except it be approued by testimonies of Scriptures, it auaileth nothing, it gaineth nothing, it conuinceth nothing; for the Fathers are such witnesses, as they also haue need of the Scriptures to be their witnesses. If deceiued by errour they giue forth their testimonie disagreeging from Scriptures, albeit they may be pardoned erring for want of wisdome, we can not be pardoned (being green-witted Protestants) if, because they erred we also wil erre with them. Thus doth this Protestant Doctour defend his re­iecting the ancient Fathers as writing contrarie to the Scriptures, and vpbrayd vs Catholicks for our due estimation of the same: and so do Pro­testants stil labour in derogation of the Fathers, to oppose the Sacred Scriptures, and holie Fathers as contrarie one to another. But al in vaine; for who euer more duly reuerenced, or more carefully preserued those heauenlie writings, then the ancient Bishops and Doctours of the Primi­tiue Church? Who more truly translated them to their greatest paines, & for the good of al succeeding Ages, then those learnedst Fathers? Who in searching the deepest difficulties so frequent in them did more submit and captiuate their iudgements then these holy Fathers? Who euer more pressed Hereticks with the weight of God's word then those zealous Fathers? Who euer writ more large or more learned Commentaries and explanations therof, then the aged Fathers? And is it then possible, that the sayd Fathers should so directly contradict the Sacred Scriptures, as our Protestants pretend? But this so desperate & so vnworthie dealing against the Fathers, doth cleerly conuince, that 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 [Page 7] 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: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:In Inst. in Praef. ad Reg. Galliae. p. 7. I confesse as then there were most learned Bishops; 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.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. AndDevotis 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 (saithRetra­ctiue 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.De Sacra Scrip. p. 670. Basil fighteth with himself. AndDe Princip. Christ. Dog. l. 2. c. 10. p. 675. I oppose (saith Lubbertus) Basil against Basil. AndIb. p. 678. Damascene is contrarie to himself. YeaIb. p. 676. I oppose Chrysostome against Chrysos­tome; of whom also (saith Whitaker)De Sacra Scrip. p. 678. he is at variance with himself. And,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: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. 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 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 [Page 8] 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: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: Tom. 7. Serm. de Euersione Hierusalem f. 271. The Ghospel is so copiously preached by vs, that truly in the Apostles time it was not so cleare. And seingTom 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 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 PopeL. 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 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; forPraef. 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: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 onlieIn 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 affirmethPraef. 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:Epist. Theol. ep. 1 p. 5. I haue [Page 9] 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 hisDefence &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 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 [...]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 De Sa­cra Scrip­tura p. 411. Christ hath now giuen to vs more excellent Interpreters, then euer heretofore stnce the Apostles. Yea, saith M. Iacob, 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: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,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: 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: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: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 stileth the Canons of the sayd Councel of Nyce Luther l. de Cōcilijs part. 1. p. 92. hay, straw, wood, stubble; and demandeth, whether the the Holie-Ghost hath nothing els to do in Councels (but) to bind and burden his Ministers with impossible, dangerous, and vnnecessarie lawes: So absurd was the Councel of Nyce in Luther's iudgement; affirming further, That more light [Page 10] is brought to a Christian by that Catechisme which children do learne, then by al the Councels. Caluin calleth the Fathers of the sayd Councel of Nyce, Lib. de vera Eccl. reformat. opuscul. p. 486. And Inst. l. 4. c. 9. 3. 10. Phana­ticos, that is, men Phanatical, or deluded by the Diuel; and withal giueth leaue to euerie priuate man to examin the decrees of Councels, by the Scriptures, saying:Inst. l. 4. c. 9. §. 8. 9 11. Let no names or authorities of Councels, Pastours, Bishops, hinder vs, but that we may examin al Spirits of al men by the rule of the Word of God. And againe:Ib. 3. 14. I deny that Interpretation of Scripture to be alwayes true and certain, which is receaued by the consent of a Councel. But I cannot heer but obserue the strange giddines of this primest protestant Caluin, who di­rectly contrarie to his former Assertions, writeth thus:Inst. l. 4. c. 9. §. 8. Those ancient Synods, as Nyce, Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, and the like, which were assembled for the confuting of errours, we do willingly embrace and reue­rence as Sacred, for as much as concerneth doctrines of Faith; For they containe nothing but the pure and natiue Interpretation of Scripture, which the holie Fathers with spiritual wisdome applyed to the vanquishing of the Enemies of Religion which then appeared. But to leaue him thus fighting with himself, and to come to the Ministers of the Church of Scotland, In the end of the Harmonie of Coafes. p. 19. And see the sayd Harmonie sect. 1. p. 14. Without iust examination we do not receaue (say they) whatsoeuer is obtruded vnto men, vnder the name of a General Councel; for plaine it is, that as the men assembled were men, so haue some of them manifestly erred, and that in matters of great weight and importance. So far then as the Councel proueth the determination and commandment, that it giueth by the plaine word of God, so soone do we reuerence and embrace the same. Heervnto also do accord our English Protestants teaching, thatArticles of faith agreed vpon in the Con­uocations of A. 1562. & 1604. art. 21. General Councels &c. may erre, and sometimes haue erred euen in things pertaining vnto God: Wherefore things or­dained by them as necessarie to saluation, haue neither strength nor authoritie, vnles it may be declared, that they be taken out of holie Scriptures. So vnwilling, or rather truly fearful are Protestants to appeale vnto General Councels for the decision of Controuersies.

But D. Luther proceedeth further, seriously expecting, & exacting, that al Councels shal be subiect to his Censure & determination.Tom. 2. wittenberg. f. 375. The Rectours of Churches (saith he) & the Pastours of Christ's sheep haue indeed power to teach; but the sheep ought to iudge, whether they propose the voice of Christ or of strangers &c. Wherefore let the Pope, Bishops, Councels &c. decree, appoynt, and ordaine what they wil, we wil not hinder them, but we who are the sheep of Christ, and heare his voice, wil haue it in our power to iudge whether they propose things true, and agreable to the voice of our Pastour, or no; and they are to yeald, subscribe, and obey our Censure and Sentence. Now if Councels be subiect to the Censure of Luther, or anie other such rotten sheep, then lesse is the authoritie of Councels then of Luther himself, then the which nothing can be spoken more absurd or ri­diculous.

In like sort saith Peter Martyr in general:De votis p. 476. As long as we rest in Councels & Fathers, we shal be euer conuersant in the same errours. Yea (saith M. Carthwright)In whiteg. Tract. 2. p. 95. If this be a sufficient proof to say: such a Councel decreed, such a Doctour sayd so; there is almost nothing so true, but I can impugne; nothing so false, but I can make true; And wel assured I am, that by their meanes the principal grounds of our (Protestant) Faith may beshabken. But to conclude,De Con­cil. contr. Bellar. 9. 6. Fulk. Answ. to a Coun­terf. Cath p. 89. 90. Will. Syno. 92. D Whitaker, D. Fulk, D. Willet, and most other Protestants teaching, that General Councels may erre in Faith [Page 11] and manners, it is no wonder, though they reiect their authoritie: but yet it euidently conuinceth, that in matters of Faith and Religion Protestants dare not relye and submit themselues to the decrees and definitions, either of ancient or moderne General Councels.

So that though Ministers in their Pulpits (where none wil gainsay them) do florish and flaunt forth the ancient Fathers prayses, approue their authoritie, applaud them as Protestants, and appeale to those pri­mitiue Doctours, as Maisters and Patrons of their errours, yet when they are pressed by Catholicks with cleerest euidence of their particular writings, sayings, and practise, and with the answerable acknowledge­ments of the learned Protestants, then their tone is changed, bitterly exclaming, that The argument drawne from Antiquitie, is a Popish argument: that To appeale to the Primitiue Church, is to iniurie the Protestant Congregation: That for Protestants to fil their books with the authorities of Fathers, is dangerous and to be eschued: That in al Councels, Fathers, and Stories since the Apostles, the print of the Popes feet is to be found: That the Papists strongest towers are in the testimo­nies of the Doctours: That the Fathers were blind and ignorant in the Scriptures: That they were certainly damned for their Papistical opinions, vnles they repen­ted: That their interpretations of Scripture were aduantagious to Papists, and pre­iudicial to Protestants: That their books and Commentaries were contrarie to Scripture: Yea that the Fathers did contradict one another, and often one and the same himself: That Luther and sundrie other Protestants are much to be preferred for learning before S. Austin, S. Ambrose, and al the other Fathers: That the Doctrine now taught by the Bishops of England is much more sound then euer was taught by any Bishops since the Apostles, and therefore that our Bishops are in manie degrees to be preferred be­fore them; that euen in the best times Sathan was president in Councels: And lastly that al decrees of Popes, Bishops, and Councels are to yeeld, and obey the Censure of Luther. Dot not al this most strongly confirme, that in the verie harts and consciences of Protestants themselues, the ancient Fathers were Roman Catholicks, and most aduerse to Protestants? and that therefore and only therefore they are thus reiected, contemned, disgraced, and wronged by them? euen by Luther, Caluin, Beza, Acontius, Pomeran, Zuinglius, Peter Martyr, Sommerus, Melancthon, Lubbertus, Polanus, Alberus, Musculus, Hospi­nian, Zanchius, Humfrey, Willet, Midleton, Carthwright, Whiteguift, Iacob, Fulk, Beard, Morton, and Whitaker?

THAT THE PROTESTANTS CHVRCH disclaimeth from the Fathers of the Primitiue Church, it is further proued by the Protestants condemning al the ancient Fathers in general, for beleeuing, teaching, and practising the seueral particular actions of our CatholicK Roman Faith and Religion. CHAPTER II.

HAVING in the former Chapter so plentifully displayed our Protestants free confessions for the ancient Fathers Papistrie, least some should yet obiect, that not al, but only some few of the Fathers were reprouable therin, or that not in al but only in some few points, and those of lesser moment they were so faulty: I wil now make manifest through al the principal points of our Catholick Religion at this day controuerted with Protestants, that either al the Fathers indefinitly, or sundrie of them at once are acknowledged and reproued by our Protestant Aduersaries, as agreing with vs Catholicks in the foresayd Articles.

And first concerning the holie Sacraments and Sacrifice. 1. as touching the efficacie or Grace truly giuen by Sacraments, Zuinglius saith:Tom. 2. de Bap. f. 70 Here most of the Doctours by the name of water vnderstanding that material and external water of Baptisme, haue attributed more thereunto then was meet. Wherupon it came to passe, tbat after they ascribed the cleansing of the Soule to the element of water. Luther saith in general:Tom. 2. Witten. f. 229. I hold the Fathers pardonable, who through temptation or ne­cessitie stifly denyed sinne to remaine after Baptisme. Musculus reproueth the Fathers in general, for that,Loc. com. p. 299. They attribute greater efficacie to our Sacraments then to the Sacraments of the old Testament, affirming ours to be more effectual signes of Grace; not only signifying the same as the others did, but also conferring and giuing Grace and Saluation. And Vrbanus Rhegius confesseth that,In part. 1. operum. in Catechismo minore f. 105. the Scripture and authoritie of the ancient Church constraine him to beleeue, that litle children dying vnbaptised are damned. In which respectInst. l. 4. c. 15. §. 20. Caluin acknowledgeth that, Manie Ages since, almost from the verie beginning of the Church, it was vsual, that in danger of death Lay people might Baptize, if the Minister were not present. So cleer it is, that the ancient Fathers did generally teach, that the Sacraments of Christ did truly giue grace, as Catholicks beleeue, and not only signifie the same, as Protestants pretend.

Secondly, as concerning the Sacrament of Pennance or Confession; the Centurists, Centur. 3. c. 6. col. 127. speaking of the general vse therof in the ancient times of Tertullian and Cyprian report that, They gaue absolution from sinnes thus: If any did pennance, they first confessed their sinne; for so Tertullian greatly vrgeth Confession [Page 13] in his book of Pennance: And that priuate Confession was vsual, in which they con­fessed their sinnes and wicked thoughts, it appeareth by some places of Cyprian &c. And that Satisfaction (or Pennance) according to the quantitie of the fault was accustomed to be enioyned, it appareth in his fift sermon de Lapsis. So vsual was Au­ricular Confession and Pennance in those ancient times; which Pennance also was sometimes by Pardons or Indulgences in part remitted. For thus writeth D. Field: Of the Church l. 1. c. 17. p. 33. The ancient Bishops were wont to cut off great parts of enioy­ned Pennance, which remission was called an Indulgence. And wheras D. Field would euade this our so strong argument for Pardons and Indulgences, by affirming that the enioyned Pennance thus remitted was not then im­posed as in satisfaction of God's Iustice, it is so euidently against the Fa­thers doctrine and practise, that D. Whitaker himself confuteth it in these words:Cont. cāp. rat. 5. p. 78. The Fathers thought by their external discipline to pay the paines due for sinne, and to satisfy God's Iustice. And that not Cyprian only, but almost al the holy Fathers of that time were in that errour, and depraued the Doctrine of Pennance. Ib. p. 78. Yea (saith Melancthon)Libelli aliquot &c. fol. 11. al the Councel of Nyce ouercome with the consent of Multi­tude and of the time, approued the Canons of Pennance. So that our Catholick Doctrine of Confession, Pennance, and Pardons, is the general confessed Doctrine of the ancient Fathers.

Thirdly, as concerning the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Eu­charist, I haue shewedlib. 2. c. 8 before, that S. Gregorie, Eusebius Emissenus, S. Ambrose, S. Cyril, S Hilarie, S. Cyprian, S. Chrysostome, Tertullian, Origen, and S. Ignatius are al of them acknowledged and reproued by Protestants for our Catholick doctrine of Real Presence and Transubstantiation. Yea some Protestants confesse that,Adamus Francisci in Margar. Theol. p. 256. Transubstantiation entred early into the Church; And that theyAntony de Adamo in his Ano­tomy of the Masse p. 236. haue not yet hitherto been able to know, when this opinion of the Real & Bodilie being of Christ in the Sacrament did begin. But Bucer speaking of the Fathers in general professeth in this point,Scripta Eruditorum aliquot viro­rum de Cena Domini p. 37. to auoyd their sayings, as being (saith he) seruiceable to Antichrist, and ouer-much varying from the scri­ptures. Whereby it is euident, that the ancient Fathers were wholy agrea­ble to our Roman Church in this weightiest Article of Real Presence.

4. Concerning Holie-Orders D. Field auoucheth,Of the Church l. 5. p. 121. And se the like Cent. 3. c. 7. Col. 149. 150 That there is no question, but that the Minor Orders of Subdeacons, Acolyths, Exorcists, Lectors, & Ostiaries, are verie ancient. In proof wherof he alleadgeth S. Cyprian and manie other Fathers.

5. As touching Extreme-Vnction, D. Whitaker answering to the sundrie ancient Fathers obiected testimonies in behalf therof confesseth, saying:Contra Dureum l. 8. p. 650. I confesse the superstitious vse of this vnction to haue continued longer in the Church then was meet.

6. Our sacrifice of the Masse was so generally beleeued and offred by the Fathers, that Caluin himself affirmeth, thatIn Heb. c. 7. p. 924. And devera Eccl. Refor. extant. in Tract. Thel. p. 389. The ancient Fathers forged a sacrifice in the Lord's supper without his commandment, and so adulterated the supper with adding of sacrifice. Chrastouius witnesseth that,De Opi­fi [...]io Missae l. 1. p. 28 58. 102. 171. The Fathers thought the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice according to the Order of Melchisedech. AndAgainst Hoskins &c p. 99. 100. I confesse (saith D. Fulk) that diuers of the old Fathers were of opinion, that the bread and wine which Melchisedech brought forth, was sacrificed by him, and that it was a figure of the Sacrament, which they improperly cal a Sacrifice. Yea (saith Chrastouius: [Page 14] 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: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 speakeDe 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, thatLib. 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 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, thatIn 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 sameExam. part. 1. p. 87. 89. 90. Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Hierome, Maximus, Theophilus, Basil &c. D. Fulk con­fesseth the sameAgainst 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 sameDe 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,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, thatAg. 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, thatIb. 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, thatIn 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, thatDef. 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 doctrineIn Apocal. c. 14. p. 382. S. Athanasius, S. Ba­sil, S. Chrysostome, S. Gregoire Nazianzen, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Austin &c. AndExam. par. 3. p. 211. Chemnitius alledgeth S. Augustin inuocating S. Cyprian, wherin [Page 15] (sayth he) he yealded to the times and custome. D. Beard speaking of the Fathers opinion heerin sayth: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 reprouedIn Apoc. p. 382. by D. Brightman. The Centurists charge the Fathers of the fourth Age withCent. 4. c. 6. col. 456. publick Translation of Saints Relicks. And Chemnitius chargeth the Fathers indefinitly not onlyExam. 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 byAgainst 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 confessethL. 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, thatIn 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, thatVol. 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 chief of the worshippers; so general and recea­ued was the practise heerof in the time of Paulinus, who, as Osiander rela­teth, wasCent. 5. p. 387. familiar with Hierom, Austin, and Ambrose.

16. Concerning the Vow of Chastitie, Chemnitius confesseth, thatExam. part. 3. p. 41. we are not ignorant, that the Fathers allowed the Vowes of perpetual Chastitie, and that they thought them to be obligatorie. I know (sayth Peter Martyr) that De Vo­tis p. 524. Epiphanius with manie other Fathers erred, in that they affirme it to be sinne to breake this Vow, when need shal require: and that he referreth the same naughtily to Aposto­lical Traditions. Yea (sayth M. Wotton) it is one of the blemishes Defence of Parkins. p. 491. of the ancient Writers.

17. The Chastitie or single life of Priests was so generally prescribed and practised by the ancient Fathers, who were Priests also themselues, that M. Iewel speaking of this pointDef. of the Apol. p. 195. saith: Heer I grant, that M. Harding is like to find some good aduantage, as hauing vndoubtedly a great number of holie Fathers on his side. Bucer likewise acknowledgeth, thatGratul. ad Eccles. Angliae. p. 35. in the time of S. Hierome the Churches of Aegypt, of the East, and of the Sea Apostolick, were not accustomed to receaue [Page 16] for Priests, but such as either were not married or abstained from their wiues.

18. Monastical life was so general with the Fathers, that M. Cartwright confesseth, thatIn Whiteg. Def. p. 344. Ruffin, Theodoret, Sozomen, Socrates, do mention Monks almost in euerie page. And the Centurists do begin a whole special Tract, the title wherof is:Cent. 4. c. 10. col. 294. Of the Monks through Syria, Palestina, Bythinia, and the other places of Asia vnder Constantin the Great; as also the title of another Tract is:Cent. 4. c 10. col. 1306. The African Monks through Aegypt vnder Constantin the Great. And the title of another Tract is:Ib. col. 1331. The Monks through Europe. So that in those purest and ancientest times Religious or Monastical life was generally practised ouer the whole face of the Christian world, euen through Asia, Africk, and Europe.

19. Prescribed times for fasting are so ancient and general, that Chemnitius confesseth, thatExam. par. 1. p. 89. Ambrose, Maximus Taurinensis, Theophilus, Hierome and others do affirme the Fast of lent to be an Apostolical Tradition. And Caluin professeth thatInstit. l. 4. c. 1 2. §. 19. heerin he dareth not excuse the old Fathers, but that they sowed some seeds of superstition; And thatIb. §. 20. euerie where the obseruation of superstitious Lent was in force.

20. Concerning Free-wil, some Protestants say:A Dis­couer. of vntruthes contained in D. Bancrofts serm. p. 23. 59) We know, that euer since the Apostles times in a manner it flourished euerie where, til Martin Luther took the sword in hand against it. The Centurists speaking of the times next after the Apostles, say: (59) In like sort Clemens affirmeth euerie where Free-wil, that it may appeare not only al the Doctours of that Age to haue been in such darknes, but that it likewise encreased in their successours.

21. Merit of works was so generally belieued by the ancient Fathers, that D. Whitaker chargeth with errour therinResp. ad Camp. p. 78. not only Cyprian, but almost (to vse his owne words) al the most holie Fathers of that time. AndIesuit. par. 2 p. 531. It may not be denyed (saith D. Humfrey) but that Ireneus, Clemens, and others called Apostolical haue nothing Apostolically inserted into their writings the opinions of Free-wil and Merit of works.

22. And as for the vse of Ceremonies in the Church, M. Calfhil affirmeth, thatIn Fulks Reioynder to Martials Reply p. 131. 132. the Fathers declined al from the simplicitie of the Ghospel in Ceremonies. Melancthon also affirmeth, thatIn 1. Cor. c. 3. Presently from the beginning of the Church the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the iustice of Faith, encreased Ceremonies, and deuised peculiar Worships.

23. But to include manie in one, D. Whiteguift a prime Metrapolitan amongst Protestants discoursingDefence &c. p. 472. 473. of Doctrine taught in anie Age since the Apostles time, affirmeth without anie exception either of Age or Father, that almost al the Bishops and learned Writers of the Greek Church and Latin also for the most part were spotted with doctrines of Free-wil, of Merit, of Inuocation of Saints, and such like &c. Meaning thereby such other like points of our Catholick Religion; which his Assertion hath since been renewed by D. Couel, who speaking of the ancient Fathers vseth these like words, as:Exam. against the Plea of the Innoc. p. 120. Diuers both of the Greek and Latin Church were spotted with the errours about Free-wil, Merit, Inuocotion of Saints. Manie things (expressing their Papistrie) might be alledged in this kind, if it were anie vertue to rip vp their faults, whom we ought to honour. And wheras Bellarmin alledgethDe Not. Ecclesiae l. 4. c. 9. the particular sayings of Caluin and the Centurie-writers, as charging the ancient Fathers with our doctrine [Page 17] of Free-wil, Lymbus Patrum, Denyal of our Concupiscence without consent to be sinne, Satisfaction, Prayer for the Dead, Merit, Pennance, the Fast of Lent, the vnmarried life of Priests, Baptisme of Lay-persons in case of necessitie, the manner of Sacrificing &c. D. Whitaker answering thereto iustifyeth the same, saying:De Eccles. cont. Bellarm. Contr. 2 q. 5. p. 299. Bellarmin alledgeth certain testimonies from Caluin and the Centurie-writers, as noting certain errours of the ancient Fathers, which were common to them with the Papists, as namely Free-wil, Merit, Lymbus, Inuocation of Saints, the vnmarried life of Priests, Satisfaction, and certain other such like &c. before men­tioned by Bellarmine, I answer thereto, that it is true which Caluin and the Centurie-writers haue written, that in manie things the ancient Church erred, as in Lymbus, Free-wil, Merit of works, and in al the residue of those other before recited.

24. In like sort M. Brightman hauing named S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, S. Augustin, &c. affirmeth of them al, thatIn Apoc. in c. 14. p. 382. in words they condemned Idolatrie, but in deed they established it, by Inuocation of Saints, Worshipping of Relicks, and such other wicked (Popish) superstitions.

25. Beza speaking of the times of S. Cyprian, S. Austin, and S. Chrysostom, auoucheth that:Praef. in Nou. Test. ad Princip. Cond. Then Sathan layd the first foundations in Greece of Inuocation of the Dead, whereto some of the chiefest Bishops were so far from resisting &c. others &c. did not only not represse open superstitions arising, but did also nourish them &c. Hence those opinions of Free-wil, of Faith, of free Iustification (was as then) almost oppressed with the Comments of the Grecian Bishops &c. At the same time the Inuo­cation of the Dead preuailed, and the foolish opinion of single life, which shameful er­rours Hierom openly defendeth; the multitude also of Ceremonies then encreased &c. And al for the most admired the Monks in Aegypt & Syria &c. no otherwise then if they had been Angels. Prayers also for the Dead began then more freely to be vsed; and the Pla­tonical question risen concerning Purgatorie &c. So ancient and general amongst al the holie Fathers were al the foresayd Articles of our present Roman Faith.

26. So that our Catholick Roman Faith concerning the Sacraments conferring grace, of Confession, of Pardons, of Transubstantiation, of Holie-Orders, of Extreme-Vnction, of the Masse, of S. Peter's and the Pope's Primacie, of the Pope not being Antichrist, of Traditions, of Purgatorie and Prayer for the Dead, of Limbus Patrum, of Inuocation of Saints, Reuerencing of Relicks, Images, and the Crosse, Vowes of Chastitie, single life of Priests, Monastical life, prescribed Fasts, Free-wil, Merit of Works, and the Ceremonies of the Church, was the general receaued Faith of al ancient Fathers and other Christians. Witnesses wherof in our behalf are Luther, Caluin, Zuinglius, the Centurists, Rhegius, Melancthon, Adamus Francisci, Antonie de Adamo, Bucer, Crastouius, Philippus Nicolai, Chemnitius, Functius, Osiander, Peter Martyr, Beza, Brightman, Field, Humfrey, Fulk, Cartwright, Whi­teguift, Couel, Fox, Gifford, Iacob, Parker, Parkins, Wotton, Beard, Calfhil, whitaker and Iewel.

THAT PROTESTANTS DO NOT ONLY disclaime from al the ancient Fathers as Papists, but do further reiect the authoritie of the sacred Scriptures and of the Apostles themselues, as being erroneous; and that therefore they do not found their Faith or Re­ligion vpon Sacred Scriptures, or Christ his Apostles. CHAPTER III.

I haue laboured often and long for the finding out of some ground work, Argument, or Principle, wherupon the Pro­testant Church should be builded and sustained. And stil ob­seruing al proofs whatsoeuer, drawne either from Histories, Fathers, Councels, Church or Antiquitie, to be al of them contemned and despised by them as meerly Papistical, I retired and tyed my thoughts at last to that surest Ancker of God's heauenlie Word, pro­posed vnto vs in the sacred writings of his Prophets, and Apostles; nothing doubting, but that the credit & authoritie therof would in the iudgement and verie beleef of al Protestants be euer admitted, acknowledged, and reuerenced, as Diuine, infallible, and inspired from God the Holie-Ghost himself. And yet frustrate in this my last expectation, I find the verie wri­tings of the Prophets and Apostles to be censured and reiected, and the Prophets and Apostles themselues to be scorned, disgraced, & disallowed by the learnedst Protestant Writers.

And to begin first with the scriptures of the old Testament (omitting also Tobie, Iudith &c. and the rest, which Protestants generally reiect for Apocryphal) wheras Moyses was confessedly the first that writ anie part of sacred Scripture, yea that writ the Law of God, or Ten Commandments in Tables of stone, he and the sayd Commandments are al of them re­iected by our new Protestants.Tom. 3. Germ f. 40. 41. And in Col [...]oq. Mensal. G [...]rm. fol. 152. 153. We wil neither heare nor see Moyses (sayth D. Luther) for he was giuen only to the Iewes; neither doth he belong anie thing to vs. Let him be to the Iewes as the Law of the Saxons, and let him not disquiet or trouble vs Gentils. As France regardeth not the Law of the Saxons, so the Law of Moyses doth not bind vs. If anie propose vnto thee Moyses with his Lawes, and would compel thee to keep them, then shalt thou say: Go to the Iewes with thy Moyses; I am no Iew; thou shalt not enwrap me with Moyses. And againe:In Colloq. Mensal. c. de Leg. & Euang. I wil not receaue Moyses with his Law; for he is the enemie of Christ. If he shal come with me to examination, I wil reiect him in the name of God, and wil say: Let Christ stand heer. F [...]l. 118. Moyses is the maister of al hangmen, no man matcheth him in terrifying, streightning, tyranizing, threatning, and thundring; he cruelly assaulteth the consciences; he terrifyeth, tormenteth, and teareth the hart. Ad Ps. 46. Away therefore with Moyses to obstinate and cruel men, and prowd [Page 19] Saints, whome he may terrifye & humble. Tom. 3. Witemb. in Ps. 45. f. 423. And see 422. And in Colloq. Mens Ger. f. 152. 153. Moyses indeed had lips, but (profunda) great ones, vnpleasant, stopped, angrie; in which there is not a word of grace, but of anger, death, and sinne: Gather al the wisedomes of Moyses, and of the Heathen Philosophers, and you shal find them to be in God's sight either Idolatrie or hypocritical wisdome, or if it be Politick, yet the wisedome of wrath &c. For Moyses hath his lips ful of gal and anger &c. Away therefore with Moyses &c.

Moyses being thus discarded, Away likewise (say Protestants) with the Law and Commandments. Tom. 3. Germ. fol. 121. The Law (sayth Luther) is a true Labyrinth, which only casteth consciences into errour. The iustice of the Law is the monster Minotaurus, that is, a meer fable, not leading to saluation, but to the waters of Acheron. In Colloq. Mensal. Germ. f. 152. 153. To the Iewes be­longeth the Law of Moyses; it doth not bind vs, &c. I wil not haue Moyses with his Law; for he is the enemie of Christ our Lord; yea Tom. 3. Wittemb. f. 6. 7. the Decalogue itself testifyeth, that Moyses doth not oblige the Gentils. And his owne Brethren alleadge him saying:Admo­nitio Chri­stiana. p. 211 And see Hospin. con­cord. discord f. 225. As France respecteth not the Law of the Saxons, so let not Moyses be thrust vpon vs; we in the New Testament wil neither see nor heare Moyses.

And as for the Ten Cōmandments themselues, Luther expresly teacheth, thatSerm. de Mose. the Ten Commandments pertaine not to Christians. In Con­uiual. Colloq cited by Au­rifab. cap. de lege. And therefore (saith he) Let the Ten Commandments be altogether reiected, and al Heresies wil presently cease; For the Ten Commandments are as it were the fountain, from whence al Heresies spring. According to which, Islebius, Luther's owne scholler,Cent. 6. p. 311. 312. 310. taught (as Osiander relateth) that the Decalogue was not to be taught in the Church &c. He dispersed in publick writings his Antinomian errour; and drew into errour some lear­ned (Protestants) He seemeth to haue taken occasion of this errour from the writings of Luther not rightly vnderstood. AndAct. Colloq. Al­deburg. p. 94 being great in the Court, he preached earnestly for the Antinomian libertie. These Antinomians Sleidan. Hist. l. 12. f. 262. receauing their first be­ginning from Islebius Luther's scholler publickly taught, as other Protestants confesseConfess. Mansfelden Ministror. tit. de Anti­nomis. f. 89. 90. that the Law of God is not worthie to be called the Word of God. If thou beest a where, a whore-mungar, if an adulterer or otherwise a sinner, beleeue, and thou walkest in the way of saluation. When thou art drowned in sinne euen to the bottom, if thou beleeuest, thou art in the midst of happines. Al that busie themselues about Moyses, that is, the Ten Commandments, belong to the Diuel, to the gallowes, with Moyses.

In like sort Illiricus, the chief of the Centurie-writers, and whom M. Bel termethRegim. of the Chur. p. 28. a very famous Writer and most worthie defender of the Christian truth; this so famous defender of Protestancie is accused of these Antinomian errours by his owne Brethren saying:Act. Colloq. Al­deburg. p. 94. After the death of Luther, when Flaccus Illiricus and manie other factious Companions of his had begun againe those Antinomian filthinesses &c. And with no litle applause of the multitude &c. had disper­sed them abroad &c. Yea D. Hutter publick Professour at Wittenberg addeth yet further saying; Concord explicat. Art. 5. c. 1. p. 478. And see Art. 6. p. 535. 536. &c. But neither did that errour rest in a narrow compasse, but presently getting strength crept abroad &c. In so much that Melancthon in the last Edition of his Cōmon Places hath plainly renewed the same errour &c. And An. 59. the later Antinomians, who named themselues the Schole-men of Wittemberg, publikly and before the whole Church vndertook the Defence of that errour. Yea that Antinomian furie encreased so much, that also An. 70. in this our Wittemberg some Diuines for the obtaining of the highest degree in Diuinitie &c. propounded publickly that errour, and endeauoured to de­fend it, as it appeareth by the 38 and 39. Theses of that Disputation. Some Protestants also teach, thatAct. Mon. p. 1335. And see the Pa­rable of the wicked Mammon, wherof Tin­dal is sayd to be Authour p. 573. 486. the Commandments were giuen vs, not to do them, but to know our [Page 20] damnation, and to cal for mercie to God. And D. Whitaker sayth accordingly:Cont. Camp. par. 8. p. 153. Christ proposeth to vs another more easie condition; Beleeue, and thou shalt be saued. By this new league, the old one is taken away; that whosoeuer beleeueth the Ghospel, is freed from the condition of the Law. For those, who beleeue, are not vnder the Law, but vnder Grace; what need I say more? Christians are freed from the curse of the Law, not from the obedience. But if Christians be deliuered from the condition & curse of the Law, how can they be bound to the obedience of it? Or what can the breach therof be preiudicial vnto them? So that if Catholicks do at anie time vrge against Protestants the authoritie of Moyses or of his Law, or the Ten Commandments, sundrie of the chiefest Protestants haue alreadie answered: I wil not heare Moyses; he is Christ's enemie; he is the maister of hangmen. Away with Moyses (therefore) to the gallowes. His Law is a fable, leading to Ache­ron, or the pit of Hel. The Ten Commondments do not pertaine to Christians; they are the fountain of al Heresies; and are not to be taught in Churches. The Law of God is not worthie to be called the Word of God. Yea if thou be an adulterer, or drowned in the depth of sinne, do but beleeue, and thou art in the midst of felicitie. And so al Argu­ments drawne from Moyses or his writings, are of no force or esteeme in the iudgement of Protestants.

But to proceed to other Scriptures, Luther further affirmeth, thatIn Ser. Conuin. tit. de Patriar. & Prophet. he doth not beleeue al things to be so done, as they are related in the booke of Iob. And againe:Tit. de libr. Vet. & Nou. Testa. the booke of Iob is as it were the argument of a fable, to propose the example of Patience. And when Luther had read ouer the booke of Ecclesiastes, his graue censure was:Pet. Robenstock lib. 2. Colloq. Lat. Lu [...]her. c. de Vet. Test. This Booke is not perfect; manie things are taken away; it wanteth bootes and spurres, that is, it hath no perfect sen­tence; It rideth vpon a long reed, as I, when I was a Monk, was wont to do in the Monasterie.

And as for the Canticles (which our English Protestants terme the Bal­let of Ballets of Salomon)Bible of An. 1595. Luther was of opinion, that they imported no further, but only a familiarIn Exordio fuarum Annot. in Cant. conference between Salomon and the Common-wealth of the Iewes inuiting Salomon to raigne ouer her. But Castalio proceedeth further, iudging this Book to be onlyIn his La [...]. Transl of the Bib. Praef. in Cant. the first Edit. And see Beza in Praef. ante Comment. Calu. in Iosue. a loue-com­munication betweene Salomon and his Mistris Sulamitha; for which he citeth those words: Returne, Sulamitha, returne, and let vs looke vpon thee; adding also in the Margent: Sulamitha the Mistris and spouse of Salomon. And Beza testifyeth of Castalio, thatIn Vita Caluini. And see Vvhitak. poorest euasion hereof, cont. Dur. l. 1. p. 121. he commanded the Canticles of Salomon to be thrust out of the Canon as an impure and obscene Song, reuiling with bitter reproches such Ministers, as resisted him therin. Yea this so impious reiecting this parcel of Canonical Scripture was so grosse in Castalio a Caluinist, that now since in the later Editions of his Bible at Basil, the Protestant publishers therof haue for verie shame altered it.

But now to passe from the Old Testament to the New, and to omit, that Caluin Instit. l. 2. c. 16. §. 18. resteth doubtful, whether the Creed, commonly called the Apostles Creed, was made and published by the Apostles or no, and consequently whether it be of infallible authoritie and beleef; He further chargeth S. Mathew's Ghospel with errour, saying:In Matth. 27. vers. 9. Surely the name of Hieremie to be erroneously put for Zacharie, the thing itself sheweth, because no such thing is read in Hieremie; but that other place, vnlesse it be dexterously applyed, may [Page 21] seeme to be drawne into a contrarie sense &c. And wheras Math. 20.16. Christ sayth: Manie are called, but few are chosen; Caluin reiecteth it, saying:Harm. in Math. 20.16. Minimè quadrat, quae à quibusdam inseritur, sententia: Multi vocati, pauci ele­cti; That sentence (Manie are called, few are chosen (which by some is inserted, doth not agree. Which words: doth not agree, he expoundeth in French, is no­thing to the purpose.

M. Iewel likewise affirmethDef. of the Apol. p. 361. that S. Mark alleadgeth Abiathar for Abi­melech; and S. Mathew, Hieremias for Zacharius. Bible of An. 1592. Our English Church Math. 6. receaues as Canonical scripture these words: for thine is the kingdome, the power, and the glorie, which they adde at the end of our Lord's Prayer. And yet Bullenger heerin reproueth them saying:Decad. 5. serm. 5. Their rashnes was to be reproued, who durst presume, to peece on their owne, to the Lord's Prayer. Clebitius a Caluinist impugneth S. Luke's report in the Historie of our Sauiour's Passion, saying:Victoria Veritatis & Ruina Papatus. Saxon. arg. 5. Mark and Mathew deliuer the contrarie; therefore to Mathew and Mark being two witnesses, more (credit) is to be giuen then to one Luke, who was not present at the last super, as Mathew was.

Beza Beza in his Trans. And the Engl. Bib. of An. 1595. and our English Protestants seeme to confesse, that S. Luke (c. 3.36) in his Ghospel erred in making Arphaxad the father of Cainan, and Cainan of Sale; wheras in the Book of Genesis, Arphaxad is sayd to haue been the Father of Sale; for if S. Luke did not erre, why do they (notwith­standing that al Copies, both Latin and Greek, in this agree) thrust out of the Text these words: who was of Cainan; and so make S. Luke to say, that Arphaxad was the father of Sale? And wheras Christ sayd, Luke 6.40. The disciple is not aboue his maister, Caluin affirmethHarm. in Luc. 6.40. that Luke in the 6. Chapter relateth this sentence without connexion, vttered amongst other speaches as it were of the sudden.

Concerning some part of S. Iohn's Ghospel, Beza sayth:Ad c. 8. Ioan. As concer­ning myself, I do not dissemble, that to me it seemeth iustly to be suspected that which the Ancients with such consent haue either reiected or been ignorant of. Besides, in that he telleth Iesus to haue been left alone in the Temple with the woman, I know not, how probable it is. And that he writeth Iesus to haue written with his fingar vpon the earth, it seemeth to me a new and vnusual thing; neither can I imagin, how it may be fitly de­clared. Beza furtherSee the New. Test. Trans. by Beza of An. 1556. and 1565. And in English of An. 1580. in one Edition of his New Testament in the end of the eigth Chapter of S. Iohn's Ghospel, putteth in these words: Iesus passing through the midst of them &c. which in another Edition with great ve­hemencie he reiecteth. Wherefore although Beza in his Edition of the yeare 1556. leaue the sayd words out; yet in Beza's Englished Testament of An. 1580. they are admitted; such freedome by the Spirit hath this Cal­uinist in admitting and expunging of Scripture.

But Luther is so slenderly affected to the three Ghospels of S. Mathew, S. Mark, and S. Luke, because they write much of the good works done, by Christ our Sauiour, as that he spareth not to write:In 2. Praef. Nou. Test. primae Editionis. Because Ihon writeth verie few works of Christ, but manie things of his preaching; of the contrarie, the other three (Euangelists) set downe manie things of his works, but few of his words, the Ghospel of Ihon is the only delicate, true, and chiefest Ghospel, and far to be preferred before the other three, and more loudly to be preached. So neer were those three Ghospels to be banished by Luther for recording good works, though done by Christ himself.

But not to rest only in the Ghospel, Luther in plaine tearmes accuseth S. Stephen of errour,In cap. 46. Genes. in following the 70. Interpreters, who (as he saith) erred concerning the number of those that went downe into Aegypt.

To come now to S. Paul and his Epistles, Zuinglius saith:Tom. 2. Elench. f. 10. This is your ignorance, that you think the Commentaries of the Euangelists, and the Epistles of the Apostles, to haue been then in Authoritie, when Paul did write those things; as though Paul then did attribute so much to his Epistles, that whatsoeuer was contained in them, was sacred &c. Which thing (saith Zuinglius) were to impute immoderate arrogancie to the Apostle. In like sort saith D. Fotherbie:In his 4 sermons ser. 2. p. 50. The Apostle twice in one Chapter professed, that this he speaketh, and not the Lord; he is very wel con­tent, that where he lackes the warrant of the expresse Word of God, that part of his writings should be esteemed but as the word of man: So supposing some parcels of S. Paul's Epistles not to be sacred and diuine. The Centurists likewise feare not to say:Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. col. 580. Paul doth turne to Iames the Apostle, and a Synode of al the Presby­ters being called togeather, he is perswaded by Iames and the rest, that for the offended Iewes, he should purify himself in the temple, whervnto Paul yeeldeth; which certainly was no smal sliding in so great a Doctour. In Act. 21. Mr. Gualter also reproueth S. Paul for shauing his head. Luther telleth vs thatIn Isay. c. 64. S. Paul 1. Cor. 2.9. doth finely writh or wrest a certaine sentence of the Prophet Isay. But Peter Martyr auoucheth thatIn 1. Cor. 2. f. 46. he mistooke the Hebrew word.

And as for S. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrewes, Luther thought thatIn 1. Nou. Test. Ger. Editi­one. This Epistle was not written by Paul or anie of the Apostles, but composed by a certain learned man out of manie Fathers: And though it lay not the foundation of true faith, yet it fitly buildeth vp gold, siluer, and pretious stones. Therefore it ought not to trouble vs, that wood, hay, straw are mingled therewith. This was so certainly the iudge­ment of Luther herin, that Oecolampadius obseruing the same, saith:In Ep. ad Heb. in Praef. f. 4. Luther in his Preface saith thus: This Epistle seemeth to me to be patched togeather of manie, and not to handle the same thing in order. He addeth also, that it layeth not downe the foundation of faith &c.

The Magdeburgians also do follow their Maister Luther heerin, writing:Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. It is easie to obserue that the Epistle to the Hebrewes doth not beare Paul's phrase &c. It was not hard to iudge, those things which in the 7. and 10. chapter are plainly to that end produced, that such, who are once conuerted to Christ, if they fal againe, can­not be recouered by serious repentance, not to be the Doctrine of Paul, nor of the other Apostles, nor of Christ: Through those and such like reasons, prudent Antiquitie see­meth deseruedly to haue doubted of the Epistle to the Hebrewes.

In Heb. c. 10 p. 963. Caluin likewise saith: The Grecians haue deliuered that which the Apostle heer mentioneth, which partly agreeth with the mind of the Prophet, and partly impugneth the same: So making the Prophet and Apostle to varie amongst themselues. But indeed at some time of the Moone S. Paul is in so slender esteeme with Protestants, that one of them confidently auouchethIn D. Bancrofts Suruey p. 373. that if Paul should come to Geneua, and preach the same hower that Caluin did, I would leaue (saith he) Paul and heare Caluin. And,Ibid. p. 372. another in Basile did attribute no lesse to Farellus then to Paul. Yea some of Luthers schollers: (35) not the meanest among their Doctours, saydLaua­terus Hist. sacram. p. 18. see Schlusselb. Theol. Cal. l. 2. f. 146. they had rather doubt of S. Paul's doctrine thē of Luther, or the Confession of Augusta. And yet the doctrine of Luther [Page 23] is often so absurd, so impure, and scandalous, as that some Protestants them­selues, as much ashamed therof, haue reiected the same: And the Confession of Augusta hath been often impugned by sundrie Caluinists.

But preaduenture S. Peter is in better credit then S. Paul: And yet I find him rebuked by Protestants for his claime of Primacie.Catalog. Testium veritatis to. 1. p. 27. It cannot be denyed (say they) but that sometimes Peter laboured with Ambition and desire of greatnes &c. Wherefore this so peruerse Ambition of Peter, and ignorance, and negli­gence of Diuine matters &c. But Luther saith further:In Epist. ad Gal. c. 1. Be it that the Church, Austin, and other Doctours, also Peter, Apollo, yea and an Angel from Heauen teach otherwise, yet is my doctrine such as setteth forth God's only glorie &c. Peter the chief of the Apostles did liue and teach besides the Word of God. And againe:Tom. 5. Vvittemb. f. 290. Whe­ther S. Cyprian, Ambrose, Austin, or S. Peter, S. Paul, yea an Angel from Heauen teach otherwise, yet I know this certainly, that I do not perswade humane but Diuine things. Caluin likewise affirmeth, that Peter's pretended erring was,In omnes Pauli. Epist. in Gal. c. 2. p. 510. 511. (37) To the Schisme of the Church, the endangering of Christian libertie, and the ouerthrow of the Grace of God. (38) D. Fulk chargeth S. Peter with errour of ignorance, and against the truth of the Gospel. And that this pretended erring of S. Peter, Against Rhem. Test. in Gal. 2. f. 322. was euen after the descending of the Holie-Ghost vpon him, D. Goad auoucheth saying:Tower. Disp. 2. Confer. Arg. 6. P [...]ter did erre in faith, and that after the sending downe of the Holie-Ghost vpon him. Brentius likewise affirmeth that,In Apol. Conf. c. de Cōcilijs p. 900. S. Peter chief of the Apo­stles, and also Barnabas, after the Holie-Ghost receaued, togeather with the Church of Hierusalem erred. In like sort saith D. Whitaker: De Eccl. cont. Bellar. Controu. 2. q. 4. p. 223. But peraduenture they wil say, Christ had not yet ascended, and the Holie-Ghost was not yet giuen to the Apostles; whereto he immediately thus replyeth; what? did they not erre after­wards? Yea it is euident that after Christ's Ascension, and the descension of the Holie-Ghost vpon the Apostles, the whole Church, not only the common sort of Christians, but also euen the Apostles themselues erred, concerning the calling of the Gentils &c. Yea Peter also erred concerning the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law &c. And this was a matter of faith, and in this Peter erred; He furthermore also erred in manners &c. And these were great errours; and yet we see these to haue been in the Apostles euen after the Holie-Ghost descending vpon them. So that S. Peter is of as smal authoritie with Protestants, as S. Paul before was.

To come now to S. Iames, Andreas Friuius a Caluinist, (whomCom. Plac. in Engl. part. 4. p. 77. Peter Martyr tearmeth an excellent learned man) affirmeth that,Ib. 2. de Eccl. c. 2. p. 411. Christ at his last supper ioyned wine with bread; if therefore the Church separate these, she is not to be heard; The Church of Hierusalem did separate these, S. Iames (as some dare affirme) gaue only one kind to the people of Hierusalem; what then? The Word of God is plaine and manifest, Eate and drink: This is to be heard of vs, and preferred before al Iames & words of the Church. And,De Captiuit. Bab. c. de Extr. vnct. tom. 2. wittemb. f 86. further say (saith Luther) that if in anie place it be erred, in this place especially (concerning Extreame-Vnction) it is erred &c. But though this were the Epistle of Iames, I would answer, that it is not lawful for an Apostle by his authoritie to institute a Sacrament; this appertaineth to Christ alone. As though S. Iames would institute or publish a Sacrament without warrant from Christ. And the Centurists before affirmed, that S. Paul was drawne into errour by S. Iames and the rest of the Apostles.

Now as concerning S. Iames his Epistle, Luther auoucheth that,Praef. in Epist. Iacobi in Edit Ien. The Epistle of Iames is contentious, swelling, dry, strawie, and vnworthie an Apostolical [Page 24] spirit. As also,Adc. 22. Gen. Abraham was iust by Faith, before he was knowne to be so by God. Therefore Iames concludeth il &c. It doth not follow as Iames doateth &c. Let our Aduersaries therfore be packing with their Iames, whom they obiect so often vnto vs. Againe,In Coll. Mensal. lat. tom. 2. de lib. nou. Test. Manie haue much laboured in the Epistle of Iames, that they might accord it with Paul, as Philip tryed in his Apologie, but without successe; for they are contrarie, Faith iustifieth, Faith iustifieth not. Agreably heervnto also saith Muscu­lus:Loc. com. c de Iustific. The Papists obiect the Epistle of Iames: But he whosoeuer he was, the Brother of Christ, and a Pillar amongst the Apostles, and a great Apostle aboue measure, yet he alone cannot preiudice the truth of Faith. And after the disagreement between S. Paul, and S. Iames (according to his imagination) shewed at large, he thus schooleth and correcteth S. Iames: He alleadgeth the example of Abraham nothing to the purpose, where he saith, wilt thou know, ô vaine man, that Faith without works is dead? &c. He confoundeth the word, Faith. How much better had it been for him, diligently and plainly to haue distinguished the true and properly Christian Faith, which the Apostle euer preached, from that which is common both to Iewes and Christians: Turks and Diuels, then to confound them both, and set downe his sentence so different from the Apostolical doctrine, whereby as concluding he saith: you see that a man is iustified by works and not by Faith alone; wheras the Apostle out of the same place disputeth thus &c. where hauing made S. Paul to speak as he thinketh best, he inferreth: Thus saith the Apostle, of whose Doctrine we doubt not; Compare me now with this argument of the Apostle, the Conclusion of this Iames, A man therefore is iustifyed by works, and not by Faith only; and see how much it differeth; wheras he should more rightly haue concluded thus &c. So peremptorie is Musculus the Sacramentarie against S. Iames the Apostle. In like sort writeth Illiricus: In Pref. in Iac. Epi. Luther in his Preface vpon Iames's Epistle, giueth great reasons why this Epistle ought in no case to be accounted for a writing of Apostolical authoritie: In Enchyr. p. 63, And see Exam. part. 1. p. 55. vnto which reasons I think euerie godlie man ought to yeeld.

But to annexe heervnto the Epistles of S. Peter, S. Ihon, and S. Iude, Chemnitius (Luther's chief Scholler) affirmeth that, Vpon the Apoc. Engl. c. 1. ser. 1. f. 2. The second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of Ihon, the Epistle to the Hebrewes, the Epistle of S. Iames, the Epistle of Iude, and the Apocalyps of Ihon, are Apocryphal: As,Exam. p. 1. p. 56. not hauing sufficient testimonie of their authoritie, and that therefore,Ib. p. 57. Nothing in Controuersie may be proued out of these books. Agreably wherunto saith also Adamus Francisci:Marga­rita Theol. p. 448. The Apocryphal Books of the new Testament are, The Epistle to the Hebrewes, The Epistle of Iames, the second and third of Ihon, the second of Peter, the Epistle of Iude, and the Apocalyps.

Concerning which last of the Apocalyps of S. Ihon, Bullinger expresly auoucheth,In Apo. c. 19. serm. 84. f. 260. 259. That S. Ihon was intangled with errour. And Luther thinketh this Book,Pref. in Apo. prioris Edit. Neither to be Apostolical nor Prophetical &c. nor that it was made by the Holy Ghost &c. Therin neither Christ is taught nor acknowledged, saith he. An errour so manifest in Luther, that Bullinger testifyeth the same saying:Vpon the Apoc. Engl. c. 1. ser. 1. f. 2. D. Martin Luther hath as it were sticked his Book by a sharp Prefac set before his first Edition of the new Testament in Dutch, for which his iudgement good and learned men were offended with him. In Apol. Confess. Wittemb. c. de sacra Scriptura. Being to speake (saith Brentius) of the authoritie of sacred Scripture, we wil first run ouer the Apocryphal Books, which are in the Vulgar Edition of the Bible, and which the Papists obtrude vpon vs for truly Canonical: Amongst which he then numbreth, the Epistle to the Hebrewes, of Iames, of [Page 25] Iude, the second of Peter, and the Apocalyps &c. and then adioyneth saying: Some of these are tearmed dreames, some fables. Of so smal account with Pro­testants is this so Diuine and mystical Book of the Apocalyps, written by S. Ihon the Euangelist.

Lastly Zuinglius being impugned for denying prayer for the dead, and pressed with the authoritie of Fathers, especially of S. Chrysostome and S. Augustin, who deriue this custome from the Apostles, answereth thus:Tom. 1. Epi [...]h [...]rae. de Can. Mis. f. 186. And see Tom 2. in Elench. contra Ana­bap. f. 10. If it be so as Augustin and Chrysostome report, I think that the Apostles suffered certain to pray for the dead, for no other cause then to condescend to their infirmitie: So insimulating the Apostles wilfully to haue permitted others to erre (according to the errours of Protestants) in praying for the dead, which they could not do without errour in themselues.

Adde only heervnto, that seeing according to Brentius & other Lutherans, as also according to our English Protestants, those Books of Scripture are only to be acknowledged Canonical,Brent. in Conf [...]ss. Wittemb. c. de sacra script. Con­uocat. Lond. Anno 1562. & 1604. ar. 6. Whi­tack against Camp. Reas. 1. p. 28. of whose authoritie there was neuer anie doubt made in the Church; then by the sayd Rule, our English Protestants Church doth reiect as Apocryphal, the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrewes, the Epistle of S. Iames, and S. Iude, the second of S. Peter, and the second and third of S. Ihon, to eather with the Apocalyps, sithence al these haue been doubted of formerly in the Church, as is confessed by sundrieTowers Disput. with F. Campian. in the 4. Dayes con­ference. English Protestants; amongst whom M. Rogers hauing sayd,Vpon the 6. Art. Propos. 4. p. 26. In the name of the holy Scripture, we do vnderstand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose autho­ritie was neuer doubt in the Church, himself yet further confesseth, thatIb. p. 31. Some of the ancient Fathers and Doctours accepted not al the Books, contayned within the volume of the New Testament for Canonical. So giddie and inconstant are our Ministers in impugning the truth.

Now if some deny (the plainest premisses, notwithstanding) D. Whitaker, andW [...]i­tak. Answ. to Camp. Reas. 1. Ro­gers vpon the 6. Artic. p 30. M. Rogers; that Luther and the Lutherans did reiect the foresayd Books of the new Testament, besides their owne cleerest words parti­cularly before cited out of their owne writings, Whitaker himself saith:Vvhi­tack. de sa­cra S [...]ript. Controu 1. q. 1. c. 6. If Luther, or some that haue followed Luther; haue taught, or written otherwise, let them answer for themselues; this is nothing to vs, who in this matter neither follow Luther, nor defend him, but are led by a better reason. Rogers also alleadgethVbi supra p. 32. two principal Lutherans, Wygandus and Heshusius, accusing them both of errour, the one for refusing the first and second Epistles of S. Iohn, with the Epistle of S. Iude; the other for reiecting the Apocalyps. And Caluin acknowledgeth that,In Ar­gum. Epist. Iacobi. In his time there were some (Protestants) that iudged the Epistle of S. Iames not Canonical. Oecolampadius testifyeth the same touching the Apocalyps, and affirmeth himself tolib. 2. ad cap. 12. Daniel. wonder, that some with rash iudgement reiected S. Iohn in this Book as a dreamer, a mad man, and a writer vnpro­fitable to the Church. So cleer it is against Whitakers and Rogers, euen by the testimonies of themselues and their other Brethren, that Luther and his brood, reiected the foresayd Scriptures as not Canonical.

But now to recapitulate, or briefly to reuiew this so strange proceeding of our new Ghospellers, with the sacred Scriptures: If Christians be to reiect Moses and his writings, as the Books of Genesis, Exodus, Leuiticus &c. yea the verie Ten Commandments, which comprehend not only the Ceremo­nial, [Page 26] but also the Moral Law, as also the Book of Iob, with Ecclesiastes, and Canticles of Salomon, and Tobie, Iudith, Hester, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, some chapters of Daniel, the first and second of Machabees, how slender then is the remnant of the old Testament left behind? And if al the foure Ghospels be censured (as before) for erroneous, and the Epistles to the Hebrewes, of Iames, Peter, Iohn, Iude, and the Apocalyps be al of them reiected as Apocryphal; how diminutiue a volume wil our new Testament remaine?

Besides, if not only al the foresayd Books be erroneous, but the 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: ForConfut. 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 [Page] 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. 16. f. 65.
  • It is confessed by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church allo­wed, and practised the vow of Cha­stitie; and that they neuer allowed such as were of the Clergie afterwards to marrie; or such as had been twice married to be admitted to holie Or­ders without special dispensation. chap. 17. fol. 69.
  • It is confessed by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Promitiue Church al­lowed, & practised the Religious State of Monastical life: and that manie [Page] Christians of those purest times, both men and women, did strictly obserue and professe the same. chap. 18. f. 74.
  • It is acknowledged by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church allowed, & practised prescribed fasts, and abstinence from certaine meats, vpon dayes, and times appointed, hol­ding the same obligatorie vnder sinne; condemning also our Puritan Sab­boath Fasts. chap. 19. fol. 80.
  • It is admitted by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church ex­presly taught our Catholick Doctrine concerning Free wil. chap. 20. fol. 84
  • It is granted by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church taught, not only Faith, but likewise Good works truly to iustifye: & that the sayd works are meritorious of Grace and Glorie. chap. 21. fol. 86.
  • It is acknowledged by Protestants, that the Ceremonies now vsed in the Ro­man Church in the ministring of ser­uice, or Sacrifice, as also of the Sacra­ments, were formerly vsed by the Bishops, Priests, and Fathers of the Primitiue Church. chap. 22. fol. 89
THE THIRD BOOK, WHERIN is proued that the Church of Protestants was neuer knowne or in Being before the d yes of Luther: And that the Articles of Religion now taught by the Protestant Congregation, were Heresies condemned by the Primitiue Church of Christ.
  • IT is confessed by Protestants, that from the dayes of the Apostles vntil the tyme of Luther, themselues neuer had any knowne Church or Congregatiō, in anie part of the vniuersal World. chap. 1. fol. 1.
  • A Further conuincing proof of the Pro­testant Churches not being, during the first 600. yeares, is taken from the Fathers: Condemning in the ancient Hereticks, the chiefest articles of the Protestant Religion, and our Prote­stants Confessing the same. And First Concerning the Sacraments. chap. 2. fol. 6.
  • That the Fathers condemned in ancient Hereticks, the opinions of Protestants concerning the Scriptures, and the Church Militant, and Triumphant. chap. 3. fol. 9.
  • That the Fathers condemned in ancient Hereticks the opinions of Protestants, concerning Monachisme, the mariage of Priests, and prescribed Fasts. chap. 4. fol. 12.
  • That the Fathers condemned in ancient Hereticks the opinions of Protestants, concerning Free-wil, Faith, Good works, the Commandments, sinne, and the knowledge and Death of Christ. chap. 5. fol. 14.
  • Protestants Vsual recrimination of ob­iecting old Heresies to the Catholick Roman Church, is cleerly examined, discouered, & confuted by their owne acknowledgements. chap. 6. fol. 17.
  • A Further trial is Made, Whether Ca­tholicks or Protestants be true Here­ticks; and this by sundrie knowne badges or markes of Heresie. chap. 7. fol. 23.
  • A brief Suruey of D. Whites Catalogue, wherin contrary to the Confessed truth in the precedent Chapter, of no knowne beginning or change of our Romane Faith in anye Age, he vn­dertaketh (according to his Title therof) to shew, That the present Re­ligion of the Roman Church was ob­serued & resisted in al Ages, as it came in, and increased: naming withal the Persons that made the Resistance: And the poynts wherin: And the time when; from fiftie yeares to fiftie, through-out al Ages since Christ. chap. 8. fol. 35.
THE FOVRTH BOOK, WHERIN is proued by the Confession of Protestants, that, according to the Sacred Scriptures, the Roman Church is the true Church of Christ: And so to haue euer continued from his time, vntil the Date hereof: And of the contrary, the Protestants Church to be only a Sect Heretical, and neuer to haue been before the dayes of Luther.
  • PRotestants flying to the sacred Scri­ptures in proof & defence of their Church and Religion, it is shewed, the sayd flight, not only in itself to be dishonourable, but also to be the ordinarie flight of al moderne He­reticks. chap. 1. fol. 1.
  • That euen the Sacred Scriptures them­selues do most plentifully testify our Romane Church to be the Church of of Christ: and the Congregation or Church of Protestants, to be no true Church, but a Sect Heretical, & most contrarie to the said Scriptures: And that, first by the Churches necessarie continuance and vniuersalitie. chap. 2. fol. 5.
  • The second Proof from sacred Scriptures, in cōfirmation of the Roman Church, and Confutation of the Protestant, is taken from the Euer visibilitie of Christ's Church. chap. 3. fol. 10.
  • The third Proof from Sacred Scriptures, in Cōfirmation of the Roman Church, and Confutation of the Protestant, is taken from the Churches Pastours which must euer continue with lawful Calling and Succession, and with Administration of Word and Sacra­ments. chap. 4. fol. 13.
  • The fourth Proof from sacred Scriptures. in confirmation of the Roman Church, and Confutation of the Protestant, is taken from the Conuersion of Heathen Kings and Nations to the Faith of Christ. chap. 5. fol. 24.
  • A Discouerie or brief Examination of sundrie sleights and Euasions vsed by Protestant Writers in Excuse of the manifest confessed want of their Chur­ches fulfilling the foresaid Scripiures concerning the continuance, vniuer­salitie, and visibilitie of Christs true Church. chap. 6. fol. 33.
THE FIFT BOOK, WHERIN is shewed, that Protestants in the Decision of Controuersies between them and Catholicks, do absolutly disclaime from Antiquitie, re­iecting the Ancient Fathers and Councels for Papistical, and the Sacred Scriptures for er­roneous.
  • THat Protestants Disclaime from al Antiquitie since the Apostles; and further reiect and condemne as Papistical the Ancient Fathers and General Councels. chap. 1. fol. 1.
  • That the Protestant Church disclaimeth from the Fathers of the Primitiue Church, it is further proued by the Protestants condemning al the ancient Fathers in general, for beleeuing, teaching, and practising the seueral particular actions of our Catholick Roman Faith and Religion. chap. 2. fol. 12.
  • That Protestants do not only disclaime from al the ancient Fathers as Papists, but do further reiect the authoritie of the sacred Scriptures and of the Apo­stles themselues, as being erroneous; and that therefore they do not found their Faith or Religion vpon Sacred Scriptures, or Christ his Apostles. chap. 3. fol. 18.

A TABLE SHEWING THE particular matters handled in this Booke.

A.
  • AELfricus no Protestant. l. 3. c. 8. pag. 51.
  • Albigenses taught sundrie errours. lib. 1. c. 3. pag. 12.
  • Almaricus his errours. l. 3. c. 8. p. 55.
  • Antiquitie commended. Praef. to the Rea­der; and lib. 5. c. 1. pag. 1. 2.
  • Antiquitie reiected by Protestants as a Popish Argument. l. 1. c. 5. pag. 26.
  • Anthonie the Monk commended. l. 2. c. 18.
  • Apostles according to Protestants erred in Faith euen after the comming of the Holie-Ghost. l. 5. c. 3. p. 23. 25.
  • Apocalyps reiected by Protestants. lib. 5, c. 3. p. 24.
  • Armenia conuerted by the Apostles. lib. 1. c. 6. p. 29.
  • Armenians retaine stil sundrie points of Catholick Religion. l. 1. c. 6. p. 29.
  • Aultars vsed in Churches in time of the Primitiue Church. l. 2. c. 22. p. 85.
  • Aultars disliked by Hereticks. l. 3. c. 2. p. 8.
  • S. Austin the Monk commended by Pro­testants. l. 1. c. 4. p. 16. 17.
  • S. Austin conuerted England to the now Roman Faith. l. [...]. c. 4. p. 16.
B.
  • BAptisme conferreth Grace and Re­mission of sinnes. l. 2. c. 7. p. 33.
  • Baptisme necessarie for the saluation of infants. Ib.
  • Baptisme ministred by lay persons in case of necessitie, lawful. l. 5. c. 2. p. 12.
  • In Baptisme sundrie Ceremonies vsed by the Primitiue Church. l. 2. c. 22.
  • Barnabas the Apostle according to Protes­tants erred in Faith. l. 5. c. 3. p. 23.
  • Beades or litle stones vsed to pray with, in time of the Primitiue Church. l. 2. c. 22.
  • S. Bede confessedly a Roman Catholick, and a holie man. l. 1. c. 3. p. 14.
  • Berengarius his errour and Recantation. l. 1. c. 3. p. 14.
  • S. Bernard a Roman Catholick. l. 1. c. 3. p. 15. and l. 3. c. 8. p. 53.
  • Bertram no Protestant. l. 3. c. 8. p. 46.
  • Bigamus, not admitted to Holie Orders in time of the Primitiue Church. l. 2. c. 17. p. 73.
C.
  • CAlling necessarie for Preaching and Administration of Sacraments. l. 4. c. 4. p. 13. 14.
  • Protestant Ministers are distitute of al lawful Calling. l. 4. c. 4. p. 15. 16. 17. & seq. c.
  • The Calling of the English Ministerie. l. 4. c. 4. p. 16. Some Protestants deriue their Calling from Catholicks. Ib. p. 17.
  • Others denye it. Ib. p. 19.
  • Calling by the Laytie allowed by Pro­testants. Ib. p. 20.
  • Protestants being confessedly destitute of al ordinarie Calling, doe flye vnto ex­traordinarie. Ib. p. 20.
  • Extraordinarie Calling is euer confir­med by Miracles. Ib. p. 21.
  • Extraordinarie Calling is freed from er­rour. Ib. p. 23.
  • Catholick Priests haue lawful Calling. l. 4. c. 4. p. 17. 18. 24.
  • Candles lighted in Churches in the day, [Page] in time of the Primitiue Church. l. 2. c. 22. p. 86.
  • Canticles reiected by Protestants as Apo­cryphal. l. 5. c. 3. p. 20.
  • Castalio his Apostacie. l. 4. c. 2. p. 7.
  • The name Catholick, why imposed at first. l. 3. c. 7. p. 30. 31. & l. 4. c. 2. p. 9. Ap­plied only to the Roman Church. Ib. p. 9.
  • Disliked by Protestants. Ib. p. 9.
  • Ceremonies approued by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church. l. 2. c. 22. p. 89.
  • Charles the Emperour a Roman Catho­lick. l. 1. c. 3. p. 14.
  • The Booke written vnder Charles his name against Images, is counterfeit. l. 3. c. 8. p. 45.
  • Chrisme vsed and approued in the Pri­mitiue Church. l. 2. c. 22. p. 88.
  • Christ to haue been ignorant, condemned in ancient Hereticks and Protestants. l. 3. c. 5. p. 15.
  • Christ as God to haue suffred and dyed, condemned in Protestants. l. 3. c. 5. p. 15
  • Church to be knowne is most necessarie. l. 1. c. 1. p. 3.
  • Out of the true Church there is no salua­tion. Ib. & l. 4. c. 3. p. 11.
  • Church of Christ is most ancient. l. 1. c. 1. p. 3.
  • Church of Christ cannot fayle. l. 4. c. 2. p. 3
  • Church of Christ cannot erre. l. 1. c. 1. p. 2
  • Church of Christ is euer visible. l. 3. c. 3. p. 9. & l. 4. c. 3. p. 10. 11. 12.
  • Church of Christ conuerteth Heathen kings and Nations. l. 4. c. 5. p. 24. 25. & seq.
  • Church of Christ discerneth true Scri­ptures from Apocryphal. l. 1. c. 1. p. 3
  • Churches were hallowed in time of the Primitiue Church. lib. 2. c. 22. p. 90.
  • Churches were dedicated to Christ and his Saints. Ibid. p. 91.
  • Churches had Vestries. Ibid.
  • Churches and Chancels. Ibid.
  • Commandments to be impossible, condem­ned in ancient Hereticks and Prote­stants. l. 3. c. 5. p. 14.
  • Ten Commandments reiected by Pro­testants. l. 5. c. 3. p. 19.
  • Communion vnder one kind. l. 3. c. 2. & p. 6. 7. c. [...]. p. 21.
  • Confession of the Aduersarie a strong Argument. Praef. to the Reader.
  • Confession of sinnes to the Priest, vsed in the Primitiue Church. l. 2. c. 10. p. 47. & l. 5. c. 2. p. 12.
  • Confession being made, Pennance was imposed. l. 2. c. 10. p. 48. And Abso­lution giuen with imposition of hands. Ibid. p. 49.
  • Confirmation vsed in the Primitiue Church. l. 2. c. 7. p. 33. 34.
  • Consecration of water, Bread, Ashes, and vsed in the Primitiue Church. l. 2. c. 22. pag. 88.
  • Cranmer his life and death. l. 4 c. 4. p. 18.
  • Creed of the Apostles doubted of by Pro­testants. l. 5. c. [...]. p. 20.
  • Crosse worshipped by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church. l. 5. c. 2. p. 15. & l. 2. c. 16. per totum.
  • The signe of the Crosse then vsed. Ibid.
  • Crosse vsed in Consecration of Sacra­ments. Ibidem.
  • Miracles wrought by the Crosse, and the signe therof. Ibidem.
  • Crosse impugned by ancient Hereticks, and Protestants. l. 3. c. 3. p. 10. 11.
  • Councels represent the Church. l. 2. c. 1. pag. 1.
  • Councels best meanes to decide Contro­uersies. Ib. p. 2.
  • Councels cannot erre in matters of Faith. Ibidem. Some Protestants pretend to submit themselues to general Councels. Ibidem.
  • Councels reiected by Protestants. lib. 5. c. 1. p. 9.
  • Councel of Francford. l. 3. c. 8. p. 44.
D.
  • DAntes the Poet. lib. 3. c. 8. p. 56.
  • Dauid George his falling from Pro­testancie to Apostacie. l. 4. c. 2. p. 8.
E.
  • ECclesiastes reiected by Protestants for Apocryphal. l. 5. c. 3. p. 20.
  • Emperours reigning, during the time of the Primitiue Church reiected by Pro­testants for Papists. l. 1. c. 5. p. 20.
  • Eucharist to be the Sacrament of Christ's true Bodie & Bloud, was beleeued by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church, euen by the confession of Protestants. l. 2. c. 8. per totum & l. 5. c. 2. p. 13.
  • Eucharist carefully kept from falling. l. 2. c. 8. p. 37.
  • Eucharist adored in the Primitiue Church. Ibidem.
  • Eucharist accustomed to be eleuated in Masse-time. Ibid. p. 38.
  • Eucharist receaued fasting. Ibid.
  • Eucharist receaued chast. Ibid.
  • Eucharist reserued. Ibid. & l. 3. c. 2. p. 7.
  • Eucharist vsed in around figure, in time of the Primitiue Church. l. 2. c. 8. p. 39.
  • Eucharist foretold by the ancient Iewes. Ibidem.
  • Eucharist impugned by Hereticks. lib. 3. c. 2. p. 6. 7. & l. 3. c. 8. p. 51.
  • Extreme-Vnction belieued and vsed by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church. l. 2. c. 7. p. 34.
F.
  • FAith alone to iustifye, condemned in ancient Hereticks. l. 3. c. 5. p. 14.
  • Fast of Lent confessedly approued and obserued in the Primitiue Church. l. 2. c. 19.
  • Fasts prescribed in the Primitiue Church. Ibidem.
  • Aerius denying prescribed Fasts, condem­ned by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church. Ib. & l. 3. c. 4. p. 13. Yet defen­ded by Protestants against the Fathers. Ibid. c. 5. p. 16.
  • Fasts condemned in Montanus, confessedly different from our Catholick Fasts. Ib. p. 19. 20.
  • Fasts not to be kept vpon the Sunday. l. 2. l. 3. c. 4. p. 13.
  • Fathers confessed by Protestants to haue been Papists. l. 5. c. 1. p. 2.
  • Fathers reuiled by Protestants. Ibid. p. 3.
  • Fathers disclaimed by Protestants in their Exposition of Scriptures. Ibid. p. 4.
  • Fathers opposed by Protestants to Scrip­ture. Ibid. p. 5.
  • Fathers by Protestants made contradi­ctorie to themselues and other Fathers. Ibid. p. 6. 7.
  • Protestants by Protestants preferred be­fore Fathers. Ib. p. 8.
  • Fathers challenged by Protestants for theirs. l. 2. c. 2. p. 6.
  • Fathers authoritie approued by Protes­tants. l. 2. c. 1. p. 1. c. 2. p. 6.
  • Fathers by Protestants preferred before Protestants. Ibid. p. 7.
  • Force of the Argument drawne from Man's authoritie. Ibid. p. 7. 8.
  • Frederick the Emperour, no Protestant. l. 3. c. 8. p. 54.
  • Free-wil taught by the Primitiue Church l. 2. c. 20.
  • Free-wil taught by the ancient belieuing Iewes. Ibid.
  • Free-wil denyed by the Manichees. l. 3. c. 5. p. 14.
G.
  • GRecia conuerted by the Apostles. l. 1. c. 6. p. 27.
  • Grecians in these times, Catholicks, not Protestants. l. 1. c. 6. p. 29. & l. 3. c. 8. p. 37.
  • Gregorie the Great commended by Protes­tants. l. 1. c. 4. p. 16.
  • Gregorie a Roman Catholick. l. 1. c. 4. p. 17.
  • Guilelmus de Sancto-Amore no Protestant. l. 5. c. 8. p. 36.
H.
  • HEresies described. l. 3. c. 7. p. 23.
  • Hereticks named by their first Au­thour or Doctrine. l. 3. c. 7. p. 31.
  • Ancient Her [...]ticks defended by Protes­tants against the Fathers. l. 3. c. 5. p. 16.
  • Ancient Heresies confessedly differ from Catholick doctrine. l. 3. c. 6. p. 17. 18.
  • Hereticks goe out of the Church. l. 3. c. 7. p. 23. 24.
  • [Page]Henricus 5. Imperator, no Protestant. l. 3. c. 8. p. 53.
  • Henricus 8. king of England, no Protes­tant. l. 1. c. 3. p. 10.
  • Hildebrand defended against Protestants. l. 3. c. 8. p. 52.
  • Howers Canonical vsed in the Primitiue Church. l. 2. c. 22. p. 89.
  • Husse, no Protestant. l. 1. c. 3. p. 10.
I.
  • S. Iames the Apostle charged with errour by Protestants. l. 5. c. 3. p. 23.
  • S. Iames his Epistles reiected by Protes­tants for Apocryphal. Ib. p. 23. 24.
  • Images worshipped by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church. l. 2. c. 14
  • Images as then placed in Churches. Ib.
  • By Images Miracles wrought. Ibid.
  • Images impugned by Hereticks, & these therefore condemned by Fathers. l. 3. c. 3. p. 10. &c. 8. p. 40. 43. 47.
  • India conuerted by the Apostles. l. 1. c. 6. pag. 28.
  • Indians in these dayes Catholicks, not Pro­testants. l. 1. c. 6 p. 28.
  • Innouation or first Beginning noted, a Badge of Heresie. l. 3. c. 7. p. 27.
  • Iob his Booke reiected by Luther for Apo­cryphal. l. 5. c. 3. p. 20.
  • S. Iohn's Ghospel charged by Protestants with errour. Ib. p. 21.
  • S. Iohn's Epistles reiected by Protestants, as Apocryphal. Ibid. p. 24.
  • S. Iohn's Apocalyps reiected by Protes­tants, as Apocryphal. Ib. p. 24.
  • S. Iude's Epistle reiected by Protestants as Apocryphal. Ibid. p. 24.
  • Iustice inherent denyed and condemned in ancient Hereticks. l. 3. c. 5. p. 15.
L.
  • LAtria and Dulia confessedly taught by S. Austin. l. 2. c. 14.
  • Lollards their errours. l 3. c. 8. p. 57.
  • Lotharius the Emperour obiected against the Pope's Primacie, and answered. l. 3. c. 8. p. 46. 47.
  • At Luther's first reuolt the whole Chris­tian world was Roman Catholick. l. 1. c. 3. p. 8.
  • Luther taught manie errours. l. 4. c. 4. p. 23.
  • Luther confessedly wrought no miracles. Ibid. p. 22.
  • S. Luke's Ghospel charged by Protestants with errour. l. 5. c. 3. p. 21.
  • Lymbus Patrum confessedly taught by the ancient Fathers. l. 2. c. 12. p. 55. & 56.
  • Lytanies vsed by the ancient Fathers. l. 2. cap. 22.
M.
  • MAchabees, Tobie &c. approued for Canonical by the Primitiue Church. l. 2. c. 5.
  • Obiections against them answered. l. 2. c. 5. p. 25.
  • Marsilius Patauinus a cōdemned Heretick. l. 3. c. 8. p. 56.
  • Malachias a Roman Catholick. l. 1. c. 3. p. 13.
  • Masse generally vsed these last 1000. yeares. l. 1. c. 2. p. 6.
  • Masse confestedly taught and vsed by the ancient Fathers. l. 2. c. 9. p. 41. & seq.
  • Masse belieued to be Propitiatorie by the ancient Fathers. Ibid p. 44.
  • Masse celebrated for the dead. l. 2. c. 11. p. 50. & seq.
  • Masse a Sacrifice according to Melchisedech. p.
  • In Masse water mingled with wine. l. 3. c. 2. p. 8.
  • Hereticks impugning the Masse con­demned. Ibidem
  • S. Mathew's Ghospel charged by Protes­tants with ersour. l. 5. c. 3. p. 21.
  • S. Mark's Ghospel charged by Protestants with errour. Ibid.
  • Michael the Emperour obiected against the Popes Primacie; & answered. l. 3. c. 8. p. 48. 49.
  • Miracles attributed by Hereticks to wich­craft. l. 3. c. 3. p. 10. 11.
  • Miracles confessedly neuer wrought by anie Protestant. l. 4. c. 4. p. 22. 23.
  • Miracles wrought by manie Catholicks l. 4. c. 5. p. 32.
  • Monachisme approued and vsed by the Primitiue Church. l. 2. c. 18. p. 74. & seq.
  • Monks had special Consecration. Ib. p. 75.
  • [Page]Monks habit Ib. p. 76. Austeritie. Ibidem.
  • Monks vowed Chastitie. Ibidem.
  • Monks wrought miracles. Ibidem.
  • Monks defended by the ancient Fathers against. Vigilantius. l. 3. c. 4. p. 12.
  • Monastical life in some sort professed by the belieuing Iewes. l. 2. c. 18.
N.
  • NIlus a condemned Heretick. l. 3. c. 8. p. 58.
  • Noueltie reiected. Praef. to the Reader.
  • Nycetas obiected against the Pope's Pri­macie; and answered. l. 3. c. 8. p. 51.
O.
  • OCcham no Protestant. l. 3. c. 8. p. 57.
  • Orders. l. 2. c. 7. p.
  • Otho obiected against the Pope's Primacie; and answered. l. 3. c. 8. p. 50.
P.
  • PArdons and Indulgences taught by the Primitiue Church. l. 2. c. 10. p. 48.
  • S. Peter ordained by Christ Head of the Apostles for vnitie. l. 2. c. 3. p. 8. & seq.
  • Vpon S. Peter Christ built his Church. Ib.
  • S. Peter's seas of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch preferred before others. Ib.
  • S. Peter charged by Protestāts with errour. l. 5. c. 3. p. 23.
  • Phocas cōferred not Primacie to Boniface. l. 3. c. 8. p. 41.
  • Photius obiected against the Pop's Primacie and answered. l. 3. c. 8. p. 48.
  • Pope of Rome S. Peter's successour. l. 2. c. 3. p. 9. 10. &c. 4. p. 11.
  • Pope's Primacie was Christ his ordinance. l. 2. c. 4. p. 12.
  • Pope's Primacie confessedly allowed and practised vniuersally these last 1000. yeares. l. 1. c. 2. p. 6.
  • Pope not Antichrist. l. 2. c. 4. p. 24. & l. 5. c. 2. p. 14.
  • Al Popes for these last 1000. yeares cen­sured by Protestants to haue been An­tichrists. l. 1. c. 2. p. 6.
  • Pope's Primacie defended by S. Gregorie. l. 2. c. 3. p. 9. 10. &c. 4. p. 12. & l. 3. c. 8. p. 41. by Pelagius. Ib. p. 14. by Celestine. Ib. by Leo Ib. p. 15. by Gelasius Ibid. p. 16 by Sixtus. Ib. by Innocentius Ib. by Siricius Ib. by Zosimus Ibid. by Councels Ib. by Constantine Ib. p. 17. by Damasus & others of the fourth Age. Ib. by the Fathers of the third Age. Ib. p. 19. by the Fathers of the second Age. Ibid. p. 20. by S. Peter and the Fathers of the first Age. Ib. p. 21. & 21. by the Iewes. Ib. 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 Religiō. 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.
  • [Page]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 prof [...]sse [...]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 no [...] 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.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.