THE PROGENY OF CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS. Whereby On the one side is proved the lineal Descent of Catholics, for the Roman Faith and Religion, from the holy Fathers of the Primitive Church, even from Christ's very time until these our days: AND On the other, the never-being of Protestants or their novel Sect during all the foresaid time, otherwise then in confessed and condemned Heretics. And all this is convinced by the manifold and clearest acknowledgements of Protestant Writers, both foreign and domestics. By thine own mouth I judge thee, naughty servant. Luc. 19.22. At ROVEN, By the WIDOW of NICOLAS COURANT. M.DC.XXXIII. THE PREFACE TO THE CHRISTIAN READER. I Have ever been of opinion (good Christian Reader) that as nothing in this world is more pleasing to the eye of a Christian soul, than a pure aspect or knowledge of the true Church, which is the lovely and most beautiful Spouse of CHRIST himself, and the only Ark of Man's salvation; so is the same never more clearly represented unto us, then in the crystalline glass of reverend Antiquity, the purity and truth whereof was ever so highly esteemed, as that it was not only required (1) Censorinus de Die Nat. c. 1. by the Lying Gods of the Gentiles, that all the firstlings of the people should yearly be offered in Sacrifice unto them, but it was further likewise approved and (2) Exod. 22 29. prescribed by the only-true and everliving GOD, that the first-fruits yea and the firstborn both of men and beasts, in regard of their primacy being his worthiest creatures, should peculiarly be applied, offered, and devoted to the highest service of his Greatest Majesty. In best proof and example whereof the perfect [3] Coloss. 1.15. Image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creature, CHRIST JESUS, was not only offered to God himself in the Temple, and there redeemed, but also offered upon the Cross for the Redemption of others, as the sweetest Holocaust to his Heavenly Father. Yea this Priority or Ancestry is so specially affected by the wisdom of God, and so directly maligned by the Enemy of man, as that in the very first planting of the Church of Christ it is said, that he first sowed (4) Matth. 13.24.25. good seed in his field, and after the enemy came, and oversowed cockle; thereby not obscurely intimating unto us, that true Faith, Religion, and the Word of God, which is this [5) Matth 13.19. Luc. 8.12. good seed, was first and ancient to Sects and Heresies. And so, as in temporal Nobility that Stem is most honourable, which is lineally derived from the ancientest blood; and in earthly possessions that Title strongest, which pleadeth longest Prescription or ancientest Evidence; and as also it may not be denied, but that Truth hath precedency to falsehood, and substance to shadows: so must it needs be granted or rather supposed as an infallible truth, that that Gospel, Faith, and Church, which is first or eldest, is the only true Gospel, Faith, and Church of CHRIST, and all other Congregations afterwards arising or going out from thence, are but only the malignant inventions of the Enemy, who even from the beginning of the world was chief ever busyed in obscuring, perverting, and detorting that, which at first was always created [6) Genes. 1.31. very good, very gracious, and most pleasing in the alseing Eye of the Omnipotent Maker. In which respect for the ever finding out of the prime truth in all occurring difficulties, we are specially forewarned, as to recurre to Antiquity, so to suspect Novelty. Moses' a little before his death desiring to leave some wholesome documents to the Children of Israel, directeth them, saying: (7) Deut. 32.7. Remember the old days; think upon every generation; ask thy father, and he will declare to thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. In like sort Baldad (Iob's friend) advised him in his greatest extremities, to (8) job 8.8. ask the old generation, and search diligently the memory of the fathers; for we are (saith he) but as yesterday, etc. Yea wisest Solomon his advice is: (9) Eccles. 8 11.12. Let not the narration of the ancients escape thee; for they learned of their fathers; because of them thou shalt learn understanding, and in time of necessity to give answer. According to which, God himself by the Prophet Hieremie teacheth: (10) c. 6.16 Stand ye upon the ways, and see, and ask of the old paths, which is the good way, and walk ye in it, and you shall find refreshing to your souls. 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 contrary, God reproveth such as (11] Ier 18.15. walk, etc. in a way not trodden; and Salomon's lesson is, that thou (12) Prou. 22 28. transgress not the ancient bounds, which thy fathers have put. From whence I take it to be, that as in the Scriptures our true God is called (13) Dan. 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 termed (14) Deut. 32.17. New and fresh ones, whom their fathers worshipped not. Agreably hereunto S. Paul likewise adviseth S. Timothy (15) 1. Tim. 6.20.21. to keep the Depositum, avoiding the profane novelties of voices and oppositions of falsely called knowledge; which certain promising have erred about the faith: thereby showing profane innovation to be the shipwreck of faith. Upon which place likewise thus writeth that worthy Patron of Antiquity Vincentius Lyrinensis: (16) lib. adverse proph. novit. He said not antiquities, he said not ancientness, but profane Novelties. For if novelty is to be avoided, antiquity is to be kept; if novelty be profane, ancientness is holy & sacred. And again: This with all Heresies is as it were solemn and allowed, that in profane novelties they may always rejoice, and scorn the decrees of Antiquity: But on the contrary, to Catholics this is almost proper, to keep the things left and committed by holy Fathers, and to condemn profane novelties etc. Whereupon he saith of Novelists: What do they promise but new and unknown doctrine? For you may hear some of them to say: Come, o you foolish and wretched, who commonly are called Catholics, and learn the true faith, which none but we do know, which for many former ages lay hid, but now of late is revealed and shown etc. Are not these the words of that Drab? saith Vincentius. But indeed it was ordinary with the ancient Fathers to confute Heretics by their own Innovation. So Tertullian upon this ground reproveth the Novellists of his time for their then usurping and intruding by their latter upstart doctrine upon the then more ancient Catholic possession, saying to that end unto them: (17) De Prescrip. c. 37. Who are you? When, and from whence came you? What do you in my [grounds] not mine? By what right [Martion] dost thou cut down my woods? By what licence [Valentine] dost thou overthrew my fountains? etc. It is my possession; long since I possessed it; I possessed it first. Yea he prescribeth in general (18) lib. count. Prax. that to be true, which is first; that false, which is later. Answerably unto which writeth S. Hierome of the Luciferians: (19) Cont. Lucifer fin. In this that they are afterwards begun, they show themselves to be those, which the Apostle foretold were to come, to wit, Heretics; of whom he demandeth further: (20) Ep. ad Pamach. et Ocean. Why do you go about after 400. years to teach that, which we knew not before? until this day the world was Christian without that doctrine. With whom agreeth S. Gregory Nazianzen saying: (21) Ep 2. add Chelid. They tell us (as Protestants still do) of a wisdom hidden since Christ; a thing deserving tears. For if Faith began within these 30. years, seeing almost 400. years (and as I may now say 1600. years) are passed, since Christ was openly known, so long then was the Gospel in vain, in vain also our faith, in vain Martyrs suffered death, in vain also such and so great Bishops did govern the people. From this very Argument of Innovation S. Athanasius confuteth the Arians in these words: (22) de Decret Nycen. Synod. Behold, we have proved this doctrine to have been delivered to us from fathers to fathers: But you (new jews, and the sons of Caiphas) what progenitors of your name are you able to show? Of whom also saith S. Hilary: (23) Lib. 6. de Trin. ant. med. This our fourth Age hath brought forth over late for me these [pretended] most godly Doctors. S. Austin writing against Donatus up braideth his new or late birth in this manner: (24) Lib. 3. de Bap count. Donat. c. 2. From whence hath Donatus appeared? Out of what earth hath he budded? From what sea hath he swum? From what heaven hath he fallen? And he objecteth thus unto the Manichees: (25) de Vtilitate Cred. c. 14. But you being so few, so turbulent, and so new, every man knoweth, you can produce nothing worthy of credit. In like sort writing against the Pelagians he urgeth (26) Cont. julian. Pelag. l. 2 c. l. that Christian people ought to prefer the sayings of Saints before your profane Novelties, and rather choose to adhere to them, then to you. Yea Cassiodorus relateth, that the (27) Divin. Instit lib. 1. p. 11. most holy Fathers not suffering the true Faith to be wronged, ordained Ecclesiastical Rules in the Council of Chalcedon, striking with the Divine sword (of Excommunication) the obstinate Inventors' of new Heresies; And, Decreing that none ought to bring-in new questions; but content with the authority of the old approved Doctors, should obey the wholesome Decrees without deceit and falsehood; for there are some, who think it commendable, if they can conceive any thing against the ancient (writers) and invent something new, whereof they may be deemed skilful. But I will conclude this with this sweetest saying of S. Bernard: (28) Ep. 174. Against the custom of the Church nothing at all will please me presumed Novelty, the mother of temereity, the sister of Superstition, and the daughter of Levity. What I have received from the Church, I securely deliver. So secure it is, in all arising difficulties to recurre to Antiquity, and to eschew Novelty. And as thus we have seen from Scriptures and Fathers the special account ever made of reverend Antiquity or Ancestry, and the sharp reprehensions of profane Novelty: so are there none, who seem more joyfully to applaud and approve the force of the foresaid Argument, than the learnedst Protestants of these our days: amongst whom for brevity in a Case so manifest to produce only one of our own domestics, who for his supposed worth in judgement and learning may suffice for many, D. Morton affirmeth (29) Appeal for Protestants p. s 11. See also White in the Way to the Chur. Pref. to the Reader n. 17. that our Saviour Christ by his Parable of the diverse seeds, first wheat in the day, and then tares in the night, doth teach us, that Truth may challenge priority of Error yielding principality unto Truth, saith Tertulian, and posterity unto 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 error, which is nothing else but an adulteration thereof. So that Primum and Verum, that is, primary Antiquity and Truth are both inseparable twins, begot and bred in the same instant. And again (30) Ibid p. 512. But tell us, what is Novelty? When the Apostle exhorted his Timothy to keep that, which was committed unto him, and to take heed of profane Novelties, he did in effect instruct him to preserve the doctrine received, not to suggest any doctrines newly conceived, as saith Lyrinensis, who accounteth it (according unto Salomon's description) a whorish trick, to call any out of the ancient and beaten way, and to say, Come unto me. In like sort [31] Ibid p. 679. As it becometh the children of God, who commanded that the firstborn even of the woman that was hated, should be respected before the younger son of the beloved wife, we, albeit hated by our Romish Adversaries, yet only desire, that they would hold (as S. chrysostom teacheth) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, every Novelty a vanity; and in all Controversies suffer the firstborn to find a pre-eminence, by preferring each doctrine according unto the prime antiquity. Now in this desire of preferring Antiquity, all Catholics most joyfully will join hands with M. Doctor Morton, desiring nothing more, then that all Questions at this day controverted between the Roman Church and the Protestant Congregation might strictly be examined and finally decided by the square of Antiquity. And for this cause have I compiled this Treatise following, intending thereby to set down the true Progeny both of Catholics and Protestants, from what Ancestors they are lineally descended, and of what continuance their names and families have formerly been. And although the guard and strength of Truth in this point of Antiquity is ever such, that she resteth still accompanied, attended, and fortified with surest friends, strongest towers, and best munition, yet never may she repose in greater quiet, or more gloriously appear with greater honour, then when her sovereign right, titles, and prerogatives are plainly admitted, granted, and acknowledged by the sworn and professed enemies of Truth. And yet, according to that of S. Austin, (32) Cont. Donatist. post. collat c. 24. Truth is more forcible to wring out confession, than any rack or torment. No wit of man can find out Arguments more convincing in themselves the truth of Religion, than the plain Texts and literal sense of holy Writ, the infallible decrees of the Church and General Counsels, the unanimous consent of ancient Fathers and Histories, and often the common light of Nature and Reason itself; yet add hominem (as the Schoolmen term it) and for the final prevention of all further Plea, shifts, and evasions in the Adversary, no course more speedy, no victory more certain, no objection more unanswerable, than the plain, simple, and sincere confession of the Adversary himself. In Civil and temporal differences concerning lands and possessions, very forcible and hopeful are the Arguments drawn from the ancient and authentical Evidences, from lawful and uninterrupted Prescription, from the plain and literal word and sense of the Law, from the swarming consent of judges and Council learned, and from sufficient testimony of most credible and approved witnesses; yet not one, no nor all of these jointly concurring, are any thing so potent for the speediest and surest decision of the Cause, as the free acknowledgement and assent of the Adversary, only enforced through the rack of clear and undeniable Truth. So Moses having sundry ways proved the Goodness and Power of God Almighty above the Gods of the Gentiles, urgeth as the strongest argument, that the Gentiles his [33) Deut. 32.31. Enemies are also judges in his behalf. Which course likewise observed S. Paul against the Idolatrous Athenians, urging to the same purpose the authority of their own (34) Act. 17.28. Poets; and against the Cretensians he argueth, that (35) Tit. 1.12. one of them said, their own proper Prophet: The Cretensians always liars, naughty beasts, slothful bellies. This testimony (saith S. Paul) is true. But this kind of reasoning learned this blessed Doctor from his best Master Christ our Saviour, who at the last day will urge as the clearest proof against the Naughty servant his own confession, saying: (36) Luc. 19.22. By thine own mouth I judge thee, naughty servant. Yea this kind of victory as most glorious in itself, and most disgracious to the enemy, God himself used against his own enemies, when he caused the Madianit●s [37) judges 7.22. with their own swords to murder one another; as also against the Egyptians, when he said: (38) Esay 19.2. I will make the Egyptians to run together against the Egyptians; and a man shall fight against his brother, and every man against his friend, city against city, kingdom against kingdom. A confusion and ruin, than which none greater. So likewise when the Amalachite had confessed to David, that he had killed Saul, David commanded him to be slain saying: (39) 2. Reg. 11.16. Thy blood be upon thine own head; for thine own mouth hath spoken against thee saying: I have slain the anointed of our Lord. And as the Prophets and Apostles thus affected this kind of Argument, so was it still pursued by the ancient Fathers. So S. Ireneus disputing sundry ways, how God the Son revealeth unto us his Father, affirmeth (40] Adverse Haeres. l. 4. c. 14. that it is necessary, that the truth receive testimony from all etc. from domesticals, because they are friends; from externals, because they are enemies; for that proof is true and without contradiction (saith he) which produceth testimony from the Adversaries themselves. Agreably said Novatian (whilst he was Catholic) Firm is that kind of proof [41) De Trinit. c. 18. which is taken even from the adversaries of truth. S. Augustin endeavouring to prove against the jews, that some that lived before Christ's time were saved that were not jews, affirmeth that (42) li 18. de Civit. Dei. c. 47. nothing is stronger to convince all others, if they shall contend hereof, or to confirm ours, if they shall conceive aright, then that ●hese divine Prophecies concerning Christ be produced, which are written in the books of the jews themselves. Tertulian avoucheth, that (43) In Apologet. none will lie to his own shame, but rather for his honour; and that therefore more credit is to be given to such as deny in behalf of themselves. And Tully urgeth his Adversary, saying: (44) Orat. P. Quint. Thy testimony, which in another man's cause is small worth, against thyself is weighty. So that the Argument drawn from the confession of the Adversaries is the proof most convincing against the Adversary himself. A truth so clear, that none more fully acknowledge the same, than our modern Protestants, amongst whom writeth D. Morton thus: (45) Appeal Ep. Ded. Which kind of assistance of learned Adversaries the Apologists themselves have laid down for the greatest reason of satisfaction; and we do accordingly admit. For if it be held an excellent point of Physic, Ex vipera theriacum, to turn poison into an antidote against poison; and in God accounted a high degree of vengeance, to turn the Egyptians against the Egyptians; and in David celebrated as a principal matter of triumph, to cut of Goliath his head with his own sword; and in Christ observed as an unanswerable kind of conviction, to judge the evil servant from his own mouth; and acknowledged in S. Paul as the most expedite means of confutation in the men of Crete, to oppose against them their own Poet, whom he calleth their Prophet; then may we justly presume better of our cause, wherein our Romish Adversaries will prove our rightful Advocates. For it must needs be acknowledged (say other (46) Academic. Ne mens. Resp. p. 84. Protestants) for a great piece of work, to convince the Adversary from himself. In like sort saith D. Whitaker: (47) De Eccles. Contr. 2 q 5. p. 366 Bellarmine maketh the confession of the Adversaries to be the Thirteenth Mark (of the Church) Surely the argument must needs be strong, which is taken from hence etc. For the testimony of the Adversaries will be effectual against themselves etc. And truly I do acknowledge, that Truth enforceth testimony even from her enemies etc. With him agreeth D. Field saying: (48) Of the Church. p. 182. The next Note, whereby Bellarmine endeavoureth to prove the Romish Synagogue to be the true Church of God, is our own confession. Surely if he can prove, that we confess it to be the Church, he needeth not to use any other arguments. (49) Common Places. Part. 2 p. 329. Doubtless (saith Peter Martyr) among all testimonies, that testimony is of greatest account, which is testified by the enemies. (50) Peace of Rome. Ep. Dedic. fol. 1. I offer to your Highness (saith M. Hal) their fight against themselves, and therein for us. What can be more advantage to us, or shame to them? One blow of an enemy dealt to his brother, is more worth than many from an adverse hand. Al our Apologies cannot hurt them so much, as their own divisions. And M. Cook acknowledgeth, that the testimony (15) of a friend against a friend, (51) In his Pope joane. Pref. And see Dilingam count. Bellarm. ep. Dedic. and of an enemy for an enemy, is invincible. Lastly our late and most liberal Writer D. Beard avoucheth [52) Retractive f●om Romish Religion p 149. see White in the Way to the Chur. Pref. to the Reader. n. 18. that Truth like a chaste matron, though it be slandered, yet is so bold and powerful, that it feareth not to be tried by those that are the greatest enemies thereof. Now this kind of invincible and unanswerable argument have I specially chosen and pursued throughout this Treatise following, as well thereby to take the most speedy & surest course for the final deciding of Controversies, as also clearly to prevent the endless shifts, evasions, and deceits, so generally and so cunningly practised by all kind of Sectaries. For who would not think, but that any man of judgement and learning diligently perusing the large and learned Works but only of Cardinal Bellarmine and jodocus Coccius, men so studious, painful, and sincere in describing the pedigree of the Church of Christ, but that he would easily see, judge, and confess the ancient primitive Church, Faith, and Religion, the most approved General Counsels, and learnedst Doctors, the most authentical Records, Histories, and Monuments of those purest times, all of them to testify, to depose, and confirm the selfsame Truth, Faith, and Religion, which the present Roman Church at this day believeth, practiseth, and professeth? And yet what a world of tricks, fallacies, and inventions hath the Enemy suggested to our modern Heretics, for the blemishing and obscuring of that clearest glass of the Primitive Church, wherein our present Roman is so lively represented? Who would think it equal to oppose a dark and casual saying of S. Austin (for example) against his known practice and laboured proof to the contrary? And who would not blush to oppose S. Austin (to his foulest disgrace) as contrary to himself? What more desperate course can be taken, then to censure his most certain writings for counterfeit, because they contradict and confute their impious Novelties? What greater schism can be raised against the Church, then to pretend her chiefest Bishops, Doctors, and Pastors in the chiefest articles of Faith to be at mutual and deadly wars amongst themselves? What more audacious temereity and base ingratitude can Malice itself offer to those our so noble progenitors, then to alter and corrupt their learnedst writings, which as clearest evidences for the Catholic Faith they bequeathed to Posterity? And yet these and many more than these are the ordinary Sophisms of our late Sectaries. For the surest and final prevention of all which, what shorter or more expedite course can I take, than (Protestants for example appealing to the Primitive Church, and her Doctors and Pastors) to produce themselves confessing all these to be their Enemies, and the Teachers and Patrons of Papistry? How more unanswerably can I convince, that S. Austin believed & taught our Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, & Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead, then if sundry Protestants of greatest knowledge and reading, not believing the same doctrine themselves, do yet acknowledge and reprove the same in S. Austin? Now whether in this Treatise following I perform this, and that by the confessions not of few, or of those of the least esteem, but of very many, and those of the primest Protestants that are or ever were, and these not only reproving S. Austin, but with him S. Ambrose, S. Gregory, S. Hierome, S. Chrysostom, S. Leo, S. Epiphanius, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Gregory Nyssen, S. Cyril, S. Hilary, S. Basil, S. Cyprian, S. Ireneus, S. Ignatius, S. Dionysius, and the rest of the most renowned Doctors of the purest and most approved times, and this not only in the Doctrine of Purgatory, but in all the points of chiefest weight; I remit myself wholly to the severest Censures of all judicious and Diligent Readers. THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. TO M. DOCTOUR MORTON SUPERINTENDENT OF LICHFIELD AND COVENTRIE. GOOD M. Doctor, As yourself were occasionally the principal motour for me to compose this Treatise following, so have several reasons since summoned themselves to my serious thoughts, for the further presenting of the same unto you. For who now more renowned in the new English Church for his supposed learning, than yourself? Who more painfully hath laboured for the promoting of the Protestant Gospel, then D. Morton? Who higher advanced merely for the former respects from his lowest fortunes, than the Superintendent of Lichfield? And therefore I cannot but expect, that your kind acceptance will afford some lustre unto it, at least in the eyes of your illuminated Brethren. Whereof I rest also very confident, in that the method generally observed therein, by concluding my intent from the confession of my Adversaries, is the course specially affected and studied by yourself in all your writings, which cannot but beget some better liking in your settled judgement thereof. But that indeed, Sir, which did chief induce me above the rest both to compile and dedicate this Work, as you see, was your Appeal for Protestants made in answer to the Protestant's Apology for the Roman Church. For having diligently perused and examined this our Apology, and finding the Arguments there framed to be most concluding, the testimonies produced to be most pertinent, and all this ever to be backed and strengthened with the answerable acknowledgements of Protestants themselves, I must confess, my thirsting curiosity was such, as that neither my thoughts nor desires were at rest, until with like diligence I had perused and examined your Protestants Appeal. Which finding to be such, as I will shortly describe, I was hence encouraged, to make yet further use of the foresaid Apology, conjoining therewith some labours of my own in that kind; which as I desire they may be profitable to all, so to yourself most earnestly I wish. And so now briefly to discover to yourself and all other judicious Readers the manner of your answer used throughout your whole Appeal, M. Brierlie, a Catholic Roman Priest, presuming to present unto his Majesty of Great Brittany our Sovereign Lord King james, his humble Petition in behalf of the Catholics of England, so grievously pressed and persecuted, during the Reign of Q. Elizabeth his late Predecessor, amongst innumerable Motives, which as so many darts would presently wound a hart so sensible of his Subject's miseries, injuries, and oppressions, he specially selected the sweetest harmony and most pleasing concord in matters Divine and Celestial, between the Ancient, Apostolic, and Catholic Faith of the Primitive Church of Christ, and our present Roman; nothing doubting, but that the bare presenting of the lovely face of so grey Antiquity would timely beget in so generous and noble a Mind an immovable love and liking to all her true heirs and lawful posterity. But M. Brierlie further knowing the malignant Enemy his ordinary imposture, in sending forth Emissaries for the dazzling and deluding of the best aspects, in prevention thereof and all other imaginable deceit in that kind, the selfsame Emissaries, his greatest enemies, he specially picked for his chiefest Advocates; strangely, but indeed most strongly affecting the equity of his Cause to be finally decided by no other judge then the Adversary thereof. For whereas the indubitate writings of the ancientest Fathers, the sacred Decrees of all General Counsels, the credible Histories of all times and places, the surest records of all Laws and Countries, yea all monuments of greatest Antiquity do jointly contest and depose, not only for the universal and uninterrupted continuance of our Roman Faith from Christ's very time until the Date hereof, but also for the sympathy or rather Identity of our same Faith with the Faith of the Apostles and their first Disciples: M. Brierlie often observing all these our honours and helps to have been so strangely defaced, blemished, and obscured by the art and malice of the foresaid Emissaries, as that their true face and beauty were never suffered to be seen or known to vulgar Protestants, purposely therefore forbore, to present Antiquity only in her native colours, and chief to rest contented with that stained die and lustre, which the Protestant pencil, through her clearest splendour, durst not deny her; producing to that end the plentiful and clearest testimonies of almost all the primest Writers, that ever protestancy brought forth, all of them as it were conspiring in flat charging, reproving, and impugning the learnedst Doctors and most renowned Bishops of the eldest and purest times for the selfsame doctrines and practice of Religion, which the Roman Church at this day exerciseth. Now supposing M. Brierlie his sincere and faithful demeanour herein, what could the wit of man produce more palpable and concluding for our foresaid harmony with the Primitive Church? For if the volumes of Fathers and Counsels be so clear in themselves for our Catholic, Roman, and Papistical Faith, that the learnedst Protestans most plainly studying and perusing the same, are finally enforced through evidence of their words and deeds to acknowledge and reprove the selfsame Doctors and Bishops for Roman Catholics, then M. Brierlie his desire and intent of proving our Roman Faith and Church to continue most agreeable with the Primitive Faith and Church of Christ and his Apostles is fully accomplished. And that M. Brierlie his candour may more clearly shine, and his so unanswerable Arguments be the better conceived, I will therefore dispel those thick clouds, wherewith yourself (M. Morton) hath most painfully laboured to cover or darken the foresaid brightness. What then must we expect from you for an Answer pertinent, and direct, and as proceeding from a judicious and learned Doctor, yea from a Minister of simple truth, but either ingenuously to confess with the Puritans and so many your other Protestant Brethren cited by M. Brierlie, that the said Primitive 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, maimed, and defaced the sayings and writings of your foresaid Brethren in his own behalf. If you seeing the first to be most true would have honestly subscribed thereunto, as many more learned Protestants then yourself had formerly done, than your Answer or Appeal had been altogether needles. The second you durst not avouch, knowing right well, that M. Brierlie his affected niceness and preciseness in so particularly quoting his Adversary's Books, Chapters, Pages, lines or letters would over strongly contest for his Religious integrity, industry, and fidelity in handling the same. What then is imaginable for you (M. Doctor) to answer against such pregnant testimonies of other Protestant Doctors? Nothing at all, but what M. Brierlie foresaw, and accordingly premonished (and whereof yourself also taketh notice in the beginning of your Appeal) would be only trifling, unworthy, extravagant, and impertinent. As first, when your other Brethren are plentifully produced confessing and reproving the Fathers for teaching our Roman Faith, yourself often very honestly join with them, acknowledging the same in our behalf, and against yourself; so that in this Case in steed of Answer or Appeal you make a strong Apology for M. Brierlie and the Romish Church. Do not you yourself speaking of the Antiquity of our Doctrine concerning the Pope's Primacy confess and say: [1) Prot. Apol. p. 72. Be it granted (for so it is) that the Papal Primacy, beginning in Boniface the Third, is now 900. years old? Do you not arise and write of S. Gregory, that (2) Ibid. p. 31. whether or how fare etc. S. Gregory did reach his arm of jurisdiction beyond his Diocese, is a question, by reason of his diverse obscure speeches and some particular practices, diversely answered of our (Protestant) Authors? Do you not charge S. Leo to have been in this respect (3) Ibid p. 283 285. peremptory and ambitious; and that he was so 4 Ib. 294. 295. peremptory, that for his presumption he found in his time brotherly checks? Yea do you not confess, that certain (5) Ib. 294. 295. Sentences of S. Cyprian may seem at their first view unto the unexpert Reader to observe in the Church of Rome both a Grace of impossibility of erring, and also a prerogative of the Mother-Church of all others? But though yourself may be deemed an Expert Reader, yet no otherwise do you evade those clearest sentences, then by affirming, that such like speeches are but the languages of Rhetorical Amplification, which commonly the Father's use by way of persuasion rather than by asseveration. And seeing you admit that the Fathers did commonly use such speeches by way of persuasion, you must needs admit, that they being holy and learned men did also believe and affirm the same. Yea you approve such (6) Ib. pag. 300. Protestant Authors as reprehend Victor for arrogancy & transgressing the bounds of his jurisdiction in Excommunicating the Churches of Asia. Lastly, whereas in proof of Antichrist's short reign (7) Ib. pag. 143. M. Brierlie produceth M. Fox teaching, that almost all the holy and learned Interpreters do by a time, times, and half a time, understand only three years and a half; affirming further this to be the consent and opinion of almost all the ancient Fathers; Do not you likewise subscribe thereunto and say: (8) Ib pag 144. Now therefore, etc. why might not these Fathers be said to have erred in prefining the time of Antichrist? etc. So that you are enforced to confess, that in the Father's opinions all our precedent Popes are cleared from being Antichrists. In like sort concerning Unwritten Traditions, you grant that S. Gregory useth (9) Ib. pag. 62. to confirm some things by Tradition; and that the ancient believing jews (10) Ib pag. 377. pretended unwritten Traditions. As teaching Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead, you reprove S. Gregory touching, that (11) Ib pag. 19 20. the Sacrifice of the Altar is profitable for the Souls departed. And again (12) Ib p. 498. S. Austin speaketh with a Peradventure; but S. Gregory kindled the fire with a Credo. But you somewhat passed Peradventure, when you writ that Protestant (13) Ib. pag. 495. Authors have observed S. Augustin to have been the first, who opened the window unto the doctrine of Purgatory, by whose own direction (say you) we have a good warrant to descent from him. You further admit, that Invocation of Saints was the doctrine (14) Ib pag. 27. of S. Gregory; and that his (15) Ib pag. 28. not suffering Images to be broken, when there was so public and general Idolatry committed with them, seemed unto (your) Osiander although not a direct, yet an occasional approving of Idolatry, or rather a cloaking thereof. Yea you admit further, that (16] Ib pag. 586. about the four hundredth year Images erept out of private men's houses, and went into the public churches standing there. And as for Relics, you (17) Ib pag. 583. wish that Hierome had been a Vigilantius in the case of the Relics of Saints. You further affirm, that the [18] Ib pag. 38. Apologists do truly object, that Osiander noted S. Gregory to have been a vehement urger of single life in the Clergy. You confess, that [19) Ib pag. 604. Vigilantius and jovinian are condemned for impugning the unmarried life of Priests; and that the (20) Ib. pag. 480. Council (of Nice) restraineth them from marriage, who were unmarried, when they entered into Orders; And (21) Ib. pag. 88 we find (say you) that the Age next abutting upon the Apostles time did practise a perpetual vow of Virginity. You likewise avouch, that (22) Ib pag. 46. Monachisme is a state of life greatly commended by S. Gregory, who had been himself a Monk. And speaking of ancient (23) Ib pag. 89. Votaries, you writ that the Apostle requireth in his widows the age of three score years; and after times would not admit Virgins under 25. years old, nor veiled Nuns till forty; for which you cite several Counsels. As touching the Fast of Lent, you writ: [24) Ib pag. 303. This Fast we confess was of great antiquity, and &c. had in general use and observation; which S. Ambrose teacheth to have been ordained by the Divine institution of Christ. And (25) Ib. pag. 04. S. Augustin doth sometimes write of the forty days Fast, that it hath a Divine authority. And where other Protestants do charge us with the Heresies of the Manichees and Tatianists for abstaining from certain meats upon prescribed days (26) Ib pag. ●00. yourself doth clear us and defend us therein; as also against the Heresy of the Manichees [27) Ib pag. 139. 140. Communicating under one kind. And as concerning Ceremonies, you avouch that (28] Ib. pag. 53. in the innovating and multiplying of new Rites Gregory himself was not the least agent. And [29] Ib. pag. 58. Be it known to all our Adversaries, that the too many Ceremonies used by Gregory cannot excuse their now fare more multitudes; nor can some of his not good etc. You charge him further to have used (30) Ibid. p. 53. Superstitious manner of Consecration of Churches; In which [31] Ibid. p. 57 he indeed requireth lights. And as for Holie-water, you say, that (32) Ibid. p. 5●. true it is, that Aqua lustralis was used, but &c. as an invention of Pope Alexander, who lived An. 109. And it was applied in the days of Gregory by Augustin to the Consecration of Churches, together with Prayers for the casting out of the filth of Idols and Devils. And so likewise concerning the mingling of water with wine in the Chalice (33) Ibid. p. 142. you refer this new Romish custom unto (the said) Pope Alexander the supposed author thereof. Lastly as touching Freewill, you acknowledge, that (34) Ibid. p. 201. 201. Protestants have particularly and by name observed, that justinus, Ireneus, Clemens, Tertulian, Origen, Cyprian, and others, albeit many times they pleaded for the Freewill of the corrupt nature of man etc. Thus not being able to give other answer, yourself confess with M. Brierlie, that our Catholic doctrines of the Pope's primacy, of the Pope not being Antichrist, of unwritten Traditions, of Purgatory and Prayer for the dead, of Invocation of Saints, of Images, Relics, of the unmarried life of Priests, of Monks and Nuns, 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 Freewill, were all of them taught in the times of the Primitive Church of Christ; and that not by any infamous and condemned Heretics, but even by the clearest Lamps of those Ages, namely by S. Gregory, S. Augustin, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Leo, S. Cyprian, justinus, Tertulian, Origen, Victor, Alexander, Clemens, Ireneus, the Council of Nice, the 3. of Carthage and others. And so to conclude this first observation, you see yourself, that in steed of Answer you make a good Apology for the Roman Church. But to leave this your so plain dealing, and to come to some of your more slippery tricks: whereas M. Brierlie objecteth sundry Protestant Writers confessing and reproving the Fathers of the Primitive Church for the self same points and conclusions of Faith, which the Roman Church now believeth and practiseth; you for your easiest answer most commonly pass over all or most of the said Testimonies with deepest silence, not answering any thing at all unto them; so that as unanswerable you concealed them in your Answer. But what child or Idiot professing Arianism, Pelagianisme, Donatism, or the like, might not with like facility have answered all the books and proofs made by S. Athanasius, S. Augustin, S. Hilary, and other learnedst Doctors against the foresaid heresies? Now to give you example hereof, even in the first entrance M. Brierlie in his 1. Section intending to prove that the Faith of S. Gregory, and whereunto England was converted by S. Austin, was the same with our now Catholic Faith, confirmeth the same by the testimonies and grants of D. Humphrey, Osiander, the Centurie-writers of Magdeburg, D. Fulk, Daneus, M. Harrison, and M. Bale, the three first instancing the same by many particular points of Religion, and the rest confessing in general, that our Conversion by S. Gregory and S. Austin was to Popery or the Papistical faith; Now all this being comprehended by M. Brierlie his Book within the compass of less than one quarter of a sheet of paper, you spend in answer thereto above 60. pages, and yet in never one thereof do you fully and directly answer to any of your said Authors 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 show throughout your whole Book. At other times you admit, that the Protestant Writers alleged by M. Brierlie did indeed reprove the Fathers for several points of Papistry; but therewith you are displeased, and oppose yourself against your own dear Brethren, charging them to have done the same without just cause, and with greatest wrong and injury to the said Fathers. But now you go by the ears with very many Protestants, no less, if not more, renowned, than yourself. And what man of ordinary sense and reason will not give more credit to many of the primest Protestants, inhabiting several nations, through evidence of truth, thus writing and confessing against themselves, and in behalf of Catholics, then to you, M. Morton, through want of good conscience or solid judgement, impugning the truth and your more ancient and learned Protestants? Again, you being unable directly & punctually to answer the foresaid testimonies of your Brethren acknowledging and reproving the Fathers for teaching our Catholic Faith, you think to blear the eye of an ignorant Reader, by objecting sundry sayings of the said Fathers, as making against those several points of Faith, for which they were formerly confessed by other Protestants; and this is an ordinary shift throughout your whole Book. But yet this doth less satisfy then all the rest; for first if the other Protestants perusing the Father's writings, no doubt with as great diligence as yourself hath done, had found such pregnant places in behalf of themselues, as you now pretend, they would never have written and diwlged the direct contrary thereof to the utter ruin of their Cause and the eternal shame of themselves. Besides, sundry Protestants citing several Texts of the Fathers as making for Papistry, and you here alleging several others as impugning the same and making for protestancy, what should this infer, but that the Doctors & Bishops even of the Primitive Church should make mutual contradiction and wars amongst themselves 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 contrary to himself; for as you do here often allege him in proof of several particulars of your new Reformed Faith, so do many Protestants produce him as impugning the said particulars. Now what more gross absurdity can be uttered, than that S. Austin not in one but in many points of Faith should thus contradict himself? Lastly such sayings of Fathers as you here produce in behalf of yourself, are but the known objections made and answered by Cardinal Bellarmin and other Catholic Writers. M. Brierlie affecting through his whole Book to confirm and convince his wished intent by the clearest testimonies of his Protestant Adversaries, you will needs follow the same course, producing in that behalf the plentiful sayings of our Catholic Writers; but with a double difference, your Conscience well knew. For first M. Brierlie alleged such Protestants as for learning and judgement were most renowned and respected through the whole Protestant Church; such were Luther, Melancthon, Oecolampadius, Zuinglius, Chemnitius, the Centurists, Caluin, Beza, Whitguift, Bale, Whitaker, jewel, Humphrey, Reynolds, Parkins and sundry such others. Secondly, these Protestants he produceth as confessing the Fathers to agree with us Catholics, not only in matters of dispute, indifferency, or such as are not yet determined by the Church or General Council, but even in the chiefest and most important Articles and Conclusions of Faith, controverted at this day between Catholics and Protestants. Now as for the Catholic Writers alleged by you, M. Morton, a great part of them are such as for their known errors have their writings already censured and condemned by their Mother-Church; such were Erasmus, Valla, Cassander, Nilus, Agrippa and such like; and from these only do you fetch such testimonies as concern matter of some moment; for as for other approved Catholic Writers, as S. Thomas, S. Bonaventure, Lombard, Scotus, Bellarmine, Sanders, Allen, Parsons, and innumerable others, though you cite them often, yet never as denying any one Article or Conclusion of Faith, defined at any time by the Church of Christ, but only as dissenting amongst themselves in matters disputable and indifferent; nor ever as confessing the Fathers of the Primitive Church to make for Protestants in matters of Faith, as now controverted between them and Catholics. And as for the testimonies gathered from the former and worse rank of Catholics, they can nothing prejudice our Catholic Cause. For first, as before, their errors and books are censured, condemned, and prohibited by that very Church, wherein they were Baptised or first became Christians, to wit, the Roman. Secondly, most of the said Authors finally recanted their errors, submitting themselves and their writings to the Censure of the Catholic Church. And lastly, as it may not be denied, but that in the State Politic the Prince with his Council may justly punish, censure, and correct such men with their errors, as shall seek to innovate in any thing against the former received and established laws of the whole kingdom; so much more is the like iustifyable, expedient, and necessary in the Spiritual government of the Church of Christ. I might here proceed to sundry other such like evasions of yours; but I fear to exceed the ordinary bounds, and therefore will conclude, assuring the judicious and impartial Reader, who shall diligently peruse your swelling and ample Appeal written in answer to a small part of M. Brierlie his first and least Apology, that certainly he may expect in lieu of a Due and satisfyable Answer, first, that yourself is often enforced to confess with M. Brierlie and against yourself, that the ancient Fathers in several important points of Religion were Roman catholics. Secondly, that many of the strongest allegations brought by M. Brierlie are not so much as named, and much less answered by your dumb Spirit. Thirdly, that you are often compelled to impugn and disgrace your own Protestant Brethren, utterly denying and disclaiming in that, which they through the Sunshine and splendour of truth have plentifully acknowledged, though against themselves, you so Appealing from them no less then from M. Brierlie himself. Fourthly, that finding yourself not able to evade such convincing proofs taken only from Protestant Doctors by any direct and pertinent Answer, you fill up your paper with such Say of Fathers, as are either corrupted by yourself, or frequently already answered by Catholic Writers; which is no other answer neither, but that Protestants amongst themselves do allege the Fathers, yea one and the selfsame Father as fight with himself; the affirming whereof is as gross an absurdity, as myself would desire my greatest Adversary to be plunged in. And lastly, that for such testimonies as you draw from Catholic Writers, they are either such, as are already condemned by the Catholic Church, or else are not concerning any Article or Conclusion of Faith, but only matters indifferent and disputable in Schools. Now as every one of ordinary judgement may clearly see, that these poor shifts patched together are but beggarly rags serving to hide or cover from the weak sight of an ignorant Reader, the loathsome sores and shameful deformities of your diseased Body, 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 jewel, by translating his Apology into Latin, but hath also induced me to make further use thereof for the special good, as I hope, of our own Country: 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 painful labourer in Christ's Vinyeard; for which I will not cease to entreat his Infinite Goodness; and will ever rest Yours in him N. N. THE FIRST BOOK, WHEREIN IS PROVED BY THE CONFESSION OF PROTESTANTS THAT THE CATHOLIC ROMAN CHURCH hath continued Ever most Known and Universal, even from Christ's very Time, until the Date hereof. THE antiquity OF THE TRUE Church; and the force of the Argument drawn from the Authority thereof: As also of the great necessity 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 Ancestry with our first Parents in Paradise, & so in regard of her Birthright, & prime Antiquity, long precedent and preferred before the Scriptures themselves; so even of the Church of Christians, it may not be denied, but that, as in the same instant, with Christ her Head and Spouse, she received her first being, life, and birth in this world, according to that of (1) Ad c. 3. Lucae. S. Ambrose: God built his Church in the chief Cornerstone CHRIST JESUS; so was this her greatest nobility of birth, not only to continued for some few generations, but ever to remain for all posterity. Agreeable to which the Prophet Daniel foretold of the Church (2) cap. 2.4. that it is A kingdom that shall never be destroyed, but shall stand for ever. And so shall be according to Esay, as (3) cap 60.15. An eternal glory and joy from generation to generation. So that in steed of further discussing the Ancientest Birthright and not-interrupted continuance of Christ his Church, I will now only treat of the force of that Argument which is drawn from the Authority & Determination of the said so Noble & Ancient a Church. Wherein for greater expedition, I will pretermit most plentiful proofs both from sacred Scriptures, and learnedst Fathers, & in steed thereof will for the present rest satisfied with the freest Grants and ample Acknowledgements of the learnedst Protestants; who first as they ever pretend to build their whole Faith & Religion upon the Written Word, so do they further acknowledge the same to be only known and discerned from forged and adulterate Scriptures by the sacred Authority and Testimony of the Church of Christ. In which respect (4) Ans. to a Counterf. catho pag. 5. D. Fulk avoucheth, that The Church of Christ hath judgement to discern true writings from counterfeit, and the Word of God from the writings of men, and this judgement she hath of the holy-ghost. With whom accordeth (5) Def. of the Apolog. p. 201. D. jewel affirming, that, The Church of God hath the Spirit of wisdom, whereby to discern true Scriptures from false. In like sort M. (6) Ecc. Pol. pag. 86. Hooker teacheth, that, of things necessary, the very chiefest is to know, what books we are bound to esteem holy; which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture itself to teach. Whereof he further saith, (7) Ib pa. 102. It is not the Word of God which doth, or possibly can assure us, that we do well to think it is his word: for if any one Book of Scripture did give testimony of all, yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest, would require another Scripture to give credit unto it. Neither could we come unto any pause whereon to rest, unless besides Scripture there were something which might assure us etc. which something afterwards he acknowledgeth. (8) Ib. pa. 146. & 116. And see Aretius his examen. p. 24. And Bachmanus his Centuriae tres etc. p. 267. To be the authority of God's Church. Agreably hereunto D. whitaker doth confess, that this weightiest controversy concerning Canonical Scriptures, is to us determined not by (9) Cont. Staplet. p. 370. 357. HooK. Eccl. Pol. p. 147. Testimony of the Spirit, the which (saith he) being private and secret, is unfit to teach and refel others, but as he further teacheth (10) Ibi. p. 300. 298. 24. 25. And against Raynolds. p. 44. by the Ecclestical Tradition: An argument whereby may be argued and convinced, what books be Canonical and what not. And another Protestant Writer, (11) Auth. of the scripture and the church. f. 71 72. 73. 74 75. much commended by (12) Ibid. in the Preface. Bullinger, affirmeth, that The church is endued with the Spirit of God (and that) The diligence & authority of the Church is to be acknowledged herein, which hath partly given forth her Testimony of the assured writings, and hath partly by her Spiritual judgement refused the writings which are unworthy. Yea he further assureth us with (13) Tom 6. count. ep fund. cap. 5. Tert. lib. 1 de Praescrip cap. 6. S. Augustin and Tertullian, that (14) Scrip. and the church p. 72 74. 75. And see Melancthon in epist ad Rom cap. 14. pa 358 359. we could not believe the Gospel, were it not that the Church taught us and witnessed, that this doctrine was delivered by the Apostles. So that the authority of God's true Church is so great, as that by her warrant we are only assured of the Written Word of God itself, and for such by her wisdom (given by the holy-ghost) discerned to us from all forged, Apocryphal, and counterfeit writings: A power and authority, than which none stronger, seeing 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 believe, the Sentence and Determination of the Church, how much more than in other doubts of smaller respect? Add further hereunto in surest confirmation of the Church's authority, that it is likewise granted and taught by the learnedst Protestants that the true visible Church can not wholly err in matters of Faith: Insomuch as they expressly confess of this very point, that (15) Bertr. de Loque in his discourse of the church p. 198. Phil. Act. mon. p. 1401. Bilney ibid. p. 464. Ridley 16. pag. 1361. & 1286. Baynhan ib. p 493. Fox. ib. pag. 999. Bancroft in his sermon preached. 8. Febr. 1588. pag. 42. 43. The Divines of Geneva in their Propositions and Principles disputed etc. 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. Powel of things indifferent p. 7 The controversy etc. is not of the Catholic (or universal) Church, for we all agree (say they) herein, that she cannot orre touching Faith etc. wherefore this question is touching (only) a particular church. Now if the true Church can not err in matters of Faith & Religion, then is her Authority sacred, her Decrees infallible, her Children secured, and all difficulties arising easily composed. Yea from hence also may we justly collect, amongst all controversies whatsoever, the absolute necessity of finding-out the true Church; seeing the finding-out thereof, is the surest finding of the right path, which leadeth directly unto all truth. In which regard saith D. Field most judiciously (16) Epi. dedicat. of the church. The consideration of unhappy divisions of the Christian world, and the infinite distractions of men's minds, not knowing in so great variety of opinions, what to think or to whom to join themselves &c. hath made me ever to think, that there is no part of heavenly knowledge more necessary, then that which concerneth the Church: For seeing the controversies of Religion in our time are grown in number so many, and in nature so intricate, that few have time and leisure, fewer strength of understanding, to examine them; what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out, which, among all the Societies of men in the world, is &c. that Spouse of Christ, and Church of the living God, which is the Pillar and Ground of truth, that so they may embrace her communion, follow her direction, and rest in her judgement? But what Catholic can speak more plainly and fully then D. Field here doth either for the necessity of finding-out the true Church, or for our following and observing her directions and Sentence when she is found? And agreably hereunto D. White speaking of the Common-people, saith (17) Ep ded. to the way to the true church. And see ParKins on the revel. p. 344. And james his retreat sounded to Brownists. fol. 1. 6. If by certain marks, they could find which is the true Church, there would remain little difficulty in the rest, forsomuch as therein they should find the truth in every controversy: The like necessity urgeth Caluin saying, (18) Inst. li. 4. c. 1. sec. 4. Because I have now determined to dispute of the visible Church, let us learn by the only testimony of our Mother's praise, how profitable, ea how necessary to us is the knowledge thereof, seeing there is no other entrance into life, unless she conceive us in her womb, unless she bring us forth, unless &c. under her custody and protection she defend us until we die etc. Add that out of her bosom no Remission of sins is to be hoped for. With whom agreeth M. Mornay, (19) of the chur. p. 1. God would (saith he) that the Church should be honoured for the Mother of all those, of whom he vouchsafeth to be Father. Seeing therefore that God alloweth none for his children but those that are borne again and brought-up in this Church; if we desire our salvation, it is necessary we know her, in whose lap we have it etc. we must not seek salvation for any but in her. And again, (20) vol. 1. 3. Into the visible Church all they must retire themselves in this world, that will be gathered in the invisible Church in the world to come. M. Parkins confesseth that (21) Ib pa. pag. 308. The Ark out of which all perished, figured the Church, out of which all are condemned &c. out of the Militant Church there are no means of Salvation, no preaching of the Word, no invocation of God's name, no Sacraments, and therefore no Salvation. And speaking of such as be, without, that is, saith he, forth of the Church, they are dogs, enchanters, whoremongers, adulterers etc. Now from all this I will only briefly conclude, that the Church of God is not only most ancient, and in that regard greatly to be honoured, reverenced, and preferred, but being likewise confessedly directed by the Spirit of God, in discerning & judging the truth in matters of Faith, that therefore in all doubts arising in matters of Religion, we may with greatest safety and quiet to our minds, repose our souls and consciences upon the Authority, judgement, and Determination of the said Church. Yea further seeing it is agreed upon by all parties, that out of the true Church there is no Salvation; how lamentable is the state of obstinate Heretics, who through pertinacy in error and infidelity, are quite cut-of & cast out of the Church? And how much to be deplored are uncharitable Schismatics? who for false, frail, and earthly respects, do foolishly divide themselves from the Ark of Salvation, living continually like brute beasts, without all spiritual food and nutriment to their souls, deprived of supernal grace, conveyed by Christ's holy Sacraments, debarred from the sweetest communion, and purest conversation with their dearest Mother, and all this, for no other respect or pretence, then that only, which by S. john was blamed in the Pharisees, who (22) Io. 12.42 43. did not confess (Christ) that they might not be cast out of the Synagogue. For they loved the glory of men, more than the glory of God. THAT THE PRESENT ROMAN CHURCH, AND Religion, for these last thousand years after Christ, have still continued most Known, and Universal, throughout the Christian world. CHAPTER. II. NOW for our certain finding-out of this true Church so necessary to Salvation, we are to suppose for the present, that the true Church is ever to continue even from Christ's time, until the end of the world: wherefore to make this good in our behalf, and against our Adversaries: Sundry and strongest are the proofs, wherewith the Everduring and Universal continuance, of the Roman Catholic Religion, for these last thousand years, might evidently be convinced; As the Catholic Coronations and State-government of all Christian Emperors, Kings, and Princes: The fairest Records of all Laws, Canon, Civil, or Municipal: The ancient Seas of Bishops and Archbishops: The famous Monuments of Monasteries, Hospitals, Churches, and the like: And all Doctors, and men most renowned either for Learning or Sanctity, who by their writings or works have testified to all posterity, that the Religion of their days, and several Countries wherein they lived, and which themselves believed and professed, was one and the same with our present Roman. Yet to omit all these, and much more which might be urged to the same effect: In a case so manifest and confessed, I will content myself with the plentiful acknowledgements of my greatest Adversaries, who through the clearest splendour of our Roman Religion and Piety, during all the foresaid Ages, are enforced, even by the rack of truth, and strongest Evidences, though to the foulest disgrace of themselves, and manifest confirmation & condemnation of their Sect or Religion, plainly to admit, grant, and confess the foresaid continuance of our Roman Religion, and that most Universal in all Nations for these last thousand years. For though D. Morton overboldly attempteth to affirm, that M. Brierly his passage (1) Prot. App. p. 574. from the days of Gregory etc. unto these present times etc. for the inviolable continuance of our now Romish Faith, is praecipitare, non descendere: an issue void of consent, and a reckoning (as we say) without their Host; yet what Bellarmin, or other jesuit in the world, could speak more fully for us Catholics in this behalf, then doth the Protestant (2) In his consideration of the Papists reasons pag. 105. M. Powel in these words? I grant that from the year of Christ 605. the Professant company of Popery, hath been very visible and perspicuous? Or (3) In his discourse upon the Catalo. of Doc. in the epi. to the Reader. Simon de Voyon affirming that, Anno 605. when Pope Boniface was stalled in the Papal Throne, them falsehood got the victory etc. Then was the whole world overwhelmed with the dregs of Antichristian filthiness, abominable superstistions and Traditions of the Pope, than was that universal Apostasy from the Faith, foretold by Paul. And (4) In his exposition of the Creed. v. 1. pag. 266. M. Parkins having spoken of the second sign of Christ's coming, which there he maketh to be the revealing of Antichrist in Boniface Anno 607. allegeth them next after, as a third sign, and as being distinct from the other, a general departing of most men from the Faith, saying respectively thereof, during the space of nine hundred years etc. the Popish Heresy (so do Heretics style it) hath spread itself over the earth (and so universally in his opinion throughout all parts of Faith, that saith he next afterwards) and the faithful servants of God, were but as a handful of wheat in a mountain of chaff, (8) In his Rejoinder to Bristol p. 34 which can scarce be discerned. And again, (5) Ib. p. 310. we say for the space of many hundred years, an universal Apostasy endeavoured the whole face of the earth, and that our (Protestant) Church was not then visible to the world, but lay hid under the chaff of Popery; and the truth of this, the Records of all Ages manifest. M. Morton (6) Protest. Appeal p. 71. would evade these testimonies of M. Parkins, by answering, that he speaketh this only of the Article of the Pope's Primacy, and not in regard of so large continuance, and general belief of the other points of our now Catholic Faith, which yet is most untrue, Parkins speaking in general, of a general departing from the Faith, and of an universal Apostasy, In so much as the Protestant church or Religion was not, according to Parkins, then visible to the world. In which sense also (7) In his Answer to a counterf. Cath●. p. 36. D. Fulk confesseth that The (very) Religion of the Papists came in and prevailed Anno Dom. 607. etc. And so universally, that, saith he, The revelation of Antichrist, with the Church's flight into the wilderness, was Anno 607. So clear and confessed it is, that our now Roman Religion hath continued universally for these last thousand years. A truth so evident also, that most Protestant's do from thence infer and avouch, that all the Popes of Rome for these last 1000 years have been Antichrists. (9) De Antichrist. in praef. p. 1. 2. M. Powel affirmeth that the Pope hath been Antichrist at all times since Gregory the Great. According to (10) Cont. Bellar. par. 1. pag. 371. Danaeus, The Kingdom of that Antichrist hath now manifestly continued more than nine hundred years, from the Emperor Phocas to the time of Luther. D. whitaker (11) De Eccles. count. Bellar. p. 144. affirmeth Boniface the Third (who lived Anno 607) and all his successors, to have been Antichrists (12) 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 avoucheth, that the Popes from Boniface the Third, were blaspemous Heretics and Antichrists. (13) In his treatise of Antic. p. 4. D. Downeham averreth, that The whole row or rabble of Popes, from Boniface the Third downward, were Antichrists. (14) In his Trial of the Romish cler. pa. 330. M. wotton termeth Boniface the Third, the first revealed Antichrist. And (15) Hist. sacr. par. p. 189. Hospinian censureth him, and all his successors, to be verissimos Antichristos, most true Antichrists. D. whitaker (16) De eccl. cont. 8. l. contro. 2. q. 4. p. 144. delivering his own, and other Protestants opinion herein, saith: we affirm Gregory the Great, to have been the last true, and holy Bishop of that Church etc. For those that followed were true Antichrists etc. And because they ask and demand of us some certain time, we assign them this, to wit, of Antichrist's first coming. So manifest it is, that all the Roman Bishops after these last thousand years, being thus censured by so many Protestants for Antichrists, have no less professed and maintained the present Roman Religion, than Gregory the Fifteenth, who now governeth that Sea, and is charged by Protestants, to be Antichrist himself. And as all the Popes for these last thousand years, are thus censured for Antichrists, so is the article of the Pope's Primacy or supreme authority, over the whole Church in all matters Ecclesiastical plainly acknowledged by D. Morton himself to be no less ancient: For whereas M. Brierlie produceth the testimonies of Parkins, Napper, and Broccard, for the continuance of our Roman Religion in general for these last thousand years, D. Morton restraineth their meaning (though undeservedly) only to the point of the Pope's Primacy saying: (17) Prot. Appeal. p. 71 The alleged Authors speak of the Primacy of the Pope. And again, 18 Ibid p. 72▪ Be it granted (for so it is) that the Papal Primacy beginning in Boniface the Third, is now nine hundred years old. So ancient and universal is this so transcendent Article of the Pope's Primacy in matters Spiritual. A point of such importance that D. Reynolds affirmeth, therein, (19) confe. p. 568. the very being and essence of a Papist to consist. And D. Whitaker avoucheth that (20) contra Duroe. pag. 503. It is the head of Popish Religion, of which almost all the rest depend. But what more forcibly can be produced for the further confirming of our Church's foresaid continuance for these last 1000 years, than the public exercise of our Church's Liturgy the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, during the foresaid time? not only according to D. Sutclif, (21) Answer to Exceptions. pa. 11. In the Mass the very Soul of Popery doth consist; as also according to D. Whitaker, (22) contra. Duroe. pag. 426. Nothing is more holy and divine in our conceit: But withal the Mass including sundry articles of our Catholic Faith; as true external Sacrifice, the Real presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, Priesthood, Prayer to Angels and Saints, Prayer and Sacrifice for the dead and sundry such like, thereby doth plainly convince the universal continuance of our Catholic Religion. D. Luther (23) In colloquiis Ger. de Missae. affirmeth that Private Mass hath deceived many Saints, and carried them away into error, from the time of Gregory, for 800. years. With him agreeth M. Tindal (24) Act. Mon. p. 1338 in these words: I doubt not but S. Bernard, Francis, and many other holy men, erred as concerning Mass: Osiander saith of S. Bede (25) Cent. 8. p. 58. He was wrapped in all the Popish errors in which we descent at this day from the Pope, for etc. he admired and followed Popish Masses. And yet saith Osiander, He was a good man. (26) In jaecobs' defence of the churc. &c pag. 13. M. johnson saith, Did not john hus, that worthy champion of Christ, and others also of the Martyrs of foretimes say, and hear Mass, even to their dying day? etc. did not diverse of them acknowledge, some the Pope's calling and Supremacy, some seven Sacraments, some auricular Confession? etc. The Centurists, speaking of the eleventh Age after Christ, confess and say (27) Cent. 11 c. 4. col. 233. The Idolatrical Mass did bewitch all the Doctors of this Age. And they charge the tenth Age (28) Cent. 10. c. 6. col. 307. with the Stage-like spectacle & Sacrifice for the living and the dead. (29) Cent. 9 c. 6. col. 245. 246. They affirm likewise the same of the ninth Age, numbering up the ceremonies of the Mass yet to this day usual. The eight Age likewise is reproved by them for the (30) cent 8. c. 6. col. 361. Stage-like spectacle & Sacrifice for the living and the dead. The seaventh Age is reproved for the use of (31) cent. 7. c. 6. col. 154. 457. & Osiander con. 7. pa. 189. Mass celebrated in Latin, and for using (32) cent. 7. c. 4. col. 113. Osiand. cent. 7. col. 186. Mass for the dead. And the like they affirm of the other Centuries. D. Dove (33) In his defence of Church-govern. pa. 68 acknowledgeth yet further in plainest terms, that, All our Parish-churches were not only the Pope's ordinance, but also ordained for celebration of Mass, and so employed from their first erection until this late reformation of the Church etc. (34) De Sacrif. Miss. pag. 377. D. Hutter public Professor in the University of Wittenberg saith: I do willingly grant the Popish mad Idolatry the very Sinew (or strength) whereof, is the Sacrifice of the Mass, to have invaded almost the whole world, especially these last thousand years. But from thence I gather most evidently this Mass to have been the cup wherewith the Roman Antichrist infected & bewitched all the Kings of the earth, and almost the whole world. (35) In his relics of Rome. f. 344. M. Beacon (whom other (36) The Ministers of Lyncolnsh. in their Abridgement etc. p. 65. Protestants affirm to be a Divine of chief note in their church) is of opinion, that, The Mass was fully finished by Pope Gregory the First, about Anno Domini 600. etc. and from Charles the Great, unto Charles the Fift, the Mass reigned as a most mighty Queen in all the churches of the West part of the world. And the like is confessed by (37) De Antich p. 101. Danaeus saying: From the year of Christ's Passion 666. that blasphemous kingdom of Antichrist was openly, and publicly established in the Church of God, which the Spirit of God foretold: verily this very time and year that execrable, and Papistical Mass etc. began to be celebrated every where in Latin. But (38) In Apocal. in 9 p. 199. Chiltraeus chargeth S. Gregory that he established many foul errors, and especially the Idolatrous Invocation of Saints, and Masses for the dead, which from that time as a Deluge have overflowed the whole Church. D. Hutter, (39) De Sacr. Miss l 1. c. 6. p. 103. & p. 377. in this question of Mass and Sacrifice, giveth a Supersedeas to all the Fathers that lived after the first five hundred years, saying, we do not respect later (Fathers) then of the first five Ages. (40) De captivit. Babyl. c. 1. Luther acknowledgeth that, The Mass is believed every where to be a Sacrifice which is offered to God. To these agree the Say of holy Fathers, so many examples, and so great practice constantly observed through the world. And a little after Luther further saith, Let it not trouble thee that the whole world thinketh and doth the contrary. But though Luther laboured, not to be troubled at his despising and rejecting of the Mass, when the whole world did think, and do the contrary; yet I hope sundry other Protestants, not of so seared consciences, observing themselves to have thus Apostated from the whole world, in this so important a Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass, will not only be troubled, but much incited to reunite themselves to the whole Christian world. Neither was this so general practice of the Mass only used or allowed by the Clergy, or vulgar people; for Caluin (41) Instit. li 4. c. 18 sec. 18. affirmeth, that The abomination of the Mass hath made drunk (or besotted) all the Kings and people of the earth, from the greatest to the least; And again, (42) Ib. sect. 1. 43. Hist. Sacram epsti. dedicat. 1. The Roman Antichrist, and his Prophets have taught the whole world this opinion. In like manner saith (43) Hospinian: All the Kings, Princes, & people of the earth hitherto from the first six hundred years, were made drunk with the Mass, as with a certain enchanted cup. The like whereof was confessed before by D. Hutter. So clear it is that the public service used in all churches for these last thousand years, and whereunto all kings, Princes, and people were used to resort, was the holy Liturgy, or Sacrifice of the Mass. From the premises than we have our Protestants Apology, for the most visible and universal continuance of our Roman Church and Religion for these last thousand years; the splendour whereof being such and so generally extended, as that their Protestant Church, themselves confess, was not so much as then visible to the world. Secondly the Faith & doctrine taught by all Popes during the foresaid time, was so wholly consonant to ours at this day, as that therefore they are no less censured for Antichrists, than our Pope now reigning. Thirdly, the Pope's Supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, being the two weightiest points of all matters now controverted, are here confessed to have been generally believed, and practised during the same precinct. Fourthly it is likewise granted, that even All our Parish-churches, were the Pope's ordinance, and for celebration of Mass, and so employed from their first erection, until this late pretended Reformation of the Church by Luther. The truth of all which is so palpable, as that I have used no other proofs in confirmation thereof, then only the clear testimonies & free grants of the greatest Adversaries to the Roman Church; as for externals, of Luther, Caluin, the Centurie-writers, Osiander, Hospinian, Danaeus, Simon de Voyon, Hutterus, Chytraeus, For domestics, of Whitaker, Fulk, Downeham, Parkins, Powel, Wotton, Tyndal, johnson, Dove, Beacon & Morton. A FURTHER CONFIRMATION OF THE UNIVERSAL continuance of our now Roman Church and Religion, for these last thousand years, is taken from the Confessed belief and profession of such Persons, as living within the foresaid time, were most Famous and Notorious, in one respect or other. CHAPTER III. IN further evidence then of our Catholic Churches Reign, and general Dominion for these last thousand years, I will descend to particular stations or periods of time, and such especially, as for some important respect, are most known and notorious: And first I will begin with the time of Luther himself at his first appearing Protestant, when I find the whole face of the world to be so Roman Catholic, as that himself was an (1) Tom. 7. Witt. f. 228 anointed Priest and an (2) Simon de Voyon in his discourse upon the Catalogue. etc. p. 180. and Luther ad Gal. c. 1. fol. 35 after the English translation. Augustin-Friar etc. And, lived in his Monastery, punishing his body with watching, fasting and prayer, (3) Luther ibidem. Honoured the Pope of mere conscience, Kept Chastity, Poverty, and Obedience; And, whatsoever (saith he,) I did, I did it with a single hart, of good Zeal, and for the glory of God. But when he fell into his Apostasy, so directly contrary to the then present or precedent profession of Religion over the world, his troubled conscience burst out into these words: (4) Luth. to. 2. Germ. fo. 9 and tom 2. Wittemb. de Abroganda Missa privata. fol. 244. How often did my trembling hart beat within me, and reprehending me, object against me that strong argument: Art thou only wise? Do so many worlds err? Were so many Ages ignorant? What if thou errest, and drawest so many into error to be damned with thee eternally? And (5) Tom. 5. Annot. breviss. again: Dost thou, o sole man and of no account, take upon thee so great matters? What if thou being but one offendest? If God permit such, and so many, and all to err; why may he not permit thee to err? Hitherto appertain these arguments, the Church the Church; the Fathers the Fathers, the Counsels; the Customs; the Multitudes and Greatness of wise men: whom do not these Hills of arguments, these Clouds, yea these Seas of Examples overwhelm? saith Luther. And again (6) Tom. 1. Witemb. Pref. At the first I was alone, (7) Tom. 2. fol. 63. and alone rolled the stone, yea (8) Loc. come. class. 4. cap. 30. pag. 51. undertaken so great a business upon me alone: And confessed it is, that Luther at his first revolt from being a Catholic Friar, was the first, sole, and only man, that began protestancy; thereby departing (as himself confesseth) from the Church, from Fathers, Counsels, and so many Worlds, so many Age's precedent. This point is so certain, that M. jewel (9) In his Apology of the Church of Eng. part. 4. c. 4. And in his Def. of the Apol. pa. 426. confesseth, That the (Protestant) truth was unknown at that time, and unheardof, when Martin Luther and Hulderick Suinglius first came unto the knowledge and preaching of the Gospel: And Bucer (10) In Epist. An. 36. ad Episc. Heref. praefix. Enarrat. Buceri in 4. Euang. calleth Luther, The first Apostle to us of the purer Gospel; yea the Lutherans (11) Schlusselburge Theol. Caluin. li. 2. fol 130. do affirm it impudency, to say, that many learned men in Germany before Luther did hold the doctrine of the Gospel. (12) In Augustan. confess. explic. Arti 7. de Eccl. p. 137. 138. Georgius Miluis argueth that, If there had been right believers that went before Luther in his office etc. there had then been no need of a Lutheran Reformation: therefore we say that Luther was raysed-up by Gods special appointment and extraordinarily. So likewise (13) Trac. de Eccl. pag. 145. Morgensterne judgeth it ridiculous (to think) that in the time before Luther, any had the purity of doctrine; and that Luther should receive it from them, and not they from Luther. Considering (saith he) it is manifest to the whole Christian world, that before Luther's time, all churches were overwhelmed with more than Cimmerian darkness; and that, Luther was divinely raised up to discover the same, and to restore the light of true doctrine: In so much as (14) Epist. ad Argentinenses & in Praef. in corp. doctrinae. Luther saith of himself, we dare glory that Christ was first made known by us. And he termeth (15) In Deutronom. in pref. fol. 2. his doctrine, resurgens vel potius oriens Euangelium, the Gospel rising again, or rather first beginning. A truth so clear that (16) De fraetrun Orthodox. Eccl. pa. 264. Camerarius avouching Wicliffe to have been helped, or instructed, by the waldenses, and hus by Wiccliffe; speaking yet of Luther, affirmeth to the contrary, that Luther received his doctrine neither from hus or Wiccliffe, but was instructed of himself, as he declareth of himself in his writings. In wh●ch respect also saith M. Wotton, Luther might truly say, that he was the first which had in these times published Christ, especially in the chief point of the Gospel, which is, (17) In his Trial of the Romish Clerg. Title. pa. 392. justification by faith in Christ; and in this respect it is an honour to Luther to have been a Son without a Father, a Disciple without a Master. Agreably whereunto also saith M. (18) Act Mon. pa. 770. Fox: Luther plucked down the foundation of Papistry, by opening one vein long hid before, the touchstone of all truth, and the only principal origen of our salvation, which is, our free justification by Faith only: yea Luther is so confessedly the first Author or Beginner of protestancy, that one of his own Brood writeth that, (19) Prognostica finis mundi. The Spirit which telleth things to come, worketh not but in time of the Gospel; which Luther, as it is confessed, towards the end of the world did first bring-in. And again, (20) Ibid. pa. 13. The seduction of false Prophets is not manifest but under the Gospel; which before Luther, as we said, never went since the Primitive time of the Apostles. Some Protestants (21) In his Articles. Art. 19 p. 130. Dove in his recusancy pa. 32. (saith D. Covel) make Luther and Caluin Authors of the Religion among us. By all which it appeareth that Luther was borne and bred a Catholic, and that at the same time, the Religion known and practised over the Christian world, was the present Roman; from which Luther then revolting, confesseth himself to be the sole and only man who first preached the Protestant Gospel, and so is confessed by other Protestants to be the first Author of their Religion, to be their first Apostle, and to be a Son without a Father, a Disciple without a Master. At the same time of Luther reigned here in England King Henry the Eight, in whose time our Roman Religion was so universal, that D. Willet confesseth that (22) Antilog. p. 273. In King Henry's the Eight time the Mass continued, and the whole body of the Roman doctrine, the Supremacy excepted. Sleidan also saith of K. Henry: (23) Sleidan in Engl. l. 13. fol. 174. He exiled the name of the Bishop of Rome, but kept still his doctrine. Yea saith M. Fox, (24) Act. Mon. p. 1472. He set forth, and by full consent of Parliament established the book of Six Articles, containing the sum of Popish Religion. In which he was so resolute as that himself in Person not only (25) Ib p. 530. disputed, but also commanded (26) Ib. p. 533 Sentence to be pronounced against the Protestant Lambert. And this notwithstanding, the Popish Church under his Reign is, by D. Fulk (27) Against HesKins etc. p. 564 acknowledged to be a true Church, and the King himself to be (28) Ib. sect. 82 And Humf. jesuit. part. 2. p. 304. A member of the Catholic Church of Christ; yea saith M. Hal, the Church as then was A true (29) Apology against Brownists. c. 11. p. 30 visible Church of God. And for as much (saith (30) Consecration of English Bish. p. 67. M. Mason) as it is the custom of Papists to brand the Reign of King Henry the Eight, with the odious name of Schism, let me a little dispel those clouds and mists, wherewith they darken the glory of that Heroical Prince. So grateful are they to K. Henry, though well they know, that sundry of their Protestant Predecessors he burned for their Heresies. In the Age next before Luther and K. Henry lived john hus, who though some Protestants (through their greatest penury) make bold to challenge for a member of their Church, yet is it to the contrary confessed by (31) In Colloquiis Germ. c. de Antichristo Luther himself, that The Papists burned john hus, when as yet he departed not a finger-breadth from the Papacy; 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: Again, They do not well (saith (32) Explicaet. Art. 30 Luther) who make me a Hussite, for he held not with me. (33) Tom. 1. p. 493. He taught horrible and devilish blasphemies. Agreably saith (34) In Apoc. c. 11. p. 290. M. Fox: The Papists traduce hus and Hierom of Prague (who lived in the same Age) as Heretics; why so I beseech you? etc. I add further, if he be an Heretic who varieth from the Decrees of the Roman Church, what dit hus at any time teach or defend in the Council, wherein 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 confirm? Who celebrated Mass more religiously than he? or more chastely observed the vows of Priestly Chastity? Add further that in doctrine of Catholics concerning Freewill, Predestination, Informed Faith the cause of justification, and Merit of good works, what other thing did he hold then is taught at Rome? what Image of any Saint did he ever cast out of his Church at Bethlem? etc. what therefore shall we say him to have committed, for which he is not together with the Roman Sea to be condemned, or with it to be absolved? In like full sort, saith D. Field (34) In his Appendix to the 5. book of the Church part. 1. p. 87. touching john hus and Hierom of Prague, I could never yet find, in what point of Faith they dissented from the doctrine of the Church then constantly resolved on: but they bitterly inveighed against the Ambition, Pride, Coveteousnes, and negligence of the Clergy. And more in particular M. Fox (35) Act. Mon. p. 216. confesseth that hus believed the seven Sacraments, and (36) Act. Mon. p. 209. & 197. Transubstantiation; M. jacob (37) Def. of the Churches etc. p. 13. And Act. Mon. p. 227. 216. addeth the Pope's Primacy; whereof also saith (38) In Assertionibus art. 30 Luther, john Husse seemeth not to withstand, but that the Monarchy of the Pope may be; yea he further there affirmeth, that hus attributeth much to the Roman Idol. Lastly hus being a Catholic Priest, (39) Def. of the Churches etc. p. 13. M. jacob affirmeth, that he said Mass to his dying day. So manifest it is that in the Age of john Husse, the public Service of the Church, was the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Religion then known, and believed by hus and others, was our present Roman. Where I can not but much admire the absurdity and beggary of M. Fox and others, in (40) Act. Mon. p. 190. & 241. And D. Downham of Antichrist. p. 40. registering john hus for a most holy Martyr of their Protestant Church, and further (41) In Apoc. c. 11. p. 249. affirming, that It can not seem otherwise, but that john hus, and Hierom of Prague, are without all controversy, the two witnesses etc. whereof the Prophet speaketh properly and expressly in this place, to wit, of the Apocalypse: whereas it is most certain that Husse was condemned and burned, chief (42) See Simon de Voyon upon the Catalogue. of Doctors. p. 159. Fox Act. Mon. p. 230. Osiand. cent. 15. p. 469. for his urging of Communion to the Lay-people under both kinds, and for maintaining Wicclifs seditious Doctrine against Princes, Priests, and Bishops if they committed mortal Sin; in other points of Faith living and dying a Roman Catholic. In the Age precedent to john Husse lived john Wiccliffe, who was a Catholic Priest, (43) Stow's annal p. 464 even the Parson of Lutterworth in Lecestershier, who according to M. Stow (44) Ib. p. 425 first inveighed against the Church, for that he had been deprived by the Archbishop of Canterbury, from a certain Benefice etc. And having upon this occasion severed himself from the Church in which he formerly was, He with his Disciples went barefooted, and basely clothed in course russet garments down to the heels; and, (45) Ib. p. 426 seemed to contemn all temporal goods, for the love of eternal riches; adjoining himself to the begging Friars, approving their poverty, and extolling their perfection: Retaining still his former Catholic opinions concerning (46) Wiccleus de Blasphe. c. 17 Holie-water, (47) Wiccl. de Euchar. c. 9 the Worshipping of Relics and Images, the (48) Serm de Assumptione. Intercession of our B. Lady S. Marry, the (49) De Apostasia c. 18. Rites and Ceremonies of the Mass, whereof (50) In Professione fidei. c. 28. Przibaws (an Heretic who lived near the same time) saith: john Wiccliffe, in his book of Apostasy, and eighteenth chapter, alloweth all the Rites of Mass from the beginning almost to the end etc. (51) In 1. ad Cor. c. 1. Wiccliffe himself calleth Extreme Unction a medicine to cure sin; as appeareth (saith he) james. 1 And he affirmeth that it is made with oil of olive consecrated by a Bishop: (52) In Postilla super ca 15. Marci. and super. 1. Cor. 1. yea he elsewhere numbereth and mentioneth all the seven Sacraments: And lastly in his epistle to Pope Vrban (written not three years before his death) endeavouring to purge himself to the Pope, he plainly acknowledgeth that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ upon earth: Adding thus further, If I have erred in any of these points, I will submit myself to correction even by death if necessity so require. By all which we may see that john Wiccliffe in all the former points (now contradicted by Protestants) was wholly Catholic; As also the Age wherein he lived: A truth so evident, that Osiander (53) Cent. 6. 10. 11. p. 439. confesseth that, Wiccliffe had no companions of the same time, who might brotherly admonish him etc. and D. Humphrey (54) In vita juelli. p. 263. acknowledgeth that, In these last times he was almost the first Trumpeter of this Gospel of Protestants. So little did the fame or infamy of protestancy sound in the Christian world at Wiccliffs first beginning. In the Age before john Wiccliffe lived the Heretics Albigenses, who because they were in opinion and Sect wholly (55) FulK de successione Eccles. count. Staplet. p. 332. 333. SparK. in his Answ. to Albines p. 58. Abbots against D. Hil. p. 57 More in his Tables. p. 173. agreeing with the Waldenses, and only differing in Titles and Names according to the diversity of places and times wherein they lived; I will therefore, omitting them, come to the Waldenses, who received their name from Waldo a Catholic Layman, (56) Act. mon. p. 628. a rich Marchand of Lions, and one so unlearned (saith M. Fox) that he gave rewards to certain learned men to translate the holy Scriptures for him, and certain other works of the Doctors: by which he did confer the form of Religion in his time, to the infallible Word of God: whereupon (saith M. Fox Further) (57a) Act. Mon. p. 41. sprung up the doctrine and name of those which are called Waldenses. But Waldo being destitute of all ordinary calling, and despairing to obtain it from the Church of Rome (out of which he was gone forth) contemning the same, he taught that (57b) Illiricus in Catal. Test. veritatis p. 731. 732. 740. 745. Laymen and women might consecrate (the Sacraments) and preach: for the practice whereof the Waldenses and Albigenses were (58) Simons on the Reuel. p 165. excommunicated by the Pope: And yet this their revolt from the Roman Sea notwithstanding, (59) In jesuit. part. 2. rat. 3. p. 270. Fox Act. Mon. p. 628. D. Humphrey and M. Fox do both grant, that Waldo did forsake all things, that being poor he might follow Christ, and the Euangelical perfection, which D. Fulk (60) Against Rhem. Test. in Math. 19 f. 38. ParKins in his Reform. Cath. p. 241. and M. Parkins reject for Popish: In so much that (61) Chronogr. p. 94. Pantaleon affirmeth, that he and his followers were a very order or Profession of begging Friars, whereupon according to M. Fox, (62) Act mon. p. 41. 629. they were called, The poor men of Lions, professing, as (63) In jesuit. part. 2. p. 270. D. Humphrey urgeth, a kind of Monastical life; wherein they were so forward, that they afterwards made (64) Vrsperg. in chron. Ar. 12●2. means to Innocentius the Third than Pope, to have their Order by him confirmed, but could not prevail: It is further confessed by [65] In ep. 244 p 4●0 Caluin, that they believed the Real presence, and by (66) Against Symbolising part. 1. c 3. p. 162. M. Parker that, they retained the Sign of the Cross in the blessing of their meats. And (67a) De Ecclesia p 24. Morgensterne speaking unto them, saith: You confirm the decree of Antichrist concerning the number of the Sacraments; though that you have also often done in other articles; as in the Doctrine of Single life, of Vows, of the sacred Scripture, of good Works, of justification, Baptism of Children, and Purgatory. Now from these premises it evidently ensueth, that Waldo, immediately before his Apostasy, was a Roman Catholic, and not a member of any other Church to him then known, or in being; and so his first proceed are confessed by (68a) Of the Estate of the Church p. 338. Crispinus to have been in time of thick darkness (of Popery) and as a first and little beginning, of the instauration of the Christian Religion, to wit, the Protestant. So undoubted it resteth, that the Religion universally and publicly professed in the time of Waldo, was not any Protestant, but the Roman Religion. In the same Age lived S. Bernard, of whon saith D. Whitaker (67b) De Eccl. p. 369. & against Rainolds p. 125. 126. I do think Bernard was truly a Saint. And other Protestants ackdowledge, that he was (68b) Osiand cent. 12. p. 309. A very good man: (69) Pasquil's Return into England. p. 8. 130. A good Father, and one of the Lamps of the Church of God. D. Morton demandeth: (70) Prot. Appeal. p. 458 Why may not Protestants acknowledge S. Bernard for his life a Saint, and for his doctrine a Lamp? etc. This then, so true a Saint, good man, and clearest Lamp, was so wholly Roman Catholic, as that D. Whitaker speaking to us, saith: (71) Resp. ad Camp. p. 105. Bernard, whom your Church these many years hath brought forth one godly man etc. And Gomarus allegeth him to us (72) In speculo Eccl. Bernard your Saint. Yea he was (73) Simon de Voyon in his cattle. p. 126. the Abbot of Claravaux, and so dear to the Pope, that M. Bel termeth him, (74) Challenge. etc. p. 148. And see Abbot in his 3. part of the def. etc. In his Advertisement thereto annexed. pag. 20. Wotton in his Trial of the Roman clergy p. 265. Tossanus in Synopsi de Patribus. p. 58. The Pope's dear Monk and Reverend Abbot: Osiander and Hospinian report, that (75) Cent. 12. p. 309. Hospini. de origin. Monach. f 175 He was the founder of a hundred and forty Monasteries. And Danaeus affirmeth, that (76) 1. part. alt. parte cont. Bellar. p. 440. Hierom and Bernard were Monks, and Authors and favourers of that error. And though D. White (77) Way to the true church p. 388. blush not to object his Authority against the Pope's Primacy, yet his Writings, Doctrine, and Practice were so direct to the contrary, that therefore he is expressly reproved by (78) Against Rhem. Test in Luc 22. F. 133. Whitak. li. 2. cont. Dur. p. 154. D. Fulk, and D. Whitaker: The Centurists also, avouch that (79) Cent. 12. Col. 1637. He worshipped the God of Maozim, even unto the last breath of his life, he was a most sharp defender of the Sea of Antichrist etc. For which by other Protestant's, he is termed (80) Lib. German. quo causas recusati concilij Trid. reddunt f. 257. An impudent Writer, heaving the Pope up into an Idol, a corrupter of God's honour, and preacher of Antichrist: Yea so sincerely was he affected to the Pope and the Church of Rome, that the Centurists report him to (81) Cent. 12. Col. 1639. say to the Count of Aquitaine, whatsoever is out of the Roman Church, that by God's judgement is of necessity to perish, even as those things which were out of the Ark were drowned in the Deluge etc. As also, he that persecuteth the pope of Rome (whom the Centurists here call Antichrist) he persecuteth (saith S. Bernard) the Son of God himself. Neither was any of this Papistry noted as then to be singular in S. Bernard, but to the contrary it is confessed by M. jewel and M. Whitaker, that S. Bernard lived in the midst of the Pope's Rout and Tyranny: D. Morton as formerly, calling S. Bernard for his life a Saint, and for his doctrine a Lamp, to prevent objections thereby arising against him, providently addeth that, he neither was Saint nor Lamp (83) Prot. Appeal p. 458. Simply, as unspotted with errors, but Comparatively or &c. in his generation, that is, in respect of the Age wherein he lived: when a deluge of iniquities, and missed of Popish Superstition had endeavoured the outward face of the Church: So truly Papistical was S. Bernard. At this time of S. Bernard, lived also S. Malachias, of whom Osiander writeth thus (84) Cent. 12. p. 315. 256. Malachias an Archbishop in Ireland, from his childhood was given to learning and Religion, and at length entreated and much enforced, he undertaken to be the Archbishop of Ireland. He was very familiar with S. Bernard, admiring and imitating his Monachisme, and embracing Popish superstitions. He worshipped the Pope of Rome for God. To him very many miracles are ascribed etc. So truly Roman Catholic was S. Malachias. (82) Def. of the Apol. p 557. Whit. count. Dur. l. 2. p. 154. In the Age precedent to these lived Berengarius, who being a Catholic Priest, and the Archdeacon of Angiers, dissented afterwards from the Roman Church, in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; which yet before his death he so fully (85) Fox Act. Monu. p. 13. Westphalus 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 lived the most renowned Emperor Charles the Great, who was so wholly devoted to the Roman Religion, as that the same is plentifully aknowledged by (86) Osiand. 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 that (87) In Epist. Dedic. Hist. Sacram. Hospinian affirmeth, that The Emperor (Charles the Great) commanded not only by public Edicts, that the Ceremonies and Rites, as also the Latin Mass of the Roman Church, and the other Decrees, Statutes, and Ordinances of the Roman Bishop should be observed; but himself also by imprisonnents, and other kinds of punishments, compelled Churches to the same. Yea such was the union between the Popes of Rome, and Charles the Great, in matters of Faith and friendship, as that, according to D. Cowpers' (88) Chron. f. 174. relation, there were Certain Bishops sent by Adrian to Charles, who held a Council in France against the condemnation of Images etc. And of the other side, whereas Paulus (89) Lib. 2. Hist. Franc. Aemilius relateth, that Charles the Great sent twelve Bishops unto a Council holden at Rome by Pope Stephen, in confutation of the error of the Greeks against Images, the same is so true, that the like report thereof is made by the (90) Cent. 8. col. 570. Centurie-writers. So assured it is that this Age in the opinion of Protestants, was most superstitious and Papistical. Before Charles lived S. Bede, whom (91) Cent. 8. p. 58. Osiander termeth a good man; and D. Cowper (92) Chron. f. 171. confesseth, that he was Renowned in all the world for his learning and godly life: For which he was also privileged with the Surname of Reverend (93) holinsh. Chron at An. 735. Cowpers Chron. at An. 724 fol. 168. Fox Act. Mon. p. 128. and by D. (94) jesuit. part. 2. p. 326. Humphrey, is specially registered among The Godly men raised-up by the holy-ghost. D. Morton saith (95) Prot. Appeal. l. 1. p. 70. Although we deny not that Bede did hold diverse 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 testifieth, that S. Bede (96) Cent. 2. c. 1. was so practised in profane Authors, that he scarce had his match in that Age: He learned Physic and Metaphysic out of the purest fountains: He knew the Mysteries of the Christian Faith so sound, that for his exact knowledge both of Greek and Latin, many preferred him before Gregory the Great: There is scarce any thing worth reading to be found in all Antiquity, which in due places is not read in Bede: If he had lived in the times of Augustin, Hierom, Chrysostom; I doubt not but he might have contended for Equality with them: He put forth many books full of all kind of Learning. M. Fox acknowledgeth that, (97) Act. Mon. p. 127. He was a man of worthy and memorable memory, and famous learning; The whole Latin Church at that time gave him the Mastery in judgement, and knowledge of the holy Scripture. M. Bel granteth (98) Downfall. that Bede for virtue and learning (was) renowned in all the world. And M. Cambden recordeth, that Bede. (99) Descrip. Brit. p. 670. the singular glory of England, by Piety and Erudition, obtained the name of Venerable; wrote many volumes most leardnedly. So truly godly, learned, and renowned was S. Bede, even in the judgement of Protestants. But now to observe in particular, whether the Faith and Religion taught, believed, and practised by this so worthy a man, was Roman Catholic, or English Protestant; [100] Cent. 8. p. 58. Osiander (who before called him A good man) in express terms confesseth, that Bede was wrapped in all the Popish Errors, wherein we (Protestants) at this day descent from the Pope: For he admired and embraced the worship of Images; the Popish Mass; Invocation of Saints etc. In which respect also M. Fox (101) Act. Mon. p. 128. 129. acknowledgeth, that he lived in great credit and esteem with the Popes of that Age, whom M. Fulk (102) Retentive ag. Bristol p. 278. termeth, Antichrists, and thereupon rejecteth S. Bedes authority, saying: The last Testimony out of Bede, who lived under the Tyranny of Antichrist, I will not stand upon; M. Sanders may have great store of such. For (103) Against Rhem. Test. in Heb. 10.11. Bede lived in a superstitious time, long after Antichrist did openly show himself etc. He affirmed that, Men understood that the healthful Sacrifice, availed to Redemption both of body and soul everlasting; and, (104) Ib. in 1. Pet. 3.19. In some things (was) carried away with the errors and corruptions of his time. By which it clearly appeareth, that in the Age of S. Bede, the Popes of Rome were so Roman Catholic, and the external government of the Church thereto so answerable, that our modern Protestants do therefore traduce those ancient Popes for Antichrists, and their Government for Tyranny. In the Age before S. Bede lived the two most famous Brethren named Eualdi, whom M. Bale termeth (105) In Catal. Scrip. etc. Cent. 14. p. 145. Osiand. Cent. 7. p. 559. Papistical Martyrs suffering for Papistry. And though D. Morton (106) Prot. Appeal p. 67. 68 endeavoureth to obscure this by affirming, that Protestant Writers were doubtful whether the said Brethren died by the hands of Christians or Infidels, which later himself thinketh more probable, yet this hindereth not, but, according to his Brother Bale, and Osiander cited by himself, that they died for our Roman Faith. Yea so little was this doubt, that D. Morton himself saith: If notwithstanding (Catholics) shall insist in their claim of these Two, suffering death in maintenance of Papal jurisdiction over foreign Churches, miserable will be their issue; especially considering that we have many Twoes to oppose against these, even a thousand and two hundred religious Britan's, who in a resolute resistance of that jurisdiction and Authority of Austin the Legate of S. Gregory, died under the hands of Pagans, and (as Galfrid speaketh) suffered Martyrdom. But to omit that Protestants (107) Carthwright in his 2. Reply. part. 1. p. 475. themselves charge this Galfrid with untruth; and too too childish errors, whereof his own (108) See l. 8. c. 19 & l. 9 c. 4. & l. 10. c. 3. & l. 12. c. 4. etc. writings will be best witnesses, as also that D. Morton doth untruly and undeservedly, refer the death of these religious Britan's, occasionally to S. Augustin; I can not yet but observe the greatest penury of ancient Protestant Martyrs, when D. Morton is glad to claim for such, those who lived and died Catholic Monks, even the Monks of Bangor: So great a Bangor doth our Doctor make, in making Protestants Ministers and Martyrs of Religious Monks. THAT THE FAITH OF S. GREGORY AND S. Augustin, and whereto England was by them converted, was our Roman Catholic, and not Protestant. CHAPTER. iv TO arise even to the height or beginning of these last thousand years, and first to examine the Faith of S. Gregory and his time: Concerning him D. Morton writeth (1) Prot. Appeal. p 5. we willingly confess that S. Gregory was an happy Father of the Faith of many, and delivered to them the saving knowledge of Christ crucified. And as concerning our Country's Conversion by him, he further saith: (2) Prot. Appeal. p. 60. This happiness of our English Conversion to the Faith of Christ, and worthiness of our Converter S. Gregory, we could easily acknowledge without any further ado &c, And again, our (Protestants) Authors looking on their right hand, beholding how Pagans and Heathenish people etc. by the light of the Gospel, through the Ministry of Austin the Legate of S. Gregory, were brought unto the Fold of Christ, did together with the Angels of heaven, rejoice in remembrance of this their happiness, and therefore called it a gracious Conversion: And that most justly, seeing our said Conversion was confessedly from Paganism to the true Faith of Christ; for so Hollinshead testifieth that, (3) Description of Britanny l. 11. c. 7. S. Austin was sent by Gregory to preach to Englishmen the Word of God; who were yet blind in Pagan superstition. And Anno 596. Gregory sent Austin into this Isle to preach the Christian Faith unto the English Saxons; which Nation as yet had not received the Gospel. Agreably also hereunto saith M. Cambden: (4) Descript. Britan. p. 104. Austin having rooted-out the Monsters of Heathenish superstition, engrafting Christ in English-mens minds, with most happy success converted them to the Faith. And the like is acknowledged by M. Fox (5) Act. Mon. 110. 115. 172. Bale Cent. 1. c. 73. Cent. c. 1. Witaker count. Dur. p. 394. Cooper. chron. anno 599. Stow. 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 it (6) Act. Mon. p. 111. 120. 122 The Christian Faith (7) Ib. p. 115. 116. the Faith and Doctrine of Christ: (8) Ib p. 121. Christ's Religion, and that Church, The Church of Christ, and The (9) Ib. p. 112. perfect Faith of Christ. Cowper styleth it, (10) Chron. anno 636. The right Belief: Stow, (11) Chron. p. 9 The Christian Faith and (12) Ibid. p. 72. pure and incorrupted Christianity. Cambden, (13) Descript. Brit. p. 519. The true Religion of Christ. (14) In vit. Paulin. Godwine, The Gospel; and sundry such like. Now this our Conversion to this Faith of Christ by the means of Saint Gregory, was in truth, a Blessing so great, that (15) Cont. Duraeum l. 5. p. 394. 502. 397. D. Whitaker most humbly thus writeth thereof; we will ever most gratefully remember that great benefit which Gregory bestowed upon us: And, I confess S. Gregory to have been a good and holy man etc. He was a learned and holy Bishop. (16) jesuit. p. 2. p. 624. D. Humphrey termeth him therefore, Gregory in name Great, and indeed Great; and M. Bel (17) Survey of Popery p. 187. calleth him, S. Gregory surnamed the Great, the holy and learned Bishop of Rome. According to (18) Cent. 1. c. 68 M. Bale, He was the most excellent of all the Bishops of Rome for learning and life: That against his will, and striving to the contrary, and at last compelled, he succeeded Pope Pelagius: That he was a learned and good man, founded Hospitals, invited Pilgrims to his Table, sent things necessary to the Monks of Jerusalem, and maintained three thousand Virgins. (19) Ibid. c. 7. He reduced the Goths from Arianisme to the Church, professed himself by writing the Servant of God's servants, that thereby he might appear most far from all Ambition and desire of command. In like sort is S. Augustin honoured by M. Godwine (20) Catalogue. of Bish. p. 7. and See Cambd. Descript. Brit. p 515. & 178. Bale Cent. 13. c. 7. Cent. 14. c. 13. with the Title of our Apostle. Whereof also saith M. Mason (21) Consecration of English Bishops p. 57 58. for as much as Lethardus gathered but a few clusters, and the main Vintage was reserved for Austin, let us enlarge the signification of the word, Apostle, and extend it to Austin; and moreover (though improperly) to Gregory and Eleutherius etc. whose proceed towards the Prince were Chistian, honest, and orderly. They came to plant the Faith of Christ etc. They came to preach obedience etc. Their Gospel was a Gospel of peace etc. They converted People etc. They sought to build the Church etc. Yea S. Augustine's desire to convert the Pagans, and his dutiful respect to the Prince, deserve to be written in Letters of gold. So worthily doth this Prostant here think of S. Eleutherius, S. Gregory, and S. Austin. And no less are his most deserved praises blazed by M. Hollinshead recording that (22) History of Engl. Austin and his company arrived at Canterbury, where he made his abode by the King's permission, exercised the life of Apostles, in fasting, watching, and prayers; preaching the word of God to as many as they could, despising all worldly pleasures as not appertaining to them etc. Also Ethelbert was persuaded by the good example of S. Austin and his company, and by miracles showed, to be Baptised: The like hereof is testified by (23) Act. Mon. p. 105. 116. M. Fox. D. Bilson also acknowledgeth that (24) of Obedience p. 57 Austin and his fellows came with Religion to God, and submission to Princes. Stow reporteth that (25) Chron. p. 65. S. Austin and his fellows lived in the fear of God. And D. Godwine acknowledgeth that (26) Vita August. He was a Monk of great virtue; calling him S. Austin. But now to be satisfied, what was the Faith and Religion taught by these two so holy men, S. Gregory, and S. Austin; or what the universal and public profession of Christians all over the world at those times was, whether Catholic or Protestant, I will appeal to our Protestant Doctors: Amongst whom writeth M. Bale, that (27) Cent 1. c. 68 etc. 70. Gregory burdened the Church and Religion of God more than all, with more than jewish ceremonies: He ordered the Rites of Mass, commanded Masses to be said over the dead bodies of the Apostles, devised Litanies and Procession, permitted the Image of the Blessed Virgin to be carried about, confirmed Pilgrimage to Images by Indulgences for the people's Devotions: He was maintainer of Pardons, granted Indulgences to those that visit Churches on certain days, made four Books of Dialogues for strengthening Purgatory, admitted Adoration of the Cross, and Masses for the Dead, called englishmans to Romish Rites by Austin the Monk (28) Cent. 1. fol. 3. who was sent from Gregory to season the English Saxons with the Popish Faith. And (29) jesuit. part. 2. rat. 5. p. 5. & 627. D Humphrey affirmeth, that they brought into England the whole Chaos of Popish superstition. M. Harison chargeth (30) Description of Brittany before Holinsh. Chron. vol. 1. p ●7. Austin to have converted the Saxons from Paganism, to no less hurtful superstition than they did know before, making a● Exchange from open, 〈◊〉 secret Idolatry. In so much as he (31) Ibid. p. 29. 27. concludeth in plain ●ea●●es, tha● Augustin came and brought-in Popery. In like sort (32) Apologia pro coena Domini p. 33. M. Ascham chargeth him to be The overthrower of true Religion, and the establisher of all Popish Doctrine. D. Abbot's terming S. Austin (33) Answ. to. D. Bishop. p. 197. A black Monk, affirmeth, that this (34) Ibid. p. 20 Italian Monk brought new observations from Rome, and the English received the same: And that, this (35) Ibi. p. 198 Romish Priest requireth the British Bishops to be subject to his Romish Authority: And, this Romish Archbishop brought-in Novelties and Superstitions, and did contaminate the Faith of Christ; Mellitus, Laurentius, justus, all of Augustine's Company, and condition. D. Fulk affirmeth that (36) Against Rhem. Test. in 1. Cor. 4. Austin did not beget the Nation of Englishmen to Christ by the pure Gospel etc. but with mixture of men's Traditions: And that Christian Religion which he found in the Britan's, he laboured to corrupt with Romish Inventions. M. Bale avoucheth that (37) Cent. 1. c. 70. Austin entered not with the Gospel of Christian peace, but with the Banner of his Apostleship, with a Silver Cross, Litanies, Procession, Images, painted Pictures, Relics, and Ritual books. And that (38) Ib. c. 73. King Ethelbert first of all English men received of Gregory the First, Bishop of Rome, by Austin, the opinion of the Roman Religion, with all inposture or deceit; and died the One and twentith of his received Papism. As also that (39) Cent. 8. c. 85. Austin brought-in Popish Monkery, and besides the Pope's Traditions (o Heretical mouth) brought nothing but man's dung. (40) Cent. 13. c. 1. Austin the Roman brought hither Romish rites without sound doctrine. The King received Romanisme with the annexed Idolatries: He brought in Monks, Altars, Vestments, Images, Masses, Chalices, Crosses, Candlesticks, Banners, Holy (as they call them) Vessels, holy Water, and Books of Roman Customs: Their chiefest studies were about the oblations of Masses. (41) Cent. 14. c. 31. Yea Austin disposed all things in England to the form of the Synagogue of Rome, and made Englishmen honourers of the Pope. Finally (42) Catal. Scrip. Illust. cent. 14. p. 117. Austin by his interpreters taught our people the Papistical Faith. Whereupon D. Fulk termeth our (43) Against. Purgat. p 333. Conversion from Infidelity, our perversion. (44) Resp. ad Bellar. p. 1. p. 780. And Danaeus calleth it, The inebriation of the whore (of Babylon) mentioned Apoc. 17. Concerning these two last testimonies of D. Fulk and Danaeus, D. Morton saith (45) Prot. Appeal. p. 60. These Apologists with more art than truth, do object unto us, our own Authors calling it a perversion and inebriation, herein perverting their direct meaning, and propounding their testimonies as spoken absolutely concerning every particular point of Roman Faith, which was only respectively, and restraynedly intended: But as this Gloss is only his voluntary Imagination, and indeed a direct perverting of his own Brethren, so is it sufficiently confuted by so many Protestant Doctors last cited, and next following, who most agreably confess, that the Faith (speaking in general) taught here by Austin, was the Popish Faith, the whole chaos of Popish Superstition: Yea Popery itself. Wherefore to proceed (46) Trial of the Romish. Clergy. p. 377. M. Wotton avoucheth that, Neither was England converted by your proud Monk Austin, but perverted rather. And (47) Answ. to. a Popish apology. f. 8. D. Fulk affirmeth that, Austin an unlearned Monk came into the Land to corrupt the sincerity of the Faith, which the Britan's had received etc. Yea S. Augustin was so wholly ours that (48) 2. Reply. part 1. p 301. M. Cartwright calleth him, Romish Augustin. And (49) Tetrastylon Papismi. p. 122. D. Willet expressly placeth Augustin and Gregory among the first Fathers of superstition, and Captains and Ringleaders of Popish Divines. Sir Edward Hobbie termeth him (50) In his Letter to M. higgon's. p. 92. Proud and insolent Augustin, your Great Gregory's delegate. M. Price styleth him, that (51) A●sw. to. Leech. l. 1. c. 4. p. 69. Proud petty Monk Austin. And M. jewel affirmeth that Austin was (52) Reply. Art. 3. p. 185. Neither of Apostolic spirit, nor any way worthy to be called a Saint, but an Hypocrite, a superstitious man, cruel, bloody, and proud above measure. M. Mason affirmeth that, His superfluity of ceremonies might well have been spared. He was too forward to display the Pope's Banner, (53) Consecration of Eng. Bishops. p. 58. and his behaviour towards the Britain's was full of Pride and disdain. The (54) Cent. 6. c. 10. col ●49. Centurists write: when (Austin) had troubled the Britain Churches Thirteen years, and subdued them to the Roman Antichrist he died etc. But (55) Cent. 6. p. 290. Osiander proceedeth much further, affirming that, He Subdued England to the lust of the Roman Antichrist; and therefore after his death went undoubtedly to Hell, there to receive his reward. A reward unjust, and a Sentence over-cruel for so great benefits as he bestowed upon us, even by D. Whitakers, and other Protestants most grateful former aknowledgement. But hence it clearly appeareth that the Faith of S. Gregory, S. Austin, and whereto England was by them converted, was Roman Catholic. Neither was this pretended Popish superstition the private opinions of S. Gregory and S. Austin, but the universal Doctrine and belief of that Age. Insomuch that (56) Hist. Sacram. l. 2. p. 157 Hospinian confesseth that, In the Age of Gregory the Great, all kind of superstition and Idolatry as a certain Sea owerflowed, overwhelmed, and wholly overdrowned almost all the Christian world; No man not only not resisting, but all adding and affording rather what strength they could. And (57) Defence of the Answ. to the Admonition p. 442. D. Whitguift speaking of Anno Domini 659. so wholly distrusteth the Doctors of those times, that he resolutely avoucheth: He would be loath to allege any Council of that time, to prove any thing in Controversy. So confessedly was the universal Church of Christians, at the time of S. Gregory S. Austin, and England's Conversion, in the opinion of Protestants, altogether Popish, Antichristian, and Romish; and indeed, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, prescribed by our Creed: The Sect of Protestants during the same time, being not so much as divised, stamped, heard-of, or being in any, though most base, or obscurest part of the world. Now all this, as well of the high and most deserved praises given to S. Gregory and S. Austin, for their virtue, learning, and other singular gifts; as also, that the Faith and Religion which themselves professed, and whereto they converted this our Native Country from execrable Paganism, was truly the perfect Faith of Christ, and pure and incorrupted Christianity: And lastly, that this so pure Faith, was our now Roman Catholic Faith; I have here convinced by the testimonies and acknowledgements even of her greatest Enemies; as namely by Osiander, Danaeus, the Magdeburgians, Hospinian, Hollinshead, Cambden, Fox, Bale, Whitaker, Cowper, Humphrey, Bel, Godwine, Bilson, Stow, Mason, Abbots, Fulk, Harison, Ascham, Wotton, Carthwright, Willet, Hobby, Price, jewel, Whitguift, and Morton; all of them Protestant Writers. THAT THE PRESENT ROMAN CHURCH AND Religion, continued and Flourished during the whole time of the Primitive Church, containing the first Six hundred years after Christ. CHAPTER. V Having thus proved the confessed being, and public general practice and profession for these last thousand years, of our Roman Faith and Religion; I will now endeavour the self same proof and confirmation for the first Six hundred years after Christ: Which for greater perspicuity, I will divide into two several Stations or times; The First, from Constantin the Great, to Gregory the Great; the Second, from Christ and his Apostles, to Constantin again. In which behalf I find it affirmed by (1) Upon the Revel. f. 110. M. Brocard, that The Pope fell from Christ in the time of Sylvester (who lived with Constantin) and that for a Thousand two hundred and sixty years, the Church was oppressed and trodden down by the Papacy, even from Syluesters time to these days. In like sort avoucheth M. Brightman (2) In Apoc. p. 462. that ever since the time of Constantin the Great, Rome hath been the whore of Babylon, and the Roman Bishop hath been the Beast, and Antichrist (3) Ibid. p. 471 And again saith he: As above we have made manifest, it necessarily followeth, since the time of the Heathen Emperors, the Pope of Rome to have been that greatest Antichrist, of whom the Scriptures have so diligently forewarned, and the City of Rome from that time, to have been the Whore etc. foretold in the Apocalypse. M. Leigh (4) Great Britanies great Delivery f. B. 2 addeth hereunto that, The Pope's ever since the first Three hundred years after Christ have been Devils. But no man speaketh more plainly then M. Napper (whom (5) Upon the Revel. p. 262. M. Dent termeth a learned Writer, and an excellent man) This so learned a Writer plentifully acknowledgeth (6) Upon the Revel. p. 68 And See p. 43. that Between the year of Christ 300. and 316. the Antichristian and Papistical reign began, reigning universally and without any debatable contradiction 1260. And that (7) Ibid. p. 145 Even 1260. years, the Pope and his Clergy, hath possessed the outward visible Church of Christians. (8) Ibid. p. 239 Never suffering for the space of 1000 years after Sylvester the First, any to be seen vouchable or visible of the true (Protestant) Church etc. I will not here stay to confute the wilful vanity of D. Morton, who for his best answer to this so clear testimony of M. Napper writeth thus (9) Prot. Appeal p. 72. But this witness (alas for the darkness of judgement of these Apologists) speaketh not of the whole Profession of the Romish Church, but only of one article predominant therein, namely the Doctrine of Popedom etc. But seeing he speaketh in general of the outward visible Church of Christians, which includeth all Points believed by that Church; and that the same Church during the said time, was so wholly possessed by the Pope and his Clergy, that not so much as any one of the Protestant Church was then to be seen, I may more justly say: Alas for want of honesty, or learning, or both in D. Morton. And this the more I might inculcate, seeing his own guilty Conscience at last bewrayeth himself saying (10) Ibid. p. 662. If one of our Adversary's themselves (when six of their principal Doctors were produced against him) was licenced to except against them etc. how much more lawful might it be for us, to deny the testimonies but of two Authors, not of eminent note for Learning and judgement etc. So willing indeed is M. Doctor to detract from the Authority and testimonies of his own dear 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 book, will clearly discover, that there were many more Twoes of this opinion. Wherefore to proceed, M. Brightman (11) Apoc. p. 503. thus urgeth Bellarmine: As concerning the continuance of the Apostasy (from the true Faith) we have learned by the Apocalypse that the same hath prevailed more than 1260. years, and that more clearly than any of your Subtleties can evade. (12) Ibid. p. 539. And again: Antichrist hath reigned from the time of Constantin the Great, to this day; whereof the Apocalypse affordeth such Demonstrations, as never any jesuit can confute. Yea (13) Ibid. p. 477. further: The Pope of Rome is the Beast, which 1300. years received power etc. therefore from 1300. years he is the Antichrist. So certain it is, by M. Brightmen strongest Demonstrations, grounded upon Scripture, that the present Roman Religion, hath continued for these last 1300. years; during which time the Pope in his opinion hath reigned as Antichrist. Answerably hereunto (14) Against Staplet. & Martial. p. 25. D. Fulk relateth, that some Protestants have written that the Pope hath blinded the world these many hundred years; some say 1000 some 1200. some 900. etc. And (15) In Apoc. p. 263. Winckelmanus speaking of the beginning and end of the Church's 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 Worms excellently gave testimony to the truth; and so the beginning should be from Anno Christi 261. etc. (16) De Antichristo. p. 96. Danaeus also, speaking of Antichrists first coming, confesseth that some Protestant Writers teach, that he came in the Year 1000 others 500 others 400. from Christ's birth. So clear it is, that the Pope of Rome, for these 1300. years, in the opinion of Protestants, hath reigned as Antichrist. But as the Popes for these last 1300. years, are thus censured for Antichrists, so are the most ancient and first Christian Emperor's, condemned for Papists and favourers of Antichrist. For though D. Morton, speaking of the Pope's authority, affirmeth that it hath been (17) Prot. Appeal. p. 661. often and notoriously contradicted in Antiquity etc. by right Christian and renowned Emperors: Yet M. Brightman speaking of the very first most ancient and Christian Emperors averreth the contrary, saying (18) Apoc. p. 344. Into which Catalogue come Constantin the Great, Constantius, Constans, Constantin; and their Sons, julian, jovinian, Valentinian, Gratian, Valentinian the Second, Theodosius etc. for these then reigning, the Beast was notably defended, and his dignity much increased. Agreably saith (19) Rejoind. to Bristol. p. 2. D. Fulk: I never meant to acknowledge the Emperor's Constantin, jovinian, Valentinian etc. to be such as I would wish for: For both in their Religion and manners, diverse things are found, which I could wi●h had been more agreeable to the Word of God. So that for the second 300. years after Christ it resteth evident, and for such acknowledged, that The Pope and his Clergy, possessed the outward visible Church of Christians; never suffering for 1000 years after Sylvester the First, any to be seen vouchable or visible of the (Protestant) Church. For which very cause all the Popes of those Ages are censured for Antichrists, and the very first Christian Emperors, for their favourers and defenders. To make now the like trial of the Roman Churches Continuance, and her universal and public profession and practice of her Faith and Religion for the first 300. years after Christ, to wit, from his blessed Apostles to Pope Silvester the First, and Constantin the Great: Whereas our Catholic Writers do often object the Custom of the ancient Fathers in provoking the Heretics of their times with the Succession of the Roman Bishops, according to the example of Ireneus, Cyprian, Tertullian, Optatus, Hierom, Augustin, and Vincentius Lyrinensis (20) Against Purgat. p. 373. D. Fulk for his best answer, is enforced to confess, 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. (21) Conference with M. Hart. p. 442. D. Raynolds being provoked 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 etc. (22) Instit. l. 4. c. 2. sec. 2. 3. And Caluin himself setting down our foresaid Allegation, affirmeth of Catholics that, They indeed set forth their Church very gloriously etc. They report out of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Augustin, and others, how highly they esteemed this Succession; whereto he giveth the like answer and reason, saying: Considering it was a matter out of all doubt, that from the beginning even until that time, nothing was changed in Doctrine; the foresaid Doctors took in argument, that which was sufficient for the overthrowing of all new errors, to wit, that the Heretics oppugned the doctrine which even from the very Apostles themselves had been inviolable, and with one consent retained. And in his book of Institutions set forth in French, he writeth expressly, that, It was a thing notorious, and without doubt, that after the Apostles Age until those (foresaid) times, no change was made in doctrine, neither at Rome, nor other Cities. In like sort saith Zanchius (23) De vera Relig. p. 148. In times past, the Roman Church and the succession of their Bishops, until the times of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, & Some others, was (such) as that not undeservedly these Fathers were accustomed to provoke and cite the Heretics of their time to her, and others such like (24) De Ecclesia p. 278. D. Whitaker speaking of certain Apostolical Churches, and amongst them of Rome by Name, collecteth thus: From whence we understand why Tertullian provoked 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 saith (25) Against. Purgat. p. 374 D. Fulk: The Church of Rome retained by succession, until Tertullia's days, that Faith which it did first receive of the Apostles (26) Fox his Act. & Mon. p. 1359. M. Ridley avoucheth that, The Patriarch of Rome in the Apostles time, and long after, was a great maintainer and Setter forth of Christ's glory; in the which, above all other Countries and Regions, was preached the true Gospel, the Sacraments were most duly administered etc. After the Emperors became Christians the Gospel there flourished most. And (27) Reply to Harding. p. 246. D. jewel freely granteth, that Aswel S. Austin, as also other godly Fathers, rightly yielded Reverence to the Sea of Rome etc. for the purity of Religion which was there preserved a long time without Spot. And again (28) Ibid. p. 628. The godly Fathers (of those foresaid times) sought to the Church of Rome, which then for purity in Religion, and Constancy in the same, was most famous above all others. (29) Survey of the Pope's supremacy p. 85. M. Bunnie speaking of the very same times affirmeth that, At that time, there was no Church that did more sincerely keep that which the Apostles taught etc. These so frequent, and free testimonies of our Adversaries, for Rome's Continuance in the true Faith and Religion, from the Apostles until the time of S. Austin, are so clear from all exception and further Comment, that D. Morton in steed of other answer saith (30) Prot. Appeal. p. 573. This general consent of our so profoundly judicious Protestants, in appealing unto the Primitive Church for the space of the first Four hundred and forty years after Christ, thus acknowledged by our Adversaries, may well serve for a just reproof of their slander, who usually upbraid Protestants with Contempt of all Antiquity; for here even old Rome is commended by Protestants. By all which it is most evident, not only that the Roman Church with continual succession of Bishops, hath still continued even from the Apostles until the times of S. Augustin, Epiphanius, Optatus, etc. which was for Four hundred and forty years after Christ; but withal during the same time, for purity in Religion and constancy in the same, she continued most famous above all other Churches. But to arise (31) Upon the Revelat. p. 191. And See Cent. 2. c. 4. col. 55. M. Napper avoucheth that, During even the Second and Third Ages (next after Christ) the true temple of God, & light of the (Protestant) Gospel was obscured by the Roman Antichrist himself. Whereto are assenting (32) In bancroft's Survey c. 27. p. 343. M. Carthwright and Beza; And (33) Against Symbolising with Antichrist part. 2. sec. 8. p. 128. M. Parker saith: I know right well, that within the Two hundred years after Christ, there were crept into the Church many idle Ceremonies etc. There began in this mixed Age, Exufflation of the Baptised: Consecration of the Font with oil and Cross: Oil in Baptism: the Reserving of the Sacrament: Exorcism: Offering and prayer for the dead: Fasting on certain days, with opinion of Necessity and Satisfaction: and the seeds of Monkery: See then among what weeds the Cross grew up, and in what a dunged soil of many superstitions! saith M. Parker. But (34) Epist. de Abrogandis in universum omnibus statutis Eccles. Sebastianus Francus averreth for most certain that, Presently after the Apostles times, all things were turned upside down etc. And that for certain, through the work of Antichrist, the external Church, together with the Faith and Sacraments, vanished away presently after the Apostles departure etc. M. Bunnie (35) Treatise tending to Pacification. sec. 14. p. 89. using all wariness to acknowledge more then of necessity he must, confesseth yet (as enforced) of the whole time since the Apostles to this present, that The Church of Rome hath ever continued after a sort in profession of the Faith, since the time that by the Apostles it was delivered to them etc. And hath also in some manner preserved, and hitherto maintained both the Word and Sacraments, that Christ himself did leave unto us; which surely (saith he) is a very special blessing of God, and an evident work of the Holy Ghost. D. Field (36) Of the Church. l. 3. c. 6. p. 72. speaking of the Latin or Roman Church before Luther's appearing, affirmeth that, It is frivolous that some demand, where our Church was before Luther began; for we say, it was, where now it is. If they ask us which? we answer, it was the known and apparent Church in the world, wherein all our Fathers lived and died, wherein Luther and the rest were Baptised, received their Christianity, Ordination etc. Not forbearing to make his Title of that Chapter in these words: Of the Latin Church that it continued the true Church of God till our time &c Now it is plentifully heretofore confessed, that the known and apparent Church of the world for many hundred years together before Luther, and wherein Luther was Baptised, ordained Priest, and a Professed Austin-fryar, was the only Roman, or Latin Church, which as then reigned universally; the Protestant Church, during the said time, being confessedly latent, unknown, invisible, and indeed not in being; as shall be proved at large hereafter. But for the surer sealing-up of all which hath been said in this behalf, I desire lastly to be observed, that whereas D. Whiteguift (37) Defence etc. p. 351. justly urgeth against M. Carthwright, this general rule or proof of Apostolic Doctrine, saying: For so much as the original or beginning of these names, Metropolitan, Archbishop &c such is their Antiquity, can not be found, so far as I have read; it is to be supposed they have their original from the Apostles themselves; for as I remember S. Austin hath this rule in his hundred and eighteenth Epistle. And it is of (38) 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. Gualther; and surely I think no learned man doth descent from them. In like sort saith (39) Answer to objections against the Cross in Baptism p. 26. D. Fotherbie in behalf of the Cross: If it be but an humane Invention, let us know I pray you the first Inventer of it, and when it was first decreed, and how it came so soon to be so generally observed, which if you can not show us, I think we may with greater probability esteem it to be an Apostolical tradition: And so of the contrary according to (40) Contra Duraeuml. 7. p. 479. D. Whitakers opinion, no man denyeth, but that it much availeth to the confuting of Heresies to know their beginning. Now according to these Rules, it is so certain, that the present Roman Religion was delivered by the Apostles, and thus continued to us, that (41) In Whitegu Def. p. 352. M. Carthwright inferreth from the foresaid Rule, That thereby a window is open to bring in all Popery. And, I appeal (saith he) to the judgement of all men, if this be not to bring in Popery again, to allow of S. Augustine's Saying etc. But now a little to observe, what our last Refiner M. D. Morton, determineth concerning this foresaid Rule of S. Austin: Whereas D. Whiteguift (whom M. Morton styleth their (42) Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 228. learned Archbishop, and an (43) Ibid. p. 225. Author of worth) did formerly avouch that the said Rule was of Credit, even with (the Protestant) Writers of our time, namely with M. Suinglius, M. Caluin, and M. Gualther, and that he thinketh no learned man doth descent from them: Yet M. Morton) who would take it unkindly, and that deservedly, to be censured for Unlearned) doth thus far adventure directly to discredit and disauthorize the foresaid Rule, as shamefully to curtle it, both in breadth and depth: The (44) Ibid. p. 345. breadth (saith he, though most untruly) reacheth no further than unto matters of Ceremonies and other Customs of the Church etc. Secondly, the depth of the same position, if it be rightly sounded, will be found to be a truth of strong Probability only, and not of an absolute infallibility: which is to say in good English, that the said Rule only concerneth trifles, and matters of small moment, as also, that it is not a certain true Rule, but peradventure true, and peradventure false: which strongly implieth, that our Doctor, in matters of faith and moment, now disputed between Catholics and Protestants would be loath to be squared and tried thereby: And so in substance acknowledgeth that which he reproveth in M. Carthwright, that thereby a window is open to bring in all Popery. So evidently in deed doth the foresaid Rule prescribed by S. Austin, and approved by so many of the learned Protestants, strongly confirm and convince the uninterrupted Current, and continuance of our Roman Religion, from the Apostles themselves to these our days. Agreably to the premises (45) Consideration of the Papists supplication p. 43. M. Powel expressly, and ingenuously confesseth: We can not tell by whom, or at what time (saith he) the enemy did sow (the Papists Doctrine) etc. Neither indeed do we know who was the first Author of every one of your blasphemous opinions. (46) Rejoinder to Bristol p. 265. D. Fulk answering to the demand of the Roman Churches change saith thereto: I answer, my Text saith, it was a mystery not revealed, and therefore could not be at first openly preached against etc. And though D. Whitaker taught before, that, No man denied, but that it much availed for the confuting of Heresies to have known their beginning, Yet the same (47) Resp. ad Rat. Comp. p. 101. D. Whitaker is enforced to confess, that, The time of the Roman Churches change can not easily be told; Yea to such absurdities are Protestants brought in this point, that, Vrbanus Rhegius being urged to show wherein the Roman Church had changed her Faith, at last betaketh himself to this desperate boldness, saying (48) In 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, saith he. And yet I think hardly any one Protestant can be picked out so ignorant or impudent as will openly avouch, that the Roman Church was not a true Church, when S. Paul writ unto the Romans in these words (49) Ep. Ad Rom c. 11. vers. 5.6.7.8.9.11.12. By (Christ) we received Grace and Apostleship, for obedience to the Faith in all Nations etc. among whom are you also the called of jesus Christ. To all that are at Rome the beloved of God, called to be Saints. Grace to you, and Peace from God our Father and our Lord jesus Christ. First I give thanks to my God etc. for all you, because your Faith is renowned in the whole world etc. without intermission I make a memory of you always in my prayers etc. And, I desire to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual grace to confirm you; that is to say, to be comforted together in you by that which is common to us both, your Faith and mine. Now if the Roman Churches Faith was once thus the same with S. Paul's Faith, then if she never changed her said Faith (as this Protestant supposeth) she must needs continue a true Church. All this Sun shine notwithstanding, D. Morton will needs defend his brother Rhegius herein, because (50) Prot. App. p. 675. diverse Heretics who lived in the Apostles times, such as were the Simonians, Basilidians, Nicolaitans, albeit they lived in the days of the Apostles, yet did they not profess the Doctrine of the Apostles, which sufficiently demonstrateth the infirmity of the Consequence: But I must confess, I did not expect such weak Demonstrations from D. Morton; for the Consequence was not, that Heretics lived in the Apostles days, therefore their Doctrine, is the doctrine of the Apostles; as our Doctor would abuse an uncautelous or unlearned Reader, but as himself before thus confessed: The Church of Rome hath not altered any 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 clear (supposing that the Church of Rome in Saint Paul's time professed the true Faith, which I have formerly proved, and no Protestant dare deny) as that all further proof would discover no less tediousness in the Writer, than the denying thereof, hath bewrayed ignorance and temereity in M. Doctor. So clear it is, that no Protestant whosoever, is able to assign any known beginning of our Roman Religion since the Apostles times. Wherefore in plain terms they ascribe the beginning thereof to S. Paul's time. To this effect saith D. Willet (51) Synopsis Controu. 2. q. 3. p. 56. Therefore S. Paul calleth Papistry a mystery of iniquity which began even to work in his days. M. Midleton (52) Papistomastix. p. 193. avoucheth, that we are sure that the Mystery of inquitie did work in Paul's time, and fell not a sleep so soon as Paul was dead, waking again 600. years after, when this Mystery was disclosed etc. And therefore no marvel, though, perusing Counsels, Fathers, and Stories from the Apostles forward, we find the print of the Pope's feet etc. M. Parkins desiring 53 Reformed Cath. p. 329. To stop the mouths of Papists, who demand of us (saith he) where our Church was fourscore years before Luther: They are answered (saith he) that our Church hath been since the days of the Apostles, and that in the very midst of the Papacy. So supposing the Papacy, or Roman Church, to have continued since the days of the Apostles. Lastly the truth hereof is so certain, that the same is acknowledged by our severest (54) Survey of the BooK of common prayer in the Preface to the King p. 18. Puritan, who speaking to the King's Majesty give this wholesome persuasion: Let not your Majesty be now deceived by the Popish Argument of supposed Antiquity, as joseph was with the old and mouldy bread of the Gibeonites etc. And the rather (o christian King) take heed, because Antichrist began to work even in the Apostles days. So undoubted, and to be supposed it is, that the Argument drawn from the longest Continuance and greatest Antiquity is a Popish Argument; And the Doctrine of the Pope or Church of Rome was so timely working, as that it was in being even in the Apostles days. For our Conclusion then, we have it here confessed, that ever since the time of Constantin, and Pope Silvester, which containeth some 1300 years, all Popes, and the Church of Rome, have been so agreeable in Doctrine and Faith with our Present Pope and Church, that therefore they are all censured for Antichrists, & Rome for Babylon; the imagined Protestant Church, during the same time, not having any one visible member in the world: And not only this, but that even our first Christian Emperor's are reproved by Protestants, in regard of their very Religion, and their honouring and defending of the foresaid Popes. And as for the Roman Churches continuance from Christ's time until the Reign of Constantin, it is plentifully acknowledged, that as she was founded by the Apostles, so she continued in the doctrine of the Apostles, even until the very times of S. Augustin, who flourished almost 100 years after Constantin; in so much as during all the said time, the very Succession of Roman Bishops, is granted by Protestants, to have been a good proof of the true Faith. And whereas S. Augustine's Rule of making all such Doctrine truly Apostolical, as hath no known beginning since the Apostles, is approved, and applauded by the learnedst Protestants; yet themselves likewise confess, that the allowance of this Rule, is the opening of a window to bring in all Popery, so truly Apostolical is the Doctrine of Papists. Add lastly, that the Antiquity of our present Papistry, is confessedly no less gray-headed than the times of S. Paul, and the other Apostles, and the continuance thereof ever since such, as that perusing Counsels, Fathers, and Stories from the Apostles, we still find the print of the Pope's feet. Now my kindest Advocates in this so important a Plea, are no other than Caluin, Suinglius, Zanchius, Danaeus, Beza, Winckelmanus, Sebastianus Francus, Rhegius, Brocard, Brightman, Leigh, Napper, Parkins, Whitaker, Powel, Fulk, Raynolds, Ridley, jewel, Bunnie, Carthwright, Parker, Field, Whitguift, Fotherbie, Willet, Midleton, and Morton, all of them Protestant Writers, and men much renowned by their other Brethren. A FURTHER PROOF OF THE PRESENT ROMAN Religion's Continuance from the Apostles times to these days, is taken from the Christian belief of the Indians, Armenians, Grecians & Britain's, all of them Converted in the days of the Apostles. CHAPTER. VI IT is recorded by sundry Historiographers, and acknowledged for most true by the learnedst Protestants, that many Heathen Nations were converted by the Apostles themselves to the Faith of Christ, whereof peculiar instance is given of India, Armenia, Graecia, Brittany etc. The Conversion of India is confessed by (1) Cent. 1. p. 37. Osiander, and (2) Comment. de Regno Christi p. 45. Nicolaus Phillippi affirmeth S. Thomas to have been their first Apostle Chemnitius (3) Exam. part. 2. p. 7. teacheth, that S. Bartholomew preached the Gospel to the Armenians. And as for the Conversion of Greece, it clearly appeareth by Saint Paul's Epistles to sundry of that Nation, as to the Corinthians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, and by the Apocalypse chap. 1. vers. 11. Now as concerning the first Conversion of Brittany, it was so undoubtedly Apostolic, as that (4) Britannia etc. p. 40. M. Cambden avoucheth that, It is certain that the Britain's received the Christian Religion in the very infancy of the Church: In proof whereof he there allegeth sundry ancient Authorities: (5) Ibid. p. 157. And See M. Hal in his Apology against the Brownists. p. 58. Further also teaching, that in (Britanny) flourished the Monastery of Glassenburie, which taketh its ancient beginning from joseph of Arimathia etc. for this the ancientest Monuments of this Monastery do testify etc. Neither is there cause why we should doubt thereof. In like sort saith (6) Description of Brittany annexed unto Holinshead etc. v. 1. p. 23. M. Harison, That joseph preached here in England in the Apostles times, his Sepulchre yet in Glassenburie, and Epitaph affixed thereto is proof sufficient. (7) Remedy against Schism p. 24. M. Henoch Clapham is so confident of the Britan's conversion in the Apostles times, as that he avoucheth, that our Schismatics may aswel ask me, what assurance I have there was a King Henry, as demand what assurance I have of the other? (8) Against Rhem. Test. in 2. Cor. 12. fol. 316. D. Fulk therefore calleth them, The Catholic Britain's, with whom Christian Religion had continued in succession since the Apostles times. This then supposed, that all the former Countries were converted to Christianity, by Christ, his Apostles, and disciples themselves: The next point to be examined is, whether the said Faith and Religion which as then they learned, received, and believed, and which for sundry succeeding Ages they practised and professed, is more agreeable to the present Roman or Protestant Faith. And first as concerning the Indians (9) Comment. de Regno Christi. l. 1. p. 45. 46. D. Philippus Nicolai relateth, that, India in sundry places is inhabited by them in great number, who received the doctrine of the Gospel from S. Thomas the Apostle etc. upon the seaventh day according to our custom they meet in the Churches, that they may be present at the Sacrifices, & hear Sermons: they use in their Sacrifices wine made of dried Grapes, giving bread, they not only give the body of Christ, but also by drinking of the consecrated Chalice, they give his blood, having before made confession of their sins etc. At the entrance of the church, like unto the Papists, they are sprinkled with holy water; with the same rite and the same religion they bury the dead etc. praying unto Christ for their eternal Salvation etc. The Priests are so shaved upon the head, that they have upon the crown the Image of the Cross. Amongst them there are Societies of Monks, and companies of Sacred Virgins, shut up in several houses. Chastity is kept by all them with a great desire of honesty, abstinence, and religion etc. They strictly observe the fasts of Advent, and Lent etc. And In the honour of S. Thomas they keep a Festival day. Yea he further writeth (10) Ibid. p. 64. of the remote Cataians' of India, that they have their chapels, in which for the safety of their Merchants travailing in strange countries, Sacrifice is offered with Popish ceremonies and Masses. Now by this testimony of so learned a Protestant, it appeareth that the Indian Christians first converted by S. Thomas, retain yet and practise these Catholic points of Faith: The real presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist: Confession of sins before Receiving: Sprinkling with holy water: prayer for the dead; Shaving Priests Crowns: The Image of the Cross: Companies of Monks and Nuns, their Chastity and abstinence: The Feasts of Advent and Lent: The keeping of holy days in honour of Saints: And lastly, The Popish Mass and Ceremonies. To come now to the Armenians (11) Cent. 15. p. 477. Osiander confesseth that, In the year On thousand four hundred and thirty (Pope) Eugenius then called a Council at Florence etc. To which Council the Grecians, Armenians, jacobins assented. M. Marbeck (12) Com. Places. p. 258. acknowledgeth, that at the Council of Florence the Christians of Armenia and India consented to the Roman Church, and that the Greeks agreed: And where as (13) Vol. 2. Generate. 39 Nauclerus recordeth that Anno. 1145. The Ambassadors of the Armenian Bishops, as also their Catholic, that is, their universal Metropolitan, who hath under him more than a thousand Bishops, came to Pope Eugenius being at Viterbo, and having ended their journey after a year and a half, they offered their Subjection to the Apostolical Sea; the same history is mentioned by M. Symondes' (14) Upon the Revel. 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 (15) Speculum Ecclesiae p. 163 172. and (16) l. 2 c. 23. fol. 183. Villamont in his voyages printed in French. But D. Philip descendeth more particularly, and saith of the Armenians: They have their blemishes; For in the form of their Liturgy mention is made of Invocation, (17) Comment. de Regno Christi l. 1. p. 35. And see Cathol. Tradit. p. 207. and Intercession of Saints; and of oblation of the Sacrament: As also (18) Ibid. p 22. Let the Christian Readers know this, that not only the churches of the Grecians, but also Rutans, Georgians, and Armenians, and Indians, & Aethiopians, who are become Christians, do hold the true and Real Presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord, wheresoever the Eucharist is celebrated etc. And (19) Ibid. p. 56. again: There are not wanting, who think that as yet there remain in sundry places of Arabia some Mozarabes Christians, whom it is evident, in afric and Spain in former Ages, to have embraced the Religion of Christians, not much unlike to the Popish Rites. By all which it appeareth, that the ancient Armenians receiving their Religion from the Apostles, do agree with us Catholics in Invocation of Saints: (21) Cent. 16. p. 970. The Real Presence: The oblation or Sacrifice of Christ's Body: In acknowledging their obedience to the Church of Rome, and in brief, in their Religion in general, not much unlike to that of the Papists. Now as touching the Grecians (20) Estate of the Church. p. 253. Crispinus affirmeth, that, (23) Acta Theologorum Wittemb. & jeremiae Patriarchae Constantinop. de Augustana Confess. p. 55. 102. 128. Anno. 870. the Greek and Latin Churches became divided only for the Primacy, and diversity of Ceremonies: so fully did they at that time consent in all other points. Osiander speaking of the other Oriental Churches further remote, averreth that, Anno 1585. the Christians who inhabit near to Mount Libanus, became at last conquered, and subject to the Turkish Empire: Neither is that to be marvelled at, for the Christians in the East have not sincere Religion, but are, in most part of Articles, Popish. Sir Edwin Sands (22) In his last leaf but five. in his Relation of the State of Religion used in the West parts of the world, avoucheth that, The Greek Church doth concur with Rome in opinion of Transubstantiation, and generally in the Sacrifice, and whole body of the Mass: In praying to Saints, and Auricular confession in offering Sacrifice and prayer for the dead, Purgatory, and worshipping of Pictures etc. Yea the Protestant Divines of Wittenberg do fully testify, that the Greek Church yet to this day professeth and teacheth, Invocation of Saints and Angels (24) Ib. p. 243. 368. Relics (25) Ib. p 243. 244 247. 251. Worshipping of Images (26) Ib. p. 86. 96. 100 240. 380. Transubstantiation (27) p. 102. 104 And see Cath. Tradit. p. 129. 137. Sacrifice The signifying (28) p. 97. 99 100 Ceremonies of the Mass: (29) p. 87. 10. & in Prefat. Auricular Confession (30) p. 79 89. Enjoined Satisfaction (31) p. 78 238 Confirmation with Chrism (32) p. 242. 326. Extreme Unction (33) p. 77. 242. And Cath. Trad. p. 197. and all the seven Sacraments: Also (34) p. 93. 102. 109. Prayer for the dead (35) p. 93. 104. Sacrifice for the Dead (36) p. 93. 109. Alms for the dead: (37) p. 224. 296. 367. Freewill (38) p. 132. 257. Monachisme (39) p 111. 129. 135. vows of Chastity (40) p 126. The fast of Lent, and other set Fasting-days: That (41) p. 129. Priests may not marry after Orders taken: And lastly, to omit many others, That (42) p. 131. 138. 142. the Tradition and doctrine of the Fathers is to be kept. So plainly in all these chief Articles of Faith, doth the Grecian Church remain unchanged, and wholly consonant with the Roman. But now at last to come to our Neighbours the Britan's, whom we have proved before to have been converted in the Apostles times; concerning them I will only declare two things: First, that the Faith which at first they received, they kept for six hundred years, even until the coming of S. Augustin into England, unchanged, and the same, in all matters of weight and substance. The Second, that the Faith and Religion which S. Augustin taught in England (and which is formerly confessed to have been altogether Catholic or Romish) was the self same Faith and Religion, which the Britan's believed and professed, some Ceremonies excepted. Now as touching the First; M. (43) Pageant of Popes. Cent. 1. c. 70. Bale confesseth that, The Britain's being converted by joseph of Arimathia, held that Faith at Augustine's coming. And (44) Cent. 1. c. 90. There was always amongst the Britain's preaching of Truth, most sure Doctrine, and such Worship, as was by God's commandment, given of the Apostles to the Churches: whereupon he calleth the then Briton Church (45) Cent. 1. c. 73. the true Church of Christ. D. Fulk (46) Answ. to a Counterf. Cath. p. 49. affirmeth that, The Britain's before Augustine's coming, continued in the Faith of Christ, even from the Apostles times; yea he calleth the Britain's of S. Augustine's time (47) In 2. Cor. 12.12. Catholics &c. with whom Christian Religion had continued in Succession since the Apostles time. M. Fox (48) Act. Mon. p. 463. avoucheth that, The Britain's after the receiving of the Faith, never forsook it for any manner of false preaching of other, nor for torments; and that (49) In his Protestat. Religion remained in the Britain's uncorrupt and the Word of Christ truly preached till the coming of S. Austin. But M. Midleton (50) Papistomastix p. 202. confirmeth this point further by succeeding testimonies of the ancient Fathers, almost in every Age before that, in which Gregory lived, saying: The Religion clearly taught in the Word of God brought hither first by Simon Zelotes (Niceph. l. 2. c. 4.) joseph of Arimathia (Gilds) S. Paul the Apostle (Theodoret de Curand. Graec. affect. l. 9) all or some of them (was) watered still on in the days of Tertullian (l. count. judaeos) Origen (in Ezech. hom. 4.) Athanasius (Apol. 2.) Hilary (l. de Synod. count. Arian.) Chysostom (hom. quod Christus sit Deus) Theodoret (Hist. l. 1. c. 10. & l. 4. c. 3.) All which Ancient Fathers speak honourably of the Church, Religion, and Prelates of Brittany. So exceeding far were the Britain's from being changed in their Religion before the time when S. Augustin came into England. Therefore to come to the second and main point, which is the true harmony and agreement between the Apostolic Faith of the Britain's, and the Catholic Roman Faith of S. Augustin. D. Morton labouring purposely to show (51) Prot. Appeal. p. 75. what, and of how great importance, the differences were between the Briton Bishops, and the Church of Rome, at Augustine's coming, can only instance in the difference of Ceremonies, or ministering of Baptism, in keeping of Easter, and in denial of Subjection unto Austin: which though he much endeavour to prove to be matters of great importance, yet if they be considered in themselves, and without pertinacy in the Defenders, they may with M. Brierlie most truly be said to be few and small points: And the more if they should once be compared with our other Roman Articles of Real Presence, Adoration of the Sacrament, Mass, Confession, Freewill, Merit etc. In any one whereof D. Morton was not able to give the least Instance of difference between the foresaid Britain's and S. Austin: Wherefore to proceed in this same point: It is reported by Hollinshead (out of S. Bede, hist. l. 2. c. 2) that S. Austin by the help of King Edilbert obtained a meeting with the British Bishops and Doctors; where he said unto them (52) Beda hist. l. 2. c. 2. holinsh. vol. 1. p. 103. Godwine in his Catalogue of Bish. p. 6. If you will obey me in these three things: That you will celebrate Easter at the due time: That you will minister Baptism, wherewith we are borne again to God, according to the custom of the Roman and Apostolic Church: That you will preach with us the Word of God to the Nation of the English: All other things which you do, though they be contrary to our customs, we will peaceably suffer. In like sort saith the (53) l. 3. c. 13. p. 133. Author of the History of Great Brittany: The Briton Bishops conformed themselves to the doctrine and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, without difference in any thing specially remembered, save only in the Celebration of the Feast of Easter etc. (54) Ibid p. 219. And See Cambdens Britan. in English. p. 578. And again, when they perceived the Saxons in some measure to approve it, they began to make open Profession of it, as seeming therein to agree even with their Enemies (the Saxons) howsoever otherwise in respect of language, situation, or Law of Nations, they were divided. Yea the (55) Beda hist. l. 2. c. 2. holinsh. vol. 1. p. 102. Briton Bishops after conference had with S. Austin, confessed that they understood, that it was the true way of justice which Austin preached: Whereupon as (56) Confut. of Purgat. p. 335. D. Fulk acknowledgeth, Saint Austin did at the last obtain the aid of the British Bishops to the Conversion of the Saxons (57) Catalogue of Bishops. p. 11. Lastly D. Godwin, writing of Theodore (who was Archbishop of Canterbury some Fifty or Sixty years after S. Augustin) avoucheth, that unto him, all the British Bishops, and generally all Brittany yielded obedience, and under him conformed themselves in all things unto the Rites and discipline of the Church of Rome. So evidently doth that Primitive Faith of the Britain's in all most substantial points wholly agree with that Faith which S. Austin taught us, and which the Protestants have fully acknowledged to be Catholic, Roman, or Popish: And yet is the said Faith taught us by S. Gregory and S. Austin, termed by (58) Chron. f. 161. D. Cowper, the right belief: And by (59) Act. Mon. p. 112. M. Fox, the perfect Faith of Christ (60) Ibid. p. 124. and the true Faith of Christ: And thus from the premises it necessarily followeth, that our present Roman Religion, being so consonant, or rather the same with that first Faith, which the Indians, Armenians, Grecians, and Britain's, received from the Apostles themselves, that therefore no less ancient, or continuing is our Roman Religion, than the Religion of the Apostles. M. Brierly having produced diverse testimonies of Protestants, in proof that the Indians, Grecians, and Armenians were converted to the Faith of Christ in the Apostles times, as also, that the remnant of Christian Religion which they yet preserve, is Roman Catholic, not Protestant: M. Morton directing a large Reply hereto, doth not so much as answer to any one of the foresaid testimonies of his Brethren, Osiander excepted; of whom he saith (61) Prop. Appeal. p. 79. We approve not Osianders' censure etc. concerning the Christians in Mount Libanus, terming them Popish, for some flying speech. But he may now aswel say, we do not only, not approve Osianders' censure, but neither the Censures, and opinions of D. Philip, Nicolai, Gomarus, Willamont, Crispinus, the Divines of Wittenberg, Cambden, Harison, Hollinshead, Hal, Clapham, Fulk, Marbeck, Symondes, Sands, Bale, Fox, Midleton, Godwine, and Cowper; all of them Protestants, and yet all of them thus affording their helping hands, for the proof of our agreement in Faith and Religion, with the Doctrine delivered by the Apostles themselves. THE SECOND BOOK, WHEREIN IS PROVED THROUGH ALL 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 Primitive Church of Christ. THAT GENERAL COUNSELS DO TRULY represent the Church of Christ: And of the Credit and Authority given by Protestants to the said Counsels. CHAPTER I. AS in Politic government, our Parliament, consisting of Prince, Peers, Knights, and Burgesses, doth truly represent the whole Body of the Commonwealth; and withal is endowed with full power and authority to enact and establish Laws, which every particular Subject is bound to obey and observe: So in government Ecclesiastical, a General Council, consisting of the Head of the Church, the Bishops, and Pastors, doth truly represent unto us the whole Body of the Church itself; and in like sort is enriched with plenary power and virtue, to create Decrees and Statutes, which may bind the souls and consciences, of every particular member of the said Church. To which purpose D. Whitaker confesseth expressly that (1) De Conciliis p. 1. 10. The Church is represented in a General Council. And again (2) Ib. p. 19 Neither is that speech altogether to be disliked, that a Council is the Church Representative. M. Ridley further avoucheth that (3) Act. Mon. p. 1288. Counsels do indeed represent the universal Church, and being so gathered together in the name of Christ, they have a promise of the gift, and guiding of his Spirit, into all truth. And the same Doctrine is proved by D. Bilson saying (4) Perpetual Government. p. 392. As in Civil Policy, not all Persons are called together, but certain Chief to represent the State, and consult for the whole Commonwealth: So in the Government of the Church, it is as sufficient in right, that some of every place excelling others in dignity, should be sent from every Realm far distant; and by that means, they had the consent of the whole world to the Decrees of their Counsels. The Council thus lively representing the Church, it is hereupon further granted by D. Bilson, that, as (5) Ib. p 372. To have no judge for the ending of Ecclesiastical contentions were the utter subversion of all peace: so, according to him (6) Ib. p. 370 Synods (are) an external judicial means to discern error; the same being as he teacheth (7) Ib. p. 372. strengthened with the Promise of our Saviour; and accordingly observed by the ancient Fathers, who, saith he (8) Ib. p. 374. In all Ages, aswel before, as since the great Council of Nice, have approved and practised this (course) as the surest means to decide Doubts. With whom agreeth Melancthon saying (9) In Concil. Theol. par. 2. p. 1. Let them assemble General or National Counsels etc. Because it is written: Tell the Church. This was the custom in the Church from the very beginning etc. And Counsels are the proper judgements of the Church. And (10) Ib. p. 2. And see l. 1. Epist. p. 211. It is requisite that there be judgements in the Church; neither can other Nations but be scandalised if they shall hear that we refuse the judgements of all Synods. And whereas some object, that Counsels may err, M. Hooker (11) Ecc. Pol. p. 27. answereth thereto himself, and further concludeth that (12) Ib. p. 28. The will of God is to have us do whatsoever the Sentence of judicial and Final Decision shall determine; yea though it seem in our private opinion to swerve utterly from that which is right etc. And that without this, it is almost impossible we should avoid confusion, or ever hope to attain peace. And this Sentence, saith he (13) Ib. p. 28. is ground sufficient for any reasonable man's conscience to build upon, whatsoever his own opinion were, as touching the matter before in question. The same truth is taught by his dearest friend D. Covel assuring us, that, If (14) Modest Examination p. 110. Synods want, the Church neither at any time was, nor indeed can safely be without Tempests, yea sundry Protestants, do jointly teach and gather from the Council of the Apostles mentioned in their Acts (15) Act. 15.2. etc. the necessity of Counsels (16a) White. in his Def. p. 661. Carthwr. 16. & p. 678. Raynolds in his Confer. p. 254. 255 Bilson in his Perpet. Govern. p. 373. for the deciding of Controversies; and further acknowledge the presence and assistance of the (16b) Bilson ib. p. 372. 373. 374. Ridley Act. Mon. p. 1288. Holy Ghost in direction of them into all truth. From hence it is, that sundry Protestants do nothing doubt, to submit themselves and their writings, to the judgement and Determination of a general Council. So their learnedst Beza in a Preface (17) Ad Acta Colloq. Montisbel. Resp. p. 1. p. 2. to one of his books, thus submitteth himself: Let all these be submitted to the judgements of all true Doctors and Orthodoxal Divines, and especially of a free, holy, and lawful Synod (if God shall grant it at any time) M. Hooker testifieth that (18) Pref. to Eccl. Pol. p. 28 2●. M. Beza in his last book but one, professeth himself to be now weary of such combats and encounters, whether by word or writing, insomuch as he findeth that Controversies are thereby made but brawls, and therefore wisheth that in some common lawful assembly of Church, all these strifes may be at once decided (19) divers Degrees of Ministers in his Epistle to the Ministers of the Low-countries. B. 3. fine I heartily wish (saith D. Saravia) that there may be a general Council, that as it becometh me, I refuse not to be judged of my judgement: But if otherwise etc. Let us expect the judgement of God. And another Protestant Writer testifieth of himself, and of his other Brethren, that (20) Author of Cath. Traditions p. 57 And see Hospin. Concord. Discord. fol. 186. The learned and greatest men among them, do protest to submit themselves to a general and free Council. In like sort D. Sutclif avoucheth in behalf of Protestants in general, that (21) Review of kellison's Survey p 42. It is false that (Protestants) will admit no judge but Scriptures: For we appeal (saith he) still to a lawful general Council etc. And, In the mean time we content ourselves with National Counsels, and their Determinations. As also (22) Ib p. 102. Private men do submit themselves to the Determination of a free general Council, and in the mean while to their National Churches. Lastly the authority of general Counsels is so great, and the scandal in contemning them so offensive, that a Protestant Writer ingenuously confesseth that (23) Cath. Traditions p. 58. A man can not now adays read the writings of the ancient Fathers, nor the Histories of the Apostolic Churches, no not the holy Scripture itself, without finding very many ceremonies and fashions of speaking, not used among the Protestants of France; from whence it happeneth that many do change their belief, being offended at the contemning of Counsels etc. From all which I will briefly conclude, that seeing by the free testimonies of so many of the learned Protestants both strangers and neighbours, General Counsels do truly represent the Church of Christ, and are the surest means for the deciding of Ecclesiastical Controversies, being therein directed, and inspired by the holy-ghost himself, and so freed from error in the decrees of Faith and manners: And seeing also for these strongest Reasons, Protestants pretend to submit themselves, their writings, and their doubts finally also, to their Determination; that therefore for the decision of Controversies in Religion, catholics and so many learned Protestants do jointly agree herein: That the Authority of Ecumenical Counsels is sacred, infallible, and most powerful, and for such, acknowledged and respected by the humble submission thereto, of either Party. THAT THE ARGUMENT DRAWN FROM the Authority of the Primitive Church of Christ, and of her Doctors & Pastors, is an Argument of force; And for such approved by sundry learned Protestants. CHAPTER II. THere is no period, or difference of time, wherein the Church of Christ hath more gloriously shined, either for purity of Faith, or Sanctity of life, then during the time of her primitive being: which, according to the account (1) jewel in his Sermon at Paul's Cross And in his Reply. p. 1. Humphrey. in vita juelli p. 123. 124. Witaker Resp. ad Ranones Campiani. p. 90. of the learnedst Protestant's, extended itself to the full term of the first six hundred years, after Christ our Saviour his glorious Ascension: In greatest confidence whereof D. jewel (whom M. Mason (2) Consecration of English. Bish. p. 267, styleth and esteemeth a jewel) made his so adventurous a Challenge, when he publicly exclaimed at Paul's Cross: O Gregory, O Austin, O Hierom, O Chrysostom, O Leo, O Denis, O Anaclet, O Calixt, O Paul, O Christ! If we be deceived, you have deceived us; this you taught us etc. And, As I said before, so I say now again, I am content to yield and subscribe, if any of our learned Adversaries, or if all the learned men that be alive, be able to bring any one sufficient Sentence, out of any old Catholic Doctor or Father, or out of any old General Council etc. for the space of 600. years after Christ, which maketh against any one of 27. Articles by him there repeated and defended. And this he protested to preach, not as carried away with the heat of Zeal, but as moved with the simple truth. This proffer of D. jewel was so pleasing to D. Whitaker, that he most valiantly renewed it, in behalf of all Protestants (3) Resp. ad Rat. Camp. p. 90. And see p. 9 saying to our glorious Martyr Campian: Attend, Campian, the speech of jewel was most true and constant, when provoking you to the Antiquity of the (first) six hundred years, he offered, that if you could show, but any one clear and plain Saying, out of any one Father or Council, he would grant you the victory. It is the offer of us all: The same do we all promise, and we will perform it. With like courage steppeth forth (4) Of the Church l. 5. in his Appendix thereto Part. 1. p. 33. D. Field: We say (saith he) with Bishop jewel in his worthy Challenge, that all the learned Papists in the world, can not prove, that either Gregory, or Austin, held any of these twenty seven Articles of Popish Religion mentioned by him. Neither will D. Morton yield a foot herein, stoutly avouching that (5) Prot. Appeal. p. 354. It hath been the common and constant profession of all Protestants, to stand unto the judgement of Antiquity, for the continuance of the first four hundred years and more, in all things. Yea he further publicly professeth that (6) Protest. Appeal p. 573. 574. Protestants in oppugning Doctrines which they call new and not Catholic &c. are so far from suffering the limitation of the first 440. years, that they give the Romanists the scope of the first five hundred or six hundred years, as our Adversaries themselves do acknowledge. For D. Stapleton writing of the opinion of Luther, Caluin, and Melancthon, saith, that they did yield unto the trial of truth, by the testimony of Antiquity for the space of the first Five or Six hundred years. M. Campian a jesuit, reporting the Challenge of Bishop jewel for the maintenance of these Articles, which he then propounded for Catholic, saith, that he appealed unto the judgement of Antiquity, for the first six hundred years. And again (7) Ibid. p. 512 Protestants in the disquisition of truth, do not absolutely bound the name of Antiquity within the compass of the first Centurie of years, but are content to allow it a longer extent, and therefore in all Doctrines which are truly Catholic &c. they refuse not to be tried by the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, in the first five hundred years after Christ. Yea (8) Ib. p. 680. we repose our security in those two impregnable fortresses of the Catholic Faith: one is the ancient Tradition of the Primitive Church, as the Protestants are confessed to profess etc. So willingly do the learned Protestants provoke and appeal to the Primitive Church of Christ, for the certain trial of truth in matters of Faith and Religion. All which they pretend to do, because, as Luther saith (9) Tom. 2. Germ. f. 243. Epist. ad Marchionem Bran●eburg. It is dangerous and horrible, to hear or believe any thing, which is contrary to the unanimous testimony of Faith, and to the doctrine of the holy and Catholic Church, which she from the beginning agreably kept for above One thousand five hundred years. And as Chemnitius truly observeth (10) Exam. par. 1. f. 74. No man doubteth but the Primitive Church, received from the Apostles and Apostolical men, not only the Text of Scripture, but also the right and native sense thereof, whereupon saith he (11) Ibid. p. 64. we are greatly confirmed in the true and sound sense of Scripture, by testimony of the ancient Church. Which according also to other Protestants (12) Harmony of Confess. p. 400. Is the true and best Mistress of Posterity, and going before leads us the way. Yea saith D. Beard (13) Retractive from Romish Religion. p. 372, without all question, all truth was taught by the Apostles to the Primitive Church, and no part thereof was left unrevealed etc. Besides, it is as certain, that, that Church which next succeeded the Apostles, was the most pure and absolute Church, whether for doctrine or manners, matter or form, that ever was in the world; and therefore to degenerate from that, must needs be to degenerate from the purity and sanctity of Religion. And again, it can not be denied, that etc. though the Primitive Age of the Church, after the Apostles, was most pestered with Heretics, yet evermore the truth prevailed, both in regard of birthright, and predominance. D. Morton Declareth that (14) Protestant Appeal p. 513. In the main question of discerning the true books of holy Writ, the Protestants do appeal etc. unto the judgement of the Primitive Church, attributing unto it the right and Authority, of assigning and determining what is the perfect Canon of Scriptures. With whom agreeth Chemnitius saying (15) Exam. part. 1. p. 69. Andradius affirmeth that the testimony of the Church is either always to be rejected, or always to be received: I answer etc. where the Fathers set down this Tradition of the books of Scripture, they prove it by testimonies of the Primitive Church; if with the same course of certainty, they shall do the like of other Traditions, whereof sometimes they make mention, it is to be respected, and they are to be received by the same law. D. Saravia confirmeth the authority of the Primitive Church, from her special assistance by the holy-ghost, saying: The (16) De diversis Ministrorum Gradibus. p. 8. holy-ghost, who governeth the Church, is the best interpreter of Scriptures; from him therefore is the true interpretation to be sought; and seeing he can not be contrary to himself, who ruled the Primitive Church, and governed it by Bishops, it is not agreeable to truth, now to cast them off. D. jewel acknowledgeth in general that (17) Def. of the Apology p. 35. The Primitive Church which was under the Apostles and Martyrs, hath evermore been accounted the purest of all others without exception. D. White testifieth that (18) way to the Church Ep. Dedic. nu. 8 The Primitive Church, and all the Doctors thereof, would never yield, I will not say in an opinion, but not so much as in a form of speech, or in the change of a letter, sounding against the Orthodoxal Faith: whereof he further giveth sundry pertinent examples, concluding that, So religious were they that had Religion; that they would not exchange a letter, or a Syllable of the Faith, wherewith our Saviour had put them in trust. And in another place he avoucheth that (19) Ibid. p. 385. In the first six hundred years, there was no substantial or fundamental innovation received into the Church. So plentifully are the deservedst praises of the Primitive Church, during the first six hundred years, freely given and set forth by our greatest Protestants, thus much acknowledging and admiring the purity 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 primitive and purest times, was, even in the judgement of Protestants, so faithful, so chaste, so constant in soundness of Faith, and sincerity of manners, as the Catholic Roman Church? What Bishops ever so renowned either for feeding of their flocks, or for patiented suffering of so many and so cruel torments, yea and death itself, as the Popes and Bishops of Rome? (20) Ep. Ded. of. F. Persons in his Answ. to him. Doth not Sir Ed. Cook himself say? We do not deny but that Rome was the Mother Church, and had thirty two Virginal Martyrs of her Popes a-row: What Doctors, what Fathers, what Pastors, more duly honoured by all Posterity, than such as were strictly linked in Faith and Communion, with the than Roman Church? D. Whitaker, being to answer D. Sanders his truest assertion, that the Roman Church was not changed during the first six hundred years after Christ, through clearest evidence of truth, acknowledgeth the same, saying (21) l. De Antichrist p. 35. etc. During all that time, the Church was pure and flourishing, and inviolably taught and defended, the Faith delivered from the Apostles. D. jewel confesseth that (22) Reply to Harding. p. 246. Aswel S. Austin, as also other godly Fathers rightly yielded Reverence to the Sea of Rome etc. for the purity of Religion, which was there preserved along time without spot. And that, The Godly Fathers (of those gray-headed times) sought to the Church of Rome, which then for purity in Religion, and constancy in the same, was most famous above all others, Sundry other such like testimonies, duly dignifying the ancient Roman Church, I willingly pretermit, having treated elsewhere of the same subject more at large. But who likewise more peremptorily pretend, the truest harmony between their Doctrine, and the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers, as also the just defence and patronage of their due credit and esteem, than our Modern Protestants? For to omit D. jewels former complaint, that if Protestants be deceived, it was Gregory, Austin, Hierom, Chrysostom etc. that deceived them; not any one Sentence, in any one Father or Council of the first six hundred years, making, in his opinion, against protestancy: D. Sutcliffe confidently avoucheth that (23) Examination of kellison's Survey p. 17. The Fathers, in all points of Faith, are for us (saith he) and not for the Pope. D. Willet maketh his solemn Protestation (24) Antilog. p. 263. I take God to witness, before whom I must render account etc. that the same Faith and Religion which I defend, is taught and confirmed, in the more Substantial Points, by those Histories, Counsels, and Fathers, that lived within five or six hundred years after Christ. And again (25) Ib. p. 264. It is most notoriously evident, that for the grossest points of Popery, as Transubstantiation, Sacrifice of the Mass, Worshipping of Images, justification by works, the Supremacy of the Pope, Prohibition of Marriage, and such other, they (to wit the Papists) have no show at all, of any evidence from the Fathers within five hundred years after Christ. Pierre de Moulin, a French Protestant, is so undertaking herein, that (26) Defenc. against Coefteau p. 139. In this Challenge (saith he) I will lay down my Minister's cloak, ready to be frocked in a Monks Cowle, if I shall find a man that will satisfy me in this point. Melancthon saith (27) Ep. ad Cratonem. for the settling of our minds, I think the consent of Antiquity to be of great force etc. The best Masters and guides to us, may be, Ireneus, Tertullian, Augustin, who left to Posterity many things of this kind. And (28) Epist. ad Frider. Miconium. As I willingly advice with such (writers) living, as have some use of Spiritual things: So I think these Ancients, whose writings are approved, are likewise to be consulted. For I think, the Church generally believed that, which they have written: And, it is not secure, to departed from the common opinion of the old Church. Yea others term it in some of their Brethren, Paradoxical, to disclaim and descent from the ancient Fathers, whereof one saith (29) The Author of a Brief Answ. to certain object. ag. the Descension of christ into Hel. p 1. where you say we must build our Faith, on the Word of Faith, tying us to Scripture only, you give just occasion to think, that you neither have the ancient Fathers of Christ's Church, nor their Sons succeeding them, agreeing with you in this point, which implieth a defence of some strange Paradox. D. Bancroft, doubteth not to prefer the ancient Fathers, before the learnedst Protestants (30) Survey p. 378. & p. 64. For M. Caluin, and M. Beza, I do think of them (saith he) as their writings deserve; but yet I think better of the ancient Fathers, I must confess it. Yea, he purposely undertaketh their just defence against the Puritans; for where S. Austin said to julian the Pelagian (31) Contra julian. l. 2. c. 10 Truly I have what to do, I have whither to fly, for I may provoke from these Pelagian darkness to these so clear Catholic Lights (of the Fathers) which I now do. But tell me what wilt thou do, whither wilt thou fly? I from the Pelagians to these, thou from these to whom? etc. But thou darest call them blind; And hath time so confounded lowest things with highest? Are darkness called light, and light darkness, that Pelagius, Celestius, julianus (all of them Heretics) do see, and Hilary, Gregory, Ambrose etc. are blind? This so worthy a Saying of S. Austin, being alleged against the Puritans, by D. Bancroft, he thereupon inferreth (32) Survey. p. 352. 353. 351. Surely I do not perceive, why I may not without offence, apply the same words to those men in those days etc. Were there never learned men, before you were taught the Principles of the Geneva Discipline? etc. Do you know what was in the Apostles times, better than they, who succeeded the Apostles etc. Is the light that shown itself so many ways in the Ancient Fathers, become such darkness, that Carthwright, Traverse, Fenner (to whom I might as truly add, Luther, Zuinglius, Caluin, Beza &c.) and such like, should be thought so clearlie-sighted? And shall Ireneus, Tertulian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Hierom, Chrysostom, Austin, Gregory, Hilary, and all the rest of those whorthie men be reckoned blind? So clearly doth D. Bancroft the Protestant, late Primate of England, acknowledge the shining light and glory of the ancient Fathers, and defend their authority, from the imputations of Novelists. D. Morton joyfully acknowledgeth (33) Prot. Appeal. p. 33. That the ancient Fathers etc. did obtain in the Church of Christ, honourable Titles; as Augustin, the great Mall, or hammer against Heretics. Basil, the light of the world: chrysostom The Doctor of the whole world: Athanasius, the Pillar, as it were, of the Church: Nazianzene, by a phrase of excellency, the Divine: Origen, the Master of the churches: Cyprian, the Precedent of the whole world: And lastly, Ambrose; A man called by God, unto an Apostolical presidency. Now as for the Confidence which Catholics place in the ancient Fathers, D. Morton testifieth for us, that (34) Ib. p 348 Never did the ancient jews 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: yet (35) Eccl. Pol. p. 115. The strength of man's Authority (in M. hooker's judgement) is affirmatively such, that the weightiest affairs in the world depend thereupon. Yea (36) Ib. p. 116. whatsoever we believe concerning salvation by Christ, although the Scripture be therein the ground of our belief, yet is man's Authority (saith he) the key that openeth the door etc. The Scripture could not teach us these things, unless we believed men. And whereas the sacred Scriptures do foretell, sundry things to be performed by the Church of Christ in succeeding Ages, the answerable accomplishment thereof in particular, being matter of fact, can be to us at this day no otherwise made known, then upon the Credit of humane Testimony, commended to us by Ecclesiastical Histories: In which respect D. Whitaker truly teacheth that (37) Cont. Duraeum l. 7. p. 472. History plainly testifieth, all that to be accomplished which the ancient Prophets have foretold, concerning the Propagation, amplitude, and glory of the Church: So that there is no doubt (saith he) but that Ecclesiastical History, doth strengthen the Predictions of the Prophets. Now from the Premises we may briefly remember, that not only all Catholics, but even the Primest Protestant's that ever were, do thus willingly appeal, for the decision of Controversies in Faith and Religion, to the Censure and Determination of the Church of Christ; which for the first six hundred years was confessedly sincere, holy, and religious: Acknowledging withal, the integrity and purity of the Roman Church during the said time, and professing, to believe and teach no other Faith and religion, then that which was taught and believed, by the ancient Fathers of the same Church. This then supposed, I will now descend in particular to the chiefest articles of Faith, disputed at this day between Catholics and Protestants: And will only examine, whether the Roman, or Protestant Church, is now more agreeable with the confessed Faith and Religion, of the Fathers of the Primitive Church, in the foresaid points. And for the clearest preventing of the manifold shifts and evasions, used by Protestant's when they are urged in this kind, I will only produce such proof from the Primitive Church and Fathers, as is recorded and confessed by Protestants, and by them disliked and rejected, as agreeing with our Roman Faith, and condemning protestancy. THAT THE FATHERS AND DOCTORS OF the Primitive Church, believed and taught, that S. Peter, was ordained by Christ, the Head of the Apostles, and of the whole Church, and that the Church was founded upon S. Peter, it is Confessed by Protestants themselves. CHAPTER. III. BEcause the deciding of this present Controversy of the Church's Primacy, is indeed the speediest, and most certain means, for the final dissolving of all doubts in Religion, either already begun, or hereafter to arise: I will therefore more particularly, and at large, set down the manifest, and confessed Doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church, concerning the same. And first, as all government whether Politic or Ecclesiastical, the more it resembleth the government of this world, by the Creator thereof, ONE GOD, or the government of the Church, during our Saviour's abode upon earth, by ONE CHRIST, the more it is to be approved, commended, and followed: so nothing is holden more Sovereign, or more needful for the procuring or preserving of unity and concord, in any Body or Community, than the unity of one Head, or government Monarchical. Hereupon the (1) Bel. de Rom. Pont l. 1. c. 10. & l. 2. c 12. Catholic Church doth believe and teach: That S. Peter was ordained by Christ the Supreme Ecclesiastical Head, not only over the rest of the Apostles, but even over the whole Church: And that the Bishop of Rome succeedeth him in the same Power and Authority. The direct (2) Luther l de Potestate Papae & in assertione Art. 25. Calu. l. 4 Instit. c 6. Morton in his Appeal l. 2. c. 5. Sect. 11. Negative whereof, is not only taught by the Protestant-Church, but withal it further believeth & maintaineth, that the B●shop of Rome, in steed of being the true Successor of S. Peter, and the Vicar of Christ, is the true Antichrist, or Man of Sin, whereof so much is foretold in the sacred Scriptures. To discover now the Faith and practice of the Primitive Church, and to begin with the confessed Primacy of S. Peter: And first, that for the preserving of unity and preventing of Schisms, he was apppointed by Christ the Supreme Head of that slender Body, or little Church of the twelve Apostles. Whereas S. Hierom (l. 1. cont. jovinianum.) teacheth, that Amongst the Twelve one is chosen, that a Head apppointed, the occasion of Schism should be taken away. From hence (3) In his Examination etc. against the Plea of the Innocent. p. 106. 107. D. Covel, having spoken of the necessity of One above the rest, to suppress the seed of dissension, thus argueth most strongly: If this were the Principal means to prevent Schisms & dissensions in the Primitive Church, when the Graces of God were far more abundant, and eminent then now they are: Nay, if the Twelve were not like to agree, except there had been one Chief among them (for saith Hierom, among the Twelve one was therefore chosen, that a Chief being apppointed, occasion of dissension might be prevented.) How can they think, that equality would keep all the Pastors in the world in peace and unity etc. For in all Societies Authority (which can not be, where all are equal) must procure unity and obedience. In like sort the (4) Cen. 4. Col. 556. Centurists confess, that Optatus l. 2. cont. Donat. writeth: It can not be denied, but that thou knowest in the City of Rome, the Episcopal Chair to have been first bestowed upon Peter, in which Peter, the Head of all the Apostles, sat, whereupon he is called Cephas; In which one Chair unity should be kept by all, lest the other Apostles should every one defend his own; So that he should be esteemed a Schismatic and sinner, who should erect another against that singular Sea; therefore there is one Chair etc. (5) Cent. 4. Col. 1100. They also reprehend him, for that he extolleth overmuch the Chair of Peter, and the Succession of the Roman Bishops. And (6) In his Retentive etc. p. 248. D. Fulk chargeth Optatus with absurdity, for saying of Peter: He deserved to be preferred before all the Apostles, and he alone received the Keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest. (7) Retentive against Bristows Motives p. 248. D. Fulk (7) Retentive against Bristows Motives p. 248. speaking of S. Leo and S. Gregory Bishops of Rome, confesseth that, The mystery of iniquity having wrought in that Seat near five or six hundred years before them (so anciently before them did the Roman Sea in his opinion begin to be Papal) and then greatly increased, they were so deceived with long continuance of error, that they thought the dignity of Peter was much more over the rest of his fellow Apostles, than the holy Scriptures of God do allow. Yea the (8) Cent. 3. col. 85. Centurists recite and reprove Origen (hom. 17. in Lucam) for calling Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. And D. Raynolds (9) In his Conference p. 485. citeth S. Dionysius (de divinis nominibus. c. 3.) terming Peter, the chief and most ancient Top (or Head) of the Apostles. (10) Apocalypsis in cap. 13. p. 343. This point is so evident in the Fathers, that M. Brightman thinketh, It hath its original from a corrupt Doctrine, to wit, the false boasted Authority of the Chair of Peter, whereof almost at every word the Roman Bishop braggeth; and which the Ancient Saints Tertullian, Cyprian and others, extolled with immoderate praises, not knowing with what impiety they prepared the way etc. But the Fathers further proceed, teaching that the whole Church was built or founded upon S. Peter. To which purpose the Rhemists citing S. Gregory, D. Fulk answereth: The (11) Ag. Rhem. Test. in Math. 16.19. Authority of Gregory etc. being a Bishop of Rome himself, and so near the time of the open revelation of Antichrist in the Romish Sea, is partial in this case, and therefore not to be heard. And again Leo (12) Ibid. vers. 18. Bishop of Rome, striving for the dignity of his Sea, as his Predecessors Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestin, had done before etc. is no equal judge in this case. The (13. Cent. 8. col. 555. Centurists charge S. Hilary, that he speaketh incommodiously of Peter the Apostle, that he lieth under the building of the Church, and is made the Foundation thereof. They (14) Cent. 4. col. 557. & see col. 1250. likewise affirm, that S. Hierom saith incommodiously of Peter, that our Lord built his Church upon him: And for the like Saying, they (15) Cent. 4. col. 558. and see col. 1250. reprove Nazianzene. Yea they (16) Cent. 3. col. 84. charge Tertullian, that, not without error he seemeth to think that the Keys were committed only to Peter, and that the Church was built upon him. And they (17) Cent. 3. col. 84. confess, that, Cyprian in many places affirmeth, the Church to be founded upon Peter, as l. 1. ep. 3. l. 4. ep. 9 etc. And they (18) Cent. 3. col. 85. charge Origen Tract. 5. in Math. to say, Peter by promise deserved to be made the foundation of the Church (19) Resp. Ad Bellar. disp. part. 1. p. 277. Danaeus reproveth the Fathers in general, for that, they (saith he) naughtily expounded of the Person of Peter, that Saying of Christ, Math. 16. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock, I will build my Church (20) Instit. l. 4. c. 6. sec. 6. Caluin saith: The Church to be built upon Peter, because it is said, upon this Rock etc. some of the Fathers have so expounded, but the whole Scripture gainsayeth. Yea the Fathers kept a yearly Festival day in honour of S. Peter's Sea or Chair: which point Bellarmine confirming by the testimonies of sundry Fathers, Danaeus (21) In Resp. ad Bellar. Disp. part. 1. p. 275. 276. only answereth, that the Father's assertion thereof, was the judgements and Testimonies of the Church then corrupted and bewitched, or made blind with this error. And whereas Anacletus ep. 3. Leo ep. 53. and Gregory l. 6. ep. 37. do all of them teach, a special pre-eminence to be given even to the Seas of Alexandria and Antioch, before other Apostolical or Patriarchal Seas, in respect of S. Peter, who first founded them, Danaeus (22) In Resp. ad Bell. part. 1. p 275. in his answer to Bellarmin objecting them, in steed of a better evasion, barely writeth: What he bringeth out of Anacletus, Leo, and Gregory, is in vain, seeing they plead for themselves in their own cause. But D. Field (23) of 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, 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 etc. All Churches are rightly called Apostolic, but these more specially, in which the Apostle Peter sat: And in proof of this he allegeth Anacletus, Leo, and Gregory before mentioned. D. Fulk (24) In his Confut. of Papists quarrels. etc. p. 4. affirmeth in general, that many of the ancient Fathers were deceived, to think something more of (Peter) Prerogative, and the Bishop of Rome's dignity, then by the word of God was given to either of them. Hence than we see, that Catholics defending S. Peter to have been apppointed by Christ the Head of the Apostles, and of the whole Church: As also the Church to have been built or founded upon Peter, and in this regard Peter's Sea to have been preferred before the Seas of all other Patriarcks; do herein but symbolise with the ancient Fathers, Gregory, Leo, Optatus, Hierom, Hilary, Origen, Cyprian, Tertullian, Dionysius Areopagita, and the other Fathers in general, who are here produced and reproved in these respects, by the Protestant Writers, the Centurists, Caluin, Danaeus, Brightman, Fulk, Field, Covel and Raynolds. IT IS CONFESSED BY PROTESTANTS, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church believed and taught, the Bishop of Rome to Succeed S. Peter in the Primacy of the whole Church. CHAPTER IU. Having hitherto proved the Primacy of S. Peter over the whole Church; the next point to be considered, is, whether the said Primacy, not being personally tied to him, as to dye with him, but rather being to survive and continue in his Successors, to the Churches good, even to the end of the world; whether, I say, the said Primacy, is derived to the Bishop of Rome, as the Successor of S. Peter. And herein D. Bilson (1) In his true difference etc. part. 1. p. 147. confesseth most plainly, and in general, that The Ancient and Learned Fathers, call the Roman Bishop, Peter's Successor. The Centurists (2) Cent. 5. col. 1262. charge S. Leo, that, He painfully goeth about to prove, that singular pre-eminence was given to Peter above the other Apostles, and that thence rose the Primacy of the Roman Church. And the like is confessed of S. Leo by D. Raynolds (3) In his conference p. 42. 43. who further granteth, that (4) Conference p. 218. 219. The Fathers say, Peter was Bishop of Rome, naming Hierom, Eusebius, Ireneus. And (5) Chron. D. Cowper calleth Linus, first Bishop of Rome after Peter. Osiander (6) Cent. 4. p. 294. speaking of the ancient Council of Sardis decreing Appeals to Rome, professeth to deliver the then common opinion, and reason thereof, saying: It was the ancient, common, and received error, that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, therefore this honour was thought due to the Successor of Peter, according to the common opinion etc. Bucer (7) In Praeparatorijs ad Concilium. saith: We plainly confess, that among the ancient Fathers, the Roman Church obtained Primacy above others, as that which hath the Chair of S. Peter, and whose Bishops have almost always been accounted the Successors of Peter. Yea the ancient Fathers were so confident herein, that they taught the Primacy of the Roman Bishop, to be the ordinance of Christ himself, and not any Humane or Ecclesiastical Institution. So Gelasius (In Decretis cum 70. Episcopis) teaching that, The Roman Church is preferred before the other Churches, not by any Synodical Constitutions, but hath obtained the Primacy, by the Euangelical voice of our Lord saying: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. The (8) Cent. 5. col. 1274. Centurists hereupon infer, and confess that, Gelasius contended that the Roman Church, by the law of God, was the First (or Chief) of all Churches. In like sort (9) De Regno Christi l. 2. p. 149. Philippus Nicolai granteth that, Pope julius (who lived Anno. 370.) as Socrates and Sozomene relate, sent Letters to the Eastern Churches, in which, as the Letters witness, he often declareth the right of calling General Counsels, to belong to him alone, who by singular Privilege, even by God's ordinance, is the Prelate of the first Sea etc. to wit, the Roman. This Divine ordinance was so believed, reverenced, and obeyed by the Fathers of the Primitive Church, as that, nothing is more manifest in all their writings, or other histories, and Records of Antiquity, nor more fully acknowledged and disliked by the greatest Enemies thereof, the Protestant Writers. And to begin with S. Gregory, whom M. Bale (10) In Act. Rom. Pont. p. 44. styleth Gregory the Great, of all the Roman Patriarches, the most excellent in life and learning: This so excellent a Patriarch, is charged out of his own writings by the Centurists, (11) Cent. 6. col. 425. 426. 427. 428. 429. 430 431. 432. etc. with claim and exercise of jurisdiction and Primacy, over all Churches. Carion (12) Chron. l. 4. p 567 568. affirmeth, that, Though he tragically declaymeth himself to abhor the name of Universal Bishop, yet indeed he showeth himself earnestly to desire that which the Title importeth. And Peter (13) In Cap. 8. judicum. And see the liKe in Philippus Nicolai De Regno Christi. l. 2. p. 66. Martyr in this scoffing manner reprehendeth him, saying: This little Saint Gregory, would have the thing itself of Universal Bishop, although he straightened the name and Title: For as the Histories of those times teach, and his own Epistles witness, he did not abstain from governing other Churches. M. Bale (14) In his Image of both Church's fol. 11. See Bullinger in 2. Thess. 2. p. 531. And Melancton in Ep. Ad Rom. p. 405. q. 2. p. 17. acknowledgeth, that, john of Constantinople, contended with Gregory of Rome, for the Supremacy; in which contention Gregory laid for himself S. Peter's keys, with many other sore arguments and reasons. The Protestant Author (15) of Catholic Traditions reporteth, that Maurice the Emperor would have taken away the Primacy from Gregory Bishop of Rome, and given it to john Bishop of Constantinople etc. Gregory did oppose himself against him, lest he should lose his place, urging how insolent that Title was. The Centurists (16) Cent. 6. col 425 confess, that Gregory, upon the fourth Penitential Psalm, greatly inveigheth against the Emperor, who challenged to himself the Roman Church, being the Head of all Churches, and would make her a servant, being the Mistress of Nations; Christ also saying: I will give to thee the Keys. And, (17) Cent. 6. col. 425. Gregory glorieth that the Emperor, and Eusebius his fellow-Bishop (of Constantinople) do both of them acknowledge, that the Church of Constantinople, is subject to the Apostolic Sea. Yet the Magdeburgians do further charge S. Gregory, and by collection out of his own writings by them particularly alleged, that (18) Cent. 6. col. 426. He challenged to himself power to command Archbishops, to ordain or depose Bishops at his pleasure: And (19) Cent. 6. col. 427. took upon him right to cite Archbishops to declare their cause before him, when they were accused: And also (20) col. 427. to Excommunicate and Depose them: Giving (21) col 428 Commission to their Neighbour (Bishops) to proceed against them: That (22) col. 428. & 401 In their Provinces he placed his Legates to know, and end the causes of such as appealed to the Roman sea: That (23) col. 428. He usurped power of appointing Synods in their Provinces (24) col 429. And see more col. 430. 432. 433. 434. 435. 436. 437. 438. And required other Archbishops, that if any cause of greater importance fell out, they should refer the same to him etc. appointing in Provinces, his Vicars over other Churches to end smaller matters, and to reserve the greater causes to himself. Caluin, (25) Instit. l. 4. c. 7. sec. 12. avoucheth that, There is no word in the writings of Gregory wherein more proudly he boasteth of the greatness of his Primacy, than this, to wit, I know not what Bishop is not subject to the Apostolic Sea, when he is found faulty etc. He assumeth to himself power to punish those who offend. D. Raynolds findeth no better shift for the foresaid Saying of S. Gregory, then impudently to say that (26) Conference. p. 547. Either Gregory wrote not so, or he wrote an untruth, to cheer up his Subjects (27) Cent. 6. p. 289. See Philippus Nicolai de Regno Christi. li. 2. p. 67. & 351. Osiander acknowledgeth that, Augustin was sent from Gregory the Great Bishop of Rome, into England, that he might subdue the same to the jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop (28) Cent. 6. p. 290. and to the lust of the Roman Antichrist; for which (saith Osiander) Austin was after his death undoubtedly damned to Hel. Yea D. Morton (29) Prot. Appeal. l. 1. sec. 28. p. 31. a man most sparing to tell the truth, yet yields thus far, saying: Whether, or how far, Two hundred years after, S. Gregory did reach his Arm of jurisdiction beyond the limits of his Diocese, is a question, by reason of his diverse obscure speeches, and some particular practices, diversely censured of our Authors. But besides the clearest premises, this Question of D. Morton, is made none by D. Raynodls, teaching, that (30) Confer. p. 550 The Primacy which Gregory, Leo, and others give to the Sea of Rome, doth so exceed the truth that etc. And (31) Ibid. p. 545. that Gregory is somewhat large that way: Yea that he and all the Popes for three hundred years before him (32) Ib. p. 549 avouch more of their Sea, then is true and right, in the opinion of Protestants: With whom accordeth D. Fulk saying: Gregory (33) In 2. Thess. 2. was a great worker and furtherer of the Sea of Antichrist, and of the mystery of iniquity. And (34) In john. 21. we go not about to clear Gregory from all usurpation of jurisdiction, more than to his Sea appertained. So certain and out of all question it is, that S. Gregory the Great, was a true Roman Catholic, in his Doctrine, and practise of the Pope's Primacy. By the premises than it is evident, that the objection so much urged by (35) Contrae Camp. rat. 6. p 97. FulK in his Answer to a Counterf. Cath. jewel in his Reply. art. 4. p. 225. 226. 227. Mortons' Appeal l 1. c. 2. sec. 29. p. 32. D. Whitaker, D. Fulk, D. jewel, D. Morton and sundry other Protestants, from S. Gregory his rejecting and disliking of the Title of Universal Bishop, is altogether impertinent; seeing S. Gregory rejected the same in that sense, which john Bishop of Constantinople applied to himself, to wit, that he was the sole Bishop, and none Bishop but he. A thing so evident, that the Protestant (36) De Ecclesia l. 2. c. 10. p. 570. Andreas Friccius (whom (37) In his come. Places. part. 4. p. 77. Peter Martyr termeth an excellent learned man) in like sort expresseth the same, saying: Some there be etc. that object the Authority of Gregory, who saith, that such a Title pertaineth to the Precursour of Antichrist, but the reason of Gregory is to be known, and it may be gathered of his words, which he repeateth in many Epistles, that the Title of universal Bishop is contrary to, and doth gainsay, the Grace which is commonly poured upon all Bishops. He therefore that calleth himself the only Bishop, taketh the Bishoplike power from the rest; wherefore this Title he would have to be rejected etc. But it is nevertheless evident by other places, that Gregory thought that the charge and Principality of the whole Church was committed to Peter etc. And yet for this cause Gregory thought not, that Peter was the forerunner of Antichrist. So plainly doth this Protestant answer this so often urged objection from S. Gregory; and so evident also it is, that S. Gregory himself claimed and defended the Primacy of the Roman Bishop and Church over all other Bishops and Churches whatsoever. But to arise from S. Gregory to other Doctors and Fathers more ancient, his next predecessor Pope Pelagius is for the self same cause much reproved by Osiander (38) Cent. 6. p. 242, in these words: Pelagius greatly inveigheth against john of Constantinople, because he assumed to himself the Title of Universal Patriarch, and shown by that profane Title of Universal, to abolish the name of other Patriarches etc. But in the mean time he contendeth the Roman Church to be the Head of all other Churches, and he babbleth many things of the Privileges given by Christ to S. Peter. The Centurie-writers speaking of the Father's errors which lived in the fift Age, plainly and at large confess (39] Cent. 5. col. 774. that, In this fift Age the Roman Bishops applied themselves to get and establish dominion over other Churches. So they acknowledge that Pope Celestin (of whom (40) In his Defence. p. 588. D. Whitguift saith, He was a godly Bishop) gave privilege of using the Title of Pope and the Mitre to Ciril of Alexandria, whom he had substituted in his place to be Precedent in the Council of Ephesus. He is also charged by M. Carthwright (41) In his 2. Reply. part. 1. p. 512. to have claimed superiority over all Churches, taking upon him as it were the name of Universal Bishop. (42) Cent. 5. col. 1246. Osiander affirmeth that, He contended in behalf of the Roman Churches Primacy more impudently than did his Predecessors. (43) Cent. 5. col. 1285. Nestorius (the Heretic) than Bishop of Constantinople, he allotted ten days 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 (44) Cent. 5. col. 778. charge the Popes of those times, that, They usurped to themselves power of commanding other Bishops, that whom they would, and should propose in foreign Churches, they might ordain Bishop, or whom they would not have, might depose. So Celestin in his Epistle to Cyril of Alexandria, and john of Antioch, and Rufus of Thessalonica, commandeth them, that they design Proclus Bishop at Constantinople. D. Raynolds affirmeth, that the (45) Conference. p. 457. Popes of the Second Three hundred years after Christ, claimed some Soveraintie over Bishops. And that (46) Ib. p. 383. Sozimus, Boniface, Celestin, did usurp over the churches of afric, while S. Austin was alive etc. (47) Ib. p. 544. They would have Bishops and Elders appeal to Rome. And that (48) Ib. p. 550. Popes (namely Innocent, Leo, Gelasius, Vigilius, Gregory) taught that the Fathers by the Sentence of God decreed, that whatsoever was done in Provinces far of, should not be concluded before it came to the notice of the Sea of Rome. And this they say, all churches took their beginning from the Roman, that all Bishops had their honour from Peter. And herewith he confesseth that in those times, Popes (49) Ibid. p. 540. were learned, and Catholics, and were (50) Ibid. p. 552. 554. 555. sued unto by S. Basil, S. Chrysostom, and S. Austin; and the African Bishops sought unto them for their advice and counsel, for their authority and credit. To come to S. Leo, for whom (51) of the Church. l. 5. p. 284. D. Field (speaking of this very point) proffereth thus largely: Surely if they can show, that Leo saith any such thing as the former Popes are taught to say, we will most willingly listen to them; for we acknowledge Leo to have been a most worthy Bishop, and the things that go under his name, to be his indubitate works. And M. Mason (52) Consecration of Engli. Bishop's p. 115. termeth him, Pope Leo, a holy and learned Pope. Now for D. Fields and all other Protestants further satisfaction in this point, I will but only recite what other Protestant Writers acknowledge and censure of that most worthy Bishop Leo. (53) In Confess Geneu. c. 7. sect. 12. Beza affirmeth that, It is manifest, that Leo in his Epistles doth clearly breath-forth the arrogancy of the Antichristian Roman Sea. (54) In his Conference with Hart. p. 50. D. Raynolds writeth, I do freely profess, that I mislike those haughty speeches in Leo, and I think that the Mystery of iniquity so wrought through his so ambitious advancing Peter, that etc. (55) De Conciliis contra Bellarm p. 37. D. Whitakers censure is, As for Leo the First, I little care; he was a great Architect of the Antichristian kingdom. And yet this notwithstanding the same (56) Ibid. p. 34. D. Whitaker acknowledgeth, that, Leo was a learned and godly Bishop, but yet (saith he) over ambitious. The (57) Cent. 5. col. 1013. Centurists report, how that Theodoret a Greek Father, being deposed by the Second Council of Ephesus, did make his appeal to Pope Leo, and that thereupon the most godly Leo restored to Theodoret his Bishopric. They likewise (58) Cent. 5. col. 778. confess, that Leo confirmed Maximus Bishop of Antiochia in his Bishopric: and established to Pro●erius Bishop of Alexandria the ancient rights of that Sea according to the Canons and Privileges, as is showed in the 68 and 69. Epistle of Leo. And they affirm (59) Cent. 5. col. 779. that the Popes of those times, took unto themselves 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 that (60) Cent. 5. col. 780. They endeavoured to challenge that Authority over Archbishops, that if they did any thing, they should be thought to do it by Authority of the Roman Bishop, as though they were his servants and slaves. So Leo Epist. 84. showeth that the Bishops of Thessalonica always supplied the place of the Apostolic sea, and he admonished Anastasius (than their Bishop) that in remote Provinces, in some sort he should visit himself, and decree nothing, but what he knew would be approved by him. Also They (61) Cent. 5. col. 779. dared to exact of Archbishops, that if there were any thing they could not determine by their own judgements, they should refer it to them. So Leo epist. 84. prescribeth this law to the (Bishop) of Thessalonica. In like sort, they (62) Cent. 5. col. 781. assumed to themselves power to call General Counsels, as appeareth in the 93. epist. of Leo etc. And they rejected as unlawful such Synods as were assembled without their Authority etc. Leo sent Paschasius Bishop of Sicily to be Precedent in the Council of Chalcedon. And (63) Col. 782 The Fathers often for honour sake desired their Decrees to be confirmed by them. So the Council of Chalcedon writeth to Leo: we desire that thou wilt honour our judgement with thy Decrees, and as we desirous of good have agreed, so thy Height (or greatness) may fulfil in thy sons what is fitting. And yet D. Raynolds confesseth of this Council, (64) Conf. p. 563. that it (67) was a company of 630. Bishops, sound in Religion and Zealous of the glory of God: affirming further, that the said Council (68) Ib. p. 562 named Pope Leo their Head; and that he was, Precedent of the Council. But to conclude this of Leo, wherein for D. Fields further satisfaction, I have been the larger, it is plainly confessed by the Centurists (69) Cent. 5. col. 12. 62. that Leo, very painfully goeth about to prove, that singular pre-eminence was given to Peter above the other Apostles, and that thence rose the Primacy of the Roman Church. For which very cause, D. Morton chargeth S. Leo, to have been (70) Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 283. 285. Peremptory etc. and ambitious. As for Pope Leo (71) Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 294. 295. (saith he) he was so peremptory that for his presumption he found in his time some brotherly checks. To proceed, Prosper (de ingratis c. 2.) affirming Rome to be the seat of Peter, and the Head of Pastoral Honour over the world, is censured for the same by (72) Resp. ad Bellar. par. 1. p. 594. Danaeus, to be the Pope's flatterer. In like sort, Vincentius adversus Haer. is charged (73) Ibid. p. 313. by him, to have plainly flattered the Pope of Rome, when he termed S. Faelix and S. julius, Bishops of Rome, to be the Head of the world, and S. Cyprian and S. Amhrose, the Sides. But to pass to others, the (74) Cent. 5. col. 778. Centurists affirm, that Gelasius in his epistle to Faustus, doth impudently lie (affirming) that it is established in the Canons, that Appeals of the whole Church should be brought to the Examen of the Roman Sea, and from her in no place Appeal should be made. And again, (75) Cent. 5. col. 780. Gelasius in his epistle to the Dardanians, affirmeth that he hath given the charge of the Church of Alexandria, to Acacius of Constantinople, and therefore that he ought to relate all things unto him. Yea (76) Cent. 5. col. 779. they further confess, that Gelasius, in the Tome of Excommunications, denyeth that Peter of Alexandria, Bishop of the second Sea, can be absolved by any then the Bishop of the first Sea, to wit, the Roman. As also (77) Cent. 5. col. 1274. & M. Symondes upon the Revel. c. 5. p. 58. Gelasius held, that Counsels are subject to the Pope, and that all should appeal to him, but none from him. They (78) Cent. 5. col. 778. And Symondes upon the Revel. 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 Apostolic, nothing shall be determined, but what the Roman Bishop judgeth. But to omit sundry other particular Pope's (79) In his Trial of the Pope's Title. p. 117. M. Bunnie confesseth, that, Innocentius telleth the Bishops of Macedonia, that they should have regard to the Church of Rome, as to their Head, and that it is wronged, because they did not at first yield to his judgement etc. The Bishops of Rome gave also out Decrees, which they would bind all to observe, as appeareth in Siricius and Innocentius: It savoureth of too great arrogancy, that Sozimus threatneth severity, if any despise the Apostolic authority, So did Leo; what should I seek to speak of every one, their own Decretals do sufficiently bear witness. Yea it is acknowledged in general (80) Cent. 5. col. 778. that the Popes of this fift Age, ordained and required, that in the causes of Bishops, it might be lawful to appeal to them, as is manifest by the Acts of the 6. Carthage Council. And (81) In his Def. p. 342. D. Whitguift avoucheth, that, It is certain that then (Viz. in the time of the Carthage and African Counsels) the Bishops of Rome began at least to claim Superiority over all Churches. Now the Council of Carthage was assembled about Anno 419. and the African Anno 423. Yea it is granted by (82) In his second Reply. part. 1. p. 510. Whitguift in his Def. p 344 Saravia de diversis gradibus etc. p. 493. M. Carthwright, and other Protestant Writers, that the Council of Chalcedon (whose authority is established to our Adversaries by Act of Parliament, Anno 1. Elisabeth. c. 1.) did offer the name of universal Bishop, to the Bishop of Rome. And hence it is that the Centurists (83) Cent. 5. col. 774. affirm of these ancient Roman Bishops, that, They had flatterers, who affirmed, that without permission of the Roman Bishop, none might undertake the person of a judge (84) Cent. 5. col. 775. Who then likewise averred that, Antiquity had attributed the Principality of Priesthood, to the Roman Bishop above al. And accordingly, that Turbius Asturiensis, flattered Pope Leo, and acknowledged his superiority. And whereas Theodoret speaking of the Roman Sea, saith: That holy Sea hath the Government of all the Churches of the world, M. jewel findeth no better answer hereto, then to say (85) Art. 4. Diu. 21. That man naturally advanceth his power, at whose hands he seeketh help: As though Theodoret would give an Antichristian Title (for so Protestants account it) for avarice, or S. Leo would accept it for flattery. Thus much as touching those Fathers and Bishops who lived in the Fift Age after Christ, and their confessed testimonies, of the jurisdiction really executed by the Popes of those times, not only over their Neighbour Churches and Bishops in Italy, but over remote Countries, and the other greatest Archbishops and Patriarcks of the world, as of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Constantinople, and by them then, accordingly acknowledged and obeyed. To come now to the Fathers that lived in the Age precedent, which is the time wherein Constantin the Great, lived, 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 many, nor her face of outward Government so known, as in the times succeeding: Yet is there not wanting even for that time, sufficient confessed testimony in this kind. In this Age lived Pope Damasus, a man for virtue and learning so highly deserving, as that (86) Decades in English. on the page next before the first Decade. Bullinger, not only calleth him, Blessed Damasus Bishop of Rome etc. but withal setteth down the Imperial Decree of the Emperor's Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, for the embracing of the Religion, taught by Damasus, and Peter of Alexandria (87) In his Def. etc. p 345 M. Whiteguift confesseth that, Damasus, was a Virtuous, Learned, and Godly Bishop (88) 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 virtue, is charged by M. Cartwright (89) In his Reply part. 1. p. 502. to speak in the Dragon's voice, when he shameth not to write, that the Bishop of Rome's Sentence, was above all other to be attended for in a synod. Crispinus (90) The Estate of the Church p 137. chargeth Damasus, that he was, too much given to elevate the Dignity of his Sea: For (saith he) he begimeth his said Epistle to them of Constantinople: In the Reverence, dear children, which you own to the Apostolic Sea, you do much for yourselves &c. (91) Upon the Revel. c. 5. p. 54. and See Cent. 4. col. 550 M. Symondes' acknowledgeth, that Damasus wrote to the Counsels of afric, that the judgement of the causes of Bishops, and all other Matters of great importance, may not be determined, but by the authority of the Apostolic Sea. And whereas Socrates (l. 4. c. 30.) reporteth, that Peter, Patriarch of Alexandria, being thence expulsed by the Arians, was upon his journey and request to Damasus, Bishop of Rome, and return from thence which Damasus his letters, restored and confirmed thereby in his Sea of Alexandria: This same History is acknowledged by the (92) Cent. 4. col. 1367. & col. 532. Centurists. And M. Bunnie (93) In his Trial of the Pope's Title. p. 117. acknowledgeth that, Damasus in his 4. Epistle to Prosper and other Bishops of Numidia, commandeth them, that in all doubtful matters they refer themselves to him as to the Head etc. Siricius taketh upon him to threaten to pronounce Sentence against such as will do otherwise then he would have them. So firm was Damasus in defence and execution of the Pope's Primacy. In this same Age lived also Pope julius, of whom (94) In his 2. Reply. par. 1. p. 510. M. Carthwright writeth: julius Bishop of Rome saith, it was decreed by the Laws of the Church, and immediately after the Nicen Council, that the Bishop of Rome must be called to the Synod, and that that was void, which was done there besides his Sentence. (95) De Conciliis quest. 2. p. 42. 43. 44. D. Whitaker relating the Ecclesiastical Canon of those times, whereby it was decreed, That no Council should be celebrated without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome, confesseth further, that, julius challenged to himself the like authority. And whereas Bellarmin doth object this example of julius, and other Bishops of Rome, alleging this Canon (96) Resp. ad Bellarm. part. 1. p. 595. Danaeus his only answer is, that this objection, is of no moment, because it is produced from the testimony of a Roman Bishop, that is, from a Party in his own cause. And M. Carthwright (97) In his 2. Reply. part. 1. p. 501. avoucheth, that julius' Bishop of Rome at the Council of Antioch outreached in claiming the hearing of causes, that appertained not to him. The (98) Cent. 4. col. 529. Centurists confess, that, The Roman Bishops made a Law, that they might command all things first to be written to them, as appeareth by the Epistle of julius in Athasius Apologia secunda. For julius saith: Are you ignorant this to be the custom, that first we be written unto etc. (99) Upon the Revel. c. 5. p. 53. And see Mornay of the Church in English. p. 264. M. Simonides testifieth that, julius decreed, that whosoever suspected his judge, might appeal to the Sea of Rome. In so much that whereas the Arians had expelled Athanasius B●shop of Alexandria, Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, and diverse other Catholic Bishops of the East Church, it is (100) Cent. 4. col. 530. testified, that, julius commanded the Arians to come to Rome, and apppointed also a day to Athanasius. Theodoret. l. 2. c. 4. etc. where hearing every man's accusations and (101) Cent. 4. col. 550. complaint, He restored every one of these (wronged Bishops) to his own place, or Bishopric; and that not by entreaty, or arbitrably, but, as the (102) Cent. 4. col. 550. & 530 Centurists confess, by Prerogative of the Roman Sea. All which might as ye be made much more evident by julius his undoubted Epistle extant in A●hanasius his second Apology, and alleged by the Centurists (103) Cent. 4. col. 735. who mention their (104) col 737 & 742. Citation even unto judgement (105) col 739. 740. and at a certain day, and greatly reprehending this (106) col. 529 And see D. field of the Church l 5. p. 178. Saying of julius, Are ye ignorant this to be the custom, that first we be written unto, that from hence that which is right may be defined? etc. for what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify unto you. To conclude this of Pope julius, Doctor Philippus Nicolai (107) De Regno Christi. l. 2. p. 149. avoucheth that, Pope julius as Socrates and Sozomene relate, sent letters to the Eastern (Bishops) in which, as the letters witness, he often affirmeth, the right of calling general Counsels by a certain singular Privilege, even by Divine Precept, to belong to himself alone, who, as he saith, is the Prelate of the first Sea. He also affirmeth that it no less appertaineth unto him being the Bishop of that City, that he be acquainted with the affairs of Bishops, and other weighty businesses of that kind. After the same manner and with like ambition Damasus etc. and afterwards Innocentius etc. Thus far the Protestant Philippus. To whom I will only add M. Fox confessing that (108) Act. Mon. l. 1. p. 1. The Church of Rome in all those Ages above specified (from the Apostles) challenged to itself the Title and ring-leading of the whole universal Church on earth, by whose direction all other Churches have been governed. And (109) Ibid. p. 8. whatsoever was done in other places, commonly the manner was to write to the Roman Bishop for his approbation. The testimony of the Roman Bishop was sometimes wont to be desired in those days (of Pope julius) for admitting Bishops in other Churches, whereof we have examples in Socrates l. 4. c. 37. when Bishops of any other Provinces were at any dissension, they appealed to the Bishop of Rome. Neither was this only the private opinion of some particular Popes of those times, but it was the general received doctrine of other Bishops and Fathers: In so much as the Council of Sardis (which M. Bel (110) In his Regiment of the Church. p 158. termeth The famous and ancient Council of Sardis) consisting of 300. Bishops and above, assembled from Spain (111) Cent. 4. col. 747. & Theodoret. hist. l 2. c. 8. France, Italy, Greece, AEgipt, Thebais, Palestine, Arabia etc. and most other parts of the Christian world, & whereat sundry Fathers of the Nicene Council were (112) Carion in his Chron. p. 282. present (113) Cent. 4. col. 764. decreed Appeals to the Bishop of Rome: Insomuch as the (114) Ibid. Centurists and (115) Epitome p. 294. Osiander do both of them acknowledge and recite this 7. Canon of that Council: It hath seemed good to us, that if a Bishop be accused, if the Bishops of the Province assembled together have judged the matter, and have deprived him, if the Party deprived do appeal and fly to the Bishop of Rome etc. if the Party accused desiring his cause to be heard once again, do entreat the Bishop of Rome to send Legates (a latere suo) from him; it shall be in the power of the Bishop to do as he shall think good etc. (116) Antich. Disp. bipart. p. 31. sect. 103. Tilenus' speaking hereof avoucheth that, The Decree of the Council of Sardis of Appealing to Rome, made the Roman Bishop more bold. And in regard of this Decree, this so ancient a Council is much reproved (117) Instit. l. 4. c. 7. sect. 9 by Caluin (118) In his come. places in English. p. 4. p. 39 Peter Martyr (119) Palma Christiana. p. 30. 122. 124. Frigivilleus Gaunius, and (120) Cent 4. p. 294. Osiander. But to end this Centurie wherein our first Christian Emperor Constantin the Great lived & ruled. The Protest. writer (121) Palma Christiana p. 35. Frigivilleus Gaunius plainly confesseth, that the said Constantin himself attributed Primacy to the Roman (Bishop) before al. & that (122) Ibid p. 34. Thereby it appeared to be fatal, that Constantin would give power to the Beast, which (Pope) julius forthwith put in practice: for Constantin the Great carried in his Ensigns the Dragon for his Arms etc. so that he was the Dragon Apoc. 13.2. (123) Fidelis Relatio etc. p. 19 Bibliander acknowledgeth, that Constantin the Great reigning etc. Silvester the Bishop of Rome began to lay the foundations of the Papistical Monarchy etc. M. Bale hath almost the same words saying (124) Cent. 1. c. 36. In these times (of Constantin) Sylvester began to lay the foundation of the Pope's Monarchy, and finding the key of the depth, he opened the pit, if it be true which Papists writ of him. Yea all the Popes after Sylvester to Bonif. 3. he termeth Mitred Bishops preparing by their Canons and Decrees the seat for the great Antichrist. The (125) Cent. 4. col. 549. Centurists confess in general, that In this age the Mystery of iniquity was not idle (126) Cent. 4● col. 550. And that, The Bishop of Rome challenged by Ecclesiastical Canon, the dissallowing of those Synods, whereat they were absent: So clear it is, that the Fathers, Bishops and Counsels of this Age agreed with us Catholics in the doctrine & practice of the Pope's Primacy. Now as concerning the Age next ensuing the 20. years after Christ, in which persecution so raged, as the Church's government was thereby much the more obscured▪ yet it is confessed (127) Cent 3. col. 168. that Pope Stephen in this Age (did) threaten Excommunication to Helenus & Firmilianus, & all (others) throughout Cilicia, Cappadocia, for rebaptising Heretics (128) Apocalypsis etc. c. 7. p. 193, yea M. Brightman is of opinion that, scarcely would any believe those proud brags of the Roman Sea, wherewith the Decretal Epistles abound, not to have been forged by succeeding Popes and so falsely ascribed to the more ancient, they are so impudent and vain, but that Firmilianus assureth they were their own, at least a great part of them whose names they bear; for speaking of Stephen then Bishop of Rome, who (saith he) so braggeth of the place of his Bishopric, and contendeth himself to hold the Succession of Peter, upon whom the foundations of the Church were placed, and he declareth abundantly how boasting the Bishops than were, amongst the Epistles of Cyprian ep. 75. The (129) Cent. 3. c. 7. col. 168. Centurists confess that, Dionysius Bishop of Rome, through the false accusation of some, excommunicated Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria; but Dionysius of Alexandria made his Apology, and refuted the errors falsely objected unto him, as Athanasius reporteth. Hereby appeareth not only the authority of the Bishop of Rome in excommunicating, but also the obsequiousness of the Bishop of Alexandria in not contemning, but making his Apology unto him. They (130) Cent. 3. col. 84. likewise reprove S. Cyprian for teaching that, There aught to be one Bishop in the Catholic Church, And, for his calling (131) Ibid. Peter's Chair the principal Church from whence Priestly unity ariseth (132) Upon jude p. 285. M. Trig reprehendeth S. Cyprian, saying: Cyprian giveth more privileges to the Roman Church; he calleth it the chief Church from whence Priestly unity began etc. And to which infidelity cannot have access. Whereupon M. Trig thus inferreth: Here we may note, what certainty it is, to build our Faith on the Fathers &c And the (133) Cent. 3. col. 84. And See Brightman in his Apocalypsis in c. 13. p. 343. Centurists charge him, for teaching (say they) without any foundation of Scripture, that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all other, for the Mother and root of the Catholic Church. Yea D. Morton (134) Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 294. 295. professing willingly to admit S. Cyprians judgement as Umpire in this controversy, is yet enforced to say: Although the next sentences of S. Cyprian may seem, at their first view, unto the unexpert Reader, to observe in the Church of Rome, both a grace of Impossibility of Erring, and also a Prerogative of the Mother Church of all others, and are therefore censured by our Centurists for speeches inconvenient: Yet no man exercised and conversant in his writings, and other Fathers, can be ignorant, that such like speeches are but the languages of Rhetorical Amplification, which commonly they use by way of persuasion, rather than by asseveration. But what testimony, though never so clear in any matter whatsoever, may not easily be evaded, if it will 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, utter the foresaid Sayings, by way of Persuasion, in behalf of the Roman Churches Prerogatives, if they had thought in their own judgements and Consciences, that the said Prerogatives had not been due unto her? So undoubted it is, that S. Cyprian and the other Fathers of his Age, believed and acknowledged the Primacy of the Roman Church. But as touching the Age next after the Apostles themselves, whereof as M. Hutton (135) In his answer to the 2. par. of the Reasons of Refusal to Subscription p. 105. observeth, but few Monuments are now remaining: As than lived Pope Victor, who in D. Whiteguifts (136) In his Defence etc. p. 510. opinion was a godly Bishop and Martyr, and the Church at that time in great purity: And yet of him saith D. Whitaker (137) Cont. Duraeum l. 7. p. 480. FulK in his Answ. to a counterf. Cath. p. 36. with D. Fulk, The first that exercised jurisdiction upon foreign Bishops, was Victor: Insomuch as he excommunicating the Bishops of Asia for not observing the Feast of Easter-day according to the use of the Latin Church, D. Fulk (138) Ibid. chargeth him that, He passed the bounds of his authority. Amandus' Polanus )139) In Sillog. Thes. Theol. p. 165 accuseth him, to have showed a Papal mind and arrogancy. And M. Spark (140) Against john 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 upon him to excommunicate the Bishops of the East. Beza (141) Pref. ad Princip. Condensem. before his Translation of the New Testament. termeth Victor the most foolish and most ambitious Bishop of Rome. And (142) Of the state of the Church p. 47 Crispinus speaking of this Age, avoucheth, that The Roman Bishops now became more audacious to forge new Ceremonies, yea and to force upon other Churches etc. Victor in his 2. Decretal calleth himself Archbishop of the Roman and universal Church. D Fulk (143) Against the Rhem. Test. in 2. Thess. 2. sec. 9 p. 659. maketh the Mystery of iniquity to work in Peter's Sea in the times of Anicetus, Victor, and Cornelius. In like sort D. Morton iustifyeth such Protestant Authors as (144) Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 300. reprehend Victor for arrogancy, and transgressing the bounds of his jurisdiction, in excommunicating the Churches of Asia etc. The Centurists record, that (145) Cent. 2. c. 7. col. 159. Anacletus in the Epistles which hear his name, in the general regiment of Churches, so loyneth them together, that to the Roman Church he attributeth Primacy and excellency of power over all Churches, and over the whole flock of the Christian People, and that by the authority of Christ saying to Peter: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church etc. The Bishop of Rome is placed first, as the supreme Head of the Church: who though he err, yet will he not have him to be judged of others etc. He saith also, that certain Cities received Primates from the Blessed Apostles, and from S. Clement etc. He prescribeth that, If greater difficulties arise, or causes fall out among the Bishops and Primates themselves, let them be brought to the Sea Apostolic, if such Appeal be made: for so the Apostles ordained by the appointment of our Saviour, that the greater and harder questions should always be brought to the Apostolic Sea, upon which Christ built his universal Church. Math. 16. In like sort they say of Xistus, that In his 2, Epistle (he) nameth himself the Bishop of the universal Apostolic Church: And willeth others to appeal to the Apostolic Sea as to the Head. Whereby it is evident that the ancient Popes, Victor, Anacletus, Xistus, and our Gregory xv. do wholly agree in their due claim of Primacy. In like manner holy Ireneus, who according to Hamelmanus, (146) De Traditionibus col. 528. might yet remember the Apostles own lively preaching, affirming l. 3. c. 3. that, It is necessary that all Churches do accord to the Roman Church, in regard of a more powerable principality, is charged for the same by the Centurists, (147) In the Alphabetical Table of the 2. Cent. at the word, Ireneus. with a corrupt Saying, concerning the Primacy of the Roman Church. But to arise yet even to the times of the blessed Apostles themselves: whereas Papias, as appeareth by the testimony of Ireneus, alleged by the Centurists, (148) Cent. 2 col. 172. lived in the Apostles time &, as D. Fulk (149) In his Answ to A Counterf. Cath. p 35. confesseth, was Scholar to S. john, yet doth M. Midleton (150) Papistomastix p. 200. charge him saying: Papias was the first Father and Founder of Traditions, and Peter's Primacy or Romish Episcopalitie: (151) De Scrip. Auth. l. 2. c. 20. fol. 166. Bullinger reporteth that, forthwith from the very times of the Apostles, especially from the government of Constantin the Great (under whom some say the first poison was poured into the Church) the desire of governing was often put in practice by certain Roman Bishops etc. D. Downeham (152) Antichristi l. 2. c. 8. p. 79. acknowledgeth, though not the then open Exercise of the (Popes) universal Dominion, yet the private Doctrine thereof, saying: The Antichrist which is to be destroyed at the second coming of Christ, was come even in the Apostles time, although he was not revealed by exercising openly a Sovereign and universal Dominion. M. Midleton (153) Papistomastix. p. 193. affirmeth confidently that, we are sure that the Mystery of iniquity did work in Paul's time, and fell not a-sleep so soon as Paul was dead, waking again six hundred years after, when this Mystery was disclosed etc. And therefore no marvel though perusing Counsels, Fathers, and Stories from the Apostles forward, we find the print of the Pope's feet etc. But Philippus (154) De Regno Christi p. 221. Nicolai undertaking to speak of the beginning and increase of the Pope's Dignity, avoucheth yet further, that The desire of Primacy was the common Infirmity of the Apostles, (155) Catal. Testium veritatis. Tom. 1. p. 27. and of the first Bishops of the City of Rome. Yea some Protestants doubt not to derive from S. Peter himself (as being the prognosticon or type thereof) the confessed claim of his Successors the Bishops of Rome, saying to this purpose: It can not be denied, but that Peter sometimes was subject to ambition, and desire of Rule etc. By which infirmity of Peter it was undoubtedly signified, that these Bishops who boasted of Peter's succession, were to be subject to the like, yea to greater ambition by infinite degrees etc. wherefore this so corrupt ambition of Peter, and ignorance and negligence of divine matters etc. without douht did foreshow, that the Bishop of Rome, in that he will be the Chief and the Heir of Peter's Privileges, was to be ignorant and a contemner of heavenly things, and a lover of human riches, power, and pleasures. And D. Whitaker blusheth not to write, that, (156) De Concil. p. 37. The mystery of iniquity did work in the Sea of Rome in Peter's time, and did show itself in Anicetus, Victor, Cornelius, Sozimus, Bonifacius, Celestinus. Now if it be true which Caluin affirmeth that, (157) Resp. ad Sadoletum. It is plain & conspicuous both to learned and unlearned, that the Kingdom of Christ (by which he meaneth the Protestant Church) was overthrown when the Primacy of the Roman Bishop was erected, then seeing the said Primacy confessedly began in S. Peter himself, and since hath ever continued in his Successors the Bishops of Rome, it followeth, that therefore the Protestant Church hath been overthrown and ruinated ever since the time of S. Peter; than which what can be produced more convincing in proof, that the Protestant Church indeed never was? But to conclude this with that Princely testimony of K. Henry. Luther (158) In Assertione 7. adversus Luther. Art. 2. cannot deny (saith he) but that all the Church of the faithful acknowledge and reverence the holy Roman Sea as their Mother and Chief, if they be not debarred access by distance of places, or by dangers in the Way. And yet if they speak truth, which come hither from India, the very Indians themselves, distant by so many parts of the Earth, of the Seas, of the deserts, do yet submit themselves to the Bishop of Rome. Therefore if the Pope hath obtained, neither by the commandment of God, nor by the assent of men, so great and so universal power, but hath challenged the same to himself by his own power: Let Luther tell 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 memory of man? but if he say, that it was above one or two Ages ago, let him make us remember the same out of History; for otherwise if it be so ancient, that the beginning of so great a matter be blotted out, let him know, that it is provided by the Laws, that whose right (or Title) so surpasseth all memory of men, that it cannot be known what beginning it had, it is judged to have had a lawful beginning: And it is clearly forbidden by the consent of all Nations, that those things be not changed, which have long continued without change. So undoubted it is, that this our Catholic doctrine of the Bishops of Rome's Primacy hath been generally taught and practised time out of mind, even from S. Peter himself, even to the end of the Primitive Church, and ever since: as hath been formerly proved. To come now to the Government of the Church before Christ's time, The Puritans themselves do confess that, (159) Engl. Puritan. p. 16. And Hook. Eccl. Pol. l. 5. p. 235. The high Priest of the jews was typically and in a figure the supreme Head of the whole Catholic Church, which though (say they) it were visible only in the Province and Nation of jewrie, yet those of other Nations and Countries (as appeareth by the History of the Acts, even though they were Aethiopians) were under this High Priest, and acknowledged homage unto him. So that he was &c. in very deed an Ecumenical & universal Bishop of the whole world. yea, saith M. jacob, (160) Reasons taken out of God's word p 5. The jewish Church under the Law was National and only One in the world under one high Priest. (161) Cent. 4. col. 549. And see Carthwright in Wh●tguift Def. p 700. See Osiand. cent. 4. p. 477. Amandus' Polanus Symphonia p 841. & 849. And as the Fathers were thus direct and full for the Bishop of Rome's Primacy, so did they answerably reject all pretended spiritual Primacy in any temporal Magistrate. So the Centurie-writers confess, that Emperors assumed to themselves unseasonably the judgement of matters of Faith, which thing Athanasius reprehendeth in Constantius, & Ambrose in Valentinian. Yea (162) Of the Estate of the Churcb p. 99 Crispinus confesseth, that our first Christian Emperor Constantin said; God hath ordained you Bishops, and hath given you power to judge of yourselves; by means whereof we yield ourselves to your judgement. Men may not judge you, but God alone. Yea (163) Ibid. p. 93 And see the Abridgement of Fox his Acts & Mon. p 67. Crispinus further acknowledgeth, that, he gave power unto Clerks for to appeal from Civil Magistrates to Bishops. And others (164) In the said Abridgement p. 66 grant that, He freed them from all manner of public duties and burdens. As also that, (165) Napper. upon the Reu●l. p. 145. He subdued all Christian Churches to Pope Sylvester; And (166) Frigivilleus Ganuius in his Palma Christ. p. 35. Attributed Primacy to the Roman Bishop before al. And such was his respect to Ecclesiastical Governors, as that the Centurists (167) Cent. 4 col. 4●0. relate that, It is known what reverence and observance he had to Bishops in the Council of Nyce, where he would not sit down until the Bishops willed him: And then as 168) Chron. p. 274. And Lubbertus de Concilijs. Carrion reporteth, Constantin sat down on a lower Seat amongst the Bishops. So far was this most renowned and Christian Prince from challenging to himself Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical. The Centurists (169) Cent. 5. col. 663. do acknowledge and recite Pope Innocentius his Epistle to Arcadius the Emperor and his wife, who were adverse to Chrysostom, and took part with Theophilus, where he thus writeth: I the least of all and a Sinner, having yet the Throne of the Great Apostle Peter committed to me, do separate and remove thee and her, from receiving the immaculate Mysteries of Christ our God: And every Bishop or any other of the Clergy which shall presume to minister or give to you those holy mysteries, after the time that you have read the present letters of my bound, pronounce them void of their dignity etc. Arsacius whom you placed in the Bishop-like Throne in Chrysostoms' room, though he be dead, we depose and command that his name be not written in the role of Bishops. In like manner we depose all other Bishops who deliberately have communicated with him etc. To the deposing of Theophilus we add Excommunication etc. From hence then it appeareth that the Fathers of the Primitive Church not only denied even to the greatest Emperors all pretended Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters, but that also Constantin himself disclaimed from the same, and when other Emperors offended against the Church, the same Church spared not to punish them for the same. The premises likewise do most fully convince, that the Primitive Church never thought any Pope or succession of Popes to be Antichrist. But contrary to Protestants, (making all Popes for many hundred years past to be Antichrists) it is confessed by D. Whitaker (170) l. De Antichristo p. 21. that, The Fathers for the most part thought that Antichrist should be but one man, but in that (saith he) as in many other things they erred, either because they yielded too much to the common opinion concerning Antichrist, or because they weighed not the Scriptures so diligently as they ought: And as M. Whitaker forsooth hath done; M. Carthwright's (171) In his 2. Reply part. 1. p. 508. See Gracerus his Historia Antichristi p. 11. censure is, that divers of the ancient and the chiefest of them imagined fond of Antichrist, as of one singular Person. And as for the time of his coming and continuance, M. Fox (172) In Apoc. c. 12 p. 345. acknowledgeth that, Almost all the holy and learned Interpreters, do by a Time, Times, and half a Time, understand only Three years and a half: And (173) In Apoc. c. 13. p. 362. that this is the consent & opinion of almost all the ancient Fathers. Bullinger (174) In Revel. c. 11. ser. 46. f. 142 avoucheth, that, Doubtless all Expositors grounding themselves upon this Text, have attributed to the Kingdom of Antichrist, and to his most cruel persecutions no more than Three years and a half. This shortest time of Antichrists reign was so clearly the Doctrine & belief of the ancient Fathers, that D. Morton for his truest answer confesseth the same, reproving them all of Error, saying: (175) Prot. Appeal. l 2. p. 144. Why might not these Fathers be said, to have erred in prefining the time of Antichrist who have been thus far overseen in reporting his Tribe? So confessedly do the Father's clear all our Popes from being Antichrists. (176) Of the Church. 9 p. 286 Philip Mornay proveth at large that Antichrist is not to come during the continuance of the Roman Empire, in which behalf he allegeth the agreeable Say of S. Ambrose, Hierom, Austin, Chrysostom, and S. Paul. By all which it is most evident, that in the opinion of the ancient Fathers Antichrist is to be but one man, and the continuance of his Reign to be Three years and a half before the ending of the world, before which the Roman Empire must cease. To review then the truest harmony between the Primitive and our present Roman Church in this principal Controversy concerning the Pope's Supremacy in Causes Spiritual and Ecclesiastical; The Fathers and Bishops as then taught: First, that the Bishop of Rome was S. Peter's successor, and that this Succession was not any humane or Synodical Constitution, but even the ordinance of God himself. Secondly, that therefore Popes might Exercise their jurisdiction & Primacy over all Churches. Thirdly, And so accordingly they did ordain, Excommunicate, depose, restore, and cite other foreign Bishops & Archbishops. Fourthly, they placed their Legates or Vicars in other Countries to end smaller matters, reserving the greater causes to themselues. Fiftly, Appeals were made to them from all Christian Kingdoms. Sixthly, and they not only had power to call General Counsels, but they also apppointed Precedents in the same: Yea Counsels were then so subject unto them, as that no Council was holden lawful which was not assembled & approved by their authority. Seaventhly, Princes & Emperors were subject to their Spiritual Censures: And yet no Father, Bishop, or King of those times did ever traduce any one of those Popes with that foulest note or stain of Antichrist. Now the ancient holy Doctors and Bishops which are here acknowledged and reproved for the foresaid several points and privileges of the Pope's Primacy are, Gregory, Pelagius, Celestin, Leo, Foelix, Gelasius, the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, & of afric, and the 6. of Carthage, of Sardis: Sixtus, Innocentius, Siricius, Sozimus, Damasus, julius, Stephen, Denis, Cyprian, Victor, Anicetus, Cornelius, Ireneus, Papias, Peter, and the other Apostles. The Protestants producing and reproving the foresaid Fathers, are the Centurie-writers, Danaeus, Caluin, Bucer, Philippus Nicolai, Peter Martyr, Carion, Bullinger, Melancthon, Osiander, Friccius, Beza, Crispinus, Tilenus, Frigivilleus Gawius, Bibliander, Amandus, Polanus, Hamelmannus, Illyricus, Lubbertus, Saravia, Napper, Mornay, Whitguift, Carthwright, Whitaker, Fulk, Bilson, Trige, Rainolds, Brightman, Bale, Simonides, Bunnie, Spark, Midleton, Fox, Morton and Field: every one whereof do cite and reprove some Father or Council before mentioned, concerning some branch of the Bishop of Rome's Primacy. It is confessed by Protestants, that the Primitive Church of Christ believed the Books of Toby, judith, Esther, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, and two first of Maccabees, to be truly Canonical Scriptures. CHAPTER V. AS it is undoubted by all, that the true Scriptures Prophetical and Apostolical are most sacred, divine, and of infallible authority; so it remaineth still in Controversy which Books be the said Prophetical, Apostolical, and Canonical Scriptures; for as the (1) Concil. Carthag. 3. Can. 47. Trid. sess 4. Catholic Church hath defined the Books of Esther, judith, Toby, two of the Maccabees, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus to be sacred, Canonical, and of infallible authority, so are all the said Books rejected by Protestants (2) Luth. & Zuingl. Praef. Bibl. a se Convers. 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 weighty a Controversy by the Primitive Church; Whereas in the Third Carthage Council, whereat S. Austin and sundry other Fathers and Bishops were present, and subscribed, it is expressly defined, that, (3) Can. 47 Nothing be read in the Church under the name of divine Scriptures, besides Canonical Scriptures. And the Canonical Scriptures are Genesis, Exodus etc. five books of Solomon etc. Toby, judith, Hester, two books of Esdras, two books of Maccabees etc. Whereas also the same Canon of Scriptures is made and numbered particularly by S. Austin (4) De Doct. Christi l. 2. c. 8 Innoc. ep. ad Exup. c. 7. Gel. To. 1. Concil. in Decret cum 70. Ep. Isid. l 6. Etymol. c. 1. Rabanus l. 2. Instit. cler Cassiod. l. 2. divinarum Lect. himself, as also by Innocentius, Gelasius and other ancient Writers; the truth hereof is so manifest, that the same is confessed by sundry Protestant Writers, and the same Council and Fathers (in steed of better answer) severely reprehended for the same. Hiperius (5) Meth. Theol. l. 1. p. 46. avoucheth that, In the Third Carthage Council there are added to the Canon etc. Sapientia and Ecclesiasticus, two books of Maccabees, Toby, judith etc. All which books in the same order numbereth Augustin, Innocentius & Gelasius, for which he at large afterwards rejecteth their judgement. In like sort (6) de Princip. Christ. Dogm l. 1. c. 4. p. 8. Lubbertus: I grant (saith he) certain of these books to be admitted by the Carthaginians, but I deny that therefore they are the Word of God; for no Counsels have that Authority. But to be brief, the Third Carthage Council is acknowledged and reproved for this very doctrine by D. Raynolds, (7) Conclus. annex. to his Conf p 699 700. Zanthia de Sacr. p. 32. 33. Hosp. hist. Sacram. p. 1. p. 160. Trelc. loc. come. p. 15. Ho Tract. Tripart. Theol. p. 46. Park. ag. Symb. part. 2. p 60. Field of the Church p. 246. 247. Zanchius, Hospinian, Trelcatius, Mathias Ho, M. Parker, and D. Field, And so likewise is S. Austin and other ancient Fathers herein acknowledged and rejected by Hospinian, 8) Hist. sacr. part. 1. p. 161. Hip. Meth. Theol. p. 46. Zanch. de sacrascrip. p. 32. 33. Field of the Church. p. 246. H●perius, Zanchius & D. Field. But Brentius avoucheth more in general, that, (9) Apol. Confess. Wittemb See Bucers' Scripta Angl. p. 7●3. There are some of the ancient Fathers who receive (saith he) these Apocryphal Books into the number of Canonical Scriptures: And in like sort some Counsels 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. Covel not only most plainly confesseth S. Augustine's like judgement had of the Book of Wisdom, but withal further affirmeth (11) Ib. p 87 of all these Books that, If Ruffinus be not deceived, they were approved as parts of the Old Testawent by the Apostles. So clear it is, that this foresaid Books were confessedly believed to be Canonical by the Primitive Church. Add hereunto, that (12) Of the Church p. 245. 246. Hut. 2. part. of his Answ. p 176. D. Field & M. Hutton both of them teaching that some of the ancient jews received the foresaid Books for truly Canonical, though others of them did not believe and receive the same accordingly, yet are the said jews therefore expressly reproved by Protestants themselves, Bibliander terming it The rashness of the jews; in which his censure he is approved by the Protestant Sceltco in his book of the Second coming of Christ, Englished by M. Rogers (13) fol. 6. for the supposed worth thereof. D. Bancroft (14) p. 60. in the very Conference before his Majesty rejecteth the objections of the jews made against these Books, terming them, The old cavils of the jews, renewed by Hierom, who was the first that gave them the name of Apocrypha, which opinion upon Ruffi●us his challenge he after a sort disclaimed. Yea D. Bancroft is so full with Catholics in Defence of the said Books, as that other of his own Brethren charge him further to say, (15) The 2. part of the Ministers Def. p. 108. that, The Apocrypha were given by inspiration from God, which is all one as to affirm them to be truly divine and Canonical. And as concerning the book Ecclesiasticus, it is defended to be truly Canonical by the Protestant Writers (16) Ep. ad Volanum. Lascicius and Parker, of which later D. Willet (17) Londoro mastix. p. 69 saith How audacious is this fellow, that contrary to the determination of this Church (of England) dare make Ecclesiasticus a book of Canonical Scripture? 10) Against Burges. p. 76 77. Furthermore, seeing it is expressly taught and defended by sundry Protestants, that this weightiest Controversy of discerning true Scripture from forged, can not be decided by the (18) Hook. Ecol. Pol. l. 1 p. 86. Scriptures themselves, neither by Testimony (19) Whit. cont. Staplet. p. 370. 357. Hook ubi sup. p 147. of the Spirit, but (20) Hook. ib. p. 146. 116. Aretiu Exam p. 24. by the authority of God's Church, Hence it necessarily followeth, that the Church of Christ having decided and determined this foresaid Controversy, and that not only by General Churches of later times, but even by the Counsels & Tradition of the true Primitive Church, that therefore all parties are bound to approve & believe the foresaid Books to be truly Canonical. All which will yet be made much more evident by our easy Refutation of their chiefest arguments usually urged against them. For first it is objected by D. Whitaker (21) Answ to Rain. p. 22. 23. that therefore they are not Canonical, because They were written in Greek, or some other foreign language, and not in Hebrew, nor had for their known Authors, those, whom God hath declared to be his Prophets. But neither of these are of force, for it is no little temereity so to measure the Scriptures by the tongue wherein they are written, as to restrain the Spirit of God to one only language. The further falsehood and vanity whereof is abundantly disproved by example of Daniel, a great part whereof, (22) to wit, from Chap. 2 vers. 4. to the end of the 7. chap. though not written in Hebrew, is yet by our Adversaries themselves acknowledged for Canonical. Neither likewise is it true, that God would direct by his holy Spirit no Authors in their writings, but such as were known, and also further declared by certain testimony, to be Prophets: For Protestants themselves can not yet tell, who were Authors of the several Books of judges, the Third and Fourth of Kings, the Two of Chronicles, and the Books of Ruth and job: Even D. Whitaker (23) De sacra Scrip. p 603. himself doth directly answer his own objection, saying: The Authors of many Books are not known, as of joshua, Ruth, Paralipomenon, Hester etc. And we receive (saith D. Willet) 24) Sin p. 4 many Bookss in the old Testament, the Authors whereof are not perfectly known. Yea Caluin, Beza, and the publishers of certain of our English Bibles in the Preface or Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews, do all of them profess to rest doubtful of the Author thereof, Caluin & Beza there affirming, that it is not written by S. Paul. So that though the foresaid Books be not written in the Hebrew, nor have their Authors or Penners known, yet by like example of other approved Scriptures, it maketh nothing against their Sacred and Divine Authority. (25) of Anno 1584. & 1578 See Calu. in c 2. Heb ver. 2. Secondly, it is objected that the said Books were rejected or doubted of by sundry of the ancient Fathers, as namely by Origen (26) In Ps. 1 apud Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 19 Epiph. de Pondere & Mens. & Haer. 8. Epicureorun. Higher Pref. in l Regum. Epiphanius and Hierom, who agreed therein with the ancient jews. But first, these Fathers in the places cited do not speak of their own opinion, but do only report what was the opinion of certain of the jews therein; for Origen was so far from according herein with the Hebrews, that he expressly defended (27) Ep. ad julium & hom. 1. in Levit. against julius Africanus (who doubted thereof) the History of Susanna, which jews and Protestants reject: Yea he averreth )28) Ep. ad julium. that part of Esther to be Canonical, which Protestants refuse as not being in the Hebrews Canon. In like sort S. Epiphanius 29) Haer. 76 numbereth Sapientia and Ecclesiasticus among the Divine Scriptures, and referreth (30) Lib. de Pond. & Mensura. post init. Sapientia unto Solomon. As concerning S. Hierom, whereas he unto an unwary (31) Praef. in Daniel. Reader may seem to seclude certain Chapters of Daniel, as not being in the Hebrews Canon, insomuch that Ruffinus mistaking herein S. Hierom's meaning, doth therefore (as Protestants (32) Whit. count Camp. p. 18. still do) reprove and charge him with refusal of these foresaid parts of Daniel, S. Hierome (33) Apol 2. cont. Ruffin. fin answereth and explaineth himself, saying: Truly I did not set down what myself thought, but what the Hebrews are accustomed to say against us herein, calling there further Ruffinus (and in him our Protestant's) a foolish Sycophant for mistaking and charging him herein with the Hebrews opinion. Yea S. Hierom's thus explaining himself, is a matter certain, that it is accordingly confessed, by D. Covel (34) Answ. to Burges p. 87. Banc. in the Conf. before his Majesty. p. 60. & D. Bancroft. And it is further evident, that S. Hierom placed the Books of Maccabees bees (35) Prologue. in Machab. among the Stories of divine Scripture. (33) Apol 2. cont. Ruffin. fin And of the Book of judith he saith, (36) Pref. in judith. with the Hebrews the book of judith is read among the Hagiographal (writings) whose authority to strengthen those things which fall in Contention (to wit with the jews) may be thought less fit etc. But because we read that the Nycene Council accounted this in the number of holy Scriptures, (34) Answ. to Burges p. 87. Banc. in the Conf. before his Majesty. p 60. I have yielded etc. So clear it is. that the Fathers objected, did only relate in the foresaid places the opinion of the Hebrews, from which themselves did yet disclaim. Secondly, supposing it for true, that the foresaid Fathers have doubted or rejected the foresaid Books, yet neither hence will it follow, that they are not truly Canonical; it being certain, that in the Primitive Church the Canonical Scriptures were not generally received all at once, but in great variety of pretended 37) 2. Thes. 2.2. Euseb. hist. l. 3. c. 19 & l. 6. c. 10. Aug. count. Adverse. Leg & Proph l. 1. c. 20. Gelas. in Decret. cum 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 pass, that sundry Books were for the time misdoubted, or by some Fathers or Counsels (38) Conc. Laodic. can vlt. omitted, or not received, which yet afterwards were upon greater search and consideration generally acknowledged. A point so evident, that D. Bilson testifieth in our behalf, that (39 Survey of Christ's sufferings. p. 664. The Scriptures were not fully received in all places, no not in Eusebius time. He saith the Epistles of james, jude, the 2. of Peter, the 2. and 3. of john are contradicted, as not written by the Apostles, the Epistle to the Hebrews was for a while contradicted etc. The Churches of Syria did not receive the 2. Epistle of Peter, nor the 2. and 3. of john, nor the Epistle of jude, nor the Apocalyps' etc. The like might be said for the Churches of Arabia: will you hence conclude (saith D. Bilson) that those parts of Scripture were not Apostolic, or that we need not to receive them now, because they were formerly doubted of? So fully doth this Protestant Doctor answer his own brethren's like usual objection had against the Maccabees, and the other Books of the Old Testament now in question. And that the foresaid Epistles of S. Peter, S. james, S. john, S. jude and the Apocalypse were doubted of by some Fathers of the Primitive Church, and not generally received by all, it is further confessed by the Deans of Paul's and Windsor, who in the Tower's Disputation had with that Ornament of our Nation and most victorious Martyr Edmund Campian, do thus report of themselves (40) The first Day●s Conf. D. 1. For proof hereof we alleged the testimony of Hierom in Catal. where he thus writeth; The Epistle of james is said to be published by some other under his name, and of the 2. of Peter he saith, that it is denied of many to be his: we also alleged Eusebius writing thus, Those Books that be gaynsaid, though they be known to many, be these, the Epistle attributed to james, the Epistle of jude, the latter of Peter, the 2. and 3. of john, And D. Walker in the same Disputation affirmeth, 41) 4. Day's Conf●r. f●l. 2. 6. that S. Hierom saith, concerning that (Epistle) which is written to the Hebrews, many have doubted of it. And also concerning the 2. of Peter, he saith, it was doubted of by many, and so with some were the two last Epistles of john etc. Now if the Books of Maccabees, Toby, etc. be not Canonical, because (as Protestants before objected) they were rejected or doubted by some ancient Writers, then by the same reason Protestants must likewise reject the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of S Peter, S. james, S. jude, S. john and the Apocalypse, because these also were no less doubted & rejected by sundry ancient Writers: Wherefore the weakness and ensuing absurdity of this objection being thus discovered, we are to observe, that the Canonical Scriptures are to us at this day discerned and made known, not by that which some ancient Writers omit, deny, or doubt of, but by that which most of the Fathers constantly affirm, and chief by that which is judged and decreed by the Catholic Church lawfully assembled in General Council. Thirdly, some object that there are in the foresaid Books diverse repugnances or Contradictions, and consequently that they are not inspired by the holy-ghost. But to omit, that in those Scriptures which are believed by all to be Canonical, there are many hidden difficulties and seeming (42) See Mat. 10.10. & Mar. 6.8 1. Reg. 8.9. 2. Par. 5.10. & Hebr. 9.4 Act. 9.7. & Act 22.9. Math. 26.34. & Marc 14.68. Mar. 15.25. & Io. 19.14 Luc. 3.35.36 & Gen. 11.12. And see jewel Def. etc. p. 361. repugnances, which yet notwithstanding, we are bound to acknowledge the said Scriptures to be true and sacred; I will for brevity only allege, what other Protestants think and answer themselves to the foresaid pretended Contradictions in the Books of Machabee:, Toby etc. D. Covel (43) Answ. to Burges, p. 85. writeth: We could without violence have afforded them the Reconcilement of other Scriptures, and undoubtedly have proved them to be most true: Yea he particularly answereth certain of the pretended repugnances. In like sort Conradus Pelican (45) Ep. Dedic. Professor at Tigure, writing his Commentary upon the foresaid Books, saith, I easily yielded &c. especially seeing those Books were always accounted so Ecclesiastical and Biblical, that even from the Apostles times they were read in the Catholic Church with much reverence, although they were not produced in authority against the jews as Canonical, who received not these into their Sacred Canon, whereas they do not only not contradict in any thing the writings of the Law and the Prophets, (44) Ib. p. 87 88 89. 90. but also &c. for the most part they clearly carry the right style of the holy-ghost; certain knots (or difficulties) intermingled, which are sound more easy to be loosed, than some have thought etc. Whereupon they were ever reverenced and read by holy men; yea the Sayings thereof are found to be alleged by the Apostles. Agreably hereto M. Hutton (46) 2. Parte of the Answ. p. 238. 239. at large answereth and cleareth the common objection against judith, and the like in behalf of Ecclesiasticus (47) Ibid. p. 247. and (48) Ibid. p. 246. And see Bucers' scripta Anglic p. 713. Daniel. So weak and impertinent are the Contradictions pretended by Protestants against the foresaid Books. Now from the premises, & that by the Confessions of our Adversaries, we may collect, that the foresaid Books of Scripture were only not approved for truly Canonical by S. Austin, Innocentius, Gelasius, and all the Fathers and Bishops of the 3. Carthage Council, but also were approved as parts of the Old Testament by the Apostles, and for such alleged by them, and so from the Apostles times were read in the Catholic Church with much reverence. Witnesses whereof are the Protestant Writers Hiperius, Lubbertus, Zanchius, Hospiman, Trelcatius, Ho, Scelico, Brentius, Bibliander, Lascicius, Pelican, Raynolds, Parker, Field, Covel, Bancroft, Hutton, Parkes & D. Bilson; all of them affording their helping hands in maintaining and defending the foresaid Books by true Antiquity. It is acknowledged by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church believed and taught our now Catholic Doctrine concerning Traditions. CHAPTER VI. THE Catholic Doctrine concerning (1) Bellarm. de Verb. Dei non Scripto. l. 4 c 3. Traditions, is, that the sacred Scriptures, or written Word of God do not expressly contain all points or matters concerning Faith and manners: And therefore besides the same, is necessarily required the not written Word of God, that is, Divine and Apostolical Traditions. To the Contrary, Protestants (2) Luth. in Comment. c. 1. ad Gal. Caluin. Inst. l. 4. c. 8. sec. 8 directly teach, that all things necessary to Salvation are set down in the sacred Scriptures: And that we are not bound to believe or do any thing, which is not taught and commanded thereby. Now what the Primitive Church believed, and whether the present Roman or Protestant Church doth Symbolise and agree therewith, the Sequel, only taken from the free and liberal testimonies of Protestants themselves, shall evidently demonstrate. And to begin with S. Gregory, D. Morton confesseth that, (3) Prot. Appeal l. 4. p 62. He useth to confirm some things by Tradition. S. Augustin also, whom D. Field (4) Of the Church l. 3. p. 170. termeth, Austin the greatest of all the Fathers, and worthiest Divine the Church of God ever had since the Apostles times: This indeed most worthy Divine, endeavouring to prove that those who are Baptised by Heretics, should not be rebaptised, freely confesseth, that (5) De Bapt. cont. Don. l. 5. c. 23. The Apostles commanded nothing hereof, but that Custom which was opposed herein against Cyprian, is to be believed to proceed from their Tradition, as many things be, which the whole Church holdeth, and are therefore well believed, to be commanded of the Apostles, although they be not written. A Saying so evident for our present Controversy and many others, that M Carthwright (6) In Whit. Def. p. 103. And in his 2. Reply against Whit. part. 1 p 84-85. 86. saith thereof, To allow of Austin's Saying, is to bring in Popery again. And, if S. Augustine's judgement, be a good judgement, than there be some things commanded of God, which are not in the Scriptures, and thereupon no sufficient doctrine contained in the Scriptures. Caluin also acknowledgeth the same words of S. Austin, yet confesseth (7) Inst. l 4. c. 10. § 20. not to respect them, affirming also that Austin hath nothing besides conjectures. In like sort S. Chrysostom in express words teaching (8) In 2. Thes. hom 4. that, The Apostles did not deliver all things by writing, but many things without, & these be as worthy of credit as the other. D. Whitaker (9) De sacra Scriptura p. 678. in answer hereto saith: I answer that this is an inconsiderate speech, and unworthy of so great a Father. And whereas Epiphanius haer. 6●. teacheth that, we must use Traditions, for the Scripture hath not all things, and therefore the Apostles delivered certain things by writing, and certain by Tradition: with whom agreeth S. Basil de Spiritu Sancto. c. 27. saying: Some things we have from Scripture, other things from the Apostles Tadition etc. both which have like force unto Godliness. D. Raynolds (10) In his Conclusions to his Conf. Conc. 1. p. 689. his answer to these foresaid Sayings of S. Basil & Epiphanius is; I take not upon me to control them; but let the Church judge, if they considered with advice enough etc. 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 certain unwritten Law, D. Whitaker (11) De sacra Scriptura p 668. saith hereof: I answer that this Testimony is plain enough, but in no force ta be received because it is against the Scriptures. Chemnitius (12) Exam. part. 1. p. 87. 89. 90. reproveth for their like testimony of unwritten Traditions, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Hierom, Maximus, Theophilus, Basil etc. And M. Fulk (13) Against Purg. p. 302 303. 397 And against Martial p. 170. 178. An● against bristol Mo●●●s p. 35. 36. confesseth as much of chrysostom, Tertulian, Cyprian, Augustin, Hierom, etc. Schrederus (14) Opusc. Theol. p. 72. acknowledgeth that, Origen and Basil in his book of the holy-ghost, and Hierom against the Luciferians do relate many Customs, which they call Doctrines received by Tradition without writing, as Threefold immersion in Baptism, Prayer towards the East, the words of Invocation when the Bread of the Eucharist is showed etc. prohibition to Fast on Sunday etc. Sacrifices for the dead etc. And D. Whitaker (15) De sacra Script. p. 678 681. 683 685. 690. 695. 696. 670. 668. acknowledgeth and reproveth for their like doctrine of Traditions, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Tertulian, Cyprian, Augustin, Innocentius, Leo, Basil, Eusebius etc. The Centurists (16) Cent 4. p 299. condemn all the Fathers of the Fourth Age one by one, reciting their Sentences and rejecting them. Chemnitius reciting and rejecting the Say of Origen, (17) Ex●m. part. 1. p. 87. concludeth thus: So Origen judgeth that there are Apostolical Traditions. And D. Fulk 18) Against Purg. p. 393 confesseth, that Tertulian taught Sacrifice and prayer for the dead, upon Traditions from the Apostles. D. Whitaker (19) De sacra Script. p. 685. being to answer S. Cyprians plain Sayings for Traditions writeth thus: I answer first, Cyprian was no Apostle, and therefore his words are to be examined, and not all things forthwith to be received etc. therefore let us not regard what he saith &c. Lastly whereas S. Dyonisius de Eccles. Hierarchia c. 1. (S. Paul's Scholar) affirmeth that the Apostles did deliver (their Doctrine) partly by writing, partly without writing etc. D. Whitaker (20) De sacra Script. p. 655. devoid of all answer or evasion saith: I do acknowledge that Dionysius is in many places a great Patron of Traditions. And D. Fulk (21) In his Answer to a Count Cath p. 35. confessing that Papias was Scholar to S. john, yet M. Midleton 22) Papistomastix p. 200. affirmeth, that Papias was the first Father and Founder of Traditions. But Before all these, lived the ancient jews, of whom Paulus Fagius writeth that, (23) Comment. in Cap. Patrum. The jews are of opinion, that Moses received from God in Mount Sinai a double Law: the one which they call the Law delivered in writing: the other which they call the Law which is in the mouth, or delivered by word of mouth: And this last they affirm to be derived by Moses to posterity by a certain order of Succession. And the self same is confessed by D. Beard (24) Rotract. from Rom. Relig. ●. 73 74. M. Rollock likewise avoucheth that, (25) Treatise of God's effectual calling, p. 241. The Church after Moses had both the (Tradition or) sound of a lively voice, and of the Scripture and written Word of God. And the same Doctrine of Traditions in the jews is confessed by Buxdorfius (26) Synagoga judaica, p. 13 21. 48, 67. a Protestant Hebrew Reader in Basile. D. Morton admitteth that, (27) Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p 377. The Protestants will as readily confess that the jews pretended unwritten Traditions, as could either Egesippus or Anatolius; but whether they did make that boast unjustly, or justly, that (saith he) is worthy our most diligent Scan. Well then the Fathers here confessed and disliked by Protestants for our Catholic Doctrine of Traditions, are S. Gregory, Austin, Ambrose, Hierome, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Basil, Eusebius, Maximus, Theophilus, Innocentius, Leo, Cyprian, Origen, Tertulian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Dionysius Areopagita, Papias, and the faithful jews before Christ. The Protestants citing and reproving the said 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 still insist in the steps of the Primitive Church. It is Confessed by Protestants, that according to the Fathers of the Primitive Church, the Sacraments do truly confer Grace & Remission of sins: And that they are in number seven. CHAPTER VII. Protestant's (1) Luth. in Assert. 1. Articuli. teaching Faith alone to justify, do consequently affirm the Sacraments to be but bare Signs, not causes of our justification, serving either, even as preaching, for an object to stir up and nourish our Faith, or for certain marks whereby the Faithful are discerned from Infidels. But contrary hereto the Catholic Church (2) Conc. Florent. In Institut. Armenorun. Tried, sess. 7. can. 1. hath defined the Sacraments to give or confer Grace to the worthy receiver, and that they jointly with Faith and other virtues concur to our justification. In like sort where Protestants teach only Baptism and the Lords Supper to be Sacraments, the Catholic Church believeth Seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, Penance, Eucharist, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction. To examine now what is confessed herein from the Faith and Doctrine of the Fathers of the Primitive Church, and first concerning the efficacy of Sacraments; S. Austin expressing the difference between the Sacraments of the Old Testament and ours, affirmeth that, (3) In Ps. 73 And count. Faust. l. 19 c. 13. In Ps. 72. In Io tract. 11. & 41. The Sacraments of the New Testament give Salvation, whereas The Sacraments of the Old Testament did but promise the Saviour. This his saying is so direct against Protestants, that Musculus blusheth not to say; (4) loc. come. p. 299. It was spoken by Austin without consideration. And the like reprehension is made by Caluin. But (5) Inst. l. 4 c. 15. Sect. 7 Musculus not satisfied with reproof only of S. Augustin, reprehendeth further the Fathers in General, for that, saith he, (6) loc. come. p. 299. They attribute greater efficacy to our Sac aments, then to the Sacraments of the Old Testament, affirming ours to be effec val signs of Grace, not o●ly signifying the same as the others did, but also conferring and giving Grace and Salvation. This efficacy or conferring of Grace, the Fathers exemplify in Baptism; insomuch that the Centurists writ thus: (7) Cent 3. c. 4. col 82. Cyprian dareth to affirm that the person baptising giveth the holy-ghost, and inwardly sanctifyeth him, that is baptised: And (8) Cens. 3. col. 247. Cyprian thinketh all sins to be taken away in Baptism: And (9) Cent. 3. col 260. Origen truly taught concerning the effect of Baptism, that the filth of Sin was taken away thereby. Trac. 35. in Math. and hom. 15. in josuam. In like sort of other Father's most ancient, as justin, Clement, etc. it is confessed by the Centurists, that they (10) Cent 2. c. 4. col. 47. Thought Regeneration to be wrought by baptism & the word, unto which (two) joined together, they attribute efficacy, that is to say, remission of sins. But Zuinglius avoucheth in general that, (11) Tom. 2 de bap. f. 70. And see Luth. To 2. fol. 229. It was a great error of the old Doctors, in that they supposed the external water of Baptism to be of any value towards the purging of sin. But the Fathers were so full herein, that (as D. Whit●k r (12) l 10. cont. Dur. p. 883. Sarc. loc. come. ●om 1. f. 232 and Sarcerius acknowledge) they condemned the Manichees amongst other errors, in that They did deny that sins were remitted, and Grace conferred in Baptism. From hence the ancient Doctors taught so great necessity of Baptism, that they firmly believed that Children dying unbaptized could not be saved. M. Carthwright testifieth, that (13) In Whitguift Def p. ●22. S. Austin was of mind, that children could not be saved without baptism. For which his opinion he further chargeth him with (14) Ibid. p 516. Absurdity. And the same is acknowledged by (15) Disp. Ratisb. p 398. Bul. Dec. 5. Ser. 8. p. 1049. Dil. Disp. breu. p. 4. 5. Bucer, Bullinger & Dilingam, who allegeth to this end sundry particular Say of S. Austin. And Musculus confesseth, 16) Loc. come. p. 308. that Austin and some other Fathers were of the same opinion. S. Cyprian also is reproved for the same Doctrine by Scultetus 17) Medulla Theol. p 370 saying: These blemishes are noted in Cyprian etc. that he thinketh Baptism to be absolutely and simply necessary. Vrbanus Rhegius affirmeth, that, (18) In part 1. oper. in Catechismo min. f. 105. The Scripture and Authority of the ancient Church constrain him to believe, that little children dying unbaptized are damned. And by reason of this necessity, the Fathers doubted not, as Caluin saith (19) Inst. l 4 c. 15. sec. 20. almost from the very beginning of the Church, to use the Baptism of Lay-people in danger of death. Concerning the number of the Sacraments, it is to be observed, that the Fathers not foreknowing our present Controversy thereof did but speak of them, as also of other points of Faith, casually, & as occasion was ministered, and so accordingly S. Austin sometimes mentioneth but one, sometimes two and sometimes more, (20) In Ps 103. Con. 1. & De Bap. cont. Don. l. 5. c. 20. & ep. 119. c. 7. therefore it is sufficient, if the Fathers in this sort do make mention of all our Sacraments. And yet in our behalf the testimony of Luther is very strong, who writing of this point objecteth thus: (21) Tom 2. Wittemb. de Capt. Babyl. f. 84. But thou wilt say, what do you answer to Dionysius, who numbereth up six Sacraments? etc. I answer (saith Luther) that he alone of the old (Writers) is to be had for seven Sacraments, although omitting Matrimony he only reciteth six. And the like is confessed by him of D. Humphrey (22) jesuit. part. 2. p. 519. who affirmeth that S. Dionysius in this respect displeased Luther. (23) Exam. part. 2. p. 7. Chemnitius confesseth out of S. Cyprian, that he numbrelh five Sacraments, and only evadeth that the Sermon de Ablutione Pedum, is not S. Cyprians, but forged under his name. In like sort where Tertulian casually mentioneth diverse of our Sacraments, namely Baptism, Extreme Unction, Confirmation, Orders & the Eucharist, saying most wittily (24) l. De Resur. Carnis. c. 8. The flesh is washed, that the soul may be cleansed, the flesh is annoyled that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed that the soul may be armed, The flesh is covered with Imposition of hands that the soul may be enlightened with the Spirit; the flesh eateth the Body and Blood of Christ, that the soul may be fatted to God. This Saying is so displeasing to Protestants, that M. Parker in great choler demandeth: (25) Against Symb. part. 1 sec. 11. p. 77 & p. 2. sec. 10. p. 132. Who can brook it? But more in particular concerning Chrism or Confirmation, sundry Protestants (26) Ministers of Lincoln Dioc. in their Abridgement. p. 40. And see Park against Symbol. p. 1. p. 133. reprove Tertulian, Cyprian, Ambrose, with error of using the Cross in Confirming those that were baptised. M. Parkins saith: (27) Vol. 2 p 653. This unction pertained to Baptism in the West, till above Three hundred years after Christ, for than was there another confirmatory unction devised by Melchiades, or as some say before him by Vrbane the first, who lived about Anno 223. S. Cyprian teaching that, 28 l 1. ep. 12 It is necessary that he who is Baptised, receiving Chrism should also be anointed, the (29) Cent. 2 col. 125. Centurists reprove him for the same, affirming further, that in these ancient times, unction and imposition of hands followed Baptism, of which Tertulian etc. which custom Cyprian erroneously maketh necessary. Chemnitius (30) Exam. part. 2 p. 58 also reprehendeth S. Cyprian for saying of Baptism and Confirmation: Then they may be clearly sanctified and become the sons of God, if they be borne of both Sacraments. 31) Against Symb p. 133. M. Parker reproveth (32) Ep. ad jubaianum. S. Cyprian for terming The Oil, Signaculum Dominicum; our Lords Seal. And Chemnitius (33) Exam. part. 2 p. 58. 64. 65. chargeth not only S. Cyprian, but also the Laodicen Council, Melchiades, Cornelius and Tertulian for the Sacrament of Confirmation: For which also Danaeus (34) Resp. ad Tom 2. Bell. p. 451. 452. reciteth and rejecteth sundry of the ancient Fathers. Concerning holy Orders, to omit that already it is confessed here, that S. Cyprian, Tertulian, and S. Denis did teach them to be truly a Sacrament, numbering them amongst the rest: the very Minores Ordines, inferior Orders of Deacons, Subdeacons', Readers, Exorcists, Acolytes are so plainly taught in the Primitive Church, that D. Field maketh (35) Of the Church l. 5. p. 121 Osiand. cent 1. p. 131. no question but these Minour Orders were very ancient, alleging in proof thereof the testimonies of Cyprian, Cornelius, and Ignatius; And for the same, the 36) Cent. 4. col. 873. p. 874. Centurists allege the Fathers of the Fourth Age. (37) Tom. 6. Wittemb. fol. 53. But Luther confesseth that S. Denis (S. Paul's Scholar) affirmeth that there are in the Church, Bishops, Deacons, Subdeacons', Lectours, Exorcists etc. Lastly as touching Extreme unction, Innocentius is reproved by (38) Pageant 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. Well then, the Points here confessedly taught by the Fathers of the Primitive Church, are that the Sacraments do not only signify, but truly confer Grace, justification, and Remission of sins: That Infants dying unbaptized can not be saved: That in case of necessity Lay-people may baptise, and that the Sacraments are seven in number. Now the Fathers produced and reproved by Protestants for these Points, are, S. Austin, Innocentius, Cyprian, Origen, Tertulian, justin, Clement, Vrban, the Council of Laodicea, Melchiades, Cornelius, Ignatius & S. Denis. The Protestants charging the foresaid Fathers, are Luther, Caluin, Musculus, the M●gdeburgians, Zuinglius, Sarcerius, Bucer, Bullinger, Scultetus, Rhegius, Chemnitius, Danaeus, Osiander, Whitaker, Carthwright, Humphrey, Parker, Field, & Bale. So evident it is, that the Primitive and our now Roman Church, do most truly agree in the Doctrine & number of the holy Sacraments. It is Confessed by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church believed and taught the Real Presence of Christ's true Body and Blood in the Eucharist: As also our further Catholic Doctrines of Transubstantiation, Adoration, Reservation, and the like. CHAPTER VIII. IT is the (1) Conc. Tried s ss 1● c. 1. & 4. certain and general Decree of the Catholic Church, that in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, after the Consecration of bread and wine, our Lord JESUS CHRIST God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the forms of those sensible creatures. And that the whole Substance of bread is converted into the Substance of Christ's Body, and the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Blood; which Conversion is fitly called Transubstantiation. Protestants herein being much divided amongst themselves: The (2) Luth. l. de Captivit. Babyl. c. de Euchar. Chemn. l. duabus Christi naturis. Lutherans teach the Real Presence no less plainly than Catholics; only with this difference, that they think withal the bread and wine to remain after Consecration with the Body and Blood; which alteration is called Consubstantiation. (3) Zuingl. l De vera & falsa Relig. Zwinglians are of opinion, that Eucharist is only a sign, figure or remembrance of Christ's Body, no ways truly containing the same. Caluinists' (4) Culu. l. de Coena Domini. Beza de Caena Domini. seem in show more liberal, admitting the Body of Christ to be truly and really in the Sacrament, and that the Sacrament is not only a Sign or figure, or that thereby is only given to us the fruits & merits of Christ's Body, but even the Body itself, yet with this qualification, that the same is not received by the bodily mouth of the Communicant, but only by his Faith: Neither that the bread & wine cease to be, or are converted into the Body and Blood of Christ, but that, when the bread and wine are received with the bodily mouth, at the same time the body & blood of Christ are received spiritually, mystically, and by Faith. Now in one thing herein I will accord with D. Morton, that (5) Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 105. This question of Transubstantiation being of so great consequence, that if it be defensible, Protestants must stand chargeable of Heresy; but it may be confuted, the Romanists must necessarily be condemned of Idolatry: That therefore we (both) think it our bounden duty to consult more exactly with the Senate of Antiquity, which I will now only perform from the free grants & confessions of D. Morton's own Brethren. And so to begin with S. Gregory, D. Humphrey (6) jesuit. parr. 2. rat. 5 p. 627. speaking of him and S. Augustin demandeth, what Gregory and Augustin brought into the (English) Church? To which himself answereth, that They brought (with many other Catholic points by him there recited) Transubstantiation. To arise to S. chrysostom, the Centurists (7) Cent. 5. col. 517. confess, that he seemeth to teach Transubstantiation. And Musculus (8) Loc. come. p 336. reciteth and reproveth a Saying of S. Chrysostom's for the Real presence. The Centurists (9) Cent. 4. c 10 col. 985 295. likewise affirm that Eusebius Emissenus did speak unprofitably of Transubstantiation. And 10) Antony de Adamo in his Anatomy of the Mass. f. 222 And see Cent 4. c. 4. col. 295. Oecolamp. lib. Epist. p. 756. Vadian. de Euchar. Aphor. l. 5. p. 150 & 151 many Protestant Writers do greatly reprove the Books of Sacraments (truly) ascribed to S. Ambrose, for affirming the opinion of Christ's bodily Presence in the Sacrament. Insomuch that the Centurists (11) Cent 4. c. 4. col 295 charge S. Ambrose for not writing well of Transubstantiation, and Application for the dead. In this respect also Peter Martyr (12) In the fens. object. Gardin p 4. p. 124. professeth to dislike the judgement of S. Cyril: And (13) In his Epistles annexed to his Common Places. ep. to Beza p. 106. & p. 98 further annexeth, I will not so easily subscribe to Cyril, who affirmeth such a Communion, as thereby even the Substance of the Flesh and Blood of Christ, first is joined to the blessing (for so he calleth the holy bread) etc. Insomuch as in his second Alphabetical Table, at the word Heresy, is set down, Heresy of Cyril touching our Communion with Christ. And in his Epistle to Caluin he further reproveth for this Doctrine, Cyril, and some other Fathers. Caluin (14) Lib. Ep. & Resp. ep. 208 p. 392. speaking of the Real Presence writeth thus: Although I see the ancient Fathers, and especially Hilary and Cyril to have gone further than was fitting &c. They in their ignorance catched, fly to a miserable refuge etc. But lest these new (fusores) forgers should urge their authority, it shall be sufficient for me not to subscribe etc. So likewise (15) In Apolog. Conf. August. fol. 128. Melancthon allegeth a Saying of S. Cyril, as affirming the Real and corporal presence; And the like doth Bucer (16) In his scripta Angl. p 616. 617 both of S. Hilary and S. Cyril. But to arise yet to more ancient times, the Protestant (17) Common●factio cuiusdam Th ologi de S Caena etc. p. 211. & 2●8 Vrsinus affirmeth that, In Cyprian are many Say which seem to affirm Transubstantiation, D. Beard saith: Whereas the Papists reply, (18) Rect●a. from Romish Re igion. p. 245. that they teach no more than Cyprian did Thirteen hundred years since, who said that Christ did bear himself in his own hands at the last Supper, I answer (saith he) that Cyprian in that place, and the rest of the Father's elsewhere, did often use hyperbolical speeches to extol the dignity of the Sacrament. So void is D. Beard of better answer to so clear words of S. Cyprian in proof of Transubstantiation. And whereas S. Cyprian himself testifieth that, That bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples, not in show but in nature changed, by the omnipotency of the Word, is made flesh, the (19) Cent 3. col. 247. Centurists say hereof, Cyprian in his sermon de Caena Domini, thinketh that in the supper there is the true Body and Blood of Christ. And the same also do they (20) Cent. 3. col. 58. 260. affirm of Tertulian and Origen. Yea it is reported and acknowledged by many Protestant writers, that in those very times of Tertulian, Cyprian, and Origen, Christians were accused that they killed Infants, and eat men's flesh, which calumny undoubtedly thence arised (saith Osiander) in that Christians believed and confessed, that in the sacred Supper of our Lord the Body of Christ was eaten, and his Blood drunk. Moreover S. Ignatius, who by the confession of M Whiteguift (22) In his Def against Carthwright p. 408. was S. John's Scholar, and lived in Christ's time, said of Heretics of his time (accordingly as is acknowledged by sundry Protestants) (23) Hamelmanus de Tradit Apo. c. 746. Chem. Exam. part. 1. p. 94 Recitationes de Concilio Scripti libri Concor. p. 177 They do not admit Eucharists and oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins. (24) Marg. Theol. p. 256 Adamus Franci●ci confesseth accordingly, that Transubstantiation entered early into the Church. And Antony de Adamo (25) In his Anat. of the mass. p. 236 freely confesseth that, He hath not yet hitherto been able to know, when this opinion of the Real and Bodily being of Christ in the Sacrament did begin. Melancthon (for his supposed worth in learning termed by Lavatherus, (26) Hist. Sacr. f. 47. the Phoenix of his Age) writeth hereof saying: (27) lib. 3. Ep Zuingl. & Oecolamp f. 132. There is no care that hath more troubled my mind, than this of the Eucharist: And not only myself have weighed what might be said on either side, (21) Osiand. Cent. 3. l. 1. c. 3. p. 6. The Cent. cent. 2. c. 3. col. 26. 30. etc. 7. col. 123. And Cent. 3 c 3. col 10. Vad. Aphor. a● Euchar. l. 6. fol. 198. but I have also sought out the judgement of the old writers touching the same. And when I have laid all together, I find no good Reason that may satisfy a Conscience departing from the Propriety of Christ's words, THIS IS MY BODY. Bucer (28) Scripta Eruditorum aliquot virorum de Caena Domini. p. 37. And see Hospinian part. 1 p. 292. Bucanus loc. come. p. 714. speaking also of the Fathers in general confesseth, that their words & sayings are with us Catholics, and so evidently, that he therefore purposely to avoid their terms, as being (saith he) Serviceable to Antichrist, and over much varying from the Scriptures. But (29) Six godly Treat trans. into Engl. p 48. Let no man think it strange (saith a French Protestant) that the Successors of the Apostles have from time to time corrupted the true use of this holy Sacrament of the Eucharist etc. And (30) Ib. p. 66 How was it possible that the first Bishops of Rome should draw the Princes, Senators and Romans unto the Gospel during (the first) Three hundred or Four hundred years after Christ, seeing they did not labour, but to corrupt the use of the holy Sacraments, and to restore the judaical Ceremonies, and the Idolatries of the Heathen? So displeasing to Protestants was the doctrine & practice of the very immediate Successors of the Apostles concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Now from this belief of the Real presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament, proceeded first a most special care and wariness lest any particle thereof should fall upon the ground. S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. 5.) speaking hereof thus premonisheth: Take heed lest any thing of it fall from thee etc. A Saying so plain, that D. Fulk (30) Ib. p. 66 in lieu of better answer, termeth it a mere Superstitious precept. And whereas S. Austin (l. 50. homil. hom. 26.) writeth thus of the reverend respect of those times in this behalf: With what solicitude do we observe, when the Body is administered unto us, that nothing thereof fall upon the earth? And Tertulian (l. de corona militis) we take it heavily that any of our Chalice or Bread do fall upon the ground. And Origen (hom. 3. in Exod) you that are accustomed to be present at the divine mysteries, do know that when you receive the Body of our Lord, you do with all wariness and reverence take heed that no little thereof fall down etc. These so learned and ancient Fathers are for these Say reproved by M. Parker (32) Against Symb. part. 1. p. 148. Vadians Aphoris. de Euch f 230. and others▪ And Oecolampadius speaking 33) Lib. Ep. Oecolampadij & Zuing. p. 690. of Reservation of the Sacrament, thereupon inferreth that, Hence was the Religion of the ancient Fathers, who took it heavily the Eucharist to fall upon the earth. Secondly, from the same belief of the Real presence proceeded a special Reverence, worship, and adoration thereof by the ancient Fathers. Insomuch that Chemnitius (34) Exam. part. 2 p. 92. And see Chytreus de Bap. & Euchar p. 472. allegeth the several Say of Austin, Ambrose, and Nazianzene, all of them affirming in his opinion, The Adoration of the Sacrament. And whereas Nazianzene orat. 11. telleth, how his diseased Sister Gorgonia, prostrated herself befor● the Altar, and calling upon him who is worshipped on it; O miracle (saith he) she departed presently receiving health; D. Fulk (35) In Resp ad Stapleton de Success●one Eccl. p. 230. merely trifleth in his answer hereto, being enforced to say, that The Eucharist upon the Altar was not adored by her, although it was had in great reverence, and peradventure not without Superstition: But Hospinian (36) Hist. Sacr. part. 1. p. 470. plainly termeth Gorgonia's fact, wicked and Superstitious. S. Ambrose in orat. praepar. ad Missam, (31) In his Rejoinder to Bristol, & answer to Sanders. p. 687. is so plain in this point, that the Centurists (37) Cent. 4. col. 437. do therefore affirm of those prayers of S. Ambrose, that They contain the Adoration of the Bread in the Sacrament: And the same is acknowledged by M. Parkins (38) In his Probl p. 21. Crispi. of the Church p. 87 & Crispinus. And yet are those prayers acknowledged and alleged for the writings of S Ambrose (39) In his true Differ. par. 4. p 622. by D. Bilson. Lastly, the general custom of the Primitive Church in this point is acknowledged 40) Assert. Theol part. sec. 47. by Marbachius in these words: As concerning the most ancient custom, which the Church used in showing to the People the Eucharist to be adored in the Mass etc. Thirdly, In regard of this Adoration, Consecration being made, the Eucharist was Elevated, that the people might see and adore it, accordingly as is now used in the Roman Church. Insomuch that the Protestant Pelargus (41) Schola fidei. Art. 10. fol 1. 5. relateth that, Basile maketh mention in his book of the holy-ghost or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or showing, but this was no other than the Papists Elevation, used in the times of Basil etc. And Altkircharus (42) 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 Invocation when the bread of the Eucharist and Cup of benediction is showed, affirmeth the answerable performance thereof to be In Elevatione, in the Elevation: yea he allegeth (43) Ibid. p. 105. both S. Basile & S. chrysostom as mentioning and affirming the holy Elevation. Fourthly, from the same root of Real presence, proceeded that ancient custom in the holy Fathers of receiving the Eucharist fasting, according to that of S. Austin ep. 118. c. 6. It pleased the holy-ghost, and was universally observed, that our Lord's Body should enter into the mouth of a Christian before other meats, and that for this reason saith he, In honorem tanti Sacramenti: In honour of so great a Sacrament. (44) Hist. Sacr. part. 1. l 2 p 48. Sepperus de Sa●r p. 804. Hospinian having alleged this very Saying, affirmeth thereof, that Austin insinuateth not obscurely this fast to have been an Apostolical Tradition. And whereas Tertulian l. 2. ad Vxor. affirmeth that, the Eucharist is to be received before all meat, the same is confessed in him by the (45) Cent 3 col 132. Centurists. Fiftly, in those ancient times in due Reverence to this most holy Sacrament, the Laiety before Receiving forbore for some time the company of their wives. A Doctrine so manifest in S. Hierome, that D. Fulk (46) Against Heskins, Sanders etc. p. 458. in this case acknowledgeth Hieroms' admonition given to married persons to abstain from company with their wives etc. which he there termeth, unworthy, and Popish Divinity. And yet Hospinian (47) Hist. Sacr. part. 1. l. 2. p. 46. see Osiand. Cent. 4 p. 180. confesseth in general that, In the Primitive Church the Eucharist was received chastely; And this particularly he demonstrateth in sundry ancient Fathers: for which very point also Zepperus (48) De Sacram p. 805 reprehendeth the Elibertine Council, Tertulian & Hierome: and S. Hieroms' sundry Say to the same effect are confessed and reprehended by the (49) Cent. 4 c. 7. col 487. Chemnit. Exam part. 3. p. 61. Centurists; & Chemnitius (50) Exam. part. 3 p. 50. 58. for the same reproveth Origen. But Hos inian (51) Hist. Sacr part. 1. l. 2. p. 132. reprehendeth and allegeth herein Siricius, Innocentius, Calixtus, Vrbanus, the 2. Council of Arles, the Counsels of Neocesarea & Carthage. Sixtly, whereas according to Protestants Doctrine, the Eucharist is no Sacrament, unless it be received; our contrary Catholics Doctrine and practice of Reservation is so agreeable with the Primitive Church, that D. Fulk (53) Against Heskins etc. p 77. confesseth hereof saying: That the Sacrament (of some) was reserved in the elder days of the Church, is not so great a Controversy, as whether it ought to be reserved: And Caluin (54) Instit. l. 4. c. 17. sec. 39 acknowledgeth, The Reservation of the Sacrament (to be) the example of the ancient Church. Chemnitius (55) Exam. part. 2. p. 102. also testifieth, that witnesses of this custom of private Reformation of the Eucharist, are Tertulian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Hierome, Basile etc. And that, certain of the ancient Fathers greatly commended the same, as Nazianzene, Ambrose etc. And that it was, an ancient Custom spread abroad and long continued: Insomuch as Peter Martyr can not but acknowledge that (by the testimony of Cyril) the Anthropomorphites were specially condemned for their impugning of the Sacraments Reservation: For whereas S. Cyril ad Calosyrium, saith, I hear they say, that the mystical blessing, if any remnants thereof do remain till the next day following, is unprofitable to sanctification; but they are mad in so saying; for Christ is not made another, neither shall his Body be changed, but the virtue of blessing and lively Grace doth always remain in it. Peter Martyr (56) Contrae Gardiner. de Euchar. object. 213. col 838. mentioning this very sentence of S. Cyril affirmeth thereof, that whereas it is added, that the Remnants of the Eucharist reserved till the day following, do not cease from Sanctification, this I think belongeth to a certain received custom etc. which Custom though it savour of some Superstition, yet Cyril and others subscribed unto it; for forthwith, even from the times of the Apostles, by little & little it began to degenerate from that ancient simplicity of God's worship. (52) Willee in his Synop. p. 460. Crispinus (57) Of the Estate of the Church. p. 87. speaking of Constantins' time affirmeth that, Such as made any great voyage by Sea or Land, carried the Eucharist. D. Field confesseth that, (58) Of the Church. l. 3. c. 34. p. 149. In the Primitive Church the manner of many was to receive the Sacrament, and not to be partakers of it presently, but to carry it home with them, and to receive it privately when they were disposed, as Tertulian & others do report. And that, The manner was to send it by the Deacons to them, that by sickness or other necessary impediment were forced to be absent, & to strangers. Yea for this purpose, they did in such places, where they communicated not every day, reserve some part of the sanctified Elements, to be sent to the Sick, & such as were in danger of death. Yea as then was usual the Pixe for the reserving or carrying thereof; in so much that (59) Assert. Theol. part. 2 sec. 47. Marbachius confesseth, that S. Basile reserved the Eucharist in a golden Dove. And whereas D. Harding objecteth for the Pixe, the plain testimonies of Symmachus, Gregorius Romanus, Gregorius Turonensis & Theodorus; the same are acknowledged by M. jewel (60) 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 practice of the Primitive Church in this so weighty a matter of the Eucharist, as that she observeth the external form or figure thereof used in the ancient Church. D. Bilson (61) In his true Differ. p. 4. p. 566. acknowledgeth from S. Epiphanius in Ancorato, that the Eucharist was round in figure: And M. Carthwright (62) 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 lived, as Osiander (63) Cent. 2. p▪ 10. Whitgift. in his Def. p. 594. and D. Whiteguift confess, Anno Christ 111. which is now above 500 years. Hospinian (64) Hist. Sacram. l. 4. p. 370. avoucheth that, It can not certainly be known, when (Christians) first began either at home or in the Churche● to prepare of flower or bread, little & round Hosts & morsels, like pieces of silver etc. Epiphanius maketh mention of round bread in the Supper etc. The ancient jew s also did most plainly foretell the Real presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, and the Sacrifice thereof; for whereas Duraeus urgeth from Galatinus, the Hebrews most plain and plentiful Say i● behalf thereof, D. Whitaker answering thereto, neither confesseth, nor yet denyeth, but only shufleth them off, saying: (65) Cont. Dur. l. 9 p. ●18. In this matter we do not desire thy Peter Galatin, neither do we need those testimonies of the Hebrews: so not denying, but rather supposing the truth of the foresaid testimonies evidently foreshowing and affirming the Real presence and Sacrifice of Christ's blessed Body in the Sacrament. And thus we see the Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Church to have symbolised with us Catholics in the doctrine of the Eucharist, teaching expressly: First, Transubstantiation itself: Secondly, and prescribing a most diligent care that no part thereof do fall upon the ground: Thirdly, yea and adoring it with special reverence: Fourthly, and in that regard using Elevation thereof at Mass time, as we still continue: Fiftly, for which case they receive fasting; Sixtly, the Married Laiety also forbearing the Company of their wives for some time before Receiving. Seaventhly, Besides they not only kept and reserved the same for the sick, and other such necessities; But also used the very form & figure of a round wafer-Cake observed at this day. Now the Fathers produced and reproved by Protestant Writers for the foresaid points are, S. Gregory, Chrysostom, Eusebius Emissenus, Cyril, Ambrose, Hilary, Austin, 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 foresaid Fathers are, the Centurists, Musculus, Oecolampadius, Vadian, Anthony de Adamo, Peter Martyr, Caluin, Melancthon, Bucer, Osiander, Vrsinus, Hamelmanus, Adamus Francisci, H●spinian, Bucanus, Chemnitius, Chytreus, Crispinus, Marbachius, Pelargus, Altkircherus, Zepperus, Humphrey, Whitaker, Fulk, Parker, Parkins, Carthwright, Willet, jewel, Field, and Beard. And now I appeal to all indifferent Readers, whether Protestants themselves have not sufficiently confessed, that, by the Sentence or Doom of the Senate of Antiquity, D. Morton and his Brethren are chargeable with Heresy, as also the Romanists acquitted of Idolatry. Protestants confess, that the Primitive Church of Christ believed, taught, and practised the Sacrifice of the Mass, as also that it is a Sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech; and truly Propitiary for the living and the dead. CHAPTER IX. IT is the general (1) Con●. Trident. sess. 22. c. 9 and certain Decree of the Catholic Church, that Christ our Saviour at his last Supper instituted a true and proper Sacrifice of his own Body & Blood, and that he gave power and authority to his Apostles and to Priests their Successors to offer the same, aswel for the Living as the Dead. Protestants (2) Luth. de Capt Babyl. c. de Eucha. Chemnit. Exam part. 2. Caluin. Instit. l. 4. c. 18. §. 1. & 2 deny all true, proper, and external Sacrifice to be ordained by Christ, or to be used in the time of the Gospel, but only the spiritual Sacrifices of Praise, thanksgiving, and the like. Now because D. Morton wisheth that, (3) Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 169. These two questions, whether the Eucharist be a true essential Sacrifice, & whether it be properly Propitiatory & available in itself for remission of Sins, or no, might be decided (amongst other means) by the verdict of ancient Fathers, I will therefore join with him therein, and that only from the verdict given by his own Brethren. S. Gregory the Great, is much reproved by many Protestant Writers for his Doctrine and practice of the Sacrifice of the Mass. M. Beacon (4) The Relics of Rome. p 344 affirmeth, that the Mass was fully finished by Pope Gregory the first, about Anno Domini 600. Melancthon (5) l. 4 Chr. in Henri i. 4 fol. 186. 187 confesseth that, He allowed by public Authority the Sacrifice of Christ's Body & Blood, not only for the living but also for the dead. D. Humphrey (6) In jesuit. part. 2. rat. 5 p. 5 & 627. acknowledgeth that, S. Gregory & S. Austin brought (into England) the Archbishops pall for Solemn Masses. Carion (7) Chr. l 4. p 567. 568. avoucheth that Gregory etc. approved the oblation of the Body & Blood for the dead. M. Bale (8) Cent. 1. p. 68 granteth that Gregory ordered the (very) Ceremonies of the Mass, & made up the Canon thereof; And that He commanded (9) Act. Rom. Pontif. p. 44. 45. 46. 47. Masses to be celebrated upon the dead Bodies of the Apostles. And the (10) Cent. 6 col 369. 370 69●. 694. Centurists charge him with Celebration of Mass. Szegedine writeth that, Gregory is said to be the first Author of this propitiatory Sacrifice about the year Six hundred; for he apppointed certain days in which Sacrifice should be offered with Solemnity in the Church, (11) Graves aliquot Quaestiones printed with Brunlerus fol. 161. 162. & promised ardon of sins to such as came to that solemnity. Certain Counsels also call the Mass a Sacrifice, as the Council of Antioch, the Seaventh of Carthage, the Sixth of Constantinople, & the Council of Arles. Hospinian (12) In Concord, discord, in Prologue. fol. 5. writeth, That it appeareth out of S. Gregory himself, that in the Age wherein he flourished, which was about the year Six hundred after S. Augustin, one hundred fifty seven, the oblation of the Supper, as a Sacrifice for the living and dead, was deeply seated & rooted in the minds of men. And again (13) Hist. Sacr. part. 1. l. 2. p 159. The Enemy of mankind brought into the Church of Christ by Gregory the Roman Bishop, this pernicious error (of Sacrifice for the dead) as a certain thick cloud covering the whole Heavens. In like sort Chytraeus (14) Apoc. in c. 9 p 199 chargeth S. Gregory, that he established many foul errors, & especially the Idolatrous invocation of Saints, & Masses for the Dead, which from that time, as a Deluge, have overflowed the whole Church. And again: (15) De Baeptismo & Euch. p. 453. And see Pelargus in Schola fidei fol. 8. And Praetor. de Sacr p. 280. In the times of Gregory the Great were ordained private Masses. Finally M. Fox reporteth that about the year Seven hundred and eighty Pope Adrian ratifyed the order of S. Gregory's Mass; (16) Act. Mon p. 130. at what time (saith he) this usual Mass of the Papists began to be universal & uniform & generally received in all Churches. But now to free most clearly S. Gregory and his Age, from all innovation, or first beginning of this so material a point of Faith: Ancient to him was Gregory Turonensis, who, according to the confession (17) Cent. 6. col. 336. of the Centurists, mentioneth in his Fourth book, etc. 30. Chapter a certain Priest of France named Cato; (18) Loc. conc. de Caena Domini. p. 339. who, the plague being great, stayed there & said Masses: That you may understand (say the Centurists) that the Celebration of Masses had then fulfilled all places. Predecessor to S. Gregory in the Popedom was Pelagius, of whom Musculus reporteth that, Pelagius placed in the Secret of the Canon of the Mass the Commemoration of the dead etc. that the virtue & efficacy of the Mass may be communicated to the dead. And he is further charged with the opinion of Mass helping the dead, by (19) Upon the Reuel. p 81. M. Simonides. Before him was Symmachus Bishop of Rome, of whom the Magdeburgians (20) Cent 6. c. 10. c. 664. say: He had the Marks of Antichrist, for he brought the Mass into form or order: which form was so agreeable to the Mass at this day, that Hieronymus (21) In his Eusebius Captiws etc. in Act. 3. diei f. 142. Marius avoucheth, that Symmachus brought the Mass into that order, wherein we see it disposed at this day. Before him governed S. Leo, of whom M. Bale (22) 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 Mass not without great blasphemy to God. Before Leo was the Carthage Council; this Pelargus reproveth saying: (23) Schola fid●i etc. in tract de Council p. 13. The Fift Council of Carthage brought in prayer and Mass for the dead. And Osiander (24) Cent. 4. p. 16. saith of the Seaventie ninth Canon of the Fourth Carthage Council, (whereat S. Austin was present) This Canon (if it be not forged) shown at that time prayers & Sacrifices to be made for the dead. Before these Counsels was S. Ambrose, whom the Centurists (25) Cent 4 e 4. c. 295. charge with not writing well of Transubstantiation & application for the dead: And that, He useth speeches, which none of the Fathers before him used, as to say Mass, to offer Sacrifice etc. Before him lived Gregory Nyssene, of whom Crastovius (26) De opificio Missae. l. 1 sec 164. p. 8 And see Whit. count. Du oe●m. l. 4. p 320. writing against Bellarmin, saith: Doth he not know that the opinion of Nyssen is of itself absurd etc. for Nyssene saith, when therefore Christ gave to his D sciples his body to eat etc. then hiddenly, unspeakably, & invisibly his Body was sacrificed etc. Before him was Cyril of Jerusalem, of whom Hospinian reporteth, (27) Hist. Sa r p. 167. saying: As concerning Cyril of Jerusalem, he saith indeed, according to the received custom of his time, that the Sacrifice of the Altar is the greatest help of Souls. Before these times lived S. Cyprian, whom the Centurists (28) Cent. 3● c. 4. col. 83. reprove saying: Cyprian saith, the Priest exerciseth the office of Christ, and Sacrifice is offered to God the Father: Insomuch as they further (29) In the Index of the 3. Centurie under 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, (30) 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 approved Sacrifice for the dead. Origen is reproved by Chemnitius (31) Exam. p. 3. p. 50. & 58 for teaching that, It is certain that the daily Sacrifice is hindered to them who serve the necessities of Wedlock; whereupon it seemeth to me, that he only is to offer the daily Sacrifice, who hath vowed himself to daily & perpetual chastity. Before these lived Ireneus; him Caluin (32) Lib de vera Eccl. Reformat. extant. in Tract Theo. Caluin etc. p. 389. rejecteth, for that he expoundeth the place of Malachi (c. 1. 10. 11.) of the Sacrifice of the Mass. And the Centurists (33) Cent. 2 c. 4 col. 63. avouch that, He seemeth to speak very incommodiously of Sacrifice l. 4. c. 32. when he saith, (Christ) taught a new Sacrifice of the new Testament, which the Church receiving from the Apostles offereth to God over the whole world. In the same time lived Alexander the First, of whom Szegedine 34) Graves 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 received from the Heathens, to be blotted out by this Sacrifice. Yea Szegedine undertaking to set down the framers of the Mass, beginneth with the Fathers from the Apostles times, and the more ancient Counsels of the Primitive Church, saying: (35) In speculo Pontif. p. 68 The framers of the Papistical Mass were Clemens, Anacletus, Alexander etc. And, the (36) Ibid. p. 69. Counsels of Bishops for the Papistical Mass were the Counsels of Ephesus, Antioch, the Second of Carthage, of Constantinople, of Arles etc. Before all these lived S. Ignatius, of whom the Centurists (37) Cent. 2 c. 4. col. 63. say: Certain doubtful & incommodious speeches occur in some (Fathers) As in the Epistle of Ignatius ad Smyrnenses Ignatius saith; It is not lawful without a Bishop, to offer, or Sacrifice: Which words they censure (38) Ibid. col 167. to be dangerous & as the seeds of error. But M. Beacon (39) Reliq. of Rome. fol. 344. confesseth, that The Mass was begotten, conceived, & borne anon after the Apostles times, if all be true that Historiographers write. In like sort (40) Epist. de Abrogandis Statutis Eccl siae. Sebastiaenus Francus confesseth that, Presently after the Apostles, all things were turned upside down &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, saith: Let no man think it strange that the Successors of the Apostles have from time to time corrupted the true use of this holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. And again: (42) A French written in his six godly Treat. Engl. p. 48. How was it possible that the first Bishops of Rome should draw the Princes, Senators, and Romans unto the Gospel during (the first) 300. or 400. years after Christ, seeing they did not labour but to corrupt the use of the holy Sacraments, and to restore the judaical Ceremonies, & the Idolatries of the Heathen? meaning thereby External Sacrifice and the Ceremonies thereof. In which sense also Hospinian (43) Hist. Sacram. l. 1. c. 6. p. 20. affirmeth that, Even in the first Age, the Apostles yet living, (the Devil) dared to lay snares more to this Sacrament then to Baptism, & by little & little did withdraw men from the first form thereof. And M. Ascham (44) Apol. pro caena Domini p. 31 (a Prime Protestant) plainly acknowledgeth, (42) Ibid. p. 66. that no beginning of Sacrifice after the Apostles time can be showed, saying: At what time, or by what men the Supper of the Lord was cast out of possession by the Mass, can not truly be known. Thus have we seen the Fathers in particular even up to the Apostles times acknowledged and reproved by Protestant Writers for their doctrine and practice of the Sacrifice of the Mass: But the truth herein is so evident, and the Father's doctrine so general, as that for greater brevity they are in gross rejected by Caluin (45) De vera Eccl. Reform. extant in Tractat. Theolog. Theol. Calu. p. 389. The ancient Fathers (saith he) are not to be excused, so far forth as it appeareth, that they are altered from the pure & proper institution of Christ: for seeing the Supper was to be celebrated to this end, that we might communicate with Christ's Sacrifice, they not content therewith, added also oblation: this Addition I affirm to be faulty etc. And again, (46) In omnes Pauli Epist. in Heb. c. 7. p 924. speaking in general of the ancient Doctors of the Church possessed with this opinion, he further addeth, verily as Error is accustomed to draw error 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 endeavoured of every side to procure colours (or pretences) wherewith to cloak their error. As also, (47) Inst l. 4 c. 18. sec. 11. I see those old (Fathers) to have detorted this Memory otherwise then was agreeable to the Institution of our Lord, in that their Supper carried the face of I know not what reiterated, or at least renewed Sacrifice &c▪ for they more nearly imitated the jewish manner of Sacrificing, then either Christ had ordained, or the rule of the Gospel permitted. In like sort saith D. Fulk: 48) Rejoinder to bristol Reply p. 28. See Z●pperus de Sacr. p. 47. & Hospinian Hist Sacr. p 592. The name of Sacrifice, which the Fathers used commonly for celebration of the Lords Supper, they took of the Gentiles and jews; but how prove you they had it from the Scriptures? And D. Field (49) Of the Church. l. 3. c. 19 p. 107 for his best evasion affirmeth that, The reason doubtless that moved the Fathers so much to urge that mystical Sacrifice of Christ in the blessed Sacrament, was, for that they lived in the midst of jews & Gentiles, both whose Religions consisted principally in Sacrifice: The Fathers therefore to show that Christian Religion is not without Sacrifice, & that of a more excellent nature than theirs were, did much urge, that Christ once offered for the Sins of the world upon the Altar of his Cross, is daily in mystery offered, slain, & his blood poured out on the holy Table: And that this Sacrifice of Christ, slain for the sins of the world, thus continually represented, & living in our memories, is the Sacrifice of Christians. But the Fathers are so full herein, as that they further teach that the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory or able to appease God's wrath, and cause remission of sins. (52) Cent. 4 col. 295. (50) De Opificio Missae. p. 167. Chrastovius reciting the Father's opinion hereof confesseth that, The sayings of the Fathers do not only import Impetration, but a certain force of appeasing. Origen. hom. 13. in Levity. saith: This is the only Commemoration, which maketh God propitious to men. Athanasius (in serm. de Defunctis apud Damascenum) saith: The oblation of the unbloody Host is a Propitiation. To which end he allegeth likewise further the particular Say of Ambrose, Chrisostom, Augustin, Gregory, B●de, and of the Third Council of B●ach. S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. 5. calling it in this sense, The Host of Propitiation, And, the greatest help of Souls (departed) for which it is offered, is therefore reproved by Hospinian, (51) Hist. Sacr. p 167. See Osiand. cent. 4. p. 227. Hutt. c● Sacrif. Miss. p 525. who withal confesseth, that it was the received Custom of S. Cyrils' time. And for the same doctrine is rejected S. Ambrose, (52) Cent. 4. col. 295. S. Cyprian (53.a.) 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 clear, that D. Morton in his very (54.b) Prot. Appeal. p. 166. objecting of him, yet acknowledgeth that S. Austin held, That Melchisedeches offering was a Sacrifice. (54) Lib. de vera Eccl. Reform. p. 389. Caluin avoucheth that, It is usual to those knaves (meaning Catholic Writers) to scrape together whatsoever is corrupt in the Fathers etc. when therefore they object to us the place of Malachi to be expounded by Ireneus of the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacrifice of Melchisedech to be so handled by Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustin, Arnobius, let it be briefly answered, the self same Writers elsewhere also to expound bread to be the Body of Christ, but so ridiculously, that reason & truth compelleth us to descent from them. And again, (55) In omnes Pauli Epist. in Hebr. 7. p. 924. How much the more do I admire so many old Doctors of the Church to be possessed with this opinion, that they will persist in the oblation of Bread & wine; for thus they say, Christ is a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, but Melchisedech offered bread & wine, therefore the Sacrifice of Bread and wine agreeth to the Sacrifice of Christ. D. Fulk (56) Against Hoskins etc. 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 again (57) Against Heskins etc. p. 99 And see against Rhem. T●st. in Hebr. c. 7. sec. 8. f. 405. Whitak. count. Dur. p. 818. 819. more in general: I confess that diverse 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 call a Sacrifice. (58) De opificio Missae. l. 1. p 28. It is not lawful (saith Chrastovius) for Christian Pastors to cast away the consent & harmony of Interpretation, & that both for the neernes of the Apostolical Age, as also for the singular agreement of all, which is had in all places etc. All as it were conspiring, that the Sacred oblation of Melchisedech is proposed, that not only it may be thought to be offered to the Soldiers of Abraham, but also an unbloody Sacrifice to God. The ancient jews also were so agreeable with us herein that the Protestant Bibliander doubteth not to affirm, that (59) De S. Trinitate l. 2. p. 89. with the Ancient jews it was a most received opinion, that at the coming of the blessed Messiah all Legal Sacrifices were to cease, & only the Sacrifice Thoda of thanksgiving to be celebrated etc. and that to be done with bread & wine, (60) In his Defence etc. p 473. See Parker against Symbolising part. 1. c. 2. p. 103. even as Melchisedech King of Salem & Priest etc. brought forth bread and wine. The Fathers also likewise much urge the necessity of mingling water with wine in the Chalice before oblation and consecration. D. Whitguift affirmeth, that Cyprian was greatly overseen, in making it a matter so necessary in Celebration of the Lords Supper, to have water mingled with wine, which was at that time no doubt, Common ●o more than to him. Carthwright (61) In Whitguift. Def. p. 525. acknowledgeth that, In the mingling of water with wine, a necessity & great mystery was placed, as may appear both by justin Martyr & Cyprian. And M▪ jewel (62) In his Reply p. 34. See Schultetus in Med. Theo. p. ●70. also confesseth that, Indeed S. Cyprian, & certain old Fathers spoke of it, & force it much: whereas not one new Protestant doth either allow or practise the same. But D. Morton (63) Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 142. is content to refer this new Romish Custom unto Pope Alexander the supposed Author thereof, saith he. But may not D. Morton blush to call it New Romish Custom, and yet refer it to Pope Alexander, who lived almost within a Hundred years after Christ? Here than we may conclude, that our Sacrifice of the Mass, was not only allowed and used by the Fathers of the Primitive Church, but withal acknowledged by them to be truly a Sacrifice Propitiatory for the remission of sins: As also that the same was truly represented by the Sacrifice of Melchisedech offering bread and wine. Now the Fathers confessed and reproved by Protestants for our foresaid doctrine of Mass, are S. Gregory, Gregory Turonensis, Pelagius, Symmachus, Leo, Austin, Ambrose, Nyssene, Cyril, Arnobius, Athanasius, Cyprian, Origen, Tertulian, Ireneus, Alexander, Clemens, Anacletus, Ignatius: As also the Counsels of Ephesus, Antioch, the Second and Fourth of Carthage, of Constantinople, & of Arles, & the Fathers in general. The Protestants acknowledging and reproving the foresaid Fathers are the Centurists, Caluin, Melancthon, Carion, Szegedine, Hospinian, Chitraeus, Musculus, Marcus, Pelargus, Osiander, Chrastovius, Chemnitius, Sebastianus Francus, Zepperus, Schultetus, Fox, Whitaker, Simonides, Ascham, Fulk, Field, Whiteguift, jewel & Morton. It is acknowledged by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church taught and believed the Power of Priests to Remission of Sins; The necessity of Auricular Confession, The Imposition of Penance, and satisfaction to God thereby: As also our Roman Doctrine of Pardons or Indulgences. CHAPTER X. COncerning the Sacrament of Penance, the (1) Bellarm. de Penitent. l. 1. c. 10. & l. 3. c. 2. & l. 4. c. 5. Catholic Church teacheth. First, That God hath given truly and properly to Bishops and Priests, as his instruments, Power and Authority to forgive sin. Secondly, That sinners are bound to confess their Sins in particular to Priests. Thirdly, That the said Priests are to impose Penance or punishment upon the Penitent after Confession of his Sins, and that the Penitent in satisfaction is to perform the same by Prayer, Fasting, Almsdeeds and the like. Now the Protestant Church having no true Subsistence, but being a mere Negation or denial of true Religion, directly (2) Instit. l. 4 c. 19 §. 15 B za in Conf. fi●●ci. 7. art. 11. denyeth all the foresaid Points taught and practised by the Roman Church. What the Primitive Church believed and practised herein, I wholly refer to the plentiful Confe sions and testimonies even of Protestant Writers. And to begin with S. Gregory, Osiander (3) Cent. 6. p. 288. chargeth him, that he teacheth untruly of Penance. And the Centurists (4) Cent. 6. c. 10 p. 748. reprehend him for his opinion of Confession etc. Pennance, & Satisfaction. D. Morton acknowledgeth that, S. Gregory (5) Prot Appeal l. 1 sec. 23. p. 26. indeed requireth, that after man hath confessed his sins, he should take revenge of himself by penitential exercises etc. S. Hierome terming Pennance, The second Table after Shipwreck, Caluin (6) Inst l 4. c. 19 §. 17. reproveth him saying: But it is the Saying of Hierome; whose soever it is, it can not be denied but that it is plainly impious, if it be expounded in their sense. And as concerning the Power and Authority of Priests to remit sin, the denial thereof was reprehended in Acesius by the Emperor Constantin; for the Centurists (7) Cent. ●. col. 653. report that Acesius his opinion was, that all men should be exhorted to Penance, but the hope of remission of sins should be expected not from Priests, but from God: But when Acesius had said these things, the Emperor added; ● Acesius, set a Ladder, and climb alone to heaven: This History is likewise confessed by Osiander (8) Cent. 4. p. 119. & Chemnitius. (9) Exam. part. ● p. 188 & part. 2. p. 193. Now because Priests without knowledge and Confession of sins can not discern or judge when or what Sins are to be remitted or retained; It is further likewise confessed, that in the Primitive Church, Confession auricular and particular of sins to the Priest was taught and practised. And though (10) Contra Duraeum. l. 7. p. 490. D. Whitaker doth affirm, that Innocentius the Third was the first that instituted Auricular Confession for necessary, yet S. Leo who lived almost eight hundred years before this Innocentius, is charged with like Innovation by M. Simonides, (11) Upon the Revel. p. 57 saying: Leo the First, first brought-in Auricular Confession: And then presently after he citeth S. Leo his own words for Auricular Confession. And whereas long before Innocentius, the jacobites were condemned for affirming, that we are to confess our sins to God only; And that, Confession of Sins to a Priest is not needful, this is acknowledged by the Protestant (12) p. 126. Author of Catholic Traditions. But to clear also S. Leo of all Novellisme in this hehalf; It is confessed by the Centurists (13) Cent. 4. col. 425. And see col. 426. that even in the time of Constantin, who lived above One hundred years before S. Leo, that the Christians as then To this end had a Priest etc. apppointed, to whom those coming who had sinned, should confess the sins they had committed etc. And the Priest upon that condition absolved those who Confessed, that they should desire from him Penance for their Sins. Yea they arise higher, and plainly confess, (14) Cent. 3. c. 6. col. ●27. that in the times of Cyprian & Tertulian private Confession of thoughts, and lesser sins, was used and thought necessary; and their words are these: Absolution from sins was so given, that those who did Pennance, first confessed their sins; For so doth Tertulian greatly urge Confession in his book of Penance; and that private Confession was usual, 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 saith: Even for lesser sins, 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. etc. Thus far the Centurists, Confession being made by the Penitent to the Priest, the Centurists (15) Cent. 3. col. 127▪ & 81. 38. 49. 82. And see Caluin Instit l. 4. c. 12. §. 8. And Conc. Laodicenum Can. 2. apud Osiand cent 4 p 386. further confess that, Pennance (or) Satisfaction was enjoined according to the offence. And that the Priest, (16) Cent. 4. col. 425. 426. And see col 491. 834. 868. did absolve those who confessed their sins upon that condition that they would demand punishment for the same. And D. Whitaker (17) Cont. Camp rat. 5. p. 78. acknowledgeth that, Cyprian & Tertulian thought by (such) their external discipline of life, to pay the pains due for sins, and to satisfy God's justice; And that, Not Cyprian only, but almost all the most Holy Fathers of that time were in that error. So likewise Melancthon (18) In his Libelli aliquot fol. 10. 11. 16. disliketh that, Cyprian urgeth Canonical Penance etc. and confirmeth the opinion as though they were necessary, & that for them sins are forgiven etc. In like sort the whole Nycene Council overcome with the consent of the multitude and time, approved the Canons of Penance. And for the same doctrine he reproveth the (19) Ibid. fol. 19 & 28. Carthage Council & S. chrysostom. Chemnitius (20) Exam. part. 4. p. 68 chargeth the Fathers in general, saying: I am not ignorant that the Old Fathers do sometimes over largely and with words over lofty command that Canonical discipline. As that Tertulian saith, by these Satisfactions sins are purged; Cyprian saith, by them sins are redeemed, washed, cured; Ambrose, by them the pains of Hell are recompensed; Augustin, God by them is pacified for sins past: And such like (Sayings) there are, which with true Faith neither can, nor aught to be taken as they sound. And Hamelmanus avoucheth that, Cyprian seemeth foully to have erred concerning Satisfaction. Yea saith Caluin: (22) Pref. Inst. ad Reg. Galliae. And see Inst. l. 3. c. 4. §. 38. Those things, which every foot occur in the works of the Old Writers or Fathers touching Satisfaction, move me but little: (21) De Tradit. l. 2. c. 7. col. 97. for I see that diverse of them (I will say simply as it is) almost all whose works are extant, either have erred in this matter, or have spoken over crabbedly & hardly. And again: (23) Inst. l. 3 4 c. 12. §. 8. The immoderate Austerity of the ancient (Fathers) can no ways be excused, it differed wholly from the Commandment of our Lord, & was very dangerous; here their wisdom was to be required. As also: (24) Inst. l. 3 c 3. §. 16. The ancient Writers exceeded measure, with immoderate praises they commended that corporal Discipline: They were more severe in exacting chastisements, then Ecclesiastical lenity doth permit. And the Centurists speaking of the Third Age affirm that, (25) Cent. 3. p. 81. Most of the Doctors of this Age do wonderfully deprave the doctrine of Penance, yea they spare not to say of the Age next to the Apostles, that (26) Cent. 2. p. 62. Even then this part of Doctrine concerning Penance began to be weakened. Now as concerning Indulgences or Pardons of temporal punishment, It is confessed by M. Simonides (27) Upon the Revel. p. 84. that, S. Gregory remitted Canonical Penance, & promised clean remission of sins, to such as frequented Churches on set days. M. Bale (28) In Act. Rom. Pontif. p. 46 47. affirmeth that, Gregory confirmed by Indulgences Pilgrimages to Images for the devotion of the people: And that, He was a defender of Pardons, yet not a seller: As also that, He first granted Pardons for set days, and to such as visited Churches. In like manner Pantaleon (29) In Chr. p. 48. avoucheth of him that, He first granted pardon of sins to the people visiting Churches upon set days; In Decret. & in 3. psal. Paenit. (30) In his Euseb Capt. published by P●zelius, under the Title of Act. 1. diei de Indulgentijs fol. 48. Hieronymus Marius thinketh that, Gregory the First, and Boniface the vl were the chief authors of Pardons. Cyprian (31) In his Treatise of the lives of Popes Engl. p. 32. also Valera confesseth of S. Grogorie, that he granted Pardons but sold them not. And D. Humphrey (32) In jesuit. part. 2. rat. 5. p 5. & 627. repeating sundry Catholic points of Faith taught and brought into England by S. Gregory & S. Austin, inferreth from them in these words: From all which what else is intended, but that Pardons, Monachisme, Papistry, and (even) the whole Chaos of Popish Superstition be builded up. But to clear S. Gregory of all Innovation in this point of Doctrine: The Centurists acknowledge that (33) Cent. 5. c. 6. col 692. S. Chrysostom mentioneth days of Indulgence and Pardon. And D. Field (34) Of the Church. l. 1. c. 17. p. 33. confesseth that, The Ancient Bishops were wont to cut off great parts of enjoined Penance, which remission was called an Indulgence. Now to conclude, Confession being made and Penance enjoined, the Priest (as the Centurists confess for the practice of the Third Age) did afterwards absolve the Penitent (even) with the (now-like) used ceremony of imposing his hand. So that the Primitive and our present Roman Church do confessedly agree in the doctrine of Penance; First, As that Priests have truly Power to remit Sins. Secondly, that Auricular Confession is necessary. Thirdly, that after Confession Pennance is to be imposed. Fourthly, (35) Cent. 3 col. 127. that the same is truly Satisfactory. Fiftly, after Penance, Absolution is given, with Imposition of hands. Sixtly, yea Pardons and Indulgences are acknowledged to be granted and used in those purest times of the Church Primitive. Now the Fathers cited and reproved by Protestants for our foresaid doctrines, are S. Gregory, Leo, Chrysostom, the Doctors in the Age of Constantin, Ambrose, Augustin, Cyprian, Tertulian, the Carthage Council, the 1. Council of Niece, and the Fathers in general. The Protestants accusing them, are the Centurie-writers, Caluin, Chemnitius, Melancthon, Hamelmanus, Osiander, Hieronimus Marius, Pantaleon, Valera, Simonides, Bale, Humphrey, Field, Morton and Whitaker. It is granted by Protestants, that the Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory, and of Prayer and Sacrifice for the dead, was believed, taught, and practised by the Fathers of the Primitive Church. CHAPTER XI. WHAT more generally disliked by Protestants then our Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, and our charitable pracise of Praying & Sacrificing for the dead? And yet what more generally confessed by Protestants to have been the belief and custom of the Primitive Church, than Purgatory, Prayer, and Sacrifice for the dead? Concerning S. Gregory, D. Humphrey (1) In jesuit. part. 2. rat 5 p. 5. & 627. acknowledgeth, that he taught us Englishmen by the preaching of S. Austin the doctrine of Purgatory etc. the oblation of the healthful Sacrifice, & Prayers for the dead. (2) In Chro. l. 4. p. 567. 568. Carion confesseth, that he approved the opinion of the oblation of Christ's Body & Blood to be made for the dead. john Bale (3) In Act. Rom. Pontif. p. 44. 45. 46. 47. is of opinion, that he made his four books of Dialogues for the upholding of Purgatory etc. and admitted (even) Masses for the dead. The Magdeburgians (4) In the Index of the 6. Centurie at the word Gregory. charge him out of his own writings with the Doctrine of Purgatory etc. (5) Cent. 6. col. 373. and with oblation of Sacrifice for the dead. D. Fulk (6) Ag. Rhem. Test. in 1 Cor. 3. saith: In the days of Gregory etc. the opinion of Purgatory had gotten some ground in the Latin Church etc. yet in the place by (the Rhemistes) quoted, he granteth it, but for very small offences. D. Sutcliffe avoucheth that, Gregory (7) Subversion. c. 4. used Litanies, allowed Purgatory etc. And whereas D. Whitakers confidently avoucheth, that, (8) Contra Duraeum l. 7. p. 480. He that first delivered Purgatory for a certain Doctrine, was Gregory the Great: Yet M. Simonides (9) Upon the Reuel. p 83. only chargeth him, not with beginning, but with increasing two pernicious things in the Church, Invocation of the Dead, and Prayer for the dead▪ yea D. Morton confesseth that, S. Gregory (10) Prot. Appeal l 1. Sec. 17. p. 19 ●0 frameth thus his conclusions: Because such Souls (departed appearing after) desire the help of the living, the Sacrifice of the Altar is profitahle for them. Whereupon our Doctor concludeth, saying: This, doth give us cause to observe in him a deep plunge into Superstition. And again: S. Augustin spoke with a Peradventure, but S. Gregory kindled the fire with a Credo etc. And now of late, the Romanists have blow●e the flame with an Anathema. So hotly do Roman Catholics follow the Sent given by S Gregory and S. Augustin. But to clear S. Gregory of all Innovation in this point; (11) Ibid. p. 498. I will ascend to his predecessors and Ancients. And to begin with S. Augustin, whom though D. Morton pretendeth to speak hereof, only with a Peradventure or doubtfully, yet Bullinger, having perused diverse places of S. Augustins' writings concerning this point, avoucheth: (12) De orig●● Errori● f. 223. That, not in one, but in many places, Augustin maketh mention of Sacrifice for the dead etc. in Enchirid. c. 109. for it is not to be denied (saith he) but that the Souls of the dead are relieved by the piety of their living friends, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is offered for them etc. And in his 32. sermon de Verbis Apostoli, This, saith he, delivered from the Fathers, the whole Church observeth, that prayer be made for them, who died in the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when in their place they are remembered in the Sacrifice, and the Sacrifice also is offered for them. This therefore (saith Bullinger) I set down more at large, that thou mayst understand this custom of Sacrificing for the dead to be ordained, not by the Apostles, but by the holy Fathers. D. Willet affirmeth: That diverse of the ancient Fathers, (13) Tetrastylon part. 3. p. 97. did incline too much to maintain and commend prayer for the dead, with which error (saith he) S. Austin seemeth somewhat to be infected. Augustine (sayrh Caluin (14) Inst●t. l. 3. c. 5. § 10 in his books of Confessions telleth, that his mother Monica earnestly desired that Memory of her might be made at the Altar in performing the mysteries. An old woman's desire (saith Caluin) which her Son squared not by the rule of Scripture, but through affection of Nature would have it approved to others. D. Fulk confesseth that, (15) In his Confut of Purgat. p. 100L. Austin de Civitate Dei. l. 21. c. 13. concludeth very clearly, that some suffer temporal pains after this life, this may not be denied: Yea he boldly avoucheth, that Austin (16) Ibid. p 313. blindly defended prayer for the dead. D. Morton affirmeth, that Protestant Authors (17) Prot. Appeal. p. 495. have observed S. Augustin to have been the first who opened the window unto the doctrine of Purgatory, by whose own direction (saith he) we have a good warrant to descent from him etc. So admitting S. Austin for Purgatory, but most disgraciously insinuating, that therein he is contrary to himself; which as most palpably untrue, I forbear to confute; and only proceed clearly to show, that neither S. Austin was first, nor the sole man that opened the window herein, as our Doctor with his other Brethren have blindly observed. To which effect D. Fulk acknowledgeth that, S. Ambrose (18) In his Confutation of Purgat. p 78. 320. 326 202. allowed prayer for the Dead, and that it was the common error of his time. As also, (19) 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, (20) Exam. part 3. p. 93. 94. Prudentius & Hierome, and further reprehendeth S. Epiphanius, (21) Ibid. p. 107. as not daring to refute such opinions of the common people: as also S. Augustin & S. Chrysostom for yielding over much herein to the custom of the time, and the received opinions of the vulgar. (22) De Ratione Refor. Eccl. Edic. Gal. I do not deny (saith Caluin) these prayers (for the Dead) to have been received by S. Chrysostom, Epiphanius & S. Austin and such others, because they had them from their Predecessors etc. But these good men whom I have named with over much credulity, without all discretion & judgement followed that which within short time had gotten authority. Osiander testifieth, that (23) Pelagius the Second decreed that Memory of the dead should be made in every Mass, after the Elevation of the healthful Host. Which decree is observed even unto this day. Melancthon chargeth the whole Council of Carthage herewith, saying: (24) In his Libelli aliquot etc. f. 19 and see Apol. Conf Aug c. de vocabulis Missae f. 216 The fourth Carthage Council containeth a Decree of Prayer & Sacrifice for the dead, in these words etc. D. Fulk acknowledgeth, that this forefather (25) In his Answer to a Counterf. Cath. p. 44. Aerius taught, that prayer for the Dead was unprofitable, as witness (saith he) both Epiphanius & Austin; which they count for an error. Hereunto agreeth Hospinian, saying: (26) Hist. Sacr part. 1. fol. 155. It was the common opinion of the vulgar, that the Souls of the dead might something be helped by the prayers, Alms, & Sacrifices which are done upon earth, as is evidently understood by the disputation of Epiphanius with Aërius. D. Fulk not only reprehendeth (27) In his Confut. of Purgat p. 320. 294. 326. 349. Ambrose, chrysostom & Austin for allowing Prayer for the dead; but withal he admitteth, that it (28) Ibid. p. 320. 326. 34●. 78. was the common error of their times, and that the error of Purgatory was somewhat rifely budded in Augustine's time: (29) Ibid. p. 161. Yea answering to D. Allen, he granteth, that (30) Ibid. p. 78. Austin speaketh of the Amending fire in the place by M. Allen alleged: He doth so indeed (saith D. Fulk) but Austin had no ground of that fire, but in the common error of his time. So confessedly was the Amending fire of Purgatory the common doctrine of S. Augustine's time. A truth so certain, that Chemnitius for the self same doctrine reprehendeth (31) Exam. part. 3. p. 92. Clemens Alexandrinus, (32) Ibid. p. 93. Ambrose, Hierom, (33) Ibid. p. 94. & Prudentius. (34) Ibid. And Fulk speaking of Constantin the Great, who lived somewhat before these Fathers, affirmeth that, (35) In his Confut of Purg. p. 313. In the burial of Constantin there is mention of Prayer for his soul according to the error of his time. In like sort the Centurists observe, that (36) Cent. 4. col. 454. a great multitude of people poured out their prayers with tears for the Soul of the Emperor. And for the same doctrine of Purgatory they accuse (37) Cent. 4. c. 4. p. 304. Lactantius, Prudentius & S. Hierome. D. Beard speaking of Those fathers (38) Retractive from Romish Religion p. 414. which do patronise Purgatory, mentioneth from Bellarmine, Athanasius, Basil, & Gregory Nazianzene. Neither was this so general practice of the people or uniform consent in doctrine of these ancient Fathers any Innovation, or first beginning error of their times: For it is further confessed by D. Fulk, that the doctrine of Purgatory, not began, but (39) In his Retentive etc. p. ●06. prevailed (saith he) within three hundred years after Christ. And M. Gifford (40) In his Demonstration that our Brownistes be full Donatists p. 38. granteth that, In the (Churches) public worship, to pray for the Souls of the dead, and to offer oblation for the dead, was general in the Church long before the days of Austin, as appeareth (saith he) in Cyprian & Tertulian, which was before him, and nearer to the times of the Apostles. So likewise Caluin (41) Inst l 3 c. 5. sec. 10. acknowledgeth that, above One thousand three hundred years since, it was usual, that prayers should be made for the dead; whatsoever hereof is read in the Ancient (Writers) was yielded to the public custom, and to the ignorance of the people etc. I confess they were drawn headlong into Error: even as inconsiderate Credulity doth usually deprive the minds of men, of judgement. And relating the Custom of making Commemoration of the dead in the Supper, or Sacrifice, that place of ease, light and peace might be given to them: he further saith, I do not deny this to have been a most ancient Custom, and because great is the force of Custom, or rather Tyranny, therefore I confess these prayers to have been approved by chrysostom, Epiphanius, Augustin and the like, because as by hands, they were delivered to them from their Ancestors. Beza speaking of the times of Cyprian, Austin and Chrysostom, confesseth, that as then, (42) Praef. in nowm Test. ad Princ. Conned. Prayers for the dead were begun to be used more freely. The Protestant (43) In Apoc. p. 206 joannes Winkelmannus avoucheth that, Origen decreed a Purgatory wherein after this life some sins are purged. The Centurists (44) Cent. 3. col 87. report that, Thou mayst see some seeds of Purgatory spread abroad in some places of Origen, as hom. 2. in psal. 36. yea in the same place they allege sundry of origen's sayings affirming Purgatory. And (45) Cent. 3 col. 265. in another place they acknowledge that, Origen in his books de Principijs, decreeth Purgatory to be the punishment of Sins. And for the same doctrine, they reprehend (46) Cent. 3. col 138. 139. both Cyprian and Tertullian. Yea other Protestants affirm of S. Cyprian, S. Augustin, & S. john Damascene, in that they defend Prayer for the dead, that, (47) Clypeus fidei. Dial. 11. p. 449. they are mere fooleries which they have written of this matter: And that such their doctrine is to be ascribed to ihe rash stupidity wherewith their heads were moved, seeing they were devoid of the holy-ghost. Chemnitius granteth that in the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, who was converted by the Apostles, mention is made of Prayer (48) Exam. part. 3. p. 110. for the dead in the Church. And the like is acknowledged of Dionysius by Melancthon, (49) In aliquot libel. etc. fol. 23. & D. Fulk, 50) Against Purgatory p. 353. which D. Fulk in plainest words teacheth that, Tertulian (51) Against Purgat p. 3●2. & see p 303. 393. Cyprian, Austin, Hierom, and a great many more do witness, that Sacrifice for the dead is the Tradition of the Apostles. Whereunto Bucer accordeth, (52) In Enarrat. in Sacra, quatuor Euangel in Math. c. 12. p 311. affirming that prayer and alms were made for the dead almost from the very beginning of the Church. Lastly, Zuinglius being impugned for denying Prayer for the dead, and pressed with the Authority of Fathers (especially of S. Chrysostom & S. Augustin, who derive this Custom from the Apostles) answereth thus: (53) 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 suffered certain to pray for the dead, for no other cause then to condescend to their infirmity. So insimulating the Apostles, wilfully to have permitted others to err (according to the errors of Protestants) in praying for the Dead, which they could not do without error in themselves. Yea the Doctrine of Purgatory and Prayer for them dead, was believed and practised by the ancient true believing jews: For whereas M. Morton speaking of the Church before the coming of Christ, affirmeth, the doctrine then taught by the jews, to be now known (among other Reasons) (54) Treat. of Israel & the Church. p. 93. 94. By the open Confession of the jews in all Ages since the coming of Christ. For (saith he) it is plain that they hold even to this day those opinions which they received from their Ancestors, and were commonly held of that Nation. Yea say the Centurists: (55) Cent. 8. col. 885. The jews are constant in their opinions. And Pet. Martyr writeth that, (56) Com. plac. in Engl. part. 2. p. 599. The jews as yet continue, and kept in so great adversities, in so diverse, and grievous Captivities, and Dispersions, they hold still their Religion. Doubtless no ancient Troyans', Lumbards', Huns, or Vandals have so held their own etc. and could show their original & History set forth in most true writing: and being every where dispersed as they were, could nevertheless keep their own Ordinances etc. Now concerning these jews so constant in their Faith; and admitting the books of Maccabees but only for a true History: it is evident thereby, that judas Machabeus (a holy and just man) procured (57) 2. Machab. 2.43.45. Sacrifice for the dead, and that the Priests of Jerusalem (then true believers) offered the same; wherein also our later jews are so conformable, that D. Whitaker confesseth the same in these words: (58) Cont. Dur. l. 1. p. 85. I know that the jews have (libros memoriales) books of Commemorations, which they read in their Synagogues; and I am not ignorant that now they are accustomed to use certain prayers for the Dead. Insomuch that, Buxdorsius also reporteth their known and confessed doctrine of Purgatory (59) Synagoga judaica. p. 24. 505. 506. 508. 275. D. Beard avoucheth that, (60) Retractive from the Romish Religion. p. 77. The Romanists are like unto the jews in their doctrine and practice of Prayer for the dead; for they hold and teach that prayer & Sacrifice is to be offered for the dead; grounding their opinion, partly upon the example of judas Machabeus, who as they affirm procured Sacrifice to be offered by the Priests for the dead etc. and partly upon the Thalmudical Traditions of diverse of their ancient Rabbins. From the Premises than we may remember, that the ancient Fathers did confessedly believe a place of Purgatory after this life. Secondly, wherein Sins were punished and remitted. Thirdly, for which Remission they used to Pray, give Alms, and offer the most precious Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood. Now the Fathers acknowledged and reprehended by Protestants for the foresaid Points, are S. Gregory, Austin, Ambrose, Hierome, Chrysostom, Prudentius, Epiphaenius, Pelagius, the Fourth Carthage Council, Cyprian, Tertullian, Origin, Clemens Alexandrinus, Dionysius the Areopagite, the Apostles, and the ancient believing jews. The Protestant Writers observing and disliking in the said Fathers the foresaid Points, are, Caluin, Beza, Bullinger, Zuinglius, the Centurie-writers, Carion, Chemnitius, Osiander, Melancthon, Hospinian, Winkelmannus, Buxdorsius, Bucer, Symondes, Bale, Sutcliffe, Humphrey, Fulk, Whitaker, Gifford, Willet & Morton. It is confessed by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church believed and taught our Catholic Doctrine of Christ's Descending into Hel. CHAPTER XII. ACcording to the Article of our Creed: He descended into hell; Catholics generally teach, that the Soul of Christ, presently after his death, descended into Hell, or Lymbus Patrum, or Abraham's Bosom, there to deliver and redeem the Captive Souls of the holy Patriarches, Prophets and other Just, who lived before his time. But Protestants being divided amongst themselves, (1) Bu●er in c. 27. Mat. Beza in c. 2. Act. some of them teach that by the foresaid Article, is only understood, that Christ descended to his Grave; (2) Calu. Instit. l. 2. c. 16. § 8 9 10. 11. 12▪ others that he suffered the pains of the Damned Souls. Now do decide this Controversy by the belief and Doctrine of the Fathers of the Primitive Church, and that by the confessed acknowledgement of our Adversaries, who in a case so evident liberally confess the general stream of ancient Doctors to be most adverse unto them in this very Article of our Faith: whereas that most holy and ever renowned Cardinal Bellarmine, in proof of this Article alleged (3) Tom. 1. l 4. de Chri. Anima. c. 14 the plain testimonies of the Greek Fathers, as namely of justin, Ireneus, Clemens, Origen, Eusebius, Basil, Nazianzen, Nyssen, Epiphanius, chrysostom etc. And of the Latin Fathers, Tertulian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Hilary, Gaudentius, Prudentius, Ambrose, Hierome, Ruffinus, Austin, Leo, Fulgentius &c, The Protestant (4) Ad Bellarm Disput part. 1. p. 176. Danaeus in answer to so many most famous Father's testimonies, most barely affirmeth that, As concerning them, they were not instructed out of God's word, neither do they confirm their opinion from it, but only from their own conjectures etc. Thus supposing their Catholic opinion herein, and therefore rejecting all their judgements, as confirming their Faith only by their own conjectures in Danaeus his opinion; which as no less absurd in itself then improbable to all judicious, I omit as an answer purely Protestantical. In like plain manner (5) Conc. Dur. l 8. p. 567 And see p. 773. D. Whitaker in answer to the like testimonies of the Fathers urged by our Catholic Writer Duraeus, writeth thus: That which thou couldst not do by Scriptures, no doubt thou wilt perform by the testimonies of the Fathers: of whom, that I may freely and briefly answer thee what I think, one little word of Scripture hath more weight with me, than a thousand Say of Fathers without Scriptures. Therefore thou art not to expect that I severally wash away those errors of the Fathers. So according to the custom of all Heretics for their last refuge, appealing to only Scripture, and disclaiming from the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers. M. jacob (6) In bilson's full Redempt. p. 188▪ And see jacob in Def. of the Treat. of Christ's fuffringes. p 199. 200. honestly acknowledgeth that, All the Fathers with one consent affirm, that Christ delivered the Souls of the Patriarcks and Prophets out of hell at his coming thither, and so spoilt Satan of those that were in his present possession: with whom agreeth, herein D. Bilson. (7) Vbi sup. p. 189. And in his Survey. p. 656. And D. Barlow (8) Def. of the Articles of Prot. Relig. p. 173. testifieth that, This passeth most rife among the Fathers, who taking, (Inferi,) for Abraham's bosom, expound it, that Christ went thither, ad liberandum liberandos, to convey the Father's deceased before his Resurrection into the place where now they are. A French Protestant (9) Catholic Tradit. p. 112. 113. Writer not only affirmeth this to be the doctrine of Chrysostom, a very true (saith he) Catholic teacher, but also of the now present Apostolic Churches of the East, whereto saith he, In likelihood the Christians of Africa do consent. And whereas S. Ignatius (10) Ep. ad Trallianos post med. doth clearly teach the same Doctrine, the same is acknowledged in him (11) Def. of his Article etc. fol. 22 Bislons Survey p 657. 658. by D. Hil, & D. Bilson. yea the Poloman (12) De Russorum etc. Religione. p. 122. 123. Protestant Lascicius doubteth not to affirm and derive the Doctrine thereof not only from S. Ignatius S. john's Scholar, but also from S. Thadaeus' one of the twelve Apostles, (13) Math. 10 3. And withal answerably testifieth herein the opinion and doctrine of the Hebrews, (14) Vbi sup. p. 123. & of the remote Christians both in Syria & Aethiopia. And the like acknowledgement of S. Thadaeus' his opinion herein is made by (15) Palma Christiana. p. 74. And see Eus. Hist. l▪ 1. c vlt. Frigivillaeus Gruu●us, who speaking thereof affirmeth that, we have the testimony of Eusebius Pamphylus, who in the History of Agbar, King of the Edessens testifieth Thadaeus the Apostle to have preached before Agbar and others, amongst other things, the Descension of Christ to Hell etc. And then further defending this History for Authentical, he concludeth: No man of mature judgement will impugn those things which Eusebius delivereth of the preaching of Thadaeus at Edessa, and the conversion of Agbar to Christ: Finally this testimony of the holy Apostle Thadaeus, is further defended by D. Bilson, and sundry times alleged and urged by D, Hil. The ancient jews did so certainly believe the Doctrine of Lymbus Patrum, and the same is so clearly taught (17) c. 24. 37. in the book of Ecclesiasticus, that D. Whitaker for his best answer finally betaketh himself to the rejecting (18) Conc. Dur. l. 8. p. 567. of the said book for not Canonical; But the falsehood hereof being formerly (19) See bef. l. 2 c. 5. proved, (16) Survey of Christ's sufferings p. 653. 654. 657. 660. 661. etc. Hil Def. of this Art. Christ Descend. etc. and that from the Confession of other Protestants, it sufficeth for this present that the said book being but a true History, doth yet fully manifest the Doctrine herein of the Ancient jews who lived before Christ. In which regard also D. Beard (20) Retractive from Rom. Relig p. 78. affirmeth Catholics, to judaize in their doctrine of Lymbus Patrum and Purgatory. This Article then of our Creed, that Christ after his death truly descended into Hell, we see was the confessed Doctrine of S. Austin, Leo, Fulgentius, Chrysostom, Prudentius, Hierom, Ruffian, Ambrose, Hilary, Gaudentius, Epiphanius, justin, Clemens, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Thadaeus the Apostle, and of all the Fathers, and the ancient jews. Now the Protestants producing and acknowledging the Father's Doctrine herein to be Roman Catholic, are Danaeus, Lascicius, Frigivillaeus Grwius, Whitaker, Bilson, Hil, jacob, Barlow, Beard, and others. IT IS CONFESSED BY PROTESTANTS, THAT THE Fathers of the Primitive Church believed and practised our Catholic Doctrine of praying to Angels and Saints. CHAP. XIII. ALthough the glorious Angels and blessed Saints do not require, or need, in regard of themselves, any human Apology for their deserved honour; they being seated in the highest and strongest turrets of the kingdom of Heaven, wherein new Triumphs they daily win against their Enemies, and being (as (a) l. de Mortalitate. S. Cyprian saith) now secure of their own immortality, are yet careful of our securetie: Yet if we respect either the general Calumnies and contempts of our modern Heretics against them, or our bounden duties by reason of so many celestial Graces through their charitable suffrages bestowed upon us, it may justly be thought expedient, or rather necessary in their due defence, and for sa isfaction of the Adversary, briefly to set down the confessed Doctrine and belief of the Primitive Church honouring and invocating the said Angels and Saints as Intercessors, agreably as the Roman Church still doth; directly contrary to our Modern Protestants refusing and impugning the same. First then touching S. Gregory the Great, the Protestant Chronicler Carion affirmeth that (1) Chron. l. 4. p. 567. 568. Gregory ordained the public Rite of Invocation of Saints. M. Symonds only avoucheth that (2) Upon the Revelations. p. 83.84.85.86. Gregory increased two pernicious things in the Church, Invocation of the Dead, a●d Prayer for the dead, And that, he wrote to Leontia to make S. Peter Protector of the Empire in earth, and Intercessor in Heaven, etc. He Sent Austin into England to convert 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 containeth Invocation of Saints. Luke Osiander (3) Cent. 6. p. 288. reciting many Catholic points of Faith, taught and believed by S. Gregory, numbereth amongst the rest that, He approved, cloaked, and defended the Invocation of Saints and their worship. (4) In the Index of the sixth Century, at the word, Gregory. The Centurie writers numbering up in like sort the pretended Popish Errors of S. Gregory charge him with Invocation of Saints. W●th whom agreeth (5) In jesuitis part. 2. r at. 5. p. 5. & 627. D. Humphrey, reprehending S. Gregory for public Invocation of Saints and their worship. (6) Cent. 6. c. 131. col. 17. And the Centurists further confess, that Gregory the Great reciteth many miracles etc. which plainly confirm Superstition, as confidence in Saints, Invocation of the dead etc. We need not therefore, (saith D. Morton) (7) Prot. Appeal. l. 1. sec. 24 p. 27. be greatly moved with the contrary Doctrine of S. Gregory (allowing praying to Saints) etc. And again: Nevertheless as we find in him very rarely any prayer unto Saints &c So desiring to mince, but not daring to deny a truth so manifest, and for such confessed by so many of his other Brethren, of S. Gregory his defending Invocation of Saints. But to ascend from S. Gregory to other more ancient Doctors, (8) Exam. part. 3. p. 211. Chemnitius allegeth S. Austin invocating S. Cyprian, and concludeth saying thereof: These things (did) Augustin without scripture, yielding to the times and custom. Prudentius I grant (saith D. Whitaker) (9) Answer to Campian Reas. 5. p. 140. 141. as a Poet somtims called upon the Martyrs, whose Acts he describeth in verse; And the superstitious Custom of praying to Saints, had now taken deep root in the Church, which as a Tyrant haled sometimes the holy Fathers into the same error. [10) In his Rejoinder to Bristol p 5. D. Fulk spareth not to speak thus plainly, I confess (saith he) that Ambrose, Austin, and Hierom held Invocation of Saints to be lawful: And that (11) Against the Rhem. Test. in 2. Pet. c. 1. sec. 3. fol. 443. In Nazianzene, Basil, and Chryostome, is mention of Invocation of Saints; And that, Theodoret also speaketh of prayers unto Martyrs: As also that, Leo ascribeth much to the prayers of S. Peter for him: And in brief, that many of the ancient Fathers held, that the Saints departed pray for us. (12) Cent. 5. c. 6. col. 675. The Centurists charge S. Chrysostom's liturgy with Invocation of our B. Lady by name. Chemnitius (13) Exam. part. 3. 200. avoucheth, that About the year of our Lord three hundred and seventy, Invocation of Saints began to be brought into the public assemblies of the Church by Basile, Nyssen, and Nazianzene: (14) Ibid. p. 211. And he reprehendeth for the same Doctrine, Theodoret and Hierome. A French Protestant answering to the testimony of S. Gregory Nazianzene, writeth (15) Clypeus fidei Dial. 8. p. 258. In that thou citest S. Gregory praying to S. Basil (dead) that he would pray for him, I will let thee know, that Gregory knew not what he said, when he said so. Belike this Protestant thought that greatest Divine S. Gregory Nazianzen to have been overtaken with drink, when he prayed so, as we may justly suspect this giddy French Protestant was when he writ thus. But the Centurie-writers (16) Cent. 4. col. 295. 296. 297. allege sundry examples of prayer to Saints Athanasius, Basil, Nazianzene, Ambrose, Prudentius, Epiphanius, and Ephrem. (17) Apocal. in c. 14 p. 382. M. Brightman having named Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Nazianzen, Ambrose, Hierom, Austin etc. reproveth them, as in words condemning Idolatry, but indeed establishing it by Invocation of Saints, worshipping of Relics, and such like wicked Superstitions etc. saith he. And whereas D. Bishop allegeth S. Chrisostom affirming the Emperor Constantin to have prayed to Saints, (18) p. 17. M. Wotton in his book against D. Bishop only answereth, by barely rejecting the Saying for suspected and forged yet (19) In his Answer to. D. Bishop. p. 174. D. Abbot acknowledgeth the contrary, saying: We deny not Chrysostom to be author of the words: And then inventeth an answer no less false than impertinent, to wit, (20) Ibid. that Chrisostom thereby meaneth the Emperor Arcadius, who was Emperor above sixty years after Constantin: but of Constantin it is (saith he) that we inquire; for what others did after the time of Constantin, Superstition more and more increasing, is nothing concerning him. But yet to omit all other answer, this may so much concern any indifferent man, that it may sufficiently assure him, that Invocation of Saints was confessedly used in the Church at least about Anno Domini 398. when Arcadius reigned. Yea this Doctrine was so general, and so certainly believed in the Primitive Church, that the holy Fathers are reproved by our young Protestant writers for condemning the contrary Protestant Doctrine as Heretical in Vigilantius and Aerius. D. Fulk saith: (21) In his answer to a counterf Cath. p. 46 Last of all Vigilantius shall be brought in, who wrote against the Invocation of Saints etc. Him Hierom reproveth: And (22) In defen. tract. de divers. p. 349. D. Saravia and Beza (23) Ibid. p. 346. do both of them affirm, that Aërius was likewise charged and condemned by the Fathers, for his then affirming, that the Saints departed are not to be prayed unto. But to arise yet somewhat higher, and a little to view the times near Christ and his Apostles, Beza speaking of the times of Cyprian, Austin, and Chrysostom acknowledgeth, that (24) Prefat. nou. Test. ad Princip. Condens. then prevailed Invocation of the Dead. The Centurie writers speaking of (25) Cent. 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 Saints departed do pray for the living. (26) Cent. 3 col. 83. Yea they further charge Origen for praying: O holy job pray for us wretches: And for teaching hom. 1. in Ezech. that Angels are to be prayed unto. But to avoid tediousness in reciting the other particular Fathers of that Age, they in gross confess, (27) Cent. 3. c. 4. col. 83. that, There are manifest steps of Invocation of Saints in the Doctors of that ancient Age, which was the third Age or hundred years after Christ. And whereas (28) l. 5. c. 19 S. Ireneus termeth the B. Virgin Marie, Eve's Advocate, some Caluinists avouch that these were the words (29) Clype●● fidei. Dial. 8. p. 277 Edi● Gall. rather of some Idolater, or if they were the words of Ireneus, Ireneus had not the true understanding of the confession of the holy Faith of Christian Religion. But if so ancient and holy Ireneus wanted true understanding of Faith and Christian Religion, we may assure ourselves that new borne Protestants are wholly blind therein. But without all restraint of Age or time, (30) In his Examination &c c. 9 p 120. D. Covel affirmeth, that divers both of the Greek and Latin Church were spotted with errors about Freewill, Merits, Invocation of Saints etc. Yea D. Whitguift discoursing of (31) In h is Def. etc. against the Reply of Carthwright p. 472. 473. Doctrine taught in any Age since the Apostles time, affirmeth without any exception either of Age or Father, that (to use his own words) (32) Ibid. p. 473. almost all the Bishops and learned writers of the Greek Church and Latin also, for the most part, were spotted with Doctrines of Free will, of Merit, of Invocation of Saints, and such like. Now the Doctrine and practise hereof in the ancient jews is so clearly recorded in the books of (33) c. 5. 5. 12. 13. 15. 18. Toby and Macchabees (34) 2 Ma. 15 12.13.14 & 3.33. & 4.34. that no better answer thereto can (35) Ad Rat. Camp. p. 15. 16. D. Whitaker find, then barely to reject them as not Canonical. D. Beard affirmeth that Catholics (36) Retractive from Romish Religion. p. 80. join hands with the jews in their Doctrines of Freewill, Invocation of Angels and Saints, and Merit of good works: All which the Modern Rabbins hold as Articles of their Creed, deriving them from their Predecessors the Pharisees that went before them. And yet we never read, that the Pharisees were reproved by Christ or any of his Apostles for the foresaid points, who yet noted their smallest errors. This than our Catholic Doctrine of praying to Angels and Saints, is thus by the Confession of Protestants the ancient Catholic Doctrine and Practice of S. Gregory, Austin, Leo, Ambrose, Hierome, chrysostom, Nyssen, Nazianzene, Basil, Theodoret, Athanasius, Prudentius, Cyprian, Origen, and of almost all (say they) the Greek and Latin Fathers. Now the Protestants acknowledging and disliking this in the said Fathers, are the Centurists, Osiander, Carion Chemnitius, Beza, Saravia, Symonds, Brightman, Humphrey, Fulk, Abbot, Covel, Whitguift, Beard, and Morton. IT IS CONFESSED BY PROTESTANTS, THAT THE Fathers of the Primitive Church allowed the use of Christ's Image, and his Saints, placing them even in churches, and Reverencing them. CHAP. XIV. THough (a) Conc. Trident sess. 25. Images may not be worshipped with Invocation or by placing any confidence in them, as though they were endowed with any Divinity; yet that otherwise they may be worshipped, as by kissing them, kneeling down, and praying before them, placing them in Churches, translating and the like, the Catholic Church doth teach and practise. But Protestants denying all worship to Saints, do much more deny all reverence or respect to their Images. Wherefore to decide this Controversy by the Doctors of the Primitive Church, I find the holy Fathers even often reproved by Protestants for their special devotion and Reverence towards holy Images. So S. Gregory is reprehended by M. Bale (1) In Act. Rom. Pont p. 44. 41 46 47. for that he suffered the Image of the Blessed Virgin to be carried about etc. And that he confirmed by Indulgences, Pilgrimages to Images, for the Devotion of the People. (2) Cent. 6. p. 289 290 Osiander affirmeth that Austin (sent by Gregory) thrust upon the English Churches the Roman Rites and customs, to wit, Altars, vestments, Images etc. (3) Upon the Revelations. p. 83.84.85 86. M. Symondes' confesseth that, S. Gregory was angry for breaking of Images, and called them Lay men's books etc. He did worse (saith he) than the Heretics called Collyridianis, that worshipped the Virgin Marie, (7) Instit. l. 1. c. 11. § 5. carried the Image of the Virgin Marie in Procession etc. He sent Austin into England to convert the English; they which were sent, spread forth a Banner with a painted Crucifix, and so came in Procession to the king etc. D. Fulk confesseth that (4) Against Rhem. Test. in Mat. 4. Gregory allowed of Images: (5) Ibid. In Hebr 11. Allowed Images to be in Churches: (6) Ibid. in Act. 17. Allowed Images to be laymen's books, for which very point: Caluin affirmeth that, S. Gregory was not taught in the School of the Holy Ghost. And Osiander (8) Cent. 6 p. 288. affirming, that S. Gregory was foully and Popishly deceived in many Articles, besides sundry other particulars there by him mentioned, avoucheth, that he approved, cloaked, and defended the Idolatrical worshipping of Images. For which worshipping of Images, and defending the same, he is cited and reproved by (9) In his ●ōmon. plac. part. 2. p. 343. Peter Martyr, (10) Exam. part 4. p. 32. Chemnitius, (11) Cent. 6. p. 288. Osiander, and john Bale. (12) In his Pageant of Popes. fol 33. And though D. Morton will not so ingenuously confess with his former Brethren, that S. Gregory approved the worshipping of Images, yet himself (13) Prot Appeal l 1 sect. 25. p. 28. reporteth and citeth S. Gregory reprehending Serenus Bishop of Marseils for breaking down Pictures in Churches etc. And further thinketh, that his not suffering Images to be broken, when there was so public and general Idolatry committed with them, seemed unto our Osiander, although not a direct, yet an occasional approving of Idolatries, or rather a cloaking thereof, etc. But to go to the more ancient Doctors, (14) In his Pageant of Popes. p. 24. 27 And see Osiander cent. 5. p. ●3. M. Bale confesseth, that S. Leo allowed the worshipping of Images: Yea saith M. Symonds (15) Upon the Revel. p. 57 Leo decreed that reverence should be given to Images etc. And S. Chrysostom (16) Problem. pag. 27. Fulk against Heskins. p. 673. is charged by M. Parkins and D. Fulk with worshipping of Christ's Image. D. Fulk (17) Against Heskins. etc. pag. 672. 47. 675. acknowledgeth, that Paulinus caused Images to be painted on Church wales. And of the use of Images confessedly in Churches in those ancient times, sundry examples are given by (18) Against Symbolising. ‖ part 1. pag. 32. M. Parker, the Centurie-writers, (19) Cent. 4. col. 409. and Chemnitius (20) Exam. part. 4 pa. 26. 29. 30. from the several testimonies of Sozomen, Athanasius, Prudentius and others. D. Morton confesseth that (21) Prot. Appeal. pag. 586. About the Four hundreth year Images crept out of private man houses, and went into the public Churches, standing there etc. Now whereas according to Protestant's all Religious worship is to be exhibited only to God, and none to any Creature, yet as Catholics now, so S. Austin before, divided 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 saith: (22) De Templis. pag. ●07. Blessed Augustin first forged the Dinstinction of Dulia and Latria etc. Amongst Religious worships in this sort he distinguished; that which was due only to God, he called Latria, and that which was lawful to give to creatures, he named Dulia: And presently afterwards he citeth the special places hereof out of S. Austin, condemning withal this distinction, as being, saith he, a Defence of Superstition and Idolatry. Chemnitius (23) Exam. part. 4. pa. 29. confesseth, that in the Tripartite History, 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 (saith he) I will not much contend. But Lactantius, who was yet ancient, is reproved by the Centurie-writers, for that, say they, he affirmeth many Superstitious things concerning the efficacy of Christ's Image: Which (24) Cent. 4. col. 408. & 409. & Cent. 4. c. 2. col. 33. Centurists also, do make report of that strange Miracle at large recorded by (25) Libro de Passione Imaginis Christi. And although some doubt be made whether this book be made by S. Athanasius, yet it is cited as a most ancient history by the seaventh Synod. Act. 4. S. Athanasius, of a certain holy Image of Christ our Saviour, left in a house where a Christian had inhabited a little before, and at his removal had forgot the same; which the jews finding, in derision of Christ crucified, spit upon it, buffeted it with their hands, nailed the hands and feet upon a Cross, offered it vinegar mingled with gall, crowned it with a crown of thorns, struck the head thereof with a reed, and at the last pierced the right side thereof with a lance, from whence forthwith issued out water and blood: Which the jews perceiving, caused a vessel to be set under, which presently was filled: But they removing it into their Synagogue, intending thereby to offer the greatest disgrace to Christ our Lord, assembled thither all the disease and infirm which they could find, which anointing therewith, there were cured the Sick of the palsy, the blind, the lame, the deaf, the dumb, the lepers and others: Which the jews themselves seeing, believed in Christ our Lord, and went unto the Catholic Church in that City; where prostrating themselves at the feet of the Metropolitan Bishop, confessed their Sins, and related all the History passed. Whereupon the Bishop caused the Christian who had inhabited the house before, to be brought unto him, and enquiring of him how he came to the Image, he answered, Nicodemus who came to jesus by night, made it with his own hands, and dying gave it to Gamaliel, who dying left it to james, and james to simeon, and simeon to Zachaeus, and so by their Successors it continued in Jerusalem until two years before the Subversion thereof by Titus and Vespasian: When the Christians admonished by the holy-ghost left the city, and coming into Syria, they brought with them all things which belonged to the worship of Religion: At which time the Image being brought amongst other things which concerned the Church, remained until this day in Syria, which I receiving from my Parents departing this life, have until this time possessed by right of inheritance. The Bishop hearing this was very joyful, and instructing the jews in the Christian Doctrine, after three days fast, baptised them all; and at their entreaty consecrated their Synagogue into a church in honour of the Saviour of the world. Afterwards consulting what to do with the sacred liquor of water and Blood in the vessel, resolved to send the same in bottles of glass made of purpose to all churches through Asia, Africa, and Europe: Exacting this of them, that every year upon the ninth of November the like Solemnity should be used, as upon the days of Christmas and Easter. This (saith S. Athanasius) is the true and very credible History of the blood of the side of our Saviour, which issued out of his holy Image, which was crucified in Syria in the city Berithus. Here will I leave our Protestants condemning S. Athanasius of Credulity and Superstitious Papistry. Now to proceed, Functius confesseth, that (26) Lib. 7. commentariorum in praeced. chron. fol. 6. Anno 494. Xenaias' was the first in the church that stirred up war against Images. So quiet possession had they in the Church before that time. (27) Exam. part. 4 pa. 26. Chemnitius saith: In one and only Tertulian, I have observed the history of the Shepherd calling and seeking his wand'ring sheep, to be painted and graved upon holy Chalices. In like sort saith D. Beard (28) Retractive from Romish Religion. pag 401. Indeed we confess, that there was in these primitive times of the church an historical use of Images, as may appear by that Statue of our Saviour at Caesarea, mentioned by Eusebius, and the pictures of Peter and Paul, in the same Author: And of the good shepherd feeking the lost sheep painted upon the Chalices in Tertulian. Another Protestant discoursing of the Religion taught and professed publicly by the Grecians and Abyssines, reciting amongst the rest, their having (29) In his Catholic. Tradictions. pag. 212. 214. Pictures in their Churches, and inclining and howing before the Images of Saints, doth from thence conclude in these words (30) Ibid. pa. 216. It seems that this is the greatest accusation which Protestants have against the Churches of the East and Africa; nevertheless etc. the ancient Doctors which destroyed the Pagans Idolatry, have approved it, their devotion did lead them unto it etc. So clearly therefore may we conclude, that our Catholic usage of Pictures, in placing them in Churches, and reverencing them, doth most truly accord with the like practice and Devotion of S. Gregory, Leo, Paulinus, Prudentius, Austin, Chrisostome, Nicephorus, Sozomene, Athanasius, Tertulian, Lastantius. Witnesses whereof 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 Primitive Church did specially honour and reverence the holy Relics of Martyrs, and other Saints, carrying them in Processions, and making Pilgrimages unto them: At which also many Miracles were wrought. CHAP. XV. AS it is to be supposed, that such Heretics as deny the due worship and Invocation of Saints, will much more deny all reverend respect or worship to be given to the Relics of their dead Bodies; So we may as confidently expect that all holy fathers, who so confessedly before, exhibited honour to the Blessed Saints or Souls in Heaven, will likewise perform their answerable respect to their sacred Bodies upon earth. And to begin with S. Gregory: It is acknowledged by (1) In Act. Rom. Pontif. p. 44. etc. M. john Bale, that Gregory the great, etc. commanded Masses to be celebrated over the dead bodies of the Apostles: And Carion (2) Chron. l. 4. p. 567. 568. avoucheth that, He dedicated Churches to the bones and Ashes of Saints. (3) Cent. 6. Col. 381. The Centurie-writers charge him with Translation of Relics: (4) In jesuit. part. 2. rat 5. p. 5. & 627. And D. Humphrey reciting sundry particular points of Catholic Doctrine which S. Gregory and S. Austin brought into England, amongst the rest doth number, Relics. D. Fulk avoucheth that (5) Ag Rhen. Test. in Apoc. 6. Gregory living so near the Revelation of Antichrist, it is no marvel though he be more superstitious in Relics. And Again (6) Ib. in 1. Tim. 4. Gregory indeed willeth etc. Altars to be built, and Relics to be layd-up; Gregory indeed did send many Superstitious tokens etc. He sendeth a little Key from the body of S. Peter for his blessing, in which is enclosed the iron of his chains etc. Such was the practice and reverence given to the Relics of Saints by S. Gregory. But to proceed; S. Ambrose having made a godly speech about the pious honouring of Martyr's Tombs, the Centurists thus censure thereof: (7) Cent. 4. p. 301. Let the godly Reader consider, how horrible these things are, uttered by Ambrose: And whereas (8) Contra vigilans. S. Hierome avoucheth, that The Emperor Constantin translated the holy Relics of Andrew, Luke, and Timothy to Constantinople, at which (saith he) the Devil's roar; Bullinger disliking the same, affirmeth that, (9) De origin● Erroris. fol. 67. and fol. 58. Hierom is over full in that he saith, that Devils roar at the holy Relics of Andrew: Which Saying is likewise acknowledged and reproved by (10) Exam. part 4. p. 8. Chemnitius. But (11) De origin● Erronis. p. 67. Bullinger further allegeth and reprehendeth S. Hierom saying: Hierom saith, If it be not lawful to translate the Relics of Saints, and to lay them in Golden coffers, Then was Arcadius with Constantine Sacrilegious, yea all Bishops were to be censured, not only as Sacrilegious, but also as foolish, who carried in a Vessel (or reliquary) of God and silk; a thing (saith Bullinger) most vile, and lose Ashes: Now to this opinion of S. Hierom, and to the practice of Constantin, Arcadius, and the Bishops of those times, Bullinger only answereth: I will not obscure the renowned glory of those holy men of God (Constantino divo, Arcadio Sancto) Holy Constantin and Holy Arcadius etc. but I testify for them that they have the love of God, not according to knowledge: so acknowledging their Sanctity, and censuring their knowledge; which how evil it becometh an ignorant Minister, I leave to the censure of an indifferent Reader. This Devotion of Constantin to holy Relics, was so certain, that (12) Exam. part. 4. p. 8. and see Crispinus of the Estate of the church. p. 93 Chemnitius avoucheth, that Translation of Relics began under Constantin the Great. And M. Brightman (13) In Apoc. in c. 12. p. 325. And see Hospinian de Templis. p. 109. 110. 111. speaking of Constantins' coming in, affirmeth, that then was the time of seeking the Relics of Saints, and consecrating Churches to Martyrs etc. The Centurie-writers likewise reprove him, for that, say they; (14) Cent. 4. Col. 15.29. with like Superstition Constantin is said to have translated to Constantinople, certain Relics of the Cross found by Helen, that the Cross might preserve the city. And as now in Catholic Countries it is usual in their greatest feasts and Solemnities, to carry in their Processions the holy Relics of Saints, so was the same likewise practised in the Primitive Church, as witness both S. Hierom and S. Austin, alleged and reproved by Chemnitius in these words: (15) Exam. part 4. p. 10. From Translation of Relics, forth with was used the carrying of them, as is to be seen in Hierome and Austin etc. Neither is confessed testimonies of Pilgrimages to Relics and holy places wanting. D. Beard freely granteth: (16) Retractive from Romish Religion. p. 207. that vows & Pilgrimages unto places famous for the Relics of Martyrs, were in old time profitable, whilst that the Memory of the Martyrs was yet fresh and certain, and as long as God by undoubted Miracles did manifest that their Souls did live, who were thought to be dead: So supposing vows and Pilgrimages unto places famous for Relics, to have been usual and allowed in old time, and that Miracles were wrought thereby. And the (17) Cent. 4. col. 457. see also Cripspinus of the Estate of the Church p. 111. and Hosp. detemplis. p. 365. Centurists record, Concerning Pilgrimages to holy places, that in this Age Under Constantin, first began the places of the Holy Land etc. to be had in esteem etc. Helen Mother of the Emperor (in Heretics opinion) a Superstitious woman going thither to worship etc. And Chemnitius, (18) 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 Relics famous and renowned with Miracles. D. Beard avoucheth that (19) Retractive from Romish Relig. p. 197. 198. In former times etc. they placed the Relics of Saints under the Altar, as Ambrose (whom he calleth (20) Ibi. p. 181. This good father) witnesseth of the Relics of Geruasius and Protasius, Christ was upon the Altar who suffered for all, the Relics of them under the Altar, who were redeemed with his Blood etc. Yea he further confesseth that, The first bringers-in of that custom etc. placed them under the Altar in a Religious manner. And indeed the reverend respect hereto was such from the holy and ancient Doctors, as that, they not only earnestly defended the same, but withal censured and condemned the despisers thereof for Heretics. (21) Epit. cent. 4 p. 506. and see the centuristes. cent. 4. col. 1250 Osiander hereupon reproveth S. Hierom for that, saith he, S. Hierom did foolishly contend that the Relics of Saints were to be worshipped. And D. Fulk saith (22) In his Answer to a counterf. cath. p. 46. and see cent 4. col. 1250. Osiand. cent. 4. l. 4. p. 506. Parker against Symbolising with Antichrist. part 4. p. 74. 83. Crispinus of the Estate of the Church. p. 131. Last of all, Vigilantius shall be brought-in, who wrote against Invocation of Saints, Superstition of Relics, and other Ceremonies: Him Hierom reproveth. Lastly plentiful are the reports confessed from the Fathers of many miracles, wrought at the Monuments and Relics of Saints. (23) Exam. part. 4 p. 10. Chemnitius confesseth that, Mention is made in Augustin, that a blind woman received sight at the Translation of the Relics of Stephen: And sometimes certain Miracles were wrought at Relics & e. The (24) Cent. 4. col. 457. Centurists acknowledge that, If we believe Ambrose, the sick were cured by touching with the hand, the garments of Saints, and the obsessed were delivered etc. (25) De Sacramentis. p. 738. Zepperus reporteth that, At the memories of Martyrs certain Miracles were wrought, which without doubt (saith he) God himself wrought etc. And, I do not think those Miracles vain (saith (26) Com. Duraeum l 10. p 866. D. Whitaker) which are reported to be done at the Monuments of Martyrs. (27) In his Eusebius Captiws. act. 2. diei. de Imaginibus. fol. 104. Hieronimus Marius confesseth, that Miracles were done by God at the Sepulchers of Martyrs, and other Saints of Christ etc. That by these signs God himself might testify of their Doctrine, Faith, and Sanctity. M. Fox (28) 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) body of Babylas (Martyr) into the Temple (of an Idol) the Idol ceased to give any more oracles, saying, that for the body of Babylas, he could give no more answers. But to conclude, the antiquity of this Reverence given to Relics is so great, as that (29) Exam. part. 4. p. 7. Chemnitius confesseth, that Hierom writeth that the Heretics Caiani were condemned by Tertullian, for that they would not honour the Relics of Martyrs. From all which it appeareth, that most special Reverence was given to the holy Relics of Saints by the Fathers of the Primitive Church of Christ, who celebrated Masses over them, Dedicated Churches in their honour, Translated them, carried them in Processions, made Pilgrimages unto them, and frequently make mention of the many and strange Miracles wrought by them. The Fathers cited and reproved by Protestants for the foresaid points, are S. Gregory, Hierom, the Emperor's 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, Humphrey, Brightman, Parker, Fulk, Fox, Beard, and Whitaker. IT IS CONFESSED BY PROTESTANTS THAT THE HOLY Doctors of the Primitive Church, not only used the sign of the Cross, but likewise worshipped the same, attributing great efficacy, power, and virtue thereto. CHAP. XVI. ALthough the CROSS OF CHRIST, by reason of that dignity which it obtained by touching the Body and Blood of Christ, may truly be esteemed amongst ●he most precious Relics; As also in that it representeth the figure of our Lord crucified, it may rightly be numbered amongst the honest Images: Yet because withal, it is indeed the high Altar of the chiefest Sacrifice, whereby the wrath and justice of God was satisfied, the ladder whereby Christ himself ascended into heaven, the worthiest Instrument of man's Redemption, and Satan's foil; and as now, is the fairest Mark whereat our Modern Heretics do levelly and direct their poynsoned arrows of foulest Contumelies, Injuries, and Disgraces, I will therefore severally treat thereof, and that from the confessed testimonies, practice, and belief of the most holy learned, and ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church. Luke (1) Cent. 6. p. 289. 290 Osiander discoursing of the several articles of the Catholic Roman Religion taught by S. Gregory, and S. Austin, amongst the rest doth number the allowance, and use of holy Crosses, (2) In Act. Rom. Pontif p. 44. 45.4●. M. Bale acknowledgeth that he admitted worshipping or adoration of the Cross: But M. Symondes' chargeth him, (3) Upon the Revel. p. 83.84 85 86. that, He instituted the worship of the Cross barefoot on Good Friday. And Peter Martyr (4) In his common places in Englih part. 2. c. 5. sec. 14. p. 343. yet further affirmeth that, Gregory of Rome the Patron (saith he) of Superstitions, saith in his prayers, Grant unto us Lord that they which come to the Adoring of thy Holy Cross, may be delivered from the bonds of their sins. For which point of Adoration or worship of the Cross, Conwal King of Scotland, who lived within the first six hundred years, is reproved by (5) In the later Edition p 107. Hollinshead in his Chronicle of Scotland. But to arise; M. Parkins (6) In his Problem p. 83. confesseth that, About the four hundreth year after Christ, the Cross began by little and little to be adored: For which time he there allegeth the direct testimonies of Prudentius, Hierom and Euagrius. And he also granteth else where, (7) In volume 1. p. 681. that sundry private men, and particular Churches, after Four hundred years, began religiously, or ra her (saith he) Superstitiously to adore the wood of the Cross, and the pieces thereof etc. Caluin relating that S. Augustin (tract. 50 in joan.) affirmeth, that the faithful have Christ by the sign of the Cross, by the Sacrament of Baptism, and by the meat and drink of the Altar; he presently affirmeth, that Augustin (8) Inst. l. 4. c. 17. § 28. numbered that Superstitious Rite amongst the Symbols of the Presence of Christ. d. Abbots (9) In his Answer to D. Bishop. p. 168. aknowledgeth and translateth those words of Eusebius (in his 3. book of the life of Constantin) Atque interdum vultum salutari illa Passionis signavit nota; in this sort, He signed his face with the sign of the Cross. (10) In his common places. part. 2 c. 5. sec. 20. p 349. Peter Martyr writeth, that Constantin made the sign of the Cross in gold, I allow not &c. And whereas (11) De vita Constant. l. 1. c. 22. Eusebius relateth, and that from the mouth of Constantin himself, who confirmed the same with oath that, The Sign of the Cross appeared to him in the afternoon in great light above the Sun, and a writing therein with those words: In hoc vinces, In this (sign) thou shalt overcome. The same History is reported out of Eusebius (12) Cent. 4 l. 1. c. 30. by Osiander, (13) In Apocal. c. 16. p 604. M. Fox, (14) In M. Trigs true CatholicK p. 295 M. Gualther and M. Trig, all Protestant Writers. And again (15) Hist. l. 1. c. 8. Zozomene and Eusebius (16) De vita Constant. l. 2. c. 7. relating, that In what part of the Army the Standard of the Cross was seen, there the Enemies fled, and the Conquerors pursued; which the Emperor understanding, when he saw any part of his Army languishing, there he commanded the Standard to be placed, as a certain help for the obtaining of victory; and by the help whereof, the victory was forthwith obtained, by a certain divine power, the strength of his Soldiers being much confirmed: All this is acknowledged by (17) In Apoc. in c 12 p. 326.327. M. Brightman (18) De Templis p. 165. and Hospinianus. D. Fulk (19) Aghasted HesKins etc. p. 657. affirmeth that, by Report of Paulinus, the Cross was by the Bishop of Jerusalem brought forth at Easter (yearly) to be worshipped of the people: Yea saith (20) Vol. 2. p. 596. M. Parkins, The Bishop himself was the chief of the worshippers etc. This Paulinus lived in the fourth Age, and was as Osiander confesseth (21) Cent. 5. l. 3. c. 20 p. 386. very familiar with Hierome, Ambrose and Augustin. Danaeus (22) In 1 partis altera parte ad Bellarm. p. 1415. avoucheth that Cyril, and sundry other Fathers were plainly Superstitious and blinded with this enchantment of the Crosses Adoration: For which point of Adoration M. Parker (23) Against Symbolising part. 1. p 14 & part. 2. c. 6. p. 61. allegeth the Saying of Photius, Sedulius, Chrisostom, Propertius, Paulinus, Hierom and Euagrius, all whom he reprehendeth for the same. The (24) Cent. 4. col 302. Centurists say of Ephrem, that he attributeth over much to the sign of the Cross: And D. Fulk (25) Against HesKins etc. p. 657. affirmeth that, Ruffinus and Cyril, had a Superstitious estimation of the sign of the Cross. And the (26) Cent. 4. col. 459. Centurists charge them for that, At every foot they signed their forehead with the sign of the Cross, which signing was so ordinary in those times, as that Osiander (27) Cent. 4. p. 326. acknowledgeth, that julian the Apostata being affrighted, out of his custom which he had being a Christian, made the sign of the Cross upon his forehead, whereat the Devils suddenly vanished away. M. Burges (28) In Covel his Answer to Burger. p. 130. discoursing of the Father's opinion of the Cross (with exception only to the point of Adoration) affirmeth, that there is nothing ascribed to the Cross, in or out of Baptism by the rankest Papists, but the Fathers are as deeply engaged in the same: So as if we will use it as the Fathers did etc. we take the Soul to be fenced by crossing of the body, and the Cross to have virtue of consecrating the Sacrament, driving away Devils, witchcraft etc. Yea in proof of this, he allegeth in his Margin, diverse Fathers who lived in the fourth Age. The Puritans (29) In their short Treatise of the sign of the Cross p. 21 confess that, The Fathers delivered to us the sign of the Cross, with an opinion of virtue and efficacy, not only in the Act of blessing ourselves, and in the expelling of Devils, but even in the Consecration of the most Blessed Sacraments: To which purpose they do there allege the special sayings of S. Austin, S. Hierom, S. Cyprian, Lactantius, and Tertullian. And S. Austin is also reprehended by (30) Against Symbolising part 1. p. 133. & 76. M. Parker for his opinion of the Cross. Catholics objecting, as D. Beard relateth them, that, the (31) Retractive from Romish Religion. p. 238. Fathers held the Cross in great Reverence, and the Image of the Cross, and worshipped them; he answereth, True, they reverenced them, and held them in great estimation▪ but yet there was no worship given unto them, until near four hundred years after Christ. About that time began this superstition etc. But the Fathers in this point were so resolute, as that they doubted not by their writings to commend to all Posterity the many and strange Miracles wrought by the Cross, and the sign thereof. (32) In his Answer to M. Burges. p. 138. D. Covel speaking of the ancient times, affirmeth that, No man can deny, but that God after the death of his Son, manifested his power to the amazement of the world in this contemptible sign, as being the instrument of many Miracles (33) In his Common places. part. 2. c. 5. p. 349. Peter Martyr saith, I deny not but certain Miracles have sometimes been wrought by the sign of the Cross, as S. Austin reporteth l. 2. the civet. Dei. c. 28. And M. Parker (34) Against Symbolising &c part 1. c. 3. p. 154. reporteth certain Miracles done with the s●gne of the Cross. D. Beard produceth Catholics objecting that, (35) Retractive from Rom. Relig. p. 238. 239. 240. Many and Strange Miracles have been wrought by the sign of the Cross, therefore it is to be worshipped: To which he answereth, The Argument is naught; for if every worker of Miracles should be worshipped etc. So granting the Antecedent, that, many and strange Miracles have been wrought by the sign of the Cross. To which he addeth that, The Miracles that were done at, or before this sign, were effected by the power of the Faith, and Invocation of Christ crucified, and not by the bare Sign of the Cross etc. And therefore the (Fathers) signing of themselves with the Cross, was a secret kind of Invocation of Christ crucified. Lastly, saith he, we confess that there was a holy and commendable use of the transeant sign of the Cross, in the Primitive Church: to wit as a badge of Christian profession, to signify that they were not ashamed of their crucified God, which the heathen and wicked jews used to cast in their teeth: And so of the permanent Cross erected in public places, to be as it were a Trophy and monument of the Exaltation of him that died on the Cross. So confessedly did the Fathers of the Primitive Church sign themselves with the sign of the Cross, and Erect Crosses in the honour of Christ crucified; all which with new Protestants is pure Superstition, and therefore as they never use the said sign themselves, so further do they pull down and break such Crosses, as have been anciently Erected. But yet much more ancient was the use of the Cross, for the (36) Cent. 3. col. 121. Centurists confess, that Tertulian seemeth to tell, that Christians had the Image of the Cross aswel in the places of their public assemblies, as in their private houses. And (37) Medullae Theol. p. 229. sec. 7. Schultetus allegeth Tertulian, saying: At every going forward, coming in, or going forth, we make the sign of the Cross upon the forehead. And to include many in one, whereas it is (38) In the Treatise of Catholic Traditions. p. 215. confessed that the Graetians and Abyssines do bow their heads before the Cross, a Protestant Writer saith hereof, It seems that this is the greatest accusation which Protestants have against the Churches of the East and Africa, nevertheless &c. the ancient Doctors which destroyed the Pagans Idolatry, have approved it, their Devotion did lead them to it etc. The Primitive Church then, no less than our present Roman, had ever the Cross, and the Sign thereof in special Estimation: Christians as then, not only signing their foreheads therewith, but also Consecrating their Sacraments, expelling devils, Witch crafts and the like: Yea as then the Cross itself was specially worshipped, as also placed not only in private houses, but likewise in their public assemblies. And many Miracles have confessedly been wrought both by the Cross itself, and the sign thereof. Now the Fathers disliked and acknowledged for the foresaid points, are S. Gregory, Prudentius, Euagrius, Eusebius, Paulinus, Austin, Hierome, the Emperor Constantine, Sozemene, Cyril, Photius, Sedulius, Chrisostom, Propertius, Ephrem, Ruffinus, Cyprian, Lactantius, and Tertulian. The Protestant's producing and reproving them, are the Centurist, Peter Martyr, Osiander, Caluin, Hospnian Danaeus, Schultetus, Bale, Symondes, Hollinsead, Parkins, Abbots, Fox, Gualther, Trig, Brightman, Parker, Bourges, Beard, Fulk and Covel. It is confessed by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church allowed and practised the vow of Chastity. And that they never allowed such as were once of the Clergy, afterwards to marry: or such as had been twice married, to be admitted to Holy Orders without special Dispensation. CHAPTER XVII. THree special points concerning vows are taught and practised by the Catholic Church. First, in general (1) Bellar. de Monachis. l. 1. c. 16. that Vows of things not commanded, but of Counsel and perfection, are lawful, godly, and commendable. Secondly, that (2) Bellarm. de Clericis. l. 1. c. 19 the vow of Chastity, is to be annexed to holy Orders, and so to be observed by the Clergy. And that such as have been twice married should not be admitted to holy Orders without special dispensation. Thirdly, that the vows of (3) Bellar. de Monach. l. 2 c. 20. etc. Monks and other Religious concerning Chastity, Poverty, and Obedience, and their strike order of life are likewise lawful, holy and laudable. Directly (4) Luth. l. de Votis Monasticis. Caluin. Inst. l. 4 c. 13. etc. 12. contrary to all which, is the Doctrine and practice of the Protestant Church, which First teacheth, that no vows are to be made to the honour of God, but such as are of things already commanded. Secondly, that it is lawful for the Clergy or Ministry even after Orders taken to marry wives. Thirdly, that the Vows of all Religious Persons, with their manner of life, are impious, vain, Superstitious, and not to be kept. Now how repugnant are our Modern Libertines herein to the ancient Fathers, and wholly agreeable our present Roman, with the Primitive Church, let these few lines following, serve for fullest proof. Luke (5) Cent. 6. p. 208. Osiander numbering up many Catholic points of Faith wherewith he chargeth S. Gregory the Great, to have been foully and Popishly deluded, amongst the rest affirmeth, that he Sharply urged the single life of the Ministers of the Church. D. Morton accordingly saith hereof: (6) Prot. Appeal. l. 1. sec. 52. p. 38. The Apologists do truly object, that our Osiander noted S. Gregory to have been a vehement urger of Single life of the Clergy. And concerning such of the Clergy as were married before their Orders taken, M. Symond● (7) Upon the Revel. p. 83. 84 85. 86. reproveth him, for that, He decreed that the Clergy should not have knowledge of their wives etc. Carion (8) Carion in Chron. l. 4 p 567. 568. reciting his several pretended Catholic errors, repeateth his error of Vows and Single life. But to leave S. Gregory, and to arise to S. Augustin & other ancient Fathers, I know (saith (9) de Votis p. 524. Peter Martyr) & declared no less to my Auditors in Oxford, that Epiphanius with many others of the Fathers, erred in that they hold it a Sin to break the Vow of virginity, & they do i'll to number it amongst the Apostolical Traditions. Chemnitius (10) Exam. part. 3. p. 41. 40. 42. in general confesseth saying: We are not ignorant that the Fathers allow the vows of perpetual Chastity, & acknowledge them to be obligatory. Insomuch as he doth specially recite and reject in this behalf, the several sayings of S. Basil, S. Ambrose, S. chrysostom, S. Epiphanius, S. Austin, and S. Innocentius. And justus Molitor (11) De Ecclesia Milit. p. 80. reproveth the whole Council of Chalcedon, which was most famous and ancient, for that, It forbade to Monks and Nuns the use of Marriage. In like sort S. Augustin, and all the Fathers assembled with him in the Carthage Council, are rejected by Danaeus, (12) Contrae Bellarm. 1. part. alterae parte p. 10 11 for that, saith he, they abused manifestly the Word of God, saying upon the Apostles words: If any widows, how young soever etc. have vowed themselves to God, left their Laical habit, and under the testimony of the Bishop & Church appeared in Religious weed, if afterwards they go to Secular marriage, they shall according to the Apostle have damnation, because they dared make void the vow of Chastity which they made to God. And Osiander (13) Cent. 5. l. 1. c. 1. p. 20. for the same respect confesseth, and at large reprehendeth the foresaid Canon of the Carthage Council. Yea the Council of Nice, whereof D. Whitguift (14) In his Def. p. 330 saith: That notable & famous Council of Nyce, which is of all wise and learned men reverenced, esteemed, and embraced next to the Scriptures themselves; this so famous a Council, did (as M. Carthwright, (15) In his 2. Reply part. 1 p. 485. D. Bancroft in his Survey etc. p. 386. Centurists Cent. 4. c. 9 col. 656. D. Fulk against Rhem. Test in Math. 8. fol. 14. and sundry other Protestant Writers acknowledge) affirm and teach, that unto those that were chosen to the Ministry unmarried, it was not lawful to take any wife afterwards: only being married before entrance into the Ministry, it was lawful for them to use the benefit of that (precedent) Marriage. And Paphnutius, one of the Council showeth concerning Priests unlawfulness to marry after Priesthood undertaken, that not only this was before that Council, but was also yet further, an ancient tradition of the Church, in which both himself and the rest of the Council Thus fare M. Carthwright. Luther (16) Tom. ●. Germ jenae f 97. & de Concil. part. 1. p. 92. like wise much disgusted with the foresaid Council of Niece, rejecteth the same saying: I do not acknowledge the holy Ghost in this Nicene Council, because it forbiddeth him who hath gelded himself to be made Priest, and also commandeth the Clergy to have none dwelling with them, but their Mother, Sister etc. Had the Holy Ghost no other thing to do in Counsels, but to bind his Ministers to such imposed, dangerous, and not necessary Laws? Frigivillaeus Gaunius (17) Palma Christiana. p 103. reprehendeth Socrates and Sozomene, for their report of Paphnutius, saying: Socrates added this report rashly of his own devising etc. w●th like falsehood did he wrest the Saying of Paphnutius in the Nicene Council etc. And Sozomene following after Socrates, followeth his explication in maintenance of the doctrine of Devils, condemned by Paul. 1. Tim. 4. And the Centurie-writers (18) Cent. 4. c. 9 col. 656. & D. Fulk (19) Ag. Rhem. Test. in Math. 8. sec. 3 fol. 14. do both of them confess, that Paphnutius though he thought that Priesthood did not dissolve Marriage contracted before Orders given, yet he affirmed to the Nycene Council, that Those who were made Priests before they were married, should not afterwards marry, alleging for this, veterem Ecclesiae consuetudinem, the ancient Tradition of the Church. In like sort say our Puritans: 20) A brief Discovery of untruths in D. bancroft's serm. p. 21. We must needs confess, that not only this Government of the Church, but also many other points of greatest weight in Religion fell to decay long before the council of Niece etc. besides many other Corruptions which w●re passed over, yea and established at that Council etc. Paphnutius alone was enforced to stand up against the whole Synod in the cause of the Marriage of Minister's, which notwithstanding he etc. so defended, that he would not have him that were a Minister being unmarried, ever after to be joined to a wife. Agreeable hereunto saith D. Morton. (21) Prot. Appeal. p. 480. The Council (of Niece) restraineth them from marriage, who were unmarried when they entered into Orders. But to proceed, the Magdeburgians (22) 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 Emperor Constantin, and (Pope) Sylvester, they repeat and dislike the Second Canon thereof, which was, That no married man ought to be admitted to Priesthood, nisi fuerit promissa Conuersio, unless his Conversion, or leaving of his wife, was (first) promised. Yea they further 23) Cent. 4. col. 616. And see col. 486. 303. 704. 2293. confess that the ancient Council of Neocesarea decreed: That if a Priest should marry, he should be deposed from his Orders. But this prohibition of Priest's Marriage was so general in the ancient Fathers, as that Hospinian (24) Hist. Sacr part 1 p. 132. acknowledgeth the same in Siricius, Innocentius, Calixtus, the second Council of Arles, the Council of Neocesarea. And M. Parkins (25) Volum. 2. p. 658. reproveth for the same the Council of Ancyra, which was before the Nicene Council, as also S. Hierom, (26) Ibid. p. 661. Siricius, Leo, Ambrose, Isidore, Arator etc. D. Field (27) Of the Church l 3. p. 475. rejecteth likewise herein the Council of Eliberis, which was holden Twenty years before the Nicene Council. But Osiander (28) Cent. 4. p. 46. in Can. 1. And see p. 195. 167. 45. 122. 156 298. 365. 406. reproveth the same in the Council of Neocesaria, in the second Council of Arles, in the Council of Eliberis, in the first Toletane Council, in the Council of Agatha, in the Fifth Council of Carthage, in the First Arausican Council, in the Counsels called Turonense, and Venetica. Beza (29) In nou. Test. in Praef. ad Principem Condensem. speaking of the times of Cyprian, Austin and Chrysostom, confesseth that, There was in use the Invocation of the dead, and the foolish opinion of single life, which shameful errors (saith he) Hierom plainly defendeth. Yea S. Hierom preferring Single life before Marriage, is therefore censured by Caluin (30) Hermonia in Math. 19.11 to have given a clear proof of a malignant & perverse disposition. Again, (31) In 1. Cor. 7.7.9. whilst the chiefest Doctors are wholly busied in extolling Virginity, forgetting man's frailty, they neglect this Admonition of Paul, yea of Christ himself. But Hierom blinded I know not with what zeal, doth not only slide into such false opinions, but runneth headlong. But because D. Whitaker (32) Cont. Duraeum. l. 7. p. 480. Mort Prot. Appius p 477 & D. Morton affirm, that Siricius (who lived about Anno 384) was the first that annexed perpetual Chastity to the Ministers of the Word, I will therefore search further into the times more ancient; And I find the Centurists (33) Cent. 4 col. 467. to acknowledge, that, it is evident by the Fourth book of Eusebius of the life of Constantin, that there were before Constantins time (who lived above sixty years before Siricius) virgins & women continent, & that professed perpetual chastity: Where also (say they) Eusebius affirmeth, that the Emperor Constantin did greatly approve that kind of discipline, Insomuch as he often went unto them. And Socrates testifieth l. 1. c. 17. that Helen mother of Constantin, found at Jerusalem Virgins consecrated to God, whose profession she liked so much, that she made herself servant unto them. Yea the Centurists (34) Cent. 3. c. 6. col. 140. etc. 7. col. 176. further confess, that Cyprian in his first book and 9 and 11. Epistles, declareth that among Christians there were Virgins consecrated unto God, which would & could keep chastity etc. And that, Tertulian in his book of the clothing of Virgins expressly mentioneth the vow of Chastity. And that, It was decreed by Cyprian & his fellow Bishops, l. 1. ep. 11. that Virgins vowing chastity ought not to dwell with men. And whereas Origen in Numer. hom. 23. saith: It is certain that the continual Sacrifice is hindered to them who serve the necessities of wedlock, whereupon it seemeth to me, that he alone is to offer the continual Sacrifice who hath vowed himself to continual & perpetual Chastity: This Saying is confessed & rejected, as being evidently against Priest, Marriage by Chemnitius: (35) Exam. part. 3. p. 50. And see p. 58. And so likewise in the same case is S. Cyprian (36) Med. Theol. p. 357 by Schultetus. But before them lived S. Clement, of whose time Peter Martyr (37) De votis. p. 490 writeth: I confess there were in the time of Clement Professions and vows of Chastity etc. And M. Parkins (38) In Probl. p. 191. acknowledgeth that, In the foresaid Ages, promises of Continency were accustomed to be made publicly in the Church: For in the year of Christ One hundred seventy, Clemens Alex. l. 3. Strom, saith etc. In like sort Hospinian, (39) De origine Monachetus f. 104 I will grant that in the time of this Clement, that is, about the year of Christ, One hundred seventy five, there were Professions & vows of Virginity or continency & single life. But before Clement lived, S. Ignatius Scholar to S. john the Evangelist, about the year One hundred and nine, of whose time the Centurists (40) Cent. 2 c. 4. col. 64. say: It appeareth by the Epistles of Ignatius, that even then men began somewhat more earnestly to love and reverence the desire of Virginity, for in the Epistle ad Antiochenses he saith, Virgins videant cuise consecraverint, Let Virgins see (or remember) to whom they have consecrated themselves. And whereas, in his Epistle ad Tarsenses, he adviseth thus, Honour yet those who are Virgins (Sicut Sacras Christi) as the Sacred (or consecrated) to Christ, and reverence the chaste widows, Sicut Sacrarium Dei, as the vestry (or Temple) of God: This his Saying is reproved (41) Cent. 1. l. 3. c. 23. p. 131. by Osianders, And the Centurists (42) Cent 2 c. 10. col. 167. charge him, that he speaketh incommodiously of Virginity and that his foresaid Say (43) Cent. 2. p. 65. were an occasion, and opened the way to those things, which afterwards were thereupon founded, concerning Cloisters, Vows etc. Shulterus (44) Med. Theol. p. 450. allegeth, Ignatius writing ad Philippenses, I salute the College of Virgins; whereupon he immediately inferreth: Were there then in that flower of the Church, Virgins which professed perpetual Chastity and Continency? There were truly &c. saith he. D. Morton also acknowledgeth that, (45) Prot. Appeal. l. 1. p. 88 we find that the Age next abutting upon the Apostles time, did practise a perpetual vow of virginity, which being guarded with a just moderation, may be judged both commendable and convenient. But to pass from the Scholars to the Masters themselves, to wit, the blessed Apostles; Luther (46) Tom 5. Wittemb. fol. 108. inferreth this Doctrine from the example of S. Paul himself, saying: Dicendum est etc. It is to be said, that either Paul's wife died, or that she was dismissed from him by her own assent, that he might not carry her about with him, & so in matrimony to have lived a single life, as he seemeth to show in the 9 Chapter: howsoever whether his wife died, or he left her for the Gospel of his own accord, it is certain that then he lived as a widower, who before was married. Peter Martyr (47) De Coel●bata & votis. p 54. acknowledgeth, that S. Ambrose and Epiphanius derive professed chastity from the Institution of S. Paul. And D. Fulk (48) Against Rhem Test. in 1. Tim. 5. fol 381. Danaeus count. Bellarm. 1. partis ale●ra parte. p. 1811 Mayor in ep. 1. ad Tim. in c. 5 fol. 249. Danaeus and Georgius Mayor do all 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 Continency. Hamelmannus (49) De Traditionious Ap saint. o. 460 and see col. 254. And Bugchagius in jonam c. 3. avoucheth that, after the death of john the Apostle who by the Fathers is much commended and esteemed for his Virginity, presently began revolting from the Faith etc. forbidding of Marriages, and meats, vows, single life etc. D. Fulk speaking of our B. Ladies vowing Chastity, opposeth himself to S. Austin & S. Gregory Nyssen therein saying: (50) Ag. Rhem. Test. in Luc. 1. sec. 13 Though S. Austin gather she vowed Virginity, yet it followeth not &c. And although Gregory Nyssen be of Augustine's opinion etc. But D. Fulks Non sequitur, will never counterpoise the contrary Collection of so worthy Fathers. But to speak of the ancientest Ages and Fathers in general, Peter Martyr (53) De Caelib & votis p. 477. thinketh that, forthwith after the Apostles times too much was attributed to single life. And Caluin (54) Instit. l. 4. c. 13. sec. 17. speaking hereof, saith: This say they was observed from furthest memory, that those who would dedicate themselves wholly to the Lord, should bind themselves to the vow of continency: I confess this custom was anciently received, but I do not grant that Age to be free from all vice. In like sort answereth M. Wotton (55) In his Def. of M. Perkins. p 491. saying: But the Fathers are not for us, what then? Is nothing true that cannot be confirmed by their testimonies etc. Indeed it is one of the blemishes of the ancient Writers, that they were too highly conceited of single life etc. Therefore it is not to be looked for, that Antiquity should afford us (Protestants) any testimony herein against the practice and judgement of those days. And whereas Bellarmin to this purpose, produceth many Say of the ancient Fathers, Danaeus (56) In 1. partis a t. parte. p. 1034 his best answer thereto is, that those Father's thought so, being blinded with the cloud and enchantment of that error of the lawful Vow of perpetual continency. So likewise M. jewel (57) In his Def of the Apol p 164. speaking concerning the Father's opinion against Marriage of Priests, saith, Here I grant Mr Harding is like to find some good advantage, as having undoubtedly a great number of holy Fathers on his side. Add lastly that the Fathers herein were so firm and constant, as that D. Fulk (58) In his Answer to a Counterf. Cath p. 45. acknowledgeth that jovinian was condemned by them, for that among other things. He taught that such as could not contain, though they had vowed virginity should nevertheless be married. So evident & confessed it is, that the vows of Chastity and the single life of the Clergy was allowed and practised in the purest times of the Primitive Church. Now whereas it is Law decreed and observed by the Roman Church, that Bigamus, or he that hath been twice married, is not to be admitted to holy Orders without special dispensation therein: M. Bale (59) In Act. Rom p. 44. 45 46. 47. acknowledgeth, that, S Gregory the Great, prohibited that he that was Bigamus, should be made Priest. And D Fulk (60) In his Retentive against Bristol etc. p. 164. granteth that, He who had had two wives could not be a Priest in Hieroms' time. And the Centurists (61) 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, affirm that it was decreed, that ordination to Priesthood should not be bestowed of those who were Bigami But Beza (62) De Polig p. 211. reprehendeth herein ancient Origen saying: Origen were ancient than all Counsels, excepting that of the Apostles, writeth (in Luc. hom ●7) that not only fornication, but also Marriage doth hinder from Ecclesiastical dignities, to wit, second Marriage etc. But here I affirm that Origen is to be altogether rejected, as contradicting the doctrine of the Apostles. Yea he further (63) In nou. Test. in 1. Tim 5.9. p. 333. saith of Bigamy, In the case of widows If any shall oppose to me the authority of certain Fathers, I appeal to the Word of God. For which his appeal he is reproved by (64) In his Survey p. 220. D. Bancroft. And the Centurists (65) Cent 3. col. 85. 86. do allege both Tertullian and Origen, against Bigamy in the Clergy. The Particulars then concerning Vows thus confessedly taught by the Fathers of the Primitive Church are, First, that Vows of things not commanded, but indifferent, as of perpetual Chastity, are lawful & commendable. Secondly, that though for some time as then it was permitted, that such as were married before their taking of holy Orders, should continue and live with their wives in the state of wedlock: yet was the same afterwards, even during the precinct of those purest times prohibited and disallowed: But never in any time, or by any Father was it allowed to the Clergy to contract Marriage after Orders taken; a thing now so ordinary with our Protestant Ministers. Thirdly, it was never suffered, that those who were Bigami or twice married, should afterwards be admitted to holy Orders without particular dispensation therein. Now the Fathers produced & reproved by Protestants for these foresaid Catholic Articles, are S. Gregory, Austin, Ambrose, Hierom, Leo, Innocentius, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Siricius, Socrates, Sozomene, Eusebius, Basil, Cyprian, Nyssen, Origen, Tertulian, Clement, Ignatius, S. Paul the Apostle, with the B. Virgin Marie & S. Paul's widows. As likewise the Counsels of Niece, of Arles, of Neocesaraea, of Eliberis, of Toledo, of Carthage, and several others. The Protestants accusing the foresaid Fathers are, Luther, the Centurists, Carion, Chemnitius, Molitor, Danaus, Osiander, Gaunius, Crispinus, Hospinian, Beza, Schulterus, Peter Martyr, Maior, Hamelmannus, Caluin, Symondes, Bale, Humphrey, Carthwright, Fulk, Bancroft, Wotton, Parkins, Morton, Field, Whitaker, and jewel. It is confessed by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitive Church, allowed and practised the Religious State of Monastical life: And that many Christians of those purest times both men and women, did strictly observe & profess the same. CHAPTER XVIII. BUT now to come to that which to our Protestants is most hateful and displeasing, as being most repugnant to their new Euangelical liberty and licentiousness of life, to wit, the holy, austere, and Monastical life of Religious men & women, practised & approved by the primitive Church. And first to begin with S. Gregory, D. Humphrey having recited many particulars of our Catholic Faith, wherewith he chargeth him and S. Austin, at length concludeth thus: (1) jesuit. part. 2. rat 5. p 5. & 62●. These hath Augustin the great Monk taught by Gregory the Monk, brought to the English: yea S. Gregory was so devoted to the State of Monachisme, as that M. Bale thus accordeth of him: (2) In Act R●m Pontif. p. 44 Gregory the Great, of all the Roman Patriarcks the most excellent in life and learning etc. altered the houses of his Parents into Monasteries etc. built six Monasteries, and Commanded (which Command is still in force and observed in Catholic Countries) that women should not enter the Cloisters of Monks, nor Monks the houses of Nuns. And according to Carrion (3) In C●●. l. 4. p. 567. 568. He much increased (saith he (the false Conceit of Monachisme. D. Morton (4) Prot. Appeal l 4. sec. 37. p 46. avoucheth that, Monachisme is a State of life greatly commended by S. Gregory, who had been himself a Monk. Yea he saith further of ancient Votaries, (5) Ibid. l. 2. p. 89. or Religious women, that, The Apostle required in his widows, the age of threescore years, and often times would not admit Virgins under Twenty five years old, nor veiled Nuns till forty; for which he citeth the Third Carthage Council holden about Anno 398. and the Counsels Agathense & Caesaraugustanum assembled in the Fift Century: So supposing that the widows spoken of by S. Paul, had vowed Chastity or single life, & that in the Fourth and Fift Centurie after Christ, there were in the Church vowed and veiled Nuns. But to arise yet higher, M. Carthwright (6) In Whitguift. Def. p 344. confesseth, that Ruffian, Theodoret, Sozomene, Socrates etc. do mention Monks almost in every page. And the Centurists (7) Cent. 4. c. 10 col. 129●. speaking of the Age wherein Constantin lived, acknowledge that there were Monks throughout Syria, Palestina, Bithynia, & other places of Asia. Also throughout Africa (8) Cent. 4. col. 1036. and Europe: (9) Ibid. col. 1331. Insomuch that they begin a special (10) Cent. 4. col 1294. Tract, the Title whereof is; Monks throughout Syria, Palestin, Birthinia, & other parts of Asia under Constantin the Great. As also another (11) Ibid. col. 1306. Tract, the Title whereof is, The African Monks throughout Egypt under Constantin the Great. Other Protestants acknowledge, that, (12) In the brief Discourse of the Church's 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 until Constantin) the love of Solitude and Monkery, the abstinence from Marriage, and from certain meats on particular days, many Feasts and other seeds of Superstition after succeeding, took a marvellous root: So the commencement of Prayer for the dead, and Sacrifice of the Mass did discover themselves etc. But the Centurists having alleged a long place of S. Basil in praise of Monastical life, they add this Censure: (13) Cent. 4. p. 300. 301. All which words (of S. Basil) are both beside and contrary to holy Scripture. As also, S. Ambrose doth pronounce too too insolently of the merits of Virgins. And whereas Ephrem said, That all pious people shall come merrily in the day of judgement before the face of Christ: but especially Monks, & other such as have lived in desert in chastity, labours, watchings, fastings and the like; these words are so distasteful to Protestant's, that the Magdeburgians say thereof: What can be spoken more monstrously against the merit of Christ? The Centurists (14) Cent. 4. c. 6. col 464. 466. 474. likewise confess, that these Monks had Monasteries to dwell in: And they make (15) Cent. 4. col. 467. 479 1335. 5337. a special Title: Of the Monasteries of Virgins: whereof also mention is made by (16) Cent. 4. p. 507. 503. 161. Osiander. In these Monasteries, one was apppointed for Superior over the rest: So Osiander (17) Cent 4. p. 503. And see the Centurists Cent. 4. col. l 335. acknowledgeth, that, Paula was Governess, or Abbess of their Monasteries which were of Virgins. And the Centurists give like instance of Publia, a most noble woman, who was Mistress of the company of Virgins, who professed chastity. There were used at those times a special Consecration of Monasteries, and Monks, and Nuns: Insomuch as the Centurie-writers (19) Cent 4. col. 466. have a particular Title, De consecratione Monachi, of Consecration of a Monk. And else where (20) Cent. 4 col. 865. 869 874. in plain terms they mention Consecration of Virgins. And whereas the Council of Chalcedon Can. (18) Cent 4. col. 125. 24. saith, we decree that such Monasteries as are once Consecrated with the allowance of their Bishop, shall remain so perpetual etc. neither after shall be used for secular houses: this Council is mentioned and commended by the Centurists. (21) Cent. 4 col. 855. 667. 515. But Hamelmannus (22) De Traditionibus Apost. 1. col. 707. 743. & D. Regnolds (23) In his conf. p 488. do mention & reprove in S. Dionysius the Areopagite, Consecration of Monks. These Monks and Nuns used a Religious habit, different from that of Secular people: For the Magdeburgians (24) Cent 4. col. 472. do affirm, that in the Fourth Age, they used a certain Cover for the head, which they call the Cowle; which is, used at this day. And, (25) Cent. 4 col. 468. & 867. 874. 870. And see Hosp●nian de Origine Monach. fol. 111. It may be observed (say they) out of the same book what was the Custom of Clothing Virgins, for first they were clothed in the Church before the Altar upon Ester day, in presence of the solemn assembly, Candles being lighted etc. But now to touch their professed Poverty and Austerity of life, the Centurists (26) Cent. 4 col. 301. speaking of the Monks which lived in the Fourth Age, plainly acknowledge that, It is evident that those who were to profess Monastical life, did first distribute their goods. Basil saith, It behooveth a Monk before all things to embrace that kind of life, that he possess nothing. And as concerning their diet, they likewise grant, (27) Cent. 4. col. 474. & 471. That some abstain from fowl, using eggs & fish; others abstain from fish, and eat cheese; others do not take cheese: and yet there are others who abstain from bread: As also, (28) Cent 4 col. 475. that some live with bread, pulse, & herbs, which are boiled only with Salt. In like sort they (29) Cent. 4. col. 474. acknowledge, that, Many sleep upon the ground, others go barefoot, & wear Sackcloth secretly upon their bodies: Yea they mention (30) Cent 4 col. 465. their going barefoot out of Nazianzen. And M. Willet 31) Synopsis Count 6 q 6. part. i p. 258. maketh a special Tract against the austerity of those ancient times, saying: The solitary life of Eremites in flying the comfortable society of men, and the rigorous manner in the unnatural chastising of their bodies, is contrary to the rule of the Gospel. And again: That cruel and inhuman kind of chastising their bodies, by fasting and other discipline, is utterly unlawful. And afterwards he there reproveth S Basil & S Gregory Nazianzene, for plucking down themselves by immoderate fasting. Yea the Austerity and sanctity of the ancient Monks were such, that Luther saith thereof: (32) Upon the Epistle to th● Galat. Engl in c. 1 verse 30. fol. 220. If the Papacy had the same holiness and austerity of life, which it had in the time of the ancient Fathers, Hierom, Ambrose, Austin & others etc. what could we do now against the Papacy by our Doctrine (of only Faith? Caluin (33) Instit. l 4. c. 12. s●ct. 8. much disliketh the ancient Fathers confessed austerity, saying: In which respect the immoderate austerity of the Ancient (Fathers) can no ways be excused, which both altogether dissented from the rules of our Lord, and also is very dangerous. And again, (34) Instit. l. 3 c 4. sec. 38 Little do those things move me which every where occur in the writings of the old (Fathers) concerning Satisfaction, for I see some of them, yea I will speak plainly, almost all whose books are extant, either herein to have been deceived, or else to have spoken over sharply and roughly. And to give example in some few; Osiander (35) Cent. 4. p. 99 speaking of S Anthony, who lived in Constantins' time, much reprehendeth him in these words: When in a certain Sermon (Anthony) had heard that saying of Christ repeated, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all which thou hast, and give unto the poor, & follow me, This Saying he impertinently applied to himself, selling those things which be had by inheritance etc. choosing a Solitary life. And being about thirty five years old, he went into the desert that there he might lead a more strict life. His meat was only bread & Salt, his drink water, his time of dinner Sunsetting, whereas often he fasted two days or more together, he watched whole nights in prayer etc. His Garment inwardly was haircloth etc. Therefore (saith Osiander) the life of Antony wanted not much Superstition. And again, (36) Ibid. p. 103. that Antony was the first beginner of Monastical life in in Egypt, that he punished his body over much, & such like, they are to be numbered amongst the stubble, whereof Paul speaketh. In like sort saith D. Beard: (37) Retrartive from Rom. Relig. p. 375. The first Hermit was one Antony, who lived three hundred years after Christ, who taught others that State of life. And as concerning S. Anton.'s house or Celle, Osiander (38) Cent. 4. p. 100 likewise confesseth, that it was Seated upon a high mountain etc. and that the square thereof was no larger than a man might lay himself down to sleep. And as for his bed, he used a mat spread upon the ground, and often the ground itself. Like instance may be given in S. simeon, whose great austerity reported by Theodoret, the Protestant junius (39) Animaduersiones' ad Controversiam 3. de Membris Eccl. p. 611. 612. 613. 614. reprehendeth, terming him, Melancholy, ignorant and superstitious simeon, and condemning his miraculous fast of Forty days for counterfeit &c, his daily continued prayer at the pillar for battalogie etc. his miracles for magical, etc. And his Prophesying as done by human judgement, or suggestion from the Devil. What now could Lucian, or Porphyry utter more profanely? And yet the like is affirmed of this holy simeon by Hospinian. (40) De Monach. f. 24. But now to come to the vowed Chastity of Monks & Nuns of those ancient times: Whereas it is decreed in the Council of Chalcedon. Can. 15. that, If any Virgin or Monk shall dedicate themselves to God, it is not lawful for them to marry: This so famous a Council, is reprehended for this very Decree by D. Whitaker, (41) Cont. Camp rat. 4 p. 62. Osiand. Cent. 5. l. 32 c. 13 p. 356. 359. justus Molitor de Eccl. Milit. p. 80. Osiander, & justus Molitor. The Centurie-writers (42) Cent. 4. col 467. And see col. 706. 483. 847. 301. And Cent. 3 col. 140. acknowledge that, Ruffian l. 2. c. 9 declareth, that Basil built Monasteries in the Cities of Pontus, and ordained that Virgins should vow Chastity: And concerning the virgins of Europe, they confess in the same place that, Ambrose telleth that the vow of Virginity was common with that sex. Yea such was the Sanctity of the Religious of those times, that it is confessed, that they shined with the gifts of miracles: The Centurists (43) 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 gift of Miracles, as Antony and his Disciples, Macharius, Isidorus, Heraclides, etc. And such was the holy conceit of the ancient Fathers concerning the perfection of Monastical life, that they doubted not to condemn Vigilantius and others of error for impugning the same: For thus, by the confession of Crispinus, (44) Of the Estate of the Church. ep. 131. 132. writeth S. Hierom against, Vigilantius: In that thou affirmest those to do better, who use their goods, and by little & little distribute the fruits of their possessions to the poor, than those who selling their possessions give all at once; the answer shall be given, not from me, but from our Lord; If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all things which thou hast, and give to the poor, & come follow me. He speaketh to him who will be perfect etc. That degree which thou praisest is the Second and Third, which also we allow, whilst we know the first to be preferred before the second and Third. Neither are Monks to be terrified by thee from their devotion, with they viperous tongue, and cruel biting, of whom thou arguest and sayest. If all shall shut themselves up, and be in the deserts, who shall frequent the Churches? These premises supposed and observed, it is no marvel though M. Carthwright (45) In his 2. Reply. part. 1. p. 502. affirm, that Monks are Antichristian, notwithstanding their anciencie: And that, (46) Ibid. p. 510. Hieroms' Monks, Hermit's, and Anchorets were at that time very gross. As also though (47) Instit. l. 4. c. 13. sec. 16. Caluin say, I do not dissemble, that in that ancient form (of Monachisme) which Augustin commendeth, there is something which little pleaseth me. And yet this notwithstanding Beza (48) In his now Test. in prefat. ad Principem Condensem. speaking of the times of Cyprian, Augustin & Chrysostom, acknowledgeth that the Christians as then, Admired the Monks of Egypt and Syria etc. as if they were Angels. And such was the Emperor Constantins' opinion of S. Anthony his sanctity, that Crispinus (49) Of the Estate of the Church. p. 106. And see Cent. 4. col. 470. confesseth, that Antony being in Egypt in the wilderness, Constantin wrote to him, for to pray to God for him & his children. Add hereunto, that Chemnitius reproveth the Fathers for referring Monastical profession to Apostolic (50) Exam. part. 3. p. 54 Institution. To touch now the Monastical life of the ancient believing jews, (51) De origine Monaechatus f. 10. Hospinian reporteth, that S. Hierom maketh the sons of the Prophets, the Monks of the Old Testament, for in his Epistle to Rusticus he saith: The sons of the Prophets, whom we read were Monks in the old Testament, built for themselves Cottages near the River of jordan, & leaving the Cities did feed upon barley bread & wild herbs. And in his Epistle to Paulinus speaking of Monks, he saith, our guides the sons of the Prophets who dwelled in fields and Deserts, & made themselves Tabernacles near the river jordan. And again (52) Ibid. fol. 11. S. Ambrose in his book of Virgins, writeth that the jews kept certain Virgins in the Temple of Jerusalem etc. But Ambrose I think had this (saith Hospinian) from the 2. book of Maccabees and 3 Chapter, where mention is made of virgins shut up together, but these books of Maccabees are not to be believed So not being able otherwise to deny this ancient Monachisme in the jews, but by rejecting the books of Maccabees for not Canonical. In like sort concerning the Pharisees, whereof S. Paul affirmeth himself to have been one, (53) Act. Ap. 26. 5. terming it, The most sure sect of the (jews) Religion, or as Protestant's translate the most straight sect etc. (54) Phaerisaisme. p. 15. These Pharisees (saith M. Hal) were a Fraternity or College of extraordinary Devotion, whose rule was Tradition, whose practice voluntary Poverty, and who according to D. Beard believed (55) Retractive from Romish. Rel. p. 80. Freewill, Invocation of Angels, & Saints, and Merit of good works. The Nazarites also (whereof though some were but temporary, yet others according to M. Parkins were (56) Upon the Hebr. c. 11. p 501. And iunius in Animaduers. p 216. perpetual) were so agreeable to our Monastical & Religious life, that Bullinger writeth thus of them. (57) Dec. 3. sec. 6. p. 380. Because they should more freely attend upon God, they did of their own accord take upon them a more strict trade of life then the common people used: And so were (58) Ibid. p. 381. consecrated to the Lord by a certain peculiar kind of living. To the same effect writeth D. Beard, (59) Retractive 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 diverse of the Religious Shavelings by the Rules of their Order. They were tied by a vow which they might not break without sin; so are these at their first entrance into their Cloisters and Cells etc. They might not meddle with worldly affairs, during the time of their separation: no more, may some of these Romish Votaries etc. And yet he confesseth further of the Nazarites, that, They were true worshippers of God, and their Order was God's ordinance. Yea the Scriptures themselves do (60) Numb. c. 6. relate their peculiar Consecration to God, their Vow, their Abstinence from wine, and other such Circumstances belonging thereunto. And as concerning certain of the jews called the Essenes', josephus writeth thus of them. (61) Antiquit. jud. l. 18. c. 2. The righteousness of the Essenes' is marvellous etc. They enjoy their riches in common etc. And in this course above four thousand men do live, having neither wives nor Servants etc. They (62) De Bello jud. l. 2. c. 7. are jews by nation, and do observe continency, avoid Marriage, are contemnens of riches, and enjoy things in common, none being richer than other. And before any be admitted amongst them, Trial is had of his continency, and his other manners are for two years proved, & then he is taken into the Company M. Hal acknowledgeth these Essenes', affirming that there were of them (63) Pharis. p. 15. Parkins in Hebr. c. 11. p. 501. both Collegiate & Eremitical. And (64) De Oriegine Mon f. 29. & see p. 5. 6. 7. 8. I deny not (saith Hospinian) the Institute, or rather Superstitions of these Essenes' to have crept into the Church as a certain gangrene; of their single life & Virginity no man may doubt. D. Beard testifieth, that the jews (65) 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, Saints or holy men, as some suppose etc. And those as josephus & Philo testify, professed Continency from Marriage, community in goods, and abstinence from meats etc. And do not the Romanists imitate them in the same kind? etc. Let then the jewish Essaeans, & the Romish Monks walk together etc. Philo also living in the Apostles times mentioneth those who then 66) De vitae Contempl. forsaking their goods did dwell without the walls, loving solitariness etc. He mentioneth likewise their Monasteries, where being solitary they studied the mysteries of holy life, as also their (67) Apud Euseb. hist. l. 2. c. 16. extraordinary fasting from meat. All which is so certain that the Centurists. (68) Cent. 1. l 2. col. 18. Rain. in hic Conf. p. 488. & D. Raynolds do acknowledge the same, and can only evade the force thereof by affirming, that it was jewish, and the Professors thereof jews, directly contrary to S. Hierome (69) De Script. Eccl. verbo Phile. Euseb. hist. l. 2. c. 16. & Euschius who think they were Christian Professors. Lastly S. john Baptist did in many things (70) Marc. 1.2. prepare the way to our Christian Doctrine, so amongst others, by his kind of Monastical Conversation: his abode to such purpose being in (71) Math. 3.1. & 11.7. Marc. 1.4. Luc. 3.4. the Desert, his (72) Math. 3.4. Marc 1.6. Raiment of Camel's hair: his 73) Mat. 3.4 Mar. 1.6. Girdle of (a beasts) skin about his loins: And his abstinence extraordinary from meats, other than 74) Mat. 3.4 Locusts and wild honey. In respect whereof it is said of him that, (75) Math. 11.18. He came neither eating nor drinking: Yea it was prophesied of him by an Angel that he should (76) Luc. 1.15. Neither drink wine, nor strong drink. All which his austerities and stricter Course of life, are thus specially described by the holy Evangelists to his greatest Commendation. Yea in these regards the ancient Father terming him (77) Chrys. 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 therefore reproved by (78) Cent. 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 than we see, that the Religious of these days, have taken their Institute and manner of life from their worthiest Predecessors of the Primitive Church, First who no less than now, did confessedly build Monasteries both for men and women. Secondly, which also they specially consecrated or hallowed. Thirdly, the Monks and Nuns wearing a distinct habit from Secular people. Fourthly, using extraordinary Austerity in their Apparel, Diet, Bed, and the like: Examples whereof are acknowledged in S. Antony & S. simeon. Fiftly, they likewise vowed Chastity the violating whereof was holden most sinful, & punishable. Sixtly, yea such was their Sanctity, that the confessedly shined with the Gifts of Miracles. Seaventhly, and so highly were they reverenced in these best times, that their Impugners and despisers were condemned by the Fathers for wicked Heretics. Eightly, add hereunto, that sundry truly believing jews both before & since Christ did likewise practise a kind of Monastical life, and were therefore as it were the Prototypon of our future Religious. Now the Fathers cited and rejected by Protestant's for the foresaid points, are, S. Gregory, Augustin, Ambrose, Hierom, Ruffian, Theodoret, Sozomene, Socrates, the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, Basil, Nazianzene, Antony, simeon, Macarius, and the ancient believing jews. The Protestants summoning them are Luther, Caluin, the Centurists, Carion, Osiander, Hamelmannus, Hospinian, junius, Molitor, Crispinus, Beza, Chemnitius, Bale, Humphrey, Carthwright, Raynolds, Willet, Hal, Parkins, Morton, Beard, and Whitaker. It is acknowledged by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church allowed and practised prescribed fasts, and Abstinence from certain meats, upon days and times appointed: holding the same to be obligatory under sin. Condemning also our Puritan Sabaoth fasts. CHAPTER XIX. COncerning fasting: The Doctrine of the Catholic Church is contained in four several points. First, that fasting (1) Bellar. de bonis eperihus in Partical. l. 2. c 5 6. 7. & 23. in general is commanded by God. Secondly, that fasting upon certain days, and from certain meats, is not only lawful, but being apppointed and commanded by the Church is also obligatory under sin. Thirdly, that no meats of their own nature are unclean, or unlawful to be eaten. Fourthly, that in honour of Christ our Saviour's Resurrection, Sunday is not fasted. The Protestant Church herein teacheth. First, (2) Caluin. Inst l. 4. c. 12 Chemn. Exam. part. 4 p. 440. that fasting is not commanded by God, but left free to the will and devotion every man. Secondly, (3) Caluin l 4 Instit. c. 12. Luth de Libertate Christiana that the Church hath no Authority to command certain days, or abstinence from certain meats, nor Christians bound to obey her therein. Thirdly, (4) Chemn. Exam part. 4. p 400 Protestant's falsely teach, that Catholics forbear certain meats as of their own nature unclean or unlawful. Fourthly, the most refined Protestants do keep their strictest Fasts upon the Sunday. Now what the Primitive Church taught and practised concerning fasting, I will appeal to Protestants as witnesses impartial and free from all exception in this case. First then, M. Bale (5) In Act Rom Pontif. p. 44 etc. confesseth, that S. Gregory the Great consecrated the beginning of Lent-fast with sprinkling of ashes etc. And forbade to those that fasted the use of flesh, milk, cheese, butter and eggs. M. Simonides reporteth that, (6) Upon the Revel. p. 85 86. He wrote to Austin that the Clergy should in Quinquagesima abstain from flesh, milk, and eggs etc. Whereas S. Ambrose (7) Serm. 25 34. 36. teacheth that, It is sin not to fast in Lent, he is reproved for the same by M. Carthwright 8) In Whit. Def p. 100 . And Melancthon (9) In libelli aliquot etc. fol. 9 affirmeth that, Ambrose saith of the fast of Lent etc. This is of necessity. This opinion (saith Melancthon) is stubble added to the doctrine of Faith. He likewise reprehendeth (10) In Ep. ad Rom. c. 14. p. 389. S. Austin for teaching abstinence from flesh & wine in Lent. For which very point the Centurists (11) Cent. 4. col. 1057. reject Theophilus Alexandrinus. D. Morton speaking of the fast of Lent, saith; (12) Prot. Appeal. l. 2 p 303. This fast, we confess, was of great Antiquity, and &c. had in general use and observation, which S. Ambrose teacheth to have been ordained by the divine Institution of Christ etc. And S. Augustin doth sometime write of the forty days fast, that it hath a divine Authority etc. M. Trig not only alloweth himself prescribed and apppointed days of fast, but allegeth for the same S. Cyril, (14) In his true Cathol. p. 600. as also S. (13) Ibid. p. 304. Ambrose (15) Ibid. 601. 602. for fasting in Lent, wednesdays & fridays; and withal saith: I would to God at this day all Christians would solemnly every week fast wednesday & friday etc. let us observe the fast of Lent, and of wednesdays & fridays etc. The Centurists confess that, Epiphanius affirmeth haer. 75. that the fast of wednesdays & fridays until the Ninth hour was decreed in all Countries of the world, (16) Cent. 4 col. 440. and that he referreth the authority of that Decree unto the Apostles. They likewise (17) Cent. 4 col. 44. admit, that Gregory Nyssen relateth the fasting from flesh & wine in Lent. And speaking of the Fourth Age (18) Cent. 5. col. 44. in general, they acknowledge, that Histories testify, that Christians of this Age did observe fasts, and that more Religiously, or (say the Centurists) more superstitiously then in former Ages. But the Fathers in this point were so resolute, as that they doubted not to condemn Aerius for his contrary Protestant Doctrine. D. Fulk (19) In his Answer to a counterf. Cath. p. 44. 45 and see Pantaleon in his Chron. p. 28. saith, I will not dissemble that which you think the greatest matter; Aerius taught that prayer for the dead was unprofitable, as witness both Epiphanius & Austin, which they count for an error. Also he taught that fasting days are not to be observed. D. Field (20) Of the Church. l. 3. c. 22. p 138. likewise writeth: The eleventh is the heresy of Aerius etc. He disliked set Fasts etc. He was justly condemned etc. Osiander (21) Cent. 4. p. 434. reciting the condemned errors of Aerius, amongst the rest numbered, appointed Fasts not to be kept &c And that fasting is to be when a man will, according to his liberty. And whereas S. Epiphanius her 75. affirmeth of Aerius, that he saith: Neither shall fasting be apppointed, for these things be judaical and under the Law of Bondage: If at all I will fast, I will choose any of myself, and I will fast for liberty. All this is acknowledged by Pantaleon, (22) In his Chronogr. p. 28. and is so agreeable with the now Doctrine of Protestants, that D. Whitaker (23) Contra Duraeum. l. 9 p. 830. avoucheth, that Aerius taught nothing concerning fasting different from the Catholic Faith: by which he meaneth the Protestant Faith. Insomuch that Aerius herein is defended by Danaeus (24) De haresibus. c. 53. f. 175. 177. & D. Fulk; (25) Answ. to a countor. Cath. p. 45. Though M Hooker (26) Eccles. Pol. l. 5. p. 210. And the Author of Quaerim. Eccles. p. 31. 94 103. and other Protestant Writers do no less condemn him herein of error then Catholics do. In like sort whereas D. Fulk 27) Against Rhem. Test. in Math. c. 15 fol. 28. And Aretius loc. come. p. ●72. and other Protestant Writers, do commonly object against Catholics, that Montanus the Heretic, was the first that appointed laws of fasting. M. Hooker (28) Eccles. Pol l. 5. p. 209. 210. himself answereth with us, that the Montanists were reprehended only, for that they brought in sundry unaccustomed days of fasting, continued their fasts a great deal longer, & made them more rigorous etc. whereupon Tertulian maintaining Montanisme, wrote a book in defence of the new fast. And the like answer is given by another Protestant [29) Quaerimonia Eccl. p. 110. saying: Protestants say that Eusebius manifestly teacheth, that Montanus made the first laws of fasting: but they are greatly deceived in this as in other things etc. Montanus bringeth in a new Custom of fasting, having abrogated the Fasts of the Church etc. And of this new Custom in particular, Chemnitius (30) Exam. part 4. p. 143. recordeth that, The Montanists make three Lents in the year, as though three Saviour's suffered in the year; which is altogether impertinent to Catholics. Again, whereas it is ordinarily urged against Catholics, that they absolutely condemn certain meats, contrary to S. Paul 1. Tim. 4.3, M. jacob (31) Def. of the Church & Ministry of England. p. 59 a Puritan acknowledgeth that, The place of Paul is understood of Martion & Tatianus, who did absolutely condemn Marriage & certain meats: And so (saith he) are in no comparison with the Papists, if they erred in nothing else. But to proceed yet to Fathers more ancient; The Centurists (32) Cent. 3 col. 136. writ that, Origen hom. 10. in Leviticum, mentioneth the 40. Days, or Lent, consecrated to fasting, as also Wenesday & Friday, in which saith he, were solemn Fasts: D. Whitaker (33) Cont. Duraeum. l. 7. p. 480. Mort. Prot. App. p. 506 & D Morton charge Pope Calixtus, who lived about Anno Domini 218. that, He was the first that ordained jeiunium quatuor Temporum, or Ember days. And Hamelmannus (34) De Trad. Apost. col. 254. speaking of Hermes, of whom S. Paul maketh mention Rom. 16 14 affirmeth. that in his book entitled Pastor, is recorded the then Fasting from certain meats. Abraham Schultetus (35) In Medulla Theol. Patrum. p. 440. doth not only affirm (to use his words) the superstition of Lent & Fasting to have been allowed & commanded by Ignatius, (37] 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 very Epistle of Ignatius, being ad Philippenses, in which this Doctrine is extant, to be his true Epistle, & not counterfeit. Chemnitius (38) Exam. part. 1. p. 89. confesseth, that Ambrose, Maximus Tauroninsis, Theophilus, Hierom, & others, do affirm the fast of Lent to be an Apostolical Tradition. And the like almost in the same words is acknowledged by Schrederus, 39) Opuscul. Theol p. 71. saying, Ambrose, Theophilus, Hierom & others, do decree that Lent hath descended from Apostolical Tradition. Add lastly that, Caluin (40) Insti. l. 4. c. 12. sec. 19 speaking of fasting, confesseth in general, that, he dareth not wholly excuse the Old Fathers, but that they sowed some seeds of Superstition. And that (41) Ibid. sec. 20. every where the observation of superstitious Lent was in force. Hamelmannus affirmeth that, 42) De Traedit. col. 460. After the death of john the Apostle, there began fall away from the Faith, Doctrines of Devils, under pretence of the Word of God, forbidding of Marriages & meats, vows, single life etc. And the Centurists do confess & report from (43) Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. col. 581. the testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, Egesippus, & josephus, concerning the abstinence of the blessed Apostle S. james, that (44) Ibid. col. 582. wine & sicer he did not drink, that he did not feed of any living creature etc. that he wore not garments, but was attired in Syndon, that he prayed so continually upon 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 Fasts, whereas M. Welch, (45) In his Rep. against Browne. p. 196. speaking of himself and his Brethren, saith: We think it not Heresy to fast on the Lords, more than other days; The Fourth Carthage Council Can. 64. is reprehended by Osiander, (46) Cent. 5. p. 13. for decreeing that, He that advisedly (or of purpose) fasted upon the Sunday, should not be esteemed a Catholic. And whereas Epiphanius haer. 75. reciting and condemning the error of the Aerians herein, affirmeth that, They affect rather to fast upon the Sunday, and to eat upon the Wenesday & Friday (in which respect, our modern Protestants are their docible Scholars) M. Midleton, allegeth to the same purpose, not only the several testimonies of Epiphanius, but also of Tertulian & Ignatius, freely confessing, that Sundays fast was condemned in Eustathius, & the Aerians. In like sort S. Austin ep. 86. ad Casulanum, affirming that To fast on Sunday is a great offence, (47) In h s Papistomastix. p. 35. especially since the detestable Heresy of the Manichees etc. who appoint unto their hearers this day as lawful to be fasted upon. This saying is alleged by D. Whiteguift [48) In his Def. p. 102. & the Centurie-writers, (49) Cent. 4. col. 445. as also is S. Ambrose for the same purpose by M. Parker. 50) 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 affirm that, He is guilty of sin, who fasteth upon Sunday: The same is confessed by M. Carthwright: (51) In Whit. Def. p. 99 who also with M. Midleton, (52) In his Papistomastix. p. 35. & M. Parker (53) Against Symbol. etc. part. 1. c. 4. p. 171. confesseth the same of Tertulian de Corona Militis c. 3. Yea M. Parker reciteth the several sayings to this purpose of Tertulian, Ignatius & Austin And M. Wilet 54) Synopsis controvers. 9 q. 8 p. 384 saith, we grant this opinion is very ancient, and that in Tertulians time, it was received in many Churches. Thus then our Roman Church doth truly Symbolise with the Primitive. First, in teaching that the fast of Lent is obligatory and under sin. Secondly, as also, that certain meats are to be abstained from upon certain days and times. Thirdly, for the contrary Doctrine whereof, the Fathers censured Aerius for an Heretic. Fourthly, and with him Eustachius, for their Sundays fast. Fiftly, Catholics being confessedly cleared from the imputed Heresies of Montanus, Martion, & Tatianus. Now the Fathers acknowledged and reproved by Protestants for our foresaid Doctrine of fasting, are S. Gregory, Ambrose, Austin, Hierom, Theophilus, Maximus Taurinensis, Cyril, Epiphanius, Nyssene, Origen, Calixtus, Tertulian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Egesippus, josephus, Ignatius, Hermes, & all the Fathers of the Fourth Carthage Council. The Protestants citing them are, The Centurists, Melancthon, Pantaleon, Danaeus, Aretius, Chemnitius, Hamelmannus, Schultetus, Schrederus, Caluin, Osiander, Symondes, Bale, Trig, Carthwright, Fulk, Field, Hooker, jacob, Welch, Midleton, Parker, Willet, Morton, Whiteguift & Whitaker. It is admitted by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitive Church expressly taught our Catholic Doctrine concerning freewill. CHAPTER XX. Whereas it is generally taught by Catholics (1) See Bellarmine in his boo 1. s de Gratia & libero Arbit. that man, even after the fall of Adam, hath freewill and liberty, not only in actions natural, or civil, but likewise in moral and supernatural, God's Grace concurring. Directly to the contrary the learnedst Protestants (2) Caluin. 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 Freewill in any action natural, civil, moral, or supernatural. The Primitive Church is so wholly Roman Catholic in this point of Faith concerning Freewill, as that the same is most plentifully confessed by many Protestants. Luke Osiander (3) Cent. 6. p. 288. speaking of S. Gregory affirmeth that, In many articles he was fowlly & Popishly deceived: for he attributed overmuch to Freewill etc. And the Centurie-writers, (4) Cent 6. c. 10. col. 748. repeating many pretended errors of his, amongst the rest do number Freewill. But the Centurists (5) Cent. 4. col. 291. proceed further, for speaking of the Fourth Age, they confess, in general that, Almost all the Fathers of this Age, speak confusedly of Freewill etc. And contrary to the manifest testimonies of holy Scripture. And immediately after they do there recite and reject the particular Say of Lactantius, Athanasius, Basil, Nazianzene, Epiphanius, Hierom etc. saying: They were all deceived, all in darkness, all washed about the doctrine of Man's Freewill, Beza [6) In his Nou. Test. in Praef. ad Principem Condensem. discoursing of the times of Austin, Chrysostom and Cyprian, affirmeth that then was in use the opinion of Freewill. Caluin affirmeth in general that, The (7) Inst. l. 2 c. 2. §. 4. Grecians above others, and amongst them Chrysostom, notably exceed measure in extolling the faculty of man's wil And again (8) Inst. l. 2. c. 1. §. 10. It is necessary, that be rejected, which is so often repeated by chrysostom, Quem trahit, volentem trahit, whom he draweth, he draweth willing. Yea the famous Council of Niece was so clear for Freewill, that our Puritans spare not to say: (9) A brief Discovery of untruths in D. Bancrofts serm. p. 21. We must needs confess, that not only this government of the Church, but also many other points of greatest weight in Religion, fell to decay long before the Council of Niece etc. Man's Freewill & ability to fulfil the Law of God etc. was winked at or buried &c. at the time of the Council of Niece. So that if this Argument (taken from the Council of Niece) be good etc. it is also powerful to overthrew the main point of our justification by Faith etc. The Centurie-writers (10) Cent 3. col. 247. arise yet higher, affirming that S. Cyprian is every where a vehement defender of Freewill. And again, (11) Cent. 3. col. 77. The same thinketh Cyprian l. 3. ep. 3. Man (saith he) left to his own liberty, and placed in his own power, either desireth death to himself, or life. And they recite & reject sundry other of his like sayings: which sayings also are confessed and rejected by D. Humphrey. (12) In his jesuit part. 2. p. 540. It is likewise 13) Cent. 3. col. 77. confessed, that Origen hom. 9 in Numeros, thinketh that our will can choose good things, that it may be a vessel to honour; or evil and earthly things, that it may be a vessel to reproach. Yea they further allege and reject many other of his like Say. And else where 14) Cent. 3. col. 2●8. they reprove Origen herein, and all the Doctors of the then precedent Age. Yea speaking of Tertulian, Origen, Cyprian, and Methodius, their modest Censure is that, 15) Cent. 3. c. 4. p. 77. They do abuse the Scriptures intolerably for the maintenance thereof. And as for Tertulian, they 16) Cent. 3. col. 240. acknowledge that, he In many and large Sentences attributeth Frewil to man, even after the corruption of Nature by Adam's fall. And in 17) Cent. 3. col. 77. another place they reject Tertulians sundry testimonies of Frewil. But Hamalmannus 18) De Traditionibus l. 2. c. 7. col. 93. confesseth that, Tertulian and Ireneus with many followers defend Freewill etc. Yea Schultetus 19) 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 self same Doctrine of Freewill reproveth of error, Cyprian, Theophilus, Tertulian, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, justin, Ireneus, Athenagoras, Tatianus etc. And the Centurie-writers 20) Cent. 2. c. 10 col. 221. And see col. 58. 43. And Humphrey in jesuit. part. 2. p. 527. And Osiand. cent. 2. l. 4. p. 84. confess that, Ireneus admitteh Freewill (even) in spiritual actions. And that, Ireneus 21) Cent. 2. c. 4. p. 53. disputes not dissinctly, and wresteth the speeches of Christ, and of S. Paul in favour of Freewill, saying, that there is Freewill also in faith and belief. But these things (say he Centurists) are spaken grossly (by Ireneus) and are repugnant to the Scriptures. In like sort Osiander 22) Cent. 2. p. 5. 6. And see the Centurists. Cent. 2. col. 207. reproveth justin saying: justine extolled too much the liberty of man's Will in observing the Commandments of God. And it is granted 23) Cent. 2. c. 4. col. 59 And see Caluin Inst. l. 2 c. 2 §. 4. that Clemens every where defendeth Freewill, so that it may appear (say they) that not only all the Doctors of that Age were in such darkness, but also that the same after increased in the later Doctors. D. Abbot's 24) In defence of the Reformed Catholic. part. 1. p. 114. speaking of the book of Hermes, entitled Pastor, (and some others, forged according to his opinion in the Apostles times) saith: The poison which Satan had conveyed into such counterfeit books, was received as wholesome food, and sundry errors and superstitious fancies of vowed Virginity and Prayer for the dead, of Freewill, of Invocation of Saints, of Antichrist, and the Assumption of Marie, and such like by little and little got footing in the Church. And here was indeed (saith Abbot) the true beginning of many doctrines of Popery etc. The Centurists 25) Cent. 2. c. 4. 4 co●. 58. speaking of the times next after the Apostles, do acknowledge, That almost no point of Doctrine began so soon to be obscured, as this of Freewill. Yea it is confessed, 26) So say the Puritans cited in D. Bancrostes Sermon. p. 23. that the Protestants know that ever since the Apostles time, in a manner it flourished every where, until Martin Luther took the sword in hand against it. A true so evident, that D. Humphrey 27) jesuit. part. 2. p. 530. thinketh, It may not be denied, but that Ireneus, Clemens, and others (quos vocant Apostolicos) whom they call Apostolical (in respect of the time in which they lived) have in their writings the opinions of Freewill etc. Yea saith M. Caluin, 28) Instit. l. 2. c. 2. § 9 All Ecclesiastical Writers, excepting Augustin, have written so ambiguously and differently in this matter (of Freewill) that nothing certain can be gathered from their writings: And they were over full in extolling Freewill. Lastly. D. Whiteguift 29) In his Defence against the Reply of Carthwright. p. 472. 473. discoursing of Doctrine taught in any Age since the Apostles time, affirmeth without any other exception, of Age or Father, that (to use his words) almost 30) Ibid. p. 473. And see the like in Whitak. de Eccl. Con. Bellar. Controu. 2. p. 299. all the Bishops, and learned Writers of the Greek Church and Latin also for the most part, were spotted with doctrines of Freewill, of Merit, of Invocation of Saints and such like. And the same also almost in the same words is confessed by D. Covel, saying: 30) In his Exam. c. 9 p. 120. divers both of the Greek and Latin Church, were spotted with errors about Freewill, Merits, Invocation of Saints etc. Yea the ancient jews did so firmly believe our Doctrine of Freewill, that to omit the 31) c. 15. 12. 15. 16. 17. clearest words of Ecclesiasticus, which D. Whitakers had no other ways 32) Resp ad Camp. Rat. 1. p. 15. to evade, but by denying the said book to be Canonical Scripture: D. Fulk termeth: 33) Defence of the Eng. Transl. p. 320. The jewish Rabbins, Patrons of Freewill; which D. Morton 34) Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 371. iustifyeth, and further saith: 35) Ibid. p. 370. What if it be confessed that some Rabbins maintained the liberty of man's Will, as Rabbi Moses did? Yea M. Hal chargeth the Pharisees 36) Pharisaisme. p. 50. with Freewill and Merit, which is more than either Christ or his Apostles did, who yet in other respects spared not to discover their true Errors. Well then, our Catholic Doctrine of Freewill, is the Primitive Doctrine taught by S. Gregory, Hierome, Epiphanius, Nazianzene, Basil, the Council of Nice, chrysostom, Athanasius, Lactantius, Cyprian, Origen, Tertulian, Theophilus, justine, Athenagoras, Tatianus, Clemens Alexand. Ireneus, Hermes, and by all the Fathers since the Apostles until Luther's time. Our strongest witnesses hereof, are the Protestant Writers: The Centurists, Beza, Osiander, Hamelmannus, Schultetus, Calum, Humphrey, Abbot, Hal, Morton, Whiteguift, Fulk and Whitaker. It is granted by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitive Church, taught not only Faith, but likewise Good works truly to justify: And that the said works are meritorious of Grace and Glory. CHAP. XXI. COncerning Goodworks: It is the general (1) See Bellarmin. De justificatione l. 1. 4. 5. and received doctrine of the Roman Church, First, that the works of the just are truly good, and not of their own nature sin. Secondly, that not only Faith, but likewise good works do truly justify a man & obtain remission of sins. Thirdly that the same good works do truly merit or deserve Grace in this world, and glory in the next. Directly 2) Luther. in Assert. art. 31. 32. 36. Caluin. Instit. l. 3. c. ●●. § 4. and c. 41. §. 9 etc. 19 §. 2. 4. 7. etc. 15. § 2. contrary to all the foresaid points concerning Goodworks, is the ordinary doctrine of our new Protestants; First, affirming that the best works of the just, are of their own natures deadly sin. S●condly, that only Faith doth justify. Thirdly, and lastly, that works do neither merit Grace nor glory. To come now to the doctrine and Faith of the Primitive Church; The 3) Cen●. 6. c. 10. col. 748. Centurists making a Catalogue of S. Gregory's pretended errors, amongst the rest number his Error of good works and justification. And 4) Cent. 6. p. 288. Osiander much reproveth him for that, he attributeth over much to good works. S. Augustin is rejected by 5) In Confess. Wittemb. Brentius, for that the taught, Affiance in man's merits towards remission of Sins. The 6) Harmony of Confess in English. sec. 16. p. 509. Divines of Wittenberg affirm that, These reasons which Augustin bringeth for his opinion of Purgatory, do seem to lean to this foundation: That we obtain remission of our sins 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 by 7) Cent. 4. p. 520. Osiander, the 8) Cent. 5. col. 507. 1133. Centurists, 9) Instit. l. 3. c. 11. § 15. Caluin, 10) 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 the 11) Cent. 5. col. 1178. Centurie-writers speaking of S. Chrysostom affirm, that, Chrysostom handleth impurely the doctrine of justification, and attributeth merit to works. They likewise say of Prosper, 12) Cent. 5. c. 10. col. 1363. that, he retained not a few freckles of his Age: Such an one is, that Faith only doth not justify. Luther 13) In Gal. c. 4. And after the English Translation fol. 220. termeth S. Hierom, Ambrose, Austin and others, Iustice-worke●s (or as the English Translation thereof hath, Merit-mongers) of the old Papacy. And because he and his children confirm their doctrine of sole Faith by certain sentences, especially taken out of S. Paul's Epistles to the Romans and Galathians, which they wrist to another sense, than ever was given by the ancient Fathers, hence he maketh this complaint saying: 14) In Colloq. Conuival. c. de Patribus Ecclesiae. Neither are there any works extant of the Fathers upon the Epistle either to the Romans or to the Galathians, in which any thing pure and sincere may be found. But of S. Hierome in particular, because he cotrarieth his Exposition of the said Epistles, he avoucheth, that 15) Tom. 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 deceived by Origen, and that he understood nothing at all in S. Paul, but depraved the justice of only Faith: And that this one error of his was so great, that it alone was sufficient to destroy the Gospel, by which if it had not been (saith Luther) through the singular Grace of God, Hierome had merited rather Hell than Heaven. The Centurists having proved at large, that neither Lactantius, Chromatius, Ephrem, Theophilus, S. Hierome, S. Gregory Nyssene, S. Gregory Nazianzene, S. Hilary, nor S. Ambrose ever acknowledged their manner of justification by Faith only, infer thereupon: 16) Cent. 4. col. 292. 293. Now let the Godly 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 by 17) Cent. 4. p. 102 506 520. 430. 70 Osiander and 18) Exam. part. 4. p. 110. Chemnitius. But to arise to the Third Age, 19) In Rom. p. 391. Melancthon affirmeth that, Origen, and many (others) following him, imagined that men were just by reason of their works. The 20) Cent. 3. col 265. 266 Centurists plainly confess, that, Origen made good works the cause of justification. 21) Ibid. col 79. And speaking of the Fathers of that Age, they acknowledge that, They attributed to good works, justice before God; as Origen l. 1. in job. etc. And that as then, for the most part this chiefest article of justification seemeth to have been obscured. 22) In Apoc. p. 206. Winkelmannus doth clearly grant that, Origen ascribeth to works, the cause of justification. Yea the Centurists 23) C●nt. 3. col. 80 affirm that, Origen in many places ascribeth to works, the preparation and cause of Salvation, as trac. in Math. & hom. ●4. in josuam & 26. he ascribeth to our merits Gods dwelling in us, by his Grace. In which respect also Beza accuseth Origen 24) In Act. c. 10 46. of horrible blasphemy. The Centurists speaking of this Third Age, avouch that, 25) ●ent 3. c. 4. col. 53 79 80 8. & Cent. 4. c. 4. col. 292. Cent. 5. c. 4. col 504. etc. 10. This Article (of justification by only Faith) was almost altogether obscured, and that the Doctors of that time declined more from the true doctrine of Christ and of the Apostles, then of the Age before. Hence among others of this and the succeeding Age that they pretend to have erred herein, they name S. Clement, Tertulian, Origen, S. Cyprian, S. Augustin, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Chrysostom, S. Cyril, Theophilus, Lactantius, Eusebius, Chromatius, Ephrem, S. Gregory Nyssene, S. Gregory Nazianzene, S. Hilary, S. Leo, Saluianus, Esichius, Prosper, Maximus and Paulinus. In like sort they report of S. Cyprian that, He attributeth overmuch to good wooks. And 27) Medulla Theol. p. 370. Schultetus reprehendeth him, for that, In his Sermon de Lapsis, he ascribeth forgiveness of sins to Satisfactions. And the 28) Cent. 3. col. 240. Centurists confess the same in the self same words of Tertulian. But D. Whitaker 29) In Resp add rat. Cam. rat. 5. p. 78 with Chemnitius 30) Exam. part. 4 p. 110. and Melancthon 31) In suis libelli aliquot. fol. 25. do all of them avouch that, Not Cyprian only but almost all the most holy Fathers of that time were in that error, as thinking so to pay the pain due to sin, and to satisfy God's justice. Melancthon acknowledgeth that, 32) In 1. Cor. c. 3. Presently from the beginning of the Church, the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the justice of Faith etc. So likewise in general it is confessed by the 33) Cent. 3. col. 80. Centurists, that, The Doctors 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, affirm that, 34) Cent. 2. c. 4. col. 60. 61. The Doctrine of justification was delivered more negligently and obscurely by the Doctors of this Age. As also, This Article, the highest and chiefest of all, by little & little through the craft of the Devil, began to be obscured. And again say they, It appeareth out of the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus, that in his Age, the Doctrine concerning the end of good works, began to be obscured. Finally, The times ensuing declare sufficiently, that the doctrine of Faith justifying without works, began forthwith to be more and more varied and obscured. Schultetus 35) 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, justin Martyr etc. And D. Humphrey 36) jesuit. part. 2. p. 530. his opinion is that, 26) Cent. 3. col. 247. It may not be denied, but that Ireneus, Clemens, and others called Apostolical, have in their writings the opinions of Freewill, and Merit of works. Schultetus 37) Medul. Theol. p. 467. also chargeth the book of Hermes entitled Pastor, with Merit and justification of works. And 38) In his Defend. of Parkins p. 339. 340. M. Wotton not forbeareth to tax for this very point of Merit, Ignatius citing for the same his Epistle to the Romans, and only answering in this unworthy namer: I say plainly this man's testimony is nothing worth, because he was of little judgement in Divinity. But what may then be thought of M. Woottons no divinity or of Woottons greatest impudency thus censuring that ancientest Martyr of Christ, and scholar of S. john. Yea this Doctrine of Merit was so universal as that D. Covel 39) In his Exam. c. 9 p. 120. writeth that, divers both of the Greek and Latin Church, were spotted with errors about Freewill, Merits etc. Luther after his Censure given against diverse of the Fathers in particular, pronounceth of them in general thus: 40) In Col. Conuival. c. De Patribus Ecclesiae. See ye what darkness there is in the Father's writings concerning Faith; for when that Article of the justification of men is covered with darkness, it can by no means be, that greater errors he avoided. Bullinger doth 41) In Apoc. Serm. 87. fol. 270. acknowledge that, The doctrine of Merits, satisfaction, and justification of works did incontinently after the Apostles time lay their first foundations Caluin affirmeth in general that, 42) Inst. l. 3. c. 25. §. 2. The ancient Writers of the Church using every where the word (Merit) gave occasion of error to posterity thereby. Add lastly, that D. Whiteguift 43) In his Def. against the Reply of Carthw. p. 472. 473. treating of Doctrine taught in any Age since the Apostles time, affirmeth without all other exception either of Age or Father that, Almost all the Bishops and learned Writers of the Greek Church, and Latin also, for the most part were spotted with doctrines of Freewill of Merits etc. And the same is likewise taught by 44) De Eccl. cont. Bellar. p. 299. D. Whitakers. Now concerning the ancient jews: The Books of 45) c. 12 9 & 4.10. Toby and Ecclesiasticus 46) c. 3. 33. are so pregnant for the Merit of works, that sundry Protestants say thereof: 47) Minist. of Lincoln Diocese. in their Abridgement. p. 76. The two places of Toby and Ecclesiasticus tend dangerously to the justifying of the Merit of Almsdeeds. And others writing against the book of Homilies say: 48) silenced Ministers in the 2. Part of Def. p. 164. The book of Homilies whereto we are required to subscribe etc. expoundes Toby, saying, that Alms is profitable to purge the soul from the spots of sin, alleging these words of Toby 4.10. and 12.19. etc. and out of Ecclesiasticus etc. Yea they further say, This 49) Ib. p. 166. place of Toby were it Canonical etc. is very 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 that 50) Synagog. judaica. p. 23. They persuade themselves that they may satisfy for their sins by doing penance upon their skins, and that they may easily merit eternal life by keeping of the Commandments, and Good works. And the same also is acknowledged in them by 51) Pharisaisme p. 13. 50. M. Hal. I may then conclude, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church are our firmest Patrons for our Catholic Doctrine concerning Goodworks, confessedly teaching: First, that Goodworks do truly justify: Secondly, Meriting Grace and Remission of sins in this life, and eternal glory in the next: For which very doctrine the Fathers acknowledged by Protestants, are S. Gregory, Chrysostom, Augustin, Prosper, Ambrose, Hierom, Nyssene, Nazianzene, Hilary, Ephrem, Cyprian, Origen, Tertulian, Theophilus, Lactantius, justin, Clemens Alex. Ireneus, Hermes, Ignatius, and the ancient believing jews. The Protestant Writers producing and charging the foresaid Fathers are Luther, the Centurists, Brentius, the Divines of Wittenberg, Osiander, Caluin, Melancthon, Chemnitius, Winkilmamus, Schultetus, Bullinger, Buxdorfeus', Wotton, Whitaker, Humphrey, Covel, and Whiteguift. It is acknowledged by Protestants that the Ceremonies now used by the Roman Church in the ministering of service or Sacrifice, as also of the Sacraments, were formerly used by the Bishops, Priests and Fathers of the Primitive Church. CHAP. XXII. Having thus passed through so many particular Controversies of greatest weight, and finding in all of them a perfect agreement and sweetest harmony between the ancient, most holy and Primitive Church, and the present Roman Catholic Church, and this by no weaker proofs or evidences, than the free grants, Confessions, and acknowledgements of our sworn and professed Adversaries; I will now, for my Conclusion in this kind, only examen one point further, which being not purely Doctrinal but most sensible and external, will thereby not only prove most accommodate to the sense and capacity of the meanest Reader, but withal will most evidently declare and make manifest, the outward gracious and beautiful face of Christian Religion practised by the ancient, learned, and holy Bishops, Doctors and people of the Primitive Church. Nothing is better known either to those of greater years, who as yet may well remember the Ecclesiastical rites and Customs of our own kingdom, or to others more modern, who have travailed foreign Nations, than the external Ceremonies used in Material Churches, in Celebration of Service, and Administration of the most holy Sacraments: For who knoweth not that when Catholic Churches are erected, they are specially consecrated, and dedicated either to Christ, or some of his Saints? That in them are several Chancels, and Vestries, as also Altars, Candles, Relics and Images? that there are truly Priests who offer daily external Sacrifice at the Altar? Whose Vestments and vessels are specially hallowed? who likewise observe Canonical hours, saying some prayers in Secret, others with a loud voice? sometimes giving the people their benediction, and burning Incense at the Altar? In the Church likewise there is a Font, specially hallowed for the administration of Baptism, which is holden necessary to Salvation, and the same is ministered with the Sign of the Cross, with holy Oils, and sundry other Ceremonies hereafter specified: And to omit sundry other; In the Church is blessed by the Priest, Holiewater, Holie-bread, Candles, Ashes etc. I need not describe the naked walls of Protestants Churches, or the bare black coats of their wedded Ministers, both of them devoid of all grace, ornament, purity and state, duly befitting places and persons Ecclesiastical: And therefore I hasten to the confessed practice of the Primitive Church. Wherein I first find, that when Material Churches were first built, they were specially hallowed by the Bishop; so much as S. Gregory and S. Austin are reproved by D. Humphrey 1) In jesuit. part. 2. rat. 5. p. 5. & 627. for bringing into England, the new Consecration of Churches. And the 2) Cent. 6. col. 364. 365. Centurie-writers do charge S. Gregory out of his own writings with Consecration of Churches. D. Morton affirmeth that he used 3) Prot. Appeal. l. 1. p. 53. Superstitious manner of Consecration of Churches. Yea the 4) Cent. 4. col. 408. further confess, that Athanasius in his Apology to Constantin plainly showeth that Christians did not assemble together in Churches not consecrated. And that in the Fourth Age, the Fathers used 5) Cent. 4. col. 497. Sumptuous Churches consecrated, and Superstitious Insolency in celebrating of Mass, appointed to be said in no places but such as were hallowed by a Bishop. 6) Cent. 4. col. 497. Yea they reprove Constantin himself, for that (say they) concerning Consecration of Churches new built, proud adorning of them, and other Superstitious things the greatest part Constantine invented and spread abroad in many Churches. And whereas Sozomene hist. l. 1. c. 8. reporteth that Constantin, when he went to the wars, used to carry about with him a Tabernacle made in form of a Church, to the end that a Consecrated house should not be wanting either to himself living in the Deserts, or to his Army etc. And that, Priests and Deacons did daily attend upon the Tabernacle; the truth hereof is so certain, that it is confessed by Crispinus. 7) Of the Estate of the Church. p. 89. But for further testimony of hallowing of Churches in those ancient times, see D. Fulk 8) Against Rhem. Test. in 1. T'him. 4. see 13. fol. 378. the Centurie-writers 9) Cent. 4. col. 408. and Crispinus. 10) Of the Estate of the Church. p. 93. Secondly, these Consecrated Churches were dedicated in memory of Christ or some of his Saints: In which respect, S. Gregory is charged by 11) Chron. l. 4. p. 567. 568. Carion to have Commanded Churches to be dedicated to the bones and Ashes of Saints. M. Mason affirmeth that, 12) Consecration of Engl. Bishops p. 57 In Canterbury the Regal City, even when Austin arrived, there was a Christian Church built in the time of the Romans, dedicated to the Memory of S. Martin. And whereas 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 Memory of our saviour's Apostles; the 13) Cent. 4. col. 408. Centurists speaking hereof, say: These Dedications seem to have sprung from judaisme without any Commandment of God, Yea 14) Cent. 4. col. 452. they further confess, that, Constantin appointed a very Solemn Feast for the Dedication of the Church. And Brightman 15) Apoc. in c. 12. p. 325. acknowledgeth that at Constantins' coming in etc. Temples were Consecrated to Martyrs. Yea saith D. Beard: 16) Retractive from Romish Religion. p. 388 389. The Annual Feasts of Dedication of Churches grew from a sinister imitation of Constantin the Great, who because he kept a Solemn day at the Dedication of a certain Church, which he had built, therefore it was received as a law etc. to solemnize every year a Holiday upon the day of the Dedication of their Church. Thirdly, in the Churches was built a place several, for the laying up of holy things, called the Vestry; whereof the Centurists 17) Cent. 4. col. 835. allege the Laodicen Council saying: It is not fit that Subdeacons' have liberty to go into the Vestry, and touch our Lords vessels. Yea they 18) Cent. 4. col. 409. And see Osiand. cent. 5. p. 391. acknowledge the Vestry to be mentioned by S. Ambrose l. 1. office c. 50. Fourthly, as concerning Chancels, D. Raynolds 19) In his Conference with M. Hart p. 488. confesseth from S. Denis the Areopagite, that in his time there were Chancels severed with Sanctification from the rest of the Church. And Hospinian 20) De Templis p. 85. makeh mention of Chancels used in Constantins' time. And the Centurists 21) Cent. 4. col. 1165. Hospin. do Templis p. 85. 86. 87. affirm that Lay-people were prohibited to come into the Chancels. Osiander 22) Cent. 4. p. 390. chargeth the Laodicen Council as Superstitious herein. Fiftly, but nothing was more diligently regarded and observed in Churches then sacred Altars: S. Gregory is charged by the Centurists 23) Cent. 6. col. 369. with Consecration of Altars. And Osiander 24) Cent. 6. p 289. 290. affirmeth that Augustin (sent by S. Gregory) thrust upon the English Churches the Roman Rites and Customs, to wit, Altars etc. Peter Martyr 25) In his Common places in English. part. 4. p. 225. writeth that, Petrus Alexandrinus attributeth more to the outward Altar, then to the lively temples of Christ. He further 26) Ibid. p. 226. confesseth that, Optatus l. 6. against Parmenianus saith, what is the Altar? Even the Seat of the body and blood of Christ. Such sayings as these (saith Peter Martyr) edified not the people: And for the self same Saying, is Optatus reproved by the Centurie-writers. 27) Cent. 4. c. 6. col. 409. Hospinian 28) de Templis. p. 98. And see p. 101. 459. 460 100 saith, I dare not deny but that in the time of Constantin the great, Stately Temples, Stately and beautiful Altars took their beginning, and the same were fixed, and of stone. The Centurists 29) Cent. 4. col. 409. speaking of the same Age, affirm that, The Histories of this time testify that there were Altars in the Churches etc. but this Custom came into the Church of Christ from the jewish custom. But Praetorius 30) De Sacramentis. 287. ariseth higher, avouching that Anno 262. Pope Sixtus the Second abrogated the tables hitherto used, and erected Altars, which (saith he) better represent judaisme then Christianisme. M. Carthwright 31) ●n his 2. Reply part. 1. p. 517. And see jacob in his Reasons taken out of God's word etc. p. 58. thinketh that, Ignatius calleth the Communion Table unproperly an Altar. Yea he 32) ●n his 2. Reply part. last. p. 264 reproveth the Fathers in general saying: The ancient Writers abuse herein, may easily appear, in that, in this too great liberty of speech, they used to call the holy supper of the Lord, a Sacrifice, and the Communion table, an Altar. In like sort saith Peter Martyr, 33) In his Com. plac. part. 4. p. 225. The Fathers should not with so much liberty have seemed here and there to have abused the name (Altar.) So plain it is, that Altars consecrated were used in those ancientest times of the Primitive Church. Sixtly, upon these Altars were placed lights or Candles: M. Bale 34) In Act. Rom. pontiff. p. 44. confesseth that S. Gregory gave lights to Churches. And D. Morton saith of him: 35) Prot. Appeal. l. 1. p. 57 Margin. He indeed requireth lights, but not that thereby he might burn day etc. Which may seem to have been rather the institution of his Successor Sabinianus, for etc. But our late Writer, D. Beard proveth the same from 36) Retractive from Rom. Relig. p. 65. the decree of (our) own Pope's Gregory the First, and Sabinian his Successor; the one of which appointed certain lands for the maintenance of waxe-c●ndles and Lamps in Churches; & the other ordained, that burning lamps should be always kept in their Churches. The 37) Cent. 4. col. 487. Centurists charge Constantin, that He ordained the burning of Candles in the Churches in the daytime. And again say 38) Cent. 4. col. 410. they: Eusebius hath reported that wax-Candles and Lamps were burned in the daytime, in the places of the Assemblies by Constantin the great. In like sort Crispinus 39) Of the Estate of the Church. p. 93. thinketh that, In Constantine's time many Ceremonies il-agreing with God's Word were brought in; as Candles lighted in the daytime. M. Beard affirmeth that, In 40) Retractive from Romish Religion p. 66. Hieroms' Age this Superstition (of Candles lighted in the daytime) began to grow upon the Church. Yea the 41) Cent. 4. col. 454. Centurists acknowledge that, Wax candles were accustomed to be carried at Burials. And that, Priests did carry before the Corpse, Lamps and wax-candles: 42) Cent. 4. col. 453. And that, Funeral-rites and Ceremonies in this Age (of Constantin) Superstition (say they) increasing, were heaped up, partly from Heathenism, partly from judaisme. Seaventhly, as for the use of Images in Churches, in the time of the Primitive Church, the same is proved at large in the Chapter (a) See before l. 2. c. 14. of Images. Eightly, D. Raynolds 43) In his Conference with M. Har. p. 552. confesseth that, Altars & Sacrifice are linked by nature in Relation and mutual dependence one of another; Whereupon it doth evidently follow, that Altars being used in Churches in the ancientest times, true external Sacrifice was likewise used, which Sacrifice to have been the Sacrifice of the Mass, I have largely proved in the (b) See before. l. 2. c. 9 Chapter of Mass. Now because true and proper Sacrifice can not be offered at the Altar but by a Priest, therefore in the Primitive Church there were true Priests, whose Ordination was ever by a Bishop, and not by the Laïtie. The 44) Cent. 4. col. 435. Centurists confess that, The Constitutions of the Laodicen Council forbade Ordinations by the judgement of the multitude: And that, They were desired of that Bishop who had authority to give Orders, as appeareth (say they) by the Fourth Epistle of Basil to Gregory, and the Thirtith, to the Cesareans. And elsewhere 45) Cent. 4. col. 489. they say expressly that, The ordination of Ministers was proper to the Bishop. And as for the word, Priest (so hateful now to our Protestant Clergy) it was so usual in the Primitive Church, as that 46) In his Defence p. 411. D. Whiteguift saith: This name, Priest, is usually applied to the Minister of the Gospel in all Histories, Fathers, and Writers of Antiquity. The like is acknowleged by 47) L. 9 cont. Dur. p. 813. D. Whitaker, who only answereth, that the Fathers used the word, Sacerdos, Priest, not properly, but by abuse of speech; an answer directly contrary to the express words of S. Austin himself De Civit. Dei l. 20. c. 10. But D. Fulk 48) 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 reprove the Fathers, for their using the word, Priest, properly. Yea the Priests of the Primitive Church were (as ours still are) specially anointed, in so much as S. Cyprian in his Sermon de Chrismate, mentioning the same, is therefore reproved by 49) Exam. part. 2. p. 247. Chemnitius. They had also their Crowns shaved, for M. Brightman 50) Apoc. in c. 9 p. 249. confesseth, that the Fathers used to entreat Priests, by their Tonsure or shaving, as now (we may see) in the Epistles of Hierome and Augustin. And 51) Medulla Patrum. p. 484. Schultetus affirmeth that, Dyonisius the Areopagite, in his book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, writeth many things of Temples, Altars, Sacred-places, the Quire, Consecration of Mo●ks, the Tonsure and shaving of heads. Ninthly, the Priests used also consecrated vestments, and vessels, for the celebration of Mass, and other offices of the Church. The 52) Cent. 4 col. 504. Centurists affirm that, S. Athanasius mentioneth Ecclesiastical vestments, and ornaments, and other things necessary for the Church. 53) De Sacramentis p. 44. Zepperus avoucheth that, The Ministers (or Priests) used in the celebration of this Mystery (of the Eucharist) a peculiar kind of apparel, which they termed holy; neither was it lawful for Priests to wear them, but in the celebration of the Eucharist; yea they were not to be touched by any (persons) but such as were sacred; which invention the first Decretal Epistle of Pope Stephen referreth to himself. 54) Of the Cross 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 will have the Garments to be Religious, that are used in the Church; in proof whereof he citeth in the Margin, Origen and Hierome. And to descend to particulars, whereas Theodoret l. 2. c. 27. reporteth that, Constantin gave to the Bishop of Jerusalem a (Cope) or precious garment, wrought with gold to administer Baptism, the same is confessed by 55) In his Persuasion to uniformity. c. 5. p. 19 whyteg. in his Def. p. 269. M. Spark and D. Whiteguift; in so much as 56) Ibid. p. 268. M. Carthwright testifieth: Theodoret maketh mention of a golden Cope. The Centurists 57) Cent. 4. col. 876. confess, that in the Fourth Age the Albe was used, and 58) In his Persuasion to uniform. c. 5. p. 19 M. Spark allegeth sundry ancient Fathers, all mentioning the Albe. D. Raynolds 59) In his Confer. c. 8. diuis. 4. acknowledgeth, that in the Liturgies of S. Basil & S. chrysostom, are mentioned the Amice, the Girdle, the Chisible & the Fanel: The Centurists 60) Cen●. 4. col. 835. likewise confess, that as then, was used the Stole: And D. Whiteguift 61) In his Def. p. 269. 270. admitteth the Dalmatica to be used in S. Cyprians time, & allegeth Peter Martyr to be of the same mind; who 62) In his Epistles annexed to his come. plac. in Engl. p. 119. And Whiteg. in his Def. p. 264. 268. likewise relateth, that as then was used the Bishop's Pontifical Plate, or Mitre: and 63) Ibid. p. 269. D. Whiteguift avoucheth the same to have been worn by S. Cyprian. The Centurists 64) Cent. 4. col. 835. And Osian. cent. 4. p. 391. likewise report, that in the Fourth Age, were used by Priests in Churches, Holy vessels, which Subdeacons' (and Lay persons) might not touch, And 65) Cent. 4. col. 490. they mention the then Careful committing of the holy Chalice, to the Priest's Custody. D. Sutilisse 66) De M●ssa Papist. ca l. 5. c. 7. f. 96. saith: We do not deny the Church, as chrysostom saith, hom. 4. in Math. and de S. Babila, to have had holy vessels, and the same not to be touched by lay-men. Yea the Centurists 67) Cent. 4. col. 504. And see col. 409. And Chem. Exam. part. p. 26. affirm, that Theodoret, l. 3. c. 12. showeth, that the Church of Antioch, had many precious vessels, which Constantin and Constantius gave to it. And they mention 68) Cent. 4. col. 873. 874. likewise, the yet controverted rites of Chalice, Paten, Cruet full of water, Towel, Wax-candle for Church lights, book of Exorcisms etc. Tenthly, the Priests, thus furnished with sacred vestments and vessels, not only offered Sacrifice, but likewise observed Canonical Hours of prayer in the Church: In so much as the Centurists, 69) Cent. 4. col. 433. And see Bullingers' Decades. Decr. 5. p. 937. charge the Fourth Age, with observation of Canonical Hours: And with 70) Cent. 4. col. 433. Rising in the night to prayer: And with 71) Cent. 4. col. 459. using set form of Prayer: And Litanies 72) Ib. col. 433. 414. 411. As also, with 73) Cent. 4. col. 1329. And Osiand. cent. 4. p. 454. numbering prayers upon little stones (or beads) yea they 74) Cent. 3. col. 134. charge the Third Age, saying: Tertullian, in his book of Fasting, affirmeth those Three Hours, to wit, the Third, the sixth, & the Ninth to have been more famous in divine prayers. And Cyprian in the Lord's prayer, calleth the Prime, the Third, the sixth, and Ninth, the Hours of praying anciently observed. And they 75) Cent. 3. col. 135. further Confess, that as than, Christians prayed with their face turned towards the East; as Tertulian affirmeth in his Apology etc. And that in the holy Sacrifice some prayers were said in Secret, others audibly. In so much as Osiander reciteth, and dislyketh these words of the Laodicen Council: Let three prayers be said; one in silence, the second, and third, vocally (or andibly) and then let the kiss of Peace be given: And after the Priests have given the Pax to the Bishop, then let it be given to the Laïtie, and so the Sacrifice offered: But let it be allowed only to the Clergy, to come unto the Altar, and there Communicate. Eleventh, amongst other prayers used by the Priests in the Church, were ordinary such, whereby Sundry Creatures were hallowed and consecrated, as Water, Bread, Oil, Ashes, the Font for Baptism, and the like. S. Gregory is reproved by the Centurists, and Osiander, for his using and Sprinkling of Holie-water. D. Morton affirmeth that, 78) Prot. Appeal. l 1. p. 56. True it is, that Aqua lustralis (Holie-water) was used, but &c. as an Invention of Pope Alexander; who lived Anno 109. after Christ etc. And it was applied in the days of Gregory by Augustin, to the Consecration of Churches, together with prayers for the casting out of the filth of Idols and Devils. And of further use of Holie-water in the Primitive Church, see D. Fulk 79) Fulk against Rhen. 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 80) Against He●kins etc. p. 377. doth therefore term it: A Superstitious bread, given in S. Augustine's time, to those that were Catechumen, instead of the Sacrament. And 81) Of the Mass p. 51. Philip Morney chargeth S. Basils' Liturgy, with Holie-bread, distributed after Service, to such as had not Communicated. And as for Holy oil, or Chrism, the Centurists 82) Cent. 6. col 367. charge S. Gregory, out of his own writings, with Consecration of Chrism and oil. Yea they 83) Cent. 4. col. 865 503 1274 869. confess, that in the Fourth Age, there was Consecration of Chrism by a Bishop only: And that, 84) Cent. 4. col. 420. Optatus showeth that Chrism was accustomed to be kept in a bottle. Yea they 85) Cent. 5. col. 1386. relate of S. Martin that, A Maid dumb from her Mother's womb. being brought unto him, pouring Holy oil into her, & praying, he made her speak well. But Hamelmanus 86) De Tradit. Apost. 707. 737. Parkar against Symbolising &c part. 1. sec. 11. p. 76. and M. Parker do both of them confess, that S. Denys the Areopagite, maketh mention in his writings of Chrism. In like Sort is S. Gregory reproved by M. Bale, 87) In Act. Rom. Pont. p. 44. etc. for Consecration of Ashes etc. And for Dedicating the beginning of Lentfast, with sprinkling of Ashes. 12. But most observed, & sundry were the Ceremonies of Baptism. S. Gregory is charged by the Centurists, 88) Cent. 6. col. 367. with Consecration of the Font of Baptism. And they charge the Fathers of the 89) Cent. 4. col. 415. Fourth and 90) Cent. 3. col. 82. third Age, with consecration of the water of Baptism, with Abrenunciation, Exorcism, Anoyling, threefold Immersion: And they 92) Cent. 3. col. 8●. say expressly of S. Cyprian, that he, In his first book, and tweluth Epistle affirmeth, that the water must be first purified and Sanctified by the Priest, that it may by baptism, wash away the sins of the man that is baptised; for which very saying, he is also reproved by M. Parker 93) Against Symbolising etc. prat. 1 sec. 35. p. 112 113. Hamelman. de Tradit. Apost. l. 2. c. 7. col. 97. and Hamelmannus. In Baptism was likewise used the sign of the Cross: So the Centurists 94) Cent. 3. col. 125. And M. Spark in his Persuasion to uniform. p. 23. confess, that Origen in his 2. Hom. upon the 38. Ps. sheweth, that those who were baptised, were accustomed to be signed with the sign of the Cross: of which Rite, Tertulian also maketh mention, in his book De Resurrectione Carnis: And Cyprian also, in his book of baptising Heretics, mentioneth the Imposition of hands, with prayer & Siging. And D. Beard confesseth that, 95) Retractive from Romish Relig. p. 391. The Cross & anointing (in Baptism) are of great Antiquity. Such as were Baptised were also anoyled with holy Chrism. 96) Instit. l. 4. c. 17. sec. 43. Caluin saith: If any man will defend those Inventions with antiquity, I am not ignorant, how ancient the use of Chrism, & exufflation, is in baptism; how little from the Apostles Age, the supper of the Lord was touched withrust etc. Perkins 97) In the 2. vol. of his works. p. 653. confesseth that, 76) Cent. 4. p. 390. This Unction pertained to baptism in the West, till above 300. years after Christ. 77) Cent. 6. col. 364. 365. Osiand. cent. 6. p. 289. 290. And Zepperus 98) Politia Eccl. l. 1. c. 12. p 123. mentioning Holie-water, oil, salt, exorcism, spittle etc. saith: I confess, these Superstitious Ceremonies are very ancient in the Church, & not many Ages after the Apostles times; & in further (99) Ibid. p. 124. 125 proof thereof, he allegeth those most famous & ancient Fathers S. Austin, S. Cyprian, and Tertullian. And as concerning Exorcisms, Exufflations & other ancient rites of Baptism, (100) Compend. loc. 33. p. 264. Gesnerus avoucheth that, Exorcism in Baptism is much more ancient than Papistry; for Nazianzene, Cyril, Cyprian, Ambrose & Austin make mention thereof in many places. The like acknowledgement whereof is also made by (101) Common places part. 4. c. 9 see 14. 15. p. 132. 133. Peter Martyr. M. Parker affirmeth, from the many testimonies of Cyprian & Tertulian, by him alleged in the Margin, saying: (102) Against Symbolising wi●● Antichrist. part. 2. sec. 8▪ p. 128 I know right well, that within the 200. years after Christ, there were crept into the Church many idle Ceremonies etc. There began in this mixed Age, Exufflation of the Baptised: Consecration of the Font with Oil & Cross: Oil in Baptism: The reserving of the Sacrament: Exorcism: Offering, & Prayer for the dead: Fasting on certain days with opinion of necessity & Satisfaction, and the seed of Monkery: See then (saith M. Parker) among what weeds the Cross grew up and in what a danged soil of many Superstitions etc. (103) Ib. part. 1. p. 152. And part. 2 p 131. Yea he further allegeth Nazianzene reporting, that, julian agreably to our present Protestants) laughed at the Sufflations of Baptism. But Beza (104) In Epist. Theol. ep. 8. p. 79. saith in general, I can not sufficiently admire all that decking, wherewith even the most ancient (Fathers) thought they could adorn Baptism, & the Lord's Supper. And having recited sundry of the former Rites, used as himself confesseth, even by the most ancient, he yet termeth them, Stageplays, follies; And further thus concludeth: Verily those that make the Apostles Authors of these follies, need no confutation, though they be never so ancient Writers: So insinuating the former Ceremonies to be ascribed even to the Apostles themselves by most ancient Writers. But to conclude, so great was the respect, which ancient Fathers had to holy Ceremonies, as that with the planting of true Faith & religion, special care was had of Sacred Rites & Ceremonies, as an external ornament thereof. (105) jesuit. part. 2 〈◊〉 5. p. 5. & 627. D. Humphrey demanding, what Gregory & Austin brought into the (English) Church? answereth, A burden of Ceremonies etc. They brought in the Archbishops pall for the Solemnities of Mass, Purgatory etc. The oblation of the wholesome Host, & prayers for the dead etc. Relics etc. Transubstantiation etc. new Consecrations of Temples etc. of all which, what else was sought, than that Indulgences, Monachisme, Papistry, & the whole Chaos of Popish Superstition should be built? These things Augustin the grea● Monk, taught by Gregory the Monk, brought unto the English. But yet more particularly saith (106) Cent. 6. p. 289. 290. Luke Osiander; Augustin thrust upon the English Churches, the Roman Rates and Custome● to wit, Altars, Vestments, Images, Masses, Chalices, Crosses, Candlesticks, Censors, Bamners, Sacred vessels, Holy waters, and even the books of Roman Ceremonies. Accordingly saith (107) Prot Appeal. l. 1. p 53 58. D. Morton; In the Innovating, and multiplying of new Rites, Gregory himself was not the lea● Agent. As also, Be it known to all our Adversaries, that the too many Ceremonies used by S. Gregory, can not excuse their now far more multitudes, nor can some of his not good, justify their 〈◊〉 worse Rites etc. (108) In Praef. novi Testam, ad Principem Condenser Beza speaking of the times of Augustin, chrysostom, & Cypria● affirmeth that, 91) Cent. 4. col. 417. 418 419. & cent. 3. col. 114. 115 116. And see Eobanus in his libel. Theolog. p. 230. Some Bishops etc. applied themselves to the building of Stately Temples etc. 〈◊〉 the increasing of Ceremonies etc. And that others, would not only not repress open Superstition arising, but also would maintain them. And a little after he aoucheth directly that, At th● same time etc. the multitude of Ceremonies increased. But I will end with M. Calfehil, who, as (109) In his Rejoind to Marshal's Reply p. 131. 132 D. Fulk relateth of him, avoucheth is general that, The Fathers declined all from the Simplicity of the Gospel in Ceremonies. And with (110) In 1. Cor. c. 3. Melancthon who averreth, that presently from the beginning of the Church, the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the justice of Faith, increased Ceremonies, and devised peculiar worships. So disliking to our Protestants, was the Doctrine and Ceremonies used by the Fathers, even from the beginning of the Church of Christ. Here than we have, besides the former more substantial points of Faith & Religion, even the very outward semblance & face of our present Roman Church, confessedly most like or agreeing to the ancient Primitive, both of them teaching & using. First Hallowing or Consecration of Churches. Secondly, Dedication also of them to Christ or some of his Saints. Thirdly, Severing them also with vestries & Chancels. Fourthly, Placing in them Altars. fifthly, with wax-candles & lamps burning in the day time. Sixtly, which also were used at Burials. Seaventhly, there were also in the Church, placed Images of Christ & his Saints. Eightly, At the Altars served Priests, who offered the Sacrifice of the Mass, & who at their Consecration were specially anointed, having afterwards their Crowns shaved. Ninthly the vestments & vessels used by the Priests in administration of the Sacrifice and Sacraments, were so peculiarly reverenced, as that they were not to be touched by the Laity. Tenthly, the Priests in time of Sacrifice said some prayers secretly, others audibly. Eleventh they kept also the Canonical Hours of Prime, Third, sixth & Ninth. Tweluethly, with prayer also they hallowed water, bread, oil, ashes & sundry other creatures. Thirteenthly, as also the Font, & water of Baptism, using in Baptism the sign of the Cross, anoiling, Exorcisms, & sundry such like, used even at this day by the Roman Church; though greatly impugned and contemned by the Protestant Congregation. Now the Doctors alleged, & rejected by Protestants for the foresaid points, are S. Gregory, Ambrose, Optatus, Petrus Alexand. Augustin, the Fathers of the Laodices' Council, Hierom, Theodoret, Naziazene, Cyril, Basil, Chrysostom, Eusebius, Sixtus, Cyprian, Athanasius, Stephen, Tertulian, Origen, and S. Denys, Scholar to S. Paul. The Protestans producing and rejecting the foresaid Fathers, are the Centurists Crispinus, Carion, Osiander, Hospinian, Peter Martyr, Praetorius, Chemnitius, Schultetus, Zepperus, Bullinger, Mornay, Hamelmanus, Caluin, Gesnerus, Beza, Melancthon, Humphrey, Brightman, Fulk Raynolds, Bale, Carthwright, jacob, Hutton, Spark, Willet, Whiteguift, Whitaker, Beard, Parker, Morton, Mason, Calfehil and Parkins. THE THIRD BOOK, WHEREIN IS PROVED THAT THE CHURCH OF PROTESTANTS was never known or in Being before the days of Luther: And that the Articles of Religion now taught by the Protestant Congregation, were Heresies condemned by the Primitive Church of Christ. IT IS CONFESSED BY PROTESTANTS, that from the days of the Apostles until the time of Luther, themselves never had any known Church or Congregation, in any part of the universal World. CHAPTER I. SING contraries placed together do more clearly appear, having hither to offered to the view of the indifferent Reader, the clearest continuance of our Catholic Church, from the Apostles times to these our days: as also the confessed agreement throughout particular Congroversies between our present Roman, and the ancient Primitive Church of Christians; I will now in further manifestation of the truth, no less clearly discover the Protestant Church's invisibilite, or rather nullity & not-being, during the foresaid time from the Apostles to Luther. The Proof whereof for these last thousand years, is so easy & obvious, as that (1) Rejoinder to Bristol p. 341. D. Fulk plainly teacheth, that the Revelation of Antichrist, with the (Protestant) Churches flight into wilderness, was Anno 607. And [2.] Catalogue of Doctors in the ep. to the Reader. Simon de Voyon affirmeth, that Anno 605. when Pope Boniface was sealed in the Papal throne, than falsehood got the victory, etc. then was that universal Apostasy from the Faith foretold by Paul. (3) Hist. Sacram. l. 2. p. 157. Hospinian assureth us, that in the Age of Gregory the Great, all kind of superstition and Idolatry, as a sea overflowed, overwhelmed, and wholly overdrowned almost the whole Christian world; no man not only not resisting, but all rather adding, and affording what strength they could. So clear it is, that in the very time of S. Gregory, no one Protestant was known to the Christian world, and much less was seen to resist, or hinder the swelling sea of Roman Religion. But to proceed, [4] Expositio of the Creed. p. 307. M. Parkins avoucheth, that during the space of 900. years the Popish Heresy (for so do Heretics style it) hath spread itself over the whole earth, and the faithful servants of God were but as a handful of wheat in a mountain of chaff, which can scarce be discerned (5,) Idib. p. 400. And again, we say, that for the space of many hundred years, an universal Apostasy endeavoured the whole face of the earth, and that our Prot. Church was not then visible to the world, but lay hid under the chaff of Popery. M. Bale affirmeth, that from the year 607. purity of Heavenly (or Protestant) doctrine, [6.] Cent. 1. p. 69. vanished in the Church. [7.] Cent. 1. p. 65. And that, after Gregory the First, purity of doctrine perished. And that from Phocas (the Emperor, who lived Anno 602.) till the renewing of the Gospel (by Luther) the doctrine of Christ, was for that space among Idiots, and in lurking holes. [8] In hypotes. pos. Theolog. l. 3. p. 110. 111. Brumlerus acknowledgeth, that the Prot. Church begun to lie hid An. 800. an universal Apostasy 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 half a time. And whereas the true Church cannot consist without true Pastors, [9] Tract. Theolog. p. 374. and preaching; yet M. Caluin confesseth, that so for some Ages the (Prot.) Church was torn and pulled in sunder, that she had no true Pastors; and that for some Ages the pure preaching of the word vanished away. Now if I should demand of Caluin, or any his Followers, how the pretended Protestant people of those Ages could possibly believe, and so be saved, if during those Ages, they neither had preaching, nor Pastors to preach and minister Sacraments, I might expect for my best answer the deepest silence. But the more I wade herein, the less do I find any bottom of the Protestant Church's latency, or not-being: For examining the very time of Luther's first beginning, I find it directly confessed by [10.] Apology of the Church of Engl. part. 4. c. 4 And his defen. of the Apol. p. 426. D. jewel, that the Protestant Truth was unknown at that time, and unheard of, when Martin Luther, and Vlderick Suinglius first came unto the Knowledge and preaching of the Gospel. (11.) In August. Confess. explicat. c. 7. de Eccle. p. 137. Miluius argueth thus: If there had been right believers that went before Luther in his office, etc. there had then been no need of a Lutheran reformation. [12) De Eccl. p 145. Morgensterne censureth it ridiculous, to think that in the time before Luther any had the purity of doctrine; and that Luther should receive it from them, and not they from Luther. Considering (saith he) it is manifest to the whole Christian world, that before Luther's time all Churches were overwhelmed with more than Cimmerian darkness. ‖13.‖ Liber Apologet. p. 176. Regius being urged to tell what Congregation or Protestant Clergy Luther found in the world at his revolt, answereth that before Luther there was a Clergy of the true Religion, which agreed with Luther in all things. But being to answer where this Congregation was then to be found, he hath no other help but to confess, that is was not known by the Papists; neither through the Tyramnie of the Pope could peradventure be visibly shown. A strange answer, that it should be unknown to the Papists, & yet the persecution by the Pope should make it unknown, as though Fairies invisible could be persecuted by Papists. But he goeth forward saying: Therefore when the jesuites urge, that Luther should show (verae Religionis asseclam Ecclesiam) his fellow-Church of the true Religion, they will that Luther demonstrate contradiction in terms; and that he prove that which is invisible to be visible. So clear a Contradiction to the truth it is, to affirm the Protestant-visibilitie at Luther's first beginning. To the former demand, the like answer is given by (14‖ In Apocal. c. 11. p. 283. M. Brightman, (*) Contra Bell. contr. 2. q. 5. p. 261. saying: The Church before Luther, was in God's hidden Vestry; and by (15.‖ Upon the Revela. p, 199. M. Dent affirming, that as then Christ had his little flock in the wilderness; and by D. (16) Tom. Wittemb. in praefat. & see Tom. 2. Witemb fol. 63 & Tom. 3. fol. 555. Whitaker teaching, that the Church then lay hid in the wilderness. But none acknowledgeth this truth more plainly than Luther, himself saying: At the first I was alone. And, I dare glory that Christ was made first known by me; but with the denial hereof Suinglius doth dishonour me. Yea (18) Loc. come. class. 5. c. 15. p. 50. speaking of the Sacramentaries, he glorieth and saith: without us, and before us, they were nothing; truly they durst not mutter; now puffed up with our victory, they bend their force against us. And in this regard, (17) In praefat. in corpus doctrinae Lypsiae 1561. & Epist. ad Argentinenses. (19) Ep. ad Episcop. Hereford. praefix. Enarrat. Euceri in Euang. and see his scripta Anglicana. p. 675 Bucer termeth Luther, the first Apostle to us of the purer Gospel. Yea (20) Epist. 141 p. 273. Caluin speaking of the same times saith: 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 full manner saith (21) Epist. jesuit. part. alt. p. 49. Cannerus: The poison of the Arrians infected not some little part, but almost the whole world etc. we are come unto those times, which even exceed the confusion of the Arrian fury: Error hath possessed not one little part or other, but Apostasy hath averted the whole body from Christ. By which it appeareth, that even at these first beginnings of Luther, not only one member or parcel, but even the whole body of Christianity, was averted from protestancy, the Church of Protestants as than not being being known to have the least Being, in the smallest parcel or member of the same body. The like obscurity, or nullity of the Protestant Church, at Wicclifs first revolt from the Catholic Faith, is confessed by (22) Act. mon p. 85. M. Fox in these words: Out of all doubt, all the world was in a desperate and vile estate, and lamentable ignorance, and darkness of God's truth had overshaddowed the whole earth, when john Wiccliffe stepped forth, as the morning star in the midst of a cloud. And again (23.‖ Act. mon p 391. In times of horrible darkness, when there seemed in a manner to be no one so little spark of pure Protestant doctrine left or remaining, Wiccliffe by God's providence rose up, through whom the Lord would first awaken and raise up again the world etc. ‖24‖ Estate of the Church. p. 418. Crispinus also avoucheth that John Wiccliffe began as from a deep night, to draw out the truth of the doctrine of the Son of God. And D. ‖25‖ Vita juelli p 263 Humphrey affirmeth, that John Wiccliffe in these last times was almost the first Trumpeter of this Gospel: In so much that ‖26.‖ Cent. 9 10. 11. p. 439. Osiander confesseth, that he as then had not (so much as any) Companions of that time brotherly to admonish him. So assured we may rest, that at Wiccliffs time, the Protestant Church was overshaddowed with horrible darkness, not so much as one little spark of pure protestancy, appearing in the world. But yet neither was Wiccliffe himself Protestant; for besides his sundry Catholic opinions before proved, it is testified of Wiccliffe to the contrary, by Melancthon ‖k‖ Ep. 〈◊〉 Frider. micon inter ep. Suinglii p. 612. saying: I have looked into Wiccliffe, who maketh a great ado about this Controversy (of the Eucharist) but I have found many other errors in him, by which we may judge of his Spirit; surely he neither understood, nor held the justice of Faith; which only point is so necessary to the Salvation of Protestants, that Luther saith thereof: ‖l‖ Praefat. Ep. ad Gal. If article of justification (by only Faith) be once lost, then is all true Christian doctrine lost: And as many as hold not that doctrine, are jews, Turks, Papists, or Heretics. Again, by this only doctrine the Church is built, and in this it consisteth. ‖m‖ In c. 1. ad Gal. If we neglect the article of justification, we lose all together. For ‖n‖ In c. 2. ad Gal. it is the principal article of all Christian doctrine; all other articles are comprehended in it. It is the foundation (saith M. ‖o‖ Act. mon p. 840 Fox) of all Christianity: and the ‖p‖ Ibid. p. 770. only origin of our Salvation. It is the ‖q‖ Tower Desp. soul of the Church, saith D. Chark. Now this soul, foundation, principal Article of protestancy, Wiccliffe did not believe. Yea such were the demerits of Wiccliffe, that D. ‖r‖ Antiqu. l 2. p. 268. Caius objecteth him to the Oxonians, as a disgrace to their University. And Melancthon censureth him to have been ‖s‖ Loc. come Tit de Pot. Eccl. A mad man; and sundry his gross errors and Paradoxes condemned both by Catholics and Protestants will discover hereafter; so little cause have the Protestants to appeal to Wiccliffe for the continuance of their Church in his time. Now as concerning Waldo 27‖ Estate of the Church. p. 338. Crispinus confesseth, Waldo his beginning, to have been in time of thick darkness, and as a first & little beginning, of the instauration of Christian Religion. But whereas Father Campian, Rat. 3. affirmeth, that the Protestants cannot for many Ages together, give example so much as of any one City, village, or house, professing their doctrine; ‖28‖ Resp. ad rat. Campiani rat. 3 p. 48. D. Whittaker coming to answer thy very point, telleth in general, that in the worst times many Faithful were found, and that all Histories do witness this: But being provoked to give particular instance out of any one History, either of time, or person, he becometh mute; affirming in the same place directly to the contrary that, In the times of the Apostles all Churches, all Cities, all Towns, all Families embraced the same Religion which we (Protestants) profess: Afterwards by little and little, the purritie of doctrine began to be corrupted, and much superstition more and more to be spread abroad; to which yet the most holy Fathers resisted what they could, until that mystery of iniquity, which took root even in the Apostles Age, went through all the parts of the Church, and so at last possessed the whole Church. So true it is that for many Ages together, instead of any Instance of the Protestant Churches being, Popish pretended superstition possessed even the whole Church. But some may say, the Protest. Church's invisibility for these last 1000 years, is a point undoubted, and for such by themselves formerly and fully confessed: But it is the Primative Church of the first 600. years, wherein they glory their Church was most splendent, known, and conspicuous. Now of all the Ages of the Primitive Church, none is more famous or better known, or wherein Christian Religion more clearly shined over the whole face of the earth, than the Age of Constantin, whereof say the ‖29‖ Cent. 4 Ep. dedic. Reginae Elizabeth. Centurists: The state of the Church at (constantin's) time illustrated the whole world with her splendour. And D. Morton styleth Constantin himself: The ‖a‖ Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 328 great and first Christian Emperor, so greatly honoured in the first and most famous Synod of Nice. And yet in so great a Sunshine of Christ's true Church, it was impossible as then, to see a Protestant Chapel; for M. ‖30‖ In Apocalyp. in his synopsis before the Book. A 1. § 11 Brightman teacheth, that the Protestant Church, from the times of Constantin, for 1260. years, was hid etc. And ‖31‖ Ib A. 2 §. 14. And see p. 383. again, for 1000 years from Constantin, the was conversant with Christ in most hidden dens: Yea, as 32) Ibid. p. 326. then there were no Protestant public assemblies, wherein the Divine Institutions did wholly flourish: So Constantin, a son of the Church (saith he) did more hurt, than an Enemy: As 33) Ibid. p. 577. & see p. 341. also, the want of public Religion hath been many Ages, to wit, from Constantin the Great, to this day; all which time Antichrist reigned, whilst the Woman (the Protestant Church) lived in the desert. To the same effect saith M. Napper: 34) Upon the Revelat. p. 161. From the year of Christ 316. God hath withdrawn his visible Church, from outward assemblies, to the hearts of particular godly men etc. during the space of 1260. year's Gods true 35) Ibid. p. 191. Church most certainly abiding so long latent and 36) Ibid. p. 161. 156. 237. 23. 188. invisible; the Pope 37) Ibid. p. 145. and his Clergy, during all that time, possessing the outward visible Church of Christians; And, 38) Ibid. p. 239. never suffering, for the space of a 1000 years after Sylvester the First, any to be seen vouchable or visible, of the true Church. Whereby it is confessed as most certain, that at Constantins' time, and ever since until Luther's, there was never any public Church of Protestants, or their poorest Congregation, seen or known in the world. But to inquire yet further for a Protestant Church, in any Age between Constantin and the Apostles: It is likewise acknowledged by M. Napper, 39) Upon the Revelat. p. 191. and see cent. 2. c. 4. coll. 35. that during even the second, and third Ages (next after Christ) the true temple of God, and light of the Gospel, was obscured by the Roman Antichrist himself; whereto assent 40) In Bancrofts survey c. 27. p. 343. both M. Cartwright & Beza. D. Fulke 41) Answ. to a Counter. Cath. p. 35. avoucheth, that the true Church (of Protestants) decayed immediately after the Apostles times. And 42) De amplitudine regni Dei. l. 1. p. 43. Caelius Secundus Curio, further saith: Are we ignorant in how great darkness, blindness, and ignorance, the world hath continued, almost from the Apostles Age, to these very times, in which above all expectation the Lord began to manifest himself? In like sort it is affirmed by another 43) Anti-Christus sive prognostica finis mundi. p. 13. Protestant, that from the Apostles time till Luther, the Gospel never had open passage. 44) Ep. de Abrogandi statutis Ecclesiasticis. Sebastianus Francus averreth that, Presently after the Apostles, all things were turned upside down etc. And that for certain through the work of Antichrst, the external Protestant Church, together with the Faith and Sacraments, vanished away presently after the Apostles departure. And that, for these 1400. years, the (Protestant) Church hath been no where external & visible. Lastly D. Downeham 45) Antip l. 2. p. 25. teacheth that the general defection 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 unknown, even in S. Paul's time; and so continued in the darkest lakes of Avernus, until Luther sent out by Pluto, enlighetned the world, by the comfortable beams of his libertine Gospel. So clear and undoubted than it is, that this new Protestant Congregation was never known to the world, before the days of Luther, that we produce only in proof thereof 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, Humphrey, Fulk, Parkins, Brightman, Dent, Fox, Napper, Cartwright, Downham, Whittaker, and jewel. A FURTHER CONVINCING PROOF OF THE Protestant Churches not being, during the first 600. years, is taken from the Father's Condemning in the ancient Heretics the chiefest articles of the Protestant Religion, and our Protestants Confessing the same. And First Concerning the Sacraments. CHAPTER II. AS it is most certain, that the Protestant Church and Religion, was never heard or known of, in any Age whatsoever precedent to ours: So it may not be denied, but that in several Ages, there have some gone out of our Catholic Church, who teaching or professing some one or other article contrary to the same, were ever condemned by the Doctors and Pastors of the said Church for Heretics, 3) Cent. 5. col. 585. and their opinions for Heretical; amongst which to treat only of such as are now renewed, defended, and believed by the Protestant Church, I will begin with the holy Sacraments. And first concerning Baptism; whereas Caluin, Beza, Morton, and other Protestants, do all of them teach, that children dying unbaptized may be saved: This error was condemned in the Pelagians by S. Augustin, who reporteth that amongst other their errors, they taught that children might have life 1) Haer. 88 contra jul. Pelag. l. 6. c. 7. everlasting, although they were not Baptised; which opinion 2) In rescr. ad Melevit. Concil. and Leo ep. 86. Innocentius termeth in them to be very foolish: This error of Pelagians is so certain, that it is confessed and reported by the Centurie-writers, and by 4) Loc. come. fol. 88 Sarcerius. In like sort (a) Synopsis 415. & upon the 122. Ps. Fulk against Purgatory p. 35. D. Willet, & D. Fulk denying remission of sins, and grace to be given by Baptism, are condemned in the Manichees by the acknowledgement of 5) Contra Dureum l. 10. 883. & Sarcerius loc. come. Tom. 1. de Baptismo fol 232. D. Whitaker, saying of himself, & some other Protestants: We believe and teach, that Sins are forgiven, and grace conferred in Baptism; which the Manichees were accustomed to deny. The denial of Exorcism and Exsufflation used in Baptism, was condemned in julianus the Pelagian, whereof saith 6) De imperijs & concupis. li. 2. c. 29. etc. 17. & count. julian Pela. l. 6. c. 2. S. Augustin: julian reproacheth the most ancient tradition of the Church, whereby children are exorcised, and breathed upon. And 7) Against Symbolizin. part. 1. sect. 13 p. 152. & part. 2. sect. 9 p. 131. M. Parker allegeth Nazianzen reporting, that julian laughed at the sufflations of Baptism. To come to the Eucharist, 8) Theodoret dial. 3. S. Ignatius affirmeth of certain Heretics of his time: That they do not admit Eucharists and oblations, because they do not confess, the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins. These words are acknowledged and cited for the saying of S. Ignatius, by 9) de 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, Simon Pauli, and other Protestants. Communion under both kinds, was condemned in Nestorius; Vrbanus Rhegius saith hereof: 10) Loc. come. fol. 56. Nestorius communicated the Laïtie under both kinds, (but) the Council of Ephesus withstood him. The denial of the B. Sacraments Reservation (which Protestants now generally deny) was condemned in the Anthropomorphites, of whom saith S. Cyril: I hear 11) Ad Calosyrium. they say that the mystical blessing, if any remnants thereof do remain, till the next day following, is unprofitable to sanctification; but they are mad in so saying; for Christ is not made an other; neither shall his body be changed, but the virtue of blessing and lively grace, do always remain in it. This censure of S. Cyril is confessed and disliked by 12) Count Gandiner Ecl. 838. Peter Martyr, as also by 13) Ag. Hoskins. p. 83. Oecolam. lib. 3. Epist. p. 689. D. Fulk; and Oecolampadius, who answering hereunto said: Cyril wrote this against the Anthropomorphites, who taught that the body of Christ was corrupted, if the remnants of the Sacraments were corrupted. But this most strongly confirmeth both Reservation, and Real presence; for how could the Anthropomorphites think Christ's body to have been corrupted, the Sacrament being corrupted, had they not thought, Christ's body to have been in the Sacrament, & the same as then usually reserved? The denial of Priest's power to remit sin in the Sacrament of Penance, was condemned in the Novatians, against whom writeth S. Ambrose 14) l. 1. de Remit. c. 2. etc. 7. thus: They say they give the reverence to God, to whom alone, they reserve the power of forgiving sins: but none do greater injury unto him, than those who will break his commandments; for seeing our Lord himself in his Gospel hath said: Receive you the holy-ghost, whose sins you shall remit, they shall be remitted etc. who doth more honour him, he who obeyeth his commandments, or who resisteth? To omit the like censure given by Pacianus 15) Ep. 1. ad Sympron. against Sympronianus the Novatian; Socrates relateth the Heretic Acesius to have said, that sinners 16) Hist. Trip. l. 2. c. 13. were to be invited to Penance, but the hope of Remission they were not to have from Pirests, but from God alone, who hath power to forgive sins; which when he had spoken, the Emperor said, O Acesius, set a ladder, and if thou canst, ascend alone to Heaven. So strange and singular in those times, was this opinion of the Novatians; and yet this History is so true, that it is recorded and confessed by 17) Cent. 4. p. 119. Chen. Exam. part. 1. p. 188. & part. 2. p. 193. Cent. 4. col. 653. Osiander, Chemnitius, and the Centurie-writers: And M. Dilingam 18) Disp de natura P●n. p. 12. granteth that, The Novatians did reserve to God alone the power of forgiving sins; do so Protestants? saith he: And may not I rather say, and that most truly, that Protestants do so: and therein are right Novations? For what Protestants in England dare publicly now avouch, that Ministers have power, not only to declare, but truly to forgive sin, and that remission of sins is not reserved to God alone? In like sort, concerning Penance enjoined after Confession, Theodoret reproveth the Heretics Audiam, 19) l. 4. her. Fab. de Audiant. for that: They give remission to such as are confessed, without prescribing time for Penance, as the Laws of the Church commande. Concerning the Sacrament of Confirmation or Chrism, the Novatians, as Theodoret testifieth, were farther condemned, for that They 20) l. 3. her. fab. 2. ●aue not holy Chrism, to those who were Baptised by them. And Eusebius testifieth, that Novatius himself being Baptised, was not confirmed by a Bishop, which he wanting, saith Eusebius, how could he obtain the holy Ghost? Optatus reproveth 22) l. 2. contra Donatistas'. the Donatists, for that they caused the reserved Eucharist, to be thrown to dogs, which dogs, thereupon all raging, rend in pieces their Masters, as guilty of the holy Body: They also threw out of the window a vial (or little bottle) of Chrism, to the intent to break it, 21) Hist. li. 6. c. 35. & see M. Parker against Symbolyzing p. 77. 96. 97. the which being stayed by an Angel's hand, God preserving it, light safe amongst the stones. For the denial of the external Sacrifice of the Mass, Ignatius before censured certain Heretics, saying: They do not admit Eucharists and oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharist, to be the flesh of our Saviour jesus Christ etc. And S. Augustin 23) Tom. 6. cont. Aduen legis and Prophet. c. 19 condemneth the Manichees, for denying external sacrifice; of whom he further saith: The 24) Tom. 6. cont. faust. Manich. l. 20. c. 18. Manichees being ignorant, what is to be condemned in the Sacrifices of the Gentiles, and what to be understood in the Sacrifices of the Hebrews, and what to be holden or observed in the Sacrifice of Christians, do Sacrifice their own vanity to the Devil. Yea, the Armenians 25) Conc. 6. Constantinop. can. 32. were condemned, for not mingling water with wine in the Chalice in time of the Sacrifice; against whom was urged the authority of S. james and S. Basil: And S. Cyprian (28) affirmeth, against the Heretics Aquarij, that in the chalice of our Lord, water alone cannot be offered, neither wine alone etc. And as concerning Altars, upon which this sacrifice was offered, Optatus 27) L. 6. cont. Donatist. saith unto the Donatists: What is so Sacrilegious, as to break, scrape, and remove the Altars of God, in which sometimes yourselves have offered? For what is the Altar, but the seat of the Body and Blood of Christ? These all your fury hath scraped, or broken, or removed etc. What hath Christ offended you, whose Body and Blood there resided at certain times? 26) l. 2. Ep. 3 What have yourselves offended, that you should break those Altars etc. So clearly, was our Protestants fury and malice in ruining Altars, long before condemned, in the Heretical Donatists. And thus we see our modern Protestants, agreeing first with the Pelagians, in denying the necessity of Baptism, and grace, & remission of sins to be given thereby; as also the Ceremonies of Exorcism and Exsufflation, to be therefore in them, and the Manichees, condemned for Heretics by S. Augustin. Secondly, their denying of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, was condemned in most ancient Heretics by S. Ignatius. Thirdly, their denying of Communion under one kind, was condemned in the Nestorians by the Council of Ephesus. Fourthly, Their denial the B. Sacraments Reservation, was condemned in the Anthropomorphites by S. Ciril. Fiftly, the denial of Priest's power to remit sin, was condemned in the Novatians by S. Ambrose. Sixtly, in whom also was condemned the denial of Confirmation and Chrism, by Theodoret and others. Seaventhly, 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. Council of Constantinople, and in the Aquarij by S. Cyprian. Ninthly, & the breaking and casting down of Altars, was condemned in the Donatists by Optatus. And so I leave it to the judgement of any indifferent man, whether it standeth with more discretion and security, concerning the former points of Faith and Religion, to join in profession and belief, 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 Heretics, the Pelagians, the Manichees, the Donatists, the Nestorians, the Novatians, the Antropomorphites, the Aquarij, the Armenians, and the present Protestant Church. THAT THE FATHERS CONDEMNED in ancient Heretics the opinions of Protestants concerning the Scriptures, and the Church Militant, and Triumphant. CHAPTER. III. TO examine now such doctrines, as concern the sacred Scriptures, and the Church both Militant, and Triumphant: It hath been observed in all Heretics, to pretend only Scripture in defence of their errors, thereby to evade the manifest and most convincing arguments from Counsels, Fathers, and Histories. So S. Hilary 28) Orat. 2. cont. Constantium. wisheth us to remember, (that there) is no Heretic, (which) doth not feign, that the blasphemies which he teacheth, are according to the Scripture. And S. Austin 29) L. 1. de Trinit. c. 3. affirmeth, that all Heretics endeavour to defend their false and deceitful opinions, out of the Scriptures: Yea he reproveth 30) L. 1. con. Maxim. Maximinus the Arian, for saying (as Protestants now do) If thou shall bring any thing from the sacred Scripture, which is common to all, it is needful we hear you: But these words which are out of the scripture, in no case are to be received of us. In like sort, saith S. Vincent: 31) L. 1. count. haeret. If one shall ask any Heretic etc. from whence do you prove, from whence do you teach, that I ought to forsake the universal and ancient Faith of the Catholic 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 etc. Agreeably hereunto the Arrians denied, the Son 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 testify in sundry places writing against them. The Macedonians 32) Basil. de Spiritu Sancto c. 25. & l. 1. contr. Eunomium. and Eunomians denied, the holy-ghost to be equal with the Father and the Son, because in their opinion, it is no where expressly set down in the Scriptures. The 33) Cyril. Socrates and others writing of the Nestorians. Nestorians denied, the B. Virgin Marie to be the Mother of God, because these words are not expressly in Scripture: And the self same pretence of only Scripture, is still used now by Protestants, as I have proved at large elsewhere. The continuance and visibility of the Church of Christ, was denied by the Donatists, of whom S. Austin affirmeth, that they used to collect certain places of Scripture, and to wrest them against the church of God, that so it might be thought, to have failed and perished out of the whole world. And as Protestants say now, of the Church before Luther's time, 34) de unita. Eccl. c. 2. so said the Donatists before: 35) August. in Ps. 101. Conc. 2. The Church hath revolted and perished out of all Countries: But this (saith S. Austin) say they, who are not in it; Or impudent speech! The claim of Ecclesiastical Primacy was condemned in the Emperor Constantius, to whom Osius 36) 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. said: I. beseech thee cease, and remember thou art mortal; be fearful of the day of judgement; keep thyself pure against that day; do not intermeddle in Ecclesiastical affairs, neither command us in this kind, but rather learn those things from us. God hath committed the Empire to thee; and to us, those things which belong to the Churches. Take heed least drawing unto thee such things as concern the Church, thou be guilty of great crimes. And again; for who, seeing him in decreeing to make himself the Prince of Bishops, and to be chief judge in Ecclesiastical judgement, will not justly say, that he is that abomination of Desolation which was foretold by Daniel? Hereof also the 37) Cent. 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: Emperors also sometimes unfittingly assumed to themselves the judgement of matters of Faith, which thing Athanasius reprehendeth in Constantius, and Ambrose in Valentinian etc. The denial of Invocation of Saints, was condemned in Vigilantius the Heretic, of whom 38) Answer 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 saith: Last of all Vigilantius shall be brought in, who wrote against Invocation of Saints, Superstition of Relics, and other Ceremonies; him Hierome reproveth. And the same is confessed of Vigilantius, by M. Parker, the Centurists, Crispinus, and Osiander. In like sort D. Saravia, and Beza do both of them affirm, that Aerius was likewise condemned by the Fathers, for his then teaching, that the Saints departed are not to be prayed unto. The which also is acknowledged by 40) Loc. come. p. 514 Bucanus, against Aerius. The denial and contemning of Saint's Relics, is condemned in Eunomius, and Vigilantius; whereof saith 41) De Ecl. dog. c. 73 see Chemnit. Exam. part. 4. p. 7. S. Austin: We believe that the bodies of Saints, and especially the Relics of Blessed Martyrs, are most entirely to be honoured if any 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 Devils to be tormented by the Relics of Martyrs, are condemned therefore, the first by S. Ambrose 42) Ser. 93. De Invent. corpo. S. Geruasij & Protasij. the second by 43) Contr. Vigil. c. 4. S. Hierome. The denial of the Images of Christ, and his Saints, was condemned in Xenaias, of whom saith 44) Hist. Eccl. lib. 16. c. 27. Nicephorus: That Xenaias' first (o audacious soul, and impudent mouth) vomited forth that speech: That the Images of Christ, and those who have pleased him, are not to be worshipped. According to which the Protestant 45) Comment. in proc. Chronol. l. 7. at Antichr. 494. see Cedemus in Compend. hist. Functius confesseth that, 39) Defen. Tract. de diversi. p. 349. 346. Xenaias' first raised wars in the Church against Images. The denial of the sign of the Cross, was condemned in some ancient Magicians, of whom thus writeth 46) Hist. li. 3. c. 3. Theodoret; The Devils appearing in their accustomed shape, fear compelled julian (the Emperor) to sign his forehead with the sign of the Cross; whereupon the Devils, beholding the figure of our Lord's victory, and remembering their own ruin, forthwith vanished away etc. julian affirmed, that he greatly admired the virtue of the Cross, and that the Devils fled away, because they could not endure the sign thereof; to whom the Magician said; Do not so think; for they do not fear for that reason which you allege, but detesting your fact, they withdrew themselves from our sight. Whereupon (saith Theodoret) so wretched julian was deceived by him etc. And yet the Protestant 47) Cent. 4. p. 326. Osiander is not ashamed, to justify this foresaid speech of the Magician, affirming of this example, that the Devils by dissembling their flying away, would confirm the superstition of the people, as though (saith he) Devils were driven away, by the sign of the Cross. And whereas many miracles have been wrought in the Church, by the sign of the Cross, by the Relics of Saints, and sundry other such holy helps; the Arrians used, to attribute the same to witchcraft, and deceits of the Devil; hereof saith 48) Serm. 93. de Sanctis Geruasio & Protasio. S. Ambrose: The Devils say to Martyrs, you are come to destroy us; the Arrians say, these are not true torments of Devils, but only feigned and affected scoffs. For the same cause 49) Cont. Vigil. c. 4. S. Hierome reproveth Vigilantius, saying: According to the custom of the Gentiles, and of wicked Porphorie, and Eunomius, thou faignest these to be the sleights of the Devils, and that the Devils do not truly cry, but only counterfeit their torments etc. And 50) De persecut. Vandal. l. 2. Victor reporting, how the Catholic Bishop Eugenius, having restored sight to one Felix that was blind, signing his eyes with the Standard of the Cross, a thing (saith he) manifest to all the Congregation, he farther reporteth, that the Arrian Bishops said, that Eugenius did this by witchcraft. And the self same answer, is given to S. Martius' Miracles, by the Centurie writers, and to the Miracles of holy simeon, by 52) Animaduers. p. 612. 613. 614. Hosp. de monach. fol. 24. Funius, and Hospinian, and to the Miracles of B. Aman, by 53) In Ep. Parte alt. Part. Cont. Bellar. 1066 Daneus. The denial of Purgatory, of prayers, and Sacrifice for the dead, was condemned in Aerius, by S. Austin, 54) Haer. 53. Epiph. haer. 75. and S. Epiphanius, whereof saith D. Fulk: 55) Answ. to a counterfeit Cath. p. 44. 45. I will not dissemble that, which you think the greatest matter; Aerius taught that prayer for the dead was unprofitable, as witness both Epiphanius, and Austin, which they count for an error. 51) Cent. 5. col. 1393. 56) Cent. 4. p. 434. Osiander reciting the condemned errors of Aerius, amongst the rest numbereth this, That we ought not to pray, or offer Sacrifice for the dead. And D. Field saith: The eleventh, is the Heresy of Aerius, he condemned the custom of the Church, in naming the dead at the Altar, and offering of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist etc. He was justly condemned. And the same error in Aerius, is expressly confessed by 58) Chrono. 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 advertisement therio annexed p. 106. Pantaleon, by Bullinger, by Hospinian, and D. Abbot. From the premises than we may observe, First, that our modern Protestants appealing to only Scripture, are condemned in the Arrians, by S. Austin; and in other Heretics, by S. hilary, and other Fathers; and in the Macedonians and Eunomians, by S. Basil; and in the Nestorians, by S. Cyril. Secondly, their denying the visibility of Christ's Church, was condemned in the Donatists, by S. Austin. Thirdly their, giving Ecclesiastical Primacy to temporal Princes, was condemned in Constantius by S. Athanasius; and in Valentinian, by S. Ambrose. Fourthly, their denying of Invocation of Saints, was condemned in Vigilantius by S. Hierome. Fiftly, the dishonouring of Saints Relics, was condemned in Eunomius and Vigilantius, by S. Austin, and S. Hierome; and in the Arrians by S. Ambrose. Sixtly, the denying of holy Images, was condemned in Xenaias, 57) Of the Church. li. 3. p. 138. by Nicephorus. Seaventhly, the denying of the sign of the Cross, and the virtue thereof, was condemned in Magicians, by Theodoret. Eightly, denying of Miracles, and imputing them to witchcraft and the deceits of the Devil, was condemned in the Arrians, by S. Ambrose, & in Vigilantius by S. Hierome. Ninthly, the denial of Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead, was condemned in Aerius, by S. Austin and S. Epiphanius. Now let the judicious Reader make choice, whether in the foresaid points of doctrine, he will join in union of Faith, with S. Athanasius, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Austin, S. Hilary, S. Basil, S. Cyril, Theodoret, Socrates, Sozomene, Vincent, and the present Roman Church; or with the condemned Heretics, Arrians, Macedonians, Eunomians, Nestorians, Donatists, Vigilantians, Aerians, Image-breakers, Magicians, and the present Protestant Church. THAT THE FATHERS CONDEMNED in ancient Heretics the opinions of Protestants, concerning Monachisme, the marriage of Priests, and prescribed Fasts. CHAPTFR FOUR TO make the like trial of such articles, as concern the state of perfection, as Euangelical Counsels, Vows, Mortification, and the like: And first concerning Monks and Montastical life, 59) In Ps. 132. S. Austin reproveth the Cercumcellians, for that they accustomed to say, what meaneth the name of Monks? And again, what then say they, who insult against us, for the name of Monks etc. who say unto us, show where the name of Monks is written (in the Scriptures?) And writing 60) Cont. litter. Petil l. 3. c. 40. against Petilianus, he affirmeth, That he proceeded with cursed mouth in dispraise of Monks, and Monasteries. In like sort, 61) Cont. Vigil. prope fin. S. Hierome answereth Vigilantius, saying: Whereas thou affirmest those to be better, who use their goods, and by little and little divide the fruits of their possessions to the poor, than those who selling their possessions, give all at once, thou shalt be answered, not from me, but from our Lord: If thou wil● be perfect, go and sell all which thou hast, and give to the poor, and come follow me. He speaketh to him, who will be perfect etc. That degree which thou praisest is the second and third, which we also allow, whilst yet we know to prefer the first, before the second and third. Neither are Monks to be terrified from their study (or labour) by thy viperous tongue, and cruel biting, against whom thou arguest and sayest: If all shall shut up themselves, and be in the deserts, who shall frequent the Churches? This reproof of Vigilantius by S. Hierome, is so certain, that it is further plainly confessed by 62) Of the Estate of the Church p. 131. 132. Crispinus. Concerning virginity, the equalling of marriage therewith, was condemned in jovinian, by 63) L. 1. con●. jovin. c. 2. S. Hierome saying; jovinian taught that Marriage and Virginity were of equal merit. A point so certain that M. Wotton, in defence of jovinian boldly 63) Def. of Parkins p. 500 avoucheth, that herein the Christian Fathers dealt unchristianly with jovinian; (r) Retractive from Romish Religion p. 312. again; jovinian worthily denied, all difference of merit betwixt a married and single life, which no enemy of jovinian can disprove. And the same is confessed in jovinian, 65) Chron. p. 32. and cent 5. col. 5●8. by Pantaleon, and the Centurists. And yet D. Beard acknowledgeth, that S. Austin doth prefer Virginity (before Marriage) as a greater good. But Luther 66) Tom. 5 Wittemb. in 1. Cor. c. 7. fol. 107. much exceedeth jovinian herein saying: I do conclude that matrimony is as gold, and the spiritual state (of single life) is as dung: In which absurdity and impurity he is also defended by 67) Cont. Camp. Rat. 8. p. 151. D. Whitaker. The single life of Priests was impugned by Vigilantius, whom therefore 68) Cont. Vigil. c. 1. S. Hierome reproveth in these words: What do the Churches of the East, of Egypt, and the Sea Apostolic, who take Clergymen either such as are Virgins, or continent, or if they have wives, yet cease to be as husband. Agreably hereunto D. Fulk 69) Answ to a Count Cath. p. 45. & see Hier. l. 1. cont. jovinis: c. 14 and 19 and Apol. ad Pamachius c. 8. Epiph. her. 59 confesseth that, jovinian also was condemned for that he taught, that such as could not contain, though they had vowed Virginity, should nevertheless be married. And D. Morton confesseth, that a) Appeal. p. 604. Vigilantius and jovinian are condemned by S. Hierome, for impugning the unmarried life of Priests, The impugning of prescribed Fasts, was condemned in Aerius, of whom confesseth D. Fulk, that he taught that fasting-dais are not to be observed. D. Feild (17) saith: He disliked set Fasts etc. He was justly condemned. Osiander 72) cent. 4. p. 434. reporteth him to say that, set Fasts are not to be observed etc. According to liberty, a man is to fast, when he wil This error was reproved in Aerius, by S. Austin, 73) her. 53. Epiphan. her. 75. and S. Epiphanius. And S. Austin 74) her. 82. reporteth jovinian to say: Fasts, 70) answer. to a Count Cath. p. 44. 45. or abstinence from certain meats, do nothing profit. Yea he 75) de Eccl. dog. c. 68 avoucheth further, that to believe, that such as abstain from wine and flesh, have no greater merit, is not the part of a Christian, but of a jovinian; which Censure of S. Austin, is confessed in him by Chemnitius. 71) of the Church. l. 3. p. 138. 76) Exam. part. 4. p. 142. And whereas Protestants keep their strictest Fasts upon Sundays, S. Epiphanius 77) her. 75. witnesseth, that the Aerians desired rather to fast upon Sunday, & to eat upon Wednesday, and Friday: And S. Austin 78) Ep. 86. affirmeth, that to fast on the Lord's day, is a great offence, especially since the detestable Heresy of the Manichees etc. who appoint unto their hearers, this day, as lawful to be fasted upon. This saying of S. Austin, is alleged by D. Whitguift, 79) Defen. p. 502. and cent. 4. col. 445. 401. and the Centurists, and the like of S. Ambrose, by 80) Against Symbo. part. 2. p. 38. M. Parker. From these few premises, I may infer, first, that the Protestants impugning Monks and Monastical life, are condemned in the Heretics Circumcellians, Petilianus, and Vigilantius, by S. Austin, and S. Hierome. Secondly, their impugning of voluntary poverty, is condemned in Vigilantius, by S. Hierome. Thirdly, their equalling of marriage with Virginity, was condemned in jovinian, by the same S. Hierome. Fourthly, their impugning the unmarried life of Priests, was condemned in Vigilantius also by S. Hierome. Fiftly, their denial of set Fasts, and abstinence from certain meats, is condemned in Aerius, by S Austin, and S. Epiphanius, and in jovinian, 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 harmony we ever find, between the ancient Heretics, Vigilantius, Petilianus, jovinian, Aerius, and the Manichees, and our Modern Protestants: And between the ancient Doctors, S. Austin, S. Hierome, S. Epiphanius, and the present Roman Church. THAT THE FATHERS CONDEMNED in ancient Heretics the opinions of Protestants, concerning Freewill, Faith, Good works, the Commandments, sin, and the knowledge and Death of Christ. CHAPTER V. BUT now to come to the chiefest articles of man's Freewill, Faith, good works, and the possibility of the Commandments, sin, and the like: The denial of Freewill, was condemned in the Manichees by S. Hierome, 81) in Proen. lib. count. Pelagianos' fin. saying, it is proper to the Manichees to condemn man's nature, and to take away Freewill, and the assistance of God; of whom also saith S. Austin: 82) de fide cont. Manich. c. 9 The Manichees bark against these with wont blindness, and when they are convinced, that Nature is not an evil thing, and that it is in the power of man to do well or evil, they say, that the soul hath not Freewill, and they see not their blindness. Hereupon it is, that Hemingius 83) de universali gratia p. 109. chargeth his other Protestant Brethren denying Freewill, with the doctrine of the Manichees and the Stoics. And whereas some answer hereunto, that the Manichees condemned Nature, which Protestants do not, we reply again that we do not charge them therewith, but only with the denial of Freewill and God's grace, for the denial whereof the Manichees were condemned; and though it were upon other grounds than Protestants do, yet that excuseth not, since the very denial of Freewill was condemned in them by the Fathers. As likewise the denial of any article of Faith (upon what reason or ground soever it be) is notwithstanding to be condemned for error. The pretended sufficiency of only Faith, was condemned in Eunomius by S. Austin, 84) her. 54. who reporteth Eunomius to have taught, That the committing of any sins whatsoever, and continuance in them, would nothing hurt a man, if he was partaker of that Faith which was taught by him. Agreably to whom saith D. Whitaker; 85) de Eccl. p. 301. we affirm that if one have an act of Faith, sins do not hurt him; this Luther affirmed, and this we all say. The denial in general of the diversity of merits, was condemned in jovinian by S. Austin, 86) de Tem. ser. 191. saying: We condemn the error of jovinian, who said there Was no difference of merits in the world to come. And S. Ambrose, 87) Conc. Telense & Rescript. Ambrosij & aliorum ad Siricium Papan ibid. and others term it, A rude howling &c. to confound all things promiscuously etc. and to take away the degrees of different merits. The denial of the possibility of keeping the Commandments, was condemned in certain Heretics by S. Hierome 88) In expl. symb. ad Damas'. saying: We accurse the blasphemy of them, who say, that any thing impossible is commanded by God to man. And the same words useth S. Austin, 89) De tem. ser. 191. in so much that the Protestant Hoffman rather accurseth S. Hierome, saying: 90) Comment. de penit. l. 1. fol. 55. Hierome writes, let him be accursed who hath said, God to have 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 alleged and rejected by Luther, and by the Centurists, as also by Caluin saying: (a) Inst. l. 2. c. 7 §. 5. The opinion of the impossibility 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. 91) Tom. 2. Wittemb. f. 216 Cent. 4. col. 1248. The denial of Inherent justice, was condemned in julian the Pelagian by S. Austin 92) Cont. jul. Pelag. l. 6. c. 11. saying: Thou dost not departed from thy opinion, wherein thou affirmest the grace of God to consist in the only remission of sin. And the same error is condemned 93) Epist. 1. c. 10. Conc. Mileu. c. 3. & August. l. 1. Retract. c. 13. & ep. 106. by Celestinus and the Milevitan Council. The affirming of God to be the Author of sin, was condemned in Simon Magus, whereof saith Vincentius: 94) Lib. count. haer. post. med. Who before Simon Magus etc. dared affirm, God the Creator to be the Author of our wicked deeds? etc. And who before Novatianus (taught) that God would rather the death of him that dyeth, then that he should return and live? Hereof also saith S. Austin: It is a hateful and abominable opinion, to believe, that God is the author of any evil will, or action. And yet this so abominable opinion is believed by Luther 96) In assert. art. 36. ask: How man can prepare himself to good, seeing it is not (so much) as in his own power, to make his ways evil; for God worketh the wicked work in the wicked. As also by Caluin 97) In l. 3. c. 23. sect. 6. teaching that, God doth ordain by his Counsel and decree, that among men some be borne destined to certain damnation from their mother's womb; who by their destruction may glorify God. And Suinglius 98) Tom. de Provide. Dei fol. 365. expressly affirmeth that, 95) Ad art. sibi falso impet art. 10. David's adultery pertained to God as Author. Melanchton 99) In Rom. 8. avoucheth, that the Adultery of David, was the proper work of God; as was the Conversion of Paul. jacobus Andrea's 100) Epit. Colloq. montisb. p. 47. averreth, that according to Beza, God is the Author of sin. And yet all these plain testimonies notwithstanding, 101) Cont. Camp. rat. 8. p. 115. D. Whitaker blusheth not to say: If Caluin, Pet. Martyr, Melancthon, Luther, or any of ours affirm, God to be the Author of sin, I will not deny, but that we are all guilty of horrible blasphemy and wickedness. And as Protestants thus join with Simon Magus in making God the Author of sin; so likewise do they with Apollinaris and Eutyches affirm, the very Godhead of Christ to have suffered and died. D. Barnes 102) Vit. Rom. Pontific. p. 46. 103 Resp. ad act. col. montisbel. part. 1. p 82 reporteth one of the condemned Heresies of Apollinaris to have been; that Christ being dead for three days, the Divinity died withal. And 103) In Confession maiore de canae Dom●ni. Beza confesseth, that Eutyches affirmed, the Godhead of Christ to have suffered. Agreably to these, 104) In Cre●anor. Dial. de corrup. muribus etc. f. 5. D. Luther saith: When I think that only the humane Nature suffered for me, Christ is of vile and small price, yea himself hath also need of a Saviour. Yea he reproveth the Zwinglians, for that, saith he, most obstinately they urge against me, that the Divinity of Christ could not suffer. And the same blasphemy or rather Atheism, is taught by Musculus, Islebius, 105) Cont. Busaeum. p. 24 126. Gerlabius, jacobus 106) R●sp. ad act. Col. Montisb. p. 82. 92. Andreas, and the other Lutherans. And yet D. Abbot 107) Def. ad Park. 3. p. 240. is not abashed to give D. Bishop the lie, for his objecting that, Luther affirmed the Godhead itself to suffer. In like sort, Ireneus 108) l. 1. c. 17. condemning the Gnostics for teaching Christ to have been ignorant, and to have learned his A. B. C. under a Master; and S. Gregory 109) l. 3. Indict. 3. Ep 42. confuting the same error in the Agnoites: The same error is yet taught by 110) Resp. ad act. Col. Montisb. part. 1 147. 148. 134. Buc. & Caluin. in Math 24. will Synop. p. 599. 600. Sunt. Review of D. kellison's survey p. 55. Beza, Bucer, Caluin, D. Willet, D. Sutclif and other Protestant writers. I might produce sundry other ancient condemned Heresies, now renewed and defended by our new Protestant Church; but it may suffice to the eternal infamy 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 salvation, it is condemned in Eunomius 111) Defence of Parkins. part. 3. in the advertisement annexed p. 60. by S. Austin. Thirdly, that denying of the diversity of Merits, it is condemned in jovinian, by S. Austin and S. Ambrose. Fourthly Impugning the possibility of keeping the commandments, it is condemned in certain old Heretics, by S. Hierome & S. Austin. Fiftly, denying Inherent justice, it is condemned in the Pelagians, by S. Austin. Sixtly, Affirming God to be the Author of sin, it is condemned in Simon Magus by Vincentius, and by S. Austin. Seaventhly, teaching the Godhead of Christ to have suffered and died, it is condemned in Apollinaris, and Eutyches. Lastly, teaching Christ to have been ignorant, it is condemned in the Gnostics by S. Ireneus; & in the Agnoïtes by S. Gregory; So that we still find a sympathy and union in sundry of the chiefest points of Religion, between the ancient Heretics, Manicheus, Eunomius, jovinian, Pelagius, Simon Magus, Apollinaris, Eutyches, the Gnostics, and Agnoites, and novel Protestants of the on side; and the ancient most holy Fathers, S. Hierome, Gregory, Vincent, Austin and Ambrose, and the Roman Church, of the other side. Yea so grateful scholars are our Protestants to their old Masters, and so otherwise naked of better answer, that they doubt not to reprove the ancient Doctors and Fathers of the Primitive Church, and to commend and defend the condemned Heretics of the same time; so professing to disclaim from the Faith and Religion taught by the old Fathers, and to adhere and embrace the gross & wicked errors broached by Heretics. D. Abbot 111) Defence of Parkins. part. 3. in the advertisement annexed p. 60. professeth, That though Hierome and Austin have for some points taxed jovinian, and Vigilantius, (as Heretics) and Epiphanius, in an other point Aerius; yet is that no sufficient motive for us (saith he) to forsake those opinions of jovinian, Aerius and Vigilantius. In like sort saith (112) D. Willet; Some of these as they are imputed to Protestants, we deny to be Heresies at all, as that of Vigilantius, that Relics are not to be adored; of jovinians, that neither fasting nor Virginity is meritorious; of Aerius, that prayer is not to be made for the dead etc. 113) Tetrastylon. p. 97. And if Aerius held no worse opinions, we see no cause why they should condemn him for an Heretic etc. 112) Antilog. p. 23. (11) But neither was Vigilantius an Heretic, nor his opinions Heresies. 115) Loc. come. loc. 42. p. 513. Bucanus demandeth, whether the Fathers deservedly numbered amongst Heretics the opinion of Aerius, who said there was no difference between a Bishop and a Priest? 114) Ib. p. 99 Whereto himself answereth, no truly, no more than these which were his opinions: First, that we ought not to pray and Sacrifice for the dead. Secondly, that Saints departed are not to be prayed unto. Thirdly, that certain days of Fasts are not to he appointed: Of which last saith 116) Cont. Dur. l. 9 p. 830. D. Whitaker, Aerius taught nothing concerning fasting different from the Catholic Faith; whereby he meaneth the Protestant. Faith Yea Aerius and his errors, are further defended against the Fathers by D. Fulk, 117) 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 jovinian is defended against S. Hierome, and S. Austin, by the 118) Cent. 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 a) Prot. Appeal. p. 583. saying; Concerning that, Vigilantius intended only the honour of God by expelling Idolatry, then may we wish that S. Hierome had been a Vigilantius, in the case of Relics of Saints. Yea (saith D. Fulk *) Against Rhem. Test. in apoc. 6. Hierome in this case, is a partial witness, inveighing against Vigilantius, which was as good a Catholic, as he etc. who did justly mislike the superstitious estimation of Relics, and write a book against it; which Hierome doth not confute with arguments so much, as with railing etc. S. Hierome defending against Vigilantius, the Christian custom of burning Candles at the Monuments of Saints, is therefore censured by the French Protestant for (6) an Idolater, and defender of Idolatry; who also further adds, that Vigilantius laughing at that custom, did prove himself more Christian, and more faithful to God, than Hierome etc. Yea if I knew Hierome to have died in that error, I would never call him Saint, but as damned as the Devil. In like fort, S. Hierome writing against Vigilantius for prayer to Saints, the same Protestant saith: c) Ibi. p. 239. I think Hierom when he writ these words against Vigilantius, 119) Cent. 4. col. 601. was driven into rage, and deprived of sense and understanding. So grievously displeasing was S. Hierome, to both old and new borne Heretics. The Armenians not mingling water with wine in the Chalice are defended by D. Fulk, 120) Def. of the English Transl. c. 17. p. 458. saying: The Armenians are commendable in this point, that they would never yield to custom. Lastly the Magician himself is defended against Theodoret by Osiander, 121) Cent. 4. p. 326. for denying the sign of the Cross, b) Clypeus fid. Dial. 8. p. 223. and the virtue and power thereof against Devils. So clear it is, even by the full confessions of our Protestants themselves, that the doctrines condemned in the old Heretics, by the Doctors and Fathers of the primitive church, are now renewed, defended, and believed by Protestants themselves. PROTESTANT'S VSVAL RECRIMINATION of objecting old Heresies to the Catholic Roman church, is clearly examined, discovered, and confuted by their own acknowledgements. CHAPTER. VI Protestant's being unable to clear themselves of so foul a stain, as teaching and believing so many absurd and condemned Heresies, do subtly endeaver to divert or extenuate their so great reproach, by falsely intruding upon the Roman Church, the like defence of sundry condemned errors. But for our easy disburdening thereof: It is to be observed, that Heresy is not an open Enemy to truth and religion; but a subtle Depraver thereof, by subtracting from it, or adding thereto: So as Truth & Error having but one object, are divided though ever really, yet oftentimes but, as it were, by a seeming slender nicety, or difference of words. In which respect he that will object pertinently in this kind, must object not any resemblance or likelihood, but an Identity of opinion; for otherwise, as D. Covel 1) Def. of Hooker. p. 49. teacheth not unaptly to this purpose: The neernes oftentimes to evil, is warrant enough for suspicion to accuse of evil; and because all errors are not equally distant from truth, some men (as now in this case we Catholics) are in their true assertions, by weak judgements (of such like as the vulgar Protestants) supposed, not to differ at all from errors. And hence I take it to be, that D. Morton as but dareth to begin his objection in this kind against us, with a nearness 2) Prot. Appeal. p. 675. unto Heresy. As also saith he unto Catholics: Let 3) Ib. 675. 676. them tell us, whether they have not (we say not an absolute, but yet) a greater affinity with those foresaid Heresies, then have the Protestants etc. Where, for M. Doctors better satisfaction, I will tell him, that sundry of his other Brethren, nothing inferior to himself, have plainly acknowledged in the precedent Chapter, an absolute Identity in steed of Affinity with former Heretics; thereupon not sparing bitterly to reprove the learnedst, and most ancient Fathers, for their so censuring and condemning our Protestants true progenitors, the ancient Heretics. And that all pretended affinity, between our Catholic Religion, and old condemned Heresies, is nothing else, but the ignorant or malicious traducement of Protestant Writers, this present Chapter shall fully demonstrate. First then D. Fulk 4) Answ. to a Counterf. Cath. p. 22. objecteth unto us: To make the Images of Christ, and of the Apostles, and to cense them: you learned of the Heretics called Gnostici, and Carpocratites. Epiph. L. 1. Tom. 2. Secondly, of the Valentinians, you learned to have in price, the sign of the Cross. Thirdly, of the Heracleonites, you learned to anoint men at point of death; and to cast water upon dead men with Invocation. Epiphan. Her. 36. Fourthly, of the Cainans you learned to call upon Angels. Epiph. Haer. 38. Fiftly, of the Marcionists you learned to give women leave to Baptise: Epiph. Haer. 42. Sixtly, of the Collindians you learned to make Images of the Virgin mary, and to worship them and her with offering of Candles, as they did of Cakes. Epiph. Haer. 79. Seaventhly, of the Messalanians, you learned to let your locks grow long: Epiph. Haer. 80. Eightly, of the Pharisees you received your superstitious Massing-garments, which you call Amictus, D●lmatica, and Pallia etc. Thus far D. Fulk. First in general I answer hereto, that all this is most impertinently urged, seeing there is not any of the foresaid Examples, which being truly delivered, is not at this day condemned by the Roman Church, as being not slenderly, or obscurely, but most strongly and manifestly different from our Catholic doctrine, either by certain excess, or defect thereto. But to descend to particulars: To the first against Images I answer with S. Epiphanius, that those Heretics were reproved, for that together 5) Epiph. her. 27. Iren. l. 1. c. 24. with the Images of Philosophers, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and others, they did set up the Images of jesus, and did then adore them, and celebrate the mysteries of the Pagans; all which the Catholic Church doth censure for damnable idolatry. To the second, against the sign of the Cross, the Valentinians are reprehended by S. Ireneus, 6) Iren. l. 1. c. 1. Epiph. her. 31. & S. Epiphanius, for inventing 30. Gods, which they called Aones, and in them two Christ's, one of which they named Crux; but against the sign of the Cross, they do not so much as insinuate any one word. As to the third, against Extreme Unction, prayer for the dead, and sprinkling them with Holie-water, S. Epiphanius 7) Her. 36. Iren. l. 1. c. 18. answereth: That the Heracleonites thinking to redeem those, who were seduced by them, at the end of their life, some of them poured upon the head of the Party departed, oil mingled with water; others an ointment which is called the juice of Balm, and water; yet both using this common Invocation etc. Nessia, Vphareg, Namepsaeman, Chaldaeam, Mosomedea, Acplirane, Psewa, jesu Nazaria: And this they do that those, who have these invocations at the end of their life, with water, and oil, or an ointment mingled, may be incomprehensible and enuisible to supernal Principalities and Powers. Thus far S. Epiphanius, and the same is taught by S. Ireneus. All which is most impertinent & dissonant to our known doctrines of Extreme Unction, Prayer for the dead, and Holie-water. To the Fourth, against Invocation of Angels; S. Epiphanius 8) Haebr. 3. cited, plainly testifieth, that the Cainans worshipped Caïn and judas, glorying that they were allied to them: As also to the Sodomites, Esau, and Core; affirming that others could not be saved, except they went through all sins, referring their particular abominations, either to Angels, or to such as falsely by them were called Angels, attributing to every one of them, some heinous sin, applying their action to the name of the Angel, whom they wil And when they do these things, they say: O Angel, I use thy work; o Power, I do thy action. All which is condemned by Catholics, as most ridiculous and impious. To the Fifth, against Baptism by women in case of necessity; S. Epiphanius (9) Haer. 42 testifieth, that Martion held, that a man might be thrice Baptised; & that he made women no less than men, the public and ordinary Ministers of Baptism. Now that women may Baptise in case of necessity, it is defended by (10) Hook. Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sec. 61. 62. Schluselburg. Theol. Cal. f. 68 Lambert. Act. mon. p. 541. Woodman. Ib. p. 1590. Sarcerius loc. come. f. 229. sec. Whiteg. Def. p. 518. 522. 523. 518. sundry Protestants. And more than this, the Roman Church doth not teach herein. To the sixth, against the Images, and worship of our B. Lady, S. Epiphanius 11) Haer. 79. writeth, that certain women decking a square table, and spreading a linen cloth over it, upon a solemn day of the year, did set on bread, and offer it, in the name of mary; so taking upon them, to be her Priests, and to offer Sacrifice to her: Which S. Epiphanius condemneth, in that, saith he, from the beginning of the world, never waman Sacrificed to God, no not Eve; as also in that God only, is to be honoured with Sacrifice. All which is also rejected by the Roman Church, which only alloweth Sacrifice to God. To the Seaventh, against long hair, I do not understand why it is urged more against us, then against themselves: But as for the Messalians, 12) Haer. 80. S. Epiphanius recordeth that they suffered their heads to grow at length like women; which I have neither seen, nor heard to be practised in any Catholic Country. To the Eighth, against Church-garments; S. Epiphanius 13) Haer. 15.16. writeth that the Scribes and Pharisees wore in their common daily garments, Cassocks with dilated Philacteries, and enlarged fringes; which use also our Saviour 14) Mat. 23.5. describeth in them, as noting thereby their hypocrisy. But what maketh this against Church apparel, which Protestant Ministers, and Bishops themselves use, and which D. Whiteguift 15) Def. p. 264. defendeth, deriving the use thereof from the Apostles times? But D. Fulk 16) Against Purgatory p. 419. yet farther urgeth against Catholics that, They take prescript times of fasting, and unmeasurable 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 17) Answ. to a Count Cath. p. 21. 22. the Essenes', the superstition of Relics; for they used 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 used them to cure diseases. Fiftly, of the said Elxai, to command the people to pray in a strange tongue. But all this is as idle and impertinent as the former. And so to the first against prescribed times of fast, D. Fulk shall receive his answer from his own Brethren, 18) Eccl. Pol. l 5. p. 209. 210. M. Hooker answereth, that the Montanists were reprehended only, for that they brought in sundry unaccustomed days of fasting; continued their fasting a great deal longer, and made them more rigorous etc. Whereupon Tertullian maintaining Montanisme, wrote a book in defence of the new Fast. 19) Exam. part. 4 p. 143. Chemnitius confesseth more particularly, that the Montanists make three Lents in the year, as though three Saviour's had suffered in the year. And he further chargeth them for ieiunia propria; for Fasts peculiar to themselves. In like sort, an other 20) Querimonia Eccl. p. 110. Protestant roriter answereth saying: They say that Eusebius plainly teacheth that Montanus made the first laws of fasting; but they are gratly deceived in this, as in other things &c, Montanus abrogating the Fasts of the Church, brought in a new custom of fasting. Herein also D. Morton is our kind Advocate. (a) Prot. Appeal. p. 309. We object not (saith he) unto our Adversaries the grossness of the Montanists, who held three lents; wherein they imposed only an abstinence from dry me●ts; upon an opinion etc. that those things had an evil beginning: Now if D. Fulk be comprehended in D. morton's (We) then did he undeservedly object against Catholics, the error of the Montanists. So wholly impertinent is the objection from Montanus. And as to the abstinence from flesh, and marriage; the Manichees and Tatianists condemned flesh & marriage, as pertaining to the i'll God: according to the Heresy of the Valentinian before them. To this end saith 21) Ad Quod vult-Deu. haer. 25. 40. 53. S. Austin of the Tatianists or Encratites: They condemn marriages, and esteem of them all alike as of fornication, and other pollutions; neither admit they to their number, any that use marriage. They eat●● flesh, but account all flesh as abominable. A thing so evident, that the Puritan M. jacob 22) Def. of the Church's Ministry of Eng. p. 59 answerably acknowledgeth in our behalf, that Martion the Heretic, and Tatamus, did absolutely condemn marriage, and certain meats, and so are in no comparison with the Papists, if they erred in nothing else. In like sort saith D. Morton; our Adversaries b) Prot. Appeal. p. 600. feared the eating of certain meats, as the Heretical Tatianists and Manichees anciently had done; but with a difference; for the foresaid Heretics taught, that men might not eat certain sorts of meats, because they thought they were not made of the good God, but of the Evil; for the which cause they were condemned in Counsels. But abstinence from certain meats is appointed in our Church (say the Rhemists) for chastising the body with Penance; Hereby unto us, that it is not always Quid, but Quo; that is, not the same Action, but the diverse principles and intentions of the Action, do distinguish truth from Heresy. So confessed a difference there is, even in D. Mortons' judgement, between our Catholic truth, and the Heresy of the Tatianists, and Manichees concerning abstinence from certain meats. 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 allege any one testimony, of any one Father, witnessing the same, or charging Montanus with error in that respect. Yea his own conscience did tell him the contrary, when he confessed that he uttered this but of 23) Against Purgat. p. 417. thought, and 24) Ib. p. 263. conjecture, and as a thing that may well be so: Whereas I have proved (25) at large, that Prayer for the dead, was taught by S. Cyprian, & other Father's living with, and before Montanus. To the third against Purgatory fire; origen's error was, that Hel-fire was not everlasting, but temporal; which (as S. Austin (26) Ad. quod vult. haer. 43. relateth) should in time purge not only them, that had ended their lives in most horrible sins; but also the Devils themselves: Which opinion maketh so little, or rather truly nothing against Purgatory, that S. Austin, and S. Epiphanus, who confute the errors of Origen, do yet (27) See before. l. 2. c. 11. confessedly believe and defend the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead. To the fourth against worshipping of Relics of Saints; 28) haer. 19 S. Epiphanius reporteth, that the Essenes' were a sect of jews, & that Marthis being the kinswoman of Elxat, and Marthana his sister, they were in the country of the Essenes' adored for Gods, for that they were of Elxais stock; The spittle of which woman, and the filthes of their bodies, the Heretics of that country did take to them, thereby to cure diseases, but yet without any effect at al. Now, as this folly of the Essenes' maketh nothing at all, against the 29) Act. 19.12. napkins, or handkerchefs, which being brought from Paul's body to the sick, the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out; so neither doth it make any thing against the Religious estimation of Saint's Relics, and the Miraculous cures, which God hath showed by them; according to the undoubted and confessed report, and 30) See before. l. 2. c. 15. testimony of the ancient Doctors. To the fift against the vulgar people's praying in Latin, or other unknown tongue; S. Epiphanius relateth, amongst the other errors of Elxai, 31) 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 vain words. But what maketh this against godly prayers allowed and prescribed by the Pastors of Christ's Church? So that D. Fulks pretended errors against the Catholic Church are nothing else, being duly examined, but malicious, forged, and idle inventions of his own brain. Other Protestants m) Whitaker contra Duraeum. l. 7. fol. 480. object, that we take from the Manichees, Communion under one kind. But this also is most untrue, for 32) Exam. part. 2. p. 145. Zepperus de Sacrament. p. 41. Chemnitius himself truly explaineth this, and saith: The Manichees, because they detested wine, as an abominable thing, and imagined the body of Christ, as only fantastical, not to have had true blood, they endeavoured to bring in the receiving only of one kind; for which errors they were condemned, by S. Leo, and Gelasius; and are still by all Catholic Doctors. And we are further cleared herein at large by (a) Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 139 140. D. Morton in these words: Knowing that the Manichees did heretically celebrate the Eucharist only in one kind, the bread, but the wine they did not allow, because they imagined wine to have been created by an evil spirit, and were therefore anciently condemned for Heretics; would now the Apologists hold it conscionable in Protestants, to accuse the Romanists of that Heresy of the Manichees, because they distribute not the Eucharist in both the elements bread and wine? Nay would they not rather reject this accusation, as altogether injurious saying: It was not the Manichees abstinence from the wine, but the reason of that forbearance, which was judged heretical? So kind is M. Morton here to Catholics; and so scrupulous in conscience, lest they should be injured, with this so unworthy imputation. But where was his conscience, or ordinary senses, when directly contrary to the premises, in the same book of the Appeal, himself produceth D. Whitaker, and joineth with him, charging us Catholics with the said imputed Heresy of the Manichees? saying: But b) Ib. p. 505. M. Whitaker in the same place, did further more note the administration of the Eucharist but in one kind, now used in the Romish Church to have had the original from the Manichees, etc. Where now then was his want? Shall it not be rather imputed to the Apologists, who have not answered unto those points, which they have so willingly concealed, then unto our Doctors, who hath objected so many & c? Thus confessing D. Whitaker to have objected to Catholics the foresaid Heresy of the Manichees; and himself reproving our Apologists, for not answering him therein, and as not able (saith he) willingly concealing the same. But where was conscience now when D. Morton writ this? Sure I am not in himself, howsoever in D. Whitakers; for himself confessed before, that it was not conscionable in Protestants, to accuse the Romanists, of that Heresy of the Manichees, which yet himself doth, citing, and justifying D. Whitakers therein. I might produce such like impertinent matter pretended by Protestants: but because it is rather urged by them, to delude the ignorant and unlearned, then upon any conscience or confidence of truth, I will therefore conclude, with the more sincere proceeding of their own Brother in this kind M. Parker, and that in his own words: 33) Against Symbol. part. 1. p. 149. we lay (saith he) to the Papists charge a Communion with Carpocrates, in worshipping Images; with the Heracleonites in anointing the dead with oil, with the Tatiam in abstaining from marriage, with the Peputiani in suffering women to be Priests; with the Manichees in abstaining from meats; with the Angelici in worshipping Angels; with the Apostolici and Hieraclites in their Monks, Nuns, and Friars with the like (being the examples objected by D. Fulk, D. Willet D. Morton, and others) when yet our hearts (saith M. Parker) do know they can shift with distinctions, to make appear, for manner and meaning, a certain distance between these Heretics, and themselves. Now if the hearts and Consciences of Protestants do know, that both for manner & meaning, Catholics can make appear, a certain distance or difference between the objected Heretics and themselves; what impenitent hearts and obdurate Consciences bear they, still thus endeavouring by studied sleights and forgeries, ever to obscure and disgrace, the known and most renowned truth of Catholic Faith and Religion? Wherefore I may truly say to them, as S. Stephen said to the jews: 34) Act. 7.51. You stiffnecked and uncircumsised hearts and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost: As your fathers (the old Heretics) yourselves also. A FURTHER TRIAL IS MADE, Whether Catholics or Protestants be true Heretics; and this by sundry known badges or marks of Heresy. CHAPTER VII. D. Morton is of opinion, that 1) Appeal p. 577. Heresy is the Helen of Greece, engendering dissension for some carnal respects; the Devil's Concubine, conceiving deformed shapes of error; an Adder writhing itself into perplexed senses and contradictions; and an Ape, imitating only the terms of truth: Both Protestants and Romanists (saith he) would be loath to be patterned by these Hieroglyphics; We are now to try them both by their own certain scantlings. After I had much wondered to see the man thus madly to describe his own shame; I was further hence encouraged to give him an other most certain scantling, of his own Infancy and misery in this behalf. It hath ever been holden, an infallible Badge of an Heretic, being originally or formally a member of Christ's true Church, to go out or depart from thence to new Sects or Congregrations by their damnable Apostasy, of whom thus reporteth S. Paul: 2) Act. 20.39.30. I know that after my departure, there will ravening wolves enter in amongst you, not sparing the flock: And out of your owneselues shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away Disciples after themselves. In prevention whereof, his best advice is, that 3) Hebr. 10.23.25. we hold the Confession of our hope undeclining etc. not forsaking our assembly, as some are accustomed. S. john speaking of Heretics, the forerunners of Antichrist; for our better notice, he brandeth them with this mark: 4) 1. Io. 2.19. They went out from us. S. jude 5) vers. 18.19. affirmeth, that in the last time shall come mockers, according to their own desires, walking in impieties; and then he nameth them, saying; These are they which segregate themselves. Yea the Apostles and Priests of Jerusalem, being assembled together in Council, to 6) Act. 15.5. repress the Heresy of the Pharisees and others, teaching Circumcision, and commanding the Law of Moses to be kept; they expressly say of these Heretics, 7) Act. 15.24. Because we have heard, that certain going forth from us, have troubled you, with words subverting your soul etc. Yea Christ himself foretelling the coming of Heretics, forewarneth us against them, saying; 8) Math 24 26. If they shall say unto you, Behold (Christ) is in the desert (of our invisible Church) go ye not out: to wit, from your former known Church. 9) Gal. 5.19.20. Tit. 3.10. 2. Cor. 11.19. So that the sacred Scriptures have left us for the special Mark and Character of Heresy; The going-out, or Apostaring from the known visible Church of Christ. In so much as the word, Heresy, (in Scripture so odious) being in Greek, HERESIS doth truly signify singular Election and separation, as both Peter 10) Com. Places. Par. 2. p. 330. Muscu. loc. come. p. 552. Martyr and Musculus confess. Most answerably hereunto saith S. Austin: 11) Tract. 3. in Ep. joan. All Heretics, all Schismatics have gone out from us, that is they go out of the Church. And giving the reason why the Prophets spoke more plainly of the Church then of Christ, he saith: 12) 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 raise up great strifes about the Church: Therefore that was more plainly foretold and prophesied, about which there was to be greater dissensions, that so it might serve to them for judgement (or condemnation) who have seen her, and fled out from her. Optatus adviseth that, 13) L. 1. It is to be observed who remainenth in the Root with the whole world, who goeth forth. And 14) Adverse haer. c. 34. Vincentius demandeth: Who ever hegun Heresies, but he who first severed himself from the union of the universality and Antiquity of the Catholic Church? which to be so, examples make known more clear than the Sun. But this point is so clear, that the truth thereof is accordingly acknowledged and approved by Protestant Doctors. So D. Field maketh this peculiar 15) Of the Church l. 1. c. 13. p. 25. 26 Alison in his confut. of Brownism. p. 1. unto Schismatics and Heretics: To departed, and go out from the Church of God. In Osiander 16) Cent. 1. p. 78. it is said: Observe, Heretics go out of the Church. M. Clapham speaking of our Saviour's former words, 17) Remedy against Schism p. 23 affirmeth: That thereby our Saviour forbids going out unto such desert and corner Ghospels. And will 18) Chronological discourse. c. 7. And upon the song of songs fol 3. And see Zanchius in miscelanea. p. 55. 56. 57 we not reverence before God's judgement, and take heed of Going out, as our Saviour premonished? Pantaleon saith: 19) Ep. nuncu pat. Christi Chronogr. we have assigned the third place to Heretics, who have Gone out of the elect people of God, but were not of them. So that Scriptures Fathers and Protestants do all of them agree: That the Going out or departing from the Church, is the Badge of Heresy; and Persons so Going out, are thereby marked Heretics. Examples hereof we have in all former Heretics; in Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Pelagius, Eutyches, Donatus, waldo, Wicclif, Husse etc. who all of them, being at first Roman Catholics, through Innovation of opinions, afterwards severed themselves from their mother Church, going out from her to new Congregations. But now to apply this to Catholics and Protestants and briefly to examine whether company hath gone or departed out of a former known Church, the true Church of Christ; and first to give M. D. Morton, a short scantling concerning himself & his Brethren; his own neighbour M. Mason, answering certain demands of Catholics in this kind saith: a) Consecrat of English bishops p. 41. When it pleased him, which causeth the light to spring out of darkness, we did spring from yourselves, being still content to be yours, so you would be Christ's. In like sort saith a) Apol. p. 288. D. jewel: We have indeed gone from the Pope, we have shaken of the yoke of the Bishop of Rome. It is true (saith b) Act. mon. p. 3. M. Fox) we are removed from the Church of Rome. And D. Rainolds c) In his Conclusions annexed to his Conference. maketh this one of his Conclusions: That the reformed Churches in England, Scotland, France, Germany, and other kingdoms, and commonwealths have severed themselves, lawfully (saith he) from the Church of Rome. And as for Luther himself, he was at first so Roman Catholic, as that (saith, he (d) In Ep ad Gal. fol. 38. and see 37. 188. I did so highly esteem the Pope's authority, that to descent from him, even in the least point, I thought it a sin, worthy of everlasting death, and would myself in the defence of the Pope's Authority, have ministered fire and sword. Caluin speaking of Protestants in general expressly saith: 20) In Ep. 141. p. 273. we were enforced to make a departure from the whole world; yea we 21) Instit. l. 4. c. 6. § 1. have departed, saith he, from her, to wit, the Roman Church. And so accordingly it is so evident, that Waldo, Wicliffe, Husse, Luther, Caluin, Zuinglius etc. were first borne, baptised, and brought up in the Catholic Church, from whence afterwards through Novelty & Liberty they went out, & became Apostates, as that to endeavour any special proof thereof, might justly be censured of no less idle vanity, then to seem to deny it, of greatest ignorance or impudency. And so leaving our Protestants thus confessedly Going out of our former Catholic Roman Church, and thereby branding themselves with the infamous Mark of Heretics: I will examine what Protestants think of the Roman Church in this behalf. And indeed this crime of Going out, is in itself so foul a blemish, as that some Protestants much desire to stain our Roman purity therewith. So D. Fulk would have the world to think, That 22) Retentive p. 85. the Popish Church, is but an Heretical Assembly, departed from the universal Church, long since Augustins' departure out of this life. With whom agreeth his Brother blindbyard D. Sutclif, affirming, That 23) Survey of Poper p. 315. the Papists are a sect going out of Christ's Church, and rising long after Christ's time. But these great Doctors speak much, but prove nothing; for it behoved them, to assign a former Church, from whence the Papists thus revolted, as also the persons, who; the time, when; with other Circumstances; of all which they rest silent. Wherefore to clear our Roman Church of this so foul Imputation, & that to the perfect sight of the blearedst eye; And first to omit all former testimonies, plentifully exhibited in proof of her confessed, known, and uninterrupted Conrinuance from the Apostles times to these of ours; as also to forbear, that ancient Doctors and Writers in all Ages do specially mention and register up, all notorious departures made by any Heretics from the true Church, not insinuating the least concerning our Roman: Our Innocence herein is so notoriously apparent, as that sundry Protestants being provoked in this kind to give the least Instance of any such departure in our Roman Church, are ever enforced in their answer thereunto, only to fly to our pretended departure from the sacred Scriptures; so passing over all precedent Ages, without any colour of Examples to be urged against us. So M. Knewstubs 24) Answer to certain assertions etc. p. 35. answereth: you require to know, if our doctrine were the same, which they in the Primitive Church professed, who they were that did at that time note our Going out etc. This question is altogether unnecessary; for when an offender is taken with the manner, it is needless to stand upon Examination of them, who were at the deed doing: We have taken you with the manner; that is to say, with Doctrine divers from the Apostles; and therefore neither Law nor conscience can force us to examine, who were witnesses of your first departing. With whom agreeth M. Powel, only answering, that the Roman Church, is 25) Consideration of the Papists supplication p. 36. fallen from the doctrine comprehended in the writings of the Apostles. But to omit, that this answer is a base and shameless begging of the thing itself in question, to wit, that we are departed from the Scriptures, which, as most untrue, we ever do deny: It is further most impertinent to the point now urged, which is, whether the Roman Church, hath gone out from any other known Church; yea it most strongly argueth the contrary, seeing they much desiring to exemplify against us herein, for want of all Instance during these 1600. years, constrained to jump them over, and only to insist in the writings of the Apostles; than which what more strongly can be urged in our behalf? And yet in like sort for want of better answer, D. Sutclif 26) Answer to the mass. Priests supplicat. c. 7. saith: Neither is it material that the Roman Church never went out of any known Christian Society: So insinuating her never Going out, with is the only thing I here desire to prove. But if this be not material with D. Sutclif, yet is it most material and convincing with all men of judgement; for if the Roman Church or any other Church, having once been confessed members of the true ancient visible Church of Christ, did never departed, or Go out of the said true Church; then are they still yet within it, and members of it; Now that the Romam Church was not only a true Church in the Apostles times, but also unto the time of S. Austin and further, it is abundantly already confessed; and therefore seeing she hath confessedly never departed out; the sequel is evident, that still she continueth t●e true Church; than which, what can be urged more material either in our defence, or more disgraceful against all 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 known visible Church, do chief urge and pretend their own communion with the Roman Church in all Ages whatsoever. So M. Bunnie very wisely teacheth that, 27) Treat. to pacific. see 18. p. 108. Of departing from the Church there ought to be no question at all amongst us etc. we 28) Ib. p. 113. are no several Church from them, nor they from us, and therefore there is no departing at all out of the Church, for any to departed from them to us, nor from us to them: All the difference between us, is concerning the truer members, whether we, or they may be found more worthy of that account: As for the other, we allow no such question. In so much that he affirmeth; that 29) Ib. p. 109. it was il done of them, who first urged such a separation, confessing further, our advantage 30) Sec. 15. p. 92. given thereby; for that 31) ●b. p. 96. (saith he) it is great probability with them, that so we make ourselves answerable for to find out a distinct and several Church from them, which continued from the Apostles Age to this present; else, that needs we must acknowledge, that our Church is sprung up of late, or since theirs. So earnestly doth he labour his Churches not Departing from the Roman Church; and thereby supposeth the Roman Churches never departing from any other, for if the Roman Church had ever departed herself, than were it no proof, but rather a conviction of the Protestant Churches most certain departure. But instead of all such pretended departure, D. Field acknowledgeth further, That 32) Of the Church. p. 88 the Roman Church held still Communion with those other (Churches) which never fell into error, and so were both of one Communion: Which evidently proveth she never went out of the true Church, but still preserved Communion and Society with her. So evident it is, that our Roman Church is freed from that infamous Mark of Heresy of Going out of the Church; which yet Protestants have so clearly done, going out of our Roman Church, and that our honour, and their infamy therein, is proclaimed to the world, by men condemned thereby, even by Luther, Caluin, Osiander, Pantaleon, Clapham, Alison, Mason, Fox, Rainolds, jewel, Fulk, Sutclif, Knewstubs, Powel, Bunnie and Field. But to give M. D. Morton yet another scantling, whether Catholics or Protestants be truly Heretics: It is a supposed principle taught by S. Hierome: 33) Ad Ctesiphont and Vincent Lyri. count. haereses c. 4. That to reduce an Heresy to it beginning, is a confuting of it. Thus S. Ireneus refuted the Valentinians, and Marcionists, saying. 34) L. 3. c. 4. Before Valentine, there were not any which are from Valentine; neither before Martion, were they which are from Martion. And D. Whitaker avoucheth, That 35) Cont. Duraeum l. 7. p. 479. no man denyeth, but that it much availeth to the confuting of Heresies to have known their beginning. In like sort D. Fotherbie, in behalf of the Cross, argueth thus: If 36) Answ. to object against the Cross in Bap. p. 26. it be but an humane invention, let us know, I pray you, the first Inuentour of it, and when it was first decreed, and how it came so soon to be so generally observed; which if you cannot show us, I think we may with greater probability esteem it to be an Apostoltcal Tradition. D. Saravia saith upon an other occasion: 37) In def. Tract. de diverse minist. Grad. c. 23. p. 361. I answer it is not enough to say so, but it must be showed out of Histories, which were those schisms, and where, and when they sprung up; and how from thence so general a custom came. Agreably writeth M. Bel 38) Regiment of the Church p. 26. 27. If any man deny this old custom, let that man show, when it came in. And D. jewel urgeth D. Harding, concerning an error of former times alleged by him. 39) Reply p. 112. If there had been any show of truth in it, M. Harding would have laid out all the Circumstances, when this strange error first began, where, and how long it continued, who wrote against it & c? Verily this great silence declareth some want. D. Bilson saith: (a) Survey of Christ's sufferings, p. 660. The report of Eusebius proveth this clause, of Christ's descending to Hades, to have been anciently and openly professed in the primitive Church; otherwise the Religious of those Ages, that lived with, and after Eusebius, if he had broached any new point of Faith, as in duty they were bound, so no doubt they would have refuted and resisted them. D. Whiteguift, defending Cathedral Churches against M. Cartwright, demandeth accordingly of him: 40) Denfen. p. 747. From what Pope they came, or in what time they were first invented? Yea he further teacheth: 41) Ibid. p. 351. That as for so much as the original and beginning of these names, Metropolitan, Archbishop etc. such is their antiquity, cannot be found, so fare as I have read, it is to be supposed, they have their original from the Apostles themselves; for as I remember S. Austin hath this Rule in his 118 Epistle. And, 42) Ibid. p 352. It is of credit with the writers of our time, namely, with M. Zuinglius, M. Caluin, and M. Gualther, and surely I think no learned man doth descent from them. Lastly saith D. Morton (a) Prot. Appeal. p. 465. We willingly join issue, and if we cannot prove, that the Roman Church hath in many weighty points of Religion degenerated from herself, then shall we no more decline from her, as from a malignant stepdame, but devoutly yield unto her all due acknowledgement, as unto a Mother-church. And now to join issue herein with M. Doctor, and so to square hereby the truth of Roman, or Protestant Religion: Our Catholic Faith is so confessedly free, from any known beginning since the Apostles, and so wholly agreeable with S. Augustine's foresaid Rule, as that 43) Ib. Thereby (in M. Cartwrights opinion) a window is open to bring in all Popery; yea 44) Ibid. p. 103. I appeal to the judgement of all men, if this be not to bring in Popery again, to allow of S. Augustine's saying. So evident it is, that Popery is without any known beginning, and consequently no Heresy. In like sort M. Powel being provoked, that if 45) Consideration of the Pap sts Supplic. p. 43. our Doctrine be error, then to tell us when it came in, who was the Author of it etc. answereth thereto directly in our behalf saying: We cannot tell by whom, or at what time the Enemy did sow it etc. Neither indeed do we know, who was the Author of every one of your blasphemous epinions. And so D. Whitaker confesseth: 46) Resp. ad Camp. Rat. 7. p. 101. That the time of the Roman Churches change cannot easily be told: Yea well foreknowing the impossibility of any such time to be assigned, he only evadeth by affirming, That Protestants 47) 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 beginning of this change. With whom agreeth Buchanus, saying: 48) loc. come. p. 466. It belongeth not to us to assign what time the Church begun to fade away. But if this be not needful for D. Whitaker or other Protestants to find out; why did D. Whitaker before teach, that no man denyeth but that it much availeth, for the confuting of Heresis, to have known their beginning: So forcible is the truth of the Roman Churches never changing in Faith and Religion. D. Field being urged to give Instance of any Contradiction made against the Roman Church, upon the example but of any one first known change in Doctrine; in steed of answer, acknowledgeth, that 49) Of 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 beginnings, that the Authors of these new and false opinions, were not disclaimed and noted as damnable Heretics: Yea the Authors of these errors, and they that were free from them, were, notwithstanding these differences, both of our Communion; and therefore the Circumstances (of the first Author, and his Contradiction etc.) cannot be showed. Here though it pleased M. Doctor to term our Catholic points of Doctrine errors, yet is he further pleased in our behalf plainly to acknowledge, that no first Author or beginning can be showed of these pretended errors, which is the point we desire. D. Fulk likewise being urged to give any example of the time when, or by whom, our Roman Faith was contradicted, or charged with Innovarion, only saith: 50) Rtjoinder to Bristol p. 265. I answer, my text saith, it was a Mystery not revealed, and therefore could not be openly preached against. But though the Iniquity or Apostasy foretold by 51) 2 Thess. 2.7. S. Paul, whereof D. Fulk speaketh, be a Mystery in t●e prediction; yet this nothing letteth, but that it may be conspicuous and most markable in he event; as the accomplishment of all predictions are. Yea this truth, of no known beginning or change in our Roman Faith, is so certain, as that sundry Protestants earnestly labour to find out several pretences or excuses, why any such change or Innovation was never noted, or observed; so supposing and granting their ignorance of all such imaginary change; and only seeking to evade by mere fallacies, and impertinent examples. Thus D. Fulk examining, why our Religion entered the Primitive Church without Contradiction, resolveth, 52) Answ. to a Counterfeit Cath. p. 43. that it entered by small degrees at the first, and was therefore less espied by the true Pastors, who were earnestly occupied against greater Heresies, as the Valentinians, Marcionists, and Manichees: And therefore 53) Against Purgatory p. 256. either had no leisure to espy, or else made less account to reform the same. But this is most idle; for the Fathers were most watchful and ready to suppress all errors, even of much lesser importance in themselves, then are, or were our Catholic Doctrines of Mass, Real Presence, Adoration of the Sacrament, Confession, justification by work etc. t●ough we should for the time, suppose them to be errors. Examples hereof might be given, about the keeping of Easter-day 54) Ignat. Ep. ad Philip. Euseb. l. 2. c. 22. 23. in the time of Victor, and before; about prescript days of 55) Epiph. haer. 75. fasting; about mingling of water 56) with wine in the Chalice; about the very ceremonies 57) of Exorcism and Exufflation in Baptism, and sundry such like, which I purposely pretermit; D. Covel himself granting, that 58) Examination etc. p. 64. 65. great and violent dissensions have risen in the Church for Ceremonies; and that Counsels have condemned (some) as Heretics, only for being opposite in this kind. But D. Fulk urgeth further that some of our opinions, as namely Prayer for the dead, 59) Answer to a Count Cath. p. 39 deceived simple men the sooner, because it had a pretence of charity, and show 60) Against Purgat. p. 386. of piety confirmed by custom, whereby it was at length allowed of by Austin, and others, who never weighed the matter by Scripture. But what errors had more pretence of piety or charity, than origen's; for the Salvation of Devils; Tertullias for chastity, S. Cyprians against Baptism by Heretics, Montanus for austere Fast, and Papias for Christ's raigninge upon earth a thousand year's aster the Resurrection? and yet all these, Montanus only excepted, being principal men, and of special deservings in the Church of Christ, were grievously contradicted and reproved by the Catholic Doctors of theirs and succeeding times for these very errors. But M. Woton persisteth, saying, to Catholics: 61) Trial of the Roman Clergy p. 378. It is ridiculous for you to challenge us to show, when the Faith received by the Church of Rome from the Apostles, began to fail in it; it was done, as our Saviour speaks in the like case, while men slept: And the same sleepy argument is urged by D. White 62) Way to the true Church p. 371. But this is clearly to contradict God himself, who said, 63) Isa. 62.6. upon thy walls o Jerusalem, have I set watch men; all the day and all the inght for ever, they shall not hold their peace. Now, if they were all asleep when so many and so great pretended errors of Catholic Doctrines, as are supposed to have begun, and that in several times and Ages, how could they be more silent, or how could they be said to watch, either day or inght? How could that saying of S. Austin be true: 64) Ep. 119. c. 19 The Church of God beset with chaff and cockle, although she tolerate many things (which she is not able to redress) yet such things as be against Faith, or good life, she neither alloweth, nor passeth over in silence? Or how is that verified of D. Fulk, 65) Answ. to a Count Cath. p. 11. and 92. that the true Church hath always resisted all false opinion, with open reprehension? Or how is that true which White himself avoucheth saying: q) Way to the true Church Ep. Ded. sec. 8. The primitive Church, and all the Doctors thereof would never yield, I will not say in an opinion, but not so much as in a form of speech, or in the change of a letter sounding against the orthodoxal Faith etc. Yea r) Ib. sec. 6. the vigilancy, zeal, & courage of the Primitive Bishops was admirable etc. There could no Heresy harbour under them, but they driven it out. So clear it is, that the true Church's Pastors, are never so sleepy, as to suffer any errors to be published or practised without their resistance. But D. White, M. Woton and other Protestants, observing that this pretence of sleeping, would nothing avail them, do therefore acknowledge, that such was the niceness of our imagined Inventions, that they could not be seen or discerned; so faith M. Wooton, 66) Trial of the Roman clergy. p. 383. You press us, that if there had been any alteration of Religion, it would have been recorded; but how should it have been recorded, when it was not seen? The alteration grew so nicely, that few, or none could discern it. D. White exemplifyeth this, saying: 67) Way to the true Churhc p. 370. The Romish Faith came into the true Church, as sickness doth in to the body, and ruin to a house which appeareth not by and by at the first, but then when it is ripened. D. Whitaker instanceth in the hairs of a 68) Cont. Camp. Rat. 7. p. 101. 102. man's head, which wax not white suddenly; and in slifters entering into a building, at first not to be perceived. But to omit that, as Peter Martyr confesseth 69) Epist. anex. to his come. plac. in Engl. p. 131. unless a man do diligently examine similitudes, he shall easily be deceived by them: This argument being taken from excrements, diseases, and ruins, is no less unworthy, infirm, and ruinous itself; for first in none of these is the change made, instantly and at the first, but by degrees and in success of time; whereas in Doctrine every opinion is at the first, either true or false. Secondly, the first whiteness of hairs, or the first decay in health, or building, cannot at the first he discerned, though they were most precisely regarded, which is evidently otherwise in change of Doctrine, and practise thereof. Thirdly, none are specially appointed, neither is there any such urging necessity to mark the first change of the hairs, and the like; whereas it is the special charge, and command, not of few, but of all the Church's Pastors, not only to observe, but also publicly to withstand the other, with the uttermost of their power and learning. But admitting for the time, that the foresaid similitudes were pertinent, and that we were not to urge Protestants to show the first beginning of our so great a change, as is by them imagined; Yet we are in all reason to expect, that as, though the first white hair, or slifter, or degree of disease, be not discerned, yet the further degrees and increase of them being most markable & to be seen, that therefore they are to discover, & describe to us, some sensible proceed, & increase of this our supposed change. And if they will say, it was not made all at once, but by little, & little, sometimes in on point of Faith, sometimes in an other, then still must we urge them to show those several little changes, as what points of doctrine were so by degrees changed? Who were the Authors of the change? What Popes begun or first allowed them? by what Doctors; and Pastors were they first contradicted? Or else, they in all these being most silent, we may most strongly conclude, that our Roman Church, being thus free from all known change or Innovation, since the Apostles times, that therefore she is not any Heretical sect, Going out or departing from a former Church, nor her doctrine Heretical, no one Article thereof being liable to that foulest stain of Innovation. Whereas to the contrary, the very first beginnings, changes, and Apostasies, made by Waldo, Wicclif, Husse, Luther, Suinglius, Caluin, or any other pretended Protestant, in any Age whatsoever, were ever so observed, contradicted, and condemned by the watchful Pastors of the Roman Church, as that every particular, both of Person, time, place, and opinion, are every where to be seen in sundry Writers, both Catholic and Protestant. But to reach M. D. Morton yet an other scantling of an Heretic, we must observe, that this name Christian, given at first to all believers, was especially taken to distinguish them from the jews and Gentiles, which believed not at all in Christ. But when Heretics began to arise from among the Christians, who professed still Christ's name, and sundry Articles of Faith, the name Christian was too general to sever Heretics from true believers. And therefore the Apostles imposed the name Catholic upon all such as in all points were obedient to the Church's Doctrine. Hereof saith expressly M. Wotton 70) Trial of the Romish clergy p. 285. 286. The reason of the name, Catholic, was at first, that there might be a title, to distinguish sound Christians, and true churches, from Heretics. And of the contrary in all Ages it was ever usual that every Sect or Company, embracing new Doctrine, though but in some one or other point contrary to the Catholic faith, received thereupon the like answerable alteration of name; sometimes from the Doctrines so newly embraced, sometimes, and that more usually, from the first Author and Inuentour himself. And it was thought meet, saith M. Woton 71) Ib. p. 286. That Heretics should be called by some special name, either of their Author, or of some points of error which they held. In like sort D. Field doubteth not to say: 72) Of the Church l. 2. c. 9 p. 57 Surely it is not to be denied, but the naming after the names of men, was in the time of the Primitive Church, peculiar and proper to Heretics and Schismatics only. Neither 73) Apology etc. p. 30. 31. do I see (saith M. Parker) any sufficient reason, why those among us, whom singularity in affection, and novelty in faction have denomitated Puritans, should not be distinguished by that name etc. for in truth such new names have in all former Ages for distinction sake been attributed unto all such, who defended new opinions, either devised by themselves, or others, contrary to the received doctrine of the whole Church. Thus from the erroneous Doctrines, which they broached & defended, were named the Heretical Monothelites, Aquarians, Agnoites, Theopaschites, Catabaptists etc. And according to Hospinian 74) Concord discord. f. 131. the Enthusiastes, Anabaptistes, Antimonians, and Sacramentaries; And from that Authors themselves were named the Nicolaites, the Manichees, the Arians, the Pelagians, the Donatists, the Nestorians, the Eutichians, the Waldenses, the Wicclivists, the Hussites, the Lutherans, the Caluinists, the Suinglians. To examine now both Catholics and Protestants about this point: The name, Catholic, we have seen was imposed to distinguish sound Christians, and true Churches, from Heretics; and was for the same cause inserted into the Creed by the Apostles themselves; and so accordingly, it hath been used, and understood by all Fathers 75) Cyril Catech. 18. Aug. Cont. Ep. fundam. c. 4. & de vera Rel. c. 7. Patianur Ep. add Sympron. and Writers in former Ages. And as for the name Papist, as it was never heard of, before this Age of ours, for 1500. years together after Christ; so was it only coined by our new Protestants, and that not upon any necessity, for the professors of our Religion were in being & known by the name of Catholics, in all the foresaid Ages, before the name of Papists was ever heard of. Besides neither doth it point to any one or other special Pope, or new supposed Doctrine in particular, but most strongly for our justification in this behalf, to all Popes and doctrines alike in general. Whereas it is most evident, and for such acknowledged, that sundry Popes have been truly Religious, and Catholic, and their Doctrines answerable. And whereas D. Fulk urgeth against 76) Answ. to a Count Cath. p. 65. us the names of Benedictines, Franciscans etc. as also of Scotists and Thomists: he shall receive his answer only from his own Brother D. Field saying 77) Of the Church l. 2. c. 9 p. ●8. We must observe, that they which profess the Faith of Christ, have been sometimes in these later Ages of the Church called after the special name of such men, as the Authors, Beginners, and Divisers 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 any change or newness of Faith, but only these several Rules and orders of Monasticel and Religious life. And so likewise he further affirmeth, the differences between Scotists and Thomists, to have been in the Controversies of Religion, not yet determined by consent of the universal Church. So that no name was ever appropriated to Catholics, with truly imported any Innovation in matter of Faith. And therefore if D. Field in excuse of the name of Lutherans might say: 78) Of the Church. p. 59 neither was it possible that so so great an alteration etc. 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 Luther's time the ever was, either for longest continuance of time; as being confessedly for 1260. years together; or for multitude of Countries, reigning universally; or for number and weight of chiefest Articles of Faith; and yet for el this cannot all of them find, so much as any step or sign thereof by any then new devised or imposed name, either from Doctrine, Person, or Pope. Whereas to the contrary it is more than evident, that the several names of Protestants, Puritans, Lutherans, Zwinglians, Sacramentaries, and Caluinists, are all of them imposed either through Innovation of Doctrine, or from the first Author of the said sect. So the very name of, Protestants, was at first given to certain of the Lutherans, who opposing themselves against the decrees of the Empire made in behalf of Catholic Religion, & protesting they would stand in defence of their own, were for such their protesting, named Protestanto: A truth so certain that it is accordingly acknowledged and recorded by sundry Protestants 79) Sley. hist. l. 6. f. 81. 82. Osiand. cent. 6. p. 131. Schlus selb. Theol. call. l. 2 f. 155 Fulk Answ to a Count Cath p. 65. themselves. Yea the name, Protestan● (wherewith our new Ghospellers is are best pleased) is so certainly new, and since the revolt of Luther, as that I dare challenge the oldest or learnedst Protestant living, to give the least instance or example of any such name in any Age precedent up to the Apostles. So lately were they christened, by the name of Protestants. And as for Puritans, M. Parker told us before, that they were so denominated through singularity in affection, and novelty in faction. The newness whereof is such, as that it was but heard of after protestancy itself, from whence they went out & departed; & now are become a Sect so different & adverse from the former, as that to be understood, a distinction of names is necessarily required. Now that Lutherans sprung from Luther, Zuinglians or Sacramentaires from Zuinglius, and Caluinists from Caluin, it is too clear to require any proof. Only we cannot but observe that the foresaid several names, are not imposed by Catholics for reproach and disgrace upon Protestants: but are used and required by themselves, for necessary distinction and knowledge of their several, and most dissenting Sects. So saith D. Whitaker 80) Answ. to Rainolds Pref. p. 44. For distinction sake we are enforced to use the name of Protestants. Conradus Schlusselburg saith 81) Catal. Heret. l. 13. & vet. p. 866. When the Divines of our side do call their adversaries, Zwinglians, Caluinians, and Sacramentaries, they do it not for reproach or detraction, as neither of the contrary when they name themselves and the Defenders of their opinions Lutherans. But as Graverus further giveth the reason saying: 82) Absurda Absurdor. Praefat. f. 3. This only is therefore done, that we (Lutherans) may be distinguished from Caluinists, and Papists, from whom either by the common name, either of Christians, or true believers, or Catholics, we cannot be distinguished. So by this means we distinguish ourselves from Caluinists. In like sort saith Hospinian. 83) Hist. Sacram. part. alt. in Prol. & Lavather Hist. Sacr. Praefat. I do abhor those Schismatical names of Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Caluinists, yet in this History I use those names (docendi gratia) to be understood. Rungius speaking of the name of Lutherans saith: 84) Disp. 17. Ex Ep. ad Corinth. Disp. 2. par. 3. sect. 4. And Piscat. his Analysis Logica Ep. Pauli p. 143. These names are used for distinction sake, that etc. they may he known from other men of different Religions, Papists, Caluinists, Anabaptists, and the like. Zanchius complaineth that 85) ●n Epist. l. 1. p. 32. & l. 2. p. 539. in the reformed Churches some are not ashamed to say, we are Lutherans, but others are called Caluinistes, or Zwinglians; hence (saith he) the Churches are divided among themselves. An other Protestant confesseth, that 86) Cathol. Traditions Praef. f. B. 3. the Reformed have no Primate in common, neither any general Synods etc. Thence have entered amongst them etc. the names of Hussites, Lutherans, Caluinists, Puritan. Of which last D. Downham saith: 87) Denfen. l 3. c. 1. p. 8. I did term them Presbyterians, not knowing how to speak of them as dissenting from us (Protestants) more charitably. So confessed it is, that these several names of Lutherans, Zwinglians, Caluinists, Puritan, Protestants, are all of them imposed by themselves, and that upon urgent necessity, that so their difference in Faith, Profession, and Religion might be known and discerned by their several names expressing the same; than which what can be alleged more convincing, either to prove their dissensions amongst themselves, or the point now insisted upon, their palpable Innovation and change in faith, and the very pointing and naming of the very first Authors, and Broachers thereof, and consequently their Sect to be Heretical, seeing the reducing of an Heresy to it beginning, is confessedly a confuting of it. But now some Protestants hereby perceaving our Roman Church to be thus free from all noted change or Innovation, as also their own errors to be easily traced to their first beginnings and first Authors; for their preventing hereby that so odious name of Heretics▪ they endeavour to prove eu●n against their other Brethren, that a Sect or Heretical profession may be published or followed, without note of any known beginning, either of the doctrine, or the Author. So D. Fulk objecteth that, 88) Against Purgat. p. 388. There was an Heresy of them, that were called Acephalt, because there was no Head known of them. But D. Fulk bewrayeth here most grossly his ignorance; for these Heretics, were so named of Severus 89) Conc. Nycen. 2. p. 62. Tom. 3 Niceph. l. 16 c. 27. & l. 28 c. 45. Acephalus Bishop of Antioch, who was their Head; and they were but a part of the Eutychians, whose Head was Eutyches. In so much as the Protestant Pappus saith most directly contrary to D. Fulk: 90) Epist. Hist. Eccl. p. 494. And see Omerod in his picture of a Puritan p. 12. The Ac●phali were so named, not because the first Author of their Error was unknown, but because etc. But beside, though their first Author could not be named, yet is this no proof that their first beginning is not known, which beginning being otherwise proved, the naming of the first Author needeth not, the Author being only sought for, thereby to know the beginning. In like sort, where D. Fulk allegeth there also, the example of the Chiliasts, the Ophites, the Caineans, the Scethites, the Adamites, the Melchisedacheans, the apostolics, the Emerobaptists etc. whose first Authors cannot be named; this in like respect is most impertinent, as well, in that these and many other Heresies received their name, not from their first Author, but from the error itself; as also for that the point here chiefly insisted upon, is not so much of the first Author being known, as of the first beginning being known, and thereupon contradicted: Which beginning and contradiction being discovered, the naming of the first Author is not necessary, we only seeking the Author, as is said before, thereby to know the beginning; now that all these, had a known secondary beginning after the Apostles times, and ware thereupon contradicted, appeareth by S. Epiphanius and S. Austin in their several Books of Heresies, & the same is confessed by the 91) Cent. 2. & 3. c. 5. Pap. Epist. Hist. Eccl. p. 324. 325. 326. 327. 328. 340. Centurie-writers and their Brother Pappus. The like objection is made by D. Field, producing sundry 92) Of the Church l. 3. c. 14. p. 89. Examples, whose first Author (saith he) cannot be named; But besides that, diverse 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 allegeth Contradiction to have been made against all such as were material, himself therein affoardeth most full answer to his own objection. Wherefore seeing many Articles of our Catholic Faith, in the opinion of Protestants, are most grievous errors, and yet they not able to show when any one of them first came in with Contradiction, but in all want thereof, are enforced to betake themselves to the obscure Examples of other opinions never taught, but impugned by the Roman Church, neither ever generally diwlged, but abortive and perished in their first Birth, most of them also arising in the Church's beginning, when by reason of the general persecutions than raging, and the want of printing, few monuments of those times are now remaining; and yet all this notwithstanding, their beginning with Contradiction, is now to us known and testified. Whereupon I may conclude, that it is more than probable, that if so many of our foresaid Catholic Doctrines, having been so generally dispersed, had ever so begun with Innovation contradicted, the same would then have been in some one point or other, in some one country or other, by some one man or other, known, discerned, and recorded. So clear it is, that the Roman Church, thus confessedly never going out of any other known Church; not any change or beginning of any point of her Faith ever observed or contradicted, that therefore according to the former scantlings, given and squared even by Protestants themselves, she cannot be a Church novel and Heretical. And so of the contrary, the Protestants Sect most apparently and confessedly going out of our Roman Church, as also the first Authors, beginning, and progress thereof, being at all times known, contradicted, and condemned; the sequel is evident, that protestancy according to all the former scantlings, is a Sect Heretical. And so according to D. Mortons' former description: She is the Helen of Greece, engendering dissension for carnal respects, the Devil's Concubine, conceiving deformed shapes of error; an Adder writhing itself into perplexed senses and Contradictions; and an Ape, imitating only the terms of truth. May not Protestants now be much ashamed and confounded to be patterned by those so odious Hieroglyphics? A BRIEF SURVEY OF D. WHITES CATAlogue; wherein Contrary to the Confessed truth in the precedent Chapter, of no known beginning or change of our Roman Faith in any Age; He undertaketh (according to his Title thereof) to show, That the present Religion of the Roman Church was observed & resisted in all Ages, as it came in, & increased: naming withal the Persons that made the Resistance: And the points wherein: And the time when; from fifty years to fifty, throughout all Ages since Christ. CHAPTER VIII. HERE I must confess M. Doctor giveth us a goodly Bravado, and if his deeds do answer what his words engage him, the foil shall be mine, and the field his; but if he only bark, and doth not bite, and lurk away when he should enter the list, then shall ignorance, falsehood, temereity, shame, & confusion be all of them, his. For trial then of his strength and art in this combat undertaken, I do intent him a double assault; first by discovering in general his weak performance; and then by answering in particular his shadowed blows. First then, where he undertaketh, in the very Title of his Challenge, to show: that the present Religion of the Roman Church was observed and resisted in all Ages since Christ, as it came in, and increased, and that for more preciseness, by Semicenturies, or every fifty years, at the first jump, he overleapeth the first 600. years after Christ, confessing that (2) Ib. p. 385. in the first 600. years there was no substantial or fundamental Innovation, received into the Church; whereupon he beginneth his Catalogue thus: After 600. years were expired, that the several points of the true Faith began, one after another, to be more grossly corrupted, and changed by the Church of Rome. In the first fifty I name etc. Now how was it possible for this great Champion, by one only blow, to give a greater advantage to us, or more dangerous wound to himself, then at the very first footing or encounter, to yield so much homage and honour to the Roman Church, as that for the first 600. years entire, she remained constant and immoveable in her Faith, received from Christ and his Apostles? And that more especially, and altogether unanswerably, seeing the very particulars of our Roman Faith, wherein D. White chiefly insisteth for his pretended Innovation and change, as our Doctrines of Images, of Primacy, of the unmarried life of Priests, of Real presence, of merits etc. are all of them (3) See before. l. 2. acknowledged by the most of the learnedst Protestants to have been the very Doctrines, belief, and practise of the Primitive Church; not some few only, but all or most of the ancient Fathers being therefore reproved in general as agreeing with us catholics in the points forenamed? The second thing I intent to observe, is, the strange indiscretion, or palpable ignorance, discovered in M. White, by his thus appealing to these last 1000 years, for proof of change and novelty in our Roman Faith; for what period of time is more generally confessed by all other Protestants to have been wholly Papistical, than these last 1000 years? (4) See before. l. c. 2. Do not D. Fulk, M. Parkins, M. Powel, and many others, all of them confess, that for these 1000 years (to speak in their Dialect) the Popish Heresy hath spread itself over the whole earth; the Protestant Church during that time being not visible to the world, but lying hid under the chaff of Popery? Yea do not our Protestants further confess to the contrary saying: (5) See before. l. 1. c. 5. Between the year of Christ 300. and 316. the Antichristian and Papistical Reign began, reigning universally & without any debatable contradiction 1260. etc. never suffering for the space of 1000 years after Sylvester the First, any to be seen vouchable or visible of the true Church? And it is so clear, that during the foresaid time our Roman Church was not resisted, or charged with any Innovation, by any imagined Protestant, that directly likewise to the very contrary, it is acknowledged, that the feigned Protestants of those times, did in all external show and profession, conform (6) See hereafter. l. 4. c. 6. themselves to the Roman Church; whereof to omit others, D. White saith himself: (7) Way to the true Church p. 371. Protestant's did not always abandon the Communion of the Roman Church etc. the Tyranny of Rome suppressed them so, that they could not manifest abroad to the world their dislike etc. but by force and violence were constrained to devour their own sorrow in the society of their adversaries. So sociable and good fellows were those Platonical Protestants, who instead of resisting the Roman Church for any conceited Innovation, according likewise to Osiander, (8) Cent. 8. Ep. Ded. p. 3 with a common Custom, as with a violent stream, were carried away to do the same things with the Papists: Which things he numbereth to be their (9) Cent. 16 p. 1073. & cent. 8. Ep. ded. p. 2. Communion in the Ministry of the Gospel or preaching, in the Bible, in Baptism, in the Lord's supper, in taking of Orders etc. such (saith he) as those times did afford. Then which, what can be said more forcible to free our Roman Church, from all change or contradiction, during the foresaid times? Thirdly, it is to be observed, that whereas D. White undertaketh to show, that the present Religion of the Roman Church was observed and resisted in all Ages, as it came in, and increased; naming &c. to that end, the time when it so came in and increased; he faileth so foully in his performance thereof, that among so many examples by him produced, he doth not, nor could give Instance of the first noted beginning of any one, or of the first contradiction made thereunto In clearest conviction whereof, I will evidently show here after, that every particular point of Doctrine by him instanced for our pretended first change and Protestant resisting, was formerly in much more ancient Ages taught and believed in the Roman Church; and so consequently, that D. White doth not perform his promise made, of naming The time, when our present Religion of the Roman Church, was observed and resisted in all Ages, as it came in and increased. Now to pass from the Time, to the Persons, which D. White nameth to have made the Resistance, himself divideth them into three parts or ranks, saying: (10) Way to the true Church p. 393. one part of them is the Greek Church; an other part is some ancient Divines of their own Church; a third part is such as the Roman Church persecuted. The first (saith he) are sound and lawful witnesses, being the true Church of God to this day, though polluted with some errors. The second, though Papists in many points, yet show against all exception those points, wherein they were no Papists, to have been no part of the Catholic Faith, so called in their time; for than they would not have resisted them, but embrace them as they do all the rest. The third part I grant the Church of Rome then persecuted, and now calleth Heretics (to wit, us Protestants) but that is the question etc. But now to examine the force of the argument, thus taken from this triple testimony produced by our Doctor: First I do constantly aver that no one part of the three, no nor any one man of that one part can be assigned which was not originally at his first birth and breeding, a Roman Catholic, and not Protestant: And therefore though Going out of the Roman Church, he afterwards contradicted the same in some one respect or other, yet this nothing proveth that the Roman Church did change her Faith but only that the said man so Going out from her, did change his Faith which she had formerly taught him, & he believed. Secondly I do as resolutely avouch, that not any one man of all those which D. White produceth, as observers & impugners of the pretended change of Roman Church, was not only at the first, but never after through his whole life truly Protestant, dissenting much more in Doctrine and profession of life from modern Protestants, then from Roman Catholics. And therefore if their testimony be good against us in regard of some one or other opinion, wherein they have Apostated from us, agreeing yet in the rest; how much more forcible will it be against Protestants, from whom they wholly disclaim in most, and most important Articles of Faith? For example, the first part of D. Whites Spies, which observed and resisted our conceited change, is the Greek Church, which, saith he, are sound and lawful witnesses, being the true Church of God to this day etc. Now concerning these so sound witnesses, first it is certain, that as there have been several (11) Nicephonus, Zonoras', Glicas', Humbertus and Crispinus. Of the Estate of the Church p. 364. 253. Osiand. 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 have the Grecians at many several times reform & submitted themselves to the Roman Church, though at the last falling again, they were thereupon oppressed with barbarous Turckisme. Secondly, their few errors, wherein they descent from us, are most notorious, both for their first beginning, and the contradiction made unto them: So their denial of subjection to the Roman Church, was begun by John of Constantinople, but therein he was contradicted by S. Gregory, (12) l. 4. Ep. 34. 36. l. 7. Ep. 36.64. and by (13) Ep. universis Episcopis. Pelagius: Their denial of prayer for the dead was begun by Aerius, but it was contradicted in him by S. Epiphanius (14) haer 75. a Grecian, as also by S. Austin (15) haer. 53 a Latin Doctor, and yet in both these doctrines they conformed themselves to Rome; as witness M. Spark, (16) 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 (17) haer. 59 and particularly in Theodorus by S. Chrisostome (18) Ep 6. ad Theodor. mon. also a Grecian. Their denial of the holy-ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son, was begun, and contracted about Anno 764 as testifieth Keckermanus (19) System. Theol p. 68 Their denial of unleavened bread in Celebration of the Eucharist, was begun about Anno 1053. as appeareth by Leo (20) Ep. ad Michael Episc. Constantinop. c. 5. the Ninth, Osiander, 21) Cent. 11. p. 156. & the Centurists 22) Cent. 11. c. 8. Other few and lesser errors they had, which according to Crisp●nus 23) ubi supra. p. 253. did Anno Domini 870. consist but only in the Primacy, and diversity of Ceremonies. But now as the Grocians did differ in the former points from Catholics, wherein yet was their inconstancy most notorious, as also their first beginning and contradiction, even by the learnedst Grecians, ever markable; so did they incomparably much more differ from Protestants, as I have formerly 24) l. 1. c. 6. proved more at large; agreeing with us, as Sir Edwin Sands 25) Relation of Religion in the last lease but fi●e. confesseth, In opinion of Transubstantiation, and generally in the Sacrifice and whole body of the Mass, in praying to Saints, in auricular confession, in offering Sacrifice and prayer for the dead, Purgatory, and worshipping of Pictures etc. To which other Protestant Writers before added all the seven Sacraments, Relics, Freewill, Monachisme, Vows of Chastity; Fast of Lent and other set fasting-dais, that Priests may not marry after Orde's taken, and others. Yea at this day, they so much detest Protestant Religion, as that therein they utterly refused (66) all Commerce and Communion, which with great solicitation and submission was offered them by Protestants. And now hence to return to D. White, whose first part of sound and lawful witnesses against the Roman Church, was the Greek Church, the same being (saith he) the Church of God to this day. For first, how can those be said to be sound and lawful witnesses for those very points wherein they descent from us? Wherein may they be more justly disclaimed from, or suspected of partiality, then when they speak in their own Cause, and in behalf of their own opinions? Of what Credit and authority with Protestants is the opinion and Doctrine of a Catholic? Or will they possibly esteem him a sound and lawful witness against themselves? If not, how can the Greek Church be produced as a sound and lawful witness against the Roman, for those very doctrines wherein she hath departed from her, and for which she was contradicted by the chiefest Doctors and Pastors both of the Greek and Roman Church, and in which also as seeing her error, she hath often recanted and submitted herself? 26) See hereof l. 4. c. 6. And again, with what judgement doth D. White appeal to the Greek Church, as sound and lawful witnesses in defence of his own, and against the Roman; which detesteth and refuseth all spiritual Communion with the Protestant sect, as being novel and contrary to the ancient Fathers, and which agreeth wholly with our Catholic Church, their former few errors only excepted? And lastly how could the Doctor afford the Greek Church, so high a Title of being the true Church of God to this day, seeing that it accordeth much more with the Roman, than the Protestant Church, and yet dissenteth from both? But all this was to point out his sound and lawful witnesses against us, whereas indeed in the most and weightiest Controversies, they may be truly termed his sound and lawful Adversaries. And thus much of the first part of D. Whites sound witnesses, summoned by him for the making of his Catalogue of his Protestant Doctors, observing and resisting the present Roman Religion, as it came in, and increased in all Ages. To come now to the second part of witnesses; who though Papists (saith he) in many points, yet show against all exception those points wherein they were no Papists, to have been no Part of the Catholic Faith, so called in their time; for than they would not have resisted them, but embrace them as they do all the rest. Here our Doctor dealeth plainly with us, confessing that these his witnesses are Papists in many points; but he might if it had pleased him, have coupled the Grecians with them, who are confessedly no less Papists in most points than these. But it seemeth he was willing to raise up the number, which yet being examined, will 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 themselves, seeing from them they descent and continue adverse in most, & most weighty points whatsoever. And whereas M. White urgeth, that Against all exception these points, wherein they were no Papists, were no part of the Catholic Faith; because than they would not have resisted them, but embrace them as they do all the rest; this is so subject to all exception and answer, that every child may except against it; for whether is it more likely that but some one or other man, thus resisting the Roman Church, did innovate himself, and change, and departed from his former Faith; or that the whole Church did alter or change from the said man and his singular Faith? For example, if I should argue thus in behalf of Puritans, that though they be Protestants in many points, yet they show against all exception those points, wherein they are no Protestants, to have been no part of the Protestant Faith, for than they would not have resisted them, but embrace them as they do all the rest; this kind of arguing as it would be grateful to them, so would it prove most disgraceful and distasteful to Protestants; for hence would it follow that in those very points wherein Puritans are divided from Protestants, the Protestant Church should be changed, and the Puritans should be the men who should observe & resist the same; for according to our Doctors wise reasoning▪ if the Puritan points had been part of the Protestant Faith, then would they not have resisted the Protestant Articles, but embrace them as they do all the rest. The which also may be urged in behalf of Bro●nists, Anabaptists, and all other Sectaries whatsoever; for according to M. White, if the Protestant Church were not changed, the Puritans, Brownists, Anabaptists etc. would not have resisted it in some points, but embrace them also, as they do in all the rest; than which nothing can be uttered more absurd in itself, or more advantageous to all Heretics ever arising. And so I pass to the last and worst part of D. Whites witnesss produced against us, and in behalf of himself; that is, to those whom (saith he) the Church of Rome then persecuted, and now calleth Heretics, that is, Protestants; which in his Catalogue he nameth to be Berengarius, Bertram, Ahnaricus, the Waldenses, Wicclinists, Lollards and Hussites; all which he coupleth together like Sampsons' foxes, to make them good witnesses against the Roman Church. But first in what Court or Tribunal will any man's naked testimony be available against his Adversary, and especially of a convicted offender against his judge, when he speaketh only for his own private▪ Who may not disclaim and reject as suspected, any man's bare word in his own cause? This is the case of our last witnesses, who going out and departing from our Roman Church, as all other Heretics have ever done, were always noted, contradicted, and condemned for the same: What then can the force of their testimony be against us, but as of a Felon or Traitor against his lawful judge or Prince, having denounced sentence of death against him. Besides, I will make it manifest that these who are produced as Protestants resisting the Roman Church in all Ages, were not Protestants, but clearly dissenting from them in many fundamental points. And lastly I would gladly know how possibly D. White could have so good Intelligence of Protestants resisting in all those several Ages our Roman Church, when as I have largely convinced (27) l. 3. c. 1. before, by the full testimonies of many and the most learnedst Protestants that ever were, that during all the foresaid Ages by him instanced, there was never any one Protestant known, and visibile to the world before the days of Luther? Wherefore after good examining, I doubt not but my Doctors Protestants resisting in all Ages our Roman Church, will finally resolve into his own idle fancies; which if they were as forcible to prove, as his fond imagination is fertile to frame them, the ruin of Catholics were inevitable, and their very memory hateful. But to leave now a while these so sound and lawful witnesses, and to come to the points wherein they made resistance, I will only observe that sundry of the points instanced by D. White, are either matters of indifferency, or not of Faith, never yet determined by the Church of God; or else of fact, and not of right, or lastly only of life and conversation; all which is most impertinent in proof of any change in Faith and Religion; which is the only point here to be proved by our Doctor. Wherefore now to grapple nearer with our Catalogue-Maker, and to examine the points instanced in every Semicenturie for the Roman Churches change: After 600. years were expired (saith he) the several points of true Faith began one after another to be more grossly corrupted, and changed by the Church of Rome. In the first fifty, I name Serenus Bishop of Marseils in France, who broke the Images that began to be set up in his Diocese. But at the very first M. Doctor juggleth with us; for whereas this matter concerning Serenus, was written first by S. Gregory the great, (28) l. 7. Ep. 111. he doth not any thing insinuate that Images began then to be set up in the Churches of Marseils in France, but only observeth, that Serenus perceaving some Christians lately converted to adore the Images in the Church as though they were Gods, through Zeal did break them, and cast them down; for which very fact was he yet severely reproved by S. Gregory himself, writing thus unto him: Pictures are used in Churches that those who are unlearned, at least should read by seeing in the walls those things which they could not read in books. Thy Brotherhood therefore aught to have preserved the Pictures, and to have hindered the people from their adoration, that so the ignorant might have from whence to gather knowled e of the History, and the people not sin in adoration of the Picture: Further also affirming, that not without cause (29) l. 9 Ep. 9 Antiquity admitted Histories, to be painted in the venerahle places, or Churches of Saints. So clear it is, that the placing of Images in Churches did not as then first begin. A truth further so evident, that sundry Protestant Writers (30) Before l. 2. c. 14. have largely heretofore acknowledged the use and placing of Images in Churches, during the purest times of the Primitive Church; alleging to that end several examples from Sozomene, Athanasius, Prudentius, Nicephorus, Tertullian and others, who all of them lived some Ages before Serenus was borne. But to proceed: In the same 50. years, saith he, Gregory the Bishop of Rome resisted the Supremacy; for which he (31) l. 4. Ep. 32. 34. 38. 39 citeth certain Epistles of S. Gregory, all written against john Bishop of Constantinople, who as then assumed to himself the name of Universal Bishop; which as he deservedly reproved in him, so was he so fare from denying his own Primacy, as that M. Bale reporteth to the contrary, (32) Image of both Chur. f. 11. that john of Constantinople contended with Gregory of Rome for the Supremacy, in which contention Gregory laid for himself, S. Peter's keys, with many other sore arguments and reasons. The which also is granted by many other (33) See before l. 2. c. 4. Protestants, amongst whom one reporteth, that whereas (34) Cath. Traditions q. 2. p. 17. the Emperor Maurice, would have taken away the Primacy from Gregory, and given it to john Bishop of Constantinople etc. Gregory did oppose himself against him. And the Centurists add further that (35) Cent. 6. col. 425. Gregory gloried, that the Emperor and Eusebius his fellow Bishop (of Constantinople) did both of them acknowledge, that the Church of Constantinople was subject io the Apostolic Sea of Rome. Neither was this Primacy first begun by S. Gregory; (36) See before l. 2. c. 4. for his Predecessors, Pelagius, Celestine, Leo, Gelasius, Sixtus, Siricius, Innocentius, Sozimus, Damasus, julius, Steven, Dionysius, Victor etc. yea S. Peter himself, are all of them reproved by Protestant Writers, for the foresaid Primacy. So confessed it is, that the Primacy of the Roman Church, did not first begin in the time of S. Gregory. Now whereas D. White further added, that the whole Greek Church complained when Phocas had first conferred it on Boniface; that their complaint (supposing it for true) is nothing material; for they being as then divided in this point from the Roman Church, assuming to themselves the said Primacy, their testimony in their own Cause is of no account. But neither is it true, that Phocas did first confer it on Boniface; for though he did by his Edict declare, that the Roman Church was the Head of all Churches, as testify S. Bede and others, (37) l. de Sex Aetatibus in Phoca. Ado in Chron. Paulus Diacon. l. 18. de Rebus Roman. yet is there no intimation that he first bestowed it: yea further they affirm, that the reason of the said Edict was the pride of the Bishops of Constantinople, who injuriously styling themselves universal Bishops, and contemning the Excommunications denounced against them by S. Gregory, & Pelagius, the Emperor therefore thought it necessary to interpose his own authority, which the Grecians much more feared. And he is so free from innovating in this Cause, that besides the late premises of the ancientest Popes ever claiming the same, justinianus (38) Ep. ad Ioann. 2. the elder, ancient to Phocas by 70. years, affirmeth, the Roman Church to be Head of all Churches: And Valentinian, who preceded Phocas 140. years, avoucheth, that the Roman Bishop hath ever had the Principality of Preisthood above all others. Yea in fullest satisfaction hereof, it is plainly confessed by Protestants themselues, that Constantin our first Christian Emperor, elder to Phocas almost 300. years, (39) Before l. 2. c. 4. attributed Primacy to the Roman (Bishop) before al. So free was Phocas from first conferring Primacy to the Roman Church, and so clearly she resteth acquitted of these pretended Changes & Innovations in the first 50. years. After 650. 650. to 700. I name (saith D. White) the sixth general Council, decreing the marriage of Priests, against the Church of Rome, labouring to restrain it; for which he citeth Can. 13. But the truth is, there are not any such Canons in the Council cited; for the true sixth General Council put forth no Canons, as it is evident by the Seaventh (40) Act. 4. & 5. Synod. Wherefore after the sixth Synod, certain Bishops assembled at Constantinople, who in the Emperor Iustini●n the Second his Palace called Trullum, published those Canons, under the name of the sixth Synod, which were never approved by any Roman Bishop, but to the contrary, then contradicted by Pope Sergius. (41) Beda l. de Sex Aetatibus in justiniano. Caulus Diacon. l. 8. c. 9 de Rebus Rom. But though these Canons were authentical, yet little would they avail our marrying Ministers, not one of them allowing any Clergyman to marry after Orders taken, and only permitting such to keep their wives, as had them before they were of the Clergy; and neither (42) Can. 6. 12. & 48. this do they allow to Bishops, but only to others of inferior Orders. Yea the Roman Church is so free from making any change in this respect at the time prescribed, that sundry (43) Before l. 2. c. 17. Protestants for the self same prohibition of marriage to the Clergy, do reprove many more ancient and confirmed Counsels, as the 2. Council of Arles holden in the time of Constantin, the Council of Neocesaraea, of Eliberis, the first of Nice, and sundry others. As also for the same cause they reprehended the ancient Popes, Leo, Innocentius, Calixtus, Siricius etc. and the learnedst Doctors of those times, as S. Hierome, S. Ambrose, Origen, with many others, so that at the time of the 6. Council of Constantinople, no changee at all was made by the Roman Church, concerning the Single life of the Clergy. But D. White further urgeth, that the said ●. Council forbiddeth to make the holy-ghost in likeness of a Dove. But neither is this true; for though it did prefer other Pictures before the Picture of Christ in the figure of a Lamb, and the Picture of holy-ghost in form of a Dove, yet doth it not condemn these. (45) Act. 5. And in the 7. Synod (44) the Image of the holy-ghost in form of Dove, is expressly approved. Yea therein was also read the Epistle of Adrian to Tharasius, in which it is said, that in the 6. Synod was commended the Image of Christ in form of a Lamb. And that the Roman Church long before those times allowed Images, it is evident enough by that which is before said concerning Serenus. But our Doctor yet urgeth, that at this time there was a Council holden in Portugal, where the Cup is appointed to be ministered to the people against the practice of some, that used to dip the bread, and so to give it, which was one beginning of the half Communion. But this Council, being the third Council of (45) Can. 1. Brach, did justly forbid that dipping, in that it was neither so instituted by Christ, nor could be confirmed by any testimony or example from Scripture, yet doth it not command both kinds to be given; And though it had, yet were the objecting thereof impertinent, seeing as than it was free & lawful to use both kinds. Now, that Communion under one kind, was sometimes used in much more ancient Ages, it might easily be proved by Sozomene, (46) Hist. l. 8. c. 5. Niceph. hist. l. 13. c. 7. Hieron. Apol. pro l. in jovin. Cypr. Serm. de lapsis. Tertul. l. 2. ad uxor. 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. years, are altogether frivolous. After 700. to 750. I name (saith M. White) the General Council of Constantinople under Leo Isaurus against Images. This Council was never confirmed but rejected; for none of the Patriarches were present, S. German only excepted, who would not consent thereunto, and thereupon was deprived of his Sea of Constantinople; Wherefore this only proveth that some of the Grecians changed their Faith concerning Images, for which they were contradicted, not only by the Latin Church, but by sundry also of the greatest Doctors of the Greek Church. In this Age also he nameth Clemens, Scotus, and Adelbartus; who (saith he) preached against the Supremacy, Traditions, Images, and in the defence of Priest's marriage, also against Purgatory, Masses for the dead etc. And all this he proveth only by one of his lawful witnesses, his Protestant Brother Illiricus, which being wholly destitute of all other Authority, I may lawfully forbear it all further answer. After 750. 750. to 800. I name (saith he) the Council of Constantinople under Constant. Copronymus, and of Frankford under Charles the Great, against Images, and the book yet extant that he caused to be made against the 2. Nicene Council; with another set forth by Ludonicus his Son to the same effect. A great tooth still hath our Minister against Images, but it never biteth; for t●is Council of Constantinople was likewise never confirmed, but expressly condemned in the Seaventh Synod: (47) 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 many of them divided from the Roman Church, the testimony thereof is of no force, as I have showed before. But beside, it is not worthy of observation, that as neither of these Counsels of Constantinople so often urged by our Doctor were ever confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, without whose allowance, according to the first Council (48) Socrat. l. 2. c. 13. of Nice, it was not lawful to assemble General Counsels; so neither did any of the Patriarches themselves ever assent unto them, as is manifest by Zonoras', Cedrenus, Paulus Diaconus, and other Writers hereof. Yea further all Authors who writ of General Counsels, 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 Counsels of the Church, or else do expressly reprove them; and the 2. Council of Nice, which was truly General and plenary, did directly abrogate and condemn them. Add hereunto in favour of our Doctor, who is so far in love with these Counsels, that in that under Constantin is decreed, (49) Can. 15. those to be accursed, who do not invocate the B. Virgin Marie: As also, 50) Can. 17. those who do not worship and Invocate the rest of the Saints: And 51) Can. 18. those who do not believe, that God will give eternal life for merits of works, according to the just weight of his judgement; all which Catholic Canons are 52) Cent. 8. c. 9 col. 639 recited by the Centurists. Now if M. White will urge this Council against Images, in which respect it was impugned and contradicted by several means, why may not I much more urge it for these other points, wherein it was never reproved by any Council or other Writers? Now as concerning the Council of Frankford, urged here and by sundry other Protestants against Images: First the a) Cen. 8. c. 9 col. 639. Magdeburgians themselves acknowledge, that Pope Adrian then Bishop of Rome, never consented unto it, but both himself and his Legates resisted it. Now never 53) Galasius Temo de vin●ulo Anathematis. was there any one Council holden lawful, whereunto the Roman Bishop resisted: In so much that this Council of Frankford itself decreed, 54) In lib. Catolino. That the last judgement of Controversies belonged to the Roman Bishop; and with this very argument chiefly it endeavoured to confute the seaventh Synod, imagining this to have been assembled without the authority of the Bishop of Rome. So that this Council of Frankford, by the testimony of the Centurists, destroyeth itself. Secondly, the Centurists in the same place teach, that the 2. Nicene Synod was confirmed by Pope Adrian; but the Council of Frankford rejecteth only such Synods as are assembled without the Pope's Authority; wherefore according to the Magdeburgians not the Council of Nice, wherein Images were approved, but some other was reproved by the Council of Frankford. Thirdly, The Centurists further confess, that the Council of Frankford did not decree, that Images should be taken out of the Churches, but remaining in the Churches, that they should not be adored. Wherefore then do Protestants pull down Images, and break them? Wherefore do not themselves observe the Decree of the Council? Yea this very Council thundereth Anathema 55) l. Carol. Hincmarus & Magdeburg. to all such as deface, break, & pull down Images; how then will our Protestants escape this bolt? Fourthly, the Council of Frankford did indeed impugn 56) l. Carol. & Hincmarus. two Counsels, 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 error and materially, even as the Council of Ariminum condemned the word Homousios'; for the Author of the Books under the name of Charles, had obtruded unto the same Council of Frankford two untruths; 57) In praef. lib. Carol. First, that the Council of Nice had decreed, that Images should be worshipped with the honour of Latria, or that which is due only to God: 58) l. Carol. The second, that this decree was made by the Grecians without the consent of the Bishop of Rome. Now these two lies supposed for truths, it is no wonder, though the Council of Frankford resisted the Council of Nice. And that these were mere Impostures falsely imposed upon the Council of Nice, it is evident, aswel in that the Legates of the Roman Bishop subscribed to every Act, as also in that the Epistles of Pope Adrian himself for Images, 59) Act. 2. were read in the Council itself. And so likewise that the said Council did not decree Images, to be worshipped with Latria, is further manifest, in that Basil of Ancyra, who was formerly an Heretic, being now converted and professing the Catholic Faith, the (60) Act. 1. whole Council hearing him and approving him, affirmed that he did worship Images, but not with Latria, seeing that was due only to God: And the like (61) Act 3.4.7. was professed by Constantin Bishop of Constance, and other Bishops in the Seaventh Synod. Neither let it seem improbable, that such untruths could be forged against a general Council so lately before celebrated: Whereas most Protestants dare now affirm, that Catholics adore Images as Gods, whereas almost thousands of Catholic Writers and the General Council of Trent celebrated in the Confins of Germany, do declaim the contrary; what wonder then if the like be forged of a Greek Synod, which few could read and understand, and which was celebrated in the Oriental parts, being far distant? Lastly it is to be remembered, that though this Council of Frankford did err, yet was it not in matter of Faith, but only in fact, condemning upon false information the Council of Nice; neither was it ever confirmed, but expressly rejected by the Bishop of Rome; and therefore the error thereof doth nothing prejudice the infallible authority of lawful approved General Counsels. So many ways doth it appear, that this thredworne Argument from the Council of Frankford against Images, is altogether impertinent. And now to come to the bastard Book fathered upon Charles the Great: First, the Book of Adrian the First to Charles is extant, whereby it appeareth that the said Book was written by some Heretic, and sent from Charles to Adrian, that he might answer it. Secondly, the Roman 62) Zonara's Cedrenus & Paulus Diac. in vita Leonis Isauri. Bishops, Gregory the Third, Adrian the First, and Leo the Third Excommunicated the Grecian Emperors, and transferred the Empire from them, to the French; chiefly for that they patronised the Heresy against Images, whereas the French persisted ever constant in the ancient Catholic Faith; wherefore it is most improbable, that Charles should write in defence of the Grecian error against the Pope of Rome. Thirdly 63) L. 1. de cultu Imaginum. jonas Aurelianensis (who lived in the Reign of Ludovicus son to Charles) testifieth that Claudius Taurinensis, a special Patron of the Heresy, durst never open his mouth therein, during the life of Charles. Fourthly, Pope 64) Paulus Aemil. l. 2. Franc. And see cent. 8. c. 9 col. 570. Stephen holding a Council at Rome against the said Error, Charles himself sent 12. of the chiefest Bishops of his Kingdom to assist him therein: And D. Cowper 65) Chron. 174. reporteth that certain Bishops were sent by Adrian to Charles, who held a Council in France against the condemnation of Images. Fiftly, this most famous Emperor Charles, was so wholly Roman Catholic, as that 66) Ep. ded. Hist. Sacra. Hospinian recordeth of him, 67) 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 commanded by public Edicts that the very Ceremonies, Rites, and Latin Mass of the Roman Church, as also the Decrees, Laws and Ordinances of the Roman Bishop, should be observed through his whole Empire, but himself by imprisonments and diverse 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 unlike was he to write against the Roman Church concerning Images. Sixtly, Caluin himself insinuateth this Book to be forged about Charlemaine's time saying: 68) Iust. l. 1. c. 11. sec 14. There is extant a refuting Book, under the name of Charles the Great, which by the words thereof we may gather to have been made at the same time. Seavently, whereas Charles was known to be very skilful both in Greek & Latin, learned, & ingenious, in this book there are many absurdities committed; as where it affirmeth, Constantinople to be a City most known in Bythinia, whereas indeed it is in Thracia: as also that at Constantinople there was a Council celebrated in defence of the worshipping of Images, whereas the said Council was celebrated at Nice: And that the Nicene Council termed the Eucharist the Image of Christ's body, whereas directly and purposely they refute and condemn the said speech. Eightly, supposing for the time, against all the premises, that it had been Charles his Book, yet nothing would it avail, but much prejudice Protestants; for therein is expressly taught, that the last sentence in Controversies of Faith belongeth to the Roman Bishop: And that he hath his Primacy not from Counsels, but from God himself. It prescribeth also Exorcisms to be used in Baptism, Churches to be dedicated with special Rites: That we are to pray for the dead, and Invocate Saints, and their Relics to be worshipped: That Chrism and Holie-water are to be used: That in the Eucharist there is the true Body of Christ, and the same to be worshipped, yea to be offered as a true and proper Sacrifice: All which do mainly impugn Protestant Religion: And therefore if they will have us to believe this Book, teaching that the Council of Nice erred concerning Images; let them believe it teaching the other Catholic points next recited. Lastly, if it could be proved that Charles himself had made this Book, & that he had been a perfect Protestant in all points; yet how would it hence follow, that the Roman Church had changed her Faith in the time of Charles? Or what would the testimony of a Layman avail them, seeing according to 69) Orat. 2. de Imag. Damascen, Christ committed not his Church to Kings and Emperors, but to Bishops and Pastors? But we have seen sufficiently before, that Charles was a Prince wholly devoted to the Roman Church, and a special Patron of Images, and consequently the Book written against them, and imposed upon him, is merely forged and of no authority. And so likewise is no less forged that other, under the name of Lewes his Son, which for such is condemned by the Catholic Church: Neither 70) Index lib. prohibit. doth our Doctor afford us the least colour of proof, for the legitimation of either of these Books, but only saith, that they are extant, as though it were rare among Heretics to find many spurious & adulterine Books. And so I conclude, that seeing our Ministers proofs for the Roman Churches change in these 50. years, are all of them in several respects, either most impertinent, or most false, that therefore the Roman Church during the same time did not change. After 800 800. to 850. I name (saith our Cataloguer) joannes Scotus, etc. who resisting the Real presence etc. was therefore murdered: The same time Berthram also writ against it etc. Claudius' Bishop of Towers resisted Images, worship of Saints, and Pilgrimage; Lotharius the Emperor reduced the Pope to the obedience of the Empire etc. These are the examples of the Roman Change in this time: But let us examine them. As concerning Scotus, that he resisted the Real presence, M. White proveth it only by the testimony of Daneus, who being a formal Protestant of these times, his testimony is insufficient, as bearing witness in his own Cause, & therefore all further answer were needles. But yet I do acknowledge, that about the same time there was one Scotus (not the subtle Doctor who lived some Ages after) but an other who writ something doubtfully in this point, but his Book was condemned in the Council at Vercella, as testifieth Lantfrancus: (a) lib. de verit. Corp. Et sang. Domini in Eucharistia. And he is observed to be the first in the Latin Church, who writ suspiciously against the Real Presence. And as for Bertram, though the Book extant under his name doth use some doubtful, and obscure words, as Figure, Spiritual, and Mystery, yet at other times doth it speak as plainly: Affirming the Presence of Christ's Body, under the veil or coverture of Bread. Yea the Centurists confess that Bertram 71) Cent. 9 c. 4. Col. 212. (in the said Book) hath the seeds of Transubstantiation. Secondly, this said Book being set forth lately by Oecolampadius may justly be suspected; and rather, in that Pantaleon 72) p. 65. in his Chronograph, mentioning Bertram and his other writings, forbeareth yet to mention this Book, 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 little beholding) doth yet forbear altogether to name him therein, but it seems our Minister meant to make all good flesh, that he cast into the pot. Fourthly, Bertram was a Monk, and so continued until his dying day, not teaching any one point of protestancy in his life, as may appear by (m) verbo Bertramus. Saunder. de visibil. Monarchia. haer. 133. Tritemius and others that writ of him. Fiftly, supposing for the time that Scotus & Bertram did both of them believe and write directly contrary to the Real Presence, yet what doth this prove, that the Roman Church as then did change her Faith, or make any Innovation concerning this point? But rather that these two dissenting then in this from the whole Christian world, did change, and begin themselves 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 very Doctrine thereof is formerly 73) l. 2. c. 8. acknowledged by sundry Protestants, to have been taught by S. Gregory, S. Ambrose, S. Hilary, S. Cyril, S. Cyprian, and sundry others most ancient and approved Fathers. And as for Claudius Taurinensis in this Age resisting images, it is granted; as also that he 74) jonas Aureol. de Cultu Imag. Praefat. ad Carolum. endeavoured to revive the Arian Heresy long before dead, 75) Cent. 9 c. 10. Col. 498. & forgotten; but he was presently noted & condemned of singularity and Error. Neither did Claudius resist any pretended beginning, or change in the Roman Church; but only cast out of the Churches of his Diocese Images and Crosses, which peradventure were there erected long before Claudius was borne: But I need not insist any longer herein, this point being fully cleared in the example of Serenus. Now as for Lotharius the Emperor reducing Pope Sergius to the obedience of the Empire: First, this concerneth only government & Policy, not Faith and Religion, which M. White undertaken to show, as it came in every Age. Secondly, Lotharius was so Roman Catholic, as that according to the Centurists 75) Cent. 9 c. 10. Col. 498. themselves, Pope Sergius himself crowned him, & created his Son Lewis King of the Longobards: And the Sons of Lewis being at discord about the Kingdom, he pacified by his Legates, and allowed the partition of the Kingdom. Now what signs were these that the Pope was subject; or reduced to the obedience of the Empire, but rather to the contraries & that the more, 76) Lib. Pon●●si●alis in vita Sergij 2. N●uclerus in Chron. Generate 39 in that Lewis being sent by his father Lotharius with diverse Archbishops and Bishops to Pope Sergius at Rome, to move him that he would permit the Roman Nobility to swear fidelity to him; as he had permitted them to do it to his father Lotharius; The Magdeburgians report his answer to be this: 77) Cent 9 c. ●9. Col. 498. If you desire that this oath be made to Lotharius the Emperor, I am content and permit it: but that it be done to Lewis his Son, neither I, nor the Nobility do consent. So little obedience doth he acknowledge to the Emperor, 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 wrote to Nicolas the First, in the defence of Priest's marriage, Michael the Emperor, and Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople resisting the Pope's Supremacy, as also did the Bishop of Ravenna. But first D. White barely affirmeth this of Volutianus not citing any Author, or yielding the least proof thereof; and therefore it may be suspected to be only his own invention: And the rather in that no mention at all is made of any 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 objected by Protestants to have written to Pope Nicolas, in defence of Priest's marriage; whereas it is certain, 78) 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 died Anno 867. And ulrick was not made Bishop 79) ursper. Chron. Chitraeus in Chro. Pant. Chron. p. 75. of Augusta till after the death of Pope Nicolas, to wit Anno 924. and continuing Bishop 50. years died 80) Beut. l. faster. p. 209. Pant. Chron. p. 75. Osiander Cent. 9 10. & p. 99 100 Anno 973. By which account this Epistle was written either before that Vlrick was borne, or else after that Pope Nicolas was dead. So clear it is, that this Epistle printed lately at Basil, is only forged under the name of Vlrick. And though it were not Apocryphal, yet would it much more press Protestans then Catholics; for therein is taught, that the Roman Bishop is Head of all; and that from all, obedience is due unto him: As also that he is to compel Priests and Monks not to marry, and if they do marry after the vow of Continency, that they are to be separated. And as for Michael the Emperor, and Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople resisting the Pope's Supremacy; the truth of that History is briefly this, related more at large by Nycetas and others both Greek and Latin Writers. Ignatius 81) joan. Curopalates Nycaetas, Nicolaus in diverse Epistles Anastasius. Patriarch of Constantinople having Excommunicated Bardas' (one of the principal men under Michael the Emperor) for dismissing his own lawful wife, and taking his own kinswoman in her steed; Bardas' thereupon being much incensed, endeavoured by all means to cast him out of the Sea of Constantinople; to which purpose he suggested unto the Emperor, many things most false against Ignatius, whereupon the Emperor caused him to be banished into the Island Terebinthus, & through the solicitation of Bardas', appointed that Photius, as then a Courtier and Secular man, should be ordained and placed in his Sea; a man altogether unlearned, who for his better Confirmation entreated the Emperor, that he would send an Ambassador to Pope Nicolas, desiring that some Legates might be sent from him, for the correcting and redressing of some faults in the Church, and in particular he pretended the Heresy of Iconoclasts, or breakers of Images; signifying further himself by his false letters to the said Pope, that Ignatius by reason of his old age and infirmities, had of his own free accord resigned up his Sea, and betaken himself to a Monastery in a certain Island, where he continued much honoured and respected both by the Emperor, and the whole City. The Embassedours sent by the Emperor, were certain Bishops and a Layman named Arsa, who carried many and very rich Tokens to the Pope; of whom being received, he returned with the two Bishops Rodoaldus and Zacharias for his Legates, 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 ordained contrary to the Canons, and having unjustly deposed Ignatius: which when Photius percevied, he hindered the said Legates for conferring with any, but only their own followers, and withal assembled a Synod, wherein through the power of the Emperor, he further confirmed the Deposition of Ignatius, and his own Creation, threatening also the Pope's Legates, that unless they also would subscribe to the said Council, the Emperor would banish them into remote Countries, where for very hunger they should be enforced to eat louse; Through which terrors, and also through bribes from Photius, the Legates, contrary to the Pope's command, subscribed to the condemnation of Ignatius and establishment of Photius: Which when Pope Nicolas truly understood, assembling a Council in Rome, he excommunicated Photius and his own Legates, and deposed them all, restoring Ignatius to his Sea: Which Basil the Emperor, succeeding Michael, according to the Pope's determination, fully executed. Now what doth any of this make against the Pope's Supremacy, but rather confirm the same, seeing that both Michael and Photius sent Embassedours to the Pope, entreating that he would send Legates from himself, for the redressing of abuses at Constantinople? And when themselves were found chiefly faulty, the Emperor was severely reprehended by the Pope, and Photius excommunicated and deposed. Add hereunto that the Greek Writers themselves do generally testify, that both Michael and Photius were men extremely addicted to many and most enormous vices, and therefore their resisting the Pope, is of no greater Authority, then of an offender or Rebel, resisting his lawful judge or Prince. So likewise concerning the Bishop of Rauenna's resisting the Pope, Anastasius, cited by M. White in proof thereof, reporteth, (81) In Nicolao. 1. that sundry Persons going to Pope Nicolas, with many complaints of grievous wrongs and dommages done unto them by the said Bishop, the Pope thereupon, did by his Legates and letters admonish him to surcease the same, and to make satisfaction. Which the Bishop neglecting, and adding still more to his former impieties; he further commanded him to repair to Rome there in the Synod to answer in his own behalf, which he likewise refusing and contemning to do, he was thereupon Excommunicated by the same Council: Yea the Pope himself, upon the earnest entreaty of the people of Ravenna, went to the same City, where presently he restored many things taken wrongfully by the Bishop, who having Intelligence before hand of the Pope's coming, was fled to Papia, there to desire Ludonicus the Emperor's help and backing against the Pope: But as the people there in the streets did eschew his company, hearing that he was Excommunicated by Pope Nicolas, so the Emperor's 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 all the Church are subject: Which when the Bishop heard, despairing of all other means, he went to Rome, where submitting himself to the Pope, and promising reformation, and performance of sundry matters enjoined him, and commanded by the same Pope, he was thereupon absolved from his Excommunication, and suspension from saying Mass. This being the truth of the Story concerning the Bishop of Ravenna his resisting the Pope; I refer it to the judgement of any impartial Reader, whether this doth not strongly confirm the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. But to proceed after 900. 900. to 950. 950. and so forward, D. White urgeth sundry abuses noted as then in the Church of Rome; But those by him specified, concerning only matter of life and manners, are altogether improper and insufficient to prove any change in Faith and Doctrine; which was the only point pertinent to be proved: Yea Baronius, by him, alleged 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 objected, that certain of the English Clergy, maintained the Sacrament to be only a figure of the Body & blood of Christ, against the Real Presence then increasing: Besides that the confirmation hereof dependeth upon the testimony of the old Fabler Fox, I have showed heretofore, in the Examples of Scotus and Bertram, that our Catholic Doctrine of Real Presence, was confessedly believed and taught in the purest times of the Primitive Church. After 950. 950. to 1000 we have (faith D. White) Otho the Great, that deposed john the Pope, and assumed into his hands the nominating and making of Popes hereafter etc. But this only proveth 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 john, by reason of many crimes objected against him: Yet the proceeding therein was in sundry respects not juridical, but directly contrary to the much more ancient practice and decrees of the Church, as Baronius proveth 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 john deposed, but immediately in the hearing of the Emperor, the Bishops assembled i● the same Synod, said: We choose Leo our Pastor, that he may be the chief and universal Pope of the Roman Church; to which though the Emperor afterwards assented, yet did he neither first nominate or elect him. In this Semicenturie M. White further urgeth, that Aelfricus Archbishop of Canterbury, preached and published his Homilies against the Real Presence coming in. But first Aelfricus the Archbishop of Canterbury, was so Roman Catholic, that D. Godwin testifieth, (n) Catal. of Bishops. p. 23. that he was brought up in Glassenburie. And M. Bale assureth us, that he was Scholar to S. Ethwald and Abbot of Abingdon; and for his crafty (x) Cent. 2. c. 41. (saith he) in promoting Papistry, made Archbishop of Canterbury. Secondly, the Protestants which (*) In the Preface before it. published that Sermon, confess that the Author thereof was no Archbishop of Canterbury. And it is more likely to be true which M. Fox (y) Act. mon. p. 1148 & 1040. saith, that it was Aelfrick surnamed Bara, an Heretic, who, as S. Dunstan appearing to one in a vision said (as reporteth Osberne) attempted to disinherit his Church, but I have stopped him, (saith S. Dunstan) and he could not prevail. 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 coming in as then, as that the best and ancientest Fathers of the Primitive Church, are formerly confessed and reproved for the same doctrine by sundry Protestant Writers. In like sort though Arnulphus, a man vicious, inveighed against the Pope, urging, that if he be void of charity, puffed up only with knowledge, he is Antichrist etc. but if he want both charity, and knowledge, then is he an Idol: Yet doth he not any where absolutely affirm the Pope to be Antichrist, and especially that Antichrist which the Scriptures foretell shall come a little before the end of the world, and so he only termeth him Antichrist in that sense of S. john, (83) 1. Io. 2.18. Now there are become many Antichrists. After a 1000 1000 to a 1050. years, I name (saith he) Rodulphus Ardeus preaching against Merits etc. Glaber Rodulphus against the Pope's Primacy, and Leuthericus denying the Real Presence. But for brevity admitting all this for true, yet doth it not hence follow, that the Roman Church made any change or Innovation in the foresaid points, seeing the same were all of them taught and believed generally by the Church in times much (84) Before. l. 2. c. 21. 4. 8. more ancient and approved. After a 1050. 1050. to 1100. I name (saith he) Nycetas an Abbot and the Bishops of Italy, France and Germany, resisting Hildebrand, and deposing him, when he would restrain the Clergy from Marriage; henry the Third etc. withstanding the Pope's Supremacy etc. and judging him to be deposed. Sigebert etc. noting the Pope's Excommunicating Princes, and absolving their subiets from their obedience, terming it a novelty and Heresy: Berengarius resisted the real Presence etc. But as for Nycetas, as I do confess, that he writ many things against the Roman Church, and in particular in behalf of Priest's marriage, so yet did he afterwards so (85) Baron Anno 1054 nun. 19 much repent himself thereof, as that in presence of the Emperor Constantinus Monomachus and the Pope's Legates, he recalled and accursed all his said writings; as also all such he accursed as denied the Roman Church, to be chief of all Churches, or presumed to impugn in any thing the Orthodoxal Faith thereof: whereupon immediately the Emperor caused the said Books to be burned in the sight of al. So that the argument here drawn from Nycetas is most fully answered by Nycetas himself. And as for sundry Bishops, and Henry the Third, the Emperor, withstanding Pope Hildebrand, and judging him to be deposed, it is altogether immaterial; for the said Bishops adhering schismatically to the Emperor, for the which (86) Baro: Anno 1076. num. 15. themselves were Excommunicated, and the Emperor also for his many enormous vices, it is no marvel, though such men would endeavour their best for his deposing: And yet the Emperor (87) Ib. Anno 10●7 num. 10. & 18. after submitted himself, going to the Pope , and after four days fasting, was admitted to his speech, and upon certain Conditions was absolved by the Pope from his Excommunication: Yea it is observed from the Writers of those times, that the Bishops and other Principal men who withstood the Pope, during the said Schism, were most or all of them severely punished by God in this world: amongst whom William Bishop of Virick being the Ringleader, and one who, as Lambertus recordeth, usually upon Festival days at Masse-time publicly inveighed against the Pope; this man being suddenly taken with a grevous infirmity, with miserable howling before all that were present cried out, that by the just jud ement of God, he had lost both this present and eternal life; in that with all his power he had concurred with the King, in all things which he wickedly intended, and for desire of his favour had wittingly and willingly uttered grievous Contumelies against the Roman Bishop, a man most holy and of Apostolical virtues: which when he had said, (as the report is) he d●ed without Receiving or any Satisfaction. Thus far Lambertus: But (88) In Chronico Citicensi. Langius addeth further that, In the very place wherein he detracted from the Roman Bishop, he fell sick, where he continued until the miserable end of his life; and his disease still increasing, one of the King's servants, ask him that he might return to the King with his Command: I send (answered he) to the King this Command: That he, and I, and all that favour his Iniquity are damned for ever; yea when he was admonished by some of his Clergy, that he would not say so, he replied, what should I say, but that which I visibly see to be true? for behold the Devils do compass my bed about, that when I die they may presently catch me. Wherefore I desire you, and all faithful people, not to trouble themselves with praying for me after my death. Now by this we must briefly note, what wretched and most damnable witnesses our Minister still produceth against the Roman Church, and in defence of his own. As for Sigebert he was known to be one of the followers and flatterers of Henry the fourth the Emperor, and therefore his testimony in this case is of no force. But beside, his affirming the Pope's Excommunicating of Princes etc. to be a novelty and Heresy, is most absurd and untrue; as might be proved 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. Gregory the Second, excommunicating the Emperor Leo; of S. Ambrose Excommunicating the Emperor Theodosius; and sundry such like. Lastly, concerning Berengarius as he resisted for a time the Real Presence, so did he publicly (a) Fox Act Mon. p. 146. recant the same. Yea his Error was so great, and his Condemnation so just, that the Centurists thus write thereof: (n) Cent. 11. c. 10. p. 527. Leo the Ninth, deserved in this one thing, no small praise above his predecessors, that presently at the beginning he condemned the Heresy of Berengarius, together with the Author in a Synod at Rome. But I have sufficiently before cleared our Roman Church of all pretended change in this behalf. After 1100. 1100. to 1150. I name (saith M. White) Henry the Fift the Emperor, who against Paschalis then Pope, maintained his right of making Bishops, and other privileges etc. (89) Chron. Casmense l. 4. But who doubteth that any Prince may not defend his right? Yet that which was done in the case proposed, was done by fraud and violence, by the Emperor against the Pope, who for the quiet of the Church, yielded in some respects concerning the same Privileges, much blood having been shed of either side, and great wars likely to ensue. And yet the said Emperor upon the same agreement swore unto 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 have, and that he would obey the Pope, the honour of his Kingdom and Empire ever preserved. After which, the Pope saying Mass, when himself and those of the Clergy assisting at the Altar had Communicated, the Emperor also Received at the hands of the Pope. Now by this it sufficiently appeareth, that this Example of the Emperor, doth nothing prove any Innovation in the Roman Church, but rather to the contrary, doth plainly show his union and Communion therewith in matters of faith and Religion. In like sort where he objecteth, that S. Bernard freely noted diverse Corruptions then coming in; it is so unprobable, yea so grossly untrue, as that to the contrary (90) L. 2. Cont. Dur. p 154. Fulk against. Rhem. Test. f. 133. D. Whitaker, and D. Fulk, both of them confess, that he taught the Pope's Supremacy, and D. Whitaker (91) Ad Rat. Camp. rat. 7. p. 105. aknowledgeth, that he was of our Church. (92) In specul. Eccl. p. 23. Gomarus calleth him our S. Bernard. The Centurists affirm, that he was 93) ●ent 12. c. 10. col. 1637. a most earnest Defender of the Sea of Antichrist. Bel (94) Challenge etc. p. 148. termeth him, Bernard, the Pope's dear Monk and reverend Abbot. Yea the Centurists further report, That he said 95) Cent. 12. col. 1939. to the Duke of Aquitaine, whatsoever is out of the Roman Church, by the judgement of God is certainly to perish, even as those things which were out of the Ark, were drowned in the deluge: As also he that persecuteth the Pope of Rome, persecuteth the Son of God. Now by this, all of it confessed by sundry and much more learned Protestants then M. White, it more than clearly appeareth, that S. Bernard was no fit witness to be produced against the Roman Church, nor that he himself, did differ in any one point of Faith from her, much less did note any pretended corruption of Faith coming in: And as for the feast of the Conception, or the Doctrine concerning the Virgin Mary's freedom from original sin, it is not yet to this day defined by the Church as a matter of Faith. But where he further urgeth that S. Berna●d was against Merits, justification by works, Freewill, keeping the Law, Seven Sacraments and uncertantie of our Salvation, and the Pope's greatness in Temporalities, it is all of it most untrue, as himself might have plainly showed, if he had been pleased to have set down the answers out of Cardinal Bellarmine, as he was to have his objections. In like sort, that which he objecteth concerning Arnulph, pertaineth only to matter of life and manners, not to Faith or doctrine, and therefore it maketh nothing to prove any Innovation or change in our present Roman Religion; As also, though as than one preached in Antwerp, against the Real Presence; yet I have before freed our Church from all Innovation 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 untrue that M. Cartwright (96) See before l. 2. c. 8. confesseth that it was brought in by Pope Alexander, who lived Anno 111. which is some thousand years before the time now objected. After 1150. to 1200. I name (saith M. White) the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa forbidding Appeals to Rome, and the coming of Legates from Rome into Germany etc. But though the Emperor did this, being as then at discord with the Pope, yet his fact was so faulty, as that he was thereupon, and for other injuries, Excommunicated: From which 97) Baron. Anno 1160. num. 31. 32. & Anno 1168. num. 60. after, upon his submission 98) Baron. Anno 1177. num. 22. and promise of obedience, he was absolved, and permitted to come to the Pope, whose feet the Emperor kissed, and bowing his head received reverently his benediction: And that the Roman Church as then, made no Innovation concerning Appeals, or sending of Legates, it is most clear by general practice & allowance thereof in the purest times of the Primitive Church, proved at large 99) Before l. 2. c. 4. heretofore. And as for Lincolniensis noting as then the Novelty and Heresy of Friars, M. White only barely saith it without all further proof: yea though as then the Institution of Friars had been but new, yet neither was it in any thing Heretical, nor proved any Innovation in the Church, in Faith and doctrine. But to come to the Waldenses, who, according to D. White, were dispersed over all this part of the world, and in most substantial points resisted the Papacy etc. as it is not denied, but that in some points they revolted from the Roman Faith, so have I shown 100) Before l. 1. c. 3. before, that in sundry other weighty Articles of Religion, they agreed with Catholics against Protestants. And it is very easy further to prove, that indeed they believed sundry gross errors, though M. White would make the world to think, That the said errors were falsely imposed upon them. 103) Ibid. p. 729. 747. 760. For Illiricus himself 101) Catal. Test. verit. p 731. 745. 730. 732. testifieth that they taught, That Laymen and women might Consecrate (the Sacrament) and preach: That Clergy men should have no possessions or proprieties: That 104) Ibid. p. 731. 743. married Persons mortally sinned, who accompanied together without hope of Issue: That neither Priest 105) Ibid. p. 760. 740. & Osiand. Cent. 9 10. 11. p. 440. nor Civil Magistrate being guilty of mortal sin, did enjoy their dignity, or were to be obeyed. And to omit many 106) Ibid. p. 734. others; they went to the Catholic Churches dissembling, and offered, confessed, and communicated dissemblingly. And now must M. White either charge his own Brother Illiricus, to have falsely imposed these errors upon them, or else must he confess that these so dissembling and ignorant witnesses, are altogether insufficient to prove any change in the Roman Church, out of which themselves went out. After 1200. 1200. to 1250. I name (saith M. White) Almaricus a Doctor of Paris, that was burned for withstanding Altars, Images etc. It is not denied but that Almaricus was an Heretic, falling from the Roman Church: But yet I hope D. White will be ashamed to claim him for a Protestant; for he was condemned first by the University of Paris, after by Innocentius and a Synod at Rome, for these propositions following: (o) Cesarius Dial. l. 5, That there is no Resurrection of bodies. Secondly, that there is no Paradise norhel Thirdly, that the body of Christ is no more in the Sacrament, after the words of Consecration, then in a stone or horse. Fourthly, that God spoke as much in Ovid, as in Austin, and other such to the number of 20. for which he was burned openly in Paris with certain other blasphemous Heretics against the Persons of the B. Trinity; saith (p) Lib. 6. Hist. Franc. and see Gers. Tract. 3. in Math. Aemilius li. 6. Hist. Gal. Genebrad in Chro. Anno 1208. Gagninus. Besides I have (107) Before lib. 2. c. 14. 22. proved before, that the foresaid Catholic points, urged to be denied by Almaricus, were yet all of them taught and believed by the Fathers of the Primitive Church, so that no Innovation therein could be observed or reproved by Almaricus. In like sort though Robert Bishop of Lincoln withstood the Pope's proceed in England; yet this nothing proveth any change or first coming in, of any point of Faith in the Roman Church observed or resisted by the said Robert. Besides D. Godwine reporteth that a Cardinal said to the Pope concerning him: He (a) Catalo. of Bishop of England. p. 240. is for Religion a Catholic as well as we: And so dying, he gave all his books (an excellent Library) unto the Friar Minors at Oxford. So charitable was he to Friars, and consequently so Roman Catholic even at his very death. And where he affirmeth that joakim Abbas said, that Antichrist was borne at Rome, and should sit in the Apostolic sea; It is so untrue, that, in his Epistle prefiged to his Exposition upon the Apocalypse, he submitteth his writings to the Censure of the Sea Apostolic, affirming further that he firmly believeth, that the Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Roman Church, and that her Faith shall not perish before the end of the world. Yea in his Exposition upon the 6. Chapter and 11. verse, he calleth such the Sons of Babylon, who impugn the Church of Peter. And upon the 7. Chapter and 2. verse, by the Angel ascending from the East, having the sign of the living God, he understandeth the Bishop of Rome, who with his fellow-Bishops, with the sign of the Cross will arm the Elect in that last tribulation which Antichrist shall raise: So little cause there is to urge this Abbot against the Pope. And indeed all that truly can be urged against him, is that being an old man, and half out of his wits, he was censured by the Pope for certain fond Prophecies, and some errors also about the B. Trinity, as appeareth by the Decree extant in the Canon Law against him, and by other Authors that have written of him. And as for Fidericus the Second Emperor resisting the Pope's Supremacy, it proveth no more, but that even the most vicious Emperors were most adverse 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 Council holden at Lions; so that his resisting in this regard the Supremacy, is only a guilty and convicted Persons resisting of all such lawful Authority, whereby he is censured and punished. Concerning Arnoldus Villanovanus speaking against Friars, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and Papal Decrees: This M. White only proveth by the testimonies of the Magdeburgians, and Osiander; which being Protestants, are no competent witnesses against Catholics; But beside, I have proved (107) l. 2. c. 9 4. before, that the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Pope's Authority were believed, and practised in much more ancient times; As also that the Institution of Friars, proveth no Innovation in Faith and Religion. Euerardus broaching those foul and false reproaches against Pope Gregory the Seaventh, called Hildebrand, proveth nothing but his own disobedience and impatience, having been by the same 108) Greg. 7. Ep. 18. Pope for his own demerits, justly 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 have showed sufficiently before. The Preachers also (saith he) in Sweden, that publicly taught the Pope and his Bishops to be Heretics: But M. White receiving this Relation from Illiricus, no further answer will be requisite. Dantes also (saith he) writ, that the Empire descended not from the Pope: But Dantes being only a Poet, intermeddling in other matters committed (109) See Bellar. in Append. ad lib. de Sum. Pont c. 14. many gross errors; for which his books are condemned, and prohibited by the Church, yea he lived in faction against some (110) Ibid. 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 Sums are found many things confuted that then were coming in, no further particular answer can be expected; and though he refer himself for particulars to this his own Book, yet citing no page or place thereof, I hold it unworthy of so painful search; it being also well known that Altisiodorensis only differed from other Schoolmen, in matters disputable and not defined. After 1300. 1300. to 1350. I name (saith he) Marcilius Patavinus, that wrote against the Pope's Supremacy. But he being a known condemned Heretic, a flatterer of the Schismatical Emperor, and his Books condemned by the Church; as also the Pope's Primacy being formerly acknowledged in the Primitive Church, his testimony is sundry ways insufficient. And the like is to be answered to Ocham, (111) Trithe●nius & Genebrard l. 4. Chron. who was purposely hired by the Emperor to write against the Pope; who was also Excommunicated and his Books prohibited; & Gregorius Ariminensis his differences, were only in School points not determined by the Church. And as for the University of Paris condemning the Pope's Pardons, it is most untrue; and therefore M. White did well to father it only upon his Brother Illiricus, whom he knew to be expert in the art of forging. After 1350. 1350. to 1400. I name (saith he) Alu●rus Pelagius, who wrote a Book of the L mentation of the Church, wherein he reproveth divers abuses of his times. But who denyeth but that in the Militant Church consisting of good and evil, there are many abuses in life and conversation? But as for abuse or Innovation in matter of Doctrine and Faith. Aluarus maketh no mention at all in his said Book. And as for Montziger disputing against transubstantiation, and Adoration of the Sacrament, and Cesenas calling the Pope Antichrist, besides that the truth hereof dependeth only of the testimony of Fox, and Ill●ricus, both of them Protestants, I have sufficiently before cleared both these points from all Innovation in Ages much more ancient. Now as for john Wiceliffe, as I have showed (112) l. 1. c. 3. before, that in sundry points of Faith he agreed with Catholics, which Protestants now impugn; so it is evident that he taught sundry gross errors, which both Catholics and Protestants do detest, as that, If a (113) Fox Act. M●n. p. 96. Bishop or Priest be in deadly sin, he doth not Order, consecrate, or Baptise: that, All (114) Osiand cent. 9 10. 11. p. 459. oaths are unlawful: That (115) Osiand cent. 15. p. 457. all things come to pass by absolute necessity: That there 116) Ib. p. 454. is no Civil Migistrate whilst he is in mortal sin, and sundry others; in regard of which, Protestant's 117) Pant. Chronol. p. 119. Mathias Ho. in his Tract, duo. Tract. 1. p. 27. themselves rank him in the Catalogue of Heretics. So that small Credit or succour will M. White purchase for producing Wiccliffe, as one of his witnesses against the Roman Church. After 1400. 1400. to 1450. I name (saith he) the lollard in England etc. that were persecuted at that time: And that very justly, M. White; for beside, that they held the former Heresies of the Wicclivists, they further (118) Trithem. in Chr. Anno. 1315. impugned the Sacraments of Baptism, and the Eucharist; they held that Lucifer with the rest of his Angels, were injuriously thrust out of Heaven by Michael and his Angels, and consequently to be restored again at the day of judgement; and that Michael and his Angels are for the said injury to be damned from the day of judgement for ever: That our B. Lady could not bear Christ, and remain a Virgin: That any thing done under the earth in Caves 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 Ploughman's tale, reporting that Chaucer expressly writ, the Pope and his Clergy to be Antichrist; as unworthy of other answer, I leave it for a Tale fit for Plowmen to tell in a winter's night, having also spoken of this point before. Neither doth Nilus his writing against Purgatory, and the Pope's Supremacy, any thing advantage the Protestant Church, or impugn the Roman; for both these Doctrines I have formerly proved to have been the general belief of the Primitive Church. Besides Nilus was one of the Greek Church, which sometimes in the foresaid points was divided from the Roman; yea he was condemned for an Heretic, and thereupon enroled by Illiricus (119) Catalogue. Test. verit. Tom. 2. p. 876. amongst the witnesses of the Truth of protestancy. Concerning john hus, and Hierome of prague, D. White confessing, that their Doctrine was the same with that of the waldenses, the former answer to them, may serve also for this. Besides I have (120) l. 1. c. 3. convinced heretofore, that Husse wholly agreed with Catholics in sundry Articles, earnestly now impugned by Protestants. As for Savanarola, his writings are condemned by the Church of Christ: Neither did he impugn any one point of our Catholic Faith, which I have not formerly showed to have been taught by the ancient Fathers. And therefore his resisting the Roman Church, doth nothing prove any change or Innovation made by her. And the self same answer is to be given to Wesselus Groningensis, whose Books are prohibited; As also to joannes de Vessalia, who defended the Heresy of the Grecians, concerning the proceeding of the holy-ghost: who yet in the end, recanted all his opinions held against the Church of Rome. And where M. White further affirmeth, that in England also and Bohemia, lived those which followed the Doctrine of Wiccliffe and Husse continuing the same till Luther: Supposing this for true (the contrary whereof I have proved (121) l. 1. c. 3. already at large) yet doth it prove no more than the Examples of Wiccliffe and Husse themselves, which lately we have seen to prove nothing at all in behalf of Protestants. And when 1500. 1500. years were expired, arose (saith M. White) Luther, Suinglius, Tindal, and diverse others, whom God raised up to call his people out of Babylon etc. These I must confess were faithful witnesses for M. Whites Church, and great Resisters of the Roman: But I cannot confess that God, but the Devil only raised them up; for so Luther confesseth (122) Tom 7. Wittem l. de Missa f. 443. that Satan dissuaded him from the Mass: And (123) Tom. 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 showed of sundry others first broachers of protestancy. But as now I will purposely for bear, having waded over long in this so unsavoury a Puddle of D. Whites Catalogue: In which, as he hath not proved by any one Instance, any known beginning or change in our present Roman Faith since the Apostles times, so I cannot but observe, that amongst all the witnesses by him produced against the Roman Church, not one can be picked out, which was not a man vicious and of a scandalous life, or else infected with Schism and Heresy, for which he was ever noted, reproved, and condemned, even by the Doctors and Writers of the same time wherein he lived. And so I still conclude, that our Roman Church, having never Gone out of any other Church, nor ever been noted of Innovation and change in Faith, that therefore she is not any Novel or Heretical Sect, but the One, True, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ. THE FOURTH BOOK, WHEREIN 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 have ever continued from his time, until the Date hereof: And of the contrary, the Protestants Church to be only a Sect Heretical, & never to have been before the days of Luther. PROTESTANTS FLYING TO THE sacred Scriptures in proof and defence of their Church and Religion, it is showed, the said flight, not only in itself to be dishonourable, but also to be the ordinary flight of all modern Heretics. CHAPTER I. HAVING laboured thus far with all diligence, to search for the finding out of Christ's true Church, and her necessary continuance and visibility throughout all Ages; and ever finding the present Roman Church and Religion, to have been at all times the only known, public, and professed Church of Christians in all Countries whatsoever: The Protestant Congregation in the mean time being indeed not in Being, and by their own former acknowledgements not known, visible, or heard-of in the Christian world; I begun further to think with myself, what strange evasion, colour, or pretence our Protestant's could invent for their further maintaining of their new-sprong Faith. And reading casually in (1) l. 7. p. 478 D. Whitakers book against the jesuit Duraeus, I found him expressly to hold and teach, that it is sufficient for us Protestants, by comparing the Popish doctrine and Scriptures together, to know their difference and disagreeing; we leave it free for Historiographers (saith he) to write what they list. And agreably hereto, I since found (2) In Bancroftes Survey. p. 219. Beza to say: If any shall oppose against my exposition the authority of certain of the ancient Fathers, I do appeal to the word of God. So that the Protestants last refuge and appeal, is, to the only written word of God, distrusting and renouncing all proof or testimony either from ancient Counsels, Fathers, or Histories; for they willingly (3) Midleton in his Papistomastix p. 193. confess, that perusing Counsels, Fathers, and Stories from the Apostles forward, they find the Print of the Pope's feet. Now for the clearer discovery of the gross absurdity, and greatest insufficiency of this desperate answer, I will make proof of two several truths: First, that the said answer hath ever been, and is still, the ordinary answer of all Heretics, thereby intending to escape, not only the foulest stain of Novellisme or Innovation, but withal to prevent all strongest arguments drawn from general Counsels though never so lawful, from ancient Doctors though never so learned, and from Ecclesiastical Histories though never so true. The second truth is, that their so appealing to the Sacred Scriptures, is the thrusting their own throats againsts the sharpest points of their Enemy's swords. For by them I will evidently prove 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 adverse and disagreeing with the Scriptures themselves, and so in itself to be novel, heretical, and damnable. And to omit the ordinary custom of elder Heretics in appealing from all other proofs to only Scripture, observed and reproved in them, by the ancientest and learnedst (4) 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. adverse. haeres. c. 35. Ambr. in c. vlt. ad Tit. Orig. hom. 7. in Ezech. Doctors and Fathers of the Primitive Church, namely Tertulian, Hierome, Augustin, Hilary, Vincentius Lyrinensis, and others: And only to observe, how the refinedst Sectaries of these our days, with the same pretence of Scripture, do daily revolt and rebel from their other Brethren. And first concerning the Puritans against the Protestants, D. white gift alleging and urging in behalf of metropolitans, the authority of the Nicene Council, (5) In his 2. Reply. part. 1. p. 484. M. Cartwright replieth: Touching the perfect unity of Substance of our Saviour Christ with God the Father, it giving Sentence upon the infallible Word of God, is worthily to be reverenced: But if the Doctors will have their soundness in that point to authorise the rest etc. it is that which we can by no means assent unto. And that it may appear, how justly we call this Canon of the Council (touching metropolitans) unto the touchstone of the word of God; Let it be considered etc. yea the same 6) In Whiteg. Def. p. 111. M. Cartwright alloweth the judgement of his learnedst father Caluin, but with this restraint: So far (saith he) as we can esteem, that that, which M. Caluin saith, doth agree with the Canonical Scriptures. This practice is so ordinary with the Puritans, that D. Bancroft in his Survey of pretended Discipline, spendeth wholly his 27. Chapter in observing and reproving the same. In like sort the (7) In their Apology. p. 103. 4. 98. 99 100 And see M. Aynsworth in his Counterpoison. p. 15. 154. Brownists of Amsterdam, answering to D. bilson's allegations from the Fathers, resolutely affirm and say: Let M. Bilson with these Doctors know, that unless they can approve by the word of God their Prelacy, etc. All the colour they bring out of former times and writers, is of no moment in this case. And as for the Anabaptistes, (8) 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 hear; for which very point and error, they are reproved by (9) Tract. Theol p. 171 in Psycophannichiae. p. 451. And in his Instruction adversus Anabap p. 478 M. Caluin in these words: Because silly Christians, who have some zeal towards God, can be seduced by no show or appearance more fair, then when the word of God is pretended and alleged, the Anabaptists, against whom we now write, have it always in their mouths, and they always solemnly recite it etc. And again, The Devil himself armed himself with the word of God, and girded himself with that sword to invade and assault Christ. And we find true by experience, that he doth daily use these guiles or arts, by organs or instruments, to deprave the truth, and so to lead miserable Souls to destruction. So ordinary it is with the Anabaptists and the Devil himself, in defence of their errors, ever to appeal to the only written word. The same answer is likewise given by the Protestant Arians of these times; insomuch as (10) Lib de Christi Naturae. p. 222. Socinus in defence of his error against the Divinity of Christ, answereth his Protestant Adversary Volanus in these words: We propound to us in this question none for Master or Interpreter, but only the holy-ghost etc. we do not think, that we are to stand to the judgement of any men, though never so learned; of any Counsels, though in show never so holy, and lawfully assembled; of any visible Church, though never so perfect and universal. Simlerus (11) De aeterno De● filio. l. 1. c. 2. writeth of the Arians: They provoke us to Scriptures, and because they know all Antiquity to be against them, they reject all without exception. And (12) In ep. Theol. ep. 15. p. 119. 120. Beza saith to the Arian Statorius (who was sometime Bezas' Scholar, and dear to him) Oughtest thou not to remember from whom, to whom thou hast revolted? But thou sayest: I do not depend of men, but of the word of God. Very well: But doth the word of God teach thee etc. that he can be a Saviour &c, who is not God? So that our modern Puritans, Brownists, Anabaptists and Arians, do all of them in defence of their several errors, being urged by other Protestants with the authority of the Church, Fathers, and Counsels, ever appeal unto the only written word. But who would not think, but that our ordinary Protestants, thus reproving in their revolting Brethren, their contempt of the Church, Fathers, and Counsels, and their running to only Scripture, would not be found faulty herein themselves? And yet when their learnedst Bishops and Doctors are urged upon several occasions by our Catholic writers, with the authority of Church, Fathers, and Counsels, none more ready than themselves to refuse, disgrace, and reject the same, and that ever with pretence and appeal to only Scripture. A truth so evident, that their foresaid rebellious Brethren do plainly acknowledge, that this their course of appealing to only Scripture, was taught and defended by themselves; for thus say the (13) Simlerus De filio Dei. in bullinger's pref. there fol. 4. And in Simlerus his other Priface. fol. 1. Antitrinitarians to the Tigurine Protestans: You have taught us, that nothing is to be received besides the Scriptures; therefore we demand, where it is written in the Scriptures? etc. Except you show this, according to your Rule, we reject and condemn those things: therefore we have learned of you to contemn the Fathers. And Socinus (14) Lib. de Christi Nat. p. 21. the Arian answering his Protestant Adversary Volanus, demandeth: To what purpose should I answer that which thou borrowest from the Papists etc. especially where thou opposest to us the perpetual Consent of the Church? Very excellently doubtless in this behalf hath Hosius (the Papist) discoursed against you, wounding you with your own sword. And therefore you are no less deceived in urging against us the Churches perpetual Consent, then are the Papists in their urging thereof, both against you & us. And again (15) Ibid. p. 222. Even Volanus himself, disputing against the jesuits, is enforced to reject the Examples, Say and Deeds of Athanasius, Hierom, Austin, Theodoret, and other Fathers, whose authority he now opposeth against us as sacred. Thus much have I thought good to remember, that Volanus may receive answer from himself, when he so often enforceth against us the authority of learned men, and consent of the Church. In like sort said (16) In bancroft's Survey p. 219. Beza before: If any shall oppose against my Exposition the authority of certain of the ancient Fathers, I do appeal to the word of God. With whom agreed (17) Cont. Duraum. l. 7. p. 478 D. Whitaker teaching, that It is sufficient for (Protestants) by comparing the Popish Doctrine and Scriptures together, to know their difference; we leave it free for Historiographers to write what they list. And yet the same (18) Ibid. p. 472. D. Whitaker in the self same book affordeth this credit & authority to Histories, that (saith he) Whatsoever the old Prophets have foretold of the propagation, largeness, and glory of the Church, that to be performed, history most clearly testifieth: So that there is no Controversy, but that Ecclesiastical History doth give testimony to the predictions of the Prophets. Yea this foul flight from Histories, Fathers, and Counsels, thus practised by all sorts of Protestants, is an Argument most convincing, that the said Histories, Fathers, and Counsels make directly against them; insomuch as one (19) The Author of A brief answer to certain objections against the Descension of Christ into Hel. p. 1. of our English Protestant Writers, being ashamed of this course, reproveth herein his other Protestant Brother, saying: Where you say, we must build our Faith on the Word of Faith, tying us to Scripture only, you give just occasion to think, that you neither have the ancient Fathers of Christ's Church, nor their Sons succeeding them, agreeing with you in this point, which implieth a defence of some strange Paradox. By all which, we may see this miserable shift of all kind of Heretics, in refusing all proofs but only Scripture, to be no less in itself then a strongest argument, that all Heretics are devoid of all other proofs. THAT EVEN THE SACRED SCRIPTURES themselves do most plentifully testify our Roman 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 contrary to the said Scriptures: And that, first by the Churches necessary continuance and universality. CHAPTER II. AS it hath been ever most frequent, so to me still it is most strange, why all Heretics both ancient and modern, for their last Refuge, do ever betake themselves to the sacred Scriptures: , as nothing is of greater power and authority in itself to judge & condemn, so nothing more strongly confuteth Heresies, than the foresaid Scriptures, if either they be taken in their literal sense, or according to the exposition of the Primitive Church. The Sacred Scriptures do plainly teach, that the true Church of Christ is ever to continue, even from Christ's time until the end of the world, and that not in one particular Nation or Country, but that most universally, & with plentiful increase. In which respect the Church of Christ is foretold to be 1] Dan. 21.44. A Kingdom that shall never be destroyed (but) shall stand for ever: 2) Esay. 60.15. As an eternal glory and joy from generation to generation 3) Act. 5.52. That so, being of God it shall not to be dissolved. Yea further it is said of the Church, that 4) Es. 6.20. A little one shall become as a thousand, and a small one as a strong Nation: that 5) Es. 2.2. All Nations shall flow to it; which place is expounded by Protestants 6) In the Marginal Notes of the English Bib. of An. 1370 in Es. 2 2. of the Church of Christ to be enlarged. 7) Ps. 2.8. This is understood of Christ's Church by the Marg. Notes of the Engl. Bib. of 3576. And the Prophet David foretelleth, that It shall have the end of the earth for it possession 8) Ps 72 8. from Sea to Sea. And Christ himself saith of his Church; 9) Math. 13 51. Mat 4. 3●. And see the Marg. notes of Dan. 2.45. The Kingdom of Heaven is like to a Mustardseed, the least of all seeds; but when it is grown, it is the greatest amongst herbs, and is made a tree, so as the fowls of the air may come and dwell under the shadow thereof. And concerning 10) In the Engl. Bib. the Contents of the 60. ch. of Esay. the Gentiles coming to the Church in abundance, it is said 11) Es. 60.5 Thou shalt see and shine, thy hart shall be astonied and enlarged, because the multitude of the Sea shall be converted to thee. 12) Es. 60.9 The Isles shall wait for thee 13) Esa. 60.11. And see Psal. 102.15.22. & Esay. 62.2. Their Kings shall minister to thee, and thy Gates shall be continually open, neither day nor night shall they be shut, that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentiles. And in the person of the Church it is said 14) Esay. 49 20. The place is straight for me, give room that I may inhabit. And again to the Church 15) Esa. 54.2.3. And see there the Contents of the Engl. Bib. Enlarge the place of thy Tents, spread out the Curtains of thy habitation; for thou shalt increase on the right hand, and on the left: thy seed shall possess the Gentiles, and inhabit the desolate Cities. From these and sundry other such places, Protestants themselves collect & infer most truly, that the Church of Christ is to continued for ever. 16) Against Raynolds in his Answ. to the Pref. p. 33. D. Whitaker saith; We believe to the comfort of our souls, that Christ's Church hath continued, & never shall fail so long as the world endureth. And, We account it a profane Heresy to teach, that Christ's Catholic Church hath perished from the earth at any time; for this assertion shaketh the foundation of all faith. The Divines of Wittenberg do firmly believe, the Church to have continued upon earth without interruption, and with perpetual Succession from the Ascension (of Christ) to these times; 18) Ibid. p. 1065. as also that, The true Church is to continue upon earth against all the furies of Satan, even until the coming of Christ at the last judgement. Insomuch as 19) Trast. Theol. etc. in Refut. Errorum Ser. p. 762. Caluin upon this known principle of the Church's Continuance thus urgeth Seruetus: I have not touched that continual banishment from the earth which he feigneth of the Church, in which he plainly argueth God of lying etc. He feigneth the Church for 1260. years to have been banished from the world, so that Heaven should be her place of exile etc. Again, God otherwise should have lied, who promised a certain people always to himself, as long as the Sun and Moon shall shine in Heaven: we know what the Prophets have in sundry places testified of the eternal kingdom of Christ. Do they place the seat thereof in the Heavens? yea they foretell, that our Lord will show a far-of her Sceptre from Zion, wherewith She may rule from the East to the west, and her inheritance may be the whole world. The Protestant 20) Harm. of Confess. p. 321. Confession of Belgia teaecheth, that there is one Catholic or universal Church etc. which as it hath been from the beginning of the world, so it shall continue unto the end thereof: The which appeareth by this, that Christ is our eternal King, who can never be without subjects. And, to conclude, this holy Church is not situated or limited in any set or certain place; nor yet bound and tied to any certain and peculiar persons; but spread over the face of the whole earth etc. The Protestant 21) Ibid. p. 306. 307. Confession of Helvetia in the same behalf argueth thus: 17) In Osiand. cont. 16. p. 1064. Forasmuch as God from the beginning, would have men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of truth, therefore it is necessary, that always from the beginning, at this day, & to the end of the world, there should be a Church etc. As also, that there is always but one God, & one Mediator &c it followeth necessarily, that there is but one Church, which we therefore call Catholic, because it is universal, spread abroad through all parts and quarters of the world, and reacheth unto all times, and is not limited within the compass either of time or place. But none is more full herein then 22) The way to the true Church. p. 85. 86. D. white, saying: we confess the Church never ceaseth to be, but continueth always without interruption to the world's end: And that so universally, that 23) In his Defence. p. 465. D. Whiteguift avoucheth that, The Church of Christ is dispersed through the whole world, and can not now be shut up in one Kingdom, for that he termeth an impossibility. 23) In his Defence. p. 465. D. Whitaker confesseth of the fore-alleaged Scriptures, that, The promises of God concerning the largeness and beauty of his Church, have been accomplished. And in this regard, of the Churches ever continuance and universality, thus plainly taught by the Scriptures, and believed by Protestants, the holy Apostles in their Creed gave unto the Church the Surname of Catholic, that is universal; for so saith 25) Sovereign Remedy against Schism. p. 23. M. Clapham: the Church was to enlarge her Tents, & stretch her Cordes universally through the earth, 24) Answ. to Raynolds in the Pref. p. 37. for which cause it is called Catholic. But now to examine, whether the Roman or Protestant Church, is this Apostolic Church, thus plainly taught by the sacred Scriptures, and the acknowledgements of Protestants, ever to continue even from Christ's time, to the end of the world, and that not in one or other particular Nation, but even universally over the whole world: First concerning the Protestant Church, it hath so little performed the foresaid predictions of the Sacred Scriptures, for the Churches ever Continuance and Universality, as that to the contrary (26) R●sp. ad Camp. rat. 3. p. 48. D. Whitaker confesseth, that The Mystery of iniquity, which took root in the Apostles times, went through all the parts of the Church, and at length possessed the whole Church. Now if the whole Church of Protestants and all the parts thereof were thus possessed with the mystery of iniquity, what true Church was then left in being or continuing in the world? Agreably hereto teacheth (27) In epist. jesuit. part. alt. p. 49. Cannerus: we are come to these times which even exceed the confusion of the Arian fury; error hath possessed not one or other little part, but Apostasy hath averted the whole body from true Christ: So that in these times the Protestant Church consisted without a body. In like sort writeth (28) Upon the Creed. p. 400. M. Parkins: we say that before the days of Luther for the space of many hundred years, an universal Apostasy endeavoured the whole face of the earth. Which necessarily inferreth the Protestant Churches not being, during the foresaid Apostasy. But D. Willet observing the certain discontinuance, or not-being of his Church for many former Ages, is not ashamed for his best help, contrary to the foresaid Scriptures, and his other Brethren, boldly to impugn and deny the ever certain Continuance of Christ's Church upon earth; for (29) Synopsis. p. 54. thus he saith: A visible Church we desire to be a congregation of men, among whom the Word is truly preached, and the Sacraments administered: Such a Church hath not always been, neither can we be assured that it shallbe always found upon the earth etc. concluding of the time of Antichrist, that then, shall the visible Church fail upon earth. With whom agreeth (30) Answ. to a Counterf. Cath. p. 79. D. Fulk affirming, that the visible Church may become an Adulteress, and be divorced from Christ: And which (31) Answer to a Popish Pamphlet. p. 100 M. Woodcock acknowledgeth, that Protestant's have often wanted in their assemblies worshipping of God in the Word, Sacraments, and Prayer. Now from these premises doth avoidable follow the real impugning of the certain continuance of Christ's Church upon earth; for if according to D. Willet here, the Church's visibility doth consist in administration of Word and Sacraments, of which himself saith (32) Synops. p. 71. These marks can not be absent from the Church; and it is no longer a true Church than it hath those marks; for as he further (33) Ib. p. 69 avoucheth, the only absence of them do make a Nullity of the Church: Then, if the visible Church may fail upon earth, who then so dull, as discerneth not, that, by necessary sequel hereof, the true Church may also fail upon earth? (54) Against M. Raynolds in his Answ. to the Pref. p. 33. Directly contrary to which D. Whitaker said before, We believe that Christ's Church shall never fail, and we account it a profane Heresy to teach that Christ's Catholic Church hath perished from the earth at any time; for this Assertion shaketh the foundation of all faith. Into such miserable straits & manifest contradictions are the learnedst Protestants driven, through want of their Church's continuance and universality. Yea upon the self same ground of the Protestant Churches not fulfilling the predictions of the Church's continuance, (35) In his Preface of the great Latin Bible dedicated to K. Edward the Sixt. Castalio bursteth out into these words: Verily we must confess, either that those things shall be performed hereafter, or have been already, or that God is to be accused of lying. If any man answer, that they have been performed, I will demand of him, when? If he say in the Apostles time, I will demand, how it chanceth, that neither then the knowledge of God was altogether perfect, and often in so abort space vanished away, which was promised to be eternal, and more abundant than the floods of the Sea? And again, The more I do peruse the Scriptures, the less do I find the same performed, howsoever you understand the said Prophecies. But (36) Apcalypsis insignium aliquot Haer●siarcharum. fol. 4. nu. 8. David George a Protestant at Basile proceeded much further upon 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 Salvation, the Church, by their Doctrine they had framed and confirmed, should not have been torn asunder; for against the Church the Gates of Hell (Christ himself witnessing) can not prevail; But now it is evident, that the building of Christ and his Apostles is utterly overthrown by Antichrist, as is abundantly seen in the papacy. From whence he necessarily concludeth the Doctrine of the Apostles to have been torn and discontinued etc. To the same effect it is reported in his History (37) Historia Georgij Davidis. published by the Divines of Basile, that he thus disputed: If the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles had been true and perfect, the Church which they planted etc. should have continued etc. But now it is manifest that Antichrist hath subverted the Doctrine of the Apostles and the Church by them begun, as is evident in the Papacy; therefore the Doctrine of the Apostles was false and imperfect. Not much less dangerously writeth (38) In praef suorum Dialogorum. Bernardine Ockin: When I did consider how Christ by his power, wisdom, and goodness, had founded and established his Church, washed it with his blood, and enriched it with his Spirit; And again discerned how the same was utterly overthrown; I could not but wonder, and being desirous to know the cause, I found there had been Popes. So plain it is, that the Church of Protestants, which themselves suppose to be the Church of Christ, directly contrary to the foresaid Scriptures, hath not continued, but hath been utterly overthrown. A truth so certain and plain, that therefore Christ, his Apostles, and Doctrine, are all of them accused of lying, through want of accomplishment of the foresaid Prophecies in the Protestant Church's continuance and universality. And here, I can not but admire the folly and impudency of D. White, (39) The way to the Church. p. 85. who directly contrary to his other brethren's confessions & to all Histories, writeth thus audaciously; We confess the Church never ceaseth to be, but continueth always without Interruption to the world's end; and against all Papists we make it good, that this very Faith we now profess, hath successively continued in all Ages since Christ, and was never interrupted so much as one year, month, or day; and to confess the contrary were sufficient to prove us no part of the Church of God etc. And yet the Contrary is plainly confessed by D. Whitaker before, affirming the mystery of Iniquity to have possessed the whole Church; by Cannerus, confessing Apostasy to have averted the whole body (of the Church) from Christ; by M. Pa●kins, confessing, for many hundred years an universal Apostasy; by D. Willet, defending, that the Church, in which the Word is truly preached, and Sacraments administered, hath not always been; by Castalio, confessing, that the Prophecies of the Church's Continuance he cannot find performed in the Protestant Church; by David George confessing that the Protestant Church hath been utterly overthrown, & not continued; and by Bernardine Ockin, teaching the very same. So clear it is, that the Church of Protestants is not the Church of Christ, which, according to the Shriptures, is ever to continue, even from Christ's time unto the end of the world. But now to examine, whether in our Roman Catholic Church the foresaid Scriptures are truly verified by her perpetual Continuance even from Christ's time to these our days, I hold it superfluous, seeing I have proved the same at large heretofore through every Centurie or Age, and that by no weaker proofs than the plainest acknowledgements of many and the learnedst Protestants; as namely (40) See before l. 1. c. 2. for these last 1000 years, by M. Parkins, Powel, Wotton, Tindal, johnson, Dove, Beacon, Fulk, Downham, Whitakers, Luther, Caluin, the Centurists, Osiander, Hospinian, Danaeus, and sundry others: And for the like Continuance of our Roman Church for the first 600. years (41) See before l. 1. c. 5. by Zanchius, Zuinglius, Caluin, Beza, Danaeus, Francus, Rhegius, Broccard, Brightman, Napper, Fulk, Powel, Leigh, Morton, Midleton, Parkins, Bunnie, jewel and many others. Now whereas the Apostles in their Creed do give to the Church the Surname of Catholic, and that for this very reason, according to (42) The Harmony of Confess. p. 307. Clapham in his Sovereign Remedy. p. 23. Protestants themselves, because it is universal, spread abroad through all parts and quarters of the world, and reacheth unto all times etc. This name, Catholic, is so peculiar and appropriate to the Roman Church, and her Professors, as that it is applied only unto them by their greatest Enemies. (43) Act. Mon. p. 613. M. F●x termeth our adversaries Protestants, and us Catholics. (44] l. 7. fol. 96. & l. 10. fol 127. Sleydan recordeth that Luther and others differed only in opinion touching the Lord's Supper, which the Catholics rejoiced at, and the rest much lamented. And the same name is applied to us by M. (45) Reason's taken out of God's word. p. 5. 23. 24. 73. 74. Willet in his Obedience etc. p. 29. Humphrey vita juelli. p. 202. jacob, D. Willet, D. Humphrey and others. Yea the said name is so dissorting from the Prot. Church, & so agreeable 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, Catholic, and in steed thereof put-in Christian. And of the like course observed by Lutherans (46) 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 between the Divines of the Palsgrave of Rhine, and the Duke of Wittenberg, when the one Party objected a saying of Luther, the other Party upon perusal of the places finding therein the word, Catholic, thereupon rejected the whole for counterfeit, saying thereof (47) Colloq. Altemberg. fol 154 these words (uz. Catholickly understood) do not taste of the phrase of Luther: And again, It is not the phrase of Luther, that any thing ought to be understood Catholickly. But not only Lutherans but likewise Caluinists are much out of love and liking with the word, Catholic, as may be seen in Beza, (49) Pref. non Test. jacob in his Reasons etc. p. 5. 7. 24. 23 M. jacob, and others: And yet all this notwithstanding, (54) Trial of the Romish Clergy. p. 285. 286. M. Wotton confesseth that, [48) Ibid. fol. 355. The Reason of the name, Catholic, was at first, that there might be a Title to distinguish sound Christians, and true Churches, from Heretics. Out of the Premises than we may necessarily infer, that the sacred Scriptures assuring us, that the true Catholic Church of Christ must ever continue, even from Christ's time until 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, known and universal in all precedent Ages, the Protestant Congregation being confessedly unknown in any Age precedent to this of ours; that therefore our Roman Church is the only true Church of Christ, so formerly described by the foresaid Scriptures; the Protestant Church remaining only a Sect Heretical, nothing performing the foresaid Oracles. The second Proof from sacred Scriptures, in Confirmation of the Roman Church, and Confutation of the Protestant, is taken from the ever-visibility of Christ's Church. CHAPTER III. THE Church's continuance is by nothing more plainly taught in the sacred Scriptures, then ever-visibility, which is evermore to accompany the true Church of Christ: In which respect it is resembled by the Prophet (1) C. 2. 2. Micheas 4. 1. Esay, to a Mountain prepared in the top of mountains, and exalted above (other) hills: that is, as (2) In the Marginal Notes of the Engl. Bib. of An. 1576 in Esay. 2. 2. Protestants expound the same, in an evident place to be seen & discerned. It is likewise compared to the Sun, whereof it is said: her (3) Esa. 60.20. Sun shall not be set, nor her Moon hid. And concerning her public and known Professors, God himself promiseth saying: (4) Es. 61.9. I will make an everlasting Covenant with them etc. All that see them, shall know them, that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed. In like sort (5) Math. 5.5. Christ himself speaking of his Church, compareth it to a City placed upon a hill, that can not be hid. And prescribing a Sovereign remedy against dissensions daily arising between Brother and Brother, he directeth the Party grieved, that he should (6) Math. 18.15 16.17 tell the Church, which he can not accomplish, unless she may be to him daily known and discerned. And so this remedy being by our Saviour appointed in help of a daily continuing disease, argueth that as the disease is continual, so likewise that the remedy thereof so appointed by him, should be in like manner continual. The prescript therefore of this continual remedy being, to tell the Church, which we can not perform, unless the Church be to us in her Pastors visible and known, proveth evidently, that the Church must accordingly continue visible and known. Yea our Saviour himself doth specially forewarn us against all pretended invisible Congregations, saying: (7) Math. 24.26. If therefore they shall say unto you, behold he is in the d●sert, go you not forth; behold he is in secret places, believe it not. Whereupon M. Clapham (8) Remedy against Schism. p. 23. teacheth that, our Saviour forbids going out unto such desert and corner-Ghospels. Math. 24.23.24. Now as these most infallible Oracles of sacred Writ, do thus plainly teach us the Churches ever-visibility, so is the same truth answerably understood, believed, and defended by the learnedst Protestants that ever were; and that from the Scriptures themselves. To this end M. Clapham (9) Remedy against Schism. p. 17. writeth: Contrary to all Scriptures they do affirm, that there hath been no visibility of the Church for former hundreds of years; which position is against Ps. 72.3.17. Esay. 59.21. yea having alleged many proofs from the Scriptures & otherwise, he concludeth thus: Not only all Ancients ever hold the Churches ever-visibility, but also all learned men of our Age. (10) Loc. come c. de Eccl. p. 354. 360. Melancthon directeth, that, whensoever we think of the Church, let us behold the Company of such men as are gathered together, which ●s the visible Church: Neither let us dream that the Elect of God are to be found in any ●ther place, then in this visible Society; for neither will God be called-upon or acknowedged, otherwise than he hath revealed himself; neither hath he revealed himself else where, save only in the visible Church, in which only the voice of the Gospel soundeth. Neither let us imagine of any other invisible Church, but let us know, that the voice of he Gospel must sound openly amongst men, according as it is written psal. 18. Their ●ound is gone forth into all the earth etc. And then alleging sundry other places ●f Scripture, he addeth: which places and other the like speak not of Plato's Idea, but ●f a visible Church. Again, (11) Pref. in Corpus Christ. Doct. It is of necessity that we confess a visible Church, whereof the Son of God saith, Math. 18. Tell 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 whereunto tendeth this Monuous speech, which denyeth the visible Church? It abolisheth all testimonies of Anti●itie; it taketh away all judgements; it causeth an endless Confusion; and induceth Commonwealth of unruly Ruffians, wherein no one careth for another. All which to ●e most true, the Protestants of these days do over-strongly confirm. Agreably hereunto saith (12) jesuit. part. 2. cat. 3. p. 240. D. Humphrey: I have declared that we do not ●lace the Church in the air, but upon the earth; we confess the Church to be a City placed upon a hill, which can not be hid. Math. 5. To be a high Mountain of the house of God, higher than other hills, to which all Nations shall flow. Esay. 2. etc. And again, (13) Ibid. p. 241. It is visible for the exercises of piety, which are seen of all in the Church; for whilst Ministers teach, others learn; they minister Sacraments, these Communicate etc. Who seethe not these things, is blinder than a mole etc. And lastly (14) Ibid. p. 281. he concludeth of the Church Militant, which is the only point in question, that It is a most clear Conclusion, that the Church must be visible. (15) Compend. loc. 24. p. 201. Gesnerus avoucheth that, The external and visible Company of those who are called, Baptised, and profess the name of Christ, whereof Christ speaketh Math. 1.14. was never hid. And a little before he affirmeth that, It can not be hid and be obscure. (16) Serm. 4. fol. 90. M. Web likewise in his Sermons upon the 2. Psalm inferreth the like from Math. 1.4. Crammerus (17) Scholae Propheticae. p. 381. teacheth that, The State of the Church is painted out by similitude of a Mountain, whereby the Church is signified, which never was nor can be hid; but as a high Mountain easily yields itself to be seen of all, as Christ (Math. 5.14.) saith of a City, which placed upon a Mountain can not be hid. These and sundry other Protestants do not only defend the Churches ever-visibility; but they defend the same, even from the Scriptures themselves; condemning the contrary opinion of the Church's invisibility, as contrary to Scriptures and all ancient and modern Writers. From this so certain and confessed a truth, of the Churches ever-visibility, sundry Protestants of special note do further infer, and teach the absolute necessity of the Churches ever-visibility to the remission of Sins, and the Salvation of man; plainly condemning to eternal damnation, all such as live and dye out of the visible Church of Christ. To this end (18) Instit. l. 4. c. 1. Sac. 4. Caluin writeth: Because I intent to dispute of the visible Church, let us learn, though with this one testimony of our Mother's praise, how profitable, yea how necessary is the knowledge of her unto us, seeing there is no other entrance into life, except she conceive us in her womb, except she bring us forth, except &c. to conclude, she defend us under her custody and government, until we dying &c. Add hereunto, that out of her bosom no remission of sins is to be hoped for. M. Parkins (19) Vol. 1. p. 308. teacheth that, The Ark, out of which all perished, figured the Church, out of which all are condemned &c. out of the Militant Church there are no means of Salvation, no preaching of the Word, no Invocation of God's name, no Sacraments, and therefore no Salvation: For this cause every man must be admonished evermore to join himself to some particular Church etc. D. Humphrey (20) jesuit. part. 2. p. 242. confesseth that, Secret aboades are not the Christian Convocation etc. because this Communion of Saints is an open testification of Christianity; which open testification is necessary to Salvation. (21) De Ecclesia Milit. p. 36. 38. Molitox testifieth that, The invisible Church of the Elect is latent in the visible Church, and out of it can not be found, as it is truly said, out of the Church (to wit, the visible Church) there is no Salvation etc. Keckermanus (22) System. Theolog. p. 408. urgeth that, The Church of the new Testament, by reason of her Marks and external form, must always be sensible and visible, that so other Nations, who are yet out of the Church, may know to what Church they ought to adhere etc. (23) Meth. Theolog. p. 552. Hiperius thus justly demandeth: Verily except these Signs were, and that the true Church could be apprehended by Senses, how could a man know to what Company he should adhere for the obtaining of Salvation? (24) Of the Church l. 1. c. 1. p. 3. Philip Mornay avoucheth that, Into the visible Church all must retire themselves in this world, that will be gathered in the invisible Church in the world to come. All this supposeth the necessary visibility of the Church in all Ages, seeing in all Ages, God hath provided sufficient means for man's Salvation. Yea it further convinceth, that supposing the Church could be invisible at any time, that as then all the Professors and members thereof dying should incur damnation, seeing according to the truth and the judgement of so many Protestants, out of the visible Church there is no Salvation. To apply then this so certain and necessary Doctrine to the Roman and Protestant Church, I have formerly proved the invisibility of the Protestant Church in all Ages before Luther: As namely even at Luther's first appearing, (25) See before l. 3. c. 1. by the testimonies of Luther himself, of Morgensterne, Rhegius, Miluius, Bucer, Caluin, Camierus, Dent, Brightman, Whitaker and jewel; as also in all Ages for these last 1000 years, by the (26) See above l. 3. c. 1 confessions of D. Fulk, Parkins, Bale, Bramlerus, Simon de Voyon, Powel and others: And that it was no less invisible during the time of the Primitive Church, (27) See before l. 3. c. 1. it is formerly acknowledged by M. Brightman, Nappeir, Carthwright, Beza, Fulk, Cairo, Francus & others. Now to the contrary, the clearest visibility of our Roman Church during all Ages since Christ, is most plentifully testified, and first for these last 1000 years (28) See before l. 1. c. 2. by Powel, Simon de Voyon, Parkins, Fulk, Danaus, Whitaker, Dowaham, Wotton, Hospinian, and many others: And for the first 600. years (29) See before l. 1. c. 5. by Broccard, Brightman, Leigh, Napper, Winckelmanus, Danaus, Fulk, Raynolds, Caluin, Zanchius, Whitaker, Ridley, jewel, Bunnie, Morton, Parker, Francus, Field, and several others. So that my Conclusion may truly be, that seeing according to plain Scriptures, and the answerable acknowledgements of Protestant Writers, the Church of Christ must ever continue visible in all Ages and times, which the Roman Church hath ever, & the Protestant never performed, that therefore not the Protestant, but the Catholic 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 Church's Pastors which must ever continue with lawful Calling & Succession, and with Administration of Word and Sacraments. CHAPTER FOUR THE sacred Scriptures do plentifully further show the necessary Being, Continuance, Calling, and Succession of Ecclesiastical Pastors; In which respect God himself thus promiseth to his Church: (1) Esay. 59. 2●. My Spirit which is upon thee, and the words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not departed out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, from henceforth for ever. As also (2) Ps. 45.16. In steed of fathers, children shall be borne to thee; thou shalt make them Princes through all the earth. (3) Esa. 62.6. And, upon thy walls, jerusalem, I have apppointed watchmen, all the day and all the night, for ever they shall not hold their peace. S. Paul (4) Ephes. 4.11.12. assureth us that, our Saviour hath placed Pastors (to continue in his Church) to the Consummation of Saints, till we all meet in unity of Faith, that is for ever, according to the exposition hereof by D. Fulk, (5) Against Rhem. Test. fol. 335. Caluin Inst. c. de fide. sec. 37. 38. p. 233. 234. Melan. loc. come. c. de Ecclesiae. Caluin & Melancthon. Hence it is, that (6) Calu. ubi sup. Whitak. de Ecclesia. p. 281. 285. Caluin & D. Whitaker do affirm that, The Church can never want Pastors and Doctors. And which is more, D. Fulk is of opinion that, Christ will suffer no particular Church to continue without a servant to oversee it. 8) Ib p. 536. And that Pastors and Doctors must be in the Church till the end of the world, even 9) Ib. p 569 from Christ's time till Luther's Age. M. Spark 10) Answ. to Albines p. 11. affirmeth that, The Church of Christ hath always had, and shall have to the end successively in all Ages, in one place or other, such as have showed the truth fully unto others, (7) Against Hoskins etc. p 359. as have shined as Lights in their days set upon a Candlestick. And D. Field (11) Of the Church. c 6. p. 51 avoucheth that, Lawful and holy Ministry is an inseparable and perpetual note of a true Church, and that no Church can be without it. Secondly the holy Scriptures teach, that these Pastors which must ever continue, must not undertake the charge by usurpation without sending, but by lawful Calling. According to that of S. Paul 12) 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 again, 13) Ro 10.14 How shall they preach, except they be sen●? Christ himself avoucheth that, 14) joh 10.1 who so entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth another way, is a thief. And God Almighty saith by the Prophet Hieremie: (15) c. 23.21 I have not sent these Prophets, yet they ran. (16) c 14.14 1● & 27. 15 The Prophet's prophecy lies in my name; I have not sent them. 17) c. 29.31. Semetas hath prophesied to you, and I sent him not. Insomuch (18) 2. Paralip. c. 26.16.18.19. as Vzias presuming to usurp the Priest's office, was therefore reprehended and strooken with Leprosy, whereof other like examples are not wanting in the (19) 2. Reg. 6.6.7. & 1. Paralip. 13.9.10. Scriptures. Now agreably to these Scriptures Protestants teach, that this personal Succession of Pastors is to be continued in the Church no otherwise then by lawful sending or calling by man's Ministry. Luther (20) Upon the Epistle to the Galath. fol. 10. teacheth that, God calleth us at this day to the Ministry of his Word, not immediately himself, but by man. As also, (21) Tom. 5. Wittemb. in c. 1. Gal. fol. 376. God calleth us at this day to the Ministry of the Word by Mediate vocation, which is done by means, that is, by man etc. that vocation hath continued even till these times, and shall continue till the end of the world. Piscator (22) Vol. 1. Thes. Theol. p. 405. avoucheth that, God after the Apostles times hath called, and as yet doth call, and to the end of the world is to call Pastors, Doctors, and Priests by the Church. D. Bilson (23) Perpetual Government etc. c. 9 p. 111. affirmeth that, The Moderation of the keys, and Imposition of hands were at first settled in the Apostles; and that, They can have no part of Apostolic commission, that have no show of Apostolic succession. And therefore that, Pastors do receive by Succession the power and charge of the Word and Sacraments from, and in the first Apostles. Whereto assenteth also M. Bernard saying: (24) Plain Evidences etc. p. 184. 185. In the Scripture of the new Testament there is none allowed to ordain a Minister, but a Minister etc. In the new Testament, all the Apostles time, the Ministry was by Succession, Ministers, as it were, begetting Ministers, by Ordination, & by laying on of hands; let (but) one Instance be given to the contrary. After their time, like Succession hath been kept from time to time, Bishop after Bishop, and Ministers ordained by them etc. The Scriptures promising the same to the world's end etc. Thus by plain Historical narration both of God and Man, we see a Succession of the Ministry, from one Minister to another. M. Cartwright (25) 2. Reply part. 2. p. 128. avoucheth that, It is forbidden that any should take honour to himself, but he which is called of God, as was Aaron. What greater appearance of necessity of Sacrificing could be, then when Saul took upon him to Sacrifice? 2. Sam. 13.11. etc. Likewise what greater appearance of necessity, then when Vzias stayed the Ark ready to have fallen? 2. Sam. 6.6.7▪ yet these necessities notwithstanding, for so much as they took upon them that, whereto they were not called, they received the reward of their boldness. And again, (26) 2. Reply part 2. p. 141. A Pastor can no more preach now in a particular congregation without a sending, than an Apostle could then in all the world etc. affirming yet further that, one not sent, may not preach, although he speak the words of Scripture; yea (27) Upon the Epistle to the Galath. Eng. in c. 1. f. 10. It is not enough (saith Luther) for a man to have the Word, and purity of Doctrine, but also he must be assured of his Calling; and he that entereth without this, certainly entereth to no other end but to kill. M. Mason (28) 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 several texts of Scripture, & from the testimony of Beza, saying: This is an order apppointed in the Church by the Son of God, and observed inviolably by all true Prophets and Apostles; That no man may teach in the Church, unless he be called. So that according to holy Scriptures, and Protestants themselves, the true Church must ever have Pastors endued with lawful callin● and ordinary Succession. Thirdly the same Scriptures do teach, that the said Pastors must not be silent, but must preach the Word, and administer the Sacraments. The Prophet Esay (29) Esa. 62.6. fortelleth of the Church's Watchmen, that they shall not hold their peace. And S. Paul (30) Rom. 10.14.15. setteth down the necessity of Preaching in these words: How shall they believe him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a Preacher? But how shall they preach, unless they be sent? (31) Rom. 10.17.18. Faith than is by hearing, and hearing is by the word of Christ. And certes into all the earth, hath the sound of them gone forth, and unto the ends of the whole world the words of them. And as concerning the administration of Sacraments, it is so to continue until the end of the world, that expressly it is said of the Eucharist; (32) 1. Cor. 11.26. As often as you shall eat this Bread, and drink the Chalice, you shall show the death of our Lord, until he come, to wit, at the day of judgement. Answerably to these Scriptures, Protestants teach concerning Preachers, that, (33) Fulk in his Answ. to Counterf. Cath. p. 100 The truth can not be continued in the world but by their Ministry, & that therefore, (34) Propositions disputed in Gen. p. 845. The Ministry is an essential Mark of the true Church. M. Deering (35) Upon the Epist. to the Heb. c. 3. lect. 15. 16. teacheth that, Salvation springeth in preaching of the Gospel, and is shut up again with ceasing of it And that, Take away preaching, you take away Faith; for which he citeth many Scriptures. D. Fulk (36) Answ. to a Counter. Cath. p. 11. & 92. affirmeth, that the Church's Pastors shall always resist all false opinions with open reprehension. And M. Deering (37) Upon the Hebr. in c. 2 lect. 10. is of opinion that, The Religion being of God, no fear of man shall keep them back; because, that were to k●ep the honour of God for corners and solitary places. For▪ as the (38) Rom. 10.10. Apostle prescribeth, with the hart we believe unto justice: but with the mouth Confession is made to Salvation. (39) Sermons upon the Canticles Englished. p 79. 80. Beza confesseth, that there must be Pastors and Doctors to the end of the world, for the administration of the Word and Sacraments. And, (40) See the Survey of the Holy pretended &c p. 440. 441. The Ministry of the Word and Sacraments are in absolute degree of Necessity to Salvation. D. Whitaker (41) Cont. Duraeum. l 3 p. 260. assureth us that, they are Essential Notes of the Church. (42) Ibid. p. 249. which being present, they do constitute a Church, and being absent do subvert it. And D. Willet (43) Synopsis p. 71. avoucheth that, These Marks can not be absent from the Church, and it is no longer a true Church than it hath these Marks; for 44 Ib. p. 69 as he further saith: The only absence of them do make a nullity of the Church. Lobechius (45) Disput. Theo p. 213. speaking of these Marks, and of the Church, affirmeth that, They are coupled together with so straight and indissoluble a knot, that in the assemblies of those who are called, the one can not be without the other, and the one denied, the other of necessity is to be denied. Hiperius (46) Meth. Th' p. ●48. 557. teacheth that, These Notes are needful to distinguish the true Church from the false, that men careful of their Salvation may know where the true Church is, and to which Company chief they ought to adjoin themselves. By the premises now it is evident, aswel by the sacred Scriptures, as by the manifest Confessions of Protestant Writers, that the Church of Christ must ever have in her, Ecclesiastical Pastors 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 holy Sacraments. The only point therefore resting to be examined, is, whether the Roman or Protestant Church hath ever had in all Ages the foresaid Pastors lawfully called, and succeeding one another, truly preaching the holy Word, and administering the Sacraments. And first concerning the Protestant Church: All personal Succession of Pastors hath been so interrupted, or rather altogether wanting, that in steed of any Succession of Pastors to be named, it is at large confessed before, (47) Before l. 3. c. 1. that their Church hath been wholly Invisible and unknown for many hundred of years together. Yea Caluin [48) In Lascicius de Russor etc. Relic. p. ●3 And see Caluin Inst. l 4. c 3. sec. 4. Danaeus Isagog part. 4. p. 36. plainly confesseth that, Through the Tyranny of the P●pe, the true Succession of ordination was broken off in the Protestant Church. And again, (49) Tract. Th. p. 374. The Church of God for some Ages was so torn, and pulled asunder, that she was destitute of true (Protestant) Pastors. (50) Ep. Theol. ep. 5. Beza acknowledgeth, that among them, ordinary vocation was no where extant. And (51) Disputationes Theol. p. 719 saddle relateth that sundry Protestants, who acknowledge the doctrine which their Church doth embrace, to be true, and grounded upon the express word of God, do yet affirm the Ministers with them to be destitute of lawful calling, as not having a continued visible Succession from the Apostles times, which they do attribute only to the Papists. In like sort saith Bullinger: (52) Upon the Apocalyps'. ser. 145 fol. 137. S●e Libavius in his Gretzerus triumph. p. 102. and knewstubs in Confut. of the principal points of Popery p. 38 Albeit we can not at this day refer our calling to the Pope and Bishops, which brag of lawful Succession: yet for so much as we can prove, that our Doctrine is Christ's Doctrine, and therefore that our Ministry is lawful, we care not a whit etc. So confessedly is the Protestant Church destitute of lawful Calling. And to touch briefly the Calling and Succession of our English Ministry, whereas D. Barlow in his Sermon before the King at Hampton Court, publicly taught that, The Apostles reserved Ordination to themselves, and conveyed it to Bishops etc. Neither would the Church of Christ succeeding admit any other but Bishops to that business, as not iustifyable for the Presbyters, either by reason, example, or Scripture etc. Not one Example (saith he) is to be showed through the whole Story Ecclesiastical, that any besides a Bishop did it; if some one of the inferior rank presumed to do it, his act was reversed for unlawful. It is so certain that our Catholic 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 entry to the Crown, and from whom since all the Protestant Clergy of England deriveth itself, that the (53) p 177. Protestant Writer of The Assertion for true Christian church-policy, avoucheth that, It cannot be proved that any Lord Spiritual was (so much as) present in Parliament, or gave any assent to the Enacting of Statutes made Anno primo Elizabethae. Yea in supply thereof, there was a Statute made An. 8. Eliz. c. 1 the Title thereof being, An Act declaring the manner of making and Consecrating Archbishops of this Realm, to be good. And towards the end of that Statute, it is enacted that, All Acts done by any Person about any Consecration etc. by virtue of the Queen's Majesty's Letters Patents shall be good etc. And that all Persons that have been, or shall be Consecrated Archbishops etc. shall be Archbishops etc. But the than Parliament, or her late Highness' Letters Patents could not enable the first Protestant Bishops to be true Bishops, because that function is not Civil, but Spiritual, and ex iure divino. Yea M. Mason himself acknowledgeth, and that from M. Fox, that amongst (54) Consecration 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 any Orders after the new sort and fashion of Orders: Considering they were not ordered in very deed, the Bishop of the Diocese, finding otherwise sufficiency and ability 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 enforce a different Gloss, yet the words are most plain, that Queen Marie and the Church in her time censured such as were promoted to any Orders after the new sort and fashion of Protestant Orders in K Edward's time, were not ordered in very deed. So that still it deserveth further search, whence our present English Clergy, as also other foreign Ministers, have obtained true power and authority to preach & administer Sacraments. And as for Forainers, as the Ministers in Germany, Denmark, Holland & the rest, they are so clearly and confessedly destitute of all true Ordination, that M. Mason acknowledgeth that, (55) Consec. of Engl. Bish. Ep. Dedic. whereas other Reformed Churches were constrained by necessity to admit extraordinary Fathers, that is, to receive ordination from Presbyters (or Ministers) rather then to suffer the fabric of the Lord jesus to be dissolved: The Church of England had always Bishops to confer Sacred Orders according to the ordinary and most warrantable Custom of the Church of Christ: So that, no Protestant Ministers in the world, have any ordinary Calling or Ordination by Bishops, but only the Ministers of England, who yet beg and derive all that which they have, from their imagined Antichrist himself, as now shall be showed. Some Protestants therefore teach, that they have their Calling & Ordination from the Church of Rome; so D. Bridges (56) Defence of the Government. p. 1276. speaking of our Catholic Bishops, and their Calling, urgeth thus in our behalf; If our (Protestant) Brethren will make them but mere Laymen, then are neither they, nor we, any Ministers at all, but mere Laymen also; for who ordained us Ministers, but such Ministers as were either themselves of their Ministry, or at least were made Ministers of those Ministers? Except they will say, the people can make Ministers etc. yea some (57) Silemced Ministers supplication of Anno 1609. p. 9 10. 17. Puritans do reprove their Protestant Brethren, for deriving their Ministry from the Church of Rome. But (58) Cont. Dur. l. 9 p. 820. D. Whitaker exemplifyeth the same, saying: Luther was a Priest, and Doctor according to your Rite or ordination etc. And it is manifest, that so also was Zuinglius, Bucer, Oecolampadius, and innumerable others etc. M. Parkins (59) Vol. 1. p. 737. speaking of the Calling of the first Preachers of the (Protestant) Gospel, argueth thus: If they had no Calling, neither have we that are their followers: But, They had their Callings etc. from the Romish Church itself; for they were either Priests or Schoole-Doctours, as in England Wiccliffe, in Germany Luther, in Bohemia john Husse and Hierom of prague, at Basil Oecolampadius, in Italy Peter Martyr, & others. And therefore these with many others were ordained either in Popish Churches, or in Schools etc. And again, We say, the first restorers of the Gospel in our times, had their first Callings of them, to wit, the Papists. M. Mason discoursing at large of this very point of Ordination, and in particular of the Ordination of our English Protestant Clergy, confesseth first, that the Roman Church hath ever had true power of Ordination: (60) Consecration of the Bishops of England. Ep. Dedic. Such was the goodness of God (saith he) that even in the darkness of Popery, as Baptism, so the Ministerial function etc. was wonderfully preserved; for the Church of Rome by God's special providence, in her ordination of Priests, retained such Euangelical words, as in their true and native sense, include a Ghostly Ministerial power to forgive sins etc. Thus the Church of Rome gave power to her Priests to teach the truth etc. which (61) Ibid. p. 262. Power (saith he) is a Rose, which is found in the Romish wilderness, but the plants thereof were derived from the garden of God: It is a River which runneth in Egypt, but the fountain and Spring of it, is in Paradise: It is a Beam which is seen in Babylon, but the original of it is from the Sphere of the Heaven. Wherefore when your Priests return to us, our Church paring away their Pollutions, suffereth them to exercise their Ministerial function, according to the true meaning of Christ's word. And again, (62) Ibid. p. 262. we being content with their calling, and commission of their function already committed unto them, do not reiterate their ordination and Imposition of hands. And as Catholic Priest's Apostated only through vice, are here allowed for sufficient Ministers without all new ordination from any Protestant Superintendent, so doth M. Mason most seriously labour throughout his whole Book, to prove the ordination of the Protestant English Clergy, to have been certainly derived from our Catholic Roman Church. To which end acknowledging that (63) Ibid. p. 64. 65. 66. The whole Clergy of England at this day, deriveth their Consecration from Cranmer, he painfully laboureth to prove, that Cranmer was apppointed by Pope Clement to be Archbishop of Canterbury, and that he was Consecrated by three Catholic Bishops; which Consecration was performed with wont Ceremonies, according to the usual form of (the Roman) Church; which (saith he) continued all the days of King Henry the Eighth, even when the Pope was banished, yea he expressly concludeth his book thus: (64) p. 267. Thus it appeareth, that although we received our Orders from such as were Popish Priests, yet our Calling is lawful. So clear it is, that M. Mason would be glad to wring his Ministers Ordering from our Roman Church. And the like is acknowledged & taught by (è) Cath. Trad. p. 183. Buca. loc. come. p. 509. Bernard in his Dissuasion from Brownism. p. 144. white in his way to the Church p. 404. Fotherbie his Answer annexed to his 4. Sermons. p. 81. Sutcliffe against D. Kellison p. 5. Saravia of diverse Degrees of Ministers. p. 9 sundry other Protestants. But here I can not but observe by the way how strange it is, that Protestants should thus much delight and please themselves in their Ordination from Cranmer, a man so vicious, inconstant, and treacherous both to God and man. Doth not D Godwin relate that, (65) In Cranmsr. p. 123. Being yet very young he ●aryed, and so lost his fellowship in jesus College in Cambridge? Doth not Fox report, that being Archbishop, in his return from Rome he brought with him a Dutch woman, (67) Act. Mon. p 1037 to whom (saith Fox) it is supposed he was married? yet certain it is, that no show thereof was made in K. Henry's time, when he carried her up and down in a trunk, marrying her afterwards in K. Edward's time. He was also most treacherous to his Prince; for albeit he had been so greatly exalted by K. Henry, and by him apppointed one of the Executours of his Will, yet presently after his death he assented to the breaking thereof. And after K. Edward's death, endeavoured all he could to the advancing of Q. jane, and utter excluding from the Crown of K. Henry's lawful daughter Queen Marie: To whose disinheriting he first subscribed, as also to that rebellious letter, which he and his complices sent to Queen Marie, and which to his everlasting infamy and confusion, (68) Act. Mon. p. 1299 Fox himself hath recorded. And although from his cradle he was a Roman Catholic until his being Archbishop, which honour he received from the Pope, taking the usual oath of fidelity unto him: Yet in the next year after, K. Henry by Parliament procuring himself to be termed Head of the Church, he also forsook the Pope, and forswore himself in that point, agreeing yet, as also the King, in all other with him, and both by words and deeds persecuting Protestants, as is evident in the death of Lambert and others, written by M. Fox. Yea in K. Edward's time (as Stow (69) Chron. p. 594. reporteth) The French King being deceased etc. also the Church of S. Paul in London being hanged with black, and a sumptuous Hearse set up in the Choir, a Dirge was there song, and on the next morrow, the Archbishop of Canterbury (Cranmer) assisted of 8. Bishops, all in rich Mitres and other their Pontificals, did sing a Mass of Requiem etc. yet after this, he fell to Lutheranism, publishing a Catechism, wherein with Luther he taught the Real Presence; which not long after impugning, he turned with the Duke of Somerset to Zuinglianisme, setting forth another Catechism against the Real Presence. And yet after all this under (70) Act. Mon p. 1710 Q. Marie, he recanted for hope of life, all his Protestantisme, & both by tongue & pen professed the Roman Catholic Faith: But perceiving that he must dye, & choosing rather to dye in the opinion of vulgar Protestants a Martyr, then in the true judgement both of Protestant's and Catholics as a Malefactor and Traitor, he finally died in Zuinglianisme, being both condemned for Heresy against God, and for Rebellion against his Prince, as M. Fox (71) Act. Mon p. 1698 confesseth. So infamous was the life and death of the first Protestant Bishop that ever England had, and from whom all our English Ecclesiastical fry do derive their Ordination, and other good conditions not unlike unto his. But to return from whence we have digressed, all 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 (72) De Antich. p. 6. & 310. termeth our Catholic Orders, the Mark of the Beast. D. Downham (73) Of Antichrist. l. 2. p. 108. spareth not to say: I say their Priesthood is Antichristian. The Divines of Geneva (74) Propositions Disputed etc. p. 245. affirm, that There is in Babylon (thereby meaning the Roman Church) no holy Order or Ministry indeed no lawful Calling, but a mere usurpation. M. Penrie writing against the Protestant Calling disputeth thus: From whence have they their calling? had they it not from those which sit in the Chair of Antichrist? (75) Upon the 122. Ps. fol. D. 8. yea how many are in all Christendom? etc. but their ordination have come from Popish Prelacy within three or four generations at the most etc. Can an unlawful calling bring forth a lawful, though it descend from one to another a hundred or thousand times? Therefore unless they can approve the lawfulness of their calling under some other title then that which they now have by the Clergy, it will fall out there shall hardly be found a Minister duly called in all the world etc. In like sort D. Fulk (76) Answ. to a Counterf. Cath. p. 50. answereth to us Catholics: you are highly deceived, if you think we esteem your offices of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons any better than Laymen, and you presume to much to think that we receive your ordering to be lawful. And again, (77) Retentive. p. 67. with all our hart we defy, abhor, detest and spit at your stinking, greasy, Antichristian Orders etc. In like modest sort saith Beza: (78) Apud Saraviam. in Defence. Tract. etc. p. 56. Popish Orders are nothing else, than the impurest buying and selling of the Roman Stews. And (79) Consideration of the Papists Reasons. p. 71. M. Gabriel Powel avoucheth that, The Popish ordination is nothing else, but mere profanation etc. there is no true Ecclesiastical Vocation in the Papacy. We judge no otherwise (saith D. Whitaker) (80) Cont. Dur p 635. of your Priests, then of Christ's Adversaries, and enemies of his Priesthood: (81) Ibid. p. 662. You have neither lawful Bishops, nor Priests, nor Deacons. And according to D. Sutcliffe, 82) Answ. to Ey●●pt. p. 82 The Pope (himself) is neither true Bishop nor Priest, for he was ordained Priest but to offer Sacrifice and to say Mass for the quick and the Dead. But this Ordination (saith he) doth not make a Priest, nor had true Priests and Elders ever any such Ordination. Therefore, (83 Ib p. 87 And see his Challenge. p. 35: The Romish Church is not the true Church, having no Bishops nor Priests at all, but only in name Now if the Protestant Clergy will not derive 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 Antichrist; for what more ridiculous than that Christ's Ministers should receive their spiritual power and Commission from Antichrist? Then still we are to demand, from whence the Protestant Clergy hath their Calling and Commission, seeing according to the former Scriptures, the true Churches Past ours must be lawfully called, sent, and ordained? In these so extreme straits some Protestants acknowledge and defend their Ordination and calling to be from the Laity itself, as from the temporal Magistrate, and their hearers & followers. (84) His two Letters concerning the Earl of Lavale Eng. fol. c. 3. D. Tilanus teacheth that, Farel had his sending of the people sf Geneva, who had right had authority (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 (85) 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 86] Against D. Kellison. p. 5. is not abashed to teach, that in case of necessity, such as Protestants had at Luther's first revolt, The multitude of Christians without Ministers, have power to appoint Ministers among themselves. And M. Symondes' (87) Upon the Revel. p. 123. avoucheth, A Calling to preach by the Civil Magistrate, A holy and sufficient calling (saith he) in the time of these confusions. Now according to this strange Doctrine hath been the answerable practice of Protestants; for M. Mornay (88) Treatise of the Church. p. 371. saith: Some of our men in such a corrupt State of the Church, as we have seen in our time etc. did at first preach without this former calling, and afterward were chosen and called to the holy Ministry by the Churches which they had taught: A practice preposterous and directly contrary to the order set down by S. Paul (89) Rom. 10.14. saying: How shall they invocate in whom they have not believed? How shall they believe whom they have not heard? How shall they hear without a Preacher? And how shall they preach except they be sent? So evidently is sending or calling, and Ordination precedent in order to preaching. Yea agreably hereunto writeth M. Mason: (90) Consec. of Engl. Bishops. p. 3. It is clear that the Presb●terie here mentioned, ordained Timothy by Imposition of hands, which no Laymen may do. But beside, how absurd is it to affirm, that mere Lay and temporal men, as Shoemakers, Tailors, B●acksmithes, and the like, can bestow upon others that most Spiritual and highest power and jurisdiction of preaching true Faith, and administering the most holy and celestial Sacraments, whereof they are wholly devoid & destitute themselves? The indignity, disgrace, and absurdity then of this base begging of Calling from the Laity, being discerned by other Protestants, as much ashamed thereof, they wholly disclaim from it as also in all other ordinary and Mediate Calling and Succession, betaking themselves for their last refuge to extraordinary and immediate Vocation from God. So D. Fulk (91) Against Staples. etc. p. 2. confesseth that, The Protestant's, that first preached in these last days, had extraordinary calling. And, (92) Retentive etc. p. 300. In the State of the Church so miserably deceived as in Luther's time, God sendeth extraordinarily, immediately from himself, as Elias and Elizeus, and the Prophets were sent etc. So Christ sent his Apostles and Evangelists, and so was Luther, and such as he, sent to repair the ruins of the Church etc. Agreably hereunto are those words of M. Cartwright: (93) In Whiteg. Def. p. 217. When the Churches have been by Antichrist even razed from the foundation, God hath stirred Evangelists even immediately by his Spirit, without any calling of men, to restore his Church again; as Wiccliffe, Husse, Luther, Zuinglius. In like words saith M. Parkins: (94) In his works printed. 1605. fol. 916. The calling of Wiccliffe, Husse, Luther, Oecolampadius, Peter Martyr etc. was extraordinary. Ramus (95) Commentaries of France English. p 74. reporteth the French Protestants to say: We believe it is unlawful for any, of his own authority to take upon him government of the Church, without lawful Election, if so it may be had: We add this (if) because sometime (as in our time also) when the Church hath been persecuted, many have been constrained without ordinary calling, by motion of the Spirit etc. Caluin (96) In Lascicius de Russor. etc. 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 Tyranny of the Pope, a new help is now needful etc. and (therefore) this office was altogether extraordinary, which the Lord hath enjoined unto us. And Beza (97) In Saravia his Def. tract. etc. p. 56. 60. 74. in the Conference at Poysie, being demanded of the Calling of himself, and his other then Associates, affirmed the same to be Extraordinary. (98) Ep. Theol. ep▪ 5. p. 49. And in his Epistle to Alemannus he further urgeth: Verily thou canst not pretend ordinary Vocation; for who chose thee? therefore let us see of Extraordinary: But to this, then only do we give place, when there is none, or almost no ordinary vocation, as hath happened in our times in the Papacy, when ordinary Vocation, which was no where, neither ought nor could be expected. So that in the opinion of Beza, Caluin, Fulk, Parkins and sundry other Protestants, all the calling which the first Protestant Preachers had, was only extraordinary & immediate from God. But now to discover the great insufficiency, and manifest falsehood of this their last Evasion, and thereby plainly to discover all our Protestant Clergy, even to this day, to be destitute of all lawful Calling and Mission, and so to prove all our Ministers to be usurpers, intruders, and mere Laymen; First, according also to Beza his former Doctrine, it is certain, that extraordinary Vocation taketh not place, but when ordinary is wanting; which is also taught by M. Parkins (99) Vol. 1. p. 738. using the same words: Extraordinary calling never hath place, but when ordinary calling faileth. Wherefore our Protestants pretending for themselves extraordinary calling, do thereby disclaim, and debar themselves of all ordinary, which is directly against the former Scriptures, and sundry of their learnedst Brethren before cited, amongst whom Luther said: God calleth us at this day to the Ministry of his Word, not immediately by himself, but by man. Secondly, extraordinary Calling is always accompanied & confirmed by extraordinary signs and wonders. So saith (100) Loc. come. class. 4. c. 20 p. 58 Luther (whom our Protestants most pretend to have been extraordinarily called) Try this whether they can prove their Vocation; for never hath God sent any, but either called by man, or declared by signs, no not his own Son. 101) Tom. 5. jen. Germ. fol. 491. And again: From whence comest thou? Who sent thee? Where are the Seals, that thou art sent from men? Where are the Miracles which testify thee to be sent from God? (102) Tom 3 jen. Germ. f. 455. 456. In like sort he admonished the Senate of Milhouse against Munster the Anabaptist, saying: If he say, he was sent from God and his Spirit, as the Apostles were, let him prove this by working of Signs and Miracles, or else do not suffer him to preach; for wheresoever God doth change the ordinary way, there always he worketh Miracles. In like manner are the Anabaptists urged by Bullinger; (103) Cont. Anabap. l. 3. c. 7. If you say, you have a peculiar Vocation like unto the Apostles, prove it by signs and Miracles etc. but this you will never do, therefore your calling is of no worth, yea it is pernicious to the Church of Christ. D. Saravia (104) Def. Tract. count. Bezam p. 38 And see his divers Degrees of Ministers. p. 7. And Fenner in his sacra Theol p. 119 also teacheth that, That vocation which is immediately from God, is never read to be made without some external and visible sign and vision. (105) Disp. th'. 23 p. 207 Sigwartus avoucheth that, This vocation hath always certain and extraordinary gifts attending it, which are as it were the Seals of Doctrine etc. of which sort were Miracles etc. (106) Part. Theol. l. 1. p. 308 Polanus averreth that, of Ministers extraordinarily called, there were also extraordinary gifts, to wit, of Prophecy, of working Miracles etc. (107) Loc. come p. 394. Musculus assureth us that, The calling which is immediately from God, is not now in use, as it was in times past; it had its signs whereby it might be known, whereof Mark the Evangelist maketh mention in his last Chapter, saying: They preached &c. with Signs following. And M. Clapham (108) Sovereign Remedy etc. p 25. upon the same ground reprehendeth Brown, for that he did take upon him extraordinary calling and wont Miracles. M. Parkins (109) Vol 3 part. 2. p. 395. & 441. And Luther in D●uteron in t. 13, fol 102 Aretius loc. come loc. 63. p. 198. Melancthon in Christ doct p. 884. Clapham in Chro. c. 7. f. L. 2. Mayor in ep. 1. ad Tim. in c. 3. fol. 177. confesseth that, We may justly require more and more wonderful Signs of an extraordinary calling afore we believe it etc. The Church in these days hath much more cause to doubt, and to require many and extraordinary signs, afore it acknowledge any such extraordinary calling etc. So that our Protestant Clergy challenging unto themselves extraordinary Calling, thereby do oblige themselves to prove the same by extraordinary Signs and Miracles. But to the contrary it is most certain that not any Minister, no nor other Protestant in the world, ever wrought any Miracle: And so also is it confessed by Sir Edward Hobbie, saying: (110) Letter to higgon's. p. 102 And Tinleyes' 2. Serm. p 66. Wotton in his Trial of the Romish Clerg. p. 355 We are not ashamed to confess, that we have no other Miracles, than 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 themselves extraordinary Calling, which, as before, must ever have Miracles annexed. Agreably hereunto writeth M. Mason, saying: (111) 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 all the Miracles of Moses, and the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles, are ours etc. But if the question be concerning our Persons, than we confess that we can work no Miracles, we take no such matter upon us; neither is it necessary, because both our Calling and Doctrine are ordinary. So flatly doth he disclaim from all Protestants Miracles, or extraordinary Calling. In like sort acknowledged D. Sutcliffe: (112) Examination of kellison's Survey. 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 (113) Ag Rhem. Te. in Apoc. c. 13. fol. 478 confesseth that, It is known that Caluin and the rest, whom the Papists call Arch-heretics, do work no Miracles. And as concerning Luther himself, whom all pretend to be most extraordinarily called, (114) Admonitio de libro Concordiae p. 202. 203. the Protestants of the Count Palatine do expressly say of him: We have not heard any miracle which he hath done. Yea himself (115) Tom. 4. in Esay. c 35. fol. 157. endeavouring to answer this strongest argument made against him, is enforced to confess and say: They laugh at us, and object, that not so much as a lame horse hath been cured by Lutherans, and that we are altogether destitute of the gift of Miracles; But it is written; The impious seethe not the glory of God (and now reporteth he his Miracles) for as now the blind do see, when they are reduced to the knowledge of Christ etc. the deaf hear the Gospel, the lame who sat in Superstition, and the Idolatrous, go well and walk with pleasant Faith etc. whom do not these Miracles move? etc. for they are no less, then to raise the dead, or to give sight: So that the greatest Miracle that Luther wrought was to make (for example) Catharine Bore to see the liberty and pleasure of his new Gospel, she being before blinded with the austerity and Mortification of a Religious Nun; and to make her hear his lascivious & scurril discourses, being before deaf to all speeches, but such as tended to Charity and devotion; & lastly to make her walk with pleasant faith from her Monastery to the Tavern, being before mured within the walls of her Nunnery: which are Miracles ordinarily wrought by any Heretic whosoever. Besides these blind, deaf, lame, whom Luther did so miraculously cure by reducing them to the knowledge of Christ, were those, who were indeed already Christians, whom he seduced by his greatest liberty offered, from their ancient Faith: for as for his Conversion of one Heathen, Pagan, or Idolater from Infidelity to the Christian Faith, no Instance can be given, as shall be showed at large in the Chapter subsequent. Besides, it is the certain and true Doctrine even of sundry Protestants that, as [116) Vol. 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 immediately, those he is accustomed to furnish with singular gifts, that it may appear they are sent from God: And these only have testimony that they can not err in Doctrine. Now it is evident, and for such at large acknowledged by Protestants, that Luther believed and taught sundry (117) See this at large in the Prot. Apology. Tract▪ 2. c. 2▪ Sec. 10. Subd. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. gross and most dangerous errors and Heresies, as that the Apocalypse, the Epistles to the Hebrews and of S. james are not Canonical: That, Faith unless it be without even the least good words, doth not justify, nay is no Faith: and that nothing sinneth but unbelief: and that, Good works are hurtful to Salvation: That, The Husband, if the wife will not, may take the maid, and may have ten or more wives at once: That the Lay-people may preach, Baptism, Consecrate and minister the B. Sacrament; that the Divinity of Christ did suffer etc. with sundry such like, over tedious to recite. But here by the way, I cannot omit the strange Encomium given of Luther by D. Morton in these words: (118) Protest. Appeal p. 615. This is our Adversary's guise, whensoever they light upon any tooth of this dead Lion, they tread upon it with contempt; Never considering, that as out of the (119) judg. 14▪ 14. Strong came sweetness, so in those Sentences of Luther, which they most traduce, there is commonly enclosed the most Sacred truth full of as divine comfort as man's hart can ruminate upon. But if the former and innumerable such like Sentences of the Protestants Lion, Luther, be so comfortable to D. Morton, sure I am, that they are odious, and loathsome to chaste and Christian ears, and for such are taxed by sundry (120] See Ezecanomius de corruptis moribus. Wygandus de bonis & malis Germ. Hospin. ●onc. discord. 99 Covel D●f. of Hook. p. 101. Saying. Tom. 2. in Resp. ad Conf. Luth. f. 458. & sundry lothers. of his own brood, even Protestant Writers, who rested much scandalised thereby: And therefore M. Morton patronising so unpardonable errors, may give over just suspicion of his own guilt in the like. But to return, from the Premises therefore it evidently followeth, our Protestant Clergy to be wholly destitute of all lawful Calling, seeing it is already proved, even by their own confessions, that their Succession hath been interrupted, and that they have not ordinary Calling, and therefore do fly to extraordinary, which also they are devoid of, through their confessed want of Miracles and truth of Doctrine, or freedom from error, which doth ever certainly accompany the same. Now the sacred Scriptures concerning the Church's Pastors Calling, preaching, and administration of Sacraments, not being fulfilled, and performed in the Protestant Church: It only remaineth to be examined, whether the same are verified and accomplished in the Catholic Roman Church. And first, the same is confirmed by add such Arguments as (121) Before 4. 1. c. 23. 4. heretofore we have used in prooff of the Roman Churches ever-visibility, which doth ever suppose the like continuance of Ecclesiastical Pastors, with administration of Word and Sacraments. Secondly, the same is evidently supposed and confessed by all such Protestants as (122) See Before l. 3. c. 4. formerly acknowledged & derived their Succession and Ordination from the Church of Rome; for if the Roman Pastors succession & Ordination were not good or interrupted, then were it fruitless and absurd, for the Protestants Clergy to derive their own succession & Ordination from them. Thirdly, the Centurie writers of Magdeburg in the tenth Chapter of every several Centurie, do make special mention of the Bishops and Doctors of the Roman Church, who lived and flourished in every Age. Fourthly (123) De rebus graviss contr. Disp. p. 719. M. saddle plainly confesseth sundry Protestant's not only to affirm the Ministers with them to be destitute of lawful Calling, seeing they have 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 prefer before us. In like direct sort D. Fulk (124) Answ to a Count Cath p. 27. And in his Rejoinder to Bristol. p. 343. acknowledgeth unto us, saying: You can name the notable persons in all Ages in their government and Ministry, and especially the Succession of the Popes you can rehearse in order upon your fingers. M. Mason granteth that, (125) Cons. of the Engl. Bish. p. 52. The Church of Rome etc. was planted by two so great Apostles Peter and Paul. And that (126) Ibid. p. 41. The Priesthood which the Apostles conferred etc. being conveyed to Posterity successively by Ordination, is found at this day in some sort in the Church of Rome, in regard whereof you may be said to succeed the Apostles etc. So certain it is, that the Bishops of the Roman Church, have ever successively continued in all Ages, even from Christ's time to this, and that true Ordination hath been ever in the said Church since the Apostles: The poor Protestant Family being merely Laical, as being confessedly destitute of all Calling either ordinary or extraordinary. The fourth Proof from sacred Scriptures, in Confirmation of the Roman Church, and Confutation of the Protestant, is taken from the Conversion of Heathen Kings and Nations to the Faith of Chtist. CHAPTER FOUR IT is most clearly taught us by the sacred Scriptures, that the Church of Christ shall convert many Heathen Kings & Countries to the Faith of Christ. The Prophet Esay (1) Esa. 60.16. speaking of the Church of Christians saith: Thou shalt suck the milk of the Gentiles, and the breasts of Kings. And, (2) Esa. 60.11. Their Kings shall minister to thee, and thy gates shall be continually open, neither day nor night shall they be shut, that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentiles. And that their Kings may be brought etc. (3) Esa. 49.23. King's shall be thy nursing Fathers, and Queens thy Mothers: upon which place in the Annotations of the English Bible of Anno 1576. it is said, The meaning is, that Kings shall be converted to the Gospel, and bestow their power and authority for preservation of the Church. Yea God almighty hath further promised that, (4) Esa. 2 2 All nations shall flow unto it. And that, (5) Psal. 2.8 He will give the Heathen for thy inheritance, and the end of the earth for thy possession. Yea it was said to (6) Apoc. 10.11. S. john (and in him to other Pastors) Thou must prophesy again unto Nations, peoples, tongues, and many kings. (7) Es. 62 2. As also, The Gentiles shall see thy justice, and all Kings thy glory, and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of our Lord shall name. (8) Ps. 102.15. Then the Heathen shall fear the name of our Lord, and all the Kings of the earth his glory. These and sundry other such places are so convincing for the Conversion of the Heathen Kings and Nations by the Church of Christ, that Protestants themselves do endeavour to confirm the same truth from the sacred Scriptures. Luther (9) Tom. 4. Wittemb. in Es. 60. fol. 234. writing upon the Prophet Esay, chap. 60. affirmeth that, Kings shall obey and believe the Gospel etc. the Church is in perpetual use of converting others to the Faith etc. for this is signified by her gates being continually open. And Oecolampadius (10) In Hier. c. 33. writeth upon Hieremie, that God speaketh here of the eternity of Christ's Kingdom etc. he shall have Kings and Priests, and that for ever, and not a few, but as the stars of heaven etc. for their multitude. (11) Tabulae Analyticae. in Es. c. 60. p. 126. Szegedine affirmeth that the Prophet Esay fortelleth, that Gentiles and Kings shall embrace with great desire the religion of God's people, which ought to be referred to the Kingdom of Christ, where he foretelleth the coming of the Gentiles, and that in such number, as that it should make the beholders amazed. In like sort teacheth (12) Meth. Descript. p. 583. 584. Snecanus, saying: Hitherto appertain Ps. 72.9. and Esay. 49.2.23. & 60.4. In these places the Prophets describe the Kingdom of Christ under the new Testament, and the office of the Gentiles, and especially of Kings flowing to the Church etc. that they may be Nurses to the Church of Christ etc. unless therefore our Adversaries will accuse God and the holy-ghost of lying etc. It is necessary that they grant to the Church of the New Testament her Nurses, pious Kings and Queens, who shall bow themselves to Christ etc. And these predictions of the Prophets of Kings to be in the Church of Christ may suffice. This then supposed as a most certain truth, that the Church of Christ was to convert Heathen Nations and Princes from their Infidelity and Idolatry, to the true Faith of Christ; That than which resteth to be examined, is, whether the said Conversions have been performed by the Roman or Protestant Church. But first it is to be granted, that during all the time after Christ until Constantin's Conversion, the true Church remained so under persecution, as that the foresaid glory and amplitude foretold of her, concerning her great increase of believers, and of Kings and Queens to serve her, was not as then fulfilled: In which respect, D. Barlow (13) Def. of the Articles of Prot. Relig p. 34. avoucheth that, In the primitive Nonage of the Church▪ is promise of King's allegiance thereunto, was not fully accomplished, because in those days, that Prophecy of our Saviour was rather verified: you shall be brought before Kings for my name's sake, by them to be persecuted even unto death etc. In like sort saith (14) Against Stapl●t. Mart. p. 51. D. Fulk: Let him, I say, point out with his finger, what Kings in every Age for the space of the first 300. years did walk in the brightness 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 foresaid Prophecies, that to the contrary, it is at large acknowledged before (15) See before l. 3. c. 1. to have been Invisible itself, even from Constantins' time to Luther's; And so accordingly D. Barlow (16) Def. of the Art. p. 34. being urged to answer this very point concerning the Protestant Churches bringing forth Kings, which should be, as Esay prophesied, foster-fathers', and Queens to be noursing-mothers' to the Church, confesseth, as before, that in the Primitive nonage of the Church this was not accomplished: And speaking of the times succeeding, (17) Ib. p. 35 he affirmeth that, The promise by Esay prophesied was accomplished, and the number so increased, though still invisibly, that as her Love said in the Canticles: there are threescore Queens etc. But I will not urge how absurd it is to affirm, that many Kings, Queens, and Kingdoms themselves should be converted, and yet all this to be invisible. It is likewise not unworthy of observation, that whereas Martin Bucer (18) De Regno Dei. l. 1. c. 1. 3. maketh a special Tract of the sundry Prophecies by himself alleged in this behalf, he doth not yet in accomplishment of them, give instance, though so provoked thereto by the argument of his said Treatise, so much as but in any one heathen King or Kingdom, converted accordingly by Protestants, to the Faith of Christ. Yea to the contrary, sundry Protestant's are enforced, through their manifest want of fulfilling the foresaid Prophecies in any Age before Luther's, to refer, or rather defer the Conversion of Heathen Kings and Countries unto the now later times, wherein their supposed Antichrist is publicly withstood. So M. Symondes' (19) Upon the Revel. p. 123. termeth these later times, The days of the seaventh Angel, that converteth Kings to the Gospel. And M. Willet (20) Synop. Ep. Dedic. affirmeth that, The Prophecy of Esay is fulfilled in these our days, who saith concerning the Church: Kings shall be thy Nursing Fathers, and Queens thy Nursing Mothers, Esa. 49.23. etc. for now who seethe not, that many Christian Princes in the world are become the children of the Church? etc. And the same is taught by (21) In his Apoca in c. 20 p. 656. M. Brightman, (22) Plain Evidences etc. p. 72. 73. 81. and M. Bernard's. Yea in this respect Protestant's disclaiming from all former Conversions of England, Germany, Helvetia, France and Poland, doubt not therefore to make Tindal, (23) Epistle to England written from Brasile. p. 71. Luther, Zuinglius, Caluin and john à Lasco the first Converters or Apostles of those several Nations. So M. Stalbridge avoucheth that, God raised up W●lliam Tindal, the first true Apostle of Christ after john Wiccliffe. M. Wetenhal (24) Discourse of Abuses p. 134. termeth Tindal our English Evangelist. And M. Fox (25) Act Mon p 883. styleth him, M. William Tindal the true Apostle of our later days. And yet this so great an Apostle was burned for Heresy in the time of K. Henry the Eighth. In like sort saith Zanchius to john a Lasco: (26) In his Epistles l. 2. p 232. God hath hitherto preserved thee, that as Luther was the Apostle to his Germany, Zuinglius to his Helvetia, Caluin to his France, so thou mayst be an Apostle to thy Polony. Therefore the Lord strengthen thee etc. until thou shalt consummate thy Apostleship etc. But all this is most insufficient, and impertinent; for first, even since Luther's time, not so much as any one King or Kingdom of the Gentiles, is yet hitherto converted from Paganism by Luther, or any other Protestant ever extant in the world; as shall be proved next hereafter in this Chapter. Secondly, it is incredible to think, that the wisdom and goodness of Christ would suspend the foresaid promises of his Churches happy & plentiful Conversion of Kings and Countries to serve her, during both the beginning and midle-time of the same, and would but fulfil the same in her most decaying, declining, and decrepit Age. Lastly, this Evasion is plainly rejected and contradicted by all such Protestants, as freely confess and teach the foresaid Prophecies and promises of the Church her converting of Kings and Nations, to have been fully accomplished in former Ages. Amongst whom (27) Cont. Duraeum l. 7. p. 472. D. Whitaker saith: Whatsoever the ancient Prophets foretold of the propagation, amplitude, and glory of the Church, that History most plainly testifieth to have been performed. But now to examine only the time since Luther, of the Protestant Churches converting of any one Heathen King or Kingdom to the Faith of Christ, I will first say unto our Protestants, as D. Whiteguift (28) Def. etc. p. 33. saith unto the Puritans and Anabaptists: Tell me, I pray you, in what Church hath any of them settled themselves in, but in such wherein the Gospel hath been well planted before? What Country was ever originally converted from Paganism by the Protestant Church, or rather only seduced and withdrawn from the ancient Catholic Faith by secondary Innovation? As in like resemblance, after (29) Math. 13.25. The good seed was sown in the field, the Enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat. In which respect Tertulian (30) l. de Prescrip. c. 42. saith excellent well of all Novelists that, Their Endeavour is not to convert the Heathen, but to overthrew ours (who are converted) They glory more to cast those down who stand, then to lift up those who lie. Wherefore Protestants are so fare from converting any one Heathen Country to Christian belief, that their divided Church, never yet, before or since Luther's time, so much as but passed the Seas, with taking hold in any one Country of Asia, afric, or America, the three greatest known parts of the world: No Protestant as yet, ever being able to give the least instance of their Church in any one of all these three parts. Yea it remaineth as now (though being in its greatest height of increase) so narrowly shut up or confined within our Northern parts of the world, being but an only corner of Europe (the fourth, and incomparably the least part of all the rest) that even in the fare greater part of this one lest part, is not so much as any appearing profession, either of Lutherans or Caluinists, known to be remaining, or in being. Yea it is most worthy of all diligent observation, that whereas certain Protestants have endeavoured the Conversion of some Heathen Nations, the event was ever such, through their own demerits, either of mutual dissensions amongst themselves in matters of Faith & Religion, or of foul enormous and most scandalous life and conversation, that their travail and labour was ever spent without fruit and commodity, and their return accompanied with shame and disgrace. In this time is right famous the endeavour made of late times by Caluin, & the Church of Geneva, in their sending Richerus the Caluinist (whom (31) In Icon. Beza termeth a man of tried godliness and learning) into Gallia Antartica, to convert the Heathens there: (32) In Calu. Epist. ep. 237. But how void of all success it was, and that to their lasting discredit, is plainly related and confessed by their own Brethren; for first Richerus (32) himself writeth thus unto 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 goodness, whereby we are devoid of all hope of gaining them to Christ etc. But much more fully is this reported by Villegaignon, who being then chief Captain of the French Navy, and one so fervent and forward in planting protestancy in those Countries, that the next day after his arrival, he not only (as (33) Ibid. p. 438. Richerus mentioneth) commanded the Word of God to be publicly preached, and the week following the holy Supper of the Lord to be ministered, which himself with some of his family religiously received etc. but withal gave certain young men to the people of that Nation to be instructed in their Language; that so they might afterwards preach unto them. This so zealous a Ghospeller (34) Epist. before his book, entitled, Les Propositions Contentienses etc. written after his Return from Gallia Antarctica. relateth the bad success and cause thereof in these words; Christian Reader, M. john Caluin understanding that I was gone to Brasile, with intent to plant the Faith there, moved with the old acquaintance had between us, sent unto me as well in his own, as in the name of the whole City of Geneva, certain Ministers of his Religion, the best learned that could be found, with certain craftsmen in their company, well furnished with all such books as Caluin had written, or any other which might serve for their people. As they passed by Paris, certain other (Protestants) joined with them, and among the rest a revolted jacobin named john Comtate, a man of prompt and subtle wit. These men coming to Brasile, adorned themselves with a fair Title, calling themselves: The Reformed Church. By reason whereof they were of me received with all possible courtesy, hoping they would have been profitable to me in my enterprise. But when they began to execute their function, I then found they had usurped a wrong Title etc. They agreed not among themselves, nor continued long in their own doctrine, but as they learned every day, so they still added something thereto. The jacobin would follow a doctrine by himself, undertaking to defend and publish the Confession of Augusta; and without dissimulation to impugn the Doctrine of Caluin, whereby the contention among them grew so great, that no other remedy could be had, but by sending away one of the Ministers of Geneva. But Villegaignon himself discerning through their mutual disagreements, and inordinate accomplished (35) See Launay, En la Replique Chrestienne. l 2. c. 16. f 251. And Villegaignon adverse. Art. Richeri l. 1. c. 90. lusts not to be named, the whole action of converting that Country to be frustrated, received thereupon sufficient motive to abandon their Religion. To the same effect it is reported by D. Philip Nicolai, (36) Comment. de Regno Christi l. 1. p. 395. that the French men, having for their Captain Nicolas Villegaignon, being happily arrived in Brasile, through fatal misfortune and dissension, lost their Regiment and Castle built therein, being cast out by the Spaniards: As in like sort afterwards, when with a new Army they came to Florida, john Ribautius being their Captain etc. The English also, Forbisher being Captain, opened the Northern side of the new world, but they returned home etc. And of the bad success of this Sir Martin Forbisher & other English in the Conversion of the remote Northern Nations, M. Hacklute 37) Voyages & Discoveries etc. p. 680. writeth thus: The events do show, that either God's cause hath not been chief preferred by them, or else God hath not permitted so abundant grace, as the light of his Word and knowledge of him to be yet revealed to those Infidels before the appointed time. And whereas some Protestants in Germany did insinuate with the Church of Greece, writing to the Patriarch in this humble manner with title of Direction: (38) Acta Theol. Witemb. & Patria● hae Con●tantin. etc. p. 2. To the most Holy and Ecumenical Patriarch, the Lord Hieremie Archbishop of Constantinople of New Rome, a pious Lord: And renewing again (39) Ibid. p. 144. the same Direction, in steed of Pious Lord, they add, our most Reverend Lord: (40) Ib. p. 4 Concluding with, farewel most Holy Lord etc. and vouchsafing us pardon, and receiving us favourably into thy fatherly care etc. with much more insinuating submission and desire of Communion with him: All this yet notwithstanding, after much conference, writing, and labour in vanie spent, the Patriarch rejected them as most unworthy (41) Ibid. p. 350. saying: We were determined to be altogether silent to those your (demands) neither to give you any answer, who so plainly alter according to your will both the Scriptures, and interpretations of holy Doctors, seeing we have Paul thus exhorting us: Eschiew an Heretical man, after one or two admonitions etc. we are fully assured by your writings, that you can never agree with us, or rather with the truth &c And therefore, (42) Ibid. p. 370. we desire you hereafter not to be troublesome unto us etc. for the Divines, which were the Lights of the Church, you diversely handle; in words you honour them, and extol them, but in deeds you reject them etc. wherefore forasmuch as concerneth you, you have freed us from cares. So little success had our German Protestants, and so disgraciously were they repulsed even by the Schismatical Grecians. But such is the known want of all success in this behalf in the Protestant Church, that, Beza (43) In Saravia his Def. Tract. De diversis grad. Minist. p. 309. specially disclaimeth from labouring the conversion of remote Nations, leaving that (expressly) to the jesuits. Wherefore having thus fully discovered the manifest and confessed want in the Protestant Church, in fulfilling the foresaid predictions from the Scriptures, of the true Church of Christ, her converting of Heathen Kings and Countries to the true Faith: It resteth now to prove, that the foresaid Prophecies have been fully performed in the Catholic Roman Church, and consequently that the said Church is the Church of Christ described in the Scriptures. And to begin with the Conversion of the most famous Emperor or King that ever was, Constantin the Great, who lived about Anno Domini 311. First, it is confessed by our Protestant Adversaries, that Constantin was the first King that ever professed the Christian Faith; so M. Bunny (44) Survey of the Pope's Supremacy. p. 121. termeth him, Constantin the first Emperor that publicly allowed of Christian Profession. And M Brightman (45) Apoc. p. 323. avoucheth that Constantin was (he) who first of the Roman Emperors undertaken the open Patronage of the truth; and that, a Male-child was not borne before Constantin. Bibliander (46) fidelis Relatio. p 22 teacheth that, Constantin first of the Roman Emperors embraced Christian Religion with true Faith. And the like is taught by Simlerus (47) De filio Dei in Pref. and others. Secondly it is most agreably reported by all Historiographers, that this our first Christian Emperor was Baptised by Pope Silvester then Bishop of Rome. And thirdly, it is before (48) See before l. 1. c. 5. proved at large, that the Religion delivered to Constantin by Pope Silvester, and which they both believed, and publicly professed, was the present Roman Religion, now taught by Pope Vrbane the Eighth. So clear it is, that the Roman Church fulfilled the former predictions of the Scriptures in the Conversion of K. Constantin. As for the other Christian Emperors succeeding Constantin, as Constantius, Constans, Constantin, julian, jovinian, Valentinian, Gratian, Valentinian the Second, Theodosius etc. they were so certainly converted, or rather borne & brought up in the Roman Church, that they are greatly disliked and condemned by (49) Brightmen Apoc. p 344▪ 477. Fulkes Rejoinder etc. p. 2. Protestant Writers, as special Patrons and maintainers of the pretended Antichrist, the Pope of Rome. But to descend to the manifold Conversions of Kings and Countries made by the Roman Church in these last 1000 years: It is confessed and reported by the Centurie-writers, that our Catholic Roman Church converted Germany, (50) Cent. 8 col. 20. the Vandals, (51) Cent. 9 col. 15. the Bulgarians, (52) Cent. 9 col. 18. Sclavonians, Polonians, the D●nes and M●rau●ans, and (53) Cent 10 col 18. 19 sundry Kings and Kingdoms, and a great (54) Cent. 11 col 27. part of Hungary, as also the Norwegians. (55) Cent 12 Osiander likewise mentioneth our converting of the Danes, 56) Ep. hist. p. 16. 94. M●rauians, (57) Ibid. p. 16. Polonians, (58) p. 36. Sclavonians, (59) p. 36. 16. the camphors, (60) p. 36. the Huns, (61) p. 37. the Normans, (62) p. 72. the Bohemians, (63) p. 77. the Suecians, (64) p. 21. 9 the Norwegians, (65) p 86. Livonians and Saxons, the Vagarians, (66) p. 104. the Rugij (67) p. 99 & Tuscans, them of (68) p. 111. Scandia & Matorica, (69) p. 341. of Tunes in Africa, [70) p. 377. and of sundry other Nations. (71) p. 342. M. Brightman (72) Apoc. p 100 likewise reporteth that, famous Conversions are read of at this time of the Polonians, Saxons, Danes, Suecians, Norwegians &c. And though those Conversions were done by the pains of Superstitious men (the Papists) yet was it the Seal of God, and profitable to his elect. Now all these Countries being summed up together, may well be thought to make a full accomplishment of the foresaid prophecies in their said Conversions by our Roman Church from Heathenish Infidelity to the Faith of Christ. But I will yet further descend to particulars, and first begin with Germany, wherein protestancy with Luther first appeared: It was so certainly converted at first from Infidelity to Christian Religion by the Rom. Church, that the Centurie-writers, (73) Cent. 8. Ep. Dedic. writing thereof, do affirm, that Antichrist hath his notable Posts or Runners etc. Such a Post was that Boniface, called the Apostle of the Germans, who with greatest study, art, and power applied himself to this only, that he might reduce all Germany to the Power of the Pope of Rome; but although he is reported to have abolished in some places Heathenish Idolatry, yet he sowed not Christian Religion pure and incorrupt, for he overthrew and cast down that hinge of all piety of free justification by only Faith in Christ etc. wherefore he often mentioneth the blemishes of Antichrist, that is, the corruptions of the articles of Faith etc. with such insolency was that false Apostle puffed up. So clear it is that Germany was converted by S. Boniface from Idolatry to the Roman Faith: Yea Protestant Religion was so unknown to the Christian Germans before the Apostasy of Luther, that Luther (74) In Deut●ron. in pref. fol 3. himself saith: I am of opinion that the (Protestant) Gospel was never revealed to Germany before this Age. As also, )75) Enar rationes seu Postillae. fol. 271. I am ignorant, whether Germany ever heard the Word of God; indeed we have heard the Word of the Pope, which no man can deny. So plainly in Germany had our Roman Faith her being and precedence before all protestancy. But now to come to the late Conversion of the remotest Indians, it was so certainly performed by Friars, jesuits, and other known Members of the Roman Church, that D Philip Nicolai writing a special book of this very argument, and therein professing to set down the accomplishment of the sacred Prophecies in this behalf, is enforced, in proof of the same, wholly to insist upon such Conversions from Paganism, as have been performed by our Catholic Church: Among which speaking of the Indians, he justly (76) Comment. de Regno Christi. l. 1. p. 315. confesseth, that, Spain hath showed 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 known to those Barbarians: According to the diversity of Countries (to which the Portugesses and the Castilians do sail) they diwlge in diverse languages the ten Commandments, the Lords Prayer, the Creed of the Apostles, in Mauritania, in the Atlantic coast, in Guinea, in the Kingdoms of the Nigrites, Armutium, Goa, Narsinga, Aurea, Chersonesus, China, Taprobona, the Islands of Molocca, America, Mexico, Peru, Brasile etc. whereby those Countries abjuring Paganism, and rejecting the Superstitions of Mahomet, are converted to Christ; wherefore now Christ is preached to Kingdoms far distant from our world, and heretofore unknown, so that there are gained to the Kingdom of Christ a great part of Africa, to wit, Manicongrun, Guinea, many Kingdoms of the Nigrites, almost reaching to the mountains of Luna, as also Zofala, Deanamataxa, Quiola and Meluida, then in the remote Orient, the Persian Gulf, and many Kingdoms of the Indians, Cheul, Dabal, Bauda. And what should I recite more? The religion of Christ is dispersed even to the Kings of Narsinga, Honorus, Batecalla, Otisa, Delos, Cananorus, Colochus, Cochinus, and the S●cylane Islands, and beyond Ganges, through the Kingdoms of Bengalla, Pegna, Scanus, to the great City of Malaccha, and the Island Sumatris, then to the less and greater jana, and the Islands japonia, Bauda, Molucca, Borneum, also through China, Lequios, America, new Spain, Florida, the Kingdom of Peru, Brasile, Cambals, and the Lands adjoining etc. Yea so grounded and hopeful of continuance are the Conversions of these so many forenamed Countries, as that in sundry of them, not only Churches, but also Monasteries, Colleges, and other Religious houses are richly built and founded: Insomuch that the foresaid Protestant Doctor (77) Ibid. l. 1. p. 52. Philip Nicolai confesseth most truly, that the Spaniards have founded many Colleges in sundry places, the greatest whereof the jesuits possess in the City of God, a City abounding with men of sundry Countries: In which College it is reported above 600. children of most different Nations, to be diligently instructed in piety and learning, as the brahmin's, Persians, Arabians, Aethiopians, Cafies, Canarians, those of Guzarotes', Decamios, Malavares, Beagolones, Canareos, Pegnos, Patanas, Chingales, javenses, Malaios, Marancabas, Macazaios, Maluchos, Siomos, Mauros, Simos, and sundry others of that kind. But besides this College of Goa, many others are also numbered, as the College Cochinense, Bozainense, Salsetanum, Malacakense, and Bungense of the jaeponies. Besides these there are thirteen Residences of the jesuits, Cherana, of S. Thomas Damanensis, Tannensis, Bandoronensis, Calanae, Traxancort, C●morinensis, Manarinensis, Sinensis, Aethiopiae, Ambrinensis, and of the Holy Trinitye: to which may be added those of japonia, as Meacensis, Emurensis, and certain others. Much more might I recite, of the several Conversions made by our Roman Church in the East (78) Maff. Hist. Indic. l. 16. Hackluite Principal Navigations in the 2. part of the vol. p. 88 & West (79) Accost. de Naturae novi Orbis. Indies, as also in Africa; 80) Hartwels' Report of the Kingdom of Congo. And his Epistie there to the Reader. but I will forbear, it being also (besides the Premises) most fully confessed by the Protestants Lythus, (81) Respon. altera ad alterum Gretseri Apologiam. p. 331. that the only jesuits within the space of a few years etc. not content with the Coasts of Europe, have filled Asia, Africa, and America with their Idols, that is, with the Catholic Roman Faith and Religion. Only I will now further add to the greatest honour and confirmation of our Catholic Church, that the foresaid Conversions of so many Heathen Countries, so happily wrought by her, have been often accompanied with undoubted and confessed Miracles; For so our foresaid D. Phtlip Nicolai (82) Comment. de Regno Christ. p. 91. acknowledgeth and writeth that, The jesuits & Popish Priests by publishing the Articles of Christian Faith, of the ten Commandments, and of the Lords Prayer, as also by diwlging the texts of the Sundays Ghospels & Epistles, and by Administration of Baptism, like unto the Bileamites, do build the Church of Christ, and in the name of God amongst the Indians & Americans do happily expel the Idols & Devils of the Gentiles, & do work great wonders. And in the same place he likewise affirmeth that, Though the jesuits & Papists be Idolaters, yet through the name of Christ they can prophesy, cast out Devils, & work great Miracles amongst the Indians & Americans. And whereas it is most credibly testified, (83) Rerum in Oriente Gestarum Cemmentarius. fol. 8. 9 that the jesuit S. Franciscus Xaverius going to the East Indies for the Conversion of those Pagans to the Catholic Faith, in testimony and proof of the same Faith by him then preached, cured miraculously the dumb, the lame, the deaf, & with his word healed the sick, & raised sundry dead persons to life: And after his death, the grave being opened, to the end his naked bones might be carried from thence to God, (84) Ibid. fol. 14. they found his Body not only unconsumed, but also yielding forth fragrant smells; from whence they carried it to God, & placed it there in the Church of S. Paul, where yet to this day (saith the Author) it remaineth free from corruption. This History for matter of fact is so certain, that D. Whitaker 85) De Eccl. p. 353. in his answer thereto doth not rest in denial of the thing, but only saith: Let not Bellarmine think, that I do altogether contemn these Miracles. I answer it may be, that in the Popish Kingdom (or Church) there have been such Miracles & now are: (86) Ibid. p. 354. And, The Devil might preserve the Body of Xaverius for a time uncorrupted, & smelling sweetly. So not denying these Miracles wrought by a jesuite in the Conversion of the Heathen to the Roman Faith, but most blasphemously and damnably referring the same to the Devil's work: whereas as yet to the contrary M. Hachluite, a Protestant Preacher, doubted not to afford most commendable mention of that (*) Principal Navigations the 2. part of the 2. vol. p. 88 Holy man (Xaverius) his particular virtues, & wonderful works in that Region. As concerning Africa; It is likewise acknowledged and reported by M. Hartwel, (87) Report of the Kingdom of Congo etc. l. 2. c. 2. 3. that in the Kingdom of Congo, a region thereof, was converted to the Christian Faith, and that by great and undoubted Miracles showed in the presence of a whole Army. Now the Persons by whom the said Conversion and Miracles were wrought, were so certainly Catholic Roman Priests, that the same M. Hartwel (88) Ibid. Ep. to the Reader. confesseth, that this Conversion of Congo was accomplished (by Massing Priests) & after the Romish manner: And that action (saith he) which tendeth to the glory of God, shall it be concealed & not committed to Memory, because it was performed by Popish Priests & Popish means? God forbidden. (89) p. 410. yea M. Pory in his Geographical History of Africa, acknowledgeth and mentioneth the said Miracles; (90) Ibid. p. 413. And much commendeth M. Hartwel for publishing his foresaid Treatise. I do forbear here to speak of the Conversions of our own Country by Eleutherius, or Gregory, both Popes of Rome, sending holy and learned men from them for the effecting thereof, the same being largely recorded by several English Writers both Catholic & Protestant, & having myself before spoken sufficiently of the latter, aswel concerning the Persons of them that converted us, as also of the Faith and Religion to which we were by them converted: Only I will add that S. Austin sent hither by S. Gregory did confessedly work many and undoubted Miracles for the Conversion of our Country; for so S. Bede & our Protestant Chroniclers witness that, S. Austin (91) Bed. hist. l. 1. c. 2. holinsh. Chron. vol. 1. l. 5. c. 21. p. 102. to prove his opinion good, wrought a Miracle in restoring sight to one that was blind, whereat the Brittans, being then present, were so moved, that They confessed they perceived, it was the true way of justice which Austin preached. whereof also saith D. Godwine, (92) 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, (93) Bed. hist. l. 1. c. 26 holinsh. ubi sup. p. 100 Fox Act. Mon. p 117. that S. Austin persuaded K. Ethelbert to his Religion by diverse Miracles showed: which were as then also so publicly known, that it was, (94) Bed. hist. l. 2. c. 3. Stows Annal. p. 66. written in the Epitaph upon his Tomb, that he was strengthened by God with the working of Miracles: And S Gregory himself not only taketh (95) Bed. hist. l. 2. c. 1. notice thereof, but also by his (96) holin. ubi sup. p. 192. 102. Letters dated Anno 602. did specially write to S. Austin touching the Miracles showed by him, advising him not to glory therein; but rather to consider, that God gave him the gift, for the good of those to whom he was sent: And withal, (as D. Godwine (97) Catal. of Bishops. p 4. testifieth) exhorted him to diligence in his calling, & to take heed, lest the Miracles which God wrought by him for the Conversion of this people, should make him proud. (98) Ibid. p. 414. yea I doubt not (saith D. Godwine) but God afforded many Miracles to the first Infancy of our Church. In like sort S. Bede, (99) Hist l. 2. c. 12. Fox Act Mon. p. 121. 122. Holl. Chron. vol 1 p. 108 109 M. Fox, and M. Hollinshead do all of them mention the Miraculous Conversion of Edwin K. of the Northumber's, which happened some 26. years after Augustin's foresaid coming into England; M. Fox not doubting to place the same in his (100) Alph. Table of his Acts and Mon. at the word, Miracles. Catalogue of true Miracles. So clear, and for such confessed, it is, that S. Austin the Monk converted England to our Roman Faith by many Miracles. These so many Conversions of Heathen Countries, & so confirmed by undoubted Miracles, being confessedly performed only by the Roman Church, & none at all by the Protestant: It will not suffice to answer (as some (101) Phil. Nicolaus De Regno Christi. p. 53. 91. Protest. do) that, The jesuits in the first Conversion of the Indians & Oriental Islanders, shown themselves to be Lutherans: for who knoweth not that all jesuits without exception have ever holden Lutherans to be Heretics most damnable, & so their Faith & Religion to be altogether unavailable to the Conversion of the Heathen, or working of Miracles? Or who is ignorant, that Numbers of jesuits have freely shed their blood for not communicating in matters of Religion with Lutherans & Caluinists? And therefore in steed of further answer, I hold it only worthy of contempt, laughter, & scorn. A Discovery or brief Examination of sundry sleights & Evasions used by Protestant Writers in Excuse of the manifest confessed want of their Churches fulfilling the foresaid Scriptures concerning the continuance, universality, & visibility of Christ's true Church. CHAPTER VI. Having thus far laboured in full discovery of the perfect agreement of our Roman Church with the sacred Scriptures, & of the opposite contrariety of our Protestant Congregation with the same; I will now only examine the extremest & most desperate shifts & evasions, which the learnedst Protestant's are enforced to make, in colour and pretence of their Churches not fulfilling, or agreeing with the foresaid Scriptures. As first, whereas the former Scriptures did manifestly teach, that the Church of the new Testament must ever continue even from Christ's time until the end of the world, Protestants being urged by us to show the like continuance of their Church, (1) saddle. de Rebus graviss. Contr. p. 783 Fulk in A●oc. c. 12. f. 69. they answer, that in all Ages it did continue with Pastors and Doctors in it, for the administration of the Word and Sacraments, but yet (through Persecution) unknown & invisible to the world; even as those (2) 3. Reg. 19.18. 7000. faithful, though unknown to Elias, when he thought (3( 3. Reg. 19.10. himself alone, were yet nevertheless at the same time reserved and remaining. But the falsehood & insufficiency of this answer, is sundry ways apparent. For first, it is directly against the sacred Scriptures (4) See before l. 4. c. 3 plentifully produced before in proof of the Churches ever-visibility. Secondly, it is contradicted by most of the learnedst Protestants, who formerly from the said Scriptures do prove & maintain the ever-visibility of Christ's Church. (5) See before l. 4. c. 3. Thirdly, the arguments drawn from the jewish Synagogue are impertinent to those many greater predictions & promises made to the Church of Christ, whose (6) Heb. 8.6 Testament is established in better promises, & therefore though the Church had been invisible 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 universal Church before Christ, but only, admitting the most, to the particular Nation of the jews, besides whom were extant many other faithful, as appeareth by the sundry examples of Melchisedech, job etc. And afterwards of Cornelius (7) See Act. 10.1. & 8.27.11.18. & 13.14 42.43. & 14.1. & 18.4 8.9. the Eunuch etc. yet the Protestant (8) Syntagma ex veteri Test. col. 1232 1233. Wigandus showeth by very many examples of Scripture, that the jewish Synagogue before Christ's time, was dispersed in sundry other Nations, besides that of the jews: Now amongst these the Church might in Elias time be visible, though it had been then invisible among the jews. Fiftly, though those 7000. of that one special time were unknown as then to Elias, yet this proveth not (which is the point only pertinent to be proved) that therefore they should be as then unknown also to all others of the same time: And much less therefore can this particular example prove, that all the Faithful, not of one special time only, but also of so many several hundred years, (as are here (9) See before l. 3. c. 1. before confessed for the Prot. Church's invisibility should all of them, during all those Ages, continue so generally latent & unknown (not to one Elias only,) but to the whole world, as that there should remain no memory or notice of the needful preaching & administration of Sacraments, to have been performed so much, as by one of them, in any one Nation of the earth for any one moment of all those times. Sixtly, this objection of Elias maketh fully for us, & against our Adversaries; for it is evident, that Elias flying (10) 3. Reg. 19 2.3.8.9. theface of jesabel wife to Achab, who sought his life, lay thereupon secret in a Cave upon Mount Horeb, at the time of his complaining that he was left alone; the which complaint he made in regard only of that Country of Israel, which was the kingdom of Achab (wherein he then a stranger lay secret) as appeareth most plainly aswel in that God himself accordingly answered his said complaint with like respect to that only Country, saying: I have left to me in Israel 7000. etc. Of one hundred whereof Elias himself had then special 11 3. Reg. 18.13. notice given him before by Obedias, to whom therefore the Church was then, even in that very Country, known & visible; which only point quite dissolveth all the supposed force of this so often reinforced objection. Besides in those very times, the Church flourished in the next adjoining Kingdom of juda, and was there as then to Elias both known & visible, under two good Kings, Asa and josaphat who reigned even in the time (12) 3. Reg. 22.41. of Achab: At what time the number of the Faithful was there so exceeding great, that the Soldiers only were numbered to (13) 2. Par. 14.8 9 & 17.14.15.16.17.18 19 many hundred thousands: And thus is this very objection answered by M. Henoch (14) Sovereign Remedy etc. p. 17. 18. Clapham saying, our ignorant Reformists say, the Church was invisible in the time of Elias, but, The Holy Ghost recordeth Elias to have spoken this against Israel, not against juda; for as he knew that good josaphat at that time reigned in juda, so he well knew, that there was not only the Church visible, but also mightily reform. yea )15) In Corpore Doctrinae. p. 530. 532 And in Morgensterne Tract. de Eccl. p. 4. Melancthon expoundeth those very words objected, I have left to me 7000 etc. of the visible Church. And whereas (16) Def. of the Answ. p. 645. Whitguift writeth that, Sometimes the Church of God is where there is no good Pastor, as in the time of Elias, (17) Last part of the 2. Reply. p. 63. M. Carthwright answereth, This is untrue; for there were an hundred Prophets then kept of one man alone. 1. Reg. 18.13. So many ways is it evident that the Church in the time of Elias his complaint, was visible not only in juda, but also in Israel. Now whereas our Adversaries do make for the reason of their Church's invisibility, Persecution: This poor evasion implieth in terms; for what maketh the Church more known & famous then Persecution? Or who can be persecuted but men known & seen to others? Doth not M. jewel (*) Reply. p. 506. And Def. of the Apolog. p. 33. 34. hereupon affirm that, The Church is placed upon a mount, her persecutions can not be hid? Doth not M. Carthwright (18) In Whytguift. Def p 174. And see D. Babington upon Exodus. p 10. confess, that the Church under Persecution, is visible and sensible; for else (saith he) how could it be persecuted? As also, what a Conclusion is this: the Churches were few in number, because they were under the Cross? etc. To let pass both Scriptures and Stories Ecclesiastical, have you forgotten what is said in the first of Exodus, that the more the children of Israel were persecuted, the more they increased? But in clear demonstration hereof, is it not further evident, that though the Primitive Church, during the first 300. years after Christ, endured (19) Fox Act. Mon. p. 34. etc. The Centuristes' Cent. 1. col 24, etc. & Cent 2. col. 10. etc. & Cent. 3. col. 10. etc. incomparably the most universal & violent persecutions that ever were, yet, the same notwithstanding, even Protestant writers (20) Cent. 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 certain & particular notice of the Catholic Bishops and Pastors by name in every one of those Ages, of their administration of the Word and Sacraments, and their open impugning of Heresies? But besides all this, all sides must acknowledge of the Church under Persecution, that either she doth make Profession of her Faith, as also openly refrain the external communion of all Idolatry, false doctrine and Sacraments; or else that she doth not profess and refrain as before said: If the latter, than (as is heretofore proved) she is not the true Church; for as D. Field (22) Of the Church. l. 3. p. 19 further saith: the Church is the multitude of them that shall be saved, & no man can be saved unless he make Confession unto Salvation (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 themselves known in such sort, that by their profession and practice they may be discerned from other men: If then the first, then is she thereby made most known & visible; for besides her foresaid Profession consisting in administration of the Word & Sacraments, & impugning of errors, which being done, though never so privately, is impossible to be in so many several Countries kept secret for any smaller time, much less for so many Ages together: whereof D. Humphrey (23) jesuit. part. 2. rat. 3 p 241. saith most truly: Whilst Ministers teach, others learn; they administer Sacraments, these communicate, all call upon God, & profess their Faith: Who seethe not these things, is blinder than a Mole; I say beside this, her only open refraining or recusancy (whereto she is even by the judgement of Protestants (24) Willet 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 Divines of Germany in Sleydans' Comment. Engl. f. 87. no less in duty bound) lieth evermore most open & easy to be discerned; yea by how much the persecution is more grievous, so much the less can this recusancy be kept secret or unespied, as appeareth most plainly in the example only of our own times & Nations; for if during but these last 20. years, we of this one Nation in comparison but few, could not so escape the search of Protestant Magistrates, but that by our only recusancy we were daily discerned, presented, indicted, convicted, sundry ways persecuted, & some Martyred: Can then a Protestant's pretended to be dispersed throughout so many Nations of the world, escape for so many hundred years together, that Inquisition of the Roman Church, which Protestants affirm to have been universal, and far more grievous? Wherefore to end this inexplicable & contradictory point, of the Protestant Churches Being or continuance, but yet unknown & invisible for many hundred years together, & that through the greatest persecutions thereof by the Pope of Rome; I will only demand with D. Field, (25) Of the Church. l. 1. p. 19 How (possibly) there should be a Church in the world (the perpetuity whereof, all most constantly defend) and none found (seen or known) to profess the Saving truth of God? Or as M. jewel (26) saith of Heresy, so, in his words, will I say of his Church, It must needs be a very strange Church, that had neither beginning, nor ending, nor defender, nor reprover, nor mouth to utter it, nor ear to hear it, nor pen to write it, nor time to last in, nor place to rest in; of which strange kind of Church, was our pretended Protestant Church for many hundred years together, no known beginning being assigned of her invisibility, no man defending or reproving her, during the said latency, no Pastor of hers preaching, or sheep hearing her doctrine, no pen writing her Monuments, or her pretended pressures & sufferings, no one hour known wherein she had being, or corner, or cottage in the world, wherein she resided. Wherefore the absurdity and insufficiency of this former answer being in so many respects so easily discovered, other Protestants disclaiming from this, do avouch, that their Church according to the Scriptures hath ever continued, and that visible and known in all former Ages; but now sithence, through the late violence of the Pope and his Clergy, all testimony, Monument, & Record thereof is utterly suppressed and made away. But the idle vanity of this naked conceit is many ways appearing; for first, this is but a mere Imagination, destitute of all testimony or proof in confirmation thereof. Secondly, all proof & experience is directly to the contrary, seeing the very books of hus and Wiccliffe are yet extant to our adversaries, as also the Epistle of Vlrick in defence of Priest's marriage, & the pretended books of Charlemagne against Images, & Bertram concerning the Eucharist, & the like: And yet in none of these is the least mention afforded of any Protestant Congregation though never so slender, to have been formerly residing in any cave or corner of the earth, though never so straight; And yet these are the ancientest Records wherein they can insist, either in defence of themselves, or impugning of us. Thirdly, our General and Provincial Counsels holden in most several Nations, did ever recite and condemn all new arising Sects & Heresies contrary 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 Catholic Writers, in every Age, have plentifully recited, and at large confuted all appearing doctrines contrary to the Roman Church, & yet as for any Protestant Religion known before Luther, they are wholly silent. Fiftly, from hence do sundry Protestant Writers take notice, and in their own writings (27) The Cent. Pant. in Chron. Osiand. Epit. Eccl. Hist. Illiricus Catalogus Testam. etc. Whitak. count. Dur. p. 276. 469. make mention of the daily opinions, not passed over in silence, or wholly suppressed from the view of Posterity, but directly to the contrary most expressly mentioned, recorded, and condemned in every Age, by the Church of Rome: Of which opinions, certain also (which maketh this point most evident) were oftentimes even some one or other special Doctrine, now sithence taught by Protestants, and heretofore severally professed by some one or other particular condemned person of those times. And yet was never Protestant hitherto ever able to nominate or assign a Protestant Church before the days of Luther, truly agreeing in matters of Faith and Religion with our now reformed Church of England. Sixtly, this confessed general suppression of the Protestant Church, and all her Records for so many hundred years, doth evidently convince the said Church, not to be the Church of Christ, but some Heretical Conventicle; for the Scriptures testify of the true Church, that her (28) Esa. 60.20. Sun should not be set, nor her Moon hid; that she (29) Dan. 2 44. should not be given over to another people, but should stand for ever, as an (30) Esa. 60.15.16. eternal glory and joy, from generation to generation. Lastly, every uprising Sect, though never so gross, may as easily, and with as much probability, pretend for itself, the continuance & visibility of their Church for all former Ages, only adding (with our Protestants) the Imagiginarie suppression and ruin of all testimonies, proofs, and Records of the same, through the power and malice of the Church of Rome, than which nothing more dangerous to affirm, or more absurd to maintain. The falsehood of the two former Answers being thus easily displayed, and seen to be most palpable and sensible, even to the meanest judgements, a third remaineth, in matter and substance of no greater force than the former, but through affected obscurity of words, more difficult and perplexed to an ignorant Hearer: As namely, that during all those confessed many Ages, wherein no knowledge is had of the Protestant Church, her Pastors, or administration of Word, or any one Sacrament, (*) Whitak. de Ecelesia p. 165. Perkins in his Reformed Cathol. p. 328. 329. Osiand. 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 Papacy, and the Papacy was in the Church, and yet the Papacy was not the Church. An answer not much unlike to that Censure given upon D. Playford his strange dividing the Text of his Sermon, to wit, that it was as A Pie, A Pudding: A Pudding and a Pie: A Pie pudding: And a Pudding Pie: Being indeed no other but a mere Tergiversation, and idle battology of distracted, perplexed, and obstinate men, not willing to yield or acknowledge the truth, and yet not able a deny the certainty thereof: Much agreeable to that instability and doubtfulness, which (31) Instit. 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 other words, professing: Neither simply to grant, nor plainly to deny our Catholic Church, to be the Church of God. And yet such Confidence is placed in this extremest Refuge, that in M. Parkins (32) 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 will serve to stop the mouths of Papists, who demand of us, where our Church was fourscore years before Luther. For, saith he, hereby They are answered, that our Church hath been since the days of the Apostles, and that in the very midst of the Papacy. But to omit, that hereby is plainly granted and supposed, that Papacy, or the Roman Religion hath ever been since the days of the Apostles, I will now lay open this last receptacle wherinto our Enemies do so confidently retire. And first, when they say their Church was in the Papacy since the Apostles days; they either mean, that their Church continued in Popish Countries amongst the Papists without all external Communion with them in Church or Sacraments, even as Catholics do at this day in England, Scotland, Holland, Turkey etc. Or else, that their Church was in the Papacy, because she did Communicate with the Papists Church in all external offices, Service, and Sacraments thereof, not being in any external respect to be discerned from the Papists, only reserving in their inmost thoughts and secret Consciences, the Faith of Protestants. If they intent the first, than had it been more congruously said, that their Church was without the Papacy, or near to the Papacy, or among the Papists, or in Popish Countries, but at no hand in the Papacy, that implying the very Faith and Religion of the Papists, no more than a Catholic can endure to hear that the Roman Church or Religion, is in the protestancy, Puritanisme, Turkism or the like. Besides if the Protestant Church had been thus still in Popish Countries with external recusancy of all Popish Service & Sacraments, than we urge again, as before, for some one testimony, proof, or but shadow thereof from any one Writer, Record, or Monument of all those former Ages; but herein they are most silent through their known confessed want of all such helps. And therefore they betake themselves to the second meaning of their Church being in the Papacy, that is, not being only in Popish Countries, but in all external Communion and Profession either of Service, Sacraments, or other matters of Faith and Religion, being and showing itself only Papistical. Agreably hereunto M. Parkins expounded himself saying: (33) Reform. Cath. p 328. The true Church hath been in the Roman Church, as Corn in the heap of Chaff: And not severed each from other in outward profession, (34) Ib. p. 329. but mixed together for external society, like Chaff and corn in one heap: In which sense Osiander (so great an Enemy of our Catholic Church, that by no means (35) Epit. Hist. Eccl. Ep. Dedic. & Cent. 6. p. 290. & Cent. 7. 331 he will acknowledge it for a true Church) yet affirmeth, that, (36) Ep. Dedic. Cent. 8. p. 2. In those darkened times, the true Church was under the Papacy: And that so, that though (37) Cent. 16. part. alt. p. 1076. some godly men (inwardly) disliked the Popish errors, and Idolatrous Sacrifices, yet they durst not always openly profess the same: (38) Ibid. 1072. Neither durst they freely profess their own opinions, except they would be burned, or at least banished: Yea these so godly men, saith he, (39) Cent. 8. Ep. Deed p 3. though they gave not their mind to these Popish Idolatries, yet they did not altogether neglect the external rites, and with a common custom, as with a violent Stream, they were carried away to do the same things with the Papists: Many, through fear of the Popish Tyranny, not daring to profess that they disliked the Popish worships, whose infirmity God tolerated and pardoned. And so, saith he, they communicated with the Popish Church, in (40) Cent. 16 p. 1073. & Cent 8. Ep Deed p 2. Ministry of the Gospel (or the Word) in the Bible, in Baptism, in the Lord's supper, in taking Orders etc. such (saith he) as those times did afford etc. And so thereby were most evidently no other than plain Papists in all external Profession. And according to this, D. White also confesseth, that these godly men did not (41) Way to the Church. p. 371. always abandon the Communion of the Roman Church etc. the Tyranny of Rome suppressed them so, that they could not manifest abroad to the world their dislike etc. but by force and violence were constrained to devour their own Sorrow in the society of their Adversaries. This external society of Protestants with Papists in matters of Religion is further granted by the Protestant Molitor, (42) Disquisitiones de Eccl. etc. p. 114. who writing hereof saith: We affirm the Church in former Ages to have laid hid in the midst of the Papistry, as in Caves, neither durst it, through the abominable Tyranny of the Son of Perdition, come forth to light: Even as yet to this day many faithful are in the midst of the Romish Babylon, who lie hid there as in a Prison, and for fear of danger dare not publicly profess the name of Christianity. So that the very true and last resolved sense of the Protestant Churches being in the Papacy ever since the days of the Apostles, importeth no more, but that in the secretest corners of their hearts, they believed protestancy, and in all external Communion, society, and conversation they lived and died Roman Papists. But if men had long studied for an answer most foolish and wicked, what more apt than this? For first, no instance or proof do they or can they produce, whereby to prove these external Papists, to have been indeed internal Protestants, this being only a fiction or Imagination of their own, devoid of all testimony, Record, or probability whatsoever. Secondly, supposing it to be true, doth it import, or conclude any less, but that the said Imagined Church of Protestants in this sort being in the Papacy, was a most dissembling and adulterous Church, publicly denying in word and deed that very Faith and Religion, which inwardly it believed only to be true, and committing and practising both in life and death many foul supposed Superstitions and Idolatries with the Popish Church, which they firmly believed to be most wicked and damnable? And is it possible that an hypocritical Church is the Church of Christ? Or that Godly men would for fear of any persecution, not only deny Christ before men, but withal commit Adultery with the pretended whore of Babylon, in partaking with her in all her superstitions, Idolatries, and abominations? what more forcible can be desired, or urged against the said imagined Church, that she was not the Church of Christ, than her own confession of gross and palpable dissimulation in the weightiest matters of Faith and Religion? Doth not Christ himself avouch & say, (43) Math. 10.33. whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my father in heaven? And his Apostle teacheth (44) Rom. 10.10. that, with the hart a man believeth unto justice, and with the mouth confesseth to Salvation: And how possibly could the (45) Math. 16.18. Gates of Hell more strongly prevail against the Church of Christ, then by making her to commit Idolatry and Superstition, and that for many hundred years together? Whereas in steed of these, (46) Psal. 86.3. glorious things are foretold of the Church of Christ, as that, (47) Esa. 60.11. her Gates should be continually open, her (48) Esa. 62.6. Pastors never silent, her (49) Dan. 2.44. Kingdom not given over to another people, but should stand for ever, as (50) Esa. 60.15.16. an eternal glory and joy from generation to generation. So that the censure which by this last answer is imposed upon the Protestant Church, and that by her own Children, is, that in steed of Christ's Church, she is a dissembling Church, a Church denying Christ and his Religion, a Church for temporal respects committing many Idolatries, and Superstitions, and so by most true consequence no Church at al. THE FIFT BOOK, WHEREIN IS SHOWN, THAT PROTESTANTS IN THE Decision of Controversies between them and CatholicKs, do absolutely disclaim from Antiquity, rejecting the Ancient Fathers and Counsels for Papistical, and the Sacred Scriptures for erroneous. THAT PROTESTANTS DISCLAIM from all Antiquity since the Apostles; and further reject and condemn as Papistical the Ancient Fathers and General Counsels. CHAPTER I. SO foul is the stain of Novelty in any profession of Religion, as that some Protestants have adventured to charge our Roman Church with the deformity and crime thereof; Mr. Hal thereupon avouching, that (1) Peace of Rome p. 24. Popery is but a new fashion; and D. (2) Way to the true Church. p. 341. 342. White undertaking to prove it contrary to the primitive Church. But as nothing can be more grateful to a Christian Reader, than a clear and sincere trial of this point, to wit, whether the ancient Fathers of the primitive Church were the true progenitors and Fathers of Catholics or Protestants; so among many means and arguments, all of them able most clearly to determine the same, I will only make choice for this time of the free grants, acknowledgements, and confessions of Protestants themselves: And this chief concerning their own bastardy, degenerating, and disclaiming from those so ancient, so noble, so worthy Peers of those purest times. And first concerning the Argument drawn from Antiquity in general, it is acknowledged to be a Popish Argument, and for such to be avoided and taken heed of: so do some careful Ministers prescribe to the King's Majesty himself, saying: Let 3) Survey of the Book of common prayer. p. 18. not your Majesty be now deceived by the Popish Argument of supposed Antiquity, as joshua was with the old and mouldy bread of the Gibeonites etc. And now followeth the reason of this so necessary prevention, And the rather, O Christian King, take heed, because Antichrist began to work even in the Apostles days: Yea, saith D. Willet, Papistry 4) Synop. Controu. 2. q. p. 56. etc. began to work in S. Paul's days. So that Papistry being as old as S. Peter and S. Paul, it behooveth Protestant's in all good policy to reject and utterly abandon Antiquity as a Popish argument, and as the old and mouldy bread which the poor Papists feed on. The like provident and most necessary prevention for Protestants used the Maddeburgians 5) Pref. ep. Dedicat. ad Elizab. Angliae. Reg. in Cen. 4. before to Q. Elizabeth, to whom pretending to bring Antiquity for her Majesty to look upon, yet at the first premonish, that few Doctors in ancient times did write Luculenter et cum iudicio, perspicuously and witb judgement: And withal complain, that very many are as it were so bewitched with the holy title of Antiquity, that without all attention and true judgement they do give willingly consent to never so foul errors, if they be set down by Antiquity; so fearful are these deepest divers and Searchers into Antiquity to be tried thereby. Just cause had then D. Humphrey to reprove Mr. jewel for his so bold appealing to the first 600. years, saying: jewel 6) De vita jewelli. p. 212. And see the like in Fulks Retentive. p. 55. provoked to all that Antiquity, but he was over liberal, and yielded more than reason, and was over injurious to himself etc. and in a manner spoiled himself and his (Protestant Church) etc. It is sufficient for a Christian to say, So saith the Lord etc. What have we to do with Fathers, with flesh or blood? or what belongeth it to us (Protestants) what the false Synods of Bishops shall ordain? Here our Doctor wisely controlleth Mr. jewel for his so rash appealing to the primitive Church, as seeing plainly that his new Protestant family would be utterly spoilt and undone thereby. And the like dislike showeth jacobus Acontius against some Protestants alleging the Fathers in their own behalf saying: 7) Stratag. li. 6. p. 296. Some are come to that, that they will fill all their writings with the authority of Fathers, which I would to God they had performed with as prosperous success, as they hopefully attempted it etc. I do verily think that this custom is most dangerous, and altogether to be eschewed. So that in this Doctors judgement, it is no wisdom but imminent danger for Protestants to meddle with the Fathers. Now if any desire to know the true cause of this danger hanging over Protestants by appealing thus to Fathers, it is confessed to be no other, but because the said Fathers were Papists. We are sure (saith Mr. 8) Papistomastix. p. 193. Midleton) that the mystery of iniquity did work in Paul's time; and fell not a-sleep so soon as Paul was dead, waking again 600. years after, when this mystery was disclosed etc. and therefore no marvel, though perusing Counsels, Fathers, and Stories from the Apostles forward, we find the print of the Pope's feet. O how firm and during are the Pope's steps, or our Roman faith, which at this day are presented unto us by Counsels, Fathers, and stories from the Apostles times; all of them recording to us their Posterity the Popish Faith to be the Faith of their times! What reason then have Protestants to appeal to such ancient Papists? In like for argueth Mr. Carth wright saying: That (9) Reply part. 1. p. 18. the argument of the authority of men which have interpreted the Scriptures, is the best reason in Controversies of Divinity, was never heard of but by Papists, whose strongest towers are in the testimonies of the Doctors etc. There is nothing more Papistical than this Assertion. So that if Protestants commit themselves to the trial by Fathers, they yield themselves prisoners to the strongest Towers and Castles of the Papists their Enemies, wherein what can they expect but ruin and confusion? D. Whitaker affirmeth (10) Cont. Dur. li. 6. p. 423. The Popish Religion to be a patched coverlet of the Father's errors sowed together. Well then if our Religion was believed by the Fathers, & from them delivered to us, I am persuaded that D. Whitaker admitting this, would place little hope in appealing to Fathers for Confutation of Popish Religion. And though he falsely termeth our Religion the Father's errors, yet thereby he plainly granteth the Fathers to have believed and taught the same Religion which we now profess, and Protestants impugn. Now the ancient Fathers being thus acknowledged for Papists, I do not wonder that Protestants contemn their authority, and seek their disgrace with all contumelies possible. Why may not D. Luther affirm (11) To. 2. Wittemb. l. de Seruo Arb. p. 434. And the same book printed in 8. p. 72. 73. 276. 337. The Fathers of so many Ages to have been plainly blind, and most ignorant in the Scriptures; to have erred all their life time; and that unless they were amended before their deaths (whereof never Protestant had yet the least intelligence) they were neither Saints nor pertaining to the Church, but no doubt (according to Luther) damned Papists? Why might not he further avouch: That (12) 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 have holden Origen long since accursed. Of chrysostom I make no account. Basil is of no worth, he is wholly a Monk, I weigh him not a hair. Cyprian is a weak Divine etc. See how our old Papists are betrampled by a young Protestant? And yet no less resolute against them is (13) In jonam. Pomerane: Our Fathers whether Saints or no I care not (o zeal and reverence Protestantical!) they were blinded with the Spirit of Montanus by humane traditions, and the doctrines of Devils etc. they teach not purely of justification etc. neither are they careful to teach JESUS CHRIST according to his Gospel. Still are the Fathers rejected as men blinded with Papistical opinions. The Centurists endeavouring to discredit the whole multitude of Doctors and Fathers in every Age begin even with the first Age next after the Apostles, saying, 14) Cent. 2 c. 4. p. 55. Albeit this Age was nearest to the Apostles, yet the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles began to be not a little darkened therein, and many monstrous and incommodious opinions (to Protestant's) are every where found to be spread by the Doctors thereof. Perhaps some cause thereof may be, for that the gift of the Holy Ghost in these Doctors did begin to decay for the ingratitude of the world towards the (Protestant) Truth. Now as for the Doctors of all Ages succeeding, they make a Principle, that The 15) Cent 3. c. 4. p. 17. further we go of from the Apostles Age, the more stubble shall we find to have been added to the purity of Christian doctrine: So that all Doctors and Fathers since the very first Age of the Apostles are discarded by the Centurists for stubble and Papistical. But Luther will not rest, until he hath brought these stubble-Doctours to Hell for teaching Papistry: (16) In Deut. c. 13. p. 102. Satan (saith he) hath hitherto deluded us by signs and lying wonders etc. whilst contrary to the Gospel, we have admired Pilgrimages, Apparitions of Spirits, and cures at certain Sepuchers, in so much that Saints also erred herein, as Augustin, Bernard, Hierome and many others &c. certainly damned (as Wicclif said) unless they repent. So that if Papists be damned for believing the Catholic faith, they have for their Companions Hierome, Augustin, Bernard, and many others most renowned Doctors of Christ's Church, and Saints. From this true conceit of the ancient Fathers being Roman Catholics, Protestants further disclaim from their Interpretations and expositions of Scripture, refusing to stand to their judgements for the true understanding thereof. Thus than they writ: The Sacred Scripture (saith Polanus) (17) Symphonia c. 1. Thes. 6. p. 56. is not to be interpreted by Fathers; neither is the Interpretation of Scripture to be judged by Fathers; the Fathers are not the rule of expounding the sacred Scripture etc. what is here said of every Father alone, is to be understood of all the Fathers joined together, as also of Counsels, That is, though all Fathers and Counsels conspire together in their Expositions of Scripture, agreably to the Doctrine and belief of the Catholic Roman Church, yet Protestant's will not subscribe or admit the same, but will valiantly maintain all such expositions, though most contrary thereto, as are last coined at Geneva or Wittenberg, or newliest extracted by some Brother more illuminated. In like and most provident manner argue our English Puritans against Doctor Downham objecting against them, That none of the Fathers did ever understand the Text (than in question) as Puritan do. (18) The Puritans in their answ. to D. Downham. Doth not Mr. Doctor know (say they) that to argue negatively concerning the sense of Scriptures from the authority of Fathers, is the practice of Papists only, and taxed by learned writers against them? etc. If that manner of disputing be good, we shall often lose more truth in taking their Interpretations etc. Carthwright termeth the seeking into the holy Father's writings a 19) In bancroft's survey of Pretend. Discipl. p. 331. 337 and see chap. 4. p. 64. Raking of ditches, and the bringing in of their authorities the moving and summoning of Hel. Parker assureth us that, (20) 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 allege the ancient Fathers against them, they will tell you roundly, that their opinions are nothing else but the corrupt fancies of vain Imaginations of men, toyish fables, fond, absurd, without sense and reason. And some stick not to call the Fathers of the Latin Church the plague of Divinity. Hence it is, that the French Protestants have enacted it for a (21) Disciplina Magistrorum Galliae art. 4. law, that no place be given to the writings of the old Doctors, for the judgement ad determination of Doctrine. So clearly is protestancy at an end, if the Father's Interpretation of Scriptures may stand for good. But yet further they doubt not to affirm the argument or consequence urged from the (22) Puricans Answ. to D. Downham's ser. p. 92. received opinion in the Church of God, even from the Apostles time unto our Age, to be liable to just exception. So that though the Fathers of all Ages up to the Apostles themselves do all of them jointly agree with our Roman faith in their Expositions and delivery of the sense of Scripture, yet may one illuminated Protestant except, contemn, and reject them all, as not having the Spirit nor interpreting according to the Analogy of the Protestant faith. But O most miserable and lamentable times! O insolency most impious and incredible! What? the received opinion in the Church of God even from the Apostles time unto our Age, to be liable to just exception? The Fathers of all Ages during 1600. years of all Countries, though most distant in place, and different in language, and other conditions of nature and government, all of them to conspire in one opinion of truth & doctrine, and yet all of them so foully and so grossly to err, as that a newfound Protestant is able to discover it? This, this may a Protestant often declaim, but no man of judgement can possibly believe him. Yea, our Protestants are so far out of love and liking with the Fathers, as they painfully labour to make the world to think, that their Commentaries, books, and belief were directly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, and therefore to these they will ever appeal from the writings of men. Captain Luther 23) L. contra Henricum 8. Regem Angliae. saith: Against the sayings of Fathers, Men, Angels, and Devils, I place not ancient consent, nor the multitude of men, but the Gospel being the Word of One Eternal Majesty, which themselves are enforced to allow: Here I stand, here I sit, here I abide, here I glory, here I triumph, here I insult over Papists, Thomists, Henricians, and all the Gates of Hell, much more over the sayings of men, though never so holy and deceivable custom. The word of God is above all; Divine Majesty maketh with me; so that I care not if a thousand Augustins, a thousand Tertullias, a thousand Henries or (Papistical) Churches should stand against me. God can not err and deceive; Austin, and Cyprian, as also all the Elect may, and have erred. My Doctrines shall stand, the Pope shall fall. Here we have a man of lively Faith; but yet hear him further: 24) In Comment. in ep. ad Gal. No other doctrine is to be delivered or heard in the Church, than the pure word of God, that is, the Sacred Scripture; Let other Doctors and Auditors be accursed with their learning; but here wanteth Charity. Neither is Luther in this alone, for Zuinglius likewise declaymeth: 25( In Explanat. Artic. 64. Presently thou beginnest to cry, Fathers, Fathers, the Fathers have so delivered: But I do not ask of thee, Fathers or Mothers, but I require the word of God. In like sort Peter Martyr: 26) De Votis. p. 462. As concerning the Father's judgement, because our Adversaries (the Papists) are accustomed in this and other Controversies always to provoke to them, I (therefore) declare, that to me it seemeth not the part of a Christian to provoke to the judgements of men, from the Scriptures of God. Yea (saith he) 27) Ibid. p. 476. As long as we rest in Counsels or Fathers we shall always be conversant in the same errors. And the like is taught by Summerus saying: 28) Contr. Carolum. l. 1. c. 1. Antiquity, by which they affirm we are condemned, is of no force; for if they speak of a right believing Antiquity, by which we understand Christ and his Apostles, the matter itself cryeth, that it is for us; but if they will understand the same of the authority of the Fathers, we do not take it i'll, that the word of God is condemned by them. Agreably hereunto writeth D. Whitaker: 29) Contra Saunder. p. 92. If you argue from the testimonies of men, be they never so learned and ancient, we yield no more to their words in cause of Religion, than we perceive to be agreeable to Scripture: Neither think yourself to have proved any thing, though you bring against us the whole swarm of Fathers, except that which they say, be justified not by the voice of men, but by God himself. And again: 30) 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 Servants of the Fathers, but the Sons; when they prescribe us any thing out of the Law and Divine authority, we obey them as our parents; if they enjoin any thing against the voice of the heavenly truth, we have learned not to hearken to them, but to God. You (Papists) as vassals and base servants receive whatsoever the Fathers say, without judgement or reason, being afraid (as I think) either of the whip, or the halter, if every thing they speak be not Gospel with you. Again: 31) Against Sanders de Antichristo p. 21. We repose no such confidence in the Father's writings, that we take any certain proof of our (Protestant) Religion from them, because we place all our Faith and Religion, not in humane but in Divine authority. If therefore thou bring us, what some one Father hath thought, or what the Fathers universally altogether have delivered, the same except it be approved by testimonies of Scriptures, it availeth nothing, it gaineth nothing, it convinceth nothing; for the Fathers are such witnesses, as they also have need of the Scriptures to be their witnesses. If deceived by error they give forth their testimony disagreeging from Scriptures, albeit they may be pardoned erring for want of wisdom, we can not be pardoned (being green-witted Protestants) if, because they erred we also will err with them. Thus doth this Protestant Doctor defend his rejecting the ancient Fathers as writing contrary to the Scriptures, and upbraid us Catholics for our due estimation of the same: and so do Protestants still labour in derogation of the Fathers, to oppose the Sacred Scriptures, and holy Fathers as contrary one to another. But all in vain; for who ever more duly reverenced, or more carefully preserved those heavenly writings, than the ancient Bishops and Doctors of the Primitive Church? Who more truly translated them to their greatest pains, & for the good of all succeeding Ages, than those learnedst Fathers? Who in searching the deepest difficulties so frequent in them did more submit and captivated their judgements then these holy Fathers? Who ever more pressed Heretics with the weight of God's word then those zealous Fathers? Who ever writ more large or more learned Commentaries and explanations thereof, than the aged Fathers? And is it then possible, that the said Fathers should so directly contradict the Sacred Scriptures, as our Protestants pretend? But this so desperate & so unworthy dealing against the Fathers, doth clearly convince, that Fathers were no Protestants, but merely Papists, wherein we may glory, as reverencing their sanctity, admiring their learning, and honouring their Antiquity. Neither is it true, as Protestants use to suggest, that Catholics distrusting their cause, if it be committed to trial by Scripture, do therefore fly from it to Fathers and Doctors; for, as for all such points as are contained in Scripture, to Scripture we appeal; it is that we urge; her literal sense and words hath made us Papists. We therefore only recurre to Fathers, either for the better finding-out and understanding the true meaning of sundry difficult passages and texts of Scripture, or for the true discerning of several Ecclesiastical Traditions and doctrines taught and practised by the Church, and yet no where mentioned in the Written 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 means to give us satisfaction. For as none ever left more lively Monuments of rarest wit & profundest knowledge, or more shining testimonies of greatest purity and sanctity in life, or more astonishing wonders and miracles in confirmation of their Faith and doctrine, than these ancient Fathers; so were there none ever furnished with so good means either's of knowing the Apostles, or the Apostles preaching, as the Apostles first heirs, and next successors, the sweetest fruits of their labours, our holy Fathers. But to prosecute yet further this so lunatic proceeding of Protestants against these gravest Sages of Christ's Catholic Church, what more indigne or injurious can be uttered, then that these so great Doctors, all of them united members of one Catholic Church, should be at deadly wars and dissension amongst themselves in important articles of Faith & Religion? Yea that one and the same Doctor should contradict himself, & that in matters fundamental & of greatest consequence? And yet Caluin blusheth not to say: 32) In Inst. in Praef. ad Reg. Galliae. p. 7. Those holy men were ignorant of many things; they often fight amongst themselves, and sometimes with themselves. Beza likewise speaking of the ancient Fathers in Theodosius his time saith: 32) In Inst. in Praef. ad Reg. Galliae. p. 7. I confess as then there were most learned Bishops; 33) In nou. Test. Praef. ad Princip. Condens. p. 4. but this also I affirm etc. that scarce any of them can be named, who dissenteth not both from himself and others in many things, and those of greatest moment. A thing incredible in such learned Bishops, if Caluin and Beza were not the Broachers, who seldom tell truth. 34) Ep. ad Rom. c. 14. p. 419. Melancthon also thus writeth of the Fathers: they sometimes speak contrary things, they must pardon us, if we reprehend certain things in them. And 35) Devotis p. 463. Though the Fathers were wise, and learned, and saw many things (saith Peter Martyr) yet they were men, and could err: And that chief is to be observed, that the Fathers do not always agree amongst themselves, and sometimes one dissenteth from himself. Those Fathers (saith 36) Retractive from Romish Religion p. 223. 224. D. Beard) that lived in the next two hundred years (after the first) speak of this matter (of Invocation of Saints) very variously and doubtfully, as if it were a Doctrine which they knew not what to say to, and were not fully resolved in. Thirdly, of those Fathers which he allegeth, though in some places they seem to allow that custom which was then brought into the Church, yet in other places they disallow the same, yea and they are disapproved also of others that lived in the same Age. Thus true Athanasius condemneth Invocation of Saints etc. & false Athanasius alloweth it etc. Basil approveth it, but Nazianzene doubteth of it; and Epiphanius etc. utterly condemneth it. chrysostom in some places seemeth to allow of it, in others he speaketh against it, and so doth Augustine and the rest. The like contradition D. Whitaker instanceth in S. Basil saying. 37) De Sacra Scrip. p. 670. Basil fighteth with himself. And 38) De Princip. Christ. Dog. l. 2. c. 10. p. 675. I oppose (saith Lubbertus) Basil against Basil. And 39) Ib. p. 678. Damascene is contrary to himself. Yea 40) Ib. p. 676. I oppose chrysostom against chrysostom; of whom also (saith Whitaker) 41) De Sacra Scrip. p. 678. he is at variance with himself. And, 42) Ibid. p. 676. Let us not attend what Cyprian said, but let us examine him by his own law. Yea of S. Augustin Whitaker blusheth not to say: 43) Ibid. p. 690. Although in this he may be thought to favour Traditions, yet in other places he defendeth earnestly the perfection of the Scriptures. Of whom also saith D. Beard. 44) Retractive from Romish Religione. 413. Augustin, whom they challenge for the greatest Patron of this fire, yet defineth nothing determinately of it, but speaketh doubtingly and problematically; and if he affirm it in some one place, he leaveth it in suspense in others, and utterly denyeth it in a third. D. Morton acknowledgeth, that Protestants 45) Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 201. 202. have particularly and by name observed, that justinus, Ireneus, Clemens, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, and others; albeit many times they pleaded for the free will of the corrupt nature of man, yet were they sometime reduced unto the more Orthodoxal hold, writing thereof more commodiously; belike as denying Freewill. But this being only a Protestant or lying observation, I must infer, that as this so base proceeding against the Fathers, doth evidently demonstrate and discover the unableness of Protestants, in alleging the Father's further against us, than they are pretended to be against themselves, which all of judgement will confess to be nothing; So doth it alfo no less clearly convince, that Protestants in their own consciences do find and know the Fathers directly to condemn their opinions, and to patronise Papistry; for otherwise they would never endeavour so foully to blemish them by urging contradiction with themselves, which the- meanest Writer though in trivial matters doth ever scorn, as too clear an argument of gross oblivion, or worse inconstancy. Now from this conceit of the Father's ignorance and contradiction to themselves, Protestants doubt not to prefer their own modern writers for judgement, knowledge, and learning before the greatest & ancientest Doctors of the Primitive Church. So Luther in his Protestant humility thus speaketh of himself: 46) Lib. ad Ducem Georgium. And see Colloq. lat. c. de Consolation. Since the Apostles times, no Doctor or writer hath so excellently and clearly confirmed, instructed, and comforted the consciences of the secular States, as I have done by the singular grace of God. This certainly I know, that neither Austin, not Ambrose, who are yet in this matter the best, are equal to me herein: 47) Tom. 7. Serm. de Euersione Jerusalem f. 271. The Gospel is so copiously preached by us, that truly in the Apostles time it was not so clear. And seeing 48) Tom 2. lib. Cont. Reg. Angliae f. 344. God's word is above all, the Divine Majesty maketh for me; So that I pass not if 100 Augustine's 1000 Cyprians, 1000 King harry's Church's stood against me. Wherefore 49) Lib. de Seruo Arb. And see Cnoglerus his Symbolatria. p. 152. Cast you off what armour the ancient Orthodoxal Fathers shall afford, or the schools of Divines, the authority of Counsels & Bishops, the consent of so many Ages & of all Christian People, we receive nothing but Scriptures; but yet so, that the infallible authority of interpreting is only in us; what we expound that the Holy-Ghost thinketh, what others though great, though many bring, it cometh from the spirit of Satan, and a mind distracted. Yea the Pope 50) L. adversus Papatum Romae à Satana fundatum f. 1. knoweth (saith Luther) that by the singular gift and bounty of God, I am more learned in the Scriptures than himself and all his Asses. But if Luther himself doth so fully mouth his own praises and deserts, we may presume his disciples and followers are not sparing in the like. And so indeed writeth Alberus 51) Contra Carolostadianos. l. 7. I doubt not, but that if Austin were now living, he would not be ashamed to profess himself Martin Luther's Scholar. But Musculus lasheth far further; for 52) Praef. in Libellum Ger. de Diaboli. Tyramide. since the Apostles times (saith he) there lived not in the world a greater than Luther. And it may be said, that God poured all his gifts upon this only man: and that there is as great difference betwixt the ancient Doctors and Luther, as betwixt the light of the Sun, and of the Moon. Neither is it to be doubted, but that the ancient Fathers, even those that are chief and best among them, as Hilary and Austin, if they had lived and taught in the same time with Luther, would without blushing have carried the lantern before him as his Scholars or Ministers. And another professeth that: 53) In Hos. in. Hist. Sacra. part. alt. f. 346. He preferreth one leaf in Luther before the writings of all Fathers. So that if we believe either Luther or his Scholars, not only Austin, and Hilary, and Ambrose, but even all the Fathers since the Apostles times, must give 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 only 54) In Col. mensa. c. de Patribus Eccl. Apology of Philip Melancthon doth far excel all the Doctors of the Church, and exceed even Austin himself. Beza in like sort affirmeth 55) Praef. in nowm Testament. dicat. Principi Condiensi. Caluin to have far exceeded all the ancient and later writers, in interpreting of the Scriptures with variety of words and allegation of reasons. Yea, saith he: 56) Epist. Theol. ep. 1 p. 5. I have been accustomed to say, and not without cause (as I take it) that whilst I compare those very times next the Apostles with our times, they had then more conscience & less knowledge: And on the other side we have now more knowledge and less conscience: This is my opinion etc. Agreably hereunto saith D. Whiteguift in his 57) Defence etc. p. 472. Brief Comparison between the Protestants Bishops of our time, and the Bishops of Primitive Church: The doctrine taught and professed by our Bishops at this day, is much more perfect and sound, than it commonly was in any Age after the Apostles times 58) Ibid. p. 473. Surely you are not able to reckon in any Age since the Apostles time any company of Bishops, that taught and held so perfect and sound doctrine in all points, 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 59) De Sacra Scriptura p. 411. Christ hath now given to us more excellent Interpreters, than ever heretofore stnce the Apostles. Yea, saith M. jacob, 60) Defence of Treatise of Christ's sufferings p. 146. And see the Answ. to Downham's sermon p. 20. this is the profit that comes by ordinary flaunting with the Fathers etc. if in this case we were to look after any man, surely we have more cause to regard our late faithful teachers, rather than those of old, who being equal with the best of them in any of the excellent graces of God's Spirit etc. By which we may see the small account made by Protestants of ancient Doctors, not blushing thus to equal, yea much to prefer their own latest Writers before all the Fathers since the Apostles times. But what should I urge thus much their dislike, disclaiming, and disgracing of ancient Fathers, when they spare not to reject and contemn the authority of all Counsels, though never so general, never so ancient? And first doth not Luther affirm in general: 61) In Asser. Articulorum per Leonem X. damnat. Art. 29. That the way is made to us (Protestants) of weakening the authority of Counsels, and of freely contradicting their decrees, and of judging their Acts, and of confessing confidently whatsoever seemeth true (to Protestant's) whether it be approved or reproved by any Council? Doth not Beza affirm that, 62) Praef. in nowm Testam. ad Princ. C ndiens. even in the best times, the ambition, ignorance, and lewdness of Bishops was such, that the very blind may easily perceive, how that Satan was precedent in their assemblies or Counsels? Doth not D. Humphrey disclaim from the Counsels celebrated in the first 600. years, saying: 63) De vita juelli p. 212. What concerneth it us, what the false Synods of Bishops (as then) shall ordain? And doth not M. Carthwright reject as erroneous even the first Nycene Council, saying: 64) 2. Reply part. 1. p. 509. We have good cause to hold for suspect, whatsoever either in government or doctrine those times left unto us, not confirmed by substantial proofs out of the Word etc. This appeareth in the first Council of Nyce, where the most errors decreed upon etc. besides the ungodly custom, which may appear to have occupied almost all the Churches, touching the forbidding of the second Marriage of Ministers before that Council? And again: 65) Ibid. p. 484. In the same Council appeareth, that to those chosen to the Ministry unmarried, it was not lawful to take any wife afterwards etc. Paphnutius showeth, that not only this was before that Council, but was an ancient Tradition in the Church, in which both himself and the whole Council rested etc. If the ancient Tradition of the Church (saith Cartwright) cannot authorise this, neither can ancient custom authorise the other, to wit, of Metropolitans. Luther styleth the Canons of the said Council of Nyce 66) Luther l. de Concilijs part. 1. p. 92. hay, straw, wood, stubble; and demandeth, whether the the holy-ghost hath nothing else to do in Counsels (but) to bind and burden his Ministers with impossible, dangerous, and unnecessary laws: So absurd was the Council of Nyce in Luther's judgement; affirming further, That more light is brought to a Christian by that Catechism which children do learn, then by all the Counsels. Caluin calleth the Fathers of the said Council of Nyce, 67) Lib. de vera Eccl. reformat. opuscul. p. 486. And Inst. l. 4. c. 9 3. 10. Phanaticos, that is, men Fanatical, or deluded by the Devil; and withal giveth leave to every private man to examine the decrees of Counsels, by the Scriptures, saying: 68) Inst. l. 4. c. 9 §. 8. 9 11. Let no names or authorities of Counsels, Pastors, Bishops, hinder us, but that we may examine all Spirits of all men by the rule of the Word of God. And again: 69 Ib. 3. 14. I deny that Interpretation of Scripture to be always true and certain, which is received by the consent of a Council. But I cannot here but observe the strange giddiness of this primest protestant Caluin, who directly contrary to his former Assertions, writeth thus: 70) 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 errors, we do willingly embrace and reverence as Sacred, for as much as concerneth doctrines of Faith; For they contain nothing but the pure and native Interpretation of Scripture, which the holy Fathers with spiritual wisdom applied to the vanquishing of the Enemies of Religion which then appeared. But to leave him thus fight with himself, and to come to the Ministers of the Church of Scotland, 71) In the end of the Harmony of Coafes. p. 19 And see the said Harmony sect. 1. p. 14. Without just examination we do not receive (say they) whatsoever is obtruded unto men, under the name of a General Council; for plain it is, that as the men assembled were men, so have some of them manifestly erred, and that in matters of great weight and importance. So far then as the Council proveth the determination and commandment, that it giveth by the plain word of God, so soon do we reverence and embrace the same. Hereunto also do accord our English Protestant's teaching, that 72) Articles of faith agreed upon in the Convocations of A. 1562. & 1604. art. 21. General Counsels etc. may err, and sometimes have erred even in things pertaining unto God: Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared, that they be taken out of holy Scriptures. So unwilling, or rather truly fearful are Protestant's to appeal unto General Counsels for the decision of Controversies. But D. Luther proceedeth further, seriously expecting, & exacting, that all Counsels shall be subject to his Censure & determination. 73) Tom. 2. wittenberg. f. 375. The Rectours of Churches (saith he) & the Pastors of Christ's sheep have indeed power to teach; but the sheep ought to judge, whether they propose the voice of Christ or of strangers etc. Wherefore let the Pope, Bishops, Counsels etc. decree, appoint, and ordain what they will, we will not hinder them, but we who are the sheep of Christ, and hear his voice, will have it in our power to judge whether they propose things true, and agreeable to the voice of our Pastor, or no; and they are to yield, subscribe, and obey our Censure and Sentence. Now if Counsels be subject to the Censure of Luther, or any other such rotten sheep, then less is the authority of Counsels then of Luther himself, than the which nothing can be spoken more absurd or ridiculous. In like sort saith Peter Martyr in general: 74) De votis p. 476. As long as we rest in Counsels & Fathers, we shall be ever conversant in the same errors. Yea (saith M. Carthwright) 75) In whiteg. Tract. 2. p. 95. If this be a sufficient proof to say: such a Council decreed, such a Doctor said so; there is almost nothing so true, but I can impugn; nothing so false, but I can make true; And well assured I am, that by their means the principal grounds of our (Protestant) Faith may beshabken. But to conclude, 76) 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 Counsels may err in Faith and manners, it is no wonder, though they reject their authority: but yet it evidently convinceth, that in matters of Faith and Religion Protestants dare not rely and submit themselves to the decrees and definitions, either of ancient or modern General Counsels. So that though Ministers in their Pulpits (where none will gainsay them) do flourish and flaunt forth the ancient Father's praises, approve their authority, applaud them as Protestants, and appeal to those primitive Doctors, as Masters and Patrons of their errors, yet when they are pressed by Catholics with clearest evidence of their particular writings, sayings, and practise, and with the answerable acknowledgements of the learned Protestants, than their tone is changed, bitterly exclaiming, that The argument drawn from Antiquity, is a Popish argument: that To appeal to the Primitive Church, is to injury the Protestant Congregation: That for Protestants to fill their books with the authorities of Fathers, is dangerous and to be eschewed: That in all Counsels, Fathers, and Stories since the Apostles, the print of the Pope's feet is to be found: That the Papists strongest towers are in the testimonies of the Doctors: That the Fathers were blind and ignorant in the Scriptures: That they were certainly damned for their Papistical opinions, unless they repent: That their interpretations of Scripture were advantageous to Papists, and prejudicial to Protestants: That their books and Commentaries were contrary to Scripture: Yea that the Fathers did contradict one another, and often one and the same himself: That Luther and sundry other Protestants are much to be preferred for learning before S. Austin, S. Ambrose, and all the other Fathers: That the Doctrine now taught by the Bishops of England is much more sound than ever was taught by any Bishops since the Apostles, and therefore that our Bishops are in many degrees to be preferred before them; that even in the best times Satan was precedent in Counsels: And lastly that all decrees of Popes, Bishops, and Counsels are to yield, and obey the Censure of Luther. Dotario not all this most strongly confirm, that in the very hearts and consciences of Protestants themselves, the ancient Fathers were Roman Catholics, and most adverse to Protestants? and that therefore and only therefore they are thus rejected, contemned, disgraced, and wronged by them? even by Luther, Caluin, Beza, Acontius, Pomeran, Zuinglius, Peter Martyr, Sommerus, Melancthon, Lubbertus, Polanus, Alberus, Musculus, Hospinian, Zanchius, Humphrey, Willet, Midleton, Carthwright, Whiteguift, jacob, Fulk, Beard, Morton, and Whitaker? THAT THE PROTESTANTS CHURCH disclaimeth from the Fathers of the Primitive Church, it is further proved by the Protestants condemning all the ancient Fathers in general, for believing, teaching, and practising the several particular actions of our Catholic Roman Faith and Religion. CHAPTER II. HAVING in the former Chapter so plentifully displayed our Protestants free confessions for the ancient Father's Papistry, lest some should yet object, that not all, but only some few of the Fathers were reprovable therein, or that not in all but only in some few points, and those of lesser moment they were so faulty: I will now make manifest through all the principal points of our Catholic Religion at this day controverted with Protestants, that either all the Fathers indefinitely, or sundry of them at once are acknowledged and reproved by our Protestant Adversaries, as agreeing with us Catholics in the foresaid Articles. And first concerning the holy Sacraments and Sacrifice. 1. as touching the efficacy or Grace truly given by Sacraments, Zuinglius saith: 1) Tom. 2. de Bap. f. 70 Here most of the Doctors by the name of water understanding that material and external water of Baptism, have attributed more thereunto then was meet. Whereupon it came to pass, that after they ascribed the cleansing of the Soul to the element of water. Luther saith in general: 2) Tom. 2. Witten. f. 229. I hold the Father's pardonable, who through temptation or necessity stiffly denied sin to remain after Baptism. Musculus reproveth the Fathers in general, for that, 3) Loc. come. p. 299. They attribute greater efficacy to our Sacraments then to the Sacraments of the old Testament, affirming ours to be more effectual signs of Grace; not only signifying the same as the others did, but also conferring and giving Grace and Salvation. And Vrbanus Rhegius confesseth that, 4) In part. 1. operum. in Catechismo minore f. 105. the Scripture and authority of the ancient Church constrain him to believe, that little children dying unbaptized are damned. In which respect 5) Inst. l. 4. c. 15. §. 20. Caluin acknowledgeth that, Many Ages since, almost from the very beginning of the Church, it was usual, that in danger of death Lay people might Baptise, if the Minister were not present. So clear it is, that the ancient Fathers did generally teach, that the Sacraments of Christ did truly give grace, as Catholics believe, and not only signify the same, as Protestants pretend. Secondly, as concerning the Sacrament of Penance or Confession; the Centurists, 6) Centur. 3. c. 6. col. 127. speaking of the general use thereof in the ancient times of Tertullian and Cyprian report that, They gave absolution from sins thus: If any did penance, they first confessed their sin; for so Tertullian greatly urgeth Confession in his book of Penance: And that private Confession was usual, in which they confessed their sins and wicked thoughts, it appeareth by some places of Cyprian etc. And that Satisfaction (or Penance) according to the quantity of the fault was accustomed to be enjoined, it appareth in his fift sermon de Lapsis. So usual was Auricular Confession and Penance in those ancient times; which Penance also was sometimes by Pardons or Indulgences in part remitted. For thus writeth D. Field: 7) Of the Church l. 1. c. 17. p. 33. The ancient Bishops were wont to cut off great parts of enjoined Penance, which remission was called an Indulgence. And whereas D. Field would evade this our so strong argument for Pardons and Indulgences, by affirming that the enjoined Penance thus remitted was not then imposed as in satisfaction of God's justice, it is so evidently against the Father's doctrine and practice, that D. Whitaker himself confuteth it in these words: 8) Cont. camp. rat. 5. p. 78. The Father's thought by their external discipline to pay the pains due for sin, and to satisfy God's justice. And that not Cyprian only, but almost all the holy Fathers of that time were in that error, and depraved the Doctrine of Penance. 9) Ib. p. 78. Yea (saith Melancthon) 10) Libelli aliquot etc. fol. 11. all the Council of Nyce overcome with the consent of Multitude and of the time, approved the Canons of Penance. So that our Catholic Doctrine of Confession, Penance, and Pardons, is the general confessed Doctrine of the ancient Fathers. Thirdly, as concerning the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, I have showed 11) lib. 2. c. 8 before, that S. Gregory, Eusebius Emissenus, S. Ambrose, S. Cyril, S Hilary, S. Cyprian, S. chrysostom, Tertullian, Origen, and S. Ignatius are all of them acknowledged and reproved by Protestants for our Catholic doctrine of Real Presence and Transubstantiation. Yea some Protestants confess that, 12) Adamus Francisci in Margar. Theol. p. 256. Transubstantiation entered early into the Church; And that they 13) Antony de Adamo in his Anatomy of the Mass p. 236. have not yet hitherto been able to know, when this opinion of the Real & Bodily being of Christ in the Sacrament did begin. But Bucer speaking of the Fathers in general professeth in this point, 14) Scripta Eruditorum aliquot virorum de Cena Domini p. 37. to avoid their sayings, as being (saith he) serviceable to Antichrist, and overmuch varying from the scriptures. Whereby it is evident, that the ancient Fathers were wholly agreeable to our Roman Church in this weightiest Article of Real Presence. 4. Concerning Holy- Orders D. Field avoucheth, 15) Of the Church l. 5. p. 121. And see the like Cent. 3. c. 7. Col. 149. 150 That there is no question, but that the Minor Orders of Subdeacons', Acolytes, Exorcists, Lectors, & Ostiaries, are very ancient. In proof whereof he allegeth S. Cyprian and many other Fathers. 5. As touching Extreme-Vnction, D. Whitaker answering to the sundry ancient Fathers objected testimonies in behalf thereof confesseth, saying: 16) Contra Dureum l. 8. p. 650. I confess the superstitious use of this unction to have continued longer in the Church then was meet. 6. Our sacrifice of the Mass was so generally believed and offered by the Fathers, that Caluin himself affirmeth, that 17) In 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. Chrastovius witnesseth that, 18) De Opifi●io Missae l. 1. p. 28 58. 102. 171. The Father's thought the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice according to the Order of Melchisedech. And 19) Against Hoskins &c p. 99 100 I confess (saith D. Fulk) that diverse 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 call a Sacrifice. Yea (saith Chrastovius: 20) De Opificio Miss l. 1. p. 167. The sayings of the Fathers do not only import impetration (or prayer) but a certain force of appeasing (God's justice) For which very point of the Mass being a Propitiatory sacrifice, he produceth the sayings of Origen, Athanasius, chrysostom, Ambrose, Austin, Gregory and others; all which were no less Massing Priests then the Roman Priests of these times. 7. That the ancient Father's thought, that S. Peter was the Head of the Church, and the Bishop of Rome his successor therein, D. Field testifieth saying: 21) Confut. of the Papists quarrels p. 4. Many of the ancient Fathers etc. were deceived to think something more of Peter's prerogative, and the Bishop of Rome's dignity, then by the word of God was given to either of them. And Philippus Nicolai undertaking to speak 22) De Regno Christi. p. 221. of the beginning and increase of the Pope's dignity, avoucheth, that the desire of Primacy was the common infirmity of the Apostles, and of the first Bishops of Rome. 8. That the Pope is not Antichrist, D. Whitaker confesseth, that 23) Lib. de Antichr. p. 21. the Fathers for the most part thought, that Antichrist should be but one man; but in that as in many other things they erred, saith he. And M. Cartwright affirmeth, that diverse 24) 2. Reply part. 1. p. 508. of the ancient and chiefest of them imagined fond of Antichrist, as of one singular person. And as for the time of Antichrist's continuance, M. Fox acknowledgeth, that 25) In Apoc. c. 12. p. 345. almost all the holy and learned Interpreters do by a time, times, and half a time, understand only three years and a half. 9 Unwritten Traditions are so plainly taught and defended by the Fathers, as that Chemnitius reproveth for the same 26) Exam. part. 1. p. 87. 89. 90. Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Hierome, Maximus, Theophilus, Basil etc. D. Fulk confesseth the same 27) Against Purg. p. 362 303. 397. Against Marcial. p. 170. 178. Against Brist. mot. p. 35. 36. of Tertullian, Cyprian, chrysostom, Augustin, Hierome etc. And D. Whitaker reprehendeth for the same 28) De Sac. Script. p. 678. 681. 683. 685. 690. 695. 696. 670. 668. chrysostom, Epiphanius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustin, Innocentius, Leo, Basil, Eusebius etc. 10. Purgatory, Prayer, and Sacrifice for the Dead were so ordinarily and generally taught by the Fathers, as that D. Gifford confesseth, 29) Demonst. that Brownists be Donatists. p. 38. that in the Church's Worship to pray for the souls of the dead, and to offer oblation for the dead, was general in the Church long before the days of Austin, as appeareth in Cyprian and Tertullian. D. Fulk acknowledgeth, that 30) Ag. Purgat. p. 362. Tertullian, Cyprian, Austin, Hierome and a great many more do witness, that Sacrifice for the Dead is the Tradition of the Apostles. And he further affirmeth, that 31) Ib. p. 161 the error of Purgatory was somewhat rifely budded in Austin's time; And, that it was the common error of his time. 11. Lymbus Patrum or Christ's descending into Hell, was so generally believed by the Fathers, that M. jacob witnesseth, that 33) In Bilson's full Redempt. p. 188. All the Fathers with one consent affirm, that Christ delivered the souls of the Patriarcks and Prophets out of Hell at his coming thither, and so spoiled Satan of those that were in his present possession. 12. Invocation of Saints was so universally believed in the Primitive Church, that D. Whiteguift and D. Covel do both of them confess, that 34) Def. ag. Cartwr. Reply p. 473. Covel in his Exem. c. 9 p. 120. almost all the Bishops and learned writers of the Greek Church and Latin also for the most port were spotted with the doctrines etc. of Invocation of Saints and such like. And D. Brightman reproveth for the same doctrine 35) In Apocal. c. 14. p. 382. S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. chrysostom, S. Gregoire Nazianzen, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Austin etc. And 36) Exam. par. 3. p. 211. Chemnitius allegeth S. Augustin invocating S. Cyprian, wherein (saith he) he yielded to the times and custom. D. Beard speaking of the Father's opinion herein saith: 37) Retract. from Romish Relig. p. 224. First, the Fathers, if they did allow of this Invocation, yet it was in their private Devotions, not (saith he, though untruly) in the public Liturgy of the Church &c. until Gregory the First's time etc. Secondly, the Fathers, though they may seem to have prayed sometimes unto the Saints out of the heat of their devotion, yet it was but now and then, and as it were by the way etc. 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 themselves pray unto Saints. 13. For worshipping of Saints Relics; S. Basil, S. Athanasius, S. chrysostom, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Austin etc. are all of them reproved 38) In Apoc. p. 382. by D. Brightman. The Centurists charge the Fathers of the fourth Age with 39) Cent. 4. c. 6. col. 456. public Translation of Saints Relics. And Chemnitius chargeth the Fathers indefinitely not only 40) Exam. par. 4. p. 10. with Translation and Circumgestation of Saints Relics, alleging in proof thereof the testimonies of S. Austin, S. Hierom, and Lucillus; but yet further also with Pilgrimage to the Relics of Saints. 14. Images were then so generally used, as that sundry examples of their very placing in churches are given by 41) Against symbol. par. 1. p. 32. Cent. 4. col. 409. Exam. part. 4. p. 26. 29. 30. M. Parker, the Centurists, and Chemnitius, out of the writings of Sozomen, Athanasius, Prudentius, and others. And Functius plainly confesseth 42) L. 7. Comment. in Chronol. f. 6. at An. 464. that An. 494. Xenaias' was the first in the Church, that stirred up war against Images; so general and peaceable was the use of Images for the first 464. years after the Apostles. 15. Concerning the Cross, M. Burges acknowledgeth, that 43) In Covels Answer to Burges. p. 130. 136. there is nothing ascribed to the Cross in or out of Baptism by the rankest Papists, but the Fathers are as deeply engaged in the same; so as if we will use it as the Fathers did etc. we take the soul to be fenced by Crossing of the body, and the Cross to have virtue of Consecrating the Sacrament, driving away Devils, witchcraft etc. In proof whereof he there allegeth sundry ancient Fathers. Yea the worshipping of the Cross was so universal, as that M. Parkins reporteth, that 44) Vol. 2. p. 596. Paulinus Epist. 11. saith: The Bishop of Jerusalem yearly at Easter set forth the Cross for the people to worship, himself being the chief of the worshippers; so general and received was the practice hereof in the time of Paulinus, who, as Osiander relateth, was 45) Cent. 5. p. 387. familiar with Hierom, Austin, and Ambrose. 16. Concerning the Vow of Chastity, Chemnitius confesseth, that 46) Exam. part. 3. p. 41. we are not ignorant, that the Fathers allowed the Vows of perpetual Chastity, and that they thought them to be obligatory. I know (saith Peter Martyr) that 47) De Votis p. 524. Epiphanius with many other Fathers erred, in that they affirm it to be sin to break this Vow, when need shall require: and that he referreth the same naughtily to Apostolical Traditions. Yea (saith M. Wotton) it is one of the blemishes 48) Defence of Parkins. p. 491. of the ancient Writers. 17. The Chastity or single life of Priests was so generally prescribed and practised by the ancient Fathers, who were Priests also themselves, that M. jewel speaking of this point 49) Def. of the Apol. p. 195. saith: Here I grant, that M. Harding is like to find some good advantage, as having undoubtedly a great number of holy Fathers on his side. Bucer likewise acknowledgeth, that 50) Gratul. ad Eccles. Angliae. p. 35. in the time of S. Hierome the Churches of Egypt, of the East, and of the Sea Apostolic, were not accustomed to receive for Priests, but such as either were not married or abstained from their wives. 18. Monastical life was so general with the Fathers, that M. Cartwright confesseth, that 51) In Whiteg. Def. p. 344. Ruffian, Theodoret, Sozomen, Socrates, do mention Monks almost in every page. And the Centurists do begin a whole special Tract, the title whereof is: 52) Cent. 4. c. 10. col. 294. Of the Monks through Syria, Palestina, Bythinia, and the other places of Asia under Constantin the Great; as also the title of another Tract is: 53) Cent. 4. c 10. col. 1306. The African Monks through Egypt under Constantin the Great. And the title of another Tract is: 54) Ib. col. 1331. The Monks through Europe. So that in those purest and ancientest times Religious or Monastical life was generally practised over the whole face of the Christian world, even through Asia, afric, and Europe. 19 Prescribed times for fasting are so ancient and general, that Chemnitius confesseth, that 55) Exam. par. 1. p. 89. Ambrose, Maximus Taurinensis, Theophilus, Hierome and others do affirm the Fast of lent to be an Apostolical Tradition. And Caluin professeth that 56) Instit. l. 4. c. 1 2. §. 19 herein he dareth not excuse the old Fathers, but that they sowed some seeds of superstition; And that 57) Ib. §. 20. every where the observation of superstitious Lent was in force. 20. Concerning Freewill, some Protestants say: 58) A Discover. of untruths contained in D. bancroft's serm. p. 23. 59) We know, that ever since the Apostles times in a manner it flourished every where, till 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 every where Freewill, that it may appear not only all the Doctors of that Age to have been in such darkness, but that it likewise increased in their successors. 21. Merit of works was so generally believed by the ancient Fathers, that D. Whitaker chargeth with error therein 60) Resp. ad Camp. p. 78. not only Cyprian, but almost (to use his own words) all the most holy Fathers of that time. And 61) jesuit. par. 2 p. 531. It may not be denied (saith D. Humphrey) but that Ireneus, Clemens, and others called Apostolical have nothing Apostolically inserted into their writings the opinions of Freewill and Merit of works. 22. And as for the use of Ceremonies in the Church, M. Calfhil affirmeth, that 62) In Fulks Rejoinder to Marshal's Reply p. 131. 132. the Fathers declined all from the simplicity of the Gospel in Ceremonies. Melancthon also affirmeth, that 63) In 1. Cor. c. 3. Presently from the beginning of the Church the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the justice of Faith, increased Ceremonies, and devised peculiar Worships. 23. But to include many in one, D. Whiteguift a prime Metrapolitan amongst Protestants discoursing 64) Defence etc. p. 472. 473. of Doctrine taught in any Age since the Apostles time, affirmeth without any exception either of Age or Father, that almost all the Bishops and learned Writers of the Greek Church and Latin also for the most part were spotted with doctrines of Freewill, of Merit, of Invocation of Saints, and such like etc. Meaning thereby such other like points of our Catholic Religion; which his Assertion hath since been renewed by D. Covel, who speaking of the ancient Fathers useth these like words, as: 65) Exam. against the Plea of the Innoc. p. 120. divers both of the Greek and Latin Church were spotted with the errors about Freewill, Merit, Inuocotion of Saints. Many things (expressing their Papistry) might be alleged in this kind, if it were any virtue to rip up their faults, whom we ought to honour. And whereas Bellarmin allegeth 66) De Not. Ecclesiae l. 4. c. 9 the particular sayings of Caluin and the Centurie-writers, as charging the ancient Fathers with our doctrine of Freewill, Lymbus Patrum, Denial of our Concupiscence without consent to be sin, Satisfaction, Prayer for the Dead, Merit, Pennance, the Fast of Lent, the unmarried life of Priests, Baptism of Lay-people in case of necessity, the manner of Sacrificing etc. D. Whitaker answering thereto iustifyeth the same, saying: 67) De Eccles. count. Bellarm. Contr. 2 q. 5. p. 299. Bellarmin allegeth certain testimonies from Caluin and the Centurie-writers, as noting certain errors of the ancient Fathers, which were common to them with the Papists, as namely Freewill, Merit, Lymbus, Invocation of Saints, the unmarried life of Priests, Satisfaction, and certain other such like etc. before mentioned by Bellarmine, I answer thereto, that it is true which Caluin and the Centurie-writers have written, that in many things the ancient Church erred, as in Lymbus, Freewill, Merit of works, and in all the residue of those other before recited. 24. In like sort M. Brightman having named S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, S. Augustin, etc. affirmeth of them all, that 68) In Apoc. in c. 14. p. 382. in words they condemned Idolatry, but in deed they established it, by Invocation of Saints, Worshipping of Relics, and such other wicked (Popish) superstitions. 25. Beza speaking of the times of S. Cyprian, S. Austin, and S. Chrysostom, avoucheth that: 69) Praef. in Nou. Test. ad Princip. Conned. Then Satan laid the first foundations in Greece of Invocation of the Dead, whereto some of the chiefest Bishops were so far from resisting &c. others &c. did not only not repress open superstitions arising, but did also nourish them etc. Hence those opinions of Freewill, of Faith, of free justification (was as then) almost oppressed with the Comments of the Grecian Bishops etc. At the same time the Invocation of the Dead prevailed, and the foolish opinion of single life, which shameful errors Hierom openly defendeth; the multitude also of Ceremonies then increased etc. And all for the most admired the Monks in Egypt & Syria etc. no otherwise then if they had been Angels. Prayers also for the Dead began then more freely to be used; and the Platonical question risen concerning Purgatory etc. So ancient and general amongst all the holy Fathers were all the foresaid Articles of our present Roman Faith. 26. So that our Catholic Roman Faith concerning the Sacraments conferring grace, of Confession, of Pardons, of Transubstantiation, of Holie-Orders, of Extreme-Vnction, of the Mass, of S. Peter's and the Pope's Primacy, of the Pope not being Antichrist, of Traditions, of Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead, of Limbus Patrum, of Invocation of Saints, Reverencing of Relics, Images, and the Cross, Vows of Chastity, single life of Priests, Monastical life, prescribed Fasts, Freewill, Merit of Works, and the Ceremonies of the Church, was the general received Faith of all ancient Fathers and other Christians. Witnesses whereof in our behalf are Luther, Caluin, Zuinglius, the Centurists, Rhegius, Melancthon, Adamus Francisci, Antony de Adamo, Bucer, Crastovius, Philippus Nicolai, Chemnitius, Functius, Osiander, Peter Martyr, Beza, Brightman, Field, Humphrey, Fulk, Cartwright, Whiteguift, Covel, Fox, Gifford, jacob, Parker, Parkins, Wotton, Beard, Calfhil, whitaker and jewel. THAT PROTESTANTS DO NOT ONLY disclaim from all the ancient Fathers as Papists, but do further reject the authority of the sacred Scriptures and of the Apostles themselves, as being erroneous; and that therefore they do not found their Faith or Religion upon Sacred Scriptures, or Christ his Apostles. CHAPTER III. I have laboured often and long for the finding out of some ground work, Argument, or Principle, whereupon the Protestant Church should be builded and sustained. And still observing all proofs whatsoever, drawn either from Histories, Fathers, Counsels, Church or Antiquity, to be all of them contemned and despised by them as merely Papistical, I retired and tied my thoughts at last to that surest Anchor of God's heavenly Word, proposed unto us in the sacred writings of his Prophets, and Apostles; nothing doubting, but that the credit & authority thereof would in the judgement and very belief of all Protestants be ever admitted, acknowledged, and reverenced, as Divine, infallible, and inspired from God the holy-ghost himself. And yet frustrate in this my last expectation, I find the very writings of the Prophets and Apostles to be censured and rejected, and the Prophets and Apostles themselves to be scorned, disgraced, & disallowed by the learnedst Protestant Writers. And to begin first with the scriptures of the old Testament (omitting also Toby, judith etc. and the rest, which Protestants generally reject for Apocryphal) whereas Moses was confessedly the first that writ any part of sacred Scripture, yea that writ the Law of God, or Ten Commandments in Tables of stone, he and the said Commandments are all of them rejected by our new Protestants. 1) Tom. 3. Germ f. 40. 41. And in Col●oq. Mensal. G●rm. fol. 152. 153. We will neither hear nor see Moses (saith D. Luther) for he was given only to the jews; neither doth he belong any thing to us. Let him be to the jews as the Law of the Saxons, and let him not disquiet or trouble us Gentiles. As France regardeth not the Law of the Saxons, so the Law of Moses doth not bind us. If any propose unto thee Moses with his Laws, and would compel thee to keep them, then shalt thou say: Go to the jews with thy Moses; I am no jew; thou shalt not enwrap me with Moses. And again: 2) In Colloq. Mensal. c. de Leg. & Euang. I will not receive Moses with his Law; for he is the enemy of Christ. If he shall come with me to examination, I will reject him in the name of God, and will say: Let Christ stand here. 3) F●l. 118. Moses is the master of all hangmen, no man matcheth him in terrifying, straightening, tyrannising, threatening, and thundering; he cruelly assaulteth the consciences; he terrifyeth, tormenteth, and teareth the hart. 4) Ad Ps. 46. Away therefore with Moses to obstinate and cruel men, and proud Saints, whom he may terrify & humble. 5) Tom. 3. Witemb. in Ps. 45. f. 423. And see 422. And in Colloq. Mens Ger. f. 152. 153. Moses' indeed had lips, but (profunda) great ones, unpleasant, stopped, angry; in which there is not a word of grace, but of anger, death, and sin: Gather all the wisdoms of Moses, and of the Heathen Philosophers, and you shall find them to be in God's sight either Idolatry or hypocritical wisdom, or if it be Politic, yet the wisdom of wrath etc. For Moses hath his lips full of gall and anger etc. Away therefore with Moses etc. Moses' being thus discarded, Away likewise (say Protestants) with the Law and Commandments. 6) Tom. 3. Germ. fol. 121. The Law (saith Luther) is a true Labyrinth, which only casteth consciences into error. The justice of the Law is the monster Minotaurus, that is, a mere fable, not leading to salvation, but to the waters of Acheron. 7) In Colloq. Mensal. Germ. f. 152. 153. To the jews belongeth the Law of Moses; it doth not bind us, etc. I will not have Moses with his Law; for he is the enemy of Christ our Lord; yea 8) Tom. 3. Wittemb. f. 6. 7. the Decalogue itself testifieth, that Moses doth not oblige the Gentiles. And his own Brethren allege him saying: 9) Admonitio Christiana. p. 211 And see Hospin. concord. discord f. 225. As France respecteth not the Law of the Saxons, so let not Moses be thrust upon us; we in the New Testament will neither see nor hear Moses. And as for the Ten Commandments themselves, Luther expressly teacheth, that 10) Serm. de Mose. the Ten Commandments pertain not to Christians. 11) In Conuival. Colloq cited by Aurifab. cap. de lege. And therefore (saith he) Let the Ten Commandments be altogether rejected, and all Heresies will presently cease; For the Ten Commandments are as it were the fountain, from whence all Heresies spring. According to which, Islebius, Luther's own scholar, 12) Cent. 6. p. 311. 312. 310. taught (as Osiander relateth) that the Decalogue was not to be taught in the Church etc. He dispersed in public writings his Antinomian error; and drew into error some learned (Protestants) He seemeth to have taken occasion of this error from the writings of Luther not rightly understood. And 13) Act. Colloq. Aldeburg. p. 94 being great in the Court, he preached earnestly for the Antinomian liberty. These Antinomians 14) Sleidan. Hist. l. 12. f. 262. receiving their first beginning from Islebius Luther's scholar publicly taught, as other Protestants confess 15) Confess. Mansfelden Ministror. tit. de Antinomis. f. 89. 90. that the Law of God is not worthy to be called the Word of God. If thou be'st a where, a whore-mungar, if an adulterer or otherwise a sinner, believe, and thou walkest in the way of salvation. When thou art drowned in sin even to the bottom, if thou believest, thou art in the midst of happiness. All that busy themselves about Moses, that is, the Ten Commandments, belong to the Devil, to the gallows, with Moses. In like sort Illiricus, the chief of the Centurie-writers, and whom M. Bel termeth 16) Regim. of the Chur. p. 28. a very famous Writer and most worthy defender of the Christian truth; this so famous defender of protestancy is accused of these Antinomian errors by his own Brethren saying: 17) Act. Colloq. Aldeburg. p. 94. After the death of Luther, when Flaccus Illiricus and many other factious Companions of his had begun again those Antinomian filthinesses etc. And with no little applause of the multitude etc. had dispersed them abroad etc. Yea D. Hutter public Professor at Wittenberg addeth yet further saying; 18) Concord explicat. Art. 5. c. 1. p. 478 And see Art. 6. p. 535. 536. etc. But neither did that error rest in a narrow compass, but presently getting strength crept abroad etc. In so much that Melancthon in the last Edition of his Common Places hath plainly renewed the same error etc. And An. 59 the later Antinomians, who named themselves the Schoolmen of Wittenberg, publicly and before the whole Church undertaken the Defence of that error. Yea that Antinomian fury increased so much, that also An. 70. in this our Wittenberg some Divines for the obtaining of the highest degree in Divinity etc. propounded publicly that error, and endeavoured to defend it, as it appeareth by the 38 and 39 Theses of that Disputation. Some Protestants also teach, that 19) Act. Mon. p. 1335. And see the Parable of the wicked Mammon, whereof Tindal is said to be Author p. 573. 486. the Commandments were given us, not to do them, but to know our damnation, and to call for mercy to God. And D. Whitaker saith accordingly: 20) Cont. Camp. par. 8. p. 153. Christ proposeth to us another more easy condition; Believe, and thou shalt be saved. By this new league, the old one is taken away; that whosoever believeth the Gospel, is freed from the condition of the Law. For those, who believe, are not under the Law, but under Grace; what need I say more? Christians are freed from the curse of the Law, not from the obedience. But if Christians be delivered from the condition & curse of the Law, how can they be bound to the obedience of it? Or what can the breach thereof be prejudicial unto them? So that if Catholics do at any time urge against Protestants the authority of Moses or of his Law, or the Ten Commandments, sundry of the chiefest Protestants have already answered: I will not hear Moses; he is Christ's enemy; he is the master of hangmen. Away with Moses (therefore) to the gallows. His Law is a fable, leading to Acheron, or the pit of Hel. The Ten Commondments do not pertain to Christians; they are the fountain of all Heresies; and are not to be taught in Churches. The Law of God is not worthy to be called the Word of God. Yea if thou be an adulterer, or drowned in the depth of sin, do but believe, and thou art in the midst of felicity. And so all Arguments drawn from Moses or his writings, are of no force or esteem in the judgement of Protestants. But to proceed to other Scriptures, Luther further affirmeth, that 21) In Ser. Conuin. tit. de Patriar. & Prophet. he doth not believe all things to be so done, as they are related in the book of job. And again: 22) Tit. de libr. Vet. & Nou. Testa. the book of job is as it were the argument of a fable, to propose the example of Patience. And when Luther had read over the book of Ecclesiastes, his grave censure was: 23) Pet. Robenstock lib. 2. Colloq. Lat. Lu●her. c. de Vet. Test. This Book is not perfect; many things are taken away; it wanteth boots and spurs, that is, it hath no perfect sentence; It rideth upon a long reed, as I, when I was a Monk, was wont to do in the Monastery. And as for the Canticles (which our English Protestant's term the Ballet of Ballets of Solomon) 24) Bible of An. 1595. Luther was of opinion, that they imported no further, but only a familiar 25) In Exordio fuarum Annot. in Cant. conference between Solomon and the Commonwealth of the jews inviting Solomon to reign over her. But Castalio proceedeth further, judging this Book to be only 26) In his La●. Transl of the Bib. Praef. in Cant. the first Edit. And see Beza in Praef. ante Comment. Calu. in joshua. a love-communication between Solomon and his Mistress Sulamitha; for which he citeth those words: Return, Sulamitha, return, and let us look upon thee; adding also in the Margin: Sulamitha the Mistress and spouse of Solomon. And Beza testifieth of Castalio, that 27) In Vita Caluini. And see Whitak. poorest evasion hereof, count. Dur. l. 1. p. 121. he commanded the Canticles of Solomon to be thrust out of the Canon as an impure and obscene Song, reviling with bitter reproaches such Ministers, as resisted him therein. Yea this so impious rejecting this parcel of Canonical Scripture was so gross in Castalio a Caluinist, that now since in the later Editions of his Bible at Basil, the Protestant publishers thereof have for very shame altered it. But now to pass from the Old Testament to the New, and to omit, that Caluin 28) 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 authority and belief; He further chargeth S. Mathew's Gospel with error, saying: 29) In Matth. 27. vers. 9 Surely the name of Hieremie to be erroneously put for Zacharie, the thing itself showeth, because no such thing is read in Hieremie; but that other place, unless it be dexterously applied, may seem to be drawn into a contrary sense etc. And whereas Math. 20.16. Christ saith: Many are called, but few are chosen; Caluin rejecteth it, saying: 30) Harm. in Math. 20.16. Minimè quadrat, quae à quibusdam inseritur, sententia: Multi vocati, pauci electi; That sentence (Many 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. jewel likewise affirmeth 31) Def. of the Apol. p. 361. that S. Mark allegeth Abiathar for Abimelech; and S. Matthew, Hieremias for Zacharius. 32) Bible of An. 1592. Our English Church Math. 6. receives as Canonical scripture these words: for thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, which they add at the end of our Lord's Prayer. And yet Bullenger herein reproveth them saying: 33) Decad. 5. serm. 5. Their rashness was to be reproved, who durst presume, to piece on their own, to the Lord's Prayer. Clebitius a Caluinist impugneth S. Luke's report in the History of our saviour's Passion, saying: 34) Victoria Veritatis & Ruina Papatus. Saxon. arg. 5. Mark and Matthew deliver the contrary; therefore to Matthew and Mark being two witnesses, more (credit) is to be given then to one Luke, who was not present at the last supper, as Matthew was. Beza 35) Beza in his Trans. And the Engl. Bib. of An. 1595. and our English Protestant's seem to confess, that S. Luke (c. 3.36) in his Gospel erred in making Arphaxad the father of Cainan, and Cainan of Sale; whereas in the Book of Genesis, Arphaxad is said to have been the Father of Sale; for if S. Luke did not err, why do they (notwithstanding that all 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 whereas Christ said, Luke 6.40. The disciple is not above his master, Caluin affirmeth 36) Harm. in Luc. 6.40. that Luke in the 6. Chapter relateth this sentence without connexion, uttered amongst other speeches as it were of the sudden. Concerning some part of S. John's Gospel, Beza saith: 37) Ad c. 8. joan. As concerning myself, I do not dissemble, that to me it seemeth justly to be suspected that which the Ancients with such consent have either rejected or been ignorant of. Besides, in that he telleth jesus to have been left alone in the Temple with the woman, I know not, how probable it is. And that he writeth jesus to have written with his fingar upon the earth, it seemeth to me a new and unusual thing; neither can I imagine, how it may be fitly declared. Beza further 38) See 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 vl Chapter of S. John's Gospel, putteth in these words: jesus passing through the midst of them etc. which in another Edition with great vehemency he rejecteth. Wherefore although Beza in his Edition of the year 1556. leave the said words out; yet in Beza's Englished Testament of An. 1580. they are admitted; such freedom by the Spirit hath this Caluinist in admitting and expunging of Scripture. But Luther is so slenderly affected to the three Ghospels of S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke, because they writ much of the good works done, by Christ our Saviour, as that he spareth not to write: 39) In 2. Praef. Nou. Test. primae Editionis. Because John writeth very few works of Christ, but many things of his preaching; of the contrary, the other three (Evangelists) set down many things of his works, but few of his words, the Gospel of John is the only delicate, true, and chiefest Gospel, and far to be preferred before the other three, and more loudly to be preached. So near 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 Gospel, Luther in plain terms accuseth S. Stephen of error, 40) In cap. 46. Genes. in following the 70. Interpreters, who (as he saith) erred concerning the number of those that went down into Egypt. To come now to S. Paul and his Epistles, Zuinglius saith: 41) Tom. 2. Elench. f. 10. This is your ignorance, that you think the Commentaries of the Evangelists, and the Epistles of the Apostles, to have been then in Authority, when Paul did write those things; as though Paul then did attribute so much to his Epistles, that whatsoever was contained in them, was sacred etc. Which thing (saith Zuinglius) were to impute immoderate arrogancy to the Apostle. In like sort saith D. Fotherbie: 42) 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 well content, that where he lacks the warrant of the express 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 divine. The Centurists likewise fear not to say: 43) Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. col. 580. Paul doth turn to james the Apostle, and a Synod of all the Presbyters being called together, he is persuaded by james and the rest, that for the offended jews, he should purify himself in the temple, whereunto Paul yields; which certainly was no small sliding in so great a Doctor. 44) In Act. 21. Mr. Gualther also reproveth S. Paul for shaving his head. Luther telleth us that 45) In Isay. c. 64. S. Paul 1. Cor. 2.9. doth finely writh or wrest a certain sentence of the Prophet Isay. But Peter Martyr avoucheth that 46) In 1. Cor. 2. f. 46. he mistook the Hebrew word. And as for S. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, Luther thought that 47) In 1. Nou. Test. Ger. Editione. This Epistle was not written by Paul or any of the Apostles, but composed by a certain learned man out of many Fathers: And though it lay not the foundation of true faith, yet it fitly buildeth up gold, silver, and precious stones. Therefore it ought not to trouble us, that wood, hay, straw are mingled therewith. This was so certainly the judgement of Luther herein, that Oecolampadius observing the same, saith: 48) In Ep. ad Heb. in Praef. f. 4. Luther in his Preface saith thus: This Epistle seemeth to me to be patched together of many, and not to handle the same thing in order. He addeth also, that it layeth not down the foundation of faith etc. The Magdeburgians also do follow their Master Luther herein, writing: 49) Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. It is easy to observe that the Epistle to the Hebrews doth not bear Paul's phrase etc. It was not hard to judge, those things which in the 7. and 10. chapter are plainly to that end produced, that such, who are once converted to Christ, if they fall again, cannot be recovered 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 Antiquity seemeth deservedly to have doubted of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 50) In Heb. c. 10 p. 963. Caluin likewise saith: The Grecians have delivered that which the Apostle here mentioneth, which partly agreeth with the mind of the Prophet, and partly impugneth the same: So making the Prophet and Apostle to amongst themselves. But indeed at some time of the Moon S. Paul is in so slender esteem with Protestants, that one of them confidently avoucheth 51) In D. bancroft's Survey p. 373. that if Paul should come to Geneva, and preach the same hour that Caluin did, I would leave (saith he) Paul and hear Caluin. And, 52) Ibid. p. 372. another in Basile did attribute no less to Farellus then to Paul. Yea some of Luther's scholars: (35) not the meanest among their Doctors, said 53) Lavaterus Hist. sacram. p. 18. see Schlusselb. Theol. Cal. l. 2. f. 146. they had rather doubt of S. Paul's doctrine than of Luther, or the Confession of Augusta. And yet the doctrine of Luther is often so absurd, so impure, and scandalous, as that some Protestants themselves, as much ashamed thereof, have rejected the same: And the Confession of Augusta hath been often impugned by sundry Caluinists. But preaduenture S. Peter is in better credit then S. Paul: And yet I find him rebuked by Protestants for his claim of Primacy. 54) Catalogue. Testium veritatis to. 1. p. 27. It cannot be denied (say they) but that sometimes Peter laboured with Ambition and desire of greatness etc. Wherefore this so perverse Ambition of Peter, and ignorance, and negligence of Divine matters etc. But Luther saith further: 55) In Epist. ad Gal. c. 1. Be it that the Church, Austin, and other Doctors, also Peter, Apollo, yea and an Angel from Heaven teach otherwise, yet is my doctrine such as setteth forth God's only glory etc. Peter the chief of the Apostles did live and teach besides the Word of God. And again: 56) Tom. 5. Wittemb. f. 290. Whether S. Cyprian, Ambrose, Austin, or S. Peter, S. Paul, yea an Angel from Heaven teach otherwise, yet I know this certainly, that I do not persuade humane but Divine things. Caluin likewise affirmeth, that Peter's pretended erring was, 57) In omnes Pauli. Epist. in Gal. c. 2. p. 510. 511. (37) To the Schism of the Church, the endangering of Christian liberty, and the overthrow of the Grace of God. (38) D. Fulk chargeth S. Peter with error of ignorance, and against the truth of the Gospel. And that this pretended erring of S. Peter, 58) Against Rhem. Test. in Gal. 2. f. 322. was even after the descending of the holy-ghost upon him, D. Goad avoucheth saying: 59) Tower. Disp. 2. Confer. Arg. 6. P●ter did err in faith, and that after the sending down of the holy-ghost upon him. Brentius likewise affirmeth that, 60) In Apol. Conf. c. de Concilijs p. 900. S. Peter chief of the Apostles, and also Barnabas, after the holy-ghost received, together with the Church of Jerusalem erred. In like sort saith D. Whitaker: 61) De Eccl. cont. Bellar. Controu. 2. q. 4. p. 223. But peradventure they will say, Christ had not yet ascended, and the holy-ghost was not yet given to the Apostles; whereto he immediately thus replieth; what? did they not err afterwards? Yea it is evident that after Christ's Ascension, and the descension of the holy-ghost upon the Apostles, the whole Church, not only the common sort of Christians, but also even the Apostles themselves erred, concerning the calling of the Gentiles etc. Yea Peter also erred concerning the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law etc. And this was a matter of faith, and in this Peter erred; He furthermore also erred in manners etc. And these were great errors; and yet we see these to have been in the Apostles even after the holy-ghost descending upon them. So that S. Peter is of as small authority with Protestants, as S. Paul before was. To come now to S. james, Andreas Frivius a Caluinist, (whom 62) Com. Plac. in Engl. part. 4. p. 77. Peter Martyr termeth an excellent learned man) affirmeth that, 63) Ib. 2. de Eccl. c. 2. p. 411. Christ at his last supper joined wine with bread; if therefore the Church separate these, she is not to be heard; The Church of Jerusalem did separate these, S. james (as some dare affirm) gave only one kind to the people of Jerusalem; what then? The Word of God is plain and manifest, Eat and drink: This is to be heard of us, and preferred before all james & words of the Church. And, 64) De Captivit. Bab. c. de Extr. unct. tom. 2. wittemb. f 86. further say (saith Luther) that if in any place it be erred, in this place especially (concerning Extreame-Vnction) it is erred etc. But though this were the Epistle of james, I would answer, that it is not lawful for an Apostle by his authority to institute a Sacrament; this appertaineth to Christ alone. As though S. james would institute or publish a Sacrament without warrant from Christ. And the Centurists before affirmed, that S. Paul was drawn into error by S. james and the rest of the Apostles. Now as concerning S. james his Epistle, Luther avoucheth that, 65) Praef. in Epist. jacobi in Edit jen. The Epistle of james is contentious, swelling, dry, strawie, and unworthy an Apostolical spirit. As also, 66) Adc. 22. Gen. Abraham was just by Faith, before he was known to be so by God. Therefore james concludeth i'll etc. It doth not follow as james doateth etc. Let our Adversaries therefore be packing with their james, whom they object so often unto us. Again, 67) In Coll. Mensal. lat. tom. 2. de lib. nou. Test. Many have much laboured in the Epistle of james, that they might accord it with Paul, as Philip tried in his Apology, but without success; for they are contrary, Faith justifieth, Faith justifieth not. Agreably hereunto also saith Musculus: 68) Loc. come. c de justific. The Papists object the Epistle of james: But he whosoever he was, the Brother of Christ, and a Pillar amongst the Apostles, and a great Apostle above measure, yet he alone cannot prejudice the truth of Faith. And after the disagreement between S. Paul, and S. james (according to his imagination) shown at large, he thus schooleth and correcteth S. james: He allegeth the example of Abraham nothing to the purpose, where he saith, wilt thou know, o vain man, that Faith without works is dead? etc. He confoundeth the word, Faith. How much better had it been for him, diligently and plainly to have distinguished the true and properly Christian Faith, which the Apostle ever preached, from that which is common both to jews and Christians: Turks and Devils, then to confound them both, and set down his sentence so different from the Apostolical doctrine, whereby as concluding he saith: you see that a man is justified by works and not by Faith alone; whereas the Apostle out of the same place disputeth thus etc. where having 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 james, A man therefore is justified by works, and not by Faith only; and see how much it differeth; whereas he should more rightly have concluded thus etc. So peremptory is Musculus the sacramentary against S. james the Apostle. In like sort writeth Illiricus: 69) In Pref. in jac. Epi. Luther in his Preface upon James' Epistle, giveth great reasons why this Epistle ought in no case to be accounted for a writing of Apostolical authority: 70) In Enchyr. p. 63, And see Exam. part. 1. p. 55. unto which reasons I think every godly man ought to yield. But to annex hereunto the Epistles of S. Peter, S. John, and S. jude, Chemnitius (Luther's chief Scholar) affirmeth that, 76) Upon the Apoc. Engl. c. 1. ser. 1. f. 2. The second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of S. james, the Epistle of jude, and the Apocalypse of John, are Apocryphal: As, 71) Exam. p. 1. p. 56. not having sufficient testimony of their authority, and that therefore, 72) Ib. p. 57 Nothing in Controversy may be proved out of these books. Agreably whereunto saith also Adamus Francisci: 73) Margarita Theol. p. 448. The Apocryphal Books of the new Testament are, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of james, the second and third of John, the second of Peter, the Epistle of jude, and the Apocalypse. Concerning which last of the Apocalypse of S. John, Bullinger expressly avoucheth, 74) In Apo. c. 19 serm. 84. f. 260. 259. That S. John was entangled with error. And Luther thinketh this Book, 75) Pref. in Apo. prioris Edit. Neither to be Apostolical nor Prophetical etc. nor that it was made by the Holy Ghost etc. Therein neither Christ is taught nor acknowledged, saith he. An error so manifest in Luther, that Bullinger testifieth the same saying: 76) Upon 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 judgement good and learned men were offended with him. 77) In Apol. Confess. Wittemb. c. de sacra Scriptura. Being to speak (saith Brentius) of the authority of sacred Scripture, we will first run over the Apocryphal Books, which are in the Vulgar Edition of the Bible, and which the Papists obtrude upon us for truly Canonical: Amongst which he then numbereth, the Epistle to the Hebrews, of james, of jude, the second of Peter, and the Apocalypse etc. and then adjoineth saying: Some of these are termed dreams, some fables. Of so small account with Protestants is this so Divine and mystical Book of the Apocalypse, written by S. John the Evangelist. Lastly Zuinglius being impugned for denying prayer for the dead, and pressed with the authority of Fathers, especially of S. chrysostom and S. Augustin, who derive this custom from the Apostles, answereth thus: (78) Tom. 1. Epi●h●rae. de Can. Mistress 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 suffered certain to pray for the dead, for no other cause then to condescend to their infirmity: So insimulating the Apostles wilfully to have permitted others to err (according to the errors of Protestants) in praying for the dead, which they could not do without error in themselves. Add only hereunto, that seeing according to Brentius & other Lutherans, as also according to our English Protestants, those Books of Scripture are only to be acknowledged Canonical, (79) Brent. in Confess. Wittemb. c. de sacra script. Conuocat. Lond. Anno 1562. & 1604. ar. 6. Whitack against Camp. Reas. 1. p. 28. of whose authority there was never any doubt made in the Church; then by the said Rule, our English Protestant's Church doth reject as Apocryphal, the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, the Epistle of S. james, and S. jude, the second of S. Peter, and the second and third of S. John, to either with the Apocalypse, sithence all these have been doubted of formerly in the Church, as is confessed by sundry (80) Towers Disput. with F. Campian. in the 4. Day's conference. English Protestants; amongst whom M. Rogers having said, (81) Upon the 6. Art. Propos. 4. p. 26. In the name of the holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never doubt in the Church, himself yet further confesseth, that (82) Ib. p. 31. Some of the ancient Fathers and Doctors accepted not all the Books, contained within the volume of the New Testament for Canonical. So giddy and inconstant are our Ministers in impugning the truth. Now if some deny (the plainest premises, notwithstanding) D. Whitaker, and (83) W●itak. Answ. to Camp. Reas. 1. Roger's upon the 6. Artic. p 30. M. Rogers; that Luther and the Lutherans did reject the foresaid Books of the new Testament, besides their own clearest words particularly before cited out of their own writings, Whitaker himself saith: (84) Whitack. de sacra S●ript. Controu 1. q. 1. c. 6. If Luther, or some that have followed Luther; have taught, or written otherwise, let them answer for themselves; this is nothing to us, who in this matter neither follow Luther, nor defend him, but are led by a better reason. Rogers also allegeth (85) Vbi supra p. 32. two principal Lutherans, Wygandus and Heshusius, accusing them both of error, the one for refusing the first and second Epistles of S. john, with the Epistle of S. jude; the other for rejecting the Apocalypse. And Caluin acknowledgeth that, 86) In Argum. Epist. jacobi. In his time there were some (Protestants) that judged the Epistle of S. james not Canonical. Oecolampadius testifieth the same touching the Apocalypse, and affirmeth himself to (87) lib. 2. ad cap. 12. Daniel. wonder, that some with rash judgement rejected S. john in this Book as a dreamer, a mad man, and a writer unprofitable to the Church. So clear it is against Whitakers and Rogers, even by the testimonies of themselves and their other Brethren, that Luther and his brood, rejected the foresaid Scriptures as not Canonical. But now to recapitulate, or briefly to review this so strange proceeding of our new Ghospellers, with the sacred Scriptures: If Christians be to reject Moses and his writings, as the Books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus etc. yea the very Ten Commandments, which comprehend not only the Ceremonial, but also the Moral Law, as also the Book of job, with Ecclesiastes, and Canticles of Solomon, and Toby, judith, Hester, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, some chapters of Daniel, the first and second of Maccabees, how slender then is the remnant of the old Testament left behind? And if all the four Ghospels be censured (as before) for erroneous, and the Epistles to the Hebrews, of james, Peter, john, jude, and the Apocalypse be all of them rejected as Apocryphal; how diminutive a volume will our new Testament remain? Besides, if not only all the foresaid Books be erroneous, but the Apostles withal, and the Evangelists themselves, even after their receiving of the holy-ghost did write, teach, and defend several errors; how can any Christian build an infaillible saving Faith upon the Ghospels, or other Apostolical writings? How then can they be acerteyned of any one true sentence of God's Word, if the writers and deliverers thereof were not infallibly guided by the holy-ghost into all truth, and so freed from all error, ignorance, misprision, or falsehood? And if some peradventure except, that these so Atheistical and Sacrilegious reproaches imposed upon the sacred Scriptures, and the Blessed Evangelists and Apostles, be not the ordinary opinions or practise of Protestants, but peradventure only of some few, either ignorant, or not endowed with the spirit; the falsehood and vanity of this evasion, is most apparent; for who of foreign Protestants were ever reputed more learned, or more enlightened with the spirit, than Luther, Caluin, Beza, Chemnitius, Islebius, Illiricus, with the other Centurie-writers, Castalio, Zuinglius, Musculus, Brentius, Andreas Friccius, Adamus Francisci, Bullinger, and sundry such others, all of them highly esteemed of by their other Protestant Brethren? Or who at home more honoured than Tyndal, jewel, Goad, Fotherbie, Fulk, Whitaker etc. and yet all of those, being indeed the primest men that ever they had, do jointly conspire in this greatest impiety of censuring, controlling, correcting, or rejecting some one part or other of the forenamed Canonical Scriptures, or else of condemning the Evangelists and Apostles of several errors, infirmities, and sliding in matters of faith and Religion. Which foul proceeding of so many and so learned Protestants, doth evidently (according to D. Fulk's Rule) convince them to be perfect Heretics: For (88) Confut. of Purgatory p. 214. whosoever (saith he) denieth the authority of the Holy Scriptures, thereby bewrayeth himself to be an Heretic. Laus Deo & B. V Mariae. FINIS. A TABLE OF THE BOOKS AND CHAPTERS: THE FIRST BOOK, WHEREIN IS PROVED BY THE Confession of Protestants, that the Catholic Roman Church hath continued Ever most Known and Universal, even from Christ's very Time, until the Date hereof. THE antiquity of the true Church; and the force of the Argument drawn from the Authority thereof: As also of these great necessity of finding-out this true Church. chap. 1. fol. 1. That the present Roman Church, and Religion, for the last thousand years after Christ, have still continued most Known, and Universal, throughout the Christian world. chap. 2. fol. 4. A further confirmation of the universal continuance of our Roman Church & Religion, for these last thousand years, is taken from the Confessed belief and profession of such Persons, as living within the foresaid time, were most Famous and Notorious, in one respect or other. chap. 3. fol. 8. That the faith of S. Gregory & S. Augustin, and whereto England was by them converted, was our Roman Catholic, and not Protestant. chap. 4. fol. 10. That the present Roman Church and Religion, continued and flourished during the whole time of the Primitive Church, containing the first six hundred years after Christ. chap. 5. fol. 20. A further proof of the present Roman Religions Continuance from the Apostles time to these days, is taken from the Christian belief of the Indians, Armenians, Grecians and Britain's, all of them Converted in the days of the Apostles. chap. 6. fol. 27. THE SECOND BOOK Wherein is proved through all 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 Primitive Church of Christ. THat General Counsels do truly represent the Church of Christ: And of the Credit and Authority given by Protestants to the said Counsels. chap. 1. fol. 1. That the argument drawn from the Authority of the Primitive Church of Christ, and of her Doctors and Pastors, is an Argument of force; And for such approved by sundry learned Protestants. chap. 2. fol. 3. That the Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Church, believed and taught, that S. Peter, was ordained by Christ, the Head of the Apostles, and of the whole Church, and that the Church was founded upon S. Peter, it is Confessed by Protestants themselves. chap. 3. fol. 8. It is Confessed by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church believed & taught, the Bishop of Rome to succeed S. Peter in the Primacy of the whole Church. chap. 4. fol. 11. It is confessed by Protestants, that the Primitive Church of Christ believed the Books of Toby, judith, Ester, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, and two first of Maccabees, to be truly Canonical Scripture. chap. 5. fol. 25. It is acknowledged by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church believed & taught our now Catholic Doctrine concerning Traditions. chap. 6. fol. 30. It is Confessed by Protestants, that according to the Fathers of the Primitive Church, the Sacraments do truly confer Grace and Remission of sins: And that they are in number seven. chap. 7. fol. 32. It is Confessed by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church believed and taught the Real Presence of Christ's true Body and Blood in the Eucharist: As also our further Catholic Doctrines of Transubstantiation, Adoration, Reservation, and the like. chap. 8. fol. 35. Protestants confess, that the Primitive Church of Christ believed, taught, & practised the Sacrifice of the Mass, as also that it is a Sacrifice, according to the order of Melchisedech; and truly Propitiatory for the living & the dead. chap. 9 fol. 41. It is acknowledged by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church taught and believed the Power of Priests to Remission of Sins; The necessity of Auricular Confession, The Imposition of Penance, 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 Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory, & of Prayer and Sacrifice for the dead, was believed, taught, and practised by the Fathers of the Primitive Church chap. 11. fol. 50. It is confessed by Protestants, that the. Fathers of the Primitive Church believed and taught our Catholic Doctrine of Christ's Descending into Hel. chap. 12. fol. 55. It is confessed by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church believed and practised our Catholic Doctrine of praying to Angels and Saints. chap. 13. fol. 57 It is confessed by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church allowed the use of Christ's Image, and his Saints, placing them even in churches, and Reverencing them. chap. 14. fol. 60. It is acknowledged by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church did specially honour & reverence the holy Relics of Martyrs, and other Saints; carrying them in Processions, and making Pilgrimages unto them; at which also many Miracles were wrought. chap. 15. fol. 63. It is confessed by Protestants, that the holy Doctors of the Primitive Church, not only used the sign of the Cross, but likewise worshipped the same, attributing great efficacy, power, and virtue thereunto. chap. 16. f. 65. It is confessed by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church allowed, and practised the vow of Chastity; and that they never allowed such as were of the Clergy afterwards to marry; or such as had been twice married to be admitted to holy Orders without special dispensation. chap. 17. fol. 69. It is confessed by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Promitive Church allowed, & practised the Religious State of Monastical life: and that many Christians of those purest times, both men and women, did strictly observe and profess the same. chap. 18. f. 74. It is acknowledged by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church allowed, & practised prescribed fasts, and abstinence from certain meats, upon days, and times appointed, holding the same obligatory under sin; condemning also our Puritan Sabboath Fasts. chap. 19 fol. 80. It is admitted by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church expressly taught our Catholic Doctrine concerning Free wil chap. 20. fol. 84 It is granted by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church taught, not only Faith, but likewise Good works truly to justify: & that the said works are meritorious of Grace and Glory. chap. 21. fol. 86. It is acknowledged by Protestants, that the Ceremonies now used in the Roman Church in the ministering of service, or Sacrifice, as also of the Sacraments, were formerly used by the Bishops, Priests, and Fathers of the Primitive Church. chap. 22. fol. 89 THE THIRD BOOK, WHEREIN is proved that the Church of Protestants was never known 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 Primitive Church of Christ. IT is confessed by Protestants, that from the days of the Apostles until the time of Luther, themselves never had any known Church or Congregation, in any part of the universal World. chap. 1. fol. 1. A Further convincing proof of the Protestant Churches not being, during the first 600. years, is taken from the Fathers: Condemning in the ancient Heretics, 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 Heretics, the opinions of Protestants concerning the Scriptures, and the Church Militant, and Triumphant. chap. 3. fol. 9 That the Fathers condemned in ancient Heretics the opinions of Protestants, concerning Monachisme, the marriage of Priests, and prescribed Fasts. chap. 4. fol. 12. That the Fathers condemned in ancient Heretics the opinions of Protestants, concerning Freewill, Faith, Good works, the Commandments, sin, and the knowledge and Death of Christ. chap. 5. fol. 14. Protestants Usual recrimination of objecting old Heresies to the Catholic Roman Church, is clearly examined, discovered, & confuted by their own acknowledgements. chap. 6. fol. 17. A Further trial is Made, Whether Catholics or Protestants be true Heretics; and this by sundry known badges or marks of Heresy. chap. 7. fol. 23. A brief Survey of D. Whites Catalogue, wherein contrary to the Confessed truth in the precedent Chapter, of no known beginning or change of our Roman Faith in any Age, he undertaketh (according to his Title thereof) to show, That the present Religion of the Roman Church was observed & resisted in all Ages, as it came in, and increased: naming withal the Persons that made the Resistance: And the points wherein: And the time when; from fifty years to fifty, throughout all Ages since Christ. chap. 8. fol. 35. THE FOURTH BOOK, WHEREIN 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 have ever continued from his time, until the Date hereof: And of the contrary, the Protestants Church to be only a Sect Heretical, and never to have been before the days of Luther. Protestant's flying to the sacred Scriptures in proof & defence of their Church and Religion, it is showed, the said flight, not only in itself to be dishonourable, but also to be the ordinary flight of all modern Heretics. chap. 1. fol. 1. That even the Sacred Scriptures themselves do most plentifully testify our Roman 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 contrary to the said Scriptures: And that, first by the Churches necessary continuance and universality. chap. 2. fol. 5. The second Proof from sacred Scriptures, in confirmation of the Roman Church, and Confutation of the Protestant, is taken from the Ever visibility of Christ's Church. chap. 3. fol. 10. The third Proof from Sacred Scriptures, in Confirmation of the Roman Church, and Confutation of the Protestant, is taken from the Church's Pastors which must ever 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 Conversion of Heathen Kings and Nations to the Faith of Christ. chap. 5. fol. 24. A Discovery or brief Examination of sundry sleights and Evasions used by Protestant Writers in Excuse of the manifest confessed want of their Churches fulfilling the foresaid Scripiures concerning the continuance, universality, and visibility of Christ's true Church. chap. 6. fol. 33. THE FIFT BOOK, WHEREIN is showed, that Protestants in the Decision of Controversies between them and Catholics, do absolutely disclaim from Antiquity, rejecting the Ancient Fathers and Counsels for Papistical, and the Sacred Scriptures for erroneous. THat Protestants Disclaim from all Antiquity since the Apostles; and further reject and condemn as Papistical the Ancient Fathers and General Counsels. chap. 1. fol. 1. That the Protestant Church disclaimeth from the Fathers of the Primitive Church, it is further proved by the Protestants condemning all the ancient Fathers in general, for believing, teaching, and practising the several particular actions of our Catholic Roman Faith and Religion. chap. 2. fol. 12. That Protestants do not only disclaim from all the ancient Fathers as Papists, but do further reject the authority of the sacred Scriptures and of the Apostles themselves, as being erroneous; and that therefore they do not found their Faith or Religion upon Sacred Scriptures, or Christ his Apostles. chap. 3. fol. 18. A TABLE SHOWING THE particular matters handled in this Book. A. AELfricus no Protestant. l. 3. c. 8. pag. 51. Albigenses taught sundry errors. lib. 1. c. 3. pag. 12. Almaricus his errors. l. 3. c. 8. p. 55. Antiquity commended. Praef. to the Reader; and lib. 5. c. 1. pag. 1. 2. Antiquity rejected by Protestants as a Popish Argument. l. 1. c. 5. pag. 26. Anthony the Monk commended. l. 2. c. 18. Apostles according to Protestants erred in Faith even after the coming of the holy-ghost. l. 5. c. 3. p. 23. 25. Apocalyps' rejected by Protestants. lib. 5, c. 3. p. 24. Armenia converted by the Apostles. lib. 1. c. 6. p. 29. Armenians retain still sundry points of Catholic Religion. l. 1. c. 6. p. 29. Altars used in Churches in time of the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 22. p. 85. Altars disliked by Heretics. l. 3. c. 2. p. 8. S. Austin the Monk commended by Protestants. l. 1. c. 4. p. 16. 17. S. Austin converted England to the now Roman Faith. l. ●. c. 4. p. 16. B. Baptism conferreth Grace and Remission of sins. l. 2. c. 7. p. 33. Baptism necessary for the salvation of infants. Ib. Baptism ministered by lay persons in case of necessity, lawful. l. 5. c. 2. p. 12. In Baptism sundry Ceremonies used by the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 22. Barnabas the Apostle according to Protestants erred in Faith. l. 5. c. 3. p. 23. Beads or little stones used to pray with, in time of the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 22. S. Bede confessedly a Roman Catholic, and a holy man. l. 1. c. 3. p. 14. Berengarius his error and Recantation. l. 1. c. 3. p. 14. S. Bernard a Roman Catholic. 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 Holy Orders in time of the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 17. p. 73. C. CAlling necessary for Preaching and Administration of Sacraments. l. 4. c. 4. p. 13. 14. Protestant Ministers are destitute of all lawful Calling. l. 4. c. 4. p. 15. 16. 17. & seq. c. The Calling of the English Ministry. l. 4. c. 4. p. 16. Some Protestants derive their Calling from Catholics. Ib. p. 17. Others deny it. Ib. p. 19 Calling by the Laiety allowed by Protestants. Ib. p. 20. Protestants being confessedly destitute of all ordinary Calling, do fly unto extraordinary. Ib. p. 20. Extraordinary Calling is ever confirmed by Miracles. Ib. p. 21. Extraordinary Calling is freed from error. Ib. p. 23. Catholic Priests have lawful Calling. l. 4. c. 4. p. 17. 18. 24. Candles lighted in Churches in the day, in time of the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 22. p. 86. Canticles rejected by Protestants as Apocryphal. l. 5. c. 3. p. 20. Castalio his Apostasy. l. 4. c. 2. p. 7. The name Catholic, 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 approved by the Fathers of the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 22. p. 89. Charles the Emperor a Roman Catholic. l. 1. c. 3. p. 14. The Book written under Charles his name against Images, is counterfeit. l. 3. c. 8. p. 45. Chrism used and approved in the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 22. p. 88 Christ to have been ignorant, condemned in ancient Heretics and Protestants. l. 3. c. 5. p. 15. Christ as God to have suffered and died, condemned in Protestants. l. 3. c. 5. p. 15 Church to be known is most necessary. l. 1. c. 1. p. 3. Out of the true Church there is no salvation. Ib. & l. 4. c. 3. p. 11. Church of Christ is most ancient. l. 1. c. 1. p. 3. Church of Christ cannot fail. l. 4. c. 2. p. 3 Church of Christ cannot err. l. 1. c. 1. p. 2 Church of Christ is ever visible. l. 3. c. 3. p. 9 & l. 4. c. 3. p. 10. 11. 12. Church of Christ converteth 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 Primitive 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 Heretics and Protestants. l. 3. c. 5. p. 14. Ten Commandments rejected by Protestants. l. 5. c. 3. p. 19 Communion under one kind. l. 3. c. 2. & p. 6. 7. c. ●. p. 21. Confession of the Adversary a strong Argument. Praef. to the Reader. Confession of sins to the Priest, used in the Primitive 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 given with imposition of hands. Ibid. p. 49. Confirmation used in the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 7. p. 33. 34. Consecration of water, Bread, Ashes, and used in the Primitive 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. Cross worshipped by the Fathers of the Primitive Church. l. 5. c. 2. p. 15. & l. 2. c. 16. per totum. The sign of the Cross then used. Ibid. Cross used in Consecration of Sacraments. Ibidem. Miracles wrought by the Cross, and the sign thereof. Ibidem. Cross impugned by ancient Heretics, and Protestants. l. 3. c. 3. p. 10. 11. Counsels represent the Church. l. 2. c. 1. pag. 1. Counsels best means to decide Controversies. Ib. p. 2. Counsels cannot err in matters of Faith. Ibidem. Some Protestants pretend to submit themselves to general Counsels. Ibidem. Counsels rejected by Protestants. lib. 5. c. 1. p. 9 Council of Francford. l. 3. c. 8. p. 44. D. dante's the Poet. lib. 3. c. 8. p. 56. David George his falling from protestancy to Apostasy. l. 4. c. 2. p. 8. E. ECclesiastes rejected by Protestants for Apocryphal. l. 5. c. 3. p. 20. Emperor's reigning, during the time of the Primitive Church rejected by Protestants for Papists. l. 1. c. 5. p. 20. Eucharist to be the Sacrament of Christ's true Body & Blood, was believed by the Fathers of the Primitive Church, even 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 Primitive Church. Ibidem. Eucharist accustomed to be elevated in Masse-time. Ibid. p. 38. Eucharist received fasting. Ibid. Eucharist received chaste. Ibid. Eucharist reserved. Ibid. & l. 3. c. 2. p. 7. Eucharist used in around figure, in time of the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 8. p. 39 Eucharist foretold by the ancient jews. Ibidem. Eucharist impugned by Heretics. lib. 3. c. 2. p. 6. 7. & l. 3. c. 8. p. 51. Extreme-Vnction believed and used by the Fathers of the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 7. p. 34. F. FAith alone to justify, condemned in ancient Heretics. l. 3. c. 5. p. 14. Fast of Lent confessedly approved and observed in the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 19 Fasts prescribed in the Primitive Church. Ibidem. Aerius denying prescribed Fasts, condemned by the Fathers of the Primitive 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 Catholic Fasts. Ib. p. 19 20. Fasts not to be kept upon the Sunday. l. 2. l. 3. c. 4. p. 13. Fathers confessed by Protestants to have been Papists. l. 5. c. 1. p. 2. Fathers reviled 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 contradictory to themselves 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. Father's authority approved 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 drawn from Man's authority. Ibid. p. 7. 8. Frederick the Emperor, no Protestant. l. 3. c. 8. p. 54. Freewill taught by the Primitive Church l. 2. c. 20. Freewill taught by the ancient believing jews. Ibid. Freewill denied by the Manichees. l. 3. c. 5. p. 14. G. GRecia converted by the Apostles. l. 1. c. 6. p. 27. Grecians in these times, Catholics, not Protestants. l. 1. c. 6. p. 29. & l. 3. c. 8. p. 37. Gregory the Great commended by Protestants. l. 1. c. 4. p. 16. Gregory a Roman Catholic. 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. Heretics named by their first Author or Doctrine. l. 3. c. 7. p. 31. Ancient Heretics defended by Protestants against the Fathers. l. 3. c. 5. p. 16. Ancient Heresies confessedly differ from Catholic doctrine. l. 3. c. 6. p. 17. 18. Heretics go out of the Church. l. 3. c. 7. p. 23. 24. 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. Hours Canonical used in the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 22. p. 89. Husse, no Protestant. l. 1. c. 3. p. 10. I. S. james the Apostle charged with error by Protestants. l. 5. c. 3. p. 23. S. james his Epistles rejected by Protestants for Apocryphal. Ib. p. 23. 24. Images worshipped by the Fathers of the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 14 Images as then placed in Churches. Ib. By Images Miracles wrought. Ibid. Images impugned by Heretics, & these therefore condemned by Fathers. l. 3. c. 3. p. 10. etc. 8. p. 40. 43. 47. India converted by the Apostles. l. 1. c. 6. pag. 28. Indians in these days Catholics, not Protestants. l. 1. c. 6 p. 28. Innovation or first Beginning noted, a Badge of Heresy. l. 3. c. 7. p. 27. job his Book rejected by Luther for Apocryphal. l. 5. c. 3. p. 20. S. John's Gospel charged by Protestants with error. Ib. p. 21. S. John's Epistles rejected by Protestants, as Apocryphal. Ibid. p. 24. S. John's Apocalypse rejected by Protestants, as Apocryphal. Ib. p. 24. S. Iude's Epistle rejected by Protestants as Apocryphal. Ibid. p. 24. justice's inherent denied and condemned in ancient Heretics. l. 3. c. 5. p. 15. L. LAtria and Dulia confessedly taught by S. Austin. l. 2. c. 14. Lollards their errors. l 3. c. 8. p. 57 Lotharius the Emperor objected against the Pope's Primacy, and answered. l. 3. c. 8. p. 46. 47. At Luther's first revolt the whole Christian world was Roman Catholic. l. 1. c. 3. p. 8. Luther taught many errors. l. 4. c. 4. p. 23. Luther confessedly wrought no miracles. Ibid. p. 22. S. Luke's Gospel charged by Protestants with error. l. 5. c. 3. p. 21. Lymbus Patrum confessedly taught by the ancient Fathers. l. 2. c. 12. p. 55. & 56. Lytanies used by the ancient Fathers. l. 2. cap. 22. M. MAchabees, Toby etc. approved for Canonical by the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 5. Objections against them answered. l. 2. c. 5. p. 25. Marsilius Patavinus a condemned Heretic. l. 3. c. 8. p. 56. Malachias a Roman Catholic. l. 1. c. 3. p. 13. Mass generally used these last 1000 years. l. 1. c. 2. p. 6. Mass confestedly taught and used by the ancient Fathers. l. 2. c. 9 p. 41. & seq. Mass believed to be Propitiatory by the ancient Fathers. Ibid p. 44. Mass celebrated for the dead. l. 2. c. 11. p. 50. & seq. Mass a Sacrifice according to Melchisedech. p. In Mass water mingled with wine. l. 3. c. 2. p. 8. Heretics impugning the Mass condemned. Ibidem S. Mathew's Gospel charged by Protestants with ersour. l. 5. c. 3. p. 21. S. Mark's Gospel charged by Protestants with error. Ibid. Michael the Emperor objected against the Pope's Primacy; & answered. l. 3. c. 8. p. 48. 49. Miracles attributed by Heretics to witchcraft. l. 3. c. 3. p. 10. 11. Miracles confessedly never wrought by any Protestant. l. 4. c. 4. p. 22. 23. Miracles wrought by many Catholics l. 4. c. 5. p. 32. Monachisme approved and used by the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 18. p. 74. & seq. Monks had special Consecration. Ib. p. 75. Monk's habit Ib. p. 76. Austerity. Ibidem. Monk's vowed Chastity. 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 believing jews. l. 2. c. 18. N. Nilus' a condemned Heretic. l. 3. c. 8. p. 58. Novelty rejected. Praef. to the Reader. Nycetas objected against the Pope's Primacy; 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 objected against the Pope's Primacy; and answered. l. 3. c. 8. p. 50. P. Pardon's and Indulgences taught by the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 10. p. 48. S. Peter ordained by Christ Head of the Apostles for unity. l. 2. c. 3. p. 8. & seq. Upon S. Peter Christ built his Church. Ib. S. Peter's seas of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch preferred before others. Ib. S. Peter charged by Protestant's with error. l. 5. c. 3. p. 23. Phocas conferred not Primacy to Boniface. l. 3. c. 8. p. 41. Photius objected against the Pop's Primacy and answered. l. 3. c. 8. p. 48. Pope of Rome S. Peter's successor. l. 2. c. 3. p. 9 10. etc. 4. p. 11. Pope's Primacy was Christ his ordinance. l. 2. c. 4. p. 12. Pope's Primacy confessedly allowed and practised universally these last 1000 years. l. 1. c. 2. p. 6. Pope not Antichrist. l. 2. c. 4. p. 24. & l. 5. c. 2. p. 14. All Popes for these last 1000 years censured by Protestants to have been Antichrists. l. 1. c. 2. p. 6. Pope's Primacy defended by S. Gregory. l. 2. c. 3. p. 9 10. etc. 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 Counsels 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 jews. Ib. p. 23. Primacy Ecclesiastical denied to Emperors by the Fathers of the Primitive 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 live chaste. l. 2. c. 17. p. 69. Heretics impugning the same, condemned. l. 2. c. 17. l. 3. c. 8. p. 42. 48. Priest's anointed at their Consecration. l. 2. c. 22. Priests have power from God to remit sin. l. 2. c. 10. p. 46. Priest's crowns shaved in the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 22. The Primitive Church her authority. l. 2. c. 2. p. 3. & seq. To the Primitive Church some Protestants pretend to appeal. l. 2. c. 2. p. 3. 4. Other Protestants dislike the foresaid Appeal. l. 5. c. 1. p. 2. Protestant Church invisible at S. gregory's time. l. 3. c. 1. p. 1. Invisible all these last 1000 years. Ib. p. 1. at Luther's time. Ib. p. 2. at Wicklives 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 Catholic Church. l. 3. c. 7. p. 24. Protestants never wrought miracles. l. 4. c. 4. p. 22. 23. Protestants confessed external dissimulation in matters of Religion. l. 4. c. 6. p. 38. Protestant Writers preferred by Protesstants before S. Peter and S. Paul. l. 5. c. 3. p. 22. 23. The name Protestant, from whence first. l. 3. c. 7. p. 32. The name Puritan, from whence first. Ib. 32. Protestants are enforced to use diverse names for distinction of their Religion and opinions. Ibid. p. 33. The name Papist, whence. Ibid. p. 31. Purgatory, Prayer, and Sacrifice for the dead, confessedly taught by the Fathers of the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 11. p. 50. & seq. & l 5. c. 2. p. 14. Purgatory believed by the ancient believing jews. l. 2. c. 11. p. 53. Purgatory denied by Aerius; and he condemned for the same by the Fathers. l. 2. c. 11. p. 52. & l. 3. c. 3. p. 11. R. Relics confessedly reverenced by the Fathers of the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 15. & l. 5. c. 2. p. 15. By Relics, miracles wrought. l. 2. c. 15. To Relics, Pilgrimages made in the Primitive Church. Ibidem. Relics translated. Ibidem. Relics 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. years. l. 1. c. 5. p. 21. 22. & l. 2. c. 2. Roman Church continued universally these last 1000 years. l. 1. c. 2. p. 4. Roman Church continued universally since Constantine. l. 1. c. 5. p. 26. Roman Church continued the first 300. years after Christ. l. 1. c. 5. p. 22. Roman-Church hath no known 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 confer grace, is the confessed doctrine of the Primitive Church. l 2. c. 7. p. 32. Seven Sacraments taught by the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 7. p. 32. Saints to be prayed unto, is the confessed doctrine of the ancient Fathers. l. 2. c. 13. p. 57 Saints to be prayed unto, was taught by the ancient jews. 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 objected against the Real presence; and answered. l. 3. c. 8. p. 46 47. Scriptures appealed unto by all Heretics. 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. Sin attributed to God, as the Author, condemned. l. 3. c. 5. p. 15. Sigebert. l. 3 c. 8. p. 52. T. TRaditions confessedly taught by the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 6. p. 30. Traditions taught by the ancient believing jews Ibid. p. 31. Transubstantiation confessedly taught by the Fathers of the Privitive Church. l. 2. c. 8. p. 34. V VEstments & Vessels consecrated to Church uses. l. 2. c. 22. Vow of Chastity approved and practised by the Primitive Church. l. 2 c. 17. p. 69. jovinian condemned for denial thereof. l. 3. c. 4. p. 13. W. WAldo, no Protestant. l. 1. c. 3. p. 12. Wales converted to Christianity in the Apostles times. l. 1. c. 6. p. 18. The Welshmen or ancient Britain's were Roman Catholics. l. 1. c. 6. p. 28. They changed not their Faith before S. Austin's coming. l. 1. c. 6. p. 30. Wiccliff, no Protestant. l. 1. c. 3. p. 11. 12. Works to justify and merit, confessedly taught by the Primitive Church. l. 2. c. 21. p. 86. Heretics denying the same, condemned. l. 3. c. 5. p. 14. FINIS. FAULTS 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 2. hundred. cap. 5. p. 26. lin. 42. for Churches, read Counsels. 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 add (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 Turkism. p. 48. lin. 1. for contracted, read contradicted. lin. 17. for (66) read (26) p. 43. lin. 29. for no● worthy, read not unworthy. Lib. 4. c. 2. p. 5. lin. 25. v. David, add (7) lin. 27. v. Church, add (8) p. 6. lin. 2. v. Wittenberg, add (17) p. 7. lin. 36. v. Whitaker, add (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 all lin. 35. for Chapter 4. read Chapters Lib. 5. c. 1. pag. 3. lin. 1. sore, read sort. c. 1. pag. 4. lin. 3. ad, read and. pag. 10. lin. penult. beshabken, read beshaken. lib. 5.