The progenie of Catholicks and Protestants Whereby on the one side is proued the lineal descent of Catholicks, for the Roman faith and religion, from the holie fathers of the primitiue Church ... and on the other, the neuer-being of Protestants or their nouel sect during al the foresayd time, otherwise then in confessed and condemned hereticks. ...

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

WHeras it is generally taught by Catholicks(1) 1.1 that man, euen after the fal of Adam, hath freewil and libertie, not only in actions natural, or ciuil, but likewise in moral and superna∣tural, Gods Grace concurring. Directly to the contrarie the learnedst Protestants(2) 1.2 teach, that man in the state of Nature now corrupted is not endowed with Freewil in anie action natural, ciuil, moral, or supernatural.

The Primitiue Church is so wholy Roman Catholick in this poynt of Faith concerning Freewil, as that the same is most plentifully confessed by manie Protestants. Luke Osiander(3) 1.3 speaking of S. Gregorie affirmeth that, In manie articles he was fowlly & Popishly deceaued: for he attributed ouermuch to Freewil &c. And the Centurie-writers,(4) 1.4 repeating manie pretēded errours of his, amongst the rest doe number Freewil.

But the Centurists(5) 1.5 proceed further, for speaking of the Fourth Age, they confesse, in general that, Almost al the Fathers of this Age, speake con∣fusedly of Freewil &c. And contrarie to the manifest testimonies of holie Scripture. And immediatly after they doe there recite and reiect the particular Sayings of Lactantius, Athanasius, Basil, Nazianzene, Epiphanius, Hierom &c. saying: They were al deceaued, al in darknes, al washed about the doctrine of Man's Freewil, Beza[6) 1.6 discoursing of the times of Austin, Chrysostom and Cyprian, affirmeth that then was in vse the opinion of Freewil. Caluin affirmeth in general that, The(7) 1.7 Grecians aboue others, and amongst them Chrysostom, notably ex∣ceed measure in extolling the facultie of man's wil. And agayne(8) 1.8 It is necessarie, that be reiected, which is so often repeated by Chrysostome, Quem trahit, volentem trahit, whom he draweth, he draweth willing.

Yea the famous Councel of Neece was so cleer for Freewil, that our Puri∣tans spare not to say:(9) 1.9 We must needs confesse, that not only this gouernment of the Church, but also manie other poynts of greatest waight in Religion, fel to decay long before the Councel of Neece &c. Man's Freewil & abilitie to fulfil the Law of God &c. was winked at or buryed &c. at the time of the Councel of Neece. So that if this Argument (taken from the Councel of Neece) be good &c. it is also powre∣ful to ouerthrow the mayne poynt of our Iustification by Faith &c. The Centurie-writers(10) 1.10 arise yet higher, affirming that S. Cyprian is euerie where a vehe∣ment defender of Freewil. And againe,(11) 1.11 The same thinketh Cyprian l. 3. ep. 3. Man (sayth he) left to his owne libertie, and placed in his owne power, either desireth death to himself, or life. And they recite & reiect sūdrie other of his like sayings: which sayings also are confessed and reiected by D. Humfrey.(12) 1.12

It is likewise13) 1.13 confessed, that Origen hom. 9. in Numeros, thinketh that our wil can choose good things, that it may be a vessel to honour; or euil and earthlie things, that it may be a vessel to reproach. Yea they further alleage and reiect manie other of his like Sayings. And els where14) 1.14 they reproue Origen herein, and al the Doctours of the then precedent Age. Yea speaking of Tertulian, Origen, Cyprian, and Methodius, their modest Cen∣sure is that,15) 1.15 They do abuse the Scriptures intollerably for the maintenance thereof. And as for Tertulian, they16) 1.16 acknowledge that, he In manie and large Sentences attributeth Frewil to man, euen after the corruption of Na∣ture by Adams fal. And in17) 1.17 another place they reiect Tertulians sun∣drie testimonies of Frewil. But Hamalmannus18) 1.18 confesseth that, Tertulian and Ireneus with manie followers defend Freewil &c. Yea Schultetus19) 1.19 for the selfe same Doctrine of Freewil reproueth of errour, Cyprian, Theophilus, Tertulian, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Iustin, Ireneus, Athenagoras, Tatianus &c. And the Centurie-writers20) 1.20 confesse that, Ireneus admitteh Free∣wil (euen) in spiritual actions. And that, Ireneus21) 1.21 disputes not dissinctly, and wresteth the speeches of Christ, and of S. Paul in fauour of Freewil, saying, that there is Freewil also in faith and beleef. But these things (say he Cen∣turists) are spaken grossly (by Ireneus) and are repugnant to the Scriptures.

In like sort Osiander22) 1.22 reproueth Iustin saying: Iustine extolled too much the libertie of mans Wil in obseruing the Commandments of God. And it is granted23) 1.23 that Clemens euerie where defendeth Freewil, so that it may appeare (say they) that not only al the Doctours of that Age were in such darknes, but also that the same after increased in the later Doctours. D. Abbots24) 1.24 speaking of the booke of Hermes, entituled Pastor, (and some others, forged ac∣cording to his opinion in the Apostles times) sayth: The poyson which Satan had conueyed into such counterfaite books, was receiued as wholesome food, and sundrie errours and superstitious fancies of vowed Virginitie and Prayer for the dead, of Freewil, of Inuocation of Saincts, of Antichrist, and the Assum∣ption of Marie, and such like by litle and litle got footing in the Church. And here was indeed (sayth Abbot) the true beginning of manie doctrines of Poperie &c. The Centurists25) 1.25 speaking of the times next after the Apostles, doe acknowledge, That almost no poynt of Doctrine began so soon to be obscured, as this of Freewil. Yea it is confessed,26) 1.26 that the Protestants know that euer since the Apostles time, in a manner it flourished euerie where, vntil Martin Luther took the sword in hand against it. A true so euident, that D. Hum∣frey27) 1.27 thinketh, It may not be denyed, but that Ireneus, Clemens, and others (quos vocant Apostolicos) whom they cal Apostolical (in respect of the time in which they liued) haue in their writings the opinions of Freewil &c. Yea sayth M. Caluin,28) 1.28 Al Ecclesiastical Writers, excepting Augustin, haue written so ambiguously and differently in this matter (of Freewil) that no∣thing certain can be gathered from their wrytings: And they were ouer ful in extolling Freewil. Lastly. D. Whiteguift29) 1.29 discoursing of Doctrine taught in anie Age since the Apostles time, affirmeth without anie other exception, of Age or Father, that (to vse his words) almost30) 1.30 al the Bishops, and learned Writers of the Greek Church and Latin also for the most part, were spot∣ted with doctrines of Freewil, of Merit, of Inuocation of Saincts and such like.

And the same also almost in the same words is confessed by D. Couel, saying:30) 1.31 Diuers both of the Greek and Latin Church, were spotted with errours about Freewil, Merits, Inuocation of Saincts &c.

Yea the ancient Iewes did so firmely beleeue our Doctrine of Free∣wil, that to omit the31) 1.32 cleerest words of Ecclesiasticus, which D. Whitakers had no other wayes32) 1.33 to euade, but by denying the sayd booke to be Canonical Scripture: D. Fulk tearmeth:33) 1.34 The Iewish Rabbins, Patrons of Freewil; which D. Morton34) 1.35 iustifyeth, and further sayth:35) 1.36 What if it be confessed that some Rabbins maintayned the libertie of mans Wil, as Rabbi Moses did? Yea M. Hal chargeth the Pharisees36) 1.37 with Freewil and Merit, which is more then either Christ or his Apostles did, who yet in other respects spared not to discouer their true Errours.

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

Notes

• (1) 1.1

  See Bel∣larmine in his boo 1. s de Gratia & libero Arbit.
• (2) 1.2

  Caluin. Inst. l. 1. art. 16. §. 8 & l. 2. c. 4. §. 6. And see 3. §. 7.
• (3) 1.3

  Cent. 6. p. 288.
• (4) 1.4

  Cent 6. c. 10. col. 748.
• (5) 1.5

  Cent. 4. col. 291.
• [6) 1.6

  In his Nou. Test. in Praef. ad Principem Condensem.
• (7) 1.7

  Inst. l. 2 c. 2. §. 4.
• (8) 1.8

  Inst. l. 2. c. 1. §. 10.
• (9) 1.9

  A brief Discouery of vntruths in D. Bācrofts serm. p. 21.
• (10) 1.10

  Cent 3. col. 247.
• (11) 1.11

  Cent. 3. col. 77.
• (12) 1.12

  In his Iesuit part. 2. p. 540.
• 13) 1.13

  Cent. 3. col. 77.
• 14) 1.14

  Cent. 3. col. 2••8.
• 15) 1.15

  Cent. 3. c. 4. p. 77.
• 16) 1.16

  Cent. 3. col. 240.
• 17) 1.17

  Cent. 3. col. 77.
• 18) 1.18

  De Tra∣ditionibus l. 2. c. 7. col. 93.
• 19) 1.19

  Medulla Theol. Pa∣trum. 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.
• 20) 1.20

  Cent. 2. c. 10 col. 221. And see col. 58. 43. And Humfrey in Iesuit. part. 2. p. 527. And Osiand. cent. 2. l. 4. p. 84.
• 21) 1.21

  Cent. 2. c. 4. p. 53.
• 22) 1.22

  Cent. 2. p. 5. 6. And see the Cen∣turists. Cent. 2. col. 207.
• 23) 1.23

  Cent. 2. c. 4. col. 59. And see Caluin Inst. l. 2 c. 2 §. 4.
• 24) 1.24

  In de∣fence of the Reformed Catholick. part. 1. p. 114.
• 25) 1.25

  Cent. 2. c. 4. 4 co••. 58.
• 26) 1.26

  So say the Purita∣nes cyted in D. Bancro∣stes Sermon. p. 23.
• 27) 1.27

  Iesuit. part. 2. p. 530.
• 28) 1.28

  Instit. l. 2. c. 2. § 9.
• 29) 1.29

  In his Defence against the Reply of Carthw∣right. p. 472. 473.
• 30) 1.30

  Ibid. p. 473. And see the lyke in Whitak. de Eccl. Con. Bellar. Controu. 2. p. 299.
• 30) 1.31

  In his Exam. c. 9. p. 120.
• 31) 1.32

  c. 15. 12. 15. 16. 17.
• 32) 1.33

  Resp ad Camp. Rat. 1. p. 15.
• 33) 1.34

  Defence of the Eng. Transl. p. 320.
• 34) 1.35

  Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 371.
• 35) 1.36

  Ibid. p. 370.
• 36) 1.37

  Phari∣saisme. p. 50.