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. ...

THAT THE FATHERS CONDEMNED in ancient Hereticks the opinions of Protestants, con∣cerning Free-wil, Faith, Good works, the Com∣mandments, sinne, and the knowledge and Death of Christ. CHAPTER V.

BVT now to come to the cheifest articles of mans Freewil, Faith, good workes, and the possibilitie of the Commandments, sinne, and the like: The denyal of Freewil, was condemned in the Manichees by S. Hierome,81) 1.1 saying, it is proper to the Manichees to condemne mans nature, and to take away Freewil, and the assistance of God; of whom also sayth S. Austine:82) 1.2 The Manichees bark against these with wonted blindenes, and when they are conuinced, that Nature is not an euil thing, and that it is in the power of man to do wel or euil, they say, that the soule hath not Freewil, and they see not their blindnes. Herevpon it is, that Hemingius83) 1.3 char∣geth his other Protestant Brethren denying Freewil, with the doctrine of the Manichees and the Stoicks. And wheras some answer hereunto, that the Manichees condemned Nature, which Protestants do not, we reply againe that we do not charge them therwith, but only with the denial of Freewil and Gods grace, for the denial wherof the Manichees were condemned; and though it were vpon other grounds then Protestants doe, yet that excuseth not, since the very denial of Freewil was condemned in them by the Fathers. As likewise the denial of any article of Faith (vpon what reason or ground soeuer it be) is notwithstanding to be condemned for errour. The pretended sufficiencie of onlie Faith, was condemned in Eunomius by S. Austin,84) 1.4 who reporteth Eunomius to haue taught, That the commit∣ting of anie sinnes whatsoeuer, and continuance in them, would nothing hurt a man, if he was partaker of that Faith wich was taught by him. Agreably to whom sayth D. Whitaker;85) 1.5 we affirme that if one haue an act of Faith, sinnes do not hurt him; this Luther affirmed, and this we al say. The denial in general of the diuersitie of merits, was condemned in Iouinian by S. Austin,86) 1.6 saying: We condemne the errour of Iouinian, who sayd there Was no difference of merits in the world to come. And S. Ambrose,87) 1.7 and others tearme it, A rude houling &c. to confound al things promiscuously &c. and to take away the degrees of different merits.

The denyal of the possibilitie of keeping the Commandments, was condemned in certaine Hereticks by S. Hierome88) 1.8 saying: We accurse the blasphemie of them, who say, that anie thing impossible is commanded by God to man. And the same words vseth S. Austin,89) 1.9 in so much that the Protestant Hoffman ra∣ther accurseth S. Hierome, saying:90) 1.10 Hierome writes, let him be accursed

who hath sayd, God to haue commanded impossible things; but why is not Hieromera∣ther accursed, who so audaciously thinketh against God? And in the like sort, is this saying of S. Hierome alleadged and reiected by Luther, and by the Cen∣turists, as also by Caluin saying:(a) 1.11 The opinion of the impossibilitie of keeping the Commandments, is commonly thought to be most absurd, so that Hierome doubted not to denounce Anathema to it; what seemed to Hierome, I nothing care.91) 1.12

The denyal of Inherent Iustice, was condemned in Iulian the Pelagian by S. Austin92) 1.13 saying: Thou dost not depart from thy opinion, wherein thou affirmest the grace of God to consist in the only remission of sinne. And the same errour is condemned93) 1.14 by Celestinus and the Mileuitan Councel.

The affirming of God to be the Authour of sinne, was condemned in Simon Magus, whereof sayth Vincentius:94) 1.15 Who before Simon Magus &c. durst affir∣me, God the Creatour to be the Authour of our wicked deeds? &c. And who before Nouatianus (taught) that God would rather the death of him that dyeth, then that he should returne and liue? Hereof also sayth S. Austin: It is a hateful and abhomi∣nable opinion, to beleeue, that God is the authour of anie euil wil, or action. And yet this so abhominable opinion is beleeued by Luther96) 1.16 asking: How man can prepare himself to good, seing it is not (so much) as in his owne power, to make his wayes euil; for God worketh the wicked worke in the wicked. As also by Caluin97) 1.17 teaching that, God doth ordaine by his Counsel and decree, that among men some be borne destined to certaine damnation from their mothers womb; who by their destruction may glorify God. And Suinglius98) 1.18 expresly affirmeth that,95) 1.19 Dauids adulterie pertayned to God as Authour. Melanchton99) 1.20 auoucheth, that the Adulterie of Dauid, was the proper worke of God; as was the Conuersion of Paul. Ia∣cobus Andreas100) 1.21 auerreth, that according to Beza, God is the Authour of sinne. And yet al these plaine testimonies notwithstanding,101) 1.22 D. Whi∣taker blusheth not to say: If Caluin, Pet. Martir, Melancthon, Luther, or any of ours affirme, God to be the Authour of sinne, I wil not deny, but that we are al guiltie of horrible blasphemie and wickednes.

And as Protestants thus ioyne with Simon Magus in making God the Authour of sinne; so likewise do they with Apollinaris and Eutyches affirme, the verie Godhead of Christ to haue suffred and died. D. Barnes102) 1.23 reporteth one of the condemned Heresies of Apollinaris to haue bene; that Christ being dead for three dayes, the Diuinitie dyed withal. And103) 1.24 Beza confesseth, that Eutyches affirmed, the Godhead of Christ to haue suffred. Agreably to these,104) 1.25 D. Luther sayth: When I thinke that only the humane Nature suffred for me, Christ is of vile and smal price, yea himself hath also need of a Sauiour. Yea he reproueth the Zuinglians, for that, sayth he, most obstinately they vrge against me, that the Diuinitie of Christ could not suffer. And the same blasphemie or rather Atheisme, is taught by Musculus, Islebius,105) 1.26 Gerlabius, Iacobus106) 1.27 Andreas, and the other Lutherans. And yet D. Abbot107) 1.28 is not abashed to giue D. Bishop the lye, for his obiecting that, Luther affirmed the Godhead itself to suffer.

In like sorte, Ireneus108) 1.29 condemning the Gnosticks for teaching Christ to haue beene ignorant, and to haue learned his A. B. C. vnder a Maister; and S. Gregorie109) 1.30 confuting the same errour in the Agnoites: The same errour is yet taught by110) 1.31 Beza, Bucer, Caluin, D. Willet, D. Sutclif and other Pro∣testant

writers. I might produce sundrie other ancient condemned Here∣sies, now renewed and defended by our new Protestant Church; but it may suffice to the eternal infamie thereof, First, that denying Frewil, it is condemned in the Manichees, by S. Hierome, and S. Austin. Secondly affirming only Faith to be sufficient to saluation, it is condemned in Eunomius111) 1.32 by S. Austin. Thirdly, that denying of the diuersitie of Merits, it is condemned in Iouinian, by S. Austin and S. Ambrose. Fourthly Impugning the possibilitie of keeping the commandments, it is condemned in certaine old Hereticks, by S. Hierome & S. Austin. Fiftly, denying Inherent Iustice, it is condemned in the Pelagians, by S. Austin. Sixtly, Affirming God to be the Authour of sinne, it is condemned in Simon Magus by Vincentius, and by S. Austin. Seauenthly, teaching the God∣head of Christ to haue suffred and dyed, it is condemned in Apollinaris, and Eutyches. Lastly, teaching Christ to haue been ignorant, it is condemned in the Gnosticks by S. Ireneus; & in the Agnoïtes by S. Gregorie; So that we stil finde a sympathie and vnion in sundrie of the chiefest points of Religion, between the ancient Hereticks, Manicheus, Eunomius, Iouinian, Pelagius, Simon Magus, Apollinaris, Eutyches, the Gnosticks, and Agnoites, and nouel Protestants of the on syde; and the ancient most holie Fathers, S. Hierome, Gregorie, Vincent, Austin and Ambrose, and the Roman Church, of the other side.

Yea so grateful schollars are our Protestants to their old Maisters, and so otherwise naked of better answer, that they doubt not to reproue the ancient Doctours and Fathers of the Primitiue Church, and to commend and defend the condemned Hereticks of the same time; so professing to disclaime from the Faith and Religion taught by the old Fathers, and to adhere and embrace the grosse & wicked errours broached by Hereticks. D. Abbot111) 1.33 professeth, That though Hierome and Austin haue for some points taxed Iouinian, and Vigilantius, (as Hereticks) and Epiphanius, in an other point Aerius; yet is that no sufficient motiue for vs (saith he) to forsake those opinions of Ioui∣nian, Aerius and Vigilantius. In like sorte sayth (112) D. Willet; Some of these as they are imputed to Protestants, we deny to be Heresies at al, as that of Vigilantius, that Relickes are not to be adored; of Iouinians, that neither fasting nor Virginitie is meritorious; of Aerius, that prayer is not to be made for the dead &c.113) 1.34 And if Aerius held no worse opinions, we see no cause why they should condemne him for an Heretick &c.112) 1.35 (11) But neither was Vigilantius an Heretick, nor his opinions Heresies.115) 1.36 Bucanus demandeth, whether the Fathers deseruedly numbred amongst He∣reticks the opinion of Aerius, who sayd there was no difference between a Bishop and a Priest?114) 1.37 Wherto himself answereth, no truly, no more then these which were his opinions: First, that we ought not to pray and Sacrifice for the dead. Secondly, that Saincts departed are not to be prayed vnto. Thirdly, that certaine dayes of Fasts are not to he appointed: Of which last sayth116) 1.38 D. Whitaker, Aerius taught nothing concerning fasting different from the Catholick Faith; whereby he meaneth the Pro∣testant. Faith Yea Aerius and his errours, are further defended against the Fathers by D. Fulk,117) 1.39 by Daneus, Osiander, M. Parker, and the Centurie-Wr ters. And Iouinian is defended against S. Hierome, and S. Austin, by the118) 1.40 Centurists, by Daneus, and Luther; as also Vigilantius, against S. Hierome, by the Magdeburgians, and by D. Mortona) 1.41 saying; Concerning that, Vigilantius intended only the honour of God by expelling Idolatrie, then may we wish that S.

Hierome had been a Vigilantius, in the case of Relicks of Saints. Yea (saith D. Fulk*) 1.42 Hierome in this case, is a partial witnes, inueighing against Vigilantius, which was as good a Catholick, as he &c. who did iustly mislike the superstious estimation of Relicks, and write a booke against it; which Hierome doth not confute with arguments so much, as with rayling &c. S. Hierome defending against Vigilantius, the Christian custome of burning Candles at the Monuments of Saints, is therfore censu∣red by the French Protestant for (6) an Idolater, and defender of Idolatrie; who also further addes, that Vigilantius laughing at that custome, did proue himself more Christian, and more faithful to God, then Hierome &c. Yea if I knew Hierome to haue dyed in that errour, I would neuer cal him Sainct, but as damned as the Diuel. In like forte, S. Hierome writing against Vigilantius for prayer to Saints, the same Pro∣testant sayth:c) 1.43 I thinke Hierom when he writ these words against Vigilantius,119) 1.44 was driuen into rage, and depriued of sense and vnderstanding. So greeuously displea∣sing was S. Hierome, to both old and new borne Hereticks.

The Armenians not mingling water with wine in the Chalice are defended by D. Fulk,120) 1.45 saying: The Armenians are commendable in this point, that they would neuer yeald to custome. Lastly the Magician himself is defended against Theodoret by Osiander,121) 1.46 for denying the signe of the Crosse,b) 1.47 and the vertue and power therof against Diuels. So cleere it is, euen by the ful confessions of our Protestants them selues, that the doctrines condemned in the old Hereticks, by the Doctours and Fathers of the primitiue church, are now renewed, defended, and beleeued by Protestants themselues.

Notes

• 81) 1.1

  in Proē. lib. cont. Pelagianos fin.
• 82) 1.2

  de fide cont. Ma∣nich. c. 9.
• 83) 1.3

  de vni∣uersali gra∣tia p. 109.
• 84) 1.4

  her. 54.
• 85) 1.5

  de Eccl. p. 301.
• 86) 1.6

  de Tem. ser. 191.
• 87) 1.7

  Conc. Telense & Rescript. Ambrosij & aliorum ad Siricium Papā ibid.
• 88) 1.8

  In expl. symb. ad Damas.
• 89) 1.9

  De tem. ser. 191.
• 90) 1.10

  Cōment. de penit. l. 1. fol. 55.
• (a) 1.11

  Inst. l. 2. c. 7 §. 5.
• 91) 1.12

  Tom. 2. Wittemb. f. 216 Cent. 4. col. 1248.
• 92) 1.13

  Cont. Iul. Pelag. l. 6. c. 11.
• 93) 1.14

  Epist. 1. c. 10. Conc. Mileu. c. 3. & August. l. 1. Retract. c. 13. & ep. 106.
• 94) 1.15

  Lib. cont. haer. post. med.
• 96) 1.16

  In assert. art. 36.
• 97) 1.17

  In l. 3. c. 23. sect. 6.
• 98) 1.18

  Tom. de Prouid. Dei fol. 365.
• 95) 1.19

  Ad art. sibi falso impet art. 10.
• 99) 1.20

  In Rom. 8.
• 100) 1.21

  Epit. Colloq. mon∣tisb. p. 47.
• 101) 1.22

  Cont. Camp. rat. 8. p. 115.
• 102) 1.23

  Vit. Rom. Pon∣tific. p. 46. 103 Resp. ad act. col. montisbel. part. 1. p 82
• 103) 1.24

  In Cō∣fessione ma∣iore de canae Dom••ni.
• 104) 1.25

  In Cre••anor. Dial. de corrup. mu∣ribus &c. f. 5.
• 105) 1.26

  Cont. Busaeum. p. 24 126.
• 106) 1.27

  R••sp. ad act. Col. Montisb. p. 82. 92.
• 107) 1.28

  Def. ad Park. 3. p. 240.
• 108) 1.29

  l. 1. c. 17.
• 109) 1.30

  l. 3. Indict. 3. Ep 42.
• 110) 1.31

  Resp. ad act. Col. Montisb. part. 1 147. 148. 134. Buc. & Caluin. in Math 24. wil Synop. p. 599. 600. Sunt. Re∣uiew of D. Kellisons suruey p. 55.
• 111) 1.32

  Defen∣ce of Par∣kins. part. 3. in the ad∣uertisment annexed p. 60.
• 111) 1.33

  Defen∣ce of Par∣kins. part. 3. in the ad∣uertisment annexed p. 60.
• 113) 1.34

  Tetra∣stylon. p. 97.
• 112) 1.35

  Anti∣log. p. 23.
• 115) 1.36

  Loc. com. loc. 42. p. 513.
• 114) 1.37

  Ib. p. 99.
• 116) 1.38

  Cont. Dur. l. 9. p. 830.
• 117) 1.39

  Answ. to a Count. Cath. p. 45 Dan. de hae∣res. f. 175. 177. Osiand. cent. 4. p. 434. Park. against Sym. part. 1. p. 60 cent. 4 Col. 401.
• 118) 1.40

  Cent. 4. Col. 381. Dan. Part. alt. p. 938. Lut. Thom. 2. f. 282.
• a) 1.41

  Prot. Appeal. p. 583.
• *) 1.42

  Against Rhem. Test. in apoc. 6.
• c) 1.43

  Ibi. p. 239.
• 119) 1.44

  Cent. 4. col. 601.
• 120) 1.45

  Def. of the English Transl. c. 17. p. 458.
• 121) 1.46

  Cent. 4. p. 326.
• b) 1.47

  Clypeus fid. Dial. 8. p. 223.