his holy spirit it must needes followe that vvhosoeuer is infected with any one such heresie is void of al spiritual life and in state of damnation and can haue no more life then a mans arme cut off from his body or a bough cut from a tree But of this matter I shal entreate more at large Chap. 1. Sect. 4. in my treatise of the definition and notes of the true Church vvhere I shal proue that the members of Christes Church are lincked together by the profession of the same vvhole summe of Christian doctrine and therefore for this present this shal suffice And lesse I thinke would haue satisfied any reasonable man for seing that there is but one true rule of beleefe Ephes 4. vers 4. and one faith according as vve are taught by the Apostle among Christians and this faith is so necessary to saluation as I haue proued before no wise-man wil prescribe himselfe a rule of faith according to his owne erroneous fancy and neglect the judgement of the Church whome truth it selfe hath warranted that she shal not erre from truth Chapter 7. Of the holy Scripture which is the first particuler ground of faith in the Catholike Church SECTION THE FIRST Howe the Scripture is knowne to be Canonical THE supreame authority and infallible judgement of the Church being thus established and proued it may wel in this place be demanded vvhat particuler groundes decrees or principles the Church doth deliuer vnto vs or we finde in the Church whereupon we may securely build our faith For the resolution of this question I haue affirmed in the title of this Chapter that the first such particuler ground is the holy Scripture And although there be no controuersie betweene vs and our aduersaries concerning the authority of diuers bookes of the said holy Scripture for most of them by vs al are confessed to be Canonical yet much difference there is betweene vs concerning the meanes by vvhich vve knowe the holie Scripture and euery parcel thereof to be the true vvord of God and vvho is to be judge of the true sence of these diuine volumes vvherefore these points are briefly to be handled and discussed Howe then doe vve knowe that the old and newe Testament are Canonical howe can vve certainely assure our selues that the Apostles and Disciples vvrote the newe vvhat proofe likevvise haue vve to perswade vs that no part of the holie Scripture hath beene in times past corrupted or depraued I answere in fewe vvordes that al this is infallibly knowne vnto vs by the authority and judgement of the Catholike Church vvho hath adjudged al such bookes to be Canonical and as Canonical receiued them and deliuered them to her children I denie not but the Scriptures before the definition and censure of the Church vvere true and contained the certaine and sincere vvord of God but this only I say that this truth and authority was first infallibly knowne vnto vs by the Church vvho adjudged and censured them to be as they are and as such commanded al Christians to esteeme and reuerence them Neither is this any waies prejudicial to the dignity and authority of the holie Scripture for this notwithstanding vve confesse that the said Scripture is of farre greater authority then the Church or her definitions be vvhich is manifest because although the holie Ghost assist and direct both the vvriters of holie Scripture and the Church yet certaine it is that hee hath assisted and directed the first after a farre more excellent manner then he doth the second because his assistance and direction in penning those sacred bookes vvas such that euery sentence in them contained is of most certaine verity but his assistance vnto the Church vvhether it be in a general Councel or otherwise in the decrees of the Bishop of Rome maketh only that vvhich the said Councel or Bishop intend to define of such an infallible truth Wherefore then doe vve proue the Scripture to be Canonical by the authority of the Church Surely for no other reason then because the Church is better knowne vnto vs then the Scripture For the Church hath alwaies beene as I vvil proue hereafter most visible and apparant to the vvhole vvorld euery man also before that the newe Testament vvas written before that it vvas generally receiued by the Church might haue knowne the Church for she vvas before any part of it was penned and consequently by her infallible judgement euery one might with farre more ease and certainety haue come to the knowledge of such bookes then by any other meanes or industry Wherefore to conclude although the Church maketh not Scripture yet of her we learne most certainely which is Scripture And this is no more disgrace vnto Scripture then it was vnto Christ that the Apostles gaue testimony of him because they were better knowne then he I adde also that euery one of them who aboue al others reprehend this our assertion taketh vpon himselfe as great authority ouer Scriptures as vve giue to the whole Church See part second chap. 5. Sect. 1. For euery newe sectarie out of his owne fancy judgeth this to be Scripture that to be none c. vvhich must needes be in euery mans judgement farre more absurd This assertion being thus explicated let vs nowe briefly proue the same And first because vve can assigne no other meanes by vvhich vve may say that vve certainely knowe the Scripture to be Canonical but the authority of the Church And as concerning the old Testament although vve graunt that the authority thereof vvas first partly approued by miracles partly by the testimony of Prophets and partly by the authority of the Church in those daies yet howe doe vve nowe infallibly knowe that it vvas so approued and that it is the selfe same nowe that vvas then approued but by the relation tradition and censure of the Church But let vs come to the newe Testament and demand vvho hath receiued it into the Canon of holie Scripture vvhat miracles haue beene vvrought to proue it Canonical who doth assure vs that it vvas penned by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ and that since their daies it hath not beene corrupted Verily the Church only resolueth vs of al these questions and telleth vs vvith assurance of truth that the said newe Testament vvas vvritten by the said sacred authours inspired and directed by the holy Ghost and that euer since their daies it hath beene preserued in her sacred bosome vvithout corruption And no other answere hauing any probability of truth and sufficient to satisfie a reasonable mans vnderstanding can be made This may also be confirmed by the continual practise of the Church For no man can deny but it vvas her doing that the foure Gospels of S. Mathewe Marke Luke and Iohn See part 2 chap. 5. Sect. 2. were receiued and the Gospel called of Nicodemus with others rejected She hath likwise now receiued as Canonical diuers bookes in times past of
they are obscure which obscurity partlie as he saith ariseth through the high and excellent nature of the thinges in them contained which if we admit the thinges contained in the Scripture be no good meane for vs to come to the knowledge of Scripture And moreouer certaine it is that the euidence of thinges contained in the Scripture is no more manifest vnto vs then the Scriptures themselues and therefore for this reason also it cannot be any good Medium to proue these Canonical Field and al his fellowes to al these reasons objected against them seeme to answere that in very deede these motiues of themselues are not sufficient to perswade euerie man of the diuine truth of these bookes yet that they are fullie sufficient to perswade him that is endued with the habite of faith or hath a diuine illumination or inspiration of the spirit and commeth to reade the Scriptures vvith pure eies and perfect senses yea Caluin in his whole discourse touching the knowledge of canonical Scripture seemeth altogether to flie to diuine inspiration whence proceed these his sentences Caluin Insâ—it book 1. chap. 7. § 4. and 5. The manner of perswasion touching the diuine truth of Scriptures must be fetched euen from the secret testimonie of the holy Ghost They doe disorderly that by disputation trauaile to establish the perfect credite of the Scripture The word of God shal neuer finde credit in the hearts of men vntil it be sealed vp with the inward witnesse of the holy Ghost They whom the holy Ghost hath inwardly taught doe wholie rest vpon the Scripture Though by the only majesty of it self it procureth reuerence to be giuen to it if then only it throughly pearceth our affections when it is sealed in our hearts by the holy Ghost hitherto are Caluins wordes I reply first that this taketh not away the necessity of reading or hearing read euery sentence of these diuine bookes before we can knowe them to be Canonical or discerne what we are bound to beleeue Secondly of this it followeth that before a man can discerne whether any booke be Canonical or no he must not only haue faith or a supernatural light of the holy Ghost but must also most assuredly and infallibly knowe himselfe to haue such a faith or such an illumination And how wil they make vs beleeue this and also perswade vs that the Scripture is the ground and rule of our beliefe which likewise they euen as earnestly teach can pure eies perfect senses and the light of faith be had without knoweledge of that which is the verie ground and rule of faith Must not the ground be knowne and had before vve can attaine vnto that which is built vpon the said ground If it must and the whole Canon of Scripture be the ground of our faith as they say then must the whole Canon of Scripture be infalliblie knowne before vve can haue such faith and consequently the light of faith cannot be a meane whereby we are to come to the knowledge of the said Canon of Scripture or any parcel thereof But because al Sectaries vsually both in this and other pointes seeme most to relie vpon the inspiration and illumination of the spirit by which as they say al matters are made euident vnto them and they are assured of the diuine truth of them although to others not enlightened the same matters seeme doubtful from vvhence it proceedeth that Field affirmeth themselues to rest in the light of diuine vnderstanding Field booke 4. chapt 13. § This judgement as in that whereby they judge of al things Let vs confute the certainety of this illumination or inspiration concerning such particuler pointes especially touching the knowledge of diuine Scripture a litle more at large And first thus I argue If there be such a certaine illumination or inspiration either God by this illumination or inspiration doth so teach and direct euerie man concerning euery article of faith that they cannot erre or some men only and those only touching some articles That he doth not so direct al concerning al articles it is euident and confessed by our aduersaries who acknowledg some to be Heretiks as the Anabaptists and Swencfeldians others to erre as diuers of sundry sects c. That he doth not likewise direct some concerning al points it is euident for there is no one Sectary can be named but hath erred in some point or other especially if we admit the judgment of other of his brethren to be true yea Caluin himselfe confesseth that euery man is subject to errour Calu. iÌ„ 1. Cor. 2. v. 15. See and no man is exempted from it But euery one saith he as he is regenerated according to the measure of grace giuen him doth judg truly and certainely but no further thus Caluin of the same opinion are others Lubbertus de priÌ„cipijs christian dog p. 563. HieroÌ„ Zauchius de script pag. 411. 412. If some only be so infallibly directed those only concerning some articles first it followeth that god hath not sufficientlie prouided for the direction of men in matters of beliefe for he hath prescribed and giuen no certaine guide in al points or certaine meane to know when their direction is infallible concerning any and when it is not Of vvhich it may secondly be inferred that no man can assure himselfe that he is at any time concerning any point infallibly inspired which vncertainty is also increased not only by this that the deuil doth oftentimes as the Apostle saith transfigure himselfe into an Angel of light 2. Corinth 11. vers 14. but also by the experience of the fal and error of diuers of their owne company and that by their owne confession concerning some when they thought theÌ„selues to be inspired by the spirit as it falleth out in the Anabaptists and diuers others Nay in al the Lutherans if we beleeue the Sacramentaries and in al the Sacramentaries if we may giue credit to the Lutherans but certainly in one side or other of these because their opinions or illuminations be opposite but we may vvel say on both because one bringeth no stronger proofe for his illumination then the other What wise man then wil or can build his faith vpon such an illumination or direction Besides this Part. 1. chap. 7. Sect. 3. I haue shewed in the first part of this treatise that no priuate person or Prelate of the Church is ordinarilie so directed by the holy Ghost that he cannot erre of vvhich it followeth that no man ordinarily hath such a diuine inspiration I adde also that God doth ordinarily proceed in the gouernment and direction of men by common rules directions not by priuate and particuler and not without cause for the first causeth charity vnity order and humility of the other springeth enmity diuision confusion and pride which reason is touched by Hooker a wise and learned Protestant Hooker book 5. of Ecclesiastical policy § 10. who rejecteth such
and moreouer that this was Luthers opinion it may be gathered out of f Caluin Instit c. 16. § 19 Caluin and g Whitaker in his answ to Campians 8. reason p. 243. Whitakers Besides this he holdeth that the soules departed out of this vvorld sleepe and are without sense or feeling neither in heauen nor in hel and so shal remaine vntil the day of judgement But of this point of his doctrine see more in the second part of my treatise following I cannot likewise omit his h Luther in serm de Sacram. coenae to 2. f. 112. c. opinion concerning the presence of Christs humane nature in euery place together vvith his diuinity of vvhich proceed these vvordes of Zwinglius vnto him i Zwingl in respōs ad Luther l. de Sacra f. 401. If thou shalt contumaciously goe on in this sentence that the humanity of Christ IESVS is essentially and corporally present wheresoeuer is his diuinity God willing we wil bring thee to those straights that either thou shalt be forced to deny the whole Scripture of the new testament or to acknowledge Marcions heresie This I say in good faith we promise we wil doe thus Zwinglius And by this heresie defended by the Lutherans of his time Caluin k Caluin Instit booke 4. ch 17. §. 16. c. Zwing l. tom 2. ep ad quādam Germaniae ciuitatē fol. 196. lib. de Baptis fol. 63. c. auoucheth that Marcion is raised vp out of hel The Geneuian diuines in the preface to the Harmony of confessions published in the name of the Churches of France and Belgia tearme it that vnhappy monster of vbiquity which if it be admitted say they wil quite ouerthrowe the true doctrine of Christs person and natures But of Luther enough Zwinglius doctrine concerning the Sacraments vvas most prophane for he made them only external signes and denied them any inward effect in the soule wherefore as I haue before noted it is worthily condemned and rejected not only by Luther and his followers but also in wordes by * Caluin lib. de coena l. 4. Instit cap. 15. §. 1. Caluin Moreouer a Zwingl in exposit fidei Chrstianae art 12. Zwinglius also placeth Hercules Theseus Socrates Numa Camillus the Catoes Scipions and other Pagans and Idolaters with the holy Patriarks and Apostles in heauen Of which his assertion Luther discourseth thus b Luther ad c. 47. Genes Zwinglius of late hath written that Numa Pompilius Hector Scipio Hercules enjoy eternal blisse in heauen with Peter Paul other Saints which is no other thing then openly to confesse that he thinketh there is no faith no Christianisme c. He addeth much more against him and of this inferreth that Zwinglius is of that minde that a man doing his best may be saued in any religion whatsoeuer vvhich in very deede is expresly by him taught in c Zwingl to 2. in declarat de peccato Original f. 118 another place Neuerthelesse this doctrine of Zwinglius touching the saluation of Infidels is maintained by d Rodolph Gualterus in Apolog pro libris Zwinglij Rodolphus Gualterus e Bullinger in Germani cōfess Eccles Figurinae Bullenger f Simlerus in vita Bullingeri c. Simlerus Daniel Tossanus and other Sacramentaries But no opinion of Zwinglius is more impious and sacrilegious then that by which he maketh God the author and cause of sinne In vpholding which blaspheamous impiety Iohn Caluin joineth hands with him If it were not that I should exceed the breuity of a preface I vvould manifestly conuince them guilty of this crime by their owne printed workes published to the viewe of the whole vvorld but I vvil here put off this manner of proofe to another place and nowe only confirme the truth of mine accusation by the testimony of some learned Protestants Albertus Grawerus rector of the Lutheran vniuersity of Eislebium in Germany about the yeare of our Lord 1597. published a booke vvith this title The warre of Iohn Caluin and of IESVS Christ God and man that is An antithesis or opposition of the doctrine of the Caluinists and of Christ in which the most horrible blaspheamies of the Caluinists especially concerning foure articles the person of Christ the supper of the Lord baptisme and predestination are faithfully shewed from the eie to the eie out of their owne proper writings and bookes and are briefly and soundly refelled out of the word of God thus hath the title And this booke hath beene printed three times among the Lutherans for I haue seene the third edition printed at Magdeburge in the yeare 1605. so plausible is it to the Lutheran churches Neuerthelesse it being oppugned and answered by some Caluinists the same author replied vvith an other booke vnto which he gaue this title Absurda absurdorum absurdissima Caluinistica absurda c. The absurde the most absurde of absurde Caluinistical absurde thinges that is an inuincible demonstration logical philosophical theological of some horrible paradoxes of the Caluinian doctrine in the article of the person of Christ the supper of the Lord baptisme and predestination of the children of God written by M. Albert Grawere Rector of the famous Vniuersity of Eislebium of the Earles of Mansfeld in defence of his Caluinian warre c. Cum gratia priuilegio at Magdeburge an 1605. hitherto are the vvordes of the title That vvhich maketh in these bookes for my present purpose is that which he deliuereth concerning the opinion of Caluin and the Caluinists touching the predestination of the children of God for in the fore-front of the last treatise after the title of the booke this Lutheran placeth this sillogisme Quodcunque dogma c. What opinion soeuer maketh God the author of sinne is not of God The Caluinian opinion maketh God the author of sinne therefore it is not of God For proofe of the minor or second proposition which is that the Caluinian doctrine maketh God the author of sinne he referreth his reader to the fift chapter of his booke following in vvhich in very deede he manifestly proueth it by diuers sentences alleaged out of Caluin Beza and other Sacramentaries Perhaps some man wil demaund what is this to Zwinglius I answere although Zwinglius in very deede be properly no Caluinist for he vvas before Caluin yet because nowe the Caluinists beare al the sway and haue almost eaten vp the Zwinglians as also because the differences betweene Zwinglius and Caluin vvere not great and notorious it pleaseth the Lutherans to number Zwinglius among the Caluinists yea to cal al the Sacramentaries Caluinists Hence Grawerus among other Caluinists making God the authour of sinne often alleageth Zwinglius and proueth him guilty of the same impiety They are likewise accused of making of God the author of sinne by Luke Osiander another Lutheran who hauing related and confuted certaine their assertions touching Christ thus beginneth the seauenth chapter of his booke
things which were determined out of the scriptures in the Councel at Nice at Ephesus Constantinople Chalcedon adde also the fift and sixt by the godlie Fathers against Arius Samosatenus Apollinaris Nestorius Eutiches the Monotholites Whosoeuer therefore teacheth concerning Christs person against the determinations of those Councels certainelie they doe not rightly hold this principal foundation of Christian religion These are the discourses of Zauchius The like he hath in another place Zauchius in his obseruations vpon his confession vpon the 25. chap. pag. 330 where he expresly saith that The decrees of such Councels come from the holy Ghost and that he cannot disproue them with a good conscience Further if we weaken the authority of such Councels we must needs also make weake the authority of some books of holy scripture as of the a See part 1. chap. 7. sect 1. part 2. chap. 5. sect 2. epistle to the Hebrewes the Apocalipse and other such parcels of the written word of God of which there was some doubt in the Church whether they were Canonical or no vntil the matter was defined by general Councel Finally let vs confirme al that I haue here said by the testimony of b Hooker in the preface to his book of ecclesiastical policy pa. 24. 25. 26. 27. Hooker whom our English sectaries commonly esteeme as highly as any other He then first telleth vs that there are but two certaine waies of peaceable conclusion the one a sentence of judicial decision giuen among our selues the other the like kinde of sentence giuen by a more vniuersal authority and he meaneth by Councels The former of which two waies saith he God in the law prescribeth and his spirit it was which directed the very first Christian Churches to vse the second This he proueth by the proceedings of the Church touching the controuersie about the necessity of circumcision mentioned in the c Act. 15. Acts of the Apostles vvhich after great contention vvas ended by a Councel and he demaundeth of the Puritans whether they are able to alleage any just cause wherefore they should not condescend absolutely in the matter controuersed to haue their judgements ouer-ruled by some such definitiue sentence whether it fal out with them or against them that so saith he these tedious contentions may cease He addeth that without some definitiue sentence it is almost impossible that either confusion should be avoided or hope be had to attaine to peace Againe To smal purpose had the Councel of Hierusalem beene assembled if once their determination being set downe men might afterwards haue defended their former opinions when therefore they had giuen their definitiue sentence al controuersies was at end thinges were disputed before they came to be determined men afterwards were not to dispute any longer but to obey the sentence of judgement finished their strife which their disputers before judgement could not doe This was ground sufficiēt for any reasonable mans conscience to build the duty of obedience vpon whatsoeuer his owne opinion were as touching the matter before in question So ful of wilfulnes selfe-liking is our nature that without some defititiue sentence which being giuen may stand and a necessity of silence on both sides afterwards imposed smal hope there is that strifes thus farre prosecuted wil in short time quietly end thus he And to make this his discourse the stronger he likewise alleageth the authority of Beza Beza praefat tract de excom et presbit who saith he in his last booke saue one written about these matters professeth himselfe to be nowe weary of such combats and encounters whether by word or writing in asmuch as he findeth that controuersies thereby are made brawles and therefore he wisheth that in some common lawful assembly of Churches al these strifes may at once be decided Hitherto Hooker To the same effect he might also Luther li. cōt Zuīg et Oecolā haue alleaged the testimonie of Luther vvho considering the wonderful multitude of dissentions about religion among his sectaries themselues auouched that for the ending of them if the world long indure he saw no other meanes but that they should be forced to haue recourse to general Councels I could alleage the like sentences out of Couel Couel in his defēce of Hooker See before chap. 6. section 4. 50. 51. who wisheth that some general Councel might be assembled for the final end of al controuersies And hither also tend the discourses of those Protestants who as I haue aboue related make the constitutions of the Church diuine But it may perhaps be answered by some man to these testimonies of our aduersaries that notwithstanding al these their assertions they make general Councels absolutely subject to errour I answere and confesse that in very deede they doe so yet I affirme that any wise and discreete man may wel gather out of their sayinges alleaged not only that general Councels are needful in the Church and that al their deuision and dissention proceedeth of their denial of the authority of such Councels But also that it was requisite and necessary that Christ who is neuer wanting to his Church in thinges needful should make the authority of general Councels concerning matters of faith infallible For otherwise if they were subject to errour what reason hath man to obey them in matters of such consequence especially considering that diuers such assemblies vnlaweful consisting of a greater multitude of Bishoppes then some lawful general Councels haue erred and straied from the truth Finally they confesse that the first such Councels assembled in the first ages of Christianity erred not And thus much for the proofe of this matter It may perhaps be here further demaunded what conditions we require to a lawful and authentical general Councel I answere briefly first that such a Councel must either be called expresly by the ministerial head of the Church or at the least with his assent Secōdly the summon must be general of al Bishops throughout the world Thirdly although it be not needeful that al be personallie and reallie present yet a competent number must appeare that is to say some at the least out of the greater part of Christian Catholike prouinces yet if it be assembled in the East a smal number of the West sent to supply the place of al the rest are judged to suffice Contrariwise if in the West a smal number in such sort is sufficient out of the East Fourthly the ministerial head or vicegerent of Christ must either be present in person or by his Legates And finally the decrees of the said Councel must be by him confirmed and this both because the head is chiefe ruler of the body and consequently the body is to doe nothing without the assent of the head and also because he hath singuler priuileges granted him by Christ of not erring as shal be declared in the next chapter Hence it proceedeth that no general Councel hath euer in the Church beene held
themselues and of this their ground because the matter is of great importaunce I purpose to discourse something at large And first I wil shewe in this chapter that the bare and naked letter onlie of holie Scripture is not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion Then in the chapters following I wil proue that although we should grant the letter to be a sufficiēt ground yet that their bibles containe not the true letter Thirdly that although this were also granted yet that they build not vpon the letter contained in their owne Bibles Lastly that in translating and expounding the holie Scriptures they followe their owne fancies and judgement and that they haue no other certaine and infallible ground Caluin de ve ra Eccles reform ratione pag. 473. Apologie of the Church of Englād pag. 58. Articles of faith agrreed vpō the cōuocations of the yeares 1562. 1604. I come to the first It is a common maxime or principle among al newe Sectaries that the scriptures only containe al thinges necessary to our saluation and that nothing is to be beleeued or necessarily to be obserued vvhich is not expresly taught commaunded or allowed in the same or as some of them adde manifestlie gathered out of them * Harmony of confes sect 1. In controuersies of religion saith the confession of Heluetia or matters of faith we cannot admit any other judge then God himselfe pronouncing by the holy scriptures what is true what false what is to be followed or what auoided Al thinges ought to be tried by the rule and square of holy scripture saith the French confession Al things which are needful to be knowne to saluation are contained in the Prophets and Apostles writings saith that of Wittenberg And out of this ground they argue against vnwritten traditiōs ceremonies positiue lawes of the Church c. But that this doctrine is false euen according to their owne proceedings supposing that to be true vvhich they affirme concerning the infallible authority of the Church to wit that it is not expressed in the said scripture nor out of it deduced it is an easie matter to demonstrate to euerie mans eie for first this authority of the Church being set aside by vvhat Scripture can they proue the Scripture it selfe to be Canonical And seing that I am to discourse of this argument and their assertions be intricate I wil not only proue that according to this ground they haue no canonical Scripture but also absolutely that by no other means they giue it any infallible or diuine authority First therefore I may very wel frame this argument against the whole Bible out of their aforesaid ground Nothing is to be beleeued but that which is expresly taught in the written word of god or manifestly gathered out of the same but that the Bible is canonical Scripture it is neither taught in the written word of God nor manifestly gathered out of the same therfore it is not to be beleeued that the bible is canonical Scripture The major or first proposition containeth their aforesaid ground the minor or second is approued by Hooker who writeth thus Of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what books we are bound to esteeme holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And this afterwards he confirmeth with this reason For saith he if any one book of scripture did giue testimony to al yet stil that Scripture which giueth credit to the rest would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it neither could we euer come into any pause whereon to rest our assurance this way so that vnlesse besides Scripture there were something which might assure vs that we doe wel we could not thinke we doe wel no not in being assured that Scripture is a sacred and holy rule of wel-doing thus Hooker And this argument is of such force that it hath constrained some of them and among the rest the said a Hooker in his treatis of lawes of ecclesiastical policy booke 1. p. 84. book 2. § 4. p. 100. 102 Zauch in his confessiō c. 1. Brent in prolog Kemn in exam Concil Tridentini Hooker Zauchius Brentius and Kemnitius to flie from Scriptures vnto tradition for the proofe of this matter yea b Hook book 3. § 8. p. 146. See Whitak contr Staple l. 2. c. 4. pag. 298. 300. some of them affirme that this only tradition concerning canonical Scripture is to be rejected c Obseruations vpon the Harmonie of confessiōs published by those of Geneua fol. 593. Others and among them the Geneuian doctors affirme that some books of which there was heretofore some doubt among the ancient doctors of the church were receiued as Canonical by the common consent of the whole Catholike Church and therefore that they are not to be refused But who seeth not First that these men bewray the weaknes of the aforesaid general ground concerning the sufficiency of holy Scripture alone then that if the tradition of the Church yea the Church it selfe in her judicial sentence as they al affirme may erre in one point that it may also erre in al others of the same quality and consequently that the authority or tradition of the Church cannot infallibly argue the Scriptures to be of diuine authority Caluin instit book 1. cap. 7. § 1.2.4 et 5. Caluin answereth that the holy books of Scripture by them that haue the spirit are easily discerned from others by themselues as light from darknesse and sweetnes from sowrenes or bitternes And this his opinion is embraced by diuers and among the rest by Whitakers Thomas Rogers and Field and therefore is with some diligence to be refelled But before I enter into the confutation of it I must affirme as certaine that al these authors require in euery man to this that assuredly he beleeue the holy scriptures to be from God a supernatural inspiration of the holy ghost That Caluin doth so his sentences hereafter alleaged plainly declare * Whit. ī his answ to Campians first reason pag. 47. Whitakers hauing affirmed That it is euen as euidēt the scriptures be from god as that the sunne is the sun or that god is God and also said that there are in the books themselues proofs inough to demonstrate it yet finally concludeth that the inward hidden testimony of the spirit must be bad that men may firmly rest in the scriptures Againe Then only doe we attaine a certaine sauing ful assurance when the same spirit which writ published them doth perswade our harts of the credit of them Rogers writeth thus a Rogers ī his discourse vpō the articles of faith agreed vpon in the conuocations of the years 1562. 1604. art 6. p. 31. 32. printed anno 1607. We judg these books before mentioned Canonical not somuch because learned and godly men in the Church so haue and doe receiue and allow of them as for that the holy spirit in our harts doth
precisely as they are the object of our faith they al haue no other euidence then diuine reuelation as is proued before which is alwaies obscure What then is this medium or meane according to Field Is it any humane conjecture motiue or probability This cannot be according to his owne doctrine as appeareth in the same place and the chapter before Nay in another place he telleth vs Book 4. chap. 20. § Much contention that the books of Scripture winne credite of themselues and yeeld sufficient satisfaction to al men of their diuine truth and therefore he seemeth to exclude al external proofe Is it then any thing contained in the things themselues Neither can this be said for euery thing contained in the thinges themselues belonging to their essence is as obscure as the things themselues be and consequently no such thing contained in the things themselues can be such a meane to manifest themselues vnto vs. And vvhat accident he vvil assigne in the articles of our faith making them manifest vnto vs I cannot imagine Secondly I cannot see how this assertion of Field doth agree with that his common principle Field book 4. chap. 13.8 book 3. chap. 42. auouching that the Scripture is the Canon and ground of their beliefe and that they rest in the determination of the word of God as in the rule of their faith For how can this be if the euidence of the things appearing vnto vs be sometimes the formal reason of our faith as is in like sort by him auerred But to make this discourse a litle more manifest let vs demaund a question or two in particuler of M. Field and see howe he vvil resolue them according to his doctrine deliuered I aske therefore of him why he beleeueth there be three persons and one God two natures in Christ and one person and the resurrection of our bodies Wil he answere that the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto him is the formal cause of his faith or inducing him to beleeue these misteries If he doe not he contradicteth his own doctrine If he doe he contradicteth both al sense and reason and also himselfe making the Scripture the ground of faith except he affirme these misteries to be euident not in themselues but in the medium or meane by force whereof they are beleeued For which medium if he wil be constant to himselfe he must assigne the holie Scripture vvhich Scripture he must say is beleeued through the authority of God himselfe whome vve doe most certainly discerne to speake in the word of faith which is another cause of beliefe assigned by him for such thinges as we beleeue and doe not knowe so that this authority of God is the last motiue not the holy Scripture and what other processe he wil make I cannot perceiue But what doth he and Caluin vnderstand by that other reason which he tearmeth The authority of God himselfe whome we doe certainly discerne to speake in the word of faith which is preached vnto vs and Caluin The majesty of God which doth present it selfe vnto vs What is this authority and majesty of God and how doe we so certainly discerne it Verily for my part I am so farre from knowing how to discerne it as I cannot vvel imagine vvhat they meane by it yet if I be not deceiued they affirme that the authority of God or his majestie is seene in the letter of holie Scripture vvhich moueth vs by a supernatural and most infallible assent to acknowledge it to be his holy word But first this is said gratis and vvithout any ground or reason for what authority or majesty can a man discerne in such bookes as our aduersaries receiue as Canonical more then in those which they reject For example what appeareth to vs more diuine in the bookes of Ecclesiastes then in the bookes of Ecclesiasticus surely nothing much lesse so much as may be an infallible and knowne meane to moue vs to beleeue the one as diuine and to reject the other as Apocriphal Moreouer howe doe vve knowe that this representation of diuine majestie or this diuine authoritie vvhich as vve conceaue doth represent it selfe vnto vs is not either some illusion of the Deuil or some strong imagination of our owne proceeding onlie from some affection which vpon some other motiues we beare to such and such bookes of Scripture Trulie we haue great cause to feare that it may proceed from some such affection seeing that Luther and most of al his Lutherans confesse al the Sacramentaries generallie to be deceaued in such their apprehensions concerning the epistle to the Hebrewes the epistle of Saint Iames the Apocalipse of S. Iohn and other parcels of Scripture And why not concerning others as vvel as these Vnto vvhich I adde that they commonly make their doctrine a rule whereby to try which is Scripture and vvhich is not as I vvil demonstrate hereafter and appeareth by the causes assigned by Luther vvhich moued him to reject the epistle of Saint Iames. It may also be objected against this their doctrine that of it it seemeth to followe that no man can be assured of the diuine authority of any other bookes of Scripture then of those which he hath read himselfe or heard others read For first no man can possibly proue to another that in reading such and such books he did discerne in then the authority of God himselfe speaking or that the diuine majesty did in them present it selfe vnto him vvherefore vnto this that a man may judg of holy Scripture he must himselfe read or heare the words and sentences read and this he must doe before he can haue any faith For seeing that they make the Scripture the rule and ground of their beliefe the Scripture must first be knowne before they can beleeue and seeing that no one booke containeth al things necessary to be beleeued but such things are dispersed through al it is necessarie that he know the whole Canon of Scripture and consequentlie that he reade or heare it al rehearsed sentence by sentence And what a Laborinth is this how can the vnlearned that cannot reade doe it Nay how many Protestants in the world haue euer performed it Wherefore I conclude that this rule or meane how to know holy Scripture is neither easie plaine certaine nOr vniuersal Perhaps it may be thought by some that Field assigneth the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto vs in holy Scriptures as the formal cause of our beleefe concerning their authority but this cannot be both because our beleefe concerning their Canonical authority seemeth to be concerning a matter of fact to wit vvhether they vvere penned by the instinct of the holie Ghost or no as also because a great part of them rehearseth matters of fact which Field denieth to be knowne by the authority of God himselfe whome we doe certainly discerne to speake in the word of faith Field book 4. chapt 15. Adde likewise that by his confession
judgment I may adde the whole Protestant Church of England who in their sixt article agreed vpon in their conuocations of the yeares 1562. and 1604. affirme that in the name of holy Scripture they vnderstand those Canonical books of the old and newe Testament of whose authority was neuer any doubt in the Church for they seeme to make the authoritie and Tradition of the Church the meane and rule vvhereby to knowe the diuine Scriptures Field booke 4. chap. 14. Yea Field himselfe in another place telleth vs that we cannot knowe the Scriptures to be of God without the knowledge of such principal articles as are contained im the Creed of the Apostles Of vvhich it may seeme laweful to conclude against him that some other thing is necessarie besides diuine inspiration and other motiues aboue by him assigned The Lutherans of Wittenberg confesse the Church to haue authority to judge of doctrines Harmonie of confess sect 10. p. 332. Author of the treatise of the scripture and the church c. 15. p. 72. see also c. 19. p. 74. 75. BulleÌ„ger in the praeface before that booke according to that Try the spirittes whether they be of God Another Protestant in a treatise of the Scripture and the Church highly commended by Bullenger plainely telleth vs that we could not beleeue the Gospel were it not that the Church taught vs and witnessed that this doctrine vvas deliuered by the Apostle and thus much against this opinion But it may be here objected against vs that we also according to the second opinion deliuered in the first part of this treatise concerning the last resolution of our faith allowe a supernatural gift or light by the concourse and help of vvhich vve firmely assent to Christian beliefe as reuealed by God and that therefore there is no cause wherefore we should so earnestly impugne the like assertion in others I answere that there is great difference betweene vs and our aduersaries concerning this point for whereas I haue shewed that they require a particular illumination and immediate instruction from God himselfe concerning euerie particuler booke and sentence of holy Scripture yea touching the exposition of euerie sentence as I vvil declare hereafter and by no prudential groundes or arguments of credibility are ordinarilie induced to this perswasion But seing that diuers of their owne company and those of the principal thinking themselues to be inspired haue erred haue rather according to prudence just cause not to stand vpon such illuminations We assigne the the light of faith for the beliefe of a common guide and general directour and so require not a particuler instruction for the beliefe of this and that particuler matter but hauing beleeued the said general guide of it receiue infallible and diuine instructions what particulerlie is to be beleeued Neither doe vve this vvithout any prudential motiue or credible reason but induced thereunto by most strong arguments of credibility Râ—chardus de S. Victore l. 1. de Trinit cap. 2. insomuch as vve may wel say with Richardus de sansto Victore that If we be deceiued God hath deceiued vs. Neither are vve by this perswaded arrogantlie to followe a priuate rule which is a fountaine of dissention and contrarie to the vsual proceedings of God but humblie to submit our selues and our vnderstanding to the authority of a general guide which is a preseruatiue of vnity and according to the common courses of that heauenlie King But before I passe from this matter I must needes haue a word or two with M. Field in particuler vvho requireth more then humane inducements or motiues as reasons by force whereof we are perswaded first to beleeue Field book 4. chap. 7. 8. and seemeth to require a diuine reason or testimonie conuincing that which is beleeued to be of diuine authoritie and so to impugne the first opinion of Catholikes concerning the last resolution of faith Part 1. chap. 7. sect 6. deliuered in the first part of this treatise For vvhereas the followers of that opinion assigne humane motiues as the first inducements to our beliefe or as causes vvhy we first accept of the same and bring no other external proofe that the misteries of our faith are reuealed by God book 4. chap. 8. § The opinion he exacteth of vs a diuine proofe of this these are his words The opinion of the ordinary Papists is that the things pertaining to our faith are beleeued because God reuealeth and deliuereth them to be so as we are required to beleeue but that we know not that God hath reuealed any such thing but by humane conjecture and probabilities so weake doe they make our faith to be grounded thus Field Concerning which his imputation I must first request my reader if he be any thing moued by these his words to turne to the explication and proofe of the Catholike opinion set downe before in the first part of this treatise Chapt. 7. sect 6. because I thinke it needlesse to repeate one thing twice Secondly I cannot but wish him also to note howe diuersly Field reporteth our opinions for although he plainly here affirme that our ordinary opnion is that the articles of our faith are beleeued because God reuealeth and deliuereth them to be so yet in another place he writeth thus Our aduersaries fal into two dangerous errors the first Booke 4. c. 6. that the authority of the Church is Regula fidei et ratio credendi the rule of our faith and the reason why we beleeue The second is that the Church may make newe articles of faith And like as he himselfe in the words euen now alleaged freeth vs from the first of these dangerous errours Book 4. chap. 12. § Our aduersaries so likewise in another place he freeth vs from the second But as concerning my present purpose out of his aforesaid wordes I gather that if he wil not fal into the same fault for vvhich he blameth vs he must not only assigne such a diuine formal cause of his beliefe concerning euery point as we teach the reuelation of God to be but also adde some diuine proofe prouing this formal reason to be diuine and not only humane probabilities And vvhat such diuine proofe doth he assigne surelie none that I can finde he telleth vs in deed that in some things the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto vs Book 4. chap. 8. § thus theÌ„ and in others the authority of God discerned to speake in the word of faith is the formal cause of their faith or inducing them to beleeue But I finde no diuine proofe no not so much as a wise reason I adde moreouer not so much as a foolish reason brought neither for the one nor for the other nay he expresly telleth vs Book 4. chap. 20. § Much coÌ„tention see also chapt 7. § Thus then Book 4. chap. 7. § Surely See hiÌ„ also § There is c. that The bookes of Scripture winne credit
the newe religion prefer the Hebrew of the old Testament and the Greeke of the new farre before it And as concerning the Greeke translation of the old by the 70. Interpreters Luther in ca. 40. Genesis Mūst in bibl Hebraicis Act. 7. v. 14. Caluī in Antid Sinodus Trident. sess 4. pag. 372. Luther and Munster plainely condemne it of errour and the first of them in particuler affirmeth the text alleaged of it by S. Steuen in the seauenth chapter of the acts of the Apostles as he citeth it to be erroneous our Latin bibles are also censured by Caluin to be most corrupt vvherefore they alwaies where they can translate the Hebrew of the old and the Greek of the new rejecting as it were the Greek of the old and the Latin of the newe but that both the Hebrewe of the old and Greeke of the newe be corrupted it is manifest by their owne confession And first it cannot be denied but that they some times correct both the Hebrewe and Greeke text as for example in the Hebrewe psalme 22. vvhereas the Hebrewe word for word ought thus to be translated As a lion my hands my feete they translate according to the Greek and vulgar Latin thus They haue peirced my hands and feete The examples of the Greeke in the newe which principally pertaineth vnto Christians are almost infinite I wil only set downe a fewe out of Beza and our English translatours If then the Greeke text be not corrupted wherefore doe these translatours whereas Hebrewes 9. verse 1. the Greeke text hath the first tabernacle reade the first couenant Againe Rom. 11. ver 21. they translate not according to the Greeke text eruing the time but according to our vulgare Latin seruing our Lord. Apoc. 11. vers 2. their translation is not according to the Greeke The court which is within the temple but according to the Latin The court which is without the temple 2. Tim. 1. vers 14. they adde the word but out of the Latin Iames 5. vers 12. they forsake the Greeke and follow our Latin reading Least you fal into condemnation In these and other places they correct the Greeke text and consequently confesse it to be corrupted But as touching Beza in particular I should make a long discourse if I should recite al such places as in the Greeke he accuseth of corruption Act. 13. vers 20. He calleth it a manifest errour that in the Greeke we reade foure hundred yeares as he saith for three hundred Act. 7. vers 18. He maketh a whole Catalogue of corruptions In S. Matthewes Gospel as he confesseth in his Preface to the newe Testament he corrected diuers errours and sundry other such testimonies he giueth of the corruption of the Greeke text of the new Testament But doth not he moreouer besides these his general corruptions vvhich he thinketh perhaps not done of malice also suspect that we haue euen of malice willingly and wittingly falsified the Scriptures verily he doth And to bring fourth three or foure examples to proue this his assertion Beza in annotat noui Testament an 1556. Math. 10. vers 2. the Greeke text hath The first Simon who is called Peter But what saith Beza he telleth vs that he thinketh the word first to haue beene added to the text by some that sought to establish Peters primacy Againe Luke 22. vers 20. according to the Greeke text we read This is the Chalice the new Testament in my bloud which shal be shedde for you In which sentence the Relatiue which according to the Greeke is not gouerned by the Noune bloud but by the word Chalice to signifie vnto vs that the bloud of Christ as the contents of the Chalice or as in the Chalice was shedde for vs. But what saith Beza he affirmeth it to be most probable that the vvordes which is shedde for you being sometime but a marginal note came by corruption out of the margent into the text Act. 7. vers 43. the Greeke hath Figures which you made to adore them It may be suspected saith Beza that these wordes to adore them as many others haue crept by corruption out of the margent into the Text. 1. Cor. 15. vers 57. He thinketh that the Apostle said not Victorie as it is in al Greeke copies but Contention And thus much concerning the corruption of the text of holy Scripture And out of this discourse it is euident first that our aduersaries cannot proue by Canonical Scripture that the Scripture it selfe is Canonical secondly that they cannot proue that the newe Testament was written by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ thirdly that although this be admitted yet that they cannot proue that the said Apostles and Disciples in penning it did not erre lastly that they cannot proue the Scriptures to remaine sincere and not corrupted yea I haue declared that they confesse that the Apostles and Disciples were subject to errour and that the Hebrewe and Greeke text which they esteeme aboue al others is corrupted Out of al vvhich positions so manifestly proued I conclude that the bare vvordes of Scriptures are not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion And although this argument concerning the vvhole Bible and in particular touching the new Testament be inuincible and insoluble yet a farre greater difficulty there is according to their ground mentioned that nothing is to be beleeued but that which is expresly contained in the Scripture or gathered out of the same concerning those bookes of Scripture which haue long after the Apostles daies beene in the Church of doubtfull authority of which before and yet are now receiued by our aduersaries into the Canon For vvhat one sentence of the vvord of God remouing al doubt declared their authority to be diuine Surely after the doubt had of them there was no Scripture written and before the matter in the said Scripture was not decided wherefore if we allowe the Scriptures only to be a sufficient judge of such controuersies our aduersaries themselues contrary to their owne proceedings must of necessity be forced to confesse such parcels of Scripture to be as yet of doubtful authority And this is not only graunted by a Brentius in confess Wittenberg cap. de sacra Scriptura anno 1552. Brentius and certaine other Lutherans who acknowledge those bookes of Scripture only to be Canonical of whose authority there was neuer any doubt made in the Church but also may seeme to be confessed by our countriman M. Whitaker vvho touching the Epistle of S. Iames receiued telleth vs that he doth b Whitaker against Campian reason the first p. 28. not enquire howe justly that might be receiued in a succeeding age which once was rejected yea our vvhole Church of c Conuocat Lon. an 1562. 1604. ar 6 England alloweth of the position of d Brentius in Apolog. confess Wittenb Brentius euen nowe mentioned Wherefore these sectaries must reject out of the Canon if they vvil be constant to themselues
not only the Epistle of S. Geneuain obseruat vpon harmony of cōfess sect 1. Paul to the Hebrewes the Epistles of S. Iames and S. Iude the second of S. Peter and the second and third of S. Iohn togither with the Apocalipse whose authority as is confessed by the Doctors of Geneua by Brentius and al the Lutherans yea as it is recorded by diuers Fathers as I haue shewed before nay further as it is graunted by Thomas Rogers an English Protestant Thomas Rogers vpon the 6. Artic. Propos 4. pa. 31. See also Whitaker before cited and the disputat had in the Tower with F. Campian in the 4. daies cōferen in his discourse vpon the Articles of Religion of the yeare 1562. and before him by Whitakers and others hath beene sometimes doubtful but also certaine other parcels of Scripture by them likewise receiued as I could declare out of diuers approued Authors The Doctors of Geneua to proue the bookes named to be Canonical flie to the authority of the Church for they wil haue them admitted as such because they were receiued and acknowledged as Canonical by the consent of the whole Catholike Church although some doubt were made of them sometimes by the auncient Doctors but this according to their owne ground is to giue them no diuine authority as I haue already noted And before I end this section I cannot but adde that I vvould wish M. Rogers whome I euen now named to looke a little better into his bookes if hereafter he chaunce to publish any with such approbations as he doth pretend in the beginning of this For I cannot see but writing in defence of the sixt Article he ouerthroweth the same by graunting that which I haue alleaged him confessing To make this a little seene vnto him thus I argue In the name of the holy Scripture we doe vnderstand those Canonical bookes of the old and new Testament of whose authority was neuer doubt in the Church These are the wordes of the Article Page 26. but of some bookes of the new Testament there hath beene doubt in the Church as appeareth by those M. Rogers wordes Some of the auncient Fathers and Doctors accepted not al the bookes Pag. 31. propos 4. contained within the volume of the new Testament for Canonical therefore al the bookes contained in the volume of the new Testament are not vnderstood in the name of holy Scripture This conclusion necessarily followeth of the premisses graunted as euery man seeth and yet is directly contrary to the last wordes of the same Article Page 26. Pag. 31. propos 4. in which they professe themselues to receiue and account as Canonical al the bookes of the new Testament as Rogers himselfe affirmeth SECTION THE THIRD The same is proued because euery Christian is bound to admit and beleeue certaine propositions neither expresly contained nor according to some mens judgements so euidently gathered out of the holy Scripture SECONDLY it is apparant that the bare letter of holy Scripture and conclusions out of it manifestly deduced by euery priuate man setting a side the authority of the Church as aboue are not a sufficient ground or rule of Christian beliefe and religion because euery true Christian is bound to admit and beleeue certaine propositions concerning the misteries and articles of our faith which are not expresly contained in the letter nor as some of them thinke so euidently deduced out of the same especially if we allow of our aduersaries Commentaries The first is easily proued for where doe we finde in the vvhole Bible the wordes Trinity person and consubstantial and yet most of the Professors of the new religion vvil not denie but that euery Christian vnder paine of damnation is bound to beleeue and admit in expresse tearmes these propositions following There is a Trinity there be three persons in the blessed Trinity the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost are consubstantial the one to the other and such like yea Beza himselfe confesseth that without the vse of these wordes Beza lib. de hereticis a ciuili magistratu puniendis pag. 51. also in Ep. Theol. 81. pag. 334. 335. See part 1. chap. 9. the truth of those misteries cannot be explicated nor the deniers of them confuted And it is manifest that whosoeuer rejecteth these wordes doth open the gappe to Iudaisme Arianisme and Turcisme But some of them flie to deduction out of Scriptures and answere that although the wordes are not expresly found in the Bible yet that the misteries themselues are expresly in it contained and deliuered and conseqnently that the wordes aptly signifying the said misteries and deduced out of the word of God it selfe may very wel and conueniently be vsed I reply that this is not sufficient for euery priuate mans deduction is subject to errour except it be by an infallible argument and euery proposition be most euidently true in that sense in which it is alleaged wherefore such deductions as our aduersaries commonly vse make no articles of faith Secondly the collections themselues of these high misteries by reason of the obscurity and diuersity of senses of the holy Scripture are not seldome obscure and therefore those collections vvhich to some seeme euident by others are judged false Hence the collection of those very misteries which I haue named by diuers of our aduersaries is denied as by Valentinus Gentilis and his followers a Valent. Gentilis in cōfess apud Caluin pag. 930. in Prothes Pastor Bremēsis in hist. Valēt Gentil who affirme the three persons to haue three distinct natures or essences and the Father to haue beene before the Sonne and the Sonne before the holy Ghost Who make also the one inferiour to the other c. The same collection is likewise denied by Seruetus and his disciples b Seruetus li. de erroribus Trinitatis who acknowledged no distinction of persons in God made Christ a pure man and denied him to haue beene before his incarnation Finally by Georgius Blandrata Paulus Alciatus and other Schollers of these men who c Greg. Paul apud Hosium in judicio cēsura de adoranda Trinitate See Hooker booke 5. of eccles policy §. 42. affirmed that Luther beganne to pul downe the roofe they raised the foundations of Popery who condemned al the auncient Councels and Fathers reuerenced by al Christians of d Beza epist Theolog. 81. tritheisme or making of three Gods tearmed S. Athanasius Sathanasius auouched the blessed Trinity vvhich most blasphemously they called Cerberus and the tripartited God to be an inuention of his and called the Fathers of the first Nicene Councel blinde Sophists Ministers of the Beast slaues of Antechrist bewitched with his illusions c. yea some of these newe sectaries vvent so farre in this matter that they forsooke Christ altogither and became Turkes among vvhome were e Simlerus in praefat lib. de aeterno Dei filio Gregor Paulus lib. de Trinitat Volanus in
parauesi ex epist. Blandratae in coÌ„fut judicij Polonicarum ecclesiaruÌ„ Of Neuser this is testified by Câ—nr Schluss in Catal. haeret lib. 11. de Seruetianis Bernardinus Ochinus Alamannus Georgius Blandrata Adamus Neuserus Iohannes Siluanus Gregorius Paulus and Andreas Volanus al Ministers of great name and fame Franciscus Dauid denied Christ and willed al men to returne to the law of Moises and circumcision and so to become Iewes And doe not al the newe sectaries by their common doctrine offer an occasion of al these blasphemies and apostasies Surely they doe both by leauing no euident certaine and sufficient rule by vvhich such men may be confuted and attributing ouer much to the sufficiency of the bare letter of holy Scripture and also by rejecting certaine wordes and propositions of ours as manifestly gathered out of the holy Scripture as the wordes Trinity person and consubstantial and the propositions by them declared For out of these groundes some of the preciser sort of them argue that we ought not to admit into our beliefe or vse in the explication of out faith any wordes not contained and expressed in the word of God For say they the Scripture being so sufficient vvherefore should vve vse any vvordes inuented by man what neede haue we of any strange deductions or any other thing If these wordes be admitted we may euen aswel admit the word transubstantiation other new inuentions of the Papists c. thus the preciser sort and the enemies of the blessed Trinity dispute And to discourse a little more at large of the word transubstantiation Aske an English Protestant what reason he hath to reject it He wil answere both because it is not found in the Scripture and also because the thing by it signified to wit the changing of bread and wine into the body and bloud Of Christ is not collected out of the same Demand likewise of an Arian vvhy he admitteth not the vvord consubstantial He wil answere because neither the vvord it selfe is vsed in holy writ nor the thing signified thereby to vvit that the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost are of the same substance truly gathered out of the same Behold the answere of both is one and certainely the reason yeelded serueth both alike for like as the vvord transubstantiation so the word consubstantial is not found in the Scripture but both these vvordes haue beene appropriated by the Church to signifie more distinctly and plainely misteries expressed truly in the word of God but not so plainely vvherefore if one of them be rejected the other cannot be receiued They say that the thing signified by the word transubstantiation is not in expresse tearmes to be found in the Scripture I reply that like as the real presence by the confession of their owne bretheren the Lutherans is so plainely deliuered vnto vs by the Euangelists that it cannot be denied which neuerthelesse by them is vtterly rejected so likewise is transubstantiation And like as if we admit of their translations and interpretations of holy Scripture neither the real presence nor transubstantiation is out of them gathered so in like sort neither is the mistery signified by the vvord consubstantial gathered out of the said Scripture if vve admit the translations and interpretations of the Arians Yea I dare boldly affirme that if vve allowe but of Caluins Commentaries vpon the Scriptures which some of our a Hooker in the preface to his booke of eccles pollicy pag. 9. Couel in his defence of Hooker English Protestants so highly esteeme that neither of these misteries are expresly contained in the word of God For like as vvith our Sacramentaries he expoundeth it against the real presence so vvith the Arians he expoundeth it against the diuinity of Christ Part. 2. chap. 1. sect 3. And this as I haue noted before is very vvel declared by diuers Protestants especially by Aegidius Hunnius in a booke vvhich he set forth with this title Caluin playing the Iewe that is to say the Iewish glosses and corruptions by vvhich Iohn Caluin abhorred not after a detestable manner to corrupt the most noble and famous places of holy Scripture and testimonies of the glorious Trinity the Deity of Christ and the holy Ghost c. printed at Wittenberge anno 1593. Also by Conradus Schlussenbergius in his second booke of the diuinity of the Caluinists and diuers others But if vve reject al heretical interpretations both these misteries are expresly contained in the Scripture and therefore our aduersaries haue no more reason to refuse the vvord transubstantiation then they haue to refuse the vvord consubstantial and by rejecting the first they giue occasion to the Arians to reject the second because they haue no greater proofes for this then vve haue for that And hence it appeareth howe vveake a ground the naked letter of Scripture is and vvhat smal force deductions out of it commonly made by euery priuate mans discourse haue and consequently vvhat a feeble foundation they build their saluation vpon vvho haue no other ground SECTION THE FOVRTH The insufficiency of the bare letter of holy Scripture is proued by other arguments especially by this that the true interpretation cannot be infallibly gathered out of the letter LET vs adde vnto these reasons that although we should grant to our aduersaries that the bare letter of holy Scripture is sufficiently proued true by the Scripture it selfe which assertion notwithstanding I haue demonstrated to be false yet that an other argument for the proofe of the insufficiency of the said letter may be taken from the doubtfull obscure and diuers senses of the same Part. 1. chap. 7. sect 2. For as I haue proued before in the first part of this treatise the Scriptures are hard and admit diuers translations and interpretations and there may be gathered out of them both hony and poison both true and false doctrine I knowe that Luther affirmeth Luth. praefat in assert art a Leone 10. damnatorum the Scripture to be of it selfe a most certaine most easie and most manifest interpreter of it selfe prouing judging and enlightning al thinges I doe not also denie but * Brentius in Prol. cont Petrum de Soto Brentius seemeth to be of the same opinion but against these I oppose a Field booke 4. chap. 15. M. Field vvho of this point vvriteth thus There is no question but there are manifold difficulties in the Scripture proceeding partly from the high and excellent nature of the thinges therein contained which are without the compasse of natural vnderstanding and so are wholy hidden from natural men and not knowne of them that are spiritual without much trauaile and studious meditation partly out of the ignorance of tongues and of the nature of such thinges by the comparison whereof the matters of diune knowledge are manifested vnto vs Hitherto Field * Chap. 18. §. betweene §. The reason §. Thus hauing He further alleageth and approueth that of Sixtus
of their beliefe are not in expresse tearmes to be found in the whole Bible yea that the text of their owne Bibles maketh more for vs then it doth for them Out of which I may wel inferre that they build not vpon the letter contained in their owne bookes but vpon their owne collections which euery priuate man maketh according to his owne fancie SECTION THE SECOND The same argument is confirmed by the testimonie of some Protestants concerning the true sense of some wordes of Scripture alleaged for our Catholike doctrine touching justification in the Section before NOTVVITHSTANDING the wordes af Scripture cited for vs Catholikes are most plaine yet it may be some follower of the new religion wil imagine that we wrest them to a sense improper and in the primatiue ages of the Church vnheard off contrariwise that those of his beliefe deliuer the true literal and auncient exposition of the same Nowe therefore to make the force of the reason brought more strong I adde that I could easily proue euen by the testimonies of our aduersaries themselues that the letter of holy Scripture in these controuersies mentioned and others according to the proper sense thereof and the tradition and practise of al former Christians is on our side not on theirs But if I should here declare this to be true in euery particuler point I should be ouer long vvherefore I vvil exemplifie only in one or two of the principal by which my reader may easily perceiue what may be done concerning the rest Luther to 5. in cap. 5. ad Galat. f. 382. And first what article of religion by these Sectaries is esteemed aboue that of justification by only faith Luther himselfe writeth thus Whoso euer falleth from the article of justification by faith onlie becommeth ignorant of God and is an Idolater and therefore it is al one whether he returne to the law of the Iewes or worshipping of Idols Al is one whether he be a Monke a Turke a Iewe or an Anabaptist For this article being once taken away there remaineth nothing but meere errour hipochrisie impiety idolatry although in shewe there appeare excellent truth Caluin in Epist ad Sadoletum p. 176. worship of God holinesse c. thus Luther Caluin also telleth vs that the knowledge of justification by faith being taken away both the glorie of Christ was extinguished and religion abolished and the Church destroyed and the hope of saluation altogether ouerthrowne Our countriman M. Perkins in like sort affirmeth Per. in his reformed Catholike touching justification of a sinner pag. 65. 66 that we by our doctrine touching justification doe raâ—â—e the very foundation and that the disagreement betweene vs and the Protestants concerning this matter if there were no more points of difference alone were sufficient to keepe vs from vniting our religions this is his opinion Wherefore this being an article of Christian beliefe in these mens conceits so principal let vs behold whether the letter of holy Scripture according to the judgement of Protestants doe not plainely deliuer our doctrine concerning it and impugne theirs The chiefest place which I haue alleaged in the section next before touching this matter is that sentence of S. Iames the Apostle Of workes or deedes a man is justified and not of faith only Iam. 2. v. 24. Bible 1592. And howe doe al the Lutheranes yea some Sacramentaries vnderstand these wordes Truly they openly and boldly confesse that they warre against justification by onlie faith and approue justification by workes and they assigne this as one reason why this epistle is to be rejected out of the Canon Luther the captaine of them al writing vpon the 22. chapter of Genesis hath these wordes See him also praefat in nouum Testam edit 1. Genensis in captiuitat Babilo ca. de Extrema Vnct. in 1. Pet. c. 1. fol 439. 440. edit Wittenb Abraham was just by faith before he is knowne such an one by God therefore Iames doth naughtily conclude that nowe at the length he is justified after this obedience for by workes as by fruits faith and iustice is knowne But it followeth not vt Iacobus delirat as Iames dotingly affirmeth therefore the fruits doe iustifiy thus there And in another place * Luth. in colloquijs conuiualibus latin to 2. de libris noui Testam Part. 2 chap. 6. sect 2. Many saith he haue taken great paines in the epistle of Iames to make it accord with Paul as Philppe endeauoureth in his Apologie but not with good successe for they are contrary faith doth iustifie faith doth not iustifie Loe Luther expresly telleth vs that S. Iames auoucheth faith not to justifie But whereas he maketh this Apostle contrary to S. Paul he doth wrong them both For neither doth the one say that faith doth not justifie nor the other that faith alone doth justifie as he supposeth But out of their discourses it may be gathered that both faith and workes concurre to justification which is our Catholike doctrine Of the place of S. Paul vnto vvhich Luther alludeth I haue said something before therefore no more of it at this present shal be necessary The opinion of a Pomeran in c. 8. ad RomaÌ„ Pomerane a Lutheran of great estimation is conformable to that of Luther for thus he pronounceth his censure Faith was reputed to Abraham for iustice By this place thou maiest note the error of the epistle of Iames wherein thou seest a wicked argument Besides that he concludeth ridiculously he citeth Scripture against Scripture which thing the holy Ghost cannot abide wherefore that epistle may not be numbred among other bookes which set forth the iustice of only faith thus Pomerane I wil not stand to free S. Iames from his wicked accusations which is very wel performed by diuers Catholike authors Hil in his defeÌ„ce of the article Christ descended into hel fol. 23. Centur. 1. lib. 2. c. 4. col 54. Centur. 2. ca. 4. col 71. But vnto this Lutheran I wil joyne the Magdeburgians his brethren whose vvritings an English Protestant judgeth to be worthy of eternal memorie who say that the epistle of S. Iames much swarueth from the analogie of the Apostolical doctrine whereas it ascribeth justification not only to faith but to workes and calleth the lawe a lawe of liberty Againe Against Paul against al Scriptures the epistle of Iames attributeth justice to workes and peruerteth as it were of set purpose that which Paul disputeth Rom. 4. out of Genesis 15. Abraham was iustified by only faith without workes and affirmeth that Abraham obtained iustice by workes hitherto are their wordes With these consenteth Vitus Theodorus an other of that companie and a preacher of Norinberge who yeeldeth this reason wherefore he excluded this epistle from the Canon of holy Scripture The epistle of Iames and the Apocalipse of Iohn saith he we haue of set purpose left out because the epistle of Iames is not only in certaine
against al for the word of God is foolishnes to mans reason 1 Cor. 1. And they would neuer haue vttered this had they had any regard of the Scripture and were not their harts ful of infidelity so as their mouth speaketh out of the aboundance of their hart Fol. 391. Finally he concludeth thus If these be the groundes and reasons which should certifie vs of the truth and proue our faith and confirme our conscience he meaneth such groundes and reasons as are brought from natural discourse and Philosophy then truly we are in euil case If a man had deliuered me such bookes without title or name as are vvritten by the Sacramentaries and I knewe not otherwise such learned and excellent men to haue beene the Authours of them I should surely haue thought that some iesting Comediant or Turkish vagabond had made them in despite and derision of Christians Verily I see not howe they can be excused with any probable pretence as many other Heretikes haue had for it appeareth that they play with Gods word of wilfulnesse and malice And I thinke it cannot be that such cold toyes and bablings should indeede moue a Turke or Iewe much lesse a Christian c. Centur. 4. in praefat This and much more hath Luther The Magdeburgians likewise tel vs that some and they meane the Sacramentaries flatly by Philosophical reasons make voide and frustrate the Testament of our Lord so as they take away the body and bloud of Christ touching his presence and communication which presence and communication is according to the most cleare most euident most true and most puissant wordes of Christ and they deceiue men with maruelous equiuocation of speach hitherto the Centurie writers Of the same opinion touching the ground of the Sacramentary doctrine is Westphalus for the Sacramentaries against the real presence vrge this argument Westphalus in Apolog. cōtra Caluin c. 19. pag. 194. anno 1558. The body of man is circumscribed in a place therefore at one time it cannot be but in in one place therefore not in al places where the supper is ministred vnto vvhich Westphalus replieth thus Is not saith he this Geometrical argument featched from Euclides demonstrations the piller and vpholder of al these Sacramētaries Doth not this vphold the building of their sillogismes which corrupt verie many places of Scripture Most truly is verified of the Sacramentaries that memorable saying Take from Heretikes that wherein they agree with Philosophers and they cannot stand Take from the Sacramentaries that which they drawe from Philosophie and how smal a quantity wil remaine of the great volumes of al the Sacramentaries Howe long wil it be before the doctrine of Berengarius fal to the ground Wel and truly wrote Tertullian that Philosophers are the Patriarkes of Heretikes for Philosophy brought forth al Heresies and shee begat the error of Zwinglius Thus much out of the Lutherans in defence of the real presence against the Sacramentaries and their vvorkes generally are ful of such discourses Hence it appeareth that according to their judgement the beliefe of the real presence is built vpon holy Scripture and the denial of it vpon Geometrical and Philosophical reasons But finde we no proofes for our Catholike exposition of the afore said vvordes in the Sacramentaries themselues Truly first Caluin auoucheth that vnlesse a man wil cal God a deceiuer Caluin Institut booke 4. cha 17. §. 10. he can neuer be so bold as to say that he setteth before vs an empty signe and this he is forced to affirme through the euidence of the wordes of Scripture Secondly it is the opinion of diuers learned men of this sect yea of some esteemed by them Martirs that our doctrine touching this point may be held without any peril of damnation or seperation from the one true spiritual body of Christ his holy Church Of which opinion among others was William Tindal whome Whetenhal honoureth with this title * Whetēhal in his discourse of the abuses c. pag. 134. William Tindal that blessed martir of God the first man that euer brought the Gospel of Christ into English print and therefore saith this Puritan he may worthely be called our English Euangelist yea our booke of martirs a Fox p. 883. edit 1. calleth him the true Apostle of our latter daies and that much more justly then Popish Augustine the first Arch-bishop of Canterbury is so tearmed by diuers Thus Whetenhal This Tindal I say as also Frith Barnes and Cranmer of whome the said Whetenhal b Whetenhal ibid. p. 157. in an other place as is related by c Fox in Tind Fox himselfe held it d Frith Barnes and Cranmer especially pag. 500. edit anno 1563. a thing indifferent to belieue or not belieue the real presence Of the same opinion is e Couel in his def of Hooker art 11. M. Couel a man of good account among the English Protestants f Doue perswasion p. 11. Doue also vvriteth that in fundamental points of doctrine the greatest Papists in the world agree with them And seing that we agree not vvith them in this it is manifest that in his judgement this is no fundamental point It may likewise be vvel gathered out of Fields assertions g See Field booke 3. chap. 3. and 4. in his third booke of the Church that his sentence is conformable But vvhat neede I rehearse particular authors For this must of necessity be h See the Apologie of the Church of England par 3. pag. 100. Sutcliffe in his answere to the ward-Ward-word pag. 21. Fulke vpon the Rhemes Testam Ephes 4. vers 4. c. granted by al the Sacramentaries who make one Church of themselues and the Lutherans And of this the reason is apparent because although the Lutherans differ from vs in the manner yet vvith vs they confesse Christ to be really and corporally present in the Eucharist Vnto vvhich if we adde that our doctrine touching the manner it selfe howe this is done in the Sacramentaries judgement is more tollerable then Luthers it vvil followe that there can be no reason assigned why we should receaue a harder censure for our belief then they for theirs And doth not Caluin himselfe auerre this to be so It must needes be granted For certaine it is that almost al the Lutherans to defend this real presence of Christ in the Sacrament affirme his humane nature to be really present vvheresoeuer is his Deity Caluin Institut booke 4. chap. 17. § 30 See also the preface to the harmony of confessions which Caluin calleth the monstrous being of Christ euery where and saith the Papists doctrine is more tollerable or at the least more shamefaste then this Nay al the vvhole company of Sacramentaries in forraine Countries are more vehement in oppugning this then ours Wherefore if the Lutherans according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries this notwithstanding are neither excluded from heauen nor the Church a man
yeare of his raigne seemeth principally to condemne the Sacramentaries vvho denie the real presence wherefore Lutheranisme then seemed to preuaile Communion also vnder one kind in time of necessity is in it approued By another lawe inacted in the second yeare of the said King Zwinglianisme was set vp An. 2. Edwardi vi cap. 1. and a booke of common praier allowed and established as the said act pretendeth not only according to the most sincere and pure Christian religion taught by the Scriptures but also according to the vsages of the primatiue Church Which booke notwithstanding hath beene thrice reuiewed and altered and stil according to the selfe fame vvord of God once in the same King Edwards daies secondly by the direction of Queene Elizabeth and lastly by his Majesty that nowe raigneth See the booke of coÌ„moÌ„ praier turned into latin by Thomas Vautrollerus printed at LoÌ„don an 1574. cuÌ„ priuilegio Regiae Majestatis touching priuate baptisme administred in houses by lay-meÌ„ or women as also some others printed in English before the last corrected by his Majesty who now raigneth and conferre them with the said last corrected And yet it is much disliked by the Puritans and censured to be contrary to the said word And like as their booke of common praier hath beene altered so also haue their opinions concerning some points of religion as I could easily shewe if time suffered me If any man be desirous to behold the like proceeding among our Puritans let him read the Suruey of their religion If I should descend to the inconstancy of particular men of our English nation I should neuer make an end yet one example I wil not omit which is as followeth During the raigne of Queene Mary a Catholike Prince diuers sectaries from hence fledde to Geneua and there in the yeare 1558. printed sundry bookes in vvhich by diuers testimonies of holy Scripture they endeauoured â—o proue the gouernement of women euen in temporal matters to be monstrous vnnatural against the lawe of God and man and therefore not to be suffered But the next yeare following Queene Elizabeth coÌ„ming to the crowne the same men found it agreeable to al Scripture and al lawes that a vvoman might haue supreame authority in thinges also spiritual and be supreame head of the Church And doe al our aduersaries acknowledge this their leuity as a fault verily no Yea Caluin approueth it and indeauoureth to defend it from al suspition of a vice Thus he discourseth * Caluin de scandalis pag. 135. Many complaine that they are scandalized that they sawe not al thinges together in the same moment that so hard a worke was not throughly and perfectly polished the first day Howe importune and out of season these delicacies are who seeth not for they doe as if a man should accuse vs that at the first breaking of the day we see not as yet the Sunne shining at noone day And soone after There is nothing more common then these complaints wherefore was not that which we ought to followe presently exactly prescribed vnto vs wherefore did this lie hidden more then other thinges wil there be at the length any end if it shal be permitted euer nowe and then to goe further Certainely they that speake after this sort either enuy the profit of the seruants of God or are sorry that the Kingdome of Christ is promoted to the better Hitherto are Caluins wordes Concerning the same matter in another place he hath this censure Caluin admonit 3. ad Westphalum A lawe ouer hard saith he is prescribed to learned men if after a proofe of their wit and learning published it may not be lawful to them to profit any thing during their life Thus Caluin In which his discourses he doth not only confesse himselfe and his bretheren to haue beene inconstant but also seeketh a defence of this inconstancy But howe absurdly he reasoneth euery man of sense may easily perceiue for our Christian faith and religion depend not as he seemeth here to imagine vpon the wit and learning of any man neither is it lawful for any man be he neuer so vvise or learned to cal any one article by any meanes into doubt for al the articles of our faith are reuealed by God who is truth it selfe But Caluin here plainely granteth that he and his fellowes build their beliefe vpon their owne fancies and judgements not vpon any certaine and infallible ground and consequently that they varie and alter the same according to their progresse in learning and other motiues of their vnderstanding like as Philosophers doe their opinions concerning matters of philosophy indifferent and doubtful And this is the principal ground of our aduersaries inconstancy Some other causes there may be assigned why they are inconstant to wit that some of them make their temporal Princes their absolute guides and immediate heades in Ecclesiastical matters wherefore as often as vpon any consideration of pollicy or any other respect the Prince changeth his minde so often also is religion altered But whether this alteration in any man proceedeth from the authority of the Prince or the judgement of the learned or any other such cause certaine it is that it argueth and proueth no certaine foundation of faith to be in him that so changeth And besides this he doth also approue this or that belief or religion because for some one or other respect it pleaseth his owne fancy And like as these sectaries so vvere al the ancient Heretikes inconstant especially the Arians Socrates lib. 2. hist ca. 32. who as Socrates reporteth altered their Creede or forme of beliefe no lesse then tenne times Hence it proceedeth that none of these newe sectaries can euer be certaine that they haue attained to the truth and of this their inconstancy is a most manifest argument For I thinke that euery one of them that haue changed his beliefe vvil easily graunt that once he liued in errour And it must be confessed that euery one altering condemneth his former faith vvhich if it be so howe can such men certainely knowe that they are not in errour stil vvhat warrant haue they after their change more then they had before But besides this reason euery one of them hath other motiues to make him vncertaine of the truth of his owne religion to wit that the most learned of his company Luther Zwinglius Caluin and the rest haue erred and consequently that he also may erre that as wise and as learned men as he is himselfe censure his beliefe to be false and erroneous c. He that is vnlearned may also consider that if he build vpon the judgement of the learned he cannot possibly assure himselfe that they doe not erre yea seing that euery one of them affirmeth his doctrine to be true and yet they disagree in faith he may wel assure himselfe that some of them doe erre for contraries cannot both be true And howe can he certainely judge who
vve build our faith vpon the particular opinions of some fewe priuate men or doe vve proue the truth of our doctrine by their testimonies Moreouer suppose some followed those men in some one or two opinions were they presently in al other points Protestants or doth it proue the Protestant religion true Treatise of the definition and notes of the Church Nothing lesse for as I vvil shewe hereafter neither Wickliffe nor Hierome of Prage nor Iohn Husse were Protestants much lesse any that were in open profession Catholikes But in very deed the Church doth not only in moderne authours correct propositions that are in plaine tearmes heretical but also as appeareth by our rules related by Crashaw such as be erroneous taste of heresie are offensiue to godly eares or temerarious yea such as are vvanton or dishonest superstitious tending to the infamy of any c. as I wil declare anone Besides this if our intention were to make the authors seeme altogether ours and to take them as it vvere from the Sectaries whose doctrine they seeme to approue vvhat reason haue vve to publish in print to the whole world what we wil haue corrected in their workes Is not this a plaine confession that we dislike their manner of speach or their doctrine Wherefore in this we rather helpe our aduersaries cause if the authority of the said authors be of any moment then weaken it And in very truth if vve did it to any such end as they intend it were no wisedome to make our doinges knowne to the world but much more policy we should shewe if vve did it in priuate and neuer made any open mention of it but rather did denie it Why then doe we correct such bookes in very truth as is apparant for no other causes then I haue partly rehearsed before to wit principally that one faith and religion may be preserued among al sorts and that no man embrace any doctrine as approued or tollerated in the Church which is not so approued and tollerated then also to auoid al superstition witchcraft corruption of manners and other such vices as wil appeare by the rules of which hereafter But they say that vve take vpon vs to correct Bertramus an authour vvho liued in the Church 700. yeares since and Rampegolus who flourished in the yeare 1418. I answere that vve neither doe this to bereaue our aduersaries of any testimony for as concerning Bertramus vve commonly graunt that booke vvhich goeth vnder his name to make for their doctrine against the real presence although some Protestants seeme to denie it nay further See the Century writers Centur. 9. c. 4 col 212. many of the best learned men of our side acknowledge also in their publike vvritings the booke to be his * Pantaleon in Chronographia p. 65 although Pantaleon a Sacramentary number it not among his workes and this is sufficient for our aduersaries although the booke be neuer so much altered wherefore for this cause only that some good thinges are contained in it together with the poison lest that men sucke the one with the other we thinke it good to remoue away that vvhich is nought and leaue them the good Rampegolus is nothing like so auncient and besides it is confessed by Possiuinus that his booke being written in a time not oppugned by such heresies as since are risen Possiuin to 1. apparat q. sacr pag. 114. 115. containeth some errours vvherefore neither doe vve endeauour to conceale that in some points he seemeth to fauour our aduersaries He addeth that this authour hath put into his vvorke certaine absurd thinges or rather fables out of the master of the Ecclesiastical history that he hath many thinges otherwise then they are in the Bible that the Scripture is not cited so sincerely yea that sometimes it is alleaged falsly that he hath some thinges Apocryphal out of the 3. booke of Esdras and out of the epistle of Ciril of Hierusalem to S. Augustine concerning the death of S. Hierome Besides this he accuseth him of false allegations of Doctors of Solecismes Barbarismes and obscure phrases And seing that it is a booke vvhich young preachers would much vse if it were not forbidden and that as it is like without choice of the good from the badde for want of learning I hope no man wil blame vs if we amend that which is amisse And thus much of the first point Nowe to come to the second point I must needes returne M. Crashawes argument vpon himselfe thus They who raze the recordes and falsify the monuments of mens writings altering the bookes of learned men after they are dead adding and taking out at their pleasures and namely taking out such wordes sentences and whole discourses as make against them and adding the contrary euen whatsoeuer they can imagine to make for them incurre no lesse crime then corruption and forgery in the highest degree This is gathered out of Crashaw in the second page of his epistle Dedicatory But the followers of the newe religion who are called Protestants Puritans c. haue done so therefore they haue incurred the crime of corruption or forgery in the highest degree M. Crashaw must pardon me if I proceede not in forme of lawe by accusation declaration and proofe as he doth because I haue neuer yet bin preacher at the Temples The proofe of my minor proposition if I should runne through authours vvhich they haue corrupted citing the vvordes and sentences left out or added would rise to a great volume vvherefore briefly only I accuse them of corrupting after this sort the history of Sigonius de regno Italiae of Osorius de rebus gestis Emanuëlis Regis and of Castineda who supplied that which wanted for some yeares after Osorius ended of the liues of the Emperors and diuers others And for the proofe of this to the vnlearned English sectaries I accuse our English Protestants for corrupting S. Augustines meditations his praiers and Manuel The Meditations of Granada printed in the yeare 1602. The conuersion of a sinner the imitation of Christ the Christian directory c. It may be said that in the beginning of the bookes this correction or alteration is confessed I reply that so likewise in our Indices expurgatorij and also commonly in the beginning of such bookes as vve correct we acknowledge the correction but doe they this in al their workes surely no. And for example I name the meditations of Granada in which there is no mention of any alteration for they are plainely set forth in his name as though they vvere truly and sincerely his whereas the translator or rather the falsifier or corrupter hath left out vvhole discourses yea I may almost say whole meditations and added what pleaseth himselfe to make him speake like a Protestant Neither doe they deale only so with vs but also vvith their owne bretheren and that sometimes in principal matters For example the Lutheran Protestants in their conference or synode
religion to wit Apostolike Traditions page 86. Sect. 1. Of Apostolike Tradition in general page 86. Sect. 2. Of vnwritten Traditions in particular page 91. Chap. 9. Of general Councels which make the third particular ground of Catholike religion page 97. Chap. 10. Of the decrees of the supreame visible Pastour of the Church which make a fourth particular ground of our faith and of other grounds hence proceeding page 108. Sect. 1. Containing a briefe explication or rehearsal of the Catholike doctrine concerning the Popes supreamacy page 108. Sect. 2. The aforesaid doctrine is proued page 113. Sect. 3. That the decrees of the Bishop of Rome when he teacheth the Church as supreame Pastour are of diuine and infallible authority and of some other groundes of faith flowing out of these page 127. Sect. 4. The opinion of some sectaries that the Pope is Antechist is briefly confuted and two objections against the premises are answered p. 133. Chap. 11. Of the consent of the auncient Fathers and the general doctrine of the Catholike Church in al ages page 140. Chap. 12. Containing the conclusion of the first part page 144. THE SECOND PART In which is proued that the newe sectaries build their faith vpon no diuine authority but that the ground of al their beliefe and religion is their owne judgement and consequently that they haue neither true faith nor religion CHAPTER 1. That by their doctrine they deny or at the least weaken the three principal and general groundes of Christian religion set downe in the three first chapters of the first part page 1. Section 1. The number of Atheists among them is great and of the causes by them giuen of this impiety page 1. Sect. 2. Of our aduersaries doctrine concerning the immortality of the soule heauen and hel page 8. Sect. 3. Of our aduersaries impious assertions concerning Christ and Christian religion page 12. Sect. 4. That in like sort they weaken the principal proofes of the said three groundes page 19. Chap. 2. The newe Sectaries debase the true Christian faith and in place of it extol a presumptuous faith by themselues inuented page 26. Chap. 3. That our aduersaries deny the infallible authority of the Church and affirme it to haue erred and perished page 30. Chap. 4. They reject al particular groundes of faith aboue assigned and proued to bee found in the Church of Christ besides the holy Scriptures page 32. Chap. 5. They build not vpon the holy Scripture and first that the bare letter of holy Scripture only is not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion page 47. Sect. 1. In which this is proued because by Scripture the Scripture it selfe cannot be proued Canonical It is also argued that according to the sectaries groundes there is no Canonical Scripture and some principal reasons especially inspiration of the spirit which they alleage for the proofe of such Scripture are refelled page 47. Sect. 2. In which the same argument is prosecuted and two things principally are proued First that the newe Testament receiueth smal authority if we beleeue our aduersaries by this that it was written by the Apostles and Disciples because they accuse them of errour Secondly because they confesse the text of Scripture to be corrupted p. 67. Sect. 3. The same is proued because euery Christian is bound to admit and beleeue certaine propositions neither expresly contained nor according to some mens judgements so euidently gathered out of the holy Scripture page 75. Sect. 4. The insufficiency of the bare letter of holy Scripture is proued by other arguments especially by this that the true interpretation cannot be infallibly gathered out of the letter page 78. Chap. 6. The newe Sectaries Bibles containe not the true word of God page 83. Sect. 1. In which this is first proued concerning al their Bibles in general page 83. Sect. 2. That Luther Zwinglius Caluin and Beza in particular haue corruptly translated the Scriptures page 84. Sect. 3. Our English sectaries also haue falsly and corruptly translated the Scriptures page 90. Sect. 4. Containing false translations against the authority of the Church Traditions honour of Images Purgatory and the honour of Saints page 92. Sect. 5. Of their corruptions against inherent Iustice Iustification by good workes Merit of good workes and keeping the Commandements and in defence of their special â—aith vaine Security c. and against Freewil and Merits page 94. Sect. 6. Of their false translations against the Real presence Priest-hood election of Bishops single life of Priests Penance and satisfaction for Sinne the Sacrament of Matrimony and some other points p. 96. Sect. 7. That the Professors of the newe religion in corrupting the Scriptures followe the steps of the auncient Heretikes and what followeth of this discourse page 101. Chap. 7. That they build not vpon the letter of holy Scripture contained as they say in their owne Bibles page 103. Sect. 1. In which this is proued first because the propositions which they tearme of their faith are not in expresse tearmes contained in the Scripture page 103. Sect. 2. The same argument is confirmed by the testimonie of some Protestants concerning the true sense of some wordes of Scripture alleaged for our Catholike doctrine touching justification in the Section before page 106. Sect. 3. The like discourse is made concerning a place of Scripture alleaged for the real presence page 114. Sect. 4. The followers of the newe religion in diuers matters obserue not the letter of their owne Bibles page 130. Chap. 8. In receiuing translating and expounding the holy Scriptures they only build vpon their owne fancies and judgement and that they haue no other ground page 134. Sect. 1. In which this is proued by their doctrine and dissention concerning the bookes of Canonical Scripture and their altering of the text of the same page 134. Sect. 2. The same is confirmed by their translations and expositions of holy Scripture page 141. Sect. 3. Concerning the newe exposition of those wordes This is my body in particular page 146. Sect. 4. That certaine rules prescribed by Field for the true vnderstanding of Scripture of themselues alone without the censure of the Church are insufficient to assure vs that our exposition made is of diuine truth page 149. Sect. 5. Concerning their deductions out of holy Scripture that they likewise are framed by them according to their owne fancies and of their accusations of one another touching these matters page 157. Sect. 6. The vnlearned and ignorant sectaries in receiuing and expounding the holy Scriptures likewise build vpon their owne fancies and judgements and haue no other ground of their faith and religion p. 161. Sect. 7. Of the miserable estate of the vnlearned and ignorant Sectaries page 166. Sect. 8. That the newe sectaries alleage Scriptures to confirme their new doctrine it is no certaine argument that they build their faith and religion vpon the said Scriptures page 172. Chap. 9. In which is proued by the newe Sectaries
written word whereby we are to be directed in faith And this guide is our holy mother the Catholike Church the sacred spouse of Christ and his mistical body Now therefore to proceed in mine intended discourse because it behoueth euery man as appeareth by that which hath bin already said with al speed to order that his beliefe be right and likewise because this may soone be learned of the Catholike Church hence it proceedeth that no treatises touching controuersies of religion are commonly more necessary then such as declare what congregation or company of Christians are the said one holy Catholike and Apostolike Church proue her diuine authority or shew what particuler groundes are found in her by which euery person is to be guided in his beliefe The reason of this is plaine because whosoeuer recurreth to this Church and these groundes may soone and with great ease be resolued concerning al articles vvhatsoeuer to him seeming doubtful whereas if neglecting these he betake him to the study of particular controuersies as of justification free wil merit of good workes the real presence c. he may spend many daies and nights and be nothing the nearer to a setled and sure resolution Nay some of these and other points are so high and difficult that without recourse to some general groundes and the authority of the Church directing al Christians it is impossible that by other meanes a man should euer assure himselfe that he is in the truth Neither is this the opinion only of Catholikes but also of some learned Protestants And among others M. Field esteemed by some one of the greatest schollars of their company Richard Field in the beginning of his Epistle Dedicatory before his fiue bookes of the Church writeth thus The consideration of the vnhappy diuisions of the Christian world and the infinite distractions of mens mindes not knowing in so great variety of opinions what to thinke or to whome to joine themselues euery faction boasting of the pure and sincere profession of heauenly truth challenging to it selfe alone the name of the Church and fastning vpon al that dissent or are otherwise minded the hateful note of schisme and heresie hath made me euer thinke that there is no part of heauenly knowledge more necessary then that which concerneth the Church For seing that controuersies of religion in our time are growen in number so many and in nature so intricate that few haue time and leasure fewer strength and vnderstanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in thinges of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst al the societies of men in the world is that blessed company of holy ones that house-hold of faith that spouse of Christ and Church of the liuing God which is the pillar and ground of truth that so they may embrace her communion followe her directions and rest in her judgement Hence it commeth that al wise and judicious men doe more esteeme bookes of doctrinal principles then those that are written of any other argument and that there was neuer any treasure holden more rich and pretious by al them that knewe howe to price and value thinges aright thou bookes of prescriptions against Heretikes for that thereby men that are not willing or not able to examine the infinite differences that arise among men concerning the faith haue general directions what to followe and what to auoide Hitherto are M. Fields vvordes And like as this Protestant Doctor yeeldeth this reason among others for the publication of his bookes of the Church so in very truth the same motiue hath partly moued me to publish some of my labours to the viewe of the world We Catholikes haue a long time wished and endeauoured to bring the controuersies of these times to certaine general groundes and doctrinal principles and haue fought by al meanes to drawe our aduersaries to this issue to which M. Fields vvordes seeme to tend I meane to perswade them to acknowledge a judicial infallible authority in the Catholike church which euery Christian may securely followe and is bound to obey and then by most sure notes of the same Church deliuered by God in the holy Scripture which be so pregnant in the old testament it selfe August in psalm 30. Conc. 2. that S. Augustine feareth not to affirme that the Prophets haue spoken more plainely of the Church then of Christ to search forth whether ours or any other congregation of them be the Catholike Church but those of our side could neuer hitherto obtaine so much at their handes And although this man doth so gloriously here extol the judgement of the Church as it seemeth touching al controuersies which may arise in so much as he telleth vs that men desirous of satisfaction may followe her directions and rest in her judgement vvhich they could not safely and securely doe if her direction and judgement could be erroneous yet in his fourth booke following he bereaueth her of almost al such prerogatiues for he saith that general Councels which be the highest courts of the Church Field booke 4 chap. 5. §. thus touching may erre in matters of greatest consequence and freeth the Church her selfe from errour * Ibid. and cha 2. before only in certaine principal articles of Christian religion But of these matters more hereafter Only this nowe sufficeth for my purpose that according to his testimony al wise and juditious men doe more esteeme bookes of doctrinal principles then those that are written of any other argument vvhich if it be true I hope the argument both of this my Treatise following and also of an other which I haue lying by me wil not be vngrateful but pleasing and acceptable to al vvise and juditious persons Moreouer an other writer of the English Church auoucheth that in this our last age Parkes in the Preface to the reader before his Apologie of three testimonies of scripture c. printed anno 1607. Heresie and Infidelity joining their desperate forces together labour mightily to subuert and ouerthrowe al the groundes of Christian religion vvhich if it be likewise truly affirmed a discourse discouering the fountaine of this euil and establishing such groundes as Heretikes and Infidels seeke to impugne cannot be thought vnprofitable Only my rashnesse in vndertaking such great matters and my want of wit and learning shewed in performing them may seeme worthy of blame But pardon me gentle Reader it was as I may say by chance both that I entered into discussing such thinges and also that my writings euer came to light Some fewe yeares since a Catholike gentleman being entred into some communication with a Protestant minister requested me to set him downe some briefe reasons for the Catholike part vpon vvhich he might stand I did so and I comprehended some twelue reasons in some three sheets of paper vvhich al vvere drawne from general groundes and doctrinal principles Not very long after I giuing my selfe alwaies to the
study of controuersies and hauing no learned friend at hand with whome I might conferre the more to perfect my selfe in such kinde of arguments vvhich vvithout conference or vvriting can hardly be done it came into my minde to enlarge my selfe much more vpon the said reasons And truly so much matter occurred vnto me being busied in these exercises that I thought it meete to deuide my twelue reasons into two treatises of vvhich the one I called a treatise of the groundes of the old and newe religion the other a treatise of the definition and notes of the Church Hauing finished the first I communicated it to some one or two of my familiar friends who were desirous to see it and so by some meanes it came to the sight of some persons esteemed learned and judicious who thought it might profit many if it were more common and therefore were desirous to haue it printed This was the beginning of my writing in this kinde and thus the one of these treatises besides my first intention or expectation is nowe passed the print I trust without any rash presumption or boldnes in me seing that I rather haue yeelded to the desire and aduise of men thought to be of mature judgement discretion and learning then for any other respect haue followed my owne fancy or inclination Nowe to giue my reader here a certaine taste of the contents of that which I intend here to publish as also of my manner of proceeeding I thinke it meete to aduertise him that in it I haue principally by apparant arguments proued two thinges the one that we Catholikes ground our faith and religion vpon the diuine authority of God the other that our aduersaries I meane the newe sectaries build their faith and religion I take these vvordes in an ample signification vpon their owne judgments The first is performed in the first part in which I haue shewed such groundes as the Catholikes build on to be of diuine authority The second in like sort is conuinced to be true in the second part vvhere I haue declared euen to the eie that the followers of the newe religion reject al other such groundes besides the holy Scripture vvhich also I haue proued them to reject and receiue translate and expound not according to any diuine ground but as it liketh their owne fancies consequently I haue demonstrated that in summe they haue no other foundation whereon they build but this that their beliefes seeme true to their owne natural reason It may be demanded what proofes I vse in these my discourses I answere in fewe vvordes that I bring forth proofes out of the holy Scripture I alleage the auncient Fathers and vvriters such as liued and wrote within the first sixe hundred yeares after Christ which some Protestants challenge to haue beene of their faith and religion and therefore allowe of their testimonies I cite moreouer the sentences of diuers Sectaries of these our daies vvho confesse that to be true which I endeauour to proue not the testimonies of Anabaptists Libertines Tritheists Trinitarians or of any others commonly by Protestants censured to be Heretikes but of such as are vsually by al sorts accknowledged to be writers of their Protestant family and members as they say of their reformed Churches In alleaging of which sentences of our aduersaries for the benefit of those that vnderstand not the Latin tongue I haue obserued this as much as I could that I haue taken them out of bookes either written in English or translated into English that so euery person might easily turne vnto them Neither ought the testimony of such sectaries to be thought by any man a weake argument for what proofe almost being not diuine can be of greater force then the confession of an aduersary or enemy touching the truth of that which is censured false by his doctors and the innocency of him whome he hateth and impugneth or the falsehood of his owne chiefemasters doctrine and the guiltinesse of himselfe or such as he loueth or are of his owne brotherhood And hence it is that M. Whitakers a Protestant of no meane fame Whitaker de Eccles controuers 2. cap. 14. pag. 366. graunteth that argument to be strong which is drawne from the confession of aduersaries Finally sometimes I bring forth some natural reasons and congruences prouing the conueniency of that which is auouched For we may wel assure our selues so if I doe not forget my selfe saith S. Augustine that God hath done vvhatsoeuer in right reason vve shal finde to be best These be the proofes of mine assertions and others then these I seldome or neuer vse But the better to declare my sincere dealing herein and also to shew the force of such testimonies of auncient Authors as I alleage I haue added before this treatise a table of al such Councels extant as I finde celebrated within the said first sixe ages as likewise of al the writers of those times which I finde to haue left any workes commonly alleaged in schooles to their posterity I haue moreouer noted out of good and approued authors the yeare in vvhich such Councels were celebrated and in which such writers either flourished or departed out of this world Al these things I haue performed with as great sincerity as the want of bookes hath suffered me And in very deede I may truly protest that willingly and wittingly I haue wronged no one writer in misalleaging his wordes or meaning be he Catholike or be he Protestant be he Auncient or be he Moderne It may be some faults haue escaped me but against my wil. Neither doth our Catholike cause neede any such jugling or false dealing the truth is so manifest on our side and the proofes of the same so many and pregnant But before my reader enter into the viewing of these my discourses that he may reape the greater profit of his labour I must earnestly craue one thing at his handes to wit that if he be of an other religion then is here defended before hand he doe not harden his hart and vvith obstinacy determine not to change his opinion or practise whatsoeuer he heare reade or vnderstand said against it or in proofe of an other way It behoueth euery Christian to be of a right hart and a good wil. Much is said in the holy Scripture both in commendation of the one and of the other The Prophet Dauid in the Psalmes often commendeth them that are recti corde right in hart and in particular inuiteth them to the praise of almighty God The Angels at the birth of our Lord did sing this Hymne Luke 2. v. 14. Gloria in altissimis Deo in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis Glory in the highest to God and in earth peace to men of good wil. And who hath a right hart and is of good wil Verily he that doth not obdurate himselfe against God but is desirous and by al meanes seeketh to conforme his wil to Gods wil
vvhich is the right and straite rule by vvhich al our thoughts and actions are to be squared and tried Of my reader therefore if he be a Protestant I desire no more but that he bring his hart and wil to this disposition if it be not so disposed already that he be desirous to serue God in his true Church and casting off al obstinacy he be indifferent either to this or that so that he might be throughly informed of the truth Lastly that he humbly craue of God that if his beliefe be not right he wil mercifully vouchsafe to giue him grace and meanes vvhereby he may finde out the truth And because I esteeme this disposition in that Protestant vvhich intendeth to reade this Treatise to be a matter of great moment towardes his conuersion I thinke it conuenient briefly here to touch among diuers others which occurre some two motiues which in my judgement are very sufficient to drawe any man from obstinacy in the newe religion yea be he of what sect soeuer to make him doubtful of the sincerity of that faith and religion which he professeth Of these the first shal be that as many I may say more and as vertuous and as learned euen of the Protestant side condemne his said faith and religion as erroneous as there doe approue it as true For if he be a Zwinglian a Caluinist or an English Protestant although his temporal Magistrates and his learned Masters tel him that he is of a sound beliefe and a true member of Christs Church yet Luther and al the Lutherans affirme in plaine tearmes and that vvith great vehemency neuerthelesse deliberately and aduisedly that he is an Heretike and consequently is guilty of that crime which the * Apologie of the Church of EnglaÌ„d part 1. pa. 28. 29. Apologie of the Church of England auoucheth to be a forsaking of saluation a renouncing of Gods grace a departing from the body and spirit of Christ This not only the workes of Luther and the Lutherans but also of diuers Sacramentaries so the Zwinglians Caluinists and English Protestants are commonly called testifie to the whole world Luther in one place writeth thus a Luther thes 21. cont Louaniens to 7. in defiÌ„s ver borum coenae We seriously judge the Zwinglians and al Sacramentaries to be Heretikes and aliens from the Church of God In an other booke of the same sectaries he hath these wordes b Idem tom 7 in defens verborum coenae fol. 383. Touching the soule and matters spiritual we wil auoide them as long as we haue a day to liue we wil reproue and condemne them for Idolaters corrupters of Gods wordes blaspheamers and deceiuers and of them as of enemies of the Gospel we wil sustaine persecution and spoile of our goodes whatsoeuer they shal doe vnto vs so long as God wil permit Thus Luther Hence also the Zwinglians of Zuricke complaine that Luther c CoÌ„fessio Orthodoxa Eccles Tigurinae in praefat fol. 3. 4. inueigheth against them as against obstinate Heretikes and such as are guilty to themselues of al impiety as against prophaners of the Sacraments and the most vile and pestilent men that goe on the ground By his c Ibid. tract 3. fol. 108. last confession by them likewise recorded it appeareth that he continued in this minde euen to his dying day And who among al the Professors of the newe religion is generally preferred by the followers of al sects before Luther The Sacramentaries themselues vvhome he damned to the pit of hel most highly commend him The Apologie of the Church of England a booke written by M. Iewel and approued by the best English Protestants yea much d Martir ep ad IuelluÌ„ prae fixa Apolog. Eccles Angl. praised by Peter Martir and other forraine followers of Zwinglius and Caluin tearmeth him e Apologie of the Church of EnglaÌ„d part 4. pag. 124. printed anno 1600. a most excellent man euen sent of God to giue light to the world Whitakers affirmeth f Whitakers in his answer to Campians 3. reason pag. 85. his name is written in the booke of life and that his memory shal euer be sacred among al good men And he addeth g Idem in his answer to the 8. reason pag. 259. that they reuerence him as Father Field a Doctor of the English Church nowe liuing auerreth h Ficl booke 3 of the Church ch 42. p. 170. See also Whetenhal a PuritaÌ„ in his discourse of the abuses c. printed anno 1606. pag. 64. 65. he was a most worthy diuine as the world had any in those times wherein he liued or in many ages before whose happy memory saith he for the clearing of sundry points of greatest moment in our Christian religion al succeeding ages shal be bound to honour Seing then that this most excellent man sent by God to giue light to the world whose name is written in the booke of life and whose memory shal euer be sacred among al good men sendeth forth these glistering beames of light vnto vs that the Sacramentaries are damned Heretikes Idolaters blaspheamers corrupters of the word of God deceiuers and enemies of the Gospel Seing this most worthy diuine reuerenced by our English Protestants as a father pronounced this so hard a censure against his children vvhat Sacramentary being thus censured if he wil proceede according to the rules of reason can doe otherwise then mistrust the truth of his beliefe vvhich of the Sacramentaries hath deserued or obtained such commendations of the Lutherans as Luther hath here of the Sacramentaries Verily Caluin himselfe whose doctrine of the Sacrament our English Church and most Sacramentaries doe nowe embrace is most bitterly reuiled and condemned by them al. Nay one of them writeth that i Conradus Schlussel in Theolog. Caluinist lib. 2. fol. 72. God also in this world shewed his judgement against Caluin whome he visited saith he in the â—odde of his anger and horribly punished before the dreadful houre of his vnhappy death For God with his potent hand I vse his vvordes so strooke this Heretike that hauing despaired of his saluation hauing called vpon Diuels swearing cursing and blaspheaming most miserably be yeelded vp his wicked ghost but Caluin died of the lousie disease wormes so increasing in an impostume or most stinking vlcer about his priuy members that none of the standers by could any longer indure the stinke Thus Conradus Schlusselburge a Lutheran reporteth Caluins death as he auoucheth out of publike writings of which he sawe no sound refutation What Sacramentary then can justly coÌ„pare any one of his learned masters with Luther or thinke that Luther erred some one of them attained to the light of truth seing that Luther had and read the same Scriptures out of vvhich his masters affirme they haue drawne their doctrine and vsed in euery respect as good meanes to come to the true sense and interpretation of them as his said masters could
prerogatiues vpon his spiritual Body and Spouse but perhaps these prerogatiues redound greatly to the good and benefite of the members and children of the Church Neither this can be auerred true for vvhat are poore Christians the nearer for it howe can such a Church be the director of their faith howe shal they knowe vvhat faith vvas preached by the Apostles and vvhat part taught true doctrine and vvhen and vvhich erred in subsequent ages howe shal vve vnderstand her judicial sentence vvhen controuersies arise and are to be decided surely they that are past and are departed out of this world can performe these thinges by no other meanes but by their writinges left behind them wherefore we can take no other direction and receiue no other judicial sentence from the Church in the first and second acception but by such monuments and bookes as we haue receiued from the Apostles Euangelistes the ancient Fathers and Doctors and other our predecessours And vvhat is this but to reduce al to the letter of holy Scripture and to the workes of antiquity which as I wil prooue hereafter setting aside the authority of the present Church yeelde vs no certaine and diuine argument and to giue nothing at al to the Church it selfe contrary to al the argumentes before made for her infallible authority Finally some of the places of Scripture before aleadged are expresly spoken of the present Church as that tel the Church If he shal not heare the Church let him he to thee as the Heathen or Publican c. SECTION THE SIXT That the same testimonies and proofes conuince an infallible judgement of the Church concerning euery article of faith not only concerning certaine of the principal SECONDLY that the testimonies of holy Scriptures and Fathers with the reasons brought in this Chapter proue the judgement authority of the Church to be of diuine and infallible truth in al points of faith it is euen as easily shewed For are not the vvordes general Is it not said that the holy Ghost shal teach the Church al truth and that she being the house of God is the piller and ground of truth c. And howe can these promises be verified if in some thinges she be subject to errour Field booke 4. chap. 4. Some say these last vvordes of the Apostle are vnderstood of the particuler Church of the Ephesians but first it is not like that God bestowed such an extraordinary priuiledge vpon that Church as to make it the piller and ground of truth Secondly the Apostle calleth that Church vnto which he here giueth these prerogatiues the house of God by which wordes a Cipr. l. 1. epist 6. S. Ciprian b Aug. l. 7. de baptis cōt Donat. ca. 49. 50. 51. Item in psalm 25. enarrat 2. S. Augustine and al the Fathers commonly vnderstand the whole militant Church yea S. Augustine alluding to this sentence and vsing the very vvordes of the Apostle calleth the whole Church * 2. Tim. 2. vers 20. columnam firmamentum veritatis the piller and ground of truth and in the Scripture it selfe the vvhole militant Church is called a great house as a Field booke 1. chap. 11. Field himselfe cōfesseth And because euery particuler Diocesse is a part of this Church the Apostle might very wel vse this kinde of speach vnto Timothie I write to thee that thou maist knowe howe thou oughtest to conuerse in the house of God although the said Timothie was Bishop only of Ephesus Moreouer are vve not absolutely vnder peril of being accounted Heathens and Publicans bound to obey the Church and what reason had our Lord so to binde vs if in some thinges her judgement may be erroneous for howe shal we discerne which those articles be in which she cannot erre and in which she may erre Further vvhat profit if this vvere so shal vve receaue from her for the preseruation of vnitie and ending of al controuersies verily this assertion is euen as prejuditial to the good of vnitie as that which affirmeth the Church to haue no warrant of truth at al. For what dissention and diuision would arise of this might not euery man contradict the rule of faith in any matter whatsoeuer and affirme his contradiction to be in a matter of smal moment who shal judge which matters be of great and which of smal importance For example diuers sectaries tel vs See Couel in defence of Hooker artic 11. Fox pag. 942. c. that the question concerning the real presence of Christ in the blessed Sacrament whether he be there really and substantially by transubstantiation as the Catholikes affirme or together with bread as the Lutherans say or only figuratiuely as is affirmed by the Sacramentaries is a question of smal importance not any essential point belonging to the substance of Christian religion But howe wil these men refute Castalio who addeth if Beza say true that the controuersies touching the blessed Trinity the estate and office of Christ and howe he is one with his father are concerning no essential points of Christian religion certainely they cannot wel ouerthrowe his opinion And this is that which was in old time and is at this present affirmed by some See Theodoretus lib 2. hist cap. 18. 19. 21. Trip. hist lib. 5. cap. 21. 33. that so that Christ be beleeued to be God it skilleth not whether he be beleeued to be equal or not equal consubstantial or not consubstantial to his father Wherefore this assertion of our aduersaries that the rule of faith may in some points be denied first openeth the gappe to al dissention then to al impiety and ouerthrowe of Christianity which thinges be sufficient to perswade euery Christian to abhorre and detest it SECTION THE SEAVENTH That to saluation it is necessary to beleeue the whole Catholike faith and euery article thereof CONCERNING the third point vvhich I intended to proue I affirme that it is necessary to saluation to beleeue and hold either expresly or virtually euery article of faith which is propounded by the Church to her children to be beleeued I adde those wordes expresly or virtually because I say not that euery man is bound expresly to knowe al the articles of Christian religion For it is held by vs sufficient if the ruder sort knowe expresly certaine of the principal as are they that concerne the Trinity and the incarnation passion resurrection and ascension of Christ c. if they virtually beleeue al the rest that is if they beleeue concerning al such points as they are not bound expresly to know whatsoeuer according to the doctrine of the church ought to be beleeued and be of contrary beleefe in no one point propounded vnto them and knowne to be propounded as an article of faith We differ therefore from our aduersaries in this that some of them hold a man is not bound to belieue any such articles not necessarily to be knowne by al others say a man may erre
doubtful authority For it is recorded by Ecclesiastical vvriters and also confessed by our aduersaries that there hath beene controuersie and doubt in the Church concerning the authority of the b Euseb li. 3. hist ca. 3. 25. 28. Hier. de viris illust in Paulo Petro c. Hāmer in his notes vpon Eusebius lib. 2. cap. 23. epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrues the epistles of S. Iames S. Iude the second of S. Peter and the second of S. Iohn Howe doubtful the authority of the c Euse l. 3. cap. 28. Hier. epist 129. ad Dardarā Apocalipse was among many euery man may see in S. Hierome and Eusebius and in the Councel of Laodicea which numbred it not among other Canonical bookes And who hath taken vp and ended these controuersies by declaring these parcels of Scripture to be Canonical but our holy mother the Church Verily this is so true and euident that it is confessed euen by some of our d Obseruations vpon the Harmonie of cōfessions vppon the 1. Section aduersaries themselues Thus she receiued in the first general councel of Nice the booke of Iudith about the yeare of our Lord 325. if we beleeue e Hier. praefat in Iud. Idē in prolo Galeato in prol Prouer. in praefat in Iudith S. Hierome who before he heard of this decree of the said Councel rejected the said booke but vnderstanding of it admitted it forthwith as Canonical Let vs confirme al this with the testimony of S. Augustine whome f Caluin li. 4. Instit c. 14. sess 25 Caluin acknowledgeth to be the most faithful witnes of al antiquity g Beza in cap. 3. ad Rom. v. 12. Beza calleth him the prince of al ancient Diuines both Greeke and Latin as concerning dogmatical pointes of religion h Gomarus in speculo verae Ecclesiae pag. 96. Gomarus saith that according to the common opinion he is accounted most pure This then is one of his notable sentences touching this matter i Aug. contra epistol Manichaei quam vocant fundamentum cap. 5. I would not beleeue the Gospel saith he except the authority of the Catholike Church did moue me thereunto Those therefore whome I obeied saying Beleeue ye the Gospel why shal I not obey them saying vnto me Beleeue thou not Manichaeus Choose which thou wilt If thou shalt say beleeue the Catholikes they admonish me that I beleeue not you If thou shalt say beleeue not the Catholikes thou shalt not doe wel to constraine me by the Gospel to beleeue Manichaeus because I haue beleeued the Gospel it selfe through the preaching of the Catholikes Thus S. Augustine But here k Field booke 4. chap. 4. M. Field in his fourth booke of the Church occurreth and saith that the sense and meaning of S. Augustine in those his wordes I would not beleeue the Gospel except the authority of the Church did moue me thereunto is that he had neuer beleeued the Gospel if the authority of the Church had not beene an introduction vnto him I reply that he vvresteth this holy Fathers vvordes to a vvrong sense yea to such a sense as his discourse it selfe wil not beare and for proofe of this I desire no more of my reader but to marke the force of the reason vsed by S. Augustine which is this Manichaeus in the beginning of his epistle which this most learned Doctor confuteth called himselfe an Apostle of Iesus Christ S. Augustine requireth a proofe of his Apostleship and vrgeth if perhaps he alleage some authority out of the Gospel what he would doe to him that should deny the Gospel whereunto he adjoineth the wordes rehearsed I trulie would not beleeue the Gospel c. if the authority of the Church did not moue me thereunto And out of this that the Gospel is beleeued by the authoritie of the Church he proueth that Manichaeus is not to be beleeued because the same authoritie which commaundeth to doe the one forbiddeth to doe the other Of which it followeth that if it erre in the last it may also erre in the first and so no firme argument can be brought out of it for the proofe of the Apostleship of Manichaeus Hence S. Augustine doth not say I had not beleued the Gospel except the authority of the Church had moued me thereunto as he should haue said if he had meant as Field pretendeth but I would not beleeue the Gospel c. taking his argument from the motiue of his present beliefe of the Gospel and in this sence his reason is of great force and not otherwise But that which I say is yet more confirmed by that which followeth For S. Augustine addeth But if peraduenture thou canst finde something in the Gospel most apparant for the Apostleship of Manichaeus thou shalt weaken vnto me the authority of the Catholikes who commaund me that I shal not beleeue thee which being weakned now neither can I beleeue the Gospel because through them I beleeued it So whatsoeuer thou shalt bring me from thence shal be with me of no force wherefore if nothing manifest be found in the Gospel for the Apostleship of Manichaeus I wil beleeue the Catholikes rather then thee But if thou bring any thing from thence manifest for the Apostleship of Manichaeus I wil neither beleeue them nor thee not them because they haue lied to me concerning thee not thee also because thou bringest me forth that Scripture which I beleeued through them whome I haue found liars But God forbid that I should not beleeue the Gospel Hitherto are S. Augustines words by which I thinke euerie man may perceiue how greatly M. Field doth wrong him For we see plainly that he confesseth the authority of the Church to haue beene the cause of his present beliefe of Scripture yet not the formal cause but the conditional as is declared before And al that I haue here related out of this holy Father Aug. tom 6. li. cont Epist quā vocāt fundamenti cap. 5. may be as wel vrged against any Sectarie whatsoeuer of our time as against Manichaeus for whosoeuer affirmeth the Church to haue erred in condemning any one of their Heresies by weakning and ouerthrowing her authoritie weakeneth also and ouerthroweth the authoritie of the whole Bible Neither doth that which he alleageth out of Waldensis make any waies for him for as this learned man plainely in that very place declareth he vnderstandeth S. Augustine as I haue deliuered These are his wordes Waldensis lib. 2. doctrinalis fidei artic 2. ca. 21. Without the authority of the vniuersal Church no scripture can be read or bad for certaine And this S. Augustine vnderstood when he said I would not beleeue the Gospel did not the authority of the Church moue me thereunto Thus Waldensis The point which Field toucheth is in his discourse following but it maketh nothing against vs for he only saith that which I haue before deliuered to wit that by the proposition of
the Church we first come to a certaine and supernatural knowledge of such bookes as are Canonical and then beleeue the verities in them contained because they are reuealed by God like as the Samaritans first beleeued through the relation of the woman with whom our Sauiour talked Iob. ca. 4. ver 39. c. as the propounder of such things as she had heard of our Lord afterward through the diuine speeches which he vsed to them himself That which Field saith before that S. Augustine according to the opinion of some Diuines speaketh here of the church taken for the whole number of beleeuers that are and haue beene since Christ appeared in the flesh so including the Apostles is friuolous both because S. Augustine neuer vsed the wordes Catholike Church after this sort in that sense and also because the argument had beene of no force See S. August in li. 23. cōtra Faustum cap. 9. vnto which I adde further that S. Augustine speaketh of that Church which commaunded him then not to beleeue Manichaeus which was the presēt Church as appeareth Neither can he as I think alleage any Diuine that euer so interpreted it For that which he citeth in the margent out of Occam is very impertinent and thus much of this testimony of S. Augustine Hieron in simbolo ad Damasum S. Hierome likewise auoucheth himselfe to receiue the old and new Testament in that number of books which the authority of the holie Catholike Church doth deliuer And this reason so infallibly proueth that these diuine bookes containe the true word of God that euery one may most assuredly beleeue it For her censure and declaration cannot be false who by God himselfe is warranted from errour Finally vnto this principal and inuincible argument I might also adde the tradition of the Church and one consent of holy Fathers who haue deliuered to their successors and confirmed by their testimony that these holy bookes were penned by the instinct of the holy Ghost which argument of tradition for the proofe of Canonical bookes was vsed by Serapion Clemens Alexandrinus and Origenes as Eusebius recordeth Eusebius li. 6. hist cap. 10. 11. 18. But this argument is almost the same with the former for the certainty of the tradition of the Church and of the testimony of the ancient fathers dependeth of this that the Church cannot erre For if we make her judgement subject to errour her tradition and the whole consent of fathers may likewise be erroneous but supposing the Church cannot erre this argument is of as great force but almost the same with the first And hence I inferre against our aduersaries that no bookes of the old and newe Testament receiued by the Church as canonical are to be rejected for seing that the same authority hath approued them al they are al with like reason to be admitted neither hath any man more reason to reject one then another And thus much of the letter of holy Scripture SECTION THE SECOND Concerning the sense or exposition of holy Scriptures and first that the Scriptures are hard and receiue diuers interpretations BVT a farre greater controuersie there is betweene vs and the new Sectaries concerning the true sence and interpretation of holie Scripture vvho is the judge thereof and of vvhome vve are to receiue it For the decision of vvhich difficultie before I deliuer the Catholike opinion I must briefly proue two or three conclusions auerred also by vs Catholikes And first that the Scriptures are hard and admit diuers interpretations This is insinuated vnto vs in sundry places of the sacred bookes but for breuities sake 2. Pet. 3. vers 16. Aug tom 2. epistola 119. ad Ia nu ca. vlt. I wil content my selfe with one testimony of S. Peter who telleth vs that in S. Paules epistles There are certaine thinges hard to be vnderstood which the vnlearned saith he and vnstable depraue as also the rest of the Scriptures to their owne perdition The holy Fathers plainly affirme the same Among the rest S. Augustine although a man of rare wit and great learning affirmed that there were far more things in the Scriptures of which he was ignorant then there were that he knewe Idem tom 3. li. 2. de doctrina Christiana cap. 6. Idē epist 3. see him also epist 1. ad Volusium He telleth vs also that they that read the Scriptures rashly are deceiued through many and diuers obscurities and doubtes That through the prouidence of God the Scripture is hard to tame with labour our pride and to recal our vnderstanding from irksomnes vnto which those thinges which are easily found our seeme base and of no moment He affirmeth moreouer in an other place that the depth and profundity of wisedome contained not only in the words of holy Scripture but also in the matter and sense is so wonderful that liue a man neuer so long be he neuer of so great wit neuer so studious and neuer so feruent and desirous to attaine to the knowledge thereof yet that when he endeth he shal confesse that he doth but beginne This moued him in the books of his confessions to crie out vnto God after this sort Aug. lib. 12. confes cap. 14. O wonderful profoundnesse of thy wordes wonderful profoundnesse my God wonderful profoundnes it maketh a man quake to looke on it to quake for reuerence and tremble for the loue thereof Hitherto S. Augustine S. Hierome likewise a man most expert in those tongues the knowledge of which maketh most for the vnderstanding of these sacred bookes and experienced in the translation and interpretation of them aboue others Hieron in cap. 5. ad Galatas witnesseth that the fruite of the spirit is found in the holy Scripture by much labour and industrie and in another place he saith that the Apocalipse of S. Iohn containeth as many misteries as wordes The like sentences are found in the rest of the Fathers And this obscurity of holy Scripture is a thing so euident that diuers euen of our aduersaries themselues although others wil haue them easie are forced in expresse and plaine termes to confesse it Among the rest the translator or corrector of the English bible published in the yeare one thousand six hundred in his preface auoucheth that it is a very hard thing to vnderstand the holy Scriptures and that diuers errours sects and heresies growe daily for lacke of the true knowledge thereof Diuers others haue the like sentences some of which I shal recite in the second part of this Treatise See part 2. cap. 5. sect 4. yea almost al the newe sectaries by their proceedinges seeme to acknowledge this truth for otherwise what meane they to write such great and huge volumes or commentaries vpon the holy Scripture But whence ariseth this difficulty and obscurity surelie of diuers causes First because sundrie wordes of Scriptures admit many senses and the very phrase it selfe is obscure and doubtful Secondly many
such vehemencie accuseth him that preacheth other doctrine then that which was before receiued in the Church Gal. 1 9. If any man saith he euangelize to you besides that which you haue receiued be he Anathema or cursed to vvhich sentence alludeth Vincentius Lirinensis in these wordes Vincent Lir. c. 14. To preach vnto Christian Catholikes other doctrine then that which they haue already receiued no where is lawful and neuer shal be lawful and to accurse as Heretikes those which preach other doctrine then that which before hath beene accepted it was neuer vnlawful it is in no place vnlawful and neuer wil be vnlawful Hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis Contrariwise for keeping vndefiled this rule or Tradition the same Apostle highly commendeth the Corinthians saying 1. Corin. 11 2. I praise you brethren that in al things you be mindful of me and as I haue deliuered vnto you you keepe my precepts or according to the Greeke vvord my Traditions And because the Church and aboue al others the Romans most carefully kept these Traditions Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4. S. Irenaeus called it the rich treasure-house of Apostolike Traditions wherefore vvhosoeuer is desirous to discerne a true Christian from a faithles Heretike must behold the doctrine of them both and pronounce him to be the true disciple of Christ who by succession and Tradition hath receiued his beliefe from him and his Apostles For like as a nobleman or gentleman of antiquity is knowne by his pedigree so a true Christian is knowne by the succession and descent of his Prelates and faith from them that first receiued it from our Lord. Neither doth this our doctrine any waies diminish the authority of holy scripture for this notvvithstanding we affirme that the wonderful prouidence of almighty God most wisely ordained that the scriptures of the newe Testament should be written that he moued the penners thereof thereunto and directed them by his diuine inspiration and this both for the cōfirmation and preseruation of the faith Tradition of the Church and also that the said Tradition might with more ease come to euery ones knowledg and that euery one by such monuments might learne to discerne the true Church of vvhich he vvas to be instructed concerning al matters of faith and religion But of our estimation of the holie scripture see more aboue Chap. 7. SECTION THE SECOND Of vnwritten Traditions in particular THis discourse beeing premised concerning the Traditions of the Church in general I come nowe to discourse of that part of the said Traditions vvhich are concerning matters of vvhich there is no expresse mention in the word of God and therefore are called vnwritten Traditions And first that both such Traditions are found in the Church and that the vvhole summe of Christian doctrine is not expresly contained in the vvritten vvord of God I haue already declared Section 1. because none of the Apostles or Disciples euer intended to set downe in any parcel of scripture the said whole summe of Christian doctrine and also proued it out of those words of S. Luke in the Actes of the Apostles in which he telleth vs Acts 1 verse 3. that Christ after his Passion shewed himselfe aliue in many argumentes for forty daies appearing to his Apostles and speaking of the kingdome of God For by this relation it seemeth euident that our Sauiour during the time betweene his resurrection and ascention gaue to his Apostles diuers instructions which are not set downe in particuler in any parte of the newe Testament for no Apostle or Euangelist relateth in particular these discourses of Christ And they vvere without al doubt concerning the sacraments their administration the gouernment of the Church and other such like affaires belonging to Christian religion which for the most part the Apostles left to their successors only by word of mouth and secret Tradition This in plaine termes is auouched by a Epiph. haeres 61. Apostolico rum S. Epiphanius whose words be these We must vse Tradition for the scripture hath not al things And therefore the Apostles deliuered certaine thinges in writing certaine by Tradition The same truth is affirmed by b Basil de spiri sācto cap. 27. S. Basil and the rest of the Fathers yea this we are taught by the Apostle himselfe who in his epistle to the Thessalonians not only commendeth most earnestly to the Church written Traditions but also vnwritten c 2. Thess 2 15. Brethren saith he stand and hold the Traditions which you haue learned whether it be by word or by our epistle Out of which place it is euident that some Traditions by the Apostle were deliuered to the Thessalonians by word And that here he speaketh of such Traditions as we treat of we are taught by al the ancient Fathers Among the rest S. Iohn Chrisostome gathereth out of them this conclusion Hence it is manifest saith he that they videlicet the Apostles deliuered not al thinges by Epistle but many thinges also vnwritten and those thinges likewise are to be beleeued d Chrisost hom 4. in 2. Thessa It is a Tradition seeke thou no further thus S. Chrisostome But that the Fathers admit vnwritten Traditions it is graunted by e Whitak de sacra scrip pag. 678. 668. 681. 683. 685. 690. 695. 696. 670. Whitaker f Rain in his conclusions ānexed to his conferēce 1. conclu pag. 689. Rainolds g Cart. in Whitg defēce p. 103 Cartwrite h Kemnis in exam part 1. pa. 87 89. 90 Kemnisius i Fulk against pur pag. 362. 303. 397. Against Marshal pag. 170. 178. Against Brist motiues pag. 35. 36. Fulke and other Protestants wherefore I neede not alleage any more of their testimonies And this is the reason wherefore we haue no precept in the newe Testament to beleeue or obserue those thinges only which are expresly contained in the said volume Neither doe we finde that euer the Apostles or their followers commended and deliuered to any Church or people the said newe Testament as a booke comprehending in expresse termes the whole summe of Christian doctrine Nay it is certaine that for diuers yeares before the said booke was written the Apostles deliuered al by Tradition and word of mouth Further that the estimation of vnwritten Traditions hath euer beene exceeding great in the Church it appeareth not only by this that diuers of the ancient Fathers as I haue shewed in the * Section 1. chapter next before by Tradition haue proued what scripture is Canonical and pleaded the authority of them against diuers heresies but also by this that diuers heresies haue been by the testimony of them only condemned ouerthrowne In the first general Councel of Nice as a Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 16. et 18. Sozomenus reporteth the Fathers especially endeauoured that nothing should be decreed but that vvhich they had receiued by Tradition from their forefathers S. Ciprian with most of the Bishops of Affrica
as a rule of her faith For a third Tradition he acknowledgeth That forme of Christian doctrine and explication of the seueral parts thereof which the first Christians receiuing from the same Apostles that deliuered to them the scriptures commended to posterities Vnto which I adde that which he hath in the fourteenth chapter of the same booke that without the Creed of the Apostles named here in the second place we cannot knowe the scripture to be of God that without the forme of Christian doctrine which is his third Tradition and the Analogie of faith we haue no forme of Christian doctrine by the direction whereof to judge of particular doubts and questions Yea in another place of the said forme of Christian doctrine he hath these wordes Ibidem cap. 19. We confesse that neither conference of places nor consideration of the antedentia consequentia nor looking into the originals are of any force in the interpretation of scripture vnlesse we finde the thinges which we conceiue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant to the rule of faith This is M. Fields doctrine Out of vvhich I inferre contrarie to his owne assertions that according to his owne groundes Tradition is the very foundation of his faith And this is euident For doth it not follow of this that we receiue the number names of the authors and the integritie of bookes diuine by Tradition that without Tradition we cannot knowe such diuine bookes and moreouer that if Tradition may be false that we also concerning such bookes may be deceiued Can it likewise be denied if it be so that vvithout the knoweledge of the creed we cannot know the scripture to be of God the creed also be an Apostolike Tradition that without an Apostolike Tradition vve cannot knowe the scriptures Moreouer although that should be admitted as true which he auoucheth and hardly agreeth with this to wit Chap. 20. § Much contētion See more of this matter part 2. chapter 5. sect 1. and chapter 8. section 4. that The scriptures winne credit of themselues and yeeld satisfaction to al men of their diuine truth which in very deed is false yet seing that the true interpretation of them cannot be knowne as Field saith without the knowledge of this rule of faith it followeth also apparantly that this rule must first infallibly be knowne by Tradition before that we can certainly gather any article of beliefe out of scripture Neither are these things only granted by Field but moreouer he confesseth the baptisme of Infants to be a Tradition and addeth * Field booke 4. chap. 20. § the fourth That it is not expresly deliuered in scripture that the Apostles did baptize Infants and that there is not any expres precept there found that they should so doe And yet I hope that M. Field wil grant that it is a matter of faith that Infants are to be baptized lest that he be censured to be an Anabaptist which if he doe he must needs confesse that some matters of faith are deliuered vnto vs by Tradition And whereas he saith This is not receiued by bare and naked Tradition but that we find the scripture to deliuer vnto vs the grounds of it It is verie certaine that the scripture is so obscure touching this point August de Genes ad litteram l. 10. c. 23 that S. Augustine affirmeth that this custome of the Church in baptizing Infants were not at al to be beleeued were it not an Apostolike Tradition And this obscurity of Scripture is much increased if vvee confesse vvith our aduersaries that Infants may be saued vvithout Baptisme Chap. 20. But they But he doth object against vs that we proue many thinges which vve wil haue to be Apostolical Traditions by the testimony of holy scripture I cannot deny it yet I say it is one thing probably to deduce an article of faith out of the scripture another thing to be expresly and plainely contained in it We only by probable conjectures proue some Traditions out of holy scripture especially against Heretikes which deny Traditions and approue the scripture Neuerthelesse by supernatural faith vve beleeue them because they are such Traditions Booke 4. cap. 20. § For this That vvhich he saith that vve make Traditions Ecclesiastical equal with the vvritten vvord of God is one of his ordinary vntruthes Besides this it is also generally vrged against vs by our aduersaries that diuers such thinges as are affirmed by vs to be Apostolike Traditions are institutions of men and they name the time vvhen such things were instituted and the author that commanded them to be obserued I answere that although touching certaine obseruations and ceremonies vvhich vve affirme to be Apostolike there be some decrees of Councels and Popes yet that the said Councels or Popes instituted not such obseruations and ceremonies but either ratified and confirmed them by their decrees or else caused them to be obserued vniuersally whereas before the vse of them was not general or finally prescribed to al faithful people a certaine and vniforme manner of obseruing them whereas before although the obseruation of them was general yet they were not generally obserued after the same manner in al places The truth of this answere appeareth by this that vve can proue by sufficient testimonies such obseruations and ceremonies to be more ancient then our aduersaries vvil haue their institution I adde also that al the definitions and decrees of Councels and Popes concerning matters of faith are but more perspicuous explications of that rule of faith which by Tardition hath descended from the Apostles as I wil declare in the next chapter wherefore it is no absurdity to affirme the like of such constitutions concerning some obseruations and ceremonies for that some haue beene instituted and ordained by the Church we confesse Neither hath she in this exceeded her authoritie because Christ hath giuen her such power to the end that al thinges might be done vniformallie vvith decencie and as the Apostle saith according to order 1. Corint 14 40. And that she hath such Apostilike authority it is confessed by most English Protestants * see chap. 6. before section 4. pag. 50. as I haue aboue declared Chapter 9. Of general Councels which make the third particuler ground of Catholike religion IN the next place I affirme that euery man may securely build his faith and religion vpon the decrees of a lawful and authentical general Councel concerning that or those matters which the Councel intendeth to define One principal reason conuincing the truth of this may be gathered out of that which hath beene already said of the infallible authority of the Church for I haue proued before not only that it vvas necessary for the preseruation of peace and vnity that Christ should ordaine in his Church some visible supreame and infallible meane to decide controuersies touching matters of religion but also that this prerogatiue was bestowed by
is affirmed in the b Concil Chalcedon act 2. et 3. fourth This also moued S. Hierome in his epistle to S. Damasus the Pope to vse these wordes c Hieron to 2. epist 7. ad Damasum I following no chiefe or principal but Christ joine my selfe to the communion of Peters Chaire vpon this rocke I knowe the Church was built The same may be proued by this sentence of S. Augustine d Aug. to 7. psal cōtra partē Donati Count the priests saith he from the very See of Peter and in that order of Fathers consider who to whom hath succeeded that same is the rocke which the proud gates of hel doe not ouercome Finally by the chaire of Peter manifestly shewed by the succession of the Romane Bishops e Aug. contra epist. Manich. ca. 4. et epist 105. he seuereth Catholikes from Heretikes Our aduersaries barking against this accuse diuers Popes of sundry errours but they are al very wel answered by diuers Catholikes and the Popes manifestly cleared from their false slaunders I must further note in this place that although the decrees of the Pope as is before declared of themselues be of an infallible truth touching the matter which he intendeth to define yet that some further authority if it be possible is added vnto them when they are accepted and approued by the whole Church for if they so accepted could be false the whole Church might erre contrary to that which hath beene proued before I must also adde here two groundes more flowing out of this warrant of the Popes judgment from error In the first place are prouincial Councels confirmed by the Pope for by such only diuers heresies haue beene condemned as that of the Pelagians Priscillianists of Iouinian and others The second such ground is the faith of the Church of Rome including the Pope his Clergie and people for vnto this Church as we were long since told by a S. Cipr. l. 1. epi. 3. et 55. Nū 6. S. Ciprian infidelity or false belief cannot haue accesse b Hierō epist 16. c. 3. itē li. 3. Apol. cōtr Ruffinum S. Hierome calleth it The most safe hauen of communion and likewise auoucheth that The Roman faith commended by the Apostles mouth wil admit no deceits of Heretiks and that it cannot possibly be chaunged c Ambr. in ora de obitu Satiri circa medium Ambros ibid. S. Ambrose affimeth that he doth agree with the Catholike Bishops who accord with the Roman Church And hence it proceedeth that not onlie he but also d Cipr. epi. 52. Num. 1. ad Antonianum S. Ciprian and e Hierō apol 1. aduers Ruffinū cap. 1. S. Hierome anerre that it is al one to say the Roman and the Catholike faith SECTION THE FOVRTH The opinion of some sectaries that the Pope is Antechrist is brieflie confuted and two objections against the premises are answered OVR f Caluī ad c. 2. poster ad Thess l. 4. Instit ca. 7. § 24. Aduersaries by diuers meanes endeauour to ouerthrowe the Catholike doctrine deliuered and proued by me in this chapter Nay the malice of some of them especially of our g Bullēger Willet in his Sinop cōtrouers 2. quest 5. par 2. c. Puritan brethren extendeth it selfe so far that they are not ashamed stoutly to auer that the Pope is the very Antechrist foretold by Christ and the Apostles in the newe Testament But this assertion is so absurd and opposite to the word of God and al shewe of truth that diuers learned Protestants not ouer-mastred by their passions reject it as false and among the rest h Couel in his defēce of Hooker artic 11. M. Couel confesseth the Pope to be a member of the Church militant of Christ i Hooker in his third book of Ecclesiastical policy § 1. pag. 128. edit anno 1604. Hooker also himselfe in vvhose defence he vvriteth of the Church of Rome vseth these wordes With Rome we dare not communicate concerning her sundry grosse and grieuous abhominations yet touching those maine parts of Christian truth wherein they constantly stil persist we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Iesus Christ Thus Hooker But a litle k pag. 127. before he discourseth thus In S. Pauls time the integrity of Rome was famous Corinth many waies reproued they of Galatia much more out of square In S. Iohns time Ephesus and Smirna in farre better state then Thiatira and Pergamus were We hope therfore that to reforme our selues if at any time we haue done amisse is not to seuer our selues from the Church we were of before In the Church we were and we are so stil Hitherto are Hookers wordes in which he seemeth to me plainely to affirme both that the Church of Rome is a true Church and also that it is no diuers Church from that of the Protestants of England vvhich I think this learned man vvould not haue said if he had imagined the Pope to be Antechrist But this confession of our aduersaries notwithstanding brieflie I thus confute the afore-said vntrue and absurd opinion of others In the scripture we find that Antechrist shal deny Iesus to be Christ who is a liar saith S. Iohn but he who denieth that Iesus is Christ 1. Iohn 2. verse 22. this is Antechrist which denieth the Father and the Sonne He shal also affirme himselfe to be Christ and the Iewes shal receiue him for their true Messias as we gather our of these words of our Sauiour vnto the said Iewes If an other come in his owne name Iohn 5. Iren. li. 5. Ciril catech 15. Ambros in c. 21. Luc. 2. Thessal 2. vers 4. him you wil receiue That he shal affirme himselfe to be Christ vve are taught by S. Irenaeus S. Ciril Bishop of Hierusalem S. Ambrose and others That the Iewes shal receiue him as Christ it is auouched by al the Fathers Moreouer Antechrist shal publikely name himselfe to be God and couet to be worshiped as the only God this is manifest out of these words of the Apostle He shal be extolled aboue al that is called God or that is worshiped so that he sitteth in the temple of God shewing himselfe as though he were God These be some of the properties of Antechrist set downe in the vvord of God but none of these agree vnto the Pope for he neither denieth Christ nor affirmeth himself to be Christ or is accepted as Christ by the Iewes finally he is not worshiped as God but worshipeth God therefore he is not Antechrist Adde also that Antechrist shal be but one man he shal come immediatly before the day of judgment he shal raigne but three yeares and an halfe and that at Hierusalem as is euidently gathered out of the same holy scripture and al the holy Fathers by vvhich likewise appeareth the falshood of our aduersaries assertion But to impugne and ouerthrowe the primacy of the Pope they al make
diuers objections and although it were a very easie matter here to shewe the vveaknes of them al yet I should exceed mine intended breuity I wil therefore answer only two the one commonly vsed by them al and as they thinke of greatest force the other much vrged by M. Field Galath 2. verse 11. The first is taken out of that place of S. Paul vvhere he affirmeth that he resisted S. Peter in face because he was reprehensible the second out of a decree as Field saith of the Councel of Chalcedon I wil answere I say briefly these that by the vveaknes of them the reader may judge of the strength of others vvhich are of lesse force then these And to begin with the first as in other places so in this Bibl. anno 1592. our English Puritane Geneuians falsifie the text of holie scripture to make it seeme the better for them For vvhereas the Apostle saith that he resisted S. Peter in face that is publikelie in presence of al Bibl. anno 1592. or as they say in their marginal note before al men they contrarying their owne exposition and Bezaes also in the text make S. Paul saie that he withstood S. Peter to his face imagining thereby the more to disgrace the superiority of S. Peter for euerie man knoweth that it is not al one to reprehend or resist a man publikely and to resist him to his face This being noted let vs nowe first see what the auncient Fathers write Ciprian epist 71. ad Quintum Numb 2. August li. 2. de Baptism ca. 1. concerning this controuersie betweene these holy Apostles S. Cipran whose sentence is also alleaged by S. Augustine discoursing of the said reprehension vseth these words Neither Peter whome our Lord did choose the first and vpon whome he built his Church when Paul disputed with him of circumcision challenged insolently or arrogantly took any thing to himselfe saying that he had the primacie and therefore that the later disciples ought rather to obey him c. This and more S. Ciprian out of which his wordes we may gather that the action of S. Paul was nothing prejudicial in his opinion to the primacy of S. Peter Aug. li. 2. de Baptis cap. 1. But vvas S. Peter in this case vvorthie of blame S. Augustine thought him faulty for thus in one place he discourseth we haue learned in the holie scriptures that Peter the Apostle in whome the primacie of the Apostles by excellent grace is so praeeminent when he did otherwise concerning circumcision then the truth required was corrected by Paul the later Apostle Tertul. de praescript cap. 23. thus S. Augustine And this opinion long before him was taught by Tertullian who telleth vs that the Heretikes of his daies whose disciples the new sectaries seeme to be alleaged this reprehension of S. Peter to proue the Apostles ignoraunce but he answereth that the errour or faulte was of conuersation and not of preaching or doctrine Neither doth this proue any thing against S. Peters primacie Ciril li. 9. in Ioan. Hieron in proaemio Comment epistola ad Galatas for we deny not but the Pope of Rome may erre in conuersation be consequently admonished by his inferiors S. Ciril recordeth that Iulian the Apostata objected the same reprehension against Christians S. Hierom first telleth vs that wicked Porphiry an Apostata charged S. Paul of enuie malepert boldnes and S. Peter of error Secondly he teacheth vs that there vvas neither fault in S. Peter nor in S. Paul vvhich opinion is at large most learnedly explicated and defended by Cardinal Baronius in the first tome of his ecclesiastical annuals And briefly with him I answere that although S. Peter was reprehensible in this sense that of his action a thing might followe vvorthie of reprehension yet in verie truth it is certaine that neither S. Peter nor S. Paul did amisse For first vve must suppose Actes 15. v. 23. c. that although in the Councel of Hierusalem celebrated before that time of vvhich in the actes of the Apostles it was decreed that the Gentiles conuerted to Christ were not bound to obserue the old law of the Iewes yet nothing was there decreed for the freeing of the Iewes from the same yea although they vvere in very deed by the law of grace released of that burden yet for auoiding of scandal and that the said old law might be buried with honour they for some time obserued them very religiously Hence after the aforesaid Councel the Apostles themselues obserued diuers ceremonies of the old lawe Act. 16.3 for example S. Paul himselfe circumcised Timothee yea after this altercation with S. Peter he following the aduise of S. Iames and the priests assembled at Hierusalem Actes 21. verse 26. 1. Corint 9. v. 20. according to the law of Moises purified himselfe in the temple of Hierusalem Thence proceed these his words I became a Iewe to the Iewes that I might gaine the Iewes As it was therefore lawful for the Iewes to forsake the old lawe and liue as the conuerted Gentiles did so also it was lawful for a time vnto them according as time and place required especially for auoiding of scandal to vse the said ceremonies of the old lawe This moued S. Peter liuing at Antioch with S. Paul although being the Apostle vnto whome the rest of the Apostles had committed the especial patronage of the Iewes to liue with the rest as a conuerted Gentile and so to transgresse the law of Moises But certaine Iewes comming from Hierusalem where the Christian Iewes yet obserued the said lawe that being their patron he might not giue any scandal he retired himselfe from the rest and began to liue as the strangers did This action of his diuers of the rest of the Iewes of Antioch followed yea S. Barnabas himselfe being S. Pauls companion tooke this course among the rest which S. Paul being the patron of the Gentiles beholding he reprehended S. Peter for his Iudaical conuersation affirming that by his example he drew al to obserue the lawe of Moises This is brieflie the history of this matter as it is plainelie gathered out of the place of S. Paul alleaged Hence it appeareth that not only S. Peters action but also S. Pauls reprehension vvas laweful and necessarie for S. Peter by his action remoued al scandal from the Iewes S. Paul also by his reprehension remoued the like from the Gentiles And thus much of the first objection Field discoursing of the Patriarcke of Constantinople Booke 3. chapter 1. vseth these wordes In the second general Councel holden at Constantinople he was preferred before the other Patriarks of Alexandria and Antioch and set in degree of honour next vnto the Bishoppe of Rome In the great Councel of Chalcedon he was made equal with him and to haue al equal rites priuiledges and prerogatiues because he was Bishop of newe Rome as the other of old thus Field And
Caluinian sect common with the auncient Arians and Nestorians in which is demonstrated that no Christian can joine himselfe to the Caluinists except be together vndertake the defence of Arianisme and Nestorianisme IoaÌ„n Schuts in l. 50. causa ruÌ„ causa 48. CoÌ„rad Schlus selb in prefa theolo Caluinist impsess Francof an 1592. and 1594. Ibid. l. 1. art 2. fo 9. et 10. Fol. 9. Tubingae anno 1586. A fourth calleth Mahometisme or Turcisme Arianisme and Caluinisme three brothers and sisters three paire of hose of the same cloth A fift man more famous for learning then al the rest and in dignity a Superintendent who as he protesteth had read ouer ouer the Sacramentaries works in the feare of the Lord for the space of three and twenty yeares auoucheth that the Caluinists doe nourish Arian and Turkish impiety in their hearts which doth not seldome at fit times openly disclose it selfe And that the Caluinists doe open the window and dore to Arianisme and Mahometisme as saith he our diuines by their publike bookes haue shewed And this he proueth by the example and testimonie of one Adamus Neuserus a minister who of an Arian became a Turke and wrote a letter from Constantinople to one of his acquaintance in Germany anno 1574. Iulij 2. In which he vsed these wordes No man that I haue knowne in these our daies became an Arian which was not before a Caluinist Seruetus Blandrata Alciatus Franciscus Dauid Gentilis Gribaldus Siluanus and others Wherefore he that feareth lest that he falinto Arianisme let him beware of Caluinisme thus he Grawerus a sixt Lutheran being a writer of these our daies in the preface to his book by him called The absurd the most absurd of absurd Caluinistical absurdities c. pronounceth the like censure against Caluin and his schollers For hauing discoursed of this matter at the length he vseth these wordes to his aduersarie Grawer praefat Apologet. iÌ„ Absurda absurdoruÌ„ absur dissima c. printed anno 1605. § quar ta Spongia Goe thy waies now and say that Arians come not forth of the Caluinists schoole And for proofe of this he also reporteth the same example of Adamus Neuserus which also saith he Adam Neuserus in time past a Caluinist and a diuine of Heidelberge confessed that he knewe not one in his time made an Arian who was not first a Caluinist as Franciscus Dauid Blandrata Siluanus Gribaldus and others A seaueÌ„th man as greatly renouned for learning as any already named discouereth another foundation of Arianisme or rather of Iudaisme his book is intituled as followeth Caluinus Iadaizans Caluin Iudaizing or playing the Iewe that is saith he the Iewish glosses and deprauations by which Iohn Caluin hath not abhorred after a detestable manner to corrupt the most famous or excellent places and testimonies of holy scripture concerning the glorious Trinity the deity or godhead of Christ and the holy Ghost but especially the prophecies af the Prophets of the comming of the Messias his natiuity passion resurrection See hâ—â— also in praefat tractat de trinit ascention into heauen and his sitting at the right hand of God There is also added a confutation of the deprauations by Eugidius Hunnius doctor of diuinity and professor in the vniuersity of Wittenberg Wittenbergae anno 1593. and againe 1604. In his epistle dedicatorie he accuseth Caluin that by his foule deprauations he hath wrested the scriptures horribly from their true sense another way to the ouerthrowe of himselfe and others And he addeth To make this more fullie knowne I wil adjoyne diuers testimonies which that Caluin by his wilie deceits hath weakned and made vnprofitable to represse the Iewish perfidie and the Arian infidelity I thinke it good also saith he to adde moreouer those deprauations by which he wrappeth or couereth the most noble prophecies of the Prophets touching the Messias with Iewish corruptions and hath not only most highly despised and laughed to scorne that holy interpetations of Ecclesiastical writers both auncient and moderne But in many sentences hath not feared wickedly to mock or shift the holy explications of the Euangelists and Apostles themselues which if I doe not demonstrate to the eie especiallie when I shal come to those prophecies of the Prophets let me neuer hereafter be credited in any thing whatsoeuer hitherto are his wordes In his booke he discouereth this manner of proceeding of Caluin in his Commentaries vpon the scripture touching these places among others In the first chapter Gen. 1. vers 1. Gen. 19. v. 24. Psal 2. v. 7. alleaged by S. Paul Acts 13. v. 33. and Hebr. 1. v. 5. cap. 5. v. 5. Psal 33. alias 32. v. 6. concerning which see him also in the first booke of his Institutions chap. 13. § 15. psal 44. alias 45. v. 7. c. cited by the Apostle Hebr. 1. v. 8. psal 68. v. 19. alleaged by the same Apostle Ephes 4. v. 8. Michae 5. v. 3. see Math. 2. v. 6. Isai 6. v. 3. c. In the second chapter he reciteth his horrible Commentaries vpon these places Genesis 13. v. 15. and concerning the natiuity of the Messias Hieremy 31. v. 22. Aggeus 2. v. 8. touching S. Iohn Baptist Isai 40. v. 3. alleaged Math. 3. v. 3. Mark 1. v. 3. Luc. 1. v. 4. Iohn 1. v. 23. of Christs preaching Deutr. 18. v. 15. cited Acts the third 21. 22. Act. 7. v. 37. Isai 61. v. 1. alleaged by Christ himselfe Luc 4. v. 18. of his comming to Hierusalem Zach. 9. v. 9. cited Mat. 21. v. 5. Iohn 12. v. 15. of his Passion Gen. 3. v. 15. Zach. 13. v. 7. alleaged by Christ Mat. 26. v. 32. Mark 14. v. 27. Zach. 11. v. 12. cited by S. Mat. 27. v. 9. Isa 50. v. 5. et 6. psal 8. v. 6. see the first to the Corinthians 15. v. 27. Hebr. 2. v. 7. psal 22. alleaged by S. Math. 27. Ioh. 19. v. 23. Heb. 2. v. 12. Isa 63. v. 1. see Apocal. 19. v. 13. of Christs resurrection psal 16. v. 8. cited by S. Peter Act. 2. v. 25. Ibid. v. 10. alleaged Act. 2. v. 31. cap. 13. v. 33. Osee 13. v. 14. cited 1. Corint 5. v. 54. Hebr. 2. v. 14. touching his ascension Zachary 14. v. 4. and his sitting on the right hand psal 110. v. 1. cited diuers times by Christ and his Apostles These and other such like places Caluin as this Protestant doctor plainely sheweth hath peruerted and weakened with his blaspheamous and Iewish glosses of which places diuers were by our Sauiour c his Apostles themeselues expounded as prophecies of Christ and his religion but not so wel and litterallie if we vvil beleeue Caluin And this his abhominable fault is likewise noted by Conradus and Grawer 〈◊〉 before named Conrad in theolog Caluinist l. 2. c. 6. fol. 38. Grawerus in praefat Apol. in absurda ab surdoruÌ„ c. I could adde the like discourse touching some plaine proofes of the diuinity
of Christ contained in the new testament but I should be ouer long yet one for an exaÌ„ple of therest I wil not omit which is touching those words of our Lord * Iohn 10. In disp AlbaÌ„ act 2. diâ—i I and the Father are one vpon which Caluin putteth this blasphemous glosse The ancient writers or Fathers abused this place to proue Christ consubstantial to the Father for neither doth Christ dispute of vnity of substance but of the consent which he hath with the Father thus Caluin And this his glosse was alleaged by the newe Arians or Trinitarians in defence of themselues in a disputation had between them and other Sectaries The aforesaid Hunnius answereth also very wel two objections which may be made in defence of the said Caluin the one that he approueth sometimes the Euangelical and Christian sense of such testimonies the other that he impugneth in his workes very earnestly the Trinitarians and enemies of Christes diuinity To the first he saith Caluin Iudaizans cap. 2. p. 112. 113. anno 1604. that Caluin obserueth this order in expounding such prophecies first by his Iewish glosses he weakneth bereaueth them of vvhat force he can and shaketh the very foundation and this done he addeth something concerning the sense assigned by the Euangelists and Apostles yet so saith he that he wil haue the first be thought the principal and the other as it were besides the matter And although in his answere to the second he doth not plainly say that Caluin nourished Arian impiety in his hart and that neuerthelesse he impugned it sometimes in outward shewe that he might the better and with lesse appearance of infidelity sow the seeds of the same heresie vvhich euery man would haue abhorred if they had proceeded from an open enemy of Christ yet he affirmeth al those enemies of Christ before mentioned to haue issued out of caluins schooles and vseth these words Pag. 172. Away also with that brag touching Seruetus Gentilis and the companions of their wicked acts Alciatus Blandrata c. sharply repressed by Caluin for it is likewise long since knowne to the Christian world out of what schooles and Churches those cruel monsters issued neither is it obscure that this kind of mocking and shifting the scriptures which is vsed by Caluin is a grateful and wished helpe to the deuil by which the force of one testimony after another is shaken in the hartes of men vntil he bring them thinking nothing lesse to the butte of Arian heresie thus Hunnius And hence also it is Iacob Andrae iÌ„ praefa refut Apol. Danaei that Iacobus Andraeas aâ—â— â—â—heran of no lesse fame affirmeth that it is not to be marueiled that very many Caluinists in Polonia Transiluania Hungaria other places fel to Arianisme some also to Turcisme vnto whose impietie saith he this Caluinian doctrine prepareth the way I wil adde a vvord or two for the confirmation of this whole discourse out of Hooker vvho discoursing against our English Puritans for their dislike of the Creed of S. Athanasius and the verse Glory be to the Father and to the Sonne c. and hauing affirmed that the weeder of heresie growne ripe doe often in the very cutting downe scatter such seedes as for a while lie vnseene and buried in the earth but afterwards freshly spring vp againe no lesse pernicious then at the first Hook book 5. of Ecclesiastical policie § 42. pag. 89. vseth these wordes Which thing they very wel knowe and I doubt not wil easily confesse who liue to their great both toile and greife where the blaspheamies of Arians Samosatenians Tritheits Eutichians and Macedonians are renewed renewed by them who to hatch their heresie haue chosen those Churches as fittest neasts where Athanasius Creed is not heard By them I say renewed who following the course of extreme reformation were wont in the pride of their owne proceedinges to glory that whereas Luther did but blowe away the roofe and Zuinglius batter but the walles of Popish superstition the last and hardest worke of al remained which was to raze vp the verie ground and foundation of Popery that doctrine concerning the deity of Christ which Satanasius for so it pleased those impious forsaken miscreants to speake hath in this memorable Creed explaned hitherto Hooker And marke vvel those vvords who following the course of extreame reformation and haue chosen those Churches as fittest neasts c. for by these he plainely seemeth to taxe the Caluinists or Puritans who so extreamly seeke reformation and besides dispersed themselues into Polonia and Transiluania where they raised some if not al and maintained other of these Heresies But of Caluin and some Caluinists according to the judgement of learned Protestants I need not say more Only I adde this as a thing most certaine that Caluin wrote farre more plainely of these pointes in his epistles to his disciples of Polonia then he did in other his vvorkes In one of them he saith * CaluiÌ„ epist ad Polonos pag. 946. In epist 2. siue iÌ„aamonit ad Polonos One God that is the Trinitie you beleeue in God that is in the Trinity that they may knowe thee one God that is the Trinitie We reject this not only as vnsauourie but also as prophane Againe Although by the auncient Fathers this sentence of our Lord The Father is greater then I was restrained to the humane nature of Christ yet I doubt not to extend it to the whole complexum or person of God and man And thus much of our aduersaries doctrine touching Christ and Christianisme SECTION THE FOVRTH That in like sort they weaken the principal proofes of the said three groundes BESIDES this the Sectaries by their doctrine diminish and shake the credit of the most forcible reasons which are alleaged for the proofe of the aforesaid groundes And first I haue already shewed howe Caluin by his wicked glosses endeauoreth to ouerthrowe the force euen of those prophecies of the old Testament which are alleaged by Christ his Apostles for the proofe of Christianity to which I adde that they nor only bereaue the Church of al infallible meanes to proue the scriptures to be Canonical as I wil declare hereafter but also Cap. 5. sect 1. by their rejecting of certaine books receiued by vs into the Canon partly vnder pretence that they haue been sometimes among christian Catholiks of doubtful authority partly because as they imagine they containe contradictions they seeme to giue others licence vpon the same pretences to pronounce the same censure against other books which they admit but of their rejecting bookes because their Canonical truth vvas sometimes doubted of Cap. 1. sect 2. I shal else-where in a more conuenient place discourse Let vs therefore here only declare by a fewe examples vvhat may followe of their alleaging of contradiction vvhich is the second pretence And first it is wel knowne that they * Fulke vpon the Rhems testamet
Luke Libr. 1. Machab cap. 6. li. 2. c. 1. et 9. item l. 1. c. 4. lib. 2. ca◠impugne the authoritie of the books of the Machabees because as they say they finde in them contractiōs concerning the death of Autiochus Illustris the purgation of the temple made by Iudas Machabeus c. The like arguments they bring against the books of Tobie Iudith and others which if we admit wherefore may not some person of an Atheistical humour by the same manner of arguing deny and reject most of the Canonical books contained in the Bible As for example the booke of Genesis because in the first chapter of it vve reade Gen. 1. v. 14. that the sunne and moone by which daies nights and yeares are also there said to be distinguished were made on the fourth day vvhich seemeth to implie contradiction because if it be so that daies and nightes are diuided by these planets as it is there affirmed and we see by daily experience 2. Reg. 23 11. 1. Par. 11 13. according to the new sect Samuel 2. Chronic. 1.3 Reg. or 1. of Kings 7 15. 2. Par. 3 15. howe could there be three daies and nightes before these planets were made also the second booke of the Kinges or the first of Paralippomenon because that feeld which in the one is said to haue beene ful of lentiles in the other is said to haue beene ful of barley Moreouer the third booke of the Kinges or the second of Paralippomenon because in the first we made that the two great brazen pillers made by Salomon were of thirty eight cubits in length but in the second of Paralippomenon the length of them is said to haue beene thirty fiue cubits yea betweene the newe Tetament and the old and betweene the Euangelistes themselues in the new such contradictions in outward shew may be espied For S. Mathew telleth vs Math. 1 8.4 Reg. 8 24. cap. 11 1. et 2. ca. 12 21. cap. 14 21. that Ioram begat Ozias whereas in the fourth booke of the kings which our aduersaries cal the second it is written that Ioram was father to Ochozias Ochozias to Ioas Ioas to Amasias and Amasias not Ioram to Ozias otherwise called Azarias Luc. 3. v. 36. it is said that Arphaxad was father to Cainan and Cainan to Sale but Genesis 10. vers 34. Arphaxad is said to haue begotten Sale Mathew 1. verse 16. the father of Ioseph our blessed Ladies husband is called Iacob Luke 3.23 Mat. 10 10. Mark 6 8. Mat. 26 34. Luke 22 34. Mat. 26 74. Luke 22 60. Iohn 18 27. Marke 14 30.68 et 71. Mark 15 25. Iohn 19 14. whereas S. Luke nameth him Heli. The same Saint Mathew reporteth that our Sauiour sending his Apostles to preach forbad them to beare a rod or staffe in their hands whereas S. Mark writeth that he bad them take only a rod or staffe Our Sauiour if we beleeue S. Mathew and S. Luke told S. Peter that before the cocke did crowe he should deny him thrice and so it vvas done according to the same Euangelists and S. Iohn But S. Mark reporteth the words of our Sauiour to haue been Before the cock shal crow twice thou shalt thrice deny me and writteh that the cocke did first crowe presently after his first denial and againe after his third The same S. Mark affirmeth that Christ vvas crucified at the third howre but S. Iohn telleth vs that it was about the sixt howre before he was condemned by Pilate Mathew 27. verse 19. Ieremias the prophet is named for Zacharias Adde also that our Sauiour himselfe foretold as S. Mathew writeth that he vvas to be in the hart of the earth three daies and three nights Mat. 12 40. yet euerie man knoweth that he yeelded vp his sacred soule into the hands of his Father about three howres after noone on the friday and rose againe on the sonday morning verie earlie wherefore although we graunt that his soule was in the hart of the earth and his bodie in the graue during part of three daies yet we shal very hardlie finde out three nights Acts 9 7. Neither is S. Luke in the acts of the Apostles altogether free from this shewe of contradiction for albeit in the historie of the conuersion of S. Paul he say that the men that went in company with him to Damascus Act. 20 10. heard the voice of Christ speaking vnto him yet in another place he relateth the wordes of the same Apostle affirming that they heard it not Finally the Apostle S. Paul himselfe whose epistles our aduersaries so highly esteeme seemeth to contradict some parts of the old testament For example he affirmeth Galat. 3. vers 17. that betweene the time of a certaine promise made by God to Abraham Genes 12.13 or 22. and the lawe giuen to Moises there passed foure hundred and thirty yeares whereas it is plainely gathered out of the historie of Genesis that between the time of the said promise and the going of Iacob vvithal his family into Egipt there passed at the least one hundred and threescore of which Iacob not then borne liued about one hundred and thirty Genes 47. vers 9. vnto which if we adde foure hundred and thirty during which the children of Israel remained in Egipt as the expresse word of Exodus chap. 12. vers 40. tel vs and is insinuated Genes 15. vers 23. betweene the aforesaid promise the lawe giuen we shal finde at the least fiue hundred ninetie yeares not only foure hundred and thirty Hebr. 9 4. as S. Paul reckoneth In like sort the same Apostle in his epistle to the Hebrewes seemeth to contradict the third booke of the Kinges vvhich our aduersaries cal the first and the second of Paralippomenon for he affirmeth that in the arke of the old testament was a golden pot hauing Manna the rod of Aaron that had blossomed 3. Reg. 8 9. the tables of the testament But in the books of the old testament alleaged we read that no other thing was in the arke but the tables of the Testament 2. Paral. 5. verse 10. Diuers other such like sentences in words seeming to containe contradictions may be found in these and other bookes of holie scripture which as I haue said may moue Atheists vvith as great reason to impugne the authority of the said bookes as our aduersaries doe by the like arguments the books of Tobie Iudith the Machabees and other by vs receiued and by them rejected Perhaps they wil answere that the seeming cōtradictions which I haue assigned are in very deed no contradictions and that the places in appearance contrarie may verie vvel be reconciled I replie and confesse that in verie truth so it is for al those places by our interpreters are verie wel saued from contrariety and contradiction And it is manifest that the same holy Ghost vvho inspired al the writers of holy scripture cannot contradict himselfe and these
of errour in al and consequentlie taketh from her al infallible authority and maketh her a fallible and vncertaine ground Chapter 4. They reject al particuler groundes of faith aboue assigned and proued to be found in the Church of Christ besides the holie Scriptures LET vs now descend to the particuler groundes of faith which we haue aboue proued to be found in the Church of Christ And although our aduersaries denial of the infallible authority of the Church and her assistance by the holy ghost on which the certainty of al such particuler groūds dependeth as I haue shewed before be a sufficient proofe not onlie that they reject them but also that according to their doctrine they haue no infallible meane to know what articles haue beene by God reuealed to his Church yet let vs declare the matter more in particuler and at large But concerning vnwritten traditions the decrees of the Pope the doctrine of the Romane Church yea of the whole Church of Christ I need say nothing because they al with one consent and voice exclaime against these groundes as superstitious friuolous and of no moment The difficulty therefore is onlie concerning holie Scriptures general and prouincial Councels and the vniforme consent of Fathers of vvhich the first is challendged by them al the other two by some of them only I wil beginne with the two last And concerning general Councels a Luther lib. de Concilijs Luther doth not only reprehend the first councel held by the Apostles at Hierusalem of which we read in the b Act. 15. acts of the Apostles and affirme that the decrees thereof bound no man in conscience but also calleth the Fathers which afterwards assembled themselues in Councels sicophants and flatterers of the Pope In particuler he calleth the Canons of the first general Councel of Nice celebrated in the daies of Constantine the great Emperour whom our c Barlow in his relatiō of the conferēce held at Hāpt Court p. 69. King by no meanes wil haue appreached of Poperie bay straw wood stuble and demandeth whether the holy Ghost hath nothing else to doe in Councels but to binde and burden his ministers with impossible daungerous and vnnecessarie lawes such according to him were decreed in that Councel I think he meaneth concerning the chaste and single life of Bishops and ministers The like censure he pronounceth against al other general Councels and concludeth his discourse in that place that more light is brought to Christian doctrine by that Catechisme which children learne then by al the Councels In another place he addeth that d Luth. in prologo li. contra statuta Ecclesiae he wil not haue his doctrine judged by any neither by Bishops nor by al the Angels but that be wil by his doctrine judge the Angels Caluin giueth leaue to euerie priuate man to examine the decrees of Councels by the exact rule of holie scripture e Caluin book 4. Instit cap. 9. § 8. 11. see also § 9. Let no names saith he or authorities of Councels Pastours Bishops hinder vs but that we may examine the spirits of al men by the rule of the word of God He likewise calleth the Fathers of the first general Councel of Nice f Idem lib. de vera ecclesiae reformatione opuscul pag. 480. see him also booke 4. of his Instit chap. 9. § 10. Phanatices that is men phanatical or deluded by the devil g Bez. in praefat noui test anno 1565. Beza telleth vs that in the best times such was partlie the ambition of Bishops partlie their foolishnes and ignorance that the verie blinde may perceiue sathan verilie to haue beene President of their assemblies the like censure is pronounced by Musculus h Vrbā Regi 1. part operū de eccl fo 51. Vrbanus Regius and others The ministers of the church of Scotland in the confession of their faith write thus i Cōfess of the faith of Scotl. prīt at the ēd of the harm of cōfess p. 19. See the said Harmonie of cōfessiōs sect 1. pag. 14. Without just examinatin we doe not receiue whatsoeuer is obtruded vnto men vnder the name of a general Councel for plaine it is that as the men assembled were men so haue some of them manifestlie erred and that in matters of great weight importance So farre then as the Councel proueth the determination and commandement that in giueth by the plaine word of God so soone doe we reuerence and embraces the same hitherto the confession of Scotland Out of which their vvordes as also out of the like assertions of others I gather that our aduersaries commonlie giue no more creditte to general Councels and consequently to the whole church of Christ which they represent then is to be giuen to the worst and meanest man liuing yea then may be giuen to the deuil himselfe For these may also be beleeued if they proue that true which they affirme by the authority of holy scripture which they al require as necessary before the decree of councel be beleeued Secondly I gather that according to their assertions we may likewise lawfully examine these their sentences or decrees whether they be according to the rule of scripture or no for they were also men subject to errour and moreouer because vve finde them not so as appeareth by that which hath beene already said we may also reject them as repugnant to the said scripture The like leaue they giue in like sort to those of their owne company yea to euerie priuate man whatsoeuer concerning al their canons and constitutions wherefore their followers or subjects are not to be reprehended according to these opinions and decrees if they examine their sentences and canons by the word of God and reject them if in their conscience according to their owne judgement they finde them not conformable to the same But what an absurd thing is it that a fewe ministers should presume to pronounce so seuere a censure against such auncient venerable and learned assemblies highly of esteemed by al true Christians in al ages euen since the beginning of Christianity whence wil they haue these errours to haue proceeded Certainly they must needs attribute them either to ignorance or malice of the Bishops and Prelates assembled But are they either for number learning or piety to be compared with them They are not without doubt as wil easily appeare vnto any learned man that shal with any difference read the Ecclesiastical histories and viewe the vvorkes of both sides Neither haue ministers being combred for the most part with wiues children and such other impediments that opportunity of giuing themselues to studie and deuotion as the auncient Bishops had who liued a chast and single life and gaue them selues altogether to spiritual affaires and vvere commonly verie holy men Wherefore seing that they also liued nearer to the Apostles daies it is verie probable yea certaine that they better vnderstood and knewe the
true sence of the word of God then these newe Sectaries doe and seing that their sanctity was so great malice could no vvaies blinde them Verilie any indifferent man if the matter were put to his censure although those ancient Fathers had enjoyed no farther warrant of the assistance of the holie Ghost then these newe Gospellers doe would rather imagine truth to be with them then with these But our aduersaries alleage for themselues that euery particuler man assembled in a general Councel may erre I answere that true it is that euery particuler man the Bishoppe of Rome being excepted is subject to errour but seing that the Popes judgement joyned vvith the assent of the vvhole Church in a general Councel is infallible and in such a case cannot be erroneous and no general Councel is of supreame force without his confirmation it followeth that the decrees of a laweful general Councel cannot be false The reason vvherefore the confirmation of al Councels dependeth so much of the Popes authority is because he is ministerial head of the Church of Christ and consequently the bodie must needs haue his assent and confirmation before the constitutions by it made be of force and certainely knowne to be free from errour and falshood Finallie our Protestants of England concerning general Councels haue decreed as followeth * Articles of faith agreed vppon in the Conuocations of the years 1562. and 1604. art 21. See Fulk vppon the Rhēs testamēt Mathew 8 14. Whitakers in his answer to Campions 4. reason in English pa. 110. Field book 4. of the church chapt 6. pag. 228. General Councels for as much as they be an assembly of men whereof al be not gouerned with the spirit and word of God may erre and sometimes haue erred euen in thinges pertaining vnto God wherefore thinges ordained by them as necessary to saluation haue neither strength nor authority vnlesse it may be declared that they be taken out of holy scriptures The like censure is pronounced by their principal diuines And M. Field telleth vs that Bishops assembled in a general Councel may interpret the scripture and by their authority suppresse al them that shal gainsay such interpretations and subject euery man that shal disobey such determinations they consent vpon to excommunication and censures of the like nature Out of which his assertion it is euident that according to the prouidence and wisedome of almighty god general Councels should not be subject to errour in such matters for otherwise men might be forced and that according to his ordinances to obey such general Councels erring and propounding false doctrine But this notwithstanding the same Field in another place concludeth Lib. 4. cap. 5. pag. 204. Luther tome 2. lib. contra regem Angliae fol. 342. that Councels may erre in matters of greatest consequence Of the testimonie of the auncient Fathers thus writeth Luther in his booke against king Henrie the eight of England In the last place Henry bringeth in for the sacrifice of the Masse the saying of the Fathers Here say I that by this my sentence is confirmed for this is it which I said that the Thomistical asses haue nothing that they can bring forth but a multitude of men and the auncient vse But I as against the sayings of the Fathers of men of Angels of deuils oppose not the auncient consent not a multitude of men but the Gospel the word of the one eternal majesty Here I stand here I sit here I remaine here I boast here I triumph here I insult ouer the sayings of men be they neuer so holy insomuch that I passe not if a thousand Augustines a thousand Tertullians did stand against me Tome 5 The like sentence he hath in his famous commentarie vpon the epistle to the Galathians his wordes are these Some wil say vnto me the Church during so many ages hath so thought and taught al the primitive Churches and doctors most holy men much greater and more learned then thou art Who art thou that darest dissent from al these and obtrude vnto vs a diuers doctrine When Sathan thus vrgeth and conspireth with flesh and reason the conscience it terrified and despaireth vnlesse constantly thou returne to thy selfe and say whether Ciprian Ambrose Augustine or Peter Paul and Iohn yea an Angel from heauen teach otherwise yet this I know for certaine that I counsaile not men humane but diuine things Againe No other doctrine ought to be deliuered or heard in the Church but the pure word of God that is the holy scripture let other doctours or hearers together their doctrine be accursed Hitherto Luther confessing as vve see the vvhole primitiue Church and al the ancient Fathers to contrarie his doctrine and yet rejecting their authority and obstinately persisting and obdurating himselfe in his heretical opinions Zuinglius to 1. ī explanat artic 64. fol. 107. The same course runneth Zuinglius who discourseth thus The Papists say who shal discusse the controuersies and dissentions which are at this present in the Church Who shal judge of them Who shal pronounce sentence I answere the word of God neither wil we allowe of any other judge They affirme we denie the Masse is a sacrifice who shal be judge of the controuersie I say the one and only word of God But presently thou beginnest to cry out the Fathers the Fathers for the Fathers haue so delivered and writ thus But I relate to thee neither fathers nor mothers but require the word by this only it ought to haue beene proued that the Masse is a sacrifice thus Zuinglius The opinion of Caluin is consonant to these Calu. in praefat Instit ad regem Galiae Item booke 3. Instit chapt 4. § 38. Al things saith he discoursing of the works of the ancient Fathers are ours to serue vs not to ouer-rule vs. Againe Those things which every foot occur in the works of the old writers or Fathers touching satisfaction moue me but litle for I see that diuers of them I wil say simply as it is almost al whose works are extant either haue erred in this matter or haue spoken ouer crabbedly and hardly Our English Protestants haue sufficiently declared their opinion touching the authority of the auncient Fathers by pronouncing so hard a censure against general Councels as we haue heard Whitak contra Sander pag. 92. Hence Whitaker one of their principal Champions vseth this discourse If you argue saith he from the testimonies of men be they neuer so learned and auncient we yeeld no more to their words in cause of religion then we perceiue to be agreeable to Scripture neither thinke your selfe to haue proued any thing though you bring against vs the whole swarme of Fathers except that which they say be justified not by the voice of men but by God himselfe this is Whitakers doctrine Whitakers in his answer to Campians 2. reason p. 70. see him also in his answer to the 6. reason pag. 159.
but also affirmeth that a right judgment of men by their power of jurisdiction maintaining truth and suppressing errour may be wanting in the Church and that sometimes almost al may conspire against the truth or consent to betray the sincerity of the Christian profession yea that most part of those that hold great places of office and dignity in the Church falling into errour or heresie may depart from the soundnesse of the Christian faiths so that truth be maintained by some few and they molested persecuted and traduced as turbulent and seditious men enemies to the common peace of the Christian world thus Field Which doctrine if we admit as true what authority shal we leaue to the Fathers workes wil not a possibility of errour followe in them al it cannot be denied but I need not dispute any longer of this matter for Field himselfe of these his three rules of beliefe vvriteth thus Field book 4. cap. 14. These three latter rules of our faith saith he we admit not because they are equal with the former and originally in themselues containe the direction of faith but because nothing can be deliuered with such and so ful consent of the people of God as in them is expressed but it must needes he from those authours and founders of our Christian profession Hitherto Field in which words he expresly graunteth that these rules originally in themselues are no directions of faith And truly although we could not ouerthrowe them by his owne sayings this only vvould suffice according to the Protestant groundes to proue them to haue no diuine or infallible authority that he bringeth no one sentence of scripture or other proofe for their truth but only this bare reason that nothing can be delivered with such ful consent but it must needs be from the founders of Christianity For if that be thought or affirmed possible vvhich he deemeth impossible vvhat force or strength wil be left to his rules but euerie man may also perceiue that if we admit his assertions euen nowe related concerning the error of the Church and her Prelats we must needes also graunt that it may be al the Fathers haue conspired in errour For if al the Fathers of the present Church at any time yea although assembled in a general Councel may and that in matters of greatest consequence as he saith erre Field book 4. chap. 5. and 12. who seeth not that it is a thing possible that in al ages they haue al erred This notwithstanding let vs nowe looke a litle into the vvordes themselues of these three last rules and behold concerning what articles of beliefe they are as also what conditions are required in them as necessary to this that out of the Fathers workes according to Fields opinion vve may gather any article of faith The first of them which is the fift in order as the words themselues tel vs requireth that the matter belong to the substāce of our faith by which words he doth abridge and limit the authority of the Fathers to be of force according to this rule onlie concerning certaine principal articles by him set downe vvhich euery man as he saith is bound expresly to knowe and beleeue He prescribeth also in this rule that the consent be general that is not only of al that haue written of that matter but of al that haue left any monuments of learning to their posterity that al make expresse mention of it and without contradiction of any other and that this is his minde he plainly declareth in the second and fift chapter before But what errour or heresie is there which contentious persons either wil not deny to pertaine to the substance of our faith or that al the monuments of antiquity doe positiuely contradict or which Heretikes cannot confirme by some or at the least by one sentence of some auncient writer Verilie if they drawe and pul the holie scriptures in such sort to their priuate fantasies that no sect wil be perswaded but that they fauor the false opinions in it maintained much more may they deale so with the writings of their predecessors which be farre more in number and not also penned as the scriptures are by diuine inspiration The second rule of the three last if M. Field wil not haue it to contradict that which I haue added at the end of them out of the second chapter before must he vnderstood according to it and then how vncertaine it is I wil euen nowe declare but if vve take it as the wordes sound it cannot be vniuersal for the decisions of al points at the least in the judgment of al men for al matters are not deliuered as matters of faith constantly vniformly by the most famous Christian writers and that without contradiction yea a man of a peruerse humour although in very deede it were so yet by wresting and false vnderstanding of ssuch authors would make appearance of the contrary The last may be confuted as insufficient of it selfe for the same reasons for it requireth that the point be of the substance of faith c. The addition out of the second chapter requireth vniuersal practise and necessarie and euident deduction out of the scripture or the rule of faith and as it seemeth that it be a matter of substance that in euerie age some be found to haue written of it c. which be things intricate not easily to be proued in euery matter cōtrouersed But to make al these rules more obscure he addeth in the fift chapter that the writings of the ancient may be much corrupted so that the consent of antiquity cannot alwaies easily be knowne Field book 4. cap. 5. Vincent Liriuens cap. 39. yet saith he there wil be euer some meanes to finde out and descry the errours and frauds of the corrupters And so he affirmeth himselfe to vnderstand that of Vincentius Lirinensis that the judgment of antiquity is to be sought out at the very first rising of heresies not afterwards when they are growne inueterate for that then they wil corrupt the monuments of antiquity Finallie these three rules are not sufficient to direct any man whatsoeuer whether learned or vnlearned to an infallible truth in al articles of faith for seing that euerie priuate man yea the whole visible present Church is subject to errour and al her greatest Prelates to heresie according to the doctrine of M. Field one man cannot build his faith vpon anothers judgement no not vpon the judgement of the whole present visible Church wherefore if we proceed according to M. Fields rules it is not sufficient to cause true faith in vs that others tel vs that the Fathers and writers of former ages say this and that but we must our selues read ouer the workes of al such Fathers and authors And how can the vnlearned doe this Yea if a man be neuer so learned he cannot doe it although he doe nothing else but read al the daies of his
testifie that they are from God they cary a sacred and diuine authority with them and they doe also agree in al points with the other books of god in the old testament hitherto are his words b Field booke 3. cap. 44. §. The errour Field if I doe not mistake him differeth only from others in this that whereas most of them reject al supernatural habits in our soules and attribute our beleeuing to supenatural inspiratiōs of the spirit he acknowledgeth a supernatural habit of faith which he calleth also a potential ability c Book 4. c. 13. § This judgment the light of diuine vnderstanding d Book 4. c. 8. § Thus then and the light of grace And moreouer he doth explicate himselfe a litle more in particuler then others for he distinguisheth two sorts of thinges beleeued e Book 4. c. 8. § The schoole men whereof some saith he are such as are beleeued and neuer knowne as al the matters of fact that are reported in the Scripture which we can neuer know by the immediate euidence of the things themselues but mediatly in that we knowe they are deliuered vnto vs by him that cannot lie Others are first beleeued Ibidem § Thus then and afterwards the vnderstanding being enlightned and the heart clensed they are discerned of vs to be true And he concludeth that in thinges of the first sort the formal reason of our faith or inducing vs to beleeue is the authoritie of God himselfe whome we doe most certainelie discerne to speake in the word of faith which is preached vnto vs. But in thinges of the second kinde he vvil haue the said formal reason to be the euidence of the things appearing vnto vs being enlightened by the light of grace this is the opinion of Field But in which of these two sortes of thinges he placeth the knowledge of the authority of holie Scripture I cannot so plainelie as I vvould discerne by his words this onlie I gather as certaine out of his discourse Book 4. c. 7. § Thus then first that the principal cause of our knowledge and beliefe concerning the Canonical bookes proceedeth from the habite or light of faith For this al his assertions insinuate and principally these The spirit induceth moueth and perswadeth vs to beleeue By the light of diuine vnderstanding Chapt. 13. § This judgement Chap. 7. § Thus then Chapt. 8. § Thus then Chapt. 8. Caluī book 1. of Institut chap. 7. § 4. we judge of al thinges c. Secondlie he affirmeth in plaine vvordes that besides the habit of faith or light of diuine grace are required some reasons or motiues or some reason or motiue by force whereof the spirit setleth the minde in the perswasion of the truth of thinges vvhich were formerly doubted of And this reason as we haue heard him say before in some thinges is the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto vs in others the authority of God He explicateth himselfe more plainely by these sentences of Caluin If we bring pure eies and perfect senses the majesty of God presently presenteth it selfe vnto vs in the diuine Scripture and beating downe al thoughts of contradicting or doubting of thinges so heauenly forceth vs to obey Againe After we are enlightned by the spirit we doe no longer trust either our owne judgement or the judgement of other men that the Scriptures are of God But aboue al certainty of humane judgment we most certainly resolue as if in them we saw the majesty glory of God as Moises saw in the mount that by the ministery of men they came vnto vs from Gods owne most sacred mouth Thirdlie We finde a greater light of vnderstanding shining vnto vs in this doctrine of faith then is found within the compasse of nature a * I finde not these wordes following in Caluin satisfaction touching manie thinges which humane reason could not satisfie vs in a joy and exultation of the heart such and so great as groweth not out of nature hitherto Field out of Caluin He addeth that this maketh vs assure our selues the doctrine which so affecteth vs is reuealed from God That they are the only people of God and haue the means of happinesse where this treasure of heauenly wisdome is found that these books are the richest jewel that the world posesseth and ought to be the Canon of our faith which this people deliuereth vs as receiued from them to whome these thinges were first of al made knowne and reuealed thus Field And this is the common doctrine of diuers of our Sectaries To ouerthrow this opinion I must first lay this ground To moue vs to beleeue any article of Christian religion ordinarily besides the habite of faith or some supernatural illumination of the spirit some other reasons or motiues must of necessity concurre by force of which our vnderstanding may be perswaded that the thinge propounded is credible and according to prudence may be beleeued This may be proued by authoritie of Scriptures for if no such motiues are necessary to what end did our Lord during the time of his being here on earth work such strange miracles Surely of them he saith Iohn 5 36. Iohn 10 25. Iohn 15 24. The very works themselues which I doe giue testimony of me that the Father hath sent me Againe The works that I doe in the name of my Father they giue testimony of me Finally If I had not done among them workes that no other man hath done they should not haue sinne Out of which places I may wel infer both that our Sauiour propounded his doctrine with sufficient arguments of credibility and also that if he had not so done the Iews generally had not offended God in refusing to beleeue it which is expresly affirmed by S. August tract 91. in Ioānē Augustine I adde generally because vnto the learned sort it was otherwise sufficiently proued therefore they had sinned although Christ had done no miracles yet not so grieuously This caused him likewise Mark 3 15. Luk 9 10. Mark 16. v 20. See also v. 17. 18. to giue his Apostles disciples power to doe miracles and they as S. Mark reporteth after his ascētion going forth preached euery where our Lord working withal confirming the word with signes that followed Moreouer commonly al that are said in the Gospels to haue beleeued beleeued vpon some credible motiue as the Centurion Luke 23. the Lord whose sonne was cured at Caphernaum Iohn 4. verse 46.53 and diuers others And so those wordes of S. Rom. 10.14 Paul are vnderstood Howe shal they beleeue him whom they neuer heard and howe shal they heare without a preacher that is without one both expounding the rule of faith vnto them and also propounding such reasons as are sufficient to moue them to beleeue This also al the Apostles practised as appeareth by their sermons recorded in the acts of the Apostles Nay further in the old
priuate inspirations of the spirit And hence it is that the Prophet Ezechiel saith * Ezechielis 13. verse 3. August tract 45. in Ioan. Woe to the foolish Prophets who followe their owne spirit and see nothing Finally the auncient Heretikes as S. Augustine doth testifie boasted of such illuminations There are innumerable saith he who doe not only boast that they are videntes or Prophets but wil seeme to be illuminated or enlightened by Christ but are Heretikes And thus much against the infallible truth of illuminations in general Let vs nowe apply some of these general reasons to the knowledg of Scripture by illumination in particuler and also vrge them a litle further First therefore I demaund whether this illumination concerning the authority of Scriptures be common to al or particuler to some If common to al it consequentlie followeth that al men reading the Scriptures are thus infalliblie and super-naturally inspired of their truth but that al men are not thus generally and infallibly led to the knowledge of such diuine bookes it is apparant by our aduersaries dissention not only from the auncient fathers but also among themselues touching this very point For did none of the Fathers judge such bookes Canonical as al Protestants commonly reject it cannot be denied but they did for it is euident Field book 4. chap. 23. concil Carthag 3. canon sess 47. See also S. Aug. de praedest cap. 14. Cap. 8. sect 1. and plainely gathered out of Field himselfe that the third councel of Carthage in which as he truly saith S. Augustine was present numbred the bookes of Tobias Iudith Wisedome Ecclesiasticus and of the Machabees in the Canon Doe they also among themselues al admitte and reject the same bookes nothing lesse Luther and his Lutherans reject some which Caluin our English Protestants and others auouch to be Canonical and this shal at large be proued hereafter But they vvil say this inspiration is particular only to some that are enlightened by the spirit or as Caluin insinuateth only to the elect Caluī Instit book 1. chap. 7. § 5. and this seemeth to be their common opinion Against which I oppose first that of this would followe that there is no certaine rule in the Church whereby al men may come to a certaine knowledge of Gods word which assertion is verie absurd especially if the written vvord of God be the only rule of faith as they contend Secondly the Scripture yeeldeth vs no warrant for a diuine assurance of any such inspiration that there is any such in the Church They wil say that diuers sentences of the vvord of God plainely approue it but the contrary is already shewed and besides this is to fal into a circle by prouing the truth of Scriptures by diuine inspirations or illuminations and the truth of this againe by Scripture Thirdly it cannot be proued by Scripture that this inspiration if there be any such is particular to some and not common to al. Fourthly although we should grant this to some yet no man can by any warrant of Scripture or prudential ground assuredlie knowe that he hath such an inspiration especially considering first that diuers sectaries haue beene deceiued falsly pretended such inspirations as appeareth by their contrariety Nay I may further adde that either al Protestants are now deceiued in their judgement concerning certaine bookes or els that S. Augustine with the whole Councel of Carthage erred touching them in times past as appeareth by that which is said a litle before and no man wil deny but an error in either of these giueth a man just cause to mistrust his owne illumination For certaine it is that S. Augustine was guided by the spirit as farre forth as any Sectarie Secondly his judgement may also growe doubtful out of this that the same man may haue as they say a diuine inspiration touching one booke and be deceiued touching another Stocke and Whitakers in the answer to Duraeus the first reason pag. 48. for so saith Stocke out of Whitakers who telleth vs that Al thinges are not reuealed to al alike and that al haue not the same measure of the spiritte Out of vvhich he draweth an excuse of the Lutherans if they beleeued vvel of some and rejected not vvel other bookes of Scripture and this likewise seemeth to be gathered out of Caluin aboue cited Fiftlie others haue no meanes to knowe vvho receiueth such an inspiration and consequently it only profiteth the man himselfe who hath it and no other person this cannot be denied for Luther boasted of the spiritte as farre forth as Caluin yet they disagreed concerning the Canonical books and were of different faiths And what reason haue we either to graunt or deny this inspiration more to the one then to the other or vvhat arguments can be brought by the one which cannot be vsed by the other yea of this I infer further that neither of them had any such diuine inspiration for seeing that both were not inspired with the holy Ghost and one of them had no stronger proofes for his inspiration then the other we ought to giue no more credit to the one then to the other and seing that we cannot beleeue them both vve cannot according to reason credit either of them And in very deed neither of them is able to bring any certaine reason or authority able to perswade any other that he hath a supernatural inspiration shewing that this and that is holy scripture Finally of this whole opinion follow two other great inconueniences or absurdities first it giueth euery man licence to reject and admit books of holy Scripture out or into the Canon at his pleasure according to his fancy for there is no Sectary but may alleage the maiesty of the letter the euidence of thinges contained in it pure eies and perfect senses the light of grace or internal inspiration for the proof of his owne particuler opinion concerning canonical Scripture that with as great probability as any other Sectary be he Lutheran Sacramentary or of what other sect soeuer Neither can this refel him vnlesse they refute themselues In like sort if he deny these proofes to any book whatsoeuer no man can conuince him of error and of this may follow without any certainty almost as many opinions of this matter as there be heads Secondly by this allowance of an inspiration for the proofe of the letter of canonical Scripture the way is opened to the allowance of priuate inspiration also for the knowledg of the true sense and exposition of the same vvhich is denied by Field Field booke 4. chap. 16. and is in very deed a very fountaine of discord and confusion But what proofs can they bring for the one which cannot be applied to yea not aswel proue the other And these reasons as I imagine moued the authors before named to flie from this priuate inspiration to Tradition and the authority of the Church Vnto whome in my
of themselues and yeeld sufficient satisfaction to al men of their diuine truth wherefore he seemeth contrary to that which he had said before to require no other reason by force whereof the spirit moueth him to beleeue the Scripture but the Scripture Neither should he only bring a diuine proofe for these matters but also to shewe the certaintie of his supernatural illumination of vvhich al these depend And howe wil he doe this vvil he proue it by Scripture This cannot be done least that he fal into a circle and according as he maketh the Psalme say of the vvicked Runne round til he be giddie and be at the end where he was when he beganne for by this illumination he is come to the knowledg of Scripture and consequently it must not be proued out of Scripture and vvhat other diuine proofe he wil assigne for my part I cannot imagine Neither can he say that this illumination is beleeued for it selfe for then he both graunteth that something must be beleeued without diuine proofe and also that al thinges are not beleeued because they are contained in the Scripture and consequently that the Scripture is not the onlie ground of our faith Many places of Scripture are alleaged out of the vvritten vvord of God by our aduersaries to proue the certainty of priuate illuminations and seing that I can not stand to giue the true sense of them I desire my reader only to consider in general that such sentences as they alleage if they proue any thing for them and are to be vnderstood as they pretend proue the judgement of euerie Christian man or at the least of euery spiritual man to be infallible vvhich being false as appeareth both in the auncient Fathers and also in themselues vve may vvel inferre that they haue some other sense Field affirmeth that Saint Augustine in a certaine place doth fully agree vnto his opinion shewing that the authority of the Church is but an introduction to the spiritual discerning of thinges diuine I answere that Saint Augustine in the chapter by him cited only affirmeth that because al men are not capable at the first to vnderstand the sincere wisedome and truth taught in the Church God hath ordained in it two motiues vvhich may first moue them to seeke it to wit miracles and multitude of beleeuers Aug. de vtilitate credendi cap. 16. Authoritas saith he praesto est quam partim miraculis partim multitudine valere nemo ambigit The authority of the Church is at hand which no man doubteth partly through miracles partly through multitude to be of force viz. to moue men Field to make this sentence seeme the better for his purpose Booke 4. c. 8. translateth the vvord valere standeth vpon and maketh Saint Augustine say that the authority of the Church standeth vpon two thinges c. but howe truly euerie grammer scholler may discerne That vvhich he alleageth out of Hugo de sancto Victore is as litle to the purpose but as I thinke farre more falsly translated for if in the English immediately following the Latin in the same different letter he doth intend a translation of the Latin going before as euerie man vvil judge he doth he dealeth in it most corruptly and vntruely and so I leaue him for this present SECTION THE SECOND In which the same argument is prosecuted and two thinges principallie are proued First that the newe Testament receiueth smal authority if we beleeue our aduersaries by this that it was written by the Apostles and Disciples because they accuse them of errour Secondlie because they confesse the text of Scripture to be corrupted HAVING euidentlie confuted in the section next before the chiefest and most common reasons by which the Sectaries of our daies endeuour to proue the diuine authority of holie Scripture let vs now behold such other reasons as may be brought according to their principles and together insinuate some other their assertioÌ„s which diminish the credit of these holy books And to passe ouer as a thing manifest that the authority of 〈◊〉 newe Testament cannot sufficientlie and infalliblie be proued â—uine by the testimony of the old some perhaps wil say that the authority of the old is confirmed and ratified by the newe But how is the newe it selfe proued to be Canonical which prerogatiue if we deny it the old wil receiue but litle credit from it Peraduenture they wil answere that they knowe the newe to be Canonical because it vvas vvritten by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ inspired by the holy Ghost I reply and demaund first how they can proue this to be true by canonical Scripture What canonical Scripture for example if we deny the said Gospel to be Canonical telleth vs that S. Mathew the Apostle wrote that Gospel which vve terme S. Mathewes Gospel Secondly although we suppose it to be true that the Apostles and Disciples were the authours of the newe Testament yet howe can they proue that in penning it they haue not erred What canonical Scripture haue they for this Certainely our aduersaries make al their successours subject to errour wherefore it seemeth that they wil not be very scrupulous to graunt it of the Apostles and Disciples themselues Luther tom 5. in c. 1. ad Galath fol. 290. Act. 7. v. 14. Luther in cap 46. Genes But doe they not moreouer in expresse tearms condemne them of errour Who can deny this Luther himselfe after that he had affirmed that he would not submitte his doctrine to the censure of the Fathers no not to the censure of S. Peter nor S. Paul nor of any Angel from heauen addeth in defence of this his action that S. Peter did liue and teach besides the word of God In another place in plaine tearmes he accuseth S. Steuen of errour in following the 70. Interpreters vvho as he saith erred concerning the number of those that went downe into Egipt Nay moreouer discoursing of extreame vnction Luth. de captiuita Babil c. de extrema vnctione Luther iÌ„ Isai 64. Martir in 1. Corinth 2. fol. 46. Centur. 1 lib. 2 c. 10. Col. 1600. 180. he telleth vs that Although the epistle said to be of S. Iames were in deed and truly his yet he vvould say that it was not lawful for an Apostle of his owne authority to institute a Sacrament By which he seemeth plainly to confesse that the Apostles in their Apostolike writings were subject to such faults finally he telleth vs that S. Paul 1. Corinth 2. vers 9. doth finely wreth or wrest a certaine sentence of the Prophet Isay but Peter Martir auoucheth that he mistooke the Hebrewe word Hence the Centuriatores his schollers note certaine Naeui or lapsus so they tearme them that is freckles or moles and falles of S. Peter S. Paul and S. Iames Apostles as that of S. Peter at Antioch for vvhich he vvas reprehended by S. Paul of which also a Calu. in ca. 2. ad Galat. et in Mat. 26.
the neare for attaining to the true sense yea not seldome by such conference the difficulty is increased as appeareth by those places before alleaged Part. 2. chap. 1. sect 4. which seeme to contrary one another Hence our newe sectaries themselues being diuided into diuers sects and hauing conferred a longe time such places together as are controuersed among them cannot as yet agree about the true sense of the said places but remaine stil at mortal jarres And al this which I haue here said may be confirmed by the authority of Field Field booke 3 chap. 42. who affirmeth the ground of their faith to be the vvritten vvord of God interpreted according to the rule of faith the practize of the Saints from the beginning the conference of places and al light of direction that either the knowledge of tongues or any parts of good learning may yeeld Thus Field In an other place he prescribeth seauen rules Booke 4. chap. 19. vvhich he thinketh vve are to followe in the interpretation of Scripture that we may attaine to the certainty of the true sense of it of which diuers are extrinsecal and concerne not the letter it selfe of Scripture Lastly against the sufficiency of conference of places alone he addeth these vvordes Ibidem We confesse that neither conference of places nor consideration of the antecedentia and consequentia nor looking into the originals are of any force vnlesse we finde the thinges which we conceiue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant to the rule of faith but of Fields rules for the expounding of Scripture more hereafter Harmony of Confess sect 10. pag. 33. Confess Wittenb art 32. The Lutherans of Wittenberge as I haue before noted acknowledge in the Church a rule of faith according to which she is bound as they say to interpret the obscure places of Scripture by which their assertion they acknowledge also for the exposition of Scripture an other necessary guide besides the letter Let vs therefore conclude that the true sense of the Scripture is not sufficiently gathered out of the bare vvordes and consequently let vs not admit the bare vvordes to be a sufficient ground of Christian religion And hence I gather that our aduersaries haue no certainty of faith and religion which is apparent because they make the naked letter of holy Scripture the only ground of their beliefe the true sense of vvhich vnto them is alwaies very vncertaine for either the assurance vvhich euery one of them hath proceedeth from his owne reading and judgement or from the credit of some other Minister or Ministers vvho interpret the Scriptures in that sense vvhich he embraceth both vvhich meanes be most vncertaine For they depend vpon the judgement of priuate men vvho haue no assurance from the holy Ghost of not erring vvherefore they are subject to errour and consequently none of them haue any further assurance of the truth of their religion then humane judgement Vnto the reasons already brought for the proofe of the title of this Chapter I adde these that followe partly gathered out of that vvhich hath beene already said in this Treatise first that the rule of Christian faith ought to be general and sufficient for al sorts of people vvhich cannot appertaine to the bare letter of holy Scripture because diuers persons cannot reade and consequently to knowe the contents of the Bible they must vse the helpe of some of the learned and vpon their report vvhich may be false and erroneous build their beliefe It is also manifest that Christians had some other rule of faith before the Scriptures of the newe Testament vvere vvritten Finally I haue already proued that together vvith the letter we ought to receiue that sense and interpretation vvhich hath by tradition and succession descended from the Apostles And thus much concerning this matter Chapter 6. The newe Sectaries Bibles containe not the true word of God SECTION THE FIRST In which this is first proued concerning al their Bibles in general IN the Chapter next before I haue demonstrated the bare letter of holy Scripture on vvhich our aduersaries build not to be a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion in this present Chapter to make their weake foundation the more manifest I intend to proue that although we should yeeld the bare letter to be sufficient yet that in very truth their Bibles containe not truly the said bare letter And first I proue this concerning al their new translated Bibles in general and that by their owne confession Lauatherus in histor Sacramēt fo 32 for Luther the Lutherans condemne the translation of Zwinglius and the Zwinglians Zwing tom 2. in respons ad Luther li. de Sacramēt and of al others besides those which are proper to their owne sect Zwinglius and the Zwinglians pronounce the same censure against the translation of Luther and the Lutherans And in like sort proceede * Beza in annot noui test passim Castalio in defens suae translat Beza and Castalio against one another and al other sectaries for euery particular sect hath his particular Bible which it embraceth rejecting al others vvherefore if we may beleeue al these Professours of the newe religion they haue not among them one true translation of the Bible Moreouer there is but one truth and one true word of God penned by the instinct of the holy Ghost who teacheth not contrary doctrine But our aduersaries translated Bibles be diuers and different one from another and insinuate contrary doctrine wherefore euery Bible is not admitted by euery sectary but that only which fauoureth his owne sect as I haue euen nowe declared It is therefore impossible that they should al containe the true word of God and be penned by the instinct of the holy Ghost And being so that the translator of the one was euen as much subject to errour as the translator of the other and had no surer ground for his translation with like probability and reason they may be al rejected because they haue al receiued the same censure from the Church Whitak controu 1. quest 2. cap. 7. arg 3. cap. 9. arg 4. See also his reprehension of the Rhemes Testament pa. 15. Finally Whitaker seemeth to acknowledge the Scriptures only in those tongues in vvhich they vvere first spoken by God or penned by the holy Ghost to be the true word of God vvherefore he seemeth to exclude from this truth al the translations of Scripture in the world SECTION THE SECOND That Luther Zwinglius Caluin and Beza in particular haue corruptly translated the Scriptures BVT let vs descend to the particular Bibles of some principal sects and for the better declaration of this matter note some corruptions of the principal sectaries and speake a word or two of the corruptions of those translations of the word of God which be most approued and receiued in their congregations And let vs not now stand
art seene a manifest and common corrupter and peruerter of the holy Scripture which thing thou canst neuer deny before any creature How much are we ashamed of thee who hitherto haue esteemed thee beyond al measure and nowe trie thee to be such a false fellowe Bucer telleth vs Bucer Dial. cōt Melāch that in translating the Scriptures his errours are manifest and not fewe But is not Zwinglius himselfe although he so confidentlie reprehend Luther to be found guiltie of the same crime Certainelie to establish his doctrine against the Real presence he corrupted those vvordes of our Sauiour This is my bodie by translating them thus Mat. 26 26. Conr. Schluss in Theolog. Caluinist l. 2. cap. 6. fol. 43. 44. l. 2. art 1. Luther tom 7. in defens verborum coenae This signifieth my bodie Of this Conradus a Lutheran is a sufficient vvitnesse vvho affirmeth that he sawe those vvordes so translated in a Zwinglian Bible at Mundera in the yeare of our Lord one thousand fiue hundred and threescore and therefore he pronounceth this sentence against him that he was stroken with the spirit of giddinesse and blindnesse as al Heretikes are daring to corrupt the Testament of our Lord. Hence Luther also to requite Zwinglius called him and al his followers corrupters of the worde of God Caluin to proue his blaspheamous Doctrine that Christ despaired and suffered on the Crosse the very torments of the damned in hel whereas the Apostle saith Hebr. 5. vers 7. that Christ was heard for his reuerence Caluin in Catechis lib. 2. Instit cap. 16. §. 11. 12. maketh him say that Christ was heard from his owne feare vvhich translation is not only newe for Caluin as Beza confesseth in his Annotations vpon this place vvas the first Authour of it but also contrary to the true signification of the Greeke word as Beza likewise graunteth and it is apparently to be seene Act. 8. vers 2. vvhere the adjectiue of the same Greeke word is vsed to signifie deuout men Caluin lib. 4. Instit ca. 14. §. 23. 1. Cor. 10. v. 3 such as religiously reuerenced God In like sort the same Caluin to proue no difference betweene the Sacraments of the old and newe lawe affirmeth that the Apostle teacheth that our Fathers of the old lawe did eate the same spiritual meate which we eate vvhereas the said Apostle saith only that the Iewes among themselues did eate the same meate Beza annot in Math. 3. v. 2. Marc. 1. v. 4. Luc. 3 8 Beza annot in Rom. 5. Beza of set purpose as he himselfe confesseth in his translation auoideth the word penance and this sentence doe penance Wherefore Act. 26. vers 20. whereas the Greeke saith doing workes worthy of penance he readeth doing the fruits meete for them that amend their liues Also he graunteth that he added to the text of Scripture and altered the same to ouerthrowe as he tearmeth it the execrable errour of inherent justice Further those vvordes Act. 2. vers 27. thou wilt not leaue my soule in hel He wittingly and willingly according to his owne confession Beza annot in Act. 2. ver 27. 24. in 1. Petr. 1. vers 19. to improue Limbus Patrum Purgatory and Christs descent into hel vvhich he tearmeth foule errours translated in his edition of the new Testament of the yeare 1556. thus thou shalt not leaue my carcas in the graue And this not only against al Greeke copies in the world but also against the proper signification of the Hebrewe wordes in the 15. Psalme ver 10. whence this sentence is taken For the Hebrewe word which Beza translateth carcas signifieth only a soule and the other which he translateth graue vsually signifieth hel Hence in his latter edition he corrected somewhat the former and read thou shalt not leaue my soule in the graue but of this his corruption more hereafter Finally because these vvordes of our Lord spoken of the Chalice and recorded by S. Luke which is shedde for you as they are in the Greeke text Beza in Luc 22. vers 20. containe a manifest proofe of the real presence for as he saith according to their plaine construction and that in al his auncient bookes they appertaine of necessity not to the bloud but to the cuppe of the Chalice this Geneuian Doctor altered the text and made an other sense of the said wordes in this translation And why so but because they cannot as he affirmeth be vnderstood of the cuppe and that according to his beliefe Our English Sectaries cannot deny this fault in Beza for they in some places dare not be so bould as to followe him but thinke it best to forsake and reject him For example Iames 2. vers 22. whereas Beza readeth Bible printed anno 1592. 1595. Faith was a helper of his workes they reade with the Greeke Faith wrought with his deedes Againe whereas Beza readeth 1. Cor. 12. vers 30. in his newe Testament of the yeare 1556. Behold moreouer also I shewe you a way most diligently and in the editions of the yeare 1562. And besides I shewe you a way to excellency Bible 1595. vers 31. against the dignity of charitie aboue faith Our English sectaries according to the Greeke reade And yet shewe I vnto you a more excellent way Yea although in the newe Testament printed in the yeare 1580. they vndertake and professe to followe him yet in some places they reject him as for example Act. 1. vers 14. Beza readeth Bible 1595. Bible 1600. they put the worde wiues in the margēt Carolus Molinaeus in trāslat Test noui part 11. fol. 110. Idem part 26 30. 40. 64. 65. 66. 67. 74. 99. Humfred de ratione interpret and i. lib. 1. pag. 62. 63. 189. Al these were perseuering with one minde in praier with their wiues to the end to proue that the Apostles were married they read according to the Greeke with the women But I neede not labour to proue Caluin and Beza guiltie of this crime seing that one of their owne bretheren confesseth that Caluin made the text of holy Scripture leape vp and downe at his pleasure that he offered violence to the same and added of his owne to the very sacred letter it selfe to the end he might drawe it to his purpose He crieth likewise out against Beza and telleth vs that he actually altereth the text that he actually changeth the text retained by al Doctors and the like censure is pronounced against his translation by Selneccerus by the Vniuersity of Zena by Castalio and diuers other Protestants But the last of these named although a Sacramentary and a man much commended by Doctor Humfrey a Gesnerus in Bibliotheca and Gesnerus is more vehement then the rest For hauing noted certaine errors committed by Beza in his translation only of the first tenne Chapters of S. Mathewes Gospel thus he concludeth b Casta in def pa. 182. 183. I
it vsed the vvord congregation but in the later editions since that they began to haue a certaine forme of a Church this fault is amended Secondly to make weake the authority of Traditions vvheresoeuer in the Scripture speach is of euill Traditions they translate the Greeke vvord truly Traditions but when mention is of Apostolike Traditions they cannot endure this vvord but force the same Greeke vvord to signifie ordinances instructions preachings or institutions yea they translate Tradition in il part vvhere it is not found in the Greeke For example the Apostle saith Colos 2. vers 20. according to the Greeke Why doe you yet decree They translate Why are you yet ledde with traditions and in an other edition Bible 1600. 1595. Why are you yet burthened with traditions Thirdly against the honour of Images they translate the Greeke vvord vvhich signifieth Idolatrie and an Idolater worshipping of images and a worshipper of Images 2. Cor. 6 16. Coloss 3. v. 5. Ephes 5 5. Bible 1577. 1. Cor. 10. Bible 1562. thus they make the Apostle say Howe agreeth the Temple of God with Images couetousnesse is worshipping of Images bee not worshippers of Images c. I adde also that sometimes vvhen neither the vvord Idol nor Image is to be found in the text they thrust it in by force as Rom. 11. vers 4. in steede of Baal they translate Baals Image also 2. Paral. 36. ver 8. they adde these wordes carued Images which were laid to their charge to the text But al these faults are amended in the later editions Bible 1595. Gen. 1. v. 27. Exod. 25.3 Reg. 6. c. and not vvithout cause for if euery Image be an Idol and euery Idol an Image we may say that God created man according to his Idol we may cal such Images as were vsed in the old lawe Idols and finally tearme the Image or Picture of a man the Idol of a man vvhich kinde of speach is not tollerable Fourthly against Purgatory Limbus Patrum and the descent of Christ into hel they make the Hebrewe and Greeke vvordes vvhich signifie hel signifie graue as for example vvith Beza they read Act. 2. vers 27. Thou shalt not leaue my soule in the graue Psal 15. v. 10 Bible 1600. Bible 1595. 1600. See Parkes in his Apologie concerning Christs descēt into hel in his ans to Lim bomast printed an 1607 According to their account Psal 86.49 89 this likewise is corrected in the Bible of the yeare 1595. Also Gen. 37. v. 35. they make the Patriarke Iacob say I wil goe downe into the graue to my Sonne mourning vvhereas in like sort the Hebrewe and Greeke vvord signifieth hel and it is manifest that he could not thinke it possible that he should goe downe into the graue to his Sonne because he thought him deuoured of vvilde beastes not buried The same corruption is sound in diuers other places as Psalm 86. v. 13. vvhere they reade a Bible 1579. 1600. corrected in the Bible of the yeare 1595. Thou hast deliuered my soule from the lowest graue Psal 48. vers 15. vvhere they reade thou shalt deliuer my soule from the power of the graue Osee 13. vers 14. where they reade O graue I wil be thy destruction and in sundrie other places this notwithstanding in b See other such corruptions as these are recited and sharply reprehended by Carlile a man of the English Church in his booke that Christ went not downe into hel fol. 144. other places as Prouerb 15. ver 24. c. vvhere speach is of the hel of the damned they translate the same vvord hel Fiftly to bereaue the Saints of their honour vvhich from mortal men is due vnto them they falsly translate the 17. verse of the 138. Psalm For vvhereas we reade Thy friendes O God are become exceeding honourable their Princedome is exceedingly strengthned They turne it thus Bible 1595. Psal 138. Howe deare therefore are thy Councels vnto me O God O howe great is the summe of them But the Hebrewe maketh for our translation as euery man that vnderstandeth that tongue may see especially by the last vvordes vvhich vvord for vvord are thus to be translated Howe are the heades or Princedomes of them strengthned Againe Hebr. 11. vers 21. according to the Greeke vve reade by faith Iacob dying blessed euery one of the Sonnes of Ioseph and adored the toppe of his rodde Bible 1600. some thing better in the Bible 1595. Luke 1. v. 28. Bible 1600. 1595. They translate the last vvordes thus and leaning on the end of his staffe worshipped God In which translation they adde two vvordes to the text leaning and God and turne the sense vpsi-downe I adde also their translation of those vvordes Haile ful of grace for vvhich they reade Haile thou that art freely beloued and Haile thou that art in high fauour SECTION THE FIFT Of their corruptions against inherent Iustice Iustification by good workes Merit of good workes and keeping the Commandements and in defence of their special Faith vaine Security c. and against Freewil and Merits TO proue their imputatiue justice against inherent justice first vvhereas the Apostle saith Rom. 5. vers 18. Therefore as the offence of one vnto al men to condemnation so also by the justice of one vnto al men to justification of life Bible 1595. worse in the Bible 1600. they reade thus Likewise then as by the sinne of one sinne came on al men to condemnation euen so by the righteousnesse of one good came vpon al men to the righteousnesse of life In vvhich their translation they adde foure vvordes to the text of the Apostle to make him seeme to say that al men be truly sinners and none truly just but so reputed Ephes 1. vers 6. for gratified they reade Bible 1600. made accepted Luke 1. vers 28. for ful of grace they translate freely beloued and in high fauour Dan. 6. vers 22. vvhereas Daniel according to the Chaldee Greeke and Latin said Iustice was found in me they make him say Bible 1600. 1595. my justice or vnguiltinesse according to an other translation was found out before him The like corruption may be seene 2. Cor. 5. vers 21. To proue that good workes done in state of grace concurre not to our justification and that vve reape no grace by obseruing of the Commandements vvhereas the Scripture to signifie the Commandements of God vseth in diuers places the vvord justifications and justices because the keeping of the Commandements is justification and justice and the Greeke vvord is alwaies correspondent to the same they neuerthelesse in al such places suppresse the very name of justification and vse the vvordes ordinances or statutes Bible 1595. 1600. as may be seene in the Psalm 118. in diuers verses Luke 1. vers 6. Rom. 2. vers 26. c. To this end also they auoide in their translations the vvord just and cal a just
to him And seing that this feeding vpon Christ by faith may be performed at other times as wel as when their supper is receiued hence they further auouch that Christ himselfe as wel at other times as then may be receiued but principally they say vve receiue him by reading the vvord of God or hearing it preached He is deceiued saith Caluin that thinketh there is any more giuen to him by the Sacraments then that which being offered by the word of God he receiueth by faith c Ibid. §. 17. in Ioan. 6. vers 54. Againe Let this remaine certaine that there is no other office of the Sacraments then of the word of God which is to offer and set forth Christ vnto vs and in him the treasures of heauenly grace Moreouer expounding those wordes of Christ d Idem in 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. Doe this in remembrance of me thus he argueth Therefore the supper is a token or memorial appointed to helpe our infirmity for if otherwise we were mindful of Christes death this helpe were superfluous And this is common to the Sacraments for they are helpes of our infirmity Thus Caluin Beza in epist Theolog. 65. pag. 285. And this was decreed in a Synode held by the Caluinists at Rochel in vvhich we finde that albeit the supper be particularly appointed for our mystical and spiritual communication of Christ yet that Christ is receiued as fully with al his gifts also in a simple or only word or sermon But this is most earnestly defended by Peter Martir likewise a Caluinist vvho among other his discourses hath these sentences We attribute no more to the wordes of God then to the Sacraments nor no more to these then to them a Martir in de fens Euchar. cont Gardin part 2. regula 5. pag. 618. I adde withal that touching the deliuery and obtaining of Christes body and bloud if yee respect the thing and substance it selfe we haue it no more by Sacraments then by wordes b Ibid part 3. pag. 651. see also before p. 644. 547. The body of Christ is receiued as wel in hearing faithfully the word of God as it is in the Sacraments c Ibid. p. 683 I denie not but this is our doctrine that the body of Christ is receiued no lesse in wordes then in the Sacraments or Symbols For this receiuing is wrought by faith and to faith we are stirred vp by wordes as wel as by the Sacraments d Only an empty signe c. possible And I feare not to affirme that we come to the receiuing of Christes body much more by wordes then by Sacraments For Sacraments haue al their force from the wordes Hitherto Martir e Caluin Instit booke 4. c. 14. §. 20. 23. Caluin Beza and Martir in 1. Cor. 10. v. 1.2 Hence they make no difference in honour grace vertue and efficacy betweene the Sacraments of the old lawe and those of the newe f Caluin Instit booke 4. c. 14. § 23. Beza in actis colloq Monpelg p. 77. Sadeel in tract demāducut Sacram p. 191. Nay they adde that the Fathers of the old were as much pertakers of the body and bloud of Christ as Christians are in the newe And to proue this g Caluin Institut booke 4. c. 14. §. 23. Caluin corrupteth S. Paules vvordes 1. Cor. 10. vers 3. by affirming the Apostle to say that the Fathers of the old lawe did eate the same spiritual meate which we eate vvhereas the Apostle maketh no comparison betweene Christians and Iewes but only telleth vs that the Iewes among themselues both good and badde just and vnjust did eate the same spiritual meate Neither ought it seeme strange to any one of our English nation that this doctrine is taught by the Caluinists for we want not some euen in our Protestants Church of England that seeke to vphold it And among other h Willet in his Synopsis controuers 11. p. 463. see also Iewel in his reply against Harding art 5. pag. 323. Andrew Willet before cited in expresse wordes auoucheth and concludeth that looke howe the word of God worketh being preached so doe the Sacraments Their doctrine therefore is that Christ may as truly and really be receiued by hearing of a sermon as he is in their supper And of al this I may first inferre that if they say true vve may as truely and really receiue Christ in our chambers reading the Scriptures and by feeding on him by faith or by eating a peece of bakers bread and drinking a cup of wine or by taking any other such corporal foode in remembrance that he died for vs on the Crosse as we can doe in their Churches by taking the like bread and vvine of the Minister I further inferre that the opinion of Carolostadius Zwinglius and Caluin in verie deede equally exclude Christ from being really present in the Eucharist and therefore the bread and vvine vvhich they receiue according to al their judgements is nothing better then a peece of bakers bread or a bottle of wine bought in a tauerne The reason is euident because Christ himselfe according to his humane nature is as far distant from the bread and wine as heauen is from earth although Caluin acknoweledg a certaine vnion betweene vs and Christ by faith yet this is a thing altogether extrinsecal to the bread and wine for this faith is in the soule not in the bread and vvine neither doth it vnite the body and bloud of Christ to the bread and vvine but as they say to the soule And this vnion in like sort is not real but imaginary for the body bloud of Christ are as farre distant from our faith vvhich is an inward act of our soule and produceth of it selfe no outward effect as they are from the bread and wine And this is true euen according to the doctrine of Caluin and his disciples vvhatsoeuer they seeme in vvordes to say to the contrary But to make the proofe of it more strong let vs confirme it by the testimony of Beza Beza Epist Theolog. 1. pag. 7. Caluins schollar and of some Lutherans Bezaes vvordes are these I say they are very impudent slaunderers that imagine that there was euer any contrariety betweene those most excellent men Zwinglius OEcolampadius and Caluin in their doctrine concerning the Sacrament Thus Beza Among the Lutherans Westphalus a principal Doctor of their company vvriteth thus Caluin vseth such art in handling this matter Westphal in Apologia de coena contra Caluin p. 71. he leaueth his reader so doubtful and vncertaine what to judge of him he shadoweth his speach with such colours that sometimes he yeeldeth a confession of faith like to our Lutheran Churches he seemeth to reject the doctrine of Zwinglius and to beleeue that the very body and bloud of Christ is truly present and giuen in the supper with the bread and wine But hauing conferred many of Caluins sentences
affirming it to be only an argument of a fable or tale whereby to set forth an example of patience He affirmeth that the booke of a Luth. in cōuiual ser tit de libris noui veter test Rabenstocke l. 2. colloquior Latin Luther cap. de veter test Ecclesiastes hath neuer a perfect sentence that the authour of it had neither bootes nor spurs but rid vpon a long sticke or in begging shooes as he did when he was a Frier He vvil haue b Luth. in exordio suarum Annotat. in Cantica Cantica Canticorum which some c Bible 1595 English Sectaries tearme the Ballet of Ballets of Salomon to be nothing else but a familiar speach or communication betweene Salomon and the common wealth of the Iewes d Castalio in trāslat Latin suorum Bibliorum see Beza praefat in Iosuae Castalio goeth further and judgeth it to be a communication betweene Salomon and a certaine friend or mistresse he had called Sulamitha The Epistle to the e Luther in 1. edit noui test Germ. praefat in epistol ad Hebr. in posterior edit eiusdem Hebrewes if we beleeue Luther was written by none of the Apostles and containeth thinges contrary to the Apostolike doctrine The like is affirmed by the f Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. Century writers The same Luther calleth the Epistle of S. Iames truly a g Luth. in praefat in nouum test Germ. edit 1. in Ienens edit noui test praefat in Iacob strawen Epistle in comparison of those of S. Peter and S. Paul saith that it is h In captiuit Babilon cap. de extrema vnctione probably auerred to be none of his nor worthy of an Apostolike spirit i Ad cap. 22. Genes in colloquijs cōuiual lat tom 2. de lib. noui test reprehendeth the doctrine of it as false and contrary to that of Genesis and of S. Paul the Apostle saith the authour doth delirare that is dote c. It is likewise judged not Canonical by k Muscul in locis comunibus c. de Iustific Brent in Apol. Illiric praef in Iacob Musculus Brentius Illiricus Kemnitius and others The second epistle of S. Peter saith l Luth. in suis Germ. Biblijs Brentius in Apolog. ca. de Scripturis Luther is none of his but is of some vncertaine authour who was desirous to giue credit to his worke by the glory of an other mans name Brentius plainely rejecteth it as Apocryphal The like is said by these and others of the Epistle of m Luther praef in epist Iacob lib. cont Amb. Catharinum Magdeburg Cent. 1. lib. 2. ca. 4. Brent in Apolog. S. Iude. Finally Luther censureth the n Luther praefat in Apocal. prioris edit lib. de abroganda missa priuata Brent in Apol. Apocalipse of S. Iohn to be neither Apostolike nor Prophetical but I thinke it is saith he like the fourth of Esdras a booke rejected by vs al neither can I any waies finde that it was made by the holy Ghost Let euery man thinke of it as he please my spirit cannot accommodate it selfe to it And this cause is sufficient to me not greatly to esteeme it that in it Christ is neither taught nor knowne Thus Luther Brentius hauing recited it among other bookes by him censured Apocryphal concludeth that some of the bookes rejected are called dreames others fables And this is the judgement of these Protestants concerning these bookes Notwithstanding our o See the Bible of the yeare 1595. authorized to be read in Churches Articles of the yeare 1562. 1604. Articul 6. Caluin in his Institut in argum epist. Iacobi Church of England with Caluin diuers other of their bretheren receiue al these bookes as Canonical And seing that both these opinions cannot haue an infallible ground and one according to their owne proceedings hath no greater reason for it selfe then the other I inferre that they both haue no other rule vvhereby to receiue and reject bookes of Scripture but their owne judgement and fancy from which principally this difference among them ariseth It may be said that some Sacramentaries and among the rest p Whitaker in his answere to Campians 1. reason Whitaker and q Rogers pag. 30. vpon the Articles of faith of the yeare 1562. 1604. Rogers denie Luther and the Lutherans to reject the bookes mentioned I confesse it but in very truth whosoeuer readeth the authours and places alleaged wil finde that I doe them no wrong And this he may partly gather out of Rogers himselfe who although he r Pag. 30. affirme al reformed Churches to be of the same judgement with the Church of England concerning the Canonical bookes Yet in the next leafe ſ Pag. 32. alleageth two principal Lutherans Wigandus and Heshusius and accuseth them both of errour the one for refusing the first and second epistles of S. Iohns with the epistle of S. Iude the other for rejecting the booke of S. Iohns Reuelation or the Apocalipse I adde also that t Whitaker de sacris Script controuers 1. quaest 1. c. 6. Whitakers himselfe discoursing of this matter in an other place hauing set downe their doctrine concerning the authority of al the bookes of the newe testament addeth these vvordes If Luther or some that haue followed Luther haue taught or written otherwise let them answere for themselues this is nothing to vs who in this matter neither followe Luther nor defend him but are led by a better reason Thus Whitakers But Caluin directly telleth vs u Caluin in argumento epistol Iacobi that in his time there were some that judged the epistle of S. Iames not Canonical Oecolampadius testifieth the same touching the Apocalipse and affirmeth himselfe to x Oecolampadius lib. 2. ad cap. 12. Danielis wonder that some with rash judgement rejected S. Iohn in this booke as a dreamer a mad or braine-sicke man and a writer improfitable to the Church That Luther in particular with a hard censure bereaued this booke of al authority it is recorded by y Bullinger in Apocalip cap. 1. ser 1. Bullinger Yea * Field booke 4. chap. 24. §. wherefore Field condemning the inconsiderate rashnesse of such as in our time make question of any of the bookes of the newe testament c. nameth Luther in the margent It may perhaps be said by some man that al the Sacramentaries accord together concerning the bookes of Canonical Scripture and therefore that they haue some certaine and diuine rule whereby to discerne such bookes from others But this is easily refelled because there is no such consent or agreement among them For doth not Wolfangus Musculus a Zwinglian of great fame with Luther and the Lutherans reject the epistle of Iames out of the Canon Verily either this must be granted or else it must be confessed that he affirmeth one Scripture to contradict an other and false doctrine to be
contained in the diuine bookes These are his words They object vnto vs the place of Iames Wolfangus Musculus in locis communibus cap. de Iustificat num 5. pag. 271. but he whatsoeuer he was though he speake otherwise then S. Paul yet may he not prejudice the truth And after the disagreement betweene these two Apostles according to his imagination shewed at large he thus breaketh forth into open reproch of S. Iames Wherefore he Iames alleageth the example of Abraham nothing to the purpose where he saith wilt thou knowe O vaine man that faith without workes is dead Abraham our father was he not justified by workes when he offered his sonne Isaac He confoundeth the word faith Howe much better had it beene for him diligently and plainely to haue distinguished the true and properly Christian faith which the Apostle euer preached from that which is common to Iewes and Christians Turkes and Diuels then to confound them both and set downe his sentence so different from the Apostolical doctrine whereby as concluding he saith You see that a man is justified by workes and not by faith alone whereas the Apostle out of the same place disputeth thus c. And hauing made S. Paul to speake as hee thinketh best afterwardes he inferreth Thus saith the Apostle of whose doctrine we doubt not Compare me nowe with this argument of the Apostle the conclusion of this Iames A man therefore is justified by workes and not by faith only and see howe much it differeth whereas he should more rightly haue concluded thus c. This and other more such stuffe hath this Sacramentary Doctor against S. Iames and his Epistle in which he dissenteth from most of his owne company Doth not also Beza reject or at the least doubt of the truth of the whole history of the adoulterous woman recorded by S. Iohn in the eight Chapter of his Gospel vvhich notwithstanding other Sacramentaries admit as Canonical Scripture This cannot be denied and I haue before related his wordes Part. 2. ch 1. sect 4. Bible 1592. c. Doth not our English Church Mathewe 6. receiue as Canonical Scripture those wordes For thine is the kingdome the power and the glory which they adde at the end of our Lords praier and yet of them Bullinger a Zwinglian writeth thus There is no reason why Laurentius Valla should take the matter so hotely as though a great part of the Lords praier were cut away Rather their rashnesse was to be reproued who durst presume to peece on their owne to the Lords praier Thus Bullinger Nay further some times the same Sacramentary receiueth vvordes into the Canon vvhich before he had rejected For example Beza in one edition of his new Testament in the end of the eight chapter of S. Iohns Gospel putteth in these wordes See the newe Testaments translated by Beza of the yeares 1556. and 1565. And his Testament translated into English by L. T. printed anno 1580. Iesus passing through the midst of them c. vvhich in another edition with great vehemency he rejecteth wherefore although Beza in his edition of the yeare 1556. leaue the said vvordes out yet in Bezaes englished Testament of the yeare 1580. they are admitted And these thinges in like sort manifestly conuince that the Sacramentaries in admitting and rejecting bookes of Scripture are led by their owne judgement and fancy not by any diuine or infallible rule Moreouer diuers parcels of holy Scripture as I haue declared aboue haue bin in times past of doubtful authority of which most of our aduersaries haue receiued some into the Canon and rejected others For example our English Protestants haue receiued the Epistle to the Hebrewes and the Apocalipse and rejected the books of the Machabees of Iudith Tobias c. because the authority of these in the primatiue Church was called in question But what reason haue they for this fact haue they had any diuine testimony or reuelation commanding them to admit the first Surely none seing that they contemne the authority of the Church And wherefore receiued they not the last aswel as the first They vvil say perhaps that the first vvere admitted by diuers euen in the primatiue Church and doubted off only by some I reply that Brentius hauing named and numbred al of both sorts of them in general writeth thus Brentius in Apolog. confess Wittenb There are some of the auncient Fathers who receiue these Apocriphal bookes into the number of Canonical Scriptures and in like sort some Councels command them to be acknowledge as Canonical I am non ignorant what was done but I demand whether it were rightly and Canonically done Thus Brentius who reiecteth them al alike And that vvhich he saith may be proued true by the testimony of the third Councel of Carthage and S. Augustine as Field confesseth Concil Cartag 3. ca. 47. Augustin de doctrina Christiana lib. 2. cap. 8. Field booke 4. chap. 23. §. hence and of diuers others who receiued the bookes of Tobias Iudith and the Machabees wherefore it seemeth that not only in the judgement of Brentius but also in very deede the doubt of al was almost alike It is euident therefor◠in my judgement that the reason vvhy they rejected and reject those of the old Testament is because in some points they contrary their newe doctrine which they made and make a rule whereby to discerne which bookes are Canonical Hence they receiued those which they could make in outward shewe seeme to fauour their opinion and rejected others and this is the cause why Luther rejecteth more bookes then the later Sectaries For he being the first that beganne to preach this newe Gospel could not presently forge and inuent newe glosses and interpretations vpon al the bookes of Scripture that opposed themselues against the same vvherefore he rejected sundry such bookes vvhich afterwardes his followers hauing inuented such glosses and interpretations receiued This also moued the same Luther to affirme those to be the best Euangelists Luther tom 5. praefat in epist. Petri. fol. 439. Centuriat 2. ca. 4. p. 260. who most especially and most earnestly teach that only faith without workes doth justifie and saue vs of which he inferreth that S. Paules epistles may more properly be called the Gospel then either the Gospel of S. Mathewe S. Marke or S. Luke His disciples the Centuriatores likewise yeeld this reason vvherefore the epistle of S. Iames is to be rejected that in the second chapter he affirmeth that Abraham vvas not justified by faith only Zwinglius in explanat art 57. tom 2. fol. 100. but by workes Zwinglius also affirmeth that although the second booke of the Machabees were in the Canon yet that the authour of it maketh himselfe suspected by this that writing an history he doth set downe a point of doctrine concerning praier for the dead By which it is manifest that they measure Canonical Scripture by their faith not their faith by
firmiter stent in confess de coena Domini yea not long after most absurdly he taught and defended the humane nature of Christ to be in euery place togither with his diuine And this he did to prejudice the Roman Church and Catholike religion For seing that the vvordes are so plaine that he could not in substance denie the real presence by these meanes malice droue him to contrary our doctrine concerning transubstantiation and the manner of the being present of Christes body in this dreadful Sacrament These are the principal expositions of those wordes to which I could adde diuers others for a Luther in l. quod verba Christi HOC EST CORPVS MEVM firmiter stent Luther hath recorded that in his daies there vvere among the Sacramentaries about tenne diuers interpretations of them and in the yeare 1577. a booke vvas published in vvhich two hundred expositions or deprauations of the said vvordes are numbred and assigned al inuented or reuiued by the Professours of this newe religion Nowe I thinke that no man indued with any sense or reason wil be so fond as to affirme that al these expositions haue a certaine ground in the word of God for certaine it is as we haue hard Luther himselfe confesse that there is but one true sense of these vvordes vvherefore it must needes followe that al the rest be false and forged And seing that the inuentor or vpholder of one hath no more reason or diuine assurance for his inuention or opinion then hath the inuentor or vpholder of an other vve may vvith like probability affirme them al to be humane inuentions And certaine it is that vvhosoeuer imbraceth any one of them buildeth only vpon the erroneous and fallible judgement of man yea I may truly say that the ground of his beliefe is his owne fancy vvhich moueth him to censure one opinion as true and to condemne al the rest as false And like as I haue discoursed of this one sentence of our blessed Sauiour so could I in like manner discourse of sundry other places of holy Scripture but I should be ouer long It may be some for the solutions of al these matters vvil flie to priuate illumination or inspiration of the spirit and pleade that to proue the certaine truth of their interpretations of holy Scriptures but first such persons if vve beleeue Field Field booke 4 of the Church chap. 16. See also Whitaker de Ecclesia cōtrouers 2. q. 4. cap. 3. pag. 278. are accursed by the common consent of Protestants if as the Enthusiasts they neglect the common rules of direction Secondly I haue at large * Part. 2. chap. 5. sect 1. before proued al such illuminations to be vncertaine and that no priuate man is by any such meanes ordinarily directed by God into the truth something also concerning this point shal be said in the next section SECTION THE FOVRTH That certaine rules prescribed by Field for the true vnderstanding of Scripture of themselues alone without the censure of the Church are insufficient to assure vs that our exposition made is of diuine truth BECAVSE the doctrine of Field is commonly singular in so much that I thinke I may very wel in some sort liken the platforme or order and faith of a Church set downe in his bookes of this argument to Sir Thomas Moores Eutopia for that there neither is nor euer vvil be any such Church in the world as he describeth I am and shal be forced especially in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church to dispute against him in particular and seuer him from al his bretheren Part. 2. chap. 5. sect 4. We haue heard him before acknowledging the Scriptures to be hard and obscure of which it seemeth to followe that except he assigne vs some diuine rule vvhereby we may come to an infallible knowledge of the true sense of them we can neuer infallibly assure our selues of their true interpretation He telleth vs therefore first that men not neglecting that light of direction which the Church yeeldeth Field booke 4 chap. 15. nor other helps and meanes may be assured out of the nature of the thinges themselues the conference of places the knowledge of tongues and the sutable correspondence that one part of diuine truth hath with another that they haue found out the true meaning of it and so be able to conuince the aduersaries and gaine saiers Thus Field But howe friuolous this his assertion is it vvil appeare by the confutation of his rules vvhich he vvil haue vs obserue and helps vvhich he saith vve must trust vnto in interpreting the Scriptures What rules and helps are then assigned by him let vs recite and for auoiding of repetition togither confute them Ibid. chap. 19 these are his vvordes Touching the rules we are to followe the helps we are to trust vnto and the thinges required in the interpretation of Scripture I thinke we may thus resolue First there is required an illumination of the vnderstanding for the natural man perceiueth not the thinges of God for they are spiritually discerned but the spiritual man judgeth al thinges and himselfe is judged of none This is the first helpe concerning which I first demand howe a man shal infallibly knowe that he hath such an illumination or that he is a spiritual man if he answere that it is knowne by this that a man feeleth himselfe thus and thus affected I vrge further and aske by vvhat diuine testimony or firme reason he knoweth that a man feeling himselfe so affected hath an illumination of the vnderstanding from God and is a spiritual man verily seing that Luther and Caluin both boasted of such an illumination and yet one of them was deceiued 2. Cor. 11 14 seing also that the Diuel doth often transfigure himselfe into an Angel of light as S. Paul vvarneth vs and as our aduersaries vvil grant it hapneth to the Anabaptists and others seing moreouer 1. Iohn 4. v. 1. Caluin alleaged in the 8. section of this chapter that the Apostle S. Iohn biddeth vs not beleeue euery spirit but proue the spirits if they be of God vvhich Caluin also thinketh necessary he must alleage or knowe some such testimony or reason or else he cannot ordinarily haue supernatural knowledge of it which neuerthelesse at the least is necessarily required to this that the exposition of the place of Scripture expounded be an inducement or ground of supernatural faith And vvhat diuine testimony can he alleage no other I thinke but Scripture or diuine inspiration if Scripture then another question may be asked howe he knoweth himselfe rightly to vnderstand that place of Scripture if inspiration I demand in like sort howe he knoweth it to be diuine and not diabolical and so of both these answeres wil follow a processe without end Secondly of this rule it may be inferred not only against Field but al our aduersaries that our faith is not built vpon only
no part of this assertion is true The first is shewed false in my discourse of some particular rules especially by this that no man can assure himselfe that the hath an illumination of the vnderstanding vnto vvhich I here adde that he cannot likewise assure himselfe that he hath exactly obserued such rules and that he is euery way sufficiently disposed in minde and furnished with learning according as they require neither can he lastly proue the sufficiency of them as I haue also shewed The second part of his assertion is much lesse true for no man can proue the truth of that to an other of which he cannot be assured himselfe Fourthly I may inferre that no man who obserueth not these rules hath true faith and the reason is manifest because the Scripture thus interpreted as Field saith is the ground of their faith Field booke 3 chap. 42. §. if this kinde wherefore whosoeuer expoundeth it otherwise is not faithful By which I exclude from the number of the faithful according to this rule not only such men as are carnal not spiritual and such as are not disposed in minde according to the second rule but also al persons vnlearned vvho haue not the knowledge of such histories arts and sciences as may helpe nor of the original tongues according to the two last rules Neither can it be said that such are to learne of others for as I haue proued in my second illation or collection no man can infallibly assure himselfe that another doth interpret truly And this maketh the matter the more doubtful that commonly what exposition soeuer he followe he hath more euen of the newe religion it selfe against him then vvith him yea he may finde the best of them erroneous in some points and consequently hath cause to distrust their judgement in others Fiftly out of this discourse it is euident that although we should grant this to M. Field that the bare letter of holy Scripture is sufficiently knowne by such meanes as I haue before related out of him confuted yet the true interpretation being so obscure and not certainely to be knowne by these his rules it is euident I say that whosoeuer grounding vpon these only embraceth any interpretation as diuine buildeth vpon his owne judgement and fancy not vpon diuine authority And of this and that vvhich hath already beene said in this chapter and before I finally inferre that the vvhole faith of the newe sectaries is vncertaine and lastly resolued to their owne judgement and fancy It is vncertaine because they assigne no certaine and infallible rule by vvhich they can assuredly knowe the letter or true sense of holie Scripture which they make the only ground of their faith of which accorning to the judgement of M. Whitaker in the like case Whitaker de Eccles contra Bellar. cōtrouers 2. quaest 4. cap. 3. pag. 278. as also according to al reason must needes followe an vncertainety of truth in their whole beliefe that their faith is likewise lastly resolued to their owne judgement and fancy it is apparant For although Field tel vs that * Field booke 4. chap. 13. the judgement of God the Father as supreame the judgement of the Sonne as the eternal word of God of the spirit as the fountaine of al illumination making them discerne what is true is that in which they finally rest And that the judgement or determination of the word of God is that wherein they rest as the rule of their faith and the light of diuine vnderstanding as that whereby they judge of al thinges And both he and the rest seeme to resolue al to the bare letter of holy Scripture yet it is euident that their last resolution is not the letter both because al Christians as wel as they commonly receiue the letter and consequently if the last difficulty vvere touching the letter al vvould easily be brought to an agreement And also because as Field very vvel noteth out of S. Hierome Cha. 18. ibid. Hieron in epist ad Galat cap. 1. The Gospel consisteth not in the wordes of Scripture but in the sense and meaning not in the outward rinde and skinne but in the inward path and marrowe not in the leaues of the wordes but in the roote and ground of reason of which it appeareth that the last resolution is to the sense Seing therefore that al our aduersaries in translating and expounding the Scripture build vpon their owne judgement it is euident that in their owne judgement not in the holy Scripture they set vp their last resolution in matters of faith Neither would they obtaine any other more sound foundation and stronger stay if we should grant that they remit al thinges finally to the letter of holy Scripture for this also they receiue and reject according to their owne fancies as I haue proued And in very truth I cannot sufficiently meruaile that M. Field or any other man of judgement and learning doth run these courses I meane impugne our doctrine concerning these points as absurd and in some sort impossible vvhich in deede is most prudent and diuine and fal into most grosse absurdities and inconueniences themselues For vvhereas according to the first opinion aboue related vve lastly resolue our faith into diuine reuelation vvhereunto we are aided and inclined to giue assent by the supernatural light of faith vvhich vvith vs concurreth to euery supernatural act of beliefe vnto vvhich we are prepared and disposed by most prudential motiues and arguments of credibility And vvhereas in the first act of faith we include the beliefe of a general rule by vvhich we are to be directed and which we are bound humbly to followe in al particular points of beliefe and consequently for the preseruation of vnity and deciding of controuersies acknowledge one supreame diuine and definitiue authority on earth They impugne our assertions and obtrude vnto vs for an only ground of our faith and a directour of our beliefe the holy Scripture and giue vs no prudential rules which may giue a prudent man any assured meanes how to knowe vvhich is the true letter or which is the true sense of the same Yea assigne such meanes and rules which are proued insufficient by their owne dissention concerning these very points And besides this that vvhich we vpon such prudential motiues giue to a general authority Field booke 4 cap. 13. they rejecting with Field al such general authority must needes giue without al reason to euery particular man which is the roote of al pride and a fountaine of discord and diuision contrary to experience and not warranted by Scripture or else grant themselues to haue no faith And this is true whether they vvil haue themselues secured of the truth of their judgement by particular and extraordinary inspirations of the spirit or by the light of diuine vnderstanding or grace as Field calleth it ordinarily found in euery spiritual person See Aberus contra Carolostadian c. 7. And in
thus The Lutheran preachers rage hitherto in their pulpits against the Caluinists as much as euer and their Princes and people haue them in as great detestation not forbearing to professe openly that they wil returne to the Papacy rather then euer admit that Sacramentary and predestinary pestilence For these two pointes are the ground of the quarrel and the later more scandalous at this day then the former thus he writing as it is probable of thinges which he sawe and heard with his owne eies and eares And vvhat is the off-spring and fountaine of this their diuision and dissention but the vvant of a certaine infallible rule to direct them for because they al seeme with one consent to accept of the bare wordes of Scripture for the only ground of their faith and religion and the said vvordes admit sundry expositions euery man among them whose wit by any meanes can reach to the inuention either of a newe translation or interpretation of the word of God or of some newe opinion which by wresting and wringing he can in outward shewe confirme by the authority of the same foundeth a newe sect Hence are these wordes of Luther Luther epist ad Antuerp tom 2. Germ. â—en fol. 101. There be almost so many sects and religions among vs as there be men There is no Asse in this time so sottish and blockish but wil haue the dreames of his owne head and his opinion accepted for the instinct of the holy Ghost and himselfe esteemed as a Prophet And againe in an other place thus he complaineth The peace and concord of the Church being once broken that is to say the pillar of truth and the infallible rule of our faith being once forsaken there is no meane or end of dissentions Luther in ca. 5. ad Galat. tom 5. Wittenb fol. 416 In our time first the Sacramentaries forsooke vs afterwardes the Anabaptists Of these neither agree among themselues So alwaies one sect bringeth forth another and once condemneth another Hitherto Luther the ring-leader of al the daunce himselfe And thus much of their diuision and dissention in this place I knowe that some of our aduersaries are so bold I might say so impudent as to denie there is any great or material dissension in their Churches And among others M. Field writeth Field booke 3 ch 42. p. 170. See also ibid. pag. 169. Where he saith there is a ful consent in their publike coÌ„fessions of faith that it so fel out by the happy prouidence of God when there was a reformation made by his bretheren that there was no material or essential difference among them but such as vpon equal scanning wil be found rather to consist in the diuers manner of expressing one thing and to be but verbal vpon the mistaking through the hasty and inconsiderate humors of some men then any thing else He addeth further Yea I dare confidently pronounce that after due and ful examination of each others meaning there shal be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament the vbiquitary presence or the like betweene the Churches reformed by Luthers ministery in Germany and other places and those whome some mens malice called Sacramentaries that none of the differences betweene Melancthon and Illiricus except about certaine ceremonies were real that Osiander held no priuate opinion of justification howsoeuer his strange manner of speaking gaue occasion to many so to thinke and conceiue And this shal be justified against the proudest Papist of them al Thus Field But howe vntrue this his assertion is al the world knoweth and it might be easily here demonstrated did not the matter belong properly to an other place I haue partly also shewed the falshood of it already Neuerthelesse to adde a word or two against this doctor in particular howe doth this agree with the beginning of the Epistle Dedicatory of his booke See his words cited at large in the preface of this treatise See also in his third booke ch 13. pag. 86. Doth he not there complaine of vnhappy diuisions in the Christian world and of infinite distractions of mens mindes not knowing in so great variety of opinions what to thinke or to whome to joine themselues euery faction saith he boasting of the pure and sincere profession of heauenly truth challenging to it selfe alone the name of the Church and fastning vpon al that dissent or are otherwise minded the hateful note of schisme and heresie There he affirmeth that the controuersies of religion in our time are growen in number so many and in nature so intricate that fewe haue time and leasure fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them And therefore he concludeth that nothing remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in thinges of such consequence but diligently to search out the Church that so they may embrace her communion followe her directions and rest in her judgement Thus he discourseth in his Epistle dedicatory And howe can these thinges be made consonant and agreeable to his other wordes euen nowe alleaged Truly I thinke an indifferent reader vvil hardly excuse him from contradiction Besides this he telleth vs there is no difference touching the Sacrament the vbiquitarie presence and the like betweene the Lutherans and the Sacramentaries Caluin Instit booke 4. chap. 17 §. 16. c. but Caluin auoucheth that by the vbiquitarie presence Marcion an ancient Heretike is raised vp out of hel The Caluinists also in the Preface to the Harmony of confessions although a booke published to shew a consent among the followers of the newe religion exclaime in like manner against it and a thousand other bookes written on both sides conuince him of falsehood Field saith none of the differences betweene Melancthon and Illiricus except about certaine ceremonies were real but vvhosoeuer readeth the acts of Synode held by Lutherans at Altenburge and the publike vvritings of the Flaccians so called of Flaccus Illiricus against the Synergists and Adiaphorists two other sects of Lutherans and of these against them shal finde dissentions touching greater matters Field auoucheth that Osiander held no priuate opinion of justification but Caluin in his Institutions Caluin Instit booke 3. chap. 11. §. 5. c. Heshusius l. cont Osiand Schlusselbur in Catalogo haereticorum lib. 6. spendes almost one whole Chapter in the confutation of Osianders opinion concerning this article which at his very entrance to this point he calleth be wotes not what monster of essential righteousnesse Heshusius a Lutheran in like sort condemneth his brother Osianders doctrine touching this And Conradus Schlusselburge an other of that sect placeth him and his followers in the Catalogue of Heretikes Such are Fields rare singular proceedinges in which he feareth not to affirme thinges most apparently false and confessed vntrue by al his bretheren And truly a man of smal learning reading his bookes of the church may first finde that he hath a good opinion of himselfe of his owne wit and
that pronouncing nowe this nowe that of the same thing he was neuer constant to himselfe but thought that such leuity and inconstancy might be vsed in the word of God as shamelesse jesters commonly vse playing at dice. Againe Luther saith he doth not only bring his former doctrine in suspition but also giueth the Papists a most fit occasion to condemne him by sending in this present controuersie his reader only to those bookes which he wrote within foure or fiue yeares before For who hauing heard or read these things wil not say that if so be that we expect other fiue yeares without al doubt they being past he wil cal into doubt those bookes which he wrote in these last fiue yeares Thus farre Zwinglius of Luthers inconstancy Erasmus also Whitaker in his answer to Campians reason 8. p. 208. a man denied by Whitakers to be a writer of our side and by the martir-maker Fox canonized for a Saint of the newe religion of Luther his disciples writeth after this sort * Erasmus lib 3. de libero arbitrio What should I recount here the dissention that is among these Gospellers their bloudy hatred their bitter contentions nay their singular inconstancy Luther himselfe hauing changed his opinion so often and yet newe paradoxes springing vp from him daily Hitherto Erasmus Finally Field although he extol Luther for a worthy diuine as euer the world had any in those times wherein he liued Field booke 3 c. 24. p. 170. or in many ages before yet confesseth that by degrees he sawe and discried those Popish errours I vse his wordes which at first he discerned not But to excuse the matter he first auoucheth that in sundry points of greatest moment as of the power of nature of free-wil grace justification the difference of the law and the Gospel faith and workes Christian liberty and the like he was euer constant Which assertion of his howe false it is that which I haue before said touching free-wil doth demonstrate An other of his excuses is that it is not so strange a thing as his aduersaries would make it seeme to be that herein Luther proceeded by degrees and in his later writings disliked that which in his former he did approue And his reason is because S. Augustine wrote a whole booke of retractations S. Ambrose complained that he was forced to teach before he had learned and so to deliuer many thinges that should neede a second reuiewe And S. Thomas of Aquine in his summe corrected and altered many things which he had written before Against this I first reply that it excuseth not Luthers building of his new beliefe vpon his owne judgement nay it proueth manifestly that he came not to it by the infallible direction of any external guide but by the discourse and search of his owne wit and moreouer Caluin Instit booke 4. ch 3. The Apology of the church of England part 4. p. 123 124. c. that he vvas not extraordinarily by internal inspirations instructed and sent by the spirit of God as diuers of these men seeme plainely to affirme for the workes of God are perfect and they whome he immediately sendeth directeth in faith erre not in any point of that argument but that his inconstant reason was the principal ground on which he built his said faith and religion Secondly I adde that the examples brought by Field in excuse of Luther make nothing for his purpose For what if S. Augustine vvriting vvhen he was yet a nouice in Christian religion and not fully instructed erred in some points which errours hauing receiued better instructions he reclaimed What if the like happened to S. Ambrose being miraculously chosen to be a Bishop and a teacher before he was a Christian What if S. Augustine before some articles of Christian religion were so throughly discussed and defined in the Church as afterward vpon the rising of new heresies spoke not so aptly and properly as was needful in succeeding times and therefore retracted what he had vttered What if he and S. Thomas of Aquin in diuers matters disputable and not determined by the Church altered and corrected their former opinions So hath Cardinal Baronius nowe done who hath runne ouer the first ten tomes of his Ecclesiastical history and made as it were a booke of retractations recalling such thinges as he judged amisse What I say if also these thinges be so as without doubt they were no otherwise shal it therefore be lawful for Luther or any other person to leape vp and downe hither and thither and to chop and change his faith according as his fancy leadeth him in any articles of Christian religion verily I thinke to no man of judgement such a fault vvil seeme excusable But was Zwinglius who as we haue seene so peremptorily reprehendeth Luther for his inconstancy him selfe free from this crime Truly he vvas not and because breuity suffereth me not to runne through his works and to shewe the change and alteration of his opinion concerning al particuler points in vvhich he shewed himselfe inconstant I wil only conuince him of inconstancy touching one or two and that by his owne confession It cannot be denied but before his fal from vs he held the Catholike doctrine concerning the baptisme of infants otherwise vvithout al doubt his nouelty vvould haue beene noted and censured His first alteration therefore concerning this matter was from vs to Anabaptisme his second from Anabaptisme in some sort to our beliefe againe That he was once an Anabaptist thus he confesseth Wherefore I my selfe also confesse frankely saith he that a fewe yeares since I being deceiued with this error thought it better to deferre the baptisme of young children vntil they come to perfest age thus Zwinglius That he partly recanted afterwards this heresie he declareth in the same place I say partly because he alwaies denied the necessity of baptisme to saluation That he was likewise inconstant in his beliefe of the Eucharist these his owne wordes testifie Zwingl tom 2. commēt de vera salsa religione cap de Eucharist fol. 202. We haue written two yeares since of the Eucharist where we haue written many thinges rather according to the time then the truth of the matter And soone after If reader thou finde certaine thinges here otherwise then in the former bookes doe not thou wonder we would not giue foode out of season nor set pearls before swine Finally We retract therefore saith he and reuoke those thinges which we haue said there in such sort that those which we set forth in the two and fortith yeare of our age counterpoise those which we set forth in the fortith when as we said we serued more the time then the truth of the matter that we might by that meanes the more edifie thus Zwinglius of himselfe Who then can deny but he also was inconstant and at the least in outward shewe altered his beliefe yea doth he not confesse to
that Peter Lombardes doctrine is truly golden their 's dirty and filthy Thus discourseth Stancarus one of their owne company Yet who knoweth not that Peter Lombard by the Catholikes is accounted but among the middle sort of diuines and who is so bold as to compare him to S. Hierome especially in translating and expounding the Scriptures But the more to weaken the credit of their translated Bibles vvhich they boast to be drawne and featched from the very fountaines themselues to wit from the Hebrewe Greeke text in which tongues the scriptures were first penned let vs here adde not only that they are not sincerely featched from thence as hath beene sufficiently proued before euen by the testimonies of Protestants themselues but also that the said fountaines and that likewise according to the judgement of Protestants are not now pure and sincere but in some places haue beene corrupted I haue in like sort proued before this last point as farre forth as it concerneth the Greeke text of the new testament And although something hath beene said of the Hebrew text of the old yet in this place I wil relate for further proofe of the same certaine sentences of Castalio Conradus Pellicanus and D. Humfrey in vvhich this is plainely auouched For the first of these writing in defence of himself against one that maintained the sincerity and purity of the Hebrewe text hath these wordes Castalio in defens suae translat pag. 227. This good fellowe seemeth to be of that opinion as in manner al the Iewes are and some Christians drawing neare to Iudaisme or Iudaizing in this respect that he thinketh no errour euer to haue crept into the Hebrew Bibles that God would neuer suffer that any word should be corrupted in those sacred bookes as though the bookes of the old testament were more holy then those of the newe in the which newe so many diuers readings are found in so many places or as though it were credible that God had more regard of one or other litle word or sillable then he had of whole bookes whereof he hath suffered many I say not to be depraued but to be vtterly lost Thus Castalio And in his discourse following he calleth this high opinion of the Hebrewe text a Iewish superstition Conrad Pellic tom 4. in Psal 85. v. 9. alias 8. Conradus Pellicanus expounding these wordes of the 84. Psalme vers 9. Qui conuertuntur ad cor which in one of our English Bibles are thus translated * Bibl. 1592. Bible read in Churches That they turne not againe to folly and an other That they turne not againe writeth after this sort The old interpreter seemeth to haue read one way whereas the Iewes nowe reade another which I say because I would not haue men thinke this to haue proceeded from the ignorance or slouthfulnesse of the old interpreter Rather we haue cause to finde fault for want of diligence in the Antiquaries and faith in the Iewes who both before Christs comming since seeme to haue beene lesse careful of the Psalmes then of their Talmudical songes Hitherto are his wordes Humfred lib. 1. de rat interpret pa. 178. Idem ibid. lib. 2. pag. 219. In like sort D. Humfrey telleth vs that the reader may easily finde out and judge howe many places the Iewish superstition hath corrupted And againe I like not saith he that men should to much followe the Rabbins as many doe for those places which promise and declare Christ the true Messias are most filthily corrupted by them Such is the judgement of these sectaries Perhaps some man vvil deeme these to be men of no account among Protestants but it is not so D. Humfrey is wel knowne Humfre ibid. lib. 1. pag. 62. 63. 189. and he matcheth Castalio with the best and affirmeth the Bible by him translated to be most paineful most diligent most throughly conferred examined sifted and polished Gesnerus also a sectary of no smal fame giueth him this commendation Castalio hath translated the Bible so diligently Gesnerus in Bibliotheca and with so singular fidelity according to the Hebrewe and Greeke that he seemeth farre to haue surpassed al translations of al men whatsoeuer haue hitherto beene set forth Finally Conradus Pellicanus vvas Professor of the Hebrewe tongue in Zuricke And out of this vvhole discourse it is euident that although vvee should suppose the authority of the Church not to be infallible and that both vve and our aduersaries build only vpon the bare letter of holy Scripture yet that the said letter is a farre more sound and firme ground as it is translated and expounded by vs then it is as it is translated and expounded by our aduersaries For although vve both challenge to our selues the holy Scriptures yet our translation and interpretation is of greater authority then theirs We also for the proofe of the sense by vs receiued offer to be tried by the censure of al our auncestors from vvhome together with the letter we haue receiued also that sense which vve embrace Contrariwise they both in their translation and exposition build onlie vpon their owne judgement and haue no further proof or authority And this I say is true although we should make the Church subject to errour and grant the bare letter of Scripture to be the ground of our aduersaries beliefe But as I haue proued the authority of the Church is infallible and diuine and besides this the newe sectaries build not vpon the letter of holy Scripture Secondly I inferre of that which hath beene said that our aduersaries according to their doctrine haue no infallible meane whereby to knowe what articles of faith haue beene reuealed by God to his Church and consequently that they want a condition necessary to true faith And this is manifest both because they make the Church which God as I haue shewed hath ordained to be the ordinary meane for vs to come to the knowledge of such thinges subject to error and also because the bare letter of Scripture vvhich they ordinarily pretend in this case is insufficient neither doe they build vpon it as I haue proued Thirdly I conclude that absolutely al the professors of the newe Gospel ground their faith and religion vpon the judgement and fancy of man not vpon any diuine authority Hence they measure the omnipotent power of God by their owne weake vnderstanding and in those misteries vvhich being aboue the reach of reason cannot be by it comprehended they cry out vvith the Iewes howe can this be Iohn 6. v. 52. Ciril lib. 4. in Ioan. cap. 13. which word howe saith S. Ciril Bishop of Alexandria is a Iewish word and worthy of al punishment This also vvas in some sort confessed by king Henry the eight the first head of our English Church For being desirous after his denial of the Popes supreamacy to make some innouation of religion within his dominions he published as Hal Hollinshed and Stowe
al points appertaining to faith and religion She is finally the ship and skilful pilot which throughout al the stormes and tempests of Schismes and Heresies vvil guide vs vvithout errour to the porte of euerlasting saluation and make vs fit stones to be placed euerlastingly in the triumphant Church of God in heauen FINIS AN APPENDIX TO THIS TREATISE CONTAINING A BRIEFE CONFVTATION OF A BOOKE PVBLISHED IN THE YEARE M. D.C.VI BY WILLIAM CRASHAW bearing this title Romish forgeries and falfifications c. IF al vvere true which is objected by newe sectaries against the one true Spouse of Christ the Catholike Church al men endued vvith reason might according to reason prudently meruaile that any man of common sense doth follow her doctrine or embrace her communion Luther exclaimeth against her children that they make the Virgin Mary a * Luther ad Euangeliū d◠festo Annunciationis Goddesse giuing her omnipotency both in heauen and earth Caluin a Caluin book 3. Instit c. 20 §. 22. l. de necessit reformand Eccles that they giue the worship of God vnto Saints and honour them and their relikes in place of Christ Luther againe b Luth. ad c. 50. Genes in colloq Germ. c. de Christo that they deny justification and saluation through Christes passion and merits Caluin c Caluin book 3. Instit cap. 20. §. 21. that in their Litanies Hymnes and Proses there is no mention of Christ yea that for the most part Christ being passed ouer God is praied to by the names of Saints Luther moreouer d Luther ad l. Ducis Georgij scripsit an 1533. l. de abrogat Missae priuatae that they hold a man may keepe the Commandements without the grace of God Caluin that they e Caluin booke 1. Instit ch 11. §. 9. and 10. giue Idolatrous worship vnto Images Luther also that f Luther l. de Ecclesia the Pope buried the Scripture in dirt and dust Caluin g Caluin booke 4. Instit ch 9. §. 24. in antid Concil Triden sess 7. Canon 1◠that they make the oracles of God subject vnto men and that they esteeme more in baptisme of chrisme salt and such other thinges then of the washing with water Luther finally h Luther lib. de Concilijs that they giue to Councels authority to make newe articles of faith and change the old Caluin that they giue the Pope authority to institute new Sacraments and that the Popes hold there is no God Caluin alij passim in 2. Thessal 2 4. Caluin Instit booke 4. chap. 7. §. 27. that al thinges written and taught of Christ are lies and deceits that the doctrine concerning the future life and the last resurrection are meere fables These and diuers other such monstrous vntruthes are forged by our aduersaries against vs and this course they are constrained to take that they may haue something to impugne For if they should plainely and sincerely deliuer vvhat we hold the force and brightnesse of truth it selfe would easily at her only sight weaken yea ouerthrowe al their impugnations And like as the first beginners of the new religion ranne these vnconscionable I may say shameful courses so their successors alwaies haue continued in the same and euen those of our daies obstinately refusing to accept of any reasonable answere or to vnderstand the truth insist in the steps of their predecessors For vvhereas if they were but indifferent they might wel perceiue that vve vvhome neither feare of death nor infamy and disgrace nor losse of liberty liuing and worldly goodes can moue to doe one act contrary to our religion wil not for al the world denie any one article of our faith Yet notwithstanding although we denie their false slaunders neuer so much yet they vvil needes haue vs to hold them as they say vvhether vve vvil or no. Diuers impute vnto vs daily strange paradoxes in matters of faith But among others one William Crashaw Anno 1606. In the Epistle Dedicatory hath not long since published a booke accusing vs of an horrible matter of fact to wit of the crime of corruption and forgery in the highest degree so are his wordes His said booke beareth this title Romish forgeries and falsifications together with Catholike restitutions By reading of the contents of it he that is not learned and acquainted with their dealings may easily be drawne and perswaded not only to condemne vs as notable corrupters and forgers but further to imagine that we in former ages haue corrupted al the Fathers workes and consequently inferre that their testimonies can yeeld vs no firme ground vvhereon to build our faith Crash in his preface to the reader §. see what see also § wil these men contrary to that which hath beene said in this Treatise Nay Crashaw himselfe doth not only affirme that they haue cause to suspect that we haue so dealt with the Fathers because we haue not spared as he saith some as ancient as some fathers but also auerreth that it wil be proued to the worlds view that we * §. But whē haue de facto corrupted almost al antiquity in so much that no man can tel what ground to stand vpon either for Councels Fathers decrees or mens writings And he addeth § To end this point that he doth not doubt but ere long God wil raise vp some instruments of his glory who shal fully discouer to the world this treachery of the Romish Church by making it as apparent they haue corrupted the Fathers as I hope saith he to doe in this and the bookes ensuing that they haue corrupted al such late writers as they imagined any way to make against them Thus Crashaw For the resolution of which his false imputation as also for clearing of our present practise which may seeme to some to tend towardes the ouerthrow of the authority of antiquity I thinke it not amisse to spend some fewe lines in prouing these three points First that our practise in correcting of bookes reprehended by Crashaw is prudent and laudable Secondly that our aduersaries if we offend in this are much more to be condemned for the like proceedings in the same kinde Lastly that the Fathers vvorkes are sincere and free from al corruption To declare the first I must first giue my reader to vnderstand that the Church of Christ nowe hath and euer hath had authority to censure and condemne al such bookes as are published and containe thinges any vvaies opposite to the truth of her faith and religion This first appeareth because she is supreame judge on earth of al controuersies arising touching faith and religion and hath jurisdiction ouer euery Christian from which it proceedeth that she condemneth heresies and Heretikes wherefore it cannot be denied but she hath also authority to condemne the works of any Heretike or other person vvhatsoeuer containing heresies or errours opposite to her faith For much more it is to condemne
late orders of the church nothing must be published in print except it be first viewed and allowed by men therevnto authorized wherefore whatsoeuer commeth now forth seemeth to be approued by the Church and consequently a man may wel inferre that it containeth no notorious error or heresie Whereof I inferre that the Church in case that any such errours escape must be very diligent and vigilant in mending of them lest that in steade of vvholesome doctrine some ignorantly perhaps and that through her default drinke poison But yet to descend a litle lower what bookes may we correct according to our rules and of what antiquity none certainely of any Catholikes but such as liued since the yeare one thousand fiue hundred and fifteene vvhich vvas the second yeare before Luther beganne to fal from vs besides a fewe other expresly named in our Index of forbidden bookes And of such named authours more ancient then Luther howe many haue we de facto corrected Verily I doe not thinke that Crashaw can bring forth so much as one True it is that he vseth these wordes In the Epistle dedicatory fol. 2. We produce the authours that liued and wrote long before Luther but we finde them so rased and altered as some that spake for vs are nowe silent yea some that made for vs are nowe against vs Thus he But howe he wil proue it I doe not knowe He nameth soone after Viues Erasmus Cardinal Cajetane Ferus Stella Espencaeus Oleaster and Faber but al these either liued in Luthers daies or since And for my part I haue perused a litle his booke and I cannot finde any one authour named that liued not either in Luthers daies or after In his testimonies of Iohn Ferus D. 3. only Bertramus and Rampegolus excepted who for ought I knowe are not yet corrected He maketh much adoe about Ferus but what was he and when liued he He was a Catholike Friar in profession although diuers of his sentences seeme to taste of Lutheranisme He flourished as * Crashaw in his testimonies of Iohn Ferus D. 3. Crashaw confesseth in the yeare 1530. that is thirteene yeares after Luthers first breach from vs which was in the yeare 1517. Yea in the next leafe he confesseth him to haue beene aliue in the yeare 1552. more then thirty yeares after Luthers said beginning But perhaps some man vvil say that he published the bookes vvhich we haue corrected before Luthers fal Neither is this true for the most auncient copy that he can name of those bookes he speaketh of was printed in the yeare 1555. almost 40. yeares after that Luther first impugned vs Prolegomena F. 2. as appeareth by his owne graunt And hence a man may both gather howe vvel he proueth his aforesaid assertion affirming that they produce the authours that liued and wrote long before Luther but finde them razed c. and also perceiue howe true that his accusation is They haue corrupted al authours of this last two hundred yeares Prologo E. 3. for as I haue said I thinke that he can hardly name one authour that vve haue corrected of any age before Luthers I can as yet find but one named throughout his booke vvhich vvas of the age immediately before Luthers departure from vs and whether he be corrected or no I know not neuerthelesse this is one of the two hundred yeares Of much lesse truth is that following in vvhich he saith vve haue razed the recordes of higher antiquity reaching vp to some that liued 500. and 800. yeares agoe Ibidem For al this is spoken if it haue any colour of truth for any thing I can finde in his booke or other where of one Bertramus vvhome he auerreth that we haue altered Ibid. §. C. 2. but it is more then euer I sawe or heard And yet not contented with this he goeth a great deale further and auoucheth that our Index expurgatorius hath so vsed almost al bookes in the world I might here vse one of his ordinary exclamations and beginne as I finde the first vvordes of that page Oh intollerable injury For first we haue an expresse inhibition that no man touch the text of the auncient Fathers De correctione librorum §. 3. 4. nor of any Catholikes that vvrote before the yeare 1515. not specified and censured in the Index of forbidden bookes then vve medle not with any bookes of Archeretikes or with such as treate professedly of heresie and so we exclude from our correction al the workes of Luther Zwinglius Caluin and a thousand other bookes of this age And out of this that in like sort appeareth false vvhich he saith of corrupting al such late vvriters as vve imagine any way to make against vs so that we only haue corrected or intend to correct some fewe of vvhich most haue written since this newe Gospel beganne to be preached others very fewe in number liued in deede before the yeare 1515. but are named in our Index and besides these no other can be touched Neither are al these corrected for heresie as wil appeare to the reader by such rules as are to be obserued in the correction of which more hereafter but they are partly set downe by Crashaw towardes the end of his Prolegomena I cannot finally but note Prolegom E. 3. Gesnerus in Bibliotheca that he calleth Ferus an old and famous writer who according to his owne confession vvas liuing vvithin these threescore yeares nay I thinke it may be proued out of Gesnerus that he died not forty yeares since but to saue this he addeth in the margent that he meaneth old in comparison of the Iesuites who nowe saith he carry al before them for he was in the eare when they were in the blade This is his marginal note by which he saueth but il the truth of the text let his meaning be as it wil for the religion of the Iesuites beganne about the yeare 1521. And was confirmed by Paulus 3. Pope about the yeare 1540. long before Ferus died by his owne confession And this it seemeth he wel knewe for it may plainely be gathered out of his preface that the Iesuites were before the end of the Councel of Trent vvhich neuerthelesse vvas in the yeare 1563. But to cleare vs further from al blame touching this point I must also adde this in our defence that this our manner of proceeding is neither to the end to bereaue our aduersaries of any proofe which our aduersaries may bring out of antiquity or any moderne author for the truth of their religion nor to strengthen our cause For although I should yeeld that al the authors whome Crashaw nameth vvere Protestants vvhich yet he confesseth to be false for he granteth they were al Catholikes what should I in effect helpe their cause or weaken ours suppose some named that liued before Luther held some opinions with Wickliffe Hierome of Prage and Iohn Husse what is this to vs Doe
held at Altenburge accuse one another for corrupting and falsifying the Confession of Ausburge which is the very ground next vnto the holy Scripture of their faith and religion Colloquium Altenberg fol. 402. The former copies or examplars say they haue not the true and sincere confession of Ausburge For there is another substituted or put in the place of it which was neither exhibited at Ausburge or euer approued by the states of the Confession of Ausburge Thus they And vpon the corruption of this Confession and of an other booke called Corpus doctrinae containing this and other treatesies arose great discord and dissention among them vvhich is not yet ended for no man almost can tel vvhich be the true bookes But what dissention was there among them in the same conference touching Luthers vvorkes corrupted verily the zealous Lutherans complaine after this sort * See 2. respoÌ„s ad Hipothes fol. 284. 290 353. 355. 441. 442. 443. 526. The Diuines of the Prince Elector who were also Lutherans doe most filthily and beyond al measure depraue Luthers writings so as since Luthers death there haue not beene more foule corrupters of Luthers bookes Thus they and this fault each side doth most often object to the other in most spiteful tearmes a Ibid. Saxon. in respons discessu fol. 539. 540. Last of al a promisse is made that the Duke of Saxony vvil cause Luthers workes to be printed vvithout corruption And thus much of the Lutherans whome M. Crashaw I hope with the Apology of the Church of England wil acknowledge to be his bretheren Nowe let vs behold the dealing of the Sacramentaries vvho are more properly of his faith and religion And first let vs looke towardes Geneua a City most famous for vpholding this sect What then shal vve there finde for our purpose Verily Westphalus a Lutheran accuseth the Caluinists euen of this very place that they haue corrupted Luthers vvorkes for thus he complaineth I maruaile much that Caluin keeping such adoe about this one word could not see the most filthy mutations and corruptions of the diuine commentary of Doctor Luther vpon the Epistle to the Galatians and translated into French and printed at Geneua In one place some wordes are taken away in an other many moe somewhere whole Paragraphs are lopt off in the exposition of the sixt Chapter two pages and a halfe are left out c. at other times they haue put in vvordes such as pleased them And that this was done at Geneua without Caluins knowledge it is not very likely Thus Westphalus But let vs heare an other man of more credit among English Protestants make the like complaint that by the testimony of two witnesses they may be proued falsifiers M. Morton a famous Protestant writer of this realme nowe liuing set forth in London in the yeare 1605. the first part of his vvorke called by him a Catholike Apologie But what did they of Geneua They printed againe the said booke in their City putting the name of London to it as though it had beene there printed and disliking a certaine answere by him made in defence of Beza they put that out and vvithout any more adoe in place of it added an other of their owne This I proue out of M. Mortons owne wordes vvho in certaine animaduersions vpon this first part printed at the end of the second part published at London in the same yeare speaking of the same matter complaineth thus C. 21. in calumnia 5. Noua impressio Londini dicta ver'e Geneuae facta totum responsum meum pro Beza penitus expunxit responsum suum assuit prob hominum fidem doleo equidem tantam cum scriptis meis injuriam factam esse tum etiam proelo Geneuensi tantam corruptelae labem contractam A newe impression said to be at London truly made at Geneua put out altogether my whole answere for Beza and patched in their owne O the faith or falsehood of men verity I am sorry both that such an injury is offered to my workes and also that the print of Geneua is stained with such a blot of corruption or deprauing Thus Morton What wil M. Crashaw say to this vvho are nowe more to be blamed in this kinde vve who correct books by publike authority receiued from a general councel and that publikely making our action knowne to the vvhole world in print or these his bretheren who secretly and as it were in corners get other mens workes corrupt them and then set them forth to the viewe of the world as though nothing had beene altered And this is no old matter but a thing done within these two or three yeares I come nowe nearer home Anno 1606. This last yeare vvas published a booke in our language with this title A Manuel or brief volume of controuersies of religion betweene the Protestants and the Papists written in Latin by Lucas Osiander and nowe Englished with some additions and corrections But howe doth the translator mangle and teare the poore booke Verily whereas the author of it being a Lutheran and a mortal enemie of the Sacramentaries for he hath published the like booke against them speaketh as a Lutheran he maketh him speake like vnto a good Sacramentary Hence whereas he hath these vvordes in Latin Chapt. 15. Alius enim modus a Paulo nobis monstratur nimirum communicationis For an other manner of Christs being in the Eucharist is shewed vs by Paul to wit by communication He meaneth that Christ is there really and substantially together with bread The English man translateth thus Chapt. 15. pag. 265. For it was in the Sacrament by sacramental relation and vnion and receiued of the beleeuers spiritually by faith Againe whereas the Latin is thus Ergo veré est corpus Christi cum pane visibili Therefore there is truly in the supper the body of Christ with visible bread In English he saith thus Ibid. pa. 266. There is Christs body but not after a natural manner of being by transubstantiation but after a spiritual by faith and sacramental vnion Finally Osiander in Latin vseth these wordes Nos quidem ipsum Christum qui est in Eucharistia spiritualiter adorandum non negamus Ipsam vere Eucharistiam adorandam minime concedimus We truly denie not but Christ himselfe who is in the Eucharist is spiritually to be adored But we grant not that the Eucharist it selfe is to be adored The English translator turneth it thus We say the Eucharist is to be reuerenced as an holy mistery but not to be adored or worshipped And diuers other such corrections or rather corruptions occurre euery foote in his English booke Diuers other such like examples there are which conuince the Sacramentaries to be guilty of this crime which for brâ—uities sake I omit Only I adde that this is no newe vice in them but an old and inueterated euil For if vve beleeue Luther such vvere their proceedings euen at their first
arising his words of them are these Their opinion of the sacrament they began with lies Luther in epist ad IoanneÌ„ Heruagrum TypographuÌ„ Argentinum and with lies they doe defend the same and they broach it abroade by the wicked fauour of corrupting other mens bookes hitherto Luther But perhaps my reader may here desire to see some president of some Protestant booke corrupted by some English sectaries and that confessed by a Protstant behold I haue such a president or two at hand The author of the Suruey of the pretended holy discipline a man of good credit among Protestants hauing alleaged Trauerse his Latin booke Dc disciplin Suruay of the pretended holy discipline printed anno 1593. ch 19. pa. 224. 225. Ecclesiast fol. 119. bringeth forth this reason why he alleaged not the English translated by some English sectary But you must remember saith he that I doe referre you to this latin booke and not to the English translation of it Why some may say is it not faithfully translated Shal we thinke that such zealous men as had to deale herein would serue vs as the Iesuites doe It is we knowe a practise with that false hipocritical broode or rather he should haue said a false slaunder imposed vpon them to leaue out and thrust in what they list into the writinges of the auncient Fathers that thereby in time nothing might appeare which should any way make against them But we wil neuer suspect nor beleeue that any man who feareth God and least of al that any of that sort which are so earnest against al abuses and corruptions shal play such a prancke Surely we doe wel to judge the best and I my selfe was of your opinian but now I am cleane altered How were some of Vrsinus workes vsed at Cambridge and it is true that some other bookes haue beene handled vary strangely else where But concerning the present point this the truth The translator of Trauerses booke hath quite omitted the wordes which I haue alleaged and al the rest which tendeth to that purpose euen seauenteene lines together So as if you see but the English booke you shal not finde so much as one steppe whereby you might suspect that euer M. Trauerse had carried so hard a hand ouer the pretendâ—d widowes If the translatour had receiued any commission from the author to haue dealt in that sort with his booke yet it should haue beene signified either in some preface or in some note or by some meanes or other but to leaue luch a matter out and to giue no general warning of it I tel you plainely it was great dishonesty and lewdnes hitherto are the Protestant authors wordes in the aforesaid Suruey But to come yet a litle nearer to M. Crashaw what wil he say if I finde him guilty of corruption and forgery in this very booke in which he reprehendeth vs This indeede were something to the purpose but as a discreete man would thinke hardly to be proued true in him that so sharply in this very treatise argueth and blameth others for this crime wel I wil doe my endeauour And this argument I bring against him he that taketh vpon him to cite the sayings of others patcheth in leaueth out wordes of their said sentences to serue his owne turne is a corrupter and a forger of other mens sayings but M. Crashaw doth this in his booke made of Romish forgeries and falsifications therefore he is a corrupter and a forger of other mens sayings The Major and first proposition cannot be denied by M. Crashaw For if he incurre the crimes of corruption and forgery as he saith in the highest degree that dealeth so with other mens bookes howe shal we excuse him from them that dealeth so with other mens sayings or sentences Let vs therefore see whether we can proue the Minor or second proposition the truth of vvhich I declare after this sort Prologomena T. 3. Thus you c M. Crashaw in his epistle or preface to his beloued countrimen the seduced Papists of England contending to proue that the Index of forbidden bookes and the Indices expurgatorij are the Popes worke writeth thus For your better satisfaction I wil set you downe briefly the rules to this purpose agreed vpon in that Councel and confirmed afterwardes by diuers Popes Haereticorum libri vt Lutheri Zwinglij Caluini his similium cuiuscunque nominis tituli aut argumenti existant omnino prohibentur The bookes of Heretikes as Luther Zwinglius Caluin and others like to these vnder what name title or argument soeuer they be extant are altogether prohibited thus Crashaw And in the margent he hath these wordes Regula secunda in concilio Tridentino Indice Roma Clementis octaui The 2. rule in the Councel of Trent and the Roman index of Clement the eight But in these words he hath corrupted the rule of the Councel of Trent and of the Roman index of Clement the eight and no such rule is to be found as he here setteth downe therefore he is a forger and corrupter I wil recite the whole rule as I finde it in al those bookes to the end that my reader may see I doe him no wrong The bookes of Heretikes as wel of those who found and raised heresies after the aforesaid yeare 1515. as of those who are or haue beene heads or captaines of Heretikes such as Luther Zwinglius Caluin Balthazar Pacimontanus Swenckfeldius and like vnto these are of what title name or argument soeuer they be are altogether forbidden The bookes of other Heretikes also which treate ex professo of religion that is whose principal argument is of religion are altogether forbidden But such as treate not of religion examined by the commandement of Bishops and Inquisitours by Catholike diuines and approued are permitted hitherto are the wordes of the rule Out of which it is manifest that M. Crashaw by placing the word Heretikes in the place of the word Archeretikes hath falsified the said rule and turned it to a cleane contrary sense For vvhereas the rule saith that certaine bookes of some Heretikes are permitted he maketh it say the bookes of Heretikes vnder what name title or argument whatsoeuer are prohibited And this as it may seeme he doth to perswade his reader that vve are so strict in this matter that we suffer not any bookes whatsoeuer vvritten by Heretikes be they neuer so profitable to be read which is false this is one corruption so palpable that it cannot be denied I vvil not vrge that in the third rule he nameth Iunius his translation of the old testament and Bezaes of the newe whereas these authours or their translations are not so much as named in the rule as it is found in our bookes And for breuities sake I come to his rehersal of our instructions for the purging and correction of bookes Before he setteth downe such thinges as are to be amended translating that vvhich is said in our bookes before
such instructions as are giuen he saith And such thinges as doe require correction or purgation are these And then he beginneth to rehearse what our Index willeth to be corrected but so falsely as he may be very wel ashamed of his dealing For vvhereas the instruction commandeth that al thinges that taste of superstion witchcraft or diuination be rejected likewise that al be blotted out that make mans free-wil subject to destiny false or deceitful signes or Ethnicke fortune and that such thinges as sauour of Paganisme be abolished that jests or merry conceits quips tossed to the hurt or prejudice of the fame and credit of others be abandoned that thinges wanton and dishonest which may corrupt good manners be remoued finally that vnseemely and dishonest pictures be defaced he leaueth out al this and that vvithout al doubt to make his reader beleeue that vve correct bookes for no other matters but to make them agree vvith vs in religion And to this end it may be imagined that before he left out the seauenth and ninth rule wholy which are against wanton bookes bookes of Chiromancy Nicromancy c. And vvhat false and vnconscionable dealing is this Verily this were a foule fault in any man but in M. Crashaw who taketh vpon him vnjustly to censure others for the like proceedinges This is intollerable and no man can doe lesse according to his owne grounds then condemne him of corruption and forgery in the highest degree Relatiō of the state of religion vsed in the Westerne parts §. 36. printed anno 1605. writen as is said by Sir Edwine Sans. Verily a certaine Protestant trauailer reporteth that we haue our seueral offices for purging the world from the infection of al the wicked and corrupt bookes and passages which are either against honesty or good manners who indeed saith he blot out much impiousnesse and filth and therein deserue to be commended and imitated And thus I thinke I haue sufficiently proued that our aduersaries are rather to be pronounced guilty of such crimes as Crashaw imposeth vpon vs concerning corruption of books then we Touching our prohibition of certaine bookes I adde only that in like manner as we forbidde their bookes and suffer them not to be read of al sorts so they forbid ours as their statutes testifie and for this also are more to be blamed then we that our bookes forbidden by them maintaine and defend an old religion taught and left vs by our forefathers theirs forbidden by vs a new deuised in this last age by Luther Carolostadius Zwinglius Caluin and such companions I wil dispatch the last point in fewe wordes wherefore to proue that the Fathers are not by vs corrupted I bring these three briefe reasons First this our practise of making such Indices expurgatorij hath beene but very late as Crashaw himselfe confesseth in those his wordes Long was the mother Church of Rome in breeding her Indices expurgatorios at last shee brought them out Crashaw in the begīning of his preface to the reader or rather some politike Iesuites conceiued them the Fathers of Trent bare them and the Pope brought them out thus Crashaw Out of which it is manifest that we vsed no such Indices before the Councel of Trent And hence proceedeth an other reason to wit that there was neuer any general rule or order set downe by the Church for correcting any one Fathers workes this is manifest because had the Church taken order for any such matters there can be no doubt made but such sentences also as fauour Millinarisme Arianisme Donatisme Nestorianisme and other such like heresies vvhich in those daies opposed themselues against the Church had beene put out rather then such as our aduersaries pretend made for them seing that we can finde no recordes that any of their sort opposed themselues in those times against vs. Further the art of printing bookes vvas vnknowne at the least to our part of the vvorld before the yeare of our Lord 1440. as al histories of that age testifie wherefore the workes of the Fathers before those daies were written by diuers persons and in diuers places by diuers men that knewe not vvhat one another did which copies are yet extant Of which I inferre that except some general rule for al had beene prescribed it had beene impossible that they should haue al conspired to haue corrupted the Fathers by adding or detracting the selfe same wordes and yet neuerthelesse we see that al the written copies of the Fathers workes agree conteine the same sentences much lesse could we haue corrupted the Fathers workes if those of our side were only a faction and diuers in faith agreeing vvith our aduersaries who alwaies opposed themselues against vs or at the least secretly retained their belief as Field affirmeth Field booke 3 of the Church chap. 6. 7. 8. for then it is like that some of them preserued the Fathers workes from corruption Finally this openeth the way to the Zwenckfeldians Libertines who reject al Scriptures for of the corruption of the Fathers a man may wel inferre the corruption also of them neither can these by better reason be freed from such an imputation then those But here some man vvil occurre and say Perkins in Problem praepar ad demonst in Ciprian pa. 14. that it is a matter manifest that we haue corrupted S. Ciprians booke of the vnity of the Church to establish the Popes supreamacy and for the proof of this he vvil alleage that which M. Thomas Iames hath vvritten in his * Catalog Ox onio Cantabrig lib. 2. pag. 176. Catalogue of the Manu-script bookes of the vniuersities of Oxford and Cambridge to vvit that there are foure Manu-script copies of S. Ciprians workes in the Libraries of these vniuersities in vvhich certaine sentences are not found especially such as make for the Popes supreamacy vvhich are to be seene in al printed copies of this booke Of which he inferreth that it is like that we haue corrupted the said booke and that according to our corruption it is corruptly printed I answere briefly first that although we should graunt this to be true which Iames saith that such Manuscript copies are found which neuerthelesse I wil not beleeue except I see or heare it better proued yet of this it cannot be inferred that the works of S. Ciprian are corruptly printed first because more credit is to be giuen to al the Manu-script copies throughout the world which without doubt be some hundreds then to these foure And that al others agree with the printed booke it seemeth euident by diuers reasons but principally because no man euer before noted any such diuersity yet it is probable that the Protestants themselues vvho as Iames doth graunt haue printed his workes would haue noted it if there had beene any such matter found in the manu-script copies of the country where his booke was published by them Nay farther Centuriator 3. cap. 4. colum 84.
Cipriā epist 40. 70. 55. 69. 71. 73. see him also in exhortat ad Martirium cap. 11. the Century writers who are esteemed very diligent searchers of antiquity taxe S. Ciprian for his doctrine touching the Popes supreamacy Secondly the doctrine of S. Ciprian taught in this booke agreeth exceeding wel with that which is found throughout al his epistles in vvhich vve finde the same sentences almost in the very same wordes which Iames denieth to be in his manuscript copies of the booke of the vnity of the church as that there is one God one Church and one Chaire founded vpon Peter that the Church was built vpon S. Peter that our Lord chose him the first or chiefest that he instituted the origen of vnity from him c. Peraduenture some man wil say these epistles are also corrupted but first I thinke they are not found otherwise in the Manuscript copies mentioned by Master Iames then they are in the printed bookes For vvere they it is like he vvould not haue passed it vvith silence as he doth Secondly neither Perkins nor any other affirmeth these epistles to be corrupted Thirdlie one of these Epistles in vvhich it is said that our Lord did choose S. Peter the first or chiefest and that vpon him he built his Church is cited by S. Augustine August to 7. de bapt cont Donat. cap. 1. Cipr. ep 72. ad Quintum vvho also alleageth those very vvordes as S. Ciprians which are in the printed copies to vvit Nam nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit super quem edificauit Ecclesiam suam c. For neither S. Peter whome our Lord chose the first or chiefest and vpon whome he built his Church c. And moreouer after S. Ciprians vvordes he addeth himselfe Behold where Ciprian rehearseth which also we haue learned in holy Scriptures that the Apostle Peter in whome the Primacy of the Apostles through so excellent grace is higher then others c. Thus S. Augustine of which it is most euident that this Epistle among al the rest is not corrupted and yet here is almost said as much in substance of this matter as is in his booke de vnitate Ecclesiae Finally the vvordes vvhich Iames vvil haue excluded from S. Ciprians booke de vnitate Ecclesiae are so agreeable to this holy Fathers stile and phrase and so fitting his discourse that no man can almost suspect them to be added But it may be demanded howe it falleth out that they are wanting in the Manu-script copies mentioned by M. Iames In very truth if there be such auncient copies and there be nothing razed out of them I cannot but thinke that they were written out before the art of printing was inuented by some Wicliffian Heretike or if they came out of some forraine country by some Schismatike or other that held with some German Emperor against the Pope That the Wicliffians vvere very potent and preuailed much in our Country we may gather out of that vvhich is said by Stowe in his Chronicle and in the yeares 1414. and 1377. And Walsingham vvriteth Walsingham anno vlt. Edward 3. that the Vniuersity of Oxford in particular vvas cold in resisting him Walsingham in vita Richardi 2. anno 1378. Nay their coldnesse vvas such that Gregory XI Pope in the yeare 1378. vvrote his Breue to it and reprehended them of the said Vniuersity for their coldnesse and slacknesse AN INDEX OR TABLE OF AL THE CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THIS TREATISE The first part of the groundes of the old religion CHAPTER 1. Of the first ground of Catholike religion to wit that there is a God and that God by his prouidence gouerneth al thinges page 1. Section 1. That there is a God page 2. Sect. 2. Almighty God hath care of worldly affaires and ruleth al things by his diuine prouidence page 10. Chap. 2. Of the second ground of our religion to wit that the soule of man is immortal and that it shal either be rewarded euerlastingly in heauen or punished euerlastingly in hel page 12. Chap. 3. Of a third principal ground of our faith to wit that Christian religion only is the true worship of God page 16. Chap. 4. That among Christians they only that professe and embrace the Catholike faith and religion are in state of saluation and doe truly worship God page 24. Chap. 5. Sect. 1. Of the definition and conditions of true faith p. 28. Sect. 2. That faith is a most firme assent of the vnderstanding page 29. Sect. 3. Faith is of thinges incomprehensible by natural reason and consequently obscure page 30. Sect. 4. By true Christian faith we beleeue such misteries as God hath reuealed to his Church page 32. Sect. 5. That true faith is built vpon diuine authority page 34. Sect. 6. Besides the reuelation of God some infallible propounder of the articles of our faith is necessary and that they are propounded vnto vs by the Catholike Church page 36. Chap. 6. Sect. 1. Of the supreame and infallible authority of the Catholike Church page 38. Sect. 2. The whole summe of Christian doctrine by word of mouth not by writing was committed by Christ to his Apostles page 39. Sect. 3. The Church cannot stray from the rule of faith receaued nor erre in matter of faith or general precepts of manners which is proued first because the holy Ghost directeth her in al truth page 42. Sect. 4. The same is proued by other arguments page 44. Sect. 5. That the testimonies of holy Scripture and other proofes brought for the infallible and diuine authority of the Church cannot be applied to the Church considered as it comprehendeth al faithful Christians that are and haue beene since Christes ascention or since the Apostles daies but vnto the present Church of al ages page 52. Sect. 6. That the same testimonies and proofes conuince an infallible judgement of the Church concerning euery article of faith not only concerning certaine of the principal page 56. Sect. 7. That to saluation it is necessary to beleeue the whole Catholike faith and euery article thereof page 58. Chap. 7. Of the holy Scripture which is the first particular ground of faith in the Catholike Church page 61. Sect. 1. Howe the Scripture is knowne to be Canonical page 61. Sect. 2. Concerning the sense or exposition of holy Scriptures and first that the Scriptures are hard and receiue diuers interpretations p. 67. Sect. 3. The Scriptures may be falsly vnderstood and that euery priuate man may erre in the vnderstanding of them page 69. Sect. 4. That the letter of holy Scripture falsly interpreted is not the word of God page 72. Sect. 5. The true sense of the holy Scripture is to be learned of the Catholike Church who is the true judge thereof page 75. Sect. 6. An objection against the premises is answered and the question concerning the last resolution of our faith is discussed page 78. Chap. 8. Concerning the second particular ground of Catholike