treatise which I intend I wil adde only a word or two of the manner of the nourishing of our bodies To make the foode which we receiue fit for our stomacke we haue in our mouthes two sortes of teeth some sharpe to deuide it others something flatte or plaine to grinde it with the tongue we remoue it from place to place when it is sufficiently chawed through the throate it is conueied into the stomacke where as in a pot or caldron by the heate of the hart and liuer it is boiled and brought al to one kinde of substance from thence the purest and best part thereof by subtil and smal passages is conueied to the liuer the grossest part which is not fit for nutriment is cast out at the fundament The liuer hauing receiued the said substance boileth it againe and turneth it into bloud that which is superfluous it sendeth it to other places as to the spleene and gal the rest it disperseth by the vaines throughout the whole body which is partly turned into flesh and bones a part of it is sent to the hart which being there purified is turned into vital spirits some is sent to the braine and turned into other spirits which we cal animales These considerations are sufficient to perswade euery man that there is one supreame God of infinite power and wisedome who hath created and most wisely and sweetely disposed al thinges Hence the Prophet Dauid cried out unto God in the Psalme Psal 103. ver 24. Howe high or wonderful O Lord are thy workes thou hast made al thinges in wisdome the earth is filled with thy possession or riches Surely if we looke into the nature and condition of any one creature whatsoeuer we shal not only see Eccles 3. ver 14. Galen lib. 3. de vsu partium lib. 5. Psal 99. vers 3. that as the wiseman saith we cannot adde to or take anythinge from the creatures of God and that God as Gallen the prince of al phisitions although a Pagan confesseth hath adorned and beautified the creatures of this world better then by any arte possible it could haue beene imagined but also if we demande of each creature who made it it wil seeme to make answere God made me and I made not my selfe according as the Psalme saith of vs men He made vs and we made not our selues Some Atheist perhaps wil say that al creatures are thus framed and ordered not by any supreame gouernor hauing vnderstanding and power to effect such matters but by chance I reply that like as it is impossible that a number of letters or charecters cast togither without any order of sillables wordes or sentences should make a perfect booke containing most wise learned and methodical discourses so it is impossible that the world should be so exquisitely ordered and thinges so ordained one to another by chance without the wisdome and disposition of almighty God And this confutation of this fond assertion was vsed longe since by Cicero an Ethnicke Wherefore Cicero lib. 3. de natura Deorum like as euery man would worthely account him a foole that should say that a booke containing wise and orderly discourses was made by chance by the casting togither of diuers charecters or letters or that a house most curiously and artificially built was made without the handy worke of any artificer by the accidentary concourse of stones morter timber and other such like stuffe so we may wel esteeme him a foole and voide of al reason and vnderstanding who denyeth that the world was created and ordered by almighty God Hence the Psalme saith The foole said in his hart Ps 13. v. 1 there is no God And note it is not said he said with his mouth but in his hart to signifie that this assertion is so absurde ridiculous and blasphemous that a foole although he thinke it true in his hart yet may be ashamed to vtter it with his mouth To the arguments already brought for the proofe of this matter I adde that this truth is manifestly deliuered vnto vs in the holy Scriptures in which is contained the history of the creation of the world by God and diuers other euident proofes are found of the being of his diuine Majesty This no Atheist wil or can denie But al of them answere that the Scriptures containe but fables and are of no authority I reply that it may easily be shewed that the authority of these diuine bookes ought to be great in any wisemans judgement in the world It is proued by diuers learned authors first by their antiquity for no volumes in the world are so auncient as the bookes of Moyses and consequently we may inferre that Moyses himselfe the first writer receiued the true history of those thinges which were done before his owne dayes by succession and tradition from his predecessors for which it maketh that Abraham the father of the Iewes might wel haue seene Sem the sonne of Noe Of other thinges he was an eie witnesse himselfe Secondly it is proued by the verity of diuers prophesies contained in the holy Scriptures which were fulfilled longe after that the bookes themselues were written which is a manifest demonstration that such thinges were foretold by God who only knoweth and can certainely fortel thinges contingent and depending of mans free wil of which it followeth that such prophesies and the bookes in which they are found were written by diuine inspiration Thirdly it is declared by the wonderful consent of al these bookes for although they were penned by diuers men in diuers places vpon diuers occasions and at sundry times yet no one of them containeth any one thinge contrary to the other Gre. praefat in Iob. Of which S. Gregory wel inferreth that the writers handes were the pennes of the holy Ghost The same is likewise demonstrated by the test mony of diuers miracles which haue beene wrought alwayes in the world for the confirmation of the doctrine which is taught vs in these bookes by the miraculous preseruation of them throughout al ages by the admirable consent of the seauenty two Interpreters which were appointed by Ptólomie King of Aegipt to translate them and sundrie other reasons which I cannot stand to relate Neither doe the miracles and prophesies aboue said and al other such like effects and actions only confirme the authority of the holy Scriptures but also euidently proue that there is a God who only is omnipotent and can worke effects surpassing the power and vertue of natural and created agents Such miracles and prophesies cannot be denied to haue beene found in the world in al ages of which we haue any large recordes except we wil obstinately reject the authority and testimony of al men I may joyne to this that although God be but one in essence yet he is three in persons for although the diuine essence be but one most pure and simple substance not deuided yet the selfe same is in three distinct
vvith so manie thousand lies and vntruthes set downe by Catholike authors to the view of the whole world as for example doctor * Harding in his Rejoinder to M. Iewels reply touchīg priuate masse printed anno 1566. Harding anoucheth that the number of his lies in fiue of the six and twenty articles of his replie to the said doctor Hardings answere to his Apologie In his epistle to the reader discouered by himselfe and others amounteth to a thousand and odde and also because the falshood of his said challenge being shewed by diuers learned of our side he neuer was so good as his word Humfred in vita Iuelli Hence is this complaint of doctour Humfreis Iewel hath graunted you he speaketh to the Catholikes ouer much and was to sore an enemy to himselfe that rejecting the meane by which he might more firmly easily haue vpholden his cause he spoiled himselfe the Church for what haue we to doe with the Fathers with flesh and bloud Or what doth it appertaine vnto vs what the false sinode of Bishops so he tearmeth the ancient Councels doe ordaine or decree thus much D. Humfrey Secondly it may also be alleaged that Field a late Protestant writer alloweth of diuers other rules or directions of our faith besides the holie scripture Field book 3. chap. 33. § 1. and of the Fathers in particuler he affirmeth that they reuerence and honour them much more then vve doe I answere that in very deede Field maketh a great shew of allowance of the testimonie of antiquity and may perhaps seeme to one that looketh not wel into his wordes to approue the authority of of the auncient Fathers as farre forth as any Catholike whereas in very truth there is no such thing And to make this matter manifest let vs briefly behold his rules assigned whereby as he saith we are to judge of particuler things contained within the compasse of Christian faith Field book 4. chapt 14. which are as followeth First the summary comprehension of such principal articles as are the principles whence al other things are concluded and inferred these are contained in the Creed of the Apostles Secondly al such thinges as euery Christian is bound expresly to beleeue which are rightly said to be the rule of faith Thirdly the Anologie due proportion and correspondence that one thing in this diuine knowledge hath with another Fourthly whatsoeuer books were deliuered vnto vs a written by them to whome the first and immediate reuelation of diuine truth was made Fiftly whatsoeuer haue beene deliuered by al the Saints with one consent which haue left their judgment and opinion in writing book 4. cap. 5. because saith he in another place it is not possible that they should al haue written of any thing but such as touche the very life of Christian faith generally receiued in al their times Sixtly whatsoeuer the most famous haue constantly and vniformly deliuered as a matter of faith no man contradicting though many other Ecclesiastical writers be silent and say nothing of it Seueanthly that which the most and most famous in euery age constantly deliuered as matter of faith and as receiued from them that went before them in such sort that the contradictors and gaine-saiers were in their beginnings noted for singularity noueltie and diuision Ibid. cap. 7. and afterwards in processe of time if they persisted in such contradiction charged with heresie He addeth else where that this consent of the most famous must be touching the substance of Christian faith And vnto these his three last rules I adde that vvhich he hath in the second chapter before in these vvordes Booke 4. c. 2. Though al whose writings remaine haue not written of a thing yet if al that mention it doe constantly consent in it and their consent be strengthned by vniuersal practise we dare not charge them with errour yea though their consent be not strengthned by such practise if it be concerning thinges expressed in the word of truth or by necessary and euident deduction to be demonstrated from thence we thinke that no errour can be found ill al them that speake of thinges of that nature that is of matters of substance as in the fift chapter if in euery age of the Church some be found to haue written of them But in thinges that cannot be clearly deduced from the rule of faith and word of diuine and heauenly truth we thinke it posible that al that haue written might erre and be deceiued hitherto Field And these are the rules which he prescribeth to be followed in our judgment concerning truth falshood in matters of our beleife but that none of these besides the holy scripture of which hereafter according to his owne doctrine are sufficient in al matters of faith to make an infallible or prudential ground of beleife it is easily proued And to begin with his three first how wil he proue that they be infallible how can he shewe them to be of diuine authority if the present church in al ages as he saith may erre and it be true which he affirmeth Field book 4. chapter 20. § Thus hauing Ibidem § The second kinde Caluin booke 2. Instit cap. 16 § 18. Hūn ī theseb de coloq cum pōtis ineūdo thes 54. that it is not safe in things concerning faith to rely vpon traditions are not the two first rules at the least receiued by tradition surely he confesseth it himself Further doe not some of his brethren cal the creed of the Apostles in question and make it a doubtful matter whether it were deliuered to the Church by the said Apostles or no he that knoweth not this let him reade Caluin and Hunnius Is it in like sort agreed vpon among our aduersaties what articles euery Christian is bound expresly to beleeue and which are contained in the rule of faith It is not without doubt and I verily thinke that scarse any one learned Protestant wil admit that euery point vvhich is assigned by M. Field in the fourth chapter of his third booke Moreouer how obscure is the Analogie or proportion which one thing in matters of faith hath with another and generally what man wil admit these three rules or any one of them as sufficient to make an end of al controuersies in the Church In very deede although they were al admitted by al sorts as true yet very fewe articles can be gathered out of them by such euident deduction as is able to conuince the vnderstanding of al men and consequently they are no general and sufficient directions for al points of our faith Neither are the three last rules of themselues at the least as they are deliuered by Field of any greater force or sufficiency First because Field doth not only make the present Church in al ages subject to errour for he freeth it only from damnable and pertinacious errour Field book 4. chap. 13. and book 1. c. 10.
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
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
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
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
them and to receaue it priuately when they were disposed as Tertullian saith he and others doe report He addeth The manner was to send it by the Deacons to them that by sickenesse or other necessary impediment were forced to be absent and to strangers Yea for this purpose they did in such places where they communicated not euery day reserue some part of the sanctified elements to be sent to the sicke and such as were in danger of death g Pag. 150. He denieth that Caluin doth not any where say that the elements consecrated and reserued for a time in reference to an ensuing receauing of them are not the body of Christ. This he plainely admitteth as also that the Christians of the primatiue Church thought the sanctified elements to be Christs body as long as they might serue for the comfortable instruction of the faithful pertaking in them Finally he telleth vs Booke 4. cha 31. pag. 266. that bread being appointed to be the matter of the Sacrament of the body of Christ and water of Baptisme the Christians in auncient time held that bread which had beene offered and presented at the Lordes table out of which saith he a part was consecrated for the vse of the Sacrament more holy then other bread Hitherto Field Al which his assertions may vvel be vrged in proofe of the real presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament But vvhereas he seeketh to drawe Caluin to his opinion he laboureth in vaine Caluin Institut booke 4. ch 17. §. 39. for Caluin expresly condemneth this reseruation as vnprofitable and although he confesse that they that so doe haue the example of the old Church yet he affirmeth that in so great a matter and in which we erre not without great danger nothing is safer then to followe the truth it selfe which he imagineth to be opposite to this obseruation It is also euident that vvith Bucer Melancthon and almost al other sectaries See him ibid. pag. 37. he holdeth the Eucharist to be no permanent thing but to be the Sacrament then only when it is receaued More I could say of the auncient doctrine and practise of the Church confirming our exposition of the aforesaid wordes of holy Scripture but here occurreth a certaine opinion of some which I thinke not amisse to confute and my confutation of the same wil be something long vvherefore I vvil breake off my former discourse and forthwith enter vpon it Some Sacramentarie followers of the newe religion imagine and thinke that Caluin and his disciples deny not the real presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrament and therefore they approch vnto the Caluinian communion with great reuerence deeming themselues truly and reallie to receiue in it the said body and bloud of our Lord where-vpon they inferre that their beliefe touching this point is as conformable to the letter of holy Scripture as ours But alas simple soules they are much deceiued as euen Caluin himselfe and their learned masters confesse For although these Doctors in some places of their vvorkes seeme to acknowledge some such matter yet in others they flatly denie it and in plaine tearmes declare their meaning in those other places first mentioned to be otherwise them their wordes doe sound I grant their magnificent tearmes may easily seduce a silly soule and I my selfe knowe some good creatures deceiued but whoseuer doth reade their masters bookes may easily discouer their falsehood let vs first behold howe they plainely seeme to auouch the real presence Caluin Institut booke 4. ch 17. §. 10. Caluin writeth thus Our soules are so fed with the flesh and bloud of Christ as bread and wine doe maintaine and sustaine the bodily life And doe not bread and vvine maintaine and sustaine the bodily life by true and real eating them But he goeth on For otherwise the proportional relation of the signe should not agree vnlesse our soules did finde their foode in Christ which cannot be done vnlesse Christ doe truly growe into one with vs and refresh vs with the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud And soone after Vnlesse a man wil cal God a deceiuer he can neuer be so bold as to say that he setteth before vs an empty signe §. 11. Againe I say that in the mistery of the supper by the signes of bread and wine Christ is truly deliuered to vs yea and his body bloud in which he hath fulfilled al obedience for purchasing of righteousnesse vnto vs. §. 32. Moreouer Christ pronounceth that his flesh is the meate of my soule and his bloud the drinke with such foode I offer my soule to him to be fed In his holy supper he commaundeth me vnder the signes of bread and wine to take eate and drinke his body and bloud I nothing doubt but he doth truly deliuer them Caluin in 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. See him also de coena Domini and I doe truly receiue them Finally I conclude and grant saith he that the body of Christ is giuen vs in the supper really as they commonly speake that is to say truly to the end it may be wholesome foode for our soules I speake after the common fashion but I meane that our soules are fed with the substance of Christes body to the intent we may be made one with him these and other such like sentences euery foote occurre in Caluin Caluin lib. de coena Domini edit an 1540. Gallice an 1545. Latine See him also in his Institutions chap. 14. and chap. 17. §. 5.6 Hence he also by name reprehendeth the doctrine of Zwinglius touching this sacrament who affirmed a Zwinglius tom 2. epist ad quandam Germaniae ciuitatem fol. 296. the supper to be nothing else but a solemne signe or token of charity and friendship a signe of spiritual thinges but it selfe in no wise spiritual neither working any spiritual thing in vs. He likewise auoucheth as I haue before noted that the truth of this misterie seemeth incredible that it is wrote by the secret power of the spirit that it is incomprehensible by our minde and aboue nature that many miracles are contained in it c. which his assertions seeme to argue some great matter Lastly he telleth vs that b Caluin Instit booke 4. c. 40. not vnworthily they are guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord who come to this sacrament vnworthily which they doe with vngodlines ful of sacriledge so fouly defile Therefore saith he by this vnworthy eating they take to themselues damnation The booke of cōmon praier in the cōmunion in the exhortations The like hath the English booke of common prayer yea much more as euery man may see and others are of the same judgement And who can denie but this is a manifest token that they acknowledge the real presence For what indignity can be offered to Christ or damnation taken by eating a peece of bakers bread only
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
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
an Heretike or an heresie then to condemne an heretical or erroneous booke Secondly authority to doe this was needful for the preseruation of one true faith and religion in the Church for vvhat is more daungerous to infect true Christian harts then bad bookes especially if they be not knowne and censured to be such but read by al sorts indifferently as Catholike and Orthodoxal Verily if conference and conuersation vvith Heretikes be so straightly a Rom. 16 17. 2. Tim. 3. v. 5. Titus 3. v. 10 2. Iohn v. 10. Iâ—â—n l. 3. c. 3. Cipr. l. 1. ep 3 Athanas in vita Antonij forbidden vs both by the Scriptures and Fathers as vve finde much more are their bookes to be auoided which diuers times containe poison coloured vvith eloquence vvhich may alwaies be had at hand and are easily dispersed euer in such places vnto which Heretikes cannot haue accesse Hence the very Heathens themselues led by reason and the lawe of nature only b Plato lib. 7. de legibus Valer. Maxi. lib. 1. cap. 1. Cicero l. 1. de natur DeoruÌ„ Lact. l. de ira Dei cap. 9. Sueton. in August cap. 31. Dio Cas l. 54 Titus Liuius lib. 39. condemned bookes hurtful and prejudicial to the religion by them receiued as I could proue out of Plato Valerius Maximus Cicero Lactantius Suetonius Diocassius Titus Liuius and others Fourthly the Church hath in al ages practised such authority as is euident by Ecclesiastical recordes I wil name only a fewe examples because I wil not be ouer long S. Clement telleth vs that the c Clemens lib. 1. Constit Apostol cap. 7. Apostles themselues forbad the faithful to reade the bookes of the Gentiles About the yeare 250. Dionisius Alexandrinus as Eusebius d Euseb lib. 7. hist cap. 6. recordeth vvas reprehended by other faithful people for reading the bookes of Heretikes e Ciril epist Sinod 1. In the yeare 432. the Fathers assembled in the general Councel of Ephesus requested of Theodosius then Emperour that he vvould take order that the bookes of Nestorius vvheresoeuer they vvere found should be burnt and according to their request the said Emperor by his imperial constitution f L. vlt. de haeret Cod. Theodos Laberatus in Breuiar c. 10 willed that al such bookes should be dilligently sought for and publikely committed to the fire g Anast epist ad Ioan. Hierosolim S. Anastasius the Pope at Rome and S. Epiphanius in a Sinod held at Ciprus with diuers others about the yeare 402. h Socrat. li. 6. cap. 9. see S. HieroÌ„ ep 26. condemned the booke of Origines called Periarchon which Ruffinus to the great hurt of the Church had published before in the citty of Rome and Didimus in the East S. Leo the great burnt great store of the Manichees bookes in Rome as i Prosper in Chronic. 443 Prosper writeth in the yeare 443. The fourth Councel of Carthage permitteth only Bishops to reade heretical bookes in time of necessity Gelasius the Pope in a Councel of seauenty Bishops held at Rome in the yeare 494. k Distinct 15. Can. Sancta Romana sentenced diuers books and made a certaine index of them as is to be seene in the decree yet extant The fift general Councel about the yeare 553. condemned certaine thinges written by Theodoretus against S. Ciril and the epistle of Iba And al those bookes except those of Nestorius were thus l Socrates lib. 1. cap. 6. censured long after the death of the authors m See L. Damnato Concil Chalced. act 3. L. Quicunque Cod. de haereticis The like examples I could bring of the proceedinges of Constantine the great against the bookes of Arius L. vlt. tit 16. lib. 9. leg 24. tit 4. l. 16 Cod. Theod. Socrat. lib. 2. histor tripartitae Liberat. in Breuiario cap. 10. who prohibited them vnder paine of death of Valentinian and Martian Christian Emperors against those of Eutiches and Apollinaris of Honorius and Theodosius against bookes of art Magicke Yea Arcadius Honorius and Iustinian by their lawes decreed that al heretical bookes should be burnt publikely And this practise perhaps of burning such books began in the Apostles times vvhen as S. Luke vvriteth in the acts of the Apostles * Act. 19 19. Many of them that followed curious thinges brought together their bookes and burnt them before al. Nowe seing the Church hath authority to condemne or burne heretical bookes or others that containe false doctrine opposite to the rule of faith no man of any judgement wil deny but shee hath also authority to correct them if by that means she can make them profitable for her vse and beneficial to her children For much lesse it is to correct then to condemne and burne and much better it is in such cases to correct then cleane to abolish Hence are these wordes of S. Hierome speaking of the vvorkes of Origen Hieron epist 76. ideÌ„ epist. 64. Apolog 1. aduersus Ruffin Neither are his euil opinions to be receiued for his doctrine neither are his Commentaries if he wrote any vpon the holy Scripture altogether to be rejected for the wickednesse of his opinions thus S. Hierome who vpon this ground newly translated and amended the booke of Origen before mentioned In like sort the collations of Cassian were long after his death corrected by diuers as we gather out of Cassiodorus and Ado. And although this authority of the Church be such Cassiod Institut diuin lect cap. 29. Ado in Chronic an 425. in fine that with discretion and to edification she may execute it against any whatsoeuer yet much more reason right she hath to execute it vpon the workes of her children who are her subjects submit themselues and their workes wholy to her censure Some man perhaps wil say that euery Catholike doth not so submit himselfe and his workes but it is certaine that vvhosoeuer doth not so either expresly or vertually is no Catholike because he preferreth his owne judgement before the censure of the vvhole Church And whosoeuer doth this although through ignorance he erre as euery man may he is no Heretike according to that of S. Augustine I may erre I cannot be an Heretike seing that the one is proper to a man the other to a peruerse and obstinate wil. And out of this discourse I conclude that if our Church be Catholike as it is we are not to be blamed for our proceedinges in forbidding and correcting such bookes as oppose themselues any vvaies against our religion or may seduce the harts of their simple readers or any waies seeme to taste of an heretical kind of speach or phrase although the authors themselues diuers times intended no hurt And this must much more be graunted vnto vs in moderne authours and such as haue written in this last age both because they submitted themselues commonly in expresse tearmes to the censure of the Church and also because by the
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
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
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
vse or prescribe Vnto which I may adde that Luther as it seemeth receiued some light from aboue if it be true which is affirmed in the Apologie of the Church of England that God sent him to giue light to the world But if no Sacramentary can compare any one of his learned masters vvith Luther much lesse can he preferre himselfe before him vvhich neuerthelesse he must needes doe if he be obstinate in his Sacramentary doctrine and as judge pronounce Luthers beliefe to be false and erroneous And thus much of Luthers censure against the Sacramentaries The Lutherans also men very learned whome the English Protestants if Whitakers say truly a Whitakers in his answer to Cāpians 8. reason p. 259 embrace as their deare bretheren in Christ pronounce the same sentence against these Sectaries And in particular Conradus Schlusselburge euen nowe alleaged being a Lutheran superintendent of great name and authority b Conradus Schlusselb in Catalog Haereticorum nostri temporis lib. 1. pa. 1. 2. lib. 3. placeth them in the Catalogue of the Heretikes of these our daies Luke Osiander vvhose Encheridion against vs some English Protestant hath of late corruptly translated into our tongue in the conclusion of the like booke made against the Caluinists hauing recited sixteene of their assertions which he condemneth afterward writeth thus c Lucas Osiāder in Enchirid cōt Caluinianos in cōclus pa. 267. printed anno 1607. published by him anno 1603. Let any godly or friendly reader whatsoeuer thinke what deadly poison Satan doth powre vnto men vnder the Caluinian doctrine by which al Christianisme almost is ouerthrowne Most of the rest proceede after the same manner but I cannot stand to recite their wordes Of al which I conclude that the faith and religion of euery Sacramentary is judged false and heretical by Luther and al the Lutherans Vnto vvhich I adde that if he be an English Protestant the Puritans esteeme him litle better then an Infidel as appeareth by their sundry admonitions to the Parliament and the booke of dangerous positions written by a Protestant If he be a Puritan the Protestants censure him to be d Powel in his consideratiōs See a Christiā modest offer pag. 9. The Suruay of the pretended holy discipline c. pag. 311. a notorious and manifest Schismatike and a member cut off from the Church of God Nay whether he be English Protestant or Puritan Zwinglius a most excellent man as wel as Luther as the Apologie of the Church of England auoucheth e Apologie of the Church of Englād part 4. pag. 124. sent of God to giue light to the world Whetenhal calleth him f Whetēhal in his discourse of the abuses c. pag. 75. the first light set vp by God among al the golden candlesticks of Heluetia with al his Zwinglians telleth him g See Zwingl to 2. epist ad quandā Germaniae ciuitatem fol. 196. in cōmentaris de vera falsa relig c. de Sacram. lib. de Baptis fol. 63. that he erreth in his faith touching the Sacraments If he be a Zwinglian h Caluini lib. de coena Domini edit an 1540. Gallice Latine an 1545. l. 4. Institut cap. 15. §. 1. c. Caluin with al his Caluinists English Protestants and Puritans tel him the like So that be he of what Sacramentary sect soeuer he please his faith and religion receiueth a three-fold censure that it is false and that from his owne bretheren For first it is condemned by the Lutherans then by the Zwinglians and English Protestants if he be a Puritan or Caluinist or by the Zwinglians and Puritans or Caluinists if he be an English Protestant or finally by the English Protestants and Caluinists among vvhome I number the Puritans if he be a Zwinglian And what wise man wil be obstinate in the defence of such a faith But what if he be a Lutheran doth he auoide this inconuenience Truly he is in the very like case for first he is judged to be of a wrong beliefe by al the Sacramentaries then if he be a strict or rigid Lutheran he is condemned by the milde or soft Lutherans if he be a milde or soft Lutheran he is deemed an Heretike by the strict or rigid Nay i Conradus Schlusselbur in Catalog Haereticorum nostri temporis in principio lib. 1. c. Conradus Schlusselburge placeth six sects of his owne Lutherans in the Catalogue of Heretikes of vvhich the one condemneth the other and he giueth the same sentence against them al. But because fewe or no Lutherans as is probable wil euer come to the reading of this Treatise I wil not stand to discusse and proue these thinges at large and in particular And therefore concerning this motiue let this suffice A second reason or motiue which is sufficient to exclude obstinacy from the hart of any one of the followers of the newe religion is that al the learned and principal sectaries as Luther Zwinglius Caluin others haue notoriously and grosly erred in some points or other touching religious matters The short limits of a preface wil not suffer me to declare the truth of this in them al wherefore I wil exemplifie only in the three named which be the heades of the rest And to beginne with Luther did not this great Patriarke and father of al Protestants teach and obstinately hold that Christ suffered on the crosse and died according to his diuinity thus he writeth a Luth. in cōfess majori de coena Domini lib. de concilijs part 2. If I beleeue that only the humane nature of Christ suffered for me Christ is a base Sauiour not of any great price or value yea be himselfe needeth a Sauiour Hence Zwinglius exclaimeth b Zwingl to 2. in respons ad Lutheri cōfess fol. 458. 469. 470. in respons ad Luther lib. de Sacra f. 411. 401. 337. c. This can by no reasons be explaned or excused For Luther clearely and manifestly confesseth that he wil not acknowledge Christ to be his Sauiour if only his humanity had suffered He calleth him also Marcion and saith he is guilty of most high blaspheamy against the nature and essence of God c. Did not the same Luther also defend c See Luth. l. de captiuitat Babilon c. de Baptis lib. cont Cocblaeū anno 1523. that infants in baptisme actually beleeue Verily although M. Field endeauour to vvrest his wordes d Field book 3 ch 44. p. 179. to habitual faith which he saith is in infants yet Luthers discourses admit not that sense as wil easily appeare to the reader Of which also the doctrine of his disciples who euen at this present e Kēnitius in examin cōcil Trident. can 13. de Baptis sess 7. Zucas Osiād in Enchirid cōt Anabapt print anno 1607. c. 2. quaest 2. affirme that infants whiles they are baptised actually beleeue is a manifest token
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
* Lucas Osiāder in Enchirid cont Caluimanos cap. 7. pag. 198. But here gentle reader beyond and aboue those blaspheamous thinges which in the discourses before we heard against the Sonne of God out of the opinions of our aduersaries the Caluinists Pandit se vorago barathrum Caluinianae doctrinae a gulfe or whirlepoole and a bel of Caluinian doctrine openeth it self In which if thou dilligently weigh the matter God is said to be the author of sinne it is so taught by our aduersaries concerning election to saluation that who shal embrace this their doctrine tentation assaulting him must needs either be cast into despaire or fal into Epicurisme and hence must of necessity arise in the harts of men manifest blasphemy against God thus Lucas Osiander whom an English sectary in his booke against vs trāslated maketh to speake like a very good Caluinist If any man be desirous to see a briefe summe of the Caluinian and Zwinglian beliefe touching this and other such like articles he shal find it gathered together in the same place by the same authour as also by Grawerus in the preface to his second booke cited Heshusius a third Lutheran vvriter esteemed among the learnedst of that sect Cōrad Schlusselburg lib. 2. Theolog. Caluinist pag. 6. See Clebetius in victoria veritatis ruina Papatus Saxonici arg 15. Conradus Schluss loco cit lib. 1. c. 6. pag. 25. 26. Beza in Absters calumni arū Heshusij much commended by Conradus Schlusselburge for this cause exclaimeth against the Caluinists that they transforme God into the Deuil But Caluin is not only accused of this impiety by the Lutherans but also by Castalio a Sacramentary who disputing of Caluins opinion touching this point maketh a distinction or difference betweene the true God and the God of Caluin these are his vvordes * Castal in l. ad Caluin de praedest The false God that is Caluins God by him described is slowe to mercy prone to anger who hath created the greatest part of the world to destruction and hath predestinated them not only to damnation but also to the cause of damnation Therefore he hath decreed from al eternity and be wil haue it so and be doth bring it to passe that they necessarily sinne so that neither thefts nor murders nor adulteries are committed but by his constraint and impulsion For be suggesteth vnto men euil and dishonest affections not only by permission sed efficaciter but effectually that is by forcing such affections vpon them and doth harden them in such sort that when they doe euil they doe rather the worke of God then their owne he maketh the Deuil a liar so that nowe not the Deuil but the God of Caluin is the father of lies But that God which the holy Scriptures teach is altogether contrary to this God of Caluin c. And soone after For the true God came to destroy that worke of that Caluinian God And these two Gods as they are by nature contrary to one another so they beget and bring forth children of contrary dispositions to wit that God of Caluin children without mercy proude c. hitherto Castalio a man highly commended by a Humfred de rat interpret lib. 1. p. 26. Gesnerus in Bibliotheca D. Humfrey and Gesnerus likewise learned scholars of the Sacramentary sect But note that in this his discourse he vvel declareth the truth of that vvhich before I related as said by Heshusius to wit that Caluin and his schollars by making God the author of sinne and ascribing vnto him other such like actions transforme him into the Deuil or rather as Castalio saith make the Deuil their God If any man be desirous to see this more fully and exactly handled let him reade Grawerus in the booke and chapter before cited Nowe touching Caluin in particular what Christian doth not abhorre and detest that his intollerable blaspheamy by which he affirmeth our Lord during the time of his passion to haue feared eternal damnation to haue beene forsaken of God to haue suffered in soule the torments of hel Let vs heare him in his owne wordes declare his owne opinion These are some of his sentences Christ was put in steede of wicked doers as surety and pledge Caluin Instit booke 2. ch 16. §. 10. Idē in Math. 26. vers 39. yea and as the very guilty person himselfe to abide and suffer al the punishments that should haue beene laid vpon them this one thing excepted that he could not be holden stil of the sorrowes of death or hel His praier in the garden was an abrupt desire he was stroken with feare and straited with anxiety in such sort that among violent fluddes oftentation he was forced as it were to stagger or wauer nowe with one and then with another desire he corrected and recalled that desire vpon the suddaine passed from him he refused as much as lay in him and sought to put off the office of a Mediator the vehemency of griefe tooke from him the present memory of the heauenly decree Christes death had beene to no effect Caluin Instit booke 2. ch 16. §. 10. Ibid. §. 12. Idē ad c. 26. Math. v. 39. if he had suffered only a corporal death but it behoued also that he should feele the rigour of Gods vengeance and that he should as it were hand to hand wrastle with the armies of the hels and the horror of eternal death He had a more cruel and harder battaile then with common death he sawe the anger of God set before him in as much as be burdened with the sinnes of the whole world presented him selfe before the tribunal seate of God he could not but horribly feare profundam mortis abyssum the bottomlesse depth of death or eternal damnation Caluin Instit booke 2. ch 16. §. 10. he suffered in his soule the terrible torments of a damned and forsaken man a Idē in c. 27. Math. v. 46. When the image or shewe of the tentation was laide before Christ as though God being his enemy he were nowe destined to destruction or damnation he was stroken with horror b Instit booke 2. chap. 16. he was feareful for the saluation of his soule He fought hand to hand with the power of the Deuil with the horror of death or damnation with the paines of hel Hitherto are some of Caluins blaspheamous assertions against our Lord and Sauiour I neede not alleage any Protestant authours accusing him of this impiety for his wordes be plaine and his bookes are in euery mans handes Nay which is worse some principal English Sectaries followe these his blaspheamous courses and vphold his doctrine as Euangelical Such are Fulke Whitakers Willet and others But listen a litle what a conclusion may be drawne out of one proposition taken from Caluin and an other from the greater part of our English Protestants Although diuers notable reasons are assigned by the auncient Fathers and
by the Diuines of al ages why Christ permitted himself to dread so much the corporal death vvhich he was to suffer yet Caluin auoucheth that he was a very dastard and a coward if he feared not eternal damnation Let this then be the first proposition made of Caluins vvordes If Christ feared not the curse and wrath of God he was more tender and more feareful then the most part of the rascal sort of men for theeues and other euil doers doe obstinately hast to death many doe with haughty courage despise it some other doe mildly suffer it whereas Christ was astonished and in manner stroken dead with feare of it Howe shameful a tendernesse should this haue beene saith Caluin to be so farre tormented for feare of a common death as to melt in bloudie sweate and not to be able to be comforted but by sight of Angels Thus Caluin The second proposition taken from the English Protestants is as followeth But Christ feared not the curse and wrath of God he neuer dreaded eternal damnation nor suffered the paines of hel Nowe the conclusion followeth Therefore Christ was more feareful then the most part of the rascal sort of men then theeues and other euil doers his tendernesse was shameful c. The first proposition as I haue said is almost vvholy made of Caluins owne vvordes that the second is held true by the greater part of English Protestants Sutcliffe in his answer to Kellison ch 5. pag. 56. See Parkes also in the preface to his rejoineder to Lymbomastix I proue by the testimony of M. Sutcliffe vvho telleth vs that they mislike Caluins particular opinion cōcerning Christs suffering the paines of hel So that the conclusion if both Caluin and the English Protestants say true cannot be auoided And thus I thinke it nowe sufficiently proued that Luther Zwinglius and Caluin haue fallen into some grosse and notorious errours which they haue mainetained as true and holy doctrine I could if it were needful and conuenient in this place shewe the like concerning al their disciples I meane that they grosly haue erred and erre in some one point or other concerning faith religion but first the followers of euery sect wil doe grant this concerning al others but those of their owne beliefe For this the Lutherans confesse true of al the Sacramentaries the Sacramentaries of al the Lutherans the English Protestants of the Puritans and the Puritans of the English Protestants c. vvhich is the cause and fountaine of their bitter inuectiues and bookes vvritten one against the other so that as I say if a man wil beleeue them al they al hold some one or more absurde and erroneous opinions Secondly it is vvel knowne to any one although but meanely read in matters of controuersie and I haue partly declared already before that most sects doe as yet followe the false doctrine of their Sect-master as the Lutherans of Luther the Zwinglians of Zwinglius the Caluinists of Caluin Wherefore seing that I must also be mindful that I write a Preface and not a volume letting others passe I vvil only say a vvord or two in particular touching the English Sectaries vvho among al other members of the newe religion are only like to come to the sight and reading of this my Preface And is it not easily proued that the principal writers and vpholders of the English Church haue notoriously fallen into error who of this company whiles they liued were comparable to Iewel Fulke and Whitakers And doe not al these * Iewel agaīst Harding art 17. diuisiō 14 Fulke against Martin p. 64 65. in fine Whitakers in his answer to Duraeus pag. 559. added by Stocke to his answer of Campians 8. reason p. 211. hold that Christ was a Priest and offered sacrifice according to his diuinity and God-head But vvhat followeth of this but that as Arius affirmed according to his God-head he is inferiour to his Father for no one offereth sacrifice to his equal Vnto this I adde that a Fulke vpon the Rhemes testam Math 27. v. 3. Act. 3 vers 11. Fulke and b Whitakers in his answer to Cāpians 8. reason pag. 211. 210. Whitakers openly and stoutly maintaine Caluins doctrine concerning Christes dreading euerlasting damnation yea although they goe not so far as Caluin in making him if this was not so more feareful then the most part of the rascal sort of men yet the first of them auouceth that if the feare of bodily paine and death only had caused that agony in the garden he had beene of greater infirmity then many of his seruants the other hath almost the like sentence But aboue al others c Willet in his Synopsis printed an 1600. cōtrouers 20. Willet passeth in defending Caluins blaspheamies in so much as a man may vvel maruaile that his booke is suffered to be read among Christians But what shal we say of the English Sectaries in general wil any man endeauour to free them from al errour Verily if none of them haue fallen into errour it followeth first that our Church is the true Church of Christ and theirs a Schismatical Synagogue This I proue after this sort The Puritans in their Christian and modest offer so they tearme it of a most indifferent conference tendered not long since to the Protestant Arch-bishops Bishops and al their adherents plainely affirme that if their Puritan propositions be denied and the Protestants haue the truth on their side the Roman Church is the true Church of Christ For hauing set downe such propositions as they offer to mainetaine against the Protestants among other just considerations as they pretend mouing them to make this offer in the sixt place they assigne this for one A Christian and modest of fer c. pag. 11. published anno 1606. Diuers of the aforesaid propositions are such say they that if the Ministers should not constantly hold and mainetaine the same against al men they cannot see howe possibly by the rules of diuinity the seperation of our Churches from the Church of Rome and from the Pope the supreame head thereof can be justified And againe in the eight consideration hauing yeelded an other reason wherefore they cannot but make opposition to the Prelates in approuing the propositions aboue specified Ibid. pag. 16. they adde wherein if they the Puritan Ministers who make this offer be in errour and the Prelates on the contrary haue the truth they protest to al the world that the Pope and the Church of Rome and in them God and Christ IESVS himselfe haue great wrong and indignity offered vnto them in that they are rejected and that al the Protestant Churches are Schismatical in forsaking vnity and communion with them Hitherto are the Puritans vvordes Hence vvhich is a point vvorthy to be noted they promise their reconciliation vnto vs if we can proue the falshood of their assertions which promise they make not to the English Protestants For thus they
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
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
the truth of Christian discipline and faith is there we shal finde also the truth of Scriptures expositions al Christian traditions Vnto these authorities I adde that the obscuritie of the holy Scriptures the danger of misinterpreting them being presupposed it vvas necessarie that God almightie should prescribe some certaine rule which euery man might follow without danger of error in vnderstanding them otherwise dissension might haue risen concerning their true sense and consequently concerning diuers articles of Christian religion and euery man might would haue expounded them according to his owne fancie although neuer so false and erroneous And what judge can we imagine him to haue appointed but the Catholike Church whom as I haue proued aboue he hath warranted from errour whose authority he hath made the rule of our beliefe who hath the custody of holy Scriptures and from whom we receiue them and infallibly know them to containe the true word of God This finally the practise it selfe of the Church hath confirmed for whensoeuer any controuersy hath risen touching the true sense of holy Scriptures she according to the rule of faith in her preserued and the sense of Scripture vnto her deliuered together with the letter hath defined the truth and decided the same as it appeareth by the condemnation al Heretikes together with their false translations and erroneous expositions of the said Scriptures And whosoeuer forsaketh this rule falleth presently into a laborinth vast Sea of difficulties and is alwaies perplexed and inconstant in his beliefe Contrariwise whosoeuer embraceth this rule buildeth vpon a firme rocke wherefore I say with the Apostle Whosoeuer shall followe this rule Galat. 6. vers 16. peace vpon them and mercy Now let vs in the last place confirme the truth of our principal assertions concerning the letter and interpretation of holy Scripture yea concerning the whole sūme of christian doctrine by vnwriten traditiō preserued in the Church by the confession of our Lutheran aduersaries of Wittenberg For they doe not only confesse Harm of cōfes sect 10. pag. 332. 333. Confession Wittenb artic 32. The Church to haue authority to beare witnesse of the holy Scripture and to interprete the same but also affirme that she hath receiued from her husband Christ a certaine rule to wit the Prophetical and Apostolical preaching confirmed by miracles from heauen according vnto the which she is bound to interprete those places of Scripture which seeme to be obscure and to judge of doctrines This may be seene in the Harmony of confessions Field book 4. ca. 19. 20. §. The secōd Field also acknowledgeth in the Church A rule of faith descending by tradition from the Apostles according vnto which he wil haue the Scriptures expounded I conclude therefore that thus the holy Scripture is a most sure and infallible ground of faith for by this meanes I meane by the diuine censure and approbation of the Church vve are assured that both the letter and sense are of diuine authoritie vvhereas the particuler or priuate approbation of the letter or interpretation or it made by any priuate man being subject to errour cannot possiblie yeeld vs any such assurance SECTION THE SIXT An objection against the premises is answered and the question concerning the last resolution of our faith is discussed BVT here occurreth a difficulty of no smal moment to be resolued For in this chapter I haue affirmed the Canonical Scriptures and their true interpretation to he knowne by the infallible authoritie of the Church whereas before I proued the authority of the Church to be infallible by the testimonie of holie Scripture vvherefore Field book 4. cap. 7. it may seeme that I haue made a circle or as M. Field calleth it a circulation The ful solution of this objection dependeth of the resolution of a question vvhich to some appeareth very intricate and hard to wit vnto what vve lastlie resolue our faith vvhether to the authority of the Church or of the Scripture or to some humane motiues and therefore this must first be discussed before the other can be answered And in verie deede although al Catholike Diuines be of one consent and hold that the cause of our beliefe is the authority of God which hath reuealed such misteries as we beleeue yet concerning the last resolution of our faith which is a schoole question and not a matter of faith I finde among them two opinions The followers of the first declare the matter thus Fiist say they euery man is induced to beleeue Christian religion and to accept of it as true by certaine humane and prudent motiues or reasons which perswade him that such doctrine as is taught in the Church according to the rules of wisedome is credible and worthie of beliefe Such motiues among others are these which followe First that almost al Nations and in them an infinite number of men of greatest authority principal wit excellent vertue and profound learning haue so beleeeued Secondly that innumerable multitudes of people of al sortes sexes and ages vvho vvere most desirous to please God and knowe true religion and vvere exemplars or patterns of probity and sanctitie haue so earnestlie embraced it that they doubted not to preferre the profession of it before goodes liberty fame and life it selfe yea that they chose rather to loose al these and endure vvithal most cruel torments then to depart from it Thirdly that it doth as it vvere miraculouslie and by some diuine meanes change men although habituated in vice vpon the sodaine to be vertuous Fourthly that the propagation of it hath beene by diuine power which appeareth by this that a fewe vnlearned and vveake fisher-men teaching such thinges as are contrarie to flesh and bloud and aboue al reason haue ouercome not by force of armes but by preaching and suffering the vvisest most eloquent most noble and most potent men of the vvorld Finally that this religion hath beene confirmed by an infinite multitude of diuine miracles recorded by famous authors of al ages of vvhich if one only be confessed true Christian religion cannot be false By these and other such like reasons and argumentes which I haue rehearsed before according to the Psalme The testimonies of our Lord are first made vnto wel disposed people ouer or exceeding credible But although these of themselues may vvel make vs accept and beleeue the truth of Christian religion by a natural and humane kinde of beliefe such as the Deuil himselfe hath and is also in Heretikes concerning such articles which they truly beleeue yet can they not alone cause in vs an act of supernatural faith For this as I haue proued before being supernatural can not proceed from a natural cause without some supernatural helpe And vvhat then is done after this perswasion Verily God almighty yeeld eth vs his supernatural helpe and imparteth vnto our soule a diuine light of faith by which our vnderstanding is made more capable of things so high
in li. de scriptor Eccl. in Ioan. S. Hierome testifie And that al is not by him recorded it is manifest because those speeches which our Sauiour had with his Apostles during the fourty daies betweene his resurection and ascension are almost altogether omitted Neither did he write this Gospel at the beginning of the Church but many yeares after to wit about threescore and six yeares after our Sauiours ascension And like as S. Iohn so did the rest of the Apostles and Disciples leaue vnto vs such parcels of scripture as vve haue receiued from them some extraordinary occasions mouing them thereunto as I could easily declare and proue See Euse hist li. 3. Chrisost hom 1. in Mat. Epipha haeres 51. Baronius to 1. au 45. et 58. out of Eusebius Saint Hierome and others I know that * Field booke 4. cap. 20. § For first Field maketh shewe as though it were a plaine matter that the Euangelists in their Gospels S. Luke in the acts of the Apostles and S. Iohn in the Apocalipse Meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine and direction of Christian faith but vvhat reason he bringeth for it of any moment I cannot see And besides it is certaine that no one of them intended to set downe al because no one of them hath so done wherfore if they haue set downe al as he affirmeth either it hath proceeded from some common deliberation or consultation had among themselues in which they determined what euery one should rehearse or else from the disposition and direction of the holy Ghost who inspired them to write Not the first because no man euer made mention of such a deliberation or consultation and moreouer they wrote vpon diuers occasions in diuers Countries and at diuers times as Ecclesiastical histories testifie Not the second because Field himselfe graunteth that something is vvanting in these bookes which the Church beleeueth which would not haue beene if the holy Ghost had intended that al should haue beene set downe for he addeth that The epistles of the Apostles were occasionallie written yet so saith he as by the prouidence of God al such thinges as the Church beleeueth not being found in the other parts scripture purposedly written are most clearly and at large deliuered in these epistles Marke wel gentle reader this doctrine he told vs before that the Apostles and Euangelists in the Gospels acts of the Apostles and the Apocalipse meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine direction of Christian faith nowe he telleth vs that the Church beleeueth some things which are deliuered in the Apostolical epistles not being found in the other parts of scripture purposedly written Of which I inferre both that the holy Ghost intended not that the penners of the Gospels of the actes of the Apostles and the Apocalipse should deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine and also that he thinketh the writers of these books to haue missed of their intended purpose verily this last pointe seemeth to me no very sound doctrine And besides how wil M. Field proue that the Apostles in their epistles supplied al this want especially seing that the Apostles and Euangelists in the other books although intending to write al yet in his opinion omitted something and the authours of the epistles intended no such matter but vvrote them as he saith occasionally wherefore there is farre greater likelihood that these omitted something then they Further one Apostolical epistle at the least to the Laodicians hath perished Coloss 4.16 see 1. Cor. 5 9. Chrisost hom 9. in Math. et homil 7. in 1. Cor. of which is mention in the epistle of S. Paul to the Colossians And who can absolutely say that nothing necessary was contained in it which is not in any other part of the newe Testament Finally Field himselfe confesseth some vnwritten Traditions as I will declare in the next Section What then did the Apostles and Disciples expresly set downe in those their monuments which are contained in the newe Testament a part only without al doubt of the whole summe of Christian beliefe in which part they ratified and confirmed the supreame and infallible authority of the Church of whome the rest was to be learned and to whose custody they committed their said monuments so that the whole summe or depositum hath beene kept and preserued in the Church not al only in expres termes in the holy scripture but the whole by Tradition a part of that whole also by writing another part by only Tradition by which likewise the said scripture it selfe came to our hands And after this sort the whole corps of Christian religion without any alteration descended vnto vs. This may be proued by that which hath been already said concerning the true sense exposition of holy scripture Chap. 7. sect 5. for as I haue shewed the scripture ought to be interpreted according to the Analogie or rule of faith that is to say according to that beliefe which the Church by Tradition hath receiued from Christ and his Apostles wherefore the letter of the holy scripture is not the whole direction of the faith of the Church but the faith of the Church the perfect and ful direction of the said letter of holy scripture of which it followeth that the faith of the holy Church might haue remained sound and entire by Tradition although no such letter had beene published But let vs confirme this by the testimony of the ancient Fathers Irenae lib. 3. cap. 4. Among the rest S. Irenaeus discourseth thus What saith he if neither the Apostles had left vs scriptures ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they deliuered vnto those whome they committed Churches vnto which order many barbarous nations beleeuing in Christ assent without letter or incke that is without any written word of God hauing saluation written in their hearts by the holy Ghost and diligently keeping the ancient Tradition Hitherto S. Irenaeus And note wel that he affirmeth some to haue beene Christians without any scripture guided only by the Tradition of the Church He telleth vs moreouer that by this order of Tradition from the Apostles al Heretikes are conuinced in such sort that Catholiks shut vp their eares assoone as they heare them vtter any thing repugnant to the said order Finally he addeth that al that are desirous to heare the truth may see in the Church the Tradition of the Apostles made manifest through the whole world And we can number those saith he who are instituted Bishops in Churches by the Apostles and their successors euen vnto vs who taught no such thing as these men Heretikes dreame of Thus farre S. Irenaeus Tertul. de praescrip cap. 19. 20. 21 who suffered martirdome in the yeare of our Lord 205. Tertullian also affirmeth that by this rule of Tradition or prescription of Catholike doctrine Heretikes are to be conuinced And hence it proceedeth that the Apostle vvith
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
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
Canonical without his approbation although the number of Bishoppes vvere neuer so great as appeareth by that of Ephesus vnder Theodosius the younger by that of Constantinople vnder Leo Isaurus and diuers others And out of this discourse I gather that this authority of general Councels if we had no other argument were sufficient to perswade vs to detest and abhorre the condemned doctrine of the new Sectaries For the same Church which in the first general Councel of Nice condemned Aâ—ius and the Arians the same which in the second such Councel held at Constantinople condemned Macedonius and the Macedonians vvhich in the third held at Ephesus condemned Nestorius the Nestorians vvhich in the fourth held at Chalcedon condemned Eutiches and the Eutichians vvhich finally in other general Councels hath condemned other Heretiks and heresies The selfe same Church I say directed in al truth by the holy Ghost hath condemned and accursed Luther and the Lutherans Zuinglius and the Zuinglians vvith al their followers togeather vvith their doctrine in the last general Councel held at Trent But they say that this Councel vvas not laweful nor the judges indifferent I reply first that this hath beene an old cauil of al condemned Heretiks wherefore it may lawefully be suspected in these Moreouer it is sufficiently proued by Catholike authors and the matter is euident in it selfe that nothing necessarie to a laweful general Councel vvas vvanting in this vvherefore it is receiued by the vvhole Church as Canonical and therefore no vvise man seing that saluation and damnation vpon this depend vvil reject it vpon these mens reportes They affirme further that the Church hath no authority in a general Councel to make any newe article of faith To this likewise I answere that the Church properly maketh no newe article of faith for euerie decree by her made concerning such matters is either in expresse tearmes contained in the holie scriptures or gathered out of them by infallible deduction through the direction of the holie Ghost or expresly or virtually approued by the vnwritten Tradition of the Church wherefore the Church neither hath euer taught or shal euer teach any truth so newe that it vvas vnknowne to the Apostles For that which by her is defined and propounded was true before and an article of faith although sometimes not certainelie nor generally knowne before to be of such authority or dignity And that this is our doctrine it is graunted by Field vvhose vvords are these Field book 4. cap. 12. § Our aduersaries Our aduersaries confesse that the approbation and determination of the Church can not make that a truth which was not nor that a diuine or Catholike truth which was not so before thus Field Hence the Catholike diuines affirme that Christian faith neuer since Christs ascention hath increased or beene altered in substance but only in explanation or explication because the Church hath euer since only more plainelie and expresly declared her beliefe and authority to doe this vvas needful in her Vinc. Lir. cap. 28. 29. et 30. for preseruing of peace and ending of al controuersies This Vincentius Lirinensis most elegantly declareth by a similitude taken from the body of man vvhich hath the same members in his infancie youth vvhen he is at mans estate and in his old age and although for the diuersitie of time they are lesse and greater vveaker and stronger yet the body it selfe is not chaunged but augmented so saith he it falleth out in our faith c. They object also the authority of some Fathers but principally those vvordes of S. Gregorie Nazianzene vvho saith as he is alleaged by Whitaker * Whit. in his ans to Camp 4. reasoÌ„ Abbot in his answere to Hils 9 reasoÌ„ Nazianz epist 55. or 42. alias 102. ad Procop. Hist tri part li 9. cap. 9. That he had deliberated with himselfe and fully resolued to auoid Episcopal conuocations because he had neuer seene a good issue of anie Sinode I answere that this holy father doth not deny the authority of lawful general Councels as appeareth by his testimonie before cited and also by this that he vvas a most earnest defender of the Nicene Councel as is testified by Ecclesiastical histories and was himselfe present and subscribed to the second general Councel held at Constantinople He therefore only speaketh of such Sinods as was celebrated in those daies when he wrote that epistle of which fewe were lawful and none had good successe as appeareth by that of Seleucia Ariminum Millan Tirus Sirmium Bilson in his booke of the perpetual gouernment of Christs Church Chap. 16. pag. 396. Athan. li. de sinod et ad Affrican see also S. Ambrose epist 32. c. of vvhich in verie deed he neuer sawe good issue and for that cause he refused to be present to any of them and this solution is approued by M. Bilson a learned Protestant who expresly saith that this Father in these words condemneth not al Councels They bring likewise against vs certaine words of S. Augustine in his booke against Maximinus where he writeth thus as Abbot translateth him But nowe neither should I produce the Nicene Councel nor thou that of Ariminum as meaning to extol it neither am I held with the authority of the one nor thou with the other I answere first that although S. Augustine might haue proued out of S. Athanasius and diuers other authentical authors that the lawful Councel of Ariminum most notably confirmed the Nicene faith and that the Councel alleaged by this Heretike vvas but the supscription of the Bishops to a certaine forme of faith by threatning feare and affliction extorted by Taurus the Emperors officer after that the Councel vvas finished yet in the dispute which he had with Maximinus the said Maximinus opposing the Councel of Ariminum aganst the Councel of Nice he vvould not enter into the proofe of the authority of the one and confutation of the other but hauing most pregnant testimonies of holy scripture he voluntarily in that disputation ceased to vrge the authority of the Councel of Nice and so those his vvordes Neither am I held c. are vnderstood for the sense of them is I vvil not that nowe thou be bound to the one or I to the other Verely that he esteemed highly of the authoritie of general Councels al his workes and proceedings testifie yea his discourse before the vvords alleaged doth proue it as wil appeare to the reader For he saith that in the Councel of Nice the word consubstantial was by the Catholike fathers established by the authority of truth and by the truth of authority And in another place he telleth vs Tom. 7. de baptismo contr Donat li. 7. cap. 53. that we may securely auerre that which is confirmed and roborated by the consent of the vniuersal Church Chapter 10. Of the decrees of the supreame visible Pastour of the Church which make a fourth particuler ground of our faith and of other
10. pag. 570. Andraeas Fricius a learned Protestant of Polonia And that he held himselfe to be supreame Pastour of the Church al his b See l. 12. epi. 32. de priuiligio cōcessomo nasterio S. Medardi In psal 5. epist 38. indict 13. bookes and actions aboundantly testifie and of the Church of Constantinople in particuler thus he vvriteth c Lib. 7. epist 63. ad Ioan. Sira cusanum Of the seat of Constantinople who can doubt but it is subject to the Apostolike See which both my Lord the most holy Emperour and my brother Eusebius Bishop of the same citty of Constantinople professe And this is the common Catholike doctrine touching the supreamacie of S. Peter and the Bishop of Rome SECTION THE SECOND The aforesaid doctrine is proued IF I should endeauour to bring forth al the arguments which occurre and are commonly vsed by Catholike authors conuincing the truth of that which hath beene here said this treatise would rise to a great volume vvhich is contrarie to mine intent wherefore I wil only touch the principal and those very briefly In the holy scripture we first find that our Sauiour at the first sight of S. Peter chaunged his name from Simon to Cephas or Peter For this holy Apostle being brought by S. Andrew his brother vnto Christ He looking vpon him saith S. Iohn the Euangelist said Ioh. 1 42. Hier. in c. 2. epist ad Galatas thou art Simon the sonne of Iona thou shalt be called Cephas which word in the Siriack tongue as we are taught by S. Hierom as also Peter in the Greek signifieth a rocke wherefore then did Christ change this Apostles name more then the names of al the rest for although he called S. Iames and S. Iohn Boanerges Mark 3. yet he altered not their former names but gaue them a kind of sir-name and therefore by the holie Euangelists the whole Church they are alwaies called by their first names Iames Iohn But S. Peter is commonly called both by the Euangelists S. Paul Galat. 2. Chrisost in 1. cap. Ioan. and the whole Church Peter Cephas or a rock which as S. Iohn Chrisostome very wel noteth argueth that some great priuiledge was graunted to S. Peter aboue others for so God for some extraordinarie and great cause changed the name of Abram into Abraham and of Iacob into Israel But what was this priuiledge Verily the name it selfe imposed vpon S. Peter giueth vs notice what it was for seing that Christ communicated vnto him one of his owne names to wit the name of a rock or stone which is often times attributed vnto himselfe in holie write Isa 8. et 28. Daniel 2. psal 117. Mat. 21. Rom. 9. 1. Cor. 10. Ephe. 2.1 Peter 2. c. he also gaue vs to vnderstand that he was to communicate vnto him the highest office vnder himselfe and that like as he himselfe was the principal rock and foundation of the Church so this holy Apostle was to be by participation a secondarie stone placed next vnto himselfe in the building of the same and through his praier and warrant to be made a piller of truth not to be shaken with anie falshood nor ouerthrowne by al the powers of hel This is the doctrine of S. Basil and S. Leo as we haue seene aboue But that the force of this place of scripture against the newe sectaries may the better be perceiued let vs joine another vnto it more strongelie confirming the same truth and plainely opening the sense of the former For after that this blessed Apostle had confessed our Sauiour to be Christ the sonne of the liuing God our Redeemer replying vnto him Mat. 16. v. 18.19 vsed these wordes And I say to thee that thou art Peter or a rocke and vpon this rocke wil I build my Church and the gates of hel shal not preuaile against it And I wil giue to thee the keies of the kingedome of heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind vpon earth it shal be also bound in the heauens and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose in the earth it shal be loosed also in the heauens Loe a plaine promise made vnto S. Peter both that on him the Church should be built and consequently that he should be made the principal foundation of the same next vnto Christ and also that as the vicar of Christ and chiefe pastour of his flocke he should receiue the keies of the kingdome of heauen And hence proceed those vvordes of S. Hierome concerning the first prerogatiue Hieron lib. 1. contra Pelag. Cipriā epistol ad Quirinū Peter was the prince of the Apostles vpon whome the Church of our Lord was strongly and firmely founded which is neither shaken by the furie of any flood nor by any tempest Saint Ciprian that holy Martir more auncient then Saint Hierome telleth vs that our Lord did choose Peter the chiefest and vpon him built his Church Which words of his are alleadged and approued by Saint Augustine in his second booke de Baptismo cap. 1. To these I adde S. Basil and S. Epiphanius of vvhome the first auoucheth a Basil li. 2. in Eunom et homilia 19. quae est vlti de poenitentia that Saint Peter for the excellencie of his faith receiued vpon him the edifice of the Church vvherefore in another place he calleth him the rocke and foundation of the Church The other vvriteth b Epiphā in Ancor that our Lord appointed Peter the first or chiefe of his Apostles a firme rocke on which the Church was built The like sentences are found in c Leo ser 2. in Aniuers assūptio suae S. Leo d Naziā◠de moder seruād in disputat S. Gregory Nazianzene e Chrisost homil 55. in Math. S. Chrisostome f Ambros serm 47. S. Ambrose and others yea that the Fathers gathered this out of the said words of our Lord it is granted by g Calu. li. 4. instit ca. 6. § 6. Caluin and h Dan. in respōs ad Bellar. disput part 1. p. 277. Danaeus That he also had a second prerogatiue promised him in the same wordes of receiuing the keies of the kingdome of heauen as ministerial head of the Church aboue the rest of the Apostles who receiued them with a certaine kind of subjection to Peter the Fathers in like sort euen as confidently testifie And first this is affirmed by S. Ciprian in these words i Ciprian epist 73. To Peter first of al vpon whom our Sauiour built his Church and from whom he instituted and shewed the beginning of vnity did he giue this power that that should be loosed in the heauens which he had loosed on earth k Hill in Math. 16. S. Hillarie in like sort crieth out O blessed porter of heauen vnto whose wil and arbitriment the keies of the eternal entry are deliuered Lastly l Chrisostome homil 55. in Mathaeum S. Iohn Chrisostome and m Gregor
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
vpon this ground in the next chapter Chap. 2. he entereth into a railing and scoffing discourse against the Pope But in verie deed I cannot doe otherwise then meruaile that a man of his place and learning doth not blush to committe such a notorious vntruth to the print and view of the world For not to speake of the falshood of the first part of his assertion because it is in some sort impertinent that which he saith of the Councel of Chalcedon is most vntrue repugnant to al antiquity and not only contrarie to al proceedinges and the historie of the said Councel but also to the wordes of the Canon by him alleaged For in it is decreed onlie that the cittie of new Rome or Constantinople shal haue majestie like as old Rome in Ecclesiastical affaires et secundam post illam existere that is shal be the second or next after it and enjoy certaine priuiledges for the ordination of some Metrapolitans these are the contents of the Canon And what more touching this matter did the Bishops assembled in that Councel in their Sinodical epistle desire S. Leo the great then bishoppe of Rome to confirme then this Concilium Chalcedō sessio 12. alias actione 16. An. Christi 451. Concilium Nice sessio vltim Cōci Chal. actione 1. Actione 3. We haue confirmed say they the rule of the seauenscore and ten holy Fathers which were gathered together at Constantinople vnder Theodosius of happie memorie which commanded that the See of Constantinople which is ordained the second haue second honour after your most holie and Apostolike See trusting that the Apostolical sunne-beame shining with you c. But how can it be the second and next after and also the equal with it as Field affirmeth Besides this in the Councel it selfe those words of the Canon of the Councel of Nice that the Church of Rome euer had the primacie were allowed and the Legates of Pope Leo vvithout reprehension or exception taken said We haue here at hand the commandements of the most blessed and Apostolike man the Pope of the cittie of Rome which is head of al Churches by which his Apostleship hath vouchsafed to commaund c. Againe one of them first subscribed as he said in the place of the most blessed and Apostolike vniuersal Pope of the citty of Rome c. And in the epistle al the Fathers write vnto him thus We craue therefore that you wil honour our decrees with your judgement and like as we desirous haue consented in those things which are good sic et summitas tua so thy chiefedome or preheminence aboue al wil as it is meete accomplish them to his children hitherto are their wordes And vvhat could be said more apparant for the Popes supreamacie Doe not they acknowledge him to be their chiefe and themselues his sonnes and children Gregor li 4. epi. 32. 36. 38. li. 7. epi. 30. See before in the first section of this chapter I could adde to this the authoritie of S. Gregorie the great who liued not long after this Councel who against the ambition of Iohn bishoppe of Constantinople in diuers letters confidentlie affirmeth that the title of vniuersal Bishop by this Councel was offered to Pope Leo. But Field wil vrge that it is gathered out of some Greeke copies of this Councel that by this Canon the Bishop of Constantinople was so made second after the Bishoppe of Rome that equal priuiledges were giuen him I answere that these priuiledges vvere only concerning jurisdiction to order certaine Metrapolitans of the east Church as the Bishoppe of Rome had the like in the west But now suppose I should graunt M. Field that in this Canon the Bishop of Constantinople vvas made in euerie respect equal to the Pope what would he get by this In truth nothing For of what authority is this Canon Surely of none for it vvas cunninglie made by the Grecian bishops after the Councel was risen and the Legates of Pope Leo departed vvho also when it came to their knowledge the next day resisted them in the next Session yea this was neuer confirmed by the Pope without whose confirmation the decrees of general Councels haue neuer had force but vvas by Pope Leo forthwith ouerthrowne and annulled Leo epist 55. 53. 54. 61. We cancel or make voide saith he speaking of that Canon and others then enacted the consent of Bishops repugnant to the Nicene Canons and by the authority of blessed S. Peter the Apostle by a general definition we make them altogether of no force And this his decree was so highly esteemed in the East it selfe Marcian l. 12. c. de sacrosācta Ecclesia that it was confirmed presentlie by an Imperial constitution euen by the Emperour of Constantinople and Anatolius the Patriarcke through vvhose ambition and instigation the said Canon vvas made was constrained to ceasse from such proceedinges to relinquish that dignity vvhich ambitioussie he couered and to take place euen after the other Patriarkes for neither was the constitution of the Councel of Constantinople which preferred him before those of Alexandria and Antioch authentical Iustin nouel 131. cap. 2. Field book 3. cap. 1. Yea Iustinian the Emperor after this euen when Rome vvas most in disgrace and Constantinople flourished long before the daies of Phocas from whome Field would deriue the beginning of the Popes superiority confirmed the primacy to the Bishop of Rome and thus we may see vpon how vveake grounds Field doth venture to passe the bounds of modesty Concerning the point it selfe of the Popes infallible judgment he accuseth vs of contrary doctrine to wit that we al hold at this day Field book 3. cap. 45. the infallibility of the Popes judgment to be the rock on which the Church is builded and therefore build our faith vpon the same whereas the same men sath he that hold this say also it is no matter of faith to acknowledge or not acknowledge the infallibity of the Popes judgment I answere that the infallibility of the Popes judgment without the assent of a general Councel is not the most sure receiued rock on which the Church was built for this is the Popes judgment confirming the decrees of a general Councel or as I may say the definition of a general Councel in which the head confirmeth the verdict of the body and both together infallibly define a truth And in this sense no Catholike nowe affirmeth that it is no matter of faith to acknowledge or not acknowledge the infallibility of the Popes judgment for it is held absolutely to be a matter of faith and consequently our doctrine touching these points is not contrary True it is Bell. li. 4. de Roman pontif ca. 2. in fine Stapleton in Relect. scholast princi controuers 3 quest 4. that some Catholike doctors as Bellarmine and Stapleton thinke not that opinion properly heretical which holdeth that the Pope as Pope may be an Heretike and teach heresie if he
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
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
difficulties of holy scriprure are onlie to tame our vnderstanding and increase our merit But like as these places are brought to accord so likewise are those and euen with as great case which they alleage to disproue the authority of those bookes vvhich they reject and vve receiue Neither can an Atheist desirous to impugne both discerne any difference wherefore I conclude that by this manner of proceeding they vveaken the authoritie of the vvhole Bible and offer an occasion to Atheists of rejecting the whole Vnto this I may adjoine that Beza rejecteth or at the least doubteth of the truth of the whole historie of the adulterous woman recorded in the eight chapter of S. Iohns Gospel And why so Beza in cap. 8. Ioan. he yeeldeth these reasons The great variety of reading maketh me doubt of the whole matter To speake opinion I doe not dissemble that to be by me worthily suspected which those auncient writers with so great a consent either rejected or were ignorant off Furthermore that the storie reporteth that Iesus alone was left in the temple with the woman I know not how probable it is and that it writeth that Iesus wrote with his finger in the ground seemeth to me nouum et insolitum a thing strange and not accustome neither can I conjecture howe it can fitly be explicated thus Beza But if these reasons be sound and sufficient the same may justlie be pleaded against diuers other parcels of holie scripture and consequently Beza by this his manner of arguing weakneth the authority of the same Secondly they laugh and scoffe at the ceremonies vsed in the Catholike Church by which they induce their followers to think euen as basely of diuers ceremonies prescribed by God in the old lawe Leuit. 16. vers 21. c. As of that for example that the high Priest should put both his hands vpon the head of a liue goate and confesse ouer him the sinnes of the childeren of Israel and then should send away the said goate into the desert bearing vpon him al their iniquities The like may be said of the water of aspertion vvith vvhich the vncleane vvere sprinckled which was made of running water Numer 19. the ashes of a red cow burned scarlet cedar and bishop and a thousand other ceremonies far more reprehensible in an Atheists judgement then those which in our Church they cal Idolatrous and superstitious I adde also that by the same rule they giue an Atheist licence to scoffe at diuers actions of the old Prophets as of that of Ahias Selonites 3. Reg. 11. verse 29. 1. of Kings who to signifie to Ieroboam that he should be king of ten Tribes of the twelue Cut a newe cloake which he wore into twelue pieces and deliuered him ten of them yea by the same rule he may also laugh at diuers precepts of God himselfe to the said Prophets As for example at that of God to Ezechiel Ezech. 4. when he had him take a bricke and drawe in it the figure of the citty of Ierusalem he commaunded him likewise to sleep on his left side three hundred and ninety daies and and in the meane time to eate daylie a certaine quantitie of bread made of diuers sorts of graine and baked in the dung of buls then to take a rasor and shaue off al the haire of his head and beard Ezech. 5. and by weight to deuide it into three parts of which the first part he willed him to burne in the middest of the citty the second he willed him to choppe with a knife and the last he willed him to scatter in the winde And truly I see no reason in the things themselues why an Atheist should thinke himselfe more vvorthie of reprehension for scoffing at these actions then our aduersaries for running the like course against our ceremonies Nay I adde further that by their scoffing at our ceremonies they offer euil persons an occasion to scoffe at certaine ceremonies vsed euen by our Lord himselfe and recorded by the Euangelistes I wil exemplifie in one particular Caluin calleth our ceremonie of touching vvith spitle the nostrils and eares of one that is to be baptised before baptisme Caluī de Eccle reformat Willet in his āswere to the Apolog. epist sect p. 106. Mark 7 33. Iohn 9 6. absurd and ridiculous and Willet calleth it an interpretiue toy But who doth not see that this may be a motiue to others to pronounce the same censure against certaine like actions of Christ as that when healing a man deafe and dumbe spitting he touched his tongue or that when giuing sight to a blinde man He spit on the ground made clay of spitle and spred the clay vpon his eies I could produce other such examples Thirdly I haue declared aboue that miracles proceeding from God himselfe vvho can neither deceaue nor be deceaued are a principal motiue to induce vs to beleeue the supernatural misteries of our faith But the authority of these also is weakned by our aduersaries for although they cānot deny but that a Iob. 14.12 Mark 16 17 Christ bestowed vpon his Apostles their successors the gift of working miracles yet because such miracles in euery age since the first beginning of christianity haue bin done by those of our church as testimonies of their doctrine sanctity of life they either b See Abbot ī his ans co D. Hils sixt reason Fulk vpō the Rhems testam 2. Thes 2.9 Willet in his Sinop controu 2. qu. 3. deny that such miracles were euer wrought notwithstāding that they are recorded by al historians yea euen by eie witnesses of the same of great credit or else they attribute the working of thē to the deuil or to natural causes The first two shifts are vsed by the c Ceturiat in singulis fere Centurijs Cent. 5. c. 10. col 1393. Ceturiators who among the rest of S. Martins miracles written by S. Sulpitius Seuerus an author of great credit renoune a disciple of the same S. Martin whiles he liued giue this cēsure that either they were false or els that S. Martin was a conjurer The same deuises are approued by d Calu. in prae fat Inst Fox p. 204. col 2. Num. 7. Hastīgs in his Apolog agaīst the Waraw encoūt 2. See also Sutcl in his ans to Kellisons Suruey cap. 11. p. 99. Caluin Fox others The third is added by Sir Francis Hastings But euerie man may easily perceaue that the same shifts may be vsed by an Atheist for the ouerthrow of al miracles whatsoeuer although expressed in the scripture it selfe wrote by Christ his Apostles for exāple in the life of S. Martin mētioned writtē by Sulpitius Seuerus we read that S. Martin raised 3. dead men to life cast deuils out of men possessed that a woman was cured of an issue of bloud by touching of his garment c. These things say the new sectaries are either fables
In another place he discourseth thus We are not the seruants of the Fathers but the sonnes When they prescribe vs any thing out of the lawe and diuine authority we obey them as our parents If they enjoyne anything against the voice of the heauenly truth we haue learned not to hearken to them but to God You as vassals and base seruants receiue whatsoeuer the Fathers say without judgement or reason being afraid as I thinke either of the whip or the halter if euerie thing they speake be not Gospel with you thus Whitakers defendeth his rejecting the ancient Fathers and vpbraideth vs for our high estimation of the same But concerning the fathers opinions of particuler points he telleth vs Ibidem in his answer to the 5. reason pag. 129. that Ciprian wrote something of repentance verie vnseasonably and vndiscreetly and not be alone but al the holie Fathers of that time saith he were tainted with that errour That is al the Fathers of the third age after Christ for S. Ciprian suffered martirdome in the yeare two hundred threescore and one Of praier to Saints he hath these wordes Prudentius I graunt Ibidem pag. 140. 141. as a poet sometimes called vpon the Martirs whose actes he describeth in verse and the supertitious custome of praying to Saintes had nowe taken deepe roote in the Church which as a tirant haled sometimes the holie Fathers into the same errour thus he of the beginning of the fift age when Prudentius flourished Lastly Ibid. p. 132. he defendeth the first sentence of Luther before alleaged Abbot in his answ to Hil reason 10. p. 371. Horat. lib. 1. epist 1. see also Morton in Apologia Catholica part 1. lib. 1. cap. 8. With Whitakers agreeth Abbot who touching the Fathers thus deliuereth his opinion vnto vs Where there is just cause we as men Nullius addicti jurare in verba magistri bound to stand to the opinion of none but of the holy Ghost we declining-wise doe leaue them But where they subscribe to the authority of God there we subscribe to them defend them and refuse not to be tried by them so far as we may by any holy and learned men of which sort we hold them but yet stil knowe them to be men hitherto George Abbot And note that these men pretending that they follow the auncient Fathers as farre forth as they followe the lawe or diuine authority or the authority of God endeauour to make shew of an opposition or contrariety betweene the written word of God and the Fathers in al points in which they forsake them whereas in very deed the Fathers vnderstood and followed the scriptures better then they doe and the opposition is not betweene the scriptures and the Fathers but betweeene the Fathers and the Scriptures expounded by these Sectaries vvhich scriptures so expounded they make a rule vvhereby to knowe vvhen the Fathers are to be followed when to be forsaken Our Puritans in this point at the least in wordes got farre beyond our Protestants He who is desirous to vnderstand their opinion may read the seauen and twentith chapter of the Suruay of their pretended holy discipline written by a a Printed anno 1693. Protestant in which he shal finde it set downe at large And among others Cartwright is there accused the places of his bookes being cited for tearming the seeking into the Fathers writings b Pag. 331. 337. See also chap. 4. p. 64. a raking of ditches and the bringing in of their authorities the mouing and summoning of hel c Parks in his preface to his ans of Limbo mastix prīted anno 1607. Henrie Iacob treatise p. 1. 3. 54. 81. 68. cited by him in the margēt see also saith he Bilsons sermons pa. 323. and the answere to M. Broughtons letters p. 17. Parks also a later writer telleth vs that If you alleage the auncient Fathers against them they wil tel you roundly that their opinions are nothing else but the corrupt fancies and vaine imaginations of men toyish fables fond absurd without sense and reason and some saith he sticke not to cal the Fathers of the latine Church the plague of diuinitie Vnto al these proofes I adde likewise that our aduersaries confesse al the auncient Fathers to haue beene of our beliefe touching euery article nowe controuersed betweene vs and them as I vvil proue in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church and yet reject their doctrine as erroneous and repugnant to the word of God vvherefore they must needes confesse al the Fathers to haue erred and so reject their authority Finally none of them wil graunt that any consent of Fathers whatsoeuer be it neuer so general touching any point is of it selfe a sufficient ground of faith without the testimonie of holy scripture which is enough for my purpose But it may be objected by some that diuers of these sectaries alleage in their vvorkes the holie Councels and Fathers abundantly not only against vs but also against their owne brethren dissenting from them in faith or thinges belonging to religion I answere that true it is that they so doe alleage the holy Councels and Fathers But doe they make their testimonie an infallible ground they doe not certainelie For although they approue their doctrine in some points yet in others they presentlie reject them The Centuriatores being Lutherans Centuriat 4. pag. 242. In euery Centurie cap. 4. alleage the Fathers against the Sacramentaries for proofe of the real presence but they reject their testimonie when they affirme this sacrament to be a Sacrifice In like sort our Protestants against our Puritans alleage the authority of S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine condemning Aerius for an Heretike because he acknowledged no distinction betweene a Bishoppe and a Priest See the Suruey of the pretēded holie discipline Whit gift in his defence and others but they reject the authority of the same Fathers in the selfe same places condemning the same Aerius as an Heretike for denying sacrifice and masse for the dead wherefore it is manifest that they onlie as Caluin saith vse the Councels and Fathers to serue their owne turnes not to be ouer-ruled by them In defence of our English Protestants in particular it may first be said that M. Iewel in his challendge doth challendge to their religion al the Councels and Fathers of the first sixe hundred yeares alloweth of their authoritie and offereth to be tried by their censure I answere first that this challendge made by M. Iewel is not general touching al points controuersed betweene vs but concerning a fewe only and those not of greatest moment Secondly I say that M. Iewel did this only to make a shew among the common people as though his religion had beene auncient not that he intended to doe as he promised to wit to subscribe to our religion if this challendge could be shewed false This appeareth to be true both because he maintained his vaine challendge
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
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
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
ground of Christian religion and that their Bibles truly containe the said letter both which propositions I haue already proued to be most false yet that they build not vpon that letter which is contained in their owne Bibles And first let vs declare that the propositions and articles of their beliefe in vvhich they dissent from vs are not in expresse tearmes contained in their said letter yea that their said letter maketh more for our doctrine then for theirs and out of this gather that they build vpon their owne priuate deductions out of the letter not vpon the letter it selfe vvhich maketh more for vs then for them Where finde they then in their vvord of God as they tearme it this proposition vvhich is as they say the very ground of their religion to vvit a man is justified by faith only except it be in Luthers Bible vvho cogged into the text the vvord only as I haue shewed before We finde this in their common bookes Rom. 8. v. 24. Iam. 2. v. 24. Bible 1592. We are saued by hope and that of workes or deedes a man is justified and not of faith only Where is it found that the faith which vvorketh our justification is that by vvhich a man without al doubt beleeueth him selfe through the passion of Christ to be just and in state of saluation vve finde in diuers places as I haue proued aboue that the faith vvhich worketh this effect is that by vvhich vve beleeue the articles of our Creede and the misteries of Christian religion Where reade they that their faith ought to make them secure of their saluation vve reade in their owne bookes Phil. 3. v. 12. Bible 1595. that we ought to worke out our saluation with feare and trembling 1. Cor. 10 12. and that he that thinketh himselfe to stand must take heede least he fal Where doth the Scripture tel vs that the Commandements of God are impossible Our Sauiour telleth vs Math. 11 30. 1. Ioh. 5. v. 3. that his yoke is easie and his burthen light and S. Iohn that his commandements are not grieuous they should say not heauy Where is it affirmed in their vvord of God that the Eucharist is only a figure of the body of Christ Math. 26. v. 26.28 c. we finde that it is his body and bloud Where are vve taught that we receiue the body and bloud of Christ only spiritually Christ hath taught vs that his flesh is meate indeede Iohn 6. v. 55. Iohn 20. v. 23 and his bloud is drinke indeede Where finde they that Priests cannot forgiue sinnes vve finde that whose sinnes soeuer they remit they are remitted vnto them Where reade they that good vvorkes done in the state of grace are not meritorious vve reade Math. 16 27 Math. 25 34 that Christ on the latter day shal reward euery man according to his workes and that then he wil bestow vpon the elect the Kingdome of heauen for feeding the hungrie giuing drinke to the thirsty and doing other vvorkes of mercy Where is it affirmed that infants borne of Christian parents may be saued vvithout Baptisme vve can shewe that Christ himselfe hath pronounced this sentence Iohn 3. ver 5. except a man be borne of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of heauen Howe can they proue that the vsual forme of Baptisme is not necessary Luther in Sinops col act 7 De captiuit Babylon c. de bapt Zwing l. de vera falsa relig ca. de bapt Brēt in catechis c. de bapt as Luther Zwinglius and Brentius imagine Our Sauiour as vve are taught by S. Mathewe commanded his Apostles to a Mat. 28 19 baptize al nations In the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost Where is it said that Marriage is better then Virginity vve reade that b 1. Cor. 7 38 he that giueth his daughter in marriage doth wel but he that giueth her not in marriage doth better Where are they taught that vve ought not to vvorshippe Saints and Angels nor to pray vnto them The Scripture telleth vs that c Iosuae 5 14. Iosue and d Apocal. 19 10. c. 22 v. 8. S. Iohn Euangelist adored Angels Yea the last of these two did this honour to an Angel although forbidden before to doe it by an Angel vvhich is a manifest proof that such reuerence was due vnto the Angel although he refused it from S. Iohn vvhome he thought equal to himselfe It is also recorded in the Scripture that the e Gen. 48 16. Patriarke Iacob praied vnto an Angel Where are vve forbidden to haue Images in our Churches or to doe them any reuerence We finde that two Images of Cherubins f Exo. 25 18. c. c. 37 v. 7. by Gods Commaundement vvere placed neare the arke in the chiefest place of the tabernacle That Salomon in like sort placed two Cherubins in the most sacred part of the temple 3. or 1. of Kings cap. 6 23. Ib. v. 29. Act. 5. v. 13. and that he made pictures of Cherubins so they reade in the Bible of the yeare 1595. in the wales of the house or temple round about and that the shadowe of S. Peter which was after a sort his picture cured the sicke We also finde that the Iewes a Psal 98. or 99. v. 5 psal 131. or 132 7 adored the foote-stoole of God that is to say the arke of the old Testament and that Moises by the b Exod. 3 5. commandement of God Iosue of an c Iosuae 5 15. Angel put off their shooes because the ground on which they stood through the presence of God and an Angel was holy and consequentlie they did reuerence to the said ground Where is honor denied to Saints reliques It it affirmed in holy writ 4. or 2. Reg. cap. 13. v. 21. Math. 9 20. Act. 19. v. 12 that a dead man vvas raised to life by touching the dead bones of Elizeus the Prophet that a woman was cured of an issue of bloud by touching the hemme of of our Sauiours garment and that napkins and hand-kerchefs or d Bible 1595 partlets as they translate vvhich had touched S. Pauls body wrought miracles Finally where are they taught that temporal Princes lawes binde no mans conscience Luther in 1. Pet. c. 2. Caluin l. 1. Instit c. 19. §. 16. li. 4. c. 10. §. 15. as it is auerred by Luther and Caluin We learne of S. Paul that e Rom. 13 5. Bible 1595. vve ought to be subject vnto such Magistrates not only for feare of punishment but also because of conscience I could adde the like discourse concerning other matters in controuersie betweene vs and the newe Sectaries but I should be ouer tedious and besides I doubt not but that which hath beene already said in this Section is fully sufficient to perswade euery indifferent man that the articles vvhich our aduersaries tearme
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
that the Doctors of that time declined more from the true doctrine of Christ and the Apostles then of the age before Hence among others that erred in this point they name S. Clement Tertullian Origen Ibi. CeÌ„tur 4. c. 4. p. 292. Centur. 5. c. 4 pag. 504. cap. 10. Cent. 6. cap. 4 pag. 274. S. Cyprian S. Augustine S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Chrysostome S. Cyril Theophilus Lactantius Eusebius Chromatius Ephrem S. Gregory Nyssene S. Gregory Nazianzene S. Hilary S. Leo Saluianus Isichius Prosper Maximus and Paulinus Nay in their Century of the fourth age hauing proued at large that neither Lactantius Chromatius Ephrem Theophilus S. Hierome S. Gregory Nyssene S. Gregory Nazianzene S. Hilary nor S. Ambrose euer acknowledged their manner of justification by faith only they adde these vvordes Nowe let the Godly reader imagine with himselfe Centur. 4. c. 4. pag. 292. howe farre this age touching this article went a stray from the doctrine of the Apostles In their history of the fift age they haue the like discourses but among others of Prosper a famous Father of that time thus they vvrite Prosper retained not a fewe freckles so they tearme such opinions in the Fathers as the said Fathers hold vvith vs Cent. 5. c. 10. pag. 1363. and they thinke erroneous of his age such an one is that faith only doth not justifie Hitherto the Magdeburgians The same is confessed by their M. Luther Luth. in colloquijs conuiualibus cap. de Patribus Ecclesiae For hauing pronounced his censure against diuers of the Fathers in particular of them in general he saith See ye what darkenesse there is in the Fathers writings concerning faith For when that article of the justification of man is couered with darkenesse it can by no meanes be that greater errors be auoided Thus Luther And because he and his bretheren confirme their doctrine of sole faith by certaine sentences especially taken out of S. Paules Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians which they vvrest to an other sence then euer vvas yeelded by the auncient Fathers hence he also maketh this complaint Those Fathers truly taught very wel Ibid. but they could bring forth nothing singular when they wrote not of controuersies and in confutation of others neither are there any workes extant of theirs vpon the Epistle either to the Romans or to the Galatians in which any thing pure and sincere may be found Hitherto are Luthers wordes But of S. Hierome in particular because he contrarieth his exposition of the said Epistles Luth. tom 5. in Epist. ad Galat. cap. 3. fol. 348. tom 2. de seruo arbitrio fo 473. in epist ad BrentiuÌ„ quae praefixa est BreÌ„tij com in Oscam See him likewise in ca. 5. ad Galat. fol. 383. he auoucheth that he was deceaued by Origen and that he vnderstood nothing at al in S. Paul but depraued the justice of only faith and that this one error of his was so great that it alone was sufficient to destroy the Gospel by which if it had not beene saith Luther through the singular grace of God Hierome had merited rather hel then heauen The like he hath in other places And seing that I am entred so farre into this matter I beseech my reader not to condemne me of being tedious and ouer long if I declare vnto him out of the same Luther by al probable conjectures the fountaine and off-spring of this Solifidian doctrine For what other thing vvas this but the impurity of Luthers conscience and the abomination of his sinneful soule This relation he maketh of himselfe and his owne proceedings * Lut. in praefat tom 1. But howsoeuer saith he I liued as a Monke irreprehensible who felt my selfe to be a sinner of a most vnquiet conscience before God neither could I haue confidence that he was appeased with my satisfaction did not loue yea I hated God iust and punishing sinners and inwardly in my hart if not with a blaspheamous truly with a very great murmuring or grudging I repined and was displeased with God saying As though it were not sufficient that miserable and wreatched sinners and eternally lost by original sinne are by the lawe of the tenne Commandements oppressed with al kinde of calamity except God did by the Gospel adde griefe to griefe and threaten also by the Gospel his iustice and anger vpon vs I was therefore madde and did rage through an angry and troubled conscience And not long after declaring howe he freed himselfe from this miserable estate he addeth Wherefore by howe much the more I hated before these wordes the iustice of God with so much the greater loue I extolled that sweete word vnto me concerning justification by only faith so this place of Paul was truly vnto me Porta Paradisi a gate to Paradise Afterwardes I read S. Augustine in his booke de Spiritu Litera where beyond my expectation I found that he also doth so interprete the iustice of God to be that with which he clotheth vs when he doth iustifie vs. And although this was spoken imperfectly and he doth not explicate al thinges clearely concerning imputation yet it pleased me that he taught the iustice of God to be that by which we are iustified Hitherto are Luthers wordes By which it euidently appeareth that sweete liberty and freedome from al band of law and feare of sinne togither with the horrour of his guilty conscience burdened vvith enormious crimes were the chiefest reasons which moued this first beginner of the newe religion to inuent and imbrace the doctrine of faith only justifying by which it is defended that through the apprehension of Christs justice by faith without any more a doe man is freed from the imputation of al sinne made just by the imputation of Christs justice and secured of his eternal saluation be his sinnes neuer so great and hainous But of this no more Of the same opinion concerning the errour of the auncient Fathers or rather their true beliefe condemning the Protestant false faith is Philippe Melancthon for he affirmeth Melancthon in c. 3. 1. Cor. that presently in the beginning of the Church auncient writers obscured the doctrine touching the justice of faith And although Caluin aboue al other Fathers a Caluin Instit booke 3. cap. 11. §. 15. esteemed of S. Augustine yet he auoucheth that b Ibid. chap. 15. §. 2. the very sentence of Augustine or at the least his manner of speaking is not altogether to be receiued and graunteth moreouer that the old writers of the Church haue commonly vsed the word merit Beza his scholler accuseth Origen in this point c Beza in Act cap. 10. v. 46. of horrible blaspheamy D. Humfrey saith d Hâ—fred Iesuitismi part 2. pag. 530. It may not be denied but that Ireneus Clemens Alexandrinus and others called Apostolical in respect of the time in which they liued haue in their writings the opinions
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-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
in rememberance of Christes passion The French Sacramentaries in their confession followe Caluin for there we reade among other thinges Confess Gallica art 37. Se it in Harmony of Confess sect 14. pag. 426. that the body and bloud of Iesus Christ are no lesse truly the meate and drinke of the soule in the supper then bread and wine are the meate of the body that this mistery is aboue nature c. And these their assertions in very deed haue caused some * CoÌ„fess Eccl. in ditione Comitum Mansfeldiae c. anno 1559. fol. 21. Lutherans to make a difference betweene the old Sacramentaries that is as they tearme them the Carolostadians the Zwinglians and the Anabaptists who say they alwaies taught the Sacrament of the Altar to be nothing else but an external signe without the body bloud of Christ and that it serued only for a token to distinguish Christians from Pagans and the newe commonly called Caluinists Nowe if vnto these discourses of Caluin and his followers vve joine that proposition by them so often repeated and with such vehemency defended that Christes humane nature is only in heauen Caluin in 1. Cor. cap. 11. vers 24. Item in his Instit chap. 17. §. 24. c. and alwaies as farre distant from the Eucharist as the highest heauen and earth are a sunder What a Paradoxe or rather a contradiction in external shewe of wordes shal we here finde I neede not recite their sentences because they are found almost in euery place vvhere any one of them treateth of this matter and no Caluinist wil denie this to be a part of his beliefe But doe these thinges accord togither Howe doth Christ truly growe vnto vs and refresh vs with the eating of his body and drinking of his bloud his said body and bloud being in a place so farre distant from vs howe is he truly deliuered vnto vs yea and his body and bloud in the supper seing that he doth approch no nearer vnto vs then the highest heauen is vnto earth howe doth he truly deliuer and we truly receaue vnder the signes of bread and wine his body and bloud and howe is his body really and truly giuen vs how are our soules finally fedde with the substance of Christes body if his said body be only in the heauens and our soules no nearer vnto him then is the earth Are not these thinges according to the proper signification of the vvordes opposite and contrary Verily if corporal sustainance came no nearer to the bodies of these sectaries then the body and bloud of Christ doth according to their owne doctrine to their soules they vvould soone perish vvith hunger But is not Caluin although he make a shewe neuer so glorious in vvordes of the true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist yet inwardly in very deede a Zwinglian and Carolostadian in beliefe It cannot be gainesaid And to declare this first thus he writeth I plainely confesse Caluin Institut booke 4. chap. 17. §. 32 that I refuse that mixture of the flesh of Christ with our soule or the powring out of it or the transposing of it from one place to an other such as they teach because it sufficeth vs that Christ doth out of the substance of his flesh breath life into our soules yea doth powre into vs his owne life although the very flesh of Christ doth not enter into vs. And in an other place euen nowe alleaged he addeth Caluin in 1. Cor. cap. 11. vers 24. that it is al one to say that our soules are fedde with the substance of Christes body to the intent we may be made one with him and to auerre that a certaine quickning vertue is powred on vs out of the flesh of Christ by the holy Ghost although the flesh be farre distant from vs. Thus Caluin beginneth more plainely to open his minde but by adding an other falshood for vvhat Philosopher or Diuine euer affirmed the body and substance to be one vvith a vertue proceeding from the same as he here auoucheth He goeth on and saith that we receiue him though so farre distant from vs as heauen is for that he causeth from heauen to descend on vs presently and truly the vertue of his flesh Loe Christian reader nowe thou receiuest no longer truly and really the body and bloud of Christ but the vertue of his flesh And let vs heare him declare this by an example or similitude In an other place he discourseth after this manner Caluin Institut booke 4. cha 17. §. 12. For if we behold the sunne shining forth with his heames vpon the earth after a certaine manner to cast forth his substance vnto it to ingender nourish and quicken the fruits thereof why should the extending beames of the spirit of Christ be inferiour to conuey the communion of his flesh and bloud vnto vs Thus he Out of â—â—ch his vvordes if his similitude hold it is euident that Christinâ—â—e Eucharist doth no otherwise coÌ„municate vnto vs his body and bloud then the sunne shining doth coÌ„municate his substance to the earth Wherefore like as no mâ—n can say that the sunne doth truly and really communicate his substance to the earth for this is most false and therefore Caluin saith it is done after a certaine manner so Christ doth not truly and really communicate himselfe vnto vs according to this Doctors opinion as before he auouched but after a certaine manner And how is this He had declared before where he vseth these vvordes We confesse there is no other eating but of faith Ibid. §. 5. as there can no other be imagined The flesh of Christ is eaten by belieuing because by faith he is made ours And this is that which our English Protestants haue decreed in their articles of religion Articles of religion agreed vpon in the coÌ„uocation of 1562. art 28. in which they define that the body of Christ is giuen taken and eaten in the supper only after an heauenly and spiritual manner and the meane say they whereby the body of Christ is eaten in the supper is faith Hence the same Caluin and his a Beza in Math. ca. 26. vers 26. Caluin Instit booke 4. chap. 17. §. 31. disciples affirme that the right way to finde Christ and receiue him in the supper is that our mindes stay not on earth but mount aloft into the celestial glory where Christ dwelleth there to imbrace him and so they vvil haue vs to enjoy his presence as wel as if he descended vnto vs. The like hath Andrewe Willet an English Caluinist vvriter vvho telleth vs b Willet in his Synopsis controuers 13. part 1. quest 1. §. That Christ p. 516. Caluin Instit booke 4. chap. 14. §. 14. that Christ is verily exhibited vnto vs in the Sacrament that the substance of Christs flesh is exhibited vnto vs c. Not that Christ descendeth from heauen to vs but we ascend saith he by faith in spirit
vvhich I adjoine another euen of as great force to wit that in diuers points they obserue not the letter of holy Scripture contained in their owne Bibles I vvil exemplifie in some matters in particular And first if the letter of holy Scripture be so strictly to be obserued and al other groundes to be neglected as they imagine howe dare they eate bloud and strangled meates Is not this expresly forbidden in the Acts of the Apostles by the whole Councel of Hierusalem Act. 15. v. 29. in vvhich vvere present S. Peter and S. Iames Apostles vvith diuers others Where and when and by whome was this lawe repealed verily there is no mention of any such repeale in the vvord of God nor in any Ecclesiastical vvriter vvherefore Luther himselfe absolutely confesseth Luther lib. de Concilijs in Act. 15. Exod. 20. Deut. 5. v. 25 Math. 19 17 that either the Apostles them selues erred in this Councel or else that we al sinne in transgressing this lawe Moreouer did not God in the old lawe binde al men to obserue the ten Commandements and did not Christ in the newe lawe bid vs if we wil enter into life obserue the same Howe presume they then to breake the third commandement both in not keeping holy the day prescribed in holy Scripture which without al doubt is the Saturday and also in dressing on that day which they keepe meate and making of fire They cannot denie themselues in these matters to be faulty for they haue no warrant in the vvord of God in place of the Saturday to obserue the Sonday Only in one place of the Apocalipse mention is of the Dominical or our Lordes day Apoc. 1. v. 10 but it is only there said that S. Iohn on that day had a vision which maketh litle for them And therefore Field confesseth Booke 4. cap. 20. §. that the Apostles Exod. 20 9. Exod. 35 3. Num. 15 32. Exod. 12. Leuit. 23. v. 5 Num. 9. v. 11 Deu. 16 5. c Luther lib. de Concilijs Baleus l. 3. c. 25. Centur. 1. de scriptor Britā in Colman Wilfrido Powellus in thesibus de Adiaphoris cap. 3. Math. 26 17 Mar. 14 12. Luc. 22. v. 7. there is no precept found for this in the Scripture and saith the obseruation of it is an Apostolike tradition There is likewise a most expresse commandement in the Scripture that no manner of worke be done on the Sabaoth not so much as fire kindled vvherefore by the commandement of God a man vvas stoned to death for only gathering sticks on that day Further wherefore keepe they not Easter-day on the fourtenth day of the Moone of March as is prescribed in the old lawe and Christ himselfe obserued vvhat warrant haue they in the word of God otherwise to doe Verily in this also euen according to the censure of Luther they stray from the holy Scripture of vvhose opinion if I be not deceiued is likewise our countriman Iohn Bale Powel seemeth to make it a thing indifferent Wherefore also doe some of them binde their followers to haue one only wife at once Had not the Patriarkes and others of the old lawe diuers wiues at the same time And where finde they in the Scripture this liberty abridged among Christians Yea some of our English Sectaries seeme to confesse that in the primatiue Church it selfe some Christians had at once diuers wiues for in the Bible of the yeare 1589. 1592. and 1600. vpon those wordes of the Apostle * 1. Tim. 3 2. Tit. 1. vers 6. Bernard Ochinus lib. 2. Dialogo 21. pag. 200. It behoueth a Bishoppe to be irreprehensible the husband of one wife c. they make this note for in those countries at that time some men had more then one which was a signe of incontinency thus there vve reade Wherefore they seeme to grant that S. Paul only commanded Bishops to haue one only vvife at once not other Christians Yea this is expresly auerred by Bernardinus-Ochinus vvho writeth thus Paul forbiddeth Bishops and Deacons to haue many wiues to others he vertually graunteth it But in very truth the Apostle there ordereth that none be admitted to be Bishops that be Bigami that is to say that haue beene married to two wiues although to the one after the other and the aforesaid glosse is made by these men to helpe their Bishops and Ministers among vvhome some haue had two or three or more one after another contrary to this sentence of the Apostle And I must needes conclude that either they abridge Christian liberty as they tearme it in not suffering al except Bishops to haue diuers wiues at the same time or otherwise that they transgresse the word of God in admitting men twice married into their Clergie or vvhich is worse in suffering their Ministers and Bishops to marry as often as they please Luther in explicat Genes edit an 1525 in c. 16. Ienēs in propositionibus de Bigamia Episcop edit an 1528. propos 62. 65. 66. And of the first opinion seemeth Luther for he absolutely graunteth Poligamy that is to say the hauing of more vviues then one at once to be neither commanded nor forbidden in the Church of God but to be a thing indifferent a Musculus in epist Pauli ad Philip. Colos c. in 1. Tim. 3. p. 396 Musculus also thinketh it was tollerated in the Church in the Apostles daies and consequently in his judgement no Christians except Bishops are to be restrained from it I adde likewise that they commonly translate those wordes of God b Exod. 2. v. 4 Deuter. 5. Bible 1595. Non facies tibi sculptile thou shalt make thee no grauen Image and with c Zwinglius tom 2. in actis disput Tigur fol. 632. Zwinglius affirme them to containe an euerlasting precept and to binde as farre forth as those vvordes Thou shalt not kil Wherefore then allowe they of the pictures of men and other worldly creatures Is there any difference betweene such pictures and the Images of Christ and his Saints vvhich they vvil needes haue here forbidden as grauen Images Certainely there is no reason wherefore those should be allowed and these forbidden and therefore they haue no reason to exclaime against the pictures of Christ and his Saints except they wil vvith the Turkes generally disalowe of al pictures d Luther tom 4. in Michae cap. 1. fol. 69. Act. 19. c. Yea Luther himselfe thought it meete that Images should be placed in Churches and judged it a very barbarous and ignorant part to tollerate the pictures of men and beasts and to cast out of Churches the Images of our Sauiour and his beloued Saints I demaund also of them vvherefore they vse not in al places to giue the holy Ghost after baptisme by imposition of handes they cannot deny but this was practised continually by the Apostles for what almost is more often recorded in the acts of the Apostles
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
of his knowledge faithfully rendred the text and in al hard places most sincerely expounded the same But to make this the more euident I adde further that they make the selfe same vvord sometimes to signifie one thing and at other times another thing as it best serueth their purpose For example our English Protestants whensoeuer the Scripture speaketh of euil traditions as Math. 15. vers 6. and in other places Bible 1595. translate the Greeke vvord vvhich signifieth properly a tradition truly as they ought But when mention is of Apostolike traditions they make the selfe same Greeke vvord signifie ordinances instructions Bible 1595. preachings or institutions as 2. Thess vers 15. c. And this they doe to bring traditions into contempt But of such examples see more in the sixt Chapter before Besides this although they vndertake to translate the Hebrewe text of the old testament and the Greeke of the newe yet vvhen the Hebrewe or Greeke maketh against them or not so much for them as the Latin they forsake the Hebrewe and Greeke and followe the Latin I vvil bring an example of both Hieremy 7. vers 18. and chap. 44. ver 19. the said Prophet inueigheth against those that offer sacrifice to strange Gods especially to the Moone And whereas according to the Hebrew they should read in the first place The women kneade the dowe to make cakes to offer to the heauens or planets they followe the Latin and say thus Bible 1595. The women kneade the dowe to make cakes for the Queene of heauen In like sort they proceede in the second place And by this meanes as they imagine they make a strong argument against vs vvho honour our blessed Lady and cal her Queene of heauen although we offer vp no sacrifice vnto her or any other creature In the newe testament whereas the Apostle according to the Greeke text saith only Rom. 8. v. 38 I am probably perswaded that neither death nor life c. shal be able to seperate vs from the charity of God they reade I am sure that neither death Bible 1595. c. And like as after this sort they serue their owne turnes in their translations so doe they also in their expositions of diuers wordes One example I haue touched aboue concerning the vvord Babilon which in S. Peters epistle to hinder the proofe of the said Apostles being at Rome 1. Pet. 5 13. Euseb lib. 2. histor c. 14. Hieron in li. descript Eccles verbo Marcus contrary to Eusebius and S. Hierome they vvil haue signifie the great City called Babilon in Assiria or Caldea contrariwise to make against the honour and dignity of Rome in the * Apocal. 17. vers 19. Bible 1592. Apocalipse they affirme the City of Rome by it to be vnderstood Let vs also consider that it must needes be granted that some of the learned sectaries haue erred in their translations and interpretations of holy Scripture for this is euident because there is but one true vvord of God which according to truth admitteth not opposite interpretations But our aduersaries translations and interpretations be diuers and much different yea repugnant one to another wherefore as I haue shewed they reject one anothers translation and interpretation and also alleage Scripture for their different doctrine They cannot therefore al be consonant to the true word of God vvhich if it be confessed it must needes follow that some of them in these matters haue erred and if some of them haue erred then some of them without al doubt haue not built vpon diuine authority which cannot be the ground of errour but vpon their owne judgement And seing that the warrant which they claime from God of al of them is the same and their ground alike we may wel inferre that none of them build vpon any other more sure foundation Adde vnto this that the selfe same sectaries oftentimes vpon further reading study and knowledge change their translations and interpretations of holy Scripture vvhich is apparent by the diuers editions of the Bibles and other their workes in which Scripture is alleaged and interpreted and of our English sectaries it is granted by the translatour of the Bible printed in the yeare 1585. 1592. and 1600. in the preface of which he confesseth that the former translations required greatly to be perused and reformed I haue also shewed in the sixt chapter that diuers places haue beene corrected and that as yet by the judgement of the best it is faulty of this followeth not seldome a change of belief and a difference from themselues in religion vvhich in the next chapter I vvil proue to haue fallen out in their first Captaines themselues And this is an inuincible argument seing that the Scriptures remaine alwaies the selfe same to proue that they varying build only vpon their owne fancies and are neuer certaine that they haue attained to the truth But this vvil be most apparent to him that shal set before his eies the manner of proceeding of our said learned sectaries in their discourses or disputations vvith their aduersaries For doe they in such conferences admit the text of holy Scripture as a supreame judge of al controuersies concerning matters of religion Surely no for although they seeme to recurre to the holy Scripture and vehemently pleade the word of God and by the authority thereof shewe themselues desirous to haue al difficulties decided yet in very truth it is not so as euery man may vvel judge because the letter of Scripture oftentimes doth not sufficiently interpret it selfe and they wil admit and allowe of no other translation or interpretation but their owne let vs declare this a litle more at large It is not vnknowne that the Catholikes receiue as Canonical the Hebrewe and Greeke text as wel as they and consequently those very places either in Hebrewe Greeke or both vvhich they alleage to establish their doctrine opposite to the beliefe of the Catholike Church Yea the Catholikes attribute more authority to the places alleaged as they are penned in the said tongues and to al bookes vvhich the newe sectaries receiue then they doe and further receiue fiue whole bookes at the least and diuers other parcels of holy Scripture into the Canon which they al commonly reject Wherefore the controuersie is not concerning the authority of the text either in Hebrewe or Greeke whither it be to be beleeued or no but vvhither the Catholikes building in this vpon the authority of the Church Traditions Councels and Fathers haue the true translation and exposition of the text or the Professours of the newe religion vvho alleage no other testimony for themselues then their owne priuate spirit and fancy To make this more euident by an example let vs suppose that a Catholike and a newe Sectary fal into disputation concerning Christs discent into hel The Catholike vsually for proofe of the affirmatiue part bringeth forth that sentence of holie Scripture Thou wilt not leaue
stil doubtful in this principal article of Christian religion or else going back to his Bible againe out of his owne judgement he must resolue to followe one of the aforesaid interpretations and to condemne the other as contrary to the vvord of God And vvhat a slender ground of faith is this yea seing that he hath no diuine authority vvhereon he buildeth I may boldly say that he hath no faith at al but only a kinde of opinion And like as I haue exemplified in this particular controuersie so could I doe concerning the real presence and the true sense of those vvordes This is my body or any other matter or place of Scripture in question betweene vs as my reader wil easily graunt for there is the like reason of them al and thus much concerning the vnlearned sectarie that can reade But what shal we say of him that is altogether ignorant and cannot reade The learned sectaries cannot send him to their Bible to search out the truth He cannot likewise conferre one place of scripture vvith another his praiers be of no greater force then his be that can reade wherefore he hath no other meane left but the aduise of the learned and his owne judgement and what wil the aduise of the learned helpe and auaile him if he finde among them possibility of errour and dissention These thinges he cannot but finde yea concerning that very text first alleaged The father is greater then I they are at variance for vvhereas some restraine it only to the humane nature of Christ Caluin saith He doubteth not to extend it to the whole complexum Caluin epist 2. ad Polonos seu in admonitione ad Polonos or person of God and man And certaine it is that if this ignorant person imbrace any one opinion as certaine concerning a matter of which he was before doubtful that he must either build vpon his owne judgement or otherwise he must take the vvorde of some learned man that the opinion which he followeth is true and vpon it ground his faith religion and saluation But vvhat reason hath he to accept rather of the word of one minister then of another For example what reason hath he in the exposition of those wordes This is my body rather to followe the Sacramentaries then the Lutherans are they not al alike subject to errors he cannot say that the scripture moueth him so to doe because he knoweth the Scripture only by the report of others Neither hath he any infallible rule whereby to discerne the true sense wherefore it is his owne fancy which perswadeth him to accept of the one exposition and to reject the other And doth not also this sectary although altogether vnlearned take vpon him to judge the learned Can he possibly beleeue the Sacramentary except he judge his doctrine to be true condemne al the learned Lutherans Can he follow the Protestants and not condemne the Puritans c. verily he cannot And vvhat a simple judge is he being a man ignorant voide of learning and commonly of a slender vvit and judgement And like as euery vnlearned sectary condemneth al the rest that dissent from him in opinion so al the rest condemne him For if he follow the Protestants al the Puritans tel him that he is deceiued if the Puritans the Protestants tel him the like tale If he beleeue Zwinglius Luther condemneth him to the pit of hel if Luther Zwinglius pronounceth the same judgement against him c. And of vvhat opinion soeuer he be certaine it is that more of his owne brethren condemne then approue his beliefe He is therefore in a most miserable and lamentable case both because he hath no ground of his faith but the vvord of a fewe ministers and his owne weake judgement and also because he is condemned of errour euen by those of his owne profession euen as learned and as vvise as they whome he followeth and farre exceeding himselfe in al such qualities And this is the ordinary manner of proceeding of the learned sectaries with the vnlearned and ignorant these grounds of faith and no others they receiue from them If any man doubt of the truth of this discourse let him exactly and strictly examine either the learned what grounds of faith they can afforde the vnlearned and ignorant or these vvhat groundes they receiue and vvhy they beleeue thus and thus touching any article of religion and their owne confession wil teach him that al which hath beene said is true and that the last and chiefest cause of this or that beliefe in the vnlearned and ignorant is their owne judgement or the opinion of the learned liking their owne fancy SECTION THE EIGHT That the newe sectaries alleage Scriptures to confirme their newe doctrine it is no certaine argument that they build their faith and religion vpon the said Scriptures TO proue that the professors of the newe religion ground their faith and religion vpon the holy Scripture some wil say that they alleage sentences of the said Scripture in great abundance in confirmation of their doctrine vnto whome I answere that true it is that so they doe But I adde that this is no sufficient argument to proue that which is intended And first let euery man deluded by such their proceedings consider that al the ancient Heretikes haue done the like Did not Arius Macedonius Nestorius Eutiches and other Arch-heretikes together with their followers for proofe of their heresies bring forth diuers places of holy Scripture Of this Vincentius Lirinensis who flourished almost twelue hundred yeares since Vincent Lirinens aduers prophanas haeresum nouitates c. 35. is a sufficient witnesse for of the ancient Heretikes alleaging of the word of God he writeth thus Here perhaps some man may demand whether Heretikes also doe vse the testimony of holy Scripture To which I say that they doe and that very earnestly for a man may behold them ranging and coursing in euery part of the Bible in Moises in the bookes of the Kinges in the Psalmes in the Apostles in the Gospels in the Prophets For whether they be among their owne brethren or with strangers whether in priuate or in publike whether in talking or in writing whether in the house a feasting or abroade in walking they almost neuer alleage any thing of their owne which they doe not pretend to shadowe with the sacred word of Scripture Reade the pamphlets of Paul as Sumosatenus of Priscillian Eunomius Iouinian and the rest of such like pestilent Heretikes and you shal finde through al their workes an huge heape of examples almost no page omitted which is not coloured and painted with the sayings of the old and new Testament thus farre Vincentius Lirinensis Origen tom 1 homil 7. in Ezechiëlem Of this point also Origenes discourseth after this sort When to defend false opinions we say it is written in the Prophet Moises testifieth this the Apostle speaketh it What other thing doe we but taking the
these Heretikes alleage these places in their true sense nothing so as S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria deliuereth vnto vs discoursing of the aforesaid vvordes of the Apostle after this sort Ciril lib. 5. in Ioan. cap. 17. Penance saith he is not excluded by these wordes of S. Paul but the renewing by the lauer of regeneration He doth not here take away the second or third remission of sinnes for he is not such an enemy to our saluation but the host which is Christ he denieth that it is to be offered againe vpon the Crosse Hitherto S. Cyril with whome agree S. Chrysostome Chrisost homil 9. in cap. 6. ad Hebr. Ambros de poenitent lib. 2. cap. 2. S. Ambrose and the rest of the holy Fathers And like as these Heretikes falsly interpreted these places of scripture so doe the sectaries of our daies diuers others This our English Protestants with Caluin wil easily graunt of the Anabaptists whome they censure to be Heretikes and yet these sectaries haue as euident places out of the word of God to confirme their owne doctrine as our Protestants can alleage for their particular opinions For example the Anabaptists defend that children ought not to be baptized before they come to yeares of discretion and can actually beleeue And what Scriptures doe they bring for proofe of this their doctrine Mark 16 16 It is written say they He that shal beleeue and be baptized shal be saued but he that shal not beleeue shal be condemned Loe say they it is necessary to beleeue before baptisme and the one is euen as necessary as the other to saluation and vpon this ground principally although they alleage thirty other places because infants cannot actually beleeue Caluin admo vlt. ad Westphalum pag. 1116. 1129. they build their aforesaid doctrine And they so presse the Protestants vvho denie habitual faith with this sentence of Christ that they forced the Lutherans to affirme * Luther lib. cont Cochlaeū Lutherani in Synodo Wittenberge anno 1536. that infants actually beleeue vvhen they are baptized which opinion is now earnestly defended by a Lucas Osiāder in Enchirid cōt Anabaptist cap. 2 printed Wittenberge anno 1607. Lucas Osiander a Lutheran superintendent In like sort they affirme al oathes to be vnlawful and this they gather out of those vvordes of our Sauiour Math. 5. vers 33. Againe you haue heard that it was said to them of old thou shalt not commit perjury but thou shalt performe thy oathes to our Lord. But I say to you not to sweare at al neither by heauen c. And soone after Let your talke be yea yea no no and that which is ouer and aboue these is of euil These and other such like testimonies are alleaged by the Anabaptists which if vve reject the censure and interpretation of the Church make euen as apparently for these Heretikes as any other vsed by the newe sectaries for proofe of their newe doctrine Hence Caluin himselfe vvriting against the Lutherans telleth vs that if it be so we are bound with this lawe that it is necessary we receiue whatsoeuer the wordes of Scripture sound there wil be no kinde of absurdity by which prophane men may not reproue and defame the doctrine of the Gospel that is to say there wil be nothing so absurd vvhich prophane men to the infamy of the Gospel wil not gather out of it Againe if the Scripture be so violently pressed as these men wil haue it it wil be as ful of absurdities as it hath verses Suruey of the pretended holy discipline chap. 31 pag. 414. 415. Thus Caluin In like sort the Authour of the Suruey of the Puritan discipline against the Puritans affirmeth that it is not enough for men to alleage Scriptures except they bring the true meaning of the Scriptures And al this discourse conuinceth that the allegation of Scripture is no certaine proofe that the Scripture is the ground of his beliefe by whome it is alleaged But for a farther proofe of al this in our newe sectaries let vs also consider that they doe not only bring forth Scriptures against the Catholikes but also against one another For although their opinions be neuer so diuers yet they cite places of Scriptures out of the selfe same bookes aswel for the confirmation of their owne as the confutation of their aduersaries doctrine And further al are as they say contented to haue the Scripture decide and end the controuersie Fox p. 1097. 987. anno 1536. pag. 1591. col 2. pag. 1094. col 2. Hence on the selfe same day three sectaries were burnt in Smithfield Barret Garret and Hierome of which the first was a Lutheran the other two Zwinglians and yet they al as Fox reporteth protested at their death that they taught nothing but that which was contained in the Scripture In like sort the Puritans of this realme of England now * See a christian and modest offer of a most indifferent cōference tendered by the late silenced and depriued Ministers to the Arch-bishops printed anno 1606. offer to proue al their Puritanical assertions out of the word of God vvhich neuerthelesse our Protestants taught as they say by the same vvord of God reject Of vvhich I inferre that whosoeuer weigheth a litle and looketh into the matter may see first that they cannot al truly alleage Scripture build vpon the same for the Scripture approueth not contrary doctrine and therefore he may imagine that they may euen as wel erre in bringing forth Scripture against vs as against their owne brethren and consequently be perswaded that their alleaging of Scripture is no certaine argument of truth Secondly he shal likewise finde that in their alleaging the vvord of God both against vs and those of their owne company they remit not the controuersie to the bare vvordes of Scripture but vnto the words of scripture translated expounded by themselues wherefore they differ in the translation and interpretation of holy Scripture for euery one of them rejecteth al other translations interpretations but his owne vpon vvhich being his owne fancy not vpon the Scripture he buildeth his opinion But wherefore doe Heretikes couet so plentifully to alleage the word of God the reason of this is notably wel declared by Vincentius Lirinensis in this his discourse They knowe fulwel saith he that their stinking and vnsauory drugs be not likely almost to please any Vincent Lirinens ca. 35. if simply and nakedly they be set forth and therefore they doe temper them as it were with the sweete powder of Gods word that he which quickly would haue contemned mans erroneous inuention dare not so readily reject Gods diuine Scripture wherein they are like to those which minding to minister bitter potions to young children first anoint the brims of the cup with hony that thereby vnwary youth feeling sweetnesse may nothing feare the bitter confection This deuise also practise they who vpon naughty hearbes and hurtful
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
excuse his inconstancy that sometimes contrary to his owne conscience and opinion he oppugned the truth and seduced men with falshood truly this his owne wordes testify and it cannot be denied But what doctrine doth he here recant certainly Luthers not ours For he first fel from vs to Lutheranisme and defended Luthers opinion concerning the real presence but within fewe yeares profiting to the worse he became a Sacramentary and affirmed the Eucharist to be a bare figure only of the body bloud of Christ Vnto these three I may very wel joine Iohn Caluin as euery man wil graunt that shal viewe the first edition of his Institutions set forth at Strasburge where he professed himselfe first a Lutheran and conferre it with the last editions of the same and with other of his workes The disciples and followers of these foure principal Captaines most constantly followed the inconstancy of their masters And first it is a strange matter and almost incredible howe wonderful inconstant the Lutheran professors of the confession of Ausburge haue alwaies shewed themselues in their proceedinges For the declaration of which I must giue my reader to vnderstand that this confession aboue al others penned in those daies by our aduersaries was both permitted by the imperial lawes of Germany in such sort as the professors thereof were freed from al punishment by the lawes due vnto Heretikes and also by diuers esteemed as a fift Gospel Hence it proceeded that al sectaries of what newe sect soeuer professed themselues followers of this confession And because the wordes themselues could not sound wel on euery side they added also their Commentaries vpon the same and like as the sentences of holy Scripture so of this euery man endeauoured to drawe to his diuers fancies Vnto this mischiefe an other soone after was adjoyned to wit the change and alteration of the Confession it selfe For Melancthon the first penner of it falling by litle and litle from Lutheranisme to Zwinglianisme framed a newe Confession according to his new faith and published it vnder the name of the Confession of Ausburge Neither was this practised only by Melancthon but also as it seemeth by others Hence farther among sundry other contentions among the professors of this newe faith there arose no smal controuersie euen among the Lutherans themselues who were the true followers of the Confession of Ausburge And whosoeuer is desirous to see a part of this conflict let him reade a booke intituled Colloquium Altenbergense in which the acts and opinions of certaine Lutheran Diuines vvhich mette in the said towne for the decision of this matter and others are set downe And among other thinges in it he shal finde not only their dissention concerning the true copy or authentical edition of this Confession but also vnderstand that some of these diuines accused their fellowe Lutherans of Wittenberge that they vvere miserably tourned round like a wheele in their faith that they were as it were violently carried with contrary windes and that they varied without end and measure the Confessions of their faith This perhaps caused George that most noble Duke of Saxony being demanded touching the newe sectaries faith vvhat it vvas to make answere that he knewe very vvel vvhat they beleeued this yeare but that it vvas impossible to knowe vvhat they vvould beleeue the next This also moued the Lutheran Historiographers Centur. 9. in praefat to tearme al the followers of the Confession of Ausburge Ecebolios and to liken them to the fish Polipus or Pourcountrel vvhich changeth often his colour and to the old Pagan God Vertumnus vvho could turne himselfe into al shapes They affirme finally that they nowe approue the true doctrine and presently after condemne the same nowe calling that heresie which before they preached as an vnconquered truth Thus farre the Centuriators They might likewise haue added that they embraced sometimes that doctrine as true and euangelical vvhich before they censured to be heretical For an example of this their manner of proceeding vve haue from Dresda in Misina vvhere in a Synode held anno 1571. certaine Lutherans condemned the opinion of Brentius and Illiricus their fellowes In lib. concordiae concerning the person of Christ vvhich opinion neuerthelesse after some fewe yeares to vvit Anno 1580. they publikely embraced as true And these contrary opinions vvere published in the selfe fame City by the authority of the selfe same Prince within so short a time The Zwinglians haue shewed themselues euen as inconstant as appeareth by this that the inhabitants of the County Palatine turned from Catholike religion to Zwinglianisme from Zwinglianisme to Lutheranisme and from Lutheranisme in a short time againe to Zwinglianisme Simlerus in vita Bullingeri fol. 15. Adde also that the Earle of Wittenberge in the yeare 1535. vvith his vvhole Country embraced Zwinglianisme but he being dead the religion was soone changed againe as Simlerus a Zwinglian reporteth Other Cities likewise of high Germany as long as Bucer a Zwinglian liued Fol. 15. followed his doctrine but soone after his death as the same Authour testifieth they condemned the Zwinglians as the most vvicked men liuing I cannot but say a vvord or two of Melancthon in particular both because sometimes he vvas a man of great estimation among the professours of the newe religion and also because his inconstancy vvas most notorious He is called by Beza * Beza in Iconibus the setter vp of Euangelical doctrine and the singular ornament of our age by a Lauather in histor Sacram fol. 47. Lauatherus and b Martir cōtra Gardiner par 4. p. 468 Peter Martir a man incomparable and throughly instructed with al kinde of vertue and learning by certaine other Ministers c Minist Pinzoniensis apud Stancarum M. 8. the Doctor of Doctors and the Diuine of Diuines who being one say they is better then a hundred Augustines Thus these sectaries commend him But how inconstant a man he was in his beliefe al the world knoweth and euery man may easily perceiue by the conferring of the diuers editions of his d See Colloq Altēb f. 520. 503. 463. 425. 424. Apologie and booke of common places together wherefore for this vice he is reprehended by diuers of his owne company Yea concerning his Apologie this is plainely confessed by Melancthon himselfe vvho in his second epistle to Luther vvriteth thus In the Apologie we daily alter many thinges For they are euer nowe and then to be changed and to be accommodated or conformed to occasions Thus he The like discourse I could make of the inconstancy of Peter Martir vvho is accused of this fault by e Bullinger in firmamēto firmo c. 4. f. 127. Bullinger but I should be ouer-long Our English sectaries at home haue not beene free from the same crime for howe often did they change during the raigne of King Edward the sixt The first statute made in a Parliament held in the first
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
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
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.