care and diligence without any alteration or deprauation was and is to deliuer to his successors vntil the end of the world Vinc. Lir. lib. contra prophanas hoeresum nouitates cap. 7. This is most learnedly explicated by Vincentius Lirinensis who florished in the Church very neere twelue hundred yeares since For this learned Father hauing demanded what the depositum was which the Apostle left with Timothie answered thus This pawne or pledge saith he is a thing committed to thy charge not inuented by thee that which thou hast receiued not that which thou hast deuised A matter not of wit but of doctrine not of priuate vsurpation but of publike tradition a thing brought downe vnto thee not brought forth first by thee of which thou must not be authour but keeper only not the founder but the follower not a leader but one which is led Hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis Of this Depositum likewise are these wordes of the Apostle in the same Chapter 1. Timoth. vlt. ver 13 I command thee before God who quickneth al thinges and Christ Iesus who gaue testimonie vnder Pontius Pilate a good confession that thou keepe the commandement without spot blamelesse vntil the comming of our Lord Iesus Christ And so these places are expounded by Tertullian and the rest of the Fathers for they are according to their exposition Tertul. de praescriptionibus Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4. most earnest exhortations to Timothie to keepe vnspotted the doctrine receaued and to admit no newe thing inuented by mans fancie This moued S. Ireneus to affirme that the Apostles haue laid vp in the Church as in a rich treasure house al truth Moreouer this summe of Christian doctrine for the same reason is likewise called the doctrine of the Apostles Act. 2.24 They were saith S. Luke speaking of the first Christians perseuering in the doctrine of the Apostles that is to say in the doctrine which by Christ was deliuered to the Apostles and by them preached and published to the vvorld Finally because according vnto it euery man is to direct his beleefe it is called by S. Paul the rule of faith and the forme of doctrine Gal. 6 16. Whosoeuer shal followe this rule saith he peace vpon them and mercy Againe let vs continue in the same rule And in the Epistle to the Romans Phil. 3 16 Rom. 6 17 2. Cor. 10. vers 15. you haue obeyed from the hart vnto the forme of doctrine into the which you haue beene deliuered The like sentences he hath in other places Hence Tertullian auoucheth that the * Tertul. de praescr ca. 13. 22. 27. c. Apostles receaued from Christ the fulnesse of the preaching of the Gospel and that they deliuered vnto al Christians al the order of the rule of beleefe He telleth vs also that a Cap. 14. faith is placed in rule he biddeth Heretikes be b Tertul. de praescr cap. 22. silent and not prate against this rule and wisheth Catholikes if they wil doubt or aske questions concerning matters of religion to inquire of those which are of their owne company and concerning such matters as may be called in question without the breach of the rule of faith Lastly he addeth that c Cap. 14. this rule instituted by Christ hath no doubtes or questions among vs but such as Heretikes doe bring in or doe make Heretikes Thus farre Tertullian The same rule S. Ignatius the Disciple of S. Iohn the Apostle affirmeth himselfe to haue obserued Doe you saith he in his Epistle to the Phillippians say and teach the selfe same and be of one judgement for by this I haue obserued the rules of faith Wherefore I conclude that Christ deliuered a rule of faith or forme of doctrine to his Apostles which they confirmed by miracles and deliuered to their successors and that the said rule containeth the vvhole summe or corps of Christian doctrine SECTION THE THIRD The Church cannot stray from the rule of faith receaued nor erre in matters of faith or general precepts of manners which is proued first because the holy Ghost directeth her in al truth THIS being proued I must nowe declare that the Church hath neuer erred nor can erre from this rule of faith receiued and that her judgement concerning matters of religion is of diuine and infallible authority The most principal reason vsually brought for the proofe of this is that God himselfe to wit the holy Ghost the third person of the most blessed Trinity who is subject to no errour or falsehood is the guide and director of the Church in al such affaires And this we are taught by Christ who likewise being God the second person of the most blessed Trinity cannot deceaue vs. For this promise he made to his Apostles immediately after his last supper these vvere his wordes Ioh. 14. vers 16. Ioh. 16. vers 13. I wil aske the father and he wil giue you another Paraclete that is to say an other comforter or aduocat that he may abide with you for euer the spirit of truth Againe yet many thinges I haue to say vnto you but you cannot beare them nowe but when he the spirit of truth commeth he shal teach you al truth This was the promise of our Sauiour and who wil say that he hath not beene so good as his word Surely if this promise vvas not brought to effect the breach of it either proceeded of vvant of power or of vvant of vvil in Christ but vvhat Christian can imagine that either of these was wanting in the Sonne of God Hence I gather that although our Sauiour during the time of his being on earth both before and after his passion gaue to his Apostles diuers instructions touching Christian religion yet that he left the ful and perfect instruction of them to the holie Ghost vvho vvas to reduce al thinges to memorie and to establish them perfectly in faith and whome his Father was to send by his mediation to be the cheefest instructor and guide of his Church in al truth to the vvorldes end And this vvas done on the day of Pentecost vvhen the holie Ghost in the likenesse of firie tongues Act. 2. v. 4 descended vpon the Apostles and Disciples since vvhich time according to the promise of Christ he hath neuer departed from the Church but remained in her and taught her al truth which euery man must needes confesse that vvil not accuse Christ of breach of his promise Wherefore like as Christ is tearmed the head and husband of the Church as I vvil euen nowe declare so the holie Ghost is aptly tearmed by S. Augustine her soule Aug. tom 10. serm 186. de tempore For like as the soule of man directeth and gouerneth his body so doth the holie Ghost the Church Some man perhaps vvil answere that Christ made this promise of the assistance of the holie Ghost to the Apostles only and not to their successors but this assertion is
knowne proued by the authority of the Church as by a diuine propounder Neither doe I imagine that the followers or maintainers of this opinion doe intend to affirme that in euery processe of beliefe touching any article it is necessarie that we resolue it lastly to the holy Scripture for I thinke that notwithstanding that which hath beene said if we be asked why we beleeue the whole summe of Christian doctrine or any point thereof we may wel answere because it is reuealed by God And if further we be demaunded how infallibly and diuinely we knowe it to be so reuealed we may answere because it is propounded by the Church Neuerthelesse the first opinion of it selfe is sufficient although this may seeme more exact especially in Schooles Neither doe I or any Catholike affirme the knowledge of these pointes to be neccessary to euery faithful Christian for it is sufficient that they beleeue al such things as are propounded by the Church because they are reueled by God which is done by the helpe of supernatural faith Nay I doe not think it is needful that they expresly knowe this infallible authority of the Church as propounder of such verities or al such prudential motiues as are before mentioned But I deeme it sufficient that they beleeue such reuealed verities as they are bound to knowe expresly and others virtually moued thereunto by the authority of their predecessors or the asseueration of other faithful people for this is sufficieint in them either for the obtaining or preseruing the gift of supernatural faith Let vs now see in few words what solutions may be giuen to the objection made in the beginning of this Section First therfore according to the doctrine of the first opinion touching the last resolution of our faith I answere that in very deed the canonical Scriptures and their true sense are knowne by the infallible authority of the Church as by the propounder of such particuler matters belonging to our faith and religion as we are bound to beleeue Neuerthelesse it is lawful to proue the authority of the Church out of holy Scripture against such aduersaries of the truth as admit the said authority of holy Scripture but deny the authority of the Church So did S. Augustine against the Manichees Aug. cont epist Mā quā vocāt Fundam ca. 4. et 5. Id. de vnitate Eccle. cap. 19. et tract 13. in Ioānem Field book 4. cap. 7. § There is no questiō who approued the authority of miracles and denied the authority of Scriptures proue by miracles the Church and by the Church the Scriptures Contrariwise against the Donatists who allowed the Scriptures and boasting of their visions rejected miracles by Scriptures he proued the Church and by the Church the truth of miracles but that this manner of proceeding is lawful it is granted by Field therfore I need say no more Secondly I answere according to the other opinion that the canonical Scriptures and their true interpretation are infallibly proued knowne by the authority of the Church as by a condition necessarie propōuding them vnto vs but the authority of the Church is proued knowne to be infallible by the testimony of holy Scriptures as by diuine reuelations approuing the said authority And to affirme this as I haue shewed is no more absurd then to say that two causes may be causes of one another Neither doe I think this manner of proofe more to be blamed then the proofe of a cause by the effect and of the effect by the cause as of fire by smoke and of smoke by fire of the bignesse proportion of a mans foote by his steppe in dust or sand and of this againe by that Thus also the Philosophers proue a man reasonable because he is risible or hath power to laugh and againe demonstrate that he hath power to laugh because he is reasonable which kind of argumentation is not called circulation but a demonstratiue regresse Chapter 8. Concerning the second particuler ground of Catholike religion to wit Apostolike Traditions SECTION THE FIRST Of Apostolike Tradition in general THAT I may the better declare the authority and dignity of Apostolike vnwritten Traditions of which I am principallie to intreate in this chapter I thinke it not amisse to say a worde or two of Apostolike Tradition in general and although though I shal repeate some things which haue been already said yet I hope my reader wil pardon me seing that a just occasion of so doing is offered me I haue aboue affirmed Cap. 6. sect 2. that the whole summe or corps of Christian religion was deliuered by Christ to his Apostles not in writing but by word of mouth and that the principal meane for the entire preseruation of it in the Church without corruption or deprauation ordained by God almighty is the continual assistance and direction of the holy Ghost who alwaies remaineth in the Church and directeth her in al truth Of which I now gather that although neuer any scripture of the newe Testament had been written yet that the doctrine of Christ by Tradition had stil remained the selfe same entire and whole in the Church to the end of the world This is so manifest out of that vvhich hath been already said that it needeth no proofe in this place yet I wil repeate a word or two of that and adde a litle more to make it the more apparant I proue it therefore because our blessed Sauiour neuer penned the summe of his doctrine himselfe neither is it recorded that euer he comaunded any one of his Apostles or Disciples in expresse tearmes to write but only to preach and teach according to his owne and the holy Ghost instructions And hence it is that none of the said Apostles or Disciples wrote any parcel of the newe Testament presently after the ascension of Christ and consequently that the whole summe of Christian doctrine was published some time before any such scripture was penned and that the Church of Christ was some yeares without it S. Mathew the first Euangelist Euseb in Chronic. anno 41. published his Gospel as Eusebius recordeth some six yeres after our Sauiours ascension Hence also it proceeded that neuer any one of the Apostles or Disciples vndertooke the setting downe in writing of the whole sūme of Christian doctrine this is manifest because the three first Euangelists deliuered vnto vs very litle touching the diuinity of Christ one of the chiefe and highest misteries of Christian religion Neither had the fourth which was S. Iohn the Apostle any intention to set downe al that the other three had omitted for he wrote his Gospel directly against certaine Heretikes who denied the diuinity of Christ and that not by the commandement of Christ but by the intreaty of the bishops of Asia as a Atha in sinopsi S. Athanasius S. Hipolitus bishop and martir b Epipha haeres 51. S. Epiphanius and c Hieron praefat in Mat. et
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
Diosinius the Patriark of Alexandria men of great estimation in their daies with diuers other Bishops in sundry prouincial Councels decreed the baptisme of Heretiks to be of no force therefore to be reiterated They confirmed this their definition or sentence with many testimonies of holy scripture seeming at the first sight of no smal force and moment for their purpose but al these their decrees were ouerthrowne And how surely by the contrary Tradition of the Church for b see Vinc. Lir. ca. 9. Cipr. ab epist 70. ad 77. Aug de bapt cont Donat. et cōt Cresc Hierō cōtra Lucif S. Steuen Pope of Rome pleading Tradition against them condemned their doctrine as heretical and pronounced this renowmed sentence Let no newe thing be brought into the Church let nothing be done but that which was deliuered vnto vs thinking it altogether vnlawful to transgresse the rule of faith by succession and Tradition receiued from the Apostles This is recorded by diuers authors of great fame and antiquity By Tradition the Pelagian heresie vvas confuted as is affirmed by S. c Caelesti epist 8. Caelestinus Pope and S. Augustine By Tradition only the same d Aug. de bapt li. 2. cap 7. S. Augustine and others condemned Heluidius the heretike for denying the perpetual virginity of our blessed Ladie Yea e Basil de spir sācto ca. 27. See Aug. epist 118. ad Iā Leo ser 2. de jeiunio S. Basil telleth vs that if we reject Tradition we shal endomage the whole principal parts of our faith and without it bring the preaching of the Gospel to a naked name I could bring forth diuers other such like examples and testimonies were it not that I should be ouer long But how shal we come to the knowledge of these Traditions S. Augustine giueth vs this most certaine rule f Aug. to 7. de bapt cōt Dona. l. 4. c. 24. see ibi c. 6 That saith he which the whole Church holdeth and hath not beene instituted by any Councel but alwaies hath beene obserued is most truly beleeued to haue beene deliuered by no other but Apostolike authority Such a Tradition saith the same g Aug de Genes ad lit c. 23. et con Dona. l. 4. c. 24. Orig. in c. 6. ad Rom. S. Augustine and Origenes is the baptisme of infants Such Traditions according to h Ba. de spi sāct c. 27. S. Basil are the signe of the Crosse praying towards the East the words spoken at the eleuation of the Eucharist with diuers ceremonies vsed before and after consecration the hallowing of the font before baptisme the blessing of the oile or chrisme the annointing of the baptized with the said oile the three immersions into the font the words of abrenuntiation and exorcismes of the partie which is to be baptized c. What scripture saith he taught these and such like thinges none truly al comming of secrete and hidden Tradition wherewith our fore-fathers thought it meete to couer such misteries Hitherto S. Basil It is an Apostolical Tradition as we are taught by a Dionis de Eccles hierarc cap. 7. S. Dionisius of Areopagus b Tertul. in exhort ad castita tem c. 11. et de corona militis cap. 3. Tertullian c Chrisos homi 69. ad populum S. Iohn Chrisostome and S. Augustine to pray and make a memory of the soules departed in the Masse It is an Apostolical Tradition saith d Hieron epist 54. ad Marc. S. Hierome and e Epiphā haeres 75. Aerij S. Epiphanius to keepe certaine appointed fasting-daies especially the Lent the same is affirmed by f Aug. epi. 118. ad Ia nu cap. 1. S. Augustine concerning the obseruation of certaine holy-daies and by g Damas li. 4. de ortho fide c. 17. et l. de Imagini See Ter. de coron mil. S. Iohn Damascene concerning the adoration of Images These and diuers other such like Apostolike Traditions are sette downe by the auncient Fathers and are to be found in the Church of Christ And vpon these if they bee of matters of faith seeing that they haue diuine authority both from Christ and the Apostles vvho deliuered them to the Church and from the Church it selfe which being the piller of truth hath accepted and approued them euerie Christian may securelie build his faith and beliefe If they be concerning preceptes of moral actions vve are bound to obey them and may doe it with like security wherefore h Origen tract 29. in Math. Origen giueth vs this learned counsaile As often saith he as Heretiks alleage Canonical scriptures in which al Christians consent and beleeue they seeme to say * Mat 24. verse 26. Behold in houses is the word of truth but we ought not to beleeue them nor to goe forth from the first Ecclesiastical Tradition nor beleeue otherwise but as the Church of God by succession hath deliuered vnto vs. Thus farre Origen wishing euery one in the interpretation and sense of holy scripture to follow the Tradition of the Church as also in the beliefe of al such matters as are called in question by Heretikes Vnto these proofes I adde that i Barlow B. of Rochester in his sermon preached at Hampton Court Sept. 21. 1606. Barlowe and Field two famous English Protestants admit of certaine Apostolike Traditions k Field booke 4. cap. 20. § Much contention Field telleth vs that they reject not al vnwritten Traditions yea he alloweth of the rule of * Chap. 21. S. Augustine before mentioned for decerning Apostolical Traditions from others as also doth l Whitgift in his defence pag. 351. 352. Whitgift But Field addeth moreouer this other that whatsoeuer al or the most famous and renowmed in al ages or at the least in diuers ages haue constantly deliuered as receiued from them that went before them no man contradicting or doubting of it may be thought to be an Apostolical Tradition thus Field I confesse that this notwithstanding he affirmeth Ibid. cap. 20. § Out of this No matter of faith to be deliuered by bare and onlie Tradition But why not such as wel as those which concerne the manners conuersation of men and are by him allowed as for example Why may we not as assuredly receiue by Tradition our beliefe concerning some article of faith as to vse his owne words concerning the obseruation of the Lordes day Ibid. That the Apostles Field book 4. ca. 20. § Much confession Ibidem § The secōd kinde Doth not the allowance of these also according to their common doctrine prejudice the sufficiencie of holy scripture But he graunteth further that They receiue the number names of the Authours and integrity of the parts of bookes diuine and Canonical as deliuered by Tradition He admitteth as a second Tradition That summary comprehension of the chiefe heads of Christian doctrine contained in the Creed of the Apostles which was deliuered to the Church
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
the sonnes of Aaron Malac. 2. vers 7. The lippes of the Priest shal keepe knowledge and they shal require the lawe of his mouth so of the Bishops and Priestes of the newe who are to enjoy as great if not a greater prerogatiue the Apostle telleth vs Ephes 4. vers 11. that our Lord hath giuen and euer wil giue as long as the world shal stand some Pastors and Doctors in his Church to direct vs that we be not carried away with euery winde of doctrine And hence proceedeth this notable sentence of the holy Father S. Ireneus vvho for Christian religion suffered Martirdome about the yeare of Christ two hundred and fiue Iren. li. 3. cap. 4. We ought not saith he to seeke among others the truth which we may easilie take and receaue from the Church seing that the Apostles haue most fully laid vp in her as into a rich treasure house or place where the Depositum of the Church is kept of which hereafter al thinges which are of truth that euery man that wil may take out of her the drinke of life For this is the entrance of life but al the rest are theeues and robbers for which cause they are verily to be auoided But those thinges which are of the Church are with great diligence to be loued and the tradition of truth is to be receaued Hitherto S. Ireneus We say therefore that by the Church we learne as certainely what misteries haue beene reuealed by Christ as we should doe by our Lord himselfe if he were conuersant with vs on earth and the truth of this wil be made most apparant by the discourse of the next Chapter following Chapter 6. Of the supreame and infallible authority of the Catholike Church SECTION THE FIRST MY principall intent in this treatise is as I haue before declared to proue that vve Catholikes only haue true faith and that al Sectaries are bereaued of this supernatural vertue vvherefore hauing set downe and made euident in the Chapter next before the nature and conditions of true faith it remaineth that I now beginne in particuler to discourse of these points And seing that it is of the essence of faith that it be most assuredly built vpon diuine authority let vs first behold the groundes of the Catholike Roman beleefe and see whether they are able to make a sufficient foundation for such a faith in the followers of that religion then let vs doe the like concerning the groundes of the newe Sectaries But first I must note that although as I haue proued before we must trulie say that we knowe infallibly the misteries of our faith to be reuealed by God because we are so taught by the Church yet that her authority is not limited to the decision of this matter only for it extendeth it selfe also to the definition of al particuler matters of faith and may haue for her object the verities themselues reuealed It also condemneth heresies and prescribeth general preceptes of manners touching good and il wherefore the ancient Catholike buildeth vpon her authority not only his faith touching the point mentioned but also in some sort his whole beleefe and consequently al his internal vertues grounded vpon the same He relieth likewise on her doctrine for his externall carriage concerning vertue and vice and finally accepteth al her faith as infallibly reuealed by God himselfe who hath made her supreame judge of al controuersies touching matters of religion and assured vs that her judgement is not only certaine and infallible but also through the perpetual assistance and direction of the holy Ghost diuine so that God directeth her in al truth and by her as a sensible guide he bestoweth the same benefit vpon vs in al thinges necessary to saluation wherefore our whole beleefe and religion in such sort dependeth of her infallible authority that if this be proued it conuinceth that to be true sincere and diuine For no man can denie but in building vpon the tradition decision or definition of the Church we ground our faith and religion vpon diuine authority if her decrees be Gods and her doctrine warranted to be his Let vs therefore endeauour to shewe this that so with fewe wordes we may decide the whole question and to auoide confusion let vs diuide the whole discourse of this Chapter into the proofe of some three or foure assertions SECTION THE SECOND The whole summe of Christian doctrine by word of mouth not by writing was committed by Christ to his Apostles FIRST therefore I affirme that Christ cōmitted the whole summe of Christian doctrine by word of mouth not by writing to his Apostles ordained that they should deliuer the same to their successors the Bishops and Pastors of the Church This is manifest both because diuers points of Christian doctrine which the Apostles receaued from Christ are not recorded by the Euangelists in their Gospels and also because S. Luke witnesseth Act. 1. v. 3. that Christ after his passion and resurrection shewed himselfe aliue to his Apostles in many arguments for fortie dayes appearing to them and speaking of the kingdome of God of which his speach litle or nothing is recorded I adde moreouer that not long before his ascention he gaue his Apostles this commission Going said he teach ye al nations Mat. 28. v. 19.20 baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost teaching them to obserue al thinges whatsoeuer I haue commanded you These places I say manifestly proue that Christ by word of mouth instructed his Apostles concerning the misteries and articles of Christian religion and according to his instruction commanded them to teach the whole world Neither is there any record extant that Christ gaue them these instructions in writing or that he commanded them to set them downe and publish them after that sort yea if we wil not say that the Apostles transgressed Christes commandement we must absolutely say that he neuer bid them doe any such thing because neuer any one of them as I wil declare hereafter set downe in writing the whole summe of Christian doctrine No man likewise wil or can deny but that it was the ordination of Christ that the Apostles should deliuer this whole summe of Christian doctrine to their successors for otherwise Christ should haue instituted a Church only for the Apostles daies not to continue to the end of the world according to the predictions of the Prophets And hence this summe of Christian doctrine by the Apostle S. Paul was most earnestly commended to Timothie 1. Tim. vlt vers 20. O Timothie saith he keepe the depositum that is the pledge or pawne left with thee auoiding the prophane nouelties of voices and oppositions of falsly called knowledge He calleth it depositum or a pledge or pawne because it is as it were a thing laid into the Apostles and Bishops handes and committed vnto them to keepe which euery one of them with great
sentences in it are prophetical many parabolical many metaphorical which commonlie are ful of obscuritie Thirdly it is proper to Scripture to haue many senses vnder one letter as the literal sense which is that which the holy writer first intended and this sense sometimes is signified by proper words sometimes by wordes metaphorical and improper yea sometimes the literal sense of the same wordes is diuers It hath also a spiritual sense which is that which is signified by the thinges vnder the letter And this sense is either moral which is called also tropological when it tendeth to manners or allegorical when it tendeth to faith or the Church or anagogical when it tendeth to heauen or life euerlasting For example this vvord Hierusalem literally signifieth the Cittie so called morally the soule of man allegorically the Church militant and anagogically the Church triumphant Al these senses the wordes of Scripture beare and diuers of them not seldome were intended by the holy Ghost in the same sentence And what a difficult matter is it to discerne them I adde finally that sundrie misteries deliuered vnto vs in holy writ are high and aboue the reach of our natural reason Wherefore it is no meruaile if the sentences in which they are disclosed be hard and obscure Hence the prophet Dauid desired of God vnderstanding Psal 118. Iohn 5. verse 39. Luke 24. vers 45. that he might search his lawe Our Sauiour also willed the Iewes to search the Scriptures opened his Apostles and disciples vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures c which places plainly conuince the Scriptures to be hard SECTION THE THIRD The Scriptures may be falsly vnderstood and that euery priuate man may erre in the vnderstanding of them IN the second place I must proue that the Scriptures may be falsely vnderstood and that euery priuate man may erre in the translation or interpretation of the same This followeth of that which hath beene already said touching their obscuritie for if the Scripture be so obscure as I haue shewed these things must needs ensue And verily that the wordes of Scripture may receiue false interpretations 2. Pet. 3. verse 16. S. Peter aboue cited plainly auoucheth affirming that the vnlearned and vnstable euen in his daies depraued the epistles of S. Paul and other Scriptures to their owne perdition And it is a thing so manifest that it needeth no proofe for it is euident that al Heretikes heretofore haue alleaged Scriptures falsly expounded to confirme their heresies and this I wil declare more at large hereafter See part 2. cap. 8. sect 8. It is apparant also that in these our daies some in the world either Catholikes Lutherans Zuinglians Anabaptists or Libertines doe not giue the true sense of holy Scripture because it is impossible that more then one of these can haue the truth their expositions in diuers points be so diuers and contrary August tract 18. in Iohan. Aug. tom 3. de Gen. ad litterā li. 7. ca. 9. Vincent Lirin lib. cōtr propha haeres nouitates cap. 2. Barlow in his relatiō of the said conferēce pag. 61. Se part 2. c. 5. sect 1. yea S. Augustine affirmeth that heresies haue no other ofspring or roote then that good Scriptures are badly vnderstood In another place to the same effect he telleth vs that al Heretikes read Catholike Scriptures neither saith he are they for any other cause Heretikes then for that not vnderstanding them truly they defend obstinately their false opinions against the truth of them The same is declared by Vincentius Lirinensis in these wordes Al saith he take not the Scripture in one and the same sense because of the deepnes thereof but the speeches of it some interprete one way and some another way so that there may almost as many senses be picked out of it as there be men For Nouatus doth expounde it one way and Sabellius another way otherwise Donatus otherwise Arrius Eunomius Macedonius otherwise Iouinian Pelagius Celestius lastly otherwise Nestorius Hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis Hence our King in the conference held at Hampton Court betweene the Protestants and Puritans most discreetly affirmed that he would not wish al Canonical bookes to be read in the Church vnlesse there were one to interprete them Moreouer that the judgement of euery priuate man as before is subject vnto errour and falshood in his translation or interpretation of holy Scripture it is graunted by some of our aduersaries and likewise easily proued First because he Scripture it selfe warranteth no priuate mans judgement from errour Nay S. Peter in expresse termes telleth vs 2. Pet. 1. verse 20. Se sect 5. following 1. Ioh. 4. verse 1. That no prophecie of Scripture is made by priuate interpretation that is to say that no Scripture ought to be expounded according to any priuate mans opinion for the vvord Prophecie signifieth the interpretation or exposition of holie Scripture as shal hereafter be proued The Apostle Saint Iohn teacheth vs the same lesson vvilling vs not to beleeue euery spirit but to proue the spirittes if they be of God And howe are vve to proue the spirittes vvithout al doubt not by our ovvne judgement vvhich is subject to errour but by considering vvhether they be consonant or no to the doctrine of the Catholike Church or the rule of faith receiued by tradition from the Apostles This appeareth by the discourse of the said Apostle following In vvhich to confute Cerinthus Ebion Basilides and other Heretikes vvho denied the diuinitie humanitie or vnion of two natures in Christ and to proue their spirits not to be from God he setteth downe the doctrine of the Church concerning those pointes and addeth these vvordes He that knoweth God heareth vs that is to say he that hath the knowledge of God by true supernaturall faith heareth and obeieth the Church But vvhat doe I vse many wordes in a matter so euident gathered out of our aduersaries owne proceedinges For the holy Ghost teacheth men but one truth seing therefore that there are among the newe Sectaries now in the vvorld so great dissentions and differences in opinions concerning the exposition of the selfe same wordes of Scripture it necessarily followeth that some of them expound the Scriptures falslie and seing that one of them hath no better warrant for his direction in truth then another vve may vvel affirme them al to be subject to errour and falsehood I adde also that euerie Sectarie must needes confesse euerie one of his Captaines I meane Luther Zuinglius Caluin and the rest to haue erred in some point or other touching the true sense of Scripture for almost no one Sectarie followeth any one of these in al pointes and approueth al his interpretations but if vve graunt them al to haue erred in some pointes vve may vvel inferre that they are subject to errour in al because their vvarrant is equal for al. Finally if we admit euery priuate mans spirit as a judge in such
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
define vvithout a general Councel so farre are vve from making al the Popes wordes diuine oracles as some Protestants falslie pretend but neuerthelesse they deeme this opinion to be erronious and most neere vnto heresie Neither doth this their assertion contradict that commonly auerred that the decrees of the Pope without a general Councel in the sense aboue mentioned are a rock or ground of faith for although the vvhole Church hath not yet authentically defined that the Pope after this sort cannot erre yet the scriptures and other arguments brought in this behalfe are so plaine and forcible and the consent of al learned pious men except some fewe is so consonant and strong for this point that euery man may wel admit his definitions as a ground of supernatural faith And so vve maie truly say both it is no matter of faith to acknoweledge or not acknowledge in this sort the infallibility of the Popes judgment in this sense that the whole Church hath not as yet defined either part to be a diuine truth and yet hold the infallibilitie of the Popes judgement to be a Rocke of faith in this sense that euerie man for the authorities and reasons alleaged may prudently build vpon it an act of supernatural faith And thus much of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and his decrees I haue beene the longer in this discourse Vergerius dialago 1. contra Hosium because some Protestants affirme the denial of this supremacy or superiority to be not only the foundation of their newe religion but also a good part of the edifice built thereupon Chapter 11. Of the consent of the auncient Fathers and the general doctrine of the Catholike Church in al ages CONCERNING the testimonie of antiquitie touching matters of faith and religion found in the works of such ancient doctors as from the Apostles daies haue flourished through al ages in Christs church and haue been are esteemed by her as fathers masters of christian faith learned men giue vs these rules First those things which they say as it were by the way and treating of another thing are to be distinguished from such sentences as they pronounce of such matters as they purposlie handle for their sayings of the first kinde are of smal those of the other of greater authority Secondlie that vvhich is said by anie one of them but once is not so much to be credited as that which is often and constantlie repeated But principally we must make a difference between that which they say in disputation or contention with their aduersaries and that which is affirmed positiuelie as a true conclusion according to the argument of vvhich they treate for an authority of the first sort is litle to be esteemed of the latter greatlie Touching their assertions in general this is to be obserued First when the opinion of any father touching matters of faith is singuler and contradicted by al or most of the rest it is rather to be thought an errour then a truth Secondlie when one or two only affirme a thing of that subject and the rest make no mention of it their testimonies make a probable not a certaine argument Thirdly what doctrine soeuer concerning any point of Christian religion is commonly found in al the auncient Fathers workes where mention is of that point and is held by them as an article of the said religion and contradicted by none of the rest vvithout the note of singularity errour or heresie imposed vpon them by others such doctrine may wel be thought to pertaine to the rule of faith descending by Tradition from the Apostles and is to be embraced as an article of our beliefe The truth of this last rule vvhich toucheth most my purpose is gathered out of that which hath beene already said for I haue declared that neither the Church can erre nor the tradition of Christian faith in it preserued be ouerthrowne or altered but if we admit a possibility of error in al such Fathers workes touching matters of such consequence both of these assertions may be proued false For an errour in faith found in most of the Fathers without contradiction of any other argueth an error in al beleeuers not only of the ages in which those Father 's flourished but also in al times ensuing because that doctrine which is deliuered by most as an article of faith without any opposition of others may wel be demed to be the doctrine of al the faithful who oppose not themselues against it consequently of the whole Church Wherefore if that be proued erroneous of it we may inferre an error in al sorts of christians consequently a change of the rule of faith receiued by tradition Moreouer although we should set aside the warrant of the Church and tradition from errour who wil think it possible that the Fathers should after this sort depart from the truth and conspire in errour without any or at the least without any great contradiction Is not nouelty commonly discouered and oppugned And of this I gather that their agrement semeth an infallible argument of the truth of their doctrine yea that they al held sincerelie the tradition deliuered them by their predecessors And this moued the holie fathers assembled in general Councels as appeareth by the acts of the said councels to make great search into the works of their forefathers and of the ancient doctors as also to vse them as a principal meane to finde out the rule of faith by the said tradition preserued in the church Finally by their testimonies to direct very much their definitions and decrees in particuler S. Athanasius recordeth Athanas epist ad Afros that the Bishoppes who were present in the first Councel of Nice followed the testimonies of the ancient Fathers and that the same was done in those of Ephesus and Chalcedon the bishops themselues assembled also testify who affirme in their definitions yet extant that in them they follow the holy Fathers Ephes 4. v. 11. c. Further we are taught by the Apostle that Christ gaue some Apostles I vse S. Paules vvords and some Prophets and other some Euangelistes and other some Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints vnto the worke of the ministry vnto the edifying of the body of Christ vntil we meete al into the vnity of faith and knowledge of the Sonne of God into a perfect man into the measure of the age of the fulnesse of Christ that nowe we be not children wauering and caried about with euerie winde of doctrine in the wickednesse of men in craftines to the circumuention of errour Hitherto the Apostle In vvhich his discourse in plaine tearmes he telleth vs that Christ appointed Apostles and other such like officers in his Church vntil the day of judgement for the instruction of his people and to keepe them from wauering in faith and errours in religion Of which I inferre that not only the Apostles Prophets Euangelists Pastours and
Doctors who planted ruled and instructed the Church presently after Christs Ascention are to beleeued and obeied but also that the like credit is to be giuen to their successors who in al ages following haue supplied and shal euer vntil the day of judgment supply their places and consequently that they also haue beene and are directed in al truth otherwise they might haue wauered and erred themselues and so haue drawne the vvhole Church to such inconueniences Seing therefore that the fathers of the Church in their ages haue supplied such places it must needs followe that they haue enjoyed the like priuiledges and prerogatiues Moreouer the Iewes were bound to heare and obey the Scribes Pharisees of the old law as we are taught by these wordes of Christ Math. 23. v. 2. 3. Vpon the chaire of Moises haue sitten the Scribes and Pharisees al things therefore whatsoeuer they shal say to you obserue ye and doe ye Who then wil be so impudent as to say that Christians are not bound to heare and obey the prelates of the Church Luke 10. see also Math. 10. Ioh. 13. Iren. li. 4. cap. 4. especially seing that of them Christ hath said He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me which wordes argue as great truth in their doctrine as there is in the doctrine of Christ who is truth it selfe Hence S. Irenaeus telleth vs that we ought to obey those who haue succession from the Apostles who together with the succession of their Bishopriks haue receiued the gifts or priuiledges of truth And although these sentences are principallie verified in the prelates of the Church assembled in a general Councel yet they must needs also be confessed true in the whole body of them in al ages dispersed through the vvhole world and in euerie one of them vvhen he teacheth and deliuereth vs the doctrine of the vniuersal Church Finally the ancient Fathers are most pregnant and faithful witnesses of that Depositum or summe of Chistian doctrine which they receiued from their predecessors and deliuered to their successours They are also most indifferent judges of al controuersies after their daies arising in the Church because they liued before euer any such controuersie was moued and therefore are partial of no side Aug. cont Iulianuni li. 2. c. 10. Hence are these vvords of S. Augustine to the Pelagians concerning this matter They he speaketh of the Fathers that liued before him were angry neither with you nor with vs they fauoured neither you nor vs That which they found in the Church they held fast that which they learned they taught that which they receiued of their Fathers they deliuered to their children Hitherto S. Augustine This moued the same holie Father and diuers others to appeale so often to the judgment of their predecessours and to cite their testimonies And these arguments in like manner proue that the truth of faith and religion alwaies and in al ages remaineth among the true Bishops and Pastors of the Church and consequentlie that at al times euen at this present a man may securelie followe their beliefe and doctrine This I say the authorities alleaged testifie for the Church must neuer erre her prelates are alwaies to stay vs from wauering in faith c. 1. Cor. 11. verse 16. August epist 118. cap. 5. Idē epist 86. ad Casulā And it is moreouer insinuated vnto vs by the Apostle in these words But if a man seeme contentious we haue no such custome nor the Church of God for as we see in them he pleadeth the custome of the Church against the contentious And this moued S. Augustine to tearme it most insolent madnes to dispute against that which the whole church holdeth he telleth vs also that the custom of the people of God or the ordināces of our ancestors are to be held as a law in those things in which the diuine scripture prescribeth nothing certaine S. Hierome is of the same opinion for in his dialogue against the Luciferians he bringeth in the Heretike affirming that the consent of the whole world hath the force of a lawe although it be in a matter not to be proued by scripture Epiphani haeres 75. and maketh the Catholike assent to his assertion The like hath S. Epiphanius who disputing against Aerius in defence of certaine fasting-daies obserued in the Church vseth this argument The Church receiued them and the whole world in it consented before Aerius was and they which of him are called Aerians the same is affirmed by the rest of the Fathers In the last place for a ground of our faith I must adde such propositions as are deduced out of these most certaine grounds by an euident and infallible argument For although it is commonly held that in a sillogisme of one proposition of faith and another knowne onlie by the light of natural reason the conclusion is not properly of faith but Theological that is a conclusion in diuinity held most true yet certaine it is See Greg. de Valētia in secūda secūdae disput 1. qu. 1. pūcto 2. that a conclusion following in a silogisme of two propositions of faith is indirectly and as the diuines say immediatelie de fide or of faith as also that proposition is which is inferred by good and euident consequence of a proposition of faith because whosoeuer denieth the proposition inferred wil be constrained to deny the proposition or propositions of which it is inferred But concerning such propositions the vnlearned if occasion be offered must craue instructions of the learned Chapter 12. Containing the conclusion of the first part THESE be the immoueable and most firme grounds which we finde in the Church of Christ whereon vve build our faith and religion Vpon these sure foundations as vpon a firme rock euery Catholike buildeth his beliefe and saluation And although the articles deliuered vnto vs by the Church be not apparant to our senses nor for the most part comprehensible by reason yet in al such matters according to the saying of the Apostle We make our reason and vnderstanding captiue vnto the obedience of Christ 2. Corint 10. vers 5. 1. Corint 2. vers 5. and acknowledge with the same Apostle that our faith is not in the wisedome of men but in the power of God And therefore that in such misteries aboue reason we cannot shew our selues more reasonable then to leaue off reasoning Genes 18. vers 14. Luk. 1 37. Math. 19 26. Mat. 16 17. Verily we are taught by the scripture that nothing is hard much lesse impossible vnto God yea that al things are possible with him although with men impossible And if scripture had not taught vs this reason it selfe would easily perswade vs to assent vnto it because by nature he is omnipotent We know also that it is not flesh and bloud that hath reuealed such things vnto vs but God himselfe who being eternal wisdome truth can
added soone after that by the faith by him described we vnderstand that the worldes were framed by the word of God that by this faith Noe built the arke c. which effectes cannot be attributed to any other faith then to that by which we beleeue the articles of Christian religion But because our aduersaries seeme so much to impugne this doctrine let vs proue the same out of other places of the newe Testament and first out of these wordes of our Sauiour to his Apostles Mar. 16. v. 15.16 going into the whole world preach the Gospel to al creatures He that beleeueth and is baptized shal be saued but he that beleeueth not shal be condemned In which as we see commission is giuen to the Apostles to preach the Gospel And what Gospel truly no other but the whole summe of Christian doctrine touching the incarnation life passion resurrection ascension other articles of Christian beleefe This Gospel the Apostles preached and as it was then foretold by Christ in the wordes immediately following confirmed with miracles And whosoeuer beleeueth this Gospel and is baptised if to his faith his actions be agreable shal be saued contrariewise who beleeueth it not shal be damned wherefore this faith concurreth to our justification and consequentlie is that faith which is required in al Christians This faith our Lord and redeemer highly commended and rewarded in the holie Apostle S. Peter Math. 16. vers 16.17 c. when as for confessing him to be Christ the sonne of the liuing God he pronounced him blessed and promised to build the Church vpon him and to giue him the keyes of the kingedome of heauen This faith and no other was in S. Martha when to our Sauiour saying I am the resurrection and the life Ioh. 11. vers 25. he that beleeueth in me although he be dead shal liue euery one that liueth beleeueth in me shall not die for euer beleeuest thou this she said to him yea Lord I haue beleeued that thou art Christ the sonne of God that art come into this world And consequentlie this is the faith which maketh vs liue for euer and preserueth vs from eternal death This faith was in S. Thomas the Apostle when touching the woundes of our Sauiour after his resurrection he cried out my Lord and my God Of which I inferre Ioh. 20. v. 28. c. that they are pronounced by Christ blessed that are indued with this faith when he replied to his said Apostle Blessed are they that haue not seene and haue beleeued Act. 2. v. 4.10.13.17 This faith and no other S. Peter and S. Paul preached to the people as appeareth in their sermons recorded in the acts of the Apostles This faith S. Phillip before baptisme required in the Eunuch saying Loe water who doth let me to be baptised S. Phillip answered Act. 8. vers 36. If thou beleeue with al thy hart thou maiest and the Eunuch replied I beleeue that Iesus Christ is the sonne of God vpon which confession he receaued that holie Sacrament Rom. 4. vers 22. Ibid. v. 19. By this faith Abraham as the Apostle testifieth was justified for it was reputed him to justice that he beleeued God promising him that he should be the father of many nations and that not considering to vse the Apostles wordes his owne bodie nowe quite dead and the dead matrice of Sara he staggered not by distrust but according to the promise of God expected a sonne This word of faith the same Apostle according to his owne testimonie preached to the world Rom. 10. vers 8.9 1. Cor. 15. ver 3. c. 1. Ioh. 5. v. 1.4 5. Ioh. 3. ver 36. that who confesseth with his mouth our Lord Iesus Christ and in his hart beleeueth that God hath raised him vp from the dead shal be saued This Gospel he deliuered that Christ died for our sinnes that he was buried and that he rose againe the third day c. Whosoeuer saith S. Iohn beleueth that Iesus is Christ is borne of God againe this is the victorie which ouercommeth the world our faith who is he that ouercommeth the world but he that beleeueth that Iesus is the sonne of God Hitherto S. Iohn the Euangelist And this is to beleeue in the sonne of God which who doth according vnto Christes wordes hath life euerlasting Ioh. 20. vlt. Finally to cause in our soules this faith S. Iohn as he witnesseth himselfe and consequently also the other three Euangelistes wrote his Gospel These thinges saith he are written that you may beleeue that Iesus is Christ the sonne of God and that beleeuing you may haue life in his name Al which sentences of holy Scripture and diuers others which I could produce most euidently demonstrate that the diuinity incarnation passion and resurrection of Christ and other such articles reuealed by God vnto the Church are the object of that faith which concurreth to our justification and is the roote and foundation of al justice and true religion Hence in the Creede of the Apostles which as a Aug. ser 115. de tempore S. Augustine censureth it is a plaine briefe and ful comprehension of our faith we professe our selues to beleeue these articles Of which Creed mention is not only in the said b Aug. ibi ser 181 S. Augustine but also in c Amb. ep 81. ad Siricium S. Ambrose d Hier. ep ad Pama aduersus Ioan. Hieroso S. Hierome e Leo epi. 13. ad Pultheriam ser 11. de Pass S. Leo and diuers others If I should endeauour to recite al the testimonies of the ancient Fathers to the same effect I should neuer make an end for al of them discourse of no other object of faith then this and require only in Christians the beleefe of the articles of our faith mentioned See Ireneus lib. 1. ca. 2. 3. 4. aduersus haereses Tertul. lib. aduersus Praxeam S. Basil in orat de confes fidei where he telleth vs that the faith necessary to saluation and justification is that by which we beleeue those thinges which God hath reuealed The same is taught by S. Ciril Bishoppe of Hierusalem Cateches 5. 18. By S. Leo serm 4. de Epiphania .. This faith and no other is explicated as necessary to saluation by S. Gregory Nazianzene orat in sanctum lauacrum extrema in tract de fide Nicena By S. Chrisostome in duabus homilijs de simbolo By S. Augustine lib. de fide simbolo in lib. de Genes imperfecto cap. 1. in Enchirid. per multa capita and diuers others but of this matter enough SECTION THE FIFT That true faith is built vpon diuine authority I NEEDE not vse many wordes for the proofe of the fourth point to vvit that true faith ought to be built vpon diuine authority because this is easilie gathered out of that which hath beene already said for if faith be a
euident that hel gates doe preuaile against the Church if either she decay or teach false doctrine who then can say that either the hath perished or erred except he wil accuse Christ of falshood in not performing his promise and make him a liar Verily * Chrisost hom 4. de verbis Isaiae vidi Dominum Epiph. in Ancorato S. Iohn Chrisostome affirmeth that heauen and earth shal faile before those wordes of Christ thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I wil build my Church S. Epiphanius also alluding to this promise telleth vs that our Lord appointed Peter the first or cheefest Apostle a firme rocke vpon which the Church of God was built and the gates of hel saith he shal not preuaile against it for the gates of hel are Heretikes and Arch-heretikes c. the like sentences I could alleage out of the rest of the ancient Fathers And vnto this testimonie of our Sauiour I could likewise adde that he hath warranted the faith of S. Peter and in him the faith of his successor the Bishop of Rome who is ministerial head of Christes Church on earth Luc. 22. vers 31. that it shal not faile and consequently that the body ruled by the head shal enjoy the same prerogatiue but of this hereafter Moreouer our Sauiour made his Church the supreame judge on earth of al controuersies touching matters of religion for it is manifest that from her judgement he graunteth no appeale and that he vvil haue her definitiue sentence so firme and inuiolable among Christians that he vvil not haue him accounted one of that number who shal preuaricate or despise the same This is signified vnto vs in these his wordes Math. 18. vers 17. If he wil not heare the Church let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publican In which sentence he biddeth vs esteeme no more of our brother or neighbour that contemneth or disobeieth the censure of the Church then of a Heathen and Publican of which I gather that the Church in her censure cannot erre For if this might be then vve being bound to condemne whome she condemneth or to condemne him that vvil not listen and obey her counsaile and precepts might together with the Church condemne a man without just cause and that according to Christes commandement It appeareth likewise out of the said vvordes of our Sauiour that he vvil haue the sentence of the Church obeied wherefore he ought in reason to prouide that the said sentence be not erroneous But for the truth of these wordes of our Lord and also for the constant verity of the censure of the Church it maketh first that diuers falshoodes which before her said censure might in times past haue bin beleeued and defended yea were defended beleeued by the members of the true Church without incurring the crime of heresie afterwardes could not be so beleeued and defended as I could exemplifie in the Milinary heresie the opinion of such as held the baptisme of Heretikes to be of no force of others that denied the authority of some Canonical bookes and such like Secondly it maketh also for these her prerogatiues that al such as haue obstinately maintained any opinions condemned by the Church for heresies and consequently haue disobeied her authority decrees and beene by her adjudged Heretikes haue euer by al antiquity beene so accounted August in Enchirid. ad Laurēt cap. 5. Tertul. de pudicitia item li. de praescript Math. 5. v. 13.15 Luc. 10. vers 16. and therefore haue not beene numbred by the ancient Fathers among Christians whose opinions notvvithstanding if vve reject her infallible judgement by vvhich they were condemned and make it subject to errour may be reuiued and called againe in question either as wrongfully and injustly censured or at the least as condemned by a judge whose judgement is subject to errour and falshood The priuileges and prerogatiues graunted by our Sauiour to his Apostles and Disciples confirme the same for they are by him called the salt of the earth and the light of the world and being sent to preach they receaued from him this commission and approbation of their doctrine He that heareth you heareth me and he that dispiseth you dispiseth me Which wordes argue an infallible truth although not in the doctrine of euery particuler Bishop and Prelate of the Church yet in them altogether when they represent the whole Church in a Councel or in the whole number of them although diuided seperated in place For in these like as in Christes Apostles and Disciples as I haue aboue declared the wordes alleaged must be verified which cannot be done if they al in euery sense may erre For how can they then truly be tearmed the salt of the earth and the light of the world and how can it be true that he that heareth them heareth Christ But if we had no other testimony of holy Scripture for this matter fiue or six wordes of the Apostle vsed by him to Timothie in his first epistle 1. Tim. 3. v. 15. c. vvere sufficient to conuince our vnderstanding and make vs yeeld to this truth For in his said Epistle he tearmeth the Church the piller and ground of truth These thinges I write to thee saith he hoping that I shal come to thee quickly but if I tarie long that thou maist knowe howe thou oughtest to conuerse in the house of God which is the Church of the liuing God the piller and ground of truth What could he haue said more euident for the infallible authority of the Church the Church saith he is the piller and ground of truth that is to say the very foundation and establishment of al verity vpon vvhich as vpon a sure foundation and an inuiolable piller a man may securely build the edifice of his faith and religion vvho then vvil say that the Church is subject to errour These considerations moued S. Augustine Aug. lib. 1. cont Cresconium disputing against Cresconius concerning the baptisme of Heretikes to vse this discourse these are his vvordes Although of this that the baptisme of Heretikes is true baptisme there be no certaine example brought forth out of the canonical Scriptures yet also in this we keepe the truth of the said Scriptures when as we doe that which now hath pleased the whole Church which the authority of the Scriptures themselues doth commend That because the Scripture cannot deceaue whosoeuer doth feare least that he be deceaued through the obscurity of this question may aske counsaile touching it of the Church whome without any doubt the Scripture it selfe doth shewe Hitherto S. Augustine Out of which discourse of his we may gather this notable rule that in al thinges doubtful and in al obscure questions concerning faith and religion we ought to enquire and search forth the doctrine and beleefe of the Catholike Church and imbrace the same seeking no further warrant of security because the Scriptures demonstrate her and manifestly declare that
forced to acknowledge that the Church hath authority to prescribe orders for her gouernement vvhich euery one is bound to obey Yea Field Hutton and Gabriel Powel seeme to make the constitutions of the Church equal vvith those of the Apostles For the first of them auoucheth that both thinges which c Field booke 4. chap. 20. § that the Apostles the Apostles themselues deliuered by tradition and also such thinges as were deliuered by their next after-commers are dispensable by the authority of the Church And howe so if the Church hath not Apostolike authority surely his reason assigned is because the Apostles and Apostolike men did not deliuer them as reporting the immediate preceptes of Christ himselfe but by vertue of their Pastoral power and office of vvhich it seemeth plainely to followe that he yeelding the Church authority to dispense in them giueth her equal Apostolike power Hutton in his answ to a treatise of the Crosse in baptisme pag. 3. and 59. see also pag. 9. Hutton affirmeth Ecclesiastical constitutions made by the Church of Christ not to be meerely humane but in part diuine And the reason is saith he because the Church is ruled by the spirit of Christ who is the truth Againe if you make your comparison betweene that which God hath commanded and that which the Church of God hath ordained the difference is not so great as you would haue it Let Gods commandement haue worthily the first place and preheminence in al thinges as is meete but let the ordinances of the Church be immediately subordinate vnto Gods commandement and ranged in a second place not only because the Church of God heareth his voice but also because she is ruled by his spirit and by the great and pretious promises of God is made partaker of the diuine nature which no doubt doth assist them euen in the lawes also and constitutions which are made for order and decency in the Church Hitherto are Huttons vvordes Powels wordes are these Those Adiophora or thinges indifferent Gabriel Powellus in the sibus de Adiaphoris ca. 2. §. 7. 8 which are wel and lawfully instituted and approued by the Church are after such sort humane as they are also diuine and therefore they haue authority more then only humane yea they haue authority altogether diuine The reason is because the Church is gouerned by the spirit of Christ who is truth Againe * Ibid. cap. 3. §. 6. 7 God left it in the power and wil of the Chruch to dispose and ordaine for her owne conseruation profit comlinesse order and discipline al thinges indifferent ceremonies and external rites which manifestly appeareth out of the holy Scriptures themselues to haue beene true of the primatiue Church in the Apostles daies neither can any man denie it to be true of the present Church For seing that it is the same spirit gouerning the Church of al times why may it not likewise be lawful for the Church to institute lawes concerning external rites in times ensuing Thus Powel And out of these assertions of our aduersaries I thinke a prudent man wil wel inferre that our doctrine concerning the infallible judgement of the Church in matters of faith euen according to their proceedinges is very reasonable and consonant to holy Scripture For seing that vnitie and consent in faith is farre more necessary then vnity and consent in ceremonies and positiue ordinances for gouernement vve may truly affirme that Christ vvas more careful for the preseruation of the first then of the second Seing further that the reasons and authorities of holy Scripture by them brought and generally al the promises of our Lord concerning the direction of the Church make as much nay commonly more for the first then for the second for they are principally concerning direction in truth we doe followe reason and the holy Scripture in maintaining the first if they are not to be blamed for their maintenance of the second Seing moreouer that Field and Powel giue the present Church in al ages as great authority as it had the Apostles yet liuing and they vvere then not only ordainers of positiue lawes and orders but also infallible propounders of true doctrine and directors in matters of beleefe we haue no reason according to their ground to denie this prerogatiue to the same Church in al future times Seing finally that the Puritans denie the collection or deduction of either of these prerogatiues out of the Scripture and the Protestants auerre the plaine deduction of one and for this the Puritans condemne the Protestants we may wel imagine that the Puritans may erre in denying both and that the Protestants are to graunt the one as wel as the other and consequently that the Catholike truth should be imbraced by al. SECTION THE FIFT That the testimonies of holy Scripture and other proofes brought for the infallible and diuine authority of the Church cannot be applied to the Church considered as it comprehendeth al faithful Christians that are and haue beene since Christes ascension or since the Apostles daies but vnto the present Church of al ages BEFORE I end this chapter I thinke it not amisse to confute two or three opinions of our aduersaries of which al seeme in some sort to derogate from the truth of those thinges which I haue here auerred and to weaken their principal proofes Booke 4. chap. 1. 2. 3. 5. 13. The one is of M. Field who telleth vs that we may speake of the Church three manner of waies First as it comprehendeth al the faithful that are and haue beene since Christ appeared in flesh including also the Apostles Secondly as it comprehendeth al that are and haue beene since the Apostles time Lastly as it comprehendeth those only that are liuing at one present time in the world In the first signification he freeth it from ignorance and errour concerning matters of faith in the second from errour only and in the third not from errour in al articles of beleefe but in such only as euery man is bound expresly to knowe and beleeue wherefore Chap. 5. he applieth that promise of Christ aboue mentioned that the holy Ghost should teach the Church al truth to the Church in the first and second signification Another assertion is that the present Church may be said at al times to be the piller of truth and not to erre because it retaineth alwaies as Field speaketh a sauing profession of heauenly truth that is Chap. 4. §. the Church Field booke 3. chap. 4. and 3. true doctrine concerning al such principal pointes as are the substance of faith and needful to be knowne beleeued expresly by euery man Hence they assigne some such principal points and articles which they binde euery person to knowe and beleeue vnder peril of eternal damnation and deny asmuch as the virtual beleefe of others to be necessary which I place as a third absurd opinion To confute these assertions and to cleere the truth
before proued from al cloudes of falsehood which may seeme to obscure it I thinke it not amisse in this place to proue these three propositions First that no testimonies or reasons before brought can be applied to the Church in those two first acceptions of the Church expressed by Field secondly that the same testimonies and reasons proue an infallible judgement of the Church concerning euery article of faith in general not touching some principal only lastly that to saluation it is necessary to beleeue either expresly or virtually the whole summe of Christian doctrine And to performe this concerning the first in the first place I demand whether there be or no any such Churches nowe extant in the world of which the one includeth al faithful Christians that are and haue beene since the ascension of Christ the other al those that are and haue beene since the Apostles daies if there be not then the promises of Christ cannot be verified of them if there be then I aske further vvhere they are to be found Is the Church now in the world that hath beene in former ages Are they that in times past flourished nowe members of the Church militant They are not vvithout doubt Wherefore although these two diuers considerations of the Church may be in our vnderstanding yet there is no real object of them nowe hauing any real being in the world nor euer vvas at any one time and seing that it is euident that the promises of Christ are concerning the prerogatiues of some real body or common wealth hauing real being in the vvorld and not only in our conceit it is also manifest that they were not spoken of the Church in any one of those two acceptions Besides this howe shal vve seuer or distinguish these three considerations of the Church really from one another doth not the Church in the first acception comprehend the same Church as it is taken in the second and third signification doth it not as Field saith comprehend al that are and euer haue beene since Christ appeared in the flesh if so then without doubt also that Church which hath bin in al particuler ages and at al particuler times and instances and is euen at this present We must imagine if I be not deceaued the better to vnderstand M. Field his meaning Vincent Liren aduersus haeres ca. 28. 29. as Vincentius Lirenensis seemeth to insinuate that the beginning and progresse of the Church since her first planting hath beene not much vnlike to the augmentation or growing of a child from his first birth to his perfect state or old age And who can make any question but in the time of a mans being from his birth vntil his old age that time also is included which was from the day in which he was weaned from his nurses milke vntil his said old age but if we admit this howe can we choose but confesse that the Church in the first acception includeth also the same in the second and third and so I say that the last is comprehended in the second howe then can he make the Church in the first signification free from errour and ignorance and not in the second and third or howe can he make it in the second signification free from errour and not in the third and to make the matter a litle more euident I demand of M. Field whether a man might truly haue said at al times since the Apostles daies the Church in the first and second signification is absolutely free from al errour in diuine thinges if he might not then nothing more is attributed to the Church in these acceptions then to the same in the last if he might then was the present Church in euery instant free from such errours ignorance For to insist in the similitude already made to this that a man be said to be sound and in health it is not sufficient that in his childhood or at some other time he was so affected but it is also necessary that he be sound at that very time when the sentence is pronounced and if the sentence be pronounced of al his whole life it cannot be true if once he were sicke In like sort to this that the Church as it includeth al times since the Ascention of Christ or from the Apostles be said to be free from al errour it is not sufficient that in the first yeares or at some time or other it was so but it is also requisite that she be so nowe and euer haue beene so otherwise if she haue beene infected vvith errour at some one time the said errour maketh the proposition false And in very deed I cannot see first for what other reason he freeth the Church in the first signification from ignorance and errour but in respect of the Apostles daies when it enjoied only as he saith such priueledges in like sort I can see no other reason why he freeth it in the second acception from errour but this that at some time or other in some place or other true doctrine hath beene or is taught in her concerning euery article of faith For he maketh the present Church at al times subject to errour and consequently he wil not giue this priueledge to the present Church of al times And this he semeth to confesse in those his vvords of the eleauenth chapter where he saith that the Church in the second acception is infallibly true Not in respect of the condition of the men of whome it consisteth Booke 4. chap. 11. §. that the authority or the manner of the guiding of the spirit each particuler man being subject to errour but in respect of the generality and vniuersality of it in euery part wherof in euery time no errour could possibly be found that is if I wel vnderstand him that some part or other at some time or other was free from euery errour not al nor perhappes any part from al errours at the same time Marke well what a proper prerogatiue is finally giuen to the Church in those acceptions in vvhich he doth so highly exalt it to vvit that it vvas free from errour and ignorance in the Apostles daies and free from errour in respect of the generality and vniuersality of it because no errour could possibly be found in it in euery part in euery time What improper kinde of speeches be these can a sicke man be said to be sound because he vvas found in his childe-hood or can he be saide to haue beene euer sound if once he vvere sicke or can he be called a sound man that hath had at one time his head sound at another time his armes and at other times other members although he neuer had his vvhole body at one time sound together Besides vvhat vveake priueledges are here giuen to the Church are they ansvverable to the promises of Christ and other testimonies and reasons aboue recited for her infallible and diuine authority hath he bestovved no greater
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
matters vve take away al order in the Church and open the gappe to al Heretikes Some say that euerie man by conference of one place of Scripture vvith another See part 2. cap. 5. sect 4. may attaine to the knowledge of the true sense I replie that euery mans discourse in such pointes may be false and erroneous And it is wel knowne that diuers of our aduersaries haue conferred the same places and haue gathered out of them different senses vvhich cannot al be true Yea the same man not seldome at distinst times out of the same places conferred inferreth distinct conclusions and altereth his beliefe touching some article or other vvhich is a manifest proofe that this conference is no infallible rule I adde also that experience teacheth vs that such a conference sometimes encreaseth the difficulty See part 2. cap. 1. sect 4. maketh some shewe of contradiction which before appeared not as I wil declare hereafter Others say that by praier euery man may obtaine of God the direction of the holy Ghost for the finding out of the true sense But where hath God promised this Moreouer our praier is of no force except we pray as we ought And what is more vncertaine then this How then can we certainly knowe when God inspireth vs and much lesse how can we possibly assure others that we haue such a diuine inspiration Further diuers haue vsed likewise this meane and yet haue falne into errour yea after their praiers they haue had different inspirations and one hath affirmed himselfe to haue beene inspired by God thus and another thus c. Finally al Heretikes may challenge to themselues these shiftes for the proofe of their owne priuate and false expositions wherefore we must needes finde out some other rule more certaine SECTION THE FOVRTH That the letter of holy Scripture falsly interpreted is not the word of God THIRDLY I am to proue that a false or wrong exposition erroneously gathered out of the letter of holy Scripture or made vpon the same is not the word of God but the word of man yea sometimes the word of the deuil and consequently that the said letter of Scripture so vnderstood is subject to the same censure This is apparant because the Scripture is the true word of God in that sense only which was intended at the penning of it by the holy Ghost For example like as no Catholike Christian wil deny but those wordes of Christ Ioh. 14. verse 28. The father is greater then I if we vnderstand them in this sense that God the father is greater then Christ according to his humanity containe the true word of God so euery Catholike Christian if they be vnderstood as Arius expounded them that Christ according to his diuinity is inferior to his father wil affirme them to be the word of the deuil Hence proceed diuers notable sentences of the auncient Fathers Tertul. de praescript ca. 17. see him also cap. 9. Hillar li. 2. de Triuitat ad Constantium Ambros lib. 2. ad Gratianū cap. 1. Vincē Lirin li. aduers propha haeres nouitates cap. 37. Math. 4. verse 6 Hieron in dial cōtra Lucifer See Math 10. Luke 10. Hieron in cap. 1. ad Galat. among the rest Tertullian telleth vs that the sense of holy Scripture adultered doth impugne the truth at much as the stile corrupted S. Hillarie affirmeth that heresie ariseth of the vnderstanding not of the Scripture that the fault is in the sense not in the word that there is not one of the Heretikes that doth not lie and say that he preacheth those thinges in which he blasphemeth according to the Scriptures For hence saith he Marcellus when he readeth the word of God knoweth it not hence Photinus c. they all speake Scriptures with out sense they al pretend faith without faith for the Scriptures are not in the reading but in the vnderstanding c. These and other like discourses hath S. Hillary S. Ambrose is of the same opinion for he saith that although the text or letter haue no error yet the Arrian interpretation hath errour Vincentius Lirinensis comparing the Heretikes alleaging Scripture against Catholikes with the deuils alleaging the same to Christ discourseth after this sort And if any man aske any Heretike perswading him such thinges that is to forsake the doctrine and tradition of the Church how prouest thou how declarest thou that I ought to forsake the vniuersal and ancient faith presently he for it is written and forthwith he alleageth out of the lawe the psalmes the Apostles the Prophets a thousand testimonies a thousand examples a thousand authorities by which being interpreted after a new and naughty manner the vnhappy soule may be cast downe head-long from the Catholike tower Thus farre Vincentius Lirinensis But let vs heare the opinion of S. Hierome in this matter who aboue al the rest was conuersant in the holy Scripture these are his wordes The Scriptures consist not in the reading but in the vnderstanding otherwise if we follow the letter we also may frame vnto our selues a new opinion and affirme that they who weare shoes or haue two coates are not to be receiued into the Church He addeth in another place Marcion and Basillides and the other heretical plagues haue not the Gospel of God because they haue not the holy Ghost without which the Gospel which is taught is made humane or of men He telleth vs also that whosoeuer interpreteth the Gospel with another spirit and minde then it was written troubleth the faithful and turneth the Gospel of Christ vpside-downe that we must not thinke that the Gospel is in the wordes of the Scripture It is not saith he in the wordes but in the sense not in the superficies or out-side but in the marrow not in the leaues of the speaches or wordes but in the roote of reason Hence he concludeth with these wordes It is a very dangerous matter to speake or teach in the Church least that by peruerse interpretation the Gospel of Christ be made the Gospel of man or that which is worse the Gospel of the deuil Thus farre S. Hierome And this is that which the Apostle himselfe instructeth vs of when he affirmeth that the letter killeth but the spirit quickneth for the vertue and substance of Scriptures consisteth in their meaning and interpretation and so it is that the bare vvordes thereof are no more Scripture vvithout the spirit that is to say vvithout that sense which vvas intended by the holy Ghost when they were vvritten then the body of man is a man vvithout the soule yea if they be vvrested to a contrary or vvrong sense they kil and become poison vvhereas rightly vnderstood they containe diuine and heauenly doctrine And so this sentence of the Apostle is expounded by S. Augustine in diuers places of his vvorkes but in one place among the rest thus he discourseth a Aug. de spiritu litera c. 4. 5. li.
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
hereafter vvhen he teacheth the whole Church as supreame Pastor cannot erre in matters of faith or precepts of manners vvhich he prescribeth to al faithful Christians and concerne thinges necessary to saluation or in those things which are of themselues good or euil for he cannot so commaund anie vice or forbid any vertue yet as a priuate man or particuler doctour he may erre in his judgement or opinion he may also offend God most deepely and be damned in hel-fire Mat. 24. verse 48. For if that seruant whome his Lord hath appointed ouer his family these are our Sauiours words shal say in his hart my Lord is long a comming and shal beginne to strike his fellowe seruantes and eateth and drinketh with drunckards the Lord of that seruant shal come in a day that he hopeth not and an houre that he knoweth not and shal diuide him and appoint his portion with the hipocrites there shal be weeping and gnashing of teeth Thus our Sauiour Christ But although S. Peter in authority and diuers other prerogatiues was farre inferiour to Christ euen as man yet he vvas superiour to al the rest of the Apostles For although al the Apostles receiued of Christ orders and power to vse the keies of the kingedome of heauen that is to forgiue sinnes and also to preach the Gospel throughout the whole world yet S. Peter only aboue the rest receiued supreame power authority and jurisdiction The authority of the other Apostles was giuen them with a certaine kinde of subjection to Peter they were also Christes legates or embassadours sent to the whole world but they being only Apostles were equal among themselues and no one superiour ouer the other Neither were they ordinary Bishops or Pastours of the whole world for of it S. Peter vvas only the ordinary Pastour Wherefore like as a legate or embassadour cannot of himselfe communicate or delegate his authority to another or leaue it by inheritance to his successour so the other Apostles left not al their authority in so ample sort as they receiued it to the Bishoppes vvho succeeded them contrariwise S. Peter as absolute prince hauing absolute and ordinarie jurisdiction vnder Christ left the same to his successour or heire the Bishoppe of Rome This doctrine vve receiue from the holie father and martir S. Ciprian vvho of this point discourseth thus Cipr. lib. de vnitate Ecclesiae cap. 3. To Peter our Lord after his resurrection saith feede my sheepe and buildeth his Church vpon him alone and to him be gaue the charge of feeding his sheepe And although after his resurrection he gaue his power alike to al saying As my father sent me so send I you take the holie Ghost if you remitte to any their sinnes they shal be remitted c. Yet to manifest vnitie he constituted one Chaire and disposed by his authoritie the origen or fountaine of the same beginning of one The rest of the Apostles were that Peter was in equal felloweshippe of honour and power but the beginning commeth of vnity The primacy is giuen to Peter that the Church of Christ may be shewed to be one and one chaire thus farre S. Ciprian In which words he plainly auoucheth that S. Peter had supreame and ordinary authority the other Apostles although they had equal and like Apostolike power yet they were not equal to him in al prerogatiues this their authority as I haue said was not ordinary nor so absolute but depending hauing his beginning of that of Peter Ibid. ca 4. Hence the same S. Ciprian in the selfe same book affirmeth the Church to be one like as al the beams of the sunne are termed one light because they issue from one sunne and many litle brooks one water because they proceed from one spring and many boughes one tree because they haue the selfe same roote And this sunne fountaine and roote in other places he acknowledgeth to be the chaire of S. Peter which is therefore by him called a Cipr. l. 1. epist 3. ad Cornel. li. 4. epist 8. ad Cornel. epi. ad Iubaianum the principal Church from which Priestlie vnitie hath his beginning and the matrice or mother roote and head of the Catholike Church It is also by him affirmed that the one Church by the voice of our Lord was built vpon one who receiued the keies c. I could recite other such like testimonies but these in this place shal suffice And although S. Peter had so ample and eminent authority and for this cause his successours were sometimes honoured with the title of vniuersal Bishoppe as appeareth in the general Councel of b Concil Chal. act 3. et 6. Chalcedon yet they seldome or neuer called themselues so but rather following the commandement of Christ who bid that c Math. 20. v. 26. whosoeuer would be greater among his Apostles should be their seruant or minister called themselues the seruant of the seruants of God Hence are these words of S. Gregory the great who is highly commended by d Humfre in Iesuitif part 2. rat 5. p. 624. D. Humfrey and by another e Theodor. Bibli in orat ad prīcipes Germa See also Godwin in his catalogue of Bishops in Augustine pag. 3. Protestant although he terme al his successours Antechrists called a very holy father and most excellent Pastor he discourseth thus f Greg. l. 4. epist 32.76 It is plaine to al men that euer read the Gospel that by our Lordes mouth the charge of the whole Church was committed to S. Peter prince of the Apostles for to him it was said Feed my sheepe For him was the praier made that his faith should not faile to him were the keies of heauen giuen and authoritie to binde and loose to him the cure of the Church and principallity was deliuered and yet he was not called the vniuersal Apostle This title indeed was offered for the honour of Peter prince of the Apostles to the Pope of Rome by the holy Councel of Chalcedon but none of that See did euer vse it nor consent to take it This is a part of the discourse of S. Gregorie writing against Iohn the Bishop of Constantinople vsurping the title of vniuersal Bishop vvhich although some of his predecessours after some sort and in some sense vsed when they called themselues Bishops of the vniuersal Church yet he therfore disliked Sixtus 1. epis 2. Victor 1. epi. 1. Pontiā epist 2. Stephā 1. epi. 2. Leo epist 54. 62. et 65. because it seemed to affirme that he who should vse it was himselfe the only Bishop of the whole world and al other Bishops his vicars not his brethren wheras euery Bishop is head Bishop of his particuler Church although subject to the vicar of Christ and the ministerial head of his whole flock the successour of S. Peter Verely that S. Gregories words haue no other sense it is auerred by a Andraeas Fricius de Eccles li. 2. cap.
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
diuers objections and although it were a very easie matter here to shewe the vveaknes of them al yet I should exceed mine intended breuity I wil therefore answer only two the one commonly vsed by them al and as they thinke of greatest force the other much vrged by M. Field Galath 2. verse 11. The first is taken out of that place of S. Paul vvhere he affirmeth that he resisted S. Peter in face because he was reprehensible the second out of a decree as Field saith of the Councel of Chalcedon I wil answere I say briefly these that by the vveaknes of them the reader may judge of the strength of others vvhich are of lesse force then these And to begin with the first as in other places so in this Bibl. anno 1592. our English Puritane Geneuians falsifie the text of holie scripture to make it seeme the better for them For vvhereas the Apostle saith that he resisted S. Peter in face that is publikelie in presence of al Bibl. anno 1592. or as they say in their marginal note before al men they contrarying their owne exposition and Bezaes also in the text make S. Paul saie that he withstood S. Peter to his face imagining thereby the more to disgrace the superiority of S. Peter for euerie man knoweth that it is not al one to reprehend or resist a man publikely and to resist him to his face This being noted let vs nowe first see what the auncient Fathers write Ciprian epist 71. ad Quintum Numb 2. August li. 2. de Baptism ca. 1. concerning this controuersie betweene these holy Apostles S. Cipran whose sentence is also alleaged by S. Augustine discoursing of the said reprehension vseth these words Neither Peter whome our Lord did choose the first and vpon whome he built his Church when Paul disputed with him of circumcision challenged insolently or arrogantly took any thing to himselfe saying that he had the primacie and therefore that the later disciples ought rather to obey him c. This and more S. Ciprian out of which his wordes we may gather that the action of S. Paul was nothing prejudicial in his opinion to the primacy of S. Peter Aug. li. 2. de Baptis cap. 1. But vvas S. Peter in this case vvorthie of blame S. Augustine thought him faulty for thus in one place he discourseth we haue learned in the holie scriptures that Peter the Apostle in whome the primacie of the Apostles by excellent grace is so praeeminent when he did otherwise concerning circumcision then the truth required was corrected by Paul the later Apostle Tertul. de praescript cap. 23. thus S. Augustine And this opinion long before him was taught by Tertullian who telleth vs that the Heretikes of his daies whose disciples the new sectaries seeme to be alleaged this reprehension of S. Peter to proue the Apostles ignoraunce but he answereth that the errour or faulte was of conuersation and not of preaching or doctrine Neither doth this proue any thing against S. Peters primacie Ciril li. 9. in Ioan. Hieron in proaemio Comment epistola ad Galatas for we deny not but the Pope of Rome may erre in conuersation be consequently admonished by his inferiors S. Ciril recordeth that Iulian the Apostata objected the same reprehension against Christians S. Hierom first telleth vs that wicked Porphiry an Apostata charged S. Paul of enuie malepert boldnes and S. Peter of error Secondly he teacheth vs that there vvas neither fault in S. Peter nor in S. Paul vvhich opinion is at large most learnedly explicated and defended by Cardinal Baronius in the first tome of his ecclesiastical annuals And briefly with him I answere that although S. Peter was reprehensible in this sense that of his action a thing might followe vvorthie of reprehension yet in verie truth it is certaine that neither S. Peter nor S. Paul did amisse For first vve must suppose Actes 15. v. 23. c. that although in the Councel of Hierusalem celebrated before that time of vvhich in the actes of the Apostles it was decreed that the Gentiles conuerted to Christ were not bound to obserue the old law of the Iewes yet nothing was there decreed for the freeing of the Iewes from the same yea although they vvere in very deed by the law of grace released of that burden yet for auoiding of scandal and that the said old law might be buried with honour they for some time obserued them very religiously Hence after the aforesaid Councel the Apostles themselues obserued diuers ceremonies of the old lawe Act. 16.3 for example S. Paul himselfe circumcised Timothee yea after this altercation with S. Peter he following the aduise of S. Iames and the priests assembled at Hierusalem Actes 21. verse 26. 1. Corint 9. v. 20. according to the law of Moises purified himselfe in the temple of Hierusalem Thence proceed these his words I became a Iewe to the Iewes that I might gaine the Iewes As it was therefore lawful for the Iewes to forsake the old lawe and liue as the conuerted Gentiles did so also it was lawful for a time vnto them according as time and place required especially for auoiding of scandal to vse the said ceremonies of the old lawe This moued S. Peter liuing at Antioch with S. Paul although being the Apostle vnto whome the rest of the Apostles had committed the especial patronage of the Iewes to liue with the rest as a conuerted Gentile and so to transgresse the law of Moises But certaine Iewes comming from Hierusalem where the Christian Iewes yet obserued the said lawe that being their patron he might not giue any scandal he retired himselfe from the rest and began to liue as the strangers did This action of his diuers of the rest of the Iewes of Antioch followed yea S. Barnabas himselfe being S. Pauls companion tooke this course among the rest which S. Paul being the patron of the Gentiles beholding he reprehended S. Peter for his Iudaical conuersation affirming that by his example he drew al to obserue the lawe of Moises This is brieflie the history of this matter as it is plainelie gathered out of the place of S. Paul alleaged Hence it appeareth that not only S. Peters action but also S. Pauls reprehension vvas laweful and necessarie for S. Peter by his action remoued al scandal from the Iewes S. Paul also by his reprehension remoued the like from the Gentiles And thus much of the first objection Field discoursing of the Patriarcke of Constantinople Booke 3. chapter 1. vseth these wordes In the second general Councel holden at Constantinople he was preferred before the other Patriarks of Alexandria and Antioch and set in degree of honour next vnto the Bishoppe of Rome In the great Councel of Chalcedon he was made equal with him and to haue al equal rites priuiledges and prerogatiues because he was Bishop of newe Rome as the other of old thus Field And
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
deuised by the said author or done by the power of the deuil or by some natural causes wherfore may not then Atheists say that either it is a fable that e Iohn 11. Act. 9. Math. 9. v. 20. c. Christ raised Lazarus others or S. Peter Tabitha or that our sauiour cast out deuils or that a woman was healed of an issue of bloud by touching the hem of his garmēt or else that these things were done as the Iewes said by the power of Belzebub prīce of the deuils or by the application of some natural causes Surely he wil haue as litle regard of scriptures as they haue of the works of Sulpitius Seuerus and therefore if they grant it of the miracles of S. Martin and others he wil affirme it of al the rest although mentioned in the said scriptures In like sort f August lib. 22. de ciuit cap. 8. S. Augustine in his books de ciuitate Dei which no man wil denie to be of as great authoritie as any other of his vvorks g Sermo de diuersis 31. 32. 33. epist 103. and else where relateth diuers miracles vvrought by the reliques of S. Steeuen the first Martir as that by touching them a blinde vvoman receaued her sight that a Bishop by carying them in procession was cured of a fistula and that two by praying in the place where they were reserued were cured of a palsie And both S. Ambrose and S. Augustine doe the like Ambr. serm 5. de Sāct et l. 7 ep 53. 54. eau Romanae Aug. l. 9. confess c. et l. 22. de ciu c. 8 c. Lib. 4. or 2. Reg. cap. 13. Act. 19. v. 12. concerning the reliques of S. Geruasius and Protasius martirs as that a blind man was cured by touching of the beire or coffin wheron the reliques were caried vvhich miracles with the same answere are rejected by our aduersaries But who seeth not that an Atheist may with the like reason reject the miracle which was done by the reliques or dead body of Elisaeus by the touching of which as we reade in the bookes of the Kinges a dead man was raised to life and others wrought by napkins and handkerchers which had touched the body of S. Paul which are said to haue done miracles in the acts of Apostles The like discourse might be made concerning the cure of Naaman Sirus by washing himselfe seauen times in the riuer of Iordan at the commandment of Elizeus the prophet 4. Reg. 6. the said Prophets making of the iron of an hatchet to swimme vpon the vvater of the said riuer and diuers other miracles recorded both by holy writ the monuments of ecclesiastical writers of al ages against al which our aduersaries offer an occasion to Atheists to pronounce the selfe same censure Moreouer whereas the apparitions of soules departed according to the judgement of al the learned both auncient and moderne yeeldeth a most strong proofe of our soules immortallitie these Sectaries deny that euer there haue beene any such apparitions and consequently seeke to bereaue vs of this important argumēt their words are so plaine that this cannot be denied Luther himselfe writeth thus Luth. in explicat Euangelij de Diuite et Lazaro Idem in Euā dominicae 24. a Trinitate No mans soule euer since the beginning of the world hath appeared for neither doth God permit it Againe There is no doubt but it is wholy the Deuils worke or doing Quic quid vspiam est spirituum apparentium whatsoeuer is any where of soules or spirits appearing Zuinglius is of the same mind for these words he hath in his answere to one Valentinus a zuing resp ad Valentinū comparem Those things which thou babblest of the apparitions of soules are vaine and idle for the soules which are seperated from their bodies are in heauen or in hel Those which dwel in heauen neuer come downe those which are in hel cannot be deliuered the like hath b Bullīger decad 4. ser 10. Bullinger and others Finally their denial of freewil the merit of good works doe weaken the proofe of the immortallity of the soule the doctrine of the Apostle that god is a rewarder of our actions consequētly of the proofe also of heauen hel as euery man wil confes therefore I cōclude the whole discourse of this chapter that these Sectaries Church is a seminarie of Atheisme and that by their doctrine they shake and euen ouerthrowe the verie groundes of al religion vvhich their assertions being supposed as true they can neither proue nor defend against Atheists and enemies of Christianitie Chapter 2. The newe Sectaries debase the true Christian faith and in place of it extol a presumptuous faith by themselues inuented OVR aduersaries doe not only as I haue nowe shewed ouerthrowe or at the least weaken the principal grounds of al religion but also in some sort destroy the verie nature of faith it selfe by which we first come to a supernatural knowledge of God Chap. 5. For wheras in the first part of this treatise I haue proued that faith which concurreth to our justification and saluation and is the ground of religion and the foundation of spiritual life in this world to be a vertue infused by God into our vnderstanding by the helpe and force of which we giue a most firme assent vnto al those thinges vvhich are reuealed by God to his Church because they are so reuealed the followers of the newe religion I thinke partlie because as I haue noted in the chapter next before they haue weakned the authority of miracles which is the principal supernatural proofe of such misteries debase and as it were despise this faith and in place of it magnifie a newe inuention of man a Chimerical kinde of faith ful of presumption which hath neither ground in holy scripture nor in any approued author but is repugnant both to the vvord of God and the authoritie of al antiquity For they distinguish two especial kindes of faith the one say they is historical See Caluī Institut booke 3 § 9. 10. Calu. l. 3. Instit c. 2. § 7. by vvhich we beleeue the blessed Trinity the incarnation passion death resurrection and ascention of Christ and other articles of the Creed the other is a justifying faith vvhich Caluin defineth to be a stedfast and assured knowledg of Gods kindnesse or beneuolence towards vs which being grounded vpon the truth of the free promise in Christ is both reuealed to our minds sealed in our harts by the holy ghost Caluī ibid. § 16. see Luth. ī serm domī 2. quadrages In explicating this more at large the same Caluin affirmeth that there is none truly faithful but he who being perswaded with a sound assurednes that God is his merciful and louing father doth promise himselfe al things vpon trust of Gods goodnesse but he who leaning vpon the assurednesse of his owne saluation doth
of errour in al and consequentlie taketh from her al infallible authority and maketh her a fallible and vncertaine ground Chapter 4. They reject al particuler groundes of faith aboue assigned and proued to be found in the Church of Christ besides the holie Scriptures LET vs now descend to the particuler groundes of faith which we haue aboue proued to be found in the Church of Christ And although our aduersaries denial of the infallible authority of the Church and her assistance by the holy ghost on which the certainty of al such particuler groūds dependeth as I haue shewed before be a sufficient proofe not onlie that they reject them but also that according to their doctrine they haue no infallible meane to know what articles haue beene by God reuealed to his Church yet let vs declare the matter more in particuler and at large But concerning vnwritten traditions the decrees of the Pope the doctrine of the Romane Church yea of the whole Church of Christ I need say nothing because they al with one consent and voice exclaime against these groundes as superstitious friuolous and of no moment The difficulty therefore is onlie concerning holie Scriptures general and prouincial Councels and the vniforme consent of Fathers of vvhich the first is challendged by them al the other two by some of them only I wil beginne with the two last And concerning general Councels a Luther lib. de Concilijs Luther doth not only reprehend the first councel held by the Apostles at Hierusalem of which we read in the b Act. 15. acts of the Apostles and affirme that the decrees thereof bound no man in conscience but also calleth the Fathers which afterwards assembled themselues in Councels sicophants and flatterers of the Pope In particuler he calleth the Canons of the first general Councel of Nice celebrated in the daies of Constantine the great Emperour whom our c Barlow in his relatiō of the conferēce held at Hāpt Court p. 69. King by no meanes wil haue appreached of Poperie bay straw wood stuble and demandeth whether the holy Ghost hath nothing else to doe in Councels but to binde and burden his ministers with impossible daungerous and vnnecessarie lawes such according to him were decreed in that Councel I think he meaneth concerning the chaste and single life of Bishops and ministers The like censure he pronounceth against al other general Councels and concludeth his discourse in that place that more light is brought to Christian doctrine by that Catechisme which children learne then by al the Councels In another place he addeth that d Luth. in prologo li. contra statuta Ecclesiae he wil not haue his doctrine judged by any neither by Bishops nor by al the Angels but that be wil by his doctrine judge the Angels Caluin giueth leaue to euerie priuate man to examine the decrees of Councels by the exact rule of holie scripture e Caluin book 4. Instit cap. 9. § 8. 11. see also § 9. Let no names saith he or authorities of Councels Pastours Bishops hinder vs but that we may examine the spirits of al men by the rule of the word of God He likewise calleth the Fathers of the first general Councel of Nice f Idem lib. de vera ecclesiae reformatione opuscul pag. 480. see him also booke 4. of his Instit chap. 9. § 10. Phanatices that is men phanatical or deluded by the devil g Bez. in praefat noui test anno 1565. Beza telleth vs that in the best times such was partlie the ambition of Bishops partlie their foolishnes and ignorance that the verie blinde may perceiue sathan verilie to haue beene President of their assemblies the like censure is pronounced by Musculus h Vrbā Regi 1. part operū de eccl fo 51. Vrbanus Regius and others The ministers of the church of Scotland in the confession of their faith write thus i Cōfess of the faith of Scotl. prīt at the ēd of the harm of cōfess p. 19. See the said Harmonie of cōfessiōs sect 1. pag. 14. Without just examinatin we doe not receiue whatsoeuer is obtruded vnto men vnder the name of a general Councel for plaine it is that as the men assembled were men so haue some of them manifestlie erred and that in matters of great weight importance So farre then as the Councel proueth the determination and commandement that in giueth by the plaine word of God so soone doe we reuerence and embraces the same hitherto the confession of Scotland Out of which their vvordes as also out of the like assertions of others I gather that our aduersaries commonlie giue no more creditte to general Councels and consequently to the whole church of Christ which they represent then is to be giuen to the worst and meanest man liuing yea then may be giuen to the deuil himselfe For these may also be beleeued if they proue that true which they affirme by the authority of holy scripture which they al require as necessary before the decree of councel be beleeued Secondly I gather that according to their assertions we may likewise lawfully examine these their sentences or decrees whether they be according to the rule of scripture or no for they were also men subject to errour and moreouer because vve finde them not so as appeareth by that which hath beene already said we may also reject them as repugnant to the said scripture The like leaue they giue in like sort to those of their owne company yea to euerie priuate man whatsoeuer concerning al their canons and constitutions wherefore their followers or subjects are not to be reprehended according to these opinions and decrees if they examine their sentences and canons by the word of God and reject them if in their conscience according to their owne judgement they finde them not conformable to the same But what an absurd thing is it that a fewe ministers should presume to pronounce so seuere a censure against such auncient venerable and learned assemblies highly of esteemed by al true Christians in al ages euen since the beginning of Christianity whence wil they haue these errours to haue proceeded Certainly they must needs attribute them either to ignorance or malice of the Bishops and Prelates assembled But are they either for number learning or piety to be compared with them They are not without doubt as wil easily appeare vnto any learned man that shal with any difference read the Ecclesiastical histories and viewe the vvorkes of both sides Neither haue ministers being combred for the most part with wiues children and such other impediments that opportunity of giuing themselues to studie and deuotion as the auncient Bishops had who liued a chast and single life and gaue them selues altogether to spiritual affaires and vvere commonly verie holy men Wherefore seing that they also liued nearer to the Apostles daies it is verie probable yea certaine that they better vnderstood and knewe the
themselues and of this their ground because the matter is of great importaunce I purpose to discourse something at large And first I wil shewe in this chapter that the bare and naked letter onlie of holie Scripture is not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion Then in the chapters following I wil proue that although we should grant the letter to be a sufficiēt ground yet that their bibles containe not the true letter Thirdly that although this were also granted yet that they build not vpon the letter contained in their owne Bibles Lastly that in translating and expounding the holie Scriptures they followe their owne fancies and judgement and that they haue no other certaine and infallible ground Caluin de ve ra Eccles reform ratione pag. 473. Apologie of the Church of Englād pag. 58. Articles of faith agrreed vpō the cōuocations of the yeares 1562. 1604. I come to the first It is a common maxime or principle among al newe Sectaries that the scriptures only containe al thinges necessary to our saluation and that nothing is to be beleeued or necessarily to be obserued vvhich is not expresly taught commaunded or allowed in the same or as some of them adde manifestlie gathered out of them * Harmony of confes sect 1. In controuersies of religion saith the confession of Heluetia or matters of faith we cannot admit any other judge then God himselfe pronouncing by the holy scriptures what is true what false what is to be followed or what auoided Al thinges ought to be tried by the rule and square of holy scripture saith the French confession Al things which are needful to be knowne to saluation are contained in the Prophets and Apostles writings saith that of Wittenberg And out of this ground they argue against vnwritten traditiōs ceremonies positiue lawes of the Church c. But that this doctrine is false euen according to their owne proceedings supposing that to be true vvhich they affirme concerning the infallible authority of the Church to wit that it is not expressed in the said scripture nor out of it deduced it is an easie matter to demonstrate to euerie mans eie for first this authority of the Church being set aside by vvhat Scripture can they proue the Scripture it selfe to be Canonical And seing that I am to discourse of this argument and their assertions be intricate I wil not only proue that according to this ground they haue no canonical Scripture but also absolutely that by no other means they giue it any infallible or diuine authority First therefore I may very wel frame this argument against the whole Bible out of their aforesaid ground Nothing is to be beleeued but that which is expresly taught in the written word of god or manifestly gathered out of the same but that the Bible is canonical Scripture it is neither taught in the written word of God nor manifestly gathered out of the same therfore it is not to be beleeued that the bible is canonical Scripture The major or first proposition containeth their aforesaid ground the minor or second is approued by Hooker who writeth thus Of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what books we are bound to esteeme holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And this afterwards he confirmeth with this reason For saith he if any one book of scripture did giue testimony to al yet stil that Scripture which giueth credit to the rest would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it neither could we euer come into any pause whereon to rest our assurance this way so that vnlesse besides Scripture there were something which might assure vs that we doe wel we could not thinke we doe wel no not in being assured that Scripture is a sacred and holy rule of wel-doing thus Hooker And this argument is of such force that it hath constrained some of them and among the rest the said a Hooker in his treatis of lawes of ecclesiastical policy booke 1. p. 84. book 2. § 4. p. 100. 102 Zauch in his confessiō c. 1. Brent in prolog Kemn in exam Concil Tridentini Hooker Zauchius Brentius and Kemnitius to flie from Scriptures vnto tradition for the proofe of this matter yea b Hook book 3. § 8. p. 146. See Whitak contr Staple l. 2. c. 4. pag. 298. 300. some of them affirme that this only tradition concerning canonical Scripture is to be rejected c Obseruations vpon the Harmonie of confessiōs published by those of Geneua fol. 593. Others and among them the Geneuian doctors affirme that some books of which there was heretofore some doubt among the ancient doctors of the church were receiued as Canonical by the common consent of the whole Catholike Church and therefore that they are not to be refused But who seeth not First that these men bewray the weaknes of the aforesaid general ground concerning the sufficiency of holy Scripture alone then that if the tradition of the Church yea the Church it selfe in her judicial sentence as they al affirme may erre in one point that it may also erre in al others of the same quality and consequently that the authority or tradition of the Church cannot infallibly argue the Scriptures to be of diuine authority Caluin instit book 1. cap. 7. § 1.2.4 et 5. Caluin answereth that the holy books of Scripture by them that haue the spirit are easily discerned from others by themselues as light from darknesse and sweetnes from sowrenes or bitternes And this his opinion is embraced by diuers and among the rest by Whitakers Thomas Rogers and Field and therefore is with some diligence to be refelled But before I enter into the confutation of it I must affirme as certaine that al these authors require in euery man to this that assuredly he beleeue the holy scriptures to be from God a supernatural inspiration of the holy ghost That Caluin doth so his sentences hereafter alleaged plainly declare * Whit. ī his answ to Campians first reason pag. 47. Whitakers hauing affirmed That it is euen as euidēt the scriptures be from god as that the sunne is the sun or that god is God and also said that there are in the books themselues proofs inough to demonstrate it yet finally concludeth that the inward hidden testimony of the spirit must be bad that men may firmly rest in the scriptures Againe Then only doe we attaine a certaine sauing ful assurance when the same spirit which writ published them doth perswade our harts of the credit of them Rogers writeth thus a Rogers ī his discourse vpō the articles of faith agreed vpon in the conuocations of the years 1562. 1604. art 6. p. 31. 32. printed anno 1607. We judg these books before mentioned Canonical not somuch because learned and godly men in the Church so haue and doe receiue and allow of them as for that the holy spirit in our harts doth
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
to him And seing that this feeding vpon Christ by faith may be performed at other times as wel as when their supper is receiued hence they further auouch that Christ himselfe as wel at other times as then may be receiued but principally they say vve receiue him by reading the vvord of God or hearing it preached He is deceiued saith Caluin that thinketh there is any more giuen to him by the Sacraments then that which being offered by the word of God he receiueth by faith c Ibid. §. 17. in Ioan. 6. vers 54. Againe Let this remaine certaine that there is no other office of the Sacraments then of the word of God which is to offer and set forth Christ vnto vs and in him the treasures of heauenly grace Moreouer expounding those wordes of Christ d Idem in 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. Doe this in remembrance of me thus he argueth Therefore the supper is a token or memorial appointed to helpe our infirmity for if otherwise we were mindful of Christes death this helpe were superfluous And this is common to the Sacraments for they are helpes of our infirmity Thus Caluin Beza in epist Theolog. 65. pag. 285. And this was decreed in a Synode held by the Caluinists at Rochel in vvhich we finde that albeit the supper be particularly appointed for our mystical and spiritual communication of Christ yet that Christ is receiued as fully with al his gifts also in a simple or only word or sermon But this is most earnestly defended by Peter Martir likewise a Caluinist vvho among other his discourses hath these sentences We attribute no more to the wordes of God then to the Sacraments nor no more to these then to them a Martir in de fens Euchar. cont Gardin part 2. regula 5. pag. 618. I adde withal that touching the deliuery and obtaining of Christes body and bloud if yee respect the thing and substance it selfe we haue it no more by Sacraments then by wordes b Ibid part 3. pag. 651. see also before p. 644. 547. The body of Christ is receiued as wel in hearing faithfully the word of God as it is in the Sacraments c Ibid. p. 683 I denie not but this is our doctrine that the body of Christ is receiued no lesse in wordes then in the Sacraments or Symbols For this receiuing is wrought by faith and to faith we are stirred vp by wordes as wel as by the Sacraments d Only an empty signe c. possible And I feare not to affirme that we come to the receiuing of Christes body much more by wordes then by Sacraments For Sacraments haue al their force from the wordes Hitherto Martir e Caluin Instit booke 4. c. 14. §. 20. 23. Caluin Beza and Martir in 1. Cor. 10. v. 1.2 Hence they make no difference in honour grace vertue and efficacy betweene the Sacraments of the old lawe and those of the newe f Caluin Instit booke 4. c. 14. § 23. Beza in actis colloq Monpelg p. 77. Sadeel in tract demāducut Sacram p. 191. Nay they adde that the Fathers of the old were as much pertakers of the body and bloud of Christ as Christians are in the newe And to proue this g Caluin Institut booke 4. c. 14. §. 23. Caluin corrupteth S. Paules vvordes 1. Cor. 10. vers 3. by affirming the Apostle to say that the Fathers of the old lawe did eate the same spiritual meate which we eate vvhereas the Apostle maketh no comparison betweene Christians and Iewes but only telleth vs that the Iewes among themselues both good and badde just and vnjust did eate the same spiritual meate Neither ought it seeme strange to any one of our English nation that this doctrine is taught by the Caluinists for we want not some euen in our Protestants Church of England that seeke to vphold it And among other h Willet in his Synopsis controuers 11. p. 463. see also Iewel in his reply against Harding art 5. pag. 323. Andrew Willet before cited in expresse wordes auoucheth and concludeth that looke howe the word of God worketh being preached so doe the Sacraments Their doctrine therefore is that Christ may as truly and really be receiued by hearing of a sermon as he is in their supper And of al this I may first inferre that if they say true vve may as truely and really receiue Christ in our chambers reading the Scriptures and by feeding on him by faith or by eating a peece of bakers bread and drinking a cup of wine or by taking any other such corporal foode in remembrance that he died for vs on the Crosse as we can doe in their Churches by taking the like bread and vvine of the Minister I further inferre that the opinion of Carolostadius Zwinglius and Caluin in verie deede equally exclude Christ from being really present in the Eucharist and therefore the bread and vvine vvhich they receiue according to al their judgements is nothing better then a peece of bakers bread or a bottle of wine bought in a tauerne The reason is euident because Christ himselfe according to his humane nature is as far distant from the bread and wine as heauen is from earth although Caluin acknoweledg a certaine vnion betweene vs and Christ by faith yet this is a thing altogether extrinsecal to the bread and wine for this faith is in the soule not in the bread and vvine neither doth it vnite the body and bloud of Christ to the bread and vvine but as they say to the soule And this vnion in like sort is not real but imaginary for the body bloud of Christ are as farre distant from our faith vvhich is an inward act of our soule and produceth of it selfe no outward effect as they are from the bread and wine And this is true euen according to the doctrine of Caluin and his disciples vvhatsoeuer they seeme in vvordes to say to the contrary But to make the proofe of it more strong let vs confirme it by the testimony of Beza Beza Epist Theolog. 1. pag. 7. Caluins schollar and of some Lutherans Bezaes vvordes are these I say they are very impudent slaunderers that imagine that there was euer any contrariety betweene those most excellent men Zwinglius OEcolampadius and Caluin in their doctrine concerning the Sacrament Thus Beza Among the Lutherans Westphalus a principal Doctor of their company vvriteth thus Caluin vseth such art in handling this matter Westphal in Apologia de coena contra Caluin p. 71. he leaueth his reader so doubtful and vncertaine what to judge of him he shadoweth his speach with such colours that sometimes he yeeldeth a confession of faith like to our Lutheran Churches he seemeth to reject the doctrine of Zwinglius and to beleeue that the very body and bloud of Christ is truly present and giuen in the supper with the bread and wine But hauing conferred many of Caluins sentences
Wherefore in like manner vse they not to wash one anothers feete Iohn 13. Haue vve not for this an expresse example and commandement of our Sauiour vvherefore finally anoint they not their sicke vvith oile Is not this directly commanded by S. Iames Iam. 5. v 14. verily the text according to their owne translation is euident In these and diuers other points they follow not their owne text of holy Scriptures but rejecting both it and al other groundes doe that which pleaseth best their owne fancies and this neglect of the vvord of God among them is so apparent that they are after a sort inforced to confesse it themselues Martir in 1. Cor. 15. v. 5. see also Field of the Church booke 4. c. 20 §. That the Apostles Among the rest Peter Martir auoucheth that the Canons of the Apostles concerning the election of Ministers prescribed by S. Paul 1. Tim. 3. are not alwaies to be obserued with whome accordeth a Beza in praefat noui test dicati Principi Condensi Beza who telleth vs that al rites vvhatsoeuer vsed by the Apostolike Church either as profitable or as necessary for that time are not at al times to be receiued Yea b Caluin in c. 5. vers 14. Brētius in Apolog cōfess Wittenb cap. de Baptis Caluin and Brentius goe further and affirme that Christians are not bound to followe the example of Christ or the Apostles or to obey their doctrine except it can be proued out of Scripture that they did and commanded vvith an intention to be followed and obeyed this is their doctrine And vvho are to be judges vvhat Canons rites examples and doctrine are to be admitted and bind man to the obseruation of them but euery priuate mans judgement and fancy Besides this they obserue diuers rites not prescribed in the Scripture if vve followe the bare letter For vvhere finde they that there be two Sacraments Surely neither Baptisme nor the Eucharist in the vvord of God are called Sacraments Only Matrimony which commonly they esteeme not to be of such dignity is honoured by S. Paul vvith this title Moreouer Ephes 5 32. vvhere are the forme and ceremonies vvhich they obserue in publike Baptisme Communion Marriage and common Praier ordained and set downe in the Scripture What vvarrant haue they in the vvord of God for baptizing of Infants before they actually beleeue did not our Sauiour say He that beleeueth and is baptized shal be saued Mar. 16 16. and howe doe infants according to their doctrine for they vsually denie al habitual faith beleeue verily that vvhich is affirmed by c Luther lib. cont Cochlaeum Lutherani in Sinod Wittenb anno 1536. Luther and some Lutherans to vvit that infants newly borne vvhiles they are baptized haue the vse of reason actually heare and beleeue the vvord of God c. seemeth altogither incredible But d Luther ser contra Anabaptistas Luther else-where plainely confesseth that the Baptisme of infants cannot be proued by Scripture yet saith he e Luther epist. ad duos Parochos it is to be admitted because it is an Apostolical tradition The like questions I could demand concerning the Creede of the Apostles and diuers other obseruations vvherefore I conclude that they both neglect the obseruation of diuers thinges prescribed in the holy Scripture and also obserue sundry rites and ceremonies for vvhich in them they find no vvarrant and consequently that the ground of their faith and religion is not the word of God contained as they say in their owne Bibles Of which I finally inferre that they build not at al vpon the letter of the holy Scripture for certaine it is that their owne translated Bibles fauour more their doctrine then either the Hebrewe or Greeke text as euery man may gather of that vvhich hath beene said in the Chapter next before vvherefore seing that their faith and religion is not al approued in their said Bibles euery man may wel censure it not to be approued at al by the vvord of God And this may be confirmed because they neither build vpon the Hebrewe Greeke or Latin text but in some places reject them al as I haue partly aboue declared and vvil declare also in the next Chapter Chapter 8. In receiuing translating and expounding the holy Scriptures they only build vpon their owne fancies and judgement and that they haue no other ground SECTION THE FIRST In which this is proued by their doctrine and dissention concerning the bookes of Canonical Scripture and their altering of the text of the same HAVING already proued that our aduersaries build not vpon the bare letter of holy Scripture which they seeme to make the only ground and rule of their faith and religion it remaineth that I nowe declare and make manifest vvhat is the ground and rule vvhich in al such matters they followe And this in the title of this Chapter I haue affirmed to be their owne fancy and imagination by which they either by priuate and erroneous deductions out of the letter of holy Scripture or by falsly vnderstanding of the same frame to themselues a particular and false rule of beliefe or else first frame to themselues out of their carnal faithlesse and feeble vnderstanding such a rule and afterwardes by rejection false translation corruption or erroneous exposition ply and vvrest the word of God to their said rule For the proofe of this I could vse diuers arguments notwithstanding these fewe following for breuities sake shal suffice But before I bring forth any one reason I must here diuide al the Professours of the newe religion into three sorts or companies for some of them read and vnderstand the Scriptures in those tongues in vvhich they were first penned by the instinct of the holy Ghost others there be that reade and vnderstand them only translated into other tongues and others that cannot reade at al. The first for distinctions sake I wil here cal the learned the second the vnlearned and the third the ignorant sectaries In the foure first Sections I wil principally discourse of the learned And first I demand of them howe they proue the Bible to be Canonical Scripture verily this as I haue shewed before cannot be proued by Canonical Scripture neither haue they for it as I haue there also declared any other infallible proofe vvherefore I may truly auouch that euery one of them receiueth and rejecteth Scripture according as he is led by his owne fancy But to make this more euident let vs behold their dissention concerning the Canonical bookes and consider that such as some of them receiue into the Canon others reject and contrariwise such as some reject others receiue Luther telleth vs plainly that he doth not beleeue al thinges were so done as is related in the booke of * Luther in sermonib cōuiualibus titul de Patriarchis Prophetis titul de libris veteris nouitestam Iob and further disgraceth the said booke by
affirming it to be only an argument of a fable or tale whereby to set forth an example of patience He affirmeth that the booke of a Luth. in cōuiual ser tit de libris noui veter test Rabenstocke l. 2. colloquior Latin Luther cap. de veter test Ecclesiastes hath neuer a perfect sentence that the authour of it had neither bootes nor spurs but rid vpon a long sticke or in begging shooes as he did when he was a Frier He vvil haue b Luth. in exordio suarum Annotat. in Cantica Cantica Canticorum which some c Bible 1595 English Sectaries tearme the Ballet of Ballets of Salomon to be nothing else but a familiar speach or communication betweene Salomon and the common wealth of the Iewes d Castalio in trāslat Latin suorum Bibliorum see Beza praefat in Iosuae Castalio goeth further and judgeth it to be a communication betweene Salomon and a certaine friend or mistresse he had called Sulamitha The Epistle to the e Luther in 1. edit noui test Germ. praefat in epistol ad Hebr. in posterior edit eiusdem Hebrewes if we beleeue Luther was written by none of the Apostles and containeth thinges contrary to the Apostolike doctrine The like is affirmed by the f Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. Century writers The same Luther calleth the Epistle of S. Iames truly a g Luth. in praefat in nouum test Germ. edit 1. in Ienens edit noui test praefat in Iacob strawen Epistle in comparison of those of S. Peter and S. Paul saith that it is h In captiuit Babilon cap. de extrema vnctione probably auerred to be none of his nor worthy of an Apostolike spirit i Ad cap. 22. Genes in colloquijs cōuiual lat tom 2. de lib. noui test reprehendeth the doctrine of it as false and contrary to that of Genesis and of S. Paul the Apostle saith the authour doth delirare that is dote c. It is likewise judged not Canonical by k Muscul in locis comunibus c. de Iustific Brent in Apol. Illiric praef in Iacob Musculus Brentius Illiricus Kemnitius and others The second epistle of S. Peter saith l Luth. in suis Germ. Biblijs Brentius in Apolog. ca. de Scripturis Luther is none of his but is of some vncertaine authour who was desirous to giue credit to his worke by the glory of an other mans name Brentius plainely rejecteth it as Apocryphal The like is said by these and others of the Epistle of m Luther praef in epist Iacob lib. cont Amb. Catharinum Magdeburg Cent. 1. lib. 2. ca. 4. Brent in Apolog. S. Iude. Finally Luther censureth the n Luther praefat in Apocal. prioris edit lib. de abroganda missa priuata Brent in Apol. Apocalipse of S. Iohn to be neither Apostolike nor Prophetical but I thinke it is saith he like the fourth of Esdras a booke rejected by vs al neither can I any waies finde that it was made by the holy Ghost Let euery man thinke of it as he please my spirit cannot accommodate it selfe to it And this cause is sufficient to me not greatly to esteeme it that in it Christ is neither taught nor knowne Thus Luther Brentius hauing recited it among other bookes by him censured Apocryphal concludeth that some of the bookes rejected are called dreames others fables And this is the judgement of these Protestants concerning these bookes Notwithstanding our o See the Bible of the yeare 1595. authorized to be read in Churches Articles of the yeare 1562. 1604. Articul 6. Caluin in his Institut in argum epist. Iacobi Church of England with Caluin diuers other of their bretheren receiue al these bookes as Canonical And seing that both these opinions cannot haue an infallible ground and one according to their owne proceedings hath no greater reason for it selfe then the other I inferre that they both haue no other rule vvhereby to receiue and reject bookes of Scripture but their owne judgement and fancy from which principally this difference among them ariseth It may be said that some Sacramentaries and among the rest p Whitaker in his answere to Campians 1. reason Whitaker and q Rogers pag. 30. vpon the Articles of faith of the yeare 1562. 1604. Rogers denie Luther and the Lutherans to reject the bookes mentioned I confesse it but in very truth whosoeuer readeth the authours and places alleaged wil finde that I doe them no wrong And this he may partly gather out of Rogers himselfe who although he r Pag. 30. affirme al reformed Churches to be of the same judgement with the Church of England concerning the Canonical bookes Yet in the next leafe ſ Pag. 32. alleageth two principal Lutherans Wigandus and Heshusius and accuseth them both of errour the one for refusing the first and second epistles of S. Iohns with the epistle of S. Iude the other for rejecting the booke of S. Iohns Reuelation or the Apocalipse I adde also that t Whitaker de sacris Script controuers 1. quaest 1. c. 6. Whitakers himselfe discoursing of this matter in an other place hauing set downe their doctrine concerning the authority of al the bookes of the newe testament addeth these vvordes If Luther or some that haue followed Luther haue taught or written otherwise let them answere for themselues this is nothing to vs who in this matter neither followe Luther nor defend him but are led by a better reason Thus Whitakers But Caluin directly telleth vs u Caluin in argumento epistol Iacobi that in his time there were some that judged the epistle of S. Iames not Canonical Oecolampadius testifieth the same touching the Apocalipse and affirmeth himselfe to x Oecolampadius lib. 2. ad cap. 12. Danielis wonder that some with rash judgement rejected S. Iohn in this booke as a dreamer a mad or braine-sicke man and a writer improfitable to the Church That Luther in particular with a hard censure bereaued this booke of al authority it is recorded by y Bullinger in Apocalip cap. 1. ser 1. Bullinger Yea * Field booke 4. chap. 24. §. wherefore Field condemning the inconsiderate rashnesse of such as in our time make question of any of the bookes of the newe testament c. nameth Luther in the margent It may perhaps be said by some man that al the Sacramentaries accord together concerning the bookes of Canonical Scripture and therefore that they haue some certaine and diuine rule whereby to discerne such bookes from others But this is easily refelled because there is no such consent or agreement among them For doth not Wolfangus Musculus a Zwinglian of great fame with Luther and the Lutherans reject the epistle of Iames out of the Canon Verily either this must be granted or else it must be confessed that he affirmeth one Scripture to contradict an other and false doctrine to be
contained in the diuine bookes These are his words They object vnto vs the place of Iames Wolfangus Musculus in locis communibus cap. de Iustificat num 5. pag. 271. but he whatsoeuer he was though he speake otherwise then S. Paul yet may he not prejudice the truth And after the disagreement betweene these two Apostles according to his imagination shewed at large he thus breaketh forth into open reproch of S. Iames Wherefore he Iames alleageth the example of Abraham nothing to the purpose where he saith wilt thou knowe O vaine man that faith without workes is dead Abraham our father was he not justified by workes when he offered his sonne Isaac He confoundeth the word faith Howe much better had it beene for him diligently and plainely to haue distinguished the true and properly Christian faith which the Apostle euer preached from that which is common to Iewes and Christians Turkes and Diuels then to confound them both and set downe his sentence so different from the Apostolical doctrine whereby as concluding he saith You see that a man is justified by workes and not by faith alone whereas the Apostle out of the same place disputeth thus c. And hauing made S. Paul to speake as hee thinketh best afterwardes he inferreth Thus saith the Apostle of whose doctrine we doubt not Compare me nowe with this argument of the Apostle the conclusion of this Iames A man therefore is justified by workes and not by faith only and see howe much it differeth whereas he should more rightly haue concluded thus c. This and other more such stuffe hath this Sacramentary Doctor against S. Iames and his Epistle in which he dissenteth from most of his owne company Doth not also Beza reject or at the least doubt of the truth of the whole history of the adoulterous woman recorded by S. Iohn in the eight Chapter of his Gospel vvhich notwithstanding other Sacramentaries admit as Canonical Scripture This cannot be denied and I haue before related his wordes Part. 2. ch 1. sect 4. Bible 1592. c. Doth not our English Church Mathewe 6. receiue as Canonical Scripture those wordes For thine is the kingdome the power and the glory which they adde at the end of our Lords praier and yet of them Bullinger a Zwinglian writeth thus There is no reason why Laurentius Valla should take the matter so hotely as though a great part of the Lords praier were cut away Rather their rashnesse was to be reproued who durst presume to peece on their owne to the Lords praier Thus Bullinger Nay further some times the same Sacramentary receiueth vvordes into the Canon vvhich before he had rejected For example Beza in one edition of his new Testament in the end of the eight chapter of S. Iohns Gospel putteth in these wordes See the newe Testaments translated by Beza of the yeares 1556. and 1565. And his Testament translated into English by L. T. printed anno 1580. Iesus passing through the midst of them c. vvhich in another edition with great vehemency he rejecteth wherefore although Beza in his edition of the yeare 1556. leaue the said vvordes out yet in Bezaes englished Testament of the yeare 1580. they are admitted And these thinges in like sort manifestly conuince that the Sacramentaries in admitting and rejecting bookes of Scripture are led by their owne judgement and fancy not by any diuine or infallible rule Moreouer diuers parcels of holy Scripture as I haue declared aboue haue bin in times past of doubtful authority of which most of our aduersaries haue receiued some into the Canon and rejected others For example our English Protestants haue receiued the Epistle to the Hebrewes and the Apocalipse and rejected the books of the Machabees of Iudith Tobias c. because the authority of these in the primatiue Church was called in question But what reason haue they for this fact haue they had any diuine testimony or reuelation commanding them to admit the first Surely none seing that they contemne the authority of the Church And wherefore receiued they not the last aswel as the first They vvil say perhaps that the first vvere admitted by diuers euen in the primatiue Church and doubted off only by some I reply that Brentius hauing named and numbred al of both sorts of them in general writeth thus Brentius in Apolog. confess Wittenb There are some of the auncient Fathers who receiue these Apocriphal bookes into the number of Canonical Scriptures and in like sort some Councels command them to be acknowledge as Canonical I am non ignorant what was done but I demand whether it were rightly and Canonically done Thus Brentius who reiecteth them al alike And that vvhich he saith may be proued true by the testimony of the third Councel of Carthage and S. Augustine as Field confesseth Concil Cartag 3. ca. 47. Augustin de doctrina Christiana lib. 2. cap. 8. Field booke 4. chap. 23. §. hence and of diuers others who receiued the bookes of Tobias Iudith and the Machabees wherefore it seemeth that not only in the judgement of Brentius but also in very deede the doubt of al was almost alike It is euident therefor◠in my judgement that the reason vvhy they rejected and reject those of the old Testament is because in some points they contrary their newe doctrine which they made and make a rule whereby to discerne which bookes are Canonical Hence they receiued those which they could make in outward shewe seeme to fauour their opinion and rejected others and this is the cause why Luther rejecteth more bookes then the later Sectaries For he being the first that beganne to preach this newe Gospel could not presently forge and inuent newe glosses and interpretations vpon al the bookes of Scripture that opposed themselues against the same vvherefore he rejected sundry such bookes vvhich afterwardes his followers hauing inuented such glosses and interpretations receiued This also moued the same Luther to affirme those to be the best Euangelists Luther tom 5. praefat in epist. Petri. fol. 439. Centuriat 2. ca. 4. p. 260. who most especially and most earnestly teach that only faith without workes doth justifie and saue vs of which he inferreth that S. Paules epistles may more properly be called the Gospel then either the Gospel of S. Mathewe S. Marke or S. Luke His disciples the Centuriatores likewise yeeld this reason vvherefore the epistle of S. Iames is to be rejected that in the second chapter he affirmeth that Abraham vvas not justified by faith only Zwinglius in explanat art 57. tom 2. fol. 100. but by workes Zwinglius also affirmeth that although the second booke of the Machabees were in the Canon yet that the authour of it maketh himselfe suspected by this that writing an history he doth set downe a point of doctrine concerning praier for the dead By which it is manifest that they measure Canonical Scripture by their faith not their faith by
my judgement it is strange howe they confesse euery man although neuer so much enlightned to be subject to errour and yet euery one assureth himselfe hauing one no more warrant then an other that he is in the truth Finally this doctrine of diuine inspirations and illuminations gaue occasion to * Frederi Staphilus l. de cōcordia discipulorū Lutheri Petrus Palladius l. de haeresibus Caluī in Instructorio cōtra Libert cap. 9. Willet in his Synops controuer 1. q. 1. Muncerus and certaine Anabaptists his followers as also to the Zwenckfeldians and Libertines of their blaspheamous opinions For like as our Protestant aduersaries commonly flie to illuminations for the knowledge of the true text interpretation of holy Scripture so these men either because they found it vvritten that a 2. Cor. 3 6. the letter doth kil or because they thought the Scriptures not necessary seing that the holy Ghost is able to teach mens harts vvithout any vvritten letters rejected the Scriptures altogither and pretended only such illuminations of the spirit Hence also perhaps proceeded the dreames and visions of the Enthusiasts a famous sect of Anabaptists but of this no more SECTION THE FIFT Concerning their deductions out of holy Scripture that they likewise are framed by them according to their owne fancies and of their accusations of one another touching these matters IT is moreouer a thing most euident that in the deductions or collections of the articles of their faith and religion out of holy Scripture they are not only subject to errour but also that they followe their owne judgement and inclinations And this vvil appeare to any man that shal consider the same One deduction I vvil here set downe vvhich I my selfe haue heard some of them make which was this I vrged them to bring forth some authority out of the vvord of God for their keeping of the Sonday in steade of the Saturday and they alleaged as a sufficient proof of this matter those wordes of S. Iohn in the Apocalipse Apocal. 1 10. I was in spirit on the Dominical or as they say on the Lordes day And vvhat an insufficient deduction is this if vve set aside the authority and tradition of the Church vvhich they despise Howe doth this followe S. Iohn vvas in the spirit or had a reuelation on the Sonday therefore al Christians may lawfully worke on the saturday a day commanded by God himselfe both in the old and newe testament Exo. 20. c. Math. 19 17 if we follow the letter to be kept holy and obserue the Sonday I could bring a hundred more such examples and my reader may gather some out of that which hath beene already said in the first section of the seauenth Chapter I adde also for the proofe of this that their deductions out of the selfe same wordes be diuers and opposite for euery sect like as it hath a particular and proper forme of faith so hath it peculiar and proper deductions out of the text of holy Scripture This cannot be denied because the collections of the Lutherans Zwinglians English Protestants Caluinists or Puritans Anabaptists Libertines differ from one another as their beliefe is different And to giue one instance or two but yet to omit the knowne different collections vvhich are found among Lutherans and Sacramentaries Doe not some Lutherans gather out of Scripture a necessity of good vvorkes See colloquiū Altenbergēse others that such vvorkes are not necessary a Bishop Barlow of Rochester in his sermon Whitgift others Doe not also some Sacramentaries as our English Protestants out of scripture deduce their gouernement of the Church by Bishops others as the Puritans their gouernement by Elders Doe not finally b Caluins Institut booke 2 chap. 16. ver 10.11.12 in Math. 26. 27. Willet in his Synopsis controuers 20. Caluin Willet and others gather out of scriptures that Christ suffered in soule the paines of hel which by others is disalowed And doe not the followers of one part of these collections condemne them of the other either as Heretikes or as Schismatikes or as Blaspheamers These thinges are most certaine Of which I inferre that al these sectaries deductions cannot be found but some must needes frame them according to their owne fancies And seing that vve haue no infallible reason according to their groundes to approue the one of them before another vve may vvith like reason condemne them al as hauing no other ground as they are by them maintained then humane judgement and vnderstanding In defence of the Lutherans of Wittenberge both concerning the proofe of the letter and interpretation of holy Scripture and also touching deductions out of the same it may perhaps be said by some man Harmony of cōfess sect 10 pa. 332. 333. Confess Wittenb art 32. that they hold the Church hath authority to beare witnesse off and interpret holy Scripture as likewise to judge of al doctrines according to that Try the spirits whither they be of God and let the other judge Yea they adde that shee hath receiued of her husband Christ a certaine rule to wit the Prophetical and Apostolical preaching confirmed by miracles from heauen according to the which shee is bound to interpret those places of the Scripture which seeme to be obscure and to judge of doctrines I answere and confesse that in very deede this is their doctrine vvhich maketh not a little against the dreames and inspirations of their bretheren but this can make no infallible ground according to their assertions for they make both the Church and tradition subject to errour and consequently if vve beleeue them no man can build vpon their authority an act of diuine and supernatural faith Finally hence it proceedeth that our aduersaries themselues accuse and censure one an other to be corrupters of scripture falsifiers and liers If vve beleeue * Luth. epist ad Ioan. Heruagium typographum Argentinens Luther the Sacramentaries beganne their opinion of the Sacrament with lies and with lies they doe defend it and they broached it abroade by the vvicked fraude of corrupting other mens workes If Caluin Caluin admonit 3. ad Westphalum Caluin in defens de Sacram p. 1085 the Lutherans are nothing else but forgers and falsifiers and of Westphalus in particular he vvriteth thus Westphalus as though he were I knowe not what Comical Iupiter carrying Minerua in his braine putteth boldly vpon al his fictions the visard of the word of God if it had not beene nowe an old thing and commonly knowne that the false Prophets did so much the more gloriously pretend the name of God by howe much the further they were from him by these frights and scar-crowes he would peraduenture doe something The word of God doth confidently sound againe and againe in his mouth but in word only And soone after This prophane man doth filthily abuse at his pleasure the sacred sentences no otherwise then Magitians doe wrest holy
he that this inspiration is from the holy Ghost vvhat reason miracle reuelation or infallible vvarrant hath he to assure himselfe of this vvhere doth he finde that God hath promised that the holy ghost shal assist and preserue euery priuate mans vnderstanding from errour that praieth for his assistance Howe doth he likewise knowe that his praier is good and acceptable in the sight of God verily this is most vncertaine and yet otherwise by our praiers we obtaine not our requests and that the holy Ghost doth not vsually inspire euery man that so praieth for the truth it is apparent For suppose that an English Protestant and a Geneuian Puritan be at controuersie touching the same sentence I and the father am one and after ordinary discourses not agreeing they betake themselues both to their praiers and desire God to instruct them of the true sense of the said vvordes Wil they after their praiers forthwith agree and be of one opinion Certainely this is not their custome What then The English Protestant vvil say the spirit hath taught me that the Father and the Sonne are one in substance the Puritan contrariwise according to the doctrine of his master a Caluin in Ioan. 10 30. Caluin approued by b Whitaker in his answere to Campians eight reason pag. 204. M. Whitaker wil affirme that the spirit hath taught him that the aforesaid sentence is to be vnderstood of vnity in power consent not in substance The ancient writers or fathers saith Caluin abused this place to proue Christ consubstantial to the Father for neither doth Christ dispute of vnity of substance but of the consent which he hath with the Father Thus Caluin Which sense this Puritan may also confirme as Whitakers doth with that sentence of our Lord vsed when he praied for his Disciples that they might be one Iohn 17 21. That they al may be one said he as thou O father art in me and I in thee And be not these inspirations contrary did the holy Ghost in this case inspire them both Truly it is impossible And thus the Lutherans and Sacramentaries the Protestants and Puritans with diuers other sectaries after many praiers vsed on euery side remaine yet at mortal jarres concerning diuers matters in controuersie betweene them Neither can it be said that one part without al doubt is assured of the truth for one hath no more vvarrant for his assurance then another and consequently seing that they cannot be al assisted with diuine inspiration vve may wel affirme that none of them are certaine that they enjoy this prerogatiue yea vve may very vvel denie it vnto them al but of this matter I haue treated aboue For mine intent at this present it is sufficient that by praier the vnlearned sectary without some special reuelation or vvarrant from God which none of them receiue cannot assure himselfe that his opinion is true Wherefore let vs yet further suppose that he remaine hitherto doubtful as vpon these groundes he should Is there now any other thing to be done for his better resolution If al this say his aduisers suffice not he must repaire for his better instruction to the learned and aske their counsaile If he demand whither the learned may not erre in their counsaile they grant it If he vrge them to giue him a certaine and infallible rule whereby to discerne in their doctrine truth from falshood they tel him that when the learned speake according to the vvord of God they say true otherwise when they swarue and stray from the said word Sutcliffe against the wardword encont 2. pag. 54. So our countriman Sutcliffe plainely affirmeth that we are to beleeue euery thing which our Pastors teach vs but as farre as they teach the doctrine of Christ IESVS Nor are we saith he absolutely to obey them but when they teach according to the lawe Wherefore one of our Arch-puritans of Caluin whome the followers of his sect esteeme aboue al others vvriteth thus We receiue M. Caluin and weigh of him T. Cartwright in D. Whitgifts defence tract 2. cap. 4. pag. 111. as of the notablest instrument that the Lord hath stirred vp for the purging of his Churches and restoring of the plaine and sincere interpretation of the Scriptures which hath beene since the Apostles time and yet we doe not so reade his workes that we beleeue anything to be true because he saith it but so farre as we can esteeme that which he saith doth agree with the Canonical scriptures And this is their common doctrine Behold therefore this poore perplexed man is sent back againe to the Scripture And is not this a palpable circle First they sent him to his Bible then to conference with one place of Scripture with another thirdly to his praiers afterwards to the learned and nowe to his Bible againe to knowe the true doctrine of the learned from the false neither can they assigne any other rule vvhereby this may be knowne Of vvhich followeth moreouer this absurdity that they make him judge ouer the learned for he is to accept and refuse their doctrine according as he judgeth it consonant or dissonant from the vvord of God But let vs suppose notwithstanding these absurdities and inconueniences that the vnlearned sectary for his better instruction goeth to the learned and comming first to an English Protestant demandeth of him the true sense of the said sentence so often alleaged I and the father are one The Protestant telleth him according to the assertion of al the ancient fathers who by this sentence commonly refuted the Arians that Christ by these vvordes giueth vs to vnderstand that he as he is God and his father haue the very selfe same substance This not satisfying him he goeth further to a Caluinist vvho being demanded the same question answereth that the true sense of those wordes is That Christ and his father agree togither Caluin in Ioan. 10 30. and are of one consent What is this poore man the neare for al this One telleth him one thing another another thing and howe shal he discerne and judge of the truth Doth not this commonly happen doe not the Professors of the newe religion disagree among themselues both concerning the translation and also the interpretation of the word of God Doth not each one of them inuite euery man to his sect beare the vvorld in hand that he hath the truth and condemne al others oppugning his opinions of errour and falshood vvhat is more manifest then this What instructions then can this vnlearned sectary receiue of the learned Hath he not cause to be more perplexed and doubtful then he vvas before vvhat therefore shal he finally doe Certainely I cannot see what other grounds he can receiue from those Doctors vvherefore if he vvil not goe to the piller of truth the Catholike Church which is guided by the holy Ghost and of heâ— receiue a diuine and infallible resolution without al doubt he must either remaine
followeth the truth and who is guilty of errour I adde likewise that he must needes confesse that both Luther Zwinglius and al the principal sectaries haue erred in some one point or other for I thinke that there is almost no man that followeth either of them in al thinges howe then can any man be assured that they haue not likewise erred in other articles in which he followeth them Surely a possibility of errour in one point argueth a possibility of errour in al other of that kinde But these matters haue beene touched before Chapter 10. Containing the Conclusion of this Treatise LET vs now drawe forth of the long discourse of this treatise some briefe conclusions and so make an end First therefore out of that which hath beene here said I gather that the Catholikes build their faith and religion vpon farre more sound and firme groundes then the professors of the newe doctrine This is manifest because there is not so much as one ground among al those which I haue set downe in the first part of this treatise on which the Catholikes build vvhich doth not farre excel any ground whatsoeuer of the newe sectaries yea I dare yet goe a litle farther and affirme that although I should set aside the authority of the Church of which as I haue aboue declared al our particular groundes receiue their strength and force and consider our groundes only as they are in themselues vvithout any other authority annexed and also graunt vnto our aduersaries that they build vpon the bare letter of holy Scripture yet I say I dare affirme that we build vpon the holy Scripture farre more soundly and more firmely then they Consider a litle that the Catholikes receiue the bare letter of holy scripture in the tongues in which these sacred bookes were first penned as wel as the sectaries let vs therefore suppose that in this they are equal But what a great difference shal we finde betweene the proofs of the truth of their translation and interpretation and the proofe of ours Hieron in praefat in Euang ad Damasum Item in Catalago The Catholikes haue the old Testament translated by S. Hierome their translation of the new Testament although it was vsed in the Latin Church before S. Hieromes daies yet it vvas by him corrected and amended And what was S. Hierome He was first a marueilous holy man of life as al antiquity giueth testimony he flourished in the Church aboue eleauen hundred yeares since and therefore he liued neare vnto the Apostles daies that is vvithin the first fiue hundred yeares after Christ wherefore the said Apostles doctrine being then something fresh in memory he could with greater ease attaine to the true sense and meaning of holy Scripture then any interpreter of our age In his daies there was no question or doubt moued in the church concerning the especial points now in controuersie betweene vs the new sectaries I meane touching the real presence justification and such like points wherefore he was a man indifferent not partial of either side but he followed that sense which was then commonly approued by the consent of the whole Church Of his great learning thus vvriteth S. Augustine in his first booke against Iulian the Pelagian Aug. lib. 1. contra Iulianum cap. 7. Neither doe thou thinke that S. Hierome because he was only a Priest is to be despised who being skilful in the Latin Greeke and moreouer in the Hebrewe tongue passing from the west Church to the East liued in the holy places in Iewrie and in study of holy Scripture vntil he was a very old man This man read al or almost al that before him had written of Ecclesiastical doctrine in both parts of the world This is the testimony of S. Augustine The like he hath in an a Idem li. 18. de ciuit c. 43. other place of his workes and b See also Cassianus l. 7. de verbi Incarn cont Nestor Prosp de ingrat Cassiodor diuinar Lect. ca. 21. and others other approued authors giue him as great a commendation Adde vnto this that for the better vnderstanding of the Hebrewe text he c Hieron epist 4. et 125 tooke instructions concerning that tongue of the most learned of the Iewes Hence Illiricus a learned Lutheran hauing found fault with the Church of the foure first ages after Christ for ignorance in the Hebrewe tongue of S. Hierome vvriteth as followeth Only my countrieman Hierome was marueilous cunning in the tongues he endeauoured to illustrate the Scriptures both by his translations and commentaries But he indeed being ignorant of mans sicknesse and Christ the phisition and wanting the key which openeth the Scripture that is the difference betweene the lawe and the Gospel being also destitute of Christ who openeth the dore did litle good hitherto are his vvordes Of which it is manifest d Illiricus in Claui part 1. proefat that according to this Protestants judgement no skil in the tongues was wanting to this holy doctour And although I confesse that the knowledge of the rule of faith beleeued in the Church and the assistance of Christ and the holy Ghost are necessary to this that a man truly translate or interprete Scripture yet I also first affirme that any man of sense wil rather yeeld these prerogatiues to S. Hierome a man so holy and auncient then to any newe sectary whatsoeuer Secondly I cannot see how according to the Protestant grounds these conditions or qualities can be pre-required in a translator or interpreter of such diuine bookes for if the Scripture be the foundation and only rule of faith as they teach and out of it only true beliefe is to be learned how is it possible but a man first beginning to translate read or interprete Scripture shal vvant true beliefe Howe can Scripture be the only ground of our faith and yet true faith be prerequired to the true translation and interpretation of Scripture Besides this out of the wordes of Illiricus alleaged it may wel be gathered that no skil and knowledge of tongues sufficeth to make a man a sufficient translatour or expounder of Scripture except vvithal his faith bee sound and he directed by Christ who openeth the dore Of which it vvil followe seing that no man as they say before he readeth and vnderstandeth Scripture can infallibly knowe that he himselfe or any other is indued with such faith or hath such assistance that no man can infallibly knowe his owne or an other mans translation to be true and sincere Verily if the translators faith must be judged by the conformity which it hath to holy Scripture as it is by them affirmed the Scripture must first be knowne before this conformity can be discerned and howe can this be done by the vnlearned sectary seing that he cannot otherwise knowe the Scripture but by some translator or interpreter Of which may be inferred that the vnlearned sectaries can neuer assure themselues
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