of Carthage wherat S. Austine was present pronounced that the doctrine of prayer and Sacrifice for the dead was according to the true fayth of Christs Church and condemned the contrary opinion for Heresie and the maintainers therof for Heretikes The Councell of Constantinople vnder Pope Vigilius condemned Origen for his Heresy in which he taught that the Diuells should in the end be saued as (d) in vita Iustiniani Zonaras and (e) lib. 17. c. 27. Nicephorus relate Finally the seauenth Synod or Councell of Nice condemned all them for Heretikes who taught that the Images of Christ his Saints were to be depriued of all due respect and reuerence and to be contemned and broken Of this point see Paulus (f) l. 23. Rerum Româ—narum Diaconus and (g) in CoÌ„pendio Historiarum Cedrenus Thus far concerning Councells condemning for Heresies falsâ— opinions touching fayth and Religion where I haue restrayned my selfe only to those Councels this last only excepted which were within the first fiue hundred yeares or little more because those times are more prized and esteemed then later tymes I haue also made choyce to exemplify some of the Controuersies of these dayes condemned in these Councels The like course was coÌ„tinued by Councels for condemning resisting of Innouations and false doctrines though not concerning the Trinitie the Incarnation or the Apostles Creede in the succeeding ages which I purposely omit But now I heare demaund First how can it stand with the infallible authoritie of Gods Church in not erring in matters of faith of which priuiledge I haue intreated in the beginning of this chapter if so she shall define the former Errours for condemned Heresies and anathematize curse the maintayners of them for wicked Heretikes though otherwyse they belieued in the Trinity Incarnation Passion c. if the Doctrines be but only matters of indifferencie and such as may stand with Saluation Secondly I aske how both the defenders impugners of the sayd Doctrines can be freed from the brand of Heresie seing the true definition of Heresy nessarily agreeth to the Doctrines maintayned by the one side for it is certaine that either the Catholikes or Protestants doe make choyce of new opinions heerin and do stubbornely maintaine these their Innouations against Gods Church THE SAME PROVED FROM the Authority of Gods Church condemning Heresies manifested by the writinges of particuler Fathers CHAP. VII NOw to come to the second way of discouering the Churches senteÌ„ce in the foresaid points which by the particuler iudgment of the Auncient and learned Fathers who were in their seuerall ages the shining lampes of Gods Church and whose authorities all succeeding ages are to reuerence is easily euicted froÌ„ Gods holy writte for answereably heereto we read in (b) Ca. 32. Deuteronomie Remember the old dayes thinke vpon euery generatioÌ„ aske thy fathers and they will tell thee thy Elders and they will declare vnto thee And the Protestant ConfessioÌ„ of Bohemia conspireth thereunto saying The Auncient (i) In the Harmony of CoÌ„fessions p. 400. Church is the true and best mistresse of Posteritie and going before leadeth the way Comming then to the Fathers I will first insist in the particuler Errours not touching either the Trinity the Incarnation or Passion of our Sauiour or the Articles of the creed but points seeming of more indifferencie condemned by them for open and damnable Heresies Next I will set downe diuers of the Fathers sayings and sentences pronounced of Heresie and Heretiks in generall But before we come to the condemnation of particuler Heresies we must conceaue that reason it selfe and reuerence due to the cheife Doctors Fathers of the Primitiue Church must presuppose that in those times all those opinions were generally acknowledged for damnable Heresies which are placed in the Catalogue of Heresies by Ireneus Hierome Epiphanius Philastrius Augustine Theodoret and other approued authours This by drift of all reason is to be acknowledged for two respects first because we cannot finde any Doctor or wyter of the same ages who contradicted the foresaid Fathers for placing in their Catalogues any opinion for Heresy which was not Heresy Secondly in that the forenamed Fathers and Authours of the Catalogues of Heresies were godly and learned men and therfore neither would nor durst brand any opinion with the note marke of Heresie which the whole church of God did not then take as Heresie All this then iustly and truly presupposed let vs proceed to the particuler Heresies so registred for such by some of the foresaid fathers where for the fuller coÌ„uincing of our Newtralists in Religion my greatest choyce some few only excepted shal be of the controuersies remayning still at this day betweene the Catholikes and Protestants 1. That God was the authour of sinne was maintayned by Florinus condemned for Heresy or rather Blasphemie by (k) as Eusebius relateth l. 5. Hist c. 20. Irenaeus and Vincentius (l) in suo Commonitorio Lyrinensis 2. The opinion touching the Impossibility of the Commaundments was maintained by certaine Nouellists of those tymes and condemned for Heresy by (m) in explanat Simbol ad Damasum Ierome in these words Execramur c. We do execrate and abhorre the blasphemy of those who say that any impossible thing is commaunded by God to be kept and obserued by man See also the like condemnation thereof giuen by (n) de tempore serm 101. Augustine 3. That man had not freewill is auerted by the Manichees and condemned for an explorate Heresy by (o) in prefat dial contra Pelag Ierome in these words Manichaeorum est hominum damnare naturam liberum auferre arbitrium The Manichees doe condemne mans nature doe take away freewill As also by S. (p) l. de haeres c. 46. Augustine saying Peccatorum originem non tribuunt Manichaei libero arbitrio The Manichees do not ascribe the beginning o sinne to Freewill 4. That Fayth doth only iustify was condemned for an Heresy in the Eunomians by Saint Augustine (q) l. de haeres c. 54. who further sayth (r) l. de fide operibus c. 14. That it first proceeded from the false vnderstanding of S. Paul in his Epistles 5. That Prayer or Sacrifice could not be offered vp for the dead is maintayned by Aërius his followers who also taught that no set fasting-dayes are to be appointed by the church yet were these two opinions condemned for Heresies by (s) haeres 75. Epiphanius and Saint (t) lib. de haeres c. 33. Augustine who thus wryteth Aëriani Haeretici docent non oportere orare aut offerre sacrificium pro mortuis nec statuta solemniter celebraÌ„da esse ieiunia sed cùm quisque voluerit ieiunandum ne videatur esse sub lege The Aërian Heretikes doe teach that we ought not to pray or offer sacrifice fo the dead that solemne fasting dayes are not to be celebrated but that euery
erroneous opinions touching Fayth against the then present Church of God But to returne more particulerly to the Subiect of this Treatise The source from whence this Libertinisme in beliefe impugned heere by me did take it origen and beginning is the contempt of the authority of Christs Church and the assumed authority of ech mans priuate Spirit For thus reasoneth the Neutrallist in Religion Both the Papists and Protestants do agree in belieuing the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion c. But they maynly dissent touching Purgatory praying to Saints Freewill Sacrifice of the Masse c. Therefore I will imbrace and follow the acknowledged doctrine of them both meaning the Doctrine of the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion and hould it necessary only to Saluation since in it all sides do conspire But seeing the dissentions in religion amonge the Papists and the Protestants are of these secondary and lesse principall points only to wit Purgatory prayer to Saints c. and seeing it is impossible that both the Protestant and the Papist should teach truly in the sayd Articles for they teach meere contrary doctrines therein so as if the one side teach true it necessarily followeth that the other side teacheth false And further seeing I haue no more reason once reiecting the authority of Gods visible Church to belieue the one partie more then the other and it is impossible for me to belieue them both Therfore my priuat Spirit biddeth me to belieue neyther but to hould the doctrines of Purgatory prayer to Saints Freewill c. and all other controuerted points of Fayth at this day betweene the Papist and the Protestant to be matters meerely accessory and of such indifferency as that neyther the true or false beliefe of them can further nor hinder my Saluation Thus farre argueth our Newtrallist who whyles he wil be of all Religions is indeed of no Religion Then which as if Religion were but a meere abstracted Notion in the mynd what can be excogitated to be more impious and Athiestical in it selfe more repugnaÌ„t to the sacred Scriptures more crosse to the practise of all Antiquity and as heerafter shall be proued more aduerse to all naturall Reason But good Reader as vnwilling to traÌ„sgresse the accustomed limits of a Preface I will detayne thee no longer only for some delibation and tast of the Subiect heerafter handled I will conclude with the sentence and iudgment of S. Augustin passed vpon the Pelagians who belieued in the Trinity in Christ and his PassioÌ„ were men of honest and morall conuersation yet for houlding That only by the force of Nature without the assistance of Gods grace a Man was able to exercise vertue flie vice a point no more fundamental then most of the CoÌ„trouersies betweene the Catholikes the Prostants they are registred for Heretikes by S. Augustin and consequently not to be in his iudgment in state of Saluation His words are these (9) Epist. 120. c. 37. Nec tales sunt Pelagiani quos facilè conteÌ„nas sed continenter viuentes atque in omnibus operibus laudabiles Nec falsum Christum sed vnum verum aequalemque Patri coaeternum veraciterque hominem factum venisse credentes venturum expectantes sed tamen ignorantes Dei iustitiaÌ„ suam constituere volentes Haeretici sunt Thus S. Augustin with whom I end leauing thee Curteous Reader to the deliberate and studious perusall of these ensuing Leaues and intreating most earnestly the prayer of all good Catholikes for the remission of my infinite sins for a happy hourâ— of the dissolution of my old and decayed Body Thy Soules wellwishing friend VV. B. P. The Contents of the ensuing Treatise THAT a man who belieueth in the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion c. And yet belieueth not all other Articles of ChristiaÌ„ Fayth cannot be saued And first of the definition of Heresy and of an Heretike Chap. 1. The foresayd Verity proued from the Holy Scripture Cap 2. The same proued from the definition nature and propriety of Vnity in Fayth Cap. 3. The same proued from the want of Vnity in Fayth between the Catholike and the Protestant touching the Articles of the Creed Cap. 4. The same euident from the like want of vnity of Fayth betweene the Catholike and Protestant in Articles necessarily to be belieued and yet not expressed in the Creed Cap. 5. The same proued from the authority or priuiledge of Gods Church in not erring eyther in her definitions of Fayth or condemnation of Heresies and first by Councells Chap. 6. The same proued from the like infallillible authority of the Church in not erring manifested from the testimonies of particuler Fathers Cap. 7. The foresaid Truth euicted from that Principle that neither Heretikes nor Schismatikes are members of the Church of God Chap. 8. The same proued from the punishment ancieÌ„tly inflicted vpon Heretikes by the Church Chap. 9. The same proued by arguments drawne from Reason Chap. 10. The same proued from the different effects of Catholike Religion and Protestancy touching Vertue and Vice Chap. 11. The same Veritie proued from the feareful deaths of the first broachers of Protestancy Ch. 12 The same confirmed from the doctrine of Recusancy taught by Catholikes ProtestaÌ„ts Ch. 13 The same manifested from the writings of the Catholikes and Protestants reciprocally charging one another with Heresy and from the Insurrections Warrs and Rebellions begun only for Religion Chap. 14. The same proued from the Protestants mutually condemning one another of Heresy Chap. 15. The same demonstrated from the many absurdities necessarily accompanying the contrary doctrine Chap. 16. The Conclusion of the whole Chap. 17. THAT A MAN WHO BELIEVETH IN the Trinity Incarnation Passion c. And yet belieueth not all other Articles of Christian fayth cannot be saued And first of the definition of Heresy and an Heretike CHAP. I. BEFORE we come good Reader to dispute particulerly of the Subiect of this Discourse I hould it most conuenient in place of a short Prolegomenon or Preface to prefixe and set downe the true definition of Heresy or an Heretike since this method will giue light to this whole ensuing Treatise diuers passages therof being principally founded vpon the definition and nature of Heresy and will best manifest what opinions be Heresyes and what men Heretikes and consequently seing Heresy is incompatible with saluation and cannot stand with the purchase of Heauen will demonstrate that not any one Religion professing the name of Christians which doth maintaine but one Heresy can iustly promiâ—â— to it selfe the hope of Eternall life Well then Heresy or Haeresis as wâ— tearme it in Latin is a Greeke word â—â—gnifying as much as Electio Election 〈◊〉 Choyce comming of the Greeke verâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latine Eligo to Choose or maâ—â— Choyce of as (a) lib. de praescript c. â— Tertullian and S. Iâ—rome (b) in c. 5. Epist. ad Galat. do well note so that this woâ—â— Haeresis
more then darkeâ— an produce light since Truth himselfe 〈◊〉 taught vs (i) Luc. 6. That we cannot gather figges â—ornes nor grapes of bushes And hence by premises we are to vnderstand that we â—n entyre perfect fayth that by the â—h we belieue all supreme articles of the Trinitie Incarnation Passion c. anâ— all the articles of the Creed expressely articulately in their true sense and do belieue all other inferiour articles at least implicitely that is that we haue a readie preparation of mind to belieue all other articles which the Church of Christ dotâ— propound to be belieued so as that thougâ— we do not belieue euery article of Chrâ—stian Religion with an explicite and expresse faith yet we are bound vnder painâ— of damnation nor to belieue any doctrinâ— contrary or repugnant to the said articleâ— which the Church of Christ doth prâ—pound to be belieued from which it vnauoydably followeth that once grauntinâ— that the Church of Christ propoundeth 〈◊〉 be belieued that there is a Purgatory â— that we may pray to the Saints he incureth damnation who belieueth that theâ— is no Purgatory or that we ought not 〈◊〉 pray to Saints Now in this third place we will toucâ— that inseparable Attribute of true Chrâ—stian fayth which is Vnity in fayth 〈◊〉 doctrine This marke is so indissolubâ—â— annexed to the true fayth of Christ as thâ— we find his Apostles euer readie most â—â—riously to inculcate the same to their dâ—ciples Thus accordingly the Aposâ—â— exhorteth the Ephesians saying (k) Ephes 4. Be you carefull to keepe the vnity of the spirit in the bond of peace And immediately againe (l) Ephes vbi supra There is one Lord one fayth one Baptisme Where we see that Vnity in fayth is expressely set downe As also in another place (m) Ephes loc cit I beseech you that you speake all one thing be you kâ—it together in one mind and one iudgment And as this was the exhortation of the Apostle To we read that the first belieuers followed â—he same of whom S. Luke thus saith The (n) Act. 4. multitude that belieued were of one hart and â—ne soule And hence it proceedeth that the Church of Christ which comprehendeth the Professours of this vnanimous faith is â—tyled by Gods holy writ (o) Rom. 12. One Bodie one (p) Cant. 6. Spouse (q) Ioan. 10. one flocke of sheepe A truth â—o euident as that besides the frequent teâ—timonies of the Faâ—hers (r) Athanasius orat 1. con Ani. Chrysost opere imperfecto in Mat. Hom. 20. Tertullian de praescript Irenaeus l r. c. 5. confirming the â—ame euer the Protestants subscribe in iudgâ—ent heerto For thus (Å¿) Luther tom 3. Wittenberg in psal 5. fol. 166. Luther himselfe to omit (t) see herâ—â—â—f the Deuines of Mansfeild against the Sacramentaries And the Deuines of Heidelberg against the Anabaptists others writeth A kingdome deuiâ—ed in it selfe shall not stand neither haue any â—eretikes at any tyme bine ouercome by force or â—btility but by mutuall dissention neither doth â—hrist fight with them otherwise then with a spiâ—â—t of giddines and disagreement Now then this Vnitie of faith is so to be â—nderstood as that it is not repugnant therto that one and the same point should at one time not be houlden as necessary to be belieued the which after it hath vndergone a definitiue sententionall decree of Gods Church is necessarily to be belieued As for example it was not necessary in the beginning of Christianity to belieue that the booke of the Machabees the Epistle of S. Iames S. Iude the second Epistle of S. Peter the second and third of S. Iohn to be Canonicall Scripture till they were defined so to be by the third Councell (u) Can. 47. of Carthage at which S. Augustine was present But after this Councell had by the assistance of the holy Ghost defined them to be Canonicall and this after confirmed by the consent of the whole Church then it was and is Heresy to deny them to be Canonicall And the reason of this disparity is because it is Gods good pleasure wisdome not to reueale to his Church all articles of faith in the beginning and at one time but at seuerall times and vpon seuerall occasions as to his diuine Maiesty best seemeth expedient Thus the fayth of a Christian is capable of dilatation and of a more large vnfoulding or exposition but not of any contrariety in beliefe chaunge or alteration Anâ— thus to insist in the former example yâ— may well stand with Christian faith in the â—eginning not to accept the former bookes or Canonicall till the authority of the Church had pronounced them for such But it standeth not with sound faith that one man should positiuely belieue now after the Churches definition therof giuen as an article of fayth that the Machabees and the rest of the bookes aboue specified are not Canonicall Scripture but the prophane writings of man and another man should belieue as an article of Faith that they are Canonicall Scripture since the one of these contrary beleifes must be Hereticall This verity of the Vnity of faith being warranted by the word both of God and man as is aboue said we will take into our consideration the Catholike and Protestant Religions both which ioyntly do professe to belieue in generall in the Trinity in Christs Incarnation his Passion and the Creed of the Apostles and so we shall discerne whether the faith of all these seuerall Professours doth inioy the foresaid marke of vnity in doctrine or noe But seing this Subiect is most ample and large I will therfore sepose this ensuing chapter for the more full and exact discouery of the many and great disagreements betweene the Catholikes and the Protestants in their fayth and Religion THE SAME PROVED FROâ— want of vnity in fayth betweene Catholikes anâ— Protestants touching the Articles of the Creed CHAP. IIII. VNDERTAKING in this place tâ— set downe the multiplicity of opinions betweene Catholikes anâ— Protestants though they all iointly belieue in the Trinity the Incarnation oâ— Christ his Passion and the like and consequently that this their general beliefe wanteth that true Vnity of fayth which out of thâ— holy Scriptures Fathers the Protestants I haue aboue shewed to be most necessary to Saluation I will first examine how the Protestants and Catholikes doe differ touching the beliefe of the Creed made by the Apostles Next I will demonstrate that supposing all Professours of both Religions should agree in the true sense and meaning of the Creed yet there are diuers other dogmaticall points necessarily to be belieued and are at this instant belieued both by Protestants and Catholikes which are not expressed or mentioned in the Creed nor by any immediate inference can be drawne from thence Lastly I wil set down the great difference betweene Catholiks ProtestaÌ„ts in other points of fayth of which the Creed makes no intimation or
Heresies only in the greatest points admitting such meÌ„ for Heretikes would accordingly haue restrayned his words at least in some one â—ext or other among so many only to these kind of Heretikes But not to leaue the least â—hew of refuge or euasion herein I will produce some passage of holy Scripture in wchâ—he mantayners of particuler errours euen â—n lesser points then the highest articles of Christianity are censured by Christs Apoâ—tles to be depriued of eternall Saluation And first we find S. Paul thus to prophesie In the later (h) 1. Tim. cap. 4. times certaine shall depart from the Fayth attending to spirits of errour and doctrine of deuills and forbidding to marry and to abstaine from meates c. Heere the Apostle prophesieth according to the iudgment of (i) Hom. 12. in 1. Tim. S. Chrysostom (k) Vpon this place Ambrose (l) l. contra Iouin cap. 1. Ierom (m) Haer. 25. 40. Augustin of the Heretikes Encratites Marcionistes Ebionites c. who denyed matrimony as a thing altogeather vnlawfull prohibited absolutly and at all times the eating of certaine meates as creatures impure Now these Heretikes belieued in the Trinity the Incarnation c. yet euen for these two former Heresies touching mariage and eating of meates they are sayd bâ— the Apostle to depart from the Fayth of Chrisâ— and to attend to the doctrine of deuills But sucâ— as leaue the Fayth of Christ and attenâ— to the doctrine of Diuells are not iâ— state of Saluation In my iudgement thâ— one authority alone is sufficient to oueâ—throw this phantasie of our Newtrallists 〈◊〉 since the words are diuine Scripture thâ— Heresies reprehended no fundamentalâ— points of Religion but of as little or lesseâ— consequence then the Controuersies betwixt the Catholikes and the Protestants yet the maintainers of them are accompted to depart from the Fayth of Christ and to attend to the doctrine of deuills A second place shal be that of the former Apostle who writing of certayne Heretikes erring touching the Resurrection of the Body though the article of the Resurrection it selfe they belieued sayth thus (n) 2. Tim. cap. â— Their speach spreadeth like a Canker of whome is Hymenaeus and Philetus who haue erred from the truth saying That the Resurrection is allready past and haue subuerted the Fayth of some These men belieued all the mysteries of the Trinity the IncarnatioÌ„ c. yet for erring only touching the Resurrection of the body they are sayd to erre from the truth to subuert the Fayth of some and that as Canker neuer leaueth the body till â—y little and little it wasteth it away so â—heir speaches by degrees poyson and kill â—he soules of the hearers From which it â—uidently followeth that these Heretikes â—ontinuing and dying in the foresaid Hereâ—ie could not be saued since that faith which â—rreth from the truth which subuerteth the true â—aith of Christ in others and which in killing and â—estroying resembleth a Canker cannot affoard Saluation to its Professours Another passage which heere I will vrge â—s that of S. Iohn who calleth certaine Heâ—etikes Antichrists saying (o) 1. Ioan. c. 2. Now there are beâ—ome many Antichrists who went out of vs were not of vs for if they had byn of vs they would surely haue remayned with vs. These Heretikes belieued in the Trinity in the Incarnation of Christ that he dyed for the saluation of the whole world only they erred touching the Person Natures of Christ yet they are figuratiuely stiled Antichrists and are said to depart out of the Church of Christ but no saluation is reserued for Antichrists and Apostataes leauing the Church of Christ. And thus much out of Gods holy Writ expressely touching Heresie in generall particuler To these Texts I will adioyne though not immediately and directly raunged vnder the former head a place or two of Scripture in my iudgment most vnanswerable and by necessarie inference euicting the point heere vndertakeÌ„ The first place is those words of S. Peter where he saith (p) 2. Ep. c. 3. In the Epistles of S. Paul there are certaine things hard to be vnderstood which the vnlearned and vnstable do peruert vnto their owne destruction Now heere I thus argue But these thinges hard to be vnderstood in S. Paul his Epistles did not concerne the doctrine of the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion c. and yet the misvnderstanding of them doth cause as the text saith the destruction that is the damnation of them who misunderstand them Therfore farre lesser points then the deniall of the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion c. doe iustly threaten to the false belieuers of them daÌ„nation and consequently it followeth that a bare beliefe of those supreme points is not sufficient to Saluation That those difficulties in S. Paules Epistles intimated by S. Peter did not concerne the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion c. I prooue seuerall wayes first because S. Peter maketh no such mention which no doubt he would haue done if the subiect of them had only touched those supreme mysteries and were not to be extended to other inferiour pointes Secondly it is acknowledged by the writings and â—ommentaries of all the Fathers besides â—at the Epistles themselues shew no lesse â—at S. Paul is most euident and cleere in 〈◊〉 his Epistles touching the Trinity the â—carnation the Passion c. and therfore â—ere is no reason why the difficulties of â—hem should be applyed to those articles such lesse restrayned to them alone Thirdly the Fathers do vnderstand these â—â—fficulties in S. Paul his Epistles mentioâ—d by S. Peter chiefly touching Iustificaâ—oÌ„ as appareth by the testimony euen of S. â—gustine (q) l. de fide operibus c. 15. 16. himselfe who particulerly â—tanceth in that place 1. Corinth 3. If â— man build vpon this foundation gold siluer 〈◊〉 which text intreateth of Iustification â—nd workes and expresly saith that this is he of the difficult passages intended and â—ant by S. Peter With S. Augustine S. â—ome may seeme well to agree in these â—ords (r) Epist ad Algasiam quae 8. Epistola ad Romanos nimijs obscuriâ—bus inuoluta est The Epistle to the Roâ—â—ns is inuolued with many obscurities or â—ake places for it is found that the Epiâ—â—le to the Romans most entreateth of Iuâ—fication and of faith and workes Fourâ—ly and lastly the Protestants themselues 〈◊〉 vnderstand the said obscurities of S. Paul 〈◊〉 Epistles touching Iustification as appeareth to omit the testimonies of â— others herein from the words and Coâ—ment of Doctor Fulke against the Rhâ—mish Testament vpon the foresaid plaâ—â— of S. Peter And this farre of this text wheâ— we find by an ineuitable deduction that false Fayth touching Iustification only caâ—not stand with Saluation The second text of scripture is containâ— in those words of the Apostle where thus sayth (c) c. 11. ad Hebraeos s Credere oportet accedentem ad Dâ— quia
est inquirentibus se remunerator sit 〈◊〉 that commeth to God must belieue that God iâ— and is a rewarder to them that seeke him Hee is imposed a necessity as appeareth by tâ—â— word Oportet to belieue not only that the is a God but that this God giueth rewarâ— to such as seeke him to wit eternall lyâ— But to belieue that God is a rewarder of goâ— men is an article in it selfe wholy distinct 〈◊〉 differeÌ„t from the articles of the Trinity thâ— Incarnation the Passion c. and in natuâ—â— independent of these other for a man maâ— belieue that God is a rewarder of good meâ— with eternall felicity and yet not belieuâ— these other supreme Mysteryes as man vertuous men no doubt did in the law oâ— nature and in the time of the old Testâ—ment and on the contrary side a man maâ— belieue those chiefe articles of Christianity and yet not particulerly belieue that God is a rewarder of such as seeke him And yet we see the beliefe of this later point is necessarily exacted by the Apostle of all those who come to God consequently of all those who shal be saued seeing no man can be saued but such as come to God THE SAME PROVED FROM THE DEfinition Nature and Propriety of Fayth CHAP. III. IN this place we shall first take into our consideration the definition of fayth set downe by S. Paul Secondly the dignity worth of â—ayth much celebrated by diuers of the Aâ—ostles Thirdly the inseparable propriety â—f Fayth which is Vnity for so doth the â—cripture delineate and describe Fayth â—â—om all which it will ineuitably follow â—hat that Fayth which saueth man is not â—o be restrayned only to the Trinity the â—ncarnation and other such sublime points â—f Christian Religion though in other points it be erroneous but to all points whatsoeuer which the Church of God propoundeth to be belieued And to beginne with the definition of Fayth giuen by the Apostle He thus deâ—neth Fayth (a) c. 11. ad Hebraeos Fayth is the substance of thiâ— to be hoped for the argument of things not appâ—ring The sense wherof is this first thâ— Fayth through an infallible certainty caâ—seth those things to subsist and haue a bâ—ing in the mind of man which are yâ— to come but hoped and looked for Sâ—condly that fayth causeth the vnderstaâ—ding to giue an assent to those points whiâ— it vnderstandeth not acknowledging theâ— to be more certaine then any other thinâ— whatsoeuer according to those words of 〈◊〉 Thomas (b) quaest 4. art 8. Multo magis homo certior est de eo qâ—â— audit à Deo qui falli non potest quà m de eo quâ— videt propria ratione quae falli potest Now heeâ— I trust no man wil deny but the Apostle dâ—fined that Fayth of a Christian which sâ—ueth him This being graunted for to denâ— it were both impious in the denier moâ— iniurious to the Apostle we are to remember the nature of euery true definition sâ— downe by the Logitians to wit as is aboue intimated that the thing defined anâ— the definition be of one and the same extenâ— latitude so as whatsoeuer is compreheÌ„ded vnder the definitioÌ„ the same is also contayned vnder the thing defined This theâ— being presupposed by force of all reason foâ— Logike is but an artificiall haÌ„dmaid to Reason we find that this definition of Fayth â—mpriseth in it selfe not only the Doctriâ—e of the Trinity of the Incarnation c. â—nd this not articulately but only by way â—deduction but also it containeth all seâ—â—ndary points of Religion seeing the forâ—r definition doth predicate or may be â—â—d of all the sayd secondary and lesse prinâ—all points of Religion controuerted betâ—eene Christians at any time Therfore the â—ng heere defined which is the sauing â—ayth of a Christian is in like sort to exâ—â—nd it selfe to all the sayd secondary points â— Religion how indifferent soeuer they â—â—me in mans iudgment This inference is 〈◊〉 demonstratiue being taken from the forâ—er definition of Fayth as that the Apostle â—â—mselfe presently after the former words â—â—ginning to instance the seueral Obiect of â—â—yth among diuers other examples setâ—h downe that to belieue Noahs floud 〈◊〉 the deluge of the world by water for â—ne is an article of Fayth for thus he â—â—yth By Fayth (c) Hebr. 11. Noah hauing receaued an ansâ—â—re concerning those things which as yet were â—ot seene fearing framed the Arke for the sauing of â—is howse But to proceed further If the Articles of he Trinity the Incarnation and the like 〈◊〉 the only essentiall points of a true Christian Fayth it is more then wonderfull that the Apostle vndertaking to set down the true definition of an auailable Fayth and exemplifying it in it seuerall Obiects should wholy and silently omit the say articles of the Trinity Incarnation PassioÌ„ c. he in that Chapter not expresly speaking one word of them And thus much touching the definitioâ— of Fayth giuen by the Apostle from whicâ— definition we conclude that whosoeuâ—â— seeketh to haue a true Fayth necessary to saâ—uation must belieue besides the mysteriâ— of the Trinity the Incarnation c. diueâ— others dogmaticall articles of Christian Râ—ligion And therfore answereably therâ— we assure our selues that when our Sauioâ— sayd He (d) Marc. 16. that belieueth not shal be condemneâ— he did speake of the belieuing of the whoâ— corps of Christian Fayth and Doctrine aâ— not only of any part therof for so in this lâ—ter maner it would be both false absurâ— In like fort where our Blessed Sauiour 〈◊〉 the same Chapter sayth to his Apostle Preach the Ghospell to all creatures c. He dâ— vnderstand the whole Ghospell which câ—â—tayneth many other points besides the Tâ—â—nity Incarnation and Passion c. In this next place we will descend 〈◊〉 those passages of holy Scripture which much magnify the efficacy and vertue of â—â—yth And accordingly heerto we find it 〈◊〉 said (e) Marc. vlt. He that belieueth and is baptized â—â—albe saued but he that belieueth not shal be conâ—â—mned Againe our Sauiour said to the â—ind men praying to receaue their sight According to your faith be it donne vnto you (f) Mat. 9. â—nd further (g) Hebr. c. 11. Without fayth it is impossible to â—ase God And more (h) 1. Ioan. c. 5. Our fayth is the virie which ouercommeth the world Now in â—â—ese and many other such texts for breuity â—itted I demaund what fayth is vnderâ—od or meant If it be answered a true â—yre perfect faith belieuing all points Christian Religion proposed by Gods â—â—urch it is true and that which I heare â—e to prooue Yf an vnperfect and munâ—l faith belieuing some points of Chriâ—â—â—â—â— Religion and reiecting others and so â—rroneus faith being partly true partly â— I say it can neuer deserue these prayses â—n by the Euangelists and Apostles neiâ—â—â— can it produce such supernaturall efâ— aboue specifyed no
Touching Baptisme the Catholikes belieue that Children as being borne in Originall sinne cannot be saued except they be baptized with water according to those words of S. (1) Ioan. 3. Iohn Vnlesse a man be borne againe of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God The (2) Willet in his meditation vpon the 122. Psalme and Caluin and Beza most frequently Protestants belieue that Infants dying vnbaptized may be saued Touching the Sacrament of Pennance or Confession The Catholikes belieue that after a Christian hath committed any one mortal sinne that sinne cannot be forgiuen him but by meanes of cōfessing the said sinne to a Priest of the new Testament and receauing absolution therof from him answereably to that of S. (3) Ca. 20. Iohn whose sinnes you shall forgiue they are forgiuen them and whose sinnes you shall retayne they are retayned The Protestants belieue that neither the confession of sinnes to man nor the absolution of man is necessary for the remitting of sinne vnto them but that it is suficient to confesse them only to God And thus according to this their diuersitie of doctrine either the Protestants for want of this Sacrament graunting it to be necessary after he hath once mortally sinned cannot be saued or the Catholike for practising a false superstitious manner of seeking to haue his sinnes remitted supposing it to be repugnant to the Institution of Christ cannot haue them remitted and consequently cannot be saued Touching the most blessed Eucharist The Catholikes belieue that the verie body and bloud doth lye ineffably and latently vnder the formes of bread and wyne according to that (4) Mat. 26. This is my Body This is my bloud That (5) Ioan. 6. Vnlesse we eate his Body and drinke his bloud we shall not haue life euerlasting Lastly that we are to Adore Christ his Body being accompanied with his Diuinitie in the said Sacrament The Protestants do belieue that his true Body as neuer leauing heauen cannot possibly be truly and really vnder the formes of bread and wyne and consequently they belieue that the eating of his body and drinking of his bloud is not necessary to Saluation finally they hould our Adoratiō of the Sacrament to be open Idolatry and tearme Catholikes Idolaters for the adoring of it And thus the Protestants as not feeding vpon this Celestiall foode shall not haue life euerlasting if the Catholikes doctrine heerin be true or els Catholikes suppose they should erre for teaching and practising Idolatry heerin should incurre damnation Touching the meanes of our Iustification the Catholikes belieue that not only faith but works also do iustify The Protestants reiect all workes from Iustificatiō teaching that only fayth doth iustifie man yea they further proceede affirming that who once hath true faithe is most assured and (a) Caluin in Instit passim Kemnitius in exam Concilij Trident. certaine of his saluation whereas the Catholikes reputing this as meere presumption are willing according to the (b) Phil. 2. Apostle to worke their saluation with feare and trembling To be short the Protestants (*) so Luther in art 10. 11. 12. Caluin in Antidot Concil Trident. sess 6. Melancthon in locis tit de fide do teach that a man by thinking himself to be Iust is by this meanes become Iust wheras the Catholikes doe hould this doctrine not only to be phantasticall but also in (c) Vide Bellarm. l. 3. de Iustificat reason most absurd Touching grace without which man cannot be saued The Catholiks belieue that God out of the abysse and depth of his infinite mercie offereth to euery Christian sufficient grace wherby he may be saued and therfore they doe encourage euery one to endeauour to seeke their saluation The (d) This is taught by Caluin and Beza in whole Treatises and by D. Willet in his Synopsis of anno 1600. p. 589. Protestants teach that God giueth not this sufficiencie of grace to euery one but to certaine men only and that diuers there are who notwithstanding all their endeauour to belieue truly and liue vertuously yet cannot nor shall not be saued Touching the Decalogue or ten Commaundments The Catholikes belieue that except a Christian doe keep them he cannot be saued according to that saying of our Sauiour (d) Mat. 19. If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commaundments The (e) D. Reynolds in his 2. Conclus annexed to his Cōference p. 697. D. Willet in his Synopsis p. 564. Protestants do absolutely teach an impossibility of keeping them And thereupon (f) Serm. de Moyse Luther thus affirmeth The ten Commaundements appertaine not to vs. Lastly Touching the Pope or Bishop of Rome The Catholikes doe belieue that he is vnder Christ the supreme Pastour vpon Earth that who doth not communicate with him in Sacraments and doctrine not yealding him all due obedience in subiecting their iudgments in matters of faith to his iudgment and sententionall definitions set downe in a generall Councell cannot be saued The Protestants doe teach the Bishop of Rome is that Antichrist which is decyphered by the (g) 2. Thes 2. Apocal. 13. 17. Apostle and which is the designed enemy of Christ and that whosoeuer imbraceth his doctrine or enthralleth as they write their assents to his Cathedrall decrees in points of Religion cannot obtayne Saluation Thus far of these points in which I haue made particuler choyce to insist omitting some others of like nature because we see that most or all of them doe immediatly principally as is aboue said touch the meanes of purchasing of grace of remission of our Sinnes and of obtayning our Saluation being maintayned for such by the Catholiks but vtterly denyed and reiected by the Protestants And heere I now vrge two things First if these former doctrines as they are belieued by the Catholikes doe immediatly concerne Saluation become necessary meanes thereof as instituted by Christ then cannot the Protestants as reiecting all such Doctrines and such meanes both in beliefe and practise be saued If by a supposall they be not of that nature but false in themselues and the contrary doctrines of Protestants true then cannot the Catholikes as belieuing false doctrines immediatly touching mans Saluation and accordingly practising them be saued from which forked argument it may demonstratiuely be inferred that it is impossible that both Catholikes and Protestants the one part belieuing the other not belieuing the foresaid doctrines should both be saued Secondly I vrge that a false beliefe not only in these articles but also in all other Controuersies betweene the Catholike and Protestant is playne Heresy And this because this false beliefe is comprehended within the definition of Heresie as being in it selfe an Election and choyce of a new or false doctrine wilfully maintayned against the Church of God and therfore it followeth that eyther the Catholikes or Protestants for their persisting in this false beliefe or Heresie maintayning it
against Gods Church shal be damned But here I will stay my selfe wading no further in the disquisition and search of the great dissentions betweene Catholikes and Protestants touching faith and beliefe only I will reflect a litle vpon the premises And heere it is made most euident first that the Catholikes and Protestants do mainly differ in the sense and construction of the Articles of the Creede and consequently seing the sense and not the words do make the Creed that they both do not belieue one and the same Creede but haue to themselues seuerall Creedes from which point is sufficiently discouered the want of Vnity in faith among them both which Vnitie is so necessarily required to mans saluation as in the precedent chapter is demonstrated Secondly that though by supposition they did belieue the Creede and the true sense therof with an vnanimous consent yet it is proued there are diuers other articles not contayned in the Creed which are indifferently belieued as necessary to saluation both by Catholike and Protestant Thirdly seing also there are sundry Controuersies in Religion as is aboue exemplified which immediatly concerne saluation being houlden as necessary meanes therof by Catholikes but disclaymed from and abaÌ„doned by the Protestants as mayne errours and false doctrines Therfore from all the former premises I do auerre that it is a manifest errour to make the Creed the sole rule of Fayth and that he who maintaynes that both the Catholikes and Protestants notwithstanding their great disparitie of beliefe and fayth the one side necessarily belieuing maintayning Heresie can be saued or enioy one heauen is wholy depriued of all true iudgement reason and discourse and for want thereof may deseruedly be ranged among them of whome the psalmist speaketh (h) Psal 11. nolite fieri sicut equus mulus quibus non est intellectus THE SAME PROVED FROM the authority and priuiledge of the Church in not erring in her definitions and condemnation of Heresies and first of Councels CHAP. VI. FROM the inuiolable vnitie of faith we will next descend to the priuiledges of Gods true Church Of which priuiledges I will at this time take only one into my consideration that is that the Church of God is endued with a supreme priuiledge and prerogatiue of not erring in her definitions of fayth or condemnatioÌ„ of heresie This point is warranted by innumerable texts of holy Scripture as where it is sayd (i) Esay 72. Vpon thy wall ô Hierusalem I haue set watchmen all the day and all the night they shall not be silent But God did not set watchmen ouer his Church to teach errour And agayne The (a) 2. Tim. 3. Church of God is the pillar and foundation of the truth what more perspicuous And further whereas ech man â—s commaunded to repayre in difficulties matters of small consequeÌ„ces to the Church it is threatned by Christ himselfe that who wil not heare the Church shal be accompted â—s an Heathen or Publican according to â—hat his commination Si Ecclesiam non auâ—ierit (b) Mat. 18. sit tibi sicut Ethnicus Publicanus where we find no restriction but that in all things we are to heare the Church Agayne Christ himselfe speaketh to his Apostles and in them to the whole Church He (c) Luc. 10. that heareth you heareth me But if the church could erre neither would Christ refer vs to the church especially vnder so great a penalty neither by hearing the church could we be iustly sayd to heare Christ Finally the Church is so gouerned by Christ as its head or spouse and by the holy Ghost as its soule as therefore we find the Apostle thus to write (d) Ephes 1. thereof God hath made him head speaking of Christ ouer all the Church which is his body And agayne (e) Ephes 4. One body and one spirit yet more The (f) Ephes 5. man is the head of the woman as Christ is head of the Church From which texts it followeth that if the church should erre in its definitioÌ„s or resolutions of fayth and condemnation of Heresy this erring might well be ascribed to Christ and to the holy Ghost and consequently it followeth that the Apostles in making the creed would haue omitted that Article I belieue in the Catholike Church For why should we be bound to belieue the church if the church could erre This truth I meane that the church of Christ cannot erre in her sententionall decrees is so illustrious and euident that Tertullian speaking of certaine Heretikes of his tyme obiecting the erring of the whole church thus figuratiuely or Ironically writeth Age Omnes (g) in l. de praescript c. 28. Ecclesiae errauerunt nullam respexit spiritus Sanctus vti eam in veritatem deduceret ad hoc missus à Christo ad hoc postulatus de Patre vt esset doctor veritatis c. That is Go to Belike all the Churches haue erred and the holy Ghost hath regarded no Church that be might lead it into truth being sent for this purpose by Christ and to the same end begged by Christ of the Father â—hat it might be the teacher of truth And S. Augustine Disputare (h) Epist 118. contra id quod Ecclesia vniuersae sentit insolentissimae insaniae est To dispute agaynst any point maintayned by the whole Church is extreme madnes To whose iudgment herein most of the more sober and learned Protestants do indisputably subscribe since diuers of them doe with all feruour earnestnes maintayne that (i) D. Bancrost in his Sermon printed anno 1588. Fox Act. mon. fol. 464. b. art 4. The deuines of Geneua in their propositions and principles disputed c. p. 141. and diuers others the church of Christ cannot erre and that what she defineth for truth is most true or what for Heresy or â—alshood is hereticall and to be condemned This Basis or foundatioÌ„ of the church not â—rring being thus firmely layde we are heereupon to conclude that what points of Religion the catholike church of Christ hath condemned for Heresies the same are by vs to be reputed for Heresies since the churches condemnation or approbation is most infallible and the maintayners of the sayd Heresies for Heretikes and consequently that such Heretikes as departing out of the Church of God by their houlding of the sayde Hereticall opinions cannot be saued Now because the iudgment of the Church in matters of fayth is discouered two wayes first by the sentence of generall Councells secondly by the frequent attestations of the sayd chiefe Doctours of the Church in euery age in their particuler wrytings they not being contradicted therin by any other Orthodoxall Fathers or Doctours of the same age I will therefore distributiuely handle both these wayes shewing that both in generall by Councels and also by the particuler iudgement of the learned Fathers many opinions though not touching the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion or the expresse Articles of
the Apostles creed haue byn condemned for playne Heresies and the belieuers of them anathematized for Heretikes And first to begin with councells the infallible authority of which euen Christ himselfe hath by his owne wordes often ratifyed as where he sayth Where (k) Mat. 18. two or three much more where many hundreds of venerable Bishops are gathered togeather in my name I am in the midst of them And againe speaking to the Church and in it to the assembled Doctours and Pastours thereof I am (l) Mat. 28. with you all dayes euen to the consummation of the world which councells are euer directed and gouerned by the holy Ghost according to those wordes in the Acts (*) c. 15. Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis and therefore are worthily receaued and admitted for the supremest sentence of Gods church not only by the auncient (n) Atha Ep. ad Epictetum August in Epist 162. Greg. Nazian orat in Athan. Cyril l. de Trinit c. Fathers but euen by the more learned Protestants since to omit others one of the most remarkable of them thus writeth (o) D. Bilson in his perpetual gouernement p. 370. Synods are an externall Iudiciall meanes to discerne errour and (p) D. Bils vbi supra p. 374. the surest meanes to decide doubts But to proceed forward and to beginne with these And first with the councell of the Apostles This councell was assembled as we read in S. (1) Act. 15. Luke by reason of certayne contentious men maintayning that the Gentils conuerted to the christian Faith might eate meate offered vp to Idols bloud and strangled beasts coÌ„trary to the custome of the Iewes The Apostles being assembled and bearing with the weakenes of the Iewes in the infancy of the church decreed all prohibition of eating bloud strangled meates After which decree once established it is certayne that it had byn a mortall sinne immediatly to haue eaten of bloud straÌ„gled meates so as before it being a point of indifferency is now made necessary This appeareth from the text First from those words Certayne going forth from vs haue troubled you with words subuerting your soules But men do neyther depart out of the Church by maintayning certaine opinions nor by their example therin can they subuert other mens soules if their doctrine and practice thereof doe still remayne about thinges indifferent Secondly from that other passage It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs to lay no further burthen vpon you then these necessary thinges where we find that the prohibition of such meates is ranged by the Apostles in regard of those tymes among those thinges which are necessary Againe neither would the Apostles haue gathered themselues togeather so solemnely neither would they haue ascribed the decreeing of it to the work of the holy Ghost if the Subiect of the question and difficulty then discussed by theÌ„ had concerned matters only of Indifferency after such their decree made Now from the example of this councell I doe gather That if a councell by it owne authority may decree that the eating of certayne meates being otherwayes of their owne nature indifferently to be eaten without sinne shal be vnlawfull and shall repute and hould the impugners thereof for men departed out of the Church of Christ then à fortiori what doctrine soeuer a councell shall condemne of it owne nature for Heresy the same is to be reputed by all good christians for Heresy and the defendours thereof for Heretikes Secondly the councell of Nice was ceâ—ebrated though principally for the represâ—ing of Arius his Heresy denying the Diuinity of Christ yet withall touching the controuersy of keeping the feast of Easter as â—t is apparent out of (q) l. 3. de vit Const. Eusebius (r) in lib. de Synod Arim Seleuciae Athanasius (Å¿) Haeres 70. vz. Audianorum Epiphanius Now this councell pronounceth Anathema to al those who besides the denying of the Diuinity of Christ should deny that the feast of Easter was not to be kept according to the custome of the church but according to the custome of the Iewes And these Heretikes were called Quartadecimani of whom see Tertullian libro de praescript Augustine Haeresi 29. And heere we are to vnderstand that the word Anathema vsed and pronunced by this councell which word is also almost euery where vsed in all generall councells signifyeth as much as accursed and in this sense we find this word Anathema to be vsed by the Apostle in seuerall (t) Rom. 1. Cor. 12 places so as when a councell pronounceth Anathema to any for belieuing such or such Heresies or not belieuing such and such true doctrines it intendeth to say that those men so doing are to be accursed and abandoned from God But no man is to be accursed or abandoned from God for belieuing or not belieuing points of Indifferency but for belieuing of such Errours as cannot stand with his Soules saluation The third Councell of Carthage wherat S. Augustine was present decreed that the booke of the Machabees with some other bookes should be acknowledged as canonicall and pronounceth Anathema and condemnation to all those who should not belieue them as canonicall Scripture From whence it may be concluded that seeing the booke of the Machabees teacheth Prayer (*) 2. Macab c. 1. for the dead that therfore this councell alloweth that doctrine condemning the contrary doctrine for Heresy The doctrine of the Nouatians who taught That there was not power in the church to reconcile men to God but only by Baptisme excluding and denying therby the Sacrament of Pennance was condemned with the brand of Anathema in the councell of Rome houlden vnder Pope Cornelius as (x) lib. 6. hist c. 33. Eusebius reporteth At which tyme also was condemned for Heresy the errour of Anabaptisme as the same (y) l. 7. hist cap. 2. Eusebius relateth The councell of Calcedon condemned the Heresy of Eutiches who taught that there was but only one (z) vt patet in act 1. Conc. Nature in Christ after his Incarnation In like sort the first councell of Ephesus condemned the heresy of Nestorius teaching two Persons to be in Christ as appeareth out of (a) in Chronico Prosper and (b) l. 7. c. 34. Socrates Now touching both these last Heresies we are to vnderstaÌ„d that both Nestorius Eutiches did belieue in Christ Iesus our Sauiour as the Redeemer of the world yet they were registred and branded for Heretikes only for their pertinacious erring touching the Person and Natures of Christ as now the Protestants may be reputed Heretikes for their ascribing of Ignorance Passion and Desperation to Christ The councell of Chalcedon also decreed that vowed Virgins and Monkes could not marry condemning those with an Anathema and for Heretikes that should hould and maintayne the Contrary as is to be seene out of the Councell it selfe The fourth (c) Can. 79. councell
one is to fast wheÌ„ it pleaseth him least otherwayes he might seeme to liue vnder the law Thus far S. Augustine 6. That Priests might marry was condemned in Vigilantius for Heresy by Ierome who in his booke agaynst Vigilantius thus writeth Quid faciunt OrieÌ„tis Ecclesia c. What do the Churches of the East in this point what the Church of Egypt and the Apostolicall Sea they admit for Priests men who are eyther Virgins or coÌ„tinent or if they haue wyues do cease to become husbands 7. That Marriage and Virginity were of equall dignity was defended by Iouinian who also absolutely denyed all diuersity oâ— merits yet was this his errour condemneâ— for heresy by (u) lib. 1. aduersus Iouin c. 2. S. Hierome and S. (x) de tempore serm 191. Augustine thus writing heerof Iouiniani damnamus errorem qui dicit nullam in futuro meritorum distantiam We condemne the errour of Iouinian who teacheth that there is no disparity or difference of merits in tyme to come 8. That the Church was not euer visible was taught by the Donatists but condemned for a most wicked Heresy by S. Augustine who thus discourseth thereof Donatistae detorqueâ— Scripturas in Ecclesia Dei vt tanquam defeciâ— perijsse de toto orbe videatur The (x) lib. de vnitat Eccles c. 22. Epist. 170. ad Seuer Donatisâ— do detort the Scripture and apply it to the Churcâ— of God that the Church thereby may seeme to haâ— suffered defect or perished out of the whole world 9. That Baptisme of Children was not necessary was taught by the Pelagians but condemned for a manifest heresy by (y) in Rescripto ad Mileuit Concil Innocentius by S. Augustine (z) haeres 86. and by S. (a) in Ep. 86. ad Epis Aquileiensem Leo. 10. The Religious vse of Images of Christ oâ— his Saints was sacrilegiously denyed by Zenaias Persa as (b) l. 16. c. 27. Nicephorus witnesseth writing thus Xenaias iste primus ô audaceâ— animam os impudens vocem illam euomuri Christi eorum qui illi placuere imagines venirandas non esse That is this Xenaias was the firsâ— that vomited forth this word o bould soule impâ—dent mouth that the Images of Christ and his seruants were not to be worshipped 11. That we ought not to pray to Saints or to worship their Relikes was iustifyed by Vigilantius but condemned for heresy by S. Ierome (c) Li. contra Vigil c. 1. 3. and by S. Augustine who of this latter branch thus wryteth Sanctorum (d) Lib. de Eccles Dog c. 73. corporum praecipue Beatorum Martyrum Reliquias ac si Christi membra sincerissimè honoranda credimus Si quis contra hanc sententiam venerit non Christianus sed Eunomianus aut Vigilantianus creditur We belieue that the Relikes of holy bodyes but especially of martyrs as the members of Christ are to be honoured most sincerely and who shall come to impugne this doctrine is to be accompted no Christian but an Eunomian or a Vigilantian 12 The ouerthrowing of Altars and casting away of holy Chrisme was taught practised by the Donatists yet was this their sacrilegious proceeding condemned and themselues branded for heretikes by S. (e) Lib. 2. cont Petila c. 52. l. 3. c. 40. Epist 163. Augustine and by Optatus who speaking to the Donatists discourseth thereof in this manuÌ„er Quid (f) Lib. 6. contra Donatistas est tam sacrilegum quà m altaria Dei inquibus vos aliquando obtulistis frangere radere remouere Quid enim est Altare nisi sedes sanguinis corporis Christi Quid vos offenderit Christus cuius illic per certa momeÌ„ta corpus sanguis habitabat What is so sacrilegious O you Donatists as to breake deface and cast downe the Altars of God whereupon your selues haue sometimes offered vp sacrifice What other thing is an Altar then the seate of the body and bloud of Christ In what hath Christ so offended you whose body bloud for certaine moments or short times did dwell or remayne vpon the Altar To be short I passe ouer as lesse pertinent to the Controuersies of these tymes how the Errour of Origen touching the saluation of the Diuells was condemned for Heresy by (g) Haeres 43. S. Augustine the Errour of Tertullian denying second marriages was in like sort mightily reprehended and condemned by the sayd (h) Haeres 86. S. Augustine though both these Doctours I meane Tertullian and Origen had otherwaies by their learned wrytings deserued well of the church of God and though the Heresies taught by them might seeme partly to be excused to wit the one in the defense of chastity the other of mercie Thus far touching the foresayd controuersies condeÌ„ned for Heresies by the fathers of the Primitiue church though the subiect of the sayd Heresies was neyther touching the Trinity the Incarnation Passion of our Sauiour or the Articles of the creed A poinâ— so euident and confessed euen by the Protestants as that many of the foresaid examples are collected out of the Fathers and confessed so to be condemned by diuers learned Protestants as by the Centurists in their fourth chapter of euery seuerall century by Osiander in his seuerall centuries as also by PantaleoÌ„ in his chronology Besides which condemnation of the church either these Doctrines or the contrary to them are necessarily proued to be Heresies euen from â—he definition of Heresy aboue set downe â—nd from whence it followeth that both â—he catholikes and the Protestants the one â—elieuing theÌ„ the other not belieuing them â—annot be saued seeing Heretikes continuâ—ng Heretikes cannot be saued Now to come to the sentences of the â—athers powred out in great heate and ferâ—our of zeale agaynst Heretikes and Heresy â—n generall And first to beginne with Saint â—ohn the Euangelist S. (k) Lib. 3. c. 3. apud Euseb l. 4. c. 23. Irenaeus relateth to set down Irenaeus his owne words that â—olicarpus the martyr who was scholler to â—he Apostles was wont to tell how that â— Iohn the Apostle of our Sauiour being â—t a certayne tyme in Ephesus going into 〈◊〉 publike Bath and finding Cerinthus the Heretike to be within the bath ran presentâ—y out of the bath saying to them that were with him let vs flie from hence for fearelest the â—ath fall vpoÌ„ vs kil vs in which the enemy of God Cerinthus abideth The same Authour (l) Vbi supra Irenaeus in like sort relateth in these words following how that the foresayd Policarpus meeting at Rome by chance Marcion the Heretike and he demaunding of Policarpe whether he knew him or not Policarpe answered I know thee for the first begotten child of Sathan To conclude with the testimony of this Father the sayd Irenaeus wryting to Florinus an Heretike who once was Scholler to S. Policarpe with him thus sayth (m) Iren. Epist ad Florin These opinions of
(b) Act. mon. p. 1335. these words The Commaundements were giuen not to doe them but 〈◊〉 know our damnation and to call for mercy to God Doctor Willet also saying The (c) In Sinop Papismi p. 564. law remayneth still impossible to be kept by vs through the weâ—kenes of our flesh neyther doth God giue vs abilityâ— keep it but Christ hath fulfilled it for vs. And â—â—nally Doctour Whitaker in that his seâ—tence (d) Contra Camp rat 8. Qui credunt ij non sunt sub lege sed sub gratia Quid plura Christiani execrâ—tione legis liberantur They who belieue are 〈◊〉 vnder the law but vnder grace What more in this point is to be sayed Christians are freed from the curse of the law Now then if Christians be freed from the curse of the law wherin the ten Commaundments are contayned how can the breach of them be any way hurtfull to the violators of them And if the Commandments were neither giuen vs to keep nor we haue power to keep them to what end should any man endeauour to keep theÌ„ Why should the Thiefe forbeare to steale or the Homicide to commit murther whoseeth not how this doctrine discourageth a man from liuing vertuously by bridling his vnruly and sensuall desires 2. Touching Chastity The Protestants do teach that Chastity is not in our power And hence it is that Luther thus wryteth It is (e) Tom. 5. Wittenb ser de matrimonio not in our power to be without a woman c. It is not in our power that it should be stayed or omitted but it is as necessary as to eate drinke purge make cleane the nose c. To whom omitting all others for greater breuity M. Perkins subscribeth saying The vow of (f) In his reformed Catholike pag. 161. CoÌ„tineÌ„cy is not in the power of him that voweth Now this doctrine being imbraced for true how forcibly doth it inuite or rather impell all people vnmaryed both men or women to satisfy their lust by their owne incontinent liues In like sort what great encouragemeÌ„t doth it giue to maryed persons to violate the bond of matrimony when either of the persons through absence or long sickenes or some other suddayne and accidentall impotency cannot render the act and due of matrimony And the partyes thus sinning eyther maryed or vnmaryed being expostulated and charged with their offence therein may they not iustly reply in excuse of themselues that they are not to be blamed or rebuked for their incontinency seing by their owne doctrine and Religion they are expresly taught that they haue not the guilt of chastity and that it is not in their power to liue chastly continently 3. The Protestants doctrine of Venial and Mortall sinne doth wonderfully extenuate and lessen the atrocity and malice of sinne in the belieuers of that doctrine For the Protestants do teach that there is noâ— such difference of sinnes in themselues buâ— that the most grieuous sinnes whatsoeuer being perpetrated and committed by any one that hath true fayth are but veniall their reason heereof is because in their doctrine no sinnes are imputed to those whâ— haue true fayth Thus accordingly D. Whitaker teacheth (g) De Eccles cont Bellarm. Controuer â— q. 5. p. 301. Si quis actum fidei habet 〈◊〉 peccata non nocent Sinne is not hurtfull to him whâ— actually belieueth who did learne this of his great mayster Luther thus writing of this point (h) Luther in his sermons Englished printed 1578. pag. 176. No worke is disallowed of God vnles the authour therof be disallowed before All which being graunted as true doctrine it must needs follow that who shall take himselfe to be one of the Faythfull as euery Protestant is bound by his owne Religion to belieue of himselfe shall make small accompt of committing any sinne considering he is taught by the former doctrine to belieue that to vse the words of one of their owne maysters (i) Wotton in his answere to the lute Popish Articles pag. 92. Sinne is pardoned him as soone as it is committed 4. The Protestants doctrine of Reprobation and denyall of Freewill mightily disanimateth and discourageth the belieuers thereof from imbracing of vertue and eschewing of sinne for if it be true as this their Doctrine suggesteth that some men are borne euen from their mothers wombe Reprobats and thrall to damnation and cannot be saued to what end should they seeke their owne saluation by a true Fayth auoyding of sinne and practizing of a penitentiall vertuous lyfe Or if we haue not Freewill with the concurrence of Gods grace to do well as the former doctrine instructeth why should we giue our best endeauours to imbrace vertue and fly all vice Since it is not in our power according to the Protestants fayth to exercise the one and fly the other 5. To this may be adioyned the ProtestaÌ„ts like doctrine of Predestination and their supposed certainty of Saluation For admit that men be Predestinated without any respect or reference to their works and lyues and that do what wickednes they can imagine yet certaine it is that they shal be saued is not this Doctrine most potent and forcible to diswade all the belieuers therof from exercising an austere pious and Religious lyfe and to engulfe them easily in all kind of enormities and sinnes and the rather considering how precipitious headlong mans nature is to sinne to decline all rigorous and exemplar courses of vertue especially if so the case stands that man can neither aduantage or hurt himselfe by any such different maner of lyfe Now that by the Protestants Doctrine no sinne can endaunger the Predestinate in regard of their certainty of SaluatioÌ„ appeareth seeing according heerin we find D. Fulke thus to say of Dauids adultery (k) In his tower disput with Edm. Campian the 2. dayes coÌ„ference Dauid when he committed adultery was and remained the child of God And Beza himselfe to the like purpose thus wryteth therof (l) In Respons ad Colloq Montisbel part altera p. 71. Dauid by his adultery and murther did not loose the holy Ghost So powerfully do these their positions incline men to satisfye their desires in all vice impiety and sensuality 6. Touching the Protestants Doctrine of Iustification by Fayth only which potentially includes diuers of the other points heere set downe and which position of it owne nature excludeth from Iustification all works how vertuous and pious soeuer we find the Protestants thus to say And first Luther speaking heereof bursteth forth with wonderfull rashnes saying (*) Tom. 1. prop. 3. Fides nisi sit sine c Vnlesse fayth be without the least Good workes it doth not iustify nay it is not fayth That Iustification by fayth only extinguisheth all exercise of vertue is iustifyed not only by experience of these dayes but also by the acknowledgmeÌ„t euen of some learned Protestants for thus Iacobus Andraeas a famous
Protestant complayning and dislyking this Doctrine writeth (m) Conc. 4. in c. 21. Lucae A serious and Christian discipline is censured with vs as a new Papacy a monachisme they say we haue now learned to be saued by only fayth in Christ and we cannot satisfy by our fasting and prayer and therfore permit that we may giue ouer these seeing we may be saued otherwyse by the only grace of God And to the end sayth this Authour further that all the world may knowe they be no Papists nor trust in good workes they take course to put none in practice With whose true iudgment heerin M. Stubbs an English Protestant seemeth to conspire saying (n) In his Motiues to good works printed 1566. p. 42. The Protestant trusteth to be saued by a bare and naked fayâ— deceauing himselfe without good works thâ—â—â—fore either careth not for them or at least setteth litle by them And thus much touching gooâ— works wholly exiled and banished by thâ— Doctrine of Iustification by fayth only Now that this Doctrine of Iustification by only fayth doth incorporate as it were within it selfe and admit all kind of sinnes appeareth no lesse by the frequent acknowledgments of the most learned Protestants And first Luther thus wryteth thereof (o) Tom. 2. wittenb de capt Babilon fol. 74. A Christian baptized is so riche that although hâ— would he cannot loose his saluation by any sinnâ— how great soeuer vnlesse he will not belieue Anâ— Luther in another place (q) Luther in loc com class 5. c. 27. As nothing iustifyeth but beliefe so nothing sinneth but vnbeliefe To which Doctrine D. Whtaker as aboue is shewed accordeth saying (r) Vbi supra Sinnes are not hurtfull to him that belieueth And thus much now touching the Doctrine of Iustification by fayth where we see euen by the confession of the Protestants that this Doctrine preuayleth in the professours thereof no lesse for the committing of all sinne and iniquity then for the expelling and banishing of all good works vertue and deuotion 7. Touching the Protestants particuler Doctrines of Fasting voluntary Pouerty and Chastity or Virginity the three steps of Iacobs adder by the which a vertuous soule ascenâ—eth to Heauen And first of fasting Perkins â—eacheth thus (s) In his Reformed Catholike p. 220. fasting in it selfe is but a thing â—ndifferent as is eating and drinking with whome coÌ„spireth D. Willet in more full tearnes saying (t) In Synops pag. 243. Neither is God better worshipped by eaâ—ing or not eating Voluntary pouertie is so debased by the Protestants Doctrine as that the foresaid Willet thus teacheth thereof (u) In Synops pag. 245. He is an enemy to the glory of God who chaungeth his rich estate wherin he may serue God for a poore So contrary he is to the iudgement of our Sauiour saying (x) Mat. 19. If thou wilt be perfect goe sel thy substance giue to the poore and thou shalt haue a treasure in Heauen Lastly touching single lyfe in comparison of Marriage Luther thus sayth (y) Tom. 5. wittenb in exeg ad c. 7. 1. Cor. fol. 107. We conclude that Marriage is as gould and spirituall or single lyfe as dung And D. Whitaker likewyse teacheth thereof in this maner saying (z) Contra Camp rat 8. Virginity is not simply good but after a certaine maner it is neuer better then Mariage but in regard of the circumstance that is of the troubles accoÌ„panying Mariage Now I heere demaund with what encouragement can any man goe about to practice these foresayd vertues of fasting voluntary pouerty and perpetuall virginity if he be firmely and inwardly persuaded that the Protestants former positions 〈◊〉 Doctrines touching the sayd vertues bâ— true and agreable to Christs sacred Institutions 8. But to hasten to an end in this matter I will conclude with the Protestant Doctrines touching Purgatory and Confession oâ— Sinnes And as concerning confession of Sinnes it is found by experience that besides the first Institution therof by (a) Mat. 18. Ioâ—n 20. Christ a man is much debarred from sinninge through the shame that he is to endure by confessing his most secret sinnes to a Preist as on the contrary it much enbouldeneth one to sinne if he be persuaded by his owne Religion that confession of them alone to God is sufficient Touching the Doctrine of Purgatory How doth the denyall of this Doctrine open the sluce to all liberty and iniustice Since by the Protestants teaching that no temporal punishment remayneth for sinnes once remitted it taketh away all restitution of things wrongfully detayned all satisfaction for committing of former sinnes and finally all mortification of body and soule and to conclude it freeth a man of all feare of suffering any punishment after this lyfe and this vnder colour that Christ hath satisfyed for the sinnes of all the world by which reason we might take away prayer or that Christ prayed for all in the garden But now to cast our eye backe vpon the foresayd Doctrines If all the different opinions of fayth in Controuersie betwene the Catholiks the Protestants were meerely speculatiue without any reference to the vertuous or vicious working operation of the Will deryued from them then with greater shewe of reason in a vulgar iudgment it might be auerred that supposing they teach not the fundamentall points of Christian fayth they might be either affirmatiuely or negatiuely houlden without any daunger of saluation such were the Heresyes of (b) See heerof S. Augustine Haeres 43. Origen teaching that the Diuells in the end of the world should be saued Of Cyprian touching Rebaptization and diuers such like from the maintayning of which points either way the Will in respect of any externall working or operation drawne from thence can sucke noe poyson But the Case is farre different in the former Doctrines set downe aboue for we fynd that the sayd Doctrines which breath nothing but all dissolution and turpitude of manners euen in speculation do most forcibly immediately touch the pulse of the Will the Will strongly beating and indeed breaking out into outward actions of vicâ— and lyberty according as shee remayneth afore infected with the contagion and poyson of the former Doctrinall speculations Well then this vpon necessary inference being graunted so as the working effect and force of the sayd Doctrines are in the Will nothing but liberty dissolution of manners improbitie sensualitie and sinne I referre to the iudgment of any man whether the sayd Doctrines be but points of Indifferency oâ— noe and may be defended either way without preiudice to the beleiuers fayth and daunger to his Saluation as our Formallists doe auerre For can it possibly be conceaued that these Doctrines should be reputed as indifferent to mans SaluatioÌ„ or in themselues true which as is proued most strongly drawe the will to all vice against which God hath thundred out such dreadfull threats as where it is sayd Psal
throghout the world spending their whole liues in spreading and defending the same by their wrytings Finally seeing God did cut them off by such calamitous miserable and prodigious deaths which is to be feared were but presages of the eternall deaths of their soules who can otherwise be perswaded but that all this was wrought by the iust hand of God not so much for their personall sinnes proceeding of humane frailty for there were and are many others as great sinners as they and yet escaped such dreadfull ends but for their first inuenting maintayning and preaching of the Protestant fayth and Religion and empoysoning almost all Countreyes with such their false sensuall doctrines which being graunted how then can it with any truth of reason be supposed that the positions of Protestancy impugned by the Catholikes should contayne nothing but matters of Indifferency or that a man whether he belieue them or not belieue them may alike and indifferently be saued THE SAME PROVED FROM the doctrine of Recusancy taught both by Catholikes and Protestants CHAP. XIII I Haue thought good to draw another argument from the common taught and approued doctrine of Recusancy in euery ReligioÌ„ though this head may seeme to haue a speciall reference to the reason afore touched in part be therein implicity included wherein is shewed that nature herselfe hath imprinted in the professours of all Religions a Religious care punctually to keep and preserue euery article of their Religion Now heere we are to premonish that if in the iudgement of all learned men both Catholike and Protestant it is thought an action most wicked vnlawfull and not to be performed but without finall repentance vnder payne of eternall damnation that a man should communicate only in going to the Church and in hearing but a sermen contrary to that Religion which himselfe belieueth for true though this may seeme to be coloured vnder pretense of obseruing the Princes commaundement for feare of loosing our temporall estates I say if this action be thought vnlawfull wherin neuerthelesse the performers thereof doe not punctually vndertake to maintayne or belieue any one Hereticall or erroneous position how then can it be reputed as consonant to reason or Religion that men belieuing different opinions of fayth and promiscuously communicating in prayer with a contrary Religion to their owne should neuerthelesse all be saued since the first fault coÌ„sisteth as some would interprete though falsely only in an externall and materiall as the SchoolemeÌ„ speake going to the Church of a different Religion whereas this other doth directly and openly rest in defending articles at least in its owne iudgment of a Religion contrary to the truth of Christian Religion for such is the case herein eyther of Catholikes or Protestants But before we particulerly enter into this discourse we will heere insist as most pertinent to our purpose in relating the two most religious Examples of Eleazar and the Widow with her seauen Sonnes recorded in the Bookes of the Machabees Touching the first we reade (1) 2. Machab c. 6. that Eleazar being a most auncient graue and learned Man was so far from eating of the meates sacrifized to Idolls according to the prohibition of the Iewish lawe that when certaine men as tendring his old age and moued thereto as the Text sayth iniqua miseratione through vnlawfull pitty proffered him other flesh to eate vnder colour whereof they would tell the Tyrant King thereby to saue his lyfe that he had eaten of the sacrifized meates that he did choose rather to vndergoe a most cruell death then to feigne that he had eaten of the sayd sacrifized flesh And so accordingly he suffered â— most glorious Martyrdome thus speakinâ— to God in the middest of his torments (2) Vbi supra For thy feare ô Lord I do suffer these things As concerning the (3) 2. Machab c. 7. Widdow with bâ— seauen Sonnes O what spirituall resolutioâ— appeared in them all Indeed able to vpbrayd vs ChristiaÌ„s with our luk-warmnest in professing our fayth They all suffered most exquisit torments and in the end most bloudy deaths only because they would not at the Kings command eate of Swynes flesh which was contrary to the Lawe of Moyses And this both the Mother still exhorting her sonnes to constancy heerein all her seauen Sonns performed with such an admirable resolution both in their answeres to the Tyrant during their torments and in their patience of suffering death as that considering her sex and the tendernes of their yeares it might be truly sayd that weaknes was heere able to instruct strength and youth old age Now from these two most remarkable Examples I thus argue The tyme of the old Testament was much inferior in worth dignity and many priuiledges to the new testament seing to them in the Old things as the (4) 1. Cor. 10. Apostle witnesseth did happen as in a figure whereas the new Testament (5) Hebr. 8. as the sayd Apostle affirmeth is established in better promisses But now if in the old Testament men did choose to endure most cruel deaths rather then they would contrary to the Law eate forbiden Meates which in themselues were lawfully to be eaten were it not for the prohibition annexed vnto them And seeing though they had consented to the eating of them yet this being but anâ— externall Act or Ceremony they might neuerthelesse inwardly haue retayned and kept their true beliefe touching the Law yet since the performaÌ„ce of so small a matteâ— as it appeared in outward show could noâ— be without greate sinne and damnation oâ— the party so offending Shall any Christian thinke that now in the tyme of Grace anâ— of the New Testament which tyme exacteth more perfection at our hauds for 〈◊〉 (6) Luc. 12. whome much is giuen of him much shal be râ—quyred that men professing to belieuâ— with contempt of the Churches authoritâ— interposed therein contrary articles touching Christian Religion and dying sucâ— their different fayths in which the one sydâ— must of necessity mantayne a false fayth that men I say of both these sides can bâ— saued it is against all force of ReasoÌ„ againâ—â— the iudgment of the Primitiue Church â— finally against Gods Iustice And thus far concerning the two fore sayd exaÌ„ples in the Machabees Which Booke admitting them for the tyme not to be diuine Scripture yet it is acknowledged oâ— all sydes that the Histories recorded in the are true and that Eleazar and the Widâ— with her seauen Sonns performed most worth examples of piety and Religion and that they had yielded to the Kings Command in eating of forbidden meates they had as violating the law giuen to them by God without repentance incurred damnation And this is the iudgment of the auncient Fathers Catholike Doctours and the learned Protestants But let vs descend more particulerly to the doctryne of Recusancy and examine whether it be lawfull to exhibite our selues present at that Church in tyme of diuine seruice
auditis nec vocatis Geneuae 1582. A threefold Answere to the Brethren of Tubinga their threefold writing concerning three most weighty Questions c. Of the supper of the Lord Of the Maiesty of Christ as Man And of not condemning the Churches of God before they be heard or called Ad Iohannis Brentij argumenta Iacobi Andreae Theses quibus carnis Christi omni praesentiaÌ„ nituntur confirmare id est aduersum renouatos Nestorij Eutichetis errores Responsum Geneuae 1570. An Answere to the Arguments of Iohn Brentius to the Conclusions of Iacobus Andreas by which they endeauour to confirme the Vbiquity or presence of Christs flesh euery where that is to say against the renewed Errors of Nestorius Eutiches Apologia ad omnes Germaniae Ecclesias reformatas quae sub Zwingliani Caluiniani nominis inuidia vim iniuriaÌ„ patiuntur Tiguri 1578. An Apology of all the Reformed churches of Germany which through the Enuy of the Name of Zuinglius Caluin do suffer violence iniury Christopheri Pezelij Apologia verae doctrina de dâ—â—â—itione Euangelij apposita Thrasonicis praestigijs Iohannis Wigandi Wittenbergae 1572. An Apology of the true Doctrine concerning the Definition of the Ghospell against the Thrasonicall enchantments of Ioannes Wigandus by Christophorus Pezelius Colloquij Montisbelgardensis inter Iacobum Andreae Theodorum Bezam Acta Tubingae 1584. The Actes of the Colloquy at Montbelgard betweene Iames Andrew Theodore Beza Veritatis victoria ruina Papatus Saxonici Losannae 1563. The Victory of Truth the Ruine of the Popedome of Saxony Hamelmannia siue Aries Theologizans Diaâ—gus oppositus duabus narrationibus historicis Herâ—anni Hamelmanni Neostadij 1582. Hamelmannia or the Theologizing Ramme A Dialogue against two Historicall Narrations of Hermanus Hamelmannus Christiani Kittelmanni decem graues perâ—iciosi errores Zwinglianorum in Doctrina de pecâ—atis Baptismo ex proprijs ipsorum libris colleâ—i refutati Magdeburgae 1562. Ten weighty pernicious Errors of â—he Zwinglians in the Doctrine concerning Sinne Baptisme Collected out of their owne books refuted by Christianus Kittleman Iohannis Mosellani Praeseruatiua contra venenum Zwinglianorum Tubingae 1586. An Antidote or Preseruatiue againsâ— the poyson of the Zwinglians by Ioannâ—â— Mosellanus De Vnitate personali supernaturali duarâ—â— Naturarum in Christo contra blasphemam Dispâ—tationem Eusebij Cleberi Pastoris Saugalensis iâ— Heluetia Tubingae 1586. Of the Personall Supernaturall Vnity of two Natures in Christ against the blasphemous Disputation of Eusebius Cleberus Pastour of Saugall in Suitzerland De gaudijs aeternae vitae quomodo Sacramentarij nobis illa gaudia imminuant Erfordia 1585. Of the Ioyes of Eternall life And how the Sacramentaries do in part defraude 〈◊〉 of them Now from all the premises aboue I hauâ— conclude that if the seuerall opinions among the Protestants be not in their iudgement maters of Indifferency but are by theÌ„selues truly reputed for Heresies the maintayners of them not houldden to be in state of Saluation as appeareth both from the Protestants reciprocall coÌ„demnations of one another as also from the former Titles of their owne Bookes written agaynst one another then with much more reason may the same sentence be pronounced of the many irreconciliable Controuersies differently belieued and houlden by the Catholikes and Protestants And the rather since as is aboue sayd there is a farre greater disparity and difference of doctrine betweene the Catholikes and the Protestants then betweene the Protestant the Protestant THE TRVTH OF THIS FORMER Doctrine demonstrated from the many Absurdityes necessarily accompanying the contrary doctrine CHAP. XVI SVCH is the sweet Prouidence of the Diuine Maiesty in disposall of thinges as that he euer causeth truth to be warranted with many irrefragable reasons and falshood to be attended on with diuers grosse and ineuitable absurdityes that so the iudgment of man may be the better secured for the imbracing of truth and remayne the lesse excusable if in place of truth it entertayne falshood Errour Of the reasons conuincing the infallible truth of our doctrine maintayned in this treatise I haue already discussed aboue in the tenth Chapter Now heere I will a little insist in disclosing the many and palpable absurdities accompanying the contrary doctrine which point will chiefly rest besides some other short insertions in a recapitulation of most of the former heads or braunches aboue handled For if this doctrine were true to wit that euery one might be saued in his owne Religion or that the beliefe only of the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion or the Creed were sufficient thereto notwithstaÌ„ding the beliefe of other erroneous opinions and heresies Then would it follow First that the holy Scriptures of Christ and his Apostles were most false which haue inueyghed so much agaynst Heresies and haue denounced the heauy iudgment of damnation agaynst the professours of them as aboue is shewed which comminations and threats the scripture in some places not only extendeth to all Hersies or Heretikes in generall without (a) Tit. 3. Gal. c. 5. Rom. c. 16. 1. Tim. 1. any limitation but also in some other they are particulerly restrayded to certayne Heresies seeming of smaller importance then the denyall of the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion the Creed c. as is euident touching the denying (b) 1. Tim. cap. 4.2 Tim. c. 2.1 Ioan. c. 2. of marriage and of eating of certayne meates and touching the Natures of Christ c. Now that the denyall of other inferiour articles of fayth then of the Trinity Incarnation c. is playne Heresy is demonstrated aboue both from the definition of Heresy and from the iudgment of the Primitiue Church Secondly the foresayd doctrine impugneth the definition of Fayth giuen by the (f) Hebr. c. 11. Apostle which definition of fayth comprehendeth a generall beliefe of all articles of Christian Religion and is not therefore to be limited to any one kind of them In like sort it destroyeth the priuiledges dignity of fayth set down by the foresayd Apostle who (g) Mat. vltimo Hebr. 11. promiseth saluation to him that hath faith as also that without fayth we cannot (h) Ephes 4. Act. 4. Rom. 12. c. please God but such excellencies cannot be ascribed to a Bastard fayth which belieueth some thinges true others false they are therfore eyther to be giuen to a true entire and perfect fayth in all points or els the Apostle grossely erred in assigning to fayth the aforesayd priuiledges seing a false fayth is no better then no faith at all Againe it depriueth a Christian faith of its true mark or character of Vnity so much celebrated by the (h) Ephes 4. Rom. 12. vide Cant. c. 6. Apostle Now then if Vnity of fayth be necessary to Saluation how can both Protestants and Catholikes expect saluation seeing there is no greater distance betweene the opposite parts of a Diameter then there is
repugnancy betwixt both their beliefes Therfore if both of them though wanting this Vnity can be saued then hath the Apostle falsely and erroneously described and delineated the faith of a Christian But to reflect vpon the former passages is any man so stupid as to dreame that that doctrine should be true which giueth so open a lye to so many vnanswerable texts of Gods holy writ touching the condemning of Heretiks in generall as also touching the definition excellency and propriety of true Fayth It is impossible it is not to be imagined Gods word is like himselfe most true sacred and inuiolable and therefore it iustly witnesseth of it selfe that (i) Ioan. 2. scriptura 〈◊〉 potest solui And agayne (k) Mat. 24. Caelum terra transibunt verba autem mea non transibunt Heauen and earth shall passe but my wordes shall 〈◊〉 passe But to proceed further touching the forâ—sayd want of vnity and disagreements iâ— Fayth If euery Christian might be saued iâ— his owne Religion then might those be saued which belieue the Articles of the creâ—â— in a most different sense and manner theâ— which what can be more rashely and exorbitantly spoken seeing there is but one true intended sense by the Apostles of the creed the which if we attayne not then do we belieue that which is false but to belieue the creed in a false sense is no better then not to belieue it at all And therefore it would follow by way of inference that he might be saued who belieued not any one article of the creed at all Now that the Catholikes Protestants doe belieue the articles of the creed in different or rather contrary senses and consequently that the one side belieueth it in a false and erroneous sense is aboue proued in the fourth chapter If it be heere replyed that the maintayners of this doctrine do so far yield that they only are to be saued which in a true sense belieue the creed yet by this their restraint they condemne al those others who belieue â—t in any other sense different from that intended by the holy Ghost and the Apostles â—nd consequently they condemne in their â—udgement and depriue of saluation eyther â—he Catholikes or Protestants since of necessity the one of these do belieue the creed not in the true but in a false and hereticall â—ense and construction different from that of the Apostles But supposing that the Caâ—holikes and Protestants belieued the creed in that true sense inteÌ„ded by the holy Ghost yet if our Newtrallists would haue the creed the square or rule thereby to measure our fayth then marke the Absurdities following For by this doctrine one might be saued who belieued not that there were any Scriptures at all written by the Prophets Apostles since the creed maketh no mention of any such deuine writings .. In like sort he might be saued who did not belieue there were any Angells or Diuells or that there is a materiall place of Hell or that the pains thereof are eternall or that Adam did presently vpon his creation fall from grace thereby transferred Originall sinne vpon all his posterity or that our Sauiour whilst he conuersed heere on earth wrought any myracles or made choyce of certayne men to be his Apostles to preach the Christian fayth throughout all the whole world or that he died for the saluation of mankind for though we read in the creed that he dyed and suffered yet the end why he dyed is not expressed in the creed Or that circumcision is now forbiddem antiquated or finally that there are any SacrameÌ„ts of the new Testament as Baptisme the Eucharist c. I say by our Newtrallists Religion he should be saued who belieued none of the foresayd articles seeing not any one of them is expressed or set downe in the Apostles creed and yet the beliefe of the sayd Articles is necessarily exacted and required to Saluation in the iudgment both of Catholikes and Protestants both which parties doe with an vnanimous consent teach the necessity of belieuing the sayd articles But to proceed further and to come to the different Articles of fayth differenly belieued by the Catholike and Protestant and yet not expressed in the creed and articles of such nature as that they are houlden by the catholikes to be instituted by our Sauiour as subordinate yet necessary meanes of the grace of God and of our Saluation whereas the Protestants as not belieuing at all the sayd articles doe wholy disclayme from acknowledging any such meanes These Articles I haue recited aboue to wit That Sacraments in general do conferre grace That a Child dying without Baptisme cannot be saued That mortall sinne is not remitted without the Sacrament of Pennance and Confession That we are to adore with supreme Honour the blessed Sacrament That not only fayth but also works do iustify man That a Christian by thinking himselfe iust is not thereby become iust That euery Christian hath by God sufficient grace offered to saue his soule And that therfore God on his part would haue all men saued That without keeping the ten Commandements a man cannot be saued Finally that all Christians ought vpon payne of eternall damnation to communicate in Sacraments and doctrine with the Church of Rome and to submit themselues in all due obedience to the supreme Pastor of that Church In all which points the Protestants doe belieue directly the contrary condemning vs of Heresy Superstition yea Idolatry for our belieuing the foresayd points Now I say seing the former articles doe immediatly touch and concerne eyther remission of our sinnes or grace of our soule or our Iustification or our due honour and adoration to our Sauiours Body being accompanyed with his diuinity or Lastly our communion with Christ his church and head thereof in any of which as concerning so neerly our eternall happynes who erreth cannot possibly be saued And seing the Protestants as is sayd doe in all the sayd points maintaine the iust contrary to the catholikes and therby do abandon the catholikes acknowledged meanes of their Saluation I heere aske in all sobernes of iudgement what can be reputed for a greater absurdity then to affirme with our Newtrallists that the Catholikes and Protestants notwithstanding their so different contrary beliefe answerable practice in the former Articles so neerly touching mans Saluation may both be saued Seing it must needes be that eyther the catholikes shal be damned for setting downe certayne meanes of our Saluation contrary to Christs mynd and Institution supposing the sayd articles to be false or that the Protestants shal be damned for reiecting the former meanes of Saluation instituted by Christ admitting them to be true But to passe forward If euery Christian might be saued in his Religion in belieuing only the fundamentall points of the Trinity the Incarnation c. then hath the church of Christ eueÌ„ in her Primitiue dayes at what time the (*) D. Iewell in his