al points appertaining to faith and religion She is finally the ship and skilful pilot which throughout al the stormes and tempests of Schismes and Heresies vvil guide vs vvithout errour to the porte of euerlasting saluation and make vs fit stones to be placed euerlastingly in the triumphant Church of God in heauen FINIS AN APPENDIX TO THIS TREATISE CONTAINING A BRIEFE CONFVTATION OF A BOOKE PVBLISHED IN THE YEARE M. D.C.VI BY WILLIAM CRASHAW bearing this title Romish forgeries and falfifications c. IF al vvere true which is objected by newe sectaries against the one true Spouse of Christ the Catholike Church al men endued vvith reason might according to reason prudently meruaile that any man of common sense doth follow her doctrine or embrace her communion Luther exclaimeth against her children that they make the Virgin Mary a * Luther ad Euangeliū d◠festo Annunciationis Goddesse giuing her omnipotency both in heauen and earth Caluin a Caluin book 3. Instit c. 20 §. 22. l. de necessit reformand Eccles that they giue the worship of God vnto Saints and honour them and their relikes in place of Christ Luther againe b Luth. ad c. 50. Genes in colloq Germ. c. de Christo that they deny justification and saluation through Christes passion and merits Caluin c Caluin book 3. Instit cap. 20. §. 21. that in their Litanies Hymnes and Proses there is no mention of Christ yea that for the most part Christ being passed ouer God is praied to by the names of Saints Luther moreouer d Luther ad l. Ducis Georgij scripsit an 1533. l. de abrogat Missae priuatae that they hold a man may keepe the Commandements without the grace of God Caluin that they e Caluin booke 1. Instit ch 11. §. 9. and 10. giue Idolatrous worship vnto Images Luther also that f Luther l. de Ecclesia the Pope buried the Scripture in dirt and dust Caluin g Caluin booke 4. Instit ch 9. §. 24. in antid Concil Triden sess 7. Canon 1◠that they make the oracles of God subject vnto men and that they esteeme more in baptisme of chrisme salt and such other thinges then of the washing with water Luther finally h Luther lib. de Concilijs that they giue to Councels authority to make newe articles of faith and change the old Caluin that they giue the Pope authority to institute new Sacraments and that the Popes hold there is no God Caluin alij passim in 2. Thessal 2 4. Caluin Instit booke 4. chap. 7. §. 27. that al thinges written and taught of Christ are lies and deceits that the doctrine concerning the future life and the last resurrection are meere fables These and diuers other such monstrous vntruthes are forged by our aduersaries against vs and this course they are constrained to take that they may haue something to impugne For if they should plainely and sincerely deliuer vvhat we hold the force and brightnesse of truth it selfe would easily at her only sight weaken yea ouerthrowe al their impugnations And like as the first beginners of the new religion ranne these vnconscionable I may say shameful courses so their successors alwaies haue continued in the same and euen those of our daies obstinately refusing to accept of any reasonable answere or to vnderstand the truth insist in the steps of their predecessors For vvhereas if they were but indifferent they might wel perceiue that vve vvhome neither feare of death nor infamy and disgrace nor losse of liberty liuing and worldly goodes can moue to doe one act contrary to our religion wil not for al the world denie any one article of our faith Yet notwithstanding although we denie their false slaunders neuer so much yet they vvil needes haue vs to hold them as they say vvhether vve vvil or no. Diuers impute vnto vs daily strange paradoxes in matters of faith But among others one William Crashaw Anno 1606. In the Epistle Dedicatory hath not long since published a booke accusing vs of an horrible matter of fact to wit of the crime of corruption and forgery in the highest degree so are his wordes His said booke beareth this title Romish forgeries and falsifications together with Catholike restitutions By reading of the contents of it he that is not learned and acquainted with their dealings may easily be drawne and perswaded not only to condemne vs as notable corrupters and forgers but further to imagine that we in former ages haue corrupted al the Fathers workes and consequently inferre that their testimonies can yeeld vs no firme ground vvhereon to build our faith Crash in his preface to the reader §. see what see also § wil these men contrary to that which hath beene said in this Treatise Nay Crashaw himselfe doth not only affirme that they haue cause to suspect that we haue so dealt with the Fathers because we haue not spared as he saith some as ancient as some fathers but also auerreth that it wil be proued to the worlds view that we * §. But whē haue de facto corrupted almost al antiquity in so much that no man can tel what ground to stand vpon either for Councels Fathers decrees or mens writings And he addeth § To end this point that he doth not doubt but ere long God wil raise vp some instruments of his glory who shal fully discouer to the world this treachery of the Romish Church by making it as apparent they haue corrupted the Fathers as I hope saith he to doe in this and the bookes ensuing that they haue corrupted al such late writers as they imagined any way to make against them Thus Crashaw For the resolution of which his false imputation as also for clearing of our present practise which may seeme to some to tend towardes the ouerthrow of the authority of antiquity I thinke it not amisse to spend some fewe lines in prouing these three points First that our practise in correcting of bookes reprehended by Crashaw is prudent and laudable Secondly that our aduersaries if we offend in this are much more to be condemned for the like proceedings in the same kinde Lastly that the Fathers vvorkes are sincere and free from al corruption To declare the first I must first giue my reader to vnderstand that the Church of Christ nowe hath and euer hath had authority to censure and condemne al such bookes as are published and containe thinges any vvaies opposite to the truth of her faith and religion This first appeareth because she is supreame judge on earth of al controuersies arising touching faith and religion and hath jurisdiction ouer euery Christian from which it proceedeth that she condemneth heresies and Heretikes wherefore it cannot be denied but she hath also authority to condemne the works of any Heretike or other person vvhatsoeuer containing heresies or errours opposite to her faith For much more it is to condemne
euident that hel gates doe preuaile against the Church if either she decay or teach false doctrine who then can say that either the hath perished or erred except he wil accuse Christ of falshood in not performing his promise and make him a liar Verily * Chrisost hom 4. de verbis Isaiae vidi Dominum Epiph. in Ancorato S. Iohn Chrisostome affirmeth that heauen and earth shal faile before those wordes of Christ thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I wil build my Church S. Epiphanius also alluding to this promise telleth vs that our Lord appointed Peter the first or cheefest Apostle a firme rocke vpon which the Church of God was built and the gates of hel saith he shal not preuaile against it for the gates of hel are Heretikes and Arch-heretikes c. the like sentences I could alleage out of the rest of the ancient Fathers And vnto this testimonie of our Sauiour I could likewise adde that he hath warranted the faith of S. Peter and in him the faith of his successor the Bishop of Rome who is ministerial head of Christes Church on earth Luc. 22. vers 31. that it shal not faile and consequently that the body ruled by the head shal enjoy the same prerogatiue but of this hereafter Moreouer our Sauiour made his Church the supreame judge on earth of al controuersies touching matters of religion for it is manifest that from her judgement he graunteth no appeale and that he vvil haue her definitiue sentence so firme and inuiolable among Christians that he vvil not haue him accounted one of that number who shal preuaricate or despise the same This is signified vnto vs in these his wordes Math. 18. vers 17. If he wil not heare the Church let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publican In which sentence he biddeth vs esteeme no more of our brother or neighbour that contemneth or disobeieth the censure of the Church then of a Heathen and Publican of which I gather that the Church in her censure cannot erre For if this might be then vve being bound to condemne whome she condemneth or to condemne him that vvil not listen and obey her counsaile and precepts might together with the Church condemne a man without just cause and that according to Christes commandement It appeareth likewise out of the said vvordes of our Sauiour that he vvil haue the sentence of the Church obeied wherefore he ought in reason to prouide that the said sentence be not erroneous But for the truth of these wordes of our Lord and also for the constant verity of the censure of the Church it maketh first that diuers falshoodes which before her said censure might in times past haue bin beleeued and defended yea were defended beleeued by the members of the true Church without incurring the crime of heresie afterwardes could not be so beleeued and defended as I could exemplifie in the Milinary heresie the opinion of such as held the baptisme of Heretikes to be of no force of others that denied the authority of some Canonical bookes and such like Secondly it maketh also for these her prerogatiues that al such as haue obstinately maintained any opinions condemned by the Church for heresies and consequently haue disobeied her authority decrees and beene by her adjudged Heretikes haue euer by al antiquity beene so accounted August in Enchirid. ad Laurēt cap. 5. Tertul. de pudicitia item li. de praescript Math. 5. v. 13.15 Luc. 10. vers 16. and therefore haue not beene numbred by the ancient Fathers among Christians whose opinions notvvithstanding if vve reject her infallible judgement by vvhich they were condemned and make it subject to errour may be reuiued and called againe in question either as wrongfully and injustly censured or at the least as condemned by a judge whose judgement is subject to errour and falshood The priuileges and prerogatiues graunted by our Sauiour to his Apostles and Disciples confirme the same for they are by him called the salt of the earth and the light of the world and being sent to preach they receaued from him this commission and approbation of their doctrine He that heareth you heareth me and he that dispiseth you dispiseth me Which wordes argue an infallible truth although not in the doctrine of euery particuler Bishop and Prelate of the Church yet in them altogether when they represent the whole Church in a Councel or in the whole number of them although diuided seperated in place For in these like as in Christes Apostles and Disciples as I haue aboue declared the wordes alleaged must be verified which cannot be done if they al in euery sense may erre For how can they then truly be tearmed the salt of the earth and the light of the world and how can it be true that he that heareth them heareth Christ But if we had no other testimony of holy Scripture for this matter fiue or six wordes of the Apostle vsed by him to Timothie in his first epistle 1. Tim. 3. v. 15. c. vvere sufficient to conuince our vnderstanding and make vs yeeld to this truth For in his said Epistle he tearmeth the Church the piller and ground of truth These thinges I write to thee saith he hoping that I shal come to thee quickly but if I tarie long that thou maist knowe howe thou oughtest to conuerse in the house of God which is the Church of the liuing God the piller and ground of truth What could he haue said more euident for the infallible authority of the Church the Church saith he is the piller and ground of truth that is to say the very foundation and establishment of al verity vpon vvhich as vpon a sure foundation and an inuiolable piller a man may securely build the edifice of his faith and religion vvho then vvil say that the Church is subject to errour These considerations moued S. Augustine Aug. lib. 1. cont Cresconium disputing against Cresconius concerning the baptisme of Heretikes to vse this discourse these are his vvordes Although of this that the baptisme of Heretikes is true baptisme there be no certaine example brought forth out of the canonical Scriptures yet also in this we keepe the truth of the said Scriptures when as we doe that which now hath pleased the whole Church which the authority of the Scriptures themselues doth commend That because the Scripture cannot deceaue whosoeuer doth feare least that he be deceaued through the obscurity of this question may aske counsaile touching it of the Church whome without any doubt the Scripture it selfe doth shewe Hitherto S. Augustine Out of which discourse of his we may gather this notable rule that in al thinges doubtful and in al obscure questions concerning faith and religion we ought to enquire and search forth the doctrine and beleefe of the Catholike Church and imbrace the same seeking no further warrant of security because the Scriptures demonstrate her and manifestly declare that her doctrine is true and may securely be followed without any danger of errour Vnto these arguments brought out of the word of God reason it selfe assenteth for seing that for diuers respects it was conuenient that Christ our Lord should not alwaies conuerse on earth among vs and in his owne person manage the affaires of the Church it
sentences in it are prophetical many parabolical many metaphorical which commonlie are ful of obscuritie Thirdly it is proper to Scripture to haue many senses vnder one letter as the literal sense which is that which the holy writer first intended and this sense sometimes is signified by proper words sometimes by wordes metaphorical and improper yea sometimes the literal sense of the same wordes is diuers It hath also a spiritual sense which is that which is signified by the thinges vnder the letter And this sense is either moral which is called also tropological when it tendeth to manners or allegorical when it tendeth to faith or the Church or anagogical when it tendeth to heauen or life euerlasting For example this vvord Hierusalem literally signifieth the Cittie so called morally the soule of man allegorically the Church militant and anagogically the Church triumphant Al these senses the wordes of Scripture beare and diuers of them not seldome were intended by the holy Ghost in the same sentence And what a difficult matter is it to discerne them I adde finally that sundrie misteries deliuered vnto vs in holy writ are high and aboue the reach of our natural reason Wherefore it is no meruaile if the sentences in which they are disclosed be hard and obscure Hence the prophet Dauid desired of God vnderstanding Psal 118. Iohn 5. verse 39. Luke 24. vers 45. that he might search his lawe Our Sauiour also willed the Iewes to search the Scriptures opened his Apostles and disciples vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures c which places plainly conuince the Scriptures to be hard SECTION THE THIRD The Scriptures may be falsly vnderstood and that euery priuate man may erre in the vnderstanding of them IN the second place I must proue that the Scriptures may be falsely vnderstood and that euery priuate man may erre in the translation or interpretation of the same This followeth of that which hath beene already said touching their obscuritie for if the Scripture be so obscure as I haue shewed these things must needs ensue And verily that the wordes of Scripture may receiue false interpretations 2. Pet. 3. verse 16. S. Peter aboue cited plainly auoucheth affirming that the vnlearned and vnstable euen in his daies depraued the epistles of S. Paul and other Scriptures to their owne perdition And it is a thing so manifest that it needeth no proofe for it is euident that al Heretikes heretofore haue alleaged Scriptures falsly expounded to confirme their heresies and this I wil declare more at large hereafter See part 2. cap. 8. sect 8. It is apparant also that in these our daies some in the world either Catholikes Lutherans Zuinglians Anabaptists or Libertines doe not giue the true sense of holy Scripture because it is impossible that more then one of these can haue the truth their expositions in diuers points be so diuers and contrary August tract 18. in Iohan. Aug. tom 3. de Gen. ad litterā li. 7. ca. 9. Vincent Lirin lib. cōtr propha haeres nouitates cap. 2. Barlow in his relatiō of the said conferēce pag. 61. Se part 2. c. 5. sect 1. yea S. Augustine affirmeth that heresies haue no other ofspring or roote then that good Scriptures are badly vnderstood In another place to the same effect he telleth vs that al Heretikes read Catholike Scriptures neither saith he are they for any other cause Heretikes then for that not vnderstanding them truly they defend obstinately their false opinions against the truth of them The same is declared by Vincentius Lirinensis in these wordes Al saith he take not the Scripture in one and the same sense because of the deepnes thereof but the speeches of it some interprete one way and some another way so that there may almost as many senses be picked out of it as there be men For Nouatus doth expounde it one way and Sabellius another way otherwise Donatus otherwise Arrius Eunomius Macedonius otherwise Iouinian Pelagius Celestius lastly otherwise Nestorius Hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis Hence our King in the conference held at Hampton Court betweene the Protestants and Puritans most discreetly affirmed that he would not wish al Canonical bookes to be read in the Church vnlesse there were one to interprete them Moreouer that the judgement of euery priuate man as before is subject vnto errour and falshood in his translation or interpretation of holy Scripture it is graunted by some of our aduersaries and likewise easily proued First because he Scripture it selfe warranteth no priuate mans judgement from errour Nay S. Peter in expresse termes telleth vs 2. Pet. 1. verse 20. Se sect 5. following 1. Ioh. 4. verse 1. That no prophecie of Scripture is made by priuate interpretation that is to say that no Scripture ought to be expounded according to any priuate mans opinion for the vvord Prophecie signifieth the interpretation or exposition of holie Scripture as shal hereafter be proued The Apostle Saint Iohn teacheth vs the same lesson vvilling vs not to beleeue euery spirit but to proue the spirittes if they be of God And howe are vve to proue the spirittes vvithout al doubt not by our ovvne judgement vvhich is subject to errour but by considering vvhether they be consonant or no to the doctrine of the Catholike Church or the rule of faith receiued by tradition from the Apostles This appeareth by the discourse of the said Apostle following In vvhich to confute Cerinthus Ebion Basilides and other Heretikes vvho denied the diuinitie humanitie or vnion of two natures in Christ and to proue their spirits not to be from God he setteth downe the doctrine of the Church concerning those pointes and addeth these vvordes He that knoweth God heareth vs that is to say he that hath the knowledge of God by true supernaturall faith heareth and obeieth the Church But vvhat doe I vse many wordes in a matter so euident gathered out of our aduersaries owne proceedinges For the holy Ghost teacheth men but one truth seing therefore that there are among the newe Sectaries now in the vvorld so great dissentions and differences in opinions concerning the exposition of the selfe same wordes of Scripture it necessarily followeth that some of them expound the Scriptures falslie and seing that one of them hath no better warrant for his direction in truth then another vve may vvel affirme them al to be subject to errour and falsehood I adde also that euerie Sectarie must needes confesse euerie one of his Captaines I meane Luther Zuinglius Caluin and the rest to haue erred in some point or other touching the true sense of Scripture for almost no one Sectarie followeth any one of these in al pointes and approueth al his interpretations but if vve graunt them al to haue erred in some pointes vve may vvel inferre that they are subject to errour in al because their vvarrant is equal for al. Finally if we admit euery priuate mans spirit as a judge in such
grounds hence proceeding IN the three precedent Chapters I haue treated of three principal groundes on which with al security we may build our faith and religion I wil now adde vnto them certaine others commonly by al Catholikes esteemed also to be of infallible authority And in the first place I assigne the decrees and definitions of the supreame visible Pastour of the Church millitant but for a ful explication and plaine proofe of this ground I wil deuide this chapter into certaine sections SECTION THE FIRST Containing a briefe explication or rehearsal of the Catholike doctrine concerning the Popes supremacie BECAVSE our beliefe concerning the primacie of the Bishop of Rome is diuersly slaundered by our aduersaries I thinke it not amisse before I come to the proofe of it briefly to explicate what our doctrine is For true it is that our assertion being explicated to them that are misinformed is halfe proued We hold therefore that the supreame power which our Sauiour Christ euen according to his humane nature receiued of his Father before his ascention ouer al his Church of which are these his wordes Mat. 28. verse 18. Ephes 1 22. 1 Pet. 5 4. Heb. 5.6 Al power is giuen to me in heauen and in earth vvas neuer resigned or giuen by him to any mortal creature Wherefore as yet he remaineth supreame head of his Church prince of Pastours and Priest according to the order of Melchisedech Neuerthelesse because he vvas to withdrawe his visible corporal presence from the Church millitant and therefore could not himselfe decree and giues sentence or aduise in matters doubtful like as Kinges or Princes not being resident in their dominions for the good and peaceable gouernment of their subjects appoint Viceroies or Vicegerents Luke 19. vers 12. so he departing from his Church as the scripture saith into a farre Countrie like as he appointed diuers vicars for the administration of the sacraments so he ordained one for the gouernment of the whole Church to wit S. Peter who immediately receiued such jurisdiction and authority from him and therefore during his mortal life was his Vicegerent on earth ministerial head of his Church and chiefe gouernour Pastour and Prelate of the same And hence proceedeth the first difference betweene Christ and S. Peter touching the supremacie ouer the Church For although they be both termed supreame heads of the same yet the last of them is subordinate dependeth of the first and the first only is the supreame independent the last was the supreame visible ministerial dependent head Of which it appeareth that the authority and jurisdiction of the second was nothing prejudicial to that of the first for they may stand very wel together seing that the one was subordinate to the other Neither doe Christ and his vicar properly make two heads of the Church but one like as a King and his viceroy make not properly two Kings but one For like as the King notwithstanding his viceroy is the one chiefe prince gouernour and head of his country so is Christ the chiefe Prelate and head of his Church S. Peter vvas his vicar and vicegerent and so is at this present his successour the Bishop of Rome For the proofe of the truth of this doctrine it maketh that like as Christ in the holy scripture is called Head of the Church so he is likewise called a Apoc. 17 14. ca. 19 16. King Lord b 1. Pet. 2 25. Bishop Pastour c Heb. 3 1. cap. 5. vers 6. Apostle and Priect Wherefore like as this notwithstanding others may be Kinges Lords Bishops Pastors Apostles and Priests so another may be although not absolute yet subordinate and ministerial head of the Church After this sort also our Sauiour and S. Peter are both rocks for although Christ be the chiefe rock and stone on which the Church was built yet S. Peter was the ministerial or secondary rock made by Christ a rocke and the principal stone next vnto himselfe in the edifice of his Church In vvhich sense by S. Paul and S. Iohn Eph. 2 20 Apoc. 21. verse 14. Basil hom de poenitē quae est vltima inter varias homilias Math. 5. verse 14. Leo serm 3. āniuersario Assumptionis suae although Christ be the principal foundation of his Church yet the Apostles are likewise termed the foundation of the same This which I haue said is most learnedly and euidently declared by the holy father S. Basil in these his wordes Although S. Peter saith he be a rocke yet he is not a rocke as Christ is for Christ is the true immoueable rocke of himselfe Peter is immoueable through Christ the rocke For Iesus doth impart and communicate his dignities not voiding himselfe of them but holding them to himselfe he bestoweth them also vpon others He is the light and yet you saith he are the light He is the Priest and yet he maketh Priests He is a Rocke and yet be maketh a Rocke thus farre S. Basil The like discourse vve finde in S. Leo for expounding those vvordes of our Sauiour Thou art Peter thus he speaketh in the person of Christ to the said Apostle Whereas I am an inuiolable Rocke I the corner stone who make both one I the foundation besides which no man can lay another yet thou also art a rocke because by my power thou art made firme and strong to the end that those thinges which are proper to me by power be made common to thee by participation hitherto S. Leo. And thus much of the first difference betweene Christ and S. Peter touching their superiority ouer the Church An other difference betweene them is that the authority of Christ vvas euer absolute of S. Peter limited for our Sauiour deriued not vnto him al his authoritie but a part onlie of the same Hence it proceedeth that although Christ instituted sacraments forgaue sins vvithout the vse of anie sacraments c. yet neither S. Peter nor any of his successours euer had anie such power or authority The reason is because euery man but Christ hath alwaies beene bound to vse the meanes by him instituted and left vnto his Church Of vvhich it appeareth howe false their slaunder is vvho affirme the Pope to pardon sinnes by his Indulgences or Pardons for certaine it is that by such indulgences no sinnes are forgiuen but men are onlie released of such temporal paine as is due vnto them It is also confessed by al Catholikes that no man as long as he is guilty of mortal sinne and out of the state of grace can receiue anie benefite from any such pardon A third difference is that our Sauiour being the way the truth and life yea the sonne of God himselfe could neither erre in judgement nor in manners that is he could neither haue any false or erroneous opinion in his vnderstanding nor sinne or erre from reason and right in his wil and actions Contrariewise his vicar although as I vvil proue
of their beliefe are not in expresse tearmes to be found in the whole Bible yea that the text of their owne Bibles maketh more for vs then it doth for them Out of which I may wel inferre that they build not vpon the letter contained in their owne bookes but vpon their owne collections which euery priuate man maketh according to his owne fancie SECTION THE SECOND The same argument is confirmed by the testimonie of some Protestants concerning the true sense of some wordes of Scripture alleaged for our Catholike doctrine touching justification in the Section before NOTVVITHSTANDING the wordes af Scripture cited for vs Catholikes are most plaine yet it may be some follower of the new religion wil imagine that we wrest them to a sense improper and in the primatiue ages of the Church vnheard off contrariwise that those of his beliefe deliuer the true literal and auncient exposition of the same Nowe therefore to make the force of the reason brought more strong I adde that I could easily proue euen by the testimonies of our aduersaries themselues that the letter of holy Scripture in these controuersies mentioned and others according to the proper sense thereof and the tradition and practise of al former Christians is on our side not on theirs But if I should here declare this to be true in euery particuler point I should be ouer long vvherefore I vvil exemplifie only in one or two of the principal by which my reader may easily perceiue what may be done concerning the rest Luther to 5. in cap. 5. ad Galat. f. 382. And first what article of religion by these Sectaries is esteemed aboue that of justification by only faith Luther himselfe writeth thus Whoso euer falleth from the article of justification by faith onlie becommeth ignorant of God and is an Idolater and therefore it is al one whether he returne to the law of the Iewes or worshipping of Idols Al is one whether he be a Monke a Turke a Iewe or an Anabaptist For this article being once taken away there remaineth nothing but meere errour hipochrisie impiety idolatry although in shewe there appeare excellent truth Caluin in Epist ad Sadoletum p. 176. worship of God holinesse c. thus Luther Caluin also telleth vs that the knowledge of justification by faith being taken away both the glorie of Christ was extinguished and religion abolished and the Church destroyed and the hope of saluation altogether ouerthrowne Our countriman M. Perkins in like sort affirmeth Per. in his reformed Catholike touching justification of a sinner pag. 65. 66 that we by our doctrine touching justification doe raâ—â—e the very foundation and that the disagreement betweene vs and the Protestants concerning this matter if there were no more points of difference alone were sufficient to keepe vs from vniting our religions this is his opinion Wherefore this being an article of Christian beliefe in these mens conceits so principal let vs behold whether the letter of holy Scripture according to the judgement of Protestants doe not plainely deliuer our doctrine concerning it and impugne theirs The chiefest place which I haue alleaged in the section next before touching this matter is that sentence of S. Iames the Apostle Of workes or deedes a man is justified and not of faith only Iam. 2. v. 24. Bible 1592. And howe doe al the Lutheranes yea some Sacramentaries vnderstand these wordes Truly they openly and boldly confesse that they warre against justification by onlie faith and approue justification by workes and they assigne this as one reason why this epistle is to be rejected out of the Canon Luther the captaine of them al writing vpon the 22. chapter of Genesis hath these wordes See him also praefat in nouum Testam edit 1. Genensis in captiuitat Babilo ca. de Extrema Vnct. in 1. Pet. c. 1. fol 439. 440. edit Wittenb Abraham was just by faith before he is knowne such an one by God therefore Iames doth naughtily conclude that nowe at the length he is justified after this obedience for by workes as by fruits faith and iustice is knowne But it followeth not vt Iacobus delirat as Iames dotingly affirmeth therefore the fruits doe iustifiy thus there And in another place * Luth. in colloquijs conuiualibus latin to 2. de libris noui Testam Part. 2 chap. 6. sect 2. Many saith he haue taken great paines in the epistle of Iames to make it accord with Paul as Philppe endeauoureth in his Apologie but not with good successe for they are contrary faith doth iustifie faith doth not iustifie Loe Luther expresly telleth vs that S. Iames auoucheth faith not to justifie But whereas he maketh this Apostle contrary to S. Paul he doth wrong them both For neither doth the one say that faith doth not justifie nor the other that faith alone doth justifie as he supposeth But out of their discourses it may be gathered that both faith and workes concurre to justification which is our Catholike doctrine Of the place of S. Paul vnto vvhich Luther alludeth I haue said something before therefore no more of it at this present shal be necessary The opinion of a Pomeran in c. 8. ad RomaÌ„ Pomerane a Lutheran of great estimation is conformable to that of Luther for thus he pronounceth his censure Faith was reputed to Abraham for iustice By this place thou maiest note the error of the epistle of Iames wherein thou seest a wicked argument Besides that he concludeth ridiculously he citeth Scripture against Scripture which thing the holy Ghost cannot abide wherefore that epistle may not be numbred among other bookes which set forth the iustice of only faith thus Pomerane I wil not stand to free S. Iames from his wicked accusations which is very wel performed by diuers Catholike authors Hil in his defeÌ„ce of the article Christ descended into hel fol. 23. Centur. 1. lib. 2. c. 4. col 54. Centur. 2. ca. 4. col 71. But vnto this Lutheran I wil joyne the Magdeburgians his brethren whose vvritings an English Protestant judgeth to be worthy of eternal memorie who say that the epistle of S. Iames much swarueth from the analogie of the Apostolical doctrine whereas it ascribeth justification not only to faith but to workes and calleth the lawe a lawe of liberty Againe Against Paul against al Scriptures the epistle of Iames attributeth justice to workes and peruerteth as it were of set purpose that which Paul disputeth Rom. 4. out of Genesis 15. Abraham was iustified by only faith without workes and affirmeth that Abraham obtained iustice by workes hitherto are their wordes With these consenteth Vitus Theodorus an other of that companie and a preacher of Norinberge who yeeldeth this reason wherefore he excluded this epistle from the Canon of holy Scripture The epistle of Iames and the Apocalipse of Iohn saith he we haue of set purpose left out because the epistle of Iames is not only in certaine
firmiter stent in confess de coena Domini yea not long after most absurdly he taught and defended the humane nature of Christ to be in euery place togither with his diuine And this he did to prejudice the Roman Church and Catholike religion For seing that the vvordes are so plaine that he could not in substance denie the real presence by these meanes malice droue him to contrary our doctrine concerning transubstantiation and the manner of the being present of Christes body in this dreadful Sacrament These are the principal expositions of those wordes to which I could adde diuers others for a Luther in l. quod verba Christi HOC EST CORPVS MEVM firmiter stent Luther hath recorded that in his daies there vvere among the Sacramentaries about tenne diuers interpretations of them and in the yeare 1577. a booke vvas published in vvhich two hundred expositions or deprauations of the said vvordes are numbred and assigned al inuented or reuiued by the Professours of this newe religion Nowe I thinke that no man indued with any sense or reason wil be so fond as to affirme that al these expositions haue a certaine ground in the word of God for certaine it is as we haue hard Luther himselfe confesse that there is but one true sense of these vvordes vvherefore it must needes followe that al the rest be false and forged And seing that the inuentor or vpholder of one hath no more reason or diuine assurance for his inuention or opinion then hath the inuentor or vpholder of an other vve may vvith like probability affirme them al to be humane inuentions And certaine it is that vvhosoeuer imbraceth any one of them buildeth only vpon the erroneous and fallible judgement of man yea I may truly say that the ground of his beliefe is his owne fancy vvhich moueth him to censure one opinion as true and to condemne al the rest as false And like as I haue discoursed of this one sentence of our blessed Sauiour so could I in like manner discourse of sundry other places of holy Scripture but I should be ouer long It may be some for the solutions of al these matters vvil flie to priuate illumination or inspiration of the spirit and pleade that to proue the certaine truth of their interpretations of holy Scriptures but first such persons if vve beleeue Field Field booke 4 of the Church chap. 16. See also Whitaker de Ecclesia cōtrouers 2. q. 4. cap. 3. pag. 278. are accursed by the common consent of Protestants if as the Enthusiasts they neglect the common rules of direction Secondly I haue at large * Part. 2. chap. 5. sect 1. before proued al such illuminations to be vncertaine and that no priuate man is by any such meanes ordinarily directed by God into the truth something also concerning this point shal be said in the next section SECTION THE FOVRTH That certaine rules prescribed by Field for the true vnderstanding of Scripture of themselues alone without the censure of the Church are insufficient to assure vs that our exposition made is of diuine truth BECAVSE the doctrine of Field is commonly singular in so much that I thinke I may very wel in some sort liken the platforme or order and faith of a Church set downe in his bookes of this argument to Sir Thomas Moores Eutopia for that there neither is nor euer vvil be any such Church in the world as he describeth I am and shal be forced especially in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church to dispute against him in particular and seuer him from al his bretheren Part. 2. chap. 5. sect 4. We haue heard him before acknowledging the Scriptures to be hard and obscure of which it seemeth to followe that except he assigne vs some diuine rule vvhereby we may come to an infallible knowledge of the true sense of them we can neuer infallibly assure our selues of their true interpretation He telleth vs therefore first that men not neglecting that light of direction which the Church yeeldeth Field booke 4 chap. 15. nor other helps and meanes may be assured out of the nature of the thinges themselues the conference of places the knowledge of tongues and the sutable correspondence that one part of diuine truth hath with another that they haue found out the true meaning of it and so be able to conuince the aduersaries and gaine saiers Thus Field But howe friuolous this his assertion is it vvil appeare by the confutation of his rules vvhich he vvil haue vs obserue and helps vvhich he saith vve must trust vnto in interpreting the Scriptures What rules and helps are then assigned by him let vs recite and for auoiding of repetition togither confute them Ibid. chap. 19 these are his vvordes Touching the rules we are to followe the helps we are to trust vnto and the thinges required in the interpretation of Scripture I thinke we may thus resolue First there is required an illumination of the vnderstanding for the natural man perceiueth not the thinges of God for they are spiritually discerned but the spiritual man judgeth al thinges and himselfe is judged of none This is the first helpe concerning which I first demand howe a man shal infallibly knowe that he hath such an illumination or that he is a spiritual man if he answere that it is knowne by this that a man feeleth himselfe thus and thus affected I vrge further and aske by vvhat diuine testimony or firme reason he knoweth that a man feeling himselfe so affected hath an illumination of the vnderstanding from God and is a spiritual man verily seing that Luther and Caluin both boasted of such an illumination and yet one of them was deceiued 2. Cor. 11 14 seing also that the Diuel doth often transfigure himselfe into an Angel of light as S. Paul vvarneth vs and as our aduersaries vvil grant it hapneth to the Anabaptists and others seing moreouer 1. Iohn 4. v. 1. Caluin alleaged in the 8. section of this chapter that the Apostle S. Iohn biddeth vs not beleeue euery spirit but proue the spirits if they be of God vvhich Caluin also thinketh necessary he must alleage or knowe some such testimony or reason or else he cannot ordinarily haue supernatural knowledge of it which neuerthelesse at the least is necessarily required to this that the exposition of the place of Scripture expounded be an inducement or ground of supernatural faith And vvhat diuine testimony can he alleage no other I thinke but Scripture or diuine inspiration if Scripture then another question may be asked howe he knoweth himselfe rightly to vnderstand that place of Scripture if inspiration I demand in like sort howe he knoweth it to be diuine and not diabolical and so of both these answeres wil follow a processe without end Secondly of this rule it may be inferred not only against Field but al our aduersaries that our faith is not built vpon only
Cipriā epist 40. 70. 55. 69. 71. 73. see him also in exhortat ad Martirium cap. 11. the Century writers who are esteemed very diligent searchers of antiquity taxe S. Ciprian for his doctrine touching the Popes supreamacy Secondly the doctrine of S. Ciprian taught in this booke agreeth exceeding wel with that which is found throughout al his epistles in vvhich vve finde the same sentences almost in the very same wordes which Iames denieth to be in his manuscript copies of the booke of the vnity of the church as that there is one God one Church and one Chaire founded vpon Peter that the Church was built vpon S. Peter that our Lord chose him the first or chiefest that he instituted the origen of vnity from him c. Peraduenture some man wil say these epistles are also corrupted but first I thinke they are not found otherwise in the Manuscript copies mentioned by Master Iames then they are in the printed bookes For vvere they it is like he vvould not haue passed it vvith silence as he doth Secondly neither Perkins nor any other affirmeth these epistles to be corrupted Thirdlie one of these Epistles in vvhich it is said that our Lord did choose S. Peter the first or chiefest and that vpon him he built his Church is cited by S. Augustine August to 7. de bapt cont Donat. cap. 1. Cipr. ep 72. ad Quintum vvho also alleageth those very vvordes as S. Ciprians which are in the printed copies to vvit Nam nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit super quem edificauit Ecclesiam suam c. For neither S. Peter whome our Lord chose the first or chiefest and vpon whome he built his Church c. And moreouer after S. Ciprians vvordes he addeth himselfe Behold where Ciprian rehearseth which also we haue learned in holy Scriptures that the Apostle Peter in whome the Primacy of the Apostles through so excellent grace is higher then others c. Thus S. Augustine of which it is most euident that this Epistle among al the rest is not corrupted and yet here is almost said as much in substance of this matter as is in his booke de vnitate Ecclesiae Finally the vvordes vvhich Iames vvil haue excluded from S. Ciprians booke de vnitate Ecclesiae are so agreeable to this holy Fathers stile and phrase and so fitting his discourse that no man can almost suspect them to be added But it may be demanded howe it falleth out that they are wanting in the Manu-script copies mentioned by M. Iames In very truth if there be such auncient copies and there be nothing razed out of them I cannot but thinke that they were written out before the art of printing was inuented by some Wicliffian Heretike or if they came out of some forraine country by some Schismatike or other that held with some German Emperor against the Pope That the Wicliffians vvere very potent and preuailed much in our Country we may gather out of that vvhich is said by Stowe in his Chronicle and in the yeares 1414. and 1377. And Walsingham vvriteth Walsingham anno vlt. Edward 3. that the Vniuersity of Oxford in particular vvas cold in resisting him Walsingham in vita Richardi 2. anno 1378. Nay their coldnesse vvas such that Gregory XI Pope in the yeare 1378. vvrote his Breue to it and reprehended them of the said Vniuersity for their coldnesse and slacknesse AN INDEX OR TABLE OF AL THE CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THIS TREATISE The first part of the groundes of the old religion CHAPTER 1. Of the first ground of Catholike religion to wit that there is a God and that God by his prouidence gouerneth al thinges page 1. Section 1. That there is a God page 2. Sect. 2. Almighty God hath care of worldly affaires and ruleth al things by his diuine prouidence page 10. Chap. 2. Of the second ground of our religion to wit that the soule of man is immortal and that it shal either be rewarded euerlastingly in heauen or punished euerlastingly in hel page 12. Chap. 3. Of a third principal ground of our faith to wit that Christian religion only is the true worship of God page 16. Chap. 4. That among Christians they only that professe and embrace the Catholike faith and religion are in state of saluation and doe truly worship God page 24. Chap. 5. Sect. 1. Of the definition and conditions of true faith p. 28. Sect. 2. That faith is a most firme assent of the vnderstanding page 29. Sect. 3. Faith is of thinges incomprehensible by natural reason and consequently obscure page 30. Sect. 4. By true Christian faith we beleeue such misteries as God hath reuealed to his Church page 32. Sect. 5. That true faith is built vpon diuine authority page 34. Sect. 6. Besides the reuelation of God some infallible propounder of the articles of our faith is necessary and that they are propounded vnto vs by the Catholike Church page 36. Chap. 6. Sect. 1. Of the supreame and infallible authority of the Catholike Church page 38. Sect. 2. The whole summe of Christian doctrine by word of mouth not by writing was committed by Christ to his Apostles page 39. Sect. 3. The Church cannot stray from the rule of faith receaued nor erre in matter of faith or general precepts of manners which is proued first because the holy Ghost directeth her in al truth page 42. Sect. 4. The same is proued by other arguments page 44. Sect. 5. That the testimonies of holy Scripture and other proofes brought for the infallible and diuine authority of the Church cannot be applied to the Church considered as it comprehendeth al faithful Christians that are and haue beene since Christes ascention or since the Apostles daies but vnto the present Church of al ages page 52. Sect. 6. That the same testimonies and proofes conuince an infallible judgement of the Church concerning euery article of faith not only concerning certaine of the principal page 56. Sect. 7. That to saluation it is necessary to beleeue the whole Catholike faith and euery article thereof page 58. Chap. 7. Of the holy Scripture which is the first particular ground of faith in the Catholike Church page 61. Sect. 1. Howe the Scripture is knowne to be Canonical page 61. Sect. 2. Concerning the sense or exposition of holy Scriptures and first that the Scriptures are hard and receiue diuers interpretations p. 67. Sect. 3. The Scriptures may be falsly vnderstood and that euery priuate man may erre in the vnderstanding of them page 69. Sect. 4. That the letter of holy Scripture falsly interpreted is not the word of God page 72. Sect. 5. The true sense of the holy Scripture is to be learned of the Catholike Church who is the true judge thereof page 75. Sect. 6. An objection against the premises is answered and the question concerning the last resolution of our faith is discussed page 78. Chap. 8. Concerning the second particular ground of Catholike
religion to wit Apostolike Traditions page 86. Sect. 1. Of Apostolike Tradition in general page 86. Sect. 2. Of vnwritten Traditions in particular page 91. Chap. 9. Of general Councels which make the third particular ground of Catholike religion page 97. Chap. 10. Of the decrees of the supreame visible Pastour of the Church which make a fourth particular ground of our faith and of other grounds hence proceeding page 108. Sect. 1. Containing a briefe explication or rehearsal of the Catholike doctrine concerning the Popes supreamacy page 108. Sect. 2. The aforesaid doctrine is proued page 113. Sect. 3. That the decrees of the Bishop of Rome when he teacheth the Church as supreame Pastour are of diuine and infallible authority and of some other groundes of faith flowing out of these page 127. Sect. 4. The opinion of some sectaries that the Pope is Antechist is briefly confuted and two objections against the premises are answered p. 133. Chap. 11. Of the consent of the auncient Fathers and the general doctrine of the Catholike Church in al ages page 140. Chap. 12. Containing the conclusion of the first part page 144. THE SECOND PART In which is proued that the newe sectaries build their faith vpon no diuine authority but that the ground of al their beliefe and religion is their owne judgement and consequently that they haue neither true faith nor religion CHAPTER 1. That by their doctrine they deny or at the least weaken the three principal and general groundes of Christian religion set downe in the three first chapters of the first part page 1. Section 1. The number of Atheists among them is great and of the causes by them giuen of this impiety page 1. Sect. 2. Of our aduersaries doctrine concerning the immortality of the soule heauen and hel page 8. Sect. 3. Of our aduersaries impious assertions concerning Christ and Christian religion page 12. Sect. 4. That in like sort they weaken the principal proofes of the said three groundes page 19. Chap. 2. The newe Sectaries debase the true Christian faith and in place of it extol a presumptuous faith by themselues inuented page 26. Chap. 3. That our aduersaries deny the infallible authority of the Church and affirme it to haue erred and perished page 30. Chap. 4. They reject al particular groundes of faith aboue assigned and proued to bee found in the Church of Christ besides the holy Scriptures page 32. Chap. 5. They build not vpon the holy Scripture and first that the bare letter of holy Scripture only is not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion page 47. Sect. 1. In which this is proued because by Scripture the Scripture it selfe cannot be proued Canonical It is also argued that according to the sectaries groundes there is no Canonical Scripture and some principal reasons especially inspiration of the spirit which they alleage for the proofe of such Scripture are refelled page 47. Sect. 2. In which the same argument is prosecuted and two things principally are proued First that the newe Testament receiueth smal authority if we beleeue our aduersaries by this that it was written by the Apostles and Disciples because they accuse them of errour Secondly because they confesse the text of Scripture to be corrupted p. 67. Sect. 3. The same is proued because euery Christian is bound to admit and beleeue certaine propositions neither expresly contained nor according to some mens judgements so euidently gathered out of the holy Scripture page 75. Sect. 4. The insufficiency of the bare letter of holy Scripture is proued by other arguments especially by this that the true interpretation cannot be infallibly gathered out of the letter page 78. Chap. 6. The newe Sectaries Bibles containe not the true word of God page 83. Sect. 1. In which this is first proued concerning al their Bibles in general page 83. Sect. 2. That Luther Zwinglius Caluin and Beza in particular haue corruptly translated the Scriptures page 84. Sect. 3. Our English sectaries also haue falsly and corruptly translated the Scriptures page 90. Sect. 4. Containing false translations against the authority of the Church Traditions honour of Images Purgatory and the honour of Saints page 92. Sect. 5. Of their corruptions against inherent Iustice Iustification by good workes Merit of good workes and keeping the Commandements and in defence of their special â—aith vaine Security c. and against Freewil and Merits page 94. Sect. 6. Of their false translations against the Real presence Priest-hood election of Bishops single life of Priests Penance and satisfaction for Sinne the Sacrament of Matrimony and some other points p. 96. Sect. 7. That the Professors of the newe religion in corrupting the Scriptures followe the steps of the auncient Heretikes and what followeth of this discourse page 101. Chap. 7. That they build not vpon the letter of holy Scripture contained as they say in their owne Bibles page 103. Sect. 1. In which this is proued first because the propositions which they tearme of their faith are not in expresse tearmes contained in the Scripture page 103. Sect. 2. The same argument is confirmed by the testimonie of some Protestants concerning the true sense of some wordes of Scripture alleaged for our Catholike doctrine touching justification in the Section before page 106. Sect. 3. The like discourse is made concerning a place of Scripture alleaged for the real presence page 114. Sect. 4. The followers of the newe religion in diuers matters obserue not the letter of their owne Bibles page 130. Chap. 8. In receiuing translating and expounding the holy Scriptures they only build vpon their owne fancies and judgement and that they haue no other ground page 134. Sect. 1. In which this is proued by their doctrine and dissention concerning the bookes of Canonical Scripture and their altering of the text of the same page 134. Sect. 2. The same is confirmed by their translations and expositions of holy Scripture page 141. Sect. 3. Concerning the newe exposition of those wordes This is my body in particular page 146. Sect. 4. That certaine rules prescribed by Field for the true vnderstanding of Scripture of themselues alone without the censure of the Church are insufficient to assure vs that our exposition made is of diuine truth page 149. Sect. 5. Concerning their deductions out of holy Scripture that they likewise are framed by them according to their owne fancies and of their accusations of one another touching these matters page 157. Sect. 6. The vnlearned and ignorant sectaries in receiuing and expounding the holy Scriptures likewise build vpon their owne fancies and judgements and haue no other ground of their faith and religion p. 161. Sect. 7. Of the miserable estate of the vnlearned and ignorant Sectaries page 166. Sect. 8. That the newe sectaries alleage Scriptures to confirme their new doctrine it is no certaine argument that they build their faith and religion vpon the said Scriptures page 172. Chap. 9. In which is proued by the newe Sectaries
the sonnes of Aaron Malac. 2. vers 7. The lippes of the Priest shal keepe knowledge and they shal require the lawe of his mouth so of the Bishops and Priestes of the newe who are to enjoy as great if not a greater prerogatiue the Apostle telleth vs Ephes 4. vers 11. that our Lord hath giuen and euer wil giue as long as the world shal stand some Pastors and Doctors in his Church to direct vs that we be not carried away with euery winde of doctrine And hence proceedeth this notable sentence of the holy Father S. Ireneus vvho for Christian religion suffered Martirdome about the yeare of Christ two hundred and fiue Iren. li. 3. cap. 4. We ought not saith he to seeke among others the truth which we may easilie take and receaue from the Church seing that the Apostles haue most fully laid vp in her as into a rich treasure house or place where the Depositum of the Church is kept of which hereafter al thinges which are of truth that euery man that wil may take out of her the drinke of life For this is the entrance of life but al the rest are theeues and robbers for which cause they are verily to be auoided But those thinges which are of the Church are with great diligence to be loued and the tradition of truth is to be receaued Hitherto S. Ireneus We say therefore that by the Church we learne as certainely what misteries haue beene reuealed by Christ as we should doe by our Lord himselfe if he were conuersant with vs on earth and the truth of this wil be made most apparant by the discourse of the next Chapter following Chapter 6. Of the supreame and infallible authority of the Catholike Church SECTION THE FIRST MY principall intent in this treatise is as I haue before declared to proue that vve Catholikes only haue true faith and that al Sectaries are bereaued of this supernatural vertue vvherefore hauing set downe and made euident in the Chapter next before the nature and conditions of true faith it remaineth that I now beginne in particuler to discourse of these points And seing that it is of the essence of faith that it be most assuredly built vpon diuine authority let vs first behold the groundes of the Catholike Roman beleefe and see whether they are able to make a sufficient foundation for such a faith in the followers of that religion then let vs doe the like concerning the groundes of the newe Sectaries But first I must note that although as I haue proued before we must trulie say that we knowe infallibly the misteries of our faith to be reuealed by God because we are so taught by the Church yet that her authority is not limited to the decision of this matter only for it extendeth it selfe also to the definition of al particuler matters of faith and may haue for her object the verities themselues reuealed It also condemneth heresies and prescribeth general preceptes of manners touching good and il wherefore the ancient Catholike buildeth vpon her authority not only his faith touching the point mentioned but also in some sort his whole beleefe and consequently al his internal vertues grounded vpon the same He relieth likewise on her doctrine for his externall carriage concerning vertue and vice and finally accepteth al her faith as infallibly reuealed by God himselfe who hath made her supreame judge of al controuersies touching matters of religion and assured vs that her judgement is not only certaine and infallible but also through the perpetual assistance and direction of the holy Ghost diuine so that God directeth her in al truth and by her as a sensible guide he bestoweth the same benefit vpon vs in al thinges necessary to saluation wherefore our whole beleefe and religion in such sort dependeth of her infallible authority that if this be proued it conuinceth that to be true sincere and diuine For no man can denie but in building vpon the tradition decision or definition of the Church we ground our faith and religion vpon diuine authority if her decrees be Gods and her doctrine warranted to be his Let vs therefore endeauour to shewe this that so with fewe wordes we may decide the whole question and to auoide confusion let vs diuide the whole discourse of this Chapter into the proofe of some three or foure assertions SECTION THE SECOND The whole summe of Christian doctrine by word of mouth not by writing was committed by Christ to his Apostles FIRST therefore I affirme that Christ cōmitted the whole summe of Christian doctrine by word of mouth not by writing to his Apostles ordained that they should deliuer the same to their successors the Bishops and Pastors of the Church This is manifest both because diuers points of Christian doctrine which the Apostles receaued from Christ are not recorded by the Euangelists in their Gospels and also because S. Luke witnesseth Act. 1. v. 3. that Christ after his passion and resurrection shewed himselfe aliue to his Apostles in many arguments for fortie dayes appearing to them and speaking of the kingdome of God of which his speach litle or nothing is recorded I adde moreouer that not long before his ascention he gaue his Apostles this commission Going said he teach ye al nations Mat. 28. v. 19.20 baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost teaching them to obserue al thinges whatsoeuer I haue commanded you These places I say manifestly proue that Christ by word of mouth instructed his Apostles concerning the misteries and articles of Christian religion and according to his instruction commanded them to teach the whole world Neither is there any record extant that Christ gaue them these instructions in writing or that he commanded them to set them downe and publish them after that sort yea if we wil not say that the Apostles transgressed Christes commandement we must absolutely say that he neuer bid them doe any such thing because neuer any one of them as I wil declare hereafter set downe in writing the whole summe of Christian doctrine No man likewise wil or can deny but that it was the ordination of Christ that the Apostles should deliuer this whole summe of Christian doctrine to their successors for otherwise Christ should haue instituted a Church only for the Apostles daies not to continue to the end of the world according to the predictions of the Prophets And hence this summe of Christian doctrine by the Apostle S. Paul was most earnestly commended to Timothie 1. Tim. vlt vers 20. O Timothie saith he keepe the depositum that is the pledge or pawne left with thee auoiding the prophane nouelties of voices and oppositions of falsly called knowledge He calleth it depositum or a pledge or pawne because it is as it were a thing laid into the Apostles and Bishops handes and committed vnto them to keepe which euery one of them with great
in li. de scriptor Eccl. in Ioan. S. Hierome testifie And that al is not by him recorded it is manifest because those speeches which our Sauiour had with his Apostles during the fourty daies betweene his resurection and ascension are almost altogether omitted Neither did he write this Gospel at the beginning of the Church but many yeares after to wit about threescore and six yeares after our Sauiours ascension And like as S. Iohn so did the rest of the Apostles and Disciples leaue vnto vs such parcels of scripture as vve haue receiued from them some extraordinary occasions mouing them thereunto as I could easily declare and proue See Euse hist li. 3. Chrisost hom 1. in Mat. Epipha haeres 51. Baronius to 1. au 45. et 58. out of Eusebius Saint Hierome and others I know that * Field booke 4. cap. 20. § For first Field maketh shewe as though it were a plaine matter that the Euangelists in their Gospels S. Luke in the acts of the Apostles and S. Iohn in the Apocalipse Meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine and direction of Christian faith but vvhat reason he bringeth for it of any moment I cannot see And besides it is certaine that no one of them intended to set downe al because no one of them hath so done wherfore if they haue set downe al as he affirmeth either it hath proceeded from some common deliberation or consultation had among themselues in which they determined what euery one should rehearse or else from the disposition and direction of the holy Ghost who inspired them to write Not the first because no man euer made mention of such a deliberation or consultation and moreouer they wrote vpon diuers occasions in diuers Countries and at diuers times as Ecclesiastical histories testifie Not the second because Field himselfe graunteth that something is vvanting in these bookes which the Church beleeueth which would not haue beene if the holy Ghost had intended that al should haue beene set downe for he addeth that The epistles of the Apostles were occasionallie written yet so saith he as by the prouidence of God al such thinges as the Church beleeueth not being found in the other parts scripture purposedly written are most clearly and at large deliuered in these epistles Marke wel gentle reader this doctrine he told vs before that the Apostles and Euangelists in the Gospels acts of the Apostles and the Apocalipse meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine direction of Christian faith nowe he telleth vs that the Church beleeueth some things which are deliuered in the Apostolical epistles not being found in the other parts of scripture purposedly written Of which I inferre both that the holy Ghost intended not that the penners of the Gospels of the actes of the Apostles and the Apocalipse should deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine and also that he thinketh the writers of these books to haue missed of their intended purpose verily this last pointe seemeth to me no very sound doctrine And besides how wil M. Field proue that the Apostles in their epistles supplied al this want especially seing that the Apostles and Euangelists in the other books although intending to write al yet in his opinion omitted something and the authours of the epistles intended no such matter but vvrote them as he saith occasionally wherefore there is farre greater likelihood that these omitted something then they Further one Apostolical epistle at the least to the Laodicians hath perished Coloss 4.16 see 1. Cor. 5 9. Chrisost hom 9. in Math. et homil 7. in 1. Cor. of which is mention in the epistle of S. Paul to the Colossians And who can absolutely say that nothing necessary was contained in it which is not in any other part of the newe Testament Finally Field himselfe confesseth some vnwritten Traditions as I will declare in the next Section What then did the Apostles and Disciples expresly set downe in those their monuments which are contained in the newe Testament a part only without al doubt of the whole summe of Christian beliefe in which part they ratified and confirmed the supreame and infallible authority of the Church of whome the rest was to be learned and to whose custody they committed their said monuments so that the whole summe or depositum hath beene kept and preserued in the Church not al only in expres termes in the holy scripture but the whole by Tradition a part of that whole also by writing another part by only Tradition by which likewise the said scripture it selfe came to our hands And after this sort the whole corps of Christian religion without any alteration descended vnto vs. This may be proued by that which hath been already said concerning the true sense exposition of holy scripture Chap. 7. sect 5. for as I haue shewed the scripture ought to be interpreted according to the Analogie or rule of faith that is to say according to that beliefe which the Church by Tradition hath receiued from Christ and his Apostles wherefore the letter of the holy scripture is not the whole direction of the faith of the Church but the faith of the Church the perfect and ful direction of the said letter of holy scripture of which it followeth that the faith of the holy Church might haue remained sound and entire by Tradition although no such letter had beene published But let vs confirme this by the testimony of the ancient Fathers Irenae lib. 3. cap. 4. Among the rest S. Irenaeus discourseth thus What saith he if neither the Apostles had left vs scriptures ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they deliuered vnto those whome they committed Churches vnto which order many barbarous nations beleeuing in Christ assent without letter or incke that is without any written word of God hauing saluation written in their hearts by the holy Ghost and diligently keeping the ancient Tradition Hitherto S. Irenaeus And note wel that he affirmeth some to haue beene Christians without any scripture guided only by the Tradition of the Church He telleth vs moreouer that by this order of Tradition from the Apostles al Heretikes are conuinced in such sort that Catholiks shut vp their eares assoone as they heare them vtter any thing repugnant to the said order Finally he addeth that al that are desirous to heare the truth may see in the Church the Tradition of the Apostles made manifest through the whole world And we can number those saith he who are instituted Bishops in Churches by the Apostles and their successors euen vnto vs who taught no such thing as these men Heretikes dreame of Thus farre S. Irenaeus Tertul. de praescrip cap. 19. 20. 21 who suffered martirdome in the yeare of our Lord 205. Tertullian also affirmeth that by this rule of Tradition or prescription of Catholike doctrine Heretikes are to be conuinced And hence it proceedeth that the Apostle vvith
10. pag. 570. Andraeas Fricius a learned Protestant of Polonia And that he held himselfe to be supreame Pastour of the Church al his b See l. 12. epi. 32. de priuiligio cōcessomo nasterio S. Medardi In psal 5. epist 38. indict 13. bookes and actions aboundantly testifie and of the Church of Constantinople in particuler thus he vvriteth c Lib. 7. epist 63. ad Ioan. Sira cusanum Of the seat of Constantinople who can doubt but it is subject to the Apostolike See which both my Lord the most holy Emperour and my brother Eusebius Bishop of the same citty of Constantinople professe And this is the common Catholike doctrine touching the supreamacie of S. Peter and the Bishop of Rome SECTION THE SECOND The aforesaid doctrine is proued IF I should endeauour to bring forth al the arguments which occurre and are commonly vsed by Catholike authors conuincing the truth of that which hath beene here said this treatise would rise to a great volume vvhich is contrarie to mine intent wherefore I wil only touch the principal and those very briefly In the holy scripture we first find that our Sauiour at the first sight of S. Peter chaunged his name from Simon to Cephas or Peter For this holy Apostle being brought by S. Andrew his brother vnto Christ He looking vpon him saith S. Iohn the Euangelist said Ioh. 1 42. Hier. in c. 2. epist ad Galatas thou art Simon the sonne of Iona thou shalt be called Cephas which word in the Siriack tongue as we are taught by S. Hierom as also Peter in the Greek signifieth a rocke wherefore then did Christ change this Apostles name more then the names of al the rest for although he called S. Iames and S. Iohn Boanerges Mark 3. yet he altered not their former names but gaue them a kind of sir-name and therefore by the holie Euangelists the whole Church they are alwaies called by their first names Iames Iohn But S. Peter is commonly called both by the Euangelists S. Paul Galat. 2. Chrisost in 1. cap. Ioan. and the whole Church Peter Cephas or a rock which as S. Iohn Chrisostome very wel noteth argueth that some great priuiledge was graunted to S. Peter aboue others for so God for some extraordinarie and great cause changed the name of Abram into Abraham and of Iacob into Israel But what was this priuiledge Verily the name it selfe imposed vpon S. Peter giueth vs notice what it was for seing that Christ communicated vnto him one of his owne names to wit the name of a rock or stone which is often times attributed vnto himselfe in holie write Isa 8. et 28. Daniel 2. psal 117. Mat. 21. Rom. 9. 1. Cor. 10. Ephe. 2.1 Peter 2. c. he also gaue vs to vnderstand that he was to communicate vnto him the highest office vnder himselfe and that like as he himselfe was the principal rock and foundation of the Church so this holy Apostle was to be by participation a secondarie stone placed next vnto himselfe in the building of the same and through his praier and warrant to be made a piller of truth not to be shaken with anie falshood nor ouerthrowne by al the powers of hel This is the doctrine of S. Basil and S. Leo as we haue seene aboue But that the force of this place of scripture against the newe sectaries may the better be perceiued let vs joine another vnto it more strongelie confirming the same truth and plainely opening the sense of the former For after that this blessed Apostle had confessed our Sauiour to be Christ the sonne of the liuing God our Redeemer replying vnto him Mat. 16. v. 18.19 vsed these wordes And I say to thee that thou art Peter or a rocke and vpon this rocke wil I build my Church and the gates of hel shal not preuaile against it And I wil giue to thee the keies of the kingedome of heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind vpon earth it shal be also bound in the heauens and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose in the earth it shal be loosed also in the heauens Loe a plaine promise made vnto S. Peter both that on him the Church should be built and consequently that he should be made the principal foundation of the same next vnto Christ and also that as the vicar of Christ and chiefe pastour of his flocke he should receiue the keies of the kingdome of heauen And hence proceed those vvordes of S. Hierome concerning the first prerogatiue Hieron lib. 1. contra Pelag. Cipriā epistol ad Quirinū Peter was the prince of the Apostles vpon whome the Church of our Lord was strongly and firmely founded which is neither shaken by the furie of any flood nor by any tempest Saint Ciprian that holy Martir more auncient then Saint Hierome telleth vs that our Lord did choose Peter the chiefest and vpon him built his Church Which words of his are alleadged and approued by Saint Augustine in his second booke de Baptismo cap. 1. To these I adde S. Basil and S. Epiphanius of vvhome the first auoucheth a Basil li. 2. in Eunom et homilia 19. quae est vlti de poenitentia that Saint Peter for the excellencie of his faith receiued vpon him the edifice of the Church vvherefore in another place he calleth him the rocke and foundation of the Church The other vvriteth b Epiphā in Ancor that our Lord appointed Peter the first or chiefe of his Apostles a firme rocke on which the Church was built The like sentences are found in c Leo ser 2. in Aniuers assūptio suae S. Leo d Naziā◠de moder seruād in disputat S. Gregory Nazianzene e Chrisost homil 55. in Math. S. Chrisostome f Ambros serm 47. S. Ambrose and others yea that the Fathers gathered this out of the said words of our Lord it is granted by g Calu. li. 4. instit ca. 6. § 6. Caluin and h Dan. in respōs ad Bellar. disput part 1. p. 277. Danaeus That he also had a second prerogatiue promised him in the same wordes of receiuing the keies of the kingdome of heauen as ministerial head of the Church aboue the rest of the Apostles who receiued them with a certaine kind of subjection to Peter the Fathers in like sort euen as confidently testifie And first this is affirmed by S. Ciprian in these words i Ciprian epist 73. To Peter first of al vpon whom our Sauiour built his Church and from whom he instituted and shewed the beginning of vnity did he giue this power that that should be loosed in the heauens which he had loosed on earth k Hill in Math. 16. S. Hillarie in like sort crieth out O blessed porter of heauen vnto whose wil and arbitriment the keies of the eternal entry are deliuered Lastly l Chrisostome homil 55. in Mathaeum S. Iohn Chrisostome and m Gregor
is affirmed in the b Concil Chalcedon act 2. et 3. fourth This also moued S. Hierome in his epistle to S. Damasus the Pope to vse these wordes c Hieron to 2. epist 7. ad Damasum I following no chiefe or principal but Christ joine my selfe to the communion of Peters Chaire vpon this rocke I knowe the Church was built The same may be proued by this sentence of S. Augustine d Aug. to 7. psal cōtra partē Donati Count the priests saith he from the very See of Peter and in that order of Fathers consider who to whom hath succeeded that same is the rocke which the proud gates of hel doe not ouercome Finally by the chaire of Peter manifestly shewed by the succession of the Romane Bishops e Aug. contra epist. Manich. ca. 4. et epist 105. he seuereth Catholikes from Heretikes Our aduersaries barking against this accuse diuers Popes of sundry errours but they are al very wel answered by diuers Catholikes and the Popes manifestly cleared from their false slaunders I must further note in this place that although the decrees of the Pope as is before declared of themselues be of an infallible truth touching the matter which he intendeth to define yet that some further authority if it be possible is added vnto them when they are accepted and approued by the whole Church for if they so accepted could be false the whole Church might erre contrary to that which hath beene proued before I must also adde here two groundes more flowing out of this warrant of the Popes judgment from error In the first place are prouincial Councels confirmed by the Pope for by such only diuers heresies haue beene condemned as that of the Pelagians Priscillianists of Iouinian and others The second such ground is the faith of the Church of Rome including the Pope his Clergie and people for vnto this Church as we were long since told by a S. Cipr. l. 1. epi. 3. et 55. Nū 6. S. Ciprian infidelity or false belief cannot haue accesse b Hierō epist 16. c. 3. itē li. 3. Apol. cōtr Ruffinum S. Hierome calleth it The most safe hauen of communion and likewise auoucheth that The Roman faith commended by the Apostles mouth wil admit no deceits of Heretiks and that it cannot possibly be chaunged c Ambr. in ora de obitu Satiri circa medium Ambros ibid. S. Ambrose affimeth that he doth agree with the Catholike Bishops who accord with the Roman Church And hence it proceedeth that not onlie he but also d Cipr. epi. 52. Num. 1. ad Antonianum S. Ciprian and e Hierō apol 1. aduers Ruffinū cap. 1. S. Hierome anerre that it is al one to say the Roman and the Catholike faith SECTION THE FOVRTH The opinion of some sectaries that the Pope is Antechrist is brieflie confuted and two objections against the premises are answered OVR f Caluī ad c. 2. poster ad Thess l. 4. Instit ca. 7. § 24. Aduersaries by diuers meanes endeauour to ouerthrowe the Catholike doctrine deliuered and proued by me in this chapter Nay the malice of some of them especially of our g Bullēger Willet in his Sinop cōtrouers 2. quest 5. par 2. c. Puritan brethren extendeth it selfe so far that they are not ashamed stoutly to auer that the Pope is the very Antechrist foretold by Christ and the Apostles in the newe Testament But this assertion is so absurd and opposite to the word of God and al shewe of truth that diuers learned Protestants not ouer-mastred by their passions reject it as false and among the rest h Couel in his defēce of Hooker artic 11. M. Couel confesseth the Pope to be a member of the Church militant of Christ i Hooker in his third book of Ecclesiastical policy § 1. pag. 128. edit anno 1604. Hooker also himselfe in vvhose defence he vvriteth of the Church of Rome vseth these wordes With Rome we dare not communicate concerning her sundry grosse and grieuous abhominations yet touching those maine parts of Christian truth wherein they constantly stil persist we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Iesus Christ Thus Hooker But a litle k pag. 127. before he discourseth thus In S. Pauls time the integrity of Rome was famous Corinth many waies reproued they of Galatia much more out of square In S. Iohns time Ephesus and Smirna in farre better state then Thiatira and Pergamus were We hope therfore that to reforme our selues if at any time we haue done amisse is not to seuer our selues from the Church we were of before In the Church we were and we are so stil Hitherto are Hookers wordes in which he seemeth to me plainely to affirme both that the Church of Rome is a true Church and also that it is no diuers Church from that of the Protestants of England vvhich I think this learned man vvould not haue said if he had imagined the Pope to be Antechrist But this confession of our aduersaries notwithstanding brieflie I thus confute the afore-said vntrue and absurd opinion of others In the scripture we find that Antechrist shal deny Iesus to be Christ who is a liar saith S. Iohn but he who denieth that Iesus is Christ 1. Iohn 2. verse 22. this is Antechrist which denieth the Father and the Sonne He shal also affirme himselfe to be Christ and the Iewes shal receiue him for their true Messias as we gather our of these words of our Sauiour vnto the said Iewes If an other come in his owne name Iohn 5. Iren. li. 5. Ciril catech 15. Ambros in c. 21. Luc. 2. Thessal 2. vers 4. him you wil receiue That he shal affirme himselfe to be Christ vve are taught by S. Irenaeus S. Ciril Bishop of Hierusalem S. Ambrose and others That the Iewes shal receiue him as Christ it is auouched by al the Fathers Moreouer Antechrist shal publikely name himselfe to be God and couet to be worshiped as the only God this is manifest out of these words of the Apostle He shal be extolled aboue al that is called God or that is worshiped so that he sitteth in the temple of God shewing himselfe as though he were God These be some of the properties of Antechrist set downe in the vvord of God but none of these agree vnto the Pope for he neither denieth Christ nor affirmeth himself to be Christ or is accepted as Christ by the Iewes finally he is not worshiped as God but worshipeth God therefore he is not Antechrist Adde also that Antechrist shal be but one man he shal come immediatly before the day of judgment he shal raigne but three yeares and an halfe and that at Hierusalem as is euidently gathered out of the same holy scripture and al the holy Fathers by vvhich likewise appeareth the falshood of our aduersaries assertion But to impugne and ouerthrowe the primacy of the Pope they al make
vpon this ground in the next chapter Chap. 2. he entereth into a railing and scoffing discourse against the Pope But in verie deed I cannot doe otherwise then meruaile that a man of his place and learning doth not blush to committe such a notorious vntruth to the print and view of the world For not to speake of the falshood of the first part of his assertion because it is in some sort impertinent that which he saith of the Councel of Chalcedon is most vntrue repugnant to al antiquity and not only contrarie to al proceedinges and the historie of the said Councel but also to the wordes of the Canon by him alleaged For in it is decreed onlie that the cittie of new Rome or Constantinople shal haue majestie like as old Rome in Ecclesiastical affaires et secundam post illam existere that is shal be the second or next after it and enjoy certaine priuiledges for the ordination of some Metrapolitans these are the contents of the Canon And what more touching this matter did the Bishops assembled in that Councel in their Sinodical epistle desire S. Leo the great then bishoppe of Rome to confirme then this Concilium Chalcedō sessio 12. alias actione 16. An. Christi 451. Concilium Nice sessio vltim Cōci Chal. actione 1. Actione 3. We haue confirmed say they the rule of the seauenscore and ten holy Fathers which were gathered together at Constantinople vnder Theodosius of happie memorie which commanded that the See of Constantinople which is ordained the second haue second honour after your most holie and Apostolike See trusting that the Apostolical sunne-beame shining with you c. But how can it be the second and next after and also the equal with it as Field affirmeth Besides this in the Councel it selfe those words of the Canon of the Councel of Nice that the Church of Rome euer had the primacie were allowed and the Legates of Pope Leo vvithout reprehension or exception taken said We haue here at hand the commandements of the most blessed and Apostolike man the Pope of the cittie of Rome which is head of al Churches by which his Apostleship hath vouchsafed to commaund c. Againe one of them first subscribed as he said in the place of the most blessed and Apostolike vniuersal Pope of the citty of Rome c. And in the epistle al the Fathers write vnto him thus We craue therefore that you wil honour our decrees with your judgement and like as we desirous haue consented in those things which are good sic et summitas tua so thy chiefedome or preheminence aboue al wil as it is meete accomplish them to his children hitherto are their wordes And vvhat could be said more apparant for the Popes supreamacie Doe not they acknowledge him to be their chiefe and themselues his sonnes and children Gregor li 4. epi. 32. 36. 38. li. 7. epi. 30. See before in the first section of this chapter I could adde to this the authoritie of S. Gregorie the great who liued not long after this Councel who against the ambition of Iohn bishoppe of Constantinople in diuers letters confidentlie affirmeth that the title of vniuersal Bishop by this Councel was offered to Pope Leo. But Field wil vrge that it is gathered out of some Greeke copies of this Councel that by this Canon the Bishop of Constantinople was so made second after the Bishoppe of Rome that equal priuiledges were giuen him I answere that these priuiledges vvere only concerning jurisdiction to order certaine Metrapolitans of the east Church as the Bishoppe of Rome had the like in the west But now suppose I should graunt M. Field that in this Canon the Bishop of Constantinople vvas made in euerie respect equal to the Pope what would he get by this In truth nothing For of what authority is this Canon Surely of none for it vvas cunninglie made by the Grecian bishops after the Councel was risen and the Legates of Pope Leo departed vvho also when it came to their knowledge the next day resisted them in the next Session yea this was neuer confirmed by the Pope without whose confirmation the decrees of general Councels haue neuer had force but vvas by Pope Leo forthwith ouerthrowne and annulled Leo epist 55. 53. 54. 61. We cancel or make voide saith he speaking of that Canon and others then enacted the consent of Bishops repugnant to the Nicene Canons and by the authority of blessed S. Peter the Apostle by a general definition we make them altogether of no force And this his decree was so highly esteemed in the East it selfe Marcian l. 12. c. de sacrosācta Ecclesia that it was confirmed presentlie by an Imperial constitution euen by the Emperour of Constantinople and Anatolius the Patriarcke through vvhose ambition and instigation the said Canon vvas made was constrained to ceasse from such proceedinges to relinquish that dignity vvhich ambitioussie he couered and to take place euen after the other Patriarkes for neither was the constitution of the Councel of Constantinople which preferred him before those of Alexandria and Antioch authentical Iustin nouel 131. cap. 2. Field book 3. cap. 1. Yea Iustinian the Emperor after this euen when Rome vvas most in disgrace and Constantinople flourished long before the daies of Phocas from whome Field would deriue the beginning of the Popes superiority confirmed the primacy to the Bishop of Rome and thus we may see vpon how vveake grounds Field doth venture to passe the bounds of modesty Concerning the point it selfe of the Popes infallible judgment he accuseth vs of contrary doctrine to wit that we al hold at this day Field book 3. cap. 45. the infallibility of the Popes judgment to be the rock on which the Church is builded and therefore build our faith vpon the same whereas the same men sath he that hold this say also it is no matter of faith to acknowledge or not acknowledge the infallibity of the Popes judgment I answere that the infallibility of the Popes judgment without the assent of a general Councel is not the most sure receiued rock on which the Church was built for this is the Popes judgment confirming the decrees of a general Councel or as I may say the definition of a general Councel in which the head confirmeth the verdict of the body and both together infallibly define a truth And in this sense no Catholike nowe affirmeth that it is no matter of faith to acknowledge or not acknowledge the infallibility of the Popes judgment for it is held absolutely to be a matter of faith and consequently our doctrine touching these points is not contrary True it is Bell. li. 4. de Roman pontif ca. 2. in fine Stapleton in Relect. scholast princi controuers 3 quest 4. that some Catholike doctors as Bellarmine and Stapleton thinke not that opinion properly heretical which holdeth that the Pope as Pope may be an Heretike and teach heresie if he
life and when he hath done al he is almost neuer the nearer for he cannot deny but he may be deceiued in his judgment and consequently his faith is but an opinion And thus we see that although Field make a great shewe of yeelding great authority to the Fathers yet in very deed he bereaueth them almost of al partly by rejecting their testimonies concerning al other matters but certaine principal and substantial points partlie by requiring such a general consent as can hardly be proued concerning the principal articles themselues partlie by his doctrine concerning the errour of the whole Church and partlie by other meanes Let vs therefore Conclude that al our aduersaries reject al particular groundes of faith which are found in the church of Christ besides the holy scripture and make them al subject to error and falshood And this is almost in flat tearmes confessed by our English Protestants who in the Apologie of the Church affirme Apologie of the church of England part 2. pag. 58. that In the scriptures only mans hart can haue setled rest and that in them be abundantly and fully comprehended al things whatsoeuer be needful for our health The same doctrine vvas established in their conuocations held at London in the yeares 1562. and 1604. vvhere vve finde these wordes Holy scripture containeth althinges necessary for saluation Article 6. so that whatsoeuer is not read therin nor proued thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be beleeued as an article of the faith or be thought necessarily requisite to saluation Hence a Will. in his Sinops p. 38. Willet affirmeth that the scripture is not one of the meanes but the sole whole and only meanes to worke faith And this is the common doctrine of them al as wil appeare in the next chapter But in it as in other points the Sectaries of our daies follow the steps of the auncient Heretikes for they in like sort as it is recorded by auncient b Iren. l. 3. c. 2. Tertull. de praesript Ciprianus de vnit Ecclesiae August l. 32. cōtra Faustū et lib. 2. cōtra Maximinū Hooker ī the praeface to his book of Ecclesiastical policie prīted an 1604. p. 36. authors rejected the authority of Traditions Councels and Fathers and in matters of controuersy appealed to the scriptures only Yea in this they conforme themselues to the Anabaptists whome they censure to be Heretikes of this age for they also as Hooker a Protestant recordeth admit no other disputation against their opinions then onlie by allegation of scripture But they object that euerie one of the Fathers was subject to error I confesse it but yet God according to his promise as I haue aboue declared was so to direct gouerne them that they should not al erre wherefore they vvere not men guided altogether by their owne judgements and hauing no surer rule but men directed by the holie Ghost of which their consent in one true doctrine is a most manifest token And whiles these professors of the new religion contemne and reject these mens authoritie what greater authority doe they bring vs Surelie none so great for they bring vs only their owne opinions and perhaps the testimony of their chief ring-leaders who were and are men directed only by their owne judgments and fantasies of vvhich their dissention and diuersitie of doctrine is euen as an apparant proof They say that they bring vs the authoritie of the worde of God but the Fathers embraced and reuerenced the word of God more then they doe Neither is the controuersie between the word of God and the Fathers for these two were neuer repugnant the one to the other as the newe Sectaries vvould haue it but betweene the newe Sectaries themselues and the Fathers who of them expound the vvord of God more trulie as it vvil appeare by my discourse ensuing Wherefore seing that none of them are to be compared with the Fathers neither for learning sanctity of life nor any other good and vertuous condition but are in euerie wise-mans judgement farre more subject to errour then they of whome they make themselues judges we are not to be blamed if we preferre the translation and interpretation of holie scriptures left vnto vs by the said auncient fathers before theirs Chapter 5. They build not vpon the holy Scripture and first that the bare letter of holy Scripture only is not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion SEGTION SHE FIRST In which this is proued because by Scripture the Scripture it selfe cannot be proued Canonical It is also argued that according to the sectaries groundes there is no Canonical Scripture and some principal reasons especially inspiration of the spirit which they alleage for the proofe of such Scripture are refelled OVR aduersaries as I haue shewed haue alreadie bereaued themselues of al Catholike grounder of religion except the holie Scripture And this ground their Captaines euen now cited not only chalenge to themselues as vvholy and properlie theirs but also seeme to make the onlie foundation and piller of their newe beliefe and doctrine But seing that they vvillingly depriue themselues of al other groundes we must of necessity depriue them against their wils of this for it is a thing most manifest and easily to be proued that they build not vpon the Scripture but vpon their owne fancies and judgement And first I must here presuppose as certaine that they deny the Church to haue any extraordinarie authority for the true translation or interpretation of holy Scripture and that they admitte of no Tradition of the true sense thereof preserued alwaies in the same Church together with the letter This is apparant by their making the church subject to error by their denying her authority by their rejecting al vnwritten traditions among which we number the true exposition of the word of God by their daily inuenting of new and strange interpretations in former ages vnheard off by their rejecting the testimonies and expositions of the auncient Fathers and by their alleaging no other authoritie for their owne expositions but their owne judgements Hence it is affirmed Harmony of confes sect 1. in the confession of Heluetia that the interpretation of Scripture is to be taken only from her selfe and that her selfe may be the interpreter of her selfe the rule of charity and faith being her guide And in the confession of Wittenberge that the true meaning of Scripture is to be sought in the Scripture it selfe and among those that being raised vp by the spirit of God expound Scripture by Scripture I adde also that their expositions being diuers and opposite they cannot al descend by Tradition from the Apostles and seing that one of them hath no more reason to challenge this tradition then another vve may in like sort deny it to them al wherefore that which they make the only ground of their faith and religion is the bare word of holie Scripture interpreted by
Senensis affirming the litteral exposition of Scripture to be in deede the hardest of al other And this notwithstanding vpon it he vvil haue the allegorical tropological and anagogical senses founded of vvhich a man may inferre great obscurity of them al. This also may be proued out of a Illiric in his clauis scriptur de causis difficul script remedijs remed 2. Illiricus a famous Lutheran who as b Field booke 4. chap. 19. Field testifieth discoursing of the difficulties that are found in Scriptures and howe they may be cleared sheweth that nothing is more necessary for the vnderstanding of Scripture then to be rightly taught the general principles and axiomes of diuinity out of which flow and on which doe depend whatsoeuer thinges are contained in the Scripture c Kemnit in examin Cōc Trid. sess 4. Kemnitius an other Lutheran acknowledgeth in the Church such a gift of interpreting the Scripture as is the gift of doing miracles not common to al but peculiar to some The d Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. col 52. Century writers auouch that the Apostles thought the Scriptures could not be vnderstood without the holy Ghost and an interpreter yea e Luth. in colloq conuiual titu de verbo Dei see him also l. de Concil praefat in psalm Luther himselfe seemeth to haue recanted his former opinion before his death for two daies before he died as his disciples record he pronounced this sentence No man can vnderstand the Bucolica of Virgil except he be fiue yeares a shepherd no man can vnderstand the Georgica of Virgil except he be fiue yeares a husband-man no man can vnderstand the Epistles of Cicero except he haue liued in some famous common wealth for 20. yeares Let euery man knowe that he hath not sufficiently tasted the holy Scriptures except he haue gouerned in the Church for an hundred yeares with the Prophets as with Elias Elizeus Iohn Baptist Christ and the Apostles Thus Luther and the like he hath in other places And al this may be confirmed by this Chap. 8. Sect. 7. that al Heretikes haue euer alleaged Scriptures for proofe of their heretical assertions as I wil hereafter declare Yea Osiander a professour of the newe religion telleth vs Osiander in cōfut scripti Melancthon contra ipsum editi l. cot Nicticoracē that among the Confessionists only so he tearmeth those that followe the confession of Auspurge there are twenty different opinions concerning the formal cause of justification and that euery one is affirmed to be deduced and proued out of the word of God I argue therefore thus The rule and ground of Catholike faith ought to be one that is not diuers certaine and manifest but the bare vvordes of Scripture alone cannot be such a rule because the Scriptures are obscure may be falsly and erroneously interpreted c. vvherefore the sense of them is not one certaine and manifest therefore the bare vvordes of Scripture are not the only rule and ground of Catholike faith Math. 26. vers 26. See chap. 8. Sect. 3. Let vs declare this by an example The Catholike vnderstandeth those vvordes of our Sauiour This is my body one way the Lutherans an other way the Zwinglians a third way and the Caluinists a fourth vvay as I vvil shewe hereafter I demaund nowe of our aduersaries howe in this sentence and a thousand other such like the bare wordes of Scripture are a plaine and certaine rule whereby the truth of any one of their interpretations may infallibly be knowne Can the wordes speake and interpret themselues or doe they sufficienty decide the controuersie This they wil not grant because they are plaine for the Catholike part Yea Caluin himselfe confesseth that Christs wordes are so plaine although to make his wordes accord with his doctrine he flieth to certaine chimerical conceits that except a man wil make God a deceauer Caluin lib. 4. Instit cap. 17 §. 10. 11. he can neuer be so bold as to say that he setteth before vs a naked signe vvherefore according to their judgement if we wil allowe of any one of their interpretations we must find out some other judge or else affirme that Christ hath ordained no sufficient judge or rule in his Church to decide controuersies and to discerne the true interpretations of holy Scripture from the false And because our aduersaries acknowledge no other judge but the bare letter and euery mans owne fancy Hence proceede so many sects and dissensions among them which were so diuers and implacable euen in Luthers daies who beganne this Tragedie concerning the true sense of Scripture it selfe that the said Luther plainely confessed that if the world vvere longe to endure they should be forced to haue recourse againe to trial of Councels and that otherwise they should neuer agree Luther contra Zwinglium Oecolampadium Further seing that the Scriptures admit senses so diuers and interpret not themselues and the false sense is so dangerous howe can any man be assured by the bare vvordes that he hath attained to the true sense For example Bible 1592. Hieron in Catal. verbo Marcus Eusebius lib. 2. hist. cap. 14. our newe Sectaries affirme that the vvord Babilon in the first Epistle of S. Peter although S. Hierome and Eusebius say the contrary signifieth the great City called Babilon in Caldea or Assyria not Rome because otherwise it vvould followe that S. Peter was at Rome contrariwise they tel vs that in the * Apocal. 17. 18. Apocalipse the same word signifieth the City of Rome because there much is said against Babilon which they are desirous to apply to the City of Rome But howe knowe they by the bare vvordes of Scripture that this their double interpretation of the selfe same vvord is true Adde also that the diuers and large Commentaries vpon the Scriptures and the great study of al sorts concerning the exposition of them are euident arguments that the bare vvordes of Scripture may receiue diuers and false interpretations yea euery man must of necessity graunt that some of our learned aduersaries themselues expound them falsly seing that their expositions be repugnant and contrary Of vvhich I inferre that it is a matter impossible that euery man out of the vvordes themselues only should gather infallibly the right sense vvhich if it be true in the learned much more true it is in the vnlearned The common answere of our aduersaries to this argument is See before part 2. chap. 5. sect 1. in the beginning that one place of Scripture expoundeth another and therefore if the vvordes of any place be of doubtful sense they bid vs conferre them vvith other such like sentences but this answere may be easily refelled For like as the place in controuersie or doubtful receiueth diuers interpretations so doe also those other places vvith vvhich they vvould haue it conferred vvherefore by this conference diuers times vve are neuer
my soule in hel Act. 2. v. 27. Psal 15 10. and auoucheth this to be the true translation of those wordes especially in this sentence in which they can beare no other sense seing that the soule of Christ was not detained in his graue The Sectary contrariwise affirmeth the vvordes cited not to be truely translated but wil haue the true translation of them to be Bible 1589. 1592. 1600. Thou wilt not leaue my soule in graue And howe shal this controuersie be decided The Catholike for his opinion and to proue that Christ truely descended into hel alleageth al the grounds of Catholike faith aboue set downe But what can his aduersary bring forth in defence of his doctrine Perhaps he wil runne to conference of other places of Scripture but what if those other places admit also diuers translations as wel as this and therefore he giue one sense of the said places and the Catholike another To what other judge wil the Sectary appeale verily to no other but to himselfe and his owne priuate judgement This is the ordinary course of proceeding of our aduersaries with vs and al others that doe impugne them And doe they in this case remit the controuersie to holy Scripture doe not the Catholikes aswel as they admit of the text cited both as it is found in the Hebrewe in the 15. psalme and also as it is in the Greeke in the second Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles this cannot be denied The difference then betweene vs them is concerning the translation of the last word which the Catholike affirmeth to signifie hel the Protestant graue And what moueth the Sectary to admit one translation rather then another Certainely his owne priuate opinion which he hath framed to himselfe contrary to al antiquity against Christs descent into hel August epist 99. Surely S. Augustine auoucheth that No man but an Infidel wil deny him to haue beene in that place and with him the rest of the Fathers consent SECTION THE THIRD Concerning the newe exposition of those wordes This is my body in particular BVT if it vvere not for being ouer-long in these discourses I could exemplifie in particular concerning sundry newe expositions of holy Scripture inuented by our aduersaries and shew to euery mans eye the inuentors of the same vvho framed them out of their owne braines One example I vvil bring among the rest vvhich shal be concerning those wordes of our Sauiour Math. 26 26 This is my body For vvho inuented in these our daies the first Sacramentary exposition of the said vvordes verily Carolostadius as al the vvriters of his daies beare vvitnesse And vvhat was he He was Archdeacon of Wittenberge Melanct. Sleidan others but as Melancthon himselfe a Sectary reporteth * Melanct. in epist ad Fredericū Myconiū praefat veterum senten de coena Domini a rude sauadge man without wit without learning vvithout common sense in whom neuer appeared any token or signe of the spirit of God But howe expounded he the said sentence Certainely not of the Sacrament which Christ deliuered to his Apostles but of the visible person of Christ sitting at the table as if Christ had said Eate and drinke for I am he that must suffer on the Crosse for your redemption so that he changed the sense of the word This into the word Here. Let vs farther demand what moued him to inuent this heresie and false interpretation Melancton aboue cited reporteth that it vvas only the hatred vvhich he had conceaued against Luther vvho rebuked and reproued him for breaking downe of Images in the Churches of the said City without his warrant and approbation The second principal Sacramentary vvas Zwinglius Zwingl l. de vera falsa relig vvho first affirmed the body of Christ to be present in the Eucharist but together with bread and wine and consequently denied only transubstantiation afterwardes he denied the real presence altogether and turned the word is into the vvordes doth signifie and made the sense to be This doth signifie my body The third was * Oecolāp in li. de genuina expos horum verborum Oecolampadius vvho altered the sense of the word body and would haue it signifie a figure of the body and therefore the sense of those wordes according to his judgement is This is a figure of my body The fourth was Caluin a Caluin l. 4. Instit c. 17. §. 10. 11. 24. 32. Idem lib. de coena Domini who although he confesse that Christ is really only in heauen yet he vvil haue vs truly to receiue him on earth in the Eucharist vvherefore he reprehendeth both Luther and Zwinglius and vvil haue the sense of the said wordes to be This bread is a figure of my body but a figure giuing my body it selfe so he in effect Howe this is brought to passe he confesseth himselfe ignorant But vvhat saith Luther their first parent to these his children he damneth them to the pit of hel and b Luth. thes 24 cont Louaniēs Itē in parua cōfes de coena Domini telleth vs that they treade vnder foote and ouerthrowe al. He addeth further c To. 7. in defensor verb◠coenae c. fol. 387. that the text can admit but one direct and true sense How then are the said wordes to be vnderstood in his iudgement Thus he vvriteth in an epistle to certaine of his followers concerning the interpretation of them Luther the Preacher and Euangelist of Wittenberge to the Christians of Strasburge Luther to 7. Wittenberg fol. 502. Thus much I neither can or wil deny that if Carolostadius or any other man fiue yeares since could haue perswaded me that in the Sacrament was nothing else but bread and wine be truly had bound me vnto him and I would haue accepted that as a very great benefit For in examining and debating that matter I tooke maruailous paines and strained euery veine of my body and soule to haue ridde and dispatched my selfe thereof because I sawe fulwel that thereby I might haue done notable harme and damage to the Papacy But I see my selfe taken fast and that there is no waies to escape For the text of the Gospel is so cleare and forcible which cannot easily be shaken much lesse ouerthrowen by wordes and glosses deuised by giddy braines Hitherto Luther both declaring the true cause which moued him to set a foote his newe Gospel to wit the hatred of the See of Rome and also the force of Scriptures for the real presence What then beleeued he touching this point First Luther lib. de captiuit Babilon cap. de Eucharist although he affirmed it to be no article of faith whither bread remained or no in the Eucharist togither with the body of Christ yet he esteemed the affirmatiue part most probable * Idē in serm de Sacra coenae Domini Et in li. quod verba Christi HOC EST CORPVS MEVM
that pronouncing nowe this nowe that of the same thing he was neuer constant to himselfe but thought that such leuity and inconstancy might be vsed in the word of God as shamelesse jesters commonly vse playing at dice. Againe Luther saith he doth not only bring his former doctrine in suspition but also giueth the Papists a most fit occasion to condemne him by sending in this present controuersie his reader only to those bookes which he wrote within foure or fiue yeares before For who hauing heard or read these things wil not say that if so be that we expect other fiue yeares without al doubt they being past he wil cal into doubt those bookes which he wrote in these last fiue yeares Thus farre Zwinglius of Luthers inconstancy Erasmus also Whitaker in his answer to Campians reason 8. p. 208. a man denied by Whitakers to be a writer of our side and by the martir-maker Fox canonized for a Saint of the newe religion of Luther his disciples writeth after this sort * Erasmus lib 3. de libero arbitrio What should I recount here the dissention that is among these Gospellers their bloudy hatred their bitter contentions nay their singular inconstancy Luther himselfe hauing changed his opinion so often and yet newe paradoxes springing vp from him daily Hitherto Erasmus Finally Field although he extol Luther for a worthy diuine as euer the world had any in those times wherein he liued Field booke 3 c. 24. p. 170. or in many ages before yet confesseth that by degrees he sawe and discried those Popish errours I vse his wordes which at first he discerned not But to excuse the matter he first auoucheth that in sundry points of greatest moment as of the power of nature of free-wil grace justification the difference of the law and the Gospel faith and workes Christian liberty and the like he was euer constant Which assertion of his howe false it is that which I haue before said touching free-wil doth demonstrate An other of his excuses is that it is not so strange a thing as his aduersaries would make it seeme to be that herein Luther proceeded by degrees and in his later writings disliked that which in his former he did approue And his reason is because S. Augustine wrote a whole booke of retractations S. Ambrose complained that he was forced to teach before he had learned and so to deliuer many thinges that should neede a second reuiewe And S. Thomas of Aquine in his summe corrected and altered many things which he had written before Against this I first reply that it excuseth not Luthers building of his new beliefe vpon his owne judgement nay it proueth manifestly that he came not to it by the infallible direction of any external guide but by the discourse and search of his owne wit and moreouer Caluin Instit booke 4. ch 3. The Apology of the church of England part 4. p. 123 124. c. that he vvas not extraordinarily by internal inspirations instructed and sent by the spirit of God as diuers of these men seeme plainely to affirme for the workes of God are perfect and they whome he immediately sendeth directeth in faith erre not in any point of that argument but that his inconstant reason was the principal ground on which he built his said faith and religion Secondly I adde that the examples brought by Field in excuse of Luther make nothing for his purpose For what if S. Augustine vvriting vvhen he was yet a nouice in Christian religion and not fully instructed erred in some points which errours hauing receiued better instructions he reclaimed What if the like happened to S. Ambrose being miraculously chosen to be a Bishop and a teacher before he was a Christian What if S. Augustine before some articles of Christian religion were so throughly discussed and defined in the Church as afterward vpon the rising of new heresies spoke not so aptly and properly as was needful in succeeding times and therefore retracted what he had vttered What if he and S. Thomas of Aquin in diuers matters disputable and not determined by the Church altered and corrected their former opinions So hath Cardinal Baronius nowe done who hath runne ouer the first ten tomes of his Ecclesiastical history and made as it were a booke of retractations recalling such thinges as he judged amisse What I say if also these thinges be so as without doubt they were no otherwise shal it therefore be lawful for Luther or any other person to leape vp and downe hither and thither and to chop and change his faith according as his fancy leadeth him in any articles of Christian religion verily I thinke to no man of judgement such a fault vvil seeme excusable But was Zwinglius who as we haue seene so peremptorily reprehendeth Luther for his inconstancy him selfe free from this crime Truly he vvas not and because breuity suffereth me not to runne through his works and to shewe the change and alteration of his opinion concerning al particuler points in vvhich he shewed himselfe inconstant I wil only conuince him of inconstancy touching one or two and that by his owne confession It cannot be denied but before his fal from vs he held the Catholike doctrine concerning the baptisme of infants otherwise vvithout al doubt his nouelty vvould haue beene noted and censured His first alteration therefore concerning this matter was from vs to Anabaptisme his second from Anabaptisme in some sort to our beliefe againe That he was once an Anabaptist thus he confesseth Wherefore I my selfe also confesse frankely saith he that a fewe yeares since I being deceiued with this error thought it better to deferre the baptisme of young children vntil they come to perfest age thus Zwinglius That he partly recanted afterwards this heresie he declareth in the same place I say partly because he alwaies denied the necessity of baptisme to saluation That he was likewise inconstant in his beliefe of the Eucharist these his owne wordes testifie Zwingl tom 2. commēt de vera salsa religione cap de Eucharist fol. 202. We haue written two yeares since of the Eucharist where we haue written many thinges rather according to the time then the truth of the matter And soone after If reader thou finde certaine thinges here otherwise then in the former bookes doe not thou wonder we would not giue foode out of season nor set pearls before swine Finally We retract therefore saith he and reuoke those thinges which we haue said there in such sort that those which we set forth in the two and fortith yeare of our age counterpoise those which we set forth in the fortith when as we said we serued more the time then the truth of the matter that we might by that meanes the more edifie thus Zwinglius of himselfe Who then can deny but he also was inconstant and at the least in outward shewe altered his beliefe yea doth he not confesse to