vse or prescribe Vnto which I may adde that Luther as it seemeth receiued some light from aboue if it be true which is affirmed in the Apologie of the Church of England that God sent him to giue light to the world But if no Sacramentary can compare any one of his learned masters vvith Luther much lesse can he preferre himselfe before him vvhich neuerthelesse he must needes doe if he be obstinate in his Sacramentary doctrine and as judge pronounce Luthers beliefe to be false and erroneous And thus much of Luthers censure against the Sacramentaries The Lutherans also men very learned whome the English Protestants if Whitakers say truly a Whitakers in his answer to Cāpians 8. reason p. 259 embrace as their deare bretheren in Christ pronounce the same sentence against these Sectaries And in particular Conradus Schlusselburge euen nowe alleaged being a Lutheran superintendent of great name and authority b Conradus Schlusselb in Catalog Haereticorum nostri temporis lib. 1. pa. 1. 2. lib. 3. placeth them in the Catalogue of the Heretikes of these our daies Luke Osiander vvhose Encheridion against vs some English Protestant hath of late corruptly translated into our tongue in the conclusion of the like booke made against the Caluinists hauing recited sixteene of their assertions which he condemneth afterward writeth thus c Lucas Osiāder in Enchirid cōt Caluinianos in cōclus pa. 267. printed anno 1607. published by him anno 1603. Let any godly or friendly reader whatsoeuer thinke what deadly poison Satan doth powre vnto men vnder the Caluinian doctrine by which al Christianisme almost is ouerthrowne Most of the rest proceede after the same manner but I cannot stand to recite their wordes Of al which I conclude that the faith and religion of euery Sacramentary is judged false and heretical by Luther and al the Lutherans Vnto vvhich I adde that if he be an English Protestant the Puritans esteeme him litle better then an Infidel as appeareth by their sundry admonitions to the Parliament and the booke of dangerous positions written by a Protestant If he be a Puritan the Protestants censure him to be d Powel in his consideratiōs See a Christiā modest offer pag. 9. The Suruay of the pretended holy discipline c. pag. 311. a notorious and manifest Schismatike and a member cut off from the Church of God Nay whether he be English Protestant or Puritan Zwinglius a most excellent man as wel as Luther as the Apologie of the Church of England auoucheth e Apologie of the Church of Englād part 4. pag. 124. sent of God to giue light to the world Whetenhal calleth him f Whetēhal in his discourse of the abuses c. pag. 75. the first light set vp by God among al the golden candlesticks of Heluetia with al his Zwinglians telleth him g See Zwingl to 2. epist ad quandā Germaniae ciuitatem fol. 196. in cōmentaris de vera falsa relig c. de Sacram. lib. de Baptis fol. 63. that he erreth in his faith touching the Sacraments If he be a Zwinglian h Caluini lib. de coena Domini edit an 1540. Gallice Latine an 1545. l. 4. Institut cap. 15. §. 1. c. Caluin with al his Caluinists English Protestants and Puritans tel him the like So that be he of what Sacramentary sect soeuer he please his faith and religion receiueth a three-fold censure that it is false and that from his owne bretheren For first it is condemned by the Lutherans then by the Zwinglians and English Protestants if he be a Puritan or Caluinist or by the Zwinglians and Puritans or Caluinists if he be an English Protestant or finally by the English Protestants and Caluinists among vvhome I number the Puritans if he be a Zwinglian And what wise man wil be obstinate in the defence of such a faith But what if he be a Lutheran doth he auoide this inconuenience Truly he is in the very like case for first he is judged to be of a wrong beliefe by al the Sacramentaries then if he be a strict or rigid Lutheran he is condemned by the milde or soft Lutherans if he be a milde or soft Lutheran he is deemed an Heretike by the strict or rigid Nay i Conradus Schlusselbur in Catalog Haereticorum nostri temporis in principio lib. 1. c. Conradus Schlusselburge placeth six sects of his owne Lutherans in the Catalogue of Heretikes of vvhich the one condemneth the other and he giueth the same sentence against them al. But because fewe or no Lutherans as is probable wil euer come to the reading of this Treatise I wil not stand to discusse and proue these thinges at large and in particular And therefore concerning this motiue let this suffice A second reason or motiue which is sufficient to exclude obstinacy from the hart of any one of the followers of the newe religion is that al the learned and principal sectaries as Luther Zwinglius Caluin others haue notoriously and grosly erred in some points or other touching religious matters The short limits of a preface wil not suffer me to declare the truth of this in them al wherefore I wil exemplifie only in the three named which be the heades of the rest And to beginne with Luther did not this great Patriarke and father of al Protestants teach and obstinately hold that Christ suffered on the crosse and died according to his diuinity thus he writeth a Luth. in cōfess majori de coena Domini lib. de concilijs part 2. If I beleeue that only the humane nature of Christ suffered for me Christ is a base Sauiour not of any great price or value yea be himselfe needeth a Sauiour Hence Zwinglius exclaimeth b Zwingl to 2. in respons ad Lutheri cōfess fol. 458. 469. 470. in respons ad Luther lib. de Sacra f. 411. 401. 337. c. This can by no reasons be explaned or excused For Luther clearely and manifestly confesseth that he wil not acknowledge Christ to be his Sauiour if only his humanity had suffered He calleth him also Marcion and saith he is guilty of most high blaspheamy against the nature and essence of God c. Did not the same Luther also defend c See Luth. l. de captiuitat Babilon c. de Baptis lib. cont Cocblaeū anno 1523. that infants in baptisme actually beleeue Verily although M. Field endeauour to vvrest his wordes d Field book 3 ch 44. p. 179. to habitual faith which he saith is in infants yet Luthers discourses admit not that sense as wil easily appeare to the reader Of which also the doctrine of his disciples who euen at this present e Kēnitius in examin cōcil Trident. can 13. de Baptis sess 7. Zucas Osiād in Enchirid cōt Anabapt print anno 1607. c. 2. quaest 2. affirme that infants whiles they are baptised actually beleeue is a manifest token
the high Priest by the commandement of God had his seate and principal residence in Hierusalem their chiefe citty so the truth being taken away from the Iewes and deliuered to the Gentils it was conuenient that the See of the high Priest should be placed in Rome the principal cittie of the Gentiles Reason also proueth that there ought to be one supreame visible gouernour in the Church For seing that nothing almost is more necessarie for the preseruation and good gouernement of a common-wealth then a meane and prouision to keepe vnity in the same nothing more hurtful Math. 12. verse 25. Marke 3. verse 24. Luke 11. verse 18. then rebellion sedition and discord For euerie kingdome as truth it selfe affirmeth deuided against it selfe shal be made desolate and euery cittie or house deuided against it selfe shal not stand It is certaine that our Redeemer the wisest and most prudent law-maker that euer liued in the world in establishing his Church or kingdome which was to be peaceable glorious and euerlasting and which is also his spiritual bodie and therefore in that respect likewise to be vnited in one had a principal regard that the members of his common-wealth and bodie should be lincked together in peace and concord and not rent a sunder by schisme diuision or diuersity of faiths Out of which ground I frame this argument Christ without al doubt ordained a meane for the preseruation of vnity in his Church but vnity cannot be preserued in it without one visible head hauing jurisdiction ouer it al therefore Christ ordained one such visible head And this one head was during the time of his life the blessed Apostle S. Peter who was as I haue proued before furnished with al necessarie qualities for the execution and performance of this high office and dignity and al the children of the Church of what condition whatsoeuer were bound in matters of faith and precepts of manners concerning good and euil to obey him This reason as we haue heard Caluin before confesse was that which moued God in the old lawe to appoint one Prelate aboue the rest And for the superiority of one in the newe law it was long since assigned by * Hieron aduersus Iouinianū Hierō aduer Luciferianos S. Hierome who concerning this matter vseth these vvordes For this cause one is chosen among the twelue that a head being appointed occasion of schisme be taken away And in another place The health of the Church dependeth of the dignity of the highest Priest vnto whom if some certaine power * exors et ab homini eminens Cipriā epist 55. ad Corneliū peerles and aboue men be not giuen there wil be as many schismes in Churches as priests But long before him the same was noted by S. Ciprian who affirmeth that heresies and schismes rise in the Church of no other cause then that the Priest of God is not obeyed and that one Priest and judg in Christes place is not acknowledged In another epistle he hath this sentence a Cip. epi. 4. see him also de vnita Eccles God is one and Christ is one and the Church is one and the Chaire is one by our Lords voice founded on Peter There can no other altare be erected or newe Priesthood be made besides the one altare and one Priesthood whosoeuer doth els-where gather doth disperse And is it not apparant except there be some one superiour that may keepe vnitie and vniformitie whome al the rest ought to obey that scisme diuision and rebellion wil presently ensue wil not euery one beleeue doe and change as he pleaseth wil one conforme himselfe to another certainly he wil not of which vvil followe as many distinct faithes and religions as there be heads and fancies And of this we see most manifest proofs among our aduersaries who for want of one head ouer them al are diuided into almost an infinite number of sects wthout any hope or meane of reconciliation b Treatise of the definition nots of the Church Chap. 3. as in another place I wil declare at large But let vs exemplifie a litle in this matter It is wel knowne that in this kingdome the Puritans haue a long time by al meanes endeauoured to conforme our Protestant Church to their Geneuian platforme of discipline but what answere maketh a learned Protestant vnto them Verely he demaundeth of them c Whitgif in his ans to the admonit pa. 138. § 1. And in the defence of his said an swe tract 20. p. 702 and tract 9. c. 1. pa. 481. c. 2. § 6. p. 491 Vnto which reformed Church they would haue the English Church framed and why other reformed Churches should not as wel frame themselues vnto the forme of the English Church For saith he we are as wel assured of our doctrine and haue as good groundes and reasons for our doings as they haue He addeth I tel you againe that there is no cause why this Church of England either for truth of doctrine sincerity of publique diuine seruice and other pollicy should giue place to any Church in Christendome and sure I am that we are as neere joyned with the Lord our God as the members are to the body and the body to the head Such is the answere of this Protestant to the Puritans The like may the Puritans make vn the Protestants and Lutherans Zuinglians and other Sectaries to them both And this maketh them as I haue said to remaine in deadlie discentions vvhich euil if they would acknowledg one head would easily be remedied and remoued This reason among others moued the auncient d Iustī in ora exhor Cip. tract de idol va nit Atha aduer ido nas orati Philo l. de cōfus līgu Plat. in polit Arist l. 8. ethni c. 10. l. 12. philos c Fathers yea the Heathen philosophers themselues to affirme that Monarchia that is to say the gouernment by one chiefe head is the best and chiefest Moreouer this preseruation of vnity in general is vsed as a special argument of great force and moment by some of our a Suruey of the pretended holy disciplī cap. 8. English Protestants against the Puritans in the defence of their Primats Archbishops and Bishops For they affirme such officers to be necessary in the Church of Christ that vnity and peace in it be preserued b Field booke 3. c. 39. § thus then Because the vnity and peace of each particuler Church of God saith Field and flock of his sheepe dependeth of the vnity of the Pastour c. Therefore though there be many presbiters yet there is one Bishop among the rest to whome an eminent and peerlesse power is giuen for the auoiding of scismes and factions thus Field c Will. in his Sinopsis controuer 5. qu. 3. part 2. in the appēdix pag 237. edit 1600. Willets words to the same effect are these The distinction of Bishops and Priests is very necessary for the
aboue that faith to be a true Christian faith and to concurre to our justification by vvhich vve beleeue the articles and misteries of Christian religion vvherefore seeing that there is but one such faith this faith of our aduersaries cannot haue that prerogatiue And hence I inferre that these Sectaries by disgracing and neglecting the true Christian faith and esteeming so highly of a forged deuise of Luthers or of his masters an old Frier ouerthrowe in effect al Christian faith and religion or at the least giue their followers a just occasion of contemning the beliefe of such misteries as euerie Christian is bound to beleeue Some man perhaps wil seeke to free our English Protestants from this doctrine because in their publique administration of baptisme they cause the minister to demaund only of the childe whether he beleeue the article of the Creed and make no mention of Luthers and Caluins strange justifying faith vvhich as it is like they vvould not haue omitted if they had thought the justification of the child wholie on it to depend I answere that in very truth for the reason alleaged they may seeme to be of that opinion See the questions answers concerning predestination prīted in those Bibles before the new test Neuerthelesse if the Bible printed with notes in the yeare 1589. 1592. and 1600. be by them allowed and approued euerie man may see that they agree with other sectaries in this matter I adde also that is they hold justification to be wrought by any other faith then this newly deuised they disagree from their principal captains and al their * Abbot in his answere to Hil reason 3. pag. 96 Perkins in his reformed Catholike touchīg justification of a sinner brethren touching the article of justification which as they say is the verie ground of Christian religion But our aduersaries say that according to S. Iames the deuils beleeue and tremble I grant it but the faith of deuils is a natural and a kinde of historical faith grounded vpon natural reason and discourse much like vnto the beliefe of Heretikes Our habitual faith is a supernatural gift or habit infused into our soules by which our vnderstanding it lightened lifted vp and made able and apt to beleeue thinges reuealed by God our actual faith is an acte of our vnderstanding proceeding also from the said habite or light by which such things are actually beleeued because they are for reuealed Moreouer their faith is with despaire and hatred ours may be joyned with hope and charitie wherefore there is a great difference between our faith and theirs and our Sectaries doe very euil in making no distinction betweene them Chapter 3. That our aduersaries deny the infallible authority of the Church and affirme it to haue erred and perished IN the sixt chapter of the first part of this treatise I haue affirmed and proued the church of Christ to be the chiefe piller and ground of truth in which is preserued entirelie and sincerely that corps summe or depositum of Christian doctrine which vvas by Christ deliuered to his Apostles and by them to their successours and that through the perpetual assistance of the holie Ghost she cannot erre or perish and consequently that of her we ought may securely learne not only what articles of faith haue beene reuealed by God to his Church but also what concerning euery particuler point we are to beleeue and what to auoid and that in following her doctrine and judgement vve cannot be deceiued But because the professors of the newe religion cānot shew a continual succession of their faith religion church in any one corner of the world since the Apostles daies yea because they cannot name one for euery hundred yeares that was of their Church and beliefe they are forced to say that the Church erred for some ages and was for a time cleane ouerthrowne a Luth. in Comitijs Wormat an 1522. Luther first affirmed this to haue fallen out during the time betweene the Councel of Constance and the first preaching by him of his newe doctrine to vvit for the space of some hundred yeares Soone after b Authores repetit confess Augustanae some of his followers affirmed the Church to haue erred three hundred yeares before Luther And of this opinion seemeth c Fox in his protestatiō to the Church of England Iohn Fox who telleth vs that al was turned vp side downe al order broken true doctrine defaced and Christian faith extinguished in the time of Pope Gregory the seauenth about the yeare 1080. and of Innocentius the third about the yeare 1215. After this d Luth. to 7. l. cōtr Papatum Idem in captiu Babil et in supputat mundi Luther attributed six hundred yeares to the Apostasie of the Church and last of al one thousand of which opinion is also e Caluī ep ad Sadoletū et in prophetas mi nores passim Caluin But al of them agree that for some ages the visibie Church altogether erred and that for a certaine time there vvas in the world no true preaching of the word of God or lawful administration of the Sacraments Hence we read in the f Apol. of the Church of Englād par 4. p. 124. Apologie of the Church of England that truth vnknowne and vnheared off at that time began to giue shine in the world when Luther and Zuinglius sent of God beganne in preach the Gospel the like sentences are found in the works of g Calu. ī resp ad Sado p. 185. 176. l. 4. Inst c. 18. § 1. et 2. c. 1. § 11. c. 17 § 12. et 3. Caluin h Bez. in praef test noui ad principē Condens Beza i Melāch ī locis comun 1. edit Melanchton k Wil. in sinops cōtrou 2. qu. 2. p. 61. edit ā 1600. Willet and others And although some of them assigne an inuisible church which as they say flourished in al ages yet this they cannot proue because a thing inuisible vnknowne cannot be proued and besides it is nothing to the purpose because we treate of the infallible authority and continuance of the Church visible And certainly although we should confesse that such an inuisible Church was in the world and preserued in itselfe alwaies the truth which is most false and shal be confuted in my treastise of the definition and notes of the church yet it must needs be graunted that it vvas done inuisiblie and consequently this Church could not direct the whole world in al truth But that they accuse the whole Church of errour it wil sufficiently appeare in the next chapter where I wil declare that they attribute errours in faith to general Councels vvhich be the supreame assembles and highest courts of the said Church And it is sufficiently purpose at this present if they graunt the Church to haue erred in any one point for a possibility of errour in one article of faith proueth a possibility
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
places reproueable where he ouer-much aduanceth workes against faith but also his doctrine throughout is patched together of diuers pieces wherof no one agreeth with an other this is the general opinion of the Lutherans Among the Sacramentaries Wolfangus Musculus in locis com cap de iustificat num 5. p. 271 Wolfangus Musculus a Zwinglian hauing reprehended S. Iames for alleaging the example of Abraham as he saith nothing to the purpose and for not distinguishing if we beleeue this doctor the true and properly Christian faith from that which is common to Iewes and Christians Turks and Deuils He addeth that the said Iames setteth downe his sentence much different from the Apostolical doctrine wherby concluding he saith you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith only c. I shal recite his words more at large in the next chapter And what greater proofe then the assertion of so many of his learned Masters can a reasonable man of the newe religion require Behold both learned Lutherans with their first beginner Luther and a principal Sacramentarie confesse that we follow the true and litteral sense of S. Iames words It may be replied first that these Sectaries reject this epistle out of the Canon of holy Scripture I confesse it is so but this notwithstanding the Church of England vvith Caluin and the Caluinists and most of the Zwinglians admit it as Canonical and therefore according to the doctrine of the followers of the newe religion we may very vvel frame this argument The Epistle of S. Iames is Canonical Scripture but the Epistle of S. Iames approueth justification by good vvorkes and saith it is not wrought by faith only therefore the Canonical Scripture approueth justification by good vvorkes and saith it is not wrought by faith only The first proposition is affirmed true as is afore said by the Church of England by Caluin and al his Caluinists and by most of the Zwinglians the second by al the Lutherans of which the conclusion necessarily followeth and consequently our doctrine touching justification according to the testimony of our aduersaries is built vpon the letter of holy Scripture Which prerogatiue if it be truly yeelded vnto vs it must needes be denied vnto them for the Scriptures teach not contraries and it is in no place opposite to it selfe Secondly it may be replied and said that the Lutherans doe not vvel vnderstand and apprehend S. Iames his meaning This is likewise easily refelled for vvhat reason hath any indifferent man to preferre the Sacramentaries judgement before that of the Lutherans Doe not these vnderstand the Scriptures as wel as they what priuilege or vvarrant of not erring haue the Sacramentaries aboue the Lutherans In learning without al doubt and other gifts necessary for attaining the true sense of Scripture these were not inferiour to them yea Luther as I haue related in my Preface is extraordinarily commended euen by those Sacramentaries who otherwise expound S. Iames then he doth Their enmity and hatred against vs vvere likewise equal vvherefore it is not like if with any probable glosse they could haue drawne this Apostles sentences to an other meaning that they vvould haue bereaued themselues of such a monument of antiquity and haue confessed it to make against themselues such a monument I say which their bretheren affirme to be Canonical Scripture and they themselues cannot denie to haue beene highly esteemed by al their Christian predecessours nay by most and those of greatest learning and authority to haue beene placed in the sacred Canon of diuine bookes Finally Field booke 1. chap. 18. pag. 35. 36. Field seemeth to confesse that S. Paul sometimes by vvorkes of the lawe vnderstandeth vvorkes of the lawe of Moyses for he telleth vs that this Apostle pronounceth that the Galathians were bewitched Galat. 3. 5. and that if they stil persisted to joyne circumcision and the workes of the lawe with Christ they were fallen from grace c. Nowe if this be so it may also be that in the place which the Lutherans thinke opposite to that of S Iames by vvorkes of the lawe he vnderstandeth vvorkes of the lawe of Moyses vvhich if it be admitted as true the sentences of these blessed Apostles may easily be reconciled although S. Paules vvordes admit also other very good expositions Chap. 6. Sect. 2. Field booke 3 c. 22. p. 118. as I haue before declared The same Field in like manner affirmeth that when we are justified God requireth of vs a newe obedience judgeth vs according to it and crowneth vs for it and that in this sort it is that he wil judge vs in the last day according to our workes By vvhich his assertion he plainely granteth that for good vvorkes men shal be crowned in heauen and consequently that good vvorkes done after justification are meritorious of eternal glory in the next vvorld and vvhy not then also of the increase of grace in this life vvhich is al that by vs is auouched Ibid. chap. 44 pag. 179. Lastly he saith that justification implieth in it selfe Faith Hope and Loue vvhich proposition I see not howe he can verifie if according to the Scriptures faith only doth justifie And thus much out of our aduersaries touching the proofe of justification by vvorkes and not by faith only out of the word of God Neither haue these Protestants only thus vnderstood the holy Scriptures but also as I haue affirmed in the beginning of this Section the auncient Fathers And this I vvil also proue by the like testimonies and confession of our aduersaries The Magdeburgians or Century writers are much commended by al sorts of followers of the newe religion for their diligence vsed and paines taken both in perusing and censuring al Councels and old Authours and also in penning of their Ecclesiastical historie especially of the primatiue Church Let these men therefore declare and tel vs vvhat the auncient Fathers beleeued and taught touching justification Verily they so great and so principal antiquaries being themselues of a contrary beliefe affirme that the said Fathers haue erred in this article by ascribing justification to good vvorkes and denying it to only faith For of the second age after Christ thus they vvrite The doctrine of justification was deliuered more negligently and obscurely Centur. 2. ca. 4. col 60. 61. by the Doctors of this age Againe This article the highest and chiefest of al by litle and by litle through the craft of the Diuel beganne to be obscured Further It appeareth say they out of the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus that in his age the doctrine concerning the end of good workes beganne to be obscured Finally The times ensuing declare sufficiently that the doctrine of faith justifying without workes beganne forthwith to be more and more varied and obscured Centur. 3. ca. 4. col 53. 79. 80. 81. In their history of the third age they tel vs that this article was almost altogither obscured and
of free-wil and merit of workes The like haue e Whitgift in his defence p. 472. 473. Whitgift f Adam Scultet in Medulla Theolog. p. 48. 122. 151. Adamus Scultetus and others Nay Field although he also tearme S. Augustine the g Field booke 3. chap. 42. pag. 170. greatest of al the Fathers and worthiest Diuine the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times yet he telleth vs that h Ibid. chap. 15. pag. 93. his manner of deliuering this article of justification is not ful perfect and exact as they are forced to require in these times against the errors of the Romanists For that when he speaketh of grace he seemeth for the most part to vnderstand nothing else thereby but that sanctification whereby the holy spirit of God changeth vs to become newe creatures seldome mentioning the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ hitherto Field And thus we see that the letter of holy Scripture not only according to the plaine and open confession of our aduersaries but also according to the tradition and belief of the ancient Fathers our said aduersaries likewise being witnesses doth teach not with them that faith only doth justifie vs by the imputation of Christs justice but with vs that workes also concurre to our justification I could joyne vnto this another argument sufficient in any wise mans judgement to condemne these Sectaries doctrine of falsehood and consequently to proue it not to be build vpon the letter of holie Scripture to vvit the dissention which is among them in explicating this article but breuity causeth me to omitte it Only I wish my reader to peruse that which a Field of the Church booke 3. chap. 44. pag. 177. Field hath in his third booke of the Church concerning this matter and to conferre it with the doctrine of Luther b Caluin in his Institutions Caluin c Perkins in his reformed Catholike pag. 48. 315. Perkins d Willet in his Synops controuers 19. part 2. pag. 827. part 4. pag. 877. 885. 887. Willet and others For there he shal finde that the said Field maketh that act of faith which obtaineth and worketh our justification an act by way of petition humbly intreating for acceptation and fauour not an act in the nature of comfortable assurance consisting in a ful and assured perswasion that through Christs merits we are the children of God as is taught by the rest SECTION THE THIRD The like discourse is made concerning a place of Scripture alleaged for the real presence AN other principal article controuersed betweene vs and our aduersaries is that touching the real presence of Christes body and bloud in the Eucharist For the affirmatiue part which we Catholikes defend especially against the Sacramentaries I haue alleaged in the first Section of this Chapter among other those wordes of our Lord This is my bodie I wil therefore proceed and discourse of this sentence as I haue already done of that of S. Iames touching justification by workes Melancthon for his learning and piety is much commended both by a See Bullēger in Firmamēto firmo cap. 4. fol. 27. colloquium Altemberg an 1568 fol. 203. Lutherans Sacramentaries Luther himselfe judged his booke of common places b Luth. tom 2. de seruo arbitrio fol. 424. in colloq cōuiualibus ca. de Patribus Eccles worthy to be placed in the Ecclesiastical canon of holy Scripture and * Luther in praefat to 1. affirmed that God raised him that he might haue a companion in his labours combats and daungers in the propagation of the sincere doctrine of the Gospel Caluin tearmed him c Caluin admonit 3. ad Westphalū admonit vlt. fol. 23. the great ornament of the German Churches and with great vehemencie affirmed that Philip Melancthon in the controuersie touching the supper could be no more plucked or diuided from him then from his owne proper bowels Peter Martir calleth him d Martir in dialogo de corpore Christi in loco fol. 107. contra Gardinerum de Eucharistia pag. 768. a man incomparable and most instructed in al kind of vertue and learning he maketh him equal in learning and piety with S. Augustine S. Hierome S. Leo and the auncient Fathers Beza finally saith he was instaurator Beza in Iconib in Creophag pa. 80. the repairer againe of Euangelical doctrine he tearmeth him likewise the singular ornament of our age and together vvith * Lauather in histor Sacrament fol. 47. Lauatherus likeneth him to the Phoenix What then vvriteth this great schollar of so rare vertue touching this matter thus he discourseth There is no care that hath more troubled my minde then this of the Eucharist and not only my selfe haue weighed what might be said on either side but I haue also sought out the judgement of the old writers touching the same Melancth li. 3. ep Zwinglij Oecolampadij fol. 132. And when I haue laied al together I finde no good reason that may satisfie a conscience departing from the propriety of Christes wordes this is my body You gather many absurdities he debateth the matter with Oecolampadius a Sacramentary which followe this opinion but absurdities wil not trouble him who remembreth that we must judge of diuine matters according to Gods word not according to Geomatry And soone after I finde no reason Ibid. fol. 140. howe I may depart from this opinion touching the real presence Wel it may be an other opinion more agreable to mans reason may please an idle minde especially if the said opinion be furnished and commended with arguments wel handled but what shal be come of vs in tentation when our conscience shal be called to an account what cause we had to dissent from the receiued opinion in the Church Then these wordes this is my body wil be thunderbolts hitherto Melancthon Luther as al the vvorld knoweth out of the same vvordes gathered and defended the real presence in so much as he condemned the Sacramentaries as Heretikes for auouching the contrary but let vs rehearse some of his wordes Luther to 7. in defens verborum coenae fol. 388. Ibid. fol. 390. Wheras Gods power saith he surpasseth al cogitation and worketh that which is to our reason incomprehensible and which only faith beleeueth and the same God said This is my body which shal be deliuered for you howe can I perswade my conscience that God hath neither meanes nor ability to doe as his wordes sound Againe These good Sacramentaries by their loathing and abhorring such thinges make way to the denial of Christ and God himselfe and of al articles of our faith And truly for a great part they haue already begunne to beleeue nothing for they bring themselues within the compasse of reason which is the right way to damnation And themselues knowe that these Ethnical cauils either are nothing worth against this article or if they conclude any thing against this they doe the like
and moreouer that this was Luthers opinion it may be gathered out of f Caluin Instit c. 16. § 19 Caluin and g Whitaker in his answ to Campians 8. reason p. 243. Whitakers Besides this he holdeth that the soules departed out of this vvorld sleepe and are without sense or feeling neither in heauen nor in hel and so shal remaine vntil the day of judgement But of this point of his doctrine see more in the second part of my treatise following I cannot likewise omit his h Luther in serm de Sacram. coenae to 2. f. 112. c. opinion concerning the presence of Christs humane nature in euery place together vvith his diuinity of vvhich proceed these vvordes of Zwinglius vnto him i Zwingl in respōs ad Luther l. de Sacra f. 401. If thou shalt contumaciously goe on in this sentence that the humanity of Christ IESVS is essentially and corporally present wheresoeuer is his diuinity God willing we wil bring thee to those straights that either thou shalt be forced to deny the whole Scripture of the new testament or to acknowledge Marcions heresie This I say in good faith we promise we wil doe thus Zwinglius And by this heresie defended by the Lutherans of his time Caluin k Caluin Instit booke 4. ch 17. §. 16. c. Zwing l. tom 2. ep ad quādam Germaniae ciuitatē fol. 196. lib. de Baptis fol. 63. c. auoucheth that Marcion is raised vp out of hel The Geneuian diuines in the preface to the Harmony of confessions published in the name of the Churches of France and Belgia tearme it that vnhappy monster of vbiquity which if it be admitted say they wil quite ouerthrowe the true doctrine of Christs person and natures But of Luther enough Zwinglius doctrine concerning the Sacraments vvas most prophane for he made them only external signes and denied them any inward effect in the soule wherefore as I haue before noted it is worthily condemned and rejected not only by Luther and his followers but also in wordes by * Caluin lib. de coena l. 4. Instit cap. 15. §. 1. Caluin Moreouer a Zwingl in exposit fidei Chrstianae art 12. Zwinglius also placeth Hercules Theseus Socrates Numa Camillus the Catoes Scipions and other Pagans and Idolaters with the holy Patriarks and Apostles in heauen Of which his assertion Luther discourseth thus b Luther ad c. 47. Genes Zwinglius of late hath written that Numa Pompilius Hector Scipio Hercules enjoy eternal blisse in heauen with Peter Paul other Saints which is no other thing then openly to confesse that he thinketh there is no faith no Christianisme c. He addeth much more against him and of this inferreth that Zwinglius is of that minde that a man doing his best may be saued in any religion whatsoeuer vvhich in very deede is expresly by him taught in c Zwingl to 2. in declarat de peccato Original f. 118 another place Neuerthelesse this doctrine of Zwinglius touching the saluation of Infidels is maintained by d Rodolph Gualterus in Apolog pro libris Zwinglij Rodolphus Gualterus e Bullinger in Germani cōfess Eccles Figurinae Bullenger f Simlerus in vita Bullingeri c. Simlerus Daniel Tossanus and other Sacramentaries But no opinion of Zwinglius is more impious and sacrilegious then that by which he maketh God the author and cause of sinne In vpholding which blaspheamous impiety Iohn Caluin joineth hands with him If it were not that I should exceed the breuity of a preface I vvould manifestly conuince them guilty of this crime by their owne printed workes published to the viewe of the whole vvorld but I vvil here put off this manner of proofe to another place and nowe only confirme the truth of mine accusation by the testimony of some learned Protestants Albertus Grawerus rector of the Lutheran vniuersity of Eislebium in Germany about the yeare of our Lord 1597. published a booke vvith this title The warre of Iohn Caluin and of IESVS Christ God and man that is An antithesis or opposition of the doctrine of the Caluinists and of Christ in which the most horrible blaspheamies of the Caluinists especially concerning foure articles the person of Christ the supper of the Lord baptisme and predestination are faithfully shewed from the eie to the eie out of their owne proper writings and bookes and are briefly and soundly refelled out of the word of God thus hath the title And this booke hath beene printed three times among the Lutherans for I haue seene the third edition printed at Magdeburge in the yeare 1605. so plausible is it to the Lutheran churches Neuerthelesse it being oppugned and answered by some Caluinists the same author replied vvith an other booke vnto which he gaue this title Absurda absurdorum absurdissima Caluinistica absurda c. The absurde the most absurde of absurde Caluinistical absurde thinges that is an inuincible demonstration logical philosophical theological of some horrible paradoxes of the Caluinian doctrine in the article of the person of Christ the supper of the Lord baptisme and predestination of the children of God written by M. Albert Grawere Rector of the famous Vniuersity of Eislebium of the Earles of Mansfeld in defence of his Caluinian warre c. Cum gratia priuilegio at Magdeburge an 1605. hitherto are the vvordes of the title That vvhich maketh in these bookes for my present purpose is that which he deliuereth concerning the opinion of Caluin and the Caluinists touching the predestination of the children of God for in the fore-front of the last treatise after the title of the booke this Lutheran placeth this sillogisme Quodcunque dogma c. What opinion soeuer maketh God the author of sinne is not of God The Caluinian opinion maketh God the author of sinne therefore it is not of God For proofe of the minor or second proposition which is that the Caluinian doctrine maketh God the author of sinne he referreth his reader to the fift chapter of his booke following in vvhich in very deede he manifestly proueth it by diuers sentences alleaged out of Caluin Beza and other Sacramentaries Perhaps some man wil demaund what is this to Zwinglius I answere although Zwinglius in very deede be properly no Caluinist for he vvas before Caluin yet because nowe the Caluinists beare al the sway and haue almost eaten vp the Zwinglians as also because the differences betweene Zwinglius and Caluin vvere not great and notorious it pleaseth the Lutherans to number Zwinglius among the Caluinists yea to cal al the Sacramentaries Caluinists Hence Grawerus among other Caluinists making God the authour of sinne often alleageth Zwinglius and proueth him guilty of the same impiety They are likewise accused of making of God the author of sinne by Luke Osiander another Lutheran who hauing related and confuted certaine their assertions touching Christ thus beginneth the seauenth chapter of his booke
goe on in the first place alleaged And therefore for as much as in these controuersies the Papists and the Prelates goe hand in hand the said Ministers doe in like manner make the like offer to the Priestes and Iesuites promising their reconcilement vnto that See of Rome if they can either by arguments pul them from the aforesaid propositions or can answere such arguments as they shal propound in the defence of them in manner and forme before specified in the offer And therefore it both stands the Ministers vpon to make the aforesaid offer and the Prelates except they wil haue al the world to judge them to be friendes in hart to Popery to accept of the same Thus the Puritan Ministers and no such offer that I finde through the whole booke is made to the Protestants This then is affirmed by these men that if the Protestant doctrine mainetained against them be true and their assertions be false the separation of the newe Sectaries Churches from ours cannot be justified yea they auouch that if this be so that their said Churches are schismatical Vnto which if we adde that in very deede the propositions which the Puritans offer to mainetaine against the Prelates are false and erroneous the truth of which assertion is confessed with great vehemency defended by al the English Protestants and further concerning some of the said propositions very vvel proued by Hooker Whitgift Bilson Couel and others of their company we shal haue our desired conclusion that according to the doctrine of the English Sectaries the Puritans and the Protestants our aduersaries Churches are Schismatical and that ours is the true Spouse of Christ But I must not here omitte by the way to aduertise my reader that in the judgement of any wise and judicious person this argument yeelded vs by our aduersaries cannot but also be a very strong proofe of the truth of our Catholike cause For vvhosoeuer maturely considereth the matter shal finde that the Protestants in rejecting the Puritan propositions followe the prescript and rule of holy Scriptures the decrees of Councels and the tradition of the Church and Fathers He shal also perceiue that the Puritans in auouching that which I haue related build vpon very good reasons flowing out of the very nature of the Protestant religion and taken from the proceedings of the vpholders of the same in defending it because out of the doctrine and practise defended by the Protestants against the Puritans as also out of the proofes and reasons alleaged for themselues very strong arguments may be drawne to confirme the truth of our whole Catholike religion as wil sometimes appeare in my treatise following And to giue here one instance the Protestants for the authority of Arch-bishops bring diuers reasons and among others this one that peace and vnity can otherwise hardly be maintained in the Church But vvhat faith Cartwright Suruay of the pretended holy discipline chap. 8. pag. 125. Truly he affirmeth as is reported by the author of the Suruay of the pretended holy discipline that the Popes authority is more necessary ouer al Churches then the authority of an Arch-bishop ouer a prouince And this his assertion is grounded vpon very good reason as I shal more at large declare hereafter Nowe to prosecute mine intended discourse vvhich is to proue some errours in the English sectaries here occurreth another argument like vnto the former not vnfit for my purpose For like as I haue already demonstrated that if they al say true our Church is the true Church of Christ so it is also euident that if it be so that they al say true it is also needful there be one supreame head of the vvhole Church militant Suruay c. chap. 29. pag. 372. for thus I argue Cartwright a principal Puritan esteemed by those of his owne sect as the aforesaid author noteth one of the only worthies of the world telleth vs that the Popes authority is more necessary ouer al Churches then the authority of an Arch-bishop ouer a prouince but the authority of an Arch-bishop as al our Protestants defend is necessary ouer a prouince therefore the Popes authority is necessary ouer al Churches It may be objected that these arguments are taken from persons of sundry sectes of which the one confesseth the other to erre I grant it but this notwithstanding they proue that either some English sectaries erre or otherwise that our religion by them rejected is true which sufficeth my purpose Neuerthelesse the Protestants themselues doe afford vs no such reasons Truly if I were not here restrained to the vvriting only of a preface I could assigne diuers one I wil set downe for an example Field booke 3 chap. 39. pag. 158. 156. 157. 159. M. Field in his third booke of the Church plainly confesseth that in sundry Churches of the world being of the newe religion diuers worthy Ministers of God were ordained by Presbiters or Priestes sometime of our Church and had no ordination from any Bishop Nay he seemeth apparantly to graunt that none but Presbiters did impose handes in ordaining Ministers or Superintendents in many of the pretended reformed Churches as namely in those of France and others Morton in Apolog. Cathol part 1. lib. 1. cap. 21. which is also insinuated by D. Morton And therefore both these Doctors teach that in time of necessity a Priest or Minister may impose handes and consecrate a Priest and consequently also a Bishop or a Superintēdent Out of this their doctrine I frame this argument seing that diuers Superintendents and Ministers of the newe religion I may say al at the least of some Countries for Field himselfe excepteth only those of England Denmarke and of some other places which places he nameth not haue had their ordination or orders only from Priests it followeth that if Priests haue no power of ordination that is of giuing orders that such Ministers and Superintendents are no true Ministers and Superintendents But Priests according to the assertion of a principal English Protestant haue no power of ordination and can giue no orders therefore such Superintendents and Ministers are no true Superintendents and Ministers Of which I also inferre that such Churches are no true Churches for they want a true ministery and clergy without which as * Field ibid. pag. 154. and booke 2. chap. 6. pag. 51. Field confesseth there can be no Church And this English Protestant is a William L. Bishop of Rochester in his sermon cōcerning the antiquity superiority of Bishops preached before the King at Hampton-Court Sep. 21. 1606 William L. B. of Rochester who in his sermon not long since preached before the Kinges Majesty and afterward printed by his Majesties expresse commandement as the same Bishop b In the epist to the King prīted before the sermon auoucheth affirmeth and proueth out of holy Scripture first that the Apostles kept to themselues ordination or authority to giue holy orders til
whole discourse to certaine principal conclusions of which although some be partly already proued against external Infidels yet I wil briefly proue them againe out of the newe Testament against Heretikes First therefore that Christ is the redeemer of al mankinde and that by his bitter passion and paineful death he hath satisfied for al our sins if we please to apply his merits to our soules 1. Io. 2 2. 1. Io. 1 7. 1. Cor. 6. vers 20. Eph. 2 13. Col. 1 14. Heb. 9 11. euery Christian must needes confesse for this is most plainely affirmed in the holy Scripture in which it is said that Christ is the propitiation for the sinnes of the whole world that his bloud doth cleanse vs from al sinnes and that we are bought and redeemed with his pretious bloud It must likewise be granted by al Christians that Christ by his infinite merits purchased to himselfe a Church on earth that is to say established a newe religion and a newe law among men ordained Apostles Pastors Gouernours of his flocke instituted newe Sacraments by which his faithful people through his merits were to receiue forgiuenes of sinnes and his grace in this world and euerlasting glory if they deserued it in the next This likewise euen in as plaine wordes is deliuered vnto vs in the said word of God in which we read that Christ purchased his Church with his bloud Act. 20. vers 28. Ephes 5 25 26. that he loued her and deliuered himselfe to death for her to sanctifie her cleansing her with the lauer of water in the word of life that he might present to himselfe a glorious Church not hauing spot or wrinckle And al this is also manifest by reason for what other cause can be assigned of the incarnation passion of Christ but the redemption of man the erecting of a Church and religion which may guide him to euerlasting saluation Out of these two assertions I gather a third to wit that there is but one true Chruch of Christ in which true religion is only to be found among Christians and consequently that they only who are members of this Church truly worship God and are in state of grace in this world and in the right way to eternal blisse in the next And first that Christ hath but one true Church on earth it is euident because he according to his owne assertion is the way and the veritie and the life Ioh. 13. vers 6. Wherefore like as there is but one life Christ who by his bitter passion redeemed al mankind from euerlasting death and giueth man true life in heauen so this one life ordained one only way and truth whereby to attaine to the said life and saluation erecting one only Church vnto which the fruit merit of his passion should be deriued Like as therefore God made first but one man Adam and one woman Eue who were the corporal or carnal father and mother of the transitory life of al mankind so he hath constituted but one spiritual father Christ and one spiritual mother which is his only Spouse the Church who are the spiritual parents of the spiritual life of his true children Moreouer like as God hath giuen one only corporal body although adorned with variety of members to one head to be gouerned so he hath framed one only mistical body for one mistical head which is Christ which he only as supreame head directeth and gouerneth Cant. 2. vers 6. Ephes 4. vers 2. Hence we are told by Salomon in the Canticles that the Doue of Christ is one perfect and chosen to her mother The Apostle likewise telleth vs that there is one Lord one Faith and one Baptisme and consequently one Church Finally whosoeuer affirmeth that Christ hath erected more Churches then one impugneth al sense and reason seing that vnitie is to be preferred before diuision and discord and no cause can be assigned why two Churches should be founded Of this it also followeth that out of the one Church of Christ there is no saluation For if our blessed Sauiour by his death established one only Church it is euident that they only are partakers of his holy merits who are members of that Church and that they only are in the true way to saluation who imbrace that doctrine and religion which is taught and prescribed in the said Church Hence proceedeth that famous sentence of S. Ciprian Cipr. de vnitate Ecclesiae c. 5. who affirmeth that he that is not a member of Christ his Church notwithstanding al his good workes and endeauours otherwise shal neuer come to enjoy the promised rewardes of Christ in heauen He is an alien he is prophane he is an enemy saith he he cannot haue God for his Father who hath not the Church for his Mother The same sentence is pronounced almost in the selfe same wordes by S. Augustine Aug. tom 9. de Simbol lib. 4. cap. 10. Aug. de vnitat Eccles c. 19. who auoucheth that he shal not haue God his Father who refuseth to haue the Church for his Mother And this in an other place he proueth because no man commeth to saluation and life euerlasting but he that hath Christ his head and no man can haue Christ his head but he that is in his body the Church of a Ephes 5. vers 23. which according to the Apostle he is Sauiour This also moued Lactantius to discourse after this sort of the excellency and prerogatiues of the Church his wordes are these b Lact. lib. 4. diuin Inst c. vlt. It is the Catholike Church only so he tearmeth the Church of Christ that keepeth the true worship of God this is the fountaine of truth this is the house of faith this is the temple of God Into which whosoeuer doth not enter or out of which whosoeuer doth depart he is an alien stranger from the hope of euerlasting life and saluation No man must by obstinate contention flatter himselfe for it standeth vpon life and saluation Thus farre Lactantius And this was long since figured by the arke of Noe which only saued the men in it contained from the general deluge wherefore in S. Ciprian we find this sentence Cipr. de vnitat Eccles ca. 5. If any man could escape that was without the arke of Noe he also may escape that is out of the Church These and such like considerations induce al those that professe themselues Christians of what religion or sect soeuer they be to challenge to themselues the true Church of Christ This challenge is made by them that professe the Roman faith it is made by the Lutherans it is made by the Zwinglians it is made by the English Protestantes by the Caluinists or Puritans by the Anabaptists by the Libertines it is made finally by al newe Sectaries and hath euer beene made by al Heretikes since the beginning of Christian religion And although the multitude of challengers with their false and
most firme and certaine assent of the vnderstanding to thinges aboue the reach of reason and the object of it be the misteries of our beleefe it must needes follow that the authority of almighty God whose knowledge and wisdome are infinite and whose sayinges are of infallible truth must cause vs to beleeue the said misteries If any wil denie this I wil demand of him howe we can possibly attaine to a certaine knowledge of so high misteries but by the reuelation of God and this is that which al Christians commonly professe when as being demanded why they beleeue this and that they answere because God hath reuealed such doctrine I confesse that men are commonly first induced to faith by certaine reasons which the Diuines cal arguments of credibility such are miracles vvhich proceeding from God can giue no testimony to falshood the authority wisedome learning and consent of the professors of our religion in al ages since it beganne the strange manner of the propagation of our said religion being so strict throughout the vvhole vvorld by a fewe fisher-men the miraculous preseruation of our Church oppugned by so diuers and mighty enemies the constancy of our Martirs the great change to the better vvhich our religion causeth in those that embrace it the purity of doctrine and sanctity of life shining in the Prelates and Children of our Church the conformity of our faith vvith natural reason in not being contrary to it although aboue it and other motiues which I haue related in the third Chapter of this treatise which make the object of faith in the judgement of any prudent man credible and of which either one some or al induce men first to beleeue But al these arguments are only inducements to the true act of supernatural faith by vvhich the misteries of our beleefe are afterwardes beleeued not for any such reasons but only because they are reuealed by God This moued Saint Basil to describe faith after this sort Basilius in ser de fidei cōfess siue de vera pia fide in Asceticis Faith saith he is an assenting approbation of those thinges which through the benefit of God haue beene preached thus Saint Basil Hence I inferre that although faith and also other arguments haue the same effect in our vnderstanding vvhich is to make it giue a firme assent to some verity which is done by sundry arguments especially by such as are called demonstrations yet there is this difference betweene such arguments and faith that they doe this through euidence of the matter faith doth it through the authority of the reuealer leauing stil the matter obscure And this doctrine is consonant to that of Diuines who hold the first and supreame verity of God to be the formal object of our faith the sence of which their assertion is that the chiefe reason or cause on which as on a foundation the habit of our faith relieth and resteth and into which both it and the assent of it proceeding is lastly resolued is the diuine and infallible reuelation of God or which is al one God infallibly reuealing some truth by some Canonical writer or other lawful definer of faith of which it followeth that faith of his owne nature doth assent to no proposition which is not propounded by diuine reuelation SECTION THE SIXT 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 IN the precedent sections of this Chapter I haue declared that faith is a most firme assent of the vnderstanding to such misteries as God hath reuealed to al Christians to be beleeued Nowe I must further lay this most certaine and vndoubted ground to this that according to the ordinary proceedings of God besides the reuelation by him heretofore made of the misteries of Christian beleefe by the habit of faith we giue assent to the articles reuealed it is also necessary that the said articles be propounded vnto vs by some infallible authority assuring vs that they are so deliuered This reason it selfe teacheth vs for seing that Christ hath with-drawne his visible presence from vs and he himselfe immediately after a sensible manner instructeth no man but al by some common rule or meanes seing also that the reuelation of such misteries is obscure and no man by the strength and force of natural reason can assure himselfe that such and such articles haue beene reuealed it was necessary that God should ordaine some infallible authority to be the Mistris of faith which might infallibly teach the truth in al such matters doubtful neither had he otherwise sufficiently prouided vs meanes necessary for our euerlasting saluation I adde also that although it were so that we were certaine at the beginning of our beleefe of such a reuelation yet that the weakenesse inconstancy of our vnderstanding is such that without a sure guide and directour it easily erreth and straieth from the truth receiued This notwithstanding we make not this proposition or propounding of such verities as are reuealed by God any essential part of the formal object of faith of which I haue spoken before for we affirme such misteries in themselues before any such proposition to be credible and worthy of beleefe but because this is vnknowne to vs we require such a proposition only as a necessary condition to this that we infallibly knowe that they are so reuealed which must of necessity be knowne before that we can actually assent vnto them by supernatural faith What infallible authority then haue we without al feare and doubt of falshood assuring vs that al the articles of our faith haue beene thus reuealed by God Verily no other but the Spouse of Christ our Mother the Church vvhome our Lord hath made our Mistris and guide in such matters And trulie that we are to learne our beleefe of the Prelates and Pastors of the Church we are aboundantly taught by the sacred word of God For first the Apostle S. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans discoursing of this point vseth these wordes Rom. 10. vers 14. Howe shal they beleeue whome they haue not heard and howe shal they heare without a preacher as though he should say No man can attaine to the knowledge and beleefe of the articles of faith except by some preacher they be propounded vnto him And that these preachers are the Prelates and Pastors of the Church it is manifest because they are the true successors of the Apostles who in the beginning of Christianity from Christ receiued authority commandement Mar. 16. vers 15. Iere. 3. vers 15. to teach al nations through out the whole world For the proofe likewise of this truth it maketh that in the old Testament God promised that in the newe he would giue vs Pastors according to his owne hart vvho should feed vs in knowledge and doctrine Moreouer like as in the old lawe he pronounced this sentence of
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
care and diligence without any alteration or deprauation was and is to deliuer to his successors vntil the end of the world Vinc. Lir. lib. contra prophanas hoeresum nouitates cap. 7. This is most learnedly explicated by Vincentius Lirinensis who florished in the Church very neere twelue hundred yeares since For this learned Father hauing demanded what the depositum was which the Apostle left with Timothie answered thus This pawne or pledge saith he is a thing committed to thy charge not inuented by thee that which thou hast receiued not that which thou hast deuised A matter not of wit but of doctrine not of priuate vsurpation but of publike tradition a thing brought downe vnto thee not brought forth first by thee of which thou must not be authour but keeper only not the founder but the follower not a leader but one which is led Hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis Of this Depositum likewise are these wordes of the Apostle in the same Chapter 1. Timoth. vlt. ver 13 I command thee before God who quickneth al thinges and Christ Iesus who gaue testimonie vnder Pontius Pilate a good confession that thou keepe the commandement without spot blamelesse vntil the comming of our Lord Iesus Christ And so these places are expounded by Tertullian and the rest of the Fathers for they are according to their exposition Tertul. de praescriptionibus Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4. most earnest exhortations to Timothie to keepe vnspotted the doctrine receaued and to admit no newe thing inuented by mans fancie This moued S. Ireneus to affirme that the Apostles haue laid vp in the Church as in a rich treasure house al truth Moreouer this summe of Christian doctrine for the same reason is likewise called the doctrine of the Apostles Act. 2.24 They were saith S. Luke speaking of the first Christians perseuering in the doctrine of the Apostles that is to say in the doctrine which by Christ was deliuered to the Apostles and by them preached and published to the vvorld Finally because according vnto it euery man is to direct his beleefe it is called by S. Paul the rule of faith and the forme of doctrine Gal. 6 16. Whosoeuer shal followe this rule saith he peace vpon them and mercy Againe let vs continue in the same rule And in the Epistle to the Romans Phil. 3 16 Rom. 6 17 2. Cor. 10. vers 15. you haue obeyed from the hart vnto the forme of doctrine into the which you haue beene deliuered The like sentences he hath in other places Hence Tertullian auoucheth that the * Tertul. de praescr ca. 13. 22. 27. c. Apostles receaued from Christ the fulnesse of the preaching of the Gospel and that they deliuered vnto al Christians al the order of the rule of beleefe He telleth vs also that a Cap. 14. faith is placed in rule he biddeth Heretikes be b Tertul. de praescr cap. 22. silent and not prate against this rule and wisheth Catholikes if they wil doubt or aske questions concerning matters of religion to inquire of those which are of their owne company and concerning such matters as may be called in question without the breach of the rule of faith Lastly he addeth that c Cap. 14. this rule instituted by Christ hath no doubtes or questions among vs but such as Heretikes doe bring in or doe make Heretikes Thus farre Tertullian The same rule S. Ignatius the Disciple of S. Iohn the Apostle affirmeth himselfe to haue obserued Doe you saith he in his Epistle to the Phillippians say and teach the selfe same and be of one judgement for by this I haue obserued the rules of faith Wherefore I conclude that Christ deliuered a rule of faith or forme of doctrine to his Apostles which they confirmed by miracles and deliuered to their successors and that the said rule containeth the vvhole summe or corps of Christian doctrine SECTION THE THIRD The Church cannot stray from the rule of faith receaued nor erre in matters of faith or general precepts of manners which is proued first because the holy Ghost directeth her in al truth THIS being proued I must nowe declare that the Church hath neuer erred nor can erre from this rule of faith receiued and that her judgement concerning matters of religion is of diuine and infallible authority The most principal reason vsually brought for the proofe of this is that God himselfe to wit the holy Ghost the third person of the most blessed Trinity who is subject to no errour or falsehood is the guide and director of the Church in al such affaires And this we are taught by Christ who likewise being God the second person of the most blessed Trinity cannot deceaue vs. For this promise he made to his Apostles immediately after his last supper these vvere his wordes Ioh. 14. vers 16. Ioh. 16. vers 13. I wil aske the father and he wil giue you another Paraclete that is to say an other comforter or aduocat that he may abide with you for euer the spirit of truth Againe yet many thinges I haue to say vnto you but you cannot beare them nowe but when he the spirit of truth commeth he shal teach you al truth This was the promise of our Sauiour and who wil say that he hath not beene so good as his word Surely if this promise vvas not brought to effect the breach of it either proceeded of vvant of power or of vvant of vvil in Christ but vvhat Christian can imagine that either of these was wanting in the Sonne of God Hence I gather that although our Sauiour during the time of his being on earth both before and after his passion gaue to his Apostles diuers instructions touching Christian religion yet that he left the ful and perfect instruction of them to the holie Ghost vvho vvas to reduce al thinges to memorie and to establish them perfectly in faith and whome his Father was to send by his mediation to be the cheefest instructor and guide of his Church in al truth to the vvorldes end And this vvas done on the day of Pentecost vvhen the holie Ghost in the likenesse of firie tongues Act. 2. v. 4 descended vpon the Apostles and Disciples since vvhich time according to the promise of Christ he hath neuer departed from the Church but remained in her and taught her al truth which euery man must needes confesse that vvil not accuse Christ of breach of his promise Wherefore like as Christ is tearmed the head and husband of the Church as I vvil euen nowe declare so the holie Ghost is aptly tearmed by S. Augustine her soule Aug. tom 10. serm 186. de tempore For like as the soule of man directeth and gouerneth his body so doth the holie Ghost the Church Some man perhaps vvil answere that Christ made this promise of the assistance of the holie Ghost to the Apostles only and not to their successors but this assertion is
most absurd and contrary to the vvordes themselues of holie Scripture For Christ as I haue noted before erected not a Church for the daies of the Apostles only but to continue vntil the end of the vvorld as vvas foretold by the Prophets that men in al ages to come might haue a meane to attaine to saluation vvherefore those thinges vvhich he spoke to his Apostles and Disciples he spoke also to al their successors Ephes 4. vers 11. For as vve are taught by the Apostle he hath giuen some Apostles some Prophets and other some Euangelists and others some Pastors and Doctors vntil the day of judgement In this sense he promised his Apostles as we read in S. Mathewes Gospel that he would be with them al daies euen to the consummation of the world that is to say Math. 28. vers vlt. vvith them and those vvhich should succeede in their place Wherefore Saint Hierome expounding that sentence vseth these vvordes Hier. lib. 4. in Mat. He who promiseth that hee wil bee with his Disciples vntil the consummation of the world both sheweth that they shal alwaies liue and also that he wil neuer depart from the faithful Saint Augustine likevvise affirmeth Aug. in ps 101. cōc 2. that he spoke to the Apostles and signified vs. To the same effect a Cipr. lib. 4. epist Saint Ciprian and b Basi consti monast cap. 23. Saint Basil tel vs that these vvordes of Christ c Luc. 10. vers 16. He that heareth you heareth me vvere spoken not only to the Apostles but also to their successors Finally the vvordes themselues of Christ aboue cited are plaine for howe can the holie Ghost remaine here on earth vvith those Apostles vnto vvhome Christ spake for euer seing that they liued in the vvorld but for a short time Wherefore he remaineth vvith their successors the Bishoppes and Prelates of the Church vvho haue succeeded the first Apostles as children their parents and with these he shal remaine as long as the world shal endure For the confirmation of this truth I adde that this assistance of the holy Ghost in the Church was long since foretold by the Prophet Isaie These wordes he vseth speaking in the person of God of the state of the Church in the lawe of grace Isa 59. My spirit which is in thee and my wordes which I haue put in thy mouth shal not depart from thy mouth and from the mouth of thy seede and of thy seedes seede saith our Lord from hence forward and for euer Hitherto the Prophet Isaie and what could be said more plaine then this Surely the promise is so euident that Caluin him selfe in his Commentarie vpon them graunteth as much as we haue affirmed Thus he discourseth expounding the said wordes He promiseth saith he that the Church shal neuer be depriued of this inestimable good Caluinus in Isai cap. 59. but that it shal alwaies be gouerned by the holy Ghost and supported with heauenly doctrine And soone after The promise is such that the Lord wil so assist the Church and haue such care of her that he wil neuer suffer her to be depriued of true doctrine Thus farre Caluin Finally Beza his Scholler confesseth Beza de haereticis a ciuili Magistratu puniendis pa. 69. Ire li. 1. c. 3. li. 3. c. 4. that the promise of our Sauiour of the assistance of the holy Ghost was not made only to the Apostles but rather to the whole Church Let this therefore be the conclusion of this argument that the Church of Christ is directed by the holy Ghost in matters concerning faith and religion in such sort that she neither hath fallen nor can fal into any errours And this was long since affirmed by S. Ireneus who telleth vs that the Church keepeth with most sincere diligence the Apostles faith that which they preached and moreouer that those Churches in which succession from the Apostles is found conserue and keepe our faith Cipr. epist 55. ad Cor nelium See him likewise epist 69. ad Floreatium The same we are taught by S. Ciprian who auoucheth that the Church alwaies holdeth that which she first knewe SECTION THE FOVRTH The same is proued by other arguments AN other argument prouing the judgement of the Church to be of infallible truth vve may take from the loue and affection vvhich Christ beareth to the said Church For in the Scripture vve find that Christ is the * Cant. 4. Ephes 1. v. 22. c. husband and head of the Church the Church his Spouse and body August in psal 126. For if we beleeue S. Augustine he formed her out of his owne side vpon the Crosse as Eue our first father Adams spouse was made of his ribbe and this long since he promised to doe by the Prophet Osee in these wordes I wil espouse thee vnto mee for euer Osee 2. vers 19. and I wil espouse thee vnto mee in justice and judgement and mercy and miserations He also redeemed purchased and vvashed her vvith his owne most pretious bloud and made her his spiritual body wherefore he is present with her according to his promise al daies Math. 28. vers vlt. euen to the consummation of the world and no man wil denie but he loueth cherisheth and gouerneth her as his Spouse and body Out of which fauours and prerogatiues I may very wel inferre that he being truth it selfe and hating al falshood preserueth her from errour this also being a dowry and priuiledge so necessary to her dignity These considerations moued S. Ciprian to discourse after this sort of this matter Cipr. li. de vnitat Ecclesiae the Spouse of Christ saith he cannot be defiled with adultery she is incorrupt pure and chaste she knoweth one only house she keepeth with a chaste shamefastnesse the sanctity of one chamber Thus S. Ciprian To the same allude these wordes of S. Augustine spoken of the Church This is the true mother Aug. tom 6. conc ad cath c. 22. a mother pious and chaste adorned inwardly with the dignity of her husband not outwardly shamefully and dishonestly painted deceitfully with a deceauing lie The promiseS of Christ vnto his Church of not erring and the prerogatiues which he hath bestowed vpon the same yeeld vs a third argument For listen a litle what a notable and worthy promise he hath made to vs that his Church built vpon S. Peter or as I may say his whole Church vnited to the supreame Vicar and cheefe head of the same vnder himselfe shal not faile or erre These are the wordes which he vttered to the said Apostle Math. 16. vers 18. 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 What could he haue said more for the certainety of the continuance of the Church and for her infallible judgement For is it not
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 was necessary that he should leaue among Christians some certaine rule guide whereby they might direct their faith and some judge for the deciding of daylie controuersies which might arise touching matters of religion whose judgement they might securely followe without al danger of being deceaued Neither can we imagine that Gods infinit wisedome foreseing al thinges and times to come or his vnspeakable goodnes and loue to his Church could order thinges otherwise And this infallible guide and supreame judge is the Church including the Pope and other her Bishops and Prelates It was also needfull seing that the Church of Christ was to endure for euer I meane on earth vntil the end of the world and to be to al persons a perfect guide in al ages to saluation that it should be preserued from false doctrine and ruine otherwise it could not at al times haue performed these offices Our aduersaries wil answere that the Church through false doctrine and superstition hath already perished and not appeared in the world for diuers hundreds of yeares but this I shal refute at large * Cap. 5. in my treatise of the definition and notes of the true Church For this present vnto that which hath beene already said in this Chapter concerning the continuall assistance of the holy Ghost in the Church and other arguments prouing that she cannot erre I adde only that according to the censure of S. Augustine a Aug. l. de vnita Eccles c. 6. 7 12. 13. see him also li. 20. de ciuit c. 8. in psal 85. de vtilit credendi c. 8. Whosoeuer affirmeth the Church to haue beene ouerthrowne doth robbe Christ of his glory and inheritance bought with his most pretious bloud yea S. Hierome goeth further and auerreth that he that so saith doth make God subject to the Deuil and a poore miserable Christ Hier. cōt Lucifer cap. 6. The reason is because this assertion doth after a sort bereaue the whole incarnation life and passion of our Sauiour of their effect and end which was principally to found a Church and Kingdome in this world which should endure vntil the day of judgement and direct men in al truth to saluation Wherefore vvhosoeuer affirmeth the Church to haue perished taketh away this effect and prerogatiue from his incarnation life and passion and auoucheth that at sometimes man had no meanes left to attaine to euerlasting blisse which is also repugnant to the mercy and goodnes of God He also maketh God subject to the Diuel in making the Diuel stronger then Christ and affirming him to haue ouerthrowne Christes Church Kingdome which our Lord promised should neuer be conquered as I haue aboue declared I could adde an other reason conuincing the Church not to haue erred taken out of Tertullian Tertul. lib. de praescr cap. 28. who proueth it because errour commonly bringeth forth diuision for it were a very strange matter that diuers nations farre distant from one an other erring from the truth should al fal into the selfe same errour wherefore seing that the Catholike faith and religion in al places is one and the same it is like that it doth proceede of tradition not of errour but this matter is already sufficiently proued I wil therefore conclude that the Church of Christ is not subject to errour touching matters of faith and religion and consequently that euery man may securely followe concerning such matters her sentence and judgement And this is that high beaten and plaine way to saluation which was long since foretold by the Prophet Isaias who prophecying of the Kingdome of Christ vseth these wordes Isa 35. vers 8. And there shal be a path and way and it shal be called the holy way and it shal be so direct that fooles shal not be able to erre therein For no such way can be shewed if this be denied Hence S. Hierome telleth vs Hieron in dialog cōt Lucifer cap. 6. that we ought to remaine in that Church which being founded by the Apostles continueth til this day This also is that which we are taught to beleeue in the Creede of the Apostles vvhen as vve professe our selues to beleeue the Catholike Church For in these wordes we doe not only acknowledge that vve beleeue that Christ hath a Catholike Church on earth but also affirme that we beleeue heare and obey the same wherefore in al doubts and controuersies touching religion let vs listen and giue eare to this our holy Mother and obey her sentence although it seeme neuer so repugnant to our sense and reason For she is the rocke ground and piller of truth let vs beleeue her and euer remaine in her sacred bosome And although vve receaue our faith and are instructed in religion by some particuler men yet let vs not doubt but that we are taught by this vniuersal Church For they who instruct vs and deliuer our faith vnto vs doe this as the officers and members of this Church and by her order and appointment neither doe they deliuer the said doctrine vnto vs as their owne but as the doctrine of the Church and as such we receaue it and haue sufficient motiues to perswade vs that this is true Wherefore like as the action of a member of a mans body is attributed to the vvhole for although the hand strike yet man is said to strike c. so although we be instructed taught by some particuler member of the Church yet vve may vvel say that this is done by the said Catholike and vniuersal Church These considerations vvere so forcible euen in Luthers vnderstanding for a long time after his fal from vs that he found his conscience often troubled for his disobedience to the Church In one place thus he writeth * Luther tom 2. l. de seru arbit During more then tenne yeares I was so moued by authority conscience multitude of Martirs of Bishops of Popes of Councels of Vniuersities that it was incredible that this Troy remaining so long in so many conflicts inuincible could neuer be conquered And in another place a Luther tom 1. in propos suis de viribus hominis When I had saith he ouercome al arguments by the Scriptures this one that the Church is to be heard at length with most great difficulty and perplexitie or anguish by Christes assistance I hardly ouercame Thus Luther I adde also that our b See Hooker in his 3. booke of Eccl. policy §. 2 7. 9 Bel in his treatise of the regiment of the Church pag. 200. Whitgift others English Protestants themselues disputing against the Puritans are
forced to acknowledge that the Church hath authority to prescribe orders for her gouernement vvhich euery one is bound to obey Yea Field Hutton and Gabriel Powel seeme to make the constitutions of the Church equal vvith those of the Apostles For the first of them auoucheth that both thinges which c Field booke 4. chap. 20. § that the Apostles the Apostles themselues deliuered by tradition and also such thinges as were deliuered by their next after-commers are dispensable by the authority of the Church And howe so if the Church hath not Apostolike authority surely his reason assigned is because the Apostles and Apostolike men did not deliuer them as reporting the immediate preceptes of Christ himselfe but by vertue of their Pastoral power and office of vvhich it seemeth plainely to followe that he yeelding the Church authority to dispense in them giueth her equal Apostolike power Hutton in his answ to a treatise of the Crosse in baptisme pag. 3. and 59. see also pag. 9. Hutton affirmeth Ecclesiastical constitutions made by the Church of Christ not to be meerely humane but in part diuine And the reason is saith he because the Church is ruled by the spirit of Christ who is the truth Againe if you make your comparison betweene that which God hath commanded and that which the Church of God hath ordained the difference is not so great as you would haue it Let Gods commandement haue worthily the first place and preheminence in al thinges as is meete but let the ordinances of the Church be immediately subordinate vnto Gods commandement and ranged in a second place not only because the Church of God heareth his voice but also because she is ruled by his spirit and by the great and pretious promises of God is made partaker of the diuine nature which no doubt doth assist them euen in the lawes also and constitutions which are made for order and decency in the Church Hitherto are Huttons vvordes Powels wordes are these Those Adiophora or thinges indifferent Gabriel Powellus in the sibus de Adiaphoris ca. 2. §. 7. 8 which are wel and lawfully instituted and approued by the Church are after such sort humane as they are also diuine and therefore they haue authority more then only humane yea they haue authority altogether diuine The reason is because the Church is gouerned by the spirit of Christ who is truth Againe * Ibid. cap. 3. §. 6. 7 God left it in the power and wil of the Chruch to dispose and ordaine for her owne conseruation profit comlinesse order and discipline al thinges indifferent ceremonies and external rites which manifestly appeareth out of the holy Scriptures themselues to haue beene true of the primatiue Church in the Apostles daies neither can any man denie it to be true of the present Church For seing that it is the same spirit gouerning the Church of al times why may it not likewise be lawful for the Church to institute lawes concerning external rites in times ensuing Thus Powel And out of these assertions of our aduersaries I thinke a prudent man wil wel inferre that our doctrine concerning the infallible judgement of the Church in matters of faith euen according to their proceedinges is very reasonable and consonant to holy Scripture For seing that vnitie and consent in faith is farre more necessary then vnity and consent in ceremonies and positiue ordinances for gouernement vve may truly affirme that Christ vvas more careful for the preseruation of the first then of the second Seing further that the reasons and authorities of holy Scripture by them brought and generally al the promises of our Lord concerning the direction of the Church make as much nay commonly more for the first then for the second for they are principally concerning direction in truth we doe followe reason and the holy Scripture in maintaining the first if they are not to be blamed for their maintenance of the second Seing moreouer that Field and Powel giue the present Church in al ages as great authority as it had the Apostles yet liuing and they vvere then not only ordainers of positiue lawes and orders but also infallible propounders of true doctrine and directors in matters of beleefe we haue no reason according to their ground to denie this prerogatiue to the same Church in al future times Seing finally that the Puritans denie the collection or deduction of either of these prerogatiues out of the Scripture and the Protestants auerre the plaine deduction of one and for this the Puritans condemne the Protestants we may wel imagine that the Puritans may erre in denying both and that the Protestants are to graunt the one as wel as the other and consequently that the Catholike truth should be imbraced by al. SECTION THE FIFT That the testimonies of holy Scripture and other proofes brought for the infallible and diuine authority of the Church cannot be applied to the Church considered as it comprehendeth al faithful Christians that are and haue beene since Christes ascension or since the Apostles daies but vnto the present Church of al ages BEFORE I end this chapter I thinke it not amisse to confute two or three opinions of our aduersaries of which al seeme in some sort to derogate from the truth of those thinges which I haue here auerred and to weaken their principal proofes Booke 4. chap. 1. 2. 3. 5. 13. The one is of M. Field who telleth vs that we may speake of the Church three manner of waies First as it comprehendeth al the faithful that are and haue beene since Christ appeared in flesh including also the Apostles Secondly as it comprehendeth al that are and haue beene since the Apostles time Lastly as it comprehendeth those only that are liuing at one present time in the world In the first signification he freeth it from ignorance and errour concerning matters of faith in the second from errour only and in the third not from errour in al articles of beleefe but in such only as euery man is bound expresly to knowe and beleeue wherefore Chap. 5. he applieth that promise of Christ aboue mentioned that the holy Ghost should teach the Church al truth to the Church in the first and second signification Another assertion is that the present Church may be said at al times to be the piller of truth and not to erre because it retaineth alwaies as Field speaketh a sauing profession of heauenly truth that is Chap. 4. §. the Church Field booke 3. chap. 4. and 3. true doctrine concerning al such principal pointes as are the substance of faith and needful to be knowne beleeued expresly by euery man Hence they assigne some such principal points and articles which they binde euery person to knowe and beleeue vnder peril of eternal damnation and deny asmuch as the virtual beleefe of others to be necessary which I place as a third absurd opinion To confute these assertions and to cleere the truth
before proued from al cloudes of falsehood which may seeme to obscure it I thinke it not amisse in this place to proue these three propositions First that no testimonies or reasons before brought can be applied to the Church in those two first acceptions of the Church expressed by Field secondly that the same testimonies and reasons proue an infallible judgement of the Church concerning euery article of faith in general not touching some principal only lastly that to saluation it is necessary to beleeue either expresly or virtually the whole summe of Christian doctrine And to performe this concerning the first in the first place I demand whether there be or no any such Churches nowe extant in the world of which the one includeth al faithful Christians that are and haue beene since the ascension of Christ the other al those that are and haue beene since the Apostles daies if there be not then the promises of Christ cannot be verified of them if there be then I aske further vvhere they are to be found Is the Church now in the world that hath beene in former ages Are they that in times past flourished nowe members of the Church militant They are not vvithout doubt Wherefore although these two diuers considerations of the Church may be in our vnderstanding yet there is no real object of them nowe hauing any real being in the world nor euer vvas at any one time and seing that it is euident that the promises of Christ are concerning the prerogatiues of some real body or common wealth hauing real being in the vvorld and not only in our conceit it is also manifest that they were not spoken of the Church in any one of those two acceptions Besides this howe shal vve seuer or distinguish these three considerations of the Church really from one another doth not the Church in the first acception comprehend the same Church as it is taken in the second and third signification doth it not as Field saith comprehend al that are and euer haue beene since Christ appeared in the flesh if so then without doubt also that Church which hath bin in al particuler ages and at al particuler times and instances and is euen at this present We must imagine if I be not deceaued the better to vnderstand M. Field his meaning Vincent Liren aduersus haeres ca. 28. 29. as Vincentius Lirenensis seemeth to insinuate that the beginning and progresse of the Church since her first planting hath beene not much vnlike to the augmentation or growing of a child from his first birth to his perfect state or old age And who can make any question but in the time of a mans being from his birth vntil his old age that time also is included which was from the day in which he was weaned from his nurses milke vntil his said old age but if we admit this howe can we choose but confesse that the Church in the first acception includeth also the same in the second and third and so I say that the last is comprehended in the second howe then can he make the Church in the first signification free from errour and ignorance and not in the second and third or howe can he make it in the second signification free from errour and not in the third and to make the matter a litle more euident I demand of M. Field whether a man might truly haue said at al times since the Apostles daies the Church in the first and second signification is absolutely free from al errour in diuine thinges if he might not then nothing more is attributed to the Church in these acceptions then to the same in the last if he might then was the present Church in euery instant free from such errours ignorance For to insist in the similitude already made to this that a man be said to be sound and in health it is not sufficient that in his childhood or at some other time he was so affected but it is also necessary that he be sound at that very time when the sentence is pronounced and if the sentence be pronounced of al his whole life it cannot be true if once he were sicke In like sort to this that the Church as it includeth al times since the Ascention of Christ or from the Apostles be said to be free from al errour it is not sufficient that in the first yeares or at some time or other it was so but it is also requisite that she be so nowe and euer haue beene so otherwise if she haue beene infected vvith errour at some one time the said errour maketh the proposition false And in very deed I cannot see first for what other reason he freeth the Church in the first signification from ignorance and errour but in respect of the Apostles daies when it enjoied only as he saith such priueledges in like sort I can see no other reason why he freeth it in the second acception from errour but this that at some time or other in some place or other true doctrine hath beene or is taught in her concerning euery article of faith For he maketh the present Church at al times subject to errour and consequently he wil not giue this priueledge to the present Church of al times And this he semeth to confesse in those his vvords of the eleauenth chapter where he saith that the Church in the second acception is infallibly true Not in respect of the condition of the men of whome it consisteth Booke 4. chap. 11. §. that the authority or the manner of the guiding of the spirit each particuler man being subject to errour but in respect of the generality and vniuersality of it in euery part wherof in euery time no errour could possibly be found that is if I wel vnderstand him that some part or other at some time or other was free from euery errour not al nor perhappes any part from al errours at the same time Marke well what a proper prerogatiue is finally giuen to the Church in those acceptions in vvhich he doth so highly exalt it to vvit that it vvas free from errour and ignorance in the Apostles daies and free from errour in respect of the generality and vniuersality of it because no errour could possibly be found in it in euery part in euery time What improper kinde of speeches be these can a sicke man be said to be sound because he vvas found in his childe-hood or can he be saide to haue beene euer sound if once he vvere sicke or can he be called a sound man that hath had at one time his head sound at another time his armes and at other times other members although he neuer had his vvhole body at one time sound together Besides vvhat vveake priueledges are here giuen to the Church are they ansvverable to the promises of Christ and other testimonies and reasons aboue recited for her infallible and diuine authority hath he bestovved no greater
prerogatiues vpon his spiritual Body and Spouse but perhaps these prerogatiues redound greatly to the good and benefite of the members and children of the Church Neither this can be auerred true for vvhat are poore Christians the nearer for it howe can such a Church be the director of their faith howe shal they knowe vvhat faith vvas preached by the Apostles and vvhat part taught true doctrine and vvhen and vvhich erred in subsequent ages howe shal vve vnderstand her judicial sentence vvhen controuersies arise and are to be decided surely they that are past and are departed out of this world can performe these thinges by no other meanes but by their writinges left behind them wherefore we can take no other direction and receiue no other judicial sentence from the Church in the first and second acception but by such monuments and bookes as we haue receiued from the Apostles Euangelistes the ancient Fathers and Doctors and other our predecessours And vvhat is this but to reduce al to the letter of holy Scripture and to the workes of antiquity which as I wil prooue hereafter setting aside the authority of the present Church yeelde vs no certaine and diuine argument and to giue nothing at al to the Church it selfe contrary to al the argumentes before made for her infallible authority Finally some of the places of Scripture before aleadged are expresly spoken of the present Church as that tel the Church If he shal not heare the Church let him he to thee as the Heathen or Publican c. SECTION THE SIXT That the same testimonies and proofes conuince an infallible judgement of the Church concerning euery article of faith not only concerning certaine of the principal SECONDLY that the testimonies of holy Scriptures and Fathers with the reasons brought in this Chapter proue the judgement authority of the Church to be of diuine and infallible truth in al points of faith it is euen as easily shewed For are not the vvordes general Is it not said that the holy Ghost shal teach the Church al truth and that she being the house of God is the piller and ground of truth c. And howe can these promises be verified if in some thinges she be subject to errour Field booke 4. chap. 4. Some say these last vvordes of the Apostle are vnderstood of the particuler Church of the Ephesians but first it is not like that God bestowed such an extraordinary priuiledge vpon that Church as to make it the piller and ground of truth Secondly the Apostle calleth that Church vnto which he here giueth these prerogatiues the house of God by which wordes a Cipr. l. 1. epist 6. S. Ciprian b Aug. l. 7. de baptis cōt Donat. ca. 49. 50. 51. Item in psalm 25. enarrat 2. S. Augustine and al the Fathers commonly vnderstand the whole militant Church yea S. Augustine alluding to this sentence and vsing the very vvordes of the Apostle calleth the whole Church * 2. Tim. 2. vers 20. columnam firmamentum veritatis the piller and ground of truth and in the Scripture it selfe the vvhole militant Church is called a great house as a Field booke 1. chap. 11. Field himselfe cōfesseth And because euery particuler Diocesse is a part of this Church the Apostle might very wel vse this kinde of speach vnto Timothie I write to thee that thou maist knowe howe thou oughtest to conuerse in the house of God although the said Timothie was Bishop only of Ephesus Moreouer are vve not absolutely vnder peril of being accounted Heathens and Publicans bound to obey the Church and what reason had our Lord so to binde vs if in some thinges her judgement may be erroneous for howe shal we discerne which those articles be in which she cannot erre and in which she may erre Further vvhat profit if this vvere so shal vve receaue from her for the preseruation of vnitie and ending of al controuersies verily this assertion is euen as prejuditial to the good of vnitie as that which affirmeth the Church to haue no warrant of truth at al. For what dissention and diuision would arise of this might not euery man contradict the rule of faith in any matter whatsoeuer and affirme his contradiction to be in a matter of smal moment who shal judge which matters be of great and which of smal importance For example diuers sectaries tel vs See Couel in defence of Hooker artic 11. Fox pag. 942. c. that the question concerning the real presence of Christ in the blessed Sacrament whether he be there really and substantially by transubstantiation as the Catholikes affirme or together with bread as the Lutherans say or only figuratiuely as is affirmed by the Sacramentaries is a question of smal importance not any essential point belonging to the substance of Christian religion But howe wil these men refute Castalio who addeth if Beza say true that the controuersies touching the blessed Trinity the estate and office of Christ and howe he is one with his father are concerning no essential points of Christian religion certainely they cannot wel ouerthrowe his opinion And this is that which was in old time and is at this present affirmed by some See Theodoretus lib 2. hist cap. 18. 19. 21. Trip. hist lib. 5. cap. 21. 33. that so that Christ be beleeued to be God it skilleth not whether he be beleeued to be equal or not equal consubstantial or not consubstantial to his father Wherefore this assertion of our aduersaries that the rule of faith may in some points be denied first openeth the gappe to al dissention then to al impiety and ouerthrowe of Christianity which thinges be sufficient to perswade euery Christian to abhorre and detest it SECTION THE SEAVENTH That to saluation it is necessary to beleeue the whole Catholike faith and euery article thereof CONCERNING the third point vvhich I intended to proue I affirme that it is necessary to saluation to beleeue and hold either expresly or virtually euery article of faith which is propounded by the Church to her children to be beleeued I adde those wordes expresly or virtually because I say not that euery man is bound expresly to knowe al the articles of Christian religion For it is held by vs sufficient if the ruder sort knowe expresly certaine of the principal as are they that concerne the Trinity and the incarnation passion resurrection and ascension of Christ c. if they virtually beleeue al the rest that is if they beleeue concerning al such points as they are not bound expresly to know whatsoeuer according to the doctrine of the church ought to be beleeued and be of contrary beleefe in no one point propounded vnto them and knowne to be propounded as an article of faith We differ therefore from our aduersaries in this that some of them hold a man is not bound to belieue any such articles not necessarily to be knowne by al others say a man may erre
his holy spirit it must needes followe that vvhosoeuer is infected with any one such heresie is void of al spiritual life and in state of damnation and can haue no more life then a mans arme cut off from his body or a bough cut from a tree But of this matter I shal entreate more at large Chap. 1. Sect. 4. in my treatise of the definition and notes of the true Church vvhere I shal proue that the members of Christes Church are lincked together by the profession of the same vvhole summe of Christian doctrine and therefore for this present this shal suffice And lesse I thinke would haue satisfied any reasonable man for seing that there is but one true rule of beleefe Ephes 4. vers 4. and one faith according as vve are taught by the Apostle among Christians and this faith is so necessary to saluation as I haue proued before no wise-man wil prescribe himselfe a rule of faith according to his owne erroneous fancy and neglect the judgement of the Church whome truth it selfe hath warranted that she shal not erre from truth Chapter 7. Of the holy Scripture which is the first particuler ground of faith in the Catholike Church SECTION THE FIRST Howe the Scripture is knowne to be Canonical THE supreame authority and infallible judgement of the Church being thus established and proued it may wel in this place be demanded vvhat particuler groundes decrees or principles the Church doth deliuer vnto vs or we finde in the Church whereupon we may securely build our faith For the resolution of this question I haue affirmed in the title of this Chapter that the first such particuler ground is the holy Scripture And although there be no controuersie betweene vs and our aduersaries concerning the authority of diuers bookes of the said holy Scripture for most of them by vs al are confessed to be Canonical yet much difference there is betweene vs concerning the meanes by vvhich vve knowe the holie Scripture and euery parcel thereof to be the true vvord of God and vvho is to be judge of the true sence of these diuine volumes vvherefore these points are briefly to be handled and discussed Howe then doe vve knowe that the old and newe Testament are Canonical howe can vve certainely assure our selues that the Apostles and Disciples vvrote the newe vvhat proofe likevvise haue vve to perswade vs that no part of the holie Scripture hath beene in times past corrupted or depraued I answere in fewe vvordes that al this is infallibly knowne vnto vs by the authority and judgement of the Catholike Church vvho hath adjudged al such bookes to be Canonical and as Canonical receiued them and deliuered them to her children I denie not but the Scriptures before the definition and censure of the Church vvere true and contained the certaine and sincere vvord of God but this only I say that this truth and authority was first infallibly knowne vnto vs by the Church vvho adjudged and censured them to be as they are and as such commanded al Christians to esteeme and reuerence them Neither is this any waies prejudicial to the dignity and authority of the holie Scripture for this notwithstanding vve confesse that the said Scripture is of farre greater authority then the Church or her definitions be vvhich is manifest because although the holie Ghost assist and direct both the vvriters of holie Scripture and the Church yet certaine it is that hee hath assisted and directed the first after a farre more excellent manner then he doth the second because his assistance and direction in penning those sacred bookes vvas such that euery sentence in them contained is of most certaine verity but his assistance vnto the Church vvhether it be in a general Councel or otherwise in the decrees of the Bishop of Rome maketh only that vvhich the said Councel or Bishop intend to define of such an infallible truth Wherefore then doe vve proue the Scripture to be Canonical by the authority of the Church Surely for no other reason then because the Church is better knowne vnto vs then the Scripture For the Church hath alwaies beene as I vvil proue hereafter most visible and apparant to the vvhole vvorld euery man also before that the newe Testament vvas written before that it vvas generally receiued by the Church might haue knowne the Church for she vvas before any part of it was penned and consequently by her infallible judgement euery one might with farre more ease and certainety haue come to the knowledge of such bookes then by any other meanes or industry Wherefore to conclude although the Church maketh not Scripture yet of her we learne most certainely which is Scripture And this is no more disgrace vnto Scripture then it was vnto Christ that the Apostles gaue testimony of him because they were better knowne then he I adde also that euery one of them who aboue al others reprehend this our assertion taketh vpon himselfe as great authority ouer Scriptures as vve giue to the whole Church See part second chap. 5. Sect. 1. For euery newe sectarie out of his owne fancy judgeth this to be Scripture that to be none c. vvhich must needes be in euery mans judgement farre more absurd This assertion being thus explicated let vs nowe briefly proue the same And first because vve can assigne no other meanes by vvhich vve may say that vve certainely knowe the Scripture to be Canonical but the authority of the Church And as concerning the old Testament although vve graunt that the authority thereof vvas first partly approued by miracles partly by the testimony of Prophets and partly by the authority of the Church in those daies yet howe doe vve nowe infallibly knowe that it vvas so approued and that it is the selfe same nowe that vvas then approued but by the relation tradition and censure of the Church But let vs come to the newe Testament and demand vvho hath receiued it into the Canon of holie Scripture vvhat miracles haue beene vvrought to proue it Canonical who doth assure vs that it vvas penned by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ and that since their daies it hath not beene corrupted Verily the Church only resolueth vs of al these questions and telleth vs vvith assurance of truth that the said newe Testament vvas vvritten by the said sacred authours inspired and directed by the holy Ghost and that euer since their daies it hath beene preserued in her sacred bosome vvithout corruption And no other answere hauing any probability of truth and sufficient to satisfie a reasonable mans vnderstanding can be made This may also be confirmed by the continual practise of the Church For no man can deny but it vvas her doing that the foure Gospels of S. Mathewe Marke Luke and Iohn See part 2 chap. 5. Sect. 2. were receiued and the Gospel called of Nicodemus with others rejected She hath likwise now receiued as Canonical diuers bookes in times past of
1. retract cap. 4. Aug. li. 1. ad Simpli cianū c. 1. The lawe of God being read onlie not vnderstood or not fulfilled doth kil for then it is called the letter by the Apostle S. Hierome likewise approueth the same interpretation and to the same effect in the place aboue cited he hath these vvordes b Hier. in c. 1. ad Galat Epist. ad Nepot in li. 3. Reg. c. 1. Then the Scripture is profitable to the bearers when it is not expounded without Christ that is to say not contrary to the rule of faith deliuered by Christ to his Church when it is not spoken without the Father when he that preacheth doth not insinuate it without the spirit otherwise saith he the deuil which alleageth Scriptures and al Heretikes according to Ezechiel of Scriptures make cushions which they may put vnder the elbow of men of al ages Thus much S. Hierome Finally S. Augustine writeth thus c Aug. epist 222. Loue exceedingly the vnderstanding because the Scriptures themselues except they be rightly vnderstood cannot be profitable vnto thee And the reason of this is that which I haue already touched to wit that a false sense or inrerpretation of the letter of the holy Scriptures which was neuer intended by the holy Ghost but erroneously gathered out of the wordes by a mans priuate discourse or deduction putteth as it were another life or soule vpon the said letter and turneth it cleane another vvay vvherefore so vnderstood it is his vvord that so expoundeth it not the word of God who intended altogether another sense Rai in his conferēce with Har. pag. 68. And hence it is that M. Rainolds a Protestant affirmeth that it is not the shewe but the sense of the wordes of Scripture that must decide controuersies SECTION THE FIFT The true sense of the holy Scriptures is to be learned of the Catholike Church who is the true judge thereof NOVVE seing that the Scripture of it selfe is hard and euerie particuler man may erre in the exposition of it seing also that the false vnderstanding of it is so dangerous and the true sense so soueraigne let vs see whether we can finde out any certaine and infallible guide whose judgement we may follow securely and without al feare of errour in this matter I affirme therefore that like as we receiue the letter of the holy Scripture from the Catholike Church and by her censure infallibly knowe it to be Canonical so likewise we are to receiue the sense and exposition of the said letter from the same our holy mother and receiuing and following the sense by her approued we cannot possibly erre wherefore vpon it we may securely build our faith and saluation This may be inferred out of those thinges which haue beene already proued for if the letter it selfe be not properly Scripture without the true sense which is as it were the life and soule of the said letter and the letter be knowne vnto vs by the declaration of the Church it must needes followe that we ought also to receiue the sense from the same Church But let vs proue it out of the holy Scripture First therefore we gather out of the Apostle that Scripture ought to be interpreted according to the rule of faith generally receiued in the Church his wordes are these Rom. 12. verse 6. Hauing giftes according to the grace of God that is giuen vs different either prophecy according to the rule of faith or ministry or he that teacheth in doctrine c. Out of which vve gather the prophecie according to the rule proportion or analogie of faith is one of the gifts vvhich God bestoweth vpon his Church And what is meant by the word prophecy surely nothing else but the interpretation or exposition of the vvord of God this cannot be denied And it is confessed by our aduersaries themselues who in their English newe Testament printed in the yeare 1592. and 1600. in their note vpon those wordes of the Apostle Followe charitie earnestly pursue spiritual things 1. Corin. 14. ve 1. but rather that you may prophecy tel vs that the word prophecy signifieth the exposition of the word of God to the edification of the Church And although in the said English Bible they wil haue the vvord prophecy in the place cited out of the Epistle to the Romans to signifie preaching and teaching yet because al preaching teaching according to their doctrine ought principally to be out of the word of God it al cōmeth to the sel same sense Hence M. Rainolds in the conference held at Hamptō Court betweene Protestants Puritans Barlow in his relatiō of the said conferēce pag. 78. requested that at certaine times there might be prophecying in rural Deanaries But how shal we vnderstand those words according to the Analogie or rule of faith Truly the meaning of them is already explicated for by them we are taught that the exposition of holie Scriptures ought to be conformable to that rule of faith which was deliuered by Christ to his Church and by the assistance and direction of the holy Ghost hath remained in the same euer since vvithout corruption and shal so remaine vntil the end of the world And al this may be confirmed by that sentence of S. Peter before alleaged 2. Pet. 1. vers 20. No prophecy of Scripture is made by priuate intepretation that is to say no exposition of Scripture ought to be made acording to any mans priuate fancie but according to the doctrine sense of the Church And by this rule as I haue before noted S. Iohn the Apostle and Euangelist 1. Iohn 4. verse 1. Luk. 24. vers 45. biddeth vs try our spirits whether they be of God or no. Moreouer S. Luke the Euāgelist recordeth that our Sauiour opened his Apostles vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures Neither did he only giue them the gift of vnderstanding such diuiue bookes but also deliuered vnto them the true sense and meaning of the same I meane of the old Testament which only before the Ascension of Christ was penned And this gift of vnderstanding the Scriptures was perfected in them on the feast of Pentecost Act. 2. When the holy Ghost taught them all truth which gift also the said holy Ghost imparted and they deliuered to their successors and so by succession and tradition the same remaineth alwaies in the Church Iren. li. 4. cap. 45. Tertul. de praescrip cap. 19. Hence S. Ireneus telleth vs that they conserue our faith and expound the Scripture vnto vs without danger with whome the succession of Bishops which is from the Apostles remaineth Tertullian likewise refusing to argue against Heretikes by only Scripture willeth vs first to search out who haue the true faith it selfe whose the Scriptures are from whom and by whom and when and to whom the discipline by which men are made Christians was deliuered For wheresoeuer saith he it shal appeare that
circle because these two thinges are not motiues or reasons of the beliefe of one another after the selfe same manner but in two sundrie respects being so that we yeeld the reason why the Church cannot erre by the Scriptures as by a diuine reuelation approuing it For although we formally beleeue this because it is reuealed by God yet this reuelation vve proue by other reuelations contained in holy Scripture but that the Scripture is canonical although we formallie beleeue because God hath so reuealed yet this reuelation we proue not by any other reuelation but by the authority of the Church as a condition only requisite propounding it infallibly vnto vs. To make this assertion a little more plaine we must presuppose the truth of two propositions commonly held certaine in Philosophy the one is that two causes may for diuers respects be causes of one another so say the Philosophers the efficient cause is the cause of the being or existence the final cause and the final cause of the causality of the efficient For example when a Phisition doth administer phisicke to one that is sicke the final cause or end why he administreth phisicke is the health of the patient and the administring of the phisicke is the efficient cause of the sicke-mans health In like sort when the winde openeth a window it openeth it by entring in and entereth in by opening it so that the efficient cause of the opening the window is the motion of the entrance of the winde and the material cause and meane by which the winde entreth is the opening of the window because vnlesse the window be opened the winde cannot enter in Secondly it is also certaine that a meere condition necessarily requisite is no cause for example wood cannot be burned except it be put neare or in the fire and yet this approximation as I may cal it is not the cause to speake properly why the wood is burnt but a condition necessarie In like sort a lawe doth not binde except it be promulgated and yet the promulgation is not the cause why the law doth binde but a condition c. Now to come to the matter If two causes in some sort may be causes of one another wherefore may not we proue two propositions for diuers respects by one another That these respects be diuers in the proofe of the infallible authority of the Church by Scripture and of Scripture by the infallible authority of the Church it is manifest because the infallible authority of the Church is proued by Scripture as by a diuine reuelation the Scripture by the infallible authority of the church as by a condition requisite and that a cause and a condition be different I haue shewed We say therefore that Christ departing out of this vvorld left the whole summe of Christian doctrine with his holy spouse the Church and made her the infallible propounder of the same And being so that among other articles left this was one that she should not erre in executing her office this also she was to propound and her children by the diuine precept of God were bound to beleeue it Wherefore if in those daies before any Scripture of the new Testament was written a man had asked a Christian why he beleeued the misteries of Christian religion he might truly haue answered because they were reuealed by God If he had beene further demaunded how he knew such and such articles to be reuealed he might haue answered because the Church propounded them to be beleeued so that the cause why he beleeued such misteries was the reuelation of God the meane whereby he knew them infallibly to be reuealed was the propounding of the Church If he had bin vrged further why he beleeued that the Church in propounding such matters could not erre Surely he might haue said that this was before included in the beliefe of the misteries of Christian religion in general and consequently was beleeue because God so reuealed but let vs come to the succeeding ages The Apostles disciples of Christ whiles they liued wrote the holy Scriptures of the new Testament and left them to the Church in which among other misteries they confirmed vnto vs the authority of the Church and the Church propounded the said Scriptures vnto her children as Canonical Now then wherefore beleeue we or how doe we proue the Church cannot erre I answere by the reuelation of God contained in holy Scripture If it be demaunded further howe vve knowe such a reuelation to be diuine I answere not by any other diuine reuelation because this is the last and beleeued for it selfe but by the proposition or propounding of the Church which is only a condition requisite for the beliefe of it and yet a diuine proofe So that the reason or cause why we beleeue the Church cannot erre is the reuelation of God contained in holy Scripture the cause vvhy vve beleeue such a reuelation is no other reuelation but it selfe the meane whereby vve come to knowe that this reuelation is from God is the proposition of the Church wherefore the respects are diuers and also the objects of these assertions The respects because when we assigne the diuine reuelations contained in holy Scripture as the reason of our beliefe concerning the infallible authority of the Church we assigne a reason as it were by the cause of our said beliefe which is diuine reuelation But when assigne the propounding of the Church as that which moueth vs to beleeue the Scripture we assigne not a reason by the cause of this our beliefe which is diuine reuelation but by a conditon infallibly guiding vs as is aforesaide The objects also of these two reasons yeelded of our beliefe are diuers For the object of the diuine reuelations contained in holy Scripture assigned as the reason of our beliefe of the Church are the verities or thinges themselues reuealed and beleeued but the object of the propounding or proposition of the Church requisite for our beliefe of Scripture are the reuelations themselues contained in the saide Scripture For by it we are taught that the Scripture containeth diuine reuelations and is the true word of God And thus much of the second opinion concerning the solution of the question propounded which in truth giueth vs a very good method how to answere the cauils our aduersaries and rather addeth something to the former then is otherwise different from it For the authors following this opinion to this that we beleeue or accept of Christian faith as true require also the aforesaide inducements or arguments of credibility but moreouer they assigne a diuine proofe or reason built vpon diuine authority which moueth vs to the saide act of beliefe For as I haue declared they affirme that the infallible authority of the Church which is the general propounder of al particuler articles of faith is knowne and proued by holy Scripture as by a diuine reuelation they adde also that the truth of holy Scripture is as certainly
knowne proued by the authority of the Church as by a diuine propounder Neither doe I imagine that the followers or maintainers of this opinion doe intend to affirme that in euery processe of beliefe touching any article it is necessarie that we resolue it lastly to the holy Scripture for I thinke that notwithstanding that which hath beene said if we be asked why we beleeue the whole summe of Christian doctrine or any point thereof we may wel answere because it is reuealed by God And if further we be demaunded how infallibly and diuinely we knowe it to be so reuealed we may answere because it is propounded by the Church Neuerthelesse the first opinion of it selfe is sufficient although this may seeme more exact especially in Schooles Neither doe I or any Catholike affirme the knowledge of these pointes to be neccessary to euery faithful Christian for it is sufficient that they beleeue al such things as are propounded by the Church because they are reueled by God which is done by the helpe of supernatural faith Nay I doe not think it is needful that they expresly knowe this infallible authority of the Church as propounder of such verities or al such prudential motiues as are before mentioned But I deeme it sufficient that they beleeue such reuealed verities as they are bound to knowe expresly and others virtually moued thereunto by the authority of their predecessors or the asseueration of other faithful people for this is sufficieint in them either for the obtaining or preseruing the gift of supernatural faith Let vs now see in few words what solutions may be giuen to the objection made in the beginning of this Section First therfore according to the doctrine of the first opinion touching the last resolution of our faith I answere that in very deed the canonical Scriptures and their true sense are knowne by the infallible authority of the Church as by the propounder of such particuler matters belonging to our faith and religion as we are bound to beleeue Neuerthelesse it is lawful to proue the authority of the Church out of holy Scripture against such aduersaries of the truth as admit the said authority of holy Scripture but deny the authority of the Church So did S. Augustine against the Manichees Aug. cont epist Mā quā vocāt Fundam ca. 4. et 5. Id. de vnitate Eccle. cap. 19. et tract 13. in Ioānem Field book 4. cap. 7. § There is no questiō who approued the authority of miracles and denied the authority of Scriptures proue by miracles the Church and by the Church the Scriptures Contrariwise against the Donatists who allowed the Scriptures and boasting of their visions rejected miracles by Scriptures he proued the Church and by the Church the truth of miracles but that this manner of proceeding is lawful it is granted by Field therfore I need say no more Secondly I answere according to the other opinion that the canonical Scriptures and their true interpretation are infallibly proued knowne by the authority of the Church as by a condition necessarie propōuding them vnto vs but the authority of the Church is proued knowne to be infallible by the testimony of holy Scriptures as by diuine reuelations approuing the said authority And to affirme this as I haue shewed is no more absurd then to say that two causes may be causes of one another Neither doe I think this manner of proofe more to be blamed then the proofe of a cause by the effect and of the effect by the cause as of fire by smoke and of smoke by fire of the bignesse proportion of a mans foote by his steppe in dust or sand and of this againe by that Thus also the Philosophers proue a man reasonable because he is risible or hath power to laugh and againe demonstrate that he hath power to laugh because he is reasonable which kind of argumentation is not called circulation but a demonstratiue regresse Chapter 8. Concerning the second particuler ground of Catholike religion to wit Apostolike Traditions SECTION THE FIRST Of Apostolike Tradition in general THAT I may the better declare the authority and dignity of Apostolike vnwritten Traditions of which I am principallie to intreate in this chapter I thinke it not amisse to say a worde or two of Apostolike Tradition in general and although though I shal repeate some things which haue been already said yet I hope my reader wil pardon me seing that a just occasion of so doing is offered me I haue aboue affirmed Cap. 6. sect 2. that the whole summe or corps of Christian religion was deliuered by Christ to his Apostles not in writing but by word of mouth and that the principal meane for the entire preseruation of it in the Church without corruption or deprauation ordained by God almighty is the continual assistance and direction of the holy Ghost who alwaies remaineth in the Church and directeth her in al truth Of which I now gather that although neuer any scripture of the newe Testament had been written yet that the doctrine of Christ by Tradition had stil remained the selfe same entire and whole in the Church to the end of the world This is so manifest out of that vvhich hath been already said that it needeth no proofe in this place yet I wil repeate a word or two of that and adde a litle more to make it the more apparant I proue it therefore because our blessed Sauiour neuer penned the summe of his doctrine himselfe neither is it recorded that euer he comaunded any one of his Apostles or Disciples in expresse tearmes to write but only to preach and teach according to his owne and the holy Ghost instructions And hence it is that none of the said Apostles or Disciples wrote any parcel of the newe Testament presently after the ascension of Christ and consequently that the whole summe of Christian doctrine was published some time before any such scripture was penned and that the Church of Christ was some yeares without it S. Mathew the first Euangelist Euseb in Chronic. anno 41. published his Gospel as Eusebius recordeth some six yeres after our Sauiours ascension Hence also it proceeded that neuer any one of the Apostles or Disciples vndertooke the setting downe in writing of the whole sūme of Christian doctrine this is manifest because the three first Euangelists deliuered vnto vs very litle touching the diuinity of Christ one of the chiefe and highest misteries of Christian religion Neither had the fourth which was S. Iohn the Apostle any intention to set downe al that the other three had omitted for he wrote his Gospel directly against certaine Heretikes who denied the diuinity of Christ and that not by the commandement of Christ but by the intreaty of the bishops of Asia as a Atha in sinopsi S. Athanasius S. Hipolitus bishop and martir b Epipha haeres 51. S. Epiphanius and c Hieron praefat in Mat. et
in li. de scriptor Eccl. in Ioan. S. Hierome testifie And that al is not by him recorded it is manifest because those speeches which our Sauiour had with his Apostles during the fourty daies betweene his resurection and ascension are almost altogether omitted Neither did he write this Gospel at the beginning of the Church but many yeares after to wit about threescore and six yeares after our Sauiours ascension And like as S. Iohn so did the rest of the Apostles and Disciples leaue vnto vs such parcels of scripture as vve haue receiued from them some extraordinary occasions mouing them thereunto as I could easily declare and proue See Euse hist li. 3. Chrisost hom 1. in Mat. Epipha haeres 51. Baronius to 1. au 45. et 58. out of Eusebius Saint Hierome and others I know that * Field booke 4. cap. 20. § For first Field maketh shewe as though it were a plaine matter that the Euangelists in their Gospels S. Luke in the acts of the Apostles and S. Iohn in the Apocalipse Meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine and direction of Christian faith but vvhat reason he bringeth for it of any moment I cannot see And besides it is certaine that no one of them intended to set downe al because no one of them hath so done wherfore if they haue set downe al as he affirmeth either it hath proceeded from some common deliberation or consultation had among themselues in which they determined what euery one should rehearse or else from the disposition and direction of the holy Ghost who inspired them to write Not the first because no man euer made mention of such a deliberation or consultation and moreouer they wrote vpon diuers occasions in diuers Countries and at diuers times as Ecclesiastical histories testifie Not the second because Field himselfe graunteth that something is vvanting in these bookes which the Church beleeueth which would not haue beene if the holy Ghost had intended that al should haue beene set downe for he addeth that The epistles of the Apostles were occasionallie written yet so saith he as by the prouidence of God al such thinges as the Church beleeueth not being found in the other parts scripture purposedly written are most clearly and at large deliuered in these epistles Marke wel gentle reader this doctrine he told vs before that the Apostles and Euangelists in the Gospels acts of the Apostles and the Apocalipse meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine direction of Christian faith nowe he telleth vs that the Church beleeueth some things which are deliuered in the Apostolical epistles not being found in the other parts of scripture purposedly written Of which I inferre both that the holy Ghost intended not that the penners of the Gospels of the actes of the Apostles and the Apocalipse should deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine and also that he thinketh the writers of these books to haue missed of their intended purpose verily this last pointe seemeth to me no very sound doctrine And besides how wil M. Field proue that the Apostles in their epistles supplied al this want especially seing that the Apostles and Euangelists in the other books although intending to write al yet in his opinion omitted something and the authours of the epistles intended no such matter but vvrote them as he saith occasionally wherefore there is farre greater likelihood that these omitted something then they Further one Apostolical epistle at the least to the Laodicians hath perished Coloss 4.16 see 1. Cor. 5 9. Chrisost hom 9. in Math. et homil 7. in 1. Cor. of which is mention in the epistle of S. Paul to the Colossians And who can absolutely say that nothing necessary was contained in it which is not in any other part of the newe Testament Finally Field himselfe confesseth some vnwritten Traditions as I will declare in the next Section What then did the Apostles and Disciples expresly set downe in those their monuments which are contained in the newe Testament a part only without al doubt of the whole summe of Christian beliefe in which part they ratified and confirmed the supreame and infallible authority of the Church of whome the rest was to be learned and to whose custody they committed their said monuments so that the whole summe or depositum hath beene kept and preserued in the Church not al only in expres termes in the holy scripture but the whole by Tradition a part of that whole also by writing another part by only Tradition by which likewise the said scripture it selfe came to our hands And after this sort the whole corps of Christian religion without any alteration descended vnto vs. This may be proued by that which hath been already said concerning the true sense exposition of holy scripture Chap. 7. sect 5. for as I haue shewed the scripture ought to be interpreted according to the Analogie or rule of faith that is to say according to that beliefe which the Church by Tradition hath receiued from Christ and his Apostles wherefore the letter of the holy scripture is not the whole direction of the faith of the Church but the faith of the Church the perfect and ful direction of the said letter of holy scripture of which it followeth that the faith of the holy Church might haue remained sound and entire by Tradition although no such letter had beene published But let vs confirme this by the testimony of the ancient Fathers Irenae lib. 3. cap. 4. Among the rest S. Irenaeus discourseth thus What saith he if neither the Apostles had left vs scriptures ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they deliuered vnto those whome they committed Churches vnto which order many barbarous nations beleeuing in Christ assent without letter or incke that is without any written word of God hauing saluation written in their hearts by the holy Ghost and diligently keeping the ancient Tradition Hitherto S. Irenaeus And note wel that he affirmeth some to haue beene Christians without any scripture guided only by the Tradition of the Church He telleth vs moreouer that by this order of Tradition from the Apostles al Heretikes are conuinced in such sort that Catholiks shut vp their eares assoone as they heare them vtter any thing repugnant to the said order Finally he addeth that al that are desirous to heare the truth may see in the Church the Tradition of the Apostles made manifest through the whole world And we can number those saith he who are instituted Bishops in Churches by the Apostles and their successors euen vnto vs who taught no such thing as these men Heretikes dreame of Thus farre S. Irenaeus Tertul. de praescrip cap. 19. 20. 21 who suffered martirdome in the yeare of our Lord 205. Tertullian also affirmeth that by this rule of Tradition or prescription of Catholike doctrine Heretikes are to be conuinced And hence it proceedeth that the Apostle vvith
such vehemencie accuseth him that preacheth other doctrine then that which was before receiued in the Church Gal. 1 9. If any man saith he euangelize to you besides that which you haue receiued be he Anathema or cursed to vvhich sentence alludeth Vincentius Lirinensis in these wordes Vincent Lir. c. 14. To preach vnto Christian Catholikes other doctrine then that which they haue already receiued no where is lawful and neuer shal be lawful and to accurse as Heretikes those which preach other doctrine then that which before hath beene accepted it was neuer vnlawful it is in no place vnlawful and neuer wil be vnlawful Hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis Contrariwise for keeping vndefiled this rule or Tradition the same Apostle highly commendeth the Corinthians saying 1. Corin. 11 2. I praise you brethren that in al things you be mindful of me and as I haue deliuered vnto you you keepe my precepts or according to the Greeke vvord my Traditions And because the Church and aboue al others the Romans most carefully kept these Traditions Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4. S. Irenaeus called it the rich treasure-house of Apostolike Traditions wherefore vvhosoeuer is desirous to discerne a true Christian from a faithles Heretike must behold the doctrine of them both and pronounce him to be the true disciple of Christ who by succession and Tradition hath receiued his beliefe from him and his Apostles For like as a nobleman or gentleman of antiquity is knowne by his pedigree so a true Christian is knowne by the succession and descent of his Prelates and faith from them that first receiued it from our Lord. Neither doth this our doctrine any waies diminish the authority of holy scripture for this notvvithstanding we affirme that the wonderful prouidence of almighty God most wisely ordained that the scriptures of the newe Testament should be written that he moued the penners thereof thereunto and directed them by his diuine inspiration and this both for the cōfirmation and preseruation of the faith Tradition of the Church and also that the said Tradition might with more ease come to euery ones knowledg and that euery one by such monuments might learne to discerne the true Church of vvhich he vvas to be instructed concerning al matters of faith and religion But of our estimation of the holie scripture see more aboue Chap. 7. SECTION THE SECOND Of vnwritten Traditions in particular THis discourse beeing premised concerning the Traditions of the Church in general I come nowe to discourse of that part of the said Traditions vvhich are concerning matters of vvhich there is no expresse mention in the word of God and therefore are called vnwritten Traditions And first that both such Traditions are found in the Church and that the vvhole summe of Christian doctrine is not expresly contained in the vvritten vvord of God I haue already declared Section 1. because none of the Apostles or Disciples euer intended to set downe in any parcel of scripture the said whole summe of Christian doctrine and also proued it out of those words of S. Luke in the Actes of the Apostles in which he telleth vs Acts 1 verse 3. that Christ after his Passion shewed himselfe aliue in many argumentes for forty daies appearing to his Apostles and speaking of the kingdome of God For by this relation it seemeth euident that our Sauiour during the time betweene his resurrection and ascention gaue to his Apostles diuers instructions which are not set downe in particuler in any parte of the newe Testament for no Apostle or Euangelist relateth in particular these discourses of Christ And they vvere without al doubt concerning the sacraments their administration the gouernment of the Church and other such like affaires belonging to Christian religion which for the most part the Apostles left to their successors only by word of mouth and secret Tradition This in plaine termes is auouched by a Epiph. haeres 61. Apostolico rum S. Epiphanius whose words be these We must vse Tradition for the scripture hath not al things And therefore the Apostles deliuered certaine thinges in writing certaine by Tradition The same truth is affirmed by b Basil de spiri sācto cap. 27. S. Basil and the rest of the Fathers yea this we are taught by the Apostle himselfe who in his epistle to the Thessalonians not only commendeth most earnestly to the Church written Traditions but also vnwritten c 2. Thess 2 15. Brethren saith he stand and hold the Traditions which you haue learned whether it be by word or by our epistle Out of which place it is euident that some Traditions by the Apostle were deliuered to the Thessalonians by word And that here he speaketh of such Traditions as we treat of we are taught by al the ancient Fathers Among the rest S. Iohn Chrisostome gathereth out of them this conclusion Hence it is manifest saith he that they videlicet the Apostles deliuered not al thinges by Epistle but many thinges also vnwritten and those thinges likewise are to be beleeued d Chrisost hom 4. in 2. Thessa It is a Tradition seeke thou no further thus S. Chrisostome But that the Fathers admit vnwritten Traditions it is graunted by e Whitak de sacra scrip pag. 678. 668. 681. 683. 685. 690. 695. 696. 670. Whitaker f Rain in his conclusions ānexed to his conferēce 1. conclu pag. 689. Rainolds g Cart. in Whitg defēce p. 103 Cartwrite h Kemnis in exam part 1. pa. 87 89. 90 Kemnisius i Fulk against pur pag. 362. 303. 397. Against Marshal pag. 170. 178. Against Brist motiues pag. 35. 36. Fulke and other Protestants wherefore I neede not alleage any more of their testimonies And this is the reason wherefore we haue no precept in the newe Testament to beleeue or obserue those thinges only which are expresly contained in the said volume Neither doe we finde that euer the Apostles or their followers commended and deliuered to any Church or people the said newe Testament as a booke comprehending in expresse termes the whole summe of Christian doctrine Nay it is certaine that for diuers yeares before the said booke was written the Apostles deliuered al by Tradition and word of mouth Further that the estimation of vnwritten Traditions hath euer beene exceeding great in the Church it appeareth not only by this that diuers of the ancient Fathers as I haue shewed in the * Section 1. chapter next before by Tradition haue proued what scripture is Canonical and pleaded the authority of them against diuers heresies but also by this that diuers heresies haue been by the testimony of them only condemned ouerthrowne In the first general Councel of Nice as a Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 16. et 18. Sozomenus reporteth the Fathers especially endeauoured that nothing should be decreed but that vvhich they had receiued by Tradition from their forefathers S. Ciprian with most of the Bishops of Affrica
Diosinius the Patriark of Alexandria men of great estimation in their daies with diuers other Bishops in sundry prouincial Councels decreed the baptisme of Heretiks to be of no force therefore to be reiterated They confirmed this their definition or sentence with many testimonies of holy scripture seeming at the first sight of no smal force and moment for their purpose but al these their decrees were ouerthrowne And how surely by the contrary Tradition of the Church for b see Vinc. Lir. ca. 9. Cipr. ab epist 70. ad 77. Aug de bapt cont Donat. et cōt Cresc Hierō cōtra Lucif S. Steuen Pope of Rome pleading Tradition against them condemned their doctrine as heretical and pronounced this renowmed sentence Let no newe thing be brought into the Church let nothing be done but that which was deliuered vnto vs thinking it altogether vnlawful to transgresse the rule of faith by succession and Tradition receiued from the Apostles This is recorded by diuers authors of great fame and antiquity By Tradition the Pelagian heresie vvas confuted as is affirmed by S. c Caelesti epist 8. Caelestinus Pope and S. Augustine By Tradition only the same d Aug. de bapt li. 2. cap 7. S. Augustine and others condemned Heluidius the heretike for denying the perpetual virginity of our blessed Ladie Yea e Basil de spir sācto ca. 27. See Aug. epist 118. ad Iā Leo ser 2. de jeiunio S. Basil telleth vs that if we reject Tradition we shal endomage the whole principal parts of our faith and without it bring the preaching of the Gospel to a naked name I could bring forth diuers other such like examples and testimonies were it not that I should be ouer long But how shal we come to the knowledge of these Traditions S. Augustine giueth vs this most certaine rule f Aug. to 7. de bapt cōt Dona. l. 4. c. 24. see ibi c. 6 That saith he which the whole Church holdeth and hath not beene instituted by any Councel but alwaies hath beene obserued is most truly beleeued to haue beene deliuered by no other but Apostolike authority Such a Tradition saith the same g Aug de Genes ad lit c. 23. et con Dona. l. 4. c. 24. Orig. in c. 6. ad Rom. S. Augustine and Origenes is the baptisme of infants Such Traditions according to h Ba. de spi sāct c. 27. S. Basil are the signe of the Crosse praying towards the East the words spoken at the eleuation of the Eucharist with diuers ceremonies vsed before and after consecration the hallowing of the font before baptisme the blessing of the oile or chrisme the annointing of the baptized with the said oile the three immersions into the font the words of abrenuntiation and exorcismes of the partie which is to be baptized c. What scripture saith he taught these and such like thinges none truly al comming of secrete and hidden Tradition wherewith our fore-fathers thought it meete to couer such misteries Hitherto S. Basil It is an Apostolical Tradition as we are taught by a Dionis de Eccles hierarc cap. 7. S. Dionisius of Areopagus b Tertul. in exhort ad castita tem c. 11. et de corona militis cap. 3. Tertullian c Chrisos homi 69. ad populum S. Iohn Chrisostome and S. Augustine to pray and make a memory of the soules departed in the Masse It is an Apostolical Tradition saith d Hieron epist 54. ad Marc. S. Hierome and e Epiphā haeres 75. Aerij S. Epiphanius to keepe certaine appointed fasting-daies especially the Lent the same is affirmed by f Aug. epi. 118. ad Ia nu cap. 1. S. Augustine concerning the obseruation of certaine holy-daies and by g Damas li. 4. de ortho fide c. 17. et l. de Imagini See Ter. de coron mil. S. Iohn Damascene concerning the adoration of Images These and diuers other such like Apostolike Traditions are sette downe by the auncient Fathers and are to be found in the Church of Christ And vpon these if they bee of matters of faith seeing that they haue diuine authority both from Christ and the Apostles vvho deliuered them to the Church and from the Church it selfe which being the piller of truth hath accepted and approued them euerie Christian may securelie build his faith and beliefe If they be concerning preceptes of moral actions vve are bound to obey them and may doe it with like security wherefore h Origen tract 29. in Math. Origen giueth vs this learned counsaile As often saith he as Heretiks alleage Canonical scriptures in which al Christians consent and beleeue they seeme to say * Mat 24. verse 26. Behold in houses is the word of truth but we ought not to beleeue them nor to goe forth from the first Ecclesiastical Tradition nor beleeue otherwise but as the Church of God by succession hath deliuered vnto vs. Thus farre Origen wishing euery one in the interpretation and sense of holy scripture to follow the Tradition of the Church as also in the beliefe of al such matters as are called in question by Heretikes Vnto these proofes I adde that i Barlow B. of Rochester in his sermon preached at Hampton Court Sept. 21. 1606. Barlowe and Field two famous English Protestants admit of certaine Apostolike Traditions k Field booke 4. cap. 20. § Much contention Field telleth vs that they reject not al vnwritten Traditions yea he alloweth of the rule of * Chap. 21. S. Augustine before mentioned for decerning Apostolical Traditions from others as also doth l Whitgift in his defence pag. 351. 352. Whitgift But Field addeth moreouer this other that whatsoeuer al or the most famous and renowmed in al ages or at the least in diuers ages haue constantly deliuered as receiued from them that went before them no man contradicting or doubting of it may be thought to be an Apostolical Tradition thus Field I confesse that this notwithstanding he affirmeth Ibid. cap. 20. § Out of this No matter of faith to be deliuered by bare and onlie Tradition But why not such as wel as those which concerne the manners conuersation of men and are by him allowed as for example Why may we not as assuredly receiue by Tradition our beliefe concerning some article of faith as to vse his owne words concerning the obseruation of the Lordes day Ibid. That the Apostles Field book 4. ca. 20. § Much confession Ibidem § The secōd kinde Doth not the allowance of these also according to their common doctrine prejudice the sufficiencie of holy scripture But he graunteth further that They receiue the number names of the Authours and integrity of the parts of bookes diuine and Canonical as deliuered by Tradition He admitteth as a second Tradition That summary comprehension of the chiefe heads of Christian doctrine contained in the Creed of the Apostles which was deliuered to the Church
vs that in it the Bishops were assembled by the holy Ghost f Ciril lib. de trinita et dialog cum Hermia et epi. ad Anasta S. Ciril of Alexandria termeth the decree of the same Councel a diuine and most holy oracle also the strong and inuincible foundation of our faith and a faith defined by diuine instinct g Leo epistol 53. ad Anatho et 54. ad Martian et 78 ad Leonem Aug. S. Leo affirmeth that the canons of that Councel and of the Councel of Chalcedon were ordained by the holy Ghost h Constan epist ad EcclesiaÌ„ de habita Nicaenae sinod Receiue saith Constantine the great of the canons of the Councel of Nice with willing mindes this decree as the gift of God and a precept in very deede sent from heauen For whatsoeuer is decreed in the Councels of the Saints must be attributed to the diuine wil. i Gregor li. 1. epist 24. et lib. 2. indict 11 epist 10. S. Gregorie said He honoured the foure first general Councels as the foure Gospels k Iustin authent collat 9. de Ecclesiasticis titulis cap. 1. see Ruffinus in hist lib. 1. cap. 5. We receiue their decrees of faith saith Iustinian the Emperour more auncient then he as the holy scriptures l Caelestinus epist ad sinod Ephesinam Caelestinus the Pope affirmeth that he beleeued the holy Ghost to be present in the Councel of Ephesus And this prerogatiue of the spouse of Christ is also gathered out of those testimonies of the holy scriptures aboue rehearsed prouing that the Church is directed in al truth by the holy Ghost vnto which I joine this taken out of the Acts of the Apostles to wit that the Apostles and auncients assembled together in the first Councel held at Hierusalem in their decision of the matter then in controuersie vsed this stile Act. 15. verse 28. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs c. giuing vs to vnderstand that in holy Councels the resolution of controuersies and other decrees proceede jointely from the holy Ghost and the Fathers assembled and that he together vvith them propoundeth vnto vs such thinges as are decreed And because al general Councels euer since haue had the same direction and assistance of the holy Ghost they haue likewise euer vsed the same kind of stile Of the authority of the decrees of the said first Councel held by the Apostles at Hierusalem we are sufficiently informed in the said history of the Actes of the Apostles In which S. Luke recordeth Act. 15 41. chap. 16 4. that when S. Paul and Silas passed through the Citties they deliuered vnto the faithful the precepts of the Apostles the ancients that were decreed at Hierusalem and commaunded them to keepe them And like as al faithful Christians embraced those precepts so euer since al Catholikes haue embraced the Creedes and Decrees of general Councels building therein not vpon the authority of men subject to errour but vpon the authority of men directed by the holy Ghost and as I may say vpon the authority of the holy Ghost and men For the holy Ghost is chiefe president in al such general Councels Wherefore although euerie particuler man assembled in the Councel except the Bishop of Rome may erre in his priuate opinion yet certaine it is that in such a Councel confirmed by the Pope they haue not erred and vpon this euery Christian may securely build his faith and saluation Hence the Fathers teach that we ought rather to die then to depart from the decrees of general Councels a Ambros epist 32. I followe saith S. Ambrose the decree of the Nicene Councel from which neither death nor sword shal separate me b Hieron cont Lucif Hilla in fine lib. de sinodis S. Athanasius S. Hillarie and S. Eusebius endured banishment rather then they would contrary the faith of the same Councel c Victor in li. de Vandalica per secutione Victor Affricanus relateth the martirdome of diuers who suffered for the same cause Moreouer if we make the decrees of a general Councel subject to falsehood vve must needes condemne al such Councels euen the most ancient and best of an intollerable errour in this that they propounded thinges to be beleeued as articles of faith of vvhich it is not certaine whether they were true or false and made newe Creeds or formes of faith or at the least added some sentences to the old which they commanded al Christians to embrace as part of their beliefe For how could they doe this if they could haue erred and haue propounded falshood Vnto vvhich I may also adde that if vve bereaue such definitions of diuine truth the condemnation of al heresies condemned in auncient times may be called in question and doubt may be made vvhether they were lawfully and justly condemned or no and so we shal not only open the way to al dissention and deuision in the Church but also bereaue our selues of a principal meane for the condemnation of such newe Trinitarians See Zauchius in the epistle before his confession Beza volumine 3. pa. 190. 195. Hooker booke 5. § 42. Arians Nestorians and Eutichians as haue in this last age sprung vp out of our aduersaries Euangellical or rather Pseudo-euangellical doctrine This forced Beza disputing against such Heretiks to pleade the authority of the Councels of Nice Ephesus and Chalcedon * Beza epist Theâ—log 81 p. 334. 335. Zauchius in his epistle before his confession pag. 12. 13. Then which saith he the Sunne neuer beheld any thing more holy and excellent from the Apostles daies He addeth that Although al vse of newe wordes be diligently to be auoided yet saith he I so define that the difference betweene the essence and hipostasis being taken awaye what wordes soeuer thou vse and the word consubstantial being abrogated which vvords were established in the said Councels the deceits and errours of these Arians and Trinitarians can hardly or not at al be discouered or their errors so clearely confuted I denie also that the words nature propriety hipostatical vnion c. being taken away that the blasphemies of Nestorius and Eutiches can wel be refelled hitherto Beza Hence also Zanchius a Protestant of no smal fame vvriteth thus And because Heretikes when they durst not simply deny these foundations were euer wont to wrest and yet doe wrest and wring the same for the most part by false interpretations to their owne heresies Therefore that the true Churches may be discerned from the conuenticles of Heretikes we must vnderstand and expound those principles and chiefe points of doctrine in no other sense then as the ancient Church agreeably to the scriptures by common consent specially in the best approued Councels expounded them For what to say something for example sake can be more firme certaine and manifestlie spoken for the article in the Creed of the person of Christ then those
Canonical without his approbation although the number of Bishoppes vvere neuer so great as appeareth by that of Ephesus vnder Theodosius the younger by that of Constantinople vnder Leo Isaurus and diuers others And out of this discourse I gather that this authority of general Councels if we had no other argument were sufficient to perswade vs to detest and abhorre the condemned doctrine of the new Sectaries For the same Church which in the first general Councel of Nice condemned Aâ—ius and the Arians the same which in the second such Councel held at Constantinople condemned Macedonius and the Macedonians vvhich in the third held at Ephesus condemned Nestorius the Nestorians vvhich in the fourth held at Chalcedon condemned Eutiches and the Eutichians vvhich finally in other general Councels hath condemned other Heretiks and heresies The selfe same Church I say directed in al truth by the holy Ghost hath condemned and accursed Luther and the Lutherans Zuinglius and the Zuinglians vvith al their followers togeather vvith their doctrine in the last general Councel held at Trent But they say that this Councel vvas not laweful nor the judges indifferent I reply first that this hath beene an old cauil of al condemned Heretiks wherefore it may lawefully be suspected in these Moreouer it is sufficiently proued by Catholike authors and the matter is euident in it selfe that nothing necessarie to a laweful general Councel vvas vvanting in this vvherefore it is receiued by the vvhole Church as Canonical and therefore no vvise man seing that saluation and damnation vpon this depend vvil reject it vpon these mens reportes They affirme further that the Church hath no authority in a general Councel to make any newe article of faith To this likewise I answere that the Church properly maketh no newe article of faith for euerie decree by her made concerning such matters is either in expresse tearmes contained in the holie scriptures or gathered out of them by infallible deduction through the direction of the holie Ghost or expresly or virtually approued by the vnwritten Tradition of the Church wherefore the Church neither hath euer taught or shal euer teach any truth so newe that it vvas vnknowne to the Apostles For that which by her is defined and propounded was true before and an article of faith although sometimes not certainelie nor generally knowne before to be of such authority or dignity And that this is our doctrine it is graunted by Field vvhose vvords are these Field book 4. cap. 12. § Our aduersaries Our aduersaries confesse that the approbation and determination of the Church can not make that a truth which was not nor that a diuine or Catholike truth which was not so before thus Field Hence the Catholike diuines affirme that Christian faith neuer since Christs ascention hath increased or beene altered in substance but only in explanation or explication because the Church hath euer since only more plainelie and expresly declared her beliefe and authority to doe this vvas needful in her Vinc. Lir. cap. 28. 29. et 30. for preseruing of peace and ending of al controuersies This Vincentius Lirinensis most elegantly declareth by a similitude taken from the body of man vvhich hath the same members in his infancie youth vvhen he is at mans estate and in his old age and although for the diuersitie of time they are lesse and greater vveaker and stronger yet the body it selfe is not chaunged but augmented so saith he it falleth out in our faith c. They object also the authority of some Fathers but principally those vvordes of S. Gregorie Nazianzene vvho saith as he is alleaged by Whitaker * Whit. in his ans to Camp 4. reasoÌ„ Abbot in his answere to Hils 9 reasoÌ„ Nazianz epist 55. or 42. alias 102. ad Procop. Hist tri part li 9. cap. 9. That he had deliberated with himselfe and fully resolued to auoid Episcopal conuocations because he had neuer seene a good issue of anie Sinode I answere that this holy father doth not deny the authority of lawful general Councels as appeareth by his testimonie before cited and also by this that he vvas a most earnest defender of the Nicene Councel as is testified by Ecclesiastical histories and was himselfe present and subscribed to the second general Councel held at Constantinople He therefore only speaketh of such Sinods as was celebrated in those daies when he wrote that epistle of which fewe were lawful and none had good successe as appeareth by that of Seleucia Ariminum Millan Tirus Sirmium Bilson in his booke of the perpetual gouernment of Christs Church Chap. 16. pag. 396. Athan. li. de sinod et ad Affrican see also S. Ambrose epist 32. c. of vvhich in verie deed he neuer sawe good issue and for that cause he refused to be present to any of them and this solution is approued by M. Bilson a learned Protestant who expresly saith that this Father in these words condemneth not al Councels They bring likewise against vs certaine words of S. Augustine in his booke against Maximinus where he writeth thus as Abbot translateth him But nowe neither should I produce the Nicene Councel nor thou that of Ariminum as meaning to extol it neither am I held with the authority of the one nor thou with the other I answere first that although S. Augustine might haue proued out of S. Athanasius and diuers other authentical authors that the lawful Councel of Ariminum most notably confirmed the Nicene faith and that the Councel alleaged by this Heretike vvas but the supscription of the Bishops to a certaine forme of faith by threatning feare and affliction extorted by Taurus the Emperors officer after that the Councel vvas finished yet in the dispute which he had with Maximinus the said Maximinus opposing the Councel of Ariminum aganst the Councel of Nice he vvould not enter into the proofe of the authority of the one and confutation of the other but hauing most pregnant testimonies of holy scripture he voluntarily in that disputation ceased to vrge the authority of the Councel of Nice and so those his vvordes Neither am I held c. are vnderstood for the sense of them is I vvil not that nowe thou be bound to the one or I to the other Verely that he esteemed highly of the authoritie of general Councels al his workes and proceedings testifie yea his discourse before the vvords alleaged doth proue it as wil appeare to the reader For he saith that in the Councel of Nice the word consubstantial was by the Catholike fathers established by the authority of truth and by the truth of authority And in another place he telleth vs Tom. 7. de baptismo contr Donat li. 7. cap. 53. that we may securely auerre that which is confirmed and roborated by the consent of the vniuersal Church Chapter 10. Of the decrees of the supreame visible Pastour of the Church which make a fourth particuler ground of our faith and of other
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
lib. 5. epist 32. S. Gregorie of the deliuerie of the keies of heauen to S. Peter inferre that vnto his charge the vvhole vvorld was committed and that he vvas made Pastour and head of the whole Church But vvhen did Christ performe these promises Verilie no man I thinke vvil be so vvicked and blaspheamous as to saie that our Redeemer vvas not so good as his vvord vvhen then vvere these promises performed In verie truth after our Lordes resurrection when as he made this blessed Apostle general Pastor ouer al his flock exempting none no not the other Apostles themselues from his jurisdiction but committing al both sheepe and lambs to his charge for he said to him n Iohn 21. verse 16.17.18 Feed my lambes feed my sheepe And verilie it is apparant that by these vvordes supreame authoritie vnder Christ was giuen to this Apostle ouer al the flocke and Church of Christ For vvhat other meaning can they admit Euerie man vvil confesse that it is the part of him that feedeth sheepe to prouide them foode which belongeth to a superior gouernor What other thing is it to feede guide defend rule correct then to be superior ouer his flocke And this also the Greek word vsed by the Euangelist in this place conuinceth vvhich signifieth to feede by ruling and being superiour Moreouer who can deny but those wordes My lambs and my sheepe comprehend al Christians For the Lambes are the laie sort of people and such as are not spiritual Pastors ouer other the Sheepe are the Bishoppes and Pastours of the Church who bring forth vnto Christ lambs Adde also that al the lambs and sheepe of Christ without any limitation or restriction vvere here committed to S. Peters charge wherefore no man could exempt himselfe from his jurisdiction except he would deny himselfe to be a sheepe or lambe of Christ And this may be confirmed by those wordes of our Redeemer I knowe my sheepe Ioh. 1 14. my sheepe heare my voice I yeeld my life for my sheepe For like as in these places the word sheepe signifieth al Christians so it must needs doe in those words feed my lambes feed my sheepe I conclude therefore that in these words al the members or children of Christs Church were committed to S. Peters charge and that he was made Pastour of the whole fold and flocke of Christ But let vs confirme al this by the testimony of the auncient Fathers S. Leo of this matter discourseth thus Leo serm 3. de Assūpt sua Of the whole world one Peter is chosen that he may be preferred and made superiour ouer the vocation of al Nations ouer al the Apostles and al the fathers of the Church to the end that although among the people of God there be many Priests and many Pastours yet Peter might properlie rule them al whome principally also Christ doth gouerne Epiph. in Anc orat Chrisost lib. de Sacerdotio Hitherto Saint Leo. The same doctrine is taught vs also by S. Epiphanius who speaketh thus of S. Peter This is he who heard feede my sheepe to whome the folde of Christ was committed S. Chrisostome likewise is of the same opinion for he telleth vs That our Lord did shed his bloud to redeeme those sheepe the care of which be committed to S. Peter and also to his successours That Christ would haue Peter to be farre aboue al his other Apostles That be appointed him Pastour of his future Church That he committed to him the care of his bretheren and the charge of the whole world He also calleth his office then receiued Praefecturam that is a Lieutenant shippe or office committed vnto him to judge and gouerne Ambros in cap. vlt. Lucae Cētur 4. col 556. 1704. and explicateth it by that place of scripture Mathew 24. v. 45. Who thinkest thou is a faithful wise seruant whom his Lord hath appointed ouer his family S. Ambrose affirmeth that by these words feed my sheepe he left Peter vnto vs as the vicar of his loue and that he was therefore preferred before al because he only professed such loue Finally our aduersaries confesse that some of the Fathers honoured S. Peter with these titles Head of the Apostles and Bishop of Bishops Another argument also out of the holy scripture for confirmation of the same may be gathered of this that S. Peter in the said scripture is not onlie called the first of the Apostles but also among the rest when they are named obtaineth the first place He is called the first by * Math. 10 2. S. Mathew according as we read in al Greeke and Latin copies The wordes of the Euangelist are these And the names of the twelue Apostles be these the first Simon who is called Peter He is likewise named first commonly in diuers places as no man can deny Moreouer it is a thing most certaine and confessed by al Christians that the old testament was a figure of the newe and that the Church of Christ succeedeth in the true seruice of God the sinagogue of the Iewes now that in the old lawe there was alwaies one high priest no man reading the old testament can denie and it is confessed by our aduersaries themselues especially by the a Magde centur 1. lib. 1. c. 7. col 157. Magdeburgenses and Caluin of whome the first write thus In the Church of the people of the Iewes there was one only high or chiefe priest by the diuine law whom al were forced to acknowledge obey b Calu. li. 4. Insti c. 6. § 2. c. Caluins words are these There he appointed one Prelate aboue the rest whom al should respect or obey that by this means they might the better be kept in vnity hitherto our aduersaries Like as therfore in the old testament there was one superior of whom are those words of God c Deutro 17. v. 20. He that shal be proud refusing to obey the commandement of the priest who at that time doth ministrate to the Lord thy God and the sentence of the judge that man shal die to wit a corporal death which wordes our d Rain in his confer pag. 251. Whitak de sacr scriptura pa. 466. 470. Bilson in his treatise of the perpetual gouernement of the Church p. 20. Hook in his preface pag. 26. 27. 28. aduersaries vnderstand of his supreame authority both in causes temporal and spiritual without appeale to any higher So in the new lawe it vvas conuenient that Christ should appoint one high Priest his vicar ouer al the Church whose sentence whosoeuer despised he should die spiritually in his soule and be accounted no child of the Church Hence proceed these words of e Ciprian de vnitate ecclesiae S. Ciprian He that withstandeth and resisteth the Church he that forsaketh Peters Chaire vpon which the Church was built doth he trust that he is in the Church Further like as the true Church being among the Iewes
to the greater part that it must be obeied heresies and false doctrine might be established in a Councel without any meanes left vs to knowe when it doth erre and when it defineth a truth to which I likewise adde that it may fal out that both parts be equal And lastlie that we haue no warrant in holie scripture that the one part shal haue infallible directions by Gods spirit more then the other And seing that we haue the most manifest authority of the said scripture warranting vs that the successuor of S. Peter cannot erre neither reason nor scripture wil suffer vs to denie him this prerogatiue But like as I haue declared before the truth of the first part of this reason by the doctrine examples of forraine sectaries so I think it not amis in this place to shew the truth of the last by the positions and proceedinges of some neerer home There came to my handes of late a litle pamphlet bearing this title A Christian and modest offer of a most indifferent conference or disputation about the many and principal controuersies betwixt the Prelates Printed an 1660. and the late silenced and depriued ministers in England tendred by some of the said ministers to the Archbishoppes and Bishoppes and al their adherents At the end of this pamphlet among other objections which these Puritan ministers as making against this conference endeauour to solue this is one That they the said Puritans when they haue beene heard to oppose and answere what they can page 40. name no judge and wil not stand to any mans definitiue sentence but wil continue obstinate stil Vnto vvhich objection they plainly answere that they doe not think it lawful in any matter of religion to setle their consciences vpon the definitiue sentence of any person absolutely yea say they If both sides rest vnsatisfied page 41. and continue perswaded stil that the truth is on their side it were impious for either side in such a case to commit the absolute determination therof vnto the wil and pleasure of any man or men whatsoeuer They adde that it were vnjust for either side to require judges either incompetent or not indifferent And their reason is because as the prelates except they would wilfully betray their owne cause might justly refuse such to be judges as haue in any degree inclined more to the ministers then to them so may the ministers in like manner as justly refuse to stand to the judgement and determination of such as incline more to the Prelates then to them thus they How then wil they haue controuersies ended Surely they tel vs p. 40. 41. that in desiring as they doe before that the whole carriage of this intended conference may be published they make al the world to be judges therof that it should content any Christianly affected man that the ministers are content to offer their defence of these pointes to the view of al to scanne and to weigh them and so farre forth to judge thereof as if their reasons doe not satisfie them to giue them leaue to cendemne them of errour which wil be say they a judgment heauy enough to them if notwithstanding they shal stil persist in their former opinions pa. 41. 42. and that it is needles to name judges because his Majestie the ciuil Majestrates vnder him and the high court of Parliament though the ministers should appeale from them would in this case judge them and their cause whose judgment if it goe against the ministers and it appeare to be righteous the more they shal neglect the same and refuse to submit themselues vnto it the more grosse and refractarie they shal shew themselues to be c. This is the substance of their answere to the aforesaid objection And vvhat prudent man reading these thinges wil not first judge that this course is no sufficient meane to decide matters in question then that one supreame judge whose sentence is of infallible truth is necessary for the final ending of such contentions Who wil not likewise inferre that Christ who is not wanting to his Church in thinges necessarie hath ordained some such supreame judge And like as the Puritanes proceed after this sort so might either side of the Bishops if it should happen they should be diuided among them selues touching any point of religion But although these thinges be so yet we hold not the Bishop of Rome can rashly define what he please for he is bound to proceed maturely and to vse such inquisition arguments aduise of learned men and other meanes as are necessary for the finding out of the truth of the matter which he is to define Neither can he institute any sacrament or make any new article of faith vnknowne altogither to the Apostles or not deliuered by them to the Church as I haue said before of a general Councel Chap. 9. Only touching these points he hath power more plainly and expreslie to explicate to the faithful those verities which the said Apostles either knew or deliuered and to bring them as it were from darkenesse to light Some men perhaps wil admit that S. Peter had a prerogatiue of not erring in faith but wil deny that it was euer deriued to his successors This euasion is fullie aboue confuted yet here I adde further Chap. 6. sect 2. that this vvarrant from errour in faith was more necessarie after S. Peters departure out of the world in his successours then before in himselfe both because the chiefest planters and rulers of the Church the holie Apostles and Disciples were then likewise or soone after deceased and also because persecution daily increased and new heresies in greater abundance began to impugne the rule of faith receiued Moreouer our Sauiour building his Church vpon S. Peter built it especiallie vpon his faith not vpon his flesh as some of the auncient Fathers say neither so vpon his faith that he built it vpon faith separated from S. Peter or being in any other person but vpon faith as being in S. Peter the ministerial head of the Church Wherefore although the flesh of S. Peter be consumed yet seing that his office and dignity is in his successours his faith also through the warrant of Christ stil remaineth in them vvhich is the foundation of the Church and the firme rocke against which Hel-gates shal not preuaile And this may be confirmed because Christ vvhen he praied for the faith of S. Peter obtained and imparted this prerogatiue vnto him as his supreame vicar or by reason of his office Wherefore seing that the office continueth alwaies in the Church the priuiledg likewise must alwaies remaine in the same And this is the doctrine of the auncient Fathers and their exposition of the places of scripture alleaged Hence in the third general a Concil Ephes to 2. cap. 16. Councel the Bishop of Rome is called the ordinary successour and vicar of S. Peter prince of the Apostles And the like
Doctors who planted ruled and instructed the Church presently after Christs Ascention are to beleeued and obeied but also that the like credit is to be giuen to their successors who in al ages following haue supplied and shal euer vntil the day of judgment supply their places and consequently that they also haue beene and are directed in al truth otherwise they might haue wauered and erred themselues and so haue drawne the vvhole Church to such inconueniences Seing therefore that the fathers of the Church in their ages haue supplied such places it must needs followe that they haue enjoyed the like priuiledges and prerogatiues Moreouer the Iewes were bound to heare and obey the Scribes Pharisees of the old law as we are taught by these wordes of Christ Math. 23. v. 2. 3. Vpon the chaire of Moises haue sitten the Scribes and Pharisees al things therefore whatsoeuer they shal say to you obserue ye and doe ye Who then wil be so impudent as to say that Christians are not bound to heare and obey the prelates of the Church Luke 10. see also Math. 10. Ioh. 13. Iren. li. 4. cap. 4. especially seing that of them Christ hath said He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me which wordes argue as great truth in their doctrine as there is in the doctrine of Christ who is truth it selfe Hence S. Irenaeus telleth vs that we ought to obey those who haue succession from the Apostles who together with the succession of their Bishopriks haue receiued the gifts or priuiledges of truth And although these sentences are principallie verified in the prelates of the Church assembled in a general Councel yet they must needs also be confessed true in the whole body of them in al ages dispersed through the vvhole world and in euerie one of them vvhen he teacheth and deliuereth vs the doctrine of the vniuersal Church Finally the ancient Fathers are most pregnant and faithful witnesses of that Depositum or summe of Chistian doctrine which they receiued from their predecessors and deliuered to their successours They are also most indifferent judges of al controuersies after their daies arising in the Church because they liued before euer any such controuersie was moued and therefore are partial of no side Aug. cont Iulianuni li. 2. c. 10. Hence are these vvords of S. Augustine to the Pelagians concerning this matter They he speaketh of the Fathers that liued before him were angry neither with you nor with vs they fauoured neither you nor vs That which they found in the Church they held fast that which they learned they taught that which they receiued of their Fathers they deliuered to their children Hitherto S. Augustine This moued the same holie Father and diuers others to appeale so often to the judgment of their predecessours and to cite their testimonies And these arguments in like manner proue that the truth of faith and religion alwaies and in al ages remaineth among the true Bishops and Pastors of the Church and consequentlie that at al times euen at this present a man may securelie followe their beliefe and doctrine This I say the authorities alleaged testifie for the Church must neuer erre her prelates are alwaies to stay vs from wauering in faith c. 1. Cor. 11. verse 16. August epist 118. cap. 5. Idē epist 86. ad Casulā And it is moreouer insinuated vnto vs by the Apostle in these words But if a man seeme contentious we haue no such custome nor the Church of God for as we see in them he pleadeth the custome of the Church against the contentious And this moued S. Augustine to tearme it most insolent madnes to dispute against that which the whole church holdeth he telleth vs also that the custom of the people of God or the ordināces of our ancestors are to be held as a law in those things in which the diuine scripture prescribeth nothing certaine S. Hierome is of the same opinion for in his dialogue against the Luciferians he bringeth in the Heretike affirming that the consent of the whole world hath the force of a lawe although it be in a matter not to be proued by scripture Epiphani haeres 75. and maketh the Catholike assent to his assertion The like hath S. Epiphanius who disputing against Aerius in defence of certaine fasting-daies obserued in the Church vseth this argument The Church receiued them and the whole world in it consented before Aerius was and they which of him are called Aerians the same is affirmed by the rest of the Fathers In the last place for a ground of our faith I must adde such propositions as are deduced out of these most certaine grounds by an euident and infallible argument For although it is commonly held that in a sillogisme of one proposition of faith and another knowne onlie by the light of natural reason the conclusion is not properly of faith but Theological that is a conclusion in diuinity held most true yet certaine it is See Greg. de Valētia in secūda secūdae disput 1. qu. 1. pūcto 2. that a conclusion following in a silogisme of two propositions of faith is indirectly and as the diuines say immediatelie de fide or of faith as also that proposition is which is inferred by good and euident consequence of a proposition of faith because whosoeuer denieth the proposition inferred wil be constrained to deny the proposition or propositions of which it is inferred But concerning such propositions the vnlearned if occasion be offered must craue instructions of the learned Chapter 12. Containing the conclusion of the first part THESE be the immoueable and most firme grounds which we finde in the Church of Christ whereon vve build our faith and religion Vpon these sure foundations as vpon a firme rock euery Catholike buildeth his beliefe and saluation And although the articles deliuered vnto vs by the Church be not apparant to our senses nor for the most part comprehensible by reason yet in al such matters according to the saying of the Apostle We make our reason and vnderstanding captiue vnto the obedience of Christ 2. Corint 10. vers 5. 1. Corint 2. vers 5. and acknowledge with the same Apostle that our faith is not in the wisedome of men but in the power of God And therefore that in such misteries aboue reason we cannot shew our selues more reasonable then to leaue off reasoning Genes 18. vers 14. Luk. 1 37. Math. 19 26. Mat. 16 17. Verily we are taught by the scripture that nothing is hard much lesse impossible vnto God yea that al things are possible with him although with men impossible And if scripture had not taught vs this reason it selfe would easily perswade vs to assent vnto it because by nature he is omnipotent We know also that it is not flesh and bloud that hath reuealed such things vnto vs but God himselfe who being eternal wisdome truth can
Apologie of three testimonies of holie scripture c. Hillar l. aduersus Constantium Verilie Parkes a Protestant writer hauing discoursed of such contention here at home affirmeth that by it setled mindes are distracted the parts of the same bodie dismembred and religion it selfe brought to be a matter of meere dispute and altercation not without feare saith he that it befal vnto vs as it did to the builders of Babel or to the bretheren of Cadmus He hath also these wordes These contentions are no smal preparatiues to Atheisme in that we may now say as Hillarie said of his time that there are so many faiths as wil◠so many doctrins as maners of men whils either we write them as we list or vnderstand them as we please in so much that many are brought euen to their wits end not knowing what to doe Amidst al which miseries and mischiefs the Papists insult triumph to se those that professe themselues brethren to be at such deadly fewd among themselues thus Parks To the same effect writeth Powel who auoucheth that through this dissention together vvith other inconueniences from it flowing by him recited Many for want of knowledg are wrapped in ignorance doe not cal vppon God but fly God Many fal into an Epicurian contempt of religion and are oppressed with dispaire And thus much of the first roote of Atheisme among our aduersaries A second reason of the multitude of atheists among them I deem to be the liberty which they giue to euery person to examine sundry of the high misteries of Christian religion by the rule measure of their owne feble vnderstāding according to their owne fancies to frame interpretations of scripture For this liberty the principal Sectaries hauing taken to themselues they haue consequētly as Tertullian long since noted in Heretiks both by example and otherwise giuen the same to euery one of their followers Tert. de praescript c. 42. Caluin lib. 4. Instit cap. 17. § 20. For example Caluin telleth the defenders of the real presence that howsoeuer they cry out that they be touched with reuerence of the wordes of Christ whereby they doe not figuratiuely vnderstand those thinges that were plainely spoken yet that this is not a pretence rightful enough why they should so refuse al the reasons which they object to the contrary And what reasons bringeth he others against it Their common arguments are that the same body cannot be at the same instant in sundry places that so great a corporal body cannot be in so smal a roome that the accidents of bread and wine cannot be without a subject that it repugneth to the nature of a body to be wholy in al and wholy in euery part of the Host But vvho seeth not that by this manner of proceeding and arguing they giue occasion to Atheists to impugne the truth of the B. Trinity the presence of God in al places the incarnation of Christ the resurrection of our bodies the immortallity of our soules and other such like articles For like as they affirme the real presence to be impossible because the same bodie cannot be at the same instant in sundry places so may an Atheist argue that it repugneth that the selfe same nature without any distinction should be in three distinct persons or that the selfe same bodies beeing once corrupted should rise againe Nay it is certaine that some of our late aduersaries haue in very deede pleaded this argument of impossibility against the B. Trinity Moreouer Theodosius Schimberg epist praefixa scriptis Ioan. Sōmeri Thedorus Dorchius li. Germanico quo defē dit dogmata Francis Dauidis like as they impugne the real presence because so great a body cannot be in so smal a place nor the accidents of bread and wine vvithout a subject nor the body of Christ wholy in the whole and wholy in euery part of the Host c. So may an Atheist dispute against the incarnation that it is repugnant that two natures should be vnited in one person because no substance can be without a proper subsistence which is euen as natural vnto it as inherence is to an accident against the presence of God in euerie place and the spiritual nature of the soule because neither God can be wholie in the whole and wholie in euerie part of the vvorld as they may falslie imagine nor the soule of man wholie in the whole and wholie in euery part of his bodie And although these arguments in verie deed ouerthrowe not the truth of these misteries and articles of our beliefe yet are they euen as hard to answere as any of those which our aduersaries bring against the real presence Wherefore like as for the aforesaid reasons they reject the one as false so doe they giue occasion to Atheists for the like reasons to reject the others And vpon this ground of measuring al thinges by their feeble vnderstanding built those sectaries in Germanie Iacobus Curio in rebus chronolog anno 1566. p. 151 impress Basil vvho as Iacobus Curio a Protestant reporteth laughed Moises to scorne for giuing Adam and his progenie an age which exceedeth the measure and vvarrantize of nature and this is the next steppe to Atheisme And because the Sacramentaries much more then the Lutherans relie vpon natural reason in matters of faith hence perhaps it proceeded that Brentius a Lutheran whom Iewel calleth a most graue and learned man foretold Iewel in the defence of the Apol. part 4. c. 19.20 § 1. Brentius in recognit c. in fide et in Bullengeri Coron de anno 1564. that it would in short time come to passe that by the Zuinglians the heresie of Nestorius would be brought againe into the Church and nothing more would remaine of the articles of our religion but Paganisme Talmudisme or Iudaisme and Mahometisme would be brought into the Church Thirdlie sinne which nowe through these sectaries licentious doctrine aboundeth among them as I wil declare in my treatise of the notes of the Church bringeth them also to Atheisme for besides that continual carnal pleasures dul and darken the vnderstanding and make it vnapt to conceaue the articles of our faith custome and delight in sinne breed also a desire of sinning without restraint or scruple of conscience vvhich desire maketh them vnwilling to think of spiritual matters and moueth them to accept of any perswasions whatsoeuer be they neuer so absurd disprouing those articles of our faith which vsuallie moue men to feare of punishment due to sinful actions In the fourth place I adde their blasphemous doctrine against God by which they make him a tirant in commanding vs to doe things which are not in our power for they a That this is their doctrine I wil proue at large in my treatise of the definition notes of the Church hold his commaundementes to be impossible and damning vs euerlastinglie for not performing that vvhich he knoweth vs not able to doe They make him
likwise as I may say a diuel in being the cause of our sinne and wickednesse of which crime Caluin is accused by diuers b Heshusius l. cui titulus est Aliquot errores Caluini Petr. Vermelius a zuinglian in lib. 2. Reg. cap. 6. Grawerus in bello Ioānis Caluini et Iesu Christi prīted an 1605. et lib. qui inscribitur Absurda absurdorum absurdissima Caluinistica absurda prīted also an 1605 Protestants of great fame And this last assertion made one apprehended at Mets in Fraunce an Atheist as c Duraeus cōtra Whitak ī confut respō ad 10. ratio pag. 432. Duraeus recordeth vvho being brought before the Magistrats and demanded how he came to be of that blaspheamous opinion answered that he learned it out of Caluins Institutions For said he reading there that God is the authour of sinne I thought it better to denie that there is a God then to acknowledge a God so vvicked thus he And in verie deed d Basil in bomil Quod deus non est auctor malorum S. Basil telleth vs that it is the same madnesse to deny God and to make him the author of sinne An other of our aduersaries named e Historia Dauidis Georgij printed at Antwerpe anno 1560. published by the Protestants of Basil Dauid George affirmed himself to be Christ and oppugned our Sauiour and his Church with this argument If the doctrine of Christ said he and his Apostles had beene true and perfect certainelie the Church by them planted could not haue perished for Iesus said that hel gates should not preuaile against it But it is manifest and knowne to al men that the Church hath perished and that Antechrist hath nowe for manie ages raigned ouer the vvhole world vvherefore the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles vvas false and imperfect This he argued against his owne brethren the newe sectaries vvho affirme that the Church of Christ was ouerthrowne And although the same assertion brought not Sebastian Castalio a man much commended by some f Humfred de rat interpret lib. 1. pag. 62. 63. Zuingerus in Theatro Gesnerus and others Protestants so farre yet euery man may see by his owne writing that it made him very doubtful wauering and perplexed in faith in so much as he plainelie professed Sebastian Castalio ī his praeface of the great lat ī Bible dedicated to K. Edward the 6. that he could not see how the oracles or prophecies of the old Testament concerning the glorie and continuance of the Church haue beene hitherto fulfilled in the newe and in verie deed it is euident that they haue not beene verified if our religion be condemned as false SECTION THE SECOND Of our aduersaries doctrine concerning the immortallity of the soule heauen and hel BVT farre greater is the number of those among the newe Sectaries who deny the soule of man to be immortal And first Luther himselfe may not only be truly accused of laying a certaine foundation or ground of this damnable error but also if we take his vvordes as they sound to be a maintainer of the same for vvhereas it is commonly held by al Christians that the soule of man is created by almighty God vvhen the body in the mothers vvombe is apt to receiue it Luther fauoureth that erronious opinion of Tertullian very much and seemeth to approue it which defendeth the soule of man to haue his being from his Parents and consequently Luther in disput Theolo habita Wittenbergae āno 1545. Thessi 31. denieth it to be created of God his words are these They saith he who deemed the soule to be extraduce that is by generation produced seeme not altogether do haue dissented from scripture yea these wil more easily defend the propagation of original sinne then they who thinke otherwise vt nihil sit quod dicitur so that it is nothing vvhich is said the intellectual soule creando infunditur in the creation of it is infused et in fundendo creatur and in the infusion of it is created who proued this or who wil proue that the like may be said of euery other soule what difficulty can hinder God from producing the intellectual soule both of nothing and also of corrupt seede thus Luther Cētur 5. c. 4. Dress de partibus humani corporis c. cap. de origine animae And in this he is followed by the Century writers who note the denial of this in S. Augustine as an errour and of the same opinion is Dresserus also But what is this but to make no difference betweene the soule of man and the soules of brute beasts doth not Luther make the generation of al these alike nay what other thing is this but according to the common receiued opinion of philosophers to make the soule mortal Surely it is vsually held in schooles that whatsoeuer is produced by natural generation is mortal and corruptible And no doubt but if the generation of man and beast be graunted to be alike occasion is offered to infer also like corruption of them both Besides this hither tendeth the opinion of Luther touching the state of soules departed during the time betweene their departure out of this vvorld and the day of judgement for what happinesse or action doth he attribute vnto them before the general doome none certainly for he auoucheth that they sleepe and howe his wordes shal declare vvhich are these To. 4. Luth. ad c. 9. Ecclesi v. 5. et 10. Luth. enar in Genes c. 25. fol. 351. et in cap. 26. fol. 392. 393. Ibid. in cap. 49. vers 22. The dead sleepe and vnderstand nothing of our affaires c. they feele nothing they lie there dead neither numbering daies or yeares but being waked they shal seeme to themselues to haue slept but for a moment Againe The sleepe of the soule in the next life is more profound or sound then in this Moreouer The Saints are in peace and rest not in the kingdome they sleepe and knowe not what is done thus Luther And for the place vvhere the soules so sleepe he seemeth to assigne the graue for he addeth in another place It is a strang thing truly that God maketh vs like vnto beasts by sleeping waking eating for the soule of man sleepeth al the senses being buried and our bedde is as it were our graue in which neuerthelesse is nothing paineful or troblesome so the place of the dead hath no torments but as it is said they rest in peace in c. 25. Gen. He addeth in the same place that the sleepe of the soule is so pleasant without passion of desire that it hopeth feareth or feeleth nothing In another place aboue cited he doubteth whether the soules of the wicked goe presently after death to hel or else sleepe hitherto are Luthers wordes And by this assertion Sleidā lib. 9. Sleidan affirmeth him cleane to haue ouerthrowne our doctrine concerning praier to Saints and Purgatorie yea Caluī
difficulties of holy scriprure are onlie to tame our vnderstanding and increase our merit But like as these places are brought to accord so likewise are those and euen with as great case which they alleage to disproue the authority of those bookes vvhich they reject and vve receiue Neither can an Atheist desirous to impugne both discerne any difference wherefore I conclude that by this manner of proceeding they vveaken the authoritie of the vvhole Bible and offer an occasion to Atheists of rejecting the whole Vnto this I may adjoine that Beza rejecteth or at the least doubteth of the truth of the whole historie of the adulterous woman recorded in the eight chapter of S. Iohns Gospel And why so Beza in cap. 8. Ioan. he yeeldeth these reasons The great variety of reading maketh me doubt of the whole matter To speake opinion I doe not dissemble that to be by me worthily suspected which those auncient writers with so great a consent either rejected or were ignorant off Furthermore that the storie reporteth that Iesus alone was left in the temple with the woman I know not how probable it is and that it writeth that Iesus wrote with his finger in the ground seemeth to me nouum et insolitum a thing strange and not accustome neither can I conjecture howe it can fitly be explicated thus Beza But if these reasons be sound and sufficient the same may justlie be pleaded against diuers other parcels of holie scripture and consequently Beza by this his manner of arguing weakneth the authority of the same Secondly they laugh and scoffe at the ceremonies vsed in the Catholike Church by which they induce their followers to think euen as basely of diuers ceremonies prescribed by God in the old lawe Leuit. 16. vers 21. c. As of that for example that the high Priest should put both his hands vpon the head of a liue goate and confesse ouer him the sinnes of the childeren of Israel and then should send away the said goate into the desert bearing vpon him al their iniquities The like may be said of the water of aspertion vvith vvhich the vncleane vvere sprinckled which was made of running water Numer 19. the ashes of a red cow burned scarlet cedar and bishop and a thousand other ceremonies far more reprehensible in an Atheists judgement then those which in our Church they cal Idolatrous and superstitious I adde also that by the same rule they giue an Atheist licence to scoffe at diuers actions of the old Prophets as of that of Ahias Selonites 3. Reg. 11. verse 29. 1. of Kings who to signifie to Ieroboam that he should be king of ten Tribes of the twelue Cut a newe cloake which he wore into twelue pieces and deliuered him ten of them yea by the same rule he may also laugh at diuers precepts of God himselfe to the said Prophets As for example at that of God to Ezechiel Ezech. 4. when he had him take a bricke and drawe in it the figure of the citty of Ierusalem he commaunded him likewise to sleep on his left side three hundred and ninety daies and and in the meane time to eate daylie a certaine quantitie of bread made of diuers sorts of graine and baked in the dung of buls then to take a rasor and shaue off al the haire of his head and beard Ezech. 5. and by weight to deuide it into three parts of which the first part he willed him to burne in the middest of the citty the second he willed him to choppe with a knife and the last he willed him to scatter in the winde And truly I see no reason in the things themselues why an Atheist should thinke himselfe more vvorthie of reprehension for scoffing at these actions then our aduersaries for running the like course against our ceremonies Nay I adde further that by their scoffing at our ceremonies they offer euil persons an occasion to scoffe at certaine ceremonies vsed euen by our Lord himselfe and recorded by the Euangelistes I wil exemplifie in one particular Caluin calleth our ceremonie of touching vvith spitle the nostrils and eares of one that is to be baptised before baptisme Caluī de Eccle reformat Willet in his āswere to the Apolog. epist sect p. 106. Mark 7 33. Iohn 9 6. absurd and ridiculous and Willet calleth it an interpretiue toy But who doth not see that this may be a motiue to others to pronounce the same censure against certaine like actions of Christ as that when healing a man deafe and dumbe spitting he touched his tongue or that when giuing sight to a blinde man He spit on the ground made clay of spitle and spred the clay vpon his eies I could produce other such examples Thirdly I haue declared aboue that miracles proceeding from God himselfe vvho can neither deceaue nor be deceaued are a principal motiue to induce vs to beleeue the supernatural misteries of our faith But the authority of these also is weakned by our aduersaries for although they cānot deny but that a Iob. 14.12 Mark 16 17 Christ bestowed vpon his Apostles their successors the gift of working miracles yet because such miracles in euery age since the first beginning of christianity haue bin done by those of our church as testimonies of their doctrine sanctity of life they either b See Abbot ī his ans co D. Hils sixt reason Fulk vpō the Rhems testam 2. Thes 2.9 Willet in his Sinop controu 2. qu. 3. deny that such miracles were euer wrought notwithstāding that they are recorded by al historians yea euen by eie witnesses of the same of great credit or else they attribute the working of thē to the deuil or to natural causes The first two shifts are vsed by the c Ceturiat in singulis fere Centurijs Cent. 5. c. 10. col 1393. Ceturiators who among the rest of S. Martins miracles written by S. Sulpitius Seuerus an author of great credit renoune a disciple of the same S. Martin whiles he liued giue this cēsure that either they were false or els that S. Martin was a conjurer The same deuises are approued by d Calu. in prae fat Inst Fox p. 204. col 2. Num. 7. Hastīgs in his Apolog agaīst the Waraw encoūt 2. See also Sutcl in his ans to Kellisons Suruey cap. 11. p. 99. Caluin Fox others The third is added by Sir Francis Hastings But euerie man may easily perceaue that the same shifts may be vsed by an Atheist for the ouerthrow of al miracles whatsoeuer although expressed in the scripture it selfe wrote by Christ his Apostles for exāple in the life of S. Martin mētioned writtē by Sulpitius Seuerus we read that S. Martin raised 3. dead men to life cast deuils out of men possessed that a woman was cured of an issue of bloud by touching of his garment c. These things say the new sectaries are either fables
deuised by the said author or done by the power of the deuil or by some natural causes wherfore may not then Atheists say that either it is a fable that e Iohn 11. Act. 9. Math. 9. v. 20. c. Christ raised Lazarus others or S. Peter Tabitha or that our sauiour cast out deuils or that a woman was healed of an issue of bloud by touching the hem of his garmēt or else that these things were done as the Iewes said by the power of Belzebub prīce of the deuils or by the application of some natural causes Surely he wil haue as litle regard of scriptures as they haue of the works of Sulpitius Seuerus and therefore if they grant it of the miracles of S. Martin and others he wil affirme it of al the rest although mentioned in the said scriptures In like sort f August lib. 22. de ciuit cap. 8. S. Augustine in his books de ciuitate Dei which no man wil denie to be of as great authoritie as any other of his vvorks g Sermo de diuersis 31. 32. 33. epist 103. and else where relateth diuers miracles vvrought by the reliques of S. Steeuen the first Martir as that by touching them a blinde vvoman receaued her sight that a Bishop by carying them in procession was cured of a fistula and that two by praying in the place where they were reserued were cured of a palsie And both S. Ambrose and S. Augustine doe the like Ambr. serm 5. de Sāct et l. 7 ep 53. 54. eau Romanae Aug. l. 9. confess c. et l. 22. de ciu c. 8 c. Lib. 4. or 2. Reg. cap. 13. Act. 19. v. 12. concerning the reliques of S. Geruasius and Protasius martirs as that a blind man was cured by touching of the beire or coffin wheron the reliques were caried vvhich miracles with the same answere are rejected by our aduersaries But who seeth not that an Atheist may with the like reason reject the miracle which was done by the reliques or dead body of Elisaeus by the touching of which as we reade in the bookes of the Kinges a dead man was raised to life and others wrought by napkins and handkerchers which had touched the body of S. Paul which are said to haue done miracles in the acts of Apostles The like discourse might be made concerning the cure of Naaman Sirus by washing himselfe seauen times in the riuer of Iordan at the commandment of Elizeus the prophet 4. Reg. 6. the said Prophets making of the iron of an hatchet to swimme vpon the vvater of the said riuer and diuers other miracles recorded both by holy writ the monuments of ecclesiastical writers of al ages against al which our aduersaries offer an occasion to Atheists to pronounce the selfe same censure Moreouer whereas the apparitions of soules departed according to the judgement of al the learned both auncient and moderne yeeldeth a most strong proofe of our soules immortallitie these Sectaries deny that euer there haue beene any such apparitions and consequently seeke to bereaue vs of this important argumēt their words are so plaine that this cannot be denied Luther himselfe writeth thus Luth. in explicat Euangelij de Diuite et Lazaro Idem in Euā dominicae 24. a Trinitate No mans soule euer since the beginning of the world hath appeared for neither doth God permit it Againe There is no doubt but it is wholy the Deuils worke or doing Quic quid vspiam est spirituum apparentium whatsoeuer is any where of soules or spirits appearing Zuinglius is of the same mind for these words he hath in his answere to one Valentinus a zuing resp ad Valentinū comparem Those things which thou babblest of the apparitions of soules are vaine and idle for the soules which are seperated from their bodies are in heauen or in hel Those which dwel in heauen neuer come downe those which are in hel cannot be deliuered the like hath b Bullīger decad 4. ser 10. Bullinger and others Finally their denial of freewil the merit of good works doe weaken the proofe of the immortallity of the soule the doctrine of the Apostle that god is a rewarder of our actions consequētly of the proofe also of heauen hel as euery man wil confes therefore I cōclude the whole discourse of this chapter that these Sectaries Church is a seminarie of Atheisme and that by their doctrine they shake and euen ouerthrowe the verie groundes of al religion vvhich their assertions being supposed as true they can neither proue nor defend against Atheists and enemies of Christianitie Chapter 2. The newe Sectaries debase the true Christian faith and in place of it extol a presumptuous faith by themselues inuented OVR aduersaries doe not only as I haue nowe shewed ouerthrowe or at the least weaken the principal grounds of al religion but also in some sort destroy the verie nature of faith it selfe by which we first come to a supernatural knowledge of God Chap. 5. For wheras in the first part of this treatise I haue proued that faith which concurreth to our justification and saluation and is the ground of religion and the foundation of spiritual life in this world to be a vertue infused by God into our vnderstanding by the helpe and force of which we giue a most firme assent vnto al those thinges vvhich are reuealed by God to his Church because they are so reuealed the followers of the newe religion I thinke partlie because as I haue noted in the chapter next before they haue weakned the authority of miracles which is the principal supernatural proofe of such misteries debase and as it were despise this faith and in place of it magnifie a newe inuention of man a Chimerical kinde of faith ful of presumption which hath neither ground in holy scripture nor in any approued author but is repugnant both to the vvord of God and the authoritie of al antiquity For they distinguish two especial kindes of faith the one say they is historical See Caluī Institut booke 3 § 9. 10. Calu. l. 3. Instit c. 2. § 7. by vvhich we beleeue the blessed Trinity the incarnation passion death resurrection and ascention of Christ and other articles of the Creed the other is a justifying faith vvhich Caluin defineth to be a stedfast and assured knowledg of Gods kindnesse or beneuolence towards vs which being grounded vpon the truth of the free promise in Christ is both reuealed to our minds sealed in our harts by the holy ghost Caluī ibid. § 16. see Luth. ī serm domī 2. quadrages In explicating this more at large the same Caluin affirmeth that there is none truly faithful but he who being perswaded with a sound assurednes that God is his merciful and louing father doth promise himselfe al things vpon trust of Gods goodnesse but he who leaning vpon the assurednesse of his owne saluation doth
of errour in al and consequentlie taketh from her al infallible authority and maketh her a fallible and vncertaine ground Chapter 4. They reject al particuler groundes of faith aboue assigned and proued to be found in the Church of Christ besides the holie Scriptures LET vs now descend to the particuler groundes of faith which we haue aboue proued to be found in the Church of Christ And although our aduersaries denial of the infallible authority of the Church and her assistance by the holy ghost on which the certainty of al such particuler groūds dependeth as I haue shewed before be a sufficient proofe not onlie that they reject them but also that according to their doctrine they haue no infallible meane to know what articles haue beene by God reuealed to his Church yet let vs declare the matter more in particuler and at large But concerning vnwritten traditions the decrees of the Pope the doctrine of the Romane Church yea of the whole Church of Christ I need say nothing because they al with one consent and voice exclaime against these groundes as superstitious friuolous and of no moment The difficulty therefore is onlie concerning holie Scriptures general and prouincial Councels and the vniforme consent of Fathers of vvhich the first is challendged by them al the other two by some of them only I wil beginne with the two last And concerning general Councels a Luther lib. de Concilijs Luther doth not only reprehend the first councel held by the Apostles at Hierusalem of which we read in the b Act. 15. acts of the Apostles and affirme that the decrees thereof bound no man in conscience but also calleth the Fathers which afterwards assembled themselues in Councels sicophants and flatterers of the Pope In particuler he calleth the Canons of the first general Councel of Nice celebrated in the daies of Constantine the great Emperour whom our c Barlow in his relatiō of the conferēce held at Hāpt Court p. 69. King by no meanes wil haue appreached of Poperie bay straw wood stuble and demandeth whether the holy Ghost hath nothing else to doe in Councels but to binde and burden his ministers with impossible daungerous and vnnecessarie lawes such according to him were decreed in that Councel I think he meaneth concerning the chaste and single life of Bishops and ministers The like censure he pronounceth against al other general Councels and concludeth his discourse in that place that more light is brought to Christian doctrine by that Catechisme which children learne then by al the Councels In another place he addeth that d Luth. in prologo li. contra statuta Ecclesiae he wil not haue his doctrine judged by any neither by Bishops nor by al the Angels but that be wil by his doctrine judge the Angels Caluin giueth leaue to euerie priuate man to examine the decrees of Councels by the exact rule of holie scripture e Caluin book 4. Instit cap. 9. § 8. 11. see also § 9. Let no names saith he or authorities of Councels Pastours Bishops hinder vs but that we may examine the spirits of al men by the rule of the word of God He likewise calleth the Fathers of the first general Councel of Nice f Idem lib. de vera ecclesiae reformatione opuscul pag. 480. see him also booke 4. of his Instit chap. 9. § 10. Phanatices that is men phanatical or deluded by the devil g Bez. in praefat noui test anno 1565. Beza telleth vs that in the best times such was partlie the ambition of Bishops partlie their foolishnes and ignorance that the verie blinde may perceiue sathan verilie to haue beene President of their assemblies the like censure is pronounced by Musculus h Vrbā Regi 1. part operū de eccl fo 51. Vrbanus Regius and others The ministers of the church of Scotland in the confession of their faith write thus i Cōfess of the faith of Scotl. prīt at the ēd of the harm of cōfess p. 19. See the said Harmonie of cōfessiōs sect 1. pag. 14. Without just examinatin we doe not receiue whatsoeuer is obtruded vnto men vnder the name of a general Councel for plaine it is that as the men assembled were men so haue some of them manifestlie erred and that in matters of great weight importance So farre then as the Councel proueth the determination and commandement that in giueth by the plaine word of God so soone doe we reuerence and embraces the same hitherto the confession of Scotland Out of which their vvordes as also out of the like assertions of others I gather that our aduersaries commonlie giue no more creditte to general Councels and consequently to the whole church of Christ which they represent then is to be giuen to the worst and meanest man liuing yea then may be giuen to the deuil himselfe For these may also be beleeued if they proue that true which they affirme by the authority of holy scripture which they al require as necessary before the decree of councel be beleeued Secondly I gather that according to their assertions we may likewise lawfully examine these their sentences or decrees whether they be according to the rule of scripture or no for they were also men subject to errour and moreouer because vve finde them not so as appeareth by that which hath beene already said we may also reject them as repugnant to the said scripture The like leaue they giue in like sort to those of their owne company yea to euerie priuate man whatsoeuer concerning al their canons and constitutions wherefore their followers or subjects are not to be reprehended according to these opinions and decrees if they examine their sentences and canons by the word of God and reject them if in their conscience according to their owne judgement they finde them not conformable to the same But what an absurd thing is it that a fewe ministers should presume to pronounce so seuere a censure against such auncient venerable and learned assemblies highly of esteemed by al true Christians in al ages euen since the beginning of Christianity whence wil they haue these errours to haue proceeded Certainly they must needs attribute them either to ignorance or malice of the Bishops and Prelates assembled But are they either for number learning or piety to be compared with them They are not without doubt as wil easily appeare vnto any learned man that shal with any difference read the Ecclesiastical histories and viewe the vvorkes of both sides Neither haue ministers being combred for the most part with wiues children and such other impediments that opportunity of giuing themselues to studie and deuotion as the auncient Bishops had who liued a chast and single life and gaue them selues altogether to spiritual affaires and vvere commonly verie holy men Wherefore seing that they also liued nearer to the Apostles daies it is verie probable yea certaine that they better vnderstood and knewe the
true sence of the word of God then these newe Sectaries doe and seing that their sanctity was so great malice could no vvaies blinde them Verilie any indifferent man if the matter were put to his censure although those ancient Fathers had enjoyed no farther warrant of the assistance of the holie Ghost then these newe Gospellers doe would rather imagine truth to be with them then with these But our aduersaries alleage for themselues that euery particuler man assembled in a general Councel may erre I answere that true it is that euery particuler man the Bishoppe of Rome being excepted is subject to errour but seing that the Popes judgement joyned vvith the assent of the vvhole Church in a general Councel is infallible and in such a case cannot be erroneous and no general Councel is of supreame force without his confirmation it followeth that the decrees of a laweful general Councel cannot be false The reason vvherefore the confirmation of al Councels dependeth so much of the Popes authority is because he is ministerial head of the Church of Christ and consequently the bodie must needs haue his assent and confirmation before the constitutions by it made be of force and certainely knowne to be free from errour and falshood Finallie our Protestants of England concerning general Councels haue decreed as followeth * Articles of faith agreed vppon in the Conuocations of the years 1562. and 1604. art 21. See Fulk vppon the Rhēs testamēt Mathew 8 14. Whitakers in his answer to Campions 4. reason in English pa. 110. Field book 4. of the church chapt 6. pag. 228. General Councels for as much as they be an assembly of men whereof al be not gouerned with the spirit and word of God may erre and sometimes haue erred euen in thinges pertaining vnto God wherefore thinges ordained by them as necessary to saluation haue neither strength nor authority vnlesse it may be declared that they be taken out of holy scriptures The like censure is pronounced by their principal diuines And M. Field telleth vs that Bishops assembled in a general Councel may interpret the scripture and by their authority suppresse al them that shal gainsay such interpretations and subject euery man that shal disobey such determinations they consent vpon to excommunication and censures of the like nature Out of which his assertion it is euident that according to the prouidence and wisedome of almighty god general Councels should not be subject to errour in such matters for otherwise men might be forced and that according to his ordinances to obey such general Councels erring and propounding false doctrine But this notwithstanding the same Field in another place concludeth Lib. 4. cap. 5. pag. 204. Luther tome 2. lib. contra regem Angliae fol. 342. that Councels may erre in matters of greatest consequence Of the testimonie of the auncient Fathers thus writeth Luther in his booke against king Henrie the eight of England In the last place Henry bringeth in for the sacrifice of the Masse the saying of the Fathers Here say I that by this my sentence is confirmed for this is it which I said that the Thomistical asses haue nothing that they can bring forth but a multitude of men and the auncient vse But I as against the sayings of the Fathers of men of Angels of deuils oppose not the auncient consent not a multitude of men but the Gospel the word of the one eternal majesty Here I stand here I sit here I remaine here I boast here I triumph here I insult ouer the sayings of men be they neuer so holy insomuch that I passe not if a thousand Augustines a thousand Tertullians did stand against me Tome 5 The like sentence he hath in his famous commentarie vpon the epistle to the Galathians his wordes are these Some wil say vnto me the Church during so many ages hath so thought and taught al the primitive Churches and doctors most holy men much greater and more learned then thou art Who art thou that darest dissent from al these and obtrude vnto vs a diuers doctrine When Sathan thus vrgeth and conspireth with flesh and reason the conscience it terrified and despaireth vnlesse constantly thou returne to thy selfe and say whether Ciprian Ambrose Augustine or Peter Paul and Iohn yea an Angel from heauen teach otherwise yet this I know for certaine that I counsaile not men humane but diuine things Againe No other doctrine ought to be deliuered or heard in the Church but the pure word of God that is the holy scripture let other doctours or hearers together their doctrine be accursed Hitherto Luther confessing as vve see the vvhole primitiue Church and al the ancient Fathers to contrarie his doctrine and yet rejecting their authority and obstinately persisting and obdurating himselfe in his heretical opinions Zuinglius to 1. ī explanat artic 64. fol. 107. The same course runneth Zuinglius who discourseth thus The Papists say who shal discusse the controuersies and dissentions which are at this present in the Church Who shal judge of them Who shal pronounce sentence I answere the word of God neither wil we allowe of any other judge They affirme we denie the Masse is a sacrifice who shal be judge of the controuersie I say the one and only word of God But presently thou beginnest to cry out the Fathers the Fathers for the Fathers haue so delivered and writ thus But I relate to thee neither fathers nor mothers but require the word by this only it ought to haue beene proued that the Masse is a sacrifice thus Zuinglius The opinion of Caluin is consonant to these Calu. in praefat Instit ad regem Galiae Item booke 3. Instit chapt 4. § 38. Al things saith he discoursing of the works of the ancient Fathers are ours to serue vs not to ouer-rule vs. Againe Those things which every foot occur in the works of the old writers or Fathers touching satisfaction moue me but litle for I see that diuers of them I wil say simply as it is almost al whose works are extant either haue erred in this matter or haue spoken ouer crabbedly and hardly Our English Protestants haue sufficiently declared their opinion touching the authority of the auncient Fathers by pronouncing so hard a censure against general Councels as we haue heard Whitak contra Sander pag. 92. Hence Whitaker one of their principal Champions vseth this discourse If you argue saith he from the testimonies of men be they neuer so learned and auncient we yeeld no more to their words in cause of religion then we perceiue to be agreeable to Scripture neither thinke your selfe to haue proued any thing though you bring against vs the whole swarme of Fathers except that which they say be justified not by the voice of men but by God himselfe this is Whitakers doctrine Whitakers in his answer to Campians 2. reason p. 70. see him also in his answer to the 6. reason pag. 159.
In another place he discourseth thus We are not the seruants of the Fathers but the sonnes When they prescribe vs any thing out of the lawe and diuine authority we obey them as our parents If they enjoyne anything against the voice of the heauenly truth we haue learned not to hearken to them but to God You as vassals and base seruants receiue whatsoeuer the Fathers say without judgement or reason being afraid as I thinke either of the whip or the halter if euerie thing they speake be not Gospel with you thus Whitakers defendeth his rejecting the ancient Fathers and vpbraideth vs for our high estimation of the same But concerning the fathers opinions of particuler points he telleth vs Ibidem in his answer to the 5. reason pag. 129. that Ciprian wrote something of repentance verie vnseasonably and vndiscreetly and not be alone but al the holie Fathers of that time saith he were tainted with that errour That is al the Fathers of the third age after Christ for S. Ciprian suffered martirdome in the yeare two hundred threescore and one Of praier to Saints he hath these wordes Prudentius I graunt Ibidem pag. 140. 141. as a poet sometimes called vpon the Martirs whose actes he describeth in verse and the supertitious custome of praying to Saintes had nowe taken deepe roote in the Church which as a tirant haled sometimes the holie Fathers into the same errour thus he of the beginning of the fift age when Prudentius flourished Lastly Ibid. p. 132. he defendeth the first sentence of Luther before alleaged Abbot in his answ to Hil reason 10. p. 371. Horat. lib. 1. epist 1. see also Morton in Apologia Catholica part 1. lib. 1. cap. 8. With Whitakers agreeth Abbot who touching the Fathers thus deliuereth his opinion vnto vs Where there is just cause we as men Nullius addicti jurare in verba magistri bound to stand to the opinion of none but of the holy Ghost we declining-wise doe leaue them But where they subscribe to the authority of God there we subscribe to them defend them and refuse not to be tried by them so far as we may by any holy and learned men of which sort we hold them but yet stil knowe them to be men hitherto George Abbot And note that these men pretending that they follow the auncient Fathers as farre forth as they followe the lawe or diuine authority or the authority of God endeauour to make shew of an opposition or contrariety betweene the written word of God and the Fathers in al points in which they forsake them whereas in very deed the Fathers vnderstood and followed the scriptures better then they doe and the opposition is not betweene the scriptures and the Fathers but betweeene the Fathers and the Scriptures expounded by these Sectaries vvhich scriptures so expounded they make a rule vvhereby to knowe vvhen the Fathers are to be followed when to be forsaken Our Puritans in this point at the least in wordes got farre beyond our Protestants He who is desirous to vnderstand their opinion may read the seauen and twentith chapter of the Suruay of their pretended holy discipline written by a a Printed anno 1693. Protestant in which he shal finde it set downe at large And among others Cartwright is there accused the places of his bookes being cited for tearming the seeking into the Fathers writings b Pag. 331. 337. See also chap. 4. p. 64. a raking of ditches and the bringing in of their authorities the mouing and summoning of hel c Parks in his preface to his ans of Limbo mastix prīted anno 1607. Henrie Iacob treatise p. 1. 3. 54. 81. 68. cited by him in the margēt see also saith he Bilsons sermons pa. 323. and the answere to M. Broughtons letters p. 17. Parks also a later writer telleth vs that If you alleage the auncient Fathers against them they wil tel you roundly that their opinions are nothing else but the corrupt fancies and vaine imaginations of men toyish fables fond absurd without sense and reason and some saith he sticke not to cal the Fathers of the latine Church the plague of diuinitie Vnto al these proofes I adde likewise that our aduersaries confesse al the auncient Fathers to haue beene of our beliefe touching euery article nowe controuersed betweene vs and them as I vvil proue in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church and yet reject their doctrine as erroneous and repugnant to the word of God vvherefore they must needes confesse al the Fathers to haue erred and so reject their authority Finally none of them wil graunt that any consent of Fathers whatsoeuer be it neuer so general touching any point is of it selfe a sufficient ground of faith without the testimonie of holy scripture which is enough for my purpose But it may be objected by some that diuers of these sectaries alleage in their vvorkes the holie Councels and Fathers abundantly not only against vs but also against their owne brethren dissenting from them in faith or thinges belonging to religion I answere that true it is that they so doe alleage the holy Councels and Fathers But doe they make their testimonie an infallible ground they doe not certainelie For although they approue their doctrine in some points yet in others they presentlie reject them The Centuriatores being Lutherans Centuriat 4. pag. 242. In euery Centurie cap. 4. alleage the Fathers against the Sacramentaries for proofe of the real presence but they reject their testimonie when they affirme this sacrament to be a Sacrifice In like sort our Protestants against our Puritans alleage the authority of S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine condemning Aerius for an Heretike because he acknowledged no distinction betweene a Bishoppe and a Priest See the Suruey of the pretēded holie discipline Whit gift in his defence and others but they reject the authority of the same Fathers in the selfe same places condemning the same Aerius as an Heretike for denying sacrifice and masse for the dead wherefore it is manifest that they onlie as Caluin saith vse the Councels and Fathers to serue their owne turnes not to be ouer-ruled by them In defence of our English Protestants in particular it may first be said that M. Iewel in his challendge doth challendge to their religion al the Councels and Fathers of the first sixe hundred yeares alloweth of their authoritie and offereth to be tried by their censure I answere first that this challendge made by M. Iewel is not general touching al points controuersed betweene vs but concerning a fewe only and those not of greatest moment Secondly I say that M. Iewel did this only to make a shew among the common people as though his religion had beene auncient not that he intended to doe as he promised to wit to subscribe to our religion if this challendge could be shewed false This appeareth to be true both because he maintained his vaine challendge
but also affirmeth that a right judgment of men by their power of jurisdiction maintaining truth and suppressing errour may be wanting in the Church and that sometimes almost al may conspire against the truth or consent to betray the sincerity of the Christian profession yea that most part of those that hold great places of office and dignity in the Church falling into errour or heresie may depart from the soundnesse of the Christian faiths so that truth be maintained by some few and they molested persecuted and traduced as turbulent and seditious men enemies to the common peace of the Christian world thus Field Which doctrine if we admit as true what authority shal we leaue to the Fathers workes wil not a possibility of errour followe in them al it cannot be denied but I need not dispute any longer of this matter for Field himselfe of these his three rules of beliefe vvriteth thus Field book 4. cap. 14. These three latter rules of our faith saith he we admit not because they are equal with the former and originally in themselues containe the direction of faith but because nothing can be deliuered with such and so ful consent of the people of God as in them is expressed but it must needes he from those authours and founders of our Christian profession Hitherto Field in which words he expresly graunteth that these rules originally in themselues are no directions of faith And truly although we could not ouerthrowe them by his owne sayings this only vvould suffice according to the Protestant groundes to proue them to haue no diuine or infallible authority that he bringeth no one sentence of scripture or other proofe for their truth but only this bare reason that nothing can be delivered with such ful consent but it must needs be from the founders of Christianity For if that be thought or affirmed possible vvhich he deemeth impossible vvhat force or strength wil be left to his rules but euerie man may also perceiue that if we admit his assertions euen nowe related concerning the error of the Church and her Prelats we must needes also graunt that it may be al the Fathers haue conspired in errour For if al the Fathers of the present Church at any time yea although assembled in a general Councel may and that in matters of greatest consequence as he saith erre Field book 4. chap. 5. and 12. who seeth not that it is a thing possible that in al ages they haue al erred This notwithstanding let vs nowe looke a litle into the vvordes themselues of these three last rules and behold concerning what articles of beliefe they are as also what conditions are required in them as necessary to this that out of the Fathers workes according to Fields opinion vve may gather any article of faith The first of them which is the fift in order as the words themselues tel vs requireth that the matter belong to the substāce of our faith by which words he doth abridge and limit the authority of the Fathers to be of force according to this rule onlie concerning certaine principal articles by him set downe vvhich euery man as he saith is bound expresly to knowe and beleeue He prescribeth also in this rule that the consent be general that is not only of al that haue written of that matter but of al that haue left any monuments of learning to their posterity that al make expresse mention of it and without contradiction of any other and that this is his minde he plainly declareth in the second and fift chapter before But what errour or heresie is there which contentious persons either wil not deny to pertaine to the substance of our faith or that al the monuments of antiquity doe positiuely contradict or which Heretikes cannot confirme by some or at the least by one sentence of some auncient writer Verilie if they drawe and pul the holie scriptures in such sort to their priuate fantasies that no sect wil be perswaded but that they fauor the false opinions in it maintained much more may they deale so with the writings of their predecessors which be farre more in number and not also penned as the scriptures are by diuine inspiration The second rule of the three last if M. Field wil not haue it to contradict that which I haue added at the end of them out of the second chapter before must he vnderstood according to it and then how vncertaine it is I wil euen nowe declare but if vve take it as the wordes sound it cannot be vniuersal for the decisions of al points at the least in the judgment of al men for al matters are not deliuered as matters of faith constantly vniformly by the most famous Christian writers and that without contradiction yea a man of a peruerse humour although in very deede it were so yet by wresting and false vnderstanding of ssuch authors would make appearance of the contrary The last may be confuted as insufficient of it selfe for the same reasons for it requireth that the point be of the substance of faith c. The addition out of the second chapter requireth vniuersal practise and necessarie and euident deduction out of the scripture or the rule of faith and as it seemeth that it be a matter of substance that in euerie age some be found to haue written of it c. which be things intricate not easily to be proued in euery matter cōtrouersed But to make al these rules more obscure he addeth in the fift chapter that the writings of the ancient may be much corrupted so that the consent of antiquity cannot alwaies easily be knowne Field book 4. cap. 5. Vincent Liriuens cap. 39. yet saith he there wil be euer some meanes to finde out and descry the errours and frauds of the corrupters And so he affirmeth himselfe to vnderstand that of Vincentius Lirinensis that the judgment of antiquity is to be sought out at the very first rising of heresies not afterwards when they are growne inueterate for that then they wil corrupt the monuments of antiquity Finallie these three rules are not sufficient to direct any man whatsoeuer whether learned or vnlearned to an infallible truth in al articles of faith for seing that euerie priuate man yea the whole visible present Church is subject to errour and al her greatest Prelates to heresie according to the doctrine of M. Field one man cannot build his faith vpon anothers judgement no not vpon the judgement of the whole present visible Church wherefore if we proceed according to M. Fields rules it is not sufficient to cause true faith in vs that others tel vs that the Fathers and writers of former ages say this and that but we must our selues read ouer the workes of al such Fathers and authors And how can the vnlearned doe this Yea if a man be neuer so learned he cannot doe it although he doe nothing else but read al the daies of his
themselues and of this their ground because the matter is of great importaunce I purpose to discourse something at large And first I wil shewe in this chapter that the bare and naked letter onlie of holie Scripture is not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion Then in the chapters following I wil proue that although we should grant the letter to be a sufficiēt ground yet that their bibles containe not the true letter Thirdly that although this were also granted yet that they build not vpon the letter contained in their owne Bibles Lastly that in translating and expounding the holie Scriptures they followe their owne fancies and judgement and that they haue no other certaine and infallible ground Caluin de ve ra Eccles reform ratione pag. 473. Apologie of the Church of Englād pag. 58. Articles of faith agrreed vpō the cōuocations of the yeares 1562. 1604. I come to the first It is a common maxime or principle among al newe Sectaries that the scriptures only containe al thinges necessary to our saluation and that nothing is to be beleeued or necessarily to be obserued vvhich is not expresly taught commaunded or allowed in the same or as some of them adde manifestlie gathered out of them * Harmony of confes sect 1. In controuersies of religion saith the confession of Heluetia or matters of faith we cannot admit any other judge then God himselfe pronouncing by the holy scriptures what is true what false what is to be followed or what auoided Al thinges ought to be tried by the rule and square of holy scripture saith the French confession Al things which are needful to be knowne to saluation are contained in the Prophets and Apostles writings saith that of Wittenberg And out of this ground they argue against vnwritten traditiōs ceremonies positiue lawes of the Church c. But that this doctrine is false euen according to their owne proceedings supposing that to be true vvhich they affirme concerning the infallible authority of the Church to wit that it is not expressed in the said scripture nor out of it deduced it is an easie matter to demonstrate to euerie mans eie for first this authority of the Church being set aside by vvhat Scripture can they proue the Scripture it selfe to be Canonical And seing that I am to discourse of this argument and their assertions be intricate I wil not only proue that according to this ground they haue no canonical Scripture but also absolutely that by no other means they giue it any infallible or diuine authority First therefore I may very wel frame this argument against the whole Bible out of their aforesaid ground Nothing is to be beleeued but that which is expresly taught in the written word of god or manifestly gathered out of the same but that the Bible is canonical Scripture it is neither taught in the written word of God nor manifestly gathered out of the same therfore it is not to be beleeued that the bible is canonical Scripture The major or first proposition containeth their aforesaid ground the minor or second is approued by Hooker who writeth thus Of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what books we are bound to esteeme holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And this afterwards he confirmeth with this reason For saith he if any one book of scripture did giue testimony to al yet stil that Scripture which giueth credit to the rest would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it neither could we euer come into any pause whereon to rest our assurance this way so that vnlesse besides Scripture there were something which might assure vs that we doe wel we could not thinke we doe wel no not in being assured that Scripture is a sacred and holy rule of wel-doing thus Hooker And this argument is of such force that it hath constrained some of them and among the rest the said a Hooker in his treatis of lawes of ecclesiastical policy booke 1. p. 84. book 2. § 4. p. 100. 102 Zauch in his confessiō c. 1. Brent in prolog Kemn in exam Concil Tridentini Hooker Zauchius Brentius and Kemnitius to flie from Scriptures vnto tradition for the proofe of this matter yea b Hook book 3. § 8. p. 146. See Whitak contr Staple l. 2. c. 4. pag. 298. 300. some of them affirme that this only tradition concerning canonical Scripture is to be rejected c Obseruations vpon the Harmonie of confessiōs published by those of Geneua fol. 593. Others and among them the Geneuian doctors affirme that some books of which there was heretofore some doubt among the ancient doctors of the church were receiued as Canonical by the common consent of the whole Catholike Church and therefore that they are not to be refused But who seeth not First that these men bewray the weaknes of the aforesaid general ground concerning the sufficiency of holy Scripture alone then that if the tradition of the Church yea the Church it selfe in her judicial sentence as they al affirme may erre in one point that it may also erre in al others of the same quality and consequently that the authority or tradition of the Church cannot infallibly argue the Scriptures to be of diuine authority Caluin instit book 1. cap. 7. § 1.2.4 et 5. Caluin answereth that the holy books of Scripture by them that haue the spirit are easily discerned from others by themselues as light from darknesse and sweetnes from sowrenes or bitternes And this his opinion is embraced by diuers and among the rest by Whitakers Thomas Rogers and Field and therefore is with some diligence to be refelled But before I enter into the confutation of it I must affirme as certaine that al these authors require in euery man to this that assuredly he beleeue the holy scriptures to be from God a supernatural inspiration of the holy ghost That Caluin doth so his sentences hereafter alleaged plainly declare * Whit. ī his answ to Campians first reason pag. 47. Whitakers hauing affirmed That it is euen as euidēt the scriptures be from god as that the sunne is the sun or that god is God and also said that there are in the books themselues proofs inough to demonstrate it yet finally concludeth that the inward hidden testimony of the spirit must be bad that men may firmly rest in the scriptures Againe Then only doe we attaine a certaine sauing ful assurance when the same spirit which writ published them doth perswade our harts of the credit of them Rogers writeth thus a Rogers ī his discourse vpō the articles of faith agreed vpon in the conuocations of the years 1562. 1604. art 6. p. 31. 32. printed anno 1607. We judg these books before mentioned Canonical not somuch because learned and godly men in the Church so haue and doe receiue and allow of them as for that the holy spirit in our harts doth
judgment I may adde the whole Protestant Church of England who in their sixt article agreed vpon in their conuocations of the yeares 1562. and 1604. affirme that in the name of holy Scripture they vnderstand those Canonical books of the old and newe Testament of whose authority was neuer any doubt in the Church for they seeme to make the authoritie and Tradition of the Church the meane and rule vvhereby to knowe the diuine Scriptures Field booke 4. chap. 14. Yea Field himselfe in another place telleth vs that we cannot knowe the Scriptures to be of God without the knowledge of such principal articles as are contained im the Creed of the Apostles Of vvhich it may seeme laweful to conclude against him that some other thing is necessarie besides diuine inspiration and other motiues aboue by him assigned The Lutherans of Wittenberg confesse the Church to haue authority to judge of doctrines Harmonie of confess sect 10. p. 332. Author of the treatise of the scripture and the church c. 15. p. 72. see also c. 19. p. 74. 75. BulleÌ„ger in the praeface before that booke according to that Try the spirittes whether they be of God Another Protestant in a treatise of the Scripture and the Church highly commended by Bullenger plainely telleth vs that we could not beleeue the Gospel were it not that the Church taught vs and witnessed that this doctrine vvas deliuered by the Apostle and thus much against this opinion But it may be here objected against vs that we also according to the second opinion deliuered in the first part of this treatise concerning the last resolution of our faith allowe a supernatural gift or light by the concourse and help of vvhich vve firmely assent to Christian beliefe as reuealed by God and that therefore there is no cause wherefore we should so earnestly impugne the like assertion in others I answere that there is great difference betweene vs and our aduersaries concerning this point for whereas I haue shewed that they require a particular illumination and immediate instruction from God himselfe concerning euerie particuler booke and sentence of holy Scripture yea touching the exposition of euerie sentence as I vvil declare hereafter and by no prudential groundes or arguments of credibility are ordinarilie induced to this perswasion But seing that diuers of their owne company and those of the principal thinking themselues to be inspired haue erred haue rather according to prudence just cause not to stand vpon such illuminations We assigne the the light of faith for the beliefe of a common guide and general directour and so require not a particuler instruction for the beliefe of this and that particuler matter but hauing beleeued the said general guide of it receiue infallible and diuine instructions what particulerlie is to be beleeued Neither doe vve this vvithout any prudential motiue or credible reason but induced thereunto by most strong arguments of credibility Râ—chardus de S. Victore l. 1. de Trinit cap. 2. insomuch as vve may wel say with Richardus de sansto Victore that If we be deceiued God hath deceiued vs. Neither are vve by this perswaded arrogantlie to followe a priuate rule which is a fountaine of dissention and contrarie to the vsual proceedings of God but humblie to submit our selues and our vnderstanding to the authority of a general guide which is a preseruatiue of vnity and according to the common courses of that heauenlie King But before I passe from this matter I must needes haue a word or two with M. Field in particuler vvho requireth more then humane inducements or motiues as reasons by force whereof we are perswaded first to beleeue Field book 4. chap. 7. 8. and seemeth to require a diuine reason or testimonie conuincing that which is beleeued to be of diuine authoritie and so to impugne the first opinion of Catholikes concerning the last resolution of faith Part 1. chap. 7. sect 6. deliuered in the first part of this treatise For vvhereas the followers of that opinion assigne humane motiues as the first inducements to our beliefe or as causes vvhy we first accept of the same and bring no other external proofe that the misteries of our faith are reuealed by God book 4. chap. 8. § The opinion he exacteth of vs a diuine proofe of this these are his words The opinion of the ordinary Papists is that the things pertaining to our faith are beleeued because God reuealeth and deliuereth them to be so as we are required to beleeue but that we know not that God hath reuealed any such thing but by humane conjecture and probabilities so weake doe they make our faith to be grounded thus Field Concerning which his imputation I must first request my reader if he be any thing moued by these his words to turne to the explication and proofe of the Catholike opinion set downe before in the first part of this treatise Chapt. 7. sect 6. because I thinke it needlesse to repeate one thing twice Secondly I cannot but wish him also to note howe diuersly Field reporteth our opinions for although he plainly here affirme that our ordinary opnion is that the articles of our faith are beleeued because God reuealeth and deliuereth them to be so yet in another place he writeth thus Our aduersaries fal into two dangerous errors the first Booke 4. c. 6. that the authority of the Church is Regula fidei et ratio credendi the rule of our faith and the reason why we beleeue The second is that the Church may make newe articles of faith And like as he himselfe in the words euen now alleaged freeth vs from the first of these dangerous errours Book 4. chap. 12. § Our aduersaries so likewise in another place he freeth vs from the second But as concerning my present purpose out of his aforesaid wordes I gather that if he wil not fal into the same fault for vvhich he blameth vs he must not only assigne such a diuine formal cause of his beliefe concerning euery point as we teach the reuelation of God to be but also adde some diuine proofe prouing this formal reason to be diuine and not only humane probabilities And vvhat such diuine proofe doth he assigne surelie none that I can finde he telleth vs in deed that in some things the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto vs Book 4. chap. 8. § thus theÌ„ and in others the authority of God discerned to speake in the word of faith is the formal cause of their faith or inducing them to beleeue But I finde no diuine proofe no not so much as a wise reason I adde moreouer not so much as a foolish reason brought neither for the one nor for the other nay he expresly telleth vs Book 4. chap. 20. § Much coÌ„tention see also chapt 7. § Thus then Book 4. chap. 7. § Surely See hiÌ„ also § There is c. that The bookes of Scripture winne credit
of their beliefe are not in expresse tearmes to be found in the whole Bible yea that the text of their owne Bibles maketh more for vs then it doth for them Out of which I may wel inferre that they build not vpon the letter contained in their owne bookes but vpon their owne collections which euery priuate man maketh according to his owne fancie SECTION THE SECOND The same argument is confirmed by the testimonie of some Protestants concerning the true sense of some wordes of Scripture alleaged for our Catholike doctrine touching justification in the Section before NOTVVITHSTANDING the wordes af Scripture cited for vs Catholikes are most plaine yet it may be some follower of the new religion wil imagine that we wrest them to a sense improper and in the primatiue ages of the Church vnheard off contrariwise that those of his beliefe deliuer the true literal and auncient exposition of the same Nowe therefore to make the force of the reason brought more strong I adde that I could easily proue euen by the testimonies of our aduersaries themselues that the letter of holy Scripture in these controuersies mentioned and others according to the proper sense thereof and the tradition and practise of al former Christians is on our side not on theirs But if I should here declare this to be true in euery particuler point I should be ouer long vvherefore I vvil exemplifie only in one or two of the principal by which my reader may easily perceiue what may be done concerning the rest Luther to 5. in cap. 5. ad Galat. f. 382. And first what article of religion by these Sectaries is esteemed aboue that of justification by only faith Luther himselfe writeth thus Whoso euer falleth from the article of justification by faith onlie becommeth ignorant of God and is an Idolater and therefore it is al one whether he returne to the law of the Iewes or worshipping of Idols Al is one whether he be a Monke a Turke a Iewe or an Anabaptist For this article being once taken away there remaineth nothing but meere errour hipochrisie impiety idolatry although in shewe there appeare excellent truth Caluin in Epist ad Sadoletum p. 176. worship of God holinesse c. thus Luther Caluin also telleth vs that the knowledge of justification by faith being taken away both the glorie of Christ was extinguished and religion abolished and the Church destroyed and the hope of saluation altogether ouerthrowne Our countriman M. Perkins in like sort affirmeth Per. in his reformed Catholike touching justification of a sinner pag. 65. 66 that we by our doctrine touching justification doe raâ—â—e the very foundation and that the disagreement betweene vs and the Protestants concerning this matter if there were no more points of difference alone were sufficient to keepe vs from vniting our religions this is his opinion Wherefore this being an article of Christian beliefe in these mens conceits so principal let vs behold whether the letter of holy Scripture according to the judgement of Protestants doe not plainely deliuer our doctrine concerning it and impugne theirs The chiefest place which I haue alleaged in the section next before touching this matter is that sentence of S. Iames the Apostle Of workes or deedes a man is justified and not of faith only Iam. 2. v. 24. Bible 1592. And howe doe al the Lutheranes yea some Sacramentaries vnderstand these wordes Truly they openly and boldly confesse that they warre against justification by onlie faith and approue justification by workes and they assigne this as one reason why this epistle is to be rejected out of the Canon Luther the captaine of them al writing vpon the 22. chapter of Genesis hath these wordes See him also praefat in nouum Testam edit 1. Genensis in captiuitat Babilo ca. de Extrema Vnct. in 1. Pet. c. 1. fol 439. 440. edit Wittenb Abraham was just by faith before he is knowne such an one by God therefore Iames doth naughtily conclude that nowe at the length he is justified after this obedience for by workes as by fruits faith and iustice is knowne But it followeth not vt Iacobus delirat as Iames dotingly affirmeth therefore the fruits doe iustifiy thus there And in another place * Luth. in colloquijs conuiualibus latin to 2. de libris noui Testam Part. 2 chap. 6. sect 2. Many saith he haue taken great paines in the epistle of Iames to make it accord with Paul as Philppe endeauoureth in his Apologie but not with good successe for they are contrary faith doth iustifie faith doth not iustifie Loe Luther expresly telleth vs that S. Iames auoucheth faith not to justifie But whereas he maketh this Apostle contrary to S. Paul he doth wrong them both For neither doth the one say that faith doth not justifie nor the other that faith alone doth justifie as he supposeth But out of their discourses it may be gathered that both faith and workes concurre to justification which is our Catholike doctrine Of the place of S. Paul vnto vvhich Luther alludeth I haue said something before therefore no more of it at this present shal be necessary The opinion of a Pomeran in c. 8. ad RomaÌ„ Pomerane a Lutheran of great estimation is conformable to that of Luther for thus he pronounceth his censure Faith was reputed to Abraham for iustice By this place thou maiest note the error of the epistle of Iames wherein thou seest a wicked argument Besides that he concludeth ridiculously he citeth Scripture against Scripture which thing the holy Ghost cannot abide wherefore that epistle may not be numbred among other bookes which set forth the iustice of only faith thus Pomerane I wil not stand to free S. Iames from his wicked accusations which is very wel performed by diuers Catholike authors Hil in his defeÌ„ce of the article Christ descended into hel fol. 23. Centur. 1. lib. 2. c. 4. col 54. Centur. 2. ca. 4. col 71. But vnto this Lutheran I wil joyne the Magdeburgians his brethren whose vvritings an English Protestant judgeth to be worthy of eternal memorie who say that the epistle of S. Iames much swarueth from the analogie of the Apostolical doctrine whereas it ascribeth justification not only to faith but to workes and calleth the lawe a lawe of liberty Againe Against Paul against al Scriptures the epistle of Iames attributeth justice to workes and peruerteth as it were of set purpose that which Paul disputeth Rom. 4. out of Genesis 15. Abraham was iustified by only faith without workes and affirmeth that Abraham obtained iustice by workes hitherto are their wordes With these consenteth Vitus Theodorus an other of that companie and a preacher of Norinberge who yeeldeth this reason wherefore he excluded this epistle from the Canon of holy Scripture The epistle of Iames and the Apocalipse of Iohn saith he we haue of set purpose left out because the epistle of Iames is not only in certaine
that the Doctors of that time declined more from the true doctrine of Christ and the Apostles then of the age before Hence among others that erred in this point they name S. Clement Tertullian Origen Ibi. CeÌ„tur 4. c. 4. p. 292. Centur. 5. c. 4 pag. 504. cap. 10. Cent. 6. cap. 4 pag. 274. S. Cyprian S. Augustine S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Chrysostome S. Cyril Theophilus Lactantius Eusebius Chromatius Ephrem S. Gregory Nyssene S. Gregory Nazianzene S. Hilary S. Leo Saluianus Isichius Prosper Maximus and Paulinus Nay in their Century of the fourth age hauing proued at large that neither Lactantius Chromatius Ephrem Theophilus S. Hierome S. Gregory Nyssene S. Gregory Nazianzene S. Hilary nor S. Ambrose euer acknowledged their manner of justification by faith only they adde these vvordes Nowe let the Godly reader imagine with himselfe Centur. 4. c. 4. pag. 292. howe farre this age touching this article went a stray from the doctrine of the Apostles In their history of the fift age they haue the like discourses but among others of Prosper a famous Father of that time thus they vvrite Prosper retained not a fewe freckles so they tearme such opinions in the Fathers as the said Fathers hold vvith vs Cent. 5. c. 10. pag. 1363. and they thinke erroneous of his age such an one is that faith only doth not justifie Hitherto the Magdeburgians The same is confessed by their M. Luther Luth. in colloquijs conuiualibus cap. de Patribus Ecclesiae For hauing pronounced his censure against diuers of the Fathers in particular of them in general he saith See ye what darkenesse there is in the Fathers writings concerning faith For when that article of the justification of man is couered with darkenesse it can by no meanes be that greater errors be auoided Thus Luther And because he and his bretheren confirme their doctrine of sole faith by certaine sentences especially taken out of S. Paules Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians which they vvrest to an other sence then euer vvas yeelded by the auncient Fathers hence he also maketh this complaint Those Fathers truly taught very wel Ibid. but they could bring forth nothing singular when they wrote not of controuersies and in confutation of others neither are there any workes extant of theirs vpon the Epistle either to the Romans or to the Galatians in which any thing pure and sincere may be found Hitherto are Luthers wordes But of S. Hierome in particular because he contrarieth his exposition of the said Epistles Luth. tom 5. in Epist. ad Galat. cap. 3. fol. 348. tom 2. de seruo arbitrio fo 473. in epist ad BrentiuÌ„ quae praefixa est BreÌ„tij com in Oscam See him likewise in ca. 5. ad Galat. fol. 383. he auoucheth that he was deceaued by Origen and that he vnderstood nothing at al in S. Paul but depraued the justice of only faith and that this one error of his was so great that it alone was sufficient to destroy the Gospel by which if it had not beene saith Luther through the singular grace of God Hierome had merited rather hel then heauen The like he hath in other places And seing that I am entred so farre into this matter I beseech my reader not to condemne me of being tedious and ouer long if I declare vnto him out of the same Luther by al probable conjectures the fountaine and off-spring of this Solifidian doctrine For what other thing vvas this but the impurity of Luthers conscience and the abomination of his sinneful soule This relation he maketh of himselfe and his owne proceedings * Lut. in praefat tom 1. But howsoeuer saith he I liued as a Monke irreprehensible who felt my selfe to be a sinner of a most vnquiet conscience before God neither could I haue confidence that he was appeased with my satisfaction did not loue yea I hated God iust and punishing sinners and inwardly in my hart if not with a blaspheamous truly with a very great murmuring or grudging I repined and was displeased with God saying As though it were not sufficient that miserable and wreatched sinners and eternally lost by original sinne are by the lawe of the tenne Commandements oppressed with al kinde of calamity except God did by the Gospel adde griefe to griefe and threaten also by the Gospel his iustice and anger vpon vs I was therefore madde and did rage through an angry and troubled conscience And not long after declaring howe he freed himselfe from this miserable estate he addeth Wherefore by howe much the more I hated before these wordes the iustice of God with so much the greater loue I extolled that sweete word vnto me concerning justification by only faith so this place of Paul was truly vnto me Porta Paradisi a gate to Paradise Afterwardes I read S. Augustine in his booke de Spiritu Litera where beyond my expectation I found that he also doth so interprete the iustice of God to be that with which he clotheth vs when he doth iustifie vs. And although this was spoken imperfectly and he doth not explicate al thinges clearely concerning imputation yet it pleased me that he taught the iustice of God to be that by which we are iustified Hitherto are Luthers wordes By which it euidently appeareth that sweete liberty and freedome from al band of law and feare of sinne togither with the horrour of his guilty conscience burdened vvith enormious crimes were the chiefest reasons which moued this first beginner of the newe religion to inuent and imbrace the doctrine of faith only justifying by which it is defended that through the apprehension of Christs justice by faith without any more a doe man is freed from the imputation of al sinne made just by the imputation of Christs justice and secured of his eternal saluation be his sinnes neuer so great and hainous But of this no more Of the same opinion concerning the errour of the auncient Fathers or rather their true beliefe condemning the Protestant false faith is Philippe Melancthon for he affirmeth Melancthon in c. 3. 1. Cor. that presently in the beginning of the Church auncient writers obscured the doctrine touching the justice of faith And although Caluin aboue al other Fathers a Caluin Instit booke 3. cap. 11. §. 15. esteemed of S. Augustine yet he auoucheth that b Ibid. chap. 15. §. 2. the very sentence of Augustine or at the least his manner of speaking is not altogether to be receiued and graunteth moreouer that the old writers of the Church haue commonly vsed the word merit Beza his scholler accuseth Origen in this point c Beza in Act cap. 10. v. 46. of horrible blaspheamy D. Humfrey saith d Hâ—fred Iesuitismi part 2. pag. 530. It may not be denied but that Ireneus Clemens Alexandrinus and others called Apostolical in respect of the time in which they liued haue in their writings the opinions
against al for the word of God is foolishnes to mans reason 1 Cor. 1. And they would neuer haue vttered this had they had any regard of the Scripture and were not their harts ful of infidelity so as their mouth speaketh out of the aboundance of their hart Fol. 391. Finally he concludeth thus If these be the groundes and reasons which should certifie vs of the truth and proue our faith and confirme our conscience he meaneth such groundes and reasons as are brought from natural discourse and Philosophy then truly we are in euil case If a man had deliuered me such bookes without title or name as are vvritten by the Sacramentaries and I knewe not otherwise such learned and excellent men to haue beene the Authours of them I should surely haue thought that some iesting Comediant or Turkish vagabond had made them in despite and derision of Christians Verily I see not howe they can be excused with any probable pretence as many other Heretikes haue had for it appeareth that they play with Gods word of wilfulnesse and malice And I thinke it cannot be that such cold toyes and bablings should indeede moue a Turke or Iewe much lesse a Christian c. Centur. 4. in praefat This and much more hath Luther The Magdeburgians likewise tel vs that some and they meane the Sacramentaries flatly by Philosophical reasons make voide and frustrate the Testament of our Lord so as they take away the body and bloud of Christ touching his presence and communication which presence and communication is according to the most cleare most euident most true and most puissant wordes of Christ and they deceiue men with maruelous equiuocation of speach hitherto the Centurie writers Of the same opinion touching the ground of the Sacramentary doctrine is Westphalus for the Sacramentaries against the real presence vrge this argument Westphalus in Apolog. cōtra Caluin c. 19. pag. 194. anno 1558. The body of man is circumscribed in a place therefore at one time it cannot be but in in one place therefore not in al places where the supper is ministred vnto vvhich Westphalus replieth thus Is not saith he this Geometrical argument featched from Euclides demonstrations the piller and vpholder of al these Sacramētaries Doth not this vphold the building of their sillogismes which corrupt verie many places of Scripture Most truly is verified of the Sacramentaries that memorable saying Take from Heretikes that wherein they agree with Philosophers and they cannot stand Take from the Sacramentaries that which they drawe from Philosophie and how smal a quantity wil remaine of the great volumes of al the Sacramentaries Howe long wil it be before the doctrine of Berengarius fal to the ground Wel and truly wrote Tertullian that Philosophers are the Patriarkes of Heretikes for Philosophy brought forth al Heresies and shee begat the error of Zwinglius Thus much out of the Lutherans in defence of the real presence against the Sacramentaries and their vvorkes generally are ful of such discourses Hence it appeareth that according to their judgement the beliefe of the real presence is built vpon holy Scripture and the denial of it vpon Geometrical and Philosophical reasons But finde we no proofes for our Catholike exposition of the afore said vvordes in the Sacramentaries themselues Truly first Caluin auoucheth that vnlesse a man wil cal God a deceiuer Caluin Institut booke 4. cha 17. §. 10. he can neuer be so bold as to say that he setteth before vs an empty signe and this he is forced to affirme through the euidence of the wordes of Scripture Secondly it is the opinion of diuers learned men of this sect yea of some esteemed by them Martirs that our doctrine touching this point may be held without any peril of damnation or seperation from the one true spiritual body of Christ his holy Church Of which opinion among others was William Tindal whome Whetenhal honoureth with this title * Whetēhal in his discourse of the abuses c. pag. 134. William Tindal that blessed martir of God the first man that euer brought the Gospel of Christ into English print and therefore saith this Puritan he may worthely be called our English Euangelist yea our booke of martirs a Fox p. 883. edit 1. calleth him the true Apostle of our latter daies and that much more justly then Popish Augustine the first Arch-bishop of Canterbury is so tearmed by diuers Thus Whetenhal This Tindal I say as also Frith Barnes and Cranmer of whome the said Whetenhal b Whetenhal ibid. p. 157. in an other place as is related by c Fox in Tind Fox himselfe held it d Frith Barnes and Cranmer especially pag. 500. edit anno 1563. a thing indifferent to belieue or not belieue the real presence Of the same opinion is e Couel in his def of Hooker art 11. M. Couel a man of good account among the English Protestants f Doue perswasion p. 11. Doue also vvriteth that in fundamental points of doctrine the greatest Papists in the world agree with them And seing that we agree not vvith them in this it is manifest that in his judgement this is no fundamental point It may likewise be vvel gathered out of Fields assertions g See Field booke 3. chap. 3. and 4. in his third booke of the Church that his sentence is conformable But vvhat neede I rehearse particular authors For this must of necessity be h See the Apologie of the Church of England par 3. pag. 100. Sutcliffe in his answere to the Ward-word pag. 21. Fulke vpon the Rhemes Testam Ephes 4. vers 4. c. granted by al the Sacramentaries who make one Church of themselues and the Lutherans And of this the reason is apparent because although the Lutherans differ from vs in the manner yet vvith vs they confesse Christ to be really and corporally present in the Eucharist Vnto vvhich if we adde that our doctrine touching the manner it selfe howe this is done in the Sacramentaries judgement is more tollerable then Luthers it vvil followe that there can be no reason assigned why we should receaue a harder censure for our belief then they for theirs And doth not Caluin himselfe auerre this to be so It must needes be granted For certaine it is that almost al the Lutherans to defend this real presence of Christ in the Sacrament affirme his humane nature to be really present vvheresoeuer is his Deity Caluin Institut booke 4. chap. 17. § 30 See also the preface to the harmony of confessions which Caluin calleth the monstrous being of Christ euery where and saith the Papists doctrine is more tollerable or at the least more shamefaste then this Nay al the vvhole company of Sacramentaries in forraine Countries are more vehement in oppugning this then ours Wherefore if the Lutherans according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries this notwithstanding are neither excluded from heauen nor the Church a man
to him And seing that this feeding vpon Christ by faith may be performed at other times as wel as when their supper is receiued hence they further auouch that Christ himselfe as wel at other times as then may be receiued but principally they say vve receiue him by reading the vvord of God or hearing it preached He is deceiued saith Caluin that thinketh there is any more giuen to him by the Sacraments then that which being offered by the word of God he receiueth by faith c Ibid. §. 17. in Ioan. 6. vers 54. Againe Let this remaine certaine that there is no other office of the Sacraments then of the word of God which is to offer and set forth Christ vnto vs and in him the treasures of heauenly grace Moreouer expounding those wordes of Christ d Idem in 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. Doe this in remembrance of me thus he argueth Therefore the supper is a token or memorial appointed to helpe our infirmity for if otherwise we were mindful of Christes death this helpe were superfluous And this is common to the Sacraments for they are helpes of our infirmity Thus Caluin Beza in epist Theolog. 65. pag. 285. And this was decreed in a Synode held by the Caluinists at Rochel in vvhich we finde that albeit the supper be particularly appointed for our mystical and spiritual communication of Christ yet that Christ is receiued as fully with al his gifts also in a simple or only word or sermon But this is most earnestly defended by Peter Martir likewise a Caluinist vvho among other his discourses hath these sentences We attribute no more to the wordes of God then to the Sacraments nor no more to these then to them a Martir in de fens Euchar. cont Gardin part 2. regula 5. pag. 618. I adde withal that touching the deliuery and obtaining of Christes body and bloud if yee respect the thing and substance it selfe we haue it no more by Sacraments then by wordes b Ibid part 3. pag. 651. see also before p. 644. 547. The body of Christ is receiued as wel in hearing faithfully the word of God as it is in the Sacraments c Ibid. p. 683 I denie not but this is our doctrine that the body of Christ is receiued no lesse in wordes then in the Sacraments or Symbols For this receiuing is wrought by faith and to faith we are stirred vp by wordes as wel as by the Sacraments d Only an empty signe c. possible And I feare not to affirme that we come to the receiuing of Christes body much more by wordes then by Sacraments For Sacraments haue al their force from the wordes Hitherto Martir e Caluin Instit booke 4. c. 14. §. 20. 23. Caluin Beza and Martir in 1. Cor. 10. v. 1.2 Hence they make no difference in honour grace vertue and efficacy betweene the Sacraments of the old lawe and those of the newe f Caluin Instit booke 4. c. 14. § 23. Beza in actis colloq Monpelg p. 77. Sadeel in tract demāducut Sacram p. 191. Nay they adde that the Fathers of the old were as much pertakers of the body and bloud of Christ as Christians are in the newe And to proue this g Caluin Institut booke 4. c. 14. §. 23. Caluin corrupteth S. Paules vvordes 1. Cor. 10. vers 3. by affirming the Apostle to say that the Fathers of the old lawe did eate the same spiritual meate which we eate vvhereas the Apostle maketh no comparison betweene Christians and Iewes but only telleth vs that the Iewes among themselues both good and badde just and vnjust did eate the same spiritual meate Neither ought it seeme strange to any one of our English nation that this doctrine is taught by the Caluinists for we want not some euen in our Protestants Church of England that seeke to vphold it And among other h Willet in his Synopsis controuers 11. p. 463. see also Iewel in his reply against Harding art 5. pag. 323. Andrew Willet before cited in expresse wordes auoucheth and concludeth that looke howe the word of God worketh being preached so doe the Sacraments Their doctrine therefore is that Christ may as truly and really be receiued by hearing of a sermon as he is in their supper And of al this I may first inferre that if they say true vve may as truely and really receiue Christ in our chambers reading the Scriptures and by feeding on him by faith or by eating a peece of bakers bread and drinking a cup of wine or by taking any other such corporal foode in remembrance that he died for vs on the Crosse as we can doe in their Churches by taking the like bread and vvine of the Minister I further inferre that the opinion of Carolostadius Zwinglius and Caluin in verie deede equally exclude Christ from being really present in the Eucharist and therefore the bread and vvine vvhich they receiue according to al their judgements is nothing better then a peece of bakers bread or a bottle of wine bought in a tauerne The reason is euident because Christ himselfe according to his humane nature is as far distant from the bread and wine as heauen is from earth although Caluin acknoweledg a certaine vnion betweene vs and Christ by faith yet this is a thing altogether extrinsecal to the bread and wine for this faith is in the soule not in the bread and vvine neither doth it vnite the body and bloud of Christ to the bread and vvine but as they say to the soule And this vnion in like sort is not real but imaginary for the body bloud of Christ are as farre distant from our faith vvhich is an inward act of our soule and produceth of it selfe no outward effect as they are from the bread and wine And this is true euen according to the doctrine of Caluin and his disciples vvhatsoeuer they seeme in vvordes to say to the contrary But to make the proofe of it more strong let vs confirme it by the testimony of Beza Beza Epist Theolog. 1. pag. 7. Caluins schollar and of some Lutherans Bezaes vvordes are these I say they are very impudent slaunderers that imagine that there was euer any contrariety betweene those most excellent men Zwinglius OEcolampadius and Caluin in their doctrine concerning the Sacrament Thus Beza Among the Lutherans Westphalus a principal Doctor of their company vvriteth thus Caluin vseth such art in handling this matter Westphal in Apologia de coena contra Caluin p. 71. he leaueth his reader so doubtful and vncertaine what to judge of him he shadoweth his speach with such colours that sometimes he yeeldeth a confession of faith like to our Lutheran Churches he seemeth to reject the doctrine of Zwinglius and to beleeue that the very body and bloud of Christ is truly present and giuen in the supper with the bread and wine But hauing conferred many of Caluins sentences
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
Scripture for a man as Field saith must be spiritual before he can vnderstand the Scripture and howe spiritual vvithout faith and vvhereupon shal this faith be built vpon the Scripture this cannot be because without it he cannot vnderstand the Scripture and howe can he build his faith vpon Scripture before he vnderstandeth it of which it followeth as I haue said that the Scripture is not the first and only rule of our faith as they affirme Neither can it be auerred that the first faith is not properly faith for as they confesse it maketh a man spiritual and is the ground of the vnderstanding the true sense of Scripture and consequently must be a true faith and properly so called Secondly Field requireth a minde free from the thought of other thinges depending on God as the fountaine of illumination desiâ—â—â—s of the truth with resolution to imbrace it though contrary to the conceit of natural men But first this also seemeth to presuppose faith and grace yea some extraordinary perfection more then is ordinarily found in the greater part of Christians Secondly I dislike those his vvordes desirous of the truth with resolution to imbrace it if they be vnderstood of matters of faith for they seeme to pretend a certaine kinde of doubt and staggering vvhich must not be allowed in such points especially in spiritual men as before Thirdly he thinketh the knowledge of the rule of faith formerly set downe necessary as also of the practise of the Saints according to the same Of this his rule of faith formerly by him set downe booke 3. chap. 4. I haue said something before Part. 2. chap. 4. As touching this his present doctrine it is certaine that most men wil not allow of his said rule but either vvil condemne it as insufficient in not conteining al thinges necessary or as ouer-large in containing thinges superfluous vvherefore this his third rule in this part is very vncertaine But in very deede that the Scriptures ought to be interpreted according to the rule of faith that is the whole summe of Christian religion preserued as a Depositum in the Church Part. 1. chap. 7. sect 5. I haue proued in the first part of this Treatise Moreouer as before I argued against the first rules so I argue against this that of it may be inferred that our faith is not built vpon the holy Scripture because the rule of faith must be a rule by vvhich the scriptures are to be expounded of which it followeth that it selfe is not knowne and belieued through the authority of the scripture Against the second part of this rule I oppose only Part. 2. chap. 4. that according to his groundes of which I haue discoursed before the practise of the Saints can very hardly be gathered out of the monuments of antiquity especially concerning such matters as Field denieth to be of the substance of our faith vvherefore this also maketh euery exposition of scripture obscure and of an vncertaine truth Fourthly is required saith he a due consideration what wil followe vpon our interpretation agreing with or contrary to the thinges generally receiued and beleeued among Christians in which consideration the conference of other places of Scripture and the thinges there deliuered is necessary To this I say first that if Luther had wel obserued this rule he had neuer broached newe doctrine in the Church Secondly the insufficiency of it is euident See before Part. 2. chap. 4. if Fields doctrine before set downe concerning the errour of almost al Christians be true Fiftly he requireth the consideration of the circumstances of the places interpreted the occasion of the wordes the thinges going before and following after Sixtly he also requireth the knowledge of al those Histories arts and sciences which may helpe vs. Both these I let passe as necessary yet not as sufficient to giue vs infallible assurance Seauenthly he thinketh the knowledge of the original tongues necessary and of the phrases and Idiotismes of them To which I say that although I thinke this a great helpe yea absolutely necessary according to the Protestant doctrine because they make the scripture the only ground of their faith and neuerthelesse haue no diuine meane or prudent reason to assure themselues that any one hath translated them truly yet it cannot be sufficient Neither is it according to our Catholike proceedings so needful both because vve are sure that we haue the text truly translated and also because we make not the scripture the propounder of our beliefe but expound it according to the rule of faith deliuered and receiued These are M. Fields helps and rules which he setteth downe as a meane where by we may be assured that vve haue found out the true meaning of scripture And although euery man may perceiue by that vvhich I haue said against some of them in particular howe vveake and doubtful they are Yet I vvil adde a vvord or two of them in general And first I aske M. Field howe he knoweth these his helps and rules to be sufficient can he proue their sufficiency by any diuine testimony or infallible argument nothing lesse and therefore I imagine that in the beginning he doth not so confidently affirme it but vseth these vvordes I thinke we may thus resolue and yet that diuine proofe or at the least some forcible reason is necessary it can not be denied because the true interpretation of Scripture is their principal ground of faith no interpretation in a matter doubtful can be infallibly knowne otherwise then by the aforesaid meanes Are also al these his helps and rules necessary See Willet in his Synopsis controuers 1. quaest 7. See also part 2. chap. 5. sect 1. before neither this vvil be admitted by his bretheren vvho reject the greater part of them and he must needes in a matter of such importance as this is according to their principles condemne them of great ignorance and errour if he absolutely affirme them al necessary Secondly I gather out of these rules that no man can diuinely or infallibly assure himselfe of the truth of any other mans exposition This is manifest because no man can by diuine testimony or prudential ground know that any other man hath sufficiently proceeded according to al these rules nay what ignorant person can so knowe the sufficiency of any learned man that he is sufficiently instructed in the tongues c. that he may embrace his opinion as diuine Finally no man can after this sort assuredly knowe that an other hath an illumination of the vnderstanding and that his mind is disposed according to the second rule which thinges neuerthelesse Field vvil haue required for the attaining of the right vnderstanding of holy Scripture Thirdly that appeareth to be very false vvhich is auerred by Field to vvit that a man following such directions as he prescribeth may not only assure himselfe of the truth of holy Scriptures but also conuince the aduersaries and gainesaiers for
my judgement it is strange howe they confesse euery man although neuer so much enlightned to be subject to errour and yet euery one assureth himselfe hauing one no more warrant then an other that he is in the truth Finally this doctrine of diuine inspirations and illuminations gaue occasion to * Frederi Staphilus l. de cōcordia discipulorū Lutheri Petrus Palladius l. de haeresibus Caluī in Instructorio cōtra Libert cap. 9. Willet in his Synops controuer 1. q. 1. Muncerus and certaine Anabaptists his followers as also to the Zwenckfeldians and Libertines of their blaspheamous opinions For like as our Protestant aduersaries commonly flie to illuminations for the knowledge of the true text interpretation of holy Scripture so these men either because they found it vvritten that a 2. Cor. 3 6. the letter doth kil or because they thought the Scriptures not necessary seing that the holy Ghost is able to teach mens harts vvithout any vvritten letters rejected the Scriptures altogither and pretended only such illuminations of the spirit Hence also perhaps proceeded the dreames and visions of the Enthusiasts a famous sect of Anabaptists but of this no more SECTION THE FIFT Concerning their deductions out of holy Scripture that they likewise are framed by them according to their owne fancies and of their accusations of one another touching these matters IT is moreouer a thing most euident that in the deductions or collections of the articles of their faith and religion out of holy Scripture they are not only subject to errour but also that they followe their owne judgement and inclinations And this vvil appeare to any man that shal consider the same One deduction I vvil here set downe vvhich I my selfe haue heard some of them make which was this I vrged them to bring forth some authority out of the vvord of God for their keeping of the Sonday in steade of the Saturday and they alleaged as a sufficient proof of this matter those wordes of S. Iohn in the Apocalipse Apocal. 1 10. I was in spirit on the Dominical or as they say on the Lordes day And vvhat an insufficient deduction is this if vve set aside the authority and tradition of the Church vvhich they despise Howe doth this followe S. Iohn vvas in the spirit or had a reuelation on the Sonday therefore al Christians may lawfully worke on the saturday a day commanded by God himselfe both in the old and newe testament Exo. 20. c. Math. 19 17 if we follow the letter to be kept holy and obserue the Sonday I could bring a hundred more such examples and my reader may gather some out of that which hath beene already said in the first section of the seauenth Chapter I adde also for the proofe of this that their deductions out of the selfe same wordes be diuers and opposite for euery sect like as it hath a particular and proper forme of faith so hath it peculiar and proper deductions out of the text of holy Scripture This cannot be denied because the collections of the Lutherans Zwinglians English Protestants Caluinists or Puritans Anabaptists Libertines differ from one another as their beliefe is different And to giue one instance or two but yet to omit the knowne different collections vvhich are found among Lutherans and Sacramentaries Doe not some Lutherans gather out of Scripture a necessity of good vvorkes See colloquiū Altenbergēse others that such vvorkes are not necessary a Bishop Barlow of Rochester in his sermon Whitgift others Doe not also some Sacramentaries as our English Protestants out of scripture deduce their gouernement of the Church by Bishops others as the Puritans their gouernement by Elders Doe not finally b Caluins Institut booke 2 chap. 16. ver 10.11.12 in Math. 26. 27. Willet in his Synopsis controuers 20. Caluin Willet and others gather out of scriptures that Christ suffered in soule the paines of hel which by others is disalowed And doe not the followers of one part of these collections condemne them of the other either as Heretikes or as Schismatikes or as Blaspheamers These thinges are most certaine Of which I inferre that al these sectaries deductions cannot be found but some must needes frame them according to their owne fancies And seing that vve haue no infallible reason according to their groundes to approue the one of them before another vve may vvith like reason condemne them al as hauing no other ground as they are by them maintained then humane judgement and vnderstanding In defence of the Lutherans of Wittenberge both concerning the proofe of the letter and interpretation of holy Scripture and also touching deductions out of the same it may perhaps be said by some man Harmony of cōfess sect 10 pa. 332. 333. Confess Wittenb art 32. that they hold the Church hath authority to beare witnesse off and interpret holy Scripture as likewise to judge of al doctrines according to that Try the spirits whither they be of God and let the other judge Yea they adde that shee hath receiued of her husband Christ a certaine rule to wit the Prophetical and Apostolical preaching confirmed by miracles from heauen according to the which shee is bound to interpret those places of the Scripture which seeme to be obscure and to judge of doctrines I answere and confesse that in very deede this is their doctrine vvhich maketh not a little against the dreames and inspirations of their bretheren but this can make no infallible ground according to their assertions for they make both the Church and tradition subject to errour and consequently if vve beleeue them no man can build vpon their authority an act of diuine and supernatural faith Finally hence it proceedeth that our aduersaries themselues accuse and censure one an other to be corrupters of scripture falsifiers and liers If vve beleeue * Luth. epist ad Ioan. Heruagium typographum Argentinens Luther the Sacramentaries beganne their opinion of the Sacrament with lies and with lies they doe defend it and they broached it abroade by the vvicked fraude of corrupting other mens workes If Caluin Caluin admonit 3. ad Westphalum Caluin in defens de Sacram p. 1085 the Lutherans are nothing else but forgers and falsifiers and of Westphalus in particular he vvriteth thus Westphalus as though he were I knowe not what Comical Iupiter carrying Minerua in his braine putteth boldly vpon al his fictions the visard of the word of God if it had not beene nowe an old thing and commonly knowne that the false Prophets did so much the more gloriously pretend the name of God by howe much the further they were from him by these frights and scar-crowes he would peraduenture doe something The word of God doth confidently sound againe and againe in his mouth but in word only And soone after This prophane man doth filthily abuse at his pleasure the sacred sentences no otherwise then Magitians doe wrest holy
these Heretikes alleage these places in their true sense nothing so as S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria deliuereth vnto vs discoursing of the aforesaid vvordes of the Apostle after this sort Ciril lib. 5. in Ioan. cap. 17. Penance saith he is not excluded by these wordes of S. Paul but the renewing by the lauer of regeneration He doth not here take away the second or third remission of sinnes for he is not such an enemy to our saluation but the host which is Christ he denieth that it is to be offered againe vpon the Crosse Hitherto S. Cyril with whome agree S. Chrysostome Chrisost homil 9. in cap. 6. ad Hebr. Ambros de poenitent lib. 2. cap. 2. S. Ambrose and the rest of the holy Fathers And like as these Heretikes falsly interpreted these places of scripture so doe the sectaries of our daies diuers others This our English Protestants with Caluin wil easily graunt of the Anabaptists whome they censure to be Heretikes and yet these sectaries haue as euident places out of the word of God to confirme their owne doctrine as our Protestants can alleage for their particular opinions For example the Anabaptists defend that children ought not to be baptized before they come to yeares of discretion and can actually beleeue And what Scriptures doe they bring for proofe of this their doctrine Mark 16 16 It is written say they He that shal beleeue and be baptized shal be saued but he that shal not beleeue shal be condemned Loe say they it is necessary to beleeue before baptisme and the one is euen as necessary as the other to saluation and vpon this ground principally although they alleage thirty other places because infants cannot actually beleeue Caluin admo vlt. ad Westphalum pag. 1116. 1129. they build their aforesaid doctrine And they so presse the Protestants vvho denie habitual faith with this sentence of Christ that they forced the Lutherans to affirme * Luther lib. cont Cochlaeū Lutherani in Synodo Wittenberge anno 1536. that infants actually beleeue vvhen they are baptized which opinion is now earnestly defended by a Lucas Osiāder in Enchirid cōt Anabaptist cap. 2 printed Wittenberge anno 1607. Lucas Osiander a Lutheran superintendent In like sort they affirme al oathes to be vnlawful and this they gather out of those vvordes of our Sauiour Math. 5. vers 33. Againe you haue heard that it was said to them of old thou shalt not commit perjury but thou shalt performe thy oathes to our Lord. But I say to you not to sweare at al neither by heauen c. And soone after Let your talke be yea yea no no and that which is ouer and aboue these is of euil These and other such like testimonies are alleaged by the Anabaptists which if vve reject the censure and interpretation of the Church make euen as apparently for these Heretikes as any other vsed by the newe sectaries for proofe of their newe doctrine Hence Caluin himselfe vvriting against the Lutherans telleth vs that if it be so we are bound with this lawe that it is necessary we receiue whatsoeuer the wordes of Scripture sound there wil be no kinde of absurdity by which prophane men may not reproue and defame the doctrine of the Gospel that is to say there wil be nothing so absurd vvhich prophane men to the infamy of the Gospel wil not gather out of it Againe if the Scripture be so violently pressed as these men wil haue it it wil be as ful of absurdities as it hath verses Suruey of the pretended holy discipline chap. 31 pag. 414. 415. Thus Caluin In like sort the Authour of the Suruey of the Puritan discipline against the Puritans affirmeth that it is not enough for men to alleage Scriptures except they bring the true meaning of the Scriptures And al this discourse conuinceth that the allegation of Scripture is no certaine proofe that the Scripture is the ground of his beliefe by whome it is alleaged But for a farther proofe of al this in our newe sectaries let vs also consider that they doe not only bring forth Scriptures against the Catholikes but also against one another For although their opinions be neuer so diuers yet they cite places of Scriptures out of the selfe same bookes aswel for the confirmation of their owne as the confutation of their aduersaries doctrine And further al are as they say contented to haue the Scripture decide and end the controuersie Fox p. 1097. 987. anno 1536. pag. 1591. col 2. pag. 1094. col 2. Hence on the selfe same day three sectaries were burnt in Smithfield Barret Garret and Hierome of which the first was a Lutheran the other two Zwinglians and yet they al as Fox reporteth protested at their death that they taught nothing but that which was contained in the Scripture In like sort the Puritans of this realme of England now * See a christian and modest offer of a most indifferent cōference tendered by the late silenced and depriued Ministers to the Arch-bishops printed anno 1606. offer to proue al their Puritanical assertions out of the word of God vvhich neuerthelesse our Protestants taught as they say by the same vvord of God reject Of vvhich I inferre that whosoeuer weigheth a litle and looketh into the matter may see first that they cannot al truly alleage Scripture build vpon the same for the Scripture approueth not contrary doctrine and therefore he may imagine that they may euen as wel erre in bringing forth Scripture against vs as against their owne brethren and consequently be perswaded that their alleaging of Scripture is no certaine argument of truth Secondly he shal likewise finde that in their alleaging the vvord of God both against vs and those of their owne company they remit not the controuersie to the bare vvordes of Scripture but vnto the words of scripture translated expounded by themselues wherefore they differ in the translation and interpretation of holy Scripture for euery one of them rejecteth al other translations interpretations but his owne vpon vvhich being his owne fancy not vpon the Scripture he buildeth his opinion But wherefore doe Heretikes couet so plentifully to alleage the word of God the reason of this is notably wel declared by Vincentius Lirinensis in this his discourse They knowe fulwel saith he that their stinking and vnsauory drugs be not likely almost to please any Vincent Lirinens ca. 35. if simply and nakedly they be set forth and therefore they doe temper them as it were with the sweete powder of Gods word that he which quickly would haue contemned mans erroneous inuention dare not so readily reject Gods diuine Scripture wherein they are like to those which minding to minister bitter potions to young children first anoint the brims of the cup with hony that thereby vnwary youth feeling sweetnesse may nothing feare the bitter confection This deuise also practise they who vpon naughty hearbes and hurtful
juices write the names of good holesome medicines whereby almost no man reading the good superscription any thing suspecteth the lurking poison of the self same thing Math. 7. Likewise our Sauiour crieth out to al Christians take ye heed of false prophets which come to you in sheepes cloathing but inwardly are rauening wolues What is meant else by sheepes cloathing but the sayings of the Prophets and Apostles which they with sheepe-like sincerity did weare c. And soone after But to the end they may more craftily set vpon the sheepe of Christ mistrusting nothing remaining stil cruel beasts they put of their woluish weed and shroud themselues with the wordes of Scripture as it were with certaine fleeces whereby it happeneth that when the silly sheepe feele the soft wool they litle feare their sharpe teeth Ambros in cap. vlt. ad Tit. hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis S. Ambrose likewise telleth vs that impiety seing authority to be esteemed couereth her selfe with the vaile of Scriptures that whereas by her selfe shee is not acceptable by Scriptures shee may seeme most commendable And of this matter I neede say no more Chapter 9. In which is proued by the newe Sectaries forsaking their owne supposed ground and flying to others also by their dissension and inconstancy that they build their faith and religion only vpon their owne fancies SECTION THE FIRST Concerning their flying to other groundes by themselues rejected and their dissension I HAVE nowe sufficientlie proued that our aduersaries build not their faith and religion vpon any one of those particular groundes which are found in the Church of Christ yea that in al matters the rule of their beliefe is principally their owne judgement and fancy For the confirmation of al vvhich my discourse I purpose in this chapter to set downe three manifest tokens and signes of this their vveake foundation to vvit their forsaking of their owne ground and flying to others when they confute their aduersaries their dissention or diuision and their inconstancy Concerning the first it is a thing most euident in al their proceedinges that although disputing against vs they pleade and demand only Scriptures and commonly reject al authority of the Church Councels and Fathers yea when they come to confute other Sectaries like vnto themselues they refuse such trial by scriptures and sometimes fly to other such groundes Thus Caluin although he referre al matters sometimes to Scripture affirming that we ought to hearken to the voice of Christ alone and that it is meete the mouthes of al men be shut after that our Lord hath once spoken Caluin lib. 4. instit cap. 8. § 7. 8. which by his ordinary courses he seemeth to approue as a sufficient argument to shew that the wordes themselues of Scripture as they are expounded by himself are without contradiction to be applauded and reuerenced yet at other times he desireth al sorts diligently to ponder and examine whether the word of God be truly or falsly alleaged and to try the spirits whether they be of God or no because the Deuil assaulted Christ by Scripture and his instruments daily practise the same art to depraue the truth and seduce silly soules This course he taketh against the Anabaptists as I haue shewed a litle before See before chap. 8. sect 5. Nay discoursing against the Lutherans he vseth these wordes Nowe againe I turne my speech to you godly readers whome I earnestly beseech that you suffer not your senses to be astonied with that tinckling wherein the Magdeburgians boast This voice alwaies soundeth in their mouthes Caluin admonit vltima ad Westphalum pag. 1147. that we must not dispute where Christ the only master and doctour hath clearely taught what is to be beleeued that we must not contend where the same supreame judge hath pronounced a plaine sentence thus Caluin to the Lutherans pleading hardly the scriptures against him in proofe of the real presence After this sort also Beza against the Arians Trinitarians Nestorians and Eutichians pleaded the authority of general Councels as I haue else where shewed Part. 1. chap. 9. Westphalus likewise wrote to a Caluini ibid. pag. 1098. Caluin that the consent of many Churches condemning him should satisfie him Finally our English Protestants although they pronounce so hard a censure against general Councels themselues and are so earnest for the sufficiency of only Scripture as we haue seene before yet against the Puritans plead hardly the authority of the Church Councels and Fathers as euery man may behold in their vvorkes of this argument Whitgift in his defence Belson in his treatise of the perpetual gouernement of the Church and such other examples are not wanting Touching their dissention and diuision a Tertul lib. de praescript Tertullian affirmeth that we may lawfuly judge that there is adulteration both of Scripture and expositions where there is found diuersity of doctrine And the reason of this is manifest because the truth vnto vvhich the Scriptures and their true interpretation is consonant and giue testimony is one wherefore they cannot approue diuers and opposite doctrines Nowe that diuision is found among our aduersaries no man of any sense and reading can deny b Stanislaus Rescius lib. de Acheismis Phalerismis haereticorum nostri tēporis Stanislaus Rescius numbreth of them an hundred seauenty distinct sects of which c Caspar Vlenbergius li. 22. Causarū causae 9. Caspar Vlenbergius reciteth diuers principal * See Hedio a Zwinglian epist ad Melancthonem others reckon farre more And this euery man may the better beleeue if he consider that it is a very hard matter to finde any two of the learned sort of them of one opinion touching al matters of religion Hence ariseth dissention in their Churches in which they proceede so farre that they feare not to censure and condemne one another of heresie If we beleeue d Luther thes 27. cont Louaniens tom 7. in defens verborum coenae c. Luther and the Lutherans Zwinglius Caluin and al the Sacramentaries are damned Heretikes If we credit e Zwinglius tom 2. in respōs ad Luth. l. de Sacram. fol. 411. 401. Caluin admonit 3. ad Westphalum Zwinglius Caluin and other Sacramentaries Luther and the Lutherans are guilty of the same crime And the like dissentions are betweene the inuentours and followers of other sectes But of this matter I shal haue a more fit opportunity to discourse in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church vvherefore in this place passing ouer altogether with silence the domestical discord which is betweene our Protestants and Puritans touching the Lutherans and Caluinists abroad I vvil recite this only testimony of an f Relation of the state of religion in the West parts of the world §. 45. written as said by Sir Edwine Sans printed in the yeare 1605. English Protestant who hauing trauailed in those parts of their dissention writeth
followeth the truth and who is guilty of errour I adde likewise that he must needes confesse that both Luther Zwinglius and al the principal sectaries haue erred in some one point or other for I thinke that there is almost no man that followeth either of them in al thinges howe then can any man be assured that they haue not likewise erred in other articles in which he followeth them Surely a possibility of errour in one point argueth a possibility of errour in al other of that kinde But these matters haue beene touched before Chapter 10. Containing the Conclusion of this Treatise LET vs now drawe forth of the long discourse of this treatise some briefe conclusions and so make an end First therefore out of that which hath beene here said I gather that the Catholikes build their faith and religion vpon farre more sound and firme groundes then the professors of the newe doctrine This is manifest because there is not so much as one ground among al those which I haue set downe in the first part of this treatise on which the Catholikes build vvhich doth not farre excel any ground whatsoeuer of the newe sectaries yea I dare yet goe a litle farther and affirme that although I should set aside the authority of the Church of which as I haue aboue declared al our particular groundes receiue their strength and force and consider our groundes only as they are in themselues vvithout any other authority annexed and also graunt vnto our aduersaries that they build vpon the bare letter of holy Scripture yet I say I dare affirme that we build vpon the holy Scripture farre more soundly and more firmely then they Consider a litle that the Catholikes receiue the bare letter of holy scripture in the tongues in which these sacred bookes were first penned as wel as the sectaries let vs therefore suppose that in this they are equal But what a great difference shal we finde betweene the proofs of the truth of their translation and interpretation and the proofe of ours Hieron in praefat in Euang ad Damasum Item in Catalago The Catholikes haue the old Testament translated by S. Hierome their translation of the new Testament although it was vsed in the Latin Church before S. Hieromes daies yet it vvas by him corrected and amended And what was S. Hierome He was first a marueilous holy man of life as al antiquity giueth testimony he flourished in the Church aboue eleauen hundred yeares since and therefore he liued neare vnto the Apostles daies that is vvithin the first fiue hundred yeares after Christ wherefore the said Apostles doctrine being then something fresh in memory he could with greater ease attaine to the true sense and meaning of holy Scripture then any interpreter of our age In his daies there was no question or doubt moued in the church concerning the especial points now in controuersie betweene vs the new sectaries I meane touching the real presence justification and such like points wherefore he was a man indifferent not partial of either side but he followed that sense which was then commonly approued by the consent of the whole Church Of his great learning thus vvriteth S. Augustine in his first booke against Iulian the Pelagian Aug. lib. 1. contra Iulianum cap. 7. Neither doe thou thinke that S. Hierome because he was only a Priest is to be despised who being skilful in the Latin Greeke and moreouer in the Hebrewe tongue passing from the west Church to the East liued in the holy places in Iewrie and in study of holy Scripture vntil he was a very old man This man read al or almost al that before him had written of Ecclesiastical doctrine in both parts of the world This is the testimony of S. Augustine The like he hath in an a Idem li. 18. de ciuit c. 43. other place of his workes and b See also Cassianus l. 7. de verbi Incarn cont Nestor Prosp de ingrat Cassiodor diuinar Lect. ca. 21. and others other approued authors giue him as great a commendation Adde vnto this that for the better vnderstanding of the Hebrewe text he c Hieron epist 4. et 125 tooke instructions concerning that tongue of the most learned of the Iewes Hence Illiricus a learned Lutheran hauing found fault with the Church of the foure first ages after Christ for ignorance in the Hebrewe tongue of S. Hierome vvriteth as followeth Only my countrieman Hierome was marueilous cunning in the tongues he endeauoured to illustrate the Scriptures both by his translations and commentaries But he indeed being ignorant of mans sicknesse and Christ the phisition and wanting the key which openeth the Scripture that is the difference betweene the lawe and the Gospel being also destitute of Christ who openeth the dore did litle good hitherto are his vvordes Of which it is manifest d Illiricus in Claui part 1. proefat that according to this Protestants judgement no skil in the tongues was wanting to this holy doctour And although I confesse that the knowledge of the rule of faith beleeued in the Church and the assistance of Christ and the holy Ghost are necessary to this that a man truly translate or interprete Scripture yet I also first affirme that any man of sense wil rather yeeld these prerogatiues to S. Hierome a man so holy and auncient then to any newe sectary whatsoeuer Secondly I cannot see how according to the Protestant grounds these conditions or qualities can be pre-required in a translator or interpreter of such diuine bookes for if the Scripture be the foundation and only rule of faith as they teach and out of it only true beliefe is to be learned how is it possible but a man first beginning to translate read or interprete Scripture shal vvant true beliefe Howe can Scripture be the only ground of our faith and yet true faith be prerequired to the true translation and interpretation of Scripture Besides this out of the wordes of Illiricus alleaged it may wel be gathered that no skil and knowledge of tongues sufficeth to make a man a sufficient translatour or expounder of Scripture except vvithal his faith bee sound and he directed by Christ who openeth the dore Of which it vvil followe seing that no man as they say before he readeth and vnderstandeth Scripture can infallibly knowe that he himselfe or any other is indued with such faith or hath such assistance that no man can infallibly knowe his owne or an other mans translation to be true and sincere Verily if the translators faith must be judged by the conformity which it hath to holy Scripture as it is by them affirmed the Scripture must first be knowne before this conformity can be discerned and howe can this be done by the vnlearned sectary seing that he cannot otherwise knowe the Scripture but by some translator or interpreter Of which may be inferred that the vnlearned sectaries can neuer assure themselues
that any translation is true but of these matters before For the authority also of our translation in general it maketh that it hath beene read and allowed of in the Church aboue eleauen hundred yeares and approued by thousands of Saintes and learned men and by them accepted as the true vvord of God The translation of the old testament in particular if we beleeue S. Augustine Aug. l. 18. de ciuitat c. 43. was acknowledged as true by the very Iewes themselues then liuing who fauoured no more vs then the Protestants That of the newe as the same holy Father writeth was also in those daies approued by al Christians Idem epist 10 ad Hieron For it likewise we haue the testimony of Beza himselfe who among our aduersaries is accounted a great linguist who in commendation of the old translator writeth thus The old interpreter seemeth to haue interpreted or translated the holy bookes Beza in c. 1. Luc. vers 1. IbideÌ„ in praefat nou test anno 1556. Idem ibid. with marueilous sincerity and religion Againe The vulgar edition I embrace for the most part and preferre it before al other whatsoeuer By it in diuers places he correcteth the Greeke text as may be seene Luc. 20. vers 28. Luc. 7. vers 31. c. He also blameth Erasmus for reprehending of it as dissenting from the Greeke saying that he doth it vnjustly I wil recite his wordes which are as followeth Howe vnjustly and without cause doth Erasmus blame the old interpreter as dissenting from the Greeke He dissented I grant from those Greeke copies which Erasmus had gotten but we haue found out in one place that the same interpretation which he blameth is grounded vpon the authority of other Greeke copies and those most ancient Yea in some number of places we haue obserued that the reading of the Latin text of the old interpreter though it agree not some times with our Greeke copies yet it is much more conuenient for that it seemeth he followed some truer and better copy Thus Beza Vnto whome I joine Molinaeus an other sectary as some thinke to him not inferiour Molinaeus in Luc. 17. who in like sort preferreth this edition before those of Erasmus Bucer Bullinger Brentius Pagnines that of Zuricke yea also before Iohn Caluins and al others He affirmeth Ibidem that Erasmus in a certaine place did wel to followe the old edition and saith it had beene better for Beza to haue done so too He auoucheth further that Beza did not wel in changing the old translation Idem in Ioan. 3. v. 19. 43 see also in Ioan 7. ver 35. He addeth also * IdeÌ„ part 30 that he can very hardly depart from the vulgar and accustomed reading which also I am wont saith he very earnestly to defend Castalio in like sort a man much commended by a Humfredus de rat Interp. lib. 1. pa. 62. 63. 189. D. Humfrey and b Gesnerus in Bibliotheca Gesnerus blameth Beza for finding fault with the old interpreter c Castalio in defens p. 179 174. 181. 183. 188. 198. 202. 204. 213. auerring that he doth it vnjustly and that the said old interpreter had translated it better before Yea d Humfred de rat interpret lib. 1. pag. 74. D. Humfrey himselfe yeeldeth the old translator this praise The old interpreter seemeth sufficiently bent to followe the propriety of wordes and he doth in deede ouer carefully which notwithstanding I suppose him to haue done not of ignorance but of religion And in truth that this is no fault I gather out of his owne doctrine for he e Ibid. p. 179. telleth vs that in prophane writers a man may range abroade more freely and depart from the wordes but in Canonical scripture saith he no such licence is tollerable for man may not alter the tongue of God And thus much for the vulgar Latin edition of the newe Testament out of our aduersaries Further for the truth of our expositions of the holy Scripture we haue the continual tradition of the Church and the testimony and suffrage of al the holy Fathers and of thousands of Saints and learned men who euer expounded it as we doe and out of it gathered the selfe same doctrine and beliefe For vnto them vve are al contented to remit the trial of the truth of our cause and of the hoâ—y Church and them we professe our selues to learne the true sense of the word of God And thus much the Catholikes can alleage for the authority of their translation and interpretation of holy Scripture although they set aside the authority of the Church Nowe what can our aduersaries say for themselues what sound testimony or proof can they bring for the truth of their translations and expositions Surely euery sect at the lest hath a distinct bible wherefore for the proofe of these thinges they can only alleage the testimony of their sect-master or translator of their Bible and his followers And what a goodly matter is this doe not farre more of the new sectaries themselues condemne reject euery one of their Bibles and their particular expositions then there doe approue them Certainly euery Bible is condemned by diuers but approued only by the followers of one sect and so in like sort are diuers particular interpretations Vnto which I adde that the diuersity of their Bibles maketh the truth of them al suspected for seing that we haue no greater reason to allowe of one then of an other and al but one without al doubt are false as they themselues must needes confesse because there is but one true word of God we may with like reason reject them al. Moreouer is any one of their sect-masters or learned translators or expositors to be compared with S. Hierome Is the opinion of a fewe sectaries touching the translation and interpretation of holy Scriptures to be preferred before the testimony of al the Saints learned men that flourished in the Church in S. Hieromes daies and euer since yea I may demand whether their opinion be to be preferred before the testimony of al good Christians that haue liued euer since the beginning of Christianity For S. Hierome followed the steps of his predecessors and consented with the vniuersal Church of his age and the Church euer since hath approued his labours Stancarus de Trinit Mediat M. 4. Surely Stancarus himselfe a Protestant auoucheth that Peter Lombard called the master of sentences is more to be esteemed then one hundred Luthers two hundred Melancthons three hundred Bullingers foure hundred Peter Martirs fiue hundred Caluins He addeth that if al these sectaries named were beaten or pounded together in a morter there could not be strained or pressed out of them one ounce of true diuinity especially out of their doctrine concerning the blessed Trinity the Incarnation the Mediator and the Sacraments which neuerthelesse be the principal misteries of Christian religion Wherefore he concludeth
that Peter Lombardes doctrine is truly golden their 's dirty and filthy Thus discourseth Stancarus one of their owne company Yet who knoweth not that Peter Lombard by the Catholikes is accounted but among the middle sort of diuines and who is so bold as to compare him to S. Hierome especially in translating and expounding the Scriptures But the more to weaken the credit of their translated Bibles vvhich they boast to be drawne and featched from the very fountaines themselues to wit from the Hebrewe Greeke text in which tongues the scriptures were first penned let vs here adde not only that they are not sincerely featched from thence as hath beene sufficiently proued before euen by the testimonies of Protestants themselues but also that the said fountaines and that likewise according to the judgement of Protestants are not now pure and sincere but in some places haue beene corrupted I haue in like sort proued before this last point as farre forth as it concerneth the Greeke text of the new testament And although something hath beene said of the Hebrew text of the old yet in this place I wil relate for further proofe of the same certaine sentences of Castalio Conradus Pellicanus and D. Humfrey in vvhich this is plainely auouched For the first of these writing in defence of himself against one that maintained the sincerity and purity of the Hebrewe text hath these wordes Castalio in defens suae translat pag. 227. This good fellowe seemeth to be of that opinion as in manner al the Iewes are and some Christians drawing neare to Iudaisme or Iudaizing in this respect that he thinketh no errour euer to haue crept into the Hebrew Bibles that God would neuer suffer that any word should be corrupted in those sacred bookes as though the bookes of the old testament were more holy then those of the newe in the which newe so many diuers readings are found in so many places or as though it were credible that God had more regard of one or other litle word or sillable then he had of whole bookes whereof he hath suffered many I say not to be depraued but to be vtterly lost Thus Castalio And in his discourse following he calleth this high opinion of the Hebrewe text a Iewish superstition Conrad Pellic tom 4. in Psal 85. v. 9. alias 8. Conradus Pellicanus expounding these wordes of the 84. Psalme vers 9. Qui conuertuntur ad cor which in one of our English Bibles are thus translated * Bibl. 1592. Bible read in Churches That they turne not againe to folly and an other That they turne not againe writeth after this sort The old interpreter seemeth to haue read one way whereas the Iewes nowe reade another which I say because I would not haue men thinke this to haue proceeded from the ignorance or slouthfulnesse of the old interpreter Rather we haue cause to finde fault for want of diligence in the Antiquaries and faith in the Iewes who both before Christs comming since seeme to haue beene lesse careful of the Psalmes then of their Talmudical songes Hitherto are his wordes Humfred lib. 1. de rat interpret pa. 178. Idem ibid. lib. 2. pag. 219. In like sort D. Humfrey telleth vs that the reader may easily finde out and judge howe many places the Iewish superstition hath corrupted And againe I like not saith he that men should to much followe the Rabbins as many doe for those places which promise and declare Christ the true Messias are most filthily corrupted by them Such is the judgement of these sectaries Perhaps some man vvil deeme these to be men of no account among Protestants but it is not so D. Humfrey is wel knowne Humfre ibid. lib. 1. pag. 62. 63. 189. and he matcheth Castalio with the best and affirmeth the Bible by him translated to be most paineful most diligent most throughly conferred examined sifted and polished Gesnerus also a sectary of no smal fame giueth him this commendation Castalio hath translated the Bible so diligently Gesnerus in Bibliotheca and with so singular fidelity according to the Hebrewe and Greeke that he seemeth farre to haue surpassed al translations of al men whatsoeuer haue hitherto beene set forth Finally Conradus Pellicanus vvas Professor of the Hebrewe tongue in Zuricke And out of this vvhole discourse it is euident that although vvee should suppose the authority of the Church not to be infallible and that both vve and our aduersaries build only vpon the bare letter of holy Scripture yet that the said letter is a farre more sound and firme ground as it is translated and expounded by vs then it is as it is translated and expounded by our aduersaries For although vve both challenge to our selues the holy Scriptures yet our translation and interpretation is of greater authority then theirs We also for the proofe of the sense by vs receiued offer to be tried by the censure of al our auncestors from vvhome together with the letter we haue receiued also that sense which vve embrace Contrariwise they both in their translation and exposition build onlie vpon their owne judgement and haue no further proof or authority And this I say is true although we should make the Church subject to errour and grant the bare letter of Scripture to be the ground of our aduersaries beliefe But as I haue proued the authority of the Church is infallible and diuine and besides this the newe sectaries build not vpon the letter of holy Scripture Secondly I inferre of that which hath beene said that our aduersaries according to their doctrine haue no infallible meane whereby to knowe what articles of faith haue beene reuealed by God to his Church and consequently that they want a condition necessary to true faith And this is manifest both because they make the Church which God as I haue shewed hath ordained to be the ordinary meane for vs to come to the knowledge of such thinges subject to error and also because the bare letter of Scripture vvhich they ordinarily pretend in this case is insufficient neither doe they build vpon it as I haue proued Thirdly I conclude that absolutely al the professors of the newe Gospel ground their faith and religion vpon the judgement and fancy of man not vpon any diuine authority Hence they measure the omnipotent power of God by their owne weake vnderstanding and in those misteries vvhich being aboue the reach of reason cannot be by it comprehended they cry out vvith the Iewes howe can this be Iohn 6. v. 52. Ciril lib. 4. in Ioan. cap. 13. which word howe saith S. Ciril Bishop of Alexandria is a Iewish word and worthy of al punishment This also vvas in some sort confessed by king Henry the eight the first head of our English Church For being desirous after his denial of the Popes supreamacy to make some innouation of religion within his dominions he published as Hal Hollinshed and Stowe
report certaine articles vnto which he gaue this title In the yeare of our Lord 1536. of King Henry 28. Stow p. 965. edit an 1600 Articles deuised by the Kinges highnesse Insinuating thereby that both the said articles and al other dissonant from the doctrine of the Church were and are deuises of men This moued a certaine Courtier in those daies discoursing with a Lutheran Lady that found great fault both with this title and the articles to answere her that he had rather follow the deuises of a King then of a knaue meaning Luther if needes newe deuises in religion were to be admitted but this illation or conclusion is sufficiently proued before And this vveake foundation of our aduersaries was also noted by the auncient Fathers in the auncient Heretikes Irinaeus lib. 3 cap. 2. S. Irenaeus recordeth that euery one of the Heretikes of his age and before auerred his owne fiction which he had deuised to be wisdome and that euery one of them boasted that vndoubtedly and sincerely he knewe the hidden mistery Tertullian affirmeth that a Tertull. de praescript ca. 37. see also cap. 6. Heretikes arise of diuersity of doctrine which euery man either inuenteth or receiueth at his pleasure b Aug. tom 6. cont Faustum l. 32. cap. 29. Al Heretikes saith S. Augustine that receiue the Scriptures as authentical seeme to themselues to followe the said Scriptures whereas they rather followe their owne errors and are Heretikes for this not for that they contemne them but because they doe not vnderstand them Hitherto S. Augustine He affirmeth likewise as I haue noted before d Tom. 7. de nuptijs cōcupiscentijs lib. 2. cap. 31. that Heretikes make not their faith subject to the Scriptures but the Scriptures subject to their faith and that it is the custome of Heretikes to wrest the Scriptures to what sense they please the like sentence hath e Hieron ad Paulam epist 2. siue in prologo Bibliorū S. Hierome Hence like as the Apostle tearmeth couetousnesse Idolatry and consequently a couetous man an Idolater so the f See Tertull. de praescr ca. 40. S. Cipriā de vnitat Eccles Num. 12 S. Hieron in Osee 11. Amos 8. Abacuc 2. August in psal 8 v. 10. l. 18. de ciuitat c. 51. l. de vtilitat jejunij c. auncient Fathers tearme heresie Idolatry and an Heretike an Idolater for like as the couetous man his worldly wealth so the Heretike maketh his owne fancies as it were his God Last of al I conclude that the professors of the new religion are Heretikes and haue no faith They are Heretikes because they obstinately defend doctrine condemned by the Church of Christ as heretical which doctrine they build principally vpon their owne fancies For according to their owne priuate judgementes they choose their belief of which choise as we are taught by g Tertul. lib. de praescript cap. 6. Tertullian and h Hieron in epist ad Galat. habetur 24. q. 3. cap. haeresis S. Hierome such Sectaries are called Heretikes that is to say choosers i Tertul. de praescrip c. 6. see also c. 37. Heresie saith Tertullian is so called from the Greeke word signifieth an election or choise which a man vseth either in inuenting or receiuing it With him accordeth S. Hierome whose wordes be these k Hier. in ep ad Galatas Heresie is a Greeke word and is deriued from election or choise because euery man chooseth that doctrine which he thinketh best And hence it is that the faith of Christians he meaneth of Catholikes can neuer truly be called an heresy for this dependeth not of the fancy of any man nor was inuented by mans wit but was manifested vnto men by the inspiration and reuelation of God thus farre S. Hierome They haue likewise no faith both because they vvant a condition necessarily requisite to this vertue and also because faith as I haue proued ought to be built vpon diuine authority and therefore cannot be grounded vpon any mans opinion and judgement in the world except it be warranted from error by God himselfe which warrant is wanting to al the professors of the newe religion as I haue declared vvherefore the fallible and erroneous fancy of men is their only ground Of which I inferre according to my discourse in the beginning of this l Part. 1 ch 4. pag. 27. treatise that they haue in like sort no religion because the roote and foundation of Christian relgion is faith m Hebr. 11 6. without which as the Apostle saith it is impossible to please God Hence the auncient Fathers denied Heretikes to be Christians If they be Heretikes saith Tertullian they cannot be Christians Tertu de praescript c. 37. Augustin in Enchirid. ad Laurentium cap. 5. His reason is because in following their owne election and not receiuing their doctrine of Christ they admit the name of Heretikes The name of Christ only saith S. Augustine is found among Heretikes who wil haue themselues called Christians but Christ in very deede is not among them S. Ciprian teacheth vs the self same lesson and affirmeth that * Cipr. epist 52. ad Antonianum whosoeuer and whatsoeuer he be that is not in the Church he is no Christian The very selfe same sentence is also pronounced by a Aug. serm 81. de tempore cap. 12. S. Augustine in one of his sermons and other fathers haue the like Finally b Beza de haereticis a ciuili magistratu puniendis p. 184. 185. see him also pag. 106. 236. Beza himselfe censureth such as breake due order doe not subject themselues to the word of God but according to the property of Heretikes endeuour to subject the word of God to themselues to be Idolators and in this worse then Infidels that they shadowe their lies with a colour of piety and truth thus much Beza And thus I thinke the argument of this treatise throughly proued wherefore it remaineth only that I exhort euery man that hath care of his soule and saluation and dreadeth the anger of God and euerlasting damnation if he be a member of the Church of Christ and a childe of his Spouse there firmely to remaine if he be not with al speed to incorporate himselfe to this sacred body and to flie the fancies of his owne judgement and the erroneous conceits of mortal men Math. 7 24. So shal he like vnto a wise man build his howse vpon a rocke which no stormes of windes raine or flouds can ouerthrowe not as a foolish man vpon the sand of mans imagination and consequently haue it subject to alteration This Church is a firme and immoueable rocke the sure piller and firmament of truth on vvhich vve may securely build our saluation and the whole edifice of our faith She is an inuincible Castle and fortresse against falshood a learned Mistris and guide in al matters doubtful and a most certaine security in
al points appertaining to faith and religion She is finally the ship and skilful pilot which throughout al the stormes and tempests of Schismes and Heresies vvil guide vs vvithout errour to the porte of euerlasting saluation and make vs fit stones to be placed euerlastingly in the triumphant Church of God in heauen FINIS AN APPENDIX TO THIS TREATISE CONTAINING A BRIEFE CONFVTATION OF A BOOKE PVBLISHED IN THE YEARE M. D.C.VI BY WILLIAM CRASHAW bearing this title Romish forgeries and falfifications c. IF al vvere true which is objected by newe sectaries against the one true Spouse of Christ the Catholike Church al men endued vvith reason might according to reason prudently meruaile that any man of common sense doth follow her doctrine or embrace her communion Luther exclaimeth against her children that they make the Virgin Mary a * Luther ad Euangeliū d◠festo Annunciationis Goddesse giuing her omnipotency both in heauen and earth Caluin a Caluin book 3. Instit c. 20 §. 22. l. de necessit reformand Eccles that they giue the worship of God vnto Saints and honour them and their relikes in place of Christ Luther againe b Luth. ad c. 50. Genes in colloq Germ. c. de Christo that they deny justification and saluation through Christes passion and merits Caluin c Caluin book 3. Instit cap. 20. §. 21. that in their Litanies Hymnes and Proses there is no mention of Christ yea that for the most part Christ being passed ouer God is praied to by the names of Saints Luther moreouer d Luther ad l. Ducis Georgij scripsit an 1533. l. de abrogat Missae priuatae that they hold a man may keepe the Commandements without the grace of God Caluin that they e Caluin booke 1. Instit ch 11. §. 9. and 10. giue Idolatrous worship vnto Images Luther also that f Luther l. de Ecclesia the Pope buried the Scripture in dirt and dust Caluin g Caluin booke 4. Instit ch 9. §. 24. in antid Concil Triden sess 7. Canon 1◠that they make the oracles of God subject vnto men and that they esteeme more in baptisme of chrisme salt and such other thinges then of the washing with water Luther finally h Luther lib. de Concilijs that they giue to Councels authority to make newe articles of faith and change the old Caluin that they giue the Pope authority to institute new Sacraments and that the Popes hold there is no God Caluin alij passim in 2. Thessal 2 4. Caluin Instit booke 4. chap. 7. §. 27. that al thinges written and taught of Christ are lies and deceits that the doctrine concerning the future life and the last resurrection are meere fables These and diuers other such monstrous vntruthes are forged by our aduersaries against vs and this course they are constrained to take that they may haue something to impugne For if they should plainely and sincerely deliuer vvhat we hold the force and brightnesse of truth it selfe would easily at her only sight weaken yea ouerthrowe al their impugnations And like as the first beginners of the new religion ranne these vnconscionable I may say shameful courses so their successors alwaies haue continued in the same and euen those of our daies obstinately refusing to accept of any reasonable answere or to vnderstand the truth insist in the steps of their predecessors For vvhereas if they were but indifferent they might wel perceiue that vve vvhome neither feare of death nor infamy and disgrace nor losse of liberty liuing and worldly goodes can moue to doe one act contrary to our religion wil not for al the world denie any one article of our faith Yet notwithstanding although we denie their false slaunders neuer so much yet they vvil needes haue vs to hold them as they say vvhether vve vvil or no. Diuers impute vnto vs daily strange paradoxes in matters of faith But among others one William Crashaw Anno 1606. In the Epistle Dedicatory hath not long since published a booke accusing vs of an horrible matter of fact to wit of the crime of corruption and forgery in the highest degree so are his wordes His said booke beareth this title Romish forgeries and falsifications together with Catholike restitutions By reading of the contents of it he that is not learned and acquainted with their dealings may easily be drawne and perswaded not only to condemne vs as notable corrupters and forgers but further to imagine that we in former ages haue corrupted al the Fathers workes and consequently inferre that their testimonies can yeeld vs no firme ground vvhereon to build our faith Crash in his preface to the reader §. see what see also § wil these men contrary to that which hath beene said in this Treatise Nay Crashaw himselfe doth not only affirme that they haue cause to suspect that we haue so dealt with the Fathers because we haue not spared as he saith some as ancient as some fathers but also auerreth that it wil be proued to the worlds view that we * §. But whē haue de facto corrupted almost al antiquity in so much that no man can tel what ground to stand vpon either for Councels Fathers decrees or mens writings And he addeth § To end this point that he doth not doubt but ere long God wil raise vp some instruments of his glory who shal fully discouer to the world this treachery of the Romish Church by making it as apparent they haue corrupted the Fathers as I hope saith he to doe in this and the bookes ensuing that they haue corrupted al such late writers as they imagined any way to make against them Thus Crashaw For the resolution of which his false imputation as also for clearing of our present practise which may seeme to some to tend towardes the ouerthrow of the authority of antiquity I thinke it not amisse to spend some fewe lines in prouing these three points First that our practise in correcting of bookes reprehended by Crashaw is prudent and laudable Secondly that our aduersaries if we offend in this are much more to be condemned for the like proceedings in the same kinde Lastly that the Fathers vvorkes are sincere and free from al corruption To declare the first I must first giue my reader to vnderstand that the Church of Christ nowe hath and euer hath had authority to censure and condemne al such bookes as are published and containe thinges any vvaies opposite to the truth of her faith and religion This first appeareth because she is supreame judge on earth of al controuersies arising touching faith and religion and hath jurisdiction ouer euery Christian from which it proceedeth that she condemneth heresies and Heretikes wherefore it cannot be denied but she hath also authority to condemne the works of any Heretike or other person vvhatsoeuer containing heresies or errours opposite to her faith For much more it is to condemne
an Heretike or an heresie then to condemne an heretical or erroneous booke Secondly authority to doe this was needful for the preseruation of one true faith and religion in the Church for vvhat is more daungerous to infect true Christian harts then bad bookes especially if they be not knowne and censured to be such but read by al sorts indifferently as Catholike and Orthodoxal Verily if conference and conuersation vvith Heretikes be so straightly a Rom. 16 17. 2. Tim. 3. v. 5. Titus 3. v. 10 2. Iohn v. 10. Iâ—â—n l. 3. c. 3. Cipr. l. 1. ep 3 Athanas in vita Antonij forbidden vs both by the Scriptures and Fathers as vve finde much more are their bookes to be auoided which diuers times containe poison coloured vvith eloquence vvhich may alwaies be had at hand and are easily dispersed euer in such places vnto which Heretikes cannot haue accesse Hence the very Heathens themselues led by reason and the lawe of nature only b Plato lib. 7. de legibus Valer. Maxi. lib. 1. cap. 1. Cicero l. 1. de natur DeoruÌ„ Lact. l. de ira Dei cap. 9. Sueton. in August cap. 31. Dio Cas l. 54 Titus Liuius lib. 39. condemned bookes hurtful and prejudicial to the religion by them receiued as I could proue out of Plato Valerius Maximus Cicero Lactantius Suetonius Diocassius Titus Liuius and others Fourthly the Church hath in al ages practised such authority as is euident by Ecclesiastical recordes I wil name only a fewe examples because I wil not be ouer long S. Clement telleth vs that the c Clemens lib. 1. Constit Apostol cap. 7. Apostles themselues forbad the faithful to reade the bookes of the Gentiles About the yeare 250. Dionisius Alexandrinus as Eusebius d Euseb lib. 7. hist cap. 6. recordeth vvas reprehended by other faithful people for reading the bookes of Heretikes e Ciril epist Sinod 1. In the yeare 432. the Fathers assembled in the general Councel of Ephesus requested of Theodosius then Emperour that he vvould take order that the bookes of Nestorius vvheresoeuer they vvere found should be burnt and according to their request the said Emperor by his imperial constitution f L. vlt. de haeret Cod. Theodos Laberatus in Breuiar c. 10 willed that al such bookes should be dilligently sought for and publikely committed to the fire g Anast epist ad Ioan. Hierosolim S. Anastasius the Pope at Rome and S. Epiphanius in a Sinod held at Ciprus with diuers others about the yeare 402. h Socrat. li. 6. cap. 9. see S. HieroÌ„ ep 26. condemned the booke of Origines called Periarchon which Ruffinus to the great hurt of the Church had published before in the citty of Rome and Didimus in the East S. Leo the great burnt great store of the Manichees bookes in Rome as i Prosper in Chronic. 443 Prosper writeth in the yeare 443. The fourth Councel of Carthage permitteth only Bishops to reade heretical bookes in time of necessity Gelasius the Pope in a Councel of seauenty Bishops held at Rome in the yeare 494. k Distinct 15. Can. Sancta Romana sentenced diuers books and made a certaine index of them as is to be seene in the decree yet extant The fift general Councel about the yeare 553. condemned certaine thinges written by Theodoretus against S. Ciril and the epistle of Iba And al those bookes except those of Nestorius were thus l Socrates lib. 1. cap. 6. censured long after the death of the authors m See L. Damnato Concil Chalced. act 3. L. Quicunque Cod. de haereticis The like examples I could bring of the proceedinges of Constantine the great against the bookes of Arius L. vlt. tit 16. lib. 9. leg 24. tit 4. l. 16 Cod. Theod. Socrat. lib. 2. histor tripartitae Liberat. in Breuiario cap. 10. who prohibited them vnder paine of death of Valentinian and Martian Christian Emperors against those of Eutiches and Apollinaris of Honorius and Theodosius against bookes of art Magicke Yea Arcadius Honorius and Iustinian by their lawes decreed that al heretical bookes should be burnt publikely And this practise perhaps of burning such books began in the Apostles times vvhen as S. Luke vvriteth in the acts of the Apostles * Act. 19 19. Many of them that followed curious thinges brought together their bookes and burnt them before al. Nowe seing the Church hath authority to condemne or burne heretical bookes or others that containe false doctrine opposite to the rule of faith no man of any judgement wil deny but shee hath also authority to correct them if by that means she can make them profitable for her vse and beneficial to her children For much lesse it is to correct then to condemne and burne and much better it is in such cases to correct then cleane to abolish Hence are these wordes of S. Hierome speaking of the vvorkes of Origen Hieron epist 76. ideÌ„ epist. 64. Apolog 1. aduersus Ruffin Neither are his euil opinions to be receiued for his doctrine neither are his Commentaries if he wrote any vpon the holy Scripture altogether to be rejected for the wickednesse of his opinions thus S. Hierome who vpon this ground newly translated and amended the booke of Origen before mentioned In like sort the collations of Cassian were long after his death corrected by diuers as we gather out of Cassiodorus and Ado. And although this authority of the Church be such Cassiod Institut diuin lect cap. 29. Ado in Chronic an 425. in fine that with discretion and to edification she may execute it against any whatsoeuer yet much more reason right she hath to execute it vpon the workes of her children who are her subjects submit themselues and their workes wholy to her censure Some man perhaps wil say that euery Catholike doth not so submit himselfe and his workes but it is certaine that vvhosoeuer doth not so either expresly or vertually is no Catholike because he preferreth his owne judgement before the censure of the vvhole Church And whosoeuer doth this although through ignorance he erre as euery man may he is no Heretike according to that of S. Augustine I may erre I cannot be an Heretike seing that the one is proper to a man the other to a peruerse and obstinate wil. And out of this discourse I conclude that if our Church be Catholike as it is we are not to be blamed for our proceedinges in forbidding and correcting such bookes as oppose themselues any vvaies against our religion or may seduce the harts of their simple readers or any waies seeme to taste of an heretical kind of speach or phrase although the authors themselues diuers times intended no hurt And this must much more be graunted vnto vs in moderne authours and such as haue written in this last age both because they submitted themselues commonly in expresse tearmes to the censure of the Church and also because by the
late orders of the church nothing must be published in print except it be first viewed and allowed by men therevnto authorized wherefore whatsoeuer commeth now forth seemeth to be approued by the Church and consequently a man may wel inferre that it containeth no notorious error or heresie Whereof I inferre that the Church in case that any such errours escape must be very diligent and vigilant in mending of them lest that in steade of vvholesome doctrine some ignorantly perhaps and that through her default drinke poison But yet to descend a litle lower what bookes may we correct according to our rules and of what antiquity none certainely of any Catholikes but such as liued since the yeare one thousand fiue hundred and fifteene vvhich vvas the second yeare before Luther beganne to fal from vs besides a fewe other expresly named in our Index of forbidden bookes And of such named authours more ancient then Luther howe many haue we de facto corrected Verily I doe not thinke that Crashaw can bring forth so much as one True it is that he vseth these wordes In the Epistle dedicatory fol. 2. We produce the authours that liued and wrote long before Luther but we finde them so rased and altered as some that spake for vs are nowe silent yea some that made for vs are nowe against vs Thus he But howe he wil proue it I doe not knowe He nameth soone after Viues Erasmus Cardinal Cajetane Ferus Stella Espencaeus Oleaster and Faber but al these either liued in Luthers daies or since And for my part I haue perused a litle his booke and I cannot finde any one authour named that liued not either in Luthers daies or after In his testimonies of Iohn Ferus D. 3. only Bertramus and Rampegolus excepted who for ought I knowe are not yet corrected He maketh much adoe about Ferus but what was he and when liued he He was a Catholike Friar in profession although diuers of his sentences seeme to taste of Lutheranisme He flourished as * Crashaw in his testimonies of Iohn Ferus D. 3. Crashaw confesseth in the yeare 1530. that is thirteene yeares after Luthers first breach from vs which was in the yeare 1517. Yea in the next leafe he confesseth him to haue beene aliue in the yeare 1552. more then thirty yeares after Luthers said beginning But perhaps some man vvil say that he published the bookes vvhich we haue corrected before Luthers fal Neither is this true for the most auncient copy that he can name of those bookes he speaketh of was printed in the yeare 1555. almost 40. yeares after that Luther first impugned vs Prolegomena F. 2. as appeareth by his owne graunt And hence a man may both gather howe vvel he proueth his aforesaid assertion affirming that they produce the authours that liued and wrote long before Luther but finde them razed c. and also perceiue howe true that his accusation is They haue corrupted al authours of this last two hundred yeares Prologo E. 3. for as I haue said I thinke that he can hardly name one authour that vve haue corrected of any age before Luthers I can as yet find but one named throughout his booke vvhich vvas of the age immediately before Luthers departure from vs and whether he be corrected or no I know not neuerthelesse this is one of the two hundred yeares Of much lesse truth is that following in vvhich he saith vve haue razed the recordes of higher antiquity reaching vp to some that liued 500. and 800. yeares agoe Ibidem For al this is spoken if it haue any colour of truth for any thing I can finde in his booke or other where of one Bertramus vvhome he auerreth that we haue altered Ibid. §. C. 2. but it is more then euer I sawe or heard And yet not contented with this he goeth a great deale further and auoucheth that our Index expurgatorius hath so vsed almost al bookes in the world I might here vse one of his ordinary exclamations and beginne as I finde the first vvordes of that page Oh intollerable injury For first we haue an expresse inhibition that no man touch the text of the auncient Fathers De correctione librorum §. 3. 4. nor of any Catholikes that vvrote before the yeare 1515. not specified and censured in the Index of forbidden bookes then vve medle not with any bookes of Archeretikes or with such as treate professedly of heresie and so we exclude from our correction al the workes of Luther Zwinglius Caluin and a thousand other bookes of this age And out of this that in like sort appeareth false vvhich he saith of corrupting al such late vvriters as vve imagine any way to make against vs so that we only haue corrected or intend to correct some fewe of vvhich most haue written since this newe Gospel beganne to be preached others very fewe in number liued in deede before the yeare 1515. but are named in our Index and besides these no other can be touched Neither are al these corrected for heresie as wil appeare to the reader by such rules as are to be obserued in the correction of which more hereafter but they are partly set downe by Crashaw towardes the end of his Prolegomena I cannot finally but note Prolegom E. 3. Gesnerus in Bibliotheca that he calleth Ferus an old and famous writer who according to his owne confession vvas liuing vvithin these threescore yeares nay I thinke it may be proued out of Gesnerus that he died not forty yeares since but to saue this he addeth in the margent that he meaneth old in comparison of the Iesuites who nowe saith he carry al before them for he was in the eare when they were in the blade This is his marginal note by which he saueth but il the truth of the text let his meaning be as it wil for the religion of the Iesuites beganne about the yeare 1521. And was confirmed by Paulus 3. Pope about the yeare 1540. long before Ferus died by his owne confession And this it seemeth he wel knewe for it may plainely be gathered out of his preface that the Iesuites were before the end of the Councel of Trent vvhich neuerthelesse vvas in the yeare 1563. But to cleare vs further from al blame touching this point I must also adde this in our defence that this our manner of proceeding is neither to the end to bereaue our aduersaries of any proofe which our aduersaries may bring out of antiquity or any moderne author for the truth of their religion nor to strengthen our cause For although I should yeeld that al the authors whome Crashaw nameth vvere Protestants vvhich yet he confesseth to be false for he granteth they were al Catholikes what should I in effect helpe their cause or weaken ours suppose some named that liued before Luther held some opinions with Wickliffe Hierome of Prage and Iohn Husse what is this to vs Doe
vve build our faith vpon the particular opinions of some fewe priuate men or doe vve proue the truth of our doctrine by their testimonies Moreouer suppose some followed those men in some one or two opinions were they presently in al other points Protestants or doth it proue the Protestant religion true Treatise of the definition and notes of the Church Nothing lesse for as I vvil shewe hereafter neither Wickliffe nor Hierome of Prage nor Iohn Husse were Protestants much lesse any that were in open profession Catholikes But in very deed the Church doth not only in moderne authours correct propositions that are in plaine tearmes heretical but also as appeareth by our rules related by Crashaw such as be erroneous taste of heresie are offensiue to godly eares or temerarious yea such as are vvanton or dishonest superstitious tending to the infamy of any c. as I wil declare anone Besides this if our intention were to make the authors seeme altogether ours and to take them as it vvere from the Sectaries whose doctrine they seeme to approue vvhat reason haue vve to publish in print to the whole world what we wil haue corrected in their workes Is not this a plaine confession that we dislike their manner of speach or their doctrine Wherefore in this we rather helpe our aduersaries cause if the authority of the said authors be of any moment then weaken it And in very truth if vve did it to any such end as they intend it were no wisedome to make our doinges knowne to the world but much more policy we should shewe if vve did it in priuate and neuer made any open mention of it but rather did denie it Why then doe we correct such bookes in very truth as is apparant for no other causes then I haue partly rehearsed before to wit principally that one faith and religion may be preserued among al sorts and that no man embrace any doctrine as approued or tollerated in the Church which is not so approued and tollerated then also to auoid al superstition witchcraft corruption of manners and other such vices as wil appeare by the rules of which hereafter But they say that vve take vpon vs to correct Bertramus an authour vvho liued in the Church 700. yeares since and Rampegolus who flourished in the yeare 1418. I answere that vve neither doe this to bereaue our aduersaries of any testimony for as concerning Bertramus vve commonly graunt that booke vvhich goeth vnder his name to make for their doctrine against the real presence although some Protestants seeme to denie it nay further See the Century writers Centur. 9. c. 4 col 212. many of the best learned men of our side acknowledge also in their publike vvritings the booke to be his * Pantaleon in Chronographia p. 65 although Pantaleon a Sacramentary number it not among his workes and this is sufficient for our aduersaries although the booke be neuer so much altered wherefore for this cause only that some good thinges are contained in it together with the poison lest that men sucke the one with the other we thinke it good to remoue away that vvhich is nought and leaue them the good Rampegolus is nothing like so auncient and besides it is confessed by Possiuinus that his booke being written in a time not oppugned by such heresies as since are risen Possiuin to 1. apparat q. sacr pag. 114. 115. containeth some errours vvherefore neither doe vve endeauour to conceale that in some points he seemeth to fauour our aduersaries He addeth that this authour hath put into his vvorke certaine absurd thinges or rather fables out of the master of the Ecclesiastical history that he hath many thinges otherwise then they are in the Bible that the Scripture is not cited so sincerely yea that sometimes it is alleaged falsly that he hath some thinges Apocryphal out of the 3. booke of Esdras and out of the epistle of Ciril of Hierusalem to S. Augustine concerning the death of S. Hierome Besides this he accuseth him of false allegations of Doctors of Solecismes Barbarismes and obscure phrases And seing that it is a booke vvhich young preachers would much vse if it were not forbidden and that as it is like without choice of the good from the badde for want of learning I hope no man wil blame vs if we amend that which is amisse And thus much of the first point Nowe to come to the second point I must needes returne M. Crashawes argument vpon himselfe thus They who raze the recordes and falsify the monuments of mens writings altering the bookes of learned men after they are dead adding and taking out at their pleasures and namely taking out such wordes sentences and whole discourses as make against them and adding the contrary euen whatsoeuer they can imagine to make for them incurre no lesse crime then corruption and forgery in the highest degree This is gathered out of Crashaw in the second page of his epistle Dedicatory But the followers of the newe religion who are called Protestants Puritans c. haue done so therefore they haue incurred the crime of corruption or forgery in the highest degree M. Crashaw must pardon me if I proceede not in forme of lawe by accusation declaration and proofe as he doth because I haue neuer yet bin preacher at the Temples The proofe of my minor proposition if I should runne through authours vvhich they haue corrupted citing the vvordes and sentences left out or added would rise to a great volume vvherefore briefly only I accuse them of corrupting after this sort the history of Sigonius de regno Italiae of Osorius de rebus gestis Emanuëlis Regis and of Castineda who supplied that which wanted for some yeares after Osorius ended of the liues of the Emperors and diuers others And for the proofe of this to the vnlearned English sectaries I accuse our English Protestants for corrupting S. Augustines meditations his praiers and Manuel The Meditations of Granada printed in the yeare 1602. The conuersion of a sinner the imitation of Christ the Christian directory c. It may be said that in the beginning of the bookes this correction or alteration is confessed I reply that so likewise in our Indices expurgatorij and also commonly in the beginning of such bookes as vve correct we acknowledge the correction but doe they this in al their workes surely no. And for example I name the meditations of Granada in which there is no mention of any alteration for they are plainely set forth in his name as though they vvere truly and sincerely his whereas the translator or rather the falsifier or corrupter hath left out vvhole discourses yea I may almost say whole meditations and added what pleaseth himselfe to make him speake like a Protestant Neither doe they deale only so with vs but also vvith their owne bretheren and that sometimes in principal matters For example the Lutheran Protestants in their conference or synode
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
as a rule of her faith For a third Tradition he acknowledgeth That forme of Christian doctrine and explication of the seueral parts thereof which the first Christians receiuing from the same Apostles that deliuered to them the scriptures commended to posterities Vnto which I adde that which he hath in the fourteenth chapter of the same booke that without the Creed of the Apostles named here in the second place we cannot knowe the scripture to be of God that without the forme of Christian doctrine which is his third Tradition and the Analogie of faith we haue no forme of Christian doctrine by the direction whereof to judge of particular doubts and questions Yea in another place of the said forme of Christian doctrine he hath these wordes Ibidem cap. 19. We confesse that neither conference of places nor consideration of the antedentia consequentia nor looking into the originals are of any force in the interpretation of scripture vnlesse we finde the thinges which we conceiue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant to the rule of faith This is M. Fields doctrine Out of vvhich I inferre contrarie to his owne assertions that according to his owne groundes Tradition is the very foundation of his faith And this is euident For doth it not follow of this that we receiue the number names of the authors and the integritie of bookes diuine by Tradition that without Tradition we cannot knowe such diuine bookes and moreouer that if Tradition may be false that we also concerning such bookes may be deceiued Can it likewise be denied if it be so that vvithout the knoweledge of the creed we cannot know the scripture to be of God the creed also be an Apostolike Tradition that without an Apostolike Tradition vve cannot knowe the scriptures Moreouer although that should be admitted as true which he auoucheth and hardly agreeth with this to wit Chap. 20. § Much contētion See more of this matter part 2. chapter 5. sect 1. and chapter 8. section 4. that The scriptures winne credit of themselues and yeeld satisfaction to al men of their diuine truth which in very deed is false yet seing that the true interpretation of them cannot be knowne as Field saith without the knowledge of this rule of faith it followeth also apparantly that this rule must first infallibly be knowne by Tradition before that we can certainly gather any article of beliefe out of scripture Neither are these things only granted by Field but moreouer he confesseth the baptisme of Infants to be a Tradition and addeth * Field booke 4. chap. 20. § the fourth That it is not expresly deliuered in scripture that the Apostles did baptize Infants and that there is not any expres precept there found that they should so doe And yet I hope that M. Field wil grant that it is a matter of faith that Infants are to be baptized lest that he be censured to be an Anabaptist which if he doe he must needs confesse that some matters of faith are deliuered vnto vs by Tradition And whereas he saith This is not receiued by bare and naked Tradition but that we find the scripture to deliuer vnto vs the grounds of it It is verie certaine that the scripture is so obscure touching this point August de Genes ad litteram l. 10. c. 23 that S. Augustine affirmeth that this custome of the Church in baptizing Infants were not at al to be beleeued were it not an Apostolike Tradition And this obscurity of Scripture is much increased if vvee confesse vvith our aduersaries that Infants may be saued vvithout Baptisme Chap. 20. But they But he doth object against vs that we proue many thinges which vve wil haue to be Apostolical Traditions by the testimony of holy scripture I cannot deny it yet I say it is one thing probably to deduce an article of faith out of the scripture another thing to be expresly and plainely contained in it We only by probable conjectures proue some Traditions out of holy scripture especially against Heretikes which deny Traditions and approue the scripture Neuerthelesse by supernatural faith vve beleeue them because they are such Traditions Booke 4. cap. 20. § For this That vvhich he saith that vve make Traditions Ecclesiastical equal with the vvritten vvord of God is one of his ordinary vntruthes Besides this it is also generally vrged against vs by our aduersaries that diuers such thinges as are affirmed by vs to be Apostolike Traditions are institutions of men and they name the time vvhen such things were instituted and the author that commanded them to be obserued I answere that although touching certaine obseruations and ceremonies vvhich vve affirme to be Apostolike there be some decrees of Councels and Popes yet that the said Councels or Popes instituted not such obseruations and ceremonies but either ratified and confirmed them by their decrees or else caused them to be obserued vniuersally whereas before the vse of them was not general or finally prescribed to al faithful people a certaine and vniforme manner of obseruing them whereas before although the obseruation of them was general yet they were not generally obserued after the same manner in al places The truth of this answere appeareth by this that vve can proue by sufficient testimonies such obseruations and ceremonies to be more ancient then our aduersaries vvil haue their institution I adde also that al the definitions and decrees of Councels and Popes concerning matters of faith are but more perspicuous explications of that rule of faith which by Tardition hath descended from the Apostles as I wil declare in the next chapter wherefore it is no absurdity to affirme the like of such constitutions concerning some obseruations and ceremonies for that some haue beene instituted and ordained by the Church we confesse Neither hath she in this exceeded her authoritie because Christ hath giuen her such power to the end that al thinges might be done vniformallie vvith decencie and as the Apostle saith according to order 1. Corint 14 40. And that she hath such Apostilike authority it is confessed by most English Protestants * see chap. 6. before section 4. pag. 50. as I haue aboue declared Chapter 9. Of general Councels which make the third particuler ground of Catholike religion IN the next place I affirme that euery man may securely build his faith and religion vpon the decrees of a lawful and authentical general Councel concerning that or those matters which the Councel intendeth to define One principal reason conuincing the truth of this may be gathered out of that which hath beene already said of the infallible authority of the Church for I haue proued before not only that it vvas necessary for the preseruation of peace and vnity that Christ should ordaine in his Church some visible supreame and infallible meane to decide controuersies touching matters of religion but also that this prerogatiue was bestowed by
Constantinople and Asclepas Bishop of Gaza in like sort to their Churches who being wrongfully depriued appealed to his supreme authority S. Damasus the Pope about the yere three hundre seauenty seauen restored in like sort Peter Patriarcke of Alexandria to his seate from which he was likewise vnjustly expelled by the Arians as witnesses are Zozomenus and * Socrates li. 4 c. 30. Socrates a Chrisos ep ad Inno. Theodorus Rom. diac apud Pallad ī dial Inno. Papa ī literis ad Archad apud Gena Nicepho et Glica S. Iohn Chrisostome Bishop of Constantinople in the yeare foure hundred and foure being by Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria and other Bishops in a Councel deposed appealed to S. Innocentius Pope who not only made voide the sentence pronounced against him but also excommunicated and deposed the said Theophilus b Calest epi ad Nestor et ad Ciril ep 3. Pope Caelestinus not long after in a Councel held at Rome first of al condemned the Nestorian heresie allotting Nestorius him selfe then Bishop of Constantinople only ten daies within which if he did not repent he should receiue the same censure from S. Ciril Bishop of Alexandria his Legate c Liberatus ca. 12. S. Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople condemned in the Pseudosinod of Ephesus by Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria and others appealed to S. Leo the great Bishop of Rome So did also d Theodor. epist 113. Theodoretus Bishop of Cirus at the same time And diuers other such like examples might be alleaged The testimonies of the auncient Fathers approuing the same superiority of the Pope are almost infinite but I can not stand to recite them only this I note that almost the same titles of primacie and dignity vvere giuen in auncient ages to S. Peter and the Bishop of Rome For like as S. Peter by e Euseb in Chronic. an 44. et lib. 2. hist cap. 14. Eusebius is called The first Bishoppe of the Christians the greatest of the Apostles the prince and captaine of the chiefest and the master of the warfare of God by f Orig. homil 2. in diuersos Euangel Origenes The top of the Apostles by g Epiphā haeres 51. S. Epiphanius Captaine of Christes disciples by h Cir. hierosol catech 2. S. Ciril Bishop of Hierusalem Most excellent prince of the Apostles by i Ciril Alex. l. 12. in Ioā S. Ciril Bishop of Alexandria Prince and head of the rest by k Chrisos in 1. Cor. 15. et hom 11. in Mat. S. Crisostome Prince of the Apostles pastor and head of the Church by l Cipr. l. de vnit Eccles S. Ciprian The head fountaine and roote of the whole Church c. So the Bishop of Rome by a See Cip. epi. 46. ad Cornel. et li. de vnit Eccle. l. 1. epist 3. ad Corn. et ep 8. ad plebē et l. 2. epi. 10. ad eun dē Corne. S. Ciprian is tearmed Bishoppe of the most holie Catholike Church by b Amb. in c. 3. 1. Tim. et epi. 81. ad Siriciū S. Ambrose Rector of the Church of God by c Steph. episco Carthag epist ad Dama Steuen Bishop of Carthage Father of Fathers and chiefe or highest priest by d Hieron praefat Euangel ad Damasum S. Hierome highest or chiefest priest by the general Councel of e Conciliū Chalced. epi ad Leō Chalcedon head of the Bishops of the Church and the keeper of our Lords vineyard and by f Aug. epist 157. S. Augustine Bishop of the Apostolike See c. Finally our aduersaries themselues seeme to grant that al antiquity acknowledge this superiority Bucer writeth thus * Bucerus in praeparatorijs ad Cōcilium We plainly confesse that among the ancient Fathers of the Church the Roman Church obtained the primacie aboue others as that which hath the Chaire of S. Peter and whose Bishops almost alwaies haue beene accounted the successors of Peter g Cētur 2. c. 4. col 63. Cēt. 3. c. 4. col 8. Cent. 5. c. 4. col 512. 520. The Centurie writers who are commonly accounted the most diligent and learned Protestant historians censure S. Irenaeus S. Ignatius Tertullian S. Ciprian Origenes S. Leo and S. Ciril as maintainers of this supreamacie h Cent. 4. c. 10. col 1010. 1249. 1074. 1100. They note S. Ephrem and S. Hierome for affirming the Church to be built vpon S. Peter i Cēt. 5. c. 6. col 728. Arnobius for calling S. Peter the Bishop of Bishops Optatus for extolling ouermuch the chaire of Peter Gelasius the Pope for excommunicating the Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople c. Besides this diuers of the Sectaries and among the rest k Beza cited in the suruey of the pretēded holy disci c. 27. p. 343. Beza l Cartw. l. 2. p. 507. 508. l. 1. p. 97. Cartwrighte and m Fulk against Saūd. Rock p. 248. 271. vpō the Rhems test in 2. Thes 2 9. See also Dan. in respō ad Bell. disp part 1. p. 275. 276. Fulk confesse that the Fathers in the first Councel of Nice began the foundation of the Popes primacy yea some of them say it was begun long before Their discord concerning the time of the beginning of this superioritie doth also testifie this as I could easile shewe if it were not that I haue already beene ouer-long in this section Lastly I adde that neither n Wicl in ep ad Vrbā 6. Wickclif nor o Luth. in resollut priorū disput ad Leon. 10. in declarat quorūd artic Luther who in sundry ages vvere the first raisers of rebellion against the See of Rome denied the Popes superiority before that he condemned their doctrine For the vvorkes of them both are yet extant written after their fal to preach nouelties in which they most apparantly and plainely submit themselues and their doctrine to his censure and acknowledge his primacy Of Luther diuers p Sleid. l. 1. fol. 10. Fox act mon. p. 404. Osiander in epist Cent. 16. p. 61. 62. 68. Cowper in his Chronic. fol. 278. Protestants testifie the same and this is a manifest signe that they opposed themselues against him for no other cause then that he condemned their opinions and proceedings SECTION THE THIRD 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 HAVING already proued that the Bishop of Rome is the true successour of S. Peter and ministerial head of Christs Church it remaineth that now we see what authority and credit is to be giuen to his decrees I affirme therefore that the Pope when teaching the vvhole Church as ministerial head of the same he defineth anie matter concerning faith and general preceptes of vice or vertue cannot erre I adde those vvords when teaching the whole Church as ministerial head c.
because vve confesse that the Pope may sinne and erre in person vnderstanding and priuate doctrine and we defend only that his judicial sentence pronounced as he is Pope concerning matters of faith and precepts of manners cannot be false or erronious And this is euident first by the testimony of Christ himselfe who vnto S. Peter the Apostle vsed these words Simon Simon Luke 22. v. 31.32 behold Satan required to haue you to sift as wheate but I haue praied for thee that thy faith faile not and thou once conuerted confirme thy brethren Marke vvel those words Satan hath required to haue you but I haue praied for thee which argue a singuler priuiledge in S. Peter of not erring in faith aboue the rest of the Apostles For sathan required to sift them al and our Lord praied for Peter only that his faith might not be ouerthrowne by anie subtil deceits open assaults or other practises of the diuel The like is insinuated by those words following And thou once conuerted confirme thy bretheren which both proue that the first part of the sentence was proper to S. Peter only I meane that his faith should not faile and also declare that the rest of the Apostles were by him to be confirmed and strengthened in their beliefe Hence proceedeth this sentence of S. Leo The danger was common to al the Apostles Leo serm 3. de assūp sua but our Lord took special care of Peter that the state of al the rest might be more sure if the head were inuincible God so disposing the aide of his grace that the assurance and strength which Christ gaue to Peter might redound by Peter to the rest of the Apostles Hitherto S. Leo. To signifie this priuiledg of S. Peter to vs our Sauiour chaunged as I haue before declared his name from Simon to Cephas or Peter both vvhich wordes signifie a rock Thou art Simon said he the sonne of Iona thou shalt be called Cephas which is interpreted Peter or a rock For howe wel doe these two sentences answere one another Thy faith shal not faile and Thou art a rock And vpon this rock afterwards he built his Church vvarranting it from euer being ouercome by the deuil or his ministers Mat. 16. verse 18. Iohn 21. v. 17.18 Ambrose in himnis August li. 1. retrac cap. 21. which he promised to doe as I haue aboue noted in these his wordes to this B. Apostle Thou art Peter or a rock and vpon this rock I wil build my Church and the gates of hel shal not preuaile against it and performed in those Feed my lambes feed my sheepe Hence by S. Ambrose as S. Augustine recordeth S. Peter is called the Rock of the Church that is the very strength and foundation of it next vnto Christ Neither did our Sauiour without just cause grant this extraordinary priuiledg vnto him for he as I haue also before shewed for the preseruation of vnity and better direction of his spouse vvas appointed by him Pastour of the whole Church sheepheard of his whole flock his chiefe vicar and ministerial head of his body Vnto his charge he committed both his sheep and lambs exempting no Christians from his jurisdiction wherefore it was necessary that he should be so directed concerning matters of faith and religion seing that the members are to obey the head and sheepe to followe and to be guided by their Shepheard that he should not drawe them into errors or propound vnto them any bad pasture of false doctrine Like as therefore God alwaies in the old lawe preserued the truth in the Chaire of Moises wherefore as I haue shewed before al men vvere bound vnder paine of death to obey the high Priest and our Sauiour said Math. 23. vers 2. vpon the Chaire of Moises haue sitten the scribes pharisies al things therefore whatsoeuer they shal say vnto you obserue ye and doe ye so acording to the assertion of S. Augustine God preserueth the truth of Christian religion in the See of Rome which is in the new Testament answerable to the Chaire of Moises although the Bishops of that citty vvere neuer so wicked men I adde also that this vvas necessary for the condemnation of heresies because although the sentence of a general Councel pronounced against any heresie cannot be erronious yet euery man wil graunt that such a Councel sometimes by reason of persecution or other accidents can not be assembled yea euery man must needes confesse that at no time such a Councel can be so soone gathered as it is necessary that an heresie springing vp should be condemned 2. Timoth. 2. ver 17. Hieron in cap. 5. ad Galatas For the Apostle very wel compareth heresie to a canker and S. Hierome both to a canker and also to a spark of fire a peece of leauen and a scabbed sheep and concludeth that like as a canker if we wil not haue it eate ouer al the bodie is presently to be killed and a spark of fire in a daungerous place forth-with to be put out and a pecce of leauen if we wil not haue the vvhole past leauened is to be taken away out of hand from the same and a scabbed sheep is forthwith to be remoued out of the flock lest that it infect the rest so an Heretike is presently so soone as he appeareth to be cut off from the body of the Church and to be cast out of Christs fold lest that by infection he corrupt others which as I haue said cannot be so soone effected by a general Councel as is expedient although the times be neuer so calme yea sometimes there is no meanes to assemble such a Councel And therefore not without cause God almighty hath warranted in such cases the Popes sentence from error that al his whole flock vnderstanding any newe doctrine to be condemned by his censure may presentlie both auoide it and the authours and followers of the same Finallie in a general Councel it selfe it is not onlie needeful that there be one supreame judge but also that the sentence of this judge at the least joined with the censure and approbation of a part of the Councel be of an infallible truth and of diuine authority The first part of this assertion is proued before and is euident because otherwise we must needs confesse that no certaine meane is ordained in the Church to end controuersies For the Prelates assembled in a Councel being diuided either part might refuse to stand to the others judgment The second also is euen as apparant because otherwise we haue no certaine rule whereby in such a diuision to know which part hath the truth We finde it true by experience that the greater part which neuerthelesse according to ordinary courses should be of greater authority then the lesser may erre for so it fel out in the false Sinod held at Ephesus about the yere of our Lord foure hundred forty and nine Wherefore if we should yeeld this preheminence