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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
in verie deed inwardlie prophane Atheists and that the said new religion is a very fountaine of Atheisme And in proofe of the first part of this assertion I need not vse manie words or long discourses for so it is that diuers principal professours and followers of this newe beliefe confesse and acknowledge a great number of such impious and irreligious persons Zauchius in his epistle before his confession pa. 7. to be in their congregations Of forraine sectaries Zauchius affirmeth that among other monsters Atheisme hath been fetched out of hel by the ministers of sathan in some of the reformed Churches Of our owne countrimen * Whitg ī his defence tract 3. cap. 6. pag. 278. See also Hooker ī his 5. book of ecclesiast policy § 2. Mornay ī his treatise of the proof of christian religiō Whitgift complaineth that the Church of England is replenished with Atheists The same complaints haue Hedio Powel Parks others as wil appeare by some of their sentences which I shal relate hereafter To come therefore to the second part seing that this impiety raigneth nowe more among our aduersaries then it hath done in former ages among Christians in vvhich such monsters vvere not so vsuallie found and commonlie seene it is like that it hath some roote and ofspring in these daies among them which appeared not in the religion of our forefathers and predecessours And vvhat is this roote surelie it is not one but diuers And for the first cause of this blasphemie I assigne their dissention and inconstancy concerning matters of faith and religion without any certaine ground vvhereon to build their beliefe or meane of ending and deciding such controuersies as arise That their doctrine is subject to these inconueniences it shal at larg be proued hereafter That such dissention inconstancie vvant of firme grounde and meane to end controuersies may truly be said to be roots fountaines of Atheisme it is apparant because of these things may wel be inferred an vncertainty of truth which is alwaies one and constant to her selfe and no diuine foundation of the religion professed or reuelations of the truthes preached because thinges proceeding from God whose wisedome and prouidence are infinite cannot be subject to such absurdities Hence diuers being first by the false calumnies vnjust slanders of their ring-leaders cleane auerted from our religion in which onlie a sure ground an immouable rocke of faith and a firme piller of truth are found then in their new profession being tossed hither and thither concerning the articles of their faith and finding no certaine authority whereon to rest or firme foundation whereon to build a firme and vndoubted resolution are brought finallie to this that they think al articles to be of an vncertaine truth and consequentlie imagine religion to be but a politicke inuention of man and so become Atheists S. Hillarie euen in his daies complained Hillar lib. ad Constantium Augustum that the Arian heretikes by these meanes of Christians made Atheists these are his words Perilous and miserable it is that there are now so many faiths as wils and so many doctrines as maners whiles either faiths are so written as we wil or as we wil are so vnderstood And wheras according to one God one Lord one baptisme there is also one faith they fal away from that which is the only faith and whiles no faiths are made they begin to come to this that there is none at al hitherto S. Hillarie But let vs heare certaine Protestants declare vnto vs the truth of that which hath beene here said touching this ofspring of this impiety in their congregations Relatiō of the state of religion vsed in the western parts of the world § 45. printed at London anno 1605. And first a Protestant relator of the state of religion vsed in the westerne parts of the world discourseth thus The diuision of Protestants into their factions of Lutherans and Caluinists threateneth a great ruine and calamity of both sides And soone after hauing shewed how the Lutheran preachers rage in their pulpets against the others he addeth The Romanes haue the Pope as a common father aduiser and conductor to them al to reconcile their jarres to appease their displeasures to decide their difference and finally to vnite their endeauors in one course c. to drawe their religious by consent of Councels to an vnity or likenes and conformity c. Whereas on the contrarie side the Protestants are as seuered bands or rather scattered troupes each drawing aduerse way without any meanes to pacifie their quarrels to take vp their controuersies without any bond to knit their forces or courses in one No Prince with any preheminence of jurisdiction aboue the rest no Patriark one or more to haue a common superintendance or care ouer their Churches for correspondencie and vnity no ordinarie way to assemble a general Councel of their part the onlie hope remaining euer to asswage their contentions and the onlie desire of the wisest and best mindes among them Euerie church almost of theirs hath his seueral forme and frame of gouernment his seueral liturgie and fashion of seruice and lastlie some seueral opinion from the rest which though in themselues they be matters of no great moment being no differences essential or any part capital yet haue they beene are and wil be as long as they continue causes of dislike of jelosies of quarrels and daunger These contentions tend mainely to the encrease of Atheisme within of Mahometisme abroade hitherto are the Relators wordes But before him Bullenger a principal doctor among the Sacramentaries noted the same effect of these contentions euen in the beginning of this newe religion Bullenger in Firmamento firmo contra Brentiū ca. 1. Maior ī orat de cofus dogmatum Hed. in epist ad Melanct. for he vvriteth that diuers in his daies were so moued with that vehement and implacable dissention between the Lutherans and Zuinglians concerning the Eucharist that as it were dispairing being cleane out of hope they said they would beleeue no more then they pleased Major in like sort a Lutheran of no lesse same confesseth that diuers were so moued with their scandals and dissentions that they doubted whether there were any true Church of God extant in the world or no. Vnto these I adde Hedio a third sectary who hauing complained that there are almost one hundred twenty and eight errours among the professors of the Gospel and that they fal to Atheisme neglect of religion affirmeth that they assigne their dissention to be the cause of these euils But concerning their Atheisme he also afterwardes vseth these vvordes The Popedome is rejected and names are not giuen to Christ The youth hath almost nothing of God And vvhat shal vve say of our Church of England hath not the dissention among Protestants and Puritanes brought men to the same passe Parkes in the epistle dedicatorie before his
* Lucas Osiāder in Enchirid cont Caluimanos cap. 7. pag. 198. But here gentle reader beyond and aboue those blaspheamous thinges which in the discourses before we heard against the Sonne of God out of the opinions of our aduersaries the Caluinists Pandit se vorago barathrum Caluinianae doctrinae a gulfe or whirlepoole and a bel of Caluinian doctrine openeth it self In which if thou dilligently weigh the matter God is said to be the author of sinne it is so taught by our aduersaries concerning election to saluation that who shal embrace this their doctrine tentation assaulting him must needs either be cast into despaire or fal into Epicurisme and hence must of necessity arise in the harts of men manifest blasphemy against God thus Lucas Osiander whom an English sectary in his booke against vs trāslated maketh to speake like a very good Caluinist If any man be desirous to see a briefe summe of the Caluinian and Zwinglian beliefe touching this and other such like articles he shal find it gathered together in the same place by the same authour as also by Grawerus in the preface to his second booke cited Heshusius a third Lutheran vvriter esteemed among the learnedst of that sect Cōrad Schlusselburg lib. 2. Theolog. Caluinist pag. 6. See Clebetius in victoria veritatis ruina Papatus Saxonici arg 15. Conradus Schluss loco cit lib. 1. c. 6. pag. 25. 26. Beza in Absters calumni arū Heshusij much commended by Conradus Schlusselburge for this cause exclaimeth against the Caluinists that they transforme God into the Deuil But Caluin is not only accused of this impiety by the Lutherans but also by Castalio a Sacramentary who disputing of Caluins opinion touching this point maketh a distinction or difference betweene the true God and the God of Caluin these are his vvordes * Castal in l. ad Caluin de praedest The false God that is Caluins God by him described is slowe to mercy prone to anger who hath created the greatest part of the world to destruction and hath predestinated them not only to damnation but also to the cause of damnation Therefore he hath decreed from al eternity and be wil haue it so and be doth bring it to passe that they necessarily sinne so that neither thefts nor murders nor adulteries are committed but by his constraint and impulsion For be suggesteth vnto men euil and dishonest affections not only by permission sed efficaciter but effectually that is by forcing such affections vpon them and doth harden them in such sort that when they doe euil they doe rather the worke of God then their owne he maketh the Deuil a liar so that nowe not the Deuil but the God of Caluin is the father of lies But that God which the holy Scriptures teach is altogether contrary to this God of Caluin c. And soone after For the true God came to destroy that worke of that Caluinian God And these two Gods as they are by nature contrary to one another so they beget and bring forth children of contrary dispositions to wit that God of Caluin children without mercy proude c. hitherto Castalio a man highly commended by a Humfred de rat interpret lib. 1. p. 26. Gesnerus in Bibliotheca D. Humfrey and Gesnerus likewise learned scholars of the Sacramentary sect But note that in this his discourse he vvel declareth the truth of that vvhich before I related as said by Heshusius to wit that Caluin and his schollars by making God the author of sinne and ascribing vnto him other such like actions transforme him into the Deuil or rather as Castalio saith make the Deuil their God If any man be desirous to see this more fully and exactly handled let him reade Grawerus in the booke and chapter before cited Nowe touching Caluin in particular what Christian doth not abhorre and detest that his intollerable blaspheamy by which he affirmeth our Lord during the time of his passion to haue feared eternal damnation to haue beene forsaken of God to haue suffered in soule the torments of hel Let vs heare him in his owne wordes declare his owne opinion These are some of his sentences Christ was put in steede of wicked doers as surety and pledge Caluin Instit booke 2. ch 16. §. 10. Idē in Math. 26. vers 39. yea and as the very guilty person himselfe to abide and suffer al the punishments that should haue beene laid vpon them this one thing excepted that he could not be holden stil of the sorrowes of death or hel His praier in the garden was an abrupt desire he was stroken with feare and straited with anxiety in such sort that among violent fluddes oftentation he was forced as it were to stagger or wauer nowe with one and then with another desire he corrected and recalled that desire vpon the suddaine passed from him he refused as much as lay in him and sought to put off the office of a Mediator the vehemency of griefe tooke from him the present memory of the heauenly decree Christes death had beene to no effect Caluin Instit booke 2. ch 16. §. 10. Ibid. §. 12. Idē ad c. 26. Math. v. 39. if he had suffered only a corporal death but it behoued also that he should feele the rigour of Gods vengeance and that he should as it were hand to hand wrastle with the armies of the hels and the horror of eternal death He had a more cruel and harder battaile then with common death he sawe the anger of God set before him in as much as be burdened with the sinnes of the whole world presented him selfe before the tribunal seate of God he could not but horribly feare profundam mortis abyssum the bottomlesse depth of death or eternal damnation Caluin Instit booke 2. ch 16. §. 10. he suffered in his soule the terrible torments of a damned and forsaken man a Idē in c. 27. Math. v. 46. When the image or shewe of the tentation was laide before Christ as though God being his enemy he were nowe destined to destruction or damnation he was stroken with horror b Instit booke 2. chap. 16. he was feareful for the saluation of his soule He fought hand to hand with the power of the Deuil with the horror of death or damnation with the paines of hel Hitherto are some of Caluins blaspheamous assertions against our Lord and Sauiour I neede not alleage any Protestant authours accusing him of this impiety for his wordes be plaine and his bookes are in euery mans handes Nay which is worse some principal English Sectaries followe these his blaspheamous courses and vphold his doctrine as Euangelical Such are Fulke Whitakers Willet and others But listen a litle what a conclusion may be drawne out of one proposition taken from Caluin and an other from the greater part of our English Protestants Although diuers notable reasons are assigned by the auncient Fathers and
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
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
prerogatiues vpon his spiritual Body and Spouse but perhaps these prerogatiues redound greatly to the good and benefite of the members and children of the Church Neither this can be auerred true for vvhat are poore Christians the nearer for it howe can such a Church be the director of their faith howe shal they knowe vvhat faith vvas preached by the Apostles and vvhat part taught true doctrine and vvhen and vvhich erred in subsequent ages howe shal vve vnderstand her judicial sentence vvhen controuersies arise and are to be decided surely they that are past and are departed out of this world can performe these thinges by no other meanes but by their writinges left behind them wherefore we can take no other direction and receiue no other judicial sentence from the Church in the first and second acception but by such monuments and bookes as we haue receiued from the Apostles Euangelistes the ancient Fathers and Doctors and other our predecessours And vvhat is this but to reduce al to the letter of holy Scripture and to the workes of antiquity which as I wil prooue hereafter setting aside the authority of the present Church yeelde vs no certaine and diuine argument and to giue nothing at al to the Church it selfe contrary to al the argumentes before made for her infallible authority Finally some of the places of Scripture before aleadged are expresly spoken of the present Church as that tel the Church If he shal not heare the Church let him he to thee as the Heathen or Publican c. SECTION THE SIXT That the same testimonies and proofes conuince an infallible judgement of the Church concerning euery article of faith not only concerning certaine of the principal SECONDLY that the testimonies of holy Scriptures and Fathers with the reasons brought in this Chapter proue the judgement authority of the Church to be of diuine and infallible truth in al points of faith it is euen as easily shewed For are not the vvordes general Is it not said that the holy Ghost shal teach the Church al truth and that she being the house of God is the piller and ground of truth c. And howe can these promises be verified if in some thinges she be subject to errour Field booke 4. chap. 4. Some say these last vvordes of the Apostle are vnderstood of the particuler Church of the Ephesians but first it is not like that God bestowed such an extraordinary priuiledge vpon that Church as to make it the piller and ground of truth Secondly the Apostle calleth that Church vnto which he here giueth these prerogatiues the house of God by which wordes a Cipr. l. 1. epist 6. S. Ciprian b Aug. l. 7. de baptis cōt Donat. ca. 49. 50. 51. Item in psalm 25. enarrat 2. S. Augustine and al the Fathers commonly vnderstand the whole militant Church yea S. Augustine alluding to this sentence and vsing the very vvordes of the Apostle calleth the whole Church * 2. Tim. 2. vers 20. columnam firmamentum veritatis the piller and ground of truth and in the Scripture it selfe the vvhole militant Church is called a great house as a Field booke 1. chap. 11. Field himselfe cōfesseth And because euery particuler Diocesse is a part of this Church the Apostle might very wel vse this kinde of speach vnto Timothie I write to thee that thou maist knowe howe thou oughtest to conuerse in the house of God although the said Timothie was Bishop only of Ephesus Moreouer are vve not absolutely vnder peril of being accounted Heathens and Publicans bound to obey the Church and what reason had our Lord so to binde vs if in some thinges her judgement may be erroneous for howe shal we discerne which those articles be in which she cannot erre and in which she may erre Further vvhat profit if this vvere so shal vve receaue from her for the preseruation of vnitie and ending of al controuersies verily this assertion is euen as prejuditial to the good of vnitie as that which affirmeth the Church to haue no warrant of truth at al. For what dissention and diuision would arise of this might not euery man contradict the rule of faith in any matter whatsoeuer and affirme his contradiction to be in a matter of smal moment who shal judge which matters be of great and which of smal importance For example diuers sectaries tel vs See Couel in defence of Hooker artic 11. Fox pag. 942. c. that the question concerning the real presence of Christ in the blessed Sacrament whether he be there really and substantially by transubstantiation as the Catholikes affirme or together with bread as the Lutherans say or only figuratiuely as is affirmed by the Sacramentaries is a question of smal importance not any essential point belonging to the substance of Christian religion But howe wil these men refute Castalio who addeth if Beza say true that the controuersies touching the blessed Trinity the estate and office of Christ and howe he is one with his father are concerning no essential points of Christian religion certainely they cannot wel ouerthrowe his opinion And this is that which was in old time and is at this present affirmed by some See Theodoretus lib 2. hist cap. 18. 19. 21. Trip. hist lib. 5. cap. 21. 33. that so that Christ be beleeued to be God it skilleth not whether he be beleeued to be equal or not equal consubstantial or not consubstantial to his father Wherefore this assertion of our aduersaries that the rule of faith may in some points be denied first openeth the gappe to al dissention then to al impiety and ouerthrowe of Christianity which thinges be sufficient to perswade euery Christian to abhorre and detest it SECTION THE SEAVENTH That to saluation it is necessary to beleeue the whole Catholike faith and euery article thereof CONCERNING the third point vvhich I intended to proue I affirme that it is necessary to saluation to beleeue and hold either expresly or virtually euery article of faith which is propounded by the Church to her children to be beleeued I adde those wordes expresly or virtually because I say not that euery man is bound expresly to knowe al the articles of Christian religion For it is held by vs sufficient if the ruder sort knowe expresly certaine of the principal as are they that concerne the Trinity and the incarnation passion resurrection and ascension of Christ c. if they virtually beleeue al the rest that is if they beleeue concerning al such points as they are not bound expresly to know whatsoeuer according to the doctrine of the church ought to be beleeued and be of contrary beleefe in no one point propounded vnto them and knowne to be propounded as an article of faith We differ therefore from our aduersaries in this that some of them hold a man is not bound to belieue any such articles not necessarily to be knowne by al others say a man may erre
the truth of Christian discipline and faith is there we shal finde also the truth of Scriptures expositions al Christian traditions Vnto these authorities I adde that the obscuritie of the holy Scriptures the danger of misinterpreting them being presupposed it vvas necessarie that God almightie should prescribe some certaine rule which euery man might follow without danger of error in vnderstanding them otherwise dissension might haue risen concerning their true sense and consequently concerning diuers articles of Christian religion and euery man might would haue expounded them according to his owne fancie although neuer so false and erroneous And what judge can we imagine him to haue appointed but the Catholike Church whom as I haue proued aboue he hath warranted from errour whose authority he hath made the rule of our beliefe who hath the custody of holy Scriptures and from whom we receiue them and infallibly know them to containe the true word of God This finally the practise it selfe of the Church hath confirmed for whensoeuer any controuersy hath risen touching the true sense of holy Scriptures she according to the rule of faith in her preserued and the sense of Scripture vnto her deliuered together with the letter hath defined the truth and decided the same as it appeareth by the condemnation al Heretikes together with their false translations and erroneous expositions of the said Scriptures And whosoeuer forsaketh this rule falleth presently into a laborinth vast Sea of difficulties and is alwaies perplexed and inconstant in his beliefe Contrariwise whosoeuer embraceth this rule buildeth vpon a firme rocke wherefore I say with the Apostle Whosoeuer shall followe this rule Galat. 6. vers 16. peace vpon them and mercy Now let vs in the last place confirme the truth of our principal assertions concerning the letter and interpretation of holy Scripture yea concerning the whole sūme of christian doctrine by vnwriten traditiō preserued in the Church by the confession of our Lutheran aduersaries of Wittenberg For they doe not only confesse Harm of cōfes sect 10. pag. 332. 333. Confession Wittenb artic 32. The Church to haue authority to beare witnesse of the holy Scripture and to interprete the same but also affirme that she hath receiued from her husband Christ a certaine rule to wit the Prophetical and Apostolical preaching confirmed by miracles from heauen according vnto the which she is bound to interprete those places of Scripture which seeme to be obscure and to judge of doctrines This may be seene in the Harmony of confessions Field book 4. ca. 19. 20. §. The secōd Field also acknowledgeth in the Church A rule of faith descending by tradition from the Apostles according vnto which he wil haue the Scriptures expounded I conclude therefore that thus the holy Scripture is a most sure and infallible ground of faith for by this meanes I meane by the diuine censure and approbation of the Church vve are assured that both the letter and sense are of diuine authoritie vvhereas the particuler or priuate approbation of the letter or interpretation or it made by any priuate man being subject to errour cannot possiblie yeeld vs any such assurance SECTION THE SIXT An objection against the premises is answered and the question concerning the last resolution of our faith is discussed BVT here occurreth a difficulty of no smal moment to be resolued For in this chapter I haue affirmed the Canonical Scriptures and their true interpretation to he knowne by the infallible authoritie of the Church whereas before I proued the authority of the Church to be infallible by the testimonie of holie Scripture vvherefore Field book 4. cap. 7. it may seeme that I haue made a circle or as M. Field calleth it a circulation The ful solution of this objection dependeth of the resolution of a question vvhich to some appeareth very intricate and hard to wit vnto what vve lastlie resolue our faith vvhether to the authority of the Church or of the Scripture or to some humane motiues and therefore this must first be discussed before the other can be answered And in verie deede although al Catholike Diuines be of one consent and hold that the cause of our beliefe is the authority of God which hath reuealed such misteries as we beleeue yet concerning the last resolution of our faith which is a schoole question and not a matter of faith I finde among them two opinions The followers of the first declare the matter thus Fiist say they euery man is induced to beleeue Christian religion and to accept of it as true by certaine humane and prudent motiues or reasons which perswade him that such doctrine as is taught in the Church according to the rules of wisedome is credible and worthie of beliefe Such motiues among others are these which followe First that almost al Nations and in them an infinite number of men of greatest authority principal wit excellent vertue and profound learning haue so beleeeued Secondly that innumerable multitudes of people of al sortes sexes and ages vvho vvere most desirous to please God and knowe true religion and vvere exemplars or patterns of probity and sanctitie haue so earnestlie embraced it that they doubted not to preferre the profession of it before goodes liberty fame and life it selfe yea that they chose rather to loose al these and endure vvithal most cruel torments then to depart from it Thirdly that it doth as it vvere miraculouslie and by some diuine meanes change men although habituated in vice vpon the sodaine to be vertuous Fourthly that the propagation of it hath beene by diuine power which appeareth by this that a fewe vnlearned and vveake fisher-men teaching such thinges as are contrarie to flesh and bloud and aboue al reason haue ouercome not by force of armes but by preaching and suffering the vvisest most eloquent most noble and most potent men of the vvorld Finally that this religion hath beene confirmed by an infinite multitude of diuine miracles recorded by famous authors of al ages of vvhich if one only be confessed true Christian religion cannot be false By these and other such like reasons and argumentes which I haue rehearsed before according to the Psalme The testimonies of our Lord are first made vnto wel disposed people ouer or exceeding credible But although these of themselues may vvel make vs accept and beleeue the truth of Christian religion by a natural and humane kinde of beliefe such as the Deuil himselfe hath and is also in Heretikes concerning such articles which they truly beleeue yet can they not alone cause in vs an act of supernatural faith For this as I haue proued before being supernatural can not proceed from a natural cause without some supernatural helpe And vvhat then is done after this perswasion Verily God almighty yeeld eth vs his supernatural helpe and imparteth vnto our soule a diuine light of faith by which our vnderstanding is made more capable of things so high
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
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
vpon this ground in the next chapter Chap. 2. he entereth into a railing and scoffing discourse against the Pope But in verie deed I cannot doe otherwise then meruaile that a man of his place and learning doth not blush to committe such a notorious vntruth to the print and view of the world For not to speake of the falshood of the first part of his assertion because it is in some sort impertinent that which he saith of the Councel of Chalcedon is most vntrue repugnant to al antiquity and not only contrarie to al proceedinges and the historie of the said Councel but also to the wordes of the Canon by him alleaged For in it is decreed onlie that the cittie of new Rome or Constantinople shal haue majestie like as old Rome in Ecclesiastical affaires et secundam post illam existere that is shal be the second or next after it and enjoy certaine priuiledges for the ordination of some Metrapolitans these are the contents of the Canon And what more touching this matter did the Bishops assembled in that Councel in their Sinodical epistle desire S. Leo the great then bishoppe of Rome to confirme then this Concilium Chalcedō sessio 12. alias actione 16. An. Christi 451. Concilium Nice sessio vltim Cōci Chal. actione 1. Actione 3. We haue confirmed say they the rule of the seauenscore and ten holy Fathers which were gathered together at Constantinople vnder Theodosius of happie memorie which commanded that the See of Constantinople which is ordained the second haue second honour after your most holie and Apostolike See trusting that the Apostolical sunne-beame shining with you c. But how can it be the second and next after and also the equal with it as Field affirmeth Besides this in the Councel it selfe those words of the Canon of the Councel of Nice that the Church of Rome euer had the primacie were allowed and the Legates of Pope Leo vvithout reprehension or exception taken said We haue here at hand the commandements of the most blessed and Apostolike man the Pope of the cittie of Rome which is head of al Churches by which his Apostleship hath vouchsafed to commaund c. Againe one of them first subscribed as he said in the place of the most blessed and Apostolike vniuersal Pope of the citty of Rome c. And in the epistle al the Fathers write vnto him thus We craue therefore that you wil honour our decrees with your judgement and like as we desirous haue consented in those things which are good sic et summitas tua so thy chiefedome or preheminence aboue al wil as it is meete accomplish them to his children hitherto are their wordes And vvhat could be said more apparant for the Popes supreamacie Doe not they acknowledge him to be their chiefe and themselues his sonnes and children Gregor li 4. epi. 32. 36. 38. li. 7. epi. 30. See before in the first section of this chapter I could adde to this the authoritie of S. Gregorie the great who liued not long after this Councel who against the ambition of Iohn bishoppe of Constantinople in diuers letters confidentlie affirmeth that the title of vniuersal Bishop by this Councel was offered to Pope Leo. But Field wil vrge that it is gathered out of some Greeke copies of this Councel that by this Canon the Bishop of Constantinople was so made second after the Bishoppe of Rome that equal priuiledges were giuen him I answere that these priuiledges vvere only concerning jurisdiction to order certaine Metrapolitans of the east Church as the Bishoppe of Rome had the like in the west But now suppose I should graunt M. Field that in this Canon the Bishop of Constantinople vvas made in euerie respect equal to the Pope what would he get by this In truth nothing For of what authority is this Canon Surely of none for it vvas cunninglie made by the Grecian bishops after the Councel was risen and the Legates of Pope Leo departed vvho also when it came to their knowledge the next day resisted them in the next Session yea this was neuer confirmed by the Pope without whose confirmation the decrees of general Councels haue neuer had force but vvas by Pope Leo forthwith ouerthrowne and annulled Leo epist 55. 53. 54. 61. We cancel or make voide saith he speaking of that Canon and others then enacted the consent of Bishops repugnant to the Nicene Canons and by the authority of blessed S. Peter the Apostle by a general definition we make them altogether of no force And this his decree was so highly esteemed in the East it selfe Marcian l. 12. c. de sacrosācta Ecclesia that it was confirmed presentlie by an Imperial constitution euen by the Emperour of Constantinople and Anatolius the Patriarcke through vvhose ambition and instigation the said Canon vvas made was constrained to ceasse from such proceedinges to relinquish that dignity vvhich ambitioussie he couered and to take place euen after the other Patriarkes for neither was the constitution of the Councel of Constantinople which preferred him before those of Alexandria and Antioch authentical Iustin nouel 131. cap. 2. Field book 3. cap. 1. Yea Iustinian the Emperor after this euen when Rome vvas most in disgrace and Constantinople flourished long before the daies of Phocas from whome Field would deriue the beginning of the Popes superiority confirmed the primacy to the Bishop of Rome and thus we may see vpon how vveake grounds Field doth venture to passe the bounds of modesty Concerning the point it selfe of the Popes infallible judgment he accuseth vs of contrary doctrine to wit that we al hold at this day Field book 3. cap. 45. the infallibility of the Popes judgment to be the rock on which the Church is builded and therefore build our faith vpon the same whereas the same men sath he that hold this say also it is no matter of faith to acknowledge or not acknowledge the infallibity of the Popes judgment I answere that the infallibility of the Popes judgment without the assent of a general Councel is not the most sure receiued rock on which the Church was built for this is the Popes judgment confirming the decrees of a general Councel or as I may say the definition of a general Councel in which the head confirmeth the verdict of the body and both together infallibly define a truth And in this sense no Catholike nowe affirmeth that it is no matter of faith to acknowledge or not acknowledge the infallibility of the Popes judgment for it is held absolutely to be a matter of faith and consequently our doctrine touching these points is not contrary True it is Bell. li. 4. de Roman pontif ca. 2. in fine Stapleton in Relect. scholast princi controuers 3 quest 4. that some Catholike doctors as Bellarmine and Stapleton thinke not that opinion properly heretical which holdeth that the Pope as Pope may be an Heretike and teach heresie if he
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
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
vvith so manie thousand lies and vntruthes set downe by Catholike authors to the view of the whole world as for example doctor * Harding in his Rejoinder to M. Iewels reply touchīg priuate masse printed anno 1566. Harding anoucheth that the number of his lies in fiue of the six and twenty articles of his replie to the said doctor Hardings answere to his Apologie In his epistle to the reader discouered by himselfe and others amounteth to a thousand and odde and also because the falshood of his said challenge being shewed by diuers learned of our side he neuer was so good as his word Humfred in vita Iuelli Hence is this complaint of doctour Humfreis Iewel hath graunted you he speaketh to the Catholikes ouer much and was to sore an enemy to himselfe that rejecting the meane by which he might more firmly easily haue vpholden his cause he spoiled himselfe the Church for what haue we to doe with the Fathers with flesh and bloud Or what doth it appertaine vnto vs what the false sinode of Bishops so he tearmeth the ancient Councels doe ordaine or decree thus much D. Humfrey Secondly it may also be alleaged that Field a late Protestant writer alloweth of diuers other rules or directions of our faith besides the holie scripture Field book 3. chap. 33. § 1. and of the Fathers in particuler he affirmeth that they reuerence and honour them much more then vve doe I answere that in very deede Field maketh a great shew of allowance of the testimonie of antiquity and may perhaps seeme to one that looketh not wel into his wordes to approue the authority of of the auncient Fathers as farre forth as any Catholike whereas in very truth there is no such thing And to make this matter manifest let vs briefly behold his rules assigned whereby as he saith we are to judge of particuler things contained within the compasse of Christian faith Field book 4. chapt 14. which are as followeth First the summary comprehension of such principal articles as are the principles whence al other things are concluded and inferred these are contained in the Creed of the Apostles Secondly al such thinges as euery Christian is bound expresly to beleeue which are rightly said to be the rule of faith Thirdly the Anologie due proportion and correspondence that one thing in this diuine knowledge hath with another Fourthly whatsoeuer books were deliuered vnto vs a written by them to whome the first and immediate reuelation of diuine truth was made Fiftly whatsoeuer haue beene deliuered by al the Saints with one consent which haue left their judgment and opinion in writing book 4. cap. 5. because saith he in another place it is not possible that they should al haue written of any thing but such as touche the very life of Christian faith generally receiued in al their times Sixtly whatsoeuer the most famous haue constantly and vniformly deliuered as a matter of faith no man contradicting though many other Ecclesiastical writers be silent and say nothing of it Seueanthly that which the most and most famous in euery age constantly deliuered as matter of faith and as receiued from them that went before them in such sort that the contradictors and gaine-saiers were in their beginnings noted for singularity noueltie and diuision Ibid. cap. 7. and afterwards in processe of time if they persisted in such contradiction charged with heresie He addeth else where that this consent of the most famous must be touching the substance of Christian faith And vnto these his three last rules I adde that vvhich he hath in the second chapter before in these vvordes Booke 4. c. 2. Though al whose writings remaine haue not written of a thing yet if al that mention it doe constantly consent in it and their consent be strengthned by vniuersal practise we dare not charge them with errour yea though their consent be not strengthned by such practise if it be concerning thinges expressed in the word of truth or by necessary and euident deduction to be demonstrated from thence we thinke that no errour can be found ill al them that speake of thinges of that nature that is of matters of substance as in the fift chapter if in euery age of the Church some be found to haue written of them But in thinges that cannot be clearly deduced from the rule of faith and word of diuine and heauenly truth we thinke it posible that al that haue written might erre and be deceiued hitherto Field And these are the rules which he prescribeth to be followed in our judgment concerning truth falshood in matters of our beleife but that none of these besides the holy scripture of which hereafter according to his owne doctrine are sufficient in al matters of faith to make an infallible or prudential ground of beleife it is easily proued And to begin with his three first how wil he proue that they be infallible how can he shewe them to be of diuine authority if the present church in al ages as he saith may erre and it be true which he affirmeth Field book 4. chapter 20. § Thus hauing Ibidem § The second kinde Caluin booke 2. Instit cap. 16 § 18. Hūn ī theseb de coloq cum pōtis ineūdo thes 54. that it is not safe in things concerning faith to rely vpon traditions are not the two first rules at the least receiued by tradition surely he confesseth it himself Further doe not some of his brethren cal the creed of the Apostles in question and make it a doubtful matter whether it were deliuered to the Church by the said Apostles or no he that knoweth not this let him reade Caluin and Hunnius Is it in like sort agreed vpon among our aduersaties what articles euery Christian is bound expresly to beleeue and which are contained in the rule of faith It is not without doubt and I verily thinke that scarse any one learned Protestant wil admit that euery point vvhich is assigned by M. Field in the fourth chapter of his third booke Moreouer how obscure is the Analogie or proportion which one thing in matters of faith hath with another and generally what man wil admit these three rules or any one of them as sufficient to make an end of al controuersies in the Church In very deede although they were al admitted by al sorts as true yet very fewe articles can be gathered out of them by such euident deduction as is able to conuince the vnderstanding of al men and consequently they are no general and sufficient directions for al points of our faith Neither are the three last rules of themselues at the least as they are deliuered by Field of any greater force or sufficiency First because Field doth not only make the present Church in al ages subject to errour for he freeth it only from damnable and pertinacious errour Field book 4. chap. 13. and book 1. c. 10.
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
precisely as they are the object of our faith they al haue no other euidence then diuine reuelation as is proued before which is alwaies obscure What then is this medium or meane according to Field Is it any humane conjecture motiue or probability This cannot be according to his owne doctrine as appeareth in the same place and the chapter before Nay in another place he telleth vs Book 4. chap. 20. § Much contention that the books of Scripture winne credite of themselues and yeeld sufficient satisfaction to al men of their diuine truth and therefore he seemeth to exclude al external proofe Is it then any thing contained in the things themselues Neither can this be said for euery thing contained in the thinges themselues belonging to their essence is as obscure as the things themselues be and consequently no such thing contained in the things themselues can be such a meane to manifest themselues vnto vs. And vvhat accident he vvil assigne in the articles of our faith making them manifest vnto vs I cannot imagine Secondly I cannot see how this assertion of Field doth agree with that his common principle Field book 4. chap. 13.8 book 3. chap. 42. auouching that the Scripture is the Canon and ground of their beliefe and that they rest in the determination of the word of God as in the rule of their faith For how can this be if the euidence of the things appearing vnto vs be sometimes the formal reason of our faith as is in like sort by him auerred But to make this discourse a litle more manifest let vs demaund a question or two in particuler of M. Field and see howe he vvil resolue them according to his doctrine deliuered I aske therefore of him why he beleeueth there be three persons and one God two natures in Christ and one person and the resurrection of our bodies Wil he answere that the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto him is the formal cause of his faith or inducing him to beleeue these misteries If he doe not he contradicteth his own doctrine If he doe he contradicteth both al sense and reason and also himselfe making the Scripture the ground of faith except he affirme these misteries to be euident not in themselues but in the medium or meane by force whereof they are beleeued For which medium if he wil be constant to himselfe he must assigne the holie Scripture vvhich Scripture he must say is beleeued through the authority of God himselfe whome vve doe most certainly discerne to speake in the word of faith which is another cause of beliefe assigned by him for such thinges as we beleeue and doe not knowe so that this authority of God is the last motiue not the holy Scripture and what other processe he wil make I cannot perceiue But what doth he and Caluin vnderstand by that other reason which he tearmeth The authority of God himselfe whome we doe certainly discerne to speake in the word of faith which is preached vnto vs and Caluin The majesty of God which doth present it selfe vnto vs What is this authority and majesty of God and how doe we so certainly discerne it Verily for my part I am so farre from knowing how to discerne it as I cannot vvel imagine vvhat they meane by it yet if I be not deceiued they affirme that the authority of God or his majestie is seene in the letter of holie Scripture vvhich moueth vs by a supernatural and most infallible assent to acknowledge it to be his holy word But first this is said gratis and vvithout any ground or reason for what authority or majesty can a man discerne in such bookes as our aduersaries receiue as Canonical more then in those which they reject For example what appeareth to vs more diuine in the bookes of Ecclesiastes then in the bookes of Ecclesiasticus surely nothing much lesse so much as may be an infallible and knowne meane to moue vs to beleeue the one as diuine and to reject the other as Apocriphal Moreouer howe doe vve knowe that this representation of diuine majestie or this diuine authoritie vvhich as vve conceaue doth represent it selfe vnto vs is not either some illusion of the Deuil or some strong imagination of our owne proceeding onlie from some affection which vpon some other motiues we beare to such and such bookes of Scripture Trulie we haue great cause to feare that it may proceed from some such affection seeing that Luther and most of al his Lutherans confesse al the Sacramentaries generallie to be deceaued in such their apprehensions concerning the epistle to the Hebrewes the epistle of Saint Iames the Apocalipse of S. Iohn and other parcels of Scripture And why not concerning others as vvel as these Vnto vvhich I adde that they commonly make their doctrine a rule whereby to try which is Scripture and vvhich is not as I vvil demonstrate hereafter and appeareth by the causes assigned by Luther vvhich moued him to reject the epistle of Saint Iames. It may also be objected against this their doctrine that of it it seemeth to followe that no man can be assured of the diuine authority of any other bookes of Scripture then of those which he hath read himselfe or heard others read For first no man can possibly proue to another that in reading such and such books he did discerne in then the authority of God himselfe speaking or that the diuine majesty did in them present it selfe vnto him vvherefore vnto this that a man may judg of holy Scripture he must himselfe read or heare the words and sentences read and this he must doe before he can haue any faith For seeing that they make the Scripture the rule and ground of their beliefe the Scripture must first be knowne before they can beleeue and seeing that no one booke containeth al things necessary to be beleeued but such things are dispersed through al it is necessarie that he know the whole Canon of Scripture and consequentlie that he reade or heare it al rehearsed sentence by sentence And what a Laborinth is this how can the vnlearned that cannot reade doe it Nay how many Protestants in the world haue euer performed it Wherefore I conclude that this rule or meane how to know holy Scripture is neither easie plaine certaine nOr vniuersal Perhaps it may be thought by some that Field assigneth the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto vs in holy Scriptures as the formal cause of our beleefe concerning their authority but this cannot be both because our beleefe concerning their Canonical authority seemeth to be concerning a matter of fact to wit vvhether they vvere penned by the instinct of the holie Ghost or no as also because a great part of them rehearseth matters of fact which Field denieth to be knowne by the authority of God himselfe whome we doe certainly discerne to speake in the word of faith Field book 4. chapt 15. Adde likewise that by his confession
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
thus The Lutheran preachers rage hitherto in their pulpits against the Caluinists as much as euer and their Princes and people haue them in as great detestation not forbearing to professe openly that they wil returne to the Papacy rather then euer admit that Sacramentary and predestinary pestilence For these two pointes are the ground of the quarrel and the later more scandalous at this day then the former thus he writing as it is probable of thinges which he sawe and heard with his owne eies and eares And vvhat is the off-spring and fountaine of this their diuision and dissention but the vvant of a certaine infallible rule to direct them for because they al seeme with one consent to accept of the bare wordes of Scripture for the only ground of their faith and religion and the said vvordes admit sundry expositions euery man among them whose wit by any meanes can reach to the inuention either of a newe translation or interpretation of the word of God or of some newe opinion which by wresting and wringing he can in outward shewe confirme by the authority of the same foundeth a newe sect Hence are these wordes of Luther Luther epist ad Antuerp tom 2. Germ. â—en fol. 101. There be almost so many sects and religions among vs as there be men There is no Asse in this time so sottish and blockish but wil haue the dreames of his owne head and his opinion accepted for the instinct of the holy Ghost and himselfe esteemed as a Prophet And againe in an other place thus he complaineth The peace and concord of the Church being once broken that is to say the pillar of truth and the infallible rule of our faith being once forsaken there is no meane or end of dissentions Luther in ca. 5. ad Galat. tom 5. Wittenb fol. 416 In our time first the Sacramentaries forsooke vs afterwardes the Anabaptists Of these neither agree among themselues So alwaies one sect bringeth forth another and once condemneth another Hitherto Luther the ring-leader of al the daunce himselfe And thus much of their diuision and dissention in this place I knowe that some of our aduersaries are so bold I might say so impudent as to denie there is any great or material dissension in their Churches And among others M. Field writeth Field booke 3 ch 42. p. 170. See also ibid. pag. 169. Where he saith there is a ful consent in their publike coÌ„fessions of faith that it so fel out by the happy prouidence of God when there was a reformation made by his bretheren that there was no material or essential difference among them but such as vpon equal scanning wil be found rather to consist in the diuers manner of expressing one thing and to be but verbal vpon the mistaking through the hasty and inconsiderate humors of some men then any thing else He addeth further Yea I dare confidently pronounce that after due and ful examination of each others meaning there shal be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament the vbiquitary presence or the like betweene the Churches reformed by Luthers ministery in Germany and other places and those whome some mens malice called Sacramentaries that none of the differences betweene Melancthon and Illiricus except about certaine ceremonies were real that Osiander held no priuate opinion of justification howsoeuer his strange manner of speaking gaue occasion to many so to thinke and conceiue And this shal be justified against the proudest Papist of them al Thus Field But howe vntrue this his assertion is al the world knoweth and it might be easily here demonstrated did not the matter belong properly to an other place I haue partly also shewed the falshood of it already Neuerthelesse to adde a word or two against this doctor in particular howe doth this agree with the beginning of the Epistle Dedicatory of his booke See his words cited at large in the preface of this treatise See also in his third booke ch 13. pag. 86. Doth he not there complaine of vnhappy diuisions in the Christian world and of infinite distractions of mens mindes not knowing in so great variety of opinions what to thinke or to whome to joine themselues euery faction saith he boasting of the pure and sincere profession of heauenly truth challenging to it selfe alone the name of the Church and fastning vpon al that dissent or are otherwise minded the hateful note of schisme and heresie There he affirmeth that the controuersies of religion in our time are growen in number so many and in nature so intricate that fewe haue time and leasure fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them And therefore he concludeth that nothing remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in thinges of such consequence but diligently to search out the Church that so they may embrace her communion followe her directions and rest in her judgement Thus he discourseth in his Epistle dedicatory And howe can these thinges be made consonant and agreeable to his other wordes euen nowe alleaged Truly I thinke an indifferent reader vvil hardly excuse him from contradiction Besides this he telleth vs there is no difference touching the Sacrament the vbiquitarie presence and the like betweene the Lutherans and the Sacramentaries Caluin Instit booke 4. chap. 17 §. 16. c. but Caluin auoucheth that by the vbiquitarie presence Marcion an ancient Heretike is raised vp out of hel The Caluinists also in the Preface to the Harmony of confessions although a booke published to shew a consent among the followers of the newe religion exclaime in like manner against it and a thousand other bookes written on both sides conuince him of falsehood Field saith none of the differences betweene Melancthon and Illiricus except about certaine ceremonies were real but vvhosoeuer readeth the acts of Synode held by Lutherans at Altenburge and the publike vvritings of the Flaccians so called of Flaccus Illiricus against the Synergists and Adiaphorists two other sects of Lutherans and of these against them shal finde dissentions touching greater matters Field auoucheth that Osiander held no priuate opinion of justification but Caluin in his Institutions Caluin Instit booke 3. chap. 11. §. 5. c. Heshusius l. cont Osiand Schlusselbur in Catalogo haereticorum lib. 6. spendes almost one whole Chapter in the confutation of Osianders opinion concerning this article which at his very entrance to this point he calleth be wotes not what monster of essential righteousnesse Heshusius a Lutheran in like sort condemneth his brother Osianders doctrine touching this And Conradus Schlusselburge an other of that sect placeth him and his followers in the Catalogue of Heretikes Such are Fields rare singular proceedinges in which he feareth not to affirme thinges most apparently false and confessed vntrue by al his bretheren And truly a man of smal learning reading his bookes of the church may first finde that he hath a good opinion of himselfe of his owne wit and
that pronouncing nowe this nowe that of the same thing he was neuer constant to himselfe but thought that such leuity and inconstancy might be vsed in the word of God as shamelesse jesters commonly vse playing at dice. Againe Luther saith he doth not only bring his former doctrine in suspition but also giueth the Papists a most fit occasion to condemne him by sending in this present controuersie his reader only to those bookes which he wrote within foure or fiue yeares before For who hauing heard or read these things wil not say that if so be that we expect other fiue yeares without al doubt they being past he wil cal into doubt those bookes which he wrote in these last fiue yeares Thus farre Zwinglius of Luthers inconstancy Erasmus also Whitaker in his answer to Campians reason 8. p. 208. a man denied by Whitakers to be a writer of our side and by the martir-maker Fox canonized for a Saint of the newe religion of Luther his disciples writeth after this sort * Erasmus lib 3. de libero arbitrio What should I recount here the dissention that is among these Gospellers their bloudy hatred their bitter contentions nay their singular inconstancy Luther himselfe hauing changed his opinion so often and yet newe paradoxes springing vp from him daily Hitherto Erasmus Finally Field although he extol Luther for a worthy diuine as euer the world had any in those times wherein he liued Field booke 3 c. 24. p. 170. or in many ages before yet confesseth that by degrees he sawe and discried those Popish errours I vse his wordes which at first he discerned not But to excuse the matter he first auoucheth that in sundry points of greatest moment as of the power of nature of free-wil grace justification the difference of the law and the Gospel faith and workes Christian liberty and the like he was euer constant Which assertion of his howe false it is that which I haue before said touching free-wil doth demonstrate An other of his excuses is that it is not so strange a thing as his aduersaries would make it seeme to be that herein Luther proceeded by degrees and in his later writings disliked that which in his former he did approue And his reason is because S. Augustine wrote a whole booke of retractations S. Ambrose complained that he was forced to teach before he had learned and so to deliuer many thinges that should neede a second reuiewe And S. Thomas of Aquine in his summe corrected and altered many things which he had written before Against this I first reply that it excuseth not Luthers building of his new beliefe vpon his owne judgement nay it proueth manifestly that he came not to it by the infallible direction of any external guide but by the discourse and search of his owne wit and moreouer Caluin Instit booke 4. ch 3. The Apology of the church of England part 4. p. 123 124. c. that he vvas not extraordinarily by internal inspirations instructed and sent by the spirit of God as diuers of these men seeme plainely to affirme for the workes of God are perfect and they whome he immediately sendeth directeth in faith erre not in any point of that argument but that his inconstant reason was the principal ground on which he built his said faith and religion Secondly I adde that the examples brought by Field in excuse of Luther make nothing for his purpose For what if S. Augustine vvriting vvhen he was yet a nouice in Christian religion and not fully instructed erred in some points which errours hauing receiued better instructions he reclaimed What if the like happened to S. Ambrose being miraculously chosen to be a Bishop and a teacher before he was a Christian What if S. Augustine before some articles of Christian religion were so throughly discussed and defined in the Church as afterward vpon the rising of new heresies spoke not so aptly and properly as was needful in succeeding times and therefore retracted what he had vttered What if he and S. Thomas of Aquin in diuers matters disputable and not determined by the Church altered and corrected their former opinions So hath Cardinal Baronius nowe done who hath runne ouer the first ten tomes of his Ecclesiastical history and made as it were a booke of retractations recalling such thinges as he judged amisse What I say if also these thinges be so as without doubt they were no otherwise shal it therefore be lawful for Luther or any other person to leape vp and downe hither and thither and to chop and change his faith according as his fancy leadeth him in any articles of Christian religion verily I thinke to no man of judgement such a fault vvil seeme excusable But was Zwinglius who as we haue seene so peremptorily reprehendeth Luther for his inconstancy him selfe free from this crime Truly he vvas not and because breuity suffereth me not to runne through his works and to shewe the change and alteration of his opinion concerning al particuler points in vvhich he shewed himselfe inconstant I wil only conuince him of inconstancy touching one or two and that by his owne confession It cannot be denied but before his fal from vs he held the Catholike doctrine concerning the baptisme of infants otherwise vvithout al doubt his nouelty vvould haue beene noted and censured His first alteration therefore concerning this matter was from vs to Anabaptisme his second from Anabaptisme in some sort to our beliefe againe That he was once an Anabaptist thus he confesseth Wherefore I my selfe also confesse frankely saith he that a fewe yeares since I being deceiued with this error thought it better to deferre the baptisme of young children vntil they come to perfest age thus Zwinglius That he partly recanted afterwards this heresie he declareth in the same place I say partly because he alwaies denied the necessity of baptisme to saluation That he was likewise inconstant in his beliefe of the Eucharist these his owne wordes testifie Zwingl tom 2. commēt de vera salsa religione cap de Eucharist fol. 202. We haue written two yeares since of the Eucharist where we haue written many thinges rather according to the time then the truth of the matter And soone after If reader thou finde certaine thinges here otherwise then in the former bookes doe not thou wonder we would not giue foode out of season nor set pearls before swine Finally We retract therefore saith he and reuoke those thinges which we haue said there in such sort that those which we set forth in the two and fortith yeare of our age counterpoise those which we set forth in the fortith when as we said we serued more the time then the truth of the matter that we might by that meanes the more edifie thus Zwinglius of himselfe Who then can deny but he also was inconstant and at the least in outward shewe altered his beliefe yea doth he not confesse to
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
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