seeing there are alwaies some right-beleeuers but a right iudgment of men by their power of iurisdiction maintaining truth suppressing error may be wanting Nay that somtimes there was no such iudgmēt in the Church it is most euident For Vincentius Lyrinensis sayth the Arian heresie infected not some part onely but almost the whole Christian world soe that almost all the Bishoppes of the Latine Church were misled by force or fraud Yea Athanasius and Hierome report that Liberius Bishoppe of ROME was carryed away in that tempestuous whirlewinde and subscribed to heresie soe that there was noe sette Tribunall on earth in those dayes to the determinations whereof it was safe to stand §. 2. IN the next place the Treatiler chargeth Mee that whereas Luther defendeth that infants in Baptisme actually beleeue I endeauour to wrest his words to habituall faith which sence he sayth Luthers discourses will not admit and for proofe hereof referreth the reader to certaine places in Luther and to the positions of his followers but as Festus sayd vnto Paul thou hast appealed to Caesar to Caesar shalt thou goe so seeing this Treatiser referreth the Reader to Luthers discourses and the doctrine of his Disciples to these I will send him which will turne greatly to the Treatisers disaduantage For the reader cannot but finde by Luthers discourses and the doctrine of his Schollers that I haue rightly deliuered his opinion to bee that infants are filled with habituall fayth when they are regenerate and not that they haue any such acts of faith or knowledge of God as men of yeares haue Let vs therefore heare what Luther himselfe will say some men saith hee will obiect against that which I haue said touching the necessity of faith in such as are to receiue the Sacramērs with profit that infants haue no faith nor apprehension of Gods mercies that therefore either faith is not so necessarily required to the due receiuing of the sacramēt or that infants are Baptised in vaine Here I say that which all say that other mens faith euen the faith of such as present thē to Baptisme steedeth litle children For as the word of God is mightie when the sound therof is heard euen to the changing of the heart of a wicked man which is no lesse vnapt to heare the voyce of God to listen vnto it thē any litle babe so by the prayer of the Church which out of faith to which all thinges are possible presenteth it to baptisme the child is changed cleansed and renued by the infusion of faith or by faith which is infused and powred into it Thus doth Luther expresse his owne meaning touching this poynt Now let vs heare what his followers will say It was agreed vpon saith Chemnitius amongst the followers of Luther that when we say infants beleeue or haue faith wee must not imagine that they do vnderstand or feele the motions of faith But their errour is rejected who suppose that infants baptized please God and are saued without any operation or working of the holy spirit in them whereas Christ pronounceth that vnlesse a man bee borne a new of water and of the spirit hee cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen So that this is all that Luther and the rest meant that children cannot be made partakers of those benefits that God offereth to men in Baptisme nor inherit eternall life by vertue of the faith of the Church without some change wrought in them by the spirit fitting them to be joyned to God which change or alteration in them they call faith not meaning to attribute vnto them an actuall apprehension of Gods mercies for they constantly deny that they feele any such motions of faith but a kinde of habituall faith onely there being nothing in faith but such an act of beleeuing as they deny or the seede roote and habit whence actual motions in due time do flow With whom Calvine agreeth for whereas the Anabaptists obiect against him defending that infants are capable of regeneration that the Scripture mentioneth no regeneration but by the incorruptible seed of the word of God which infants cannot heare he answereth that God by his diuine power may renue and change them by some other meanes Secondly hee addeth that it is not absurde to thinke that God doth shine into the hearts of those infants which in infancie hee calleth out of this world to himselfe and that hee doth make himselfe knowne vnto them in some sorte seeing they are presently after to be receiued and admitted to the cleare and open view and sight of his glorious face and countenance and yet saith he will not rashly affirme that they are indued with the same faith which wee finde in our selues or that they haue knowledge like vnto that of faith And in the next section speaking more generally and not restraining himselfe to such as die in infancy hee saith that they are Baptized into future repentance and faith which vertues though they bee not presently formed in them yet a seede of either of them lieth hid in them The Papists are distracted into contrary opinions touching this point For some thinke that grace the roote of faith and other vertues is infused into children in Baptisme but not faith other that not onely grace but the habit of faith hope and charity is powred into them likewise which opinion as more probable was admitted in the Councell of Vienna and is embraced by vs as true Wherefore let the Reader judge whether I haue wrested the words of Luther or the Treatiser wronged Mee SECT 3. IN the third place hee laboureth to demonstrate and proue that there is a contradiction betweene the reuerend Bishop of Lincolne and Doctour Morton my selfe touching the power of ordination which that learned Bishoppe appropriateth vnto Bishops and we communicate in some cases to Presbyters But this silly obiection is easily answered for his meaning is that none but Bishoppes regularly may ordaine which we confesse to be true as likewise none but they onely may confirme the baptized by imposition of hands and yet thinke that in case of necessity Presbyters may performe both these things though of ordinary right belonging to Bishops only Part. 1. Sect. 1. LEt vs passe therefore from the preface to the booke it selfe the first thing that he objecteth in the booke it selfe is that I giue Apostolicke power to the present Church whence he thinketh it may be inferred that the Church cannot erre in matters of faith or ceremonies That I giue Apostolique power to the present church he endeavoureth to proue because I say She hath authority to dispense with some constitutions of the Apostles touching order and comelinesse which he thinketh She might not doe if she had not the same Authority by force whereof they were made but he could not but know that this proofe is too weake if he were not very weake in vnderstanding For the Apostles made these constitutions
faith only doth not iustifie that good works are meritorious he endeauoureth to proue because I confesse that men iustified freely by grace are crowned in the world to come for that new obediēce that is foūd in thē after iustificatiō But this cōsequence I suppose wil not be thought good seeing as Cassander rightly notethout of Bucer God in respect of good works or hauing an eye to thē or for good works giueth not onely temporall but eternall rewardes not for the worthinesse of the workes in themselues but out of his owne grace for the merit of Christ first working such good workes in them that are his and then crowning his owne workes in them as Augustine long since aptly obserued Let vs see therefore if he can proue any better that fayth onely doth not justifie this hee vndertaketh to doe out of that which I haue written that justification implieth in it faith hope and charity But for the clearing of this poynt let him be pleased to obserue that by the name of justification sometimes nothing is meant but an adiudging of eternall life vnto vs sometimes the whole translation of a man out of the state of sinne and wrath into a state of righteousnesse and acceptation with God which implyeth in it sundry things concurring in very different sort without any preiudice to the singular prerogatiue of fayth For first it implyeth in it a worke of almighty God as the supreame and highest cause Secondly the merits of Christ as the meanes whereby God is reconciled and induced to take vs into his fauour Thirdly in him that is to be justified a certaine perswasion of the trueth of such thinges as are contayned in the holy word of God Fourthly motions of feare contrition hope of mercy and the like workes of preparing grace as causes disposing and fitting him that is to be justified that hee may be capable of Gods fauour Fifthly as the susceptiue cause an act of faith by which a man truely repenting of former euils and seeking deliuerance without all doubting firmely beleeueth that all his sinnes are remitted him for Christs sake Lastly an infusion of the habite of diuine and heauenly vertues as a beginning of that life of God to which he doth adiudge them whom he receiueth to fauour So that my saying that justification thus taken implyeth in it Faith Hope and Charitie contrarieth not our position that fayth onely justifieth in sort before expressed which the Treatiser knowing right well insisteth no longer vpon this cauill but passeth to an vntruth charging Mee that I say of S. Augustine whom yet I pronounce to haue been the greatest of all the Fathers and the worthiest Diuine the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times that his manner of deliuering the Article of Iustification is not full perfect exact as if I imputed some fault to him in not deliuering the poynt of justification as it became him whereas I haue no such thing but say onely that his manner of deliuering that Article was not so full perfect and exact as we are forced to require in these times against the errours of the Romanists in which saying I no way blame that worthy Father but shew that new errours require a more exact manner of handling of thinges then was necessary before such errours sprung vppe which I thinke no wise man will deny and am well assured this Treatiser cannot deny vnlesse hee will bee contrary to himselfe For hee sayth expressely that Saint Augustine before some articles of Christian Religion were so throughly discussed and defined in the Church as afterwards vpon the rising of new heresies spake not so aptly and properly as was needfull in succeeding times and therefore retracted some things which hee had formerly vttered So that the Reader will easily finde that in this passage hee hath sayd lesse then nothing neither will his next discourse be found any better wherein he laboreth to shew a contrariety between Me Luther Caluine others in that I make that acte of fayth which obtayneth and procureth our justification to bee an acte by way of petition humbly intreating for acceptation and fauour and not of comfortable assurance consisting in a full perswasion that through Christs merits wee are the children of God Whereas Luther Caluine and the rest make iustifying faith to be an assured perswasion that through Christs merits wee are the sonnes of God But the Treatiser might easily know if hee were disposed that according to our opinion iustifying faith hath some actes as a cause disposing preparing and fitting vs to the receipt of that gracious fauour whereby God doth iustifie vs and other as a susceptiue cause receiuing embracing and enioying the same in the former respect neyther they nor I make faith to consist in a perswasion that wee are the sonnes of God in the latter wee both do and so agree well enough though the Treatiser it seemeth could wish it were otherwise §. 4. WHerefore let vs goe forward and take a view of that which followeth The next thing which hee hath that concerneth Mee is that it may bee gathered out of my assertions in my Third Booke of the Church that I thinke as hee saith some other also do that it is no fundamentall point of doctrine but a thing indifferent to beleeue or not to beleeue the reall that is the locall presence of CHRISTS Body in the Sacrament But I am well assured there can no such thing be gathered out of any of the places cited by him vnlesse it be lawfull for him to reason à baculo ad angulum as often as he doth For in the pages 120 and 121 of his second part because I confesse that in the Primitiue Church the manner of some was to receiue the Sacrament in the publique assembly and not bee partakers of it presently but to carry it home that the Sacrament was carried by the Deacons to the sicke that in places where they communicated euery day there was a reseruation of some parts of the sanctified Elements and that the sanctified Elements thus reserued in reference to an ensuing receiuing of them were the bodie of Christ to wit in mysterie and exhibitiue signification hee goeth about to conclude that I must needes confesse the reall that is the locall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament which consequence is no better then if a man should goe about to conclude that this Treatiser hath written a good and profitable booke because hee hath troubled the world with one such as it is full of vaine idle and emptie discourses whereof if any man make doubt let him consider but the very next words For whereas I confessed Calvines dislike of the reseruation aunciently vsed and yet saide it cannot bee proued that hee denied the Sacramentall elements consecrated and reserued for a time in reference to an ensuing receiuing of them to bee Sacramentally the body of Christ hee saith I labour in vaine because
that in the one men are sure and know they neither are nor can be deceiued in the other they knowe and are certaine that they are not not that they cannot bee deceiued But this difference cannot staud for if a man know and bee certaine that hee is not deceiued he must certainly know that no such thing doth now fall out as doth fall out when men are deceiued in apprehensions of this kind and consequently that now and things so standing he cannot be deceiued For example a man dreaming thinketh he is waking and vndoubtedly perswadeth himselfe hee seeth or doth something wherein he is deceiued because it is but representation in a dreame but he that is waking knoweth that he waketh that hee seeth that which he thinketh he seeth that in this perswasion hee is not nor cannot be deceiued things so standing Amongst the Articles agreed vpon in the conference at Ratisbon 1541 this is one Docendum est ut qui vere poenitent semper fide certissimâ statuant se propter Mediatorem Christum Deo placere quia Christus est propitiator Pontifex interpellator pro nobis quem pater donavit nobis omnia bona cum illo Quoniam autem perfecta rectitudo in hac imbecillitate non est suntque multae infirmae pavidae conscientiae quae cum gravi saepe dubitatione luctantur nemo est à gratiâ Christi propter ejusmodi infirmitatem excludendus sed convenit tales diligenter adhortari ut ijs dubitationibus promissiones Christi fortiter opponant augeri sibi fidem sedulis precibus orent juxta illud Adauge nobis Domine fidem So that touching this point it is evident that the Church of God euer taught that which we now teach Neither haue wee departed from the doctrine of the Church in that wee teach that faith onely justifieth For many of the ancient haue vsed this forme of words as Origen ad Rom. 3. Dicit Apostolus sufficere solius fidei justificationem ita ut credens quis tantummodo justificetur etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum Hilar. can 8. in Math. Fides sola justificat Basil. homil de humilitate Haec est perfecta integra gloriatio in Deo quando neque ob justitiam suam quis se iactat sed novit quidem seipsum verae justitiae indigum solâ autem fide in Christum justificatum Ambros. ad Rom. 3. Iustificati sunt gratis quia nihil operantes neque vicem reddentes solâ fide justificati sunt dono Dei Chrysost. Homil. de fide lege naturae Eum qui operatur opera iustitiae sine fide non potes probare vivum esse fidem absque operibus possum monstrare vixisse regnum coelorum assecutam nullus sine fide vitam habuit latro autem credidit tantum iustificatus est Aug. l. 1. contra 2 Epistolas Pelag. c. 21. Quantaelibet fuisse virtutis antiquòs praedices justos non eos salvos fecit nisi fides mediatoris 83. q. q. 76. Si quis cùm crediderit mox de hâc vita decesserit iustificatio fidei manet cum illo nec praecedentibus bonis operibus quia non merito ad illam sed gratiâ pervenit nec consequentibus quia in hac vita esse non sinitur Theophylact. ad Galat. 3. Nunc planè ostendit Apostolus fidem vel solam iustificandi habere in se virtutem Bern. ser. 22 in Cantic Quisquis pro peccatis compunctus esurit sitit iustitiam credat in te qui iustificas impium solam iustificatus per fidem pacem habebitad te Et ep 77. citans illud Qui crediderit baptizatus fuerit salvus erit Cautè inquit non repetiit qui vero baptizatus non fuerit condēnabitur sed tantū qui vero non crediderit innuens nimirum solam fidem interdum sufficere ad salutem sine illâ sufficere nihil Sometimes by these phrases of speech they exclude all that may bee be without supernaturall knowledge all that may be without a true profession Sometimes the necessity of good workes in act or externall good workes 3. The power of nature without illumination and grace 4. The power of the Law 5. The sufficiency of any thing found in vs to make vs stand in judgement to abide the tryall and not to feare condemnation And in this sense faith onely is said to justifie that is the onely mercy of God and merite of Christ apprehended by faith and then the meaning of their speech is that onely the perswasion and assured trust that they haue to bee accepted of God for Christs sake is that that maketh them stand in judgement without feare of condemnation And in this sense all the Diuines formerly alleadged for proofe of the insufficiency of all our inherent righteousnesse and the trust which wee should haue in the onely mercy of God and merite of Christ doe teach as wee doe that faith onely iustifieth For neither they nor we exclude from the worke of Iustification the action of God as the supreme and highest cause of our iustification for it is he that remitteth sinne and receiueth vs to grace nor the merit of Christ as that for which God inclineth to shew mercy to vs and to respect vs nor the remission of sinnes gratious acceptation and grant of the gift of righteousnes as that by which we are formally justified nor those works of prenenting grace whereby out of the generall apprehension of faith God worketh in vs dislike of our former condition desire to be reconciled to God to haue remission of that is past grace hereafter to decline the like euils to do contrary good things For by these wee are prepared disposed and fitted for iustification without these none are iustified And in this sense to imply a necessity of these to be found in us sometimes the fathers others say that we are not justified by faith only And we all agree that it is not our conuersion to God nor the change we find in our selues that can any way make us stād in judgment without feare and looke for any good from God otherwise then in that we find our selues so disposed and fitted as is necessary for justification whence we assure our selues God will in mercy accept us for Christs sake CHAP. 12. Of Merit MErit as Cardinall Contarenus rightly noteth if we speake properly importeth an action or actions quibus actionibus aut earum autori ab altero iusticia postulante debeatur praemiū No man can merit any thing of God First because we are his seruants owe much more seruice vnto him thē bond-slaues that are bought for money owe vnto their masters though no reward were promised we were bound to obey his commands Yet if we looke on the bounty of God he deales with us being bond-men as with hired seruants recōpencing that with a reward which we stood bound in duty to
not onely a condition but a cause of that perswasion of fayth which they haue yea the authority of the Church is the formall cause of all that faith seduced Papists haue And therefore the distinction of a cause and condition helpeth them not It is true indeed that the Ministerie of the Church proposing to men thinges to bee beleeued is onely a condition requisite to the producing of a supernaturall act of fayth in respect of them that haue some other thing to perswade them that that is true which the Church proposeth besides the authority of the Church but in respect of such as haue no other proofe of the trueth thereof it is a formall cause Now this is the condition of all Papists For let them tell Mee whether they beleeue the Scripture to be the Word of God without any motiue at all or not and if they doe not as it is most certaine they doe not whether besides such as are humane they haue any other then the authority of the Church if they haue not as doubtlesse they haue not they make the authority of the Church the formall cause of their faith and fall into that sophisticall circulation they are charged with For they beleeue the articles of religion because reuealed and that they were reuealed because it is so contayned in the Scripture and the Scripture because it is the Word of God that it is the Word of God because the Church telleth them it is and the Church because it is guided by the spirit and that it is so guided because it is so contayned in the Scripture this is such a maze as no wise man will willingly enter into and yet the Treatiser commendeth the treading of these intricate pathes and telleth vs that two causes may bee causes one of another That the cause may bee proued by the effect and the effect by the cause and that such a kinde of argumentation is not a circulation but a demonstratiue regresse that two causes may be causes either of other in diuerse respects we make no question For the end of each thing as it is desired setteth the efficient cause a worke and the efficient causeth the same to bee actually enjoyed Likewise we doubt not but that the cause may be proued by the effect and the effect by the cause in a demonstratiue regresse For the effect as better known vnto vs then the cause may make vs know the cause and the cause being found out by vs may make vs more perfitly and in a better sort to knowe the effect then before not onely that and what it is but why it is also So the death of little infants proueth them sinners and their being sinners proueth them mortall The bignesse of the footstep in the dust or sand sheweth the bignesse of his foote that made that impression And the bignesse of his foote will shew how bigge the impression is that he maketh but this maketh nothing for the justifying of the Romish circulations For heere the effect being knowne in a sort in itselfe maketh vs know the cause and the cause being found out and knowne maketh vs more perfectly to knowe the effect then at first wee did but the case is otherwise with the Papists for with them the Scripture which in it selfe hath no credit with them but such onely as it is to receiue from the Church giueth the Church credit and the Church which hath no credit but such as it is to receiue from the Scripture giueth the Scripture credit by her testimony And they endeauour to proue the infallibility of the Churches judgment out of the Scripture and the trueth of the Scripture out of the determination and judgement of the Church Much like as if when question is made touching the quality condition of two men vtterly vnknowne a man to commend them to such as doubt of them should bring no other testimony of their good and honest disposition but the testimony of each of them of the other It is true then which I haue said that to a man admitting the Old Testament and doubting of the New a man may vrge the authority of the Old and to a man doubting of the Old and admitting the New the authority of the New but to him that doubteth of both a man must alledge neither of them but must bring some other authority or proofe so likewise to him that admitteth the Scripture and doubteth of the Church a man may vrge the authority of the Scripture but to him that doubteth of both as all doe when they begin to beleeue a man must alledge some other proofe or else hee shall cause him to runne round in a Circle for euer and neuer to finde any way out Wherefore to conclude this poynt let our Aduersaries know that wee admitte and require humane motiues and inducements and amongst them a good opinion of them that teach vs as preparing fitting vs to fayth Secondly that wee require a supernaturall ayde light and habit for the producing of an act of faith Thirdly that we require some diuine motiue inducement Fourthly that this cannot be the authority of the Church seeing the authority of the Church is one of the things wee are to bee induced to beleeue Fiftly that wee require the ministery of the Church as a propounder of all heauenly trueth though her authority can be no proofe in generall of all such truth Sixtly that the Church though not as it includeth onely the beleeuers that are in the world at one time yet as it comprehendeth all that are or haue beene is an infallible propounder of heauenly truth and so acknowledged to bee by such as are assured of the trueth of the doctrine of Christianity in generall Seauenthly that the authority of this Church is a sufficient proofe of the trueth of particular things proposed by her to such as already are by other diuine motiues assured of her infallibility §. 7. FRom the authority of the Scripture which he would faine make to bee wholy dependant on the Church the Treatiser passeth to the fulnesse and sufficiency of it seeking amongst other his discourses to weaken those proofes which are brought by Mee for confirmation thereof Affirming that though I make shew as if it were a plaine matter that the Euangelists in their Gospels Saint Luke in the Actes of the Apostles and Saint Iohn in the Apocalyps meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine and direction of faith yet I bring no reason of any moment to proue it Whereas yet in the place cited by him I haue these wordes contayning in them as I suppose a strong proofe of the thing questioned Who seeth not that the Evangelists writing the history of CHRISTS life and death St Luke in the booke of the Acts of the Apostles describing the comming of the Holy Ghost the admirable gifts and graces powred vpon the Apostles and the churches founded and ordered by them and Saint Iohn writing the Revelations
eminent and peculiar power is giuen and whom all must obey In respect of this first kinde of vnity consisting in the subjection of each people or portion of the flocke of Christ to their lawfull Pastours if they who should obey this one Pastour as being in the stead place of Christ doe either wholly withdraw themselues refusing to be subject to any Ministerie like Core and his complices pretending that all the people of God are holy and that the guides of the Church take too much vpon them or when one is elected doe set vp an other against him and forsaking the right cleaue to him that hath no right This is the first kinde of Schisme Secondly because there must be an vnitie not onely among the parts of each particular Church but also of many particular Churches and the Pastours and guides of them among themselues the Churches which forsake the communion of other Churches without just cause doe fall into Schisme And if they not onely refuse to communicate with them in the performance of the acts of religion vpon causelesse dislike but swarue from the rule of faith the other doe constantly hold they become not onely schismaticall but hereticall also These are the seuerall kindes of Schisme of which one is much more daungerous then another The forsaking the rule of faith or absolute refusall to be subject to the holy Ministerie saying as they did Are not all the people holy you take too much vpon you c. is damnable Schisme In each Church wherein there must be one Pastour hauing eminent and peerelesse power when one is lawfully called they who presume to set vp an other if they know the former to be lawfully possessed of the place or their ignorance thereof bee affected or they be so violentlie carried with the streames of contention and faction that they would not yeeld though the right should appeare vnto them this Schisme is likewise damnable But if it be doubtful and men carry mindes readie to yeeld when they shall see the right it is not so When whole Churches with their Pastours and guides diuide themselues from other refusing to communicate with them if this separation grow out of pride and Pharisaicall conceit of fancied perfection and absolute holinesse as did the Schisme of Novatus Donatus Lucifer and others of that sort it is damnable Schisme but if out of ignorance or errour not ouerthrowing the rule of faith or ouer earnest vrging of ceremonies rites and observations as the separation of Victor Bishop of Rome and the Churches of Asia had beene if Irenaeus had not interposed himselfe or striuing for precedence it is dangerous but not damnable vnlesse it be joined with such pertinacie that though it should appeare they were in errour or did amisse and contrary to the rule of charitie they would not yeeld This being the nature of Schisme and Heresie and these the kindes and degrees of them more or lesse dangerous let vs in the next place see what is to be thought of all those Churches of Graecia Armenia Aethiopia Russia before mentioned Every of which is in some sort rent and divided from other Wee dare not with the proud Romanists condemne so famous Churches as culpable of damnable Heresie and Schisme and cast so many millians of soules into hell for every difference in matter of opinion or rent from the other parts of the body of the Church All these therefore holding the rule of faith and beleeuing all those things that are on the perill of eternall damnation to bee particularly and expresly knowne and beleeued and their seperation not growing for ought wee know out of Pharisaicall and damnable pride as did that of Nouatus Donatus and the like but out of error not directly contrary to the rule of faith or some other humane infirmitie and defect and it no way appearing that their obstinacie is such that though they knew they did amisse they would still continue so to do wee accompt them in the number of the Churches of God and doubt not but that innumerable liuing and dying in them notwithstanding their sundry defects imperfections and wants are and haue beene saued Wee conclude therefore that their Schismes and seperations are sinfull wicked and dangerous and their errours inexcusable insnaring the consciences of many to endlesse perdition and greatly endangering all that are or haue beene misse-led with them but not damnable excluding from all possibility of salvation Wee make a great difference betweene them that were the first Authors and beginners of these diuisions and such as walke in the wayes and insist in the steps of their misse-led and seduced fathers betweene such as are more and such as are lesse deepely plunged into errour CHAP. 6. Of the Latine Church that it continued the true Church of God euen till our time and that the errours wee condemne were not the doctrines of that Church TOuching the Latine Church likewise wee are of the same opinion that it continued still a part of the Catholike Church notwithstanding the manifold abuses and superstitions that in time crept into it and the dangerous and damnable false doctrine that some taught and defended in the middest of it It is therefore most fond and friuolous that some demand of vs where our Church was before Luther began For wee say it was where now it is if they aske vs which wee answere it was the knowen and apparant Church in the world wherein all our Fathers liued and died wherein Luther and the rest were baptized receiued their Christianity ordination and power of ministery If they reply that that Church was theirs and not ours for that the doctrines they now teach and wee inpugne the cerimonies customes and observations which they retaine and defend and wee haue abolished as fond vaine and superstitious were taught vsed and practised in that Church wherein our fathers liued and dyed wee answere that none of those points of false doctrine and errour which they now maintaine and wee condemne where the doctrines of that Church constantly delivered or generally receiued by all them that were of it but doubtfully broached and deuised without all certaine resolution or factiously defended by some certaine onely who as a dangerous faction adulterated the sincerity of the Christian verity and brought the Church into miserable bondage Touching the abuses and manifold superstitions which wee haue remoued it is true they were in that Church wherein our fathers liued but not without signification of their dislike of them and earnest desire of reformation as shall appeare by that which followeth As therefore the Churches of Corinth Galatia Pergamus and Thyatira had in them emulations diuisions neglect of discipline contempt of the Apostles of Christ some that denied the resurrection of the dead that ioyned circumcision and the workes of the law with Christ in the work of saluation thē that maintained the doctrine of the Nicolaitans suffered the woman
liue at one time and may be limited also in respect of place for it is not necessary that the Church be in all places at one time but it sufficeth if it bee successiuely Fiftly vniuersality may be a note of the true Church in respect of particular societies of Christians limited in time and place though not by hauing it yet by demonstrating themselues to pertaine to the vnity of that Church that hath it This no particular Church can do but by prouing that it holdeth the common faith once deliuered to the Saints without hereticall innouation or schismaticall violation of the vnity and peace of the Christian world This being the way for particular Churches to demonstrate themselues to be Catholike by prouing they hold the Catholike faith it is easie from hence to conclude that the reformed Churches are the Catholike Churches of God First for that that being Catholike as Vincentius Lirinensis defineth it which is and hath beene holden at all times and in all places by all Christians that haue not beene noted for noueltie singularity and diuision whatsoeuer hath beene so receiued wee receiue as the vndoubted truth of God neither is there any of the things which wee impugne and the Papists defend that is Catholike but they all carry the markes of nouelty and vncertainty Secondly touching the communion the people of God should haue among themselues our aduersaries shall neuer proue that wee haue at any time giuen occasion of those breaches that now appeare But wee will proue against them that they haue and so the note of Vniuersality maketh nothing for them or against vs. Touching the name of Catholike devised to expresse those both men and societies of men which hold the common faith without faction or division I haue spoken sufficiently in the former part touching the notes of the Church and so need not here to insist vpon it Thus haue we runne through the examination of the principall notes of the Church assigned by our adversaries but because they adde vnto these certaine other I will briefly examine their proofs taken from thence for themselues or against vs. CHAP. 44. Of the Sanctity of Doctrine and the supposed absurdities of our profession THese notes are Sanctity and efficacie of doctrine our own confession miracles and predictions the felicity and infelicity of such as defend or impugne the trueth and lastly the holy and religious conversation of the Professours of the truth Let vs take a view of these in such sort and order as they are proposed by them They place in the front the Sanctity and efficacie of doctrine A lyer they say should haue a good memory but surely our adversaries of all the lyers that euer were haue the worst memories by reason whereof euery second page of their writings if not euery second line is a refutation of the first Bellarmine divideth his tract of the notes of the Church into two parts In the first he sheweth what things are required in the notes of the Church and there he saith trueth and Sanctity of doctrine is no note of the Church In the latter he doth particularly assigne the notes whereby he supposeth the Church may be knowne and reckoneth truth sanctitie and efficacie of doctrine amongst the rest But let vs pardon him this ouersight and see how he proueth by this note that we are not and that their faction is the true Church of God Our doctrine is false absurd and vnreasonable and theirs full of truth reason and equitie Therefore our Churches are not the true Churches of God and theirs are Both parts of the Antecedent of this argument we deny For he shall neuer bee able to proue the absurdities he imputeth vnto vs but we are able to demonstrate against him that the whole course of Popish doctrine is most absurd false and impious But least hee should seeme to say nothing hee produceth foure instances wherein he supposeth there is apparant and very grosse absurditie The first he proposeth in this sort The Protestants teach that a man is justified by speciall faith whereby he perswadeth himselfe that he is just Now then he reasoneth thus When men beginne to beleeue either they are just and then their faith justifieth not being in nature after their justification and finding them already just when it beginneth or else they are not just and then speciall faith making a man beleeue he is just is false and so a man is justified by a lye To this horned argument wee answere that speciall faith hath sundry actes but to this purpose specially two the one by way of petition humbly intreating for acceptation and fauour the other in the nature of comfortable assurance consisting in a perswasion that that is graunted which was desired Faith by her first act obtaineth and worketh our justification and doeth not finde vs just when wee beginne to beleeue by her second act shee doeth not actiuely justifie but finding the thing done certifieth and assureth vs of it and so is no lying perswasion as this lying companion is pleased to pronounce it to bee So then speciall faith in her first act which is a kinde of petition is before justification and procureth or obtaineth it but then shee hath not the perswasion of it in her second act shee presupposeth the thing done and already obtayned and so truely perswadeth the beleeuer of it but procureth not the doing of it The second palpable and grosse absurdity of the Protestants doctrine is that it is not lawfull to say the Lords prayer This the Cardinall proueth because no man of the Protestants Religion can without dissimulation aske forgiuenesse of sinnes which is one of the principall petitions of that prayer This petition they cannot make because they hold that all right beleeuing and iustified men are without sinne and know themselues so to be and therefore cannot be excusable from vile dissimulation and mocking of God in asking the remission of their sinnes The impudencie of this imputation is such as I thinke all moderate Papists are ashamed of it For doth any of vs thinke that the iustified man is voyd of all sinne Or is it consequent if a man know himselfe to be iustified that then he may not aske remission of his sins Doe not many right learned and wise amongst themselues teach that a man may be sure he is in state of grace and iustification by the ordinary working of Gods spirit and doe not all Papists thinke that by speciall reuelation men may be sure they are in state of grace as Paul and sundry others were Doe all these teach that men thus assured of their iustification know themselues to haue no sin consequently nothing whereof they should aske forgiuenesse Surely herein I thinke both they we agree that in the iustified the dominion of sinne ceaseth sin hath no longer dominion ouer them that proportionably the guilt of condemnation is taken away but that there are still remainders of sin in them
not perfectly extinguished that though while they remaine in the state of iustification they ◅n not with full consent to the excluding of grace and subiecting of themselues to the guilt of condemnation yet there are many sinfull euils they runne into which subiect them to Gods displeasure for which hee will not faile to iudge them if they iudge not themselues For the weakening abolishing of these sinfull euils and the averting of that displeasure wherewith God is displeased with men for them the iustified doe pray vnto God which is to aske forgiuenesse of sins as in the Lords prayer is meant For the petition is vnderstood of the sinnes of the seruants of God and such as are in state of grace as Augustine teacheth Thus then the iustified man knoweth that the dominion of his sins is taken away and that the guilt of condemnation wherevnto they subiect such as are vnder the dominion of them is already remoued and therefore he doth not desire nor aske forgiuenesse of sinnes in this sort but the inherence of sin he acknowledgeth in himselfe notwithstanding his iustification which still subiecteth him to Gods displeasure punishments accompanying the same These things hee desireth to be remoued and in this sense asketh forgiuenesse of sins If it be replyed that the remission of the sins of the iustified is full and perfect and that therefore they that know themselues to be iustified cannot aske remission which they know they haue perfectly already Wee answere that the remission of the sins of the iustified is full and perfect not for that they are already freed actually from the inherence of sinne and the displeasure of God disliking it but because they haue full title vnto right in that mercy of God which as it hath already deliuered them from the dominion condemnation of sin so it will in the end wholly free them from the inherence of it and the displeasure of God disliking it His next allegation is more friuolous than the former The Anabaptists saith he do most certainly assuredly perswade themselues that they are accepted of God therefore they haue true faith according to the doctrine of the Protestants who define faith to be the assurance of the mercifull goodnes of God yet do the Protestants deny thē to be iustified vnlesse they forsake their errors and so by consequēt do say they haue true faith yet are not iustified which is to affirme that they are iust not iust To this we answere that there is as great difference betweene true confidence and assurance which only is to be named faith and that which is found in heretickes as betweene the ioy and gladnesse that is fantasticall and is found in men dreaming and that which is true and in men waking That quietnesse of minde either proceedeth from senselesse stupidity in men hauing cauterized consciences though there be iust cause of fearefull apprehensions or frō the not finding or hauing any matter of condemning remorse euen as some men are touched with no greefe nor afflicted with any smart or paine though no part be sound or well in them because they are in a dead senseles stupidity and others feele not paine because they are perfectly well It is not therefore every assured confidence that is faith but true confidence Neither is it to be doubted but that heretickes doe oftentimes confidently perswade themselues they please God and thinke they embrace true piety as men dreaming doe perswade themseles they inioy and possesse all things though they possesse nothing But as men waking knowe the things they apprehend are soe indeede as they apprehend them and not in fancie only as men sleeping are deluded so true Christians know the perswasion they haue of Gods goodnesse towards them groweth from due iust consideration not from deceivable fancie and imagination only as in heritickes it doth This point is excellently cleared by Alexander of Hales the first and greatest of all the Schoole-men whose reasons and proofes that true Christians may be assured they are in state of grace and acceptation with God Bellarmine cannot answere Thus wee haue seene the supposed absurd positions wherewith the Iesuite chargeth all Protestants in generall In the next place hee produceth such as are proper to the Lutherans and in the last place such as are peculiar to the Caluinistes For thus it pleaseth him to tearme vs by these names of faction and diuision whereas it is Antichrists pride that hath made all the breaches in the Christian world and would haue layd all wast if God had not preserued a remnant The errour wherewith he chargeth the Lutherans is that children when they are baptised haue faith hope and loue Is this an errour are they iustified sanctified and made the temple of the holy Ghost when they are baptized and haue they neither faith hope nor loue doth not iustification imply all these in it But they haue not the act of faith noe more they haue of reason haue they not therefore the faculty of reason This then is that which these men ◅each whom it pleaseth these Antichristian sectaries odiously to name Luthe◅ans namely that children when they are adopted and made the sonnes of God when they are iustified and sanctified are filled with the habites or po◅ntiall habilities of these vertues and that they haue the beginning roote and seede of faith hope and loue For the farther clearing of this obiection reade Kemnisius in his Examen of the Tridentine Councell The errour of the Caluinists touching absolute necessity and that God is the author of sinne is but the imagination of the Romanists as I haue already sufficiently shewed For Caluin and wee all detest both these absurdities CHAP. 45. Of the Paradoxes and grosse absurdities of Romish Religion THus then the Paradoxes and grosse absurdities which this Cardinall aduersarie of Gods true religion imputeth vnto vs are but the fancies of his owne idle braine But if wee should enter into the examination of the seuerall parts of their profession it were not harde really to convince them of the most senselesse follies that euer the world was acquainted with But because it would be tedious and vnseasonable in this generall controversie of the Church to enter into the particular handling of things more fitly reserved to their owne proper places I will onely touch some few things that may seeme to concerne the whole frame and fabricke of their Religion They all hold at this day that the infallibility of the Popes judgement is the rocke on which the Church is builded and that this is the difference betweene a Catholicke and an heretique that though both beleeue many divine and supernaturall truths yet they build not themselues vpon the same grounds of perswasion For the Catholicke builds himselfe vpon the sure ground of the infallibility of the Churches chiefe Pastours judgement but the Hereticke vpon other things yeelding him satisfaction concerning the trueth of that
non diffido scio quid faciam calicem salutaris accipiam That is When my strength shall faile I will not bee troubled neither will I despaire I know what I will doe I will take the cup of saluation And in another place Totum quod dare possum miserum corpus istud est id si minus est addo corpus ipsius Nam illud de meo est meum est parvulus enim natus est nobis filius datus est mihi de te Domine suppleo quod minus habeo in me O dulcissima reconciliatio O suavissima satisfactio That is All that I can giue is this miserable body if that be too litle I adde his body for that is of mine and it is mine a litle child is borne vnto vs a sonne is given vnto mee from thee I take ô Lord to supply what I finde wanting in my selfe O most sweete reconciliation O most sweet satisfactoin Who doth not see that God doth by such a faith as that is that is exercised in the celebration of this representatiue sacrifice and in the eating of the body of Christ the sufferings whereof are here represented apply the benefit of Christ his dearest sonne to his faithfull ones Neither doe wee attribute this application to the priest but to God nor to our worke but to Gods benefit Which yet wee receiue no otherwise but by faith with the assent of our owne will Hitherto wee haue heard the words of the authour of the Enchiridion and the same authour els-where sayth that the orthodoxe diuines deny the externall action which wee call the sacramentall oblation to conferre grace or to haue any spirituall effect ex opere operato It is true sayth hee that a wicked man may pronounce the words of Christ and so make the elements of bread wine to become the sacrament of the Lords body and bloud and this sacrament ex opere operato that is out of the very nature of a sacrament of it selfe how ill soeuer the minister bee will conferre grace instrumentally to all such as receiue it without such indisposition as might hinder the working of it But if wee speake of the offering of Christ representatiuely it hath no force farther then the faith of the offerer extendeth If the priest therefore not onely outwardly but inwardly also by the acte of faith present the sufferings of Christ in the body of his flesh to God in desire by the merit thereof to escape his wrath hee bringeth much good vpon himselfe if hee devoutly beseech God for his Christs sake whose sufferings hee representeth vnto him to bee mercifull to the people committed to his charge or to any other there is no doubt but this his prayer in the nature of a prayer is most powerfull to obtaine in this kind But if hee bee wicked faithles his representatiue offering of Christ of meerely in respect of it selfe worketh no good to himselfe nor any other For in the representatiue offering of Christs passion to God must be included a supplication made to God for that passion sake and a desire of those good things that wee need Now the prayer of such a sinner God heareth not but the people spiritually representing vnto God by the acte of their faith that which the priest doth sacramentally obtaine all desired good and the removing of all evill not by force of that the priest doth but by their owne faith which is stirred vp by that outward acte done by him The most reverend Canons of the Metropoliticall Church of Colen agree with the authour of the Enchiridion their words are these Consecratione factâ in missâ Christus Dominus qui seipsum aliquando in corpore suo mortali Deo patri coelesti cruentum sacrificium pro peccatis mundi obtulit denuo totius ecclesiae nomine modo incruento spirituali representatione commemoratione sacratissimae suae passionis offertur quod ipsum fit quando ecclesia Christum eius verum corpus verumque sanguinem Deo Patri cum gratiarum actione oratione attentâ pro suis totius mundi peccatis proponit seu repraesentat quanquam enim sacrificium illud in eâ formâ quâ in cruce offerebatur semel tantum oblatum sit semel tantum sanguis effusus vt ita repeti iterumque offerri non possit nihilominus tamen consistit manet tale sacrificium coram Deo perpetuò in suâ virtute efficaciâ acceptum ita vt sacrificium illud in cruce oblatum non minus hodierno die in conspectu patris sit efficax vigens quam eo die quo de saucio latere sanguis exiuit aqua Quapropter cum vulnerati corporis nostri plagae pretio redemptionis semper opus habeant ecclesia proponit Deo Patri pretium illud in verâ fide devotione iterum sed figuratiuè spiritualitèr ad consequendam remissionem peccatorum non quod huic operi suo quo videlicet commem or at repraesentat sacrificium illius meritum ascribat remissionis peceatorum vt quam solus Christus cruentâ suâ oblatione in cruce nobis promeruit verum tali suo commemoratiuo mystico fidei sacrificio in quo repraesentat ecclesia sistit in conspectum patris verum corpus sanguinem eius vnigeniti applicat sibi accommodat magnum illud donatiuum remissionis peccatorum quod Christus impetravit cum accipiat remissionem peccatorum per nomen eius qui credit in eum Act. 10. That is So soone as the consecration is done in the Masse Christ the Lord who sometime offered himselfe in his mortall body a bloudy sacrifice to God his heauenly father for the sins of the whole world is now offered again after an vnbloudy manner by representation and commemoration of his most sacred passion which thing is then done when the Church doth propose and represent Christ and his true body ' and bloud to God the Father with thanksgiuing and with earnest prayer for the remission of her sinnes and the sinnes of the whole world for although that sacrifice in such sort as it was offered on the Crosse was offered onely once and his bloud only once powred forth so that he can no more be so offered yet notwithstanding that sacrifice remaineth and abideth before God perpetually in its vertue and efficacie and is so acceptable vnto him that being but once offered on the Crosse it is no lesse effectuall and of force in the sight of God to day then it was that day when water and bloud streamed out of his wounded side Wherefore seeing the soares and hurts of our wounded bodies haue alwayes need of the price of redemption the Church proposeth to God in faith and devotion that price againe but figuratiuely and spiritually to obtaine remission of sin not as if shee did ascribe to this her worke whereby she commemorateth and representeth that his sacrifice the meriting of
booke in explication and defence of this one decree of the councell and telleth vs the councell neuer meant simply to condemne the certainety of grace but onely that kinde of certainety that heretickes imagine which is without all examination of themselues their estate the trueth of their profession their dislike of sinnefull evills and desire of reconciliation and grace to decline euill and to doe good to perswade themselues they are justified And whereas most men conceiue the meaning of the councell to bee that hee is accursed that thinketh it necessary for the attayning of remission of sinnes that every man should perswade himselfe without any doubting in respect of his owne indisposition that his sinnes are remitted that thus to perswade himselfe procureth remission hee maketh the meaning of it to be that whosoeuer without consideration of his estate whether hee be rightly disposed or otherwise presumeth of Gods grace fauour is worthily anathematized but if a man hauing examined himselfe finde a disposition in dislike of former euills to returne vnto God to seeke remission grace not to offend in like sort any more he may notwithstanding the decree of the councell nay he ought to assure himselfe of remission and grace And there vpon bringeth forth a cloude of witnesses for confirmation of the certainety of grace But whatsoeuer wee thinke of the construction he maketh of the wordes of the decree he resolueth that a man may bee as certaine that his sinnes are remitted and he receiued to grace as that twise two are foure twise foure eight and that euery whole is greater then his part or as a man is resolued touching the things hee seeth with his eyes and handleth with his hands Gaspar Casalius a Bishoppe of Portugall that was present in the councell of Trent writeth largely against that kinde of imagined certainety which Eisingreinius sayth the councell meant to condemne And then goeth forward An non licet homini unquam credere firmiter se esse iustum á peccatis saltem á mortalibus Quidem in eâ formâ nunquam licet vt ex dictis patet quia est illa fides siue confidentia superba imprudentissima An licet in aliâ formâ Vtique licet In quâ formâ licet habendo respectum ad divinas promissiones conditionales ad conditiones quas requirunt Etenim omnes tenemur firmiter credere fide diviná cui non potest subesse falsum tam de nobis ipsis quam de aliis omnes Adae filios de facto iustos esse aut iustificari quotquot habent eas conditiones quas diuina promissio sive diuina lex conditionalis ad id requirit in nobis Hoc constat quia omnes tenemur tali fide credere Deum veracem in omnibus dictis suis pertinentibus ad doctrinam promissiones cunctis aliis adhibito autem diligenti in nobis de nobis examine dum quis seipsum probat ad iudicium rationis ac legis trahit licet vnicuique iudicare de se prudenter tamen procedendo cum examine discretione quòd eas conditiones requisit as habet vel non habet Si enim hoc non liceret nobis non diceret Paulus 1 Cor. 11. Probet autem seipsum homo sic de pane illo edat de calice bibat Nec diceret Apostolus Ioannes 1 Ioh. 4. Nolite omni spiritui credere sed probate spiritus si ex Deo sint quoniam multi Pseudoprophetae exierunt in mundum Ecce committitur nobis probatio adhibitis his quae ad rem ipsam adhiberi debent tum nostritum spirituum Licet ergo nobis iudicare de nobis benè vel malè prout in nobis invenerimus dummodo prudenter agamus cum prudentiâ intuentes discurrentes concludentes Mox vero prout quis cum prudentiâ de se iudicaverit quod conditiones á Deo requisitas habeat potest etiam iudicare de seipso quod iustus sit si certò certò si cum formidine cum formidine firmae enim praestant divinae promissiones iuxta suas conditiones ex parte illarum nullus est defectus nec esse potest So that according to this opinion a man certainely finding in him the performance of the condition required may assure himselfe of his justification acceptation with God and this assurance is an act of faith No man liuing sayth Vega should euer draw mee to doubt neither indeede could I doubt if I would of my being in the state of grace if I might inferre it out of two propositions the one beleeued and the other some other way evident vnto mee For there are many propositions de fide which can no otherwise bee proved to be de fide but because they cleerely follow vpon things beleeued some proposition evident in the light of nature As Scotus sheweth that this proposition the father differeth really from the sonne is a proposition of faith because it is inferred out of these two The father begat and the sonne was begotten and this other evident in the light of nature Omnis generans realiter differt à genito Qui pertinaciter dubitaret de propositione illatâ evidenter ex vnâ—… creditâ—… alia evidenti esset haereticus hic enim cum non posset dubitare de consequentiâ nec de euidenti dubitaret de credita It will bee sayd that graunting such a proposition to bee de fide as followeth out of two propositions whereof one is beleeued and the other some other way evident vnto vs yet it will not follow that wee may bee certaine that wee are in the state of grace Because that cannot bee inferred out of two such propositions seing one of them must depend on experience and the knowledge of our inward actions which as some thinke cannot be certainely knowen by vs. Let vs see therefore whether a man may certainely discerne the quality and condition of his soule and the motions actions and desires of the same There are that thinke that our inward actions are vnknowen vnto vs and that the nature of the heart is such as is knowen onely to God But Saint Paul sayth 1 Cor. 2. that the spirit of a man knoweth the things that are in him And besides if wee could not knowe our inward actions wee should not bee commaunded or forbidden to doe such actions neither should wee bee required to confesse our inward sinnes if wee could not know them All which things are absurde and hereticall It is cleere therefore that wee may know and discerne our inward actions that wee may know what we do what wee will and in what sort and to what end wee will it Wee may know therefore whether we sorrow for sinnes because wee haue thereby displeased God or for some other reason whether wee esteeme the losse of Gods favour the greatest euill whether wee would rather regaine it then haue all things without it whether wee would not bee willing to
many of the Princes of Germany and first of all the Saxons formerly averse frō him withdrew their subiectiō pretending that they might justly cast off the yoake and refuse to obey him any longer seeing hauing beene called to giue satisfaction to two Popes concerning certaine crimes obiected to him he had refused to appeare and was thereupon excommunicated These rebellions and defections so affrighted the Nobles and Princes of the Empire that still remained well affected to the Emperour that for the staying of present confusiōs preventing of other they thought good that the Pope should be intreated to come into Germany and that then the Emperour should submit himselfe vnto him aske forgiuenesse which thing accordingly was effected for the Pope was perswaded consented to come into Germany was cōming towards Augusta as farre as Versella But when hee came thither pretēding feare that the Emperor meant not wel towards him he brake off his journy went to Canossū there staied Which the Emperor hearing of doubting what might be the cause of his stay hastned thither putting off all Royall robes on his bare feet came to the gates of the town hūbly beseeching that he might be let in but was staied without 3 daies though it were extreme colde winter weather which hee endured patiently continually intreating till in the end hee was let in and absolued but yet conditionally that being called he should appeare in an assembly of Princes Bishoppes to answere such crimes as were obiected to him and either to purge himselfe and so retaine his kingdome or otherwise failing so to doe to lose it This his submission afterwards he made knowne to the Italians who vnderstanding what hee had done were exceedingly enraged against him derided the Legates of the Pope contemned his curses as being deposed by all the Bishops of Italy for iust causes as namely for simony murther adultery and other most horrible and capitall crimes and told him that he had done a most intollerable thing in submitting himselfe his kingly Maiestie to an hereticke and most infamous person Yea they proceeded so farre that they told him because he had so done they were resolued to make his son Emperour in his steede and to go to Rome and chuse a new Pope by whom he might be consecrated and all the proceedings of this false Pope voided But the Emperour excusing himselfe for that which hee had done as driuen by necessity so to doe and promising to revenge these wrongs when opportunity should bee offered pacifyed them in such sort that they began to incline to him againe Yet were not his euils at an end hereby For his enemies among the Germanes presently tooke the opportunity of this his relapse and calling an assembly with the Legates of the Pope chose a new Emperour Rodolphe Duke of Sueuia to whō the Pope sent an imperiall crown hauing this inscription Petra dedit Petro Petrus diadema Rodolpho Which when he heard of hee called a Councell of the Bishoppes of Italy and Germany and charging Hildebrand the Pope with most horrible crimes of heresie necromancy periury murther and the like deposed him chose Guibertus Bishoppe of Rauenna in his place and gathering together a great and mighty army went against Rodolphe abiding in Saxony where a most terrible and bloudy battell was fought betweene them in which battell Rodolphe was wounded and going aside from his companions with many other likewise wounded was carried to Mersberge where he died who a litle before his death beholding his right hand cut off in that battell fetching a deepe sigh said to the Bishops which by chance were present Behold this is the hand with which by solemne vow and oath I obliged my faith and feaulty to Henry my Lord. Behold now I leaue his kingdome and this present life see you that made mee climbe vp into his throne what you haue done would to God you had led me the right way whom you found so willing to follow your aduice and counsell and to be directed by you Yet did neither the ill successe of the former attempt nor the speeches of Rodolphe at his death blaming those that had set him a worke and condemning himselfe for that which he had done discourage the ill affected from proceeding on in their rebellious practises For they set vp Hermannus Prince of Lorrayne in steed of Rodolphe and proclaimed him Emperour whom the Emperour Henry slew likewise as he had done the other rested not till hee made Pope Hildebrand leaue Rome and flie to Salernum and brought the new Pope named Clement to be inthronized and himselfe crowned by him in Rome The acts of Hildebrand saith Nauclerus were such that the writers bee very doubtfull whether the things that were done by him were done out of any loue of vertue or any zeale hee bare to the faith or not They that loued him best disliked his stiffenes as Auentinus witnesseth Otho Frisingensis noteth that his disposition was such that for the most part he euer liked that which others disliked So that of Lucane might bee verified of him Victrix causa Diis placuit sed victa Catoni that is The prevailing part and cause best pleased God but that which fell and had the ouerthrow had Catoes wishes And though he commend his zeale yet in his prologue of his 7. booke he taxeth him and others like vnto him in very bitter sort His words are these Videntur tamen culpandi Sacerdotes per omnia qui regnum suo gladio quem ipsi ex regum habent gratia ferire conantur Nisi fortè Dauid imitari cogitant qui Philistaeum primò virtute Dei strauit postmodùm proprio gladio iugulauit that is Notwithstanding whatsoeuer may be said the Priests seeme altogether blameable and worthy of reproofe reprehension which goe about to strike Kings and princes with that their sword which they haue by the grace and fauour of Princes vnlesse haply they doe thinke it lawfull for them to imitate Dauid who first ouerthrew and cast to the ground the proude Philistine by the power of God and afterwards slew him with his ownesword Of this Hildebrand Sigebert saith he found it thus written Wee will haue you know you that manage the Ecclesiasticall affaires and to whom the care of the Church is committed that the Lord Pope Hildebrand who also was called Gregory being in extremis drawing neare his end called vnto him one of the 12 Cardinalls whom hee loued dearely and more then any of the rest and in his hearing confessed to God to holy Peter and to the whole Church that he had sinned exceedingly and grieuously offended in the Pastorall charge committed to him and in governing the people of whom he had vndertaken the care and that by the perswasion and instigation of the Diuell he had stirred vp hatred and wrath against mankind then commanded the forenamed Confessor to make haste to goe to the Emperour
Canon of the Church that without the liking iudgment and will of the Bishop of Rome no Councell may be holden mentioned by Socrates and Zozomen For first the Canon is not to be vnderstood of the person of the Bishop of Rome but of him and his Westerne Bishops Secondly it is not so to be vnderstood as if simply without him and his Bishops no Generall Councell could bee holden but that without consulting him and first seeking to him and his no such Councell may bee holden as I haue largely shewed before For otherwise wee know that Vigilius Bishoppe of Rome refused to haue any part in the deliberations of the Fifth Generall Councell or to confirme the Actes of it when it ended Yet was is euer holden to be a lawfull Generall Couucell hee and his being sufficiently sought vnto and their presence desired As likewiso Leo consented to the calling of the Councell of Chalcedon only for the determination of that question of faith that was then debated gaue no consent to the Decree therein passed touching the see of Constantinople yet did this Councell preuaile and the succeeding Bishops of Rome were forced to giue way to that Canon their predecessors so much disliked And therefore whereas the Bishop of Romes Legates in the Councell of Chalcedon do except against Dioscorus for presuming to hold a Synode without the authority of the Apostolicke See wich they say neuer was lawful nor neuer was don their meaning is not that in no case a Councell may be holden without the Bishop of Rome the Bishops of the West but that there neuer was any such Synod holden without requiring admitting the concurrence of the Bishop of Rome the Bishops of the West And that therefore Dioscorus was iustly to be condemned who not onely tooke vpon him by the fauour of one neere about the Emperour to bee President of the Second Councell of Ephesus whereof they speake and sit before the Bishoppe of Romes Legates being but Bishop of the Second See but also reiected the Synodall letters of Leo and the Bishops of the West not suffering them to be read and as if all the power had beene in him alone depriued the Bishoppes of Constantinople and Antioch notwithstanding the Protestation of the Romane Legates against such proceedings and their appeale from the same and still carried on with his furious passions rested not till hee had pronounced sentence of excommunication against blessed Leo and all the Bishoppes of the West The next testimony which Bellarmine bringeth no way proueth that for proofe whereof it is brought for it is not sayd in the place cited by him that the Councell holden at Constantinople against the painting of those things that are reported in the story of the Bible and for the defacing of such pictures made for Historicall vse was therefore voyd because it was called without the consent of the Romane Bishoppe as hee vntruely reporteth but that it was no Generall Councell seeing many that were present consented not but disliked the proceedings of it and besides it neither had the Bishoppe of Rome to concurre nor his Bishoppes neither by their Vicegerents nor by Prouinciall letters neither yet the Patriarches of the East to wit Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem nor their Bishoppes It is true indeede that the Bishoppes assembled at Rome by the command of Theodoricus to examine the matters obiected to Symmachus the Pope told him the Councell should haue beene called by the Pope and not by him but they spake of particular Councels which oftentimes by the permission of Princes were wont to be called by Metropolitans Primates or Patriarches and not of generall whereof our question is and yet I haue shewed before by many testimonies that Princes when they saw cause did call Councels of this sort also So that the speech of these Bishops affected to their Patriarche and vnwilling to come to any scanning of his actions is not much to be esteemed The next testimony out of the Epistles of Leo testifieth the Cardinall careth not what he saith so he say something for it is true indeed that Leo saith Hee directed his Letters to his Brethren and fellow-bishops and summoned them to a Generall Councell but meaneth not a Councel absolutely General consisting of all the Bishops of the world of which our question is but of all the Bishops of those parts to which hee writeth being subiect to him as Patriarch of the West as appeareth by the circumstances of the Epistle cited But Pelagius the Second in his Epistle to those that Iohn of Constantinople called to his Synode as Generall saith The authority of calling general Coūcels was by singular priuiledge of blessed Peter giuen to the Apostolicke See that no Synode was euer reputed lawfull that was not strengthened by the authority of the See Apostolicke and againe that Councels may not be holden without the iudgement and liking of the Bishop of Rome therefore all is true that the Cardinall hath hitherto alleadged Hereunto though Pelagius may seeme somewhat partiall in his owne cause wee answere first with Bellarmine himselfe that the calling of Generall Councels is not so proper to the Bishop of Rome but that another may do it if he cōsent or if he ratifie the indiction Secondly that though he refuse to ratifie it if his resence concurrence be sufficiently sought and desired it may be lawfull and of orce as it appeareth by the Fift Generall Councel which Vigilius refused to haue any part in The last testimony that Bell. produceth to proue that the power of calling Councels doth not properly belong to the Emperours is a saying of Valentinius reported by Zozomen but it maketh clearely against himselfe The circumstances of Zozomens report are these The Bishops of Hellespont Bithynia and some other professing to beleeue that CHRIST the Son of GOD is con-substantial with his Father sent a Legate to Valentinian the Emperour and desired him to giue them leaue to meete about matters concerning the Faith To whom the Emperour answered that it was not lawfull for him being one of the Laity to intermeddle in these Businesses but willed that the Priests and Bishoppes to whom the care of these things pertayneth should meete in one place where-soeuer it should please them for heere wee see that the Bishops durst not presume to assemble themselues without the Emperors leaue which mainely crosseth the conceit of the cardinall neither doth the Emperour say the calling of councels pertaineth nothing to him but the intermeddling with the matters that are brought in question in them and therefore biddeth them meete by themselues not intending to bee present among them not meaning that it was not lawfull for him to be present for then he should condemne Constantine and other that were present either in person or by Deputies nor that it was simply vnlawfull for him to intermeddle for they intermeddled as I will shew in that
or inducement to make vs beleeue things we know not but it must be the report of such an one as we know cannot be deceiued nor will not deceiue It must therefore be evident to euery one that firmely and without doubting beleeueth things not knowne vnto him vpon the report of another that he that reporteth them vnto him neither is deceiued nor can deceiue Whence it followeth necessarily that things are as he reporteth These things presupposed I demaund of this Treatiser whether he and his consorts assent to the Articles of the Christian Faith induced so to doe by the evidence of the things in thēselues or by the report of another That they assent not vnto thē induced so to do by the evidence of the things in thēselues they all professe but by the report of another I demand therefore who that other is whether God or man if man then haue they nothing but anhumane perswasion very weakly grounded wherein they may be deceiued for euery man is a lyar If God let them tel me whether it be evident in it self that God deliuereth these things vnto thē pronounceth them to be as they beleeue or not If not but beleeued only then as before by reasō of authority that either of God or man Not of God for it is not evident in it self that God deliuereth any thing vnto thē not of men for their report is not of such credit asthat we may certainly vndoubtedly stay vpon it seeing they may be deceiued deceiue other They answere therefore that it is no way evident vnto them in it selfe that God deliuereth the things they beleeue but that they perswade themselues hee deliuered such things vpōthe report of men but such men as are infallibly led into all truth See then if they doe not runne round in a circle finding no stay They beleeue the resurrection of the dead and the like things because God revealed it they beleeue that God revealed it because it is so contained in the Scripture and the Scripture because it is the Word of God and that it is the Word of God because the Church so delivereth and the Church because it is a multitude of men infallibly led into all truth and that there is a Church infallibly led into all truth because it is so contained in Scripture and the Scripture because it is the word of God and so round without euer finding any end Out of this circle they cannot get vnles they either groūd their Faith vpon the meere report of men as men humane probabilities or confesse that it is evident vnto them in it selfe that God speaketh in the Scripture and revealeth those things which they beleeue which if they doe it must bee in respect either of the manner matter there vttered or consequent effects In respect of the manner there being a certaine diuine vertue force and majesty in the very forme of the words of him that speaketh in the Scripture in respect of the matter which being suggested and proposed to vs findeth approbation of reason inlightned by the light of grace in respect of the consequent effects in that we finde a strange and wonderful change wrought in vs assuring vs the doctrine is of God that hath such effects which is that we say which they condemne in vs. The Treatiser would make vs beleeue that there are two opinions amongst them touching this point whereof the one is as he telleth vs that wee beleeue the Church because the Scripture teacheth vs that shee is to be beleeued the Scripture because the Church deliuereth it to vs to be the word of God And the other that by the assistance of God together with the concurrence of our naturall vnderstanding we produce an act of supernaturall Faith by which wee firmely beleeue the Articles of Christian Faith not for any humane inducements but for that they are revealed by Almighty God without seeking any further which if it be so it must be evident in it self to thē that follow this opiniō that God hath revealed deliuered the things they beleeue that by one of the 3 waies before mētioned thē they fal into our opiniō for if it be not evidēt to thē in it self that God speakes in the scriptures reveales the things they are to beleeue they must go further to be assured that he doth so speake and reueale the things that are to bee beleeued either to proofe of reason or authority For no man perswadeth himselfe of any thing but vpon some inducements Proofe of reason demonstratiue I thinke they will not seeke and probable inducements they may not rest in therefore they must proceede to some proofeby authority which can bee no other but that of the Church and then they ioyne with them that follow the other opinion and beleeue the articles of Christian faith conteyned in Scripture because God hath reuealed them and that God hath reuealed them because the Church telleth them so and the Church because the Scripture testifieth of it that it is led into all trueth which is a very grosse sophisticall circulation This the Treatiser did well perceiue and therefore to helpe the matter he distinguisheth the cause of beleeuing and the condition necessarily requisite that the cause may haue her working in shew making the Diuine Reuelation the reason or cause that we beleeue and the Churches proposing to vs the things to be beleeued a condition only and not a cause in sort as the fire alone is the cause of the burning of the wood but the putting of one of them to another is a necessary condition without which that cause can produce no such effect but this shift will not serue the turne For it is the fire onely that burneth the wood though it cannot burne vnlesse it be put vnto it so that in like sort if the comparison hold the Diuine Reuelation must of and by it selfe alone moue induce and incline vs to beleeue the things proposed by the Church as being euident vnto vs to be a Deuine Reuelation though without the Churches proposing we could take no notice of it Euen as in naturall knowledge it is the euidence of trueth appearing vnto vs originally found in the first principles and secondarily in the conclusions from thence deduced that is the sole and onely cause or reason of our assent to such principles and conclusions though without the helpe of some men of knowledge proposing them to vs and leading vs from the apprehension of one of them to another happily we should not at all attaine such knowledge But this euidence of the Diuine Reuelation in it selfe the Treatiser will not admit For it is no way euident in it selfe to him that God hath reuealed any of the things he beleeueth but the onely proofe besides humane motiues or reasons which are too weake to bee the ground of Fayth that he hath is the authority of the Church So that the Ministery of the Church is
which he had concerning the future state of things to the end of the world meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine if the proof contained in these words be not sufficiēt for my part I know not what may be for what can be necessary to bee knowne of Christians ouer and aboue that which is found in the olde Testament besides the Incarnation of Christ his words actions sufferings the manner of the establishment of churches in the faith of Christ and the ordaining and appointing of fit guides to take care of the government of the same and the future state of things to the end of the world But he saith no one of the Evangelists intended to set downe all that Christ did and suffered as it appeareth in that no one of them hath so done that it cannot be said that all jointly haue so done seeing that could not proceed but from some common deliberation or the disposition and inspiration of the holy Ghost mouing them to write neither of which can be said For that there was no such deliberation he saith it is evident in that no man mentioneth any such thing in that it is knowne they wrote in diuers countries at diuers times vpon diuers occasions that the inspiration of the holy spirit did not direct them to the writing of all things necessary hee saith it is likewise most cleare in that I confesse there are some things wanting in their bookes which the church beleeueth which could not be if the spirit had moued them to write all This obiection will soone be answered For first it is certain that some one of the Evangelists intended to write all things which Christ did and spake S. Luke professing that he had so done Which yet is not to be vnderstood of all things simply but such onely as he did spake in that time within the compasse whereof he confined his narration Neither doth this prejudice the fulnesse of the Evangelicall history For as Baronius noteth the later Evangelists taking a view of that the former had written for the most part added what things they found omitted by them So Marke Luke write of the ascension of Christ not mentioned by S. Mathew because he ended his story before he came to it And Iohn finding as Hierome saith that the other three had written onely the history of one yeare after Iohn the Baptist was cast into prison wherein Christ suffered approued that which they had written as true omitting that yeare because the things that fell out in it were reported by thē recorded such things as fell out before the imprisonment of the Baptist which they had not written as not fetching the beginning of their narration so farre off If it be said by this Treatiser that many things that Christ did are so omitted that they are found in none of the Evangelists for that Iohn who wrote last of all knew well what the rest had written hath these words Many other signes also Iesus wrought in the sight of his Disciples which are not written in this booke but these things are written that you may beleeue that Iesus is the Christ the son of God and that beleeuing you may haue euerlasting life through his Name And againe there are also many other things which Iesus did which if they should be written euery one I suppose the world would not be able to containe the Bookes which should be written Baronius will tell him that the Evangelists when they tooke in hand the writing of the sacred stories intended not to write all the things generally that Christ did but such so many only as might serue to confirme the Faith and to demonstrate that IESVS is the Son of GOD that the things which they haue written are sufficient to saluation that men beleeuing may haue eternall life So that though there were no commō deliberation or consultation amongst the Evangelists though they wrote at diuers times in diuers places yet by the sweet disposition of the holy Spirit that moued them to write it might and did so fall out in that one saw what another had written that the later added such things as they foūd omitted by the former so left vnto vs a perfect full narration concerning Christ his incarnation life death resurrectiō ascension as also the things he did and spake during the time of his conversing amōgst men So that the Treatiser is not able to proue that the Evangelicall historie is imperfect but there is one thing wherein hee gloryeth as if hee had gotten some great aduantage which is that I confesse that there are somethings found in the Epistles of the Apostles occasionally writtē beleeued by the Church that are not found in the history of the Euangelists the book of all the Acts of the Apostles nor the Reuelation of Saint Iohn whence hee thinketh hee may inferre that eyther the Authors of th◅se books meant not to deliuer a perfect summe directiō of Christian faith as I affirme or that they missed of their purpose which may not bee graunted But lette him know that there is no consequence of any such absurdity as hee imagineth from any thing I haue written For the things beleeued by the Church and not found in the former bookes but in the Epistles of the Apostles are nothing else but distinct and cleare determinations of doubts arising touching matters of faith or manners out of and according to the summe of Christian Doctrine found in the former bookes or historicall narrations of such thinges as passed betweene the Apostles themselues or between them and the Churches founded by them or some particular persons in them not mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles or lastly Apostolicall prescriptions of things pertaining to decencie order and comelinesse in the performance of the acts of Gods worship and seruice Now I thinke it will not follow that if there be found in the Apostolicall Epistles some more distinct cleere resolutiōs determinations of doubtes out of the forme and direction of Christian Doctrine found in the former bookes then are there found or a prescription of some outward obseruations that the former bookes containe not a perfect summe and direction of Christian faith much lesse will it be consequent that these bookes containe not a perfect direction of Christian faith because some historicall narrations not found in them are beleeued in the Church as that Paul left his cloake at Troas that hee mediated for Onesimus and sought to reconcile him to his Maister and the like The Treatiser therefore passeth from this exception and asketh how I will proue that all thinges beleeued by the Church not contained in the former books are found in the Epistles of the Apostles to whom I answere that when hee shall giue any instance of things beleeued by the Church not foūd in the former books either it shal be proued
that they are not beleiued by the Church or they shal be shewed him in those Epistles Wherfore let vs see what he hath more to say One of the Apostolicall Epistles he saith is lost namely that which Paul wrote to the Laodiceans in which there might be something necessarily to be beleeued that is not fouÌ„d in any other book of the New Testament Therefore it may be thought that there is some want imperfection in the books of the New Testament This truly is a very idle and and silly obiection for though there was a certaine Epistle to the Laodiceans carried about and read by some in auncient times yet as Hierome testifieth it was exploded by all and Chrysostome and Theodoret are of opinion that Paul neuer wrote any Epistle to the Laodiceans but that the Epistle hee speaketh of was written from Laodicea or by the Laodiceans to informe him of the state of things amongst themselues or amongst the Colossians by whom hee would haue it read And Cardinall Baronius himselfe approueth their opinion rather then the other That which he hath of my admitting traditions I will answere when I come to examine his next section §. 8. IN his next section he hath these words Barlow and Field two famous English Protestants admitte certaine Apostolicall traditions And farther hee addeth that I allow of certaine rules for the discerning of Apostolicke traditions from such as are not such Whereunto wee answere that wee admit sundry kindes of tradition and yet deny that any thing concerning fayth or the necessary direction and information of mens manners is to bee beleeued and receiued that is not written For we say nothing was deliuered by tradition but the bookes of Scripture thinges in some sort therein contayned and thence deduced and certaine dispensable obseruations not at all or hardly to be discerned from Ecclesiasticall constitutions Neither is it new or strange that wee should admit some kinds of traditions For Kemnitiuâ—… acknowledgeth all those kinds that I meÌ„tion which will no way help the Papists For the question between theÌ„ vs is not whether there be any traditions or not For it is most certaine that the bookes of Scripture are deliuered by tradition But it beeing â—…upposed that the holy men of God taught immediately by Christ his Sonne â—…ded certaine bookes to posterities and agreed on which those bookes are whâ—…her they containe all thinges necessary to bee knowne and practised by Christian â—…en for the attayning of euerlasting life and saluation Wee say they doe they deny it Yet will the Treatiser proue from hence contrary to my assertions that according to my owne grounds tradition is the very foundation of my faith For if Protestantes receiue the number names of the Authours and integrity of the parts of bookes divine and canonicall as deliuered by tradition as I say they doe and if without tradition wee cannot know such diuine bookes hee thinketh it consequent that tradition is the ground of our faith But indeede there is no such consequence as hee imagineth For it is one thing to require the tradition of the church as a necessary meaâ—…s whereby the bookes of Scripture may be deliuered vnto vs and made known another to make the same tradition the ground of our faith seeing in the judgment of the Treatiser himselfe euery thing is not the ground of our saith builded vpon Scripture without which we cannot know the Canonicall bookes of Scripture from such as are not of that ranke As it is euident in that he distinguisheth the groâ—…d of our faith reason of our beleeuing from the condition required to the producing of such an act of fayth denying the churches proposing of things to bee beleeued to be the ground of our faith and yet requiring it as a necessary condition without which ordinarily men cannot beleeue So that though we know the names of the writers of the books of holy Scripture by tradition and that there were no more bookes nor no more partes of bookes of this kinde left to posterities by the Apostles but such as the church deliuereth to vs yet it is not consequent that wee haue no other ground of our perswasion that the bookes deliuered to vs and the parts thereof are canonicall but tradition for the euidence of diuine power and majesty shewing it selfe in them more then in all humane compoÌ„sitions whatsoeuer proueth them to haue proceeded from the immediate inspiration of the holy Ghost breathing in them nothing but heauenly grace The words of holy Scripture sayth Picus Mirandula are rude and plaine but full of life and soule they haue their sting they pierce and enter in euen to the most secret spirit and strangely transforme him that with due respect readeth them and meditateth on them And besides there are sundry diuine and conuincing reasons that the summe of Christian doctrine contayned in these bookes is nothing else but heauenly truth and being without the compasse of that wee naturally vnderstand reuealed trueth So that the Treatiser doth greatly forget himselfe when hee pronounceth it to bee false that I say that the Scriptures winne credit of themselues and yeelde sufficient satisfaction to all men of their diuine truth This is the summe of all that hee hath of traditions For where hee saith I affirme that without the Creed of the Apostles wee cannot know the Scriptures to bee of God hee sheweth himselfe to care little whether that hee writeth bee true or false For I no where haue any such thing but where hee saith I affirme that Papists make traditions Ecclesiasticall equall with the written word of God and that this is one of my ordinary vntruths hee deserueth a sharper censure For if the Reader be pleased to peruse the place cited by him hee shall finde that I say no such thing nor any thing that the Pope himselfe can possibly dislike For deliuering the opinion of Papists touching traditions their diuerse kindes and the credit that is to bee giuen vnto them I shew that they make diuine traditions equall with the words precepts and doctrines of Christ left vnto vs in writing apostolicall with the written precepts of the Apostles and ecclesiasticall with the written precepts of the Pastours of the Church confessing that there is no reason why they should not so doe if they could proue any such vnwritten traditions Is this to say that Papists make Ecclesiasticall traditions equall with the written Word of God Is this one of my ordinary vntruthes or rather is not this a bewraying of an extraordinary impudency in him that so saith Surely I feare the Reader will haue a very ill conceipt of him vpon the discerning of this his bad dealing Yet hee goeth forward charging Mee that I make the baptisme of Infants to be an vnwritten tradition whereas yet he knoweth right well that howsoeuer I grant it may be named a tradition in that there is no expresse precept or
the See of olde Rome and shall be before all the rest in order and honour Neither did Martian the Emperour as the Treatiser most vntruely avoucheth voide the Canons of these Councels which in this sort were confirmed afterwards by Iustinian Wherefore seeing it is evident that almost the whole Christian world in diuerse Generall Councels feared not to make another Bishop the Bishop of Romes Peere I hope the Reader will easily discerne that I haue not passed the bounds of modestie nor fallen into any vnseemely scoffing and railing vaine as the Treatiser chargeth Mâ—… when I taxe the Antichristian and Lucifer-like pride of the Romish Antichrist who not-with-standing the contradiction of the greatest part of the Christian world sought to subject all the members of Christ to himselfe and pronounced them all to be in the state of damnation that bowe not downe before him as Vice-God and supreame commaunder on earth But it seemeth hee had a great desire at the least to seeme to say some-thing against Me. For other-wise hee would not so shamelesly be-lye Me as he doth when hee saith I would deriue the beginning of the Popes superioritie from Phocas whereas in the place cited by him I haue no such thing but the contrary For I affirme that in the first Councell of Constantinople the Bishop of that citty was set in degree of honour next vnto the Bishop of Rome and before the other two Patriarches of Alexandria and Antioche thereby confessing that the Bishop of Rome had the first place at that time Which when the Constantinopolitan Bishop sought to haue Phocas so concluded matters betweene these two Bishops that the Bishop of Rome should haue the first and chief place in the church of GOD and Constantinople the second so that the praeeminence chieftie which the Pope claimeth lawfully was ancient and not deriued from Phocas howsoeuer he might and happily did enlarge and extend it farther then was fit giuing him a kinde of vniversalitie of jurisdiction §. 11. FRom the Primacie of the Bishop of Rome the Treatiser passeth to the infallibilitie of his judgment and affirmeth that his Decrees though he define without a Generall Councell are that firme Rocke and sure ground vpon which our Faith is to bee builded and that a man may well admit his definitions as a ground of supernaturall Faith and prudently builde an act of such supernaturall Faith vpon it And yet in the same place confesseth it is not yet authentically defined that the Pope in this sort cannot erre Which thing also Bellarmine and Stapleton acknowledge professing expressely that it is no matter of faith to beleeue that the Pope cannot erre if hee define without a Generall Councell In which passages there is as I suppose a most grosse contradiction For how can the infallibilitie of the Popes iudgement bee to them a Rocke to builde an act of supernaturall Faith vpon who neither know nor beleeue that his iudgement is infallible but thinke so onely Can a man certainely and vndoubtedly builde his perswasion of any thing vpon his sayings whome hee neither knoweth nor beleeueth to bee free from errour Wherefore for the cleering of this poynt First the Treatiser saith Though the Church haue not authentically defined that the Pope cannot erre yet the Scriptures and other arguments brought to proue it are so plaine and there are so many that thinke so that a man may very well admitte his definitions to be a ground of fayth Whence it will follow that a man may build his fayth vpon the Scriptures and other arguments and reasons without expecting the resolution of the Church for the vnderstanding of the one and discerning of the force and validity of the other â— Whereas else-where hee professeth that without the resolution of the present Church the letter of holy Scripture and the workes of Antiquity yeeld no certaine and diuine argument Secondly hee contradicteth himselfe and denieth the supposed infallibility of the Popes judgement to bee the Rocke on which the Church is builded and maketh that rocke to be onely the consenting iudgement of the Pope other Bishoppes in a Generall Councell contrary to the opinion of almost all learned pious men as he telleth vs himselfe who thinke that that infallibility of judgment and assurance of trueth vpon which our faith is to be builded is not partly in the Pope and partly in other Bishops but altogether in the Pope Thus seeking to avoyd one contradiction hee runneth into many The second Part. §. 1. HAuing surueyed the first part of the Treatise and examined such objections as the Authour of it maketh against Mee I will passe to the second wherein first he goeth about to proue out of that which I haue that Bishops assembled in Generall Councels may interpret the Scriptures and by their authority suppresse them that gaine-say such interpretations as they consent vpon subjecting them to excommunication censures of like nature that according to the prouidence and wisdome of Almighty God Generall Councels should not be subject to errour in such matters for that otherwise men might be forced according to Gods ordinance to obey Generall Councels erring propounding false Doctrine Which is a very silly kinde of reasoning for in the very same sort a man may proue that particular Bishops are free from erring in their proceedings that they can impose prescribe nothing vniustly vnder paine of excommunication for that otherwise men might bee forced and that according to Gods ordinance to obey such Bishops erring in their proceedings and commanding vnjust things whereas there is no question to bee made but that they haue power to excommunicate who may abuse the same and that sometimes it is a thing most pleasing vnto God by refusing to obey them that haue power to excommunicate but abuse the same to run into the vttermost extremities of their censures yea S. Augustine pronounceth that the patient enduring of wrongs in this kinde shall be highly rewarded by almighty God Secondly in the same chapter labouring to proue that Protestants contemne reject the Fathers to that purpose wresting some sayings of Doctour Humfry and others he objecteth that I haply may seem to some one that doth not throughly looke into my words to approue the authority of the ancient Fathers as farre forth as any Catholicke but sayth that in truth I doe not For proofe whereof hee setteth downe what I haue written touching this poynt Namely first that wee must receiue as true whatsoeuer hath beene deliuered by all the Saintes with one consent which haue left their opinion and judgement in writing it not being possible that they should all haue written of any thing but that which was generally receiued in their times and toucheth the very life of Christian fayth Secondly whatsoeuer the most famous haue constantly and vniformely deliuered as a matter of fayth no man contradicting them though many bee found to haue sayd nothing of
it Thirdly whatsoeuer the most famous in euery age haue constantly delivered as matter of faith receiued from them that went before them in such sort that the gain-sayers were in their beginnings noted for singularity nouelty and diuision and in processe of time if they persisted in such contradiction charged with heresie which is as much as any Papist doth say And then insteed of shewing that I attribute not soe much to the Fathers as I should do or as Papists doe hee turneth himselfe to shew that such consent of Fathers as I speake of is no sure direction for the finding out of the trueth Soe ouer-throwing all that which his owne Diuines haue deliuered touching this point But yet that he may seeme to say something to the purpose he goeth about to proue that I bereaue the Fathers almost of all authority First in that I reiect their testimonies touching all other matters but onely certaine principall and substantiall points Secondly in that I require such a generall consent as can hardly be found touching such principall points Thirdly in that I make the whole Church subiect to error For answere vnto these Allegations I say The first is a shamelesse vntruth For I do not limitte or restraine the consent of the Fathers to certaine principall or substantiall points as hee mis-reporteth Mee but make the same to bee a direction in all thinges that may be cleerely deduced from the rule of faith and word of diuine and heauenly trueth answerably to that of Vincentius Lyrinensis that the consent of holy Fathers is with great studie and care to be sought out and followed by vs not in all petite questions that may bee moued concerning the Diuine law but onely or at the least specially in thinges pertaining to the rule of Faith with whom Pererius agreeth To the second I say that I require no other consent of Fathers then Vincentius Lyrinensis doth who will haue vs onely to followe that doctrine of the Fathers as certaine which all with one consent haue holden written and taught that haue written of such thinges Neither doth this worthy Treatiser admitte any other consent then I require for in this same chapter hee hath these wordes They will obiect that euery one of the Fathers was subiect to errour I confesse it but yet God according to his promise as I haue aboue declared was so to direct and gouerne them that they should not all erre This consent of the Fathers wee make to be a Rule of direction but yet not so generally and absolutely as if truth could not at any time be found out without it but so that wee must not neglect the knowledge of it nor goe against it when wee know it Neither is it necessary for the knowledge hereof as the Treatiser obiecteth to read ouer all the Fathers for the constant concurrence of the principall in all ages without noted contradiction doth suffice to assure vs of such consent The third allegation is partly vntrue and partly inconsequent it is vntrue in that hee sayth I thinke all the Pastours of the present Church may erre in matters of greatest momeÌ„t It is incoÌ„sequeÌ„t because though the whole preseÌ„t Church may erre in some things not pertaining to the rule of faith and Generall Councels in matters of greatest consequence yet it followeth not that the Fathers of all times and places may be thought to haue erred seeing this succession of Fathers is of greater authority then the company of Pastors that now are Neither is it consequent that if error may possesse the greatest part or almost all the present Church that it may bee Catholike also and so found euery where and euer The former Vincentius Lyrinensis yeeldeth to bee possible but disclaimeth the latter and therefore prescribeth that if error creepe into one part of the Church wee should looke vnto other that if it endeauour to staine and defile all we should looke vp higher vnto antiquity and that if some haue erred amongst the Auncient we should looke what all not noâ—…d for singularity did teach §. 2. WHerefore let vs proceed to that which followeth in the next place first hee reporteth what I haue written touching the ground of that perswasion which we haue of the trueth of thinges contayned in Scripture and then taketh exceptions to it In the report first he sayth that I make the principall cause of our beleefe of thinges contained in the bookes of holy Scripture to be the habit or light of faith Secondly that besides the habit or light of faith I require reasons or motiues by force whereof the spirit of God may settle the mind of a man in the perswasion of the trueth of things contained in Scripture that might otherwise be doubted of Thirdly that I make this motiue or reason in some things to bee the evidence of the things themselues in the light of grace in other not so evident vnto vs the authority of God himselfe whom we doe most certainely discerne to speake in the word of Faith preached vnto vs. These things I confesse are deliuered by Mee and rightly collected by him out of that which I haue written Yet doth hee wrong some other of the same iudgment with Me touching this point in that he saith vntruly they reject all supernaturall habits so goeth about to make a difference betweene them and Mee in this respect whereas in truth and in deede there is none But what is that the good man doth or can dislike in this my discourse First hee vndertaketh to proue that neither the evidence of the things contained in Scriptures in themselues presupposing the light of grace nor the authoritie of God himselfe discerned to speake can be sufficient motiues whereby the spirit of God may settle vs in the perswasioÌ„ of the truth of such things as are therein coÌ„tained Whereas yet I think if he were asked what the motiues are by force whereof the spirit doth effect this work if these be not he would not easily giue any answer but how doth he demoÌ„strate the insufficiencie of these motiues Surely very weakly insufficiently For first thus he reasoneth against them if these motiues were of sufficiencie euery one enlightned by the light of grace should by vertue of them bee perswaded of the Heauenly Trueth of all such things as are contained in the books of God which is a very bad inference For by the like kinde of reasoning it may bee prooued that the evidence of things in the light of nature is not the motiue or inducement that causeth our perswasion touching such things as are knowne in naturall knowledge because all that haue the light of naturall reason are not rightly perswaded concerning all such things which no wise man will allow So that as it is not to be imputed to the defect of evidence in the things that are to be knowne in naturall knowledge which should settle the perswasion that all men are not rightly perswaded of
done by euery one Wherevnto we answere according to their owne groundes that those partes of divine and canonicall Scripture which particularly wee haue not read or considered are onely implicitè and vertually beleeued of vs as likewise the thinges that are contayned in them neither should this seeme strange to the Romanists for they thinke it pertayneth to the faith of each Christian man to beleeue all the bookes of holy Scripture to bee vndoubtedly true and indited by the Spirit of God Yet are there many amongst them that neyther know how many nor which these bookes are but beleeue them vertually onely as it appertayneth to the fayth to beleeue that Iesus Mary Ioseph fledde into Aegypt and that Paul mediated for the reconciling of Onesimus to Philemon but it is sufficient for men that neuer read or considered these particulars to beleeue them vertually Thirdly he chargeth vs with contrariety in our sayings in that we make the Scripture to bee the ground and rule of our fayth and yet make the light of faith a meane whereby we come to the knowledge of Scripture because as hee thinketh the Scripture cannot bee a rule of our fayth vnlesse it bee certainely knowne to bee diuine before we beleeue But the good man should knowe that the Scripture may bee the rule of our fayth directing vs touching such particular things as wee are to beleeue though it be not knowne to bee diuine before we beleeue For first God giueth vs the eyes of fayth and openeth our vnderstandings that wee may see and discerne in generall heauenly trueth to bee contayned in Scripture then it becommeth a rule of direction in all particular poynts of faith Fourthly he imputeth to vs that wee relie vpon illuminations and inspirations in the things wee beleeue as if wee beleeued them without any other proofe or demonstration vpon bare imagined inspirations whereas wee beleeue nothing without such proofes and motiues as all men may take notice of and yet knowe right well that none doe make right vse thereof but such as haue their vnderstandings enlightned So that his reasoning against the certainty of this illumination is idle seeing we doe not make illumination or inspiration the ground of our perswasion touching things to be beleeved but a disposition of the mind making vs capable of the apprehension of thinges that are diuine and heauenly This illumination is in some more and in some lesse but in all the chosen seruants of God such as sufficeth for the discerning of all sauing trueth necessary to bee knowne of each man according to his estate and condition Fiftly besides idle repetition of thinges going before to which hee referreth himself and some vntruths mingled with the same First he chargeth Me that I am contrary to my selfe in deliuering the opinions of Papists The first supposed contradiction is in that I affirme that it is the ordinary opinion of Papists that the articles of faith are beleeued because God reuealeth them and yet say in another place that they make the authority of the Church the rule of our fayth and reason why we beleeue The second in that I charge the Papistes in one place that they giue authority to the Church to make new articles of faith and in another place free them from the same This latter supposed contrariety I shewed before to bee none at all but in the Treatisers imagination onely and touching the first if hee were a man of any common vnderstanding or knew what contrariety is hee vvould not charge Mee with any such thing For it is true that all Papists thinke the articles of faith are to be beleeued because reuealed but they thinke also that wee knowe not that they are reuealed but beleeue so onely and that not by reason of any diuine reuelation testimony or authority but because the Church so telleth vs and wee haue many humane inducements mouing vs so to perswade our selues So that they make the authority of the Church and humane inducements the last and finall reason of beleeuing whatsoeuer they beleeue This the Treatiser knew well enough and therefore hee requireth Mee to shew how I know that God reuealeth the things beleeued by Christians If I will not fall into the same fault for which I blame them Whereunto I answere that I know the Scriptures to bee inspired of God by the diuine force and majesty that sheweth it selfe in them in which sence I say the bookes of Scripture win credit of themselues and yeeld sufficient satisfaction to all men of their diuine truth For as the colour in each thing maketh it visible and to be seene so the diuine power vertue that sheweth it selfe in the Scripture maketh vs to beleeue that it is of God But the Treatiser will not thus leaue Mee but still goeth on adding one vniust imputation to another For whereas we say only the Scriptures are not discerned to be diuine and inspired of God vnlesse we be inlightned by grace and not that they are proued to bee diuine by the certaintie of that illumination he maketh vs whether we wil or not to proue the Scriptures by our inspirations and that we are inspired by the Scriptures whereas we proue neither the one nor the other of these things in any such sort For touching the Scripture I haue sufficiently shewed before how we know it to be diuine and for the other the Treatiser should know that we doe not proue by Scripture that we are divinely inlightned and inspired but that as naturall reason hath a direct act whereby she apprehendeth things without a reflexed act whereby taking a view of the former direct acts she findeth out her selfe so the light of Faith first discouereth Heauenly verities in the Scripture such as naturall reason could neuer find out then by reflexion findeth it selfe to be of another nature kind then that rationall vnderstanding that was before Wherefore let vs goe forward Did not mine eyes see and my hands handle the palpable absurdities of this Treatiser I would not beleeue any mans report that one so voide of all sense reason as he euery way sheweth himselfe to be should be permitted to write For whereas I bring a most cleare sentence out of Augustine to proue that howsoeuer the authoritie of the Church serue as an introduction to bring vs to the spirituall discerning of diuine things yet men rest not in it hee answereth that Augustine in the chapter cited by Me affirmeth onely that because all men are not capable at first to vnderstād the sincere wisdome truth taught in the church God hath ordained in it a motiue which may first moue them to seeke it to wit the authority of the Church which partly through miracles partly through multitudes is of force to moue which no way taketh any thing from but rather addeth strength to my proofes for if these motiues be necessary onely at the first before men bee purged made pure in
and Gods grace euen in his first conuersion Wherefore let vs passe from the question touching the co-operation of mans will with Gods grace to the other concerning the necessity of good workes to saluation Where first it is agreed on that there is necessarily required in all that will be saued a dislike of former euils wherewith God was offended Secondly a ceasing to doe euill Thirdly a desire of grace that may preserue and keepe vs from the like Fourthly a desire to doe things pleasing vnto God in that time that remaineth Fiftly it is acknowledged by all that in them that are justified and haue title to eternall saluation good workes are so farre forth necessary to saluation if they haue time that the not doing of them is sinne which without repentance and remission excludeth from saluation Sixthly that good works are necessary as fruites of faith which all they that are justified and looke for saluation are bound in duty to bring forth Seauenthly that they are not so absolutely necessary that no man can be saued without them for a man may be saued that in the last moment disliketh sinne and desireth pardon for it and grace that he may not fall into it again without the actuall doing of any good workes So that I protest I cannot see wherein there could bee any reall difference betweene these men neither will the Treatiser I thinke be able to shew me any such difference either out of the acts of the Synode of Altenberge or by any other meanes For that men are bound in duty to doe good workes that they necessarily follow faith that no man can be saued without dislike of sinne desire of avoyding it and purpose of doing that which is pleasing vnto God Illyricus made no question and so disliked not the saying of his opposites that good workes are necessary to saluation as thinking them in no sort necessary but because he thought their words did import that no man in any case can bee saued without the actuall doing of good workes no though hee haue them in desire and that no man may assure himselfe farther of the fauour and mercy of God towards him then hee findeth the presence of the workes of vertue in him which thinges vndoubtedly they neuer meant Another opinion there is that is attributed to Illyricus touching the nature of originall sinne which is greatly condemned by many For first hee is charged to haue taught that the substance of mans soule was changed and corrupted by Adams fall whence it will follow that it is mortall Secondly that sinne is a substance sundry other like thinges whence the impious positions of the Manichees may be inferred For the clearing of Illyricus from these impieties first wee must obserue that hee distinguisheth two sorts of corruption naming the one naturall and the other spirituall the one consisting in the abolition of the thing corrupted the other in a transformation of it Secondly that this transformation of the soule is not in respect of her essence and being simply but of her essentiall and substantiall powers faculties Thirdly that this transformation of the soule in her faculties is not in respect of all her faculties but the best and principall only to wit reason and the will Fourthly that there is not any transformation or transuersion of these faculties simply in respect of all obiects for the soule by the light of naturall reason iudgeth rightly of many things still though with some imperfections but in respect of her principall object to wit God his worship and Law So that this is all that Illyricus sayth that the soule of man since Adams fall is so transformed and changed in the best and principall of her essentiall and substantiall faculties that they are not onely turned away from their principall obiect and from tending to the right end whither they should looke but converted also to the desiring of such things as they should not or in such sort as they should not but of the extinguishing or abolishing of any of the essentiall and naturall faculties of the soule much lesse of the essence and being of it simply he hath no word Wherefore let vs come to the other part of the accusation framed against him which is that he maketh sinne to be a substance and let vs heare what he will say vnto it himselfe There are saith Illyricus certaine absurd sayings maliciously attributed vnto me as that sin is a substance that it is in the predicament of substance that it is the reasonable soule of man and that on the contrary side the soule is sin but I neuer vsed any such speeches neither did I euer say any more but that some part of originall sin is the soules essentiall facultie of reason the will corrupted in that they are averted turned away from their right obiect end But for the more full clearing of him from that impious opinion which is imputed to him wee must take notice of certaine good obseruations found in him As first that we may speake of sinne concretiuely or abstractiuely Secondly that if we speake of sin abstractiuely that is sinfulnesse it is nothing but an inconformitie with the Law of GOD. Thirdly that that to which such inconformitie immediatly cleaueth and wherein want of conformitie with Gods Law is found may rightly be named sin concretiuely So that if such inconformitie be found in any action we may safely pronounce it to be sin if in any habite we may pronounce that that habite is sin if in any inclination or desire that that is sinne also if in any the essentiall substantiall faculties of the soule as being turned from the right object end and converted to such obiect and end as they should not wee may safely pronounce that these faculties disordered put out of course are sin euen that originall birth sin which is the fountaine whence all other doe flow So that to conclude this point according to the opinion of Illyricus if wee speake formally abstractiuely originall sin is the disordering of the essentiall substantiall Faculties of the soule consisting in an aversion from the principall obiect and a conversion to other in stead of it But if wee speake concretiuely materially originall sin is the substantiall facultie of the soule which wee call Free-will turned from seeking God to oppose it selfe against him in which passages there is no impiety nothing vnsound or that doeth not stand with the trueth which wee professe but his manner of speaking was such as might giue occasion of dislike therefore himselfe confesseth that hee qualified some formes of wordes which hee had formerly vsed vpon the advice of Simon Museus that his meaning might bee the better knowne no misconstruction made of that hee meant well So that it will bee found that there was no reall difference betweene Melancthon Illyricus about originall sin or any other matter of faith therefore
Faith and Religion His meaning it seemeth is that all Protestantes acknowledging Puritanes to bee of one Church with them are Puritanes and therefore hee would haue all to know that howsoeuer hee make shew of blaming Puritanes onely or principally yet in truth hee equally condemneth all and that therefore hee doth but dissemble or say hee knoweth not what But do all these Protestant writers named by him teach that there is no materiall difference betweene protestants and Puritanes Surely no. For touching my selfe I neuer wrote any such thing neither in the place cited by him nor any where else so that hee beginneth with a manifest and shamelesse vntruth But I doe the more willingly pardon him this fault for that it seemeth hee doth not consider what he writeth For in the title of his booke hee professeth that hee will take the proofes of his Catholique religion and Recusancy onely from the writings of such Protestant Diuines as haue beene published since the raigne of his Maiesty ouer this kingdome for that as hee sayth they often change their opinions at the least at the comming of euery new Prince And yet page 30. hee citeth the Bishop of Winchesters booke written many yeares agoe and Doctor Couell his booke in defence of Master Hooker as often as any other which yet was written in her late Maiesties time But what if I had written that howsoeuer there are some materiall differences betweene Protestants and Puritanes as it pleaseth him to stile them yet not so essentiall or substantiall but that they may bee of one Church faith and religion What absurdity would haue followed Would it be consequent from hence as he inferreth that it is not materiall with vs whether men be of a true or false religion of any or none at all Haue there not beene nay are there not greater differences betwixt Papists who yet will be angry if they be not esteemed to be all of one Church faith and religion Did not Pope Iohn the two and twentith thinke that the soules of the just shall not see God till the generall resurrection and did not the French King that then was with the whole vniuersity of Paris condemne the same opinion as hereticall with sound of trumpet Did not Ambrosius Catharinus teach that a man may be certaine with the certainty of faith that he is in state of grace and Soto the contrary Did not Pighius Contarenus and the Authors of the booke called Antididagma Coloniense defend imputatiue justice and other Papists reiect it Did not some amongst them teach the merit of condignity doe not others moued with a sober moderation thinke there is no such merit Doe not some thinke the Pope is vniuersall Bishop others that he is not but prime Bishop onely Doe not some teach that all Bishops receiue their jurisdiction from the Pope others the contrary Doe not some thinke the Pope may papally erre and others that he cannot Doe not some of them thinke he is temporall Lord of all the world and others the contrary Doe not so 〈◊〉 them thinke he may depose Princes and others that he may not is there not a very materiall point of difference amongst Papists touching predestination Let them shew vs if they can so many and materiall differences betweene Protestants and Puritanes And yet these were all of one Church in their judgement yea Pope Stephen who reuersed all the actes of Formosus his predecessour pronounced the ordinations of all those to bee voide whom he had ordained brought his dead body out of the graue into the Councell stript it out of the Papall vesture put vpon it a lay habit and cutting off two fingers of his right hand cast it into Tyber Pope Iohn his successour who called a Councell of 74. Bishops to confirme the ordinations of Formosus the Arch-bishoppes of France and the King being present at Rauenna burned the acts of the Synod which Stephen had called to condemne Formosus and Sergius who againe condemned Formosus and pronounced all his ordinations to be voide reuersing the acts of Pope Iohn and his Synode were all of one Church of one communion faith and religion Nay which is more strange when there were three Anti-popes sitting in diuerse places accursing one another with all their Adherents and that for many yeares yet still they were of one Church of one communion faith and religion Yet may not wee inferre from hence against them as they doe against vs that it is not materiall with them whether men be of a true or false religion of any or none at all Surely they are more priuiledged then other men for some of them may take the Oath of Allegeance disclaime the Popes power and right to intermeddle with Princes states and other refuse it and yet still be Catholicke brethren in the communion of the same Church Yea a Priest may like of this Oath and perswade others to take it and afterwards goe ouer the Sea and alter his iudgement and returning choose rather to suffer death then to take it againe yet no man must take notice of it But if a Minister subscribe and afterwards vpon ill aduice refuse to doe the same againe then all the courses of our Religion are such that by no outward signes communion profession protestation or subscription a man can tell who is of what religion amongst vs. But let vs passe from the Epistle to the booke it selfe CHAP. I. IN the first chapter which is of the supreame and most preeminent authority of the true church and how necessary it is to finde it follow the directions and rest in the iudgement of it he hath these words Doctor Field a late Protestant writer beginneth his Dedicatory Epistle to the Lord Archbishop of Canterburie before his Bookes of the church in this manner There is no part of heauenly doctrine more necessary in these dayes of so many intricate controversies of Religion then diligently to search out which amongst all the societies of men in the world is that blessed company of holy ones that household of Faith that spouse of Christ and church of the liuing God which is the pillar and ground of truth that so we may embrace her communion follow her directions and rest in her iudgement And after some other things cited out of others he addeth the ioyning with the true church is so needfull a thing that D. Field concludeth There is no saluation remission of sinnes or hope of eternall life out of the church To what purpose this allegation serueth I cannot conceiue for there is nothing in any of these speeches of mine that euer any protestant doubted of or from which any thing may bee concluded against vs or for the papists The church of God saith Master Caluine is named the Mother of the Faithfull neither is there any entrance into eternall life vnlesse shee conceiue vs in her wombe vnlesse shee