and then there is no question but all men are bound for euer to adhere to this church and to eate the Lambe within the wals of this house That this is the meaning of Hierome the very forme of his words doe perswade vs. I am ioyned saith hee to Peters chaire vpon that rocke the Church is builded out of this house of the Church doubtlesse the Lambe may not be eaten Now by the name of the Church immediatly going before is meant the vniuersall Church therefore by this house we must vnderstand that great house within the wals whereof the whole houshold of faith is contained Secondly we say that if he speake of the Romane or West Church particularly he may be thought to meane not that hee shall perpetually and alwayes bee iudged a profane person that eateth the Lambe without the wals of that house but things so standing as they did when he wrote no other partes of the Church being sound safe and free from heresies but the Westerne parts onely Which made him say hee knew not Paulinus who was then Bishop of Antioch within the compasse of whose Patriarchship he liued because there was question as well of his faith as of the lawfulnesse of his ordination For otherwise hee ought to haue knowne him sought to him and respected him Thirdly wee say it is more then probable that the whole West Church shall neuer lose or forsake the true profession and that therefore hee may rightly be iudged a profane person that eateth the paschall Lambe out of the communion of the same though sometimes the Bishop of Rome in person be an heretique other of his colleagues continuing faithfull And that Hierome was of opinion that the Bishop of Rome may become an heretique it is most cleare and euident in that he saith that both Liberius and Felix were Arrian Heretickes Thus haue we answered whatsoeuer may be alledged out of Hierome for the Papacie and shewed the weakenesse of those allegations Now let vs see what authorities may be brought out of his writings against the absolute supreme power of Popes First he saith if wee seeke authority Orbis maior est vrbe The world is greater then the greatest citty in the world and the whole Church is of greater authority then the particular Church of Rome And thereupon reprehendeth the negligence or errour of the church of Rome in permitting contrary to the manner of other churches Deacons to grow so insolent as to dare to sit in the presence of the Presbyters when the Bishoppe was away as also in ordaining Presbyters vpon the commendation of Deacons So that hee blamed not the Deacons onely as Bellarmine vntruely saith but the Romane Bishop to whom the ordaining of Presbyters pertained Neither will it followe that the insolencie of the Deacons presuming to sitte in the presence of Presbyters was vnknowne to the Bishop or not allowed by the Church as Bellarmine collecteth because they are said so to haue done when the Bishop was away For that circumstance rather insinuateth that though they had not cast off all respect to the Bishop yet they had forgotten their duty towards the Presbyters then that this their presuming was vnknowne to the Bishop Secondly he pronounceth that wheresoeuer a Bishop bee whether at Rome or Eugubium at Constantinople or Rhegium at Alexandria or Tanais hee is of the same merit and the same Priesthood the power of riches and the humility of poore estate not making a Bishop higher or lower To this place Bellarmine answereth that all Bishops are equall in the power of order but not of jurisdiction But it is certaine Hierome thought all Bishops equall not only in the power of order but of jurisdiction also For Metropolitanes in his time though in order and honour greater then the rest were bound to follow what the greater part of the Bishops of the Province consented on and might doe nothing but as the greater part should resolue howsoeuer in processe of time by positiue constitution the Metropolitanes limited and directed by Canons were trusted with the doing of many things by themselues alone rather then the Bishops would bee troubled with often meeting in Councels But saith Bellarmine it cannot bee that Hierome should thinke all Bishops equall in the power of jurisdiction seeing without all question the Bishop of Alexandria hauing vnder him three great Provinces was greater in jurisdiction then the Bishop of Tanais who had vnder him onely one poore little city For answer hereunto we say that Patriarches haue no more power ouer the Metropolitanes subject to them then the Metropolitanes haue ouer the Bishops of the Province and that therefore howsoeuer the extent of their power reach farther yet proportionably it is no greater then the power of the Metropolitanes within their narrower precincts and compasse that the Metropolitan originally is not greater in the power of jurisdictiō then any other Bishop of the Province howsoeuer he haue a preheminence of honour and sit as a President among the Bishops meeting to performe the acts of jurisdiction and by cōmon consent to manage the affaires of the Province so that notwithstanding any thing the Cardinall can say to the contrary the testimonies and authorities of Hierome stand good against the Popes proud claime of vniversall power Wherefore leauing Hierome who witnesseth not for them but against them let vs heare whether Augustine will say any thing for them Out of Augustine sundry things are alleadged as first that hee saith The principality and chiefetie of the Apostolicall chaire did euer flourish in the Romane Church and secondly that to Bonifacius he saith Thou disdainest not to be a friend of the humble and those of the meane sort and though thou sit in higher place yet thou art not high minded And againe The watch tower is common to vs all that are Bishops although thou hast a higher roome in the same Surely it is strange to what purpose these places of Augustine are alleaged For wee neuer denied a principality or chieftie of order and honour to haue belonged anciently to the Bishops of Rome whilest they rested contented therewith and sought not to bring all vnder them by claime of vniversall power and this is all that can be collected out of Augustine But saith Bellarmine In his Epistle to Optatus speaking of a meeting of Bishops at Caesarea he saith an Ecclesiasticall necessitie laid vpon them by the reverend Pope Zozimus Bishop of the Apostolicall See drew them thither therefore he thought the Bishop of Rome superiour vnto other Bishops not in order honour onely but in power of commaunding also For answer hereunto first wee say that a great part of Africa was within the precincts of the Pat◅archship of Rome and that therefore the Bishop of Rome might call the Bishops of those parts to a Synodall meeting as euery Patriarch may doe the Bishops vnder him though hee had no commaunding power ouer all the world Secondly
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
sunder These being the things required in a foundation simply and absolutely in respect of all times persons and things Christ onely is that foundation vpon which the spirituall building of the Church is raised because he onely is that beginning whence all spirituall good originally floweth and commeth vpon whom all the perswasion of the truth of things revealed staieth it selfe as being the Angell of the great Couenant and that eternall Word that was with God in the beginning vpon whom all our hope confidence and expectation of any good groundeth it selfe all the promises of God being in him yea and Amen And in this sense the Apostle Saint Paul saith Other Foundation canne no man lay then that which is layd which is Iesus Christ. And S. Augustine and other of the Fathers vnderstand by that rocke vpon which our Sauiour promised Peter to build his Church the rocke that Peter confessed which rocke was Christ vpon which foundation euen Peter himselfe was builded for that other Foundation can no man lay then that which is laid which is Iesus Christ. But in respect of some particular times persons and things and in some particular and speciall considerations there are other things that may rightly bee named foundations also in respect of the spirituall building of the Church So in respect of the frame fabrique of vertue and weldoing raised in this building the first vertue namely Faith vpon which all other vertues doe stay themselues and from which they take the first direction that any vertue can giue is rightly named a foundation In respect of the forme of Christian doctrine the first principles of heauenly knowledge are rightly named a foundation Not laying againe saith the Apostle the foundation of faith and of repentance from dead workes of the doctrine of Baptismes of the imposition of hands of the resurrection of the dead and ofeternall iudgement let vs be led forward vnto perfection These first principles of heauenly knowledge are named a foundation because they are the first things that are knowen before which nothing can be knowen and because vpon the knowledge of these things all other parts of heavenly knowledge doe depend In respect of the confession of the true faith concerning Christ the first cleare expresse and perfect forme of confession that euer was made concerning the same may rightly be named a foundation and in this sense Peters faith and confession is by diuerse of the Fathers named the Churches foundation But they vnderstand not by the faith and confession of Peter either the vertue and quality of faith abiding in his heart and mind or the outward act of confessing but the forme of confession made by him when he said Thou art the Christ the Sonne of the liuing God vpon which forme as being the rule of all right beleeuing the Church of God is builded In respect of the supernaturall knowledge of God in Christ the first immediate reuelation made to the Apostles from whom all other were to learne and by whose Ministerie accompanied with all things that might winne credit they were to be gained vnto God may very rightly and justly be named a foundation vpon which the faith of all after-commers is to stay it selfe and from which in all doubts they must seeke resolution And in this sort Bellarmine saith truely that the Apostles may be named Foundations of the Church according to that description in the Reuelation of Saint Iohn of the wall of the citie of God that had 12. foundation-stones vpon which it was raised and in them written the names of the Lambes twelue Apostles and that of S. Paul that wee are builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Christ Iesus being the Head corner-stone And this in three respects First because the Apostles were the first that founded Churches and conuerted vnbeleeuers to the faith Secondly because their doctrine which they receiued immediatly from God by most vndoubted revelation without mixture of errour or danger of being deceiued is the rule of the faith of all aftercommers and that sure immoueable and rockie foundation vpon which the perswasion of all succeeding generations and posterities may and doth most securely stay and ground it selfe Thirdly because they were Heads Guides and Pastors of the whole vniuersall Church hauing not onely supreme but prime and originall gouernment of the same out of whose most large and ample commission all Ecclesiasticall power and authoritie of after-commers was in an inferiour degree and sort to bee deriued and taken In all these respects all the Apostles were that strong rocke and those strong rockie foundation-stones on which the Church is builded though in a peculiar sense Christ alone bee the Rocke and in all these respects as S. Hierome saith Super omnes ex aequo Ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur that is the strength and firmenesse of the Church doth equally indifferently stay it selfe vpon them all and consequently no more vpon Peter then any of the rest Hitherto we finde nothing peculiar to Peter and not common to all the Apostles so that all the allegations of our Adversaries touching the feeding of the Sheep of Christ committed to Peter the power of the keyes of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sinnes and the promise that on him as on a rockie foundation-stone elect and precious Christ would build his Church are to no purpose seeing they are forced to confesse that all these things were likewise either by direct words or by intendment bestowed on all the rest Wherefore let vs see how notwithstanding this their confession they can make good that there was a primacie of power in Peter and how they goe about to confirme the same CHAP. 23. Of the primacie of power imagined by our Adversaries to haue beene in Peter and their defence of the same FOr the avoyding of the cleare evidence of the truth of all that which hath beene said touching the equalitie of the Apostles of Christ amongst thēselues which our Adversaries cannot but see acknowledge they haue two shifts The first that the Apostles were equall towards the people but not amongst themselues The second that they were equall in the Apostolique power but that Peter had that amplitude of power which the rest had as Apostles by speciall fauour and onely in for their own persons as an ordinary Pastour and in such sort that he might leaue the same to his Successors These their silly shifts evasions we will examine that so the truth of that which hath bin said be more fully cleared that all men may see perceiue that nothing can be substātially objected against it nor no evasiō foūd to avoid it Touching the first thing that they say it is an Axiome as I thinke that may not bee doubted of that whatsoeuer things are equall in respect of a third thing are in the same sort fo farre for equall amongst themselues So
his Epistle to Michael the Emperour pronounceth that the priuiledges of the See of Rome are perpetuall rooted and planted by Almighty God in such sort that men may stumble at them but cannot remoue them may pull at them but cannot pull them vp therefore he thinketh the Pope cannot erre which is a very bad consequence For the infallibility of iudgment in the Pope is not mentioned among the inuiolable priuiledges of the Church of Rome and therefore the priuiledges of that Church may be inuiolable and yet the Pope subiect to errour neither hath Nicolas one word of the Popes not erring The testimonies of Leo the ninth and Innocentius the third as being late and partiall in their own cause may iustly be excepted against yet do they not proue the thing in question For they speake of the See and throne of Peter in which the faith may continue without failing though the Popes erre and seeke to subuert the same so long as any other that are to gouerne the throne with them perseuere in the true faith Wherefore from the prayer of Christ made for Peter that his faith should not faile they descend to other proofes taken from the promise made to Peter by Christ that vpon him he would build his Church and his mandate requiring him to feede his sheepe and to feede his Lambes which are too weake to perswade vs that the Pope cannot erre or is more priuiledged then other Bishops in this respect First because it is most cleare and euident and confessed by our aduersaries themselues that the Church was builded vpon all the Apostles as well as vpon Peter and there is no kind of feeding of Christs sheepe and flocke that commeth not within the compasse of that office and commission which the other Apostles had in common with him as I haue elsewhere shewed at large Secondly because Peter and his colleagues were foundation stones vppon which the Church was builded in that their doctrine was receiued by immediate and vndoubted reuelation without mixture of errour vpon which the faith of all after-commers was to stay it selfe none of which things agree to the Romane Bishop So that it is no way necessary that there should be the same infallibility of judgment in him that was in Peter and in his colleagues Thirdly because we know and all that are in their right wits do acknowledge that a man may be a Pastor in the Church of God and yet subject to errour and that therefore Christs requiring Peter to do the duty of a Pastor will not proue that the Pope cannot erre Wherefore from the Scriptures they passe to the Fathers and among them first they produce Theodoret who in his Epistle to Renatus a Presbyter saith that among other things the reason why the Romane Church hath a kind of chiefety among other Churches is because it hath euer remained free from heresie From whence I thinke hardly any good proofe can be drawne of the Popes not erring For how will this consequence euer be made good There are many things that make the See of Rome great as the greatnesse of the city the Empire the sepulchers of those common Fathers and Doctors of truth Peter and Paule those two great lights that rose in the East cast forth their beames into all parts of the world but set in the West and sundry other things and among them the felicity and happinesse of it that till the time of Theodoret no heresie euer preuailed in it therefore the Bishop of Rome can neuer erre Seeing Theodoret doth not dispute what may be but sheweth only what by the happy prouidence of God had beene and besides speaketh not precisely of the Bishop of Rome but of the Romane See including the whole company of the Bishops of the West adhering to him which was a great part of the whole Christian Church and more glorious then the rest for that it was more free from hereticall novelties in those times then they To Theodoret they adde Saint Augustine who saith the succession of Bishops from Peters chaire to his time is that rocke against the which the proud gates of hell cannot preuaile His meaning is that what all those Bishops haue constantly and successiuely taught as true must needes be true and what they haue impugned as false must needes be false seeing it is impossible that any errour or the impugning of any trueth should haue bin found successiuely in all the Bishops of that or any other Apostolicall Church whatsoeuer But what is this to the Popes not erring Surely as litle as that of Gelasius in his Epistle to Anastasius the Emperour that the glorious confession of the Apostle Peter thou art the Christ the Son of the liuing God is the roote of all the faith and piety of the whole world that therefore the Apostolique See carefully looketh vnto it that no chinke be made in it that it be not spotted with any contagion for that if it should there were no meanes of resisting any errour But because this maketh not for them the Cardinall helpeth the matter with an vntruth saying that Gelasius proueth that the See of Rome cannot erre because the confession of it is the roote of al the faith piety that is in the world whereas he neither goeth about to proue the one nor speaketh any word of the other but of the excellencie of the confession that Peter made the necessity of preseruing it inuiolable and the care of the See of Rome in and before his time for the safe keeping of the same Wherefore let vs come to the places that are cited to this purpose out of Gregories Epistles which shew plainly they are past shame that manage the Popes affaires defend his cause For whereas Gregory saith that if he that claimeth to be vniuersal B doe fall all the whole Church is ouerthrowne and that therefore there must bee no such vniversall Bishop and particularly sheweth by the grieuous heresies that prevailed in the Church of Constantinople how ill it would haue beene for the Churches of God if the Bishops thereof had beene vniversall Bishops as they sought to be they bring this place to proue that the Pope cannot erre whereas they should haue brought it to shew how dangerous it is that there should bee any one vniversall Bishop such as their Pope desireth to be and that therefore as Cyprian obserueth Almighty God wisely foreseeing what euils might follow such vniversality of power and jurisdiction in one man ordained that there should bee a great number of Bishops joyned in equall commission that so if some fell the rest might stand and keepe the people from a generall downefall The next allegation is out of the Epistle to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria whereby the Reader may see with what conscience these Iesuited Papists doe cite the writings of the Fathers The wordes of Gregory are these Your most sweete Holinesse hath
ordering or as if it could doe any thing without Gods permission concurrence And this is all that Luther hath in the former or latter of the two places alleadged by the Treatiser for hee hath no word of absolute necessity but of Gods most wise prouident direction of our wils in all their choices desires and actions And though else-where hee approue the saying of Wickliffe that all things fall out by a kinde of absolute necessitie yet he interpreteth himselfe to meane neither naturall necessity nor coaction but infallibility of event in that all things fall out most certainly as God thinketh good to dispose and order them Wherefore seeing the Treatiser can fasten no contradiction vpon Luther touching free-will let vs proceede to see what exceptions hee taketh to that defence I make of his altering of his judgement in some other thinges My defence is that it was not strange for him to alter his judgement in some poynts of good moment seeing Saint Augustine the greatest of all the Fathers and the Angelicall Doctour did so before him His exception against this my defence consisteth of two parts vvhereof the first is that Luthers changing of his opinion argueth hee was not extraordinarily and immediatly taught of God which vvee easily graunt and that hee built his fayth vpon his owne vnconstant reason which the Treatiser vvill neuer proue to bee consequent vpon the alteration of his judgement in some poynts of religion for that otherwise Augustine might be conuinced to haue so builded his fayth likewise who altered his judgement touching as great matters as euer Luther did For whereas formerly hee attributed the election of such as were chosen to eternall life to the foresight of their future fayth after hee entred into the conflict with the Pelagians he disclaymed it as a meere Pelagian conceipt The second that Saint Augustine vvriting vvhen he vvas yet a nouice in Christian religion and not fully instructed erred in some poynts vvhich errours hauing receiued better instruction hee disclaimed and that before some articles of Christian religion were so throughly discussed defined in the Church as afterwards vpon the rising of new heresies he spake not so aptly properly as was needfull in succeeding times and therefore retracted what he had vttered but that it was not therefore lawfull for Luther to leape vp and downe hither thither and to change his faith accordingly as his fancie ledde him For answere vvherevnto I say that Luther changed not his faith according to fancie nor altered his judgement in any poynt of Christian doctrine generally constantly agreed on in that Church vvherein hee liued For as I haue else-where proued at large none of the thinges vvherein vvee at this day dissent from the present Church of Rome vvere generally constantly beleeued and receiued as articles of fayth in the dayes of our Fathers in that Church vvherein they liued died so that in this respect there will bee no difference betweene the case of Luther Augustine or Aquinas who as the Treatiser confesseth altered corrected their former opinions touching sundry points of doctrine not determined by the Church without any note of inconstancy or building their faith vpon their owne vnconstant reason And thus haue I runne through both parts of the Treatise of the grounds of the olde new Religion so that I might here end but that the Authour thereof addeth in the end an Appendix in confutation of a booke written by M. Crashaw concerning Romish forgeries falsifications wherein among other things bee endeauoureth to proue there could be no such corruption of the Fathers Writings in former times as M. Crashaw conceiueth because I say the Papists were onely a faction in the Church and that there were euer diverse in the middest of all the confusions of the Papacie agreeing with vs who alwayes opposed themselues against such as sought to advance Papall tyranny Popish superstition who he thinketh if there were any such were carefull to preserue the Fathers Workes from corruption For answer whereunto wee must note that the corruptions of the Fathers Writings are of three sorts either by putting out base counterfeit stuffe vnder their honourable names or by putting in some things into their true indubitate Workes not well sorting with the same or by taking something out of them That many absurd things haue beene published vnder the names of holy Fathers no man can make any doubt that looketh into the Workes of Augustine Hicrome others with which many things censured iudged to bee Apocryphall by our Adversaries themselues are mingled Now if in their iudgement this first kinde of corruption of the Fathers Workes might be in former times notwithstanding such good men as they thinke were euer in the Church who willingly and wittingly would giue no consent to any such corruption why may not wee say that some things might bee added or detracted from the indubitate writings of the Fathers notwithstanding any thing they could doe to the contrary whom wee suppose in the middest of Papall confusions to haue opposed themselues against errour idolatry and superstition then by some brought into the Church and to haue giuen testimony to that truth which we now maintaine so that this obiection is easily answered What he hath against others I doubt not but they will take notice of and that he shall heare from them in due time to whom I leaue him The end of the second part THE THIRD PART CONTAINING A BRIEFE EXAMINATION OF SVCH PRETENDED PROOFES for Romish Religion and Recusancie as are produced and violently wrested by a late Pamphleter out of the former bookes IN the Epistle to the Lords of the Councell hee first complaineth of the long and manifold supposed miseries of English Pseudo-Catholiques Secondly hee imputeth the same to the Puritanes as if they had beene procured principally by them and for their cause Thirdly hee proueth that not onely those Puritanes that refuse externall conformity but such also as for a fashion follow it are guilty of the proceedings against the Romanists because the greatest number of Protestant Writers doe teach that there is noe such essentiall and substantiall difference betweene Protestants and Puritanes but that they are of one Church Faith and Religion A strange kind of proofe yet these are his words The pennes and pulpits of Puritanes and their Printers will sufficiently write preach and publish to the world by whom and to what purpose no small part of these afflictions haue beene vrged and incited against vs not onely by those few which refuse your externall conformity but such as for a fashion follow it to retaine themselues in authority For proofe whereof the greatest number of the present Protestant Writers D. Sutcliffe D. Doue D. Field M. Willet Wootton Middleton c. do teach there is no substantiall essentiall or materiall point of difference in religion betweene Protestants and Puritanes but they are of one Church
Apostles and in many places we finde the same to haue beene done rather for the honour of Priest-hood then the necessity of any Law otherwise if the Spirit descend not but onely at the prayer of the Bishop they are to be lamented who in villages castles and remote places baptized by Priests or Deacons dye before they are visited by the Bishop and then follovve these words The safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the chiefe Priest to whom if an eminent power be not giuen there will bee as many schismes in the Church as there are Priests So that this is that which he saith that it is rather for the honour of the Bishop or chiefe Priest of each Church that the imposition of hands vpon the baptized is reserued vnto him alone then the necessity of any law because if he had no such preeminences things peculiarly reserued vnto him in respect whereof he might be greater then the rest of the Priests Ministers in the Church there would be as many schismes as Priests and hence he saith it commeth that without the command of the Bishop or chiefe Priest neither Priest nor Deacon haue right to baptize So that it is manifest the chiefe Priest he speaketh of whose power is eminent peerelesse is so named in respect of other Priests in the same church that may not so much as baptize without his mandate not in respect of the pastors of the whole vniuersall church Wherefore if this pamphleter would haue dealt truly honestly he should haue said VVhereas heretofore some vnchristian Sermons books termed the Bishop of Rome the great Antichrist we shal now receiue a better doctrine more religious answer that there must be one chiefe Priest or Bishop in euery Diocesse hauing a more eminent authority then the rest then whereas men now detest his falshood they would but onely haue laughed at his folly But let vs come to his second allegation and see if there be any more truth in that then in this His wordes are these Doctor Field telleth vs from Scripture that Christ promised to build his Church vpon Saint Peter then no Christian will doubt vnlesse he will doubt of Christs truth and promises but it was so performed Let the reader peruse the place and hee shal find that I doe not tell them from Scripture that CHRIST promised to builde his Church vpon Peter as this man adding one falshood to another most vntruely sayth I doe but onely cite a place of Tertullian to proue that nothing was hid from the Apostles that was to be reuealed to after-commers where hee hath these words What was hidden and concealed from Peter vpon whom Christ promised to build his Church from Iohn the Disciple hee so dearely loued that leaned on his breast at the mysticall supper and the rest of that blessed company that should be after manifested to succeeding generations But he will say that I approue the saying of Tertullian and therefore thinke the Church was built vpon Peter Truly so I doe but I thinke also as Hierome doth that it was built no more vpon him then vpon all the rest and therefore the supremacy of Peters pretended successour will not bee concluded from thence Dicis saith Hierome super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat Super omnes ex aequo Ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur that is Thou wilt say the Church was built vpon Peter It is true it was so but we shall find in another place that it was builded vpon all the Apostles Surely the firmenesse of the Church doth equally stay and settle it selfe vpon them all This is so cleare and evident that Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that all the Apostles may be said to haue beene foundations of the Church and that the Church may bee truely said to haue beene built vpon them all First because they preached Christ to such as had not heard of him before and were the first that founded Christian Churches Secondly in respect of their doctrine which they learned by immediate reuelation from the Sonne of God in which the Church is to rest as in the ground and rule of her faith Thirdly in respect of gouernmēt in that they were all heads rulers of the vniuersal Church Thus wee see if I had told them out of Scripture that Christ promised to build his Church on Peter our Aduersaries could not from thence haue inferred the supremacie of the Pope his pretended Successour Wherefore let vs come to his next allegation His words are Doctor Field and the rest doe ordinarily yeelde that the Romane Church continued the true Church of God till the yeare of Christ sixe hundreth and seauen when Bonifacius the Pope there claimed as they say supremacie first in the Church This is a meere imagination of his own for I no where speake of the Churchcōtinuing till the time of Bonifacius the Pope or till the yeare sixe hundred and seauen as if it had then ceased and therefore hee doth not here cite any page of my booke as in other places but citeth it at large But saith hee Doctor Field plainly acknowledgeth that the supremacy belonged to the Popes of Rome before the first Nicene Councell and then by the rules which hee giueth to knowe true traditions custome of the Church consent of Fathers or an Apostolicall Churches testimony this must needes bee of that first kinde and then of equall authority with Scripture as hee acknowledgeth of such traditions Such is the intollerable impudency of this man that I protest I canne scarce beleeue mine owne eyes or perswade my selfe that hee writeth that which I see hee doth For doe I any where acknowledge the supremacy belonged to the Popes of Rome before the Nicene Councell Nay doe I not in the place cited by him say that before the Nicene Councell there were three principall Bishoppes or Patriarches of the Christian Church to witte the Bishoppes of Rome Alexandria and Antioche as appeareth by the actes of the Councell limiting their bounds Had these their bounds limited and set vnto them and was there one of them an vniuersall commander If hee say I acknowledge the Bishop of Rome was in order and honour the first amongst the Patriarches before the Nicene Councell and thereupon inferre that I acknowledge his supremacie and commaunding power ouer the rest hee may as well inferre that I giue to the Bishop of Alexandria a commanding authority ouer the Bishoppe of Antioche because before the Nicene Councell he was before him in order and honour That which hee addeth as a Corollary that by the rules I giue to know true traditions this must bee of that kinde and cōsequently of equall authority with Scripture argueth in him a greater desire of saying something then care what he saith For first it no way appeareth out of any thing that I haue said touching the primacy of the Pope before the
we should haue no greater certainty of things Diuine and revealed then such as humane meanes and causes can yeeld And so seeing wee can neuer bee so well perswaded of any man or multitude of men but that we may justly feare either they are deceiued or will deceiue if our faith depend vpon such grounds we cannot firmely vndoubtedly beleeue Nay it is consequent vpon this absurd opinion that the Children of the Church and they of the houshold of faith haue no infused or Diuine faith at all for that whatsoeuer is revealed by the God of truth is true the Heathens make no doubt but doubt whether any thing were so revealed and that any thing was so revealed if these men say true we haue no assurance but by humane meanes and causes But the absurdity hereof the same Canus out of Calvin doth very learnedly demonstrate reasoning in this sort If all they that haue beene our teachers nay if all the Angels in Heauen shall teach vs any other or contrary doctrine to that we haue receiued we must holde them accursed and not suffer our faith to bee shaken by them as the Apostle chargeth vs in the Epistle to the Galatians therefore our faith doth not rely vpon humane causes or grounds of assurance Ne mens nostra vacillet altius petenda quà m ab hominum vel ratione vel auctoritate scripturae authoritas Besides our faith and that of the Apostles and Prophets being the same it must needes haue the same object the same ground and stay to rest vpon in both but they builded themselues vpon the sure and vnmooueable rocke of Diuine truth and authority therefore we must doe so likewise If any man desire farther satisfaction herein let him reade Canus and Calvin to whom in these things Canus is much beholding Others therefore to avoide this absurdity run into that other before mentioned that we beleeue the things that are diuine by the meere and absolute command of our will not finding any sufficient motiues reasons of perswasion hereupon they define faith in this sort Fides est assensus firmus ineuideÌ„s that is faith is a firme certaine ful assent of the mind beleeuing those things the truth whereof no way appeareth vnto vs. For father explication and better clearing of this definition of faith they make two kindes of certainty for there is as they say certitudo evidentiae and certitudo adhaerentiae that is there is a certainty of evidence which is of those things the truth whereof appeareth vnto vs and another of adherence and firme cleauing to that the trueth whereof appeareth not vnto vs. This later they suppose to bee the certainty that is found in fayth and there vpon they hold that a man may beleeue a thing meerely because hee will without any motiues or reason of perswasion at all the contrary whereof when Picus Mirandula proposed among other his conclusions to bee disputed in Rome hee was charged with heresie for it But hee sufficiently cleared himselfe from all such imputation and improued their fantasie that so thinke by vnanswerable reasons which I haue thought good to lay downe in this place It is not sayth hee in the power of a man to thinke a thing to bee or not to bee meerely because hee will therefore much lesse firmely to beleeue it The trueth of the antecedent wee finde by experience and it evidently appeareth vnto vs because if a doubtfull proposition bee proposed concerning which the vnderstanding and minde of man resolueth nothing seeing no reason to leade to resolue one way or other the minde thus doubtfull cannot incline any way till there bee some inducement either of reason sight of the eye or testimony or authority of them wee are well conceipted of to settle our perswasion Secondly a man cannot assent to any thing or judge it to bee true vnlesse it so appeare vnto him but the sole acte of a mans will cannot make a thing to appeare and seeme true or false but either the euidence of the thing or the testimony and authority of some one of whose judgement he is well perswaded Thirdly though the action of vnderstanding quoad exercitium as to consider of a thing and thinke vpon it or to turne away such consideration from it depend on the will yet not quoad specificationem as to assent or dissent for these opposite and contrary kinds of the vnderstandings actions are from the contrary and different appearing of things vnto vs. Fourthly the sole command of the will cannot make a man to beleeue that which being demanded why hee beleeueth he giueth reasons and alledgeth inducements but so it is that in matters of our Christian faith we alledge sundry reasons mouing vs to beleeue as Christians doe as appeareth by the course of all Diuines who lay downe eight principall reasons moouing men to beleeue the Gospell namely the light of propheticall prediction the harmony and agreement of the Scriptures the diligence of them that receiued them carefully seeking to discerne betweene truth and errour the authority grauitie of the writers the reasonablenesse of the things written the vnreasonablenes of all contrary errours the stability of the Church and the miracles that haue beene done for the confirmation of the faith it professeth Fiftly if there be two whereof one beleeueth precisely because he will and another onely because hee will not beleeue refuseth to beleeue the same thing the acte of neither of these is more reasonable then the other being like vnto the will of a Tyrant that is not guided at all by reason but makes his owne liking the rule of his actions Now who is so impious to say The Christians that beleeue the Gospell haue no more reason to leade them so to doe then the Infidels that refuse to beleeue With Picus in the confutation of this senselesse conceipt wee may joyne Cardinall Cameracensis who farther sheweth that as a man cannot perswade himselfe of a thing meerely because hee will without any reason at all so hauing reason hee cannot perswade himselfe more strongly and assuredly of it then the reason hee hath will afforde for if hee doe it is so farre an vnreasonable acte like that of a Tyrant before mentioned Durandus likewise is of the same opinion Assentiri nullus potest nisi ei quod apparet verum igitur oportâ—…t quèd illud quòd creditur appareat rationi verum vel in se vel ratione mâ—…dij per quod assentitur si non in se sed tantùm ratione medij illud medium apparebit verum vel in se vel per aliud medium si non est processus in infinitum oportet quòd deueniatur ad primum quod apparet rationi esse verum in se secundum se That is No man can yeeld assent to any thing but that which appeareth to him to be true therefore whatsoeuer a man beleeueth must seeme and appeare vnto him to bee
Liberius Bishoppe of Rome did not consent to this Councell it will easily be answered that though at the very first he did not consent to the Hereticall practises of the Arrians yet in the end he did after he had beene in banishment for a time As likewise Vigilius refused to subscribe to the Fifth Generall Councell till he was banished for his refusal The only thing that can be said is that they proceeded not orderly in this Councell but violently and fraudulently But this absolutely ouerthroweth the infallibility of Councels and their Decrees For if Councels may erre when they proceede disorderly and vse not that diligence for the finding out of the Truth which they should what certainty can there be in their Decrees Seeing it may be doubted whether they proceeded orderly and consequently whether they erred or not Leo confesseth that in the Second Councell of Ephesus there were a great number of worthy Bishops who might haue been sufficient to haue found out and cleared the Truth if he that obtained the chiefe place had vsed accustomed moderation and suffered euery one to speake his minde freely and not forced all to serue his vile designes If it bee saide that howsoeuer this was a Generall Councel and lawfully called yet the resolution was not the resolution of a Generall Councell because it was not consented vnto but mainely resisted by the Legates of the Bishop of Rome we shall finde that in the councels vnder Michael the Emperour the Legates of the Bishoppe of Rome consented also to an ill and vnlawfull conclusion there made If it be further alleadged that howsoeuer the Legats of the Bishop of Rome may erre as well as other Bishops in the councell when they presume to define without instructions or to goe against their instructions yet the Pope himselfe cannot giue consent to any thing that is not true and right it will bee proued that Popes also may be so mis-led by sinister affections as not onely to consent to that they should not but also to miscarry all in Councell as well as others For Sigebert reporteth that Stephen Bishoppe of Rome and after him Sergius called Councels and proceeded in them in furious manner against Formosus their Predecessour not only pulling his dead body out of the graue and despightfully re-ordaining such as hee ordained but judicially pronouncing and defining that his ordinations were voide which was an errour in Faith seeing hee was knowne once to haue beene a true and lawfull Bishop though in respect of perjury or violent intrusion he had beene judged neuer to haue beene lawfull Bishop of Rome But heere I cannot passe by the contradiction of Cardinall Bellarmine strangely forgetting himselfe and saying hee knoweth not what For first hee saith it is certain and a matter of Faith that a Generall councell confirmed by the Pope cannot erre Secondly he saith the infallibility of Councels is wholly in the Pope and not partly in the Pope partly in the Bishops And thirdly he saith he dareth not to affirme it to be a matter of Faith that the Pope is free from danger of erring though hee haue a particular Councell concurring with him So strangely doth the good man crosse himselfe and ouer-throw that in one place which hee built in another For how can it bee certaine and a matter of Faith that the Generall Councell approued by the Pope cannot erre if it haue no certainty of not erring but from the Pope and it bee not certaine that the Pope cannot erre That Councels though lawfull to which nothing wanted but the Popes consent haue erred hee saith it is most certaine and vndoubted So that Generall Councels are not in them-selues free from errour but their infallibility resteth in the Pope Now that it is not certaine that the Pope is free from danger of erring hee proueth first because they are still tollerated by the Church not condemned as Heretikes that thinke the pope subiect to errour euen in judiciall sentence and decree Secondly out of Eusebius who saith that Cornelius the pope with a National councel of all the Bishops of Italy decreed that Heretikes ought not to be rebaptized and Stephen afterwards approued the same sentence and commaunded that Heretikes should not bee rebaptized and yet Cyprian thought the contrary and earnestly maintained it charging Stephen with errour and obstinacy which he would not haue done if he had thought the pope free from danger of erring Neither would the Church haue honoured him as a Catholicke Bishop and blessed Martyr that thus confidently contradicted the Pope and resisted his decrees and mandates if it were certaine and a matter of Faith and all men vnder paine of Heresie bound to beleeue that the Pope cannot erre Wherefore to conclude this point how can wee be sure with the certainty of Faith that Generall Councels cannot erre if their infallibility depēd on the Popes who may be most prodigiously impious and worse then infidells not onely erring in some particular points concerning the Faith but ouerthrowing all as he did that Picus Mirandula speaketh of who peremptorily denied that there is any God and confirmed the same his execrable impiety by the manner of his entering into the Popedome and liuing in it And that other he speaketh of who denied the immortality of the soule though after his death appearing to one of them to whom in his life time he had vttered that his impious conceit he told him he now found to his endlesse woe and misery that soule he thought mortall to be immortall neuer to dye Yet when there is a lawfull Generall Councell according to the former description to wit wherein all the Patriarches are present either in person or by their deputies and the Synode of Bishoppes vnder them signifie their opinion either by such as they send or by their Prouinciall letters if there appeare nothing to vs in it that may argue an vnlawfull proceeding nor there be no gaine-saying of men of worth place and esteeme wee are so strongly to presume that it is true and right that with vnanimous consent is agreed on in such a Councell that wee must not so much as professe publikely that wee thinke otherwise vnlesse wee doe most certainely know the contrary yet may wee in the secret of our hearts remaine in some doubt carefully seeking by the Scripture and Monuments of antiquity to finde out the Trueth Neither is it necessary for vs expressely to beleeue whatsoeuer the Councell hath concluded though it be true vnlesse by some other meanes it appeare vnto vs to be true and wee be convinced of it in some other sort then by the bare determination of the Councell onely But it sufficeth that we beleeue it implicitè and in praeparatione animi that out of the due respect wee beare to the Councels Decree we dare not resolue otherwise and bee ready expresly to beleeue it if it shall be made to appeare vnto vs.
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
knowledge of the tongues may be and is most necessary After all these exceptions taken against the helpes and rules proposed by me for the finding out of the true meaning of Scripture the Treatiser setteth on mee a fresh in fiercer manner then before and requireth me to bring some diuine testimony proofe or argument or some particular reason of the necessity and sufficiency of these helpes and rules Whereunto I briefly answer that if any Papist vnder Heauen can take any exception against any of these helpes and rules proposed by mee or deuise any other I will iustifie the necessity and sufficiencie of them but otherwise I thinke it altogether needlesse to proue that the Sunne shineth at noone 〈◊〉 to shew by reason or authority that spirituall things cannot bee discerned but by spirituall men The Treatiser therefore returneth and taketh new exceptions against the helpes and rules proposed by mee first affirming but most vntruely that the greater part of my brethren will not allow them and secondly labouring to improue them by reason For first that an illumination of the minde is not necessarie for the vnderstanding of the Scripture hee goeth about to shew because if such illumination bee necessarie no man can be assured of the truth of another mans interpretation seeing no man can tell whether hee haue an illumination of the vnderstanding and a minde disposed in such sort as is required or not Whereunto I answer that it is true that no man can assure himselfe that another mans interpretation is true good out of any knowledge of such personall things in the interpreter yet may hee know it to bee true out of the nature of the thing it selfe and thence inferre that either hee that so interpreteth or they from whom hee receiued such interpretation had a diuine illumination For even as to discourse of the nature of colours presupposeth that the man that so discourseth hath or had sight if hee speake thereof with any apprehension of that hee speaketh though a blinde man hauing heard the discourses of other may vse like wordes without all sense and apprehension of that hee speaketh So no man can interprete the Scriptures and discourse of the thinges therein contayned with sence and feeling but such a one whose minde is enlightned though prophane persons and such as bee voyde of all diuine illumination may as from others interprete the Scripture and discourse of such diuine thinges as are therein And as a man may assure himselfe that another mans discourse of colours is good out of the nature of the thing it selfe though hee know not whether hee haue or euer had such sence of seeing as is requisite in him that will speake of colours with any apprehension so a man may know that another mans interpretation is true though hee know not whether he haue such an illumination of mind as is necessary for the vnderstanding of the things contayned in the Scripture Secondly hee vndertaketh to shew that no man can eyther assure himselfe that he hath the true meaning of Scripture or conuince the gaine-sayers by following the direction of the former rules because as hee supposeth a man cannot certainely know that hee hath an illumination of minde that hee hath obserued those rules that hee is disposed as hee should bee and furnished with learning in such sort as is requisite Whereunto first I answere briefly that it is as possible for a man to know whether he haue an illumination of the mind or not as it is whether he haue the light of naturall reason Secondly that the obseruation of the rules formerly mentioned and the disposition of a mans mind resolued to embrace the trueth may as easily be knowen as any other motions purposes and resolutions Neither is it more hard for a man that is spirituall to know whether hee bee sufficiently furnished with learning requisite for the vnderstanding of the Scripture then for a naturall man to knowe whether hee haue learning enough to vnderstand Aristotle or any other prophane authour Thirdly in confutation of the former rules hee alledgeth that they may not be admitted as necessary because if they bee all such as haue no illumination of minde nor willing disposition to embrace the truth when it shal be manifested to thē must be excluded out of the number of faithfull ones Which if he thinke to be an absurdity it is no great matter what he saith but he addeth that they that are vnlearned haue not the knowledge of all those arts and sciences that are necessary for the vnderstanding of sundry parts of Scripture nor of those originall tongues wherein they were written without the knowledge whereof they cannot be vnderstood whereas yet they are to build their fayth vpon the Scripture rightly vnderstood whence it will follow that all such must be excluded out of the number of the faythfull This indeed is such a consequence as must not be admitted neither is there any such thing consequent vpon that which we say For though all men haue not that knowledge of arts sciences and tongues that is necessary for the exact vnderstanding of all parts passages of Scripture yet may they vnderstand so much of the same as is necessary to saluation without the knowledge of arts sciences the things that are so precisely necessary being deliuered in very plaine easie and familiar termes Neither is it necessary that if a man will build his faith vpon the Scripture that he must vnderstand euery part of it Onely one scruple remayneth which is that an ignorant man can haue no certaine ground of his faith if he build the same vpon the Scripture because lacking the knowledge of tongues he cannot know whether it be truely translated or not but this scruple may easily be remoued seeing an ignorant man out of the Scripture it selfe duely proposed explayned and interpreted vnto him may know it to be diuine heauenly inspired of God and consequently that in what tongue soeuer it was written it is truely translated touching the substance howsoeuer happily there may be some accidentall aberrations whereof he cannot judge After these exceptions taken against the helpes rules proposed by me as necessary for the finding out of the sence and meaning of the Scripture the Treatiser obseruing no order in his writings addresseth himselfe to proue that we haue no certaine meanes whereby to know that the Scriptures are of God or which they bee and then returneth againe to proue that we haue no certaine rule whereby to be assured we haue the sence of them But all that hee sayth to this purpose may easily bee answered For first the truth of Christian doctrine is diuinely proued vnto vs by the satisfaction wee finde in the same touching things wherein naturall reason left vs vnresolued and the effects wee finde to follow vppon the receiuing of it Secondly that Christian doctrine is reuealed it is euident because staying within the confines of the light of naturall
reason wee can discerne no such thinges as in this heauenly doctrine are manifested to vs. Thirdly the reuelation that is now being mediate and depending on a former it must of necessity be graunted that there was a first and immediate reuelation of the things that are beleeued Fourthly that that immediate reuelation was without mixture of error there being no imperfection found in any of Gods immediate workings Fifthly that whatsoeuer bookes they wrote to whom that immediate reuelation of heauenly truth was graunted are diuine without mixture of error and Canonicall Sixtly that all such books as are recommended to vs by the consenting testimony of all Christians not noted for singularity nouelty or heresie as written by those who first learned the doctrine of heauenly truth from God himselfe must be acknowledged to haue bin written by them Which perswasion is confirmed in that when wee reade and meditate vpon the bookes soe commended to vs wee finde a maiesty vertue and power appearing in them more then in all humane compositions captiuating vs to the the obedience of faith and making vs to receiue them as vndoubtedly diuine These are the grounds which wee build vpon Wherefore let the Reader judge whether the Treatiser had any cause to write as hee doth that hee cannot sufficiently maruel that I or any man of iudgement or learning should runne these courses and impugne their doctrine concerning these points as absurd which indeede is most prudent and diuine and yet fall into most grosse absurdities and inconueniences How prudent and diuine their doctrine is touching the ground of their faith I haue shewed before making it most cleare that if they did shew no more prudence in any thing else their part would soone bee ouerthrowne But touching the absurdities into which hee supposeth wee runne they will bee found to bee none at all For as I haue shewed at large wee ground our faith in generall vppon the euidence of heauenly trueth and the authority of Almighty God whom wee discerne to speake in the holy Scriptures and yet in such sort listen to the Church as a Mistresse of heauenly truth in all particular points that wee do not broach any new and strange doctrine vnheard of in the Church nor impugne any thing that was alwaies constantly deliuered and receiued in the same Soe that it is vntrue that the Treatiser sayth that I reiect all generall authority and leaue euery man to follow his owne priuate conceipt hee returneth therefore to proue that supposing wee know the letter of Scripture yet haue wee no certaine rule to finde out the sence of it and mustereth some obiections to this purpose which I haue sufficiently answered already in the defence of the rules proposed by mee and impugned by him Neyther is it soe strange as hee would make it that we confesse euery one though neuer so much enlightned to bee subiect to errour and yet each of vs assureth himselfe hee doth not erre from the Christian verity one hauing no more assurance of not erring then another For is it not soe that in respect of things that may bee knowne by the light of naturall reason each one confesseth himselfe to be subiect to error and yet euery one assureth himselfe he doth not erre in sundry particular things Wherefore hee leaueth this point and proceedeth to another where he bewrayeth the weaknesse of his braine labouring seriously to proue that he who buildeth his faith vppon the English Parliament cannot firmely and vndoubtedly beleeue nor haue any true fath because I say wee can neuer be so well perswaded of any man or multitude of men but that we may iustly feare they are deceiued or will deceiue Truly it had beene well that hee had applyed himselfe to some other thing rather then booke-making vnlesse hee had any greater facility and felicity in it then he hath for who was euer so senselesse as to build his Faith vpon the English Parliament or why doth the Treatiser thus fight with his owne shadow But haply he will be better towards the end §. 6. IN the last place speaking of the supposed divisions and dissentions amongst Protestants he sayth some amongst vs are so bolde as to deny that there is any great or materiall dissention in our Churches that I amongst others write that it so fell out by the happy providence of God when there was a reformation made that there was no materiall or essentiall difference amongst them that were actors in it but such as vpon equall scanning will bee found rather to consist in the diuers manner of expressing one thing to be but verball vpon mistaking through the hasty and inconsiderate humours of some men then any thing else And that further I adde that I dare confidently pronounce that after due and full examination of each others meaning there shall be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament the vbiquitary presence or the like betweene the Churches reformed by Luthers ministery in Germany and other places and those whom some mens malice called Sacramentaries that none of the differences betweene Melancthon and Illyricus except about certaine ceremonies were reall that Hosiander held no priuate opinion touching iustification howsoeuer his strange manner of speaking gaue occasion to many so to thinke and conceiue and that this shall be iustified against the proudest Papist of them all this my assertion he saith all the world knoweth to be vntrue and endeavoureth to proue it to be so First by mine owne sayings else-where and then by some other proofes By mine owne sayings in that I complaine of vnhappie divisions in the Christian world and of infinite distractions of mens mindes not knowing in so great varietie of opinions what to thinke or to whom to ioyne themselues that the controversies of Religion in our time are growne in number so many in nature so intricate that few haue time leasure fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them But this proofe will be found too weake For there are many very materiall divisions in the Christian world infinitely distracting the mindes of men as those of the Greekes Latines those of the Romish Faction such as embrace the reformed Religion and the controversies that are betweene these are in number many and in nature intricate in respect whereof my complaint might bee most iust though neuer any one Protestant had opened his mouth against an other And besides supposing my complaint of diuisions in the Christian World to reach to the breaches that are haue beene amongst the Professours of the Reformed Religion nothing can bee inferred from thence contrary to any thing that I haue written touching the agreeing of these men in iudgement opinion For there may bee great breaches betweene such men as are of one iudgement opinion vpon mistaking one another therefore Gregory Nazianzene in his Oration made in the praise of Athanasius sheweth that the whole world in a