euident that hel gates doe preuaile against the Church if either she decay or teach false doctrine who then can say that either the hath perished or erred except he wil accuse Christ of falshood in not performing his promise and make him a liar Verily * Chrisost hom 4. de verbis Isaiae vidi Dominum Epiph. in Ancorato S. Iohn Chrisostome affirmeth that heauen and earth shal faile before those wordes of Christ thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I wil build my Church S. Epiphanius also alluding to this promise telleth vs that our Lord appointed Peter the first or cheefest Apostle a firme rocke vpon which the Church of God was built and the gates of hel saith he shal not preuaile against it for the gates of hel are Heretikes and Arch-heretikes c. the like sentences I could alleage out of the rest of the ancient Fathers And vnto this testimonie of our Sauiour I could likewise adde that he hath warranted the faith of S. Peter and in him the faith of his successor the Bishop of Rome who is ministerial head of Christes Church on earth Luc. 22. vers 31. that it shal not faile and consequently that the body ruled by the head shal enjoy the same prerogatiue but of this hereafter Moreouer our Sauiour made his Church the supreame judge on earth of al controuersies touching matters of religion for it is manifest that from her judgement he graunteth no appeale and that he vvil haue her definitiue sentence so firme and inuiolable among Christians that he vvil not haue him accounted one of that number who shal preuaricate or despise the same This is signified vnto vs in these his wordes Math. 18. vers 17. If he wil not heare the Church let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publican In which sentence he biddeth vs esteeme no more of our brother or neighbour that contemneth or disobeieth the censure of the Church then of a Heathen and Publican of which I gather that the Church in her censure cannot erre For if this might be then vve being bound to condemne whome she condemneth or to condemne him that vvil not listen and obey her counsaile and precepts might together with the Church condemne a man without just cause and that according to Christes commandement It appeareth likewise out of the said vvordes of our Sauiour that he vvil haue the sentence of the Church obeied wherefore he ought in reason to prouide that the said sentence be not erroneous But for the truth of these wordes of our Lord and also for the constant verity of the censure of the Church it maketh first that diuers falshoodes which before her said censure might in times past haue bin beleeued and defended yea were defended beleeued by the members of the true Church without incurring the crime of heresie afterwardes could not be so beleeued and defended as I could exemplifie in the Milinary heresie the opinion of such as held the baptisme of Heretikes to be of no force of others that denied the authority of some Canonical bookes and such like Secondly it maketh also for these her prerogatiues that al such as haue obstinately maintained any opinions condemned by the Church for heresies and consequently haue disobeied her authority decrees and beene by her adjudged Heretikes haue euer by al antiquity beene so accounted August in Enchirid. ad Laurēt cap. 5. Tertul. de pudicitia item li. de praescript Math. 5. v. 13.15 Luc. 10. vers 16. and therefore haue not beene numbred by the ancient Fathers among Christians whose opinions notvvithstanding if vve reject her infallible judgement by vvhich they were condemned and make it subject to errour may be reuiued and called againe in question either as wrongfully and injustly censured or at the least as condemned by a judge whose judgement is subject to errour and falshood The priuileges and prerogatiues graunted by our Sauiour to his Apostles and Disciples confirme the same for they are by him called the salt of the earth and the light of the world and being sent to preach they receaued from him this commission and approbation of their doctrine He that heareth you heareth me and he that dispiseth you dispiseth me Which wordes argue an infallible truth although not in the doctrine of euery particuler Bishop and Prelate of the Church yet in them altogether when they represent the whole Church in a Councel or in the whole number of them although diuided seperated in place For in these like as in Christes Apostles and Disciples as I haue aboue declared the wordes alleaged must be verified which cannot be done if they al in euery sense may erre For how can they then truly be tearmed the salt of the earth and the light of the world and how can it be true that he that heareth them heareth Christ But if we had no other testimony of holy Scripture for this matter fiue or six wordes of the Apostle vsed by him to Timothie in his first epistle 1. Tim. 3. v. 15. c. vvere sufficient to conuince our vnderstanding and make vs yeeld to this truth For in his said Epistle he tearmeth the Church the piller and ground of truth These thinges I write to thee saith he hoping that I shal come to thee quickly but if I tarie long that thou maist knowe howe thou oughtest to conuerse in the house of God which is the Church of the liuing God the piller and ground of truth What could he haue said more euident for the infallible authority of the Church the Church saith he is the piller and ground of truth that is to say the very foundation and establishment of al verity vpon vvhich as vpon a sure foundation and an inuiolable piller a man may securely build the edifice of his faith and religion vvho then vvil say that the Church is subject to errour These considerations moued S. Augustine Aug. lib. 1. cont Cresconium disputing against Cresconius concerning the baptisme of Heretikes to vse this discourse these are his vvordes Although of this that the baptisme of Heretikes is true baptisme there be no certaine example brought forth out of the canonical Scriptures yet also in this we keepe the truth of the said Scriptures when as we doe that which now hath pleased the whole Church which the authority of the Scriptures themselues doth commend That because the Scripture cannot deceaue whosoeuer doth feare least that he be deceaued through the obscurity of this question may aske counsaile touching it of the Church whome without any doubt the Scripture it selfe doth shewe Hitherto S. Augustine Out of which discourse of his we may gather this notable rule that in al thinges doubtful and in al obscure questions concerning faith and religion we ought to enquire and search forth the doctrine and beleefe of the Catholike Church and imbrace the same seeking no further warrant of security because the Scriptures demonstrate her and manifestly declare that
in them so long as he seeth not apparantly his errour condemned by Scripture or plainely proued false by euident deduction out of those articles which are expresly to be knowne and beleeued But the truth of this mine assertion is gathered out of that which hath beene already proued For if the Church be the ground and piller of truth and cannot erre in faith it is manifest that al her beleefe may safely without danger of errour be receiued And moreouer because God hath reuealed such articles to the Church for no other end then that her children by the beleefe of them may attaine to euerlasting blisse it is also euident that euery one is bound to beleeue whatsoeuer she teacheth I adde also that whosoeuer beleeueth not al hath no faith and that he who thinketh it to be sufficient to saluation to beleeue certaine principal articles of Christian religion although the rest be denied must needes accuse the Church of errour and so according to his owne opinion cleane ouerthrowe her The first is easily proued because he that beleeueth not God and his Church in one point certainely beleeueth them in none For howe is it possible that he can reject them in any if he beleeue their authority to be infallible Wherefore by rejecting their judgement and sentence concerning one article he plainely declareth that he beleeueth not the rest because they are propounded vnto him by the Church and reuealed by God but because they please his owne fancy and in his owne judgement he thinketh them true and credible of which it followeth that he hath no faith which as I haue aboue declared maketh vs beleeue the misteries of our beleefe because they are reuealed by God And this we may gather out of those wordes of S. Iames the Apostle He that offendeth in one is made guilty of al. Iames 2. vers 10. For if by committing one mortal sinne we be said to be made guilty of al either because by breaking one commandement we shewe our selues not to regard the rest or else because one mortal sinne is as sufficiēt to bereaue vs of the grace of God as a thousand we may likewise wel inferre of this that a man refusing to beleeue one article of faith sheweth himselfe not to esteeme of the rest and by this only is bereaued of true faith that in very deede he beleeueth none and is guilty of infidelity touching al and consequently is no member of the Church of Christ whose members by faith principally are vnited and lincked together Further that whosoeuer thinketh it sufficient to saluation to beleeue certaine principal articles of Christian religion although the rest be denied accuseth the Church of errour thus I declare Galat. 5. vers 21. Tit. 3. vers 10. The Apostle teacheth vs that they that followe and embrace sectes or heresies shal not possesse the Kingdome of heauen Wherefore either the Church erreth both in defining such articles as some thinke not necessary to be beleeued to belong to the object of faith and also in condemning for heresies such opinions as they thinke may safely be defended or else such as despise her censure and embrace the said opinions are in state of damnation the first as I haue already proued ouerthroweth the Church the second is that which I intend to proue But let vs declare the truth of my first assertion out of the holy Scripture And first it cannot be denied but our Sauiour absolutely and that vnder paine of being censured as Etnickes and Publicans and consequently vnder paine of damnation commandeth vs to heare and obey the Church Math. 18. vers 17. if he wil not heare the Church saith he let him bee to thee as the Heathen and Publican And note that he biddeth vs not beleeue her onelie in principall matters but in all making no limitation or distinction In like sort in general tearmes he telleth vs that he that heareth his Apostles disciples which must be likewise verified in their successors heareth him and he that despiseth them despiseth him Finally he commanded his disciples to preach his Gospel and added that he that beleeueth it not shal be condemned which wordes cannot be vnderstood only of the principal articles of Catholike religion for his Gospel included the whole summe of Christian faith as I haue proued aboue Hence diuers in the first ages of the Church haue beene condemned and accursed as Heretikes for few errours in faith yea some time for one only and that in no principal point of beleef as I could exemplifie in the quarto decimani Epiphan haeres 50. who were so censured for keeping Easter day on the fourteenth day of the moone and others yea I may wel say that almost al Heretikes that euer haue risen haue beleeued certaine principal articles of Christian religion wherefore whosoeuer thinketh it sufficient to beleeue such articles openeth heauen almost to al Heretikes Moreouer howe shal we know which are these principal articles certainely euery man wil affirme if this liberty be giuen that the articles by him denied pertaine not to that number Lastly this errour is condemned by al the ancient Fathers S. Athanasius in his Creed receiued by the whole Church affirmeth that whosoeuer keepeth not entirely wholy without any corruption the Catholike faith without al doubt shal perish euerlastingly Theodor. li. 4. c. 17. Hooker booke 5. of ecclesiastical policy §. 42. pag. 88. Greg. Nazian tract de fide Aug. lib. de haeres in fine S. Basil being requested by the Prefect of Valens an Arrian Emperour to yeeld a litle to the time answered that they which are instructed in diuine doctrine doe not suffer one sillable of the diuine decrees to be corrupted or depraued but for the defence of it if it be needful and required embrace likewise of death Hooker also a Protestant telleth vs that the same S. Basil for changing some one or two sillables in the verse Glory be to the Father and to the Sonne and to the holy Ghost was forced to write apologies and whole volumes in his owne defence S. Gregory Nazianzene hath this notable sentence Nothing can be more dangerous then these Heretikes who when they run soundly through al yet with one word as with a droppe of poison corrupt or staine that true and sincere faith of our Lord and of Apostolike tradition S. Augustine likewise hauing reckoned vp eightie distinct Heresies addeth that there may chance to lurke many other petty heresies vnknowne to him of which heresies saith he whosoeuer shal hold any one shal not be a Catholike Christian. Finally * Hier. li. 3. Apolog. contr Ruf. S. Hierome witnesseth that for one word or two contrary to the Catholike faith many heresies haue beene cast out of the Church This is the opinion of the ancient Fathers Wherefore seing that one only heresie be it neuer so smal bereaueth vs of faith and seperateth vs from the body of Christ his Church which is quickned with
vpon this ground in the next chapter Chap. 2. he entereth into a railing and scoffing discourse against the Pope But in verie deed I cannot doe otherwise then meruaile that a man of his place and learning doth not blush to committe such a notorious vntruth to the print and view of the world For not to speake of the falshood of the first part of his assertion because it is in some sort impertinent that which he saith of the Councel of Chalcedon is most vntrue repugnant to al antiquity and not only contrarie to al proceedinges and the historie of the said Councel but also to the wordes of the Canon by him alleaged For in it is decreed onlie that the cittie of new Rome or Constantinople shal haue majestie like as old Rome in Ecclesiastical affaires et secundam post illam existere that is shal be the second or next after it and enjoy certaine priuiledges for the ordination of some Metrapolitans these are the contents of the Canon And what more touching this matter did the Bishops assembled in that Councel in their Sinodical epistle desire S. Leo the great then bishoppe of Rome to confirme then this Concilium Chalcedō sessio 12. alias actione 16. An. Christi 451. Concilium Nice sessio vltim Cōci Chal. actione 1. Actione 3. We haue confirmed say they the rule of the seauenscore and ten holy Fathers which were gathered together at Constantinople vnder Theodosius of happie memorie which commanded that the See of Constantinople which is ordained the second haue second honour after your most holie and Apostolike See trusting that the Apostolical sunne-beame shining with you c. But how can it be the second and next after and also the equal with it as Field affirmeth Besides this in the Councel it selfe those words of the Canon of the Councel of Nice that the Church of Rome euer had the primacie were allowed and the Legates of Pope Leo vvithout reprehension or exception taken said We haue here at hand the commandements of the most blessed and Apostolike man the Pope of the cittie of Rome which is head of al Churches by which his Apostleship hath vouchsafed to commaund c. Againe one of them first subscribed as he said in the place of the most blessed and Apostolike vniuersal Pope of the citty of Rome c. And in the epistle al the Fathers write vnto him thus We craue therefore that you wil honour our decrees with your judgement and like as we desirous haue consented in those things which are good sic et summitas tua so thy chiefedome or preheminence aboue al wil as it is meete accomplish them to his children hitherto are their wordes And vvhat could be said more apparant for the Popes supreamacie Doe not they acknowledge him to be their chiefe and themselues his sonnes and children Gregor li 4. epi. 32. 36. 38. li. 7. epi. 30. See before in the first section of this chapter I could adde to this the authoritie of S. Gregorie the great who liued not long after this Councel who against the ambition of Iohn bishoppe of Constantinople in diuers letters confidentlie affirmeth that the title of vniuersal Bishop by this Councel was offered to Pope Leo. But Field wil vrge that it is gathered out of some Greeke copies of this Councel that by this Canon the Bishop of Constantinople was so made second after the Bishoppe of Rome that equal priuiledges were giuen him I answere that these priuiledges vvere only concerning jurisdiction to order certaine Metrapolitans of the east Church as the Bishoppe of Rome had the like in the west But now suppose I should graunt M. Field that in this Canon the Bishop of Constantinople vvas made in euerie respect equal to the Pope what would he get by this In truth nothing For of what authority is this Canon Surely of none for it vvas cunninglie made by the Grecian bishops after the Councel was risen and the Legates of Pope Leo departed vvho also when it came to their knowledge the next day resisted them in the next Session yea this was neuer confirmed by the Pope without whose confirmation the decrees of general Councels haue neuer had force but vvas by Pope Leo forthwith ouerthrowne and annulled Leo epist 55. 53. 54. 61. We cancel or make voide saith he speaking of that Canon and others then enacted the consent of Bishops repugnant to the Nicene Canons and by the authority of blessed S. Peter the Apostle by a general definition we make them altogether of no force And this his decree was so highly esteemed in the East it selfe Marcian l. 12. c. de sacrosācta Ecclesia that it was confirmed presentlie by an Imperial constitution euen by the Emperour of Constantinople and Anatolius the Patriarcke through vvhose ambition and instigation the said Canon vvas made was constrained to ceasse from such proceedinges to relinquish that dignity vvhich ambitioussie he couered and to take place euen after the other Patriarkes for neither was the constitution of the Councel of Constantinople which preferred him before those of Alexandria and Antioch authentical Iustin nouel 131. cap. 2. Field book 3. cap. 1. Yea Iustinian the Emperor after this euen when Rome vvas most in disgrace and Constantinople flourished long before the daies of Phocas from whome Field would deriue the beginning of the Popes superiority confirmed the primacy to the Bishop of Rome and thus we may see vpon how vveake grounds Field doth venture to passe the bounds of modesty Concerning the point it selfe of the Popes infallible judgment he accuseth vs of contrary doctrine to wit that we al hold at this day Field book 3. cap. 45. the infallibility of the Popes judgment to be the rock on which the Church is builded and therefore build our faith vpon the same whereas the same men sath he that hold this say also it is no matter of faith to acknowledge or not acknowledge the infallibity of the Popes judgment I answere that the infallibility of the Popes judgment without the assent of a general Councel is not the most sure receiued rock on which the Church was built for this is the Popes judgment confirming the decrees of a general Councel or as I may say the definition of a general Councel in which the head confirmeth the verdict of the body and both together infallibly define a truth And in this sense no Catholike nowe affirmeth that it is no matter of faith to acknowledge or not acknowledge the infallibility of the Popes judgment for it is held absolutely to be a matter of faith and consequently our doctrine touching these points is not contrary True it is Bell. li. 4. de Roman pontif ca. 2. in fine Stapleton in Relect. scholast princi controuers 3 quest 4. that some Catholike doctors as Bellarmine and Stapleton thinke not that opinion properly heretical which holdeth that the Pope as Pope may be an Heretike and teach heresie if he
that pronouncing nowe this nowe that of the same thing he was neuer constant to himselfe but thought that such leuity and inconstancy might be vsed in the word of God as shamelesse jesters commonly vse playing at dice. Againe Luther saith he doth not only bring his former doctrine in suspition but also giueth the Papists a most fit occasion to condemne him by sending in this present controuersie his reader only to those bookes which he wrote within foure or fiue yeares before For who hauing heard or read these things wil not say that if so be that we expect other fiue yeares without al doubt they being past he wil cal into doubt those bookes which he wrote in these last fiue yeares Thus farre Zwinglius of Luthers inconstancy Erasmus also Whitaker in his answer to Campians reason 8. p. 208. a man denied by Whitakers to be a writer of our side and by the martir-maker Fox canonized for a Saint of the newe religion of Luther his disciples writeth after this sort * Erasmus lib 3. de libero arbitrio What should I recount here the dissention that is among these Gospellers their bloudy hatred their bitter contentions nay their singular inconstancy Luther himselfe hauing changed his opinion so often and yet newe paradoxes springing vp from him daily Hitherto Erasmus Finally Field although he extol Luther for a worthy diuine as euer the world had any in those times wherein he liued Field booke 3 c. 24. p. 170. or in many ages before yet confesseth that by degrees he sawe and discried those Popish errours I vse his wordes which at first he discerned not But to excuse the matter he first auoucheth that in sundry points of greatest moment as of the power of nature of free-wil grace justification the difference of the law and the Gospel faith and workes Christian liberty and the like he was euer constant Which assertion of his howe false it is that which I haue before said touching free-wil doth demonstrate An other of his excuses is that it is not so strange a thing as his aduersaries would make it seeme to be that herein Luther proceeded by degrees and in his later writings disliked that which in his former he did approue And his reason is because S. Augustine wrote a whole booke of retractations S. Ambrose complained that he was forced to teach before he had learned and so to deliuer many thinges that should neede a second reuiewe And S. Thomas of Aquine in his summe corrected and altered many things which he had written before Against this I first reply that it excuseth not Luthers building of his new beliefe vpon his owne judgement nay it proueth manifestly that he came not to it by the infallible direction of any external guide but by the discourse and search of his owne wit and moreouer Caluin Instit booke 4. ch 3. The Apology of the church of England part 4. p. 123 124. c. that he vvas not extraordinarily by internal inspirations instructed and sent by the spirit of God as diuers of these men seeme plainely to affirme for the workes of God are perfect and they whome he immediately sendeth directeth in faith erre not in any point of that argument but that his inconstant reason was the principal ground on which he built his said faith and religion Secondly I adde that the examples brought by Field in excuse of Luther make nothing for his purpose For what if S. Augustine vvriting vvhen he was yet a nouice in Christian religion and not fully instructed erred in some points which errours hauing receiued better instructions he reclaimed What if the like happened to S. Ambrose being miraculously chosen to be a Bishop and a teacher before he was a Christian What if S. Augustine before some articles of Christian religion were so throughly discussed and defined in the Church as afterward vpon the rising of new heresies spoke not so aptly and properly as was needful in succeeding times and therefore retracted what he had vttered What if he and S. Thomas of Aquin in diuers matters disputable and not determined by the Church altered and corrected their former opinions So hath Cardinal Baronius nowe done who hath runne ouer the first ten tomes of his Ecclesiastical history and made as it were a booke of retractations recalling such thinges as he judged amisse What I say if also these thinges be so as without doubt they were no otherwise shal it therefore be lawful for Luther or any other person to leape vp and downe hither and thither and to chop and change his faith according as his fancy leadeth him in any articles of Christian religion verily I thinke to no man of judgement such a fault vvil seeme excusable But was Zwinglius who as we haue seene so peremptorily reprehendeth Luther for his inconstancy him selfe free from this crime Truly he vvas not and because breuity suffereth me not to runne through his works and to shewe the change and alteration of his opinion concerning al particuler points in vvhich he shewed himselfe inconstant I wil only conuince him of inconstancy touching one or two and that by his owne confession It cannot be denied but before his fal from vs he held the Catholike doctrine concerning the baptisme of infants otherwise vvithout al doubt his nouelty vvould haue beene noted and censured His first alteration therefore concerning this matter was from vs to Anabaptisme his second from Anabaptisme in some sort to our beliefe againe That he was once an Anabaptist thus he confesseth Wherefore I my selfe also confesse frankely saith he that a fewe yeares since I being deceiued with this error thought it better to deferre the baptisme of young children vntil they come to perfest age thus Zwinglius That he partly recanted afterwards this heresie he declareth in the same place I say partly because he alwaies denied the necessity of baptisme to saluation That he was likewise inconstant in his beliefe of the Eucharist these his owne wordes testifie Zwingl tom 2. commēt de vera salsa religione cap de Eucharist fol. 202. We haue written two yeares since of the Eucharist where we haue written many thinges rather according to the time then the truth of the matter And soone after If reader thou finde certaine thinges here otherwise then in the former bookes doe not thou wonder we would not giue foode out of season nor set pearls before swine Finally We retract therefore saith he and reuoke those thinges which we haue said there in such sort that those which we set forth in the two and fortith yeare of our age counterpoise those which we set forth in the fortith when as we said we serued more the time then the truth of the matter that we might by that meanes the more edifie thus Zwinglius of himselfe Who then can deny but he also was inconstant and at the least in outward shewe altered his beliefe yea doth he not confesse to
written word whereby we are to be directed in faith And this guide is our holy mother the Catholike Church the sacred spouse of Christ and his mistical body Now therefore to proceed in mine intended discourse because it behoueth euery man as appeareth by that which hath bin already said with al speed to order that his beliefe be right and likewise because this may soone be learned of the Catholike Church hence it proceedeth that no treatises touching controuersies of religion are commonly more necessary then such as declare what congregation or company of Christians are the said one holy Catholike and Apostolike Church proue her diuine authority or shew what particuler groundes are found in her by which euery person is to be guided in his beliefe The reason of this is plaine because whosoeuer recurreth to this Church and these groundes may soone and with great ease be resolued concerning al articles vvhatsoeuer to him seeming doubtful whereas if neglecting these he betake him to the study of particular controuersies as of justification free wil merit of good workes the real presence c. he may spend many daies and nights and be nothing the nearer to a setled and sure resolution Nay some of these and other points are so high and difficult that without recourse to some general groundes and the authority of the Church directing al Christians it is impossible that by other meanes a man should euer assure himselfe that he is in the truth Neither is this the opinion only of Catholikes but also of some learned Protestants And among others M. Field esteemed by some one of the greatest schollars of their company Richard Field in the beginning of his Epistle Dedicatory before his fiue bookes of the Church writeth thus The consideration of the vnhappy diuisions of the Christian world and the infinite distractions of mens mindes not knowing in so great variety of opinions what to thinke or to whome to joine themselues euery faction boasting of the pure and sincere profession of heauenly truth challenging to it selfe alone the name of the Church and fastning vpon al that dissent or are otherwise minded the hateful note of schisme and heresie hath made me euer thinke that there is no part of heauenly knowledge more necessary then that which concerneth the Church For seing that controuersies of religion in our time are growen in number so many and in nature so intricate that few haue time and leasure fewer strength and vnderstanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in thinges of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst al the societies of men in the world is that blessed company of holy ones that house-hold of faith that spouse of Christ and Church of the liuing God which is the pillar and ground of truth that so they may embrace her communion followe her directions and rest in her judgement Hence it commeth that al wise and judicious men doe more esteeme bookes of doctrinal principles then those that are written of any other argument and that there was neuer any treasure holden more rich and pretious by al them that knewe howe to price and value thinges aright thou bookes of prescriptions against Heretikes for that thereby men that are not willing or not able to examine the infinite differences that arise among men concerning the faith haue general directions what to followe and what to auoide Hitherto are M. Fields vvordes And like as this Protestant Doctor yeeldeth this reason among others for the publication of his bookes of the Church so in very truth the same motiue hath partly moued me to publish some of my labours to the viewe of the world We Catholikes haue a long time wished and endeauoured to bring the controuersies of these times to certaine general groundes and doctrinal principles and haue fought by al meanes to drawe our aduersaries to this issue to which M. Fields vvordes seeme to tend I meane to perswade them to acknowledge a judicial infallible authority in the Catholike church which euery Christian may securely followe and is bound to obey and then by most sure notes of the same Church deliuered by God in the holy Scripture which be so pregnant in the old testament it selfe August in psalm 30. Conc. 2. that S. Augustine feareth not to affirme that the Prophets haue spoken more plainely of the Church then of Christ to search forth whether ours or any other congregation of them be the Catholike Church but those of our side could neuer hitherto obtaine so much at their handes And although this man doth so gloriously here extol the judgement of the Church as it seemeth touching al controuersies which may arise in so much as he telleth vs that men desirous of satisfaction may followe her directions and rest in her judgement vvhich they could not safely and securely doe if her direction and judgement could be erroneous yet in his fourth booke following he bereaueth her of almost al such prerogatiues for he saith that general Councels which be the highest courts of the Church Field booke 4 chap. 5. §. thus touching may erre in matters of greatest consequence and freeth the Church her selfe from errour * Ibid. and cha 2. before only in certaine principal articles of Christian religion But of these matters more hereafter Only this nowe sufficeth for my purpose that according to his testimony al wise and juditious men doe more esteeme bookes of doctrinal principles then those that are written of any other argument vvhich if it be true I hope the argument both of this my Treatise following and also of an other which I haue lying by me wil not be vngrateful but pleasing and acceptable to al vvise and juditious persons Moreouer an other writer of the English Church auoucheth that in this our last age Parkes in the Preface to the reader before his Apologie of three testimonies of scripture c. printed anno 1607. Heresie and Infidelity joining their desperate forces together labour mightily to subuert and ouerthrowe al the groundes of Christian religion vvhich if it be likewise truly affirmed a discourse discouering the fountaine of this euil and establishing such groundes as Heretikes and Infidels seeke to impugne cannot be thought vnprofitable Only my rashnesse in vndertaking such great matters and my want of wit and learning shewed in performing them may seeme worthy of blame But pardon me gentle Reader it was as I may say by chance both that I entered into discussing such thinges and also that my writings euer came to light Some fewe yeares since a Catholike gentleman being entred into some communication with a Protestant minister requested me to set him downe some briefe reasons for the Catholike part vpon vvhich he might stand I did so and I comprehended some twelue reasons in some three sheets of paper vvhich al vvere drawne from general groundes and doctrinal principles Not very long after I giuing my selfe alwaies to the
forced to acknowledge that the Church hath authority to prescribe orders for her gouernement vvhich euery one is bound to obey Yea Field Hutton and Gabriel Powel seeme to make the constitutions of the Church equal vvith those of the Apostles For the first of them auoucheth that both thinges which c Field booke 4. chap. 20. § that the Apostles the Apostles themselues deliuered by tradition and also such thinges as were deliuered by their next after-commers are dispensable by the authority of the Church And howe so if the Church hath not Apostolike authority surely his reason assigned is because the Apostles and Apostolike men did not deliuer them as reporting the immediate preceptes of Christ himselfe but by vertue of their Pastoral power and office of vvhich it seemeth plainely to followe that he yeelding the Church authority to dispense in them giueth her equal Apostolike power Hutton in his answ to a treatise of the Crosse in baptisme pag. 3. and 59. see also pag. 9. Hutton affirmeth Ecclesiastical constitutions made by the Church of Christ not to be meerely humane but in part diuine And the reason is saith he because the Church is ruled by the spirit of Christ who is the truth Againe if you make your comparison betweene that which God hath commanded and that which the Church of God hath ordained the difference is not so great as you would haue it Let Gods commandement haue worthily the first place and preheminence in al thinges as is meete but let the ordinances of the Church be immediately subordinate vnto Gods commandement and ranged in a second place not only because the Church of God heareth his voice but also because she is ruled by his spirit and by the great and pretious promises of God is made partaker of the diuine nature which no doubt doth assist them euen in the lawes also and constitutions which are made for order and decency in the Church Hitherto are Huttons vvordes Powels wordes are these Those Adiophora or thinges indifferent Gabriel Powellus in the sibus de Adiaphoris ca. 2. §. 7. 8 which are wel and lawfully instituted and approued by the Church are after such sort humane as they are also diuine and therefore they haue authority more then only humane yea they haue authority altogether diuine The reason is because the Church is gouerned by the spirit of Christ who is truth Againe * Ibid. cap. 3. §. 6. 7 God left it in the power and wil of the Chruch to dispose and ordaine for her owne conseruation profit comlinesse order and discipline al thinges indifferent ceremonies and external rites which manifestly appeareth out of the holy Scriptures themselues to haue beene true of the primatiue Church in the Apostles daies neither can any man denie it to be true of the present Church For seing that it is the same spirit gouerning the Church of al times why may it not likewise be lawful for the Church to institute lawes concerning external rites in times ensuing Thus Powel And out of these assertions of our aduersaries I thinke a prudent man wil wel inferre that our doctrine concerning the infallible judgement of the Church in matters of faith euen according to their proceedinges is very reasonable and consonant to holy Scripture For seing that vnitie and consent in faith is farre more necessary then vnity and consent in ceremonies and positiue ordinances for gouernement vve may truly affirme that Christ vvas more careful for the preseruation of the first then of the second Seing further that the reasons and authorities of holy Scripture by them brought and generally al the promises of our Lord concerning the direction of the Church make as much nay commonly more for the first then for the second for they are principally concerning direction in truth we doe followe reason and the holy Scripture in maintaining the first if they are not to be blamed for their maintenance of the second Seing moreouer that Field and Powel giue the present Church in al ages as great authority as it had the Apostles yet liuing and they vvere then not only ordainers of positiue lawes and orders but also infallible propounders of true doctrine and directors in matters of beleefe we haue no reason according to their ground to denie this prerogatiue to the same Church in al future times Seing finally that the Puritans denie the collection or deduction of either of these prerogatiues out of the Scripture and the Protestants auerre the plaine deduction of one and for this the Puritans condemne the Protestants we may wel imagine that the Puritans may erre in denying both and that the Protestants are to graunt the one as wel as the other and consequently that the Catholike truth should be imbraced by al. SECTION THE FIFT That the testimonies of holy Scripture and other proofes brought for the infallible and diuine authority of the Church cannot be applied to the Church considered as it comprehendeth al faithful Christians that are and haue beene since Christes ascension or since the Apostles daies but vnto the present Church of al ages BEFORE I end this chapter I thinke it not amisse to confute two or three opinions of our aduersaries of which al seeme in some sort to derogate from the truth of those thinges which I haue here auerred and to weaken their principal proofes Booke 4. chap. 1. 2. 3. 5. 13. The one is of M. Field who telleth vs that we may speake of the Church three manner of waies First as it comprehendeth al the faithful that are and haue beene since Christ appeared in flesh including also the Apostles Secondly as it comprehendeth al that are and haue beene since the Apostles time Lastly as it comprehendeth those only that are liuing at one present time in the world In the first signification he freeth it from ignorance and errour concerning matters of faith in the second from errour only and in the third not from errour in al articles of beleefe but in such only as euery man is bound expresly to knowe and beleeue wherefore Chap. 5. he applieth that promise of Christ aboue mentioned that the holy Ghost should teach the Church al truth to the Church in the first and second signification Another assertion is that the present Church may be said at al times to be the piller of truth and not to erre because it retaineth alwaies as Field speaketh a sauing profession of heauenly truth that is Chap. 4. §. the Church Field booke 3. chap. 4. and 3. true doctrine concerning al such principal pointes as are the substance of faith and needful to be knowne beleeued expresly by euery man Hence they assigne some such principal points and articles which they binde euery person to knowe and beleeue vnder peril of eternal damnation and deny asmuch as the virtual beleefe of others to be necessary which I place as a third absurd opinion To confute these assertions and to cleere the truth
sentences in it are prophetical many parabolical many metaphorical which commonlie are ful of obscuritie Thirdly it is proper to Scripture to haue many senses vnder one letter as the literal sense which is that which the holy writer first intended and this sense sometimes is signified by proper words sometimes by wordes metaphorical and improper yea sometimes the literal sense of the same wordes is diuers It hath also a spiritual sense which is that which is signified by the thinges vnder the letter And this sense is either moral which is called also tropological when it tendeth to manners or allegorical when it tendeth to faith or the Church or anagogical when it tendeth to heauen or life euerlasting For example this vvord Hierusalem literally signifieth the Cittie so called morally the soule of man allegorically the Church militant and anagogically the Church triumphant Al these senses the wordes of Scripture beare and diuers of them not seldome were intended by the holy Ghost in the same sentence And what a difficult matter is it to discerne them I adde finally that sundrie misteries deliuered vnto vs in holy writ are high and aboue the reach of our natural reason Wherefore it is no meruaile if the sentences in which they are disclosed be hard and obscure Hence the prophet Dauid desired of God vnderstanding Psal 118. Iohn 5. verse 39. Luke 24. vers 45. that he might search his lawe Our Sauiour also willed the Iewes to search the Scriptures opened his Apostles and disciples vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures c which places plainly conuince the Scriptures to be hard SECTION THE THIRD The Scriptures may be falsly vnderstood and that euery priuate man may erre in the vnderstanding of them IN the second place I must proue that the Scriptures may be falsely vnderstood and that euery priuate man may erre in the translation or interpretation of the same This followeth of that which hath beene already said touching their obscuritie for if the Scripture be so obscure as I haue shewed these things must needs ensue And verily that the wordes of Scripture may receiue false interpretations 2. Pet. 3. verse 16. S. Peter aboue cited plainly auoucheth affirming that the vnlearned and vnstable euen in his daies depraued the epistles of S. Paul and other Scriptures to their owne perdition And it is a thing so manifest that it needeth no proofe for it is euident that al Heretikes heretofore haue alleaged Scriptures falsly expounded to confirme their heresies and this I wil declare more at large hereafter See part 2. cap. 8. sect 8. It is apparant also that in these our daies some in the world either Catholikes Lutherans Zuinglians Anabaptists or Libertines doe not giue the true sense of holy Scripture because it is impossible that more then one of these can haue the truth their expositions in diuers points be so diuers and contrary August tract 18. in Iohan. Aug. tom 3. de Gen. ad litterā li. 7. ca. 9. Vincent Lirin lib. cōtr propha haeres nouitates cap. 2. Barlow in his relatiō of the said conferēce pag. 61. Se part 2. c. 5. sect 1. yea S. Augustine affirmeth that heresies haue no other ofspring or roote then that good Scriptures are badly vnderstood In another place to the same effect he telleth vs that al Heretikes read Catholike Scriptures neither saith he are they for any other cause Heretikes then for that not vnderstanding them truly they defend obstinately their false opinions against the truth of them The same is declared by Vincentius Lirinensis in these wordes Al saith he take not the Scripture in one and the same sense because of the deepnes thereof but the speeches of it some interprete one way and some another way so that there may almost as many senses be picked out of it as there be men For Nouatus doth expounde it one way and Sabellius another way otherwise Donatus otherwise Arrius Eunomius Macedonius otherwise Iouinian Pelagius Celestius lastly otherwise Nestorius Hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis Hence our King in the conference held at Hampton Court betweene the Protestants and Puritans most discreetly affirmed that he would not wish al Canonical bookes to be read in the Church vnlesse there were one to interprete them Moreouer that the judgement of euery priuate man as before is subject vnto errour and falshood in his translation or interpretation of holy Scripture it is graunted by some of our aduersaries and likewise easily proued First because he Scripture it selfe warranteth no priuate mans judgement from errour Nay S. Peter in expresse termes telleth vs 2. Pet. 1. verse 20. Se sect 5. following 1. Ioh. 4. verse 1. That no prophecie of Scripture is made by priuate interpretation that is to say that no Scripture ought to be expounded according to any priuate mans opinion for the vvord Prophecie signifieth the interpretation or exposition of holie Scripture as shal hereafter be proued The Apostle Saint Iohn teacheth vs the same lesson vvilling vs not to beleeue euery spirit but to proue the spirittes if they be of God And howe are vve to proue the spirittes vvithout al doubt not by our ovvne judgement vvhich is subject to errour but by considering vvhether they be consonant or no to the doctrine of the Catholike Church or the rule of faith receiued by tradition from the Apostles This appeareth by the discourse of the said Apostle following In vvhich to confute Cerinthus Ebion Basilides and other Heretikes vvho denied the diuinitie humanitie or vnion of two natures in Christ and to proue their spirits not to be from God he setteth downe the doctrine of the Church concerning those pointes and addeth these vvordes He that knoweth God heareth vs that is to say he that hath the knowledge of God by true supernaturall faith heareth and obeieth the Church But vvhat doe I vse many wordes in a matter so euident gathered out of our aduersaries owne proceedinges For the holy Ghost teacheth men but one truth seing therefore that there are among the newe Sectaries now in the vvorld so great dissentions and differences in opinions concerning the exposition of the selfe same wordes of Scripture it necessarily followeth that some of them expound the Scriptures falslie and seing that one of them hath no better warrant for his direction in truth then another vve may vvel affirme them al to be subject to errour and falsehood I adde also that euerie Sectarie must needes confesse euerie one of his Captaines I meane Luther Zuinglius Caluin and the rest to haue erred in some point or other touching the true sense of Scripture for almost no one Sectarie followeth any one of these in al pointes and approueth al his interpretations but if vve graunt them al to haue erred in some pointes vve may vvel inferre that they are subject to errour in al because their vvarrant is equal for al. Finally if we admit euery priuate mans spirit as a judge in such
matters vve take away al order in the Church and open the gappe to al Heretikes Some say that euerie man by conference of one place of Scripture vvith another See part 2. cap. 5. sect 4. may attaine to the knowledge of the true sense I replie that euery mans discourse in such pointes may be false and erroneous And it is wel knowne that diuers of our aduersaries haue conferred the same places and haue gathered out of them different senses vvhich cannot al be true Yea the same man not seldome at distinst times out of the same places conferred inferreth distinct conclusions and altereth his beliefe touching some article or other vvhich is a manifest proofe that this conference is no infallible rule I adde also that experience teacheth vs that such a conference sometimes encreaseth the difficulty See part 2. cap. 1. sect 4. maketh some shewe of contradiction which before appeared not as I wil declare hereafter Others say that by praier euery man may obtaine of God the direction of the holy Ghost for the finding out of the true sense But where hath God promised this Moreouer our praier is of no force except we pray as we ought And what is more vncertaine then this How then can we certainly knowe when God inspireth vs and much lesse how can we possibly assure others that we haue such a diuine inspiration Further diuers haue vsed likewise this meane and yet haue falne into errour yea after their praiers they haue had different inspirations and one hath affirmed himselfe to haue beene inspired by God thus and another thus c. Finally al Heretikes may challenge to themselues these shiftes for the proofe of their owne priuate and false expositions wherefore we must needes finde out some other rule more certaine SECTION THE FOVRTH That the letter of holy Scripture falsly interpreted is not the word of God THIRDLY I am to proue that a false or wrong exposition erroneously gathered out of the letter of holy Scripture or made vpon the same is not the word of God but the word of man yea sometimes the word of the deuil and consequently that the said letter of Scripture so vnderstood is subject to the same censure This is apparant because the Scripture is the true word of God in that sense only which was intended at the penning of it by the holy Ghost For example like as no Catholike Christian wil deny but those wordes of Christ Ioh. 14. verse 28. The father is greater then I if we vnderstand them in this sense that God the father is greater then Christ according to his humanity containe the true word of God so euery Catholike Christian if they be vnderstood as Arius expounded them that Christ according to his diuinity is inferior to his father wil affirme them to be the word of the deuil Hence proceed diuers notable sentences of the auncient Fathers Tertul. de praescript ca. 17. see him also cap. 9. Hillar li. 2. de Triuitat ad Constantium Ambros lib. 2. ad Gratianū cap. 1. Vincē Lirin li. aduers propha haeres nouitates cap. 37. Math. 4. verse 6 Hieron in dial cōtra Lucifer See Math 10. Luke 10. Hieron in cap. 1. ad Galat. among the rest Tertullian telleth vs that the sense of holy Scripture adultered doth impugne the truth at much as the stile corrupted S. Hillarie affirmeth that heresie ariseth of the vnderstanding not of the Scripture that the fault is in the sense not in the word that there is not one of the Heretikes that doth not lie and say that he preacheth those thinges in which he blasphemeth according to the Scriptures For hence saith he Marcellus when he readeth the word of God knoweth it not hence Photinus c. they all speake Scriptures with out sense they al pretend faith without faith for the Scriptures are not in the reading but in the vnderstanding c. These and other like discourses hath S. Hillary S. Ambrose is of the same opinion for he saith that although the text or letter haue no error yet the Arrian interpretation hath errour Vincentius Lirinensis comparing the Heretikes alleaging Scripture against Catholikes with the deuils alleaging the same to Christ discourseth after this sort And if any man aske any Heretike perswading him such thinges that is to forsake the doctrine and tradition of the Church how prouest thou how declarest thou that I ought to forsake the vniuersal and ancient faith presently he for it is written and forthwith he alleageth out of the lawe the psalmes the Apostles the Prophets a thousand testimonies a thousand examples a thousand authorities by which being interpreted after a new and naughty manner the vnhappy soule may be cast downe head-long from the Catholike tower Thus farre Vincentius Lirinensis But let vs heare the opinion of S. Hierome in this matter who aboue al the rest was conuersant in the holy Scripture these are his wordes The Scriptures consist not in the reading but in the vnderstanding otherwise if we follow the letter we also may frame vnto our selues a new opinion and affirme that they who weare shoes or haue two coates are not to be receiued into the Church He addeth in another place Marcion and Basillides and the other heretical plagues haue not the Gospel of God because they haue not the holy Ghost without which the Gospel which is taught is made humane or of men He telleth vs also that whosoeuer interpreteth the Gospel with another spirit and minde then it was written troubleth the faithful and turneth the Gospel of Christ vpside-downe that we must not thinke that the Gospel is in the wordes of the Scripture It is not saith he in the wordes but in the sense not in the superficies or out-side but in the marrow not in the leaues of the speaches or wordes but in the roote of reason Hence he concludeth with these wordes It is a very dangerous matter to speake or teach in the Church least that by peruerse interpretation the Gospel of Christ be made the Gospel of man or that which is worse the Gospel of the deuil Thus farre S. Hierome And this is that which the Apostle himselfe instructeth vs of when he affirmeth that the letter killeth but the spirit quickneth for the vertue and substance of Scriptures consisteth in their meaning and interpretation and so it is that the bare vvordes thereof are no more Scripture vvithout the spirit that is to say vvithout that sense which vvas intended by the holy Ghost when they were vvritten then the body of man is a man vvithout the soule yea if they be vvrested to a contrary or vvrong sense they kil and become poison vvhereas rightly vnderstood they containe diuine and heauenly doctrine And so this sentence of the Apostle is expounded by S. Augustine in diuers places of his vvorkes but in one place among the rest thus he discourseth a Aug. de spiritu litera c. 4. 5. li.
then before and by which our mindes are so diuinely lifted vp and affected as it were by a diuine testimonie that through it farre more strongly then by any humane motiues we are inclined to beleeue and made most firmly to rest in the diuine reuelation and so by this assistance of God together with the concourse of our vnderstanding an act of supernatural faith is produced by which we firmely beleeue the articles of Christian faith taught and propounded by the Catholike Church not for such and such motiues as before proued them credible but for that they are reuealed by almighty God And because one of these articles is that the Church in propounding particuler misteries of our faith cannot erre this also is beleeued among the rest vpon which as a common rule and guide we ground our beliefe as vpon a sure propounder of such thinges as we are bound to beleeue touching euerie other particuler article Hence ariseth a great difference betweene vs and some of the most learned of our aduersaries touching the decision of this question for although we both seeme to admit some supernatural aide light or habite to this that our vnderstanding produce an act of supernatural faith yet we differ much concerning the object of this act as also in the motiues or arguments of credibility which first induce vs to accept of the same For whereas we include in the first act of faith into which we are induced by the said motiues the beliefe of an infallible guide touching al particuler pointes they include no such matter but for their ground and guide in this act beleeued acknowledge only the letter of holy Scripture which verilie although we also in our aforesaid act include yet we giue it no such sole preheminence as is before declared And of this followeth a farre greater difference couching the arguments and proofes of our propounder and ground for whereas althe argumentes of credibility perswading vs that Christian religion is credible perswade vs also that the authority of the propounder of our faith I meane of the Catholike Church according to prudence may be beleeued infalliblie the said arguments are not sufficient in a wise mans judgement setting aside the said authoritie of the Church to make it credible vnto vs that euerie booke and parcel of holy Scripture commonly admitted is canonicall and diuine much lesse that euerie particuler exposition of Scripture by euerie priuate man accepted is diuine true And of this it proceedeth that they alleage no such forcible arguments of credibility for the proofe of this and that booke of Scripture nor for the truth of their interpretation of this and that sentence but for the first vsually flie to diuine illumination only joyned with the majestie of the letter or some such thing vvhich be no such arguments of credibility as I wil proue hereafter Part. 2. Chap. 5. and for the last some of them assigne certaine rules to be obserued vvhich in verie deede are insufficient as shal likewise hereafter be proued Hence they assigne no prudent motiues Ibid. c. 8. which perswade them to concurre with the supernatural helpe of God to a supernatural act of faith 2. Cor. 10. verse 5. Rom. 12. verse 1. Whereas God although he require of men an humble obsequie or obedience to faith yet propoundeth nothing to be beleeued which in the judgement of wise men is not credible and therefore also requireth a reasonable obsequie Verily if there were no other reason to perswade a man the truth of our doctrine this only would suffice that God doth vsually teach al by some common rule or meane which draweth men to vnity and humility not euerie one by priuate illumination or inspiration which is commonlie a motiue to pride and a fountaine of discord But Field vrgeth Field book 4. cap. 7. that by this doctrine we lastly resolue our faith to humane motiues and inducements I answere that concerning this matter two questions may be demaunded very much diuers First what moueth men to accept of the beliefe of such obscure articles as are those of Christian religion vnto which I make this answere that vnto this they are moued by such prudential or humane motiues as I haue assigned before Secondly it may be asked concerning the formal cause of faith it selfe why men now actually beleeue such obscure misteries And vnto this I say that the cause of their present beliefe is the reuelation of God or vvhich is al one the authority of God reuealing And because they are not sufficient of themselues supernaturally to beleeue such articles as so reuealed their vnderstanding is aided and inclined to this by the diuine gift of supernatural faith like as their wil by charity is aided and inclined to any act of supernatural loue which gift of faith together with their vnderstanding as I haue said produceth a supernatural act of beliefe wherfore we assigne not humane inducements as the formal cause but as the cause of the first acceptaunce of our faith and as into the formal cause we lastly resolue our faith into diuine reuelation And so I thinke this opinion sufficiently explicated But before I passe any further Field ibid. § Surely Stapheton in his Triplic contra Whitaker pag. 188. I cannot there but aduertise my reader that Field discoursing of this point wrongeth D. Stapleton very much For whereas he accuseth him as though in his Triplication against Whitaker he should affirme Other matters to be beleeued because 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 deliuereth it so to be and the Church because it is led by the spirit and that it is led by the spirit because it is so contained in the Scripture and the Creed Stapleton in verie deed in this last place hath no mention of the Scripture but of the Creed only True it is that he proueth against Whitaker out of the Scriprture a certaine internal motion of God by which we are moued to assent to this first proposition as he saith of our faith I beleeue the Catholike Church is infallibly gouerned by the holy Ghost and that she is to be heard and her voice obeyed but this is not to say that we beleeue the Church to be led by the spirit because it is so contained in the Scripture I come now to the second opinion Others therefore besides this diuine affection or inclination proceeding from the peculiar assistance of God in the act of faith being desirous also to assigne some other diuine and infallible reason mouing vs to beleeue affirme both that we beleeue the authority of the Church to be infallible because it is so reuealed in holy Scripture and also that we infalliblie knowe the Scriptures to be canonical because as canonical they are propounded vnto vs by the Church Neither doe they as they say in this kinde of proceeding commit anie absurd or vitious
circle because these two thinges are not motiues or reasons of the beliefe of one another after the selfe same manner but in two sundrie respects being so that we yeeld the reason why the Church cannot erre by the Scriptures as by a diuine reuelation approuing it For although we formally beleeue this because it is reuealed by God yet this reuelation vve proue by other reuelations contained in holy Scripture but that the Scripture is canonical although we formallie beleeue because God hath so reuealed yet this reuelation we proue not by any other reuelation but by the authority of the Church as a condition only requisite propounding it infallibly vnto vs. To make this assertion a little more plaine we must presuppose the truth of two propositions commonly held certaine in Philosophy the one is that two causes may for diuers respects be causes of one another so say the Philosophers the efficient cause is the cause of the being or existence the final cause and the final cause of the causality of the efficient For example when a Phisition doth administer phisicke to one that is sicke the final cause or end why he administreth phisicke is the health of the patient and the administring of the phisicke is the efficient cause of the sicke-mans health In like sort when the winde openeth a window it openeth it by entring in and entereth in by opening it so that the efficient cause of the opening the window is the motion of the entrance of the winde and the material cause and meane by which the winde entreth is the opening of the window because vnlesse the window be opened the winde cannot enter in Secondly it is also certaine that a meere condition necessarily requisite is no cause for example wood cannot be burned except it be put neare or in the fire and yet this approximation as I may cal it is not the cause to speake properly why the wood is burnt but a condition necessarie In like sort a lawe doth not binde except it be promulgated and yet the promulgation is not the cause why the law doth binde but a condition c. Now to come to the matter If two causes in some sort may be causes of one another wherefore may not we proue two propositions for diuers respects by one another That these respects be diuers in the proofe of the infallible authority of the Church by Scripture and of Scripture by the infallible authority of the Church it is manifest because the infallible authority of the Church is proued by Scripture as by a diuine reuelation the Scripture by the infallible authority of the church as by a condition requisite and that a cause and a condition be different I haue shewed We say therefore that Christ departing out of this vvorld left the whole summe of Christian doctrine with his holy spouse the Church and made her the infallible propounder of the same And being so that among other articles left this was one that she should not erre in executing her office this also she was to propound and her children by the diuine precept of God were bound to beleeue it Wherefore if in those daies before any Scripture of the new Testament was written a man had asked a Christian why he beleeued the misteries of Christian religion he might truly haue answered because they were reuealed by God If he had beene further demaunded how he knew such and such articles to be reuealed he might haue answered because the Church propounded them to be beleeued so that the cause why he beleeued such misteries was the reuelation of God the meane whereby he knew them infallibly to be reuealed was the propounding of the Church If he had bin vrged further why he beleeued that the Church in propounding such matters could not erre Surely he might haue said that this was before included in the beliefe of the misteries of Christian religion in general and consequently was beleeue because God so reuealed but let vs come to the succeeding ages The Apostles disciples of Christ whiles they liued wrote the holy Scriptures of the new Testament and left them to the Church in which among other misteries they confirmed vnto vs the authority of the Church and the Church propounded the said Scriptures vnto her children as Canonical Now then wherefore beleeue we or how doe we proue the Church cannot erre I answere by the reuelation of God contained in holy Scripture If it be demaunded further howe vve knowe such a reuelation to be diuine I answere not by any other diuine reuelation because this is the last and beleeued for it selfe but by the proposition or propounding of the Church which is only a condition requisite for the beliefe of it and yet a diuine proofe So that the reason or cause why we beleeue the Church cannot erre is the reuelation of God contained in holy Scripture the cause vvhy vve beleeue such a reuelation is no other reuelation but it selfe the meane whereby vve come to knowe that this reuelation is from God is the proposition of the Church wherefore the respects are diuers and also the objects of these assertions The respects because when we assigne the diuine reuelations contained in holy Scripture as the reason of our beliefe concerning the infallible authority of the Church we assigne a reason as it were by the cause of our said beliefe which is diuine reuelation But when assigne the propounding of the Church as that which moueth vs to beleeue the Scripture we assigne not a reason by the cause of this our beliefe which is diuine reuelation but by a conditon infallibly guiding vs as is aforesaide The objects also of these two reasons yeelded of our beliefe are diuers For the object of the diuine reuelations contained in holy Scripture assigned as the reason of our beliefe of the Church are the verities or thinges themselues reuealed and beleeued but the object of the propounding or proposition of the Church requisite for our beliefe of Scripture are the reuelations themselues contained in the saide Scripture For by it we are taught that the Scripture containeth diuine reuelations and is the true word of God And thus much of the second opinion concerning the solution of the question propounded which in truth giueth vs a very good method how to answere the cauils our aduersaries and rather addeth something to the former then is otherwise different from it For the authors following this opinion to this that we beleeue or accept of Christian faith as true require also the aforesaide inducements or arguments of credibility but moreouer they assigne a diuine proofe or reason built vpon diuine authority which moueth vs to the saide act of beliefe For as I haue declared they affirme that the infallible authority of the Church which is the general propounder of al particuler articles of faith is knowne and proued by holy Scripture as by a diuine reuelation they adde also that the truth of holy Scripture is as certainly
knowne proued by the authority of the Church as by a diuine propounder Neither doe I imagine that the followers or maintainers of this opinion doe intend to affirme that in euery processe of beliefe touching any article it is necessarie that we resolue it lastly to the holy Scripture for I thinke that notwithstanding that which hath beene said if we be asked why we beleeue the whole summe of Christian doctrine or any point thereof we may wel answere because it is reuealed by God And if further we be demaunded how infallibly and diuinely we knowe it to be so reuealed we may answere because it is propounded by the Church Neuerthelesse the first opinion of it selfe is sufficient although this may seeme more exact especially in Schooles Neither doe I or any Catholike affirme the knowledge of these pointes to be neccessary to euery faithful Christian for it is sufficient that they beleeue al such things as are propounded by the Church because they are reueled by God which is done by the helpe of supernatural faith Nay I doe not think it is needful that they expresly knowe this infallible authority of the Church as propounder of such verities or al such prudential motiues as are before mentioned But I deeme it sufficient that they beleeue such reuealed verities as they are bound to knowe expresly and others virtually moued thereunto by the authority of their predecessors or the asseueration of other faithful people for this is sufficieint in them either for the obtaining or preseruing the gift of supernatural faith Let vs now see in few words what solutions may be giuen to the objection made in the beginning of this Section First therfore according to the doctrine of the first opinion touching the last resolution of our faith I answere that in very deed the canonical Scriptures and their true sense are knowne by the infallible authority of the Church as by the propounder of such particuler matters belonging to our faith and religion as we are bound to beleeue Neuerthelesse it is lawful to proue the authority of the Church out of holy Scripture against such aduersaries of the truth as admit the said authority of holy Scripture but deny the authority of the Church So did S. Augustine against the Manichees Aug. cont epist Mā quā vocāt Fundam ca. 4. et 5. Id. de vnitate Eccle. cap. 19. et tract 13. in Ioānem Field book 4. cap. 7. § There is no questiō who approued the authority of miracles and denied the authority of Scriptures proue by miracles the Church and by the Church the Scriptures Contrariwise against the Donatists who allowed the Scriptures and boasting of their visions rejected miracles by Scriptures he proued the Church and by the Church the truth of miracles but that this manner of proceeding is lawful it is granted by Field therfore I need say no more Secondly I answere according to the other opinion that the canonical Scriptures and their true interpretation are infallibly proued knowne by the authority of the Church as by a condition necessarie propōuding them vnto vs but the authority of the Church is proued knowne to be infallible by the testimony of holy Scriptures as by diuine reuelations approuing the said authority And to affirme this as I haue shewed is no more absurd then to say that two causes may be causes of one another Neither doe I think this manner of proofe more to be blamed then the proofe of a cause by the effect and of the effect by the cause as of fire by smoke and of smoke by fire of the bignesse proportion of a mans foote by his steppe in dust or sand and of this againe by that Thus also the Philosophers proue a man reasonable because he is risible or hath power to laugh and againe demonstrate that he hath power to laugh because he is reasonable which kind of argumentation is not called circulation but a demonstratiue regresse Chapter 8. Concerning the second particuler ground of Catholike religion to wit Apostolike Traditions SECTION THE FIRST Of Apostolike Tradition in general THAT I may the better declare the authority and dignity of Apostolike vnwritten Traditions of which I am principallie to intreate in this chapter I thinke it not amisse to say a worde or two of Apostolike Tradition in general and although though I shal repeate some things which haue been already said yet I hope my reader wil pardon me seing that a just occasion of so doing is offered me I haue aboue affirmed Cap. 6. sect 2. that the whole summe or corps of Christian religion was deliuered by Christ to his Apostles not in writing but by word of mouth and that the principal meane for the entire preseruation of it in the Church without corruption or deprauation ordained by God almighty is the continual assistance and direction of the holy Ghost who alwaies remaineth in the Church and directeth her in al truth Of which I now gather that although neuer any scripture of the newe Testament had been written yet that the doctrine of Christ by Tradition had stil remained the selfe same entire and whole in the Church to the end of the world This is so manifest out of that vvhich hath been already said that it needeth no proofe in this place yet I wil repeate a word or two of that and adde a litle more to make it the more apparant I proue it therefore because our blessed Sauiour neuer penned the summe of his doctrine himselfe neither is it recorded that euer he comaunded any one of his Apostles or Disciples in expresse tearmes to write but only to preach and teach according to his owne and the holy Ghost instructions And hence it is that none of the said Apostles or Disciples wrote any parcel of the newe Testament presently after the ascension of Christ and consequently that the whole summe of Christian doctrine was published some time before any such scripture was penned and that the Church of Christ was some yeares without it S. Mathew the first Euangelist Euseb in Chronic. anno 41. published his Gospel as Eusebius recordeth some six yeres after our Sauiours ascension Hence also it proceeded that neuer any one of the Apostles or Disciples vndertooke the setting downe in writing of the whole sūme of Christian doctrine this is manifest because the three first Euangelists deliuered vnto vs very litle touching the diuinity of Christ one of the chiefe and highest misteries of Christian religion Neither had the fourth which was S. Iohn the Apostle any intention to set downe al that the other three had omitted for he wrote his Gospel directly against certaine Heretikes who denied the diuinity of Christ and that not by the commandement of Christ but by the intreaty of the bishops of Asia as a Atha in sinopsi S. Athanasius S. Hipolitus bishop and martir b Epipha haeres 51. S. Epiphanius and c Hieron praefat in Mat. et
is affirmed in the b Concil Chalcedon act 2. et 3. fourth This also moued S. Hierome in his epistle to S. Damasus the Pope to vse these wordes c Hieron to 2. epist 7. ad Damasum I following no chiefe or principal but Christ joine my selfe to the communion of Peters Chaire vpon this rocke I knowe the Church was built The same may be proued by this sentence of S. Augustine d Aug. to 7. psal cōtra partē Donati Count the priests saith he from the very See of Peter and in that order of Fathers consider who to whom hath succeeded that same is the rocke which the proud gates of hel doe not ouercome Finally by the chaire of Peter manifestly shewed by the succession of the Romane Bishops e Aug. contra epist. Manich. ca. 4. et epist 105. he seuereth Catholikes from Heretikes Our aduersaries barking against this accuse diuers Popes of sundry errours but they are al very wel answered by diuers Catholikes and the Popes manifestly cleared from their false slaunders I must further note in this place that although the decrees of the Pope as is before declared of themselues be of an infallible truth touching the matter which he intendeth to define yet that some further authority if it be possible is added vnto them when they are accepted and approued by the whole Church for if they so accepted could be false the whole Church might erre contrary to that which hath beene proued before I must also adde here two groundes more flowing out of this warrant of the Popes judgment from error In the first place are prouincial Councels confirmed by the Pope for by such only diuers heresies haue beene condemned as that of the Pelagians Priscillianists of Iouinian and others The second such ground is the faith of the Church of Rome including the Pope his Clergie and people for vnto this Church as we were long since told by a S. Cipr. l. 1. epi. 3. et 55. Nū 6. S. Ciprian infidelity or false belief cannot haue accesse b Hierō epist 16. c. 3. itē li. 3. Apol. cōtr Ruffinum S. Hierome calleth it The most safe hauen of communion and likewise auoucheth that The Roman faith commended by the Apostles mouth wil admit no deceits of Heretiks and that it cannot possibly be chaunged c Ambr. in ora de obitu Satiri circa medium Ambros ibid. S. Ambrose affimeth that he doth agree with the Catholike Bishops who accord with the Roman Church And hence it proceedeth that not onlie he but also d Cipr. epi. 52. Num. 1. ad Antonianum S. Ciprian and e Hierō apol 1. aduers Ruffinū cap. 1. S. Hierome anerre that it is al one to say the Roman and the Catholike faith SECTION THE FOVRTH The opinion of some sectaries that the Pope is Antechrist is brieflie confuted and two objections against the premises are answered OVR f Caluī ad c. 2. poster ad Thess l. 4. Instit ca. 7. § 24. Aduersaries by diuers meanes endeauour to ouerthrowe the Catholike doctrine deliuered and proued by me in this chapter Nay the malice of some of them especially of our g Bullēger Willet in his Sinop cōtrouers 2. quest 5. par 2. c. Puritan brethren extendeth it selfe so far that they are not ashamed stoutly to auer that the Pope is the very Antechrist foretold by Christ and the Apostles in the newe Testament But this assertion is so absurd and opposite to the word of God and al shewe of truth that diuers learned Protestants not ouer-mastred by their passions reject it as false and among the rest h Couel in his defēce of Hooker artic 11. M. Couel confesseth the Pope to be a member of the Church militant of Christ i Hooker in his third book of Ecclesiastical policy § 1. pag. 128. edit anno 1604. Hooker also himselfe in vvhose defence he vvriteth of the Church of Rome vseth these wordes With Rome we dare not communicate concerning her sundry grosse and grieuous abhominations yet touching those maine parts of Christian truth wherein they constantly stil persist we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Iesus Christ Thus Hooker But a litle k pag. 127. before he discourseth thus In S. Pauls time the integrity of Rome was famous Corinth many waies reproued they of Galatia much more out of square In S. Iohns time Ephesus and Smirna in farre better state then Thiatira and Pergamus were We hope therfore that to reforme our selues if at any time we haue done amisse is not to seuer our selues from the Church we were of before In the Church we were and we are so stil Hitherto are Hookers wordes in which he seemeth to me plainely to affirme both that the Church of Rome is a true Church and also that it is no diuers Church from that of the Protestants of England vvhich I think this learned man vvould not haue said if he had imagined the Pope to be Antechrist But this confession of our aduersaries notwithstanding brieflie I thus confute the afore-said vntrue and absurd opinion of others In the scripture we find that Antechrist shal deny Iesus to be Christ who is a liar saith S. Iohn but he who denieth that Iesus is Christ 1. Iohn 2. verse 22. this is Antechrist which denieth the Father and the Sonne He shal also affirme himselfe to be Christ and the Iewes shal receiue him for their true Messias as we gather our of these words of our Sauiour vnto the said Iewes If an other come in his owne name Iohn 5. Iren. li. 5. Ciril catech 15. Ambros in c. 21. Luc. 2. Thessal 2. vers 4. him you wil receiue That he shal affirme himselfe to be Christ vve are taught by S. Irenaeus S. Ciril Bishop of Hierusalem S. Ambrose and others That the Iewes shal receiue him as Christ it is auouched by al the Fathers Moreouer Antechrist shal publikely name himselfe to be God and couet to be worshiped as the only God this is manifest out of these words of the Apostle He shal be extolled aboue al that is called God or that is worshiped so that he sitteth in the temple of God shewing himselfe as though he were God These be some of the properties of Antechrist set downe in the vvord of God but none of these agree vnto the Pope for he neither denieth Christ nor affirmeth himself to be Christ or is accepted as Christ by the Iewes finally he is not worshiped as God but worshipeth God therefore he is not Antechrist Adde also that Antechrist shal be but one man he shal come immediatly before the day of judgment he shal raigne but three yeares and an halfe and that at Hierusalem as is euidently gathered out of the same holy scripture and al the holy Fathers by vvhich likewise appeareth the falshood of our aduersaries assertion But to impugne and ouerthrowe the primacy of the Pope they al make
Doctors who planted ruled and instructed the Church presently after Christs Ascention are to beleeued and obeied but also that the like credit is to be giuen to their successors who in al ages following haue supplied and shal euer vntil the day of judgment supply their places and consequently that they also haue beene and are directed in al truth otherwise they might haue wauered and erred themselues and so haue drawne the vvhole Church to such inconueniences Seing therefore that the fathers of the Church in their ages haue supplied such places it must needs followe that they haue enjoyed the like priuiledges and prerogatiues Moreouer the Iewes were bound to heare and obey the Scribes Pharisees of the old law as we are taught by these wordes of Christ Math. 23. v. 2. 3. Vpon the chaire of Moises haue sitten the Scribes and Pharisees al things therefore whatsoeuer they shal say to you obserue ye and doe ye Who then wil be so impudent as to say that Christians are not bound to heare and obey the prelates of the Church Luke 10. see also Math. 10. Ioh. 13. Iren. li. 4. cap. 4. especially seing that of them Christ hath said He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me which wordes argue as great truth in their doctrine as there is in the doctrine of Christ who is truth it selfe Hence S. Irenaeus telleth vs that we ought to obey those who haue succession from the Apostles who together with the succession of their Bishopriks haue receiued the gifts or priuiledges of truth And although these sentences are principallie verified in the prelates of the Church assembled in a general Councel yet they must needs also be confessed true in the whole body of them in al ages dispersed through the vvhole world and in euerie one of them vvhen he teacheth and deliuereth vs the doctrine of the vniuersal Church Finally the ancient Fathers are most pregnant and faithful witnesses of that Depositum or summe of Chistian doctrine which they receiued from their predecessors and deliuered to their successours They are also most indifferent judges of al controuersies after their daies arising in the Church because they liued before euer any such controuersie was moued and therefore are partial of no side Aug. cont Iulianuni li. 2. c. 10. Hence are these vvords of S. Augustine to the Pelagians concerning this matter They he speaketh of the Fathers that liued before him were angry neither with you nor with vs they fauoured neither you nor vs That which they found in the Church they held fast that which they learned they taught that which they receiued of their Fathers they deliuered to their children Hitherto S. Augustine This moued the same holie Father and diuers others to appeale so often to the judgment of their predecessours and to cite their testimonies And these arguments in like manner proue that the truth of faith and religion alwaies and in al ages remaineth among the true Bishops and Pastors of the Church and consequentlie that at al times euen at this present a man may securelie followe their beliefe and doctrine This I say the authorities alleaged testifie for the Church must neuer erre her prelates are alwaies to stay vs from wauering in faith c. 1. Cor. 11. verse 16. August epist 118. cap. 5. Idē epist 86. ad Casulā And it is moreouer insinuated vnto vs by the Apostle in these words But if a man seeme contentious we haue no such custome nor the Church of God for as we see in them he pleadeth the custome of the Church against the contentious And this moued S. Augustine to tearme it most insolent madnes to dispute against that which the whole church holdeth he telleth vs also that the custom of the people of God or the ordināces of our ancestors are to be held as a law in those things in which the diuine scripture prescribeth nothing certaine S. Hierome is of the same opinion for in his dialogue against the Luciferians he bringeth in the Heretike affirming that the consent of the whole world hath the force of a lawe although it be in a matter not to be proued by scripture Epiphani haeres 75. and maketh the Catholike assent to his assertion The like hath S. Epiphanius who disputing against Aerius in defence of certaine fasting-daies obserued in the Church vseth this argument The Church receiued them and the whole world in it consented before Aerius was and they which of him are called Aerians the same is affirmed by the rest of the Fathers In the last place for a ground of our faith I must adde such propositions as are deduced out of these most certaine grounds by an euident and infallible argument For although it is commonly held that in a sillogisme of one proposition of faith and another knowne onlie by the light of natural reason the conclusion is not properly of faith but Theological that is a conclusion in diuinity held most true yet certaine it is See Greg. de Valētia in secūda secūdae disput 1. qu. 1. pūcto 2. that a conclusion following in a silogisme of two propositions of faith is indirectly and as the diuines say immediatelie de fide or of faith as also that proposition is which is inferred by good and euident consequence of a proposition of faith because whosoeuer denieth the proposition inferred wil be constrained to deny the proposition or propositions of which it is inferred But concerning such propositions the vnlearned if occasion be offered must craue instructions of the learned Chapter 12. Containing the conclusion of the first part THESE be the immoueable and most firme grounds which we finde in the Church of Christ whereon vve build our faith and religion Vpon these sure foundations as vpon a firme rock euery Catholike buildeth his beliefe and saluation And although the articles deliuered vnto vs by the Church be not apparant to our senses nor for the most part comprehensible by reason yet in al such matters according to the saying of the Apostle We make our reason and vnderstanding captiue vnto the obedience of Christ 2. Corint 10. vers 5. 1. Corint 2. vers 5. and acknowledge with the same Apostle that our faith is not in the wisedome of men but in the power of God And therefore that in such misteries aboue reason we cannot shew our selues more reasonable then to leaue off reasoning Genes 18. vers 14. Luk. 1 37. Math. 19 26. Mat. 16 17. Verily we are taught by the scripture that nothing is hard much lesse impossible vnto God yea that al things are possible with him although with men impossible And if scripture had not taught vs this reason it selfe would easily perswade vs to assent vnto it because by nature he is omnipotent We know also that it is not flesh and bloud that hath reuealed such things vnto vs but God himselfe who being eternal wisdome truth can
in verie deed inwardlie prophane Atheists and that the said new religion is a very fountaine of Atheisme And in proofe of the first part of this assertion I need not vse manie words or long discourses for so it is that diuers principal professours and followers of this newe beliefe confesse and acknowledge a great number of such impious and irreligious persons Zauchius in his epistle before his confession pa. 7. to be in their congregations Of forraine sectaries Zauchius affirmeth that among other monsters Atheisme hath been fetched out of hel by the ministers of sathan in some of the reformed Churches Of our owne countrimen * Whitg ī his defence tract 3. cap. 6. pag. 278. See also Hooker ī his 5. book of ecclesiast policy § 2. Mornay ī his treatise of the proof of christian religiō Whitgift complaineth that the Church of England is replenished with Atheists The same complaints haue Hedio Powel Parks others as wil appeare by some of their sentences which I shal relate hereafter To come therefore to the second part seing that this impiety raigneth nowe more among our aduersaries then it hath done in former ages among Christians in vvhich such monsters vvere not so vsuallie found and commonlie seene it is like that it hath some roote and ofspring in these daies among them which appeared not in the religion of our forefathers and predecessours And vvhat is this roote surelie it is not one but diuers And for the first cause of this blasphemie I assigne their dissention and inconstancy concerning matters of faith and religion without any certaine ground vvhereon to build their beliefe or meane of ending and deciding such controuersies as arise That their doctrine is subject to these inconueniences it shal at larg be proued hereafter That such dissention inconstancie vvant of firme grounde and meane to end controuersies may truly be said to be roots fountaines of Atheisme it is apparant because of these things may wel be inferred an vncertainty of truth which is alwaies one and constant to her selfe and no diuine foundation of the religion professed or reuelations of the truthes preached because thinges proceeding from God whose wisedome and prouidence are infinite cannot be subject to such absurdities Hence diuers being first by the false calumnies vnjust slanders of their ring-leaders cleane auerted from our religion in which onlie a sure ground an immouable rocke of faith and a firme piller of truth are found then in their new profession being tossed hither and thither concerning the articles of their faith and finding no certaine authority whereon to rest or firme foundation whereon to build a firme and vndoubted resolution are brought finallie to this that they think al articles to be of an vncertaine truth and consequentlie imagine religion to be but a politicke inuention of man and so become Atheists S. Hillarie euen in his daies complained Hillar lib. ad Constantium Augustum that the Arian heretikes by these meanes of Christians made Atheists these are his words Perilous and miserable it is that there are now so many faiths as wils and so many doctrines as maners whiles either faiths are so written as we wil or as we wil are so vnderstood And wheras according to one God one Lord one baptisme there is also one faith they fal away from that which is the only faith and whiles no faiths are made they begin to come to this that there is none at al hitherto S. Hillarie But let vs heare certaine Protestants declare vnto vs the truth of that which hath beene here said touching this ofspring of this impiety in their congregations Relatiō of the state of religion vsed in the western parts of the world § 45. printed at London anno 1605. And first a Protestant relator of the state of religion vsed in the westerne parts of the world discourseth thus The diuision of Protestants into their factions of Lutherans and Caluinists threateneth a great ruine and calamity of both sides And soone after hauing shewed how the Lutheran preachers rage in their pulpets against the others he addeth The Romanes haue the Pope as a common father aduiser and conductor to them al to reconcile their jarres to appease their displeasures to decide their difference and finally to vnite their endeauors in one course c. to drawe their religious by consent of Councels to an vnity or likenes and conformity c. Whereas on the contrarie side the Protestants are as seuered bands or rather scattered troupes each drawing aduerse way without any meanes to pacifie their quarrels to take vp their controuersies without any bond to knit their forces or courses in one No Prince with any preheminence of jurisdiction aboue the rest no Patriark one or more to haue a common superintendance or care ouer their Churches for correspondencie and vnity no ordinarie way to assemble a general Councel of their part the onlie hope remaining euer to asswage their contentions and the onlie desire of the wisest and best mindes among them Euerie church almost of theirs hath his seueral forme and frame of gouernment his seueral liturgie and fashion of seruice and lastlie some seueral opinion from the rest which though in themselues they be matters of no great moment being no differences essential or any part capital yet haue they beene are and wil be as long as they continue causes of dislike of jelosies of quarrels and daunger These contentions tend mainely to the encrease of Atheisme within of Mahometisme abroade hitherto are the Relators wordes But before him Bullenger a principal doctor among the Sacramentaries noted the same effect of these contentions euen in the beginning of this newe religion Bullenger in Firmamento firmo contra Brentiū ca. 1. Maior ī orat de cofus dogmatum Hed. in epist ad Melanct. for he vvriteth that diuers in his daies were so moued with that vehement and implacable dissention between the Lutherans and Zuinglians concerning the Eucharist that as it were dispairing being cleane out of hope they said they would beleeue no more then they pleased Major in like sort a Lutheran of no lesse same confesseth that diuers were so moued with their scandals and dissentions that they doubted whether there were any true Church of God extant in the world or no. Vnto these I adde Hedio a third sectary who hauing complained that there are almost one hundred twenty and eight errours among the professors of the Gospel and that they fal to Atheisme neglect of religion affirmeth that they assigne their dissention to be the cause of these euils But concerning their Atheisme he also afterwardes vseth these vvordes The Popedome is rejected and names are not giuen to Christ The youth hath almost nothing of God And vvhat shal vve say of our Church of England hath not the dissention among Protestants and Puritanes brought men to the same passe Parkes in the epistle dedicatorie before his
aboue that faith to be a true Christian faith and to concurre to our justification by vvhich vve beleeue the articles and misteries of Christian religion vvherefore seeing that there is but one such faith this faith of our aduersaries cannot haue that prerogatiue And hence I inferre that these Sectaries by disgracing and neglecting the true Christian faith and esteeming so highly of a forged deuise of Luthers or of his masters an old Frier ouerthrowe in effect al Christian faith and religion or at the least giue their followers a just occasion of contemning the beliefe of such misteries as euerie Christian is bound to beleeue Some man perhaps wil seeke to free our English Protestants from this doctrine because in their publique administration of baptisme they cause the minister to demaund only of the childe whether he beleeue the article of the Creed and make no mention of Luthers and Caluins strange justifying faith vvhich as it is like they vvould not haue omitted if they had thought the justification of the child wholie on it to depend I answere that in very truth for the reason alleaged they may seeme to be of that opinion See the questions answers concerning predestination prīted in those Bibles before the new test Neuerthelesse if the Bible printed with notes in the yeare 1589. 1592. and 1600. be by them allowed and approued euerie man may see that they agree with other sectaries in this matter I adde also that is they hold justification to be wrought by any other faith then this newly deuised they disagree from their principal captains and al their * Abbot in his answere to Hil reason 3. pag. 96 Perkins in his reformed Catholike touchīg justification of a sinner brethren touching the article of justification which as they say is the verie ground of Christian religion But our aduersaries say that according to S. Iames the deuils beleeue and tremble I grant it but the faith of deuils is a natural and a kinde of historical faith grounded vpon natural reason and discourse much like vnto the beliefe of Heretikes Our habitual faith is a supernatural gift or habit infused into our soules by which our vnderstanding it lightened lifted vp and made able and apt to beleeue thinges reuealed by God our actual faith is an acte of our vnderstanding proceeding also from the said habite or light by which such things are actually beleeued because they are for reuealed Moreouer their faith is with despaire and hatred ours may be joyned with hope and charitie wherefore there is a great difference between our faith and theirs and our Sectaries doe very euil in making no distinction betweene them Chapter 3. That our aduersaries deny the infallible authority of the Church and affirme it to haue erred and perished IN the sixt chapter of the first part of this treatise I haue affirmed and proued the church of Christ to be the chiefe piller and ground of truth in which is preserued entirelie and sincerely that corps summe or depositum of Christian doctrine which vvas by Christ deliuered to his Apostles and by them to their successours and that through the perpetual assistance of the holie Ghost she cannot erre or perish and consequently that of her we ought may securely learne not only what articles of faith haue beene reuealed by God to his Church but also what concerning euery particuler point we are to beleeue and what to auoid and that in following her doctrine and judgement vve cannot be deceiued But because the professors of the newe religion cānot shew a continual succession of their faith religion church in any one corner of the world since the Apostles daies yea because they cannot name one for euery hundred yeares that was of their Church and beliefe they are forced to say that the Church erred for some ages and was for a time cleane ouerthrowne a Luth. in Comitijs Wormat an 1522. Luther first affirmed this to haue fallen out during the time betweene the Councel of Constance and the first preaching by him of his newe doctrine to vvit for the space of some hundred yeares Soone after b Authores repetit confess Augustanae some of his followers affirmed the Church to haue erred three hundred yeares before Luther And of this opinion seemeth c Fox in his protestatiō to the Church of England Iohn Fox who telleth vs that al was turned vp side downe al order broken true doctrine defaced and Christian faith extinguished in the time of Pope Gregory the seauenth about the yeare 1080. and of Innocentius the third about the yeare 1215. After this d Luth. to 7. l. cōtr Papatum Idem in captiu Babil et in supputat mundi Luther attributed six hundred yeares to the Apostasie of the Church and last of al one thousand of which opinion is also e Caluī ep ad Sadoletū et in prophetas mi nores passim Caluin But al of them agree that for some ages the visibie Church altogether erred and that for a certaine time there vvas in the world no true preaching of the word of God or lawful administration of the Sacraments Hence we read in the f Apol. of the Church of Englād par 4. p. 124. Apologie of the Church of England that truth vnknowne and vnheared off at that time began to giue shine in the world when Luther and Zuinglius sent of God beganne in preach the Gospel the like sentences are found in the works of g Calu. ī resp ad Sado p. 185. 176. l. 4. Inst c. 18. § 1. et 2. c. 1. § 11. c. 17 § 12. et 3. Caluin h Bez. in praef test noui ad principē Condens Beza i Melāch ī locis comun 1. edit Melanchton k Wil. in sinops cōtrou 2. qu. 2. p. 61. edit ā 1600. Willet and others And although some of them assigne an inuisible church which as they say flourished in al ages yet this they cannot proue because a thing inuisible vnknowne cannot be proued and besides it is nothing to the purpose because we treate of the infallible authority and continuance of the Church visible And certainly although we should confesse that such an inuisible Church was in the world and preserued in itselfe alwaies the truth which is most false and shal be confuted in my treastise of the definition and notes of the church yet it must needs be graunted that it vvas done inuisiblie and consequently this Church could not direct the whole world in al truth But that they accuse the whole Church of errour it wil sufficiently appeare in the next chapter where I wil declare that they attribute errours in faith to general Councels vvhich be the supreame assembles and highest courts of the said Church And it is sufficiently purpose at this present if they graunt the Church to haue erred in any one point for a possibility of errour in one article of faith proueth a possibility
true sence of the word of God then these newe Sectaries doe and seing that their sanctity was so great malice could no vvaies blinde them Verilie any indifferent man if the matter were put to his censure although those ancient Fathers had enjoyed no farther warrant of the assistance of the holie Ghost then these newe Gospellers doe would rather imagine truth to be with them then with these But our aduersaries alleage for themselues that euery particuler man assembled in a general Councel may erre I answere that true it is that euery particuler man the Bishoppe of Rome being excepted is subject to errour but seing that the Popes judgement joyned vvith the assent of the vvhole Church in a general Councel is infallible and in such a case cannot be erroneous and no general Councel is of supreame force without his confirmation it followeth that the decrees of a laweful general Councel cannot be false The reason vvherefore the confirmation of al Councels dependeth so much of the Popes authority is because he is ministerial head of the Church of Christ and consequently the bodie must needs haue his assent and confirmation before the constitutions by it made be of force and certainely knowne to be free from errour and falshood Finallie our Protestants of England concerning general Councels haue decreed as followeth * Articles of faith agreed vppon in the Conuocations of the years 1562. and 1604. art 21. See Fulk vppon the Rhēs testamēt Mathew 8 14. Whitakers in his answer to Campions 4. reason in English pa. 110. Field book 4. of the church chapt 6. pag. 228. General Councels for as much as they be an assembly of men whereof al be not gouerned with the spirit and word of God may erre and sometimes haue erred euen in thinges pertaining vnto God wherefore thinges ordained by them as necessary to saluation haue neither strength nor authority vnlesse it may be declared that they be taken out of holy scriptures The like censure is pronounced by their principal diuines And M. Field telleth vs that Bishops assembled in a general Councel may interpret the scripture and by their authority suppresse al them that shal gainsay such interpretations and subject euery man that shal disobey such determinations they consent vpon to excommunication and censures of the like nature Out of which his assertion it is euident that according to the prouidence and wisedome of almighty god general Councels should not be subject to errour in such matters for otherwise men might be forced and that according to his ordinances to obey such general Councels erring and propounding false doctrine But this notwithstanding the same Field in another place concludeth Lib. 4. cap. 5. pag. 204. Luther tome 2. lib. contra regem Angliae fol. 342. that Councels may erre in matters of greatest consequence Of the testimonie of the auncient Fathers thus writeth Luther in his booke against king Henrie the eight of England In the last place Henry bringeth in for the sacrifice of the Masse the saying of the Fathers Here say I that by this my sentence is confirmed for this is it which I said that the Thomistical asses haue nothing that they can bring forth but a multitude of men and the auncient vse But I as against the sayings of the Fathers of men of Angels of deuils oppose not the auncient consent not a multitude of men but the Gospel the word of the one eternal majesty Here I stand here I sit here I remaine here I boast here I triumph here I insult ouer the sayings of men be they neuer so holy insomuch that I passe not if a thousand Augustines a thousand Tertullians did stand against me Tome 5 The like sentence he hath in his famous commentarie vpon the epistle to the Galathians his wordes are these Some wil say vnto me the Church during so many ages hath so thought and taught al the primitive Churches and doctors most holy men much greater and more learned then thou art Who art thou that darest dissent from al these and obtrude vnto vs a diuers doctrine When Sathan thus vrgeth and conspireth with flesh and reason the conscience it terrified and despaireth vnlesse constantly thou returne to thy selfe and say whether Ciprian Ambrose Augustine or Peter Paul and Iohn yea an Angel from heauen teach otherwise yet this I know for certaine that I counsaile not men humane but diuine things Againe No other doctrine ought to be deliuered or heard in the Church but the pure word of God that is the holy scripture let other doctours or hearers together their doctrine be accursed Hitherto Luther confessing as vve see the vvhole primitiue Church and al the ancient Fathers to contrarie his doctrine and yet rejecting their authority and obstinately persisting and obdurating himselfe in his heretical opinions Zuinglius to 1. ī explanat artic 64. fol. 107. The same course runneth Zuinglius who discourseth thus The Papists say who shal discusse the controuersies and dissentions which are at this present in the Church Who shal judge of them Who shal pronounce sentence I answere the word of God neither wil we allowe of any other judge They affirme we denie the Masse is a sacrifice who shal be judge of the controuersie I say the one and only word of God But presently thou beginnest to cry out the Fathers the Fathers for the Fathers haue so delivered and writ thus But I relate to thee neither fathers nor mothers but require the word by this only it ought to haue beene proued that the Masse is a sacrifice thus Zuinglius The opinion of Caluin is consonant to these Calu. in praefat Instit ad regem Galiae Item booke 3. Instit chapt 4. § 38. Al things saith he discoursing of the works of the ancient Fathers are ours to serue vs not to ouer-rule vs. Againe Those things which every foot occur in the works of the old writers or Fathers touching satisfaction moue me but litle for I see that diuers of them I wil say simply as it is almost al whose works are extant either haue erred in this matter or haue spoken ouer crabbedly and hardly Our English Protestants haue sufficiently declared their opinion touching the authority of the auncient Fathers by pronouncing so hard a censure against general Councels as we haue heard Whitak contra Sander pag. 92. Hence Whitaker one of their principal Champions vseth this discourse If you argue saith he from the testimonies of men be they neuer so learned and auncient we yeeld no more to their words in cause of religion then we perceiue to be agreeable to Scripture neither thinke your selfe to haue proued any thing though you bring against vs the whole swarme of Fathers except that which they say be justified not by the voice of men but by God himselfe this is Whitakers doctrine Whitakers in his answer to Campians 2. reason p. 70. see him also in his answer to the 6. reason pag. 159.
judgment I may adde the whole Protestant Church of England who in their sixt article agreed vpon in their conuocations of the yeares 1562. and 1604. affirme that in the name of holy Scripture they vnderstand those Canonical books of the old and newe Testament of whose authority was neuer any doubt in the Church for they seeme to make the authoritie and Tradition of the Church the meane and rule vvhereby to knowe the diuine Scriptures Field booke 4. chap. 14. Yea Field himselfe in another place telleth vs that we cannot knowe the Scriptures to be of God without the knowledge of such principal articles as are contained im the Creed of the Apostles Of vvhich it may seeme laweful to conclude against him that some other thing is necessarie besides diuine inspiration and other motiues aboue by him assigned The Lutherans of Wittenberg confesse the Church to haue authority to judge of doctrines Harmonie of confess sect 10. p. 332. Author of the treatise of the scripture and the church c. 15. p. 72. see also c. 19. p. 74. 75. BulleÌ„ger in the praeface before that booke according to that Try the spirittes whether they be of God Another Protestant in a treatise of the Scripture and the Church highly commended by Bullenger plainely telleth vs that we could not beleeue the Gospel were it not that the Church taught vs and witnessed that this doctrine vvas deliuered by the Apostle and thus much against this opinion But it may be here objected against vs that we also according to the second opinion deliuered in the first part of this treatise concerning the last resolution of our faith allowe a supernatural gift or light by the concourse and help of vvhich vve firmely assent to Christian beliefe as reuealed by God and that therefore there is no cause wherefore we should so earnestly impugne the like assertion in others I answere that there is great difference betweene vs and our aduersaries concerning this point for whereas I haue shewed that they require a particular illumination and immediate instruction from God himselfe concerning euerie particuler booke and sentence of holy Scripture yea touching the exposition of euerie sentence as I vvil declare hereafter and by no prudential groundes or arguments of credibility are ordinarilie induced to this perswasion But seing that diuers of their owne company and those of the principal thinking themselues to be inspired haue erred haue rather according to prudence just cause not to stand vpon such illuminations We assigne the the light of faith for the beliefe of a common guide and general directour and so require not a particuler instruction for the beliefe of this and that particuler matter but hauing beleeued the said general guide of it receiue infallible and diuine instructions what particulerlie is to be beleeued Neither doe vve this vvithout any prudential motiue or credible reason but induced thereunto by most strong arguments of credibility Râ—chardus de S. Victore l. 1. de Trinit cap. 2. insomuch as vve may wel say with Richardus de sansto Victore that If we be deceiued God hath deceiued vs. Neither are vve by this perswaded arrogantlie to followe a priuate rule which is a fountaine of dissention and contrarie to the vsual proceedings of God but humblie to submit our selues and our vnderstanding to the authority of a general guide which is a preseruatiue of vnity and according to the common courses of that heauenlie King But before I passe from this matter I must needes haue a word or two with M. Field in particuler vvho requireth more then humane inducements or motiues as reasons by force whereof we are perswaded first to beleeue Field book 4. chap. 7. 8. and seemeth to require a diuine reason or testimonie conuincing that which is beleeued to be of diuine authoritie and so to impugne the first opinion of Catholikes concerning the last resolution of faith Part 1. chap. 7. sect 6. deliuered in the first part of this treatise For vvhereas the followers of that opinion assigne humane motiues as the first inducements to our beliefe or as causes vvhy we first accept of the same and bring no other external proofe that the misteries of our faith are reuealed by God book 4. chap. 8. § The opinion he exacteth of vs a diuine proofe of this these are his words The opinion of the ordinary Papists is that the things pertaining to our faith are beleeued because God reuealeth and deliuereth them to be so as we are required to beleeue but that we know not that God hath reuealed any such thing but by humane conjecture and probabilities so weake doe they make our faith to be grounded thus Field Concerning which his imputation I must first request my reader if he be any thing moued by these his words to turne to the explication and proofe of the Catholike opinion set downe before in the first part of this treatise Chapt. 7. sect 6. because I thinke it needlesse to repeate one thing twice Secondly I cannot but wish him also to note howe diuersly Field reporteth our opinions for although he plainly here affirme that our ordinary opnion is that the articles of our faith are beleeued because God reuealeth and deliuereth them to be so yet in another place he writeth thus Our aduersaries fal into two dangerous errors the first Booke 4. c. 6. that the authority of the Church is Regula fidei et ratio credendi the rule of our faith and the reason why we beleeue The second is that the Church may make newe articles of faith And like as he himselfe in the words euen now alleaged freeth vs from the first of these dangerous errours Book 4. chap. 12. § Our aduersaries so likewise in another place he freeth vs from the second But as concerning my present purpose out of his aforesaid wordes I gather that if he wil not fal into the same fault for vvhich he blameth vs he must not only assigne such a diuine formal cause of his beliefe concerning euery point as we teach the reuelation of God to be but also adde some diuine proofe prouing this formal reason to be diuine and not only humane probabilities And vvhat such diuine proofe doth he assigne surelie none that I can finde he telleth vs in deed that in some things the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto vs Book 4. chap. 8. § thus theÌ„ and in others the authority of God discerned to speake in the word of faith is the formal cause of their faith or inducing them to beleeue But I finde no diuine proofe no not so much as a wise reason I adde moreouer not so much as a foolish reason brought neither for the one nor for the other nay he expresly telleth vs Book 4. chap. 20. § Much coÌ„tention see also chapt 7. § Thus then Book 4. chap. 7. § Surely See hiÌ„ also § There is c. that The bookes of Scripture winne credit
Caluin that of S. Iames at Hierusalem in perswading S. Paul to purifie himselfe according to the lawe of Moises in the b See also the same Caluin touching S. Paulin 2. Cor cap. 1. S. Iames in cap. 21. Act. Act. 21. v. 15. c. temple and lastly they accuse S. Paul of errour in yeelding to the perswasion of S. Iames. The same is affirmed by Brentius diuers others concerning S. Peter and Iames and the whole Church of Hierusalem c Brent in Apolog cōfess Wittenberg c. de cōcilijs Both S. Peter Prince of the Apostles saith he and Barnabas also after the holy Ghost receiued and together with them the whole Church of Hierusalem erred Galat. 2. of the same opinion are other sectaries d Bullēger in Apocalip 19. 22. Bullenger hath the like stuffe touching S. Iohn Doe not also Beza and our English Protestants themselues seeme to confesse that * Luc. 3. v. 36 S. Luke in his Gospel erred in making Arphaxad the father of Cainan and Cainan of Sale whereas in the booke of Genesis Arphaxad is said to haue beene the father of Sale For if S. Luke did not erre vvhy doe e Beza in his translat our Protestāts in their Bible printed anno 1595. authorized to bee read in Chur. they notwithstanding that al copies both Latin and Greeke in this accord thrust out of the text these wordes who was of Cainan and make S. Luke say that Arphaxad was the father of Sale Adde vnto this that f Musculus in locis communibus cap. de Iustificat num 5. Musculus no meane Sectary to the Catholikes objecting the authority of S. Iames against justification by faith only maketh this answere that he whosoeuer he was although the brother of Christ and a piller among the Apostles and a great Apostle aboue measure as g Gal. 2. v. 9. 2. Cor. 12 12. S. Paul saith cannot prejudice the truth of only faith h Molinae in vnione quat Euāg par 64 Another of them testifieth that certaine of his learned brethren limit and restraine those wordes of Christ He that heareth you heareth me that Christ only is to be heard that is to say that his word only is to be preached that the Apostles were subject to errour in going beyond their commission and therefore that they are not to be heard but when they relate vnto vs the very wordes of Christ Thus he vvriteth vpon the said sentence These wordes he that heareth you heareth me limit that Christ only be heard that is that his word only be preached as most learned Philip Melancthon expoundeth c. For so expoundeth Iohn Brentius saying That Christ when he saith He that heareth you heareth me speaketh not of al wordes of the Apostles whatsoeuer but of the prescribed cōmandement of their embassage Thus Carolus Molinaeus From this opinion i Cal. l. 4. Inst c. 8. § 4. 7. Caluin himselfe seemeth not much to dissent vvhose wordes are these The Apostles in their very name shewe howe much is permitted them in their office that is if they be Apostles that they should not babble what they please but should deliuer truly his commaundements by whome they were sent and soone after he plainely insinuateth Modrenius lib. 2. de Eccles cap. 2. that he would haue Christ only heard Further one Fricius a very learned Protestant telleth vs that although he should graunt that S. Iames gaue the communion vnder one kinde only yet that his authority is not to be admitted seing that Christ said Eate and drinke Clebetius in victoria veritatis et ruina papatus Saxoni argumēto 5. Clebetius one of the chiefe ministers of the County Palatine of Rhene graunteth to his aduersary that S. Mathewe and S. Marke in their gospels contradict S. Luke but saith that he hath two against one and that S. Luke was not present at the last supper concerning the history of vvhich the controuersie was betweene him his aduersary as S. Mathew was and therefore that he deserued lesse credit Finally Zuinglius being impugned for denying praier for the dead pressed with the authority of Fathers especially of S. Chrisostome S. Augustine who deriue this custome from the Apostles answered thus Zuing. tom 1. Epicherae de can Missae fol. 186. See him also tom 2. in Eleuch cōt Anabap fo 10. If it be so as Augustine Chrisostome report I thinke that the Apostles suffered certaine to pray for the dead for no other cause then to condiscend to their infirmity hitherto Zuinglius in which words he confesseth that the Apostles wilfully suffered some to erre vvhich could not be done without errour in themselues And out of al these assertions of our aduersaries in which they either accuse the vvriters of holy Scripture of errour or make them subject thereunto I inferre that the newe Testament may containe errours although we should graunt it to be written by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ But let vs also adde that although we should graunt them that the Apostles and Disciples could not erre in penning these sacred bookes yet that it is a hard matter for them to proue that the new Testament since their daies hath not either through negligence or malice beene corrupted For had not the Catholiks their enemies by their owne confession the keeping of it for the space of diuers hundreds of yeares how know they then that the said Catholikes to serue their owne turnes haue not corrupted it Surely they confesse their owne bretheren to haue falsified it vvithin fewe yeares in diuers places wherefore one sect rejecteth the translation of another Doe they then thinke vs and our predecessors more sincere then they are themselues Perhaps some ignorant man wil say that it hath beene alwaies in the custody of those of their religion but it is certaine that they cannot possibly assigne any succession of men of their profession that could alwaies keepe it I demaund also if any man wil needes say that there were such men although invisible in the vvorld and mentioned off by no Authour of anie one age since the Apostles dayes vvhether they were Lutherans Zuinglians or Caluinists or of vvhat other sect If they were Lutherans howe doe the Zuinglians Caluinists and other Sectaries knowe that they kept it sincerely and truly if they were Zuinglians howe doe the Lutherans knowe the same The like question I demaund concerning other Sectaries and none of them I thinke wil be so absurd as to say that al these sects haue euer beene in the world But let vs see whether they doe not plainely confesse that the text of Scripture it selfe hath beene corrupted Beza in praefat noui Test anno 1556. et Annota in 1. Luc. v. 1. Although Beza preferre the vulgar Latin edition which we vse before al other translations and confesseth that the old Interpreter translated very religiously yet both he and al the professours of
against al for the word of God is foolishnes to mans reason 1 Cor. 1. And they would neuer haue vttered this had they had any regard of the Scripture and were not their harts ful of infidelity so as their mouth speaketh out of the aboundance of their hart Fol. 391. Finally he concludeth thus If these be the groundes and reasons which should certifie vs of the truth and proue our faith and confirme our conscience he meaneth such groundes and reasons as are brought from natural discourse and Philosophy then truly we are in euil case If a man had deliuered me such bookes without title or name as are vvritten by the Sacramentaries and I knewe not otherwise such learned and excellent men to haue beene the Authours of them I should surely haue thought that some iesting Comediant or Turkish vagabond had made them in despite and derision of Christians Verily I see not howe they can be excused with any probable pretence as many other Heretikes haue had for it appeareth that they play with Gods word of wilfulnesse and malice And I thinke it cannot be that such cold toyes and bablings should indeede moue a Turke or Iewe much lesse a Christian c. Centur. 4. in praefat This and much more hath Luther The Magdeburgians likewise tel vs that some and they meane the Sacramentaries flatly by Philosophical reasons make voide and frustrate the Testament of our Lord so as they take away the body and bloud of Christ touching his presence and communication which presence and communication is according to the most cleare most euident most true and most puissant wordes of Christ and they deceiue men with maruelous equiuocation of speach hitherto the Centurie writers Of the same opinion touching the ground of the Sacramentary doctrine is Westphalus for the Sacramentaries against the real presence vrge this argument Westphalus in Apolog. cōtra Caluin c. 19. pag. 194. anno 1558. The body of man is circumscribed in a place therefore at one time it cannot be but in in one place therefore not in al places where the supper is ministred vnto vvhich Westphalus replieth thus Is not saith he this Geometrical argument featched from Euclides demonstrations the piller and vpholder of al these Sacramētaries Doth not this vphold the building of their sillogismes which corrupt verie many places of Scripture Most truly is verified of the Sacramentaries that memorable saying Take from Heretikes that wherein they agree with Philosophers and they cannot stand Take from the Sacramentaries that which they drawe from Philosophie and how smal a quantity wil remaine of the great volumes of al the Sacramentaries Howe long wil it be before the doctrine of Berengarius fal to the ground Wel and truly wrote Tertullian that Philosophers are the Patriarkes of Heretikes for Philosophy brought forth al Heresies and shee begat the error of Zwinglius Thus much out of the Lutherans in defence of the real presence against the Sacramentaries and their vvorkes generally are ful of such discourses Hence it appeareth that according to their judgement the beliefe of the real presence is built vpon holy Scripture and the denial of it vpon Geometrical and Philosophical reasons But finde we no proofes for our Catholike exposition of the afore said vvordes in the Sacramentaries themselues Truly first Caluin auoucheth that vnlesse a man wil cal God a deceiuer Caluin Institut booke 4. cha 17. §. 10. he can neuer be so bold as to say that he setteth before vs an empty signe and this he is forced to affirme through the euidence of the wordes of Scripture Secondly it is the opinion of diuers learned men of this sect yea of some esteemed by them Martirs that our doctrine touching this point may be held without any peril of damnation or seperation from the one true spiritual body of Christ his holy Church Of which opinion among others was William Tindal whome Whetenhal honoureth with this title * Whetēhal in his discourse of the abuses c. pag. 134. William Tindal that blessed martir of God the first man that euer brought the Gospel of Christ into English print and therefore saith this Puritan he may worthely be called our English Euangelist yea our booke of martirs a Fox p. 883. edit 1. calleth him the true Apostle of our latter daies and that much more justly then Popish Augustine the first Arch-bishop of Canterbury is so tearmed by diuers Thus Whetenhal This Tindal I say as also Frith Barnes and Cranmer of whome the said Whetenhal b Whetenhal ibid. p. 157. in an other place as is related by c Fox in Tind Fox himselfe held it d Frith Barnes and Cranmer especially pag. 500. edit anno 1563. a thing indifferent to belieue or not belieue the real presence Of the same opinion is e Couel in his def of Hooker art 11. M. Couel a man of good account among the English Protestants f Doue perswasion p. 11. Doue also vvriteth that in fundamental points of doctrine the greatest Papists in the world agree with them And seing that we agree not vvith them in this it is manifest that in his judgement this is no fundamental point It may likewise be vvel gathered out of Fields assertions g See Field booke 3. chap. 3. and 4. in his third booke of the Church that his sentence is conformable But vvhat neede I rehearse particular authors For this must of necessity be h See the Apologie of the Church of England par 3. pag. 100. Sutcliffe in his answere to the Ward-word pag. 21. Fulke vpon the Rhemes Testam Ephes 4. vers 4. c. granted by al the Sacramentaries who make one Church of themselues and the Lutherans And of this the reason is apparent because although the Lutherans differ from vs in the manner yet vvith vs they confesse Christ to be really and corporally present in the Eucharist Vnto vvhich if we adde that our doctrine touching the manner it selfe howe this is done in the Sacramentaries judgement is more tollerable then Luthers it vvil followe that there can be no reason assigned why we should receaue a harder censure for our belief then they for theirs And doth not Caluin himselfe auerre this to be so It must needes be granted For certaine it is that almost al the Lutherans to defend this real presence of Christ in the Sacrament affirme his humane nature to be really present vvheresoeuer is his Deity Caluin Institut booke 4. chap. 17. § 30 See also the preface to the harmony of confessions which Caluin calleth the monstrous being of Christ euery where and saith the Papists doctrine is more tollerable or at the least more shamefaste then this Nay al the vvhole company of Sacramentaries in forraine Countries are more vehement in oppugning this then ours Wherefore if the Lutherans according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries this notwithstanding are neither excluded from heauen nor the Church a man
may likewise belieue as we doe and be barred from neither and consequently it cannot be said that our faith is opposite to the vvord of God I may vrge this a little further for seing that the Sacramentaries beliefe is so hardly censured both by vs and the Lutherans and the Lutheran opinion both by vs and the Sacramentaries seing moreouer ours by the Lutherans is esteemed better then that of the Sacramentaries as al the vvorld knoweth and it appeareth true by this that the Lutherans condemne it not as heretical yea * Luth. de captiuit Babylon Itē serm de Eucharist serm de venerabili Sacramēto c. tom 7. Germ. fol. 20. in Visitat Saxonica Luther alloweth of it as tollerable and by the Sacramentaries preferred before that of the Lutherans a man according to the rules of wisdome is rather to thinke ours comformable to truth and the written word of God then that either of the Lutherans or Sacramentaries But it may be vrged against vs that diuers a See Whitakers reprehension against Martin p. 11. learned Sacramentaries censure our doctrine to be of thinges incredible and impossible I answere although some of this sect be so blaspheamous against the omnipotent power of God as so to affirme it yet others protest that they neuer doubted of Gods power herein that he is able to effect it but they say he neuer did it as may be seene in b Iewel in his reply against Harding art 10. §. 9. M. Iewel and others Wherefore according to these men our faith is of thinges by vs in this life incomprehensible and aboue the ordinary course of reason not of thinges impossible Neither is this peculiar and proper only to this mistery but also common to other articles of our faith as to our beliefe touching the most blessed Trinity the Incarnation of Christ the resurrection of our bodies c. Nay if Caluin and some of his disciples say true this is verified euen in their doctrine concerning the Eucharist For Caluin himselfe discourseth thus Although it seeme incredible Caluin Institut booke 4. cha 17 §. 10. that in so great distance of places the flesh of Christ reacheth to vs that it may be meate to vs for they hold the body and bloud of our Lord to be alwaies as farre from vs as is the highest heauen yet let vs remember howe much the secret power of the Spirit surmounteth aboue al our senses and howe foolish a thing it is to goe about to measure his vnmeasurablenesse by our measure That therfore which our mind comprehendeth not let our faith conceiue c. Againe Ibid. §. 24. The doctrine it selfe which I haue declared doth clearely enough shewe that I doe not measure this mistery by the proportion of mans reason nor doe make it subject to the lawes of nature He addeth that he is more then senselesse that perceaueth not many miracles to be contained in this mistery as he deliuereth it and that nothing is more beside nature or more incredible Finally Ibid. §. 32. nowe if any man saith he aske me of the manner howe Christ is joyned to vs in the supper I wil not be ashamed to confesse that it is a higher secret then that it can either be comprehended with my wit or vttered with my wordes and to speake it more plainly I rather feele it then I can vnderstand it Therefore I doe herein without controuersie embrace the truth of God in which I may safely rest Hitherto are Caluins wordes The like hath the French Confession French cōfession art 36. in Harmony of confess sect 14. pag. 426. in which his disciples affirme that this mistery of our vnion with Christ in the supper is so high a thing that it surmounteth al our senses yea and the whole order of nature that it being diuine and heauenly cannot be perceaued nor apprehended but by faith Nowe if these thinges be so vvho can make any great difference betweene Caluins doctrine and ours in this that his is of thinges credible and possible ours of thinges incredible and impossible Are not both according to his sayings of thinges incomprehensible Verily whosoeuer considereth wel his vvordes and obserueth his rules vvil not be very much moued vvith any of the Sacramentaries arguments conuincing as they imagine the real presence by vs taught to be impossible Thus then we see that by the confession of our aduersaries the vvordes of our Lord This is my body according to their literal and plaine sense are an euident proofe of the real presence against which their sense no humane or Philosophical reasons as they likewise auouch are to be admitted Let vs nowe see howe our said aduersaries relate al our Predecessours especially the Christians of the first ages after Christ to haue expounded the said wordes And in this point I neede not be long or spend much labour because the Lutherans haue not beene altogither negligent in gathering such testimonies of antiquity against their enemies the Sacramentaries as make for the real presence and ouerthrowe the Sacramentary doctrine This appeareth in diuers of their * Se the Magdeburgians in their cēturies and others bookes published to the view of the vvhole vvorld in which they declare euen to the eie that al the auncient Fathers held and taught the true real and corporal presence of Christes body and bloud in the Eucharist Nay some of them grant certaine of the Fathers to haue belieued transubstantiation so the Century writers affirme a Centur. 5. c. 4. col 517. that S. Chrysostome seemeth to confirme it and that b Centur. 4. c. 4. col 294. see also ca. 6. col 480. S. Athanasius S. Ambrose and S. Gregory make for it Luther himselfe telleth vs that c Luth. tom 7. in defens verborum coenae fol. 391. this is worthy of admiration that none of the Fathers of whome there is an infinite number did euer speake of the Sacrament so as doe the Sacramentaries but cleane contrary And vvhat say the Sacramentaries d Martir in defens ad object Gardiner part 4. p. 724. See also his epist annexed to his cōmon places pag. 106. to Beza and p. 98 to Caluin Peter Martir plainely refuseth to subscribe to S. Cyrils doctrine touching this matter Beza auerreth that e Beza epist. Theolog. 8. pag. 73. 74. most of the most auncient Fathers thought it meete to hide or keepe secret the holy misteries of the Christians he meaneth the celebration of the Eucharist no otherwise then the misteries of Ceres in so much as they admitted not the Catechumenes that is such as belieued yet vvere not baptized to behold them And vvhy so if Christ be not really and corporally present in the Eucharist Field also confesseth that f Field booke 3. chap. 34. pag. 149. in the primatiue Church the manner of many was to receaue the Sacrament and not to be partakers of it presently but to carry it home with
them and to receaue it priuately when they were disposed as Tertullian saith he and others doe report He addeth The manner was to send it by the Deacons to them that by sickenesse or other necessary impediment were forced to be absent and to strangers Yea for this purpose they did in such places where they communicated not euery day reserue some part of the sanctified elements to be sent to the sicke and such as were in danger of death g Pag. 150. He denieth that Caluin doth not any where say that the elements consecrated and reserued for a time in reference to an ensuing receauing of them are not the body of Christ. This he plainely admitteth as also that the Christians of the primatiue Church thought the sanctified elements to be Christs body as long as they might serue for the comfortable instruction of the faithful pertaking in them Finally he telleth vs Booke 4. cha 31. pag. 266. that bread being appointed to be the matter of the Sacrament of the body of Christ and water of Baptisme the Christians in auncient time held that bread which had beene offered and presented at the Lordes table out of which saith he a part was consecrated for the vse of the Sacrament more holy then other bread Hitherto Field Al which his assertions may vvel be vrged in proofe of the real presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament But vvhereas he seeketh to drawe Caluin to his opinion he laboureth in vaine Caluin Institut booke 4. ch 17. §. 39. for Caluin expresly condemneth this reseruation as vnprofitable and although he confesse that they that so doe haue the example of the old Church yet he affirmeth that in so great a matter and in which we erre not without great danger nothing is safer then to followe the truth it selfe which he imagineth to be opposite to this obseruation It is also euident that vvith Bucer Melancthon and almost al other sectaries See him ibid. pag. 37. he holdeth the Eucharist to be no permanent thing but to be the Sacrament then only when it is receaued More I could say of the auncient doctrine and practise of the Church confirming our exposition of the aforesaid wordes of holy Scripture but here occurreth a certaine opinion of some which I thinke not amisse to confute and my confutation of the same wil be something long vvherefore I vvil breake off my former discourse and forthwith enter vpon it Some Sacramentarie followers of the newe religion imagine and thinke that Caluin and his disciples deny not the real presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrament and therefore they approch vnto the Caluinian communion with great reuerence deeming themselues truly and reallie to receiue in it the said body and bloud of our Lord where-vpon they inferre that their beliefe touching this point is as conformable to the letter of holy Scripture as ours But alas simple soules they are much deceiued as euen Caluin himselfe and their learned masters confesse For although these Doctors in some places of their vvorkes seeme to acknowledge some such matter yet in others they flatly denie it and in plaine tearmes declare their meaning in those other places first mentioned to be otherwise them their wordes doe sound I grant their magnificent tearmes may easily seduce a silly soule and I my selfe knowe some good creatures deceiued but whoseuer doth reade their masters bookes may easily discouer their falsehood let vs first behold howe they plainely seeme to auouch the real presence Caluin Institut booke 4. ch 17. §. 10. Caluin writeth thus Our soules are so fed with the flesh and bloud of Christ as bread and wine doe maintaine and sustaine the bodily life And doe not bread and vvine maintaine and sustaine the bodily life by true and real eating them But he goeth on For otherwise the proportional relation of the signe should not agree vnlesse our soules did finde their foode in Christ which cannot be done vnlesse Christ doe truly growe into one with vs and refresh vs with the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud And soone after Vnlesse a man wil cal God a deceiuer he can neuer be so bold as to say that he setteth before vs an empty signe §. 11. Againe I say that in the mistery of the supper by the signes of bread and wine Christ is truly deliuered to vs yea and his body bloud in which he hath fulfilled al obedience for purchasing of righteousnesse vnto vs. §. 32. Moreouer Christ pronounceth that his flesh is the meate of my soule and his bloud the drinke with such foode I offer my soule to him to be fed In his holy supper he commaundeth me vnder the signes of bread and wine to take eate and drinke his body and bloud I nothing doubt but he doth truly deliuer them Caluin in 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. See him also de coena Domini and I doe truly receiue them Finally I conclude and grant saith he that the body of Christ is giuen vs in the supper really as they commonly speake that is to say truly to the end it may be wholesome foode for our soules I speake after the common fashion but I meane that our soules are fed with the substance of Christes body to the intent we may be made one with him these and other such like sentences euery foote occurre in Caluin Caluin lib. de coena Domini edit an 1540. Gallice an 1545. Latine See him also in his Institutions chap. 14. and chap. 17. §. 5.6 Hence he also by name reprehendeth the doctrine of Zwinglius touching this sacrament who affirmed a Zwinglius tom 2. epist ad quandam Germaniae ciuitatem fol. 296. the supper to be nothing else but a solemne signe or token of charity and friendship a signe of spiritual thinges but it selfe in no wise spiritual neither working any spiritual thing in vs. He likewise auoucheth as I haue before noted that the truth of this misterie seemeth incredible that it is wrote by the secret power of the spirit that it is incomprehensible by our minde and aboue nature that many miracles are contained in it c. which his assertions seeme to argue some great matter Lastly he telleth vs that b Caluin Instit booke 4. c. 40. not vnworthily they are guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord who come to this sacrament vnworthily which they doe with vngodlines ful of sacriledge so fouly defile Therefore saith he by this vnworthy eating they take to themselues damnation The booke of cōmon praier in the cōmunion in the exhortations The like hath the English booke of common prayer yea much more as euery man may see and others are of the same judgement And who can denie but this is a manifest token that they acknowledge the real presence For what indignity can be offered to Christ or damnation taken by eating a peece of bakers bread only
to him And seing that this feeding vpon Christ by faith may be performed at other times as wel as when their supper is receiued hence they further auouch that Christ himselfe as wel at other times as then may be receiued but principally they say vve receiue him by reading the vvord of God or hearing it preached He is deceiued saith Caluin that thinketh there is any more giuen to him by the Sacraments then that which being offered by the word of God he receiueth by faith c Ibid. §. 17. in Ioan. 6. vers 54. Againe Let this remaine certaine that there is no other office of the Sacraments then of the word of God which is to offer and set forth Christ vnto vs and in him the treasures of heauenly grace Moreouer expounding those wordes of Christ d Idem in 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. Doe this in remembrance of me thus he argueth Therefore the supper is a token or memorial appointed to helpe our infirmity for if otherwise we were mindful of Christes death this helpe were superfluous And this is common to the Sacraments for they are helpes of our infirmity Thus Caluin Beza in epist Theolog. 65. pag. 285. And this was decreed in a Synode held by the Caluinists at Rochel in vvhich we finde that albeit the supper be particularly appointed for our mystical and spiritual communication of Christ yet that Christ is receiued as fully with al his gifts also in a simple or only word or sermon But this is most earnestly defended by Peter Martir likewise a Caluinist vvho among other his discourses hath these sentences We attribute no more to the wordes of God then to the Sacraments nor no more to these then to them a Martir in de fens Euchar. cont Gardin part 2. regula 5. pag. 618. I adde withal that touching the deliuery and obtaining of Christes body and bloud if yee respect the thing and substance it selfe we haue it no more by Sacraments then by wordes b Ibid part 3. pag. 651. see also before p. 644. 547. The body of Christ is receiued as wel in hearing faithfully the word of God as it is in the Sacraments c Ibid. p. 683 I denie not but this is our doctrine that the body of Christ is receiued no lesse in wordes then in the Sacraments or Symbols For this receiuing is wrought by faith and to faith we are stirred vp by wordes as wel as by the Sacraments d Only an empty signe c. possible And I feare not to affirme that we come to the receiuing of Christes body much more by wordes then by Sacraments For Sacraments haue al their force from the wordes Hitherto Martir e Caluin Instit booke 4. c. 14. §. 20. 23. Caluin Beza and Martir in 1. Cor. 10. v. 1.2 Hence they make no difference in honour grace vertue and efficacy betweene the Sacraments of the old lawe and those of the newe f Caluin Instit booke 4. c. 14. § 23. Beza in actis colloq Monpelg p. 77. Sadeel in tract demāducut Sacram p. 191. Nay they adde that the Fathers of the old were as much pertakers of the body and bloud of Christ as Christians are in the newe And to proue this g Caluin Institut booke 4. c. 14. §. 23. Caluin corrupteth S. Paules vvordes 1. Cor. 10. vers 3. by affirming the Apostle to say that the Fathers of the old lawe did eate the same spiritual meate which we eate vvhereas the Apostle maketh no comparison betweene Christians and Iewes but only telleth vs that the Iewes among themselues both good and badde just and vnjust did eate the same spiritual meate Neither ought it seeme strange to any one of our English nation that this doctrine is taught by the Caluinists for we want not some euen in our Protestants Church of England that seeke to vphold it And among other h Willet in his Synopsis controuers 11. p. 463. see also Iewel in his reply against Harding art 5. pag. 323. Andrew Willet before cited in expresse wordes auoucheth and concludeth that looke howe the word of God worketh being preached so doe the Sacraments Their doctrine therefore is that Christ may as truly and really be receiued by hearing of a sermon as he is in their supper And of al this I may first inferre that if they say true vve may as truely and really receiue Christ in our chambers reading the Scriptures and by feeding on him by faith or by eating a peece of bakers bread and drinking a cup of wine or by taking any other such corporal foode in remembrance that he died for vs on the Crosse as we can doe in their Churches by taking the like bread and vvine of the Minister I further inferre that the opinion of Carolostadius Zwinglius and Caluin in verie deede equally exclude Christ from being really present in the Eucharist and therefore the bread and vvine vvhich they receiue according to al their judgements is nothing better then a peece of bakers bread or a bottle of wine bought in a tauerne The reason is euident because Christ himselfe according to his humane nature is as far distant from the bread and wine as heauen is from earth although Caluin acknoweledg a certaine vnion betweene vs and Christ by faith yet this is a thing altogether extrinsecal to the bread and wine for this faith is in the soule not in the bread and vvine neither doth it vnite the body and bloud of Christ to the bread and vvine but as they say to the soule And this vnion in like sort is not real but imaginary for the body bloud of Christ are as farre distant from our faith vvhich is an inward act of our soule and produceth of it selfe no outward effect as they are from the bread and wine And this is true euen according to the doctrine of Caluin and his disciples vvhatsoeuer they seeme in vvordes to say to the contrary But to make the proofe of it more strong let vs confirme it by the testimony of Beza Beza Epist Theolog. 1. pag. 7. Caluins schollar and of some Lutherans Bezaes vvordes are these I say they are very impudent slaunderers that imagine that there was euer any contrariety betweene those most excellent men Zwinglius OEcolampadius and Caluin in their doctrine concerning the Sacrament Thus Beza Among the Lutherans Westphalus a principal Doctor of their company vvriteth thus Caluin vseth such art in handling this matter Westphal in Apologia de coena contra Caluin p. 71. he leaueth his reader so doubtful and vncertaine what to judge of him he shadoweth his speach with such colours that sometimes he yeeldeth a confession of faith like to our Lutheran Churches he seemeth to reject the doctrine of Zwinglius and to beleeue that the very body and bloud of Christ is truly present and giuen in the supper with the bread and wine But hauing conferred many of Caluins sentences
affirming it to be only an argument of a fable or tale whereby to set forth an example of patience He affirmeth that the booke of a Luth. in cōuiual ser tit de libris noui veter test Rabenstocke l. 2. colloquior Latin Luther cap. de veter test Ecclesiastes hath neuer a perfect sentence that the authour of it had neither bootes nor spurs but rid vpon a long sticke or in begging shooes as he did when he was a Frier He vvil haue b Luth. in exordio suarum Annotat. in Cantica Cantica Canticorum which some c Bible 1595 English Sectaries tearme the Ballet of Ballets of Salomon to be nothing else but a familiar speach or communication betweene Salomon and the common wealth of the Iewes d Castalio in trāslat Latin suorum Bibliorum see Beza praefat in Iosuae Castalio goeth further and judgeth it to be a communication betweene Salomon and a certaine friend or mistresse he had called Sulamitha The Epistle to the e Luther in 1. edit noui test Germ. praefat in epistol ad Hebr. in posterior edit eiusdem Hebrewes if we beleeue Luther was written by none of the Apostles and containeth thinges contrary to the Apostolike doctrine The like is affirmed by the f Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. Century writers The same Luther calleth the Epistle of S. Iames truly a g Luth. in praefat in nouum test Germ. edit 1. in Ienens edit noui test praefat in Iacob strawen Epistle in comparison of those of S. Peter and S. Paul saith that it is h In captiuit Babilon cap. de extrema vnctione probably auerred to be none of his nor worthy of an Apostolike spirit i Ad cap. 22. Genes in colloquijs cōuiual lat tom 2. de lib. noui test reprehendeth the doctrine of it as false and contrary to that of Genesis and of S. Paul the Apostle saith the authour doth delirare that is dote c. It is likewise judged not Canonical by k Muscul in locis comunibus c. de Iustific Brent in Apol. Illiric praef in Iacob Musculus Brentius Illiricus Kemnitius and others The second epistle of S. Peter saith l Luth. in suis Germ. Biblijs Brentius in Apolog. ca. de Scripturis Luther is none of his but is of some vncertaine authour who was desirous to giue credit to his worke by the glory of an other mans name Brentius plainely rejecteth it as Apocryphal The like is said by these and others of the Epistle of m Luther praef in epist Iacob lib. cont Amb. Catharinum Magdeburg Cent. 1. lib. 2. ca. 4. Brent in Apolog. S. Iude. Finally Luther censureth the n Luther praefat in Apocal. prioris edit lib. de abroganda missa priuata Brent in Apol. Apocalipse of S. Iohn to be neither Apostolike nor Prophetical but I thinke it is saith he like the fourth of Esdras a booke rejected by vs al neither can I any waies finde that it was made by the holy Ghost Let euery man thinke of it as he please my spirit cannot accommodate it selfe to it And this cause is sufficient to me not greatly to esteeme it that in it Christ is neither taught nor knowne Thus Luther Brentius hauing recited it among other bookes by him censured Apocryphal concludeth that some of the bookes rejected are called dreames others fables And this is the judgement of these Protestants concerning these bookes Notwithstanding our o See the Bible of the yeare 1595. authorized to be read in Churches Articles of the yeare 1562. 1604. Articul 6. Caluin in his Institut in argum epist. Iacobi Church of England with Caluin diuers other of their bretheren receiue al these bookes as Canonical And seing that both these opinions cannot haue an infallible ground and one according to their owne proceedings hath no greater reason for it selfe then the other I inferre that they both haue no other rule vvhereby to receiue and reject bookes of Scripture but their owne judgement and fancy from which principally this difference among them ariseth It may be said that some Sacramentaries and among the rest p Whitaker in his answere to Campians 1. reason Whitaker and q Rogers pag. 30. vpon the Articles of faith of the yeare 1562. 1604. Rogers denie Luther and the Lutherans to reject the bookes mentioned I confesse it but in very truth whosoeuer readeth the authours and places alleaged wil finde that I doe them no wrong And this he may partly gather out of Rogers himselfe who although he r Pag. 30. affirme al reformed Churches to be of the same judgement with the Church of England concerning the Canonical bookes Yet in the next leafe ſ Pag. 32. alleageth two principal Lutherans Wigandus and Heshusius and accuseth them both of errour the one for refusing the first and second epistles of S. Iohns with the epistle of S. Iude the other for rejecting the booke of S. Iohns Reuelation or the Apocalipse I adde also that t Whitaker de sacris Script controuers 1. quaest 1. c. 6. Whitakers himselfe discoursing of this matter in an other place hauing set downe their doctrine concerning the authority of al the bookes of the newe testament addeth these vvordes If Luther or some that haue followed Luther haue taught or written otherwise let them answere for themselues this is nothing to vs who in this matter neither followe Luther nor defend him but are led by a better reason Thus Whitakers But Caluin directly telleth vs u Caluin in argumento epistol Iacobi that in his time there were some that judged the epistle of S. Iames not Canonical Oecolampadius testifieth the same touching the Apocalipse and affirmeth himselfe to x Oecolampadius lib. 2. ad cap. 12. Danielis wonder that some with rash judgement rejected S. Iohn in this booke as a dreamer a mad or braine-sicke man and a writer improfitable to the Church That Luther in particular with a hard censure bereaued this booke of al authority it is recorded by y Bullinger in Apocalip cap. 1. ser 1. Bullinger Yea * Field booke 4. chap. 24. §. wherefore Field condemning the inconsiderate rashnesse of such as in our time make question of any of the bookes of the newe testament c. nameth Luther in the margent It may perhaps be said by some man that al the Sacramentaries accord together concerning the bookes of Canonical Scripture and therefore that they haue some certaine and diuine rule whereby to discerne such bookes from others But this is easily refelled because there is no such consent or agreement among them For doth not Wolfangus Musculus a Zwinglian of great fame with Luther and the Lutherans reject the epistle of Iames out of the Canon Verily either this must be granted or else it must be confessed that he affirmeth one Scripture to contradict an other and false doctrine to be
thus The Lutheran preachers rage hitherto in their pulpits against the Caluinists as much as euer and their Princes and people haue them in as great detestation not forbearing to professe openly that they wil returne to the Papacy rather then euer admit that Sacramentary and predestinary pestilence For these two pointes are the ground of the quarrel and the later more scandalous at this day then the former thus he writing as it is probable of thinges which he sawe and heard with his owne eies and eares And vvhat is the off-spring and fountaine of this their diuision and dissention but the vvant of a certaine infallible rule to direct them for because they al seeme with one consent to accept of the bare wordes of Scripture for the only ground of their faith and religion and the said vvordes admit sundry expositions euery man among them whose wit by any meanes can reach to the inuention either of a newe translation or interpretation of the word of God or of some newe opinion which by wresting and wringing he can in outward shewe confirme by the authority of the same foundeth a newe sect Hence are these wordes of Luther Luther epist ad Antuerp tom 2. Germ. â—en fol. 101. There be almost so many sects and religions among vs as there be men There is no Asse in this time so sottish and blockish but wil haue the dreames of his owne head and his opinion accepted for the instinct of the holy Ghost and himselfe esteemed as a Prophet And againe in an other place thus he complaineth The peace and concord of the Church being once broken that is to say the pillar of truth and the infallible rule of our faith being once forsaken there is no meane or end of dissentions Luther in ca. 5. ad Galat. tom 5. Wittenb fol. 416 In our time first the Sacramentaries forsooke vs afterwardes the Anabaptists Of these neither agree among themselues So alwaies one sect bringeth forth another and once condemneth another Hitherto Luther the ring-leader of al the daunce himselfe And thus much of their diuision and dissention in this place I knowe that some of our aduersaries are so bold I might say so impudent as to denie there is any great or material dissension in their Churches And among others M. Field writeth Field booke 3 ch 42. p. 170. See also ibid. pag. 169. Where he saith there is a ful consent in their publike coÌ„fessions of faith that it so fel out by the happy prouidence of God when there was a reformation made by his bretheren that there was no material or essential difference among them but such as vpon equal scanning wil be found rather to consist in the diuers manner of expressing one thing and to be but verbal vpon the mistaking through the hasty and inconsiderate humors of some men then any thing else He addeth further Yea I dare confidently pronounce that after due and ful examination of each others meaning there shal be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament the vbiquitary presence or the like betweene the Churches reformed by Luthers ministery in Germany and other places and those whome some mens malice called Sacramentaries that none of the differences betweene Melancthon and Illiricus except about certaine ceremonies were real that Osiander held no priuate opinion of justification howsoeuer his strange manner of speaking gaue occasion to many so to thinke and conceiue And this shal be justified against the proudest Papist of them al Thus Field But howe vntrue this his assertion is al the world knoweth and it might be easily here demonstrated did not the matter belong properly to an other place I haue partly also shewed the falshood of it already Neuerthelesse to adde a word or two against this doctor in particular howe doth this agree with the beginning of the Epistle Dedicatory of his booke See his words cited at large in the preface of this treatise See also in his third booke ch 13. pag. 86. Doth he not there complaine of vnhappy diuisions in the Christian world and of infinite distractions of mens mindes not knowing in so great variety of opinions what to thinke or to whome to joine themselues euery faction saith he boasting of the pure and sincere profession of heauenly truth challenging to it selfe alone the name of the Church and fastning vpon al that dissent or are otherwise minded the hateful note of schisme and heresie There he affirmeth that the controuersies of religion in our time are growen in number so many and in nature so intricate that fewe haue time and leasure fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them And therefore he concludeth that nothing remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in thinges of such consequence but diligently to search out the Church that so they may embrace her communion followe her directions and rest in her judgement Thus he discourseth in his Epistle dedicatory And howe can these thinges be made consonant and agreeable to his other wordes euen nowe alleaged Truly I thinke an indifferent reader vvil hardly excuse him from contradiction Besides this he telleth vs there is no difference touching the Sacrament the vbiquitarie presence and the like betweene the Lutherans and the Sacramentaries Caluin Instit booke 4. chap. 17 §. 16. c. but Caluin auoucheth that by the vbiquitarie presence Marcion an ancient Heretike is raised vp out of hel The Caluinists also in the Preface to the Harmony of confessions although a booke published to shew a consent among the followers of the newe religion exclaime in like manner against it and a thousand other bookes written on both sides conuince him of falsehood Field saith none of the differences betweene Melancthon and Illiricus except about certaine ceremonies were real but vvhosoeuer readeth the acts of Synode held by Lutherans at Altenburge and the publike vvritings of the Flaccians so called of Flaccus Illiricus against the Synergists and Adiaphorists two other sects of Lutherans and of these against them shal finde dissentions touching greater matters Field auoucheth that Osiander held no priuate opinion of justification but Caluin in his Institutions Caluin Instit booke 3. chap. 11. §. 5. c. Heshusius l. cont Osiand Schlusselbur in Catalogo haereticorum lib. 6. spendes almost one whole Chapter in the confutation of Osianders opinion concerning this article which at his very entrance to this point he calleth be wotes not what monster of essential righteousnesse Heshusius a Lutheran in like sort condemneth his brother Osianders doctrine touching this And Conradus Schlusselburge an other of that sect placeth him and his followers in the Catalogue of Heretikes Such are Fields rare singular proceedinges in which he feareth not to affirme thinges most apparently false and confessed vntrue by al his bretheren And truly a man of smal learning reading his bookes of the church may first finde that he hath a good opinion of himselfe of his owne wit and
that any translation is true but of these matters before For the authority also of our translation in general it maketh that it hath beene read and allowed of in the Church aboue eleauen hundred yeares and approued by thousands of Saintes and learned men and by them accepted as the true vvord of God The translation of the old testament in particular if we beleeue S. Augustine Aug. l. 18. de ciuitat c. 43. was acknowledged as true by the very Iewes themselues then liuing who fauoured no more vs then the Protestants That of the newe as the same holy Father writeth was also in those daies approued by al Christians Idem epist 10 ad Hieron For it likewise we haue the testimony of Beza himselfe who among our aduersaries is accounted a great linguist who in commendation of the old translator writeth thus The old interpreter seemeth to haue interpreted or translated the holy bookes Beza in c. 1. Luc. vers 1. IbideÌ„ in praefat nou test anno 1556. Idem ibid. with marueilous sincerity and religion Againe The vulgar edition I embrace for the most part and preferre it before al other whatsoeuer By it in diuers places he correcteth the Greeke text as may be seene Luc. 20. vers 28. Luc. 7. vers 31. c. He also blameth Erasmus for reprehending of it as dissenting from the Greeke saying that he doth it vnjustly I wil recite his wordes which are as followeth Howe vnjustly and without cause doth Erasmus blame the old interpreter as dissenting from the Greeke He dissented I grant from those Greeke copies which Erasmus had gotten but we haue found out in one place that the same interpretation which he blameth is grounded vpon the authority of other Greeke copies and those most ancient Yea in some number of places we haue obserued that the reading of the Latin text of the old interpreter though it agree not some times with our Greeke copies yet it is much more conuenient for that it seemeth he followed some truer and better copy Thus Beza Vnto whome I joine Molinaeus an other sectary as some thinke to him not inferiour Molinaeus in Luc. 17. who in like sort preferreth this edition before those of Erasmus Bucer Bullinger Brentius Pagnines that of Zuricke yea also before Iohn Caluins and al others He affirmeth Ibidem that Erasmus in a certaine place did wel to followe the old edition and saith it had beene better for Beza to haue done so too He auoucheth further that Beza did not wel in changing the old translation Idem in Ioan. 3. v. 19. 43 see also in Ioan 7. ver 35. He addeth also * IdeÌ„ part 30 that he can very hardly depart from the vulgar and accustomed reading which also I am wont saith he very earnestly to defend Castalio in like sort a man much commended by a Humfredus de rat Interp. lib. 1. pa. 62. 63. 189. D. Humfrey and b Gesnerus in Bibliotheca Gesnerus blameth Beza for finding fault with the old interpreter c Castalio in defens p. 179 174. 181. 183. 188. 198. 202. 204. 213. auerring that he doth it vnjustly and that the said old interpreter had translated it better before Yea d Humfred de rat interpret lib. 1. pag. 74. D. Humfrey himselfe yeeldeth the old translator this praise The old interpreter seemeth sufficiently bent to followe the propriety of wordes and he doth in deede ouer carefully which notwithstanding I suppose him to haue done not of ignorance but of religion And in truth that this is no fault I gather out of his owne doctrine for he e Ibid. p. 179. telleth vs that in prophane writers a man may range abroade more freely and depart from the wordes but in Canonical scripture saith he no such licence is tollerable for man may not alter the tongue of God And thus much for the vulgar Latin edition of the newe Testament out of our aduersaries Further for the truth of our expositions of the holy Scripture we haue the continual tradition of the Church and the testimony and suffrage of al the holy Fathers and of thousands of Saints and learned men who euer expounded it as we doe and out of it gathered the selfe same doctrine and beliefe For vnto them vve are al contented to remit the trial of the truth of our cause and of the hoâ—y Church and them we professe our selues to learne the true sense of the word of God And thus much the Catholikes can alleage for the authority of their translation and interpretation of holy Scripture although they set aside the authority of the Church Nowe what can our aduersaries say for themselues what sound testimony or proof can they bring for the truth of their translations and expositions Surely euery sect at the lest hath a distinct bible wherefore for the proofe of these thinges they can only alleage the testimony of their sect-master or translator of their Bible and his followers And what a goodly matter is this doe not farre more of the new sectaries themselues condemne reject euery one of their Bibles and their particular expositions then there doe approue them Certainly euery Bible is condemned by diuers but approued only by the followers of one sect and so in like sort are diuers particular interpretations Vnto which I adde that the diuersity of their Bibles maketh the truth of them al suspected for seing that we haue no greater reason to allowe of one then of an other and al but one without al doubt are false as they themselues must needes confesse because there is but one true word of God we may with like reason reject them al. Moreouer is any one of their sect-masters or learned translators or expositors to be compared with S. Hierome Is the opinion of a fewe sectaries touching the translation and interpretation of holy Scriptures to be preferred before the testimony of al the Saints learned men that flourished in the Church in S. Hieromes daies and euer since yea I may demand whether their opinion be to be preferred before the testimony of al good Christians that haue liued euer since the beginning of Christianity For S. Hierome followed the steps of his predecessors and consented with the vniuersal Church of his age and the Church euer since hath approued his labours Stancarus de Trinit Mediat M. 4. Surely Stancarus himselfe a Protestant auoucheth that Peter Lombard called the master of sentences is more to be esteemed then one hundred Luthers two hundred Melancthons three hundred Bullingers foure hundred Peter Martirs fiue hundred Caluins He addeth that if al these sectaries named were beaten or pounded together in a morter there could not be strained or pressed out of them one ounce of true diuinity especially out of their doctrine concerning the blessed Trinity the Incarnation the Mediator and the Sacraments which neuerthelesse be the principal misteries of Christian religion Wherefore he concludeth
religion to wit Apostolike Traditions page 86. Sect. 1. Of Apostolike Tradition in general page 86. Sect. 2. Of vnwritten Traditions in particular page 91. Chap. 9. Of general Councels which make the third particular ground of Catholike religion page 97. Chap. 10. Of the decrees of the supreame visible Pastour of the Church which make a fourth particular ground of our faith and of other grounds hence proceeding page 108. Sect. 1. Containing a briefe explication or rehearsal of the Catholike doctrine concerning the Popes supreamacy page 108. Sect. 2. The aforesaid doctrine is proued page 113. Sect. 3. That the decrees of the Bishop of Rome when he teacheth the Church as supreame Pastour are of diuine and infallible authority and of some other groundes of faith flowing out of these page 127. Sect. 4. The opinion of some sectaries that the Pope is Antechist is briefly confuted and two objections against the premises are answered p. 133. Chap. 11. Of the consent of the auncient Fathers and the general doctrine of the Catholike Church in al ages page 140. Chap. 12. Containing the conclusion of the first part page 144. THE SECOND PART In which is proued that the newe sectaries build their faith vpon no diuine authority but that the ground of al their beliefe and religion is their owne judgement and consequently that they haue neither true faith nor religion CHAPTER 1. That by their doctrine they deny or at the least weaken the three principal and general groundes of Christian religion set downe in the three first chapters of the first part page 1. Section 1. The number of Atheists among them is great and of the causes by them giuen of this impiety page 1. Sect. 2. Of our aduersaries doctrine concerning the immortality of the soule heauen and hel page 8. Sect. 3. Of our aduersaries impious assertions concerning Christ and Christian religion page 12. Sect. 4. That in like sort they weaken the principal proofes of the said three groundes page 19. Chap. 2. The newe Sectaries debase the true Christian faith and in place of it extol a presumptuous faith by themselues inuented page 26. Chap. 3. That our aduersaries deny the infallible authority of the Church and affirme it to haue erred and perished page 30. Chap. 4. They reject al particular groundes of faith aboue assigned and proued to bee found in the Church of Christ besides the holy Scriptures page 32. Chap. 5. They build not vpon the holy Scripture and first that the bare letter of holy Scripture only is not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion page 47. Sect. 1. In which this is proued because by Scripture the Scripture it selfe cannot be proued Canonical It is also argued that according to the sectaries groundes there is no Canonical Scripture and some principal reasons especially inspiration of the spirit which they alleage for the proofe of such Scripture are refelled page 47. Sect. 2. In which the same argument is prosecuted and two things principally are proued First that the newe Testament receiueth smal authority if we beleeue our aduersaries by this that it was written by the Apostles and Disciples because they accuse them of errour Secondly because they confesse the text of Scripture to be corrupted p. 67. Sect. 3. The same is proued because euery Christian is bound to admit and beleeue certaine propositions neither expresly contained nor according to some mens judgements so euidently gathered out of the holy Scripture page 75. Sect. 4. The insufficiency of the bare letter of holy Scripture is proued by other arguments especially by this that the true interpretation cannot be infallibly gathered out of the letter page 78. Chap. 6. The newe Sectaries Bibles containe not the true word of God page 83. Sect. 1. In which this is first proued concerning al their Bibles in general page 83. Sect. 2. That Luther Zwinglius Caluin and Beza in particular haue corruptly translated the Scriptures page 84. Sect. 3. Our English sectaries also haue falsly and corruptly translated the Scriptures page 90. Sect. 4. Containing false translations against the authority of the Church Traditions honour of Images Purgatory and the honour of Saints page 92. Sect. 5. Of their corruptions against inherent Iustice Iustification by good workes Merit of good workes and keeping the Commandements and in defence of their special â—aith vaine Security c. and against Freewil and Merits page 94. Sect. 6. Of their false translations against the Real presence Priest-hood election of Bishops single life of Priests Penance and satisfaction for Sinne the Sacrament of Matrimony and some other points p. 96. Sect. 7. That the Professors of the newe religion in corrupting the Scriptures followe the steps of the auncient Heretikes and what followeth of this discourse page 101. Chap. 7. That they build not vpon the letter of holy Scripture contained as they say in their owne Bibles page 103. Sect. 1. In which this is proued first because the propositions which they tearme of their faith are not in expresse tearmes contained in the Scripture page 103. Sect. 2. The same argument is confirmed by the testimonie of some Protestants concerning the true sense of some wordes of Scripture alleaged for our Catholike doctrine touching justification in the Section before page 106. Sect. 3. The like discourse is made concerning a place of Scripture alleaged for the real presence page 114. Sect. 4. The followers of the newe religion in diuers matters obserue not the letter of their owne Bibles page 130. Chap. 8. In receiuing translating and expounding the holy Scriptures they only build vpon their owne fancies and judgement and that they haue no other ground page 134. Sect. 1. In which this is proued by their doctrine and dissention concerning the bookes of Canonical Scripture and their altering of the text of the same page 134. Sect. 2. The same is confirmed by their translations and expositions of holy Scripture page 141. Sect. 3. Concerning the newe exposition of those wordes This is my body in particular page 146. Sect. 4. That certaine rules prescribed by Field for the true vnderstanding of Scripture of themselues alone without the censure of the Church are insufficient to assure vs that our exposition made is of diuine truth page 149. Sect. 5. Concerning their deductions out of holy Scripture that they likewise are framed by them according to their owne fancies and of their accusations of one another touching these matters page 157. Sect. 6. The vnlearned and ignorant sectaries in receiuing and expounding the holy Scriptures likewise build vpon their owne fancies and judgements and haue no other ground of their faith and religion p. 161. Sect. 7. Of the miserable estate of the vnlearned and ignorant Sectaries page 166. Sect. 8. That the newe sectaries alleage Scriptures to confirme their new doctrine it is no certaine argument that they build their faith and religion vpon the said Scriptures page 172. Chap. 9. In which is proued by the newe Sectaries