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.
by the Diuines of al ages why Christ permitted himself to dread so much the corporal death vvhich he was to suffer yet Caluin auoucheth that he was a very dastard and a coward if he feared not eternal damnation Let this then be the first proposition made of Caluins vvordes If Christ feared not the curse and wrath of God he was more tender and more feareful then the most part of the rascal sort of men for theeues and other euil doers doe obstinately hast to death many doe with haughty courage despise it some other doe mildly suffer it whereas Christ was astonished and in manner stroken dead with feare of it Howe shameful a tendernesse should this haue beene saith Caluin to be so farre tormented for feare of a common death as to melt in bloudie sweate and not to be able to be comforted but by sight of Angels Thus Caluin The second proposition taken from the English Protestants is as followeth But Christ feared not the curse and wrath of God he neuer dreaded eternal damnation nor suffered the paines of hel Nowe the conclusion followeth Therefore Christ was more feareful then the most part of the rascal sort of men then theeues and other euil doers his tendernesse was shameful c. The first proposition as I haue said is almost vvholy made of Caluins owne vvordes that the second is held true by the greater part of English Protestants Sutcliffe in his answer to Kellison ch 5. pag. 56. See Parkes also in the preface to his rejoineder to Lymbomastix I proue by the testimony of M. Sutcliffe vvho telleth vs that they mislike Caluins particular opinion cōcerning Christs suffering the paines of hel So that the conclusion if both Caluin and the English Protestants say true cannot be auoided And thus I thinke it nowe sufficiently proued that Luther Zwinglius and Caluin haue fallen into some grosse and notorious errours which they haue mainetained as true and holy doctrine I could if it were needful and conuenient in this place shewe the like concerning al their disciples I meane that they grosly haue erred and erre in some one point or other concerning faith religion but first the followers of euery sect wil doe grant this concerning al others but those of their owne beliefe For this the Lutherans confesse true of al the Sacramentaries the Sacramentaries of al the Lutherans the English Protestants of the Puritans and the Puritans of the English Protestants c. vvhich is the cause and fountaine of their bitter inuectiues and bookes vvritten one against the other so that as I say if a man wil beleeue them al they al hold some one or more absurde and erroneous opinions Secondly it is vvel knowne to any one although but meanely read in matters of controuersie and I haue partly declared already before that most sects doe as yet followe the false doctrine of their Sect-master as the Lutherans of Luther the Zwinglians of Zwinglius the Caluinists of Caluin Wherefore seing that I must also be mindful that I write a Preface and not a volume letting others passe I vvil only say a vvord or two in particular touching the English Sectaries vvho among al other members of the newe religion are only like to come to the sight and reading of this my Preface And is it not easily proued that the principal writers and vpholders of the English Church haue notoriously fallen into error who of this company whiles they liued were comparable to Iewel Fulke and Whitakers And doe not al these * Iewel agaīst Harding art 17. diuisiō 14 Fulke against Martin p. 64 65. in fine Whitakers in his answer to Duraeus pag. 559. added by Stocke to his answer of Campians 8. reason p. 211. hold that Christ was a Priest and offered sacrifice according to his diuinity and God-head But vvhat followeth of this but that as Arius affirmed according to his God-head he is inferiour to his Father for no one offereth sacrifice to his equal Vnto this I adde that a Fulke vpon the Rhemes testam Math 27. v. 3. Act. 3 vers 11. Fulke and b Whitakers in his answer to Cāpians 8. reason pag. 211. 210. Whitakers openly and stoutly maintaine Caluins doctrine concerning Christes dreading euerlasting damnation yea although they goe not so far as Caluin in making him if this was not so more feareful then the most part of the rascal sort of men yet the first of them auouceth that if the feare of bodily paine and death only had caused that agony in the garden he had beene of greater infirmity then many of his seruants the other hath almost the like sentence But aboue al others c Willet in his Synopsis printed an 1600. cōtrouers 20. Willet passeth in defending Caluins blaspheamies in so much as a man may vvel maruaile that his booke is suffered to be read among Christians But what shal we say of the English Sectaries in general wil any man endeauour to free them from al errour Verily if none of them haue fallen into errour it followeth first that our Church is the true Church of Christ and theirs a Schismatical Synagogue This I proue after this sort The Puritans in their Christian and modest offer so they tearme it of a most indifferent conference tendered not long since to the Protestant Arch-bishops Bishops and al their adherents plainely affirme that if their Puritan propositions be denied and the Protestants haue the truth on their side the Roman Church is the true Church of Christ For hauing set downe such propositions as they offer to mainetaine against the Protestants among other just considerations as they pretend mouing them to make this offer in the sixt place they assigne this for one A Christian and modest of fer c. pag. 11. published anno 1606. Diuers of the aforesaid propositions are such say they that if the Ministers should not constantly hold and mainetaine the same against al men they cannot see howe possibly by the rules of diuinity the seperation of our Churches from the Church of Rome and from the Pope the supreame head thereof can be justified And againe in the eight consideration hauing yeelded an other reason wherefore they cannot but make opposition to the Prelates in approuing the propositions aboue specified Ibid. pag. 16. they adde wherein if they the Puritan Ministers who make this offer be in errour and the Prelates on the contrary haue the truth they protest to al the world that the Pope and the Church of Rome and in them God and Christ IESVS himselfe haue great wrong and indignity offered vnto them in that they are rejected and that al the Protestant Churches are Schismatical in forsaking vnity and communion with them Hitherto are the Puritans vvordes Hence vvhich is a point vvorthy to be noted they promise their reconciliation vnto vs if we can proue the falshood of their assertions which promise they make not to the English Protestants For thus they
confidently triumph vpon the deuil and death Hence proceede these vvordes of Luther Luth. in c. 2. ad Galatas See certaine quest ans touching the doctr of predest printed betweene the newe and old testam of the yeares 1593. and 1601. Beleeue that Christ wil be thy saluation mercy and so it wil be vndoubtedly Our aduersaries workes are ful of such sentences And that they prefer this second kind of faith before the first yea that they attribute vnto it our whole justication it is apparant in al a Luc. OsiaÌ„d iÌ„ Enchirid. coÌ„tra Anabaptistas cap. 2. their discourses of this matter Our b Notes vpon the Eng. test priÌ„t an 1592 and 1600 in 1. Cor. 13 2. Willet coÌ„tro 19. pag. 877 English sectaries cal the first an historical faith and make it common to deuils but Caluin discourseth after this sort c Calu. lib. 3. Institut cap. 2.9 and 10. Ibi. l. 39. c. Many indeed saith he beleeue that there is a God and that the history of the Gospel or other parts of scripture are true c. but this image or shadow of faith as it is of no value so it is not worthy of the name of faith Wherefore according to Caluin although we beleeue the Trinity and al other articles of our faith neuer so firmely yet if we beleeue not that vndoubtedly God is our friend and that we shal most certainly be saued it profiteth vs nothing d Yea saith he who impugne this doctrine slanderously speake against the spirit of God horribly rob God foully stumble in the first principles of religion faine a Christianity that needeth not the spirit of Christ and shewe a token of miserable blindnesse hitherto Caluin But if we beleeue this without any other thing we are secure of our saluation wherefore Luther hath this exclamation e Lut. de cap tiu Babi c. de bapt et iÌ„ ser sic deus dilexit mundum Thou seest how rich a Christian man is who although he wil be cannot by neuer so great sinnes loose his saluation except he refuse to beleeue for of this beliefe he speaketh I intend not here to confute the asurd assertion of our aduersaries that faith only doth justifie which they vnderstand of this their presumptuous faith for this controuersie belongeth not to this place only I wil adde a word or two in disproofe of their said faith and so make an end of this chapter First therefore it is apparant that this faith vvas neuer heard of in the vvorld before Luthers daies for there is no description or mention of it in the holy scripture nor in any authour more ancient then himselfe as I could easily demonstrate by yeelding the true sense of al those testimonies vvhich are by them brought forth for the confirmation of this their doctrine Yea Melanchton himself Luthers scholler seemeth to confesse that it was an inuention of that age Melanchton in praefat in 2. tom Luth. for he telleth vs that Luther learned his opnion of an old Frier of his owne order when as yet he liued in his cloister vvho alleaged for it a certaine sentence of S. Bernard nothing indeede to the purpose wherefore it is very probable that this old Frier gathered his opinion out of certaine wordes of S. Bernard by himselfe falsly vnderstood which Luther vpon discontentment taking from him began to confirme by the authority of holy scriptures by himselfe falsified and corrupted or else wrested to a newe and strang sense Secondly it is also manifest that this faith altogether destroieth hope for howe can hope be together vvith an assurance and certainty of saluation It also taketh away al feare of sinne damnation or losse of the fauour of God which is so highly commended in his holy vvord Phil. 2. v. 12. insomuch as the Apostle himselfe biddeth vs worke our saluation with feare and trembling Nay farther vvhosoeuer is indued with this faith cannot say our Lords praier for he that is assured that his sinnes are forgiuen and thinketh this assurance necessarie to his justification cannot in conscience pray for the forgiuenesse of his trespasses or offences as Christ himselfe taught vs to doe Moreouer this faith is a lying and false faith which I proue after this sort The power of justifying which is in this faith according to Caluin and the rest of his bretheren consisteth not in the worthinesse of the worke which is to beleeue as before hath beene signified See Willet in Sinopsis controuers 19. part 2. pag. 827. neither doth it justifie as our worke for so they confesse it to be a sinne but when this worke of faith is in vs then God of his only mercy through the merits of Christ doth justifie vs and Christes justice is made ours so that faith in their opinion is only the instrument by vvhich vve apprehend Christes justice and his justice is made ours Now thus I argue Either before they beleeue themselues to be just and Christes justice to be theirs they are just in very deede and Christ justice is theirs or no If these thinges be true before then they are not justified by this faith If they be not then their faith is false For they beleeue that which is not true because it must needs be granted that this faith being as it were the instrument by vvhich their justification is vvrought is before their justification and consequently they beleeue themselues â—â—st before they are just Moreouer howe doth this doctrine stand with other their positions for doe not they hold that euery one of the elect being predestinate from al eternity is the friend of God just as soone as he hath his being in his mother wombe Doe not they auerre that the children of the faithful are sanctified for diuers generatioÌ„s If they doe not maintaine these propositions as true vvhy deny they the necessity of baptisme affirming that infants may be saued without it Why doe they make it only a seale of justice not the instrument or cause of justification or sanctification Is it not also a coÌ„mon principle among Protestants that God doth neuer hate whom once he loued or loue whom once he hated these thinges truly be so apparant that they cannot be denied But if they be granted it must needs also be confessed that euery one of the elect who only can according to their doctrine haue justice were euer just and neuer can be wicked Of which it consequently followeth that they are just before they can haue actual faith and consequently that by faith they are not justified I adde also that according to their owne ground nothing is to be beleeued but that which is expresly contained in the scripture or manifestlie gathered out of the same And vvhere doth euery man finde in the Bible that most assuredly he is just elect and shal be saued verilie no such thing is found wherefore they doe contrarie to their owne rule in beleeuing it Finally I haue declared
and moreouer that this was Luthers opinion it may be gathered out of f Caluin Instit c. 16. § 19 Caluin and g Whitaker in his answ to Campians 8. reason p. 243. Whitakers Besides this he holdeth that the soules departed out of this vvorld sleepe and are without sense or feeling neither in heauen nor in hel and so shal remaine vntil the day of judgement But of this point of his doctrine see more in the second part of my treatise following I cannot likewise omit his h Luther in serm de Sacram. coenae to 2. f. 112. c. opinion concerning the presence of Christs humane nature in euery place together vvith his diuinity of vvhich proceed these vvordes of Zwinglius vnto him i Zwingl in respōs ad Luther l. de Sacra f. 401. If thou shalt contumaciously goe on in this sentence that the humanity of Christ IESVS is essentially and corporally present wheresoeuer is his diuinity God willing we wil bring thee to those straights that either thou shalt be forced to deny the whole Scripture of the new testament or to acknowledge Marcions heresie This I say in good faith we promise we wil doe thus Zwinglius And by this heresie defended by the Lutherans of his time Caluin k Caluin Instit booke 4. ch 17. §. 16. c. Zwing l. tom 2. ep ad quādam Germaniae ciuitatē fol. 196. lib. de Baptis fol. 63. c. auoucheth that Marcion is raised vp out of hel The Geneuian diuines in the preface to the Harmony of confessions published in the name of the Churches of France and Belgia tearme it that vnhappy monster of vbiquity which if it be admitted say they wil quite ouerthrowe the true doctrine of Christs person and natures But of Luther enough Zwinglius doctrine concerning the Sacraments vvas most prophane for he made them only external signes and denied them any inward effect in the soule wherefore as I haue before noted it is worthily condemned and rejected not only by Luther and his followers but also in wordes by * Caluin lib. de coena l. 4. Instit cap. 15. §. 1. Caluin Moreouer a Zwingl in exposit fidei Chrstianae art 12. Zwinglius also placeth Hercules Theseus Socrates Numa Camillus the Catoes Scipions and other Pagans and Idolaters with the holy Patriarks and Apostles in heauen Of which his assertion Luther discourseth thus b Luther ad c. 47. Genes Zwinglius of late hath written that Numa Pompilius Hector Scipio Hercules enjoy eternal blisse in heauen with Peter Paul other Saints which is no other thing then openly to confesse that he thinketh there is no faith no Christianisme c. He addeth much more against him and of this inferreth that Zwinglius is of that minde that a man doing his best may be saued in any religion whatsoeuer vvhich in very deede is expresly by him taught in c Zwingl to 2. in declarat de peccato Original f. 118 another place Neuerthelesse this doctrine of Zwinglius touching the saluation of Infidels is maintained by d Rodolph Gualterus in Apolog pro libris Zwinglij Rodolphus Gualterus e Bullinger in Germani cōfess Eccles Figurinae Bullenger f Simlerus in vita Bullingeri c. Simlerus Daniel Tossanus and other Sacramentaries But no opinion of Zwinglius is more impious and sacrilegious then that by which he maketh God the author and cause of sinne In vpholding which blaspheamous impiety Iohn Caluin joineth hands with him If it were not that I should exceed the breuity of a preface I vvould manifestly conuince them guilty of this crime by their owne printed workes published to the viewe of the whole vvorld but I vvil here put off this manner of proofe to another place and nowe only confirme the truth of mine accusation by the testimony of some learned Protestants Albertus Grawerus rector of the Lutheran vniuersity of Eislebium in Germany about the yeare of our Lord 1597. published a booke vvith this title The warre of Iohn Caluin and of IESVS Christ God and man that is An antithesis or opposition of the doctrine of the Caluinists and of Christ in which the most horrible blaspheamies of the Caluinists especially concerning foure articles the person of Christ the supper of the Lord baptisme and predestination are faithfully shewed from the eie to the eie out of their owne proper writings and bookes and are briefly and soundly refelled out of the word of God thus hath the title And this booke hath beene printed three times among the Lutherans for I haue seene the third edition printed at Magdeburge in the yeare 1605. so plausible is it to the Lutheran churches Neuerthelesse it being oppugned and answered by some Caluinists the same author replied vvith an other booke vnto which he gaue this title Absurda absurdorum absurdissima Caluinistica absurda c. The absurde the most absurde of absurde Caluinistical absurde thinges that is an inuincible demonstration logical philosophical theological of some horrible paradoxes of the Caluinian doctrine in the article of the person of Christ the supper of the Lord baptisme and predestination of the children of God written by M. Albert Grawere Rector of the famous Vniuersity of Eislebium of the Earles of Mansfeld in defence of his Caluinian warre c. Cum gratia priuilegio at Magdeburge an 1605. hitherto are the vvordes of the title That vvhich maketh in these bookes for my present purpose is that which he deliuereth concerning the opinion of Caluin and the Caluinists touching the predestination of the children of God for in the fore-front of the last treatise after the title of the booke this Lutheran placeth this sillogisme Quodcunque dogma c. What opinion soeuer maketh God the author of sinne is not of God The Caluinian opinion maketh God the author of sinne therefore it is not of God For proofe of the minor or second proposition which is that the Caluinian doctrine maketh God the author of sinne he referreth his reader to the fift chapter of his booke following in vvhich in very deede he manifestly proueth it by diuers sentences alleaged out of Caluin Beza and other Sacramentaries Perhaps some man wil demaund what is this to Zwinglius I answere although Zwinglius in very deede be properly no Caluinist for he vvas before Caluin yet because nowe the Caluinists beare al the sway and haue almost eaten vp the Zwinglians as also because the differences betweene Zwinglius and Caluin vvere not great and notorious it pleaseth the Lutherans to number Zwinglius among the Caluinists yea to cal al the Sacramentaries Caluinists Hence Grawerus among other Caluinists making God the authour of sinne often alleageth Zwinglius and proueth him guilty of the same impiety They are likewise accused of making of God the author of sinne by Luke Osiander another Lutheran who hauing related and confuted certaine their assertions touching Christ thus beginneth the seauenth chapter of his booke
hereafter vvhen he teacheth the whole Church as supreame Pastor cannot erre in matters of faith or precepts of manners vvhich he prescribeth to al faithful Christians and concerne thinges necessary to saluation or in those things which are of themselues good or euil for he cannot so commaund anie vice or forbid any vertue yet as a priuate man or particuler doctour he may erre in his judgement or opinion he may also offend God most deepely and be damned in hel-fire Mat. 24. verse 48. For if that seruant whome his Lord hath appointed ouer his family these are our Sauiours words shal say in his hart my Lord is long a comming and shal beginne to strike his fellowe seruantes and eateth and drinketh with drunckards the Lord of that seruant shal come in a day that he hopeth not and an houre that he knoweth not and shal diuide him and appoint his portion with the hipocrites there shal be weeping and gnashing of teeth Thus our Sauiour Christ But although S. Peter in authority and diuers other prerogatiues was farre inferiour to Christ euen as man yet he vvas superiour to al the rest of the Apostles For although al the Apostles receiued of Christ orders and power to vse the keies of the kingedome of heauen that is to forgiue sinnes and also to preach the Gospel throughout the whole world yet S. Peter only aboue the rest receiued supreame power authority and jurisdiction The authority of the other Apostles was giuen them with a certaine kinde of subjection to Peter they were also Christes legates or embassadours sent to the whole world but they being only Apostles were equal among themselues and no one superiour ouer the other Neither were they ordinary Bishops or Pastours of the whole world for of it S. Peter vvas only the ordinary Pastour Wherefore like as a legate or embassadour cannot of himselfe communicate or delegate his authority to another or leaue it by inheritance to his successour so the other Apostles left not al their authority in so ample sort as they receiued it to the Bishoppes vvho succeeded them contrariwise S. Peter as absolute prince hauing absolute and ordinarie jurisdiction vnder Christ left the same to his successour or heire the Bishoppe of Rome This doctrine vve receiue from the holie father and martir S. Ciprian vvho of this point discourseth thus Cipr. lib. de vnitate Ecclesiae cap. 3. To Peter our Lord after his resurrection saith feede my sheepe and buildeth his Church vpon him alone and to him be gaue the charge of feeding his sheepe And although after his resurrection he gaue his power alike to al saying As my father sent me so send I you take the holie Ghost if you remitte to any their sinnes they shal be remitted c. Yet to manifest vnitie he constituted one Chaire and disposed by his authoritie the origen or fountaine of the same beginning of one The rest of the Apostles were that Peter was in equal felloweshippe of honour and power but the beginning commeth of vnity The primacy is giuen to Peter that the Church of Christ may be shewed to be one and one chaire thus farre S. Ciprian In which words he plainly auoucheth that S. Peter had supreame and ordinary authority the other Apostles although they had equal and like Apostolike power yet they were not equal to him in al prerogatiues this their authority as I haue said was not ordinary nor so absolute but depending hauing his beginning of that of Peter Ibid. ca 4. Hence the same S. Ciprian in the selfe same book affirmeth the Church to be one like as al the beams of the sunne are termed one light because they issue from one sunne and many litle brooks one water because they proceed from one spring and many boughes one tree because they haue the selfe same roote And this sunne fountaine and roote in other places he acknowledgeth to be the chaire of S. Peter which is therefore by him called a Cipr. l. 1. epist 3. ad Cornel. li. 4. epist 8. ad Cornel. epi. ad Iubaianum the principal Church from which Priestlie vnitie hath his beginning and the matrice or mother roote and head of the Catholike Church It is also by him affirmed that the one Church by the voice of our Lord was built vpon one who receiued the keies c. I could recite other such like testimonies but these in this place shal suffice And although S. Peter had so ample and eminent authority and for this cause his successours were sometimes honoured with the title of vniuersal Bishoppe as appeareth in the general Councel of b Concil Chal. act 3. et 6. Chalcedon yet they seldome or neuer called themselues so but rather following the commandement of Christ who bid that c Math. 20. v. 26. whosoeuer would be greater among his Apostles should be their seruant or minister called themselues the seruant of the seruants of God Hence are these words of S. Gregory the great who is highly commended by d Humfre in Iesuitif part 2. rat 5. p. 624. D. Humfrey and by another e Theodor. Bibli in orat ad prīcipes Germa See also Godwin in his catalogue of Bishops in Augustine pag. 3. Protestant although he terme al his successours Antechrists called a very holy father and most excellent Pastor he discourseth thus f Greg. l. 4. epist 32.76 It is plaine to al men that euer read the Gospel that by our Lordes mouth the charge of the whole Church was committed to S. Peter prince of the Apostles for to him it was said Feed my sheepe For him was the praier made that his faith should not faile to him were the keies of heauen giuen and authoritie to binde and loose to him the cure of the Church and principallity was deliuered and yet he was not called the vniuersal Apostle This title indeed was offered for the honour of Peter prince of the Apostles to the Pope of Rome by the holy Councel of Chalcedon but none of that See did euer vse it nor consent to take it This is a part of the discourse of S. Gregorie writing against Iohn the Bishop of Constantinople vsurping the title of vniuersal Bishop vvhich although some of his predecessours after some sort and in some sense vsed when they called themselues Bishops of the vniuersal Church yet he therfore disliked Sixtus 1. epis 2. Victor 1. epi. 1. Pontiā epist 2. Stephā 1. epi. 2. Leo epist 54. 62. et 65. because it seemed to affirme that he who should vse it was himselfe the only Bishop of the whole world and al other Bishops his vicars not his brethren wheras euery Bishop is head Bishop of his particuler Church although subject to the vicar of Christ and the ministerial head of his whole flock the successour of S. Peter Verely that S. Gregories words haue no other sense it is auerred by a Andraeas Fricius de Eccles li. 2. cap.
vpon this ground in the next chapter Chap. 2. he entereth into a railing and scoffing discourse against the Pope But in verie deed I cannot doe otherwise then meruaile that a man of his place and learning doth not blush to committe such a notorious vntruth to the print and view of the world For not to speake of the falshood of the first part of his assertion because it is in some sort impertinent that which he saith of the Councel of Chalcedon is most vntrue repugnant to al antiquity and not only contrarie to al proceedinges and the historie of the said Councel but also to the wordes of the Canon by him alleaged For in it is decreed onlie that the cittie of new Rome or Constantinople shal haue majestie like as old Rome in Ecclesiastical affaires et secundam post illam existere that is shal be the second or next after it and enjoy certaine priuiledges for the ordination of some Metrapolitans these are the contents of the Canon And what more touching this matter did the Bishops assembled in that Councel in their Sinodical epistle desire S. Leo the great then bishoppe of Rome to confirme then this Concilium Chalcedō sessio 12. alias actione 16. An. Christi 451. Concilium Nice sessio vltim Cōci Chal. actione 1. Actione 3. We haue confirmed say they the rule of the seauenscore and ten holy Fathers which were gathered together at Constantinople vnder Theodosius of happie memorie which commanded that the See of Constantinople which is ordained the second haue second honour after your most holie and Apostolike See trusting that the Apostolical sunne-beame shining with you c. But how can it be the second and next after and also the equal with it as Field affirmeth Besides this in the Councel it selfe those words of the Canon of the Councel of Nice that the Church of Rome euer had the primacie were allowed and the Legates of Pope Leo vvithout reprehension or exception taken said We haue here at hand the commandements of the most blessed and Apostolike man the Pope of the cittie of Rome which is head of al Churches by which his Apostleship hath vouchsafed to commaund c. Againe one of them first subscribed as he said in the place of the most blessed and Apostolike vniuersal Pope of the citty of Rome c. And in the epistle al the Fathers write vnto him thus We craue therefore that you wil honour our decrees with your judgement and like as we desirous haue consented in those things which are good sic et summitas tua so thy chiefedome or preheminence aboue al wil as it is meete accomplish them to his children hitherto are their wordes And vvhat could be said more apparant for the Popes supreamacie Doe not they acknowledge him to be their chiefe and themselues his sonnes and children Gregor li 4. epi. 32. 36. 38. li. 7. epi. 30. See before in the first section of this chapter I could adde to this the authoritie of S. Gregorie the great who liued not long after this Councel who against the ambition of Iohn bishoppe of Constantinople in diuers letters confidentlie affirmeth that the title of vniuersal Bishop by this Councel was offered to Pope Leo. But Field wil vrge that it is gathered out of some Greeke copies of this Councel that by this Canon the Bishop of Constantinople was so made second after the Bishoppe of Rome that equal priuiledges were giuen him I answere that these priuiledges vvere only concerning jurisdiction to order certaine Metrapolitans of the east Church as the Bishoppe of Rome had the like in the west But now suppose I should graunt M. Field that in this Canon the Bishop of Constantinople vvas made in euerie respect equal to the Pope what would he get by this In truth nothing For of what authority is this Canon Surely of none for it vvas cunninglie made by the Grecian bishops after the Councel was risen and the Legates of Pope Leo departed vvho also when it came to their knowledge the next day resisted them in the next Session yea this was neuer confirmed by the Pope without whose confirmation the decrees of general Councels haue neuer had force but vvas by Pope Leo forthwith ouerthrowne and annulled Leo epist 55. 53. 54. 61. We cancel or make voide saith he speaking of that Canon and others then enacted the consent of Bishops repugnant to the Nicene Canons and by the authority of blessed S. Peter the Apostle by a general definition we make them altogether of no force And this his decree was so highly esteemed in the East it selfe Marcian l. 12. c. de sacrosācta Ecclesia that it was confirmed presentlie by an Imperial constitution euen by the Emperour of Constantinople and Anatolius the Patriarcke through vvhose ambition and instigation the said Canon vvas made was constrained to ceasse from such proceedinges to relinquish that dignity vvhich ambitioussie he couered and to take place euen after the other Patriarkes for neither was the constitution of the Councel of Constantinople which preferred him before those of Alexandria and Antioch authentical Iustin nouel 131. cap. 2. Field book 3. cap. 1. Yea Iustinian the Emperor after this euen when Rome vvas most in disgrace and Constantinople flourished long before the daies of Phocas from whome Field would deriue the beginning of the Popes superiority confirmed the primacy to the Bishop of Rome and thus we may see vpon how vveake grounds Field doth venture to passe the bounds of modesty Concerning the point it selfe of the Popes infallible judgment he accuseth vs of contrary doctrine to wit that we al hold at this day Field book 3. cap. 45. the infallibility of the Popes judgment to be the rock on which the Church is builded and therefore build our faith vpon the same whereas the same men sath he that hold this say also it is no matter of faith to acknowledge or not acknowledge the infallibity of the Popes judgment I answere that the infallibility of the Popes judgment without the assent of a general Councel is not the most sure receiued rock on which the Church was built for this is the Popes judgment confirming the decrees of a general Councel or as I may say the definition of a general Councel in which the head confirmeth the verdict of the body and both together infallibly define a truth And in this sense no Catholike nowe affirmeth that it is no matter of faith to acknowledge or not acknowledge the infallibility of the Popes judgment for it is held absolutely to be a matter of faith and consequently our doctrine touching these points is not contrary True it is Bell. li. 4. de Roman pontif ca. 2. in fine Stapleton in Relect. scholast princi controuers 3 quest 4. that some Catholike doctors as Bellarmine and Stapleton thinke not that opinion properly heretical which holdeth that the Pope as Pope may be an Heretike and teach heresie if he
likwise as I may say a diuel in being the cause of our sinne and wickednesse of which crime Caluin is accused by diuers b Heshusius l. cui titulus est Aliquot errores Caluini Petr. Vermelius a zuinglian in lib. 2. Reg. cap. 6. Grawerus in bello Ioānis Caluini et Iesu Christi prīted an 1605. et lib. qui inscribitur Absurda absurdorum absurdissima Caluinistica absurda prīted also an 1605 Protestants of great fame And this last assertion made one apprehended at Mets in Fraunce an Atheist as c Duraeus cōtra Whitak ī confut respō ad 10. ratio pag. 432. Duraeus recordeth vvho being brought before the Magistrats and demanded how he came to be of that blaspheamous opinion answered that he learned it out of Caluins Institutions For said he reading there that God is the authour of sinne I thought it better to denie that there is a God then to acknowledge a God so vvicked thus he And in verie deed d Basil in bomil Quod deus non est auctor malorum S. Basil telleth vs that it is the same madnesse to deny God and to make him the author of sinne An other of our aduersaries named e Historia Dauidis Georgij printed at Antwerpe anno 1560. published by the Protestants of Basil Dauid George affirmed himself to be Christ and oppugned our Sauiour and his Church with this argument If the doctrine of Christ said he and his Apostles had beene true and perfect certainelie the Church by them planted could not haue perished for Iesus said that hel gates should not preuaile against it But it is manifest and knowne to al men that the Church hath perished and that Antechrist hath nowe for manie ages raigned ouer the vvhole world vvherefore the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles vvas false and imperfect This he argued against his owne brethren the newe sectaries vvho affirme that the Church of Christ was ouerthrowne And although the same assertion brought not Sebastian Castalio a man much commended by some f Humfred de rat interpret lib. 1. pag. 62. 63. Zuingerus in Theatro Gesnerus and others Protestants so farre yet euery man may see by his owne writing that it made him very doubtful wauering and perplexed in faith in so much as he plainelie professed Sebastian Castalio ī his praeface of the great lat ī Bible dedicated to K. Edward the 6. that he could not see how the oracles or prophecies of the old Testament concerning the glorie and continuance of the Church haue beene hitherto fulfilled in the newe and in verie deed it is euident that they haue not beene verified if our religion be condemned as false SECTION THE SECOND Of our aduersaries doctrine concerning the immortallity of the soule heauen and hel BVT farre greater is the number of those among the newe Sectaries who deny the soule of man to be immortal And first Luther himselfe may not only be truly accused of laying a certaine foundation or ground of this damnable error but also if we take his vvordes as they sound to be a maintainer of the same for vvhereas it is commonly held by al Christians that the soule of man is created by almighty God vvhen the body in the mothers vvombe is apt to receiue it Luther fauoureth that erronious opinion of Tertullian very much and seemeth to approue it which defendeth the soule of man to haue his being from his Parents and consequently Luther in disput Theolo habita Wittenbergae āno 1545. Thessi 31. denieth it to be created of God his words are these They saith he who deemed the soule to be extraduce that is by generation produced seeme not altogether do haue dissented from scripture yea these wil more easily defend the propagation of original sinne then they who thinke otherwise vt nihil sit quod dicitur so that it is nothing vvhich is said the intellectual soule creando infunditur in the creation of it is infused et in fundendo creatur and in the infusion of it is created who proued this or who wil proue that the like may be said of euery other soule what difficulty can hinder God from producing the intellectual soule both of nothing and also of corrupt seede thus Luther Cētur 5. c. 4. Dress de partibus humani corporis c. cap. de origine animae And in this he is followed by the Century writers who note the denial of this in S. Augustine as an errour and of the same opinion is Dresserus also But what is this but to make no difference betweene the soule of man and the soules of brute beasts doth not Luther make the generation of al these alike nay what other thing is this but according to the common receiued opinion of philosophers to make the soule mortal Surely it is vsually held in schooles that whatsoeuer is produced by natural generation is mortal and corruptible And no doubt but if the generation of man and beast be graunted to be alike occasion is offered to infer also like corruption of them both Besides this hither tendeth the opinion of Luther touching the state of soules departed during the time betweene their departure out of this vvorld and the day of judgement for what happinesse or action doth he attribute vnto them before the general doome none certainly for he auoucheth that they sleepe and howe his wordes shal declare vvhich are these To. 4. Luth. ad c. 9. Ecclesi v. 5. et 10. Luth. enar in Genes c. 25. fol. 351. et in cap. 26. fol. 392. 393. Ibid. in cap. 49. vers 22. The dead sleepe and vnderstand nothing of our affaires c. they feele nothing they lie there dead neither numbering daies or yeares but being waked they shal seeme to themselues to haue slept but for a moment Againe The sleepe of the soule in the next life is more profound or sound then in this Moreouer The Saints are in peace and rest not in the kingdome they sleepe and knowe not what is done thus Luther And for the place vvhere the soules so sleepe he seemeth to assigne the graue for he addeth in another place It is a strang thing truly that God maketh vs like vnto beasts by sleeping waking eating for the soule of man sleepeth al the senses being buried and our bedde is as it were our graue in which neuerthelesse is nothing paineful or troblesome so the place of the dead hath no torments but as it is said they rest in peace in c. 25. Gen. He addeth in the same place that the sleepe of the soule is so pleasant without passion of desire that it hopeth feareth or feeleth nothing In another place aboue cited he doubteth whether the soules of the wicked goe presently after death to hel or else sleepe hitherto are Luthers wordes And by this assertion Sleidā lib. 9. Sleidan affirmeth him cleane to haue ouerthrowne our doctrine concerning praier to Saints and Purgatorie yea Caluī
of their beliefe are not in expresse tearmes to be found in the whole Bible yea that the text of their owne Bibles maketh more for vs then it doth for them Out of which I may wel inferre that they build not vpon the letter contained in their owne bookes but vpon their owne collections which euery priuate man maketh according to his owne fancie SECTION THE SECOND The same argument is confirmed by the testimonie of some Protestants concerning the true sense of some wordes of Scripture alleaged for our Catholike doctrine touching justification in the Section before NOTVVITHSTANDING the wordes af Scripture cited for vs Catholikes are most plaine yet it may be some follower of the new religion wil imagine that we wrest them to a sense improper and in the primatiue ages of the Church vnheard off contrariwise that those of his beliefe deliuer the true literal and auncient exposition of the same Nowe therefore to make the force of the reason brought more strong I adde that I could easily proue euen by the testimonies of our aduersaries themselues that the letter of holy Scripture in these controuersies mentioned and others according to the proper sense thereof and the tradition and practise of al former Christians is on our side not on theirs But if I should here declare this to be true in euery particuler point I should be ouer long vvherefore I vvil exemplifie only in one or two of the principal by which my reader may easily perceiue what may be done concerning the rest Luther to 5. in cap. 5. ad Galat. f. 382. And first what article of religion by these Sectaries is esteemed aboue that of justification by only faith Luther himselfe writeth thus Whoso euer falleth from the article of justification by faith onlie becommeth ignorant of God and is an Idolater and therefore it is al one whether he returne to the law of the Iewes or worshipping of Idols Al is one whether he be a Monke a Turke a Iewe or an Anabaptist For this article being once taken away there remaineth nothing but meere errour hipochrisie impiety idolatry although in shewe there appeare excellent truth Caluin in Epist ad Sadoletum p. 176. worship of God holinesse c. thus Luther Caluin also telleth vs that the knowledge of justification by faith being taken away both the glorie of Christ was extinguished and religion abolished and the Church destroyed and the hope of saluation altogether ouerthrowne Our countriman M. Perkins in like sort affirmeth Per. in his reformed Catholike touching justification of a sinner pag. 65. 66 that we by our doctrine touching justification doe raâ—â—e the very foundation and that the disagreement betweene vs and the Protestants concerning this matter if there were no more points of difference alone were sufficient to keepe vs from vniting our religions this is his opinion Wherefore this being an article of Christian beliefe in these mens conceits so principal let vs behold whether the letter of holy Scripture according to the judgement of Protestants doe not plainely deliuer our doctrine concerning it and impugne theirs The chiefest place which I haue alleaged in the section next before touching this matter is that sentence of S. Iames the Apostle Of workes or deedes a man is justified and not of faith only Iam. 2. v. 24. Bible 1592. And howe doe al the Lutheranes yea some Sacramentaries vnderstand these wordes Truly they openly and boldly confesse that they warre against justification by onlie faith and approue justification by workes and they assigne this as one reason why this epistle is to be rejected out of the Canon Luther the captaine of them al writing vpon the 22. chapter of Genesis hath these wordes See him also praefat in nouum Testam edit 1. Genensis in captiuitat Babilo ca. de Extrema Vnct. in 1. Pet. c. 1. fol 439. 440. edit Wittenb Abraham was just by faith before he is knowne such an one by God therefore Iames doth naughtily conclude that nowe at the length he is justified after this obedience for by workes as by fruits faith and iustice is knowne But it followeth not vt Iacobus delirat as Iames dotingly affirmeth therefore the fruits doe iustifiy thus there And in another place * Luth. in colloquijs conuiualibus latin to 2. de libris noui Testam Part. 2 chap. 6. sect 2. Many saith he haue taken great paines in the epistle of Iames to make it accord with Paul as Philppe endeauoureth in his Apologie but not with good successe for they are contrary faith doth iustifie faith doth not iustifie Loe Luther expresly telleth vs that S. Iames auoucheth faith not to justifie But whereas he maketh this Apostle contrary to S. Paul he doth wrong them both For neither doth the one say that faith doth not justifie nor the other that faith alone doth justifie as he supposeth But out of their discourses it may be gathered that both faith and workes concurre to justification which is our Catholike doctrine Of the place of S. Paul vnto vvhich Luther alludeth I haue said something before therefore no more of it at this present shal be necessary The opinion of a Pomeran in c. 8. ad RomaÌ„ Pomerane a Lutheran of great estimation is conformable to that of Luther for thus he pronounceth his censure Faith was reputed to Abraham for iustice By this place thou maiest note the error of the epistle of Iames wherein thou seest a wicked argument Besides that he concludeth ridiculously he citeth Scripture against Scripture which thing the holy Ghost cannot abide wherefore that epistle may not be numbred among other bookes which set forth the iustice of only faith thus Pomerane I wil not stand to free S. Iames from his wicked accusations which is very wel performed by diuers Catholike authors Hil in his defeÌ„ce of the article Christ descended into hel fol. 23. Centur. 1. lib. 2. c. 4. col 54. Centur. 2. ca. 4. col 71. But vnto this Lutheran I wil joyne the Magdeburgians his brethren whose vvritings an English Protestant judgeth to be worthy of eternal memorie who say that the epistle of S. Iames much swarueth from the analogie of the Apostolical doctrine whereas it ascribeth justification not only to faith but to workes and calleth the lawe a lawe of liberty Againe Against Paul against al Scriptures the epistle of Iames attributeth justice to workes and peruerteth as it were of set purpose that which Paul disputeth Rom. 4. out of Genesis 15. Abraham was iustified by only faith without workes and affirmeth that Abraham obtained iustice by workes hitherto are their wordes With these consenteth Vitus Theodorus an other of that companie and a preacher of Norinberge who yeeldeth this reason wherefore he excluded this epistle from the Canon of holy Scripture The epistle of Iames and the Apocalipse of Iohn saith he we haue of set purpose left out because the epistle of Iames is not only in certaine
of free-wil and merit of workes The like haue e Whitgift in his defence p. 472. 473. Whitgift f Adam Scultet in Medulla Theolog. p. 48. 122. 151. Adamus Scultetus and others Nay Field although he also tearme S. Augustine the g Field booke 3. chap. 42. pag. 170. greatest of al the Fathers and worthiest Diuine the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times yet he telleth vs that h Ibid. chap. 15. pag. 93. his manner of deliuering this article of justification is not ful perfect and exact as they are forced to require in these times against the errors of the Romanists For that when he speaketh of grace he seemeth for the most part to vnderstand nothing else thereby but that sanctification whereby the holy spirit of God changeth vs to become newe creatures seldome mentioning the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ hitherto Field And thus we see that the letter of holy Scripture not only according to the plaine and open confession of our aduersaries but also according to the tradition and belief of the ancient Fathers our said aduersaries likewise being witnesses doth teach not with them that faith only doth justifie vs by the imputation of Christs justice but with vs that workes also concurre to our justification I could joyne vnto this another argument sufficient in any wise mans judgement to condemne these Sectaries doctrine of falsehood and consequently to proue it not to be build vpon the letter of holie Scripture to vvit the dissention which is among them in explicating this article but breuity causeth me to omitte it Only I wish my reader to peruse that which a Field of the Church booke 3. chap. 44. pag. 177. Field hath in his third booke of the Church concerning this matter and to conferre it with the doctrine of Luther b Caluin in his Institutions Caluin c Perkins in his reformed Catholike pag. 48. 315. Perkins d Willet in his Synops controuers 19. part 2. pag. 827. part 4. pag. 877. 885. 887. Willet and others For there he shal finde that the said Field maketh that act of faith which obtaineth and worketh our justification an act by way of petition humbly intreating for acceptation and fauour not an act in the nature of comfortable assurance consisting in a ful and assured perswasion that through Christs merits we are the children of God as is taught by the rest SECTION THE THIRD The like discourse is made concerning a place of Scripture alleaged for the real presence AN other principal article controuersed betweene vs and our aduersaries is that touching the real presence of Christes body and bloud in the Eucharist For the affirmatiue part which we Catholikes defend especially against the Sacramentaries I haue alleaged in the first Section of this Chapter among other those wordes of our Lord This is my bodie I wil therefore proceed and discourse of this sentence as I haue already done of that of S. Iames touching justification by workes Melancthon for his learning and piety is much commended both by a See Bullēger in Firmamēto firmo cap. 4. fol. 27. colloquium Altemberg an 1568 fol. 203. Lutherans Sacramentaries Luther himselfe judged his booke of common places b Luth. tom 2. de seruo arbitrio fol. 424. in colloq cōuiualibus ca. de Patribus Eccles worthy to be placed in the Ecclesiastical canon of holy Scripture and * Luther in praefat to 1. affirmed that God raised him that he might haue a companion in his labours combats and daungers in the propagation of the sincere doctrine of the Gospel Caluin tearmed him c Caluin admonit 3. ad Westphalū admonit vlt. fol. 23. the great ornament of the German Churches and with great vehemencie affirmed that Philip Melancthon in the controuersie touching the supper could be no more plucked or diuided from him then from his owne proper bowels Peter Martir calleth him d Martir in dialogo de corpore Christi in loco fol. 107. contra Gardinerum de Eucharistia pag. 768. a man incomparable and most instructed in al kind of vertue and learning he maketh him equal in learning and piety with S. Augustine S. Hierome S. Leo and the auncient Fathers Beza finally saith he was instaurator Beza in Iconib in Creophag pa. 80. the repairer againe of Euangelical doctrine he tearmeth him likewise the singular ornament of our age and together vvith * Lauather in histor Sacrament fol. 47. Lauatherus likeneth him to the Phoenix What then vvriteth this great schollar of so rare vertue touching this matter thus he discourseth There is no care that hath more troubled my minde then this of the Eucharist and not only my selfe haue weighed what might be said on either side but I haue also sought out the judgement of the old writers touching the same Melancth li. 3. ep Zwinglij Oecolampadij fol. 132. And when I haue laied al together I finde no good reason that may satisfie a conscience departing from the propriety of Christes wordes this is my body You gather many absurdities he debateth the matter with Oecolampadius a Sacramentary which followe this opinion but absurdities wil not trouble him who remembreth that we must judge of diuine matters according to Gods word not according to Geomatry And soone after I finde no reason Ibid. fol. 140. howe I may depart from this opinion touching the real presence Wel it may be an other opinion more agreable to mans reason may please an idle minde especially if the said opinion be furnished and commended with arguments wel handled but what shal be come of vs in tentation when our conscience shal be called to an account what cause we had to dissent from the receiued opinion in the Church Then these wordes this is my body wil be thunderbolts hitherto Melancthon Luther as al the vvorld knoweth out of the same vvordes gathered and defended the real presence in so much as he condemned the Sacramentaries as Heretikes for auouching the contrary but let vs rehearse some of his wordes Luther to 7. in defens verborum coenae fol. 388. Ibid. fol. 390. Wheras Gods power saith he surpasseth al cogitation and worketh that which is to our reason incomprehensible and which only faith beleeueth and the same God said This is my body which shal be deliuered for you howe can I perswade my conscience that God hath neither meanes nor ability to doe as his wordes sound Againe These good Sacramentaries by their loathing and abhorring such thinges make way to the denial of Christ and God himselfe and of al articles of our faith And truly for a great part they haue already begunne to beleeue nothing for they bring themselues within the compasse of reason which is the right way to damnation And themselues knowe that these Ethnical cauils either are nothing worth against this article or if they conclude any thing against this they doe the like
in rememberance of Christes passion The French Sacramentaries in their confession followe Caluin for there we reade among other thinges Confess Gallica art 37. Se it in Harmony of Confess sect 14. pag. 426. that the body and bloud of Iesus Christ are no lesse truly the meate and drinke of the soule in the supper then bread and wine are the meate of the body that this mistery is aboue nature c. And these their assertions in very deed haue caused some * CoÌ„fess Eccl. in ditione Comitum Mansfeldiae c. anno 1559. fol. 21. Lutherans to make a difference betweene the old Sacramentaries that is as they tearme them the Carolostadians the Zwinglians and the Anabaptists who say they alwaies taught the Sacrament of the Altar to be nothing else but an external signe without the body bloud of Christ and that it serued only for a token to distinguish Christians from Pagans and the newe commonly called Caluinists Nowe if vnto these discourses of Caluin and his followers vve joine that proposition by them so often repeated and with such vehemency defended that Christes humane nature is only in heauen Caluin in 1. Cor. cap. 11. vers 24. Item in his Instit chap. 17. §. 24. c. and alwaies as farre distant from the Eucharist as the highest heauen and earth are a sunder What a Paradoxe or rather a contradiction in external shewe of wordes shal we here finde I neede not recite their sentences because they are found almost in euery place vvhere any one of them treateth of this matter and no Caluinist wil denie this to be a part of his beliefe But doe these thinges accord togither Howe doth Christ truly growe vnto vs and refresh vs with the eating of his body and drinking of his bloud his said body and bloud being in a place so farre distant from vs howe is he truly deliuered vnto vs yea and his body and bloud in the supper seing that he doth approch no nearer vnto vs then the highest heauen is vnto earth howe doth he truly deliuer and we truly receaue vnder the signes of bread and wine his body and bloud and howe is his body really and truly giuen vs how are our soules finally fedde with the substance of Christes body if his said body be only in the heauens and our soules no nearer vnto him then is the earth Are not these thinges according to the proper signification of the vvordes opposite and contrary Verily if corporal sustainance came no nearer to the bodies of these sectaries then the body and bloud of Christ doth according to their owne doctrine to their soules they vvould soone perish vvith hunger But is not Caluin although he make a shewe neuer so glorious in vvordes of the true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist yet inwardly in very deede a Zwinglian and Carolostadian in beliefe It cannot be gainesaid And to declare this first thus he writeth I plainely confesse Caluin Institut booke 4. chap. 17. §. 32 that I refuse that mixture of the flesh of Christ with our soule or the powring out of it or the transposing of it from one place to an other such as they teach because it sufficeth vs that Christ doth out of the substance of his flesh breath life into our soules yea doth powre into vs his owne life although the very flesh of Christ doth not enter into vs. And in an other place euen nowe alleaged he addeth Caluin in 1. Cor. cap. 11. vers 24. that it is al one to say that our soules are fedde with the substance of Christes body to the intent we may be made one with him and to auerre that a certaine quickning vertue is powred on vs out of the flesh of Christ by the holy Ghost although the flesh be farre distant from vs. Thus Caluin beginneth more plainely to open his minde but by adding an other falshood for vvhat Philosopher or Diuine euer affirmed the body and substance to be one vvith a vertue proceeding from the same as he here auoucheth He goeth on and saith that we receiue him though so farre distant from vs as heauen is for that he causeth from heauen to descend on vs presently and truly the vertue of his flesh Loe Christian reader nowe thou receiuest no longer truly and really the body and bloud of Christ but the vertue of his flesh And let vs heare him declare this by an example or similitude In an other place he discourseth after this manner Caluin Institut booke 4. cha 17. §. 12. For if we behold the sunne shining forth with his heames vpon the earth after a certaine manner to cast forth his substance vnto it to ingender nourish and quicken the fruits thereof why should the extending beames of the spirit of Christ be inferiour to conuey the communion of his flesh and bloud vnto vs Thus he Out of â—â—ch his vvordes if his similitude hold it is euident that Christinâ—â—e Eucharist doth no otherwise coÌ„municate vnto vs his body and bloud then the sunne shining doth coÌ„municate his substance to the earth Wherefore like as no mâ—n can say that the sunne doth truly and really communicate his substance to the earth for this is most false and therefore Caluin saith it is done after a certaine manner so Christ doth not truly and really communicate himselfe vnto vs according to this Doctors opinion as before he auouched but after a certaine manner And how is this He had declared before where he vseth these vvordes We confesse there is no other eating but of faith Ibid. §. 5. as there can no other be imagined The flesh of Christ is eaten by belieuing because by faith he is made ours And this is that which our English Protestants haue decreed in their articles of religion Articles of religion agreed vpon in the coÌ„uocation of 1562. art 28. in which they define that the body of Christ is giuen taken and eaten in the supper only after an heauenly and spiritual manner and the meane say they whereby the body of Christ is eaten in the supper is faith Hence the same Caluin and his a Beza in Math. ca. 26. vers 26. Caluin Instit booke 4. chap. 17. §. 31. disciples affirme that the right way to finde Christ and receiue him in the supper is that our mindes stay not on earth but mount aloft into the celestial glory where Christ dwelleth there to imbrace him and so they vvil haue vs to enjoy his presence as wel as if he descended vnto vs. The like hath Andrewe Willet an English Caluinist vvriter vvho telleth vs b Willet in his Synopsis controuers 13. part 1. quest 1. §. That Christ p. 516. Caluin Instit booke 4. chap. 14. §. 14. that Christ is verily exhibited vnto vs in the Sacrament that the substance of Christs flesh is exhibited vnto vs c. Not that Christ descendeth from heauen to vs but we ascend saith he by faith in spirit
vvhich I adjoine another euen of as great force to wit that in diuers points they obserue not the letter of holy Scripture contained in their owne Bibles I vvil exemplifie in some matters in particular And first if the letter of holy Scripture be so strictly to be obserued and al other groundes to be neglected as they imagine howe dare they eate bloud and strangled meates Is not this expresly forbidden in the Acts of the Apostles by the whole Councel of Hierusalem Act. 15. v. 29. in vvhich vvere present S. Peter and S. Iames Apostles vvith diuers others Where and when and by whome was this lawe repealed verily there is no mention of any such repeale in the vvord of God nor in any Ecclesiastical vvriter vvherefore Luther himselfe absolutely confesseth Luther lib. de Concilijs in Act. 15. Exod. 20. Deut. 5. v. 25 Math. 19 17 that either the Apostles them selues erred in this Councel or else that we al sinne in transgressing this lawe Moreouer did not God in the old lawe binde al men to obserue the ten Commandements and did not Christ in the newe lawe bid vs if we wil enter into life obserue the same Howe presume they then to breake the third commandement both in not keeping holy the day prescribed in holy Scripture which without al doubt is the Saturday and also in dressing on that day which they keepe meate and making of fire They cannot denie themselues in these matters to be faulty for they haue no warrant in the vvord of God in place of the Saturday to obserue the Sonday Only in one place of the Apocalipse mention is of the Dominical or our Lordes day Apoc. 1. v. 10 but it is only there said that S. Iohn on that day had a vision which maketh litle for them And therefore Field confesseth Booke 4. cap. 20. §. that the Apostles Exod. 20 9. Exod. 35 3. Num. 15 32. Exod. 12. Leuit. 23. v. 5 Num. 9. v. 11 Deu. 16 5. c Luther lib. de Concilijs Baleus l. 3. c. 25. Centur. 1. de scriptor Britā in Colman Wilfrido Powellus in thesibus de Adiaphoris cap. 3. Math. 26 17 Mar. 14 12. Luc. 22. v. 7. there is no precept found for this in the Scripture and saith the obseruation of it is an Apostolike tradition There is likewise a most expresse commandement in the Scripture that no manner of worke be done on the Sabaoth not so much as fire kindled vvherefore by the commandement of God a man vvas stoned to death for only gathering sticks on that day Further wherefore keepe they not Easter-day on the fourtenth day of the Moone of March as is prescribed in the old lawe and Christ himselfe obserued vvhat warrant haue they in the word of God otherwise to doe Verily in this also euen according to the censure of Luther they stray from the holy Scripture of vvhose opinion if I be not deceiued is likewise our countriman Iohn Bale Powel seemeth to make it a thing indifferent Wherefore also doe some of them binde their followers to haue one only wife at once Had not the Patriarkes and others of the old lawe diuers wiues at the same time And where finde they in the Scripture this liberty abridged among Christians Yea some of our English Sectaries seeme to confesse that in the primatiue Church it selfe some Christians had at once diuers wiues for in the Bible of the yeare 1589. 1592. and 1600. vpon those wordes of the Apostle * 1. Tim. 3 2. Tit. 1. vers 6. Bernard Ochinus lib. 2. Dialogo 21. pag. 200. It behoueth a Bishoppe to be irreprehensible the husband of one wife c. they make this note for in those countries at that time some men had more then one which was a signe of incontinency thus there vve reade Wherefore they seeme to grant that S. Paul only commanded Bishops to haue one only vvife at once not other Christians Yea this is expresly auerred by Bernardinus-Ochinus vvho writeth thus Paul forbiddeth Bishops and Deacons to haue many wiues to others he vertually graunteth it But in very truth the Apostle there ordereth that none be admitted to be Bishops that be Bigami that is to say that haue beene married to two wiues although to the one after the other and the aforesaid glosse is made by these men to helpe their Bishops and Ministers among vvhome some haue had two or three or more one after another contrary to this sentence of the Apostle And I must needes conclude that either they abridge Christian liberty as they tearme it in not suffering al except Bishops to haue diuers wiues at the same time or otherwise that they transgresse the word of God in admitting men twice married into their Clergie or vvhich is worse in suffering their Ministers and Bishops to marry as often as they please Luther in explicat Genes edit an 1525 in c. 16. Ienēs in propositionibus de Bigamia Episcop edit an 1528. propos 62. 65. 66. And of the first opinion seemeth Luther for he absolutely graunteth Poligamy that is to say the hauing of more vviues then one at once to be neither commanded nor forbidden in the Church of God but to be a thing indifferent a Musculus in epist Pauli ad Philip. Colos c. in 1. Tim. 3. p. 396 Musculus also thinketh it was tollerated in the Church in the Apostles daies and consequently in his judgement no Christians except Bishops are to be restrained from it I adde likewise that they commonly translate those wordes of God b Exod. 2. v. 4 Deuter. 5. Bible 1595. Non facies tibi sculptile thou shalt make thee no grauen Image and with c Zwinglius tom 2. in actis disput Tigur fol. 632. Zwinglius affirme them to containe an euerlasting precept and to binde as farre forth as those vvordes Thou shalt not kil Wherefore then allowe they of the pictures of men and other worldly creatures Is there any difference betweene such pictures and the Images of Christ and his Saints vvhich they vvil needes haue here forbidden as grauen Images Certainely there is no reason wherefore those should be allowed and these forbidden and therefore they haue no reason to exclaime against the pictures of Christ and his Saints except they wil vvith the Turkes generally disalowe of al pictures d Luther tom 4. in Michae cap. 1. fol. 69. Act. 19. c. Yea Luther himselfe thought it meete that Images should be placed in Churches and judged it a very barbarous and ignorant part to tollerate the pictures of men and beasts and to cast out of Churches the Images of our Sauiour and his beloued Saints I demaund also of them vvherefore they vse not in al places to giue the holy Ghost after baptisme by imposition of handes they cannot deny but this was practised continually by the Apostles for what almost is more often recorded in the acts of the Apostles
contained in the diuine bookes These are his words They object vnto vs the place of Iames Wolfangus Musculus in locis communibus cap. de Iustificat num 5. pag. 271. but he whatsoeuer he was though he speake otherwise then S. Paul yet may he not prejudice the truth And after the disagreement betweene these two Apostles according to his imagination shewed at large he thus breaketh forth into open reproch of S. Iames Wherefore he Iames alleageth the example of Abraham nothing to the purpose where he saith wilt thou knowe O vaine man that faith without workes is dead Abraham our father was he not justified by workes when he offered his sonne Isaac He confoundeth the word faith Howe much better had it beene for him diligently and plainely to haue distinguished the true and properly Christian faith which the Apostle euer preached from that which is common to Iewes and Christians Turkes and Diuels then to confound them both and set downe his sentence so different from the Apostolical doctrine whereby as concluding he saith You see that a man is justified by workes and not by faith alone whereas the Apostle out of the same place disputeth thus c. And hauing made S. Paul to speake as hee thinketh best afterwardes he inferreth Thus saith the Apostle of whose doctrine we doubt not Compare me nowe with this argument of the Apostle the conclusion of this Iames A man therefore is justified by workes and not by faith only and see howe much it differeth whereas he should more rightly haue concluded thus c. This and other more such stuffe hath this Sacramentary Doctor against S. Iames and his Epistle in which he dissenteth from most of his owne company Doth not also Beza reject or at the least doubt of the truth of the whole history of the adoulterous woman recorded by S. Iohn in the eight Chapter of his Gospel vvhich notwithstanding other Sacramentaries admit as Canonical Scripture This cannot be denied and I haue before related his wordes Part. 2. ch 1. sect 4. Bible 1592. c. Doth not our English Church Mathewe 6. receiue as Canonical Scripture those wordes For thine is the kingdome the power and the glory which they adde at the end of our Lords praier and yet of them Bullinger a Zwinglian writeth thus There is no reason why Laurentius Valla should take the matter so hotely as though a great part of the Lords praier were cut away Rather their rashnesse was to be reproued who durst presume to peece on their owne to the Lords praier Thus Bullinger Nay further some times the same Sacramentary receiueth vvordes into the Canon vvhich before he had rejected For example Beza in one edition of his new Testament in the end of the eight chapter of S. Iohns Gospel putteth in these wordes See the newe Testaments translated by Beza of the yeares 1556. and 1565. And his Testament translated into English by L. T. printed anno 1580. Iesus passing through the midst of them c. vvhich in another edition with great vehemency he rejecteth wherefore although Beza in his edition of the yeare 1556. leaue the said vvordes out yet in Bezaes englished Testament of the yeare 1580. they are admitted And these thinges in like sort manifestly conuince that the Sacramentaries in admitting and rejecting bookes of Scripture are led by their owne judgement and fancy not by any diuine or infallible rule Moreouer diuers parcels of holy Scripture as I haue declared aboue haue bin in times past of doubtful authority of which most of our aduersaries haue receiued some into the Canon and rejected others For example our English Protestants haue receiued the Epistle to the Hebrewes and the Apocalipse and rejected the books of the Machabees of Iudith Tobias c. because the authority of these in the primatiue Church was called in question But what reason haue they for this fact haue they had any diuine testimony or reuelation commanding them to admit the first Surely none seing that they contemne the authority of the Church And wherefore receiued they not the last aswel as the first They vvil say perhaps that the first vvere admitted by diuers euen in the primatiue Church and doubted off only by some I reply that Brentius hauing named and numbred al of both sorts of them in general writeth thus Brentius in Apolog. confess Wittenb There are some of the auncient Fathers who receiue these Apocriphal bookes into the number of Canonical Scriptures and in like sort some Councels command them to be acknowledge as Canonical I am non ignorant what was done but I demand whether it were rightly and Canonically done Thus Brentius who reiecteth them al alike And that vvhich he saith may be proued true by the testimony of the third Councel of Carthage and S. Augustine as Field confesseth Concil Cartag 3. ca. 47. Augustin de doctrina Christiana lib. 2. cap. 8. Field booke 4. chap. 23. §. hence and of diuers others who receiued the bookes of Tobias Iudith and the Machabees wherefore it seemeth that not only in the judgement of Brentius but also in very deede the doubt of al was almost alike It is euident therefor◠in my judgement that the reason vvhy they rejected and reject those of the old Testament is because in some points they contrary their newe doctrine which they made and make a rule whereby to discerne which bookes are Canonical Hence they receiued those which they could make in outward shewe seeme to fauour their opinion and rejected others and this is the cause why Luther rejecteth more bookes then the later Sectaries For he being the first that beganne to preach this newe Gospel could not presently forge and inuent newe glosses and interpretations vpon al the bookes of Scripture that opposed themselues against the same vvherefore he rejected sundry such bookes vvhich afterwardes his followers hauing inuented such glosses and interpretations receiued This also moued the same Luther to affirme those to be the best Euangelists Luther tom 5. praefat in epist. Petri. fol. 439. Centuriat 2. ca. 4. p. 260. who most especially and most earnestly teach that only faith without workes doth justifie and saue vs of which he inferreth that S. Paules epistles may more properly be called the Gospel then either the Gospel of S. Mathewe S. Marke or S. Luke His disciples the Centuriatores likewise yeeld this reason vvherefore the epistle of S. Iames is to be rejected that in the second chapter he affirmeth that Abraham vvas not justified by faith only Zwinglius in explanat art 57. tom 2. fol. 100. but by workes Zwinglius also affirmeth that although the second booke of the Machabees were in the Canon yet that the authour of it maketh himselfe suspected by this that writing an history he doth set downe a point of doctrine concerning praier for the dead By which it is manifest that they measure Canonical Scripture by their faith not their faith by
stil doubtful in this principal article of Christian religion or else going back to his Bible againe out of his owne judgement he must resolue to followe one of the aforesaid interpretations and to condemne the other as contrary to the vvord of God And vvhat a slender ground of faith is this yea seing that he hath no diuine authority vvhereon he buildeth I may boldly say that he hath no faith at al but only a kinde of opinion And like as I haue exemplified in this particular controuersie so could I doe concerning the real presence and the true sense of those vvordes This is my body or any other matter or place of Scripture in question betweene vs as my reader wil easily graunt for there is the like reason of them al and thus much concerning the vnlearned sectarie that can reade But what shal we say of him that is altogether ignorant and cannot reade The learned sectaries cannot send him to their Bible to search out the truth He cannot likewise conferre one place of scripture vvith another his praiers be of no greater force then his be that can reade wherefore he hath no other meane left but the aduise of the learned and his owne judgement and what wil the aduise of the learned helpe and auaile him if he finde among them possibility of errour and dissention These thinges he cannot but finde yea concerning that very text first alleaged The father is greater then I they are at variance for vvhereas some restraine it only to the humane nature of Christ Caluin saith He doubteth not to extend it to the whole complexum Caluin epist 2. ad Polonos seu in admonitione ad Polonos or person of God and man And certaine it is that if this ignorant person imbrace any one opinion as certaine concerning a matter of which he was before doubtful that he must either build vpon his owne judgement or otherwise he must take the vvorde of some learned man that the opinion which he followeth is true and vpon it ground his faith religion and saluation But vvhat reason hath he to accept rather of the word of one minister then of another For example what reason hath he in the exposition of those wordes This is my body rather to followe the Sacramentaries then the Lutherans are they not al alike subject to errors he cannot say that the scripture moueth him so to doe because he knoweth the Scripture only by the report of others Neither hath he any infallible rule whereby to discerne the true sense wherefore it is his owne fancy which perswadeth him to accept of the one exposition and to reject the other And doth not also this sectary although altogether vnlearned take vpon him to judge the learned Can he possibly beleeue the Sacramentary except he judge his doctrine to be true condemne al the learned Lutherans Can he follow the Protestants and not condemne the Puritans c. verily he cannot And vvhat a simple judge is he being a man ignorant voide of learning and commonly of a slender vvit and judgement And like as euery vnlearned sectary condemneth al the rest that dissent from him in opinion so al the rest condemne him For if he follow the Protestants al the Puritans tel him that he is deceiued if the Puritans the Protestants tel him the like tale If he beleeue Zwinglius Luther condemneth him to the pit of hel if Luther Zwinglius pronounceth the same judgement against him c. And of vvhat opinion soeuer he be certaine it is that more of his owne brethren condemne then approue his beliefe He is therefore in a most miserable and lamentable case both because he hath no ground of his faith but the vvord of a fewe ministers and his owne weake judgement and also because he is condemned of errour euen by those of his owne profession euen as learned and as vvise as they whome he followeth and farre exceeding himselfe in al such qualities And this is the ordinary manner of proceeding of the learned sectaries with the vnlearned and ignorant these grounds of faith and no others they receiue from them If any man doubt of the truth of this discourse let him exactly and strictly examine either the learned what grounds of faith they can afforde the vnlearned and ignorant or these vvhat groundes they receiue and vvhy they beleeue thus and thus touching any article of religion and their owne confession wil teach him that al which hath beene said is true and that the last and chiefest cause of this or that beliefe in the vnlearned and ignorant is their owne judgement or the opinion of the learned liking their owne fancy SECTION THE EIGHT That the newe sectaries alleage Scriptures to confirme their newe doctrine it is no certaine argument that they build their faith and religion vpon the said Scriptures TO proue that the professors of the newe religion ground their faith and religion vpon the holy Scripture some wil say that they alleage sentences of the said Scripture in great abundance in confirmation of their doctrine vnto whome I answere that true it is that so they doe But I adde that this is no sufficient argument to proue that which is intended And first let euery man deluded by such their proceedings consider that al the ancient Heretikes haue done the like Did not Arius Macedonius Nestorius Eutiches and other Arch-heretikes together with their followers for proofe of their heresies bring forth diuers places of holy Scripture Of this Vincentius Lirinensis who flourished almost twelue hundred yeares since Vincent Lirinens aduers prophanas haeresum nouitates c. 35. is a sufficient witnesse for of the ancient Heretikes alleaging of the word of God he writeth thus Here perhaps some man may demand whether Heretikes also doe vse the testimony of holy Scripture To which I say that they doe and that very earnestly for a man may behold them ranging and coursing in euery part of the Bible in Moises in the bookes of the Kinges in the Psalmes in the Apostles in the Gospels in the Prophets For whether they be among their owne brethren or with strangers whether in priuate or in publike whether in talking or in writing whether in the house a feasting or abroade in walking they almost neuer alleage any thing of their owne which they doe not pretend to shadowe with the sacred word of Scripture Reade the pamphlets of Paul as Sumosatenus of Priscillian Eunomius Iouinian and the rest of such like pestilent Heretikes and you shal finde through al their workes an huge heape of examples almost no page omitted which is not coloured and painted with the sayings of the old and new Testament thus farre Vincentius Lirinensis Origen tom 1 homil 7. in Ezechiëlem Of this point also Origenes discourseth after this sort When to defend false opinions we say it is written in the Prophet Moises testifieth this the Apostle speaketh it What other thing doe we but taking the
juices write the names of good holesome medicines whereby almost no man reading the good superscription any thing suspecteth the lurking poison of the self same thing Math. 7. Likewise our Sauiour crieth out to al Christians take ye heed of false prophets which come to you in sheepes cloathing but inwardly are rauening wolues What is meant else by sheepes cloathing but the sayings of the Prophets and Apostles which they with sheepe-like sincerity did weare c. And soone after But to the end they may more craftily set vpon the sheepe of Christ mistrusting nothing remaining stil cruel beasts they put of their woluish weed and shroud themselues with the wordes of Scripture as it were with certaine fleeces whereby it happeneth that when the silly sheepe feele the soft wool they litle feare their sharpe teeth Ambros in cap. vlt. ad Tit. hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis S. Ambrose likewise telleth vs that impiety seing authority to be esteemed couereth her selfe with the vaile of Scriptures that whereas by her selfe shee is not acceptable by Scriptures shee may seeme most commendable And of this matter I neede say no more Chapter 9. In which is proued by the newe Sectaries forsaking their owne supposed ground and flying to others also by their dissension and inconstancy that they build their faith and religion only vpon their owne fancies SECTION THE FIRST Concerning their flying to other groundes by themselues rejected and their dissension I HAVE nowe sufficientlie proued that our aduersaries build not their faith and religion vpon any one of those particular groundes which are found in the Church of Christ yea that in al matters the rule of their beliefe is principally their owne judgement and fancy For the confirmation of al vvhich my discourse I purpose in this chapter to set downe three manifest tokens and signes of this their vveake foundation to vvit their forsaking of their owne ground and flying to others when they confute their aduersaries their dissention or diuision and their inconstancy Concerning the first it is a thing most euident in al their proceedinges that although disputing against vs they pleade and demand only Scriptures and commonly reject al authority of the Church Councels and Fathers yea when they come to confute other Sectaries like vnto themselues they refuse such trial by scriptures and sometimes fly to other such groundes Thus Caluin although he referre al matters sometimes to Scripture affirming that we ought to hearken to the voice of Christ alone and that it is meete the mouthes of al men be shut after that our Lord hath once spoken Caluin lib. 4. instit cap. 8. § 7. 8. which by his ordinary courses he seemeth to approue as a sufficient argument to shew that the wordes themselues of Scripture as they are expounded by himself are without contradiction to be applauded and reuerenced yet at other times he desireth al sorts diligently to ponder and examine whether the word of God be truly or falsly alleaged and to try the spirits whether they be of God or no because the Deuil assaulted Christ by Scripture and his instruments daily practise the same art to depraue the truth and seduce silly soules This course he taketh against the Anabaptists as I haue shewed a litle before See before chap. 8. sect 5. Nay discoursing against the Lutherans he vseth these wordes Nowe againe I turne my speech to you godly readers whome I earnestly beseech that you suffer not your senses to be astonied with that tinckling wherein the Magdeburgians boast This voice alwaies soundeth in their mouthes Caluin admonit vltima ad Westphalum pag. 1147. that we must not dispute where Christ the only master and doctour hath clearely taught what is to be beleeued that we must not contend where the same supreame judge hath pronounced a plaine sentence thus Caluin to the Lutherans pleading hardly the scriptures against him in proofe of the real presence After this sort also Beza against the Arians Trinitarians Nestorians and Eutichians pleaded the authority of general Councels as I haue else where shewed Part. 1. chap. 9. Westphalus likewise wrote to a Caluini ibid. pag. 1098. Caluin that the consent of many Churches condemning him should satisfie him Finally our English Protestants although they pronounce so hard a censure against general Councels themselues and are so earnest for the sufficiency of only Scripture as we haue seene before yet against the Puritans plead hardly the authority of the Church Councels and Fathers as euery man may behold in their vvorkes of this argument Whitgift in his defence Belson in his treatise of the perpetual gouernement of the Church and such other examples are not wanting Touching their dissention and diuision a Tertul lib. de praescript Tertullian affirmeth that we may lawfuly judge that there is adulteration both of Scripture and expositions where there is found diuersity of doctrine And the reason of this is manifest because the truth vnto vvhich the Scriptures and their true interpretation is consonant and giue testimony is one wherefore they cannot approue diuers and opposite doctrines Nowe that diuision is found among our aduersaries no man of any sense and reading can deny b Stanislaus Rescius lib. de Acheismis Phalerismis haereticorum nostri tēporis Stanislaus Rescius numbreth of them an hundred seauenty distinct sects of which c Caspar Vlenbergius li. 22. Causarū causae 9. Caspar Vlenbergius reciteth diuers principal * See Hedio a Zwinglian epist ad Melancthonem others reckon farre more And this euery man may the better beleeue if he consider that it is a very hard matter to finde any two of the learned sort of them of one opinion touching al matters of religion Hence ariseth dissention in their Churches in which they proceede so farre that they feare not to censure and condemne one another of heresie If we beleeue d Luther thes 27. cont Louaniens tom 7. in defens verborum coenae c. Luther and the Lutherans Zwinglius Caluin and al the Sacramentaries are damned Heretikes If we credit e Zwinglius tom 2. in respōs ad Luth. l. de Sacram. fol. 411. 401. Caluin admonit 3. ad Westphalum Zwinglius Caluin and other Sacramentaries Luther and the Lutherans are guilty of the same crime And the like dissentions are betweene the inuentours and followers of other sectes But of this matter I shal haue a more fit opportunity to discourse in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church vvherefore in this place passing ouer altogether with silence the domestical discord which is betweene our Protestants and Puritans touching the Lutherans and Caluinists abroad I vvil recite this only testimony of an f Relation of the state of religion in the West parts of the world §. 45. written as said by Sir Edwine Sans printed in the yeare 1605. English Protestant who hauing trauailed in those parts of their dissention writeth
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
learning then that hauing learned a fewe schoole distinctions by them he thinketh he can make whatsoeuer of any thing and so reconcile opinions and assertions be they neuer so contrary By which his dealings a man may wel gather that it is no hard matter for Heretikes after such sort to drawe and vvrest the sacred text of holy Scripture to their owne fancies And thus much of the new Sectaries diuision and dissention for this present SECTION THE SECOND Concerning the inconstancy of the Professors of the newe religion OVT of the same roote or weake foundation of our aduersaries faith springeth inconstancy for they doe not only dissent from one another but also at sundry times from themselues Let vs declare the truth of this especially in the principal sectaries and beginne with Martin Luther the first vnhappy father of them al. Luther therefore began to preach newe and strange doctrine See Sleidan Surius Lauatherus and others in the yeare of our Lord 1517. and went on forward adding altering chopping and chaunging for diuers yeares together in such sort that no man could knowe any certaintie of his beliefe That I wrong him not in this accusation his owne workes wil testifie to any indifferent reader for he fel by litle and litle into his sundry heresies not into al at once It is manifest in his bookes yet extant that after his Apostacy from vs he graunted a Luther de 1. praecept in purgat quoruÌ„daÌ„ articul tom 6 Germ. f. 21. de praeparat ad mortem inuocation to Saints b Idem in declar quorundam articul allowed of Miracles done at Saints relikes c In defension coÌ„t Eckium affirmed the Commandements to be possible yea easie through the grace of God d Thesi 10. Wittenb an 1517. in epist ad Ioan. MoguÌ„tinum taught that no man vvas certaine of his owne saluation e Ep. ad Leonem 10. in coÌ„memora reruÌ„ quae Augustae an 1518. actae suÌ„t in resolut alâ—aruÌ„ propos an 1518. in resâ—lut de Indulgen conclus 69. acknowledged the Popes supreamacy f In explicat orat Domini graunted Freewil g Lib. de potest Papae confessed seauen Sacraments and in particular h In visitaâ— Saxonica contra articul Louaniens cap. 35. serm de Poenit. to 7. Germ. fol. 3. approued Penance to be a Sacrament and taught i In concione de poenâ—t concione de confess praepar ad mortem coÌ„cio de praeparat Sacra tom 7. Germ. fol. 11. Confession to be necessary he k Sermo de Eucharist serm de venerabili Sacramento fraternitat tom 7. Germ. fol. 20. allowed of Transubstantiation l De 3. praecept serm de Indulgent in resolut de Indulg conclus 26. commended the Masse m In disput Lipsica cap. de purgat in resolut de Indulg conclâ—s 16. aduersus Bullam tom 7. fol. 132. graunted Purgatory and n Concione de Indulg disput Lipsica cap. de purgat liked of Praier for the dead wherefore Vrbanus Regius his disciple telleth vs o Regius 1. part eperum informata caute loqueaâ—â— fol. 86. that The man of God Martin Luther his master euer to be reuerenced thought it nothing against Christian piety if of free deuotion we pray once or twice for our dead This I say vvas sometimes Luthers doctrine euen after his fal from vs. Al which he at other times contraried as I could easily shew if it were not both for ouer-charging my margents vvith allegations of his workes and also because I thinke that our aduersaries vvil easily graunt that he denied before his death these our Popish propositions as they tearme them One example only of his inconstancy I vvil bring at large to giue the more credit to the rest which shal be touching his contradictory opinion of freewil for against freewil thus he writeth p Luther in assert articul 36. Freewil is a forged or faigned thing in thinges and a title without a substance because it is in no mans power to thinke any good or euil but al thinges fal out of absolute necessity And soone after There is no doubt but this word freewil came from the Deuil and that he was master of it Againe The leuity and foolishnesse of the Pope and his followers is to be borne withal in other articles of the Pope-dome of Councels of indulgences and other vnnecessary trifles but in this article of the bondage seruitude or slauery of the will which is the best of al others it is a thing to be lamented and be wailed with teares that the miserable men are so madde thus much Luther against free-will But listen howe he recanteth this doctrine in a booke which afterwardes he published thus he discourseth Luther in visitat Saxoni Many speake indiscretly of free-wil wherefore we haue adjoined this briefe information Man being compelled by lawe and penalties hath of his owne proper strength free-wil to doe or not to doe external workes wherefore he may attaine to secular or ciuil honesty and doe good workes of his owne proper strength giuen and obtained from God to doe these thinges For Paul calleth that justice justice of the flesh that is to say which the flesh or man hath of his owne proper strength So therefore a man worketh of his owne strength some justice Verily he hath choice and liberty both to flie euil and to doe good Againe The wil of man is in such sort a free power that it may doe the justice of the flesh or ciuil justice where it is compelled by lawe and force as not to steale not to kil not to commit adultery c. Hitherto Luther expresly contradicting his former doctrine The reason as I imagine of this contradiction was that he sawe his Saxonian disciples by his former opinion growne to al loosenesse of life and abhomination of vice Erasmus in epist ad fratres inferioris Germaniae wherefore he was forced as Erasmus recordeth to send visitours to reduce them from Paganisme into which they were falling headlong vnto whome for the better effecting of the matter he gaue among other instructions a recantation of his absolute denial of freewil Vnto this I could adde his inconstancy touching the real presence for besides that he sometimes allowed of Transubstantiation and at other times denying it affirmed Christ to be really present together with bread and vvine he also at the length affirmed the humane nature of Christ to be present in euery place together with his God-head but of Luther inough This only I wil adde that this inconstancy of Luther vvas euen vvhen he liued noted and reprehended by Zwinglius who then told the whole world Zwingl tom 2. respons ad confess Lutheri fol. 454 458. 460. 514. Zwingl ibid. in praef f. 417 se also f. 449 in respoÌ„s ibid that Luther not seldome was found contrary to himselfe within the space of foure or fiue lines and
that pronouncing nowe this nowe that of the same thing he was neuer constant to himselfe but thought that such leuity and inconstancy might be vsed in the word of God as shamelesse jesters commonly vse playing at dice. Againe Luther saith he doth not only bring his former doctrine in suspition but also giueth the Papists a most fit occasion to condemne him by sending in this present controuersie his reader only to those bookes which he wrote within foure or fiue yeares before For who hauing heard or read these things wil not say that if so be that we expect other fiue yeares without al doubt they being past he wil cal into doubt those bookes which he wrote in these last fiue yeares Thus farre Zwinglius of Luthers inconstancy Erasmus also Whitaker in his answer to Campians reason 8. p. 208. a man denied by Whitakers to be a writer of our side and by the martir-maker Fox canonized for a Saint of the newe religion of Luther his disciples writeth after this sort * Erasmus lib 3. de libero arbitrio What should I recount here the dissention that is among these Gospellers their bloudy hatred their bitter contentions nay their singular inconstancy Luther himselfe hauing changed his opinion so often and yet newe paradoxes springing vp from him daily Hitherto Erasmus Finally Field although he extol Luther for a worthy diuine as euer the world had any in those times wherein he liued Field booke 3 c. 24. p. 170. or in many ages before yet confesseth that by degrees he sawe and discried those Popish errours I vse his wordes which at first he discerned not But to excuse the matter he first auoucheth that in sundry points of greatest moment as of the power of nature of free-wil grace justification the difference of the law and the Gospel faith and workes Christian liberty and the like he was euer constant Which assertion of his howe false it is that which I haue before said touching free-wil doth demonstrate An other of his excuses is that it is not so strange a thing as his aduersaries would make it seeme to be that herein Luther proceeded by degrees and in his later writings disliked that which in his former he did approue And his reason is because S. Augustine wrote a whole booke of retractations S. Ambrose complained that he was forced to teach before he had learned and so to deliuer many thinges that should neede a second reuiewe And S. Thomas of Aquine in his summe corrected and altered many things which he had written before Against this I first reply that it excuseth not Luthers building of his new beliefe vpon his owne judgement nay it proueth manifestly that he came not to it by the infallible direction of any external guide but by the discourse and search of his owne wit and moreouer Caluin Instit booke 4. ch 3. The Apology of the church of England part 4. p. 123 124. c. that he vvas not extraordinarily by internal inspirations instructed and sent by the spirit of God as diuers of these men seeme plainely to affirme for the workes of God are perfect and they whome he immediately sendeth directeth in faith erre not in any point of that argument but that his inconstant reason was the principal ground on which he built his said faith and religion Secondly I adde that the examples brought by Field in excuse of Luther make nothing for his purpose For what if S. Augustine vvriting vvhen he was yet a nouice in Christian religion and not fully instructed erred in some points which errours hauing receiued better instructions he reclaimed What if the like happened to S. Ambrose being miraculously chosen to be a Bishop and a teacher before he was a Christian What if S. Augustine before some articles of Christian religion were so throughly discussed and defined in the Church as afterward vpon the rising of new heresies spoke not so aptly and properly as was needful in succeeding times and therefore retracted what he had vttered What if he and S. Thomas of Aquin in diuers matters disputable and not determined by the Church altered and corrected their former opinions So hath Cardinal Baronius nowe done who hath runne ouer the first ten tomes of his Ecclesiastical history and made as it were a booke of retractations recalling such thinges as he judged amisse What I say if also these thinges be so as without doubt they were no otherwise shal it therefore be lawful for Luther or any other person to leape vp and downe hither and thither and to chop and change his faith according as his fancy leadeth him in any articles of Christian religion verily I thinke to no man of judgement such a fault vvil seeme excusable But was Zwinglius who as we haue seene so peremptorily reprehendeth Luther for his inconstancy him selfe free from this crime Truly he vvas not and because breuity suffereth me not to runne through his works and to shewe the change and alteration of his opinion concerning al particuler points in vvhich he shewed himselfe inconstant I wil only conuince him of inconstancy touching one or two and that by his owne confession It cannot be denied but before his fal from vs he held the Catholike doctrine concerning the baptisme of infants otherwise vvithout al doubt his nouelty vvould haue beene noted and censured His first alteration therefore concerning this matter was from vs to Anabaptisme his second from Anabaptisme in some sort to our beliefe againe That he was once an Anabaptist thus he confesseth Wherefore I my selfe also confesse frankely saith he that a fewe yeares since I being deceiued with this error thought it better to deferre the baptisme of young children vntil they come to perfest age thus Zwinglius That he partly recanted afterwards this heresie he declareth in the same place I say partly because he alwaies denied the necessity of baptisme to saluation That he was likewise inconstant in his beliefe of the Eucharist these his owne wordes testifie Zwingl tom 2. commēt de vera salsa religione cap de Eucharist fol. 202. We haue written two yeares since of the Eucharist where we haue written many thinges rather according to the time then the truth of the matter And soone after If reader thou finde certaine thinges here otherwise then in the former bookes doe not thou wonder we would not giue foode out of season nor set pearls before swine Finally We retract therefore saith he and reuoke those thinges which we haue said there in such sort that those which we set forth in the two and fortith yeare of our age counterpoise those which we set forth in the fortith when as we said we serued more the time then the truth of the matter that we might by that meanes the more edifie thus Zwinglius of himselfe Who then can deny but he also was inconstant and at the least in outward shewe altered his beliefe yea doth he not confesse to
excuse his inconstancy that sometimes contrary to his owne conscience and opinion he oppugned the truth and seduced men with falshood truly this his owne wordes testify and it cannot be denied But what doctrine doth he here recant certainly Luthers not ours For he first fel from vs to Lutheranisme and defended Luthers opinion concerning the real presence but within fewe yeares profiting to the worse he became a Sacramentary and affirmed the Eucharist to be a bare figure only of the body bloud of Christ Vnto these three I may very wel joine Iohn Caluin as euery man wil graunt that shal viewe the first edition of his Institutions set forth at Strasburge where he professed himselfe first a Lutheran and conferre it with the last editions of the same and with other of his workes The disciples and followers of these foure principal Captaines most constantly followed the inconstancy of their masters And first it is a strange matter and almost incredible howe wonderful inconstant the Lutheran professors of the confession of Ausburge haue alwaies shewed themselues in their proceedinges For the declaration of which I must giue my reader to vnderstand that this confession aboue al others penned in those daies by our aduersaries was both permitted by the imperial lawes of Germany in such sort as the professors thereof were freed from al punishment by the lawes due vnto Heretikes and also by diuers esteemed as a fift Gospel Hence it proceeded that al sectaries of what newe sect soeuer professed themselues followers of this confession And because the wordes themselues could not sound wel on euery side they added also their Commentaries vpon the same and like as the sentences of holy Scripture so of this euery man endeauoured to drawe to his diuers fancies Vnto this mischiefe an other soone after was adjoyned to wit the change and alteration of the Confession it selfe For Melancthon the first penner of it falling by litle and litle from Lutheranisme to Zwinglianisme framed a newe Confession according to his new faith and published it vnder the name of the Confession of Ausburge Neither was this practised only by Melancthon but also as it seemeth by others Hence farther among sundry other contentions among the professors of this newe faith there arose no smal controuersie euen among the Lutherans themselues who were the true followers of the Confession of Ausburge And whosoeuer is desirous to see a part of this conflict let him reade a booke intituled Colloquium Altenbergense in which the acts and opinions of certaine Lutheran Diuines vvhich mette in the said towne for the decision of this matter and others are set downe And among other thinges in it he shal finde not only their dissention concerning the true copy or authentical edition of this Confession but also vnderstand that some of these diuines accused their fellowe Lutherans of Wittenberge that they vvere miserably tourned round like a wheele in their faith that they were as it were violently carried with contrary windes and that they varied without end and measure the Confessions of their faith This perhaps caused George that most noble Duke of Saxony being demanded touching the newe sectaries faith vvhat it vvas to make answere that he knewe very vvel vvhat they beleeued this yeare but that it vvas impossible to knowe vvhat they vvould beleeue the next This also moued the Lutheran Historiographers Centur. 9. in praefat to tearme al the followers of the Confession of Ausburge Ecebolios and to liken them to the fish Polipus or Pourcountrel vvhich changeth often his colour and to the old Pagan God Vertumnus vvho could turne himselfe into al shapes They affirme finally that they nowe approue the true doctrine and presently after condemne the same nowe calling that heresie which before they preached as an vnconquered truth Thus farre the Centuriators They might likewise haue added that they embraced sometimes that doctrine as true and euangelical vvhich before they censured to be heretical For an example of this their manner of proceeding vve haue from Dresda in Misina vvhere in a Synode held anno 1571. certaine Lutherans condemned the opinion of Brentius and Illiricus their fellowes In lib. concordiae concerning the person of Christ vvhich opinion neuerthelesse after some fewe yeares to vvit Anno 1580. they publikely embraced as true And these contrary opinions vvere published in the selfe fame City by the authority of the selfe same Prince within so short a time The Zwinglians haue shewed themselues euen as inconstant as appeareth by this that the inhabitants of the County Palatine turned from Catholike religion to Zwinglianisme from Zwinglianisme to Lutheranisme and from Lutheranisme in a short time againe to Zwinglianisme Simlerus in vita Bullingeri fol. 15. Adde also that the Earle of Wittenberge in the yeare 1535. vvith his vvhole Country embraced Zwinglianisme but he being dead the religion was soone changed againe as Simlerus a Zwinglian reporteth Other Cities likewise of high Germany as long as Bucer a Zwinglian liued Fol. 15. followed his doctrine but soone after his death as the same Authour testifieth they condemned the Zwinglians as the most vvicked men liuing I cannot but say a vvord or two of Melancthon in particular both because sometimes he vvas a man of great estimation among the professours of the newe religion and also because his inconstancy vvas most notorious He is called by Beza * Beza in Iconibus the setter vp of Euangelical doctrine and the singular ornament of our age by a Lauather in histor Sacram fol. 47. Lauatherus and b Martir cōtra Gardiner par 4. p. 468 Peter Martir a man incomparable and throughly instructed with al kinde of vertue and learning by certaine other Ministers c Minist Pinzoniensis apud Stancarum M. 8. the Doctor of Doctors and the Diuine of Diuines who being one say they is better then a hundred Augustines Thus these sectaries commend him But how inconstant a man he was in his beliefe al the world knoweth and euery man may easily perceiue by the conferring of the diuers editions of his d See Colloq Altēb f. 520. 503. 463. 425. 424. Apologie and booke of common places together wherefore for this vice he is reprehended by diuers of his owne company Yea concerning his Apologie this is plainely confessed by Melancthon himselfe vvho in his second epistle to Luther vvriteth thus In the Apologie we daily alter many thinges For they are euer nowe and then to be changed and to be accommodated or conformed to occasions Thus he The like discourse I could make of the inconstancy of Peter Martir vvho is accused of this fault by e Bullinger in firmamēto firmo c. 4. f. 127. Bullinger but I should be ouer-long Our English sectaries at home haue not beene free from the same crime for howe often did they change during the raigne of King Edward the sixt The first statute made in a Parliament held in the first
arising his words of them are these Their opinion of the sacrament they began with lies Luther in epist ad IoanneÌ„ Heruagrum TypographuÌ„ Argentinum and with lies they doe defend the same and they broach it abroade by the wicked fauour of corrupting other mens bookes hitherto Luther But perhaps my reader may here desire to see some president of some Protestant booke corrupted by some English sectaries and that confessed by a Protstant behold I haue such a president or two at hand The author of the Suruey of the pretended holy discipline a man of good credit among Protestants hauing alleaged Trauerse his Latin booke Dc disciplin Suruay of the pretended holy discipline printed anno 1593. ch 19. pa. 224. 225. Ecclesiast fol. 119. bringeth forth this reason why he alleaged not the English translated by some English sectary But you must remember saith he that I doe referre you to this latin booke and not to the English translation of it Why some may say is it not faithfully translated Shal we thinke that such zealous men as had to deale herein would serue vs as the Iesuites doe It is we knowe a practise with that false hipocritical broode or rather he should haue said a false slaunder imposed vpon them to leaue out and thrust in what they list into the writinges of the auncient Fathers that thereby in time nothing might appeare which should any way make against them But we wil neuer suspect nor beleeue that any man who feareth God and least of al that any of that sort which are so earnest against al abuses and corruptions shal play such a prancke Surely we doe wel to judge the best and I my selfe was of your opinian but now I am cleane altered How were some of Vrsinus workes vsed at Cambridge and it is true that some other bookes haue beene handled vary strangely else where But concerning the present point this the truth The translator of Trauerses booke hath quite omitted the wordes which I haue alleaged and al the rest which tendeth to that purpose euen seauenteene lines together So as if you see but the English booke you shal not finde so much as one steppe whereby you might suspect that euer M. Trauerse had carried so hard a hand ouer the pretendâ—d widowes If the translatour had receiued any commission from the author to haue dealt in that sort with his booke yet it should haue beene signified either in some preface or in some note or by some meanes or other but to leaue luch a matter out and to giue no general warning of it I tel you plainely it was great dishonesty and lewdnes hitherto are the Protestant authors wordes in the aforesaid Suruey But to come yet a litle nearer to M. Crashaw what wil he say if I finde him guilty of corruption and forgery in this very booke in which he reprehendeth vs This indeede were something to the purpose but as a discreete man would thinke hardly to be proued true in him that so sharply in this very treatise argueth and blameth others for this crime wel I wil doe my endeauour And this argument I bring against him he that taketh vpon him to cite the sayings of others patcheth in leaueth out wordes of their said sentences to serue his owne turne is a corrupter and a forger of other mens sayings but M. Crashaw doth this in his booke made of Romish forgeries and falsifications therefore he is a corrupter and a forger of other mens sayings The Major and first proposition cannot be denied by M. Crashaw For if he incurre the crimes of corruption and forgery as he saith in the highest degree that dealeth so with other mens bookes howe shal we excuse him from them that dealeth so with other mens sayings or sentences Let vs therefore see whether we can proue the Minor or second proposition the truth of vvhich I declare after this sort Prologomena T. 3. Thus you c M. Crashaw in his epistle or preface to his beloued countrimen the seduced Papists of England contending to proue that the Index of forbidden bookes and the Indices expurgatorij are the Popes worke writeth thus For your better satisfaction I wil set you downe briefly the rules to this purpose agreed vpon in that Councel and confirmed afterwardes by diuers Popes Haereticorum libri vt Lutheri Zwinglij Caluini his similium cuiuscunque nominis tituli aut argumenti existant omnino prohibentur The bookes of Heretikes as Luther Zwinglius Caluin and others like to these vnder what name title or argument soeuer they be extant are altogether prohibited thus Crashaw And in the margent he hath these wordes Regula secunda in concilio Tridentino Indice Roma Clementis octaui The 2. rule in the Councel of Trent and the Roman index of Clement the eight But in these words he hath corrupted the rule of the Councel of Trent and of the Roman index of Clement the eight and no such rule is to be found as he here setteth downe therefore he is a forger and corrupter I wil recite the whole rule as I finde it in al those bookes to the end that my reader may see I doe him no wrong The bookes of Heretikes as wel of those who found and raised heresies after the aforesaid yeare 1515. as of those who are or haue beene heads or captaines of Heretikes such as Luther Zwinglius Caluin Balthazar Pacimontanus Swenckfeldius and like vnto these are of what title name or argument soeuer they be are altogether forbidden The bookes of other Heretikes also which treate ex professo of religion that is whose principal argument is of religion are altogether forbidden But such as treate not of religion examined by the commandement of Bishops and Inquisitours by Catholike diuines and approued are permitted hitherto are the wordes of the rule Out of which it is manifest that M. Crashaw by placing the word Heretikes in the place of the word Archeretikes hath falsified the said rule and turned it to a cleane contrary sense For vvhereas the rule saith that certaine bookes of some Heretikes are permitted he maketh it say the bookes of Heretikes vnder what name title or argument whatsoeuer are prohibited And this as it may seeme he doth to perswade his reader that vve are so strict in this matter that we suffer not any bookes whatsoeuer vvritten by Heretikes be they neuer so profitable to be read which is false this is one corruption so palpable that it cannot be denied I vvil not vrge that in the third rule he nameth Iunius his translation of the old testament and Bezaes of the newe whereas these authours or their translations are not so much as named in the rule as it is found in our bookes And for breuities sake I come to his rehersal of our instructions for the purging and correction of bookes Before he setteth downe such thinges as are to be amended translating that vvhich is said in our bookes before