The LutheraÌ„s are generally â—he same opinion Protestants do interpret this article of Christs descending into his (p) D. Willet in his Lymbomastix D. Fulke â—ged by D. Willet in Synop. p. 605. 606. â—â—aue so by the word Hell vnderstanding â—â—e graue But (q) l. 2. Instit c. 16. §. 20. Caluin teacheth that by Christs descending into Hell is vndertood that Christ apprehended God to be â—ost angry and offended with him for our â—akes and that thereupon Christ suffered â—â—eat anxiety and griefe of soule and which is more most blasphemously Caluin teacheth that Christ vttered words of desperation in saying O God my God why hast thou forsaken me Touching the article of Christs ascending into Heauen we Catholikes and the Caluinists do belieue heerby that Christ truly in body ascended vp into Heauen wheraâ— all Lutherans (r) Luther in l. de Sacrament Coenae Domini tom 2. fol. 112. where he saith Credimus quòd Christus iuxta humanitatem est vbique praesens The same is taught by Brentius in Apolog pro Confess Wittenberg And finally by all the Lutherans do teach that Christs Body is in all places with the diuinity and that therfore it did not really after his Passion ascend vp into Heauen it being there both before and after his Passion Thus the Lutherans both in ours and the Protestants iudgments do destroy by this their construction the whole Creed and particulerly Christs Incarnation Natiuity Passion death ascending to Heauen and his comming to Iudgment for supposing Christs body to be in all places all these articles were but apparently or phantastically and not truly and really performed Touching the article of Christs iudging the quicke and dead We Catholikes do beleiue that Christ at his comming to iudgment will so iudge man as that his good workes receauing all their force from our Sauiours PassioÌ„ shal be rewarded wheras the Protestants denying all (s) Calu. l. 3. Instit c. 5. §. â— Bucer in actis Colloq Ratisbon Beza Zwinglius and most ProtestaÌ„ts merit of workes as iniurious and derogatory to his death and Passion doe hould that Christ shall then reward only a bare and speciall (t) Calu. in Antidoto Conc. Tri. Kemnitius in examen Conc. Trident. and most other Protestants fayth Concerning the article I beleiue in the holy Ghost Wheras all Catholikes and many Protestants do beleiue that the holy Ghost is the third Person in the most Blessed Trinity Caluin how euer he was persuaded of the truth or falsehood therof much laboureth notwithstanding to auoyde the force of arguments drawn from the chiefest places of scripture and vsually alleadged by al Antiquity in proofe of the holy Ghost being the third Person in the Trinity Thus we find that Caluin (u) Instit l. 1. c. 13. §. 15. will not haue coÌ„trary to all Antiquity that passage of Scripture Psal 33. By the word of the Lord the Heauens were made and al the Host of theÌ„ by the spirit of his mouth to be vnderstood of the diuinity of the holy Ghost In like sort he reiecteth the argumeÌ„t (x) See of this Subiect against the Trinity Aegidius Hunnius a ProtestaÌ„t in his booke entituled Caluinus IudaizaÌ„s drawn froÌ„ that other most â—â—markable text Iohn 5. There be three that giue testimony in Heauen the Father the word the holy Ghost and these three be one Caluin vpon this place thus saying heerby to take away froÌ„ thence the proofe of the holy Ghost Quòd dicit tres esse vnum ad essentiam non refertur sed ad consensum potiùs Finally Luther was so far from acknowledging the holy Ghost to be the third Person in the Trinity or to confesse the Trinity it selfe that thus he writeth (*) Luther Confut ration Lat. Anima mea odit hoc verbum Homousion vel Consubstantialis My very soule doth hate the word Homousion or Consubstantiall Concerning the article I belieue the holy Catholike Church The Catholikes do belieue this Church to be a visible company of men professing the present Roman Catholike fayth of which some are predestinated others reprobated The Protestants doe belieue this Church to coÌ„sist only of the (y) Confess Augustana Art 7. Luther l. de Conc Eccles Cal. l. 4. Inst. c. 1. §. 2. Elect and Predestinate Touching the Article the Communion of Saints The Catholikes doe heereby belieue such a CommunioÌ„ to be betwixt the Saints in Heauen the Soules in Purgatory men vpon earth that the one part doth help the other with their most auaylable prayers and Intercessions The Protestants deny all such entercourse of benefits betweene these seuerall parts â—f the Church of Christ (z) Calu. l. 3. Instit c. 5. §. 6. Centuriatores Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. col 460. Brentius in confes wittenberg c. de Purgatorio accounting the Catholikes doctrine heerein superstitious sacrilegious Lastly touching the Article of forgiuenes of Sinnes we Catholikes do belieue that this remission of sinnes is performed when the soule by a true and inherent Iustice and by the infused gifts of God enioyeth a renouation of herselfe and thereby becommeth truly iust in the sight of God The Protestants disalowing all inherent Iustice doe only acknowlege an (a) Keâ—nit in Examen Concil Trident. Cal. l. 3. Instit c. 11. imputatiue Iustice or righteousnes which coÌ„sisteth in that the Iustice of Christ is as they teach only imputed vnto sinners so as we remayne still sinners though our sinne be not imputed vnto vs through Christs Iustice A doctrine iniurious to the most meritorious Passion and death of Christ Thus haue we runne ouer the chiefe articles of the Creed from whence we collect that seeing as is aboue demonstrated He only belieueth auailably truly the Creed who belieueth it in that sense in which the Apostles did write it seing there are meere different or rather contrary constructions of euery Article giuen by the Catholikes and the Protestants so as if the construction of the Catholiks be true it followeth necessarily that the other of the ProtestaÌ„ts be false or contrarywise we may therefore iustly conclude that it is not sufficient to saluation for any one to say that he beliueth the Creed who belieueth the words of it in general without restrayning them to any peculiar construction giuen eyther by Catholikes or Protestants except he belieue it in that one particuler sense and none other which was intended by the holy Ghost when it was first framed by the Apostles Now in this next place we are to demoÌ„strate that graunting for a tyme by an Hypothesis or supposall that a man did belieue all the Articles of the Creed in their true sense and construction yet followeth it not that this beliefe though it be most necessary were sufficient for a man to obtaine his saluation hereby and the reason hereof is because it is most certayne that there are diuers points of Christian Religion houldeâ— necessarily to be belieued in
Articles of the Creed â—â—t it is extended in it own nature consiâ—ering that according to al Art the definitioÌ„â—â—d the thing defined ought to be of an eâ—all latitude or extent to any erroneous â—â—inion whatsoeuer frowardly defended 〈◊〉 a man and impugned by the Church of â—od So as it is as perfit an Heresy and â—e belieuers therof are as true Heretikes to deny that there is a Purgatory or to deny Freewill praying to Saints the doctrine oâ— Indulgences the necessity of Baptisme oâ— any other Article affirmed by Catholikes granting the doctrine of Catholiks in thesâ— Articles to be true as to deny the Trinity the IncarnatioÌ„ of Christ his death Passion c. supposing the denyall of these to bâ— but Heresies And a man shal be aswell daÌ„ned in Hell for denying these former as foâ— these other though the denyall of these lâ—ter do exceed the other in malice since thâ— blasphemies of them are in themselues moâ— wicked heynous And thus much toâ—ching the definition of Heresy or an Heretikâ— which being iustly premised we will conâ— now to the mayne Controuersy handleâ— in this Treatise THAT EVERY CHRISTIAN CANNOâ— be saued in his owne Religion Proued from tâ— holy Scripture CHAP. II. NOw then to beginne to fortify anâ— warrant this vndoubted truth that euâ—ry Christian cannot be saued in his owne Religioâ— I will draw my first kind of Proofe froÌ„ tâ— sacred wordes of holy Scripture And theâ— testimonies shal be of three sorts One coÌ„ceâ—ning Heretikes textes which are not-restrâ—ned to any particular Heresies but deliuered of Heresy in generall The second branch of authorities shall touch Heretikes euen for certaine particuler Heresies different from denying the Trinity the Incarnation of our Sauiour his Passion other like principall and fundamentall articles of Christian Religion The third shall containe the necessity and dignity of Fayth without any restriction to the pointes or articles which are to be belieued And first to beginne with the first We read the Apostle thus to speake of an Heretike in generall (a) Epist ad Tit. c. 3. A man that is an Heretike after the first or second admonition auoyd knowing that he that is such is subuerted and sinneth being condemned by his owne iudgment Where we see the Apostle commaundeth vs to auoid an Heretike which he would neuer haue done if the sayd Heretike had bin in state of Saluation The Apostle further adding this reason in that he sinneth and in that such a maÌ„ as being a pertinacious willfull Heretike is condemned by his owne proper iudgment that is because he aduaunceth his own iudgment aboue the iudgment of Gods Church and because he needeth not that publike coÌ„demnation of the Church which vpon other offenders by way of Excommunication is inflicted Of which text of the Apostle Tertullian both pithily and excellently giueth his glosse saying (b) Lib. de praescript c. 6. Quia in quâ— damnatur sibi elegit Moreouer the Apostle elsewhere coniureth as it were in the name of Christ thaâ— we should auoyd all false belieuers in thesâ— words (c) 2. Thess cap. 3. We denounce vnto yow Brethren iâ— the name of our Lord Iesus Christ that you withdraw your selues from euery Brother walking in ordinatly and not according to the Tradition whicâ— they haue receiued of vs. This place concernetâ— Fayth and doctrine as the whole Chapteâ— sheweth But if those men heere to be eschewed were in state of Saluation theâ— ought not then to be eschewed Agayne this text cannot haue refereÌ„ce to those whâ— deny the Trinity Incarnation and PassioÌ„ seeing the denyers of those high Articleâ— are not Brethren in Christ and yet the Apostle styleth them Brethren whom he heeâ— reprehendeth The Apostle also in anothâ—â— place thus forewarneth (d) Epist. ad Galat. c. 5. The workes of thâ— flesh be manifest which are fornication vncleaneâ— impurity c. dissentions (*) or Heresies according to the Testament of an 1576. Sects c. They whicâ— do these things shal not obtayne the kingdom of Goâ— where we see there is expresse mentioâ— made of Sects and that the maintainers oâ— any Sects in opinion of Fayth much morâ— of any Heresy which is euer auerred witâ— greater contumacy and frowardnes anâ— with neglect to the Churches Authority shall not enter into the kingdome of Heauen From which testimony we may furâ—her conclude that as one only act of fornication barreth a man from the kingdome of God so also one Heresy excludeth him froÌ„ the same A fourth place is this (e) Epist. ad Rom. c. 16. I desire you Breâ—hren to marke them that make dissentions and scandalls contrary to the doctrine which you haue learned and auoyd them for such do not serue Christ our Lord. But if such men be to be auoyded and do not serue Christ then no doubt they continuing in that state cannot be saued Fiftly the Apostle speaketh of certaine men saying of them (f) 1. Tim. 1. Quidam circa fidem maufragauerunt Certaine men haue made shipwracke of their Fayth Where the Apostle vseth the Metaphore of shipwracke therby to expresse more fully that Heretikes once falling out of the shippe of the Church of Christ are cast into the sea of eternall damnation To conclude the EuaÌ„gelist S. Iohn speaketh of all Heretikes in generall not imbracing the Doctrine of Christ within which all secondary questions of Christian Religion are contayned in this sort If any (g) 2. Ioan. man come to you and bring not the doctrine of Christ receaue him not into your house nor sâ—â— God saue you vnto him But a man is bound â— charity to suffer any one which is in staâ— of Saluation to come into his house and â— salute him or say God saue him Now whâ— can be replyed against these former texts â— cannot be sayd that they are meant only â— such Heretikes as deny the mysteries of tâ— Trinity the Incarnation of Christ hâ— Passion and such like supreme points â— Christian Religion This I say cannot 〈◊〉 auerred for these reasons following Fiâ— because those who in the Apostles tymâ— denyed these principall points of Christiâ—nity could not be truly termed Heretikeâ— but rather Iewes or Heathens seeing he 〈◊〉 an Heretike truly as is aboue shewed whâ— was once a member of Christs Church bâ— Fayth 〈◊〉 1 but after ceaseth to be therof by erring in some secondary points touchinâ— Christian Fayth Secondly by reason thaâ— according to the true definition of Heresâ—â— or Heretikes aboue set downe the formeâ— texts haue a necessary reference to all Heresies and Heretikes whatsoeuer whetheâ— the subiect of the sayd false opinions be smaâ—â— or great Thirdly because that in the former texts of Scripture there is no restriction of the word Haereticus or Haeresis to the chiefe or highest points of Christian Religion but it is extended to all kind of Hereâ—ikes and Heresies whatsoeuer euen by the Apostle without exceptioÌ„ who no doubt â—f he had vnderstood Heretikes or
est inquirentibus se remunerator sit 〈◊〉 that commeth to God must belieue that God iâ— and is a rewarder to them that seeke him Hee is imposed a necessity as appeareth by tâ—â— word Oportet to belieue not only that the is a God but that this God giueth rewarâ— to such as seeke him to wit eternall lyâ— But to belieue that God is a rewarder of goâ— men is an article in it selfe wholy distinct 〈◊〉 differeÌ„t from the articles of the Trinity thâ— Incarnation the Passion c. and in natuâ—â— independent of these other for a man maâ— belieue that God is a rewarder of good meâ— with eternall felicity and yet not belieuâ— these other supreme Mysteryes as man vertuous men no doubt did in the law oâ— nature and in the time of the old Testâ—ment and on the contrary side a man maâ— belieue those chiefe articles of Christianity and yet not particulerly belieue that God is a rewarder of such as seeke him And yet we see the beliefe of this later point is necessarily exacted by the Apostle of all those who come to God consequently of all those who shal be saued seeing no man can be saued but such as come to God THE SAME PROVED FROM THE DEfinition Nature and Propriety of Fayth CHAP. III. IN this place we shall first take into our consideration the definition of fayth set downe by S. Paul Secondly the dignity worth of â—ayth much celebrated by diuers of the Aâ—ostles Thirdly the inseparable propriety â—f Fayth which is Vnity for so doth the â—cripture delineate and describe Fayth â—â—om all which it will ineuitably follow â—hat that Fayth which saueth man is not â—o be restrayned only to the Trinity the â—ncarnation and other such sublime points â—f Christian Religion though in other points it be erroneous but to all points whatsoeuer which the Church of God propoundeth to be belieued And to beginne with the definition of Fayth giuen by the Apostle He thus deâ—neth Fayth (a) c. 11. ad Hebraeos Fayth is the substance of thiâ— to be hoped for the argument of things not appâ—ring The sense wherof is this first thâ— Fayth through an infallible certainty caâ—seth those things to subsist and haue a bâ—ing in the mind of man which are yâ— to come but hoped and looked for Sâ—condly that fayth causeth the vnderstaâ—ding to giue an assent to those points whiâ— it vnderstandeth not acknowledging theâ— to be more certaine then any other thinâ— whatsoeuer according to those words of 〈◊〉 Thomas (b) quaest 4. art 8. Multo magis homo certior est de eo qâ—â— audit à Deo qui falli non potest quà m de eo quâ— videt propria ratione quae falli potest Now heeâ— I trust no man wil deny but the Apostle dâ—fined that Fayth of a Christian which sâ—ueth him This being graunted for to denâ— it were both impious in the denier moâ— iniurious to the Apostle we are to remember the nature of euery true definition sâ— downe by the Logitians to wit as is aboue intimated that the thing defined anâ— the definition be of one and the same extenâ— latitude so as whatsoeuer is compreheÌ„ded vnder the definitioÌ„ the same is also contayned vnder the thing defined This theâ— being presupposed by force of all reason foâ— Logike is but an artificiall haÌ„dmaid to Reason we find that this definition of Fayth â—mpriseth in it selfe not only the Doctriâ—e of the Trinity of the Incarnation c. â—nd this not articulately but only by way â—deduction but also it containeth all seâ—â—ndary points of Religion seeing the forâ—r definition doth predicate or may be â—â—d of all the sayd secondary and lesse prinâ—all points of Religion controuerted betâ—eene Christians at any time Therfore the â—ng heere defined which is the sauing â—ayth of a Christian is in like sort to exâ—â—nd it selfe to all the sayd secondary points â— Religion how indifferent soeuer they â—â—me in mans iudgment This inference is 〈◊〉 demonstratiue being taken from the forâ—er definition of Fayth as that the Apostle â—â—mselfe presently after the former words â—â—ginning to instance the seueral Obiect of â—â—yth among diuers other examples setâ—h downe that to belieue Noahs floud 〈◊〉 the deluge of the world by water for â—ne is an article of Fayth for thus he â—â—yth By Fayth (c) Hebr. 11. Noah hauing receaued an ansâ—â—re concerning those things which as yet were â—ot seene fearing framed the Arke for the sauing of â—is howse But to proceed further If the Articles of he Trinity the Incarnation and the like 〈◊〉 the only essentiall points of a true Christian Fayth it is more then wonderfull that the Apostle vndertaking to set down the true definition of an auailable Fayth and exemplifying it in it seuerall Obiects should wholy and silently omit the say articles of the Trinity Incarnation PassioÌ„ c. he in that Chapter not expresly speaking one word of them And thus much touching the definitioâ— of Fayth giuen by the Apostle from whicâ— definition we conclude that whosoeuâ—â— seeketh to haue a true Fayth necessary to saâ—uation must belieue besides the mysteriâ— of the Trinity the Incarnation c. diueâ— others dogmaticall articles of Christian Râ—ligion And therfore answereably therâ— we assure our selues that when our Sauioâ— sayd He (d) Marc. 16. that belieueth not shal be condemneâ— he did speake of the belieuing of the whoâ— corps of Christian Fayth and Doctrine aâ— not only of any part therof for so in this lâ—ter maner it would be both false absurâ— In like fort where our Blessed Sauiour 〈◊〉 the same Chapter sayth to his Apostle Preach the Ghospell to all creatures c. He dâ— vnderstand the whole Ghospell which câ—â—tayneth many other points besides the Tâ—â—nity Incarnation and Passion c. In this next place we will descend 〈◊〉 those passages of holy Scripture which much magnify the efficacy and vertue of â—â—yth And accordingly heerto we find it 〈◊〉 said (e) Marc. vlt. He that belieueth and is baptized â—â—albe saued but he that belieueth not shal be conâ—â—mned Againe our Sauiour said to the â—ind men praying to receaue their sight According to your faith be it donne vnto you (f) Mat. 9. â—nd further (g) Hebr. c. 11. Without fayth it is impossible to â—ase God And more (h) 1. Ioan. c. 5. Our fayth is the virie which ouercommeth the world Now in â—â—ese and many other such texts for breuity â—itted I demaund what fayth is vnderâ—od or meant If it be answered a true â—yre perfect faith belieuing all points Christian Religion proposed by Gods â—â—urch it is true and that which I heare â—e to prooue Yf an vnperfect and munâ—l faith belieuing some points of Chriâ—â—â—â—â— Religion and reiecting others and so â—rroneus faith being partly true partly â— I say it can neuer deserue these prayses â—n by the Euangelists and Apostles neiâ—â—â— can it produce such supernaturall efâ— aboue specifyed no
being apprehended they commit them to prison yea further they proceed not allowing the (m) So relateth Osiander in Epitom Cent. 16. pag. 608. c. Conradus Schlussenb Catalog Haeret. l. 13. vltimo trauaylers of eyther party common entertaynement due in all nations to strangers (l) Hospinian vbi supra Finally their dissentions are so implacable among them though all be Protestants as that in defence of their seuerall doctrines they haue with great hostility taken (n) This is shewed and exemplifyed by Hospinian vbi supra fol. 395. 397. in like sort by Osiander in Epitom p. 735. armes one against another as appeareth to omit for breuity all other PresideÌ„ts by the late memorable example in Holland of the Arminians and Gomorists who only for some difference touching Freewill between them did ryse in hostile manner agaynst their aduersaryes and ceased not that course â—till Barneuelt the chiefe of one side and faction was beheaded All which violence and extremity of courses would neuer haue byn vndertakeÌ„ if the diuersity of doctrine which is the cause of such so great exorbitancies did consist only in things in different of theÌ„selues and such as did not concerne the necessity of saluation The sayd point touching the Protestants dissentions in essentiall articles of faith is lastly cleerly manifested by taking a view of their bookes written one agaynst another thogh this method is partly inuolued in the displaying of their particuler condemning sentences aboue alleadged the nuÌ„ber wherof of amounteth to diuers hundreds yet as desirous to be short compendious I will set downe the Tytles only of twenty of them euen from which Titles the Indifferent Reader may iudge whether the Authours of theÌ„ being all eminent Protestants did maintayne the subiects of their sayd bookes to be matters of Indifferency and such as may be eyther way houlden without breach of that true fayth which is necessary to mans Saluation And further I will forbeare to reckon within this number any booke written eyther for or against the reall Presence maintayned by the Lutherans because therein they conspire partly with vs Catholikes consequently the controuersy herein ariseth not only betweene the Protestants themselues but also betweene them and vs. And for more satisfaction of the Reader I haue also Englished the sayd twenty Titles from which coniecture may easily be made in what bitter style the bookes were wrytten First then may be reckoned that booke entituled Oratio de Incarnatione filij Dei contra impios blasphemos errores Zwinglianorum CaluinistaruÌ„ printed Tubingae Anno Domini 1586. An Oration or Speach of the Incarnation of the SoÌ„ne of God against the wicked and blasphemous errours of the Swinglians and Caluinists Alberti Graueri Bellum Iohannis Caluini Iesu Christi Braptae 1598. in 4. The warre of Iohn Caluin and Iesus Christ written by Albertus Grauerus Anti-Paraeus Hoc est Refutatio venenati scripti à Dauide Paraeo editi in defensione stropharum corrupâ—elarum quibus Iohannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae testimonia de mysterio Trinitatis nec non oracula Prophetarum de Christo detestandum in modum corrupit Francofurti 1598. Anti-Paraeus that is a Refutation of a â—enemous booke written by Dauid Pareus â—n defence of the Deceites Corruptions â—y the which Iohn Caluin hath detestably â—bused or wrested the most cleere testimoâ—yes of Scripture touching the Mystery of â—he Trinity and the Oracles of the Proâ—hets touching Christ AEgidij Hunnij Caluinus Iudaizans Hoc est â—udaicae glossae corruptelae quibus Iohannes Calâ—inus illustrissima Scripturae sacrae loca testimoâ—â— a de gloriosa Trinitate Deitate Christi Spiriâ—â—s Sancti cum primis autem vaticinia Prophetaâ—â—m de aduentu Messiae Natiuitate eius Passioâ—e Resurrectione Assensione ad caelos Sessione â—d dextram Dei detestandum in modum corrumpeâ—â— non abhorrutt Wittenbergae 1593. Caluinus Iudaizans or Caluin playing â—he Iew That is A discouery written by Aegidius Hunnius of the Iewish interpetaâ—ions and Corruptions by the which Iohn Caluin hath not beene affrayd to corrupt â—buse the most euident places and testimoâ—yes of holy Scripture against the glorious â—rinity the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost as also the Predictions of the Proâ—hets touching the comming of the Messias â—s Natiuity Passion Resurrection Ascenâ—â—on and his Sitting at the right Hand of â—od Conradi Schlussenburgij Theologiae Caluinisticae libri tres in quibus seu in tabula quadam quasi ad oculum plusquam ex ducentis viginti tribus Sacramentariorum publicis scriptis pagellis verbis proprijs Authorum nominibus indicatis demonstratur eos de nullo ferè Christianae fidei articulo rectè sentire Francofurti 1594. Three Bookes touching Caluinisticall Diuinity written by Conradus Schlussenburge in which bookes it is shewed as iâ— a Table to the eye eueÌ„ out of two hundred twenty and three publyke wrytings of the Sacramentaryes with speciall noting oâ— the pages the particular words and name of the Authours that the Sacramentaryes haue no true beliefe almost of any one Article of Christian fayth Pia defensio aduersus Iohannis Caluini Peâ—â— Boquini Theodori Bezae Gulihelmi Clebitij â— similium calumnias Item refutatio Pelagianisâ— Anabaptistici Caluinistarum erroris de Baptismo 〈◊〉 Peccato Originali Adduntur Collectancae plurimâ—rum Caluini contra Deum eius Prouidentiam 〈◊〉 Predestinationem Erfordiae 1583. A godly defence against the deceites 〈◊〉 Iohn Caluin Peter Boquinus Theodorâ— Beza Wilhelmus Clebitius and their Associats Also a Refutation of the Pelagian â— Anabaptisticall errour taught by the Calâ—â—nists touching Baptisme Originall sinnâ— Heere are also added certaine Collections out of Caluins wrytings against God his Prouidence and Predestination Denominatio Imposturarum ac fraudum quibus AEgidius Hunnius Ecclesiae Orthodoxae Doctrinam petulanter corrumpere pergit Bremae 1592. A Catalogue of the Impostures deceptes wherewith Aegidius Hunnius doth insolently go about to corrupt the doctrine of the Orthodoxe Church Argumentorum obiectionum de praecipuis articulis Doctrinae Christianae cum responsionibus quae sunt collectae ex scriptis Philippi Melancthonis additis Scholijs illustrantibus vsum singularum responsionum Partes 7. Neapoli 1578. Arguments Obiections concerning the chiefe Articles of Christian Doctrine with the Answers gathered out of the wrytings of Philip Melancthon togeather with Commentaries vpon euery Answere deuided into seauen Parts Gulihelmi Zepperi Dillenbergensis Ecclesiae Pastoris Institutio de tribus Religionis summis capitibus quae inter Euangelicos in Controuersiam vocantur Hanouiae 1596. In Instruction about three chiefe heads of ReligioÌ„ called into Controuersy among the Gospellers by William Zepperus Pastour of the Church of Dillenberge Responsio triplex ad fratres Tubingenses triplex eorum scriptum de tribus grauissimis quâ—stionibus c. De Coena Domini de maiestate hominis Christi de non damnandis Ecclesijs Dei nec
erroneous opinions touching Fayth against the then present Church of God But to returne more particulerly to the Subiect of this Treatise The source from whence this Libertinisme in beliefe impugned heere by me did take it origen and beginning is the contempt of the authority of Christs Church and the assumed authority of ech mans priuate Spirit For thus reasoneth the Neutrallist in Religion Both the Papists and Protestants do agree in belieuing the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion c. But they maynly dissent touching Purgatory praying to Saints Freewill Sacrifice of the Masse c. Therefore I will imbrace and follow the acknowledged doctrine of them both meaning the Doctrine of the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion and hould it necessary only to Saluation since in it all sides do conspire But seeing the dissentions in religion amonge the Papists and the Protestants are of these secondary and lesse principall points only to wit Purgatory prayer to Saints c. and seeing it is impossible that both the Protestant and the Papist should teach truly in the sayd Articles for they teach meere contrary doctrines therein so as if the one side teach true it necessarily followeth that the other side teacheth false And further seeing I haue no more reason once reiecting the authority of Gods visible Church to belieue the one partie more then the other and it is impossible for me to belieue them both Therfore my priuat Spirit biddeth me to belieue neyther but to hould the doctrines of Purgatory prayer to Saints Freewill c. and all other controuerted points of Fayth at this day betweene the Papist and the Protestant to be matters meerely accessory and of such indifferency as that neyther the true or false beliefe of them can further nor hinder my Saluation Thus farre argueth our Newtrallist who whyles he wil be of all Religions is indeed of no Religion Then which as if Religion were but a meere abstracted Notion in the mynd what can be excogitated to be more impious and Athiestical in it selfe more repugnaÌ„t to the sacred Scriptures more crosse to the practise of all Antiquity and as heerafter shall be proued more aduerse to all naturall Reason But good Reader as vnwilling to traÌ„sgresse the accustomed limits of a Preface I will detayne thee no longer only for some delibation and tast of the Subiect heerafter handled I will conclude with the sentence and iudgment of S. Augustin passed vpon the Pelagians who belieued in the Trinity in Christ and his PassioÌ„ were men of honest and morall conuersation yet for houlding That only by the force of Nature without the assistance of Gods grace a Man was able to exercise vertue flie vice a point no more fundamental then most of the CoÌ„trouersies betweene the Catholikes the Prostants they are registred for Heretikes by S. Augustin and consequently not to be in his iudgment in state of Saluation His words are these (9) Epist. 120. c. 37. Nec tales sunt Pelagiani quos facilè conteÌ„nas sed continenter viuentes atque in omnibus operibus laudabiles Nec falsum Christum sed vnum verum aequalemque Patri coaeternum veraciterque hominem factum venisse credentes venturum expectantes sed tamen ignorantes Dei iustitiaÌ„ suam constituere volentes Haeretici sunt Thus S. Augustin with whom I end leauing thee Curteous Reader to the deliberate and studious perusall of these ensuing Leaues and intreating most earnestly the prayer of all good Catholikes for the remission of my infinite sins for a happy hourâ— of the dissolution of my old and decayed Body Thy Soules wellwishing friend VV. B. P. The Contents of the ensuing Treatise THAT a man who belieueth in the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion c. And yet belieueth not all other Articles of ChristiaÌ„ Fayth cannot be saued And first of the definition of Heresy and of an Heretike Chap. 1. The foresayd Verity proued from the Holy Scripture Cap 2. The same proued from the definition nature and propriety of Vnity in Fayth Cap. 3. The same proued from the want of Vnity in Fayth between the Catholike and the Protestant touching the Articles of the Creed Cap. 4. The same euident from the like want of vnity of Fayth betweene the Catholike and Protestant in Articles necessarily to be belieued and yet not expressed in the Creed Cap. 5. The same proued from the authority or priuiledge of Gods Church in not erring eyther in her definitions of Fayth or condemnation of Heresies and first by Councells Chap. 6. The same proued from the like infallillible authority of the Church in not erring manifested from the testimonies of particuler Fathers Cap. 7. The foresaid Truth euicted from that Principle that neither Heretikes nor Schismatikes are members of the Church of God Chap. 8. The same proued from the punishment ancieÌ„tly inflicted vpon Heretikes by the Church Chap. 9. The same proued by arguments drawne from Reason Chap. 10. The same proued from the different effects of Catholike Religion and Protestancy touching Vertue and Vice Chap. 11. The same Veritie proued from the feareful deaths of the first broachers of Protestancy Ch. 12 The same confirmed from the doctrine of Recusancy taught by Catholikes ProtestaÌ„ts Ch. 13 The same manifested from the writings of the Catholikes and Protestants reciprocally charging one another with Heresy and from the Insurrections Warrs and Rebellions begun only for Religion Chap. 14. The same proued from the Protestants mutually condemning one another of Heresy Chap. 15. The same demonstrated from the many absurdities necessarily accompanying the contrary doctrine Chap. 16. The Conclusion of the whole Chap. 17. THAT A MAN WHO BELIEVETH IN the Trinity Incarnation Passion c. And yet belieueth not all other Articles of Christian fayth cannot be saued And first of the definition of Heresy and an Heretike CHAP. I. BEFORE we come good Reader to dispute particulerly of the Subiect of this Discourse I hould it most conuenient in place of a short Prolegomenon or Preface to prefixe and set downe the true definition of Heresy or an Heretike since this method will giue light to this whole ensuing Treatise diuers passages therof being principally founded vpon the definition and nature of Heresy and will best manifest what opinions be Heresyes and what men Heretikes and consequently seing Heresy is incompatible with saluation and cannot stand with the purchase of Heauen will demonstrate that not any one Religion professing the name of Christians which doth maintaine but one Heresy can iustly promiâ—â— to it selfe the hope of Eternall life Well then Heresy or Haeresis as wâ— tearme it in Latin is a Greeke word â—â—gnifying as much as Electio Election 〈◊〉 Choyce comming of the Greeke verâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latine Eligo to Choose or maâ—â— Choyce of as (a) lib. de praescript c. â— Tertullian and S. Iâ—rome (b) in c. 5. Epist. ad Galat. do well note so that this woâ—â— Haeresis
originally primitiuely signiâ—â—eth Election or Choyce as is said in generalâ— yet because they who deuide themseluâ—â— by maintaining false opinions from tâ—â— Church of Christ do make choyce 〈◊〉 these their new opinions and so therbâ— do separate themselues from the Churcâ— therfore this word Haeresis loosing it foâ—mer generall signification is restraynâ— by the Apostles and the Ancient Fatheâ— through an Ecclesiasticall vse acceptancâ— and appropriation which course we finâ— houlden in diuers other wordes noâ— taken by the Church in a secondary aâ—ception to signifie anie false or neâ— opinion in Religion among Christian of which a man maketh choyce pertâ—naciously defendeth against the Churâ—â— of God and the maintainers therof aâ— commonly styled Heretikes Thus three things necessarily concurre to make any false opinion Heresy and the defendours â—herof Heretikes First it must be some erâ—our touching the Faith of Christ And the â—eason hereof is because he that neuer proâ—essed or imbraced the Christian Faith is not an Heretike though he erre but a Iew or a Pagan and Heathen This is the doctrine of S. (c) quast 11. art â— Thomas of all learned men The second condition necessarily â—oncurring to euery Heresy is that there â—e an erreneous iudgment in the vnderâ—tanding of him who maintayneth the Heresie from whence it followeth that â—n externall deniall of a mans Faith is not Heresy except it proceed from an interâ—all errour of the vnderstanding but is raâ—her to be accompted dissimulation or â—chisme as S. Thomas (d) quaest 10. 2. 2. teacheth The third and last condition is that this â—rrour be maintained with great obstinacie â—gainst the authority of Christs Church â—eaching the contrarie doctrine and that â—he defendour therof being admonished of â—is errour will neuerthelesse openly resist â—he authority of the Church therin seeing â—f he be admonished by the Church of his Errour and instantly therupon do forsake â—is false opinion he is to be accompted only erroneous and his false doctrine only an Errour This agreeth to that of S. Augustine (e) l. 18. de ciuit Dei c. 51. Qui in Ecclesia Christi aliquid prauum sapiunt si correpti vt sanum rectumque sapiant resistant contumaciter suaque pestifera mortisera dogmata emendare nolunt sed defensare persistant Haereticiâ— fiunt foraes exeuntes habentur in exercentibus Haereticis That is Who belieue any false or wrong opinion in the Church of Christ and being counsailed and admonished therof do contumaciously and stubbornly resist and will not recall their pestiferous and deadly opinions but do persist in defending of them they are therby become Heretikes and so departing out of the Church they are taken for such as vent forth open and willfull Heresies Thus S. Augustine This Construction both touching the foresaid definition of Heresy in taking the words Haeresis and Haereticus in an euill restrayned and appropriated sense is warranted by the Apostle by the Auncient Fathers and lastly to omit the like acknowledged iudgment of the Catholikes by the learned Protestants By the (f) 1. Cor. 21. Apostle for thus we find him to say There must be Heresies among you that they which are approoued among you may be knowne Againe (g) Galat. 5.19 vid e Testam nouum 1576. The workes of the flesh are manifest which are adulterie fornication c. seditions Heresies c. As also (h) Tit. 3. A man that is an Heretike after the first second admonition auoyde And (i) Act. 5. finally Those which were of the Heresie of the Sadduces c. laid hands vpon the Apostles By the Auncient Fathers For S. Ierome (k) in ca. 3. ad Titum shewing the difference betweene Heâ—esie and Schisme thus defineth Heresie â—aeresis est quae peruersum dogma habet Heresie is â—at which containeth a peruerse froward opiâ—on And S. Augustine (l) l. de fide simbolo ca. 10. defineth Hereâ—kes in these wordes Haeretici sunt qui de Deo â—â—sa sentiendo fidem violant Heretikes are those â—ho do violate their faith by houlding false opiâ—ons touching God By the Protestants For to name one or wo among many M. (m) Dial. 2. Ormerod a most â—orward Protestant thus defineth an Hereâ—ike He is an Heretike who so swarueth from the â—holesome doctrine as contemning the iudgment â—â—th of God and the Church persisteth in his opiâ—ion c. With whom conspireth D. Couell 〈◊〉 saying Heretikes are they who directly gainâ— some article of our faith Now out of this former definition of â—eresie I am to promonish the Reader of â—ee pointes the which in the perusing of is Treatise I would haue him often to â—ll to remembrance first that euery Heâ—y is maintained as is aboue taught â—â—th obstinacie against the authoritie of the Church of God and therfore the maintayners therof are said by the Apostle (o) Ioan. 2.29 that they went out of vs that is out of God Church and for the same reason the Apostle (p) Tit. 3. doth pronounce an Heretike to 〈◊〉 condemned by his owne iudgment because hâ— preferreth his iudgment before the iudgment of the whole Church From whicâ— consideration it followeth that what maâ— soeuer houldeth an erroneous opinion â— touching Christian Faith and being aduertized therof by Gods Church and nâ— captiuating his iudgment in all humiliâ—â— therto is therby become an Heretike Anâ— such is the state of Catholikes and Protestants since the one doth euer reciprocall charge and condemne the other with falâ— doctrine and therfore seing the Church 〈◊〉 Christ must be with the one of them it followeth that the other not submitting the iudgment to it are proclaymed therby Hâ—retikes And thus it may sometimes fall oâ—â— that the first Inuentour of a false opiniâ—â— may be no Heretike as maintayning it bâ—fore it be condemned by the Churcâ— wheras the Professours of it after its coâ—demnation are become Heretikes accâ—ding to that of (q) l. aduersus Haeres Vincentius Lyrinenâ— O admirable change of things the authours of 〈◊〉 and the same opinion are esteemed Catholikes 〈◊〉 their followers are iudged Heretikes Thus we see that pertinacity of iudgment doth euer consumate an Heresy The second that the denyall of the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion c. are not properly called Heresies but rather blasphemies the denyers of them not to be accouned Heretikes but Infidels Iewes or Pagans From whence it proceedeth that what places of Scripture or of the Faâ—hers are spoken of Heretiks the same cannot be truly applyed to the denyers of the Trinity the Incarnation Passion c. The third is that the forsayd definition â—f Heresy being the only true definition â—nd acknowledged for such on all sides is â—ot restrayned eyther in it selfe or by the â—eaning of the Apostle only to the most â—upreme as they are called fundamental â—oints of Christian Fayth as of the Trinity â—â—e Incarnation of Christ his passion the â—ecalogue and the
Heresies only in the greatest points admitting such meÌ„ for Heretikes would accordingly haue restrayned his words at least in some one â—ext or other among so many only to these kind of Heretikes But not to leaue the least â—hew of refuge or euasion herein I will produce some passage of holy Scripture in wchâ—he mantayners of particuler errours euen â—n lesser points then the highest articles of Christianity are censured by Christs Apoâ—tles to be depriued of eternall Saluation And first we find S. Paul thus to prophesie In the later (h) 1. Tim. cap. 4. times certaine shall depart from the Fayth attending to spirits of errour and doctrine of deuills and forbidding to marry and to abstaine from meates c. Heere the Apostle prophesieth according to the iudgment of (i) Hom. 12. in 1. Tim. S. Chrysostom (k) Vpon this place Ambrose (l) l. contra Iouin cap. 1. Ierom (m) Haer. 25. 40. Augustin of the Heretikes Encratites Marcionistes Ebionites c. who denyed matrimony as a thing altogeather vnlawfull prohibited absolutly and at all times the eating of certaine meates as creatures impure Now these Heretikes belieued in the Trinity the Incarnation c. yet euen for these two former Heresies touching mariage and eating of meates they are sayd bâ— the Apostle to depart from the Fayth of Chrisâ— and to attend to the doctrine of deuills But sucâ— as leaue the Fayth of Christ and attenâ— to the doctrine of Diuells are not iâ— state of Saluation In my iudgement thâ— one authority alone is sufficient to oueâ—throw this phantasie of our Newtrallists 〈◊〉 since the words are diuine Scripture thâ— Heresies reprehended no fundamentalâ— points of Religion but of as little or lesseâ— consequence then the Controuersies betwixt the Catholikes and the Protestants yet the maintainers of them are accompted to depart from the Fayth of Christ and to attend to the doctrine of deuills A second place shal be that of the former Apostle who writing of certayne Heretikes erring touching the Resurrection of the Body though the article of the Resurrection it selfe they belieued sayth thus (n) 2. Tim. cap. â— Their speach spreadeth like a Canker of whome is Hymenaeus and Philetus who haue erred from the truth saying That the Resurrection is allready past and haue subuerted the Fayth of some These men belieued all the mysteries of the Trinity the IncarnatioÌ„ c. yet for erring only touching the Resurrection of the body they are sayd to erre from the truth to subuert the Fayth of some and that as Canker neuer leaueth the body till â—y little and little it wasteth it away so â—heir speaches by degrees poyson and kill â—he soules of the hearers From which it â—uidently followeth that these Heretikes â—ontinuing and dying in the foresaid Hereâ—ie could not be saued since that faith which â—rreth from the truth which subuerteth the true â—aith of Christ in others and which in killing and â—estroying resembleth a Canker cannot affoard Saluation to its Professours Another passage which heere I will vrge â—s that of S. Iohn who calleth certaine Heâ—etikes Antichrists saying (o) 1. Ioan. c. 2. Now there are beâ—ome many Antichrists who went out of vs were not of vs for if they had byn of vs they would surely haue remayned with vs. These Heretikes belieued in the Trinity in the Incarnation of Christ that he dyed for the saluation of the whole world only they erred touching the Person Natures of Christ yet they are figuratiuely stiled Antichrists and are said to depart out of the Church of Christ but no saluation is reserued for Antichrists and Apostataes leauing the Church of Christ. And thus much out of Gods holy Writ expressely touching Heresie in generall particuler To these Texts I will adioyne though not immediately and directly raunged vnder the former head a place or two of Scripture in my iudgment most vnanswerable and by necessarie inference euicting the point heere vndertakeÌ„ The first place is those words of S. Peter where he saith (p) 2. Ep. c. 3. In the Epistles of S. Paul there are certaine things hard to be vnderstood which the vnlearned and vnstable do peruert vnto their owne destruction Now heere I thus argue But these thinges hard to be vnderstood in S. Paul his Epistles did not concerne the doctrine of the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion c. and yet the misvnderstanding of them doth cause as the text saith the destruction that is the damnation of them who misunderstand them Therfore farre lesser points then the deniall of the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion c. doe iustly threaten to the false belieuers of them daÌ„nation and consequently it followeth that a bare beliefe of those supreme points is not sufficient to Saluation That those difficulties in S. Paules Epistles intimated by S. Peter did not concerne the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion c. I prooue seuerall wayes first because S. Peter maketh no such mention which no doubt he would haue done if the subiect of them had only touched those supreme mysteries and were not to be extended to other inferiour pointes Secondly it is acknowledged by the writings and â—ommentaries of all the Fathers besides â—at the Epistles themselues shew no lesse â—at S. Paul is most euident and cleere in 〈◊〉 his Epistles touching the Trinity the â—carnation the Passion c. and therfore â—ere is no reason why the difficulties of â—hem should be applyed to those articles such lesse restrayned to them alone Thirdly the Fathers do vnderstand these â—â—fficulties in S. Paul his Epistles mentioâ—d by S. Peter chiefly touching Iustificaâ—oÌ„ as appareth by the testimony euen of S. â—gustine (q) l. de fide operibus c. 15. 16. himselfe who particulerly â—tanceth in that place 1. Corinth 3. If â— man build vpon this foundation gold siluer 〈◊〉 which text intreateth of Iustification â—nd workes and expresly saith that this is he of the difficult passages intended and â—ant by S. Peter With S. Augustine S. â—ome may seeme well to agree in these â—ords (r) Epist ad Algasiam quae 8. Epistola ad Romanos nimijs obscuriâ—bus inuoluta est The Epistle to the Roâ—â—ns is inuolued with many obscurities or â—ake places for it is found that the Epiâ—â—le to the Romans most entreateth of Iuâ—fication and of faith and workes Fourâ—ly and lastly the Protestants themselues 〈◊〉 vnderstand the said obscurities of S. Paul 〈◊〉 Epistles touching Iustification as appeareth to omit the testimonies of â— others herein from the words and Coâ—ment of Doctor Fulke against the Rhâ—mish Testament vpon the foresaid plaâ—â— of S. Peter And this farre of this text wheâ— we find by an ineuitable deduction that false Fayth touching Iustification only caâ—not stand with Saluation The second text of scripture is containâ— in those words of the Apostle where thus sayth (c) c. 11. ad Hebraeos s Credere oportet accedentem ad Dâ— quia
more then darkeâ— an produce light since Truth himselfe 〈◊〉 taught vs (i) Luc. 6. That we cannot gather figges â—ornes nor grapes of bushes And hence by premises we are to vnderstand that we â—n entyre perfect fayth that by the â—h we belieue all supreme articles of the Trinitie Incarnation Passion c. anâ— all the articles of the Creed expressely articulately in their true sense and do belieue all other inferiour articles at least implicitely that is that we haue a readie preparation of mind to belieue all other articles which the Church of Christ dotâ— propound to be belieued so as that thougâ— we do not belieue euery article of Chrâ—stian Religion with an explicite and expresse faith yet we are bound vnder painâ— of damnation nor to belieue any doctrinâ— contrary or repugnant to the said articleâ— which the Church of Christ doth prâ—pound to be belieued from which it vnauoydably followeth that once grauntinâ— that the Church of Christ propoundeth 〈◊〉 be belieued that there is a Purgatory â— that we may pray to the Saints he incureth damnation who belieueth that theâ— is no Purgatory or that we ought not 〈◊〉 pray to Saints Now in this third place we will toucâ— that inseparable Attribute of true Chrâ—stian fayth which is Vnity in fayth 〈◊〉 doctrine This marke is so indissolubâ—â— annexed to the true fayth of Christ as thâ— we find his Apostles euer readie most â—â—riously to inculcate the same to their dâ—ciples Thus accordingly the Aposâ—â— exhorteth the Ephesians saying (k) Ephes 4. Be you carefull to keepe the vnity of the spirit in the bond of peace And immediately againe (l) Ephes vbi supra There is one Lord one fayth one Baptisme Where we see that Vnity in fayth is expressely set downe As also in another place (m) Ephes loc cit I beseech you that you speake all one thing be you kâ—it together in one mind and one iudgment And as this was the exhortation of the Apostle To we read that the first belieuers followed â—he same of whom S. Luke thus saith The (n) Act. 4. multitude that belieued were of one hart and â—ne soule And hence it proceedeth that the Church of Christ which comprehendeth the Professours of this vnanimous faith is â—tyled by Gods holy writ (o) Rom. 12. One Bodie one (p) Cant. 6. Spouse (q) Ioan. 10. one flocke of sheepe A truth â—o euident as that besides the frequent teâ—timonies of the Faâ—hers (r) Athanasius orat 1. con Ani. Chrysost opere imperfecto in Mat. Hom. 20. Tertullian de praescript Irenaeus l r. c. 5. confirming the â—ame euer the Protestants subscribe in iudgâ—ent heerto For thus (Å¿) Luther tom 3. Wittenberg in psal 5. fol. 166. Luther himselfe to omit (t) see herâ—â—â—f the Deuines of Mansfeild against the Sacramentaries And the Deuines of Heidelberg against the Anabaptists others writeth A kingdome deuiâ—ed in it selfe shall not stand neither haue any â—eretikes at any tyme bine ouercome by force or â—btility but by mutuall dissention neither doth â—hrist fight with them otherwise then with a spiâ—â—t of giddines and disagreement Now then this Vnitie of faith is so to be â—nderstood as that it is not repugnant therto that one and the same point should at one time not be houlden as necessary to be belieued the which after it hath vndergone a definitiue sententionall decree of Gods Church is necessarily to be belieued As for example it was not necessary in the beginning of Christianity to belieue that the booke of the Machabees the Epistle of S. Iames S. Iude the second Epistle of S. Peter the second and third of S. Iohn to be Canonicall Scripture till they were defined so to be by the third Councell (u) Can. 47. of Carthage at which S. Augustine was present But after this Councell had by the assistance of the holy Ghost defined them to be Canonicall and this after confirmed by the consent of the whole Church then it was and is Heresy to deny them to be Canonicall And the reason of this disparity is because it is Gods good pleasure wisdome not to reueale to his Church all articles of faith in the beginning and at one time but at seuerall times and vpon seuerall occasions as to his diuine Maiesty best seemeth expedient Thus the fayth of a Christian is capable of dilatation and of a more large vnfoulding or exposition but not of any contrariety in beliefe chaunge or alteration Anâ— thus to insist in the former example yâ— may well stand with Christian faith in the â—eginning not to accept the former bookes or Canonicall till the authority of the Church had pronounced them for such But it standeth not with sound faith that one man should positiuely belieue now after the Churches definition therof giuen as an article of fayth that the Machabees and the rest of the bookes aboue specified are not Canonicall Scripture but the prophane writings of man and another man should belieue as an article of Faith that they are Canonicall Scripture since the one of these contrary beleifes must be Hereticall This verity of the Vnity of faith being warranted by the word both of God and man as is aboue said we will take into our consideration the Catholike and Protestant Religions both which ioyntly do professe to belieue in generall in the Trinity in Christs Incarnation his Passion and the Creed of the Apostles and so we shall discerne whether the faith of all these seuerall Professours doth inioy the foresaid marke of vnity in doctrine or noe But seing this Subiect is most ample and large I will therfore sepose this ensuing chapter for the more full and exact discouery of the many and great disagreements betweene the Catholikes and the Protestants in their fayth and Religion THE SAME PROVED FROâ— want of vnity in fayth betweene Catholikes anâ— Protestants touching the Articles of the Creed CHAP. IIII. VNDERTAKING in this place tâ— set downe the multiplicity of opinions betweene Catholikes anâ— Protestants though they all iointly belieue in the Trinity the Incarnation oâ— Christ his Passion and the like and consequently that this their general beliefe wanteth that true Vnity of fayth which out of thâ— holy Scriptures Fathers the Protestants I haue aboue shewed to be most necessary to Saluation I will first examine how the Protestants and Catholikes doe differ touching the beliefe of the Creed made by the Apostles Next I will demonstrate that supposing all Professours of both Religions should agree in the true sense and meaning of the Creed yet there are diuers other dogmaticall points necessarily to be belieued and are at this instant belieued both by Protestants and Catholikes which are not expressed or mentioned in the Creed nor by any immediate inference can be drawne from thence Lastly I wil set down the great difference betweene Catholiks ProtestaÌ„ts in other points of fayth of which the Creed makes no intimation or
mention at al and yet the different beliefe of them is houlden necessary to SaluatioÌ„ both by Catholike Protestant From all which it shall appeare how farre distant the Catholike and Protestant Religion are from that vnity in doctrine so necessarily required to that fayth wherby a Christian is to be saued I do heere begin with the Apostles Creed first because the articles of the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion are included in the Creed Secondly by reason there are many Adiaphorists in Religion as I may terme them who seeme to deale more largly and liberally heerin seeing they are coÌ„tent to extend the necessary Obiect of Fayth not only to the articles of the Trinity the Incarnation and the Passion but to all points set downe in the Creed who assure themselues that God exacteth at our hands the beliefe of no other articles then are contayned in the Creed Now heere aforehand we are to conceaue that true Fayth resteth in the true sense meaning of the words of the Creed which was intended by the Apostles and not in the words themselues seeing both in the iudgment of all learned Catholikes and Protestants to belieue the words of the Creed in a sense different from the intended sense of the Apostles and consequently in a false sense is no better then not to belieue the Creed at all And the reason herof is because a false construction drawne from the Creed no lesse then from the Scripture is not the word of God but of man and coÌ„sequently the sayd letter of the Creed so interpreted is subiect to the same censure wherunto the word of man is lyable from whence it followeth that whosoeuer belieueth the words of the Creed in another sense then was intended by the holy Ghost and the Apostles doth not belieue the Creed at all but only belieueth the word of man which euer standeth subiect to errour and mistaking So as that sentence of S. Ierome deliuered only of the Scripture may iustly be applyed to the Creed (a) In Epistola ad Paulinum Scripturae non in legendo sed in intelligendo consistunt Scriptures or Creed do not coÌ„sist in the letter but in the sense and true vnderstanding of the letter This then being thus iustly presupposed let vs beginne to examine the articles of the Creed and see how we Catholikes and Protestants do differ in the construction vnderstanding therof And first touching the first article of our Beliefe in God obserue how different it is The Catholikes do belieue that their God no way formally cooperateth or willeth sinne in man that he hath but one simple and expressed will touching Sinne and this in detesting or hating of Sinne that he will not punish vs for not keeping of such precepts the which are not in our power to keepe that he imputeth sinnes to euery man that committeth sinne briefly that he giueth to all sufficient grace to saue their soules and desireth that al men may be saued Wheras the Protestants belieue the meere contrary to all these points for they belieue that God (b) Beza his display of Popish practises p. 102. saith God exciteth the wicked will of one thiefe to kill another see Swinglius tom 1. de Prouiden c. 6. fol. 365. Calu. Instit l. 2. c. 18. sect 1. cooperateth forceth and willeth a man to sinne That he hath a double will and therfore a dissembling will the one expressed in Scripture according to which he forbiddeth man to sinne the other concealed to himselfe by the which he impelleth man to sin that he will (d) D. Reynolds in his 2. Conclusion annexed to his Conference p. 697. punish vs for transgressing the ten Commaundements it not being in our power to keep the sayd Commaundements (e) Luther tom 2. wittenb de capt Babilon fol. 74. D. VVhitaker de Eccl. contra Bellarm controuersia 2. quaest 5. p. 301. that to the faythfull sinning neuer so wickedly no sinne shal be imputed Finally that to (f) Calu. de Inst l. 30. 23. sayth Confilio nutuque c. God doth ordaine by his counsaile that among men some be borne to certaine damnation froÌ„ their mothers wombe See Willets Synopsis p. 554. affirming the same certaine men he giueth not sufficient meanes of Saluation but purposeth and decreeth from all eternity that some men lyuing in the eye of the world in their owne consciences neuer so vertuously shal be damned thrall to sempiternall perdition Thus we see how great a difference there is betweene the Catholikes and the Protestants in beleiuing the first article of the Creed And how necessarily it followeth that eyther the Catholikes or Protestants do stand subiect and obnoxious to that saying of S. Augustin (g) q. 29. sup Iosue Who imagineth God such as God is not he carieth euery where another God a false God in his mind Touching the second article which is And in Iesus Christ his only Sonne We (h) Concil Trid. Catholikes belieue in Christ who is God of God and equall to his Father a Sauiour who suffred death quoad sufficientiam for all mankind and who accomplished the function of his Sauiourship only according to hiâ— humanity a Sauiour who dyed only in body and not in soule finally a Sauiour who from his first conception was endewed with all knowledge wisdome and prouidence and exempt from all ignorance passion and perturbation Wheras diuers cheife Protestants do belieue in Christ as their Sauiour who according to their faith is God of (i) D. Whitaker approueth this opinion alleadging Caluin in prooffe therof Contra CaÌ„pianum p. 121. himselfe and (k) Melancton in loc comm edit 1561. p. 41. inferiour to the Father who dyed only for the (l) So doth D. Willet teach in Sinopsi printed anno 1600. p. 780. as also Caluin and Beza in whole Treatises Elect who performed his mediation not only according to his humanity but also according to his diuinity though in the iudgment of all earned men true Diuinity is impassible who in the time of his Passion besides the death of the body as insufficient for our â—aluatioÌ„ suffred in soule the tormeÌ„ts (m) Melancton vbi supra D. fulke in his retent p. 89. (m) So teacheth Caluin Instit l 2. c. 16. sect 10. D. Whit. contra Duraeum l. 8. p. 556. of Hell briefly who laboured with ignoraÌ„ce (n) So teacheth Beza in resp ad act Colloq Montisb part 1. p. 147. D. Willet Synop. p. 599. 600. passion and euen desperation it selfe Touching the Article of Christs descenâ—â—ng into Hell the Catholikes do belieue â—â—ereby that Christ descended in soule after his Passion into that part of Hell with is called Lymbus Patrum to deliuer from thence the soules of the Iust there detayned till â—is comming of which iudgment are also some learned Protestants But the greatest part of (o) So D. Bilson in his Suruey of â—â—â—ists suffring c. p. 650. 651. 652.
against Gods Church shal be damned But here I will stay my selfe wading no further in the disquisition and search of the great dissentions betweene Catholikes and Protestants touching faith and beliefe only I will reflect a litle vpon the premises And heere it is made most euident first that the Catholikes and Protestants do mainly differ in the sense and construction of the Articles of the Creede and consequently seing the sense and not the words do make the Creed that they both do not belieue one and the same Creede but haue to themselues seuerall Creedes from which point is sufficiently discouered the want of Vnity in faith among them both which Vnitie is so necessarily required to mans saluation as in the precedent chapter is demonstrated Secondly that though by supposition they did belieue the Creede and the true sense therof with an vnanimous consent yet it is proued there are diuers other articles not contayned in the Creed which are indifferently belieued as necessary to saluation both by Catholike and Protestant Thirdly seing also there are sundry Controuersies in Religion as is aboue exemplified which immediatly concerne saluation being houlden as necessary meanes therof by Catholikes but disclaymed from and abaÌ„doned by the Protestants as mayne errours and false doctrines Therfore from all the former premises I do auerre that it is a manifest errour to make the Creed the sole rule of Fayth and that he who maintaynes that both the Catholikes and Protestants notwithstanding their great disparitie of beliefe and fayth the one side necessarily belieuing maintayning Heresie can be saued or enioy one heauen is wholy depriued of all true iudgement reason and discourse and for want thereof may deseruedly be ranged among them of whome the psalmist speaketh (h) Psal 11. nolite fieri sicut equus mulus quibus non est intellectus THE SAME PROVED FROM the authority and priuiledge of the Church in not erring in her definitions and condemnation of Heresies and first of Councels CHAP. VI. FROM the inuiolable vnitie of faith we will next descend to the priuiledges of Gods true Church Of which priuiledges I will at this time take only one into my consideration that is that the Church of God is endued with a supreme priuiledge and prerogatiue of not erring in her definitions of fayth or condemnatioÌ„ of heresie This point is warranted by innumerable texts of holy Scripture as where it is sayd (i) Esay 72. Vpon thy wall ô Hierusalem I haue set watchmen all the day and all the night they shall not be silent But God did not set watchmen ouer his Church to teach errour And agayne The (a) 2. Tim. 3. Church of God is the pillar and foundation of the truth what more perspicuous And further whereas ech man â—s commaunded to repayre in difficulties matters of small consequeÌ„ces to the Church it is threatned by Christ himselfe that who wil not heare the Church shal be accompted â—s an Heathen or Publican according to â—hat his commination Si Ecclesiam non auâ—ierit (b) Mat. 18. sit tibi sicut Ethnicus Publicanus where we find no restriction but that in all things we are to heare the Church Agayne Christ himselfe speaketh to his Apostles and in them to the whole Church He (c) Luc. 10. that heareth you heareth me But if the church could erre neither would Christ refer vs to the church especially vnder so great a penalty neither by hearing the church could we be iustly sayd to heare Christ Finally the Church is so gouerned by Christ as its head or spouse and by the holy Ghost as its soule as therefore we find the Apostle thus to write (d) Ephes 1. thereof God hath made him head speaking of Christ ouer all the Church which is his body And agayne (e) Ephes 4. One body and one spirit yet more The (f) Ephes 5. man is the head of the woman as Christ is head of the Church From which texts it followeth that if the church should erre in its definitioÌ„s or resolutions of fayth and condemnation of Heresy this erring might well be ascribed to Christ and to the holy Ghost and consequently it followeth that the Apostles in making the creed would haue omitted that Article I belieue in the Catholike Church For why should we be bound to belieue the church if the church could erre This truth I meane that the church of Christ cannot erre in her sententionall decrees is so illustrious and euident that Tertullian speaking of certaine Heretikes of his tyme obiecting the erring of the whole church thus figuratiuely or Ironically writeth Age Omnes (g) in l. de praescript c. 28. Ecclesiae errauerunt nullam respexit spiritus Sanctus vti eam in veritatem deduceret ad hoc missus à Christo ad hoc postulatus de Patre vt esset doctor veritatis c. That is Go to Belike all the Churches haue erred and the holy Ghost hath regarded no Church that be might lead it into truth being sent for this purpose by Christ and to the same end begged by Christ of the Father â—hat it might be the teacher of truth And S. Augustine Disputare (h) Epist 118. contra id quod Ecclesia vniuersae sentit insolentissimae insaniae est To dispute agaynst any point maintayned by the whole Church is extreme madnes To whose iudgment herein most of the more sober and learned Protestants do indisputably subscribe since diuers of them doe with all feruour earnestnes maintayne that (i) D. Bancrost in his Sermon printed anno 1588. Fox Act. mon. fol. 464. b. art 4. The deuines of Geneua in their propositions and principles disputed c. p. 141. and diuers others the church of Christ cannot erre and that what she defineth for truth is most true or what for Heresy or â—alshood is hereticall and to be condemned This Basis or foundatioÌ„ of the church not â—rring being thus firmely layde we are heereupon to conclude that what points of Religion the catholike church of Christ hath condemned for Heresies the same are by vs to be reputed for Heresies since the churches condemnation or approbation is most infallible and the maintayners of the sayd Heresies for Heretikes and consequently that such Heretikes as departing out of the Church of God by their houlding of the sayde Hereticall opinions cannot be saued Now because the iudgment of the Church in matters of fayth is discouered two wayes first by the sentence of generall Councells secondly by the frequent attestations of the sayd chiefe Doctours of the Church in euery age in their particuler wrytings they not being contradicted therin by any other Orthodoxall Fathers or Doctours of the same age I will therefore distributiuely handle both these wayes shewing that both in generall by Councels and also by the particuler iudgement of the learned Fathers many opinions though not touching the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion or the expresse Articles of
auditis nec vocatis Geneuae 1582. A threefold Answere to the Brethren of Tubinga their threefold writing concerning three most weighty Questions c. Of the supper of the Lord Of the Maiesty of Christ as Man And of not condemning the Churches of God before they be heard or called Ad Iohannis Brentij argumenta Iacobi Andreae Theses quibus carnis Christi omni praesentiaÌ„ nituntur confirmare id est aduersum renouatos Nestorij Eutichetis errores Responsum Geneuae 1570. An Answere to the Arguments of Iohn Brentius to the Conclusions of Iacobus Andreas by which they endeauour to confirme the Vbiquity or presence of Christs flesh euery where that is to say against the renewed Errors of Nestorius Eutiches Apologia ad omnes Germaniae Ecclesias reformatas quae sub Zwingliani Caluiniani nominis inuidia vim iniuriaÌ„ patiuntur Tiguri 1578. An Apology of all the Reformed churches of Germany which through the Enuy of the Name of Zuinglius Caluin do suffer violence iniury Christopheri Pezelij Apologia verae doctrina de dâ—â—â—itione Euangelij apposita Thrasonicis praestigijs Iohannis Wigandi Wittenbergae 1572. An Apology of the true Doctrine concerning the Definition of the Ghospell against the Thrasonicall enchantments of Ioannes Wigandus by Christophorus Pezelius Colloquij Montisbelgardensis inter Iacobum Andreae Theodorum Bezam Acta Tubingae 1584. The Actes of the Colloquy at Montbelgard betweene Iames Andrew Theodore Beza Veritatis victoria ruina Papatus Saxonici Losannae 1563. The Victory of Truth the Ruine of the Popedome of Saxony Hamelmannia siue Aries Theologizans Diaâ—gus oppositus duabus narrationibus historicis Herâ—anni Hamelmanni Neostadij 1582. Hamelmannia or the Theologizing Ramme A Dialogue against two Historicall Narrations of Hermanus Hamelmannus Christiani Kittelmanni decem graues perâ—iciosi errores Zwinglianorum in Doctrina de pecâ—atis Baptismo ex proprijs ipsorum libris colleâ—i refutati Magdeburgae 1562. Ten weighty pernicious Errors of â—he Zwinglians in the Doctrine concerning Sinne Baptisme Collected out of their owne books refuted by Christianus Kittleman Iohannis Mosellani Praeseruatiua contra venenum Zwinglianorum Tubingae 1586. An Antidote or Preseruatiue againsâ— the poyson of the Zwinglians by Ioannâ—â— Mosellanus De Vnitate personali supernaturali duarâ—â— Naturarum in Christo contra blasphemam Dispâ—tationem Eusebij Cleberi Pastoris Saugalensis iâ— Heluetia Tubingae 1586. Of the Personall Supernaturall Vnity of two Natures in Christ against the blasphemous Disputation of Eusebius Cleberus Pastour of Saugall in Suitzerland De gaudijs aeternae vitae quomodo Sacramentarij nobis illa gaudia imminuant Erfordia 1585. Of the Ioyes of Eternall life And how the Sacramentaries do in part defraude 〈◊〉 of them Now from all the premises aboue I hauâ— conclude that if the seuerall opinions among the Protestants be not in their iudgement maters of Indifferency but are by theÌ„selues truly reputed for Heresies the maintayners of them not houldden to be in state of Saluation as appeareth both from the Protestants reciprocall coÌ„demnations of one another as also from the former Titles of their owne Bookes written agaynst one another then with much more reason may the same sentence be pronounced of the many irreconciliable Controuersies differently belieued and houlden by the Catholikes and Protestants And the rather since as is aboue sayd there is a farre greater disparity and difference of doctrine betweene the Catholikes and the Protestants then betweene the Protestant the Protestant THE TRVTH OF THIS FORMER Doctrine demonstrated from the many Absurdityes necessarily accompanying the contrary doctrine CHAP. XVI SVCH is the sweet Prouidence of the Diuine Maiesty in disposall of thinges as that he euer causeth truth to be warranted with many irrefragable reasons and falshood to be attended on with diuers grosse and ineuitable absurdityes that so the iudgment of man may be the better secured for the imbracing of truth and remayne the lesse excusable if in place of truth it entertayne falshood Errour Of the reasons conuincing the infallible truth of our doctrine maintayned in this treatise I haue already discussed aboue in the tenth Chapter Now heere I will a little insist in disclosing the many and palpable absurdities accompanying the contrary doctrine which point will chiefly rest besides some other short insertions in a recapitulation of most of the former heads or braunches aboue handled For if this doctrine were true to wit that euery one might be saued in his owne Religion or that the beliefe only of the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion or the Creed were sufficient thereto notwithstaÌ„ding the beliefe of other erroneous opinions and heresies Then would it follow First that the holy Scriptures of Christ and his Apostles were most false which haue inueyghed so much agaynst Heresies and haue denounced the heauy iudgment of damnation agaynst the professours of them as aboue is shewed which comminations and threats the scripture in some places not only extendeth to all Hersies or Heretikes in generall without (a) Tit. 3. Gal. c. 5. Rom. c. 16. 1. Tim. 1. any limitation but also in some other they are particulerly restrayded to certayne Heresies seeming of smaller importance then the denyall of the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion the Creed c. as is euident touching the denying (b) 1. Tim. cap. 4.2 Tim. c. 2.1 Ioan. c. 2. of marriage and of eating of certayne meates and touching the Natures of Christ c. Now that the denyall of other inferiour articles of fayth then of the Trinity Incarnation c. is playne Heresy is demonstrated aboue both from the definition of Heresy and from the iudgment of the Primitiue Church Secondly the foresayd doctrine impugneth the definition of Fayth giuen by the (f) Hebr. c. 11. Apostle which definition of fayth comprehendeth a generall beliefe of all articles of Christian Religion and is not therefore to be limited to any one kind of them In like sort it destroyeth the priuiledges dignity of fayth set down by the foresayd Apostle who (g) Mat. vltimo Hebr. 11. promiseth saluation to him that hath faith as also that without fayth we cannot (h) Ephes 4. Act. 4. Rom. 12. c. please God but such excellencies cannot be ascribed to a Bastard fayth which belieueth some thinges true others false they are therfore eyther to be giuen to a true entire and perfect fayth in all points or els the Apostle grossely erred in assigning to fayth the aforesayd priuiledges seing a false fayth is no better then no faith at all Againe it depriueth a Christian faith of its true mark or character of Vnity so much celebrated by the (h) Ephes 4. Rom. 12. vide Cant. c. 6. Apostle Now then if Vnity of fayth be necessary to Saluation how can both Protestants and Catholikes expect saluation seeing there is no greater distance betweene the opposite parts of a Diameter then there is
repugnancy betwixt both their beliefes Therfore if both of them though wanting this Vnity can be saued then hath the Apostle falsely and erroneously described and delineated the faith of a Christian But to reflect vpon the former passages is any man so stupid as to dreame that that doctrine should be true which giueth so open a lye to so many vnanswerable texts of Gods holy writ touching the condemning of Heretiks in generall as also touching the definition excellency and propriety of true Fayth It is impossible it is not to be imagined Gods word is like himselfe most true sacred and inuiolable and therefore it iustly witnesseth of it selfe that (i) Ioan. 2. scriptura 〈◊〉 potest solui And agayne (k) Mat. 24. Caelum terra transibunt verba autem mea non transibunt Heauen and earth shall passe but my wordes shall 〈◊〉 passe But to proceed further touching the forâ—sayd want of vnity and disagreements iâ— Fayth If euery Christian might be saued iâ— his owne Religion then might those be saued which belieue the Articles of the creâ—â— in a most different sense and manner theâ— which what can be more rashely and exorbitantly spoken seeing there is but one true intended sense by the Apostles of the creed the which if we attayne not then do we belieue that which is false but to belieue the creed in a false sense is no better then not to belieue it at all And therefore it would follow by way of inference that he might be saued who belieued not any one article of the creed at all Now that the Catholikes Protestants doe belieue the articles of the creed in different or rather contrary senses and consequently that the one side belieueth it in a false and erroneous sense is aboue proued in the fourth chapter If it be heere replyed that the maintayners of this doctrine do so far yield that they only are to be saued which in a true sense belieue the creed yet by this their restraint they condemne al those others who belieue â—t in any other sense different from that intended by the holy Ghost and the Apostles â—nd consequently they condemne in their â—udgement and depriue of saluation eyther â—he Catholikes or Protestants since of necessity the one of these do belieue the creed not in the true but in a false and hereticall â—ense and construction different from that of the Apostles But supposing that the Caâ—holikes and Protestants belieued the creed in that true sense inteÌ„ded by the holy Ghost yet if our Newtrallists would haue the creed the square or rule thereby to measure our fayth then marke the Absurdities following For by this doctrine one might be saued who belieued not that there were any Scriptures at all written by the Prophets Apostles since the creed maketh no mention of any such deuine writings .. In like sort he might be saued who did not belieue there were any Angells or Diuells or that there is a materiall place of Hell or that the pains thereof are eternall or that Adam did presently vpon his creation fall from grace thereby transferred Originall sinne vpon all his posterity or that our Sauiour whilst he conuersed heere on earth wrought any myracles or made choyce of certayne men to be his Apostles to preach the Christian fayth throughout all the whole world or that he died for the saluation of mankind for though we read in the creed that he dyed and suffered yet the end why he dyed is not expressed in the creed Or that circumcision is now forbiddem antiquated or finally that there are any SacrameÌ„ts of the new Testament as Baptisme the Eucharist c. I say by our Newtrallists Religion he should be saued who belieued none of the foresayd articles seeing not any one of them is expressed or set downe in the Apostles creed and yet the beliefe of the sayd Articles is necessarily exacted and required to Saluation in the iudgment both of Catholikes and Protestants both which parties doe with an vnanimous consent teach the necessity of belieuing the sayd articles But to proceed further and to come to the different Articles of fayth differenly belieued by the Catholike and Protestant and yet not expressed in the creed and articles of such nature as that they are houlden by the catholikes to be instituted by our Sauiour as subordinate yet necessary meanes of the grace of God and of our Saluation whereas the Protestants as not belieuing at all the sayd articles doe wholy disclayme from acknowledging any such meanes These Articles I haue recited aboue to wit That Sacraments in general do conferre grace That a Child dying without Baptisme cannot be saued That mortall sinne is not remitted without the Sacrament of Pennance and Confession That we are to adore with supreme Honour the blessed Sacrament That not only fayth but also works do iustify man That a Christian by thinking himselfe iust is not thereby become iust That euery Christian hath by God sufficient grace offered to saue his soule And that therfore God on his part would haue all men saued That without keeping the ten Commandements a man cannot be saued Finally that all Christians ought vpon payne of eternall damnation to communicate in Sacraments and doctrine with the Church of Rome and to submit themselues in all due obedience to the supreme Pastor of that Church In all which points the Protestants doe belieue directly the contrary condemning vs of Heresy Superstition yea Idolatry for our belieuing the foresayd points Now I say seing the former articles doe immediatly touch and concerne eyther remission of our sinnes or grace of our soule or our Iustification or our due honour and adoration to our Sauiours Body being accompanyed with his diuinity or Lastly our communion with Christ his church and head thereof in any of which as concerning so neerly our eternall happynes who erreth cannot possibly be saued And seing the Protestants as is sayd doe in all the sayd points maintaine the iust contrary to the catholikes and therby do abandon the catholikes acknowledged meanes of their Saluation I heere aske in all sobernes of iudgement what can be reputed for a greater absurdity then to affirme with our Newtrallists that the Catholikes and Protestants notwithstanding their so different contrary beliefe answerable practice in the former Articles so neerly touching mans Saluation may both be saued Seing it must needes be that eyther the catholikes shal be damned for setting downe certayne meanes of our Saluation contrary to Christs mynd and Institution supposing the sayd articles to be false or that the Protestants shal be damned for reiecting the former meanes of Saluation instituted by Christ admitting them to be true But to passe forward If euery Christian might be saued in his Religion in belieuing only the fundamentall points of the Trinity the Incarnation c. then hath the church of Christ eueÌ„ in her Primitiue dayes at what time the (*) D. Iewell in his