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
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
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
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.
the Apostles creed haue byn condemned for playne Heresies and the belieuers of them anathematized for Heretikes And first to begin with councells the infallible authority of which euen Christ himselfe hath by his owne wordes often ratifyed as where he sayth Where (k) Mat. 18. two or three much more where many hundreds of venerable Bishops are gathered togeather in my name I am in the midst of them And againe speaking to the Church and in it to the assembled Doctours and Pastours thereof I am (l) Mat. 28. with you all dayes euen to the consummation of the world which councells are euer directed and gouerned by the holy Ghost according to those wordes in the Acts (*) c. 15. Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis and therefore are worthily receaued and admitted for the supremest sentence of Gods church not only by the auncient (n) Atha Ep. ad Epictetum August in Epist 162. Greg. Nazian orat in Athan. Cyril l. de Trinit c. Fathers but euen by the more learned Protestants since to omit others one of the most remarkable of them thus writeth (o) D. Bilson in his perpetual gouernement p. 370. Synods are an externall Iudiciall meanes to discerne errour and (p) D. Bils vbi supra p. 374. the surest meanes to decide doubts But to proceed forward and to beginne with these And first with the councell of the Apostles This councell was assembled as we read in S. (1) Act. 15. Luke by reason of certayne contentious men maintayning that the Gentils conuerted to the christian Faith might eate meate offered vp to Idols bloud and strangled beasts coÌ„trary to the custome of the Iewes The Apostles being assembled and bearing with the weakenes of the Iewes in the infancy of the church decreed all prohibition of eating bloud strangled meates After which decree once established it is certayne that it had byn a mortall sinne immediatly to haue eaten of bloud straÌ„gled meates so as before it being a point of indifferency is now made necessary This appeareth from the text First from those words Certayne going forth from vs haue troubled you with words subuerting your soules But men do neyther depart out of the Church by maintayning certaine opinions nor by their example therin can they subuert other mens soules if their doctrine and practice thereof doe still remayne about thinges indifferent Secondly from that other passage It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs to lay no further burthen vpon you then these necessary thinges where we find that the prohibition of such meates is ranged by the Apostles in regard of those tymes among those thinges which are necessary Againe neither would the Apostles haue gathered themselues togeather so solemnely neither would they haue ascribed the decreeing of it to the work of the holy Ghost if the Subiect of the question and difficulty then discussed by theÌ„ had concerned matters only of Indifferency after such their decree made Now from the example of this councell I doe gather That if a councell by it owne authority may decree that the eating of certayne meates being otherwayes of their owne nature indifferently to be eaten without sinne shal be vnlawfull and shall repute and hould the impugners thereof for men departed out of the Church of Christ then à fortiori what doctrine soeuer a councell shall condemne of it owne nature for Heresy the same is to be reputed by all good christians for Heresy and the defendours thereof for Heretikes Secondly the councell of Nice was ceâ—ebrated though principally for the represâ—ing of Arius his Heresy denying the Diuinity of Christ yet withall touching the controuersy of keeping the feast of Easter as â—t is apparent out of (q) l. 3. de vit Const. Eusebius (r) in lib. de Synod Arim Seleuciae Athanasius (Å¿) Haeres 70. vz. Audianorum Epiphanius Now this councell pronounceth Anathema to al those who besides the denying of the Diuinity of Christ should deny that the feast of Easter was not to be kept according to the custome of the church but according to the custome of the Iewes And these Heretikes were called Quartadecimani of whom see Tertullian libro de praescript Augustine Haeresi 29. And heere we are to vnderstand that the word Anathema vsed and pronunced by this councell which word is also almost euery where vsed in all generall councells signifyeth as much as accursed and in this sense we find this word Anathema to be vsed by the Apostle in seuerall (t) Rom. 1. Cor. 12 places so as when a councell pronounceth Anathema to any for belieuing such or such Heresies or not belieuing such and such true doctrines it intendeth to say that those men so doing are to be accursed and abandoned from God But no man is to be accursed or abandoned from God for belieuing or not belieuing points of Indifferency but for belieuing of such Errours as cannot stand with his Soules saluation The third Councell of Carthage wherat S. Augustine was present decreed that the booke of the Machabees with some other bookes should be acknowledged as canonicall and pronounceth Anathema and condemnation to all those who should not belieue them as canonicall Scripture From whence it may be concluded that seeing the booke of the Machabees teacheth Prayer (*) 2. Macab c. 1. for the dead that therfore this councell alloweth that doctrine condemning the contrary doctrine for Heresy The doctrine of the Nouatians who taught That there was not power in the church to reconcile men to God but only by Baptisme excluding and denying therby the Sacrament of Pennance was condemned with the brand of Anathema in the councell of Rome houlden vnder Pope Cornelius as (x) lib. 6. hist c. 33. Eusebius reporteth At which tyme also was condemned for Heresy the errour of Anabaptisme as the same (y) l. 7. hist cap. 2. Eusebius relateth The councell of Calcedon condemned the Heresy of Eutiches who taught that there was but only one (z) vt patet in act 1. Conc. Nature in Christ after his Incarnation In like sort the first councell of Ephesus condemned the heresy of Nestorius teaching two Persons to be in Christ as appeareth out of (a) in Chronico Prosper and (b) l. 7. c. 34. Socrates Now touching both these last Heresies we are to vnderstaÌ„d that both Nestorius Eutiches did belieue in Christ Iesus our Sauiour as the Redeemer of the world yet they were registred and branded for Heretikes only for their pertinacious erring touching the Person and Natures of Christ as now the Protestants may be reputed Heretikes for their ascribing of Ignorance Passion and Desperation to Christ The councell of Chalcedon also decreed that vowed Virgins and Monkes could not marry condemning those with an Anathema and for Heretikes that should hould and maintayne the Contrary as is to be seene out of the Councell it selfe The fourth (c) Can. 79. councell
CHAP. VIII IN this last place concerning the church we will set downe another Principle of Christian fayth and after will deduce from thence by way of most necessary infereÌ„ce our conclusion here handled The Principle is this That Heretikes houlding any Heresies whatsoeuer are no members of the Church of Christ the deduction is that Heretikes therfore cannot be saued since none can be saued but such as are members of Christs church This principle is proued as aboue is intimated out of Gods holy worde as where it is (a) 1. Tim. 1. sayd Certaine men made shippewracke touching fayth that is they fell out of the shippe of the church by forging of Heresies And againe (b) 1. Ioan. 2. They went out of vs that is as S. Augustine expounds it out of the church whereof we are The exposition of which texts are warranted euen by force of Reason for seing the church is an vnited multitude for it is one kingdome one people and one bodye and this vnion cheifly resteth in the profession of one fayth it is repugnant to reason that they should be reputed as members of the body of the church who haue no coniunction at all in the cheifest matters with the body If we proceed to the testimonie of the Auncient Fathers we shall finde them of an vnanimous iudgment heerein to wit that Heretikes are no members of Christs church therfore cannot be saued And first occurreth (c) Lib. 3. c. 3. S. Irenaeus who sayth that Policarpe did conuerte many Heretikes to the Church therfore it may be concluded that those Heretikes before their conuersion were not of the church S. (d) Epist ad Iubaianum Cyprian saith Heretikes though they be out of the Church do challenge to themselues the authoritie of the Church after the manner of Apes who not being men would be accounted to be men The same father thus in another place wryteth Cum (e) Lib. de vnitate Ecclesiae Deo manere non possunt qui in Ecclesia Dei vnanimes esse noluerunt They cannot remayne with God who dissent in iudgment from the Church of God And yet more fully in the same place Non peruenit ad Christi praemia c. He arriueth not to the rewards of Christ who leaueth the Church of Christ he is an alien he is profane he is an enemie he shall not haue God for his father who hath not the Church for his mother S. Ierome Qui non à Domino Iesu Christo sed ab alio (f) In dialogo coÌ„tra LuciferiaÌ„ c. Who take their denomination or name not from our Lord Iesus Christ but from some other as the Marcionists Valentinians Montanists c. are not the Church of God but the Synagoge of Antichrist Finally S. Augustine for I haue allready dwelled ouer longe in the authoritie of the fathers pronounceth that Nihil sic formidare debet c. (g) tract 27. in Ioannem A Christian ought to feare nothing so much as to be separated from the body of Christ which is his Church and which is one and Catholike for if he be separated from the body of Christ he is not a member of Christ then is he not strengthened with his spirit But who hath not the spirit of God the same man is not of God Thus far S. Augustine with whom euen the Protestants do ioyne heerein in iudgment for D. Doue thus saith This proposition that Heretikes are not to be communicated withall is vndoubtedly true And D. Sutcliffe in his examen p. 9. alleadgeth the Laodicean councell Can. 31.32.33 in proofe therof thus concluding The Laodicean Councell doth directly coÌ„demne Communion with Heretikes either in Marriage or Prayer This allready alleadged may serue to proue that Heretiques are no members of the Church of Christ and consequently cannot attaine saluation since it is agreed amongst all learned men that only the members of the church of Christ can fynd Saluation in Christ Now heere by Heretikes we cannot vnderstand those who deny the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion c. seeing the denvers of these Articles are not Heretikes as is aboue shewed in the definition of Heresy but they are either Iewes Pagans or Infidels froÌ„ which it followeth that the fathers authorityes aboue set downe against Heretykes cannot be applyed to the denvers of the Trinity the Incarnation c. but they are to be limited to such Heretyks who maintayne lesser errours touching Christian fayth We will in this place descend to Schismatiks who if they be neyther of the church of God nor can iustlie expect any saluatioÌ„ during such their state then a fortiori no Heretike can expect anie saluation since a schismatike belieuing all articles of Christian fayth doth only in will diuide himselfe by disobedience in not communicating with the church in Prayers and Sacraments wheras an Heretike with greater malice as is aboue sayd willfully and contumaciously maintaineth in his iudgmeÌ„t Errours and false opinions condemned by the church Now that a Schismatike is not a member of Christs church is first proued from those texts of scripture aboue in part touched where the church is called one sould of sheepe Iohn 10. one Body Rom. 12. one spouse and one Doue Cant. 6. But now Schisme according to its Etymologie diuideth that which was one into parts for Schisma being a greeke word commeth of the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is scindere therfore as a member being cut from the body is no longer a part of the body so a schismatike diuiding himselfe by his owne disobedience from the communion of the church is no longer a member of the sayd church This verity to wit that Schismatiks are not members of Christs church is besides the former proofs warranted with the authoritie sentences of the Auncient fathers And first S. Cyprian thus purposely writeth of Schismatikes (h) Lib. 41 Epist â— ad Florinum Qui cum Episcopo non sunt in Ecclesia non sunt Those who agree not with the Bishop meaning the supreme Bishop of Gods church are 〈◊〉 in the Church The sayd (i) Lib. de vnitate Ecclesiae Father most elegantly compareth Schismatikes to beames diuided froâ— the sunne to boughes cut from the tree and to Ryuers wholly separated from theiâ— springs S. Chrysostome discoursing of Schismatikes thus (k) Hom. 1. in Epist 1. ad Cor. sayth Schismatis significatio satiâ— eos arguit c. The very signification of the woâ—â— Schisme doth sufficiently reprehend them or rathâ—â— the verie name of Schisme is a vehement condemnation of them c. which Father in anotheâ— (l) Homil. 13. in Epist ad Ephes place coÌ„pareth a Schismatike to the hanâ— cut from the body which therupon ceasetâ— to be a member and expressely affirmeth that Schismatikes though they consent with the Church of Christ in Doctrine yet anâ— not in Christs church but in altera Ecclesia meaning in a Church differing from Christs
where for the better conceauing thereof we are to vnderstand that fayth is a supernaturall habit not obtayned by the force of nature Therfore to the beliefe of any one Article or point of fayth two things concurre the one is the first reuealing Verity as Scholemen speake which is God Himselfe the secoÌ„d is the Church propounding the article to be belieued Now when we belieue any point of fayth God who is the first reuealing Veritie as is sayd reuealeth it to the church and the church propounds it so reuealed to vs to be belieued And thus we belieue a point of fayth through the authority of God reuealing the church propounding and where we belieue any thing though it be true not through this authority this is not supernaturall beliefe in vs but only an opinion grounded vpon other reasons inducements Euen as the Turke belieueth that there is a God Creator of the worlde yet this his beliefe is no true fayth but only a meere opinion of a thing which is true since this his beliefe is grounded not vpon Gods authority reuealing this but only vpon his Alcaron being otherwayes a fabulous booke though of the being of one God it speaketh truly Now to apply this This first reuealing Verity which is God through whose authority we ought to belieue euery article doth with one the like authoritie reueale all Articles of Christian Religion to the church so as it is as forcibly reuealed to be belieued that there is for example a Purgatory or that we ought to pray to Saints graunting these articles to be true as that there is a Trinity or that Christ was Incarnate from whence it vnauoydably followeth that who belieueth in the Trinity and yet doth not belieue that there is a Purgatory or that we may pray to Saints hath no true and supernatural beliefe of the Trinity but only belieueth that there is a Trinity because he so vnderstandeth or is persuaded thereto only by his owne reason or through some other humane motiues according to that sentence of S. Augustine lib. de vtilitate credendi cap. 11. Quod intelligimus aliquid rationi debemus quod autem credimus authoritati For if he did belieue that there is a Trinity or that Christ was Incarnate through Gods authority so reuealing this truth to be belieued by the same authority he would haue belieued that there is a Purgatory or that we ought to pray to Saints seing both the Articles of the Trinity and Purgatory or praying to Saints are equally indifferently a like propounded by God and his Church to be belieued Thus we may demonstratiuely conclude that what ProtestaÌ„t doth belieue in the Trinity and yet doth not belieue that there is a Purgatory praying to Saints Freewill the Reall presence admitting them once to be true or any other point controuerted betweene Catholikes and Protestants the samâ— man hath no true fayth at all of the Trinity or Incarnation and consequently for wanâ— of a true and supernaturall fayth cannot bâ— saued since we read (a) Marc. 16. Qui non credit condemnabitur Who belieueth not shal be condemned And from this former ground it proceedeth thaâ— (b) 2. 2. q. 5. ar 3. S. Thomas all other learned Schoolemen teach that who belieueth not only for Gods authority so reuealing any poinâ— whatsoeuer great or small fundamentall or not fundamentall the same man belieueth not any other Article at all with a true and supernaturall fayth and heereto accord those wordes of (c) Lib. de praescript Tertullian against Valentinus the Heretike Some thinges of the law and Prophets Valentinus approueth some thinges he disalloweth That is he disalloweth all whilest he disproueth some Which sentence of Tertullian must of necessity be true since who reiecteth the authority of God in not belieuing any one article propounded by God to be belieued the same man begetteth a suspition or doubt of Gods authority for the belieuing of any other article how fundamentall soeuer Another reason may be taken from a distinction of fayth which according to the learned is of two sortes The one they call explicite fayth the other implicite Explicite fayth is that which all men vnder payne of damnation are bound to belieue As according to most of the Schoolemen the Trinity the Incarnation of our Sauiour his Passion the Decalogue or ten Commaundements the articles of the Creed Implicite fayth comprehendeth all those points which euery vnlearned man is not bound expressely distinctly to belieue and knowe in particuler though he be expressely bound not to beâ—ieue any thing contrary thereto but is to â—est in the iudgment of the church concerning all such points and what the church of Christ houldeth therein he is bounde â—mplicitely to belieue This distinction is warranted not only in the iudgment of all Catholike Schoolemen but also of the most â—earned (d) D. Bar. l. defide eius ortis p 40. Hooker in his Ecclesiast policy in the preface p. 28. by Melancton l. 1. Epist Epist ad RegeÌ„ Angliae Protestants though they commonly forbeare the phrase of explicite imâ—licite fayth particulerly of D. Feild who â—n these words following giueth the reason â—hereof saying For (e) In his Treatise of the Church in his Epist Dedicat to the L. Arch-Bishop seeing the Controuersies of Religion in our time are growne in number so many â—nd in nature so intricate that few haue time and â—â—asure fewer strength of vnderstanding to exaâ—ine them what remayneth for men desirous of saâ—isfaction in things of such consequeÌ„ce but diligently â— search out which amongst all the Societies of men â—s the worlde is that blessed Company of holy ones 〈◊〉 at househould of fayth that spouse of Christ and Church of the lyuing God which is the Pillar and ground of truth that so they may imbrace her communion follow her directions rest in her iudgments Thus D. Feild Now this distinction being presupposed I thus argue Both these kinds of fayth are necessary to saluation Explicite fayth because it comprehendeth all those fundameÌ„tall and supreme points of Christian Religion without which and the expresse and articulate beliefe of which a man cannot be saued And these be those only which our Newtrallists in Religion hold necessary to be belieued Implicite fayth of other points also is necessary to saluation because otherwyse then belieuing implicitely inuoluedly what the church teacheth therein we cannot according to the former Doctours words range our selues to the blessed company of holy ones the househould of fayth the spouse of Christ and Church of the lyuing God Againe seing Implicite fayth is necessary to saluation we must graunt that this Implicite fayth hath some Obiect This Obiect is not the Articles of the Trinity the Incarnation the Decalogue c. according to the foresaid iudgment of the Schoolemen since these are thâ— obiects of explicite fayth as is aboue mentioned therfore Articles of seeming lesser importance are the
or of preaching the doctrine of which Church we hould in our Conscience to be erroneous and false Now that this kind of going to the Church of a different Religion is wholly condemned as most vnlawfull and wicked I first proue from the iudgment of the Protestants secondly from the resolutions of the Catholiks And to beginne with the Protestants we find this kinde of Recusancy I meane to be present at the Sermons or prayers of a different Religion is taught by (a) De vitandis superstition extant in Caluini Tract Theolog. p. 584. Caluin the (b) Alledged by Sleydan Com. Englished l. 7. fol. 87. Deuines of Germany by (c) In Concil Theolog. p. 628. Melancton by Peter (*) In his discourse hereof recited by Melancton in his Treatise of Concil Theolog. p. 634. 635. Martyr finally to omit others by Doctour Willet (d) In his Synops printed 1600. p. 612. 613. c. who for the better fortifying and warranting of the sayd opinion produceth his Testimonies from the authorities of Latimer Bradford Philpot Ridley others diuers of which according to this their doctrine suffered death in Queene Maries tyme as appeareth out of the Acts and monuments of Iohn fox And thus much for the Protestants That the Catholikes doe with the like or greater feruour teach practise this Recusancie is cleare by the example of our owne Countrey where since Protestancy was first planted many scores of venerable learned Priests haue chosen rather to suffer death then that they would change their Religion or goe once to the Protestants Church their liues being commonly profered them if so they would coÌ„forme themselues and leaue their recusancy In like sort many hundreds of the Laity pay yearely great summes of money for their recusancy diuers of them enduring further oppressions disgraces and imprisonments only for the same cause through the malice rigour and couetuousnes of certaine subordinate Magistrates vnder his Maiesty whose clemency is most remarkable and whome God long preserue in a holy gouernement ouer vs being heerein mightily wronged through the false and most iniurious informations of their Aduersaries Now that the doctrine of learned Catholikes is answeareable to the practice â—eerein appeareth from the frequent testimonies of diuers learned men of the Catholike Church of this tyme yet for greater breâ—ity I will insist in the Authorities only of three to wit of Cardinall Baronius Cardinall Bellarmine the two late lampes of Gods Church and of Mutius Vitellescus then but Prouinciall now Generall and Head of the â—esuites dispersed throughout Christendome For some yeares past their iudgment being demaunded whether the Catholikes of England for the sauing of their goods lyuings and liberty might goe to the Protestants Church or no to heare a sermoÌ„ only though otherwayes they did not communicate in Prayer Sacraments with the Protestants for the warranting or disallowing whereof there were seuerall reasons brought on either side all which reasons were proposed and expressed to these three worthy men These three learned holy men then besides diuers others eminent Doctors and wryters whom I heare omit did giue their negatiue sentence therein whose particuler words in Latin I haue thought good heere to set downe The Iudgment of Cardinall Baronius VISIS consideratis quae superiùs diligenâ— peruestigatione in vtramque partem sunt disputata reiectis omnino exsufflatis quae pro parâ— affirmatiua fuêre proposita quod scilicet liceret Catholicis adire Ecclesias Haereticorum vt superiùs suâ—â— proposita inhaeremus saniori sententiae posteriori 〈◊〉 Ecclesia Catholica antiquitùs receptae vsu probâ—tae quod scilicet id facere pijs non liceat Quam rogâ— nostros Catholicos Anglos amplecti ex animo C. Card. Baronius tit S. Nerei Achillei Presb. That is I hauing seene and considered meaning in the Question of English Catholike going to church all those points which haue byâ— disputed of on both sides but reiecting and wholly abandoning all the reasons alleadged for the affirmatiue part to wit to prooue that it was lawfull fâ— Catholikes to goe to the Heretikes Church I do 〈◊〉 hereto the more sound and later opinion which â—â—ciently was receaued of the Catholike Church aâ— allowed by vse and custome That is that it is 〈◊〉 lawfull for pious and godly men so to doe And I 〈◊〉 treate all our English Catholiks to imbrace this 〈◊〉 opinion and iudgement Caesar Cardinall Baronius Priest of the tiâ— of the Church of SS Nereus Achilleâ— The Iudgement of Cardinall Bellarmine CONSIDERATIS rationibus pro vtraque parte allatis existimo non licere viris Caâ—icis in Anglia Haereticorum Ecclesias adire mulminùs concionibus illorum interesse minimè auâ— omnium cum ipsis in precibus psalmodia â—sque ipsorum Ecclesiasticis ritibus conuenire Iâ— me propria manu subscripsi R. Bellarminus S. R. L. Prew Card. Tit. S. Ma. in via Thus in English The reasons brought vpon â—h sides considered meaning touching the lawfulâ— or vnlawfulnes of English Catholiks going to the â—â—otestants Church I am persuaded that it is not â—full for English Catholikes to go to the Churches Heretikes much lesse to be present at their Serâ—â—ns but least of all to communicate with them in â—yers and singing of psalmes and other their Ecâ—siasticall rites and customes And therfore this my â—gment herein I haue subscribed with my owne â—nd Robert Bellarmyne Priest Cardinall of the holy Roman Church of the Title of the Church of S. Maria in via The Sentence of Mutius Vitelleseus then Prouinciall but now Generall Head of the Order 〈◊〉 the Iesuites VIDI rationes quae in hoc scripto pro vtraqâ— parte afferuntur existimo non licere viâ— Catholicis in Anglia Ecclesias Haereticorum adireâ— puto hoc debere esse extra Controuersiam Mutius Vitellescus Prou. Râ—â— Soc. IESV In English I haue seene the reasons whiâ—â— are alleadged in this booke or wryting for both parâ— meaning for going or not going to the Protestaâ—â— Church I am of opinion that it is not lawfull fâ—â— Catholikes in England to goe to the Churches of Heretikes and I am persuaded that this point oughâ— to be out of all Controuersy Mutius Vitellescus Prouinciall 〈◊〉 the Society of Iesus in Româ— And thus far touching the sentences 〈◊〉 these three learned men deliuered in warranting the doctrine of Recusancy in Catholikes Now to reflect backe vpon the promiseâ— If the going to the Church of another Religion for auoyding of temporall losses and only to heare a sermon of the said Religion be to be accounted a Sinne not be done vnder payne of damnation as being presumed to beare an externall conformity to a false Religion as by all the former testimonies aboue alleaged is plentifully proued though the party so offending may perhapps truly belieue all points of ChristiaÌ„ Religion with what reason then can it be warranted that both Catholiks and Protestants conspiring only in the
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