define vvithout a general Councel so farre are vve from making al the Popes wordes diuine oracles as some Protestants falslie pretend but neuerthelesse they deeme this opinion to be erronious and most neere vnto heresie Neither doth this their assertion contradict that commonly auerred that the decrees of the Pope without a general Councel in the sense aboue mentioned are a rock or ground of faith for although the vvhole Church hath not yet authentically defined that the Pope after this sort cannot erre yet the scriptures and other arguments brought in this behalfe are so plaine and forcible and the consent of al learned pious men except some fewe is so consonant and strong for this point that euery man may wel admit his definitions as a ground of supernatural faith And so vve maie truly say both it is no matter of faith to acknoweledge or not acknowledge in this sort the infallibility of the Popes judgment in this sense that the whole Church hath not as yet defined either part to be a diuine truth and yet hold the infallibilitie of the Popes judgement to be a Rocke of faith in this sense that euerie man for the authorities and reasons alleaged may prudently build vpon it an act of supernatural faith And thus much of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and his decrees I haue beene the longer in this discourse Vergerius dialago 1. contra Hosium because some Protestants affirme the denial of this supremacy or superiority to be not only the foundation of their newe religion but also a good part of the edifice built thereupon Chapter 11. Of the consent of the auncient Fathers and the general doctrine of the Catholike Church in al ages CONCERNING the testimonie of antiquitie touching matters of faith and religion found in the works of such ancient doctors as from the Apostles daies haue flourished through al ages in Christs church and haue been are esteemed by her as fathers masters of christian faith learned men giue vs these rules First those things which they say as it were by the way and treating of another thing are to be distinguished from such sentences as they pronounce of such matters as they purposlie handle for their sayings of the first kinde are of smal those of the other of greater authority Secondlie that vvhich is said by anie one of them but once is not so much to be credited as that which is often and constantlie repeated But principally we must make a difference between that which they say in disputation or contention with their aduersaries and that which is affirmed positiuelie as a true conclusion according to the argument of vvhich they treate for an authority of the first sort is litle to be esteemed of the latter greatlie Touching their assertions in general this is to be obserued First when the opinion of any father touching matters of faith is singuler and contradicted by al or most of the rest it is rather to be thought an errour then a truth Secondlie when one or two only affirme a thing of that subject and the rest make no mention of it their testimonies make a probable not a certaine argument Thirdly what doctrine soeuer concerning any point of Christian religion is commonly found in al the auncient Fathers workes where mention is of that point and is held by them as an article of the said religion and contradicted by none of the rest vvithout the note of singularity errour or heresie imposed vpon them by others such doctrine may wel be thought to pertaine to the rule of faith descending by Tradition from the Apostles and is to be embraced as an article of our beliefe The truth of this last rule vvhich toucheth most my purpose is gathered out of that which hath beene already said for I haue declared that neither the Church can erre nor the tradition of Christian faith in it preserued be ouerthrowne or altered but if we admit a possibility of error in al such Fathers workes touching matters of such consequence both of these assertions may be proued false For an errour in faith found in most of the Fathers without contradiction of any other argueth an error in al beleeuers not only of the ages in which those Father 's flourished but also in al times ensuing because that doctrine which is deliuered by most as an article of faith without any opposition of others may wel be demed to be the doctrine of al the faithful who oppose not themselues against it consequently of the whole Church Wherefore if that be proued erroneous of it we may inferre an error in al sorts of christians consequently a change of the rule of faith receiued by tradition Moreouer although we should set aside the warrant of the Church and tradition from errour who wil think it possible that the Fathers should after this sort depart from the truth and conspire in errour without any or at the least without any great contradiction Is not nouelty commonly discouered and oppugned And of this I gather that their agrement semeth an infallible argument of the truth of their doctrine yea that they al held sincerelie the tradition deliuered them by their predecessors And this moued the holie fathers assembled in general Councels as appeareth by the acts of the said councels to make great search into the works of their forefathers and of the ancient doctors as also to vse them as a principal meane to finde out the rule of faith by the said tradition preserued in the church Finally by their testimonies to direct very much their definitions and decrees in particuler S. Athanasius recordeth Athanas epist ad Afros that the Bishoppes who were present in the first Councel of Nice followed the testimonies of the ancient Fathers and that the same was done in those of Ephesus and Chalcedon the bishops themselues assembled also testify who affirme in their definitions yet extant that in them they follow the holy Fathers Ephes 4. v. 11. c. Further we are taught by the Apostle that Christ gaue some Apostles I vse S. Paules vvords and some Prophets and other some Euangelistes and other some Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints vnto the worke of the ministry vnto the edifying of the body of Christ vntil we meete al into the vnity of faith and knowledge of the Sonne of God into a perfect man into the measure of the age of the fulnesse of Christ that nowe we be not children wauering and caried about with euerie winde of doctrine in the wickednesse of men in craftines to the circumuention of errour Hitherto the Apostle In vvhich his discourse in plaine tearmes he telleth vs that Christ appointed Apostles and other such like officers in his Church vntil the day of judgement for the instruction of his people and to keepe them from wauering in faith and errours in religion Of which I inferre that not only the Apostles Prophets Euangelists Pastours and
of their beliefe are not in expresse tearmes to be found in the whole Bible yea that the text of their owne Bibles maketh more for vs then it doth for them Out of which I may wel inferre that they build not vpon the letter contained in their owne bookes but vpon their owne collections which euery priuate man maketh according to his owne fancie SECTION THE SECOND The same argument is confirmed by the testimonie of some Protestants concerning the true sense of some wordes of Scripture alleaged for our Catholike doctrine touching justification in the Section before NOTVVITHSTANDING the wordes af Scripture cited for vs Catholikes are most plaine yet it may be some follower of the new religion wil imagine that we wrest them to a sense improper and in the primatiue ages of the Church vnheard off contrariwise that those of his beliefe deliuer the true literal and auncient exposition of the same Nowe therefore to make the force of the reason brought more strong I adde that I could easily proue euen by the testimonies of our aduersaries themselues that the letter of holy Scripture in these controuersies mentioned and others according to the proper sense thereof and the tradition and practise of al former Christians is on our side not on theirs But if I should here declare this to be true in euery particuler point I should be ouer long vvherefore I vvil exemplifie only in one or two of the principal by which my reader may easily perceiue what may be done concerning the rest Luther to 5. in cap. 5. ad Galat. f. 382. And first what article of religion by these Sectaries is esteemed aboue that of justification by only faith Luther himselfe writeth thus Whoso euer falleth from the article of justification by faith onlie becommeth ignorant of God and is an Idolater and therefore it is al one whether he returne to the law of the Iewes or worshipping of Idols Al is one whether he be a Monke a Turke a Iewe or an Anabaptist For this article being once taken away there remaineth nothing but meere errour hipochrisie impiety idolatry although in shewe there appeare excellent truth Caluin in Epist ad Sadoletum p. 176. worship of God holinesse c. thus Luther Caluin also telleth vs that the knowledge of justification by faith being taken away both the glorie of Christ was extinguished and religion abolished and the Church destroyed and the hope of saluation altogether ouerthrowne Our countriman M. Perkins in like sort affirmeth Per. in his reformed Catholike touching justification of a sinner pag. 65. 66 that we by our doctrine touching justification doe raâ—â—e the very foundation and that the disagreement betweene vs and the Protestants concerning this matter if there were no more points of difference alone were sufficient to keepe vs from vniting our religions this is his opinion Wherefore this being an article of Christian beliefe in these mens conceits so principal let vs behold whether the letter of holy Scripture according to the judgement of Protestants doe not plainely deliuer our doctrine concerning it and impugne theirs The chiefest place which I haue alleaged in the section next before touching this matter is that sentence of S. Iames the Apostle Of workes or deedes a man is justified and not of faith only Iam. 2. v. 24. Bible 1592. And howe doe al the Lutheranes yea some Sacramentaries vnderstand these wordes Truly they openly and boldly confesse that they warre against justification by onlie faith and approue justification by workes and they assigne this as one reason why this epistle is to be rejected out of the Canon Luther the captaine of them al writing vpon the 22. chapter of Genesis hath these wordes See him also praefat in nouum Testam edit 1. Genensis in captiuitat Babilo ca. de Extrema Vnct. in 1. Pet. c. 1. fol 439. 440. edit Wittenb Abraham was just by faith before he is knowne such an one by God therefore Iames doth naughtily conclude that nowe at the length he is justified after this obedience for by workes as by fruits faith and iustice is knowne But it followeth not vt Iacobus delirat as Iames dotingly affirmeth therefore the fruits doe iustifiy thus there And in another place * Luth. in colloquijs conuiualibus latin to 2. de libris noui Testam Part. 2 chap. 6. sect 2. Many saith he haue taken great paines in the epistle of Iames to make it accord with Paul as Philppe endeauoureth in his Apologie but not with good successe for they are contrary faith doth iustifie faith doth not iustifie Loe Luther expresly telleth vs that S. Iames auoucheth faith not to justifie But whereas he maketh this Apostle contrary to S. Paul he doth wrong them both For neither doth the one say that faith doth not justifie nor the other that faith alone doth justifie as he supposeth But out of their discourses it may be gathered that both faith and workes concurre to justification which is our Catholike doctrine Of the place of S. Paul vnto vvhich Luther alludeth I haue said something before therefore no more of it at this present shal be necessary The opinion of a Pomeran in c. 8. ad RomaÌ„ Pomerane a Lutheran of great estimation is conformable to that of Luther for thus he pronounceth his censure Faith was reputed to Abraham for iustice By this place thou maiest note the error of the epistle of Iames wherein thou seest a wicked argument Besides that he concludeth ridiculously he citeth Scripture against Scripture which thing the holy Ghost cannot abide wherefore that epistle may not be numbred among other bookes which set forth the iustice of only faith thus Pomerane I wil not stand to free S. Iames from his wicked accusations which is very wel performed by diuers Catholike authors Hil in his defeÌ„ce of the article Christ descended into hel fol. 23. Centur. 1. lib. 2. c. 4. col 54. Centur. 2. ca. 4. col 71. But vnto this Lutheran I wil joyne the Magdeburgians his brethren whose vvritings an English Protestant judgeth to be worthy of eternal memorie who say that the epistle of S. Iames much swarueth from the analogie of the Apostolical doctrine whereas it ascribeth justification not only to faith but to workes and calleth the lawe a lawe of liberty Againe Against Paul against al Scriptures the epistle of Iames attributeth justice to workes and peruerteth as it were of set purpose that which Paul disputeth Rom. 4. out of Genesis 15. Abraham was iustified by only faith without workes and affirmeth that Abraham obtained iustice by workes hitherto are their wordes With these consenteth Vitus Theodorus an other of that companie and a preacher of Norinberge who yeeldeth this reason wherefore he excluded this epistle from the Canon of holy Scripture The epistle of Iames and the Apocalipse of Iohn saith he we haue of set purpose left out because the epistle of Iames is not only in certaine
places reproueable where he ouer-much aduanceth workes against faith but also his doctrine throughout is patched together of diuers pieces wherof no one agreeth with an other this is the general opinion of the Lutherans Among the Sacramentaries Wolfangus Musculus in locis com cap de iustificat num 5. p. 271 Wolfangus Musculus a Zwinglian hauing reprehended S. Iames for alleaging the example of Abraham as he saith nothing to the purpose and for not distinguishing if we beleeue this doctor the true and properly Christian faith from that which is common to Iewes and Christians Turks and Deuils He addeth that the said Iames setteth downe his sentence much different from the Apostolical doctrine wherby concluding he saith you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith only c. I shal recite his words more at large in the next chapter And what greater proofe then the assertion of so many of his learned Masters can a reasonable man of the newe religion require Behold both learned Lutherans with their first beginner Luther and a principal Sacramentarie confesse that we follow the true and litteral sense of S. Iames words It may be replied first that these Sectaries reject this epistle out of the Canon of holy Scripture I confesse it is so but this notwithstanding the Church of England vvith Caluin and the Caluinists and most of the Zwinglians admit it as Canonical and therefore according to the doctrine of the followers of the newe religion we may very vvel frame this argument The Epistle of S. Iames is Canonical Scripture but the Epistle of S. Iames approueth justification by good vvorkes and saith it is not wrought by faith only therefore the Canonical Scripture approueth justification by good vvorkes and saith it is not wrought by faith only The first proposition is affirmed true as is afore said by the Church of England by Caluin and al his Caluinists and by most of the Zwinglians the second by al the Lutherans of which the conclusion necessarily followeth and consequently our doctrine touching justification according to the testimony of our aduersaries is built vpon the letter of holy Scripture Which prerogatiue if it be truly yeelded vnto vs it must needes be denied vnto them for the Scriptures teach not contraries and it is in no place opposite to it selfe Secondly it may be replied and said that the Lutherans doe not vvel vnderstand and apprehend S. Iames his meaning This is likewise easily refelled for vvhat reason hath any indifferent man to preferre the Sacramentaries judgement before that of the Lutherans Doe not these vnderstand the Scriptures as wel as they what priuilege or vvarrant of not erring haue the Sacramentaries aboue the Lutherans In learning without al doubt and other gifts necessary for attaining the true sense of Scripture these were not inferiour to them yea Luther as I haue related in my Preface is extraordinarily commended euen by those Sacramentaries who otherwise expound S. Iames then he doth Their enmity and hatred against vs vvere likewise equal vvherefore it is not like if with any probable glosse they could haue drawne this Apostles sentences to an other meaning that they vvould haue bereaued themselues of such a monument of antiquity and haue confessed it to make against themselues such a monument I say which their bretheren affirme to be Canonical Scripture and they themselues cannot denie to haue beene highly esteemed by al their Christian predecessours nay by most and those of greatest learning and authority to haue beene placed in the sacred Canon of diuine bookes Finally Field booke 1. chap. 18. pag. 35. 36. Field seemeth to confesse that S. Paul sometimes by vvorkes of the lawe vnderstandeth vvorkes of the lawe of Moyses for he telleth vs that this Apostle pronounceth that the Galathians were bewitched Galat. 3. 5. and that if they stil persisted to joyne circumcision and the workes of the lawe with Christ they were fallen from grace c. Nowe if this be so it may also be that in the place which the Lutherans thinke opposite to that of S Iames by vvorkes of the lawe he vnderstandeth vvorkes of the lawe of Moyses vvhich if it be admitted as true the sentences of these blessed Apostles may easily be reconciled although S. Paules vvordes admit also other very good expositions Chap. 6. Sect. 2. Field booke 3 c. 22. p. 118. as I haue before declared The same Field in like manner affirmeth that when we are justified God requireth of vs a newe obedience judgeth vs according to it and crowneth vs for it and that in this sort it is that he wil judge vs in the last day according to our workes By vvhich his assertion he plainely granteth that for good vvorkes men shal be crowned in heauen and consequently that good vvorkes done after justification are meritorious of eternal glory in the next vvorld and vvhy not then also of the increase of grace in this life vvhich is al that by vs is auouched Ibid. chap. 44 pag. 179. Lastly he saith that justification implieth in it selfe Faith Hope and Loue vvhich proposition I see not howe he can verifie if according to the Scriptures faith only doth justifie And thus much out of our aduersaries touching the proofe of justification by vvorkes and not by faith only out of the word of God Neither haue these Protestants only thus vnderstood the holy Scriptures but also as I haue affirmed in the beginning of this Section the auncient Fathers And this I vvil also proue by the like testimonies and confession of our aduersaries The Magdeburgians or Century writers are much commended by al sorts of followers of the newe religion for their diligence vsed and paines taken both in perusing and censuring al Councels and old Authours and also in penning of their Ecclesiastical historie especially of the primatiue Church Let these men therefore declare and tel vs vvhat the auncient Fathers beleeued and taught touching justification Verily they so great and so principal antiquaries being themselues of a contrary beliefe affirme that the said Fathers haue erred in this article by ascribing justification to good vvorkes and denying it to only faith For of the second age after Christ thus they vvrite The doctrine of justification was deliuered more negligently and obscurely Centur. 2. ca. 4. col 60. 61. by the Doctors of this age Againe This article the highest and chiefest of al by litle and by litle through the craft of the Diuel beganne to be obscured Further It appeareth say they out of the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus that in his age the doctrine concerning the end of good workes beganne to be obscured Finally The times ensuing declare sufficiently that the doctrine of faith justifying without workes beganne forthwith to be more and more varied and obscured Centur. 3. ca. 4. col 53. 79. 80. 81. In their history of the third age they tel vs that this article was almost altogither obscured and
contained in the diuine bookes These are his words They object vnto vs the place of Iames Wolfangus Musculus in locis communibus cap. de Iustificat num 5. pag. 271. but he whatsoeuer he was though he speake otherwise then S. Paul yet may he not prejudice the truth And after the disagreement betweene these two Apostles according to his imagination shewed at large he thus breaketh forth into open reproch of S. Iames Wherefore he Iames alleageth the example of Abraham nothing to the purpose where he saith wilt thou knowe O vaine man that faith without workes is dead Abraham our father was he not justified by workes when he offered his sonne Isaac He confoundeth the word faith Howe much better had it beene for him diligently and plainely to haue distinguished the true and properly Christian faith which the Apostle euer preached from that which is common to Iewes and Christians Turkes and Diuels then to confound them both and set downe his sentence so different from the Apostolical doctrine whereby as concluding he saith You see that a man is justified by workes and not by faith alone whereas the Apostle out of the same place disputeth thus c. And hauing made S. Paul to speake as hee thinketh best afterwardes he inferreth Thus saith the Apostle of whose doctrine we doubt not Compare me nowe with this argument of the Apostle the conclusion of this Iames A man therefore is justified by workes and not by faith only and see howe much it differeth whereas he should more rightly haue concluded thus c. This and other more such stuffe hath this Sacramentary Doctor against S. Iames and his Epistle in which he dissenteth from most of his owne company Doth not also Beza reject or at the least doubt of the truth of the whole history of the adoulterous woman recorded by S. Iohn in the eight Chapter of his Gospel vvhich notwithstanding other Sacramentaries admit as Canonical Scripture This cannot be denied and I haue before related his wordes Part. 2. ch 1. sect 4. Bible 1592. c. Doth not our English Church Mathewe 6. receiue as Canonical Scripture those wordes For thine is the kingdome the power and the glory which they adde at the end of our Lords praier and yet of them Bullinger a Zwinglian writeth thus There is no reason why Laurentius Valla should take the matter so hotely as though a great part of the Lords praier were cut away Rather their rashnesse was to be reproued who durst presume to peece on their owne to the Lords praier Thus Bullinger Nay further some times the same Sacramentary receiueth vvordes into the Canon vvhich before he had rejected For example Beza in one edition of his new Testament in the end of the eight chapter of S. Iohns Gospel putteth in these wordes See the newe Testaments translated by Beza of the yeares 1556. and 1565. And his Testament translated into English by L. T. printed anno 1580. Iesus passing through the midst of them c. vvhich in another edition with great vehemency he rejecteth wherefore although Beza in his edition of the yeare 1556. leaue the said vvordes out yet in Bezaes englished Testament of the yeare 1580. they are admitted And these thinges in like sort manifestly conuince that the Sacramentaries in admitting and rejecting bookes of Scripture are led by their owne judgement and fancy not by any diuine or infallible rule Moreouer diuers parcels of holy Scripture as I haue declared aboue haue bin in times past of doubtful authority of which most of our aduersaries haue receiued some into the Canon and rejected others For example our English Protestants haue receiued the Epistle to the Hebrewes and the Apocalipse and rejected the books of the Machabees of Iudith Tobias c. because the authority of these in the primatiue Church was called in question But what reason haue they for this fact haue they had any diuine testimony or reuelation commanding them to admit the first Surely none seing that they contemne the authority of the Church And wherefore receiued they not the last aswel as the first They vvil say perhaps that the first vvere admitted by diuers euen in the primatiue Church and doubted off only by some I reply that Brentius hauing named and numbred al of both sorts of them in general writeth thus Brentius in Apolog. confess Wittenb There are some of the auncient Fathers who receiue these Apocriphal bookes into the number of Canonical Scriptures and in like sort some Councels command them to be acknowledge as Canonical I am non ignorant what was done but I demand whether it were rightly and Canonically done Thus Brentius who reiecteth them al alike And that vvhich he saith may be proued true by the testimony of the third Councel of Carthage and S. Augustine as Field confesseth Concil Cartag 3. ca. 47. Augustin de doctrina Christiana lib. 2. cap. 8. Field booke 4. chap. 23. §. hence and of diuers others who receiued the bookes of Tobias Iudith and the Machabees wherefore it seemeth that not only in the judgement of Brentius but also in very deede the doubt of al was almost alike It is euident therefor◠in my judgement that the reason vvhy they rejected and reject those of the old Testament is because in some points they contrary their newe doctrine which they made and make a rule whereby to discerne which bookes are Canonical Hence they receiued those which they could make in outward shewe seeme to fauour their opinion and rejected others and this is the cause why Luther rejecteth more bookes then the later Sectaries For he being the first that beganne to preach this newe Gospel could not presently forge and inuent newe glosses and interpretations vpon al the bookes of Scripture that opposed themselues against the same vvherefore he rejected sundry such bookes vvhich afterwardes his followers hauing inuented such glosses and interpretations receiued This also moued the same Luther to affirme those to be the best Euangelists Luther tom 5. praefat in epist. Petri. fol. 439. Centuriat 2. ca. 4. p. 260. who most especially and most earnestly teach that only faith without workes doth justifie and saue vs of which he inferreth that S. Paules epistles may more properly be called the Gospel then either the Gospel of S. Mathewe S. Marke or S. Luke His disciples the Centuriatores likewise yeeld this reason vvherefore the epistle of S. Iames is to be rejected that in the second chapter he affirmeth that Abraham vvas not justified by faith only Zwinglius in explanat art 57. tom 2. fol. 100. but by workes Zwinglius also affirmeth that although the second booke of the Machabees were in the Canon yet that the authour of it maketh himselfe suspected by this that writing an history he doth set downe a point of doctrine concerning praier for the dead By which it is manifest that they measure Canonical Scripture by their faith not their faith by
that pronouncing nowe this nowe that of the same thing he was neuer constant to himselfe but thought that such leuity and inconstancy might be vsed in the word of God as shamelesse jesters commonly vse playing at dice. Againe Luther saith he doth not only bring his former doctrine in suspition but also giueth the Papists a most fit occasion to condemne him by sending in this present controuersie his reader only to those bookes which he wrote within foure or fiue yeares before For who hauing heard or read these things wil not say that if so be that we expect other fiue yeares without al doubt they being past he wil cal into doubt those bookes which he wrote in these last fiue yeares Thus farre Zwinglius of Luthers inconstancy Erasmus also Whitaker in his answer to Campians reason 8. p. 208. a man denied by Whitakers to be a writer of our side and by the martir-maker Fox canonized for a Saint of the newe religion of Luther his disciples writeth after this sort * Erasmus lib 3. de libero arbitrio What should I recount here the dissention that is among these Gospellers their bloudy hatred their bitter contentions nay their singular inconstancy Luther himselfe hauing changed his opinion so often and yet newe paradoxes springing vp from him daily Hitherto Erasmus Finally Field although he extol Luther for a worthy diuine as euer the world had any in those times wherein he liued Field booke 3 c. 24. p. 170. or in many ages before yet confesseth that by degrees he sawe and discried those Popish errours I vse his wordes which at first he discerned not But to excuse the matter he first auoucheth that in sundry points of greatest moment as of the power of nature of free-wil grace justification the difference of the law and the Gospel faith and workes Christian liberty and the like he was euer constant Which assertion of his howe false it is that which I haue before said touching free-wil doth demonstrate An other of his excuses is that it is not so strange a thing as his aduersaries would make it seeme to be that herein Luther proceeded by degrees and in his later writings disliked that which in his former he did approue And his reason is because S. Augustine wrote a whole booke of retractations S. Ambrose complained that he was forced to teach before he had learned and so to deliuer many thinges that should neede a second reuiewe And S. Thomas of Aquine in his summe corrected and altered many things which he had written before Against this I first reply that it excuseth not Luthers building of his new beliefe vpon his owne judgement nay it proueth manifestly that he came not to it by the infallible direction of any external guide but by the discourse and search of his owne wit and moreouer Caluin Instit booke 4. ch 3. The Apology of the church of England part 4. p. 123 124. c. that he vvas not extraordinarily by internal inspirations instructed and sent by the spirit of God as diuers of these men seeme plainely to affirme for the workes of God are perfect and they whome he immediately sendeth directeth in faith erre not in any point of that argument but that his inconstant reason was the principal ground on which he built his said faith and religion Secondly I adde that the examples brought by Field in excuse of Luther make nothing for his purpose For what if S. Augustine vvriting vvhen he was yet a nouice in Christian religion and not fully instructed erred in some points which errours hauing receiued better instructions he reclaimed What if the like happened to S. Ambrose being miraculously chosen to be a Bishop and a teacher before he was a Christian What if S. Augustine before some articles of Christian religion were so throughly discussed and defined in the Church as afterward vpon the rising of new heresies spoke not so aptly and properly as was needful in succeeding times and therefore retracted what he had vttered What if he and S. Thomas of Aquin in diuers matters disputable and not determined by the Church altered and corrected their former opinions So hath Cardinal Baronius nowe done who hath runne ouer the first ten tomes of his Ecclesiastical history and made as it were a booke of retractations recalling such thinges as he judged amisse What I say if also these thinges be so as without doubt they were no otherwise shal it therefore be lawful for Luther or any other person to leape vp and downe hither and thither and to chop and change his faith according as his fancy leadeth him in any articles of Christian religion verily I thinke to no man of judgement such a fault vvil seeme excusable But was Zwinglius who as we haue seene so peremptorily reprehendeth Luther for his inconstancy him selfe free from this crime Truly he vvas not and because breuity suffereth me not to runne through his works and to shewe the change and alteration of his opinion concerning al particuler points in vvhich he shewed himselfe inconstant I wil only conuince him of inconstancy touching one or two and that by his owne confession It cannot be denied but before his fal from vs he held the Catholike doctrine concerning the baptisme of infants otherwise vvithout al doubt his nouelty vvould haue beene noted and censured His first alteration therefore concerning this matter was from vs to Anabaptisme his second from Anabaptisme in some sort to our beliefe againe That he was once an Anabaptist thus he confesseth Wherefore I my selfe also confesse frankely saith he that a fewe yeares since I being deceiued with this error thought it better to deferre the baptisme of young children vntil they come to perfest age thus Zwinglius That he partly recanted afterwards this heresie he declareth in the same place I say partly because he alwaies denied the necessity of baptisme to saluation That he was likewise inconstant in his beliefe of the Eucharist these his owne wordes testifie Zwingl tom 2. commēt de vera salsa religione cap de Eucharist fol. 202. We haue written two yeares since of the Eucharist where we haue written many thinges rather according to the time then the truth of the matter And soone after If reader thou finde certaine thinges here otherwise then in the former bookes doe not thou wonder we would not giue foode out of season nor set pearls before swine Finally We retract therefore saith he and reuoke those thinges which we haue said there in such sort that those which we set forth in the two and fortith yeare of our age counterpoise those which we set forth in the fortith when as we said we serued more the time then the truth of the matter that we might by that meanes the more edifie thus Zwinglius of himselfe Who then can deny but he also was inconstant and at the least in outward shewe altered his beliefe yea doth he not confesse to