vpon the truth of the Latin vulgar edition but proue that they forsake and falsifie the true sense of the very Hebrewe and Greeke text which they professe to translate So shal I not only proue that the vnlearned professours of the newe religion build their faith vpon a false ground to vvit the vvord of men or the vvord of God corrupted but also make that more manifest which I principally intend to proue I meane that the learned sort haue erred in their translations and that the ground of their faith also is not the vvord of God S. Augustine longe since obserued in Heretikes August tom 6. contra Faustum lib. 32 cap. 29. that they make not their faith subject to the Scriptures but the Scriptures as a man may say subject to their faith giuing vs thereby to vnderstand that al Heretikes either out of some one place of Scripture falsly vnderstood or out of their owne peruerse and licentious humor or out of the vveakenesse of their natural reason not able to comprehend the high misteries of our faith or finally out of some other false and erroneous ground frame to themselues one or more false opinions and afterwards by corrupting the text or wresting the sense make the Scripture seeme to confirme the same And like as this hath beene found true in al Heretikes vvho in former ages haue oppugned the Church so most true it is in the Professours of the newe religion of our daies as euery man skilful in the tongues may easily perceiue in their translated Bibles and other of their vvorkes If I should runne ouer al their corruptions and falsifications I should scarce euer make an end they are so many and diuers See Staphilus in Apolog part 2. Emser in praefat Annot. in nouum Testam Lutheri Lindanus in Dubitantio pag. 84. 85. c. Erasmus in Epist. ad fratres inferioris Germaniae Some note a thousand foure hundred in the newe Testament only translated by Luther Caluin and Bezaes corruptions are to be seene in diuers vvorthy Authours wherefore I wil only gather fiue or six notable falsifications out of the translations of these principal Sectaries and afterwardes discourse more at large of our English Bibles To beginne therefore with the first Captaine Luther before his Apostacy from the Catholike Church he read with vs and al antiquity according to the Greeke text 1. Cor. 9. vers 5. after this sort Haue not we power to leade about a woman a sister as also the rest of the Apostles But hauing chaunged his profession and contrary to his vowe coupled himselfe to Catharine Bore vvhome he tearmed his vvife he chaunged also his translation of this sentence and read Haue not we power to leade about a sister a wife as the rest of the Apostles S. Paul to giue vs to vndertstand that faith doth justify vs as the foundation and roote of our justification or else comprehending vnder the word faith also the workes of faith vseth these wordes We account a man to be justified by faith Rom. 3 28. Moreouer to exclude from our justification the workes done before our conuersion or faith he addeth without the workes of the lawe But howe doth Luther translate this place of Scripture Luther to 2. edit Wittenberg anno 1551. fo 405. We account saith he a man to be justified by faith onlie without the workes of the lawe this is his translation And what a manifest corruption is this where doth he finde in the Greeke text or any other approued edition the vvord only verilie it is added by himselfe and not to be found in the text But perhaps although S. Paul hath it not expresly in this place cited yet it is necessarily vnderstood I reply and demaund howe Luther knewe this I adde further that although it vvere so yet he hath no authority to adde to the word of God neither is it likely that if the said vvord had beene necessary the holy Ghost guiding the Apostles penne vvould haue omitted it And that Luther giueth not the true sense of the sentence of the Apostle I proue out of these wordes following of S. Augustine August de gratia et lib. â—rbitrio ca. 7. Men saith he not vnderstanding that which the Apostle saith we account a man to be justified by faith without the workes of the lawe did thinke him to haue affirmed that faith would suffice a man though he liued il and had no good workes which God forbid the vessel of election should thinke who in a certaine place after that he had said Galat. 5 6. In Christ Iesus neither circumcision or prepuce auaileth any whit he straight added but faith which worketh by loue this is the opinion of S. Augustine Hence the same Apostle in other places Galat. 6 15. hath these and such like sentences In Christ Iesus neither circumcision auaileth ought nor prepuce but a newe creature Againe Circumcision is nothing 1. Cor. 7 19. and prepuce is nothing but the obseruation of the commaundements of God In vvhich he giueth vs to vnderstand that in the place corrupted by Luther vnder the name of faith he comprehendeth the whole reformation of our soules and our newe creation in good vvorkes vvhich may further be proued because taking faith precisely as it is a vertue distinct from hope and charity 1. Cor. 13. v. 2. and 13. he telleth vs that Although a man hath aâ— faith so that he should remoue mountaines and hath not charity he is nothing And concludeth that charitie is a greater vertue then either faith or hope with vvhome accordeth S. Iames vvho directly contradicteth Luther and auoucheth Iames 2 24. that by workes a man is justified and not by faith only Perhaps some Lutheran in the defence of Luther vvil say that this corruption vvas not vvilful But I reply that the contrarie is manifest for Luther by letter being kindlie admonished by his friend that this by some vvas reprehended as a fault answered his said friend very sharply calling the reprehender Asse and Papist and gaue this reason in his owne defence Luther to 5. Germ. f. 141. epist adf amicum Doctor Martin Luther wil haue it so And like as in this text he added to serue his purpose so in another he omitted For whereas the Apostle S. Peter writeth 2. Peter 1. verse 10. Wherefore bretheren labour the more that by good workes you make sure your vocation and election he left out the wordes by good workes These and other such like corruptions of Scripture vvhich are to be found in the Bible and other vvorkes of Luther gaue Zwinglius vvriting against him just occasion to condemne him of this fault Thou dost saith he corrupt and adulterate the word of God ZuiÌ„g in resp ad Luth. l. de sacram to 2. fol. 412. 413. imitating surely in this the disciples of Marcion and Arius Againe See howe thy case standeth Luther that in the eies of al men thou
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
art seene a manifest and common corrupter and peruerter of the holy Scripture which thing thou canst neuer deny before any creature How much are we ashamed of thee who hitherto haue esteemed thee beyond al measure and nowe trie thee to be such a false fellowe Bucer telleth vs Bucer Dial. cōt Melāch that in translating the Scriptures his errours are manifest and not fewe But is not Zwinglius himselfe although he so confidentlie reprehend Luther to be found guiltie of the same crime Certainelie to establish his doctrine against the Real presence he corrupted those vvordes of our Sauiour This is my bodie by translating them thus Mat. 26 26. Conr. Schluss in Theolog. Caluinist l. 2. cap. 6. fol. 43. 44. l. 2. art 1. Luther tom 7. in defens verborum coenae This signifieth my bodie Of this Conradus a Lutheran is a sufficient vvitnesse vvho affirmeth that he sawe those vvordes so translated in a Zwinglian Bible at Mundera in the yeare of our Lord one thousand fiue hundred and threescore and therefore he pronounceth this sentence against him that he was stroken with the spirit of giddinesse and blindnesse as al Heretikes are daring to corrupt the Testament of our Lord. Hence Luther also to requite Zwinglius called him and al his followers corrupters of the worde of God Caluin to proue his blaspheamous Doctrine that Christ despaired and suffered on the Crosse the very torments of the damned in hel whereas the Apostle saith Hebr. 5. vers 7. that Christ was heard for his reuerence Caluin in Catechis lib. 2. Instit cap. 16. §. 11. 12. maketh him say that Christ was heard from his owne feare vvhich translation is not only newe for Caluin as Beza confesseth in his Annotations vpon this place vvas the first Authour of it but also contrary to the true signification of the Greeke word as Beza likewise graunteth and it is apparently to be seene Act. 8. vers 2. vvhere the adjectiue of the same Greeke word is vsed to signifie deuout men Caluin lib. 4. Instit ca. 14. §. 23. 1. Cor. 10. v. 3 such as religiously reuerenced God In like sort the same Caluin to proue no difference betweene the Sacraments of the old and newe lawe affirmeth that the Apostle teacheth that our Fathers of the old lawe did eate the same spiritual meate which we eate vvhereas the said Apostle saith only that the Iewes among themselues did eate the same meate Beza annot in Math. 3. v. 2. Marc. 1. v. 4. Luc. 3 8 Beza annot in Rom. 5. Beza of set purpose as he himselfe confesseth in his translation auoideth the word penance and this sentence doe penance Wherefore Act. 26. vers 20. whereas the Greeke saith doing workes worthy of penance he readeth doing the fruits meete for them that amend their liues Also he graunteth that he added to the text of Scripture and altered the same to ouerthrowe as he tearmeth it the execrable errour of inherent justice Further those vvordes Act. 2. vers 27. thou wilt not leaue my soule in hel He wittingly and willingly according to his owne confession Beza annot in Act. 2. ver 27. 24. in 1. Petr. 1. vers 19. to improue Limbus Patrum Purgatory and Christs descent into hel vvhich he tearmeth foule errours translated in his edition of the new Testament of the yeare 1556. thus thou shalt not leaue my carcas in the graue And this not only against al Greeke copies in the world but also against the proper signification of the Hebrewe wordes in the 15. Psalme ver 10. whence this sentence is taken For the Hebrewe word which Beza translateth carcas signifieth only a soule and the other which he translateth graue vsually signifieth hel Hence in his latter edition he corrected somewhat the former and read thou shalt not leaue my soule in the graue but of this his corruption more hereafter Finally because these vvordes of our Lord spoken of the Chalice and recorded by S. Luke which is shedde for you as they are in the Greeke text Beza in Luc 22. vers 20. containe a manifest proofe of the real presence for as he saith according to their plaine construction and that in al his auncient bookes they appertaine of necessity not to the bloud but to the cuppe of the Chalice this Geneuian Doctor altered the text and made an other sense of the said wordes in this translation And why so but because they cannot as he affirmeth be vnderstood of the cuppe and that according to his beliefe Our English Sectaries cannot deny this fault in Beza for they in some places dare not be so bould as to followe him but thinke it best to forsake and reject him For example Iames 2. vers 22. whereas Beza readeth Bible printed anno 1592. 1595. Faith was a helper of his workes they reade with the Greeke Faith wrought with his deedes Againe whereas Beza readeth 1. Cor. 12. vers 30. in his newe Testament of the yeare 1556. Behold moreouer also I shewe you a way most diligently and in the editions of the yeare 1562. And besides I shewe you a way to excellency Bible 1595. vers 31. against the dignity of charitie aboue faith Our English sectaries according to the Greeke reade And yet shewe I vnto you a more excellent way Yea although in the newe Testament printed in the yeare 1580. they vndertake and professe to followe him yet in some places they reject him as for example Act. 1. vers 14. Beza readeth Bible 1595. Bible 1600. they put the worde wiues in the margēt Carolus Molinaeus in trāslat Test noui part 11. fol. 110. Idem part 26 30. 40. 64. 65. 66. 67. 74. 99. Humfred de ratione interpret and i. lib. 1. pag. 62. 63. 189. Al these were perseuering with one minde in praier with their wiues to the end to proue that the Apostles were married they read according to the Greeke with the women But I neede not labour to proue Caluin and Beza guiltie of this crime seing that one of their owne bretheren confesseth that Caluin made the text of holy Scripture leape vp and downe at his pleasure that he offered violence to the same and added of his owne to the very sacred letter it selfe to the end he might drawe it to his purpose He crieth likewise out against Beza and telleth vs that he actually altereth the text that he actually changeth the text retained by al Doctors and the like censure is pronounced against his translation by Selneccerus by the Vniuersity of Zena by Castalio and diuers other Protestants But the last of these named although a Sacramentary and a man much commended by Doctor Humfrey a Gesnerus in Bibliotheca and Gesnerus is more vehement then the rest For hauing noted certaine errors committed by Beza in his translation only of the first tenne Chapters of S. Mathewes Gospel thus he concludeth b Casta in def pa. 182. 183. I
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
painted reasons make some doubtful who of al these haue right and a just title to the thing challenged yet certaine it is and most easilie to be proued that the first challengers only who through the whole vvorld are tearmed Catholikes haue justice and right on their side The proofe of this would aske a long discourse of the definition and notes of the Church but in this present treatise I purpose only to declare that we Catholikes only haue true faith and build our said faith and religion vpon most sure and firme groundes Contrariewise that al sectaries are bereaued of this supernatural gift and build their whole beleefe and religion vpon their owne fancies Hereafter if it please God shal followe a more ample discourse of the definition and notes of the true Church One reason which moued me to take this course is that the principal controuersie betweene vs and our aduersaries is concerning matters of faith which is manifest because we condemne them of heresie which proceedeth of mis-beleefe in faith for he that erreth not in faith may be a Schismatike but he cannot be an Heretike wherefore if I proue that we Catholikes haue true faith and that our aduersaries haue no faith the controuersie betweene vs and them is after some sort decided An other reason is because faith doth especially incorporate vs in the Church and make vs members of the same It is the lincke and glewe yea the sinnewe which vniteth and bindeth vs to this body It is the roote and foundation of al true religion and justification a Ioh. 3 18 Marc. 16. vers 16. He that beleeueth not according to the verdict of our Sauiour is already judged and shal be condemned and damned b Hebr. 11. vers 6. without faith saith the Apostle it is impossible to please God Wherefore by S. Iohn Chrisostome c Chrisost in serm de Fide Spe Charit faith is called the of-spring of justice the head of sanctity the beginning of deuotion and the ground of religion By S. Ciril Bishoppe of Hierusalem d Ciril catech 5. and eie lighting euery conscience and causing vnderstanding By the other Ciril Bishop of Alexandria e Ciril l. 4. in Ioā c. 9. the doore and way to life also a certaine leading or bringing home againe from corruption to immortalitie With the like titles it is honoured f Aug. ser 38. de Tēpore by S. Augustine and other holie Fathers Like as therefore no material house or Castle can be erected vvithout a foundation first laid vpon vvhich al the burthen of the vvorke may rest so no spiritual edifice can be built in the soule of man vvithout faith the ground of al spiritual vvorkes Hence S. Athanasius that great piller of Christes Church beginneth his Creede which is receiued by the whole Church with this notable and famous sentence Whosoeuer wil be saued before al thinges it is necessary that he hold the Catholike faith which except euery man shal keepe wholy and not corrupted without doubt he shal perish euerlastingly This is the censure of that holy Father The reason of this is because we cannot attaine to a certaine knowledge of the first groundes and principles of Christian religion they being supernatural by the force of our natural and weake vnderstanding wherefore a supernatural knowledge of them being requisite it is necessary that this be done by supernatural faith which giueth vs power and lifting vp our vnderstanding maketh vs able to beleeue them because they are reuealed by God and of this necessity excellency of faith it followeth that without it there can be no true Church or religion for how can the true Church or true religion be without the ground and foundation of al true vertue and Christianity Contrariwise where true faith is found there is the principal ground of true religion of which I inferre that if I proue the new sectaries to haue no faith I likewise proue them to haue no church nor religion but on the other side if I proue our faith to be true I proue also that the ground of al religion is among vs and consequently that if we build hope and charity vpon this foundation we are members of the true Church trulie religious and in the sure way to euerlasting saluation Let vs therefore briefly behold both our groundes and theirs and according to the strength or weakenesse of them decide the whole controuersie betweene vs. But to proceede the more plainely and distinctly I wil first adde a word or two of the nature and conditions of true faith Chapter 5. Of the definition and conditions of true faith SECTION THE FIRST FAITH is a vertue infused by God into our vnderstanding by the helpe and force of which we giue a most firme assent vnto al those thinges which are reuealed by God to the Church because they are so reuealed Wherefore although a Christian should beleeue neuer so firmely any article of his faith vpon any other ground then the authority of almighty God who hath reuealed it yet he should not haue faith because faith biddeth vs beleeue such articles not because reason or any other such motiue perswadeth vs that they are true but because God who being the first verity and truth it selfe cannot deceiue hath so said and reuealed But for the better declaration of this definition or description the nature it selfe of faith let vs treate of it a litle more at large and first shewe that the act of faith is a most firme and certaine assent of the vnderstanding secondly that it is of thinges surpassing the reach of natural reason and consequently obscure Thirdly that by it we beleeue such misteries as haue bin reuealed vnto the Church by God Fourthly that it must needes be built vpon diuine authority Lastly that it is necessary that the articles of our faith be propounded vnto vs by some infallible authority and that the propounder of them is the holy Catholike Church SECTION THE SECOND That faith is a most firme assent of the vnderstanding TO beginne therefore with the first that the act of faith is a most firme assent of the vnderstanding to the thing beleeued without any doubt or feare of falshood or staggering the Apostle himselfe testifieth in this his description of faith Hebr. 11. vers 1. Faith saith he is the substance of thinges to be hoped for the argument of thinges not appearing That is to say faith is the substance or ground of hope a certaine argument or conuiction and most firme perswasion of the vnderstanding through the authority of God of things not appearing to our senses or not knowne by natural reason Verily that the word argument in this place doth not signifie euery kind of argument but an argument certaine and infallible the greeke word it selfe which is here vsed declareth Wherefore a Aug. tom 9. tract 89 in Ioā tom 7. de peccat merit remiss l. 2. ca. 31. 2. Pet.
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
neither be deceiued nor deceiue wherefore although the misteries be obscure let vs alwaies be mindeful by whom we are informed of their truth and not make the depth of our owne capacity the rule and measure of Gods power and of our faith but beleeue them When either the diuel or his instruments object any thing against our beliefe let vs say with S. Augustine Aug. serm 147. de tempore Ambrose in cap. 5. Lucae Ambr. de Abraham cap. 3. Why doe we wonder why doe we not beleeue it was God that did it and with S. Ambrose If we beleeue not God whom wil we beleeue If a grauâ—â—onourable personage I vse the same holy Doctors comparison in this life especially if he be of high degree and our better would scorne to be asked of vs a proofe for that which he affirmeth how much more ought God to be credited without proofe of humane reason when he propoundeth vnto vs a matter aboue mans reason and capacity thus in effect S. Ambrose And howe weake and feeble our reason and vnderstanding is vve may easilie perceiue by this that it is not able to comprehend the nature or causes of diuers thinges vvhich we daily behold with our eies Hence arise so many intricate difficulties in natural philosophy which the deepest wits and most learned philosophers could neuer hitherto vnfold For example what philosopher hath euer hitherto yeelded a certaine cause without any contradiction of the ebbing and flowing of the Sea Yea howe manie thinges are there in mans bodie it selfe vvhich moue no smal difficulties to philosophers as the forming of it in the mothers vvombe the concoction and distribution of nourishment the growing of it to a due proportion and stature c. What shal we say of the fiue senses by which our vnderstanding cometh to the knowledg of external and corporal thinges howe strange is their operation vvhat great and huge bodies are together truely represented in the litle compasse of the aple of the eie But I can not stand to discourse of them in particuler If we looke vp to the heauens howe can we conceiue the huge bodies of the planets seeming to our senses so smal their certaine and swift motion and their nature it selfe most admirable And if we cannot without great difficulty and discourse comprehend these ordinarie matters how dare we by our weake wit measure the omnipotent power of God and think him able to doe no more then we can conceiue Moreouer if God had not made al thinges of nothing by his onlie word we should hardly imagine such a creation to be possible seing that it is a rule among natural ageÌ„ts that of nothing nothing is made If God himselfe had not reuealed vnto vs that in the most blessed Trinitie the same simple essence or substance is in three persons vvhich therefore make but one God we should hardly haue beleeued it seing that among vs euery person hath a distinct substance or essence If faith did not teach vs that in Christ two natures the one of God the other of man make one person it would seeme incredible seing that among vs eâ—â—â—ie nature maketh a distinct person Come a litle lower if our Sauiour had not told vs Mat. 19. verse 26. Iohn 20 19. 26. that a camel by the power of God may be made to passe through the eie of an needle who would haue beleeued it If Christ had not entred into his disciples the dores being shut vvho would haue thought it possible If then our vnderstanding can not naturally comprehend these misteries which neuerthelesse euery Christian must confesse to be true we may very wel thinke vvith our selues that other such like which Heretiks deny may likewise be euen as certaine although our vnderstanding can not reach to the apprehension of them seing that they are no more repugnant to reason then the former but like as they aboue reason and proceed from the same omnipotent power of God Certainly The workes of God as we are taught by S. Gregory if they were comprehensible by reason Gregor hom 26. in Euan. were not admirable neither hath faith saith he any merit when humane reason yeeldeth an experiment or maketh the thing euident for the lesse euidence that our reason hath in matters of faith so that the things be propounded vnto vs vvith sufficient prudential motiues prouing diuine reuelation the more we merit in beleeuing according to those wordes of our Sauiour Iohn 20. verse 29. Blessed are they who haue not seene and haue beleeued And therefore concerning those workes of God principally which by faith vve are bound to beleeue Chrisost homil 21. in Genes let vs followe the learned aduise of S. Iohn Chrisostome contained in these his words following When God doth any thing saith he doe not thou examine those thinges which are done by human reason for they exceed our vnderstanding and mans thought or imagination can not reach and comprehend the reason of those thinges which are made and done by God Wherefore it is meet that we hearing what God commaunded obey and beleeue those thinges which are said by him for seing that he is the founder of nature he doth order and transforme al thinges as he thinketh good hitherto Saint Iohn Chrisostome FINIS THE SECOND PART OF THIS TREATISE SHEWING THE GROVNDES OF the newe religion In which is proued that the newe Sectaries build their faith vpon no diuine authority but that the ground of al their beliefe and religion is their owne judgement and consequentlie that they haue neither true faith nor religion Chapter 1. That by their doctrine they deny or at the least weaken the three principal and general groundes of Christian religion set downe in the three first chapters of the first part SECTION THE FIRST The number of Atheists among them is great and of the causes by them giuen of this impiety IN the three first chapters of the first part of this treatise I haue proued three principal grounds of our religion to wit the being of God and his diuine prouidence the immortallity of the soule of Man and the truth of Christianity Now perhaps the title of this chapter to some may seeme verie strange and my accusation of our aduersaries that by their doctrine they denie or vveaken these grounds verie slanderous and injurious but I desire no more credit in this matter then the reasons I shal bring wil yeeld which if I obtaine of my reader I doubt not but I shal free my selfe of al suspition of offering them any wrong But first I must declare that in this section I intend not to accuse al the newe Sectaries of Atheisme for I know very wel that they teach commonly beleeue there is a God neither doe I intend to affirme that the same man can properly be termed a newe sectarie and Atheist but mine assertion onlie is that a great number of such as are in outward shewe professours of the newe religion are
confidently triumph vpon the deuil and death Hence proceede these vvordes of Luther Luth. in c. 2. ad Galatas See certaine quest ans touching the doctr of predest printed betweene the newe and old testam of the yeares 1593. and 1601. Beleeue that Christ wil be thy saluation mercy and so it wil be vndoubtedly Our aduersaries workes are ful of such sentences And that they prefer this second kind of faith before the first yea that they attribute vnto it our whole justication it is apparant in al a Luc. OsiaÌ„d iÌ„ Enchirid. coÌ„tra Anabaptistas cap. 2. their discourses of this matter Our b Notes vpon the Eng. test priÌ„t an 1592 and 1600 in 1. Cor. 13 2. Willet coÌ„tro 19. pag. 877 English sectaries cal the first an historical faith and make it common to deuils but Caluin discourseth after this sort c Calu. lib. 3. Institut cap. 2.9 and 10. Ibi. l. 39. c. Many indeed saith he beleeue that there is a God and that the history of the Gospel or other parts of scripture are true c. but this image or shadow of faith as it is of no value so it is not worthy of the name of faith Wherefore according to Caluin although we beleeue the Trinity and al other articles of our faith neuer so firmely yet if we beleeue not that vndoubtedly God is our friend and that we shal most certainly be saued it profiteth vs nothing d Yea saith he who impugne this doctrine slanderously speake against the spirit of God horribly rob God foully stumble in the first principles of religion faine a Christianity that needeth not the spirit of Christ and shewe a token of miserable blindnesse hitherto Caluin But if we beleeue this without any other thing we are secure of our saluation wherefore Luther hath this exclamation e Lut. de cap tiu Babi c. de bapt et iÌ„ ser sic deus dilexit mundum Thou seest how rich a Christian man is who although he wil be cannot by neuer so great sinnes loose his saluation except he refuse to beleeue for of this beliefe he speaketh I intend not here to confute the asurd assertion of our aduersaries that faith only doth justifie which they vnderstand of this their presumptuous faith for this controuersie belongeth not to this place only I wil adde a word or two in disproofe of their said faith and so make an end of this chapter First therefore it is apparant that this faith vvas neuer heard of in the vvorld before Luthers daies for there is no description or mention of it in the holy scripture nor in any authour more ancient then himselfe as I could easily demonstrate by yeelding the true sense of al those testimonies vvhich are by them brought forth for the confirmation of this their doctrine Yea Melanchton himself Luthers scholler seemeth to confesse that it was an inuention of that age Melanchton in praefat in 2. tom Luth. for he telleth vs that Luther learned his opnion of an old Frier of his owne order when as yet he liued in his cloister vvho alleaged for it a certaine sentence of S. Bernard nothing indeede to the purpose wherefore it is very probable that this old Frier gathered his opinion out of certaine wordes of S. Bernard by himselfe falsly vnderstood which Luther vpon discontentment taking from him began to confirme by the authority of holy scriptures by himselfe falsified and corrupted or else wrested to a newe and strang sense Secondly it is also manifest that this faith altogether destroieth hope for howe can hope be together vvith an assurance and certainty of saluation It also taketh away al feare of sinne damnation or losse of the fauour of God which is so highly commended in his holy vvord Phil. 2. v. 12. insomuch as the Apostle himselfe biddeth vs worke our saluation with feare and trembling Nay farther vvhosoeuer is indued with this faith cannot say our Lords praier for he that is assured that his sinnes are forgiuen and thinketh this assurance necessarie to his justification cannot in conscience pray for the forgiuenesse of his trespasses or offences as Christ himselfe taught vs to doe Moreouer this faith is a lying and false faith which I proue after this sort The power of justifying which is in this faith according to Caluin and the rest of his bretheren consisteth not in the worthinesse of the worke which is to beleeue as before hath beene signified See Willet in Sinopsis controuers 19. part 2. pag. 827. neither doth it justifie as our worke for so they confesse it to be a sinne but when this worke of faith is in vs then God of his only mercy through the merits of Christ doth justifie vs and Christes justice is made ours so that faith in their opinion is only the instrument by vvhich vve apprehend Christes justice and his justice is made ours Now thus I argue Either before they beleeue themselues to be just and Christes justice to be theirs they are just in very deede and Christ justice is theirs or no If these thinges be true before then they are not justified by this faith If they be not then their faith is false For they beleeue that which is not true because it must needs be granted that this faith being as it were the instrument by vvhich their justification is vvrought is before their justification and consequently they beleeue themselues â—â—st before they are just Moreouer howe doth this doctrine stand with other their positions for doe not they hold that euery one of the elect being predestinate from al eternity is the friend of God just as soone as he hath his being in his mother wombe Doe not they auerre that the children of the faithful are sanctified for diuers generatioÌ„s If they doe not maintaine these propositions as true vvhy deny they the necessity of baptisme affirming that infants may be saued without it Why doe they make it only a seale of justice not the instrument or cause of justification or sanctification Is it not also a coÌ„mon principle among Protestants that God doth neuer hate whom once he loued or loue whom once he hated these thinges truly be so apparant that they cannot be denied But if they be granted it must needs also be confessed that euery one of the elect who only can according to their doctrine haue justice were euer just and neuer can be wicked Of which it consequently followeth that they are just before they can haue actual faith and consequently that by faith they are not justified I adde also that according to their owne ground nothing is to be beleeued but that which is expresly contained in the scripture or manifestlie gathered out of the same And vvhere doth euery man finde in the Bible that most assuredly he is just elect and shal be saued verilie no such thing is found wherefore they doe contrarie to their owne rule in beleeuing it Finally I haue declared
In another place he discourseth thus We are not the seruants of the Fathers but the sonnes When they prescribe vs any thing out of the lawe and diuine authority we obey them as our parents If they enjoyne anything against the voice of the heauenly truth we haue learned not to hearken to them but to God You as vassals and base seruants receiue whatsoeuer the Fathers say without judgement or reason being afraid as I thinke either of the whip or the halter if euerie thing they speake be not Gospel with you thus Whitakers defendeth his rejecting the ancient Fathers and vpbraideth vs for our high estimation of the same But concerning the fathers opinions of particuler points he telleth vs Ibidem in his answer to the 5. reason pag. 129. that Ciprian wrote something of repentance verie vnseasonably and vndiscreetly and not be alone but al the holie Fathers of that time saith he were tainted with that errour That is al the Fathers of the third age after Christ for S. Ciprian suffered martirdome in the yeare two hundred threescore and one Of praier to Saints he hath these wordes Prudentius I graunt Ibidem pag. 140. 141. as a poet sometimes called vpon the Martirs whose actes he describeth in verse and the supertitious custome of praying to Saintes had nowe taken deepe roote in the Church which as a tirant haled sometimes the holie Fathers into the same errour thus he of the beginning of the fift age when Prudentius flourished Lastly Ibid. p. 132. he defendeth the first sentence of Luther before alleaged Abbot in his answ to Hil reason 10. p. 371. Horat. lib. 1. epist 1. see also Morton in Apologia Catholica part 1. lib. 1. cap. 8. With Whitakers agreeth Abbot who touching the Fathers thus deliuereth his opinion vnto vs Where there is just cause we as men Nullius addicti jurare in verba magistri bound to stand to the opinion of none but of the holy Ghost we declining-wise doe leaue them But where they subscribe to the authority of God there we subscribe to them defend them and refuse not to be tried by them so far as we may by any holy and learned men of which sort we hold them but yet stil knowe them to be men hitherto George Abbot And note that these men pretending that they follow the auncient Fathers as farre forth as they followe the lawe or diuine authority or the authority of God endeauour to make shew of an opposition or contrariety betweene the written word of God and the Fathers in al points in which they forsake them whereas in very deed the Fathers vnderstood and followed the scriptures better then they doe and the opposition is not betweene the scriptures and the Fathers but betweeene the Fathers and the Scriptures expounded by these Sectaries vvhich scriptures so expounded they make a rule vvhereby to knowe vvhen the Fathers are to be followed when to be forsaken Our Puritans in this point at the least in wordes got farre beyond our Protestants He who is desirous to vnderstand their opinion may read the seauen and twentith chapter of the Suruay of their pretended holy discipline written by a a Printed anno 1693. Protestant in which he shal finde it set downe at large And among others Cartwright is there accused the places of his bookes being cited for tearming the seeking into the Fathers writings b Pag. 331. 337. See also chap. 4. p. 64. a raking of ditches and the bringing in of their authorities the mouing and summoning of hel c Parks in his preface to his ans of Limbo mastix prīted anno 1607. Henrie Iacob treatise p. 1. 3. 54. 81. 68. cited by him in the margēt see also saith he Bilsons sermons pa. 323. and the answere to M. Broughtons letters p. 17. Parks also a later writer telleth vs that If you alleage the auncient Fathers against them they wil tel you roundly that their opinions are nothing else but the corrupt fancies and vaine imaginations of men toyish fables fond absurd without sense and reason and some saith he sticke not to cal the Fathers of the latine Church the plague of diuinitie Vnto al these proofes I adde likewise that our aduersaries confesse al the auncient Fathers to haue beene of our beliefe touching euery article nowe controuersed betweene vs and them as I vvil proue in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church and yet reject their doctrine as erroneous and repugnant to the word of God vvherefore they must needes confesse al the Fathers to haue erred and so reject their authority Finally none of them wil graunt that any consent of Fathers whatsoeuer be it neuer so general touching any point is of it selfe a sufficient ground of faith without the testimonie of holy scripture which is enough for my purpose But it may be objected by some that diuers of these sectaries alleage in their vvorkes the holie Councels and Fathers abundantly not only against vs but also against their owne brethren dissenting from them in faith or thinges belonging to religion I answere that true it is that they so doe alleage the holy Councels and Fathers But doe they make their testimonie an infallible ground they doe not certainelie For although they approue their doctrine in some points yet in others they presentlie reject them The Centuriatores being Lutherans Centuriat 4. pag. 242. In euery Centurie cap. 4. alleage the Fathers against the Sacramentaries for proofe of the real presence but they reject their testimonie when they affirme this sacrament to be a Sacrifice In like sort our Protestants against our Puritans alleage the authority of S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine condemning Aerius for an Heretike because he acknowledged no distinction betweene a Bishoppe and a Priest See the Suruey of the pretēded holie discipline Whit gift in his defence and others but they reject the authority of the same Fathers in the selfe same places condemning the same Aerius as an Heretike for denying sacrifice and masse for the dead wherefore it is manifest that they onlie as Caluin saith vse the Councels and Fathers to serue their owne turnes not to be ouer-ruled by them In defence of our English Protestants in particular it may first be said that M. Iewel in his challendge doth challendge to their religion al the Councels and Fathers of the first sixe hundred yeares alloweth of their authoritie and offereth to be tried by their censure I answere first that this challendge made by M. Iewel is not general touching al points controuersed betweene vs but concerning a fewe only and those not of greatest moment Secondly I say that M. Iewel did this only to make a shew among the common people as though his religion had beene auncient not that he intended to doe as he promised to wit to subscribe to our religion if this challendge could be shewed false This appeareth to be true both because he maintained his vaine challendge
but also affirmeth that a right judgment of men by their power of jurisdiction maintaining truth and suppressing errour may be wanting in the Church and that sometimes almost al may conspire against the truth or consent to betray the sincerity of the Christian profession yea that most part of those that hold great places of office and dignity in the Church falling into errour or heresie may depart from the soundnesse of the Christian faiths so that truth be maintained by some few and they molested persecuted and traduced as turbulent and seditious men enemies to the common peace of the Christian world thus Field Which doctrine if we admit as true what authority shal we leaue to the Fathers workes wil not a possibility of errour followe in them al it cannot be denied but I need not dispute any longer of this matter for Field himselfe of these his three rules of beliefe vvriteth thus Field book 4. cap. 14. These three latter rules of our faith saith he we admit not because they are equal with the former and originally in themselues containe the direction of faith but because nothing can be deliuered with such and so ful consent of the people of God as in them is expressed but it must needes he from those authours and founders of our Christian profession Hitherto Field in which words he expresly graunteth that these rules originally in themselues are no directions of faith And truly although we could not ouerthrowe them by his owne sayings this only vvould suffice according to the Protestant groundes to proue them to haue no diuine or infallible authority that he bringeth no one sentence of scripture or other proofe for their truth but only this bare reason that nothing can be delivered with such ful consent but it must needs be from the founders of Christianity For if that be thought or affirmed possible vvhich he deemeth impossible vvhat force or strength wil be left to his rules but euerie man may also perceiue that if we admit his assertions euen nowe related concerning the error of the Church and her Prelats we must needes also graunt that it may be al the Fathers haue conspired in errour For if al the Fathers of the present Church at any time yea although assembled in a general Councel may and that in matters of greatest consequence as he saith erre Field book 4. chap. 5. and 12. who seeth not that it is a thing possible that in al ages they haue al erred This notwithstanding let vs nowe looke a litle into the vvordes themselues of these three last rules and behold concerning what articles of beliefe they are as also what conditions are required in them as necessary to this that out of the Fathers workes according to Fields opinion vve may gather any article of faith The first of them which is the fift in order as the words themselues tel vs requireth that the matter belong to the substāce of our faith by which words he doth abridge and limit the authority of the Fathers to be of force according to this rule onlie concerning certaine principal articles by him set downe vvhich euery man as he saith is bound expresly to knowe and beleeue He prescribeth also in this rule that the consent be general that is not only of al that haue written of that matter but of al that haue left any monuments of learning to their posterity that al make expresse mention of it and without contradiction of any other and that this is his minde he plainly declareth in the second and fift chapter before But what errour or heresie is there which contentious persons either wil not deny to pertaine to the substance of our faith or that al the monuments of antiquity doe positiuely contradict or which Heretikes cannot confirme by some or at the least by one sentence of some auncient writer Verilie if they drawe and pul the holie scriptures in such sort to their priuate fantasies that no sect wil be perswaded but that they fauor the false opinions in it maintained much more may they deale so with the writings of their predecessors which be farre more in number and not also penned as the scriptures are by diuine inspiration The second rule of the three last if M. Field wil not haue it to contradict that which I haue added at the end of them out of the second chapter before must he vnderstood according to it and then how vncertaine it is I wil euen nowe declare but if vve take it as the wordes sound it cannot be vniuersal for the decisions of al points at the least in the judgment of al men for al matters are not deliuered as matters of faith constantly vniformly by the most famous Christian writers and that without contradiction yea a man of a peruerse humour although in very deede it were so yet by wresting and false vnderstanding of ssuch authors would make appearance of the contrary The last may be confuted as insufficient of it selfe for the same reasons for it requireth that the point be of the substance of faith c. The addition out of the second chapter requireth vniuersal practise and necessarie and euident deduction out of the scripture or the rule of faith and as it seemeth that it be a matter of substance that in euerie age some be found to haue written of it c. which be things intricate not easily to be proued in euery matter cōtrouersed But to make al these rules more obscure he addeth in the fift chapter that the writings of the ancient may be much corrupted so that the consent of antiquity cannot alwaies easily be knowne Field book 4. cap. 5. Vincent Liriuens cap. 39. yet saith he there wil be euer some meanes to finde out and descry the errours and frauds of the corrupters And so he affirmeth himselfe to vnderstand that of Vincentius Lirinensis that the judgment of antiquity is to be sought out at the very first rising of heresies not afterwards when they are growne inueterate for that then they wil corrupt the monuments of antiquity Finallie these three rules are not sufficient to direct any man whatsoeuer whether learned or vnlearned to an infallible truth in al articles of faith for seing that euerie priuate man yea the whole visible present Church is subject to errour and al her greatest Prelates to heresie according to the doctrine of M. Field one man cannot build his faith vpon anothers judgement no not vpon the judgement of the whole present visible Church wherefore if we proceed according to M. Fields rules it is not sufficient to cause true faith in vs that others tel vs that the Fathers and writers of former ages say this and that but we must our selues read ouer the workes of al such Fathers and authors And how can the vnlearned doe this Yea if a man be neuer so learned he cannot doe it although he doe nothing else but read al the daies of his
it vsed the vvord congregation but in the later editions since that they began to haue a certaine forme of a Church this fault is amended Secondly to make weake the authority of Traditions vvheresoeuer in the Scripture speach is of euill Traditions they translate the Greeke vvord truly Traditions but when mention is of Apostolike Traditions they cannot endure this vvord but force the same Greeke vvord to signifie ordinances instructions preachings or institutions yea they translate Tradition in il part vvhere it is not found in the Greeke For example the Apostle saith Colos 2. vers 20. according to the Greeke Why doe you yet decree They translate Why are you yet ledde with traditions and in an other edition Bible 1600. 1595. Why are you yet burthened with traditions Thirdly against the honour of Images they translate the Greeke vvord vvhich signifieth Idolatrie and an Idolater worshipping of images and a worshipper of Images 2. Cor. 6 16. Coloss 3. v. 5. Ephes 5 5. Bible 1577. 1. Cor. 10. Bible 1562. thus they make the Apostle say Howe agreeth the Temple of God with Images couetousnesse is worshipping of Images bee not worshippers of Images c. I adde also that sometimes vvhen neither the vvord Idol nor Image is to be found in the text they thrust it in by force as Rom. 11. vers 4. in steede of Baal they translate Baals Image also 2. Paral. 36. ver 8. they adde these wordes carued Images which were laid to their charge to the text But al these faults are amended in the later editions Bible 1595. Gen. 1. v. 27. Exod. 25.3 Reg. 6. c. and not vvithout cause for if euery Image be an Idol and euery Idol an Image we may say that God created man according to his Idol we may cal such Images as were vsed in the old lawe Idols and finally tearme the Image or Picture of a man the Idol of a man vvhich kinde of speach is not tollerable Fourthly against Purgatory Limbus Patrum and the descent of Christ into hel they make the Hebrewe and Greeke vvordes vvhich signifie hel signifie graue as for example vvith Beza they read Act. 2. vers 27. Thou shalt not leaue my soule in the graue Psal 15. v. 10 Bible 1600. Bible 1595. 1600. See Parkes in his Apologie concerning Christs descēt into hel in his ans to Lim bomast printed an 1607 According to their account Psal 86.49 89 this likewise is corrected in the Bible of the yeare 1595. Also Gen. 37. v. 35. they make the Patriarke Iacob say I wil goe downe into the graue to my Sonne mourning vvhereas in like sort the Hebrewe and Greeke vvord signifieth hel and it is manifest that he could not thinke it possible that he should goe downe into the graue to his Sonne because he thought him deuoured of vvilde beastes not buried The same corruption is sound in diuers other places as Psalm 86. v. 13. vvhere they reade a Bible 1579. 1600. corrected in the Bible of the yeare 1595. Thou hast deliuered my soule from the lowest graue Psal 48. vers 15. vvhere they reade thou shalt deliuer my soule from the power of the graue Osee 13. vers 14. where they reade O graue I wil be thy destruction and in sundrie other places this notwithstanding in b See other such corruptions as these are recited and sharply reprehended by Carlile a man of the English Church in his booke that Christ went not downe into hel fol. 144. other places as Prouerb 15. ver 24. c. vvhere speach is of the hel of the damned they translate the same vvord hel Fiftly to bereaue the Saints of their honour vvhich from mortal men is due vnto them they falsly translate the 17. verse of the 138. Psalm For vvhereas we reade Thy friendes O God are become exceeding honourable their Princedome is exceedingly strengthned They turne it thus Bible 1595. Psal 138. Howe deare therefore are thy Councels vnto me O God O howe great is the summe of them But the Hebrewe maketh for our translation as euery man that vnderstandeth that tongue may see especially by the last vvordes vvhich vvord for vvord are thus to be translated Howe are the heades or Princedomes of them strengthned Againe Hebr. 11. vers 21. according to the Greeke vve reade by faith Iacob dying blessed euery one of the Sonnes of Ioseph and adored the toppe of his rodde Bible 1600. some thing better in the Bible 1595. Luke 1. v. 28. Bible 1600. 1595. They translate the last vvordes thus and leaning on the end of his staffe worshipped God In which translation they adde two vvordes to the text leaning and God and turne the sense vpsi-downe I adde also their translation of those vvordes Haile ful of grace for vvhich they reade Haile thou that art freely beloued and Haile thou that art in high fauour SECTION THE FIFT Of their corruptions against inherent Iustice Iustification by good workes Merit of good workes and keeping the Commandements and in defence of their special Faith vaine Security c. and against Freewil and Merits TO proue their imputatiue justice against inherent justice first vvhereas the Apostle saith Rom. 5. vers 18. Therefore as the offence of one vnto al men to condemnation so also by the justice of one vnto al men to justification of life Bible 1595. worse in the Bible 1600. they reade thus Likewise then as by the sinne of one sinne came on al men to condemnation euen so by the righteousnesse of one good came vpon al men to the righteousnesse of life In vvhich their translation they adde foure vvordes to the text of the Apostle to make him seeme to say that al men be truly sinners and none truly just but so reputed Ephes 1. vers 6. for gratified they reade Bible 1600. made accepted Luke 1. vers 28. for ful of grace they translate freely beloued and in high fauour Dan. 6. vers 22. vvhereas Daniel according to the Chaldee Greeke and Latin said Iustice was found in me they make him say Bible 1600. 1595. my justice or vnguiltinesse according to an other translation was found out before him The like corruption may be seene 2. Cor. 5. vers 21. To proue that good workes done in state of grace concurre not to our justification and that vve reape no grace by obseruing of the Commandements vvhereas the Scripture to signifie the Commandements of God vseth in diuers places the vvord justifications and justices because the keeping of the Commandements is justification and justice and the Greeke vvord is alwaies correspondent to the same they neuerthelesse in al such places suppresse the very name of justification and vse the vvordes ordinances or statutes Bible 1595. 1600. as may be seene in the Psalm 118. in diuers verses Luke 1. vers 6. Rom. 2. vers 26. c. To this end also they auoide in their translations the vvord just and cal a just
ground of Christian religion and that their Bibles truly containe the said letter both which propositions I haue already proued to be most false yet that they build not vpon that letter which is contained in their owne Bibles And first let vs declare that the propositions and articles of their beliefe in vvhich they dissent from vs are not in expresse tearmes contained in their said letter yea that their said letter maketh more for our doctrine then for theirs and out of this gather that they build vpon their owne priuate deductions out of the letter not vpon the letter it selfe vvhich maketh more for vs then for them Where finde they then in their vvord of God as they tearme it this proposition vvhich is as they say the very ground of their religion to vvit a man is justified by faith only except it be in Luthers Bible vvho cogged into the text the vvord only as I haue shewed before We finde this in their common bookes Rom. 8. v. 24. Iam. 2. v. 24. Bible 1592. We are saued by hope and that of workes or deedes a man is justified and not of faith only Where is it found that the faith which vvorketh our justification is that by vvhich a man without al doubt beleeueth him selfe through the passion of Christ to be just and in state of saluation vve finde in diuers places as I haue proued aboue that the faith vvhich worketh this effect is that by vvhich vve beleeue the articles of our Creede and the misteries of Christian religion Where reade they that their faith ought to make them secure of their saluation vve reade in their owne bookes Phil. 3. v. 12. Bible 1595. that we ought to worke out our saluation with feare and trembling 1. Cor. 10 12. and that he that thinketh himselfe to stand must take heede least he fal Where doth the Scripture tel vs that the Commandements of God are impossible Our Sauiour telleth vs Math. 11 30. 1. Ioh. 5. v. 3. that his yoke is easie and his burthen light and S. Iohn that his commandements are not grieuous they should say not heauy Where is it affirmed in their vvord of God that the Eucharist is only a figure of the body of Christ Math. 26. v. 26.28 c. we finde that it is his body and bloud Where are vve taught that we receiue the body and bloud of Christ only spiritually Christ hath taught vs that his flesh is meate indeede Iohn 6. v. 55. Iohn 20. v. 23 and his bloud is drinke indeede Where finde they that Priests cannot forgiue sinnes vve finde that whose sinnes soeuer they remit they are remitted vnto them Where reade they that good vvorkes done in the state of grace are not meritorious vve reade Math. 16 27 Math. 25 34 that Christ on the latter day shal reward euery man according to his workes and that then he wil bestow vpon the elect the Kingdome of heauen for feeding the hungrie giuing drinke to the thirsty and doing other vvorkes of mercy Where is it affirmed that infants borne of Christian parents may be saued vvithout Baptisme vve can shewe that Christ himselfe hath pronounced this sentence Iohn 3. ver 5. except a man be borne of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of heauen Howe can they proue that the vsual forme of Baptisme is not necessary Luther in Sinops col act 7 De captiuit Babylon c. de bapt Zwing l. de vera falsa relig ca. de bapt Brēt in catechis c. de bapt as Luther Zwinglius and Brentius imagine Our Sauiour as vve are taught by S. Mathewe commanded his Apostles to a Mat. 28 19 baptize al nations In the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost Where is it said that Marriage is better then Virginity vve reade that b 1. Cor. 7 38 he that giueth his daughter in marriage doth wel but he that giueth her not in marriage doth better Where are they taught that vve ought not to vvorshippe Saints and Angels nor to pray vnto them The Scripture telleth vs that c Iosuae 5 14. Iosue and d Apocal. 19 10. c. 22 v. 8. S. Iohn Euangelist adored Angels Yea the last of these two did this honour to an Angel although forbidden before to doe it by an Angel vvhich is a manifest proof that such reuerence was due vnto the Angel although he refused it from S. Iohn vvhome he thought equal to himselfe It is also recorded in the Scripture that the e Gen. 48 16. Patriarke Iacob praied vnto an Angel Where are vve forbidden to haue Images in our Churches or to doe them any reuerence We finde that two Images of Cherubins f Exo. 25 18. c. c. 37 v. 7. by Gods Commaundement vvere placed neare the arke in the chiefest place of the tabernacle That Salomon in like sort placed two Cherubins in the most sacred part of the temple 3. or 1. of Kings cap. 6 23. Ib. v. 29. Act. 5. v. 13. and that he made pictures of Cherubins so they reade in the Bible of the yeare 1595. in the wales of the house or temple round about and that the shadowe of S. Peter which was after a sort his picture cured the sicke We also finde that the Iewes a Psal 98. or 99. v. 5 psal 131. or 132 7 adored the foote-stoole of God that is to say the arke of the old Testament and that Moises by the b Exod. 3 5. commandement of God Iosue of an c Iosuae 5 15. Angel put off their shooes because the ground on which they stood through the presence of God and an Angel was holy and consequentlie they did reuerence to the said ground Where is honor denied to Saints reliques It it affirmed in holy writ 4. or 2. Reg. cap. 13. v. 21. Math. 9 20. Act. 19. v. 12 that a dead man vvas raised to life by touching the dead bones of Elizeus the Prophet that a woman was cured of an issue of bloud by touching the hemme of of our Sauiours garment and that napkins and hand-kerchefs or d Bible 1595 partlets as they translate vvhich had touched S. Pauls body wrought miracles Finally where are they taught that temporal Princes lawes binde no mans conscience Luther in 1. Pet. c. 2. Caluin l. 1. Instit c. 19. §. 16. li. 4. c. 10. §. 15. as it is auerred by Luther and Caluin We learne of S. Paul that e Rom. 13 5. Bible 1595. vve ought to be subject vnto such Magistrates not only for feare of punishment but also because of conscience I could adde the like discourse concerning other matters in controuersie betweene vs and the newe Sectaries but I should be ouer tedious and besides I doubt not but that which hath beene already said in this Section is fully sufficient to perswade euery indifferent man that the articles vvhich our aduersaries tearme
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
al points appertaining to faith and religion She is finally the ship and skilful pilot which throughout al the stormes and tempests of Schismes and Heresies vvil guide vs vvithout errour to the porte of euerlasting saluation and make vs fit stones to be placed euerlastingly in the triumphant Church of God in heauen FINIS AN APPENDIX TO THIS TREATISE CONTAINING A BRIEFE CONFVTATION OF A BOOKE PVBLISHED IN THE YEARE M. D.C.VI BY WILLIAM CRASHAW bearing this title Romish forgeries and falfifications c. IF al vvere true which is objected by newe sectaries against the one true Spouse of Christ the Catholike Church al men endued vvith reason might according to reason prudently meruaile that any man of common sense doth follow her doctrine or embrace her communion Luther exclaimeth against her children that they make the Virgin Mary a * Luther ad Euangeliū d◠festo Annunciationis Goddesse giuing her omnipotency both in heauen and earth Caluin a Caluin book 3. Instit c. 20 §. 22. l. de necessit reformand Eccles that they giue the worship of God vnto Saints and honour them and their relikes in place of Christ Luther againe b Luth. ad c. 50. Genes in colloq Germ. c. de Christo that they deny justification and saluation through Christes passion and merits Caluin c Caluin book 3. Instit cap. 20. §. 21. that in their Litanies Hymnes and Proses there is no mention of Christ yea that for the most part Christ being passed ouer God is praied to by the names of Saints Luther moreouer d Luther ad l. Ducis Georgij scripsit an 1533. l. de abrogat Missae priuatae that they hold a man may keepe the Commandements without the grace of God Caluin that they e Caluin booke 1. Instit ch 11. §. 9. and 10. giue Idolatrous worship vnto Images Luther also that f Luther l. de Ecclesia the Pope buried the Scripture in dirt and dust Caluin g Caluin booke 4. Instit ch 9. §. 24. in antid Concil Triden sess 7. Canon 1◠that they make the oracles of God subject vnto men and that they esteeme more in baptisme of chrisme salt and such other thinges then of the washing with water Luther finally h Luther lib. de Concilijs that they giue to Councels authority to make newe articles of faith and change the old Caluin that they giue the Pope authority to institute new Sacraments and that the Popes hold there is no God Caluin alij passim in 2. Thessal 2 4. Caluin Instit booke 4. chap. 7. §. 27. that al thinges written and taught of Christ are lies and deceits that the doctrine concerning the future life and the last resurrection are meere fables These and diuers other such monstrous vntruthes are forged by our aduersaries against vs and this course they are constrained to take that they may haue something to impugne For if they should plainely and sincerely deliuer vvhat we hold the force and brightnesse of truth it selfe would easily at her only sight weaken yea ouerthrowe al their impugnations And like as the first beginners of the new religion ranne these vnconscionable I may say shameful courses so their successors alwaies haue continued in the same and euen those of our daies obstinately refusing to accept of any reasonable answere or to vnderstand the truth insist in the steps of their predecessors For vvhereas if they were but indifferent they might wel perceiue that vve vvhome neither feare of death nor infamy and disgrace nor losse of liberty liuing and worldly goodes can moue to doe one act contrary to our religion wil not for al the world denie any one article of our faith Yet notwithstanding although we denie their false slaunders neuer so much yet they vvil needes haue vs to hold them as they say vvhether vve vvil or no. Diuers impute vnto vs daily strange paradoxes in matters of faith But among others one William Crashaw Anno 1606. In the Epistle Dedicatory hath not long since published a booke accusing vs of an horrible matter of fact to wit of the crime of corruption and forgery in the highest degree so are his wordes His said booke beareth this title Romish forgeries and falsifications together with Catholike restitutions By reading of the contents of it he that is not learned and acquainted with their dealings may easily be drawne and perswaded not only to condemne vs as notable corrupters and forgers but further to imagine that we in former ages haue corrupted al the Fathers workes and consequently inferre that their testimonies can yeeld vs no firme ground vvhereon to build our faith Crash in his preface to the reader §. see what see also § wil these men contrary to that which hath beene said in this Treatise Nay Crashaw himselfe doth not only affirme that they haue cause to suspect that we haue so dealt with the Fathers because we haue not spared as he saith some as ancient as some fathers but also auerreth that it wil be proued to the worlds view that we * §. But whē haue de facto corrupted almost al antiquity in so much that no man can tel what ground to stand vpon either for Councels Fathers decrees or mens writings And he addeth § To end this point that he doth not doubt but ere long God wil raise vp some instruments of his glory who shal fully discouer to the world this treachery of the Romish Church by making it as apparent they haue corrupted the Fathers as I hope saith he to doe in this and the bookes ensuing that they haue corrupted al such late writers as they imagined any way to make against them Thus Crashaw For the resolution of which his false imputation as also for clearing of our present practise which may seeme to some to tend towardes the ouerthrow of the authority of antiquity I thinke it not amisse to spend some fewe lines in prouing these three points First that our practise in correcting of bookes reprehended by Crashaw is prudent and laudable Secondly that our aduersaries if we offend in this are much more to be condemned for the like proceedings in the same kinde Lastly that the Fathers vvorkes are sincere and free from al corruption To declare the first I must first giue my reader to vnderstand that the Church of Christ nowe hath and euer hath had authority to censure and condemne al such bookes as are published and containe thinges any vvaies opposite to the truth of her faith and religion This first appeareth because she is supreame judge on earth of al controuersies arising touching faith and religion and hath jurisdiction ouer euery Christian from which it proceedeth that she condemneth heresies and Heretikes wherefore it cannot be denied but she hath also authority to condemne the works of any Heretike or other person vvhatsoeuer containing heresies or errours opposite to her faith For much more it is to condemne
held at Altenburge accuse one another for corrupting and falsifying the Confession of Ausburge which is the very ground next vnto the holy Scripture of their faith and religion Colloquium Altenberg fol. 402. The former copies or examplars say they haue not the true and sincere confession of Ausburge For there is another substituted or put in the place of it which was neither exhibited at Ausburge or euer approued by the states of the Confession of Ausburge Thus they And vpon the corruption of this Confession and of an other booke called Corpus doctrinae containing this and other treatesies arose great discord and dissention among them vvhich is not yet ended for no man almost can tel vvhich be the true bookes But what dissention was there among them in the same conference touching Luthers vvorkes corrupted verily the zealous Lutherans complaine after this sort * See 2. respoÌ„s ad Hipothes fol. 284. 290 353. 355. 441. 442. 443. 526. The Diuines of the Prince Elector who were also Lutherans doe most filthily and beyond al measure depraue Luthers writings so as since Luthers death there haue not beene more foule corrupters of Luthers bookes Thus they and this fault each side doth most often object to the other in most spiteful tearmes a Ibid. Saxon. in respons discessu fol. 539. 540. Last of al a promisse is made that the Duke of Saxony vvil cause Luthers workes to be printed vvithout corruption And thus much of the Lutherans whome M. Crashaw I hope with the Apology of the Church of England wil acknowledge to be his bretheren Nowe let vs behold the dealing of the Sacramentaries vvho are more properly of his faith and religion And first let vs looke towardes Geneua a City most famous for vpholding this sect What then shal vve there finde for our purpose Verily Westphalus a Lutheran accuseth the Caluinists euen of this very place that they haue corrupted Luthers vvorkes for thus he complaineth I maruaile much that Caluin keeping such adoe about this one word could not see the most filthy mutations and corruptions of the diuine commentary of Doctor Luther vpon the Epistle to the Galatians and translated into French and printed at Geneua In one place some wordes are taken away in an other many moe somewhere whole Paragraphs are lopt off in the exposition of the sixt Chapter two pages and a halfe are left out c. at other times they haue put in vvordes such as pleased them And that this was done at Geneua without Caluins knowledge it is not very likely Thus Westphalus But let vs heare an other man of more credit among English Protestants make the like complaint that by the testimony of two witnesses they may be proued falsifiers M. Morton a famous Protestant writer of this realme nowe liuing set forth in London in the yeare 1605. the first part of his vvorke called by him a Catholike Apologie But what did they of Geneua They printed againe the said booke in their City putting the name of London to it as though it had beene there printed and disliking a certaine answere by him made in defence of Beza they put that out and vvithout any more adoe in place of it added an other of their owne This I proue out of M. Mortons owne wordes vvho in certaine animaduersions vpon this first part printed at the end of the second part published at London in the same yeare speaking of the same matter complaineth thus C. 21. in calumnia 5. Noua impressio Londini dicta ver'e Geneuae facta totum responsum meum pro Beza penitus expunxit responsum suum assuit prob hominum fidem doleo equidem tantam cum scriptis meis injuriam factam esse tum etiam proelo Geneuensi tantam corruptelae labem contractam A newe impression said to be at London truly made at Geneua put out altogether my whole answere for Beza and patched in their owne O the faith or falsehood of men verity I am sorry both that such an injury is offered to my workes and also that the print of Geneua is stained with such a blot of corruption or deprauing Thus Morton What wil M. Crashaw say to this vvho are nowe more to be blamed in this kinde vve who correct books by publike authority receiued from a general councel and that publikely making our action knowne to the vvhole world in print or these his bretheren who secretly and as it were in corners get other mens workes corrupt them and then set them forth to the viewe of the world as though nothing had beene altered And this is no old matter but a thing done within these two or three yeares I come nowe nearer home Anno 1606. This last yeare vvas published a booke in our language with this title A Manuel or brief volume of controuersies of religion betweene the Protestants and the Papists written in Latin by Lucas Osiander and nowe Englished with some additions and corrections But howe doth the translator mangle and teare the poore booke Verily whereas the author of it being a Lutheran and a mortal enemie of the Sacramentaries for he hath published the like booke against them speaketh as a Lutheran he maketh him speake like vnto a good Sacramentary Hence whereas he hath these vvordes in Latin Chapt. 15. Alius enim modus a Paulo nobis monstratur nimirum communicationis For an other manner of Christs being in the Eucharist is shewed vs by Paul to wit by communication He meaneth that Christ is there really and substantially together with bread The English man translateth thus Chapt. 15. pag. 265. For it was in the Sacrament by sacramental relation and vnion and receiued of the beleeuers spiritually by faith Againe whereas the Latin is thus Ergo veré est corpus Christi cum pane visibili Therefore there is truly in the supper the body of Christ with visible bread In English he saith thus Ibid. pa. 266. There is Christs body but not after a natural manner of being by transubstantiation but after a spiritual by faith and sacramental vnion Finally Osiander in Latin vseth these wordes Nos quidem ipsum Christum qui est in Eucharistia spiritualiter adorandum non negamus Ipsam vere Eucharistiam adorandam minime concedimus We truly denie not but Christ himselfe who is in the Eucharist is spiritually to be adored But we grant not that the Eucharist it selfe is to be adored The English translator turneth it thus We say the Eucharist is to be reuerenced as an holy mistery but not to be adored or worshipped And diuers other such corrections or rather corruptions occurre euery foote in his English booke Diuers other such like examples there are which conuince the Sacramentaries to be guilty of this crime which for brâ—uities sake I omit Only I adde that this is no newe vice in them but an old and inueterated euil For if vve beleeue Luther such vvere their proceedings euen at their first
such instructions as are giuen he saith And such thinges as doe require correction or purgation are these And then he beginneth to rehearse what our Index willeth to be corrected but so falsely as he may be very wel ashamed of his dealing For vvhereas the instruction commandeth that al thinges that taste of superstion witchcraft or diuination be rejected likewise that al be blotted out that make mans free-wil subject to destiny false or deceitful signes or Ethnicke fortune and that such thinges as sauour of Paganisme be abolished that jests or merry conceits quips tossed to the hurt or prejudice of the fame and credit of others be abandoned that thinges wanton and dishonest which may corrupt good manners be remoued finally that vnseemely and dishonest pictures be defaced he leaueth out al this and that vvithout al doubt to make his reader beleeue that vve correct bookes for no other matters but to make them agree vvith vs in religion And to this end it may be imagined that before he left out the seauenth and ninth rule wholy which are against wanton bookes bookes of Chiromancy Nicromancy c. And vvhat false and vnconscionable dealing is this Verily this were a foule fault in any man but in M. Crashaw who taketh vpon him vnjustly to censure others for the like proceedinges This is intollerable and no man can doe lesse according to his owne grounds then condemne him of corruption and forgery in the highest degree Relatiō of the state of religion vsed in the Westerne parts §. 36. printed anno 1605. writen as is said by Sir Edwine Sans. Verily a certaine Protestant trauailer reporteth that we haue our seueral offices for purging the world from the infection of al the wicked and corrupt bookes and passages which are either against honesty or good manners who indeed saith he blot out much impiousnesse and filth and therein deserue to be commended and imitated And thus I thinke I haue sufficiently proued that our aduersaries are rather to be pronounced guilty of such crimes as Crashaw imposeth vpon vs concerning corruption of books then we Touching our prohibition of certaine bookes I adde only that in like manner as we forbidde their bookes and suffer them not to be read of al sorts so they forbid ours as their statutes testifie and for this also are more to be blamed then we that our bookes forbidden by them maintaine and defend an old religion taught and left vs by our forefathers theirs forbidden by vs a new deuised in this last age by Luther Carolostadius Zwinglius Caluin and such companions I wil dispatch the last point in fewe wordes wherefore to proue that the Fathers are not by vs corrupted I bring these three briefe reasons First this our practise of making such Indices expurgatorij hath beene but very late as Crashaw himselfe confesseth in those his wordes Long was the mother Church of Rome in breeding her Indices expurgatorios at last shee brought them out Crashaw in the begīning of his preface to the reader or rather some politike Iesuites conceiued them the Fathers of Trent bare them and the Pope brought them out thus Crashaw Out of which it is manifest that we vsed no such Indices before the Councel of Trent And hence proceedeth an other reason to wit that there was neuer any general rule or order set downe by the Church for correcting any one Fathers workes this is manifest because had the Church taken order for any such matters there can be no doubt made but such sentences also as fauour Millinarisme Arianisme Donatisme Nestorianisme and other such like heresies vvhich in those daies opposed themselues against the Church had beene put out rather then such as our aduersaries pretend made for them seing that we can finde no recordes that any of their sort opposed themselues in those times against vs. Further the art of printing bookes vvas vnknowne at the least to our part of the vvorld before the yeare of our Lord 1440. as al histories of that age testifie wherefore the workes of the Fathers before those daies were written by diuers persons and in diuers places by diuers men that knewe not vvhat one another did which copies are yet extant Of which I inferre that except some general rule for al had beene prescribed it had beene impossible that they should haue al conspired to haue corrupted the Fathers by adding or detracting the selfe same wordes and yet neuerthelesse we see that al the written copies of the Fathers workes agree conteine the same sentences much lesse could we haue corrupted the Fathers workes if those of our side were only a faction and diuers in faith agreeing vvith our aduersaries who alwaies opposed themselues against vs or at the least secretly retained their belief as Field affirmeth Field booke 3 of the Church chap. 6. 7. 8. for then it is like that some of them preserued the Fathers workes from corruption Finally this openeth the way to the Zwenckfeldians Libertines who reject al Scriptures for of the corruption of the Fathers a man may wel inferre the corruption also of them neither can these by better reason be freed from such an imputation then those But here some man vvil occurre and say Perkins in Problem praepar ad demonst in Ciprian pa. 14. that it is a matter manifest that we haue corrupted S. Ciprians booke of the vnity of the Church to establish the Popes supreamacy and for the proof of this he vvil alleage that which M. Thomas Iames hath vvritten in his * Catalog Ox onio Cantabrig lib. 2. pag. 176. Catalogue of the Manu-script bookes of the vniuersities of Oxford and Cambridge to vvit that there are foure Manu-script copies of S. Ciprians workes in the Libraries of these vniuersities in vvhich certaine sentences are not found especially such as make for the Popes supreamacy vvhich are to be seene in al printed copies of this booke Of which he inferreth that it is like that we haue corrupted the said booke and that according to our corruption it is corruptly printed I answere briefly first that although we should graunt this to be true which Iames saith that such Manuscript copies are found which neuerthelesse I wil not beleeue except I see or heare it better proued yet of this it cannot be inferred that the works of S. Ciprian are corruptly printed first because more credit is to be giuen to al the Manu-script copies throughout the world which without doubt be some hundreds then to these foure And that al others agree with the printed booke it seemeth euident by diuers reasons but principally because no man euer before noted any such diuersity yet it is probable that the Protestants themselues vvho as Iames doth graunt haue printed his workes would haue noted it if there had beene any such matter found in the manu-script copies of the country where his booke was published by them Nay farther Centuriator 3. cap. 4. colum 84.