yeare of his raigne seemeth principally to condemne the Sacramentaries vvho denie the real presence wherefore Lutheranisme then seemed to preuaile Communion also vnder one kind in time of necessity is in it approued By another lawe inacted in the second yeare of the said King Zwinglianisme was set vp An. 2. Edwardi vi cap. 1. and a booke of common praier allowed and established as the said act pretendeth not only according to the most sincere and pure Christian religion taught by the Scriptures but also according to the vsages of the primatiue Church Which booke notwithstanding hath beene thrice reuiewed and altered and stil according to the selfe fame vvord of God once in the same King Edwards daies secondly by the direction of Queene Elizabeth and lastly by his Majesty that nowe raigneth See the booke of coÌ„moÌ„ praier turned into latin by Thomas Vautrollerus printed at LoÌ„don an 1574. cuÌ„ priuilegio Regiae Majestatis touching priuate baptisme administred in houses by lay-meÌ„ or women as also some others printed in English before the last corrected by his Majesty who now raigneth and conferre them with the said last corrected And yet it is much disliked by the Puritans and censured to be contrary to the said word And like as their booke of common praier hath beene altered so also haue their opinions concerning some points of religion as I could easily shewe if time suffered me If any man be desirous to behold the like proceeding among our Puritans let him read the Suruey of their religion If I should descend to the inconstancy of particular men of our English nation I should neuer make an end yet one example I wil not omit which is as followeth During the raigne of Queene Mary a Catholike Prince diuers sectaries from hence fledde to Geneua and there in the yeare 1558. printed sundry bookes in vvhich by diuers testimonies of holy Scripture they endeauoured â—o proue the gouernement of women euen in temporal matters to be monstrous vnnatural against the lawe of God and man and therefore not to be suffered But the next yeare following Queene Elizabeth coÌ„ming to the crowne the same men found it agreeable to al Scripture and al lawes that a vvoman might haue supreame authority in thinges also spiritual and be supreame head of the Church And doe al our aduersaries acknowledge this their leuity as a fault verily no Yea Caluin approueth it and indeauoureth to defend it from al suspition of a vice Thus he discourseth * Caluin de scandalis pag. 135. Many complaine that they are scandalized that they sawe not al thinges together in the same moment that so hard a worke was not throughly and perfectly polished the first day Howe importune and out of season these delicacies are who seeth not for they doe as if a man should accuse vs that at the first breaking of the day we see not as yet the Sunne shining at noone day And soone after There is nothing more common then these complaints wherefore was not that which we ought to followe presently exactly prescribed vnto vs wherefore did this lie hidden more then other thinges wil there be at the length any end if it shal be permitted euer nowe and then to goe further Certainely they that speake after this sort either enuy the profit of the seruants of God or are sorry that the Kingdome of Christ is promoted to the better Hitherto are Caluins wordes Concerning the same matter in another place he hath this censure Caluin admonit 3. ad Westphalum A lawe ouer hard saith he is prescribed to learned men if after a proofe of their wit and learning published it may not be lawful to them to profit any thing during their life Thus Caluin In which his discourses he doth not only confesse himselfe and his bretheren to haue beene inconstant but also seeketh a defence of this inconstancy But howe absurdly he reasoneth euery man of sense may easily perceiue for our Christian faith and religion depend not as he seemeth here to imagine vpon the wit and learning of any man neither is it lawful for any man be he neuer so vvise or learned to cal any one article by any meanes into doubt for al the articles of our faith are reuealed by God who is truth it selfe But Caluin here plainely granteth that he and his fellowes build their beliefe vpon their owne fancies and judgements not vpon any certaine and infallible ground and consequently that they varie and alter the same according to their progresse in learning and other motiues of their vnderstanding like as Philosophers doe their opinions concerning matters of philosophy indifferent and doubtful And this is the principal ground of our aduersaries inconstancy Some other causes there may be assigned why they are inconstant to wit that some of them make their temporal Princes their absolute guides and immediate heades in Ecclesiastical matters wherefore as often as vpon any consideration of pollicy or any other respect the Prince changeth his minde so often also is religion altered But whether this alteration in any man proceedeth from the authority of the Prince or the judgement of the learned or any other such cause certaine it is that it argueth and proueth no certaine foundation of faith to be in him that so changeth And besides this he doth also approue this or that belief or religion because for some one or other respect it pleaseth his owne fancy And like as these sectaries so vvere al the ancient Heretikes inconstant especially the Arians Socrates lib. 2. hist ca. 32. who as Socrates reporteth altered their Creede or forme of beliefe no lesse then tenne times Hence it proceedeth that none of these newe sectaries can euer be certaine that they haue attained to the truth and of this their inconstancy is a most manifest argument For I thinke that euery one of them that haue changed his beliefe vvil easily graunt that once he liued in errour And it must be confessed that euery one altering condemneth his former faith vvhich if it be so howe can such men certainely knowe that they are not in errour stil vvhat warrant haue they after their change more then they had before But besides this reason euery one of them hath other motiues to make him vncertaine of the truth of his owne religion to wit that the most learned of his company Luther Zwinglius Caluin and the rest haue erred and consequently that he also may erre that as wise and as learned men as he is himselfe censure his beliefe to be false and erroneous c. He that is vnlearned may also consider that if he build vpon the judgement of the learned he cannot possibly assure himselfe that they doe not erre yea seing that euery one of them affirmeth his doctrine to be true and yet they disagree in faith he may wel assure himselfe that some of them doe erre for contraries cannot both be true And howe can he certainely judge who
Luke Libr. 1. Machab cap. 6. li. 2. c. 1. et 9. item l. 1. c. 4. lib. 2. ca◠impugne the authoritie of the books of the Machabees because as they say they finde in them contractiōs concerning the death of Autiochus Illustris the purgation of the temple made by Iudas Machabeus c. The like arguments they bring against the books of Tobie Iudith and others which if we admit wherefore may not some person of an Atheistical humour by the same manner of arguing deny and reject most of the Canonical books contained in the Bible As for example the booke of Genesis because in the first chapter of it vve reade Gen. 1. v. 14. that the sunne and moone by which daies nights and yeares are also there said to be distinguished were made on the fourth day vvhich seemeth to implie contradiction because if it be so that daies and nightes are diuided by these planets as it is there affirmed and we see by daily experience 2. Reg. 23 11. 1. Par. 11 13. according to the new sect Samuel 2. Chronic. 1.3 Reg. or 1. of Kings 7 15. 2. Par. 3 15. howe could there be three daies and nightes before these planets were made also the second booke of the Kinges or the first of Paralippomenon because that feeld which in the one is said to haue beene ful of lentiles in the other is said to haue beene ful of barley Moreouer the third booke of the Kinges or the second of Paralippomenon because in the first we made that the two great brazen pillers made by Salomon were of thirty eight cubits in length but in the second of Paralippomenon the length of them is said to haue beene thirty fiue cubits yea betweene the newe Tetament and the old and betweene the Euangelistes themselues in the new such contradictions in outward shew may be espied For S. Mathew telleth vs Math. 1 8.4 Reg. 8 24. cap. 11 1. et 2. ca. 12 21. cap. 14 21. that Ioram begat Ozias whereas in the fourth booke of the kings which our aduersaries cal the second it is written that Ioram was father to Ochozias Ochozias to Ioas Ioas to Amasias and Amasias not Ioram to Ozias otherwise called Azarias Luc. 3. v. 36. it is said that Arphaxad was father to Cainan and Cainan to Sale but Genesis 10. vers 34. Arphaxad is said to haue begotten Sale Mathew 1. verse 16. the father of Ioseph our blessed Ladies husband is called Iacob Luke 3.23 Mat. 10 10. Mark 6 8. Mat. 26 34. Luke 22 34. Mat. 26 74. Luke 22 60. Iohn 18 27. Marke 14 30.68 et 71. Mark 15 25. Iohn 19 14. whereas S. Luke nameth him Heli. The same Saint Mathew reporteth that our Sauiour sending his Apostles to preach forbad them to beare a rod or staffe in their hands whereas S. Mark writeth that he bad them take only a rod or staffe Our Sauiour if we beleeue S. Mathew and S. Luke told S. Peter that before the cocke did crowe he should deny him thrice and so it vvas done according to the same Euangelists and S. Iohn But S. Mark reporteth the words of our Sauiour to haue been Before the cock shal crow twice thou shalt thrice deny me and writteh that the cocke did first crowe presently after his first denial and againe after his third The same S. Mark affirmeth that Christ vvas crucified at the third howre but S. Iohn telleth vs that it was about the sixt howre before he was condemned by Pilate Mathew 27. verse 19. Ieremias the prophet is named for Zacharias Adde also that our Sauiour himselfe foretold as S. Mathew writeth that he vvas to be in the hart of the earth three daies and three nights Mat. 12 40. yet euerie man knoweth that he yeelded vp his sacred soule into the hands of his Father about three howres after noone on the friday and rose againe on the sonday morning verie earlie wherefore although we graunt that his soule was in the hart of the earth and his bodie in the graue during part of three daies yet we shal very hardlie finde out three nights Acts 9 7. Neither is S. Luke in the acts of the Apostles altogether free from this shewe of contradiction for albeit in the historie of the conuersion of S. Paul he say that the men that went in company with him to Damascus Act. 20 10. heard the voice of Christ speaking vnto him yet in another place he relateth the wordes of the same Apostle affirming that they heard it not Finally the Apostle S. Paul himselfe whose epistles our aduersaries so highly esteeme seemeth to contradict some parts of the old testament For example he affirmeth Galat. 3. vers 17. that betweene the time of a certaine promise made by God to Abraham Genes 12.13 or 22. and the lawe giuen to Moises there passed foure hundred and thirty yeares whereas it is plainely gathered out of the historie of Genesis that between the time of the said promise and the going of Iacob vvithal his family into Egipt there passed at the least one hundred and threescore of which Iacob not then borne liued about one hundred and thirty Genes 47. vers 9. vnto which if we adde foure hundred and thirty during which the children of Israel remained in Egipt as the expresse word of Exodus chap. 12. vers 40. tel vs and is insinuated Genes 15. vers 23. betweene the aforesaid promise the lawe giuen we shal finde at the least fiue hundred ninetie yeares not only foure hundred and thirty Hebr. 9 4. as S. Paul reckoneth In like sort the same Apostle in his epistle to the Hebrewes seemeth to contradict the third booke of the Kinges vvhich our aduersaries cal the first and the second of Paralippomenon for he affirmeth that in the arke of the old testament was a golden pot hauing Manna the rod of Aaron that had blossomed 3. Reg. 8 9. the tables of the testament But in the books of the old testament alleaged we read that no other thing was in the arke but the tables of the Testament 2. Paral. 5. verse 10. Diuers other such like sentences in words seeming to containe contradictions may be found in these and other bookes of holie scripture which as I haue said may moue Atheists vvith as great reason to impugne the authority of the said bookes as our aduersaries doe by the like arguments the books of Tobie Iudith the Machabees and other by vs receiued and by them rejected Perhaps they wil answere that the seeming cōtradictions which I haue assigned are in very deed no contradictions and that the places in appearance contrarie may verie vvel be reconciled I replie and confesse that in verie truth so it is for al those places by our interpreters are verie wel saued from contrariety and contradiction And it is manifest that the same holy Ghost vvho inspired al the writers of holy scripture cannot contradict himselfe and these
and moreouer that this was Luthers opinion it may be gathered out of f Caluin Instit c. 16. § 19 Caluin and g Whitaker in his answ to Campians 8. reason p. 243. Whitakers Besides this he holdeth that the soules departed out of this vvorld sleepe and are without sense or feeling neither in heauen nor in hel and so shal remaine vntil the day of judgement But of this point of his doctrine see more in the second part of my treatise following I cannot likewise omit his h Luther in serm de Sacram. coenae to 2. f. 112. c. opinion concerning the presence of Christs humane nature in euery place together vvith his diuinity of vvhich proceed these vvordes of Zwinglius vnto him i Zwingl in respōs ad Luther l. de Sacra f. 401. If thou shalt contumaciously goe on in this sentence that the humanity of Christ IESVS is essentially and corporally present wheresoeuer is his diuinity God willing we wil bring thee to those straights that either thou shalt be forced to deny the whole Scripture of the new testament or to acknowledge Marcions heresie This I say in good faith we promise we wil doe thus Zwinglius And by this heresie defended by the Lutherans of his time Caluin k Caluin Instit booke 4. ch 17. §. 16. c. Zwing l. tom 2. ep ad quādam Germaniae ciuitatē fol. 196. lib. de Baptis fol. 63. c. auoucheth that Marcion is raised vp out of hel The Geneuian diuines in the preface to the Harmony of confessions published in the name of the Churches of France and Belgia tearme it that vnhappy monster of vbiquity which if it be admitted say they wil quite ouerthrowe the true doctrine of Christs person and natures But of Luther enough Zwinglius doctrine concerning the Sacraments vvas most prophane for he made them only external signes and denied them any inward effect in the soule wherefore as I haue before noted it is worthily condemned and rejected not only by Luther and his followers but also in wordes by * Caluin lib. de coena l. 4. Instit cap. 15. §. 1. Caluin Moreouer a Zwingl in exposit fidei Chrstianae art 12. Zwinglius also placeth Hercules Theseus Socrates Numa Camillus the Catoes Scipions and other Pagans and Idolaters with the holy Patriarks and Apostles in heauen Of which his assertion Luther discourseth thus b Luther ad c. 47. Genes Zwinglius of late hath written that Numa Pompilius Hector Scipio Hercules enjoy eternal blisse in heauen with Peter Paul other Saints which is no other thing then openly to confesse that he thinketh there is no faith no Christianisme c. He addeth much more against him and of this inferreth that Zwinglius is of that minde that a man doing his best may be saued in any religion whatsoeuer vvhich in very deede is expresly by him taught in c Zwingl to 2. in declarat de peccato Original f. 118 another place Neuerthelesse this doctrine of Zwinglius touching the saluation of Infidels is maintained by d Rodolph Gualterus in Apolog pro libris Zwinglij Rodolphus Gualterus e Bullinger in Germani cōfess Eccles Figurinae Bullenger f Simlerus in vita Bullingeri c. Simlerus Daniel Tossanus and other Sacramentaries But no opinion of Zwinglius is more impious and sacrilegious then that by which he maketh God the author and cause of sinne In vpholding which blaspheamous impiety Iohn Caluin joineth hands with him If it were not that I should exceed the breuity of a preface I vvould manifestly conuince them guilty of this crime by their owne printed workes published to the viewe of the whole vvorld but I vvil here put off this manner of proofe to another place and nowe only confirme the truth of mine accusation by the testimony of some learned Protestants Albertus Grawerus rector of the Lutheran vniuersity of Eislebium in Germany about the yeare of our Lord 1597. published a booke vvith this title The warre of Iohn Caluin and of IESVS Christ God and man that is An antithesis or opposition of the doctrine of the Caluinists and of Christ in which the most horrible blaspheamies of the Caluinists especially concerning foure articles the person of Christ the supper of the Lord baptisme and predestination are faithfully shewed from the eie to the eie out of their owne proper writings and bookes and are briefly and soundly refelled out of the word of God thus hath the title And this booke hath beene printed three times among the Lutherans for I haue seene the third edition printed at Magdeburge in the yeare 1605. so plausible is it to the Lutheran churches Neuerthelesse it being oppugned and answered by some Caluinists the same author replied vvith an other booke vnto which he gaue this title Absurda absurdorum absurdissima Caluinistica absurda c. The absurde the most absurde of absurde Caluinistical absurde thinges that is an inuincible demonstration logical philosophical theological of some horrible paradoxes of the Caluinian doctrine in the article of the person of Christ the supper of the Lord baptisme and predestination of the children of God written by M. Albert Grawere Rector of the famous Vniuersity of Eislebium of the Earles of Mansfeld in defence of his Caluinian warre c. Cum gratia priuilegio at Magdeburge an 1605. hitherto are the vvordes of the title That vvhich maketh in these bookes for my present purpose is that which he deliuereth concerning the opinion of Caluin and the Caluinists touching the predestination of the children of God for in the fore-front of the last treatise after the title of the booke this Lutheran placeth this sillogisme Quodcunque dogma c. What opinion soeuer maketh God the author of sinne is not of God The Caluinian opinion maketh God the author of sinne therefore it is not of God For proofe of the minor or second proposition which is that the Caluinian doctrine maketh God the author of sinne he referreth his reader to the fift chapter of his booke following in vvhich in very deede he manifestly proueth it by diuers sentences alleaged out of Caluin Beza and other Sacramentaries Perhaps some man wil demaund what is this to Zwinglius I answere although Zwinglius in very deede be properly no Caluinist for he vvas before Caluin yet because nowe the Caluinists beare al the sway and haue almost eaten vp the Zwinglians as also because the differences betweene Zwinglius and Caluin vvere not great and notorious it pleaseth the Lutherans to number Zwinglius among the Caluinists yea to cal al the Sacramentaries Caluinists Hence Grawerus among other Caluinists making God the authour of sinne often alleageth Zwinglius and proueth him guilty of the same impiety They are likewise accused of making of God the author of sinne by Luke Osiander another Lutheran who hauing related and confuted certaine their assertions touching Christ thus beginneth the seauenth chapter of his booke
such miserie through diuers diseases that he c Philost lib. 8. wished for one that would kil him Seuerus being often put in danger of his life by his owne sonne Antoninus who as he thought intended also to murther his other sonne Geta taking thought griefe came to his end d Lampridius Alexander was murthered in Germany e Trebellius Maximinus Gallus Volusianus and Gallienus receiued their deaths from their owne souldiers f Euseb in hist lib. 7. cap. 1. Decius not hauing raigned two yeares lost his life in warre against the Gothes g Eus l. 7. ca. 9. Trebel alij Constātius in orat ad sancto coetū c. 24 see Euseb in vita Const li. 4. c. 11. Valerianus by treason was deliuered into the handes of his enemie the King of Persia who for a time vsed him for a foote-stoole to goe to his horse afterward he fleaed him aliue and poudered him with salt Aurelianus strooken from heauen with thunder soone after was murthered by his owne company h Vopisous Dioclesianus and Maximianus Herculeus because they could not according to their endeauours preuaile against the Church of Christ and roote out al Christianitie gaue ouer the rule of the Empire Of them the i Panegir 4. victor first liued so long as a priuate man vntil he saw Christian religion flourish vnder Constantine the great then he died miserably according to Eusebius but Victor saith that he was reported to haue poisoned himself k Euseb li. 8. ca. 18. 29. Maximianus afterwardes either was hanged or hanged himselfe Gallerius Maximianus being strooken by God with a most horrible disease was forced before his death to recal his owne other edictes made against Christians Maximinus likewise being ouercome by Licinius recalled such edictes in the East and taken moreouer with a most strange disease his eies falling out of his head died miserably confessing that such calamities fel vpon him for his cruelty vsed against Christians Licinius was put to death by Constantine the great Iulian the Apostata in battel against the Persians strooken from heauen with a dart blaspheming Christ as authour of his death yeelded vp the ghost And these were the principal Heathen Emperors that haue persecuted our religion to whome I adde two Arrian Emperors Cōstantius and Valens who impugned the diuinity of Christ and persecuted Catholikes for professing him to be equal and consubstantial to his Father l Hier. ep ad Heliodor Victor Amianus others Of them the first died miserably in a country village marching against Iulian the Apostata m Hie. Ruf others The other hauing receiued the ouerthrowe from the Gothes was burned by them aliue in a country house These calamities miseries as euery man must needes confesse were extraordinary and fel vpon these men for some sinne or misdemeanour of theirs And seing that commonly they fel vpon al the persecutors of Christian religion and commonly vpon no others it is euident that their persecution of the Church of Christ was the cause of their said miseries and calamities I could adde diuers other reasons conuincing Christian religion to be the true worship of God as that most wise men and most profound and deepe Schollers most expert in al sciences and most perfect in those languages which seeme most needful to attaine to the knowledge of true religion haue approued and embraced Christian doctrine I could also bring another argument taken from the purity and sanctity of the said religion and generally of al the true professors of the same others taken from the absurdity of al those that can make any challenge to this prerogatiue from the testimony of the professors of diuers other sectes c. But I should be ouerlong only I wil adde against the Iewes who had the truth among them before the comming of Christ that presently after the promulgation of our religion they fel into most grosse and fantastical opinions yea held and taught most execrable blasphemies concerning God himselfe other matters of faith as that God doth weepe bewaile shed teares and knocke his breast for sorrowe that he hath so punished them that he praieth vpon his knees that he sinned in taking vnjustly light from the Sunne and giuing it to the Moone that he hath beene deceiued by some Rabbines that he studieth the lawe of Moises that soules passe from one body to another and much other such like damnable doctrine which euery man may see approued in their Talmud Se Andraeas Masius in c. 5. Iosue v. 10. Eugubinus in Exo. c. 12. a booke as highly esteemed by them al as the old Testament it selfe for they professe in the title of the said booke that whosoeuer denieth it denieth God himselfe Nay I adde further against them that in this their Talmud it selfe it is deliuered as an auncient famous tradition that their Messias was to restore them to liberty on the same moneth and day of the yeare on which they were deliuered from the bondage of Aegipt which tradition most aptly agreeth to the time on which our Lord suffered as euery Christian knoweth And of this matter this shall suffice Out of the discourse of this chapter I likewise inferre that no other religion in the world besides the Christian is true or doth truly worship God which is manifest both because no other followeth the preceptes and doctrine of Christ the redeemer of mankinde and also because our Sauiour abolished al former lawes except the lawe of nature yea he abrogated euen the lawe of Moises it selfe which was receiued from God and according to the predictions of the holy Prophet instituted one only lawe and through the merits of his bitter passion established one only Church which only possesseth true religion and prescribeth according to his institution the true worshippe of God And this I thinke no man that beleeueth Christian religion to be true wil denie Chapter 4. That among Christians they only that professe and embrace the Catholike faith and religion are in state of saluation and doe truly worship God IN the chapter next before I haue declared that the true worshippe of God and true religion is only to be found among Christians nowe I goe further and affirme that al Christians cannot truly challenge to themselues these inestimable treasures but that they are due only to vs Catholikes Before this I haue disputed against Atheistes Infidels Iewes and other external enemies of Christ and therefore I vsed not any arguments taken out of the newe Testament which they with one consent reject nowe I am to deale with Heretikes who pretend themselues to be Christians but haue departed out of Christs fold yet admit of the authority of sundry bookes not only of the old but also of the newe Testament and therefore against these I wil alleage as occasion shall serue diuers sentences out of the said bookes by them admitted And to proceede orderly in this matter I wil bring my
doubtful authority For it is recorded by Ecclesiastical vvriters and also confessed by our aduersaries that there hath beene controuersie and doubt in the Church concerning the authority of the b Euseb li. 3. hist ca. 3. 25. 28. Hier. de viris illust in Paulo Petro c. Hāmer in his notes vpon Eusebius lib. 2. cap. 23. epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrues the epistles of S. Iames S. Iude the second of S. Peter and the second of S. Iohn Howe doubtful the authority of the c Euse l. 3. cap. 28. Hier. epist 129. ad Dardarā Apocalipse was among many euery man may see in S. Hierome and Eusebius and in the Councel of Laodicea which numbred it not among other Canonical bookes And who hath taken vp and ended these controuersies by declaring these parcels of Scripture to be Canonical but our holy mother the Church Verily this is so true and euident that it is confessed euen by some of our d Obseruations vpon the Harmonie of cōfessions vppon the 1. Section aduersaries themselues Thus she receiued in the first general councel of Nice the booke of Iudith about the yeare of our Lord 325. if we beleeue e Hier. praefat in Iud. Idē in prolo Galeato in prol Prouer. in praefat in Iudith S. Hierome who before he heard of this decree of the said Councel rejected the said booke but vnderstanding of it admitted it forthwith as Canonical Let vs confirme al this with the testimony of S. Augustine whome f Caluin li. 4. Instit c. 14. sess 25 Caluin acknowledgeth to be the most faithful witnes of al antiquity g Beza in cap. 3. ad Rom. v. 12. Beza calleth him the prince of al ancient Diuines both Greeke and Latin as concerning dogmatical pointes of religion h Gomarus in speculo verae Ecclesiae pag. 96. Gomarus saith that according to the common opinion he is accounted most pure This then is one of his notable sentences touching this matter i Aug. contra epistol Manichaei quam vocant fundamentum cap. 5. I would not beleeue the Gospel saith he except the authority of the Catholike Church did moue me thereunto Those therefore whome I obeied saying Beleeue ye the Gospel why shal I not obey them saying vnto me Beleeue thou not Manichaeus Choose which thou wilt If thou shalt say beleeue the Catholikes they admonish me that I beleeue not you If thou shalt say beleeue not the Catholikes thou shalt not doe wel to constraine me by the Gospel to beleeue Manichaeus because I haue beleeued the Gospel it selfe through the preaching of the Catholikes Thus S. Augustine But here k Field booke 4. chap. 4. M. Field in his fourth booke of the Church occurreth and saith that the sense and meaning of S. Augustine in those his wordes I would not beleeue the Gospel except the authority of the Church did moue me thereunto is that he had neuer beleeued the Gospel if the authority of the Church had not beene an introduction vnto him I reply that he vvresteth this holy Fathers vvordes to a vvrong sense yea to such a sense as his discourse it selfe wil not beare and for proofe of this I desire no more of my reader but to marke the force of the reason vsed by S. Augustine which is this Manichaeus in the beginning of his epistle which this most learned Doctor confuteth called himselfe an Apostle of Iesus Christ S. Augustine requireth a proofe of his Apostleship and vrgeth if perhaps he alleage some authority out of the Gospel what he would doe to him that should deny the Gospel whereunto he adjoineth the wordes rehearsed I trulie would not beleeue the Gospel c. if the authority of the Church did not moue me thereunto And out of this that the Gospel is beleeued by the authoritie of the Church he proueth that Manichaeus is not to be beleeued because the same authoritie which commaundeth to doe the one forbiddeth to doe the other Of which it followeth that if it erre in the last it may also erre in the first and so no firme argument can be brought out of it for the proofe of the Apostleship of Manichaeus Hence S. Augustine doth not say I had not beleued the Gospel except the authority of the Church had moued me thereunto as he should haue said if he had meant as Field pretendeth but I would not beleeue the Gospel c. taking his argument from the motiue of his present beliefe of the Gospel and in this sence his reason is of great force and not otherwise But that which I say is yet more confirmed by that which followeth For S. Augustine addeth But if peraduenture thou canst finde something in the Gospel most apparant for the Apostleship of Manichaeus thou shalt weaken vnto me the authority of the Catholikes who commaund me that I shal not beleeue thee which being weakned now neither can I beleeue the Gospel because through them I beleeued it So whatsoeuer thou shalt bring me from thence shal be with me of no force wherefore if nothing manifest be found in the Gospel for the Apostleship of Manichaeus I wil beleeue the Catholikes rather then thee But if thou bring any thing from thence manifest for the Apostleship of Manichaeus I wil neither beleeue them nor thee not them because they haue lied to me concerning thee not thee also because thou bringest me forth that Scripture which I beleeued through them whome I haue found liars But God forbid that I should not beleeue the Gospel Hitherto are S. Augustines words by which I thinke euerie man may perceiue how greatly M. Field doth wrong him For we see plainly that he confesseth the authority of the Church to haue beene the cause of his present beliefe of Scripture yet not the formal cause but the conditional as is declared before And al that I haue here related out of this holy Father Aug. tom 6. li. cont Epist quā vocāt fundamenti cap. 5. may be as wel vrged against any Sectarie whatsoeuer of our time as against Manichaeus for whosoeuer affirmeth the Church to haue erred in condemning any one of their Heresies by weakning and ouerthrowing her authoritie weakeneth also and ouerthroweth the authoritie of the whole Bible Neither doth that which he alleageth out of Waldensis make any waies for him for as this learned man plainely in that very place declareth he vnderstandeth S. Augustine as I haue deliuered These are his wordes Waldensis lib. 2. doctrinalis fidei artic 2. ca. 21. Without the authority of the vniuersal Church no scripture can be read or bad for certaine And this S. Augustine vnderstood when he said I would not beleeue the Gospel did not the authority of the Church moue me thereunto Thus Waldensis The point which Field toucheth is in his discourse following but it maketh nothing against vs for he only saith that which I haue before deliuered to wit that by the proposition of
sentences in it are prophetical many parabolical many metaphorical which commonlie are ful of obscuritie Thirdly it is proper to Scripture to haue many senses vnder one letter as the literal sense which is that which the holy writer first intended and this sense sometimes is signified by proper words sometimes by wordes metaphorical and improper yea sometimes the literal sense of the same wordes is diuers It hath also a spiritual sense which is that which is signified by the thinges vnder the letter And this sense is either moral which is called also tropological when it tendeth to manners or allegorical when it tendeth to faith or the Church or anagogical when it tendeth to heauen or life euerlasting For example this vvord Hierusalem literally signifieth the Cittie so called morally the soule of man allegorically the Church militant and anagogically the Church triumphant Al these senses the wordes of Scripture beare and diuers of them not seldome were intended by the holy Ghost in the same sentence And what a difficult matter is it to discerne them I adde finally that sundrie misteries deliuered vnto vs in holy writ are high and aboue the reach of our natural reason Wherefore it is no meruaile if the sentences in which they are disclosed be hard and obscure Hence the prophet Dauid desired of God vnderstanding Psal 118. Iohn 5. verse 39. Luke 24. vers 45. that he might search his lawe Our Sauiour also willed the Iewes to search the Scriptures opened his Apostles and disciples vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures c which places plainly conuince the Scriptures to be hard SECTION THE THIRD The Scriptures may be falsly vnderstood and that euery priuate man may erre in the vnderstanding of them IN the second place I must proue that the Scriptures may be falsely vnderstood and that euery priuate man may erre in the translation or interpretation of the same This followeth of that which hath beene already said touching their obscuritie for if the Scripture be so obscure as I haue shewed these things must needs ensue And verily that the wordes of Scripture may receiue false interpretations 2. Pet. 3. verse 16. S. Peter aboue cited plainly auoucheth affirming that the vnlearned and vnstable euen in his daies depraued the epistles of S. Paul and other Scriptures to their owne perdition And it is a thing so manifest that it needeth no proofe for it is euident that al Heretikes heretofore haue alleaged Scriptures falsly expounded to confirme their heresies and this I wil declare more at large hereafter See part 2. cap. 8. sect 8. It is apparant also that in these our daies some in the world either Catholikes Lutherans Zuinglians Anabaptists or Libertines doe not giue the true sense of holy Scripture because it is impossible that more then one of these can haue the truth their expositions in diuers points be so diuers and contrary August tract 18. in Iohan. Aug. tom 3. de Gen. ad litterā li. 7. ca. 9. Vincent Lirin lib. cōtr propha haeres nouitates cap. 2. Barlow in his relatiō of the said conferēce pag. 61. Se part 2. c. 5. sect 1. yea S. Augustine affirmeth that heresies haue no other ofspring or roote then that good Scriptures are badly vnderstood In another place to the same effect he telleth vs that al Heretikes read Catholike Scriptures neither saith he are they for any other cause Heretikes then for that not vnderstanding them truly they defend obstinately their false opinions against the truth of them The same is declared by Vincentius Lirinensis in these wordes Al saith he take not the Scripture in one and the same sense because of the deepnes thereof but the speeches of it some interprete one way and some another way so that there may almost as many senses be picked out of it as there be men For Nouatus doth expounde it one way and Sabellius another way otherwise Donatus otherwise Arrius Eunomius Macedonius otherwise Iouinian Pelagius Celestius lastly otherwise Nestorius Hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis Hence our King in the conference held at Hampton Court betweene the Protestants and Puritans most discreetly affirmed that he would not wish al Canonical bookes to be read in the Church vnlesse there were one to interprete them Moreouer that the judgement of euery priuate man as before is subject vnto errour and falshood in his translation or interpretation of holy Scripture it is graunted by some of our aduersaries and likewise easily proued First because he Scripture it selfe warranteth no priuate mans judgement from errour Nay S. Peter in expresse termes telleth vs 2. Pet. 1. verse 20. Se sect 5. following 1. Ioh. 4. verse 1. That no prophecie of Scripture is made by priuate interpretation that is to say that no Scripture ought to be expounded according to any priuate mans opinion for the vvord Prophecie signifieth the interpretation or exposition of holie Scripture as shal hereafter be proued The Apostle Saint Iohn teacheth vs the same lesson vvilling vs not to beleeue euery spirit but to proue the spirittes if they be of God And howe are vve to proue the spirittes vvithout al doubt not by our ovvne judgement vvhich is subject to errour but by considering vvhether they be consonant or no to the doctrine of the Catholike Church or the rule of faith receiued by tradition from the Apostles This appeareth by the discourse of the said Apostle following In vvhich to confute Cerinthus Ebion Basilides and other Heretikes vvho denied the diuinitie humanitie or vnion of two natures in Christ and to proue their spirits not to be from God he setteth downe the doctrine of the Church concerning those pointes and addeth these vvordes He that knoweth God heareth vs that is to say he that hath the knowledge of God by true supernaturall faith heareth and obeieth the Church But vvhat doe I vse many wordes in a matter so euident gathered out of our aduersaries owne proceedinges For the holy Ghost teacheth men but one truth seing therefore that there are among the newe Sectaries now in the vvorld so great dissentions and differences in opinions concerning the exposition of the selfe same wordes of Scripture it necessarily followeth that some of them expound the Scriptures falslie and seing that one of them hath no better warrant for his direction in truth then another vve may vvel affirme them al to be subject to errour and falsehood I adde also that euerie Sectarie must needes confesse euerie one of his Captaines I meane Luther Zuinglius Caluin and the rest to haue erred in some point or other touching the true sense of Scripture for almost no one Sectarie followeth any one of these in al pointes and approueth al his interpretations but if vve graunt them al to haue erred in some pointes vve may vvel inferre that they are subject to errour in al because their vvarrant is equal for al. Finally if we admit euery priuate mans spirit as a judge in such
such vehemencie accuseth him that preacheth other doctrine then that which was before receiued in the Church Gal. 1 9. If any man saith he euangelize to you besides that which you haue receiued be he Anathema or cursed to vvhich sentence alludeth Vincentius Lirinensis in these wordes Vincent Lir. c. 14. To preach vnto Christian Catholikes other doctrine then that which they haue already receiued no where is lawful and neuer shal be lawful and to accurse as Heretikes those which preach other doctrine then that which before hath beene accepted it was neuer vnlawful it is in no place vnlawful and neuer wil be vnlawful Hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis Contrariwise for keeping vndefiled this rule or Tradition the same Apostle highly commendeth the Corinthians saying 1. Corin. 11 2. I praise you brethren that in al things you be mindful of me and as I haue deliuered vnto you you keepe my precepts or according to the Greeke vvord my Traditions And because the Church and aboue al others the Romans most carefully kept these Traditions Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4. S. Irenaeus called it the rich treasure-house of Apostolike Traditions wherefore vvhosoeuer is desirous to discerne a true Christian from a faithles Heretike must behold the doctrine of them both and pronounce him to be the true disciple of Christ who by succession and Tradition hath receiued his beliefe from him and his Apostles For like as a nobleman or gentleman of antiquity is knowne by his pedigree so a true Christian is knowne by the succession and descent of his Prelates and faith from them that first receiued it from our Lord. Neither doth this our doctrine any waies diminish the authority of holy scripture for this notvvithstanding we affirme that the wonderful prouidence of almighty God most wisely ordained that the scriptures of the newe Testament should be written that he moued the penners thereof thereunto and directed them by his diuine inspiration and this both for the cōfirmation and preseruation of the faith Tradition of the Church and also that the said Tradition might with more ease come to euery ones knowledg and that euery one by such monuments might learne to discerne the true Church of vvhich he vvas to be instructed concerning al matters of faith and religion But of our estimation of the holie scripture see more aboue Chap. 7. SECTION THE SECOND Of vnwritten Traditions in particular THis discourse beeing premised concerning the Traditions of the Church in general I come nowe to discourse of that part of the said Traditions vvhich are concerning matters of vvhich there is no expresse mention in the word of God and therefore are called vnwritten Traditions And first that both such Traditions are found in the Church and that the vvhole summe of Christian doctrine is not expresly contained in the vvritten vvord of God I haue already declared Section 1. because none of the Apostles or Disciples euer intended to set downe in any parcel of scripture the said whole summe of Christian doctrine and also proued it out of those words of S. Luke in the Actes of the Apostles in which he telleth vs Acts 1 verse 3. that Christ after his Passion shewed himselfe aliue in many argumentes for forty daies appearing to his Apostles and speaking of the kingdome of God For by this relation it seemeth euident that our Sauiour during the time betweene his resurrection and ascention gaue to his Apostles diuers instructions which are not set downe in particuler in any parte of the newe Testament for no Apostle or Euangelist relateth in particular these discourses of Christ And they vvere without al doubt concerning the sacraments their administration the gouernment of the Church and other such like affaires belonging to Christian religion which for the most part the Apostles left to their successors only by word of mouth and secret Tradition This in plaine termes is auouched by a Epiph. haeres 61. Apostolico rum S. Epiphanius whose words be these We must vse Tradition for the scripture hath not al things And therefore the Apostles deliuered certaine thinges in writing certaine by Tradition The same truth is affirmed by b Basil de spiri sācto cap. 27. S. Basil and the rest of the Fathers yea this we are taught by the Apostle himselfe who in his epistle to the Thessalonians not only commendeth most earnestly to the Church written Traditions but also vnwritten c 2. Thess 2 15. Brethren saith he stand and hold the Traditions which you haue learned whether it be by word or by our epistle Out of which place it is euident that some Traditions by the Apostle were deliuered to the Thessalonians by word And that here he speaketh of such Traditions as we treat of we are taught by al the ancient Fathers Among the rest S. Iohn Chrisostome gathereth out of them this conclusion Hence it is manifest saith he that they videlicet the Apostles deliuered not al thinges by Epistle but many thinges also vnwritten and those thinges likewise are to be beleeued d Chrisost hom 4. in 2. Thessa It is a Tradition seeke thou no further thus S. Chrisostome But that the Fathers admit vnwritten Traditions it is graunted by e Whitak de sacra scrip pag. 678. 668. 681. 683. 685. 690. 695. 696. 670. Whitaker f Rain in his conclusions ānexed to his conferēce 1. conclu pag. 689. Rainolds g Cart. in Whitg defēce p. 103 Cartwrite h Kemnis in exam part 1. pa. 87 89. 90 Kemnisius i Fulk against pur pag. 362. 303. 397. Against Marshal pag. 170. 178. Against Brist motiues pag. 35. 36. Fulke and other Protestants wherefore I neede not alleage any more of their testimonies And this is the reason wherefore we haue no precept in the newe Testament to beleeue or obserue those thinges only which are expresly contained in the said volume Neither doe we finde that euer the Apostles or their followers commended and deliuered to any Church or people the said newe Testament as a booke comprehending in expresse termes the whole summe of Christian doctrine Nay it is certaine that for diuers yeares before the said booke was written the Apostles deliuered al by Tradition and word of mouth Further that the estimation of vnwritten Traditions hath euer beene exceeding great in the Church it appeareth not only by this that diuers of the ancient Fathers as I haue shewed in the * Section 1. chapter next before by Tradition haue proued what scripture is Canonical and pleaded the authority of them against diuers heresies but also by this that diuers heresies haue been by the testimony of them only condemned ouerthrowne In the first general Councel of Nice as a Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 16. et 18. Sozomenus reporteth the Fathers especially endeauoured that nothing should be decreed but that vvhich they had receiued by Tradition from their forefathers S. Ciprian with most of the Bishops of Affrica
judgment I may adde the whole Protestant Church of England who in their sixt article agreed vpon in their conuocations of the yeares 1562. and 1604. affirme that in the name of holy Scripture they vnderstand those Canonical books of the old and newe Testament of whose authority was neuer any doubt in the Church for they seeme to make the authoritie and Tradition of the Church the meane and rule vvhereby to knowe the diuine Scriptures Field booke 4. chap. 14. Yea Field himselfe in another place telleth vs that we cannot knowe the Scriptures to be of God without the knowledge of such principal articles as are contained im the Creed of the Apostles Of vvhich it may seeme laweful to conclude against him that some other thing is necessarie besides diuine inspiration and other motiues aboue by him assigned The Lutherans of Wittenberg confesse the Church to haue authority to judge of doctrines Harmonie of confess sect 10. p. 332. Author of the treatise of the scripture and the church c. 15. p. 72. see also c. 19. p. 74. 75. BulleÌ„ger in the praeface before that booke according to that Try the spirittes whether they be of God Another Protestant in a treatise of the Scripture and the Church highly commended by Bullenger plainely telleth vs that we could not beleeue the Gospel were it not that the Church taught vs and witnessed that this doctrine vvas deliuered by the Apostle and thus much against this opinion But it may be here objected against vs that we also according to the second opinion deliuered in the first part of this treatise concerning the last resolution of our faith allowe a supernatural gift or light by the concourse and help of vvhich vve firmely assent to Christian beliefe as reuealed by God and that therefore there is no cause wherefore we should so earnestly impugne the like assertion in others I answere that there is great difference betweene vs and our aduersaries concerning this point for whereas I haue shewed that they require a particular illumination and immediate instruction from God himselfe concerning euerie particuler booke and sentence of holy Scripture yea touching the exposition of euerie sentence as I vvil declare hereafter and by no prudential groundes or arguments of credibility are ordinarilie induced to this perswasion But seing that diuers of their owne company and those of the principal thinking themselues to be inspired haue erred haue rather according to prudence just cause not to stand vpon such illuminations We assigne the the light of faith for the beliefe of a common guide and general directour and so require not a particuler instruction for the beliefe of this and that particuler matter but hauing beleeued the said general guide of it receiue infallible and diuine instructions what particulerlie is to be beleeued Neither doe vve this vvithout any prudential motiue or credible reason but induced thereunto by most strong arguments of credibility Râ—chardus de S. Victore l. 1. de Trinit cap. 2. insomuch as vve may wel say with Richardus de sansto Victore that If we be deceiued God hath deceiued vs. Neither are vve by this perswaded arrogantlie to followe a priuate rule which is a fountaine of dissention and contrarie to the vsual proceedings of God but humblie to submit our selues and our vnderstanding to the authority of a general guide which is a preseruatiue of vnity and according to the common courses of that heauenlie King But before I passe from this matter I must needes haue a word or two with M. Field in particuler vvho requireth more then humane inducements or motiues as reasons by force whereof we are perswaded first to beleeue Field book 4. chap. 7. 8. and seemeth to require a diuine reason or testimonie conuincing that which is beleeued to be of diuine authoritie and so to impugne the first opinion of Catholikes concerning the last resolution of faith Part 1. chap. 7. sect 6. deliuered in the first part of this treatise For vvhereas the followers of that opinion assigne humane motiues as the first inducements to our beliefe or as causes vvhy we first accept of the same and bring no other external proofe that the misteries of our faith are reuealed by God book 4. chap. 8. § The opinion he exacteth of vs a diuine proofe of this these are his words The opinion of the ordinary Papists is that the things pertaining to our faith are beleeued because God reuealeth and deliuereth them to be so as we are required to beleeue but that we know not that God hath reuealed any such thing but by humane conjecture and probabilities so weake doe they make our faith to be grounded thus Field Concerning which his imputation I must first request my reader if he be any thing moued by these his words to turne to the explication and proofe of the Catholike opinion set downe before in the first part of this treatise Chapt. 7. sect 6. because I thinke it needlesse to repeate one thing twice Secondly I cannot but wish him also to note howe diuersly Field reporteth our opinions for although he plainly here affirme that our ordinary opnion is that the articles of our faith are beleeued because God reuealeth and deliuereth them to be so yet in another place he writeth thus Our aduersaries fal into two dangerous errors the first Booke 4. c. 6. that the authority of the Church is Regula fidei et ratio credendi the rule of our faith and the reason why we beleeue The second is that the Church may make newe articles of faith And like as he himselfe in the words euen now alleaged freeth vs from the first of these dangerous errours Book 4. chap. 12. § Our aduersaries so likewise in another place he freeth vs from the second But as concerning my present purpose out of his aforesaid wordes I gather that if he wil not fal into the same fault for vvhich he blameth vs he must not only assigne such a diuine formal cause of his beliefe concerning euery point as we teach the reuelation of God to be but also adde some diuine proofe prouing this formal reason to be diuine and not only humane probabilities And vvhat such diuine proofe doth he assigne surelie none that I can finde he telleth vs in deed that in some things the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto vs Book 4. chap. 8. § thus theÌ„ and in others the authority of God discerned to speake in the word of faith is the formal cause of their faith or inducing them to beleeue But I finde no diuine proofe no not so much as a wise reason I adde moreouer not so much as a foolish reason brought neither for the one nor for the other nay he expresly telleth vs Book 4. chap. 20. § Much coÌ„tention see also chapt 7. § Thus then Book 4. chap. 7. § Surely See hiÌ„ also § There is c. that The bookes of Scripture winne credit
Caluin that of S. Iames at Hierusalem in perswading S. Paul to purifie himselfe according to the lawe of Moises in the b See also the same Caluin touching S. Paulin 2. Cor cap. 1. S. Iames in cap. 21. Act. Act. 21. v. 15. c. temple and lastly they accuse S. Paul of errour in yeelding to the perswasion of S. Iames. The same is affirmed by Brentius diuers others concerning S. Peter and Iames and the whole Church of Hierusalem c Brent in Apolog cōfess Wittenberg c. de cōcilijs Both S. Peter Prince of the Apostles saith he and Barnabas also after the holy Ghost receiued and together with them the whole Church of Hierusalem erred Galat. 2. of the same opinion are other sectaries d Bullēger in Apocalip 19. 22. Bullenger hath the like stuffe touching S. Iohn Doe not also Beza and our English Protestants themselues seeme to confesse that * Luc. 3. v. 36 S. Luke in his Gospel erred in making Arphaxad the father of Cainan and Cainan of Sale whereas in the booke of Genesis Arphaxad is said to haue beene the father of Sale For if S. Luke did not erre vvhy doe e Beza in his translat our Protestāts in their Bible printed anno 1595. authorized to bee read in Chur. they notwithstanding that al copies both Latin and Greeke in this accord thrust out of the text these wordes who was of Cainan and make S. Luke say that Arphaxad was the father of Sale Adde vnto this that f Musculus in locis communibus cap. de Iustificat num 5. Musculus no meane Sectary to the Catholikes objecting the authority of S. Iames against justification by faith only maketh this answere that he whosoeuer he was although the brother of Christ and a piller among the Apostles and a great Apostle aboue measure as g Gal. 2. v. 9. 2. Cor. 12 12. S. Paul saith cannot prejudice the truth of only faith h Molinae in vnione quat Euāg par 64 Another of them testifieth that certaine of his learned brethren limit and restraine those wordes of Christ He that heareth you heareth me that Christ only is to be heard that is to say that his word only is to be preached that the Apostles were subject to errour in going beyond their commission and therefore that they are not to be heard but when they relate vnto vs the very wordes of Christ Thus he vvriteth vpon the said sentence These wordes he that heareth you heareth me limit that Christ only be heard that is that his word only be preached as most learned Philip Melancthon expoundeth c. For so expoundeth Iohn Brentius saying That Christ when he saith He that heareth you heareth me speaketh not of al wordes of the Apostles whatsoeuer but of the prescribed cōmandement of their embassage Thus Carolus Molinaeus From this opinion i Cal. l. 4. Inst c. 8. § 4. 7. Caluin himselfe seemeth not much to dissent vvhose wordes are these The Apostles in their very name shewe howe much is permitted them in their office that is if they be Apostles that they should not babble what they please but should deliuer truly his commaundements by whome they were sent and soone after he plainely insinuateth Modrenius lib. 2. de Eccles cap. 2. that he would haue Christ only heard Further one Fricius a very learned Protestant telleth vs that although he should graunt that S. Iames gaue the communion vnder one kinde only yet that his authority is not to be admitted seing that Christ said Eate and drinke Clebetius in victoria veritatis et ruina papatus Saxoni argumēto 5. Clebetius one of the chiefe ministers of the County Palatine of Rhene graunteth to his aduersary that S. Mathewe and S. Marke in their gospels contradict S. Luke but saith that he hath two against one and that S. Luke was not present at the last supper concerning the history of vvhich the controuersie was betweene him his aduersary as S. Mathew was and therefore that he deserued lesse credit Finally Zuinglius being impugned for denying praier for the dead pressed with the authority of Fathers especially of S. Chrisostome S. Augustine who deriue this custome from the Apostles answered thus Zuing. tom 1. Epicherae de can Missae fol. 186. See him also tom 2. in Eleuch cōt Anabap fo 10. If it be so as Augustine Chrisostome report I thinke that the Apostles suffered certaine to pray for the dead for no other cause then to condiscend to their infirmity hitherto Zuinglius in which words he confesseth that the Apostles wilfully suffered some to erre vvhich could not be done without errour in themselues And out of al these assertions of our aduersaries in which they either accuse the vvriters of holy Scripture of errour or make them subject thereunto I inferre that the newe Testament may containe errours although we should graunt it to be written by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ But let vs also adde that although we should graunt them that the Apostles and Disciples could not erre in penning these sacred bookes yet that it is a hard matter for them to proue that the new Testament since their daies hath not either through negligence or malice beene corrupted For had not the Catholiks their enemies by their owne confession the keeping of it for the space of diuers hundreds of yeares how know they then that the said Catholikes to serue their owne turnes haue not corrupted it Surely they confesse their owne bretheren to haue falsified it vvithin fewe yeares in diuers places wherefore one sect rejecteth the translation of another Doe they then thinke vs and our predecessors more sincere then they are themselues Perhaps some ignorant man wil say that it hath beene alwaies in the custody of those of their religion but it is certaine that they cannot possibly assigne any succession of men of their profession that could alwaies keepe it I demaund also if any man wil needes say that there were such men although invisible in the vvorld and mentioned off by no Authour of anie one age since the Apostles dayes vvhether they were Lutherans Zuinglians or Caluinists or of vvhat other sect If they were Lutherans howe doe the Zuinglians Caluinists and other Sectaries knowe that they kept it sincerely and truly if they were Zuinglians howe doe the Lutherans knowe the same The like question I demaund concerning other Sectaries and none of them I thinke wil be so absurd as to say that al these sects haue euer beene in the world But let vs see whether they doe not plainely confesse that the text of Scripture it selfe hath beene corrupted Beza in praefat noui Test anno 1556. et Annota in 1. Luc. v. 1. Although Beza preferre the vulgar Latin edition which we vse before al other translations and confesseth that the old Interpreter translated very religiously yet both he and al the professours of
affirming it to be only an argument of a fable or tale whereby to set forth an example of patience He affirmeth that the booke of a Luth. in cōuiual ser tit de libris noui veter test Rabenstocke l. 2. colloquior Latin Luther cap. de veter test Ecclesiastes hath neuer a perfect sentence that the authour of it had neither bootes nor spurs but rid vpon a long sticke or in begging shooes as he did when he was a Frier He vvil haue b Luth. in exordio suarum Annotat. in Cantica Cantica Canticorum which some c Bible 1595 English Sectaries tearme the Ballet of Ballets of Salomon to be nothing else but a familiar speach or communication betweene Salomon and the common wealth of the Iewes d Castalio in trāslat Latin suorum Bibliorum see Beza praefat in Iosuae Castalio goeth further and judgeth it to be a communication betweene Salomon and a certaine friend or mistresse he had called Sulamitha The Epistle to the e Luther in 1. edit noui test Germ. praefat in epistol ad Hebr. in posterior edit eiusdem Hebrewes if we beleeue Luther was written by none of the Apostles and containeth thinges contrary to the Apostolike doctrine The like is affirmed by the f Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. Century writers The same Luther calleth the Epistle of S. Iames truly a g Luth. in praefat in nouum test Germ. edit 1. in Ienens edit noui test praefat in Iacob strawen Epistle in comparison of those of S. Peter and S. Paul saith that it is h In captiuit Babilon cap. de extrema vnctione probably auerred to be none of his nor worthy of an Apostolike spirit i Ad cap. 22. Genes in colloquijs cōuiual lat tom 2. de lib. noui test reprehendeth the doctrine of it as false and contrary to that of Genesis and of S. Paul the Apostle saith the authour doth delirare that is dote c. It is likewise judged not Canonical by k Muscul in locis comunibus c. de Iustific Brent in Apol. Illiric praef in Iacob Musculus Brentius Illiricus Kemnitius and others The second epistle of S. Peter saith l Luth. in suis Germ. Biblijs Brentius in Apolog. ca. de Scripturis Luther is none of his but is of some vncertaine authour who was desirous to giue credit to his worke by the glory of an other mans name Brentius plainely rejecteth it as Apocryphal The like is said by these and others of the Epistle of m Luther praef in epist Iacob lib. cont Amb. Catharinum Magdeburg Cent. 1. lib. 2. ca. 4. Brent in Apolog. S. Iude. Finally Luther censureth the n Luther praefat in Apocal. prioris edit lib. de abroganda missa priuata Brent in Apol. Apocalipse of S. Iohn to be neither Apostolike nor Prophetical but I thinke it is saith he like the fourth of Esdras a booke rejected by vs al neither can I any waies finde that it was made by the holy Ghost Let euery man thinke of it as he please my spirit cannot accommodate it selfe to it And this cause is sufficient to me not greatly to esteeme it that in it Christ is neither taught nor knowne Thus Luther Brentius hauing recited it among other bookes by him censured Apocryphal concludeth that some of the bookes rejected are called dreames others fables And this is the judgement of these Protestants concerning these bookes Notwithstanding our o See the Bible of the yeare 1595. authorized to be read in Churches Articles of the yeare 1562. 1604. Articul 6. Caluin in his Institut in argum epist. Iacobi Church of England with Caluin diuers other of their bretheren receiue al these bookes as Canonical And seing that both these opinions cannot haue an infallible ground and one according to their owne proceedings hath no greater reason for it selfe then the other I inferre that they both haue no other rule vvhereby to receiue and reject bookes of Scripture but their owne judgement and fancy from which principally this difference among them ariseth It may be said that some Sacramentaries and among the rest p Whitaker in his answere to Campians 1. reason Whitaker and q Rogers pag. 30. vpon the Articles of faith of the yeare 1562. 1604. Rogers denie Luther and the Lutherans to reject the bookes mentioned I confesse it but in very truth whosoeuer readeth the authours and places alleaged wil finde that I doe them no wrong And this he may partly gather out of Rogers himselfe who although he r Pag. 30. affirme al reformed Churches to be of the same judgement with the Church of England concerning the Canonical bookes Yet in the next leafe ſ Pag. 32. alleageth two principal Lutherans Wigandus and Heshusius and accuseth them both of errour the one for refusing the first and second epistles of S. Iohns with the epistle of S. Iude the other for rejecting the booke of S. Iohns Reuelation or the Apocalipse I adde also that t Whitaker de sacris Script controuers 1. quaest 1. c. 6. Whitakers himselfe discoursing of this matter in an other place hauing set downe their doctrine concerning the authority of al the bookes of the newe testament addeth these vvordes If Luther or some that haue followed Luther haue taught or written otherwise let them answere for themselues this is nothing to vs who in this matter neither followe Luther nor defend him but are led by a better reason Thus Whitakers But Caluin directly telleth vs u Caluin in argumento epistol Iacobi that in his time there were some that judged the epistle of S. Iames not Canonical Oecolampadius testifieth the same touching the Apocalipse and affirmeth himselfe to x Oecolampadius lib. 2. ad cap. 12. Danielis wonder that some with rash judgement rejected S. Iohn in this booke as a dreamer a mad or braine-sicke man and a writer improfitable to the Church That Luther in particular with a hard censure bereaued this booke of al authority it is recorded by y Bullinger in Apocalip cap. 1. ser 1. Bullinger Yea * Field booke 4. chap. 24. §. wherefore Field condemning the inconsiderate rashnesse of such as in our time make question of any of the bookes of the newe testament c. nameth Luther in the margent It may perhaps be said by some man that al the Sacramentaries accord together concerning the bookes of Canonical Scripture and therefore that they haue some certaine and diuine rule whereby to discerne such bookes from others But this is easily refelled because there is no such consent or agreement among them For doth not Wolfangus Musculus a Zwinglian of great fame with Luther and the Lutherans reject the epistle of Iames out of the Canon Verily either this must be granted or else it must be confessed that he affirmeth one Scripture to contradict an other and false doctrine to be
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
an Heretike or an heresie then to condemne an heretical or erroneous booke Secondly authority to doe this was needful for the preseruation of one true faith and religion in the Church for vvhat is more daungerous to infect true Christian harts then bad bookes especially if they be not knowne and censured to be such but read by al sorts indifferently as Catholike and Orthodoxal Verily if conference and conuersation vvith Heretikes be so straightly a Rom. 16 17. 2. Tim. 3. v. 5. Titus 3. v. 10 2. Iohn v. 10. Iâ—â—n l. 3. c. 3. Cipr. l. 1. ep 3 Athanas in vita Antonij forbidden vs both by the Scriptures and Fathers as vve finde much more are their bookes to be auoided which diuers times containe poison coloured vvith eloquence vvhich may alwaies be had at hand and are easily dispersed euer in such places vnto which Heretikes cannot haue accesse Hence the very Heathens themselues led by reason and the lawe of nature only b Plato lib. 7. de legibus Valer. Maxi. lib. 1. cap. 1. Cicero l. 1. de natur DeoruÌ„ Lact. l. de ira Dei cap. 9. Sueton. in August cap. 31. Dio Cas l. 54 Titus Liuius lib. 39. condemned bookes hurtful and prejudicial to the religion by them receiued as I could proue out of Plato Valerius Maximus Cicero Lactantius Suetonius Diocassius Titus Liuius and others Fourthly the Church hath in al ages practised such authority as is euident by Ecclesiastical recordes I wil name only a fewe examples because I wil not be ouer long S. Clement telleth vs that the c Clemens lib. 1. Constit Apostol cap. 7. Apostles themselues forbad the faithful to reade the bookes of the Gentiles About the yeare 250. Dionisius Alexandrinus as Eusebius d Euseb lib. 7. hist cap. 6. recordeth vvas reprehended by other faithful people for reading the bookes of Heretikes e Ciril epist Sinod 1. In the yeare 432. the Fathers assembled in the general Councel of Ephesus requested of Theodosius then Emperour that he vvould take order that the bookes of Nestorius vvheresoeuer they vvere found should be burnt and according to their request the said Emperor by his imperial constitution f L. vlt. de haeret Cod. Theodos Laberatus in Breuiar c. 10 willed that al such bookes should be dilligently sought for and publikely committed to the fire g Anast epist ad Ioan. Hierosolim S. Anastasius the Pope at Rome and S. Epiphanius in a Sinod held at Ciprus with diuers others about the yeare 402. h Socrat. li. 6. cap. 9. see S. HieroÌ„ ep 26. condemned the booke of Origines called Periarchon which Ruffinus to the great hurt of the Church had published before in the citty of Rome and Didimus in the East S. Leo the great burnt great store of the Manichees bookes in Rome as i Prosper in Chronic. 443 Prosper writeth in the yeare 443. The fourth Councel of Carthage permitteth only Bishops to reade heretical bookes in time of necessity Gelasius the Pope in a Councel of seauenty Bishops held at Rome in the yeare 494. k Distinct 15. Can. Sancta Romana sentenced diuers books and made a certaine index of them as is to be seene in the decree yet extant The fift general Councel about the yeare 553. condemned certaine thinges written by Theodoretus against S. Ciril and the epistle of Iba And al those bookes except those of Nestorius were thus l Socrates lib. 1. cap. 6. censured long after the death of the authors m See L. Damnato Concil Chalced. act 3. L. Quicunque Cod. de haereticis The like examples I could bring of the proceedinges of Constantine the great against the bookes of Arius L. vlt. tit 16. lib. 9. leg 24. tit 4. l. 16 Cod. Theod. Socrat. lib. 2. histor tripartitae Liberat. in Breuiario cap. 10. who prohibited them vnder paine of death of Valentinian and Martian Christian Emperors against those of Eutiches and Apollinaris of Honorius and Theodosius against bookes of art Magicke Yea Arcadius Honorius and Iustinian by their lawes decreed that al heretical bookes should be burnt publikely And this practise perhaps of burning such books began in the Apostles times vvhen as S. Luke vvriteth in the acts of the Apostles * Act. 19 19. Many of them that followed curious thinges brought together their bookes and burnt them before al. Nowe seing the Church hath authority to condemne or burne heretical bookes or others that containe false doctrine opposite to the rule of faith no man of any judgement wil deny but shee hath also authority to correct them if by that means she can make them profitable for her vse and beneficial to her children For much lesse it is to correct then to condemne and burne and much better it is in such cases to correct then cleane to abolish Hence are these wordes of S. Hierome speaking of the vvorkes of Origen Hieron epist 76. ideÌ„ epist. 64. Apolog 1. aduersus Ruffin Neither are his euil opinions to be receiued for his doctrine neither are his Commentaries if he wrote any vpon the holy Scripture altogether to be rejected for the wickednesse of his opinions thus S. Hierome who vpon this ground newly translated and amended the booke of Origen before mentioned In like sort the collations of Cassian were long after his death corrected by diuers as we gather out of Cassiodorus and Ado. And although this authority of the Church be such Cassiod Institut diuin lect cap. 29. Ado in Chronic an 425. in fine that with discretion and to edification she may execute it against any whatsoeuer yet much more reason right she hath to execute it vpon the workes of her children who are her subjects submit themselues and their workes wholy to her censure Some man perhaps wil say that euery Catholike doth not so submit himselfe and his workes but it is certaine that vvhosoeuer doth not so either expresly or vertually is no Catholike because he preferreth his owne judgement before the censure of the vvhole Church And whosoeuer doth this although through ignorance he erre as euery man may he is no Heretike according to that of S. Augustine I may erre I cannot be an Heretike seing that the one is proper to a man the other to a peruerse and obstinate wil. And out of this discourse I conclude that if our Church be Catholike as it is we are not to be blamed for our proceedinges in forbidding and correcting such bookes as oppose themselues any vvaies against our religion or may seduce the harts of their simple readers or any waies seeme to taste of an heretical kind of speach or phrase although the authors themselues diuers times intended no hurt And this must much more be graunted vnto vs in moderne authours and such as haue written in this last age both because they submitted themselues commonly in expresse tearmes to the censure of the Church and also because by the
late orders of the church nothing must be published in print except it be first viewed and allowed by men therevnto authorized wherefore whatsoeuer commeth now forth seemeth to be approued by the Church and consequently a man may wel inferre that it containeth no notorious error or heresie Whereof I inferre that the Church in case that any such errours escape must be very diligent and vigilant in mending of them lest that in steade of vvholesome doctrine some ignorantly perhaps and that through her default drinke poison But yet to descend a litle lower what bookes may we correct according to our rules and of what antiquity none certainely of any Catholikes but such as liued since the yeare one thousand fiue hundred and fifteene vvhich vvas the second yeare before Luther beganne to fal from vs besides a fewe other expresly named in our Index of forbidden bookes And of such named authours more ancient then Luther howe many haue we de facto corrected Verily I doe not thinke that Crashaw can bring forth so much as one True it is that he vseth these wordes In the Epistle dedicatory fol. 2. We produce the authours that liued and wrote long before Luther but we finde them so rased and altered as some that spake for vs are nowe silent yea some that made for vs are nowe against vs Thus he But howe he wil proue it I doe not knowe He nameth soone after Viues Erasmus Cardinal Cajetane Ferus Stella Espencaeus Oleaster and Faber but al these either liued in Luthers daies or since And for my part I haue perused a litle his booke and I cannot finde any one authour named that liued not either in Luthers daies or after In his testimonies of Iohn Ferus D. 3. only Bertramus and Rampegolus excepted who for ought I knowe are not yet corrected He maketh much adoe about Ferus but what was he and when liued he He was a Catholike Friar in profession although diuers of his sentences seeme to taste of Lutheranisme He flourished as * Crashaw in his testimonies of Iohn Ferus D. 3. Crashaw confesseth in the yeare 1530. that is thirteene yeares after Luthers first breach from vs which was in the yeare 1517. Yea in the next leafe he confesseth him to haue beene aliue in the yeare 1552. more then thirty yeares after Luthers said beginning But perhaps some man vvil say that he published the bookes vvhich we haue corrected before Luthers fal Neither is this true for the most auncient copy that he can name of those bookes he speaketh of was printed in the yeare 1555. almost 40. yeares after that Luther first impugned vs Prolegomena F. 2. as appeareth by his owne graunt And hence a man may both gather howe vvel he proueth his aforesaid assertion affirming that they produce the authours that liued and wrote long before Luther but finde them razed c. and also perceiue howe true that his accusation is They haue corrupted al authours of this last two hundred yeares Prologo E. 3. for as I haue said I thinke that he can hardly name one authour that vve haue corrected of any age before Luthers I can as yet find but one named throughout his booke vvhich vvas of the age immediately before Luthers departure from vs and whether he be corrected or no I know not neuerthelesse this is one of the two hundred yeares Of much lesse truth is that following in vvhich he saith vve haue razed the recordes of higher antiquity reaching vp to some that liued 500. and 800. yeares agoe Ibidem For al this is spoken if it haue any colour of truth for any thing I can finde in his booke or other where of one Bertramus vvhome he auerreth that we haue altered Ibid. §. C. 2. but it is more then euer I sawe or heard And yet not contented with this he goeth a great deale further and auoucheth that our Index expurgatorius hath so vsed almost al bookes in the world I might here vse one of his ordinary exclamations and beginne as I finde the first vvordes of that page Oh intollerable injury For first we haue an expresse inhibition that no man touch the text of the auncient Fathers De correctione librorum §. 3. 4. nor of any Catholikes that vvrote before the yeare 1515. not specified and censured in the Index of forbidden bookes then vve medle not with any bookes of Archeretikes or with such as treate professedly of heresie and so we exclude from our correction al the workes of Luther Zwinglius Caluin and a thousand other bookes of this age And out of this that in like sort appeareth false vvhich he saith of corrupting al such late vvriters as vve imagine any way to make against vs so that we only haue corrected or intend to correct some fewe of vvhich most haue written since this newe Gospel beganne to be preached others very fewe in number liued in deede before the yeare 1515. but are named in our Index and besides these no other can be touched Neither are al these corrected for heresie as wil appeare to the reader by such rules as are to be obserued in the correction of which more hereafter but they are partly set downe by Crashaw towardes the end of his Prolegomena I cannot finally but note Prolegom E. 3. Gesnerus in Bibliotheca that he calleth Ferus an old and famous writer who according to his owne confession vvas liuing vvithin these threescore yeares nay I thinke it may be proued out of Gesnerus that he died not forty yeares since but to saue this he addeth in the margent that he meaneth old in comparison of the Iesuites who nowe saith he carry al before them for he was in the eare when they were in the blade This is his marginal note by which he saueth but il the truth of the text let his meaning be as it wil for the religion of the Iesuites beganne about the yeare 1521. And was confirmed by Paulus 3. Pope about the yeare 1540. long before Ferus died by his owne confession And this it seemeth he wel knewe for it may plainely be gathered out of his preface that the Iesuites were before the end of the Councel of Trent vvhich neuerthelesse vvas in the yeare 1563. But to cleare vs further from al blame touching this point I must also adde this in our defence that this our manner of proceeding is neither to the end to bereaue our aduersaries of any proofe which our aduersaries may bring out of antiquity or any moderne author for the truth of their religion nor to strengthen our cause For although I should yeeld that al the authors whome Crashaw nameth vvere Protestants vvhich yet he confesseth to be false for he granteth they were al Catholikes what should I in effect helpe their cause or weaken ours suppose some named that liued before Luther held some opinions with Wickliffe Hierome of Prage and Iohn Husse what is this to vs Doe
arising his words of them are these Their opinion of the sacrament they began with lies Luther in epist ad IoanneÌ„ Heruagrum TypographuÌ„ Argentinum and with lies they doe defend the same and they broach it abroade by the wicked fauour of corrupting other mens bookes hitherto Luther But perhaps my reader may here desire to see some president of some Protestant booke corrupted by some English sectaries and that confessed by a Protstant behold I haue such a president or two at hand The author of the Suruey of the pretended holy discipline a man of good credit among Protestants hauing alleaged Trauerse his Latin booke Dc disciplin Suruay of the pretended holy discipline printed anno 1593. ch 19. pa. 224. 225. Ecclesiast fol. 119. bringeth forth this reason why he alleaged not the English translated by some English sectary But you must remember saith he that I doe referre you to this latin booke and not to the English translation of it Why some may say is it not faithfully translated Shal we thinke that such zealous men as had to deale herein would serue vs as the Iesuites doe It is we knowe a practise with that false hipocritical broode or rather he should haue said a false slaunder imposed vpon them to leaue out and thrust in what they list into the writinges of the auncient Fathers that thereby in time nothing might appeare which should any way make against them But we wil neuer suspect nor beleeue that any man who feareth God and least of al that any of that sort which are so earnest against al abuses and corruptions shal play such a prancke Surely we doe wel to judge the best and I my selfe was of your opinian but now I am cleane altered How were some of Vrsinus workes vsed at Cambridge and it is true that some other bookes haue beene handled vary strangely else where But concerning the present point this the truth The translator of Trauerses booke hath quite omitted the wordes which I haue alleaged and al the rest which tendeth to that purpose euen seauenteene lines together So as if you see but the English booke you shal not finde so much as one steppe whereby you might suspect that euer M. Trauerse had carried so hard a hand ouer the pretendâ—d widowes If the translatour had receiued any commission from the author to haue dealt in that sort with his booke yet it should haue beene signified either in some preface or in some note or by some meanes or other but to leaue luch a matter out and to giue no general warning of it I tel you plainely it was great dishonesty and lewdnes hitherto are the Protestant authors wordes in the aforesaid Suruey But to come yet a litle nearer to M. Crashaw what wil he say if I finde him guilty of corruption and forgery in this very booke in which he reprehendeth vs This indeede were something to the purpose but as a discreete man would thinke hardly to be proued true in him that so sharply in this very treatise argueth and blameth others for this crime wel I wil doe my endeauour And this argument I bring against him he that taketh vpon him to cite the sayings of others patcheth in leaueth out wordes of their said sentences to serue his owne turne is a corrupter and a forger of other mens sayings but M. Crashaw doth this in his booke made of Romish forgeries and falsifications therefore he is a corrupter and a forger of other mens sayings The Major and first proposition cannot be denied by M. Crashaw For if he incurre the crimes of corruption and forgery as he saith in the highest degree that dealeth so with other mens bookes howe shal we excuse him from them that dealeth so with other mens sayings or sentences Let vs therefore see whether we can proue the Minor or second proposition the truth of vvhich I declare after this sort Prologomena T. 3. Thus you c M. Crashaw in his epistle or preface to his beloued countrimen the seduced Papists of England contending to proue that the Index of forbidden bookes and the Indices expurgatorij are the Popes worke writeth thus For your better satisfaction I wil set you downe briefly the rules to this purpose agreed vpon in that Councel and confirmed afterwardes by diuers Popes Haereticorum libri vt Lutheri Zwinglij Caluini his similium cuiuscunque nominis tituli aut argumenti existant omnino prohibentur The bookes of Heretikes as Luther Zwinglius Caluin and others like to these vnder what name title or argument soeuer they be extant are altogether prohibited thus Crashaw And in the margent he hath these wordes Regula secunda in concilio Tridentino Indice Roma Clementis octaui The 2. rule in the Councel of Trent and the Roman index of Clement the eight But in these words he hath corrupted the rule of the Councel of Trent and of the Roman index of Clement the eight and no such rule is to be found as he here setteth downe therefore he is a forger and corrupter I wil recite the whole rule as I finde it in al those bookes to the end that my reader may see I doe him no wrong The bookes of Heretikes as wel of those who found and raised heresies after the aforesaid yeare 1515. as of those who are or haue beene heads or captaines of Heretikes such as Luther Zwinglius Caluin Balthazar Pacimontanus Swenckfeldius and like vnto these are of what title name or argument soeuer they be are altogether forbidden The bookes of other Heretikes also which treate ex professo of religion that is whose principal argument is of religion are altogether forbidden But such as treate not of religion examined by the commandement of Bishops and Inquisitours by Catholike diuines and approued are permitted hitherto are the wordes of the rule Out of which it is manifest that M. Crashaw by placing the word Heretikes in the place of the word Archeretikes hath falsified the said rule and turned it to a cleane contrary sense For vvhereas the rule saith that certaine bookes of some Heretikes are permitted he maketh it say the bookes of Heretikes vnder what name title or argument whatsoeuer are prohibited And this as it may seeme he doth to perswade his reader that vve are so strict in this matter that we suffer not any bookes whatsoeuer vvritten by Heretikes be they neuer so profitable to be read which is false this is one corruption so palpable that it cannot be denied I vvil not vrge that in the third rule he nameth Iunius his translation of the old testament and Bezaes of the newe whereas these authours or their translations are not so much as named in the rule as it is found in our bookes And for breuities sake I come to his rehersal of our instructions for the purging and correction of bookes Before he setteth downe such thinges as are to be amended translating that vvhich is said in our bookes before
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.