Of the Church fiue bookes. By Richard Field Doctor of Diuinity and sometimes Deane of Glocester.

CHAP. 42.

That nothing can bee concluded for them, or against vs, from the note of Vnitie, or division opposite vnto it.

THus hauing cleared that which Bellarmine objecteth, to prooue, that subjection to, and vnion with the Bishop of Rome, is implyed in that vnity which is required to the being of the Church. Let vs come to the other part, and see, whether any thing may bee concluded from that vnity, which wee confesse to bee required to the be∣ing of the true Church, either against vs, or for them. First therefore, the Iesuite reasoneth against vs in this sort; All they, that are of the true Church, must hold the vnity of the faith once deliuered to the Saints: but there are sundry Here∣tikes, erring damnably in matters of faith, as Zuincheldians, Anabaptists, Tri∣nitarians, and the like, gone out of the reformed Churches: therefore they are not the true Churches of God.

If this kinde of reasoning were good, hee might proue, that those Churches, wherein the Apostles liued, were not the Churches of God; because out of them proceeded sundry heretikes, as a 1.1Hymenaeus, Philetus, b 1.2 Nicolaus, c 1.3 Simon Magus, and the like. But, sayth he, there be two differences betweene the Apo∣stolike Churches, and the reformed Churches in this respect: the first, that the doctrine of the reformed Churches it selfe, and of it owne nature, breedeth dis∣sention: the second, that when there is difference growne, they haue no rule by direction whereof to make an end of controversies. But the divisions that grow from the Catholike Church, proceede meerely from the malice of Sathan, and haue no foundation in the doctrine of it; and if any difference doe arise, it hath a m•…•…anes to end all controversies by, which is, the determination of a Councell or the chiefe Pastour. Both these differences we deny: for, neither doth our do∣ctrine of it selfe breed dissention and diversitie of opinions: neither are wee without meanes of composing controversies, if they arise. If Bellarmine will proue, that our doctrine of it selfe breedeth division, hee must shew that the grounds and principles of it are vncertaine, and such as may occasion errour, contrariety, and vncertaintie of judgment; which he neither doth, nor can doe. For the ground of all our doctrine is the written word of God, interpreted according to the rule of faith, the practise of the Saints from the beginning, the conference of places, and all light of direction, that either the knowledge of •…•…gues, or any part of good learning may yeeld. This surely is the rule to end all controversies by, and not the authoritie of a Councell, or the chiefe Pastour, as Bellarmine fondly imagineth. d 1.4 For, they both must follow the direction of this rule in all their determinations. e 1.5 Whereupon, the Booke of God, and * 1.6 monuments of Antiquity, were alwayes wont to be brought into the Councels, whereby the Fathers might examine all matters controversed, or any way

doubted of. Now as wee want not a most certaine rule, whereby to iudge of all matters of controversie and difference, so in examining things by the dire∣ction of this rule, wee require that Christian moderation in all men, that euer was found in the seruants of God; that no man presume of his owne wisdome, iudgment, and vnderstanding, nor hastily pronounce, before conference with others: ^• For the spirits of the Prophets are subiect to the Prophets; and God is the * 1.7 God of order, and not of confusion. It is therefore a vile calumniation of Bellar∣mine, when hee sayth, that with vs euery one preferreth himselfe before o∣thers, and euery one taketh on him peremptory iudgment of another. For, contrariwise, wee teach all men to submit their priuate opinions to the exa∣mination of others, the meaner to respect those of greater place, and quality, the fewer the more; and those men which pertinaciously contradict the do∣ctrine agreed vpon by consent of all that are in authority, or the greater part, wee reiect from the communion of our Churches, and so, with vs, an end is made of all controversies.

The rule then with vs, is most certaine and infallible, knowen to all; to wit, the scripture or the written word of God, expounded according to the rule of faith, practice of the Saints, and the due comparing of one part of it with an∣other, in the publike confessions of faith, published by the Churches of our communion. In all which there is a full consent, whatsoeuer our malicious ad∣versaries clamourously pretend to the contrary: and all those, that stubborne∣ly resist against this rule, or any thing therein contained, and refuse to bee or∣dered by it, wee reiect as factious and seditious schimatickes. Thus doe wee disclaime all Anabaptists, Familists, Zuinchfeldians, Trinitarians, and all other Sectaries whatsoeuer. But, sayth Bellarmine, how is it then, that there are soe many diuisions, not only from your Churches, but also in your Churches, and amongst them that you take for your brethren, and men of your owne com∣munion, as Lutherans, Caluinists, Flaccians, Melancthonists, Hosiandrines, and the like? To this wee answere, that this diuersity is to be imputed wholly to our aduersaries. For, when there was a reformation to be made of abuses and disorders in matters of practice, and manifold corruptions in very many parts of Christian doctrine; & in a Councell by generall consent it could not be hoped for, (as g 1.8 Gerson long before out of his owne experience saw and pro∣fessed) by reason of the preuailing faction of the Popes flatterers, but this was necessarily to be assayd seuerally, in the particular kingdomes of the world; it was not possible but that some diversity should grow, while one knew not, nor expected to know what another did. Yet it so fell out by the happy prouidence of God, and force of that maine trueth they all sought to aduance, that there was no materiall or essentiall difference amongst them, but such as, vpon equall scanning, will bee found rather to consist in the diuerse maner of expressing one thing, and to bee but verball vpon mistaking, through the hasty and inconside∣rate humours of some men, than any thing else. Yea I dare confidently pro∣nounce, that after due and full examination of each others meaning, h 1.9 there shall be no difference foūd touching the matter of the Sacrament, the vbiquitary pre∣sence, or the like, between the Churches reformed by Luthers ministery in Ger∣many, and other places, and those whome some mens malice called Sacra∣mentaries: that none of the differences betweene i 1.10 Melancthon and Illyricus

except about certaine ceremonies, were reall: that Hosiander held no private o∣pinion of Iustification, howsoeuer his strange manner of speaking, gaue occa∣sion to many so to thinke and conceiue. And this shall be iustified against the proudest Papist of them all.

But, sayth Bellarmine, your Churches are so torne and rent with dangerous diuisions, that not onely one of you dissenteth from another, but the same man often times from himselfe: and herein giueth instance in Luther, whose judgement varied in divers things of great consequence. Touching Luther, we answere, that he was a most worthy Diuine, as the world had any in those times, wherein he liued, or in many ages before; & that for the clearing of sun∣dry poynts of greatest moment in our Christian profession, much obscured & intangled before, with the intricate disputes of the Schoolemen, and Romish Sophisters, (as of the power of nature, of free will, grace, iustification; the difference of the Law and the Gospell, faith and workes, Christian libertie, and the like) all succeeding ages shall euer be bound to honour his happie memory. In all these things hee was euer constant: yea, all these things he perfectly ap∣prehended, and to the great joy of many mens hearts deliuered both by word and writing, before he departed from the Romish Synagogue; and out of these, and more diligent search of the Scripture and Fathers, then was vsuall in those times by degrees saw and descried those Popish errours, which at first hee discerned not.

That herein he proceeded by degrees, and in his later writings disliked that which in his former he did approoue, is not so strange a thing, as our aduersa∣ries would make it seeme to be. Did not Augustine, the greatest of all the Fathers, and worthiest Diuine the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times) write a whole booke of Retractations? Doe we not carefully obserue, what things he wrote, when he was but a Presbyter, and what, when hee was made a Bishop, what, before he entred into conflict with the Pelagians, and what afterwards? Did hee not formerly attribute the election of those that were chosen to eternall life, to the foresight of faith, which afterward he dis∣claimed, as a meere Pelagian conceit? So that his aduersaries, as appeareth by the Epistles of Prosper and Hillarius, did not only charge him to be contrary to the Fathers, but to himselfe also. Did k 1.11 not Ambrose in his time com∣plaine, that he was forced to teach before he had learned, and so to deliuer ma∣ny things, that should neede and require a second review? Doth not their Angelicall Doctor, in his Summe of Theologie, correct, and alter many things that he had written before? Let not our aduersaries therefore insult vpon Lu∣ther, for that he saw not all the abominations of Popery at the first, but let them rather consider of, and yeeld to the reasonablenesse of the ^• request, which in the preface of his workes hee maketh to all Christian and well min∣ded readers, to wit, that they would reade his bookes and writings with iudg∣ment, and with much commisseration, and remember that he was sometimes a Frier. nourished in the errors of the Romish Church, so that it was more painefull to him to forget those things hee had formerly ill learned, than to learne anew that which is good.

But, say they, Luther himselfe witnesseth, that contrariety and cotradi∣ction is a note of falshood; and therefore his writings being contradictory, the later to the former, his whole doctrine must needes be false, euen in his owne iudgement. Let them, that thus reason against Luther, know, that his mea∣ning is not, that whosoeuer retracteth and correcteth that he formerly taught, is thereby conuinced of falshood, and his whole doctrine prooued to bee erro∣neous; but that those assertions, that doe implie contradicton, and contrarietie, that stand wholly vpon doubtfull, vncertaine & perplexed disputes, and so o∣uerthrow themselues, doe thereby appeare to be false. Of which nature are all the principall parts of the Romish doctrine. For example; Transubstantia∣tion

is one of the greatest mysteries of Popish religion, and all Papists at this day do firmely hold and beleeue it: yet it is demonstratiuely prooued by their owne best Diuines, that such a totall conuersion, or transubstantiation of the Sacramentall elements into the body & bloud of Christ, is impossible, & impli∣eth in it sundry contradictions, & consequences of horrible impieties.

n 1.12 For is it not implyed in the nature of the transubstantiation, or totall con∣uersion of one substance into another, that the one must succeed the other in being? and that the former must cease to be, & the later therevpon begin to be? whence it will followe, that the later of the two substances, into which the conuersion is made, was not, nor had no being before. Now vvhat greater blasphemie can there be, than to thinke Christs body had no beeing, till the Massing Priests had wrought this miraculous Transubstantiation? It is true, that one substance may be changed into another, as was Lots wife into a pillar of salt: but that one substance should passe, and be totally transubstantiated into another, hauing the same beeing, without all difference before the supposed Transubstantiation, that after it hath, and nothing beeing new in it, in respect of substance, or beeing, implieth a contradiction; and therefore the sacramen∣tall elements cannot be transubstantiated into Christs body & bloud.

That which Bellarmine hath out of Scotus, of Transubstantiatio productiua and adductiua, is the most childish folly that euer was. For this is that he saith; The substance of the sacramentall elements is annihilated, and they returne into that nothing out of vvhich they vvere formerly taken, and then Christs body commeth into the place, where they vvere before; Therefore the one sub∣stance may be sayd to be changed into the other. If this reason be good, when one man remooueth out of his place, into which another vpon his remooue doth enter, the former may be sayd to be transubstantiated into the later. For, as the former of the two supposed men, goeth out of his place into some o∣ther, vvhereupon the other succeedeth him, not in being, but in place: so the sacramentall elements goe out of their place, and returne to that nothing, out of vvhich they vvere created, and the body of Christ succeedeth them, not in being, vvhich it had the very same vvhile they vvere, but in place.

^• Neither can this supposed conuersion of the elements into the body of Christ, be the cause of Christs being in the Sacrament, but rather of their own ascension and going vp into heauen. For, though vvhen one substance is turned into another not being before the conuersion, but by the conuersion beginning to bee, that, into vvhich the conuersion is made, occupieth and possesseth the place the other held: as vvhen Lots wife was conuerted into a pillar of salt, the pillar stood in that place, where she vvas vvhen shee vvas conuerted: yet if one substance should bee changed into another preexistent, the conuerted should get the place of that into vvhich it vvere conuerted; so that the bread and vvine on the mysticall table, being conuerted into the body and bloud of Christ sitting in heauen at the right hand of God, should goe vp into heauen, and not bring him to the table. And yet this vvas the principall reason, that moued the authours of Transubstantiation, to like better of that, than of any other construction of Christs vvords. For that they supposed thereby, the body of Christ might be made present in the Sacrament, without any change of place or locall motion, in respect of it selfe. Which yet p 1.13 Scotus q 1.14 Occam, and the latter Schoolemen doe vtterly reiect. So sweetely do these men agree, that talke so much of vnity. Verily I am perswaded, there are more materiall, and reall differences amongst them, touching this one sacrament, then there are appearing differences or controuersies amongst those of our religion, touching all points of Religion.

r 1.15 For is it not so, that there are foure opinions touching the presence of Christ in the sacrament, and three of them different from Transubstantiation? So that notwithstāding the decree of the Laterane Councell, many of the wisest and best learned were of opinion, that Transubstantiation cannot be deduced from the scripture, or the Churches determination Did. not s 1.16 Thomas Aqui∣nas, and the rest of that time deny that one body may be locally in more places than one, at one time, and reiect it as a thing impossible, and implying contradi∣ction? and doe not the Papistes at this day iudge vs haereticks for being of the same opinion? Did t 1.17 they not in Berengarius time thinke, that the very body of Christ is torne with teeth, and yet without hurt, by a strange miracle? And was not Berengarius in his recantation forced to say so much? yet at this day, this conceipt is holden most absurd and foolish. Do not some of them say, that the body of Christ goeth downe into the stomacke and belly, and is eaten of mice, and dogges? and do not others detest this blasphemous impiety? Do not some of them say, there are accidents in the Sacraments without substance? and do not others affirme, that those accidents are inherent in the aire? Do not some of them say, that when the Priest breaketh that which he holdeth in his hands after consecration, it is no true breaking, but a deceiuing of the sense? Others, that hee truely breaketh, and yet nothing is broken? Others, that Christs body is broken? and others, that the accidents are broken? Such a broken religion haue these men deuised, that neither the Fathers, nor any, before Barbarisme had possessed all, euer thought of. u 1.18 Do not some of them say, that Christ in the Sa∣crament retaineth his owne proportion of parts, figure and fashion? and do not others say and demonstratiuely proue, that if he be in the Sacrament, hee hath no distance of parts, no figure, no fashion, nor organicall disposition of body, and consequently no life? The rest of the infinite mazes, that these men turning out of the direct way, haue lost themselues in, I haue no pleasure to treade out. But those fewe examples may suffice to shewe that their whole doctrine is full of vncertainty, contrariety, and contradiction, and doth testifie against it selfe, that it is not of God.

It were easie to shewe, that all Popish doctrine is nothing else but a masse of vncertainties and contradictions, shewing that they are out of the way, that pro•…•…esse it, and know not how to finde either it, or themselues. If any Papist dare deny this, it shall bee proued against him in particulars. But they will say, notwithstanding all these differences, yet they submitte their iudgements to the censure of the Pope and Councell, and therefore their diuisions are not daungerous nor hereticall.

How false and shamelesse this answere is, the x 1.19 infinite number of them that haue euer iudged, that the Pope may erre and become an Hereticke, doth appa∣rantly demonstrate.

If they shall say, that though they dare not relye vpon the infallibility of the popes iudgement, yet they rest in the determination of generall Councelles; it will bee found that they are as doubtfull touching the authority of Coun∣celles, as they are concerning the Pope, y 1.20 some saying, they are meere humane inuentions; others, that they are nothing, if the Pope confirme them not; others that they are, though hee refuse to confirme them; and others, that both may

erre: some reiecting one Councell, and some another, as appeareth by the con∣trarie iudgment of Papists, of the Councelles of Constance, Basill, Pisa, and Florence.

But they will say, they all hold that, which the Catholike Romane Church doth hold, and in other things, not yet agreed vppon, thinke euery man at his pleasure. This is as much, as if they should haue sayd, that wherein soeuer they all agree, they all agree, and wherein soeuer they differ, each faction doth differ from another, and carefully prouideth, that nothing shall passe against it by publike consent, as appeareth in the matter of Maries conception, & sundry o∣ther things, which no Councell durst euer determine, for feare of offendinge the contrarie factions dissenting about these things. Thus then, I hope, it ap∣peareth out of that which hath beene spoken, that by the note of vnity and di∣uision, the Romanistes are found to bee in errour, and not wee. What degree of vnity is necessarily required in the true Churches of God; and what divisions may be found among the societies of Christians, and yet not cause them to cease to be the true Churches of God, I haue sufficiently cleared in that part, where∣in I shewed, what is the nature of schisme and heresie.

Notes

• a 1.1

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Tim c. 17.
• b 1.2

  Revel 2. 6.
• c 1.3

  Actes •…•…. 18.
• d 1.4

  Ne•…•… mouere quenquam de∣bet quod con∣•…•…dem pro∣fessionem pa∣trum praeposus decreto gene∣ralo. Consilii, quam fide de toto 〈◊〉〈◊〉 existentes conuenitent e∣•…•…copi: quin •…•…∣mo in tractati∣bu•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…uic •…•…ost •…•…ptaras 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Concilio∣rum 〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉 that 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. art. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 1•…•….
• e 1.5

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.6

  〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 de 〈◊◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊◊〉.
• * 1.7

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 1 Cor. 14 32, 33.
• g 1.8

  P. 3. dialog. apolog. iudici∣um de Conci∣lio Constanci∣ensi.
• h 1.9

  See Chap. 35.
• i 1.10

  That which Il∣lyricus said tou∣ching originall sinne, which hee affirmed to be an essential corrup∣tion, was not soe meant, as if sinne were a positiue thing, or an es∣sence and sub∣stance, as many did conceiue: for he acknowledged, that sinne is formally nothing, but a want of r•…•…ctitude, and an aberration: but as wee call that action sinne, wherein defect and want of rectitude is found, so likewise hee feared not to call the essentiall powers of the soule, auerse from God, and disordered in their motions and inclinations, by the name of originall sinne, because they are originally sinne∣full, Smidelinus cleareth Hosiander, shewing that his opinion was that by the actiue and passiue righteousnesse of Christ, perfor∣med in his humane nature, as by causes meritorious, wee finde fauour with God and haue communion with him, and are made par∣takers of his essentiall righteousnesse: not transfusing it into us or confounding it withus as many mistocke him, but by such a kind of participation as that, is wherein all creatures partake of Gods diuine perfections, and that so partaking of his righteousnesse we may do •…•…hat is right in his sight.
• k 1.11

  De t•…•…ibuna. lib. atque ad∣ministrationis insulis ad sacer∣dotium rap∣tus, do•…•…ere vos copi, quod ipse non did•…•…ci, ita∣que factum est, vt prius docere inciperem, quàm discerem: •…•…endum ergo milu simul & docendum est, quoniam non vacauit ante discere; & quā∣tum libet quis∣que profecerit, nemo est, qui doceri non e∣geat, dum vi∣vit, Ambr. offi∣ciorum li. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 1. •…•…uther in his preface 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 wo•…•…kes. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Bellar. l. 4. c. 10 de notis ec∣clesiae ait, Lu∣therum sic di∣cere in libro de •…•…ous Monasti cis.
• n 1.12

  The conversion or turning of one thing into ano∣ther, is then, whe vpon the ceasing of the former, the later begin∣neth to be in such sort as the con∣uersion is: if it be substantiall, the former ceasing to be that substance it was, the later begins to be that substance it was not before. Wherefore if bread be substan∣tially turned into Christs body, the ceasing of the substance of bread is the be∣ginning of the substance of his body: this is called by Scotus, tran∣substantiatio productiva: and is confessed to be impossible in re∣spect of the sub∣stance of bread, and the body of Christ. Wherefore they say that one substance may be sayd to be turned into the other, when vpon the ceasing of the former, the later begins to haue the same quali∣ties, apparell, place and im∣ployment the for∣mer had: and s•…•… suppose the body of Christ filling the same place that the bread did, but now cea∣seth to doe, (re∣turning into that nothing out of which it was ta∣ken) that the bread may bee sayd to be turned into Christs body: and this is called by them transubstantiatio adductiua. Bielin Canonem missae lect. 40. hath a more foolish conceit than the former: See Scotus in quartum distinct. 11. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Scotus in 4. distinct. 10. q. 1.
• p 1.13

  Scot. in 4. dist. 10. quest. 1.
• q 1.14

  In 4 quaest. 6.
• r 1.15

  Cameracensis •…•…ut. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. in•…•…q 6.
• s 1.16

  Thomas in quo•…•…libetali∣bus q•…•…oni∣bus quodlibeto 3 q. 1. art. 2 Dutandu•…•… lib. 4. distinct. 11. qu•…•…st. 1.
• t 1.17

  Cons•…•… Be∣rengar•…•… est, pa∣nem & vinum post consecra∣tionem esse ve∣rum corpus & sanguinem Christi; & sen∣sualiter non so∣lum in sacra∣mento, sed eti∣am in veritate manibus sacer∣dotum tractari, & frangi, & fi∣delium •…•…enti∣bus atter•…•….
• u 1.18

  Corpus Chri∣sti est totum in tota ho•…•…ia & totum in qua∣libet parte: hinc dubitatur an retineat di∣stantiam parti∣tium? distin∣guit Scotus ordinem parti∣um in toto, & in loco: pri∣mum retinere dicit, non se∣cundum. Oc∣cam probat se∣cundum non posse esse sine primo, nec pri mum sine secundo; vnde probat corpus Christi, in Eu∣charistia, non habete distan∣tiam •…•…el ordi∣nem partium in toto 〈◊〉〈◊〉, et per con∣sequens nullam figuram, nec esse organieum, & proinde nec animatum. Occam li. 4. q. 4 Cameracensis. in 4. quaest 5.
• x 1.19

  Quod 〈◊〉〈◊〉 errate in •…•…udicando possit, asseverantissimè à plerisque pronunciatur. Picus Theoremate 4. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 etiam concilia errare cosse ostendit.
• y 1.20

  Pighius hierarch. lib. 6. cap. 1. 2. 4. putavit vniuersalium conciliorum Constantinum •…•…ntorem fuisse: quem diuinorum mysteriorum atque adeo Romani pontificis au∣ctoritatis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fuisse pronunciat: hunc reprehendit Andradius de generalium conciliorum auctori∣tate lib 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. •…•…dem Andradius ait, si vniuersi patres in Synodo aliquid definitent vnanimiter, cui definitioni sola pe•…•…ona Papae contradiceter, Synodo standum es•…•…e, & non iudicio papae: & idem sen•…•…sse ait Turrecremat: & tamen 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 damnabant, vt patet ibidem. Gallia Synodum Florentinam pro Oecumenicâ nunquam habuit, 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉, nec perfectam admisit. Andrad. des•…•…rip. & tradit. auctoritate lib. 2 fol. 251. Constantiensem Synodum 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 Cai•…•…anus, affirmat Andradius in eodem lib. fol. 2•…•….