his holy spirit it must needes followe that vvhosoeuer is infected with any one such heresie is void of al spiritual life and in state of damnation and can haue no more life then a mans arme cut off from his body or a bough cut from a tree But of this matter I shal entreate more at large Chap. 1. Sect. 4. in my treatise of the definition and notes of the true Church vvhere I shal proue that the members of Christes Church are lincked together by the profession of the same vvhole summe of Christian doctrine and therefore for this present this shal suffice And lesse I thinke would haue satisfied any reasonable man for seing that there is but one true rule of beleefe Ephes 4. vers 4. and one faith according as vve are taught by the Apostle among Christians and this faith is so necessary to saluation as I haue proued before no wise-man wil prescribe himselfe a rule of faith according to his owne erroneous fancy and neglect the judgement of the Church whome truth it selfe hath warranted that she shal not erre from truth Chapter 7. Of the holy Scripture which is the first particuler ground of faith in the Catholike Church SECTION THE FIRST Howe the Scripture is knowne to be Canonical THE supreame authority and infallible judgement of the Church being thus established and proued it may wel in this place be demanded vvhat particuler groundes decrees or principles the Church doth deliuer vnto vs or we finde in the Church whereupon we may securely build our faith For the resolution of this question I haue affirmed in the title of this Chapter that the first such particuler ground is the holy Scripture And although there be no controuersie betweene vs and our aduersaries concerning the authority of diuers bookes of the said holy Scripture for most of them by vs al are confessed to be Canonical yet much difference there is betweene vs concerning the meanes by vvhich vve knowe the holie Scripture and euery parcel thereof to be the true vvord of God and vvho is to be judge of the true sence of these diuine volumes vvherefore these points are briefly to be handled and discussed Howe then doe vve knowe that the old and newe Testament are Canonical howe can vve certainely assure our selues that the Apostles and Disciples vvrote the newe vvhat proofe likevvise haue vve to perswade vs that no part of the holie Scripture hath beene in times past corrupted or depraued I answere in fewe vvordes that al this is infallibly knowne vnto vs by the authority and judgement of the Catholike Church vvho hath adjudged al such bookes to be Canonical and as Canonical receiued them and deliuered them to her children I denie not but the Scriptures before the definition and censure of the Church vvere true and contained the certaine and sincere vvord of God but this only I say that this truth and authority was first infallibly knowne vnto vs by the Church vvho adjudged and censured them to be as they are and as such commanded al Christians to esteeme and reuerence them Neither is this any waies prejudicial to the dignity and authority of the holie Scripture for this notwithstanding vve confesse that the said Scripture is of farre greater authority then the Church or her definitions be vvhich is manifest because although the holie Ghost assist and direct both the vvriters of holie Scripture and the Church yet certaine it is that hee hath assisted and directed the first after a farre more excellent manner then he doth the second because his assistance and direction in penning those sacred bookes vvas such that euery sentence in them contained is of most certaine verity but his assistance vnto the Church vvhether it be in a general Councel or otherwise in the decrees of the Bishop of Rome maketh only that vvhich the said Councel or Bishop intend to define of such an infallible truth Wherefore then doe vve proue the Scripture to be Canonical by the authority of the Church Surely for no other reason then because the Church is better knowne vnto vs then the Scripture For the Church hath alwaies beene as I vvil proue hereafter most visible and apparant to the vvhole vvorld euery man also before that the newe Testament vvas written before that it vvas generally receiued by the Church might haue knowne the Church for she vvas before any part of it was penned and consequently by her infallible judgement euery one might with farre more ease and certainety haue come to the knowledge of such bookes then by any other meanes or industry Wherefore to conclude although the Church maketh not Scripture yet of her we learne most certainely which is Scripture And this is no more disgrace vnto Scripture then it was vnto Christ that the Apostles gaue testimony of him because they were better knowne then he I adde also that euery one of them who aboue al others reprehend this our assertion taketh vpon himselfe as great authority ouer Scriptures as vve giue to the whole Church See part second chap. 5. Sect. 1. For euery newe sectarie out of his owne fancy judgeth this to be Scripture that to be none c. vvhich must needes be in euery mans judgement farre more absurd This assertion being thus explicated let vs nowe briefly proue the same And first because vve can assigne no other meanes by vvhich vve may say that vve certainely knowe the Scripture to be Canonical but the authority of the Church And as concerning the old Testament although vve graunt that the authority thereof vvas first partly approued by miracles partly by the testimony of Prophets and partly by the authority of the Church in those daies yet howe doe vve nowe infallibly knowe that it vvas so approued and that it is the selfe same nowe that vvas then approued but by the relation tradition and censure of the Church But let vs come to the newe Testament and demand vvho hath receiued it into the Canon of holie Scripture vvhat miracles haue beene vvrought to proue it Canonical who doth assure vs that it vvas penned by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ and that since their daies it hath not beene corrupted Verily the Church only resolueth vs of al these questions and telleth vs vvith assurance of truth that the said newe Testament vvas vvritten by the said sacred authours inspired and directed by the holy Ghost and that euer since their daies it hath beene preserued in her sacred bosome vvithout corruption And no other answere hauing any probability of truth and sufficient to satisfie a reasonable mans vnderstanding can be made This may also be confirmed by the continual practise of the Church For no man can deny but it vvas her doing that the foure Gospels of S. Mathewe Marke Luke and Iohn See part 2 chap. 5. Sect. 2. were receiued and the Gospel called of Nicodemus with others rejected She hath likwise now receiued as Canonical diuers bookes in times past of
Canonical without his approbation although the number of Bishoppes vvere neuer so great as appeareth by that of Ephesus vnder Theodosius the younger by that of Constantinople vnder Leo Isaurus and diuers others And out of this discourse I gather that this authority of general Councels if we had no other argument were sufficient to perswade vs to detest and abhorre the condemned doctrine of the new Sectaries For the same Church which in the first general Councel of Nice condemned Aâ—ius and the Arians the same which in the second such Councel held at Constantinople condemned Macedonius and the Macedonians vvhich in the third held at Ephesus condemned Nestorius the Nestorians vvhich in the fourth held at Chalcedon condemned Eutiches and the Eutichians vvhich finally in other general Councels hath condemned other Heretiks and heresies The selfe same Church I say directed in al truth by the holy Ghost hath condemned and accursed Luther and the Lutherans Zuinglius and the Zuinglians vvith al their followers togeather vvith their doctrine in the last general Councel held at Trent But they say that this Councel vvas not laweful nor the judges indifferent I reply first that this hath beene an old cauil of al condemned Heretiks wherefore it may lawefully be suspected in these Moreouer it is sufficiently proued by Catholike authors and the matter is euident in it selfe that nothing necessarie to a laweful general Councel vvas vvanting in this vvherefore it is receiued by the vvhole Church as Canonical and therefore no vvise man seing that saluation and damnation vpon this depend vvil reject it vpon these mens reportes They affirme further that the Church hath no authority in a general Councel to make any newe article of faith To this likewise I answere that the Church properly maketh no newe article of faith for euerie decree by her made concerning such matters is either in expresse tearmes contained in the holie scriptures or gathered out of them by infallible deduction through the direction of the holie Ghost or expresly or virtually approued by the vnwritten Tradition of the Church wherefore the Church neither hath euer taught or shal euer teach any truth so newe that it vvas vnknowne to the Apostles For that which by her is defined and propounded was true before and an article of faith although sometimes not certainelie nor generally knowne before to be of such authority or dignity And that this is our doctrine it is graunted by Field vvhose vvords are these Field book 4. cap. 12. § Our aduersaries Our aduersaries confesse that the approbation and determination of the Church can not make that a truth which was not nor that a diuine or Catholike truth which was not so before thus Field Hence the Catholike diuines affirme that Christian faith neuer since Christs ascention hath increased or beene altered in substance but only in explanation or explication because the Church hath euer since only more plainelie and expresly declared her beliefe and authority to doe this vvas needful in her Vinc. Lir. cap. 28. 29. et 30. for preseruing of peace and ending of al controuersies This Vincentius Lirinensis most elegantly declareth by a similitude taken from the body of man vvhich hath the same members in his infancie youth vvhen he is at mans estate and in his old age and although for the diuersitie of time they are lesse and greater vveaker and stronger yet the body it selfe is not chaunged but augmented so saith he it falleth out in our faith c. They object also the authority of some Fathers but principally those vvordes of S. Gregorie Nazianzene vvho saith as he is alleaged by Whitaker * Whit. in his ans to Camp 4. reasoÌ„ Abbot in his answere to Hils 9 reasoÌ„ Nazianz epist 55. or 42. alias 102. ad Procop. Hist tri part li 9. cap. 9. That he had deliberated with himselfe and fully resolued to auoid Episcopal conuocations because he had neuer seene a good issue of anie Sinode I answere that this holy father doth not deny the authority of lawful general Councels as appeareth by his testimonie before cited and also by this that he vvas a most earnest defender of the Nicene Councel as is testified by Ecclesiastical histories and was himselfe present and subscribed to the second general Councel held at Constantinople He therefore only speaketh of such Sinods as was celebrated in those daies when he wrote that epistle of which fewe were lawful and none had good successe as appeareth by that of Seleucia Ariminum Millan Tirus Sirmium Bilson in his booke of the perpetual gouernment of Christs Church Chap. 16. pag. 396. Athan. li. de sinod et ad Affrican see also S. Ambrose epist 32. c. of vvhich in verie deed he neuer sawe good issue and for that cause he refused to be present to any of them and this solution is approued by M. Bilson a learned Protestant who expresly saith that this Father in these words condemneth not al Councels They bring likewise against vs certaine words of S. Augustine in his booke against Maximinus where he writeth thus as Abbot translateth him But nowe neither should I produce the Nicene Councel nor thou that of Ariminum as meaning to extol it neither am I held with the authority of the one nor thou with the other I answere first that although S. Augustine might haue proued out of S. Athanasius and diuers other authentical authors that the lawful Councel of Ariminum most notably confirmed the Nicene faith and that the Councel alleaged by this Heretike vvas but the supscription of the Bishops to a certaine forme of faith by threatning feare and affliction extorted by Taurus the Emperors officer after that the Councel vvas finished yet in the dispute which he had with Maximinus the said Maximinus opposing the Councel of Ariminum aganst the Councel of Nice he vvould not enter into the proofe of the authority of the one and confutation of the other but hauing most pregnant testimonies of holy scripture he voluntarily in that disputation ceased to vrge the authority of the Councel of Nice and so those his vvordes Neither am I held c. are vnderstood for the sense of them is I vvil not that nowe thou be bound to the one or I to the other Verely that he esteemed highly of the authoritie of general Councels al his workes and proceedings testifie yea his discourse before the vvords alleaged doth proue it as wil appeare to the reader For he saith that in the Councel of Nice the word consubstantial was by the Catholike fathers established by the authority of truth and by the truth of authority And in another place he telleth vs Tom. 7. de baptismo contr Donat li. 7. cap. 53. that we may securely auerre that which is confirmed and roborated by the consent of the vniuersal Church Chapter 10. Of the decrees of the supreame visible Pastour of the Church which make a fourth particuler ground of our faith and of other
true sence of the word of God then these newe Sectaries doe and seing that their sanctity was so great malice could no vvaies blinde them Verilie any indifferent man if the matter were put to his censure although those ancient Fathers had enjoyed no farther warrant of the assistance of the holie Ghost then these newe Gospellers doe would rather imagine truth to be with them then with these But our aduersaries alleage for themselues that euery particuler man assembled in a general Councel may erre I answere that true it is that euery particuler man the Bishoppe of Rome being excepted is subject to errour but seing that the Popes judgement joyned vvith the assent of the vvhole Church in a general Councel is infallible and in such a case cannot be erroneous and no general Councel is of supreame force without his confirmation it followeth that the decrees of a laweful general Councel cannot be false The reason vvherefore the confirmation of al Councels dependeth so much of the Popes authority is because he is ministerial head of the Church of Christ and consequently the bodie must needs haue his assent and confirmation before the constitutions by it made be of force and certainely knowne to be free from errour and falshood Finallie our Protestants of England concerning general Councels haue decreed as followeth * Articles of faith agreed vppon in the Conuocations of the years 1562. and 1604. art 21. See Fulk vppon the Rhēs testamēt Mathew 8 14. Whitakers in his answer to Campions 4. reason in English pa. 110. Field book 4. of the church chapt 6. pag. 228. General Councels for as much as they be an assembly of men whereof al be not gouerned with the spirit and word of God may erre and sometimes haue erred euen in thinges pertaining vnto God wherefore thinges ordained by them as necessary to saluation haue neither strength nor authority vnlesse it may be declared that they be taken out of holy scriptures The like censure is pronounced by their principal diuines And M. Field telleth vs that Bishops assembled in a general Councel may interpret the scripture and by their authority suppresse al them that shal gainsay such interpretations and subject euery man that shal disobey such determinations they consent vpon to excommunication and censures of the like nature Out of which his assertion it is euident that according to the prouidence and wisedome of almighty god general Councels should not be subject to errour in such matters for otherwise men might be forced and that according to his ordinances to obey such general Councels erring and propounding false doctrine But this notwithstanding the same Field in another place concludeth Lib. 4. cap. 5. pag. 204. Luther tome 2. lib. contra regem Angliae fol. 342. that Councels may erre in matters of greatest consequence Of the testimonie of the auncient Fathers thus writeth Luther in his booke against king Henrie the eight of England In the last place Henry bringeth in for the sacrifice of the Masse the saying of the Fathers Here say I that by this my sentence is confirmed for this is it which I said that the Thomistical asses haue nothing that they can bring forth but a multitude of men and the auncient vse But I as against the sayings of the Fathers of men of Angels of deuils oppose not the auncient consent not a multitude of men but the Gospel the word of the one eternal majesty Here I stand here I sit here I remaine here I boast here I triumph here I insult ouer the sayings of men be they neuer so holy insomuch that I passe not if a thousand Augustines a thousand Tertullians did stand against me Tome 5 The like sentence he hath in his famous commentarie vpon the epistle to the Galathians his wordes are these Some wil say vnto me the Church during so many ages hath so thought and taught al the primitive Churches and doctors most holy men much greater and more learned then thou art Who art thou that darest dissent from al these and obtrude vnto vs a diuers doctrine When Sathan thus vrgeth and conspireth with flesh and reason the conscience it terrified and despaireth vnlesse constantly thou returne to thy selfe and say whether Ciprian Ambrose Augustine or Peter Paul and Iohn yea an Angel from heauen teach otherwise yet this I know for certaine that I counsaile not men humane but diuine things Againe No other doctrine ought to be deliuered or heard in the Church but the pure word of God that is the holy scripture let other doctours or hearers together their doctrine be accursed Hitherto Luther confessing as vve see the vvhole primitiue Church and al the ancient Fathers to contrarie his doctrine and yet rejecting their authority and obstinately persisting and obdurating himselfe in his heretical opinions Zuinglius to 1. ī explanat artic 64. fol. 107. The same course runneth Zuinglius who discourseth thus The Papists say who shal discusse the controuersies and dissentions which are at this present in the Church Who shal judge of them Who shal pronounce sentence I answere the word of God neither wil we allowe of any other judge They affirme we denie the Masse is a sacrifice who shal be judge of the controuersie I say the one and only word of God But presently thou beginnest to cry out the Fathers the Fathers for the Fathers haue so delivered and writ thus But I relate to thee neither fathers nor mothers but require the word by this only it ought to haue beene proued that the Masse is a sacrifice thus Zuinglius The opinion of Caluin is consonant to these Calu. in praefat Instit ad regem Galiae Item booke 3. Instit chapt 4. § 38. Al things saith he discoursing of the works of the ancient Fathers are ours to serue vs not to ouer-rule vs. Againe Those things which every foot occur in the works of the old writers or Fathers touching satisfaction moue me but litle for I see that diuers of them I wil say simply as it is almost al whose works are extant either haue erred in this matter or haue spoken ouer crabbedly and hardly Our English Protestants haue sufficiently declared their opinion touching the authority of the auncient Fathers by pronouncing so hard a censure against general Councels as we haue heard Whitak contra Sander pag. 92. Hence Whitaker one of their principal Champions vseth this discourse If you argue saith he from the testimonies of men be they neuer so learned and auncient we yeeld no more to their words in cause of religion then we perceiue to be agreeable to Scripture neither thinke your selfe to haue proued any thing though you bring against vs the whole swarme of Fathers except that which they say be justified not by the voice of men but by God himselfe this is Whitakers doctrine Whitakers in his answer to Campians 2. reason p. 70. see him also in his answer to the 6. reason pag. 159.
goe on in the first place alleaged And therefore for as much as in these controuersies the Papists and the Prelates goe hand in hand the said Ministers doe in like manner make the like offer to the Priestes and Iesuites promising their reconcilement vnto that See of Rome if they can either by arguments pul them from the aforesaid propositions or can answere such arguments as they shal propound in the defence of them in manner and forme before specified in the offer And therefore it both stands the Ministers vpon to make the aforesaid offer and the Prelates except they wil haue al the world to judge them to be friendes in hart to Popery to accept of the same Thus the Puritan Ministers and no such offer that I finde through the whole booke is made to the Protestants This then is affirmed by these men that if the Protestant doctrine mainetained against them be true and their assertions be false the separation of the newe Sectaries Churches from ours cannot be justified yea they auouch that if this be so that their said Churches are schismatical Vnto which if we adde that in very deede the propositions which the Puritans offer to mainetaine against the Prelates are false and erroneous the truth of which assertion is confessed with great vehemency defended by al the English Protestants and further concerning some of the said propositions very vvel proued by Hooker Whitgift Bilson Couel and others of their company we shal haue our desired conclusion that according to the doctrine of the English Sectaries the Puritans and the Protestants our aduersaries Churches are Schismatical and that ours is the true Spouse of Christ But I must not here omitte by the way to aduertise my reader that in the judgement of any wise and judicious person this argument yeelded vs by our aduersaries cannot but also be a very strong proofe of the truth of our Catholike cause For vvhosoeuer maturely considereth the matter shal finde that the Protestants in rejecting the Puritan propositions followe the prescript and rule of holy Scriptures the decrees of Councels and the tradition of the Church and Fathers He shal also perceiue that the Puritans in auouching that which I haue related build vpon very good reasons flowing out of the very nature of the Protestant religion and taken from the proceedings of the vpholders of the same in defending it because out of the doctrine and practise defended by the Protestants against the Puritans as also out of the proofes and reasons alleaged for themselues very strong arguments may be drawne to confirme the truth of our whole Catholike religion as wil sometimes appeare in my treatise following And to giue here one instance the Protestants for the authority of Arch-bishops bring diuers reasons and among others this one that peace and vnity can otherwise hardly be maintained in the Church But vvhat faith Cartwright Suruay of the pretended holy discipline chap. 8. pag. 125. Truly he affirmeth as is reported by the author of the Suruay of the pretended holy discipline that the Popes authority is more necessary ouer al Churches then the authority of an Arch-bishop ouer a prouince And this his assertion is grounded vpon very good reason as I shal more at large declare hereafter Nowe to prosecute mine intended discourse vvhich is to proue some errours in the English sectaries here occurreth another argument like vnto the former not vnfit for my purpose For like as I haue already demonstrated that if they al say true our Church is the true Church of Christ so it is also euident that if it be so that they al say true it is also needful there be one supreame head of the vvhole Church militant Suruay c. chap. 29. pag. 372. for thus I argue Cartwright a principal Puritan esteemed by those of his owne sect as the aforesaid author noteth one of the only worthies of the world telleth vs that the Popes authority is more necessary ouer al Churches then the authority of an Arch-bishop ouer a prouince but the authority of an Arch-bishop as al our Protestants defend is necessary ouer a prouince therefore the Popes authority is necessary ouer al Churches It may be objected that these arguments are taken from persons of sundry sectes of which the one confesseth the other to erre I grant it but this notwithstanding they proue that either some English sectaries erre or otherwise that our religion by them rejected is true which sufficeth my purpose Neuerthelesse the Protestants themselues doe afford vs no such reasons Truly if I were not here restrained to the vvriting only of a preface I could assigne diuers one I wil set downe for an example Field booke 3 chap. 39. pag. 158. 156. 157. 159. M. Field in his third booke of the Church plainly confesseth that in sundry Churches of the world being of the newe religion diuers worthy Ministers of God were ordained by Presbiters or Priestes sometime of our Church and had no ordination from any Bishop Nay he seemeth apparantly to graunt that none but Presbiters did impose handes in ordaining Ministers or Superintendents in many of the pretended reformed Churches as namely in those of France and others Morton in Apolog. Cathol part 1. lib. 1. cap. 21. which is also insinuated by D. Morton And therefore both these Doctors teach that in time of necessity a Priest or Minister may impose handes and consecrate a Priest and consequently also a Bishop or a Superintēdent Out of this their doctrine I frame this argument seing that diuers Superintendents and Ministers of the newe religion I may say al at the least of some Countries for Field himselfe excepteth only those of England Denmarke and of some other places which places he nameth not haue had their ordination or orders only from Priests it followeth that if Priests haue no power of ordination that is of giuing orders that such Ministers and Superintendents are no true Ministers and Superintendents But Priests according to the assertion of a principal English Protestant haue no power of ordination and can giue no orders therefore such Superintendents and Ministers are no true Superintendents and Ministers Of which I also inferre that such Churches are no true Churches for they want a true ministery and clergy without which as * Field ibid. pag. 154. and booke 2. chap. 6. pag. 51. Field confesseth there can be no Church And this English Protestant is a William L. Bishop of Rochester in his sermon cōcerning the antiquity superiority of Bishops preached before the King at Hampton-Court Sep. 21. 1606 William L. B. of Rochester who in his sermon not long since preached before the Kinges Majesty and afterward printed by his Majesties expresse commandement as the same Bishop b In the epist to the King prīted before the sermon auoucheth affirmeth and proueth out of holy Scripture first that the Apostles kept to themselues ordination or authority to giue holy orders til
they appointed Bishops vnto whome they conueied it Secondly that the Church of Christ succeeding would not admit any other but Bishops to that businesse as not justifiable for the Presbiters I vse his wordes either by reason example or scripture And hauing proued it concerning reason touching example he telleth vs that c C. 3. not one is to be shewed through the whole story Ecclesiastical that any besides a Bishop did it and that if some of the inferiour ranke presumed to doe it his act was reuersed by the Church for vnlawful which he proued by an example As for scripture he auoucheth there is none either of holy men or of the holy Ghost which doth giue such authority to Presbiters for al the fathers saith he with one consent doe contradict it And among others he alleageth S. Ambrose affirming that it is consonant neither with Gods nor mans lawe that any besides a Bishop should doe it Of the scriptures he writeth thus No scripture of the holy Ghost either anagogically by consequent or directly by precept doth justifie it For analogie none but the Apostles did it or might doe it as before you heard not directly for to what Presbiter was the authority committed as a Presbiter c. Thus the Bishop of Rochester plainely contradicteth the other two English Protestant doctors And hence it manifestly appeareth that either the said Bishop erreth in denying this power to Priests or that the said Doctors are false in yeelding it vnto them and consequently it is plaine that some English sectaries fal into error Moreouer seeing that the Bishop conuinceth by such good proofes the truth of his assertion and the said two Doctors confesse some of their Churches to haue no other Pastors but such as were ordered by Priests or Presbiters it is euen as apparant that such their Churches are in very truth no true Church But it is nowe high time that I end my discourse touching this point yea that I conclude this my preface Being therefore the truth of mine accusation that the learned sectaries as Luther Zwinglius Caluin and others haue notoriously and grosly erred is so euidently demonstrated by a fewe instances which I haue related among diuers others which I haue omitted let me nowe demand of my christian reader what reason he hath to ground the euerlasting estate of his soule either vpon the judgment of his learned masters or vpon his owne And first concerning his learned masters he can not deny but they haue al erred in some point or other and doth not an errour in one thing proue a possibilitie of erring in others of like sort But haue his captaines any further vvarrant concerning one article then touching an other They haue not vvithout al doubt Howe doth he then knowe that they haue not erred in al points in which they dissent from the ancient beliefe of al Christians their predecessours He vvil perhaps answere that he knoweth wel they erre not touching this and that although their opinions be neuer so erroneous touching other points Loe nowe he referreth al to his owne judgement I joine therefore here with him and first I aske vvhat more strong vvarrant he hath that he cannot erre then had his learned masters Is he comparable to them either in wit learning piety or dignity of vocation If he be not then he is much more subject to errour then they vvho notwithstanding haue grosly and palpably erred I adde also that he taketh vpon him ouer-much in judging of such high matters and in censuring his learned Doctors when they say true and when they erre Moreouer I thinke there is no man liuing which hath not in some thinges or others altered his judgement and varied from himselfe insomuch as he hath deemed false some thinges vvhich once seemed to him true and judged others true which once he thought false vvhich if it be so vvhat wiseman in matters of so great moment as are his faith and religion vvil trust his owne judgement For vvherefore may not he erre in one point as vvel as in an other Nowe if he doe erre in matters pertaining to faith and religion vvhat wil be come of his soule euerlastingly if he doth not alter his course But howsoeuer it be euery follower of the newe religion for the reasons assigned hath just cause to mistrust the truth of his owne beliefe or vvhich is yet lesse not to be so peremptory and obstinate in his faith that he vvil not vvith indifferency heare or reade any thing that maketh against it which is as much as I nowe craue of my curteous Reader A CATALOGVE OF THE PRINCIPAL COVNCELS WHICH WERE CELEBRATED WITHIN THE FIRST SIX HVNDRED YEARES AFTER THE BIRTH OF OVR LORD as also of the holy Fathers and most famous Ecclesiastical vvriters vvho flourished vvithin the said tearme of yeares gathered out of the workes of Cardinal BARONIVS and other approued Authours A AFricanum Concilium celebrated anno 403. Agathense Concilium celebrated anno 506. Agathias Hystoricus flourished anno 566. Alexander 1. Papa suffered anno 131. Ambrosius Episcopus Mediolan died an 397. Amphylochius Iconij Episcopus flourished an 394. Ancyranum Concilium celebrated an 314. Andegauense Concilium celebrated an 453. Antiochenum Conciliabulum celebrated an 341. Antisidiorense Concilium celebrated an 590. Antonius Abbas died an 358. Aquileiense Concilium celebrated an 381. Arator Subdiaconus flourished an 544. Aransicanum Concilium 1. celebrated an 441. Aransicanum Concilium 2. celebrated an 463. Arelatense Concilium 1. celebrated an 314. Arelatense Concilium 2. celebrated about the yeare 330. Arelatense Concilium 3. celebrated an 453. Arnobius Rhetor flourished an 302. Athanasius Episcopus died an 372. Aruernense Concilium celebrated an 541. Augustinus Episcopus Doctor died an 430. Auitus Viennensis died about the yeare 516. Aurelianense Concilium 1. celebrated an 507. Aurelianense Concilium 2. celebrated an 536. Aurelianense Concilium 3. celebrated an 540. Aurelianense Concilium 4. celebrated about the yeare 545. Aurelianense Concilium 5. celebrated an 552. B BArcionense Concilium celebrated an 599. Basilius Episcopus Doctor died an 378. Benedictus Abbas died an 543. Boaetius Senator died an 526. Bracharense Concilium 1. celebrated an 563. Bracharense Concilium 2. celebrated an 572. Brennacense Concilium celebrated an 583. Bicharensis Abbas flourished an 590. Byacenum Concilium celebrated an 541. C CAbilonense Concilium celebrated an 582. Caesarius Gregorij Frater died about the yeare 368. Caesarius Arelatensis died an 544. Caesar augustanum Concilium 1. celebrated an 381. Caesar augustanum Concilium 2. celebrated an 592. Carpetoradense Concilium celebrated about the yeare 463. Carthaginense Concilium 1. celebrated an 348. Carthaginense Concilium 2. celebrated an 435. Carthaginense Concilium 3. celebrated an 397. Carthaginense Concilium 4. celebrated an 398. Carthaginense Concilium 5. celebrated an 398. Carthaginense Concilium 6. celebrated an 401. Carthaginense Concilium 7. celebrated about the yeare 416 Carthaginense aliud celebrated about the yeare 418. Cassianus Monachus flourished an 433.
hereafter vvhen he teacheth the whole Church as supreame Pastor cannot erre in matters of faith or precepts of manners vvhich he prescribeth to al faithful Christians and concerne thinges necessary to saluation or in those things which are of themselues good or euil for he cannot so commaund anie vice or forbid any vertue yet as a priuate man or particuler doctour he may erre in his judgement or opinion he may also offend God most deepely and be damned in hel-fire Mat. 24. verse 48. For if that seruant whome his Lord hath appointed ouer his family these are our Sauiours words shal say in his hart my Lord is long a comming and shal beginne to strike his fellowe seruantes and eateth and drinketh with drunckards the Lord of that seruant shal come in a day that he hopeth not and an houre that he knoweth not and shal diuide him and appoint his portion with the hipocrites there shal be weeping and gnashing of teeth Thus our Sauiour Christ But although S. Peter in authority and diuers other prerogatiues was farre inferiour to Christ euen as man yet he vvas superiour to al the rest of the Apostles For although al the Apostles receiued of Christ orders and power to vse the keies of the kingedome of heauen that is to forgiue sinnes and also to preach the Gospel throughout the whole world yet S. Peter only aboue the rest receiued supreame power authority and jurisdiction The authority of the other Apostles was giuen them with a certaine kinde of subjection to Peter they were also Christes legates or embassadours sent to the whole world but they being only Apostles were equal among themselues and no one superiour ouer the other Neither were they ordinary Bishops or Pastours of the whole world for of it S. Peter vvas only the ordinary Pastour Wherefore like as a legate or embassadour cannot of himselfe communicate or delegate his authority to another or leaue it by inheritance to his successour so the other Apostles left not al their authority in so ample sort as they receiued it to the Bishoppes vvho succeeded them contrariwise S. Peter as absolute prince hauing absolute and ordinarie jurisdiction vnder Christ left the same to his successour or heire the Bishoppe of Rome This doctrine vve receiue from the holie father and martir S. Ciprian vvho of this point discourseth thus Cipr. lib. de vnitate Ecclesiae cap. 3. To Peter our Lord after his resurrection saith feede my sheepe and buildeth his Church vpon him alone and to him be gaue the charge of feeding his sheepe And although after his resurrection he gaue his power alike to al saying As my father sent me so send I you take the holie Ghost if you remitte to any their sinnes they shal be remitted c. Yet to manifest vnitie he constituted one Chaire and disposed by his authoritie the origen or fountaine of the same beginning of one The rest of the Apostles were that Peter was in equal felloweshippe of honour and power but the beginning commeth of vnity The primacy is giuen to Peter that the Church of Christ may be shewed to be one and one chaire thus farre S. Ciprian In which words he plainly auoucheth that S. Peter had supreame and ordinary authority the other Apostles although they had equal and like Apostolike power yet they were not equal to him in al prerogatiues this their authority as I haue said was not ordinary nor so absolute but depending hauing his beginning of that of Peter Ibid. ca 4. Hence the same S. Ciprian in the selfe same book affirmeth the Church to be one like as al the beams of the sunne are termed one light because they issue from one sunne and many litle brooks one water because they proceed from one spring and many boughes one tree because they haue the selfe same roote And this sunne fountaine and roote in other places he acknowledgeth to be the chaire of S. Peter which is therefore by him called a Cipr. l. 1. epist 3. ad Cornel. li. 4. epist 8. ad Cornel. epi. ad Iubaianum the principal Church from which Priestlie vnitie hath his beginning and the matrice or mother roote and head of the Catholike Church It is also by him affirmed that the one Church by the voice of our Lord was built vpon one who receiued the keies c. I could recite other such like testimonies but these in this place shal suffice And although S. Peter had so ample and eminent authority and for this cause his successours were sometimes honoured with the title of vniuersal Bishoppe as appeareth in the general Councel of b Concil Chal. act 3. et 6. Chalcedon yet they seldome or neuer called themselues so but rather following the commandement of Christ who bid that c Math. 20. v. 26. whosoeuer would be greater among his Apostles should be their seruant or minister called themselues the seruant of the seruants of God Hence are these words of S. Gregory the great who is highly commended by d Humfre in Iesuitif part 2. rat 5. p. 624. D. Humfrey and by another e Theodor. Bibli in orat ad prīcipes Germa See also Godwin in his catalogue of Bishops in Augustine pag. 3. Protestant although he terme al his successours Antechrists called a very holy father and most excellent Pastor he discourseth thus f Greg. l. 4. epist 32.76 It is plaine to al men that euer read the Gospel that by our Lordes mouth the charge of the whole Church was committed to S. Peter prince of the Apostles for to him it was said Feed my sheepe For him was the praier made that his faith should not faile to him were the keies of heauen giuen and authoritie to binde and loose to him the cure of the Church and principallity was deliuered and yet he was not called the vniuersal Apostle This title indeed was offered for the honour of Peter prince of the Apostles to the Pope of Rome by the holy Councel of Chalcedon but none of that See did euer vse it nor consent to take it This is a part of the discourse of S. Gregorie writing against Iohn the Bishop of Constantinople vsurping the title of vniuersal Bishop vvhich although some of his predecessours after some sort and in some sense vsed when they called themselues Bishops of the vniuersal Church yet he therfore disliked Sixtus 1. epis 2. Victor 1. epi. 1. Pontiā epist 2. Stephā 1. epi. 2. Leo epist 54. 62. et 65. because it seemed to affirme that he who should vse it was himselfe the only Bishop of the whole world and al other Bishops his vicars not his brethren wheras euery Bishop is head Bishop of his particuler Church although subject to the vicar of Christ and the ministerial head of his whole flock the successour of S. Peter Verely that S. Gregories words haue no other sense it is auerred by a Andraeas Fricius de Eccles li. 2. cap.
pollicy of the Church to auoid scismes and to preserue it in vnity And he proueth this out of the text of the Apostle Corin. 14. God is not the author of confusion or disorder but saith he to haue a populer equallity among ministers were the next way to bring in confusion if none should be ruled or directed Wherefore he addeth in another place that In the calling of Bishops somewhat is diuine and that it is a diuine ordinance that among the ministers of the Church there should be a superioritie For the proofe likewise of the same they bring the testimony of some d Ibid. controuer 16. quest 2. p. 726. edit an 1600. other learned Sectaries especially of f Iacob Andraeas in epistola contra minist Heil derberg Iacobus Andraeas But who seeth not that if a Bishop be necessary ouer Priests and an Archbishop ouer Bishops and a Primate ouer Archbishops for the preseruing of vnity in certaine prouinces nations or kingdomes that ouer sundrie Primates one supreame Primate or head is also needful for the preseruation of the said vnitie through al nations and kingdomes e Suruey of the pretended holy discipl If it be true as Field affirmeth that the vnity of each particuler Church dependeth of the vnity of the Pastour howe much more doth the vnity of the vniuersal Catholike Church depend on the vnitie of one vniuersal Pastour ouer al Yea of these thinges we may wel infer that God who is neuer wanting to his Church in thinges necessary hath ordained some such Prelate For much easier it is to preserue vnitie and vniformity in one kingdome vvithout a Primate or in one prouince without an Archbishop or in one diocesse vvithout a Bishop then it is to preserue the same in al parts of the vvorld vvithout one head ouer al seeing that those of one kingdome prouince or diocesse liue vnder the same lawes haue the same temporal prince and by reason of neighbour-hood may be joyned together in amity and friendship and so one may vnderstand the faith and beliefe of another and confer together concerning such matters vvhich occasions of vnity are wanting to those vvho are of seueral kingdomes or common vvealths Wherefore for the soueraignty of one chiefe Pastour vve haue an expresse warrant of holy scripture whereas there is but litle so expresly vttered for the proofe of the authority of Bishoppes nothing almost for the jurisdiction of Primates and Archbishoppes Neither can this vnity be sufficiently preserued by the letter of holy scripture as it appeareth by the daily dissentions of our aduersaries and I vvil at large declare hereafter Some of the Sectaries seeme to allowe of the authority of a general Councel and to acknowledg it to be a fit meane to end al controuersies as a Hooker in the preface to his book of ecclesiastical policie p. 24. c. Hooker b Couel in his defēce of Hooker Couel c Zauchius in his epistle before his cōfessions p. 12.13 Zauchius d Sutcliffe in his answere to Kellisons Suruey chapter 1. pag. 42. Sutcliffe and others But these may likewise easily be confuted for it is euident euen by the confession of Protestants that no good can be done by such a Councel except one head and superiour in the same be granted About the yeare of our Lord 1585. Henry nowe the French king and a Catholike then king of Nauar and a Caluinist sent his letters to certaine Electours and princes of the Roman Empire being Lutheran Protestants of Germany desiring a concord and reconciliation betweene the Lutherans and Sacramentaries and wishing as it should seeme by the answere that some Councel might be assembled of the learned men of both sortes to that purpose The said Protestants of Germany returned answere that in those daies thinges standing as they did they thought it not necessary that such a course should be taken touching a Councel and vvhy so Verily these reasons are by them alleaged This principally say they seemeth worthy of our consideration whether now betweene the diuines of other Churches and ours any Sinode can be called and assembled For who of vs wil arrogate to himselfe to appoint the place to name the day to cal the diuines of diuers nations Which as histories testifie was the proper office of the Romane Emperours before the Papal tirannie increased Nowe moreouer who shal haue rule or be superior in authority in the Sinode it selfe There can no other haue this office but either one of our side or of our aduersaries but neither we wil suffer a president or chiefe ruler of the aduerse part to the prejudice of ours so neither wil they without doubt endure that one of ours should haue that place But if of both sides some be appointed then each one wil vndertake the patronage of his owne part and so there wil arise dissention betweene the Presidents Further who shal be judge ouer those that varie or contend but let vs put the case or rather faine and imagine that the Sinod is now called that it is sufficiently argued on both sides that the Presidents haue pronounced their sentence that the pertinacious and fanatical are condemned and accursed by the common consent and suffrage of al Who then shal bridle and restraine the clamours of the condemned their complaints their accusations by which they wil exclaime that the proceedings against them haue been vnjust that they were not rightly heard that judgement was giuen rather according to affection then according to the word of God Hence wil arise newe swarmes of contentions and the Sinode being ended the Church wil enjoy no more quietnes tranquillity and peace then was before Thus the aforesaid Princes of Germany in their letter penned without al doubt or at the least viewed and approued by their best diuines The Elector of Saxony the Elector of Brandeburg the Administrator of Magdeburge Philip Lewes Palatine of Rhene Iulius Duke of Brunswich and Luneberg Vdalricus Duke of Mechelburg and Lewes Duke of Wittenberge subscribed vnto it And the letter together with the subscriptions is published in print by Conradus Schusselburg a famous Lutheran diuine at the end of his thirteenth booke of the catologue of Heretikes How then can any person say that controuersies may alwaies be sufficiently decided and ended by a Councel without one head Are not these reasons most true and apparant Nay hath not experience taught vs the truth of these things What successe had the colloquies or conferences held for the reconciliation or vnion of Lutherans Sacramentaries betweene their chiefe doctors at Malbrun in the yeare one thousand fiue hundred threescore and foure See colloquiū Mōt pelgartēse published by Protestants Dauid Chitrae in chron Saxo part 3. ā 1568. p. 440. 441. Iohan. Petraeus admonit quae docet vitādos esse Flaccian or at Montpelgar in the yeare one thousand fiue hundred fourescore and sixe was any vnity or concord made betweene them nothing lesse Neither was
the euent of particuler assemblies of Lutherans only concerning some difference found among themselues any better In the yeare one thousand fiue hundred threescore eight as Chitraeus himselfe a famous writer of this sect recordeth was that famous assemblie of Lutherans held at Altenberg concerning the necessity of good workes and free wil which as he telleth vs was dissolued without any hope of concord and saith he the actes were set out on both sides and not only the diuines did contend with publike inuectiues but also most bitter hatred was raised betweene the Princes themselues who caused this assembly Yea another Lutheran of the same meeting writeth thus This whole conference was not only dissolued without fruite but also the estate of the whole cause became worse The like hath happened in other of their Sinodes For I finde it not recorded that euer hitherto two nations or different Churches of these sectaries were vnited together by any councel held among them But vnto the Lutherans aboue cited I adde also the authority of Whitakers who graunteth Whitaker li. de consilijs p. 56. that without authority no Councel can be assembled And seeing that no one according to Protestants hath authority ouer the whole world it followeth that in their judgement no Councel can be assembled of al the Prelates of the world And out of this doctrine of our aduersaries joined vnto that maintained by diuers of them concerning the necessity of general Councels vvhich is likewise strongly by me proued before I inferre that it was necessarie that God should appoint some one general visible head ouer his Church which illation is very euident For if general Councels be necessary and they cannot be had without a head it must needs followe that Christ who is not wanting to his Church in thinges necessarie ordained some such head Andraeas Fricius de Ecclesia l. 2. cap. 10. pag. 570. Hence Andraeas Fricius although a Protestant and a man bearing deadlie hatred to the Bishoppe of Rome yet thought it needful that one head should be appointed ouer al the euangellical Churches to keepe them in vnity which he deemed otherwise would neuer be and handling that matter he also truly answereth that common objection of Protestants touching the title of vniuersal Bishoppe out of S. Gregorie of which before But the Lutherans as vve haue seene auerre that it vvas in times past the proper office of the Roman Emperours to cal general Councels I reply first it is euident that Christ bequeathed not this office to the Emperor both because the office being necessarie in the Church Christ if he had so done should haue taken order that euer there should haue bin some one Emperor ouer the whole world to discharge the same which as is euident he did not And also because many of the Emperors haue beene Infidels some Heretiks and therefore in al reason not capable of any such preheminence in the Church Secondly it is very wel proued by Catholike authors that there neuer hath beene any one lawful general Councel assembled in the Church by the Emperour alone without the consent and authority of the Bishoppe of Rome which I confirme only in this place by an Ecclesiastical canon alleaged by Socrates which as he saith forbiddeth Socrates lib. 2. cap. 13. that decrees be made in the Church without the consent of the Bishoppe of Rome And seing that this canon was not made by any Councel it is apparant that it descended from the Apostles themselues But of this point enough Some of our aduersaries deny the Pope to be the successor of S. Peter because say they S. Peter was neuer at Rome I reply that nothing not most plainely expressed in the word of God or not knowne by diuine reuelation can be more certaine then that S. Peter liued in Rome and was Bishoppe of Rome for this is affirmed by al auncient and moderne writers Luther in colloquijs mensalibus cap. de Antichristo Peter 5. verse 13. See CaluiÌ„ l. 4. Instit ca. 6. § 15. and Bilson in his treatise of the perpetual gouernemeÌ„t of the Church cap. 13. Psal 47. besides a fewe newe sectaries Hence are these words of Luther Al histories testifie that Peter was the first Bishoppe of Rome but they are meere fables And why doe our aduersaries deny so manifest a truth truly for no other cause but to prejudice and weaken the Popes authority by which they are condemned Neither is there any auncient authour that euer called the matter in question as doubtful and the monuments themselues of Rome most euidently conuince our assertion to be true yea it is gathered out of S. Peters owne words in his first epistle and confessed by the best learned of our aduersaries Others say that the priuiledge of S. Peter mentioned perished together with him and was not deriued to his successours But certaine it is that the vertue of Christs promise made to this blessed Apostle together with his office descended to al the Bishoppes of Rome his successours This I haue partly proued in the second section of the sixt chapter before vvhere I haue declared that the promises made by Christ to his Apostles concerning the assistance of the holy Ghost in the Church c. were to be verified in the Bishoppes of the Church during al ages ensuing In this place I wil only repeate that no man of sense wil imagine that Christ building his Church for euer prouided Pastours and Apostolike officers onlie for it during the life of S. Peter and the Apostles For certaine it is that like as the same Church so the same gouernours though not in person yet in power are alwaies extant in the world Euseb lib. 5. cap. 22. 24. 25. AthaÌ„ l. de sent Dionisij Alexandrini Cipr. l. 3. epist 13. Athan. Apolog 2. et in epist ad â—olitarios Socrates l. 2. cap 11. Hence the Bishoppe of Rome hath alwaies exercised his authoritie throughout al Countries and Nations in the world Pope Victor without any note or censure of passing the bounds of his authority about the yere one hundred fourescore eighteene excommunicated the Churches of Asia S. Dionisius Bishoppe of Alexandria was accused not long after before Pope Dionisius as S. Athanasius telleth vs And neither did the Pope although himselfe also a Saint refuse the office of a judge or the Bishopp accused his judgement S. Ciprian requested Pope Steuen to de pose Martianus Bishop of Arles in Fraunce and to ordaine another in his place S. Athanasius reporteth that he himselfe being condemned and depriued of his Bishopricke of Alexandria in the yeare three hundred thirty and sixe by a false Sinode held at Tirus and hauing receiued the same censure of condemnation by such another Sinode assembled at Antioch in the yeare 341. was absolued by Pope Iulius and restored againe to his Bishoprick notwithstaÌ„ding these former sentences pronounced against him The same Pope if we beleeue Socrates restored Paul Bishop of
Constantinople and Asclepas Bishop of Gaza in like sort to their Churches who being wrongfully depriued appealed to his supreme authority S. Damasus the Pope about the yere three hundre seauenty seauen restored in like sort Peter Patriarcke of Alexandria to his seate from which he was likewise vnjustly expelled by the Arians as witnesses are Zozomenus and * Socrates li. 4 c. 30. Socrates a Chrisos ep ad Inno. Theodorus Rom. diac apud Pallad ī dial Inno. Papa ī literis ad Archad apud Gena Nicepho et Glica S. Iohn Chrisostome Bishop of Constantinople in the yeare foure hundred and foure being by Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria and other Bishops in a Councel deposed appealed to S. Innocentius Pope who not only made voide the sentence pronounced against him but also excommunicated and deposed the said Theophilus b Calest epi ad Nestor et ad Ciril ep 3. Pope Caelestinus not long after in a Councel held at Rome first of al condemned the Nestorian heresie allotting Nestorius him selfe then Bishop of Constantinople only ten daies within which if he did not repent he should receiue the same censure from S. Ciril Bishop of Alexandria his Legate c Liberatus ca. 12. S. Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople condemned in the Pseudosinod of Ephesus by Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria and others appealed to S. Leo the great Bishop of Rome So did also d Theodor. epist 113. Theodoretus Bishop of Cirus at the same time And diuers other such like examples might be alleaged The testimonies of the auncient Fathers approuing the same superiority of the Pope are almost infinite but I can not stand to recite them only this I note that almost the same titles of primacie and dignity vvere giuen in auncient ages to S. Peter and the Bishop of Rome For like as S. Peter by e Euseb in Chronic. an 44. et lib. 2. hist cap. 14. Eusebius is called The first Bishoppe of the Christians the greatest of the Apostles the prince and captaine of the chiefest and the master of the warfare of God by f Orig. homil 2. in diuersos Euangel Origenes The top of the Apostles by g Epiphā haeres 51. S. Epiphanius Captaine of Christes disciples by h Cir. hierosol catech 2. S. Ciril Bishop of Hierusalem Most excellent prince of the Apostles by i Ciril Alex. l. 12. in Ioā S. Ciril Bishop of Alexandria Prince and head of the rest by k Chrisos in 1. Cor. 15. et hom 11. in Mat. S. Crisostome Prince of the Apostles pastor and head of the Church by l Cipr. l. de vnit Eccles S. Ciprian The head fountaine and roote of the whole Church c. So the Bishop of Rome by a See Cip. epi. 46. ad Cornel. et li. de vnit Eccle. l. 1. epist 3. ad Corn. et ep 8. ad plebē et l. 2. epi. 10. ad eun dē Corne. S. Ciprian is tearmed Bishoppe of the most holie Catholike Church by b Amb. in c. 3. 1. Tim. et epi. 81. ad Siriciū S. Ambrose Rector of the Church of God by c Steph. episco Carthag epist ad Dama Steuen Bishop of Carthage Father of Fathers and chiefe or highest priest by d Hieron praefat Euangel ad Damasum S. Hierome highest or chiefest priest by the general Councel of e Conciliū Chalced. epi ad Leō Chalcedon head of the Bishops of the Church and the keeper of our Lords vineyard and by f Aug. epist 157. S. Augustine Bishop of the Apostolike See c. Finally our aduersaries themselues seeme to grant that al antiquity acknowledge this superiority Bucer writeth thus * Bucerus in praeparatorijs ad Cōcilium We plainly confesse that among the ancient Fathers of the Church the Roman Church obtained the primacie aboue others as that which hath the Chaire of S. Peter and whose Bishops almost alwaies haue beene accounted the successors of Peter g Cētur 2. c. 4. col 63. Cēt. 3. c. 4. col 8. Cent. 5. c. 4. col 512. 520. The Centurie writers who are commonly accounted the most diligent and learned Protestant historians censure S. Irenaeus S. Ignatius Tertullian S. Ciprian Origenes S. Leo and S. Ciril as maintainers of this supreamacie h Cent. 4. c. 10. col 1010. 1249. 1074. 1100. They note S. Ephrem and S. Hierome for affirming the Church to be built vpon S. Peter i Cēt. 5. c. 6. col 728. Arnobius for calling S. Peter the Bishop of Bishops Optatus for extolling ouermuch the chaire of Peter Gelasius the Pope for excommunicating the Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople c. Besides this diuers of the Sectaries and among the rest k Beza cited in the suruey of the pretēded holy disci c. 27. p. 343. Beza l Cartw. l. 2. p. 507. 508. l. 1. p. 97. Cartwrighte and m Fulk against Saūd. Rock p. 248. 271. vpō the Rhems test in 2. Thes 2 9. See also Dan. in respō ad Bell. disp part 1. p. 275. 276. Fulk confesse that the Fathers in the first Councel of Nice began the foundation of the Popes primacy yea some of them say it was begun long before Their discord concerning the time of the beginning of this superioritie doth also testifie this as I could easile shewe if it were not that I haue already beene ouer-long in this section Lastly I adde that neither n Wicl in ep ad Vrbā 6. Wickclif nor o Luth. in resollut priorū disput ad Leon. 10. in declarat quorūd artic Luther who in sundry ages vvere the first raisers of rebellion against the See of Rome denied the Popes superiority before that he condemned their doctrine For the vvorkes of them both are yet extant written after their fal to preach nouelties in which they most apparantly and plainely submit themselues and their doctrine to his censure and acknowledge his primacy Of Luther diuers p Sleid. l. 1. fol. 10. Fox act mon. p. 404. Osiander in epist Cent. 16. p. 61. 62. 68. Cowper in his Chronic. fol. 278. Protestants testifie the same and this is a manifest signe that they opposed themselues against him for no other cause then that he condemned their opinions and proceedings SECTION THE THIRD That the decrees of the Bishop of Rome when he teacheth the Church as supreame Pastour are of diuine and infallible authority and of some other groundes of faith flowing out of these HAVING already proued that the Bishop of Rome is the true successour of S. Peter and ministerial head of Christs Church it remaineth that now we see what authority and credit is to be giuen to his decrees I affirme therefore that the Pope when teaching the vvhole Church as ministerial head of the same he defineth anie matter concerning faith and general preceptes of vice or vertue cannot erre I adde those vvords when teaching the whole Church as ministerial head c.
vpon this ground in the next chapter Chap. 2. he entereth into a railing and scoffing discourse against the Pope But in verie deed I cannot doe otherwise then meruaile that a man of his place and learning doth not blush to committe such a notorious vntruth to the print and view of the world For not to speake of the falshood of the first part of his assertion because it is in some sort impertinent that which he saith of the Councel of Chalcedon is most vntrue repugnant to al antiquity and not only contrarie to al proceedinges and the historie of the said Councel but also to the wordes of the Canon by him alleaged For in it is decreed onlie that the cittie of new Rome or Constantinople shal haue majestie like as old Rome in Ecclesiastical affaires et secundam post illam existere that is shal be the second or next after it and enjoy certaine priuiledges for the ordination of some Metrapolitans these are the contents of the Canon And what more touching this matter did the Bishops assembled in that Councel in their Sinodical epistle desire S. Leo the great then bishoppe of Rome to confirme then this Concilium Chalcedō sessio 12. alias actione 16. An. Christi 451. Concilium Nice sessio vltim Cōci Chal. actione 1. Actione 3. We haue confirmed say they the rule of the seauenscore and ten holy Fathers which were gathered together at Constantinople vnder Theodosius of happie memorie which commanded that the See of Constantinople which is ordained the second haue second honour after your most holie and Apostolike See trusting that the Apostolical sunne-beame shining with you c. But how can it be the second and next after and also the equal with it as Field affirmeth Besides this in the Councel it selfe those words of the Canon of the Councel of Nice that the Church of Rome euer had the primacie were allowed and the Legates of Pope Leo vvithout reprehension or exception taken said We haue here at hand the commandements of the most blessed and Apostolike man the Pope of the cittie of Rome which is head of al Churches by which his Apostleship hath vouchsafed to commaund c. Againe one of them first subscribed as he said in the place of the most blessed and Apostolike vniuersal Pope of the citty of Rome c. And in the epistle al the Fathers write vnto him thus We craue therefore that you wil honour our decrees with your judgement and like as we desirous haue consented in those things which are good sic et summitas tua so thy chiefedome or preheminence aboue al wil as it is meete accomplish them to his children hitherto are their wordes And vvhat could be said more apparant for the Popes supreamacie Doe not they acknowledge him to be their chiefe and themselues his sonnes and children Gregor li 4. epi. 32. 36. 38. li. 7. epi. 30. See before in the first section of this chapter I could adde to this the authoritie of S. Gregorie the great who liued not long after this Councel who against the ambition of Iohn bishoppe of Constantinople in diuers letters confidentlie affirmeth that the title of vniuersal Bishop by this Councel was offered to Pope Leo. But Field wil vrge that it is gathered out of some Greeke copies of this Councel that by this Canon the Bishop of Constantinople was so made second after the Bishoppe of Rome that equal priuiledges were giuen him I answere that these priuiledges vvere only concerning jurisdiction to order certaine Metrapolitans of the east Church as the Bishoppe of Rome had the like in the west But now suppose I should graunt M. Field that in this Canon the Bishop of Constantinople vvas made in euerie respect equal to the Pope what would he get by this In truth nothing For of what authority is this Canon Surely of none for it vvas cunninglie made by the Grecian bishops after the Councel was risen and the Legates of Pope Leo departed vvho also when it came to their knowledge the next day resisted them in the next Session yea this was neuer confirmed by the Pope without whose confirmation the decrees of general Councels haue neuer had force but vvas by Pope Leo forthwith ouerthrowne and annulled Leo epist 55. 53. 54. 61. We cancel or make voide saith he speaking of that Canon and others then enacted the consent of Bishops repugnant to the Nicene Canons and by the authority of blessed S. Peter the Apostle by a general definition we make them altogether of no force And this his decree was so highly esteemed in the East it selfe Marcian l. 12. c. de sacrosācta Ecclesia that it was confirmed presentlie by an Imperial constitution euen by the Emperour of Constantinople and Anatolius the Patriarcke through vvhose ambition and instigation the said Canon vvas made was constrained to ceasse from such proceedinges to relinquish that dignity vvhich ambitioussie he couered and to take place euen after the other Patriarkes for neither was the constitution of the Councel of Constantinople which preferred him before those of Alexandria and Antioch authentical Iustin nouel 131. cap. 2. Field book 3. cap. 1. Yea Iustinian the Emperor after this euen when Rome vvas most in disgrace and Constantinople flourished long before the daies of Phocas from whome Field would deriue the beginning of the Popes superiority confirmed the primacy to the Bishop of Rome and thus we may see vpon how vveake grounds Field doth venture to passe the bounds of modesty Concerning the point it selfe of the Popes infallible judgment he accuseth vs of contrary doctrine to wit that we al hold at this day Field book 3. cap. 45. the infallibility of the Popes judgment to be the rock on which the Church is builded and therefore build our faith vpon the same whereas the same men sath he that hold this say also it is no matter of faith to acknowledge or not acknowledge the infallibity of the Popes judgment I answere that the infallibility of the Popes judgment without the assent of a general Councel is not the most sure receiued rock on which the Church was built for this is the Popes judgment confirming the decrees of a general Councel or as I may say the definition of a general Councel in which the head confirmeth the verdict of the body and both together infallibly define a truth And in this sense no Catholike nowe affirmeth that it is no matter of faith to acknowledge or not acknowledge the infallibility of the Popes judgment for it is held absolutely to be a matter of faith and consequently our doctrine touching these points is not contrary True it is Bell. li. 4. de Roman pontif ca. 2. in fine Stapleton in Relect. scholast princi controuers 3 quest 4. that some Catholike doctors as Bellarmine and Stapleton thinke not that opinion properly heretical which holdeth that the Pope as Pope may be an Heretike and teach heresie if he
Doctors who planted ruled and instructed the Church presently after Christs Ascention are to beleeued and obeied but also that the like credit is to be giuen to their successors who in al ages following haue supplied and shal euer vntil the day of judgment supply their places and consequently that they also haue beene and are directed in al truth otherwise they might haue wauered and erred themselues and so haue drawne the vvhole Church to such inconueniences Seing therefore that the fathers of the Church in their ages haue supplied such places it must needs followe that they haue enjoyed the like priuiledges and prerogatiues Moreouer the Iewes were bound to heare and obey the Scribes Pharisees of the old law as we are taught by these wordes of Christ Math. 23. v. 2. 3. Vpon the chaire of Moises haue sitten the Scribes and Pharisees al things therefore whatsoeuer they shal say to you obserue ye and doe ye Who then wil be so impudent as to say that Christians are not bound to heare and obey the prelates of the Church Luke 10. see also Math. 10. Ioh. 13. Iren. li. 4. cap. 4. especially seing that of them Christ hath said He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me which wordes argue as great truth in their doctrine as there is in the doctrine of Christ who is truth it selfe Hence S. Irenaeus telleth vs that we ought to obey those who haue succession from the Apostles who together with the succession of their Bishopriks haue receiued the gifts or priuiledges of truth And although these sentences are principallie verified in the prelates of the Church assembled in a general Councel yet they must needs also be confessed true in the whole body of them in al ages dispersed through the vvhole world and in euerie one of them vvhen he teacheth and deliuereth vs the doctrine of the vniuersal Church Finally the ancient Fathers are most pregnant and faithful witnesses of that Depositum or summe of Chistian doctrine which they receiued from their predecessors and deliuered to their successours They are also most indifferent judges of al controuersies after their daies arising in the Church because they liued before euer any such controuersie was moued and therefore are partial of no side Aug. cont Iulianuni li. 2. c. 10. Hence are these vvords of S. Augustine to the Pelagians concerning this matter They he speaketh of the Fathers that liued before him were angry neither with you nor with vs they fauoured neither you nor vs That which they found in the Church they held fast that which they learned they taught that which they receiued of their Fathers they deliuered to their children Hitherto S. Augustine This moued the same holie Father and diuers others to appeale so often to the judgment of their predecessours and to cite their testimonies And these arguments in like manner proue that the truth of faith and religion alwaies and in al ages remaineth among the true Bishops and Pastors of the Church and consequentlie that at al times euen at this present a man may securelie followe their beliefe and doctrine This I say the authorities alleaged testifie for the Church must neuer erre her prelates are alwaies to stay vs from wauering in faith c. 1. Cor. 11. verse 16. August epist 118. cap. 5. Idē epist 86. ad Casulā And it is moreouer insinuated vnto vs by the Apostle in these words But if a man seeme contentious we haue no such custome nor the Church of God for as we see in them he pleadeth the custome of the Church against the contentious And this moued S. Augustine to tearme it most insolent madnes to dispute against that which the whole church holdeth he telleth vs also that the custom of the people of God or the ordināces of our ancestors are to be held as a law in those things in which the diuine scripture prescribeth nothing certaine S. Hierome is of the same opinion for in his dialogue against the Luciferians he bringeth in the Heretike affirming that the consent of the whole world hath the force of a lawe although it be in a matter not to be proued by scripture Epiphani haeres 75. and maketh the Catholike assent to his assertion The like hath S. Epiphanius who disputing against Aerius in defence of certaine fasting-daies obserued in the Church vseth this argument The Church receiued them and the whole world in it consented before Aerius was and they which of him are called Aerians the same is affirmed by the rest of the Fathers In the last place for a ground of our faith I must adde such propositions as are deduced out of these most certaine grounds by an euident and infallible argument For although it is commonly held that in a sillogisme of one proposition of faith and another knowne onlie by the light of natural reason the conclusion is not properly of faith but Theological that is a conclusion in diuinity held most true yet certaine it is See Greg. de Valētia in secūda secūdae disput 1. qu. 1. pūcto 2. that a conclusion following in a silogisme of two propositions of faith is indirectly and as the diuines say immediatelie de fide or of faith as also that proposition is which is inferred by good and euident consequence of a proposition of faith because whosoeuer denieth the proposition inferred wil be constrained to deny the proposition or propositions of which it is inferred But concerning such propositions the vnlearned if occasion be offered must craue instructions of the learned Chapter 12. Containing the conclusion of the first part THESE be the immoueable and most firme grounds which we finde in the Church of Christ whereon vve build our faith and religion Vpon these sure foundations as vpon a firme rock euery Catholike buildeth his beliefe and saluation And although the articles deliuered vnto vs by the Church be not apparant to our senses nor for the most part comprehensible by reason yet in al such matters according to the saying of the Apostle We make our reason and vnderstanding captiue vnto the obedience of Christ 2. Corint 10. vers 5. 1. Corint 2. vers 5. and acknowledge with the same Apostle that our faith is not in the wisedome of men but in the power of God And therefore that in such misteries aboue reason we cannot shew our selues more reasonable then to leaue off reasoning Genes 18. vers 14. Luk. 1 37. Math. 19 26. Mat. 16 17. Verily we are taught by the scripture that nothing is hard much lesse impossible vnto God yea that al things are possible with him although with men impossible And if scripture had not taught vs this reason it selfe would easily perswade vs to assent vnto it because by nature he is omnipotent We know also that it is not flesh and bloud that hath reuealed such things vnto vs but God himselfe who being eternal wisdome truth can
In another place he discourseth thus We are not the seruants of the Fathers but the sonnes When they prescribe vs any thing out of the lawe and diuine authority we obey them as our parents If they enjoyne anything against the voice of the heauenly truth we haue learned not to hearken to them but to God You as vassals and base seruants receiue whatsoeuer the Fathers say without judgement or reason being afraid as I thinke either of the whip or the halter if euerie thing they speake be not Gospel with you thus Whitakers defendeth his rejecting the ancient Fathers and vpbraideth vs for our high estimation of the same But concerning the fathers opinions of particuler points he telleth vs Ibidem in his answer to the 5. reason pag. 129. that Ciprian wrote something of repentance verie vnseasonably and vndiscreetly and not be alone but al the holie Fathers of that time saith he were tainted with that errour That is al the Fathers of the third age after Christ for S. Ciprian suffered martirdome in the yeare two hundred threescore and one Of praier to Saints he hath these wordes Prudentius I graunt Ibidem pag. 140. 141. as a poet sometimes called vpon the Martirs whose actes he describeth in verse and the supertitious custome of praying to Saintes had nowe taken deepe roote in the Church which as a tirant haled sometimes the holie Fathers into the same errour thus he of the beginning of the fift age when Prudentius flourished Lastly Ibid. p. 132. he defendeth the first sentence of Luther before alleaged Abbot in his answ to Hil reason 10. p. 371. Horat. lib. 1. epist 1. see also Morton in Apologia Catholica part 1. lib. 1. cap. 8. With Whitakers agreeth Abbot who touching the Fathers thus deliuereth his opinion vnto vs Where there is just cause we as men Nullius addicti jurare in verba magistri bound to stand to the opinion of none but of the holy Ghost we declining-wise doe leaue them But where they subscribe to the authority of God there we subscribe to them defend them and refuse not to be tried by them so far as we may by any holy and learned men of which sort we hold them but yet stil knowe them to be men hitherto George Abbot And note that these men pretending that they follow the auncient Fathers as farre forth as they followe the lawe or diuine authority or the authority of God endeauour to make shew of an opposition or contrariety betweene the written word of God and the Fathers in al points in which they forsake them whereas in very deed the Fathers vnderstood and followed the scriptures better then they doe and the opposition is not betweene the scriptures and the Fathers but betweeene the Fathers and the Scriptures expounded by these Sectaries vvhich scriptures so expounded they make a rule vvhereby to knowe vvhen the Fathers are to be followed when to be forsaken Our Puritans in this point at the least in wordes got farre beyond our Protestants He who is desirous to vnderstand their opinion may read the seauen and twentith chapter of the Suruay of their pretended holy discipline written by a a Printed anno 1693. Protestant in which he shal finde it set downe at large And among others Cartwright is there accused the places of his bookes being cited for tearming the seeking into the Fathers writings b Pag. 331. 337. See also chap. 4. p. 64. a raking of ditches and the bringing in of their authorities the mouing and summoning of hel c Parks in his preface to his ans of Limbo mastix prīted anno 1607. Henrie Iacob treatise p. 1. 3. 54. 81. 68. cited by him in the margēt see also saith he Bilsons sermons pa. 323. and the answere to M. Broughtons letters p. 17. Parks also a later writer telleth vs that If you alleage the auncient Fathers against them they wil tel you roundly that their opinions are nothing else but the corrupt fancies and vaine imaginations of men toyish fables fond absurd without sense and reason and some saith he sticke not to cal the Fathers of the latine Church the plague of diuinitie Vnto al these proofes I adde likewise that our aduersaries confesse al the auncient Fathers to haue beene of our beliefe touching euery article nowe controuersed betweene vs and them as I vvil proue in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church and yet reject their doctrine as erroneous and repugnant to the word of God vvherefore they must needes confesse al the Fathers to haue erred and so reject their authority Finally none of them wil graunt that any consent of Fathers whatsoeuer be it neuer so general touching any point is of it selfe a sufficient ground of faith without the testimonie of holy scripture which is enough for my purpose But it may be objected by some that diuers of these sectaries alleage in their vvorkes the holie Councels and Fathers abundantly not only against vs but also against their owne brethren dissenting from them in faith or thinges belonging to religion I answere that true it is that they so doe alleage the holy Councels and Fathers But doe they make their testimonie an infallible ground they doe not certainelie For although they approue their doctrine in some points yet in others they presentlie reject them The Centuriatores being Lutherans Centuriat 4. pag. 242. In euery Centurie cap. 4. alleage the Fathers against the Sacramentaries for proofe of the real presence but they reject their testimonie when they affirme this sacrament to be a Sacrifice In like sort our Protestants against our Puritans alleage the authority of S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine condemning Aerius for an Heretike because he acknowledged no distinction betweene a Bishoppe and a Priest See the Suruey of the pretēded holie discipline Whit gift in his defence and others but they reject the authority of the same Fathers in the selfe same places condemning the same Aerius as an Heretike for denying sacrifice and masse for the dead wherefore it is manifest that they onlie as Caluin saith vse the Councels and Fathers to serue their owne turnes not to be ouer-ruled by them In defence of our English Protestants in particular it may first be said that M. Iewel in his challendge doth challendge to their religion al the Councels and Fathers of the first sixe hundred yeares alloweth of their authoritie and offereth to be tried by their censure I answere first that this challendge made by M. Iewel is not general touching al points controuersed betweene vs but concerning a fewe only and those not of greatest moment Secondly I say that M. Iewel did this only to make a shew among the common people as though his religion had beene auncient not that he intended to doe as he promised to wit to subscribe to our religion if this challendge could be shewed false This appeareth to be true both because he maintained his vaine challendge
trust I haue shewed sufficiently by these tenne Chapters of S. Mathewe in which notwithstanding I haue omitted very many thinges which justly I might haue reprehended what a long register of his errors I could gather out of his whole worke For this is true that oftentimes he erreth not only in wordes which is not so dangerous and might be tollerated but also in thinges and the same most waighty and often times be enforceth by wresting not the sentences only but also the wordes of the holy writers to serue his error So Iohn the 1. vers 12. he corrupteth a most notable place and of greatest moment touching free wil c. Thus Castalio Before this he affirmeth that to note al Bezaes errors in translating the newe Testament Ibid. pa. 170. would require a volume ouer great Contrariwise Beza to requite Castalio condemneth his translation of holy Scripture which is very highly praised by D. Humfrey and Gesnerus euen nowe alleaged not only as false Beza in Testament anno 1556. in Praefat. in Marc. cap. 3. 1. Cor. 1. Math. 4. Luc. 1. Act. 8. 10. corrupt and peruerse but also as pestilent sacrilegious Ethnical and Turkish he auoucheth it to be such a translation as containeth the very seede and laieth open the high way to manifest Apostasie from Christ The like censure he pronounceth against the newe Testament set forth by Oecolampadius as is supposed and the other Diuines of Basil for he auoucheth it to be in many places * Beza in respons ad defens respōs Castalionis vvicked and altogither disagreeing from the minde of the holy Ghost But of these forraigne sectaries enough SECTION THE THIRD Our English Sectaries also haue falsly and corruptly translated the Scriptures BVT doe our English sectaries although they followe not as I haue shewed some corruptions of Beza yet commit no wilful errors and falsifie nothing themselues Truly they are farre from this sincerity Carlile in his booke that Christ went not downe into hel printed anno 1582. fol. 116. 144 c. Carlile an English Sectarie hauing discouered many faults in the English Bible of them inferreth that our English Protestants in many places detort the Scriptures from the right sense and shewe themselues to loue darknesse more then light and falshood more then truth he saith they haue corrupted and depraued the sense obscured the truth deceiued the ignorant supplanted the simple c. M. Broughton one of the greatest Linguists of our English precisians wrote not many yeares since an Epistle to the Honourable Lordes of the Councel which is yet extant desiring them to procure speedily a newe translation of the Scripture because said he that vvhich is nowe in vse in England is ful of errors The same request was made of late by Doctor Reynolds in the conference held at Hampton-Court betweene the Protestants and the Puritans yea Barlow in his relatiō of cōferēce held at Hampton-Court pag. 45. 46. Lindanus in Dubitantio Fox pa. 981. the King himselfe as it is recorded by M. Barlowe auouched that he could neuer yet see a Bible wel translated in English but the worst of al he affirmed to be that of Geneua vvherefore by his Majesties order another translation as is said is nowe in hand And this may very vvel be beleeued For Bishop Tonstal as it is recorded by Lindanus noted no lesse then two thousand corruptions in Tindals translation only of the newe Testament vvhich assertion of his may be confirmed by the authoritie of a statute made by the first head of our English Church King Henry the eight For notwithstanding that Fox tearmeth Tindal not only the true seruant and martir of God but the Apostle also of England in our later age Idem pa. 732 and painteth the said King with the Gospel in his lappe and his sword in his right hand lifted vp for defence of the same yet certaine it is that King Henry in the 34. or 35. yeare of his raigne not long before his death togither vvith the vvhole Court of Parliament An. 34. 35 Henri 8. c. 1. by statute condemned the translation of Tindal as a craftie false and an vntrue translation and also commanded it to be vtterly abolished and extinguished and forbadde it to be kept or vsed within any of his Dominions These thinges are to be seene in the statute it selfe yet extant Finally that the English Bible it selfe set forth vnder King Henry the eight was corrupt it is confessed by D. Humfrey And no doubt Humfred de ratione interpret lib. 3. pag. 523. but although many of the said corruptions be amended in the latter editions yet the multitude of them through the whole Bible is al most infinite For besides those vvhich are reprehended by M. Broughton and D. Reynolds which as I suppose were none wilfully committed in prejudice of our religion and in defence of their owne against vs because they being of our preciser sort of enemies vvould not as I imagine acknowledge any such errors M. Gregory Martin a learned man of our side hath also made a whole booke concerning such corruptions as haue beene made in their English Bibles of set purpose to drawe the text from the true sense to impugne vs and fauour their newe opinions I cannot stand to repeate them al vvherefore referring my reader to the said booke of M. Gregory Martin entituled a discouery of the false translations c. I vvil only note a fewe yet in such order that euery man may see that this hath beene done of malice concerning euery article betweene vs in controuersie Neither doe I speake of their forsaking and corrupting of the true sense of the Latin vulgare edition but of the Hebrewe and Greeke text it selfe which they professe to followe But before I come to this matter I must forewarne my reader that although our English sectaries haue set forth diuers Bibles in their vulgar tongue yet I intend especially to speake of three of the principal of which the first vvas authorised by Cranmer called Arch-bishop of Canterbury and read during al King Edwards raigne in their Churches and as it seemeth by the newe printing of it in the yeare 1562. during a great part also of the raigne of Queene Elizabeth The second vvas printed in the yeare 1577. and againe as I thinke in the yeare 1595. and is authorised likewise to be read in their Churches at this present The third is that which was lately printed in the yeare 1600. vvhich as I imagine is the selfe same vvith that vvhich vvas printed not long before in the yeare 1589. and 1592. let vs nowe come to see a fewe of their corruptions SECTION THE FOVRTH Containing false translations against the authority of the Church Traditions honour of Images Purgatory and the honour of Saints FIRST to improue the supreme authority of the Church they banished the vvord Church cleane out of their Bible printed in the yeare 1562. and in place of
that any translation is true but of these matters before For the authority also of our translation in general it maketh that it hath beene read and allowed of in the Church aboue eleauen hundred yeares and approued by thousands of Saintes and learned men and by them accepted as the true vvord of God The translation of the old testament in particular if we beleeue S. Augustine Aug. l. 18. de ciuitat c. 43. was acknowledged as true by the very Iewes themselues then liuing who fauoured no more vs then the Protestants That of the newe as the same holy Father writeth was also in those daies approued by al Christians Idem epist 10 ad Hieron For it likewise we haue the testimony of Beza himselfe who among our aduersaries is accounted a great linguist who in commendation of the old translator writeth thus The old interpreter seemeth to haue interpreted or translated the holy bookes Beza in c. 1. Luc. vers 1. IbideÌ„ in praefat nou test anno 1556. Idem ibid. with marueilous sincerity and religion Againe The vulgar edition I embrace for the most part and preferre it before al other whatsoeuer By it in diuers places he correcteth the Greeke text as may be seene Luc. 20. vers 28. Luc. 7. vers 31. c. He also blameth Erasmus for reprehending of it as dissenting from the Greeke saying that he doth it vnjustly I wil recite his wordes which are as followeth Howe vnjustly and without cause doth Erasmus blame the old interpreter as dissenting from the Greeke He dissented I grant from those Greeke copies which Erasmus had gotten but we haue found out in one place that the same interpretation which he blameth is grounded vpon the authority of other Greeke copies and those most ancient Yea in some number of places we haue obserued that the reading of the Latin text of the old interpreter though it agree not some times with our Greeke copies yet it is much more conuenient for that it seemeth he followed some truer and better copy Thus Beza Vnto whome I joine Molinaeus an other sectary as some thinke to him not inferiour Molinaeus in Luc. 17. who in like sort preferreth this edition before those of Erasmus Bucer Bullinger Brentius Pagnines that of Zuricke yea also before Iohn Caluins and al others He affirmeth Ibidem that Erasmus in a certaine place did wel to followe the old edition and saith it had beene better for Beza to haue done so too He auoucheth further that Beza did not wel in changing the old translation Idem in Ioan. 3. v. 19. 43 see also in Ioan 7. ver 35. He addeth also * IdeÌ„ part 30 that he can very hardly depart from the vulgar and accustomed reading which also I am wont saith he very earnestly to defend Castalio in like sort a man much commended by a Humfredus de rat Interp. lib. 1. pa. 62. 63. 189. D. Humfrey and b Gesnerus in Bibliotheca Gesnerus blameth Beza for finding fault with the old interpreter c Castalio in defens p. 179 174. 181. 183. 188. 198. 202. 204. 213. auerring that he doth it vnjustly and that the said old interpreter had translated it better before Yea d Humfred de rat interpret lib. 1. pag. 74. D. Humfrey himselfe yeeldeth the old translator this praise The old interpreter seemeth sufficiently bent to followe the propriety of wordes and he doth in deede ouer carefully which notwithstanding I suppose him to haue done not of ignorance but of religion And in truth that this is no fault I gather out of his owne doctrine for he e Ibid. p. 179. telleth vs that in prophane writers a man may range abroade more freely and depart from the wordes but in Canonical scripture saith he no such licence is tollerable for man may not alter the tongue of God And thus much for the vulgar Latin edition of the newe Testament out of our aduersaries Further for the truth of our expositions of the holy Scripture we haue the continual tradition of the Church and the testimony and suffrage of al the holy Fathers and of thousands of Saints and learned men who euer expounded it as we doe and out of it gathered the selfe same doctrine and beliefe For vnto them vve are al contented to remit the trial of the truth of our cause and of the hoâ—y Church and them we professe our selues to learne the true sense of the word of God And thus much the Catholikes can alleage for the authority of their translation and interpretation of holy Scripture although they set aside the authority of the Church Nowe what can our aduersaries say for themselues what sound testimony or proof can they bring for the truth of their translations and expositions Surely euery sect at the lest hath a distinct bible wherefore for the proofe of these thinges they can only alleage the testimony of their sect-master or translator of their Bible and his followers And what a goodly matter is this doe not farre more of the new sectaries themselues condemne reject euery one of their Bibles and their particular expositions then there doe approue them Certainly euery Bible is condemned by diuers but approued only by the followers of one sect and so in like sort are diuers particular interpretations Vnto which I adde that the diuersity of their Bibles maketh the truth of them al suspected for seing that we haue no greater reason to allowe of one then of an other and al but one without al doubt are false as they themselues must needes confesse because there is but one true word of God we may with like reason reject them al. Moreouer is any one of their sect-masters or learned translators or expositors to be compared with S. Hierome Is the opinion of a fewe sectaries touching the translation and interpretation of holy Scriptures to be preferred before the testimony of al the Saints learned men that flourished in the Church in S. Hieromes daies and euer since yea I may demand whether their opinion be to be preferred before the testimony of al good Christians that haue liued euer since the beginning of Christianity For S. Hierome followed the steps of his predecessors and consented with the vniuersal Church of his age and the Church euer since hath approued his labours Stancarus de Trinit Mediat M. 4. Surely Stancarus himselfe a Protestant auoucheth that Peter Lombard called the master of sentences is more to be esteemed then one hundred Luthers two hundred Melancthons three hundred Bullingers foure hundred Peter Martirs fiue hundred Caluins He addeth that if al these sectaries named were beaten or pounded together in a morter there could not be strained or pressed out of them one ounce of true diuinity especially out of their doctrine concerning the blessed Trinity the Incarnation the Mediator and the Sacraments which neuerthelesse be the principal misteries of Christian religion Wherefore he concludeth
religion to wit Apostolike Traditions page 86. Sect. 1. Of Apostolike Tradition in general page 86. Sect. 2. Of vnwritten Traditions in particular page 91. Chap. 9. Of general Councels which make the third particular ground of Catholike religion page 97. Chap. 10. Of the decrees of the supreame visible Pastour of the Church which make a fourth particular ground of our faith and of other grounds hence proceeding page 108. Sect. 1. Containing a briefe explication or rehearsal of the Catholike doctrine concerning the Popes supreamacy page 108. Sect. 2. The aforesaid doctrine is proued page 113. Sect. 3. That the decrees of the Bishop of Rome when he teacheth the Church as supreame Pastour are of diuine and infallible authority and of some other groundes of faith flowing out of these page 127. Sect. 4. The opinion of some sectaries that the Pope is Antechist is briefly confuted and two objections against the premises are answered p. 133. Chap. 11. Of the consent of the auncient Fathers and the general doctrine of the Catholike Church in al ages page 140. Chap. 12. Containing the conclusion of the first part page 144. THE SECOND PART In which is proued that the newe sectaries build their faith vpon no diuine authority but that the ground of al their beliefe and religion is their owne judgement and consequently that they haue neither true faith nor religion CHAPTER 1. That by their doctrine they deny or at the least weaken the three principal and general groundes of Christian religion set downe in the three first chapters of the first part page 1. Section 1. The number of Atheists among them is great and of the causes by them giuen of this impiety page 1. Sect. 2. Of our aduersaries doctrine concerning the immortality of the soule heauen and hel page 8. Sect. 3. Of our aduersaries impious assertions concerning Christ and Christian religion page 12. Sect. 4. That in like sort they weaken the principal proofes of the said three groundes page 19. Chap. 2. The newe Sectaries debase the true Christian faith and in place of it extol a presumptuous faith by themselues inuented page 26. Chap. 3. That our aduersaries deny the infallible authority of the Church and affirme it to haue erred and perished page 30. Chap. 4. They reject al particular groundes of faith aboue assigned and proued to bee found in the Church of Christ besides the holy Scriptures page 32. Chap. 5. They build not vpon the holy Scripture and first that the bare letter of holy Scripture only is not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion page 47. Sect. 1. In which this is proued because by Scripture the Scripture it selfe cannot be proued Canonical It is also argued that according to the sectaries groundes there is no Canonical Scripture and some principal reasons especially inspiration of the spirit which they alleage for the proofe of such Scripture are refelled page 47. Sect. 2. In which the same argument is prosecuted and two things principally are proued First that the newe Testament receiueth smal authority if we beleeue our aduersaries by this that it was written by the Apostles and Disciples because they accuse them of errour Secondly because they confesse the text of Scripture to be corrupted p. 67. Sect. 3. The same is proued because euery Christian is bound to admit and beleeue certaine propositions neither expresly contained nor according to some mens judgements so euidently gathered out of the holy Scripture page 75. Sect. 4. The insufficiency of the bare letter of holy Scripture is proued by other arguments especially by this that the true interpretation cannot be infallibly gathered out of the letter page 78. Chap. 6. The newe Sectaries Bibles containe not the true word of God page 83. Sect. 1. In which this is first proued concerning al their Bibles in general page 83. Sect. 2. That Luther Zwinglius Caluin and Beza in particular haue corruptly translated the Scriptures page 84. Sect. 3. Our English sectaries also haue falsly and corruptly translated the Scriptures page 90. Sect. 4. Containing false translations against the authority of the Church Traditions honour of Images Purgatory and the honour of Saints page 92. Sect. 5. Of their corruptions against inherent Iustice Iustification by good workes Merit of good workes and keeping the Commandements and in defence of their special â—aith vaine Security c. and against Freewil and Merits page 94. Sect. 6. Of their false translations against the Real presence Priest-hood election of Bishops single life of Priests Penance and satisfaction for Sinne the Sacrament of Matrimony and some other points p. 96. Sect. 7. That the Professors of the newe religion in corrupting the Scriptures followe the steps of the auncient Heretikes and what followeth of this discourse page 101. Chap. 7. That they build not vpon the letter of holy Scripture contained as they say in their owne Bibles page 103. Sect. 1. In which this is proued first because the propositions which they tearme of their faith are not in expresse tearmes contained in the Scripture page 103. Sect. 2. The same argument is confirmed by the testimonie of some Protestants concerning the true sense of some wordes of Scripture alleaged for our Catholike doctrine touching justification in the Section before page 106. Sect. 3. The like discourse is made concerning a place of Scripture alleaged for the real presence page 114. Sect. 4. The followers of the newe religion in diuers matters obserue not the letter of their owne Bibles page 130. Chap. 8. In receiuing translating and expounding the holy Scriptures they only build vpon their owne fancies and judgement and that they haue no other ground page 134. Sect. 1. In which this is proued by their doctrine and dissention concerning the bookes of Canonical Scripture and their altering of the text of the same page 134. Sect. 2. The same is confirmed by their translations and expositions of holy Scripture page 141. Sect. 3. Concerning the newe exposition of those wordes This is my body in particular page 146. Sect. 4. That certaine rules prescribed by Field for the true vnderstanding of Scripture of themselues alone without the censure of the Church are insufficient to assure vs that our exposition made is of diuine truth page 149. Sect. 5. Concerning their deductions out of holy Scripture that they likewise are framed by them according to their owne fancies and of their accusations of one another touching these matters page 157. Sect. 6. The vnlearned and ignorant sectaries in receiuing and expounding the holy Scriptures likewise build vpon their owne fancies and judgements and haue no other ground of their faith and religion p. 161. Sect. 7. Of the miserable estate of the vnlearned and ignorant Sectaries page 166. Sect. 8. That the newe sectaries alleage Scriptures to confirme their new doctrine it is no certaine argument that they build their faith and religion vpon the said Scriptures page 172. Chap. 9. In which is proued by the newe Sectaries
things which were determined out of the scriptures in the Councel at Nice at Ephesus Constantinople Chalcedon adde also the fift and sixt by the godlie Fathers against Arius Samosatenus Apollinaris Nestorius Eutiches the Monotholites Whosoeuer therefore teacheth concerning Christs person against the determinations of those Councels certainelie they doe not rightly hold this principal foundation of Christian religion These are the discourses of Zauchius The like he hath in another place Zauchius in his obseruations vpon his confession vpon the 25. chap. pag. 330 where he expresly saith that The decrees of such Councels come from the holy Ghost and that he cannot disproue them with a good conscience Further if we weaken the authority of such Councels we must needs also make weake the authority of some books of holy scripture as of the a See part 1. chap. 7. sect 1. part 2. chap. 5. sect 2. epistle to the Hebrewes the Apocalipse and other such parcels of the written word of God of which there was some doubt in the Church whether they were Canonical or no vntil the matter was defined by general Councel Finally let vs confirme al that I haue here said by the testimony of b Hooker in the preface to his book of ecclesiastical policy pa. 24. 25. 26. 27. Hooker whom our English sectaries commonly esteeme as highly as any other He then first telleth vs that there are but two certaine waies of peaceable conclusion the one a sentence of judicial decision giuen among our selues the other the like kinde of sentence giuen by a more vniuersal authority and he meaneth by Councels The former of which two waies saith he God in the law prescribeth and his spirit it was which directed the very first Christian Churches to vse the second This he proueth by the proceedings of the Church touching the controuersie about the necessity of circumcision mentioned in the c Act. 15. Acts of the Apostles vvhich after great contention vvas ended by a Councel and he demaundeth of the Puritans whether they are able to alleage any just cause wherefore they should not condescend absolutely in the matter controuersed to haue their judgements ouer-ruled by some such definitiue sentence whether it fal out with them or against them that so saith he these tedious contentions may cease He addeth that without some definitiue sentence it is almost impossible that either confusion should be avoided or hope be had to attaine to peace Againe To smal purpose had the Councel of Hierusalem beene assembled if once their determination being set downe men might afterwards haue defended their former opinions when therefore they had giuen their definitiue sentence al controuersies was at end thinges were disputed before they came to be determined men afterwards were not to dispute any longer but to obey the sentence of judgement finished their strife which their disputers before judgement could not doe This was ground sufficiēt for any reasonable mans conscience to build the duty of obedience vpon whatsoeuer his owne opinion were as touching the matter before in question So ful of wilfulnes selfe-liking is our nature that without some defititiue sentence which being giuen may stand and a necessity of silence on both sides afterwards imposed smal hope there is that strifes thus farre prosecuted wil in short time quietly end thus he And to make this his discourse the stronger he likewise alleageth the authority of Beza Beza praefat tract de excom et presbit who saith he in his last booke saue one written about these matters professeth himselfe to be nowe weary of such combats and encounters whether by word or writing in asmuch as he findeth that controuersies thereby are made brawles and therefore he wisheth that in some common lawful assembly of Churches al these strifes may at once be decided Hitherto Hooker To the same effect he might also Luther li. cōt Zuīg et Oecolā haue alleaged the testimonie of Luther vvho considering the wonderful multitude of dissentions about religion among his sectaries themselues auouched that for the ending of them if the world long indure he saw no other meanes but that they should be forced to haue recourse to general Councels I could alleage the like sentences out of Couel Couel in his defēce of Hooker See before chap. 6. section 4. 50. 51. who wisheth that some general Councel might be assembled for the final end of al controuersies And hither also tend the discourses of those Protestants who as I haue aboue related make the constitutions of the Church diuine But it may perhaps be answered by some man to these testimonies of our aduersaries that notwithstanding al these their assertions they make general Councels absolutely subject to errour I answere and confesse that in very deede they doe so yet I affirme that any wise and discreete man may wel gather out of their sayinges alleaged not only that general Councels are needful in the Church and that al their deuision and dissention proceedeth of their denial of the authority of such Councels But also that it was requisite and necessary that Christ who is neuer wanting to his Church in thinges needful should make the authority of general Councels concerning matters of faith infallible For otherwise if they were subject to errour what reason hath man to obey them in matters of such consequence especially considering that diuers such assemblies vnlaweful consisting of a greater multitude of Bishoppes then some lawful general Councels haue erred and straied from the truth Finally they confesse that the first such Councels assembled in the first ages of Christianity erred not And thus much for the proofe of this matter It may perhaps be here further demaunded what conditions we require to a lawful and authentical general Councel I answere briefly first that such a Councel must either be called expresly by the ministerial head of the Church or at the least with his assent Secōdly the summon must be general of al Bishops throughout the world Thirdly although it be not needeful that al be personallie and reallie present yet a competent number must appeare that is to say some at the least out of the greater part of Christian Catholike prouinces yet if it be assembled in the East a smal number of the West sent to supply the place of al the rest are judged to suffice Contrariwise if in the West a smal number in such sort is sufficient out of the East Fourthly the ministerial head or vicegerent of Christ must either be present in person or by his Legates And finally the decrees of the said Councel must be by him confirmed and this both because the head is chiefe ruler of the body and consequently the body is to doe nothing without the assent of the head and also because he hath singuler priuileges granted him by Christ of not erring as shal be declared in the next chapter Hence it proceedeth that no general Councel hath euer in the Church beene held