procure fauour and estimation vnto it Therefore in the west partes it was for honours sake called the Sea Apostolike And in another place I graunt sayth he that there remayne also true Epistles of the old Bishops wherein they set forth the honour of their sea with glorious titles of which sort are some Epistles of Leo. 6. But the Lutherans in their Synodicall actes doe acknowledg that eueÌ„ in the tyme of the first Councell of Nice in the dayes of S. Cyprian S. Hierome and S. Augustine the Pope of Rome had the chiefe supremacy the which say they we willingly admit and imbrace to increase the good agreement in faith piety and Ecclesiasticall policy for they very well peâ—ceiued that this supremacy of the Pope of Rome did auaile much to keepe vnity and concord in doctrine and Ecclesiasticall policy 7. And hence it is that the sayd Lutheranes in their articles agreed vpon at Smalcalde the which they made in the yeare 1537. to be exhibited to the generall Councell which was reported to be holden at Mantua among other articles they approued this of the Popes authority and vnto these Philip Melancthon also subscribed Who also afterward in the yeare 1548. far more euideÌ„tly approued the Popes authority witing thus in his Epistle to the Lord HabeÌ„tur ista eodâ— c. 6. fol. 7. pag. 1. Embassadour Theophilus Besides these sayth he we reuerently honour and worship the authority of the Roman Bishop and all Ecclesiasticall policy so that the Bishop of Rome do not reiect vs. Thus Philip in that place 8. But what was the most true opinion of Melancthon concerning this matter appeareth more euidently by a certaine epistle he wrote in the yeare 1535. of the Extat integra ista Epist Philip. iâ— ceÌ„t Epist Theol. ad Io. Sâ—hunehelium ministr uÌ„ BipoÌ„tinuÌ„ est quam ista Epist inter caeteras ordine 74. iuxta edâ— Bipont Anno 1597. Ecclesiasticall iarres and the agreement which was made concerning the articles in controuersy wherein he alledgeth some reasons for the Popes Supremacy These are Philippes wordes speaking of some of his who did hinder resist the agreement which was to be made with Catholikes Some of them saith he do thinke that nothing els is demaunded but that hauing shaken of the Popes Monarchy and reiecting all the old Ecclesiasticall ordinances a certayne Barbarous liberty should be established And a little after Ours do grant that the Ecclesiasticall policy is a thing very lawfull in it selâ—l that is to say euen as there are some Bishops who haue charge or rule diuers Churches so also the Pope of Rome exceedeth all other Byshopes in authority This Canonicall policy as I think no wise man eyther can or should reiect if he desire to keepe himselfe within his owne limits And againe As concerning the riches and reuenewes they are the liber all and magnificent gystes of Kinges and Princes VVherfore as concerning this arâ—â—cle of the Popes supremacy and the authority of other Bishopes there is no Controuersy among vs. Foâ— both the Pope of Rome may easily retaine his authority and the other Byshops may also keepe theirs And there must needes be some gouernours in the Church of God who may ordayne those which are called to Ecclesiasticall offices and may exercise the authority of the sayd Church in all Iudiciall and diffiâ—ulte matters as also may examine the doctrine of the Priestes therof And that if there were no such Bishops yet there should be such ordayned for that purpose And a little after That Monarchy of the Pope is very good in my iudgment and necessary to the end that the vnâ—forme good agreement in doctrnie may be kept in many Nations VVherfore perfect good agreement in this one article concerning the Popes supremacy may easily be established if they could once agree about other articles Hitherto Philip. 9. Much like vnto these wrote Martin Bucer by the consent of Capito Hedio and Niger his confederates of the Church of Bezain vita Ca u. Anno. 1568. sâ—â—b finem Argentine who were as Beza saith great fauorits of Calum For in the same Century of Epistles there is one extant with this title Martin Bucer doth testify his agreemeÌ„t in all thinges with Philip MelaÌ„cthon both in his owne name and of the whole Church of Argentine And this Epistle of Centur. Epist Schuneb Epist 75. Bucer is next vnto the foresayd Epistle of Philip Melancthon 10. Moreouer in this very Epistle when Bucer treateth of this Ecclesiasticall Monarchy the which he calleth Policy he writeth thus But we desire nothing lesse then that the Kingdome of Christ should want her policy or authority to commaund No where should thinges be done in better and more certaine order no where should the obedience be greater the subiection more perfect the reuerent respect of authority more religiously obserued But now the outward power whatsoeuer it be is of God and he resisteth Gods ordination who is not obedient vnto this Finally towards the end of the same Epistle thus he concludeth VVe will therfore in no sorte hinder the small and perfect agreement of Churches The Pope of Rome and all the other Byshops may lawfully keepe their authority yea and their dominations also let them vse their authority only to the edification and not to the destruction of the Church seing that there is no authority at all the whith we do not account holy and we teach the same vnto them VVe seeke for nothing so diligently as for the discipline of the Church Hitherto Bucer with his companions who did euidently foresee that neyther any good agreement in doctrine nor Ecclesiasticall discipline can continue any long tyme without one supreme head and Monarch of the vâ—sible Church 11. Finally now also as many of our Aduersaries as haue any experience in matters of Policy and are well affected towards the monarchy of Kinges and Princes doe willingly acknowledge that there must needes be one supreme Byshop in the Church of God and that this is to be â—ustly graunted to the Pope of Rome if we could once agree among our selues about other matters in Controuersy For they see very well that all those arguments wherby the monarchy of secular Kinges and Princes is established do proue in the same manner also the Ecclesiasticall Monarchy And on the other syde all those arguments which do impugue the Ecclesiasticall Monarcy do no lesse ouerthrow the temporall Monarchy of all Christian Kinges and Princes CHAP. VIII Wherein the arguments of our Aduersaries against the Church of Rome are confuted THese are the chiefest arguments which our Aduersaries do obiect against vs ouâ— of holy Scripture The first Christ is the head of the Church the rocke foundation besides Cor. 11. v. 3. which no man can lay any other I answere that of one and the same thing there may be many heades so that one be subiect to another For the head of the woman is the man the head of
or marrow not in the leauâ—s of the words but in the sappeâ—pâ—th or roote os reason And a little after otherwise Matt. 4. v. 6. euen the Diuell himselfe speaketh Scriptures and all heresies according to Ezechiel make vnto themselues pillowes which they may lay vnder the elbow oâ— euery age Ezec. 13. v. 18. 2. By that which hath byn sayd answere may be made to our Aduersaries when they obiect against vs that we affirme the Scripture to be imperfect obscure like a nose of wax which a man may writh which way he will and lastly the origen and spring in a manner of all heresies for we affirme this of the naked and dead letter alone destitute of the true sense or rather of the letter to which the Heretikes adde their owne peruerse sense and meaning neyther haue our Aduersaries any cause to wonder at this seeing S. Paul himselfe saith of the bare letter alone that it killeth and bringeth eternall death 1. Cor. â— v. 6. 7. 9. and damnation But neuer any Catholike did euer attribute any such thing to the liuing letter which hath conioyned with it the true and natiue sense and which alone is truly and properly the word of God CHAP. IIII. How we are to seeke out the true sense and meaning of the holy Scripture THERE is great contentioÌ„ beweene vs and our Aduersaries about the meanes how to finde out the true and naturall interpretation of the letter a thing so necessary to eternall saluation They teach diuers thinges concerning this matter but deliuer nothing that is certayne One assigneth more rules to this purpose another fewer but when they haue sayd all they confesse at last that there was neuer any which hath not at sometyme erred in seeking out the true interpretation of holy Scripture For they gyue not their assent either to the ancient Fathers or to their owne Maisters in all thinges they teach or write nay they cannot assigne any one whom they acknowledge not to haue erred sometyme nor dare affirme to be free from error seeing as they say Euery man is a lyar and so at last all Rom. 3. v. 4. thinges are left by them doubtfull and vncertayne 2. But the Catholikes do proceed after another manner who teach that the certayne vndoubted sense of the Letter is not to be taken from the iudgment of any particuler man but from the vniforme consâ—nt of the ancient Fathers and especially from the iudgment and interpretation of the Catholike Church to whome it appertayneth to iudge of the sense and meaning of the holy Scriptures as the holy and Oecumenicall Councell of TreÌ„t teacheth very well for there is no doubt Concil Trident. sess 4. but that it is more safe to follow such an interpreter as cannot erre then such a one as erreth somtymes or at leastwise may erre but the Church cannot erre in her iudgment seeing that Christ and the â—oly Ghost remayne with her to teach Matt. 28. c vlt. Ioan. 14 v. 16. â—oan 16. v. 13. â—er all truth wherof more herafter when we shall come to treat of the Church 3. It shall suffice to obserue and â—ote here that according to the doctrine of our Aduersaries nothing either solide or certayne is contayned in the holy Scriâ—ture for wheras all dependeth of the â—rue sense of the Letter and with them â—here is no certayne or sure meanes by which to finde out this sense it followeth â—hat they call all into doubt which is in â—he Scripture wherby who seeth not how much they iniure them But contrariâ—yse according to the Catholike doctrine all thinges are euident and cerâ—ayne which are contayned in the holy Scriptures appertayning eyther to faith or good manners the Catholikes hauing euer a certayne and faithful Interpreter to wit the Catholike Church And surely whosoeuer reiecteth the sense which the Church giueth and in place therof substituteth another altogeather repugnant to it doth all one with him who reiecting the holy Scripture should in place therof bring in a new Scripture of his owne forging the sense of the Scripture being no lesse a part of the word of God then the letter which in these few wordes Tertullian confirmeth out of the tradition of the auncient Church The sense adulterated or falsified is no lesse repugnant Tertul. de prâ—sc c. 17. to the truth then the letter or stile corrupted 4. And to conclude it may be inferred that saluation is to be found in the Roman Church only and none at all out Marc. vlt. vers 16. â—om 3. v. 1â— Heb. â—â— v. 9. of it which I proue thus Both the Scripture testifyeth all meÌ„ confesse that diuine fayth is necessary to saluation but such as forsake the RomaÌ„ Church cannot haue diuine faith which wholy relieth vpon the word of God only but meerly humane seing their fayth is founded not in the word of God interpreted by the Church which cannot errâ— but in the word and interpretation of Luther Caluin or some other priuate man who as they themselues graunt may erre and be deceiued such an humane fayth then so doubtfull and vncertayne and only warranted by mans authority cannot iustify or bring a man to eternall saluation CHAP. V. How we may know which is the true letter of the holy Scripture ALL such as forsake the Roman Church and make little account of her authority are not only doubtfull vncertayne which is the true sense of the Scripture but they can haue no assurance at all eyther of the whole or of any part of the letter therof For whilst they goe about to call in question and make doubtfull certayne bookes only of the old Testament before they are aware they take away all authority from all other bookes both of the old and new Testament For whereas there is but one certaine and vndoubted Canon of these bookes to wit that which is receaued and approued by the iudgment of the Catholike Church which cannot erre our Aduersaries reiecting this Canon make all the books doubtfull conteined therin for no certayne testimony can be had of these bookes but eyther by this Canon only or by the auncieÌ„t tradition of the Church but they neyther admit this Canon nor wil stand to this vnwritten TraditioÌ„ or acknowledge it for the true word of God 2. Now as for the Canons lately set out by themselues no man can safely belieue them seeing they neyther agree one with another nor with the auncient Canons of the Church nor are any where found in the writteÌ„ word of God which as they teach is only to be belieued neyther can they bring any thing eyther concerning the Canon of the Hebrewes or any other auncient Canon which they haue not taken from the writings of the auncient Fathers whose authority without the expresse written word of God they will haue to be in no wise sufficient to engender fayth so as euen by the iudgment of our Aduersaries none of all these
the Sacraments But because there is no small Controuersy now a dayes concerning this Office we will briefly dispatch it But to the end that which is in Controuersy may the better be vnderstood heere are three thinges to be determined First that the calling of God is necessarily required to the end one may become a lawful preacher or administer of the Sacraments For those words of the Apostle are very cleare and manifest How shall they ad Rom. 10. v. 15. Hebr. 3. v. 4. 5. preach vnlesse they be sent And againe Neyther doth any man take the honour to himselfe but he that is cllaed of God as Aaron So Christ also did not glorify himselfe that he might be made a high Priest but he that spake to him My sonne art Psal 2. v. 7. thou c. Wherefore he who without this lawfull calling and mission dareth presume to intrude himself to meddle with these diuine offices preferreth himself before Christ our Lord. For Christ came not to these offices but called and sent by his eternall Father Lastly if in humane and worldly matters none dare meddle with the affaires or busynes of a Prince without his licence and consent much lesse must any deale with these supernaturall and diuine offices vnlesse he be called and sent for that purpose by God himselfe 2. The second is that there are two kinds of callings by God the one extraordinary the other ordinary The extraordinary calling is when God immediatly by himselfe calleth any in this manner God called Moyses the other Prophets Christ called his Apostles This is called extraordinary because it seldome hâ—apneth It is tearmed also an immediate vocation because it is done immediatly by God himselfe The ordinary vocation is that which coÌ„tinueth alwaies in the Church and is done immediatly by the Pastors of the Church and of God only by their meanes Hereupon also this is called a mediate vocatioÌ„ to wit in respect of God This diuision is taken out of S. Paul who writeth himselfe to be an Apostle not of men neyther by man but by Iesus Christ and God Gal. 11. v. 1. the Father For by these wordes he sheweth that some which are in the Church are called to the diuine offices by men and some by God himselfe 3. The third is that those who are taken to Ecclesiasticall offices by the ordinary vocation they receyue their calling and authority from the Church For this ordinary vocation is not done but by the ministers of the Church But the whole Controuersy is of the extraordinary vocation For those who in this age haue brought in new opinions seeing themselues destitute of the ordinary vocation they fly vnto the extraordinary the which say they must not be subiect to the censure and approbation of the Church wherof they know themselues to be destitute But we on the other side affirme that the extraordinary vocation also must necessarily be confirmed and approued by such as haue ordinary vocation in the Church of God And we know very well that our Aduersaries haue not truly this extraordinary vocation as afterward we will declare more at large But suppose we graunt them to haue this extraordinary calling neuerthelesse by these ensuing arguments we will manifestly proue that it must needs be confirmed and approued by those who haue their ordinary vocation in the Church of God 4. The first argument S. Paul was immediatly and extraordinarily called by Ad Galat 1. v. 1. God as he writeth himselfe and yet he was sent to Ananias who had the ordinary vocation that by him he might be instructed and baptized And afterwards Act. 9. v. 7. together with S. Barnabas he was ordained by the imposition of hands by those who were the ordinary Pastors of the Act. 13. v. 3. Church Lastely he writeth that according to the reuelation which he had he Ibid. v. 1. 2. went to Ierusalem and conserred the Ghospell which he preached with the visible Church and ordinary Pastor of the same least he might seeme to haue runne or laboured in vaine they therefore who refuse the approbation of the visible Church albeit they be neuer so extraordinarily called therunto they doe but labour in vayne 5. The second argument We must not easily beleeue euery one who affirmeth himselfe to be extraordinarily sent by God according to that admonition of S. Iohn Belieue not euery spirit but proue the 1. Ioan. 4. 4. 1. spirits whether they be of God because many false Prophets are gone out into the world But this proofe or triall cannot be better done then by Christs Church which is as S. Paul writeth the pillar and ground of truth The which also S. Iohn clearly sheweth by the words following when he sayth he that knoweth God heareth vs he that is not of God heareth vs not in this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error It is therefore a most certaine rule wherby this extraordinary vocation is examined to demaund whether it will submit it selfe to the approbation of the visible Church and will heare her or no For he who heareth the Church hath the spirit of truth and the true extraordinary vocation but he who will not heare the Church hath the spirit of error and the false extraordinary vocation 6. The third argument The holy Ghost neuer contradicteth himselfe for otherwise which God forbid he should not be the spirit of truth but of falshood for truth is neuer repugnant to truth but to falshood seeing that therfore it is manifest that the ordinary vocation is from the holy Ghost that extraordinary cannot be opposite vnto it which is truly from the holy Ghost For otherwise God should be opposite vnto himselfe which were impiety to thinke wherfore it necessarily followeth that the extraordinary vocation must agree with the ordidinary and be subiect vnto it as also it must establish and confirme but not impugne it Hereupon sayth the Apostle the spirit of the Prophets are subiect to the 1. ad Cor. 14. v. 32. Prophets if they be subiect to the Prophets much more to the whole Church of Christ 7. The fourth argument There would arise a greate confusion in the Church of God if euery one were permitted to preach and administer the Sacraments that should affirme himselfe to be extraordinarily called without any other examine or approbation of the Church For so euery phantasticall fellow might freely bragge and affirme himselfe to be extraordinarily called by God And vnder that pretence and title might preach administer the Sacraments and exercise all other Ecclesiasticall offices 8. By these arguments some more Calu. l. 4. Inst cap. 3. sect 14 Bez. c. 5. suae confess â—rtic 28. Bulling decad 5. serm 4. learned amongst our Aduersaries being conuinced do acknowledge that all extraordinary vocation should be examined and approued by the ordinary Pastors of Christs Church But they adde moreouer that this is true when the Church it selfe
perspicuously resolued Their first argument is if the authority of the Church were the ground of fayth then it would follow that our faith relied vpon men and not vpon God for the Church consisteth of men Our Aduersaries do often repeate and inculcate this argument vnto vs. I answeere that the same argument if it were any thing worth would also proue that we should not belieue Scriptures because althose who wrot the books of the Bibles were also men buâ—â—â— we do belieue their writinges not because they were men but because they had a certaine peculiar assistaÌ„ce of the holy Ghost who did so gouerne and direct them that they could not erre so in like manner we belieue the Church and make it the ground of our fayth not as it consisteth of men but as it hath a speciall and continuall assistance of the holy Ghost by whome she is continually gouerned and directed wherby it commeth to passe that she can neuer erre as we haue proued Cap. 7. praeced a little before 2. Wherefore to make the Church the ground of our fayth is nothing els then to make the holy Ghost and Christ himselfe the ground therof For it is he who speaketh vnto vs by the mouth of the Church according to that saying of S. Paul Seeke you an experiment of him that speaketh in me Christ And in another place speaking of his own 2. Cor. 13. v. 3. 1. Thess v. 8. doctrine he sayth therfore he that despiseth these things despiseth not man but God who also hath giueÌ„ his holy spirit in vs. But our Aduersaries do thinke speak too basely of the Church as though it consisted of men only as the Churches of Infidells and Heretikes seeing that the chiefe part of the true Church of Christ is the holy Ghost who is as it were the soule and spirit of the Church 3. But neither is this to make the Scripture or the holy Ghost subiect inferito our men as our Aduersaries are woÌ„t to cauil but oÌ„ly to shew that the holy Ghost is euery where conformable to himself that in all things he neuer differeth or disagreeth froÌ„ himselfe Whether he speak vnto vs by the holy Scripture or by the mouth of the Church as Caluin acknowledgeth Calu. l. 1. Instit c. 9. sect 2. disputing against the Anabaptists and Libertines who by such an argument went about to reiect the holy Scriptures to wit least the holy Ghost might be made subiect and inferiour vnto them 4. The second argument is that Christians may and ought to iudge and examine all things as the Apostle sayth therefore the spirit of euery Christian ought to be the grouÌ„d of al things I answere that by the same argumeÌ„t the Anabaptists Libertines 1. Cor. v. 15. reiectâ—d all the Scriptures that they might only retaine the spirit as witnesseth Caluin but badly for euen as Christians must discerne and iudge all things so must Calâ—â— c. 9. citat sect 1. they also obserue the rule and methode in iudging which the Scripture doth prescribe vnto them and which himselfe appointed but this rule is not euery ones priuate spirit but the spirit of the whole Church For it is altogeather necessary that the rule of fayth be most certayne free from all errors as the spirit of the whole Church is and not that of euery priuate man Hereupon sayth S. Iohn He 1. Ioan. 4. v. 6. which knoweth God heareth vs he who is not of God doth not heare vs in this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error We must tâ—erfore iudge of euery man by that they eyther heare or do not heare the Church c because they either agree or disagree from the spirit of the Catholike Church 5. The third argument is that Catholikes proue the Church and the authority thereof by the Scripture therfore Scripture is rather the ground of fayth then the Church I answere first that the proofe of the Church which is taken out of Scriptures when we dispute against heretikes is an argument called by Philosophers ad hominem and it is deduced out of the premises already graunted in which manner also the first principles or grounds of euery science may be proued and out of those thinges also which of themselues are not very strong and certayne So out of the old Testament agaynst the Iewes we proue the new Testament albeit this also is the ground of our fayth because the Iewes do admit and receiue the old Testament but not the new yea also euen out of the Iewish Talmud we proue many things against the Iewes because they admit and approue it as the word of God but yet their Talmud is not the ground of our fayth because this only is as I sayd an argument deduced out of such thinges as they graâ—â—t vnto vs. So in like maÌ„â—er because almost al heretikes admit the Scripture and reject the authority of the Church therefore when we dispute against them we proue the authority of the Church by the Scriptures as premisses already graunted by them But if we were to deale with Infidells or others who doe not admit the Scriptures then the sayd Scriptures were to be proued by the authority of the Church and not contrarywise For it is a thing farre better and more commonly knowne that there Infra 18. buius coÌ„ â—r §. 10. is a Church then that there are the holy Scriptures as afterward we will shew more clearly 6. Secondly I answere that there is so great connexion betwixt the Scripture and the Church that the Scripture may very well be proued by the authority of the Church and againe the church by the authority of the Scripture Neyther should this seeme strange to our Aduersaries For Logicians also know very well that that which by it owne nature is more certaine better knowne may be proued by that which is more certaine and beter knowne vnto vs by a demonstration called by them à posteriori And coÌ„trary wise that which is better knowne vnto vs may be proued by that which is better knowne and more certaine in his owne nature by a demonstration called à priori So the cause is proued by the effect the effect by the cause as fyre is proued by heate à posteriori and heate by the nature of fyre à priori So in like manner by the authority of the Church the which in regard of vs is more certayne and better knowne we proue the Scripture as it were à posteriori and by the authority of the Scripture which in it owne nature is more certaine we proue the true Church of Christ as it were à priori 7. The fourth argument S. Paul testifyeth that the Church is supported by the ground and foundation of the Prophets and Apostles that is to say by their Propheticall and Apostolicall doctrine but if the foresaid doctrine be the ground of the Church it necessarily followeth that this doctriue appeareth to
faith is the ground of the Church we speake of the generall faith of the whole Church 19. There are other arguments of our Aduersaries but we may easily answere Canus l. 2. de â—ocis Theol. c. 8. Bellar. l 3. deverbo Dei c. vlt. therunto by that whiâ—h hath byn already said the which Melâ—hior Canus and Bellarmine do prosecute and handle more at large vnto whom we referre the Reader For they are borrowed of the Anabaptists Libertines wherby the authority of the holy Scriptures themselues is no lesse diminished and infringed then that of the Church CHAP. VII That the Church doth not only giue a bare testimony but also authority to the Scripture THIS matter is heere briefly to be examined that it may more clearly be vnderstood how necessary the Churches approbation is to the establishing of the authority of the holy Scriptures But to the end that it may more clearely appeare wherof we dispute in this place it is to be considered that seing that our Aduersaries cannot deny but that the Church aâ—â—oardeth some testimony to the holy Scriptures they affime that this testimony of the Church is only a bare testimony and not a testimony of authority 2. For there are two kindes of testimonyes The one is called a testimony of authority because vpon it the truth of the things testified dependeth Yt is called also a necessary testimony because without it the thing in question is not sufficiently testified The other is called a bare testimony and not necessary that is to say when such a testimony is not so necessary because the matter is otherwise Ioan. 1. v. 7. sufficiently testified Such a testimony was that which S. Sohn Baptist gâ—ue of Christ For Christ had sufficient testimonies besides 3. Of the former testimony of authority Christ saith But I do not receyue my Ioan. 5. v. 34. 36. Ibid. testimony from men to wit the testimony of authority necessary For of the bare testimony he had spoken a little before You sent vnto Iohn and he hath giuen testimony to truth But this was a bare testimony wherfore Christ a little after said I haue a greater testimony then Iohn for the workes which the Father hath giuen me to profit them the very works which I do giue testimony of me that the Father hath sent me And the Father that sent me himselfe hath giuen testimony of me All which saith Christ of the testimony of authority Our Aduersaries therefore say that the Church giueth only a bare testimony to the Scriptures as S. Iohn gaue to Christ but she giueth not a necessary testimony or that of authority 4. But that the testimony of the Church is altogether necessary as that Matt. 3. v. vlt. Matt. 17. v. 5. wherof the authority of the Scriptures dependeth is very manifest by that which is said in the former Chapter And by that also which we alleadged in the first disputation where we shew that there is now no firme testimony wherby we may know certainly which booke is canonicall and which not besides the testimoniy of the Catholike Church For now neyther are the miracles wrought which God did in tymes past neyther doth God speake immediatly by himselfe as he spake in the baptisme and transfiguration of Christ VVherefore there remayneth only the third ordinary manner wherby God speaketh by the mouth of the Church The Church therfore doth not giue a bare testimony only to the holy Scriptures but the testimony of authority to wit that wherof the authority of the Scriptures dependeth as concerning vs and our knowledge 5. Moreouer if the doctrine of S. Paul stood in need of the Churches approbation as we haue already proued out of Supr c. 3. §. 13. huius Controu the Scriptures much more S. Lukes Ghospell who was oÌ„ly S. Pauls choller stood in need therof as Tertullian witnesseth especially because S. Luke receyued not those things which he wrot by reuelation from God Tertu l. 4. contra Marâ—â— 2. Luc. â— v. 2. as S. Paul did but by tradition from others as he hymselfe writeth And the same also may be said of S. Marke whose Ghospell as S. Hierome writeth the Apostle S. Peter approued and by his authority he commaunded it should be read in the Church 6. But neyther is it true that some say that the authority of approuing the Canonicall bookes was only resident in the Apostles and the primitiue Church but the ensuing Church hath it not For the Apostles did not approue all the Canonicall bookes of the new Testament For if they had donne so there had remained no doubt of many of them for many ages after the death of the Apostles euen among Catholike good men as we Supra ca. 5. Contr. 1. haue noted before But many yeares after the Apostles tyme by the generall Councells and Decrees of the Church some bookes were approued wherof there was before some doubt 7. Yea more then six hundred yeares after Christ there were many Catholikes who did not receyue the authority of the Toletan Concil c. 16. Apocalyps as appeareth out of the fourth Toletane Councell 8. And that which is more before the Councell of Trent ther were many Catholikes who thought that it was lawfull for them to doubt of all the bookes of the new Testament the which in tymes past S. Hierome seemed to iudge as doubtfull as are the Epistles of S. Iames the second of S. Peter the second and third of S. Iohn the Epistles of S. Iude the Epistles to the Hebrewes and the Apocalyps And if it had not byn for the Councell of TreÌ„t or some other new Decree of the Church none would as yet condemne them as Heretikes who called those bookes in question 9. By that which hath byn sayd it appeareth manifestly that the Canonicall Scriptures receiue their strength and authority not from the approbation of the primitiue Church but rather from the approbation of the Church succeeding yea euen of this present Church to wit of the Councell of Trent 10 Lastly albeit the present Church should not haue the authority of approuing Scriptures as these men say yet notwithstanding for three other reasons the authority testimony of this present Church is necessary First because we know not certainly what bookes the primitiue Church hath eyther written or not writen approued or reiected but by the testimony of the present Church Secondly neyther do we know whether those bookes came vncorrupted vnto vs or no but by the same testimony Thirdly because we cannot otherwise know which is the true sense of those bookes CHAP. VIII The Argumentes of our Aduersaryes are confuted THE first argument of our Aduersaries is The Church is grounded vpon the word of God and by the word also of God â—t is ingendred nourished and gouerned and it is subiect to the word of God as to the words of her spouse I answere our Aduersaries do in a manner coÌ„found the writen word of God
the Apostles is there resident and gouerneth the same as the supreme head thereof 2. The first place is taken out of S. Mat. 15. v. 18. 19. Mathew For he relateth the words which Christ spake to S. Peter which are these And I say vnto thee that thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it and I will giue to thee the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen And whatsoeuer thou shalt bind vpoÌ„ earth it shal be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on earth it shal be loosed in heauen 3. First that Christ spake to S. Peter and not to the other Apostles appeareth euidently by the very words of the text For Io. 1. v. 24. Ioan 22. v. 15. first of all Christ setteth downe S. Peters old name Simon sayth he thou art blessed and then afterward he setteth downe the name of his father Baâ—-iona that is to say the sonne of Ionas or of Iohn as also the EuaÌ„gelist S. Iohn testifyeth He sheweth afterward that the reuelation was only made to S. Peter My father sayth he hath reuealed vnto thee he doth not say vnto you as he is woÌ„â— to say when he speaketh vnto them all He addeth moreouer because thou art Peter which certainly agreeth only to S. Peter for vpon him only was this Name imposed Ioan. 1. v. 42. 4. Moreouer Christ addeth And vpon this rocke I will build my Church in which words that particle and is a coniunction causall and not a copulatiue and it signifieth because and in this sense it is vsed oftentymes in holy Scripture as our Aduersaries cannot deny as for example in that place of Genesis Lo thou shalt dye for the woman Gen. 20. v. 3. Psal 59. veâ— 60. v. 13. 107. Psa vel 08 v. 13. Isaiae 46. v. vlt. Luc. 1. v. 42. that thou hast taken and hath a husband that is because she hath a husband So also Dauid in his Psalmes Giue vs thy helpe from our tribulation and vayne is the saluation of men that is to say because the saluation of men is but vayne In like manner the Prophet Isay saith Behould thou art angry and we haue sinned that is to say because we haue sinned In the same sense it is vsed in the new Testament Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruite of thy wombe that is to say because it is blessed as Caluin and Beza doe acknowledge all which places Caluin confesseth to be so vnderstood after Theophilact Also and none gaue him any thing that is to say because none gaue him See more examples of this in the latin edition 5. This therfore is the true sense of that place As thou hast sayd vnto me thou Ioan. 1. v. 42. art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God so I say vnto thee that I haue worthily called thee Peter because vpon this rocke which thou art I will build my Church For to what end should Christ haue said vnto him thou art Peter seeing that all knew well inough before that Peter was Peter but that he would therby declare that he was not called Peter without great cause that is to say because vpon him as vpon a sure and strong foundation and rocke Christ intended to build his Church Christ therfore Ioan. 1. v. 42. would haue S. Peter to remember the name which of late was giuen him and afterward he assigneth the reason and S. Hier. in c. 16. Matt. sup eaverba Quiatu es Petrus cause why he called him so to wit because vpon him as vpon a most strong rocke he would build his Church According to the metaphore os a rocke saith S. Hierome it was rightly said vnto him I will build my Church vpon thee 6. For the holy Scripture is accustomed when it speaketh of a name giuen vnto any by the interpretation of the word to adioyne also the reason and Gen. 17. v. 5 Gen. 22. v. 27. Gen. 4. v. 25. cause of the name so said our Lord vnto Abram Neyther shall thy name be called any more Abram but thou shalt be called Abraham and then he presently giueth a reason takeÌ„ from the etimology of the word because a Father of many Nations I haue made thee So also he did when Iacob was called Israel See more of this in the Latin edition pag. 280. 7. Lastly not without great reason Christ gaue vnto S. Peter this new name but no other cause is assigned in the holy Scripture but this Because vpon this rocke I will build my Church This therfore and no other was the cause of giuing him this new name Hereupon saith S. Hilary very well O happy foundation of Christes Church saith he in the imposition of a new name and o In c. 16. Matt. worthy rocke of that building the which should dissolue and breake the infernall Lawes the gates of hell and all the stronge barres of death So S. Hilary 8. Moreouer Christ said to S. Peter I will giue the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen vnto thee he doth not say vnto you In like manner he said in the singular number Mat. 16. v. 19. whatsoeuer thou hast bound vpon earth c. that thou shalt loose c. He spake therfore to S. Mat. 18. v. 18. Peter only and not to many 9. And albeit he promised this last authority of bynding or loosing men from their sinnes to the other Apostles also yet first of all in this place he promised this to S. Peter alone and then afterwardes to the rest to the end we might therby know that he made S. Peter the head of all the rest and that all their power and authority was subordinate to that of his For at this day all Catholike Bishops haue authority to bynd loose but subordinate to the Popes authority 10. All which thinges that holy martyr S. Cyprian declareth very well in Cypr. de vnit Ecc. circa principium Mat. 16. v. 18. 19. these wordes wherby it may easily be vnderstood what was the opinion and iudgment of the primitiue Church concerning this matter God speakâ—th vnto S. Peter saith S. Cyprian I say vnto thee because thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will build my Church c. And againe after his resurrection Ioan. 20. v. 20. 21. 22. 23. he sayd feed my shepe vpon him alone he buyldeth his Church and he committeth vnto him to feede his sheepe and albeit he gaue the like authority to all the other Apostles saying As my Father sent me so c. whose sinnes yee forgiue c. yet to the end he might shew and declare an vnity he ordayned but one chayre he confirmed by his authority the beginning of that vnity proceeding from one The same indeed or equall in all other thinges were the other Apostles with S. Peter indued with the same power and authority to wit before those wordes of
Tertul. de paenitent c. 9. Priests and to kneele to the dearely beloued of God which is nothing â—lâ— but kneeling downe to adore And the same Tertullian els where saith that they were Tertul. de pudicit c. 13. wont to licke vp the footesteps of euery one that past where he seemeth to allude to those wordes of the Prophet Isay cited Isa 49. v. 23. Isa 60. v. 4. a little aboue they shall licke vp the dust of thy seete and adore the steppes of thy feete Now if it be so that they licked the footestepeâ— of all Christians much more doubtlesse the footesteps of the supreme Bishop who receaued them into the Church and who at that tyme was called the blessed Pope as the same Tertullian witnesseth 11. Neyther doth this adoration derogate any thing from the honour of God or Christ but rather much more illustrate and set it forth for this honour is exhibited to the Bishop of Rome not for his owne holines or any other quality with which he is adorned as a priuate person but only for that authority and spirituall power which he receaued from Christ and which indeed properly appertayneth to God and to Christ and therefore in him and by him Christ whose person he representeth is honored and adored according to those words of Tertullian VVhen Tertul. de pâ—niteÌ„t ceâ—o therefore saith he thou stretchest thy selfe sorth to the knees of thy brethreÌ„ thou layest hold on Christ and makest thy supplication to Christ And this Caluin himselfe by the force of truth confesseth when he speaketh of the AdoratioÌ„ of the Church For expounding those wordes of the Prophet Isay they shall adore the steppes of thy feete or as he translateth they shall bow themselues downe to the plantes of thy feete thus he writeth Heere some man Calu in c. 60. Matth. v. 14. will aske whether this honour of which the Prophet speaketh be not too much and greater then is to be exhibited to the Church for to how our selues down and prostrate our selues are signes of that honour which no man ought to admit I answere this honour is not exhibited to the meÌ„bers but to the head to wit Christ who is adored in the Church so Caluin which also those words of God in the Apocalyps manifestly declare to be true I will make them adore thee before thy feete and they shall know that I haue loued thee for therefore is this honour exhibited to the supreme Bishop because God hath so exalted the Roman Sea and bâ—ene so liberall towards it which is a signe of exceeding great loue And heere hence it is that the same veneration is exhibited to all Bishops of Rome as well to the bad as to the good for they are not honored for their owne goodnes but for the office which Christ bestoweth vpon them As also they are called holy and most holy not for their Act. 28. v. 15. owne personall holynes but for the holines of Christ whose person and place they susteine vpon earth and for the holynes of the office which they receaue from God euen as S. Paul called Festus President of Iury very good not for any goodnes of his Baron ToÌ„ 1. anno 58. num 13. owne for he was an Infidel and a wicked man but in regard of his office for so the Presidents of Proninces were wont to be stiled as well noteth Baronius 12. Moreouer whereas in the Scripture feet signify diuine mission and vocation which is most ample in the Bishop of Rome no meruaile Rom. 10. v. 15. if greater veneration be exhibited to his feet it is to be obserued that there is a Crosse vpon his shoe which all kisse to giue vs to vnderstand that the honor is not exhibited to him but to Christ crucified whom he representeth 13. To conclude heere hence is easily solued that which our obiect of S. Peters refusing to be adored by Corneleus Act. 10. v. 25. 26. the Centuâ—ion for Cornelius adored not S. Peter in respect of Christ whose Vicar he was but in respect of himselfe whom he took to be some God as did the Licaonians Act. 10. v. 10. Hieron aduers Vigil ep 53. n. 12. iuxta edit Marian victorij thinke of Paul Barnabas so S. Hierome or surely they thought Peter to be more theÌ„ a maÌ„ as manifestly appareth by S. Peters answere Arise for I also am a man therfore Cornelius was to be admonished corrected for adoration is eyther good or bad according to the cause or reason for which it is exhibited Now the cause for which Catholikes exhibite the same to the Bishop of Rome is very good to wit the excellent power of Christ or rather Christ himselfe gouerning ruling his Church in his Vicar Act. 16. v. 26. and therfore this adoration is good and gratefull to God but the cause of Cornelius adoration was fond and false and therfore his adoration was naught and worthily reprehended 14. I know our Aduersaries often obiect that Pope Alexander the third did insolently trample vnder his feete Frederike the Emperour but this foolish fable is soundly and copiously refuted by Baronius citing the testimonies of such as were present and haue commited to writing all that passed in which there was nothing vnusuall but the Pope admited from Frederike the accustomed adoration He that desireth more concerning the kissing of the Popes feet may read Ioseph Stephâ—nus who hath written a whole booke therof it is sufficient for vs to haue briefly proued the same by many euident testimonies of holy Scripture CHAP. X. Of Generall Councells GENERAL Councells doe represent the whole body of the Catholike Church wherefore we will now speake a little of them for seeing that we haue already spoken of the head of the Church it remayneth we treat of the body therof But this we will do briefly For our Aduersaries now adaies graunt many thinges concerning this matter which in tymes past they denyed To the end therfore that the true state of this Controuersy may the better be vnderstood three thinges are to be considered which our Aduersaries hauing now learned by experience to be true do willingly graunt vnto vs. 2. The first is that these Councells are very profitable that the authority therof is not to be despised For seing that Hebr. vlâ— vers 17. the Apostle warneth vs to obey euery true Pastor much more are we bound to obey many assembled togeather For which cause our Aduersaries would also that we should all obey their synodicall assemblies Hereupon sayth Caluin Truly Calu. l. 4. Inst c. 9. sect 13. we do willingly graunt that if there happen debate about any doctrine there is no better nor surer remedy then if a Synod of true Bishops assemble togeather where the doctrine in controuersy may be discussed Thus he And euen naturall reason it selfe conuinceth this to be true as Caluin also confesseth For it is an easieâ— matter for many
Calu. l. 4â— Inst cap. 9. sect 13. acknowledge that there is no better or surer remedy to roote out and take away al heresies therfore eyther this is a certaine remedy or els there is none at all the which to affirme were to deny the prouidence of God and his loue to his Church 15. Moreouer that which our Aduersaries say to wit that the later Councels are not lawfull Assemblies because they haue not obserued due manner and forme is a false lye first because it doth not become euery priuate man to be iudge in this matter but it belongeth to the whole Church who hauing receyued for so many yeares all these as lawfull Councells we must not call them any more in question 16. And seing that our Aduersaries do imbrace and approue the six first Councels the lawfull forme to be obserued in Councells is to be fetched from them the which is exactly obserued in the later Councells as Baronius sheweth euidently in euery one of the first six Councells But Caluin acknowledgeth no Calu. c. 9. citato sect â— lawfull manner of any Synodicall assembly nor any such to be gathered togeather in the name of Christ but where all things are proued by Scripture only reiecting all Ecclesiasticall traditions but we haue already proued that the Traditions Goâ—t 1. c. 18. seq of the Church of God are as a principall and chiefest part of the word of God 17. Yea euen this was the only cause why S. Cyprian and so many other holy Byshops erred in the African Councells when they determined that all those who were christned by Heretikes should be baptized againe for they confirmed this their opinion very probably by many places of holy Scripture but they reiected the auncient tradition of the Lyrin lib. coÌ„tra Heraes c. 9. 10. S. Aug. Tom. 7. de baptism coÌ„tra Donatist l. 2. c. 7. in fine cap. 8. 9. S. Aug. Tom. 7. l. 3 de bapt coÌ„tra Donatist c. 4. l. 3. citato c. 2. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. loan 14. â— 9. Church the which they knew very well was opposite to this error as though it had byn contrary to the holy Scriptures as S. Vincentius Lyrinensis declareth very well and before him S. Augustine in many places 18. And that which is more S. Augustine manifestly writeth that he had byn of S. Cyprians opinion by reason of those probable reasons which were deduced out of holy Scripture but that the whole Catholike Church had defined the contrary And as the same holy Father teacheth at large they most of all oppugned the custome of the Church which were in the same error with S. Cyprian obiecting among other thinges that place of the holy Scripture the which our Aduersaries now adayes obiect against vsâ— God saith I am the truth he doth not say I am the custome Vnto whome S. Augustine answereth very well that the custome of the Church is not opposite to Truth but it is euen Truth it selfe 19. Our Aduersaries arguments are of small account or moment Caluin bringeth in the example of Caiphas and of the Iewish Councell wherin Christ was condemned The same argument Beza Bez. in 1. Tim. 2. v. 25. also alledgeth But who doth not know that this was neyther a generall Councell whereunto Christ was not called nor any â—ther true belieuer nor lawfull in it selfe seing that it was not assembled in the name and authority of Christ who was then the supreme head of the visible and militant Church as also because it was called togeather against the true Church of God by the wicked and cursed Synagogue of the Iewes For that was the true Church which adhered vnto Christ and belieued in him but that other which was altogeather depriued had lost the true faith of Christ was rather a fit Church for Sathan and other infernall spirits And I meruaile truly that Caluin and Beza do alledge that Councell as true and lawfull which was assembled against Christ himselfe as also by those who were not true belieuers â—o 15. v. 22. Psal 117. v. 21. Isa 9. v. 9. 10. Isa 6. v. 14. Dan. â— v. 26. Mat. vlt. â— vlt. in Christ yea who were filthily stained with the most heynous synne of infidelity as Christ humselfe witnesseth but we willingly leaue such a Church and Councell to our Aduersaries 20. It was also manifestly foretould by the Prophet that Christ should not be receyued by the Iewes and that the Synagogue of the Iewes should then fall from Ioa. 14. v 16. Calu. c. 9. citato sect 8. S. Aug. ToÌ„ 6. l. 3. contra Maxim Arian Episc c. 14. Beza volu 2. Tract Theol. Tract 3. de pace Christianorum Eccles constit cirâ— fineÌ„ pag. 118. iuxta edit GeÌ„ an 1558. Calu. sect citato Rupel Confess Art 5. in fine her faith But the holy Scriptures teach the plaine contrary of the true Church of Christ to wit that Christ and his spirit shall remayne with her for euer 21. But neyther is that other argument which Caluin and Beza vse any better to wit that S. Augustine would not vrge the authority of the Councell of Nice against Maximinus the Arian For neyther can we vrge the authority of the new testament against the Iewes not because we haue any doubt thereof but because the Iewes do not admit the new Testament In the same manner when that Arian would not admit the Councell of Nice but did plainly reiect it S. Augustine should in vayne haue vrged the authority therof for otherwise it is well knowne that S. Augustine neuer had any doubt of the fayth explicated in the Councell of Nice the which euen our Aduersaries imbrace as the most true word of God 22. Such as desire to see any more concerning this controuersy of the Generall Councells let them read Bellarmine in his first second booke of the Church militant and Coccius in his first Tome the seauenth booke the 21. 22. article CHAP. XI Of the Authority of the auncient Holy Fathers NOw it remaineth we say somewhat of the auncient holy Fathers and of their writinges both because they were in tymes past the chiefest members of the true Church of Christ euen by the confession of our Aduersaries as also because in the particuler controuersies we shall often vse the testimonies authorities of the holy Fathers 2. We know indeed well inough that they were men and that they might haue erred but neyther are they Gods nor Angells who accuse them of their errors We know also that one or more of the sayd holy Fathers haue sometymes erred when they left the more common opinion of others 3. But we affirme this constantly that the auncient holy Fathers receiued by the Church of God haue neuer written any thing with a common and vnanime consent that is eyther contrary to the holy Scriptures or to any point of fayth 4. Moreouer out of the writings of the holy Fathers in foure diuers