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.
the word Preiest but when speach is of the Priests of the Church of Christ throught the whole Bible they vse not the word Priest but in place of it read Elder They say that the Greeke word Presbiter signifieth an Elder and not a Priest I answere that although this word if we runne to the first signification of it signifieth an Elder wherefore the Latin Interpreter of our vulgar edition translateth it sometimes Seniour or Auncient yet by Ecclesiastical vse See the first Coūc. of Nice Bilson in his treatise of the perpetual gouerment of Christs Church cap. 11. pag. 181. and Apostolike authority as appeareth in al the ancient Fathers workes euer since the beginning of Christs Church it hath beene appropriated to signifie a Priest no lesse then Episcopus to signifie a Bishoppe and Diaconus a Deacon And hence almost in al languages the word which signifieth a Priest is deriued from the Greeke word Presbiter Neither did the first founders of the Church vvithout cause appropriate this word to signifie men of this function for it was done to distinguish the Priests of the newe lawe from those of the old which long after the Ascention of Christ kept their offices and perhaps also to make a difference betweene them and the Priestes of the Gentiles vvith vvhome the vvorld vvas replenished But concerning this matter I cannot but note the folly and ouer-sight of our aduersaries who tearme their Elders Ministers and their Deacons Deacons whereas the Greeke word Deacon signifieth properly a Minister vvherefore a Minister and a Deacon in very truth are al one and they according to their proceedings should haue tearmed their Ministers not Ministers but Elders and their Deacons Ministers Besides this sometimes they translate and read Minister whereas according to the Greeke they should reade Priests as Ecclesiast 7. Bibl. 1595. vers 29. whereas they should reade Priests they reade Honour his Ministers contrary to themselues in the 31. verse following Bibl. 1562. To the same end they cal S. Peter and S. Iohn laymen whereas the Scripture calleth them only vnlearned or vnlitterated Act. 4. vers 13. but this is amended in the edition of the yeare 1595. and 1600. For their Puritan election of Ministers whereas Act. 1. vers 26. Bibl. 1600. in some bibles before amēded in the bible 1595. Bible 1595. Bibl. 1592. Amēded ī the text of the bible 1595. we reade according to the Greeke that S. Mathias was numbred with the eleauen Apostles they translate that he was By common consent counted with the eleauen Apostles the like corruption is Act. 14. vers 23. Moreouer against the grace which is giuen by the sacrament of order 1. Timoth. 4. vers 14. and 2. Tim. 1. vers 6. In steed of grace they read gift To proue that Priests may lawfully marrie whereas the Apostle saith 1. Corinth 9. vers 5. That he might haue led about a woman a sister they read a wife being a sister And this notwithstanding 1. Corinth 7. vers 1. vvhere the Apostle vseth the selfe same Greeke word they reade not It is good for a man not to touch a wife but it is good for a man not to touch a woman See Beza annot in Mat. 5. vers 28. Bible 1595. 1600. Philip. 4. v. 3. Bible 1577. 1600. 1595. because otherwise it would make against their doctrine of marriage To this purpose also they make S. Paul say as to his vvife I beseech thee also faithful good fellowe whereas his wordes signifie a sincere companion and so Caluin and Beza translate them Further to the same end is that their translation of the 4. verse of the 13. chapter to the Hebrewes Wedlocke is honourable among al men or as they haue in another edition something amended the matter Marriage is honourable in al. For in the first translation they added two wordes to the sentence is and men and in the last the the vvord is and so they turne cleane the sense of the Apostle which rather is Let marriage be honourable in al to wit in those that are married So they themselues translate the next verse Bible 1600. Let your conuersation c. the like corruption may be seene Mat. 16. v. 11. The Priests lips saith Malachias the Prophet shal keep knowledge c. they read should keep knowledge S. Paul affirmeth Malach. 2. v. 7. Bibl. 1592 corrected in the bibl of the yeare 1595. Bibl. 1595. and 1600. Bibl. 1600. Bibl. 1595. that he released the penance of the incestuous Corinthian in the person of Christ that is as the Vicar of Christ They translate In the sight of Christ and put in the margent this exposition That is truly and from mine hart euen as in the presence of Christ Contrarie to the Greeke and also to the Apostle himselfe who 1. Corint 5. vers 4. excommunicated the said person as he saith In the name and with the vertue or power as they translate of our Lord Iesus Christ See also Mich. 5. vers 3. Because their liberty cannot indure any paineful satisfaction for sinne for Doe penance and fruits worthy of penance They translate Mat. 3 2.8 Luke 3. v. 8. Act. 17 30. Apoc. 2 21. and 22. cap. 16 9. 11 Repent and fruits worthy of amendment of life and repentance They say that the Greeke vvord signifieth as they translate But the circumstance of the text and al the Greke and Latin Fathers tel vs the contrary Neither can they in some places translate the Greeke word otherwise then we doe as Math. 11. vers 21. Luk 10. vers 13. 2. Corint 7. vers 9. where it must needs signifie sorowful paineful and satisfactorie repentance I graunt that the Greeke word being spoken of God and the damned must be otherwise translated but this is litle to the purpose for neither in such places can it be translated as our aduersaries translate it in the places alleaged for God and the damned amend not their liues Dan. 10. vers 12. for Afflict thy selfe contrary to the Hebrew Greeke and Latin they read Bible 1600. Humble thy selfe Bible 1595. Esdras 9. vers 5. for affliction they reade heauinesse Dan. 4. in like sort contrary to al the said texts in steed of redeeme thy sinnes with almes Bible 1595. 1600. Iam. 5. v. 14. they reade Breake off thy sinnes with righteousnesse See another corruption Tit. 3. vers 8. against confession whereas S. Iames saith Is a man sicke among you let him bring in the Priests of the Church c. and after vers 16. Confesse therefore your sinnes one to another Bible 1595. they translate thus Is any diseased among you let him cal for the Elders of the Church c. and vers 16. knowledge your faults one to another And although they seeme to esteeme so highly of marriage yet they commonly deny it to be a sacrament wherefore whereas the Apostle speaking of matrimony saith Ephes 5 32. Bible 1595.
my soule in hel Act. 2. v. 27. Psal 15 10. and auoucheth this to be the true translation of those wordes especially in this sentence in which they can beare no other sense seing that the soule of Christ was not detained in his graue The Sectary contrariwise affirmeth the vvordes cited not to be truely translated but wil haue the true translation of them to be Bible 1589. 1592. 1600. Thou wilt not leaue my soule in graue And howe shal this controuersie be decided The Catholike for his opinion and to proue that Christ truely descended into hel alleageth al the grounds of Catholike faith aboue set downe But what can his aduersary bring forth in defence of his doctrine Perhaps he wil runne to conference of other places of Scripture but what if those other places admit also diuers translations as wel as this and therefore he giue one sense of the said places and the Catholike another To what other judge wil the Sectary appeale verily to no other but to himselfe and his owne priuate judgement This is the ordinary course of proceeding of our aduersaries with vs and al others that doe impugne them And doe they in this case remit the controuersie to holy Scripture doe not the Catholikes aswel as they admit of the text cited both as it is found in the Hebrewe in the 15. psalme and also as it is in the Greeke in the second Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles this cannot be denied The difference then betweene vs them is concerning the translation of the last word which the Catholike affirmeth to signifie hel the Protestant graue And what moueth the Sectary to admit one translation rather then another Certainely his owne priuate opinion which he hath framed to himselfe contrary to al antiquity against Christs descent into hel August epist 99. Surely S. Augustine auoucheth that No man but an Infidel wil deny him to haue beene in that place and with him the rest of the Fathers consent SECTION THE THIRD Concerning the newe exposition of those wordes This is my body in particular BVT if it vvere not for being ouer-long in these discourses I could exemplifie in particular concerning sundry newe expositions of holy Scripture inuented by our aduersaries and shew to euery mans eye the inuentors of the same vvho framed them out of their owne braines One example I vvil bring among the rest vvhich shal be concerning those wordes of our Sauiour Math. 26 26 This is my body For vvho inuented in these our daies the first Sacramentary exposition of the said vvordes verily Carolostadius as al the vvriters of his daies beare vvitnesse And vvhat was he He was Archdeacon of Wittenberge Melanct. Sleidan others but as Melancthon himselfe a Sectary reporteth * Melanct. in epist ad Fredericū Myconiū praefat veterum senten de coena Domini a rude sauadge man without wit without learning vvithout common sense in whom neuer appeared any token or signe of the spirit of God But howe expounded he the said sentence Certainely not of the Sacrament which Christ deliuered to his Apostles but of the visible person of Christ sitting at the table as if Christ had said Eate and drinke for I am he that must suffer on the Crosse for your redemption so that he changed the sense of the word This into the word Here. Let vs farther demand what moued him to inuent this heresie and false interpretation Melancton aboue cited reporteth that it vvas only the hatred vvhich he had conceaued against Luther vvho rebuked and reproued him for breaking downe of Images in the Churches of the said City without his warrant and approbation The second principal Sacramentary vvas Zwinglius Zwingl l. de vera falsa relig vvho first affirmed the body of Christ to be present in the Eucharist but together with bread and wine and consequently denied only transubstantiation afterwardes he denied the real presence altogether and turned the word is into the vvordes doth signifie and made the sense to be This doth signifie my body The third was * Oecolāp in li. de genuina expos horum verborum Oecolampadius vvho altered the sense of the word body and would haue it signifie a figure of the body and therefore the sense of those wordes according to his judgement is This is a figure of my body The fourth was Caluin a Caluin l. 4. Instit c. 17. §. 10. 11. 24. 32. Idem lib. de coena Domini who although he confesse that Christ is really only in heauen yet he vvil haue vs truly to receiue him on earth in the Eucharist vvherefore he reprehendeth both Luther and Zwinglius and vvil haue the sense of the said wordes to be This bread is a figure of my body but a figure giuing my body it selfe so he in effect Howe this is brought to passe he confesseth himselfe ignorant But vvhat saith Luther their first parent to these his children he damneth them to the pit of hel and b Luth. thes 24 cont Louaniēs Itē in parua cōfes de coena Domini telleth vs that they treade vnder foote and ouerthrowe al. He addeth further c To. 7. in defensor verb◠coenae c. fol. 387. that the text can admit but one direct and true sense How then are the said wordes to be vnderstood in his iudgement Thus he vvriteth in an epistle to certaine of his followers concerning the interpretation of them Luther the Preacher and Euangelist of Wittenberge to the Christians of Strasburge Luther to 7. Wittenberg fol. 502. Thus much I neither can or wil deny that if Carolostadius or any other man fiue yeares since could haue perswaded me that in the Sacrament was nothing else but bread and wine be truly had bound me vnto him and I would haue accepted that as a very great benefit For in examining and debating that matter I tooke maruailous paines and strained euery veine of my body and soule to haue ridde and dispatched my selfe thereof because I sawe fulwel that thereby I might haue done notable harme and damage to the Papacy But I see my selfe taken fast and that there is no waies to escape For the text of the Gospel is so cleare and forcible which cannot easily be shaken much lesse ouerthrowen by wordes and glosses deuised by giddy braines Hitherto Luther both declaring the true cause which moued him to set a foote his newe Gospel to wit the hatred of the See of Rome and also the force of Scriptures for the real presence What then beleeued he touching this point First Luther lib. de captiuit Babilon cap. de Eucharist although he affirmed it to be no article of faith whither bread remained or no in the Eucharist togither with the body of Christ yet he esteemed the affirmatiue part most probable * Idē in serm de Sacra coenae Domini Et in li. quod verba Christi HOC EST CORPVS MEVM