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
the sonnes of Aaron Malac. 2. vers 7. The lippes of the Priest shal keepe knowledge and they shal require the lawe of his mouth so of the Bishops and Priestes of the newe who are to enjoy as great if not a greater prerogatiue the Apostle telleth vs Ephes 4. vers 11. that our Lord hath giuen and euer wil giue as long as the world shal stand some Pastors and Doctors in his Church to direct vs that we be not carried away with euery winde of doctrine And hence proceedeth this notable sentence of the holy Father S. Ireneus vvho for Christian religion suffered Martirdome about the yeare of Christ two hundred and fiue Iren. li. 3. cap. 4. We ought not saith he to seeke among others the truth which we may easilie take and receaue from the Church seing that the Apostles haue most fully laid vp in her as into a rich treasure house or place where the Depositum of the Church is kept of which hereafter al thinges which are of truth that euery man that wil may take out of her the drinke of life For this is the entrance of life but al the rest are theeues and robbers for which cause they are verily to be auoided But those thinges which are of the Church are with great diligence to be loued and the tradition of truth is to be receaued Hitherto S. Ireneus We say therefore that by the Church we learne as certainely what misteries haue beene reuealed by Christ as we should doe by our Lord himselfe if he were conuersant with vs on earth and the truth of this wil be made most apparant by the discourse of the next Chapter following Chapter 6. Of the supreame and infallible authority of the Catholike Church SECTION THE FIRST MY principall intent in this treatise is as I haue before declared to proue that vve Catholikes only haue true faith and that al Sectaries are bereaued of this supernatural vertue vvherefore hauing set downe and made euident in the Chapter next before the nature and conditions of true faith it remaineth that I now beginne in particuler to discourse of these points And seing that it is of the essence of faith that it be most assuredly built vpon diuine authority let vs first behold the groundes of the Catholike Roman beleefe and see whether they are able to make a sufficient foundation for such a faith in the followers of that religion then let vs doe the like concerning the groundes of the newe Sectaries But first I must note that although as I haue proued before we must trulie say that we knowe infallibly the misteries of our faith to be reuealed by God because we are so taught by the Church yet that her authority is not limited to the decision of this matter only for it extendeth it selfe also to the definition of al particuler matters of faith and may haue for her object the verities themselues reuealed It also condemneth heresies and prescribeth general preceptes of manners touching good and il wherefore the ancient Catholike buildeth vpon her authority not only his faith touching the point mentioned but also in some sort his whole beleefe and consequently al his internal vertues grounded vpon the same He relieth likewise on her doctrine for his externall carriage concerning vertue and vice and finally accepteth al her faith as infallibly reuealed by God himselfe who hath made her supreame judge of al controuersies touching matters of religion and assured vs that her judgement is not only certaine and infallible but also through the perpetual assistance and direction of the holy Ghost diuine so that God directeth her in al truth and by her as a sensible guide he bestoweth the same benefit vpon vs in al thinges necessary to saluation wherefore our whole beleefe and religion in such sort dependeth of her infallible authority that if this be proued it conuinceth that to be true sincere and diuine For no man can denie but in building vpon the tradition decision or definition of the Church we ground our faith and religion vpon diuine authority if her decrees be Gods and her doctrine warranted to be his Let vs therefore endeauour to shewe this that so with fewe wordes we may decide the whole question and to auoide confusion let vs diuide the whole discourse of this Chapter into the proofe of some three or foure assertions SECTION THE SECOND The whole summe of Christian doctrine by word of mouth not by writing was committed by Christ to his Apostles FIRST therefore I affirme that Christ cōmitted the whole summe of Christian doctrine by word of mouth not by writing to his Apostles ordained that they should deliuer the same to their successors the Bishops and Pastors of the Church This is manifest both because diuers points of Christian doctrine which the Apostles receaued from Christ are not recorded by the Euangelists in their Gospels and also because S. Luke witnesseth Act. 1. v. 3. that Christ after his passion and resurrection shewed himselfe aliue to his Apostles in many arguments for fortie dayes appearing to them and speaking of the kingdome of God of which his speach litle or nothing is recorded I adde moreouer that not long before his ascention he gaue his Apostles this commission Going said he teach ye al nations Mat. 28. v. 19.20 baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost teaching them to obserue al thinges whatsoeuer I haue commanded you These places I say manifestly proue that Christ by word of mouth instructed his Apostles concerning the misteries and articles of Christian religion and according to his instruction commanded them to teach the whole world Neither is there any record extant that Christ gaue them these instructions in writing or that he commanded them to set them downe and publish them after that sort yea if we wil not say that the Apostles transgressed Christes commandement we must absolutely say that he neuer bid them doe any such thing because neuer any one of them as I wil declare hereafter set downe in writing the whole summe of Christian doctrine No man likewise wil or can deny but that it was the ordination of Christ that the Apostles should deliuer this whole summe of Christian doctrine to their successors for otherwise Christ should haue instituted a Church only for the Apostles daies not to continue to the end of the world according to the predictions of the Prophets And hence this summe of Christian doctrine by the Apostle S. Paul was most earnestly commended to Timothie 1. Tim. vlt vers 20. O Timothie saith he keepe the depositum that is the pledge or pawne left with thee auoiding the prophane nouelties of voices and oppositions of falsly called knowledge He calleth it depositum or a pledge or pawne because it is as it were a thing laid into the Apostles and Bishops handes and committed vnto them to keepe which euery one of them with great
her doctrine is true and may securely be followed without any danger of errour Vnto these arguments brought out of the word of God reason it selfe assenteth for seing that for diuers respects it was conuenient that Christ our Lord should not alwaies conuerse on earth among vs and in his owne person manage the affaires of the Church it was necessary that he should leaue among Christians some certaine rule guide whereby they might direct their faith and some judge for the deciding of daylie controuersies which might arise touching matters of religion whose judgement they might securely followe without al danger of being deceaued Neither can we imagine that Gods infinit wisedome foreseing al thinges and times to come or his vnspeakable goodnes and loue to his Church could order thinges otherwise And this infallible guide and supreame judge is the Church including the Pope and other her Bishops and Prelates It was also needfull seing that the Church of Christ was to endure for euer I meane on earth vntil the end of the world and to be to al persons a perfect guide in al ages to saluation that it should be preserued from false doctrine and ruine otherwise it could not at al times haue performed these offices Our aduersaries wil answere that the Church through false doctrine and superstition hath already perished and not appeared in the world for diuers hundreds of yeares but this I shal refute at large * Cap. 5. in my treatise of the definition and notes of the true Church For this present vnto that which hath beene already said in this Chapter concerning the continuall assistance of the holy Ghost in the Church and other arguments prouing that she cannot erre I adde only that according to the censure of S. Augustine a Aug. l. de vnita Eccles c. 6. 7 12. 13. see him also li. 20. de ciuit c. 8. in psal 85. de vtilit credendi c. 8. Whosoeuer affirmeth the Church to haue beene ouerthrowne doth robbe Christ of his glory and inheritance bought with his most pretious bloud yea S. Hierome goeth further and auerreth that he that so saith doth make God subject to the Deuil and a poore miserable Christ Hier. cōt Lucifer cap. 6. The reason is because this assertion doth after a sort bereaue the whole incarnation life and passion of our Sauiour of their effect and end which was principally to found a Church and Kingdome in this world which should endure vntil the day of judgement and direct men in al truth to saluation Wherefore vvhosoeuer affirmeth the Church to haue perished taketh away this effect and prerogatiue from his incarnation life and passion and auoucheth that at sometimes man had no meanes left to attaine to euerlasting blisse which is also repugnant to the mercy and goodnes of God He also maketh God subject to the Diuel in making the Diuel stronger then Christ and affirming him to haue ouerthrowne Christes Church Kingdome which our Lord promised should neuer be conquered as I haue aboue declared I could adde an other reason conuincing the Church not to haue erred taken out of Tertullian Tertul. lib. de praescr cap. 28. who proueth it because errour commonly bringeth forth diuision for it were a very strange matter that diuers nations farre distant from one an other erring from the truth should al fal into the selfe same errour wherefore seing that the Catholike faith and religion in al places is one and the same it is like that it doth proceede of tradition not of errour but this matter is already sufficiently proued I wil therefore conclude that the Church of Christ is not subject to errour touching matters of faith and religion and consequently that euery man may securely followe concerning such matters her sentence and judgement And this is that high beaten and plaine way to saluation which was long since foretold by the Prophet Isaias who prophecying of the Kingdome of Christ vseth these wordes Isa 35. vers 8. And there shal be a path and way and it shal be called the holy way and it shal be so direct that fooles shal not be able to erre therein For no such way can be shewed if this be denied Hence S. Hierome telleth vs Hieron in dialog cōt Lucifer cap. 6. that we ought to remaine in that Church which being founded by the Apostles continueth til this day This also is that which we are taught to beleeue in the Creede of the Apostles vvhen as vve professe our selues to beleeue the Catholike Church For in these wordes we doe not only acknowledge that vve beleeue that Christ hath a Catholike Church on earth but also affirme that we beleeue heare and obey the same wherefore in al doubts and controuersies touching religion let vs listen and giue eare to this our holy Mother and obey her sentence although it seeme neuer so repugnant to our sense and reason For she is the rocke ground and piller of truth let vs beleeue her and euer remaine in her sacred bosome And although vve receaue our faith and are instructed in religion by some particuler men yet let vs not doubt but that we are taught by this vniuersal Church For they who instruct vs and deliuer our faith vnto vs doe this as the officers and members of this Church and by her order and appointment neither doe they deliuer the said doctrine vnto vs as their owne but as the doctrine of the Church and as such we receaue it and haue sufficient motiues to perswade vs that this is true Wherefore like as the action of a member of a mans body is attributed to the vvhole for although the hand strike yet man is said to strike c. so although we be instructed taught by some particuler member of the Church yet vve may vvel say that this is done by the said Catholike and vniuersal Church These considerations vvere so forcible euen in Luthers vnderstanding for a long time after his fal from vs that he found his conscience often troubled for his disobedience to the Church In one place thus he writeth * Luther tom 2. l. de seru arbit During more then tenne yeares I was so moued by authority conscience multitude of Martirs of Bishops of Popes of Councels of Vniuersities that it was incredible that this Troy remaining so long in so many conflicts inuincible could neuer be conquered And in another place a Luther tom 1. in propos suis de viribus hominis When I had saith he ouercome al arguments by the Scriptures this one that the Church is to be heard at length with most great difficulty and perplexitie or anguish by Christes assistance I hardly ouercame Thus Luther I adde also that our b See Hooker in his 3. booke of Eccl. policy §. 2 7. 9 Bel in his treatise of the regiment of the Church pag. 200. Whitgift others English Protestants themselues disputing against the Puritans are
1. retract cap. 4. Aug. li. 1. ad Simpli cianū c. 1. The lawe of God being read onlie not vnderstood or not fulfilled doth kil for then it is called the letter by the Apostle S. Hierome likewise approueth the same interpretation and to the same effect in the place aboue cited he hath these vvordes b Hier. in c. 1. ad Galat Epist. ad Nepot in li. 3. Reg. c. 1. Then the Scripture is profitable to the bearers when it is not expounded without Christ that is to say not contrary to the rule of faith deliuered by Christ to his Church when it is not spoken without the Father when he that preacheth doth not insinuate it without the spirit otherwise saith he the deuil which alleageth Scriptures and al Heretikes according to Ezechiel of Scriptures make cushions which they may put vnder the elbow of men of al ages Thus much S. Hierome Finally S. Augustine writeth thus c Aug. epist 222. Loue exceedingly the vnderstanding because the Scriptures themselues except they be rightly vnderstood cannot be profitable vnto thee And the reason of this is that which I haue already touched to wit that a false sense or inrerpretation of the letter of the holy Scriptures which was neuer intended by the holy Ghost but erroneously gathered out of the wordes by a mans priuate discourse or deduction putteth as it were another life or soule vpon the said letter and turneth it cleane another vvay vvherefore so vnderstood it is his vvord that so expoundeth it not the word of God who intended altogether another sense Rai in his conferēce with Har. pag. 68. And hence it is that M. Rainolds a Protestant affirmeth that it is not the shewe but the sense of the wordes of Scripture that must decide controuersies SECTION THE FIFT The true sense of the holy Scriptures is to be learned of the Catholike Church who is the true judge thereof NOVVE seing that the Scripture of it selfe is hard and euerie particuler man may erre in the exposition of it seing also that the false vnderstanding of it is so dangerous and the true sense so soueraigne let vs see whether we can finde out any certaine and infallible guide whose judgement we may follow securely and without al feare of errour in this matter I affirme therefore that like as we receiue the letter of the holy Scripture from the Catholike Church and by her censure infallibly knowe it to be Canonical so likewise we are to receiue the sense and exposition of the said letter from the same our holy mother and receiuing and following the sense by her approued we cannot possibly erre wherefore vpon it we may securely build our faith and saluation This may be inferred out of those thinges which haue beene already proued for if the letter it selfe be not properly Scripture without the true sense which is as it were the life and soule of the said letter and the letter be knowne vnto vs by the declaration of the Church it must needes followe that we ought also to receiue the sense from the same Church But let vs proue it out of the holy Scripture First therefore we gather out of the Apostle that Scripture ought to be interpreted according to the rule of faith generally receiued in the Church his wordes are these Rom. 12. verse 6. Hauing giftes according to the grace of God that is giuen vs different either prophecy according to the rule of faith or ministry or he that teacheth in doctrine c. Out of which vve gather the prophecie according to the rule proportion or analogie of faith is one of the gifts vvhich God bestoweth vpon his Church And what is meant by the word prophecy surely nothing else but the interpretation or exposition of the vvord of God this cannot be denied And it is confessed by our aduersaries themselues who in their English newe Testament printed in the yeare 1592. and 1600. in their note vpon those wordes of the Apostle Followe charitie earnestly pursue spiritual things 1. Corin. 14. ve 1. but rather that you may prophecy tel vs that the word prophecy signifieth the exposition of the word of God to the edification of the Church And although in the said English Bible they wil haue the vvord prophecy in the place cited out of the Epistle to the Romans to signifie preaching and teaching yet because al preaching teaching according to their doctrine ought principally to be out of the word of God it al cōmeth to the sel same sense Hence M. Rainolds in the conference held at Hamptō Court betweene Protestants Puritans Barlow in his relatiō of the said conferēce pag. 78. requested that at certaine times there might be prophecying in rural Deanaries But how shal we vnderstand those words according to the Analogie or rule of faith Truly the meaning of them is already explicated for by them we are taught that the exposition of holie Scriptures ought to be conformable to that rule of faith which was deliuered by Christ to his Church and by the assistance and direction of the holy Ghost hath remained in the same euer since vvithout corruption and shal so remaine vntil the end of the world And al this may be confirmed by that sentence of S. Peter before alleaged 2. Pet. 1. vers 20. No prophecy of Scripture is made by priuate intepretation that is to say no exposition of Scripture ought to be made acording to any mans priuate fancie but according to the doctrine sense of the Church And by this rule as I haue before noted S. Iohn the Apostle and Euangelist 1. Iohn 4. verse 1. Luk. 24. vers 45. biddeth vs try our spirits whether they be of God or no. Moreouer S. Luke the Euāgelist recordeth that our Sauiour opened his Apostles vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures Neither did he only giue them the gift of vnderstanding such diuiue bookes but also deliuered vnto them the true sense and meaning of the same I meane of the old Testament which only before the Ascension of Christ was penned And this gift of vnderstanding the Scriptures was perfected in them on the feast of Pentecost Act. 2. When the holy Ghost taught them all truth which gift also the said holy Ghost imparted and they deliuered to their successors and so by succession and tradition the same remaineth alwaies in the Church Iren. li. 4. cap. 45. Tertul. de praescrip cap. 19. Hence S. Ireneus telleth vs that they conserue our faith and expound the Scripture vnto vs without danger with whome the succession of Bishops which is from the Apostles remaineth Tertullian likewise refusing to argue against Heretikes by only Scripture willeth vs first to search out who haue the true faith it selfe whose the Scriptures are from whom and by whom and when and to whom the discipline by which men are made Christians was deliuered For wheresoeuer saith he it shal appeare that
in li. de scriptor Eccl. in Ioan. S. Hierome testifie And that al is not by him recorded it is manifest because those speeches which our Sauiour had with his Apostles during the fourty daies betweene his resurection and ascension are almost altogether omitted Neither did he write this Gospel at the beginning of the Church but many yeares after to wit about threescore and six yeares after our Sauiours ascension And like as S. Iohn so did the rest of the Apostles and Disciples leaue vnto vs such parcels of scripture as vve haue receiued from them some extraordinary occasions mouing them thereunto as I could easily declare and proue See Euse hist li. 3. Chrisost hom 1. in Mat. Epipha haeres 51. Baronius to 1. au 45. et 58. out of Eusebius Saint Hierome and others I know that * Field booke 4. cap. 20. § For first Field maketh shewe as though it were a plaine matter that the Euangelists in their Gospels S. Luke in the acts of the Apostles and S. Iohn in the Apocalipse Meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine and direction of Christian faith but vvhat reason he bringeth for it of any moment I cannot see And besides it is certaine that no one of them intended to set downe al because no one of them hath so done wherfore if they haue set downe al as he affirmeth either it hath proceeded from some common deliberation or consultation had among themselues in which they determined what euery one should rehearse or else from the disposition and direction of the holy Ghost who inspired them to write Not the first because no man euer made mention of such a deliberation or consultation and moreouer they wrote vpon diuers occasions in diuers Countries and at diuers times as Ecclesiastical histories testifie Not the second because Field himselfe graunteth that something is vvanting in these bookes which the Church beleeueth which would not haue beene if the holy Ghost had intended that al should haue beene set downe for he addeth that The epistles of the Apostles were occasionallie written yet so saith he as by the prouidence of God al such thinges as the Church beleeueth not being found in the other parts scripture purposedly written are most clearly and at large deliuered in these epistles Marke wel gentle reader this doctrine he told vs before that the Apostles and Euangelists in the Gospels acts of the Apostles and the Apocalipse meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine direction of Christian faith nowe he telleth vs that the Church beleeueth some things which are deliuered in the Apostolical epistles not being found in the other parts of scripture purposedly written Of which I inferre both that the holy Ghost intended not that the penners of the Gospels of the actes of the Apostles and the Apocalipse should deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine and also that he thinketh the writers of these books to haue missed of their intended purpose verily this last pointe seemeth to me no very sound doctrine And besides how wil M. Field proue that the Apostles in their epistles supplied al this want especially seing that the Apostles and Euangelists in the other books although intending to write al yet in his opinion omitted something and the authours of the epistles intended no such matter but vvrote them as he saith occasionally wherefore there is farre greater likelihood that these omitted something then they Further one Apostolical epistle at the least to the Laodicians hath perished Coloss 4.16 see 1. Cor. 5 9. Chrisost hom 9. in Math. et homil 7. in 1. Cor. of which is mention in the epistle of S. Paul to the Colossians And who can absolutely say that nothing necessary was contained in it which is not in any other part of the newe Testament Finally Field himselfe confesseth some vnwritten Traditions as I will declare in the next Section What then did the Apostles and Disciples expresly set downe in those their monuments which are contained in the newe Testament a part only without al doubt of the whole summe of Christian beliefe in which part they ratified and confirmed the supreame and infallible authority of the Church of whome the rest was to be learned and to whose custody they committed their said monuments so that the whole summe or depositum hath beene kept and preserued in the Church not al only in expres termes in the holy scripture but the whole by Tradition a part of that whole also by writing another part by only Tradition by which likewise the said scripture it selfe came to our hands And after this sort the whole corps of Christian religion without any alteration descended vnto vs. This may be proued by that which hath been already said concerning the true sense exposition of holy scripture Chap. 7. sect 5. for as I haue shewed the scripture ought to be interpreted according to the Analogie or rule of faith that is to say according to that beliefe which the Church by Tradition hath receiued from Christ and his Apostles wherefore the letter of the holy scripture is not the whole direction of the faith of the Church but the faith of the Church the perfect and ful direction of the said letter of holy scripture of which it followeth that the faith of the holy Church might haue remained sound and entire by Tradition although no such letter had beene published But let vs confirme this by the testimony of the ancient Fathers Irenae lib. 3. cap. 4. Among the rest S. Irenaeus discourseth thus What saith he if neither the Apostles had left vs scriptures ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they deliuered vnto those whome they committed Churches vnto which order many barbarous nations beleeuing in Christ assent without letter or incke that is without any written word of God hauing saluation written in their hearts by the holy Ghost and diligently keeping the ancient Tradition Hitherto S. Irenaeus And note wel that he affirmeth some to haue beene Christians without any scripture guided only by the Tradition of the Church He telleth vs moreouer that by this order of Tradition from the Apostles al Heretikes are conuinced in such sort that Catholiks shut vp their eares assoone as they heare them vtter any thing repugnant to the said order Finally he addeth that al that are desirous to heare the truth may see in the Church the Tradition of the Apostles made manifest through the whole world And we can number those saith he who are instituted Bishops in Churches by the Apostles and their successors euen vnto vs who taught no such thing as these men Heretikes dreame of Thus farre S. Irenaeus Tertul. de praescrip cap. 19. 20. 21 who suffered martirdome in the yeare of our Lord 205. Tertullian also affirmeth that by this rule of Tradition or prescription of Catholike doctrine Heretikes are to be conuinced And hence it proceedeth that the Apostle vvith
grounds hence proceeding IN the three precedent Chapters I haue treated of three principal groundes on which with al security we may build our faith and religion I wil now adde vnto them certaine others commonly by al Catholikes esteemed also to be of infallible authority And in the first place I assigne the decrees and definitions of the supreame visible Pastour of the Church millitant but for a ful explication and plaine proofe of this ground I wil deuide this chapter into certaine sections SECTION THE FIRST Containing a briefe explication or rehearsal of the Catholike doctrine concerning the Popes supremacie BECAVSE our beliefe concerning the primacie of the Bishop of Rome is diuersly slaundered by our aduersaries I thinke it not amisse before I come to the proofe of it briefly to explicate what our doctrine is For true it is that our assertion being explicated to them that are misinformed is halfe proued We hold therefore that the supreame power which our Sauiour Christ euen according to his humane nature receiued of his Father before his ascention ouer al his Church of which are these his wordes Mat. 28. verse 18. Ephes 1 22. 1 Pet. 5 4. Heb. 5.6 Al power is giuen to me in heauen and in earth vvas neuer resigned or giuen by him to any mortal creature Wherefore as yet he remaineth supreame head of his Church prince of Pastours and Priest according to the order of Melchisedech Neuerthelesse because he vvas to withdrawe his visible corporal presence from the Church millitant and therefore could not himselfe decree and giues sentence or aduise in matters doubtful like as Kinges or Princes not being resident in their dominions for the good and peaceable gouernment of their subjects appoint Viceroies or Vicegerents Luke 19. vers 12. so he departing from his Church as the scripture saith into a farre Countrie like as he appointed diuers vicars for the administration of the sacraments so he ordained one for the gouernment of the whole Church to wit S. Peter who immediately receiued such jurisdiction and authority from him and therefore during his mortal life was his Vicegerent on earth ministerial head of his Church and chiefe gouernour Pastour and Prelate of the same And hence proceedeth the first difference betweene Christ and S. Peter touching the supremacie ouer the Church For although they be both termed supreame heads of the same yet the last of them is subordinate dependeth of the first and the first only is the supreame independent the last was the supreame visible ministerial dependent head Of which it appeareth that the authority and jurisdiction of the second was nothing prejudicial to that of the first for they may stand very wel together seing that the one was subordinate to the other Neither doe Christ and his vicar properly make two heads of the Church but one like as a King and his viceroy make not properly two Kings but one For like as the King notwithstanding his viceroy is the one chiefe prince gouernour and head of his country so is Christ the chiefe Prelate and head of his Church S. Peter vvas his vicar and vicegerent and so is at this present his successour the Bishop of Rome For the proofe of the truth of this doctrine it maketh that like as Christ in the holy scripture is called Head of the Church so he is likewise called a Apoc. 17 14. ca. 19 16. King Lord b 1. Pet. 2 25. Bishop Pastour c Heb. 3 1. cap. 5. vers 6. Apostle and Priect Wherefore like as this notwithstanding others may be Kinges Lords Bishops Pastors Apostles and Priests so another may be although not absolute yet subordinate and ministerial head of the Church After this sort also our Sauiour and S. Peter are both rocks for although Christ be the chiefe rock and stone on which the Church was built yet S. Peter was the ministerial or secondary rock made by Christ a rocke and the principal stone next vnto himselfe in the edifice of his Church In vvhich sense by S. Paul and S. Iohn Eph. 2 20 Apoc. 21. verse 14. Basil hom de poenitē quae est vltima inter varias homilias Math. 5. verse 14. Leo serm 3. āniuersario Assumptionis suae although Christ be the principal foundation of his Church yet the Apostles are likewise termed the foundation of the same This which I haue said is most learnedly and euidently declared by the holy father S. Basil in these his wordes Although S. Peter saith he be a rocke yet he is not a rocke as Christ is for Christ is the true immoueable rocke of himselfe Peter is immoueable through Christ the rocke For Iesus doth impart and communicate his dignities not voiding himselfe of them but holding them to himselfe he bestoweth them also vpon others He is the light and yet you saith he are the light He is the Priest and yet he maketh Priests He is a Rocke and yet be maketh a Rocke thus farre S. Basil The like discourse vve finde in S. Leo for expounding those vvordes of our Sauiour Thou art Peter thus he speaketh in the person of Christ to the said Apostle Whereas I am an inuiolable Rocke I the corner stone who make both one I the foundation besides which no man can lay another yet thou also art a rocke because by my power thou art made firme and strong to the end that those thinges which are proper to me by power be made common to thee by participation hitherto S. Leo. And thus much of the first difference betweene Christ and S. Peter touching their superiority ouer the Church An other difference betweene them is that the authority of Christ vvas euer absolute of S. Peter limited for our Sauiour deriued not vnto him al his authoritie but a part onlie of the same Hence it proceedeth that although Christ instituted sacraments forgaue sins vvithout the vse of anie sacraments c. yet neither S. Peter nor any of his successours euer had anie such power or authority The reason is because euery man but Christ hath alwaies beene bound to vse the meanes by him instituted and left vnto his Church Of vvhich it appeareth howe false their slaunder is vvho affirme the Pope to pardon sinnes by his Indulgences or Pardons for certaine it is that by such indulgences no sinnes are forgiuen but men are onlie released of such temporal paine as is due vnto them It is also confessed by al Catholikes that no man as long as he is guilty of mortal sinne and out of the state of grace can receiue anie benefite from any such pardon A third difference is that our Sauiour being the way the truth and life yea the sonne of God himselfe could neither erre in judgement nor in manners that is he could neither haue any false or erroneous opinion in his vnderstanding nor sinne or erre from reason and right in his wil and actions Contrariewise his vicar although as I vvil proue
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
them and to receaue it priuately when they were disposed as Tertullian saith he and others doe report He addeth The manner was to send it by the Deacons to them that by sickenesse or other necessary impediment were forced to be absent and to strangers Yea for this purpose they did in such places where they communicated not euery day reserue some part of the sanctified elements to be sent to the sicke and such as were in danger of death g Pag. 150. He denieth that Caluin doth not any where say that the elements consecrated and reserued for a time in reference to an ensuing receauing of them are not the body of Christ. This he plainely admitteth as also that the Christians of the primatiue Church thought the sanctified elements to be Christs body as long as they might serue for the comfortable instruction of the faithful pertaking in them Finally he telleth vs Booke 4. cha 31. pag. 266. that bread being appointed to be the matter of the Sacrament of the body of Christ and water of Baptisme the Christians in auncient time held that bread which had beene offered and presented at the Lordes table out of which saith he a part was consecrated for the vse of the Sacrament more holy then other bread Hitherto Field Al which his assertions may vvel be vrged in proofe of the real presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament But vvhereas he seeketh to drawe Caluin to his opinion he laboureth in vaine Caluin Institut booke 4. ch 17. §. 39. for Caluin expresly condemneth this reseruation as vnprofitable and although he confesse that they that so doe haue the example of the old Church yet he affirmeth that in so great a matter and in which we erre not without great danger nothing is safer then to followe the truth it selfe which he imagineth to be opposite to this obseruation It is also euident that vvith Bucer Melancthon and almost al other sectaries See him ibid. pag. 37. he holdeth the Eucharist to be no permanent thing but to be the Sacrament then only when it is receaued More I could say of the auncient doctrine and practise of the Church confirming our exposition of the aforesaid wordes of holy Scripture but here occurreth a certaine opinion of some which I thinke not amisse to confute and my confutation of the same wil be something long vvherefore I vvil breake off my former discourse and forthwith enter vpon it Some Sacramentarie followers of the newe religion imagine and thinke that Caluin and his disciples deny not the real presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrament and therefore they approch vnto the Caluinian communion with great reuerence deeming themselues truly and reallie to receiue in it the said body and bloud of our Lord where-vpon they inferre that their beliefe touching this point is as conformable to the letter of holy Scripture as ours But alas simple soules they are much deceiued as euen Caluin himselfe and their learned masters confesse For although these Doctors in some places of their vvorkes seeme to acknowledge some such matter yet in others they flatly denie it and in plaine tearmes declare their meaning in those other places first mentioned to be otherwise them their wordes doe sound I grant their magnificent tearmes may easily seduce a silly soule and I my selfe knowe some good creatures deceiued but whoseuer doth reade their masters bookes may easily discouer their falsehood let vs first behold howe they plainely seeme to auouch the real presence Caluin Institut booke 4. ch 17. §. 10. Caluin writeth thus Our soules are so fed with the flesh and bloud of Christ as bread and wine doe maintaine and sustaine the bodily life And doe not bread and vvine maintaine and sustaine the bodily life by true and real eating them But he goeth on For otherwise the proportional relation of the signe should not agree vnlesse our soules did finde their foode in Christ which cannot be done vnlesse Christ doe truly growe into one with vs and refresh vs with the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud And soone after Vnlesse a man wil cal God a deceiuer he can neuer be so bold as to say that he setteth before vs an empty signe §. 11. Againe I say that in the mistery of the supper by the signes of bread and wine Christ is truly deliuered to vs yea and his body bloud in which he hath fulfilled al obedience for purchasing of righteousnesse vnto vs. §. 32. Moreouer Christ pronounceth that his flesh is the meate of my soule and his bloud the drinke with such foode I offer my soule to him to be fed In his holy supper he commaundeth me vnder the signes of bread and wine to take eate and drinke his body and bloud I nothing doubt but he doth truly deliuer them Caluin in 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. See him also de coena Domini and I doe truly receiue them Finally I conclude and grant saith he that the body of Christ is giuen vs in the supper really as they commonly speake that is to say truly to the end it may be wholesome foode for our soules I speake after the common fashion but I meane that our soules are fed with the substance of Christes body to the intent we may be made one with him these and other such like sentences euery foote occurre in Caluin Caluin lib. de coena Domini edit an 1540. Gallice an 1545. Latine See him also in his Institutions chap. 14. and chap. 17. §. 5.6 Hence he also by name reprehendeth the doctrine of Zwinglius touching this sacrament who affirmed a Zwinglius tom 2. epist ad quandam Germaniae ciuitatem fol. 296. the supper to be nothing else but a solemne signe or token of charity and friendship a signe of spiritual thinges but it selfe in no wise spiritual neither working any spiritual thing in vs. He likewise auoucheth as I haue before noted that the truth of this misterie seemeth incredible that it is wrote by the secret power of the spirit that it is incomprehensible by our minde and aboue nature that many miracles are contained in it c. which his assertions seeme to argue some great matter Lastly he telleth vs that b Caluin Instit booke 4. c. 40. not vnworthily they are guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord who come to this sacrament vnworthily which they doe with vngodlines ful of sacriledge so fouly defile Therefore saith he by this vnworthy eating they take to themselues damnation The booke of cōmon praier in the cōmunion in the exhortations The like hath the English booke of common prayer yea much more as euery man may see and others are of the same judgement And who can denie but this is a manifest token that they acknowledge the real presence For what indignity can be offered to Christ or damnation taken by eating a peece of bakers bread only
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
such vehemencie accuseth him that preacheth other doctrine then that which was before receiued in the Church Gal. 1 9. If any man saith he euangelize to you besides that which you haue receiued be he Anathema or cursed to vvhich sentence alludeth Vincentius Lirinensis in these wordes Vincent Lir. c. 14. To preach vnto Christian Catholikes other doctrine then that which they haue already receiued no where is lawful and neuer shal be lawful and to accurse as Heretikes those which preach other doctrine then that which before hath beene accepted it was neuer vnlawful it is in no place vnlawful and neuer wil be vnlawful Hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis Contrariwise for keeping vndefiled this rule or Tradition the same Apostle highly commendeth the Corinthians saying 1. Corin. 11 2. I praise you brethren that in al things you be mindful of me and as I haue deliuered vnto you you keepe my precepts or according to the Greeke vvord my Traditions And because the Church and aboue al others the Romans most carefully kept these Traditions Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4. S. Irenaeus called it the rich treasure-house of Apostolike Traditions wherefore vvhosoeuer is desirous to discerne a true Christian from a faithles Heretike must behold the doctrine of them both and pronounce him to be the true disciple of Christ who by succession and Tradition hath receiued his beliefe from him and his Apostles For like as a nobleman or gentleman of antiquity is knowne by his pedigree so a true Christian is knowne by the succession and descent of his Prelates and faith from them that first receiued it from our Lord. Neither doth this our doctrine any waies diminish the authority of holy scripture for this notvvithstanding we affirme that the wonderful prouidence of almighty God most wisely ordained that the scriptures of the newe Testament should be written that he moued the penners thereof thereunto and directed them by his diuine inspiration and this both for the cōfirmation and preseruation of the faith Tradition of the Church and also that the said Tradition might with more ease come to euery ones knowledg and that euery one by such monuments might learne to discerne the true Church of vvhich he vvas to be instructed concerning al matters of faith and religion But of our estimation of the holie scripture see more aboue Chap. 7. SECTION THE SECOND Of vnwritten Traditions in particular THis discourse beeing premised concerning the Traditions of the Church in general I come nowe to discourse of that part of the said Traditions vvhich are concerning matters of vvhich there is no expresse mention in the word of God and therefore are called vnwritten Traditions And first that both such Traditions are found in the Church and that the vvhole summe of Christian doctrine is not expresly contained in the vvritten vvord of God I haue already declared Section 1. because none of the Apostles or Disciples euer intended to set downe in any parcel of scripture the said whole summe of Christian doctrine and also proued it out of those words of S. Luke in the Actes of the Apostles in which he telleth vs Acts 1 verse 3. that Christ after his Passion shewed himselfe aliue in many argumentes for forty daies appearing to his Apostles and speaking of the kingdome of God For by this relation it seemeth euident that our Sauiour during the time betweene his resurrection and ascention gaue to his Apostles diuers instructions which are not set downe in particuler in any parte of the newe Testament for no Apostle or Euangelist relateth in particular these discourses of Christ And they vvere without al doubt concerning the sacraments their administration the gouernment of the Church and other such like affaires belonging to Christian religion which for the most part the Apostles left to their successors only by word of mouth and secret Tradition This in plaine termes is auouched by a Epiph. haeres 61. Apostolico rum S. Epiphanius whose words be these We must vse Tradition for the scripture hath not al things And therefore the Apostles deliuered certaine thinges in writing certaine by Tradition The same truth is affirmed by b Basil de spiri sācto cap. 27. S. Basil and the rest of the Fathers yea this we are taught by the Apostle himselfe who in his epistle to the Thessalonians not only commendeth most earnestly to the Church written Traditions but also vnwritten c 2. Thess 2 15. Brethren saith he stand and hold the Traditions which you haue learned whether it be by word or by our epistle Out of which place it is euident that some Traditions by the Apostle were deliuered to the Thessalonians by word And that here he speaketh of such Traditions as we treat of we are taught by al the ancient Fathers Among the rest S. Iohn Chrisostome gathereth out of them this conclusion Hence it is manifest saith he that they videlicet the Apostles deliuered not al thinges by Epistle but many thinges also vnwritten and those thinges likewise are to be beleeued d Chrisost hom 4. in 2. Thessa It is a Tradition seeke thou no further thus S. Chrisostome But that the Fathers admit vnwritten Traditions it is graunted by e Whitak de sacra scrip pag. 678. 668. 681. 683. 685. 690. 695. 696. 670. Whitaker f Rain in his conclusions ānexed to his conferēce 1. conclu pag. 689. Rainolds g Cart. in Whitg defēce p. 103 Cartwrite h Kemnis in exam part 1. pa. 87 89. 90 Kemnisius i Fulk against pur pag. 362. 303. 397. Against Marshal pag. 170. 178. Against Brist motiues pag. 35. 36. Fulke and other Protestants wherefore I neede not alleage any more of their testimonies And this is the reason wherefore we haue no precept in the newe Testament to beleeue or obserue those thinges only which are expresly contained in the said volume Neither doe we finde that euer the Apostles or their followers commended and deliuered to any Church or people the said newe Testament as a booke comprehending in expresse termes the whole summe of Christian doctrine Nay it is certaine that for diuers yeares before the said booke was written the Apostles deliuered al by Tradition and word of mouth Further that the estimation of vnwritten Traditions hath euer beene exceeding great in the Church it appeareth not only by this that diuers of the ancient Fathers as I haue shewed in the * Section 1. chapter next before by Tradition haue proued what scripture is Canonical and pleaded the authority of them against diuers heresies but also by this that diuers heresies haue been by the testimony of them only condemned ouerthrowne In the first general Councel of Nice as a Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 16. et 18. Sozomenus reporteth the Fathers especially endeauoured that nothing should be decreed but that vvhich they had receiued by Tradition from their forefathers S. Ciprian with most of the Bishops of Affrica
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.
10. pag. 570. Andraeas Fricius a learned Protestant of Polonia And that he held himselfe to be supreame Pastour of the Church al his b See l. 12. epi. 32. de priuiligio cōcessomo nasterio S. Medardi In psal 5. epist 38. indict 13. bookes and actions aboundantly testifie and of the Church of Constantinople in particuler thus he vvriteth c Lib. 7. epist 63. ad Ioan. Sira cusanum Of the seat of Constantinople who can doubt but it is subject to the Apostolike See which both my Lord the most holy Emperour and my brother Eusebius Bishop of the same citty of Constantinople professe And this is the common Catholike doctrine touching the supreamacie of S. Peter and the Bishop of Rome SECTION THE SECOND The aforesaid doctrine is proued IF I should endeauour to bring forth al the arguments which occurre and are commonly vsed by Catholike authors conuincing the truth of that which hath beene here said this treatise would rise to a great volume vvhich is contrarie to mine intent wherefore I wil only touch the principal and those very briefly In the holy scripture we first find that our Sauiour at the first sight of S. Peter chaunged his name from Simon to Cephas or Peter For this holy Apostle being brought by S. Andrew his brother vnto Christ He looking vpon him saith S. Iohn the Euangelist said Ioh. 1 42. Hier. in c. 2. epist ad Galatas thou art Simon the sonne of Iona thou shalt be called Cephas which word in the Siriack tongue as we are taught by S. Hierom as also Peter in the Greek signifieth a rocke wherefore then did Christ change this Apostles name more then the names of al the rest for although he called S. Iames and S. Iohn Boanerges Mark 3. yet he altered not their former names but gaue them a kind of sir-name and therefore by the holie Euangelists the whole Church they are alwaies called by their first names Iames Iohn But S. Peter is commonly called both by the Euangelists S. Paul Galat. 2. Chrisost in 1. cap. Ioan. and the whole Church Peter Cephas or a rock which as S. Iohn Chrisostome very wel noteth argueth that some great priuiledge was graunted to S. Peter aboue others for so God for some extraordinarie and great cause changed the name of Abram into Abraham and of Iacob into Israel But what was this priuiledge Verily the name it selfe imposed vpon S. Peter giueth vs notice what it was for seing that Christ communicated vnto him one of his owne names to wit the name of a rock or stone which is often times attributed vnto himselfe in holie write Isa 8. et 28. Daniel 2. psal 117. Mat. 21. Rom. 9. 1. Cor. 10. Ephe. 2.1 Peter 2. c. he also gaue vs to vnderstand that he was to communicate vnto him the highest office vnder himselfe and that like as he himselfe was the principal rock and foundation of the Church so this holy Apostle was to be by participation a secondarie stone placed next vnto himselfe in the building of the same and through his praier and warrant to be made a piller of truth not to be shaken with anie falshood nor ouerthrowne by al the powers of hel This is the doctrine of S. Basil and S. Leo as we haue seene aboue But that the force of this place of scripture against the newe sectaries may the better be perceiued let vs joine another vnto it more strongelie confirming the same truth and plainely opening the sense of the former For after that this blessed Apostle had confessed our Sauiour to be Christ the sonne of the liuing God our Redeemer replying vnto him Mat. 16. v. 18.19 vsed these wordes And I say to thee that thou art Peter or a rocke and vpon this rocke wil I build my Church and the gates of hel shal not preuaile against it And I wil giue to thee the keies of the kingedome of heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind vpon earth it shal be also bound in the heauens and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose in the earth it shal be loosed also in the heauens Loe a plaine promise made vnto S. Peter both that on him the Church should be built and consequently that he should be made the principal foundation of the same next vnto Christ and also that as the vicar of Christ and chiefe pastour of his flocke he should receiue the keies of the kingdome of heauen And hence proceed those vvordes of S. Hierome concerning the first prerogatiue Hieron lib. 1. contra Pelag. Cipriā epistol ad Quirinū Peter was the prince of the Apostles vpon whome the Church of our Lord was strongly and firmely founded which is neither shaken by the furie of any flood nor by any tempest Saint Ciprian that holy Martir more auncient then Saint Hierome telleth vs that our Lord did choose Peter the chiefest and vpon him built his Church Which words of his are alleadged and approued by Saint Augustine in his second booke de Baptismo cap. 1. To these I adde S. Basil and S. Epiphanius of vvhome the first auoucheth a Basil li. 2. in Eunom et homilia 19. quae est vlti de poenitentia that Saint Peter for the excellencie of his faith receiued vpon him the edifice of the Church vvherefore in another place he calleth him the rocke and foundation of the Church The other vvriteth b Epiphā in Ancor that our Lord appointed Peter the first or chiefe of his Apostles a firme rocke on which the Church was built The like sentences are found in c Leo ser 2. in Aniuers assūptio suae S. Leo d Naziā◠de moder seruād in disputat S. Gregory Nazianzene e Chrisost homil 55. in Math. S. Chrisostome f Ambros serm 47. S. Ambrose and others yea that the Fathers gathered this out of the said words of our Lord it is granted by g Calu. li. 4. instit ca. 6. § 6. Caluin and h Dan. in respōs ad Bellar. disput part 1. p. 277. Danaeus That he also had a second prerogatiue promised him in the same wordes of receiuing the keies of the kingdome of heauen as ministerial head of the Church aboue the rest of the Apostles who receiued them with a certaine kind of subjection to Peter the Fathers in like sort euen as confidently testifie And first this is affirmed by S. Ciprian in these words i Ciprian epist 73. To Peter first of al vpon whom our Sauiour built his Church and from whom he instituted and shewed the beginning of vnity did he giue this power that that should be loosed in the heauens which he had loosed on earth k Hill in Math. 16. S. Hillarie in like sort crieth out O blessed porter of heauen vnto whose wil and arbitriment the keies of the eternal entry are deliuered Lastly l Chrisostome homil 55. in Mathaeum S. Iohn Chrisostome and m Gregor
to the greater part that it must be obeied heresies and false doctrine might be established in a Councel without any meanes left vs to knowe when it doth erre and when it defineth a truth to which I likewise adde that it may fal out that both parts be equal And lastlie that we haue no warrant in holie scripture that the one part shal haue infallible directions by Gods spirit more then the other And seing that we haue the most manifest authority of the said scripture warranting vs that the successuor of S. Peter cannot erre neither reason nor scripture wil suffer vs to denie him this prerogatiue But like as I haue declared before the truth of the first part of this reason by the doctrine examples of forraine sectaries so I think it not amis in this place to shew the truth of the last by the positions and proceedinges of some neerer home There came to my handes of late a litle pamphlet bearing this title A Christian and modest offer of a most indifferent conference or disputation about the many and principal controuersies betwixt the Prelates Printed an 1660. and the late silenced and depriued ministers in England tendred by some of the said ministers to the Archbishoppes and Bishoppes and al their adherents At the end of this pamphlet among other objections which these Puritan ministers as making against this conference endeauour to solue this is one That they the said Puritans when they haue beene heard to oppose and answere what they can page 40. name no judge and wil not stand to any mans definitiue sentence but wil continue obstinate stil Vnto vvhich objection they plainly answere that they doe not think it lawful in any matter of religion to setle their consciences vpon the definitiue sentence of any person absolutely yea say they If both sides rest vnsatisfied page 41. and continue perswaded stil that the truth is on their side it were impious for either side in such a case to commit the absolute determination therof vnto the wil and pleasure of any man or men whatsoeuer They adde that it were vnjust for either side to require judges either incompetent or not indifferent And their reason is because as the prelates except they would wilfully betray their owne cause might justly refuse such to be judges as haue in any degree inclined more to the ministers then to them so may the ministers in like manner as justly refuse to stand to the judgement and determination of such as incline more to the Prelates then to them thus they How then wil they haue controuersies ended Surely they tel vs p. 40. 41. that in desiring as they doe before that the whole carriage of this intended conference may be published they make al the world to be judges therof that it should content any Christianly affected man that the ministers are content to offer their defence of these pointes to the view of al to scanne and to weigh them and so farre forth to judge thereof as if their reasons doe not satisfie them to giue them leaue to cendemne them of errour which wil be say they a judgment heauy enough to them if notwithstanding they shal stil persist in their former opinions pa. 41. 42. and that it is needles to name judges because his Majestie the ciuil Majestrates vnder him and the high court of Parliament though the ministers should appeale from them would in this case judge them and their cause whose judgment if it goe against the ministers and it appeare to be righteous the more they shal neglect the same and refuse to submit themselues vnto it the more grosse and refractarie they shal shew themselues to be c. This is the substance of their answere to the aforesaid objection And vvhat prudent man reading these thinges wil not first judge that this course is no sufficient meane to decide matters in question then that one supreame judge whose sentence is of infallible truth is necessary for the final ending of such contentions Who wil not likewise inferre that Christ who is not wanting to his Church in thinges necessarie hath ordained some such supreame judge And like as the Puritanes proceed after this sort so might either side of the Bishops if it should happen they should be diuided among them selues touching any point of religion But although these thinges be so yet we hold not the Bishop of Rome can rashly define what he please for he is bound to proceed maturely and to vse such inquisition arguments aduise of learned men and other meanes as are necessary for the finding out of the truth of the matter which he is to define Neither can he institute any sacrament or make any new article of faith vnknowne altogither to the Apostles or not deliuered by them to the Church as I haue said before of a general Councel Chap. 9. Only touching these points he hath power more plainly and expreslie to explicate to the faithful those verities which the said Apostles either knew or deliuered and to bring them as it were from darkenesse to light Some men perhaps wil admit that S. Peter had a prerogatiue of not erring in faith but wil deny that it was euer deriued to his successors This euasion is fullie aboue confuted yet here I adde further Chap. 6. sect 2. that this vvarrant from errour in faith was more necessarie after S. Peters departure out of the world in his successours then before in himselfe both because the chiefest planters and rulers of the Church the holie Apostles and Disciples were then likewise or soone after deceased and also because persecution daily increased and new heresies in greater abundance began to impugne the rule of faith receiued Moreouer our Sauiour building his Church vpon S. Peter built it especiallie vpon his faith not vpon his flesh as some of the auncient Fathers say neither so vpon his faith that he built it vpon faith separated from S. Peter or being in any other person but vpon faith as being in S. Peter the ministerial head of the Church Wherefore although the flesh of S. Peter be consumed yet seing that his office and dignity is in his successours his faith also through the warrant of Christ stil remaineth in them vvhich is the foundation of the Church and the firme rocke against which Hel-gates shal not preuaile And this may be confirmed because Christ vvhen he praied for the faith of S. Peter obtained and imparted this prerogatiue vnto him as his supreame vicar or by reason of his office Wherefore seing that the office continueth alwaies in the Church the priuiledg likewise must alwaies remaine in the same And this is the doctrine of the auncient Fathers and their exposition of the places of scripture alleaged Hence in the third general a Concil Ephes to 2. cap. 16. Councel the Bishop of Rome is called the ordinary successour and vicar of S. Peter prince of the Apostles And the like
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
of errour in al and consequentlie taketh from her al infallible authority and maketh her a fallible and vncertaine ground Chapter 4. They reject al particuler groundes of faith aboue assigned and proued to be found in the Church of Christ besides the holie Scriptures LET vs now descend to the particuler groundes of faith which we haue aboue proued to be found in the Church of Christ And although our aduersaries denial of the infallible authority of the Church and her assistance by the holy ghost on which the certainty of al such particuler groūds dependeth as I haue shewed before be a sufficient proofe not onlie that they reject them but also that according to their doctrine they haue no infallible meane to know what articles haue beene by God reuealed to his Church yet let vs declare the matter more in particuler and at large But concerning vnwritten traditions the decrees of the Pope the doctrine of the Romane Church yea of the whole Church of Christ I need say nothing because they al with one consent and voice exclaime against these groundes as superstitious friuolous and of no moment The difficulty therefore is onlie concerning holie Scriptures general and prouincial Councels and the vniforme consent of Fathers of vvhich the first is challendged by them al the other two by some of them only I wil beginne with the two last And concerning general Councels a Luther lib. de Concilijs Luther doth not only reprehend the first councel held by the Apostles at Hierusalem of which we read in the b Act. 15. acts of the Apostles and affirme that the decrees thereof bound no man in conscience but also calleth the Fathers which afterwards assembled themselues in Councels sicophants and flatterers of the Pope In particuler he calleth the Canons of the first general Councel of Nice celebrated in the daies of Constantine the great Emperour whom our c Barlow in his relatiō of the conferēce held at Hāpt Court p. 69. King by no meanes wil haue appreached of Poperie bay straw wood stuble and demandeth whether the holy Ghost hath nothing else to doe in Councels but to binde and burden his ministers with impossible daungerous and vnnecessarie lawes such according to him were decreed in that Councel I think he meaneth concerning the chaste and single life of Bishops and ministers The like censure he pronounceth against al other general Councels and concludeth his discourse in that place that more light is brought to Christian doctrine by that Catechisme which children learne then by al the Councels In another place he addeth that d Luth. in prologo li. contra statuta Ecclesiae he wil not haue his doctrine judged by any neither by Bishops nor by al the Angels but that be wil by his doctrine judge the Angels Caluin giueth leaue to euerie priuate man to examine the decrees of Councels by the exact rule of holie scripture e Caluin book 4. Instit cap. 9. § 8. 11. see also § 9. Let no names saith he or authorities of Councels Pastours Bishops hinder vs but that we may examine the spirits of al men by the rule of the word of God He likewise calleth the Fathers of the first general Councel of Nice f Idem lib. de vera ecclesiae reformatione opuscul pag. 480. see him also booke 4. of his Instit chap. 9. § 10. Phanatices that is men phanatical or deluded by the devil g Bez. in praefat noui test anno 1565. Beza telleth vs that in the best times such was partlie the ambition of Bishops partlie their foolishnes and ignorance that the verie blinde may perceiue sathan verilie to haue beene President of their assemblies the like censure is pronounced by Musculus h Vrbā Regi 1. part operū de eccl fo 51. Vrbanus Regius and others The ministers of the church of Scotland in the confession of their faith write thus i Cōfess of the faith of Scotl. prīt at the ēd of the harm of cōfess p. 19. See the said Harmonie of cōfessiōs sect 1. pag. 14. Without just examinatin we doe not receiue whatsoeuer is obtruded vnto men vnder the name of a general Councel for plaine it is that as the men assembled were men so haue some of them manifestlie erred and that in matters of great weight importance So farre then as the Councel proueth the determination and commandement that in giueth by the plaine word of God so soone doe we reuerence and embraces the same hitherto the confession of Scotland Out of which their vvordes as also out of the like assertions of others I gather that our aduersaries commonlie giue no more creditte to general Councels and consequently to the whole church of Christ which they represent then is to be giuen to the worst and meanest man liuing yea then may be giuen to the deuil himselfe For these may also be beleeued if they proue that true which they affirme by the authority of holy scripture which they al require as necessary before the decree of councel be beleeued Secondly I gather that according to their assertions we may likewise lawfully examine these their sentences or decrees whether they be according to the rule of scripture or no for they were also men subject to errour and moreouer because vve finde them not so as appeareth by that which hath beene already said we may also reject them as repugnant to the said scripture The like leaue they giue in like sort to those of their owne company yea to euerie priuate man whatsoeuer concerning al their canons and constitutions wherefore their followers or subjects are not to be reprehended according to these opinions and decrees if they examine their sentences and canons by the word of God and reject them if in their conscience according to their owne judgement they finde them not conformable to the same But what an absurd thing is it that a fewe ministers should presume to pronounce so seuere a censure against such auncient venerable and learned assemblies highly of esteemed by al true Christians in al ages euen since the beginning of Christianity whence wil they haue these errours to haue proceeded Certainly they must needs attribute them either to ignorance or malice of the Bishops and Prelates assembled But are they either for number learning or piety to be compared with them They are not without doubt as wil easily appeare vnto any learned man that shal with any difference read the Ecclesiastical histories and viewe the vvorkes of both sides Neither haue ministers being combred for the most part with wiues children and such other impediments that opportunity of giuing themselues to studie and deuotion as the auncient Bishops had who liued a chast and single life and gaue them selues altogether to spiritual affaires and vvere commonly verie holy men Wherefore seing that they also liued nearer to the Apostles daies it is verie probable yea certaine that they better vnderstood and knewe the
This is a great sacrament or mistery they translate This is a great secret In defence of the Princes supremacie in causes Ecclesiastical in king Henry the eight and king Edward the sixt his daies they read 1. Bible 1539. 1562. Peter 2. vers 13. Submit your selues to al manner of ordinance of men whether tt be to the King as the chiefe head c. whereas the Apostle saith Be subject therefore to euery humane creature for God whether it be to the king as excelling Bible 1595. 1600. c. But nowe the last corruption contained in these wordes as the chiefe head is corrected the first remaineth stil Hebr. 5. v. 7. Bible 1595. 1600. Another corruption is in their translation of these wordes of the Apostle He was heard for his reuerence vvhich vvith Caluin they turne thus He was heard in that which he feared Finally to proue that a man may absolutely finde out the true sense of Scripture by conferring only one place with another Act. 9. Bible 1577. 1595. v. 22. they reade Saul confounded the Iewes prouing by conferring one Scripture with another that this is very Christ whereas the Greeke wordes only tel vs that he affirmed that this is Christ But this is amended in the later Bibles Vnto al these corruptions I adde that our English Sectaries in their translations adde words to the text of Scripture which they print not seldome in a smaller letter then that vvhich containeth the text it selfe And who can say that the said text with such additions is the true word of God seing that such additions are made by man without any warrant from God himselfe SECTION THE SEAVENTH That the Professors of the newe religion in corrupting the Scriptures followe the steps of the auncient Heretikes and what followeth of this discourse I HAVE nowe discouered diuers corrupt and false translations of our English Bibles yet not al but certaine of the principal I haue beene the longer because the Sectaries of our daies as I haue before shewed make the holy Scripture the only Canon and rule of their faith and these Bibles as euery man knoweth are accounted the only ground of our English aduersaries newe beleefe and religion for vnto them as to a touch-stone they alwaies appeale wherefore their Bibles especially were to be impugned They boast truly very much of the word of God but as vve see they haue not the vvord of God among them but are corrupters and falsifiers of the same and in steade of it possesse a deuise of their owne heades In this also as in other thinges they followe vvel the steps of al Heretikes their forefathers vvho to colour their horrible blasphemies and detestable heresies haue alwaies vsed the like deceits Hence Tertullian foureteene hundred yeares since vsed this discourse of the Heretikes of his daies Tertul. lib. de praescript ca. 18. see him also cap. 15. 38. Encountring with such by Scriptures auaileth nothing but to ouerturne a mans stomacke or his braine This heresie receaueth not certaine Scriptures and if it doe receaue some yet by adding and taking away it peruerteth the same to serue her purpose and if it receaue any it doth not receaue them wholy and if it doth exhibite them after a sort wholy neuerthelesse by diuising diuers expositions it turneth them cleane an other way Origen in c. 2 ad Roman Cypr. de vnit Eccl. Nūb. 7. Ambros lib. 2. de Spiritu sancto ca. 11. Hence also Origen vvho flourished soone after called Heretikes theeues and adulterers of the Scriptures S. Cyprian tearmeth them corrupters of the Gospel false interpreters artificers and craft-masters in corrupting the truth S. Ambrose noteth that the Macedonians to ouerthrowe the diuinity of the holy Ghost blotted out of the Gospel those wordes * Ioh. 4. v. 24. Tertul. contra Marcionem lib. 1. in princip lib. de prescript God is a spirit Marcion an auncient Heretike is reprehended for the same fault by Tertullian a and is called Mus Ponticus the mouse of Pontus because vvith his corruptions to serue his owne turne he did as it were gnawe certaine places of Scripture The Arians against the eternal generation of Christ vvhereas the Scripture saith The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his waies Hierom. in c. 26. Isaiae reade as S. Hierome recordeth The Lord created me The like corruptions * August lib. 5. cont Iulianum cap. 2. S. Augustine noteth of the Pelagians and more such complaints may be seene in a Epist 89. lib. de peccatorum meritis cap. 11. Origenes epist ad Alexandrinos Eusebius in Apologia sub nomine Pamphili Ruffinus epist. ad Macarium Euagrius lib. 3. cap. 31. Cassiodorus de diuinis lect cap. 8. Finally b Sutcl in his answ to Kellisons Suruey ch 4. pag. 32. Sutcliffe telleth vs that Heretikes to defend their peruerse and erroneous doctrine are wont to detruncate and by false expositions to peruert holy Scriptures And no maruaile that Heretikes haue alwaies runne this course for howe can falshood being of no force or strength be defended and maintained but by cunning deuises deceits and lies truth being of it selfe inuincible needeth no such deceitful helpe This moued S. Paul of himselfe and other preachers of truth to vse these wordes c 2. Cor. 2 17. We are not as very many adultering the word of God but of sincerity and as of God before God we speake And againe We renounce the secret thinges of dishonesty not walking in craftinesse not adultering the word of God contrary to this are al the proceedings of the patrons of falshood But let vs now gather two briefe conclusions out of the long discourse of this Chapter Of vvhich the first shal be that the controuersie betweene vs and our aduersaries is not touching the authority of the Scriptures themselues but touching the translation and interpretation of the same This is manifest because vve doe not reject the places of Scripture by them corrupted and falsified as they are in the Hebrewe Greeke or vulgar Latin but we argue their translation and interpretation of the said places of corruption and falshood and consequently censure it to be the word of man not the vvord of God Secondly I inferre that our aduersaries translated Bibles containe not the true vvord of God and consequently that although vve should grant vnto them that the bare letter of Scripture is a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion yet that they building vpon their said Bibles haue not this ground or foundation Chapter 7. That they build not vpon the letter of holy Scripture contained as they say in their owne Bibles SECTION THE FIRST In which this is proued first because the propositions which they tearme of their faith are not in expresse tearmes contained in the Scripture LET vs goe on a litle further and proue that although vve should also yeeld to our aduersaries that the letter of holy Scripture is a sufficient
firmiter stent in confess de coena Domini yea not long after most absurdly he taught and defended the humane nature of Christ to be in euery place togither with his diuine And this he did to prejudice the Roman Church and Catholike religion For seing that the vvordes are so plaine that he could not in substance denie the real presence by these meanes malice droue him to contrary our doctrine concerning transubstantiation and the manner of the being present of Christes body in this dreadful Sacrament These are the principal expositions of those wordes to which I could adde diuers others for a Luther in l. quod verba Christi HOC EST CORPVS MEVM firmiter stent Luther hath recorded that in his daies there vvere among the Sacramentaries about tenne diuers interpretations of them and in the yeare 1577. a booke vvas published in vvhich two hundred expositions or deprauations of the said vvordes are numbred and assigned al inuented or reuiued by the Professours of this newe religion Nowe I thinke that no man indued with any sense or reason wil be so fond as to affirme that al these expositions haue a certaine ground in the word of God for certaine it is as we haue hard Luther himselfe confesse that there is but one true sense of these vvordes vvherefore it must needes followe that al the rest be false and forged And seing that the inuentor or vpholder of one hath no more reason or diuine assurance for his inuention or opinion then hath the inuentor or vpholder of an other vve may vvith like probability affirme them al to be humane inuentions And certaine it is that vvhosoeuer imbraceth any one of them buildeth only vpon the erroneous and fallible judgement of man yea I may truly say that the ground of his beliefe is his owne fancy vvhich moueth him to censure one opinion as true and to condemne al the rest as false And like as I haue discoursed of this one sentence of our blessed Sauiour so could I in like manner discourse of sundry other places of holy Scripture but I should be ouer long It may be some for the solutions of al these matters vvil flie to priuate illumination or inspiration of the spirit and pleade that to proue the certaine truth of their interpretations of holy Scriptures but first such persons if vve beleeue Field Field booke 4 of the Church chap. 16. See also Whitaker de Ecclesia cōtrouers 2. q. 4. cap. 3. pag. 278. are accursed by the common consent of Protestants if as the Enthusiasts they neglect the common rules of direction Secondly I haue at large * Part. 2. chap. 5. sect 1. before proued al such illuminations to be vncertaine and that no priuate man is by any such meanes ordinarily directed by God into the truth something also concerning this point shal be said in the next section SECTION THE FOVRTH 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 BECAVSE the doctrine of Field is commonly singular in so much that I thinke I may very wel in some sort liken the platforme or order and faith of a Church set downe in his bookes of this argument to Sir Thomas Moores Eutopia for that there neither is nor euer vvil be any such Church in the world as he describeth I am and shal be forced especially in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church to dispute against him in particular and seuer him from al his bretheren Part. 2. chap. 5. sect 4. We haue heard him before acknowledging the Scriptures to be hard and obscure of which it seemeth to followe that except he assigne vs some diuine rule vvhereby we may come to an infallible knowledge of the true sense of them we can neuer infallibly assure our selues of their true interpretation He telleth vs therefore first that men not neglecting that light of direction which the Church yeeldeth Field booke 4 chap. 15. nor other helps and meanes may be assured out of the nature of the thinges themselues the conference of places the knowledge of tongues and the sutable correspondence that one part of diuine truth hath with another that they haue found out the true meaning of it and so be able to conuince the aduersaries and gaine saiers Thus Field But howe friuolous this his assertion is it vvil appeare by the confutation of his rules vvhich he vvil haue vs obserue and helps vvhich he saith vve must trust vnto in interpreting the Scriptures What rules and helps are then assigned by him let vs recite and for auoiding of repetition togither confute them Ibid. chap. 19 these are his vvordes Touching the rules we are to followe the helps we are to trust vnto and the thinges required in the interpretation of Scripture I thinke we may thus resolue First there is required an illumination of the vnderstanding for the natural man perceiueth not the thinges of God for they are spiritually discerned but the spiritual man judgeth al thinges and himselfe is judged of none This is the first helpe concerning which I first demand howe a man shal infallibly knowe that he hath such an illumination or that he is a spiritual man if he answere that it is knowne by this that a man feeleth himselfe thus and thus affected I vrge further and aske by vvhat diuine testimony or firme reason he knoweth that a man feeling himselfe so affected hath an illumination of the vnderstanding from God and is a spiritual man verily seing that Luther and Caluin both boasted of such an illumination and yet one of them was deceiued 2. Cor. 11 14 seing also that the Diuel doth often transfigure himselfe into an Angel of light as S. Paul vvarneth vs and as our aduersaries vvil grant it hapneth to the Anabaptists and others seing moreouer 1. Iohn 4. v. 1. Caluin alleaged in the 8. section of this chapter that the Apostle S. Iohn biddeth vs not beleeue euery spirit but proue the spirits if they be of God vvhich Caluin also thinketh necessary he must alleage or knowe some such testimony or reason or else he cannot ordinarily haue supernatural knowledge of it which neuerthelesse at the least is necessarily required to this that the exposition of the place of Scripture expounded be an inducement or ground of supernatural faith And vvhat diuine testimony can he alleage no other I thinke but Scripture or diuine inspiration if Scripture then another question may be asked howe he knoweth himselfe rightly to vnderstand that place of Scripture if inspiration I demand in like sort howe he knoweth it to be diuine and not diabolical and so of both these answeres wil follow a processe without end Secondly of this rule it may be inferred not only against Field but al our aduersaries that our faith is not built vpon only