they appointed Bishops vnto whome they conueied it Secondly that the Church of Christ succeeding would not admit any other but Bishops to that businesse as not justifiable for the Presbiters I vse his wordes either by reason example or scripture And hauing proued it concerning reason touching example he telleth vs that c C. 3. not one is to be shewed through the whole story Ecclesiastical that any besides a Bishop did it and that if some of the inferiour ranke presumed to doe it his act was reuersed by the Church for vnlawful which he proued by an example As for scripture he auoucheth there is none either of holy men or of the holy Ghost which doth giue such authority to Presbiters for al the fathers saith he with one consent doe contradict it And among others he alleageth S. Ambrose affirming that it is consonant neither with Gods nor mans lawe that any besides a Bishop should doe it Of the scriptures he writeth thus No scripture of the holy Ghost either anagogically by consequent or directly by precept doth justifie it For analogie none but the Apostles did it or might doe it as before you heard not directly for to what Presbiter was the authority committed as a Presbiter c. Thus the Bishop of Rochester plainely contradicteth the other two English Protestant doctors And hence it manifestly appeareth that either the said Bishop erreth in denying this power to Priests or that the said Doctors are false in yeelding it vnto them and consequently it is plaine that some English sectaries fal into error Moreouer seeing that the Bishop conuinceth by such good proofes the truth of his assertion and the said two Doctors confesse some of their Churches to haue no other Pastors but such as were ordered by Priests or Presbiters it is euen as apparant that such their Churches are in very truth no true Church But it is nowe high time that I end my discourse touching this point yea that I conclude this my preface Being therefore the truth of mine accusation that the learned sectaries as Luther Zwinglius Caluin and others haue notoriously and grosly erred is so euidently demonstrated by a fewe instances which I haue related among diuers others which I haue omitted let me nowe demand of my christian reader what reason he hath to ground the euerlasting estate of his soule either vpon the judgment of his learned masters or vpon his owne And first concerning his learned masters he can not deny but they haue al erred in some point or other and doth not an errour in one thing proue a possibilitie of erring in others of like sort But haue his captaines any further vvarrant concerning one article then touching an other They haue not vvithout al doubt Howe doth he then knowe that they haue not erred in al points in which they dissent from the ancient beliefe of al Christians their predecessours He vvil perhaps answere that he knoweth wel they erre not touching this and that although their opinions be neuer so erroneous touching other points Loe nowe he referreth al to his owne judgement I joine therefore here with him and first I aske vvhat more strong vvarrant he hath that he cannot erre then had his learned masters Is he comparable to them either in wit learning piety or dignity of vocation If he be not then he is much more subject to errour then they vvho notwithstanding haue grosly and palpably erred I adde also that he taketh vpon him ouer-much in judging of such high matters and in censuring his learned Doctors when they say true and when they erre Moreouer I thinke there is no man liuing which hath not in some thinges or others altered his judgement and varied from himselfe insomuch as he hath deemed false some thinges vvhich once seemed to him true and judged others true which once he thought false vvhich if it be so vvhat wiseman in matters of so great moment as are his faith and religion vvil trust his owne judgement For vvherefore may not he erre in one point as vvel as in an other Nowe if he doe erre in matters pertaining to faith and religion vvhat wil be come of his soule euerlastingly if he doth not alter his course But howsoeuer it be euery follower of the newe religion for the reasons assigned hath just cause to mistrust the truth of his owne beliefe or vvhich is yet lesse not to be so peremptory and obstinate in his faith that he vvil not vvith indifferency heare or reade any thing that maketh against it which is as much as I nowe craue of my curteous Reader A CATALOGVE OF THE PRINCIPAL COVNCELS WHICH WERE CELEBRATED WITHIN THE FIRST SIX HVNDRED YEARES AFTER THE BIRTH OF OVR LORD as also of the holy Fathers and most famous Ecclesiastical vvriters vvho flourished vvithin the said tearme of yeares gathered out of the workes of Cardinal BARONIVS and other approued Authours A AFricanum Concilium celebrated anno 403. Agathense Concilium celebrated anno 506. Agathias Hystoricus flourished anno 566. Alexander 1. Papa suffered anno 131. Ambrosius Episcopus Mediolan died an 397. Amphylochius Iconij Episcopus flourished an 394. Ancyranum Concilium celebrated an 314. Andegauense Concilium celebrated an 453. Antiochenum Conciliabulum celebrated an 341. Antisidiorense Concilium celebrated an 590. Antonius Abbas died an 358. Aquileiense Concilium celebrated an 381. Arator Subdiaconus flourished an 544. Aransicanum Concilium 1. celebrated an 441. Aransicanum Concilium 2. celebrated an 463. Arelatense Concilium 1. celebrated an 314. Arelatense Concilium 2. celebrated about the yeare 330. Arelatense Concilium 3. celebrated an 453. Arnobius Rhetor flourished an 302. Athanasius Episcopus died an 372. Aruernense Concilium celebrated an 541. Augustinus Episcopus Doctor died an 430. Auitus Viennensis died about the yeare 516. Aurelianense Concilium 1. celebrated an 507. Aurelianense Concilium 2. celebrated an 536. Aurelianense Concilium 3. celebrated an 540. Aurelianense Concilium 4. celebrated about the yeare 545. Aurelianense Concilium 5. celebrated an 552. B BArcionense Concilium celebrated an 599. Basilius Episcopus Doctor died an 378. Benedictus Abbas died an 543. Boaetius Senator died an 526. Bracharense Concilium 1. celebrated an 563. Bracharense Concilium 2. celebrated an 572. Brennacense Concilium celebrated an 583. Bicharensis Abbas flourished an 590. Byacenum Concilium celebrated an 541. C CAbilonense Concilium celebrated an 582. Caesarius Gregorij Frater died about the yeare 368. Caesarius Arelatensis died an 544. Caesar augustanum Concilium 1. celebrated an 381. Caesar augustanum Concilium 2. celebrated an 592. Carpetoradense Concilium celebrated about the yeare 463. Carthaginense Concilium 1. celebrated an 348. Carthaginense Concilium 2. celebrated an 435. Carthaginense Concilium 3. celebrated an 397. Carthaginense Concilium 4. celebrated an 398. Carthaginense Concilium 5. celebrated an 398. Carthaginense Concilium 6. celebrated an 401. Carthaginense Concilium 7. celebrated about the yeare 416 Carthaginense aliud celebrated about the yeare 418. Cassianus Monachus flourished an 433.
treatise which I intend I wil adde only a word or two of the manner of the nourishing of our bodies To make the foode which we receiue fit for our stomacke we haue in our mouthes two sortes of teeth some sharpe to deuide it others something flatte or plaine to grinde it with the tongue we remoue it from place to place when it is sufficiently chawed through the throate it is conueied into the stomacke where as in a pot or caldron by the heate of the hart and liuer it is boiled and brought al to one kinde of substance from thence the purest and best part thereof by subtil and smal passages is conueied to the liuer the grossest part which is not fit for nutriment is cast out at the fundament The liuer hauing receiued the said substance boileth it againe and turneth it into bloud that which is superfluous it sendeth it to other places as to the spleene and gal the rest it disperseth by the vaines throughout the whole body which is partly turned into flesh and bones a part of it is sent to the hart which being there purified is turned into vital spirits some is sent to the braine and turned into other spirits which we cal animales These considerations are sufficient to perswade euery man that there is one supreame God of infinite power and wisedome who hath created and most wisely and sweetely disposed al thinges Hence the Prophet Dauid cried out unto God in the Psalme Psal 103. ver 24. Howe high or wonderful O Lord are thy workes thou hast made al thinges in wisdome the earth is filled with thy possession or riches Surely if we looke into the nature and condition of any one creature whatsoeuer we shal not only see Eccles 3. ver 14. Galen lib. 3. de vsu partium lib. 5. Psal 99. vers 3. that as the wiseman saith we cannot adde to or take anythinge from the creatures of God and that God as Gallen the prince of al phisitions although a Pagan confesseth hath adorned and beautified the creatures of this world better then by any arte possible it could haue beene imagined but also if we demande of each creature who made it it wil seeme to make answere God made me and I made not my selfe according as the Psalme saith of vs men He made vs and we made not our selues Some Atheist perhaps wil say that al creatures are thus framed and ordered not by any supreame gouernor hauing vnderstanding and power to effect such matters but by chance I reply that like as it is impossible that a number of letters or charecters cast togither without any order of sillables wordes or sentences should make a perfect booke containing most wise learned and methodical discourses so it is impossible that the world should be so exquisitely ordered and thinges so ordained one to another by chance without the wisdome and disposition of almighty God And this confutation of this fond assertion was vsed longe since by Cicero an Ethnicke Wherefore Cicero lib. 3. de natura Deorum like as euery man would worthely account him a foole that should say that a booke containing wise and orderly discourses was made by chance by the casting togither of diuers charecters or letters or that a house most curiously and artificially built was made without the handy worke of any artificer by the accidentary concourse of stones morter timber and other such like stuffe so we may wel esteeme him a foole and voide of al reason and vnderstanding who denyeth that the world was created and ordered by almighty God Hence the Psalme saith The foole said in his hart Ps 13. v. 1 there is no God And note it is not said he said with his mouth but in his hart to signifie that this assertion is so absurde ridiculous and blasphemous that a foole although he thinke it true in his hart yet may be ashamed to vtter it with his mouth To the arguments already brought for the proofe of this matter I adde that this truth is manifestly deliuered vnto vs in the holy Scriptures in which is contained the history of the creation of the world by God and diuers other euident proofes are found of the being of his diuine Majesty This no Atheist wil or can denie But al of them answere that the Scriptures containe but fables and are of no authority I reply that it may easily be shewed that the authority of these diuine bookes ought to be great in any wisemans judgement in the world It is proued by diuers learned authors first by their antiquity for no volumes in the world are so auncient as the bookes of Moyses and consequently we may inferre that Moyses himselfe the first writer receiued the true history of those thinges which were done before his owne dayes by succession and tradition from his predecessors for which it maketh that Abraham the father of the Iewes might wel haue seene Sem the sonne of Noe Of other thinges he was an eie witnesse himselfe Secondly it is proued by the verity of diuers prophesies contained in the holy Scriptures which were fulfilled longe after that the bookes themselues were written which is a manifest demonstration that such thinges were foretold by God who only knoweth and can certainely fortel thinges contingent and depending of mans free wil of which it followeth that such prophesies and the bookes in which they are found were written by diuine inspiration Thirdly it is declared by the wonderful consent of al these bookes for although they were penned by diuers men in diuers places vpon diuers occasions and at sundry times yet no one of them containeth any one thinge contrary to the other Gre. praefat in Iob. Of which S. Gregory wel inferreth that the writers handes were the pennes of the holy Ghost The same is likewise demonstrated by the test mony of diuers miracles which haue beene wrought alwayes in the world for the confirmation of the doctrine which is taught vs in these bookes by the miraculous preseruation of them throughout al ages by the admirable consent of the seauenty two Interpreters which were appointed by Ptólomie King of Aegipt to translate them and sundrie other reasons which I cannot stand to relate Neither doe the miracles and prophesies aboue said and al other such like effects and actions only confirme the authority of the holy Scriptures but also euidently proue that there is a God who only is omnipotent and can worke effects surpassing the power and vertue of natural and created agents Such miracles and prophesies cannot be denied to haue beene found in the world in al ages of which we haue any large recordes except we wil obstinately reject the authority and testimony of al men I may joyne to this that although God be but one in essence yet he is three in persons for although the diuine essence be but one most pure and simple substance not deuided yet the selfe same is in three distinct
forced to acknowledge that the Church hath authority to prescribe orders for her gouernement vvhich euery one is bound to obey Yea Field Hutton and Gabriel Powel seeme to make the constitutions of the Church equal vvith those of the Apostles For the first of them auoucheth that both thinges which c Field booke 4. chap. 20. § that the Apostles the Apostles themselues deliuered by tradition and also such thinges as were deliuered by their next after-commers are dispensable by the authority of the Church And howe so if the Church hath not Apostolike authority surely his reason assigned is because the Apostles and Apostolike men did not deliuer them as reporting the immediate preceptes of Christ himselfe but by vertue of their Pastoral power and office of vvhich it seemeth plainely to followe that he yeelding the Church authority to dispense in them giueth her equal Apostolike power Hutton in his answ to a treatise of the Crosse in baptisme pag. 3. and 59. see also pag. 9. Hutton affirmeth Ecclesiastical constitutions made by the Church of Christ not to be meerely humane but in part diuine And the reason is saith he because the Church is ruled by the spirit of Christ who is the truth Againe if you make your comparison betweene that which God hath commanded and that which the Church of God hath ordained the difference is not so great as you would haue it Let Gods commandement haue worthily the first place and preheminence in al thinges as is meete but let the ordinances of the Church be immediately subordinate vnto Gods commandement and ranged in a second place not only because the Church of God heareth his voice but also because she is ruled by his spirit and by the great and pretious promises of God is made partaker of the diuine nature which no doubt doth assist them euen in the lawes also and constitutions which are made for order and decency in the Church Hitherto are Huttons vvordes Powels wordes are these Those Adiophora or thinges indifferent Gabriel Powellus in the sibus de Adiaphoris ca. 2. §. 7. 8 which are wel and lawfully instituted and approued by the Church are after such sort humane as they are also diuine and therefore they haue authority more then only humane yea they haue authority altogether diuine The reason is because the Church is gouerned by the spirit of Christ who is truth Againe * Ibid. cap. 3. §. 6. 7 God left it in the power and wil of the Chruch to dispose and ordaine for her owne conseruation profit comlinesse order and discipline al thinges indifferent ceremonies and external rites which manifestly appeareth out of the holy Scriptures themselues to haue beene true of the primatiue Church in the Apostles daies neither can any man denie it to be true of the present Church For seing that it is the same spirit gouerning the Church of al times why may it not likewise be lawful for the Church to institute lawes concerning external rites in times ensuing Thus Powel And out of these assertions of our aduersaries I thinke a prudent man wil wel inferre that our doctrine concerning the infallible judgement of the Church in matters of faith euen according to their proceedinges is very reasonable and consonant to holy Scripture For seing that vnitie and consent in faith is farre more necessary then vnity and consent in ceremonies and positiue ordinances for gouernement vve may truly affirme that Christ vvas more careful for the preseruation of the first then of the second Seing further that the reasons and authorities of holy Scripture by them brought and generally al the promises of our Lord concerning the direction of the Church make as much nay commonly more for the first then for the second for they are principally concerning direction in truth we doe followe reason and the holy Scripture in maintaining the first if they are not to be blamed for their maintenance of the second Seing moreouer that Field and Powel giue the present Church in al ages as great authority as it had the Apostles yet liuing and they vvere then not only ordainers of positiue lawes and orders but also infallible propounders of true doctrine and directors in matters of beleefe we haue no reason according to their ground to denie this prerogatiue to the same Church in al future times Seing finally that the Puritans denie the collection or deduction of either of these prerogatiues out of the Scripture and the Protestants auerre the plaine deduction of one and for this the Puritans condemne the Protestants we may wel imagine that the Puritans may erre in denying both and that the Protestants are to graunt the one as wel as the other and consequently that the Catholike truth should be imbraced by al. SECTION THE FIFT That the testimonies of holy Scripture and other proofes brought for the infallible and diuine authority of the Church cannot be applied to the Church considered as it comprehendeth al faithful Christians that are and haue beene since Christes ascension or since the Apostles daies but vnto the present Church of al ages BEFORE I end this chapter I thinke it not amisse to confute two or three opinions of our aduersaries of which al seeme in some sort to derogate from the truth of those thinges which I haue here auerred and to weaken their principal proofes Booke 4. chap. 1. 2. 3. 5. 13. The one is of M. Field who telleth vs that we may speake of the Church three manner of waies First as it comprehendeth al the faithful that are and haue beene since Christ appeared in flesh including also the Apostles Secondly as it comprehendeth al that are and haue beene since the Apostles time Lastly as it comprehendeth those only that are liuing at one present time in the world In the first signification he freeth it from ignorance and errour concerning matters of faith in the second from errour only and in the third not from errour in al articles of beleefe but in such only as euery man is bound expresly to knowe and beleeue wherefore Chap. 5. he applieth that promise of Christ aboue mentioned that the holy Ghost should teach the Church al truth to the Church in the first and second signification Another assertion is that the present Church may be said at al times to be the piller of truth and not to erre because it retaineth alwaies as Field speaketh a sauing profession of heauenly truth that is Chap. 4. §. the Church Field booke 3. chap. 4. and 3. true doctrine concerning al such principal pointes as are the substance of faith and needful to be knowne beleeued expresly by euery man Hence they assigne some such principal points and articles which they binde euery person to knowe and beleeue vnder peril of eternal damnation and deny asmuch as the virtual beleefe of others to be necessary which I place as a third absurd opinion To confute these assertions and to cleere the truth
as a rule of her faith For a third Tradition he acknowledgeth That forme of Christian doctrine and explication of the seueral parts thereof which the first Christians receiuing from the same Apostles that deliuered to them the scriptures commended to posterities Vnto which I adde that which he hath in the fourteenth chapter of the same booke that without the Creed of the Apostles named here in the second place we cannot knowe the scripture to be of God that without the forme of Christian doctrine which is his third Tradition and the Analogie of faith we haue no forme of Christian doctrine by the direction whereof to judge of particular doubts and questions Yea in another place of the said forme of Christian doctrine he hath these wordes Ibidem cap. 19. We confesse that neither conference of places nor consideration of the antedentia consequentia nor looking into the originals are of any force in the interpretation of scripture vnlesse we finde the thinges which we conceiue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant to the rule of faith This is M. Fields doctrine Out of vvhich I inferre contrarie to his owne assertions that according to his owne groundes Tradition is the very foundation of his faith And this is euident For doth it not follow of this that we receiue the number names of the authors and the integritie of bookes diuine by Tradition that without Tradition we cannot knowe such diuine bookes and moreouer that if Tradition may be false that we also concerning such bookes may be deceiued Can it likewise be denied if it be so that vvithout the knoweledge of the creed we cannot know the scripture to be of God the creed also be an Apostolike Tradition that without an Apostolike Tradition vve cannot knowe the scriptures Moreouer although that should be admitted as true which he auoucheth and hardly agreeth with this to wit Chap. 20. § Much contētion See more of this matter part 2. chapter 5. sect 1. and chapter 8. section 4. that The scriptures winne credit of themselues and yeeld satisfaction to al men of their diuine truth which in very deed is false yet seing that the true interpretation of them cannot be knowne as Field saith without the knowledge of this rule of faith it followeth also apparantly that this rule must first infallibly be knowne by Tradition before that we can certainly gather any article of beliefe out of scripture Neither are these things only granted by Field but moreouer he confesseth the baptisme of Infants to be a Tradition and addeth * Field booke 4. chap. 20. § the fourth That it is not expresly deliuered in scripture that the Apostles did baptize Infants and that there is not any expres precept there found that they should so doe And yet I hope that M. Field wil grant that it is a matter of faith that Infants are to be baptized lest that he be censured to be an Anabaptist which if he doe he must needs confesse that some matters of faith are deliuered vnto vs by Tradition And whereas he saith This is not receiued by bare and naked Tradition but that we find the scripture to deliuer vnto vs the grounds of it It is verie certaine that the scripture is so obscure touching this point August de Genes ad litteram l. 10. c. 23 that S. Augustine affirmeth that this custome of the Church in baptizing Infants were not at al to be beleeued were it not an Apostolike Tradition And this obscurity of Scripture is much increased if vvee confesse vvith our aduersaries that Infants may be saued vvithout Baptisme Chap. 20. But they But he doth object against vs that we proue many thinges which vve wil haue to be Apostolical Traditions by the testimony of holy scripture I cannot deny it yet I say it is one thing probably to deduce an article of faith out of the scripture another thing to be expresly and plainely contained in it We only by probable conjectures proue some Traditions out of holy scripture especially against Heretikes which deny Traditions and approue the scripture Neuerthelesse by supernatural faith vve beleeue them because they are such Traditions Booke 4. cap. 20. § For this That vvhich he saith that vve make Traditions Ecclesiastical equal with the vvritten vvord of God is one of his ordinary vntruthes Besides this it is also generally vrged against vs by our aduersaries that diuers such thinges as are affirmed by vs to be Apostolike Traditions are institutions of men and they name the time vvhen such things were instituted and the author that commanded them to be obserued I answere that although touching certaine obseruations and ceremonies vvhich vve affirme to be Apostolike there be some decrees of Councels and Popes yet that the said Councels or Popes instituted not such obseruations and ceremonies but either ratified and confirmed them by their decrees or else caused them to be obserued vniuersally whereas before the vse of them was not general or finally prescribed to al faithful people a certaine and vniforme manner of obseruing them whereas before although the obseruation of them was general yet they were not generally obserued after the same manner in al places The truth of this answere appeareth by this that vve can proue by sufficient testimonies such obseruations and ceremonies to be more ancient then our aduersaries vvil haue their institution I adde also that al the definitions and decrees of Councels and Popes concerning matters of faith are but more perspicuous explications of that rule of faith which by Tardition hath descended from the Apostles as I wil declare in the next chapter wherefore it is no absurdity to affirme the like of such constitutions concerning some obseruations and ceremonies for that some haue beene instituted and ordained by the Church we confesse Neither hath she in this exceeded her authoritie because Christ hath giuen her such power to the end that al thinges might be done vniformallie vvith decencie and as the Apostle saith according to order 1. Corint 14 40. And that she hath such Apostilike authority it is confessed by most English Protestants * see chap. 6. before section 4. pag. 50. as I haue aboue declared Chapter 9. Of general Councels which make the third particuler ground of Catholike religion IN the next place I affirme that euery man may securely build his faith and religion vpon the decrees of a lawful and authentical general Councel concerning that or those matters which the Councel intendeth to define One principal reason conuincing the truth of this may be gathered out of that which hath beene already said of the infallible authority of the Church for I haue proued before not only that it vvas necessary for the preseruation of peace and vnity that Christ should ordaine in his Church some visible supreame and infallible meane to decide controuersies touching matters of religion but also that this prerogatiue was bestowed by
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
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.
Testament as it is euident by holy Scriptures and granted by our * Melācht in corpo doctri Germa et in examine ordi nand cap. de definit c. Oecolampad in Isa 23 21. Aug. lib. 1. ad Simplicianū quest 2. Lib. de spirit et litt c. 34. Freder Staphil l. de cōcord disci Luther Petrus Paladius l. de heres Caluin in Inst contr Liberti c. 9. aduersaries the Prophets that were extraodinarily sent confirmed their mission by miracles and why so if not to yeeld men sufficient prudent motiues to beleeue them Hence are these vvords of S. Augustine It is commaunded that we beleeue to this that hauing receiued the gift of the holy Ghost we may be able to worke wel by loue but who can beleeue except he be touched by some vocation that is by some testification or testimony of thinges Againe A reasonable soule cannot beleeue by her freewil if there be no vocation or perswation vnto which it may beleeue hitherto Saint Augustine Finally the truth of this appeareth by the ordinarie manner of proceeding of God with mortal men vvhich is not altogether by internal illuminations as the Swencfeldians Libertines and some Anabaptists dreame but by some common and external rule and seing that according to the Apostle he requireth of vs only * Rom. 12 1. Field booke 4. chapt 7. § Thus then a reasonable obsequy seruice or obedience it can not be said that he commaundeth vs to beleeue any thing which is not propounded vnto vs and made credible by prudential motiues In this sense I take Field who telleth vs as I haue partly set downe before that three thinges concurre to make vs beleeue that whereof we are doubtful the light of diuine vnderstanding as that whereby we apprehend the things of God the spirit as the authour of this illumination and the reasons and motiues by force whereof the spirit induceth moueth and perswadeth vs. And in particular he affirmeth that it is not sufficient for Stapleton to say that he beleeueth the Church to be guided by the spirit because the spirit moueth him so to beleeue but saith it is moreouer necessary that he declare those reasons or motiues by force whereof the spirit setleth his minde in the perswasion of the truth of those thinges he formerly doubted of Some man perhaps wil object that no miracles or at the least very fewe are nowe wrought in the vvorld vvherevpon it may seeme to followe according to this discourse that Christian Catholike religion is not nowe sufficiently propounded as credible I answere that although God doth alwaies cause his true religion to be sufficiently propounded in such sort that any vvise man may prudently embrace it and beleeue it true yet as is aboue insinuated he doth not in euerie respect make it so credible as is in his power to doe and that for our greater merit humiliation And from this it proceedeth that among Christians miracles are not nowe so frequent as they were in the primatiue Church because they haue nowe not only other sufficient motiues which may perswade al men of the truth of their religion but also sufficient prudential reasons and marks by which they may discerne the true Church from al false sinagogues as I haue partly declared before and wil declare at large in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church This then being thus proued let vs behold what prudential arguments our aduersaries bring to proue the Scriptures to be canonical by force of vvhich the spirit induceth moueth and perswadeth them to beleeue them Field as I euen nowe related assigneth two motiues of our beliefe vvhich are causes of it in two distinct sorts of things the one the euidence of the things appearing vnto vs the other the authoritie of God himselfe vvhome we doe most certainly discerne to speake in the vvord of faith vvhich is preached vnto vs. Caluin seemeth to assigne the majesty of God which presenteth it selfe vnto vs in the diuine Scriptures Rogers saith The Scriptures cary a diuine and sacred authority with them and agree in al points with other bookes of the old Testament But that none of these motiues are sufficiēt to perswade a prudent man that these books are according to the rules of wisedome most certainely to be accounted diuine and canonical it is easily proued For first if they were so it vvould followe that euerie prudent man reading these books by this only according to prudence should be moued to giue euery one of them this prerogatiue but this experience among our aduersaries themselues vvho are at variance touching some books whether they be canonical or no proueth false therefore these motiues are not sufficient Field booke 4. chapt 7. § There is Moreouer No man as Field telleth vs proueth a thing doubtful by that which is as much doubted of as it selfe For this saith he is as if one taking vpon him to be a law-giuer whose authority is doubted of should first make a law and publish his proclamation and by vertue thereof giue himselfe power to make lawes his authority of making the first lawe being as much doubted of as the second Wel then this being supposed true let vs see whether the truth of al such motiues as are assigned by our aduersaries mouing them as they say to beleeue the holy scripture be not as obscure as the diuine truth of the Scripture it selfe And first this appeareth in those which are brought by Rogers for it is euen as obscure a matter and as hardly to be proued that generally al the bookes of Scripture and euery sentence of them cary an extraordinary or diuine authority with them aboue al others as it is that they are Canonical so is likewise their agreement with the books of the old testament wherefore letting them passe let vs behold whether this be not also true in such formal reasons of our faith as according to Caluin and Field moue vs to beleeue And first vvhence proceedeth that euidence vvhich Field vvil haue in some thinges beleeued to appeare vnto vs Are the articles of our faith euident in them selues this he denieth of some for Field book 4. Chapter 8. § The opinion We confesse saith he that faith may rightly be said to be a firme assent without euidence of many of the things beleeued in themselues but the medium by force whereof we are to beleeue must be euident vnto vs as Durandus doth rightly demonstrate thus Field But can he make it good that any such articles are in themselues euident vnto vs as they are the object of our faith It is plaine that most of them yea almost al considered howsoeuer haue not so much of themselues in respect of our vnderstanding as euidence and certainety of credibility that is they appeare not so certaine and credible vnto vs as a prudent man would beleeue them setting aside the medium or meane supernatural by vvhich they are propounded But if vve consider them
that Peter Lombardes doctrine is truly golden their 's dirty and filthy Thus discourseth Stancarus one of their owne company Yet who knoweth not that Peter Lombard by the Catholikes is accounted but among the middle sort of diuines and who is so bold as to compare him to S. Hierome especially in translating and expounding the Scriptures But the more to weaken the credit of their translated Bibles vvhich they boast to be drawne and featched from the very fountaines themselues to wit from the Hebrewe Greeke text in which tongues the scriptures were first penned let vs here adde not only that they are not sincerely featched from thence as hath beene sufficiently proued before euen by the testimonies of Protestants themselues but also that the said fountaines and that likewise according to the judgement of Protestants are not now pure and sincere but in some places haue beene corrupted I haue in like sort proued before this last point as farre forth as it concerneth the Greeke text of the new testament And although something hath beene said of the Hebrew text of the old yet in this place I wil relate for further proofe of the same certaine sentences of Castalio Conradus Pellicanus and D. Humfrey in vvhich this is plainely auouched For the first of these writing in defence of himself against one that maintained the sincerity and purity of the Hebrewe text hath these wordes Castalio in defens suae translat pag. 227. This good fellowe seemeth to be of that opinion as in manner al the Iewes are and some Christians drawing neare to Iudaisme or Iudaizing in this respect that he thinketh no errour euer to haue crept into the Hebrew Bibles that God would neuer suffer that any word should be corrupted in those sacred bookes as though the bookes of the old testament were more holy then those of the newe in the which newe so many diuers readings are found in so many places or as though it were credible that God had more regard of one or other litle word or sillable then he had of whole bookes whereof he hath suffered many I say not to be depraued but to be vtterly lost Thus Castalio And in his discourse following he calleth this high opinion of the Hebrewe text a Iewish superstition Conrad Pellic tom 4. in Psal 85. v. 9. alias 8. Conradus Pellicanus expounding these wordes of the 84. Psalme vers 9. Qui conuertuntur ad cor which in one of our English Bibles are thus translated * Bibl. 1592. Bible read in Churches That they turne not againe to folly and an other That they turne not againe writeth after this sort The old interpreter seemeth to haue read one way whereas the Iewes nowe reade another which I say because I would not haue men thinke this to haue proceeded from the ignorance or slouthfulnesse of the old interpreter Rather we haue cause to finde fault for want of diligence in the Antiquaries and faith in the Iewes who both before Christs comming since seeme to haue beene lesse careful of the Psalmes then of their Talmudical songes Hitherto are his wordes Humfred lib. 1. de rat interpret pa. 178. Idem ibid. lib. 2. pag. 219. In like sort D. Humfrey telleth vs that the reader may easily finde out and judge howe many places the Iewish superstition hath corrupted And againe I like not saith he that men should to much followe the Rabbins as many doe for those places which promise and declare Christ the true Messias are most filthily corrupted by them Such is the judgement of these sectaries Perhaps some man vvil deeme these to be men of no account among Protestants but it is not so D. Humfrey is wel knowne Humfre ibid. lib. 1. pag. 62. 63. 189. and he matcheth Castalio with the best and affirmeth the Bible by him translated to be most paineful most diligent most throughly conferred examined sifted and polished Gesnerus also a sectary of no smal fame giueth him this commendation Castalio hath translated the Bible so diligently Gesnerus in Bibliotheca and with so singular fidelity according to the Hebrewe and Greeke that he seemeth farre to haue surpassed al translations of al men whatsoeuer haue hitherto beene set forth Finally Conradus Pellicanus vvas Professor of the Hebrewe tongue in Zuricke And out of this vvhole discourse it is euident that although vvee should suppose the authority of the Church not to be infallible and that both vve and our aduersaries build only vpon the bare letter of holy Scripture yet that the said letter is a farre more sound and firme ground as it is translated and expounded by vs then it is as it is translated and expounded by our aduersaries For although vve both challenge to our selues the holy Scriptures yet our translation and interpretation is of greater authority then theirs We also for the proofe of the sense by vs receiued offer to be tried by the censure of al our auncestors from vvhome together with the letter we haue receiued also that sense which vve embrace Contrariwise they both in their translation and exposition build onlie vpon their owne judgement and haue no further proof or authority And this I say is true although we should make the Church subject to errour and grant the bare letter of Scripture to be the ground of our aduersaries beliefe But as I haue proued the authority of the Church is infallible and diuine and besides this the newe sectaries build not vpon the letter of holy Scripture Secondly I inferre of that which hath beene said that our aduersaries according to their doctrine haue no infallible meane whereby to knowe what articles of faith haue beene reuealed by God to his Church and consequently that they want a condition necessary to true faith And this is manifest both because they make the Church which God as I haue shewed hath ordained to be the ordinary meane for vs to come to the knowledge of such thinges subject to error and also because the bare letter of Scripture vvhich they ordinarily pretend in this case is insufficient neither doe they build vpon it as I haue proued Thirdly I conclude that absolutely al the professors of the newe Gospel ground their faith and religion vpon the judgement and fancy of man not vpon any diuine authority Hence they measure the omnipotent power of God by their owne weake vnderstanding and in those misteries vvhich being aboue the reach of reason cannot be by it comprehended they cry out vvith the Iewes howe can this be Iohn 6. v. 52. Ciril lib. 4. in Ioan. cap. 13. which word howe saith S. Ciril Bishop of Alexandria is a Iewish word and worthy of al punishment This also vvas in some sort confessed by king Henry the eight the first head of our English Church For being desirous after his denial of the Popes supreamacy to make some innouation of religion within his dominions he published as Hal Hollinshed and Stowe