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
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.
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
the high Priest by the commandement of God had his seate and principal residence in Hierusalem their chiefe citty so the truth being taken away from the Iewes and deliuered to the Gentils it was conuenient that the See of the high Priest should be placed in Rome the principal cittie of the Gentiles Reason also proueth that there ought to be one supreame visible gouernour in the Church For seing that nothing almost is more necessarie for the preseruation and good gouernement of a common-wealth then a meane and prouision to keepe vnity in the same nothing more hurtful Math. 12. verse 25. Marke 3. verse 24. Luke 11. verse 18. then rebellion sedition and discord For euerie kingdome as truth it selfe affirmeth deuided against it selfe shal be made desolate and euery cittie or house deuided against it selfe shal not stand It is certaine that our Redeemer the wisest and most prudent law-maker that euer liued in the world in establishing his Church or kingdome which was to be peaceable glorious and euerlasting and which is also his spiritual bodie and therefore in that respect likewise to be vnited in one had a principal regard that the members of his common-wealth and bodie should be lincked together in peace and concord and not rent a sunder by schisme diuision or diuersity of faiths Out of which ground I frame this argument Christ without al doubt ordained a meane for the preseruation of vnity in his Church but vnity cannot be preserued in it without one visible head hauing jurisdiction ouer it al therefore Christ ordained one such visible head And this one head was during the time of his life the blessed Apostle S. Peter who was as I haue proued before furnished with al necessarie qualities for the execution and performance of this high office and dignity and al the children of the Church of what condition whatsoeuer were bound in matters of faith and precepts of manners concerning good and euil to obey him This reason as we haue heard Caluin before confesse was that which moued God in the old lawe to appoint one Prelate aboue the rest And for the superiority of one in the newe law it was long since assigned by * Hieron aduersus Iouinianū Hierō aduer Luciferianos S. Hierome who concerning this matter vseth these vvordes For this cause one is chosen among the twelue that a head being appointed occasion of schisme be taken away And in another place The health of the Church dependeth of the dignity of the highest Priest vnto whom if some certaine power * exors et ab homini eminens Cipriā epist 55. ad Corneliū peerles and aboue men be not giuen there wil be as many schismes in Churches as priests But long before him the same was noted by S. Ciprian who affirmeth that heresies and schismes rise in the Church of no other cause then that the Priest of God is not obeyed and that one Priest and judg in Christes place is not acknowledged In another epistle he hath this sentence a Cip. epi. 4. see him also de vnita Eccles God is one and Christ is one and the Church is one and the Chaire is one by our Lords voice founded on Peter There can no other altare be erected or newe Priesthood be made besides the one altare and one Priesthood whosoeuer doth els-where gather doth disperse And is it not apparant except there be some one superiour that may keepe vnitie and vniformitie whome al the rest ought to obey that scisme diuision and rebellion wil presently ensue wil not euery one beleeue doe and change as he pleaseth wil one conforme himselfe to another certainly he wil not of which vvil followe as many distinct faithes and religions as there be heads and fancies And of this we see most manifest proofs among our aduersaries who for want of one head ouer them al are diuided into almost an infinite number of sects wthout any hope or meane of reconciliation b Treatise of the definition nots of the Church Chap. 3. as in another place I wil declare at large But let vs exemplifie a litle in this matter It is wel knowne that in this kingdome the Puritans haue a long time by al meanes endeauoured to conforme our Protestant Church to their Geneuian platforme of discipline but what answere maketh a learned Protestant vnto them Verely he demaundeth of them c Whitgif in his ans to the admonit pa. 138. § 1. And in the defence of his said an swe tract 20. p. 702 and tract 9. c. 1. pa. 481. c. 2. § 6. p. 491 Vnto which reformed Church they would haue the English Church framed and why other reformed Churches should not as wel frame themselues vnto the forme of the English Church For saith he we are as wel assured of our doctrine and haue as good groundes and reasons for our doings as they haue He addeth I tel you againe that there is no cause why this Church of England either for truth of doctrine sincerity of publique diuine seruice and other pollicy should giue place to any Church in Christendome and sure I am that we are as neere joyned with the Lord our God as the members are to the body and the body to the head Such is the answere of this Protestant to the Puritans The like may the Puritans make vn the Protestants and Lutherans Zuinglians and other Sectaries to them both And this maketh them as I haue said to remaine in deadlie discentions vvhich euil if they would acknowledg one head would easily be remedied and remoued This reason among others moued the auncient d Iustī in ora exhor Cip. tract de idol va nit Atha aduer ido nas orati Philo l. de cōfus līgu Plat. in polit Arist l. 8. ethni c. 10. l. 12. philos c Fathers yea the Heathen philosophers themselues to affirme that Monarchia that is to say the gouernment by one chiefe head is the best and chiefest Moreouer this preseruation of vnity in general is vsed as a special argument of great force and moment by some of our a Suruey of the pretended holy disciplī cap. 8. English Protestants against the Puritans in the defence of their Primats Archbishops and Bishops For they affirme such officers to be necessary in the Church of Christ that vnity and peace in it be preserued b Field booke 3. c. 39. § thus then Because the vnity and peace of each particuler Church of God saith Field and flock of his sheepe dependeth of the vnity of the Pastour c. Therefore though there be many presbiters yet there is one Bishop among the rest to whome an eminent and peerlesse power is giuen for the auoiding of scismes and factions thus Field c Will. in his Sinopsis controuer 5. qu. 3. part 2. in the appēdix pag 237. edit 1600. Willets words to the same effect are these The distinction of Bishops and Priests is very necessary for the
the euent of particuler assemblies of Lutherans only concerning some difference found among themselues any better In the yeare one thousand fiue hundred threescore eight as Chitraeus himselfe a famous writer of this sect recordeth was that famous assemblie of Lutherans held at Altenberg concerning the necessity of good workes and free wil which as he telleth vs was dissolued without any hope of concord and saith he the actes were set out on both sides and not only the diuines did contend with publike inuectiues but also most bitter hatred was raised betweene the Princes themselues who caused this assembly Yea another Lutheran of the same meeting writeth thus This whole conference was not only dissolued without fruite but also the estate of the whole cause became worse The like hath happened in other of their Sinodes For I finde it not recorded that euer hitherto two nations or different Churches of these sectaries were vnited together by any councel held among them But vnto the Lutherans aboue cited I adde also the authority of Whitakers who graunteth Whitaker li. de consilijs p. 56. that without authority no Councel can be assembled And seeing that no one according to Protestants hath authority ouer the whole world it followeth that in their judgement no Councel can be assembled of al the Prelates of the world And out of this doctrine of our aduersaries joined vnto that maintained by diuers of them concerning the necessity of general Councels vvhich is likewise strongly by me proued before I inferre that it was necessarie that God should appoint some one general visible head ouer his Church which illation is very euident For if general Councels be necessary and they cannot be had without a head it must needs followe that Christ who is not wanting to his Church in thinges necessarie ordained some such head Andraeas Fricius de Ecclesia l. 2. cap. 10. pag. 570. Hence Andraeas Fricius although a Protestant and a man bearing deadlie hatred to the Bishoppe of Rome yet thought it needful that one head should be appointed ouer al the euangellical Churches to keepe them in vnity which he deemed otherwise would neuer be and handling that matter he also truly answereth that common objection of Protestants touching the title of vniuersal Bishoppe out of S. Gregorie of which before But the Lutherans as vve haue seene auerre that it vvas in times past the proper office of the Roman Emperours to cal general Councels I reply first it is euident that Christ bequeathed not this office to the Emperor both because the office being necessarie in the Church Christ if he had so done should haue taken order that euer there should haue bin some one Emperor ouer the whole world to discharge the same which as is euident he did not And also because many of the Emperors haue beene Infidels some Heretiks and therefore in al reason not capable of any such preheminence in the Church Secondly it is very wel proued by Catholike authors that there neuer hath beene any one lawful general Councel assembled in the Church by the Emperour alone without the consent and authority of the Bishoppe of Rome which I confirme only in this place by an Ecclesiastical canon alleaged by Socrates which as he saith forbiddeth Socrates lib. 2. cap. 13. that decrees be made in the Church without the consent of the Bishoppe of Rome And seing that this canon was not made by any Councel it is apparant that it descended from the Apostles themselues But of this point enough Some of our aduersaries deny the Pope to be the successor of S. Peter because say they S. Peter was neuer at Rome I reply that nothing not most plainely expressed in the word of God or not knowne by diuine reuelation can be more certaine then that S. Peter liued in Rome and was Bishoppe of Rome for this is affirmed by al auncient and moderne writers Luther in colloquijs mensalibus cap. de Antichristo Peter 5. verse 13. See CaluiÌ„ l. 4. Instit ca. 6. § 15. and Bilson in his treatise of the perpetual gouernemeÌ„t of the Church cap. 13. Psal 47. besides a fewe newe sectaries Hence are these words of Luther Al histories testifie that Peter was the first Bishoppe of Rome but they are meere fables And why doe our aduersaries deny so manifest a truth truly for no other cause but to prejudice and weaken the Popes authority by which they are condemned Neither is there any auncient authour that euer called the matter in question as doubtful and the monuments themselues of Rome most euidently conuince our assertion to be true yea it is gathered out of S. Peters owne words in his first epistle and confessed by the best learned of our aduersaries Others say that the priuiledge of S. Peter mentioned perished together with him and was not deriued to his successours But certaine it is that the vertue of Christs promise made to this blessed Apostle together with his office descended to al the Bishoppes of Rome his successours This I haue partly proued in the second section of the sixt chapter before vvhere I haue declared that the promises made by Christ to his Apostles concerning the assistance of the holy Ghost in the Church c. were to be verified in the Bishoppes of the Church during al ages ensuing In this place I wil only repeate that no man of sense wil imagine that Christ building his Church for euer prouided Pastours and Apostolike officers onlie for it during the life of S. Peter and the Apostles For certaine it is that like as the same Church so the same gouernours though not in person yet in power are alwaies extant in the world Euseb lib. 5. cap. 22. 24. 25. AthaÌ„ l. de sent Dionisij Alexandrini Cipr. l. 3. epist 13. Athan. Apolog 2. et in epist ad â—olitarios Socrates l. 2. cap 11. Hence the Bishoppe of Rome hath alwaies exercised his authoritie throughout al Countries and Nations in the world Pope Victor without any note or censure of passing the bounds of his authority about the yere one hundred fourescore eighteene excommunicated the Churches of Asia S. Dionisius Bishoppe of Alexandria was accused not long after before Pope Dionisius as S. Athanasius telleth vs And neither did the Pope although himselfe also a Saint refuse the office of a judge or the Bishopp accused his judgement S. Ciprian requested Pope Steuen to de pose Martianus Bishop of Arles in Fraunce and to ordaine another in his place S. Athanasius reporteth that he himselfe being condemned and depriued of his Bishopricke of Alexandria in the yeare three hundred thirty and sixe by a false Sinode held at Tirus and hauing receiued the same censure of condemnation by such another Sinode assembled at Antioch in the yeare 341. was absolued by Pope Iulius and restored againe to his Bishoprick notwithstaÌ„ding these former sentences pronounced against him The same Pope if we beleeue Socrates restored Paul Bishop of
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 the truth of the Latin vulgar edition but proue that they forsake and falsifie the true sense of the very Hebrewe and Greeke text which they professe to translate So shal I not only proue that the vnlearned professours of the newe religion build their faith vpon a false ground to vvit the vvord of men or the vvord of God corrupted but also make that more manifest which I principally intend to proue I meane that the learned sort haue erred in their translations and that the ground of their faith also is not the vvord of God S. Augustine longe since obserued in Heretikes August tom 6. contra Faustum lib. 32 cap. 29. that they make not their faith subject to the Scriptures but the Scriptures as a man may say subject to their faith giuing vs thereby to vnderstand that al Heretikes either out of some one place of Scripture falsly vnderstood or out of their owne peruerse and licentious humor or out of the vveakenesse of their natural reason not able to comprehend the high misteries of our faith or finally out of some other false and erroneous ground frame to themselues one or more false opinions and afterwards by corrupting the text or wresting the sense make the Scripture seeme to confirme the same And like as this hath beene found true in al Heretikes vvho in former ages haue oppugned the Church so most true it is in the Professours of the newe religion of our daies as euery man skilful in the tongues may easily perceiue in their translated Bibles and other of their vvorkes If I should runne ouer al their corruptions and falsifications I should scarce euer make an end they are so many and diuers See Staphilus in Apolog part 2. Emser in praefat Annot. in nouum Testam Lutheri Lindanus in Dubitantio pag. 84. 85. c. Erasmus in Epist. ad fratres inferioris Germaniae Some note a thousand foure hundred in the newe Testament only translated by Luther Caluin and Bezaes corruptions are to be seene in diuers vvorthy Authours wherefore I wil only gather fiue or six notable falsifications out of the translations of these principal Sectaries and afterwardes discourse more at large of our English Bibles To beginne therefore with the first Captaine Luther before his Apostacy from the Catholike Church he read with vs and al antiquity according to the Greeke text 1. Cor. 9. vers 5. after this sort Haue not we power to leade about a woman a sister as also the rest of the Apostles But hauing chaunged his profession and contrary to his vowe coupled himselfe to Catharine Bore vvhome he tearmed his vvife he chaunged also his translation of this sentence and read Haue not we power to leade about a sister a wife as the rest of the Apostles S. Paul to giue vs to vndertstand that faith doth justify vs as the foundation and roote of our justification or else comprehending vnder the word faith also the workes of faith vseth these wordes We account a man to be justified by faith Rom. 3 28. Moreouer to exclude from our justification the workes done before our conuersion or faith he addeth without the workes of the lawe But howe doth Luther translate this place of Scripture Luther to 2. edit Wittenberg anno 1551. fo 405. We account saith he a man to be justified by faith onlie without the workes of the lawe this is his translation And what a manifest corruption is this where doth he finde in the Greeke text or any other approued edition the vvord only verilie it is added by himselfe and not to be found in the text But perhaps although S. Paul hath it not expresly in this place cited yet it is necessarily vnderstood I reply and demaund howe Luther knewe this I adde further that although it vvere so yet he hath no authority to adde to the word of God neither is it likely that if the said vvord had beene necessary the holy Ghost guiding the Apostles penne vvould haue omitted it And that Luther giueth not the true sense of the sentence of the Apostle I proue out of these wordes following of S. Augustine August de gratia et lib. â—rbitrio ca. 7. Men saith he not vnderstanding that which the Apostle saith we account a man to be justified by faith without the workes of the lawe did thinke him to haue affirmed that faith would suffice a man though he liued il and had no good workes which God forbid the vessel of election should thinke who in a certaine place after that he had said Galat. 5 6. In Christ Iesus neither circumcision or prepuce auaileth any whit he straight added but faith which worketh by loue this is the opinion of S. Augustine Hence the same Apostle in other places Galat. 6 15. hath these and such like sentences In Christ Iesus neither circumcision auaileth ought nor prepuce but a newe creature Againe Circumcision is nothing 1. Cor. 7 19. and prepuce is nothing but the obseruation of the commaundements of God In vvhich he giueth vs to vnderstand that in the place corrupted by Luther vnder the name of faith he comprehendeth the whole reformation of our soules and our newe creation in good vvorkes vvhich may further be proued because taking faith precisely as it is a vertue distinct from hope and charity 1. Cor. 13. v. 2. and 13. he telleth vs that Although a man hath aâ— faith so that he should remoue mountaines and hath not charity he is nothing And concludeth that charitie is a greater vertue then either faith or hope with vvhome accordeth S. Iames vvho directly contradicteth Luther and auoucheth Iames 2 24. that by workes a man is justified and not by faith only Perhaps some Lutheran in the defence of Luther vvil say that this corruption vvas not vvilful But I reply that the contrarie is manifest for Luther by letter being kindlie admonished by his friend that this by some vvas reprehended as a fault answered his said friend very sharply calling the reprehender Asse and Papist and gaue this reason in his owne defence Luther to 5. Germ. f. 141. epist adf amicum Doctor Martin Luther wil haue it so And like as in this text he added to serue his purpose so in another he omitted For whereas the Apostle S. Peter writeth 2. Peter 1. verse 10. Wherefore bretheren labour the more that by good workes you make sure your vocation and election he left out the wordes by good workes These and other such like corruptions of Scripture vvhich are to be found in the Bible and other vvorkes of Luther gaue Zwinglius vvriting against him just occasion to condemne him of this fault Thou dost saith he corrupt and adulterate the word of God ZuiÌ„g in resp ad Luth. l. de sacram to 2. fol. 412. 413. imitating surely in this the disciples of Marcion and Arius Againe See howe thy case standeth Luther that in the eies of al men thou
contained in the diuine bookes These are his words They object vnto vs the place of Iames Wolfangus Musculus in locis communibus cap. de Iustificat num 5. pag. 271. but he whatsoeuer he was though he speake otherwise then S. Paul yet may he not prejudice the truth And after the disagreement betweene these two Apostles according to his imagination shewed at large he thus breaketh forth into open reproch of S. Iames Wherefore he Iames alleageth the example of Abraham nothing to the purpose where he saith wilt thou knowe O vaine man that faith without workes is dead Abraham our father was he not justified by workes when he offered his sonne Isaac He confoundeth the word faith Howe much better had it beene for him diligently and plainely to haue distinguished the true and properly Christian faith which the Apostle euer preached from that which is common to Iewes and Christians Turkes and Diuels then to confound them both and set downe his sentence so different from the Apostolical doctrine whereby as concluding he saith You see that a man is justified by workes and not by faith alone whereas the Apostle out of the same place disputeth thus c. And hauing made S. Paul to speake as hee thinketh best afterwardes he inferreth Thus saith the Apostle of whose doctrine we doubt not Compare me nowe with this argument of the Apostle the conclusion of this Iames A man therefore is justified by workes and not by faith only and see howe much it differeth whereas he should more rightly haue concluded thus c. This and other more such stuffe hath this Sacramentary Doctor against S. Iames and his Epistle in which he dissenteth from most of his owne company Doth not also Beza reject or at the least doubt of the truth of the whole history of the adoulterous woman recorded by S. Iohn in the eight Chapter of his Gospel vvhich notwithstanding other Sacramentaries admit as Canonical Scripture This cannot be denied and I haue before related his wordes Part. 2. ch 1. sect 4. Bible 1592. c. Doth not our English Church Mathewe 6. receiue as Canonical Scripture those wordes For thine is the kingdome the power and the glory which they adde at the end of our Lords praier and yet of them Bullinger a Zwinglian writeth thus There is no reason why Laurentius Valla should take the matter so hotely as though a great part of the Lords praier were cut away Rather their rashnesse was to be reproued who durst presume to peece on their owne to the Lords praier Thus Bullinger Nay further some times the same Sacramentary receiueth vvordes into the Canon vvhich before he had rejected For example Beza in one edition of his new Testament in the end of the eight chapter of S. Iohns Gospel putteth in these wordes See the newe Testaments translated by Beza of the yeares 1556. and 1565. And his Testament translated into English by L. T. printed anno 1580. Iesus passing through the midst of them c. vvhich in another edition with great vehemency he rejecteth wherefore although Beza in his edition of the yeare 1556. leaue the said vvordes out yet in Bezaes englished Testament of the yeare 1580. they are admitted And these thinges in like sort manifestly conuince that the Sacramentaries in admitting and rejecting bookes of Scripture are led by their owne judgement and fancy not by any diuine or infallible rule Moreouer diuers parcels of holy Scripture as I haue declared aboue haue bin in times past of doubtful authority of which most of our aduersaries haue receiued some into the Canon and rejected others For example our English Protestants haue receiued the Epistle to the Hebrewes and the Apocalipse and rejected the books of the Machabees of Iudith Tobias c. because the authority of these in the primatiue Church was called in question But what reason haue they for this fact haue they had any diuine testimony or reuelation commanding them to admit the first Surely none seing that they contemne the authority of the Church And wherefore receiued they not the last aswel as the first They vvil say perhaps that the first vvere admitted by diuers euen in the primatiue Church and doubted off only by some I reply that Brentius hauing named and numbred al of both sorts of them in general writeth thus Brentius in Apolog. confess Wittenb There are some of the auncient Fathers who receiue these Apocriphal bookes into the number of Canonical Scriptures and in like sort some Councels command them to be acknowledge as Canonical I am non ignorant what was done but I demand whether it were rightly and Canonically done Thus Brentius who reiecteth them al alike And that vvhich he saith may be proued true by the testimony of the third Councel of Carthage and S. Augustine as Field confesseth Concil Cartag 3. ca. 47. Augustin de doctrina Christiana lib. 2. cap. 8. Field booke 4. chap. 23. §. hence and of diuers others who receiued the bookes of Tobias Iudith and the Machabees wherefore it seemeth that not only in the judgement of Brentius but also in very deede the doubt of al was almost alike It is euident therefor◠in my judgement that the reason vvhy they rejected and reject those of the old Testament is because in some points they contrary their newe doctrine which they made and make a rule whereby to discerne which bookes are Canonical Hence they receiued those which they could make in outward shewe seeme to fauour their opinion and rejected others and this is the cause why Luther rejecteth more bookes then the later Sectaries For he being the first that beganne to preach this newe Gospel could not presently forge and inuent newe glosses and interpretations vpon al the bookes of Scripture that opposed themselues against the same vvherefore he rejected sundry such bookes vvhich afterwardes his followers hauing inuented such glosses and interpretations receiued This also moued the same Luther to affirme those to be the best Euangelists Luther tom 5. praefat in epist. Petri. fol. 439. Centuriat 2. ca. 4. p. 260. who most especially and most earnestly teach that only faith without workes doth justifie and saue vs of which he inferreth that S. Paules epistles may more properly be called the Gospel then either the Gospel of S. Mathewe S. Marke or S. Luke His disciples the Centuriatores likewise yeeld this reason vvherefore the epistle of S. Iames is to be rejected that in the second chapter he affirmeth that Abraham vvas not justified by faith only Zwinglius in explanat art 57. tom 2. fol. 100. but by workes Zwinglius also affirmeth that although the second booke of the Machabees were in the Canon yet that the authour of it maketh himselfe suspected by this that writing an history he doth set downe a point of doctrine concerning praier for the dead By which it is manifest that they measure Canonical Scripture by their faith not their faith by
Canonical Scripture But to reject those bookes of Scripture vvhich made against them was an old deuise among the auncient Heretikes vnto whome our aduersaries in this also as in other things conforme themselues For this fault S. Augustine noted in Faustus a Maenichee and reprehendeth it in him after this sort Whereas thou saiest this is Scripture or this is such an Apostles August contra Faustum lib. 11. cap. 2. Tertul. lib. de praescript Epiphan heres 30. 42. 69. this is not because this standeth forme and the other against me Thou then art the rule of faith whatsoeuer is against thee is not true Hitherto S. Augustine Tertullian in like manner and S. Epiphanius record that euen in their daies Heretikes rejected certaine bookes of Scripture Vnto this their rejecting and admitting of Scripture according to their owne fancy I adde also that out of their owne judgement vvithout any further vvarrant they alter or as they say correct the text For example although they esteeme the Greeke text of the newe testament aboue al others yet Beza in his translation of the same as it is noted before doth willingly and wittingly thrust out of it those vvordes Luke 3. vers 36 who was of Cainan Of the same fault I accuse also our English Protestants in their Bible of the yeare 1595. And this they doe notwithstanding that al Greeke copies both of the old Testament in the booke of Genesis and of the newe and al the Latin of the newe conspire against them If they answere that the Hebrewe of the old accordeth with them I reply that al the Scripture was penned by the instinct of the holy Ghost and consequently is true wherefore if something more be said in one thing more then is in another the one is not to be corrected or altered by the other for both may be very vvel consonant vnto truth Moreouer vvil these men say that the Hebrewe of the old testament is so true and sincere that it selfe needeth no correction vvhat warrant haue they more for the sincerity of this then for the Greeke of the newe If it be so sincere and they haue any such warrant wherefore doe they also correct and forsake it in their translations That they doe this it appeareth by their translation of the 17. vers of the 22. psalme vvhere they reade Bible 1595. they pierced my handes and my feete vvhereas the Hebrewe text word for word ought thus to be englished As a Lion my handes and my feete And vvhat diuine authority haue they for these their actions certainely none but they alter the sacred text of holy scripture according to their owne priuate liking and fancies SECTION THE SECOND The same is confirmed by their translations and expositions of holy Scripture AND like as in admitting rejecting and altering so they proceede in translating and expounding the word of God according to their owne judgement For first it is manifest See before part 1. ch 7. sect 2. part 2. cha 5. sect 4. that diuers sentences of the holy Scripture in the tongues in vvhich they vvere first vvritten the wordes being either of sundry significations or the sentences hard obscure and doubtful admit diuers translations yea in al tongues diuers interpretations as I haue proued before This I say is manifest both because no man skilful in the tongues can denie it and also because our learned sectaries cannot as yet agree concerning the translation and interpretation of those very bookes vvhich they al receiue Munster in praefat tom 1 Bibliorum Nay Munster a learned sectary affirmeth that sometimes euen among the Hebrews themselues he findeth diuers readinges For sometimes dissentions saith he are found among them some thinking this to be the true reading some thinking contrary Thus he And in very deed their translations euen through the variety of the signification of some Hebrew wordes and their like characters are very much different in sundry places Alias ps 110. I vvil exemplifie in one Psal 109. vers 3. the vulgar edition readeth thus Tecum principium in die virtutis tuae c. Some of them translate it out of the Hebrewe thus a English bible of the yeare 1592. Thy people shal come willingly at the time of assembling thine army in holy beauty the youth of thy wombe shal be as the morning dewe Others after this sort b Bible 1577. and that cōmonly read in Churches In the day of thy power shal the people offer thee free wil offerings with an holy worship the dewe of thy birth is of the wombe of the morning Others thus c Marloratus in psal 110. Bucer Musculus Caluin Pomerane Thy people with voluntary oblations in the day of thy army in beauty of sanctity Of the wombe from the morning the dewe of thy youth to thee And howe different are these translations The first saith youth of thy vvombe and the morning dewe the second dewe of thy birth and wombe of the morning c. For the d Lauath in hist Sacram. fol. 32. Zwinglius to 2. in respon ad Luther li. de Sacra Beza in annot noui testam passim Castalio in defen suae translationis Lutherans with Luther reject the translation and interpretation of Zwinglius and the Zwinglians The Zwinglians with Zwinglius admit not that of Luther and the Lutherans and the like proceedinges are betweene Beza and Castalio and other professors of this newe religion This therefore being presupposed that diuers sentences admit diuers translations let the newe sectary nowe tel me what diuine authority he hath mouing him rather to followe one sense then another the vvordes receiuing and sometimes being indifferent to both Euery priuate mans vnderstanding is subject to errour and there is but one truth howe then doth euery one of them knowe that truth is on his side vvhat diuine authority doth warrant him this Surely in following one translation and interpretation and not admitting others he must needes followe his owne fancy And this is almost in plaine tearmes confessed by Caluin himselfe concerning his owne expositions for explicating those vvordes of Christ Math. 26. vers 26. This is my body he affirmeth that hauing by diligent meditation examined the said sentence he doth imbrace that sense which the spirit telleth him And leaning to this saith he I despise the wisdome of al men which can be opposed against me Thus Caluin See part 1. cha 7. sect 3. part 2. ch 5. sect 4. And note vvel that he preferreth his owne priuate spirit for the holy Ghost as I haue proued infallibly directeth not euery priuate mans judgement before the testimony of al other men and plainely confesseth that he buildeth vpon it not vpon the vvord of God This also moued the translatour of the English Bible printed in the yeare 1589. 1592. and 1600. to protest in his preface that in the translating of it he hath in euery point and word according to the measure
vvith so manie thousand lies and vntruthes set downe by Catholike authors to the view of the whole world as for example doctor * Harding in his Rejoinder to M. Iewels reply touchīg priuate masse printed anno 1566. Harding anoucheth that the number of his lies in fiue of the six and twenty articles of his replie to the said doctor Hardings answere to his Apologie In his epistle to the reader discouered by himselfe and others amounteth to a thousand and odde and also because the falshood of his said challenge being shewed by diuers learned of our side he neuer was so good as his word Humfred in vita Iuelli Hence is this complaint of doctour Humfreis Iewel hath graunted you he speaketh to the Catholikes ouer much and was to sore an enemy to himselfe that rejecting the meane by which he might more firmly easily haue vpholden his cause he spoiled himselfe the Church for what haue we to doe with the Fathers with flesh and bloud Or what doth it appertaine vnto vs what the false sinode of Bishops so he tearmeth the ancient Councels doe ordaine or decree thus much D. Humfrey Secondly it may also be alleaged that Field a late Protestant writer alloweth of diuers other rules or directions of our faith besides the holie scripture Field book 3. chap. 33. § 1. and of the Fathers in particuler he affirmeth that they reuerence and honour them much more then vve doe I answere that in very deede Field maketh a great shew of allowance of the testimonie of antiquity and may perhaps seeme to one that looketh not wel into his wordes to approue the authority of of the auncient Fathers as farre forth as any Catholike whereas in very truth there is no such thing And to make this matter manifest let vs briefly behold his rules assigned whereby as he saith we are to judge of particuler things contained within the compasse of Christian faith Field book 4. chapt 14. which are as followeth First the summary comprehension of such principal articles as are the principles whence al other things are concluded and inferred these are contained in the Creed of the Apostles Secondly al such thinges as euery Christian is bound expresly to beleeue which are rightly said to be the rule of faith Thirdly the Anologie due proportion and correspondence that one thing in this diuine knowledge hath with another Fourthly whatsoeuer books were deliuered vnto vs a written by them to whome the first and immediate reuelation of diuine truth was made Fiftly whatsoeuer haue beene deliuered by al the Saints with one consent which haue left their judgment and opinion in writing book 4. cap. 5. because saith he in another place it is not possible that they should al haue written of any thing but such as touche the very life of Christian faith generally receiued in al their times Sixtly whatsoeuer the most famous haue constantly and vniformly deliuered as a matter of faith no man contradicting though many other Ecclesiastical writers be silent and say nothing of it Seueanthly that which the most and most famous in euery age constantly deliuered as matter of faith and as receiued from them that went before them in such sort that the contradictors and gaine-saiers were in their beginnings noted for singularity noueltie and diuision Ibid. cap. 7. and afterwards in processe of time if they persisted in such contradiction charged with heresie He addeth else where that this consent of the most famous must be touching the substance of Christian faith And vnto these his three last rules I adde that vvhich he hath in the second chapter before in these vvordes Booke 4. c. 2. Though al whose writings remaine haue not written of a thing yet if al that mention it doe constantly consent in it and their consent be strengthned by vniuersal practise we dare not charge them with errour yea though their consent be not strengthned by such practise if it be concerning thinges expressed in the word of truth or by necessary and euident deduction to be demonstrated from thence we thinke that no errour can be found ill al them that speake of thinges of that nature that is of matters of substance as in the fift chapter if in euery age of the Church some be found to haue written of them But in thinges that cannot be clearly deduced from the rule of faith and word of diuine and heauenly truth we thinke it posible that al that haue written might erre and be deceiued hitherto Field And these are the rules which he prescribeth to be followed in our judgment concerning truth falshood in matters of our beleife but that none of these besides the holy scripture of which hereafter according to his owne doctrine are sufficient in al matters of faith to make an infallible or prudential ground of beleife it is easily proued And to begin with his three first how wil he proue that they be infallible how can he shewe them to be of diuine authority if the present church in al ages as he saith may erre and it be true which he affirmeth Field book 4. chapter 20. § Thus hauing Ibidem § The second kinde Caluin booke 2. Instit cap. 16 § 18. Hūn ī theseb de coloq cum pōtis ineūdo thes 54. that it is not safe in things concerning faith to rely vpon traditions are not the two first rules at the least receiued by tradition surely he confesseth it himself Further doe not some of his brethren cal the creed of the Apostles in question and make it a doubtful matter whether it were deliuered to the Church by the said Apostles or no he that knoweth not this let him reade Caluin and Hunnius Is it in like sort agreed vpon among our aduersaties what articles euery Christian is bound expresly to beleeue and which are contained in the rule of faith It is not without doubt and I verily thinke that scarse any one learned Protestant wil admit that euery point vvhich is assigned by M. Field in the fourth chapter of his third booke Moreouer how obscure is the Analogie or proportion which one thing in matters of faith hath with another and generally what man wil admit these three rules or any one of them as sufficient to make an end of al controuersies in the Church In very deede although they were al admitted by al sorts as true yet very fewe articles can be gathered out of them by such euident deduction as is able to conuince the vnderstanding of al men and consequently they are no general and sufficient directions for al points of our faith Neither are the three last rules of themselues at the least as they are deliuered by Field of any greater force or sufficiency First because Field doth not only make the present Church in al ages subject to errour for he freeth it only from damnable and pertinacious errour Field book 4. chap. 13. and book 1. c. 10.
but also affirmeth that a right judgment of men by their power of jurisdiction maintaining truth and suppressing errour may be wanting in the Church and that sometimes almost al may conspire against the truth or consent to betray the sincerity of the Christian profession yea that most part of those that hold great places of office and dignity in the Church falling into errour or heresie may depart from the soundnesse of the Christian faiths so that truth be maintained by some few and they molested persecuted and traduced as turbulent and seditious men enemies to the common peace of the Christian world thus Field Which doctrine if we admit as true what authority shal we leaue to the Fathers workes wil not a possibility of errour followe in them al it cannot be denied but I need not dispute any longer of this matter for Field himselfe of these his three rules of beliefe vvriteth thus Field book 4. cap. 14. These three latter rules of our faith saith he we admit not because they are equal with the former and originally in themselues containe the direction of faith but because nothing can be deliuered with such and so ful consent of the people of God as in them is expressed but it must needes he from those authours and founders of our Christian profession Hitherto Field in which words he expresly graunteth that these rules originally in themselues are no directions of faith And truly although we could not ouerthrowe them by his owne sayings this only vvould suffice according to the Protestant groundes to proue them to haue no diuine or infallible authority that he bringeth no one sentence of scripture or other proofe for their truth but only this bare reason that nothing can be delivered with such ful consent but it must needs be from the founders of Christianity For if that be thought or affirmed possible vvhich he deemeth impossible vvhat force or strength wil be left to his rules but euerie man may also perceiue that if we admit his assertions euen nowe related concerning the error of the Church and her Prelats we must needes also graunt that it may be al the Fathers haue conspired in errour For if al the Fathers of the present Church at any time yea although assembled in a general Councel may and that in matters of greatest consequence as he saith erre Field book 4. chap. 5. and 12. who seeth not that it is a thing possible that in al ages they haue al erred This notwithstanding let vs nowe looke a litle into the vvordes themselues of these three last rules and behold concerning what articles of beliefe they are as also what conditions are required in them as necessary to this that out of the Fathers workes according to Fields opinion vve may gather any article of faith The first of them which is the fift in order as the words themselues tel vs requireth that the matter belong to the substāce of our faith by which words he doth abridge and limit the authority of the Fathers to be of force according to this rule onlie concerning certaine principal articles by him set downe vvhich euery man as he saith is bound expresly to knowe and beleeue He prescribeth also in this rule that the consent be general that is not only of al that haue written of that matter but of al that haue left any monuments of learning to their posterity that al make expresse mention of it and without contradiction of any other and that this is his minde he plainly declareth in the second and fift chapter before But what errour or heresie is there which contentious persons either wil not deny to pertaine to the substance of our faith or that al the monuments of antiquity doe positiuely contradict or which Heretikes cannot confirme by some or at the least by one sentence of some auncient writer Verilie if they drawe and pul the holie scriptures in such sort to their priuate fantasies that no sect wil be perswaded but that they fauor the false opinions in it maintained much more may they deale so with the writings of their predecessors which be farre more in number and not also penned as the scriptures are by diuine inspiration The second rule of the three last if M. Field wil not haue it to contradict that which I haue added at the end of them out of the second chapter before must he vnderstood according to it and then how vncertaine it is I wil euen nowe declare but if vve take it as the wordes sound it cannot be vniuersal for the decisions of al points at the least in the judgment of al men for al matters are not deliuered as matters of faith constantly vniformly by the most famous Christian writers and that without contradiction yea a man of a peruerse humour although in very deede it were so yet by wresting and false vnderstanding of ssuch authors would make appearance of the contrary The last may be confuted as insufficient of it selfe for the same reasons for it requireth that the point be of the substance of faith c. The addition out of the second chapter requireth vniuersal practise and necessarie and euident deduction out of the scripture or the rule of faith and as it seemeth that it be a matter of substance that in euerie age some be found to haue written of it c. which be things intricate not easily to be proued in euery matter cōtrouersed But to make al these rules more obscure he addeth in the fift chapter that the writings of the ancient may be much corrupted so that the consent of antiquity cannot alwaies easily be knowne Field book 4. cap. 5. Vincent Liriuens cap. 39. yet saith he there wil be euer some meanes to finde out and descry the errours and frauds of the corrupters And so he affirmeth himselfe to vnderstand that of Vincentius Lirinensis that the judgment of antiquity is to be sought out at the very first rising of heresies not afterwards when they are growne inueterate for that then they wil corrupt the monuments of antiquity Finallie these three rules are not sufficient to direct any man whatsoeuer whether learned or vnlearned to an infallible truth in al articles of faith for seing that euerie priuate man yea the whole visible present Church is subject to errour and al her greatest Prelates to heresie according to the doctrine of M. Field one man cannot build his faith vpon anothers judgement no not vpon the judgement of the whole present visible Church wherefore if we proceed according to M. Fields rules it is not sufficient to cause true faith in vs that others tel vs that the Fathers and writers of former ages say this and that but we must our selues read ouer the workes of al such Fathers and authors And how can the vnlearned doe this Yea if a man be neuer so learned he cannot doe it although he doe nothing else but read al the daies of his