they appointed Bishops vnto whome they conueied it Secondly that the Church of Christ succeeding would not admit any other but Bishops to that businesse as not justifiable for the Presbiters I vse his wordes either by reason example or scripture And hauing proued it concerning reason touching example he telleth vs that c C. 3. not one is to be shewed through the whole story Ecclesiastical that any besides a Bishop did it and that if some of the inferiour ranke presumed to doe it his act was reuersed by the Church for vnlawful which he proued by an example As for scripture he auoucheth there is none either of holy men or of the holy Ghost which doth giue such authority to Presbiters for al the fathers saith he with one consent doe contradict it And among others he alleageth S. Ambrose affirming that it is consonant neither with Gods nor mans lawe that any besides a Bishop should doe it Of the scriptures he writeth thus No scripture of the holy Ghost either anagogically by consequent or directly by precept doth justifie it For analogie none but the Apostles did it or might doe it as before you heard not directly for to what Presbiter was the authority committed as a Presbiter c. Thus the Bishop of Rochester plainely contradicteth the other two English Protestant doctors And hence it manifestly appeareth that either the said Bishop erreth in denying this power to Priests or that the said Doctors are false in yeelding it vnto them and consequently it is plaine that some English sectaries fal into error Moreouer seeing that the Bishop conuinceth by such good proofes the truth of his assertion and the said two Doctors confesse some of their Churches to haue no other Pastors but such as were ordered by Priests or Presbiters it is euen as apparant that such their Churches are in very truth no true Church But it is nowe high time that I end my discourse touching this point yea that I conclude this my preface Being therefore the truth of mine accusation that the learned sectaries as Luther Zwinglius Caluin and others haue notoriously and grosly erred is so euidently demonstrated by a fewe instances which I haue related among diuers others which I haue omitted let me nowe demand of my christian reader what reason he hath to ground the euerlasting estate of his soule either vpon the judgment of his learned masters or vpon his owne And first concerning his learned masters he can not deny but they haue al erred in some point or other and doth not an errour in one thing proue a possibilitie of erring in others of like sort But haue his captaines any further vvarrant concerning one article then touching an other They haue not vvithout al doubt Howe doth he then knowe that they haue not erred in al points in which they dissent from the ancient beliefe of al Christians their predecessours He vvil perhaps answere that he knoweth wel they erre not touching this and that although their opinions be neuer so erroneous touching other points Loe nowe he referreth al to his owne judgement I joine therefore here with him and first I aske vvhat more strong vvarrant he hath that he cannot erre then had his learned masters Is he comparable to them either in wit learning piety or dignity of vocation If he be not then he is much more subject to errour then they vvho notwithstanding haue grosly and palpably erred I adde also that he taketh vpon him ouer-much in judging of such high matters and in censuring his learned Doctors when they say true and when they erre Moreouer I thinke there is no man liuing which hath not in some thinges or others altered his judgement and varied from himselfe insomuch as he hath deemed false some thinges vvhich once seemed to him true and judged others true which once he thought false vvhich if it be so vvhat wiseman in matters of so great moment as are his faith and religion vvil trust his owne judgement For vvherefore may not he erre in one point as vvel as in an other Nowe if he doe erre in matters pertaining to faith and religion vvhat wil be come of his soule euerlastingly if he doth not alter his course But howsoeuer it be euery follower of the newe religion for the reasons assigned hath just cause to mistrust the truth of his owne beliefe or vvhich is yet lesse not to be so peremptory and obstinate in his faith that he vvil not vvith indifferency heare or reade any thing that maketh against it which is as much as I nowe craue of my curteous Reader A CATALOGVE OF THE PRINCIPAL COVNCELS WHICH WERE CELEBRATED WITHIN THE FIRST SIX HVNDRED YEARES AFTER THE BIRTH OF OVR LORD as also of the holy Fathers and most famous Ecclesiastical vvriters vvho flourished vvithin the said tearme of yeares gathered out of the workes of Cardinal BARONIVS and other approued Authours A AFricanum Concilium celebrated anno 403. Agathense Concilium celebrated anno 506. Agathias Hystoricus flourished anno 566. Alexander 1. Papa suffered anno 131. Ambrosius Episcopus Mediolan died an 397. Amphylochius Iconij Episcopus flourished an 394. Ancyranum Concilium celebrated an 314. Andegauense Concilium celebrated an 453. Antiochenum Conciliabulum celebrated an 341. Antisidiorense Concilium celebrated an 590. Antonius Abbas died an 358. Aquileiense Concilium celebrated an 381. Arator Subdiaconus flourished an 544. Aransicanum Concilium 1. celebrated an 441. Aransicanum Concilium 2. celebrated an 463. Arelatense Concilium 1. celebrated an 314. Arelatense Concilium 2. celebrated about the yeare 330. Arelatense Concilium 3. celebrated an 453. Arnobius Rhetor flourished an 302. Athanasius Episcopus died an 372. Aruernense Concilium celebrated an 541. Augustinus Episcopus Doctor died an 430. Auitus Viennensis died about the yeare 516. Aurelianense Concilium 1. celebrated an 507. Aurelianense Concilium 2. celebrated an 536. Aurelianense Concilium 3. celebrated an 540. Aurelianense Concilium 4. celebrated about the yeare 545. Aurelianense Concilium 5. celebrated an 552. B BArcionense Concilium celebrated an 599. Basilius Episcopus Doctor died an 378. Benedictus Abbas died an 543. Boaetius Senator died an 526. Bracharense Concilium 1. celebrated an 563. Bracharense Concilium 2. celebrated an 572. Brennacense Concilium celebrated an 583. Bicharensis Abbas flourished an 590. Byacenum Concilium celebrated an 541. C CAbilonense Concilium celebrated an 582. Caesarius Gregorij Frater died about the yeare 368. Caesarius Arelatensis died an 544. Caesar augustanum Concilium 1. celebrated an 381. Caesar augustanum Concilium 2. celebrated an 592. Carpetoradense Concilium celebrated about the yeare 463. Carthaginense Concilium 1. celebrated an 348. Carthaginense Concilium 2. celebrated an 435. Carthaginense Concilium 3. celebrated an 397. Carthaginense Concilium 4. celebrated an 398. Carthaginense Concilium 5. celebrated an 398. Carthaginense Concilium 6. celebrated an 401. Carthaginense Concilium 7. celebrated about the yeare 416 Carthaginense aliud celebrated about the yeare 418. Cassianus Monachus flourished an 433.
most absurd and contrary to the vvordes themselues of holie Scripture For Christ as I haue noted before erected not a Church for the daies of the Apostles only but to continue vntil the end of the vvorld as vvas foretold by the Prophets that men in al ages to come might haue a meane to attaine to saluation vvherefore those thinges vvhich he spoke to his Apostles and Disciples he spoke also to al their successors Ephes 4. vers 11. For as vve are taught by the Apostle he hath giuen some Apostles some Prophets and other some Euangelists and others some Pastors and Doctors vntil the day of judgement In this sense he promised his Apostles as we read in S. Mathewes Gospel that he would be with them al daies euen to the consummation of the world that is to say Math. 28. vers vlt. vvith them and those vvhich should succeede in their place Wherefore Saint Hierome expounding that sentence vseth these vvordes Hier. lib. 4. in Mat. He who promiseth that hee wil bee with his Disciples vntil the consummation of the world both sheweth that they shal alwaies liue and also that he wil neuer depart from the faithful Saint Augustine likevvise affirmeth Aug. in ps 101. cōc 2. that he spoke to the Apostles and signified vs. To the same effect a Cipr. lib. 4. epist Saint Ciprian and b Basi consti monast cap. 23. Saint Basil tel vs that these vvordes of Christ c Luc. 10. vers 16. He that heareth you heareth me vvere spoken not only to the Apostles but also to their successors Finally the vvordes themselues of Christ aboue cited are plaine for howe can the holie Ghost remaine here on earth vvith those Apostles vnto vvhome Christ spake for euer seing that they liued in the vvorld but for a short time Wherefore he remaineth vvith their successors the Bishoppes and Prelates of the Church vvho haue succeeded the first Apostles as children their parents and with these he shal remaine as long as the world shal endure For the confirmation of this truth I adde that this assistance of the holy Ghost in the Church was long since foretold by the Prophet Isaie These wordes he vseth speaking in the person of God of the state of the Church in the lawe of grace Isa 59. My spirit which is in thee and my wordes which I haue put in thy mouth shal not depart from thy mouth and from the mouth of thy seede and of thy seedes seede saith our Lord from hence forward and for euer Hitherto the Prophet Isaie and what could be said more plaine then this Surely the promise is so euident that Caluin him selfe in his Commentarie vpon them graunteth as much as we haue affirmed Thus he discourseth expounding the said wordes He promiseth saith he that the Church shal neuer be depriued of this inestimable good Caluinus in Isai cap. 59. but that it shal alwaies be gouerned by the holy Ghost and supported with heauenly doctrine And soone after The promise is such that the Lord wil so assist the Church and haue such care of her that he wil neuer suffer her to be depriued of true doctrine Thus farre Caluin Finally Beza his Scholler confesseth Beza de haereticis a ciuili Magistratu puniendis pa. 69. Ire li. 1. c. 3. li. 3. c. 4. that the promise of our Sauiour of the assistance of the holy Ghost was not made only to the Apostles but rather to the whole Church Let this therefore be the conclusion of this argument that the Church of Christ is directed by the holy Ghost in matters concerning faith and religion in such sort that she neither hath fallen nor can fal into any errours And this was long since affirmed by S. Ireneus who telleth vs that the Church keepeth with most sincere diligence the Apostles faith that which they preached and moreouer that those Churches in which succession from the Apostles is found conserue and keepe our faith Cipr. epist 55. ad Cor nelium See him likewise epist 69. ad Floreatium The same we are taught by S. Ciprian who auoucheth that the Church alwaies holdeth that which she first knewe SECTION THE FOVRTH The same is proued by other arguments AN other argument prouing the judgement of the Church to be of infallible truth vve may take from the loue and affection vvhich Christ beareth to the said Church For in the Scripture vve find that Christ is the * Cant. 4. Ephes 1. v. 22. c. husband and head of the Church the Church his Spouse and body August in psal 126. For if we beleeue S. Augustine he formed her out of his owne side vpon the Crosse as Eue our first father Adams spouse was made of his ribbe and this long since he promised to doe by the Prophet Osee in these wordes I wil espouse thee vnto mee for euer Osee 2. vers 19. and I wil espouse thee vnto mee in justice and judgement and mercy and miserations He also redeemed purchased and vvashed her vvith his owne most pretious bloud and made her his spiritual body wherefore he is present with her according to his promise al daies Math. 28. vers vlt. euen to the consummation of the world and no man wil denie but he loueth cherisheth and gouerneth her as his Spouse and body Out of which fauours and prerogatiues I may very wel inferre that he being truth it selfe and hating al falshood preserueth her from errour this also being a dowry and priuiledge so necessary to her dignity These considerations moued S. Ciprian to discourse after this sort of this matter Cipr. li. de vnitat Ecclesiae the Spouse of Christ saith he cannot be defiled with adultery she is incorrupt pure and chaste she knoweth one only house she keepeth with a chaste shamefastnesse the sanctity of one chamber Thus S. Ciprian To the same allude these wordes of S. Augustine spoken of the Church This is the true mother Aug. tom 6. conc ad cath c. 22. a mother pious and chaste adorned inwardly with the dignity of her husband not outwardly shamefully and dishonestly painted deceitfully with a deceauing lie The promiseS of Christ vnto his Church of not erring and the prerogatiues which he hath bestowed vpon the same yeeld vs a third argument For listen a litle what a notable and worthy promise he hath made to vs that his Church built vpon S. Peter or as I may say his whole Church vnited to the supreame Vicar and cheefe head of the same vnder himselfe shal not faile or erre These are the wordes which he vttered to the said Apostle Math. 16. vers 18. 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 What could he haue said more for the certainety of the continuance of the Church and for her infallible judgement For is it not
his holy spirit it must needes followe that vvhosoeuer is infected with any one such heresie is void of al spiritual life and in state of damnation and can haue no more life then a mans arme cut off from his body or a bough cut from a tree But of this matter I shal entreate more at large Chap. 1. Sect. 4. in my treatise of the definition and notes of the true Church vvhere I shal proue that the members of Christes Church are lincked together by the profession of the same vvhole summe of Christian doctrine and therefore for this present this shal suffice And lesse I thinke would haue satisfied any reasonable man for seing that there is but one true rule of beleefe Ephes 4. vers 4. and one faith according as vve are taught by the Apostle among Christians and this faith is so necessary to saluation as I haue proued before no wise-man wil prescribe himselfe a rule of faith according to his owne erroneous fancy and neglect the judgement of the Church whome truth it selfe hath warranted that she shal not erre from truth Chapter 7. Of the holy Scripture which is the first particuler ground of faith in the Catholike Church SECTION THE FIRST Howe the Scripture is knowne to be Canonical THE supreame authority and infallible judgement of the Church being thus established and proued it may wel in this place be demanded vvhat particuler groundes decrees or principles the Church doth deliuer vnto vs or we finde in the Church whereupon we may securely build our faith For the resolution of this question I haue affirmed in the title of this Chapter that the first such particuler ground is the holy Scripture And although there be no controuersie betweene vs and our aduersaries concerning the authority of diuers bookes of the said holy Scripture for most of them by vs al are confessed to be Canonical yet much difference there is betweene vs concerning the meanes by vvhich vve knowe the holie Scripture and euery parcel thereof to be the true vvord of God and vvho is to be judge of the true sence of these diuine volumes vvherefore these points are briefly to be handled and discussed Howe then doe vve knowe that the old and newe Testament are Canonical howe can vve certainely assure our selues that the Apostles and Disciples vvrote the newe vvhat proofe likevvise haue vve to perswade vs that no part of the holie Scripture hath beene in times past corrupted or depraued I answere in fewe vvordes that al this is infallibly knowne vnto vs by the authority and judgement of the Catholike Church vvho hath adjudged al such bookes to be Canonical and as Canonical receiued them and deliuered them to her children I denie not but the Scriptures before the definition and censure of the Church vvere true and contained the certaine and sincere vvord of God but this only I say that this truth and authority was first infallibly knowne vnto vs by the Church vvho adjudged and censured them to be as they are and as such commanded al Christians to esteeme and reuerence them Neither is this any waies prejudicial to the dignity and authority of the holie Scripture for this notwithstanding vve confesse that the said Scripture is of farre greater authority then the Church or her definitions be vvhich is manifest because although the holie Ghost assist and direct both the vvriters of holie Scripture and the Church yet certaine it is that hee hath assisted and directed the first after a farre more excellent manner then he doth the second because his assistance and direction in penning those sacred bookes vvas such that euery sentence in them contained is of most certaine verity but his assistance vnto the Church vvhether it be in a general Councel or otherwise in the decrees of the Bishop of Rome maketh only that vvhich the said Councel or Bishop intend to define of such an infallible truth Wherefore then doe vve proue the Scripture to be Canonical by the authority of the Church Surely for no other reason then because the Church is better knowne vnto vs then the Scripture For the Church hath alwaies beene as I vvil proue hereafter most visible and apparant to the vvhole vvorld euery man also before that the newe Testament vvas written before that it vvas generally receiued by the Church might haue knowne the Church for she vvas before any part of it was penned and consequently by her infallible judgement euery one might with farre more ease and certainety haue come to the knowledge of such bookes then by any other meanes or industry Wherefore to conclude although the Church maketh not Scripture yet of her we learne most certainely which is Scripture And this is no more disgrace vnto Scripture then it was vnto Christ that the Apostles gaue testimony of him because they were better knowne then he I adde also that euery one of them who aboue al others reprehend this our assertion taketh vpon himselfe as great authority ouer Scriptures as vve giue to the whole Church See part second chap. 5. Sect. 1. For euery newe sectarie out of his owne fancy judgeth this to be Scripture that to be none c. vvhich must needes be in euery mans judgement farre more absurd This assertion being thus explicated let vs nowe briefly proue the same And first because vve can assigne no other meanes by vvhich vve may say that vve certainely knowe the Scripture to be Canonical but the authority of the Church And as concerning the old Testament although vve graunt that the authority thereof vvas first partly approued by miracles partly by the testimony of Prophets and partly by the authority of the Church in those daies yet howe doe vve nowe infallibly knowe that it vvas so approued and that it is the selfe same nowe that vvas then approued but by the relation tradition and censure of the Church But let vs come to the newe Testament and demand vvho hath receiued it into the Canon of holie Scripture vvhat miracles haue beene vvrought to proue it Canonical who doth assure vs that it vvas penned by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ and that since their daies it hath not beene corrupted Verily the Church only resolueth vs of al these questions and telleth vs vvith assurance of truth that the said newe Testament vvas vvritten by the said sacred authours inspired and directed by the holy Ghost and that euer since their daies it hath beene preserued in her sacred bosome vvithout corruption And no other answere hauing any probability of truth and sufficient to satisfie a reasonable mans vnderstanding can be made This may also be confirmed by the continual practise of the Church For no man can deny but it vvas her doing that the foure Gospels of S. Mathewe Marke Luke and Iohn See part 2 chap. 5. Sect. 2. were receiued and the Gospel called of Nicodemus with others rejected She hath likwise now receiued as Canonical diuers bookes in times past of
1. retract cap. 4. Aug. li. 1. ad Simpli cianū c. 1. The lawe of God being read onlie not vnderstood or not fulfilled doth kil for then it is called the letter by the Apostle S. Hierome likewise approueth the same interpretation and to the same effect in the place aboue cited he hath these vvordes b Hier. in c. 1. ad Galat Epist. ad Nepot in li. 3. Reg. c. 1. Then the Scripture is profitable to the bearers when it is not expounded without Christ that is to say not contrary to the rule of faith deliuered by Christ to his Church when it is not spoken without the Father when he that preacheth doth not insinuate it without the spirit otherwise saith he the deuil which alleageth Scriptures and al Heretikes according to Ezechiel of Scriptures make cushions which they may put vnder the elbow of men of al ages Thus much S. Hierome Finally S. Augustine writeth thus c Aug. epist 222. Loue exceedingly the vnderstanding because the Scriptures themselues except they be rightly vnderstood cannot be profitable vnto thee And the reason of this is that which I haue already touched to wit that a false sense or inrerpretation of the letter of the holy Scriptures which was neuer intended by the holy Ghost but erroneously gathered out of the wordes by a mans priuate discourse or deduction putteth as it were another life or soule vpon the said letter and turneth it cleane another vvay vvherefore so vnderstood it is his vvord that so expoundeth it not the word of God who intended altogether another sense Rai in his conferēce with Har. pag. 68. And hence it is that M. Rainolds a Protestant affirmeth that it is not the shewe but the sense of the wordes of Scripture that must decide controuersies SECTION THE FIFT The true sense of the holy Scriptures is to be learned of the Catholike Church who is the true judge thereof NOVVE seing that the Scripture of it selfe is hard and euerie particuler man may erre in the exposition of it seing also that the false vnderstanding of it is so dangerous and the true sense so soueraigne let vs see whether we can finde out any certaine and infallible guide whose judgement we may follow securely and without al feare of errour in this matter I affirme therefore that like as we receiue the letter of the holy Scripture from the Catholike Church and by her censure infallibly knowe it to be Canonical so likewise we are to receiue the sense and exposition of the said letter from the same our holy mother and receiuing and following the sense by her approued we cannot possibly erre wherefore vpon it we may securely build our faith and saluation This may be inferred out of those thinges which haue beene already proued for if the letter it selfe be not properly Scripture without the true sense which is as it were the life and soule of the said letter and the letter be knowne vnto vs by the declaration of the Church it must needes followe that we ought also to receiue the sense from the same Church But let vs proue it out of the holy Scripture First therefore we gather out of the Apostle that Scripture ought to be interpreted according to the rule of faith generally receiued in the Church his wordes are these Rom. 12. verse 6. Hauing giftes according to the grace of God that is giuen vs different either prophecy according to the rule of faith or ministry or he that teacheth in doctrine c. Out of which vve gather the prophecie according to the rule proportion or analogie of faith is one of the gifts vvhich God bestoweth vpon his Church And what is meant by the word prophecy surely nothing else but the interpretation or exposition of the vvord of God this cannot be denied And it is confessed by our aduersaries themselues who in their English newe Testament printed in the yeare 1592. and 1600. in their note vpon those wordes of the Apostle Followe charitie earnestly pursue spiritual things 1. Corin. 14. ve 1. but rather that you may prophecy tel vs that the word prophecy signifieth the exposition of the word of God to the edification of the Church And although in the said English Bible they wil haue the vvord prophecy in the place cited out of the Epistle to the Romans to signifie preaching and teaching yet because al preaching teaching according to their doctrine ought principally to be out of the word of God it al cōmeth to the sel same sense Hence M. Rainolds in the conference held at Hamptō Court betweene Protestants Puritans Barlow in his relatiō of the said conferēce pag. 78. requested that at certaine times there might be prophecying in rural Deanaries But how shal we vnderstand those words according to the Analogie or rule of faith Truly the meaning of them is already explicated for by them we are taught that the exposition of holie Scriptures ought to be conformable to that rule of faith which was deliuered by Christ to his Church and by the assistance and direction of the holy Ghost hath remained in the same euer since vvithout corruption and shal so remaine vntil the end of the world And al this may be confirmed by that sentence of S. Peter before alleaged 2. Pet. 1. vers 20. No prophecy of Scripture is made by priuate intepretation that is to say no exposition of Scripture ought to be made acording to any mans priuate fancie but according to the doctrine sense of the Church And by this rule as I haue before noted S. Iohn the Apostle and Euangelist 1. Iohn 4. verse 1. Luk. 24. vers 45. biddeth vs try our spirits whether they be of God or no. Moreouer S. Luke the Euāgelist recordeth that our Sauiour opened his Apostles vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures Neither did he only giue them the gift of vnderstanding such diuiue bookes but also deliuered vnto them the true sense and meaning of the same I meane of the old Testament which only before the Ascension of Christ was penned And this gift of vnderstanding the Scriptures was perfected in them on the feast of Pentecost Act. 2. When the holy Ghost taught them all truth which gift also the said holy Ghost imparted and they deliuered to their successors and so by succession and tradition the same remaineth alwaies in the Church Iren. li. 4. cap. 45. Tertul. de praescrip cap. 19. Hence S. Ireneus telleth vs that they conserue our faith and expound the Scripture vnto vs without danger with whome the succession of Bishops which is from the Apostles remaineth Tertullian likewise refusing to argue against Heretikes by only Scripture willeth vs first to search out who haue the true faith it selfe whose the Scriptures are from whom and by whom and when and to whom the discipline by which men are made Christians was deliuered For wheresoeuer saith he it shal appeare that
Diosinius the Patriark of Alexandria men of great estimation in their daies with diuers other Bishops in sundry prouincial Councels decreed the baptisme of Heretiks to be of no force therefore to be reiterated They confirmed this their definition or sentence with many testimonies of holy scripture seeming at the first sight of no smal force and moment for their purpose but al these their decrees were ouerthrowne And how surely by the contrary Tradition of the Church for b see Vinc. Lir. ca. 9. Cipr. ab epist 70. ad 77. Aug de bapt cont Donat. et cōt Cresc Hierō cōtra Lucif S. Steuen Pope of Rome pleading Tradition against them condemned their doctrine as heretical and pronounced this renowmed sentence Let no newe thing be brought into the Church let nothing be done but that which was deliuered vnto vs thinking it altogether vnlawful to transgresse the rule of faith by succession and Tradition receiued from the Apostles This is recorded by diuers authors of great fame and antiquity By Tradition the Pelagian heresie vvas confuted as is affirmed by S. c Caelesti epist 8. Caelestinus Pope and S. Augustine By Tradition only the same d Aug. de bapt li. 2. cap 7. S. Augustine and others condemned Heluidius the heretike for denying the perpetual virginity of our blessed Ladie Yea e Basil de spir sācto ca. 27. See Aug. epist 118. ad Iā Leo ser 2. de jeiunio S. Basil telleth vs that if we reject Tradition we shal endomage the whole principal parts of our faith and without it bring the preaching of the Gospel to a naked name I could bring forth diuers other such like examples and testimonies were it not that I should be ouer long But how shal we come to the knowledge of these Traditions S. Augustine giueth vs this most certaine rule f Aug. to 7. de bapt cōt Dona. l. 4. c. 24. see ibi c. 6 That saith he which the whole Church holdeth and hath not beene instituted by any Councel but alwaies hath beene obserued is most truly beleeued to haue beene deliuered by no other but Apostolike authority Such a Tradition saith the same g Aug de Genes ad lit c. 23. et con Dona. l. 4. c. 24. Orig. in c. 6. ad Rom. S. Augustine and Origenes is the baptisme of infants Such Traditions according to h Ba. de spi sāct c. 27. S. Basil are the signe of the Crosse praying towards the East the words spoken at the eleuation of the Eucharist with diuers ceremonies vsed before and after consecration the hallowing of the font before baptisme the blessing of the oile or chrisme the annointing of the baptized with the said oile the three immersions into the font the words of abrenuntiation and exorcismes of the partie which is to be baptized c. What scripture saith he taught these and such like thinges none truly al comming of secrete and hidden Tradition wherewith our fore-fathers thought it meete to couer such misteries Hitherto S. Basil It is an Apostolical Tradition as we are taught by a Dionis de Eccles hierarc cap. 7. S. Dionisius of Areopagus b Tertul. in exhort ad castita tem c. 11. et de corona militis cap. 3. Tertullian c Chrisos homi 69. ad populum S. Iohn Chrisostome and S. Augustine to pray and make a memory of the soules departed in the Masse It is an Apostolical Tradition saith d Hieron epist 54. ad Marc. S. Hierome and e Epiphā haeres 75. Aerij S. Epiphanius to keepe certaine appointed fasting-daies especially the Lent the same is affirmed by f Aug. epi. 118. ad Ia nu cap. 1. S. Augustine concerning the obseruation of certaine holy-daies and by g Damas li. 4. de ortho fide c. 17. et l. de Imagini See Ter. de coron mil. S. Iohn Damascene concerning the adoration of Images These and diuers other such like Apostolike Traditions are sette downe by the auncient Fathers and are to be found in the Church of Christ And vpon these if they bee of matters of faith seeing that they haue diuine authority both from Christ and the Apostles vvho deliuered them to the Church and from the Church it selfe which being the piller of truth hath accepted and approued them euerie Christian may securelie build his faith and beliefe If they be concerning preceptes of moral actions vve are bound to obey them and may doe it with like security wherefore h Origen tract 29. in Math. Origen giueth vs this learned counsaile As often saith he as Heretiks alleage Canonical scriptures in which al Christians consent and beleeue they seeme to say * Mat 24. verse 26. Behold in houses is the word of truth but we ought not to beleeue them nor to goe forth from the first Ecclesiastical Tradition nor beleeue otherwise but as the Church of God by succession hath deliuered vnto vs. Thus farre Origen wishing euery one in the interpretation and sense of holy scripture to follow the Tradition of the Church as also in the beliefe of al such matters as are called in question by Heretikes Vnto these proofes I adde that i Barlow B. of Rochester in his sermon preached at Hampton Court Sept. 21. 1606. Barlowe and Field two famous English Protestants admit of certaine Apostolike Traditions k Field booke 4. cap. 20. § Much contention Field telleth vs that they reject not al vnwritten Traditions yea he alloweth of the rule of * Chap. 21. S. Augustine before mentioned for decerning Apostolical Traditions from others as also doth l Whitgift in his defence pag. 351. 352. Whitgift But Field addeth moreouer this other that whatsoeuer al or the most famous and renowmed in al ages or at the least in diuers ages haue constantly deliuered as receiued from them that went before them no man contradicting or doubting of it may be thought to be an Apostolical Tradition thus Field I confesse that this notwithstanding he affirmeth Ibid. cap. 20. § Out of this No matter of faith to be deliuered by bare and onlie Tradition But why not such as wel as those which concerne the manners conuersation of men and are by him allowed as for example Why may we not as assuredly receiue by Tradition our beliefe concerning some article of faith as to vse his owne words concerning the obseruation of the Lordes day Ibid. That the Apostles Field book 4. ca. 20. § Much confession Ibidem § The secōd kinde Doth not the allowance of these also according to their common doctrine prejudice the sufficiencie of holy scripture But he graunteth further that They receiue the number names of the Authours and integrity of the parts of bookes diuine and Canonical as deliuered by Tradition He admitteth as a second Tradition That summary comprehension of the chiefe heads of Christian doctrine contained in the Creed of the Apostles which was deliuered to the Church
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
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
vpon this ground in the next chapter Chap. 2. he entereth into a railing and scoffing discourse against the Pope But in verie deed I cannot doe otherwise then meruaile that a man of his place and learning doth not blush to committe such a notorious vntruth to the print and view of the world For not to speake of the falshood of the first part of his assertion because it is in some sort impertinent that which he saith of the Councel of Chalcedon is most vntrue repugnant to al antiquity and not only contrarie to al proceedinges and the historie of the said Councel but also to the wordes of the Canon by him alleaged For in it is decreed onlie that the cittie of new Rome or Constantinople shal haue majestie like as old Rome in Ecclesiastical affaires et secundam post illam existere that is shal be the second or next after it and enjoy certaine priuiledges for the ordination of some Metrapolitans these are the contents of the Canon And what more touching this matter did the Bishops assembled in that Councel in their Sinodical epistle desire S. Leo the great then bishoppe of Rome to confirme then this Concilium Chalcedō sessio 12. alias actione 16. An. Christi 451. Concilium Nice sessio vltim Cōci Chal. actione 1. Actione 3. We haue confirmed say they the rule of the seauenscore and ten holy Fathers which were gathered together at Constantinople vnder Theodosius of happie memorie which commanded that the See of Constantinople which is ordained the second haue second honour after your most holie and Apostolike See trusting that the Apostolical sunne-beame shining with you c. But how can it be the second and next after and also the equal with it as Field affirmeth Besides this in the Councel it selfe those words of the Canon of the Councel of Nice that the Church of Rome euer had the primacie were allowed and the Legates of Pope Leo vvithout reprehension or exception taken said We haue here at hand the commandements of the most blessed and Apostolike man the Pope of the cittie of Rome which is head of al Churches by which his Apostleship hath vouchsafed to commaund c. Againe one of them first subscribed as he said in the place of the most blessed and Apostolike vniuersal Pope of the citty of Rome c. And in the epistle al the Fathers write vnto him thus We craue therefore that you wil honour our decrees with your judgement and like as we desirous haue consented in those things which are good sic et summitas tua so thy chiefedome or preheminence aboue al wil as it is meete accomplish them to his children hitherto are their wordes And vvhat could be said more apparant for the Popes supreamacie Doe not they acknowledge him to be their chiefe and themselues his sonnes and children Gregor li 4. epi. 32. 36. 38. li. 7. epi. 30. See before in the first section of this chapter I could adde to this the authoritie of S. Gregorie the great who liued not long after this Councel who against the ambition of Iohn bishoppe of Constantinople in diuers letters confidentlie affirmeth that the title of vniuersal Bishop by this Councel was offered to Pope Leo. But Field wil vrge that it is gathered out of some Greeke copies of this Councel that by this Canon the Bishop of Constantinople was so made second after the Bishoppe of Rome that equal priuiledges were giuen him I answere that these priuiledges vvere only concerning jurisdiction to order certaine Metrapolitans of the east Church as the Bishoppe of Rome had the like in the west But now suppose I should graunt M. Field that in this Canon the Bishop of Constantinople vvas made in euerie respect equal to the Pope what would he get by this In truth nothing For of what authority is this Canon Surely of none for it vvas cunninglie made by the Grecian bishops after the Councel was risen and the Legates of Pope Leo departed vvho also when it came to their knowledge the next day resisted them in the next Session yea this was neuer confirmed by the Pope without whose confirmation the decrees of general Councels haue neuer had force but vvas by Pope Leo forthwith ouerthrowne and annulled Leo epist 55. 53. 54. 61. We cancel or make voide saith he speaking of that Canon and others then enacted the consent of Bishops repugnant to the Nicene Canons and by the authority of blessed S. Peter the Apostle by a general definition we make them altogether of no force And this his decree was so highly esteemed in the East it selfe Marcian l. 12. c. de sacrosācta Ecclesia that it was confirmed presentlie by an Imperial constitution euen by the Emperour of Constantinople and Anatolius the Patriarcke through vvhose ambition and instigation the said Canon vvas made was constrained to ceasse from such proceedinges to relinquish that dignity vvhich ambitioussie he couered and to take place euen after the other Patriarkes for neither was the constitution of the Councel of Constantinople which preferred him before those of Alexandria and Antioch authentical Iustin nouel 131. cap. 2. Field book 3. cap. 1. Yea Iustinian the Emperor after this euen when Rome vvas most in disgrace and Constantinople flourished long before the daies of Phocas from whome Field would deriue the beginning of the Popes superiority confirmed the primacy to the Bishop of Rome and thus we may see vpon how vveake grounds Field doth venture to passe the bounds of modesty Concerning the point it selfe of the Popes infallible judgment he accuseth vs of contrary doctrine to wit that we al hold at this day Field book 3. cap. 45. the infallibility of the Popes judgment to be the rock on which the Church is builded and therefore build our faith vpon the same whereas the same men sath he that hold this say also it is no matter of faith to acknowledge or not acknowledge the infallibity of the Popes judgment I answere that the infallibility of the Popes judgment without the assent of a general Councel is not the most sure receiued rock on which the Church was built for this is the Popes judgment confirming the decrees of a general Councel or as I may say the definition of a general Councel in which the head confirmeth the verdict of the body and both together infallibly define a truth And in this sense no Catholike nowe affirmeth that it is no matter of faith to acknowledge or not acknowledge the infallibility of the Popes judgment for it is held absolutely to be a matter of faith and consequently our doctrine touching these points is not contrary True it is Bell. li. 4. de Roman pontif ca. 2. in fine Stapleton in Relect. scholast princi controuers 3 quest 4. that some Catholike doctors as Bellarmine and Stapleton thinke not that opinion properly heretical which holdeth that the Pope as Pope may be an Heretike and teach heresie if he
Doctors who planted ruled and instructed the Church presently after Christs Ascention are to beleeued and obeied but also that the like credit is to be giuen to their successors who in al ages following haue supplied and shal euer vntil the day of judgment supply their places and consequently that they also haue beene and are directed in al truth otherwise they might haue wauered and erred themselues and so haue drawne the vvhole Church to such inconueniences Seing therefore that the fathers of the Church in their ages haue supplied such places it must needs followe that they haue enjoyed the like priuiledges and prerogatiues Moreouer the Iewes were bound to heare and obey the Scribes Pharisees of the old law as we are taught by these wordes of Christ Math. 23. v. 2. 3. Vpon the chaire of Moises haue sitten the Scribes and Pharisees al things therefore whatsoeuer they shal say to you obserue ye and doe ye Who then wil be so impudent as to say that Christians are not bound to heare and obey the prelates of the Church Luke 10. see also Math. 10. Ioh. 13. Iren. li. 4. cap. 4. especially seing that of them Christ hath said He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me which wordes argue as great truth in their doctrine as there is in the doctrine of Christ who is truth it selfe Hence S. Irenaeus telleth vs that we ought to obey those who haue succession from the Apostles who together with the succession of their Bishopriks haue receiued the gifts or priuiledges of truth And although these sentences are principallie verified in the prelates of the Church assembled in a general Councel yet they must needs also be confessed true in the whole body of them in al ages dispersed through the vvhole world and in euerie one of them vvhen he teacheth and deliuereth vs the doctrine of the vniuersal Church Finally the ancient Fathers are most pregnant and faithful witnesses of that Depositum or summe of Chistian doctrine which they receiued from their predecessors and deliuered to their successours They are also most indifferent judges of al controuersies after their daies arising in the Church because they liued before euer any such controuersie was moued and therefore are partial of no side Aug. cont Iulianuni li. 2. c. 10. Hence are these vvords of S. Augustine to the Pelagians concerning this matter They he speaketh of the Fathers that liued before him were angry neither with you nor with vs they fauoured neither you nor vs That which they found in the Church they held fast that which they learned they taught that which they receiued of their Fathers they deliuered to their children Hitherto S. Augustine This moued the same holie Father and diuers others to appeale so often to the judgment of their predecessours and to cite their testimonies And these arguments in like manner proue that the truth of faith and religion alwaies and in al ages remaineth among the true Bishops and Pastors of the Church and consequentlie that at al times euen at this present a man may securelie followe their beliefe and doctrine This I say the authorities alleaged testifie for the Church must neuer erre her prelates are alwaies to stay vs from wauering in faith c. 1. Cor. 11. verse 16. August epist 118. cap. 5. Idē epist 86. ad Casulā And it is moreouer insinuated vnto vs by the Apostle in these words But if a man seeme contentious we haue no such custome nor the Church of God for as we see in them he pleadeth the custome of the Church against the contentious And this moued S. Augustine to tearme it most insolent madnes to dispute against that which the whole church holdeth he telleth vs also that the custom of the people of God or the ordināces of our ancestors are to be held as a law in those things in which the diuine scripture prescribeth nothing certaine S. Hierome is of the same opinion for in his dialogue against the Luciferians he bringeth in the Heretike affirming that the consent of the whole world hath the force of a lawe although it be in a matter not to be proued by scripture Epiphani haeres 75. and maketh the Catholike assent to his assertion The like hath S. Epiphanius who disputing against Aerius in defence of certaine fasting-daies obserued in the Church vseth this argument The Church receiued them and the whole world in it consented before Aerius was and they which of him are called Aerians the same is affirmed by the rest of the Fathers In the last place for a ground of our faith I must adde such propositions as are deduced out of these most certaine grounds by an euident and infallible argument For although it is commonly held that in a sillogisme of one proposition of faith and another knowne onlie by the light of natural reason the conclusion is not properly of faith but Theological that is a conclusion in diuinity held most true yet certaine it is See Greg. de Valētia in secūda secūdae disput 1. qu. 1. pūcto 2. that a conclusion following in a silogisme of two propositions of faith is indirectly and as the diuines say immediatelie de fide or of faith as also that proposition is which is inferred by good and euident consequence of a proposition of faith because whosoeuer denieth the proposition inferred wil be constrained to deny the proposition or propositions of which it is inferred But concerning such propositions the vnlearned if occasion be offered must craue instructions of the learned Chapter 12. Containing the conclusion of the first part THESE be the immoueable and most firme grounds which we finde in the Church of Christ whereon vve build our faith and religion Vpon these sure foundations as vpon a firme rock euery Catholike buildeth his beliefe and saluation And although the articles deliuered vnto vs by the Church be not apparant to our senses nor for the most part comprehensible by reason yet in al such matters according to the saying of the Apostle We make our reason and vnderstanding captiue vnto the obedience of Christ 2. Corint 10. vers 5. 1. Corint 2. vers 5. and acknowledge with the same Apostle that our faith is not in the wisedome of men but in the power of God And therefore that in such misteries aboue reason we cannot shew our selues more reasonable then to leaue off reasoning Genes 18. vers 14. Luk. 1 37. Math. 19 26. Mat. 16 17. Verily we are taught by the scripture that nothing is hard much lesse impossible vnto God yea that al things are possible with him although with men impossible And if scripture had not taught vs this reason it selfe would easily perswade vs to assent vnto it because by nature he is omnipotent We know also that it is not flesh and bloud that hath reuealed such things vnto vs but God himselfe who being eternal wisdome truth can
by the Diuines of al ages why Christ permitted himself to dread so much the corporal death vvhich he was to suffer yet Caluin auoucheth that he was a very dastard and a coward if he feared not eternal damnation Let this then be the first proposition made of Caluins vvordes If Christ feared not the curse and wrath of God he was more tender and more feareful then the most part of the rascal sort of men for theeues and other euil doers doe obstinately hast to death many doe with haughty courage despise it some other doe mildly suffer it whereas Christ was astonished and in manner stroken dead with feare of it Howe shameful a tendernesse should this haue beene saith Caluin to be so farre tormented for feare of a common death as to melt in bloudie sweate and not to be able to be comforted but by sight of Angels Thus Caluin The second proposition taken from the English Protestants is as followeth But Christ feared not the curse and wrath of God he neuer dreaded eternal damnation nor suffered the paines of hel Nowe the conclusion followeth Therefore Christ was more feareful then the most part of the rascal sort of men then theeues and other euil doers his tendernesse was shameful c. The first proposition as I haue said is almost vvholy made of Caluins owne vvordes that the second is held true by the greater part of English Protestants Sutcliffe in his answer to Kellison ch 5. pag. 56. See Parkes also in the preface to his rejoineder to Lymbomastix I proue by the testimony of M. Sutcliffe vvho telleth vs that they mislike Caluins particular opinion cōcerning Christs suffering the paines of hel So that the conclusion if both Caluin and the English Protestants say true cannot be auoided And thus I thinke it nowe sufficiently proued that Luther Zwinglius and Caluin haue fallen into some grosse and notorious errours which they haue mainetained as true and holy doctrine I could if it were needful and conuenient in this place shewe the like concerning al their disciples I meane that they grosly haue erred and erre in some one point or other concerning faith religion but first the followers of euery sect wil doe grant this concerning al others but those of their owne beliefe For this the Lutherans confesse true of al the Sacramentaries the Sacramentaries of al the Lutherans the English Protestants of the Puritans and the Puritans of the English Protestants c. vvhich is the cause and fountaine of their bitter inuectiues and bookes vvritten one against the other so that as I say if a man wil beleeue them al they al hold some one or more absurde and erroneous opinions Secondly it is vvel knowne to any one although but meanely read in matters of controuersie and I haue partly declared already before that most sects doe as yet followe the false doctrine of their Sect-master as the Lutherans of Luther the Zwinglians of Zwinglius the Caluinists of Caluin Wherefore seing that I must also be mindful that I write a Preface and not a volume letting others passe I vvil only say a vvord or two in particular touching the English Sectaries vvho among al other members of the newe religion are only like to come to the sight and reading of this my Preface And is it not easily proued that the principal writers and vpholders of the English Church haue notoriously fallen into error who of this company whiles they liued were comparable to Iewel Fulke and Whitakers And doe not al these * Iewel agaīst Harding art 17. diuisiō 14 Fulke against Martin p. 64 65. in fine Whitakers in his answer to Duraeus pag. 559. added by Stocke to his answer of Campians 8. reason p. 211. hold that Christ was a Priest and offered sacrifice according to his diuinity and God-head But vvhat followeth of this but that as Arius affirmed according to his God-head he is inferiour to his Father for no one offereth sacrifice to his equal Vnto this I adde that a Fulke vpon the Rhemes testam Math 27. v. 3. Act. 3 vers 11. Fulke and b Whitakers in his answer to Cāpians 8. reason pag. 211. 210. Whitakers openly and stoutly maintaine Caluins doctrine concerning Christes dreading euerlasting damnation yea although they goe not so far as Caluin in making him if this was not so more feareful then the most part of the rascal sort of men yet the first of them auouceth that if the feare of bodily paine and death only had caused that agony in the garden he had beene of greater infirmity then many of his seruants the other hath almost the like sentence But aboue al others c Willet in his Synopsis printed an 1600. cōtrouers 20. Willet passeth in defending Caluins blaspheamies in so much as a man may vvel maruaile that his booke is suffered to be read among Christians But what shal we say of the English Sectaries in general wil any man endeauour to free them from al errour Verily if none of them haue fallen into errour it followeth first that our Church is the true Church of Christ and theirs a Schismatical Synagogue This I proue after this sort The Puritans in their Christian and modest offer so they tearme it of a most indifferent conference tendered not long since to the Protestant Arch-bishops Bishops and al their adherents plainely affirme that if their Puritan propositions be denied and the Protestants haue the truth on their side the Roman Church is the true Church of Christ For hauing set downe such propositions as they offer to mainetaine against the Protestants among other just considerations as they pretend mouing them to make this offer in the sixt place they assigne this for one A Christian and modest of fer c. pag. 11. published anno 1606. Diuers of the aforesaid propositions are such say they that if the Ministers should not constantly hold and mainetaine the same against al men they cannot see howe possibly by the rules of diuinity the seperation of our Churches from the Church of Rome and from the Pope the supreame head thereof can be justified And againe in the eight consideration hauing yeelded an other reason wherefore they cannot but make opposition to the Prelates in approuing the propositions aboue specified Ibid. pag. 16. they adde wherein if they the Puritan Ministers who make this offer be in errour and the Prelates on the contrary haue the truth they protest to al the world that the Pope and the Church of Rome and in them God and Christ IESVS himselfe haue great wrong and indignity offered vnto them in that they are rejected and that al the Protestant Churches are Schismatical in forsaking vnity and communion with them Hitherto are the Puritans vvordes Hence vvhich is a point vvorthy to be noted they promise their reconciliation vnto vs if we can proue the falshood of their assertions which promise they make not to the English Protestants For thus they
things which were determined out of the scriptures in the Councel at Nice at Ephesus Constantinople Chalcedon adde also the fift and sixt by the godlie Fathers against Arius Samosatenus Apollinaris Nestorius Eutiches the Monotholites Whosoeuer therefore teacheth concerning Christs person against the determinations of those Councels certainelie they doe not rightly hold this principal foundation of Christian religion These are the discourses of Zauchius The like he hath in another place Zauchius in his obseruations vpon his confession vpon the 25. chap. pag. 330 where he expresly saith that The decrees of such Councels come from the holy Ghost and that he cannot disproue them with a good conscience Further if we weaken the authority of such Councels we must needs also make weake the authority of some books of holy scripture as of the a See part 1. chap. 7. sect 1. part 2. chap. 5. sect 2. epistle to the Hebrewes the Apocalipse and other such parcels of the written word of God of which there was some doubt in the Church whether they were Canonical or no vntil the matter was defined by general Councel Finally let vs confirme al that I haue here said by the testimony of b Hooker in the preface to his book of ecclesiastical policy pa. 24. 25. 26. 27. Hooker whom our English sectaries commonly esteeme as highly as any other He then first telleth vs that there are but two certaine waies of peaceable conclusion the one a sentence of judicial decision giuen among our selues the other the like kinde of sentence giuen by a more vniuersal authority and he meaneth by Councels The former of which two waies saith he God in the law prescribeth and his spirit it was which directed the very first Christian Churches to vse the second This he proueth by the proceedings of the Church touching the controuersie about the necessity of circumcision mentioned in the c Act. 15. Acts of the Apostles vvhich after great contention vvas ended by a Councel and he demaundeth of the Puritans whether they are able to alleage any just cause wherefore they should not condescend absolutely in the matter controuersed to haue their judgements ouer-ruled by some such definitiue sentence whether it fal out with them or against them that so saith he these tedious contentions may cease He addeth that without some definitiue sentence it is almost impossible that either confusion should be avoided or hope be had to attaine to peace Againe To smal purpose had the Councel of Hierusalem beene assembled if once their determination being set downe men might afterwards haue defended their former opinions when therefore they had giuen their definitiue sentence al controuersies was at end thinges were disputed before they came to be determined men afterwards were not to dispute any longer but to obey the sentence of judgement finished their strife which their disputers before judgement could not doe This was ground sufficiēt for any reasonable mans conscience to build the duty of obedience vpon whatsoeuer his owne opinion were as touching the matter before in question So ful of wilfulnes selfe-liking is our nature that without some defititiue sentence which being giuen may stand and a necessity of silence on both sides afterwards imposed smal hope there is that strifes thus farre prosecuted wil in short time quietly end thus he And to make this his discourse the stronger he likewise alleageth the authority of Beza Beza praefat tract de excom et presbit who saith he in his last booke saue one written about these matters professeth himselfe to be nowe weary of such combats and encounters whether by word or writing in asmuch as he findeth that controuersies thereby are made brawles and therefore he wisheth that in some common lawful assembly of Churches al these strifes may at once be decided Hitherto Hooker To the same effect he might also Luther li. cōt Zuīg et Oecolā haue alleaged the testimonie of Luther vvho considering the wonderful multitude of dissentions about religion among his sectaries themselues auouched that for the ending of them if the world long indure he saw no other meanes but that they should be forced to haue recourse to general Councels I could alleage the like sentences out of Couel Couel in his defēce of Hooker See before chap. 6. section 4. 50. 51. who wisheth that some general Councel might be assembled for the final end of al controuersies And hither also tend the discourses of those Protestants who as I haue aboue related make the constitutions of the Church diuine But it may perhaps be answered by some man to these testimonies of our aduersaries that notwithstanding al these their assertions they make general Councels absolutely subject to errour I answere and confesse that in very deede they doe so yet I affirme that any wise and discreete man may wel gather out of their sayinges alleaged not only that general Councels are needful in the Church and that al their deuision and dissention proceedeth of their denial of the authority of such Councels But also that it was requisite and necessary that Christ who is neuer wanting to his Church in thinges needful should make the authority of general Councels concerning matters of faith infallible For otherwise if they were subject to errour what reason hath man to obey them in matters of such consequence especially considering that diuers such assemblies vnlaweful consisting of a greater multitude of Bishoppes then some lawful general Councels haue erred and straied from the truth Finally they confesse that the first such Councels assembled in the first ages of Christianity erred not And thus much for the proofe of this matter It may perhaps be here further demaunded what conditions we require to a lawful and authentical general Councel I answere briefly first that such a Councel must either be called expresly by the ministerial head of the Church or at the least with his assent Secōdly the summon must be general of al Bishops throughout the world Thirdly although it be not needeful that al be personallie and reallie present yet a competent number must appeare that is to say some at the least out of the greater part of Christian Catholike prouinces yet if it be assembled in the East a smal number of the West sent to supply the place of al the rest are judged to suffice Contrariwise if in the West a smal number in such sort is sufficient out of the East Fourthly the ministerial head or vicegerent of Christ must either be present in person or by his Legates And finally the decrees of the said Councel must be by him confirmed and this both because the head is chiefe ruler of the body and consequently the body is to doe nothing without the assent of the head and also because he hath singuler priuileges granted him by Christ of not erring as shal be declared in the next chapter Hence it proceedeth that no general Councel hath euer in the Church beene held
10. pag. 570. Andraeas Fricius a learned Protestant of Polonia And that he held himselfe to be supreame Pastour of the Church al his b See l. 12. epi. 32. de priuiligio cōcessomo nasterio S. Medardi In psal 5. epist 38. indict 13. bookes and actions aboundantly testifie and of the Church of Constantinople in particuler thus he vvriteth c Lib. 7. epist 63. ad Ioan. Sira cusanum Of the seat of Constantinople who can doubt but it is subject to the Apostolike See which both my Lord the most holy Emperour and my brother Eusebius Bishop of the same citty of Constantinople professe And this is the common Catholike doctrine touching the supreamacie of S. Peter and the Bishop of Rome SECTION THE SECOND The aforesaid doctrine is proued IF I should endeauour to bring forth al the arguments which occurre and are commonly vsed by Catholike authors conuincing the truth of that which hath beene here said this treatise would rise to a great volume vvhich is contrarie to mine intent wherefore I wil only touch the principal and those very briefly In the holy scripture we first find that our Sauiour at the first sight of S. Peter chaunged his name from Simon to Cephas or Peter For this holy Apostle being brought by S. Andrew his brother vnto Christ He looking vpon him saith S. Iohn the Euangelist said Ioh. 1 42. Hier. in c. 2. epist ad Galatas thou art Simon the sonne of Iona thou shalt be called Cephas which word in the Siriack tongue as we are taught by S. Hierom as also Peter in the Greek signifieth a rocke wherefore then did Christ change this Apostles name more then the names of al the rest for although he called S. Iames and S. Iohn Boanerges Mark 3. yet he altered not their former names but gaue them a kind of sir-name and therefore by the holie Euangelists the whole Church they are alwaies called by their first names Iames Iohn But S. Peter is commonly called both by the Euangelists S. Paul Galat. 2. Chrisost in 1. cap. Ioan. and the whole Church Peter Cephas or a rock which as S. Iohn Chrisostome very wel noteth argueth that some great priuiledge was graunted to S. Peter aboue others for so God for some extraordinarie and great cause changed the name of Abram into Abraham and of Iacob into Israel But what was this priuiledge Verily the name it selfe imposed vpon S. Peter giueth vs notice what it was for seing that Christ communicated vnto him one of his owne names to wit the name of a rock or stone which is often times attributed vnto himselfe in holie write Isa 8. et 28. Daniel 2. psal 117. Mat. 21. Rom. 9. 1. Cor. 10. Ephe. 2.1 Peter 2. c. he also gaue vs to vnderstand that he was to communicate vnto him the highest office vnder himselfe and that like as he himselfe was the principal rock and foundation of the Church so this holy Apostle was to be by participation a secondarie stone placed next vnto himselfe in the building of the same and through his praier and warrant to be made a piller of truth not to be shaken with anie falshood nor ouerthrowne by al the powers of hel This is the doctrine of S. Basil and S. Leo as we haue seene aboue But that the force of this place of scripture against the newe sectaries may the better be perceiued let vs joine another vnto it more strongelie confirming the same truth and plainely opening the sense of the former For after that this blessed Apostle had confessed our Sauiour to be Christ the sonne of the liuing God our Redeemer replying vnto him Mat. 16. v. 18.19 vsed these wordes And I say to thee that thou art Peter or a rocke and vpon this rocke wil I build my Church and the gates of hel shal not preuaile against it And I wil giue to thee the keies of the kingedome of heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind vpon earth it shal be also bound in the heauens and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose in the earth it shal be loosed also in the heauens Loe a plaine promise made vnto S. Peter both that on him the Church should be built and consequently that he should be made the principal foundation of the same next vnto Christ and also that as the vicar of Christ and chiefe pastour of his flocke he should receiue the keies of the kingdome of heauen And hence proceed those vvordes of S. Hierome concerning the first prerogatiue Hieron lib. 1. contra Pelag. Cipriā epistol ad Quirinū Peter was the prince of the Apostles vpon whome the Church of our Lord was strongly and firmely founded which is neither shaken by the furie of any flood nor by any tempest Saint Ciprian that holy Martir more auncient then Saint Hierome telleth vs that our Lord did choose Peter the chiefest and vpon him built his Church Which words of his are alleadged and approued by Saint Augustine in his second booke de Baptismo cap. 1. To these I adde S. Basil and S. Epiphanius of vvhome the first auoucheth a Basil li. 2. in Eunom et homilia 19. quae est vlti de poenitentia that Saint Peter for the excellencie of his faith receiued vpon him the edifice of the Church vvherefore in another place he calleth him the rocke and foundation of the Church The other vvriteth b Epiphā in Ancor that our Lord appointed Peter the first or chiefe of his Apostles a firme rocke on which the Church was built The like sentences are found in c Leo ser 2. in Aniuers assūptio suae S. Leo d Naziā◠de moder seruād in disputat S. Gregory Nazianzene e Chrisost homil 55. in Math. S. Chrisostome f Ambros serm 47. S. Ambrose and others yea that the Fathers gathered this out of the said words of our Lord it is granted by g Calu. li. 4. instit ca. 6. § 6. Caluin and h Dan. in respōs ad Bellar. disput part 1. p. 277. Danaeus That he also had a second prerogatiue promised him in the same wordes of receiuing the keies of the kingdome of heauen as ministerial head of the Church aboue the rest of the Apostles who receiued them with a certaine kind of subjection to Peter the Fathers in like sort euen as confidently testifie And first this is affirmed by S. Ciprian in these words i Ciprian epist 73. To Peter first of al vpon whom our Sauiour built his Church and from whom he instituted and shewed the beginning of vnity did he giue this power that that should be loosed in the heauens which he had loosed on earth k Hill in Math. 16. S. Hillarie in like sort crieth out O blessed porter of heauen vnto whose wil and arbitriment the keies of the eternal entry are deliuered Lastly l Chrisostome homil 55. in Mathaeum S. Iohn Chrisostome and m Gregor
to the greater part that it must be obeied heresies and false doctrine might be established in a Councel without any meanes left vs to knowe when it doth erre and when it defineth a truth to which I likewise adde that it may fal out that both parts be equal And lastlie that we haue no warrant in holie scripture that the one part shal haue infallible directions by Gods spirit more then the other And seing that we haue the most manifest authority of the said scripture warranting vs that the successuor of S. Peter cannot erre neither reason nor scripture wil suffer vs to denie him this prerogatiue But like as I haue declared before the truth of the first part of this reason by the doctrine examples of forraine sectaries so I think it not amis in this place to shew the truth of the last by the positions and proceedinges of some neerer home There came to my handes of late a litle pamphlet bearing this title A Christian and modest offer of a most indifferent conference or disputation about the many and principal controuersies betwixt the Prelates Printed an 1660. and the late silenced and depriued ministers in England tendred by some of the said ministers to the Archbishoppes and Bishoppes and al their adherents At the end of this pamphlet among other objections which these Puritan ministers as making against this conference endeauour to solue this is one That they the said Puritans when they haue beene heard to oppose and answere what they can page 40. name no judge and wil not stand to any mans definitiue sentence but wil continue obstinate stil Vnto vvhich objection they plainly answere that they doe not think it lawful in any matter of religion to setle their consciences vpon the definitiue sentence of any person absolutely yea say they If both sides rest vnsatisfied page 41. and continue perswaded stil that the truth is on their side it were impious for either side in such a case to commit the absolute determination therof vnto the wil and pleasure of any man or men whatsoeuer They adde that it were vnjust for either side to require judges either incompetent or not indifferent And their reason is because as the prelates except they would wilfully betray their owne cause might justly refuse such to be judges as haue in any degree inclined more to the ministers then to them so may the ministers in like manner as justly refuse to stand to the judgement and determination of such as incline more to the Prelates then to them thus they How then wil they haue controuersies ended Surely they tel vs p. 40. 41. that in desiring as they doe before that the whole carriage of this intended conference may be published they make al the world to be judges therof that it should content any Christianly affected man that the ministers are content to offer their defence of these pointes to the view of al to scanne and to weigh them and so farre forth to judge thereof as if their reasons doe not satisfie them to giue them leaue to cendemne them of errour which wil be say they a judgment heauy enough to them if notwithstanding they shal stil persist in their former opinions pa. 41. 42. and that it is needles to name judges because his Majestie the ciuil Majestrates vnder him and the high court of Parliament though the ministers should appeale from them would in this case judge them and their cause whose judgment if it goe against the ministers and it appeare to be righteous the more they shal neglect the same and refuse to submit themselues vnto it the more grosse and refractarie they shal shew themselues to be c. This is the substance of their answere to the aforesaid objection And vvhat prudent man reading these thinges wil not first judge that this course is no sufficient meane to decide matters in question then that one supreame judge whose sentence is of infallible truth is necessary for the final ending of such contentions Who wil not likewise inferre that Christ who is not wanting to his Church in thinges necessarie hath ordained some such supreame judge And like as the Puritanes proceed after this sort so might either side of the Bishops if it should happen they should be diuided among them selues touching any point of religion But although these thinges be so yet we hold not the Bishop of Rome can rashly define what he please for he is bound to proceed maturely and to vse such inquisition arguments aduise of learned men and other meanes as are necessary for the finding out of the truth of the matter which he is to define Neither can he institute any sacrament or make any new article of faith vnknowne altogither to the Apostles or not deliuered by them to the Church as I haue said before of a general Councel Chap. 9. Only touching these points he hath power more plainly and expreslie to explicate to the faithful those verities which the said Apostles either knew or deliuered and to bring them as it were from darkenesse to light Some men perhaps wil admit that S. Peter had a prerogatiue of not erring in faith but wil deny that it was euer deriued to his successors This euasion is fullie aboue confuted yet here I adde further Chap. 6. sect 2. that this vvarrant from errour in faith was more necessarie after S. Peters departure out of the world in his successours then before in himselfe both because the chiefest planters and rulers of the Church the holie Apostles and Disciples were then likewise or soone after deceased and also because persecution daily increased and new heresies in greater abundance began to impugne the rule of faith receiued Moreouer our Sauiour building his Church vpon S. Peter built it especiallie vpon his faith not vpon his flesh as some of the auncient Fathers say neither so vpon his faith that he built it vpon faith separated from S. Peter or being in any other person but vpon faith as being in S. Peter the ministerial head of the Church Wherefore although the flesh of S. Peter be consumed yet seing that his office and dignity is in his successours his faith also through the warrant of Christ stil remaineth in them vvhich is the foundation of the Church and the firme rocke against which Hel-gates shal not preuaile And this may be confirmed because Christ vvhen he praied for the faith of S. Peter obtained and imparted this prerogatiue vnto him as his supreame vicar or by reason of his office Wherefore seing that the office continueth alwaies in the Church the priuiledg likewise must alwaies remaine in the same And this is the doctrine of the auncient Fathers and their exposition of the places of scripture alleaged Hence in the third general a Concil Ephes to 2. cap. 16. Councel the Bishop of Rome is called the ordinary successour and vicar of S. Peter prince of the Apostles And the like
vvhich I adjoine another euen of as great force to wit that in diuers points they obserue not the letter of holy Scripture contained in their owne Bibles I vvil exemplifie in some matters in particular And first if the letter of holy Scripture be so strictly to be obserued and al other groundes to be neglected as they imagine howe dare they eate bloud and strangled meates Is not this expresly forbidden in the Acts of the Apostles by the whole Councel of Hierusalem Act. 15. v. 29. in vvhich vvere present S. Peter and S. Iames Apostles vvith diuers others Where and when and by whome was this lawe repealed verily there is no mention of any such repeale in the vvord of God nor in any Ecclesiastical vvriter vvherefore Luther himselfe absolutely confesseth Luther lib. de Concilijs in Act. 15. Exod. 20. Deut. 5. v. 25 Math. 19 17 that either the Apostles them selues erred in this Councel or else that we al sinne in transgressing this lawe Moreouer did not God in the old lawe binde al men to obserue the ten Commandements and did not Christ in the newe lawe bid vs if we wil enter into life obserue the same Howe presume they then to breake the third commandement both in not keeping holy the day prescribed in holy Scripture which without al doubt is the Saturday and also in dressing on that day which they keepe meate and making of fire They cannot denie themselues in these matters to be faulty for they haue no warrant in the vvord of God in place of the Saturday to obserue the Sonday Only in one place of the Apocalipse mention is of the Dominical or our Lordes day Apoc. 1. v. 10 but it is only there said that S. Iohn on that day had a vision which maketh litle for them And therefore Field confesseth Booke 4. cap. 20. §. that the Apostles Exod. 20 9. Exod. 35 3. Num. 15 32. Exod. 12. Leuit. 23. v. 5 Num. 9. v. 11 Deu. 16 5. c Luther lib. de Concilijs Baleus l. 3. c. 25. Centur. 1. de scriptor Britā in Colman Wilfrido Powellus in thesibus de Adiaphoris cap. 3. Math. 26 17 Mar. 14 12. Luc. 22. v. 7. there is no precept found for this in the Scripture and saith the obseruation of it is an Apostolike tradition There is likewise a most expresse commandement in the Scripture that no manner of worke be done on the Sabaoth not so much as fire kindled vvherefore by the commandement of God a man vvas stoned to death for only gathering sticks on that day Further wherefore keepe they not Easter-day on the fourtenth day of the Moone of March as is prescribed in the old lawe and Christ himselfe obserued vvhat warrant haue they in the word of God otherwise to doe Verily in this also euen according to the censure of Luther they stray from the holy Scripture of vvhose opinion if I be not deceiued is likewise our countriman Iohn Bale Powel seemeth to make it a thing indifferent Wherefore also doe some of them binde their followers to haue one only wife at once Had not the Patriarkes and others of the old lawe diuers wiues at the same time And where finde they in the Scripture this liberty abridged among Christians Yea some of our English Sectaries seeme to confesse that in the primatiue Church it selfe some Christians had at once diuers wiues for in the Bible of the yeare 1589. 1592. and 1600. vpon those wordes of the Apostle * 1. Tim. 3 2. Tit. 1. vers 6. Bernard Ochinus lib. 2. Dialogo 21. pag. 200. It behoueth a Bishoppe to be irreprehensible the husband of one wife c. they make this note for in those countries at that time some men had more then one which was a signe of incontinency thus there vve reade Wherefore they seeme to grant that S. Paul only commanded Bishops to haue one only vvife at once not other Christians Yea this is expresly auerred by Bernardinus-Ochinus vvho writeth thus Paul forbiddeth Bishops and Deacons to haue many wiues to others he vertually graunteth it But in very truth the Apostle there ordereth that none be admitted to be Bishops that be Bigami that is to say that haue beene married to two wiues although to the one after the other and the aforesaid glosse is made by these men to helpe their Bishops and Ministers among vvhome some haue had two or three or more one after another contrary to this sentence of the Apostle And I must needes conclude that either they abridge Christian liberty as they tearme it in not suffering al except Bishops to haue diuers wiues at the same time or otherwise that they transgresse the word of God in admitting men twice married into their Clergie or vvhich is worse in suffering their Ministers and Bishops to marry as often as they please Luther in explicat Genes edit an 1525 in c. 16. Ienēs in propositionibus de Bigamia Episcop edit an 1528. propos 62. 65. 66. And of the first opinion seemeth Luther for he absolutely graunteth Poligamy that is to say the hauing of more vviues then one at once to be neither commanded nor forbidden in the Church of God but to be a thing indifferent a Musculus in epist Pauli ad Philip. Colos c. in 1. Tim. 3. p. 396 Musculus also thinketh it was tollerated in the Church in the Apostles daies and consequently in his judgement no Christians except Bishops are to be restrained from it I adde likewise that they commonly translate those wordes of God b Exod. 2. v. 4 Deuter. 5. Bible 1595. Non facies tibi sculptile thou shalt make thee no grauen Image and with c Zwinglius tom 2. in actis disput Tigur fol. 632. Zwinglius affirme them to containe an euerlasting precept and to binde as farre forth as those vvordes Thou shalt not kil Wherefore then allowe they of the pictures of men and other worldly creatures Is there any difference betweene such pictures and the Images of Christ and his Saints vvhich they vvil needes haue here forbidden as grauen Images Certainely there is no reason wherefore those should be allowed and these forbidden and therefore they haue no reason to exclaime against the pictures of Christ and his Saints except they wil vvith the Turkes generally disalowe of al pictures d Luther tom 4. in Michae cap. 1. fol. 69. Act. 19. c. Yea Luther himselfe thought it meete that Images should be placed in Churches and judged it a very barbarous and ignorant part to tollerate the pictures of men and beasts and to cast out of Churches the Images of our Sauiour and his beloued Saints I demaund also of them vvherefore they vse not in al places to giue the holy Ghost after baptisme by imposition of handes they cannot deny but this was practised continually by the Apostles for what almost is more often recorded in the acts of the Apostles