Notes we would desire no better arguments then those which our aduersaries alleadged against vs for first our notes are proper onely to the Church and cannot bee found in any place where the Church of God is not Secondly they are most notorious markes and a man by the Scriptures may more easely knowe what true doctrine is and which are the right Sacraments then which is the true Church Thirdly these markes can not be absent from the Church but doe alwayes accompanie it and it is no longer a true Church then it hath those markes 2 We are able out of the Scriptures to proue these marks which may stand in stead of many reasons Iohn 10. my sheepe heare my voyce Ephes. 5. clensing it by the washing of water through the word Ergo the Word and Sacraments are true notes of the Church Bellarmine answereth to the first place that the hearing of the word is not a visible note of the Church but a signe vnto euery man whereby he may knowe his election Wee replie agayne looke which way a man is knowne to bee a member of the Church by the same way the Church also it selfe is discerned if the hearing of the word doe make one a sheep of Christ then doth it also shew which is the flocke and fould of Christ As I knowe my hand or foote to bee a part of my bodie because it hath life and motion of the bodie euen so the bodie is discerned from a carkas because it moueth and liueth To the second place he answereth very simply that the Apostle there sheweth not which is the Church but what good Christ hath wrought for his Church We replie againe But the Church is best knowne by the benefites that Christ hath bestowed vpon it amongst the which the Word and the Sacraments are not the least Ergo by these the Church is knowne and in that place by the Apostle described And let the reader iudge whether that place of the Apostle where there is direct mention made of the word and sacraments be not fitly applied to our purpose concerning the description of the Church 3 Let Augustine speake In scripturis didicimus Christum in scripturis didicimus ecclesiam epistol 166. In the scripture we doe learne Christ in the scripture let vs likewise learne the Church His argument is this Looke how Christ is knowne so is his Church but Christ is onely knowne by his word Ergo so is his Church The fourth question of the authoritie of the Church THe Papists affirme that the authoritie of the Church consisteth in these fiue poynts First in authorising the scriptures and defining which are Canonicall Secondly in giuing the sense of the scripture Thirdly in determining matters besides scripture Fourthly in making lawes constitutions for the Church Fiftly in exercising of discipline Concerning the two last we doe not greatly stand with them We acknowledge the Church hath authoritie to make decrees and constitutions but so as the Apostles did Visum est nobis spiritui sancto It seemed good to vs and the holy Ghost the Church must be directed by the wisedome of the spirit speaking in the scriptures We also acknowledge the holesome power of the Church in exercising of holy discipline but it must be done in the name and power of Christ. 1. Cor. 5.4 not according to the will of men Concerning the two first we haue alreadie shewed that neither the Church doth giue authoritie to the word of God but doth take her authoritie from thē for the scriptures are of sufficient credite of themselues 1. controu quaest 4. Neither that the sense of scripture dependeth vpon the interpretation of the scripture but that the word expoundeth it selfe 1. controu quaest 6. There remaineth therefore onely one poynt to be discussed of the authoritie of the Church namely in deciding of matters beside the scriptures which are of two sorts either necessarie appertayning to faith or indifferent concerning ceremonies of both these in their order THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE CHVRCH hath authoritie in matters of faith beside the scriptures The Papists WE ought to take our faith and al necessarie things of saluation at the hands error 24 of our superiours Rhemist Act. 10. sect 8. In poynts not decided by scripture wee must aske counsaile of the Church Praefat. sect 25. The Church is the onely piller and stay to leane vnto in all doubts of doctrine without the which there can be no certaintie nor securitie we must therefore beleeue it and trust it in all things annot 1. Timoth. cap. 3. sect 9. Yea it hath authoritie say they to make newe Articles of faith as in the Councell of Constance it was decreed to be necessarie to saluation to beleeue the Pope to be head of the Church In the Councell of Basile it was made an Article of the faith to beleeue that the Councell was aboue the Pope and therfore Pope Eugenius in not obeying the Councell was adiudged to be an heretike 1 Vpon these words in the Gospel Iohn 15.27 the spirit shall testifie of me and you shall beare witnesse also they conclude thus Ergo the testimonie of the trueth ioyntly consisteth in the holy Ghost and Prelates of the Church Rhemist Iohn 15. sect 8. We answere The witnesse of the spirit and of the Apostles is all one witnesse for the spirit first testifieth the trueth to the Apostles inwardly and the Apostles inspired by the spirite did witnesse it outwardly so the Pastors of the Church witnessing with the spirit which is not now inspired by reuelation but onely found in the scriptures are to bee heard but if the spirit testifie one thing in the word and they testifie another there we must leaue them 2 The Church erreth not Ergo we must heare her in all things Rhem. 1. Timoth 3. sect 9. We answere First the Church may erre if she followe not the scriptures Proued before 2. controu quaest 2. Secondly so long as the Church heareth Christs voyce we are likewise to heare hers and so long as she is preserued from error she will not swarue from Christs precepts neither impose any thing vpon her children without the warrant of her spouse The Protestantes THat the Church hath no such power to ordaine articles of faith or impose matters to be beleeued necessarie to saluation not contayned or prescribed in the holy scriptures We prooue it thus and wee are sure that the true Church of Christ will neuer chalenge any such prerogatiue 1. All truthes and verities in the scriptures are not so necessary to saluation that the ignorance thereof should bring perill of damnation Ergo much lesse are any verities out of scripture of any such necessitie the first is manifest for to know the iust chronologie of time or space of yeares from the beginning of the world to Christ is a veritie in scripture yet not necessary so to beleeue that Marie continued a virgin euer after the birth of our Lord was thought by
sometime in Rome also tribuni plebis the officers for the people had the chiefe authoritie Now of all these in common-wealth matters the first kinde is the best and safest the Monarchical or princely gouernement The question now is whether the same forme ought to bee reteyned in Church-gouernement and in this question certaine things are to bee obserued First that wee haue not to deale in this place with that part of Ecclesiasticall regiment wherein the prince hath interest as in ordayning Ecclesiasticall Lawes and seeing to the execution thereof but the question is onely of that regiment Ecclesiasticall which is proper to the gouernors of the Church which consisteth in the ministerie of the word and Sacraments in ordaining and electing of Church-ministers in the dispensing of the keyes of the Church in the Ecclesiasticall censures and discipline and such like whether in the Church there ought to bee one chiefe Bishop from whom all other receiue this power in the premisses Secondly the question is not of the spirituall gouernement of Christ who is the chiefe Monarch and King of his Church but of the outward and externall regiment vpon earth Thirdly wee speake not of the state of any particular Church either nationall prouinciall or oppidall but of the generall state of the Church whether ouer all Churches there ought to be one chiefe Bishop These things premised wee come now to the question The Papists THat there ought to bee one chiefe Monarch and high Bishop ouer all the Church in all Ecclesiasticall matters for the deciding of controuersies preseruing the vnitie of the Church from whom all other Ecclesiasticall Ministers doe receiue their power and authoritie they thus would proue 1 The militant Church is in all things answerable and correspondent to the triumphant companie in Heauen as Heb. 8.5 Moses was bid to make all things according to the paterne shewed in the Mount But in heauen there is beside God himselfe a Monarch and chiefe commaunder of the Angels euen Michael the Archangel Reuel 12.7 Michael and his Angels fought Ergo it ought to be so vpon earth We answer First the Church vpon earth neither is nor can be altogether like to the celestiall congregation for there is no temple Reuel 21.22 There shall enter no vncleane thing and many such like differences there are We are bid to follow them in holines and obedience so farre wee must imitate the Angels as in the Lords prayer 3. Petit. As for imitation and conformitie in other things we haue no such commaundement we are promised hereafter to be like them but that is not yet Neither doth that place proue any such thing Heb. 8. For how followeth it Moses was shewed a paterne to make the Tabernacle by Ergo the Church hath a paterne of her gouernement from Heauen When they can shew any such paterne reuealed in the word for their dreames and phantasies we wil not beleeue for the Church as Moses had for the Tabernacle then they shall say somewhat 2 It is a vaine controuersie so to descant of the Angels as to appoynt them a Captaine and commaunder and to make nine orders or bands of them as our Rhemist annot 1. Ephes. vers 21. These are but their dreames they haue not a worde in Scripture for it And concerning Michael they are much deceiued for in that place Apocal. 12.7 Christ is called Michael Michael and his Angels fought against the Dragon And who I pray you is the chiefe Captaine of the Church against the diuell and his hoast but Christ And so is it expounded verse 10. Now is saluation in Heauen and the strength and Kingdome of our God and the power of his Christ Here hee is called Christ who before is Michael In other places also Michael is vnderstood to be Christ as Dan. 10.21 there is none that holdeth with mee but Michael your Prince here Michael is the prince of the Church and not of the Angels And that Michael is not the prince of the Angels as our aduersaries meane taking Michael for an Angell it is proued out of the 13. verse Michael one of the chiefe princes the Angels are all called princes and not one to bee prince aboue them Likewise the nature and signification of the word Michael agreeth hereunto for it is compounded of three hebrue particles as much as to say one that is equall vnto GOD which name in that sense cannot bee giuen vnto any creature Further Epistle Iud. 9. there is mention made of Michael the Archangell who stroue against the diuell and saide the Lord rebuke thee Sathan where the Apostle alludeth to that place of Zacher 3.2 where the very same words are found but there the prophet calleth him Iehouah that spake those words and here the Apostle calleth him Michael so that in this place it must needes bee vnderstoode for Christ. But to conclude we denie not but that Michael may bee the name of some glorious Angell but out of these places it cannot bee proued And againe we will not stand with them but that there may be degrees of excellencie amongst the Angels as there shall be amongst the Saints but that any one hath any such soueraigne and commaunding authoritie ouer the rest it is a curious and presumptuous surmise 2 The Church of the olde Testament was a figure of the Church vnder the New but they had a high Priest aboue the rest Ergo there ought to be now We answere First we graunt the high Priest was a figure but neither of Peter nor Pope but onely of Christ for in two things did the high Priest resemble Christ in offering of sacrifice so hath Christ offered vp himselfe Heb. 7.27 and in entring into the sanctuarie to make attonement for the people so Christ is entred into the Heauens to appeare in sight for vs before God as the apostle saith Heb. 9.24 I trow in neither of these the high priest could be a type either of Peter or Pope 2 Neither doth it follow because there was an high priest in one countrey therefore there ought to bee one ouer the Churches in al countries as the Iesuite frameth an other argument by a comparison because a bishop is ouer his diocesse a Metropolitane ouer his prouince there may bee as well a Pope ouer the whole Church For by the same reason because a Lorde may bee the chiefe in his seignorie a Duke in his prouince a Prince in his Kingdome therefore there ought to bee an Emperour ouer all the world or as Master Caluine saith because one fielde is committed to one Husbandman to dresse and to till therefore the whole Worlde may which were a thing impossible The Protestants THat there ought not to be any one chiefe Bishop Pope or prelate to exercise iurisdiction ouer the whole Church wee doe thus make it good 1 We acknowledge no head of the Church but Christ neither doth the Scripture attribute this title of Maiestie ouer the whole Church but onely to Christ. If
names of some other Apostles as Iames and Iohn were called Boanerges the sonnes of thunder Mark 3. Therefore this was no such preeminence to Peter neither is it true that Peter was almost called by no other name for he is oftē in the Gospel after this called by his old name Simon Mat. 16.17 17 25. Fulk Annot. in Ioh. 1. sec. 7. Secondly againe saith Bellarmine the text is aedificabo I will build my Church but if Christ be here taken for the rocke his Church was built alreadie for many beleeued in him But Peter was not made the foundation of his Church till afterward after his resurrection and therefore hee saith I will build Wee answere First it is a corrupt glosse to say the Church of Christ was not builded till after the resurrection for seeing that many beleeued before in Christ and made a Church either they must graunt that the Church was without a foundation or else that the foundation was changed from Christ to Peter Secondlie it is taken therefore for the enlarging and increasing of the Church of GOD. It followeth not because Christ saith I will build and his Church was begun to bee built alreadie that therefore another kinde of building must bee excogitate no more then because Christ gaue his spirite to the Apostles Matth. 10.1 and againe Iohn 20.22 and yet biddeth them stay at Ierusalem till they should receiue the holie Ghost Acts. 1.7 that therefore they should looke for another holy Ghost or as though they had not receiued the holy Ghost before But as the sending of the holy Ghost is meant for the increase and more plentifull measure thereof so is the building of the Church here taken for the increase of the building Wee yet further answere with Augustine super hanc petram quam confessus es aedificabo ecclesiam vppon this rocke which thou hast confessed will I build my Church so that in this place is meant not Peter to bee the rocke but either Christ whome he confessed or his saith whereby he confessed him which commeth all to one effect There is no great difference whether wee say the Church is builded vppon Christ or faith is the foundation of the Church for faith is an apprehension of Christ but of the person of Peter it can no more bee vnderstoode then of the rest of the Apostles who in some sence are called the foundation of the Church namely in respect of their holy Apostolick doctrine vpon the which the Church is built Ephes. 2.20 Bellarmine and the Iesuites denie not but here is relation also to the faith of Peter but faith considered in his person We answere if they meane Peters particular faith which was a proper adiunct to himselfe the vniuersall Church cannot be built vpon that faith seeing when Peter dyed his faith also as a proper accident to his person ceased if they vnderstand that generall faith whereby Peter in the name of all the rest made this confession then they all are as well made pillars and foundations of the Church as he because it was their generall confession Fulk annot in 16. Matth. sect 8. 3 Another place which our aduersaries mightely vrge are those words which follow verse 19. I will giue vnto thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen whatsoeuer thou shalt binde in earth shal be bound in Heauen Ergo Peter had especiall iurisdiction giuen him more then any of the rest Bellarmine cap. 12. Wee answere First as Peter confessed in the name of all the rest so this power is geuen him not onelie for the rest as the Rhemists falslie charge vs that we make Peter a proctor for others but together with the rest Peters person must be excluded for immediately after he deserued for a certaine slip of his person to bee called Sathan it were an vnfit match the same person at the same time to be honoured with the glorious title of the rock of Christ and to sustaine so great a rebuke as to bee called Sathan Secondlie here is no more promised to Peter then vnto all the rest of the Apostles Matth. 18.18 They likewise haue authoritie giuen them to binde and loose and it is performed to them all alike Iohn 20.23 2 By the keyes here cannot be vnderstoode that large iurisdiction which the Papists dreame of as not onely the authoritie and chaire of doctrine iudgement knoweledge discretion betweene true and false doctrine all which we graunt together with Peter to haue been giuen to al the Apostles besides But say they hereby is signified the height of gouernement the power of making lawes of calling Councels and confirming them of ordeyning Bishops and Pastors finally to dispense the goods of the Church spirituall and temporall all this is added without ground neither had either Peter or any of the Apostles this ample authoritie no nor the Bishops of Rome for many hundred yeares after Christ. For this plenarie power of the keyes when they signifie a soueraigne and chiefe and surpassing power are so onely giuen vnto Christ and to no mortall creature He is saide to haue the keye of Dauid who openeth and no man shutteth who shutteth and no man openeth Apocalip 3.7 Fulk Annot. 16. Matth. sect 13. Lastly I will oppose the iudgement of the Fathers of the Church who alleadge out of Augustine that Peter receiued the keyes for the whole Church and out of Ambrose that when Christ said to Peter pasce oues the blessed Apostle toke not charge of them alone saith he but together with vs and we together with him Fax pag. 675. 4 Other arguments they alleadge for the primacie and preeminence of Peter as Matthew 10. Hee is named in the first place Bellarmine cap. 18. Wee answere this mought bee because Peter was the most auncient in yeeres or one of the first that was called But howsoeuer it was it is no great matter for this order is not alwaie kept as Galath 2. Paul nameth Iames first Iames Cephas Iohn saith hee verse 9. the Iesuits best shift is heere to denie the text saying it should bee read Cephas Iames Iohn vnlesse Iames bee named first because he was Bishop of Ierusalem Marke I pray you Ergo at Ierusalem Peter was not before Iames but next vnto him therfore not prince of the Apostles Bellarm. cap. 18. Againe say they Peter standeth vp in the election of Matthias Acts 1. preacheth the first Sermon Acts 2. Acts. 15. Peter speaketh first Wee answere to the first Wee denie not a primacie of order to haue been in Peter but it followeth not that hee which speaketh first or giueth the first voyce should bee the head and commaunder of the rest to the second wee also graunt that Peter in zeale promptnes and forwardnes was not behinde any of the Apostles but euen with the first for in him was that saying of Christ verified vppon the woman Shee loued much because much was forgiuen her Luk 7 So was it with Peter to whome Christ forgaue much
sometime Iames sate and Iohn now sitteth In those words Augustine ascribeth as much to the succession of other Apostolicall Churches as he doth to the succession of the Bishops of Rome And therefore Canisius craftely leaueth out the one half of the sentence cōcerning the Church of Ierusalem Neither is it true which our aduersaries say that Peters Sea remaineth still at Rome when all other Apostolicall Sees are gone for euen to this day the See of Antioch standeth and hath a Patriark likewise the See of Alexandria The See of Constantinople neuer wanted successors to this day nor the Church of Ephesus In India and Aethiopia there hath been alwaies a succession in those Churches planted by the Apostles and is at this day Fulk 2. Thess. 2. sect 7. Wherefore they haue no cause to bragge of their succession which is found in other places as well as at Rome THE FIFT QVESTION CONCERNING THE primacie of the See of Rome THis question hath diuers partes which must be handled in their order First whether the Bishop of Rome haue authority ouer other Bishops Secondly whether appeales ought to be made to Rome from other countries Thirdly whether the Pope be subiect to the iudgemēt of any Fourthly whether he may be deposed Fiftly what primacie he hath ouer other Churches how it began Sixtly of the titles and names giuen to the Bishops of Rome THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE BISHOP of Rome hath authoritie ouer other Bishops The Papists error 41 THey doubt not to say that the Bishop of Rome hath authoritie and ought so to haue to ordaine and constitute Bishops to depriue and depose them to restore them likewise to their former dignities and this power hee exerciseth ouer the vniuersall Church The Iesuites principall only argument is drawen from certain examples how the Bishops of Rome haue in times past constituted deposed and restored some Bishops in the Greeke Church as in the patriarchal Seas of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch Ergo hee hath power ouer all Bishops We answere First It was not done by the absolute authority of the Roman Bishops any such constitution or deposition though perhappes their consent and allowance were required as Leo writeth thus to Martianus the Emperour about the ordayning of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople Satis sit quod vestrae pietatis auxilio mei fauoris assensu episcopatum tantae vrbis obtinuit It is sufficient that by your godly helpe and my fauourable assent he hath obtained so famous a Bishoprick Whether was greater now the help and furtherance of the Emperor or the base assent of Leo Secondly wee denie not but that the Pope sometimes what by sufferance of others what by his owne intrusion hath vsurped this power ouer other Bishops by this ought not to make a law that which is once or twise done by a false title cannot prooue the iustnes of the title Thirdly that the Bishop of Rome hath no such authoritie it appeareth by this that he doth not neither of many yeares hath constituted or ordayned the patriarks of the Greeke Church they came not vp to Rome nor yet sent thither for their palls as other Archbishops here in the West parts haue done paied full dearely for them being made slaues to the beast of Rome The Protestants THat the Pope neither hath nor yet ought to haue any such authority ouer other Bishops but that euery one in his owne precinct and iurisdiction hath the chiefe charge It is thus proued 1. Peter was not chiefe neither did exercise iurisdiction ouer the twelue Ergo neither the Pope ought to doe ouer other Bishops The antecedent or first part is thus confirmed The heauenly Hierusalem which is the Church of God is described Apocal. 21. not with one foundation onely of Peter but with 12. foundations after the number of the Apostles argument Tunstalli To this purpose also hee alleadgeth in saying out of Hierome contra Iouinian All the Apostles receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and vpon them all indifferently and equally is the strength of the Church grounded and established Fox p. 1066. 2. Till the yeare of the Lord 340. there was no respect had to the Church of Rome but euery Church was ruled by their owne gouernment afterward followed the Councel of Nice wherein was decreed that the whole Church should be deuided into foure circuites or precincts ouer the which there were foure Metropolitanes or patriarkes set first the Bishop of Rome next the Bishop of Alexandria the third was the Bishop of Antioch the fourth the Bishop of Ierusalem and not long after came in the Bishop of Constantinople in the roume of the B. of Antioch All these had equall authoritie in their prouinces and one was not to deale within anothers charge Ergo the Bishop of Rome had not then the iurisdiction ouer the whole Church argument Nili plura Fox p. 9. 3. We will adioyne the testimonie of the fathers of Basile which were all of the Popish sect what haue the Bishops been in our daies say they but only shadowes might they not haue been called shepheards without sheepe what had they more then their Miters and their staffe when they could determine nothing ouer their subiects Verily in the primitiue Church the Bishops had the greatest power and authoritie but now it was come to that poynt that they exceeded the common sort of priests onely in their habite and reuenewes What plainer testimonie can we haue then from the papists themselues Augustine also agreeth to their sentence habet omnis episcopus saith he pro licētia libertatis potestatis suae arbitrium propriū tanquam iudicari ab alio nō possit quomodo nec ipse potest alium iudicare sed expectemus vniuersi iudiciū domini nostri Iesu Christi Euery Bishop is priuiledged by his own authoritie to follow his owne iudgement neither is subiect to the iudgement of other Bishops as he is not to iudge them but they all must be referred to the iudgement of Christ See then in this place Augustine setteth Bishops in the highest roume in the Church and sayth they haue no iudge aboue them but Christ. THE SECOND PART CONCERNING APpeales to bee made to Rome The Papists SVch say they is the preeminēt authority of the Bishop of Rome that appeals error 42 may be made vnto him from all Churches in the world and that all ought to stand to his sentence and determination For the proofe hereof they bring no scripture nor any sound argumēt but stand chiefly vpon certain odde examples of some that haue appealed to Rome which we denie not to haue been done but our answere more at large is this 1. One cause of these appeales was both for that they which were iustly cōdemned of other Churches found greater liberty and fauour at Rome as Apiarius did who being condemned in the 6. Aphricane Councel for his detestable conditions found fauour with Zosimus Bishop of Rome who
that he defloured virgins that he lay with Stephana his fathers concubine likewise with Ramera and Anna and her Neece for these beastlie parts and such like he was deposed there was no heresie obiected agaynst him And thinke you not he was worthily vnpoped yet the Papists thinke no for they admit no cause of depriuation but heresie This deuillish Pope through the harlots of Rome for he was well beloued of them recouered his Popedome agayne but at the length the Lord himselfe displaced him for in the tenth yeere of his Popedome being founde without the citie with an other mans wife hee was so wounded of her husbande that within eight dayes after hee dyed Fox pag. 159. Boniface the 7. tooke Pope Iohn the 15. who was made Pope a little before and hee expelled yet recouering the Papacie by force hee tooke him put out his eyes and threwe him in prison where he was famished Likewise was Iohn the 18. serued by Gregorie the 5. his eyes were thrust out first and he afterward slayne I meruaile how our Catholikes can excuse these furious outrages of their ghostly fathers of Rome In the Councel of Brixia Gregorie the 7. was deposed not for heresie but for other abominable vices as maintayning of periurie and murthers for following Diuinations Dreames Sorcerie Necromancie Fox p. 181. Pope Iohn the 23. deposed in the Councel of Constance Eugenius in the Councel at Basile yet neither of them for heresie And yet our aduersaries would still make vs beleeue that Popes cannot be deposed for any crime but heresie 2 We can haue no better argument then from our aduersaries themselues It is a sport to see what diuers opinions they hold and doe runne as it were in a maze not knowing which way to get out Pighius thinketh that the Pope cannot possiblie fall into heresie and therefore for no cause may bee deposed Some other thinke that the Pope for secret and close heresie is actually deposed of GOD and may also bee deposed and iudged of the Church thus holdeth Iohann de turre cremat Caietanus is of opinion that for manifest and open heresie the Pope is both alreadie by right deposed and may also actually be deposed of the Church But Bellarmine confuteth all these There is a fourth opinion most grosse that the Pope neither for secret nor open heresie is either alreadie of right deposed or may be actually depriued of the Church Lastly commeth in the nice and daintie Iesuite with his quirkes and quiddities who sayth that the Pope in case of manifest heresie ceaseth to bee Pope and is euen now deposed and if after the Church proceede agaynst him they iudge not the Pope for now hee is no Pope Which opinion how absurd it is I haue declared before THE FIFT PART CONCERNING THE ORIGInall and beginning of the primacie of Rome The Papists THey doe boldly affirme without any ground that the primacie of that See error 45 hath his beginning from no other but Christ they are the Iesuites owne words Romani pontificis ecclesiasticum principatum authore Christo principium accepisse that the princely dignitie of the Bishop of Rome acknowledgeth no other author or beginner thereof but Christ Bellarm. cap. 7. lib. 2. 1 They would build the primacie of the Romane Church vpon certaine places of scripture as Math. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church Luk. 22. I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy faith should not faile Iohn 21. Christ sayd to Peter feede my sheepe Ergo Peter and Peters successors haue their primacie from Christ Bellarm. To these places Tunstal and Stokeslie two Popish Bishops yet in this poynt holding the truth did properly make answere in their Epistle sent to Cardinall Poole To the first They affirme out of the ancient expositors that it is ment of the faith which was then first confessed by the mouth of Peter and not of Peters person Further confirming out of S. Paul that neither Peter nor no creature beside could bee the foundation of the Church for no other foundation can any man lay sayth the Apostle besides that which is layd Iesus Christ 1. Cor. 3. To the second they answere that Christ speaketh onely of the fall of Peter which hee knewe in his godlie prescience giuing an inkling vnto him that after his fall hee should bee conuerted and strengthen his brethren for if it were ment also of Peters successors they must first faile in faith and after confirme their brethren To the third The whole flock of Christ was not committed to Peter to feede for he himselfe testifieth the contrarie exhorting all Pastors to feede the flocke of Christ which was giuen them in charge by Christ as it followeth in that place when the chiefe shepheard shall appeare ye shall receiue the incorruptible Crowne of eternall glorie He calleth not himselfe the chiefe shepheard but onely Christ. It is euident therefore say they that your 3. scriptures ment nothing lesse then such a primacie ouer all Fox pag. 1067. 2 There can bee no time assigned since Christ say they when this primacie should begin nor no author named that brought it in Ergo it must needes bee attributed to Christ he must of necessitie bee found the author thereof We answere the time may bee assigned the authors named when and by whom this pretensed and vsurped authoritie was brought in as euen now wee will shewe The Protestants THat the vsurped iurisdiction of Rome tooke not the beginning from Christ nor his Apostles neither was heard of for many yeres after we thus are able to proue it 1 Before the Nicene Councel which first deuided the regiment of the Church into foure Patriarchal seates Rome had small or no preeminence So Aeneas Syluius witnesseth who afterward was Pope of Rome and called Pius the 2. Ante Nicenum concilium sibi quisque viuebat ad Romanam ecclesiam paruus habebatur respectus Epist. 301. Before the Nicene Councel euery Bishop liued to himselfe there was no great respect had to the Church of Rome What more euident testimonie can wee haue then of a Pope himselfe Yet the Iesuite sayth that it is false in part which hee writeth He is somewhat mannerly in making him but halfe a lyer yet I wonder that he will confesse any vntruth at all in his ghostly fathers words Bellarm. cap. 17. lib. 2. Secondly in the Councel of Nice there was no primacie of power giuen to Rome ouer the whole Church but the other Patriarkes of Alexandria Antioch Ierusalem were priuiledged in like manner in their confines as the Bishop of Rome was in his They had all equall authoritie giuen them in their owne prouinces Sic Tonstall Stokesli ad Poolum Thirdly afterward there was a certayne primacie of order graunted vnto the Patriarke of Rome aboue other Patriarkes as to haue the first place to sit first to giue his sentence first One cause hereof was for that Rome was then the Emperiall and
more then was in the fountaine or originall seeing he receiued all from thence 3 What maketh this place I pray you for the power of externall iurisdiction Here it is saide that God gaue of his spirit to seauentie Elders and rulers of the people and enabled them for their office endued them with wisdome and knowledge and dexteritie in iudging of the people this maketh nothing for their purpose vnlesse they will also say that there is a secret influence of knowledge and wisdome deriued from the Pope to all other Bishops whereby they are made able to execute their office but I trow they will not say so for Alphonsus de castro truly saith of the Popes of Rome constat plures eorum adeo esse illiteratos vt grammaticam penitus ignorent it is certaine that many of them were so vnlearned that they hard and scant knew their grammar 4 The argument followeth not from one particular countrie as this was of the Iewes to the vniuersal Church that because the seauentie Elders receiued iurisdiction from Moses yet that cannot be proued out of this place for they were rulers before and commaunders of the people the were now but inwardly furnished and further enabled yet it were no good reason that therefore the Ecclesiasticall Ministers ouer the whole Church should receiue their power from one 5 Neither doth it follow that because the Prince and ciuill Magistrate may bestowe ciuil offices create Dukes Earles Lords constitute Iudges Deputies Lieutenants by his sole authoritie that by the same reason Ecclesiasticall ministers should receiue their power office from their superiors for although the Church from ancient time hath thought it good to make some inequalitie and difference in Ecclesiasticall offices for the peace of the Church yet the superiors haue not such a soueraigntie and commaunding power ouer the rest as the Prince hath ouer his subiects The Protestants THat Bishops haue not their Ecclesiastical iurisdiction from Rome but do as well enioye it by right of their consecration election institution in their owne precinctes circuites prouinces cities townes yea as the Pope doth in his Bishopricke and by much better right if they be good Bishops and louers of the truth thus briefely it is proued 1 The Apostles had not their iurisdiction from Peter but all receiued it indifferently from Christ this the Iesuite doth not barely acknowledge but proueth it by argument against the iudgement of other Papists cap. 23. Ergo neither Bishops are authorised from the Pope though he were Peters successor for if he were to graunt it for disputation sake he is no more to the Bishops of the Church then Peter was to the Apostles If hee gaue not the keyes to the Apostles neither doth the Pope Saint Peters successor to the Bishops the Apostles successors for they may with as great right challenge to bee the Apostles successors as he can to be Saint Peters Nay the Apostles gaue no power or iurisdiction to the Elders and pastors whom they ordained Act. 20.28 Take heede to the flocke ouer the which the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops or ouerseers and Ephes. 4.11 Hee hath giuen some to bee Apostles some Prophets some pastors and teachers so then the pastors and teachers though ordained by the Apostles yet had their calling and office frō God and not from the Apostles much lesse now can they receiue their power from any no not from the Pope for he is no Apostle no nor Apostolike man hauing left the Apostolike faith 2 Augustine saith Solus Christus habet authoritatem praeponendi nos in ecclesiae suae gubernatione de actu nostro iudicandi de baptis 2.2 Onely Christ hath authoritie saith hee to preferre vs to the gouernement of the Church and to iudge of our dooings the pastors then of the Church haue the keyes of the spirituall regiment from Christ himselfe not from the Pope or any other THE EIGHT QVESTION OF THE temporall iurisdiction and power of the Bishop of Rome THis question hath two partes first whether the Pope in respect of any spirituall error 51 iurisdiction haue also the chiefe soueraigntie in temporall and ciuill matters and so to be aboue Kings and Emperors secondly whether the Pope or any Bishop may be the chiefe Lord and prince ouer any Countrie Citie or Prouince THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE Pope directly or indirectly haue authoritie aboue Kinges and Princes The Papists THe Papists of former times were not ashamed to say that the Pope is the Lord of the whole Church as Panormitane in the Councell of Basile Fox page 670. Yea Pope Innocentius the third said writing to the Emperor of Constantinople that as the Moone receiued her light from the Sunne so the imperiall dignitie did spring from the Pope and that the papall dignitie was seuen and fortie times greater then the imperiall yea Kinges and Emperors are more inferior to the Pope then lead is to golde Gelasius distinct 96. But our later papists ashamed of their forefathers arrogancie in wordes seeme to abate somewhat of their proud sentence but in effect say the same thing For they confesse that the Emperor hath his office and calling of God and not from the Pope neither that the Pope directly hath any temporall iurisdiction but indirectly hee may depose Kinges and princes abrogate the lawes of Emperors and establish his owne he may take vnto himselfe the iudgement of temporall causes and cite Kings to appeare before him yet not directlie saith the Iesuite as hee is ordinarie Iudge ouer the Bishops and whole Clergie yet indirectlie as hee is the chiefe spirituall Prince hee may doe all this if hee see it necessarie for the health of mens soules And so in effect by their popish indirect meanes they giue him as great authoritie as euer hee vsurped or challenged Bellarmine lib. 5. cap. 6. 1 The Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power doe make but one bodie and societie as the spirite and the flesh in man Now the Ecclesiastical power which is as the soule and spirite is the chiefe part because it is referred to a more principall end namely the safetie and good of the soule the other is as the flesh to the spirite and respecteth but a temporall end as the outward peace and prosperitie of the common-wealth Ergo the spirituall power is chiefe and may commaund the other Bellarm. cap. 7. Ans. First it is a very vnfit and vnproper similitude to compare these two regiments to the soule and the bodie for by this meanes as the spirite giueth life to the bodie and euery parte thereof so the ciuill and temporall state should receiue their office and calling from the Ecclesiasticall which the Iesuite himselfe denieth and so directly the one should rule the other for the soule directly I trow not indirectly moueth the body and gouerneth it But if wee will speake as the Scripture doth we make all but one bodie and it is the spirit of Christ who is the head that giueth
saepe tam diu clamatur vt fiat in Psal. 63. What medicine or plaister wilt thou buie to heale thy sinne Behold euen now while I preach vnto thee change thy heart and it is already done which we so often call vpon you to be done See then by the preaching of the word our heart is chaunged our life amended and our sinne remitted THE SECOND PART TO WHOM THE authoritie of the keyes is committed The Papists error 74 THe authoritie and power of excommunication say they is not in the whole Church but onely in the Prelates neither was the power of binding and loosing giuen vnto the whole church but in their own name not in the name or right of the Church doe the pastors and Prelates exercise this power Remist 2. 1. Corinth 5. sect 3. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Clericis cap. 7. The Church is sayd to binde and loose because the Prelates doe binde loose as a man is said to speake and see though he onely speake with the tongue and see with the eyes 1 They seeme to proue it by S. Paules example 1. Corinth 5. I absent in bodie but present in spirit haue decreed S. Paul vseth here his Apostolike power in sending his letters and Mandatum to haue the incestuous person excommunicate Ergo the right was in him and not in the Church and so consequently in the Bishops his successors Ans. First S. Paul sendeth no Mandatum but sheweth his Apostolike power in decreeing the incestuous person worthy of excommunication and requiring the same to be executed by the Church Fulk 1. Corin. 5. sec. 2. Secondly though Paul gaue the sentence yet was it done both in the power of Christ and the name of the whole Church for he had decreed onely that he should be excommunicate it was not actually done but to the due performing thereof there is required the congregating of the Church in Christs name the presence of Paul in spirit by his apostolike power that it should be done in the name of Christ. Al this sheweth that Paul gaue sentence in the name of the whole Church 2 Paul they say by the preeminent power of his Ministerie pardoneth the incestuous person whom he had excommunicate Rhemist argument in 1. ad Corinth Ans. The text is plaine that he consenteth the Church should pardon him 2. Corinth 2.10 To whom you forgiue any thing I forgiue also Heere not Paul onely but the whole Church pardoneth Fulk ibid. 3 The Iesuites simile may bee returned vpon his owne head for as the eye and tongue in the bodie are but instruments of the life and power of the soule which quickneth the whole bodie so the gouernours of the Church do execute the discipline of the Church by the spirit of Christ which is giuen to the whole bodie The Protestants THe authoritie of excōmunication pertaineth to the whole Church although the execution and iudgement thereof to auoyd confusion be committed to the gouernours of the Church which exercise that authoritie as in the name of Christ so in the name of the whole Church Fulk totidem verbis annot 1. Cor. 5. sect 3. 1 Math. 18.17 If he wil not heare thee tell the Church this place proueth that although the exercising of the keyes be referred to the gouernours of the Church yet the authoritie and right is in the whole Church for the keyes were giuen to the whole Church The pastors and gouernours though they be excellent and principall members of the Church yet are they improperly called the Church Argument Illyrici 2 We conclude the same also out of S. Paules words 1. Cor. 2.21 All things are yours whether Paul Apollos or Cephas whether things present or things to come and ye are Christs and Christ Gods Ergo whatsoeuer power is in the Church it is the Churches not onely the common vse and the benefite thereof because it may be answered that although the keyes be onely granted to the Prelates yet they vse them to the good of the Church but the right also and possession thereof euen as the Church is the inheritance and proper possession of Christ. 3 Augustine consenteth Ecclesia quae fundatur in Christo claues ab eo regni coelorum accepit in Petro. Tract in Iohann 124. The Church which is founded vpon Christ receiued in Peter the keyes of the kingdome of heauen But the whole Church and not onely the Pastors is founded and builded vpon Christ Ergo. THE THIRD PART WHETHER THE PASTORS of the Church haue any absolute power to remit sinnes otherwise then as Ministers onely The Papistes error 75 THey spare not to say that Priests haue full right to remit sinnes and are not ministers onely thereof and dispensers but haue full power as Christ had and he that doubteth of their right herein may as well doubt whether Christ had authoritie as man to remit sinnes Rhemist annot Iohn 20. sect 3. And againe they call it an expresse power and commission yea a wonderfull power which is giuen vnto Priests to remit sinnes and therfore it followeth necessarily that men should submit themselues to their iudgement for release of their sinnes Annot. Iohn 20. sect 5. 1 They reason thus out of our Sauiours owne words Iohn 20.21 As my father hath sent me so I send you He sheweth his fathers commission giuen to himselfe and then in plaine termes most amply imparteth the same to his Apostles But Christ had full right to remit sinnes Ergo also the Apostles and their successors for they haue the same power that Christ had Rhemist annot Iohn 20. sect 3. Ans. First it is great presumption and spoken without any ground to say that Christ by sending his Apostles into the world gaue them as full large and ample commission as he himselfe had for neither the Pope in whom remaineth as they say the Apostolike authoritie by their owne confession can doe all that Christ did as to ordaine and institute Sacraments and Christ say they might forgiue sinnes without the Sacraments which the Pope cannot doe and so consequently neither the Apostles whose full iurisdiction he hath in this behalfe Bellarm. de pontif lib. 5. cap. 4. Secondly the power therefore here granted to the Apostles is in the name of Christ to declare and pronounce remission of sinnes according to the wil of God not properly in their owne power to release or absolue sinners 2 He breathed vpon them and gaue them the holy Ghost vers 22. Therefore he that denieth the Priests authoritie to forgiue sinnes he must denye the holy Ghost to be God and not to haue power to remit sinnes Rhem. ibid sect 4. Ans. What a blasphemous consequence is this The holy Ghost hath absolute power to forgiue sinnes Ergo the Apostles also and all other Priests haue the same power First by this meanes they make no difference betweene the fulnes of power in our Sauiour Christ and the communication of that power to other Ministers of Christ it is sayd that the
Bellarmine answereth Princes doe rule ouer their subiects as men not as Christians and Kings are set ouer the people not as they are Christians but politike persons so the Prince is head of the kingdome not of the Church De pontif Rom. lib. 1. cap. 7. Ans. Stephen Gardiner taketh away this cauill very sufficiently we will set one Papist against another It is all one sayth he to call the Prince head of the Church of England and head of the Realme of England for if all Englishmen be his subiects why are they not his subiects as they are Christians If the wife or seruant bee subiect to the master or husband being infidels doth their conuersion or name of Christians make them lesse subiect then they were before Haec ille Againe how farre is this I pray you from Anabaptistrie to say that subiects onely as men not as Christians are in subiection to Princes for doth it not followe hereupon that as Christians they ought to haue no superiour or Magistrate 2 It is sufficient for vs that this title more fitly and properly belongeth to euery Prince in his owne kingdome thē to the Pope for the Pope can in no wise be head of the Church he is not the mysticall head neither dare they say so for Christ onely is the head in that manner neither can he be the Ministeriall head of the vniuersall Church for the Catholike Church is a bodie mysticall must needes haue a mysticall head neither is he the politicall head of any particular Church for no Bishop can be a politicall head because he that is the head and chiefe must haue a coactiue power to binde his subiects to obedience so hath not any Bishop The Prince onely beareth the sword and enforceth obedience Againe in a farre diuers sense is the Prince called the head then the Pope was for first the Pope challenged to be head of the vniuersal Church but the prince is chiefe only in his owne kingdome Secondly the Pope would be an absolute head to doe all vpon earth that Christ did yea and more to to bind and loose at his pleasure to depose Kings to dispense with the word of God to constitute and make lawes at his pleasure in so much that one of his clawback flatterers is not ashamed to say of him Christus Papa vnum faciunt consistorium excepto peccato potest Papa quasi omnia facere quae potest Deus Christ and the Pope make but one Consistorie keepe but one court sinne onely excepted the Pope in a manner can doe all things that God can doe But we doe limit the power of the Prince who is not to impose any lawes vpon the Church but such as are agreeable to the word of God neither doe we make him a spirituall officer as the Pope would be but a ciuill gouernour who by positiue lawes is to prouide for the peace and welfare of the Church Lastly S. Peter sayth Submit your selues to the King as the chiefe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or most excelling what is this els but as to the head what is it to be chiefe but to be head But we will not much contend for the name so they will grant vs the thing namely that the Prince is a commander euen in Ecclesiasticall matters as Augustine saith In hoc reges Deo seruiunt si mala prohibeant nō solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verumetiam quae ad diuinam religionem Cont. Crescon lib. 3. cap. 5. In this Kings doe good seruice to God if they forbid euill to be done not onely in matters pertaining to humane societie but in things concerning religion As for the title to bee called head let them cease to call their chiefe Bishop so who hath no right vnto it and we will promise also to lay it downe though in good sense we might vse it though the Pope had neuer layd claime thereunto THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERNING THE authoritie of the Prince in punishing heretikes WE doe willingly grant that obstinate heretikes and peruerters of the faith if they persist in their damnable opinions and remaine incorrigible may and ought to be cut off and punished by death to make others to feare so Seruetus at Geneua and one Valentinus at Berne both monstrous heretikes not amongst the Papists but by the Protestants were worthily put to death In this therfore we and our aduersaries agree that heretikes may be punished by death by the ciuill Magistrate If Luther or any other haue held any priuate opinion to the contrarie let them answere for themselues but although we vary not in the principall yet there are certaine circumstances and accessaries greatly material wherein they both dissent from vs and from the truth 1 They would haue the Magistrate onely to be their executioner the iudgement of heresie they say belongeth to the Church for they cited examined iudged disgraded condemned heretikes and then gaue them ouer to the secular error 102 power this was the common practise of their Church But we hold that the hearing iudgement sentence and condemnation of heretikes belongeth to the ciuill Magistrate as well as the execution because these actions are proper to the ciuill sword which the Magistrate beareth Rom. 13. and Deut. 17.5 The false Prophets and Idolaters were brought to the gates of the citie where the ciuill Magistrate was wont to sit Augustine is of the same mind Cur in veneficos vigorē legū exerceri iuste fatentur in haereticos schismaticos nolunt fateri Cont. epist. Parmen 1.7 Why doe they grant that the vigour of the law may iustly be executed vpon witches and not as well vpon heretikes and schismatikes But the causes of witches are heard iudged and handled before the ciuill Magistrate Ergo also the cause of heretikes Augustines reason is out of the 5. Galath 20. The works of the flesh are manifest which are adulterie fornication idolatrie witchcraft and heresies are also reckoned vp amongst All these are workes of the flesh Ergo the Magistrate being appoynted to punish euill doers hath as full right to deale against them all as some 2 We differ about the way and meanes to try an heretike by They affirme that he is an heretike onely that is so iudged by a generall Councel or the sentence error 103 of the chiefe pastors of the Church they would haue an heretike tryed by the constitutions and Canons of their Church Annot. Tit. 3. sect 2. Rhemist We say that an heretike is to be conuicted by the scriptures and that he that holdeth any opiniō obstinately against the manifest authoritie of scripture may be iudged an heretike without a generall Councel So Augustine writeth answering the Pelagians who obiected that they were condemned without a Synode Ac si congregatione synodi opus erat vt aperta pernicies damnaretur quasi nulla haeresis aliquando nisi synodi congregatione damnata sit As though a Synode neede to be
God so the manner of celebrating and keeping it holy is to be learned out of the word and neither custome nor authority ought to giue liberty for such workes vpon the Lords day as are not warranted by the word First we graunt that we are not so necessarily tied to the rest of the Sabboth as the Iewes were for those things are abolished which appertained to the Iewish Sabboth First the prescript of the day Secondly the ceremonious exercises of the Sabboth in the sacrifices and other rites of the Law Thirdly the typicall shadowes and significations of their Sabboth as first it betokened their rest in Canaan then the rest and peace of the Church by Christ Hebre. 4.3 5. Fourthly the strickt and precise rest wherein Christians haue more liberty then the Iewes had and againe they obserued their rest as being properly and simply and in it selfe a sabboth daies duty but we doe consider it as being referred to a more principall end as making of vs more fit for spirituall exercises Secondly we allow these workes to be done First opera religiosa or pietatis the religious workes and conferring to piety as the Priestes did slaye the sacrifices vpon the Sabboth and yet brake not the rest of the Sabboth Math. 12.5 so the people may walke to their parish Church though somewhat farre off the Pastor Minister may goe forth to preach yea and preaching is of it selfe a labour of the body to study also and meditate of his Sermon to ring the bels to call the people to the Church all these are lawfull as being helpes for the exercises of religion Secondly opera charitatis the workes of mercy are permitted as to visite the sicke the Phisitian to resorte to his patient yea to shew compassion to brute beastes as to helpe the sheepe out of a pit Math. 12.11 Thirdly opera necessitatis the workes of necessitie as the dressing of meat and such like Math. 12.1.3 Our Sauiour excuseth his Apostles for plucking the eares of Corne when they were hungry As for opera voluntaria workes of pleasure and recreation we haue no other permission to vse them then as they shal be no le ts or impediments vnto spirituall exercises as the hearing of the word and meditating therein and such other Otherwise they are not to be vsed Augustine saith speaking of the Iewes who did greatly prophane their Sabboth in sporting and dalliance Melius toto die foderent quà m toto die saltarēt It were better for them to digge all day then to daunce all day euen so verily it were better for many poore ignorant people that vpon the Sabboth giue themselues to drinking and quaffing gaming if they should goe to plough or cart all the day But as for other seruile workes as to keepe Faires and Markets vpon the Lords day to trauell themselues their seruants and beastes vpon the Sabboth it is flat contrary to the commaundement of God and the practise of the Church Nehemiah 13.16 where there is no extream and vrgent necessitie so that it is not to be doubted but that as the keeping of the Lords day is a moral commaundement so also the manner of the obseruing thereof in sanctifying it and resting therein is morall the ceremonies of the rest being abolished that is the Iewish strictnes thereof and the opinion which they had of their rest as being simply a part of the sanctifying of the Sabboth But we doe consider it as referred vnto more principall duties and obserue it not as of it selfe pleasing God but as making vs more fit for spirituall exercises Contrary to these rules we acknowledge neither power in Ordinaries nor priuiledge in custome to dispence with the sanctification of the Sabboth The Papists THey affirme that the Apostles altered the sabboth day from the seaueth day to the eight counting from the creation and they did it without scripture error 62 or any commaundement of Christ such power say they hath God left to his Church This then they holde that the sabboth was changed by the ordinarie power and authoritie of the Church not by any especiall direction from Christ thereupon it followeth that the Church which they say cannot erre may also change the sabboth to any other day in the weeke Rhemist Apoca. 1. sect 6. The Protestants 1. THe Apostles did not abrogate the Iewish sabboth but Christ himselfe by his death as he did also other ceremonies of the Law and this the Apostles knew both by the scriptures the word of Christ his holy spirite 2. They did not appoint a new sabboth of their owne authoritie for first they knew by the scripture that one day of seauen was to be obserued for euer for the seruice of God and exercise of religion although the prescript day according to the Law were abrogate for the Lord before the morall law was written euen immediatly after the creation sanctified the seauenth day shewing thereby that one of the seauen must be obserued so long as the world endured Secōdly they knew there was the same reason of sanctifiyng the day of Christs resurrection and the restitution of the worlde thereby as of sanctifiyng the day of the Lords rest after the creation of the world Thirdly they did it by the direction of the spirite of God whereby they were so directed and gouerned that although they were fraile men by nature and subiect to error yet they could not decline in their writings and ordinances of the Church from the truth which assurance of Gods spirite in the like measure the Church hath not but so farre forth is promised to be led into all truth as she followeth the rule of truth expressed in the Scriptures Wherefore the Church hath no authority to change the Lords day and to keepe it vpon Munday or Tuesday or any other day seeing it is not a matter of indifferency but a necessary prescription of Christ himselfe deliuered by the Apostles for the Lords day began in the Apostles time and no doubt by their Apostolike authority directed by the spirite of Christ was instituted Act. 20.7 Apocal. 1. ver 10. Neither can there come so long as the world continueth so great a cause of changing the Sabboth as the Apostles had by the resurrection of Christ. Wherfore the law of the Sabboth as it is now kept and obserued is perpetuall The Papists errour 63 4. THey affirme that the keeping of the Lords day in stead of the Iewish Sabboth is a tradition of the Apostles and not warranted by Scripture Rhemist Math. 15. sect 3. The Protestants THe obseruation of the Lords day is not deliuered by blinde tradition but hath testimony of holy Scriptures 1. Corinth 16.2 Act. 20.7 Apocal. 1.10 and the obseruation thereof is according to Gods commaundement not after the doctrine of men Fulk ibid. The Papists errour 64 5. THey teach that the Lords day is commaunded and likewise kept for some mysticall signification not onely for the remembraunce of benefites already
of them hold great scorne to be named Papists yet I see no reason why they should so doe The Rhemists like this name well enough because it is not deriued from any one man but from their Popes and chiefe Bishops to whom say they we are bound to cleaue in Religion and obey in all things So to be a Papist say they is to be a Christian man a child of the Church and a subiect to Christs Vicar Seeing then this name pleaseth their ghostly fathers of Rhemes so well there is no reason why they should mislike it and therefore we will vse it still as best expressing their profession who are pinned vpon the Popes sleeue for their faith and Religion As likewise the name of Protestants we refuse not which name I thinke tooke beginning in England in King Henry the eights daies when there was a generall protestation made in the name of the King the whole Councel and Clergie of England against the Pope In the which protestation thus we finde England hath taken her leaue of popish crafts for euer neuer to be deluded with them hereafter Romane Bishops haue nothing to doe with English people the one doth not traffique with the other at the least though they will haue to deale with vs we will none of their marchandise none of their stuffe Thus we see how a Papist and a Protestant are defined A Papist is he that cleaueth to the Pope in Religion and is obedient to him in all things A Protestant is he that professeth the Gospell of Iesus Christ and hath renounced the iurisdiction of the sea of Rome and the forced and vnnaturall obedience to the Pope These names therefore as best fitting both our professions seeing no cause to the contrary I purpose euery where to vse and retaine throughout this Treatise I would here finish and make an end of this Preface but that first I must make the Reader acquainted with the order and methode which I haue followed in setting downe the controuersies The whole bodie therefore of the controuersies betweene the Papists and vs our worthie and learned countriman D. Whitakers hath digested and disposed into a singular Methode the which I haue propounded to my selfe throughout this discourse to obserue The heresies and errours therefore of Poperie doe either impugne the offices of Christ with his benefites and merites or his person the most of them are of the first kinde some errours they maintaine against his person but not many First the name of Christ sheweth his offices for it signifieth annointed he was annointed to be our Prophet King and Priest Iesus betokeneth a Sauiour and setteth forth the benefites of our redemption and saluation First then of his offices and then of the benefites that do arise and spring thereof The first office of our Sauiour Christ is to be our heauenly teacher and Prophet His heauenly doctrine is conteined no where els but in the Scriptures The first generall controuersie then must be of the Scriptures where there arise many questions as of the Canonicall bookes of the Scripture of the vulgare translation of Scripture of the perspicuitie and plainenesse authoritie interpretation and perfection of Scripture with such other The second office of Christ is to be our King and because his kingdome is his Church here we are to handle the controuersies about the Church Which is either the Church Militant vpon earth or the Church Triumphant in heauen The Church militant is to be considered either in generall where these questions are moued what the Church is whether it be visible or not by what markes it is knowen whether it may erre what authoritie it hath Then the parts of the Church which are either assembled and gathered together as in generall Councels where these doubts must be discussed whether generall Councels be necessary by whom they ought to be summoned whether they can erre whether the Pope be aboue Councels or not and such like Or els the parts of the church are seuerally to be considered and they are of three sortes either the chiefe parts the middle and meane parts the lowest and basest parts of the Church The chiefe member they make to be the Pope where there are many questions and of great waight as whether the regiment of the Church be Monarchicall whether Peter were appointed head of the Church whether the Pope be Peters successour whether he may erre whether the Pope be Antichrist with such other The middle parts are their Clerkes which are either secular as they call them which haue any Ecclesiasticall function where we must enquire of their election degrees of their single life and such like the Regular Clerkes are their Monkes and other of that profession where we must entreat of vowes of their solitarie life their habite their Canonicall houres with other matters The lowest members are the lay men where the questions about the Ciuill Magistrate must be handled as whether he may put heretikes to death whether he haue any power and authoritie in Ecclesiasticall matters and hetherto of the Militant Church The triumphant Church consisteth either of Angels or other Saints departed Concerning the Angels we dissent about the orders and degrees of them about their ministerie and office and whether they are to be prayed vnto Concerning the Saints departed there are many questions in controuersie as of Purgatory Lymbus Patrum whether they are to be praied vnto of their Reliques Images Temples Holie daies and such like The third office of Christ is his Priesthood whereof there are two parts his intercession where we must enquire whether Christ be the onely Mediatour of intercession and his Sacrifice where the maine and great controuersie concerning the Sacraments doth offer it selfe for by the Sacraments the power and efficacie of the death of Christ is deriued vnto vs. Here first we must entreate of the Sacraments in generall as of their number their efficacie the difference betweene the Sacraments of the olde and new Testament then in particular as of Baptisme and the seuerall questions thereto belonging of the Lords Supper where also the great controuersie about their Idolatrous sacrifice of the Masse and other necessary questions must be handled Then follow in order fiue other popish Sacraments to be considered of confirmation penaunce extreme vnction orders matrimony And these are the controuersies concerning the offices of Christ. The controuersies which concerne the benefits of our redemption with other seuerall questions are these as of predestination of sin of the law of free will of faith of good workes the particular questions are set forth at large in other places Lastly there remaine some questions about the person of Christ 〈◊〉 whether he be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is God of himselfe whether he encreased in wisedome whether he suffered in soule whether he merited for himselfe with such other Thus haue we the summe body of Antichristiā doctrine which we purpose by the grace of God to goe
third of Iohn the last Chapter of Marke We differ not then in the new Testament vnlesse it be concerning the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews which ouer aduersaries stoutly affirme to be S. Pauls which we deny not neither certainly can affirme it seeing in some Greeke copies it is left out and in the Syriacke translation But it mattereth not who was the author seeing we receiue it as canonicall for the title is no part of the booke and so neither of Scripture and we receiue many bookes in the old Testament the authors whereof are not perfectly knowne So then all the question is about the Apocrypha of the old Testamēt they are called Apocrypha because they are hid and obscure not because their authours are vnknowne for as I sayd we knowe not by whom certaine Canonical bookes were written neither are they so called because of some vntruthes conteined in them contrary to Scripture as the most of them haue for it foloweth not that euerie booke which hath no vntruth or lye should straight wayes be taken for Scripture but they are therfore iudged and called Apocrypha because they were not in former time receiued into publike and authentick authoritie in the Church neither to be alledged as grounds of our faith though they may be read for example of life and may haue other profitable vse But the Canonicall Scripture onely hath this priuiledge to geue rules of faith and thereupon it hath the name that we may be bold to beleeue and ground our faith vpon the canonicall holy Scripture which is the onely word of God Wherefore out of this number of Canonicall Scripture we exclude all the books afore named therfore let not the reader be deceiued that although they be ioyned in one volume with the Scripture to think that they are for that of the same authoritie and credit with the rest first we will shew one reason in general and afterward come vnto the particular books in order 1 All canonical scripture in the old Testament was written by Prophets we haue a sure word of the prophetes saith S. Peter 2.1.19 and S. Paule Rom. 16.26 calleth them the Scriptures of the Prophets But none of those bookes aforenamed of Tobias Iudith and the rest were written by the Prophets for they were all written since Malachies time who was the last Prophete as the Church complaineth Psal. 74.9 There is not one Prophete nor any that can tell vs how long Ergo none of these bookes are canonicall 2 All the canonicall bookes of the old Testament were acknowledged of the Iewes and Hebrues for they were then onely the Church of God and where should Scripture be found but in the Church to them sayth S. Paule were committed the oracles of God Rom. 3.2 But the Iewes receiued none of these books for none of them are written in the Hebrue toung neither did they receiue them with the like authoritie as other bookes of Scripture and this some of the Papists can not denie Ergo thy are not Canonicall 3 There is no Scripture of the old Testament but it hath approbation of the new for as the Prophetes beare witnesse to Christ so he againe doth witnesse for the Prophets and therefore it is a true proposition of Caietane though he be controlled and checked of Catharinus an other Papist for it that there is no Scripture which was not either written or approued by the Apostles but in the whole new Testament you shall not find one testimony cited either in the Gospel or the Epistles out of any of the Apocrypha as out of other bookes of Scripture therefore hauing no approbation of the new Testament we conclude they are none of the old 4 It shall appeare in the seuerall discourse of the particular bookes that there is somewhat euen in the bookes themselues to be found that barreth them from being Canonicall OF THE BOOKE OF BARVCH The Papistes THis is their best reason for the authoritie of this booke because Baruch was Ieremies scribe and therfore Baruch can not be refused vnlesse also we doubt of Ieremie Bellarm. lib. 1. de verbo Dei cap. 8. The Protestantes THis booke was neither written by Ieremie nor Baruch first because it is in Greeke if either Ieremie or Baruch had written it it is most like they would haue written in Hebrue Secondly the phrase and manner of speach sheweth that it was neuer written in Hebrue for in the 6. Chapter in the Epistle of Ieremie it is said that the Israelites should be in captiuitie seuen generations that is 70. yeares but it can not be found in any Hebrue booke that generation is taken for the space of 70. yeares OF THE SEVEN APOCRYPHAL Chapters of Esther The Papistes ONe of their chief Arguments besides testimonies and authorities which would make to great a Volume is this which is common also to the rest of the Apocrypha they are read in the Church haue bene of auncient time Ergo they are Canonicall I aunswere that it is no good argument Hierome saith plainly Legit Ecclesia sedeos inter Scripturas Canonicas non recipit Praefat. in lib. Solomon The Church indeede saith he readeth them yet for all that they are not Canonicall And Augustine was wōt to read vnto the people the Epistles of the Donatistes and his aunsweres vnto them Epist. 203. The Protestantes THe most of our reasons against the authoritie of the 7. Chapters added to Esther for of the 10 first Chapters which are found in the Hebrue we make no doubt at all are drawen from the matter of the booke it selfe 1 In the second of the Canonicall Esther ver 16. it is said that the conspiracie of the two Eunuches against the king was in the 7. yeare of Assuerus but in the 11. Chap. ver 2. of the Apocryphall Esther we read that Mardocheus did dreame of this conspiracie in the secōd yeare Bellarmine aunswereth that both are true for the dreame was in the secōd yeare the conspiracie in the seuēth so belike there was fiue yeares betweene But in the 11. Chapter it is said that Mardocheus was much troubled about that dreame and the next night after his dreame the conspiracie was enterprised 2 The true history of Esther saith that Mardocheus had no reward at that time of the king cap. 6.3 but the forged storie saith that at the same time the king gaue him great gifts which can not be meant of that great honor which afterward was bestowed vpon Mardoche for then Haman being hanged the same day could worke him no despite wheras the forged story saith that after the king had rewarded him then Haman began to stomach him because of those two Eunuches 3 Againe the storie which is added was written many yeares after Mardoches Esthers death vnder the raigne of Ptolomaeus Cleopatra as it appeareth cap. 11.1 it is not like therefore to be a true storie Bellarmins ridiculous cōiecture is this that there were two stories
he in the beginning of Manasses raigne and so to dye about 7. yeares before Iosias yet for all his scanning is driuē to this shift that the many yeares peace after her death must be vnderstood of poore 7. yeares Thirdly if all this happened in Manasses time whom the Chaldeans tooke and carried away prisoner and had much troubled and afflicted the country of Iudaea what neede had Holofernes to enquire so curiously of Achior the Ammonite of the country their Citie people kings and such like seeing they had knowen the country to well before in spoyling and wasting of it as the Iewes by wofull experience had felt OF THE BOOKE OF WISEDOME The Papistes OVr aduersaries reason thus they say that S. Paul Rom. 11.34 vsing this speach who hath knowen the Lordes minde or bene his counseller doth alledge it out of the 4. Chapter of this booke v. 13. Ergo it is Canonicall We aunswere First the Apostle seemeth not in that place to cite any testimonie though the wordes which he vseth may els where be found Secondly though the like wordes are read in the booke of Wisedome yet is it not necessarie the Apostle should borrow them frō thēce but rather they are alledged out of the 40. of Esay 13. Where the Prophet saith who hath instructed the spirit of God or was his counseller And this also is the opiniō of the Rhemistes that S. Paul in that place vseth the Prophets wordes The Protestantes OVr reasons against the authoritie of this booke are these and such like 1 Because this booke is not found in the Hebrue but written onely in Greeke wherefore it is not Canonicall seeing the Iewes had all the oracles of God 2 Philo a Iew is thought by the Papistes them selues to be the author of this booke who liued after Christ in the time of Caligula neither him selfe was a Christian or beleeued in Christ therefore an vnlike man to be a writer of Canonicall Scripture Bellarmine saith it was another Philo who was more auncient Indeed Iosephus maketh mention of a Philo before this time but he was an Heathen and no Iew. 3 If this booke were written by Solomon why is it not extant in Hebrue for Solomon wrote in Hebrue not in Greeke Many of the Papists also do proue that it was not written by Solomon for though Solomon in the 2. Chapter be brought in praying vnto God that is no good argument to proue Solomon the author for the author might speake in the person of Solomon OF THE BOOKE CALLED Ecclesiasticus The Papistes THey haue none but common and generall arguments for the authoritie of this booke as that it was of old read in the church diuerse of the fathers alledged testimonies out of it All this proueth not as we haue shewed before that it was Canonicall but that it was well esteemed and thought of because of many wholesome and good precepts which are conteined in it The Protestantes WE do thus improue the authoritie of this booke 1 The author in the Preface saith that he trāslateth in this booke such things as before were collected by his grandfather in Hebrue and excuseth him selfe because that things translated out of the Hebrue do loose the grace and haue not the same force so then it appeareth that this booke can not be Canonicall being imperfect neither was his grandfathers worke which is now lost to be thought any part of the Scripture seeing he was no Prophet him selfe but a compiler and a collector of certaine things out of the Prophetes 2 He exhorteth his countrymen to take it in good worth and so craueth pardon but the spirit of God vseth not to make any such excuse whose works are most perfect and feare not the iudgement of men 3 This booke saith cap. 46. v. 20. that Samuell prophesied after his death from the earth lift vp his voyce Whereas the Canonicall Scripture saith not that it was Samuell but that Saul so imagined and thought it to be Samuell 1. Sam. 28. And Augustine thinketh it was phantasma Samuelis but a shew onely and representation of Samuell and an illusion of the deuill Lib. ad Dulcitiū quaest 6. For it is not to be thought that the deuill cā disease the soules of any men much lesse of Saints departed OF THE TWO BOOKES OF the Machabees OVr Argumentes against the authoritie of this booke are these ensuing for our aduersaries bring nothing on their part but such Argumentes drawen from testimonies authorities as do generally serue for all the Apocrypha which are aunswered afore 1 Iudas is commended 2. booke chap. 12. for offring sacrifice for the dead which was not commanded by the law neither is it the custome of the Iewes so to do to this day againe they were manifest Idolaters for there were foūd iewels vnder their coates consecrate to the Idols of the Iamnites And our aduersaries graunt them selues that prayer is not to be made for open malefactors dying impenitently 2 Lib. 2. cap. 2. many things are reported of the arke the holy fire the altar the tabernacle which should be hid by Ieremie in a caue and that the Lord would shew the people these things at their returne Here are many things vnlikely and vntrue First it is found saith the text in the writings of Ieremie but no such storie is there found Secondly Ieremie was in prison till the very taking of the Citie and the Citie being taken the temple was spoyled the holy things defaced and carried away how could they then be conueyed by Ieremie Thirdly in their returne they found neither arke nor fire nor any such thing but saith the Iesuite the Iewes in their conuersion to God in the end of the world may haue them againe as though whē they shal beleeue in Christ they will any more looke backe to the ceremonies or rites of the law for what vse then I pray you shall they haue of altar or sacrifice or any such like 3 There is a great disagreeing in the storie betweene the two bookes cōcerning the death of Antiochus Lib. 1. cap. 6. v. 6.16 It is said that Antiochus dyed for grief in Babylon hearing of the good successe of the Iewes Lib. 2.1 ver 16. Antiochus was with the rest of his souldiers slayne in the temple of Nanea and his head cut of throwen forth Chap. 9. the same Antiochus falling sicke by the way dyed with a most filthie and stincking smell cōsumed of wormes How could this man dye thrise in Babylon in Nanea and by the way in a straunge coūtrey It is confessed by the Iesuite that it was the same Antiochus who saith he lost his armie in the temple and sickned by the way and dyed at Babylon But the storie saith that their heads were cut of I thinke thē he could not liue and that he dyed in a straunge country therefore not at Babylon in his bed These things hang not together 4 Further the author of these bookes saith that he
vulgare toung The Papistes error 4 IT was decreed in the Tridētine Coūcell that the seruice of the church which they cal the masse should not be celebrated in the vulgare toūg Sect. 22. cap. 8. And it is the cōmon practise euery where of the Romish church to vse the Latin toung onely We must be cōtent say they with those three toungs which God honored vpon the Crosse namely the Hebrue Greeke and Latin This libertie onely they graunt that their Priest may expound some things as he readeth and shew the meaning to the people 1 Thus they argue the maiestie and grauitie of the sacred businesse doe require also to be vttered in a sage sanctified and graue language Ergo not in the vulgare We aunswere the grauitie reuerence and holynesse consisteth not in words phrases and soundes though neuer so eloquent but in the things them selues neither is any toung that is vnderstood before the Lord counted barbarous for S. Paule saith that he is a barbariā and speaketh barbarously in the Church that can not be vnderstood 1. Cor. 14.11 And Actes 2.11 the verie straungers and barbarians heard the Apostles vtter in their languages the wonderfull things of God they thought the toung no disgrace to those holy mysteries they vttered 2 Leuit. 16. ver 17. The people is commaunded to stand without till the Priest went in and made attonemēt for them they vnderstood not the Priest for they heard him not Ergo it is not necessarie the people should vnderstand the Minister We answere First that was a type of our Sauiour Christ who euen so ascended into heauen as the high Priest did into the holy place but types and figures proue nothing Secondly they vnderstood not the priest because they heard him not but they can not proue that the Priest vttered any thing in their hearing at any time which they vnderstood not 3 We must onely vse those toungs in holy affaires which were sanctified in the Crosse that is Hebrue Greeke Latin We aunswere those toungs were not then vsed for any such purpose but that the death of Christ might by those cōmon and vniuersall toungs be the further spread abroad And surely if they would proue that these toungs were hereby sanctified me thinkes Pilate was no fit instrument of that sanctification by whose appointment the title was written The Protestantes WE do affirme that as it hath bene the commendable vse of all ancient Churches to haue the seruice in the vulgare toung that the people might vnderstand and be better stirred vp to deuotion so the same godlie vse ought for euer to remaine and be retained in the Church of God 1 This is most agreable to S. Paules doctrine 1. Cor 14. who would haue all things done to edifying but by an vnknowen toung no man is edified and he saith he had rather speake fiue wordes to be vnderstood then ten thousand otherwise Some of the Papistes say that S. Paule speaketh of preaching not of praying but in the 14. ver he speaketh namely of prayer and in the 16. of the peoples saying Amē which was not geuē at Sermons but in the end of prayers this is but a weake aunswere The Rhemistes and the Iesuite say he speaketh of certaine extraordinarie Hymnes and giuing of thankes whereof S. Paule speaketh Ephe. 5.19 Answere S. Paule speaketh generally of all publike exercise in the Church whether of prayer preaching singing that it should all be done in a knowen toung for he vseth the generall termes of speaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of the voyce as ver 11. If I vnderstād not the power of the voyce he saith not of the song or preaching I shal be to him that speaketh a barbarian so he misliketh not onely preaching or singing but any kinde of speaking in the Church in a strange toung This place of S. Paule is to euident and plaine thē that it may be so easilie wrested and depraued by their hereticall and Antichristian gloses 2 Who seeth not that prayers made with the vnderstanding are more cōfortable and fruitfull the other nothing to profite at all nor yet to be auaylable before God Howsoeuer our aduersaries say that the hart and affectiō may pray though the vnderstanding pray not yet S. Paule saith they speake in the ayre their prayer is but wind 1. Cor. 14.9 Therefore not amisse did that godly Martir M. Wisehart compare the ridiculous gestures of the Priest at Masse being not vnderstood of the people to the playing of an ape Fox p. 1269. col 2. And one Iohn Riburne was vniustly troubled of Longlād Bishop of Lincolne anno 1530. for saying if we had our Pater noster in English one should say it nine times against once now Fox pag. 984. col 2. And was not that ghostly Bishoplike coūsaile thinke you of the Bishop of Cauaillon to the Merindoliās in Fraunce that it was sufficiēt to know their Pater noster Creede in Latin it was not necessary to saluatiō to vnderstand or expoūd the Articles of faith for there were many Bishops Curates yea Doctors of Diuinitie whō it would trouble to expound the Creede or Pater noster Fox Martirol pag. 949. col 2. 3 We will conclude with Augustine Quare dicta sunt nisi vt sciantur quare sonuerunt nisi vt audiantur quare audita sunt nisi vt intelligantur tract in Iohan. 21. Why are things spoken in the Church saith he but to be knowen why are they pronoūced but to be heard why are they heard but to be vnderstood Ergo Lessons and Scriptures and publike prayers must be vsed in a knowen toung and easie to be vnderstood THE FOVRTH QVESTION OF THE authoritie of the Scriptures The Papistes error 5 THe Papistes of former times doubted not to say that the Scripture is not authenticall without the authoritie of the Church so Eckius saith so Pigghius that the authoritie of the Scripture dependeth of the authoritie of the Church necessarilie Hermannus a Papist most impudently affirmeth that the Scripture should be of no more credite then Aesopes Fables without the approbation of the Church a fowle blasphemie But our Papistes of later time being ashamed of their forefathers ignoraunce they say that the Scriptures in them selues are perfect sufficient authenticall but that to vs it appeareth not so neither are we bound to take them for Scripture without the authoritie of the Church so Canus Bellarmin Stapleton so that say they in respect of vs the Church hath absolute authoritie to determine which is Scripture which not Ex Whitacher quaest 3. de Script cap. 1. 1 There is no more certaine authoritie thē of the Church Ergo the church must determine of scripture sic Stapleton We answere First the maiestie of the Scriptures them selues is more certaine and the inward testimonie of the spirite without the which we can not be perswaded of the truth and authoritie of the Scripture Secōdly if they meane by the church the sinagogue of Rome
it hath nothing to do to iudge of Scripture being the seate of Antichrist neither is the authoritie of that Church to be credited but rather suspected and mistrusted 2 There are certaine writings of the Prophetes not canonicall and other writings of some that were no Prophetes made canonicall Ergo the Church hath authoritie to iudge of Scripture sic Stapleton For the first where he obiecteth that there are many writings of the Prophetes as of Solomon Nathan Ahiia Ieedo 2. Chronic. 9.29 that are lost and if they were extant should not be receiued We aunswere First it is not to be doubted of but some part of the canonicall Scripture is lost Secōdly how proueth he that if they were extant they were not to be acknowledged for Scripture To the second that bookes not made by Prophets are iudged canonicall as of Tobie Iudith We aunswere that these bookes ought not to be canonicall neither that euer they were so taken till of late it was decreed by Councels of no great antiquitie for in the Laodicene Councell and other auncient Councels they were deemed not to be canonicall 3 Certaine bookes of the new Testament before doubted of as the Epistle to the Hebrues the Apocalipse the 2. Epistle of Peter the second of Iohn are receiued into authoritie by the Church and other bookes as the Gospell of Thomas Mathias Andrew Peter were reiected by the authoritie of the Church We answere First we deny not but that the Church is to discerne betweene the true Scriptures forged bookes but this she doth not of her own authoritie but folowing the direction of Gods spirite speaking in those writings for the Church looking into the sacred and diuine matter of the Apostles writings was moued to acknowledge them for the word of God though of some they were doubted of finding the other to be fabulous bookes did by the direction of the same spirite reiect them Secondly Augustine and Hierome thinke that the Canon of Scripture might be confirmed in the Apostles time Iohn being the suruiuer of thē all who both acknowledged the true writings of the Apostles and condemned the contrarie If it be so the spirite of God in the Apostles hauing determined this question already concerning the canonicall Scripture the Church hath no authoritie to alter or chaunge that decree Plura apud Whitacher quaest 3. de Scriptur cap. 5. The Protestantes WE do not despise the sentence of the Church as our aduersaries doe falsely charge vs but we confesse that it is the duetie of the Church to geue testimony to the Scriptures as the Goldsmith doth trie the gold Fulk annot 2. Gal. 2. But the Church ought not to set the Lordes stampe vpon false coyne as the Papistes do in making Apocryphall bookes canonicall Neither doe we onely beleeue the Scripture because of the Churches testimonie nor chiefly but because the spirit of God doth so teach vs and the Scriptures them selues do testifie for them selues so that euerie man is bound to acknowledge the Scripture though there were no publike approbation of the Church Fulk 2. Galat. 6. Whitacher quaest 3. cap. 1. de Scripturis We do reason thus 1 The Iesuite doth reason strongly for vs he bringeth fiue arguments to proue the Scripture to be the word of God veritas vaticiniorum the constant and perpetuall truth of the Prophecies incredibilis scriptorum conspiratio the wonderfull harmonie and consent of holy writers of the Scripture testis est Deus ipse the spirite of God is a principall witnesse vnto vs testis est ipsa Scriptura the Scripture it selfe beareth witnesse as 2. Tim. 3. all Scripture is geuen by inspiration testis est diuinorum numerus infinitus miraculorum lastly the many and great miracles wrought by the Prophetes and Apostles do testifie for the truth thereof He maketh no mention at all of the testimonie of the Church but saith the same that we hold that the spirit of God inwardly working in our harts by the Scriptures them selues which we find to be most perfect consonant true of singular maiestie doth teach vs which is the word of God Bellarmin de verbo Dei lib. 1. cap. 2. 2 The Scripture geueth authoritie to the Church Ergo the Church geueth not authoritie to the Scripture the first we proue by our aduersaries own confession for being asked how they know that the Church erreth not they alledge such places of Scripture as Math. 28.20 I am with you to the end of the world and the like how then doth the Church geue authoritie to Scripture seeing it taketh her warrant and authoritie from thence the Iesuite him selfe saith that nihil est certius vel notius Scripturis nothing is more certaine or notoriously knowen then Scripture and againe sacra Scriptura est regula credendi certissima the holy Scripture is the most certaine rule of faith Bellarm. de verbo 1.2 If the authoritie of Scripture then be most certaine what reason is it that they should depend vpon the iudgement of the Church which is nothing so certaine the lesse certaine ought rather and so doth indeed depend of the more certaine the Church vpon the Scripture not contrariwise for the Scriptures are the foundation of the Church Ephe. 2.20 3 To beleeue the Scripture is a worke of faith the Church can not infuse faith into vs but the spirite of God Ergo the spirite of God not the Church teacheth vs to beleeue Scripture argum Whitach 18. 4 If the Scriptures depend vpon the approbation of the Church then the promises of saluation and eternall life conteined in the Scriptures do so likewise but it is absurde to thinke that the promises of God do stand vpō the allowance of men Ergo neither the Scriptures argum Caluini 5 The Scripture is the chief iudge and ought so to be in all cōtrouersies we may appeale from the Church to the Scripture not from the Scripture to the Church the Church is subiect to the Scriptures the rule of faith is in the scriptures not in the Church for the cōpanie of faithful which is the Church are ruled by faith they do not ouerrule faith neither are a rule thereof the Church is a point of beliefe as in the Creede not a rule or measure thereof Ergo the Church is not the chief iudge of Scripture but it selfe to be iudged by scripture Whitach argum 16. 6 We haue euident places of scripture Iohn 5.34 saith Christ I receiue no witnes of men but the scripture is the voyce of Christ and of the same authoritie Ergo. Ver. 36. I haue a greater testimonie thē of Iohn the scriptures do testifie of me Ver. 39. The testimony of the scriptures is greater thē the record of Iohn Ergo then of the Church 1. Iohn 5.6 the spirite beareth witnesse that the spirite that is the doctrine of the spirit is the truth And. ver 9. if we receiue the witnesse of man the witnesse of God is greater Ergo not the iudgement of the Church
which is contrarie We aunswere whatsoeuer is imposed as necessarie to saluation beside the Scripture praeter Scripturas is also contra Scripturas contrarie to Scripture as are all Popish traditions which they lay a necessitie vpon both beside and contrarie to Scripture Neither did those false Apostles against whom S. Paule writeth so much bring in another or cōtrary Gospell as the Apostle saith ver 7. as they did labour to corrupt and peruert that Gospel which S. Paul taught Therfore all traditiōs whether praeter or cōtra beside or contrarie to Scripture are notablie by this place ouerthrowen 2 Iohn 20.31 these things are written that ye might beleeue that Iesus Christ is the sonne of God that in beleeuing ye might haue life through his name Ergo the Scriptures conteine all things necessarie to saluation for they suffise to worke in vs faith and faith bringeth vs to eternall life First Bellarmine aunswereth that Iohn speaketh onely of that which he had written Aunswere If this one Apostles writings were able to worke faith the whole body of Scripture much more but he rather speaketh of all other holy writings of the Apostles for he was the suruiuer of them all acknowledged their writings and approued them Secōdly saith he the Apostle saith not that those writings onely suffise but they are profitable and referred to this end to worke faith Aunswere The Scripture is not one of the meanes but the sole whole and onely meanes for if they perfectly worke faith what neede any other helpes but the first is true for they doe beget in vs a perfect faith which shall bring vs to eternall life Ergo they are the onely meanes of faith 3 The whole Scripture saith S. Paule is profitable to teach to improue to correct and instruct in righteousnesse 2. Tim. 3.16 Ergo it conteineth all things necessarie for what els is requisite besides these foure to teach the right faith improue error to instruct in righteousnes and vertue to correct vice First they aunswere the Apostle meaneth as well euery booke of Scripture as the whole euery part therfore hath this perfection as well as the whole But you will not say that euery booke conteineth all things necessarie to saluation therefore this perfection is not so to be taken We aunswere First S. Paule vnderstandeth the body of Scripture as ver 15. thou hast knowen the Scriptures he speaketh of them all Secondly if euery part had these vtilities you might as well conclude that euery word and sillable hath them for they are parts of Scripture Thirdly it appeareth by these foure great vtilities here set downe that the Apostle meaneth not any part or partes of Scripture but the whole for euery part of Scripture is not profitable for all these endes but the whole Secōdly they say it foloweth not the Scripture is profitable therfore sufficient they also graunt it is profitable Aunswere but we conclude out of S. Paule that the Scripture is not onely profitable but sufficient as it foloweth v. 17. that the man of God may be absolute perfectly instructed to euery good worke If then the scriptures are able perfectly to instruct vs then are they sufficient then neede we no other helpes 4 Lastly Augustine thus writeth in Psal. 66. Ne putetis saith he ex alijs Scripturis petendum quod forte hic deest Thinke not saith he that it is to be found in any other writings if it be not in Scripture And in another place In Euangelio quaeramus nam si ibi non inuenimus vbi inueniemus Let vs saith he seeke to be resolued in the Gospell if we finde not there where shall we find it Ergo by the iudgemēt of Augustine there is no truth necessary to be knowen which is not to be found in the Scripture THE THIRD PART OF THE SEVENTH question whether there be any traditions beside Scripture concerning faith and manners The Papistes error 13 THey vnderstand by this word tradition doctrine preceptes and ceremonies with other vsages of the Church which are not written in the scriptures They do not say that all their traditiōs are necessary but they make diuerse kindes of them some are vniuersall obserued in the whole Church some particular some are free some necessarie some are Apostolicall inuented by the Apostles some Ecclesiasticall by the Church so thus they conclude all traditions decreed in Councels and iudged Apostolicall whatsoeuer the Church of Rome receiueth as Apostolicall are not to be doubted but to be Apostolicall indeed Secondly all Apostolicall traditions are of equall authoritie with the writings of the Apostles Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 2. 9. and they are that part of the word of God which is vnwritten as well as the scriptures are that part which is written Let vs see what arguments they bring for these traditions 1 They geue an instance of certaine traditiōs as the Baptisme of infants and the not rebaptising of those which were before Baptised by heretikes We aunswere these two customes of the Church are grounded vpon scripture for as childrē were in the time of the law Circūcised so are they now vnder the Gospell Baptised and that promise Gene. 17. I will be thy God and the God of thy seede as it belonged to them and their children so doth it appertaine to vs and our children Concerning the other point that they whom heretikes haue once Baptised ought not to be Baptised againe S. Augustine doth proue it out of the scripture Ephe. 4. there is one Faith one Baptisme Ergo not to be repeated But now they come in with other traditions as the Lenton fast which they vse most fondly and superstitiously the eight Ecclesiasticall orders Bishops Prists Deacōs Subdeacons Acolythistes Readers Exorcistes Doore-keepers the worshipping of Images with many other these they would face vs out to be Apostolical traditions and to haue bene vniuersally obserued which are but their vayne brags and Thrasonicall crakes they shall neuer proue them vniuersall much lesse Apostolicall And because they finde no scripture to establish these their superstitious fantasies by they flye vnto tradition which is their onely hauen where they hope to finde succour but all in vayne Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 9. Consul Whitacher quaest 6. cap. 4. 2 They proceede and alledge scripture for their traditions as that place Iohn 16.12 I haue many things to say but you can not beare them now Ergo say they there are many traditions not written We aunswere First it foloweth not because Christ declared not all things at that time that therefore he kept them from his Apostles all together Nay whatsoeuer afterwardes the Apostles learned of the spirite of God they had heard before of Christ for it was the office of the spirite but to put them in remembrance of Christes sayings Iohn 14.26 which they had heard before but vnderstood them not and so forgat them Wherefore these things which Christ forbeareth to speake are the same things which are cōteined in
of the question First whether wicked men and infidels be true members of the Church Secondly whether the Catholike Church be inuisible 2 Whether the Catholike Church may erre and whether the visible Church may fayle vpon earth 3 Concerning the true notes and markes of the Church 4 Of the authoritie of the Church two partes First whether the Church haue authoritie in matters of faith beside the Scriptures and whether we ought to beleeue in the Church Secondly concerning the ceremonies of the Church 5 Whether the Church of Rome be the true Church two partes First whether it be the Catholike Church Secondly whether the Church of Rome be a true visible Church of these now in their place and order THE FIRST QVESTION OF THE definition of the Catholike Church The Papistes THe Catholike Church say they is a visible companie of men professing the same faith and Religion and acknowledging the Bishop of Rome to be their chief pastor and the Vicare of Christ vpon earth Bellarmin de Eccles. Lib. 3. cap. 2. Canisius capit de praecept Eccles. articul 9. Lindanus lib. 4. cap. 84. The Protestantes THe Catholike and vniuersall Church is the inuisible cōpanie of the faithfull elected and chosen to eternall life Iohn 10.16 A particular Church is a member of the vniuersall and Catholike Church and it is a visible companie and congregation of men amongest whom the pure word of God is preached and the Sacramentes rightly administred in the which visible congregation there may be and are many hypocrites euill and vnfaithfull men found and shal be to the end of the world Ex Amand. Polano So then betweene the vniuersall and particular Church there is a treble difference First the one is dispersed ouer all the world the other in some one country citie or any certaine place Secondly the vniuersall consisteth onely of the elect the particular both of good and bad Thirdly the Catholike is inuisible the other is visible and to be seene The question betweene vs and our aduersaries is about the vniuersall Catholike Church which they do falsly define in three points First they hold that wicked men are true members of the Catholike Church Secondly they allow not this distinctiō of the Church visible and inuisible but do affirme that the Catholike Church is visible Thirdly they make the Catholike Church to be in subiection to the Bishop of Rome Concerning this last point it belongeth to the controuersie of the Bishop of Rome and therefore we will not touch it in this place The other two are now to be handled in this question as two partes thereof THE FIRST PART OF THIS FIRST question whether wicked men and infidels may be true members of the Church The Papistes THey affirme that not onely the predestinate but euē reprobates also may belong vnto the Church and be true members thereof Bellarmin Lib. 3. de error 14 Eccles. cap. 7. Nay they denie that the elect which are vnborne and not yet called do appertaine to the Church of Christ. Rhemistes annot in 1. Tim. 3. Sect. 10. This then is generally their opinion that there is no internal grace or vertue required in the mēbers of the Church but onely the externall and publike outward profession Bellarmin cap. 2. And therefore they doubt not to say that euen wicked men and reprobates remaining in the publike profession of the Church are true members of the body of Christ. Rhemistes annot in Iohan. 15. Sect. 1. 1 They first alledge certaine places of Scripture as Math. 3. the Church is compared to a barne floore where there is both chaff and corne Math. 13. to a net cast into the sea where all manner of fish are gathered together 2. Tim. 2. to a house wherein there be vessels of honor and dishonor Ergo both good bad are members of the Church Bellarmin cap. 7. lib. 3. We aunswere All these places must be vnderstood of the visible Church which is knowen by the publike preaching of the word and therefore Math. 3. compared to a fanne and Math. 13. to a draw net the Apostles pastors and teachers are the fisher men Wherefore we denie not but that wicked men may be in the Church but not of it yea they may be members of the visible Church for a time but can not be truly ingraffed into the body of Christ. Fulk annot Iohan. 15. Sect. 1. 2 The Church say they is compared to a body 1. Cor. 12. as in the body there are some partes which haue neither sense nor life so in the Church there are some mēbers which haue neither faith nor charitie which is the life of the Church Ergo wicked men may be right members of the Church Bellarm. cap. 10. there may be also some fruitlesse braūches in the vine and so euill men may be members of Christ. Rhemist annot 15. Iohan. 1. euery braunch not bearing fruit in me shal be cast forth Ergo there may be fruitlesse braūches in Christ. We answere to the first who would haue said as the Iesuite doth that there are partes in the body that receiue neither life nor sense of the body doth he meane the nayles and heares as he seemeth to geue instance in the end of the Chapter but they are no partes of the body but excrements he is so deepe in his sophistrie that he hath forgotten Philosophie and yet they receiue some gift from the body for they grow encrease but the wicked receiue no grace at all from the Church The Rhemistes yet are more reasonable that say the wicked in the church are as ill humors and superfluous excrements in the body rather then liuely partes therof 1. Iohan. 2. Sect. 10. To the second is a dead bow or a braunch I pray you any part of the tree I thinke not the tree can not conueniently spare any one of the partes therof but the dead partes are hurtfull and combersome and it doth the tree good to cut them of But that they haue preuented vs we would haue vsed no better argument against them then this drawen from the resemblance of a mans body for as what is in the body receiuing no life nor power from the body is not properly a part of the body howsoeuer it seeme to be ioyned to the body so the wicked although they be in the outward face of the Church yet because they are not partakers of the spirituall life thereof by Christ are not truly to be iudged members of it 3 If wicked men should not be right members of the Church but the faithfull and predestinate we should be vncertaine which is the true Church which is not to be admitted because the whole doctrine and all the principles of Religion do depend of the testimonie of the Church Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 10. We aunswere First although it is necessarie that the true Church should be certainly knowen yet not for that cause which the Iesuite pretendeth for the Religion of Christians is grounded vpon the Scriptures
Was not here great amitie and loue thinke you amongest the Popes Another notable example of their vnitie we haue in Pope Vrbanus time the 6. against whom stood vp a contrarie Pope in Fraunce named Clement it is worth the noting what coyle these two popes kept between whō many battailes were fought many thousands slaine Pope Vrbane beheaded fiue Cardinals together after long torments Bishop Aquilonensis because he did ride no faster was had in suspition and slayne and cut in peeces by Vrbans souldiers at his commaundement behold here I pray you the vnitie of these Catholikes We will adioyne one other example no longer since then in king Henry the eights time The Duke of Bourbon being the leader of the Emperors armie layd siege to Rome and sacked it the souldiers brake in vpon the Pope which was Clement the seuenth being at Masse slew diuerse of the Priests and one Cardinall called Sanctorum quatuor they layd siege to the Castle of S. Angell so long till the Pope yeelded him selfe The souldiers dayly that lay at the siege made iestes of the Pope sometime they had one riding like the Pope with a whore behind him sometimes he blessed sometime he cursed sometime with one voyce they would call him Antichrist See here is their Catholike obedience to their chief Bishop Thus much concerning their vnitie and concord in life Let vs likewise take a view of their vnitie in doctrine We heard before how Pope Stephen and Sergius abolished the decrees of Formosus how then saith the Iesuite that the decrees of Popes do consent together The Councell of Basile and Constance before that decreed that the Pope should be subiect to generall Councels but this Canon was afterward reuersed and now generally the Papists hold the contrary that the Pope is aboue Councels Let vs see the consent of their writers Bellarmin lib. 1. de verbo cap. 12. maintaineth against Lyranus Driedo Genebrard and others that Iudith was in Manasses time Against Alphonsus de Castro that heretikes are no members of the Church Lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 4. Against Iohannes de turre cremata that faith is not necessarie to make one a member of the Church Lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 10. And euery where the Iesuite taketh great libertie to confute and controll other his felow Papistes belike hauing found out some starting holes that they either knew not or were ashamed to creepe into as the Iesuite doth But saith he we denie not but that we haue dissentions but they are not in materiall points but in such things as appertaine not to faith I meruaile he blusheth not thus to say him selfe knowing the contrary Is it not a substantiall point and belōging to faith to know which bookes are canonicall Scripture which are not But in this question they do much disagree Caietanus the Cardinall saith that we must acknowledge no Scripture but that which was either written or approued by the Apostles But Catharinus a Papist doth reiect that opinion Hugo Cardinalis Arias Montanus do hold no bookes of the old Testament to be canonicall which are written onely in Greeke the Papistes now generally hold the contrary Ex Whitacher 1. contr c. quaest cap. 6. Bellarmin saith that all those opinions which the Church holdeth as articles or preceptes of faith were deliuered by the Apostles that the Church must not now seeke for new reuelations but content her selfe with the Apostolike traditions and doctrine de Scriptur lib. 4. cap. 9. Out of the which words it doth necessarily folow that the church is not now to foūd any new article of faith but this generally is denied by the Papistes and Stapleton an English Papist is not ashamed to say that the Church may adde more bookes to the canonicall Scripture by her absolute authoritie Further to beleeue that the virgine Marie was without sinne yea conceiued without originall sinne is now amongest the Papistes receiued for an article of faith and therefore in Paris none are admitted to be Doctors of Diuinitie which doe not first confirme this article by their oth Yet this was a great question betweene the Scotistes and Thomistes and a great and hote contention arose about this controuersie anno 1476. betweene the Dominicke Friers who affirmed that she was conceiued in sinne and the Franciscanes that held the contrary But these Franciscanes had the vpper hand and foure of the other order were condemned and burned for it at Berne and yet for all this our aduersaries will say still that they varie not in matters of faith Thus we haue seene what is to be thought of Popish vnitie Now to answere briefly to their false accusation whereby they charge vs with manifold schismes and dissentions yea Bellarmin is not ashamed to say that an hundred seuerall sectes are sprong amongest vs. cap. 10. lib. 4. de Eccles. 1 We say with S. Paule oportet haereses esse 1. Cor. 11. there must be heresies and diuisions in the Church And it is a signe we haue the truth when the deuill goeth about by schismes and contentions to hinder the preaching thereof We answere to you as Augustine did to the paganes Non proferant nobis quasi concordiam suam hostem quippe quem patimur illi non patiuntur Let them not boast of their concord and cast in our teeth the dissention of Christians the enemie assaulteth not them as he doth vs Quid ibi luchri est quia litigant vel damni si litigant the deuill shall get nothing if they should disagree nor lose any thing by their agreement for he hath sure hold enough of them already consenting all in Idolatrie But amongest Christians he laboureth to hinder the truth by discord because he can not otherwise withdraw them frō the true Religion Hearken now ô ye Papistes if you consent together it is in euill so long it pleaseth the deuill well enough he should destroy his owne kingdome in sowing dissention amongest you for you fight for him He vseth to cast fire brands amongest good Christians to withstand by this meanes the proceeding of the Gospell 2 It is a great sclaunder that there are so many diuisions amongest vs an hundred saith the Iesuite but he shall neuer proue ten He might haue bethought him selfe of a full hundred of sectes amongest his owne darlings the Monkes and Friers as M. Fox hath faithfully gathered the number pag. 260. 3 Those few schismes and dissentions which we haue and yet to many we must needes confesse are not about points of faith and articles of Religion but concerning some things belonging to discipline and Church gouernement which matters we denie not but haue bene somewhat to hotely and egerlie folowed of some amongest vs but God be thanked this contention hath not bene pursued by fire or death as the Franciscanes did persecute the poore Dominickes nor yet to the pronouncing of ech other heretikes as Eugenius your Pope was condemned as an hereticke in the Councell of
come after him which should preach the same fayth that hee had taught and should conuert many from their errors And many such examples wee haue of holy martyrs and worthy Prophets But we hereby doe not proue our Church Yet this I hope hath not been out of the way to haue aunswered a little to our aduersaries vaine and vntrue bragges Hitherto we haue touched the principall notes and markes whereby the Papists doe decipher out their Church vnto vs Now it followeth that we declare the right and certaine signes of the true Church Of the true and infallible Notes of the Church of Christ. THe outward tokens whereby the true visible Church is discerned are not many in number as our aduersaries doe reckon vp many the Iesuite no lesse than 15. supplying belike in number that which they want in waight Neither in this place doe we speake of the vniuersal Catholike inuisible Church which is beleeued and not seen being an article of our faith but of particular visible Churches which are discerned and knowen by these two essentiall markes the true preaching of the word and right vse of the sacraments Some also doe adde a third namely ecclesiasticall discipline Beza confess de eccles art 7. Hooper vpon the Creede articul 72. But this partly is comprehended in the 2. former for there cannot be hearing preaching of the worde the frequenting of the sacraments vnlesse there bee an exercise of Church discipline partly also we say that it is not so essential a note as the other are for the absence of the other make a nullity of the Church If the word or sacramēts in substance be corrupted the Church also is defaced but if there be not an exact forme of discipline it doth not straightway cease to be a Church Wherfore we conclude that the true preaching of the word and right vse of the sacraments are the only necessary and essentiall notes of the Church Where these two are rightly vsed according to Gods worde there is a right Church as here in England God be blessed Where they are falsely and impurely handled there is a false and corrupt Church as among the Papists where they are not at all in vse there is no Church as amongst the Turkes Iewes and Infidels First we will examine our aduersaries arguments and then bring foorth our owne The Papistes 1. BEllarmine thus argueth the true notes of the Church ought to be proper and particular not common and generall as these are for euery sect of hereticks doe chalenge to themselues the right preaching of the word and vsage of the sacraments Ergo they are no true notes We answere 1. It skilleth not how many do lay clayme to those notes the word of God it self is a manifest iudge where pure doctrine is taught and the sacraments rightly kept according to the institution It is no matter howsoeuer Papists and other heretickes doe make their bragges the scriptures themselues can soone decide this question 2. I maruaile they are not ashamed to obiect that our notes are common seeing theirs are most common for not only assemblies of hereticks but euen the heathen and Idolatrous Gentiles might as well prooue themselues to be the Church by those popish notes of vniuersalitie for Idolatrie had ouer-spread the whole world of vnitie they all consented to persecute the Church of Christ of antiquitie for the worship of Idols continued aboue two thousand yeares of succession for the monarch of the Assyrians endured 1300. yeares their kings all this while one succeeding another They had also Prophets and such as wrought miracles Our aduersaries may be now ashamed to cast vs in the teeth that our notes are common when as theirs doe well agree to the Synagogues of Sathan and assemblies of Infidels 2. Sayth he the note or the marke must be better knowen and more notorious then the thing marked or notified by it so are not these for we know not which is the worde of God nor what bookes are canonicall and to be taken for scripture but by the Church We answere the Iesuite still beggeth that which is in question a foule fault in a professed disputer for haue we not largely prooued before 1. contr quaest 4. that the Church dependeth vpon the authoritie of the scripture and not contrariwise and that there is no more certaine and euident and vndoubted thing in the whole world vpon the which a man may bee bolde to builde and ground his faith then vpon the scriptures This sure is a childish and ridiculous argument to take that as graunted which is most of all in controuersie 3 The true notes sayth hee are inseparable from the Church it is neuer without them But many true Churches haue wanted these The Church of the Corinthians was a true Church and yet they beleeued not the resurrection cap. 15. The Galathians were a true Church and yet they held that Moses lawe was to bee obserued together with the Gospell And the Corinthians likewise did not sincerely obserue the Sacraments 1. Corinth 11. Ergo they are no true signes We answere First this argument may with better right bee returned vpon their owne head for many true Churches haue wanted their markes Christ and his Apostles had neither succession from Aaron nor vniuersalitie and yet they made the true Church The Church of the Iewes after Malachies time had no Prophets nor miracles for the space of 400. yeares before Christ yet were they the true Church and so of the rest of your notes the Church of Christ hath many times wanted them Secondly It was not the whole Church of Corinthus that doubted of the resurrection but certaine false Apostles that laboured to seduce others 1. Corinth 15.34 Some of you sayth the Apostle haue not the knowledge of God he saith not all So likewise amongst the Galathians there were false teachers that stood for the lawe of Moses Galath 5.9 a little leauen doth marre the whole lumpe It was not therefore a publike doctrine in the Church but secretly taught by false Apostles Thirdly there may be some error in the Church but being not fundamental such an one as destroyeth faith it doth not dissolue the Church as there was some abuse amongst the Corinthians in receiuing the Sacrament but the forme and institution and substance of the Sacrament was kept Nay yet to graunt a little more though the error bee daungerous and of great waight and moment and such an one as being stifely maintained would destroye the faith and Church too yet if they haue fallen into it rather of ignorance then any other cause and doe not continue in it but doe submit themselues to bee reformed by the word it ceaseth not for all that to be a Church So the Corinthians referred themselues wholly and their opinions to the iudgement and determination of the Apostle Hetherto our aduersaries haue sayd nothing agaynst vs now wee will say somewhat for our selues The Protestants 1 FOr the sufficiencie of these
Basile to be no necessarie poynt to saluation if wee did hold her to haue beene a virgin afore and many such other poyntes there are in scriptures which a man may be ignorant of without perill of saluation Ergo much more may we be ignorant of vnwritten verities or rather Popish fables 2. The Church hath no more authoritie then the Apostles nor yet in all things so much But they had no power to make articles of faith for Saint Paul deliuereth that which he had receiued concerning the sacrament he durst not adde vnto it as the Papists haue been bolde to doe since 1. Cor. 11. Ergo the Church may explane and open articles of fayth out of the scriptures but not make new 3. We prooue it by the confession of our aduersaries The fathers of Basile that concluded it was an article of the Christian fayth to beleeue the superioritie of the councel did gather it out of the saying of Christ dic ecclesiae and therfore enforced it as an article Whereby wee gather that they helde that the Church could establish no article of fayth without scripture Bellarmine likewise sayth that the Church is not now gouerned by newe reuelations but wee ought to be contented with those decrees which wee haue receiued from the Apostles Ergo as D. Whitakers doth strongly conclude the Church cannot coyne new articles of faith 4. Lastly we haue before prooued at large out of the worde of God that the scriptures containe all things necessary to saluation and therefore all articles of fayth must be deriued from thence 1. controu quaest 7. And so we conclude with Augustine Linguae sonos quibus inter se homines sua seusa communicēt pacto quodā societatis sibi instituere possunt Quib. autē sacris diuinitati congruerent voluntatem dei sequuti sunt qui rectè sapuerunt Quae omnino nunquam defuit ad salutem iustitiae pietatique hominum Men sayth he may deuise among themselues what language they will vse to expresse their minde But howe to serue God wise men euer followed the will and commaundement of GOD which neuer hath failed men in all necessary matters concerning righteousnes and godlines By this fathers sentence the scriptures which containe the will of God containe all necessary things Ergo we neede not seeke elswhere AN APPENDIX OR MEMBER OF THIS part of the question whether we are to beleeue in the Church The Papists WE ought to beleeue and trust the Church in all things yea to beleeue in the Church Rhemist 1. Tim. 3. sect 9. the scripture also vseth this speech error 25 to beleeue in men annot in 10. Rom. sect 41. 1. Exod. 14.31 they beleeued in God and Moses Ergo. We answere your owne vulgar text hath it crediderunt deo Mosi seruo eius they beleeued God and his seruant Moses that is hauing seene the great power of God in the destruction of the Aegyptians in the red sea according to the word of Moses they gaue credite vnto Moses which spake vnto them from God 2. Philem. v. 5. Hearing of thy loue and fayth which thou hast toward the Lord Iesus and vnto all the saints See say they here is faith toward the saints Wee answere there is no man that is not peruersly disposed but may easily distinguish the Apostles wordes to attribute fayth to Iesus Christ and loue to the saynts Which may appeare by the altering of the preposition as they themselues read in their owne translation loue and fayth in Iesus Christ and toward the sayntes so it must needes bee thus vnderstoode fayth in Christ and loue toward the sayntes this therefore is but a sophisticall cauill The Protestants THis word Credo beleeue is taken three wayes for there is credere deo to beleeue God that is to trust him in all things credere deum to beleeue God to be credere in deum to beleeue in God as our creator Lord and redeemer So we doe credere ecclesiam we beleeue there is one holy Catholicke Church credere ecclesiae we doe also beleeue and giue credence to the Church following the word of God But we do not in any wise credere in ecclesiam beleeue in the Church 1. We must not beleeue or put any confidence in a creature the Church is but a creature Ergo for to beleeue in God is onely proper to the Godhead and therefore Iohn 14.1 where Christ sayth ye beleeue in God beleeue also in me we doe necessarylie out of these words inferre that Christ is God because we are commaunded to beleeue in him 2. Fayth is of things that are absent and not seene but the Church is present alwayes vpon earth and alwayes visible as our aduersaryes hold how then can it bee an obiect of our fayth We can not beleeue in that which is visible seene for it is agaynst the nature of fayth 3. Augustine sayth sciendum est quòd ecclesiam credere non tamen in ecclesiam credere debemus quia ecclesia non est deus sed domus dei De tēpore serm 131. We must know that we are to beleeue there is a Church not in the Church for the Church is not God but onely the house of God THE SECOND PARTE OF THE QVESTION concerning the ceremonies of the Church The Papists THey doe holde that the Church of God may vse and blesse diuers elements error 26 and creatures for the seruice of God as holy water to driue away diuels the hallowing of salt waxe fire palmes ashes oyle creame milke honey Rhemist 1. tim 4. sect 12. 13. Yea that the Church may borrow rites and ceremonies of the Iewes ibid. sect 18. Yea by the creatures thus blessed or rather coniured they say remission of sinnes is obtayned sect 14. 2. Remission of sinnes was annexed to the oyle wherewith the sicke were annoynted Iames 5. Ergo remissions of sinnes may be applied by the like consecrated elements Rhemist 1. Tim. 4. sect 14. We answere First it followeth not because the creature of oyle was vsed in the miraculous gift of healing which ceremonie was no longer to continue than that miraculous gift indured it followeth not that other elements may be vsed so now there being not the like occasion seeing all such myraculous giftes are now ceased Secondly it was not the oyle whereby their sinnes were forgiuen them neither was it applied to that ende it was onely a pledge vnto them of their bodily health but the prayer of fayth shall saue the sick sayth the Apostle v. 15. for God hath promised to heare the faythfull prayers of his children both for themselues and others 3. Saint Paul vsed imposition of hands which was a ceremonie of the law vsed in consecrating of Priestes Ergo it is lawfull to borrowe ceremonies of the Iewes We answere It followeth not because Christ and the Apostles by the spirite of God retayned some decent actions vsed in the lawe therefore now the Church at her libertie may take of
his Priesthood in setting vp another sacrifice Ergo your spirit is not of God 3 The Catholike Church is so called because it embraceth the whole and onely doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles Ephes. 2. vers 20. But the Romane Church receiueth many things contrary to scripture and addeth many things vnto it as it shall appeare throughout this whole discourse Ergo. 4 The Catholike Church hath the name because it is dispersed ouer the whole earth Acts 1. vers 8. But so was neuer the Romane faith which is now professed as we haue shewed before Quaest. 3. de Eccles. Not. 2. Ergo ex Amand. Polan THE SECOND PART THE CHVRCH OF Rome is not a true visible Church The Papists THeir arguments are as wee haue heard Quaest. 3. of the notes of the Church error 28 grounded vpon their succession miracles gift of prophesiyng answered sufficiently afore Not. 4.5.6 Wee neede not nor must not for breuities sake repeate the same things often Protestants WE denie vtterly that they are a true visible Church of Christ but an Antichristian Church and an assembly of heretickes and enemies to the Gospell of Iesus Christ. 1 That cannot bee a true Church where the word of God is not truely preached nor the Sacraments rightly administred according to Christs institution So are they not in the Popes Church For the word is not sincerely taught but they haue added many inuentions of their owne and doe preach contrarie Doctrines to the Scripture the Sacraments also they haue not kept for first they haue augmented the number they haue made fiue more of confirmation orders penance Matrimonie extreame vnction beside the Sacraments of Christ they haue corrupted In baptisme beside water they vse spittle salt oyle Chrisme contrarie to the institution and they lay such a necessitie vpon this Sacrament that al which die without it say they are damned In the Lordes Supper they haue turned the Sacrament to a sacrifice made an Idol of bread chaunged the Communion into priuate masses taken the cup from the lay people and many other abhominations are committed by them Ergo neither hauing the word nor Sacraments according to the institution they are no true Church 2 They which are enemies to the true Church and doe persecute the members thereof are no true visible Church they cannot be of that Church which they persecute as Bellarmine saith of Paul how could he bee of that Church which he with al his force oppressed de eccles lib. 3. cap. 7. But they persecute the Saints of God are most cruel towards them as their consciences beare them record Ergo. 3 The habitation of Antichrist cannot be the Church of Christ so is theirs the Pope himselfe is Antichrist for who else but hee sitteth in the temple being an enemie to Christ. 2. Thes. 2. Where haue you a citie in the world built vpon seauen hilles but Rome Apocalyps 17.9 But of this matter we shall of purpose intreate afterward Ergo. they are not a true visible Church THE THIRD CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING COVNCELS A Councel is nothing else but an assembly and gathering together of the people of God about the affaires and businesse of the Church and they are of two sortes either vniuersall in the name of the whole Church or particular which are either National when the learned of a whole Realme are called together or Prouincial when as the Churches of one Prouince doo assemble into one place to consult of Religion There may be two especiall occasions of Councels the one for resisting and rooting out of heresies as the Apostles and elders met together Act. 15. against those which would haue imposed the Iewish ceremonies vppon the beleeuing Gentiles So the Councell of Nice was celebrated the yeare of the Lorde 327. to confound the heresie of Arrius who denied Christ as he was God to be equall to his Father In the Councel of Constantinople Anno 383. or there aboute the heresie of Macedonius was condemned which denied the holy Ghost to bee God In the Ephesine Councel the first Nestorius heresie was ouerthrowne which affirmed Christ to haue two persons Anno 434. The Councel of Chalcedon was collected Anno 454. about the heresie of Eutiches which held that there was in Christ but one nature after his incarnation so confounding his humanitie and diuinitie together The other cause of the calling of Councels is to prouide establish holsome Lawes decrees and constitutions for the gouernement of the Church so the Apostles called the brethren together Act. 6. to take order for the poore And in the Councell of Nice an vniforme order was established for the celebration of Easter which before had much troubled the Church The questions betweene vs and the Papists concerning Councels are these First whether generall Councels be absolutely necessarie Secondly by whome they ought to be called Thirdly of what persons they ought to cōsist Fourthly who should bee the president of the Councel Fiftly concerning the authoritie of them Sixtly whether they may erre or not Seauenthly whether they are aboue the Pope Eightly of the conditions to be obserued in generall Councels of these in order THE FIRST QVESTION CONCERNING the necessitie of Councels The assertion of the Papists THey seeme in wordes to affirme that Generall Councels are not absolutelie error 29 necessarie for the Primitiue Church was without any Councel for the space of 300. yeares and more yet they hold that some Councels either generall or particular are of necessitie to be had Bellarmine de concil lib. 1. cap. 11. And yet this is to be maruelled at that they should so much stand for Councels seeing they might vse a farre more compendious way in referring all to the determination of the Pope whome they boldly but very fondly affirme that hee cannot erre Although they seeme not to lay a necessitie vpon Generall Councels yet in truth they doo contrarie for they allowe no Councels at all without the Popes consent and authoritie neither thinke it lawfull for any Nation or Prouince to make within themselues any innouation or change of Religion So in the assembly at Zuricke Anno 1523. For the reformation of Religion Faber tooke exception against that meeting affirming that it was no conuenient place nor fit time for the discussing of such matter but rather the cognition and tractation thereof belonged to a generall Councel Sleid. lib. 3. And further they hold that what hath beene decreed in a Councel cānot be dissolued but by the like Councel as if the Councel of Trent were to bee disanulled it must be done by the like Synod Bellarmine de cōcil lib. 3. ca. 21. Which Councel they affirme to haue been general therefore another general Councel must by their opinion necessarily be expected before it can be reuoked The confession of the Protestants WE doe hold that generall Councels are an holesome meanes for the repressing and reforming both of errors in Religion and corruption in manners and that true generall Councels ought to
are Christs Disciples which is an vnreasonable supposition seeing we hold him to be Antichrist and that the Iesuite knoweth Such a Councell was that of the Iewes Iohn 9. where all they were excommunicate that confessed Christ Mark. 14 Christ himselfe was by the Councel condemned It cannot be denied that this Councell erred Let vs heare the papists goodly answeres some say that the Councel erred in a matter of fact de facto non de iure not in a case of right as whether Christ should be put to death as though in condemning him they denied not that he was the Messiah other that they erred in their owne opinion not in the sentence giuen for Christ indeede was guilty of death say they because he did beare our sinnes the Iesuite findeth not much fault with this answere yet it is an open blasphemie as is that also of the papists that the Iewes had sinned mortally if they had not put Christ to death Some of them say the Councel erred not in that which was done but in the maner of iudgement because it was tumultuous disorderly done by suborning of false witnesses and this sayth the Iesuite is probabilis responsio a probable answere sayth hee being most impious and blasphemous But he dare not rest in this answere but findeth out a fourth of his owne that the chiefe priestes and Councels of the Iewes could not erre before the comming of Christ but after he was come they might A blinde popish answere for doth not Christ euery where impugne the traditions and decrees of the Elders as Mark. 7. which our Sauiour should not haue done belike seeing the Elders before his comming could not erre or will they say that those traditions were right and good before and afterward erronious I know not els what they should say 3. We see by experience that many councels haue erred we let pas those which the Iesuite himself cōfesseth to haue erred as the third Coūcel of Antioch where Athanasius was condemned and the Arrian heresie approoued the Councel of Arimine where the same heresie was furthered the fourth Ephesine approuing Eutiches heresie These Councels though they were generall the papists confesse to haue erred and they haue a trick to shift it off but a silly one God knoweth They were not approoued by the Pope saye they As though all verity knowledge in the whole earth were locked vp in the Popes breast But wee will bring an instance of such Councels as the Pope allowed and yet by the papists owne confession erred In the Councell of Naeo-Caesarea confirmed by Leo 4. in the 7. canon second marriage is forbidden In the Councel Toletan 1. the 17. canon it is thus written that one may be admitted to the communion though he haue a concubine modò non sit vxoratus so hee be not wiued the Iesuites poore shift is this that a concubine is here vnderstoode for a wife without a dowrie and further sayth that Agar was Abrahams wife and not his concubine agaynst the scripture for Abraham should haue done euill in sending of her away as he did if she were his wife and the scripture calleth Sara by the name onely of Abrahams wife the other by the name of a bond woman Gen. 21.8.12 In the sixt Synod confirmed by Adrian the 1. canon 72. the mariages betweene Catholikes and hereticks are adiudged to be voyde In the second Councel of Nice act 5. it was concluded that Angels and mens souls are bodily and circumscriptible In the Councel of Rome vnder Pope Stephan the 7. all the acts of Formosus his predecessor were reuoked And in the Councel of Rauenna vnder Iohn 9. Pope Formosus actes were established and Stephans decrees abrogate Lastly in the Councel of Constance they are excommunicate that receiue the sacrament in both kinds the Councel of Basile on the contrary side permitteth and giueth leaue to the Bohemians to vse both kindes One of these Councels must needs erre both of them were confirmed by the Popes the Councel of Constance by Martin the 5. the Councel of Basile by Foelix 5. By this induction of many particulars we inferre and conclude that Councels euen approued by the Pope may and haue erred 4. Lastly Augustines opinion is this that prouincial Councels ought to giue place to general Et ipsa plenaria priora posteriorib emendari and the former general Councels must be amended by the latter The Rhemists haue found out this shift that in matters indifferent which are to be chāged according to time and place Councels may be altered Act. 15. sect 8. But to that it is aunswered that the word emendare signifieth not onely a change but a correcting of that which is amisse And that clause of Augustines must bee put in why Councels must be amended si a veritate deuiatum fit if they swarue from the truth de baptism lib 2. cap. 3. Wherfore we conclude that Councels may erre THE SIXT QVESTION CONCERNING THE AVthority of general Councels whether they may absolutely determine without scripture and necessarily binde all men to the obedience of their Canons The Papists IN words they would seem to magnifie the scripture aboue Councels for error 34 they say that the authority of the scripture depēdeth not in himself of Church Pope or Councels but in respect of vs the word of God is the word of God say they though there be no determination of the Church but we doe not know it so to be but because the Church hath so defined Bellarmine lib. 2. de con cap. 12. Here is a goodly glosse but nothing to the purpose for in that they say the Church hath absolute authoritie to declare and pronounce which is the word which indeed it hath not without testimonie and warrant of the word it selfe by this meanes it commeth about that much is taken for the worde of GOD which is not and so the Church doth not onely declare the worde but maketh that the word which is not First beside the Apocrypha which they make part of the word as we haue shewed afore they hold that their traditions are also the word of God Bellarmine cap. 12. Secondly Gratian is so bolde to affirme that the decretall Epistles of the Popes are to be counted amongst the Canonical scriptures dist 19. can in canonicis that the Canons of Councels are of the same authority dist 20. can decretales And Greg. 1. epist. 24. saith he doth reuerēce the 4. general Councels as the foure Euangelists Thirdly they shamefully affirme that whatsoeuer the pastors and priests do teach in the vnity of the Church is the word of God Rhemens 1. Thes. 2. v. 12. First then they conclude that Councels are not bound to determine according to the scriptures but as iudges may determine of their own authority Secondly that al men are bound of necessity to receiue the decrees of Councels without any further triall or examination They reason thus out of the
Prophet in the midst Euen thus with the like spirite of blasphemie doo the Iesuites crie out that the Pope is the chiefe shepheard steward husband and head of the Church vpon earth But we will leaue to charge them so deepely with blasphemie which notwithstanding they cannot auoyde Let vs heare what the fathers of Basile say to this poynt Bellarmine saith the Pope is the husband but they reason cleane contrarie the Church say they is the spouse of Christ the Pope make the best of him you can is but a Vicar but no man dooth so ordaine a Vicar that hee maketh his spouse subiect vnto him but that the spouse is alwaies thought to be of more authoritie then the Vicar forsomuch as she is one body with her husband but the Vicar is not so thus haue they to the full answered the Iesuite ex Aenea Syluio Better arguments they haue none for the Popes prerogatiue then we haue seene The Protestants THat the Pope is by right and ought to be subiect to generall Councels and that they haue authoritie to iudge examine suspend punish depose him if there be iust cause it is proued thus This matter was pithilie disputed vpon by the Fathers of Basile some of whose reasons it shall bee sufficient heere to followe 1 They proue this conclusion out of Scripture First whereas Panormitane had saide that the Pope was Lorde of the Church vnto him Segouius answered that it was the most honourable title of the Bishop of Rome to be called the seruant of the seruants of God and Peter saith hee forbiddeth pastors to behaue themselues as Lords ouer the Clergie 1. Pet. 5. And if Christ the sonne of God came not to be ministred vnto but to minister and serue how then can his Vicar haue any dominion So was Panormitane answered Againe the Diuines thus argued Christ saith to Peter dic Ecclesiae Peter is sent to the Church or Councell Ergo the veritie doth remit the Bishop of Rome to the Councell But to this the Iesuite saith that Peter was not yet entred into his office to bee chiefe Bishop but was as a priuate person So then belike this rule of our Sauiour Christ dic Ecclesiae tell it to the Church did but binde Peter till Christ were ascended and he receiued his Vicar-dome This cauillous answere the Fathers of Basile wisely foresaw and preuented it for they shew how Peter was subiect to Councels euen after the ascension as Act. 11. Peter is rebuked say they by the congregation because he went to Cornelius an heathen man as if it had not been lawfull for him to attempt any great matter without the knowledge of the congregation but that seemeth to make more for the purpose Galath 2. where Paule rebuked Peter to his face because contrarie to the decree of the Councell of the Apostles hee did cogere gentes Iudaizare hee would constraine the Gentiles to doe like the Iewes Ergo Peter was subiect vnto the Councell ex Aenea Syluio Other reasons many were alleaged by the Fathers of Basile First the Bishop of Burgen As in euery well ordered Kingdome the whole realme should be of more authoritie then the King so the Church ought to be of more authoritie then the Pope though he were Prince thereof The Diuines brought these argumēts the Church is the mother of the faithfull and so of the Pope if he be a faithfull man the Pope is then the Churches sonne as both Anacletus and Calixtus Bishops of Rome confessed Ergo how much the sonne is inferiour to his mother so much is the Church superiour to the Pope Secondly the Pope is inferiour to Angels he is not greater then Iohn Baptist of whom it is said that the least in the Kingdome of God is greater then he but the Angels doe reuerentlie accord vnto the doctrine of the Church Ephes. 3.10 Ergo the Pope is bound to doo the same who is lesse then the Angels These Fathers thought none so absurd to denie the Pope to be inferiour to Angels and therefore labour not to proue it Yet Antoninus an olde Papist saith Non minor honor datur Papae quà m Angelis there is no lesse honour due to the Pope then to the Angels Nay another saith I thinke it be Pope Paschalis Datur Episcopis quod ne Angelis vt Christi corpus crearent it is graunted to Bishops which is not giuen to the Angels to create the bodie of Christ. But the Fathers of Basile thought not these men worthie the answere no more doe we and so let thē passe Thirdly the Pope say they being the Vicar of the Church for he is more truely so called then the Vicar of Christ he may be deposed of the Church for a Lord may put out his Vicar at his pleasure Ergo the Pope is vnder Councels 4 If the Councels might not ouerrule the Pope there were no remedie left to resist a wicked Pope Shall we suffer all things say they to run into ruine and decay with him for it is not like that hee would congregate a Councell against himselfe To this the Iesuite answereth that there is no remedie left but to pray to God in such a case who will either confound or conuert such a Pope Here is goodly diuinitie we know that Antichrist shall at length be destroyed at the comming of Christ but if he should be let alone in the meane while and not be bridled he might doe much hurt as he hath done too much alreadie Yet the Iesuite confesseth that a wicked Pope may bee resisted by force and armes and why not I pray you as well by peaceable meanes these sayings are contrarie Bellarm. cap. 19. So then this is Popish diuinitie that be the Pope neuer so wicked doe he neuer so much harme hee is not to bee controuled of any mortall man Such doultish schoole poynts maintained especially by begging friers the fathers of Basile complained of As that they should say that no man ought to iudge the high and principall seate that it cannot be iudged either by Emperour Clergie King or people Other affirme that the Lord hath reserued to himselfe the depositions of the chiefe Bishop Others yet more mad are not ashamed to affirme that the Bishop of Rome though hee carrie soules in neuer so great number to hell yet is he not subiect to any correction or rebuke For all these straunge and blasphemous positions the fathers concluded as yee haue heard that the Pope ought to obey generall Councels 4 Lastly I will adioyne the iudgement of Augustine who writing in his 162. Epistle concerning the Donatists whose cause was heard and determined by the Emperours appoyntment at Rome before Miltiades then Bishop there and other Bishops assistants and yet for all this the Donatists would not bee quiet Thus he saith Putemus illos iudices qui Romae iudicauerunt non bonos iudices fuisse Restabat adhuc plenarium Concilium c. Put case saith hee that the Bishop of Rome
and the rest iudged corruptly there remayned yet another remedie A generall Councell might haue beene called where the iudges and the cause might further haue been tried and examined their iudgement if there were cause reuersed Whereby it appeareth say the fathers of Basile that not onely the sentence of the Pope alone but also the Pope with his Bishops ioyned with him might be made frustrate by a Councell Here the Iesuite paltreth saith that a matter determined by the Pope in a particular Councell may be called againe in question by the Pope in a general Councel First what neede that seeing that a particular Councel hauing the Popes authoritie as the Iesuite confesseth cannot erre Againe Augustine saith vbi cum ipsis iudicibus causa possit agitari In the which generall Councell the cause and the former iudges of the which Miltiades was one may bee tryed and examined so that the Pope himselfe might be adiudged by the Councell and not the cause onely Vpon the Premisses we truely and iustly conclude that the Pope is and of right ought to be subiect to generall Councels THE EIGHT QVESTION OF THE CONditions and qualitie of generall Councels The Papists THeir vnreasonable and vnequall conditions are these and such like as followe 1 That the Pope onely should haue authoritie to summon call proroge dissolue and confirme Councels and he onely to bee the iudge president and moderator in Councels or some at his appoyntment 2 They will haue none to giue voyces but Bishops and such as are bound by oath of alleageance to the Pope 3 That the Councell is not bound to determine according to Scripture but to follow their traditions and former decrees of Councels 4 That no Councell is in force without the Popes assent yea the Pope himselfe say they by his sole authotitie may abrogate and disanull the canons and decrees of Councels These and such other conditions the Papists require in their Councels So they wil be sure that nothing shall be concluded against them The Protestants OVr conditions which we would haue obserued and kept in generall Councells are these most iust and reasonable 1 That the Pope which is a party should be no iudge for it is vnreasonable that the same man should be both a partie and a iudge and therefore he ought not to meddle with calling and appoynting Councels with ruling or moderating them seeing it is like he would worke for his owne aduantage 2 That such a time and place be appointed as when and where the Churches of Christendome may most safely and conueniently meete together not at such a time as Paulus the third called a Councell when all Princes in Christendome were occupied in great affaires nor such a place as he thē appointed at Mantua in Italie whither Princes could not come without perill of iourney and danger of life being penned in by the Popes garrisons Thus Pope or Bishop Leo for then there were no Popes writ to Martianus the Emperour to haue the Councell remoued from Calchis to Italie but hee preuayled not So Pope Eugenius would haue dissolued the Councell at Basile and brought it vnder his owne nose 3 We would haue it a free Councell where euery man might fully vtter his minde and that there should be a safe conduct graunted to al to come and goe which the Pope for all his faire promises is vnwilling to doe as it was flatly denyed to Hierome of Prage in the Councell of Constance to whome it was answered that he should haue safe conduct to come but none to goe Neither if they should giue a safe conduct were they to bee trusted for it cannot bee forgotten to their perpetuall infamie that they brake the Emperour Sigismunds safe conduct graunted to Iohn Husse in the Councell of Constance saying that faith was not to be kept with Hereticks 4 That the matter should not bee left wholie to Bishops and Prelates but that the learned of the Clergie and Laitie besides should giue voices seeing the cause of religion is common and concerneth all But most of all that nothing bee carried with violence or popularitie against the Scriptures but euery matter determined according to the truth thereof Such a Councell wee refuse not nay wee much desire which is the true generall Councell that is not generall where all men cannot speake no freedome nor libertie graunted for men to vtter the trueth where all thinges are partially handled and are swayed by one mans authoritie Wherefore the Rhemists slander vs in saying wee raile vppon general Councels annot in Act. 15.10 and that we refuse them 2. Galath 2. Whether wee or they are enemies to true generall free holy indifferent Councels let all men iudge THE FOVRTH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE BISHOP OF ROME COMMONLIE CALLED THE POPE THis great and waightie controuersie conteineth tenne seuerall questions 1 Whether the regiment of the Church be Monarchicall 2 Whether Peter were the Prince of the Apostles and by our Sauiour Christ made head of the Church 3 Whether Peter were at Rome and dyed Bishop there 4 Whether the Bishop of Rome be the true successor of Peter 5 Concerning the primacie of the Bishop of Rome sixe partes of the question First whether hee haue authoritie ouer other Bishops Secondly whether appeales are to be made to Rome Thirdly whether the Pope be subiect to the iudgemēt of any Fourthly whether he may be deposed Fiftly what primacy he hath ouer other Churches Sixtly of his titles and names 6 Whether the Bishop of Rome may erre and likewise whether the Church of Rome be subiect to error 7 Of the spiritual iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome two parts First whether he can make lawes to binde the conscience Secondly whether other Bishops doe receiue their iurisdiction from him 8 Of the Popes temporall iurisdiction two parts First whether hee haue authoritie aboue Kings and princes Secondly whether he be a temporal prince 9 Of the prerogatiues of the Pope 10 Concerning Antichrist nine parts First whether Antichrist shall be some one singular man Secondly of the time of his comming Thirdly of his name Fourthly of his nation and kinred Fiftly where his place and seate shall be Sixtly of his doctrine and manners Seuenthly of his miracles Eightly of his kingdome and warres Ninthly whether the Pope bee the very Antichrist of these in their order THE FIRST QVESTION WHETHER THE Regiment of the Church be Monarchicall error 36 WE are not ignorant that the Philosophers made three formes and states of gouernement in the commonwealth the Monarchical when as the principall and soueraigne power rested in one as in the King Queene or Emperor as Rome sometime was ruled by Kings and many yeares after by Emperors Secondly the Aristocratical when the commonwealth was gouerned by an assembly and Senate of nobles as the Romanes had a long time their Consuls and Senators Thirdly the Democratical which is the popular state when the people and multitude bare the greatest sway as
and therefore hee loued much To the third wee answere that by the Iesuites owne confession Iames who was as they say Bishoppe of Ierusalem had the primacie there how then can they now giue it to Peter The Protestants THat Peter had no such iurisdiction ouer the Apostles as to bee called the head and Prince of them but that to them all indifferentlie were the keyes committed and did all faithfullie execute their Apostleship without any subiection of each to other but ioyned the right hands of fellowship together we thus confirme it out of the holy Scripture and necessarie arguments deriued out of the same 1 Ephes. 2.20 Apocalips 21.14 The Church is said to bee built vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Ergo no primacie of power amongst the Apostles they all founded the Church Bellarmine confesseth that in respect of their doctrine there was no difference betweene Peter and the rest for they all were first planters of Churches they all preached the Gospell by reuelation But in respect of gouernement they were not equall they had chiefe authoritie committed to them as Apostles and Embassadors of Christ But Peter as ordinarie pastor Wee answere First by his owne confession the Apostles had chiefe authoritie as Apostles but there was no higher authoritie or power then of the Apostleship but as they were Apostles they were equall saith the Iesuite Ergo there could be no superioritie for the calling of the Apostles was the highest in the Church 2 To preach the Gospell and to haue iurisdiction of gouernement do both belong to the power of the keyes but the keyes were equallie committed to all Ergo they had all equall power both to preach and to gouerne That they all had the power of the keyes equallie graunted vnto them wee haue proued before out of Matth. 18.18 2 Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that Iames was Bishop and ordinarie pastor at Ierusalem and saith with Anselme and Thomas Aquinas that therefore he is named first by Saint Paule Gal. 2. Bellarm. cap. 19. Therefore at Ierusalem Peter was to giue primacie to the ordinarie pastor there If they answere that Rome was then the chiefe citie and therefore Peter being Bishop of Rome was to haue the preeminence To this we replie that Ierusalem was rather to be preferred in respect of place which was chosen by the Lord himselfe to be the chiefe citie of his Church But Rome through the tyrannie and vsurpation of the Romans ouer other countries was aduanced to that dignitie not by the election of God But Bellarmine answereth that Peter was Bishop of the whole Church and so of Ierusalem too We answere he now saith lesse for Peter then if hee called him as he was the Apostle of the whole world for it was more to be an Apostle thā a Bishop Diuers were called in the Apostles times episcopi ouerseers or Bishops that were not Apostles as the pastors of Ephesus Act. 20.28 Wherefore now hee hath saide iust nothing in seeking to aduance Peter hee hath disgraced him in pulling him downe from his high Apostleship to the chaire of a Bishop 3 Peter had no superioritie ouer Paul for they ioyned right handes of fellowship and this allotment was made betweene them that Paule should bee the chiefe of the Gentiles and Peter of the circumcision Galath 2.9 Ergo. Bellarmine answereth First they were ioyned as fellow-laborers in the preaching of the Gospell but Peter might for all this bee greater in the office and power of gouerning Wee answere yea but the text saith that Paule onelie was not appointed to preach to the Gentiles but hee had the chiefe Apostleship Now to the Apostleship belongeth not onely the function of preaching but the whole vse of the keyes and power of iurisdiction Ergo in all respects Saint Paule ouer the Gentiles had the chiefe Apostleship But let any man say that this was a humane compact amongst themselues and Paul had his lotte at Peters assignement the text sheweth that the Lorde himselfe had made this distribution For when they sawe saith Saint Paul that the Gospell ouer the vncircumcision was committed to mee verse 7. So then the Apostles did but confirme by their consent that distribution which they sawe the Lord himselfe had appoynted Further saith the Iesuite the diuision was not so made but that it was lawfull for Peter also to preache to the Gentiles Wee answeare wee graunt it and for Paule to preache to the Iewes yet that distinction remayned still that Peter was chiefe of the circumcision Paule of the vncircumcision Againe saith hee but Peter had the more excellent lotte for Christ himselfe first preached to the Iewes Wee answere wee denie not but that hee had the first lotte in order for to the Iewes was the Gospell first offered but Paul had the larger and more glorious lotte the Church of the Iewes now decaying and the Gentiles beginning to be planted in their roome But howsoeuer it was it cannot bee denied but that Paule was chiefe towards the Gentiles And therefore the Church of Rome might with better right haue deriued their authoritie from S. Paul then from Peter Both of them they cannot make patrons of their See seeing by their owne rules the Pope cannot be successor to them both Further out of the same place Galath 2.11 an other thing commeth to bee obserued that Peter was rebuked of Paule and in such sort that it appeareth there was no great inequality between them for he doth it to his face openlie before all men and at Antioch in Peters owne Bishopricke as they say can it be now thought that Paul was any thing inferior to Peter Bellarmine and the Iesuits answere that the Pope may bee rebuked of an inferior and ought to take it patiently if it be done in zeale and loue Aunswere First wee doe not simplie thus conclude because Paul reprehended Peter therefore he was not his superior but because of the manner as we shewed it was done in such sorte so plainely so openly without any submission or crauing of pardon that there can appeare no inequalitie at all betweene them Secondly although they seeme heere to graunt that the Pope may be rebuked yet is it otherwise in their Canon lawe which saith that though the Pope doe leade innumerable soules to hell no mortall man may presume to reprooue his faultes part 1. distin 4. cap. Si Papa Fulk Annot. in Gala. 2. sect 8. 4 Lastlie what reason was there why Christ should giue the supremacie to Peter ouer the rest Christ was no acceptor of persons if hee had bene Iohn should haue bene preferred whom he loued most If deserts be weighed I think Peter deserued no more then the rest of his fellowes Nay I thinke the wisedome of the Spirit foreseeing the questions that should afterward arise in the Church about Peter hath so disposed that this Apostles infirmities both in number more and weight greater then any of the rest should be euidentlie set forth in
they were of the Gentiles and part of his charge and vnlesse they can proue that Paul resigned ouer his lot vnto Peter that he also should be the chiefe Apostle of the Gentiles as he was of the Iewes Peter should haue intruded himselfe into Paules charge not in preaching to the Gentiles for both Paul might preach to the Iewes and Peter to the Gentiles but in taking vpon him to be the chiefe Apostle of the Gentiles which was giuen before to S. Paul 2 The Rhemists themselues graunt that the Church of Rome was founded both by Peter and Paul annot in 2. Gal. sect 6. B. Tunstal a strong champion of theirs but varying from them in this opinion shewed in a letter of his to Cardinall Poole how in times past both Peter and Paul were counted Patrones of the Church of Rome and principes apostolorum the chiefe of the Apostles Eusebius sayth that Clement was the third Bishop after Peter and Paul Alexander succeeded in the fift place after Peter and Paul If therefore the Bishops of Rome challenge any preeminence of authoritie from Peter they may doe it as well from Paul for they both founded that Church preached there and both there suffered Fox pag. 1066. 3 No Apostles were Bishops for they were diuers offices Eph. 4.11 he gaue some to be Apostles some to be Pastors Doctors Ergo they were diuers offices and the same were not Apostles and Pastors or Bishops for both are all one The offices were much different Apostles were immediatly called of God Bishops and Pastors were ordayned by the Apostles the Apostles calling was general ouer the whole world the Pastors were obliged to their dioces parishes particular Churches the office of the Apostles was extraordinarie but for a time the calling of Pastors was to endure euer in the Church Wherfore it can in no wise be that the Apostles were Bishops of any certaine places Irenaeus saith that Fundata ecclesia beati apostoli Lino officiū episcopatus iniungunt the Church of Rome once founded the holy Apostles layd the charge of the Bishopricke vpon Linus Whereby it appeareth that they onely reteyned their Apostleship inioyned them of Christ Tunstal ex Fox pag. 1066. It had therefore been contrarie to the commaundement of Christ who sayd Ite in vniuersum mundum goe into all the world if they should haue left their calling and bound themselues to any peculiar Church Ergo we conclude that neither Peter nor Paul were Bishops of Rome THE FOVRTH QVESTION WHETHER THE Bishop of Rome be the true successor of S. Peter The Papists error 40 THey doe generally hold that the Bishops of Rome being lineally descended by succession from Peter they haue the same primacie apostolike authoritie iurisdiction ouer the whole Church which Peter had Bellar. lib. 2. de pont c. 12. They are very barren and scant of arguments in this place to maintaine and vphold this succession by and in the end the Iesuite runneth to tradition and at the length he thus concludeth that it is not de iure diuino it is not necessarie by the lawe of God that the Romane Bishop should be Peters successor but it dependeth onely vpon the ordinance of Peter and is proued by tradition not diduced out of scripture That it was necessarie for Peter to haue a successor they say it is proued out of scripture which we also graunt that all faithfull Pastors and Ministers are the Apostles successors though they haue not their plenarie and Apostolike power but that the Pope ought to bee and is his successor it standeth vpon tradition We see then the grounds of their opinion scripture they haue none but blind tradition vnlesse therefore they could bring better stuffe for the Papall succession we will not spend any time in confuting nothing The Protestants THat the Pope or Bishop of Rome neither can is or ought to be S. Peters successor in his high and Apostolike authoritie primacie and iurisdiction ouer the whole Church which Peter himselfe neuer had thus we declare it 1 The Pope though hee were Peters successor yet can hee not receiue that from him which he neuer had but Peter had neuer any such primacie of power as we haue shewed before Quaest. 1.2 Ergo he is not here in his successor 2 That primacie which Peter had could not bee conueyed to any other namely his primacie of confession which he first of all the Apostles did vtter concerning Christ proceeding from faith did adhere so to his person that it could not bee deriued to any successor of his for Peters faith was a proper adiunct to himselfe Argument Tonstalli Fox pag. 1066. Agayne how can he haue the Apostolike authoritie being not an Apostle But an Apostle he is not for Christ onely made Apostles the Apostles did not ordayne other Apostles Argum. Nili 3 He succeedeth not Peter rightly in place for seeing Peter sate at Antioch why may not that Church challenge succession as well as Rome Why might not also other Churches haue Apostolike succession as Alexandria from Peter and Marke Herusalem from Iames Constantinople from Andrew Further they haue no certaine succession from Peter Tertullian maketh Clement the next successor to Peter Optatus first nameth Linus then Clement Irenaeus after Peter placeth Linus and Cletus and Clement in the fourth What certaintie therefore can they haue of so vncertaine succession Fulk annot in Rom. 16. sect 4. 4 It skilleth not who commeth in the place roome of the Apostles They that will be their true successors must followe their example and walke in their steps teaching their doctrine and embracing their holie vertues Wherfore the Pope is not Peters right successor swaruing both from his doctrine example Non sanctorum filij sunt qui tenent loca sanctorum sed qui exercent opera eorū They are not the children of the Saints which occupie the same places but they which doe their workes Lambert So Bernard writing to Eugenius chargeth him that in respect of his pompe and pride he did rather succeede Constantine then Peter Iohann Huss pag. 610. 5 All good Bishops and Pastors are as well the Apostles successors as the Pope nay rather then he being a wicked man Iohn Huss articul 4. Fox pag. 590. Lambert pag. 1120. Nay they haue greater and more excellent titles then to be called the Apostles successors for those that walke in obedience vnto Gods commandements our Sauiour calleth them his sisters kinsfolkes and brethren Math. 12.50 Ergo the Pope is not the right successor of Peter Lastly of this matter Augustine thus writeth Cathedra tibi quid fecit ecclesiae Romanae in qua Petrus sedit in qua hodie Anastasius sedet vel ecclesiae Hyerosolymitanae in qua Iacobus sedit in qua hodie Iohannes sedet What hath the Sea of Rome done vnto thee wherein sometime Peter sate where Anastasius now sitteth or what hath the Church or chaire of Ierusalem committed where
wrote for him to the Councel to be receiued agayne No maruayle then if licentious fellowes hoping to finde more fauour at Rome did appeale thither As also the ambition of the Bishops of Rome did somewhat helpe forward this matter who were as ready to receiue such appeales as others were to make them 2. Bishop Tunstal doth answere very fully to this poynt that although appeales were made to Rome yet was it not for any iurisdiction that the See had but this was the cause partly for that there were many deuisions and parts taking in the Oriental Churches as also because many were infected with heresies from the which the West Occidētal Churches were more free they were content to referre the cause many times to the Bishop of Rome as being a more indifferent iudge and not like to be partial being no partie in the cause Neither was their 〈◊〉 to the Bishop of Rome singularly but to the whole congregation of the Bishops of Italie and France or of the whole West as it appeareth by the epistles of Basile Tunstal apud Fox 1067. The Protestants That appeales ought not to be made to Rome but that all matters and controuersies may best be ended and determined at home where they doe arise It is thus confirmed 1. This matter was notably handled anno 420. in the sixt Councel of Carthage where Augustine was present with Prosper and Orosius To this Councel Pope Zozimus sent his Legate with certaine requests of the which this was one that it might be lawful for Bishops and priests to appeale from the sentence of their Metropolitanes and also of the Councel to Rome alleadging for him self a decree of the Nicene Councel The Councel of Carthage sent forthwith to the patriarkes of Cōstantinople Antioch Alexandria for a copie of the Coūcel of Nice wherein no such Canon was found that appeales should bee made to Rome but the contrary for in the sixt Canon of that Councel it was founde how all matters and all persons ecclesiasticall both Bishops and others were committed to their Metropolitanes vpon this decree the Councel of Carthage drew out certain reasons why appeales should not be made to Rome First it is not otherwise to be thought but that the grace of God is as ready at hande in one prouince as in another Secondly there is no neede to seeke any outlandish help for the partie grieued may appeale to a prouinciall or generall Councel Thirdly it were not equall nor right to appeale from the Councel to the Bishop of Rome for it is not like that God will inspire his truth vnto the Bishop and denie it to a multitude congregated in his name Fourthly no forraine or outlandish iudgement can be so vpright or iust because the witnesses cannot be present being hindered by infirmitie of sex age sicknes by whom the truth should be discussed Vpon these reasons the Councel concluded that neither any appeales should be made to Rome neither that Legates should be sent from Rome for deciding of matters And this answere they made to Zozimus first to Bonifacius and Celestinus that in short time one succeeded another And for all the B. of Rome his absolution Apiarius was againe called coram and brought to confesse his fault Fox p. 10. col 2. Now out of the Acts of this Councel and their reasons alleadged wee conclude that it is not fit conuenient nor reasonable that appeals should be made to Rome The Iesuite answereth that appeales were forbidden to be made by priests to Rome not by Bishops This is but a vaine shift for the reasons of the Councel are general against all appeales And Apiarius that appealed to Rome was a priest and no Bishop 2. We can bring the decrees of a latter Councell then this of Carthage for in the Councell of Basile it was decreed that no actions or controuersies should be brought from other countries to be pleaded at Rome which were more then foure daies iourney distant from the said court of Rome a few principall matters onely excepted apud Fox p. 697. 3. This also is flatly contrary to the rule of the Apostle that appellations should be made out of the Church a far off Is it so sayth hee that there is not a wise man amongst you no not one that can iudge amongst his brethren 1. Cor. 6.5 Ergo euery Church hath wise men sufficient in it whereby their controuersies may be ended 4. Augustine also thus writeth concerning this matter Miltiades Episcopus Romanus non sibi vsurpauit iudicium de causa Ceciliani sed rogatus imperator iudices misit Episcopos qui cum eo sederent epist. 162. Miltiades Bishop of Rome did not vsurpe or take vpon himselfe to iudge the cause of Cecilian but the Emperour being requested sent other bishops that should sit and determine the cause together with him Out of these words first we note that it had beene vsurpation and presumption for the Bishop of Rome to haue taken vpon him the iudgement of this matter not belonging vnto him vnlesse the Emperor had committed it Secondly that Miltiades did not suffer other Bishops to sitte with him as Bellarmine imagineth but he could not otherwise choyse for they were ioyned in commission by the Emperour to be iudges as well as he Thus we see what small shew or colour of title the Pope hath to heare or receiue appeales from other countries THE THIRD PART WHETHER THE Pope be subiect to the iudgement of anye The Papists error 43 THe Pope neither can nor ought to bee iudged either of the Emperour or anie other Seculare or ecclesiasticall Magistrate no not of any generall Councel Bellarmin cap. 26. Nay hee should doe iniurie vnto GOD to submit himselfe to the iudgement of any Iacobat ex Tilhemann de pontif rom err 34. Beside certayne blinde canons and constitutions and a fewe examples grounded vpon the insolent practises of Popes they haue no other arguments either out of scripture or drawen from reason to confirme this their hideous and monstrous opinion withal Bellarmine reasoneth thus the Prince is not to bee iudged by the commonwealth but is greater then his kingdome the Pope is the prince of the Church Ergo We answere First concerning the Princes high and Soueraigne authority we will not now dispute we make it not infinite the word of God must bee a rule and square both of ciuill and ecclesiasticall iudgement Secondly It is sufficient for vs here to answere that the Iesuite hath sayd nothing for this which he assumeth for a reason is the greatest matter in question between vs and so great an vntruth he hath vttered that he is constrained to leaue scripture and seeke helpe else-where But he shall neuer by any good reason or sufficient authority prooue that the Pope hath any such Princedome in the Church as he would beare vs in hand The Protestants THat the Pope as well as other ecclesiasticall persons ought to be and is by right subiect to the
iudgement and authoritie of the Emperor King Prince or other supreame magistrate and may also by generall Councels be corrected and censured thus it is proued 1. Peter was iudged of Paul Galat. 2. and of him iustly reproued Ergo the doings of the Pope may be iudged and censured Bellarmine answereth that it was not iudicialis censurae but fraterna correptio it was no iudiciall censure but a brotherly reprehension We replie First publike censure and reprehension is a part of ecclesiasticall iudgement and discipline therefore Peter being publikely rebuked was therby iudged also of Paul Secondly the question is not onely concerning publike open iudgement but whether it be lawfull to call the Popes doings into question whether his decrees are absolutely to be receiued without any scāning or discussing or making any doubt thereof for this we hold that it is the duety of all Christians to examine and trie the trueth of all things which they are to receiue and beleeue though they sit not formally and iudicially as in consistories to iudge their spirituall pastors so the Beraeans iudged of the Apostles doctrine so may the Popes decrees be examined and iudged Thirdly the Iesuite granteth that the Pope may be rebuked and brotherly reproued but the Extrauagant denieth it non est qui audeat dicere domine curfacis sic none dare say vnto him sir why doest thou so 2. Euery soule must be subiect to the higher powers Ergo the Pope Rom. 13.1 Bellarm. answereth that the Apostle here speaketh of all superiours both spirituall and temporall and therefore it cannot bee concluded that the Pope ought to obey but hee must bee obeyed because hee is also a spirituall power We replie Saint Paul in this place speaketh onely of the ciuill Magistrate First he calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princes which is not meant of ecclesiasticall or Church gouernors nor so taken in any place of scripture Secondly they are sayd to beare the sword Thirdly tribute is payde to them those thinges agree not to ecclesiasticall gouernors so the Iesuite is answered THE FOVRTH PART WHETHER THE Pope may be deposed from his papacie The Papists SOme of them holde that the Pope ought not neither can be deposed for heresie error 44 because it is not possible for the Pope to fall into heresie Pighius the Iesuite confesseth this to be a probable opinion but himselfe defendeth it not he confesseth also the opinion of Caietanus that the Pope may be deposed for manifest and apparant heresie Bellarmines opinion is this that the pope can not be deposed for any cause but heresie and not for all heresie but that which is manifest and apparant Neither is he then deposed by any act of the Church but is of himselfe deposed and ceaseth any more to bee pope so the Church may afterward punish him but he is then no Pope for as soone as he is become an hereticke his popedome in the very Acte is gone from him Bellarmin cap. 30. He reasoneth thus A manifest hereticke is not so much as a member of the Church much lesse can he be pope who they say is the heade of the Church and therefore in such a case the pope is deposed without anie sentence and if afterward the Church proceede against him they doe not iudge the Pope for he had lost his papacie before We answer First if a manifest hereticke be actually deposed it is by the secret iudgement and sentence of God for by no other authority can he be deposed as they hold but before God manifest heresie and close and secret heresie is all one therefore the Pope is also actually deposed for secret heresie and not onely for manifest and so some of the papists think as Iohann de Turre veniata Secondly what call you manifest heresie or how is hee knowen to bee a manifest hereticke Can hee bee an heretick before hee bee conuinced shall iudgement passe against him vncondemned A murtherer is a dead man by lawe yet hee liueth till iudgement passe vpon him so is the Pope beeing an heretick yet Pope till he be iudicially proceeded against as a murtherer dead by right is in act yet liuing till by law he is depriued of his life An heretick sayth Saint Paul after two or three admonitions auoyd that is saith the Iesuite he is now excommunicate before the sentence of the iudge Be it so but hee must first be admonished and if he still continue obstinate then he is a manifest heretike so before the Pope can be knowen to be a manifest heretick he must be found obstinate he cannot be obstinate vnlesse he refuse to be admonished if he be admonished then is he iudged Thirdly an heretick ceaseth not to bee a priest as they speake no not after heresie is knowen for manifest heretickes may baptize The Donatists in Augustines time were manifest hereticks and yet the Church did not baptize againe after them If a manifest heretick cease not to be a priest neither ceaseth he to be Pope there is like reason of both for if an heretick because he is not a member of the Church can not be a Pope neither also can he retayne the priesthood Lastly who seeth not what bare and friuolous shifts those are one saith the Church may iudge the Pope not as he is Pope but in respect of his person an other sayth that they may iudge the man which was Pope but hee is then no Pope because his heresie tooke from him the papacie Why masters what iugling is here is the Pope one thing and the Popes person an other By the same reason you may say that the Pope neither eateth nor drinketh nor sleepeth nor dieth and so make a god of him because it is the popes person that doth all this and not the Pope And by this shift you make no difference betweene an heretick Bishop o◠heretick priest and heretick Pope for by the same reason none of them all shall be subiect to the iudgement of the Church for we may say that a manifest heretick whether Bishop or priest hath lost by that very act of falling into heresie his priesthood and Bishoprick and then is neither Bishop nor priest And so you may conclude altogether that neither Pope Bishop nor piest can bee deposed from heresie The Protestants WE doubt not to say that the Pope both lawfully hath been depriued somtime by the Emperour somtime by generall Councels not onely for hesie but for other notable crimes and may still bee proceeded agaynst by the same right as well as any other Bishop or Prelate 1 Diuers examples wee are able to bring forth how the Pope hath been deposed for other crimes beside heresie Pope Iohn the 13. was deposed in a generall Councel by the consent of Otho the Emperour for other matter beside heresie as that he ordayned Deacons in a stable that he committed incest with two of his sisters that playing at dice he called to the diuell for helpe
chiefe citie in all the world this reason was rendered in the Councel of Chalcedon Can. 28. An other cause thereof was the ample priuiledges and immunities which the Emperours endued it withall as Constantine the great and Gratianus the Emperour made a lawe that all men should reteyne that religion which Damasus of Rome and Peter Bishop of Alexandria did hold A third cause was the vnquiet estate of the Greeke Church who often voluntarily referred their matters to the Bishop of Rome as being lesse partiall and a more indifferent Iudge they themselues being diuided and rent into sects And hereupon and other like causes it came about that the Bishop of Rome a little stepped aboue his fellowe Patriarkes but yet had no such preeminent authoritie as to commaund them Fourthly the Pope of Rome being thus tickled with vayne glorie because they were reuerenced of other Churches many matters were committed vnto them and their consent required vnto the decrees of Councels when they were absent Hereupon they laboured euery day more and more to aduance that See taking euery small occasion that might helpe forward their ambicious desire till Anno. 606. or somewhat after Boniface the 3. obtayned of wicked Phocas the Emperour who murthered his master the Emperour Mauritius and his children to come to the Empire and was after slaine himselfe of Heraclius that succeeded him of him I say Boniface for himselfe and his successors obtayned to bee called vniuersall Bishops ouer the whole Church and the See of Rome to haue the preeminence aboue all other Churches in the world Afterward in Pope Zacharie his time the proude and insolent iurisdiction of Rome was established by Pipinus King of France who aspired to the Crowne and obtayned it by the sayd Popes meanes first deposing Childericus the rightfull King and dispensing with the oath which the French men had made before to Childericus Calum Institut 4. cap. 7. sect 17. Thus then it sufficiently appeareth that the primacie of Rome which it now vniustly challengeth ouer other Churches is not of any such antiquitie as they would beare the world in hand neither that it had the beginning from Christ but both the time when and the authors by whom it began may bee easily assigned 2 Wee neede no better argument to proue that the primacie of Rome hath not his originall from Christ then the Iesuites owne confession First he sayth that it doth not depend of Christs institution but ex Petri facto of Peters fact that the Bishop of Rome should bee rather Peters successor then the Bishop of Antioch or any other It is not iure diuino saith he by Gods lawe neither is it ex prima institutione pontificatus quae in Euangelio legitur of the first institution whereof wee reade in the Gospell And agayne Romanum pontificem succedere Petro non habetur expresse in scripturis It is not expressely set downe in scripture that the Bishop of Rome should succeede Peter but it is grounded onely vpon the tradition of Peter Nay he saith further that Peter needed not to haue chosen any particular place for succession and he might as well haue chosen Antioch as Rome Ergo neither is the succession of Rome grounded vpon scripture neither any commandement of Christ for then Peter could not haue had free choyse to appoynt his successor where he would himselfe as the Iesuite saith if he had had any especiall direction or commaundement from Christ. So then marke I pray you they cannot proue out of scripture that the Bishop of Rome ought to succeede Peter in the chiefe Bishopricke but onely that Peter had the chiefe Bishopricke committed to him and his successors in generall whosoeuer they should appoynt Ergo the Bishops of Rome by their owne confession can alleadge no scripture institution or commandement of Christ for the primacie of the Church to bee annexed to the See of Rome and yet agaynst their knowledge they will alleadge scripture to colour the matter withall Bellarm. lib. 2. de pontif ca. 17. 3 Augustine saith Secundum honorum vocabula quae iam ecclesiae vsus obtinuit episcopatus presbyterio maior est The office of a Bishop is aboue the office of a Priest according to the names of honour which the Church by custome hath obtayned If then the difference of those two offices both named in scripture did arise rather and spring of the custome of the Church which thought it good to distinguish them for auoyding of schisme and is not grounded vpon the authoritie of scripture much lesse can the Pope whose neither name nor office is expressed in scripture fetch from thence any shew of proofe for his vsurped primacie THE SIXT PART OF THIS QVESTION CONCERning the proud names and vayne glorious titles of the Pope The Papists BEllarmine setteth downe to the number of fifteene glorious names which error 46 haue been of old giuen as he saith to the Bishop of Rome whereby his primacie ouer other Bishops is notoriously knowne but the principall are these He is called the Pope and chiefe Father the prince of Priests or high Bishop the Vicar of Christ the head of the Church the Prelate of the Apostolike See vniuersall Bishop These sixe names or titles they doe appropriate to the See of Rome Bellarm. de Roman pontif lib. 2. cap. 31. The Protestants WE will shewe by Gods grace that these sixe seuerall titles and names aforesayd are either such as ought not in their sense to be attributed to any Bishop nor any mortall man or els were common in ancient times as well to other Bishops as to him of Rome 1 For the first name of Pope it is deriued from the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the Syracusane language is as much as Father which name was indifferently giuen to other Bishops which were famous in the Church for their vertue and learning As Cypriane Epiphanius Athanasius were called Papae Popes Augustine saluteth Aurelius President of the 6. Councel of Carthage by the name of Pope Epistol 77. Likewise those two epithetes of the Pope as to bee called Beatissim sanctissim pater most holy and blessed father were vsed in the stile of other Bisshops Prosper in his Epistle to Augustine twise calleth him Dominum beatissimum papam Lord most blessed Pope Tom. 7. Hierome calleth Epiphanius Beatum papam blessed Pope Ad Eustach Fabiol Augustine writing to Petrus the Presbyter or Priest being no Bishop yet thus saluteth him Ad sanctitatem tuam scripsit he hath written to your holines Nay in his booke dedicated to Renatus a lay man neither Priest nor Bishop thus he writeth Hinc angor quòd sanctitati tuae minus quà m vellem cognitus sum This grieueth me that I am not so well knowne to your holines as I desire If then these titles of holinesse and blessednesse were not onely giuen to Bishops but Priests also yea vnto lay men of vertuous and holy life what colour or
shewe of reason can our aduersaries haue to make them proper to the Bishop of Rome 2 The second name is prince of Priests or high and chiefe Bishop which title if it be taken for a chiefe power dominion and soueraigntie is proper only to Christ the chiefe shepheard 1. Pet. 5.4 and cannot in that sense agree to any man If it bee vsed onely as a title of excellencie and commendation so was it in times past ascribed to other excellent and famous Bishops as Ruffinus lib. 2. cap. 26. calleth Athanasius Pontificem maximum chiefe Bishop yea it was in common giuen to all Bishops as Anacletus Bishop of Rome in his second Epistle writeth thus Summi sacerdotes id est Episcopi a deo iudicandi sunt The high Priests that is Bishops saith he are to bee iudged of God If it be taken further for the excellencie of the ministerie of the Gospell and the worthie calling of Christians in this sense the title of summum sacerdotium of the high Priesthood is attributed to all ministers Ecclesiasticall both Bishops and others so Fabianus Bishop of Rome vseth this name Yea the holy Apostle calleth all the people of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a princely royall or chiefe priesthood Ergo the Bishop of Rome hath no especiall or proper interest in this name 3 The third name is to bee called the Vicar of Christ vpon earth Where we are to vnderstand that in respect of the spirituall regiment and kingdome of Christ he needeth no Vicegerent vpon earth for I am with you saith he to the end of the world he himselfe is alway present in power and needeth not in that respect that any man should supplie his roume Petrus scriba martyr Fox pag. 906. If we doe take it for a word of office and publike administration so the Magistrate may bee called the Vicar of Christ in gouerning the people according to the word of God In which sense Eleutherius Bishop of Rome writing to Lucius King of the Britaines calleth him the Vicar of Christ and therfore in his owne kingdome had power out of the word of God to establish lawes for the gouernment of the people So all Bishops Pastors and Ministers in ancient time were called the Vicars of Christ in preaching praying binding and loosing in the name and power of Christ. So Augustine saith or whose worke els it is that Omnis antistes est Christi vicarius Euery pastor and prelate and not the Pope onely is the Vicar of Christ. And this is confessed by our Rhemists annot in 2. Cor. 5.18 that the Bishops and priests of the Church are for Christ and as his ministers that is his Vicars Nay Augustine maketh yet a more generall vse of this word he saith that Homo imperium Dei habens quasi vicarius eius est That man by creation being made Lord of the creatures doth therein represent God and is as his Vicar vpon earth So then all ministers are the Vicars of Christ the ciuill Magistrate likewise in some good sense may bee so called yea in respect of the creatures man generallie is vpon earth in Gods steade Ergo this name cannot be appropriate to the Pope of Rome 4 It is also too huge a name for the Pope or any mortall man to beare to be called the head of the vniuersall Church this is a name only due vnto Christ neither doe the scriptures acknowledge any other head but him Ephes. 1.22.4.15 But say they wee doe not make the Pope such an head as Christ is but only a ministeriall head ouer the militant Church vpon earth We answere First Ergo the Pope by your owne confession is not head of the vniuersall Church whereof the triumphant Church in heauen is a part Secondly the Rhemists confesse that the Church in no sense can bee called the bodie of the Pope Ergo the Pope cannot be any wayes the head of the vniuersall Church Annot. in 1. Ephes. 22. Thirdly the Fathers of Basile vsed this argument The head of the bodie being dead the whole bodie also dyeth but the whole Church doth not perish with the Pope Ergo he is not properly the head of the Church Fox pag. 675. If it shall bee further obiected that the Bishop of Rome hath been called in times past caput Episcoporum the head of all other Bishops we answere that it was but a title of excellencie and commendation not of dominion and power as London is called the head or chiefe citie of England yet are not other cities of the land subiect vnto it or vnder the iurisdiction thereof But we shall haue occasion more fully to discusse this matter afterward 5 They would haue the Pope called the Prelate of the Apostolike See the Rhemists say further that the Papall dignitie is a continuall Apostleship Annot. 4. Ephes. sect 4. We answere First if they call those Churches Apostolicall whose first founders were the Apostles then the See of Antioch Alexandria Constantinople are as well Apostolicall as Rome and this the Iesuite denyeth not Lib. 2. de pontific cap. 31. Secondly those Churches are Apostolicall which hold the Apostolike faith so is not the See of Rome Apostolicall being departed and gone backe from the ancient Catholike faith but those Churches where the Gospell of Iesus Christ is truely preached are indeede Apostolike Thirdly how can the Pope be an Apostle or haue Apostolike authoritie seeing hee preacheth not at all much lesse to the whole world wherein consisted the office of an Apostle Neither can he shewe his immediate calling from Christ as all the Apostles could for seeing he challengeth the Apostolike office by tradition from S. Peter and not by commandement from Christ he can in no wise be counted an Apostle or his office an Apostleship for the Apostles ordayned onely Euangelists and Pastors they had not authoritie to consecrate and constitute new Apostles Our aduersaries for this their Apostleship can finde nothing in scripture nor for a thousand yeeres after Christ in the ancient writers Fulk annot in Ephes. 4. sect 4. 6 Concerning the title of vniuersall Bishop it was thus decreed in the sixt Councel of Carthage as it is alleadged by Gratian Vniuersalis autem nec Romanus pontifex appelletur No not the Bishop of Rome is to be called vniuersall In Gregorie the first his time Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople obtayned of the Emperour Mauritius to be called vniuersall Patriarke but Gregorie would not agree thereunto calling him the forerunner of Antichrist that would challenge so proude a name Bellarmine and other of that sect doe answere that Gregorie found fault with this title because Iohn of Constantinople would haue been Bishop alone and none other to bee beside him but all other onely to bee his deputies and vicars To this wee replie First Iohn did onely challenge a superioritie ouer other Bishops not to be Bishop alone for this had been a thing impossible Secondly if Iohn had sought any such thing
the perfection and authority of the scriptures as also whether it be in the Pope to summone dissolue and confirme Councels which hath been sufficiently declared before in the controuersie concerning Councels Concerning other questions as the canonizing of Saints which they say appertaineth to the Pope the election and confirmation of Bishops pardons and indulgences we shall haue fitter occasion to deale in them in their seuerall places and controuersies At this time wee purpose onely to touch these two poynts aforesaide of the Popes Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE POPE may make lawes to binde the conscience and punish the transgressors thereof iudicially The Papists THat the Pope hath such authorie to make lawes for the whole Church error 49 which shall binde vnder paine of damnation as well as the lawes of God it is the general opinion of the papists Fox 981. articul 13. p. 1101. artic cont Lambert 29. But they put in this clause So they bee not vniust lawes nor contrarie to the diuine law Bellarm. cap. 15. And yet they say that the Pope may make lawes hauing not the authority nor warrant of scripture neither is it necessarie for these lawes to be expressed or diduced out of scripture And these lawes are not onely of externall rites and orders of the Church but euen of things necessary to saluation Bellarm. cap 15. in reprehens Caluini Yea he addeth further that in matters not necessary to saluation he can not be disobeyed without deadly sinne and offence of conscience cap. 16. loc 1. Bulla Leonis 10. aduersus Lutherum Fox p. 1283. col 1. 1. The Apostles prescribed a law concerning the abstaining from blood things strangled and offered to Idols concerning the which Christ gaue them no precept But this law did binde the people in conscience for euery where the Apostles gaue straight charge for the keeping of the decrees Bellarm. Answere First the Apostles commaunded no newe thing but the same which they themselues were taught of Christ that they should take heede of offence the Christians therefore were not bound in conscience any further to keepe the decrees concerning such things then for auoyding of scandal and offence Secondly for afterward the offence being taken away the law also ceased and Saint Paul giueth libertie notwithstanding this law to eate things offered to Idols if it might be done without offence Asking no question sayth he for conscience sake 1. Cor. 10.27 Ergo their consciences were not hereby obliged and bound 3. It is necessary to haue some lawes beside the diuine law for the gouernment of the Church for the word of God is too vniuersal neither is sufficient to direct euery particular action therefore other ecclesiasticall lawes must bee added but euery good and necessary law hath a coactiue and constraining power and bindeth the conscience to obedience Ergo the constitutions of the Popes and Councels which are the only ecclesiastical lawes doe binde the conscience Bellarmin cap. 16. lib. 4. Answere First the word of God contayneth all necessarie rules to saluation wherefore all lawes of the Church concerning matters of faith are but explanations and interpretations of the rules of fayth set forth in scripture if they be godly lawes and so are not the lawes of men but of God and doe bind the conscience to the obseruation thereof as the lawes of the Church which command Christians to resort to the congregation to heare Gods word and reuerently to receiue the sacraments are the very ordinances and commaundements of Christ who enioyned his Apostles to preach and baptize and his faythfull people to heare and to be baptized and therefore in conscience wee are bound to the obedience hereof Secondly there are other ecclesiasticall lawes appoynted for the publique order of the Church concerning externall rites and circumstances of persons and place as the houres of prayer the forme of the leâ—turgie publike seruice the times fittest for the celebration of the sacraments and such like These and such like constitutions do not binde in conscience absolutely in respect of the things themselues which are indifferent but in regarde of that contempt and offence which might followe in the not keeping of them contempt to our superiors whome wee ought in all lawfull things to obey offence in grieuing the conscience of our weake brethren So that euen these constitutions also which are made according to the rules of the Gospell that is vnto edification to the glorie of God and for auoyding of offence doe necessarilie binde vs in conscience not conscience of the thinges themselues which are but externall but conscience of obedience to our Christian Magistrates and conscience in taking heede of all iust offence sic Caluin Institut lib. 4. cap. 10.11 3 But we are not God be thanked driuen to any such straight that if there be neede of any such Ecclesiasticall lawes we should run for succor to the Popes beggerly decretals And yet such Canons as were in force amongst them agreeable to the rules of the Gospell we doe not refuse But if there bee want and penurie of good lawes euery Church hath as full authoritie to make decrees and ordinances for the peace and order and quiet gouernement thereof not as the Pope of Rome hath ouer the vniuersall Church for that by right is none or if it be it is but an vsurped power but as the Bishop of Rome hath in his owne Bishopricke and dioces The Protestants WHat our sentence is of this matter it doth partlie appeare by that which wee haue alreadie saide that the Pope hath no power ouer the whole Church and therefore can make no lawes to binde the conscience or otherwise for the same for it belongeth not to his charge Secondly we say that neither he nor any ecclesiasticall gouernement beside can make lawes of things necessarie to saluation other then those which are in Scripture conteined Thirdly all Ecclesiasticall lawes made concerning externall rites and publike order doe not otherwise binde the conscience then in regarde of our obedience due to Christian Magistrates in lawfull things and for auoyding of scandall and offence But in respect of the things commaunded such lawes doe not binde Caluin loc praedicto 1 Saint Iames saith there is one lawe-giuer which is able to saue and to destroy cap. 4.12 He therefore onely maketh lawes to binde the conscience that is able to saue and to destroy but that cannot the Pope doe Ergo Caluin argum Bellarmine answereth that the lawes of men doe binde vnder paine of damnation in as much as God is offended and displeased with their disobedience and so iudgeth them worthie of punishment cap. 20. All this wee graunt that the lawes of men being good lawes doe binde in conscience in respect of the contempt and disobedience to higher powers but not in respect of the thinges commaunded which in their nature are indiffereÌ„t The Iesuite should haue said that God is offended not onely for their disobedience but simplie
for not doing the things commaunded which he durst not say As when the Magistrate for some profitable and politike end commaundeth vpon some dayes abstinence from flesh it is not the eating or not eating of flesh that simplie displeaseth and offendeth God but the contempt of the lawe and wilfull and obstinate disobedience to the magistrate for otherwise the vse of the creature is free and indifferent 2 Wee will beate the Iesuite with his owne staffe hee saith not that all lawes doe binde the conscience but onely iust lawes in the which fower cōditions are required First that they be made for some profitable end so are not popish lawes which nourish superstition and haue no edifying and some of them doe commaund plaine idolatry open impietie as the worshipping of images the adoration of the Masse such like Secondly saith he they must not be contrarie to Gods law but such are many of their ordinances yea the most of them Thirdly they must be made by him that hath authoritie therefore none of the Popes lawes binde the vniuersall Church for it is not subiect to him Fourthly the forme and manner of imposing such lawes must be orderly but their lawes are most disordered imposed vpon the Church violently without their consent or any good proceeding Thus you see euen by their owne confession their lawes cannot binde One thing more I must needes tell them of If they would needes haue their lawes to binde men in conscience they should haue made fewer of them now they are so many that if the breach of them were an offence of conscience doe men what they could they should dailie make shipwrack of their conscience It is a true saying that is reported of one Thomas Arthur a good Christian it is an homely speech because the matter was somewhat homely yet hee did hit the marke Like as saith he crosses were set vp against the walles of London that no man should pisse there and while there were but a few men for reuerence of the crosses would not pisse against the wall but when in euery corner they set vp crosses men of necessitie were faine to pisse vpon the wall and crosses too So saith he if there had been fewer lawes of the Church they would haue been better kept but now they are so manie that men cannot chose but breake them 3 The Pope hath no power to correct the transgressors of his lawes ouer the whole Church Ergo hee cannot make lawes to binde the whole Church The argument followeth for hee that hath absolute power to make lawes hath also power to commaunde obedience to the lawes so made The first is thus proued the Pope indeede hath taken vppon him many times to thunder out his excommunication against other Churches but it was an vsurped and tyrannicall power and many times resisted and controuled Pope Victor Anno 200. would haue excommunicate the East Churches about the keeping of Easter but hee was stayed by Irenaeus The Councell of Constance did sende out excommunications against Pope Benedict sess 36. In the Councell of Basile Pope Eugenius cited Cardinall Iuliane with the rest of the fathers there assembled to come to Bononia vnder great penaltie they likewise cited Eugenius vnder the like penaltie either to come or send to Basile Fox pag. 668. Pope Leo the tenth in his fumish Antichristian Bull excommunicated and condemned Luther Luther with better right pronounceth sentence of excommunication against him being an aduersarie to Christ in these words according to the power and might that the spirit of Christ and efficacie of our faith can doe in these our writings if you shall persist still in your furie we condemne you together with this Bull and all the decretall and giue you to sathan to the destruction of the flesh that your spirit in the day of the Lord may be deliuered in the name which you persecute of Iesus Christ our Lorde Fox page 1286. Thus you see what small force there is of these popish leaden Bulls and presumptuous excommunications for it falleth out iustlie by them as the wise man saith As the Sparrow and the Swallowe by flying escape so the curse causelesse shall not come Now seeing therefore the Pope fayleth of power and strength to see his lawes executed in the vniuersall Church it cannot bee that his lawes should vniuersally binde Lastly let Augustine speake he thus defineth sinne peccatum est dictum factum vel concupitum contra legem aeternam Dei sinne is any thing done saide or coueted against the Lawe of GOD therefore the transgression simplie of the lawe of man is not sinne but as thereby also the Lawe of God is transgressed Ergo simplie it bindeth not the conscience for sinne onely bindeth and toucheth the conscience THE SECOND PART OF THIS QVEstion whether all Bishops doe receiue their Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction from the Pope The Papists THey denie not but that the power of order as they call it which consisteth error 50 in the administration of the Sacraments is equallie distributed to all Bishops and that they as well as the Pope doe receiue it immediatly by their consecration of God but the power both of externall iurisdiction which standeth vpon Ecclesiasticall censures constitutions and decrees and internall iurisdiction which is exercised in binding and loosing is deriued say they from the Pope to all other Bishops 1 God tooke of the spirite that was in Moses and distributed it among the seuentie Elders that were chosen to beare the burthen of gouernement with Moses and to bee his helpers the Lorde tooke of his spirite not by diminishing it but by deriuing of his vertue to the rest but the Pope is now in the roome and place of Moses in the Church Ergo from him to the rest is this an authoritie deriued Answer First Moses example was extraordinarie he was a figure of Christ not of the Pope Deuteron 18. vers 15. The Pope might with better right stand vpon Aarons example who was high Priest not lay claime to Moses office who was the Prince and Captaine of the people for the Pope I trow would be chiefe Bishop and not Emperor too Secondly the meaning is not that God deriued Moses spirit to the rest but bestowed the like gift of prophesying vpon them as Moses had surely neuer any mortall man had the spirite in such aboundance that it could bee deuided into seuentie portions and one Prophet to make many The like phrase is vsed 2. King 2.15 Where the Prophets saide that the spirit of Eliah did rest on Elisha that is God endued him with an excellent spirit of prophesying as Elias had If they will vnderstand this place also of deriuing of spirits how then shall that be taken in the 9. verse where Elisha praieth that this spirit might be doubled vpon him If his spirit were deriued from Eliah how could it be doubled vpon him How could it be multiplied and increased how could he haue
effectuall power to euery parte Ephes. 4.15.16 2 It is false that the ciuill magistracie onely concerneth the outward and temporall commoditie onely for vnto Princes also is committed the chiefe care of religion and the worship of God They are to see true religion aduaunced yea to watch ouer Ecclesiasticall ministers and to charge them to looke to their offices the Prince is Gods minister for the wealth both of the soules and bodies of his subiects And therefore Saint Paul exhorteth to pray for Kings and gouernours that wee may liue not onely a peaceable life but in all godlines and honestie 1. Timoth. 2.2 Ergo it is parte of the magistrates office as to procure the peace of the people so to haue a care of their godlie life Wherefore it is false as the Iesuite supposeth that the chiefe ende of the ciuill gouernement is onely outward and temporall Ergo his argument is nothing worth 2 Azariah the high Priest droue Vzziah the King out of the temple when hee would haue burned incense and caused him to goe out of the citie and dwell apart 2. Chron. 26. Iehoiada likewise deposed Athalia 2. King 11. Ergo the Pope may depose wicked and vngodly Princes Bellarmine cap. 8. Answere First wee denie that there is now or ought to bee any such high Priest in the Church of God to haue the chiefe authoritie in spirituall matters as there was in the lawe for hee was the type and figure of Christ who is our high Priest and chiefe Bishop Secondly these examples doe not excuse the Popes tyrannie who hath deposed rightfull Kinges and Emperors and better then himselfe as Pope Zacharie deposed Childericus the French King and set vp Pipinus Gregorie the seuenth set vp Rodolphus against Henricus the fourth the Emperor Pope Paschalis set vp the sonne of the saide Henricus against his father But we will answere more particularly to these examples To the first First it was not the sole act of Azariah the high Priest but there were 80. Priests that ioyned with him beside and they all spake to the King this example therefore maketh nothing for the sole authoritie of the Pope who saith that he may depose the Emperor himselfe without any Councell Innocent 4. Secondly they did not depose Vzziah they onely withstoode him according to the lawe of God because hee vsurped the priests office so ought faithfull Bishops and pastors euen to reproue the greatest Magistrates for the manifest contempt and open breach of Gods lawe Neither did they constraine the King to goe forth before they saw the iudgement of God vpon him for the text saith they compelled him to go forth because the Lord had smitten him they saw the leprosie to rise vp in his face vers 20. This therefore was the extraordinarie iudgement of God and not of the high priest Thirdly he was not deposed from the Kingdome though he dwelt alone his son did execute the office only for him and raigned after him for being a leper by the law he was to dwell apart Leuit. 13.46 Here was nothing done we see by the sole authoritie of the high Priest but they had the manifest and direct lawe of God vnto the which their Kings also were subiect To the second example we answere First Athaliah was a tyrant and an vsurper and ought not to raigne and therefore was iustly deposed Secondly Iehoiada did it not by his owne power but assembled the Fathers and Princes of the land 2. Chron. 22.2 He shewed them the young King and they made a couenant with him Iehoiada onely gaue directions the King being now knowen vnto them vnto the Captaines and gouernours Thirdly they had the flat word of God for that action The Kings sonne must raigne as the Lord hath saide concerning the sonnes of Dauid ver 3. So when the Pope hath any such warrant from God he may doe as Iehoiada did The Protestants THat the Pope or any other person Ecclesiasticall hath no manner of temporall iurisdiction either directly or indirectly ouer Kings Princes Emperors but ought of right to bee subiect to them and their lawes it is thus proued 1 By the same reason whereby the Iesuite proueth that the Pope directlie hath no temporall iurisdiction we will conclude that neither indirectlie can he haue any and so none at all Christ while he liued vpon earth tooke vpon him no temporall iurisdiction either directly or indirectly he refused to bee a King Iohn 6. Nay hee would not bee a Iudge in ciuill matters as in deuiding the inheritance being thereto required Luke 12.13 Hee payed poll money Matth. 17. hee did submit himselfe to the iudgement of Pilate an heathen Iudge therefore seeing Christe vsed no such temporall iurisdiction neither can any Minister of Christe for the seruant is not aboue the Master Onely Antichrist dare presume beyond the example of Christ. 2 The Fathers of Basile doe vrge that place of Saint Peter 1. Epist. 5.2 against Panormitane who had vnaduisedly sayd that the Pope was Lorde of the Church But the Apostle saith Feede the flocke of Christ not by constraint but willinglie not as Lordes ouer the Lordes inheritance verse 3. But the Pope contrariwise vseth all forceable constraining and tyrannicall meanes killing slaying imprisoning deposing those that will not obey him who calleth himselfe chiefe Lorde and Magistrate of the whole Worlde Surely this is Antichrist and not the Minister of Christ or successor of Saint Peter whose counsaile he refuseth to followe and obey 3 Let but the stories of former times bee searched there wee shall finde how wickedly and insolently the Popes behaued themselues towards Kings and Emperors Pope Alexander caused Henry the second to doe penance for Beckets death and to bee displed of the Monkes Innocent the third caused King Iohn to kisse the feet of the Bishop of Canturburie his own subiect Alexander the third did tread vpon Emperor Frederick his neck Pope Innocent spoyled Frederick the second of his Empire caused him to bee poysoned and his sonne Conradus to be beheaded and these Emperors were deposed by the Popes in order Henricus 4. Henricus 5. Frederick 1. Philippus Otho the 4. Frederick 2. and Conradus his sonne It is not good they say to put a sword into a mad mans hand and thinke you not that these Popes vsed the temporal sword very discreetely which they thus vsurped making fooles and slaues of Emperors as Pope Adriane did that rebuked Frederick the first because he held his stirrup on the wrong side and did excommunicate him for setting his name before the Popes in writing Thâ— very insolent diuellish and Antichristian practise of this their temporal power sheweth from what originall it commeth euen from the father of pride Lastly Augustine saith writing vpon those words Rom. 13. Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers Si quis putat quia Christanus est non sibi esse vectigal reddendum aut tributum aut non esse exhibendum honorem debitum
owne sonnes for to enrich the See of Rome as Augustine very well saith Qui vult exhaeredato filio ecclesiam haeredem facere quaerat alterum qui suscipiat non Augustinum immo deo propitio nullum inueniat He that would make the Church his heire and defeate his own children let him seeke some bodie else to accept of his gift surely Augustine wil not nor I trust any honest man beside The Protestants FIrst we willingly grant that the Church may inioy those teÌ„porall possessions which haue been of old granted vnto it for the better maintenance thereof so they bee not abused to riot and excesse as the Leuites beside their tithes had their cities and fieldes Numb 35. Secondly the iudgement of Ecclesiasticall matters doth of right appertaine to the Church as Amariah the Priest was the chiefe in all matters of the Lord 2. Chron. 19.11 Thirdly we doe not vtterly exclude spirituall persons from temporall causes but as the ciuill Magistrate hath his interest in ordaining of Ecclesiasticall lawes so spirituall persons ought not to be strangers from the ciuill state being meete men for their knowledge and conscience to be consulted withall and conferred with and to be ioyned in Councell with the Magistrate in difficult matters as wee reade Deuter. 17.8 How the high Priest and chiefe iudge did ioyne in mutuall helpe and assistance But that any spirituall person may bee a temporall prince and haue the chiefe gouernement of both states and handle both swordes we say it is contrarie to the word of God for in these three poyntes standeth chiefly the office of the prince in making and ordaining ciuill lawes in hauing power of life and death in proclaiming of warre and waging of battayle with none of these ought Ecclesiasticall persons to deale as we will now shew in order 1 Concerning the making of ciuill lawes and statutes though the Ecclesiasticall bodie according to the ancient custome of this land haue their suffrage and voyce and doe giue consent yet the chiefe stroke in alowing confirming and enacting of such lawes is in the prince and cannot agree or bee matched with any spirituall office Saint Paul saith Who is sufficient for these things that is for the work of the Ministerie 2. Cor. 2.16 If therefore spirituall persons suffice not to execute to the full their spirituall charge though they should bend all their studie and care that way much more insufficient shall they be if they be entangled in temporall affayres for the well guiding and ordering whereof a whole man likewise is scarce sufficient Againe saith he no man that warreth entangleth himselfe with the affaires of this life 2. Timoth. 2.4 By affaires seculare here are not onely vnderstoode as the Iesuite imagineth merchandise traffike buying selling and such like but the care and charge also of ciuill gouernement of making lawes and orders for the ciuill state which must needs bee a great let to the spirituall busines and require greater studie and labor then the other baser workes which are named To this Augustine agreeth Quo iure saith he defendis villas Vnde quisque possidet quod habet Iure humano iure imperatorum quare quia ipsa iura humana per imperatores reges seculi Deus distribuit generi humano tract in Ihoann 6. By what law doest thou defend thy possessions by the lawe of man the lawe of the Emperors for these humane lawes by Gods ordinance are giuen vnto men by the Emperors and Kings of the world See then ciuill lawes and humane constitutions are giuen and made not by the Pope Priest or any other Prelate but onely by Kings and Princes and the ciuill magistrates 2 It were a moÌ„strous an vnnatural thing that any Ecclesiastical gouernor should haue power of life death for he hath no better right to the ciuil sword then the prince to the Ecclesiasticall sword and if it be not lawfull for the ciuill Magistrate to excommunicate which is as the spiâ—tuall sword and the greatest censure of the Church no more is it to be suffered that by the authoritie or commaundement of any Ecclesiasticall person any man should bee put to death The high Priest was not to deale with matters of bloud which touched the life but the offenders were brought to the gates of the citie where the magistrates sate Deuter. 17.5 Not to the temple where the priest ministred Nay we see that in the most corrupt times of the Iewish common-wealth namelie when they put our blessed Sauiour to death the priests did not challenge any such power It is not lawful say they for vs to put any to death Iohn 18.31 But that power was in the temporall Magistrate as Pilate said to Christ Knowest thou not that I haue power to crucifie thee and power to loose thee Ioh. 19.10 Ergo the Pope cannot bee a temporall prince to haue power of life and death 3 If the Pope be a temporall prince then hee may wage battaile which although the Iesuite dare not plainely affirme yet it followeth necessarilie vpon his assertion for it is lawfull for any temporall prince to make warre And it hath been the common practise of Popes and popish prelates so to doe There were great bitter battailes fought betweene Vrbane the sixt and the Antipope Clement in the which on the one side there were 5000. slaine Fox pag. 434. Henry Spenser a lustie young bloud Bishop of Norwich was the Popes Captaine generall in France where he sacked the towne of Grauenidge and put man woman and childe to the sword So Pope Iulius cast his keyes into the Riuer Tybris and tooke himselfe to his sword waged many battailes and at the last was encountred withall by Lewes the French King vpon Easter day where there was of his army slaine to the nuÌ„ber of 16000. But these warlike affaires of the Pope misliked the Papists themselues for hee was therefore condemned in the Councell of Turone in France Anno. 1510. We may see how well these furious Popes doe followe the rule of Christ who coÌ„maunded Peter to put vp his sword into his sheath If it were not lawfull for Peter to strike with the sword how is it lawfull for the Popes that I am sure dare not challenge more to themselues then was lawfull for Peter Thus wee see how absurd a thing it is that the Pope should bee a temporall Prince THE NINTH QVESTION OF THE PRErogatiues of the Pope BEside these priuiledges and immunities of the See of Rome which hitherto we haue spoken of both in spirituall and temporall matters there are other prerogatiues which haue been in times past giuen to the Bishops of Rome most blasphemous wicked which the Papists of this age are ashamed of and therefore passe them ouer with silence for Bellarmine saith nothing of them Wee will therefore spare our labor in confuting of them they are so grosse and absurd but onely bring them forth that the godly reader may vnderstand the
I pray you whether our merchants be admitted to traffick safely in Spaine if their religion be knowen The seruants of God amongst you can neither enioy houses lands libertie or life which yoke also was layd a long time vpon this land till it pleased God to haue mercie on vs for the which his name be blessed 3. Againe many yeares agoe euen in Augustines and Ambrose his time all Churches were ioyned to Rome before Antichrist was yet reuealed Ergo. This is not the Character of Antichrist Bellarmin ibid. Answere First they were ioyned then in common consent of religion not as subiects by compulsion but voluntarie because at that time Rome in the chiefest poynts of Religion was in the right fayth 2. But of late dayes in the Councel of Constance not yet 2. hundred yeares agoe it was made an article of faith to beleeue that the Pope was the head of the Vniuersal Church yea about the yeare 600. the title of Vniuersal Bishop first began to be appropriate to Rome whereby was insinuated that all Churches in the world should be vnder the obedience thereof Lastly we haue the testimonie of one of their Popes themselues who saith plainly that hee is the forerunner of Antichrist which would bee called Vniuersall Bishop lib. 4. epistol 32. See then by his testimony the title of Vniuersality and exacting of obedience of other Churches is the character marke of Antichrist THE FOVRTH PART CONCERNING the generation and original of Antichrist The Papists error 60 THey doe reiect those olde fancies concerning Antichrist as that hee should be borne of a Virgin by helpe of the diuel that hee should haue the diuell to his father that he should be a diuell incarnate or that hee should bee Nero raysed from the dead Refusing these fables they haue found out one as foolish Our Rhemists holde that Antichrist shal be borne of the tribe of Dan. Bellarm. dare not say so but he thinketh that he shall come of the Iewes stock and be circumcised and be taken of the Iewes for their Messiah cap. 12. 1. That he shall come of the tribe of Dan thus they would prooue it Genes 49.17 Dan shal be a serpent by the way biting the horse heeles Ierem. 8.16 The neying of his horses is heard from Dan. And Apocal. 7. where 12. thousand of euery tribe are reckoned onely Dan is left out because belike Antichrist should come of that tribe Rhemist 2. Thess. 2. sect 8. Answere Bellarmine confuteth all these reasons the first hee saith with Hierome to be vnderstood of Sampson who came of the tribe of Dan the second place is of Nabuchadnezzers comming to destroy Ierusalem as Hierome also expoundeth it to the third he sayth that Ephraim is left out as well as Dan yea and so is Manassâ—h too because the tribe of Ioseph is named for his two sonnes but Dan is left out because Leui is reckoned in his place Wee may see now how well they agree when one Iesuite confuteth another Bellarmin cap. 12. 2. Bellarmine standeth much vpon that place Iohn 5.43 If an other come in his name him will ye receiue But sayth he the Iewes will receiue none but of their owne kinred and whom they looke for to be their Messiah Ergo. Antichrist must come of the Iewes ibd Answere This place we haue shewed before part 1. of this question to be vnderstood of false prophets amongst the Iewes such as mention is made of Act. 5. as Theudas and Iudas and not of any one false prophet so Iohn 10. where Christ compareth himselfe which is the true shepheard with the hireling he vnderstandeth all hirelings though he speake in the singular number The Protestantes THat it is a very fable and cousoning deuice of heretikes to make men beleeue that Antichrist shall come of the tribe of Dan or of the stock of the Iewes thus we shew it 1. It is out of doubt that the nation of the Iewes shall bee conuerted vnto God and mercy shal be shewed againe to the remnant of Israel Rom. 11.25 confessed also by the papists But if one come which shall reedifie the temple and restore the sacrifices and circumcision such an one as the Iewes shall take for their Messiah who seeth not that by this meanes the Iewes will bee more hardned hauing now their owne hearts desire their temple Messiah circumcision and their conuersion would be greatly hindred nay quite and clean ouerthrowen 2. If Antichrist should come of the Iewes it is like that his seate should bee at Ierusalem and that the temple shall be built agayne by him but that cannot be for the temple as Daniel prophesieth shall lie desolate euen vnto the ende Dani. 9.27 Ergo. he shall not come of the Iewes More of this in the next parte THE FIFT PART CONCERNING THE seate and place of Antichrist The Papists BEllarmine holdeth opinion that Antichrist shall haue his imperiall seate at Ierusalem and reedifie and build againe the temple yea for a while commaund error 61 circumcision to be vsed and obserued Bellarm. cap. 13. lib. 3. de pontif Rhemist 2. Thessa. 2. sect 11. 1. Apocal. 11.8 the Citie of Antichrist is called the great Citie where our Lord was crucified But Christ was crucified at Ierusalem Ergo. Answere First it cannot be so vnderstood for ver 2. Ierusalem is called the holy Citie ver 8. This great Citie is called Sodome and Aegypt how can the same Citie be capable of such contrary names How can that be called an holy Citie where the abomination of desolation shall be and the seate of Antichrist Secondly Augustine in Apocal. homil 8. vnderstandeth by the great Citie and the streetes thereof the middest of the Church And by the great citie verie fitly is vnderstood the large iurisdiction of the Pope who sayth hee is head of the great citie and Catholike Church Whose seate we see is at Rome by authoritie of which citie Christ was put to death and by Antichrist the Pope Christ also is persecuted in his members Fulk annotat Apocalyps 11. sect 2. 2. Apocalips 17.16 the tenne hornes that is tenne kings amongst whom the Romane Empire shall bee deuided shall hate the scarlet whore that is Rome and burne it with fire how then shall it bee the seate of Antichrist Bellarm. Answere The text is plaine that the same kingdomes that before had giuen their power to the beast and were subiect to the whore of Babilon shall after make her desolate and eate her flesh which thing we see in part to be accomplished already that many princes haue redeemed their necks from Antichrist his yoke Fulk Apocal. 17. sect 3. It is not necessary therefore to bee done all at one time but one after another 3. 2. Thessal 2. he shall sit in the temple of God but at that time the Iewes onely had a temple the Christians yet had none and the Apostle speaking of the Church of God did of purpose refrayne this name lest the Church of Christians
but now they doe light them at noone day 3 These offices haue not been in vse these many yeares among the papists themselues for many times the Sexton or his boy doe execute the charge both of Acolites Ostiaries and Readers yea of Deacons and Subdeacons also when the Priest with his boy can dispatch a Masse Neither are these orders retayned amongst them for any especiall seruice or office but onely as praeparatories and steps and degrees to the priesthood Fulk annot 1. Timoth. 3. sect 7. THE SECOND PART OF THE DIFFErence of Bishops and other Ministers The Papists WE differ from them in two poynts First they say that Bishops are not onely in a higher degree of superioritie to other Ministers but they are as Princes of the Clergie and other Ministers as subiects and in all things to bee commaunded by them Secondly they affirme that Bishops are onely properly Pastors and that to them onely it doth appertaine to preach and that other Ministers haue no authoritie without their license or consent to preach at all and that not principally or chiefely but solie and wholie to them appertayneth the right of consecrating and giuing orders For the first for the princely authoritie of Bishops whom they would haue obeyed in all things they wrast these and such like places of scripture as 2. Cor. 1.9 I write vnto you to know whether you will be obedient in all things Ergo they must be absolutely obeyed Answere the Apostle challengeth only obedience in such things as he should commaund agreeable to Gods word for if I my selfe sayth he preach another Gospell holde me accursed Galat. 1. Fulk annot 1. Cor. 2. sect 3. 2 Against an Elder receiue no accusation vnder two or three witnesses 1. Tim. 5.19 Ergo the authority of Bishops is absolute and princelike Videmus Episcopum iudicem esse presbyterorum proinde verum principem wee see the Bishop is the iudge of the Elders Ergo a prince ouer them Bellarm cap. 14. Answere First it followeth not Bishops haue iurisdiction and authoritie ouer other Ministers Ergo they are princes ouer them Can there be no preeminence and superioritie in the Church but it must needes be princelike Is euery iudge a prince ouer those which are brought before him to be iudged 2. Timothie had no such princelike authority for here it is restrained limited a rule is set down by the Apostle which he must obserue Ergo his authoritie was not absolute Thirdly Saint Paul was so farre off from making Timothie a prince in the Church at Ephesus that he would rather haue him not to rebuke but to exhort the Elders as fathers the younger men as brethren cap. 5.1 Where now is his princely authoritie become whereas he maketh his subiects as our aduersaries call inferior Ministers his fathers and brethren For the second the Apostles properly had the preaching of the word committed vnto them Act. 6. For other were chosen to attend vpon tables the Apostles also onelie had the right of laying on of hands Act. 14.23 Ergo It is proper onely to Bishops to preach and to ordayne who are the Apostles successors Bellarmin Answere First Bellarmine denieth that Bishops doe properly succeed the Apostles de pontifice lib. 4.25 because he would magnifie the Pope his ghostly father aboue all Bishops but now forgetting himselfe hee sayth Episcopi propriè succedunt Apostolis Bishops doe properly succeede the Apostles cap. 14. so by this reason euery Bishop hath as ful authoritie as the Pope Secondly euery godly faithful Bishop is a successor to the Apostles we denie it not so are all faithfull and godly pastors Ministers for Christ prayeth for them all indifferently hauing first praied for his Apostles Iohn 17.20 I pray not for these alone sayth our Sauiour but for al them which shal beleeue in me through their word Thirdly at that time when the Deacons were elected the congregation was at Ierusalem neither were there as yet any other Pastors ordained therefore the Apostles only attēded vpon preaching of the word but afterward when they had ordayned Pastors in other Churches to them also fully was committed the word of reconciliation Ephes. 4.11 Christ hath giuen some to be Apostles some Prophets some Pastors and teachers So that Pastors teachers though ordained first by the Apostles yet had their calling of God and together in their calling authoritie and commission to preach neither being once ordayned needed they to expect anie further license from the Apostles And as for the right of ordayning and imposition of handes though it were chiefly in the Apostles yet the Pastors and Elders together with them layde on their handes Act. 13.4 Yea the Rhemists confesse as much that when a Priest is to be ordered the rest of the Priests together with the Bishop doe lay on their hands Annotat. 1. Timoth. 4.18 What doth this else signifie but that they haue some interest in ordayning together with the Bishop The law also must be changed Heb. 7.12 that is the manner and forme of the priesthood But we easily see your drift you would gladly haue vs like of this argument that in stead of a high Priest in the law you might bring a Pope into the Church The Protestantes FIrst though we doe admitte that for auoyding of schisme the Church hath thought it meete there should be difference in degree and a superioritie among Ministers yet your princely dominion which you doe vrge in no wise must be admitted 1 It is contrary to the rule of Christ. Luk. 22.25 the Kings of the nations are Lords ouer them and they that haue authoritie ouer them are called benefactors Here our Sauiour speaketh not of tyrannical dominion for how could tyrants be benefactors but forbiddeth that there should be any such princelike and pompous preeminence among ecclesiasticall persons as there is among secular and ciuill gouernours A superioritie may be graunted but not as the Prince is ouer his subiects it was so in time of popery that the people were halfe subiects to the Prince and halfe subiects to their spirituall gouernours But though we acknowledge other ecclesiasticall fathers and pastors yet we are subiects onely to our prince 2 Saint Peter also is flat against this princely rule and dominion Feede the flock sayth he not as Lords ouer Gods heritage but that you may bee ensamples 1. Pet. 5.3 But are not they I pray you Lords ouer the flock that challenge to be princes Secondly concerning the power of preaching we affirme that euery pastor once ordayned hath sufficient authoritie to preach in his owne flocke and charge as Iohn Husse notably prooued to their face out of a certayne glose in the fift booke of the decretals that when as the Bishop ordayneth anie Priest he giueth him also therewithall authoritie to preach Wee denie not but when there is iust occasion this authoritie maybe restrayned by the Church gouernours and so also may an euill Minister be suspended
from his whole ministerie But the power before spoken of hee hath at his first receiuing of orders We thus shew it Whatsoeuer belongeth to the office of a Minister set ouer a flocke or charge hee receiueth the power thereof when he is ordayned But to preach the word belongeth to the office of such for preaching is properly the feeding of the people But see the absurditie of the papists they say it is not proper to the priesthood to preach but onely to haue power to sacrifice the body of Christ But it is proper to the Bishop say they to preach We answere First then the Bishop is properly the pastor of euery flocke and congregation in his diocesse for hee that properly feedeth is properly the Pastor And hee that is properly the Pastor hath the charge of soules properly yea more then hath the particular Pastor for he is improperly their Pastor but as it were the Bishops substitute and Vicar But what Bishop in the worlde is able to beare so great a burthen to haue the especiall and proper charge of all the soules in his diocesse It is not to be denied but he hath a charge of their soules as a Christian Prince also hath in some respect of his subiects but to say hee is the proper Pastor and hath the proper principall charge of soules in teaching and feeding of them for the question is now of preaching not of gouerning who is able to abide it Secondly but our Rhemists tell vs another tale that many that are not able to preach are meete enough to bee Bishops 1. Timoth. 5. sect 13. Ergo it is not proper to Bishops neither to preach I pray you then for whom is it proper if neither for Bishops nor inferior Pastors then for none Thirdly they make but seuen orders of Ecclesiasticall Ministers and the priesthood is the chiefe for a Bishop and a priest make but one order as Bellarmin confesseth cap. 11. But to none of all these orders it is proper to preach for seeing it is not proper to the priest none of the inferior orders can challenge it See then what goodly orders these are which leaue the very chiefe parte of the ministery vndone which is the preaching of the word I thinke their meaning is that this preaching is not so necessary a dutie but may be well spared in the Church 2 That which a man is bound to doe vnder paine of the curse of GOD that he may lawfully performe in due order without the leaue of men but a woe is layd vpon them that preach not the Gospell where they are bound 1. Cor. 9.16 Ergo. Argum. Wicliffi 3 A man is bound to giue corporal almes to the poore the needie the hungry the thirstie neither is he to craue leaue of any Ergo much more to teach the ignorant to comfort the weake and doe other dueties appertayning to his charge Argum. Wicliffi Concerning the power of giuing orders As Saint Paul speaketh of the laying on of his handes 2. Timoth. 1.6 so he maketh mention of imposition of hands by the Eldership 1. Timoth 4.14 And the Rhemists vpō that place mislike not the practise of the Church that their Priests doe lay on their handes together with the Bishop vpon his head that is to be ordayned So that by this it is manifest that imposition of hands doth not wholly and folie belong vnto the Bishop seeing the rest of the Elders were wont to lay on their hands likewise or the Bishop in the name of the rest Fulk annot Tit. 1. sect 2. So that the Elders were not excluded THE THIRD PART CONCERNING THE office and title of Cardinals The Papists BEllarmine would faine haue the office of Cardinals as ancient as the Apostles error 72 times and the name to be worthilie appropriated to the See of Rome that as the Pope himselfe by his prudence and holines is tanquam cardo Ecclesiae to the Church as the hingell to the dore vpon the which it is turned and borne vp so his Counsellers and assistants should be called Cardinals hauing the care of the Vniuersall Church but the Iesuite beside some vaine shew of mothworne antiquitie hath not one good argument to proue the name and office of Cardinals to be either ancient or commendable Then especiall office as they are Cardinals is to elect and chuse the Pope and to be assistant vnto him in Counsell for the gouernement of the vniuersall Church Bellarm. cap. 16. The Protestants THat neither the name of Cardinals as proper to Rome is ancient nor their office or either of them lawfull or commendable but vsurped and Antichristian thus briefely it is shewed 1 In Augustines time it was a common name vsually applied both in the good and euill parte to chiefe and principall men of any place or sect as he calleth the ringleaders of the Donatists Cardinales Donatistas Cardinall or captaine Donatists de baptism lib. 1. cap. 6. Surely if it then had been onely due to the assistants of the Romane Bishop Augustine had been much to blame to applie the name to Heretikes 2 Augustine thus writeth to Hierome Quamues secundum honorum vocabula saith hee Episcopatus presbyterio maior sit tamen in multis rebus Augustin Hieronim minor est Though according to the custome of the Church a Bishop be greater then a Priest yet Augustine a Bishop in many things is inferior to Hierome a Priest Now Hierome was a Priest of Rome and a Cardinall as our aduersaries say and therefore they picture him commonly in a red gowne and habite of a Cardinall yet you see Augustine as a Bishop was before him though for his great learning he putteth himselfe behinde him 3 Augustine in another place complaineth of one Falcidius a Deacon of Rome qui duce stultitia saith hee diaconos presbyteris coaequare contendit who being led or carried away with follie did goe about to make Deacons equall vnto Priests Is not the same follie now generally practised in Rome or a greater for they doe not onely preferre Cardinall Deacons before Priests but euen before Bishops and Archbishops in Augustines time this was counted a great follie 4 Concerning the office of Cardinals in the electing of the Pope we haue shewed before quest 2. part 2. that it is of no great antiquitie and that it is iniurious to three estates to the Emperor who was wont to cōfirme the election to the Clergie of Rome who had in times past interest in the election and to the people whose consent was also in time past required But now all these are excluded and the matter is wholly referred to the Chapter of Cardinals THE FOVRTH QVESTION CONCERNING the Keyes of the Church committed for the execution to the pastors and gouernors thereof THis question hath foure partes First wherein the authoritie of the keyes consisteth secondly to whom they are committed thirdly whether there is absolute power of binding and loosing in the Church or ministerially onely fourthly
yet is it not best for euery man to be rich God seeth it good that some men should be poore So single life is the best for those that haue the gift of chastitie that can with a quiet conscience liue single otherwise matrimonie were much better for Saint Paul that wisheth that euery one would liue single as hee did yet afterward sayth It is better to marrie then to burne So that by the Apostles iudgement to marrie is best for him that hath not the gift of continencie Iewel pag. 232. defens Apolog. The Protestants THat it is not onely lawfull but conuenient that all men both Ministers and others that haue not receiued a proper gift of continencie should marrie and that it is agreeable and consonant to the word of God thus wee shew it 1 The scriptures are most playne for the mariage of Ministers 1. Timoth. 3.2 Saynt Paul sayth a Bishop and generally euery Minister may be the husband of one wife and verse 11. their wiues are described howe they ought to behaue themselues Let their wiues be honest Ergo it is lawfull for them to bee maried Bellarmine answereth that Saynt Paul speaketh of the wiues which they had before their calling and ordayning not those which they should marry after But there appeareth no such thing out of the text Nay Saint Paul say wee had libertie as well as others to leade about a sister a wife euen after hee was an Apostle 1. Corinth 9. Wherefore it is as lawfull afterward as afore Bellarmine answereth We must thus read a Sister a woman and it is like they were women that did minister vnto the Apostles and followed them We replie First the word Sister doth implie a woman and therefore it had been an improper and needlesse speech to say a sister a woman therefore we must rather read a sister a wife Secondly if they were other women which ministred of their substance what neede the Apostles to be mayntained of the Churches if they ministred but in their seruice and attendance who were more fit to doe it and to follow them from place to place then their wiues Thirdly the phrase of leading about a sister importeth a superioritie and authority such as the husband hath ouer his wife Another place we haue Hebr. 13.3 Mariage is honourable among all men Ergo amongst Ministers Bellarmin If it were meant of all mariages then to marrie within the degrees of consanguinitie were also honourable Answere This is a very childish cauill First hee might haue read further And the bedde vndefiled Saint Paul therefore speaketh of lawfull mariage and indeede the other ioyning and coupling of men and women together contrarie to GODS lawe is not to bee counted Matrimonie or Wedlocke but Incest rather and Fornication as the brother to marrie his brothers wife and such like Secondly Saint Paul sayth not all mariages are honourable but mariage is honourable for all men the generalitie is not of the thing but the persons Wherefore we doe fittly conclude out of this place that marriage is lawful and commendable euen among ministers argum Caluin Further Saint Paul saith For auoyding of fornication let euery man haue his owne wife 1. Corinth 7.2 Here is no restraint for Ministers Bellarm. this is to be vnderstoode of those that haue not made a vow of continency Answer First our Sauiour Christ commaundeth no such vowes it is a cruell Antichristian yoke laide vpon Ministers to binde them when they receiue orders to vowe single life therefore your Antichristian decree ought not to abridge the generall libertie granted by the Apostle Secondly the end of marriage is generall to auoyde fornication and therefore the remedie also is generall for euerie man hauing not a proper gift of continencie may be in danger of that inconuenience if he be denyed the ordinarie helpe Melancthon Againe 1. Timoth. 4. to forbid marriage is called a doctrine of diuels but the Popish Church forbiddeth marriage Bellarm. Wee doe not forbid marriage to any but we require single life of all that are entred into orders which it is at their owne choyce to receiue or to refuse Ans. First it is necessarie that some should receiue orders and be consecrate to the Church ministerie wherefore requiring this condition of all such to liue single though particularly you prohibite not this man or that to marrie yet generally you prohibite the whole calling which is worse Secondly if you say you doe not forbid marriage simplie to all no more did the Manichees for they suffered their scholars and auditors to marrie And Saint Augustines words are generall Ille prohibet matrimonium qui illud malum esse dicit he forbiddeth marriage that thinketh it is euil you therefore forbidding marriage must needs hold opinion that is wicked and euill 2 This restraint of the marriage of Ministers hath not been of ancient time in the Church but imposed vpon the Church of late 1000. yeere after Christ Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus anno 180. had seuen of his progenitors before him Bishops of the same See In the Nicene Councel Paphnutius stoode vp and stayed the decree that should haue past for restraining of the marriage of Ministers and it is saide Synodus landauit sententiam Paphnutij The Synod commended Paphnutius sentence Sozomen lib. 1. cap. 11. Gregorie the father of Gregorie was Bishop of Nazianzum The Greeke Church neuer yet receiued this popish decree of single life and their Bishops are married at this day Bellarmine saith that the Church of Rome hath dispenced with them cap. 18. Ergo if the Pope would dispence with the Latine Church it might be lawfull enough then for Ministers to marrie wherefore it is but a humane constitution Againe it is false that they haue dispenced with the Greeke Church they care not for their dispensations but vse their owne Christian libertie neither was the Greeke Church euer subiect to the Bishop of Rome Thus we see that in times past marriage was lawfull for all men vntill Pope Nicholas the second Alexander the second and Gregorie the seuenth that notable sorcerer and adulterer for these three comming together one not long after another began by publike decree to restraine Priests marriage not long after them Anselme began to play the Rex here in England anno 1104. who stoutely proceeded in his vngodly purpose and enacted that married Priests should either leaue their wiues or their benefices At which time 200. Priests at once came barefoote to the Kings palace to make complaint And for all Anselmes Popelike and outragious proceedings against married Priests yet they continued married well nie two hundred yeeres after Anselmes time doe what he could and thus it is manifest that the restraint of Ministers marriage is no ancient thing but then began most to be vrged when Antichrist fullie was reuealed to the world when as the orders of Friers came in and were confirmed and priuiledged vnder Boniface 8. about anno 1300. 3 What
so fayne themselues vnlesse it be for fornication then without consent the marriage knot is broken 3 Peter left not the companie of his wife after he was made an Apostle for he had a daughter called Petronilla of whom the popish legends write much holines which must needes be borne after he was called Peter And agayne it is proued by her age for she was so young in the persecutioÌ„ vnder Domitian that Flaccus the Countie desired her in marriage but if she had been borne before Peters Apostleship she must haue been threescore yeere old at that time or hard vpon Fulk Math. 8. sect 3. 4 Augustine thus writeth of this matter Vna sola esse causa posset qua te id quod vouisti non solum non hortaremur verumetiam prohiberemus implere si forte tua coniux hoc tecum suscipere animi seu carnis insâ—rmitate recusaret Epistol 45. There may be one cause and no more which would make me not only to moue you to performe that which you haue vowed but to disswade and forbid you namely if your wife by reason of her weakenes should refuse to beare the yoke with you Therefore by Augustines sentence neither ought a Minister that is married performe the vow of continencie which he made without consent of his wife for he speaketh generally of vowes made by those that are ioyned in Wedlocke THE SIXT QVESTION CONCERNING THE maintenance of the Church by tithes COncerning the maintenance of the Church there are diuers poynts wherein we our aduersaries agree The maintenaÌ„ce of the Ministers of the Church is either by temporal possessions which haue been bestowed vpon the Church by the gift of deuoute and religious men or els they haue inheritance from their friends and a patrimonie of their owne or els they liue of the tithes and oblations of the people 1 We grant and agree vnto them that the Church Ministers beside the portion of tithes may lawfully enioy temporall lands which the Church of ancient time hath been endowed withall But we yeeld vnto them vpon certaine conditions First there must be a moderation vsed in all such gifts which are bequeathed to the Church for Ecclesiasticall persons ought not to be too greedie and hastie in receiuing whatsoeuer in simplicitie and blind deuotion any man shall giue vnto them as if they see that others are empouerished by the gift whereby they are enriched Thus the Priests offended in our Sauiour Christs time who allured the people to bring their offerings to the Altar though their parents wanted in the meane time whom they were bound to relieue by the law of God This also was a common practise in time of Poperie So the priests might be enriched they cared not greatly though all the stock of their patrones and founders were vndone who because they were vnsatiable had no measure in entising simple men to giue ouer their lands and Lordships into their hands the statute of Mortmaine was made not without iust cause to be a rule vnto theÌ„ that otherwise could not rule themselues Augustine doth highly commend Aurelius Bishop of Carthage and worthely for this one act A certaine rich man of Carthage hauing no children gaue all his substance to the Church reseruing onely the vse thereof for his life time afterward the man had children Reddidit Episcopus nec opinanti ea quae donauerat The Bishop restoreth vnto him that which hee gaue not looking for it nor making any account of it In potestate habuit Episcopus non reddere sed iure fori non iure poli It was in the Bishops power not to restore the gift but by the lawe of the court not by the lawe of heauen I pray you how many such examples can ye shewe me in the time of popish superstition This then is the first thing required that although it be lawful for the Church to enioy the bequests of their benefactors yet it should be done with some limitation As the Leuites beside their tithes had cities appoynted them but the number was set downe they should not exceede 48. in all and to euery citie was a quantitie and circuite of ground allotted which should in length and bredth contayne euery way 3000. cubites Numb 35. vers 5.8 2 It must also be prouided that the gifts and legacies bestowed vpon the Church bee for the maintenance of pietie and true religion and to good vses not to nourish idolatrie and superstition or if they be giuen through ignorance of the time to such vnlawfull purposes they ought by the Prince to be conuerted to better and more godly vses As now in England the lands of Colledges which were first giuen to maintaine that abominable Idoll of the Masse are turned to the maintenance of learning and true religion So was the lawe of Moses that the gold and siluer brasse yron tinne lead which the Israelites should receiue of the heathen first should passe through the fire and so bee made cleane and fit for holy vses Euen thus according to this lawe the lands consecrate to superstition hauing now passed through the fire of Gods word and triall of the truth may safely be vsed to the glorie of God in aduancing and setting forward true religion and vertue 3 Another thing must bee required that Church-men ought not to abuse the possessions of the Church to maintayne pride idlenes and ryotous liuing for in case they doe notoriously spend and wast the Church goods the Prince by whose authoritie they were giuen to the Church may iustly take from them their superfluities not leauing the Church destitute of sufficient maintenance This is notably proued by Iohn Husse in the defence of Wickliffes articles And we haue seene the practise thereof in England in the late suppression of Abbeyes wherein though some of those lands might otherwise haue been disposed of yet the prouidence of God notably appeared in bringing desolation vpon those Cels of sinne and vncleane cages of birdes neither hath this been an vnusuall and vnaccustomed practise in the Church for Princes to correct the misdemeanour of Priests by cutting them short of their temporalties for in Augustines time the Christian Emperours dispossessed the Donatists of their Churches and possessions and gaue them to the Catholike Bishops And at that time the Donatists cryed out as the Papists doe now Quid mihi est imperator What hath the Emperour the King to doe with our lands Augustine answereth Secundum ius ipsius possides terram by the lawe of Princes the Church enioyeth her possessions Recitemus leges imperatorum videamus si voluerint aliquid ab haereticis possideri Let vs then rehearse the lawes of Emperours and see whether they suffer heretikes to enioy the Church possessions Secondly concerning the second kind of maintenance which ariseth by the proper and peculiar inheritance which Church ministers haue we also yeeld our consent that a Minister to whom some inheritance is befallen is not bound
shepheard Bellarm And the Apostle willeth all men to obey their Bishops and ouerseers Heb. 13.17 and to submit themselues vnto them from which rule neither Kings nor Emperours are exēpted Prelates must be obeyed Ergo not obey Rhemist ibid. Ans. First the obedience here required we acknowledge that it ought to be yeelded by Kings Emperours to those that haue the ouersight of their soules for the Prince is bound to receiue and beleeue all true doctrine which is taught by the Pastors and Bishops of the Church agreeable to the word of God vnder paine of damnation and the Pastors are bound vnder the like paine to obey the Princes lawes made according to the word of God Secondly wherefore the spirituall obedience of the ciuill Magistrate to the word of God taught by the Pastors of the Church is no exemption of them from their ciuill obedience for euery soule is subiect to the higher powers Rom. 13.1 Fulk annot 13. Heb. sect 9 The Protestants THat Ecclesiasticall persons are subiect to temporall gouernours and are to be iudged by their lawes the scriptures speake plainly 1 Rom. 13.1 Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers Ergo Bishops yea the Pope himselfe if he haue a soule The like sayth S. Peter 1.2.13 Submit your selues to all manner ordinance Salomon remoued Abiathar from the Priesthood and put in Sadock Paul appealed and submitted himselfe to Caesar. Againe if Priests offend and commit any grieuous sinne as of murther theft who shall punish them The ciuill Magistrate onely beareth the sword They must either grant that priests are no euill doers which were to too grosse or if they be that they are vnder the ciuill Magistrates power for he is the Minister of God to take vengeance vpon euery euill doer Rom. 13.4 In Augustines time the controuersies betweene the Catholike and Donatist Bishops were committed to the iudgement of the Emperour Ait quidam saith he Non debuit Episcopus proconsulari iudicio purgari Quasi verò ipse sibi hoc comparauerit ac non Imperator ita quaeri iusserat ad cuius curam de qua rationem deo red liturus est res illa maximè pertinebat But saith one a Bishop ought not to haue been purged before the Proconsul or ciuill Magistrate As though sayth Augustine the Proconsul did of himselfe intermeddle in this matter and was not commanded rather of the Emperour so to doe vnto whose charge that matter principally appertained and whereof he shall make account vnto God Ergo by his sentence the cause of the Bishop principally was to be iudged by the Emperour THE SECOND PART WHETHER THE PRINCE haue power ouer Ecclesiasticall goods The Papists THe goods of the Clergie both secular and Ecclesiasticall are and ought to error 99 be exempted from paying tribute to Princes yet they haue not this libertie say they by the Lawe of God but by the grant of Princes themselues Rhemist annot Rom. 13. sect 5. Bellarm. de Clericis cap. 28. Genes 47.22 27. The lands of the Priests were exempted from paying tribute Ergo it seemeth that this custome is grounded vpon the law of nature Bellarm. Ans. First the Hebrew word signifieth rather Presidents such as were the Kings officers not Priests as Tremellius sheweth who were maintained by the Kings prouision being officers of his houshold for Genes 41.45 Ioseph is sayd to marrie the daughter of Potyphar prince not priest of On. The same word Cohen is there vsed for it is not like that Ioseph would match himselfe with an idolatrous priests daughter Secondly but be it granted this was but a politike constitution for that coūtrey other Princes are not bound to Pharao his law Thirdly they gaine nothing by this but that it is an humane constitution The Protestants THat Princes haue authoritie to punish Ecclesiasticall persons offending in their goods either by displacing them or by conuerting the Church possessions by them abused to better vses we haue shewed before Contr. 5. quest 6. part 1. And that their goods ought to pay tribute subsidie taxe vnto the prince thus now it is proued 1 Our Sauiour Christ paied poll money Math. 17.25 Rom. 13. Euery soule ought to be subiect to the higher powers and there vers 5. paying of tribute is made a part of subiection the argument therefore thus followeth Clergie men are subiect to Princes therefore they ought to pay tribute 2 Ex concessis we reason thus from their owne confession That which Princes gaue to the Church vpon good cause they may take away but this immunitie not to pay tribute was first granted as they confesse to the Church by Kings and Princes Ergo they haue the same right hauing iust occasion to take it from them againe What Augustines iudgement is we haue seene in the place before alleadged THE THIRD PART CONCERNING THE PRINCES authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall The Papists error 100 THe Prince they say hath no authoritie to giue voyce deliberatiue or definitiue in Councels concerning matters of religion nor to make lawes Ecclesiasticall concerning the same Onely they giue them authoritie to execute the Ecclesiasticall lawes made by the Church Rhemist 1. Corinth 14.16 Bellarm. de pontif lib. 1. cap. 7. 1 Kings and Princes may in their owne persons execute if they will whatsoeuer their inferiour officers do as to heare and determine causes as the Iudges and other Magistrates doe but the Prince cannot execute any Ecclesiasticall function as to preach baptize Ergo he hath no authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall for how can the Prince impart that to others whereof he is himselfe incapable as to giue Bishops and Pastors power to ordaine to preach and such like Bellarm. Rhemist ibid. Ans. First the authoritie of ciuill Magistrates doth not giue any thing to Ecclesiasticall Ministers which appertaineth to their office as to ordaine preach baptize neither is the Prince to deale in these offices yet may the ciuill Magistrates command them to execute their charge and dueties according to the word of God Wherefore it followeth not Princes cannot execute the pastoral dueties themselues Ergo they ought not to see them executed Dauid Salomon Iehosophat Ezechia commanded the Priests to execute their office according to the law of God though it was not lawfull for them neither did they execute any thing proper to the Priests office in their owne persons neither doth any Christian Prince challenge any such right in Ecclesiasticall functions wherefore it is an impudent slander of Bellarmine which he giueth forth of our Queene Iam re ipsa Caluinistis in Anglia mulier quaedam summus pontifex And now sayth he in England the Caluinists haue a certaine woman for their chiefe Bishop De notis eccles lib. 4. cap. 9. 2 It doth not followe that the Prince might as well execute Ecclesiasticall offices as he may ciuill in his owne person if he haue authoritie ouer both No more then it followeth that because Ecclesiasticall persons doe teach both ciuill Magistrates
and Church officers their dueties and may in their owne persons execute the one that is spirituall duties that they may as well intermeddle in the other But these two offices of Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall gouernment are distinguished and must not be confounded The Prince though he haue authoritie to command Ecclesiasticall persons yet being a ciuill Magistrate is not to deale with the execution of spirituall dueties Bishops pastors likewise haue a spiritual charge ouer kings princes to shew thē their duties out of Gods word yet because they are persons Ecclesiastical they ought not to meddle with meer Ciuill dueties The Prince hath the soueraigntie of externall gouernement in all causes ouer all persons yet not alike for Ciuill offices he may both command and execute Ecclesiasticall duties he commandeth onely Bishops and pastors haue also a spirituall charge ouer all prescribing out of Gods word as well the duetie of Magistrates as of Ministers but not alike for the one they may fully execute so may they not the other The head in the naturall bodie resembleth the Prince in the commonwealth in some sense the head giueth mouing to the whole bodie and all the parts thereof but to the principall parts in the head the eyes tongue eares it giueth beside the facultie of mouing the sense also of seeing tasting hearing So in the common-wealth by the Princes authoritie all persons are kept in order and vrged to looke to their charge both ciuill officers and spirituall as al the parts of the bodie receiue mouing from the head But the ciuill officers receiue power and authoritie beside and their very offices of the King as the parts in the head receiue sense from their fountaine but Ecclesiasticall Ministers receiue not their offices from the Prince or any mortall man but they haue their calling according to the order of the Church of God Argum. 2. For the space of 300. yeeres the Church after Christ had no Christian gouernours but all Heathen and Idoll worshippers yet then the Church was established and preuailed Ergo Ciuill Magistrates ought not to deale in Ecclesiasticall affayres Bellarmine Ans. 1. Euen then also the Heathen Emperours had authoritie in Church matters and if they had commanded any thing agreeable to true religion they should haue been obeyed as Cyrus in the law which he made for building the temple Ezra 1. Darius the Median for worshipping the true God Dan. 6. Fulk Rom. 13. sect 3. The heathen Emperours then had the same power but they knewe not how to vse it Christian Princes doe succeede them in the same office but are better taught by the word of God how to exercise the sword Secondly we denie not but that in the time of persecution all things necessarie for the spirituall building thereof may be had without the Magistrate as a Vineyard may bring forth fruite without an hedge but it cannot enioy peace nor be in a perfect estate in respect of the externall gouernement but vnder good Magistrates as the Vineyard may soone be spoyled the wild bore and the beasts of the field may breake in vpon it hauing no hedge The child being in the womb though it haue as yet small vse of the head but is fed by the nauell which is in steed of the mouth hath in it selfe the lineaments and proportion of a humane bodie yet it wanteth the perfect beautie till it be borne and come forth and the head receiue his office So may the Church haue a being in persecution and the want of the ciuill head may be otherwise supplied but it is not beautifull till the head be set vp and the sword put into the Christian Magistrates hand Argum. 3. Princes haue no cure nor charge of soules Ergo they are not to meddle with Ecclesiasticall lawes Rhemist annot 1. Corinth 14. sect 16. Ans. Parents haue charge ouer the soules of their childrē for they are charged to bring them vp in the instruction and information of the Lord Ephes. 6.4 Therefore Princes also haue directly charge of the soules of their subiects according to their place and calling by prouiding and making good Ecclesiasticall lawes and compelling them to the true seruice of God As the Ecclesiasticall Ministers in another kind and more properly are said to haue the cure of soules in feeding and instructing the people Fulk ibid. The Protestants THe ciuill Magistrate by the word of God hath power to make and constitute Ecclesiasticall lawes and to establish true religion and see that all persons vnder their gouernment doe faithfully execute their charge To say therefore that the Church officers are to deuise lawes concerning religion and the Prince onely to execute them is to make the Prince their seruant and doth derogate too much from the princely authoritie Neither doe we giue vnto the Prince absolute power to make Ecclesiasticall lawes for first the Prince is not to prescribe what lawes he listeth to the Church but such as onely may require the true worship of God Secondly that it is expedient and meete according to the commendable custome of this land that the godly learned of the Clergie should be consulted withall in establishing of Ecclesiastical ordinances vnlesse it be in such a corrupt time when the Church gouernours are enemies to religion for then the Prince not staying vpon their iudgement ought to reforme religion according to the word of God as we see it was lawfully and godly practised by King Henrie the 8. Thirdly we doe make exception of all such Ecclesiasticall canons and ordinances the making whereof doth properly belong to the office of Bishops and gouernours of the Church for our meaning is not that it is not lawful for Ecclesiastical Ministers to make Ecclesiastical decrees which do properly concerne their office as concerning the censures of the Church excommunication suspension absoluing binding loosing and such like which things are incident to their pastorall office and yet we grant that the Prince hath euen in these cases an ouerruling hand to see that none abuse their pastoral office But that any lawes ought to be made without the authoritie of the prince which the prince is bound to execute we vtterly denie And so we conclude that the ciuill Magistrate hath power ouer all persons and in all causes both temporall and ecclesiasticall in such manner as we haue sayd 1 S. Paul willeth that praiers should be made for Kings and Princes that vnder them we may leade a peaceable life in all godlines and honestie 1. Tim. 2.2 Ergo it is their duetie as well to procure religion by their authoritie as ciuill honestie Againe He beareth not the sword for nought Rom. 13.4 He hath power to punish al euill doers therfore also to correct euill ministers to make Ecclesiastical lawes for otherwise he should haue no ful power to correct the transgressors thereof 2 We reade that Iosua Dauid Salomon Iosia did deale in ecclesiasticall matters which concerned religion and the worship of God
Bellarm. They did it by an extraordinarie authoritie not as Kings but as Prophets Nay it was an ordinarie power for all the good kings of Iuda beside as Iehosaphat Hezekiah and others did take care of religion this was so properly annexed to the kingly office that idolatrous kings also tooke vpon them to command false religion as Ieroboam set vp two golden calues and Ahaz king of Iudah cōmanded Vriah the high Priest to make an Altar according to the patterne which he sent from Damascus 2. King 16.11 This power also was afterward exercised by Christian Kings and Emperours as Constantinus Theodosius Martianus made lawes for the Church Fulk annot 1. Cor. 14. sect 16. Iustinianus the Emperour decreed many things concerning Church affayres as how excommunication should be vsed how Bishops and Priests should be ordained concerning the order and manner of funerals that the holy mysteries should not be done in priuate houses Carolus magnus decreed that onely the Canonical bookes of scripture should be read in the Church he chargeth all Bishops and priests to preach the word Lodouicus Pius his sonne and Emperour after him ordained that no entrie should bee made into the Church by Simonie that Bishops should bee chosen by the free election of the Clergie and the people All these Emperours did lawfully exercise their princely authoritie in Ecclesiastical matters Ergo other princes may doe the same still 3 Augustine saith Epistol 50. Quis mente sobrius c Who in his right wits would say to the King It pertaineth not to you who in your kingdome is religious or sacrilegious to whom it cannot be said let it not pertaine vnto you who in your kingdome will be chast or vnchast And in another place Ad fratres in erem serm 14. Tunc iustitia dicitur gladius ex vtraque parte acutus quia hominis defendit corpus ab exterioribus iniurijs animam à spiritualibus molestijs Then iustice is rightly called a sword with a double edge because it doth both defend the bodie from externall and corporall wrongs and the soule from spirituall vexation That is the sword of the Magistrate serueth as well to prune the Church and to cut off all errors and heresies in religion as to destroy the vices and corruptions in manners AN APPENDIX OR FOVRTH PART OF THE QVEstion whether the Prince in any good sense may be called the head of his kingdome and consequently of the Church in his kingdome The Papists THey do appropriate this title to be called heads of the vniuersall Church to error 101 the Pope of Rome most blasphemouslie for there can be no head of the vniuersal bodie but Christ But for Princes to be called the head that is chiefe gouernours of the Churches in their kingdomes they do abhorre it Whereupon Bellarmine is so saucie as to checke and controule King Henrie the 8. because he was called the head of the English Church 1 The heathen Emperours were not heads of the Church being not so much as members thereof therefore neither Christian Magistrates which doe succeede them in that authoritie Rhemist annot 1. Pet. 2. sect 6. Ans. 1. The argument followeth not they were no true mēbers of the Church therefore could not be heads that is haue the soueraigntie of the externall gouernment for wicked kings and princes doe keepe their magistracie gouernment still who though they be not true members of the Catholike Church yet ought to be obeied as princes 2. Though the metaphorical name of head agreed not vnto them yet were they by Gods ordinance appointed to be heads gouernours of his people protectors of his Church should haue been if they had not abused their authoritie 3. Christian princes though they haue the same authoritie which they had yet now exercising the sword according to Gods law and being Nurses of the Church may vse and retaine those princely titles in deed to be called Patrones and defenders of the faith head that is chiefe gouernours and protectors of the Church which by right had been due vnto the other if they had vsed their authoritie as they should 2 Christian princes are members of the Church Ergo not heads for if they were heads how could the Church stand without them as it did in the time of persecution Ans. First as though the head is not a member and part of the bodie though a principall one so the Prince is a member of the Church but a principall and chiefe member not of the inuisible Church for so Christ is onely head but of a particular visible Church Secondly we denie not but that the inuisible and spiritual Church may consist without the Magistrate but a visible flourishing and wel-gouerned Church cannot want a head or chiefe gouernour that is as a wall or hedge vnto it The Protestants TO bee head of the vniuersall Church is proper onely to Christ and in that sense is not communicable to any creature for he is to his Church as the head to the naturall bodie giuing vnto it influence of grace spirit and life he is therefore the onely mysticall head of the vniuersal Church But in another sense the Prince may be said to be the head and chiefe gouernour of his kingdome of that particular visible Church where he is king We make him neither the mysticall head which is only Christ farre be that blasphemie from vs nor a ministerial head as they make the Pope to be as Christs Vicegerent in the Church but a politicall head to keepe and preserue the peace of the Church and to see that euery member doe his office and duetie But this name we confesse is vnproperly giuen to the Prince neither were we the first inuentors of it for the papists first gaue it to Henry the 8. And there are other titles which doe sufficiently expresse the office of the Prince and may bee more safely vsed If any man thinke it too high a name for any mortall man and so not to be giuen to any we will not greatly contend about it But if any denye it to the Prince as thereby to abridge her of her power in Ecclesiastical matters we doe stand stiffely for it and are bold to affirme that with much better right is this title attributed to the ciuill Magistrate then it was to the Pope yea and that it hath been of old giuen in a modest and sober sense to Kings and Princes and may with a fauourable exposition be still and Princes also may receiue this honour and title at their subiects hands with protestation of their Christian meaning herein 1 This phrase for the King to be called the head is not vnusuall in scripture 1. Sam. 15.17 Saul is sayd to be the head of the tribes Psal. 18.43 Dauid the head of the nations Isay. 9.15 The Prince or honourable man the head of the people yea Princes are called Gods Psal. 82.2 which is a name of greater Soueraigntie then to be called heads
be adored And thus it is lawfull profitable and expedient for the Church to Canonize Saints Bellarm. cap. 7. Argum. 1. The Patriarkes and Prophets were Canonized for Saints in the old law Heb. 11. So Act. 7. Stephen other were Canonized therfore it is credible that the Lord would haue the same order still continued in his Church Bellarm. cap. 7. Ans. First neither in the old nor the new lawe were any set vp to be Saints with intent to be worshipped called vpon temples to be consecrated in their names but onely the scripture giueth testimonie of them as of holy and faithfull men and so may we also honour the blessed Martyrs whom the cruell Emperours of Rome and since them the Popes of Rome haue sent through fire and other torments to heauen Secondly when they haue as good testimonie for their Saints as we haue for the holy Patriarkes and Prophets they may be bold to pronounce them to be holy blessed Thirdly your argument followeth not vnles you will say that the Church may doe all things now which the Prophets and Apostles did then They may as well make scripture and more Canonicall bookes by the same reason as make and Canonize new Saints The Protestants THat none of the Saints are to be adored or worshipped their images or reliques or praiers to be made vnto them or any such honor to be giuen them it shall afterward appeare more at large And therefore they ought not to be Canonized to any such end or purpose We also grant that the number of Gods Saints and elect is encreased daylie and we are sure in generall as the scripture testifieth that the death of his Saints is precious in the sight of God Psal. 116.15 And that all are blessed that dye in the Lord But particularly we are not able certainly to determine of any the matter is to be left wholly vnto God and we in the meane time to hope the best Argum. 1 If the Church hath authoritie to Canonize Saints determine of the election or saluation of men then may we as well iudge of the condemnation of those that are lost for if it be knowen to the Church who are Saints in heauen they also may as wel define who are damned in hell But this none can doe nay it were great rashnes and want of charity for any so to take vpon them S. Paul saith Why condemnest thou another mans seruant hee standeth or falleth to his owne master Rom. 14.4 No man can iudge whether the seruant stand or fall but his Master Ergo if the Church presume to determine of the election or damnation of those that are departed she is nowe a Mistres and Lady rather of the Saintes then they Lords or patrones to her as the Papistes holde they are Argum. 2 Iudge not saith S. Paul 1. Corinth 4.5 before the time vntill the Lord come The iudgement then of men who are saued and who are condemned is reserued for the comming of Christ Therefore it is great presumption for men to preuent the time and to take vpon them to bee Iudges in Gods place Againe our Sauiour Christ saith that To sit at his right hand or left in his kingdome was not his to giue meaning as he was man but it shal be giuen to them for whome it is prepared of my Father Math. 20.23 How then is it in the power of any sinfull man to giue vnto any a seat either at the right hand or left hand of Christ in the kingdome of God Argument Gualter Bruti Fox page 487. Augustine also consenteth Non separatio iam cuique tuta est illius erit separatio qui non nouit errare Nos in hac vita difficile est vt nos ipsos nouerimus quantò minùs debemus de quoquā praeproperam ferre sententiam It is not safe for men now to make separation of the good and bad it belongeth to him that can not erre We in this life do hardly know our selues howe much lesse ought we to iudge rashly of others exposit in Psalm 139. Here are two reasons giuen why it is not lawfull for men to iudge of the election or reprobation of men first their iudgement is subiect to error and therefore the matter must be referred to God who erreth not Secondly we can not iudge our selues much lesse can we iudge of others Ergo no man liuing ought or is able to define either who are Saints in heauen or who are damned in Hell AN APPENDIX OR THIRD PART of other circumstances which belong to the Canonizing of Saints The Papists THey say that it doth appertaine onely to the Pope to Canonize a Saint for error 24 the whole Church and that none ought to be acknowledged for Saints but they that are so Canonized by him And that herein the Pope is of so infallible a iudgement that he can not erre in Canonizing of Saints because that ordinarily none are Canonized by the Pope for saintes which haue not beene knowne to worke miracles Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 8.9 10. The Protestants FIrst if saintes were to be registred and Canonized as they say yet it should not belong to the Pope but to the whole Church Argum. 1 The Pope hath no authoritie ouer the whole Church no nor yet in any other Bishoppes dioces no more then they haue in his Let him be content with his owne dioces and it were to be wished that he could rule that well the whole world is too large a prouince for him 2 The whole Church hath power to excommunicate and deliuer vp to sathan 1. Corinth 5. 4. and to cut off the prophane and wicked from the Church of God as heathen and publicanes Math. 18.17 Ergo to iudge who are members of the Church and saintes of God is a matter which appertaineth to the whole Church 3 Before Anno. 800. in the time of Carolus magnus there was no saint publiquely Canonized by the pope as Bellarm. confesseth but the truth is this custome of Canonizing saints beganne not till more then 1000. yeare after Christ til Alexander the 3. his time and Gregorie the 7. I pray you then were there no saints before if there were who canonized them Secondly So much as is to be knowne of saints and holy men euery Christian is to acknowledge without any publike decree or determination of the Pope or any other for the word of God giueth rules whereby we may discern the righteous from the vnrighteous Christ speaking of false prophets sayeth By their fruites ye shall know them Math. 7.16 And againe he fayth thus to his Apostles By this shal men know that you are my disciples if you loue one another Iohn 13.35 By these rules it is easie for euery Christian to iudge who for the present time are the true disciples of Christ who otherwise Thirdly it is a most impudent and shameles saying that the Pope can not erre in canonizing of Saintes 1 Miracles are no sufficient proofe of a saint for
wracke And as their cause was not good so neither were the meanes that they vsed for they brought S. George and S. Denys into the field against the Turkes and left Christ at home If the Israelites could not be deliuered from the Philistims by the presence of the Arke but thirtie thousand fell before them and all because of their sinnes let not men thinke that popish Saints can defend them while their liues remaine vnreformed at home 2. That the heathen are not to be prouoked to warre but vpon iust cause that is when they prouoke vs it appeareth by the example of the Israelites who as they came from Aegypt sent vnto the King of Edom and Moab that they might haue leaue to walke through their land but they not granting so much yet the people of God offered them no violence but went a longer iourney about Iudg. 11.17 Augustine sayth Sapiens gesturus est iusta bella sed multo magis dolebit iustorum necessitatem extitisse bellorum A wise man will take iust warre in hand but it more grieueth him that he hath iust cause to warre And what he meaneth by iust warre he further sheweth Iniquitas partis aduersae iusta bella ingerit gerenda sapienti The iniquitie or iniuries of the aduerse part doth giue vnto a wise man occasion of iust warre Iust warre therefore ariseth when men are prouoked by iniuries THE EIGHT QVESTION CONCERNING holy and festiuall dayes THis question hath diuers parts First of holy dayes in generall Secondly of the Lords day Thirdly of the Festiuall dayes of Christ and the holy Ghost Fourthly of Saints holy dayes Fiftly of the time of Lent THE FIRST PART OF HOLY DAIES in generall The Papists error 58 FIrst they hold that holy and festiual daies are in themselues and properly and truely more sacred and holy then other daies are Bellarm. cap. 10. proposit 2. Apocalyps 1.10 I was in the spirit saith the Apostle on the Lords day God reuealeth such great things to Prophets rather vpon holy daies then prophane daies Ergo some daies holier then other Rhemist Apocal. 1. sect 6. The Protestants Ans. FIrst God giueth not his graces in respect of times but according to his owne pleasure Times of praier he chooseth often and of other godly exercises not for the worthines or holines of the times but for the better disposition of his seruants in such exercises to receiue them yet this was not perpetually obserued for God appeared to Moses keeping of sheepe Exod. 3. to Amos following his herd Amos 7. Secondly wee grant that the Lords day being commanded of God and so discerned from other daies may be said to be holier then the rest in respect of the present vse but not in the nature of the day for then could it not haue been changed from the last day in the weeke to the first as water in Baptisme is holier then other waters because of the sacred vse not in it selfe as by a qualitie of holines inherent And as for other festiuall daies which haue not the like institution they are appoynted onely of the Church for Christian policie orders sake for the exercise of religion But this now popish before time Iewish distinction of daies as being by their nature hoâ—â—er then other is flatly against the Apostles rule Rom. 14.5 One putteth difference betweene day and day and Galath 4.10 You obserue daies and moneths times and yeeres Augustine saith Nos dominicum diem pascha celebramus sed quia intelligimus quo pertineant non tempora obseruamus sed quae illis significantur temporibus Cont. Adimant cap. 16. We keepe the Lords day and the feast of Easter not obseruing the times but remembring what is signified by those times that is for what cause they were ordained Ergo obseruers of times are reproued The Papists 2. THey affirme the keeping and sanctification of holy dayes to be necessary errour 59 Rhemist annot Galath 4. sect 5. and that we are bound in conscience to keepe the holy dayes appointed of the Church although no offence or scandale might follow and ensue vpon the neglecting of them Esther 9. Mardocheus and Esther appoint a new festiuall day not instituted of God and bind euery one to the obseruing therof that none should faile to obserue it ver 27. Ergo men bound in conscience to keep festiuall daies Bellarm. ca. 10. The Protestants Ans. FIrst though we refuse not some other festiuall daies yet we acknowledge none necessary more then are of the holy Ghosts appointing in the Scripture Secondly we deny that the constitutions of the Church for holy dayes do bind Christians in respect of the dayes them selues in conscience to keepe them otherwise then they may giue offence by their contempt and disobedience to the holesome decrees of the Church for it selfe in it owne nature is indifferent neither can the Church make a thing necessary in nature which God hath left indifferent nothing bindeth absolutely in conscience but that which is necessary by nature wherefore keeping of holy dayes being not enioyned but left indifferent in the word bindeth no otherwise then we haue said Thirdly the example of Esther sheweth that the Church hath authoritie to appoint for ciuill vses dayes of reioycing that festiuall day then begun did not binde the obseruers in conscience no otherwise then they were bound in all lawfull things to obey their gouernours for their consent was required and they promised both for themselues their seede to keepe that day Esther 9.27 Whereby it appeareth that they were not bound absolutely in conscience to obserue it Augustine speaking of the Sabboth saith thus haec est dies quam fecit Dominus exultemus laetemur in ea This is the day which the Lord hath made let vs reioyce and be glad therein Psal. 118.24 This onely holy day he saith is of the Lords making and therefore of all other necessary to be kept THE SECOND PART OF THE Lords day The Papists THe seuerall pointes wherein our aduersaries and we doe differ about the errour 60 Christian Sabboth are these First the principall exercise of the Sabboth say they is for the people to come to the Church and heare Masse which their abominable and idolatrous sacrifice they make the proper worke of the Sabboth Catechism Roman pag. 649. The Protestants THe Sabboth was ordayned for the people to assemble together to heare the word read Act. 15.21 preached and to receiue the Sacramets Act. 20.7 and to offer vp their praiers these were the proper exercises of the Sabboth as for the popish sacrifice of the Masse we finde no mention at all thereof in Scripture The Papists error 61 2. WE dissent about the rest of the Sabboth they allow such workes to be done vpon the Sabboth as shal be permitted by the Prelates and Ordinaries and such as by long custome haue bene vsed Bellarm. cap. 10. The Protestants WE holde that as the Lords day was instituted of
QVESTION OF THE NATVRE and definition of a Sacrament WE thus define a Sacrament to be an outward sensible signe representing an holy inward and spirituall grace instituted of Christ to be vsed in that manner he hath appoynted to seale vnto vs the promises of God and to assure vs of the remission of sinnes by the righteousnes of faith in Christ Rom. 4.11 Some things there be in this definition that are agreed vpon betweene vs and our aduersaries as that the Sacraments are outward signes of spirituall and holy graces and that there must be a conueniencie and agreement betweene the signe and the thing signified that not euery thing may be represented by a Sacrament but an holy and spirituall grace that a Sacrament ought to be instituted by a diuine not an humane authoritie Bellar. de Sacram. in gener lib. 1. cap. 9 The seuerall poynts then wherein we dissent from them and which they mislike in this definition are these First concerning the authoritie of instiâ—uting a Sacrament which we affirme to be deriued onely from Christ and manifestly to be proued out of the scriptures Secondly of the forme and manner of celebrating the Sacraments Thirdly of the instrumental or ministerial cause which is the Minister Fourthly of the vse and end of a Sacrament whether it be a scale of the promises of God and instituted for that end THE FIRST PART OF THE EFFICIENT CAVSE that is the author or institutor of a Sacrament The Papists THey doe willingly grant that neither the Apostles then had nor the Church error 87 now hath authoritie to institute Sacraments but that this power is onely in Christ and that the Apostles did but declare and deliuer that which they receiued of Christ yet for the triall of this they refuse to be iudged by the expresse word of God but flie vnto their traditions which they call the word of God not written Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacram. cap. 14. 23. Argum. The sacrament of Baptisme and of the Eucharist were instituted without expresse warrant of scripture for at that time the newe testament was not written when Christ ordained those mysteries Ergo for the other Sacraments we need not the expresse coÌ„mandement of scripture Bellar. lib. 1. cap. 14. Ans. First the traditions of our Sauiour giuen vnto the Apostles concerning those two Sacraments were afterward written by the Apostles and expressely set downe in scripture therefore we doubt not but that they were of Christs institution But your traditions being not committed to writing concerning your other forged sacraments are iustly suspected seeing the Apostles should haue as well been charged with all the sacraments if Christ had instituted theÌ„ as with only two Secondly how then followeth it the word of God was sometime vnwritten therefore it is so still or Christ who was the author of the word written might institute sacraments without expresse scripture Ergo the testimonie of scripture is not necessarie now The Protestants WE hold no sacraments to be of Christs institution but those onely which the scripture testifieth to haue been commanded by Christ as Baptisme Math. 28.19 the Lords Supper Luk. 23.19 The other which haue no testimonie of scripture were not appoynted by Christ. Argum. 1. S. Paul saith That the scriptures are able to make the man of God absolute and perfect to euery good worke 1. Timoth. 3.17 But how can the Minister of God be perfectly furnished and prepared for the worke of the ministerie if he haue not sufficient direction out of the scriptures concerning the sacraments of the Church for how can he absolutely execute euery part of his office if he faile in the right vse of the sacraments Ergo seeing the scriptures are able to make him perfect from thence he receiueth sufficient instruction for the sacraments Argum. 2. Augustine saith Christus sacramentis numero paucissimis obseruatione facilimis c. Christ hath ioyned his people together by the sacrameÌ„ts few in number easie in obseruation such are Baptisme and the partaking of his bodie and blood then it followeth Et si quid aliud in scripturis canonicis commendatur And if any other sacrament be commanded in the canonicall scripture Epistol 118. Ergo we must attend vpon the scripture and written word of God if we will be instructed aright concerning the Sacraments THE SECOND PART OF THE FORME OF A Sacrament and the manner of consecration The Papists THe Sacrament is not consecrated say they by al the words of the institution error 88 but by a certain forme of speech to be vsed ouer the elemeÌ„ts as these words to be said ouer the bread This is my body the like ouer the wine This cup is the new testament c. And in Baptisme these In the name of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost These are the formes of the Sacrament and very words of consecration though spoken in a strange tongue without further inuocation of the name of God or giuing of thankes or without a Sermon which we require as they say as necessarie to the essence of a sacrament Rhemist 1. Corinth 11 sect 11.15 Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacrament cap. 19. Argum. S. Paul sayth The cup of blessing which we blesse 1. Corinth 10.16 The Apostle referreth the benediction or blessing to the cup or Chalice which is nothing els but the consecration thereof Rhemist ibid. Ans. First wee denie not but that to blesse here doth signifie to sanctifie or consecrate but that is not done by a magicall murmuration of words ouer the Sacrament but by the whole action according to Christs institution in distributing receiuing giuing of thankes Secondly as for the words which Christ vttered in the institution we rehearse them not as a magicall charme to be sayd ouer the bread and wine to conuert their substance but to declare what they are made to vs by force of Christs institution namely his bodie and blood The Protestants WE doe not hold that it is an essentiall part of the Sacrament alwayes to haue a sermon before it as they vnderstand a sermon which notwithstanding were most conuenient and alwaies to bee wished but this wee affirme that the Sacrament cannot be rightly ministred vnlesse there be a declaration and shewing forth of the Lords death not only in the visible action of breaking distributing the elements but also in setting forth the end of the Lords death out of the word of God with an exhortation to thankfulnes which is alwaies obserued amongst vs in the dayly celebration and receiuing of the Sacrament Concerning the words of the institution we also grant that they are necessarily to be vsed in the celebration of the Sacrament but not as the Papists vse them For first they make them not all of one value but out of the whole institution picke out certaine consecratorie words as they call them as This is my bodie This is the cup whereas the other words Take ye eate ye drinke ye doe this in remembrance
the prosecuting whereof if sometime I chance to misse I say with Augustine Nunquam errari tutius existimo quà m cum in amore nimio veritatis reiectione nimia falsitatis erratur I thinke a man can neuer more safely erre then when he erreth in the too much loue of the truth and the reiecting of falsehoode I haue labored in this worke to set downe not onely the chiefe and principall but euen the most and in a manner all the controuersies of religion betweene vs and the Papists maintained this day If any thing bee missing I say againe with Augustine Tale esse arbitratus sum cui mea responsio necessaria non fuisset siue quia ad rem de qua agitur non pertinet siue quod tam leue esset vt à quolibet redargui facillimè posset I thought it to be such as vnto the which mine answere was not needefull either because it was not pertinent to the matter in hand or else of so small moment that euery man might easilie answer vnto it I haue no more to say but this If thou findest thy selfe any thing profited or helped good Christian Reader by these simple labouâ—s of mine giue God the praise and I will praise him with thee but one thing let mee pray thee Quisquis legis nihil reprehendas nisi cum totum perlegeris atque ita forte minus reprehendes Whosoeuer readest in this booke reprehend nothing before thou hast read the whole and so perhaps thou wilt be more sparing in rephending The Lorde giue vs all grace to loue the truth that they which knowe it may liue thereafter and they which as yet knowe it not may seeke for it and wee all may embrace the Counsell of the wise man to Buy the trueth but in no wise to sell it that is by all possible meanes to labour for it and hauing attained thereunto for no earthly respect for feare or fauour to depart from it The Lord God Iesus Christ Iehouah Emmanuel our blessed Sauiour and Redeemer who is the way the truth and the life giue vs of his heauenlie grace that wee may walke obediently in his waies and constantly professe his truth that in the end he may bring vs to eternall life Amen Soli Deo immortali patri Filio cum Spiritu sancto sit omnis honor gloria A PARTICVLAR INDEX OR TABLE OF ALL THE CONTROVERSIES WITH THEIR SEVERAL questions contained in this treatise The contents of the first Booke This Booke containeth seuen Controuersies The first Controuersie of the Scriptures hath seuen questions 1. quest Of the number of the Canonicall bookes of Scripture pag. 2. 2. Of the authenticall edition of Scripture pag. 12. 3. Of the vulgar translation of Scripture and of publique prayers in the vulgar tongue pag. 16. 4. Of the authoritie of Scripture pag. 20. 5. Of the perspicuitie and plainnes of Scripture pag. 23. 6. Of the interpretation of Scripture 3. parts 1. Of the diuers senses of Scripture pag. 26. 2. Who ought to expound Scripture pag. 28. 3. Of the manner of expounding Scripture pag. 30. 7. Of the perfection of Scripture 3. parts 1. Whether the Scripture be absolutely necessarie p. 33. 2. Whether they be sufficient pag. 35. 3. Of vnwritten traditions beside Scripture pag. 38. The second generall Controuersie concerning the Church containeth fiue questions 1. quest Of the definition of the Church 2. parts 1. Whether wicked men be members of the Church pag. 43. 2. Whether the Church be inuisible pag. 46. 2. Whether the Church may erre 2. parts 1. Whether the Catholike Church may erre at all or not pag. 49. 2. Whether the visible Church vpon earth may fall into Idolatrie or Apostasie pag. 52. 3. Of the notes and markes of the Church 1. Antiquitie pag. 55 2. Vniuersalitie pag. 57 3. Succession pag. 59 4. Vnitie pag. 60 5. Miracles pag. 63 6. The gift of prophecying pag. 66 4. Of the authoritie of the Church 2. parts 1. What authoritie it hath in matters of faith and whether wee are to beleeue in the Church pag. 73 2. Of the ceremonies of the Church pag. 76 5. Of the Church of Rome two parts 1. Whether it be the Catholike Church pag. 78 2. Whether it be a true visible Church pag. 79 The third controuersie of generall Councels containeth eight questions 1. quest Whether Councels be absolutely necessarie pag. 81 2. By whom generall Councels ought to be summoned pag. 83 3. Of what persons Councels ought to consist pag. 84 4. Who ought to be the president in Councels pag. 88 5. Whether Councels may erre or not pag. 90 6. Of the authoritie of Councels pag. 93 7. Whether they be aboue the Pope pag. 95 8 Of the conditions requisite in generall Councels pag. 98 The fourth controuersie of the Bishop of Rome called the Pope ten questions 1. Whether the regiment of the Church be Monarchicall pag. 100 2. Whether Peter were Prince of the Apostles and assigned by Christ to be the head of the Church pag. 105 3. Of Peters being at Rome two parts 1. Whether Peter were at Rome pag. 112 2. Whether Peter were Bishop of Rome pag. 116 4. Whether the Bishop of Rome be the true successor of Peter pag. 118 5 Of the primacie of the See of Rome sixe parts 1. Whether the Bishop of Rome be aboue other Bishops pag. 120 2. Concerning appeales made to Rome pag. 122 3. Whether the Pope bee subiect to the iudgement of any pag. 124 4. Whether the Pope may be deposed from his Papacie pag. 125 5. The originall of the primacie of Rome p. 128 6. Of the names and titles of the Bishop of Rome pag. 131 6. quest Whether the Pope of Rome as likewise whether the Church of Rome may erre pag. 134 7. quest Of the spirituall iurisdiction of the Pope two parts 1. Whether hee may make lawes to binde the conscience pag. 141 2. Whether all Bishops do receiue their Ecclesiastical iurisdiction from the Pope p. 145 8 Of the temporal iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome two parts 1 Whether the Pope be aboue Kings and Emperours pag. 148 2 Whether he be a temporall prince pag. 151 9 Of the Popes prerogatiue 3. parts 1 Of his power dispensatiue pag. 154 2 Of his power exemptiue Ibid. 3 Of his power transcendent Ibid. 10. Of Antichrist 9. parts 1 Whether Antichrist shal be one particular man pag. 155 2 Whether Antichrist be yet come and how long he shall raigne pag. 157 3 Concerning the name character of Antichrist p. 162 4 Of the generation of Antichrist pag. 168 5 Of the seate and place of Antichrist pag. 169 6 Of the doctrine of Antichrist pag. 172 7 The miracles of Antichrist pag. 176 8 The warres and kingdome of Antichrist pag. 179 9 Whether the Pope be Antichrist pag. 182 The fift controuersie of the Clergie sixe questions 1. quest Of the name of Clerkes or Clergie men pag. 190 2 Of the election of Bishops and
Pastors and of the election of the Pope pag. 197 3 Of Ecclesiasticall degrees and orders 3. parts 1 Of the seuen degrees of popish priesthood p. 199 2 Of the difference of Bishops and other Ministers pag. 201 3 Of the office of Cardinals pag. 205 4 Of the keyes of the Church 4. parts 1 Wherein the authoritie of the keyes consisteth pag. 206 2 To whom the authoritie of the keyes â—s committed p. 208 3 Whether the Pastors of the Church haue absolute power to remit sinnes pag. 210 4 Of the effect of binding and loosing pag. 212 5 Of the marriage of Ministers three parts 1 The marriage of Ministers lawfull pag. 214 2 Men may be admitted to Orders after second marriage pag. 219 3 Whether perpetuall abstinence be required in married Ministers pag. 221 6 Of the maintenance of Ministers by tithes two parts 1 Whether the paiment of tithes bee necessarie pag. 228 2 By what right tithes are due pag. 229 The sixt controuersie of Monkes and Friers sixe questions 1. quest Of the originall of Monkes and of their diuers sects pag. 232 2 Of the difference betweene Euangelicall Counsels and precepts pag. 236 3 Of vowes in generall three parts 1 Whether it be lawfull for Christians to vow pag. 239 2 Wherein lawfull vowes consist pag. 241 3 Whether voluntarie vowes properly be any part properly of the worship of God pag. 242 4 Of Monasticall vowes 3. parts 1 Of the vow of voluntarie pouertie pag. 244 2 The vow of Monasticall obedience p. 246 3 Of the vow of chastitie pag. 247 5 Of Monasticall persons foure parts 1 Whether the younger sort ought to professe Monkerie pag. 251 2 Whether children may be made Monkes without their parents consent pag. 253 3 Whether married persons may with mutuall consent become votaries pag. 254 4 Whether marriage not consummate may without consent bee broken for the vow of continencie pag. 256 6 Of the rules and discipline of Monasticall life foure parts 1 Of the solitarie austere life of Monks pag. 257 2 Of the habite and shauing of Monkes pag. 259 3 Of their Canonicall houres pag. 261 4 Of the maintenance of Monkes pag. 262 The seuenth generall controuersie of the Ciuill Magistrate foure questions 1 Of the authoritie of the Prince in Ecclesiasticall matters foure parts 1 His authoritie ouer Ecclesiasticall persons pag. 266 2 Ouer Ecclesiasticall goods pag. 267 3 In causes Ecclesiasticall pag. 268 4 Whether the Prince may be sayd to bee the head of the Church in his kingdome pag. 271 2 The authoritie of the Prince in punishing heretikes 1 Whether the iudgement of heresie any way belongeth to the Prince pag. 274 2 How an heretike is to be tried pag. 275 3 How heretikes are to be examined and punished Ibid. 3 Whether the positiue lawes of Princes doe binde in conscience 4 Whether the Prince may be excommunicate of the Pope THE SECOND BOOKE CONTAINETH SIXE CONTROVERSIES The first controuersie which is the eight in the whole is concerning Angels three questions 1. quest Of the hierarchie of Angels 2. parts 1 Of the degrees of Angels p. 291 2 Whether Michael be the Prince of the Angels pag. 292 2 Of the ministerie of Angels three parts 1 Of their externall ministerie in the protection of the Church pag. 293 2 Of their spirituall office about our prayers pag. 295 3 Whether Angels know our hearts pag. 296 3 Of the worship of Angels 2 parts 1 Of their worship in generall pag. 299 2 Of the inuocation of Angels pag. 300 The ninth generall controuersie concerning Saints departed two parts 1. part Of those that suffer punishment being departed two questions 1 Of Limbus Patrum and of the apparition of Samuel pag. 302.305 2 Of Purgatorie foure parts 1 Whether there be any Purgatorie pag. 307 2 Of the circumstances of Purgatorie pag. 310 3 Of prayer for the dead p. 312 4 Of burials funerals p. 315 2. part Of the Saints that are in ioy and blisse after their departure 9. quest 1. quest Of the blessed estate of the Saints and of Canonizing of Saints pag. 320 2 Of the adoration of Saints 3. parts 1 Whether they are to bee adored and of othes vowes made to Saints pag. 325 2 Of the diuers kindes of worship pag. 330 3 Of the kissing of holy mens feete pag. 331 3 Of the inuocation of Saints three parts 1 Whether prayers are to be made vnto them pag. 332 2 Whether they pray for vs pag. 334 3 Whether they vnderstand our praiers p. 335 4 Of the reliques of Martyrs foure parts 1 Of the worshipping of Reliques pag. 338. 2 Translation of Reliques pag. 340. 3 Preseruing of Reliques pag. 342. 4 Miracles of Reliques pag. 343. 5. question 1. Of Images foure parts 1 Of the difference of Idols Images p. 347 2 Whether it bee lawfull to haue Images pag. 348 3 Whether to be worshipped pag. 350 4 What manner of worship it should be p. 353 2. Of the signe of the Crosse 4. parts 1 Of the Crosse whereon Christ suffered p. 355 2 Of the image of the Crosse. pag. 357 3 Of the signe of the Crosse. pag. 359 4 Of the power or efficacie of the Crosse. p. 360 5 An appendix concerning the name of Iesus pag. 361 6. quest Of Temples and Churches fiue parts 1 Of the situation and forme of Churches pag. 3â—2 2 Of the ende and vse of Churches three parts pag. 365 1 Whether they are built for sacrifice pag. 365 2 Whether they be holy places in theÌ„selues pag. 367 3 Whether they may be dedicate to saints pag. 368 3 Of the adorning of Churches pag. 370 4 Of the dedication of Churches pag. 372. 5 Of thinges hallowed for Churches pag. 373 7 Of Pilgrimages and Processions and of the holy land pag. 375 8 Of holy and festiuall daies fiue parts 1 Of holy dayes in generall 378 2 Of the Lords day 379 3 Of the festiuall dayes of Christ and the holy Ghost pag. 386 4 Of the festiuities of Saints 1 The number of them 2 The manner of keeping them pag. 388 3 Of their vigils p. 391 5 Of Lent and Imber daies pag. 392 9 Of the Virgin Mary 1 Whether she were conceiued without sinne pag. 398 2 Whether she vowed virginitie pag. 400 3 Of her assumption into heauen pag. 401 4 Of the worship due vnto her pag. 402 5 Of the merites of the virgine and of the Aue Maria. pag. 404 The tenth controuersie hath but one question concerning the mediation and intercession of Christ. pag. 406. The eleuenth controuersie concerning the Sacraments in generall three questions 1. quest Of the definition and nature of a Sacrament 1 Of the efficient cause or institutor of the sacrament pag. 408 2 Of the forme manner of consecration pag. 409 3 Of the instrumentall cause which is the Minister pag. 413 4 Of the vse whether the Sacraments be seales pag. 414 2. quest Of the efficacie and vertue of the Sacraments 1 Whether the SacrameÌ„ts
but the witnesse of the spirite doth certifie and assure vs of the truth and authoritie of scripture 7 I will adde one saying out of Augustine Mihi certum est nusquam a Christi authoritate discedere non enim reperio valentiorem Contra Academic lib. 3. cap. 20 I am resolued for no cause to leaue the authoritie of Christ speaking in the scriptures for I finde none more forcible Ergo the authoritie of scripture is aboue the Church which is denied by the Rhemistes annot 2. Gal. sect 2. THE FIRST QVESTION CONCERNING the perspicuitie and playnnes of the Scripture The Papistes OVr aduersaries do hold that the scriptures are most hard difficult and obscure error 6 Bellarmine saith necessario fatendum est Scripturas esse obscurissimas it must needes be graunted that the scriptures are most obscure de verbo Dei lib. 3. cap. 1. They do not onely affirme that some things are obscure in the scriptures but that they are all hard and doubtfull and vncertaine and compare thē therfore to a leaden rule which may be turned euery way Petrus a Soto And to a nose of wax Lindanus a Papist ex Tilmanno de verbo Dei error 5. Our Rhemistes say it is all one to affirme some things to be hard in a writer and the writer to be hard so they conclude that the scriptures are both in respect of the matter and manner very hard and therfore daungerous for the ignoraunt to read them Rhemens annot in 2. Pet. 3. ver 16. 1 They obiect that place 2. Pet. 3.16 where the Apostle saith speaking of S. Paules Epistles that many things are hard Ergo the Epistles of S. Paule are hard and so the scriptures this is Bellarmine and the Iesuites argument We answere First he saith not that Paules Epistles are hard but many things which he entreateth of Secondly they are hard not to all but the vnstable and vnlearned do peruert them Thirdly We denie not but that some places in the scripture are obscure and haue neede of interpretation but it foloweth not that therefore the whole scripture is obscure and because of some hard places that the people should be forbidden the reading of all 2 The scriptures are obscure both in the respect of the matter and manner first the matter is high and mysticall as of the Trinitie of the incarnatiō of the word of the nature of Angels such like We aunswere these mysteries may be said to be obscure three diuerse wayes First in their owne nature so are they hard indeed for by humane reason we can not attaine to the depth of thē Secondly in respect of their handling in the scripture so are they not obscure for all these things are plainly declared in the word as the nature of such deepe mysteries will afoord Thirdly in respect of vs so must they needs be obscure if men be not cōtented with the knowledge in the word but curiously search further Luther therefore doth aptly distinguish of these things he saith that res Dei the things of God are obscure the very depth of his mysteries can not be comprehended of vs but res Scripturae these things as they are opened in scripture are plaine if we will content our selues with that knowledge Secondly saith Bellarmine the maner of handling is hard and obscure there are many tropes metaphores allegories Hebraismes which can not easily be vnderstood We aunswere First many of these are rather ornamentes of the scripture as tropes metaphores then impediments to the reader Secondly though the phrase of scripture seeme hard at the first yet by further trauell in the scriptures it may become easie and plaine for all things are not vnderstood at the first Thirdly we denie not but that some places are obscure and had neede to be opened 3 If the scriptures be not hard what need so many Commētaries and expositions Rhemist 2. Pet. 16. We aunswere First so many Commentaries are not requisite some may be spared Secondly expositions are needfull for the vnderstanding of darke places but many things are plaine inough without expositions and may be vnderstood of the simple The Protestantes WE do not hold that the scripture is euery where so plaine and euident that it need no interpretation as our aduersaries do slaunder vs and therefore here they do fight with their owne shadow Bellarm. lib. 3. de verbo cap. 1. We confesse that the Lord in the Scriptures hath tempered hard things and easie together that we might be exercised in the Scriptures and might knocke labour by prayer and studie for the opening of the sense and that there might be order kept in the Church some to be hearers some teachers expounders by whose diligent search and trauell the harder places may be opened to the people But this we affirme against our aduersaries first that all points of faith necessarie to saluation are plainely set forth in the Scriptures secondly that the Scriptures may with great profit be read of the simple and vnlearned notwithstanding the hardnesse of some places which in time also vsing the meanes they come to the vnderstanding of Ex Fulk annot 2. Pet. 3.16 Whitacher quaest 4. cap. 1. 1 First that which we maintaine is euident out of the scripture Deut. 30.11 the commaundement which I commaund thee is not hid from thee nor farre of And as it foloweth thou needest not ascend to the heauens or go beyond the sea the word is neare vnto thee euen in thy mouth and hart to do it argum Brentij Ergo the scriptures are plaine First the Iesuite aunswereth that it is meant onely of the decalogue and the ten commandements that they are easie not of the whole Scripture As though if the commandements be easie the rest of the scriptures be not likewise as the Prophets and historicall books being but commētaries and expositions of the decalogues S. Paule Rom. 10.6 vnderstandeth this place of the whole doctrine of faith who better knew the meaning of Moses then the Iesuite 2 2. Cor. 4.3 If our Gospell be hid it is to them onely that are lost Ergo the Scriptures are plaine to the faithfull The Iesuite aunswereth S. Paule speaketh of the knowledge of Christ not of the Scriptures First it is manifest out of the 2. verse that S. Paule speaketh of that Gospell which he preached to the Corinthians which is the same he wrote vnto them wherefore if the Gospell preached were easie and plaine why is not the Gospell written by him I meane the doctrine of faith being the same which he preached Secondly if they graunt that the knowledge of Christ is easie we aske no more for this is that we say that the doctrine of faith and saluation is plainly expressed in Scripture 3 This is the difference betweene the new Testament and the old the old is compared to a clasped booke Isay. 29.11 the new to a booke opened Apoca. 5. the knowledge of Christians farre exceedeth the knowledge of the Iewes it
Masse is not of that nature for it is made by the ministerie of man for euery one of their sacrificing Priests is able to make the bodie of Christ but this bodie which Christ had to offer was made onely by God without the helpe of man as the Apostle saith Againe say if you dare that the bodie which you offer is the true Tabernacle and temple of God for then it would followe that God dwelleth in temples made with hands that is by the ministerie of man contrarie to the Scriptures seeing you affirme that the bodie of Christ is no otherwise present but by the ministerie of the Priest And what a goodly Tabernacle is this for God thinke you which you shut vp in a pixe and hang vp in your Churches A mouse may eate it the fire may consume it corruption may take it would God suffer his Tabernacle thus to be defiled Wherefore vpon these premises we conclude that what you offer in your popish sacrifice cannot be the proper gift belonging to Christes Priesthoode Argum. 3. The Apostle saith Hebr. 13.10 Wee haue an altar whereof they haue no power to eate which serue in the Tabernacle Ergo we haue not onely a common table to eate meere bread vpon but a verie altar in the proper sense to sacrifice Christs bodie vpon Rhemist annot Hebr. 13. sect 6. Ans. First the Apostle speaketh of the sacrifice of Christs death whereof we are made partakers by faith which they can reape no benefite by which remaine in the ceremoniall obseruations of Leuiticall sacrifices Christ therefore is our Priest altar and sacrifice for verse 12. the Apostle maketh mention of the suffrings of Christ he meaneth not then the Communion table which is vnproperly called an altar or any materiall altar beside but the altar onely of Christs death Secondly if wheresoeuer in Scripture this worde altar is read it must be taken for a proper materiall altar we shall haue also a material altar in heauen Apoc. 8.3 which I am sure they wil not grant Thirdly the Apostle saith We haue an altar which is but one whereas popish altars are many it cannot therefore be vnderstoode of such altars The Protestants THat there are spirituall sacrifices remaining yet vnto Christians in the exercise of religion we doe verily beleeue being so taught by the Scriptures such are the sacrifices of praise and thankesgiuing Heb. 13.15 The sacrifice of almes and distribution verse 16. the mortifying also of the flesh is a kinde of crucifying and so a spirituall sacrifice Galat. 6.14 And in this sense wee denie not but that the Sacrament may be called a sacrifice that is a spirituall oblation of praise and thankesgiuing but that there is a proper and externall sacrifice as in the lawe of Goates and Bullocks vpon the crosse of the bodie of Christ so in the Eucharist of the same bodie and flesh of Christ we doe hold it for a great blasphemie and heresie Argum. 1. The very flesh and true naturall bodie of Christ is not as wee haue shewed before at large in such carnall and corporall manner present in the Sacrament therefore it cannot in the Sacrament be sacrificed and offered vp Argum. 2. This sacrificing of the bodie and blood of Christ is contrarie to Christs institution for he saith onely Take yee eate yee drinke yee he saith not Sacrifice yee or lift vp and make an oblation of my bodie Neither doe those wordes hoc facite doe this giue them any power to sacrifice for to whome he saith Eate yee drinke yee to the same also he saith Doe yee Wherefore if doe yee be as much as sacrifice yee all Christians for whome it is lawfull to eate and drinke the Sacrament by this rule haue authoritie to sacrifice Againe the words are Doe this in remembrance We remember things absent and which are alreadie done and past if then there be a present sacrifice in the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ it cannot properly be said to be a memorie of his sacrifice Argum. 3. The Apostle saith that Christ neede not to offer himselfe often but that he hath done once in the end of the world Heb. 9.26 And with one offering hath hee made perfite for euer them that are sanctified 10.14 Ergo Christ cannot be sacrificed againe for that were to make his sacrifice vpon the crosse imperfect Bellarmine answereth that the Apostle here speaketh of the bloodie and painefull sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse which was sufficient once to bee done but this taketh not away the vnbloodie sacrifice which is but an iteration of the former whereby the fruite and efficacie of that first oblation is applied vnto vs Bellarm. lib. 1. de miss cap. 25. Ans. First the Apostle excludeth all manner iterations of the sacrifice of Christ for otherwise if Christ should now bee often howsoeuer sacrificed the difference would not hold betweene the sacrifices of the lawe which were often done and the sacrifice of Christ which was once to be performed for their sacrifices were also in a manner iterations and commemorations of the sacrifice of Christ. The Apostle then thus reasoneth They had many iteratiue and commemoratiue sacrifices of Christs death Ergo we haue not now Secondly that is but a foolish and false distinction of the bloodie and vnbloodie sacrifice as they vnderstand it for there can be no proper vnbloodie sacrifice of Christ neither could he be offered vp otherwise then by dying Heb. 9.27.28 Therefore he is not offered vp in the Sacrament because now he dyeth not Thirdly neither neede wee inuent a new kinde of sacrifice for the application of Christs death for to that end Christ hath appointed the preaching of the word and instituted the Sacraments wherby the death of Christ with al the benefites thereof are most fruitefully applied vnto vs Galath 3.1 1. Corinth 11.26 Argum. 4. Augustine in a certaine place allegorizing the parable of the prodigall child thus writeth Vitulum occidit quando in sacramento altario memoriam passionis in mente renouauit He slew the fat calfe when hee renewed in the Sacrament of the altar the memorie of his passion in his minde Hee calleth it the Sacrament not the sacrifice of the altar and it onely bringeth to our minde the memorie of Christs passion and sacrifice there is then no oblation or sacrifice in the Sacrament but onely a commemoration of Christs sacrifice which we denie not AN APPENDIX OR THIRD PART OF the name and office of Priestes The Papists AS they doe falsely teach and perswade that there is yet remaining a proper error 129 externall sacrifice for Christians vnder the Gospell so also they maintaine a sacrificing Priesthoode And further they say that the Leuiticall Priesthoode was not translated into the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse but is properly turned into the Priesthoode and sacrifice in the Church according to Melchisedechs rite in offering vp the bodie and blood of Christ in the formes of bread and wine Rhemist
annot Hebr. 7. sect 7. Wherefore they which minister vnder the Gospell are worthilie called Priests which word doth so certainely implie the authoritie of sacrificing that it is by vse made the onely English of Sacerdos Rhemist act 14. sect 3. The Protestants FIrst we hold it to be a great blasphemie to say that the Priesthood sacrifice of Christ vpō the Crosse is not that sacrifice or Priesthood into the which the old sacrifice Priesthood was translated changed The Apostle proueth the contrary for that sacrifice whereby the new Testament is established is that whereunto the old sacrifice and Priesthoode is translated but this is done by the singular sacrifice of Christ who is the suretie of a better testament Hebr. 7.23 Ergo his singular sacrifice vpon the crosse is that whereinto the old Leuiticall sacrifices are changed and no other Againe the Priesthoode after Melchisedechs order is that into the which the old Priesthoode is changed but the Priesthoode of Christ vpon the Crosse was after that order Ergo. But here they are not ashamed to denie that the sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse was after Melchisedechs order but doe most impudently and blasphemously affirme that it was after the order of Aaron Heskin lib. 1. cap. 13. And thus euery vile massemonger shall be more properly a Priest after Melchisedechs order then Christ himselfe Secondly none but Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech for vnto whome the Lord saide Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech to him the Lord saith also in the same Psalme Sit thou at my right hand Psal. 110. But this cānot agree to any popish Priest therefore not the other Againe the Apostle maketh this difference betweene the Priesthoode of the lawe and the Gospell because then there were many Priests they being prohibited by death to continue but Christ is the onely Priest of the New Testament because he dieth not Heb. 7 23.24 If they answer as they doe that although there be many Priestes yet it is but one Priesthoode because Christ concurreth with them in the actes of the Priesthoode Rhemist We answer first Christ concurreth with his faithfull ministers in the actes of their Ministerie but no such Priesthoode doe wee acknowledge Secondly so Christ concurred in the actes of the Leuiticall Priesthoode and the sacrifices of the law that were rightly offered wherefore this concurrence of Christ dooth no more take away the multitude of Priests in the Gospell then it did in the lawe Thirdly concerning the name of Priests in their sense as it implieth an authoritie of sacrificing we vtterly abhor it secondly but as it is deriued of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth an Elder we refuse it not but wish rather that it had not bin abused in cōmō speach to signifie popish sacrificers Thirdly as for the word sacerdos which may be englished a sacrificer we finde it no where in the New Testament giuen to the ministers of the Gospell and so much Bellarmine confesseth cap. 17. And therefore vnfitly and vnproperly agreeth vnto them If some of the fathers haue confounded the names of Sacerdos and Presbyter they are not to be commended The word Sacerdos a sacrificer being a proper name of the Leuitical Priests cannot properly be attributed to the Ministers of the Gospell To conclude this word Priest as it is the English of Sacerdos we doe not approue but as it giueth the sense of Presbyter from whence it is deriued we condemne it not for so it signifieth nothing else but an Elder If common vse of speech haue drawne it to a contrarie sense it would be amended Augustine saith Sacerdotiū Iudaeorum nemo dubitat c. No faithful mā doubteth but that the Priesthood of the law was a figure of the royall Priesthoode in the Church whereby all that pertaine to the bodie of Christ are consecrated He acknowledgeth no other Priesthood abiding in the Church then that whereby all Christians are made Priests to offer spirituall sacrifices vnto God through Christ. THE THIRD QVESTION OF THE VERTVE AND efficacie falsely ascribed to the sacrifice of the Masse The Papists 1. THey blasphemously affirme that it is a sacrifice propitiatorie that is auailable error 130 to obtaine ex opere operato by the very worke wrought remission and pardon of all their sinnes Trident. Concil sess 22. can 3. Argum. Christ himselfe sayth in the institution This is my blood shed for you for the remission of sinnes Ergo the sacrifice of the Masse is auaileable for remission of sinnes Bellarm. lib. 2. de miss cap. 2. The Protestants Ans. FIrst Christ instituted no sacrifice as we declared afore but onely a Sacrament in remembrance of his death and passion Secondly the Sacrament rightly administred serueth to assure our faith of remission of sinnes by the death of Christ but it doth not by it owne vertue conferre remission of sinnes neither profiteth by the worke wrought for the Apostle sayth That without faith it is impossible to please God Hebr. 11.6 wherefore no action is accepted of God not proceeding of faith Argum. The Apostle sayth Where there is remission of sinnes there is no more sacrifice for sinne Hebr. 10.18 Seeing then remission of sinnes is fully obtained by the death and sacrifice of Christ there can be no more sacrifice for sinne Ergo the Masse is no sacrifice for sinne The Papists 2. THe sacrifice of the Masse is not onely propitiatorie for sinnes but auaileable error 131 to obtaine all other benefites as peace tranquilitie health and such like Bellarm. cap. 3. Argum. S. Paul willeth That prayers and intercessions should be made for all men especially for Kings that we may leade a godly and a peaceable life 1. Timoth. 1.1 These are the prayers which are made in the celebration of the Masse Bellarm. The Protestants Ans. FIrst the Apostle speaketh generally of al prayers made by whomsoeuer as it appeareth vers 8. Therefore this place is vnfitly applied to the praiers of Priests in the Masse Secondly this place proueth that temporall benefites are obtained by faithfull prayers not by the sacrifice of the Masse which S. Paul neuer knewe Thirdly Augustine indeed expoundeth this place of the publike prayers of the Church vsed in the administration of the Sacrament for he calleth it Domini mensam the Lords table not the altar he meaneth nothing lesse then your popish Masse Argum. It is contrarie to the institution of Christ to applie the Sacrament for any such temporall or external vse It was ordained to be receiued in remembrance of Christs death to assure vs by faith of remission of sinnes and other spirituall blessings not to giue vs assurance of health peace life prosperitie for the obtaining of such blessings according to the will of God other meanes are appoynted The ministerie of the Sacraments no more serueth for such vses then the preaching of the word THE FOVRTH QVESTION FOR WHOM THE sacrifice of