the sacrament of the Lords bodie Baptisme is equiualent to the word of God by our aduersaries own confession Ergo also it is of equall value and dignitie with the other sacrament THE TWELFTH GENERALL CONTROVERSY OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISME THis controuersie standeth vpon diuers questions 1. Of the name and definition of Baptisme Secondly of the partes of Baptisme Thirdly of the necessitie of Baptisme Fourthly of the Minister of Baptisme Fiftly of the parties which are to be baptized Sixtly of the effects of Baptisme Seuenthly of the difference of Christs Baptisme and Iohns Eightly of the ceremonies of Baptisme THE FIRST QVESTION OF THE NAME and definition of Baptisme COncerning the name there is no question betweene vs for the name of Baptisme hath the originall and beginning from the scripture Saint Paul vseth this word Coloss. 2.12 We are buryed with him through Baptisme And againe Heb. 6.2 All the question is about the definition of Baptisme The Papists error 98 THey define Baptisme to bee a sacrament of regeneration by water in the worde that is not which signifieth and sealeth vnto vs our regeneration and assureth vs of remission of sinnes but actually iustifieth and regenerateth vs Bellarm. lib. 1. de Baptism cap. 1. The Protestants WE rather according to the scriptures define baptisme to be a signe or seale of our regeneration and new birth whereby wee are assured that as verily by fayth in the blood of Christ we are cleansed from our sinnes as our bodies are washed with water in the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost So that Baptisme doth not actually bestow remission of sinnes by the work wrought but is a pledge and seale of the righteousnesse of fayth as Saint Paul sayth of Circumcision Rom. 4.11 for it is not the washing of the flesh by water but the establishing of the heart with fayth and grace that saueth vs 1. Pet. 3.21 See this poynt handled more at large Controuers 11. next before quest 2. part 1. Augustine saith Per fidem renascimur in baptismate by fayth wee are borne agayne in Baptisme De tempor serm 53. It is then the proper act of fayth to regenerate vs not of Baptisme the vse and end whereof is to strengthen and increase our fayth THE SECOND QVESTION OF THE PARTES which are the matter and forme of Baptisme AS touching the matter that is the externall element vsed in Baptisme there is no question betweene vs but that it ought to bee plaine and common water Act. 10.47 Saint Peter saith Can any man forbid water that these should not bee baptized Wherefore wee condemne the foolish and vngodly practises and inuentions of heretikes that either exclude water altogether as the Manichees with others or doe vse any other element as the Iacobites that in stead of water burned them that were to be baptized with a whot yron or as the Aethiopians which are called Abissines that vsed fire in stead of water misconstruing the words of the Gospell Matth. 2.11 That Christ should baptize with the holy Ghost and with fire which is not literally to bee vnderstoode but thereby is signified the internall and forceable working of the spirite which kindleth zeale and loue in our hearts as fire Concerning the forme of Baptisme we all agree that no other is to be vsed then that prescribed by our Sauiour Christ to baptize in the name of the Father the Sonne and holy Ghost that it is neither lawfull to change this forme in sense as many heretikes haue done nor yet in words as to leaue out any of the three persons in Trinitie and inclusiuely to vnderstand them by naming of one for whereas some alleadge that place Act. 2.38 Bee yee baptized in the name of Iesus Christ for remission of sinnes to proue that it is lawfull onely in the name of Christ to baptize wee are to vnderstand that the forme of Baptisme is not in that place expresly set downe but the scope onely and end of Baptisme which is to assure vs of remission of sinnes in the name of Christ as Beza very well noteth vpon that place The point of difference betweene vs concerning the forme of Baptisme is this The Papists THey are bold to affirme that this forme of Baptisme to baptize in the name error 99 of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost is not fully concluded out of Scripture but deliuered by tradition for say they the commandement of Christ to baptize in the name of the Trinitie Matth. 28. may bee vnderstoode thus to baptize them into the faith of the Trinitie or by the authoritie of the Trinitie And it were sufficient by those words to doe and performe it in act without saying the wordes were it not that wee haue otherwise learned by tradition that this very forme of wordes is to bee kept Bellarmine de baptism lib. 1. cap. 3. The Protestants WE neede no tradition for this matter the very forme which is to bee vsed in Baptisme is plainely proued out of the Scriptures for that commandement of Christ Goe and baptize c. doth necessarily imply a forme of speech to be vsed Wee grant that in the Scriptures this word name is taken for power vertue authoritie as Act. 3.6 In the name of Iesus arise and walke So also as there is a Baptisme with water there may be a baptizing with fire Matth. 3.11 Wherefore if part of the commandement bee to bee taken properlie and literally as this Goe and baptize why not the rest also In the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost If then the whole commaundement bee properly and plainely vnderstoode how can they baptize in the name of the Trinitie vnlesse the Trinitie bee spoken and named Secondly it appeareth also out of other places of Scripture that this forme was vsed in the Apostles time As Act. 10.47 Can any man forbid water why these should not be baptized which haue receiued the holy Ghost as well as wee As if Saint Peter should haue reasoned thus these haue receiued the giftes of the holy Ghost Ergo they may be also baptized in the name of the holy Ghost Likewise Act. 19.2 When the brethren at Ephesus had answered Paul that they had not heard whether there were a holy Ghost he saith vnto them Vnto what then were you baptized By this interrogatorie it appeareth it was their manner to baptize in the name of the holy Ghost and so consequently of the whole Trinitie Wee haue no cause then to flie vnto tradition this matter being so plainely decided by the Scripture Augustin tract in Iohann 80. Vpon those wordes of our Sauiour Iohn 15.3 You are cleane thorough the word which I haue spoken vnto you Detrahe verbum quid est aqua nisi aqua Accedit verbum ad elementum fit sacramentum Take away the word and what remaineth in Baptisme but bare water let the word be ioyned to the element and it maketh a Sacrament The forme then of Baptisme is the word which Christ
through beginning at the first and so prosecuting euery particular questioÌ„ till we are come to the last My purpose is not to set down all the heresies which impugne the Christian faith but onely those which are maintained by the Church of Rome this day who are the chief troublers disquieters of the peace of our Church I say therefore with Augustine Omnis Christianus Catholicus ista noÌ„ debes credere sed noÌ„ omnis qui ista noÌ„ credit coÌ„sequenter se debet Christianum Catholicum â—utare vel dicere Euery true Catholike Christian is bound not to beleeue any of these errors set down in this book but it foloweth not that whosoeuer beleeueth not these is a true Catholike for there are other heresies in the world which destroy the faith as the heresies of the Anabaptistes Familie of Loue Libertines and such like But our speciall purpose and drift is to weed out the Popish cockle and darnell that troubleth our field Neither haue I set forth at large the controuersies betweene vs for that laborious worke other of our learned countrymen haue taken in hand as D. Whitakers in Cambridge D. Reynoldes in Oxford and besides it farre exceedeth my strength and habilitie I haue onely brieflie set downe the grounds of Poperie as I haue collected them out of Bellarmine the stoutest champion of their side our English Rhemistes Eckius Canisius and other Papistes as also out of the late Chapter of Trent for it deserueth not the name of a CouÌ„cell And with all as an Antidotum or counterpoyson I haue opposed and set against them the coÌ„fession of the Protestants and Church of God with reasons and Arguments of both sides and places of Scripture annexed adding also throughout the iudgement of Augustine who of all the fathers is most plentifull in these matters which fall in question in our dayes The benefite which the Christian Reader shall reape in some measure I trust by this simple labour of mine is threefold First the knowledge of all Popish errours which much auayleth Multum adiuuat cor fidele nosce quid credendum non sit etiamsi disputandi facultate id refutare non possit It much helpeth a Christian toward beleefe to know what is not to be beleeued though he can not refell it by Argument Secondlie he shall vnderstand both their principall Obiections which they do entangle simple men withall as also he shall learne how to defend and maintayne the truth Thirdly the chief places of Scripture which make for them or against them are briefly euery where expounded and opened This whole worke I haue deuided into three partes or bookes the first conteineth the coÌ„trouersies of the Scriptures and the Militant Church the second the controuersies of the Triumphant Church and of the Sacraments the third the questions concerning the benefites of our redemption and as touching the person of Christ Which bookes I haue thus deuided not so much in respect of the matter which they conteine for then the controuersies of the Militant and TriuÌ„phant Church ought not to haue bene sundred but that there might be some equalitie indifferent proportion in the Volumes euery one of them comprehending a Centurie that is an hundred of Popish errours either vnder or ouer But the rather I haue so done because I had proceeded no further then to the end of the controuersies of the Militant Church when this first booke went out of my haÌ„ds the which I was moued vpon some occasion to publish before the rest were finished which shall not stay long after God assisting me Wherein I doe also folow the counsell and example of Augustine who writing of the like argument of heresies doth thus conclude his booke Hunc librum antequam totum hoc opus perfeci vobis credidi esse mittendum vt cum quicunque legentis ad id quod restat implendum quod tam magnum esse cernitis orationib adiuuetis This booke I thought good saith he to send abroad before the rest be finished that whosoeuer readeth it might helpe me with their prayers to the better performing of that which remaineth Which I beseech thee also good Christian Reader to afoord me that being mutuallie assisted one with the prayers of an other we may walke on with strength and chearefulnesse in our Christian race till we haue by Iesus Christ obtayned the price of euerlasting life Amen THE FIRST BOOKE OR CENTVRIE CONTEINING THE CONTROVERSIES OF RELIGION WHICH ARISE IN QVEstion betweene the Church of God and the Papistes about the word of God conteined in the Scriptures and the Church Militant here vpon earth with the partes and members thereof THE FIRST GENERALL CONTROVERsie of the holie Scriptures ACcording to the methode which we wil God assisting vs by his spirite obserue throughout this whole Treatise of the controuersies in the first place we are to entreat of such matters as coÌ„cerne the Propheticall office of Christ. He is our Prophet our heauenly teacher and Doctor Math. 23. vers 8. from him proceedeth all holy knowledge we haue not seen God nor the high things of God but the onely begotten sonne which is in the bosome of the father he hath declared him Iohn 1.18 Wherefore all the true sheepe of Christ will heare his voyce Iohn 10.3 His voyce is not els where heard but onely in the Scriptures We must heare Moses and the Prophetes Luke 16.29 First of all therefore this great and most famous controuersie betweene vs and our aduersaries concerning the Scriptures must be handled which is distributed into seuen seuerall questions 1 Concerning the Canonicall Scripture what bookes are to be receiued into the sacred Canon what books to be reiected and counted apocryphall 2 Concerning the authenticall Edition of the holy Scriptures whether the Hebrue Greeke or Latine translation is cheifly to be folowed 3 Whether the Scriptures ought to be translated into the vulgar and English toung and whether publique prayers and diuine seruice ought to be vsed in the same toung 4 Whether the scriptures are authorized by the Church and not rather so knowne to be of them selues 5 Concerning the perspicuitie and playnnes of the Scripture whether it be so hard that the common people may not safely be admitted to the reading thereof 6 Concerning the interpretation of Scripture which question is deuided into three parts first whether the Scripture admit diuerse senses and expositions secondly who hath the cheife authoritie to expound Scripture thirdly what meanes ought to be vsed in expounding of it 7 Concerning the perfection of the Scripture three parts of the questioÌ„ First whether the Scriptures be necessarie secondly whether they be sufficient to saluation thirdly whether there be any traditions beside necessarie to saluation THE FIRST QVESTION CONCERNING the Canonicall Scripture Of the state of the first Question WE haue not any thing in this place to deale with those heretikes which denie either the whole Scripture or any part thereof but onely with our
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
the Apostles writings Secondly if there were other matters which Christ vttered not how foloweth it nay what great presumptiō is it to say that those trifles and apish toyes which the Papistes vse in their Idolatrous sacrifice and their other beggarly ceremonies which boyes may well laugh at are those profoūd matters which the Apostles were not then able to conceiue 3 That of all other they take to be an inuincible place 2. Thess. 2.15 keepe the instructions or traditions which ye haue bene taught either by word or by Epistle Ergo there are traditions besides scripture We aunswere when S. Paule wrote this Epistle all the scriptures were not writtē wherefore besides these two short Epistles which do not conteine the summe of the Gospell nor all necessarie preceptes he by his preaching supplied what was wanting and so declared vnto them the whole mysterie of the Gospell as he saith 1. Thess. 2.2 these he calleth his traditions because yet he had not written his other Epistles wherein those instructions and traditions are conteined This then is but a weake argument the Thessalonians had other instructiōs and traditions beside the two Epistles writtē vnto them Ergo they had other traditiōs beside all the writings of S. Paule and the other Apostles this is their mayne and waightie argument The Protestantes FIrst we graunt that all things are not written which our Sauiour Christ and the Apostles taught and that it was the Gospell which they preached as well as this which is written yet in substance they preached the same Gospell which now is expressed in the scripture neither was there any necessarie precept deliuered in their Sermons which is not now to be found in the scriptures Secondly we denie not but there were certaine rites and orders ordained by the Apostles in diuerse churches which were not cōmitted to writing because they were not to continue and endure for euer in the Church as that precept Act. 16. that the Gentiles should abstaine from strangled and from bloud Thirdly we also graunt that the Church may vse externall rites and orders either left by tradition or ordained by the Church for decencie and comelynesse and tending to edification But we constantly affirme that there are no traditions in the Church of God necessarie to saluation beside scripture wherein all things are conteined necessarie to saluation both concerning faith and manners 1 It is not lawfull as to take ought from the word of God so to adde any thing vnto it Deut. 12.32 Apocal. 22.18 But they which bring in traditiōs necessarie beside the scriptures do adde vnto them Ergo. To the proposition the Iesuite aunswereth that all addition to the word of God is not forbidden for the Prophets did write after Moses the Apostles after the Euangelistes We aunswere that those holy men had authoritie from God to compile scripture if the Papistes haue the like Apostolike authoritie for their traditions let them shew it and we will beleeue them Secondly the Prophetes did but explane Moses and expound the law and the Apostles did as it were set forth their Commentaries vpon the Gospell this therefore was no addition because they did not derogate from the perfection of the scriptures any way To the assumptiō they aunswere that their traditions are but expositiōs of Scripture We aunswere their traditions are cleane contrarie to Scripture as the worshipping of Images and the sacrifice of their Masse and they adde to Scripture making it vnperfect saying it doth not conteine all things necessarie to saluation Wherefore they can not escape that curse which they runne into that adde to the word of God 2 All traditions among the Iewes besides the law were condemned Math. 15.3 Ergo all vnwritten traditions now must be abolished The Iesuite aunswereth First Christ condemned not the auncient traditions of Moses but those which were newly and lately inuented Aunswere first the Scripture maketh no mention of any such traditions of Moses Christ biddeth them search the Scriptures not runne vnto traditions Secondly these seemed to be auncient traditions bearing the name of Elders traditions and they were in great authoritie amongest the Iewes most like because of some long continuance Secondly saith he Christ findeth fault with wicked and impious traditions Aunswere First their traditions were not openly and plainly euill and pernicious but had some shew of holynesse as the washing of pots and tables and beds I would the Papists did not here take thē selues by the nose whose traditions come nearer to open impietie and blasphemie then theirs did Secondly Christ in opposing the Scripture against traditions therein condemneth all traditions not written besides the Scripture 3 If Paule preaching the whole Gospell Act. 20.27 did say none other things then Moses and the Prophetes then all things necessarie to saluation are conteined in the Scriptures For it can not be said to be a whole and perfite Gospell if any thing necessarie to saluation be wanting But Paule preached nothing but out of Moses and the Prophetes Act. 26.22 Ergo much more now is the Scripture a perfect rule of faith we hauing beside Moses and the Prophetes the holy writings of the Euangelistes and Apostles 4 Last of all although we might multiplie many arguments but these I trust strongly concluding out of Scripture may serue as a sufficient bulwarke against all Popish paper bullets Let vs heare in the knitting vp the iudgement of Augustine In his rebus inquit in quib nihil certi statuit Scriptura mos populi Dei vel instituta maiorum pro lege tenenda Epist. 86. In all those things saith he speaking of externall rules and ceremonies of the which we haue no certaine rule out of Scripture the custome of the people of God and the godly constitutions of our forefathers must stand for a law but concerning matters of faith and good maners the Scriptures do giue certaine rules as in another place In ijs quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt inueniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque viuendi De doctrin Christian. 2.9 all things appertaining to faith and the rule of life are plainlie expressed in the Scripture Ergo by the sentence of Augustine traditions besides scripture haue nothing to do with the doctrine of faith and manners but do consist onely in externall rites and customes of the Church THE SECOND GENERALL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE CHVRCH HAuing now finished the questions betweene our aduersaries and vs concerning the Scriptures and word of God which all do belong to the Propheticall office of Christ in the next place such controuersies are to be handled as do concerne the Kingly office of Christ. And seeing the Church of Christ is his kingdome where he ruleth and raigneth we must intreat of the Church and first in generall of the whole and in speciall of the partes and members This present controuersie concerning the Church in generall standeth vpon fiue principall questions 1 Of the definition of the Catholike Church two partes
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
so well knowne in stories that I neede not come to particulars 6 Antichrist is called a wicked man and a man of sinne vers 3.8 And where shall you finde more wicked men then among the Popes Siluester the 2. gaue his soule to the diuell to obtayne the Papacie Fox pag. 167. Benno reporteth of Hildebrand that he poysoned sixe Popes to come to the Popedome Pope Stephen and Sergius tooke vp the bodie of Formosus and mangled it cutting off his head and fingers and so cast it into Tibris Fox pag. 120. We haue heard before what a holy Father Pope Iohn the 13. was he lay with his owne sister and with his fathers Concubines playing at dice called for the diuell was slayne in adulterie And was it not I pray you a common prouerbe in England He that goeth to Rome once seeth a wicked man he that goeth twise learneth to know him he that goeth the third time bringeth him home with him Fox pag. 841. argument Illyrici The third place we doe take out of the Apocalyps chap. 9. where is a playne storie set downe of the Pope 1 vers 1. He is a starre fallen from heauen he is departed from the ancient faith of Rome to superstition and idolatrie 2 He hath the key of the bottomlesse pit who giueth the crosse keyes in his armes but the Pope who sayth hee may euacuate all Purgatorie at once if hee will but he Who sayth he may Pleno iure currus animarum plenos secum ad tartara detrudere by full right carrie downe to hell with him charriots Ioden with soules cap. si Papa distinct 42. Is not this the Pope who then more fitly may be sayd to haue the key of the bottomlesse pit 3 There arise out of the bottomlesse pit a great flocke of Locusts that is the innumerable sort of begging Friers for they are in euery respect described First compared to Locusts for their number vers 3. There were an 100. diuers sorts of Friers Fox pag. 260. Secondly they had power giuen them for fiue moneths that is as Walter Brute expoundeth it taking a moneth for thirtie dayes a day for a yeere as it is prophetically taken an 150. yeeres for so long it was from the beginning of the Friers vnder Innocent the 3. anno 1212. to the time of Armachanus who preached disputed and wrote agaynst the Friers about anno 1360. Fox pag. 414. Thirdly they shall sting like Scorpions not slay all at once but venome and poyson the conscience with the sting of their pestilent doctrine Fourthly other parts also of the description agree as vers 7. They are as horses prepared to battaile that is stoute ambitious their haire as the haire of women that is they shall be effeminate and giuen to the lusts of the flesh their teeth as the teeth of Lions they by valiant begging shall deuoure the portions of the poore as it was well proued in King Henry the 8. dayes in the Supplication of beggars that the summe of the Friers almes came to a great summe in the yeere for the fiue orders of Friers had a penie a quarter for euery one of euery housholder throughout England that is for them all twentie pence by the yeere suppose that there be but ten housholds in euery towne and let there be twentie thousand parishes and townes in England it will not want much of twentie thousand pound Thus had they Lions teeth that is consuming and deuouring Lastly they haue a King vers 11. whose name is Abaddon a destroyer for the Pope their chiefe prince and patron hath by his Antichristian doctrine layd wast the Church of God Argument Chytraei The fourth place of scripture wee will take out of the 17. of the Apocalyps there the seate of Antichrist is described First vers 5. It is called Babylon the citie which raigneth ouer the Kings of the earth vers 18. This can be no other but Rome which then had the Empire of the whole world Secondly It is the citie built vpon seuen hils or mountaynes vers 9. that is no other but Rome Thirdly the whore which is Antichrist shall sit vpon the beast with seuen heads and ten hornes that is shall succeede in the Empire and haue the authoritie thereof so hath the Pope Fourthly the ten hornes that is the Kings of the earth shal giue their authoritie to the beast but afterward shall deuoure her flesh Euen so the Kings of the earth by their sword maintayned the authoritie of the Pope But now being taught by the Gospell they are made the Lords free men and begin to subdue their neckes from his yoke The fift place is 1. Iohn 2.22 Who is a lyar but he that denyeth that Iesus is Christ the same is Antichrist that denyeth the father and the sonne Euen so the Pope of Rome though not openly and apertly yet closely and subtilly is an enemie vnto the whole trinitie He exalteth himselfe aboue God the father because he taketh vpon him to dispense not onely agaynst the lawe of nature but agaynst the lawe of God the morall law and agaynst the precepts both of the old and new testament but a lawe cannot be dispensed withall but by the same authoritie or greater Agaynst Iesus Christ he exalteth himselfe and all his offices he denyeth him to be the onely Prophet saying the scriptures are vnperfect and that their traditions are also necessarie to saluation Agayne he maketh other bookes scripture then those which are Canonicall His kingly office he doth arrogate to himselfe in making lawes to binde the conscience in ordayning other Sacraments in granting Indulgences and Pardons saying that he is the head of the Church His Priesthood he is an enemie vnto constituting another priesthood after the order of Melchisedech then that of our Sauiour Christ which begun vpon the Crosse and remayneth still in his person being incommunicable to any other creature yet they make euery sacrificing Priest to bee of the order of Melchisedech He impugneth the office of the holy spirit counting that prophane which the holy Ghost hath sanctified as marriage and meates arrogateth in all things the spirit of truth not to erre applieth the merites of Christs passion after his owne pleasure by Pardons Indulgences by ceremonies and Sacraments of his owne inuention Fulk 2. Thess. 2. sect 10. Ergo we conclude out of S. Iohn that seeing he denieth Iesus to be Christ he is Antichrist Sixtly S. Paul sayth that Antichrist shal be an aduersarie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Thess. 2.4 An aduersarie in doctrine teaching cleane contrarie to the Gospell of Christ so doth the Pope 1 The scripture sayth wee ought to put our trust onely in God and not in man Ierem. 17.7 and to call vpon God onely in the day of trouble Psal. 50.15 and to worship him in spirit and truth Iohn 4.24 The Papists say cleane contrarie that we must call vpon Saints and beleeue they can helpe vs and they teach vs to fall downe before
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
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
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
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
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
Angels for they dare set downe the very day of Christs comming which shall be as Bellarmine presumptuously imagineth iust 45. dayes after the destruction of Antichrist And to this purpose he abuseth that place of Dan. 12.11 where mention is made of 1290. dayes that is as he fondly interpreteth three yeeres and an halfe the iust time of Antichrists raigne But blessed is he that commeth sayth the Prophet to 1335. dayes that is sayth Bellarmine to 45. dayes after the destruction of Antichrist and then Christ commeth cap. 9. What intolerable boldnes and presumption is this contrarie to the saying of Christ to attempt to declare the very houre of his comming Agayne the prophecie of Daniel had no such meaning for he onely speaketh of the afflictions of the Church before the comming of Christ as Iohn prophecieth of the troubles that came after Daniel therfore in that place receiueth instructions concerning the cruell persecution of the Iewes vnder Antiochus Epiphanes the beginning and the end thereof There are three times reuealed vnto him The first is of a time two times and halfe a time or rather the deuiding of time or as Tremellius more agreeable to the Hebrew a part or parcel of times so long should the temple be defiled and the abomination set vp in the temple that is three yeeres and certayne dayes And so it came to passe for this desolation began in the temple the 145. yeere of the raigne of the Greekes the fifteene day of the moneth Casleu 1. Macchab. 1.57 when Antiochus caused the daylie sacrifice to cease and incense to bee burnt to Idols And iust three yeeres and ten dayes after which is to bee reckoned for the odde parcell of times Ann. 148. the 25. day of Casleu they began to offer sacrifice in the temple according to the lawe 1. Macchab. 4.52 The second time reuealed is of a 1290. dayes Dan. 12.11 which maketh three yeeres seuen moneths and odde dayes which is the time counting from the desolation when as the sacrifices should be restored and confirmed by the Kings graunt and Letters Patents which accordingly came to passe ann 148. the fifteenth of the moneth Xanthicus which was the last moneth but one as it is recorded 2. Macchab. 11.33 The third time is described by dayes 1335. Dan. 12.12 Blessed is hee that should liue to see that time namely when the Church of the Iewes should fullie bee deliuered by the death of Antiochus which was in the beginning of the next yeere which was 149. 1. Macchab. 6.16 Thus wee see these times were fully accomplished vnder the tyrannie of Antiochus wherefore these prophecies being once fulfilled they cannot bee drawne to signifie any other time but by way of similitude and comparison Neither is that any thing worth which the Iesuite obiecteth out of S. Paul 2. Thess. 2.8 Then shall the wicked man bee reuealed whom Christ shall consume with the spirit of his mouth As though presently after the reuelation of Antichrist Christ should come And therefore Antichrist must not be expected or looked for before the end of the world for the whole time from the first comming of Christ to his second is in the scripture called nouissima hora the last times 1. Ioh. 2.18 And therefore Antichrist at what time soeuer he is reuealed after the ascension of Christ he commeth in the last times whose vtter ruine and destruction shall be reserued for the glorious appearing of Christ as the Apostle there speaketh 3 Whereas the scripture sayth that Sathan must bee bound for a thousand yeeres and after let loose agayne Apocal. 20.2 And it is playne that the thousand yeeres since Christ are expired more then fiue hundred yeeres agoe It followeth hereupon that Antichrist is alreadie come for he must bee reuealed with the loosing of Sathan Our aduersaries haue nothing to answere but this that by this 1000. yeeres a certayne time is not ment but the whole space during the time of the newe Testament till the comming of Antichrist Rhemist Reuel 20. sect 1. To whom wee answere that by the same reason neither shall their 42. moneths shewe any certayne time but the whole space so long as Antichrist shall raigne and this number of moneths as of dayes weekes houres the scripture euery where taketh mystically in prophecies but when thousands or hundred yeeres are mentioned they are alwaies taken literally as Isay. 7.8 it is prophecied that Ephraim that is Israel should vtterly cease to bee a people within 65. yeeres which euen so came to passe counting from the fourth yeere of the raigne of Ahaz King of Iuda to the 25. yeere of Manasses when the remnant of Israel was carried away THE THIRD PART CONCERNING THE NAME character and signe of Antichrist The Papists THey stoutly affirme that Antichrist shall be one particular man consequently error 58 they also hold that he shall haue a certayne name as Christ is called Iesus so Antichrist must also haue a proper name but what that name shall be no man can tell vntill hee come but it shall consist of certayne letters that in number make sixe hundred sixtie sixe Bellarm. cap. 10. Rhemist annot Apocal. 13. sect 10. 1 Apocal. 13.18 Count the number of the beast for it is the number of a man and his number is 666. Hereupon they conclude that Antichrist shall haue a certayne name which conteyneth that number Bellarm. ibid. Answere First it is the number of the beast and yet of a man Ergo it cannot bee the name of any one man for by the beast the Iesuites themselues vnderstand a companie or multitude Rhemist Apocal. 13. sect 1. Wherefore it must be such a name as agreeth to a companie or succession of men and such is the name Latinus as afterward we will shewe Secondly it must bee a name by number shewing the time not an idle number signifying nothing the time of his comming is set downe to be 666 But the name of their Antichrist cannot shew any such time seeing there are yeeres more then twise 666. gone alreadie and yet they say their Antichrist is not yet come 2 Antichrist shall haue a name as Christ had but it is not necessarie to bee knowne otherwise then Christ his name was which was described by Sibil by the number of 888. as Antichrists is by 666. yet was not his name Iesus perfectly knowne before his comming neither is it necessarie that Antichrists should before that time Iesus in Greeke letters thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maketh as you see 888. Bellarm. cap. 10. Answere First you must proue Antichrist to be one singular man as Christ was and then striue for his name Secondly you doe euill to match Sibils prophecie and Iohns reuelation together as though her coniecture of the name of Christ by the number 888. were of like authoritie with Iohns prophecie of 666. Thirdly it is false that the name Iesus was onely by Sibil signified by these numbers for Augustine alleadgeth certayne verses of
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
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
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
First that they doe not onely signifie but exhibite and represent vnto vs after a liuely manner the spirituall things which are signified Secondly they must haue the institution perpetuall commandement of Christ. Thirdly the sacraments of the new law must succeede in the place of the olde Hereupon we will inferre that there are but two sacraments in the new Testament Baptisme and the Lords Supper Argum. 1. These two alone are not onely signes of heauenly things but seales and pledges vnto vs thereof whereby our fayth is strengthened and our hope confirmed in the promises of God as the remission of sinnes is represented in Baptisme Act. 2.38 the death of Christ shewed foorth in the Eucharist 1. Corinth 11.26 The like commendation is not giuen of any other of their sacraments Argum. 2. Christ onely commaunded these two sacraments to bee vsed for euer in his Church to such spirituall purposes as Baptisme is instituted and commaunded Math. 28.19 the Lords Supper likewise Math. 26. Many other ceremonies Christ vsed himselfe as lifting vp of hands the tempering of clay and spittle his Apostles imposition of hands and anoynting with oyle But he hath not layd his commaundement vpon these ceremonies enioyning vs perpetually to keepe them as he hath charged vs with the other two Argum. 3. The sacraments of the newe Testament succeede in the roume of them of the olde Baptisme standeth in stead of Circumcision the Lordes Supper is come in place of the Paschal Lambe But they cannot shew what old sacraments those fiue other newly inuented confirmation orders penance matrimony extreame vnction doe succeede and supplie Ergo they are none And beside if all these should be sacraments and so seuen in all we should haue more in number then the Iewes had which is not to bee admitted for they had but two ordinary sacraments Circumcision and the Paschall Lambe two extraordinarie as their baptisme in the red sea and the clowde and their eating of the Manna and drinking of the rocke 1. Corin. 10.2.3 So they should haue but foure sacraments for your seuen Other legall rites ceremonies and sacrifices they had and many typical shadowes and significations but no more sacraments then we haue heard Augustine yeeldeth to haue no more sacraments then onely two As Eua was made out of Adams side as hee was asleepe Sic ex latere domini dormientis in cruce manauerunt sacramenta ex quibus formaretur ecclesia So out of the Lordes side sleeping vpon the crosse the sacraments of the Church issued that is water and blood by the which he vnderstandeth the two sacraments THE SECOND PART OF THE order and degree of the sacraments among them selues The Papists error 97 IF any man shall say that these seuen sacraments are of equall dignitie and not one in some respect to be preferred before the other let him be accursed Concil Trident. sess 7. can 3. In diuers respects one sacrament may excell another as Baptisme excelleth the rest because of remission of sinnes thereby effected or as we say represented Orders excell in respect of the minister because they are onely say they conferred by a Bishop Matrimony excelleth in respect of the signification the coniunction of Christ and his Church But simply the Eucharist exceedeth all because of the substance of the sacrament the reall and bodily presence of Christ. Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 28. Answer First that Baptisme and the Eucharist exceede all the other we do easily admit for we holde them to be no sacraments and therefore we stand not vpon their seuerall priuiledges Secondly neither Baptisme is more excellent then the Lords Supper because it representeth the remission of sinnes for that also is insinuated in the other for how can we shew foorth the Lords death which is done in that sacrament vnlesse we call to minde the benefits purchased by his death as remission of sinnes Neither doth the Eucharist goe beyond Baptisme in regard of a more full presence of Christ for he is not otherwise present in one sacrament then in the other presenting himselfe in both spiritually to be apprehended of the worthy receiuer as for that carnal and grosse presence of the body of Christ in the sacrament we acknowledge none as afterward it shall more fully appeare when wee come in order to that question Augustine sheweth that Christ is no otherwise present in the Eucharist then in the preaching of the word for the manner of his presence Eucharistia panis noster quotidianus est quod vobis tracto panis quotidianus est quod in ecclesia lectiones quotidie auditis panis quotidianus est the Eucharist or sacrament of thankesgiuing is our dayly bread that which I handle and preach to you is our daylie bread that which you heare read daylie in the Church is our daylie bread If Christ then be no more really present in the sacrament then in the worde what is become of the preeminence that the one sacrament in that respect should haue aboue the other The Protestants THat the one sacrament should be so much extolled aboue the other namely the Lords Supper to be preferred before Baptisme as the more worthy and excellent sacrament we finde no such thing in the word of God but that both of them are of like dignitie in themselues and to be had equally and indifferently in most high accompt thus it is prooued Argum. 1 They are both commaunded and instituted by the same authoritie of our Lord Iesus Christ neither is one by the first institution aduanced aboue the other Secondly there is the same matter and substance of both sacraments Christ Iesus with all his benefites Thirdly one and the same end of them both which is the increase and strengthening of our fayth in the promises of God Ergo they are both of equall dignitie and worthynes Let them say now which is the more worthy thing Baptisme or the word preached no doubt they will preferre Baptisme for they holde that the sacraments doe giue grace by the worke wrought and so doth not the worde yea they are offended because we say that the sacraments are no otherwaies instruments of our iustification then the word preached is but that the one worketh by the hearing the other by the senses of seeing handling tasting but they all serue to one end namely to beget and increase fayth in vs. This our assertion they vtterly mislike Bellarm. lib. 2. de sacram cap. 2. Whereby it appeareth that they preferre Baptisme before the word We then thus reason out of Augustine He thus writeth Dicite mihi quid plus videtur vobis verbum dei an corpus Christi respondere debetis quod non sit minus verbum dei Tell me which is the chiefer in your opinion the word of God or the body of Christ that is the sacrament of his body ye must answere that the word of God is not inferior Homil. 26. Hence we frame this argument The word of God is equiualent to
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
Monkerie The Papists IF they be come to the yeares of discretion they may men or women at any error 90 age take vpon them the vow of Monkerie Bellarm. cap. 35. 1 Math. 19.14 Suffer little children to come vnto me Ergo young men and mayds may become Monkes Bellarm. Answ. First the text speaketh of little children but by your confession they must be of yeeres of discretion that should enter into your profession so are not little children 2. As though none could come to Christ but through a Monks cowle Nay I would they of all men did not goe furthest off from Christ. It followeth also in the texte Of such is the kingdome of heauen so by this reason heauen gates should be open onely to Monkes and Friers and this is the right heresie of the Pelagians and Manichees that promised the kingdome of God not one but those that cast a way their riches 2 Iohn Baptist liued from a childe in the wildernesse Ergo lawfull for young ones to professe Monkerie Answere First Iohns example is extraordinarie as his office and calling was singular therefore is no more to be imitated and followed in his solitarie life then in his diet of Locusts and wilde honie He sprang also in his mothers womb so I think all Monkes and Eremites doe not Secondly it is not certaine at what yeeres Iohn entred into the Wildernesse for hee was thirtie yeere olde when hee came and preached in the Wildernesse as Matthew writeth 3.1 The Protestants THough we should grant that a Monastical life were in some persons and at some times tolerable among Christians yet of all other the yonger sorte in whom lust doth raigne were most vnfit and not to be admitted vnto that kinde of life 1 Saint Paul would haue no widow to be chosen vnder 60. yeeres 1. Timoth 5.9 and I will the younger to marry vers 16. Ergo it is contrarie to Saint Pauls rule to suffer any such to make vowes of continencie Rhemist answere First it was but a rule for that time when as yet there were no Monasteries nor discipline but young widowes wandred vp down idly Answ. First the same cause that young women had to marrie then they haue now and therefore the rule is generall Secondly as though the wals of Monasteries were able to keepe in Virginitie no it is notoriously knowne that vnchast life hath scaled the wals of Nunneries crept in at windowes and found muses in the ground 2 Saint Paul say they counselleth young widowes to marrie not young Virgins which hauing not experience of lust are not so greatly tempted Ans. How chaste your cloyster women haue been and free from these tentations the stories of former times make mention and the examples of so many vnchaste milch-Nunnes and filthie Monkes and Friers are a sufficient proofe Fulk 1. Timoth. 5. sect 11. But all these shifts notwithstanding Saint Pauls rule must stand that no widowes must be admitted vnder 60. yeere olde 2 The Manichees tooke occasion hereby to insult against the Catholiks because they admitted so many Virgins to the profession of single life Certatim ad hanc professionem â—asincitatis suasionibuâ—vestris vt iam penè maior in Ecclesijs omnibus virginum apud vos quam mulierum numerositas habeatur August cor Faustum 30.4 Ye labour say the Manichees to drawe women of euery hand to this profession by your perswasions that now in your Churches the number of professed virgins exceedeth the number of women And hereby the Manichees that extolled virginitie and condemned mariage were induced to think that the Catholike Bishops also were of their opinion Likewise Augustine epistol 169. maketh mention of one Priuius that because while he liued among the Catholikes he could not enioy the speech and companie of two young Nuns he ran away with them to the Donatists Thus we see what good commeth to shut young men and women into cloysters THE SECOND PART WHETHER CHILdren may enter into profession of Monkerie without their Parents consent The Papists IF they be of sufficient age as the men of 14. yeere at the least the women error 91 of 12. and their Parents be not driuen to any such necessitie that they neede their childrens helpe they may without Parents consent enter into Monkery 1 God sayd to Abraham get thee out of thy countrey and from thy fathers house Genes 12. and Christ Math. 10. whosoeuer loueth father or mother more then me is not worthy of me Ergo children may become Monkes without their fathers leaue Bellarm. cap. 36. Answ. First who would haue thought that Abraham was a Monk but that the Iesuite saith it SecoÌ„dly by the same reason a man may not leaue his pareÌ„ts only but go out of his countrey Thirdly Abraham was 75. yere old at that time when he went out of Haran verse 4. Ergo wee will conclude that none ought to be made Monks before those yeares Fourthly When God calleth any man to a Monkish life as Abraham had an especial calling of God wee will giue him good leaue to goe Concerning the other saying of our Sauiour it maketh nothing for you First Christ speaketh of persecution when a man ought not for loue of his friends to denie Christ but I trowe you will not grant that your Monkish life is persecution and yet it is after a sorte for the Locusts which are none other but Monkes and Friers Apocal. 9. doe bite and sting like serpents that is do secretly wound mens consciences Secondly a man may leaue his parents as Christ commandeth though he dwell in the same house with them that is by setting his loue and affection on heauenly things Thirdly doe all goe to Christ that come into your Monasteries nay I would they went not from Christ for they liue after another rule then Christs Francis your great founder erected a new sect of Monkerie and found out a new rule for them which he called regulam Euangelicam the rule of the Gospell as though Christes rule were not sufficient The Protestants CHildren ought not by the law of God to make any vow of single and continent life without the consent and liking of their parents Luther Pet. Martyr Lib. de caelibat et votis 1. By the law of Moyses the father had power to disallow the vowes which the daughter made being in his house Numb 30.6 Which law was not ceremonious for it was grounded vpon the Morall law which commanded all obedience and duetie of the children to the Parents And that it is not abrogate it appeareth because the same law is renewed by S. Paul 1. Corinth 7. ver 36.37 Where the Apostle referreth the whole matter of keeping a virgin or placing of her in mariage to the will of the father yet so that he must haue regard vnto the necessitie the estate and condition of his virgine Both these places do apertly proue that neither the childe can be bestowed in marriage nor vowed to virginitie without the consent
and determination of the parents 2. Let vs heare what authoritie Augustine yeeldeth to the father ouer his children Agite vicem nostram in domibus vestris Episcopus inde appellatus est quia superintendit vnusquisque ergo in domosua si caput est domui suae debet ad eum pertinere episcopatus officiū de Sanct. Ser. 51. You saith Augustine their Bishop must supplye our stead in your houses a Bishop or Superintendent is so called because he ouerseeth therefore euery housholder being the head of his house ought to playe the Bishop in his house The father then is a Bishop ouer his children shall any man then dare to take any out of his house that is his Bishoprike or any sheepe out of his folde without the Bishop and sheepheardes consent THE THIRD PART WHETHER Married persons may with mutuall consent become votaries The Papists WIth mutuall consent the man the wife may separate thē selues and vow error 92 and promise single life for euer so long as they both shall liue Bellarm. Cap. 37. Marie and Ioseph were perfitely man and wife yet by mutuall consent they liued continently all their daies Ergo it is lawfull for married couples to separate themselues for euer both agreeing therunto Bellarm. cap. 37. Answ. 1. It appeareth by the text that there was no such thing purposed by Ioseph before he was admonished by the Angell in a dreame but that as she was already betrothed so there was an intent on Iosephs parte that they should come together Math. 1.18 But that in the meane time Marie was found with childe by the holy ghost and so from that time Ioseph being a iust man neuer knew his wife there was no such purpose or vowe before 2. That this was an extraordinary exāple who seeth it not When any man shall be admonished by an Angell as Ioseph was and shall haue the like cause as Ioseph had to abstaine which shall neuer bee hee may be bould to doe as Ioseph did The Protestants THey that are once ioyned together in marriage and haue made a couenaunt each to other before God can not separate them selues though they both consent there being no other cause but a purpose of single life for more holines sake 1. It is flat contrary to S. Pauls rule 1. Corinth 7.5 Defraud not your selues except it be with cōsent for a time that you may giue your selues to fasting and prayer and againe come together lest Satan tempt you for your incontinencie First the Apostle saith directly they should but separate themselues for a time Secondly we doe thus reason out of his wordes there is no cause of separation but to be giuen to fasting and prayer but this may be done by a separation for a time neither is it necessary we should alwaies be giuen to fasting and prayer but vpon speciall occasion therefore perpetuall separation is not needfull 3. They that are long separated are subiect to fall into tentation the same cause therefore that moued them first to marrie for auoiding of incontinencie ought to moue them to come together againe Therefore it is not good nor lawful they should separat them selues for euer 2. That which God hath coupled no man ought to put asunder but they that are married haue made a couenant to God Pro. 2.17 as well as to themselues and are ioyned by Gods law together Ergo they can not dissolue their mariage by their owne power and will the Lord hauing an interest therein Augustine Thus writeth Non licet excepta causa fornicationis coniugem a coniuge dirimi nec sterilem coniugem fas est relinquere vt faecunda ducatur de nupt concupiscen Lib. 1. Cap. 10. It is not lawfull for married couples one to be separat frō another vnlesse it be for fornication nor to leaue a barren wyfe to marrie a frutefull Therefore if fornication onely be a iust cause of finall separation there can be no other If there were any other it is most like it should be for procreation of children But neither for that cause is a man to leaue his wife Ergo for no other Therefore not for any vow of continencie is marriage to be dissolued or any separation to be admitted Bellarm. saith that by their separation Marriage is not dissolued Auns It is asmuch dissolued as by your law in cases of diuorse 1. For these are your words for aduoutrie one may dismisse another but neither party can marry againe for any cause during life Rhemist Math. 19. Sect. 4. So ye allowe onely a kinde of dismission in the case of adultery and so you do in the vowing of continencie And thus you make this cause as forceable as the other to break off the Matrimonial duety which is contrary to the gospell THE FOVRTH PART WHETHER MARIage contracted not consummate may without consent be broken for the vow of continencie The Papists error 93 THeir opinion is that if the mariage be contracted onely and ratified but not yet consummate by the parties comming together it is lawful for either of them without the others consent to vowe chastitie cap. 38. Bellarm. His reason is because it is lawfull for a man to passe from a lesse perfect state of life to a more perfect if it may be done without detriment as this may be for yet they haue no children and the partie may as well bee maried to another Bellarm. Answ. First a single life is not alwayes the perfecter state nor to all as it is not to them that haue not the gift to containe as it is most like hee hath not that is contracted and hath made promise of mariage for then all this needed not Secondly though there be none of those impediments named yet there is a greater namely their fayth promise made each to other before God which they ought not to violate Thirdly Saint Paul saith If thou be bound to a wife seeke not to be loosed 1. Corinth 7.27 But they that are espoused one to the other are bound vnlesse you will say that the couenant made by them vnto God Prouer. 2.17 bindeth not The Protestants MAtrimonie whether ratified onely by lawfull contract or espousals or consummate ought not any way to be broken with consent or without for Monasticall profession 1 Our reason is because it is perfect mariage already in substance and before God which is ratified by contract onely and solemne vowe and couenant made each to other And being thus betrothed the one giueth power of their body to the other and now they are no more free That this mariage is perfect before God and in substance it appeareth by the law of Moses by the which a man defiling a mayd betrothed was to suffer death as well as if hee had committed vncleannes with a woman already maried Deuteron 22. verse 22.23 And Math. 1.18 Marie that was but betrothed to Ioseph is by the Angel called his wife vers 20. 2 August saith Coninges fidem sibi pariter