Bellarm. They did it by an extraordinarie authoritie not as Kings but as Prophets Nay it was an ordinarie power for all the good kings of Iuda beside as Iehosaphat Hezekiah and others did take care of religion this was so properly annexed to the kingly office that idolatrous kings also tooke vpon them to command false religion as Ieroboam set vp two golden calues and Ahaz king of Iudah cōmanded Vriah the high Priest to make an Altar according to the patterne which he sent from Damascus 2. King 16.11 This power also was afterward exercised by Christian Kings and Emperours as Constantinus Theodosius Martianus made lawes for the Church Fulk annot 1. Cor. 14. sect 16. Iustinianus the Emperour decreed many things concerning Church affayres as how excommunication should be vsed how Bishops and Priests should be ordained concerning the order and manner of funerals that the holy mysteries should not be done in priuate houses Carolus magnus decreed that onely the Canonical bookes of scripture should be read in the Church he chargeth all Bishops and priests to preach the word Lodouicus Pius his sonne and Emperour after him ordained that no entrie should bee made into the Church by Simonie that Bishops should bee chosen by the free election of the Clergie and the people All these Emperours did lawfully exercise their princely authoritie in Ecclesiastical matters Ergo other princes may doe the same still 3 Augustine saith Epistol 50. Quis mente sobrius c Who in his right wits would say to the King It pertaineth not to you who in your kingdome is religious or sacrilegious to whom it cannot be said let it not pertaine vnto you who in your kingdome will be chast or vnchast And in another place Ad fratres in erem serm 14. Tunc iustitia dicitur gladius ex vtraque parte acutus quia hominis defendit corpus ab exterioribus iniurijs animam à spiritualibus molestijs Then iustice is rightly called a sword with a double edge because it doth both defend the bodie from externall and corporall wrongs and the soule from spirituall vexation That is the sword of the Magistrate serueth as well to prune the Church and to cut off all errors and heresies in religion as to destroy the vices and corruptions in manners AN APPENDIX OR FOVRTH PART OF THE QVEstion whether the Prince in any good sense may be called the head of his kingdome and consequently of the Church in his kingdome The Papists THey do appropriate this title to be called heads of the vniuersall Church to error 101 the Pope of Rome most blasphemouslie for there can be no head of the vniuersal bodie but Christ But for Princes to be called the head that is chiefe gouernours of the Churches in their kingdomes they do abhorre it Whereupon Bellarmine is so saucie as to checke and controule King Henrie the 8. because he was called the head of the English Church 1 The heathen Emperours were not heads of the Church being not so much as members thereof therefore neither Christian Magistrates which doe succeede them in that authoritie Rhemist annot 1. Pet. 2. sect 6. Ans. 1. The argument followeth not they were no true mēbers of the Church therefore could not be heads that is haue the soueraigntie of the externall gouernment for wicked kings and princes doe keepe their magistracie gouernment still who though they be not true members of the Catholike Church yet ought to be obeied as princes 2. Though the metaphorical name of head agreed not vnto them yet were they by Gods ordinance appointed to be heads gouernours of his people protectors of his Church should haue been if they had not abused their authoritie 3. Christian princes though they haue the same authoritie which they had yet now exercising the sword according to Gods law and being Nurses of the Church may vse and retaine those princely titles in deed to be called Patrones and defenders of the faith head that is chiefe gouernours and protectors of the Church which by right had been due vnto the other if they had vsed their authoritie as they should 2 Christian princes are members of the Church Ergo not heads for if they were heads how could the Church stand without them as it did in the time of persecution Ans. First as though the head is not a member and part of the bodie though a principall one so the Prince is a member of the Church but a principall and chiefe member not of the inuisible Church for so Christ is onely head but of a particular visible Church Secondly we denie not but that the inuisible and spiritual Church may consist without the Magistrate but a visible flourishing and wel-gouerned Church cannot want a head or chiefe gouernour that is as a wall or hedge vnto it The Protestants TO bee head of the vniuersall Church is proper onely to Christ and in that sense is not communicable to any creature for he is to his Church as the head to the naturall bodie giuing vnto it influence of grace spirit and life he is therefore the onely mysticall head of the vniuersal Church But in another sense the Prince may be said to be the head and chiefe gouernour of his kingdome of that particular visible Church where he is king We make him neither the mysticall head which is only Christ farre be that blasphemie from vs nor a ministerial head as they make the Pope to be as Christs Vicegerent in the Church but a politicall head to keepe and preserue the peace of the Church and to see that euery member doe his office and duetie But this name we confesse is vnproperly giuen to the Prince neither were we the first inuentors of it for the papists first gaue it to Henry the 8. And there are other titles which doe sufficiently expresse the office of the Prince and may bee more safely vsed If any man thinke it too high a name for any mortall man and so not to be giuen to any we will not greatly contend about it But if any denye it to the Prince as thereby to abridge her of her power in Ecclesiastical matters we doe stand stiffely for it and are bold to affirme that with much better right is this title attributed to the ciuill Magistrate then it was to the Pope yea and that it hath been of old giuen in a modest and sober sense to Kings and Princes and may with a fauourable exposition be still and Princes also may receiue this honour and title at their subiects hands with protestation of their Christian meaning herein 1 This phrase for the King to be called the head is not vnusuall in scripture 1. Sam. 15.17 Saul is sayd to be the head of the tribes Psal. 18.43 Dauid the head of the nations Isay. 9.15 The Prince or honourable man the head of the people yea Princes are called Gods Psal. 82.2 which is a name of greater Soueraigntie then to be called heads
scripture 1. Deut. 17.12 He that harkeneth not vnto the priest that man shal die But mark I pray you what goeth before v. 11. according to the law which they shal teach thee according to the iudgement which they shall tell thee shalt thou do see then here is no absolute iudicial power giuen to the priest but according to the law of God 2. The example of the Apostles Act. 15. is as fōdly alleadged where it was decreed saith the Iesuite that the Gētiles shuld not be burthened with ceremonies which saith hee was not determined by the scriptures but by the absolute suffrages of the Apostles Again their decrees were absolutely imposed vpon the Churches without any further examination of the Disciples Ergo we are now also absolutely bound to obey all decrees of Councels Bellar. de concil 1.18 We answere first it is false that this matter was determined without scripture for Iames alleadgeth scripture Peter thus reasoneth we beleeue through the grace of God to be saued as wel as they v. 11. therfore what need this yoke of ceremonies 2. Though there had been no scripture who seeth not that the spirit of God so ruled the Apostles that their writings and holy actions should serue for scripture vnto the ages following Thirdly the Disciples needed not to examine their decrees knowing that they were gouerned by the spirit as they themselues write It seemed good to vs and the holy Ghost yet we see the brethren of Bereae searched the scripture for the trueth of those things which the Apostles preached Act. 17.11 When they can proue such a plenarie power fulnes of the spirit in their pastors and Councels as was in the Apostles we wil also beleeue them The Protestantes WE doe firmly beleeue that neither the Church nor Councels haue any such absolute power to determine without the holy scriptures either beside or agaynst them or to binde other men to obey such decrees Neither that the true Church of God dare or will arrogate such power vnto it self But that Councels are ordayned for the discussing deciding of doubtful matters according to the scriptures and word written 1. If the Apostles preachings might bee examined according to scripture much more the acts of all other Bishops and pastors But that was lawful in the Disciples of Berea Act. 17.11 which are commended for it therefore called noble couragious Christians because of this their promptnes diligence in searching out of the truth Ergo. 2. All things necessarie to saluation to be beleeued are articles of our fayth but al such articles must be grounded vpon the word of God therfore nothing can be imposed as necessary to saluation without the word of God Wherefore it is a blasphemous saying of the papists that the Church may make new articles of fayth Rhemens annot in 1. Tim. 3. sect 9. and Eckius maintained the same poynt agaynst Luther in the disputation at Lipsia and brought forth a new article of faith agreed of in the Councel of Constance that it is de necessitate salutis of the necessitie of saluation to beleeue that the Pope is the head of the Church The fathers of Basile more modest then so concluding that it was an article of fayth to beleeue that Councels were aboue the Pope doe vse this reason those things say they which we alleadge for the superioritie of general Councels are gathered out of the sayings of our Sauiour Christ. Ergo we are al bound to obey them Therefore we conclude that the word of God only written is the rule of fayth and al things necessary to be beleeued Rom. 10.10 Fayth commeth by hearing and hearing by the word Councels are to explane and declare articles of faith not to establish new 3 Lastly we will heare Augustine speake Nec tu debes Ariminense neque ego Nicaenū tanquā praeiudicaturus proferre concilium scripturarum authoritatibus c. Neither must I alleadge the Nicen Councel nor you the Arimine I am neither bound to the one nor you to the other let the matter be tried by Scripture cont Maximu Arrianum lib. 3. cap. 14. By this fathers sentence therefore no man is bound of necessitie to be tyed to Councels but the Scripture onely is absolutely to be beleeued THE SEAVENTH QVESTION WHETHER Councels be aboue the Pope or not The Papists THis is a matter yet not fully determined amongst the Papists Neither are error 35 they all of one opinion In the Councell of Constance and Basile it was fully concluded that the Councell is aboue the Pope Gerson of Paris that was also present in the Councell of Constance and a great dooer against Iohn Hus stifly maintaineth the authoritie of Councels aboue the Pope Other Papists more fauorable to their new God amight say that the Pope is by right aboue the Councell but he may if he wil submit himselfe to the Councell But now commeth in the stoute Iesuite and saith with the rest of the schoolemen that the Pope hath such a soueraigntie aboue the Councell that he cannot be subiect to their sentence though hee would Bellar. de concil lib. 2.14 Yet hee is in a mammering with himselfe for saith he in periculo schismatis when there is a schisme and it is not knowne who is the true Pope in such a case the Councell is aboue the Pope Let vs examine some of his best reasons 1 Now commeth in a great blasphemie All the names saith the Iesuite that are giuen to Christ in the Scriptures as head of the Church are ascribed to the Pope as he is called fidelis dispensator Luc. 12. a faithfull steward in the Lords house pastor gregis Iohn 10. the shepheard of the flocke Caput corporis ecclesiae Ephes. 4. the head of his bodie the Church vir seu sponsus Ephes. 5. the husband or spouse of the Church all these titles saith he are due to the Pope Ergo he is aboue the Church and so consequently aboue generall Councels Bellar. de concil lib. 2.17 O Lord what great blasphemie is here to appropriate the titles of Christ to a mortall man But goe to Bellarmine and the rest of that packe fil vp the measure of iniquitie of your forefathers say with Pope Athanasius that the people of the world are the partes of his bodie with Cornelius the Bishop in the Councell of Trent the Pope being the light came into the world and men loued darkenes rather then light with Pope Calixtus in the Councell of Rhemes who when hee saw the Councell would not consent to excommunicate the Emperour impiously cried out that they had forsaken him as Christ was left of his Disciples with Innocentius the third that all things in Heauen and earth and vnder the earth doe bowe the knee vnto him with Otho no Pope but a Cardinall that sitting amongst his Bishops blasphemously applied to himselfe the vision of Ezechiel cap. 1. resembling the Bishops to the sower faced beasts himselfe vnto God that approched to the
the Pope or any else bee the head the Church is his bodie which Bellarmine is a shamed to graunt yet Pope Athanasius doubted not to call populos mundi partes corporis sui the people of the Worlde the partes of his bodie Againe if he be the head hee must doe the duetie of an head which is to knit and ioyne the parts together and to giue effectuall power to euery part Ephes. 4.16 Where the Apostle alludeth to the gouernement of mans bodie in the which the parts receiue a double benefite from the head the knitting and ioyning together by sinewes which come from the head and sense and motion also giuen to euery part from the head but it were blasphemie to thinke this of the Pope that he giueth any influence to the Church If they answer he is but a ministeriall head Christ is the principall We say againe that although these things are principallie wrought by the principall head yet they must bee done instrumentally or Ministerially by the Ministeriall head or else it is but a rotten head such an one as the Wolfe found in a caruers shop as you knowe the fable is a goodly head saith hee but without wit or braine If Christ performe all the duetie of the head himselfe then is there no other head if the Pope doe somewhat that belongeth to the head tell vs what is it If hee will bee an head and doe nothing surely hee must needes bee a brainelesse and witlesse head 2 It is a daungerous and impossible thing to haue the charge of all Churches committed to one man GOD alone is sufficient to beare that burthen Saint Paule saith who is sufficient for these things No pastor or minister that is but set ouer one flocke or parish is sufficient to preach the worde much lesse is any one man sufficient to gouerne the whole Church Bellarmine answereth first Saint Paul saith of himselfe that hee had the care of all Churches 2. Corinth 11.28 We replie againe first then belike Saint Paul was vniuersall pastor and not Peter Secondly wee must consider that the Apostles were sent to all the world their calling was not limited when they had planted the Gospell in one place they did take care also for other places but now there is no such Apostolicall calling Thirdly Paul did not beare this burthen alone but the Apostles and Euangelists were his coadiutors and fellow-helpers Secondly sayth he why may not the care of the whole Church bee committed to one man as well as the gouernment almost of the whole world was appointed by God to Nabuchadnezzar Cyrus Augustus seeing the gouernement of the Church is easier then the ciuill and politike regiment We replie First wee neuer reade of any that had dominion ouer the whole world as the Pope chalengeth to haue ouer the whole Church which is dispersed throughout the world Secondly these great and large Monarches are saide to haue been giuen of God Dan. 2.37 Not that this large dominion and vsurpation ouer other countries so much pleased God for the people of God the Israelites in their most flourishing estate neuer had such soueraigntie ouer other countries but by voluntarie subiection as in Solomons dayes 1. King 4.21 the Kings round about brought presents vnto him But because the Lord turned and vsed this their large and mightie dominion to the good of his Church for Cyrus was a defender of the Church against all that bare euill will thereat and the large Empire of the Romans serued very commodiously for the propagation of the Gospell Thirdly the Iesuite sheweth his skill when he saith that the regiment of the Church is easier then the gouernement of the common-wealth Whereas there is no greater and waightier burthen vpon earth then is the charge of soules It seemeth the Pope taketh his ease finding the care of the Church to be so easie and pleasant a thing in deede as he vseth it it is no great matter for hee preacheth not but giueth himselfe to ease and idlenes and all princely pleasures But England hath found by experience and so did that worthie and famous Prince King Henry the eight that there was neuer matter so hardlie compassed as was the reformation of the Church and the suppression of idolatrie and superstition in this lande Augustine saith Nemo nostrum se episcopum episcoporum constituit aut quasi tyrannico terrore ad obsequēdi necessitatem collegas suos adigit de Baptis 2.2 None of vs doth count himselfe a Bishop ouer other Bishops or taketh vpon him after a commaunding manner as tyrants vse to enforce his fellowes to obey Ergo by his iudgement all Bishops are of like and equall authoritie THE SECOND QVESTION WHETHER PETER were the chiefe and Prince of the Apostles and assigned by Christ to bee head of the Church The Papists THis our aduersaries doe stiffelie maintaine that he was not only head of the error 37 Church but of the Apostles also Bellarmi lib. 1. de pontif cap. 11. And the Rhemists doubt not to call him the chiefe and Prince of the Apostles 1. Corinth 9. ver 5. 1 Wee will omitte manie of their waightie arguments as out of these and such like places I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy faith should not fayle cast forth thy net into the deepe I will make thee a Fisher of men Peter payed toll for Christ and himselfe Peter drew the net to the land full of great fish Peter onely drew out his sword in the defence of Christ. Ergo Peter was the Prince of the Apostles and head of the Church ex concil Basilien Fox pag. 673. Such other goodlie arguments our Rhemists doe make Peter did excommunicate Ananias and Sapphira he healed the sicke by his shadow Ergo he was the head of the Church Annot. 5. Acts se. 5.8 Againe Peters person was garded with foure quaternions of Souldiours Act. 12.4 the Church prayed for him Ibid. sect 4. Paul nameth Cephas 1. Cor. 9.5 Ergo hee was chiefe of the Apostles Are not here goodlie arguments thinke you To these reasons I neede make no other answere then that which our learned countrie man dooth in his Annotations You must saith he bring better arguments or else children will laugh you to scorne Fulk Annot. Act. 5. sect 5. Let vs see therefore if they haue any better arguments 2 They take that to be a maine inuincible place for them Matth. 16.18 Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I builde my Church Ergo the Church is built vpon Peter To make this argument the more strong they set vnder it diuerse props First why did Christ giue Peter this name more then to any other of the Apostles to call him Peter of Petra a Rocke but to shew that hee was appointed to be the foundation of the Church Bellarmine cap. 17. Wee answer Christ hereby signified that Peter should bee a principall piller of his Church as the rest of the Apostles Ephes. 2. He chaunged also the
would keepe the common and knowne name of the place that it might be out of doubt what Church he ment as for the name of Babylon to be ascribed to Rome though it were so mysticallie yet was it not so called for why might not Paule as well haue written his Epistle to the Romanes vnder that name the Church of Babylon as Peter wrote from thence 2 Agayne they alleadge that storie how Peter ouercame Simon Magus at Rome when he would haue taken his flight into the ayre hauing made himselfe wings and by the prayer of Peter was brought downe agayne and brake his legges and so dyed whereupon Nero being offended with Peter would haue apprehended him who being counsailed by the Church would haue fled from Rome but meeting Christ at one of the gates and saying vnto him whether goest thou Lord And he answered I come agayne to be crucified Peter vpon those words returned backe agayne and was crucified for the testimonie of Iesus Bellarm. cap. 2.3 We answere First we denye not that Peter was at Rome but shewe only the insufficiencie of their arguments and agayne we moue such doubts as by them are yet vnanswered as afterward shall be shewed Secondly concerning this storie of the victorie ouer Simon Magus they that doubt of Peters being at Rome may also doubt of this neither of them being necessarie to be beleeued as articles of faith but probable and coniecturall as matters of storie For some part of the storie is denyed by Augustine as how Peter fasted vpon the Saturday the combat betweene him and Simon Magus following vpon the Lords day after and thereupon rose the custome of the Saturday fast among the Romanes Est quidem saith he haec opinio plurimorum quamuis eam perhibeant esse falsam plerique Romani This is saith he a probable opinion of many concerning Peters fast yet the Romanes themselues thinke it to be false 3 That concerning Christs apparition to Peter seemeth to bee most vnlike of all and sauoureth somewhat of the Popish Legends Like vnto this are the tales of S. Christopher how he caried Christ and how S. Gregorie had him for one of his ghests at his table of hospitalitie such visions and apparitions of Christ are contrarie to the scriptures which say that the heauens must conteyne him till his comming agayne Bellarmine answereth first by this meanes wee doe compedes Christo inijcere wee fetter Christ in heauen We answere belike then heauen is a prison with the Iesuite God send all that are his such a prison at the length Agayne Christ is no otherwise concluded and shut vp in heauen then as it pleaseth himselfe and as he hath appoynted so to be 2 He obiecteth that Christ appeared neere vnto the earth to Paule We answere First there is no such thing proued out of the text but rather the contrarie that the voyce was heard from heauen not neere the earth but aboue Act. 22.6 Secondly Paule heard a voyce onely he sawe no man neither he nor the companie with him Act. 9.7 8. But onely a great light they sawe shining from heauen Act. 22.6 9. Therefore out of this place they cannot prooue any such real apparition of Christ. 3 Peter dyed at Rome his sepulchre is to be seene there to this day Ergo he was at Rome Bellarm. cap. 3. We answere First it followeth not if Peter were buried at Rome that therefore he dyed there for the translation of the bones and bodies of Martyrs is no vnusuall thing in your Church As it followeth not because Iohn Baptists head as you say is to be seene at S. Siluesters at Rome that therefore he dyed there so neither doth it followe of S. Peter 2 Agayne how shall wee beleeue you that it is S. Peters Sepulchre which is shewed at Rome seeing you haue made so many mockeries alreadie making the world beleeue that Peters bodie is sometime in one place sometime in an other Half his bodie you say is at S. Peters in Rome halfe at S. Paules his head at S. Iohn Laterane his neather iawe with the beard at Poicters in France many of his bones at Trieirs at Geneua part of his brayne You see that we may as well doubt whether Peters bodie bee at Rome as in any of these places And such as you see are our aduersaries arguments for Peters being at Rome The Protestants COncerning Peters being at Rome First wee doe not vtterly denye it but onely affirme that he could not come thither so soone as in the second yeare of Claudius and sit there so long namely fiue and twentie yeares as they hold Secondly it may bee graunted that he was there as a matter of storie not an article of faith Thirdly wee haue certayne doubts and arguments about some circumstances of his being there which our aduersaries are not able to answere 1 There is great disagreeing amongst the writers concerning the time of Peters comming to Rome Orosius sayth hee came thither in the beginning of Claudius raigne Hierome saith the 2. yeare of his raigne other say the fourth yeare other the thirteenth yeare Damasus would haue him come thither in Nero his raigne This dissention of writers sheweth that the matter may be iustly doubted of Fulk in Rom. 16. sect 4. Bellarmine and the Iesuites answere No more doe all agree concerning the time when the world was created nor for the storie of Christs life in what time euery thing was done when he suffered and such like yet it followeth not that those things were not true because there is some diuersitie about the time Rhemist 1. Pet. 5.13 Wee replie First most of these things concerning the chronologie of scripture though it be not necessarie to saluation yet by diligent search may be found in scripture Secondly if they can shewe any scripture for Peters being at Rome as we haue for the other stories we will beleeue it though the time perfectly be not knowne but seeing the scripture maketh no mention at all of his being there and the time is vncertayne we may worthilie doubt of it much lesse are bound necessarilie to beleeue it 2 The storie of Peters comming to Rome in the second yeare of Claudius his abiding at Rome fiue twentie yeres his death and martyrdome in the 14. yere of Nero and the 37. yeare after Christs ascension we proue out of the scriptures to bee false For Peter was at Ierusalem and in those quarters round about till 18. yeares after Christ for Paul sawe him there 3. yeares after his calling and agayne 14. yeares after that Galath 2. there is 17. yeares and one yeare was past before Pauls conuersion in all 18. yeares adde vnto these the 25. yeares of Peters being at Rome that maketh 43. yeares and so Peter should suffer in Vespasianus raigne and not in the time of Nero. Bellarmine and the Iesuites answere that Peter was at Rome seauen yeares before the Councel held at Ierusalem Act. 15. which was in the 18.
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
saepe tam diu clamatur vt fiat in Psal. 63. What medicine or plaister wilt thou buie to heale thy sinne Behold euen now while I preach vnto thee change thy heart and it is already done which we so often call vpon you to be done See then by the preaching of the word our heart is chaunged our life amended and our sinne remitted THE SECOND PART TO WHOM THE authoritie of the keyes is committed The Papists error 74 THe authoritie and power of excommunication say they is not in the whole Church but onely in the Prelates neither was the power of binding and loosing giuen vnto the whole church but in their own name not in the name or right of the Church doe the pastors and Prelates exercise this power Remist 2. 1. Corinth 5. sect 3. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Clericis cap. 7. The Church is sayd to binde and loose because the Prelates doe binde loose as a man is said to speake and see though he onely speake with the tongue and see with the eyes 1 They seeme to proue it by S. Paules example 1. Corinth 5. I absent in bodie but present in spirit haue decreed S. Paul vseth here his Apostolike power in sending his letters and Mandatum to haue the incestuous person excommunicate Ergo the right was in him and not in the Church and so consequently in the Bishops his successors Ans. First S. Paul sendeth no Mandatum but sheweth his Apostolike power in decreeing the incestuous person worthy of excommunication and requiring the same to be executed by the Church Fulk 1. Corin. 5. sec. 2. Secondly though Paul gaue the sentence yet was it done both in the power of Christ and the name of the whole Church for he had decreed onely that he should be excommunicate it was not actually done but to the due performing thereof there is required the congregating of the Church in Christs name the presence of Paul in spirit by his apostolike power that it should be done in the name of Christ. Al this sheweth that Paul gaue sentence in the name of the whole Church 2 Paul they say by the preeminent power of his Ministerie pardoneth the incestuous person whom he had excommunicate Rhemist argument in 1. ad Corinth Ans. The text is plaine that he consenteth the Church should pardon him 2. Corinth 2.10 To whom you forgiue any thing I forgiue also Heere not Paul onely but the whole Church pardoneth Fulk ibid. 3 The Iesuites simile may bee returned vpon his owne head for as the eye and tongue in the bodie are but instruments of the life and power of the soule which quickneth the whole bodie so the gouernours of the Church do execute the discipline of the Church by the spirit of Christ which is giuen to the whole bodie The Protestants THe authoritie of excōmunication pertaineth to the whole Church although the execution and iudgement thereof to auoyd confusion be committed to the gouernours of the Church which exercise that authoritie as in the name of Christ so in the name of the whole Church Fulk totidem verbis annot 1. Cor. 5. sect 3. 1 Math. 18.17 If he wil not heare thee tell the Church this place proueth that although the exercising of the keyes be referred to the gouernours of the Church yet the authoritie and right is in the whole Church for the keyes were giuen to the whole Church The pastors and gouernours though they be excellent and principall members of the Church yet are they improperly called the Church Argument Illyrici 2 We conclude the same also out of S. Paules words 1. Cor. 2.21 All things are yours whether Paul Apollos or Cephas whether things present or things to come and ye are Christs and Christ Gods Ergo whatsoeuer power is in the Church it is the Churches not onely the common vse and the benefite thereof because it may be answered that although the keyes be onely granted to the Prelates yet they vse them to the good of the Church but the right also and possession thereof euen as the Church is the inheritance and proper possession of Christ. 3 Augustine consenteth Ecclesia quae fundatur in Christo claues ab eo regni coelorum accepit in Petro. Tract in Iohann 124. The Church which is founded vpon Christ receiued in Peter the keyes of the kingdome of heauen But the whole Church and not onely the Pastors is founded and builded vpon Christ Ergo. THE THIRD PART WHETHER THE PASTORS of the Church haue any absolute power to remit sinnes otherwise then as Ministers onely The Papistes error 75 THey spare not to say that Priests haue full right to remit sinnes and are not ministers onely thereof and dispensers but haue full power as Christ had and he that doubteth of their right herein may as well doubt whether Christ had authoritie as man to remit sinnes Rhemist annot Iohn 20. sect 3. And againe they call it an expresse power and commission yea a wonderfull power which is giuen vnto Priests to remit sinnes and therfore it followeth necessarily that men should submit themselues to their iudgement for release of their sinnes Annot. Iohn 20. sect 5. 1 They reason thus out of our Sauiours owne words Iohn 20.21 As my father hath sent me so I send you He sheweth his fathers commission giuen to himselfe and then in plaine termes most amply imparteth the same to his Apostles But Christ had full right to remit sinnes Ergo also the Apostles and their successors for they haue the same power that Christ had Rhemist annot Iohn 20. sect 3. Ans. First it is great presumption and spoken without any ground to say that Christ by sending his Apostles into the world gaue them as full large and ample commission as he himselfe had for neither the Pope in whom remaineth as they say the Apostolike authoritie by their owne confession can doe all that Christ did as to ordaine and institute Sacraments and Christ say they might forgiue sinnes without the Sacraments which the Pope cannot doe and so consequently neither the Apostles whose full iurisdiction he hath in this behalfe Bellarm. de pontif lib. 5. cap. 4. Secondly the power therefore here granted to the Apostles is in the name of Christ to declare and pronounce remission of sinnes according to the wil of God not properly in their owne power to release or absolue sinners 2 He breathed vpon them and gaue them the holy Ghost vers 22. Therefore he that denieth the Priests authoritie to forgiue sinnes he must denye the holy Ghost to be God and not to haue power to remit sinnes Rhem. ibid sect 4. Ans. What a blasphemous consequence is this The holy Ghost hath absolute power to forgiue sinnes Ergo the Apostles also and all other Priests haue the same power First by this meanes they make no difference betweene the fulnes of power in our Sauiour Christ and the communication of that power to other Ministers of Christ it is sayd that the
Bellarmine answereth Princes doe rule ouer their subiects as men not as Christians and Kings are set ouer the people not as they are Christians but politike persons so the Prince is head of the kingdome not of the Church De pontif Rom. lib. 1. cap. 7. Ans. Stephen Gardiner taketh away this cauill very sufficiently we will set one Papist against another It is all one sayth he to call the Prince head of the Church of England and head of the Realme of England for if all Englishmen be his subiects why are they not his subiects as they are Christians If the wife or seruant bee subiect to the master or husband being infidels doth their conuersion or name of Christians make them lesse subiect then they were before Haec ille Againe how farre is this I pray you from Anabaptistrie to say that subiects onely as men not as Christians are in subiection to Princes for doth it not followe hereupon that as Christians they ought to haue no superiour or Magistrate 2 It is sufficient for vs that this title more fitly and properly belongeth to euery Prince in his owne kingdome thē to the Pope for the Pope can in no wise be head of the Church he is not the mysticall head neither dare they say so for Christ onely is the head in that manner neither can he be the Ministeriall head of the vniuersall Church for the Catholike Church is a bodie mysticall must needes haue a mysticall head neither is he the politicall head of any particular Church for no Bishop can be a politicall head because he that is the head and chiefe must haue a coactiue power to binde his subiects to obedience so hath not any Bishop The Prince onely beareth the sword and enforceth obedience Againe in a farre diuers sense is the Prince called the head then the Pope was for first the Pope challenged to be head of the vniuersal Church but the prince is chiefe only in his owne kingdome Secondly the Pope would be an absolute head to doe all vpon earth that Christ did yea and more to to bind and loose at his pleasure to depose Kings to dispense with the word of God to constitute and make lawes at his pleasure in so much that one of his clawback flatterers is not ashamed to say of him Christus Papa vnum faciunt consistorium excepto peccato potest Papa quasi omnia facere quae potest Deus Christ and the Pope make but one Consistorie keepe but one court sinne onely excepted the Pope in a manner can doe all things that God can doe But we doe limit the power of the Prince who is not to impose any lawes vpon the Church but such as are agreeable to the word of God neither doe we make him a spirituall officer as the Pope would be but a ciuill gouernour who by positiue lawes is to prouide for the peace and welfare of the Church Lastly S. Peter sayth Submit your selues to the King as the chiefe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or most excelling what is this els but as to the head what is it to be chiefe but to be head But we will not much contend for the name so they will grant vs the thing namely that the Prince is a commander euen in Ecclesiasticall matters as Augustine saith In hoc reges Deo seruiunt si mala prohibeant nō solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verumetiam quae ad diuinam religionem Cont. Crescon lib. 3. cap. 5. In this Kings doe good seruice to God if they forbid euill to be done not onely in matters pertaining to humane societie but in things concerning religion As for the title to bee called head let them cease to call their chiefe Bishop so who hath no right vnto it and we will promise also to lay it downe though in good sense we might vse it though the Pope had neuer layd claime thereunto THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERNING THE authoritie of the Prince in punishing heretikes WE doe willingly grant that obstinate heretikes and peruerters of the faith if they persist in their damnable opinions and remaine incorrigible may and ought to be cut off and punished by death to make others to feare so Seruetus at Geneua and one Valentinus at Berne both monstrous heretikes not amongst the Papists but by the Protestants were worthily put to death In this therfore we and our aduersaries agree that heretikes may be punished by death by the ciuill Magistrate If Luther or any other haue held any priuate opinion to the contrarie let them answere for themselues but although we vary not in the principall yet there are certaine circumstances and accessaries greatly material wherein they both dissent from vs and from the truth 1 They would haue the Magistrate onely to be their executioner the iudgement of heresie they say belongeth to the Church for they cited examined iudged disgraded condemned heretikes and then gaue them ouer to the secular error 102 power this was the common practise of their Church But we hold that the hearing iudgement sentence and condemnation of heretikes belongeth to the ciuill Magistrate as well as the execution because these actions are proper to the ciuill sword which the Magistrate beareth Rom. 13. and Deut. 17.5 The false Prophets and Idolaters were brought to the gates of the citie where the ciuill Magistrate was wont to sit Augustine is of the same mind Cur in veneficos vigorē legū exerceri iuste fatentur in haereticos schismaticos nolunt fateri Cont. epist. Parmen 1.7 Why doe they grant that the vigour of the law may iustly be executed vpon witches and not as well vpon heretikes and schismatikes But the causes of witches are heard iudged and handled before the ciuill Magistrate Ergo also the cause of heretikes Augustines reason is out of the 5. Galath 20. The works of the flesh are manifest which are adulterie fornication idolatrie witchcraft and heresies are also reckoned vp amongst All these are workes of the flesh Ergo the Magistrate being appoynted to punish euill doers hath as full right to deale against them all as some 2 We differ about the way and meanes to try an heretike by They affirme that he is an heretike onely that is so iudged by a generall Councel or the sentence error 103 of the chiefe pastors of the Church they would haue an heretike tryed by the constitutions and Canons of their Church Annot. Tit. 3. sect 2. Rhemist We say that an heretike is to be conuicted by the scriptures and that he that holdeth any opiniō obstinately against the manifest authoritie of scripture may be iudged an heretike without a generall Councel So Augustine writeth answering the Pelagians who obiected that they were condemned without a Synode Ac si congregatione synodi opus erat vt aperta pernicies damnaretur quasi nulla haeresis aliquando nisi synodi congregatione damnata sit As though a Synode neede to be
as much as Bernard sayth whose speech they themselues allow In sacrameÌ„to exhiberi veram carnis Christi substantiaÌ„ sed spiritualiter non carnaliter that the very substance of Christs flesh is exhibited vnto vs in the sacrament but spiritually not carnally This Bellarmine acknowledgeth to bee true though hee would not haue the worde spiritually to bee vsed lest it might bee as hee sayth by vs misconstrued This then is our fayth and iudgement that wee are verilie in this sacrament engrafted into the bodie of Christ and doe truely eate his flesh and drink his blood but all this is done spirituallie onely and by faith As for their carnall eating and deuouring of Christ we vtterlie reiect and condemne it Argum. 1. In the receiuing of the sacrament there is a double coniunction we are ioyned to Christ make one body also amongst our selues so saith S. Paul 1. Cor. 10.16.17 We are made partakers of the body of Christ and wee that are many are one bread and one body but our participation with the mysticall bodie of Christ is spirituall Ergo also our communication with his naturall body Fulk in hunc locum Arg. 2. If the body of Christ be in the sacrament theÌ„ is it eaten torne with the teeth And what is eaten goeth into the belly is cast out into the draught Mark 7.19 I pray you what is now become of the body of Christ doth it passe the same way that other meates doe Bellarm. answereth lib. 1. cap. 11. ad argum 5. that they are the accidents of the bread and wine which are eaten and chawen or rent by the teeth not the body of Christ and yet the body of Christ goeth down into the stomack but no further but when the formes of bread wine begin to be corrupted there the body of Christ goeth away Bellarm. cap. 14. Ans. 1. This is new learning that the accidents of meate are chawen in the mouth not the meate it selfe that the formes only not the substance is altred corrupted in the stomack Say also that men are nourished with accidents not with the substance If the priest chance to drink too deepe of the chalice and so become drunk I pray you what is it that maketh him so light headed Is it think you the accidents onely of wine Surely a drunken man would not say it If a Mouse chance to creepe into your pixe and fil her hungry belly with your God-amight what is it that the Mouse feedeth vpon trow you they bee accidents onely for you say that the consecrated host goeth no further then the stomack and yet it is too much that the housel of Christians should be housed in a mouses belly These are but ridiculous and light questions yet such as haue troubled your grauest and sagest heads and remayne vnanswered 2. Bellarmin denieth that the body of Christ being eaten goeth any further then the stomack But our Rhemists goe further they say that we are made a peece of his body and blood They should rather haue sayd that his body and blood is made a peece of vs being conuerted into our substance But silly men we pitie them If we should presse them still with these questions they would sooner run mad then find out any reasonable and sober answere for vs. Argum. 3. Christ in his flesh is ascended vp to heauen and there must remayne till his comming againe Act. 3.21 Agayne he saith The poore you shal haue alwayes but me alwayes you cannot haue Mark 14. Ergo Christ being now in his humanity in heauen cannot bee present in the sacrament vpon earth Bellarmine answereth that the carnall presence of Christ doth not draw him out of heauen his naturall bodie remaineth there still yet by his omnipotent power he can make his bodie to be in many places at once cap. 14. Ans. If Christs bodie be in heauen and in earth and in many places at once it must either be his owne naturall bodie which was borne of the Virgine Mary or he must euery day create himselfe a new bodie but this were to too absurd to be granted that euery day there should be a new Christ. Neither can the first be admitted for a natural bodie hath a natural presence but so hath not Christs bodie in the Sacrament for it is not there naturally being without shape or forme neither visible nor sensible And how can it stand with the propertie of a true naturall bodie to be in a thousand places at once for so must Christs needs be and in more too seeing he is kept and hanged vp in euery popish Church And further if totus Christus whole Christ be in the Sacrament both with his bodie and soule you must either graunt that there are many whole Christs seeing he is in many places at once or els if there be but one whole Christ his humanitie must be dispersed euery where as his Godhead is and so are you against your wils become Vbiquitaries Hearken what Augustine sayth Cauendum est ne ita diuinitatem adstruamus hominis vt veritatem corporis auferamus We must take heede we doe not so maintaine the diuine nature of the man Christ that we take away the nature of his bodie Argum. 4. The fathers in the law did eate the same spiritual meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke in their Sacraments that we doe 1. Corinth 10.2.3 but they did not eate the flesh of Christ nor drinke his blood but onely spiritually by faith Ergo no more doe we Argum. 5. There remained wine still after the consecration and distribution amongst the Apostles for Christ saith He will drinke no more of the fruite of the vine Math. 26.29 So S. Paul calleth the other element bread after the consecration 1. Corinth 10.17 We that are many are one bread because we are partakers of one bread Likewise cap. 11.26 Ergo there remaineth still bread and wine in the Sacrament And therefore no bodie of Christ for they cannot be there both together as they teach Lastly we must vnderstand that this their deuised and forged opinion of the reall presence of Christ is of no antiquitie in the Church neither was there any question about it for a 1000. yeeres after Christ til the time of Berengarius who liued about Anno. 1060. who was sore troubled for maintaining the truth against the carnall presence and vnder Pope Leo the 9. and Nicholas the 2. was constrained twise to recant yet there was no publique lawe or decree made in the Church concerning transubstantiation till the Councel of Laterane which was held vnder Pope Innocent the 3. Anno. 1215. And that this grosse opinion fauoureth not a whit of antiquitie it may appeaâ—e by the resolute iudgement of Augustine Sacramenta ex similitudine ipsarum rerum nomina habent secundum quendam moduÌ„ sacramentuÌ„ corporis Christi corpus Christi est c. The Sacraments because of some likenes doe beare the
lier Augustine sayth of Christ Secundum corporalem praesentiam simul in sole luna cruce esse non potest Christ according to his corporall presence cannot be in the Sunne the Moone and vpon the Crosse all at one time And concerning the other poynt he writeth thus Spatia locorum tolle corporibus nusquam erunt quia nusquam erunt nec erunt Take away space of place from bodies and they shall be no where and if they be in no place then are they not at all Argum. 2. The reall and carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament is a thing superfluous needles and vnprofitable First the fauour of God in the remission of sinnes through Christ is as well sealed vnto vs in Baptisme as in the Lords Supper what neede then the carnal presence in the one more then in the other Secondly that Christ is in bodie present in the Sacrament is not perceiued by any sense for they neither tast him see him nor feele him it must be then a worke of faith but by faith Christ is as well apprehended being absent as being supposed in this manner to be present Ergo this kind of presence is needles Argum. 3. It is an inglorious vnworthie and vnseemely thing that the glorious and impassible bodie of Christ should be inclosed in the formes of bread and wine deuoured and chawed eaten and gnawed of mice subiect to mould and rottennes to be spilt vpon the ground burnt in the fire for all these inconueniences must needes follow vpon the carnall presence Bellarm. It is no more inglorious or impossible for these things now to happen to the bodie of Christ thē it was for him to be carried in his mothers womb to be swathed in swadling bands and to be subiect to iniuries which were done to his bodie vpon earth Ans. First as though there be the like reason of the passible bodie of Christ while he liued in the world which was buffeted whipped pearced with nayles crucified and of his glorious and impassible bodie now that it may in like manner be rent and diuided Secondly neither was it possible that Christs passible bodie should be subiect to the like infirmities as to rottennes corruption consumption in the fire as his bodie is now in the Sacrament If it were then verified in Christ Thou shalt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption for his bodie did not putrifie or corrupt in the graue much more is it true in the glorious bodie of Christ that it cannot suffer any such things How then are you not ashamed to affirme that the bread and wine are made in the Sacrament the very bodie and blood of Christ seeing those elements if they be kept long will waxe sower and mouldie and fall to corruption which things once to thinke of the glorious bodie of Christ were great impietie Leaue off for shame then these your grosse opinions so much derogatorie to the glorie and honour of Christ. THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERNING Transubstantiation The Papists IF any man shall say that there remaineth the substance of bread and wine in the Sacrament after the words of consecration or shall denye that the whole error 115 substance of bread is changed and conuerted into the bodie of Christ and the whole substance of wine into the blood of Christ the formes and shewes onely of bread and wine remaining which singular and miraculous conuersion the Church calleth Transubstantiation let him be accursed Concil Tridentin sess 13. can 2. Bellarm. lib. 3. de sacra euchar cap. 19. Rhemist Matth. 17. sect 1. Argum. 1. Christ transfigured his bodie marueilously in the Mount as wee reade Math. 17. sect 1. Ergo he is able to exhibite his bodie vnder the formes of bread and wine Rhemist Ans. First your argument followeth not Christ could giue a glorious forme to his passible bodie Ergo he can take away the essentiall properties of his naturall bodie and yet keepe a true bodie stil. Or thus Christ could glorifie his bodie not yet glorified Ergo he can or will dishonour his glorious impassible bodie by enclosing it vnder the formes of base creatures to be deuoured of dogs and mice which is honoured and worshipped of the Angels and Saints in heauen Secondly the question is not so much of Christs power as of his will therefore you conclude not aright Christ is able to doe it Ergo he will Argum. 2. He that seeth water turned into wine by the power of Christ need not to doubt how he changeth bread into his bodie Rhemist Ioh. 2. sect 2. Ans. First when you can bring any warrant out of scripture for your imagined conuersion as we haue for this miracle we will giue eare vnto you Secondly and when it shall appeare to the senses that the bread is changed into flesh as the water was knowne to be turned into the wine by the colour and tast we shall then no more doubt of this conuersion of the bread then they did of the other of water Thirdly if Christ could alter and change the substances of creatures what reason haue you to giue such an omnipotent power to euery priest with a fewe words to doe as much as Christ himselfe could when he was present Fourthly all this proueth but an abilitie and power in Christ not a will or purpose to worke any such change or conuersion Argum. 3. Though the substance of bread and wine be chaunged yet the formes remaine still for these causes First because if the formes also should be changed there should be no sensible signe left and so no Sacrament Secondly the faith of the receiuer is the better tried this way who beleeueth the flesh of Christ to be present though he see it not Thirdly Christ would not haue the formes altered because man abhorreth to eate humane flesh in the proper shape Bellarm. cap. 22. Ans. First your first reason is insufficient for neither doe the bare and naked signes or accidents of the elements make a Sacrament but the substance of thē for betweene the Sacrament and the thing thereby represented there ought to be some conueniencie and agreement namely as the bodie is nourished by bread and wine so doth the soule feed vpon the bodie and bloud of Christ. But they are not the accidents of bread and wine that nourish vs but the substance Ergo not the accidents but the substance is the visible signe Likewise in Baptisme it is not the forme or outward accident of water that is the signe but the substance of water that washeth 2. It is a more liuely operation of faith to beleeue in Christ absent in heauen then present in earth although he appeare not to the senses And Christ is indeed properly the obiect of faith as he is now in heauen Hope saith the Apostle entreth into that which is within the vaile whither our forerunner Iesus is entred for vs Heb. 6.19 Faith and hope therefore doe leade vs to things within the vaile that is things
of the question First whether wicked men and infidels be true members of the Church Secondly whether the Catholike Church be inuisible 2 Whether the Catholike Church may erre and whether the visible Church may fayle vpon earth 3 Concerning the true notes and markes of the Church 4 Of the authoritie of the Church two partes First whether the Church haue authoritie in matters of faith beside the Scriptures and whether we ought to beleeue in the Church Secondly concerning the ceremonies of the Church 5 Whether the Church of Rome be the true Church two partes First whether it be the Catholike Church Secondly whether the Church of Rome be a true visible Church of these now in their place and order THE FIRST QVESTION OF THE definition of the Catholike Church The Papistes THe Catholike Church say they is a visible companie of men professing the same faith and Religion and acknowledging the Bishop of Rome to be their chief pastor and the Vicare of Christ vpon earth Bellarmin de Eccles. Lib. 3. cap. 2. Canisius capit de praecept Eccles. articul 9. Lindanus lib. 4. cap. 84. The Protestantes THe Catholike and vniuersall Church is the inuisible cōpanie of the faithfull elected and chosen to eternall life Iohn 10.16 A particular Church is a member of the vniuersall and Catholike Church and it is a visible companie and congregation of men amongest whom the pure word of God is preached and the Sacramentes rightly administred in the which visible congregation there may be and are many hypocrites euill and vnfaithfull men found and shal be to the end of the world Ex Amand. Polano So then betweene the vniuersall and particular Church there is a treble difference First the one is dispersed ouer all the world the other in some one country citie or any certaine place Secondly the vniuersall consisteth onely of the elect the particular both of good and bad Thirdly the Catholike is inuisible the other is visible and to be seene The question betweene vs and our aduersaries is about the vniuersall Catholike Church which they do falsly define in three points First they hold that wicked men are true members of the Catholike Church Secondly they allow not this distinctiō of the Church visible and inuisible but do affirme that the Catholike Church is visible Thirdly they make the Catholike Church to be in subiection to the Bishop of Rome Concerning this last point it belongeth to the controuersie of the Bishop of Rome and therefore we will not touch it in this place The other two are now to be handled in this question as two partes thereof THE FIRST PART OF THIS FIRST question whether wicked men and infidels may be true members of the Church The Papistes THey affirme that not onely the predestinate but euē reprobates also may belong vnto the Church and be true members thereof Bellarmin Lib. 3. de error 14 Eccles. cap. 7. Nay they denie that the elect which are vnborne and not yet called do appertaine to the Church of Christ. Rhemistes annot in 1. Tim. 3. Sect. 10. This then is generally their opinion that there is no internal grace or vertue required in the mēbers of the Church but onely the externall and publike outward profession Bellarmin cap. 2. And therefore they doubt not to say that euen wicked men and reprobates remaining in the publike profession of the Church are true members of the body of Christ. Rhemistes annot in Iohan. 15. Sect. 1. 1 They first alledge certaine places of Scripture as Math. 3. the Church is compared to a barne floore where there is both chaff and corne Math. 13. to a net cast into the sea where all manner of fish are gathered together 2. Tim. 2. to a house wherein there be vessels of honor and dishonor Ergo both good bad are members of the Church Bellarmin cap. 7. lib. 3. We aunswere All these places must be vnderstood of the visible Church which is knowen by the publike preaching of the word and therefore Math. 3. compared to a fanne and Math. 13. to a draw net the Apostles pastors and teachers are the fisher men Wherefore we denie not but that wicked men may be in the Church but not of it yea they may be members of the visible Church for a time but can not be truly ingraffed into the body of Christ. Fulk annot Iohan. 15. Sect. 1. 2 The Church say they is compared to a body 1. Cor. 12. as in the body there are some partes which haue neither sense nor life so in the Church there are some mēbers which haue neither faith nor charitie which is the life of the Church Ergo wicked men may be right members of the Church Bellarm. cap. 10. there may be also some fruitlesse braūches in the vine and so euill men may be members of Christ. Rhemist annot 15. Iohan. 1. euery braunch not bearing fruit in me shal be cast forth Ergo there may be fruitlesse braūches in Christ. We answere to the first who would haue said as the Iesuite doth that there are partes in the body that receiue neither life nor sense of the body doth he meane the nayles and heares as he seemeth to geue instance in the end of the Chapter but they are no partes of the body but excrements he is so deepe in his sophistrie that he hath forgotten Philosophie and yet they receiue some gift from the body for they grow encrease but the wicked receiue no grace at all from the Church The Rhemistes yet are more reasonable that say the wicked in the church are as ill humors and superfluous excrements in the body rather then liuely partes therof 1. Iohan. 2. Sect. 10. To the second is a dead bow or a braunch I pray you any part of the tree I thinke not the tree can not conueniently spare any one of the partes therof but the dead partes are hurtfull and combersome and it doth the tree good to cut them of But that they haue preuented vs we would haue vsed no better argument against them then this drawen from the resemblance of a mans body for as what is in the body receiuing no life nor power from the body is not properly a part of the body howsoeuer it seeme to be ioyned to the body so the wicked although they be in the outward face of the Church yet because they are not partakers of the spirituall life thereof by Christ are not truly to be iudged members of it 3 If wicked men should not be right members of the Church but the faithfull and predestinate we should be vncertaine which is the true Church which is not to be admitted because the whole doctrine and all the principles of Religion do depend of the testimonie of the Church Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 10. We aunswere First although it is necessarie that the true Church should be certainly knowen yet not for that cause which the Iesuite pretendeth for the Religion of Christians is grounded vpon the Scriptures
that faith was requisite to make a true member of the church here he saith that without faith a mēber cā not be knowen much lesse therfore made 3 The Rhemistes confesse in these very words that in the raigne of their imagined and supposed Antichrist the externall state of the Romane church and publike entercourse of the faithfull with the same shall cease and that there shal be onely a communion in hart with it and practise in secret Annot. in 2. Thess. 2. Sect. 10. Where then I pray you shal be your tabernaculum in sole ciuitas in monte candela splendens in domo your tabernacle in the sunne your Citie in a mountaine your candle shining in the house that is say you in the world Math. 5. Sect. 3. Ergo out of their owne wordes we conclude that the church shall not alwayes be visible and notoriously knowen in the world Lastly we will conclude with Augustine Aliquando in sola domo Noah Ecclesia erat in solo Abraham Ecclesia erat in solo Loth domo eius Ecclesia erat in solo Henoch Ecclesia erat Sometime the church was onely in Henochs house sometime onely in Noah some time in Abraham alone in Loth his house How then hath the church bene alwayes so visible and notoriously knowē to the world when it hath layen hidden some time in one house yea in one man THE SECOND QVESTION whether the Church may erre THis questiō is deuided into two parts First whether the catholike church may erre at all or not Secondly whether the visible church vpon earth may fall away from God into Idolatrie and apostasie THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE Catholike Church may erre in doctrine The Papistes THey do teach that the catholike church can not possiblie erre not onely in matters absolutely necessarie to saluation but not in any thing which error 16 it imposeth and commaundeth whether it be conteined in the word of God or not yea that it can not erre in these things which beside the word of God are commaunded And by the church here they do meane not onely the Pastors and Bishops but the whole companie of the faithfull so that neither that which all the pastors of the church do teach can be erronious nor what is receiued generally of the whole church Bellarm. de Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 14. Rhemist annot an Iohan. 14. ver 16. 1 The church say they is the pillar of truth 1. Tim. 3. Ergo it can not erre We answere First it is no otherwise the pillar of truth then a virgin without spot and wrincle Ephe. 5.27 As that place doth not priuiledge the church frō all sinne and imperfection of life so neither doth this place exempt her from all error in doctrine Secondly she is called the pillar of truth in respect of vs because the truth is preserued in the true church and is not els where to be found not because the truth dependeth vpon the church for S. Paule sendeth not Timothie in this place to learne of the church as though it could not possiblie be deceiued but saith he these things haue I written that thou mayst know how to behaue thy selfe in the house of God ver 14.15 Ergo the word of God is the rule of truth and the church hath no warrant to be kept from error but as she is lead and gouerned by the word of God Thirdly the argument foloweth not for Peter was a pillar and yet erred Gallat 2.9.11 2 They heape many arguments together The church hath the spirite of God to lead it into all truth the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it Math. 16. God hath geuen it Apostles teachers Euangelistes to keepe it in the truth Ephe. 4. Christ hath prayed for the church that it may be sanctified in the veritie Iohn 17. Christ prayed that Peters faith should not faile Ergo the church can not erre Rhemens annot 1. Timoth. 3.15 We answere euery one of the elect hath the spirite of God neither shall the gates of hell preuaile against the faith of any one of the elect to ouerthrow it Christ prayeth for euery one of his Disciples that they may be sanctified in the truth Iohn 17.20 wherefore it foloweth as well by these arguments that no one faithfull man can fall into error The pastors and teachers so long as they folow the Apostles doctrine may keepe the church from error but it is not gathered out of that place Ephe. 4. that the pastors if they swarue from Gods word can not erre Concerning Peter Christ prayed for him that his faith should not faile in that greeuous tentation which he fell into Secondly he prayed not for him as gouernour of the church but as he prayeth for euery faithfull man Iohn 17.23 Thirdly for all this prayer Peter erred Gallat 2. 3 This argument was vsed in the Councell of Basill the Church is without spot and wrincle Ephe. 5.27 Ergo without error We aunswere First S. Paule speaketh there of a glorious church such as it shal be in the kingdome of heauen not of the church as it is vpon earth so Reuel 7.14 The elders which sat round about the throne which are the Saintes in heauen were seene in long white robes which they had washed white in the bloud of the Lambe 2 It foloweth out of this place that the church is as well without sinne as free from error which the diuines in the Councell did also graunt But seeing by their owne confession euery member of the church being clothed in this mortall flesh sinneth how can the church be without sinne If the church consist of men and all men are sinners how is the church free If all the partes and members be sinnefull how is not the whole also polluted with sinne If all the partes of the body be sicke and diseased how can the whole be sound The church also is not ashamed to confesse her selfe to be blacke Cant. 1.5 she shal be made bewtifull and glorious without all spot blemish in the kingdome of God and euen now also is made righteous and iust before God through Christ not because she hath no sinne but because it is remitted and although some errors and imperfections remaine yet shall they be no hinderaunce to her saluation The Protestantes WE doubt not to say that the church of God may erre in some points not necessarie to saluation but can not fall cleane away from God into any dānable error Fulk annot in Ephe. 5. ver 29. That the church may erre as we say we do shew it thus and by the Church we vnderstand the whole companie and congregation the pastors with the people 1 When our Sauiour Christ suffred the church erred in faith Ergo it may erre the proposition is thus proued The church was either in the Scribes and Pharisies or els in the Apostles but both of them erred they in putting Christ to death the other in their incredulitie not beleeuing rightlie in the
thereof as how he should be crowned with thornes that they should giue him vineger to drinke how the vaile of the temple should be rent darknes should couer the earth for three houres he himself should rise the third day yea she setteth down the very name of the Messiah Iesus Christ. These prophecies came not of the diuell for these mysteries without all doubt were not known to the euill spirits for they were not fully reuealed to the Angels theÌ„selues before the coÌ„ming of Christ. Eph. 3.10 Wherfore we conclude thus that as the gift of prophecying is no sure signe that they are meÌ„bers of the Church elected of God which are endued with it as Christ saith Math 7.22 that many which had prophecied in his name in the day of iudgemeÌ„t should be refused Balaam is set forth as an example of a false Prophet wicked maÌ„ Ep. Iude. 11 so neither is this gift an infallible mark of the Church of God whersoeuer it is fouÌ„d To the second part concerning this miraculous gift which our aduersaries pretend to haue we answere 1. They are but fables which they bring for if al that is reported of Saint Bernard in his life of his miracles and prophecies were true neither S. Paul nor any of the Apostles were to be compared vnto him for number of miracles such casting out of diuels out of men women and children healing of strange diseases foretelling of thinges to come the Gospell almost hath not stranger things of our Sauiour Christ. As for Saint Francis you may gesse by this what spirit he was of that prescribing to his followers a certaine strict order of liuing as to wear no girdle to goe barefoote and such like he called it regulam euangelicam the rule of the Gospell belike making himselfe an other Christ and so bringing in another Gospel for to all Christs Disciples Christs Gospelâ— is sufficient 2. But if they haue any prophecies of credit which they can shew they are such as are reported of Pope Siluester the 2. who had warrant from the diuel that he should not die before he sung Masse in Ierusalem and so it came to passe for hauing sung Masse in a chappell so called he immediately dyed Not much vnlike to this was that of king Henry the 4. who ended his life in a chamber at Westminster called Ierusalem as he had an olde prophecie Edward the 4. also was tolde that his successours name should begin with G. which was the cause of George the Duke of Clarence death his owne brother but the diuelish prophecie notwithstanding tooke place for Richard Duke of Glocester was king after him In like manner Valence the Emperour had a blind prophecie that one should raigne after him whose name began with Theod. which made Theodorus to rebell against him but so it came to passe in deede that Theodosius was Emperour after him Such blinde prophecies we denie not but the popish Church hath had many which as you see doo cause murder sedition and bloodshed but other good prophecies comming of GOD wee knowe them not to haue any 3. Wee denie not but that there haue liued some amongst them in their Church which in those dayes were counted Prophets and Prophetisses as Hildegardis anno 1146. likewise Briget Catherine Seuensis whom Bellarmine reckoneth vp amongst others that wrought miracles cap. 14. but concerning these we wil answere as the Iesuite doth for Sibilla a Prophetisse amongst the heatheÌ„ that she prophecied as touching such matters as should fall out to the Church for a testimonie of the faith of the Christians And so to bee counted herein a Prophetisse of the Church rather than of the heathen cap. 15. so wee say that if those three abouenamed were Prophetisses they were of our Church and not theirs for they prophesied of the decay of their Church and raising vp of ours Hildegardis first prophecied of the beginning of Friers and of their destruction saying that in the end when their gifts and rewards ceased they should goe about their houses like hungrie and madde dogges drawing in their neckes like doues Briget prophesied of the Church of Rome that it should be as a body condemned of a iudge to haue the skinne flayne off and the flesh to bee cut in peeces Catherine de Senis speaketh of a reformation of the Church such a renouation of Pastors that the onely remembrance thereof sayth she mâ—keth my spirite to reioyce in the Lord. All these things we see nowe accomplished the sects of Friers in many places put downe the Popish iurisdiction cast out a notable reformation to be wrought in the Church Our aduersaries I thinke haue not to reioyce in these prophecies neither haue any great cause to chalenge them for their Prophets But I will help them a little and bring to their remembrance a notable Prophetisse of theirs in king Henry the 8. dayes which was one Elizabeth Barton a Nun commonly called the holy mayd of Kent who beeing instructed by the Friers fayned as though she had many reuelations she prophecied that if the king proceeded in his diuorce then in question betweene him and Q. Catherine that hee should not be king one yeare no not one moneth But GOD bee thanked hee liued almoste twenty yeares after that by whom many worthy things were wrought for the good of Christs Church This prophetisse was afterward iustly met withall and worthily suffered for her demerites with all her accomplices amongst the which Fisher B. of Rochester was one who thereupon was imprisoned and forfayted his goods to the King If they will bragge of their Prophets let not the holy mayd of Kent be forgotten in any wise 4. Now lastly because they shall not outface vs with a vaine brag of Prophets I will shew what prophesies the Gospell hath beene adorned withall Was not Iohn Husse a Prophet who thus sayd at his death centum reuolutis annis deo respondebitis after an hundred years you shall giue account of this your doing vnto God Likewise Hierome of Prage post centum annos vos omnes cito I cite you all to make answere after an hundred yeares Which prophesie of theirs tooke effect accordingly for both these holy men suffered martyrdome about anno 1416. and iust an hundred yeares after anno 1516. the Lord raysed vp Luther who indeede called the Pope and his doctrine to account Was not Sauonarola a Prophet that sayd one should passe ouer the Alpes like Cyrus who should destroy all Italie and is it not so come to passe for neither Cyrus nor whosoeuer els could haue more layde wast the popish Italian Church then the word of God hath done and the liuely preaching of the Gospell Walter Brute prophecied that the temporalities should be taken from the Clergie for the multitude of their sinnes this Walter liued in king Richards dayes the second Bilney that constant martyr and faythful seruant of God prophecied that many Preachers should
Notes we would desire no better arguments then those which our aduersaries alleadged against vs for first our notes are proper onely to the Church and cannot bee found in any place where the Church of God is not Secondly they are most notorious markes and a man by the Scriptures may more easely knowe what true doctrine is and which are the right Sacraments then which is the true Church Thirdly these markes can not be absent from the Church but doe alwayes accompanie it and it is no longer a true Church then it hath those markes 2 We are able out of the Scriptures to proue these marks which may stand in stead of many reasons Iohn 10. my sheepe heare my voyce Ephes. 5. clensing it by the washing of water through the word Ergo the Word and Sacraments are true notes of the Church Bellarmine answereth to the first place that the hearing of the word is not a visible note of the Church but a signe vnto euery man whereby he may knowe his election Wee replie agayne looke which way a man is knowne to bee a member of the Church by the same way the Church also it selfe is discerned if the hearing of the word doe make one a sheep of Christ then doth it also shew which is the flocke and fould of Christ As I knowe my hand or foote to bee a part of my bodie because it hath life and motion of the bodie euen so the bodie is discerned from a carkas because it moueth and liueth To the second place he answereth very simply that the Apostle there sheweth not which is the Church but what good Christ hath wrought for his Church We replie againe But the Church is best knowne by the benefites that Christ hath bestowed vpon it amongst the which the Word and the Sacraments are not the least Ergo by these the Church is knowne and in that place by the Apostle described And let the reader iudge whether that place of the Apostle where there is direct mention made of the word and sacraments be not fitly applied to our purpose concerning the description of the Church 3 Let Augustine speake In scripturis didicimus Christum in scripturis didicimus ecclesiam epistol 166. In the scripture we doe learne Christ in the scripture let vs likewise learne the Church His argument is this Looke how Christ is knowne so is his Church but Christ is onely knowne by his word Ergo so is his Church The fourth question of the authoritie of the Church THe Papists affirme that the authoritie of the Church consisteth in these fiue poynts First in authorising the scriptures and defining which are Canonicall Secondly in giuing the sense of the scripture Thirdly in determining matters besides scripture Fourthly in making lawes constitutions for the Church Fiftly in exercising of discipline Concerning the two last we doe not greatly stand with them We acknowledge the Church hath authoritie to make decrees and constitutions but so as the Apostles did Visum est nobis spiritui sancto It seemed good to vs and the holy Ghost the Church must be directed by the wisedome of the spirit speaking in the scriptures We also acknowledge the holesome power of the Church in exercising of holy discipline but it must be done in the name and power of Christ. 1. Cor. 5.4 not according to the will of men Concerning the two first we haue alreadie shewed that neither the Church doth giue authoritie to the word of God but doth take her authoritie from thē for the scriptures are of sufficient credite of themselues 1. controu quaest 4. Neither that the sense of scripture dependeth vpon the interpretation of the scripture but that the word expoundeth it selfe 1. controu quaest 6. There remaineth therefore onely one poynt to be discussed of the authoritie of the Church namely in deciding of matters beside the scriptures which are of two sorts either necessarie appertayning to faith or indifferent concerning ceremonies of both these in their order THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE CHVRCH hath authoritie in matters of faith beside the scriptures The Papists WE ought to take our faith and al necessarie things of saluation at the hands error 24 of our superiours Rhemist Act. 10. sect 8. In poynts not decided by scripture wee must aske counsaile of the Church Praefat. sect 25. The Church is the onely piller and stay to leane vnto in all doubts of doctrine without the which there can be no certaintie nor securitie we must therefore beleeue it and trust it in all things annot 1. Timoth. cap. 3. sect 9. Yea it hath authoritie say they to make newe Articles of faith as in the Councell of Constance it was decreed to be necessarie to saluation to beleeue the Pope to be head of the Church In the Councell of Basile it was made an Article of the faith to beleeue that the Councell was aboue the Pope and therfore Pope Eugenius in not obeying the Councell was adiudged to be an heretike 1 Vpon these words in the Gospel Iohn 15.27 the spirit shall testifie of me and you shall beare witnesse also they conclude thus Ergo the testimonie of the trueth ioyntly consisteth in the holy Ghost and Prelates of the Church Rhemist Iohn 15. sect 8. We answere The witnesse of the spirit and of the Apostles is all one witnesse for the spirit first testifieth the trueth to the Apostles inwardly and the Apostles inspired by the spirite did witnesse it outwardly so the Pastors of the Church witnessing with the spirit which is not now inspired by reuelation but onely found in the scriptures are to bee heard but if the spirit testifie one thing in the word and they testifie another there we must leaue them 2 The Church erreth not Ergo we must heare her in all things Rhem. 1. Timoth 3. sect 9. We answere First the Church may erre if she followe not the scriptures Proued before 2. controu quaest 2. Secondly so long as the Church heareth Christs voyce we are likewise to heare hers and so long as she is preserued from error she will not swarue from Christs precepts neither impose any thing vpon her children without the warrant of her spouse The Protestantes THat the Church hath no such power to ordaine articles of faith or impose matters to be beleeued necessarie to saluation not contayned or prescribed in the holy scriptures We prooue it thus and wee are sure that the true Church of Christ will neuer chalenge any such prerogatiue 1. All truthes and verities in the scriptures are not so necessary to saluation that the ignorance thereof should bring perill of damnation Ergo much lesse are any verities out of scripture of any such necessitie the first is manifest for to know the iust chronologie of time or space of yeares from the beginning of the world to Christ is a veritie in scripture yet not necessary so to beleeue that Marie continued a virgin euer after the birth of our Lord was thought by
sometime in Rome also tribuni plebis the officers for the people had the chiefe authoritie Now of all these in common-wealth matters the first kinde is the best and safest the Monarchical or princely gouernement The question now is whether the same forme ought to bee reteyned in Church-gouernement and in this question certaine things are to bee obserued First that wee haue not to deale in this place with that part of Ecclesiasticall regiment wherein the prince hath interest as in ordayning Ecclesiasticall Lawes and seeing to the execution thereof but the question is onely of that regiment Ecclesiasticall which is proper to the gouernors of the Church which consisteth in the ministerie of the word and Sacraments in ordaining and electing of Church-ministers in the dispensing of the keyes of the Church in the Ecclesiasticall censures and discipline and such like whether in the Church there ought to bee one chiefe Bishop from whom all other receiue this power in the premisses Secondly the question is not of the spirituall gouernement of Christ who is the chiefe Monarch and King of his Church but of the outward and externall regiment vpon earth Thirdly wee speake not of the state of any particular Church either nationall prouinciall or oppidall but of the generall state of the Church whether ouer all Churches there ought to be one chiefe Bishop These things premised wee come now to the question The Papists THat there ought to bee one chiefe Monarch and high Bishop ouer all the Church in all Ecclesiasticall matters for the deciding of controuersies preseruing the vnitie of the Church from whom all other Ecclesiasticall Ministers doe receiue their power and authoritie they thus would proue 1 The militant Church is in all things answerable and correspondent to the triumphant companie in Heauen as Heb. 8.5 Moses was bid to make all things according to the paterne shewed in the Mount But in heauen there is beside God himselfe a Monarch and chiefe commaunder of the Angels euen Michael the Archangel Reuel 12.7 Michael and his Angels fought Ergo it ought to be so vpon earth We answer First the Church vpon earth neither is nor can be altogether like to the celestiall congregation for there is no temple Reuel 21.22 There shall enter no vncleane thing and many such like differences there are We are bid to follow them in holines and obedience so farre wee must imitate the Angels as in the Lords prayer 3. Petit. As for imitation and conformitie in other things we haue no such commaundement we are promised hereafter to be like them but that is not yet Neither doth that place proue any such thing Heb. 8. For how followeth it Moses was shewed a paterne to make the Tabernacle by Ergo the Church hath a paterne of her gouernement from Heauen When they can shew any such paterne reuealed in the word for their dreames and phantasies we wil not beleeue for the Church as Moses had for the Tabernacle then they shall say somewhat 2 It is a vaine controuersie so to descant of the Angels as to appoynt them a Captaine and commaunder and to make nine orders or bands of them as our Rhemist annot 1. Ephes. vers 21. These are but their dreames they haue not a worde in Scripture for it And concerning Michael they are much deceiued for in that place Apocal. 12.7 Christ is called Michael Michael and his Angels fought against the Dragon And who I pray you is the chiefe Captaine of the Church against the diuell and his hoast but Christ And so is it expounded verse 10. Now is saluation in Heauen and the strength and Kingdome of our God and the power of his Christ Here hee is called Christ who before is Michael In other places also Michael is vnderstood to be Christ as Dan. 10.21 there is none that holdeth with mee but Michael your Prince here Michael is the prince of the Church and not of the Angels And that Michael is not the prince of the Angels as our aduersaries meane taking Michael for an Angell it is proued out of the 13. verse Michael one of the chiefe princes the Angels are all called princes and not one to bee prince aboue them Likewise the nature and signification of the word Michael agreeth hereunto for it is compounded of three hebrue particles as much as to say one that is equall vnto GOD which name in that sense cannot bee giuen vnto any creature Further Epistle Iud. 9. there is mention made of Michael the Archangell who stroue against the diuell and saide the Lord rebuke thee Sathan where the Apostle alludeth to that place of Zacher 3.2 where the very same words are found but there the prophet calleth him Iehouah that spake those words and here the Apostle calleth him Michael so that in this place it must needes bee vnderstoode for Christ. But to conclude we denie not but that Michael may bee the name of some glorious Angell but out of these places it cannot bee proued And againe we will not stand with them but that there may be degrees of excellencie amongst the Angels as there shall be amongst the Saints but that any one hath any such soueraigne and commaunding authoritie ouer the rest it is a curious and presumptuous surmise 2 The Church of the olde Testament was a figure of the Church vnder the New but they had a high Priest aboue the rest Ergo there ought to be now We answere First we graunt the high Priest was a figure but neither of Peter nor Pope but onely of Christ for in two things did the high Priest resemble Christ in offering of sacrifice so hath Christ offered vp himselfe Heb. 7.27 and in entring into the sanctuarie to make attonement for the people so Christ is entred into the Heauens to appeare in sight for vs before God as the apostle saith Heb. 9.24 I trow in neither of these the high priest could be a type either of Peter or Pope 2 Neither doth it follow because there was an high priest in one countrey therefore there ought to bee one ouer the Churches in al countries as the Iesuite frameth an other argument by a comparison because a bishop is ouer his diocesse a Metropolitane ouer his prouince there may bee as well a Pope ouer the whole Church For by the same reason because a Lorde may bee the chiefe in his seignorie a Duke in his prouince a Prince in his Kingdome therefore there ought to bee an Emperour ouer all the world or as Master Caluine saith because one fielde is committed to one Husbandman to dresse and to till therefore the whole Worlde may which were a thing impossible The Protestants THat there ought not to be any one chiefe Bishop Pope or prelate to exercise iurisdiction ouer the whole Church wee doe thus make it good 1 We acknowledge no head of the Church but Christ neither doth the Scripture attribute this title of Maiestie ouer the whole Church but onely to Christ. If
episcoporum grauiorem authoritatem per concilia licere reprehendi si in eis à veritate deuiatum sit That the decrees of all Bishops whatsoeuer not excluding Popes may be corrected either by the sentence of wiser men in that poynt wherein they erred or by the better aduised sentence of other Bishops or by Councels may be reuersed where they doe erre Ergo it is possible for Popes by his iudgement to erre A PART OR APPENDIX OF THIS QVEstion whether the Church of Rome may erre or not The Papists THey doe not onely affirme that the Pope cannot erre but that the Church error 48 of Rome also caÌ„not be deceiued in matters of faith so long as the Apostolike See remayneth there which they say is like there to remaine to the ende of the world Bellarm. lib. 3. de pontif cap. 4. Hereupon Panormitane doubteth not to say that he would preferre the iudgement of the Cardinals of Rome before the iudgement of the whole world this he sayd standing vp in the Councel of Basile Fox pag. 669. ex Aenea Syluio 1. The Rhemists vpon those words of Saint Paul Rom. 1.5 your fayth is published through the whole world doe thus inferre See say they the great prouidence of God in the preseruation of the Romane common faith In times past the Romane fayth and Catholike all one Ergo that See cannot erre in faith We answere they must proue their Romish faith and popish religion to be the same which was praysed and commended by the Apostle or els they gayne nothing but that shall they neuer doe 2. So long as the Apostolike See remayneth at Rome it shall be preserued from error but that is like there to remaine till the worlds end for it onely remayneth when all other Apostolique Sees are gone and it is very probable that if this See could haue been ouerthrowen it should haue been done by the incursion and inuasion of the Gothes Vandals Turkes the emulation of Princes diuisions and schismes of Popes themselues yet for all this it standeth still and hath so continued almost 1600. yeres and shall so continue still Ergo the Romane Church can not erre Bellarmin lib. 2. cap. 4. Rhemist annot in Thessal 2. sect 7. We answere First it is a great vntruth that all other Apostolike Sees are gone for there is a succession at Antioch Alexandria Constantinople Ephesus euen at this day Secondly it is false that the See of Rome hath continued in that religion it now professeth which indeed is no religion but superstition and heresie these 1600. yeres for first till Gregories time which was 600. yeeres after Christ none of the popes would be called vniuersall Bishops and it was more then 300. yeeres from Gregorie the 1. to Siluester the 2. when sathan is thought fully to be let loose for he by the diuel was aduanced to the papacie All these yeeres therefore you must strike off in your account Thirdly that the See of Rome which is the seate of Antichrist hath continued many yeeres we graunt for it is the iust iudgement of God vpon the world because they loued not the trueth that they should be deluded a long time and deceiued by Antichrist and beleeue lies so did Saint Paul prophesie 2. Thessalonians 2.10 11. And wee grant also that that Antichristian See shall in some sorte remayne till the comming of Christ whom hee shall destroie with the brightnes of his appearing as Saint Paul sayth You haue gayned therefore nothing by this but that Rome is the seate of Antichrist Fulk annotat in 2. Thessalonians 2. sect 7. The Protâ—â—tants IT is euident and plaine and neede not much proofe that the Romane Church as also any particular visible Church maie not onely erre in faith but fall cleane away into heresie and Idolatrie as we see it come to passe in the Church of Rome 1. The Church of Rome hath no better assurance of their continuance then the Church of the Iewes had before Christ no nor yet so great for they were a peculiar and chosen nation But Iudah fell and transgressed and committed Idolatrie in the raigne of Ahaz and therefore the Prophet Esay complayneth and sayth From the sole of the foote to the head there is nothing sound cap. 1. ver 6. Neither are they better then the Church of Ephesus was in Saint Iohns time who was as able I think to keepe that Church from error as the Pope is to keepe Rome yet the Lord threatneth to remoue his candlestick froÌ„ amongst them vnles they did amend Reue. 2.5 Ergo the Church of Rome may erre 2. The Pope may erre as we haue before shewed Ergo the Church of Rome for the Apostolike See as they say is the cause that no error can approch or come neere them Therefore me thinketh the Iesuite committeth a foule absurditie in saying the Church of Rome cannot so much as erre personally and yet they grant that the Pope may erre personally So by this reason the body shuld haue a greater priuiledge then the head the Church of Rome should bee freer from error then the Pope who should preserue it from error this sure is a great absurditie in Popish diuinitie Bellarmin cap. 4. 3. It is confessed by our aduersaries themselues that the Church of Rome may erre as the Councel at Rome vnder Adriane the second erred sayth the Iesuite in determining Honorius to bee an heretick one of his predecessors cap. 11. The Councel of the Italian Bishops at Brixia erred in condemning Gregory the seuenth who was if you will beleeue Harding a vertuous and an holy man Nay Paulus Iouius a popish Bishop confesseth that Adrianus 6. was made Pope mira pudenda Senatorum factiosorum suffragatione through the strange and shamefull suffrages of factious Cardinals because they preferred a stranger before their owne order But our aduersaries haue a trick to shift off all this that hath been saide They erred in a matter of fact not in any poynt of fayth Yet they cannot so closely conuey the matter away for Panormitane euen in such questions also preferreth the iudgement of the Cardinals before the whole world speaking in the defence of Eugenius who was challenged in the Councel of Basile for the dissolution of the Councel which he did saith Panormitane with the aduice of the Cardinals whose iudgement he so much esteemeth in this matter which concerned not faith namely for the dissoluing of the Councel THE SEVENTH QVESTION OF THE spirituall iurisdiction and power of the Bishop of Rome THis question hath two partes the first whether the Bishop of Rome haue a coactiue and constrayning power to make lawes to binde the conscience and to punish the transgressors Secondly whether other Pastors and Bishops haue their iurisdiction immediatly from God or from the Pope Other questions also there are which belong to this matter as whether the Pope be the chiefe iudge in controuersies of fayth which we haue already handled entreating of
owne sonnes for to enrich the See of Rome as Augustine very well saith Qui vult exhaeredato filio ecclesiam haeredem facere quaerat alterum qui suscipiat non Augustinum immo deo propitio nullum inueniat He that would make the Church his heire and defeate his own children let him seeke some bodie else to accept of his gift surely Augustine wil not nor I trust any honest man beside The Protestants FIrst we willingly grant that the Church may inioy those teÌ„porall possessions which haue been of old granted vnto it for the better maintenance thereof so they bee not abused to riot and excesse as the Leuites beside their tithes had their cities and fieldes Numb 35. Secondly the iudgement of Ecclesiasticall matters doth of right appertaine to the Church as Amariah the Priest was the chiefe in all matters of the Lord 2. Chron. 19.11 Thirdly we doe not vtterly exclude spirituall persons from temporall causes but as the ciuill Magistrate hath his interest in ordaining of Ecclesiasticall lawes so spirituall persons ought not to be strangers from the ciuill state being meete men for their knowledge and conscience to be consulted withall and conferred with and to be ioyned in Councell with the Magistrate in difficult matters as wee reade Deuter. 17.8 How the high Priest and chiefe iudge did ioyne in mutuall helpe and assistance But that any spirituall person may bee a temporall prince and haue the chiefe gouernement of both states and handle both swordes we say it is contrarie to the word of God for in these three poyntes standeth chiefly the office of the prince in making and ordaining ciuill lawes in hauing power of life and death in proclaiming of warre and waging of battayle with none of these ought Ecclesiasticall persons to deale as we will now shew in order 1 Concerning the making of ciuill lawes and statutes though the Ecclesiasticall bodie according to the ancient custome of this land haue their suffrage and voyce and doe giue consent yet the chiefe stroke in alowing confirming and enacting of such lawes is in the prince and cannot agree or bee matched with any spirituall office Saint Paul saith Who is sufficient for these things that is for the work of the Ministerie 2. Cor. 2.16 If therefore spirituall persons suffice not to execute to the full their spirituall charge though they should bend all their studie and care that way much more insufficient shall they be if they be entangled in temporall affayres for the well guiding and ordering whereof a whole man likewise is scarce sufficient Againe saith he no man that warreth entangleth himselfe with the affaires of this life 2. Timoth. 2.4 By affaires seculare here are not onely vnderstoode as the Iesuite imagineth merchandise traffike buying selling and such like but the care and charge also of ciuill gouernement of making lawes and orders for the ciuill state which must needs bee a great let to the spirituall busines and require greater studie and labor then the other baser workes which are named To this Augustine agreeth Quo iure saith he defendis villas Vnde quisque possidet quod habet Iure humano iure imperatorum quare quia ipsa iura humana per imperatores reges seculi Deus distribuit generi humano tract in Ihoann 6. By what law doest thou defend thy possessions by the lawe of man the lawe of the Emperors for these humane lawes by Gods ordinance are giuen vnto men by the Emperors and Kings of the world See then ciuill lawes and humane constitutions are giuen and made not by the Pope Priest or any other Prelate but onely by Kings and Princes and the ciuill magistrates 2 It were a moÌ„strous an vnnatural thing that any Ecclesiastical gouernor should haue power of life death for he hath no better right to the ciuil sword then the prince to the Ecclesiasticall sword and if it be not lawfull for the ciuill Magistrate to excommunicate which is as the spiâ—tuall sword and the greatest censure of the Church no more is it to be suffered that by the authoritie or commaundement of any Ecclesiasticall person any man should bee put to death The high Priest was not to deale with matters of bloud which touched the life but the offenders were brought to the gates of the citie where the magistrates sate Deuter. 17.5 Not to the temple where the priest ministred Nay we see that in the most corrupt times of the Iewish common-wealth namelie when they put our blessed Sauiour to death the priests did not challenge any such power It is not lawful say they for vs to put any to death Iohn 18.31 But that power was in the temporall Magistrate as Pilate said to Christ Knowest thou not that I haue power to crucifie thee and power to loose thee Ioh. 19.10 Ergo the Pope cannot bee a temporall prince to haue power of life and death 3 If the Pope be a temporall prince then hee may wage battaile which although the Iesuite dare not plainely affirme yet it followeth necessarilie vpon his assertion for it is lawfull for any temporall prince to make warre And it hath been the common practise of Popes and popish prelates so to doe There were great bitter battailes fought betweene Vrbane the sixt and the Antipope Clement in the which on the one side there were 5000. slaine Fox pag. 434. Henry Spenser a lustie young bloud Bishop of Norwich was the Popes Captaine generall in France where he sacked the towne of Grauenidge and put man woman and childe to the sword So Pope Iulius cast his keyes into the Riuer Tybris and tooke himselfe to his sword waged many battailes and at the last was encountred withall by Lewes the French King vpon Easter day where there was of his army slaine to the nuÌ„ber of 16000. But these warlike affaires of the Pope misliked the Papists themselues for hee was therefore condemned in the Councell of Turone in France Anno. 1510. We may see how well these furious Popes doe followe the rule of Christ who coÌ„maunded Peter to put vp his sword into his sheath If it were not lawfull for Peter to strike with the sword how is it lawfull for the Popes that I am sure dare not challenge more to themselues then was lawfull for Peter Thus wee see how absurd a thing it is that the Pope should bee a temporall Prince THE NINTH QVESTION OF THE PRErogatiues of the Pope BEside these priuiledges and immunities of the See of Rome which hitherto we haue spoken of both in spirituall and temporall matters there are other prerogatiues which haue been in times past giuen to the Bishops of Rome most blasphemous wicked which the Papists of this age are ashamed of and therefore passe them ouer with silence for Bellarmine saith nothing of them Wee will therefore spare our labor in confuting of them they are so grosse and absurd but onely bring them forth that the godly reader may vnderstand the
Spirit was not giuen him by measure Ioh. 3.34 and that the holy Ghost dwelleth in him bodily but it were great blasphemie so to say of any man Apostle or Minister beside which haue receiued of the same grace but not in the like measure that Christ hath but the spirit is giuen to euery one in measure as they haue neede in their seuerall places and callings Secondly though we should grant that the Apostles had the full authoritie of Christ actually to remit sinnes which they shall neuer proue yet it may be doubted whether al Ministers whom they call Priests which name we refuse not if it be taken according to the sense of the originall word Presbyter and not for a sacrificing priesthood haue as full power in this case as the Apostles had nay it is plaine they haue not for the Apostles and other in the Primitiue Church had power to discerne spirits 1. Cor. 12.10 and to giue actually the bodies of the excommunicate to bee vexed and possessed of the diuell 1. Cor. 5.5 and after a strange manner to exercise power ouer their bodily life as Peter did vpon Ananias and Sapphira Act. 5 Yet we rather stand vpon this poynt that neither the Apostles nor any other Ministers haue power actually to remit sinnes then onely as dispensers and stewards in the name of Christ. The Protestants AL the power of binding and loosing committed to the Apostles and to the Ministers of the word and Sacraments is by declaring the will and pleasure of God out of his word both to pronounce forgiuenes of sinnes to all that are truely penitent the reteining of them to the obstinate and impenitent Fulk annot Iohn 20. sect 3. So that Ministers are not made iudges in this case but only as the Lords ambassadors to declare the will of God out of his word 1 There is a notable place for this purpose 2. Corinth 5.18 God hath reconciled vs vnto himselfe through Iesus Christ and hath giuen vs the ministerie of reconciliation So then Christ is the onely author of reconciliation the Apostles are but ministers how then say the Rhemists that Christ himselfe is but a minister also of our reconciliation yet a chiefe minister whereas the Apostle maketh him the author God was in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe vers 19. Wee are but ambassadors for Christ and pray you in Christs stead to bee reconciled vnto God this then is the office of Ministers not to reconcile men vnto God but to pray them to bee reconciled through Christ Christ onely is the reconciler they but ministers of reconciliation They are but messengers and ambassadors onely to declare their Princes pleasure their commission is certaine beyond that they cannot goe Wherefore that is a blasphemous decretal and cleane contrarie to the scripture which is ascribed but falsely to Pontianus Bishop of Rome which sayth that God hath Priests so familiar that by them he forgiueth the sinnes of others and reconcileth them vnto him Fox pag. 59. But S. Paul sayth that God onely by Christ reconcileth vs vnto himselfe 2 Augustine doth very freely vtter his minde concerning this matter who putteth this obiection If men doe not forgiue sinnes then it should seeme to be false which Christ sayth Whatsoeuer you bind in earth is bound in heauen He answereth Daturus erat dominus hominibus spiritum sanctum c. God was to giue vnto men the holy Ghost by whom their sinnes should be forgiuen them Spiritus dimittit non vos spiritus autem Deus est Deus ergo dimittit non vos the spirit therefore remitteth sinne and not you the spirit is God God forgiueth sinnes and not you Here is one argument God onely forgiueth sinnes Ergo not man Againe Quides homo nisi aeger sanandus vis mihi esse medicus mecum quaere medicum O man what art thou that takest away my sinnes but a sicke man thy selfe wouldest thou be my phisition nay let vs both together goe seeke a phisition that may heale vs. Lo another argument He cannot be a phisition to others that needeth a phisition himselfe he cannot reconcile others to God who hath himselfe neede of a reconciler Further he sayth Qui dimittit per hominem potest dimittere praeter hominem non enim minus est idoneus per se dare qui potest per alium dare He that can forgiue sinnes by man can forgiue also without man for he may as well forgiue by himselfe as he can doe it by another Here is then the third argument If man doe actually forgiue sinnes then Christ should not forgiue sinnes without man for the whole power is committed to man Yea the Rhemists affirme the same that it is necessarie we should submit our selues to the iudgement of the Priest for release of our sinnes if it bee necessarie then sinnes cannot be remitted without the Priest then is Christs power limited he cannot forgiue without man which is contrarie to that Augustine affirmeth here THE FOVRTH PART WHETHER STRAIGHT waies whatsoeuer be loosed or bound by the ministerie of men vpon earth be so in heauen The Papists AN expresse power say they is giuen vnto Priests to remit and reteyne error 76 sinnes And Christ promiseth that whose sinnes soeuer they forgiue they are forgiuen of God and whose sinnes soeuer they retaine they are retained of God Rhemist annot Iohn 20. sect 5. Whereby it appeareth it is their opinion which is manifest also by the practise of their Church that at the will and pleasure of euerie priest exercising the keyes vpon earth men are bound and loosed in heauen They ground this their opinion vpon the generalitie of the wordes Whosoeuers sinnes you remit they are remitted Iohn 20.23 and Math. 18.18 Whatsoeuer you binde in earth shall be bound in heauen Answere These places are not so to be vnderstood as though God were bound to ratifie euery decree of men vpon earth for first this power is giuen to all lawfull pastors which doe holde the Apostolike fayth not to Idolatrous ignorant and blasphemous priests such as most if not all of the popish sorte are Secondly they must decree in the earth according to Gods wil Wherefore Iohn 20.22 first Christ breatheth his spirite vpon his Apostles and then giueth them their commission signifiyng hereby that they must execute this power as they shall be directed by Gods spirite and Matth. 18.20 it followeth that they must be assembled in the name of Christ that is according to Christs rule and the direction of his word they must binde and loose and not at their owne discretion The Protestants THat no sentence or decree of men bindeth or looseth before God in heauen but that which is pronounced according to the will and pleasure of GOD and by the warrant of his worde the scripture euery where teacheth vs. 1 Prouer. 26.2 As the sparrow by flying escapeth so the curse that is causelesse shall not come Isay 5.20 Woe vnto them that speake good
that tithes should be payd Praecidite deputate aliquid fixum ex annuis fructib vel quotidianis quaestibus defaulke sayth he and appoynt some certaine portion either of your yearely fruites or your ordinary and daylie gaines Decimas vis decimas exime Will you make choyce to pay tithes then let that be the portion And yet this is no great matter for the Pharisies whose righteousnesse you ought to exceede payed their tithes Tu vix millesimam das Thou scarce payest the thousand part Tamen non reprehendo vel hoc fac sic sitio vt ad istas micas gaudeam Yet I finde not fault doe so still for I so thirst after your well-doing that I refuse not your very crummes We see then that then the payment of tithes was voluntarie Augustine refuseth not the ten hundred that is millesimam partem the thousand part which he calleth their crummes THE SECOND PART BY WHAT RIGHT tithes are due to the Ministers of the Gospel The Papists COncerning tithes or their equiualent due to Christ the priesthood of the error 81 new Testament Rhemist annot Heb. 7.4 this then is their opinion that the priesthood of the Gospell being more excellent then the priesthood of the Law and their sacrifice which they offer vp in the Masse being of greater worthines they may with better right challenge tithes then the priests of the law did for their seruice at the altar So that tithes are due to the Church onely because of the priesthood not for any other duetie appertaining to that office as preaching the word ministring the sacraments or any such Abraham payd tithes they say to Melchisedech which was the priest of the most high God in offering the formes of bread wine wherein Melchisedech did sacrifice Ergo tithes are now due to the priests of the Gospel and new law which are all after the order of Melchisedech Rhemist Hebr. 7. sect 4. 8. Answere First Melchisedechs priesthood consisted not in offering bread and wine to God but brought them foorth to refresh Abraham neither were they formes of bread and wine onely as you imagine but very materiall bread and wine for if Melchisedechs priesthood had consisted therein the Apostle would not haue omitted the chiefe thing wherein Christs priesthood was shewed forth as he doth making no mention at all of it Heb. 7. Secondly againe it is great blasphemie to say that euery popish priest is after the order of Melchisedech nay that the proper act of Christs priesthood consisteth in the perpetuall offering of his bodie blood in the Church for by this reason euery impure priest doth more properly offer the body of Christ in the Masse then it was offered by himself vpon the cros thē the which what greater blasphemie can be vttered And yet they are not ashamed to speak it yea the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse say they was after the order of Aaron and not after the order of Melchisdech and so they preferre euery popish priest offering in the Masse before Iesus Christ sacrificing himself vpon the Crosse contrary to the scripture which maketh this difference between the priesthood of Aaron and the priesthood of Melchisedech that the priests of the law were many because they were taken away by death But Christs priesthood is eternall because he dieth not Heb. 7.23 But if there should be many priestes after Melchisedechs order there should heerein bee no difference at all Wherefore seeing Melchisedechs priesthood onely resteth in Christ and is not translated to any other and that there is now no sacrifice left but spirituall of prayse and thanksgiuing Heb. 13.15 it followeth that by Melchisedechs right no tithes are now due vnto the Church neither in any such regard ought to be challenged The Protestantes TIthes or their equiualent are not due to the Church in respect of any sacrificing priesthood of which sorte there is none in the new testament ordayned to continue but for other pastorall dueties and principally the preaching and dispensing of the word and instructing of the people 1 If there were any such priesthood and tithes in that right did appertaine to the Church it is most like that our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles would haue challenged them But there is no one precept in the new testament concerning paying of tithes but onely for a sufficient maintenance for the ministers of the Gospel 1. Cor. 9.14 Gal. 6.6 Fulk Hebr. 7. sect 4. 2 Saint Paul euery where so oft as he sheweth the duetie of Christians in relieuing and mayntayning their pastors maketh onely mention of sowing of spirituall things 1. Cor. 9.11 and of teaching and instructing Gal. 6.6 Ergo tithes are due vnto Pastors and Ministers onely or especially for their feeding and instructing and sowing spirituall seede which is the word of God 3 There is no such sacrificing priesthood now in the Church as wee haue partly shewed before and shall of purpose more fully declare it afterward for euery where in the new testament spirituall sacrifices are commanded and all Christians are made Kings and Priests vnto God Apocal. 1.6 Other priesthood we read of none Wherefore in that respect tithes cannot be due Lastly Augustine sayth Si mendicum non contemnis quanto magis bonem per quem trituratur haec area If thou despisest not a beggar how much more oughtest thou to haue regard of the oxe that treadeth out the corne on the floore That is the Minister that preacheth the Gospel for so Saint Paul expoundeth it 1. Timoth. 5.17 The Elders sayth he that labour in the word and doctrine are worthie double honour and then it followeth vers 8. for the scripture sayth Thou shalt not muzle the mouth of the oxe that treadeth out the corne Sufficient maintenance therefore to the Ministers is due for their labour and trauaile in the word THE SIXT GENERAL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE SVPERSTITIOVS ORDERS AND SECTS OF MONKES AND FRIERS MOnkes in Latine called Monachi deriued of the Greeke word were such as liued solitarilie thereupon had they their name And they were at the beginning of three sortes some were called Eremites that liued in woods and desarts by themselues there were other which were mued vp and enclosed in cels and wals which had not so much libertie as Eremites had but kept alwayes in their cages and closets and soe in miserie spent their dayes and these were called Anchorites that is separated set apart from all men and liuing by themselues There was a third sorte called Coenobites which liued in companies as it were in Colledges by them selues had all things common And these properly were called Monks Bell. lib. 2. de monach cap. 3. This controuersie hath many questiōs 1 Concerning the beginning original of Monks of their diuers sects 2. partes 2 Concerning Counsels of perfection whether they differ from Euangelicall precepts 3 Concerning vowes in generall three partes First whether it be lawfull for Christians
to come Ans. Mark expoundeth Mathew He saith It shall neuer be forgiuen Mark 3.29 So that not to be forgiuen either in this world or the world to come is nothing els but neuer to be forgiuen for if it be not forgiuen in this life it shall neuer be forgiuen Bellarm. Yea but Mathew must expound Marke because he setteth it downe more fully and Marke doth but abridge the Gospell written by S. Matthew De Purgat lib. 1. cap. 4. Ans. But why should not Mark rather expound Mathew seeing he writ after him and we vse to expound the former writers by the later not contrariwise AN APPENDIX OR AN APPERTINENCE TO this part concerning the burials and funerals of the dead THere are certaine poynts wherein there is no great variance or dissension betweene vs. First we confesse that it is meete and conuenient that the bodies of Christians being departed should after a seemely and comely manner be brought to the graue as Dauid commendeth the men of Iabesh Gilead for burying the bodie of Saul 2. Sam. 2.5 The brethren also tooke the bodie of Stephen buried it Act. 8.2 Secondly it is not to be denied but that lamentatioÌ„ and sorow may be made for the dead obseruing S. Pauls rule that We mourne not as those that haue no hope that is excessiuely 1. Thess. 4.13 where S. Paul doth not simply forbid Christians to sorow but not as the Gentiles The brethreÌ„ also made great lamentation for Stephen Act. 8.2 Thirdly we doe also graunt that according to the diuers customes of couÌ„treys it is not vnlawfull to vse some comely rites and ceremonies in the buriall of the dead not for religion but for orders sake as among the Israelites the mourners were wont to goe about in the streetes Ecclesiast 12.5 And Christ commended the woman in the Gospell for anoynting of him against his buriall Mark 14. But beside these poynts by vs confessed and acknowledged there are other more waightie matters as touching the order of funerals wherein we worthily and iustly dissent from our aduersaries error 16 1 They doe attribute much to the places where men are buried as in Churches and Churchyards but especially vnder the Altar Rhemist as the soules of the righteous doe rest in Christ who is that altar vnder the which the Apostle sawe the soules of Martyrs so for the correspondence to the place in heauen their bodies are commonly layd vnder the altar where the sacrifice of the body of Christ is daylie offered Annot. Apocalyps 6. vers 9. Ans. The altar of the Crosse was the onely place where the bodie of Christ was sacrificed neither need it to be often offered in sacrifice but it sufficed once onely to haue been done Heb. 9.25.27 And in the Communion we acknowledge no sacrifice but of praise and thanksgiuing Heb. 13.15 It is kept onely in remembrance of the death of Christ 1. Cor. 11.25 And how should it be auaileable for the dead seeing it profiteth not all the liuing but onely those that are present which doe eate and drinke the holy elements of bread and wine in remembrance of the bodie and blood of Christ giuen and shed for them So saith the scripture Doe this as oft as you doe it in remembrance of me 1. Cor. 11.25 The doers therefore agents and receiuers haue the present benefite not they which are absent how then can the dead receiue any solace by it It profiteth then not a whit to be layd in Churches or Churchyards or other hallowed places as they call them for all places are alike neither helpeth it the dead to be buried in one place more then another for God shall command the sea and all other places to giue vp their dead Apocalyps 20. The very heathen did confesse as much one sayth It skilleth not humÃne an sublimè putrescam whether I rot vnder or aboue the ground And another thus writeth Coelo tegitur qui non habet vrnam Heauen is a couering to him that hath no other coffin It were a foule shame then for Christians to exceede the very Gentiles in their superstitious conceits Augustine sayth Si aliquid prodest impio sepultura preciosa oberit pio vilis aut nulla If sumptuous funerals profite the wicked then homely or no burials doe hurt the godly Therefore as it helpeth not a wicked man to be buried in one place more then another so it doth not hinder or hurt the godly and righteous man 2 We condemne also their superstitious ceremonies which they vse at their error 17 funerals as the burning of Tapers which signifieth say they that the soules of the dead are aliue Bellarm. de purgator lib. 2. cap. 19. Ans. First this superstitious vse of setting vp candles was directly forbidden in the Elibertine Councel Canon 34. Of the like sort also were other superstitious vsages as the going about of the belman to will the people to pray for their soules the ringing or iangling of bels to bring their soules to heauen with queere songs and other melodie to commit the bodies to the ground and commending their soules to the protection of Saints We denie not but comely and decent orders voyde of superstition may be vsed according to the fashion of the countrey as Iacobs bodie was embaulmed after the manner of the Egyptians Genes 50.2 At the buriall of their Kings the Israelites vsed to burne odors Iere. 34.5 The Iewes manner was to wash the bodies of the dead to winde it vp in a linnen cloth and burie it with spices and odors So our Sauiours bodie was buried after the manner of the Iewes Iohn 19.40 We reade also that Ioseph was put into a coffin or chest Genes 50.26 Of these and the like customes Augustine giueth a rule writing vpon those words in the Gospell Iohn 19.40 As it was the manner of the Iewes to burie Non mihi videtur Euangelista sic frustra dicere voluisse ita quippe admonuit in huiusmodi officijs quae mortuis exhibentur morem cuiusque gentis esse seruandum in Iohann tract 120. Me thinketh the Euangelist sayd not thus without cause hereby letting vs to vnderstand that in performing such dueties of buriall to the dead the manner and custome of euery countrey is to be kept The Iewes also had a custome with some companie or frequencie of people to bring their dead to the ground Eccle. 12.5 And in the while to vse some admonition to the people concerning death and mortalitie which came in by sinne and of the wrath and mercie of God Syrus interp in Mark 14.3 Neither doe we see why it is not lawfull now among Christians at funerals and burials to haue some godly sermon and exhortation to put the people in mind of their end and to comfort them with the hope of the resurrection as also to giue God thankes for those his faithfull seruants that did glorifie him by their life and by their godly departure This seemeth also to haue been the
themselues confesse and we denye not but it may better be made then the image of the Trinitie yet can there not be any true image of Christ as he was in forme of man for the image doth onely expresse his bodily shape not as he was God in the forme of man and so such a picture were dangerous to the weake and ignorant being a lying image shewing Christ onely as man who was both God and man And againe the image which is made of his bodily shape is no more the image of Christ then of any other man Fulk Act. 17. sect 5. But some will say if Christs image cannot conueniently be made because it expresseth not his Godhead by the same reason we cannot make a picture of a man because his soule being inuisible cannot be painted Ans. The reason is not alike for he that pictureth a man liuing setteth forth the life beautie and motion of the bodie by which effects by a consequent the soule is resembled which causeth and worketh these things in the bodie but in the bodily shape of Christ there cannot be made to appeare any such notorious signes of his Godhead 2. Though it bee not simply vnlawfull to expresse in painting the visible shapes that were shewed in vision to the Prophets if it be onely for vse and signification of the historie or if there be any other commendable vse yet to make those shapes for any vse of religion or seruice of God is abominable idolatrie Fulk ibid. Epiphanius sawe in a Church at Anablatha an image painted in a table as it had been of Christ or a Saint he tooke it downe and cut it in peeces affirming that it was contrarie to the scripture for any image of a man to hang in the Church of Christ. The Elibertine Councel Canon 36. decreed that no pictures should be made in Churches If no pictures much lesse carued images which are a more strong prouocation to idolatrie Augustine rendreth a reason why it is dangerous to haue images in Churches where there is yea but the least feare of superstition Quis orat intuens simulachrum qui non sic afficitur vt ab eo se exaudiri putet nec ab eo sibi praestari quod desideret putet Who sayth he prayeth beholding an image and is not so affected as though he were heard of it and hopeth not to haue that performed by it which he desireth Psal. 113. THE THIRD ARTICLE WHETHER THE images of Saints are to be worshipped The Papists error 40 THat images are to be reuerenced and worshipped so it be not with the diuine honour due vnto God it was concluded in the late Tridentine Chapter sess 25. confessed by our Rhemists Act. 17. sect 5. maintained by the Iesuites Bellarm. cap. 12. Argum. 1. The brasen serpent was worshipped of the people seeing it was set vp in a high place and gaue health to those that looked vpon it Ergo images may be worshipped Bellarm. The people also fell downe before the Arke and tabernacle and worshipped God Ergo lawfull praying to fall downe before a Crucifixe Rhemist annot Heb. 11.21 Ans. First it was not the serpent that healed thē but Christ who was thereby prefigured Iohn 3.14 The serpent was lift vp that the people might round about the better behold it and it sheweth forth also the lifting vp of Christ vpon the Crosse. It was not set vp to be worshipped neither was it worshipped till the people fell into superstition and offered incense to it and therefore because the people abused that monument Hezekiah brake it downe 2. King 18. Secondly it is not all one to fall downe before in or at the Arke and tabernacle and to worship God as to worship the Arke or tabernacle You doe not onely fall downe before a Crucifixe but worship it neither is it as lawfull to worship before a Crucifixe as it was before the tabernacle for the one was commanded of God the other is the superstitious deuise of men Argum. 2. As the image of Nabuchadnezzar was for his honour so the image of Christ is for his Rhemist Reuel 13.14 Ans. A good similitude if Christ himselfe had not forbidden so to be honoured and worshipped Argum. 3. Man is honoured because he is the image of God Ergo images of Saints to be reuerenced because they are their Images Bellarm. cap. 12. Ans. First man is a liuely image of Gods owne making images of Saints are the workes of men Secondly no image can so liuely represent a Saint being but a dead thing as man who hath a liuing soule is the image of God Thirdly we doe reuerence men with ciuill honour not with religious worship as they doe their images Fourthly though Gods image in man were to be worshipped yet it would not followe that Saints images should for all diuine worship belongeth onely to God but the Saints themselues though they were aliue are not to be worshipped much lesse their images Argum. 4. The chiefe Iconomachi that is enemies or oppugners of Idols say they are the Iewes Samaritanes Mahometanes yea the diuell himselfe loueth no images Bellarm. ibid. Ans. First it followeth not the Iewes and Turkes abhorre images and therefore Christians ought to loue them for the heathen hated many vices which are also to be abhorred of Christians Secondly they were not the first Iconomachi Image haters for Moses was an Iconomach when he caused the golden Calfe to be burnt to powder Hezekiah an Iconomach that brake downe the brasen serpent Iosiah an Iconomach that caused the Idols to bee destroyed 2. King 23. Nay God himselfe was the first Iconomach that forbiddeth Images and Idols to be made in the moral law Thirdly I pray you where did the Iesuite learne that the diuel hateth an image I am sure the scripture speaketh contrarie that what was offered to Idols was sacrificed to diuels 1. Corinth 10.20 The Protestants THat Images or Idols are not at all to be reuerenced or worshipped or to be made or set vp in Churches or in any other place for any religious or rather irreligious vse thus out of the holy scriptures we make it plaine Argum. 1. The making of any similitude or likenes to fall downe before it and worship it is flatly forbidden in the second commandement Exod. 20. Ergo they are not to be worshipped So likewise Deut. 4.15 Isai. 40.18 and in many other places in the old Testament Worshipping of Images which is idolatrie manifestly forbidden in the new Testament Rom. 1.23 1. Corinth 10.20 1. Iohn 5.21 Ergo not lawfull Ans. One Catharinus a great Papist sayth that the commandement in the lawe against images was but temporall and to continue but till the establishing of the new Testament But Bellarmine vtterly misliketh this answere being most absurd for the morall lawe is perpetuall De imaginib sanct lib. 2. cap. 7. They doe giue therefore a more deliberate answere that the scriptures doe reproue and condemne the idolatrie of the heathen which
highest which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 due vnto God the lowest religious worship which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper to Saints the middle or mean worship called by theÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you would say Superseruice to be giuen onely to the virgine Mary And as these three Christ the Virgine the Saints doe differ say they in honour so their Images accordingly must be distinguished in their worship Thus it commeth about that a Roode of wood representing Christ is more to be honored then an Image of our Ladie of siluer and Her image if it be but of stone is more to be reuerenced then a Saints image of gold and thus the excellencie of nature which is giuen these things by creation is inuerted Againe whereas beside these three deuised worships which are properly due as they say to the Saints not to their â—mages the images also haue their proper worships they make three other inferiour kinds of worship which doe exceed in degree as the other superiour kinds doe so as Christ hath his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worship his image must haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his vnder worship for wee must coyne newe names for strange deuises their Ladie Mary hath her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 super-seruice her image must haue an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and vnder-ouer-seruice as the Saints haue their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seruice so their images must haue their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an vnder-seruice And thus haue we sixe kindes of religious worship as Bellarmine hath coyned them cap. 25. and yet before the Iesuite tolde vs but of two kinds of religious worship and the third a ciuill three in all Lib. 1. de Sanct. beatit cap. 12. But the scripture acknowledgeth one onely kind of religious worship and that due onely vnto the Lord Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serue Math. 4.10 And the Angel forbad Iohn to fall downe before him giuing a rule for all religious worship Worship God sayth he Apocal 22.9 Now if our aduersaries deale plainly with vs and tell vs in good sooth that they would not haue images to bee adored with diuine worship I aske them whether to offer incense be not a part of diuine worship They cannot denye it for Hezekiah therfore brake downe the brasen Serpent because the people burned incense to it 2. King 18.4 Seeing then the Iesuite alloweth censing burning of odors before Images Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sanctor beatitud cap. 13. they giue vnto them diuine honour The Iesuites simple shift that offering of incense was a sacrifice then an so parte of diuine worshippe but it is none now is not woorth the answer Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 17. THE SECOND PART OF THIS question concerning the signe of the Crosse. THis part also is deuided into certaine points or articles 1. Of the honour due to the true Crosse of Christ whereon he suffered 2. Of the Image of the Crosse. 3 Of the Signe of the Crosse in the forehead or made otherwise with the hand 4 Of the power and efficacie of the Crosse. THE FIRST ARTICLE OF THE TRVE Crosse whereon our Sauiour suffered The Papists THe wood of the Crosse both the whole and euery piece thereof say they is worthy of great worship and reuerence and therefore it hath bene worthily error 42 visited in pilgrimages honored with festiuall dayes reserued with all deuotioÌ„ in times past Rhemist annot Iohn 19. sect 2. Argum. 1. It is highly sanctified by the touching bearing and oblation of the sacred body of Christ the Altar of that supreame sacrifice instrumeÌ„t of our redemption Ergo to be worshipped Rhemist ibid. Bellarm. lib. 2. de imagin cap. 27. Ans. If therefore it was holy because it touched the body of Christ was an instrument of his death by the same reason the nayles that pearsed him the speare that goared his side the tormenters that crucified Iudas that betrayed and kissed him All these should also be honored and worshipped that handled and touched him and were instruments occasions and procurers of his death Argum. 2 The Crosse of Christ was found out say they in Constantines time the great by a straÌ„ge miracle for there were three crosses digged vp which had beene a long time buried in the earth the two crosses vpon the which the 2. theeues suffered the 3. whereon our Sauiour hung They brought them al three to a woman that then lay very sick they laid the two first to her and she remayned as she was then they applyed the third and she was presently made whole Bellarm. ex Ruffino Ergo the Crosse is holy and to be worshipped Ans. The inuention of the Crosse by Helena Constantines mother seemeth to be a forged and fabulous storie 1. Eusebius that writeth of the life of Constantine and the Actes of Helena and registreth diuerse matters of lesse importance yea hee sheweth howe the Mount Caluarie where the heathen had built Idolatrous Temples was purged and in that place say they the Crosse was found yet he maketh no mention at all of the inuentioÌ„ of the Crosse which it is very like he would not haue omitted if there had bene any such thing 2. The most auncient author that writeth of this matter is Ambrose deobitu Theodosii which oration Erasmus thinketh to be forged in Ambroses name 3. There is great disagreement amongst writers about this storie Ambrose sayeth the Crosse was knowen by the tytle that Pilate fastened to it Sozomenus and Nicephorus say the letters were worne out and it could not be discerned by the tytle Paulinus sayth the way to discerne it was reuealed to Helena Ruffinus ascribeth the deuise to Macarius Bishop of Ierusalem Paulinus saith it was knowen by raising vp a dead man to life Ruffinus by restoring a sick woman to health Fulk annot Iohn 19 sect 2. Thus we see of what small credit this storie is And be it graunted that there might be some such thing found yet they must bring better proofe for that miraculous inuention before we wil beleeue it The Protestants WE are not taught any where in the worde of God to giue any religious worship to any creature nor to adore stockes and stones no nor the very Crosse it selfe whereon Christ was crucified if it were nowe to bee seene or had Argum. 1. If there had belonged vnto the Church any religious care of it the Apostles would no doubt haue procured the safe keeping thereof and not haue suffered the Church to want it 300. yeeres and it had beene an easier sute for Ioseph and Nicodemus to begge the Crosse then the body of Iesus Argum. 2. If the Crosse were to be adored we are vncertaine which it is and where to be had and so might worship a common peece of wood for the wood of the Crosse for there is no doubt but this relique is forged and counterfeyted as the rest be Euegrius saith the Crosse was at Apamea
Rhemist annot Phiâ—ipp â— sect â— Apocal. 13.17 The Protestants 1. THe bowing at the name of Iesus as it is vsed in poperie to bend the knee at the sound thereof is not commaunded in this place which sheweth especially the subiection of all creatures of Turkes Iewes infidels yea of the deuils themselues to the power and iudgement of Christ. Secondly Protestantes haue onely taken away the superstitious abuse of the name of Iesus Thirdly the kneeling at the name of Iesus is superstitiously abused in popery for the people stoupe onely at the sound not vnderstanding what is read and so make an idoll of the Letters and syllables adoring and worshipping the very name when they heare it or see it And againe in sitting and not veyling at the name of Christ Immanuel God the father the sonne and the holy Ghost and bowing onely at the name of Iesus Fulk ibid. Fourthly due reuerence may be vsed to our Sauiour without any such ceremony of capping or kneeling Fulk Neither doe we bind any of necessitie to vse this reuerence to the name of Iesus as the Papists doe which think that Christ cannot otherwise be honoured neither doe we iudge and condemne those that doe vse it being free from superstition and grounded in knowledge and carefull not to giue offence for superstitious and offensiue ignorance is not in any case to be defended Fiftly this outward reuerence to the name of Iesus was first taken vp amongst Christians because of all other names it was most derided and scorned of the Paganes and Iewes and therefore they did the more honor it But now there is greater daunger of popish superstition in abusing holy things then of prophane paganisme in vtterly contemning them and therefore there is not such necessary and iust occasion of vsing this externall gesture now as was in former times It was not vsed of necessity then much lesse now THE SIXT QVESTION CONCERNING Temples and Churches THis question hath diuerse partes First of the forme and situation of Churches Secondly of the end and vse of Churches Thirdly of their ornaments Fourthly of the dedication of Churches Fiftly of thinges halowed and consecrated for Churches THE FIRST PART OF THE SITVation of Churches The Papists THe Churches and Temples of Christians say they are most conuenientlye and haue bene of auncient time builded toward the East Bellarmine libro tertio capite tertio de sanctis Argu. 1. Paradise was built in the East Genes 2.8 and therefore we ought to pray that way for desire we haue to our Country Ans. 1. Paradise was then Eastward vnto Moses and the Israelites being in the Wildernes when he wrote this storie but it cannot be East to all Christian nations for Paradise being planted in Eden which was part of Mesopotamia must needes be West to the Persians South to the Scythians and Tartarians North to the Aethiopians wherefore this reason is not generall for all Churches in Christian nations Secondly it skilleth not where that earthly Paradise is situate our heauenly Paradise is in heauen which is euery where open to all true beleeuers Argu. 2. Wee looke for Christ to come in the East to iudgement therefore we pray toward the East As the lightning shineth from the East to the West so shall the comming of the Sonne of man be Math. 27.24 Therefore he shall appeare toward the East Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. By that similitude of the lightening the sodainnes of his appearing not the place is declared Secondly it is great presumption to define that which the Scripture hath not reuealed Christes comming is onely generally set downe he shall come in the cloudes Math. 24.30 And we shall be caught vp in the cloudes 1. Thessal 4.17 There is no particular description of the place The Protestants TO vs it is no matter which way Churches are builded we may turne our selues in praier as well toward any one parte of the heauens as an other Neither doe we refuse to pray in Churches builded toward the East But that our Oratories and places of praier ought rather to be builded that way then any other out of the Scripture it cannot be proued and we holde it as a meere superstitious opinion Argu. 1. S. Paul exhorteth men euery where to lift vp pure handes 1. Tim. 2.8 He saith In euery place without exception whether toward the East or the West or wheresoeuer 2. If any place were more daungerous then other to pray in it is not so safe and perhaps more perilous to pray toward the East for Idolaters were wont to turne them toward the East and to worship the Sunne rising Ezech. 8.17 And for this cause the holy place in the Tabernacle was toward the West Exod. 26.27 And it was the custome of the Iewes to pray Westward least they should be entised to worship the Sunne rising in his strength And therfore the Iesuite maketh but a bad argument The Iewes praied toward the West Ergo. christians must pray toward the East nay rather contrary because they turned their backe to the East for feare of Idolatry Christians if any place were to be regarded more then other ought vpon the same ground also to follow the same custome for as much as all men by nature are prone to Idolatrie and the reason of their so praying seemeth rather to be morall then ceremoniall This I say not as though I commended the Iewes superstitious praying toward the West but onely to shew that they haue better reason for their custome then our aduersaries haue for their superstitious turning toward the East But to christians all places are alike Augustine saith cum quis quaritorationem câ—llocet membra sicut ei occurrit If any man be desirous to pray let him place his body as occasion serueth he saith not toward the East or toward the West ad Simplician lib. 2. quaest 4. AN APPENDIX OF THIS PART concerning the fourme and fashion of Churches The Papistes error 48 THey would haue their Churches to be built as Salomons Temple was which consisted of three partes there was first the porch or court for the people then the holy place where the Altar stood and the Priests offered sacrifice and last of all the most holy place where the Arke and Mercieseate were placed So they haue the Church porch then the body of the Church and aboue that their Sanctuarie as they call it or the queere or chauncell which was separated from the rest by steps or staires hangings or curtaines and other partitions And here must stand their Altar Bellarm. lib. 3. de 〈◊〉 Sanctor cap. 3. The Protestants COncerning the fashion and fourme of Churches and the 〈◊〉 and partitions within we will not much contend so these conditions be obserued First that all superstition be auoided in making one place of the Church holier then the rest wherein the Papists mightily offend for the queere or chauncel was for their Priests and singers the other part of the Church for lay men they were
not to enter into that holy place and thus according to the places they deuided the congregation as though one part were more holy then the other The people also were made to beleeue that to be buried in the Chauncell but especially vnder the Altar was more auailable for the dead then to be buried in the Church But where learne they that our Churches ought to haue a sanctuary as the Iewish Temple had that was an euident type and is now accomplished in our Sauiour Christ who is now entred into the heauens as the high Priest then entred into the holy place to make atonement for the people Heb. 9.24 This therefore is very grosse to reuiue and renew again Iewish types and figures And if herein they wil imitate the building of Salomons Temple to haue a Sanctuary why doe they not also build toward the West as the Temple was why bring they not their Altar downe into the body of the Church for in their holy place there was no Altar And indeed Altar we acknowledge none as afterward shal be proued But we see no reason why the communion Table may not be set in the body of the Church as well as in the Chauncell if the place be more conuenient and fit to receiue the Communicants But I pray you why is your Altar rather set in your Sanctuary then the Fonte or Baptistery they are both Sacraments as well Baptisme as the Lords Supper why should one be preferred as holier then the other Secondly all things in the Church ought to be done vnto edifiyng and therefore we allow no such partitions as doe hinder the edifiyng of the people and exclude them from hearing as in popish Churches the Priest is pued or mued vp by himselfe a great way off that his voice can hardly be perceiued of the people The Minister is so to stand and turne himselfe as he may be best heard and vnderstood of the people as Ezra had a pulpit of wood to stand in when he read the Law Nehemiah 8. 4. Augustine thus writeth Cum Episcopus solus intus est populus orat eum illo et quasi subscribens ad eius verba respondet Amen While the Bishop or Pastor praieth within the people both praieth together with him and subscribing to his words answereth Amen By this it appeareth that though in Augustines time the Minister had a place for him selfe as it is meete he should yet he so disposed himselfe that his praier was heard of all the people for otherwise how could they pray with him and subscribe or giue assent to his wordes THE SECOND PART OF THE END and vse of Churches THis part hath 3. seuerall pointes First whether the Churches of Christians are built to offer sacrifice in Secondly whether they be in themselues places more holy then others Thirdly whether they may be dedicate to Saintes THE FIRST POYNT OR ARTICLE whether our Churches are for sacrifice The Papists THe principall end of Churches is for the sacrifice of Christians and in that error 49 respect they are truely called Temples they are not onely for prayer the preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments but chiefely for the externall sacrifice of the Masse Bellarm. cap. 4. Argu. 1. The Churches of Christians haue altars therefore sacrifices that they haue altars he thus proueth First 1. Corinth 10.21 You can not be partakers of the Lords table and the table of Deuils by the table here is meant the altar for the table of the heathen was their altar wherein they sacrificed to their Idols Ans. 1. A table is one thing an altar an other and very vnproperlye is an altar called a table this place in any wise mans iudgement maketh more against them then with them Secondly S. Paule speaketh not here of the sacrifices of the heathen nor of their altars but of the feastes which they made in their idolatrous temples which was done vpon tables of such sacrifices as had bene offered to idoles vnto the which feastes S. Paul forbiddeth Christians to come as it appeareth in the rest of the Chapter and more plainely cap. 8.10 Argu. 2. Heb. 13.10 Wee haue an altar of which they haue no power to eate that serue at the Tabernacle that is the altar whereon Christs body is offred Bellarm. Rhemist in hunc locum Ans. The Apostle speaketh expressely of participation of the sacrifice of Christs death as it is manifest in the 2. verses next following which is by a Christian faith and not in the Sacrament onely whereof none can be partakers that remayne in the ceremonial obseruations of the Leuitical sacrifices For the Apostle speaketh manifestly verse 12. of the suffering of Christ without the gate Christ therefore is the altar yea our Priest and sacrifice too You abuse this place to proue your materiall popish altars which are many but the Apostle saith we haue an altar speaking of one The Protestants THe Churches of Christians are the houses of praier made to that end that they should come together to heare the word of God read and preached receiue the sacraments and offer vp their spiritual sacrifices of praise and thanksgiuing other externall sacrifices or altars we acknowledge none Argu. 1. The temple of the Iewes was called an house of praier that is principally for praier Marke â—1 17 Moses was read and preached in their synagogues Act. 15.21 Much more are the Churches of Christians appointed for preaching and praier Act. 20.7 The first day of the weeke which is the Lords day they came together to breake bread and Paul preached vnto them Ergo the administration of the word and sacrameÌ„ts with praier is the chiefe and only cause of the holy assemblies of Christians Argu. 2. Altars we haue none in our Churches S. Paul calleth it the Lords table 1. Corinth 10.21 where wee receiue the sacrament of the bodye and bloud of Christ. And he calleth it bread which is broken 1. Corinthians 11.20 But bread is set vpon Tables not sacrificed vpon Altars Augustine also calleth it Mensam Domini the Lords table Epist. 59. epist. 50. He sheweth howe cruelly the Donatistes handled Maximian a catholik Bishop beating him with Clubbes euen in the church lignis altaris effractis immaniter ceciderunt and wounded him with the wood of the Altar which they had broken downe Where though he improperly call it an Altar yet was it a communion table framed of wood and made to bee remoued not fastened to the wall as their popish Altars were THE SECOND ARTICLE WHETHER Churches are more holy places in them selues The Papists GOd they say rather dwelleth and is present in Churches then els where error 50 and therefore it is more auailable for a man euen to make his priuate prayer in the Church Argum. 1. The Temple of Salomon was ordained euen for the prayers of priuate men and Salomon prayeth vnto God that they might be heard 1. King 8.38 So Anna prayed in the Tabernacle 1. Sam. 1.
God so the manner of celebrating and keeping it holy is to be learned out of the word and neither custome nor authority ought to giue liberty for such workes vpon the Lords day as are not warranted by the word First we graunt that we are not so necessarily tied to the rest of the Sabboth as the Iewes were for those things are abolished which appertained to the Iewish Sabboth First the prescript of the day Secondly the ceremonious exercises of the Sabboth in the sacrifices and other rites of the Law Thirdly the typicall shadowes and significations of their Sabboth as first it betokened their rest in Canaan then the rest and peace of the Church by Christ Hebre. 4.3 5. Fourthly the strickt and precise rest wherein Christians haue more liberty then the Iewes had and againe they obserued their rest as being properly and simply and in it selfe a sabboth daies duty but we doe consider it as being referred to a more principall end as making of vs more fit for spirituall exercises Secondly we allow these workes to be done First opera religiosa or pietatis the religious workes and conferring to piety as the Priestes did slaye the sacrifices vpon the Sabboth and yet brake not the rest of the Sabboth Math. 12.5 so the people may walke to their parish Church though somewhat farre off the Pastor Minister may goe forth to preach yea and preaching is of it selfe a labour of the body to study also and meditate of his Sermon to ring the bels to call the people to the Church all these are lawfull as being helpes for the exercises of religion Secondly opera charitatis the workes of mercy are permitted as to visite the sicke the Phisitian to resorte to his patient yea to shew compassion to brute beastes as to helpe the sheepe out of a pit Math. 12.11 Thirdly opera necessitatis the workes of necessitie as the dressing of meat and such like Math. 12.1.3 Our Sauiour excuseth his Apostles for plucking the eares of Corne when they were hungry As for opera voluntaria workes of pleasure and recreation we haue no other permission to vse them then as they shal be no le ts or impediments vnto spirituall exercises as the hearing of the word and meditating therein and such other Otherwise they are not to be vsed Augustine saith speaking of the Iewes who did greatly prophane their Sabboth in sporting and dalliance Melius toto die foderent quà m toto die saltarēt It were better for them to digge all day then to daunce all day euen so verily it were better for many poore ignorant people that vpon the Sabboth giue themselues to drinking and quaffing gaming if they should goe to plough or cart all the day But as for other seruile workes as to keepe Faires and Markets vpon the Lords day to trauell themselues their seruants and beastes vpon the Sabboth it is flat contrary to the commaundement of God and the practise of the Church Nehemiah 13.16 where there is no extream and vrgent necessitie so that it is not to be doubted but that as the keeping of the Lords day is a moral commaundement so also the manner of the obseruing thereof in sanctifying it and resting therein is morall the ceremonies of the rest being abolished that is the Iewish strictnes thereof and the opinion which they had of their rest as being simply a part of the sanctifying of the Sabboth But we doe consider it as referred vnto more principall duties and obserue it not as of it selfe pleasing God but as making vs more fit for spirituall exercises Contrary to these rules we acknowledge neither power in Ordinaries nor priuiledge in custome to dispence with the sanctification of the Sabboth The Papists THey affirme that the Apostles altered the sabboth day from the seaueth day to the eight counting from the creation and they did it without scripture error 62 or any commaundement of Christ such power say they hath God left to his Church This then they holde that the sabboth was changed by the ordinarie power and authoritie of the Church not by any especiall direction from Christ thereupon it followeth that the Church which they say cannot erre may also change the sabboth to any other day in the weeke Rhemist Apoca. 1. sect 6. The Protestants 1. THe Apostles did not abrogate the Iewish sabboth but Christ himselfe by his death as he did also other ceremonies of the Law and this the Apostles knew both by the scriptures the word of Christ his holy spirite 2. They did not appoint a new sabboth of their owne authoritie for first they knew by the scripture that one day of seauen was to be obserued for euer for the seruice of God and exercise of religion although the prescript day according to the Law were abrogate for the Lord before the morall law was written euen immediatly after the creation sanctified the seauenth day shewing thereby that one of the seauen must be obserued so long as the world endured Secōdly they knew there was the same reason of sanctifiyng the day of Christs resurrection and the restitution of the worlde thereby as of sanctifiyng the day of the Lords rest after the creation of the world Thirdly they did it by the direction of the spirite of God whereby they were so directed and gouerned that although they were fraile men by nature and subiect to error yet they could not decline in their writings and ordinances of the Church from the truth which assurance of Gods spirite in the like measure the Church hath not but so farre forth is promised to be led into all truth as she followeth the rule of truth expressed in the Scriptures Wherefore the Church hath no authority to change the Lords day and to keepe it vpon Munday or Tuesday or any other day seeing it is not a matter of indifferency but a necessary prescription of Christ himselfe deliuered by the Apostles for the Lords day began in the Apostles time and no doubt by their Apostolike authority directed by the spirite of Christ was instituted Act. 20.7 Apocal. 1. ver 10. Neither can there come so long as the world continueth so great a cause of changing the Sabboth as the Apostles had by the resurrection of Christ. Wherfore the law of the Sabboth as it is now kept and obserued is perpetuall The Papists errour 63 4. THey affirme that the keeping of the Lords day in stead of the Iewish Sabboth is a tradition of the Apostles and not warranted by Scripture Rhemist Math. 15. sect 3. The Protestants THe obseruation of the Lords day is not deliuered by blinde tradition but hath testimony of holy Scriptures 1. Corinth 16.2 Act. 20.7 Apocal. 1.10 and the obseruation thereof is according to Gods commaundement not after the doctrine of men Fulk ibid. The Papists errour 64 5. THey teach that the Lords day is commaunded and likewise kept for some mysticall signification not onely for the remembraunce of benefites already
person of Christ euen as his humanitie so that Christ was bread by consecration as he was man by his incarnation an horrible and monstrous opinion which is fathered vpon Rupertus the Abbot Iohannes Parisiensis also came neere this opinion who likewise affirmed that the bread was assumed to the person of Christ and vnited vnto him yet not immediatly as the other taught but by the mediation and meanes of the humanitie of Christ. Secondly of those that maintaine the conuersion of the elements First some would haue the forme onely of bread chaunged not the matter as Durandus Secondly some contrariwise would haue the matter altered and the forme to remaine Thirdly the Iesuits affirme the bread wholly in substance both in matter and forme to be changed the outward formes and accidents onely remaining ex Bellarm. lib. 3. de sacram Eucharist cap. 11. Thus men when they begin once to leaue the truth the Lord leaueth them to themselues and they runne mad in their owne inuentions not finding any end and so it is iustly come vpon them as S. Paul saith of the heathen Because when they knew God they did not glorifie him as God neither were thankfull they became vaine in their own imaginations and their foolish hart was full of darkenes when they professed themselues to be wise they became fooles Rom. 1.21.22 We therefore leauing these shalow pittes of humane inuentions which will holde no water will betake vs to the fountaine of truth This then to conclude is our definitiue sentence and full determination according to the Scriptures that Christ indeed is verily present in the Sacrament neither by conuersion of the bread into his body either wholly or in parte nor by assumption of the bread to the vnity of his person nor yet by the coniunction of his body and bread together but he doth verily exhibite himselfe with all his benefits spiritually by faith to be eaten and drunke of the worthy receiuer as we haue sufficiently proued before out of the Scriptures THE THIRD QVESTION WHETHER THE Eucharist being once consecrated be a Sacrament though it be neither eaten nor drunk The Papists THe elements in the Sacrament that is the bread and wine being once consecrate error 116 which say they is done by the prolation of those words hoc est corpus meum This is my body whether they be receiued or not at that instant but be reserued and kept in boxes and pixes and other vessels of the Church for daies weekes moneths to be caried solemnely to those that are sick and to be applyed to other vses are still the very body and blood of Christ. Trident. Concil sess 13. can 4.7 Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 2. Argum. 1. Christs words which were spoken ouer the bread This is my body were true as soone as he brought them forth before he said Take eat and so likewise of the cup therefore it was a Sacrament before they did receiue and eate it and had beene a Sacrament still if it had not bene receiued at all at that time Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. Those wordes of Christ This is my body were not spoken before he brake the bread and distributed it but first as S. Math. setteth it downe he brake the bread and gaue it to his Disciples saying Take eate and then follow those words This is my body Math. 26.26 which seeme to haue bene vttered euen in that instant when they tooke the bread and began to eate it Secondly the institution of the Sacrament consisteth partly of a promise partly of a precept the promise is this Hoc est corpus meum This is my body the precept Accipite manducate Take eate Christ doth no otherwise make good his promise then we performe the condition vnlesse therefore accordingly we doe take and eat it it is not the body of Christ. The Protestants THe Eucharist is no sacrament beside or without the vse thereof so that though some form of words be pronounced ouer it if it be not receiued and eaten and drunk it is no sacrament neither is that which remaineth after the distribution the Eucharist being ended either of the bread or wine any part of the sacrament but so much onely as is taken and vsed Argum. 1. It is no Sacrament vnlesse it be vsed according to the institution as Christ hath commanded it but to the institution it belongeth on the behalfe of the Minister to blesse break and distribute it on the behalfe of the communicants to take eate and drinke it in them all thereby to shew the Lords death and to doe it in remembrance of Christ. But this cannot be performed by vsing the words of benediction onely but by the whole action for how can they shew the Lords death or doe it in remembrance of Christ vnlesse they take and eate Ergo if it be not so vsed it is no Sacrament Argum. 2. The Sacraments of the new testament are alike and of one and the selfesame kinde there is one way of instituting and consecrating both but the water in baptisme is no part of the Sacrament but during the solemne action of baptizing afterward it returneth to the common vse so much as is not vsed Ergo it is so also in the Eucharist for as Christ saith to his Apostles Ite baptizate Goe and baptize so that it was no Sacrament vnlesse some body were baptized euen so he saith Accipite â—anducate Take eate No SacrameÌ„t then vnlesse it be receiued and eaten And here I pray you let it be noted how well the Iesuits agree amongst themselues our Rhemists doe commend the reseruing also of the water in baptisme and carrying of it home to giue it the diseased to drink annot Iam. 5. sect 5. Bellar. saith that Res permanens in baptismo That the thing permanent in Baptisme that is water which remaineth is not the sacrament but ipsa actio the action of baptizing it selfe and alloweth onely the Eucharist to be reserued and remaine a Sacrament Etiam extra vsum Without the vse thereof Bellar li. 4. de Eucharist cap. 3. But we haue shewed already that both the Sacraments are halowed and sanctified alike and that both in the one and the other the vse onely and present action according to Christs institution maketh the Sacrament In Augustines time some vsed to receiue the Communion dayly but vpon the Sabboth or Lords day it was commonly receiued of all Quotidie Eucharistiae communionem percipere nec laudo nec reprehendo omnib tamen dominicis diebus communicandum suadeo et hortor Euery day to receiue the Eucharist I neither commend nor dispraise it but euery Lords day I doe perswade men and exhort all to communicate It should seeme then that in those daies there was no such superstitious reseruation of the Sacrament seeing euery day or at the least euery Sabboth it was administred THE FOVRTH QVESTION CONCERNING the elements or materiall part of the Sacrament namely bread and wine The Papists 1. The bread
138. Out of Christs side dying vpon the Crosse issued the sacraments of the Church namely Baptisme and the Eucharist He draweth not both water and wine to signifie one sacrament but applyeth them to both THE FIFTH QVESTION OF THE wordes of consecration The Papists THese words say they This is my body to be spoken ouer the bread and the error 119 like ouer the wine This is the new testament in my blood are the very forms of the Sacraments and words of consecration which being vttered immediatly the elements are changed into the body and blood of Christ wherefore these words are not to be read historically for the instruction of the people but they are onely consecratory wordes to be pronounced ouer the elements Rhemist 1. Cor. 11. sect 11. Bellarm. lib. 4. de sacram cap. 13. Argu. If these were not the onely words of consecration This is my body and if presently vpon the vttering of these words the body of Christ was not present then should not the words of Christ be true Bellarm. ibid. The Protestants 1. WE acknowledge no such consecration at all by vertue whereof the elements are conuerted and transubstantiate into the body of Christ as we haue before shewed A consecration we graunt which is a setting apart of the elements which before were common to holy vses and by the vetue of Christs institution to be made vnto vs signes of holy things Secondly those are not the onely words of consecration This is my body and This is the cup of my blood and yet Christs wordes shall be true for we must not dismember the sentence Christ saith Take eate ye this is my body it is then made his body to be taken and eaten by taking then and eating the elements also are consecrated not onely by saying of the words ye must not then diuide the words of the institution for then they shall no more consecrate then if you should pronounce but two of your consecratory words as This is or My body and leaue out the rest Thirdly that these are not the onely words of consecration it appeareth because both the bread was broken and distributed and the Cuppe also before Christ spake those words as Math. 26.26 for first Christ saith Take eate and Take and drink before he said either This is my body or This is my blood neither can ye well tell yourselues which are your consecratory wordes for the Cup whether those that Mathew setteth downe This is my blood of the newe testament or as Luke hath This Cup is the new testament in my blood Nay Bellarmine vseth an other forme beside these Hic est calixâ—sâ—â— guinis This is the Cup of my blood Bellarm. cap. 13. Fourthly we conclude then that not onely these words but al the rest belonging to the institution are to be rehearsed in the Sacrament both to instruct the people that they may know the right vse of the Sacrament and they help also with the rest of the whole action of taking eating drinking praying thankesgiuing to consecrate and make the SacrameÌ„t as we haue shewed more at large before controu 11. quest 1. part 2. to that place we referre the Reader THE SIXT QVESTION OF THE PROPER effect and vse of the Lords Supper The Papists THey doe generally holde that this Sacrament was not properly ordeined error 120 for remission of sinnes neither that the Sacrament hath any such vse but it serueth onely as a preseruatiue against sinne Trident. Concil sess 13. can 5. Bellarm lib. 4. de sacram cap. 17. Secondly they teach that faith is not sufficient to prepare vs for the Communion and although a man be neuer so contrite quantumcunque se contritos existiment yet they must be throughly purged and absolued from their mortall sinnes before they come to communicate Concil Trident. sess 13. canon 11. Bellarm ibid. Argum. 1. They that receiue the Communion are one body as they are partakers of one bread 1. Cor. 10.17 but they which are in any greeuous and deadly sinne are not liuely members of Christ and of his mysticall body therefore the sacrament doth not profit them at all Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. Neither doe we affirme that men ought rashly presumptuously to come to the Lords table but to repent them throughly of their sinnes and to haue a stedfast and liuely faith in Christ who cannot be said thus preparing themselues to remaine in their sinnes neither yet are they so fully acquited of them that they need not to receiue the Sacrament to their comfort and to strengthen their faith in the hope and assurance of the remission of sinnes Secondly wherefore all this hindreth not but that they should be true members of Christs body euen hauing a troubled conscience and labouring vnder the burthen of their sinnes for the weake and sicke parts of the bodie are they therfore no partes at all because of their infirmities Augustine saith very wel Non filios diaboli faciunt quaecunque peccata peccaÌ„t enim et filij Dei In quibus non est fides filij sunt Diaboli Euery sin maketh not a man the childe of the deuil for the Children of God also sinne but they which haue no faith are the sonnes of the Deuill Ergo all sinnes cut not men off from the body of Christ but onely the want of faith they then that haue sinned and doe repent them and come with faith are still the sonnes of God and members of Christs body Argum. 2. There is not one and the same proper vse and end of diuerse Sacraments but Baptisme is receiued for remission of sinnes Ergo the Eucharist is not for that end Bellarm. ibid. Ans. 1. The death of Christ and so remission of sinnes purchased by the same is properly represented vnto vs in both Sacraments yet in a diuerse respect for as to be borne is one thing to be fed and nouâ—â—shed is another yet both worke the same thing in the body though diuersly for the birth giueth life meate and drink preserueth it the same difference is betweene Baptisme and the Lords Supper they both are seales vnto vs of our iustification in the remission of sinnes by Christ but by Baptisme we are initiated regenerate and borne anew and engrafted into the body of Christ. The other sacrament doth confirme encrease and nourish our faith already begun and planted in vs for the remission of sinnes and all other benefits of Christs passion The Protestants FIrst we doe truly affirme and teach that an especiall and principall vse of the Eucharist or Communion is to strengthen and assure our faith of the remission of sinnes and yet we deny not but that it hath other vses beside for as in Baptisme not onely the washing away of our sinnes is shewed forth but it also betokeneth our dying to sinne and rising to newnes of life Ro. 6.3.4 So in the Lords supper whole Christ with all his benefites is exhibited vnto vs as it is a pledge vnto vs
and the thing is abolished from our hearts and mouthes we trust in God wee shall neuer haue occasion to knowe it againe But howsoeuer it is this name Missa Masse cannot signifie any such thing as they pretend 1 For it seemeth that Missa was deriued à dimissione populi of the dimission or sending away of the people and so was taken generally for any congregation assembled either to pray or sing Psalmes or for any other religious duetie As yet to this day in the Dutch language Messe signifieth any solemne frequencie or congregation of the people In this sense Cassianus vnderstandeth Masse that is for the dimission of the people speaking of him that commeth not timelie to the howers of praier hee would not haue him to enter in but stantem pro foribus congregationis missam praestolari debere hee ought standing without the doores to waite for the misse of the congregation 2 Augustine taketh this word Missa generally for the leiturgie or seruice of the Church as serm de tempore 251. if that SermoÌ„ be Augustines Sunt aliqui maximè potentes huius mundi cum veniunt ad ecclesiam non sunt deuoti ad laudes Dei celebrandas sed cogunt presbyteruÌ„ vt abbreuiet Missam there are some and commonly the great men of the world which come not to Church with any deuotion to sing praises to God but they constraine the presbyter or Minister to make short Masse Here this word Masse signifieth the whole leiturgie as singing of Psalmes and praising God not any sacrifice or oblation for then he would haue said Cogunt sacerdotem not presbyterum They constraine the priest not the Minister Wherefore as the sacrifice of the Masse is of no great antiquitie so neither is the name in that sence THE SECOND PART OF THE sacrifice of the Masse The Papists CHrist they say at his last Supper did offer vp his owne bodie and blood in error 128 sacrifice vnder the formes of bread and wine to God his father and at the same instant made his Apostles and their successors Priests to offer vp his bodie â—n the Sacrament Concil Tridentin sess 22. cap. 1. And the same bodie which Christ offered vp vpon the crosse is dayly offered vp by the ministerie of the Priests the difference onely is in the manner of offering Concil Trident. ibid. c. 2. The eternitie proper act of Christs Priesthood consisteth in the offering sacrificing of the body blood of Christ in the formes of bread wine in the Church Rhem. Heb. 7. sect 8. And we meane alwaies of Priest sacrifice taken in their owne proper signification ibid. sect 7. In the Eucharist then there is a true sacrifice of the very bodie and blood of Christ offered vp to God by the hands of the Priest in the formes of bread and wine Bellarm. cap. 5. Argum. 1. Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech but the proper act of Melchisedechs priesthoode did consist in sacrificing in the formes of bread and wine Ergo the eternitie of Christs priesthoode standeth in the sacrificing of his bodie and blood in those formes there doth therefore still remaine a proper external sacrifice in the Church Rhemist annot Hebr. 7. sect 8. Bellarm. cap. 6. Ans. 1. We confesse that Melchisedech was a type of our Sauiour Christ and that he was a Priest after Melchisedechs order but not in any such respect for offering in bread and wine for the text saith hee brought forth bread and wine he offered it not he brought it forth for the refreshing of Abraham and those which were with him Genes 14.18 2. He brought forth bread and wine and not the formes onely of bread and wine therefore your sacrifice in the formes onely is not after his order 3. If Melchisedechs bringing forth of bread wine were a sacrifice or oblation and a type of the like sacrifice to continue for euer in the Church it must also haue been a propitiatorie sacrifice for the remission of sinnes as they say the sacrifice of the Masse is which was thereby signified but there is no propitiatorie sacrifice for remission of sinnes without shedding of blood Hebr. 9.22 Therefore Milchisedechs act being without blood was no such sacrifice and consequently none at all 4. The Apostle to the Hebrues sheweth wherein Christ was a Priest after Melchisedechs order Heb. 7. First in that Melchisedech was both king Priest verse 2. so is Christ. Secondly in respect of the eternitie of his Priesthoode we doe not reade either of the beginning of his dayes or end of his life nor of any change of his priesthoode vers 3. Al which is most truely verified in Christ. Thirdly Melchisedech was a type of Christ and his Priesthoode of Christs because of the excellencie thereof aboue the Leuiticall Priesthoode for Leui paide tithes in Abraham to Melchisedech and therefore was inferior and was blessed of Melchisedech in Abraham the lesse of the greater so is the Priesthoode of Christ aduaunced farre aboue Aarons order If in any other materiall point Melchisedechs Priesthoode had resembled Christs as in this oblation of bread and wine the Apostle would not haue omitted it 5. Therein consisted the proper act of Melchisedechs priesthoode for the which he receiued tithes of Abraham but as the Apostle saith he receiued tithes and blessed Abraham Heb. 7.6 Ergo the tithes were due not for any sacrifice which he offered but for his blessing The same therefore was the proper act of his Priesthoode Argum. 2. They alleage that place Heb. 8.3 Euery high Priest is appointed to offer giftes and hostes wherefore it is necessarie that he also haue somewhat to offer Christ then hath a certaine host in externall and proper manner as other Priests haue but this visible and externall act of sacrificing he doth not exercise now in heauen therefore it must needes bee meant of the perpetuall oblation of his body and blood in the Church for somewhat he must alwaies haue to offer Rhemist Hebr. 8. sect 3. Ans. 1. The Apostle saith not that it is necessarie that Christ should still haue somewhat to offer in sacrifice but that it was needefull for him to haue somewhat which he had alreadie offered for the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not the present tence but the time past whereby is vnderstoode the oblation which hee had already offered once and which neede not bee repeated Hebr. 7.27 For as herein hee is like to other Priests that hee must haue somewhat to haue offered so is he vnlike also in this that they by reason of their infirmitie had need to offer often but Christ our high Priest did it but once as in that place the Apostle sheweth 2. The gift which the Apostle in this place attributeth to Christ was his bodie which hee calleth the true Tabernacle which the Lord pight and not man But that bodie of Christ which they say is offered vp in the sacrifice of the
Masse is not of that nature for it is made by the ministerie of man for euery one of their sacrificing Priests is able to make the bodie of Christ but this bodie which Christ had to offer was made onely by God without the helpe of man as the Apostle saith Againe say if you dare that the bodie which you offer is the true Tabernacle and temple of God for then it would followe that God dwelleth in temples made with hands that is by the ministerie of man contrarie to the Scriptures seeing you affirme that the bodie of Christ is no otherwise present but by the ministerie of the Priest And what a goodly Tabernacle is this for God thinke you which you shut vp in a pixe and hang vp in your Churches A mouse may eate it the fire may consume it corruption may take it would God suffer his Tabernacle thus to be defiled Wherefore vpon these premises we conclude that what you offer in your popish sacrifice cannot be the proper gift belonging to Christes Priesthoode Argum. 3. The Apostle saith Hebr. 13.10 Wee haue an altar whereof they haue no power to eate which serue in the Tabernacle Ergo we haue not onely a common table to eate meere bread vpon but a verie altar in the proper sense to sacrifice Christs bodie vpon Rhemist annot Hebr. 13. sect 6. Ans. First the Apostle speaketh of the sacrifice of Christs death whereof we are made partakers by faith which they can reape no benefite by which remaine in the ceremoniall obseruations of Leuiticall sacrifices Christ therefore is our Priest altar and sacrifice for verse 12. the Apostle maketh mention of the suffrings of Christ he meaneth not then the Communion table which is vnproperly called an altar or any materiall altar beside but the altar onely of Christs death Secondly if wheresoeuer in Scripture this worde altar is read it must be taken for a proper materiall altar we shall haue also a material altar in heauen Apoc. 8.3 which I am sure they wil not grant Thirdly the Apostle saith We haue an altar which is but one whereas popish altars are many it cannot therefore be vnderstoode of such altars The Protestants THat there are spirituall sacrifices remaining yet vnto Christians in the exercise of religion we doe verily beleeue being so taught by the Scriptures such are the sacrifices of praise and thankesgiuing Heb. 13.15 The sacrifice of almes and distribution verse 16. the mortifying also of the flesh is a kinde of crucifying and so a spirituall sacrifice Galat. 6.14 And in this sense wee denie not but that the Sacrament may be called a sacrifice that is a spirituall oblation of praise and thankesgiuing but that there is a proper and externall sacrifice as in the lawe of Goates and Bullocks vpon the crosse of the bodie of Christ so in the Eucharist of the same bodie and flesh of Christ we doe hold it for a great blasphemie and heresie Argum. 1. The very flesh and true naturall bodie of Christ is not as wee haue shewed before at large in such carnall and corporall manner present in the Sacrament therefore it cannot in the Sacrament be sacrificed and offered vp Argum. 2. This sacrificing of the bodie and blood of Christ is contrarie to Christs institution for he saith onely Take yee eate yee drinke yee he saith not Sacrifice yee or lift vp and make an oblation of my bodie Neither doe those wordes hoc facite doe this giue them any power to sacrifice for to whome he saith Eate yee drinke yee to the same also he saith Doe yee Wherefore if doe yee be as much as sacrifice yee all Christians for whome it is lawfull to eate and drinke the Sacrament by this rule haue authoritie to sacrifice Againe the words are Doe this in remembrance We remember things absent and which are alreadie done and past if then there be a present sacrifice in the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ it cannot properly be said to be a memorie of his sacrifice Argum. 3. The Apostle saith that Christ neede not to offer himselfe often but that he hath done once in the end of the world Heb. 9.26 And with one offering hath hee made perfite for euer them that are sanctified 10.14 Ergo Christ cannot be sacrificed againe for that were to make his sacrifice vpon the crosse imperfect Bellarmine answereth that the Apostle here speaketh of the bloodie and painefull sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse which was sufficient once to bee done but this taketh not away the vnbloodie sacrifice which is but an iteration of the former whereby the fruite and efficacie of that first oblation is applied vnto vs Bellarm. lib. 1. de miss cap. 25. Ans. First the Apostle excludeth all manner iterations of the sacrifice of Christ for otherwise if Christ should now bee often howsoeuer sacrificed the difference would not hold betweene the sacrifices of the lawe which were often done and the sacrifice of Christ which was once to be performed for their sacrifices were also in a manner iterations and commemorations of the sacrifice of Christ. The Apostle then thus reasoneth They had many iteratiue and commemoratiue sacrifices of Christs death Ergo we haue not now Secondly that is but a foolish and false distinction of the bloodie and vnbloodie sacrifice as they vnderstand it for there can be no proper vnbloodie sacrifice of Christ neither could he be offered vp otherwise then by dying Heb. 9.27.28 Therefore he is not offered vp in the Sacrament because now he dyeth not Thirdly neither neede wee inuent a new kinde of sacrifice for the application of Christs death for to that end Christ hath appointed the preaching of the word and instituted the Sacraments wherby the death of Christ with al the benefites thereof are most fruitefully applied vnto vs Galath 3.1 1. Corinth 11.26 Argum. 4. Augustine in a certaine place allegorizing the parable of the prodigall child thus writeth Vitulum occidit quando in sacramento altario memoriam passionis in mente renouauit He slew the fat calfe when hee renewed in the Sacrament of the altar the memorie of his passion in his minde Hee calleth it the Sacrament not the sacrifice of the altar and it onely bringeth to our minde the memorie of Christs passion and sacrifice there is then no oblation or sacrifice in the Sacrament but onely a commemoration of Christs sacrifice which we denie not AN APPENDIX OR THIRD PART OF the name and office of Priestes The Papists AS they doe falsely teach and perswade that there is yet remaining a proper error 129 externall sacrifice for Christians vnder the Gospell so also they maintaine a sacrificing Priesthoode And further they say that the Leuiticall Priesthoode was not translated into the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse but is properly turned into the Priesthoode and sacrifice in the Church according to Melchisedechs rite in offering vp the bodie and blood of Christ in the formes of bread and wine Rhemist
annot Hebr. 7. sect 7. Wherefore they which minister vnder the Gospell are worthilie called Priests which word doth so certainely implie the authoritie of sacrificing that it is by vse made the onely English of Sacerdos Rhemist act 14. sect 3. The Protestants FIrst we hold it to be a great blasphemie to say that the Priesthood sacrifice of Christ vpō the Crosse is not that sacrifice or Priesthood into the which the old sacrifice Priesthood was translated changed The Apostle proueth the contrary for that sacrifice whereby the new Testament is established is that whereunto the old sacrifice and Priesthoode is translated but this is done by the singular sacrifice of Christ who is the suretie of a better testament Hebr. 7.23 Ergo his singular sacrifice vpon the crosse is that whereinto the old Leuiticall sacrifices are changed and no other Againe the Priesthoode after Melchisedechs order is that into the which the old Priesthoode is changed but the Priesthoode of Christ vpon the Crosse was after that order Ergo. But here they are not ashamed to denie that the sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse was after Melchisedechs order but doe most impudently and blasphemously affirme that it was after the order of Aaron Heskin lib. 1. cap. 13. And thus euery vile massemonger shall be more properly a Priest after Melchisedechs order then Christ himselfe Secondly none but Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech for vnto whome the Lord saide Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech to him the Lord saith also in the same Psalme Sit thou at my right hand Psal. 110. But this cānot agree to any popish Priest therefore not the other Againe the Apostle maketh this difference betweene the Priesthoode of the lawe and the Gospell because then there were many Priests they being prohibited by death to continue but Christ is the onely Priest of the New Testament because he dieth not Heb. 7 23.24 If they answer as they doe that although there be many Priestes yet it is but one Priesthoode because Christ concurreth with them in the actes of the Priesthoode Rhemist We answer first Christ concurreth with his faithfull ministers in the actes of their Ministerie but no such Priesthoode doe wee acknowledge Secondly so Christ concurred in the actes of the Leuiticall Priesthoode and the sacrifices of the law that were rightly offered wherefore this concurrence of Christ dooth no more take away the multitude of Priests in the Gospell then it did in the lawe Thirdly concerning the name of Priests in their sense as it implieth an authoritie of sacrificing we vtterly abhor it secondly but as it is deriued of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth an Elder we refuse it not but wish rather that it had not bin abused in cōmō speach to signifie popish sacrificers Thirdly as for the word sacerdos which may be englished a sacrificer we finde it no where in the New Testament giuen to the ministers of the Gospell and so much Bellarmine confesseth cap. 17. And therefore vnfitly and vnproperly agreeth vnto them If some of the fathers haue confounded the names of Sacerdos and Presbyter they are not to be commended The word Sacerdos a sacrificer being a proper name of the Leuitical Priests cannot properly be attributed to the Ministers of the Gospell To conclude this word Priest as it is the English of Sacerdos we doe not approue but as it giueth the sense of Presbyter from whence it is deriued we condemne it not for so it signifieth nothing else but an Elder If common vse of speech haue drawne it to a contrarie sense it would be amended Augustine saith Sacerdotiū Iudaeorum nemo dubitat c. No faithful mā doubteth but that the Priesthood of the law was a figure of the royall Priesthoode in the Church whereby all that pertaine to the bodie of Christ are consecrated He acknowledgeth no other Priesthood abiding in the Church then that whereby all Christians are made Priests to offer spirituall sacrifices vnto God through Christ. THE THIRD QVESTION OF THE VERTVE AND efficacie falsely ascribed to the sacrifice of the Masse The Papists 1. THey blasphemously affirme that it is a sacrifice propitiatorie that is auailable error 130 to obtaine ex opere operato by the very worke wrought remission and pardon of all their sinnes Trident. Concil sess 22. can 3. Argum. Christ himselfe sayth in the institution This is my blood shed for you for the remission of sinnes Ergo the sacrifice of the Masse is auaileable for remission of sinnes Bellarm. lib. 2. de miss cap. 2. The Protestants Ans. FIrst Christ instituted no sacrifice as we declared afore but onely a Sacrament in remembrance of his death and passion Secondly the Sacrament rightly administred serueth to assure our faith of remission of sinnes by the death of Christ but it doth not by it owne vertue conferre remission of sinnes neither profiteth by the worke wrought for the Apostle sayth That without faith it is impossible to please God Hebr. 11.6 wherefore no action is accepted of God not proceeding of faith Argum. The Apostle sayth Where there is remission of sinnes there is no more sacrifice for sinne Hebr. 10.18 Seeing then remission of sinnes is fully obtained by the death and sacrifice of Christ there can be no more sacrifice for sinne Ergo the Masse is no sacrifice for sinne The Papists 2. THe sacrifice of the Masse is not onely propitiatorie for sinnes but auaileable error 131 to obtaine all other benefites as peace tranquilitie health and such like Bellarm. cap. 3. Argum. S. Paul willeth That prayers and intercessions should be made for all men especially for Kings that we may leade a godly and a peaceable life 1. Timoth. 1.1 These are the prayers which are made in the celebration of the Masse Bellarm. The Protestants Ans. FIrst the Apostle speaketh generally of al prayers made by whomsoeuer as it appeareth vers 8. Therefore this place is vnfitly applied to the praiers of Priests in the Masse Secondly this place proueth that temporall benefites are obtained by faithfull prayers not by the sacrifice of the Masse which S. Paul neuer knewe Thirdly Augustine indeed expoundeth this place of the publike prayers of the Church vsed in the administration of the Sacrament for he calleth it Domini mensam the Lords table not the altar he meaneth nothing lesse then your popish Masse Argum. It is contrarie to the institution of Christ to applie the Sacrament for any such temporall or external vse It was ordained to be receiued in remembrance of Christs death to assure vs by faith of remission of sinnes and other spirituall blessings not to giue vs assurance of health peace life prosperitie for the obtaining of such blessings according to the will of God other meanes are appoynted The ministerie of the Sacraments no more serueth for such vses then the preaching of the word THE FOVRTH QVESTION FOR WHOM THE sacrifice of
would haue promised health by calling for the Elders if the gift had not beene generall in euery congregation Ans. 2. Neither is remission of sinnes annexed to the element but to the generall doctrine of prayer made in fayth The prayer of fayth saith the Apostle shall heale the sicke The Protestants EXtreme Vnction is no conuenient ceremonie at all to be vsed in the Church as tending to superstition and breeding a vayne confidence in terrene elements much lesse is it to be holden for a sacrament Argum. 1. It hath no institution from Christ For they themselues confesse that Mark 6.13 there is but a preparatiue to the sacrament of extreme Vnction Rhemist the promulgation and publishing thereof is set forth by the Apostle Iam. 5. But this is not to be admitted that Christ was a preparer of sacraments onely and that they were perfited and finished by his Apostles Nay they were not to adde any thing to the institution of sacraments but to take them as Christ deliuered them 1. Cor. 11.23 Agayne the place in Iames maketh nothing for their popish aneeling for the Apostle would haue al the Elders called but one priest is sufficient to bring your oyntment box Secondly if any man be sick sayth Saint Iames though it be not deadly or mortall sicknes but whensoeuer he is sicke But your Vnction is neuer ministred before the poynt of death Thirdly here health is certainely promised But not one amongst tenne recouereth after your popish aneeling Argum. 2. Christ vsed sometime clay and spittle sometime other elements in healing the diseased as the Apostles vsed oyle why I pray you then may not they be sacraments as well as this For they were signes of healing but for a time no more was the anoynting with oyle Augustine sayth De latere Christi in cruce sacramenta ecclesiae profluxerunt The sacraments of the Church issued out of Christs side vpon the Crosse There gushed out â—â—is side water and blood but wee reade not that any oyle was shedde from 〈◊〉 therefore by Augustines argument Vnction is no sacrament THE SECOND PART OF THE effect and vertue of extreme Vnction The Papists error 53 FIrst it giueth health of body Secondly it wipeth away the reliques of sinne And therefore the priest thus sayth Per istam sanctam Vnctionem suam pijssimam misericordiam indulgeat tibi Deus quicquid deliquisti per visum c. By the vertue of this holy oyntment and the most merciful fauour of God the Lord forgiue thee what thou hast offended by thy sight hearing c. Bellarm. cap. 7.8 The Protestants 1 YOur popish aneeling is not able to heale the bodie as wee see by daylie experience for more die then liue after your anoynting And they that doe recouer should doe as well without your aneeling Wherefore this anoynting of oyle is not like to that vsed by the Apostles for then health certainly followed Iam. 5.14 2 It is also a great blasphemie to ascribe remission of sinnes to a terrene and beggerly element The Apostle saith not the oyle but the Prayer of fayth shall saue the sicke The scripture also testifieth that the Iust shall liue by fayth Rom. 1.17 And we walke by faith not by sight 2. Corinth 5.7 But he that ascribeth remission of sinnes to oyle or any other externall element walketh by sight not by fayth THE THIRD PART OF THE MINISTER of extreme Vnction and the ceremonies The Papists FIrst they giue power only vnto their anoynted Masse priests to aneele the sicke with oyle Lay men haue no authoritie to doe it nor whosoeuer are error 54 no Priests Concil Trident. sess 14. can 4. Secondly for the rite and ceremonie the Priest comming to the sicke must anoynt his fiue senses his eyes eares nostrels mouth and hands also the reines which is the seate of concupiscence and his feete which are the instruments of execution Bellarmin cap. 10. The Protestants 1 THis anoynting which Saint Iames speaketh of was done by the whole company of Elders in euery congregation which were not all the Pastors of the Church Yea and it appeareth by their own Canons Innocent 1. Epist. 1. cap. 8. that it was lawfull for lay men and all Christians to vse this anoynting see Fulk annot Iam. 5. sect 5. 2 What neede the body be anoynted in so many places It is meere superstition of the like minde was Peter sometime when he sayd to Christ who would wash his feete Lord not my feete onely but my hands and my head To whom Christ answered He that is washed neede not saue to wash his feete but is cleane all Iohn 13.9 Where although the words of Christ haue a spirituall meaning yet we see the euident and playne practise of them in Baptisme In the which sacrament we doubt not but that infants are thorougly baptized though euery part be not touched with water And euen so if your aneeling were a sacrament why might it not suffice in some one part of the bodie to be anoynted and not in so many This we are sure of that nowe you speake without booke For the Apostle maketh no mention of anoynting eyes hands or mouth but onely generally of anoynting the sick And thus it appeareth that your extreme Vnction is no sacrament nor any of the other foure which you haue inuented THE CONCLVSION OF THIS treatise concerning the sacrament THus I trust we haue made it pliane by scripture and euidence of argument that there are but two sacraments onely Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord left and enioyned to the people of God by our Sauiour Christ for foure things are required to make a sacrament First the authority of Christ in commanding it Secondly the element or external signe as the matter Thirdly the word of institution as the forme Fourthly the end and vse to be a seale of our fayth for remission of sinnes 1 Concerning the efficient cause we finde that two sacraments onely in the new testament are commanded by Christ to be vsed for euer in the Church Baptisme and the Lords Supper which both by his owne example and presence as also his precept and commandement were established 2 There must be an outward visible elementall signe as is water in Baptisme bread and wine in the Lords Supper But so is there not in the fiue popish sacrameÌ„ts For in some there is no signe at all as in Matrimonie where they are driuen to say that the parties that are maried are the signes In some there is a signe but not visible as in absolution the audible voyce of the priest ponouncing the words of absolution is they say the outward signe But in all the sacraments of Christs institution we finde a visible signe In some there is an outward signe but it is an action or gesture only no material element which is not sufficient so is the imposition of hands in giuing of Orders In some there is a materiall signe as Chrisme in Confirmation oyle in extreme Vnction
questions wherein we dissent from our aduersaries both as touching all the offices of Christ his propheticall office kingdome and priesthood as likewise concerning the benefites purchased by the death of Christ the benefites of our redemption and saluation Now in the last place we are to prosecute such matters in question betweene vs as doe concerne the natures of Christ. And this treatise containeth three controuersies First of the humane nature of Christ. Secondly of his diuine nature Thirdly of them both considered together THE EIGHTEENTH GENERAL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE HVMANE NATVRE OF CHRIST THis Controuersie is diuided into these questions First of the vbiquitie of the humanitie of Christ. Secondly whether he encreased in wisedome Thirdly whether he suffered in soule Fourthly whether he descended into Hell Fiftly concerning the place of Hell THE FIRST QVESTION OF THE VBIQVITIE OF the bodie of Christ whether his humanitie be euery where The Papists THey doe seeme in words mightily to impugne this opinion of the Vbiquitaries error 97 as they are called which doe erroniously hold that the humanitie of Christ is euery where as his deitie is and that the properties of one nature are really imparted vnto the other whereupon it followeth that the humanitie of Christ is euery where because it is verely vnited and made one person with the Godhead in Christ. This opinion the Papists would be thought to detest and abhorre and the Iesuite bestoweth great paines by sundrie arguments to confute it as by diuers places of scripture Math. 28. He is risen he is not here vers 6. Iesus sayd Lazarus is dead and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there Ioh. 11.4 Ergo Christ as he is man is not euery where Againe the opinion of the Vbiquitaries doth ouerthrow the article of Christs ascension for if Christs bodie be euery where as they hold he can neither ascend nor descend Bellarm. de Incarnation verbi lib. 3. cap. 11.12 The Protestants IT is true Catholique and sound doctrine that the humane and diuine nature are truely vnited in Christ and doe make but one person or hypostasis neither by confusion of the natures nor conuersion of one into the other but by vnitie of person for as the bodie and soule make one man so God and man is one Christ. And the better to vnderstand this mysterie we must set downe these three positions 1. Though the two natures in Christ be so vnited that they make but one person yet neither the natures are confounded nor yet the properties but as Christ is both God and man so there is in him a double power will and vnderstanding one humane and created the other diuine and vncreated 2. By reason of this vnion all the excellent graces of the spirit in the highest degree and aboue measure are giuen and bestowed vpon the humanitie of Christ Ioh. 3.34 but such notwithstanding as destroy not his humane nature but are qualities created as his humanitie also was created 3. There is also a mutuall communication of the proprieties of both natures each to other though not really in respect of the natures So we say in Concreto in the concrete that is taking the whole person of Christ that Christus homo that is the man Christ is omnipotent is euery where and Christus Deus that is Christ being God died for vs was buried rose againe but in the abstract it is great blasphemie to say that the Godhead of Christ died was buried or rose againe or that the humanitie of Christ is omnipotent or in euery place The Vbiquitaries now hold that there is a reall communication of the proprieties of both natures therfore doubt not to say that the flesh and bodie of Christ is euery where in all places at once The Papists in outward shew are enemies to that opinion but indeed and in truth as it shall now appeare they are not farre off from being in the same error First the same arguments which they vrge against the Vbiquitaries doe returne vpon themselues for although they will not say that Christs bodie is euerie where yet they hold that it may bee in a thousand places at once yea and more to if the Sacrament be at once in so many places celebrated for Christs bodie is reallie and verely in the Sacrament But those places alleadged He is risen he is not heere and the rest doe proue that Christ can be but in one place at once This their opinion also is against the article of Christs ascension and abiding in heauen till the day of iudgement for if the same bodie wherein Christ sitteth in heauen be in the Sacrament either when he is present in earth he is absent in heauen contrary to the scripture Act. 3.21 which sayth The heauens must containe him till that all things be restored or els if he be in both places at once they must needes make his bodie infinite and so destroy the nature of his humanitie which can be but in one place If they say it is another bodie and flesh which Christ by his diuine power maketh to bee present in the Sacrament that were much more absurd for then Christ should haue many bodies and other flesh then that which was borne of the Virgine Mary We see then they are not farre off from the opinion of the Vbiquitaries 2. The Rhemists doe approue that argument whereby Hierome proueth that the Saints may euery where be present at their bodies monuments They follow the Lambe whither soeuer he goeth but the Lambe is in euery place therefore they that be with the Lambe Christ be present euery where Whereupon it followeth that the Lambe Christ in humanitie must be euery where for how can he be present els in innumerable places at once where any reliques or monuments of Saints are Neither can they excuse this vbiquitarie presence of the humanitie of Christ and the soules of Saints by their agilitie and celeritie because they can quickly passe from one place to another for if they must bee present at their monuments whensoeuer they are called vpon they must of necessitie be often in many places at once for in one and the same instant men may resort to their monuments which are in diuers places farre asunder Thus they are driuen not onely to graunt an vbiquitie or omnipresence of the humanitie of Christ but euen of Saints also which those whom they call Vbiquitaries would neuer graunt 3. The bodie of Christ is visible and palpable now in heauen and hath a place according to the quantitie of his bodie Bellarmine confesseth as much cap. 12. But that bodie which is in the Sacrament hath none of these properties it is neither seene nor felt neither hath a place according to the quantitie of a bodie for they close it vp in small round cakes Wherfore destroying these properties of the humanitie of Christ they may as well and do in effect take away the other namely the being of Christs bodie in