by good workes Rhemist Rom. 2.3 Ans. This is but a late and new deuice of the first and second iustification as afterward we wil shew in the proper place The scripture teacheth vs that not onely the beginning of our righteousnes but the finishing and perfiting of it is onely by grace in Christ Ephes. 2.5.6 When we were dead in our sinnes he hath quickned vs together in Christ by whose grace yee are saued and hath raysed vs vp and made vs sit together in heauenly places We see that this saluation by grace bringeth vs vp to heauen Ergo both the first second iustification are of grace for they can bring vs no further then to heauen Rhemist 2. Workes done of nature without or before fayth cannot merite but workes done by Gods grace may and are ioyned with it as causes of saluation Ans. Not onely the workes of nature but euen of grace also are excluded Wee are saued saith the Apostle by grace through fayth not of workes And then he sheweth what workes namely good workes such as the Lord hath ordayned for vs to walke in Ephes. 2.9.10 Ergo workes also of grace wrought in vs by the spirite of God are shut out from being any causes of our saluation I conclude with Augustine vpon those wordes of the Psalme Let the Lord alway be magnified Peccatores magnificetur vt vocet consiteris magnificetur vt ignoscat iam iustè viuis magnificetur vt regat perseueras vsque ad finem magnificetur vt te glorificet Art thou a sinner let God be magnified in calling thee doest thou confesse thy sinnes let him be magnified in forgiuing them doest thou liue well let him be magnified in directing thee doest thou continue to the end let him be magnified in glorifiing thee God is as much to be praysed for all things wrought after our calâ—ing and conuersion as for mercy shewed before All then is wholly to bee ascribed to Gods grace and mercie nothing is left for our merite or desert THE FOVRTH PART OF THE distinction of merites The Papists THey make two kindes of merite Meritum de coâ—gruo merite of congruitie error 91 such are the preparatiue workes before iustification as were the prayers almes deeds of Cornelius Act. 10. which though they be not simply meritorious ex debito iustitiae by the due debt of iustice yet they deserue at Gods handes of congruitie because hee doth graciously accept them Act. 10. sect 5. The other kinde they call meritum de condigno merite of condignitie when the reward is iustly due by debt such are the workes done in the second iustification which are truely meritorious and worthy of heauen Gabriel Biel. Rhemist Rom. 2. sect 3. The Protestants FIrst wee vtterly denie any such merite of condignitie For Saint Paul sayth that the afflictions of this life are not condigne of the glory to come Rom. 8.18 Condignitie then is wholly remoued and taken away Secondly a rewarde of congruitie in some sorte we graunt but neither for any thing done before fayth or iustification for it is impossible without fayth to please God or doe any thing acceptable vnto him Hebr. 6.6 Neither is it of congruitie for the merite of our workes but it is congruum it is agreeable to the mercie and iustice of God in respect of his promise graciously made in Christ to rewarde the faithfull obedience of his seruants so then the congruitie is on Gods behalfe not in respect of our workes We are iustified sayth the Apostle Gratis per gratiam freely by grace Rom. 3.24 Ergo there is no merite either of congruitie or condignitie seeing all is done freely Augustine sayth Quid ille latro attulerat de fauce ad iudicium de iudicio ad crucem de cruce in Paradisum I pray you what merite did the theefe bring with him from the prison to iudgemeÌ„t from the iudgement place to the crosse from the crosse to Paradise Here was neither merite of congruitie nor condignitie THE FIFT PART OF THE MANner of meriting The Papists OVr workes they say are pleasing and acceptable vnto God euen after error 92 the same manner that Christ and his workes were Tapper ex Tileman loc 11. Err. 14. Christes paynes of their owne nature compared to his glorie were not any whit comparable yet they were meritorious and worthy of heauen not for the greatnes of them but for the worthines of his person So our works not of their owne nature but as they are of grace are meritorious of the ioyes of heauen Rhemist Rom. 8.18 The Protestants FIrst it is a great blasphemie to say that Christs passions in themselues deserued not that glory which he hath purchased for vs neither that there was any comparison betweene them for then how could he haue fully satisfied the wrath of God Christ hath payed the ransome for our sinnes Wee are redeemed with his precious blood as of a lambe vnspotted 1. Pet. 1.19 His blood was the price of our redemption therefore of it selfe meritorious It was not in respect of Christ of grace but of merite in him Vnto vs his redemption is of grace Rom. 3.24 Wherefore his passion being the passion of the Sonne of God was a full satisfaction and worthy desert of that glory which hee hath purchased for vs. Secondly it is another great blasphemy to match and compare in the way and maner of meriting Christs workes and ours together For first there is no merite at all in vs vnto saluation we haue no merites but Christs and are saued onely by fayth in him not by workes Ephes. 2.8 Secondly by your own confession our works are not of their nature meritorious but of grace But Christs workes were of themselues full of merite without any externall helpe or accession of grace for in himselfe did all fulnes dwell Coloss. 1.19 Augustine very well sheweth the great difference in the way of meriting betweene Christ and vs thus writing Quantum interest cum duo sint in carcere interreum visitatorem eius illum causa premit illum humanitas adduxit sic in istu mortalitate nos reatu tenebamur Christus misericordia descendit Looke what difference there is when two are in prison together betweene the prisoner and his friend that commeth to visite him the one is there of necessitie the other commeth of good will Such difference is there betweene Christ vs for when we were deteined in the prison of this mortalitie for the guilt of our sinnes Christ came in mercy to visite vs. How can there now be any proportionable or like way of meriting in the guiltie prisoner and the innocent and friendly visiter THE FOVRTH QVESTION of Iustification THe partes of this question First of the preparatiue workes to iustification Secondly of the 2. kindes of iustification the first second Thirdly of inherent iustice Fourthly of Iustification only by fayth They folow now in order THE FIRST PART OF THE PREparatiue workes The Papists
onely faith but loue or charitie obtaineth remission of sinnes Bellarm. ibid. Rhemist in hunc locum The Protestants Ans. THe argument is not from the cause to the effect but from the effect to the cause for Christ doth not reason thus she loued much therefore many sinnes are forgiuen her but contrariwise Many sinnes are forgiuen her therefore she loueth much As the next words declare to whom little is remitted he loueth little And our Sauiour sayth in plaine words in the last verse That her faith had saued her whereof her loue was an effect Argum. That the contrition of the heart is no meanes of our iustification nor a meriting cause or procuring of remission of sinnes Saint Paul sheweth Rom. 4.5 6. To him that beleeueth faith is counted for righteousnes And Dauid declareth the blessednesse of that man to whom God imputeth righteousnes without workes It is faith then onely that obtaineth remission of sinnes and a man is iustified without any respect had to his workes Therefore neither contrition nor any other worke inward or outward procureth remission of sinnes but faith onely is the meane So Augustine sayth Opera sequuntur iustificatum non praecedunt iustificandum Workes followe a man alreadie iustified they goe not before to iustification De fide operib cap. 14. Therefore the worke of contrition is not auaileable to iustification The Papists 5. COntrition they say is not necessarie for veniall or small offences neither error 11 is a man bound thereunto So. lib. 4. distinct 17. articul 3. The Protestants THis assertion is cleane contrarie to scripture for the Prophet Dauid praieth not onely to be kept from presumptuous sinnes Psalm 19.13 but euen to be cleansed from his secret faults vers 12. Augustine agreeth Non solum propter vitae huius ignorantiam sed etiam propter ipsum puluerem mundi huius qui pedibus adhaerescit quotidianam habere debemus poenitentiam Not only for the ignorances of this life but euen for that drosse and dust of the world which hangeth vpon our feete we ought daily to repent vs. He meaneth the lesser and smaller scapes of our life The Papists error 12 6. THere is a kind of cōtrition that proceedeth only from the feare of punishmēt when a man doth leaue sinning not for any loue or delight he hath in God but onely for feare of damnation Euen this contrition also is good and profitable yet this seruile feare is at length cleane driuen out by charitie But there remaineth still in the godly an awe and feare of God and his iudgements with mistrust and feare of hell and damnation as Math. 10. Feare him that can cast bodie and soule into hell Rhemist Iohn 4. sect 6. Bellarm. lib. 2.17 The Protestants FIrst we acknowledge that the feare of punishment is necessarie in the beginning to make a way for true loue to enter as the bristle or needle as Augustine sayth maketh roome for the thred to enter We also confesse that there is a continuall feare and reuerence of God in the godly such as children haue of their parents but as for any mistrust or feare of hell and damnation after loue be once entred and we made the children of God which breedeth terror and anxietie of conscience it is cleane expelled and thrust out of the doores by loue Argum. So saith the Apostle There is no feare in loue but perfect loue casteth out feare and maketh vs to haue confidence in the day of iudgement 1. Ioh. 4.17 18. But he that feareth damnation and is afraid of the day of iudgement cannot haue confidence in that day So Augustine Quid dicimus de illo qui caepit timere diem iudicij si perfecta in illo esset charitas non timeret What say we to him that feareth the day of iudgement if loue were perfect in him he would not feare it THE SIXT QVESTION OF AVRICVLAR Confession the second part of penance The Papists error 13 NOne can rightly seeke for absolution at the Priests hands vnlesse they confesse particularly at the least all their mortall sinnes whether they be committed in mind heart will and cogitation onely or in word and worke with all the necessarie circumstances and differences of the same Rhemist Ioh. 20. sect 5. And this sacramentall confession as they call it must be made secretly to the Priest Concil Trident. sess 14. can 6. Argum. 1. This wonderfull power of remitting and retaining of sinnes which was giuen to the Apostles and their successors Ioh. 20.22 were giuen them in vaine if no man were bound to seeke for absolution at their hands which can not be had of them without distinct vtterance to them of our sinnes for they cannot rule the cases of conscience vnlesse they haue exact knowledge and cogitation of their sinnes Rhemist ibid. Ans. 1. God hath not made his ministers in Christs stead iudges of cases of conscience as though there were in them an actual power to remit and absolue sinnes but their office is onely to declare and set forth vnto all penitent persons the promises of God for remission of sinnes the seueritie of Gods iudgement against impenitent persons which is especially performed in the preaching and applying of the word either publiquely or priuately as S. Paul calleth the Gospell committed vnto him The word of reconciliation 2. Cor. 5.16 2. A man therefore may by their ministerie which are the preachers of reconciliation finde remission of sinnes without a particular declaration thereof neither is it necessarie for them to haue so exact a knowledge of our sinnes seeing they are not absolute iudges of the conscience but the ministers and ambassadors of reconciliation 2. Corinth 5.20 3. And Ministers are not to stay while suite is made vnto them for their helpe but they ought to exhort and desire men to be reconciled to God by their ministerie Argum. 2. As the Priests in the law had onely authoritie to discerne the leprosie of the people and therefore Christ sendeth the lepers to the Priest Luk. 17.14 so men must reueale the spirituall leprosie of sinne to the Priest Rhemist ibid. Ans. First the leprosie was not healed by the Priest but onely declared to be healed so sinnes are declared to be forgiuen by the Priest not properly forgiuē Secondly the Priest receiued not knowledge of all diseases but of this that was contagious therefore it would not followe hereupon that all sinnes are to be confessed to the Priest but such as are notorious where publique confession is by Church discipline inioyned and such confession we denie not Thirdly the argument followeth not from the Priests of the law to the Ministers of the Gospell for the Priesthood of the law is translated wholly vnto Christ who hath all knowledge to discerne and power to heale our spirituall diseases The Protestants COnfession of sinnes such as the scripture alloweth we doe acknowledge as namely these foure kinds There are priuate confessions either to God alone as Daniel confesseth
bond of mariage which is called repudium First then they affirme that the very bond and knot may bee dissolued in the mariage of Infidels if one of them after mariage become a Christian his reason is because mariage contracted in infidelitie is no sacrament and therefore may be dissolued Bellarmin cap. 12. Argum. Saint Paul sayth If the Infidell partie will departe let him depart a brother or sister is not in subiection in such a case 1. Corinth 7.15 Answ. Saint Paul giueth not liberty to the one partie at their pleasure vtterly to renounce the other as though they were no longer man and wife for Saint Paul had sayd before that if the Infidell partie bee content to dwell with the other he or she is not to be put away But his meaning is that if one partie wilfully depart the other is no longer bound nor in subiection for the performance of the mutuall dueties of mariage The Papists error 30 SEcondly separation from bed and boorde may be admitted they say for diuers causes Concil Trident. sess 24. can 8. Bellarmine nameth three Fornication according to Christs rule Math. 5. Heresie Tit. 3. An heretike must be auoyded Thirdly when one is a continuall offence to another a prouocation to sinne If thine eye offend thee pull it out Math. 5.29 Bellarmin cap. 14. Answ. Fornication we admit is a iust cause of separation and diuorce but not heresie for Saint Paul would not haue a woman to forsake an Infidell 1. Corinth 7.13 therefore not an heretike Wee must auoyd such that is take heede of their poysoned opinions and shun their company also where we are not otherwise bound Neither is the eye to be cut off where there is any hope but who knoweth whether the offensiue partie may returne to grace And this place proueth as well a finall â—utting off of mariage as a separation or disiunction The Protestants FIrst that there is no cause of vtter dissolution of mariage by way of diuorce but onely adulterie and fornication it is plaine by our Sauiour Christes wordes Math. 5.32 19.9 where neither infidelitie nor any cause beside is excepted but onely fornication Secondly Saint Augustine sometime was of opinion that the wife might be dismissed for infidelitie but he reuoketh and retracteth that opinion Lib. retract 1. cap. 19. For elsewhere he flatly concludeth thus A viro non fornicante non licere omnino discedere that it is not lawfull for a woman at all to leaue her husband if he committe not fornication De adulter coniug 1.7 And yet further to make this matter more playne we acknowledge no other cause of lawful diuorse in mariage but that only which is prescribed in the Gospell namely for adultery or fornication Math. 5.32 19.9 There is notwithstanding another cause whereby the mariage knot may bee dissolued though not for fornication as when one of the parties doth wilfullie renounce leaue and forsake the other vpon no iust cause but either of lightnes or for diuers religion as when an Infidel forsaketh a Christian a Papist a Protestant an heretick a true professor or vpon any other vnlawfull or vniust cause for the Apostle sayth playnely A brother or sister is not in subiection in such things 1. Corinth 7.15 that is is freed from the yoke or bond of mariage First it is plaine that the Apostle is so to be vnderstoode in this place for the word which he vseth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no longer a seruant or in subiection which is to be taken in the same sense as if he should say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he or she is no longer bound or tyed which word the Apostle vseth vers 39. And agayne the Apostle hath relation here to the fourth verse where hee sayth the wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath no power of her own bodie the husband likewise But now saith he the infidel partie hauing wilfully separated himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the innocent partie is no longer in subiection that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath now power ouer his owne body and is now become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 free exempt from the mariage knot or bond in which sense the Apostle vseth the word verse 39. Secondly we must know what kinde of desertion it is that causeth a dissolution of mariage and in what manner First it must be malitiosa desertio a malicious departure without any iust cause But when as the husband is absent by consent about necessary affayres as the Merchant beyond the seas or is employed in some waightie busines as in warfare in ambassage or such like or is violeÌ„tly deteined in prison or captiuity amongst the Turks or elswhere In these the like cases the wife is bound to waite expect the returne of her husband vnles she be otherwise aduertised of his death SecoÌ„dly the innoceÌ„t partie must vse all meanes to reconcile reclaime and bring home agayne the wilfull and obstinate partie so departing if it be possible Thirdly if he continue in his obstinacie and departe hauing no purpose to returne the matter must be brought before the iudge or Magistrate in such cases who after publike citation of the obstinate partie and certaine knowledge that he refuseth wilfully to appeare being cited and is not otherwise letted to come may with mature deliberation pronounce the innocent partie free and at libertie to marrie according to Saint Pauls rule A brother or sister is not bound in such things Thirdly neither is Saint Paul contrary to our Sauiour Christ who alloweth no diuorce but onely for fornication for that is a diuers case from this whereof Saint Paul treateth And there is great difference betweene lawfull diuorse and vnlawfull and wilfull desertion for there the innocent partie first claymeth the priuiledge of separation here the guiltie partie first separateth himselfe there diuorse is sued and required here the innocent partie seeketh no diuorse but seeketh all meanes of reconciliation So that properly the setting free the innocent partie in this case cannot be called a diuorse Christ therefore speaketh of lawfull diuorce not of euery dissolution of mariage for then mention should haue beene made in that place of naturall death and departure which is confessed by all to be a dissolution and breaking off of mariage Thus haue I shewed mine opinion with Beza and others concerning thiâ— poynt Herein further as in all the rest referring my selfe to the determination of our Church and the iudgement of our learned brethren Beza 1. Corinth 7. vers 15. Amand. Polan Hemingius Tâ—leman Heshus THE SECOND PART WHETHER IT BE LAWfull to marrie after diuorsement for adulterie The Papists FOr adulterie one may dismisse another but neither partie can marrie again error 31 for any cause during life Rhemist Math. 19. sect 4. no not the innocent partie may marrie againe for the mariage knotte is not dissolued because of adulterie Concil Trident. sess 24. can 7. Argum. 1. Rom. 7.2 The woman
life or quickening to bee made a true and right faith The words then are thus to be read and distinguished So faith without works is dead that is this kinde of faith which neither worketh nor euer shall Not thus Faith is dead without workes as though a true faith were quickened by works But euen as the bodie is dead hauing neither soule nor the operations thereof life motion sense so this vaine speculatiue kinde of faith is dead both wanting the spirite and soule that is hauing not one sparke of true faith neither the operations and fruites thereof which a liuely faith sheweth by loue as the soule worketh life and motion in the bodie for a liuely faith can neuer bee without workes And a dead faith will neuer haue workes but remaineth dead for euer Wee must not therefore thinke that it is one and the same faith which sometime is dead without workes and againe is made aliue and quickened when workes come But wee must vnderstand two kindes of faith one altogether voide of good workes which is onely a faith in name and a verie dead faith Another is a liuelie faith alwaies working and this can neuer become a dead faith so neither can the other bee euer made a liuelie faith Argum. That charitie is not the forme or any cause of faith but the effect rather and fruite thereof we doe learne out of the word of God Christ saith Iohn 3.18 Hee that beleeueth shall not bee condemned but is alreadie passed from death to life Iohn 5.24 Faith then is able to saue vs and alone iustifieth vs before God without loue which alwaies foloweth a true faith but is not ioyned or made a partner with it in the matter of iustification But faith could doe nothing without the forme thereof Ergo charitie is not the forme of faith Saint Paul also faith Faith which worketh by loue Galath 5.6 The being and substance of faith is one thing the working another Loue onely concurreth with faith in the working it is no part of the essence or being of faith August Ea sola bona opera dicenda sunt quae fiunt per dilectionem haec necesse est antecedat fides vt inde ista non ab istis incipiat illa Those onely are to bee counted good workes which are wrought by loue faith of necessitie must goe before for they must take their beginning from faith and not faith from them Faith then goeth before loue that worketh therefore loue is not the forme of faith for forma prior est re formata the forme should goe before the thing formed THE FOVRTH PART HOW MEN are iustified by faith The Papists WEe are saide to bee iustified by faith because faith is the beginning error 81 foundation and the roote of iustification Concil Triden sess 6. cap. 8. Faith then by their sentence doth not fully iustifie the beleeuer but is the beginning way and preparation onely to iustification Andrad ex Tilem de fide err 11. Rhemist Rom. 3. sect 3. The Protestants FAith is not the beginning onely of our iustification but the principall and onely worker thereof neither are wee iustified in part or in whole by any other meanes then by faith Argum. He that is at peace with God is fully and perfectly iustified his conscience cleared and his sinnes remitted But by faith wee haue peace of conscience Ergo by faith wee are fullie and perfectly iustified Rom. 5.1 The Scripture also faith The iust man shall liue by faith Rom. 1.17 But wee liue not by iustification begun onely but perfited and finished Ergo our full iustification is by faith Augustine vpon these words Iohn 6.29 This is the worke of God that yee beleeue c. Si iustitia est opus Dei quomodo erit opus Dei vt credatur in eum nisi ipsa sit iustitia vt credamus in eum If iustice or righteousnes bee the worke of God how is it the worke of God to beleeue in him vnlesse it be righteousnes it selfe to beleeue in him See then it is not initium iustitiae credere sed ipsa iustitia it is not the beginning of iustice to beleeue but iustice and righteousnes it selfe THE FIFT PART WHETHER faith bee meritorious The Papists BY faith we doe merite eternall life Catechis Roman p. 121. ex Tilemann de error 82 fide err 20. Rhemists also ascribe meriting to faith Rom. 3. sect 3. Argum. Faith is a worke Ergo if we be iustified by faith wee are iustified by workes and soe consequently by merite The Protestants Ans. FAith in deed is a worke but not any of our owne works it is called the worke of God Iohn 6.29 God doth wholly worke it in vs Ergo wee cannot merite by it Argum. Saint Paul saith Ephes. 2.8 By grace are you saued through faith not of yourselues for it is the gift of God not of workes least any man should boast himselfe Faith then is no meritorious cause of our iustification but onely an instrumentall meanes whereby we doe apprehend the grace of God offered in Christ God giueth both faith and the end of faith Vtrumque Dei est as Augustine saith quod iubet quod offertur Beleeue and thou shalt be saued both come of God the thing commanded that is faith and the thing offered namely saluation Ergo all is of grace THE SIXT PART WHETHER to beleeue bee in mans power The Papists RHemist Act. 13. sect 2. giue this note that the Gentiles beleeued by their error 83 owne free will though principallie by Gods grace therefore to beleeue partly consisteth in mans free will though not altogether this is their opinion The Protestants FAith is the meere gift of God Ephes. 2.8 and wholly commeth from God it is not either in part or whole of our selues Argum. Rom. 11.36 Of him through him and for him are all thinges Ergo fidei initium ex ipso neque hoc excepto ex ipso sunt caetera Therefore saith Augustine the beginning of our faith is of him vnlesse wee will say that all things else are of God this onely excepted And afterward hee sheweth that our faith is wholly of God not part of him part of our selues Sic enim homo quasi componet cum Deo vt partem fidei sibi vendicet partem Deo relinquat So man shall as it were compound with God to chalenge part of faith to himselfe and leaue part for God THE SEVENTH PART WHEther faith may be lost The Papists error 84 A Man may fall away from the faith which once truely he had as Saint Paul saith of some They had made shipwrack of faith 1. Timoth. 1.19 Rhemist ibid. Ergo true faith may be lost The Protestants Ans. THe Apostle saith Some hauing put away a good cōscience made shipwrack of faith Such a faith in deed that hath not a good cōscience may be lost for it is not a true liuely faith but a dead fruitelesse faith Argum. But hee that once
IVSTIFIcation onely by fayth The Papists error 94 FAyth is not the only cause of our iustificatiō but there are other also as hope charitie almes deedes and other vertues Rhemist Roman 8. sect 6. Yea workes are more principall then fayth in the matter of iustification Iam. 2. sect 7. Whosoeuer therefore sayth that a man is iustified onely by fayth and that nothing els is required to iustification we pronounce him accursed Trident. Concil sess 6. can 9. Argum. 1. Rom. 8.24 We are saued by hope Ergo not onely by fayth Rhemist Answ. 1. We are sayd to be saued by hope not because wee are thereby iustified but because by hope we do expect and waite for our saluation which is not yet accomplished as it followeth vers 25. If wee hope for that wee see not then doe we with patience abide for it Argum. 2. Galath 5.6 Fayth that worketh by charitie Fayth then hath her whole actiuitie and operation toward saluation of charitie It doth not therefore iustifie vs alone but fayth and charitie together of the which charitie is the more principall Rhemist ibid. Answ. We graunt that it is a working fayth that doth iustifie as the Apostle here sayth but not as it worketh but as it apprehendeth and beleeueth Charitie is a principall effect of fayth and followeth it how then can fayth receiue actiuitie from charitie the effect doth not giue life to the cause You know Augustine often sayth Opera non praecedunt iustificandum sed sequuntur iustificatum Workes goe not before vnto iustification but followe in him that is already iustified But if charitie should beget fayth then workes proceeding of charitie should goe before fayth by the which wee are iustified The Apostle sayth Without fayth it is impossible to please God Hebr. 11.6 Ergo neither doth charitie please God without fayth Fayth giueth actiuitie to charitie how then can it receiue that which it giueth Argum. 3. Iam. 2.24 We see how that of deedes a man is iustified and not of fayth onely Ergo we are not iustified by fayth onely Rhemist Answ. Saint Iames is not contrary to his fellow Apostle Saint Paul who concludeth Rom. 3.28 that We are iustified by fayth without workes that is as much to say as by fayth onely And he excludeth not onely workes of nature or of the law but euen workes of grace which God hath ordayned Ephes 2.10 Therefore S. Iames in saying we are not iustified by faith onely meaneth not that iustification whereby we are made iust before God for then he should impugne Saint Pauls principles But by iustifiyng or being iustified he vnderstandeth nothing els but to be declared iust as well before men as in the sight of God which declaration is testified and shewed forth by our workes proceeding of faith Thus the word iustified is taken Rom. 3.4 That thou maist be iustified in thy words that is knowne or declared to be iust Augustine also sayth Iustificabuntur id est iusti habebuntur They shall be iustified that is counted iust as we also say Sanctificetur nomen id est sanctum habeatur Let thy name bee sanctified that is reputed and acknowledged to be holy amongst men The Protestants WE are not enemies to good workes as our aduersaries falsely charge vs nay we preach good workes we exhort to good workes we establish good workes teaching the right vse of them out of the word of God which is not to concurre or be ioyned with faith in our iustification but to follow necessarily and issue out of faith as liuely testimonies thereof to the glorie of God the example of others and our comfort but faith it is onely which as a liuely instrument ordained of God doth assure vs of our iustification by grace in Christ. Argum. 1. Saluation is ascribed onely to beleefe Mark 16.16 Act. 16.31 But it is the propertie of faith onely to beleeue not of hope or charitie the effect of hope is by patience to abide Rom. 8.25 The operations also of loue are set forth 1. Corinth 13. Where amongst other Loue is sayd to beleeue all things that is mutuall loue amongst men is not mistrustfull but taketh all things in good part but to beleeue the things of God it is the propertie onely of faith as Augustine vpon those words of the Apostle How shall they call vpon him on whom they haue not beleeued In his duobus tria illa intuere fides credit spes charitas orant In these two behold those three faith beleeueth hope and charitie pray Faith therefore onely beleeueth and so consequently onely iustifieth Enchirid. cap. 7. Argum. 2. Our iustification and saluation is of the meere grace and mercie of God not at al of any merite or desert in vs Ergo we are iustified only through faith for it is of grace that we are saued through faith Ephes. 2.8 That all is to bee ascribed onely to the mercie and grace of God the Apostle euery where sheweth Rom. 9.12 It is not in him that willeth or runneth but in God that sheweth mercie We are iustified freely by grace Rom. 3.24 What hast thou that thou hast not receiued Augustine saith Intelligenda est gratia Dei per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum qua sola liberamur à malo We must vnderstand the grace of God by Iesus Christ by the which we are onely deliuered from euill Si quid boni est magni vel parui donum tuum est nostrum non est nisi malum si quid boni vnquam habui à te recepi If there bee any good in vs much or little it is thy gift nothing is ours but the euill in vs Ergo all good things are of God and onely of his grace and therefore our iustification Argum. 3. There are many euident places which doe attribute our iustification to faith without workes Rom. 3.28.11.8 Ephes. 2.8.9 In all these places in plaine termes We are sayd to bee iustified by faith without workes As for those friuolous euasions that the Apostle speaketh of the first iustification not of the second or of the workes of nature or of the lawe not of grace we haue answered before Quaest. 2. part 3. artic 3. If they will oppose that saying of S. Iames. 2.24 we answere with Augustine Nec Apostoli sunt inter se aduersi ille dicit Abrahae opus omnibus notum in filij immolatione magnum opus sed ex fide laudo fructum boni operis sed in fide agnosco radicem The Apostles are not contrarie one to the other he sayth Abrahams worke was knowne to all in offering vp his sonne a great worke but of faith I praise the fruite but it was rooted in faith His meaning then is this that Abraham was iustified that is declared to men to be iust by this worke HERE FOLLOW SVCH CONTROVERSIES AS doe arise betweene the Protestants and Papists about the natures of Christ. WE haue now through Gods gracious assistance entreated of all those
Apostle but we are sure the Pope is none neither successor of any Apostle but very Antichrist Ergo we haue more iust cause to examine his decrees 4 Lastly let Augustine speake Nouit charitas vestra omnes nos vnum magistrum habere sub illo condiscipulos esse nec ideo magistri sumus quia de superiore loco loquimur vobis sed magister est omnium qui habitat in nobis omnib You know brethren saith he that we are all felow scholers vnder one maister and though we speake to you out of an higher place yet are we not your master he is the teacher and master of vs all that dwelleth in our harts Ergo the spirite of God speaking in the scriptures is the chief and best interpreter thereof THE THIRD PART OF THE SIXTH QVEstion concerning the meanes or methode to be vsed in interpreting of Scripture The Papistes error 10 OVr aduersaries prescribe this methode and course to be takē in expounding of scripture which consisteth in foure rules the generall peactise of the Church the consonant interpretation of the fathers the decrees of generall Councels lastly the rule of faith consisting partly of the scriptures partly of traditions vnwrittē Stapleton Cōcerning the three first we haue already touched them in part they appeare to be insufficient First the Councels and fathers he made chief interpreters of Scripture before and now they are but meanes what other chief iudge then is there to vse these meanes surely none but the scriptures Secondly these meanes are most vncertaine the practise of the Church is often changed fathers agree not in their expositiōs and Councels can not alwayes be had Concerning the rule of faith consisting of vnwritten verities he groundeth it falsely vpon that place Rom. 12.6 let vs prophecie according to the rule of faith and Gal. 6.16 as many as walke according to this rule This rule was a certaine platforme of Religion geuen by the Apostles before the Scriptures were written according to the which say they the Scriptures were afterward compiled by the Apostles Rhemens in Rom. 12.6 Answere S. Paul meaneth no other rule but that which is set downe in his writings no other forme of doctrine but that conteined in his Epistles as in the 6. to the Galathians speaking of this rule he alludeth to the former verse where he saith he reioyced in nothing but in the Crosse of Christ his rule therfore is to receiue Christ onely without the ceremonies or workes of the law against the which heresie he disputeth in the whole Epistle But of all other it is a great blasphemie to say that the Apostles set downe the Scriptures by a rule as though the spirite of God by whom they spake had neede of any such direction The Protestantes WHen we say that the scriptures must expound them selues our meaning is that by certaine compendious and ready meanes we should labour to vnderstand the scriptures by them selues the meanes are especially these foure First to haue recourse to the originall toung as in the old Testament to the Hebrue in the new to the Greeke as 1. Tim. 2.15 through bearing of children they shal be saued if they continue in faith and loue In the English it is doubtfull whether this clause if they continue in faith be referred to children or to those that beare them but read the Greeke and the doubt is remoued for bearing of children is all one word in the originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that it must needes be vnderstood of the women for this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bearing of children is in the singular number that which foloweth of the plurall and it is but an action not a person so that it should be improperly sayd if they continue that is in bearing of children Stapleton obiecteth against this meane that it is not now needefull seeing there is a perfect and absolute translatiō authorised by the Councell of Trent he meaneth the vulgare Latin We answere First it is no perfect but an erronious translation and verie corrupt Secondly if it were neuer so perfect yet for more certaintie it is profitable to search the originall euery man will trust his owne skill rather then another mans Thirdly the Councell did fondly in authorising an old blind translation before the authenticall copies of the Hebrue and Greeke 2 Secondly the scope of the place the circumstance of it with that which goeth before and commeth after must be wayghed which will bring great light to the place we haue in hand an example we haue 1. Pet. 4.8 loue couereth multitude of sinnes the Papistes gather out of these words that loue doth iustifie vs before God and taketh away our sinnes but by the circunstance of the place the Apostole saying immediatly before haue feruent loue among you it is euident he vnderstandeth brotherly loue amōgest our selues whereby faultes are buried forgeuen and forgotten Stapleton obiecteth that this is but an vncertaine way and many times fayleth for the scripture passeth many times from one matter and argument to another how then can it helpe to consider the circumstance of the place being of a diuerse matter We answere we say not that any of these meanes serueth for euery place but when one fayleth to vse another when the circumstance helpeth not to runne to the originall if there we find no succour to cōpare places together and when we may to vse them all or the most 3 Thirdly the conference of places is very profitable as Iames. 2.21 Abraham was iustified by workes compare it with that place Rom. 4.2 there S. Paule saith flatly that Abraham was not iustified by workes Wherfore seeing one Apostle is not contrary to the other we must needs gather that this word iustified is diuersly taken Paule saith that Abraham was not iustified that is made righteous before God by his workes Iames saith he was iustified that is declared to be iust before men and so Thom. Aquinas expoundeth it Stapleton obiecteth that this meanes in cōparing of places is of it selfe many times of smal force Answere as though we affirme that these meanes must be vsed asunder and not rather ioyntly together and where one fayleth another to helpe Secondly some things are found but once in the scriptures Aunswere they are then either very plaine or not greatly necessarie Thirdly heretikes haue erred in comparing of Scripture Answere they compared them not diligently nor with a syncere minde but corruptly and negligently 4 The fourth rule is the analogie and proportion of faith which is nothing els but the summe grounds of Religiō gathered out of scripture such as are conteined in the Creede the Lordes Prayer the ten Commaundements and in our whole Catechisme We must take heede that in the interpretation of Scripture we swarue not from this rule of faith nor impugne any principle of Religion Wherefore the Papistes interpretation of those wordes of Christ we do reiect Hoc est corpus meum this is my
and although the true Church doth geue a notable testimonie thereunto yet doth not our faith depend vpon their witnesse testimonie or allowance Secondly the true visible Church is certainly knowen by the preaching of the word and the right vse of the Sacramēts so that we doubt not but there is the true Church where we finde these markes neither is it needfull to know the estate of euery particular member thereof for so long as all actions in the Church are directed and ordered by the rule of Gods word we neede not to doubt to commit our selues to that Church howsoeuer otherwise men do stand before God and yet so much as is necessarie the faithfull may be iudged knowen by their fruites Thirdly though we admit that wicked men are mēbers yet the vncertainty remaineth still for they them selues hold that neither men not Baptised or persons excommunicate or heretikes can be of the Church but many may liue in the Church whom we know not to be Baptised which may be ipso facto by the deed doing excommunicate without publike sentence and heretikes also wherefore euen amongest themselues they are vncertaine who are members of the Church The Protestantes WE hold that the Catholike Church consisteth onely of the predestinate and comprehendeth the vniuersall number of all those which shal be saued not onely those now liuing on earth but all that haue bene since the beginning of the world of this Church S. Paule was euen being a persecuter for he was neuer a member of the deuill nor reprobate as Iohn Husse saith articul 2. Of this Church Iudas the traytor neuer was though he were reputed for a Disciple of Christ for a while Huss articul 7. Therefore the wicked and reprobate though they liue in the outward assembly of Christians are no more the true members of Christ then the tares in the field may be counted wheat or good corne 1 The true members of Christ are also his sheepe the wicked are not the sheepe of Christ Ergo neither his members The sheepe of Christ heare his voyce they do not heare his voyce Ergo if they shall aunswere that hypocrites and wicked men do heare Christes voyce so long as they continue in the outward profession of Christians we thus improue it Christes sheepe do folow him in life and example Iohn 15.4 but so doe not they If it shal be yet aunswered that they may also a while walke in Christes steps this is not enough for all Christes shal be saued ver 9. wherfore the Gospell vnderstandeth such folowers as continue to the end 2 Christ is the head of his Church and all the partes thereof but he is not the head of the wicked reprobate Ergo. The Iesuite graunteth that he is the head euen of those partes that shall perish Bellarmin cap. 7. We thus answere Christ is the head onely of those for whom he gaue him selfe Ephe. 5.23.25 but he gaue not him selfe for the wicked Ergo. If this be denied we thus proceede Christ dyed onely for those whom he sanctifieth and cleanseth to make them a glorious Church without spot and wrincle Ephe. 5.26.27 But this can not agree any wise to the wicked Ergo. 3 The Church of God is the whole familie of the children of God in heauen and earth Ephe. 3.15 they both make but one Church the wicked are not of this familie for who would say that the Saintes in heauen and wicked and reprobate men vpon the earth are felow seruaunts and of one houshold Ergo they are not of the Catholike Church 4 Of all other that is a most euident place 1. Iohn 2.19 they went out of vs but were not of vs Ergo heretikes and reprobates are not of the church Bellarmine aunswereth though they were not of vs that is of the Church animis voluntate in soule and minde and purpose of hart yet they were of vs externa professione in externall profession Thus they are not ashamed such is there great boldnesse to contradict the scriptures for the Apostle saith non erāt ex nobis they were not of vs they say yes forsoth after a sort erāt ex nobis they were of vs the Apostle saith nay they say yea he saith indeed exierunt ex nobis they went out of vs which soundeth nothing like as erant ex nobis they were of vs as the Iesuite subtillie would conclude 5 Let Augustine speake for vs both Illa columba vnica pudica casta sponsa sine macula ruga non intelligitur nisi in bonis iustis sanctis That louely doue saith he the chast vndefiled and vnspotted spouse that is the Church of God is onely vnderstood of those that are righteous faithfull holy Ergo the wicked are not of the Church which is the spouse of Christ. THE SECOND PART OF THE QVESTION whether the Catholike Church be inuisible The Papistes THey do affirme that the Catholike Church is and hath bene alwayes visible error 15 not so visible because it might be seene but that it hath bene alwayes actually visible not seene onely vnto the mēbers of the church but notoriously knowē to the whole world Rhemens annot in Math. cap. 5. Sect. 3. Neither do they meane any particular Church so to haue bene visible but the vniuersall catholike church which they define to be a visible cōgregatiō of all faithfull men Canisius cap. de fide Symbol articul 18. Bellarmin lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 12. ration 7. 1 The foundation of the Church is visible therefore the Church is visible the proportion they proue thus for whether we affirme Christ or Peter to be the foundatiō of the Church both of them are now visible in him which is the Vicare of Christ and Peters successor We answere First we vtterly denie either Peter to be the foundation of the Church or els the Pope to be his lawfull successor for Peter is no more the foundation of the Church then all the Prophetes and Apostles Ephe. 2.20 whose doctrine is the foundation not their persons And as for the Pope we care not so much for outward successiō in place which notwithstanding they can not proue to haue bene perpetuall without interruption as we do require a succession of faith and doctrine Secondly we affirme that Christ is the foundation but not the visible beholding of Christ with the carnall eyes but beleeuing in his name for when Peter had vttered that notable confession of Christ he said that flesh and bloud had not reuealed it but his father in heauen but if the beholding of Christ had geuen Peter a sight of the foundation thē flesh had reuealed it vnto him his carnall eyes had brought him to Christ. Thirdly we may much better returne this argument vpon them selues that because the foundation of the Church which is faith in Christ is inuisible therefore the Church is inuisible 2 They heape vp many places of Scriptures but to small purpose as Math. 18. tell the
come after him which should preach the same fayth that hee had taught and should conuert many from their errors And many such examples wee haue of holy martyrs and worthy Prophets But we hereby doe not proue our Church Yet this I hope hath not been out of the way to haue aunswered a little to our aduersaries vaine and vntrue bragges Hitherto we haue touched the principall notes and markes whereby the Papists doe decipher out their Church vnto vs Now it followeth that we declare the right and certaine signes of the true Church Of the true and infallible Notes of the Church of Christ. THe outward tokens whereby the true visible Church is discerned are not many in number as our aduersaries doe reckon vp many the Iesuite no lesse than 15. supplying belike in number that which they want in waight Neither in this place doe we speake of the vniuersal Catholike inuisible Church which is beleeued and not seen being an article of our faith but of particular visible Churches which are discerned and knowen by these two essentiall markes the true preaching of the word and right vse of the sacraments Some also doe adde a third namely ecclesiasticall discipline Beza confess de eccles art 7. Hooper vpon the Creede articul 72. But this partly is comprehended in the 2. former for there cannot be hearing preaching of the worde the frequenting of the sacraments vnlesse there bee an exercise of Church discipline partly also we say that it is not so essential a note as the other are for the absence of the other make a nullity of the Church If the word or sacramēts in substance be corrupted the Church also is defaced but if there be not an exact forme of discipline it doth not straightway cease to be a Church Wherfore we conclude that the true preaching of the word and right vse of the sacraments are the only necessary and essentiall notes of the Church Where these two are rightly vsed according to Gods worde there is a right Church as here in England God be blessed Where they are falsely and impurely handled there is a false and corrupt Church as among the Papists where they are not at all in vse there is no Church as amongst the Turkes Iewes and Infidels First we will examine our aduersaries arguments and then bring foorth our owne The Papistes 1. BEllarmine thus argueth the true notes of the Church ought to be proper and particular not common and generall as these are for euery sect of hereticks doe chalenge to themselues the right preaching of the word and vsage of the sacraments Ergo they are no true notes We answere 1. It skilleth not how many do lay clayme to those notes the word of God it self is a manifest iudge where pure doctrine is taught and the sacraments rightly kept according to the institution It is no matter howsoeuer Papists and other heretickes doe make their bragges the scriptures themselues can soone decide this question 2. I maruaile they are not ashamed to obiect that our notes are common seeing theirs are most common for not only assemblies of hereticks but euen the heathen and Idolatrous Gentiles might as well prooue themselues to be the Church by those popish notes of vniuersalitie for Idolatrie had ouer-spread the whole world of vnitie they all consented to persecute the Church of Christ of antiquitie for the worship of Idols continued aboue two thousand yeares of succession for the monarch of the Assyrians endured 1300. yeares their kings all this while one succeeding another They had also Prophets and such as wrought miracles Our aduersaries may be now ashamed to cast vs in the teeth that our notes are common when as theirs doe well agree to the Synagogues of Sathan and assemblies of Infidels 2. Sayth he the note or the marke must be better knowen and more notorious then the thing marked or notified by it so are not these for we know not which is the worde of God nor what bookes are canonicall and to be taken for scripture but by the Church We answere the Iesuite still beggeth that which is in question a foule fault in a professed disputer for haue we not largely prooued before 1. contr quaest 4. that the Church dependeth vpon the authoritie of the scripture and not contrariwise and that there is no more certaine and euident and vndoubted thing in the whole world vpon the which a man may bee bolde to builde and ground his faith then vpon the scriptures This sure is a childish and ridiculous argument to take that as graunted which is most of all in controuersie 3 The true notes sayth hee are inseparable from the Church it is neuer without them But many true Churches haue wanted these The Church of the Corinthians was a true Church and yet they beleeued not the resurrection cap. 15. The Galathians were a true Church and yet they held that Moses lawe was to bee obserued together with the Gospell And the Corinthians likewise did not sincerely obserue the Sacraments 1. Corinth 11. Ergo they are no true signes We answere First this argument may with better right bee returned vpon their owne head for many true Churches haue wanted their markes Christ and his Apostles had neither succession from Aaron nor vniuersalitie and yet they made the true Church The Church of the Iewes after Malachies time had no Prophets nor miracles for the space of 400. yeares before Christ yet were they the true Church and so of the rest of your notes the Church of Christ hath many times wanted them Secondly It was not the whole Church of Corinthus that doubted of the resurrection but certaine false Apostles that laboured to seduce others 1. Corinth 15.34 Some of you sayth the Apostle haue not the knowledge of God he saith not all So likewise amongst the Galathians there were false teachers that stood for the lawe of Moses Galath 5.9 a little leauen doth marre the whole lumpe It was not therefore a publike doctrine in the Church but secretly taught by false Apostles Thirdly there may be some error in the Church but being not fundamental such an one as destroyeth faith it doth not dissolue the Church as there was some abuse amongst the Corinthians in receiuing the Sacrament but the forme and institution and substance of the Sacrament was kept Nay yet to graunt a little more though the error bee daungerous and of great waight and moment and such an one as being stifely maintained would destroye the faith and Church too yet if they haue fallen into it rather of ignorance then any other cause and doe not continue in it but doe submit themselues to bee reformed by the word it ceaseth not for all that to be a Church So the Corinthians referred themselues wholly and their opinions to the iudgement and determination of the Apostle Hetherto our aduersaries haue sayd nothing agaynst vs now wee will say somewhat for our selues The Protestants 1 FOr the sufficiencie of these
yeare after Christ and that being expelled the citie by Claudius with the rest of the Iewes he returned to Ierusalem and there spake with Paul and after that went to Rome agayne and there ended his life This answere we shewe to bee very insufficient First Act. 15.2 it appeareth that there was as it were a standing and set councel of the Apostles at Ierusalem of the which Peter was one for the Church thought good to send vp to the Apostles and Elders which were at Ierusalem Secondly till the 18. yeare when this Councel was held it seemeth that Peter had laboured onely or especially amongst the Iewes of whom there were then but fewe at Rome for saith the Apostle he that was mightie in Peter in the Apostleship ouer the circumcision was also mightie in me Gal. 2.8 Therfore Peter was not knowne to haue laboured vntill this time in the circumcision Thirdly afterward it is more like he went to Antiochia then to Rome for after this Paul rebuked Peter at Antioch Gal. 2. Fourthly these are but bare coniectures of our aduersaries and craftie euasion without scripture but seeing we appose them out of scripture it is great reason they should likewise answere vs out of scripture 3 We haue diuers other obections also out of the scriptures as first that if Peter were at Rome it is not like that Paul would leaue him out in his salutation in the end of his Epistle Rō 16. sent to the brethren Our aduersaries answere but very simplie that at that time when S. Paul wrote his Epistle either Peter was not at Rome or els Paul might write some especiall letters to him by himselfe and this Epistle enclosed in them such goodly coniectures they haue But I pray you what needed S. Paul to haue written vnto the Romanes if S. Peter so faithfull and vigilant a Pastor were continually amongst them Other places also of scripture we haue as Philipp 2.20 speaking of Timothy he saith I haue none like minded to him that will faithfully care for your matters Coloss. 4.11 These onely are my workfellowes 2. Timoth. 4.11 onely Luke is with me Ergo Peter all this while was not at Rome for Paul would not haue left him out of the number of his fellowe-helpers at the lest he would not haue commended Timothy though he were a worthie yong man before him That which Bellarmine answereth is iust nothing that S. Paul speaketh in those places onely of his domesticall helpers which did minister vnto him When S. Paul speaketh plainly of his fellowe labourers these onely are my workfellowes to the kingdome of God Coloss. 4.11 An other argumēt doth arise out of S. Pauls words 2. Timoth. 4.16 At my first answering no man assisted me Ergo it is like that Peter was not then at Rome for he would not haue forsaken Paul Bellarmine answereth that he speaketh onely of such fauourers as hee had in Caesars court that they would not make sute for him to the Emperour But this is a weake solution First it appeareth by that which followeth that they left him without helpe in his open Apologie or defence they did not assist me sayth he but the Lord assisted me that is gaue me strength to defend my cause so that the word assisting must bee taken in the same sense before that they fayled him in that wherein God assisted him that is in speaking boldly in the defence of the truth Secondly it is proued by the diuers successe that he had at his first and second answering at the first all left him but at the next many were emboldened through his bonds what to doe more frankly to speake the word Philipp 1.14 Ergo at the first they forsooke him because they were afrayd to speake the word THE SECOND PART WHETHER PETER were Bishop of Rome error 39 OVr aduersaries would gladly bring it about that Peter was Bishop of Rome there enthronised and sate in the Bishoplike chayre many yeares and after left it to his successors 1 The Romane faith was first planted by Peter for he first preached to the Gentiles Act. 15.7 Ergo he was the first Bishop Answere First that Peter first preached to the Gentiles it is contrarie to the storie of the Acts for Paul was conuerted before Peter sawe the vision from heauen Act. 10. before which time Peter made a great question whether it were lawfull to preach to the Gentiles But Paul immediatly after his conuersion preached to the Gentiles Galath 2. therefore before Peter Neither is there any thing to the contrarie Act. 15.7 the Gentiles beleeued by S. Peters mouth as he sayth but not first Secondly that Peter first preached not at Rome it is thus gathered because it is not like that the Christian faith being spread farre abroad could be kept from Rome the space of 12. yeares for so long it was by their account before Peter came to Rome Agayne there were diuers that dwelled at Rome which heard the Apostles speake diuers tongues Act. 2. being straungers then and soiourners at Ierusalem and Rom. 16.7 he maketh mention of Andronicus and Iunia which were in Christ before him By these it is most like that the Christian faith was first sowed at Rome Thirdly it is more like that Paul preached at Rome before Peter for when he came to Rome he called the Iewes together who sayd vnto him that they had heard nothing concerning him by letters or from the brethren out of Iudea Act. 28.22 But if Peter had beene there Paul no doubt should haue been knowne at the least by name The Iewes also say vnto him wee will heare of thee what thou thinkest and some of them were perswaded by Paul some beleeued not It seemeth by this place that the Iewes in Rome had not heard of the Gospell before But if Peter had been amongst them who had an especiall charge of the circumcision he would haue had the greatest care of the Iewes to winne them to Christ. Fourthly though Peter had first preached to the Romanes it would not followe that therefore he was Bishop there for Paul first founded the Church of Ephesus yet they say Iohn was first Bishop there wherefore they should gayne nothing by this argument if it were true but that Peter was the first preacher and conuerter of the Romanes to the faith The Protestants IF wee take the name of Bishop generally for that office which hath the publique cure and charge of soules in that sense we denye not but Peter and the rest of the Apostles may be called Episcopi Bishops as Christ is called the shepheard and Bishop of our soules 1. Pet. 2.23 But taking it strictly for a Bishop of this or that place which is called Episcopus intitulatus a Bishop entituled wee denie that either Peter or Paul were Bishops Fox pag. 15. 1 Paul was Apostolus Gentium the Apostle of the Gentiles and Peter of the circumcision therefore it is more like that Paul was chiefe Pastor of the Romanes because
sometime Iames sate and Iohn now sitteth In those words Augustine ascribeth as much to the succession of other Apostolicall Churches as he doth to the succession of the Bishops of Rome And therefore Canisius craftely leaueth out the one half of the sentence cōcerning the Church of Ierusalem Neither is it true which our aduersaries say that Peters Sea remaineth still at Rome when all other Apostolicall Sees are gone for euen to this day the See of Antioch standeth and hath a Patriark likewise the See of Alexandria The See of Constantinople neuer wanted successors to this day nor the Church of Ephesus In India and Aethiopia there hath been alwaies a succession in those Churches planted by the Apostles and is at this day Fulk 2. Thess. 2. sect 7. Wherefore they haue no cause to bragge of their succession which is found in other places as well as at Rome THE FIFT QVESTION CONCERNING THE primacie of the See of Rome THis question hath diuers partes which must be handled in their order First whether the Bishop of Rome haue authority ouer other Bishops Secondly whether appeales ought to be made to Rome from other countries Thirdly whether the Pope be subiect to the iudgemēt of any Fourthly whether he may be deposed Fiftly what primacie he hath ouer other Churches how it began Sixtly of the titles and names giuen to the Bishops of Rome THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE BISHOP of Rome hath authoritie ouer other Bishops The Papists error 41 THey doubt not to say that the Bishop of Rome hath authoritie and ought so to haue to ordaine and constitute Bishops to depriue and depose them to restore them likewise to their former dignities and this power hee exerciseth ouer the vniuersall Church The Iesuites principall only argument is drawen from certain examples how the Bishops of Rome haue in times past constituted deposed and restored some Bishops in the Greeke Church as in the patriarchal Seas of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch Ergo hee hath power ouer all Bishops We answere First It was not done by the absolute authority of the Roman Bishops any such constitution or deposition though perhappes their consent and allowance were required as Leo writeth thus to Martianus the Emperour about the ordayning of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople Satis sit quod vestrae pietatis auxilio mei fauoris assensu episcopatum tantae vrbis obtinuit It is sufficient that by your godly helpe and my fauourable assent he hath obtained so famous a Bishoprick Whether was greater now the help and furtherance of the Emperor or the base assent of Leo Secondly wee denie not but that the Pope sometimes what by sufferance of others what by his owne intrusion hath vsurped this power ouer other Bishops by this ought not to make a law that which is once or twise done by a false title cannot prooue the iustnes of the title Thirdly that the Bishop of Rome hath no such authoritie it appeareth by this that he doth not neither of many yeares hath constituted or ordayned the patriarks of the Greeke Church they came not vp to Rome nor yet sent thither for their palls as other Archbishops here in the West parts haue done paied full dearely for them being made slaues to the beast of Rome The Protestants THat the Pope neither hath nor yet ought to haue any such authority ouer other Bishops but that euery one in his owne precinct and iurisdiction hath the chiefe charge It is thus proued 1. Peter was not chiefe neither did exercise iurisdiction ouer the twelue Ergo neither the Pope ought to doe ouer other Bishops The antecedent or first part is thus confirmed The heauenly Hierusalem which is the Church of God is described Apocal. 21. not with one foundation onely of Peter but with 12. foundations after the number of the Apostles argument Tunstalli To this purpose also hee alleadgeth in saying out of Hierome contra Iouinian All the Apostles receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and vpon them all indifferently and equally is the strength of the Church grounded and established Fox p. 1066. 2. Till the yeare of the Lord 340. there was no respect had to the Church of Rome but euery Church was ruled by their owne gouernment afterward followed the Councel of Nice wherein was decreed that the whole Church should be deuided into foure circuites or precincts ouer the which there were foure Metropolitanes or patriarkes set first the Bishop of Rome next the Bishop of Alexandria the third was the Bishop of Antioch the fourth the Bishop of Ierusalem and not long after came in the Bishop of Constantinople in the roume of the B. of Antioch All these had equall authoritie in their prouinces and one was not to deale within anothers charge Ergo the Bishop of Rome had not then the iurisdiction ouer the whole Church argument Nili plura Fox p. 9. 3. We will adioyne the testimonie of the fathers of Basile which were all of the Popish sect what haue the Bishops been in our daies say they but only shadowes might they not haue been called shepheards without sheepe what had they more then their Miters and their staffe when they could determine nothing ouer their subiects Verily in the primitiue Church the Bishops had the greatest power and authoritie but now it was come to that poynt that they exceeded the common sort of priests onely in their habite and reuenewes What plainer testimonie can we haue then from the papists themselues Augustine also agreeth to their sentence habet omnis episcopus saith he pro licētia libertatis potestatis suae arbitrium propriū tanquam iudicari ab alio nō possit quomodo nec ipse potest alium iudicare sed expectemus vniuersi iudiciū domini nostri Iesu Christi Euery Bishop is priuiledged by his own authoritie to follow his owne iudgement neither is subiect to the iudgement of other Bishops as he is not to iudge them but they all must be referred to the iudgement of Christ See then in this place Augustine setteth Bishops in the highest roume in the Church and sayth they haue no iudge aboue them but Christ. THE SECOND PART CONCERNING APpeales to bee made to Rome The Papists SVch say they is the preeminēt authority of the Bishop of Rome that appeals error 42 may be made vnto him from all Churches in the world and that all ought to stand to his sentence and determination For the proofe hereof they bring no scripture nor any sound argumēt but stand chiefly vpon certain odde examples of some that haue appealed to Rome which we denie not to haue been done but our answere more at large is this 1. One cause of these appeales was both for that they which were iustly cōdemned of other Churches found greater liberty and fauour at Rome as Apiarius did who being condemned in the 6. Aphricane Councel for his detestable conditions found fauour with Zosimus Bishop of Rome who
wrote for him to the Councel to be receiued agayne No maruayle then if licentious fellowes hoping to finde more fauour at Rome did appeale thither As also the ambition of the Bishops of Rome did somewhat helpe forward this matter who were as ready to receiue such appeales as others were to make them 2. Bishop Tunstal doth answere very fully to this poynt that although appeales were made to Rome yet was it not for any iurisdiction that the See had but this was the cause partly for that there were many deuisions and parts taking in the Oriental Churches as also because many were infected with heresies from the which the West Occidētal Churches were more free they were content to referre the cause many times to the Bishop of Rome as being a more indifferent iudge and not like to be partial being no partie in the cause Neither was their 〈◊〉 to the Bishop of Rome singularly but to the whole congregation of the Bishops of Italie and France or of the whole West as it appeareth by the epistles of Basile Tunstal apud Fox 1067. The Protestants That appeales ought not to be made to Rome but that all matters and controuersies may best be ended and determined at home where they doe arise It is thus confirmed 1. This matter was notably handled anno 420. in the sixt Councel of Carthage where Augustine was present with Prosper and Orosius To this Councel Pope Zozimus sent his Legate with certaine requests of the which this was one that it might be lawful for Bishops and priests to appeale from the sentence of their Metropolitanes and also of the Councel to Rome alleadging for him self a decree of the Nicene Councel The Councel of Carthage sent forthwith to the patriarkes of Cōstantinople Antioch Alexandria for a copie of the Coūcel of Nice wherein no such Canon was found that appeales should bee made to Rome but the contrary for in the sixt Canon of that Councel it was founde how all matters and all persons ecclesiasticall both Bishops and others were committed to their Metropolitanes vpon this decree the Councel of Carthage drew out certain reasons why appeales should not be made to Rome First it is not otherwise to be thought but that the grace of God is as ready at hande in one prouince as in another Secondly there is no neede to seeke any outlandish help for the partie grieued may appeale to a prouinciall or generall Councel Thirdly it were not equall nor right to appeale from the Councel to the Bishop of Rome for it is not like that God will inspire his truth vnto the Bishop and denie it to a multitude congregated in his name Fourthly no forraine or outlandish iudgement can be so vpright or iust because the witnesses cannot be present being hindered by infirmitie of sex age sicknes by whom the truth should be discussed Vpon these reasons the Councel concluded that neither any appeales should be made to Rome neither that Legates should be sent from Rome for deciding of matters And this answere they made to Zozimus first to Bonifacius and Celestinus that in short time one succeeded another And for all the B. of Rome his absolution Apiarius was againe called coram and brought to confesse his fault Fox p. 10. col 2. Now out of the Acts of this Councel and their reasons alleadged wee conclude that it is not fit conuenient nor reasonable that appeals should be made to Rome The Iesuite answereth that appeales were forbidden to be made by priests to Rome not by Bishops This is but a vaine shift for the reasons of the Councel are general against all appeales And Apiarius that appealed to Rome was a priest and no Bishop 2. We can bring the decrees of a latter Councell then this of Carthage for in the Councell of Basile it was decreed that no actions or controuersies should be brought from other countries to be pleaded at Rome which were more then foure daies iourney distant from the said court of Rome a few principall matters onely excepted apud Fox p. 697. 3. This also is flatly contrary to the rule of the Apostle that appellations should be made out of the Church a far off Is it so sayth hee that there is not a wise man amongst you no not one that can iudge amongst his brethren 1. Cor. 6.5 Ergo euery Church hath wise men sufficient in it whereby their controuersies may be ended 4. Augustine also thus writeth concerning this matter Miltiades Episcopus Romanus non sibi vsurpauit iudicium de causa Ceciliani sed rogatus imperator iudices misit Episcopos qui cum eo sederent epist. 162. Miltiades Bishop of Rome did not vsurpe or take vpon himselfe to iudge the cause of Cecilian but the Emperour being requested sent other bishops that should sit and determine the cause together with him Out of these words first we note that it had beene vsurpation and presumption for the Bishop of Rome to haue taken vpon him the iudgement of this matter not belonging vnto him vnlesse the Emperor had committed it Secondly that Miltiades did not suffer other Bishops to sitte with him as Bellarmine imagineth but he could not otherwise choyse for they were ioyned in commission by the Emperour to be iudges as well as he Thus we see what small shew or colour of title the Pope hath to heare or receiue appeales from other countries THE THIRD PART WHETHER THE Pope be subiect to the iudgement of anye The Papists error 43 THe Pope neither can nor ought to bee iudged either of the Emperour or anie other Seculare or ecclesiasticall Magistrate no not of any generall Councel Bellarmin cap. 26. Nay hee should doe iniurie vnto GOD to submit himselfe to the iudgement of any Iacobat ex Tilhemann de pontif rom err 34. Beside certayne blinde canons and constitutions and a fewe examples grounded vpon the insolent practises of Popes they haue no other arguments either out of scripture or drawen from reason to confirme this their hideous and monstrous opinion withal Bellarmine reasoneth thus the Prince is not to bee iudged by the commonwealth but is greater then his kingdome the Pope is the prince of the Church Ergo We answere First concerning the Princes high and Soueraigne authority we will not now dispute we make it not infinite the word of God must bee a rule and square both of ciuill and ecclesiasticall iudgement Secondly It is sufficient for vs here to answere that the Iesuite hath sayd nothing for this which he assumeth for a reason is the greatest matter in question between vs and so great an vntruth he hath vttered that he is constrained to leaue scripture and seeke helpe else-where But he shall neuer by any good reason or sufficient authority prooue that the Pope hath any such Princedome in the Church as he would beare vs in hand The Protestants THat the Pope as well as other ecclesiasticall persons ought to be and is by right subiect to the
and determination of the parents 2. Let vs heare what authoritie Augustine yeeldeth to the father ouer his children Agite vicem nostram in domibus vestris Episcopus inde appellatus est quia superintendit vnusquisque ergo in domosua si caput est domui suae debet ad eum pertinere episcopatus officiū de Sanct. Ser. 51. You saith Augustine their Bishop must supplye our stead in your houses a Bishop or Superintendent is so called because he ouerseeth therefore euery housholder being the head of his house ought to playe the Bishop in his house The father then is a Bishop ouer his children shall any man then dare to take any out of his house that is his Bishoprike or any sheepe out of his folde without the Bishop and sheepheardes consent THE THIRD PART WHETHER Married persons may with mutuall consent become votaries The Papists WIth mutuall consent the man the wife may separate thē selues and vow error 92 and promise single life for euer so long as they both shall liue Bellarm. Cap. 37. Marie and Ioseph were perfitely man and wife yet by mutuall consent they liued continently all their daies Ergo it is lawfull for married couples to separate themselues for euer both agreeing therunto Bellarm. cap. 37. Answ. 1. It appeareth by the text that there was no such thing purposed by Ioseph before he was admonished by the Angell in a dreame but that as she was already betrothed so there was an intent on Iosephs parte that they should come together Math. 1.18 But that in the meane time Marie was found with childe by the holy ghost and so from that time Ioseph being a iust man neuer knew his wife there was no such purpose or vowe before 2. That this was an extraordinary exāple who seeth it not When any man shall be admonished by an Angell as Ioseph was and shall haue the like cause as Ioseph had to abstaine which shall neuer bee hee may be bould to doe as Ioseph did The Protestants THey that are once ioyned together in marriage and haue made a couenaunt each to other before God can not separate them selues though they both consent there being no other cause but a purpose of single life for more holines sake 1. It is flat contrary to S. Pauls rule 1. Corinth 7.5 Defraud not your selues except it be with cōsent for a time that you may giue your selues to fasting and prayer and againe come together lest Satan tempt you for your incontinencie First the Apostle saith directly they should but separate themselues for a time Secondly we doe thus reason out of his wordes there is no cause of separation but to be giuen to fasting and prayer but this may be done by a separation for a time neither is it necessary we should alwaies be giuen to fasting and prayer but vpon speciall occasion therefore perpetuall separation is not needfull 3. They that are long separated are subiect to fall into tentation the same cause therefore that moued them first to marrie for auoiding of incontinencie ought to moue them to come together againe Therefore it is not good nor lawful they should separat them selues for euer 2. That which God hath coupled no man ought to put asunder but they that are married haue made a couenant to God Pro. 2.17 as well as to themselues and are ioyned by Gods law together Ergo they can not dissolue their mariage by their owne power and will the Lord hauing an interest therein Augustine Thus writeth Non licet excepta causa fornicationis coniugem a coniuge dirimi nec sterilem coniugem fas est relinquere vt faecunda ducatur de nupt concupiscen Lib. 1. Cap. 10. It is not lawfull for married couples one to be separat frō another vnlesse it be for fornication nor to leaue a barren wyfe to marrie a frutefull Therefore if fornication onely be a iust cause of finall separation there can be no other If there were any other it is most like it should be for procreation of children But neither for that cause is a man to leaue his wife Ergo for no other Therefore not for any vow of continencie is marriage to be dissolued or any separation to be admitted Bellarm. saith that by their separation Marriage is not dissolued Auns It is asmuch dissolued as by your law in cases of diuorse 1. For these are your words for aduoutrie one may dismisse another but neither party can marry againe for any cause during life Rhemist Math. 19. Sect. 4. So ye allowe onely a kinde of dismission in the case of adultery and so you do in the vowing of continencie And thus you make this cause as forceable as the other to break off the Matrimonial duety which is contrary to the gospell THE FOVRTH PART WHETHER MARIage contracted not consummate may without consent be broken for the vow of continencie The Papists error 93 THeir opinion is that if the mariage be contracted onely and ratified but not yet consummate by the parties comming together it is lawful for either of them without the others consent to vowe chastitie cap. 38. Bellarm. His reason is because it is lawfull for a man to passe from a lesse perfect state of life to a more perfect if it may be done without detriment as this may be for yet they haue no children and the partie may as well bee maried to another Bellarm. Answ. First a single life is not alwayes the perfecter state nor to all as it is not to them that haue not the gift to containe as it is most like hee hath not that is contracted and hath made promise of mariage for then all this needed not Secondly though there be none of those impediments named yet there is a greater namely their fayth promise made each to other before God which they ought not to violate Thirdly Saint Paul saith If thou be bound to a wife seeke not to be loosed 1. Corinth 7.27 But they that are espoused one to the other are bound vnlesse you will say that the couenant made by them vnto God Prouer. 2.17 bindeth not The Protestants MAtrimonie whether ratified onely by lawfull contract or espousals or consummate ought not any way to be broken with consent or without for Monasticall profession 1 Our reason is because it is perfect mariage already in substance and before God which is ratified by contract onely and solemne vowe and couenant made each to other And being thus betrothed the one giueth power of their body to the other and now they are no more free That this mariage is perfect before God and in substance it appeareth by the law of Moses by the which a man defiling a mayd betrothed was to suffer death as well as if hee had committed vncleannes with a woman already maried Deuteron 22. verse 22.23 And Math. 1.18 Marie that was but betrothed to Ioseph is by the Angel called his wife vers 20. 2 August saith Coninges fidem sibi pariter
and Church officers their dueties and may in their owne persons execute the one that is spirituall duties that they may as well intermeddle in the other But these two offices of Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall gouernment are distinguished and must not be confounded The Prince though he haue authoritie to command Ecclesiasticall persons yet being a ciuill Magistrate is not to deale with the execution of spirituall dueties Bishops pastors likewise haue a spiritual charge ouer kings princes to shew thē their duties out of Gods word yet because they are persons Ecclesiastical they ought not to meddle with meer Ciuill dueties The Prince hath the soueraigntie of externall gouernement in all causes ouer all persons yet not alike for Ciuill offices he may both command and execute Ecclesiasticall duties he commandeth onely Bishops and pastors haue also a spirituall charge ouer all prescribing out of Gods word as well the duetie of Magistrates as of Ministers but not alike for the one they may fully execute so may they not the other The head in the naturall bodie resembleth the Prince in the commonwealth in some sense the head giueth mouing to the whole bodie and all the parts thereof but to the principall parts in the head the eyes tongue eares it giueth beside the facultie of mouing the sense also of seeing tasting hearing So in the common-wealth by the Princes authoritie all persons are kept in order and vrged to looke to their charge both ciuill officers and spirituall as al the parts of the bodie receiue mouing from the head But the ciuill officers receiue power and authoritie beside and their very offices of the King as the parts in the head receiue sense from their fountaine but Ecclesiasticall Ministers receiue not their offices from the Prince or any mortall man but they haue their calling according to the order of the Church of God Argum. 2. For the space of 300. yeeres the Church after Christ had no Christian gouernours but all Heathen and Idoll worshippers yet then the Church was established and preuailed Ergo Ciuill Magistrates ought not to deale in Ecclesiasticall affayres Bellarmine Ans. 1. Euen then also the Heathen Emperours had authoritie in Church matters and if they had commanded any thing agreeable to true religion they should haue been obeyed as Cyrus in the law which he made for building the temple Ezra 1. Darius the Median for worshipping the true God Dan. 6. Fulk Rom. 13. sect 3. The heathen Emperours then had the same power but they knewe not how to vse it Christian Princes doe succeede them in the same office but are better taught by the word of God how to exercise the sword Secondly we denie not but that in the time of persecution all things necessarie for the spirituall building thereof may be had without the Magistrate as a Vineyard may bring forth fruite without an hedge but it cannot enioy peace nor be in a perfect estate in respect of the externall gouernement but vnder good Magistrates as the Vineyard may soone be spoyled the wild bore and the beasts of the field may breake in vpon it hauing no hedge The child being in the womb though it haue as yet small vse of the head but is fed by the nauell which is in steed of the mouth hath in it selfe the lineaments and proportion of a humane bodie yet it wanteth the perfect beautie till it be borne and come forth and the head receiue his office So may the Church haue a being in persecution and the want of the ciuill head may be otherwise supplied but it is not beautifull till the head be set vp and the sword put into the Christian Magistrates hand Argum. 3. Princes haue no cure nor charge of soules Ergo they are not to meddle with Ecclesiasticall lawes Rhemist annot 1. Corinth 14. sect 16. Ans. Parents haue charge ouer the soules of their childrē for they are charged to bring them vp in the instruction and information of the Lord Ephes. 6.4 Therefore Princes also haue directly charge of the soules of their subiects according to their place and calling by prouiding and making good Ecclesiasticall lawes and compelling them to the true seruice of God As the Ecclesiasticall Ministers in another kind and more properly are said to haue the cure of soules in feeding and instructing the people Fulk ibid. The Protestants THe ciuill Magistrate by the word of God hath power to make and constitute Ecclesiasticall lawes and to establish true religion and see that all persons vnder their gouernment doe faithfully execute their charge To say therefore that the Church officers are to deuise lawes concerning religion and the Prince onely to execute them is to make the Prince their seruant and doth derogate too much from the princely authoritie Neither doe we giue vnto the Prince absolute power to make Ecclesiasticall lawes for first the Prince is not to prescribe what lawes he listeth to the Church but such as onely may require the true worship of God Secondly that it is expedient and meete according to the commendable custome of this land that the godly learned of the Clergie should be consulted withall in establishing of Ecclesiastical ordinances vnlesse it be in such a corrupt time when the Church gouernours are enemies to religion for then the Prince not staying vpon their iudgement ought to reforme religion according to the word of God as we see it was lawfully and godly practised by King Henrie the 8. Thirdly we doe make exception of all such Ecclesiasticall canons and ordinances the making whereof doth properly belong to the office of Bishops and gouernours of the Church for our meaning is not that it is not lawful for Ecclesiastical Ministers to make Ecclesiastical decrees which do properly concerne their office as concerning the censures of the Church excommunication suspension absoluing binding loosing and such like which things are incident to their pastorall office and yet we grant that the Prince hath euen in these cases an ouerruling hand to see that none abuse their pastoral office But that any lawes ought to be made without the authoritie of the prince which the prince is bound to execute we vtterly denie And so we conclude that the ciuill Magistrate hath power ouer all persons and in all causes both temporall and ecclesiasticall in such manner as we haue sayd 1 S. Paul willeth that praiers should be made for Kings and Princes that vnder them we may leade a peaceable life in all godlines and honestie 1. Tim. 2.2 Ergo it is their duetie as well to procure religion by their authoritie as ciuill honestie Againe He beareth not the sword for nought Rom. 13.4 He hath power to punish al euill doers therfore also to correct euill ministers to make Ecclesiastical lawes for otherwise he should haue no ful power to correct the transgressors thereof 2 We reade that Iosua Dauid Salomon Iosia did deale in ecclesiasticall matters which concerned religion and the worship of God
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
the sacrament of the Lords bodie Baptisme is equiualent to the word of God by our aduersaries own confession Ergo also it is of equall value and dignitie with the other sacrament THE TWELFTH GENERALL CONTROVERSY OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISME THis controuersie standeth vpon diuers questions 1. Of the name and definition of Baptisme Secondly of the partes of Baptisme Thirdly of the necessitie of Baptisme Fourthly of the Minister of Baptisme Fiftly of the parties which are to be baptized Sixtly of the effects of Baptisme Seuenthly of the difference of Christs Baptisme and Iohns Eightly of the ceremonies of Baptisme THE FIRST QVESTION OF THE NAME and definition of Baptisme COncerning the name there is no question betweene vs for the name of Baptisme hath the originall and beginning from the scripture Saint Paul vseth this word Coloss. 2.12 We are buryed with him through Baptisme And againe Heb. 6.2 All the question is about the definition of Baptisme The Papists error 98 THey define Baptisme to bee a sacrament of regeneration by water in the worde that is not which signifieth and sealeth vnto vs our regeneration and assureth vs of remission of sinnes but actually iustifieth and regenerateth vs Bellarm. lib. 1. de Baptism cap. 1. The Protestants WE rather according to the scriptures define baptisme to be a signe or seale of our regeneration and new birth whereby wee are assured that as verily by fayth in the blood of Christ we are cleansed from our sinnes as our bodies are washed with water in the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost So that Baptisme doth not actually bestow remission of sinnes by the work wrought but is a pledge and seale of the righteousnesse of fayth as Saint Paul sayth of Circumcision Rom. 4.11 for it is not the washing of the flesh by water but the establishing of the heart with fayth and grace that saueth vs 1. Pet. 3.21 See this poynt handled more at large Controuers 11. next before quest 2. part 1. Augustine saith Per fidem renascimur in baptismate by fayth wee are borne agayne in Baptisme De tempor serm 53. It is then the proper act of fayth to regenerate vs not of Baptisme the vse and end whereof is to strengthen and increase our fayth THE SECOND QVESTION OF THE PARTES which are the matter and forme of Baptisme AS touching the matter that is the externall element vsed in Baptisme there is no question betweene vs but that it ought to bee plaine and common water Act. 10.47 Saint Peter saith Can any man forbid water that these should not bee baptized Wherefore wee condemne the foolish and vngodly practises and inuentions of heretikes that either exclude water altogether as the Manichees with others or doe vse any other element as the Iacobites that in stead of water burned them that were to be baptized with a whot yron or as the Aethiopians which are called Abissines that vsed fire in stead of water misconstruing the words of the Gospell Matth. 2.11 That Christ should baptize with the holy Ghost and with fire which is not literally to bee vnderstoode but thereby is signified the internall and forceable working of the spirite which kindleth zeale and loue in our hearts as fire Concerning the forme of Baptisme we all agree that no other is to be vsed then that prescribed by our Sauiour Christ to baptize in the name of the Father the Sonne and holy Ghost that it is neither lawfull to change this forme in sense as many heretikes haue done nor yet in words as to leaue out any of the three persons in Trinitie and inclusiuely to vnderstand them by naming of one for whereas some alleadge that place Act. 2.38 Bee yee baptized in the name of Iesus Christ for remission of sinnes to proue that it is lawfull onely in the name of Christ to baptize wee are to vnderstand that the forme of Baptisme is not in that place expresly set downe but the scope onely and end of Baptisme which is to assure vs of remission of sinnes in the name of Christ as Beza very well noteth vpon that place The point of difference betweene vs concerning the forme of Baptisme is this The Papists THey are bold to affirme that this forme of Baptisme to baptize in the name error 99 of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost is not fully concluded out of Scripture but deliuered by tradition for say they the commandement of Christ to baptize in the name of the Trinitie Matth. 28. may bee vnderstoode thus to baptize them into the faith of the Trinitie or by the authoritie of the Trinitie And it were sufficient by those words to doe and performe it in act without saying the wordes were it not that wee haue otherwise learned by tradition that this very forme of wordes is to bee kept Bellarmine de baptism lib. 1. cap. 3. The Protestants WE neede no tradition for this matter the very forme which is to bee vsed in Baptisme is plainely proued out of the Scriptures for that commandement of Christ Goe and baptize c. doth necessarily imply a forme of speech to be vsed Wee grant that in the Scriptures this word name is taken for power vertue authoritie as Act. 3.6 In the name of Iesus arise and walke So also as there is a Baptisme with water there may be a baptizing with fire Matth. 3.11 Wherefore if part of the commandement bee to bee taken properlie and literally as this Goe and baptize why not the rest also In the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost If then the whole commaundement bee properly and plainely vnderstoode how can they baptize in the name of the Trinitie vnlesse the Trinitie bee spoken and named Secondly it appeareth also out of other places of Scripture that this forme was vsed in the Apostles time As Act. 10.47 Can any man forbid water why these should not be baptized which haue receiued the holy Ghost as well as wee As if Saint Peter should haue reasoned thus these haue receiued the giftes of the holy Ghost Ergo they may be also baptized in the name of the holy Ghost Likewise Act. 19.2 When the brethren at Ephesus had answered Paul that they had not heard whether there were a holy Ghost he saith vnto them Vnto what then were you baptized By this interrogatorie it appeareth it was their manner to baptize in the name of the holy Ghost and so consequently of the whole Trinitie Wee haue no cause then to flie vnto tradition this matter being so plainely decided by the Scripture Augustin tract in Iohann 80. Vpon those wordes of our Sauiour Iohn 15.3 You are cleane thorough the word which I haue spoken vnto you Detrahe verbum quid est aqua nisi aqua Accedit verbum ad elementum fit sacramentum Take away the word and what remaineth in Baptisme but bare water let the word be ioyned to the element and it maketh a Sacrament The forme then of Baptisme is the word which Christ
chapter of Iohn cannot be so vnderstoode as they expound it First Christ speaketh not onely of the sacramentall eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood but generally of the spirituall participation by fayth whether in the sacrament or without which is wrought in vs by the holy Ghost 1. If it be vnderstoode of the sacrament then it will follow that no man can be saued vnlesse he doe receiue the sacrament for Christ saith vers 53. Except you eate my flesh and drink my blood you cannot haue life in you This I am sure they will hardly grant that the Eucharist also should bee necessarie as they make Baptisme to saluation 2. If Christ hath relation to the sacrament then must it of necessitie bee ministred in both kindes for in euery place he ioyneth both these together the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood Augustine also thus writeth vpon these wordes Hoc est manducare illam escam illum bibere potum in Christo manere illum manentemin se habere This it is to eate that flesh and to drinke that drinke to abide in Christ and to haue him abiding in vs but this may be done without the sacrament Ergo it is not necessary to vnderstand it of the sacrament Secondly though we should graunt that this whole treatise Iohn 6. may fitlie be referred to the sacrament yet the wordes must be taken figuratiuelie for the spirituall eating and drinking of Christ in the sacrament and not otherwise 1 Vers. 35. Christ so expoundeth his owne words I am the bread of life he that commeth to me shall not hunger and he that beleeueth in me shall not thirst To eate then and to drinke Christ is to beleeue in him 2 Christ vnderstandeth another manner of eating of his flesh then the Capernaites did But they imagined that Christ would giue his very flesh and blood to bee eaten And therefore they went away offended and sayd This is an hard saying vers 60. Therefore Christ to correct their erronious conceit sayth vnto them that his words were spirite and life that is spiritually to be vnderstoode verse 63. So Augustine interpreteth those wordes of Christ as if he had sayd Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum You must vnderstand spiritually that which I haue sayd You shall not eate this body which you see nor drinke that blood which shall be shed for you Sacramentum vobis aliquod commendaui spiritualiter intellectum viuisicabit vos I haue commended a certaine mystery and sacrament vnto you which being spiritually vnderstood shall quicken you The Papists ARgum. 3. Christ in the institution of this sacrament sayd vnto his Apostles after hee had giuen thanks and blessed Hoc est corpus meum This is my bodie that is that which is contayned in this bread or vnder the formes of this bread is my very body Bellarm. cap. 9. So that these wordes must needes be taken properly not to bee a trope or figure 1 It is not the manner of the scriptures to set down flatte precepts and commaundements and directorie rules in obscure termes or figuratiue speeches but plainely and euidently therefore it is not like that Christ being now to prescribe vnto his Apostles the perpetuall lawe and forme of this sacrament would speake obscurely 2 Though he spake by parables and signes to the Pharisies yet there was no cause why he should so doe none being present but his Apostles Bellarmin ibid. Ans. 1. It is very well that you will now though I thinke vnawares grant vnto vs that the precepts and rules in scripture are set downe simply and playnely wherefore the scriptures cannot bee so hard and obscure as you would beare vs in hand they are for if the precepts and rules of fayth be euidently in scripture expressed as you seeme to confesse what reason haue you to keepe back the people from the reading of scripture 2 It is false that the scriptures vse no figures nor tropes in the declaration of the lawes and sacraments of the Church for sayth not Saint Paul speaking of the sacraments of the Iewes Petra erat Christus the rock was Christ 1. Cor. 10.4 that is signified Christ Likewise in the 17. vers We that are many are one bread that is our spirituall vnitie and coniunction is represented in that we are partakers of one bread 3 Sometimes our Sauiour would speake darkely being alone with his Apostles thereby to stirre them vp more diligently to attend vnto his wordes as when he biddeth them beware of the leauen of the Pharisies Mark 8.15 Yet this speech of our Sauiour Christ vttered in the hearing of his Apostles This is my bodie was neither so darke nor obscure that the Apostles neede much bee troubled about the vnderstanding Nay many things being spoken in borrowed and metaphoricall wordes are vttered with greater grace and carrie a fuller sense When Christ sayd I am the doore Iohn 10.9 I am the vine Iohn 15.1 he spake by figure as he doth here for neither was he a vine or a doore as the bread was not his bodie Yet which of the Apostles was there that vnderstoode him not when he called himselfe a vine and a doore Neither could they doubt of our Sauiour Christs meaning here Contra. Now on the other side we will make it playne that these words of Christ are spoken tropically 1 Where Christ sayth according to Saint Luke This cuppe is the new Testament in my blood Luk. 22.23 we must needes admitte a double trope or figure for first the cuppe is taken for that which was contayned in the cuppe Secondly the wine in the cuppe was not the newe Testament but a signe of the new Testament If then in one parte of the sacrament hee spake by a figure why not also in the other when he sayth This is my bodie that is a liuely signe and seale thereof 2 It is no vnusuall phrase in the scripture to say this is that is signifieth as Genes 17.10 Circumcision is called the couenant it selfe where it was a signe onely of it And Exod. 12.11 the Lambe is called the Lords passeouer which it betokened onely In the same sense Christ sayth This is my bodie that is exhibiteth and representeth vnto you my bodie Augustine so expoundeth these wordes Non dubitauit Dominus dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum daret signum corpus sui Christ doubted not to say This is my bodie when hee gaue a signe and sacrament of his bodie The Protestants THat Christ is present with all his benefites in the sacrament wee doe willingly graunt neither doe we thinke that the elements of bread and wine are bare and naked signes of the bodie and blood of Christ but Christ is verily by them exhibited vnto vs and spiritually by fayth we are truely made partakers of his precious bodie blood not that Christ descendeth from heauen to vs but we ascend by faith and in spirit vnto him yea we confesse
to continue Wherefore it consisteth not in such laborious workes which if a man should long endure he should end his life sooner then repentance The Papists 3 THey measure their penance by number of yeares and dayes They haue error 28 their quadragenas fortie dayes penance septenas seuen yeares penance Ex Tileman Heshus loc 9. de poenitent Err. 83. And they lengthen or cut short the time of penance at their pleasure to continue three seuen or tenne yeares yea sometime more Bellarmin lib. 1. de poenitent 22. The Protestants THat true repentance is not to bee measured by the time but by the right sorrow and contrition of the offender Saynt Paul teacheth vs who writeth for the young man to be released because of his great and sufficient heauines for his fault 2. Corinth 2.7 Augustine also sayth Poenitentia vera non annorum numero sed amaritudine animicensetur poenitentia quamuis sit exigui temporis c. True repentance is not measured by number of yeares but by the bitternes of the soule though it be but for a short time yet it is not despised before that iudge which regardeth the heart THE FIFTEENTH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE OF MATRIMONIE THe seuerall questions belonging to this Controuersie are these First whether Matrimonie bee a sacrament properly so called 2 Of the causes of diuorce and whether it bee lawfull to marry after diuorce 3 Of the degrees in mariage First the maner of supputation or accounting of degrees Secondly whether the degrees forbidden Leuit. 18. may bee dispensed with Thirdly whether any other degrees may bee by humane law prohibited 4 Of the impediments of mariage of two sortes First of those that may hinder the contract of mariage onely Secondly of such impediments as may both dissolue the contract and the mariage also consummate 5 The comparison of mariage and virginitie whether either bee preferred before the other before God Of these now in their order 6 Of the times of mariage prohibited 7 Of the ceremonies and rites of mariage THE FIRST QVESTION WHETHER Matrimonie be a sacrament The Papists error 28 THat it is properly and rightly a sacrament instituted of God and not deuised of men Concil Trid. sess 24. can 1. Argum. 1. Ephes. 5.32 This is a great sacrament Matrimonie is here a signe of an holy thing representing the coniunction of Christ and his Church Ergo a sacrament Answ. 1. The wordes are thus to be read rather This is a great mystery Or if we reade sacrament they haue no great aduantage seeing they are not ignorant that the originall word Mysterie which they translate sacrament is attributed to other things then sacraments as 1. Timoth. 3.16 Mysterie of godlinesse Apocal. 17.5 A mysterie great Babylon Neither doe they themselues much vrge this argument 2. The Apostle sayth not that Matrimonie is a mysterie but I speake of Christ and his Church vers 32.3 Matrimonie we confesse to be instituted of God and to be a signe of a holie thing yet no sacrament for so was the Sabboth ordayned of GOD and signified the rest in Christ Hebr. 4.8 yet was it no sacrament Wherfore al significatiue and mysticall signes are not sacraments Argum. 2. Matrimonie giueth grace of sanctification to the parties maried They shal be saued in bearing of children if they continue in faith and loue 1. Timoth. 2.15 These are the graces giuen by matrimonie Ergo a sacrament Answ. 1. We denie that any sacraments giue or conferre grace they are instruments only of grace 2. We also grant that by matrimonie God giueth to the faithfull this speciall grace to liue in holines purenes from the filthy pollution of the flesh but the sacraments are seales of spirituall graces and serue for the increase of fayth it is not sufficient to bee a meanes of any common gift but of the spirituall and iustifiyng grace to make a sacrament 3. Wherefore if by fayth and loue here they vnderstand only the fidelity and duety of wedlocke they are not those spirituall graces whereof sacraments are seales if wee take them for the true faith and loue which are the common graces of the faythfull as the very meaning is they are as well to be had out of wedlock as in it The Protestants THat matrimonie is no sacrament of the Gospell speaking now properly and vnderstanding a sacrament for the seale of the grace of God in the remission of our sinnes by Christ it is thus proued Argum. 1. Matrimony was instituted by GOD before sinne in Paradise therefore it can be no sacrament of the Gospell Argum. 2. Our aduersaries are contrary to themselues for they call matrimonie a prophanation of Orders Martin sect 15. cap. 11. And they say it is more tolerable for a Priest to keepe many concubines then to marrie Pighius ex Tileman Hesbus loc 21. Err. 2. Doe these fellowes meane in good sooth that matrimonie is a sacrament which they make so vile polluted and vncleane a thing 3 In euery sacrament there ought to be an external sensible element as the matter and a sanctifiyng word as the forme But in matrimony there is neither Ergo it is no sacrament Bellarm. The forme are the wordes pronounced by the parties themselues when they contract matrimonie I doe take thee c. They also themselues are the matter yea and the Ministers of the sacrament too For the Iesuite holdeth that it is a sacrament in the very contract and giuing of mutuall consent before it be solemnized in the Church De matrim cap. 6. Ans. 1. The sacrament is one thing and the receiuers another therefore the maried parties cannot be the sacramental matter being the receiuers 2. It is not euery word that sanctifieth but the word of God 1. Tim. 4.5 but these words I take thee are no parte of the word Ergo they want also the forme of a sacrament 3. The ministers of Christ preachers of the word are only the dispēsers of the mysteries and sacraments of the Church 1. Cor. 4.1 Wherefore the parties themselues could not be ministers of matrimonie if it were a sacrament Augustine thus writeth Ne quis istam magnitudinem sacramenti in singulis quibusque hominib vxores habētib intelligeret ego autē dico inquit c. Lest any man should think when the Apostle had said This is a great sacrament that this great Sacrament is to be vnderstood of all maried persons the Apostle addeth but I speake of Christ and his Church But if so be matrimony were a sacrament why is it not to be found in al maried folke THE SECOND QVESTION OF THE CAVSES of diuorse in mariage and whether it be lawfull to marrie after diuorse THE FIRST PART WHETHER THERE MAY BE more causes of diuorse then fornication onely The Papists DIuorse as Bellarm. defineth it is either from the dueties of mariage as from error 29 bed and boord as we say which is properly called diuortium or it is a dissoluing of the knot and
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