and not these for being sent by men that haue authority though abusing the same they haue a true and lawfull Ministery till they be put from it by superiour authority else were all Ministration of Sacraments and other sacred things voyde performed by such as simoniacally or by sinister meanes get into these holy places The fourth are such as neither are sent of GOD nor of men nor by men but of them-selues of whom our Sauiour Christ saith all that came before me were theeues robbers and of whome almighty GOD pronounceth and sayth by the Prophet Ieremy I sent them not they 〈◊〉 I spake not to them they prophecied This euill is carefully to bee declined and therefore CHRIST would not suffer the diuels to speake that which was true least vnder the pretence of trueth errour might creepe in seeing hee that speaketh of him-selfe cannot but speake lyes These are the foure sortes of them that serue in the worke of the Ministery whereof the last haue no calling at all and all they doe is voide the Third haue a lawfull commission though they obtayned it by sinister meanes and bee vnworthy of it so that they could not bee put into it without the faulte of the ordayners The First had a lawfull but extraordinary calling needefull onely in those first beginnings of Christianity and not longer to continue The second haue that calling which is Ordinary and to continue whereof wee are now to speake In this calling there are three things implied Election Ordination and Assignation to some particular Church whereof men elected and ordained are appointed to take charge In ancient times there was no ordination at large without particular Assignation and sine titulo allowed as it appeareth by the Councell of Chalcedon forbidding any such thing to be done and voyding any such Act if it should bee done and therefore in those times the very electing and ordayning was an assigning of the elected ordayned to the place of Charge they were to take and a giuing of them the power of iurisdiction as wel as of order But this Canon in latter times grew out of vse whence ensued great confusions in the state of the Church as Duarenus rightly noteth yet are we not of opinion that all such ordinations are voyde in the nature of the thing whatsoeuer the Ancients pronounced of them according to the strictnesse of the Canons For seeing Ordination which is the sanctifying of men to the worke of the holy Ministery is a diffeernt thing in nature from the placing of them where they shal do that holy worke and a man once ordained needeth not any new Ordination when he is remoued from one Church to another it is euident that in the nature of the thing Ordination doth not so depend on the title and place of Charge the Ordayned entereth into as that Ordinations at large should bee voyd yet are they not to bee permitted neither are they in our Church For the Ordinations of Ministers in Colledges in our Vniuersities are not within the compasse of those prohibited Ordinations at large and sine titulo and none other by the order of our Church may bee Ordayned vnlesse he be certainly prouided of some definite place of charge imployment And as the Auncient were thus precise in admitting none into the holy Ministery but with assignation of the particular place of his imployment so they tooke as strict order that men once placed should not sodainly be remoued and translated to any other church or charge In the Councell of Sardica Hosius the President of that Councell sayd That same ill custome and pernicious corruption is wholy to be plucked vp by the rootes that it may not be lawfull for a Bishoppe to passe from his citie to any other city For the cause why they doe so is knowne to all seeing none is found to passe from a greater citie to a lesser whence it appeareth that they are inflamed with ardent desires of couetousnesse and that they serue their owne ambitious designes that they may exercise dominion and grow great If therefore it seeme good to you all that such an euill as this is may be more seuerely punished lette him that is such a one bee reiected from all communion euen such as Lay-men inioy To whom all the Bishoppes answered it pleaseth vs well To whom Hosius replyed Though any shall bee found so ill aduised as haply in excuse of himselfe to affirme that hee receiued letters from the people to draw him from his owne city to another yet I thinke seeing it is manifest that some few not sincere in the Faith might be corrupted by reward and procured to desire his translation all such fraudes should altogether bee condemned So that such a one should not bee admitted so much as to the communion which Lay-men enioy no not in the end which thing if it seeme good vnto you all confirme and settle it by your Decree And the Synode answered it pleaseth vs well Leo to the same purpose writeth thus If any Bishoppe despising the meanenesse of his owne citie shall seeke to gette the administration gouernment of some more noted and better respected place and shall by any meanes translate remoue himselfe to a greater People and more large and ample charge let him bee driuen from that other chaire which hee sought and lette him bee depriued also of his owne So that hee bee neither suffered to rule ouer them whom out of a couetous desire hee would haue subiected to himselfe nor ouer them whom g in pride hee contemned and scorned And the like is found in other but as Theodoret sheweth it was ambition and such other like euils that these Holy Fathers sought to stoppe and preuent rather then generally to condemne all Translation of Bishops from one Church and cittie to another For these changes may sometimes bring so great and euident vtility that they are not to be disliked And therefore the same Theodoret sheweth that notwithstanding this Canon Gregory Nazianzen was remoued from his Church and constituted Bishop of Constantinople And Socrates reporteth that Proclus was remoued thither from Cyzicum Wherefore passing by these matters as cleare and resolued of Let vs proceed to see first to whom it pertaineth to Elect Secondly to whom it belongeth to ordaine such as are duly elected and chosen to the worke of the Ministery Touching Election wee thinke that each Church and People that haue not by lawe custome or consent restrayned themselues stand free by Gods law to admitte maintaine and obey no man as their Pastor without their liking and that the peoples election by themselues or their rulers dependeth on the first principles of humane fellowships and assemblies for which cause though Bishops by Gods lawe haue power to examine and ordaine before any may be placed to take charge of soules yet haue they no power to impose a Pastor on any Church against their
Generall councell taketh order that the Patriarch shall haue power to convocate the Metropolitanes that are vnder him and that they shall not refuse to come when he calleth them vnlesse they be hindered by vrgent causes And to this purpose it was that the Bishops within the Patriarchship of Rome were once in the yeare to visite the Apostolicall thresholds which to do they take an oath still euen to this day as Cusanus noteth so that it is evident that there is a power in Bishoppes Metropolitanes Primates and Patriarchs to call Episcopall Provinciall Nationall and Patriarchicall Synodes and that neither so depending of nor subiect to the power of Princes but that when they are enemies to the Faith they may exercise the same without their consent and privity and subiect them that refuse to obey their summons to such punishments as the canons of the Church doe prescribe in cases of such contempt or wilfull negligence But that wee may see to whom the calling of Generall Councels doth pertaine in the times of persecution and when there are no Christian Princes we must obserue that among the Patriarches though one bee in order before another As the Patriarch of Alexandria is before the Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch of Rome before the Patriarch of Alexandria yet is not one of them superiour to another in degree as Bishops are to Presbyters nor so in order honour and place as Metropolitanes are to Bishops or Patriarches to Metropolitanes whom they are to ordaine or at the least to confirme And therefore no one of them singly and by himselfe alone hath power to call vnto him any Patriarch or any Bishop subiect to such Patriarch But as in case when there groweth a difference betweene the patriarches of one See and another or betweene any of the patriarches and the Metropolitanes and Bishops subiect to them the superiour patriarch not of himselfe alone but with his Metropolitanes and such particular Bishops as are interessed may judge and determine the differences between them if without danger of a further rent it may be done as in the case of Chrysostome and Theophilus it could not So if there be any matter of Faith or any thing concerning the whole state of the Christian church wherein a common deliberation of all the pastors of the church is necessary he that is in order the first among the patriarches with the Synodes of Bishops subiect to him may call the rest together as being the principall part of the church whence all actions of this nature doe take beginning And this is that which Iulius Bishop of Rome hath when writing to the Bishops of the East he telleth them that the manner and custome is that they should write to him and the Westerne Bishops first that from thence might be decreed the thing that is just and againe that they ought to haue written to them all that so that which is just might bee decreed by all And hence it is that Damasus Ambrose Brito Valerianus and the rest of the holy Bishops assembled in the great city of Rome out of their brotherly loue sent for the Bishops of the East as their owne members praying and desiring them to come vnto them that they might not raigne alone So that the power of calling Generall Councels when the church hath no princes to assist her is not in the Pope but in the Westerne Synode and yet hath not this Synode any power ouer all the other Churches as a supreme Commaunder but is onely as a principall part among the rest to beginne procure set forward as much as in her lyeth such things as pertain to the cōmon good neither may it by vertue of any canon custome or practise of the church excōmunicate the rest for refusing to hearken when it calleth as it appeareth by the former example in that they of the East came not when they were called and intreated to come to Rome by Damasus Ambrose and the rest but stayed at Constantinople did some things which they disliked and yet were forced to giue way vnto them and as being greater in authority then they bare the name of the generall Councell though they were assembled at Rome at the same time in a very great number But if the greater part concurre with them they may excommunicate those few that shall wilfully and causelesly refuse to obey them If it be said that hence it will follow that there is no certaine meanes of hauing a generall Councell at all times as there is of Prouinciall or Patriarchicall which may seeme absurde it will be answered that there is not the like necessitie of hauing Generall Councels as there is of hauing those more particular Synodes and that therefore it is not absurd to grant that the Church hath not at all times certaine and infallible meanes to haue a Generall Councell as it hath to haue the other Nay that it hath not it most plainely appeareth in that in the case of Chrysostome greatly distressed greiuously wronged Innocentius professed vnto him he knew no meanes to helpe him but a Generall Councell which to obtaine he became an humble futer to the Emperour but was so farre from preuailing that the messengers hee sent were returned backe againe vnto him with disgrace Thus wee see to whom the calling of Councels pertaineth when there is no Christian Magistrate to assist the Church but when there is a Christian Magistrate it pertaineth to him to see that these assemblies be duly holden accordingly as the necessity of the Church requireth and the Canons prescribe And therefor wee shall finde that though Christian Emperours Kings and Princes within their seuerall dominions oftentimes permitted Bishops Metropolitanes and Patriarches to hold Episcopall Prouinciall Nationall or Patriarchicall Councels without particular intermedling therein when they saw neither negligence in those of the Cleargy in omitting to hold such Councels when it was fit nor intrusion into their office yet soe often as they saw cause they tooke into their owne hands the power of calling these more particular Synodes And touching generall there was neuer any that was not called by the Emperour That Emperours Kings and Princes in their seuerall dominions respectiuely called particular Councels is proued by innumerable examples For Constantine the great called the first Councell of Arle as it appeareth by his Epistle to Crestus and Binnius confesseth it The Councell of Aquileia was called by the Emperours as it appeareth by the Epistle of the Councell to Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius the Emperours in the first Tome of the Councells The Councell of Burdegalis was called by the Emperour against Priscillian The Councell of Agatha by the permission of the King as as appeareth in the second Tome of the Councels The first of Orleans was called by Clodoueus The Epaunine Councell by Sigismund the sonne of Gundebald The second of Orleans by the command of Childebert the
touching the condition of such as dyed in an imperfect state of grace contrary to any thing holden by vs at this day These premisses considered and euery of these things being confessed by Master Higgons or proued abundantly by Mee it seemeth the poore man is beside himselfe and that his discontentments haue made him madde For otherwise what should moue him like a madde man to crye out in such sort as hee doth That I haue disabled my booke and ouerthrowne the Protestanticall Church that Papistes may triumph in the victory which their chiefest enemies haue wrought in their behalfe and ioyfully applaud the excellencie of their cause which enforceth her greatest aduersaries to prostitute themselues to such base and dishonest courses Let the base Runnagate looke to himselfe and his conscience will tell him that his courses haue beene base dishonest perfidious vnnaturall that I say not monstrous but our cause is such as shall euer be able to vpholde it selfe against all opposers without any such shifting devices as they of the adverse faction are forced to vse for the staying of that from falling for a little while that must fall and come to nothing in despight of all that Diuels or diuellish men by lying slaundering murdering and all hellish practises can doe to sustaine it §. 8. THus haue I breefely runne thorough his two bookes answered whatsoeuer concerneth my selfe in the same and so might passe presently to his Appendix but that towards the end of the 2d part ofhis second booke he once againe wrongeth that renowned Diuine Dr Humphrey in such sort as is not to be endured For he chargeth him with vnfaithfulnesse in his relations digressions from the matter a generall imbecillity of his whole discourse obscuritie vncertainty notorious deprauing of Saint Augustine and other vnfaithfull practises against the same Father and sayth the detection of his falshood ministred the first occasion of his chaunge If Master Higgons were not better knowne then trusted some man happily would bee mooued to thinke that some very grosse and vnexcusable ouer-sights are found in Doctour Humphrey against whom hee so clamorously inveigheth but seeing all the world taketh notice what manner of man hee is by that description of him which is found in a letter of a worthy Knight lately written to him another of his own father written to the same Knight I think there is no man of any sence that will regard his words any more then the braying of an Asse or the bellowing of an Oxe when he lacketh fodder yet to make it appeare that he hath calumniated and wronged a worthy person without all cause or shew of cause I will breefely set downe the summe of D. Humphrey his discourse Whereas Campian obiecteth to vs that we haue begged certaine fragments of opinions from Aerius and others condemned as heretickes first hee answereth that we haue not receiued our faith from Heretickes but from the Apostles and their successours Secondly he sayth that we condemne all the hereticall positions of Aerius yet admit whatsoeuer he held rightly and agreably to the holy Scripture in which saying Maister Higgons telleth vs the Papists will concurre with him Thirdly he alloweth a commemoration of the Saints and holy ones departed and consequently disliketh Aerius for condemning the same Fourthly hee condemneth that abuse in praying for the dead which Aerius condemned Fifthly he sayth the commemoration of the departed is not commanded in Scripture but holden by custome of the Church Sixtly that if wee dye not in a true and liuely faith all the prayers in the world cannot helpe vs contrary to the error of those men who thought that not onely a suspension or mitigation but a totall release of the punishments of men dying in mortall sinnes may be procured which error Augustine refuteth by the euidence of the words of the Apostle that vnlesse we here sowe vnto the spirit we cannot reape immortality And againe that we must all stand before the Tribunall seate of Christ that euery one may receiue according to the thinges hee did in this body whether good or ill Whence hee sayth is inferred that vnlesse men depart hence in state of grace all the world cannot releeue them afterwardes These being the principall and most materiall partes and circumstances of D. Humphrey his discourse touching Aerius let vs see what are the exceptions that Maister Higgons take against him The first is that he sayth there is no Scripture for that prayer for the dead that was ancienily vsed in the Church and that Augustine seemeth to confesse as much which hee goeth about to improue because Augustine alleageth the booke of Machabees for the practise of praying for the dead But for answere here-vnto 1. wee say that D. Humphrey denyeth that there is any precept requiring vs to pray for the dead found in Scripture speaketh nothing of exāples And therefore the allegation of the book of Machabees is impertinent 2. that the praier of Iudas Machabaeus mentioned in that booke was not for the reliefe of the dead but for the remission or not imputing of their sins to the liuing least God should haue smitten them for the trespasse committed by those wicked ones that displeased God and perished in their sin though the author of that book make another construction of it 3. that the booke of Machabees is not Canonical and though Augustine seeme to incline to an opinion that it is yet hee is not resolued that it is so yea some are of opinion that he thought it Canonicall only in respect of the Canon of manners and not of faith but Mr Higgons will proue that in the iudgement of Augustine prayer for the dead is plainely expressed or sufficiently deduced from the Scriptures of the new Testament in that S. Augustine hauing alleadged the bookes of Machabees to proue that prayer was made for the dead sayth if this were no where read in the old Scriptures the authority of the Church were greatly to be regarded which shineth in this custome which is a very silly inferēce For neither doth it follow that if it be not in the old it must be in the new neither would Augustine haue presently vrged the authority of the Church vpon the supposition of not finding it in the old Scriptures but the bookes of the new Testament if hee had thought it to be found in the new seeing he seeketh first and principally to proue it by Scripture His second exception is that Augustine vrgeth the custome of the Vniuersall Church for the commendation of the dead and pronounceth that without intollerable insolency and madnesse this authority cannot be reiected whence he inferreth that both these must ineuitably fall vppon D. Humphrey and his Church but the poore fellow that chargeth other men with madnesse if hee were in his right wittes might easily haue found that Doctor Humphrey doth not condemne the commemoration and commendation of the dead for he saith
must haue faith to beleeue the things revealed vnto vs of God The second that this faith maketh vs see what the estate of mans nature should bee what it was at first and how much we are fallen from that wee were The third that out of this faith must flow a dislike of those sinfull evils into which wee are fallen and a feare of wofull consequents if wee be not freed from them The fourth that hence must grow a desire of remission of that which is past of grace that we may cease to doe evill learne to doe well and of assistance of the same grace that wee may goe on continue and not be turned out of the good way when wee are entered into it The fift that no man obtayneth remission of sinnes without dislike of sin and desire and purpose to leaue off to doe euill The sixt that being thus converted vnto God in longing desires of reconciliation we must not doubt but assure ourselues of the obtayning of it The seaventh that being justified no man canne bee saued without the studie care of well doing and that workes are necessary vnto saluation The eight that when wee haue done all wee must confesse we are vnprofitable servants that in many things we sin all That if God doe marke and obserue our defects we cannot abide it That we must not trust in our workes but in Gods mercy That euen those things which seeme small to vs deserue great punishment if God enter into judgement with vs. And that it is not our well doing but his mercy that maketh vs escape condemnation So that they differ from the Romanists touching the perfection of inherent righteousnesse the merit of congruence and condignity and workes of supererogation 7ly The Romanists teach that sins committed after baptisme are not so remitted for Christs sake but that wee must suffer that extremity of punishment which they deserue and therefore either we must afflict our selues in such sort and degree of extremity as may answere the desert of our sinne or bee punished by God heere or in the world to come in such degree and sort that his justice may be satisfied But they that are Orthodox teach First that it is injustice to require the payment of one debt twice Secondly that Christ suffered the punishment due to all sinnes committed before and after baptisme and therefore so satisfied the justice of God that they that are partakers of the benefit of his satisfaction so farre forth as they are made partakers of it are freed from the guilt of punishment Thirdly that the satisfaction of Christ is applied and communicated vnto vs vpon the condition of our faith and repentance without suffering the punishment that sinne deserveth 4ly That it is no lesse absurd to say as the Papists doe that our satisfaction is required as a condition without which Christs satisfaction is not appliable to vs then to say Peter hath paid the debt of Iohn and hee to whom it was due accepteth of the same payment conditionally if he pay it himselfe also Fiftly that as one man payeth another mans debt and the paiment of it is accepted vpon condition of his dislike of former evill courses and promise of amendment and not otherwise so it may be truely sayd that neither Christ hath payd our debt or God the Father accepted the payment of it for vs but vpon condition of our sorrowfull conversion and repentance Sixtly That the penall and afflictiue courses which the sinner putteth himselfe into may be named satisfactions dispositiuè in that they put vs into an estate wherein wee are capable of the benefit of Christs satisfaction freeing vs from the punishment of sinne In this sort the Greekes vrge the necessitie of satisfactions and not as the Romanists doe which appeareth by the reasons and causes which they deliuer Whereof the first is that correcting our selues amending that which otherwise God by his chastisements must driue vs to doe we may escape punishment The second that wee may pull vp the roote of sinfull evils that is the inordinate desire and pleasure wee had in things which either we should not desire or not so as wee doe The third that this correction may serue vs as a bridle to restraine vs from running into the like or worse evils hereafter The fourth that wee may frame ourselues to labour and a strait course of life vertue being a laborious thing and requiring painefull endeavours The fift that wee may make it appeare to our selues and others that wee hate sinne truely and from the heart These are true reasons why men should put themselues into penitentiall courses and these only are assigned by the Grecians but they neuer giue any such reason thereof as the Romanists fancie And as they receiue not the Romish doctrine of satisfactions so they neuer admitted any vse of such indulgences as are granted in the Roman Church nor euer dreamed of any power in the Church of communicating the ouerplus of one mannes satisfactions sufferings to supply the wāt of another Eightly touching the estate of the departed First they thinke that neither the Saints are already entred into the kingdome prepared for them nor that the sinners are already cast into hell but that both are in an expectation of that lot that remayneth for them and shall so continue till the resurrection and judgement This opinion prevaileth generally amongst all the Easterne Christians and it was the opinion of many of the ancient Fathers Secondly they beeleeue that the soules of such men as excell in vertue are worthy of eternall life and such as meerely embrace this present world of eternall punishment But that they who were in a course of vertue yet not without sundry defects and die in the same are not to bee punished eternally nor yet to bee made partakers of Gods glorie till they haue obtayned remission of those sinfull defects in which they die without particular repentance So that they beleeue there is remission of some sinnes not remitted here obtayned after this life But whether they whose sinnes are so remitted be subject to any punishment after their departing hence or God doe freely without inflicting any punishment remit them out of his mercifull disposition at the entreaty of the Church they doe not so cleerely resolue Though they incline to thinke that this remission is free and amongst many other reasons for proofe of the same alleadge that as some few good things in them that are generally principally euill shall haue no reward in the world to come so some few evill things in them that principally embrace vertue shall not bee punished But if they be subject to any punishment they all agree that it is onely the wanting of the cleere light of Gods countenance that shineth vpon others or the being in a strait or restraint or the sorrowfull dislike of former evills and not any punishment inflicted from without to giue satisfaction to the justice of God
of the Bishop of Rome Touching the first which is the neglect of divine lawes infinite multiplying of humane inuentions he pronounceth confidently there can be no generall reformation of the Church without the abolishing of sundry canons and statutes which neither are nor reasonably can be obserued in these times which doe nothing else but insnare the consciences of men to their endlesse perdition That no tongue is able sufficiently to expresse what euill what danger what confusion the contempt of holy Scripture which doubtlesse is sufficient for the gouernment of the Church for otherwise Christ had beene an vnperfect lawgiuer and the following of humane inuentions hath brought into the Church For proofe hereof saith he let vs consider the state of the clergie to which heauenly wisedome should haue beene espoused but they haue committed whoredome with that filthy harlot earthly carnall and diuelish wisedome so that the state of the Church is become meerely brutish monstrous heauen is below and the earth aboue the spirit obeyeth and the flesh commaundeth the principall is esteemed but as accessary and the accessary as principall yet some shame not to say that the Church is better gouerned by humane inuentions than by the diuine law and the law of the Gospell of Christ which assertion is most blasphemous For the Euangelicall doctrine by the professours of it did enlarge the bounds of the Church and lifted her vp to heauen which these sonnes of Hagar seeking out that wisedome which is from the earth haue cast downe to the dunghill And that it is not wholly fallen and vtterly overthrowne and extinct it is the great mercy of our God and Sauiour Touching the second cause of the Churches ruine which is the ambition pride and couetousnes of the Bishop and Court of Rome he boldly affirmeth that whereas the Bishoppes of Rome challenging the greatest place in the Church should haue sought the good of Gods people they contrarily sought onely to aduance themselues ad imitationem Luciferi adorari volunt vt dij neque reputant se subditos esse cuiquam sicut filij Belial sine iugo nec sibi posse dici cur ita facis nec Deum timent nec homines reuerentur In imitation of Lucifer they will bee adored and worshipped as Gods Neither doe they thinke themselues subiect to any but are as the sonnes of Beliall that haue cast off the yoke not enduring whatsoeuer they doe that any one should aske them why they doe so They neither feare God nor reuerence men Wherevpon hee feareth not to deliuer the opinion of many good and worthy men in his time That there beeing a Schisme in the Church by reason of the contention of the three Popes which continued for a long time in that age wherein hee liued it were good to take the aduantage of the time and neuer to restore to any Pope againe that vniversall administration of the temporalities of the Church and swaying the jurisdiction of the same but that it were best that all things were brought backe to that state they were in the times of the Apostles or at least in the times of Syluester and Gregorie when each prelate in his owne iurisdiction was permitted to gouerne them committed to his charge and dispose of the temporalities belonging to the Church without so many reseruations exactions as haue beene since brought in The Popes in time getting all into their owne hands with so many abuses fraudes and Simonies all seruing to maintaine the state of the Romish Court and of that head thereof which long since grew too heauie for the body to beare Neither was this the priuate opinion conceipt of Gerson only but Petrus de Aliaco Cardinalis Cusanus Picus Mirandula innumerable more of the best wisest and holiest men the Church had saw those abuses errours vncertainties and barbarismes wherewith the glory of the Church was greatly blemished and almost quite defaced and wished and expected a reformation Yea nothing was more certainely looked for a long time before Luther was borne than the ruine of that pompous state of the Church the staying of the furious couetous and tyranous proceedings of the Court and Bishop of Rome and the freeing of the Church from that Aegypticall bondage wherein it was holden CHAP. 12. Of the desire and expectation of a reformation of the corrupt state of the Church and that the alteration which hath beene is a reformation WHen the Pope resolued to accurse Anathematise and excommunicate Grostead the renowned Bishop of Lincolne because he contemned his papall Bulles and Letters who was therefore in his time named Romanorum malleus contemptor The Cardinalls opposed themselues saying hee was a right good man and holier then any of them the things he charged the Pope with most true and that therefore it was not safe thus to proceede least some tumult should follow especially say they seeing it is knowne there must be a departure from vs and a forsaking of the Romane See The same Grosteade a little before his death complayning of the wicked courses holden by the Romanists whose scourge he was said the Church should neuer finde any ease from the oppressiue burdens laid vpon her nor be deliuered from the Aegyptiacall bondage shee was holden in till her deliuerance were wrought in ore gladij cruentandi in the mouth of the sword all bathed in bloud Sauanorola holden by many for a Prophet surely a renowned man for pietie and learning tould the French King Charles the eight hee should haue great prosperity in his voyage into Italy and that God would giue the sword into his hand and all this to the end hee should reforme the corrupt state of the Church which if hee did not performe he should returne home againe with dishonour and God would reserue the honour of this worke for some other and so it fell out At that time when Luther began to reprooue the abuses of the Church of Rome things were in so bad state that not onely the blood of Christ was prophaned the power of the keyes by abuse made contemptible and the redemption of soules out of purgatory set as a stake at dice by the pardon-sellers to bee played for but so many grieuances there were besides that all the world sighed vnder the burden of them and wished that some man of heroicall magnanimitie would oppose himselfe When God had stirred vp so worthy an Instrument what did the Pope and his adherents Surely as Guicciardin reports there were that yeere many meetings in Rome to consult what was best to bee done The more wise and moderate sorte wished the Pope to reforme things apparantly amisse and not to persecute Luther least continuing those intollerable disorders abuses and villanies whereof all good men complayned and persecuting him that reprooued them with so great applause of the whole Christian world men should thinke innocencie vertue and piety in him to be
proue he must reason thus The custome of praying to deliuer the soules of men out of the paines of Purgatory is the custome and practise which the Romane Church defendeth and Calvin impugneth but this custome Calvine confesseth to haue beene in vse more then a thousand and three hundred of yeares since therefore he acknowledgeth the doctrine and practise of the Romane Church to be most ancient and to haue beene receiued a thousand three hundred yeares agoe The Minor proposition of this reason is false and Calvin in the place cited by Bellarmine protesteth against it most constantly affirming that the Fathers knew nothing of Purgatorie and therefore much lesse of prayer to deliuer men from thence But Bellarmine will reply that the custome of praying for the dead was most auncient We answere The custome of remembring the departed naming their names at the holy Table in the time of the holy mysteries offering the Eucharist that is the sacrifice of praise for them was a most ancient and godly custome neither is it any way disliked by vs. And surely it appeares this was the cause that Aerius was condemned of hereticall rashnesse in that he durst condemne this laudable and auncient custome of the commemoration of the dead In this sort they did most religiously obserue and keepe at the Lords Table the commemoration of all the Patriarches Prophets Apostles Evangelists Martyrs confessours yea of Mary the Mother of our Lord to whom it cannot be conceiued that by prayer they did wish deliuerance out of Purgatorie sith no man euer thought them to be there but if they wished any thing it was the deliuerance from the power of death which as yet tyranniseth ouer one part of them the speedy destroying of the last enemy which is death the hastning of their resurrection and joyfull publique acquitall of them in that great day wherein they shall stand to bee judged before the Iudge of the quicke and dead This was the practise of the whole church and this the meaning of their commemorations and prayers which was good and no way to be disliked Notwithstanding it is most certaine that many particular men extended the meaning of these prayers farther and out of their owne private errours and fancies vsed such prayers for the dead as the Romanists themselues I thinke dare not justifie and so it is true that Calvin saith that many of the Fathers were led into errour in this matter of prayer for the dead and not that all as if the whole Church had fallen from the truth as Bellarmine falsely imputeth vnto Calvin who saith no such thing First therefore it was an opinion of many of the Fathers that there is no judgment to passe vpon men till the last day that all men are holden either in some place vnder the earth or else in some other place appointed for that purpose so that they come not into heauen nor receiue the reward of their labours till the generall iudgement Out of this conceipt grew that prayer in Iames his Liturgie that God would remember all the faithfull that are fallen asleepe in the sloepe of death since Abell the iust till this present day that he would place them in the land of the liuing c. And the like are found in the masse booke Of this opinion was Iustin Martyr Tertullian Clemens Romanus Lactantius Victorinus Martyr Ambrose Iohannes Romanus Pontifex and sundry other The second opinion was that men may be deliuered from the punishments of sinne after this life if they die in the profession of the true faith how vvickedly soeuer they liued or at least if the punishment of such bee eternall and cannot be ended yet it may be deferred or mitigated How many of the Fathers were in this errour and made prayers for the dead vpon this false perswasion that all Christians how wickedly soeuer they liued may find mercy at Gods hands in the world to come at the entreatie of the liuing they that haue read any thing can soone report Thirdly whereas there are three estates of the soules of men the first in the body the second when they are seuered from the body and stand before God immediately and instantly vpon the dissolution and the third after they haue receiued their particular iudgement the godly doe not onely recommend them vnto God while they are yet in their bodies but when departing thence they goe to stand before the iudgement seate of God they accompany them with their prayers and best good wishes euen to the presence of the Lord. Hence were all those prayers that were vsed on the dayes of the obites of the Saints conceiued respectiuely to their passage out of this world and the dangers they doe by the goodnesse of God escape in that fearefull houre of their dissolution which prayers were againe repeated in the anniuersarie remembrances of their obites Of this sorte was that prayer in the Masse booke Libera Domine animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de poenis inferni de profundo lacis libera eas de ore leonus ne absorbeat eas tartarus ne cadant in obscurum c. Deliuer O Lord the soules of all faithfull ones departed from the paines of hell and the deepe Lake deliuer them from the month of the Lion that hell swallow them not up and that they fall not into the dungeons of vtter darkenesse How hard this was to vse these prayers in a set course in the dayes wherein they did only commemorate and represent the dayes of mens departure hence and so to pray for them long after their death as if they were but euen then in the passage and so in daunger of falling into the hands of their ghostly enimies and not yet secure and assured of their eternall future state which yet Bellarmine confesseth is the best construction can be made of them I leaue to the consideration of the wise These are the seuerall kindes of praying for the dead all which I hope Bellarmine dareth not justifie but for the Romish manner of praying for the dead it hath no certaine testimony of Antiquitie no man euer thinking of Purgatorie till Augustine to avoide a worse errour did doubtingly run into it after whom many in the Latine Church embraced the same opinion but the Greeke Church neuer receiued it to this day Thus then we see how vniustly Calvin is traduced by Bellarmine in this matter of prayer for the dead and how weakely he prooues that it is confessed that their opinion and the doctrine of Antiquitie is the same His next challenge is scarce worth the mentioning much lesse the refuting Caluin saith the Fathers were farre from the popish errour touching merites and that yet they vsed the word whence men haue since taken occasion of errour Therefore hee dissenteth from all Antiquity and acknowledgeth the Romane faith to bee the auncient faith and religion Truely I am weary in following
that others whom Augustine refuteth in his booke De fide operibus were of opinion that all Christians how damnably soeuer they liue holding the trueth of Christian profession may and shall be saued This he saith is the doctrine of the Protestants If any of vs euer wrote spake or thought any such thing let GOD forget euer to doe good vnto vs and let our prayers bee rejected from his presence but if this bee as vile a slaunder as euer Satanist devised the Lord reward them that haue beene the Authours devisers of it according to their workes But let vs see doth he make no shew of proofe doubtlesse he doeth Luther saith he pronounceth that there is no way to haue accesse vnto God to treate with him touching reconciliation acceptation into his fauour but by faith that God regardeth not workes that a true Christian is so rich in faith that he cannot perish though he would nor how wickedly soeuer he liue vnlesse he refuse and cease to beleeue For the cleering of these places of Luther wee must remember that which Illyricus hath fitly noted to this purpose that there are two Courts of Gods Iudgements most righteous proceeding towards the sons of men the one he calleth forum iustificationis the other novae obedientiae In the first hee saith God requireth perfect righteousnesse fully answering that his Law prescribeth which being no where to bee found but in Christ no way apprehended but by faith in this respect sitting in this Court of exact tryall he regardeth no workes vertues or qualities finding nothing of worth or worthy to be respected but looketh to our faith onely for Christs sake onely at the sole and onely suite of Faith forgiueth sin imputeth righteousnesse Notwithstanding because he neuer saith to any sinner Thy sinnes are remitted but that he addeth goe and sinne no more that vpon perill of forfeiting the benefite receiued and that some worse thing should betide vnto him therefore there is another Court wherein he sitteth giueth commaundement for new obedience and workes of righteousnes though not requiring so strictly that perfection which formerly hee did but accepting our weake indevours study of well doing and in this sort it is that hee will judge vs in the last Day according to our workes Thus then wee see how that though Faith be neuer alone yet in procuring vs acceptation with God it is alone and that though God regard none of our vertues actions qualities as being of any worth in the strictnes of his Iudgment but reject them as vnpure vncleane respect nothing but the humble sute petition of Faith for the purpose of justification yet when we are justified he requireth of vs a new obedience judgeth vs according to it crowneth vs for it That which Luther addeth that a man cannot perish though hee would and how wickedly soeuer hee liue vnlesse he cease to beleeue may seeme hard at the first sight but not to them that doe knowe that Luther is farre from thinking that men may bee saued how wickedly soeuer they liue for he constantly teacheth that Iustifying faith cannot remaine in that man that sinneth with full consent nor be found in that soule wherein are peccata vastantia conscientiam as Melancthon speaketh following Augustine that is raging ruling preuailing laying wast and destroying the integrity of the conscience which should resist against euill and condemne it This is all then that Luther saith that no wickednesse with which faith may stand can hurt vs soe long as faith continueth but if sinne once become regnant and so exclude faith wee are in the state of damnation Against this doctrine of Luther or any part thereof neither Bellarmine nor the gates of hell shall euer be able to prevaile Wee see then how iustly wee are charged with the heresies of the Simonians Eunomians and the like monsters surely as iustly as Bellarmine may be charged with true and honest dealing in this imputation and other that follow CHAP. 23. Of the heresie of Florinus making God the author of sinne falsely imputed to Caluine and others THe next heresie which they say wee are fallen into is the heresie of Florinus who taught that God is the cause and author of sinne This he sayth Caluin Luther Martyr and sundry other of the greatest Diuines of the reformed churches haue defended in their writings Of this sinfull wicked and lying report wee are sure GOD is not the Author but the diuell and therefore wee doe not fully accord with Florinus But that it may appeare how truly these men write and speake of things of soe great moment I will onely positiuely lay downe what wee thinke of this matter and the adversaries slaunders will bee sufficiently refuted For the clearing of our opinion touching this poynt I will first set downe the different kinds of sinne Secondly what God may be sayd to will or decree touching the first entrance thereof And thirdly what when it is entred Sinne as wee know is nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a transgression of the law The law is partly affirmatiue requiring partly negatiue forbidding the doing of a thing Hence it followeth that all sinne is either of omission or commission Sinne of omission is the not doing of that the Creature is bound to do Sinne of Commission is the doing of that the creature is bound not to doe The not doing of that the creature is bound to doe God may be sayd to will and decree foure wayes First by effectuall opposing against the doing of it in this sort it is impious to thinke that God decreed the omission or not doing of that the creature stands bound to doe Secondly by discouraging and disswading from the doing of it which is no lesse absurd and impious then the former Thirdly by deniall of that grace concurrence and assistance without which it cannot be done this cannot bee imagined in respect of the state of mans first creation but wee must make God the Author of sin and therefore there is none of vs that doth attribute any such thing vnto God But contrarywise Caluin whom Bellarmine seemeth most to challenge noteth fitly to this purpose out of Augustine that God gaue Adam posse si vellet sed non velle quod potuit power to stand and continue in his vprightnesse if he would though hee did not inseparably hould him to it but left him to his owne choice whence followed that euill we now complaine of Fourthly by deniall of that grace assistance and concurrence without which he seeth the creature will not be moued nor wonne to doe it though it haue other more then sufficient graces motiues and encouragements to induce it therevnto In this fourth sense many feare not to say that God negatiuely or privatiuely decreed the sinne of omission or the not doing of that the creature was bound to doe in that he decreed the deniall of
not be if his concurse were indefinite generall only 3ly If it were as these men imagine the determination of the will of the creature should not bee within the compasse of things ordered by diuine prouidence and so God should not haue particular prouidence of euery particular thing That this is consequent vpon the fancie of indefinite concurse it is euident For if Gods concurse bee indefinite and in generall only then doth hee not truly and efficiently worke that the will of the creature shall in particular encline to and bring forth such an indiuiduall actiō And if he be not the cause that it so enclineth worketh his prouidence extēdeth not to such working seing his prouidence extēdeth to those things only wherein he hath a working So that if these things were soe as these men imagine Gods prouidence should extend it selfe to contingent things in a generality only in that he hath giuen to intellectual creatures a freedome to what whē how it pleaseth thē in particular in respect ofthings of this nature hee should haue a presidence onely and no prouidence Neither doth that which is alleaged by these men touching the indifferēt cōcurse of the Sunne or that of a man offering his concurrence in a generality only proue that Gods concurse is such For the Sunne is a finite and limited thing hauing something in act somthing in possibility so is man likewise therefore they may be determined to produce such such indiuiduall acts by the concurse of some other cause But God is a cause of infinite perfection and a pure act hauing nothing admixt of possibility so that his action and will cannot bee determined limited by any other Wherefore the resolution of the best diuines is that Gods concurse influence is not into the effects of 2d causes only but into the 2d causes thēselues So that he doth not only by an immediate concurse influence concurre with the 2d causes for the bringing forth of such effects as they determine themselues vnto but he hath an influence into the 2d causes thēselues mouing working thē to bring forth effects such effects as he thinketh good to worke thē vnto This is proued by sundry reasons First as we see 2d causes do not only produce some certaine effects operations as within some certaine kind but they giue vnto thē their last actuall perfection to bee But this they cānot giue vnlesse they be made cōpleate in vertue actiue by the first agent because an agent must be no lesse actuall then the effect or operation it bringeth forth But euery created agent is mixed compounded of actuall being possibility is not so actuall as an execution that is a 2d act therefore before it can bring forth any execution or effect it must be made cōpleate in vertue operatiue by the actuall motion of the first agent 2ly To bee is a most vniuersall act the proper effect of God onely therefore if wee will speak formally properly 2d causes in that they giue being to their own effects are but instruments of God whence it will follow that they must be moved by him in nature before they giue being to any of their effects For an instrument doth nothing towards the producing of the effect of the principall agent vnlesse it be actually moued by the principall agent 3ly Euery such thing as is somtimes an agent in act sometimes but potentially only must be moued by some mouer that is a pure act hath nothing mingled with it of possibility before it eā bring forth any actiō But the will of the creature is somtimes actually in actiō somtimes but potētially only therefore it must be moued by the first act before it can bring forth any action Which must bee granted for that otherwise the will of the creature in respect of some actions should bee the first mouer of it selfe and the first determiner That which is wrought by God in and vpon the second causes to make them actually to bee in action is a thing that hath a kinde of incompleate beeing in such sort as colours haue a being in the aire and the power of the act in the instrument of the artificer and so often as 2◠causes whether of naturall or supernaturall order haue in respect of the forme inherent in them a sufficient actiue power in the nature of the first act to bring forth their effects the helpe or precedent motion of God whereby he moueth and applyeth the same actiue powers to operate is not a qualitie but is more properly named a powerfull motion whereby the first and most vniversall agent so worketh vpon them that the 2d causes are actually in action euery one in sort fitting to the nature condition of it And to this purpose it is that Tho Aquinas hath that habituall grace is a quality but the actuall help whereby God moueth vs to will a thing is not a quality but a certain motion of the mind And surely it will easily appeare that there is a great difference between these For the habite doth perfit the power of the soule as a forme or first act implying possibility in respect of actuall operation because the habite doth not determine the power actually to worke but fitteth it only for action inclineth it thereunto But this actuall helpe mouing putting forth the 2d causes into their actions doth not perfit the power of working but makes thē actually to be in action Lastly the habit in respect of the nature of it may be the cause of diuerse actions but that actuall help mouing whereof we speak determineth the will to one individuall action yet taketh not from it a power of dissenting and doing otherwise Alvarez a great learned Archbishop that hath lately written with good allowance of the Church of Rome layeth downe these propositions First that God by an effectuall will predetermined all such acts of men and Angels as are good and all such as are not euill ex obiecto though in individuo they be euill sins ex malâ circumstantiâ Which he proueth out of the 10th of Esay where Almighty God saith Assur is the rod of my wroth he is my staffe I will send him to a deceiptfull nation against the people of my fury will I giue him a command a litle after Shall the axe boast against him that cutteth with it or shall the saw bee lifted vp against him that draweth it as if a rod should be lifted vp against him that lifteth it the staff which is but wood Here it is evident that Assur sinned ex malâ circumstantiâ in subduing the nations and yet it is cleere that God predetermined that he should waste and destroy the nations that he sent him to that purpose and moued him so to doe His 2d proposition is this that whatsoeuer is positiue of being in an act of sin though intrinsecally
a more sound and sincere profession of Christian verity than the Romanists doe It is true indeede that many of the famous Churches of the world haue beene swallowed vp of Mahometisme and Barbarisme but to attribute that their fall to their separation from the Church of Rome is vpon as good ground as to attribute the cause of Goodwin-sands to Tenterton-steeple That which he addeth that none of the Churches divided from Rome had euer any learned men after their separation sheweth plainely that his impudencie is greater than his learning For what will he say of Oecumenius Theophylactus Damascenus Zonaras Cedrenus Elias Cretensis Nilus Carbasilas and innumerable more liuing in the Greeke Churches after their separation from the Church of Rome Surely these were more than matchable with the greatest Rabbines of the Romish Synagogue But saith hee they could neuer hold any Councell since their separation If hee meane generall it is not to bee marvailed at seing they are but a part of the Christian Church If Nationall or Provinciall it is most childish and by sundry instances to be reprooued CHAP. 42. That nothing can bee concluded for them or against vs from the note of Vnitie or division opposite vnto it THus hauing cleared that which Bellarmine objecteth to prooue that subjection to and vnion with the Bishop of Rome is implyed in that vnity which is required to the being of the Church Let vs come to the other part and see whether any thing may bee concluded from that vnity which wee confesse to bee required to the being of the true Church either against vs or for them First therefore the Iesuite reasoneth against vs in this sort All they that are of the true Church must hold the vnity of the faith once deliuered to the Saints but there are sundry Heretikes erring damnably in matters of faith as Zuincheldians Anabaptists Trinitarians and the like gone out of the reformed Churches therefore they are not the true Churches of God If this kinde of reasoning were good hee might proue that those Churches wherein the Apostles liued were not the Churches of God because out of them proceeded sundry heretikes as Hymenaeus Philetus Nicolaus Simon Magus and the like But sayth he there be two differences betweene the Apostolike Churches and the reformed Churches in this respect the first that the doctrine of the reformed Churches it selfe and of it owne nature breedeth dissention the second that when there is difference growne they haue no rule by direction whereof to make an end of controversies But the divisions that grow from the Catholike Church proceede meerely from the malice of Sathan and haue no foundation in the doctrine of it and if any difference doe arise it hath a mâ—…anes to end all controversies by which is the determination of a Councell or the chiefe Pastour Both these differences we deny for neither doth our doctrine of it selfe breed dissention and diversitie of opinions neither are wee without meanes of composing controversies if they arise If Bellarmine will proue that our doctrine of it selfe breedeth division hee must shew that the grounds and principles of it are vncertaine and such as may occasion errour contrariety and vncertaintie of judgment which he neither doth nor can doe For the ground of all our doctrine is the written word of God interpreted according to the rule of faith the practise of the Saints from the beginning the conference of places and all light of direction that either the knowledge of â—…gues or any part of good learning may yeeld This surely is the rule to end all controversies by and not the authoritie of a Councell or the chiefe Pastour as Bellarmine fondly imagineth For they both must follow the direction of this rule in all their determinations Whereupon the Booke of God and monuments of Antiquity were alwayes wont to be brought into the Councels whereby the Fathers might examine all matters controversed or any way doubted of Now as wee want not a most certaine rule whereby to iudge of all matters of controversie and difference so in examining things by the direction of this rule wee require that Christian moderation in all men that euer was found in the seruants of God that no man presume of his owne wisdome iudgment and vnderstanding nor hastily pronounce before conference with others â— For the spirits of the Prophets are subiect to the Prophets and God is the God of order and not of confusion It is therefore a vile calumniation of Bellarmine when hee sayth that with vs euery one preferreth himselfe before others and euery one taketh on him peremptory iudgment of another For contrariwise wee teach all men to submit their priuate opinions to the examination of others the meaner to respect those of greater place and quality the fewer the more and those men which pertinaciously contradict the doctrine agreed vpon by consent of all that are in authority or the greater part wee reiect from the communion of our Churches and so with vs an end is made of all controversies The rule then with vs is most certaine and infallible knowen to all to wit the scripture or the written word of God expounded according to the rule of faith practice of the Saints and the due comparing of one part of it with another in the publike confessions of faith published by the Churches of our communion In all which there is a full consent whatsoeuer our malicious adversaries clamourously pretend to the contrary and all those that stubbornely resist against this rule or any thing therein contained and refuse to bee ordered by it wee reiect as factious and seditious schimatickes Thus doe wee disclaime all Anabaptists Familists Zuinchfeldians Trinitarians and all other Sectaries whatsoeuer But sayth Bellarmine how is it then that there are soe many diuisions not only from your Churches but also in your Churches and amongst them that you take for your brethren and men of your owne communion as Lutherans Caluinists Flaccians Melancthonists Hosiandrines and the like To this wee answere that this diuersity is to be imputed wholly to our aduersaries For when there was a reformation to be made of abuses and disorders in matters of practice and manifold corruptions in very many parts of Christian doctrine in a Councell by generall consent it could not be hoped for as Gerson long before out of his owne experience saw and professed by reason of the preuailing faction of the Popes flatterers but this was necessarily to be assayd seuerally in the particular kingdomes of the world it was not possible but that some diversity should grow while one knew not nor expected to know what another did Yet it so fell out by the happy prouidence of God and force of that maine trueth they all sought to aduance that there was no materiall or essentiall difference amongst them but such as vpon equall scanning will bee found rather to consist in the diuerse maner of expressing one
which wee haue lost by our sinnes for there is nothing that offendeth God and provoketh him to be dipleased but sinne only as the Psalmist sayth they prouoked and displeased God with their inuentions the Priest therefore lifteth vp the body of Christ on the altar as if hee should thus say O heauenly Father wee haue sinned and provoked thee to anger but now looke on the face of Christ thy sonne whom wee present vnto thee to moue thee to turne from thy wrath and displeasure to mercie and grace turne not away thy face therefore from this thy holy child Iesus from this thy sonne but remember that thou hast sayd of this same thy sonne this is my welbeloued sonne in whom I am well pleased correct therefore mercifully in vs whatsoeuer thou findest in vs fit to be corrected and turne vs vnto thee and turne thy wrath from vs. The question is proposed sayth Petrus Cluniacensis why this sacrifice is so often repeated seeing Christ once offered on the crosse is sufficient to take away the sinnes of the whole world especially seeing here and there not a diuers but the same sacrifice that is the same Christ is offered For if that on the crosse sufficed this seemeth to bee supefluous but it is not superfluous c. for after hee had sayd doe this hee addeth in remembrance of mee This then is the cause of this Sacrament euen the commemoration of CHRIST Our Sauiour knew what hee had done and what hee would doe for man hee knew how great and singular that worke was which hee had done in putting on the nature of man hee knewe how wonderfull that worke would bee that hee was to do when hee should die for man hee knew that by this worke hee should saue man but that noe man could be saued without the loue of this worke hee knew that this worke of his becomming man and dying for man as it was renowned aboue all his workes soe it was especially to bee recommended vnto men for whome it was done it was specially to bee commended to them seeing his flesh was tormented for them his soule grieued and death seized on him that they might liue this was solemnly to be commended vnto them that Christ might bee beloued that being beloued hee might be possessed that being once had hee might neuer bee lost But this loue of him could not haue beene retained by men if they should-haue forgotten him neither could they haue retained the memorie of him vnlesse they should haue beene put in minde of him by some fitting outward signe For this cause was this signe proposed and appointed by CHRIST which yet is so a signe that it is the same thing that it signifieth and herein it differeth from the sacrifices of the old Law which were not that they signified Sed istud nostri sacrificij signum non aliud sed ipsum est quod signat ita vero est ci idem quod signat vt quantum ad corpus id est ad veritatem carnis sanguinis Christi pertinet sit idem quod signat non quoad mortem passionem neque enim ibi Christus vt olim dolorem mortem patitur cum tamen immolari dicatur cum videlicet inviolabiter in altari frangitur diuiditur comeditur cum ijs quibusdam alijs signis in quantum fieri potest mors domini maximè repraesentatur vnde sicut dixi quantum ad veritatem corporis sanguinis Christi pertinet est idem quod signat non quoad mortem passionem quam tamen maximè signat that is This signe of our sacrifice is noe other but the same thing that it signifieth but wee must soe vnderstand it to bee the same thing that it signifieth in respect of the trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ which it signifieth but not in respect of his passion death though it very liuely expresse signifie that also for Christ doth not there suffer griefe or death as once he did though hee be said there to be offered immolated when hee is inviolably broken vpon the altar distributed eaten when by these the like signes Christs death is represented asmuch as possibly it may be so that as I said if we speake of the trueth of the body and bloud of Christ this signe is the thing it signifieth but if we speake of the death and suffering of Christ it is not so though it doe very clearely expressely represent signifie that his death and passion Thus we see he maketh the sacrifice to be merely representatiue Algerus excellently expresseth the same thing in these words Notandum quia quotidianum nostrum sacrificium idem ipsum dicit cum eo quo Christus semel oblatus est in cruce quantum ad eandem veram hic ibi corporis substantiā quod verò nostrum quotidianum illius semel oblati dicit esse exemplum id est figuram vel formam non dicit ut hic vel ibi alium Christum constituat sed ut eundem in cruce semel in altari quotidiè alio modo immolari offerri ostendat ibi in veritate passionis quâ pro nobis occisus est hic in figurâ imitatione passionis ipsius quâ Christus non iterum verè patitur sed ipsius verè memoria passionis quotidiè nobis iteratur quod ipse Ambrosius notans subiicit Quod nos facimus in commemorationem fit eius quod factum est hoc enim facite inquit in meam commemorationē non aliud sacrificium sed ipsum semper offerimus magis autem sacrificii recordationem operamur Non ergo est in ipsius Christi veritate diversitas sed in ipsius immolationis actione quae dum veram Christi passionem mortem quâdam suâ similitudine figurando repraesentat nos ad imitationē ipsius passionis invitat accendit contra hostem nos roborat munit à vitiis purgans virtutibus condecorans vitae aeternae idoneos dignos exhibet That is It is to bee noted that our daylie sacrifice is the same thing with that sacrifice whereby Christ was once offered vpon the crosse in that the same true substance is offered here that was offered there whereas therefore he saith that the sacrifice which we daylie offer is a similitude figure or representation of that sacrifice which Christ once offered he is not to be conceiued to imagine that there is one Christ essentially here another there but his meaning is to shew that the same Christ once offered on the crosse is dayly offered in another sort on the altar there in the truth of his passion being slaine for vs here in figure and imitation of his passion not suffering againe indeed but hauing the memory of his passion which once he endured daylie renewed which thing Ambrose himself also obseruing hath these words That which we doe is done in remembrance of that which
earnestly to thirst after these waters when hee sayth Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnes but the vngodly having tasted of the wine of mundane joy and temporall riches hate dislike and put from them this water and therefore the Lord sayth well of them by the Prophet Esay 8. Because this people haue refused the waters of Siloe that runne softly and without noyse and haue taken rather Rasin and the sonne of Romelia I will bring upon them the mighty waters of of the floud Siloe is interpreted sent and it signifieth the doctrine of the diuine Law sent vnto vs by Christ the Apostles and other faithfull ones which doctrine the Pastors of the Church are bound vnder the paine of damnation to know and teach whereupon Isidore saith de summo bono lib. 3. c. 46. The Priests shall bee damned for the iniquity of the people if either they neglect to teach them being ignorant or to reproue them when they offend the Lord hauing said by the Prophet I haue set thee as a watch-man ouer the house of Israel and if thou shalt not tell the wicked of his wickednes that hee forsake his euill way he shall dye in his iniquitie but I will require his bloud at thy hand Notwithstanding all this many of the moderne Priests cast from them this learning and say we will none of it because it is not de pane lucrando that is it serueth not to bring in gaine and profite and giue themselues to the study of humane lawes which are not so necessary for the sauing of soules as the law of God because as Odo saith here vpon the Gospell sermone 39. If Christ had knowne that we might more easily attaine saluation by the Lawes of Iustinian he would surely haue taught them vs with his own mouth and haue let that alone which he taught vs and deliuered vnto vs et in quâ continetur implicitè vel explicitè omnis scientia ad salutem necessario requisita and in which is contained expressely or implicitely all knowledge necessarily required to saluation according to that of S. Augustine 2. de doctrinâ Christianâ in fine Whatsoeuer a man learneth without and beside the holy Scripture if it be hurtfull it is there condemned if it bee profitable it may there be found But many Church-men leaue this learning and take vnto them Rasin and the sonne of Romelia Rasin signifieth a picture and Romelia high and mighty thunder so that by Rasin and the sonne of Romelia wee may vnderstand painted and glorious wordes and that wordy thunder of humane lawes which kindes of learning many Ecclesiastical persons assume that they may be by such profession exalted in the courts of great Lords and for this cause as the Prophet addeth the Lord shall bring vpon them the mighty and great waters of the floud that is infernall punishments so saith Odo Hitherto hee hath alleadged the words of Grosthead and Odo In another place he saith concerning them that so contemne the word of God that the Lord complaineth of such by the Prophet Ierem. 2. saying My people hath done two euils they haue forsaken me the fountaine of liuing water and haue digged to themselues broken cisterns to which as Gulielmus Parisiensis saith the decree or canon law may fitly be compared which is a broken cisterne that cannot hold water which though it haue water to day shall haue none to morrow because it shall bee abrogated whereas touching the Law of God it is otherwise and therefore the Psalmist saith thy righteousnesse O Lord is an euerlasting righteousnesse and thy law is trueth Yet is the holy Scripture much contemned by the profession of the Canonists so that the knowledge of holy Scripture and profession of Divinity may say to an ill Advocate or Lawyer as Sara said to Abraham in the 16 of Genesis Thou dealest ill with me I gaue thee my handmaid into thy bosome who seeing that she had conceiued despised me for as Gulielmus Parisiensis saith de vitiis part 4. cap. 6. The profession of Canonists contemneth the profession of Divines and science of holy Scripture because they are not so gainefull as it is When Ismael and Isaack played together Ismael mocked Isaack so that Sarâ—… was forced to intreate Abraham to cast out the bondwoman and her sonne So happily it were behoofefull and profitable for the Church that this Science in a great part should be cast out because it not only contemneth the diuine Science and Law of God but blasphemeth it and in so doing contemneth and blaspheameth God himselfe who is the lawgiuer Here wee haue the opinion of three worthy men touching the sufficiencie of the Scripture and the dangers confusions and horrible euils that followed vppon the multiplying of humane inuentions Many more might be alleadged to the same purpose but these may suffice to let us know what the doctrine of the Church was in the dayes of our Fathers for they deliuer not their priuate conceipts but tel vs what all good and iudicious men conceiued of these things in their times But some men will say wee find often mention of traditions in the writers of former ages soe that it seemeth they did not thinke the Scriptures to containe all things necessary to saluation For the clearing of this doubt wee must obserue that by the name of tradition sometimes all the doctrine of Christ and his blessed Apostles is meant that was first deliuered by liuely voice and afterwards written Sometimes the deliuering of the diuine and canonicall bookes from hand to hand as receiued from the Apostles is named a tradition Sometimes the summe of Christian religion contained in the Apostles creed which the Church receiueth as a rule of her faith is named a tradition but euery one of those articles is found in the Scripture as Waldensis rightly noteth though not together nor in the same forme so that this colection may rightly be named a tradition as hauing beene deliuered from hand to hand in this forme for the direction of the Churches children and yet the Scriptures be sufficient Sometimes by the name of traditions the Fathers vnderstand certaine rites and auncient obseruations And that the Apostles delivered some things in this kind by word and liuely voyce that they wrote not wee easily grant but which they were it can hardly now be knowne as Waldensis rightly noteth But this proueth not the insufficiencie of the Scripture for none of those Fathers speake of points of doctrine that are to be belieued without and besides the Scripture or that cannot be proued from thence though sometimes in a generall sort they name all those points of religion traditions that are not found expressely and in precise tearmes in Scripture and yet may necessarily be deduced from things there expressed Lastly by the name of tradition is vnderstood the sense and meaning of the Scripture receiued from the Apostles and deliuered from hand to hand together with the bookes There are
the more ancient for we intend not to accuse the just but to shew the infirmitie of man and the mercie of GOD vpon and towardes all Enoch as Ecclesiasticus testifieth pleased GOD and was translated into paradise but in that it is written in Genesis hee pleased GOD after he begat Methusalem Basil doth not without cause collect that hee formerly did not so please GOD and the same Basil saith that that great Father of the faithfull is found to haue beene some-where vnfaithfull and not without cause for when God first promised Isaak vnto him though he fell on his face yet he laughed in his heart saying thinkest thou that a sonne shall bee borne to him that is an hundred yeares old and that Sarah who is ninety yeares old shall bring forth Wherevpon Hierome speaketh of Sarah and him in this sort they are reproved for laughing and the very cogitation and thought is reprehended as a part of infidelity yet are they not condemned of infidelity in that they laughed but they receiued the garland of righteousnes in that afterwards they beleeued Besides these the Scripture giueth ample testimony to Noah Daniel Iob who onely in Ezechiel it saith may escape the anger of God ready to come on men yet Noah fell into drâ—…nkennes which is a sinne and Daniel professeth he prayed vnto the Lord and confessed his owne sinne and the sin of his people Iob also is commended in the Scripture and of God himselfe as being a sincere man righteous fearing God and departing from euill and that not in an ordinary sort but so as that none of the most righteous then in the world might be compared vnto him as St Austine rightly collecteth out of the words of God vnto Satan This man though hee were a singular example of innocencie patience and all holines and though hee indured with admirable patience horrible tribulations and trials not for his sinnes but for the manifestation of the righteousnes of God yet as Augustine and Gregorie who as loud sounding trumpets set forth his prayses freely confesse hee was not without veniall sinne Which thing is strongly confirmed in that the same most sincere louer of righteousnes confesseth of himselfe saying I haue sinned what shall I doe vnto thee ô thou â—…eeper of men And being reproued by the Lord and in a most mild sort willed to say what hee could for himselfe hee answered without any circuition that he had spoken foolishly and therefore the Scripture as it were carefully declining the giuing occasion to any one to attribute so great innocencie to Iob as to make him sinles sayd not that he sinned not but that hee sinned not in all those things that hee suffered before that time when he answered his wife if wee haue receiued good things of the hand of the Lord why should we not patiently suffer the evils he bringeth vpon vs Moses beloued of God men and the most meeke of all the inhabitants of the earth doubted something of the promise of the Lord when hee stroke the rocke twise with the rodde to bring out water for the people being distressed for want of water and that his doubting displeased the Lord God and hee let him know so much both by reprouing him and punishing him and therefore presently he sayd to him Aaron because yee beleeued mee not to sanctifie mee before the children of Israel you shall not bring in this people into the land which I will giue them The Scripture also highly commendeth Samuell but as August noteth that neither hee nor Moses nor Aaron were without sin David sufficiently declared when he said thou wast mercifull vnto them and didst punish all their inventions for as August noteth he punisheth them that are appointed to condemnation in his wrath the children of grace in mercy but there is no punishment no correction nor no rod of God due but to sinne Zacharie and Elizabeth are renowmed for eminent righteousnes for they are both sayd to haue beene iust before God walking in all his commandements without reproofe but that Zacharie himselfe was not without fault sinne Gabriel shewed when hee sayd vnto him behold thou shalt be silent and not able to speake And the same may be proved out of Paul who sayth that Christ onely needed not daily as the priests of the law to offer sacrifice first for their owne sinnes and then for the sinnes of the people And it is one thing as the fathers of the councell of Mileuis haue well noted in their epistle to Innocentius to walke without sinne another thing to walke without reproofe for he that walketh so that no man can iustly complaine of him or reprehend him may bee said to walke without reproofe though sometimes thorough humane frailety some lighter sinnes doe seize vpon him because men doe not reproue nor complaine but onely of the more greivous sinnes And to what end should wee runne thorough other examples of the Saints Whereas the lights of the world and salt of the earth the Apostles of Christ that receiued the first fruits of the spirit confessed of themselues that in many things they offended and sinned And therefore the Church taught this euer with great consent Tertullian Quis hominum sine delicto Cyprian proveth by Iob Dauid and Iohn that no man is without sinne and defiling Hilarie vpon those words thou hast despised all them that depart from thy righteousnes If God should despise sinners he should despise all for there is none without sinne Hierome shewing that the Ninivites vpon good ground and for good cause commaunded all to fast both old and young writeth thus The elder age beginneth but the youngger also followeth in the same course for there is none without sinne whether he liue but one day or many yeares for if the starres be not cleane in the sight of God how much lesse a worme rottennes and they that are holden guilty of the sinne of Adam that offended against God And in another place wee follow the authority of the Scripture that no man is without sinne And Saint Augustine whosoeuer are commended in Scripture as hauing a good heart and doing righteously and whosoeuer such after them either now are or shall be hereafter they are all truely great iust and praise worthy but they are not without some sinne nor no one of them is so arrogantly mad as to thinke he hath no need to say the Lords prayer and to aske forgiuenes of his sinnes And in his 31 sermon de verbis Apostoli he hath these words Haehetici Pelagiani Coelestiani dicunt iustos in hac vitâ nullum habere peccatum redi haeretice ad orationem si obsurduisti contra veram fidei rationem Dimitte nobis debita nostra dicis an non dicis Si non dicis etsi praesens fueris corpore foris tamen es ab ecclesiâ Ecclesiae enim oratio est vox est de
of the same Waldensis who sayth that some supposed the conuersion that is in the Sacrament to bee in that the bread and wine are assumpted into the vnity of Christs person some thought it to be by way of Impanation and some by way of figuratiue or Tropicall appellation The first and second of these opinions found the better entertainment in some mens mindes because they graunt the essentiall presence of Christs body and yet deny not the presence of the bread still remayning to sustaine the appearing accidents These opinions hee reports to haue beene very acceptable to many not without sighes wishing the Church had decreed that men should follow one of them Wherevpon Iohn Paris writeth that this way of Impanation so pleased Guido the Carmelite sometimes Reader of the holy Palace that hee professed if hee had beene Pope hee would haue prescribed and commaunded the imbracing of it Neither was it lesse pleasing to many in Waldensis time who as hee sayth did as it were wish in their hearts it were free from them to defend it and that a decree in the Church were passed in the favour of it CHAP. 18. Touching or all Manducation ALexander of Hales and Bonaventura doe teach that no man can eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood without faith and that the eating of Christ is mysticall not corporall Bonaventura sheweth for that whereas there are three things implied in corporall eating to wit a mastication or chewing a traiection into the stomacke and bellie and a conversion of the thing eaten into the substance of the eater this later which is most essentiall in eating cannot agree vnto the body of Christ which is not turned into our substance but rather in mysticall sort turneth vs into it selfe It appeareth by that of Waldensis cited before that many thought the wicked doe not eate the flesh of Christ seeing they supposed so much onely of the bread to be turned into the body of Christ as is to be receiued by the beleeuers or if all bee turned that yet the body of Christ ceaseth to be in the Sacrament when a wicked man is to receiue it and that the bread returneth againe CHAP. 19. Of the reall sacrificing of Christs body on the Altar as a propitiatory sacrifice for the quicke and dead TOuching the reall sacrificing of Christs Body on the Altar the Church neuer taught any such thing as the Romanists now teach as appeareth by these testimonyes following Although sayth Biel Christ were once offered when he appeared in our flesh he is offred notwithstanding dayly hidden vnder the vailes of Bread wine not touching any of those things which import punishment or suffering for Christ is not dayly wounded he suffereth not he dyeth not but for two other causes the consecration and receiuing of the holy Eucharist may be named a sacrifice oblation first because it is a representation and memoriall of the true sacrifice holy oblation made on the Altar of the Crosse secondly because it maketh vs partakers of the effects of the same now the resemblances of things as Augustine noteth writing to Simplicianus are called by the names of those things whereof they are resemblances as we are wont to say when we behold a paynted table or wall this is Cicero this Salustius Wherefore seeing the celebration of this sacrifice is a liuely resemblance of the Passion of Christ which is the true sacrificing of him it may rightly bee named the sacrificing of him Peter Lombard Thomas and the other Schoolemen sayth Bellarmine were not carefull of that which is now in question touching the dayly renewed Reall sacrificing of Christ but only sought to shew how the sacrifice of the Masse may be called an offering of Christ that is a slaying of him therefore proposing the question whether the Eucharist be a sacrifice they answer for the most part that it may be sayde to bee an offering or sacrifice because it hath a resemblance of the true and Reall offering which was on the Altar of the Crosse and because it communicateth vnto vs the effects of the true and Reall killing of Christ. CHAP. XX. Of Remission of sinnes after this life THat Remission of sinnes after this life was not taught nor beleeued in former times by the Church appeareth by the judgement of these Divines who teach the contrary The prayers of the liuing sayth Durandus may be vnderstood to benefit the dead two wayes either in respect of remitting the fault or diminishing or taking away the punishment in the first sort the prayers of the liuing cannot profit the dead because either the sin wherein they depart out of this life is mortall or veniall if it be mortall hee that so departeth is not capable of Remission if veniall he needes no helpe because such remission of sinne consisteth in the ordering the will aright againe whereby men rightly dislike that they ill affected before now the willes of them that depart hence in grace yet with veniall sinne so soone as they are out of the body are brought into due order because as weight and lightnesse carry the things that are heavy or light if there be no impediment to their owne places so Grace and Charity carry men going hence to the possessing of eternall happinesse so that all things hindering or staying from the present enjoying thereof are bitter and vnpleasant Now because not onely punishments for mortall sinnes formerly committed but also veniall sinnes if any bee found in him that dyeth in state of grace hinder from such desired enjoying therefore they must needes bee disliked in which dislike the will is reordered againe which in the liking of that it should not was disordered c. The merites sayth Scotus of him that dyeth in charity are a sufficient cause of the remission of veniall sinnes neither is this cause hindred from working the proper effect thereof in him that dyeth as it often is in him that liueth for in him that liueth there is a stop and hindrance so long as hee remaineth actually in sinne but after death there is no stop because then a man committeth no sinne and therefore by such merits sinnes are remitted Whence it followeth that in the instant of death all veniall sinnes are remitted to men dying in state of grace Alexander of Hales maketh grace to be of three sorts the first that which is giuen in baptisme the second that which is found in men repenting of sinne committed after Baptisme and the third that which is in men departing hence which he calleth finall grace this last he saith taketh away all sinfullnesse out of the soule because when the soule parteth from the body all pronenesse to ill and all perturbations which were found in it by reason of the conjunction with the flesh do cease the powers thereof are quieted and perfectly subjected to grace and by that meanes all veniall sinnes remooued soe that no veniall sinne is remitted
themselues to another not of falsehood but of superfluitie the first instance whereof that they giue is the sixt of Mathew where the Lords prayer in the vulgar Latine endeth with that petition deliuer vs from euill leauing out for thine is the Kingdome the power and the glory which they suppose to bee superfluously added in the Greeke But these men should know that though it were granted that these words were superfluous yet nothing is thereby derogated from the Greeke seeing some Greeke Copies and they very auncient omit them as Beza sheweth Their next instance is Rom. 11. where the vulgar Latine hath If of grace not of workes otherwise grace should be no more grace to which is added by way of Antithesis and opposition in the Greeke If of workes not of grace otherwise workes should be no more workes It will be very hard for our adversaries to proue that these latter words are superfluously added being found not onely in the most Greeke Copies but in the Syriacke translation But if it were granted yet there is one Greeke Copie of great antiquity that omitteth these words as well as the vulgar Latine The next instance is the sixt of Marke and the 11. Verily I say vnto you it shall be easier for Sodome and Gomorrha c. If it were granted that these wordes were superfluously added which yet there is no reason to doe seeing besides very many Greeke Copies the Syriacke translation hath them also yet would this make nothing for the improuing of the credite of the Greeke seeing as Beza professeth there are three Greeke Copies that omit them The like may bee said touching the next allegation of Mathew the 20 22 23. where these wordes and bee baptised with the baptisme that I am baptised with are supposed to bee superfluous for there are some Greeke Copies that omit them as well as the vulgar Thus hauing examined the seuerall allegations of our adversaries against the authoritie and credite of the Greeke Text of the New Testament wee see that they faile in them neither being able to convince it of falsehood nor superfluitie Wherefore to conclude this matter wee say with Hierome that the Latine editions are to be corrected by the Greeke that by the providence of GOD the verity of the Scriptures of the New Testament hath euer beene preserued in the originall That those faults and errours which are crept into some Copies may easily by the helpe of others be corrected and that there is no difference in matter of substance in so great variety of Copies as are found in the world If any man say the Greeke hath beene corrupted since the dayes of Hierome and that therefore though hee in his time thought the translations might bee corrected by the originals yet now wee may not take the same course we answere it may easily be proued that all those supposed corruptions which they now finde in the Greeke were found in it in Hieromes time For there are but two places to wit 1. Corinth 15. and 1. Iohn 4. 3. where all Greeke Copies haue otherwise then they say the truth is and these places were corrupted if there bee any errour in the present reading before Hieromes time Thus much touching the sufficiencie of the Scriptures and the editions wherein the authenticall veritie of the same is to bee sought CHAP. 30. Of the Power of the Church in making Lawes NOw it remaineth that wee come to the next part of our diuision touching the power of the Church in making lawes As the will of God willing and purposing the being of each thing is the first and highest cause of things so the same will of God determining what is fitte to bee what of what kinde in what sort each thing must bee that it may attaine and possesse the vttermost degree of perfection the orderly disposition of things requireth to bee communicated to it is the first and highest lawe to the whole world And as the will of God determining what is fitte defining what ought to bee and what must bee if the Creatures attaine their highest perfection is a generall lawe to all Creatures soe when he maketh knowne to creatures rationall and of an vnderstanding nature which haue power to doe or omitte thinges thus fitte to bee done that though hee leaue it in their power and freedome of choise to doe or omitte them yet they shall be tyed either to doe them or to loose the good they desire to enjoy incurre the euils they would avoyd It is more specially named a lawe of commandement precept or direction binding them vpon whom it is imposed to the performance of that it requireth The Precepts and Commandements of Almighty God are of two sorts for either they are such as in respect of the nature and condition of the things themselues are good and soe binde all men at all times or else they are positiue prescribing things variable according to the diuersities of times and the different condition of men liuing in them The former kinde of lawes God imposed vpon men in the day of their creation or redemption and restauration together with the very nature and being which hee gaue them the later prescribing things not naturally and perpetually good but good onely at some time to some men and to some purposes and vses to which they serue were not imposed at first together with the institution of nature or the restauration of the same by grace but are then imposed when the things they prescribe are iudged good and beneficiall Soe God prescribed before the comming of Christ his sonne those sacrifices and offerings which now hee regardeth not and hath now instituted those Sacraments Ceremonies and rites of Religion which before were not knowne in the world Thus wee see that the originall of all lawes is the will of God who as hee reserueth for himselfe the honor of being the supreame first and highest cause of all thinges and yet communicateth part of his Diuine power to subordinate and inferiour causes so though he alone be the great lawegiuer to euery creature yet hee communicateth part of his authority to such among the sonnes of men as he is pleased to make greater than others giuing them power to command and prescribe lawes vnto them Touching this matter thus generally deliuered there is noe difference betweene vs and our aduersaries For it is confessed on both sides that God who is the great lawgiuer to the whole world hath chosen out some from amongst the rest of the sonnes of men whom hee hath beene pleased to honour with his owne name to set vpon his owne seat and to make rulers and lawgiuers vnto his people but the question is within what bounds this power is contained and how farre the band of lawes made by such authority extendeth CHAP. 31. Of the boundes within which the power of the Church in making lawes is contayned and whether shee may make lawes concerning the worshippe of God TOuching
state But when Herod swaied the Scepter flue all those that he found to be of the bloud royall of Iudah and tooke away all power and authority that the Sanedrim formerly had then the Scepter departed from Iudah and the Law-giuer from betweene his feete so that then was the time for the Shiloh to come CHAP. 11. Of the manifestation of God in the flesh the causes thereof and the reason why the second Person in the Trinitie rather tooke flesh then either of the other GOd therefore in that fulnesse of time sent his Sonne in our flesh to sit vpon the throne of Dauid and to bee both a King and Priest ouer his house for euer concerning whom three things are to bee considered First his humiliation abasing himselfe to take our nature and become man Secondly the gifts and graces he bestowed on the nature of man when he assumed it into the vnitie of his Person Thirdly the things hee did and suffered in it for our good In the Incarnation of the Sonne of God we consider first the necessity that God should become man secondly the fitnesse and conuenience that the second Person rather then any other Thirdly the manner how this strange thing was wrought brought to passe Touching the necessity that God should become man there are two opinions in the Romane schooles For some thinke that though Adam had neuer sinned yet it had beene necessary for the exaltation of humane nature that God should haue sent his Sonne to become man but others are of opinion that had it not beene for the deliuering of man out of sinne and misery the Sonne of God had neuer appeared in our flesh Both these opinions sayth Bonauentura are Catholique and defended by Catholiques whereof the former seemeth more consonant to reason but the later to the piety of faith because neither Scripture nor Fathers doe euer mention the Incarnation but when they speake of the redemption of mankind soe that seeing nothing is to be beleeued but what is proued out of these it sorteth better with the nature of right beliefe to thinke the Sonne of God had neuer become the Sonne of man if man had not sinned then to thinke the contrary Venit filius hominis sayth Augustine saluum facere quod perierat Si homo non perijsset filius hominis non venisset nulla causa fuit Christo veniendi nisi peccatores saluos facere Tolle morbos tolle vuluera nulla est medicinae causa that is The Sonne of man came to saue that which was lost If man had not perished the sonne of man had not come there was no other cause of Christs comming but the saluation of sinners Take away diseases wounds and hurts and what neede is there of the Phisition or Surgeon Wherefore resoluing with the Scriptures and Fathers that there was no other cause of the incarnation of the Sonne of God but mans redemption let vs see whether so great an abasing of the sonne of God were necessary for the effecting hereof Surely there is no doubt but that Almighty God whose wisdome is incomprehensible and power infinite could haue effected this worke by other meanes but not soe well beseeming his truth and justice whereupon the Diuines doe shew that in many respects it was fit and necessary for this purpose that God should become man First ad fidem firmandam to settle men in a certaine and vndoubted perswasion of the truth of such things as are necessary to be beleeued vt homo fidentiùs ambularet ad veritatem sayth Augustine ipsa veritas Dei filius homine assumpto constituit fundauit fidem that is That man might more assuredly and without danger of erring approach vnto the presence of sacred truth it selfe the sonne of God assuming the nature of man setled and founded the faith and shewed what things are to be beleeued Secondly ad rectam operationem to direct mens actions for whereas man that might be seene might not safely be followed and God that was to bee imitated and followed could not be seene it was necessary that God should become man that hee whom man was to follow might shew himselfe vnto man and be seene of him Thirdly ad ostendendam dignitatem humanae Naturae to shew the dignitie and excellencie of humane nature that no man should any more soe much forget himselfe as to defile the same with finfull impurities Demonstrauit nobis Deus sayth Augustine quà m excelsum locum inter creaturas habeat humana natura in hoc quòd hominibus in vero homine apparuit that is God shewed vs how high a place the nature of man hath amongst his creatures in that he appeared vnto men in the nature and true being of a man Agnosce sayth Leo O Christiane dignitatem tuam diuinae consors factus naturae noli in veterem vilitatem degeneri conuersatione redire that is Take knowledge ô Christian man of thine owne worth and dignity and being made partaker of the diuine nature returne not to thy former basenesse by an vnfitting kind of life conuersation Lastly it was necessary the Sonne of God should become man ad liberandum hominem à seruitute peccati to deliuer man from the slauery and bondage of sinne For the performance whereof two things were to be done For first the justice of God displeased with sinne committed against him was to bee satisfied and secondly the breach was to be made vp that was made vpon the whole nature of man by the same neither of which things could possibly be perforned by man or Angell or by any creature For touching the first the wrath of God displeased with sinne and the punishments which in iustice he was to inflict vpon sinners for the same were both infinite because the offence was infinite and therefore none but a person of infinite worth value and vertue was able to endure the one and satisfie the other If any man shall say it was possible for a meere man stayed by diuine power and assistance to feele smart and paine in proportion answering to the pleasure of sin which is but finite and to indure for a time the losse of all that infinite comfort solace that is to be found in God answering to that aversion from God that is in sinne which is infinite and so to satisfie his justice he considereth not that though such a man might satisfie for his owne sinne yet not for the sinnes of all other who are in number infinite vnlesse his owne person were eminently as good as all theirs and vertually infinite Secondly that though he might satisfie for his owne actuall sin yet he could not for his originall sin which being the sin of nature cannot be satisfied for but by him in whom the whole nature of man in some principall sort is found Thirdly he considereth not that it is impossible that any sinner should of himselfe euer cease from sinning and that therefore seeing
left certaine direction for farre lesser things then these mens gouernment is supposed to be That the gouernment of these supposed Lay-elders is not bounded in the Scripture or Fathers it is most euident neither can any man liuing shew vs any such bounding of the same in either of them The gouernment of the Church is in respect of two sorts of men the Cleargie and the Laytie Touching the former they are to be tryed and approued for their life and learning they are to be ordained with solemne imposition of hands and if they deserue it they are to be suspended from the execution of their office or vtterly depriued and degraded Shall Lay-elders haue as much to doe in all these actions as they to whom the Ministerie of the Word and Sacraments is committed are they competent Iudges of mens learning and aptnesse to teach that neither are Teachers nor learned Can they giue the sacred power of holy ministery to others that haue it not themselues Or is it not a certaine Axiome on the contrary side that the lesser is blessed of the greater Surely they that in England sought to bring in the gouernment of the Church by Lay-elders were of opinion that they ought to haue interest in all these things as well as the Pastours of the Church And indeede admit them to the gouernment of the Church by force of certain doubtfull words of Scripture mentioning gouernment without any distinction or limitation and there is no reason to straighten them but that they should haue their sway in all parts of it But they of Geneva France and other parts exclude these Elders from intermedling in ordination and leaue the power to trye examine approue and ordaine to the Pastours onely Likewise as I thinke they referre the deciding of doubts in matters of Faith and Religion to the Pastours onely and not to the suffrages of Lay-men by multitude of voyces ouer-ruling them Touching the other sort of them of whom the Church consisteth which are Lay-men who are to bee admonished corrected put from the Sacraments yea from the communion of the Church for impiety disobedience and wickednesse and vpon repentance and submission to bee receiued againe doth not the ordering of these men in this sort come within the compasse of the power of the Keyes and of binding and loosing Did Christ leaue these to his Apostles as speciall fauours and are they now transferred from their Successours the Bishops and Pastours of the Church to Lay-men that haue neither part nor fellowship in the worke of the Ministerie Hath GOD committed the dispensation of his Sacraments to the Pastours of the Church Is it on the perill of their soules that they duely giue them or with-holde them as cause shall require And shall there bee in others that are not trusted with them as great a power to direct the vse of this Ministeriall authoritie as in them nay greater the other being more in number and their voyces more to carry any thing that shall bee brought into deliberation Besides all this which hath beene saide there are many more doubts touching the authoritie of these men wherein I feare there wil be none found amongst the friends and fauourers of these Lay-elders that will be able to giue vs any satisfaction For first I would gladly know whether these ruling Elders must bee in euery Congregation with power of ordination and deprivation suspension excommunication and absolution or whether this power bee onely in the Ministers and Elders of diuerse Churches concurring Surely in Geneva there are Elders in the Congregations that are abroad in agro that is in the Country but these haue no power of excommunication much lesse of ordination or deprivation They may onely complaine to the Consistorie of the Cittie Nay they that are in the Congregations within the Cittie haue no separate power with their owne Ministers but a joynt proceeding with the rest of the Ministers and Elders of the other Churches and Congregations all which concurring make but one Consistorie Secondly let them tell vs whether these offices be perpetuall as the offices of Bishops and Pastours or annuall and but for a certaine time But to leaue them in these vncertainties the fourth reason that moueth vs to reject the conceipt of these Lay-elders is because the founders of this new gouernment fetch the patterne of it from the Sanedrim of the Iewes the platforme whereof they suppose Christ meant to bring into his Church when hee said Tell the Church Whereas it is most cleare that that Court was as a ciuill court and had power to banish to imprison yea and to take away life till by the Romanes the Iewes were restrained which made them say in the case of Christ that it was not lawfull for them to put any man to death Our fift and last reason is for that all Fathers and Councels mentioning elders or Presbyters place them betweene Bishops and Deacons and make them to bee Cleargy-men and that in the Acts where the Apostles are said to haue constituted Elders in euery Church Pastours and Ministers are meant and not Lay-men is strongly confirmed by that in the twentieth of Acts where the Elders of the Church of Ephesus conuented before Paul are commanded to feede the flock of Christ ouer which they were appointed ouerseers whence it followeth ineuitably that they were pastours The places of Scripture brought to proue this kinde of gouernment by Lay-elders are specially three The first is that to Timothie Let the Elders that rule well bee esteemed worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the word and doctrine The second is that in the Epistle to the Romanes He that ruleth let him doe it with diligence The third is that to the Corinthians where Gouernours or Gouernments are mentioned The two later allegations are too too weake to proue the thing in question For will any man that knoweth what it is to reason reason à genere ad speciem affirmatiuè that is from the generall to the particular and speciall affirmatiuely Or will euer any man of common sense bee perswaded that this consequence is good There were gouernours in the Primitiue Church mentioned by the Apostles and required by them to rule with diligence therefore they were Lay-gouernours Surely I thinke not Wherefore let vs see if the first place alledged by them yeelde any better proofe Touching this place some interprete it in this sort The Guides of the Church are worthy of double honour both in respect of gouerning and teaching but specially for their paines in teaching so noting two parts or duties of Presbyteriall offices not two sorts of Presbyters Some in this sort Amongst the Elders and Guides of Gods Church and people some laboured principally in gouerning and ministring the Sacraments some in preaching and teaching So Paul sheweth that hee preached and laboured more then all the Apostles but baptized few or none leauing that to bee performed by others
and when Paul and Barnabas were companions and their trauels were equall yet Paul is noted to haue beene the chiefe speaker so that though both were worthy of double honour yet Paul especially Some interprete the words in this sort There were some that remained in some certaine places for the guiding and gouerning of such as were already wonne by the preaching of the Gospell other that travayled with great labour and paines from place to place to spread the knowledge of God into all parts and to preach Christ crucified to such as had neuer heard of him before Both these were worthy of double honour but the later that builded not vpon another mans foundation more especially then the former that did but keepe that which others had gotten and governe those that others had gained Thus wee see that these words may haue a very good and true sense without pressing of them to confirme the late conceipt of some few men touching Lay-elders Which construction wee haue no reason to admitte seeing the circumstances of the place doe not enforce it nor no Ecclesiasticall writer did euer so interprete the words before our age So that to conclude this point the name of Presbyter one place onely in the first of Timothy and the fifth excepted where it is a name of age and not of office in the writings of the Apostles doth euer note out vnto vs a Minister of the Word and Sacraments The reason why the Apostles chose this word rather then the name of Sacerdos which wee commonly translate Priest though the English word Priest come of Presbyter was lest there should be a confusion of the Ministers of the old Testament who were to offer sacrifices vnto God figuring the comming of Christ with those of the new and to shew that none should be appointed Ministers but men of ripe age and confirmed judgment But some man will say the auncient Writers mention Seniours without whose advice nothing was done an Ecclesiasticall Senate and a Presbytery or company of Presbyters which gouerned the Church together with the Bishop therefore the matter is not so cleare against Lay-elders as some would make it Wee deny not but that there were Presbyters in the primitiue Church constituted and ordained by the Apostles and their Successours not onely to preach and minister Sacraments but to gouerne direct and guide the people of God also but that they were Lay-men it cannot bee proued The Bishops in the greater Churches and in the Citties had a great number of Clergy-men seruing in diuers sorts as it appeareth by Cyprian and the whole Ecclesiasticall history but out of the whole Clergie at large the Presbytery or company of Presbyters was called forth to the weightiest deliberations and to assist the Bishop for the preseruation of discipline Admonitos nos instructos sciatis dignatione diuinâ sayth Cyprian vt Numidicus Presbyter ascribatur Presbyterorum Carthaginensium numero nobiscum sedeat in Clero that is Know yee that we haue beene admonished and directed by God himselfe to choose Numidicus and to make him one of the company of the Presbyters of Carthage that he may sit together with vs as a Clergy-man by which words it appeareth that there was in Cyprians time a Colledge of Presbyters or Elders in the Church of Carthage which sate together with the Bishop for the hearing and determining of the causes of the Church but that these Elders were Clergie-men and not such Lay-seniours as some would haue Cornelius Bishop of Rome writing to Cyprian se totum Presbyterium contraxisse that is that hee drew together the whole Presbytery or companie of Presbyters for the reconciling of certaine Schismatiques to the Church and that hee called together fiue Bishops also and by common consent ended the whole matter Of this Senate and company of Presbyters Tertullian speaketh in his Apologie when he sayth with vs the most approued Seniours do sit as praesidents to censure offendours and to exercise discipline And of these likewise is it that Hierome sayth writing vpon Esay We also in the Church haue our Senate the company of Presbyters And vpon Titus The Churches were gouerned by the common aduice and councell of the Presbyters For to put it out of doubt that he meaneth not Lay-elders hee sayth in the same place Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus that is Therefore a Presbyter and Bishop are all one There is onely one place in Ambrose that hath some shew of proofe for Lay-elders His words are The Iewish Synogogue and after the Church had Seniours or Elders without whose councell nothing was done in the Church which by what negligence it grew out I know not vnlesse it were by the sloth or pride of the Teachers whilest they alone would seeme to be something Here is mention of Elders without whose aduice nothing was done but it is not sayd they were Lay-men But some man perhaps will reply that the Elders which Ambrose speaketh of ceased before his time which cannot be vnderstood of Clergie-men therefore they were Lay-men To this we say that Ambrose doth not say the elders without whose councell nothing was to be done ceased before his time and were no more but that the aduising and consulting with them ceased whilest some would doe all themselues If it be sayd that they who thus assumed more then was fitte and excluded those Seniours without whose councell anciently nothing was done are not said to haue bin Bishops but Doctours and that therefore Ambrose speaketh not of Bishops excluding other Ministers of the Word and Sacraments from their consultations but of Clergie-men refusing the aduice of Lay Seniours we answere that Ambrose by the name of Teachers whose sloath or pride hee condemneth in this place might fitly vnderstand the Bishops seeing none but bishops haue power to preach in their owne right and other but only by permission from them Hereupon it is that Possidonius in the life of Augustine saith that Valerius Bishop of Hippo gaue S. Augustine his Presbyter leaue to preach because being a Grecian hee could not very well expresse himselfe in Latine In the Councell of Vase leaue is giuen by the Councell of Bishops to Presbyters for to preach But because this question touching Lay-elders is excellently handled by sundry of our Diuines I will not trouble the Reader with any farther discourse of this matter CHAP. 27. Of the distinction of the Power of Order and Iurisdiction and the preheminence of one amongst the Presbyters of each Church who is named a Bishop CEasing to speake of supposed Lay-elders which the Church of God knoweth not let vs come to the other that were appointed to teach and gouerne the people of GOD. Where first wee are to speake of the diuerse degrees of honour and preheminence found amongst them Secondly of their calling and appointing to the same And thirdly of their maintenance For the clearing of the former of these three
will in the administration of the Church being to giue an account of his actions vnto the Lord. Here wee see Cyprian speaketh in the very same sort in the case between him and Stephen as he did in the Councell of Carthage and that generally hee maketh all Bishops equall and no one subject to the judgment of another but to the judgement of God only and the company of their fellow Bishops And that he did not thinke the Bishop of Rome to haue an infallibility of judgment or a commanding authority ouer other Bishops it appeareth in that writing to Pompeius of Stephens answere to his letters and sending him a copy of the same answere he telleth him that by reading it hee may more and more note his errour in maintaining the cause of heretiques against Christians and the Church of God and feareth not to pronounce of him that he writeth many things proudly impertinently vnskilfully improuidently and contrary to himselfe and which more is contemning his prescription that heretiques should not be rebaptized but bee receiued with the imposition of hands onely hee chargeth him with hard stiffe and inflexible obstinacie Firmilianus with the Bishops of Phrygia Galatia Cilicia and other regions neere adioyning assembled in a Synode at Iconium consented with Cyprian and Firmilianus writing to him telleth him of their resolution and chargeth Stephen with folly who bragging of the place of his Bishoprique and pretending to succeed Peter on whom the Church was founded yet bringeth in many other rockes and new buildings of many Churches in that hee supposed heretiques to be truly baptized who are out of the communion of the true Church whereas the Church was specially promised to be builded on Peter to shew that it must be but one And in great dislike and reprehension of Stephen he saith he was not ashamed in fauour of heretiques to deuide the brotherhood and to call Cyprian the worthy seruant of God a false Christ a false Apostle and a deceiptfull and guilefull workeman whereas all these things might much more truly bee sayd of him and therefore guilty to himselfe Praeuenit vt alteri ea per mendacium objiceret quae ipse ex merito audire deberet that is By way of preuention hee falsely and lyingly obiected those things to another which himselfe truly and deseruedly might haue had objected to him by others Such and so great were the oppositions of Cyprian and his consorts against Stephen and his adherents in the matter of rebaptization whereupon Bellarmine saith it seemeth that Cyprian sinned mortally in that hee obeyed not the commandement of Stephen nor submitted his judgement to the judgement of his superiour That hee erred in the matter of rebaptization we willingly confesse but that he knew not the power authority and commission of the Bishoppe of Rome or that he would euer haue dissented from him or opposed himselfe against him in a question of faith if hee had thought his power to bee vniuersall and his iudgment infallible we vtterly deny For then hee should not onely haue erred in the matter of rebaptization but haue beene a damnable heretique and and haue perished euerlastingly whereas yet the Church of God hath euer reputed him a holy Bishop and a blessed Martyr Thus hauing examined the testimonies of Cyprian vsually alleaged for and against the supremacy of the Pope let vs proceed to the rest of Bellarmines witnesses The next that followeth is Optatus out of whom it is alleaged that there was one Episcopall Chaire in the whole Church appointed by Christ. But because this is the same which was formerly alleaged out of Cyprian already answered in the answers to the allegations brought out of him therefore without farther troubling of the Reader I referre him to that which went before The next vnto Optatus is Ambrose out of whom three seuerall places are produced in the first his words are these as Bellarmine citeth them Though the whole world bee Gods yet the Church onely is called his house the Gouernour whereof at this day is Damasus For answer hereunto we say that this testimony rather witnesseth their forgery then confirmeth their errour For the Commentaries attributed to Ambrose wherein these words are are not his and besides this addition the gouernour whereof at this day is Damasus may be thought to haue beene put in in fauour of their fancie touching the Papall vniversalitie of jurisdiction it is so sudden causelesse and abrupt In the second place Ambrose reporteth of Satyrus that before he would receiue the Sacrament of the Lords body he asked of the Bishop by whose hands hee was to receiue it whether he held communion with the Catholick Bishops and namely with the Romane Church To the inference of our Adversaries and the conclusion they seek to deriue draw from these words in fauour of the Papacie I haue answered elsewhere whither I referre the Reader Wherefore let vs come to the third and last place of Ambrose His words are Wee follow the type and forme of the Romane Church in all things and againe I desire to follow the Romane Church in all things Surely this place of all other most clearely confuteth the errour of the Romanists touching the infallibility of the judgement of the Roman Church and Bishop and the necessitie of absolute conformity with the same For in this place Saint Ambrose sheweth that in the Church of Millaine whereof he was Bishop the manner in his time was that the Bishop girding himselfe about with a towell in imitation of Christ did wash the feete of such as were newly baptized and after great commendation of the same custome objecting to himselfe that the Romane Church had it not first he saith that perhaps the Church of Rome omitted this washing because of the difficultie and great labour in performing it by reason of the multitude of those that were baptized Secondly whereas some said in defence and excuse of the omission of this washing in the Romane Church that it is not to be vsed as a mysticall right in the regeneration of them that are new borne in Christ but in the ciuill entertainment of strangers the offices of humilitie and ciuill courtesie being very farre different from the mysteries and sacred rights of sanctification he reproueth them for so saying and endeauoureth to shew that this kinde of washing is a sacred and mysticall right tending to the sanctification of them that are newly baptized and that out of the words of Christ to Peter Vnlesse I wash thee thou shalt haue no part in me and then addeth the wordes alleaged by Bellarmine I desire in all things to follow the Romane Church but notwithstanding we also are men and haue our sense and iudgment and therefore what we finde to be rightly obserued any where else we also rightly obserue keepe we follow the Apostle Peter wee cleaue fast vnto his devotion and hereunto what can the Church of Rome answer Whereby wee
in the West had iudged and condemned him ioyned his authority with Cyril the principall of the Bishops that were present that so nothing might be wanting to the perfection of a generall Councell So that it is most certaine that Cyril was president of the Councell of Ephesus not as a Vicegerent onely to the Bishop of Rome but in his owne right though he had the authority direction and consenting concurrence of the Bishop of Rome and all the Westerne Bishops ioyned with the power and authority which he and the rest of the Bishops present had of themselues And therefore Leo saith in expresse wordes that Cyril was President of the Councell of Ephesus as likewise Photius and others affirme The same answer may serue for Acacius For he was not Vicegerent of the Bishop of Rome in hearing and determining the cause of Peter Bishop of Alexandria who was an Eutychian Heretique as hauing none authority of his owne but there was a ioynt concurrence of the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople the later hauing besides his owne right and interest the full power and authority of the other and being likewise to vse the helpe of the Emperour for the reducing of the Church of Alexandria to the vnity of the faith againe in which businesse he failed for though at first he condemned Peter Bishop of Alexandria yet afterwards he was content to cōmunicate with him For which cause he was iustly reprehended as not answering the trust that was reposed in him and as being a fauourer of heretiques and so in a sort an heretique himselfe To these allegations which we haue already heard Harding in his answer to Bishop Iewels challenge addeth another of a Bishop of Alexandria being Vicegerent to the Bishop of Rome out of the Epistle of Bonifacius the second to Eulalius or Eulabius But Bellarmine refuteth that Epistle and sheweth that it is counterfeit and that there neuer was any such Eulabius to whom Bonifacius might write and therefore we will no longer insist vpon the examination of the same but proceed to the proofes which our Aduersaries bring from appeales made to Rome CHAP. 39. Of Appeales to Rome FOR the clearing of the matter of Appeales we must obserue that they are of three sorts Of Lay-men of inferiour Clergie-men and of Bishops Of the appeales of Lay-men there is noe mention in all Antiquity and yet now the Bishops of Rome reserue all the greater causes euen concerning the Laitie to thēselues alone forbidding the ordinary guides of the Church to intermedle with them and very ordinarily admitte appeales of Lay-men to the infinite vexation of men and the great hinderance of the course of all Iustice. Whereas it is most wisely and rightly ordered each Bishop hauing his portion of the flocke of Christ committed to him as Cyprian obserueth that they that are committed to their charge should not bee permitted to runne hither and thither but bee iudged there where the thinges for which they are called in question were done and where the accusers and witnesses may bee present Concerning inferiour Clergy-men the holy Bishoppes in the Councell of Mileuis speake in this sort It hath seemed good vnto vs that if Presbyters Deacons other inferiour Clergi-men complaine of the iudgements of their own Bishops the neighbour Bishops intreated by them with the consent of their Bishoppes shall heare them and make an end and if they thinke good to appeale from their iudgement it shall not be lawfull for them to appeale but onely to the Councels of Africa or to the Primates of their owne Provinces And if they shall make their appeale beyond the seas no man in Africa shall receiue them to the Communion This whole Councell Innocentius the first approued as it appeareth by his Epistle which we finde in the booke of the Epistles of S. Augustin Hereunto Bellarmine saith some answere with Gratian who addeth to the Canon of this Councell forbidding appeales to be made beyond the seas an exception vnlesse it be to the Sea Apostolique But this exception saith Bellarmine seemeth not fitting seeing the Africanes made this decree that men should not appeale beyond the seas especially in respect of the Church of Rome and to restraine the making of appeales thither there neuer being any appeale from the Africans to any other church but to the church of Rome only And yet Stapleton answereth the authority of this Councell as Gratian doth and that out of Iulius and Fabianus Bishops of Rome as he saith The Councell of Sardica saith Bellarmine decreed that the causes of Presbyters and inferiour clergy-men appealing from the iudgements of their owne Bishops should be determined and ended by the neighbour-Bishops and Pope Zozimus as appeareth by the sixth Councel of Carthage and the Epistle of the same Councell to Bonifacius the Pope required the same canon to be reuiued Augustine likewise sheweth that it was not lawfull for those of the clergie vnder the degree of Bishops to appeale out of Africa Neither was this the peculiar priuiledge of Africa alone For the Councell of Chalcedon ordained that if a clergie-man haue ought against another of the clergy the matter shall be heard by the Bishop or by arbitrators chosen by both parties with the Bishops allowance But if he haue ought against his Bishoppe he shall prosecute the same complaint in the Synode of the province This canon of the Councell of Chalcedon the Emperour confirmed saying if any of the clergy complaine against his Bishop for any matter let the cause be iudged by the Metropolitane according to the sacred rules and the imperiall lawes And if any man appeale from his sentence let the cause be brought to the Arch-bishoppe or Patriarch of that Diocese and let him according to the canons make a finall end And yet notwithstanding these canons aboue recited precisely forbidding inferiour clergy-men to appeale to Rome we finde that the Bishops of Rome admitted the appeale of one Apiarius iudged condemned in Africa which caused a great difference betweene the Africanes and him Whereupon the Fathers in the Councell of Africa wish the Bishop of Rome as it beseemeth him to reiect and repell the wicked and vnlawfull appeales as well of Presbyters as of other inferiour clergy-men seeing the ending and determining of their causes is by no decree of any Synode denied to the church of Africa and the Nicene canons most clearely committe both inferiour clergy-men and Bishops to their owne Metropolitanes Bellarmine to cleare the Pope from intrusion and to avoide the testimonies authorities of the holy Bishops and Pastours of the church which we haue produced to shew the vnlawfulnes of appeales to Rome answereth first that though they of the inferiour clergy were prohibited to appeale to the Pope yet hee was not forbidden to admit their appeales which is a most strange answere For if they in appealing did
ill and violated the canons hee could not but offend in admitting such their appeales And therefore they of Africa tell the Pope that it befeemeth him to repell such appeales and that to admit them is to bring in the smoaky puffe of worldly pride into the Church professing that the ending of such matters belongeth to the Church of Africa and complaining of intollerable wrongs and injuries done vnto them when such appeales are admitted whence it is consequent that the Pope may not admit them Secondly he answereth that the Bishop of Rome admitted not the appeale of Apiarius but heard his complaints and commaunded them of Africa more diligently to examine his cause whereas it is most plaine and euident that the Pope vpon his appeale vnadvisedly receiued him to his communion and restored him to his degree and place again Besides that to heare complaints to command a review is in the judgement of all men of sense vnderstanding a kind of an admitting of an appeale seeing no such thing can be done but by him that hath power to judge of their judgement whom he cōmaundeth to review and reexamine that they haue formerly judged Concerning Bishops the Councell of Chalcedon decreed that if a Bishop haue ought against the Metropolitane he shall goe to the Primate of the Diocese or to the See of the Princely city of Constantinople that there the matter may be examined and heard And the Emperour confirming the same canon decreed that if the Bishops of one Synode haue any matter of variance among themselues either for Ecclesiasticall right or any other occasions first the Metropolitane and the other Bishops of the Synode shall examine and determine the cause and if either part dislike the judgment then the Patriarch of that Diocese shall giue them audience according to the Ecclesiasticall Canons and Imperiall lawes neither side hauing liberty to contradict his judgment This decree of the Emperour Gregory the first reciteth and alloweth onely adding that if there be neither Metropolitane nor Patriarch then the matter must bee ended by the Apostolicke See which is the Head of all Churches So that euen in his judgment when there is a Patriarch no Bishop may appeale frō him to Rome but euery one is bound to stand to the end that he shall make The eight generall Councell in like sort appointeth Bishops cōplaining of their Metropolitans to go to the Patriarch that he may make an end requireth either side to stand to the end that he shal make seeing the more honourable Bishops out of sundry Provinces called together by him sit in councell with him Yet Zozimus Bonifacius Caelestinus Bishops of Rome by their agents in the Councels of Africa vrged claimed a pretended right to admit appeales of Bishops from any part of the world as frō the canons of the Nicene councell But the worthy Bishops there present looking into the decrees of that councell finding no such thing as was alleaged lest haply those copies of the councell which they had might be defectiue imperfect or corrupted sent to the most reverend Patriarches of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch for the authentical indubitate copies but could find no such thing in them when they came as was alleaged by the agents of the Bishop of Rome And therefore they wrote vnto him prayed him no more so easily to admit men comming to him with appeales and complaints nor to receiue to his communion such as they should excommunicate because the Nicene councell hath forbidden all such admission committing not onely Lay-men and inferiour Cleargy-men but Bishops also to their owne Metropolitans and requiring that Bishops put from the communion in their own Provinces should not bee by other hastily suddainly or vnduely restored to the communion And farther they besought the Roman Bishops to repell as beseemeth them the wicked appeales of Presbyters other inferiour Clergy-men because no decree of any councell hath prejudiced the Church of Africa in this behalfe but all the Fathers most prudently justly decreed determined that all matters should be ended in the place where they arise seeing no Province can lacke the grace of the Holy Ghost whereby the Bishops of Christ may be able both wisely to see and constantly to maintaine the right and especially for that it is lawfull for euery one that shall mislike the judgment of them that haue the hearing of his cause to appeale to the councels of his Province or to a generall Councell vnlesse haply any man will thinke that God will inspire the tryall of justice into one man alone that he will deny the same to a great number of Bishops assembled in Councell and farther they adde that these beyond-sea iudgments cannot be thought good and of force whereunto the persons of the witnesses necessary for the finding out of the truth cannot bee brought either in respect of the infirmity of their sexe or age or by reason of some other impediment And thus we see that the Bishops of Rome could not demonstrate their right to receiue Appeales of Bishops refusing to stand to the iudgments of their owne Metropolitanes and Synodes out of the Nicene Councell but failed in the issue Yet may we not hereupon charge them with falsification or mistaking say the worthy Proctors of the Romane Church But wee must rather say with counterfeit Athanasius in his Epistle to Faelix that the coppies of the Nicene Councell were corrupted or in his Epistle to Marke the Bishop of Rome that they were burned then that we should yeeld any such thing And yet surely if they were corrupted they were not burned and if they were burnt they were not corrupted and that the Arrians should corrupt the coppies of the Nicene Councell in other things and leaue it inuiolable in that part that toucheth them most and condemneth their heresie is strange and vnlikely Bellarmine saith the Magdeburgians doe laugh at the report of the burning of those coppies of the Nicene Councell that were kept at Alexandria and seemeth to confesse they haue reason so to do For saith hee the supposed burning happened in the time of Constantius the Emperour when as Athanasius being driuen from thence George the Arrian had gotten into his place as Athanasius testifieth in his Epistle ad omnes Orthodoxos whereas it may be clearely proued out of the Chronicle of Hierome that Marke the Pope was dead at that time Besides if Marke the Pope had sent the true coppies to Alexandria vpon this letter of Athanasius as is pretended why should not the coppies that were found at Rome they that were brought from Alexandria into Africa haue agreed together How came it to passe that the canon vrged for the Popes aduantage in the Councels of Africa was not found in the coppies sent from Alexandria but that that coppy altogether agreed with the other that came from Constantinople and Antioch Bellarmine therefore passing by
doubt not of all indifferent Readers And therefore there remaineth but onely one allegation of Bellarmine touching appeales to be examined Gregory the first saith he put Iohn the Bishop of Iustiniana the first from the communion for that he presumed to iudge the Bishop of Thebes hauing appealed to Rome The case was this The Bishop of Thebes wronged by his fellow-Bishops made his appeale to Rome Hereupon Iohn Bishop of Iustiniana the first who was the Bishop of Romes Vicegerent for certaine Prouinces neare adioyning was appointed by the Emperour to heare the cause which he did accordingly But without all indifferencie and in sort contrarie to the Canons and though vpon the discerning of his vniust and partiall proceeding an appeale were tendered to him yet gaue he sentence against the poore distressed Bishop Gregory hearing hereof putteth him from the communion for thirty dayes space inioyning him to bewaile his fault with sorrowfull repentance and teares Truely this allegation maketh a very faire shew at the first sight But if wee remember that the Bishop of Iustiniana the first and the distressed Bishop of Thebes wronged by him were within the Patriarchship of Rome as Cusanus sheweth they were you shall finde it was no more that the B of Rome did then any other Patriarch in like case might haue done within his owne precincts and limits Neither can the Cardinall euer proue that the Bishop of Rome had any such Vicegerent as the Bishop of Iustiniana the first was but onely within the compasse of his owne Patriarchship But saith hee it was a Greeke Bishop that Gregory thus proceeded against It is true it was so But what will hee inferre from thence Is it not knowne that many Greeke Bishops were subiect to the Bishop of Rome as Patriarch of the West was not the Bishoppe of Thessalonica a Greeke Bishop and yet I thinke no man doubteth but that hee was within the compasse of the Patriarchship of Rome as many other also were howsoeuer in time they fell from it adhered to the Church of Constantinople after the diuision of the Greeke and Latine Churches CHAP. 40. Of the Popes supposed exemption from all humane Iudgement as being reserued to the Iudgement of Christ onely OVR Adversaries finding their proofes of the Popes illimited power taken from such appeales as were wont in auncient times to bee made to Rome to bee too weake flie to another wherein they put more confidence which is his exemption from all humane Iudgement Christ whose Vicar he is having reserued him to his owne iudgement onely If this exemption could bee as strongly proued as it is confidently affirmed it would be an vnanswerable proofe of the thing in question But the proofe hereof will be more hard then of the principall thing in controuersie betweene vs. Touching this point I finde great contrarietie of opinions among Papists as men at their wits ends not knowing what to affirme nor what to denie For first there are some among them that thinke that the Pope though hee violate all lawes diuine and humane though hee become publickly scandalous and therein shew himselfe incorrigible yea though hee be a professed and damnable hereticke yet neither is deposed ipso facto by the sentence of the canon nor may be deposed by all the men in the world Which opinion if we admit to bee true the condition of the church the beloued spouse of Christ and mother of vs all is most woefull and miserable in that hereby shee is forced to acknowledge a denouring wolfe making hauocke of the sheepe of Christ redeemed with his precious bloud to be her Pastor and guide Secondly some are of opinion that the Pope if hee become an open and professed hereticke is deposed ipso facto by the sentence of the canon and that the church may declare that he is so deposed Thirdly there are that thinke that an hereticall Pope is not deposed ipso facto but that he may be deposed by the church Fourthly many worthy Diuines in the Romane church heretofore haue beene of opinion that the Church or generall Councell may depose the Pope not onely for heresie but also for other enormous crimes Of this opinion was Cardinall Cusanus Cardinall Cameracensis Gerson Chauncellour of Paris Almaine and all the Parisians with all the worthy Bishops Diuines in the Councels of Constance and Basill Yet the Papists at this day for the most part dislike and condemne this opinion and acknowledge no deposition of any Pope how ill soeuer vnlesse it be for heresie And Bellarmine to make all sure telleth vs farther that the church doth not by any authoritie depose an hereticall Pope but whereas he is deposed ipso facto in that hee falleth into heresie onely declareth the same and thereupon largely refuteth the opinion of Cardinall Caietane who thinketh that the Pope when he falleth into heresie is not deposed ipso facto but that deseruing to bee deposed the Church doth truely and out of her authority depose him First because as he saith if the Church or Councell may depose the Pope from his Papall dignity against his will for what cause soeuer it will follow that the Church is aboue the Pope which yet Caietane denieth For as it will follow that the Pope is aboue other Bishops and of more authority then they if he may depose them so if the councell of Bishops may depose the Pope they are greater then hee Secondly he saith to be put from the Papacie vnwillingly is a punishment so that if the Church may depose the Pope though vnwilling to leaue his place it may punish him and consequently is aboue him For hee that hath power to punish hath the place of a Superiour and Iudge Thirdly he that may restraine and limit a man in the vse and exercise of his ministerie and office is in authority aboue him therefore much more he that may put him from it By these reasons it is clearely demonstrated and proued that if the Church or generall Councell haue authority in case of heresie to depose the Pope at least in some sort it is of greater authority then the Pope And therefore to avoide this consequence as Gerson rightly noteth they that too much magnifie the greatnesse and amplitude of Papall power say that an hereticall Pope in that he is an Hereticke ceaseth to be Pope and is deposed by Almighty God So that the Church doth not by vertue of her authority and jurisdiction depose him but onely denounce and declare that he is so deposed by God to be taken for such a one by men and not to be obeyed This they endeauour to proue because all Heretickes are condemned by their owne iudgment as the Apostle saith and stay not as other euill doers till the Church cast them out but voluntarily depart of themselues from the fellowship of Gods people and cut themselues off from the vnity of the Body of the Church
fury and violence of his enemies pressing in vpon him that he was in very great danger of his life and therefore after the first time would come no more to the place where the Bishops sate Whereupon they not knowing what to doe for it was not fit to judge him being absent there was no reason to proceed against him as contumacious in refusing to come vnto them seeing his refusall seemed to proceed from just feare of danger vtterly refused disclaimed the trying of his cause and the judging of it moued not a little so to doe because great multitudes of the people communicated with him and they had no president of such proceedings against former Bishops The King somewhat offended herewith tolde them that if they did not discusse the cause they would giue an ill example to all Bishops to liue wickedly and at their pleasure in hope of impunity and yet left the matter wholly to them who did nothing in it but onely perswaded to vnity Heereupon there grew some distraction among the Cleargy and people of Rome and some thought the Bishops had done ill in leauing the matter vnexamined Vpon which occasion one Euodius a Deacon writeth a booke in defence of their proceedings which they approue in their fifth Synode or meeting wherein among other things hee hath these wordes Lex probitatis mentis est quae hominem viventem sine lege castigat propriè moribus impendit qui necessitati non debet disciplinam Aliorum fortè hominum causas Deus voluit homines terminare sed sedis istius Praesulis suo sine quaestione reservavit arbitrio Voluit beati Petri Apostoli successores coelo tantùm debere innocentiam sublimissimi discussoris indagini iuviolatam exhibere conscientiam That is The Law of vertue and of the minde keepeth them in awe who liue without any other law Hee that is not otherwise inforced to liue well will liue orderly for the loue of order and good life Haply God would haue the causes of other men ended by men but the causes of the Bishop of this See he reserued no doubt to his owne judgment and his pleasure was that the successours of blessed Peter should be accountable for their good or ill liuing to Heauen only and present and exhibite their consciences kept inviolable to the examination of the most exquisite examiner For answer to this allegation wee say that neither the credite of Euodius is so great that vpon his bare word wee should bee bound to beleeue him nor the authoritie of these Fathers such that whatsoeuer they approue and allow must bee holden for good Notwithstanding admitting these sayings to bee true their owne Canonists and Diuines in their Glosses doe limite and restrain them with certaine exceptions For first they say the case of heresie must bee excepted there being no question but that the Pope may bee judged and condemned by men if he become an hereticke Secondly the case of Penitentiall confession wherein he yeeldeth himself as in duty bound so to do to be judged directed and commanded for his soules good by him to whom hee is pleased to reueale the estate of the same Thirdly the case of voluntary submission It is in my power saith Pope Sixtus to bee judged or not but let matters bee examined and the trueth found out And in like sort Symmachus submitted himselfe to bee judged by the Councell of Bishops Fourthly the case of incorrigible wickednesse when the Church is grieuously scandalized by the notorious ill life and wickednesse of the Pope and hee is found incorrigible in the same This case the Glosse excepteth warranted so to doe by the very light of naturall reason which teacheth vs that when any member of the Body after the cutting off whereof the body may liue and continue infecteth and endangereth the rest and is incurable it may and ought to bee cut off Now though the Pope should in a sort be acknowledged to haue the proportion of the head in the body of the church yet is he herein vnlike vnto a natural head for that the body of the church dieth not when he is taken away from it therefore to stop the deadly infectiō of his impiety and outragious wickednesse from spreading it selfe any further he may bee cut off So that this is the onely difference betweene the Pope and other Bishops that other may be judged though they be not incorrigible but he is not to bee iudged of any other without his owne consent and concurrence when he may be induced to reforme and correct what is amisse as being the chiefe of that company that is to judge of ill doers but if he be incorrigible hee may be proceeded against euen against his will as wee see by the example of Iohn the twelfth who being prodigiously wicked and after many and most earnest admonitions intreaties and perswasions of the Emperour and others refusing any way to reforme himselfe the Emperour called a Councell and deposed him and chose another to succeede him that this deposition was lawfull and good it is euident in that the succeeding Pope was holden to be a true and lawfull Pope while hee yet liued But concerning Gregory the Pope Henry the third did rather perswade him to yeeld and to relinquish his place then depose him because he found him tractable Two other authorities our Aduersaries haue yet behind to proue that the Pope may not be iudged The first is out of the Councell of Chalcedon where the Fathers among many other reasons alledged why they condemned Dioscorus vrge this also as one that hee was so farre from repenting of his manifold euill doings that he railed against the Apostolicke See sought to excommunicate blessed Leo and persisting in his wickednes was wilfull against the whole Councell refused to answer to such things as hee was charged with How it will be inferred from hence that the Pope may not be iudged by a generall Councell I see not For though it bee true that the inferiours may not iudge the greater and superiour and that therefore Iohn of Antioch was condemned for iudging Cyril of Alexandria and Dioscorus for iudging Leo yet it is no way consequent that either Cyril or Leo were free from all iudgement or that they might not be iudged by a generall Councell whatsoeuer they should doe The other authority is out of the Romane Councell vnder Adrian the second whose words recited in the eigth generall Councel are these We reade that the Romane Bishops haue iudged the Bishops of all Churches but that any one hath iudged them we doe not reade For the better vnderstanding and clearing whereof we must obserue first that the person of the Bishop of Rome alone is not meant when he is said to haue iudged the Bishops of all Churches but he must be vnderstood to haue iudged them with his Synode and the Bishops subiect to him as Patriarch of the West For otherwise he
neede sent vnto them Germanus and Lupus Bishops and brethren defenders of the Catholicke faith who cleared the I le from the Pelagian heresie and confirmed it in the faith both by the word of truth signes and miracles Besides this condemnation of Palagius by the French Britaines there were sundry Councels holden to condemne both him his wicked heresies in Palestina at Carthage at Mileuise and at Arausicum and it is most certaine that the Church of GOD and all posterities are more bound to Saint Augustine for clearing the points of doctrine questioned by the Pelagians then to any Bishop of Rome whatsoeuer So that it is most vntrue that the Pelagians were condemned onely by the Bishop of Rome for other were as forward in that businesse as he yea the Africans were more forward then the Romanes and drew them into the fellowship of the same worke with themselues The like may be said of the Priscillianistes for it is more then euident out of the Councell of Bracar that they were not condemned by the Bishop of Rome alone but by many Synodes for it is there reported that Leo did write by Turibius notary of the See Apostolike to the Synode of Galitia at what time the heresie of the Priscillianistes began to spreade in those parts and that by his prescription and appointment they of Tarracon of Carthage of Portugall and Boetica met in Councell and composing a rule of faith against the heresie of the Priscillianistes containing certaine chiefe heades of Christian doctrine directed the same patterne of right beliefe to the Bishop of Bracar that then was which heads of Christian doctrine were recited in the first Councel of Bracar the heresie of the Priscillianistes thereupō more distinctly and particularly condemned then euer before In all which proceedings we may see that the Pope doth nothing of himselfe alone but being Patriarch of the West and hearing of a dangerous heresie spreading in some Churches subject to him hee causeth the Bishops vnder him to meete in Councels and to condemne the same Which as I thinke will not proue that the Pope alone condemned heresies or that some heresies were rejected onely because the Pope condemned them or that the Pope cannot erre which is the thing in question Touching Iouinian and Vigilantius their errours are so vncertainely reported some attributing to them one thing and some another and some condemning them for things for which they were not to be condemned that it is hard to say by what lawfull authority or by whom they were condemned but that in their errours justly disliked they were condemned onely by the Bishops of Rome and therefore taken to bee heretickes by the whole vniuersall Church our aduersaries will neuer be able to proue That the errours attributed vnto them are vncertainely reported it appeareth in that Austine chargeth Iouinian with two dangerous and wicked assertions touching the deniall of the perpetuall virginity of the blessed Virgin the mother of our Lord and the parity of sins whereof Hierome who yet was not like to haue spared him maketh no mention And that they were in somethings vnjustly condemned it is euident first in that Hierome blameth Iouinian for saying that married persons virgins widowes if they differ not in other workes of vertue and therein excell one another are of equall merit which the best learned both of the Fathers and Schoole-men do approue as I haue elsewhere shewed at large Secondly in in that he so bitterly inueigheth against Vigilantius for disliking the pernoctations in the Cemiteries and places of Saints buriall vsed in ancient times which a Councell for the same reasons that moued Vigilantius to dislike them took wholly away and forbade them to be vsed any more the Romane Churches haue long since disused But that the Popes peremptorie cōdemning of an error in matter of faith was not taken in ancient times to be a sufficiēt demonstration that they were heretickes that defended such errors after his cōdemning of the same it is euident in that Austine saith that the Churches might doubt stil touching the matter of rebaptization because in the times of Stephen who condemned it and Cyprian who vrged it there was no generall Councell to end the controuersie betweene them and in that after the peremptory forbidding and condemning of rebaptization by Stephen Bishop of Rome Cyprian and his colleagues still persisted in the practice of it and in vrging the necessity of it and yet were neuer branded with the marke and note of heresie but euer were and still are reputed Catholiques Bellarmine to avoid the force of this argument feareth not to say contrarie to his owne knowledge that Stephen and his adherents neuer determined the question of rebaptization But that hee did and that in most peremptory sort and manner it is more cleare and euident then that the Sunne shineth at noone For Firmilianus a famous learned Bishoppe chargeth him that hee caused great dissentions throughout all the Churches of the world that hee grieuously sinned in that hee deuided himselfe from soe many flockes of Christs sheepe that hee was a schismaticke that hee had forsaken the communion of Ecclesiasticall vnity willing him not to deceiue himselfe but to bee well assured that in thinking hee could put all other from the communion he had put himselfe out of the communion of all that hee brake the bandes of vnity with many Bishoppes in all parts of the World as well in the East as in the South with the Africanes not admitting such as came from them vnto him into his presence or to any speech with him and farther commanding the brethren that none of them should receiue them to house So that he not only denyed the peace of the Church and the communion of Christians vnto them but the entring vnder the roofe of any mans house that would be ruled by him and that thus he held the vnity of the spirit in the bond of peace rejecting them as damnable miscreants that dissented from him and calling blessed Cyprian a false Christ a false Apostle and a deceiptfull labourer or workman And Dionysius a famous and worthy Bishop reporteth that he wrote concerning Hellenus and Firmilianus and all the Bishops in Cilicia Cappadocia and Galatia and all the bordering countries that he would not communicate with them for the same cause of rebaptization which yet as hee saith was agreed on in many very great Synodes of Bishops If this bee not sufficient to proue that Stephen determined the question of rebaptization I know not what can bee For first he commaunded that none should be rebaptized when they returned from the societies and prophane conventicles of heretickes but that they should bee admitted with the onely imposition of hands Secondly he deliuered his owne opinion that rebaptization was vnlawfull confidently as hauing so learned of his elders not in doubting manner And thirdly he rejected all them
haue beene followed in the suppressing of the Pelagians and therefore Austine affirmeth that there were but some few heresies of that nature that a Generall Councell of all the Bishops of the East and West was necessarily to bee called for the suppressing of them And indeede wee finde that if some fiue or sixe heresies haue beene condemned by the censure of Generall Councells an 100. haue beene suppressed and extinguished by other meanes And of those for the condemning whereof Generall Councells were holden some were not extinguished a long time after For that of the Arrians grew stronger after then euer it was before and those of Nestorius and Eutyches continued some hundreds of yeares after the ending of those Councels in which they receiued the sentence of condemnation How is it then that Isidore saith the Church before Constantines time was diuided rent into diuers Factions and Sects because there was no Generall Councell as if there were no other meanes to preserue Vnity but Generall Councels and that wheresoeuer they may be had Peace were presently established For the clearing hereof we say that such new opinions as growing vp in those times found a concurring dislike in the seuerall Churches seeking one to another were then suppressed when yet there could bee no Generall Councels as the heresies of the Marcionites Valentinians and the like But they wherein there grew difference among the chiefe Pastours and Bishoppes of the Churches could not be determined in those times as the errours of the Millenaries of those that kept Easter after the Iewish obseruation and of those that held the necessity of re-baptizing of such as were baptized by heretickes in which point many worthy pastours Bishops of the Church did erre in the first ages of the Church neither could their errour bee extinguished as Austine noteth nor the trueth so cleared as that all dissenters should incurre the note of heresie till the decree of a Councell passed about it Quaestionis huius obscuritas saith Austine Prioribus Ecclesiae temporibus ante schisma Donati magnos viros magna charitate praeditos Patres Episcopos ita inter se compulit salua pace disceptare fluctuare vt diu Conciliorum in suis quibusque regionibus diuersa statuta nutauerint donec Plenario totius orbis Concilio quod saluberrime sentiebatur etiam remotis dubitationibus formaretur that is The obscurity of this question in former ages of the Church before the schisme of Donatus did cause great men and Fathers and Bishops indued with great charity so to striue among themselues and to wauer as doubtfull vncertaine without breaking the bond of Peace that for a long time the Decrees of Councels in seuerall Regions were diuerse and different without any settled certainty till that which was most wholesomely conceiued was fully formed settled and established by a plenary Councell of the Bishops of the whole world and no place left for doubting and vncertainty any longer Thus wee see that some heresies may easily be suppressed without troubling all the Bishops of the world to meet in a Generall Councell and that some others cannot easily bee suppressed without Generall Councels as heresies may be suppressed by the mutuall concurrence of seueral churches so by the like correspondence the seuerity of discipline may be vpholdē vniformely schismes prevented When Cornelius was elected and ordained Bishop of Rome at the first because there was some oppositiō Cyprian others were feareful to write vnto him as to the Bishop of Rome but afterwardbeing fully informed touching the lawfulnesse of his electiō and ordinatiō they reiected his Competitours and communicated with him onely the like we shall find to haue bin practised generally by all Bishops carefully seeking to be certified out of other Provinces and parts of the Church by such Bishops as were knowne to be Catholikes who came lawfully into places of Ministery being so come held the vnity of Faith and Charity that so they might holde Cōmunion with them and reject those that entered otherwise Whereupon Cyprian telleth Cornelius Bishop of Rome to whō in Africa he might write as to Catholick Bishops from whō he might receiue letters as from Catholickes Notwithstanding Generall Councels are the best meanes for preseruing of vnity of doctrine seuerity of discipline preventing of schismes when they may be had though they be not absolutely necessary to the being of the Church yet are they most behoouefull for the best readiest most gracious governing of the same how-soeuer there may bee a kind of exercise of the supreme jurisdictiō that is in the Church by the concurrence of particular Synodes the correspondence of seueral Pastors vpon mutuall intelligence of the sence judgment resolutiō of euery of them yet the highest most excellent exercise of the supreme Ecclesiasticall jurisdictiō is in Generall Councels Heere the Papists are wont to argue that the Protestants hauing no Generall Councels haue not the exercise of the supreme Ecclesiasticall jurisdictiō consequently that they are not that Church out of which no saluatiō is found but this is a very silly trifling and playing with their owne shadowes neither is it any thing else buta meere abusing of themselues others thus idlely fondly to jangle For first the Protestants being but a part of the Christian Church neuer challenged to themselues the authority that belongeth to the whole as the Papists doe who excluding all the Christians of Graecia Armenia Russia Aethiopia out of the fellowship cōmunion of Saints and as much as in them lieth casting them into hell suppose a Generall meeting of those of their own factiō to bee a Generall Councell And secondly if the Protestants did think themselues to be the whole Church yet their argument were of no force seeing the whole Church may be without the benefite of Generall Councels much longer then the Protestants haue beene since the divisiō between them the Papists for the Christians of the primitiue church had no general councell for the space of 300 yeares after Christ. But to returne to the point frō which we are a little digressed occasioned so to doe by this frivolous objectiō of the Papists touching the good and profitable vse of Generall councels there is no difference between vs our Adversaries but it is agreed on both sides that though they be not absolutely necessary yet they are very behoofefull much to be desired in diverse cases neither euer was there any man of judgement that thought otherwise For that which Nazianzen hath that hee neuer saw good end of any councell is not to bee vnderstood as spoken generally and absolutely but respectiuely to the turbulent times wherein he liued and the Arrian faction so prevailed that many Synodes were holden for the ouerthrow of the Nicene faith without all respect to the good of the Church CHAP. 49. Of the persons that may
appointed both as it seemed good vnto himselfe Three other proofes the Iesuite hath yet behinde The first is out of Socrates out of whom hee saith it may bee proued that Iulius the Pope called the Councell of Sardica but how I cannot tell For Socrates saith expressely that the Councell of Sardica was called by the two Emperours Constance and Constantius whereof the one raigned in the East the other in the West the one by his Letters desiring it the other most willingly performing that hee desired But of Iulius calling it hee maketh no mention If the Iesuite thinke it may bee proued that Iulius called it because among them that sought to excuse themselues from comming vppon fained pretences some complained of the shortnesse of the time appointed for this meeting and cast the blame thereof vpon Iulius he is greatly deceiued seeing Iulius might be blamed for procuring the Emperor Constance by his Letters directed to Constantius his brother to set so short a time as he did though hee did not call the Councell himselfe And that it was not the Authority of the Pope that brought the Bishops together in this Councell it is most euident in that when he wrote to them to restore Athanasius to his place they reiected his Letters with contempt maruailing that he medled more with their matters then they did with his Neither is it likely that Constantius would be commanded by Iulius to call this Councell Seeing when the Councell had commanded Athanasius to be restored to his place yet hee refused to giue way till his brother threatned to make warre vpon him for it But it this proofe faile Bellarmine hath a better For hee sayth Sixtus the third in an Epistle to those of the East writeth That Valentinian the Emperor called a Synode by his authority whence it followeth that the calling of Generall Councels pertaineth in such sort to the Popes that the Emperours may not call them but by warrant and authority from them If the Reader will bee pleased to cōsider of this proofe he shall easily discerne how litle credit is to be giuen to Iesuited Papists in their allegations For first Sixtus doth not say the Emperour Valentinian called a Synode by his authority but that hee commaunded a Synode should be called by his authority that is commaunded him to call it And the author of the Pontificall speaking of the calling of the same Synode sayth the Emperour commanded that the Councell and holy Synode should bee congregated Secondly it was but a Diocesan Synode consisting of the Presbyters and Cleargy of Rome called together about certaine crimes obiected to Sixtus whereof hee purged himselfe before them Now I thinke it will not follow that if the Bishoppe of Rome might call together the Cleargie of his owne Diocesse the calling of Generall Councels pertained to him onely or that if the Emperour thought fit rather to command the Romaine Bishoppe to call together his Cleagie then to doe it immediately by his owne authority therefore hee would haue done the like in summoning Generall Councells consisting of all the Bishops of the World Wherefore let vs passe to the last of his proofes taken out of the Epistle of Adrian the second to Basileius the Emperour prefixed before the eighth Generall Councell which vndoubtedly vpō proofe wil be foūd to be no better then the rest For first it is groūded on the saying of a Pope that liued many hundred yeares after Christ and long after the diuision of the Empire and the withdrawing of the Church of Rome from the obedience of the Emperours of the East and so not much to be regarded in a question concerning the right of the Emperour Secondly hee speaketh not in his owne name but in the name of all the West Church And thirdly that he saith Wee will that by your industry a great assembly be gathered proueth not that the Pope tooke vpon him peremptorily to command the Emperour For seeing in the whole Epistle hee vseth words of exhorting praying intreating these words may seeme to import no more but Our desire is that there should be such an assembly by your industrie in which our Legates sitting as Presidents matters may be examined and all things righted Or we though no way subiect to your Empire yet at your request are content that such a Councell be called and that our Legates do sit in it with the Bishops subiect to your Imperiall command For that Basileius called the Councell appeareth by his words to the Bishops in the beginning of it But if none of these exceptions against the Emperours ancient practice of calling Councels will hold our Aduersaries rather thē they will suffer the Pope to be a looser will not sticke to charge the Emperours with vsurpation and taking more on them then pertained to them Whosoeuer saith Andradius shall thinke that the power and authority of Emperours is to bee esteemed and iudged of by the things done by them in the Church rather then by Christs institution the Decrees of the Elders and the force and nature of the Papall dignity it selfe hee shall make vnbridled pride and head-long fury to be chiefe commaunder and to sway most in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Thus doth Andradius censure the auncient Christian Emperours and exemplifieth not onely in Constantius the Arrian but Iustinian also as himselfe confesseth a good Emperor For refutatiō of which most vnjust exception wee say that howsoeuer it bee not to bee doubted but that ill affected or ill directed Emperours did some-times that which was not fit yet that in calling Councels by their Princely authority and commaunding all Bishoppes to come or send vnto them they exceeded not the bounds and limites of their commission it is evident in that neuer any Bishop durst blame them for it But all sought vnto them euen the Bishops of Rome themselues praying them so to doe as I shewed before by the examples of Liberius Innocentius and Leo which thing also Bellarmine himselfe confesseth Wherefore seeing it is evident by the allowed practise of former times that the calling of Generall Councels belonged to the Emperours after they became Christians let vs see what they tooke on them in these Councels after they had called them and consequently what right power and authority Christian Princes haue to manage the affaires and commaund the holy Bishops and Ministers of the church CHAP. 53. Of the power and authority exercised by the auncient Emperours in Generall Councels and of the supremacie of Christian Princes in causes and ouer persons Ecclesiasticall THe first thing that Christian Emperours in auncient times assumed to themselues in Generall Councels was to be present in them when they pleased as we reade of Constantine the Great that hee not onely called the Councell of Nice but was present in it of Martian that hee was present in the Councell of Chalcedon with Pulcheria the Empresse of Constantine the fourth that hee was present
alleaged by Cusanus and greatly approued yea the same Cusanus complaining of the abuses of the Court of Rome in that thinges are carried thither that should bee determined in the Prouinces where they beginne in that the Pope intermedleth in giuing Benefices before they be voide to the preiudice of the originall Patrons by reason whereof young men run to Rome and spend their best time there carrying gold with them and bringing backe nothing but paper and many like confusions which the Canons forbid and neede reformation addeth that the common saying that the secular power may not restraine or alter these courses brought in by Papall authority should not moue any man for that though the power of temporall Princes ought not to change any thing established canonically for the honour of GOD and good of such as attend his seruice yet it may and ought to prouide for the common good and see that the auncient canons be obserued Neither ought any one to say that the auncient christian Emperours did erre that made so many sacred constitutions or that they ought not so to haue done For saith he I read that Popes haue desired them for the common good to make lawes for the punishment of offences committed by those of the cleargie And if any one shall say that the force of all these constitutions depended vpon Papall or Synodall approbation I will not insist vpon it though I haue read and collected foure score and sixe chiefe heads of Ecclesiasticall rules and lawes made by old Emperours and many other made by Charles the Great and his successours in which order is taken not onely concerning others but euen concerning the Bishoppe of Rome himselfe and other Patriarches what they shall take of the Bishoppes they ordaine and many like things and yet did I neuer finde that the Pope was desired to approue them or that they haue no binding force but by vertue of his approbation But I know right well that some Popes haue professed their due regarde of those Imperiall and Princely constitutions But though it were graunted that those constitutions had no further force then they receiued from the canons wherein the same thinges were formerly ordered or from Synodall approbation yet might the Emperor now reforme things amisse by vertue of old canons and Princes constitutions grounded on them Yea if hee should with good aduice considering the decay of piety and diuine worshippe the ouerflowing of all wickednes and the causes and occasions thereof recall the old canons and the auncient and most holy obseruation of the Elders and reiect whatsoever priuiledges exemptions or new deuices contrary therevnto by vertue whereof suites complaintes and controuersies the gifts and donations of benefices the like thinges are vnjustly brought to Rome to the great prejudice of the whole Christian Church I thinke no man could justly blame him for so doing Yea he saith the Emperour Sigismund had an intention so to doe and exhorteth him by no fained allegations of men fauouring present disorders to bee discouraged for that there is no way to preserue the peace of the Church whatsoeuer some pretend to the contrary vnlesse such lewde and wicked courses proceeding from ambition pride and couetousnesse be stopped and the old canons reuiued From that which hath beene obserued touching the proceeding of Christian Kings and Emperours in former times in calling Councels in being present at them and in making lawes for persons and causes Ecclesiasticall it is easie to gather what the power of Princes is in this kinde and that they are indeede supreame Gouernours ouer all persons and in all causes as well Ecclesiasticall as Ciuill which is that wee attribute to our Kings Queenes and the Papistes so much stumble at as if some new and strange opinion were broached by vs. Wherefore for the satisfaction of all such as are not maliciously obstinate refusing to heare what may be said I will endeauour in this place vpon so fitte an occasion to cleare whatsoeuer may bee questionable in this point will first intreat of the power and right that Princes haue in causes Ecclesiasticall then of that they haue ouer persons Ecclesiastical jn treating of causes Ecclesiasticall I will first distinguish the diversities of them the power of medling with them Causes Ecclesiasticall therefore are of two sorts for some are originally and naturally such and some onely in that by fauor of Princes out of due consideration they are referred to the Cognisance of Ecclesiasticall persons as fittest Iudges as the probations of the Testaments of them that are dead the disposition of the goods of them that dye intestat and if there be any other like Causes Ecclesiasticall of the first sort are either meerely and onely Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall or mixt Meerely Ecclesiasticall are of three sorts First matters of Faith and Doctrine Secondly matters of Sacraments and the due administration of them Thirdly the orders degrees ordination of such as attend the Ministery of the word Sacraments Mixtly Ecclesiasticall are of two sorts either such as in one respect belong to one kinde of cognisance and in another to another as marriages which are subiect to ciuill disposition in that they are politicall contracts and to spirituall in that they are ordered by the diuine law or such as are equally censurable by Ciuill Ecclesiasticall authority as murthers adulteries blasphemies the like All which in the time when there is no Christian Magistrate or when there is ouer-great negligence in the ciuill Magistrate are to bee punished by the spirituall guides of the Church Whereupon wee shall finde that the auncient Councels prescribed penance to offenders in all these kindes But when there is a Christian Magistrate doing his duty they are to bee referred specially either to the one or the other of these and accordingly to bee censured by the one or the other as wee see the punishment of adultery vsury and things of that nature is referred to Ecclesiasticall persons the punishment of murther theft the like to the ciuill Magistrate This distinction of causes Ecclesiasticall premised it is easie to see what authority Princes haue in causes Ecclesiasticall For first touching those causes that are Ecclesiastical onely in that they are put ouer to the cognisance of spiritual persons there is no question but that the Prince hath a supreame power and that no man may meddle with them any otherwise then as he is pleased to allow And likewise touching those things which in one respect pertaine to ciuill jurisdictiō in another to spiritual or which are equally censurable by both there is no question but that the Prince hath supreame power in that they pertaine to ciuill jurisdiction So that the onely question is touching things naturally and meerely spiritual The power in these is of two sorts of Order of Iurisdiction The power of Order is the authority to preach the Word minister the Sacraments to ordaine Ministers
in appointing some selected men for the visitation of the rest Fourthly in joyning temporall menincommission with the spirituall guides of the church to take view of and to censure the actions of men of Ecclesiasticall order because they are directed not onely by Canons but lawes Imperiall Fifthly when matters of fact are obiected for which the canons and lawes Imperiall judge men depriueable the Prince when hee seeth cause and when the state of things require it either in person if he please or by such other as hee thinketh fitte to appoint may heare and examine the proofes of the same and either ratifie that others did or voyd it as wee see in the case of Caecilianus to whom it was objected that hee was a Traditor and Faelix Antumnitanus that ordayned him was so likewise and that therefore his ordination was voyd For first the enemies of Caecilianus disliking his ordination made complaintes against him to Constantine and hee appointed Melchiades and some other Bishoppes to sitte and heare the matter From their judgement there was a new appeale made to Constantine Whereupon hee sent to the Proconsull to examine the proofes that might bee produced But from his iudgmēt the complainants appealed the third time to Constantine who appointed a Synode at Arle All this hee did to giue satisfaction if it were possible to these men and so to procure the peace of the Church And though he excused himselfe for medling in these businesses and asked pardon for the same for that regularly hee was to haue left these iudge ments to Ecclesiasticall persons yet it no way appeareth that hee did ill in interposing himselfe in such sort as hee did the state of things being such as it was nor that the Bishoppes did ill that yeelded to him in these courses and therefore in cases of like nature Princes may doe whatsoeuer hee did and Bishops may appeare before them and submit themselues to their iudgement though in another case Ambrose refused to present himselfe before Valentinian the Emperour for tryall of an Ecclesiasticall cause Neither is it strange in our state that Kinges should intermedle in causes Ecclesiasticall For Matthew Paris sheweth that the ancient lawes of England prouided that in appeales men should proceed from the Arch-deacon to the Bishoppe from the Bishop to the Arch-bishop and that if the Arch-bishop should faile in doing iustice the matter should be made knowne to the King that by vertue of his commandement it might receiue an end in the Arch-bishops Court that there might be no further proceeding in appeales without the Kings consent From the power which Princes haue in causes Ecclesiasticall let vs proceed to the power they haue ouer persons Ecclesiasticall and see whether they be supreame ouer all persons or whether men of the Church bee exempt from their iurisdiction That they are not exempted by GODS law wee haue the cleare confession of Cardinall Bellarmine and others who not onely yeeld so farre vnto the trueth forced so to doe by the cleare euidence thereof but proue the same by Scripture and Fathers The Cardinals wordes are these Exceptio Clericorum in rebus politicis tam quoad personas quam quoad bona iure humano introducta est non diuino that is The exemption of Cleargy-men in things ciuill as well in respect of their persons as their goods was introduced brought in by mans law and not by the law of God Which thing is proued first out of the precept of the Apostle to the Romanes Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers and addeth Therefore pay yee tribute For when the Apostle saith Let euery soule be subiect hee includeth Cleargy-men as Chrysostome witnesseth and therefore when hee addeth for this cause pay yee tribute he speaketh of Cleargy-men also Whence it will follow that Cleargy-men are bound to pay tribute vnlesse they be exempted by the fauour and priviledge of Princes freeing them from so doing which thing Thomas Aquinas also affirmeth writing vpon the same place Secondly the same is proued out of the Ancient For Vrbanus saith The tribute money was therefore found in the mouth of the fish taken by Saint Peter because the Church payeth tribute out of her outward and earthly possessions And Saint Ambrose saith if tribute bee demaunded it is not denyed the Church-Land payeth tribute Now if Vrbanus Bishoppe of Rome and worthy Ambrose Bishop of Millaine then whom there was neuer any Bishoppe found more resolute in the defence of the right of the Church say that tribute is not to bee denyed but payed vnto Princes by men of the Church and in respect of Church-land I thinke it is evident there is no exemption by any Law of GOD that freeth the goods of Church-men from yeelding tribute to Princes For touching that text where our Sauiour sayth vnto Peter What thinkest thou Simon of whom doe the Kings of the Gentiles receiue tribute of their owne children or of strangers And Peter answereth of strangers Whence CHRIST inferreth that the children are free brought by some to proue the supposed immunity of Cleargy-men to bee from GODS owne graunt Bellarmine sufficiently cleareth the matter For first hee sheweth that CHRIST speaketh of himselfe onely making this argument Kings sonnes are free from tribute as beeing neither to pay to their owne fathers seeing their goods are common nor to strangers to whom they are not subiect therefore himselfe being the Sonne of the great King of Kings oweth no Tribute to any mortall man So that when hee saide the children are free hee meant not to signifie that any other are free but onely that himselfe was free Secondly he rightly obserueth that this place would proue that all Christians are free from Tribute if it proued any other then CHRIST to bee so for all Christians are the sonnes of GOD by adoption and grace And Hierome writing vpon this place hath these words Our Lord was the Kings son both according to the flesh and according to the spirit descending of the stocke of Dauid and being the Word of the Almighty Father and therefore as being the Sonne of the Kingdome owed no tribute but because hee assumed the humility of flesh it behooued him to fulfill all righteousnesse but vnhappy men that wee are we are called after the name of Christ doe nothing worthy so great an honour He for the great loue he bare towards vs sustained the crosse for vs and payde tribute but we for his honour pay no tribute and as Kings sons are free from tribute These words are brought by some to proue the imagined freedome we speake of but first they are so far from prouing any such thing that Erasmus thinketh Hierome reprehended it and disliked it as a thing sauouring of arrogancy that cleargymen should refuse to pay tribute which hee saith is contrary to the conceit of men in our time who thinke it the height of all piety to maintaine
These men therefore make 2. sorts of vowes naming some simple and other solemne and affirme that the latter do debarre men from mariage and voyd their mariages if they do marry but that the former do so debarre them from marrying that they cannot marry without some offence and yet if they do their mariage is good and not to be voyded The Diuines of the Church of Rome as Caietane rightly noteth differ much in opinion about the difference of these vowes For some of them thinke that they differ in such sort as that one of them is a promise onely and the other a reall and actuall exhibition that the solemnity of a mans vow consisteth in a reall and actuall exhibition of himselfe and putting himselfe into such an estate as cannot stand with marriage But this opinion as hee rightly noteth cannot bee true seeing there is no such repugnance simply and in the nature of the thinges betweene the Order of the holy Ministery and Marriage as appeareth in that the Ministers of the Greeke Church as tyed by noe vowe are judged by all to liue in lawfull Mariage notwithstanding their Ministery and also in that the entering into noe religious Order voydeth mariage vnlesse it be approued by the Church There is therefore as he sheweth another opinion that it is not from different nature of the vowes that the one voydeth mariage contracted and the other doth not but from the authority of the Church that will haue mariage after a vowe made in one sort to bee voyd and not in another The latter of these two opinions Bellarmine sayth Scotus Paludanus and Caietane follow and as Panormitan reporteth the whole schoole of Canonistes And these do answere to the authorities of the Fathers denying mariages to bee voyde after a solemne vowe that they are to bee vnderstood to deny them to be voyde by Gods Law and that there was no Law of man then passed to make them voyde when they liued that they knew of and that therefore they might rightly bee of opinion in those times that no vowes made insuing marriages to be voyde seeing no vowes doe voyde marriages by GODS Law and there was no law of man in their time making marriage voyde in respect of a vowe made to the contrary Soe that euen in the judgment of many of the best learned of our Aduersaries themselues Mariage after a vow is not voyd by Gods law but only by the positiue Constitution of the Church which will haue it so to bee But against this positiue Constitution two things may be alleaged first that it began from that erroneous conceipt which Anstine refuteth in his booke do bono viduitatis as it appeareth by the Epistle of Innocentius grounding his resolution for voyding of mariages in this kinde vpon that verie reason of their beeing espoused to Christ which haue vowed vnto GOD that they will liue continently Secondly that the Church hath no power simply to forbidde any man to marry whom Gods Law leaueth free seeing single life is one of the things that men may be counselled and advised vnto but cannot be prescribed and imposed by commandement that the Church may keepe men from mariage if they will inioy some fauours as wee see in Colledges and Societies or that She may by her Censures punish such as vnaduisedly and without just cause shall breake their vow and promise wee make no question but that She may simply forbid any one to marry how faulty and punishable soeuer otherwise wee vtterly deny Neyther is the reason that is brought to proue this power to bee in the Church of any force For though it were graunted that the Church by her authority for respectes best knowne to her selfe may forbid a man to marry with some of those with whom God permitteth him to marry yet wil it not follow that she may absolutely forbid any one to cōtract mariage seeing parents to whom it pertaineth to direct the choyce of their children may forbid them to marry with such as they iustly dislike and yet they may not simplie restraine them from marying So that though it were yeelded that the Church for causes best known to her selfe may forbid mariage with moe then the Law of God doth and that in such sort as to void it hauing greater power in this behalfe then naturall parents yet would it not follow that shee may simplie forbid any one to marry and voide his mariage if he do whereas the Law of God voideth it not And so vvee see that as mariage after a solemne vow is not void by the Lavv of God so the Church hath no power to make any law to make it voyd But because though it be so yet it may seeme that no man that had vowed the cōtrary can marry without sinne it remaineth that wee proceede to consider and see whether there be any cases wherein a man that vowed the contrary may marry without offence to God First touching this poynt the Schoole-men generally resolue that the Pope may dispence with a Priest Deacon or Sub-deacon to marry though he haue sollemnely vowed the contrary by entring into holy Orders because the duty and bond of containing is not essentially annexed vnto holy Orders but by the Canon of the Church onely Aquinas and they of that time thought hee might not dispense with a Monke to marry For that single life is essentially implyed in the profession of a Monke and cannot be seperated from the same as it may from the office and calling of a Priest But since that time the generall opinion is that he may because though single life cannot be separated from the profession of a Monke yet he that is a Monke may be freed from that profession that he hath made and cease to be a Monke Neither is this onely the opinion of the Schooles but the practise of Popes hath concurred with the same For as Petrus Paludanus reporteth a Pope reviued a Monke who was next in blood and to succeed in the Kingdome of Arragon and dispensed with him to marry a wife for the good of that Kingdome Caietan sayth the like is reported in the stories of Constantia daughter and heire of Roger King of Sicily who was a religious woman and of fifty yeares of age and yet by the dispensation of Caelestinus was called out of the Cloyster and permitted to marry with the Emperour Henry the Sixth who begatte of her Fredericke the Second And Andreas Frisius reporteth out of the Histories of Polonia that Casimirus sonne of Mersistaus King of Polonia was a Monke and ordayned a Deacon and yet when after the death of Mersistaus his father there was none to sway the Scepter of that Kingdome whence many mischiefes followed Benedict the Ninth gaue him leaue to marry a wife making him to leaue his Cloyster his Vowes and Deaconship that so there might bee a succession in that Kingdome So that there is no question but that for a
The councell of Laodicea provideth in this sort touching them that marry the second time Concerning them that according to the Ecclesiasticall Rule are freely and lawfully joyned in the second mariage and haue not secretly so joyned them-selues It is fit that for some short time they giue them-selues to prayer and fasting which being past by a kinde of Indulgence they may be restored to the Communion The Author of the vnperfect worke that goeth vnder the name of Chrysostome proceedeth a little farther in this sort The Apostles saith he commanded to enter into the second mariage for the avoyding of fornication For according to the precept of the Apostle it is lawfull to take a second wife but according to the rule and prescription of Trueth it is indeed Fornication This conceipt grew so farre that the Councel of Nice was forced to make a Canon that the Catharists should not be receiued into the fellowship of the Church vnlesse they would communicate with such as fell in the time of persecution with such as had beene twice maryed whereby it appeareth that some rejected them as though they might not haue beene receiued into the Church no not after Penance So that to conclude this point touching Digamie it is not the hauing of more wiues than one successiuely that the Apostle condemneth but the hauing of more wiues at once Three reasons are brought by our Adversaries to proue the contrary but they will be found too weake if we examine them The first is that Polygamie or the hauing of many wiues at once was not in vse in the Apostles time that therfore the Apostle had no reason to forbid it but this may easily be refuted by good authorities Your Masters saith Iustine Martyr speaking to the Iewes euen to this day suffer euery one of you to haue foure or fiue wiues in his Apologie he vnderstandeth by Digamie the hauing of more wiues then one at one time not successiuely for hee saith they which according to mans Law doe enter into Digamie or second mariages are sinners according to the Doctrine of our Teacher and Master And Theodoret sayth In former times both Iewes and Gentiles tooke vnto them in mariage many wiues Their second reason is this The Apostle requireth that a widdow must haue beene the wife of one husband and his meaning must needes bee that she must not haue had more husbands then one successiuely Therefore when hee prescribeth that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife his meaning is that hee must not haue had more then one wife successiuely the forme of speach being the same That when he speaketh of widdowes hee meaneth that they must not haue had more husbands then one successiuely they proue because howsoeuer Men haue sometimes had more wiues then one at the same time yet Women neuer had more husbands and hereupon they charge vs with intollerable impudencie violent wresting of the Scriptures and bringing such an interpretation of the Apostles words as neuer came into any wisemans cogitation before when wee say hee repelleth such from entering into the order of widdowes as haue had two husbands at once and not such as haue beene twice maried But if it please them to giue vs leaue wee will shew them that they are too violent and say they know not what For wee thinke nay we know it hath bene heard of that a woman should haue two husbands at one time yea that both amongst Iewes and Gentiles in former times women forsaking their husbands or forsaken of them without iust cause haue married againe which the Apostle might iustly condemne and debarre such as had so done from entring into the order and ranke of sacred Widdowes Neither is it hard to shew that our interpretation hath beene thought of and approued more then a thousand yeares agoe by men of as great wisedome as our great maisters that thus insult ouer vs. For Theodoret vpon these very words of the Apostle writeth thus Hereof also it is manifest that he reiecteth not second mariages but decreeth that they liue chastly in matrimony for hee which before hath established the secōd mariage by law hath not here forbidden her which hath bin twice married to obtaine bodily reliefe And Theophilact likewise sayth The Apostle requireth Monogamie of her that is to be admitted into the company of widdowes that is that shee haue beene coupled but to one husband at once as a signe of honesty chastity and good manners Concerning these Widdowes two things are to be considered First hovv and in what sort they were imployed by the Church Secondly how farre fortth they were tyed not to leaue the Church-seruice and to marryagaine Touching their seruice it was first and principally about women that were to be baptized for their instruction and the addressing of them-selues to that Sacrament and the sacred Rites of the Church accompanying the same as appeareth by the Constitutions of Clemens it being more fitte for them to haue priuate and often accesse vnto them then for men Which thing also Epiphanius sheweth calling them by the name of Diaconesses Secondly the attending and taking care of the sicke and impotent Touching the second point wee suppose that these widdowes being of great Age destitute of all outward supportes seeking reliefe of the Church and dedicating themselues to the seruice thereof did by this very act professe and make knowne their purpose of continuing in that estate of Widdowhood and performing such seruice as to them any way appertained And therefore the Apostle condemneth them that after such profession made waxed wanton against Christ sought to put themselues out of the holy Ministery seruice they had dedicated themselues vnto to returne to Secular courses of life againe These according to the iudgment of Epiphanius were subiect to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is just dislike and blame and were to be condemned for their leuity and inconstancie but not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to the condemnation of eternall death and destruction if declining adultery and other like vncleanenesse they choose rather to marrie then to defile themselues with such impurities And Augustine resolueth that their marriage notwithhanding any profession they seeme to haue made to the contrary is not to be condemned as euill or to be dissolued but that onely their breach of promise made to God and his Church and their falling from their purpose is to bee disliked and condemned Thus do these learned and holy Fathers resolue touching such widdowes as the Apostle speaketh of And Peter Lumbard vpon these words of the Apostle in like sort adding that they breake their first faith euen that they professed in baptisme in that violating so solemne a promise and turning away so scandalously from the calling they had voluntarily put themselues into they seeme to forget and cast from them the very faith and profession of Christians Soe
any Papist at this day If Gerson or any other whom I honour held this heresie they held it not heretically as the Romanists now doe euen as Cyprian helde the heresie of rebaptization and sundry of the Auncient the heresie of the Millenaries but not heretically so that Vincentius Lyrinensis saith The Fathers were saued and the children condemned the authors of errours acquited the followers of them in the same cast into the pit of hell But Mr Higgons saith Bernard whose sayings touching the not punishing of such as are freed from the impurity of sin I alleadge thereby to ouerthrow the erroneous conceipt of Papists touching Purgatory admitteth Purgatory therefore I traduce the Testaments of the dead to establish such doctrines as they impugne For answer whereunto I say that whether Bernard admit Purgatory or not yet may hee haue a sentence which supposing all sinfulnes to be purged out in the moment of dissolution proueth that there is no Purgatory to which purpose I alledge him therfore traduce not the testaments of the dead to establish any Doctrines they impugned as M ◠Higgons vntruely vnjustly chargeth me For my distilling our Church out of the writings of learned men liuing vnder the Papacie I shall haue a sitter place to answere him when I come to his Appendix where I will make it appeare that the Israel of God hath not binforced as he vntruely saith it hath to seeke to the Philistines as the distressed Israelites did for the sharpening of their tooles when there was no Smith in Israel but that the Israel in Canaan deriueth it self from that Israel that sometimes was in Egypt in misarable bondage enjoyeth the jewels and treasures fighteth against the enemies of God with the weapons brought from thence And thus much touching Gregory §. 2. IN the next place hee commeth to Augustine whom he saith I haue likewise abused The words wherein the supposed abuse is offered vnto him are these The Romish manner of praying for the dead hath no certaine testimony of antiquity for no man euer thought of Purgatory till Augustine to avoide a worse error did doubtingly runne 〈◊〉 after whom many in the Latine Church embraced the same opinion but the Greeke Church neuer receiued it to this day 〈◊〉 inwhich words he saith I note the temerity irresolution and folly of Augustine the Reader I doubt not will note his temerity and folly in censuring me thus without a cause for I note not Saint Augustine for temerity nor make him the Author of a new fancy as hee falsely chargeth mee but shew that whereas there were very dangerous opinions in the Church in his time touching the state of the departed many of great esteeme thinking that men dying in mortall sinne and adjudged to hell shall in the end come out thence and be saued hee sought to qualifie the matter in the best sort hee could with least offence vnto them and to bring them from that error and therefore sayth If they would acknowledge the punishments of such to be eternall and thinke onely that they may bee mitigated or suspended for a time or that men dying in the state of grace yet in some lesser sinnes are afflicted for a time in the other world though he know not whether these things be so or not yet he would not striue with them This is not to be the author of a new fancy but in hope to reclaime men from a great extremity to leaue something lesse dangerous in the same kind doubtfull and this is all that I say of Saint Augustine neither is this my priuate fancy but the Graecians in that learned Apology before mentioned haue the same obseruation to wit that hee wrote not those things which hee hath touching Purgatory out of a certaine perswasion and as vndoubtedly holding them to be true but as it were in a sort inforced and for the avoiding of a greater euill which was this that there is a purging of all sinnes after death as some then thought So that as it seemeth thinking it something a violent course directly to go against the opinion of many and fearing his words would not seeme probable if whereas others thought all sins may be purged out after death he on the contrary side should say none may be purged hee chose rather to goe in a middle way not contradicting that which is lesse absurd and inconuenient that so he might more easily bring them he had to deale with from that which was farre more inconuenient then too much to exasperate thē This was the apprehension the Grecians had of Augustines writings touching this point which whosoeuer shall without any sinister affection peruse will find to bee righte and true Touching irresolution it was farre from Augustine in matters pertaining to the rule of faith but in other things wherein men may bee ignorant and doubtfull and dissent one from another without danger of eternall damnation no man was more slow to resolue no man more inclined to leaue things doubtfull But howsoeuer that hee was doubtfull and vnresolued in the points concerning the state of the dead it is euident in that he sayth If they whose mercifull error he refuteth would onely thinke the paynes of them that are in hell to bee mittigated or suspended hee would not greatly striue about it though I am well assured hee would not willingly haue resolued that these things are so The like may be sayd touching the temporall affliction of good men dying in the state of grace but yet with some lesser sinnes for hee was euer doubtfull concerning the same and neuer resolued that they are vndoubtedly in a state of temporall afflictions as Maister Higgons vntruly reporteth and thence inferreth many things childishly against mee but that they are in a state wherein prayers may auaile thē which two things are very different For the Graecians in their Apology before cited admit remission of sinnes after this life and yet deny that there is any estate of temporall affliction And I haue shewed before how sinnes may be sayd to bee remitted after this life in the enterance into the other world without admitting Purgatory-punishmēts But it cannot be excused that I say Augustine fearefully opposed himselfe against the error of thē who thought all right-beleeuing Christians how wickedly soeuer they liued shall in the end bee saued Surely the Graecians said as much before and are in good hope to be excused and therefore I am in some hope that I may be also for I do not say that he so feared any thing as to conceale any truth he was thorowly resolued of and which hee held necessary to be knowne of all but that he feared to offend them hee dealt with farther than of necessity hee must and therefore resolued to yeeld to them as farre as possibly hee might without impugning knowne and resolued truthes they being many and of great esteeme that were otherwise minded then he was Thus
expresly We retaine it in our Colledges I obserued before that wee must carefully distinguish the generall practise and intention of the whole Church from priuate conceipts the whole Church commemorated the dead offered the sacrifice of praise for them prayed for them in the passage for their resurrection and consummation all which thinges we allow so that neither Doctor Humphrey nor we condemne the Vniuersall Church but thinke it were madnesse soe to doe but the priuate fancies of such as extended their prayers farther thinking they might ease mitigate suspend or wholy take away the paines of men damned in hell for of Purgatory no man thought in the Primitiue Church wee reject This erroneous conceipt and practise Aerius rightly condemned and Doctor Humphrey and wee all agree with him in the same dislike but he did ill to impute this errour to the whole Church and to condemne that which was good and laudable vppon soe weake a ground Of the difference which Maister Higgons would faine make betweene our commendation of the dead vsed in colledges and that vsed anciently whereof Saint Augustine speaketh I haue spoken before wherefore let vs come to his last exception against Doctor Humphrey which is that hee handleth the matter artificially to make a credulous reader beleeue that Saint Augustine himselfe doth conuell the vse of prayer for the dead by those sentences of the Apostle that we cannot reape if wee sowe not here and that wee must all stand before the iudgement seate of Christ that euery one may receiue according to the things hee hath done in his body whether good or euill This imputation is nothing else but a malitious and impudent charging of him with that he neuer thought of For the onely thing he sayth Augustine held proued by these sentences is that vnlesse we depart hence in a true faith wee canot be relieued by any deuotion of other men after we are gone Which is so vndoubtedly true that I thinke Higgons him-selfe dareth not deny it But that Augustine thought that men dying in the state of grace and faith of Christ may bee holpen by the prayers of the liuing hee neither made question himselfe nor euer sought to make his reader beleeue otherwise Neither doe wee dissent from Augustine in this point if the prayers hee speaketh of bee made respectiuely to the passage hence and entrance into the other world as I haue shewed before The onely thing that is questionable betweene Vs and our Aduersaries being whether prayers may releeue men in a state of temporall affliction after this life whereof Augustine neuer resolued any thing what-soeuer this pratling Apostata say to the contrary These things being soe let the reader judge whether the detection of falshood and ill dealing in Doctor Humphrey could possibly occasion Maister Higgons his change as hee would make the world beleeue there being nothing found in his whole discourse that is not most true and iustifiable by all course of learning But because hee is sufficiently chastised by others and knoweth too well the true cause of his running away to bee things of a farre other nature then those he pretendeth I will prosecute this matter no farther against him The Appendix §. 1. NOw it remaineth that I come to the Appendix which he addeth to his booke which hee deuideth into two partes whereof the first concerneth Mee the second D. Morton which hee hath answered already In that part which concerneth Me he vndertaketh to proue that I notoriously abuse the name and authority of Gerson Grosthead c. to defend the reformation made by Princes Prelats in our Churches Wherefore that the reader may perceiue I haue not abused these reuerend worthy men but that he wrōgeth both Them Me I will take the paines to examine his whole discourse though it will be very tedious soe to do by reason of the cōfused perplexed manner of handling of things in the same without all order method In the 1. chapter he doth but lay the foūdatiō of his intēded building therefore gathereth together a great nūber of positiōs sayings out of my book miserably māgled torne one frō another all which shall be defended whē he cōmeth to say any thing against them in such sort as that it shall evidently appeare that there is no falshood or collusion in any part of my Discourse as this false and treacherous Fugitiue is pleased to say there is Onely one thing there is heere that may not bee passed ouer because it hath no farther prosecution in that which followeth His wordes are these Whereas Bellarmine doth object the intestine divisions and conflicts of the pretensed Gospellers this Doctor turneth him off with this answer wee say that these diuersities are to bee imputed wholly to our Adversaries for when there was a reformation to be made of abuses and disorders in matters of practise and manyfold corruption in many points of Christian Doctrine and in a Councell by a Generall consent it could not bee hoped for as Gerson long before out of his experience saw and professed by reason of the prevailing faction of Popes flatterers it was not possible but that some diversity should grow while one knew not nor expected to know what another did This he saith is a very admirable devise For answere hereunto we must obserue that the divisions of this part of Christendome are of two sorts the first is from the faction of the Pope the second among them that haue abandoned the vsurped Authority of the Pope That the Pope and his adherents were the cause of the former of these divisions and the consequents of it is affirmed by better men then Master Higgons I will not deny saith Cassander a man highly esteemed for piety learning by the Emperours Ferdinand and Maximilian that many in the beginning were moued out of a Godly affection more sharply to reprehend certaine manifest abuses and that the chiefe cause of this calamitie and distraction or rent of the Church is to be attributed to them who puffed vp with the swelling conceipts of their Ecclesiasticall power proudly disdainfully contemned and repelled them that admonished them rightly of things amisse And therefore I do not thinke that any firme peace is euer to be hoped for vnlesse the beginning thereof be from them that gaue the cause of this diuision that is vnlesse they that haue the gouernment of the Church remit something of that their too great rigor listning to the desires of many godly ones correct manifest abuses according to the rule of sacred Scripture the ancient Church from which they are departed c. Touching that saith c Contarenus which the Lutherans say in the first last place of manifold and great abuses brought into the Church of Christ against which they so exclaime concerning which they haue made so many complaints to expresse their greiuances I haue nothing to say but first of all to
Councell against VVickliffe simply but in comparison and so doth Gerson and disliketh it as much as I doe condemning it of partiality To the fifth and sixth I say that Gerson affirmed the one to witte that no good was to bee expected by a generall Councell that the seuerall parts of the Christian world were to reforme them-selues and feared the other namely that too great diuersity would follow vppon such diuided reformations as it will easily appeare to any one that will take the paines to peruse the places cited by Mee Neither was it hast and precipitation as Maister Higgons is pleased to censure it but necessity that made our men to doe as they did hauing no meanes to meete for common deliberation To the seauenth I answere that Gerson Grosthead and the rest were members of the Church that was vnder the Papacie but that they were not of the papall faction nor vassals of the man of sin but men of a better spirit To the eighth I answere breefely that I haue most sincerely and truly alleaged the testimony of Gerson and noe way varied from his intention which that the reader may the better be able to discerne I will first set downe what my allegation is and then what exceptions Higgons taketh to it My words are these Touching the second cause of the Churches ruine which is the ambition pride and couetousnesse of the Bishoppe and Court of Rome Gerson boldly affirmeth that whereas the Bishoppes of Rome challenging the greatest place in the Church should haue sought the good of Gods people they contrarily sought onely to aduance themselues his wordes are these In imitation of Lucifer they will bee adored and worshipped as Gods neither doe they thinke themselues subiect to any but are as the sonnes of Belial that haue cast off the yoake not enduring whatsoeuer they do that a man should aske them why they do soe they neyther feare God nor reuerence men This is my allegation now let vs see what it is that Maister Higgons excepteth against in it Are not these the wordes of Gerson Hee cannot deny but that they are but hee sayth Gerson vttered them when there was a Schisme in the Church It is true hee did soe but what then Did not the true Pope whosoeuer hee was amongst those pretenders take as much on him as the rest and is not this note of disgrace fastned vpon all but that Maister Higgons may know that Gerson spake as much of the Pope simply as I haue cited out of him without any reference to pretenders as hee would faine avoyde the evidence of his heavy sentence let him consider what Gerson hath written in his Tract de potestate Ecclesiae where hee goeth about to stop the mouth of flattery giuing too much to the Cleargy and vile Detraction taking too much from it and bringeth in flattery speaking in this sort to them of the Cleargy especially the Pope O how great how great is the height of thy Ecclesiasticall power O sacred Cleargy how is secular power nothing if it be compared vnto thine Seeing as all power both in Heauen Earth was giuen to CHRIST so CHRIST left it all to Peter and his successors so that Constantine gaue nothing to Pope Sylvester that was not his before but restored to him that which had bin vnjustly with-holden and there is no power temporall or Ecclesiastical imperial or regall but frō the Pope in whose thigh CHRIST did write King of Kings and Lord of Lords of whose power to dispute it is sacrilegious to whom no man may say why doe you so though he ouer-turne teare in sunder and ouer-throw all states possessions and dominions temporall and Ecclesiasticall let Mee be reputed a lyar saith hee if these things bee not found written by them that are wise in their owne eyes and if they bee not found to haue beene beleeued by some Popes He addeth notum est illud satyrici Nihil est quod credere de se Non possit cum laudatur diis aequa potestas That is according to that knowne saying of the Satyricall Poet what should not hee perswade himselfe of himselfe that is magnified as equall to God in power For that of the Comicall Poet is true of the flatterer that he maketh fooles to be starke madde These are the sayings of Gerson which I haue laid downe at large that the Reader may judge whether I haue depraued the intention of Gerson or not and whether Higgons had any cause to traduce Mee in such sort as he doth It seemeth the poore fellow was hired to say something against Mee or else he would neuer haue adventured to vent such fooleries yet the last accusation against Mee is not to be passed ouer Gerson saith the Popes will be adored as God and I feare not to adde that the English Reader may vnderstand Mee that they will be adored and worshipped as God out of these premises he maketh an excellent conclusion comparing Gerson to Dauid that commaunded Ioab to saue the life of Absalom and Luther to Ioab that had no pitty on trayterous Absalom in that the one would haue the Pope well dealt withall though he disliked his faults and the other sought to tread him vnder his feete But let the Reader know that as Gerson so Luther was willing to giue all due honour to the Pope contenting himselfe with that which of right pertaineth to him but if hee dishonour God wrong the Church suffocate and kill her children and heretically refuse to be subiect to the Church and Councell if he challenge infallibility of iudgement from which no man may appeale Gerson will tread him vnder feete and reiect him as an Hereticke as well as Luther The Fourth Part. §. 1. IN the fourth part of this Chapter Master Higgons vndertaketh to proue that I haue abused the name and authority of Grosthead to iustifie the Lutheran reformation which he performeth full wisely in this sort Grosthead was iudged a Catholicke and a good man by some Cardinals in Rome therefore hee could not desire that reformation of things amisse that now is wrought If the consequence of this Argument be denyed hee knoweth not how to proue it but willeth his reader to demaund of Mee whether these Cardinals which iudged Grosthead to bee a Catholicke and of the same Religion with them-selues were not reall members of the Antichristian Synagogue proud Romanists factious Papists c. which question is soone answered For I haue distinguished as he knoweth right well the Church in which the Pope tyrannized and the faction of Papists that flattered him and applied themselues to sette forward his proud and vniust claimes till they lifted him vp into the throne and seate of Antichrist the members of the Church and of the faction and though both these liued for a time in the same outward Communion as did the right beleeuers and they that denied the resurrection of the dead amongst the Corinthians yet did they
the whole composition and forme of the sacred prayer called the Canon agreeth onely to a publike ministration there being often mention made in it of the people standing round about offering and communicating so that some ancient expositors of the Roman order thinke the Canon ought not to bee vsed but in a publike ministration To which purpose Micrologus obserueth that the prayers vsed after the communion are appliable onely to such as haue communicated and therefore willeth them not to neglect to communicate that desire to enioy the blessing of these praiers Clichthoueus vppon the Canon of the Masse sayth that which some note that the Priest soe often as hee celebrateth should giue the Sacrament to all that stand by is Auncient and agreeable to the custome of the Primitiue Church when the faithfull did euery day receiue the Sacrament according to that Sanction of Calixtus the Pope After the consecration let all communicate and that of Anacletus who willeth them to bee excommunicated that beeing present at the consecration communicate not which Andradius will not haue to be restrained to the Ministers assisting but extended to all the people and that by the authority of Dionysius and Iustine Martyr Cochlaeus against Musculus de sacrificio missae hath these wordes In olde time both Priest and people as many as were present at the sacrifice of the Masse after the oblation was ended communicated with the Priest as it is evident by the Canons of the Apostles and the Epistles of the most ancient Doctors c. Afterwards the devotion of the people decayed yet the Cleargy and Ministers communicated still when all they did not communicate yet at least the Deacons and Subdeacons communicated as the Authour of the Romane Breviary testifieth Whereupon saith Cassander some godly and learned men doe wish that this ancient custome were restored that at least the Ministers might communicate with him that celebrateth as agreeable to the practise of the Primitiue Church and making much for the dignity and gravitie of this Mystery In the Churches of Aethiopia all communicate in both kindes twise euery weeke to this day Iohn Hofmeister expounding certaine prayers of the Masse hath these wordes the thing it selfe proclaimeth it that as well in the Greeke as Latine Church not the Priest that celebrateth onely but the rest of the Presbyters and Deacons the whole people or at least some part of the people was wont to communicate which custome how it ceased and grew out of vse may seeme strange but it were greatly to be wished that it were restored againe which thing might easily be effected if the Pastors of the Churches would do their duty for the Priests themselues are in fault that few or none of the people are found to communicate in that they doe not invite stirre them vp to communicate more often as appeareth by the writing of a certaine Diuine not vnlearned in the former age in which he reprehendeth certaine Pastours of that age wherein hee liued who tooke it ill that some of their Parishioners though liuing very laudably desired to communicate euery Sunday That the Sacrament was ministred in former times in loafe bread as we minister it at this day it is evident by the booke called Ordo Romanus by Durandus sundry other authorities In auncient times the manner was to giue the holy Sacrament into the hands of the communicants as wee doe and not to put it into their mouthes as the Papists doe What shall I speak saith Andradius of the vse of the holy Eucharist which now no man may lawfully touch but the Priests whereas it was wont to be carryed by the Deacons to such as were absent and to be giuen to Laymen into their hands whence proceeded that exhortation of Cyrill of Hierusalem full of piety and religion that each communicant should fasten his eyes vpon those hands that receiued the holy Eucharist and kisse them with the kisses of his mouth that so he might communicate to the rest of the members the holynesse of the Eucharist The custome of circumgestation saith Cassander is contrary to the manner of the Auncient and would neuer haue beene liked of them who held this mysterie in so great respect that they admitted none to the sight of it but such as they thought worthy to be partakers of it whereupon all such as might not communicate were ejected before the consecration and therefore it seemeth that this circumgestation might be omitted Crantzius praiseth Cusanus who being the Popes Legate in Germany tooke it away vnlesse it were within the Octaues of the feast of Corpus Christi the Sacrament being instituted for vse and not for ostentation Touching the honour of Saints Gerson Contarenus and others reprehend sundry superstitious obseruations wish they were wisely abolished Whether the Saints particularly know our estate and heare our cryes groanes not onely Augustine the Author of the Interlineall Glosse but Hugo de sancto Victore also will tell vs it is altogether vncertaine cannot be knowne whence it followeth that howsoeuer being assured they pray for vs in a generality wee may safely desire to bee respected of God the rather for their sakes yet it is not safe to pray to them Neither is this a new conceipt of ours but Guilielmus Altisiodorensis saith it was a common opinion in his time that neither we doe properly pray to Saints nor they in particular pray for vs but that improperly we are said to pray to thē in that we pray vnto God that the rather for their sakes at their suite we may finde fauour and acceptation with him Touching the abuse of Images and how much it was disliked in former time let the Reader see Cassander How great complaints were made long since against the forced single life of the Cleargy and how many and great men desired the abrogation of the law that forced men so to liue I haue shewed at large else-where That in the Primitiue Church they had their prayers in the vulgar tongue Lyra confesseth and Caietane professeth that he thinketh it would be more for edification if they were so now and confirmeth his opinion out of the Apostle Saint Paul Thus haue I giuen the Reader a taste of the iudgement of those that liued in former times both concerning matters of doctrine now controuersed the Popes incroachments now by vs restrained and also such abuses as we haue remoued by which I thinke it will appeare to be most true that amongst many good proofes of the equitie of our cause there can no better be desired then that what wee haue done in the reformation of thinges amisse the worthiest men in the Church wished to be done before wee were borne And therefore Master Higgons hath little cause to say Our cause is bad and the Patrons worse That which hee addeth that
it is to bee maruailed at that I distill the religion and profession of Protestants out of Catholickes is to bee laughed at as most ridiculous for out of whom else should I distill it but if hee thinke they were all Papists whom I cite for proofe of our cause because they liued vnder the Papacie hee is deceiued for a great difference is to be put betweene the Church and faction in the Church wee deriuing our selues from the one and they from the other The second Chapter §. 1. WHerefore now let vs returne to see what Master Higgons hath further to say hee will conuince Mee he saith of singular vanity in that I say there is no materiall difference betweene those whom hee and his consorts call Lutherans and Zuinglians That the reader may the better bee able to discerne how ignorantly Higgons excepteth against Mee I will set downe at large what I haue written touching this matter Answering the calumniation of Papists traducing vs for our diuisions my wordes are these I dare confidently pronounce that after due and full examination of each others meaning there shall be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament the Vbiquitary presence or the like between the Churches reformed by Luthers Ministery in Germany and other places and those whom some mens malice called Sacramentaries And in my third booke answering the obiection of Bellarmine charging the Germane Diuines with the heresie of Eutiches in that they say the humanity of Christ is euery where Vbiquity being an incommunicable property of the Deity that cannot bee communicated to the humane nature of Christ without confusion of the Diuine and Humane natures I haue these wordes he should remember that they whom he thus odiously traduceth are not so ignorant as to thinke that the body of Christ which is a finite limited nature is euery where by actuall position or locall extension but personally onely in respect of the conjunction and vnion it hath with God by reason whereof it is no where seuered from God who is euery where This is it then which they teach that the body of Christ doth remaine in nature and essence finite limited and bounded and is locally but in one place but that there is no place where it is not vnited personally to that God that is euery where In which sence they thinke it may truely be said to be euery where This construction of their sayings who defend the Vbiquitary presence is no priuate or singular device of mine as Master Higgons would make men beleeue but Master Hooker a man so farre excelling Theophilus Higgons in learning iudgment that hee is not worthy to bee named the same day hath the same precisely in the very same wordes and alloweth it as Catholicke and good and indeed who but an ignorant Nouice that hath not learned the principles of the Catechisme would impugne it Yet Maister Higgons sayth I haue fayled exceedingly in two poyntes the first in saying there is no place where the body of Christ is not vnited personally vnto that God that is euery where and that it doth subsist euery where the second in saying the humane nature of Christ may rightly be sayd to be euery where in as much as it is vnited personally to that which is euery where This second saying is none of mine for I haue no such words as the reader will soone perceiue if he peruse the place but my words are these The body of Christ is not euery where by locall extension but personally only in respect of the vnion it hath with God by reason whereof it is no way seuered from God who is euery where and againe there is noe place where it is not vnited personally to that God that is euery where in which sence the Germane Diuines thinke it may be sayd to be euery where Wherefore let vs see what Maister Higgons can say against any thing deliuered by Mee touching this point he sayth I haue fayled for that though the Diuine person wherein the humane nature subsisteth bee euery where yet the humane nature subsisteth therein finitely and in one determinate place the Vnion it selfe being a created thing For the better clearing of this point and the vnderstanding of the Doctrine of the Church resolued on by the best learned in the Schooles wee must obserue that there is a beeing of essence and a beeing of existence or subsistence the beeing of essence which the humane nature of Christ hath is finite and limited as is the essence of all other men but beeing of existence it hath none of it owne but that of the Sonne of God communicated to it which is infinite and Diuine Deus in incarnatione verbi sayth Picus Mirandula fecit essentiam humanitatis sine suo esse vt dicitur á multis Doctoribus That is Almighty God in the incarnation of the eternall word produced the essence of the humanity without that finite and created actuall existence which left to it selfe it would haue had as many Doctours doe affirme and the person of the Sonne of God hauing in it the fulnesse of all beeing drew the nature of man to the vnity of that infinite beeing it had in it selfe and communicated the same vnto it so that the humanity of Christ neuer had any other beeing of actuall existence or subsistence but that of the Sonne of God communicated to it And farther the same Picus sayth Esse corporis Christi substantiale est increatum Diuinum quod est suppositi Diuini cum in Christo non sit nisi vnum esse actualis existentiae substantialis That is the substantiall actuall beeing of the body of CHRIST is the increated beeing of the Sonne of GOD seeing in CHRIST there is but one beeing of actuall existence This which Picus Mirandula hath deliuered is the resolution of Thomas Aquinas Caietan and all the best learned in the Romane Schooles whence it followeth ineuitably that the humanity of Christ in the being of actuall existence and subsistence which it hath is not limited or contained within any bounds of place but is euery where howsoeuer in respect of the being of essence which is created finite it be shut vp within the straites of one place at one time and therefore it is noe better then Heresie that Higgons hath that the humanity of Christ subsisteth finitely in the person of the Sonne of God for if it subsist finitely the subsistence it hath is finite and if it haue a finite subsistence then are there two subsistences in Christ the one finite the other infinite and consequently two persons which is flat Nestorianisme But sayth Higgons the vnion it selfe in Christ is a created thing therefore the beeing of actuall existence or subsistence which the humanity hath is finite Truely it had beene fitte the poore Nouice had beene set to Schoole for a time before hee had beene permitted to write for he bewrayeth grosse ignorance in
then matchable with the greatest Rabbins of the Romish Synagogue wheras Bernard some other were matchable with them For answere whereunto let the reader obserue that I neuer call the whole Latin Church by the name of the Romish Synagogue out the faction that prevailed in it therefore I meane not all the Doctours of the Latin Church by the name of the Rabbins of the Romish Synagogue but such onely as serued as vile instruments to advance Papall tyranny superstition error So that though Bernard Alexander of Hales Bonaventura Scotus Lyranus Gerson some other should be granted to haue bin matchable with Damascen Theophylact Oecumenius yet will it not follow that I haue vttered any vntruth for I deny that any of these were of the Papall faction The next supposed crimination is a most iust reproofe of the grosse ouer-sight of Bellarmine where he saith none of the Churches separated from Rome or none of the Churches of Asia and Africa as Higgons restraineth his words could euer hold any councell after their separation which cannot be avoyded by Higgons though it seemeth he would willingly doe the Cardinall some good seruice that he might become fellow Chaplaine with Mathew Tortus For if the Cardinall meane Generall Councels it is not to be marvailed at seeing they are but a part if Nationall or Provinciall it is too childish and may be refuted by sundry instances Whereunto Higgons hath nothing to say but that if Bellarmines wordes be extended to the Greeke Church his fault is vnexcusable seeing that Church hath holden Provinciall Councels since her separation whereof as Master Higgons thinketh he speaketh and not of Generall but that his words are restrained to the Churches of Asia and Africa which could neuer hold any such after their separation In this Apology of Master Higgons there are more absurdities then words For first he can giue no reason why the supposed Schismaticall Churches of Asia and Africa should be lesse able to hold Nationall or Provinciall Synodes then those of Europe Secondly the Greeke Church is principally in Asia so that if the Greeke Church had the power of convocating Provinciall Synodes some of the Churches of Asia were not excluded from partaking in it Thirdly if this were not the common misery of all diuided Churches this infelicity grew not from their separation but from some other cause and then it maketh nothing for proofe of the necessity of adhering to the Church of Rome as to an head to which purpose Bellarmine bringeth it Fourthly that other Churches may hold Provinciall Synodes namely those of Asia Africa it is most evident For first touching the Aethiopian Christians h Damianus à Goes out of the report of a learned Bishop of those parts sheweth that they haue Councels and that they make Lawes in them Of a Synode holden by the Nestorians wee reade in Onuphrius in the life of Iulius the Third In the Councell of Florence we reade of certaine Orators sent thither from the Armenians in the name of the Patriarch of Armenia his Cleargy which could not be done without some Synodall meeting Lastly seeing many Councels were holden in auncient times in shew Generall by such as were Heretiks what reason can Higgons giue why these Churches hauing a subordination of inferiour Cleargy-men Bishops Metropolitans cannot so much as call a poore Provinciall Synod If this be not childish trisling to say no more let the reader iudge how partial soeuer he be And therfore I say now againe as at first that if Bell. mean general coūcels when he saith the diuided churches could hold none after their separatiō it is not to be marvailed at seeing they are but a part if National or Provincial it is childish seeing it is most evidēt they might hold such Councels neither can his yeares dignity or other ornaments Master Higgons speaketh of priuiledge him so farre but that wee may and will taxe his wilfull ouersights as they deserue notwithstanding the boyish pratling of Theophilus Higgons The conclusion of this chapter touching our want of good manners towardes Bellarmines grace and other such lights of the world as shine in the darknesse of Popish blindnesse and superstition sorteth so well with the next part of this chapter which is concerning my inciuility towardes the Cardinall that one answere may suffice for both That I haue not wronged him by imputation of false crimes I hope the Reader will beare Mee witnesse vpon view of that I haue answered in my owne defence The 2. part of the third Chapter §. 1. WHerefore let vs see wherein my inciuility consisteth It is forsooth in aggeration of base odious and vnworthy names as Cardinall Heretike Hereticall Romanist Impious Idolater Shamelesse Iesuite Shamelesse Companion with his idle braine and sencelesse fooleries This is Master Higgons proofe of my inciuility If I make it not appeare to all men that haue their sences that I haue reason to phrase the Iesuite as Higgons speakes so as I haue done let Mee bee condemned of inciuility But if I had just cause to vse him as I did let this foolish flatterer hold his peace Wherefore to begin with the first Shall he charge vs with twenty execrable damnable Heresies all which he knowes we accurse to the bottomlesse pit of Hell may not I call him a Cardinall Hereticke or Hereticall Romanist without note of inciuility Shall he at his pleasure because he weareth a red Hat charge vs with Heresie Impiety for impugning the adoration of Images forbidden by Almighty God and may not I call him an impious Idolater Shall it bee lawfull for him to say that Elizabeth our late Queene of blessed memory tooke vpon her and was reputed to bee chiefe Priest in these her dominions and shall it not bee lawfull for me in reproofe of so impudent a slander and defence of my late dread Soueraigne the Lords annoynted and the wonder of the world to tell the Iesuiticall Friar that he is a shamelesse Iesuite that durst so say Shall he without conscience or feare of God against his own knowledge charge vs with the hellish Heresies of the Maniches touching two originall causes of things the one good of thinges good the other euill of thinges euill and shall it not be lawfull for me to aske the question whether hee be not a shamelesse companion in so charging vs Shall a Iesuiticall Frier be freely permitted in so vile sort to wrong so many mighty Monarches States people of the world as professe the reformed religion may a man say nothing to him without incurring the note of inciuility and want of good manners Shall he charge vs with palpable grosse senselesse absurdities may not we tell him the grosse absurdities which hee vntruly imputeth vnto vs are but the fancies of his owne idle braine Shall hee bee suffered to vtter senselesse fooleries in wronging Caluine other men as good as
or inducement to make vs beleeue things we know not but it must be the report of such an one as we know cannot be deceiued nor will not deceiue It must therefore be evident to euery one that firmely and without doubting beleeueth things not knowne vnto him vpon the report of another that he that reporteth them vnto him neither is deceiued nor can deceiue Whence it followeth necessarily that things are as he reporteth These things presupposed I demaund of this Treatiser whether he and his consorts assent to the Articles of the Christian Faith induced so to doe by the evidence of the things in thēselues or by the report of another That they assent not vnto thē induced so to do by the evidence of the things in thēselues they all professe but by the report of another I demand therefore who that other is whether God or man if man then haue they nothing but anhumane perswasion very weakly grounded wherein they may be deceiued for euery man is a lyar If God let them tel me whether it be evident in it self that God deliuereth these things vnto thē pronounceth them to be as they beleeue or not If not but beleeued only then as before by reasō of authority that either of God or man Not of God for it is not evident in it self that God deliuereth any thing vnto thē not of men for their report is not of such credit asthat we may certainly vndoubtedly stay vpon it seeing they may be deceiued deceiue other They answere therefore that it is no way evident vnto them in it selfe that God deliuereth the things they beleeue but that they perswade themselues hee deliuered such things vpōthe report of men but such men as are infallibly led into all truth See then if they doe not runne round in a circle finding no stay They beleeue the resurrection of the dead and the like things because God revealed it they beleeue that God revealed it because it is so contained in the Scripture and the Scripture because it is the Word of God and that it is the Word of God because the Church so delivereth and the Church because it is a multitude of men infallibly led into all truth and that there is a Church infallibly led into all truth because it is so contained in Scripture and the Scripture because it is the word of God and so round without euer finding any end Out of this circle they cannot get vnles they either groūd their Faith vpon the meere report of men as men humane probabilities or confesse that it is evident vnto them in it selfe that God speaketh in the Scripture and revealeth those things which they beleeue which if they doe it must bee in respect either of the manner matter there vttered or consequent effects In respect of the manner there being a certaine diuine vertue force and majesty in the very forme of the words of him that speaketh in the Scripture in respect of the matter which being suggested and proposed to vs findeth approbation of reason inlightned by the light of grace in respect of the consequent effects in that we finde a strange and wonderful change wrought in vs assuring vs the doctrine is of God that hath such effects which is that we say which they condemne in vs. The Treatiser would make vs beleeue that there are two opinions amongst them touching this point whereof the one is as he telleth vs that wee beleeue the Church because the Scripture teacheth vs that shee is to be beleeued the Scripture because the Church deliuereth it to vs to be the word of God And the other that by the assistance of God together with the concurrence of our naturall vnderstanding we produce an act of supernaturall Faith by which wee firmely beleeue the Articles of Christian Faith not for any humane inducements but for that they are revealed by Almighty God without seeking any further which if it be so it must be evident in it self to thē that follow this opiniō that God hath revealed deliuered the things they beleeue that by one of the 3 waies before mētioned thē they fal into our opiniō for if it be not evidēt to thē in it self that God speakes in the scriptures reveales the things they are to beleeue they must go further to be assured that he doth so speake and reueale the things that are to bee beleeued either to proofe of reason or authority For no man perswadeth himselfe of any thing but vpon some inducements Proofe of reason demonstratiue I thinke they will not seeke and probable inducements they may not rest in therefore they must proceede to some proofeby authority which can bee no other but that of the Church and then they ioyne with them that follow the other opinion and beleeue the articles of Christian faith conteyned in Scripture because God hath reuealed them and that God hath reuealed them because the Church telleth them so and the Church because the Scripture testifieth of it that it is led into all trueth which is a very grosse sophisticall circulation This the Treatiser did well perceiue and therefore to helpe the matter he distinguisheth the cause of beleeuing and the condition necessarily requisite that the cause may haue her working in shew making the Diuine Reuelation the reason or cause that we beleeue and the Churches proposing to vs the things to be beleeued a condition only and not a cause in sort as the fire alone is the cause of the burning of the wood but the putting of one of them to another is a necessary condition without which that cause can produce no such effect but this shift will not serue the turne For it is the fire onely that burneth the wood though it cannot burne vnlesse it be put vnto it so that in like sort if the comparison hold the Diuine Reuelation must of and by it selfe alone moue induce and incline vs to beleeue the things proposed by the Church as being euident vnto vs to be a Deuine Reuelation though without the Churches proposing we could take no notice of it Euen as in naturall knowledge it is the euidence of trueth appearing vnto vs originally found in the first principles and secondarily in the conclusions from thence deduced that is the sole and onely cause or reason of our assent to such principles and conclusions though without the helpe of some men of knowledge proposing them to vs and leading vs from the apprehension of one of them to another happily we should not at all attaine such knowledge But this euidence of the Diuine Reuelation in it selfe the Treatiser will not admit For it is no way euident in it selfe to him that God hath reuealed any of the things he beleeueth but the onely proofe besides humane motiues or reasons which are too weake to bee the ground of Fayth that he hath is the authority of the Church So that the Ministery of the Church is
reason wee can discerne no such thinges as in this heauenly doctrine are manifested to vs. Thirdly the reuelation that is now being mediate and depending on a former it must of necessity be graunted that there was a first and immediate reuelation of the things that are beleeued Fourthly that that immediate reuelation was without mixture of error there being no imperfection found in any of Gods immediate workings Fifthly that whatsoeuer bookes they wrote to whom that immediate reuelation of heauenly truth was graunted are diuine without mixture of error and Canonicall Sixtly that all such books as are recommended to vs by the consenting testimony of all Christians not noted for singularity nouelty or heresie as written by those who first learned the doctrine of heauenly truth from God himselfe must be acknowledged to haue bin written by them Which perswasion is confirmed in that when wee reade and meditate vpon the bookes soe commended to vs wee finde a maiesty vertue and power appearing in them more then in all humane compositions captiuating vs to the the obedience of faith and making vs to receiue them as vndoubtedly diuine These are the grounds which wee build vpon Wherefore let the Reader judge whether the Treatiser had any cause to write as hee doth that hee cannot sufficiently maruel that I or any man of iudgement or learning should runne these courses and impugne their doctrine concerning these points as absurd which indeede is most prudent and diuine and yet fall into most grosse absurdities and inconueniences How prudent and diuine their doctrine is touching the ground of their faith I haue shewed before making it most cleare that if they did shew no more prudence in any thing else their part would soone bee ouerthrowne But touching the absurdities into which hee supposeth wee runne they will bee found to bee none at all For as I haue shewed at large wee ground our faith in generall vppon the euidence of heauenly trueth and the authority of Almighty God whom wee discerne to speake in the holy Scriptures and yet in such sort listen to the Church as a Mistresse of heauenly truth in all particular points that wee do not broach any new and strange doctrine vnheard of in the Church nor impugne any thing that was alwaies constantly deliuered and receiued in the same Soe that it is vntrue that the Treatiser sayth that I reiect all generall authority and leaue euery man to follow his owne priuate conceipt hee returneth therefore to proue that supposing wee know the letter of Scripture yet haue wee no certaine rule to finde out the sence of it and mustereth some obiections to this purpose which I haue sufficiently answered already in the defence of the rules proposed by mee and impugned by him Neyther is it soe strange as hee would make it that we confesse euery one though neuer so much enlightned to bee subiect to errour and yet each of vs assureth himselfe hee doth not erre from the Christian verity one hauing no more assurance of not erring then another For is it not soe that in respect of things that may bee knowne by the light of naturall reason each one confesseth himselfe to be subiect to error and yet euery one assureth himselfe he doth not erre in sundry particular things Wherefore hee leaueth this point and proceedeth to another where he bewrayeth the weaknesse of his braine labouring seriously to proue that he who buildeth his faith vppon the English Parliament cannot firmely and vndoubtedly beleeue nor haue any true fath because I say wee can neuer be so well perswaded of any man or multitude of men but that we may iustly feare they are deceiued or will deceiue Truly it had beene well that hee had applyed himselfe to some other thing rather then booke-making vnlesse hee had any greater facility and felicity in it then he hath for who was euer so senselesse as to build his Faith vpon the English Parliament or why doth the Treatiser thus fight with his owne shadow But haply he will be better towards the end §. 6. IN the last place speaking of the supposed divisions and dissentions amongst Protestants he sayth some amongst vs are so bolde as to deny that there is any great or materiall dissention in our Churches that I amongst others write that it so fell out by the happy providence of God when there was a reformation made that there was no materiall or essentiall difference amongst them that were actors in it but such as vpon equall scanning will bee found rather to consist in the diuers manner of expressing one thing to be but verball vpon mistaking through the hasty and inconsiderate humours of some men then any thing else And that further I adde that I dare confidently pronounce that after due and full examination of each others meaning there shall be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament the vbiquitary presence or the like betweene the Churches reformed by Luthers ministery in Germany and other places and those whom some mens malice called Sacramentaries that none of the differences betweene Melancthon and Illyricus except about certaine ceremonies were reall that Hosiander held no priuate opinion touching iustification howsoeuer his strange manner of speaking gaue occasion to many so to thinke and conceiue and that this shall be iustified against the proudest Papist of them all this my assertion he saith all the world knoweth to be vntrue and endeavoureth to proue it to be so First by mine owne sayings else-where and then by some other proofes By mine owne sayings in that I complaine of vnhappie divisions in the Christian world and of infinite distractions of mens mindes not knowing in so great varietie of opinions what to thinke or to whom to ioyne themselues that the controversies of Religion in our time are growne in number so many in nature so intricate that few haue time leasure fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them But this proofe will be found too weake For there are many very materiall divisions in the Christian world infinitely distracting the mindes of men as those of the Greekes Latines those of the Romish Faction such as embrace the reformed Religion and the controversies that are betweene these are in number many and in nature intricate in respect whereof my complaint might bee most iust though neuer any one Protestant had opened his mouth against an other And besides supposing my complaint of diuisions in the Christian World to reach to the breaches that are haue beene amongst the Professours of the Reformed Religion nothing can bee inferred from thence contrary to any thing that I haue written touching the agreeing of these men in iudgement opinion For there may bee great breaches betweene such men as are of one iudgement opinion vpon mistaking one another therefore Gregory Nazianzene in his Oration made in the praise of Athanasius sheweth that the whole world in a
ordering or as if it could doe any thing without Gods permission concurrence And this is all that Luther hath in the former or latter of the two places alleadged by the Treatiser for hee hath no word of absolute necessity but of Gods most wise prouident direction of our wils in all their choices desires and actions And though else-where hee approue the saying of Wickliffe that all things fall out by a kinde of absolute necessitie yet he interpreteth himselfe to meane neither naturall necessity nor coaction but infallibility of event in that all things fall out most certainly as God thinketh good to dispose and order them Wherefore seeing the Treatiser can fasten no contradiction vpon Luther touching free-will let vs proceede to see what exceptions hee taketh to that defence I make of his altering of his judgement in some other thinges My defence is that it was not strange for him to alter his judgement in some poynts of good moment seeing Saint Augustine the greatest of all the Fathers and the Angelicall Doctour did so before him His exception against this my defence consisteth of two parts vvhereof the first is that Luthers changing of his opinion argueth hee was not extraordinarily and immediatly taught of God which vvee easily graunt and that hee built his fayth vpon his owne vnconstant reason which the Treatiser vvill neuer proue to bee consequent vpon the alteration of his judgement in some poynts of religion for that otherwise Augustine might be conuinced to haue so builded his fayth likewise who altered his judgement touching as great matters as euer Luther did For whereas formerly hee attributed the election of such as were chosen to eternall life to the foresight of their future fayth after hee entred into the conflict with the Pelagians he disclaymed it as a meere Pelagian conceipt The second that Saint Augustine vvriting vvhen he vvas yet a nouice in Christian religion and not fully instructed erred in some poynts vvhich errours hauing receiued better instruction hee disclaimed and that before some articles of Christian religion were so throughly discussed defined in the Church as afterwards vpon the rising of new heresies he spake not so aptly properly as was needfull in succeeding times and therefore retracted what he had vttered but that it was not therefore lawfull for Luther to leape vp and downe hither thither and to change his faith accordingly as his fancie ledde him For answere vvherevnto I say that Luther changed not his faith according to fancie nor altered his judgement in any poynt of Christian doctrine generally constantly agreed on in that Church vvherein hee liued For as I haue else-where proued at large none of the thinges vvherein vvee at this day dissent from the present Church of Rome vvere generally constantly beleeued and receiued as articles of fayth in the dayes of our Fathers in that Church vvherein they liued died so that in this respect there will bee no difference betweene the case of Luther Augustine or Aquinas who as the Treatiser confesseth altered corrected their former opinions touching sundry points of doctrine not determined by the Church without any note of inconstancy or building their faith vpon their owne vnconstant reason And thus haue I runne through both parts of the Treatise of the grounds of the olde new Religion so that I might here end but that the Authour thereof addeth in the end an Appendix in confutation of a booke written by M. Crashaw concerning Romish forgeries falsifications wherein among other things bee endeauoureth to proue there could be no such corruption of the Fathers Writings in former times as M. Crashaw conceiueth because I say the Papists were onely a faction in the Church and that there were euer diverse in the middest of all the confusions of the Papacie agreeing with vs who alwayes opposed themselues against such as sought to advance Papall tyranny Popish superstition who he thinketh if there were any such were carefull to preserue the Fathers Workes from corruption For answer whereunto wee must note that the corruptions of the Fathers Writings are of three sorts either by putting out base counterfeit stuffe vnder their honourable names or by putting in some things into their true indubitate Workes not well sorting with the same or by taking something out of them That many absurd things haue beene published vnder the names of holy Fathers no man can make any doubt that looketh into the Workes of Augustine Hicrome others with which many things censured iudged to bee Apocryphall by our Adversaries themselues are mingled Now if in their iudgement this first kinde of corruption of the Fathers Workes might be in former times notwithstanding such good men as they thinke were euer in the Church who willingly and wittingly would giue no consent to any such corruption why may not wee say that some things might bee added or detracted from the indubitate writings of the Fathers notwithstanding any thing they could doe to the contrary whom wee suppose in the middest of Papall confusions to haue opposed themselues against errour idolatry and superstition then by some brought into the Church and to haue giuen testimony to that truth which we now maintaine so that this obiection is easily answered What he hath against others I doubt not but they will take notice of and that he shall heare from them in due time to whom I leaue him The end of the second part THE THIRD PART CONTAINING A BRIEFE EXAMINATION OF SVCH PRETENDED PROOFES for Romish Religion and Recusancie as are produced and violently wrested by a late Pamphleter out of the former bookes IN the Epistle to the Lords of the Councell hee first complaineth of the long and manifold supposed miseries of English Pseudo-Catholiques Secondly hee imputeth the same to the Puritanes as if they had beene procured principally by them and for their cause Thirdly hee proueth that not onely those Puritanes that refuse externall conformity but such also as for a fashion follow it are guilty of the proceedings against the Romanists because the greatest number of Protestant Writers doe teach that there is noe such essentiall and substantiall difference betweene Protestants and Puritanes but that they are of one Church Faith and Religion A strange kind of proofe yet these are his words The pennes and pulpits of Puritanes and their Printers will sufficiently write preach and publish to the world by whom and to what purpose no small part of these afflictions haue beene vrged and incited against vs not onely by those few which refuse your externall conformity but such as for a fashion follow it to retaine themselues in authority For proofe whereof the greatest number of the present Protestant Writers D. Sutcliffe D. Doue D. Field M. Willet Wootton Middleton c. do teach there is no substantiall essentiall or materiall point of difference in religion betweene Protestants and Puritanes but they are of one Church
groūded vpon it is ouerthrown If this be all I hope the worst is past for if I should grant as he maketh me absurdly to doe that we haue neither Scripture nor tradition but by tradition yet cannot those rules I assigne to know true traditions by propose vnto vs false Scriptures or traditions For what are they but the constant practise of the whole Christian church from the beginning the consent of the most famous learned in all ages or at least in diuerse ages no man contradicting or doubting and the constant testimony of the pastors of Apostolicall churches from their first establishment successiuely witnessing the same things Indeed if these rules could propose vnto vs false traditions false Scriptures or expositions of the difficulties thereof our faith could not be certaine all religion were ouerthrowne but neither he nor all the Diuels in hell shall euer force vs to acknowledge any such thing neither is there any point of Romish superstition proued by any such traditions as are found to bee true traditions by these rules But will some man say doth he make no shew of proofe that we acknowledge these rules may propose vnto vs false traditions false Scriptures expositions of the difficulties in them Doubtlesse he doth For thus he concludeth very terribly against vs. The testimony and iudgment of the Patriarches or Bishops of Apostolicall Sees is one of the rules assigned to know true traditions by but wee acknowledge that the Patriarches of Apostolicke Sees did erre in the Councell of Florence propose vnto vs false expositions of Scripture therefore we must confesse whether we will or not that the rules we assigne may propose vnto vs false Scriptures false expositions of Scripture Vnto this concluding argument wherein the force of the whole chapter lieth we answere briefly and peremptorily First that the maior proposition is most false as hee well knoweth for I neuer make the judgement and opinion of the present Bishops of Apostolicall churches to be the rule to know true traditions by but deny it and professe the contrary against the Papists and make onely the testimony of the Pastours of Apostolicall churches successiuely from the beginning witnessing the same things to bee a rule in this kinde Secondly that the Patriarches of the Apostolicke Sees hee speaketh of were not at the councell of Florence in their owne persons but had others to supply their places whose proceedings they disclaimed and voyded whatsoeuer they did in their names because they presumed to discusse and determine diuers matters of controuersie without directions and instructions from them But howsoeuer we thinke of the proceedings in this Councell yet he sayth no Protestant church can shew any such authority for their cause as that of the Councels of Florence Constance and Trent It had beene well if hee had beene better aduised before hee had so much disenabled vs for he shall finde that we can and will shew farre greater authority for our cause then the late Councels of Florence Constance and Trent and that in the weightiest points of all other For did not the Bishops in the great Councell of Chalcedon professe openly that the reason why the Fathers gaue the preëminence to the Bishoppe of Rome was the greatnesse of his city being the seate of the Emperours and that they thought it fit to giue equall priuiledges to the Bishop of Constantinople for the same cause seeing it was become the seate of the Emperors and named new Rome Did not the 6. generall Councell in Trullo confirme the same parity of the B. of Constantinople with the B. of Rome and doe not the decrees of these two Councells shake in peeces the whole frame fabricke of the Papacy Did not the second fourth and sixth Councels c. make the B. of Constantinople a patriarch and set him in degree of honour before the other two of Alexandria and Antioche notwithstanding the resistance of the Romane Bishops their claime from Peter Did not the sixth generall Councell blame the Church of Rome for sundry things and particularly among other for forcing married mē entring into the orders of ministery to forsake the matrimoniall society of their wiues Did not the Councell of Nice referre both Bishops and other inferiour clergy-men to be ordered by their owne Metropolitanes and the Councels of Africa therevpon condemne appeales to Rome Did not the Councell of Eliberis forbid the lighting of tapers in the Coemiteries or places of buriall to the disquieting of the spirits of the Saintes departed and did it not abolish those pernoctations in the places of buriall which Hierome vrged so violently against Vigilantius and forbid the hauing of any pictures in churches Ne quod colitur aut adoratur in parietibus depingatur Doth not the Canon of the Apostles prescribe that all the faithfull that come together in the Church and communicate not in the Sacrament shall be excommunicate which also the Councell of Antioche reuiveth and confirmeth Doth not Gelasius command all them to bee excommunicated that receiuing the Sacrament of the Lords body abstaine from the participation of the cuppe Did not the church of Rome thinke it so farre necessary that the people should communicate in both kindes that Ordo Romanus prescribeth on good Friday when they consecrate not but receiue that which was reserued being consecrated the day before they should take wine consecrate it by putting or dipping the body of the Lord into it with pronouncing the Lords prayer that so the people might receiue the whole Sacrament and yet now the halfe communion is sufficient Did not the Mileuitane and Arausicane Councels condemne those errours touching the strength of nature and power of free-will to performe the workes of vertue without assistance of speciall grace which since haue beene receiued in the Romane Schooles as if they had beene catholicke verities The like might bee shewed in many other particulars but these may suffice Wherefore let vs proceed to his eigth chapter CHAP. 8. IN this chapter first hee sheweth that generall Councels are of highest authority in the Church of God and secondly laboureth to proue that they testifie for Romish Religion To proue that Councels are of highest authority in the Church of God which no man denyeth he produceth the testimonies of the Bishop of Winchester Doctour Morton the Protestant Relator of Religion and Doctour Sutcliffe And lastly addeth that I am clearely of the same opinion assuring all men that the interpretations of Scripture proposed by priuate men are not so proposed and vrged by them as if they would binde all others to receiue them and that none but Bishops assembled in a Generall Councell may interprete Scriptures in such sort as by their authority to suppresse all them that gaine-say such interpretations For so are my words which hee hath altered to make men thinke I allow none in any sort to interprete Scriptures but generall Councels wherein he wrongeth me as he well knoweth seeing I