earnest and promised confidently to pacifie Ambrose he bade him goe with speede and himselfe followed after in hope of reconciliation trusting vpon the promises of Ruffinus But when Ambrose saw Ruffinus he sayd vnto him O Ruffinus thou doest imitate the impudencie of shamelesse dogges for hauing beene the aduiser and counsellor to so vile murthers thou hast hardned thy forehead and hauing cast away all shame blushest not after the committing of so great and horrible outrages against men made after the image of God And when he was importunate with him and told him the Emperour was comming full of fierie zeale he brake forth into these words I tell thee Ruffinus I will not suffer him to passe the thresholds of Gods house and if of an Emperour he become a tyrant I will ioyfully suffer death Whereupon Ruffinus caused one to runne to the Emperour to desire him to stay within the Court But the Emperour being on the way when the messenger met him resolued to come forward and to endure the reproof of the Bishop So hee came to the sacred railes but entred not into the Temple and comming to the Bishoppe besought him to vnloose him from the bands wherewith hee was bound The Bishop somewhat offended with his comming told him the manner of his comming was tyrant-like and that being mad against God he trampled vnder his feete the lawes of God Not so said the Emperour I presse not hither in despite of order neither doe I vniustly striue to enter into the house of God But I beseech thee to vnloose me to remember the mercifull disposition of our common Lord and not to shut the doore against me that hee would haue opened to all that repent What repentance therefore saith the Bishoppe hast thou shewed after so grieuous an offence what medicines hast thou applied to cure thy wounds It pertaineth to thee sayth the Emperour to prepare the medicines that should heale mee and to cure my wounds and to me to vse that thou prescribest Then sayd Ambrose seeing thou makest thy displeasure iudge and it is not reason that giueth sentence when thou sittest vpon the throne to doe right but thy furious proceedings make a law that when sentence of death and confiscation of goods shall bee passed there may passe thirty dayes before the execution of the same that so if within that space it be found vniust it may be reuersed or otherwise it may proceede This law the Emperour most willingly consented to make and thereupon Ambrose vnloosed him from his bands and he entred into the Temple and prayed vnto God not standing nor kneeling but prostrate vpon the earth and passionately vttering these words of Dauid My soule cleaueth to the pauement Lord quicken me according to thy word Here we see an excellent patterne of a good Bishoppe and a good Emperour and it is hard to say whether Ambrose were more to be commended for his zeale magnanimous resolution and constancie or the Emperour for his willing and submissiue obedience But of deposing Princes here is nothing Ambrose being so farre from any thought of lifting vp his hand against the Emperour that he resolued to subiect himselfe vnto him euen to the suffering of martyrdome if neede should require But saith Bellarmine Ambrose exercised ciuill authority in that hee tooke notice of this murther of the Emperour beeing a criminall cause and forced him to make a ciuill law for the preuenting of furious and bloodie proceedings in iudgment This surely is a weake collection for the Church hath power by vertue of her Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction to take notice of such horrible crimes as murther to punish them with spirituall punishments Neither was the inducing of Theodosius to make a ciuill law for the preuenting of such like euils as he was now censured for before he would reconcile him to the Church an act of ciuill authoritie But such testimonies as this is they that haue no better must be forced to vse That which followeth of Gregories confirming the priviledges graunted to the Abbey of Saint Medardus in such sort that whatsoeuer Kings Iudges or secular persons should go about to violate them should be depriued of their honour proueth not the thing in question For it is evident that the confirmation of these priviledges was passed not by S. Gregory alone but by a whole Councell and more specially by Theodoricus the King and Brunichildis the Queene who might binde their successours and other inferiour secular Rulers vnder paine of deprivation though neither Gregory of himselfe nor yet a councell of Bishops could doe any such thing by their authoritie alone Wherefore let vs proceede to the next example Gregory the second saith Bellarmine excommunicated the Emperour Leo the third who was an enemy to Images he forbade any tribute to be payde him out of Italy and consequently depriued him of part of his Empire Surely if Greg. the second of himself alone had had such power as to forbid all Italy vpon his dislike to pay any more tribute to the Emperour there were some good shew of proofe in this allegation But if wee examine the stories we shall finde the case to haue beene farre otherwise then Bellarmine would beare vs in hand it was For first Gregory did not excommunicate Leo of himselfe but called a Synode to doe it Secondly he did not forbid the paying of tribute out of Italy to the Emperour but the circumstances of the History are these Leo seeking to win the Bishop of Rome and the people of Italy to the casting downe of Images in the West as he had done in the East Gregory the Bishop did not onely refuse to obey him but admonished all other to take heed they did no such thing for feare of any Edict of the Emperour By which exhortation the people of Italy already mis-conceited of the Emperours governement were so animated that they were likely to haue proceeded to the election of a new Emperour and Nauclerus sheweth that the decrees of the Bishop of Rome disswading the people of the West from obeying the Emperour in casting downe of Images were of so great authoritie that the people and souldiers of Ravenna first and then of Venice beganne to make shew of rebellion against the Emperour and his Exarche or Lieutenant and to inforce the Bishop of Rome and the other people of Italy to disclaime the Emperour of Constantinople and to chuse another in Italy And that this rebellion proceeded so farre that euery city putting downe the Magistrates of the Exarch set vp Magistrates of their owne whō they named Dukes but that the Bishop of Rome at that time pacified thē and by his perswasions stayed them from chusing any new Emperour in hope that he would amend So that we see the Bishop of Rome with his Bishops by their authority did nothing but stay the people from obeying the Emperours vnlawfull Decrees as they iudged them but no way went about to depose the
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
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
generall state of the Church or of the principall most eminent highest parts members of the same none of which things might bee proceeded in without the Bishop of Rome and his Colleagues but otherwise he was not to intermeddle with inferiour persons and causes within the Iurisdiction of other Patriarches neither immediatly nor vpon appeale and complaint The 7 t◠Roman Bishop brought to testifie for the absolute supreme power of Popes is Gelasius out of whom two things are alledged The first is that he saith the See of Peter hath power to loose that which the Bishops of other Churches haue bound The second that it hath power to judge of euery Church that no Church may judge of the judgment of it For answer to this testimony of Gelasius first we say that the Church of Rome may not meddle with reviewing re-examining or reversing the acts of other Churches proceeding against Lay-men or inferiour Cleargy-men Secondly that in the case of a Bishop complaining of wrong by the authority of the Councell of Sardica she might interpose her selfe not so as to bring the matter to Rome there to be heard but so farre forth onely as to commaund and appoint a review to be taken by the Bishops of the next bordering Province or at the most to send some Cōmissioners to sit with such second Iudges Thirdly that in cases which concerned the principall Patriarches whether they were differences between them their Bishops or between themselues the chiefe See as the principall part of the whole Church might interpose it self Neither was this proper to the See of Rome for other Patriarchs likewise of the higher thrones might interpose thēselues in matters concerning the Patriarchs of inferiour thrones whence it is that Basil writing to Athanasius Bishop of the second See telleth him that the ordering of the Church of Antioch which was the 3d See did pertain to him that he was to see to the setling of things there though the quieting of the whole East required the helpe of the Occidentall Bishops Cyril in the case of Nestorius not yet fully established in the right of a Patriarch intermedled proceeded so far as to reject him his adherents frō the cōmunion of the churches of Egypt Lybia Pentapolis But the B. of the inferior thrones might not judge the superior therfore Iohn of Antioch of the 3d See is reprehended reproued for judging Cyril Bishop of the 2d See Dioscorus Bishop of the 2d See is condemned in the councel of Chalcedon as for other things so for this amōg other that he presumed to judge the first See So that this is it which Gelasius saith that the See of Rome that is the Bishop of Rome and the Bishops of the West may iudge and examine the differences betweene Patriarches or between Patriarches and their Bishops but neither so peremptorily nor finally but that such iudgement may be reuiewed and reexamined in a generall Councell and that no other particular Church or See may iudge the Church of Rome seeing euery other See is inferiour to it no way denying but that a generall Councell may review reēxamine and reuerse the acts iudgements of the Romane See as being greater and of more ample authority Neither truely can there be any better proofe against the pretended supremacie of the Popes then this Epistle the circumstances whereof are these Acatius Bishop of Constantinople for communicating with certaine Eutichian Heretickes was by the See of Rome condemned some disliked his proceeding against him because a Synode was not specially summoned for the purpose especially seeing he was Bishop of the Princely citty Gelasius standeth not vpon the claime of vniuersall power thereby to iustifie his proceeding but aunswereth First that Eutiches being condemned in the Councell of Chalcedon all such were accursed likewise as should either by defence of such errour or communicating with men so erring fall into the fellowship of the same heresie and that therefore there needed no Synode but the See Apostolique might execute that was there decreed Secondly that the Catholicke Bishops in the East being deposed and Heretickes thrust into their places there was no reason why hee should haue consulted with them Thirdly that hee did nothing of himselfe but with a Synode of the Westerne Bishops The next foure Bishops produced by the Cardinall are Iohn the second Anastasius the second Felix the fourth and Pelagius the second out of whom hee alleageth nothing but this that the See of Peter holdeth the chiefty assigned of the Lord in the vniuersall Church and that the church of Rome is the head of all churches Wherevnto wee briefly answere that the See of Peter euer held the chiefty that the church of Rome was euer the head of all churches not in vniuersality of absolute supreme power commanding authority but in order honour in sort before expressed that by the See of Peter and church of Rome is meant the whole West church not precisely the Diocese of Rome as likewise we haue noted before and therefore these allegations to proue the Popes supremacie ouer all Bishops are nothing to the purpose The last of the twelue Bishops brought by Bellarmine is Gregorie the first out of whom foure things are alledged the first is that he required the Africanes to permit appeales to Rome from the Councell of Numidia and blamed the Bishops of Africa for that after letters written vnto them they had degraded Honoratus the Arch-deacon The second that he sent a Pall to the Bishop of Corinth The third that he saith Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged the Church of Constantinople to be subiect to the See Apostolique The fourth that the Bishop of Constantinople professeth his subiection to the See Apostolique To these obiections we answer First that it is contrary to the resolution of the ancient Councels of Carthage Mileuis that the Bishop of Rome should admit appeales of inferiour Clergy-men out of Africa that therefore by some positiue constitution or later agreement Gregory might bee permitted to heare the complaints of an Arch-deacon appealing vnto him out of Africa yet from the beginning it was not so though some parts of Africa were euer within the compasse of the Patriarchship of Rome Secondly that he sent the Pall to the Bishop of Corinth because hee was within his Patriarchship all Patriarches being to confirme their Metropolitanes by imposition of hands or by sending the Pall. 3◠That there was no such Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople in Gregories time as is mentioned in the Epistle alledged and that they that were as Iohn Cyriacus stroue and contended with Gregory to be aboue him and to haue the first place in the Church that not without the help furtherance of the Emperour so that it may be doubted whether Gregory wrot this or not it being so contrary to that wee know to
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
force of this decree first we must marke that it was made after the diuision and parting of the Bishops of the East from them of the West and so by the Westerne Bishops alone as it may seeme respectiuely to the Prouinces of the West ouer which the Bishop of Rome was Patriarch Secondly that the Africans tooke no notice of it and yet there were Bishops of Africa at the Councell so that in likely-hood this decree was not confirmed by subsequent acceptation execution and practise Thirdly that the Councell of Chalcedon which was absolutely Oecumenicall and wholly approued so of greater authority then this that was not an approued Generall Councell but in a sort onely decreeth the contrary and referreth the finall determination of all causes of Bishops to the Primate or Patriarch which the Emperour also confirmeth and will haue no man to haue power to contradict the end which the Primate or Patriarch shall make Lastly that this canon maketh rather against them that alleage it then any way for them For by this Canon all matters must bee ended at home or in the next Province to that wherein they arise and the Pope may not call matters to Rome there to bee heard but is onely permitted in some cases to send a Presbyter hauing his authoritie and to put him in commission with the Bishops of the Province that so hee and they jointly may reexamine things formerly judged If this Canon were now obserued I thinke there would not bee so great exception taken to the court of Rome in respect of appeales as now there is Quousque saith Saint Bernard to Eugenius non evigilat consideratio tua ad tantam appellationum confusionem Ambitio in Ecclesia per te regnare molitur Praeter ius fas praeter morem ordinem fiunt repertum ad remedium reperitur ad mortem Antidotum versum est in venenum murmur loquor querimoniam communem Ecclesiarum Truncari se clamant 〈◊〉 Vel nullae vel paucae admodum sunt quae plagam istam aut non doleant aut non timeant that is How long will it bee before thou awake to consider this so great confusion of appeales Ambition striueth and seeketh busily to raigne in the Church by thy meanes They are entred prosecuted and admitted beside right law besides custome and order That which was first found out for a remedie is now found to bee vnto death I doe but expresse the murmuring and common complaint of the Churches They cry out that they are mangled and dismembred and there are few or none found that doe not either already grieue at this plague or feare the smart of this euill Yet would not the Africans admit the canon of the councell of Sardica but willed the Pope to send no more any of his clearkes to dispatch causes at any mans suite For that this was to bring in the smoakie puffe of worldly pride into the Church and in very earnest sort besought him not to bee too easie in admitting any appeales brought from them If within a little time after the Bishops of Rome prevailed so farre as that Bishops were suffered to appeale out of Africa to Rome which was the thing claimed by Zozimus but denied vnto him by the Africans it is not to bee marvailed at seeing they still enlarged the extent of their power till they had ouerthrowne the jurisdiction of all the Bishops of the West and alienated the affections of all other from them So that there was a schisme in the church the other foure Patriarches dividing themselues from the Bishop of Rome and at their parting vsing these or the like words as it is reported Thy greatnesse wee know thy covetousnesse wee cannot satisfie thy encroaching we can no longer endure liue by thy selfe But here we shall find a great contrariety of judgment among the greatest Rabbies of the Romish church touching these Africans that thus withstood the claimes of Zozimus Bonifacius and Celestinus For Harding against Bishop Iewels challenge in the Article of the supremacie saith that the whole church of Africa withdrew it selfe from the church of Rome by reason of this difference through the enticement of Aurelius Archbishop of Carthage and continued in schisme by the space of an hundred yeares during which time by Gods punishment they were brought into miserable captiuity by the barbarous cruell Vandales who were Arrians till at length when it pleased Almighty God of his goodnesse to haue pitty of his people of that Province hee sent them Belisarius that valiant Captaine that vanquished and destroyed the Vandales and Eulabius that godly Bishop of Carthage that brought home the Africanes againe and joyned those divided members to the whole Body of the Catholique church A publique instrument containing their submission being made and offered to Bonifacius the second by Eulabius in the name of the whole Province Which was joyfully receiued and whereof Bonifacius writeth to Eulabius Bishop of Thessalonica desiring him to giue thankes to God for the same But Bellarmine proueth at large that notwithstanding this resistance and opposition of the Africans against the claimes of Zozimus Bonifacius and Caelestinus yet there neuer was any apparant breach betweene the Romanes and them And for the Epistle of Bonifacius the second to Eulabius wherein he saith very harshly as Cusanus well noteth that Aurelius sometimes Bishop of the church of Carthage with his colleagues beganne to waxe proude and insolent against the church of Rome by the instigation of the divell in the dayes of his predecessours so condemning Augustine Alipius and two hundreth twenty fiue Bishops more as set on by the diuell to resist the claimes of his predecessors and the Epistle of Eulabius Bishop of Carthage wherein hee condemneth his predecessours and submitteth himselfe to the Bishop of Rome he professeth he greatly suspecteth they are forged counterfeit First because that which is contayned in them cannot stand with that which is most certainely proued known to be true touching the amity and friendship that was betweene the Romane Church and Augustine Eugenius Fulgentius and other Africans after the opposition about the matters of appeales Secondly for that there was no such Eulabius Bishop of Alexandria at that time to whom Bonifacius might write as it appeareth by the Chronologie of Nicephorus of Constantinople Thirdly for that Bonifacius in his Epistle doth signifie that hee wrote in the time of Iustinus the Emperour whereas Iustinus was dead before Bonifacius was Bishop as appeareth by all histories So that we may see what grosse forgeries there haue beene in former times deuised onely to abuse the simple and make the world beleeue that all Bishops and churches subiected themselues vnto the church of Rome And how shamelesse a defender of Antichristian tyrannie Doctour Harding was that could not escape this censure of Bellarmine the Iesuite But it is lâ—…sse to be maruailed at that he should so harden
though the times would be such as that many swords would not suffice to defend them yet that these two were enough because he meant to vse none at all but to suffer all that the malice of his enemies could doe vnto him This Maldonatus deliuereth to be the literall sense of Christs wordes sheweth a mysticall sense of them also out of Beda much more apt then that of Bonifacius Duo gladii saith Beda sufficiunt ad testimonium sponte passi Salvatoris Vnus qui Apostolis audaciam pro Domino certandi evulsà ictu eius auriculâ Domino etiam morituro pietatem virtutemque doceret inesse medicandi Alter quinequaquam vaginâ exemptus ostenderet eos nec totum quod potuere pro eius defensione facere permissos that is Two swords are sufficient to giue testimony vnto our Sauiour that he suffered willingly The one of which might shew that the Apostles wanted no courage to fight for their Master and by the eare that was cut off by the stroke thereof and healed againe by the Lord that he wanted neither piety to compassionate the miserable nor vertue and power to make him whole that was hurt though now hee were ready to dye And the other which neuer was drawne out of the sheath might shew that they were not permitted to doe all that they could haue done in his defence It is not to be denyed but that S. Bernard mystically expounding the words of Christ saith the Church hath two swords of authority But he thinketh it hath them in very different sort For it hath the vse of the one and the benefite of the other The one is to bee drawne by it the other for it So that this is all that hee saith that the sword of ciuill authority is to be vsed by the Souldiers hand at the commaund of the Emperour by the direction and at the suite of the Church From Bonifacius they passe to Innocentius the third who in the vacancy of the Empire willed those that were wronged in their rightfull causes to haue recourse either to some Bishop or to himselfe And Clemens the fifth who professeth to intermeddle with certaine secular businesses affaires and to determine certaine ciuill causes vpon three seuerall grounds Whereof the first is his greatnesse making him superiour to the Emperour The second his being in steed of the Emperour in the vacancy of the Empire And the third the fulnesse of power which Christ the King of Kings and Lord of Lords gaue vnto Peter and in him to his successours Whatsoeuer wee thinke of the former of these two Popes who seemeth to ground his intermedling in ciuill affaires vpon some law of the Empire and concession of ciuill Princes accordingly as we reade of Theodosius that he permitted any Lay-men hauing ciuill differences among themselues to referre the same to Ecclesiasticall Iudges if they listed Which concession proceeding ex pietate not ex debito that is out of piety and not out of any right or necessity that it must bee soe is long since growne out of vse the state of Church-men beeing much changed from that it was when hee granted them that priuiledge as Duarenus sheweth Yet Pope Clemens can by no meanes be excused from hereticall impiety affirming that which is most vntrue as may appeare by the many fold reasons brought before to proue the contrary nor from Antichristian pride in seeking to tread vnderneath his feete the crownes and dignities of Kings and Princes and to lift himselfe vp aboue all that is called God CHAP. 45. Of the Popes vnjust claime to intermeddle with the affaires of Princes and their states if not as soueraigne Lord ouer all yet at least in Ordine ad spiritualia and in case of Princes failing to do their duties THAT Christ was no earthly King that he left no Kingly power to Peter and that the Pope hath no meere temporall power in that he is Christs Vicar or Peters successor it is most euident out of the former discourse and the Cardinall Iesuite confesseth so much and yet he thinketh the Pope hath a supreme power to dispose of all temporall states and things in ordine ad bonum spirituale that is in a kinde of reference to the procuring and setting forward of the spirituall good But this fancy is most easily refuted by vnanswerable reasons presupposing his former concession For first no man can take away limit or restraine any power or the excercise of it but he in whom it is in eminent sort and from whom it was receiued But the ciuill power that is in Princes is not in the Pope neither did it proceede and come originally from him therefore it cannot be restrained limited or taken away by him The maior proposition is euident the assumption is proued because ciuill power is in heathen infidels who no way hold of the Pope Secondly because it is agreed by all Diuines of worth and learning that the ciuill power in the first originall of it is immediately from God or if not immediately by his owne deliuery thereof yet by no other mediation then that of the law of nature and nations The Emperours know saith Tertullian who gaue them the Empire they know that it was euen the same God who gaue vnto them to be men and to haue humane soules They well perceiue that he onely is God in whose onely power they are à quo sunt secundi post quem primi ante omnes super omnes Deos that is After whom they are in order the second but among all other the first before and aboue all Gods And againe Inde est Imperator vnde homo antequam Imperator inde potest as illi vnde spiritus that is From thence is the chiefe ruler and Emperor whence he was a man before hee was an Emperour from thence hath hee his power from whence he receiued the spirit of life The Author of the answer to the reports of a great and worthy Iudge among vs who hath lately written in the defence of the Popes ouerspreading greatnesse seemeth in part to agree with Tertullian and telleth vs that ciuill power is receiued from God not immediately by his owne deliuery thereof but mediately rather by the mediation of the law of nature and nations For by the law of nature God hath ordained that there should be politicke gouernment which the law of nations assuming hath transferred that gouernment to one or more according to the diuers formes thereof And Occam proueth at large that Imperiall power is not from the Pope and that it is hereticall to say that all lawfull ciuil power is from the Pope Our second reason is this Absolute soueraigne ciuill Princes while they were infidels had true dominion rule and authority holding it as immediatly from God not depending on any ruler of the church as hath beene shewed before But when they become Christians they still remaine in the
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
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
Chap. 2. Of the sufficiencie of the Scripture 232. Chap. 3. Of the originall text of Scripture of the certainty and truth of the originals and of the authority of the vulgar translation 238. Chap. 4. Of the translating of the Scripture into vulgar languages and of the necessitie of hauing the publique liturgie and prayers of the Church in a tongue vnderstood ibid. Chap. 5. Of the three supposed different estates of meere nature grace and sinne the difference betweene a man in the state of pure and meere nature and in the state of sinne and of originall sinne 250. Chap. 6. Of the blessed virgins conception 264. Chap. 7. Of the punishment of originall sin and of Limbus puerorum 270. Chap. 8. Of the remission of originall sinne and of concupiscence remaining in the regenerate 272. Chap. 9. Of the distinction of veniall and mortall sinne 277. Chap. 10. Of free will 279. Chap. 11. Of iustification 290. Chap. 12. Of merit 324. Chap. 13. Of workes of supererogation and Counsels of perfection 331. Chap. 14. Of Election and Reprobation depending on the foresight of something in the parties elected or reiected ibid. Chap. 15. Of the seauen Sacraments 332. Chap. 16. Of the being of one body in many places at the same time ibid. Chap. 17. Of transubstantiation 333. Chap. 18. Touching orall Manducation 334. Chap. 19. Of the reall sacrificing of Christs body on the Altar as a propitiatory sacrifice for the quicke and dead 335. Chap. 20. Of remission of sinnes after this life ibid. Chap. 21. Of Purgatory 336. Chap. 22. Of the Saints hearing of our prayers 337. Chap. 23. Of the superstition and idolatrie committed formerly in the worshipping of Images 338. Chap. 24. Of Absolution ibid. Chap. 25. Of Indulgences and Pardons 339. Chap. 26. Of the infallibility of the Popes iudgment 340. Chap. 27. Of the power of the Pope in disposing the affaires of Princes and their states ibid. The fourth Booke is of the Priuiledges of the Church CHAP. 1. OF the diuerse kindes of the priuiledges of the Church and of the different acceptions of the name of the Church 343. Chap. 2. Of the different degrees of infallibility found in the Church 344. Chap. 3. Of the meaning of certaine speaches of Caluine touching the erring of the Church 345. Chap. 4. Of their reasons who thinke the present Church free from all error in matters of faith 346. Chap. 5. Of the promises made vnto the Church how it is secured from errour of the different degrees of the obedience wee owe vnto it 348. Chap. 6. Of the Churches office of teaching and witnessing the truth and of their errour who thinke the authority of the Church is the rule of our faith and that shee may make new articles of faith 350. Chap. 7. Of the manifold errors of Papists touching the last resolution of our faith and the refutation of the same 351. Chap. 8. Of the last resolution of true faith and whereupon it stayeth it selfe 355. Chap. 9. Of the meaning of those words of Augustine that he would not beleeue the Gospell if the authority of the Church did not moue him 358. Chap. 10. Of the Papists preferring the Churches authority before the Scripture ibid. Chap. 11. Of the refutation of their errour who preferre the authority of the Church before the Scripture 359. Chap. 12. Of their errour who thinke the Church may make new articles of faith 361. Chap. 13. Of the Churches authority to iudge of the differences that arise touching matters of faith 362. Chap. 14. Of the rule of the Churches iudgment 364. Chap. 15. Of the Challenge of Papists against the rule of Scripture charging it with obscurity and imperfection 365. Chap. 16. Of the interpretation of Scripture and to whom it pertaineth 366. Chap. 17. Of the interpretation of the Fathers and how farre wee are bound to admit it 368. Chap. 18. Of the diuerse senses of Scripture 369. Chap. 19. Of the rules we are to follow and the helpes wee are to trust to in interpreting the Scriptures 372. Chap. 20. Of the supposed imperfection of Scriptures and the supply of Traditions 373. Chap. 21. Of the rules whereby true Traditions may be knowne from counterfeit 378. Chap. 22. Of the difference of bookes Canonicall and Apocryphall ibid. Chap. 23. Of the Canonicall and Apocryphall bookes of Scripture 379. Chap. 24. Of the vncertainty and contrariety found amongst Papists touching books Canonicall and Apocryphall now controuersed 382. Chap. 25. Of the diuerse editions of the Scripture and in what tongue it was originally written 385. Chap. 26. Of the Translations of the old Testament out of Hebrew into Greeke 387. Chap. 27. Of the Latin translations and of the authority of the vulgar Latine 388. Chap. 28. Of the trueth of the Hebrew Text of Scripture 390. Chap. 29 Of the supposed corruptions of the Greeke text of Scripture ibid. Chap. 30. Of the power of the Church in making Lawes 393. Chap. 31. Of the bounds within which the the power of the Church in making lawes is contained and whether shee may make lawes concerning the worship of God 394. Chap. 32. Of the nature of Lawes and how they binde 397. Chap. 33. Of the nature of Conscience and how the conscience is bound ibid. Chap. 34. Of their reasons who thinke that humane Lawes do binde the Conscience 399. The fifth booke is concerning the diuers degrees orders and callings of those men to whom the gouernment of the Church is committed CHAP. 1. OF the Primitiue and first Church of God in the house of Adam the Father of all the liuing and the gouernement of same 409. Chap. 2. Of the dignity of the first borne amongst the sonnes of Adam and their Kingly and Priestly direction of the rest 410. Chap. 3. Of the diuision of the preeminences of the first borne amongst the sonnes of Iacob when they came out of Aegypt and the Church of God became Nationall 411. Chap. 4. Of the separation of Aaron and his sonnes from the rest of the sonnes of Leui to serue in the Priests office and of the head or chiefe of that company 412. Chap. 5. Of the Priests of the second ranke or order 413. Chap. 6. Of the Leuites 414. Chap. 7. Of the sects and factions in religion found amongst the Iewes in latter times ibid. Chap. 8. Of Prophets and Nazarites 416. Chap. 9. Of Assemblies vpon extraordinary occasions 417. Chap. 10. Of the set Courts amongst the Iewes their authority and continuance 418. Chap. 11. Of the manifestation of God in the flesh the causes thereof and the reason why the second Person in the Trinity rather tooke flesh then either of the other 423. Chap. 12. Of the manner of the vnion that is between the Person of the Sonne of God and our nature in Christ and the similitudes brought to expresse the same 429. Chap. 13. Of the communication of the properties of eyther nature in Christ consequent vpon the vnion of them in his Person
and the two first kindes thereof 432. Chap. 14. Of the third kind of communication of properties and the first degree thereof 434. Chap. 15. Of the third kind of communication of properties and the second degree thereof 438. Chap. 16. Of the worke of Mediation performed by Christ in our nature 441. Chap. 17. Of the things which Christ suffered for vs to procure our reconciliation with God 445. Chap 18. Of the nature and quality of the passion and suffering of Christ. 450. Chap. 19. Of the descending of Christ into hell 453. Chap. 20. Of the merit of Christ of his not meriting for himselfe his meriting for vs. 464. Chap. 21. Of the benefites which we receiue from Christ. 469. Chap. 22. Of the Ministery of them to whom Christ committed the publishing of the reconciliation between God and men procured by him 471. Chap. 23. Of the Primacie of power imagined by our Aduersaries to haue beene in Peter and their defence of the same 479. Chap. 24. Of the preeminence that Peter had amongst the Apostles and the reason why Christ directed his speeches specially to him 486. Chap. 25. Of the distinction of them to whom the Apostles dying left the managing of Church-affaires and particularly of them that are to performe the meaner seruices in the Church 488. Chap. 26. Of the orders and degrees of them that are trusted with the Ministery of the word and Sacraments and the gogouernment of Gods people and particularly of Lay-elders falsely by some supposed to bee Gouernours of the Church 493. Chap. 27. Of the distinction of the power of Order and Iurisdiction and the preeminence of one amongst the Presbyters of each Church who is named a Bishop 497. Chap. 28. Of the diuision of the lesser titles and smaller Congregations or Churches out of those Churches of so large extent founded and constituted by the Apostles 501. Chap. 29. Of Chorepiscopi or Rurall Bishops forbidden by old Canons to encroach vpon the Episcopall office and of the institution necessary vse of Archpresbyters or Deanes 504. Chap. 30. Of the forme of the gouernement of the Church and the institution and authority of Metropolitanes and Patriarches 510. Chap. 31. Of Patriarches who they were and the reason why they were preferred before other Bishops 515. Chap. 32. How the Pope succeedeth Peter what of right belongeth to him and what it is that he vniustly claimeth 518. Chap. 33. Of the proofes brought by the Romanists for confirmation of the vniuersality of the Popes iurisdiction and power 521. Chap. 34. Of the pretended proofes of the Popes vniuersall iurisdiction taken out of the decretall Epistles of Popes 524. Chap. 35. Of the pretended proofes of the Popes Supremacie produced and brought out of the writinges of the Greeke Fathers 533. Chap. 36. Of the pretended proofes of the Popes Supremacie taken out of the writings of the Latine Fathers 539. Chap. 37. Of the pretended proofes of the Popes vniuersall power taken from his intermedling in ancient times in confirming deposing or restoring Bishops deposed 550. Chap. 38. Of the weakenesse of such proofes of the supreame power of Popes as are taken from their lawes Censures dispensations and the Vicegerents they had in places farre remote from them 556. Chap. 39. Of Appeales to Rome 561. Chap. 40. Of the Popes supposed exemption from all humane iudgment as beeing reserued to the iudgement of Christ onely 571. Chap. 41. Of the titles giuen to the Pope and the insufficiencie of the proofes of his illimited power and iurisdiction taken from them 582. Chap. 42. Of the second supposed priuiledge of the Romane Bishops which is infallibility of iudgement 585. Chap. 43. Of such Popes as are charged with heresie and how the Romanists seeke to cleare them from that imputation 593. Chap. 44. Of the Popes vniust claime of temporall dominion ouer the whole world 602. Chap. 45. Of the Popes vniust claime to intermedle with the affaires of Princes and their States if not as Soueraign Lord ouer all yet at least in ordine ad Spiritualia and in case of Princes failing to do their duties 609. Chap. 46. Of the examples of Church-men deposing Princes brought by the Romanists 618. Chap. 47. Of the ciuill dominion which the Popes haue by the gift of Princes 632. Chap. 48. Of generall Councels and of the end vse and necessity of them 642. Chap. 49. Of the persons that may be present in generall Councels and who they are of whom generall Councels do consist 645. Chap. 50. Of the President of generall Councels 649. Chap. 51. Of the assurance of finding out the truth which the Bishops assembled in generall Councels haue 660. Chap. 52. Of the calling of Councels and to whom that right pertaineth 667. Chap. 53. Of the power and authority exercised by the ancient Emperours in generall Councels and of the Supremacie of Christian Princes in causes and ouer persons Ecclesiasticall 677. Chap. 54. Of the calling of Ministers and the persons to whom it pertaineth to elect and ordaine them 686. Chap. 55. Of the Popes disordered intermedling with elections of Bishops and other Ministers of the Church their vsurpation intrusion and preiudicing the right and liberty of others 696. Chap. 56. Of the ordinations of Bishops and Ministers 702. Chap. 57. Of the things required in such as are to be ordained Ministers and of the lawfulnesse of their Marriage 704. Chap. 58. Of Digamie and what kind of it it is that debarreth men from entring into the Ministerie 727. Chap. 59. Of the maintenance of Ministers 733. What things are Occasionally handled in the Appendix to the fifth Booke THat Protestants admit triall by the Fathers 749. Of Purgatory and Prayer for the dead 750. 764. 776. 783. 787. 792. Whether generall Councels may erre 761. The opinion of the Greekes concerning Purgatory 764. Of Transubstantiation 770. The opinion of some of the Schoolemen thinking that finall Grace purgeth out all sinfulnesse out of the soule in the moment of dissolution 772. Of the heresie of Aerius 789. Nothing constantly resolued on concerning Purgatory in the Romane Church at Luthers appearing 790. Abuses in the Romane Church disliked by Gerson 795. Grosthead opposing the Pope 809. The agreement of diuers before Luther with that which Protestants now teach 813. Of the difference betweene the German Diuines and vs concerning the Vbiquitary presence and the Sacrament 819. The differences of former times amongst the Fathers and of the Papists at this day compared with the differences that are found amongst Protestants 823. Of the Rule whereby all controuersies are to be ended 827. That the Elect neuer fall totally from grace once receiued 833. What manner of faith is found in infants that are baptised 837. Of the saying of Augustine that hee would not beleeue the Gospell if the authority of the Church did not moue him 841. Of the last resolution of our faith 844. 856. Of the sufficiency of the Scripture 847. Of Traditions 849. 892. Of the merit of works
passionate zeale that they abandoned the societie of them that did held them not Christians and rebaptised them which came from them to their pretended purer societies The fift of the Luciferians who received men returning from heresie to the Catholique faith without rebaptization and enioyned them penitence gaue them imposition of hands But Bishops that had beene drawne into heresie they would not admitte vnlesse they forsooke their office and ministerie against these Hierom writeth his booke against the Luciferians All these did erre vrging overmuch the Church discipline in casting off the wicked and not admitting the vnworthy to her happie fellowshippe CHAP. 17. Of the considerations moouing the Church to vse indulgence towardes offenders BVt the true Church admitteth and receiveth all that with sorrowfull repentance returne and seeke reconciliation how great soever their offences haue beene not forgetting to vse due severitie which yet shee sometime remitteth either vpon due consideration or of negligence The due and iust consideration moouing the Church to remitte something of her wonted severitie is either priuate or publique perill Private as when the partie beeing of a tender timorous and relenting disposition if hee bee proceeded with rigorously is in daunger to fall into despaire or to bee swallowed vppe with ouermuch sorrow In this case the Apostle hauing excommunicated the incestuous Corinthian writeth to the Church of Corinth speedily to receiue him againe least hee should be swallowed vp with overmuch griefe and in this sorte the auncient Bishoppes were wont to cut off great parts of enioyned penance which remission and relaxation was called an indulgence Out of the not vnderstanding whereof grew the popish pardons and indulgences Publike perill is then when the multitude authority and prevailing of the offenders is so great as that if they be cut off and separated from the rest a schisme may iustly bee feared without hope of any good to be effected thereby in this case there is iust cause why the Church forbeareth to proceede to excommunication For whereas the end of excommunication is that evill doers being put from the company of right beleeuing Christians and forsaken of all may be made ashamed of their evill doing and so brought to repentance this cannot be looked for when the multitude of offenders hath taken away all shame These are the due and iust motiues which cause the Church sometimes to forbeare to punish with that extremitie which the qualitie and condition of the offenders fault may seeme to require But sometimes of negligence not led by any of these considerations shee omitteth the due correction of such as haue offended God and scandalized his people So the Corinthians before the Apostles Letter written vnto them suffered an incestuous person seemed not much to be mooued with so vile a scandall And the like negligence is often found in the Churches of God which notwithstanding their fault in this behalfe continue the true Churches of God still and priuate men may communicate with them that through the Churches negligence are thus tolerated and suffered and that both in publique actes of religion and priuate conuersation without being partakers of their sinnes if they neither doe the same things nor approue like and applaud them that doe and if they neglect not by all good meanes to seeke their correction and amendment CHAP. 18. Of their damnable pride who condemne all those Churches wherein want of due execution of discipline and imperfections of men are found THere are and haue beene alwayes some who possessed with a false opinion of absolute sanctitie and spotlesse righteousnesse reiect the societies and companies of them in whom any imperfection may be found which was the furious zeale of the Pelagians in old time and the Anabaptists in our time Others there are which though they proceede not so farre yet denie those societies of Christians to be the true Churches of God wherein the seueritie of discipline is so farre neglected that wicked men are suffered and tolerated without due and condigne punishment These while they seeme to hate the wicked and flie from their companie for feare of contagion doe schismatically rent and inconsiderately diuide themselues from the bodie of Gods Church and forsake the fellowship of the good through immoderate hate of the wicked Both these doe dangerously and damnably erre the first in that they dreame of heauenly perfection to be found amongst men on earth whē as contrariwise the Prophet Esay pronounceth that all our righteousnesse is like the polluted and filthy ragges of a menstruous woman And b David desireth of Almighty God that he will not enter into iudgement with him for that in his sight no flesh shall be iustified And Augustine denounceth a woe against our greatest perfections if God doe straitly looke vpon them The later though they doe not require absolute and spotlesse perfection in them that are in and of the Church yet thinke it not possible that any wicked ones should bee found in so happie blessed a societie not remembring that the Church of God is compared to a Nette that gathereth into it all sorts of fishes great and small good and badde which are not separated one from another till they be cast out vpon the shore that it is like a field sowen with good seede wherein the enuious man soweth tares like a floore wherein wheate and chaffe are mingled together like the Arke of Noah wherein cursed CHAM was aswell preserued from drowning as blessed SEM. But they will say there may be Hypocrits who for that their wickednes is not knowne cannot be separated from them who in sincerity serue and worship God but if their wickednesse breake foorth that men may take notice of it either they are presently reformed or by the censures of the Church cut off from the rest which course if it be not so holden but that wicked ones without due punishment be suffered in the middest of Gods people those societies wherein so great negligence is found cease to bee the true Churches of God and wee may and must diuide our selues from them This was the errour of the Donatistes in former times and is the errour of certain proud arrogant Sectaries in our time But if the Church of God remained in Corinth where there were diuisions sects emulations contentions and quarrels and going to law one with another for every trifle end that vnder the infidels where that wickednesse was tolerated and winked at which is execrable to the very heathens where Paules name and credite was despitefully called in question whom they should haue honoured as a father where the resurrection of the dead which is the life of Christianity was with greate scorne denied who dare deny those societies to bee the Churches of God wherein the tenth part of these horrible evills and abuses is not to be found We see then the difference betweene the turbulent disposition
if they die without Baptisme dare not pronounce of them as the Romanists do 7 They deny confirmation extream vnction to be sacraments 8 Touching the Eucharist they consecrate ordinarily in leauened bread but on Maundy Thursday in vnleavened bread and in wine or the juice of raisons moistened in water and so pressed out They minister the Communion in both kinds to all both Clergie men and Lay-men The priest ministereth the bread and the Deacon the wine in a spoone They giue this Sacrment to infants when they are baptized in this sort The priest dippeth his finger into the consecrated wine and putteth it into the mouth of the child They haue neither eleuation nor reservation nor circumgestation as the Roman Church hath They all Communicate twice every weeke but the Sacrament is neuer ministred in private houses no not to the Patriarch or Emperour him selfe 9 Touching purgatorie they beleeue that soules after death are detained in a certaine place named in their tongue Mecan aaraft id est locus alleviationis that is a place of refreshing in which the soules of such as die not hauing repented of their former sinnes in such full and perfect sort as was sitting are detained and so whether the soules of good men doe enioy the vision of God before the resurrection they resolue not 10 They say no masses for the dead they bury them with crosses and prayers but specially they vse the beginning of St Iohns Gospell The day following they giue almes and so a certaine number of dayes and make feasts also 11 They grant no indulgences 12 They haue no cases reserued 13 They beleeue that the Saints do intercede for vs they pray vnto them they haue painted images but none molten or carued they much esteeme them in respect of those holy ones they represent and make sweete perfumes before them 14 Their Priests receiue no tithes but they haue lands on which they liue 15 Their Bishops and Priests are married but may not marry a second wife and continue in those degrees and orders vnlesse the Patriarch dispence with them 16 They thinke it vnlawfull to fast on Saturdaie or Sundaie and vrge to that purpose the Canon of the Apostles 17 They keepe Saturday holy as well as Sunday following the Auncient Custome of the East Church they eate flesh on that day throughout the whole yeare except only in Lent and in some Provinces they eate flesh on that day euen in the Lent also 18 They fast Wednesdaies and Saturdaies till the Sunne setting and celebrate not on those dayes till the euening 19 Betweene Easter and Whitsontide they eate flesh freely on those daies 20 They abstaine from things strangled and blood observing the Canon of the Apostles in so doing as they suppose and besides forbeare to eate of such kinds of meate as were forbidden by Moses Law 21 The Emperour hath a supreame authority in all causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill though the Patriarch also exercise a spirituall iurisdiction 22 They deny the supremacy of the Roman Bish. But they yeeld a primacie vnto him acknowledging him to be the first amongst Bishops Hauing spoken of the Grecians Assyrians and supposed Monophysites it remaineth that wee come in the last place to treate of the Maronites Touching the name ◠Baronius sheweth that it was not from any heretick named Maron but that there was a holy man so named and that in honour of him a certaine monastery was founded which was named the monastery of St Maron that all the monkes of that monastery were named Maronites These in time as it may be thought ioyned them selues to the Monophysites formerly described though happily not without some litle difference And hence all the Christians that professed to beleeue so as these did were named Maronites They haue a Patriarch of their own who claimeth to be Patriarch of Antioch He resideth in a monasterie some 25 miles from Tripolis in Syria He hath vnder him some 8 or 9 suffragan Bishops These Maronites inhabit mount Libanus and some of them in Damascus Aleppo and some parts of Cyprus Mount Libanus is of such extent that it is in compasse 7 hundred miles It hath no cities but villages which are neither few nor small Within this compasse none inhabite but Christians though vnder the Turke For they redeeme it at a high rate and pay an intollerable tribute to liue without mixture of Mahumetans The particulars of their Religion are these First they beleeue that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father onely 2 They blesse consecrate the water so often as any are to be baptized And not as in the Roman Church on the Saturday before Easter only for the whole yeare The reason of which observation is for that at Easter and at Whitsontide onely in the Primitiue Church they ministred Baptisme which they did because in baptisme men are mortified to sin quickned in the life of grace by vertue of Christs death resurrection and giuing of the spirit All which things were cōmemorated in these solemnities 3 They neuer baptize males and females together lest they should contract a kind of affinity 4 None baptizeth with them in what necessity soeuer but a Priest or Deacon 5 They require not the intention of the Minister but thinke the faith of the Church sufficeth 6 They baptize not a male till the 40th day nor a female till the 80th in respect of the impurity of the mother which they thinke continueth so long 7 They seeke no confirmation from the Bishop nor haue any other anointing then that which is vsed in baptisme 8 They consecrat the Eucharist in vnleauened bread in a massie loafe out of which they giue a peece to euery cōmunicant 9 They giue the Sacraments to Lay men in both kinds 10 They celebrat but once in one day vpon one the same altar 11 They think the Person of the Holy Ghost to be in the holy oile in such sort as the Person of Christ is in the Eucharist 12 They thinke that the Eucharist receiued into the mouth goeth not into the stomack but presently diffuseth it selfe through all the members of the body 13 On fasting-dayes they celebrate not till the euening which custome Tho à Iesu saith is not to be altered affirming that it was most auncient in the Church of God the Councell of Cabilon related in the decrees prescribing that they should celebrate the Sacrament in the Ember fasts in the euening on the saturday before Easter in the beginning of the night And although saith he the Church yeelding to our infirmity permit the Latines to doe otherwise yet where the old custome may be kept it is not only not to be takē away but much to be cōmended that men when they fast may put it off as long as may be before they eat any thing In former times they did not eat in Lent till the euening as appeareth by the Councell formerly mentioned Which custom continued till
that should bee in the will but is not when it faileth to bring forth that action that in duty it is bound to doe But some man will say this must not be granted for if wee admitte not the distinction of that which is formall that which is materiall in the sin of commission the difformity the substance of the act that the one is positiue and the other priuatiue God hauing a true efficiency in respect of the substance of the act that which is positiue in it we must acknowledg that he hath a true efficiency in respect of the whole euen the difformity aswell as the substance consequently make him the author of sin They who make this objection seeme to say some thing but indeed they say nothing for this distinction will not cleere the doubt they moue touching Gods efficiency working in the sinful actions of men Whensoeuer sayth Durandus two things are inseperably ioyned together whosoeuer knowing them both that they are so inseperably ioyned together chooseth the one chooseth the other also because though happily he would not choose it absolutly as being evill yet in that it is ioyned to that which he doth will neither can be seperated frō it it is of necessity that he must will both As it appeareth in those voluntary actions that are mixt as when a man casteth into the sea those rich commodities which he hath dearly bought brought from a farre to saue his owne life which he would not doe but in such a case Hence it followeth that the act of hating God sinfull difformity being so inseperably ioyned together that the one cannot bee diuided from the other for a man cannot hate God but he must sin damnably if God doth will the one he doth will the other also This of Durand is confirmed by Suarez who saith he shall neuer satisfie any man that doubteth how God may be cleared from being author of sin if hee haue an efficiency in the sinfull actions of men that shall answere that all that is sayd touching Gods efficiency concurrence is true in respect of the euill motions actions of mens wills materially considered not formally in that they are evill sinfull For the one of these is consequent vpon another For a free and deliberate act of a created will about such an obiect with such circumstances cannot be produced but it must haue difformity annexed to it There are some operations or actions saith Cumel that are intrinsecally euill so that in them we cannot separate that which is materiall from that which is formall wherein the sinfulnes of sin consisteth as it appeareth in the hate of God in this act when a man shall say resolue I will do euill So that it implyeth a contradiction that God should effectually worke our will to bring forth such actions in respect of that which is materiall in them not in respect of that which is formall And this seemeth yet more impossible if wee admit their opinion who think that the formall nature being of the sin of commission consisteth in some thing that is positiue as in the manner of working freely so as to repugne to the rule of reason law of God So that it is cleare in the iudgment of these great diuines that if God haue a true reall efficiency in respect of the substance of these sinful actiōs he must in a sort produce the difformity or that which is formall in thē Wherefore for the clearing of this point we must obserue that there are 3 opiniōs touching Gods cōcurrence with 2d causes in producing their effects The 1st that God hath no immediate influence but mediate only in respect of volūtary agēts And according to this opiniō it is casie to cleare God frō the imputatiō of being author of sin yet to acknowledg his cōcurrence with 2d causes in producing their defectiue effects If the will of the creature saith Scotus were the totall and immediate cause of her action that God had no immediate efficiency but mediate only in respect thereof as some think it were easie according to that opinion to shew how God may bee freed from the imputation of being author of sin and yet to acknowledge his concurrence with second causes for the producing of their effects For whether we speake of that which is materiall or formall in sinne the will onely should be the totall cause of it and God should no way be a cause of it but mediatly in that hee caused and produced such a will that might at her pleasure doe what shee would Durandus seemeth to incline to this opinion supposing that 2d causes do bring forth their actions operations by of themselues that God no otherwise concurreth actiuely to the production of the same but in that he preserueth the 2d causes in that being power of working which at first he gaue them But they that are of sounder judgment resolue that as the light enlightneth the aire with the aire all other inferior things so god not only giueth being power of working to the 2d causes preserueth them in the same but together with them hath an immediate influence into the things that are to be effected by the God saith Caietan being the first cause worketh produceth the effects of all 2d causes immediatly tum immediatione virtutis tum immediatione suppositi that is not onely so as that the vertue power of God the first agent immediatly sheweth it self in the production of the effect but so also that he is an immediate agent between whom the effect produced no secondary agent intercedeth Yet are we not to conceiue that he is an immediate agent immediatione suppositi as he is immediatione virtutis for hee produceth immediatly euery effect of euery 2◠cause in respect of all that is found in any such effect immediatly immediatione virtutis that is so as that his vertue and power more immediatly effectually sheweth it self in the production of euery such effect then the power and vertue of the 2d cause but hee produceth euery effect of euery 2d cause immediatly immediatione suppositi that is as an immediate agent betweene whom and the effect no secondary agent intercedeth not in respect of all that is found in such an effect but of some things only as existence and the last perfection of actuall being For to giue being is proper to God as to make fire is proper to fire So that between God the supreme agent and being communicated to the effects of 2d causes there is nothing that commeth betweene that by force and power of it owne can produce any such effect So that God as an immediate agent bringeth forth such effects and all 2 causes in respect thereof are but instruments only But in respect of those things found in the same effects into which the 2d causes haue an influence by
vertue of their owne proper for me Caietan confesseth that God doth not so produce them as an immediat agent but that the 2d causes doe mediate between him and them as secondary principal agents bring forth their effects Yet are not these that is the first the 2d causes partiall but totall causes of all those effects which they produce For the cleering whereof we must obserue that a cause may bee said to be totall either totalitate effectus that is because it bringeth forth the whole effect though some other cause haue such efficiencie also in respect of the same that without the helpe of it it cannot bring forth any such effect as when 2 men draw a ship either of them produceth the whole effect and moueth the whole ship but yet not so wholly but that either hath need of the others helpe and concurrence Or secondly a cause may bee said to bee totall totalitate causoe and that in 2 sorts either so as to produce the whole effect without any concurrence of any other cause in which sense neither God nor the creature neither the first nor the 2d cause must be said to be a totall cause or so as that though some other do concurre yet the being power of working and actuall cooperation of it is wholy from the agent with which it doth concurre and so God is a totall cause of all those effects that he produceth by and together with the 2d causes So that the opinion of them who thinke that God hath no immediat influence into the effects of 2d causes nor immediate concurrence with such causes in producing their effects is to be exploded out of all Christian schools Churches as profane heathnish Wherfore there are who finding that this first opiniō is not to be admitted flie to a 2d little better then the former For they acknowledge that God hath an immediate influence into the effects of all 2d causes but they think it to be general indefinit to be ◅ted determined by the different concurse of 2d causes It is true indeed that God worketh all things as an vniversall cause but this may bee vnderstood wayes For first a cause may be sayd to be vniuersall in the vniuersality of predication as opposit to speciall or particular as an artificer in respect of this that speciall kinde of artificers is generall and is an vniuersall cause of all workes of arte and they of such speciall workes as are incident to their seuerall kinds Secondly a cause may bee sayd to bee vniversall in that it extendeth it selfe to effects of all sorts in respect of something common to them all and not in respect of that which is proper to each of them vnlesse the working of it bee limited and directed by something else The fire warmeth the water with which poison is mingled in the same sorte that it doth any other water and without any difference of it own action And the actions of the sun fire are such as that men make vse of thē to vvhat purposes they please accordingly as their vvorking is differently applied bring forth differēt effects Thirdly a cause may be sayd to be vniversall because the efficiencie and vvorking of it extendeth it selfe to many things according to the seuerall differences of them without being limited and determined by any other thing These men suppose that God is an vniversall cause in the second sense and that his concurrence influence is indefinit generall and such as may be taken and applied by second causes in what sort they will So that the actions of free vvill the actions of euery other second cause haue from the freedome of the wil the particular quality of the second causes that they are of this or that sort good or bad not from the concurse or influence of the first cause which is finde◅init as is the concurse influence of the sun vvith other inferiour causes and as one man may make offer of his helpe concurrence to whatsoeuer another vvill make vse of it So they suppose that God offereth his concurse to second causes to be vsed by them to what purpose in what sort they will According to this conceipt they suppose they can easily cleere the doubt and free God from all imputation of being authour of sin though he concurre immediatly with second causes in to the producing of those actions that are sinfull For say they his concurse influence is indefinit and is by them applied in ill sorte to ill purposes But first this conceipt cleereth not God from being authour of sin And secondly it cannot stand with the grounds of Philosophie or diuinity That it cleereth not God from being authour of sin but rather layeth this imputation on him it is euident For if the concurse of God be generall indefinit indifferent and to be determined by the creature to the producing of good or euill it followeth that when the will of the creature determineth it selfe to the specificall act of sin God also determinately concurreth with it in particular to the producing of such an acte in kinde That this consequence is good it is evident because whosoeuer shall offer his help concurrence cooperation to another indifferently for the producing of good or euill the actes of sin or vertue as it shall please him he concurreth in trueth indeede to the producing of the acte of sin in particular as it is such an act if by the will of the other his concurrence cooperation bee determined to such an acte in particular Wherefore if God for his part offer onely a generall concurse such as is indifferent to the producing of actes of vertue or sinne accordingly as the will of the second cause shall determine it it will follow that God concurreth determinately or in particular to the producing of the acte of sin as being determined to the producing of such an act in particular by the will of the creature before he come to actuall cooperation or concurrence Secondly this conceipt cannot stand with the grounds of true Philosophie or diuinitie For if Gods concurse were onely generall and indefinit to bee determined by the will of the creature the will of the creature should bee before the will of God in respect of the particularity of things yea in respect of some reall acte as an acte it should be simply the first agent For according to this fancie because the creature inclineth to such an acte to put a thing in being therefore God cooperateth Whence it will follow that there are 2 beings of things that God is not simply the first cause of all those things that haue being 2ly It pertaineth to diuine prouidence determinately to will aforehand to appoint what afterwards shall be to moue second causes to certaine and determinate effects so to dispose all things that they may attaine the ends for which they were created But this could
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
beleeued by the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died But they of the Church of Rome at this day dislike this opinion for they suppose that though our will be not free from sinne so as collectiuely to decline each sinne and that though in the state wherein presently we are we cannot but sinne at one time or other in one thing or other yet we may decline each particular sinne divisiuely and doe the true workes of morall vertue Much contending there is hath beene touching freewill wherefore for the clearing of this point two things are to be noted 1 from what and 2dly wherein this liberty may be thought to be The things from which the will may be thought to bee free are fiue 1 The authority of a superiour commander and the duty of obedience 2ly The inspection care gouernment direction and ordering of a superiour 3ly Necessity that either from some externe cause enforcing or from nature inwardly determining and absolutely mouing one way 4ly Sinne the dominion of it 5ly Misery Of these fiue kindes of liberty the 2 first agree only to God so that in the highest degree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is freedome of will is proper to God only and in this sense Calvin and Luther rightly deny that the will of any creature is or euer was free The third kind of libertie is opposite not only to coaction but naturall necessitie also In opposition to coaction the vnderstanding is free for howsoeuer a man may be forced to thinke beleeue contrary to his inclination that is such things as he would not haue to be true yet the vnderstanding cannot assent to any thing contrary to her owne inclination for the vnderstanding is inclined to thinke so of things as they are as they may be made to appeare vnto her to be whether pleasing to nature or not but the vnderstanding is not free from necessitie But the will in her action is free not onely in opposition to coaction but to naturall necessity also Naturall necessitie consisteth herein that when all things required to inable an agent to produce the proper effect thereof are present it hath no power not to bring forth such effect but is put into action by them So the fire hauing fit fuell in due sort put vnto it being blowed vpon cannot but burne The libertie of the will therefore appeareth herein that though all those things be present that are pre-required to inable it to bring forth the proper action of it yet it hath power not to bring it forth and it is still indifferent indeterminate till it determine and incline it selfe God indeed worketh the will to determine it selfe neither isit possible that hee should so worke it and it should not determine it self accordingly yet doth not Gods working vpon the will take from it the power of dissenting and doing the contrary but so inclineth it that hauing libertie to doe otherwise yet shee will actually determine so Here Luther and Calvin are charged with the denyall of this libertie of the will many strange absurdities are attributed to them for first Luther is said to haue affirmed that the will of man is meerely passiue that it produceth not any act but receiueth into it such acts as God alone without any concurrence of it worketh produceth in it But all this is nothing but a meere calumniation for Luther knoweth right well that men produce such actions as are externally good euill willing out of choice confesseth that we doe the good things that God commandeth vs when we are made partakers of his grace but that God worketh vs to doe them Wee beleeue we feare we loue but it is God that worketh vs to beleeue feare loue Certum est nos facere cùm facimus saith Saint Augustine seà Deus facit ut faciamus It is most certain that we doe those things we are said to doe but it is God that maketh vs to doe them not only by perswading inviting inwardly drawing vs by morall inducements but by a true reall efficiencie So that according to Luthers opinion we moue not but as moued nor are actiue but as hauing first bin passiue nor turne our selues but as first wrought vpon and made to turne yet doe wee truely moue our selues and truely freely and cheerefully choose that which is good and turne ou rselues from that which is euill to that which is good Diuines say that facere vt velimus and facere ipsum velle differ very much that is they say it is one thing to make vs to will and another to produce the acte of willing God worketh both but in a different sorte the first sine nobis facientibus nos velle Secundum autem operatur nobiscum simul tempore consentientibus cooperantibus that is God worketh the first of these alone we make not our selues to will the second hee produceth together with vs willing that hee would haue vs and producing that wee doe So that in the former consideration wee are meerely passiue in the latter actiue which neither Luther nor any of his followers ever denyed Calvine they say confesseth that the will concurreth actiuely to the acte which God produceth but without any freedome at all vnlesse wee speake of that freedome which is from coaction It is true indeede that Calvine denyeth vs to bee free from necessity but hee speaketh of the necessity of sinning but hee neuer denyeth vs to bee free from naturall necessitie that is from being put into action so as naturall agents are that is without all choyce and liking ofthat wee incline to doe It is evident that Calvine confesseth the will of man to bee free to doe euill and he denyeth it not to bee free to performe acts civilly good or morally good ex genere obiecto yea hee thinketh that the will freely and out of choyce willeth whatsoeuer it willeth as in the state of auersion it freely willeth that it should not so when God conuerteth it hee turneth the course of the actions and desire of it and maketh it freely and out of choyce to turne to good That men haue lost the freedome from sinne and put themselues into a necessity of sinning Saint Augustine sheweth Libero arbitrio male vtens homo se perdidit ipsum sicut enim qui se occidit vtique vivendo se occidit sed se occidendo non vivit nec seipsum potest resuscitare cum occiderit ita cum libero peccaretur arbitrio victore peccato amissum est liberum arbitrium à quo enim quis devictus est huic servus addictus est Quae sententia cum vera sit qualis quaeso potest servi addicti esse libertas nisi quando eum peccare delectat Liberaliter enim seruit qui sui domini voluntatem libenter facit Ac per hoc ad peccandum liber est qui peccati servus est
by Gerson disliking the honour then giuen to Images their number and fashion as being occasions of Idolatry in the simple which to be true the words of Augustine are proof sufficient who demaundeth who it is or where he may bee found that adoreth or prayeth beholding an Image as the manner was in the Romane Church is not in such sort affected that he perswadeth himselfe it heareth him and is able and ready to grant him the things he desireth and seeketh in his prayer CHAP. 24. Of Absolution ABsolution is now supposed by those of the Church of Rome to be a Sacramentall Acte giuing grace ex opere operato and so remitting sinne both quoad culpam poenam but in the Primitiue Church it was nothing else but a restoring of men formerly put from the Sacrament cast out of the Church to the Churches peace and vse of the Sacraments again as appeareth by Cyprians Epistles Neither was Absolution giuen in those times till pennance were first performed Amongst the ancient sayth Lindan Absolution was seldome giuen but after penance performed onely in time of persecution pestilence warre or dangerous sicknesse of the party the manner was sometimes to giue absolution presently at the suit of the penitent to require of him the performance of pennance afterward if hee escaped those dangers Hence in time it came that ordinarily they gaue Absolution first and then imposed penance to be performed afterward Now because they could not conceiue from what this Absolution should free them not being formerly subjected to any censure of the Church some began to thinke that it freeth them from the staine of sinne and the punishments due vnto the same thereby making it a Sacramentall Acte yet so as many retayned a right perswasion still The Priest saith Alexander of Hales is a Mediatour betweene God man to God he ascendeth as an inferiour by way of petition and as a suiter to man he descendeth as a Commaunder and Iudge In the first sort hee obtayneth for men by his prayer and procureth acceptation with God in the second hee reconcileth them to the Church his prayer obtayneth grace his absolution presupposeth it so that the Keyes of the Church extend to the remission of sin by way of request obtayning it not by way of authority giuing it CHAP. 25. Of Indulgences and Pardons TOuching Indulgences or Pardons they were originally nothing else but the releasing of some part of that penance that had beene enioyned as appeareth by the whole course of antiquity Wherevpon it was a long time the opinion of many in the Romane Church that Indulgences are of force onely in indicio Ecclesiae not in iudicio Dei and that they free men only from injoyned penance which the forme of them was wont to import it being euer added in those relaxations ab iniunctis poenitentiis and Caietan sheweth the same affirming that an Indulgence is principally an acte of jurisdiction and the freeing from enjoyned penance That which bred another conceit in the Romane Church in later times was an errour in practise for whereas aunciently they neuer remitted any part of the penance they had enjoyned but out of the consideration of the extraordinary signes of repentance appearing in the penitent arguing that to bee performed in shorter time than was expected which was intended in later times they granted these relaxations and remissions in favour when there was no inducement in respect of any thing appearing in the parties Now because to free them from these penitentiall exercises tending to the preventing of Gods Iudgements before so much was performed as was necessary for the turning away of his displeasure might seeme hurtfull rather than beneficiall to them to whom such favours were shewed in that they were left to Gods judgements into whose hands it is fearefull to fall they began to bethinke them how they might supply the defects of penitentiall conversion vnto God in those they thus pardoned and not leaue them to the danger of his future judgement This they could not otherwise devise to doe but by casting the ouerplus of other mens satisfactions vpon them and releeuing them out of the treasury of the Church which groweth as they suppose out of the satisfactorie sufferings of Christ and his Saints multis tamen doctoribus aduersantibus as Caietan noteth where hee sheweth that Durandus teacheth that the Saints had no superfluous merits not rewarded in themselues Touching Indulgences Durandus sayth little can bee sayd of any certainety or as vndoubtedly true seeing the Scripture speaketh not expresly of them neither the Fathers as Augustine Hillarie Ambrose Hierome and the rest so that in speaking of them wee must follow the common course Touching the force of these pardons how vncertainly and vnconstantly their greatest doctours dispute it is not vnknowne for Bonaventura noteth that many were of opinion that pardons haue no other vse nor haue any further force or vertue but onely to remit certaine dayes penance if the cause in respect whereof they be granted bee equivalent vnto the penance which was to haue beene performed so making them to bee but onely a commutation of penance and not a relaxation or remission Gerson sayth the judiciall and publike power of the keyes extendeth not it selfe principally or directly to the diminishing or taking away of any punishments but such as it selfe inflicted or might haue inflicted as are the punishments of Excommunication irregularity and other disablings to performe Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall actes And in another place he sayth the granting of Indulgences extendeth not it selfe to punishments following the corruption of nature and flowing from originall sinne for it is certaine that the Pope doeth not absolue and free men from thirst hunger infirmities and death so that such absolutions extend only to the punishments aboue mētioned such as may be inflicted by the just Iudgment and prescription of him that imposeth penance for actuall sins Whe ther the power of the Keyes extend only to such as are on earth or to them also that are in Purgatory the opinions hee sayth of men are contrary vncertaine but howsoeuer this he pronounceth confidently that onely Christ can giue such pardons for thousands of dayes and yeares as many Popes assume to themselues power to graunt CHAP. 26. Of the Infallibility of the Popes judgment TOuching the infallibility of the Popes judgment it was so farre from being a thing resolued of in the Church of God before our time that Stapleton confesseth it is yet no matter of faith but of opinion onely because so many famous and renowned Deuines haue euer holden the contrary as Gerson Almaine Occam allmost all the Parisians all they that thought the councell to be aboue the Pope Adrianus Sextus Durandus Alfonsus à Castro and many moe CHAP. 27. Of the power of the Pope in disposing the affaires of Princes and their states LAstly Touching the power of the Pope in
afterwards when they are grown inveterate for that then they will corrupt the monuments of antiquity 8 That the whole present Church may be ignorant of some things and erre in them but that in matters necessary to bee knowne and beleeued expressely it cannot erre and that it cannot erre in any the least thing with pertinacie such and so great as is found in Heretickes Ninthly that Councels and Popes may erre in matters of greatest consequence This our opinion thus layde downe is defended by Waldensis Occam and others Waldensis saith the Church whose faith neuer faileth according to the promise made to Peter who bare the figure of the Church when Christ said I haue prayed for thee that thy faith faile not is not any particular Church as the Church of Africa within the bounds whereof Donatus did inclose it nor the particular Romane Church but the vniversall Church not gathered together in a generall Councell which hath sometimes erred as that at Ariminium vnder Taurus the Governour and that at Constantinople vnder Iustinian the younger but it is the Catholique Church dispersed through the whole world from the Baptisme of Christ vnto our times which doth holde and maintaine the true faith and the faithfull testimony of Iesus CHAP. 6. Of the Churches office of teaching and witnessing the truth and of their errour who thinke the authority of the Church is the rule of our faith and that shee may make new articles of our faith THus hauing spoken of the Churches assured possession of the knowledge of the truth in thenext place wee are to speake of her office of teaching witnessing the same touching the which our adversaries fall into two dangerous errours the first that the authority of the Church is Regula fidei ratio credendi the rule of our faith the reason why we belieue The second that the Church may make new articles of faith Touching the first of these erroneous conceipts the most of them doe teach that the last thing to which the perswasion of our faith resolueth it selfe the maine ground whereupon it stayeth is the authoritie of the Church guided by the spirit of truth For say they if infidels and misbeleeuers demaund of vs why we beleeue the Trinity of persons in the Vnity of the same Divine essence the Incarnation of the Sonne of God the Resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come we answere because these things are contayned in the Scriptures If they proceede farther to aske why wee beleeue the Scripture we answere because it is the word of God if why wee beleeue it to bee the word of God because the Church doth so testifie of it if why we beleeue the testimony of the Church because it is guided by the spirit of truth so that that vpon which our faith settleth her perswasion touching these things is the authority of the Catholique Church ledde and guided by the spirit of truth If it be said that it is one of the things to bee beleeued that the Church is thus guided by the spirit therefore that the authority of the Church cannot be the reason cause of beleeuing all things that pertain to the Christian faith because not of those things which concerne her owne authority Stapleton who professeth to handle this matter most exactly Sometimes seemeth to say that this article of faith that the Church is guided by the spirit and appointed by God to be a faithfull mistrisse of heauenly truth is not among the Articles of faith nor in the number of things to be beleeued Which the Rhemists vpon these words The Church is the pillar and ground of truth most constantly affirme saying We must beleeue heare and obey the Church as the Touchstone Pillar and firmament of truth for all this is comprised in the principle I beleeue the holy Catholique Church Sometimes that though perhaps in that Article it be implyed that wee beleeue whatsoeuer the Church teacheth vs yet not necessarily that wee beleeue that the Church is a faithfull and infallible witnesse mistresse of trueth And sometimes as in his triplication against Whitaker he sayth that when we professe that we beleeue the holy Catholike Church we doe not onely professe to beleeue that there is such a Church in the world but that wee are members of it and doe beleeue and embrace the doctrine of it as being guided infallibly by the spirit of trueth and that wee are taught in the Articles of our faith that the Church ought to bee listned vnto as to an infallible mistresse of heauenly trueth Surely it seemeth his braine was much crased when he thus wrote saying vnsaying saying he knew not what That which he addeth that this proposition God doth reveale vnto vs his heavenly truth teach vs the mysteries of his kingdome by the ministery of his Church is a transcendent wherevpon that article wherein wee professe to beleeue the Catholike Church doth depend as all the rest do is not an Article of the Creede doth but more more shew the distemper of his head But in that which hee addeth for confirmation hereof that we do not professe in the first Article of our faith to beleeue God as the reuealer of all hidden and heauenly truth and to rest in him as in the fountaine of all illumination is the note brand of an impious miscreant For this doubtlesse is the first thing implyed in our faith towards God that we yeeld him this honour to be the great master of all trueth vpon whose authority we will depend renouncing all our owne wisedome knowing that as no man knoweth the things of a man but the spirit of a man so no man knoweth the things of God but the spirit of Got and that flesh and blood cannot reueale these things vnto vs but our father which is in heauen That the precept of louing God aboue all is not distinctly set downe among the rest of the tenne commaundements but is implyed though principally in the first yet generally in all is to no purpose If he thinke it is not at all contayned in the Decalogue his folly is too too great CHAP. 7. Of the manifold errours of Papistes touching the last resolution of our faith and the refutation of the same THus wee see hee cannot avoid it but that the Church is one of the things to be beleeued therefore cannot be the first generall cause of beleeuing all things that are to be beleeued For when we are to be perswaded of the authority of the Church it is doubtfull vnto vs and therefore cannot free vs from doubting or settle our perswasion because that which setleth the perswasion must not be doubted of There is no question then but that the authority of the old Testament may bee brought to proue the new to him that is perswaded of the old and doubteth of the newe and the authoritie of the newe to
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
commissions they authorized others to preach the Gospell administer Sacraments to binde and loose and to performe other like pastorall duties sanctifying and ordayning them to this worke by the imposition of hands These they honoured with the glorious title of Presbyters that is fatherly guides of Gods Church and people and knowing the weight of the burden they layd on their shoulders added vnto them as assistantes other of an inferiour degree and rancke whom they named Deacons or Ministers Amongst these fatherly guides of Gods Church and people for the preuenting of dissention the avoyding of confusion and the more orderly managing of the important affaires of Almighty God they established a most excellent diuine and heavenly order giuing vnto one amongst the Presbyters of each Church an eminent fatherly power so that the rest might doe nothing without him whom for distinctions sake and to expresse the honour of his degree and place afore and aboue other wee name a Bishoppe And farther by a most wise disposition provided that amongst Bishoppes all should not challenge all things vnto themselues but that there should be in seuerall provinces seuerall Bishops who should be first and chiefe amongst the brethren and againe constituted and placed certaine other in greater cities who might take care of more then the former The former of these were named Metropolitanes the later were knowen by the name of Patriarchs or chiefe Fathers who also in order and honour were one before and after another By meanes of this order established by the Apostles of Christ among the guides of Gods people and receiued and allowed by the first and Primitiue Christians vnity was preserued the parts of the Church holden fast together in a band of concordant agreement questions determined doubtes cleared differences composed and causes aduisedly deliberately heard with all indifferencie and equity Fow how could there bee any breach in the Christian Churches when none were ordained Presbyters in any Church but by the Bishop the rest of the Presbyters imposing their hands on them together with him None admitted to the degree and order of a Bishop but by the Metropolitane and other Bishops of the Prouince sufficiently approuing that they did to the people ouer which they set him None receiued as a Metropolitane vnlesse being ordained by the Bishops of the Province vpon notice giuen of their orderly proceeding the sincerity of his faith and profession he were confirmed by the Patriarch Nor none taken for a Patriarch though ordained by many neighbour Bishops till making knowne the soundnesse of his profession and the lawfulnesse of his election and ordination to the rest of the Patriarches hee were allowed receiued by them as one of their ranke and order Or what feare could there be of any wrong injustice or sinister proceedings in the hearing of causes and determining of controversies vnlesse there were in a sort a generall failing When if there grew a diffence betweene a Bishop and his Presbyters or if either Presbyter Deacon or inferiour Cleargy-man disliked the proceedings of his Bishop there lay an appeale to the Metropolitane who had power to re-examine the matter in a Synode and to see they were not wronged And if either Clearke or Bishop had ought against the Metropolitane it was lawfull for them to appeale to the Primate or Patriarch who in a greater and more honourable Synode was to heare the matter and to make a finall end When if any variance rose between any of the Patriarchs and their Bishops or amongst themselues it was lawfull for the Patriarchs that were aboue and before them in order and honour to interpose themselues and with their Synods to judge of such differences and in such cases as could not so be ended or that cōcerned the faith the state of the whole vniuersall Church there remained the judgment and resolution of a generall Councell wherein the Bishop of the first See was to sit as President and Moderatour and the other Bishops of the Christian world as his fellow Iudges and in the same commission with him This order continued in the Church from the Apostles times and wrought excellent effects till the Bishop of Constantinople first sought and after him the Bishop of Rome obtained to be not only in order and honour before the rest as anciently he had beene but to haue an absolute and vniuersall commaunding power ouer all that either by fraud or violence he could bring into subjection Whence followed horrible confusion in the Christian Church and almost the vtter ruine and desolation of the same For after that this childe of pride had in this Lucifer-like sort advanced himselfe aboue his brethren hee thrust his sickle into other mens haruests hee encroached vpon their bounds and limits hee pretended a right to confer all dignities whether electiue or presentatiue to receiue appeales of all sorts of men out of all parts of the world nay without appeale or complaint immediatly to take notice of all causes in the Diocesses of all other Bishops so ouerthrowing their jurisdiction and seizing it in his owne hands Hee exempted Presbyters from the jurisdiction of their Bishops Bishops of their Metropolitans and Metropolitanes of their Primates and Patriarches and leauing vnto the rest nothing but a naked and empty title tooke vpon him to determine all doubts and questions of himselfe alone as out of the infallibility of his judgment to excommunicate degrade depose againe to absolue reconcile and restore to heare and judge of all causes as out of the fulnesse of his power Neither did he there stay but hauing subjected vnto him as much as in him lay all the members of Christs body and trampled vnderneath his feete the honour dignity of all his brethren and collegues hee went forward and challenged a right to dispose of all the kingdomes of the world as being Lord of Lords and King of Kings To this height he raised himselfe by innumerable sleights and cunning devices taking the advantage of the ignorance superstition negligence and base disposition which hee found to be in many of the guides of the Church in those dayes and by their helpe and concurrence preuailing against the rest that were of another spirit Neither did he demeane himselfe any better after he had attained to this his desired greatnesse for such was his pride insolencie and tyrannie and such soe many and vnsupportable were the burthens he layd on the shoulders of them that were noe way able to beare them that the voyces of complaint and murmuring were euery where heard and the mindes of all men filled with discontentment and desire of alteration which after many longing desires of our ancestours hath beene effected in our time God at the last hearing the cryes of his people and stirring vp the heroicall spirits of his chosen seruants to worke our deliuerance to take the burthens from our shoulders the yoake from our necke and to bring vs out of that Babylon wherein
nobis nostram naturam vt eam sibi sociaret per vnionem in personâ quae sociata non erat per vnitatem in naturâ vt per id quod de nostro vnum secum fecerat nos sibi vniret vt cum ipso vnum essemus per id quod nostrum sibi vnitum erat per ipsum vnum essemuâ—… cum patre qui cum ipsa vnum erat That is The Word which was one with God the Father by ineffable vnity became one with man assumed by admirable vnion The vnity was in nature the vnion in Person With God the Father it was one in Nature not in Person with man assumed it was one in Person not in nature It tooke of vs our nature to joyne it to it selfe by vnion in Person which had no societie with it by vnity of nature that by that which taken from us it made one with it selfe it might unite vs to it selfe that wee might bee one with it by that of ours which was vnited to it by it wee might be one with the Father who is one with it Thus hauing shewed in what sort Christ is a meane betweene the two extreames God Man it remaineth that we seeke out how according to which nature he is a Mediatour That he is a Mediatour according to the concurrence of both Natures in the vnitie of his Person it is confessed by all for if he were not both God Man hee could not mediate betweene God Men. But whether hee be a Mediatour according to both Natures concurring in the worke of Mediation there be some that make question For the clearing whereof the Diuines distinguish the workes of Mediation making them to be of two sorts Of Ministery of Authority Of Ministery as to pray to pay the price of Redemption by dying to satisfie for sin Of Authority as to passe all good vnto vs from the Father in the Holy Ghost Touching the workes of Ministery it is agreed on by all that the Person of the Son of God performed them in the nature of Man for we must distinguish Principium quod Principium quo that is the Person which doth and suffereth and that wherein it doth and suffereth such things as are necessary to procure our reconciliation with God It was the Son of God Lord of Life that died for vs on the Crosse but it was the nature of Man not of God wherein he died it was the nature of God and infinite excellencie of the same whence the price value worth of his passion grew The workes of Authority and Power as to giue life to giue the Spirit to raise the dead to make the blinde see the dumbe to speake were all performed by the Diuine Nature yet not without an instrumentall concurrence of the Nature of Man in sort as hath beene before expressed when I shewed how the Actions of Christ were diuinely-humane If it be alledged that Opera Trinitatis ad extra are indivisa that is that there is nothing that one of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity doth towards the Creatures but they all doe it and consequently that those things which Christ did in his Diuine Nature pertained not to the office of a Mediatour being common to all the Persons we answer that as the Persons of the Blessed Trinity though they be one the same God yet differ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in subsistence the manner of hauing possessing the Deitie Diuine Nature so though their action be the same the worke done by them yet they differ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the manner of doing it for the Father doth all things authoritatiuè and the Son subauthoritatiuè as the Schoolemen speake that is the Father as he from whom of whom all things are the Son as he by whom all things are not as if hee were an instrument but as Principium à Principio that is a cause beginning of things that hath receiued the Essence it hath and power of working from another though the very same that is in the other And in this sort to quicken giue life and to impart the spirit of sanctification to whom he pleaseth especially with a kind of concurring of the humane nature meriting desiring and instrumentally assisting is proper to the Son of God manifested in our flesh not common to the whole Trinity and therefore notwithstanding the objection taken from the vnity of the Workes of the Diuine Persons may be a worke of mediation Bellarmine the Iesuite bringeth many reasons to proue that Christ is not a Mediatour according to both Natures but that which aboue all other he most vrgeth is this If Christ saith he be a Mediatour according to both Natures then either according to both jointly or seuerally not seuerally because not according to his Diuine Nature seuerally considered being the party offended Not according to both jointly because though in that sort he differ from the Father the Holy Ghost neither of which is both God Man and from the sonnes of men who are meerely men yet hee differeth not from the Son of God who was to be pacified by the Mediatour as well as the Father the Holy Ghost neither in nature nor in person This surely is is a silly kind of reasoning for it is not necessary that a thing should differ from both the extreames according to all that in respect whereof it is of a middle condition but it is sufficient if it differ in some thing from one and in some thing from another The middle colour differeth from the extreames not in the whole nature of it but from white in that it hath of blacknesse and from blacke in that it hath of whitenesse but it is medium in that it hath something of either of them Soe the Sonne of God incarnate differeth not onely from the Father and the holy Ghost but from himselfe as God in that he is Man and from Men and himselfe as man in that hee is GOD and therefore may mediate not onely betweene the Father and vs men but also betweene himselfe as God and vs miserable and sinnefull men Wherefore to conclude this point wee say that some of the workes of Christ the mediatour were the workes of his Humanity in respect of the thing done and had their efficacie dignity and value from his Diuinity in that they were the workes of him that had the Diuinity dwelling bodily in him and some the workes of his Diuinitie the humane nature concurring only instrumentally as the giuing sight to the blinde raising the dead remitting of sinnes and the like Neither doe wee imagine one action of both natures nor say that Christ died offered himselfe on the Altar of the Crosse or payed for vs in his Diuinity as some slanderously report of vs and therefore all the objections that are mustered against vs proceeding from the voluntary mistaking of our sense and meaning which some
reward is euer some good to be gained by our well doing or patient suffering counteruailing the difficultie in doing and bitternesse in suffering It is therefore most absurd that any thing which is a mans owne in as ample sort before he begin his worke as after he hath done it should be the reward of his worke But some man perhaps will say that a thing that was due in respect of the habit resting in the mind may become due in respect of the Act done and consequently that that which was due one way may become more waies due Surely wee make no question but it may because it was due to the Habit as to the Roote of such action when occasion should be offered opportunity serue not otherwise But seeing in Christ the glorification impassibility of his body was due vnto him as a consequent of personall vnion and not of any habituall quality or habit inclining fitting vnto action therefore that could not become due to any action of Christ that was due vnto him in respect of some former thing as that may bee due to the action of a Man that was formerly due to the habit that is the roote of such action The places of Scripture that are brought to proue that Christ merited for himself are specially two for though there be a third as pregnant as any of the other in the first to the Hebrewes where it is said of Christ Thou hast loued righteousnesse and hated iniquity therefore God euen thy God hath annointed thee with the oyle of gladnesse aboue thy fâ—…llowes yet doe they not much stand vpon it because if it proue any thing it proueth that Christ merited the grace of vnction which they deny who teach that Christ merited for himselfe The first of the two places alleaged to proue that Christ merited for himselfe is in the second to the Hebrewes where the Apostle saith Wee see Iesus for the passion of death crowned with glory and honour But the words as some thinke are not so to be read but to be placed in this sort Wee see Iesus who was for a litle while made lower then the Angels for the passion of death that is that he might suffer death crowned with glory and honour so expressing the finall cause of his humiliation and not the meritorious cause of his exaltation This coniecture is made exceeding probable by those words added by the Apostle that hee might taste of death which otherwise haue no coherence with any part of his speech The second place that they bring is that of the second to the Philippians The words are these Christ humbled himselfe and became obedient vnto the death euen the death of the crosse Wherefore God hath also highly exalted him and giuen him a name aboue every name c. This place as Hugo de Sancto Victore hath fitly noted importeth that the humiliation of the Son of God becomming Man was the cause of the exaltation of the nature of Man for when he personally assumed the nature of Man became Man Man became God almighty hauing all power a name aboue all names according to that of Leo Diuinae maiestat is exinanitio seruilis formae in summa prouectio est that is The abasing of the Diuine Maiestie and Person of the Sonne of God is the high aduancing exaltation of the forme of a Seruant and therefore he addeth that Ex quo Deus coepit esse homo homo coepit esse Deus Deus coepit esse homo subiectus homo coepit esse Deus perfectus Si Deus humiliatus est quantum potuit in homine homo sublimatus non est quantum potuit in Deo that is When God began to be Man and Man began to be God God began to be a Man in subiection and humilitie and Man to be God in the heighth of perfection For if God were humbled as much as hee might be in that he became man was not Man exalted as much as he might be in that hee became God God was humbled when first he became Man In quantum homo dignitate in quantum bonus voluntate that is in that a Man in condition and state in that a good man in will minde but manifested the same more specially in his passion Likewise the Man Christ was exalted when he was borne the Sonne of God but manifested the same more specially after his resurrection then before For wee must not thinke that the Man Christ did then first receiue the full and perfect power of Deitie when he sayd All power is giuen me in heauen and in earth seeing before the vttering of those words he commaunded the Diuels had the Angels to do him seruice and made the very elements of the world to bow and bend at his pleasure Wherefore this place is vnaduisedly brought by our Aduersaries to proue that Christ merited for himselfe it being most cleare and evident that the name aboue all names mentioned in this place which is the name of God Almighty was giuen to the Sonne of God donatione naturali that is by naturall communication when he was begotten of his Father before all eternity and to the Man Christ donatione gratuità that is by free gift when God was made man and Man became God as the ordinarie Glosse vpon these words fitly obserueth and so could no more bee merited by the passion of Christ then it was possible for him to doe any thing whereby to merite to be God And hereupon Caluine rightly asketh which all the Papists in the world are not able to answere Quibus meritis assequi potuit homo ut iudex esset mundi caput Angelorum atque ut potiretur summo Dei imperio that is by what merits could man attaine to bee Iudge of the world Head of Angels to haue the highest authority and power of God But some man will say that Christ pronounceth it was necessary that he should suffer and so enter into his glory and that therefore it seemeth he could not haue entred into it vnlesse hee had suffered Quomodò ergo suam saith Hugo si oportuit quomodò oportuit si suam Si gloria eius fuit quomodò vt ad illam intraret pati oportuit Sed suam propter se oportuit propter nos that is How then was it his glory if he could not enter into it vnlesse he suffered and how was it necessary that hee should suffer to enter into it if it were his Surely it was his in respect of himselfe and it was necessary he should enter into it by suffering onely in respect of vs. For Christ truly if he had pleased might haue entred into his glory some other way haue receiued it in what sort he would euen as hee needed neuer to haue wanted it vnlesse he had pleased but he would for our sakes by punishment enter into his glory that dying he might take away the
and tying them to the performance of certaine duties Secondly of sinnes Thirdly of punishments to be inflicted by Almighty God and Fourthly of punishments to be inflicted by men The bond of Lawes is of two sorts For there are diuine lawes and there are humane Lawes God bindeth men to the doing of what hee pleaseth and Men that are in authority either Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall to such things as they thinke fit Touching these bonds none haue power to loose but they that haue power to binde so that what God by precept bindeth vs to doe none but God can free vs from the necessity duty of doing it and what the Church or Magistrate binde vs to no inferiour power can loose vs or free vs from Loosing in this sense opposed to binding by law and precept is in two sorts By Reuocation and by Dispensation Reuocation is an absolute Abrogation of a Law in respect of all places times persons and conditions and that either by expresse and direct Repeale or by generall neglect and long continued disuse Dispensation is in respect of certaine persons times places and conditions of Men thinges so that a dispensation permitting the Law to retaine her wonted authority onely freeth some particular person or persons at some times in some places and in some condition of thinges from the necessity of doing or leauing vndone that which vnlesse it be in consideration of such particular circumstances the Law-giuer meant should be obserued but in such cases not so Heere the question is moued by occasion of that kinde of loosing which is by reuersing Lawes formerly in force whether God the giuer of the morall Law may revoke the same and dispense with men for the not doing of things there prescribed of the doing of things there forbidden The answere is that these Lawes are imposed vpon men by the very condition of their nature and creation as the very condition and nature of a man created by GOD requireth that he should honour loue feare and reuerence him that made him and therefore touching the precepts of the first Table that concerning the Sabaoth excepted it is cleare and euident that they cannot be altered nor Man by God himselfe discharged from the duty of honouring loving and fearing God so long as he hath any beeing Touching the precepts of the second Table it is resolued that GOD cannot dispense with man or giue him leaue to doe the thinges therein forbidden as to steale murther or lie For all these imply and involue in them that which is simply euill and to bee disliked but by some alteration in the doer or matter of action he may make that not to bee euill that otherwise would bee euill and consequently not forbidden as namely that to bee no theft or murther which otherwise would be as when hee commanded the Israelites to spoyle the Aegyptians they did not commit the act of robbery for robbery is the taking away of a thing from the owner against his will but these thinges which the Israelites tooke away were the Aegyptians no longer after God the supreme Lord had spoyled them of the title they had therevnto and assigned the same to the Israelites So likewise for one man to take away the life of another hauing no authority so to doe is murther and no man can be dispensed with lawfully to doe any such act but for a Magistrate to take away the life of an offender is a lawfull act and no act of murther and so if Abraham had slaine his sonne Isaac it had not beene murther being authorized so to doe by God who hath supreme authority in the world and may justly as a Iudge for sinne found in men take away the liues of whom he pleaseth and as supreme and absolute Lord bring all to nothing that for his wills sake he made of nothing though there were no sinne nor fault at all But touching Ceremoniall Iudiciall and Positiue Lawes of God concerning Sacraments and obseruations of what kinde soeuer seeing they are imposed after vpon the being of nature wee thinke that God may alter them at his pleasure so that at one time it may bee lawfull to doe that was forbidden at another The Gouernours that God hath set ouer his Church and people by commission from him may interprete what is doubtfull in these Lawes of God or in those of the other sort but yet according to the Law but they may not abrogate or dispense with any Law of God either naturall and morall or positiue established concerning the vse of Sacraments and things pertaining to Gods worship and seruice But concerning those Lawes that were made by the Apostles and Primitiue Fathers touching matters of outward obseruation the succeeding Guides of the Church may either dispense with them or reverse them vpon the due consideration of the difference of times Men and things And so wee see to whom it pertaineth to binde men with their lawes and to loose them from the bonds thereof The bond of sin which is the second kinde of those bonds I mentioned is two-fold for there is Vinculum captivitatis and Vinculum servitutis that is a man that is a sinner is so bound that hee can neither returne to doe good nor leaue off to doe euill for sinne holdeth him in a bond of captivitie that hee shall not returne to doe good and with a bond of seruitude that he shall not cease to doe euill And though God hath so ordered the nature of Man that hee who will doe euill shall thus bee entangled yet it is man that thus entangleth wrappeth and bindeth himselfe and not God But for the bond of eternall condemnation and the punishments following euill doers which is the third kinde of those bonds wherewith I shewed that men are tyed and bound it is of GOD. From these bonds of sin and punishment inflicted by GOD none but hee alone can free men by his fauour and the worke of his grace as the supreme and highest cause none but Christ by Merite Satisfaction The Ministers of the Church by the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments may convert Men to God instrumentally making them partakers of his graces bringing thē into such an estate wherein they shall be sure for Christs sake to finde mercie with GOD for the remission taking away of their sinnes They may pray for them and out of the knowledge of their estate assure them of remission But other power to vnloose and vntie these direfull horrible bonds of sinne and punishment they haue none only the punishments which they haue power to inflict they haue authoritie to diminish lessen or take away so that whom they bind with the bonds of Ecclesiasticall censures punishments those by the same authoritie they may vnloose For as the Guides of Gods Church may prescribe enjoyne and impose certaine actions of Mortification and penitentiall conversion vnto GOD so when they see cause they may release from the same as by
excommunication they may restraine from vse of Sacraments societie of Beleeuers and benefite of the Churches praiers so by Absolution they may free from all these bonds againe Neither is this kinde of binding and loosing lightly to bee esteemed of or little regarded for he that for his contempt and disobedience is debarred from the vfe of the Sacraments from enjoying the societie of the beleeuers and partaking in the benefite of the Churches prayers is vndoubtedly excluded from all accesse to the Throne of grace in Heauen all acceptation there so consequently no lesse bound in Heauen then in Earth and he that is vnloosed from these bonds on Earth is vnloosed and set free in Heauen that without all restraint he may goe boldly to the Throne of Grace to seeke helpe in the time of neede Thus wee see the diuerse kindes of binding and loosing that the Guides of Gods Church haue power and authority by Lawes and precepts censures and punishments to binde those that are committed to their care and trust and when they see cause by reuersing such Lawes and precepts wholly or in part and by diminishing releasing taking away such censures and punishments to vnty them and set them free againe The bond of Diuine Lawes they may no otherwise meddle with then by letting them know who are so bound how straightly they are tyed The bonds of sinne and punishments by Diuine Iustice to be inflicted they haue no power and authoritie to vnloose but they concurre as helpers to the vnloosing of them by the Ministery of the Word vvinning and persvvading men to convert vnto God to cast their sinnes from them and by the Sacraments instrumentally communicating vnto them the grace of repentant conversion and the assurance of remission and pardon In all these kindes of binding and loosing the Apostles were equall seeing our Aduersaries themselues confessing they had the same power of Order and jurisdiction in like extent within the compasse whereof all these kinds of binding and loosing are confined Wherefore let vs proceede to speake of the power of remitting and retaining sinnes giuen to the Apostles by Christ our Sauiour To remit sinne properly is nothing else but to resolue not to punish sinne and therefore hee onely may properly be sayd to remit sinne that hath power to punish it Now as sinne is committed against the prescript of God our Conscience and Men in authority soe GOD the conscience of the Sinner and the Magistrate and Minister haue power to punish sinne GOD with punishments temporall and eternall of this life and that which is to come the Conscience with remorse the Magistrate with death banishment Confiscation of goods imprisonment and the like and the guides of the Church with suspension excommunication degradation and such other censures Hence it followeth that GOD onely is sayd properly to remitte the punishments that his justice doth inflict that the conscience onely vpon repentance canne take away that bitter and aflictiue punishment of remorse wherewith shee is wont to torment and disquiet the minde of the offendour and that the Magistrate and Minister onely haue power to take away those punishments that in their seuerall courses they may and doe inflict Notwithstanding the Minister by the Word perswading men to repentance procuring remission and out of his prudent obseruation of the parties conuersion vnto GOD assuring him that it will goe well vvith him as also by the Sacrament instrumentally communicating to him as well the grace of repentant conuersion as of free remission that soe hee may heare the very sound and voyce of GOD in mercy saying to the heart and spirit of the repentant Sinner I am thy Saluation may bee sayd in a sort to remitte sinne euen in that it is an offence against GOD not by way of authority and power but by winning and perswading the sinner to that conuersion which obtaineth remission from GOD and by the Sacrament instrumentally making him partaker as well of the grace of remission of sinne from GOD as of conuersion from sinne to GOD. There are but foure things in the hand of the Minister the Word Prayer Sacraments and Discipline By the word of Doctrine hee frameth winneth and perswadeth the sinner to repentant conuersion seeking and procuring remission from God By Prayer he seeketh and obtaineth it for the sinner By Sacraments he instrumentally maketh him partaker as well of the grace of remission as conuersion And by the power of Discipline he doth by way of authority punish euill doings and remit or diminish the punishments he inflicteth according as the condition of the party may seeme to require By that which hath beene sayd it appeareth that to bind and loose to remit to retaine sins are equiualent the same saue that to bind and loose is of more ample large extent in that it implyeth in it the binding by precepts lawes the loosing which is by reversing or dispensing with the same And therefore hauing shewed that the Apostles were equall in the power ofbinding and loosing we need ad no farther proofe that they were equall in power of remitting retaining sins Wherefore let vs proceede to the promise of Christ made to Peter that vpon the Rocke mentioned by him he would build his Church and let vs see whether any peculiar thing were promised vnto Peter in that behalfe The Church of God we know is compared in Scripture to a City an House and a Temple and therefore the beginning proceeding and increasing of the same is rightly compared to building Now in building there must be a foundation vpon which all may rest and stay that is put into the same building and the foundation must be sure firme immoueable for otherwise it wall faile and so alll other parts of the building wanting their stay will fall to the ground Now nothing is so firme sure and immoueable as a Rocke and consequently no building so strōg as that which is raised vpon a rockie foundation wherevpon our Sauiour sheweth that a House builded on the sand is easily ruinated soone shaken to pieces but that an House builded vpon a rocke standeth firme notwithstanding the furie and violence of the flouds winds and tempests and compareth a Man rightly grounded and established in his perswasion and resolution to an house so built By a Rocke therefore in this place is meant a sure foundation that will not faile nor be moued or shaken how great a weight soeuer be laid vpon it In a foundation there are three things required The first is that it bee the first thing in the building the second that it beare vp all the other parts of the building the third that it be firme and immoueable For as Christ saith If the eye that is the light of the bodie be darknesse how great is that Darknesse So if that which is to support and beare vp all doe faile shrinke all must needs be shaken and fall a
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
things the Schoole-men note that there is a two-folde power found in the Ministers of the Church of GOD the one of Order the other of Iurisdiction The power of Order is that whereby they are sanctified and enabled to the performance of such sacred acts as other men neither may nor can doe as is the preaching of the Word and ministration of the holy Sacraments This power is to bee exercised orderly and the acts of it to bee performed in such sort that one disturbe not another Whereupon the Apostles the first Ministers of CHRIST IESVS though equall in the power of Order and Iurisdiction yet for the better and more orderly dispatch of the great worke of converting the world which they had in hand and that they might not hinder one another divided amongst themselues the parts and Provinces of the World but when for the assisting of them while they liued and succeeding them dying they were to passe ouer part of their power to other they so gaue authoritie to such as they made choyce of for this worke to preach baptize and doe other acts of sacred Ministery which are to bee performed by vertue of the power of order that before they invested them with this power they divided the parts of the world converted to Christianity into seuerall Churches and when they ordained them assigned each of them to that particular Church wherein he should preach and minister Sacraments So that these successours of the Apostles had not an illimited commission but were confined within certaine bounds that they were not to preach nor minister Sacraments but onely within the limits and compasse of those places which were assigned vnto them vnlesse it were with the consent desire and liking of other willing to draw them at sometimes for speciall causes to performe such sacred acts within the limites and bounds of their charge This assigning of men hauing the power of order the persons to whom they were to minister holy things and of whom they were to take the care and the subjecting of such persons vnto thē gaue them the power of jurisdiction which they had not before And thus was the vse of the power of order which is not included within any certain boūds limited in those the Apostles ordained their power of Iurisdictiō included within certain bounds so that the one of these kinds of power they haue not at all without the extēt of their own limits nor the lawful vse of the other Hence is that resolutiō of the Diuines that if a Bishop adventure to do any act of Iurisdictiō out of his own Diocese as to excōmunicate absolue or the like all such acts are vtterly voide of no force but if hee shall doe any act of the power of order in another mans charge as preach or minister Sacraments though he cannot be excused as not offending if he doe these things without his consent yet are the Sacraments thus ministred truly Sacraments and of force When the Apostles first founded Churches and assigned to such as they ordained to the worke of the ministery the seuerall parts of the flocke of Christ and people of GOD of which they appointed them to take care and charge they so sorted divided out particular Churches that a Cittie and the places neere adioyning made but one Church Wherevpon wee shall finde in the holy Scriptures that to ordaine Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in euery Church and in euery Citty are all one Now because Churches of so large extent required many Ministers of the Word and Sacraments and yet of one Church there must be but one Pastour the Apostles in setling the state of these Churches did so constitute in them many Presbyters with power to teach instruct and direct the people of God that yet they appointed one onely to be chiefe Pastour of the place ordaining that the rest should be but his assistants not presuming to doe any thing without him so that though they were all equall in the power of order yet were the rest inferior vnto him in the government of that Church whereof hee was Pastour and they but his assistants onely As another of my ranke cannot haue that Iurisdiction within my Church as I haue but if hee will haue any thing to doe there he must be inferiour in degree vnto me So wee reade in the Reuelation of Saint Iohn of the Angell of the Church of Ephesus to whom the Spirit of God directeth letters from heauen as to the Pastour of that Church It is not to be doubted but that there were many Presbyters that is Ministers of the Word and Sacraments in so large a Church as that of Ephesus was nay wee reade expressely in the Acts that there were many in that Church that fed the flocke of Christ and consequently were admitted into some part of pastorall office employment yet was there one amongst the rest to whom onely the Lord did write from heauen to whom an eminent power was giuen who was trusted with the government of that Church and people in more speciall sort then any of the rest and therefore challenged by name by Almighty God for the thinges there found to bee amisse the rest being passed ouer in silence The like wee reade of the rest of the seven Churches of Asia compared to seuen golden candlestickes in the midst whereof the Sonne of God did walke hauing in his hand seuen starres interpreted to haue beene the seuen Angels of those seuen Churches Neither was this orderly superiority of one amongst the Presbyters of the Church found onely in the seuen Churches of Asia but in other Churches also For Saint Hierome testifieth that in the Church of Alexandria from the time of Marke the Evangelist there was euer one whom the Presbyters of that Church chose out of themselues to be ouer the rest Neither was this proper to the Church of Alexandria but wee can shew the successions of Bishops in all the famous Churches of the world euen from the Apostles times and therefore all admitte and allow a kinde of preëminence of one aboue the rest in each Church Heresies haue sprung saith Cyprian and schismes risen from no other fountaine then this that Gods Priest is not obeyed nor one Priest in the Church acknowledged for the time to bee Iudge in Christs steed If one saith Hierome in each Church be not aboue and before the rest of the Presbyters there will be as many Schismes as Priests and the best learned in our age that affect presbyteriall government ingenuously confesse it to be an essentiall perpetuall part of Gods ordinance for each presbytery to haue a chiefe amongst them the necessity whereof wee may learne from all Societies both of men indued with reason and of other thinges also to which God hath denied the light of vnderstanding The dumbe beasts saith Hierome and wilde Heards haue their
haue bin attempted sought by the Bishops of Constantinople that liued in his time But granting that Gregory did so write that Eusebius a B. of Constantinople did acknowledge his Church to be subject to the See of Rome yet he meant nothing else thereby but that it was an inferiour See and so subject in such sort as I haue declared the inferiour Sees to be subject to the superiour which subjection will no way proue the supremacie that the Popes now claime Fourthly that Gregory doth not say that the Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged himselfe subject to the Bishop of Rome For it was not Primas Byzanzenus the Primate of Byzantium that Gregory reporteth to haue confest himselfe subject to the Bishop of Rome and whose cause the Emperour commanded Gregory to heare but Primas Byzanzenus that is the Primate of the Byzazene prouince of Africa So that this confession of the Primate mentioned by Gregory brought to proue that the Bishop of Rome had a commanding power ouer the Bishop of Constantinople is meerly mistaken by Bellarmine as it was before him by Gratian. But some man wil say howsoeuer there be a mistaking of this allegation yet it is strong and forcible to proue the thing intended For Gregory saith expressely that howsoeuer all Bishops in respect of humility be equall yet there is no Bishop but if he be found faulty is subject to the See of Rome That this saying of Gregory may be foūd true certaine limitations must be added vnto it For the Bishop of Rome might not immediatly punish euery Bishop that he found to offend nor vpon appeale take notice of the faults and misdemeanours of all Bishops but the Councell of Chalcedon ordereth that if any inferiour Clergy-man haue ought against another inferiour Clerke the matter shall be heard and determined by the Bishop or such as with the liking of the Bishop shall by the parties be chosen arbitratours and if he go against their determination hee shall be punished If a Clerke haue ought against his owne or another Bishop it shall be inquired of in the audience of the Synode of the Prouince If either Clerke or Bishoppe haue ought against the Metropolitane of the prouince hee shall goe to the Primate of the Diocese or to the throne and See of the Regall citty of Constantinople This Canon of the great Councell of Chalcedon was confirmed by the decree of Iustinian the Emperour If any man sayth the Emperour accuse a Bishop for whatsoeuer cause let the cause be judged by the Metropolitane and if any man gainsay the Metropolitane let the matter be referred to the Arch-bishop and Patriarch of that Diocese and let him end it according to the canons and Lawes So that wee see the Bishops of Rome might not intermedle in judging inferiour Bishops subject to other Patriarches neither immediatly nor vpon complaint and appeale whatsoeuer their faults be but they haue other supreme Iudges who haue power finally to determine such matters and from whom there lyeth noe appeale This canon of the Councell of Chalcedon and the Emperours decree confirming the same Gregorie alleageth and alloweth onely adding that if there be no Metropolitane or Patriarch such things as otherwise should be finally determined and ended by them are to be brought to the Bishop of Rome Wherefore it seemeth that Gregory speaketh of the Bishops within his owne Patriarchship whom sometimes he calleth his own Bishops when he sayth there is no Bishop but if he be found faulty is subject to the See of Rome Of these hee speaketh when he sayth I impute it to my sinnes that my owne Bishops should thus despise me And againe if the causes of bishops committed to mee be thus dealt with alas what shall I doe And in this sense he willeth Iohn of Palermo to whom hee sendeth a Pall not to suffer the reuerence of the Apostolique See to be troubled by any mans presumption for that the state of the members is then entire and safe when the canons are kept and no iniurie hurteth the head of the faith not naming the Church of Rome the head of the Faith for that the Bishop of Rome hath an infallible iudgment and absolute command in matters of faith vpon which all the world must depend as some ignorantly construe him but because it was the head that is the beginning and wel-spring whence the doctrine of Faith the knowledge of GOD and all Christian institution flowed to sundry other Churches which therefore are in a sort to depend on it to haue recourse to it and to hold conformity with it No other faith Innocentius established and founded the Churches of Italy France Germany Spaine Africke and the Isles that lye betweene but Peter and his Successours and therefore the Bishoppes of these Churches must keepe such obseruations as the Romane Church from which they tooke their beginnning receiued from the Apostles ne caput institutionum omittere videantur that is Lest they seeme to forsake the Head well-spring of all the institutions and ordinances they haue This is the reason why the Churches of these parts haue beene so subiect to the Church of Rome namely for that from thence they receiued the light of Christian knowledge but to all Churches it is not an head in this sort seeing they receiued the faith not from Rome but from some other Apostolicall Church as Antioche or Alexandria CHAP. 35. Of the pretended proofes of the Popes supremacie produced and brought out of the writings of the Greeke Fathers HAuing examined the proofes they bring for confirmation of the Popes supremacie out of Councels and the writings of ancient Bishops of Rome let vs come to the testimonies of the Fathers Greeke and Latine The first that they produce amongst the Greeke Fathers is Ignatius who writeth to the Holy Church which hath the presidence in the Region of the Romans or sitteth before other in the Region of the Romans from which wordes nothing can be inferred that wee euer doubted of For wee most willingly confesse the Romane Church to haue beene in order and honour the first and chiefest of all Churches and he saith nothing out of which any other thing may be concluded The next is Irenaeus who being to shew against Heretiques that the Tradition of the Church is against them and for him and thinking it very tedious to run through the successions of all Churches saith he will content himselfe with that which is the greatest ancientest best knowne to all founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul at Rome for that the whole Church that is the company of all faithfull ones that are euery-where in which the Tradition hath beene euer preserued must of necessity agree in her tradition with this propter potentiorem principalitatem that is For that it is the principall of all other This testimony of Irenaeus no way proueth the thing in question For heere is
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
that in a matter of faith concerning the whole state of the Church Zozimus as in order and honour first amongst Bishops might vrge them by vertue of the Canons appointing such meetings to meete together in a Synode for the suppressing of such heresies as he found to arise amongst them and might justly threaten if they should refuse so to doe to reject them from the communion of the Bishops and Churches adhering to him and thereby lay an Ecclesiasticall necessity vpon them without any claime of vniversall power Neither doth the next place wherein Augustine and the Bishops assembled in the Councell of Mileuis desire Innocentius to concurre with them in suppressing the heresies of the Pelagians which sought to spread themselues into all parts of the world and to vse his pastorall care and diligence for the preventing of the dangers of the weake members of Christ yeeld any better proofe that they reputed him vniversall Bishop For what doe they here attribute to the Bishop of Rome that Cyprian writing to Stephen in the case of Martianus Bishop of Arle doth not assume to himselfe other his colleagues saying of himselfe thē that they are bound to vse all diligence to gather together and call backe the erring sheepe of Christ to apply the medicine of fatherly piety for the curing of the wounds and hurts of such as are fallen to recollect and cherrish al the sheepe that Christ purchased with his precious bloud to know that though they be many Pastours yet they feed but one flocke But sayth Bellarmine why do they not rather write to the Patriarch of Hierusalem to the Metropolitane of Palaestina or to the Primate of Africa in which parts of the world Pelagianisme specially seemed to preuaile then to the Bishop of Rome if they did not thinke him to haue an vniuersall power Surely this question of the Cardinall sheweth that either he knoweth not or careth not what he writeth for the cause of Pelagius had beene often heard and examined by Synodes of Bishops in Palaestina and the Primate of Africa with his Africane Bishops did write to Innocentius as well as Augustine and those assembled in the Councell of Mileuis as well to informe him of the guilefull fraudulent and slipperie dealings of Pelagius that hee might no way be induced to fauour him as some feared not to giue out that he did as also that he might be perswaded to put to his helping hand for the suppressing of this heretique who though condemned by many Synodes ceased not to flie from place to place seeking to spread his heresies therefore there was no cause that they should write to either of these Thus haue our Aduersaries found nothing in Augustine and the Africanes that any way fauoureth the Popes proud claime of vniuersall power Neither do the rest of the witnesses who are next brought forth to giue testimonie for the Pope depose any more to the purpose then the former haue done For that Prosper saith Rome the See of Peter being made the head of Pastorall honour to the world holdeth by religion whatsoeuer it possesseth not by force of armes and that by reason of the principality of Priestly or Bishoply dignity it became greater in respect of the high tower of religion then the throne of princely power that Victor Vticensis calleth the Church of Rome the head of all Churches Hugo de Sancto Victore sayth the Apostolique See is preferred before all the Churches in the world is no more then that wee euer granted For they all speake of a chieftie and principality of order and honour and not of absolute commanding power And the place which our Aduersaries bring out of Vincentius Lirinensis to proue the Pope to be head of the world is strangely missealleaged For hauing spoken of the letters of Faelix the Martyr and holy Iulius Bishop of Rome he addeth that blessed Cyprian was produced out of the South and holy Ambrose out of the North that so not only Caput orbis the head of the world but the sides of it also might giue testimony to that iudgment by the head and sides of the world vnderstanding the parts of the world whence these witnesses were produced and not the witnesses themselues So that there is no more reason to inferre from hence that the Bishop of Rome is head of all the world then that Cyprian and Ambrose were the sides of the world Neither doe the testimonies of Cassiodore who attributeth to the Bishop of Rome a generall care of the whole Christian world and Beda who sayth Leo excercised the Priestly office in the Christian world make any more for proofe of the Popes vniuersall jurisdiction then the rest that went before For their sayings argue not an absolute vniuersall commaunding power ouer all but such a care of the whole as beseemeth him that is in order and honour the chiefe of Bishops from whom all actions generally concerning the Christian Church are either to take beginning or at least to be referred before finall ending that so his aduice may be had therein And surely howsoeuer Anselmus sayth the custodie of the faith of Christians and the regiment of the Church is committed to the Bishop of Rome and Bernard writeth of him that he is chiefe of Bishops heire of the Apostles in primacie Abel in gouernement Noah in Patriarchicall honour Abraham in order Melchizedek in dignity Aaron in authoritie Moses in iudgment Samuel in power Peter and in vnction Christ that others haue particular flockes assigned to them but that his charge hath no limits with such like Hyperbolical amplificatiōs of the Popes greatnes sauouring of the corruptiō of those late times wherein he liued yet wil it neuer be proued that either he or diuers others speakinges he did were of the Papall faction or beleeued that the Pope hath that vniuersall power and iurisdiction that is by the Iesuits and other Romanists at this day giuen vnto him For as Iohn Bacon a learned Schooleman and countriman of ours hath fitly noted some attributed all those things whereof Bernard and Anselmus speake to the Pope as thinking all fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and jurisdiction to be originally found in him and that by himselfe alone hee might doe all things in the gouernment of the Church and all other were to receiue of his fulnesse which is the opinion of our aduersaries at this day Other attributed these thinges vnto him not as hauing all power in himselfe alone but as head chiefe of Bishops together with their ioynt concurrence and assent So that hee had power to iudge of the faith to determine controuersies in religion as Patriarch of the West with the ioynt consent of his Westerne Bishops and as prime Bishoppe of the world with an Oecumenicall Synode wherein he was to sitte as an honourable president moderatour pronouncing according to the resolution of the Bishops and
authority so to do Which kind of reasoning I thinke the Reader will not much like of Touching Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria Paule Bishop of Constantinople and Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra deposed by the Orientall Synode their complaints to the Bishop of Rome and other Bishops of the West of the wrongs done vnto them how the Bishop of Rome with the Westerne Bishops fought to relieue them with how ill successe and how litle this instance serueth to proue the thinge in question I haue shewed before as likewise Theodorets desiring Leo with his Westerne Synodes to take knowledge of his cause Soe that it is a vaine bragge of Bellarmine that to these and the like testimonies of Antiquity nothing is nor can be answered CHAP. 38. Of the weakenesse of such proofes of the supreme power of Popes as are taken from their Lawes Censures Dispensations and the Vicegerents they had in places farre remote from them HAVING examined the pretended proofes of the illimited vniversality of the Popes authority and jurisdiction taken from the power they are supposed to haue exercised in former times ouer other Bishops by confirming deposing or restoring them let vs come to their Lawes Dispensations Censures see if frō thence any thing may be cōcluded If they could as strongly proue as they cōfidētly endertake that Popes in ancient times made Lawes to bind the whole Christian Church dispensed with such as were made by general Coūcels cēsured al men as subject to them of necessity we must be forced to acknowledge the fulnesse of all power to rest in the Romane Bishops But their proofes are too weake to make vs beleeue any such thing For first touching the decrees of Popes they did not binde the whole Christian Church but the Westerne Provinces onely that were subject to them as Patriarches of the West And secondly they were not made by them without the consent and joint concurrence of the other Bishops of the West assembled in Synodes and sitting with them as their fellow Iudges with equall power of defining and determining things concerning the state of the Church as appeareth by the Decrees of Gregory the first who sitting in Councell with all the Bishops of the Roman Church the Deacons and inferiour Clergy-men standing before them made Decrees and confirmed them by their subscriptions the rest of the Bishops and the Presbyters also who sate in Councell with them subscribing in the very same sort that Gregory did And of Decrees in such sort made Leo speaketh when he requireth the Bishops of Campania Picene Thuscia to keepe and obserue the Decretall constitutions of Innocentius and all other his predecessours which they had ordained as well touching Ecclesiasticall orders as the Discipline of the Canons or otherwise to looke for no fauour or pardon And in the very same sort are the words of Hilarius to be vnderstood when he saith That no man may violate either the divine constitutions or the Decrees of the Apostolique See without danger of losing his place For this he spake sitting as President in a Councell of Bishops assembled at Rome of things decreed by Synodes of Bishops wherein his predecessours were Presidents and Moderatours as he was now but not absolute commaunders But Bellarmine saith that Pope Anastasius the yonger in his Epistle to Anastasius the Emperour willeth him not to resist the Apostolicall precepts but obediently to performe what by the Church of Rome and Apostolicall authority shall be prescribed vnto him if hee desire to holde communion with the same holy Church of GOD which is his Head Therefore the Pope had power to command and giue lawes to the Emperour and consequently had an absolute supreme authority in the Church Surely this allegation of the Cardinall is like the rest For Anastasius doth not speake in any such peremptory and threatning manner to the Emperour but acknowledging his breast to bee a Sanctuary of happinesse and that he is Gods Vicar on earth telleth him in modest and humble sort that hee hopeth hee will not suffer the insolencie of those of Constantinople proudly to resist against the Evangelicall and Apostolicall precepts in the cause of Acatius but that he will force them to performe and doe what is fit and in like humble sort beseecheth him when he shall vnderstand the cause of them of Alexandria to force them to returne to the vnity of the Church The last instance of the Popes Law-giuing power brought by Bellarmine is the priviledge granted to the Monastery of Saint Medardus by Gregory the first in the end whereof we finde these words Whatsoeuer Kings Bishops Iudges or secular persons shall violate the Decrees of this Apostolicall authority and our commaundement shall be depriued of their honour driuen from the society of Christians put from the communion of the Lords body and bloud and subjected to Anathema and all the wofull curses that Infidels Heretikes haue beene subject to from the beginning of the world to this present time A strong confirmation of the priviledges graunted is found in these wordes but a weake confirmation of the thing in question for the priuiledges were graunted and confirmed in this sort not by Gregory alone out of the fulnesse of his power but by the consenting voyce of all the Bishops of Italy and France by the authority of the Senate of Rome by Theodoricus the King and Brunichildis the Queene So that from hence no proofe possibly can be drawne of the Popes absolute power of making lawes by himselfe alone to binde any part of the Christian Church much lesse the whole Christian world Wherfore let vs passe from the Popes power of making lawes to see by what right they claime authority to dispense with the Lawes of the Church and the Canons of Generall Councels The first that is alleadged to haue dispensed with the Canons of Councels is Gelasius But this allegation is idle and to no purpose For first it cannot bee proued that by dispensing he sought to free any from the necessity of doing that the strictnesse of the Canon required but those onely that were subiect to him as Patriarch of the West And secondly he did not dispense but vpon very vrgent cause and driuen by necessity so to doe and yet not of himselfe alone but with the concurrence of other Bishops of the West assembled in Synode The other instances that are brought of the dispensations of Gregory the first are nothing else but the instances of the ill consciences of them that bring them For Gregory did not dispense with the English to marry within the degrees prohibited as the Cardinall vntruely reporteth but only aduised Austine not to put them that were newly conuerted from such wiues as they had married within some of the degrees prohibited in the time of their infidelity lest hee might seeme to punish them for faults committed in the daies of their ignorance and to discourage other from becomming Christians Neither
did he dispense with them of Sicilia for the not keeping of the canon of the Nicene councell requiring prouinciall Synodes to be holden twice euery yeare but whereas they held not such Councels so much as once in the yeare hee commaunded that they should not faile to meete in Councell once at the least every yeare seeing the Canons require that these meetings should bee twice These truly are very weake and insufficient proofes of the Papall power in dispensing with the lawes of the Church and the canons of generall Councels and yet these are the best nay these are all that they canne make shew to bring out of all Antiquity Let vs therefore proceede to the censures that the ancient Bishops of Rome are reported to haue exercised and see if they proue the vniuersality of power now claimed The first allegation to this purpose is the intent of Victor Bishop of Rome resoluing to haue reiected from his communion all the Churches of Asia for keeping the feast of Easter on the same day the Iewes did For saith Bellarmine howsoeuer Irenaeus and others disswaded him from executing that hee intended yet it appeareth his obseruation was right in that it was afterwards confirmed by the Nicene Councell and that hee had authority ouer all in that hee went about to excommunicate those of Asia for dissenting from him in the obseruation of that Feast and keeping it with the Iewes though hee were content for the avoiding of some inconueniencies at the intreaty of Irenaeus to forbeare proceeding against them For answere hereunto wee must obserue that by reason of the custome of those of Asia that kept the feast of Easter precisely at the same time the Iewes did there was moued not a little contention throughout the whole world and many Synodes in euery place called For in Palestina a Synode was holden whereof Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Hierusalem were Presidents another at Rome whereof Victor was President and another of the Bishoppes of Pontus whereof Palmas as most auncient was President and in sundry other places other Synodes were called But the Synode of the Bishops in Asia whereof Polycrates was President stiffely maintayned the auncient custome that had long prevailed in those parts and wrote an Epistle to Victor and those of the Romane Church to iustifie themselues in this behalfe Victor and his Bishops much offended with this their pertinacy as they construed it would for this cause haue reiected them from their communion But Irenaeus with some other of a milder spirit and better temper stayed them from such rash and violent proceedings and Irenaeus wrote his letters to this purpose to the Bishop of Rome and other his colleagues so that here is nothing to proue the power of the Pope For what was resolued on both touching the right of the observation and the proceedings against them that disliked it was resolved by the Synodes of Bishops and not by Victor alone as likewise Irenaeus was not alone but many other ioyned with him in the reprehension of Victor whose number and multitude prevayled much with him and stayed his proceedings as well as the perswasions of Irenaeus And yet did not the Westerne Bishops take vpon them to excommunicate those of Asia as the Cardinall vntruely affirmeth but onely to reiect them from their communion and fellowshippe there being a very great difference betweene excommunication properly so named and the reiecting of men from our communion or fellowship For excommunication properly so named is a resolution to deny the Sacraments to such as are to receiue them of vs the abandoning of all fellowship with them and the requiring and commanding of others to refraine from all communicating with them in priuate or publique and argueth him that so excommunicateth to be superiour in authority and greater in place then they are whom he excommunicateth But reiecting from communion or refusing to communicate with men may bee found among them that are equall So Cyril wrote to Nestorius that if hee reuoked not certaine dangerous positions hee would communicate no longer with him So the Bishops of the East told Iulius Bishop of Rome that if hee communicated with Athanasius they would no longer communicate with him And such was the proceeding that Victor intended against those of Asia and therefore proueth not that he was their superiour or had a commaunding authority ouer them And yet surely howsoeuer it be true that his manner of observation was better then theirs whom he disliked his intention vpon such an occasion to haue made a breach in the Christian Churches was justly with some bitternesse reprehended by Irenaeus and his brethren For howsoeuer Bellarmine would make the Reader beleeue by alledging that of Blastus who vrged the keeping of Easter with the Iewes and sought to bring in Iudaisme that Victor had reason to bee violent as hee was as perceiuing some ill meaning in them that helde the Iewish observation yet farre be it from vs to thinke that Polycarpus and so many worthy and holy men as aunciently kept that observation were any way inclinable to Iudaisme But this difference may be thought to haue growne not from any diuersity of Iudgement touching matters of faith but for that in some places they thought it fit to keep this feast on the Lords day for very important reasons mouing them so to doe and in other places though they could haue beene content to haue done so likewise vpon the same reasons yet kept they it after the old manner for the avoyding of the scandall of the Iewes for the easier winning of them that were not yet gained to Christianity and the holding of them in the loue liking of Christian profession that were already of Iewes become Christians The next instance is of Innocentius the first who after that he heard of the death of Chrysostome whom Theophilus had deposed the Emperour Arcadius banished excommunicated the Emperour Empresse and anathematized Theophilus in such sort that he should vtterly be excluded haue no place among Christians But this report may very justly bee doubted of the credit thereof resting onely on the authority of Nicephorus Seeing the auncient Historians that report the proceedings of Theophilus and Arcadius against Chrysostome his complaints to the Bishop of Rome and other Bishops of the West of the wrongs that had beene done vnto him report also the answere of the Romane Bishop to haue beene that hee greatly pittied his case but saw no hope of remedy nor meanes to releeue him vnlesse a generall Councell might be called to which purpose he would do his best with the Emperour and that Chrysostome himselfe wished him not to proceede so farre as to reiect them from his communion that were his aduersaries for feare of further inconueniences this being the contention almost of the whole world and the Churches by occasion heereof every where brought vpon their knees Yea all auncient Historians are silent and
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
Simeon and Leui Priest-hood and knight-hood Bishoply power and that which is Princely must rise vp together for the rescuing of Dinah their sister out of the hands of him that seeketh to dishonour her Vi charitatis etsi non authoritatis that is By force of charity though not of authority So that according to his opinion the chiefe Ministers of the Church inuest the Princes of the world with their royall authority according to the saying of Hugo but giue them not their authority they may iudge of the actions of Princes but they may not praeiudicare they may not preiudice Princes They may in the time of neede come to the succour and in the time of danger reach forth the helping hand to the ciuill state shaken by the negligence or malice of ciuill princes but it must bee by way of charity not of authority as likewise the ciuill state may and ought to bee assistant to the Ecclesiasticall in like danger defect or failing of the Ecclesiasticall ministers The next argument that our Aduersaries bring is taken from a comparison between the soule and body expressing the difference betweene the ciuill and Ecclesiasticall state found as they say in Gregory Nazianzen But that we may the better vnderstand the force of this argument we must obserue that in the comparison which they bring they make the Ecclesiasticall state and spirituall power like the spirit and diuine faculties thereof and the ciuill state like the flesh with the senses and sensitiue appetite thereof And as in Angels there is spirit without flesh in bruit beasts flesh and sense without spirit and in man both these conjoyned so they will haue vs graunt that there is sometimes Ecclesiasticall power without ciuill as in the Apostles times and longe after sometimes ciuill without Ecclesiasticall as among the heathen and sometimes these two conjoyned together And as when the spirit and flesh meete in one the spirit hath the command and though it suffer the flesh to do all those things which it desireth vnlesse they be contrary to the intendments designes ends of it yet when it findeth them to be contrary it may and doth command the fleshly part to surcease from her owne actions yea it maketh it to fast watch and do and suffer many grieuous and afflictiue things euen to the weakning of it selfe Soe in like manner they would inferre that the Ecclesiasticall state being like to the spirit and soule and the ciuill to the body of flesh the Church hath power to restraine and bridle ciuill Princes if they hinder the spirituall good thereof not onely by censures Ecclesiasticall but outward inforcement also This is the great and grand argument our Aduersaries bring to proue that Popes may depose Princes wherein first wee may obserue their folly in that they bring similitudes which serue only for illustration and not for probation for the maine confirmation of one of the principall points of their faith which whosoeuer denyeth sinneth in as high a degree as Marcellinus that sacrificed vnto Idols and Peter that denied his maister Secondly we see how much Princes are beholding vnto them that compare them to bruit beasts and at the best to the brutish part that is in men common to them with bruit beastes If they say Nazianzen so compareth them they are like themselues and speake vntruly for he compareth not Princes Priestes to spirit and flesh but going about to shew the difference of the objectes of their power maketh the spirit to be the obiect of the one of thē the flesh of the other Not as if Princes were to take no care of the welfare of the soules of their subjects as well as of their bodies but because the immediate procuring of the soules good is by preaching ministration of the Sacraments Discipline which the Prince is to procure and to see wel performed but not to administer these things himselfe as also because the coactiue power the Prince hath extendeth onely to the body and not to the soule as the Ecclesiasticall power of binding and loosing doth Thirdly we may obserue that if this similitude should proue any thing it would proue that the ciuill state among Christians hath no power to do any act whatsoeuer but by the command or permission of the Ecclesiasticall For so it is between the spirit the body sensitiue faculties that shew themselues in it The Philosophers note that there is a double regiment in man the one politicall or ciuill the other despoticall the one like the authority of Princes ouer their subjects that are freemen the other like the authority of Lords ouer their bondmen and slaues The former is of reason in respect of sensitiue appetite which by perswasion it may induce to surcease to desire that which it discerneth to be hurtfull but cannot force it so to doe the other of reason and the will in respect of the loco-motiue facultie and this absolute so that if reason cannot winne a desisting from desire in the inferiour powers that shew themselues in the body yet the will may command the loco-motiue faculty either cause al outward action to cease how earnestly soeuer sensitiue desire carry vnto it or to bee performed how much soeuer it resist against it as it may commaund and force the drinking of a bitter potion which the appetite cannot be wonne vnto and the rejecting putting from vs those things that are most desired Neither can the appetite and sensitiue faculties performe any of their actions without the consent of the will reason For if the will commaund the eyes are closed vp and see nothing the eares are stopped and heare nothing how much soeuer the appetite desire to see and heare Neither onely haue the soules higher powers this commaund ouer the inferiour faculties in respect of things that may further and hinder their own good and perfection as they may command to watch or fast for the prevention and mortification of sin but they may also at their pleasure hinder the whole course of the actions of the outward man withdraw all needfull things from the body and depriue it euen of life it selfe though there be no cause at all so to doe So that if the comparison of the ciuill and Ecclesiasticall state to the soule and body do hold from thence may it be inferred that the Church hath power to commaund in all things pertaining to the common-wealth and that the ciuill magistrates haue none at all For the lower faculties neither haue nor ought to haue any commaund further then they are permitted by the superiour neither can they doe any thing contrary to the liking of the superiour though neuer so just reasonable And so we see how silly a thing it is to reason from these similitudes and that they that so do build vpon the sands so that all the frame of their building commeth to the ground The third reason brought by our Adversaries is this
subscribed in this sort First Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople then Apollinarius of Alexandria after him Domninus of Antioch and last of all the Legates of Eustochius of Ierusalem for the Bishop of Rome was not there in person nor by his Legates In the sixth the Emperour sate in the highest place in the middest His great men and the Consuls sate by him on the left side the Legates of the Bishop of Rome the Vicars of the Bishop of Ierusalem the Bishops that were present out of the Romane Synode On the right side sate first the Bishop of Constantinople next him the Bishop of Antioche then hee that supplied the place of the Bishoppe of Alexandria and so in order the Bishoppes subiect to them yet in subscribing the Bishop of Rome was first Constantinople second Alexandria third Antioch fourth and Ierusalem last In the seauenth the Legates of Adrian Bishop of Rome had the first place and subscribed first after them the Bishop of Constantinople Tharassius and then they that supplyed the roomes of the other three Patriarchicall Thrones But Tharassius rather performed the duty of a President Moderator then the Legates of Rome as I shewed before These are all the Generall Councels that the Greeke and Latine Churches jointly acknowledge by this view which we haue taken of them wee may see how diuersly things haue beene carried both concerning the Presidentship in Generall Councels and the preheminences of the chiefest Bishops in the same Yet as the Graecians were content in the Councell of Florence that the Bishoppe of Rome should haue all such preheminences againe as hee had before the division of the Churches if other matters might bee agreed on So if the Bishoppe of Rome would disclaime his claime of vniuersall jurisdiction of infallible judgement and power to dispose at his pleasure the Kingdomes of the World and would content himself with that all Antiquity gaue him which is to bee in order and honour the first among Bishoppes wee would easily grant him to bee in such sort President of Generall Councels as to sit and speake first in such meetings but to bee an absolute commaunder wee cannot yeeld vnto him Cardinall Turrecremata rightly noteth that the Presidentship of Councels whereof men doe speake is of two sorts the one of honour the other of power Presidentship of honouris to haue preheminence in place to propose things to bee debated to direct the actions and to giue definitiue sentence according to the voyces and judgement of the Councell Presidentshippe of power is to haue the right not onely of directing but of ruling their doings also that are assembled in Councell and to conclude of matters after his owne judgement though the greater part of the Councell like it not yea though no part like it A Presidentshippe of the former sort Antiquity yeelded to the Bishop of Rome when hee was not wanting to himselfe And if there were no other differences betweene vs and him wee also would yeeld it him But the latter kinde of presidentshippe wee cannot yeeld vnlesse wee ouerthrow the whole course of Councels and goe against the streame of all Antiquity This seemeth saith Duarenus to bee consonant vnto the Law of GOD that the Church which the Synode doth represent should haue the fulnesse of all power and that the Pope should acknowledge himselfe subject vnto it For Christ did not giue the power of binding and loosing to Peter alone whose successor the pope is said to bee but to the whole church Although I doe not deny but that hee was set before the rest of the Apostles yet so often as any one was to bee ordained either Bishoppe or Deacon or any thing to bee decreed that concerned the church Peter neuer tooke it to himselfe but referred it to the whole church But heerein did his preheminence stand and consist that as prince of the Apostles it pertained to him to call the rest together and to propose vnto them the things that were to bee handled as with vs at this day the president of the court of parliament calleth together the whole Senate and when occasion requireth beginneth first to speake and doth many other things which easily shew the greatnesse of the person which he sustaineth and yet notwithstanding hee is not greater or superiour to the whole court neither hath hee power ouer all the Senatours neither may hee decree any thing contrary to their judgements But the judgement of all controversies pertaineth to the court it selfe whose Head the president is said to be nay which is more the court commaundeth judgeth and punisheth the president as well as any other if there be cause so to doe And these things truely were likewise in the Ecclesiasticall state heretofore but I know not by what meanes it is now brought about that supreme power ouer all Christians is giuen to one and that hee is set free from all Lawes and canons after the example of the Emperours This is the judgement of the learned and worthy Duarenus yet the Iesuites and Iesuited papists at this day will needs haue the pope to be president of General councels in such sort that hee may conclude of matters after his owne judgement and liking though the greater part of the councell like it not yea though no part like it But this their conceit is easily refuted first by reason then by the practise of the church from the beginning For first either Bishops are assembled in Generall Councels onely as the Popes Counsellers to giue him aduise or they are in joynt Commission with him and sitte as his fellow Iudges of all matters of faith and discipline If onely as Counsellers to aduise him Councels should not consist only or principally of Bishops For as they say commonly that many a doting old woman may be more deuout and many a poore begging Frier more learned thē the Pope himself so there is no questiō but that many other may be as learned and iudicious as Bishops Though saith Austine according to the titles of honour which the custome of the Church giueth men Austine a Bishop be greater then Hierome a Presbyter yet Hierome in worth and merite is greater then Austine In the late Councell of Trent there is no question but that Andradius Vega and other Doctors that were there were euery way comparable with the greatest Bishop or Cardinall yet Bishoppes onely as of ordinary right and some few other by speciall priuiledge gaue decisiue voyces in that Councell other how learned soeuer being admitted onely to discusse and debate matters and thereby to prepare and ripen them that the Bishops might more easily iudge of them and therefore the current of most Papists is against that conceit of making Bishops to bee but the Popes Counsellers onely as appeareth by Andradius Canus Bellarmine and many moe That Bishops saith Melchior Canus are not Counsellers onely to advise but Iudges to determine all matters doubtfull touching
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
Canon of the Church that without the liking iudgment and will of the Bishop of Rome no Councell may be holden mentioned by Socrates and Zozomen For first the Canon is not to be vnderstood of the person of the Bishop of Rome but of him and his Westerne Bishops Secondly it is not so to be vnderstood as if simply without him and his Bishops no Generall Councell could bee holden but that without consulting him and first seeking to him and his no such Councell may bee holden as I haue largely shewed before For otherwise wee know that Vigilius Bishoppe of Rome refused to haue any part in the deliberations of the Fifth Generall Councell or to confirme the Actes of it when it ended Yet was is euer holden to be a lawfull Generall Couucell hee and his being sufficiently sought vnto and their presence desired As likewiso Leo consented to the calling of the Councell of Chalcedon only for the determination of that question of faith that was then debated gaue no consent to the Decree therein passed touching the see of Constantinople yet did this Councell preuaile and the succeeding Bishops of Rome were forced to giue way to that Canon their predecessors so much disliked And therefore whereas the Bishop of Romes Legates in the Councell of Chalcedon do except against Dioscorus for presuming to hold a Synode without the authority of the Apostolicke See wich they say neuer was lawful nor neuer was don their meaning is not that in no case a Councell may be holden without the Bishop of Rome the Bishops of the West but that there neuer was any such Synod holden without requiring admitting the concurrence of the Bishop of Rome the Bishops of the West And that therefore Dioscorus was iustly to be condemned who not onely tooke vpon him by the fauour of one neere about the Emperour to bee President of the Second Councell of Ephesus whereof they speake and sit before the Bishoppe of Romes Legates being but Bishop of the Second See but also reiected the Synodall letters of Leo and the Bishops of the West not suffering them to be read and as if all the power had beene in him alone depriued the Bishoppes of Constantinople and Antioch notwithstanding the Protestation of the Romane Legates against such proceedings and their appeale from the same and still carried on with his furious passions rested not till hee had pronounced sentence of excommunication against blessed Leo and all the Bishoppes of the West The next testimony which Bellarmine bringeth no way proueth that for proofe whereof it is brought for it is not sayd in the place cited by him that the Councell holden at Constantinople against the painting of those things that are reported in the story of the Bible and for the defacing of such pictures made for Historicall vse was therefore voyd because it was called without the consent of the Romane Bishoppe as hee vntruely reporteth but that it was no Generall Councell seeing many that were present consented not but disliked the proceedings of it and besides it neither had the Bishoppe of Rome to concurre nor his Bishoppes neither by their Vicegerents nor by Prouinciall letters neither yet the Patriarches of the East to wit Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem nor their Bishoppes It is true indeede that the Bishoppes assembled at Rome by the command of Theodoricus to examine the matters obiected to Symmachus the Pope told him the Councell should haue beene called by the Pope and not by him but they spake of particular Councels which oftentimes by the permission of Princes were wont to be called by Metropolitans Primates or Patriarches and not of generall whereof our question is and yet I haue shewed before by many testimonies that Princes when they saw cause did call Councels of this sort also So that the speech of these Bishops affected to their Patriarche and vnwilling to come to any scanning of his actions is not much to be esteemed The next testimony out of the Epistles of Leo testifieth the Cardinall careth not what he saith so he say something for it is true indeed that Leo saith Hee directed his Letters to his Brethren and fellow-bishops and summoned them to a Generall Councell but meaneth not a Councel absolutely General consisting of all the Bishops of the world of which our question is but of all the Bishops of those parts to which hee writeth being subiect to him as Patriarch of the West as appeareth by the circumstances of the Epistle cited But Pelagius the Second in his Epistle to those that Iohn of Constantinople called to his Synode as Generall saith The authority of calling general Coūcels was by singular priuiledge of blessed Peter giuen to the Apostolicke See that no Synode was euer reputed lawfull that was not strengthened by the authority of the See Apostolicke and againe that Councels may not be holden without the iudgement and liking of the Bishop of Rome therefore all is true that the Cardinall hath hitherto alleadged Hereunto though Pelagius may seeme somewhat partiall in his owne cause wee answere first with Bellarmine himselfe that the calling of Generall Councels is not so proper to the Bishop of Rome but that another may do it if he cōsent or if he ratifie the indiction Secondly that though he refuse to ratifie it if his resence concurrence be sufficiently sought and desired it may be lawfull and of orce as it appeareth by the Fift Generall Councel which Vigilius refused to haue any part in The last testimony that Bell. produceth to proue that the power of calling Councels doth not properly belong to the Emperours is a saying of Valentinius reported by Zozomen but it maketh clearely against himselfe The circumstances of Zozomens report are these The Bishops of Hellespont Bithynia and some other professing to beleeue that CHRIST the Son of GOD is con-substantial with his Father sent a Legate to Valentinian the Emperour and desired him to giue them leaue to meete about matters concerning the Faith To whom the Emperour answered that it was not lawfull for him being one of the Laity to intermeddle in these Businesses but willed that the Priests and Bishoppes to whom the care of these things pertayneth should meete in one place where-soeuer it should please them for heere wee see that the Bishops durst not presume to assemble themselues without the Emperors leaue which mainely crosseth the conceit of the cardinall neither doth the Emperour say the calling of councels pertaineth nothing to him but the intermeddling with the matters that are brought in question in them and therefore biddeth them meete by themselues not intending to bee present among them not meaning that it was not lawfull for him to be present for then he should condemne Constantine and other that were present either in person or by Deputies nor that it was simply vnlawfull for him to intermeddle for they intermeddled as I will shew in that
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
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
hundred yeares and the Popes on the other side thinking it vnlawfull for the Emperors in this sort to bestow either Bishopricke or Abbey forbidding them so to doe vnder paine of the great curse But Henry the fifth forced â—…ope Paschall to confirme vnto him the ancient right again and to accurse all such as should dislike resist or seeke to disanull it which yet not long after bee reuersed againe in another Councell and in the dayes of Calixtus the Emperour resigned his right and the Pope allowed that within his kingdome of Germany elections should be made in his presence and that with the aduice of the Metropolitane and Bishops of the Prouince he might assist and strengthen the better part and that the elected should receiue from him all things belonging to the King by the reaching forth of his Scepter Matthew Paris sayth the contention betweene Pope Paschall and Henry the Emperour about the inuestiture of Bishops and Abbots which the Emperors had enioyed three huÌ„dred yeares in the times of threescore Popes was so ended that both Bishops and Abbots should first sweare Canonicall obedience to their Ecclesiasticall superiors and be consecrated and then receiue Institution from the Emperour by rod and ring Thus wee see what right and interest ancient Emperours challenged to themselues in the election of the Bishop of Rome and in conferring other dignities of the Church and that the latter Popes condemned that as euill and wicked which their Predecessors not onely allowed but prescribed vnder great and grieuous paines and curses Whereupon Auentinus noteth that among the Popes Eadem facta modò superstitionis modò pietatis modò Christi modò Antichristi modò iusticiae modò tyrannidis nomina accipiunt that is That the same factes deedes and things are at one time branded with the marke of superstition and at another time set out with the glorious title of Piety at one time attributed to Christ at another time to Antichrist at one time iudged iust and righteous and at another time tyrannicall and vnjust Genebrard acknowledging that there haue beene many vile monsters that haue gotten into Peters chaire and that there were fiftie Popes rather Apotacticall and Apostaticall then Apostolicall layeth the blame vpon the Romaine Emperours as if they had placed those monsters in Peters chaire It is well hee confesseth that such beastes haue entred into the Church of Rome but if hee did not wee would easily proue the same For to omit Hildebrand whom some called a monster and an enemy to mankinde who caused more Christian bloud to be shed and more grieuous confusions to rent and shake in sunder the Christian world then any heretickes or persecutors had euer done before soe that hee was forced to confesse at his death to God to holy Church and blessed Peter that hee had grieuously offended in his Pastorall office and Ioane the Whore because as Onuphrius thinketh shee was not Pope but the harlot of Iohn the twelfth the Stories mention such vile monsters sitting in that Chaire that Benedict the fourth is highly commended for that though hee did nothing memorable yet hee liued an honest and a good life But that the Emperours were the cause of the placing of these Monsters as Genebrard would make vs beleeue it may not be yeldeed For betweene the time of Adrian the third who tooke the power of confirming popes from the Emperours and the raigne of Otho the first to whom it was restored by pope Leo there entred Formosus Bonifacius Stephen Romanus Theodorus Iohn the ninth Christopher and Sergius all men of ill note and Iohn the twelfth then whom the earth did neuer beare a more prodigious and vile monster This wretch Otho at the earnest suite of the Romanes caused to be deposed by a Councell of Bishoppes and Leo to bee chosen Whereupon the power of choosing the pope and ordering the See Apostolique was againe by consent of Leo the pope and the people and Cleargy of Rome giuen and confirmed to him and his successors for euer in sort before expressed For as Sigonius sayth Leo rightly considered that after the time of Adrian the third the ambition of the Romanes filled the Church with beasts disordered these elections and set all in a tumult therefore thought no meanes so fit to reforme these disorders to represse these insolencies and preuent these mischiefes as to put the bridle into the Emperours hands againe Yet not long after the Romanes casting off the yoake and breaking the bands in sunder put in Boniface the seauenth Benedict the ninth and Syluester who sold the Popedome to Gregory the sixt all which popes were soe intollerably wicked that Platina calleth them teterrima monstra that is most vile hideous and ougly monsters And Henry the second called a Councell and deposed Gregory the last of them and placed Twideger a Germane in his place who was afterwards named Clemens who againe restored the right of choosing the Pope to him his successours for that as Sigonius noteth after the law prescribing requiring the Emperours consent to bee had in such elections was taken away the state of the church was newly put in great danger So that Henry the second was forced to come into Italy to set thinges in order And therefore it is more then ordinary impudency in Genebrard to impute all the confusions in the elections of the Romane Bishops to the Emperours who were not the causes of them but oftentimes staide them by their Princely power Neither is it lesse strange that hee other dare condemne that authority in the Emperours as vnlawfull which had continued from the time of Iustinian to Benedict and was againe confirmed by Adrian Leo other Popes with their Councells of Bishoppes and by vertue where of Saint Gregory other possessed the Episcopall chaire who are vniustly censured by Genebrard as entring by the Posterne gate in this respect Neither haue the Popes beene better or the election freer from faction since the Emperours were wholy and finally excluded then they were before For what shall we say of Bonifacius the Eigth of whom it is said that he entered like a Foxe and died like a Dog that hee coosened poore Caelestinus his predecessour and by false practises wonne him to resigne the Popedome to him and resting not contented herewith tooke vpon him to dispose of all the Kingdomes of the world at his pleasure of Iohn the three and twentith a vile man and a Diuell incarnate and Alexander the sixt of whom so many horrible things are reported by Onuphrius Volaterran others And touching factions schismes whereas there haue bin thirty of them in the church of Rome neuer any endured so long as the last which was since the Emperours were wholy excluded from intermedling with Papall elections For it continued forty yeares and could neuer be ended but by the helpe of Sigismund the Emperour in
quondam oblata turned out of French into Latine by Duarenus and added to his booke De sacris Ecclesiae Ministeriis that there being a great number of goodly Churches founded by the Kings of France when the Bishops of Rome began to prejudice the liberties of them the King the Nobles the Princes of the bloud the Cleargy and commons assembled to resist the vexations oppressions wrongs of the Court of Rome made many good Constitutions for the repressing of such insolencies So Lewys when first the Pope began to meddle in the yeare one thousand two hundred sixty seauē decreed that Preslacies Dignities electiue should be giuen by election and such as are not electiue by collation and presentation of Patrons and that the Court of Rome should extort no money for any such thing out of the Kingdome of France And when notwithstanding this Decree in processe of time the Court of Rome attempted divers things contrary to the liberty of the church of France Charles the Sixth with the advise of his Nobles Prelates Abbottes Colledges Vniversities and other partes of his Kingdome in the yeare one thousand foure hundred and sixe made a Constitution whereby hee restored the church to her auncient liberty and this Decree was published in the yeare one thousand foure hundred and seauen in which yeare Benedict the Pope and his Ministers hauing imposed and exacted great summes of money a new complaint was made to the King and thereupon a Decree made that nothing should bee payde out of France in the nature of Annates or Tenthes and that such as had beene excommunicated for refusall of them should bee absolued againe In the yeare one thousand foure hundred and eighteene a Constitution was made whereby all Reservations and Apostolicall graces as they call them together with all exactions of the court of Rome were forbidden And when as the Romanes contemning all Constitutions ceased not to trouble and confound the Hierarchy of the Church and scattered abroad euery where throughout the World their Reservations and expectatiue graces whence followed great and horrible deformities in the church at last a Generall Councell was assembled for the Reformation of the church in the Head and members which prohibited these Reseruations and expectatiue Graces restored the canons touching Elections and Collations and subjected all that should contumaciously resist yea though the Pope him-selfe to due punishment The Decrees of this councell Charles the Seauenth confirmed with the consent of all Estates of his Kingdome and this his Decree of Confirmation was called the Pragmaticall Sanction But the Popes neuer rested till they had if not wholly ouerthrowne it yet greatly weakened it The attemptes of Pius the Second who beeing a private man in the Councell of Basil set it forward what hee could are not vnknowne as also of Sixtus the Fourth Innocentius the Eighth Alexander the Sixth Iulius the Second and Leo the Tenth who published a Constitution whereby the Pragmaticall Sanction was much weakened though not wholly taken away and those his new Decrees were called Conventa that is agreements betweene the King and him From these Decrees the Vniversity of Paris appealed to a Generall councell And thus wee see how well the Popes fulfill the commaundement of Christ in feeding his Sheepe that labour so mainely the ouer-throw of those canons which being taken away the whole Ecclesiasticall Order is confounded whole countries are made desolate and forsaken Kingdomes are robbed of their money and treasure churches are ruinated and subverted For so did all good men out of wofull experience complaine in former times Wherefore passing by these intrusions vsurpations and tyrannicall inter-meddling of Popes with things not pertayning to them it is evident by that which hath beene saide that the Election of fit Ministers to teach the people of God pertaineth to the cleargy and people by the reasons and grounds of humane societies vnlesse by their owne consent forfeiture restraint of superiour authority cōmaunding ouer them or speciall reasons prevailing more then those generall grounds of humane fellowship it be taken from them As in case of founding churches and endowing them with lands the Patrons haue the right of presenting in cases of intollerable abuses negligences or insolencies the Prince as Head of the people assumeth to himselfe the nomination of such as are to serue in the holy Ministery of the church Some there are that thinke the right of the people in choosing their Pastours and Ministers to bee such as that it may not bee limited restrayned or taken away vpon any consideration what-soeuer and that therefore there is no lawfull Election of Ecclesiastical Ministers vnlesse the people chuse But the errour of these men is easily refuted For seeing the Scripture Word of GOD giueth no such power to the people and all the interest they haue or canne claime is but from the ground of humane fellowship subject to many limitations alterations and restraintes there is no reason to thinke that necessarily the people must euer elect their Pastors In the reformed Churches of France Geneua the people giue no voyces in the election of Ministers but are onely permitted if they haue any causes of dislike or exception to make them knowne to the Pastours and guides of the Church and the power of iudging of such exceptions resteth wholy in them In so much that when one Morellius a fantasticall companion sought to bring the elections of Bishoppes and Ministers to bee Popular and swayed by the most voyces of the people hee was condemned by all the Synodes in France as Beza sheweth in his Epistles That there is no precept in the whole new Testament forcing popular elections it is euident And the onely example that is brought of any such thing is that of the seauen Deacons but first there was some speciall reason why the peoples consent was sought in the election of these Deacons beeing to bee trusted with the treasure of the Church and the disposing of the contributions of the faithfull and secondly from one example a generall rule may not bee gathered Seeing the circumstances of things times persons admit infinite varieties some alleadge that place in the Acts for proofe of popular elections where the Apostles are said to haue appointed Elders or Presbyters by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth that kind of election that is made by the more part of the voyces of the Electors expressing their consent by lifting vp of their handes as sometimes men shew their consent by going to one side of the place or roome where they are whence they are sayd Pedibus ire insententiam But surely these places are vnaduisedly alledged for proofe of popular elections For first the Apostles onely are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consequently the election pertayned to them onely and they onely elected for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to elect and not to gather voyces Secondly though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
most blessed ones are who are in that possession it is a great question that the holy Angells are there is no question but concerning holy men departed whether they may be said to be now already in that possession it is doubtfull c. Surely it is maruaile if Saint Augustine escape the censure of Master Higgons who pronounceth it folly to doubt of these thinges Sixtus Senensis saith wee must ciuilly interpret Saint Augustine in these his sayings but Bellarmine saith directly hee sometimes doubted of the place where the soules of the iust are after death and that vpon the 36. Psalme he denyeth them to be there where after the iudgement they shall bee This is that Augustine that Master Higgons in his scurrill and ruffian-like phrase saith was not so easily to bee iaded by me as Ambrose Thinking them all Iades as it seemeth and vnfitte for such a horse-man as hee is to ride on that haue beene doubtfull or found to erre in this point if he doe I would desire to know of him what he thinketh of Irenaus who saith that the soules of men dying shall goe into an invisible place appointed for them by God and shall abide there till the resurrection attending and waiting for it and that after receiuing their bodies and perfitly rising againe that is corporally as Christ rose they shall come into the sight of God Of Iustine Martyr who saith no man receiueth the reward of the thinges he did in this life till the resurrection that the soule of the good theefe that was crucified with Christ entered into Paradise and is kept there till the day of resurrection reward that there the soules of good men doe see the humanity of Christ themselues the thinges that are vnder them and besides the Angels and Diuels Of Tertullian who saith Nulli patet coelum terrâ adhuc salvâ ne dixer im clausa that is heauen is open to none while the earth remaineth safe and whole that I say not shut vp and againe thou hast our booke of Paradise wherein wee determine that euery soule is sequestred apud inferos with them that are in the lower dwellings till the day of the Lord. Of Lactantius who will haue no man thinke that soules are iudged presently after death but that they are all detayned and kept in one common custody till the time come when the greatest iudge shall examine their workes Of Victorinus Martyr who vpon those wordes of Iohn in the Reuelation I saw the soules of the slaine vnder the Altar of God obserueth that in the time of the Law there were two Altars one of Gold within another of brasse without that as heauen is vnderstood by that golden Altar that was within to which the Priests entered onely once in the yeare so by the brasen Altar the earth is vnderstood vnder which is Infernus a region remoued from paines and fire and the resting place of the Saints in which the iust are seene and heard of the vngodly yet they cannot passe one to another Of Bernard whose opinion Alphonsus á Castro confesseth to be as I haue said Sixtus Senensis likewise but thinketh that hee is to be excused with a benigne affection because of the exceeding great number of renowned Fathers of the Church which seemed to giue authority to this opinion by their testimony amongst whom he reckoneth Ambrose for one Lastly of Pope Iohn the 22. who was violent in the maintenance of this opinion These premises considered let the Reader iudge whether Master Higgons had any cause to complaine of want of faithfullnesse and exactnesse in me in that I say that many of the Fathers thought there is no iudgment to passe vpon men till the last day that all men are holdē 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 and that many made prayers for the dead out of this conceipt such as that is in Iames his Liturgy that God would remember all the faithfull that are falne a sleepe in the sleepe of death since Abel the Iust till this present time For I doe not make this the ground of the generall practise and intention of the Church in her prayers as this shamelesse companion would make men beleeue SECT 5. FRom the foure Doctors of the Church and the supposed wronges offered to them he proceedeth to shew that I calumniate a worthy person to defend the inexcusable folly of our Geneuian Apostle his meaning is that I wrong Bellarmine to iustifie Calvine but what is the wrong done to the Cardinall Doctour Field saith hee accuseth Bellarmine vniustly of trifeling and sencelesse foolery in the question of prayer for the dead Let the reader take the paines to peruse the place cited by Master Higgons out of my booke and he shall finde him to bee a very false vnhonest trifeling fellow in so saying For first I doe not accuse Bellarmine of sencelesse foolery in the matter of prayer for the dead as hee vntruly reporteth against his owne knowledge but in that he seeketh to calumniate Master Caluine worthy of eternall honor in very childish sort about the name of Merit Caluine saith the Fathers were farre from the Popish errour touching merit and that yet they vsed the word whence men haue since taken occasion of errour therefore saith Bellarm hee dissenteth from all antiquity and acknowledgeth the Romane faith to be the auncient faith religion This is Bellarmines form of reasoning against Caluin if he say any thing which whether it be full of senceles foolery or not I wil refer it to the iudgment of any one that hath his sences Yet notwithstanding M. Higgons goeth on maketh a consolatory conclusion that Bell needeth not to be discontented that I haue thus wronged him seeing I haue likewise vniustly accused the Fathers But if hee may be as justly charged with foolery in his manner of reasoning against Calvin as the Fathers are truely reported to haue holden the opinion imputed to them by me as there is no question but he may I thinke this comfortable conclusion will not be very cordiall vnto him Secondly I doe not say that Bellarmine doth trifle in the question of prayer for the dead as he likewise adding one lye to another sayth I doe but in prouing the doctrine of the Romane Church that now is to be the same with that which was of olde And therefore silly Master Higgons knoweth not what he writeth But that Bellarmine doth indeede whatsoeuer this trifler sayth to the contrary egregiously trifle I will demonstrate to the Reader in such sort that neither Higgons nor any of his new masters shall be able to avoyde it Thus therefore the case standeth Bellarmine in his discourse of the notes of the Church not in the particular question
stayeth on it and our righteousnesse is as the ragges of a menstruous woman c Clicthouaeus vpon the Canon of the Masse vpon these wordes not waying our merits but pardoning our offences asketh what merit we can plead with God to whom wee owe all thinges according to that When yee haue done all say that yee are vnprofitable seruants and how wee can applaud our selues in our good workes whereas all our righteousnesse is as the polluted ragges of a menstruous woman before the Lord Whereunto Bernard agreeth There is extant an excellent Epistle of Cardinall Contarenus wherein hee sheweth what reasons moued him and the other of his side to yeelde so farre to the Protestants as to leaue out the name of merit and to acknowledge that there is no meritte of workes properly so named And as these Catholicke Diuines thought thus of iustification by imputation of Christs righteousnesse the imperfection of our inherent righteousnesse and our not meriting any thing with the merit of condignity so they taught likewise that Christs righteousnesse is to bee apprehended by a liuely faith and defined a liuely faith to bee that motion of the spirit whereby men truely repenting of their former life are raised and lifted vp to God and doe truely apprehend the mercy of God promised in Christ so that they doe indeede feele in themselues that they haue receiued remission of sinnes and reconciliation by Gods goodnesse and by the merit of CHRIST and doe cry Abba Father Thus much was expresly deliuered in the booke exhibited by the Emperour Charles to the Diuines of both sides whom he appointed to conferre together for the composing of the controversies of Religion and the Diuines agreed vnto it Likewise in the Enchiridion of Christian Religion so much approued by all the more learned Diuines of Italy France thus wee read We confesse that it is true that it is altogether required to the justification of a man that hee certainly beleeue not onely in a generalitie that for CHRISTS sake sinnes are remitted to such as truly repent but that particularly they are remitted to himselfe by faith for Christs sake With whom Contarenus agreeth in his Tract of Iustification the most reverend Canons of the Metropoliticall Church of Colein Authors of the booke called Antididagma sundry other And before them all Bernard deliuered the very same his words are these If thou beleeuest that thy sinnes cannot be done away but by him against whom only thou hast sinned who cannot sin thou doest well but adde this moreouer to beleeue that thy sinnes are remitted thee this is the testimony which the holy Spirit giueth in our hearts saying Thy sinnes are remitted thee For so the Apostle supposeth that a man is iustified freely by faith That the Pope may erre not personally onely but iudicially also wee haue the opinion of Ockam Michael Caesenas Cameracensis Cusanus Almain Gerson Waldensis Picus Mirandula Pope Adriaâ—…the 6. almost all the Parisians all them that thinke the Councel to be aboue the Pope the Fathers in the Councels of Constance Basil Alphonsus à Castro and as some thinke Durandus Cyprian and his colleagues who resisted against the determination of the Bishop of Rome and all the Christians of the East at this day This might seeme to be a good proofe yet Stapleton is so farre from yeelding to it that he condemneth them all that thus thought as ignorant and rash especially the latter of them That the Pope is onely first amongst Bishops equall with him in power not of order onely but of iurisdiction also Cusanus proueth at large as Ockam Michael Caesenas and their consorts did before and with these in effect though they expresse not the same so well Cameracensis Gerson Almaine all the rest agree who thinke the Councell to be greater in authoritie and in the power of iurisdiction then the Pope and make him to be amongst Bishops as the Duke of Venice is amongst the great Senators of that state greater then each one but inferiour to the whole company of Bishops Iohn Bacon our Countrey-man noteth that many in his time were of the same opinion who thought the Pope as Head or President of the Colledge and company of Bishops and with them to haue an illimited authority reaching to all persons and causes Ecclesiasticall but not as in of and by himselfe This opinion Duarenus followeth and sheweth that anciently the Pope tooke no more on him The same opinion doe all the Christians of the East hold the practise resolution of antiquity confirmeth the same Touching the vnlawfulnes of the Popes medling with Princes their affaires we haue the testimonies of Sigebertus Cusanus many more whom I would produce but that M Blackwell the Arch-priest in his examination hath already produced a world of witnesses deposing against the Pope in this behalfe to whom I referre the Reader The like might be shewed in other points but because I will not be tedious I will leaue these points of doctrine and come to shew what complaints were euery-where heard in the Christian world before wee were borne against the pope and court of Rome Of Bishop Grosthead and our English I haue spoken already and haue sufficiently shewed how they multiplyed complaints against the pope let vs therefore come to other The popes saith Nicholaus Clemangis as they saw themselues to bee greater then other prelates so they lifted vp themselues aboue other in desire of ruling and ouer-ruling all and finding that Peters patrimonie though exceeding any one Kingdome of the world would not suffice to maintaine their state which they would haue to be greater then that of Emperors Kings and Princes they entred into those sheepfolds of other men which they found to abound vvith milke vvooll for they took to theÌ„ the povver to confer benefices church-liuings vvhich â—…ould fal void in any part of the christian vvorld ouerthrovving al those electioÌ„s vvhich the ancient by so many Canons carefully sought to vphold and hereby drew to them an infinite masse of money neither did they soe stay but tooke away from Bishops and patrons all right of collation presentation forbidding them to place any till such should bee prouided for as they had giuen the expectatiue hope of benefices not voyd Of these men there was an infinite number not comming from the Vniuersities and schooles of learning but from the plough or base trades not knowing Alpha from Beta who liued most wickedly and dissolutely and brought the holy Ministery into so great contempt that whereas anciently nothing was more honourable now nothing is more abiect and contemptible Besides these grieuances vppon euery vacancy they exacted the benefit of a whole yeare out of euery liuing according to a taxation set by them which sometimes three yeares profit would not answere and yet not content herewith they oftentimes imposed
parts of this Church and Catholiques that thinke the Pope may iudicially erre vnlesse a generall Councell concurre with him which in their opinion is an error and neare to heresie Yea the same Bellarmine sayth that the particular Romane Church that is the cleargy and people of Rome subiect to the Pope cannot erre because though some of them may yet all cannot It is true therefore which I haue deliuered not withstanding any thinge the Treatiser can say to the contrary that the Church including all the faithfull that are and haue beene since the Apostles may be sayd to bee free from error because in respect of her totall vniuersality she is so it being impossible that any errour should bee found in all her parts at all times though in respect of her seuerall parts shee be not For sometimes and in some parts she hath erred and in this sense can no more be sayd to be free from error then a man may be sayd to bee free from sicknesse that in some parts is ill affected But as a man that hath not beene alwaies nor in all parts ill may bee said to be free from perpetuall and vniuersall sicknesse so the Church is free from perpetuall and vniuersall error This the Treatiser saith is a weake priuiledge and not answerable to the great and ample promises made by Christ whereas the Fathers knew no other whatsoeuer this good man imagineth For Vincentius Lyrinensis confesseth that error may infect some parts of the Church yea that it may sometimes infect almost the whole Church so that he freeth it only from vniuersall perpetuall error But sayth the Treatiser what are poore Christians the nearer for this priuiledge how shall such a Church be the director of their faith and how shall they know what faith was preached by the Apostles what parts taught true doctrine and when and which erred in subsequent ages Surely this question is easily answered For they may know what the Apostles taught by their writings and they may know what parts of the Church teach true doctrine by comparing the doctrine each part teacheth with the written word of God and by obseruing who they are that bring in priuate and strange opinions contrary to the resolution of the rest But if happily some new contagion endeauour to commaculate the whole Church together they must looke vp into Antiquity and if in Antiquity they finde that some followed priuate and strange opinions they must carefully obserue what all not noted for singularity or heresie in diuerse places and times constantly deliuered as vndoubtedly true and receiued from such as went before them This course Vincentius Lyrinensis prescribeth But the Treatiser disclaimeth it not liking that all should be brought to the letter of holy Scripture and the workes of Antiquity which setting aside the authority of the present Church he thinketh yeeld no certaine and diuine argument So that according to his conceipt wee must rest on the bare censure and iudgement of the Pope for he is the present Church Antiquity is to be contēued as little or nothing worth Hauing iustified the distinctiō of the diuerse cōsiderations of the Church impugned by the Treatiser that which he hath touching the two assertions annexed to it will easily bee answered For the one of them is most true his addition of not erring being taken away and the other is but his idle imagination for wee neuer deliuered any such thing §. 3. IN the third place he excepteth against Mee because I say the words of the Apostle in the Epistle to Timothy touching the house and Church of God are originally vnderstood of the Church of Ephesus wherein Paul directeth Tymothy how to demeane and behaue himselfe but because I haue cleared this exception in my answere to Higgons I will say nothing to him in this place but referre him thither §. 4. FRom the Apostle the Treatiser passeth to Saint Augustine and chargeth Me th I wrest his words when he sayth he would not beleeue the Gospell if the authority of the Church did not moue him to a sense neuer meant by him These words of S. Augustin are vsually alleadged by the Papists to proue that the authority of the Church is the ground of our faith reason of beleeuing in answere whereunto I shew that the Diuines giue two explications of them For Ockam and some other vnderstand them not of the multitude of beleeuers that now are in the world but of the whole number of them that are and haue beene since Christ appeared in the flesh so including the Apostles and in this sense they confesse that the Church because it includeth the writers of the bookes of the new Testament is of greater authority then the books themselues Other vnderstand by the name of the Church onely the multitude of beleeuers liuing in the world at one time and thinke the meaning of Augustine is that the authority of this Church was an introduction vnto him but not the ground of his faith and principall or sole reason of beleeuing The former of these explications this graue censurer pronounceth to be friuolous First because if wee may beleeue him Saint Augustine neuer vsed these words Catholique Church after this sort in that sense Secondly because he speaketh of that Church which commanded him not to beleeue Manicheus which vndoubtedly was the present Church Thirdly because as he supposeth I can alleadge no Diuine that so interpreted the words of Augustine that which I cite out of Ockam being impertinent To euery of these reasons I will briefly answere And first that Augustine doth vse the words Catholique Church in the sense specified by Me it is euident For writing against Manicheus he hath these words Palám est quantū in re dubia ad fidem certitudinem valent Catholicae Ecclesiae authoritas quae ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus Apostolorū vsque ad hodiernū diem succedētibus sibimet Episcopis tot populorū cōsensione firmatur that is it is apparant what great force the authority of that Church hath to settle the perswasion of faith cause certainty in things doubtfull that from the most surely established seats of the Apostles by succession of Bishops euen till this present cōsent of people is most firmely setled To the second reason wee answere that the Church including the Apostles and all faithfull ones that haue beene since comprehendeth in it the present Church and so might commaund Augustine not to listen to Manicheus So that this commaunding proueth not that he speaketh precisely of the present Church To the third I say that the Treatiser is either strangely ignorant or strangely impudent when hee affirmeth that I can alledge no Diuine that vnderstandeth the words of Augustine of the Church including in it the Apostles such as liued in their times For first Durandus vnderstandeth them of the Primitiue Church including the Apostles Secondly Gerson will tell him that when
Augustine saith he would not beleeue the Gospell if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him hee vnderstandeth by the name of the Church the Primitiue congregation of those Faithful ones which saw heard Christ and were his witnesses Thirdly Driedo writeth thus when Augustine saith hee would not beleeue the Gospell if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him hee vnderstandeth that Church which hath beene euer since the beginning of the Christian Faith hauing her Bishops in orderly sort succeeding one another and growing and increasing till our times which Church truly comprehendeth in it the blessed company of the Holy Apostles who hauing seene Christ his miracles and learned from his mouth the Doctrine of Faith deliuered vnto vs the Evangelicall Scriptures And againe the same ◠Driedo saith that the authority of the Scripture is greater then the authoritie of the Church that now is in the world in it selfe considered But if wee speake of the vniversal Church including all Faithfull ones that are and haue beene the authority of the Church is in a sort greater then the Scripture and in a sort equall For explication whereof he addeth that as touching things that cannot bee seené nor knowne by vs we beleeue the sayings writings of men not as if they had in them in themselues considered a sufficient force to moue vs to beleeue but because by some reasons we are perswaded of them who deliuer such things vnto vs thinke them worthie to be beleeued So S. Augustine might rightly say hee would not beleeue the bookes of the Gospel if the authority of the Church did not moue him vnderstanding the vniuersal Church of which he speaketh against Manicheus which including the Apostles hath had in it an orderly course of succession of Bishops till our time For the faithfulnes trueth credit of this Church was more evident then the Trueth of the books of the New Testament which are therefore receiued as sacred true because written by those Apostles to whō Christ so many waies gaue testimony both by word and worke and the Scriptures are to be proued by the authority of that Church which included the Apostles but in the Church that now is or that includeth only such as are now liuing God doth not so manifest himselfe as hee formerly did so that this Church must demōstrat herself to be Orthodox by prouing her faith out of the Scripture With Driedo Ockam cōcurreth his words are these sometimes the name of the Church cōprehendeth not only the whole cōgregation of Catholiques liuing but the Faithful departed also in this sense blessed Augustine vseth the name of the Church in his book against the Manichees cited in the Decrees 2. dist c. palà m where the Catholique Church importeth the Bishops that haue succeeded one another frō the Apostles times the people subiect to thē And in the same sense Augustine vseth the name of the Church when he saith he would not beleeue the Gospell if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him for this Church comprehendeth in it the Writers of the bookes of the Gospell and all the Apostles so that from the authoritie of Augustine rightly vnderstood it cannot be inferred that the Pope the maker of the Canons is rather more to be beleeued then the Gospel yet it may be granted that wee must more rather beleeue the Church which hath beene from the times of the Prophets Apostles till now then the Gospel not for that men may any way doubt of the Gospell but because the whole is greater then the part So that the Church which is of greater authoritie then the Gospel is that whereof the Writer of the Gospel is a part Neither is it strange that the whole should bee of more authority then the parts These are the words of Ockam in the place cited by me Wherfore let the Reader judge whether that I cite out of Ockam be impertinent as the Treatiser saith or not To Durandus Gerson Driedo Ockam we may adde Waldensis who fully agrees with thē shewing at large that it pertayned to the Church onely in her first best and primitiue state age to deliuer a perfect direction touching the Canon of the Scripture so that shee hath no power or authority now to adde any more bookes to the Canon already receiued as out of her owne immediate knowledge But it sufficeth to the magnifying of her authority in her present estate that euen now no other bookes may bee receiued but such only as in her first and best estate shee proposed Farther adding that the saying of Augustine that hee would not beleeue the Gospell if the authority of the Church did not moue him is to bee vnderstood of the Church including the primitiue Fathers and Pastors the Apostles Scholers By this which hath bin sayd it is euident as I thinke that the former of those two constructions which I make of Augustines words hath bin approued by far better men then this Treatiser And that therefore he sheweth himself more bold then wise when he pronounceth it to be frivolous And surely if we consider well the discourse of S. Augustine I thinke it may be proued vnanswerably out of the circumstances of the fame that hee speaketh not precisely of the present Church For it is that authority of the catholicke church hee vrgeth that was begun by miracles nourished by hope increased by charity confirmed strengthned by long continuance And of that Church he speaketh wherin there had bin a succession of Bishops from Peter till that present time So that he must needs meane the Church including not onely such faythfull ones as were then liuing when hee wrote but all that either then were or had bin from the Apostles times Wherefore let vs passe to the other construction of Augustines words which is that the authority of the present church was the ground reason of an acquisit fayth an introduction leading him to a more sure stay but not the reason or ground of that faith whereby principally he did beleeue This constructiō the Treatiser sayth cannot stand because Aug saith if the authority he speaketh of be weakned hee will beleeue no longer Whence it seemeth to be consequent that it was the cause of all thē perswasion of fayth that he had then when he wrote not only of an acquisit fayth preparing fitting him to a stronger more excellent farther degree or kind of faith For the clearing of this poynt we must note that there are 3. sorts of such mē as beleeue for there are some that beleeue out of piety onely not discerning by reason whether the things they beleeue be to be beleeued as true or not the 2d. haue a light of diuine reason shining in them causing an approbation of that they beleeue the 3d. sort hauing a pure heart conscience begin already inwardly to taste that which hereafter
not onely a condition but a cause of that perswasion of fayth which they haue yea the authority of the Church is the formall cause of all that faith seduced Papists haue And therefore the distinction of a cause and condition helpeth them not It is true indeed that the Ministerie of the Church proposing to men thinges to bee beleeued is onely a condition requisite to the producing of a supernaturall act of fayth in respect of them that haue some other thing to perswade them that that is true which the Church proposeth besides the authority of the Church but in respect of such as haue no other proofe of the trueth thereof it is a formall cause Now this is the condition of all Papists For let them tell Mee whether they beleeue the Scripture to be the Word of God without any motiue at all or not and if they doe not as it is most certaine they doe not whether besides such as are humane they haue any other then the authority of the Church if they haue not as doubtlesse they haue not they make the authority of the Church the formall cause of their faith and fall into that sophisticall circulation they are charged with For they beleeue the articles of religion because reuealed and that they were reuealed because it is so contayned in the Scripture and the Scripture because it is the Word of God that it is the Word of God because the Church telleth them it is and the Church because it is guided by the spirit and that it is so guided because it is so contayned in the Scripture this is such a maze as no wise man will willingly enter into and yet the Treatiser commendeth the treading of these intricate pathes and telleth vs that two causes may bee causes one of another That the cause may bee proued by the effect and the effect by the cause and that such a kinde of argumentation is not a circulation but a demonstratiue regresse that two causes may be causes either of other in diuerse respects we make no question For the end of each thing as it is desired setteth the efficient cause a worke and the efficient causeth the same to bee actually enjoyed Likewise we doubt not but that the cause may be proued by the effect and the effect by the cause in a demonstratiue regresse For the effect as better known vnto vs then the cause may make vs know the cause and the cause being found out by vs may make vs more perfitly and in a better sort to knowe the effect then before not onely that and what it is but why it is also So the death of little infants proueth them sinners and their being sinners proueth them mortall The bignesse of the footstep in the dust or sand sheweth the bignesse of his foote that made that impression And the bignesse of his foote will shew how bigge the impression is that he maketh but this maketh nothing for the justifying of the Romish circulations For heere the effect being knowne in a sort in itselfe maketh vs know the cause and the cause being found out and knowne maketh vs more perfectly to knowe the effect then at first wee did but the case is otherwise with the Papists for with them the Scripture which in it selfe hath no credit with them but such onely as it is to receiue from the Church giueth the Church credit and the Church which hath no credit but such as it is to receiue from the Scripture giueth the Scripture credit by her testimony And they endeauour to proue the infallibility of the Churches judgment out of the Scripture and the trueth of the Scripture out of the determination and judgement of the Church Much like as if when question is made touching the quality condition of two men vtterly vnknowne a man to commend them to such as doubt of them should bring no other testimony of their good and honest disposition but the testimony of each of them of the other It is true then which I haue said that to a man admitting the Old Testament and doubting of the New a man may vrge the authority of the Old and to a man doubting of the Old and admitting the New the authority of the New but to him that doubteth of both a man must alledge neither of them but must bring some other authority or proofe so likewise to him that admitteth the Scripture and doubteth of the Church a man may vrge the authority of the Scripture but to him that doubteth of both as all doe when they begin to beleeue a man must alledge some other proofe or else hee shall cause him to runne round in a Circle for euer and neuer to finde any way out Wherefore to conclude this poynt let our Aduersaries know that wee admitte and require humane motiues and inducements and amongst them a good opinion of them that teach vs as preparing fitting vs to fayth Secondly that wee require a supernaturall ayde light and habit for the producing of an act of faith Thirdly that we require some diuine motiue inducement Fourthly that this cannot be the authority of the Church seeing the authority of the Church is one of the things wee are to bee induced to beleeue Fiftly that wee require the ministery of the Church as a propounder of all heauenly trueth though her authority can be no proofe in generall of all such truth Sixtly that the Church though not as it includeth onely the beleeuers that are in the world at one time yet as it comprehendeth all that are or haue beene is an infallible propounder of heauenly truth and so acknowledged to bee by such as are assured of the trueth of the doctrine of Christianity in generall Seauenthly that the authority of this Church is a sufficient proofe of the trueth of particular things proposed by her to such as already are by other diuine motiues assured of her infallibility §. 7. FRom the authority of the Scripture which he would faine make to bee wholy dependant on the Church the Treatiser passeth to the fulnesse and sufficiency of it seeking amongst other his discourses to weaken those proofes which are brought by Mee for confirmation thereof Affirming that though I make shew as if it were a plaine matter that the Euangelists in their Gospels Saint Luke in the Actes of the Apostles and Saint Iohn in the Apocalyps meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine and direction of faith yet I bring no reason of any moment to proue it Whereas yet in the place cited by him I haue these wordes contayning in them as I suppose a strong proofe of the thing questioned Who seeth not that the Evangelists writing the history of CHRISTS life and death St Luke in the booke of the Acts of the Apostles describing the comming of the Holy Ghost the admirable gifts and graces powred vpon the Apostles and the churches founded and ordered by them and Saint Iohn writing the Revelations
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
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