wrote for him to the Councel to be receiued agayne No maruayle then if licentious fellowes hoping to finde more fauour at Rome did appeale thither As also the ambition of the Bishops of Rome did somewhat helpe forward this matter who were as ready to receiue such appeales as others were to make them 2. Bishop Tunstal doth answere very fully to this poynt that although appeales were made to Rome yet was it not for any iurisdiction that the See had but this was the cause partly for that there were many deuisions and parts taking in the Oriental Churches as also because many were infected with heresies from the which the West Occidētal Churches were more free they were content to referre the cause many times to the Bishop of Rome as being a more indifferent iudge and not like to be partial being no partie in the cause Neither was their 〈◊〉 to the Bishop of Rome singularly but to the whole congregation of the Bishops of Italie and France or of the whole West as it appeareth by the epistles of Basile Tunstal apud Fox 1067. The Protestants That appeales ought not to be made to Rome but that all matters and controuersies may best be ended and determined at home where they doe arise It is thus confirmed 1. This matter was notably handled anno 420. in the sixt Councel of Carthage where Augustine was present with Prosper and Orosius To this Councel Pope Zozimus sent his Legate with certaine requests of the which this was one that it might be lawful for Bishops and priests to appeale from the sentence of their Metropolitanes and also of the Councel to Rome alleadging for him self a decree of the Nicene Councel The Councel of Carthage sent forthwith to the patriarkes of Cōstantinople Antioch Alexandria for a copie of the Coūcel of Nice wherein no such Canon was found that appeales should bee made to Rome but the contrary for in the sixt Canon of that Councel it was founde how all matters and all persons ecclesiasticall both Bishops and others were committed to their Metropolitanes vpon this decree the Councel of Carthage drew out certain reasons why appeales should not be made to Rome First it is not otherwise to be thought but that the grace of God is as ready at hande in one prouince as in another Secondly there is no neede to seeke any outlandish help for the partie grieued may appeale to a prouinciall or generall Councel Thirdly it were not equall nor right to appeale from the Councel to the Bishop of Rome for it is not like that God will inspire his truth vnto the Bishop and denie it to a multitude congregated in his name Fourthly no forraine or outlandish iudgement can be so vpright or iust because the witnesses cannot be present being hindered by infirmitie of sex age sicknes by whom the truth should be discussed Vpon these reasons the Councel concluded that neither any appeales should be made to Rome neither that Legates should be sent from Rome for deciding of matters And this answere they made to Zozimus first to Bonifacius and Celestinus that in short time one succeeded another And for all the B. of Rome his absolution Apiarius was againe called coram and brought to confesse his fault Fox p. 10. col 2. Now out of the Acts of this Councel and their reasons alleadged wee conclude that it is not fit conuenient nor reasonable that appeals should be made to Rome The Iesuite answereth that appeales were forbidden to be made by priests to Rome not by Bishops This is but a vaine shift for the reasons of the Councel are general against all appeales And Apiarius that appealed to Rome was a priest and no Bishop 2. We can bring the decrees of a latter Councell then this of Carthage for in the Councell of Basile it was decreed that no actions or controuersies should be brought from other countries to be pleaded at Rome which were more then foure daies iourney distant from the said court of Rome a few principall matters onely excepted apud Fox p. 697. 3. This also is flatly contrary to the rule of the Apostle that appellations should be made out of the Church a far off Is it so sayth hee that there is not a wise man amongst you no not one that can iudge amongst his brethren 1. Cor. 6.5 Ergo euery Church hath wise men sufficient in it whereby their controuersies may be ended 4. Augustine also thus writeth concerning this matter Miltiades Episcopus Romanus non sibi vsurpauit iudicium de causa Ceciliani sed rogatus imperator iudices misit Episcopos qui cum eo sederent epist. 162. Miltiades Bishop of Rome did not vsurpe or take vpon himselfe to iudge the cause of Cecilian but the Emperour being requested sent other bishops that should sit and determine the cause together with him Out of these words first we note that it had beene vsurpation and presumption for the Bishop of Rome to haue taken vpon him the iudgement of this matter not belonging vnto him vnlesse the Emperor had committed it Secondly that Miltiades did not suffer other Bishops to sitte with him as Bellarmine imagineth but he could not otherwise choyse for they were ioyned in commission by the Emperour to be iudges as well as he Thus we see what small shew or colour of title the Pope hath to heare or receiue appeales from other countries THE THIRD PART WHETHER THE Pope be subiect to the iudgement of anye The Papists error 43 THe Pope neither can nor ought to bee iudged either of the Emperour or anie other Seculare or ecclesiasticall Magistrate no not of any generall Councel Bellarmin cap. 26. Nay hee should doe iniurie vnto GOD to submit himselfe to the iudgement of any Iacobat ex Tilhemann de pontif rom err 34. Beside certayne blinde canons and constitutions and a fewe examples grounded vpon the insolent practises of Popes they haue no other arguments either out of scripture or drawen from reason to confirme this their hideous and monstrous opinion withal Bellarmine reasoneth thus the Prince is not to bee iudged by the commonwealth but is greater then his kingdome the Pope is the prince of the Church Ergo We answere First concerning the Princes high and Soueraigne authority we will not now dispute we make it not infinite the word of God must bee a rule and square both of ciuill and ecclesiasticall iudgement Secondly It is sufficient for vs here to answere that the Iesuite hath sayd nothing for this which he assumeth for a reason is the greatest matter in question between vs and so great an vntruth he hath vttered that he is constrained to leaue scripture and seeke helpe else-where But he shall neuer by any good reason or sufficient authority prooue that the Pope hath any such Princedome in the Church as he would beare vs in hand The Protestants THat the Pope as well as other ecclesiasticall persons ought to be and is by right subiect to the
so fayne themselues vnlesse it be for fornication then without consent the marriage knot is broken 3 Peter left not the companie of his wife after he was made an Apostle for he had a daughter called Petronilla of whom the popish legends write much holines which must needes be borne after he was called Peter And agayne it is proued by her age for she was so young in the persecutioÌ„ vnder Domitian that Flaccus the Countie desired her in marriage but if she had been borne before Peters Apostleship she must haue been threescore yeere old at that time or hard vpon Fulk Math. 8. sect 3. 4 Augustine thus writeth of this matter Vna sola esse causa posset qua te id quod vouisti non solum non hortaremur verumetiam prohiberemus implere si forte tua coniux hoc tecum suscipere animi seu carnis insâ—rmitate recusaret Epistol 45. There may be one cause and no more which would make me not only to moue you to performe that which you haue vowed but to disswade and forbid you namely if your wife by reason of her weakenes should refuse to beare the yoke with you Therefore by Augustines sentence neither ought a Minister that is married performe the vow of continencie which he made without consent of his wife for he speaketh generally of vowes made by those that are ioyned in Wedlocke THE SIXT QVESTION CONCERNING THE maintenance of the Church by tithes COncerning the maintenance of the Church there are diuers poynts wherein we our aduersaries agree The maintenaÌ„ce of the Ministers of the Church is either by temporal possessions which haue been bestowed vpon the Church by the gift of deuoute and religious men or els they haue inheritance from their friends and a patrimonie of their owne or els they liue of the tithes and oblations of the people 1 We grant and agree vnto them that the Church Ministers beside the portion of tithes may lawfully enioy temporall lands which the Church of ancient time hath been endowed withall But we yeeld vnto them vpon certaine conditions First there must be a moderation vsed in all such gifts which are bequeathed to the Church for Ecclesiasticall persons ought not to be too greedie and hastie in receiuing whatsoeuer in simplicitie and blind deuotion any man shall giue vnto them as if they see that others are empouerished by the gift whereby they are enriched Thus the Priests offended in our Sauiour Christs time who allured the people to bring their offerings to the Altar though their parents wanted in the meane time whom they were bound to relieue by the law of God This also was a common practise in time of Poperie So the priests might be enriched they cared not greatly though all the stock of their patrones and founders were vndone who because they were vnsatiable had no measure in entising simple men to giue ouer their lands and Lordships into their hands the statute of Mortmaine was made not without iust cause to be a rule vnto theÌ„ that otherwise could not rule themselues Augustine doth highly commend Aurelius Bishop of Carthage and worthely for this one act A certaine rich man of Carthage hauing no children gaue all his substance to the Church reseruing onely the vse thereof for his life time afterward the man had children Reddidit Episcopus nec opinanti ea quae donauerat The Bishop restoreth vnto him that which hee gaue not looking for it nor making any account of it In potestate habuit Episcopus non reddere sed iure fori non iure poli It was in the Bishops power not to restore the gift but by the lawe of the court not by the lawe of heauen I pray you how many such examples can ye shewe me in the time of popish superstition This then is the first thing required that although it be lawful for the Church to enioy the bequests of their benefactors yet it should be done with some limitation As the Leuites beside their tithes had cities appoynted them but the number was set downe they should not exceede 48. in all and to euery citie was a quantitie and circuite of ground allotted which should in length and bredth contayne euery way 3000. cubites Numb 35. vers 5.8 2 It must also be prouided that the gifts and legacies bestowed vpon the Church bee for the maintenance of pietie and true religion and to good vses not to nourish idolatrie and superstition or if they be giuen through ignorance of the time to such vnlawfull purposes they ought by the Prince to be conuerted to better and more godly vses As now in England the lands of Colledges which were first giuen to maintaine that abominable Idoll of the Masse are turned to the maintenance of learning and true religion So was the lawe of Moses that the gold and siluer brasse yron tinne lead which the Israelites should receiue of the heathen first should passe through the fire and so bee made cleane and fit for holy vses Euen thus according to this lawe the lands consecrate to superstition hauing now passed through the fire of Gods word and triall of the truth may safely be vsed to the glorie of God in aduancing and setting forward true religion and vertue 3 Another thing must bee required that Church-men ought not to abuse the possessions of the Church to maintayne pride idlenes and ryotous liuing for in case they doe notoriously spend and wast the Church goods the Prince by whose authoritie they were giuen to the Church may iustly take from them their superfluities not leauing the Church destitute of sufficient maintenance This is notably proued by Iohn Husse in the defence of Wickliffes articles And we haue seene the practise thereof in England in the late suppression of Abbeyes wherein though some of those lands might otherwise haue been disposed of yet the prouidence of God notably appeared in bringing desolation vpon those Cels of sinne and vncleane cages of birdes neither hath this been an vnusuall and vnaccustomed practise in the Church for Princes to correct the misdemeanour of Priests by cutting them short of their temporalties for in Augustines time the Christian Emperours dispossessed the Donatists of their Churches and possessions and gaue them to the Catholike Bishops And at that time the Donatists cryed out as the Papists doe now Quid mihi est imperator What hath the Emperour the King to doe with our lands Augustine answereth Secundum ius ipsius possides terram by the lawe of Princes the Church enioyeth her possessions Recitemus leges imperatorum videamus si voluerint aliquid ab haereticis possideri Let vs then rehearse the lawes of Emperours and see whether they suffer heretikes to enioy the Church possessions Secondly concerning the second kind of maintenance which ariseth by the proper and peculiar inheritance which Church ministers haue we also yeeld our consent that a Minister to whom some inheritance is befallen is not bound
sometime Iames sate and Iohn now sitteth In those words Augustine ascribeth as much to the succession of other Apostolicall Churches as he doth to the succession of the Bishops of Rome And therefore Canisius craftely leaueth out the one half of the sentence cōcerning the Church of Ierusalem Neither is it true which our aduersaries say that Peters Sea remaineth still at Rome when all other Apostolicall Sees are gone for euen to this day the See of Antioch standeth and hath a Patriark likewise the See of Alexandria The See of Constantinople neuer wanted successors to this day nor the Church of Ephesus In India and Aethiopia there hath been alwaies a succession in those Churches planted by the Apostles and is at this day Fulk 2. Thess. 2. sect 7. Wherefore they haue no cause to bragge of their succession which is found in other places as well as at Rome THE FIFT QVESTION CONCERNING THE primacie of the See of Rome THis question hath diuers partes which must be handled in their order First whether the Bishop of Rome haue authority ouer other Bishops Secondly whether appeales ought to be made to Rome from other countries Thirdly whether the Pope be subiect to the iudgemēt of any Fourthly whether he may be deposed Fiftly what primacie he hath ouer other Churches how it began Sixtly of the titles and names giuen to the Bishops of Rome THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE BISHOP of Rome hath authoritie ouer other Bishops The Papists error 41 THey doubt not to say that the Bishop of Rome hath authoritie and ought so to haue to ordaine and constitute Bishops to depriue and depose them to restore them likewise to their former dignities and this power hee exerciseth ouer the vniuersall Church The Iesuites principall only argument is drawen from certain examples how the Bishops of Rome haue in times past constituted deposed and restored some Bishops in the Greeke Church as in the patriarchal Seas of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch Ergo hee hath power ouer all Bishops We answere First It was not done by the absolute authority of the Roman Bishops any such constitution or deposition though perhappes their consent and allowance were required as Leo writeth thus to Martianus the Emperour about the ordayning of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople Satis sit quod vestrae pietatis auxilio mei fauoris assensu episcopatum tantae vrbis obtinuit It is sufficient that by your godly helpe and my fauourable assent he hath obtained so famous a Bishoprick Whether was greater now the help and furtherance of the Emperor or the base assent of Leo Secondly wee denie not but that the Pope sometimes what by sufferance of others what by his owne intrusion hath vsurped this power ouer other Bishops by this ought not to make a law that which is once or twise done by a false title cannot prooue the iustnes of the title Thirdly that the Bishop of Rome hath no such authoritie it appeareth by this that he doth not neither of many yeares hath constituted or ordayned the patriarks of the Greeke Church they came not vp to Rome nor yet sent thither for their palls as other Archbishops here in the West parts haue done paied full dearely for them being made slaues to the beast of Rome The Protestants THat the Pope neither hath nor yet ought to haue any such authority ouer other Bishops but that euery one in his owne precinct and iurisdiction hath the chiefe charge It is thus proued 1. Peter was not chiefe neither did exercise iurisdiction ouer the twelue Ergo neither the Pope ought to doe ouer other Bishops The antecedent or first part is thus confirmed The heauenly Hierusalem which is the Church of God is described Apocal. 21. not with one foundation onely of Peter but with 12. foundations after the number of the Apostles argument Tunstalli To this purpose also hee alleadgeth in saying out of Hierome contra Iouinian All the Apostles receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and vpon them all indifferently and equally is the strength of the Church grounded and established Fox p. 1066. 2. Till the yeare of the Lord 340. there was no respect had to the Church of Rome but euery Church was ruled by their owne gouernment afterward followed the Councel of Nice wherein was decreed that the whole Church should be deuided into foure circuites or precincts ouer the which there were foure Metropolitanes or patriarkes set first the Bishop of Rome next the Bishop of Alexandria the third was the Bishop of Antioch the fourth the Bishop of Ierusalem and not long after came in the Bishop of Constantinople in the roume of the B. of Antioch All these had equall authoritie in their prouinces and one was not to deale within anothers charge Ergo the Bishop of Rome had not then the iurisdiction ouer the whole Church argument Nili plura Fox p. 9. 3. We will adioyne the testimonie of the fathers of Basile which were all of the Popish sect what haue the Bishops been in our daies say they but only shadowes might they not haue been called shepheards without sheepe what had they more then their Miters and their staffe when they could determine nothing ouer their subiects Verily in the primitiue Church the Bishops had the greatest power and authoritie but now it was come to that poynt that they exceeded the common sort of priests onely in their habite and reuenewes What plainer testimonie can we haue then from the papists themselues Augustine also agreeth to their sentence habet omnis episcopus saith he pro licētia libertatis potestatis suae arbitrium propriū tanquam iudicari ab alio nō possit quomodo nec ipse potest alium iudicare sed expectemus vniuersi iudiciū domini nostri Iesu Christi Euery Bishop is priuiledged by his own authoritie to follow his owne iudgement neither is subiect to the iudgement of other Bishops as he is not to iudge them but they all must be referred to the iudgement of Christ See then in this place Augustine setteth Bishops in the highest roume in the Church and sayth they haue no iudge aboue them but Christ. THE SECOND PART CONCERNING APpeales to bee made to Rome The Papists SVch say they is the preeminēt authority of the Bishop of Rome that appeals error 42 may be made vnto him from all Churches in the world and that all ought to stand to his sentence and determination For the proofe hereof they bring no scripture nor any sound argumēt but stand chiefly vpon certain odde examples of some that haue appealed to Rome which we denie not to haue been done but our answere more at large is this 1. One cause of these appeales was both for that they which were iustly cōdemned of other Churches found greater liberty and fauour at Rome as Apiarius did who being condemned in the 6. Aphricane Councel for his detestable conditions found fauour with Zosimus Bishop of Rome who
chiefe citie in all the world this reason was rendered in the Councel of Chalcedon Can. 28. An other cause thereof was the ample priuiledges and immunities which the Emperours endued it withall as Constantine the great and Gratianus the Emperour made a lawe that all men should reteyne that religion which Damasus of Rome and Peter Bishop of Alexandria did hold A third cause was the vnquiet estate of the Greeke Church who often voluntarily referred their matters to the Bishop of Rome as being lesse partiall and a more indifferent Iudge they themselues being diuided and rent into sects And hereupon and other like causes it came about that the Bishop of Rome a little stepped aboue his fellowe Patriarkes but yet had no such preeminent authoritie as to commaund them Fourthly the Pope of Rome being thus tickled with vayne glorie because they were reuerenced of other Churches many matters were committed vnto them and their consent required vnto the decrees of Councels when they were absent Hereupon they laboured euery day more and more to aduance that See taking euery small occasion that might helpe forward their ambicious desire till Anno. 606. or somewhat after Boniface the 3. obtayned of wicked Phocas the Emperour who murthered his master the Emperour Mauritius and his children to come to the Empire and was after slaine himselfe of Heraclius that succeeded him of him I say Boniface for himselfe and his successors obtayned to bee called vniuersall Bishops ouer the whole Church and the See of Rome to haue the preeminence aboue all other Churches in the world Afterward in Pope Zacharie his time the proude and insolent iurisdiction of Rome was established by Pipinus King of France who aspired to the Crowne and obtayned it by the sayd Popes meanes first deposing Childericus the rightfull King and dispensing with the oath which the French men had made before to Childericus Calum Institut 4. cap. 7. sect 17. Thus then it sufficiently appeareth that the primacie of Rome which it now vniustly challengeth ouer other Churches is not of any such antiquitie as they would beare the world in hand neither that it had the beginning from Christ but both the time when and the authors by whom it began may bee easily assigned 2 Wee neede no better argument to proue that the primacie of Rome hath not his originall from Christ then the Iesuites owne confession First he sayth that it doth not depend of Christs institution but ex Petri facto of Peters fact that the Bishop of Rome should bee rather Peters successor then the Bishop of Antioch or any other It is not iure diuino saith he by Gods lawe neither is it ex prima institutione pontificatus quae in Euangelio legitur of the first institution whereof wee reade in the Gospell And agayne Romanum pontificem succedere Petro non habetur expresse in scripturis It is not expressely set downe in scripture that the Bishop of Rome should succeede Peter but it is grounded onely vpon the tradition of Peter Nay he saith further that Peter needed not to haue chosen any particular place for succession and he might as well haue chosen Antioch as Rome Ergo neither is the succession of Rome grounded vpon scripture neither any commandement of Christ for then Peter could not haue had free choyse to appoynt his successor where he would himselfe as the Iesuite saith if he had had any especiall direction or commaundement from Christ. So then marke I pray you they cannot proue out of scripture that the Bishop of Rome ought to succeede Peter in the chiefe Bishopricke but onely that Peter had the chiefe Bishopricke committed to him and his successors in generall whosoeuer they should appoynt Ergo the Bishops of Rome by their owne confession can alleadge no scripture institution or commandement of Christ for the primacie of the Church to bee annexed to the See of Rome and yet agaynst their knowledge they will alleadge scripture to colour the matter withall Bellarm. lib. 2. de pontif ca. 17. 3 Augustine saith Secundum honorum vocabula quae iam ecclesiae vsus obtinuit episcopatus presbyterio maior est The office of a Bishop is aboue the office of a Priest according to the names of honour which the Church by custome hath obtayned If then the difference of those two offices both named in scripture did arise rather and spring of the custome of the Church which thought it good to distinguish them for auoyding of schisme and is not grounded vpon the authoritie of scripture much lesse can the Pope whose neither name nor office is expressed in scripture fetch from thence any shew of proofe for his vsurped primacie THE SIXT PART OF THIS QVESTION CONCERning the proud names and vayne glorious titles of the Pope The Papists BEllarmine setteth downe to the number of fifteene glorious names which error 46 haue been of old giuen as he saith to the Bishop of Rome whereby his primacie ouer other Bishops is notoriously knowne but the principall are these He is called the Pope and chiefe Father the prince of Priests or high Bishop the Vicar of Christ the head of the Church the Prelate of the Apostolike See vniuersall Bishop These sixe names or titles they doe appropriate to the See of Rome Bellarm. de Roman pontif lib. 2. cap. 31. The Protestants WE will shewe by Gods grace that these sixe seuerall titles and names aforesayd are either such as ought not in their sense to be attributed to any Bishop nor any mortall man or els were common in ancient times as well to other Bishops as to him of Rome 1 For the first name of Pope it is deriued from the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the Syracusane language is as much as Father which name was indifferently giuen to other Bishops which were famous in the Church for their vertue and learning As Cypriane Epiphanius Athanasius were called Papae Popes Augustine saluteth Aurelius President of the 6. Councel of Carthage by the name of Pope Epistol 77. Likewise those two epithetes of the Pope as to bee called Beatissim sanctissim pater most holy and blessed father were vsed in the stile of other Bisshops Prosper in his Epistle to Augustine twise calleth him Dominum beatissimum papam Lord most blessed Pope Tom. 7. Hierome calleth Epiphanius Beatum papam blessed Pope Ad Eustach Fabiol Augustine writing to Petrus the Presbyter or Priest being no Bishop yet thus saluteth him Ad sanctitatem tuam scripsit he hath written to your holines Nay in his booke dedicated to Renatus a lay man neither Priest nor Bishop thus he writeth Hinc angor quòd sanctitati tuae minus quà m vellem cognitus sum This grieueth me that I am not so well knowne to your holines as I desire If then these titles of holinesse and blessednesse were not onely giuen to Bishops but Priests also yea vnto lay men of vertuous and holy life what colour or
wracke And as their cause was not good so neither were the meanes that they vsed for they brought S. George and S. Denys into the field against the Turkes and left Christ at home If the Israelites could not be deliuered from the Philistims by the presence of the Arke but thirtie thousand fell before them and all because of their sinnes let not men thinke that popish Saints can defend them while their liues remaine vnreformed at home 2. That the heathen are not to be prouoked to warre but vpon iust cause that is when they prouoke vs it appeareth by the example of the Israelites who as they came from Aegypt sent vnto the King of Edom and Moab that they might haue leaue to walke through their land but they not granting so much yet the people of God offered them no violence but went a longer iourney about Iudg. 11.17 Augustine sayth Sapiens gesturus est iusta bella sed multo magis dolebit iustorum necessitatem extitisse bellorum A wise man will take iust warre in hand but it more grieueth him that he hath iust cause to warre And what he meaneth by iust warre he further sheweth Iniquitas partis aduersae iusta bella ingerit gerenda sapienti The iniquitie or iniuries of the aduerse part doth giue vnto a wise man occasion of iust warre Iust warre therefore ariseth when men are prouoked by iniuries THE EIGHT QVESTION CONCERNING holy and festiuall dayes THis question hath diuers parts First of holy dayes in generall Secondly of the Lords day Thirdly of the Festiuall dayes of Christ and the holy Ghost Fourthly of Saints holy dayes Fiftly of the time of Lent THE FIRST PART OF HOLY DAIES in generall The Papists error 58 FIrst they hold that holy and festiual daies are in themselues and properly and truely more sacred and holy then other daies are Bellarm. cap. 10. proposit 2. Apocalyps 1.10 I was in the spirit saith the Apostle on the Lords day God reuealeth such great things to Prophets rather vpon holy daies then prophane daies Ergo some daies holier then other Rhemist Apocal. 1. sect 6. The Protestants Ans. FIrst God giueth not his graces in respect of times but according to his owne pleasure Times of praier he chooseth often and of other godly exercises not for the worthines or holines of the times but for the better disposition of his seruants in such exercises to receiue them yet this was not perpetually obserued for God appeared to Moses keeping of sheepe Exod. 3. to Amos following his herd Amos 7. Secondly wee grant that the Lords day being commanded of God and so discerned from other daies may be said to be holier then the rest in respect of the present vse but not in the nature of the day for then could it not haue been changed from the last day in the weeke to the first as water in Baptisme is holier then other waters because of the sacred vse not in it selfe as by a qualitie of holines inherent And as for other festiuall daies which haue not the like institution they are appoynted onely of the Church for Christian policie orders sake for the exercise of religion But this now popish before time Iewish distinction of daies as being by their nature hoâ—â—er then other is flatly against the Apostles rule Rom. 14.5 One putteth difference betweene day and day and Galath 4.10 You obserue daies and moneths times and yeeres Augustine saith Nos dominicum diem pascha celebramus sed quia intelligimus quo pertineant non tempora obseruamus sed quae illis significantur temporibus Cont. Adimant cap. 16. We keepe the Lords day and the feast of Easter not obseruing the times but remembring what is signified by those times that is for what cause they were ordained Ergo obseruers of times are reproued The Papists 2. THey affirme the keeping and sanctification of holy dayes to be necessary errour 59 Rhemist annot Galath 4. sect 5. and that we are bound in conscience to keepe the holy dayes appointed of the Church although no offence or scandale might follow and ensue vpon the neglecting of them Esther 9. Mardocheus and Esther appoint a new festiuall day not instituted of God and bind euery one to the obseruing therof that none should faile to obserue it ver 27. Ergo men bound in conscience to keep festiuall daies Bellarm. ca. 10. The Protestants Ans. FIrst though we refuse not some other festiuall daies yet we acknowledge none necessary more then are of the holy Ghosts appointing in the Scripture Secondly we deny that the constitutions of the Church for holy dayes do bind Christians in respect of the dayes them selues in conscience to keepe them otherwise then they may giue offence by their contempt and disobedience to the holesome decrees of the Church for it selfe in it owne nature is indifferent neither can the Church make a thing necessary in nature which God hath left indifferent nothing bindeth absolutely in conscience but that which is necessary by nature wherefore keeping of holy dayes being not enioyned but left indifferent in the word bindeth no otherwise then we haue said Thirdly the example of Esther sheweth that the Church hath authoritie to appoint for ciuill vses dayes of reioycing that festiuall day then begun did not binde the obseruers in conscience no otherwise then they were bound in all lawfull things to obey their gouernours for their consent was required and they promised both for themselues their seede to keepe that day Esther 9.27 Whereby it appeareth that they were not bound absolutely in conscience to obserue it Augustine speaking of the Sabboth saith thus haec est dies quam fecit Dominus exultemus laetemur in ea This is the day which the Lord hath made let vs reioyce and be glad therein Psal. 118.24 This onely holy day he saith is of the Lords making and therefore of all other necessary to be kept THE SECOND PART OF THE Lords day The Papists THe seuerall pointes wherein our aduersaries and we doe differ about the errour 60 Christian Sabboth are these First the principall exercise of the Sabboth say they is for the people to come to the Church and heare Masse which their abominable and idolatrous sacrifice they make the proper worke of the Sabboth Catechism Roman pag. 649. The Protestants THe Sabboth was ordayned for the people to assemble together to heare the word read Act. 15.21 preached and to receiue the Sacramets Act. 20.7 and to offer vp their praiers these were the proper exercises of the Sabboth as for the popish sacrifice of the Masse we finde no mention at all thereof in Scripture The Papists error 61 2. WE dissent about the rest of the Sabboth they allow such workes to be done vpon the Sabboth as shal be permitted by the Prelates and Ordinaries and such as by long custome haue bene vsed Bellarm. cap. 10. The Protestants WE holde that as the Lords day was instituted of
any man be not able to fast almes without fasting is good and profitable Wherefore seeing the Lent fast was then voluntarie it is euident that it was not an Apostolike prescription which should haue bound all men necessarily The Papists 2. A Second abuse in their fasting is to appoint prescript times necessarilie error 75 to fast in as in Lent on Fryday Saturday vpon Imber dayes which are prescribed for the foure solemne times of giuing orders And this also they say is an Apostolike tradition Acts. 13.3 They fasted prayed and laid their hands vpon them Rhemist ibid. The Protestants Ans. 1. FOr prayer and fasting to bee vsed at such times as Ministers are ordained we doubt not but it is an Apostolik tradition because we find it written in the Actes of the Apostles But it was fasting from all meat and drinke which the Apostles vsed not abstinence from flesh onely as vpon your Imber dayes Neither do you obserue those dayes of fast for any such purpose For your Imber dayes are kept amongst you though there bee no orders giuen in the whole dioces 2. Prescript and set times of ciuill abstinence from some meates for the benefite of the common wealth as your Lent and Imber daies are still retained in England and no otherwise we condemne not But to appoint ordinary tymes of necessary and Religious fasting without special cause was of the auncient Church accounted heresie in Montanus This also was the practise of the Church of God in the olde Testament vpon speciall occasion not at set and ordinary times to enioyne publike fasting as the prophet sayeth Blowe the Trumpet in Sion sanctifie a fast call a solemne assemblie Ioel 2.15 which sheweth that their publike fastes were not vsuall ordinary but especially sanctified and solemnly proclaimed As for the fixed and set fasting dayes in the weeke in Augustines time onely the Churches of Rome kept the Saturdayes Fast all the East Churches and many of the West obserued it not And whereas some alleadged that Peter fasted vpon Saturday beeing the next day which was the Lordes day to encounter with Simon Magus Augustine saith it was opinio plurimorum the opinion of many quam tamen falsam esse perhibent plerique Romani yet many of the Romanes holde it but for a fable And so he generally concludeth concerning prescript dayes of fasting Quibus diebus non oporteat ieiunare quibus oporteat praecepto Domini vel Apostolorum nō inuenio definitum Vpon what dayes we ought to fast vpon what dayes not I finde it not defined by any precept giuen by our Lord or any of the Apostles Epistol 86. The Papists error 76 3. A Third abuse in popish fasting is the difference that they make betweene meates and drinkes as the forbidding of flesh-eating vpon fasting dayes for more holines and the eating of egges butter cheese in Lent as it was decreed at Lucerna in Heluetia Anno. 1524. Abstinence also from some meates vpon certaine dayes for religion is warranted by the Rhemist as God prohibited Adam the eating of some fruites in Paradise for obedience and in the lawe for signification annot 1. Timoth. 4. sect 6. The Protestants Ans. FIrst now Antichrist sheweth himselfe in his colours making it as lawfull for him to forbid the vse of some meates for religion now vnder the Gospel when God hath made them all lawful and free as God himselfe might forbid the vse of some for obedience in Paradise or signification in the Lawe Secondly S. Paul calleth it the doctrine of diuels to command to absteine from meates 1. Timoth. 4.3 Againe let no man condemne you in meate and drinke Colos. 2.16 The Rhemist answere that the Apostle speaketh in the first place against those heretikes that condemned meates as euill by creation such were the Manichees and in the second against the Iudaicall obseruation of meates But they onely prohibite the vse of some meates for the chastising of the bodie Ans. First not onely the Manichees and other heretikes preferred some meats before other as more holy but euen the Papists also in the prescript times of their fasts doe command to absteine from meates for pietie and religion And therefore they are counted most holy amongst them that neuer eate flesh And Durand testifieth that fish in interdict dayes is rather vsed then flesh because flesh and not fish was accursed in the dayes of Noah Yea they command abstinence from meates vnder paine of damnation what is this else but with the old heretikes to condemne the creatures of God themselues Secondly the popish prohibition of meates is more superstitious then was the Iewes For they prohibited such meates as by the lawe were counted vncleane as to eate beastes that died alone or were torne with beasts or strangled or touched any vncleane beast as likewise they inioyned pennance to them that did eate or drinke where a dogge or cat had lapped or a mouse had been drowned and such like Fulk annot 1. Timoth. 4 sect 6. I pray you how farre are they now from the superstition of the Iewes Nay they goe beyond them for the legall difference of meates for signification was instituted of God for those times But this superstitious distinction of meates vnder the Gospel which giueth vs the free vse of all the creatures of God which are sanctified by the worde and prayer 1. Timoth. 4.5 is brought in by Antichrist who is an enemie vnto God 3 Neither doe they abstayne from flesh and other meates for chastising of the flesh for they permit the vse of all other meates vpon their fasting dayes that may prouoke lust flesh onely excepted as the eating of spices and other dayntie and delicate confections the drinking of wine and all kind of fish Euen like as Augustine reporteth of the Manichees that would drinke no wine nor eate flesh but in stead of wine they had Pomorum nonnullorum expressos succus vini speciem satis imitantes atque id etiam suauitate vincentes the sweete liquor of pleasant fruites like to wine in colour but excelling it in sweetnes and for flesh they had their straunge exquisite fruites with great varietie of dishes seasoned and strawed with pepper This was the Manichees fast and this is the popish custome in their fastings at this day Agayne if they forbare some meates for chastisement of the body why might it not bee as lawfull to eate butter and egges in the time of Lent as vpon other fasting dayes but that they make difference of the times as one being holyer then an other and so also a difference of meates some being more agreeable to holy times then other Wherefore to conclude this poynt Ciuill abstinence from flesh as for policies sake and the better mayntenance of the common wealth that there should bee a vent for fish as well as for flesh and that euerie man might liue of his trade and calling as also for the health of the
Councel for that function as Cardinal Arelatensis was chosen in the Councell of Basile by the fathers to be moderator First that it belongeth to the Prince to haue this prerogatiue it is hence prooued because he is the chiefe iudge in all matters and causes both ciuil and eccesiasticall And it appeareth by the auncient practise of the godly kings in Israel and Iuda Dauid gathered a Councel together when hee brought the Arke to Ierusalem 1. Chronicl 15.3 where he was the chiefe doer and director for he appoynted the Leuites their courses and set forth a certayne fourme of thanksgiuing to be vsed 1. Chronicl 16.4.7 Hezekiah assembled a Councel 2. Chronicl 30.2 where it was decreed that the passeouer should be solemnly kept the postes were sent forth with the kings writ or commission In Iosiah his raigne there was a great assembly at Ierusalem of the Princes the people priests and Leuites and al from the greatest to the smallest where the king him selfe was president and chiefe agent reading the law before the people 2. Chronicl 34.30.31 Secondly we finde that the Emperours themselues haue beene present at Councels As in the Nicene Constantine the great was present in the Councel of Chalcedon Martianus in the Constantinopolitane 3. Constantinus the Emperour in the Constantinopl 4. Basilius the Emperour was present Is it to bee thought that these noble Emperours were at the Councels as inferiors or vnderlings or had they not the chiefe places then sure they were presidents for in the Councell the chiefe place belongeth to the president They might appoynt a speaker or prolocutor for them as in the parliament house though the prince be present yet the Lord Chauncellour speaketh but the chiefe power and Soueraigntie in the Councell was in the Emperours Thirdly not to heape vp many reasons in so playne a cause I will alleadge one example most manifest out of Augustine who writeth that in that great Councel at Carthage where the matter was discussed between the Catholicks the Donatists there being present more then 500. Bishops of both sides Marcellinus was appointed to be moderator of that disputatiō who diuers times putteth in his sentence in the disputation and last of all bidding both parts to go aside he writeth the sentence definitiue and concludeth against the Donatists approuing the actes of the Catholike Bishops haec August breuicul collation THE FIFTE QVESTION WHETHER Councels may erre or not The Papists error 33 THey are not all agreed what to determine of this matter some affirme that Generall Councels can in no wise erre although the consent of the Pope bee wanting thus the fathers in Basile concluded who is it say they that will preferre a sinfull man before an vndefiled Church But Bellarmine more the Popes friend then so holdeth that euen generall Councels may erre vnlesse they follow the instructions and directions of the Pope Yea that it is not sufficient for the pope to call a Councel and sende his Legate thither but hee must write continually for aduertisement from his maister before any thing be concluded and therefore they doubt not to say that the Councell of Basile erred though it had the consent of the Popes Legate in defining that the Councell is aboue the Pope because he had no such direction from the Pope Bellarmine de concil lib. 2. cap. 11. Nay the Iesuite goeth further that particular Councels being approoued by the Pope cannot erre cap. 5. So they holde that the holy fathers of the cruell Inquisition cannot erre Yea Panormitane was not ashamed to say openly in the Councell of Basile that he would prefer the iudgement of the Cardinals of Rome before all the world This then is the Iesuites opinion that no Councels by the pope confirmed can erre that a particular Councel hauing his allowance is to be preferred before a generall without Let vs see some of their reasons 1. They abuse certaine places of scripture for their purpose as that Act. 15. It seemed good to vs and the holy Ghost I am with you to the end of the world He that heareth you heareth me Bellarmine cap. 2. Rhemist in Act. 15.8.10 so then thus they argue Councels are neuer without the spirite of God therefore can they not erre A silly argument as though the spirite of God were at their commaundement or were tyed to places or persons They must first performe the condition before they can chalenge the promise that is to followe the rule of Gods word and obediently to submit themselues thereunto then will God vouchsafe to be present The Gospell sayth that wheresoeuer two or three are gathered together in my name I will be present euen in the midst of them Here promise is made not to thousands or hundreds but to two or three and therefore by this place an assemblie of few persons may as well be exempted from error as Councels but there is a condition In nomine meo in my name and then followeth in medio illorum in the midst of them if then they are not met in the Lords name they cannot looke for the presence of Christ. I pray you where was the holy Ghost present in that Councel at Rome vnder Iohn 23. when there appeared a great Oule which stared and out faced the pope who blushing at the matter and fuming rose vp and departed At the sight of which Owle they whispered one in anothers eare that the spirit appeared in the likenes of an Owle and after that in an other session the same Owle appeared and could not be driuen away vntill by throwing bats and cudgels at her shee fell downe dead before them ex Nichol. Clemang In the beginning of the Councel of Constāce after the accustomed hymne song veni sancte spiritus a bil was set vp with these wordes alijs rebus occupati nunc adesse non possumus Wee are now otherwise occupied we cannot be present with you We see now how sure the Papists are of the holy Ghost in their popish Councels The Protestants WE doubt not to say that Councels haue erred and may erre presuming any thing besides the warrant of Gods worde and that neither vniuersall or particular Councels are priuiledged much lesse any one man no nor the Pope not to erre in matters of fayth otherwise then following the trueth of the Scriptures for in so doing they are sure not to be deceiued 1. We haue also examples in the scripture of Councels that erred as that assemblie in Achabs dayes of 400. Prophets who were al deceiued the Iesuite thus answereth that it was an assemblie of prophets not of priests as though priestes were more piuiledged from error than Prophets And these say they were false Prophets not Prophets of the Lord We graunt so and this withal that wheresoeuer the Lords Prophets and pastors and ministers assemble that there they will heare the Lords voyce which the Pope in his Councels doth not But he still supposeth that the Pope and his ministers
and the rest iudged corruptly there remayned yet another remedie A generall Councell might haue beene called where the iudges and the cause might further haue been tried and examined their iudgement if there were cause reuersed Whereby it appeareth say the fathers of Basile that not onely the sentence of the Pope alone but also the Pope with his Bishops ioyned with him might be made frustrate by a Councell Here the Iesuite paltreth saith that a matter determined by the Pope in a particular Councell may be called againe in question by the Pope in a general Councel First what neede that seeing that a particular Councel hauing the Popes authoritie as the Iesuite confesseth cannot erre Againe Augustine saith vbi cum ipsis iudicibus causa possit agitari In the which generall Councell the cause and the former iudges of the which Miltiades was one may bee tryed and examined so that the Pope himselfe might be adiudged by the Councell and not the cause onely Vpon the Premisses we truely and iustly conclude that the Pope is and of right ought to be subiect to generall Councels THE EIGHT QVESTION OF THE CONditions and qualitie of generall Councels The Papists THeir vnreasonable and vnequall conditions are these and such like as followe 1 That the Pope onely should haue authoritie to summon call proroge dissolue and confirme Councels and he onely to bee the iudge president and moderator in Councels or some at his appoyntment 2 They will haue none to giue voyces but Bishops and such as are bound by oath of alleageance to the Pope 3 That the Councell is not bound to determine according to Scripture but to follow their traditions and former decrees of Councels 4 That no Councell is in force without the Popes assent yea the Pope himselfe say they by his sole authotitie may abrogate and disanull the canons and decrees of Councels These and such other conditions the Papists require in their Councels So they wil be sure that nothing shall be concluded against them The Protestants OVr conditions which we would haue obserued and kept in generall Councells are these most iust and reasonable 1 That the Pope which is a party should be no iudge for it is vnreasonable that the same man should be both a partie and a iudge and therefore he ought not to meddle with calling and appoynting Councels with ruling or moderating them seeing it is like he would worke for his owne aduantage 2 That such a time and place be appointed as when and where the Churches of Christendome may most safely and conueniently meete together not at such a time as Paulus the third called a Councell when all Princes in Christendome were occupied in great affaires nor such a place as he thē appointed at Mantua in Italie whither Princes could not come without perill of iourney and danger of life being penned in by the Popes garrisons Thus Pope or Bishop Leo for then there were no Popes writ to Martianus the Emperour to haue the Councell remoued from Calchis to Italie but hee preuayled not So Pope Eugenius would haue dissolued the Councell at Basile and brought it vnder his owne nose 3 We would haue it a free Councell where euery man might fully vtter his minde and that there should be a safe conduct graunted to al to come and goe which the Pope for all his faire promises is vnwilling to doe as it was flatly denyed to Hierome of Prage in the Councell of Constance to whome it was answered that he should haue safe conduct to come but none to goe Neither if they should giue a safe conduct were they to bee trusted for it cannot bee forgotten to their perpetuall infamie that they brake the Emperour Sigismunds safe conduct graunted to Iohn Husse in the Councell of Constance saying that faith was not to be kept with Hereticks 4 That the matter should not bee left wholie to Bishops and Prelates but that the learned of the Clergie and Laitie besides should giue voices seeing the cause of religion is common and concerneth all But most of all that nothing bee carried with violence or popularitie against the Scriptures but euery matter determined according to the truth thereof Such a Councell wee refuse not nay wee much desire which is the true generall Councell that is not generall where all men cannot speake no freedome nor libertie graunted for men to vtter the trueth where all thinges are partially handled and are swayed by one mans authoritie Wherefore the Rhemists slander vs in saying wee raile vppon general Councels annot in Act. 15.10 and that we refuse them 2. Galath 2. Whether wee or they are enemies to true generall free holy indifferent Councels let all men iudge THE FOVRTH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE BISHOP OF ROME COMMONLIE CALLED THE POPE THis great and waightie controuersie conteineth tenne seuerall questions 1 Whether the regiment of the Church be Monarchicall 2 Whether Peter were the Prince of the Apostles and by our Sauiour Christ made head of the Church 3 Whether Peter were at Rome and dyed Bishop there 4 Whether the Bishop of Rome be the true successor of Peter 5 Concerning the primacie of the Bishop of Rome sixe partes of the question First whether hee haue authoritie ouer other Bishops Secondly whether appeales are to be made to Rome Thirdly whether the Pope be subiect to the iudgemēt of any Fourthly whether he may be deposed Fiftly what primacy he hath ouer other Churches Sixtly of his titles and names 6 Whether the Bishop of Rome may erre and likewise whether the Church of Rome be subiect to error 7 Of the spiritual iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome two parts First whether he can make lawes to binde the conscience Secondly whether other Bishops doe receiue their iurisdiction from him 8 Of the Popes temporall iurisdiction two parts First whether hee haue authoritie aboue Kings and princes Secondly whether he be a temporal prince 9 Of the prerogatiues of the Pope 10 Concerning Antichrist nine parts First whether Antichrist shall be some one singular man Secondly of the time of his comming Thirdly of his name Fourthly of his nation and kinred Fiftly where his place and seate shall be Sixtly of his doctrine and manners Seuenthly of his miracles Eightly of his kingdome and warres Ninthly whether the Pope bee the very Antichrist of these in their order THE FIRST QVESTION WHETHER THE Regiment of the Church be Monarchicall error 36 WE are not ignorant that the Philosophers made three formes and states of gouernement in the commonwealth the Monarchical when as the principall and soueraigne power rested in one as in the King Queene or Emperor as Rome sometime was ruled by Kings and many yeares after by Emperors Secondly the Aristocratical when the commonwealth was gouerned by an assembly and Senate of nobles as the Romanes had a long time their Consuls and Senators Thirdly the Democratical which is the popular state when the people and multitude bare the greatest sway as
second marriage be then doe they disallow second marriage because a man is thereby disabled to be a Minister if not simply yet they make it lesse lawful nay more offensiue and subiect to obloquie and reproch But the scripture maketh no difference betweene first second marriage S. Paul saith For auoiding of fornication let euery man haue his own wife he saith not his first wife but generally so that it is lawfull for auoiding of fornication to marrie the second or the third wife as well as the first 2 If it be as lawfull to marrie the second wife as the first if it be for auoiding of fornication then secōd marriage doth no more hinder the receiuing of orders then the first but the antecedent is true for what should make the second marriage lesse lawful not any dutie that the wife or the husband oweth to the partie deceased for they are free in that respect set at libertie Rom. 7.3 Neither is the end of marriage made frustrate more now then before for hee that marrieth the second time may haue as good cause to doe it for auoiding of fornication as he had at the first 3 Second marriage make the worst of it you can is not so great a blot as fornication or adulterie or to haue a Concubine but these were no lets of priesthood in poperie Nay we reade that Augustine in the purer age of the Church that confesseth he had two Concubines yet afterward was made presbyter and at the last a Bishop for all that Wherefore there is no reason that exception should be taken against a twice married man seeing a fornicator is free Lastly of this opinion Augustine seemeth to be That it is as lawfull to marrie the second time the third as the first Ait Apostolus mulier alligata est viro quamdiu vir eius viuit non dixit primus secundus tertius aut quartus The woman is bound sayth the Apostle so long as her husband liueth he sayth not the first husband second third or fourth So the woman is as free after the first or second husbands death as when she was a virgin Yet if she can content her selfe with her widowes estate and haue the gift of continencie she shall do better not to marrie But if she haue not it is better to marrie S. Paul sayth not the first second or third time but so often as she hath neede rather then to burne THE THIRD PART WHETHER MINISTERS ought to refrayne the companie of their wiues being entered into orders The Papistes THey confesse that Peter and other of the Apostles were married but after their calling they had no companie with their wiues Rhemist Math. 8. sect 3 error 79 And so ought the Ministers of the Gospell sayth Bellarmine be kept from the vse of their wiues to whom they were married before their calling 1 The Priests of the lawe were bound to withdrawe themselues during the time of their seruice while they attended vpon the sacrifice and to forbeare the companie of their wiues much more the Priests of the lawe that must alwayes offer sacrifices must be alwayes free from matrimonie Rhemist Luk. 1. sect 10. Ans. 1. The Leuiticall priesthood did represent and shadowe forth the priesthood of Christ and their legall cleansings washings abstinence purifyings did shewe forth the holines and perfection of the priesthood of Christ wherefore the lawe of their abstinence doth no more binde vs then other of their legall purifications they haue their end in the priesthood of Christ. 2. We acknowledge no sacrificing priesthood in the newe testament nor any sacrifice in the Church for sinne but onely that sacrifice of atonement vpon the Crosse but our sacrifices are spirituall of praise and thanksgiuing therefore the argument followeth not from the priests of the law to those that are no priests Fox pag. 1166. 3. Purenes of life we grant is as much required now in Ministers of the Gospell as it was then in the priests of the lawe therefore they ought as well to haue libertie to marrie seeing matrimonie is the best remedie agaynst fornication and vncleannes of life 2 Another argument they picke out of S. Paules words 1. Corinth 7.5 Defraude you not one another vnlesse it bee by consent for a time that you may giue your selues to prayer If the lay man cannot pray vnlesse he abstaine from his wife the Priest that must alwaies pray must alwaies abstaine Rhemist Ans. 1. The lay man is bound to offer prayers alwaies as well as the Priest and so by this reason neither ought any lay man to performe his duetie to his wife if it were an hinderance to praier 2. S. Paul speaketh not here of all praier but of a speciall kind which to be made more feruent requireth fasting and abstinence which kind is not alway necessarie but vpon some certaine occasion 3. It is so farre off that a lay man cannot pray vnlesse he abstaine from his wife that many times he prayeth more quietly then he that is vnmarried or abstaineth if he haue not dominion ouer his lust Fulk annot 1. Cor. 7.5 The Protestants NEither the Apostles forsooke the companie of their wiues after they were called and chosen of Christ neither ought the Ministers of the Gospell to renounce abandon and forsweare the societie and fellowship of their wiues but rather to liue with them in all temperance and sobrietie for the good example of others 1 It is proued out of the 1. Cor. 9.5 that Peter the other Apostles did leade about their wiues in their companie and S. Paul there sayth that he also might vse the same libertie Likewise 1. Timoth. 3.5 S. Paul giueth rules concerning the house and familie of the Minister his children the behauiour of their wiues vers 11. But where I pray you is it fitter for the Ministers wife and children to be then with her husband By these places it is apparant that Ministers wiues were not excluded from their husbands companie as a thousand yeere after more it was decreed by Anselme that they should not dwell in house with their husbands nor talke with them without two or three witnesses Fox pag. 1167. 2 It is cleane contrarie to the scripture First our Sauiour sayth whosoeuer putteth away his wife except it be for fornication causeth her to commit adulterie Math. 5.32 By this rule therefore a Minister ought not for any other cause to put away and dismisse his wife but for fornication Ergo it is not lawfull because of his calling or vpon any other colour to send her away Secondly S. Paul sayth They ought not to defraud one another but for a time and that with consent 1. Corinth 7.5 Therefore if the wife will not consent her husband cannot goe from her nay though there be consent yet they must be asunder but for a time they cannot by consent altogether breake off and dissolue their marriage which was made before God though they would neuer
to make vowes Secondly in what things lawful vowes consist Thirdly whether voluntary vowes are any part of the worship of God 4 Concerning Monasticall vowes in particular three partes First of the vow of voluntary pouertie Secondly the vow of obedience Thirdly the vow of continencie 5 Concerning Monasticall persons First whether the younger sorte ought to be admitted to professe Monkerie Secondly whether children can professe without consent of their parents Thirdly whether maried persons may with mutuall consent Fourthly whether either of the parties the mariage not consummate may enter into profession 6 Concerning the rules and discipline of Monasticall life First of their solitarie and seuere kinde of life Secondly of their canonical houres Thirdly their habite and apparell Fourthly of their maintenance whether they ought to liue by begging or labour of their handes of these in order THE FIRST QVESTION OF THE BEGINning and originall of Monkes and of their diuers sects THis question hath tow partes First of their originall Secondly of the diuersitie of their sects THE FIRST PART OF THE ORIGInall of Monkes The Papists error 82 THey make this profession to be as ancient as the time of our Sauiour Christ and prooue the beginning thereof both out of the newe and olde Testament 1 Helias and Helizaeus were Eremites and liued without wiues neither possessed any riches Ergo this profession of life is most ancient Bellarm. cap. 5. Rhemist annot in Mark 9.3 Answere First the argument followeth not they had no wiues nor riches Ergo were Eremites for euen amongst the papists themselues many were kept from wiues as their priests and yet were neither Monkes nor Eremites Secondly though we reade not that Helisaeus was married yet the sonnes of the prophets were that liued as it were in the same Colledge with him 2. King 4.1 which Bellarmine maketh a Colledge of Monkes and Eremites and sayth very vntruely that they all liued without wiues cap. 5. Thirdly though Elias and Elisaeus were sometime in the wildernes yet they alwayes remained not neither liued there Fulk annot Mark 9.3 2 Iohn Baptist a perfect patterne of Eremitical life for liuing in the desert and wildernes for his rough apparell for abstaining from all delicate meate Rhemist annot Math. 3.1 Answere First Iohn Baptists calling was singular and extraordinary and therefore cannot be made an author of any ordinary profession Secondly wee denie not but his life was austere and that he made his abode in a solitarie place yet there were houses and villages not farre off his apparell also was course cloth made of the hard haires of Camels his foode was of locusts and wilde honie the vsuall and common meate of that countrey he was an extraordinary preacher of repentance and shewed in him selfe an example of austere life as it became the forerunner of Christ But being no minister of the Gospel but the last prophet of the law he cannot be a patterne of an ordinary profession vnder the Gospel Fulk annot Matth. 3. sect 1. 3 Nay Bellarm. fetcheth his monkish order from a more ancient beginning thē from Elias Iohn Baptist yea from before the flood for Enos saith he seemeth to haue brought in some stricter kinde of life and peculiar maner of worshipping God whereas the text sayth that he began to call vpon the name of God that is after another manner for Adam Seth Abel before this time called vpon the name of God cap. 5. Answere First who would haue thought that there had been Monks and Eremites before the flood if the Iesuite had not sayd it or that this text which he alleadgeth could haue proued it The argument followeth not Enos brought in a peculiar worship of God therefore was founder of the Eremiticall life for he brought in the true worship of God but the other is superstitious and erronious Secondly Tremellius readeth more agreeably to the Hebrue Tum nomē Dei coeptum est inuocando profanari then the name of God began to be prophaned in calling vpon that is his worship began to be corrupted for the Hebrue word signifieth both to inuocate and call vpon God as also to corrupt pollute or prophane Thirdly if we read as they doe The name of God beganne to be called vpon it onely sheweth a restoring and renewing of the true worship of God which was polluted by the posteritie of Cain whose stocke and familie is set downe in that chapter Gen. 4. The Protestants WE see then that this Monasticall and solitarie kinde of life hath no proofe nor ground out of the scriptures either by precept or example Nay this kinde of profession was not knowen in the Church for diuers hundred yeeres after Christ how could then the Apostles be the founders of this order And though the name of Monks be of some antiquitie in the Church yet they were farre vnlike vnto Popish Monkes that for these many yeres haue pestered the Church 1 It is certaine as Hierome witnesseth that Antonius and his disciples Amathas and Macarius were the first beginners of Monkish profession three hundred yeere after Christ Centur. 4. cap. 6. Fulk annot Mark 9.3 2 The beginning of Monkes was not for the more merite and to doe penance for their owne sinnes and the sinnes of the worlde for Antonius the first Monk confessed that Christ onely suffered for the sinnes of the world but the first occasion was giuen in the time of persecution when as men were not suffered to worship God aright publikely and therefore they fled into the wildernes Rhemist Math. 3. sect 3. But now seeing the Christian fayth is openly professed they haue no such causes to seeke solitarie and secret places 3 The popish Monkes are altogether vnlike theirs First they liued in solitarie places farre from resorte of people but the popish Mock-monkes liue in Cities and the frequencie of the people Fulk annot Math. 3. sect 3. Secondly the Monkes in times past laboured with their hands but the popish fatbellies pampered themselues in idlenes Thirdly they are altogether vnlike in life and doctrine as wee shall see more at large afterward Fulk ibid. THE SECOND PART CONCERNING the diuers sects of Monkes and Friers The Papists error 83 THey say that imitation of diuers holy men as of Saint Francis Saint Benet Saint Dominick which hath brought in diuers sects and orders of Religious men doe tend all to the imitation of Christ Rhemist annot Philip. cap. 3. sect 2.1 Thess. 1.2 This their assertion they would ground vpon the Apostles wordes Philip. 3.17 Be ye followers of me brethren Rhemist Answere First Saint Paul would haue them no otherwise to follow him then he did Christ 1. Cor. 11.1 Neither gaue any other rules to his followers then he had learned of Christ as the patrons of the Monkish sects haue done Secondly Neither did Saint Paul erect a new order of Paulians as Franciscus did of Franciscanes Dominick of Dominicans Thirdly Saint Paul was a perswader of vnitie not a maker of
and determination of the parents 2. Let vs heare what authoritie Augustine yeeldeth to the father ouer his children Agite vicem nostram in domibus vestris Episcopus inde appellatus est quia superintendit vnusquisque ergo in domosua si caput est domui suae debet ad eum pertinere episcopatus officiū de Sanct. Ser. 51. You saith Augustine their Bishop must supplye our stead in your houses a Bishop or Superintendent is so called because he ouerseeth therefore euery housholder being the head of his house ought to playe the Bishop in his house The father then is a Bishop ouer his children shall any man then dare to take any out of his house that is his Bishoprike or any sheepe out of his folde without the Bishop and sheepheardes consent THE THIRD PART WHETHER Married persons may with mutuall consent become votaries The Papists WIth mutuall consent the man the wife may separate thē selues and vow error 92 and promise single life for euer so long as they both shall liue Bellarm. Cap. 37. Marie and Ioseph were perfitely man and wife yet by mutuall consent they liued continently all their daies Ergo it is lawfull for married couples to separate themselues for euer both agreeing therunto Bellarm. cap. 37. Answ. 1. It appeareth by the text that there was no such thing purposed by Ioseph before he was admonished by the Angell in a dreame but that as she was already betrothed so there was an intent on Iosephs parte that they should come together Math. 1.18 But that in the meane time Marie was found with childe by the holy ghost and so from that time Ioseph being a iust man neuer knew his wife there was no such purpose or vowe before 2. That this was an extraordinary exāple who seeth it not When any man shall be admonished by an Angell as Ioseph was and shall haue the like cause as Ioseph had to abstaine which shall neuer bee hee may be bould to doe as Ioseph did The Protestants THey that are once ioyned together in marriage and haue made a couenaunt each to other before God can not separate them selues though they both consent there being no other cause but a purpose of single life for more holines sake 1. It is flat contrary to S. Pauls rule 1. Corinth 7.5 Defraud not your selues except it be with cōsent for a time that you may giue your selues to fasting and prayer and againe come together lest Satan tempt you for your incontinencie First the Apostle saith directly they should but separate themselues for a time Secondly we doe thus reason out of his wordes there is no cause of separation but to be giuen to fasting and prayer but this may be done by a separation for a time neither is it necessary we should alwaies be giuen to fasting and prayer but vpon speciall occasion therefore perpetuall separation is not needfull 3. They that are long separated are subiect to fall into tentation the same cause therefore that moued them first to marrie for auoiding of incontinencie ought to moue them to come together againe Therefore it is not good nor lawful they should separat them selues for euer 2. That which God hath coupled no man ought to put asunder but they that are married haue made a couenant to God Pro. 2.17 as well as to themselues and are ioyned by Gods law together Ergo they can not dissolue their mariage by their owne power and will the Lord hauing an interest therein Augustine Thus writeth Non licet excepta causa fornicationis coniugem a coniuge dirimi nec sterilem coniugem fas est relinquere vt faecunda ducatur de nupt concupiscen Lib. 1. Cap. 10. It is not lawfull for married couples one to be separat frō another vnlesse it be for fornication nor to leaue a barren wyfe to marrie a frutefull Therefore if fornication onely be a iust cause of finall separation there can be no other If there were any other it is most like it should be for procreation of children But neither for that cause is a man to leaue his wife Ergo for no other Therefore not for any vow of continencie is marriage to be dissolued or any separation to be admitted Bellarm. saith that by their separation Marriage is not dissolued Auns It is asmuch dissolued as by your law in cases of diuorse 1. For these are your words for aduoutrie one may dismisse another but neither party can marry againe for any cause during life Rhemist Math. 19. Sect. 4. So ye allowe onely a kinde of dismission in the case of adultery and so you do in the vowing of continencie And thus you make this cause as forceable as the other to break off the Matrimonial duety which is contrary to the gospell THE FOVRTH PART WHETHER MARIage contracted not consummate may without consent be broken for the vow of continencie The Papists error 93 THeir opinion is that if the mariage be contracted onely and ratified but not yet consummate by the parties comming together it is lawful for either of them without the others consent to vowe chastitie cap. 38. Bellarm. His reason is because it is lawfull for a man to passe from a lesse perfect state of life to a more perfect if it may be done without detriment as this may be for yet they haue no children and the partie may as well bee maried to another Bellarm. Answ. First a single life is not alwayes the perfecter state nor to all as it is not to them that haue not the gift to containe as it is most like hee hath not that is contracted and hath made promise of mariage for then all this needed not Secondly though there be none of those impediments named yet there is a greater namely their fayth promise made each to other before God which they ought not to violate Thirdly Saint Paul saith If thou be bound to a wife seeke not to be loosed 1. Corinth 7.27 But they that are espoused one to the other are bound vnlesse you will say that the couenant made by them vnto God Prouer. 2.17 bindeth not The Protestants MAtrimonie whether ratified onely by lawfull contract or espousals or consummate ought not any way to be broken with consent or without for Monasticall profession 1 Our reason is because it is perfect mariage already in substance and before God which is ratified by contract onely and solemne vowe and couenant made each to other And being thus betrothed the one giueth power of their body to the other and now they are no more free That this mariage is perfect before God and in substance it appeareth by the law of Moses by the which a man defiling a mayd betrothed was to suffer death as well as if hee had committed vncleannes with a woman already maried Deuteron 22. verse 22.23 And Math. 1.18 Marie that was but betrothed to Ioseph is by the Angel called his wife vers 20. 2 August saith Coninges fidem sibi pariter
is earned and deserued it is no almes The Protestants FIrst we say that no idle persons ought to be maintained in a Christian commonwealth but they that haue not any other necessary calling should labour with their hands and therefore Monkes that are fit for no other seruice in the Church ought to labour and worke 1 Saint Paul giueth a general rule He that will not worke let him not eate 2. Thessal 3.10 speaking of those that haue no necessarie calling in the Church Ergo Monkes must worke or els by S. Paules rule not eate The Rhemists answere that this is but a naturall admonition or counsel Nay it is a precept and commandement that all in their seuerall places and callings should labour none liue idlely for S. Paul saith not this I counselled you but this I warned you of or denounced vnto you and he calleth those that followed not this rule inordinate walkers 2 Againe if you will needes haue Monks let them be as they were in times past for then they were lay men and laboured with their hands till anno 606. when Boniface made a decree that Monkes might vse the office of preaching and Christening but before that Monks were forbidden by the generall Councel of Chalcedon not to entermeddle with matters Ecclesiasticall Fox pag. 154. But perhaps they will say as they doe that some of them work as their Nunnes And I pray you why not their Monkes too I thinke their great bellies hinder them Neither are their Monkes altogether idle for some of them in painting caruing grauing and garnishing their Idols are very cunning But according to the saying they might better be idle then ill occupied and as good neuer a whit as neuer the better 3. Neither is it to be permitted that Friers should get their liuing by begging for what are they els but valiant beggers First there ought to be no beggers in the common-wealth as Deuteron 15. Though the Lord say that they should neuer be without poore or beggers which should want their helpe vers 11. Yet vers 5. this charge is giuen that by them that is their default there should not be a begger in Israel they should so prouide for the poore that they neede not go a begging There are also positiue lawes to restraine the number of beggers and therefore there is no reason that by a number of idle vagrant persons belli-god Friers that begging order should be enlarged Secondly but seeing it can not bee chosen but there must needes be some beggers they ought not to bee young sturdie lubbers that are able to worke as most of the Friers were but such as are described Luk. 14.21 where the King saith to his seruants Goe out quickly and bring hither the poore the maimed the halt the blinde Ergo such lusty fellowes ought to liue by the sweate of their browes not to eate vp the bread of the poore Lastly in the sermons Ad fratres in eremo which are ascribed to Augustine thus we reade Eia fratres mei semper boni aliquid facite quem tadet orare vel psallere non desistat quem taedet orare vel psallere manibus laborare non desistat My brethren alwaies bee ye doing of some good if you bee wearie of praying sing if of singing then labour with your hands And in the same place old men onely of 80. yeere old are exempted from working And in another place Augustine sheweth that the Monkes in his time did so plye their worke Vsque adeo vt etiam naues oneratas in ea loca mittant qua inopes incolunt that they sent shippes laden with necessaries vnto those places where the poore inhabited De morib eccles cap. 32. Ergo in Augustines time Monkes liued not by begging but with labour of their hands Thus by Gods goodnes we haue finished this question and this whole Controuersie One other question remaineth whether the Monasticall life be meritorious or not which we haue referred to another place when we shall come to the question of Virginitie in generall and the priuiledges thereof THE SEVENTH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE MAny things which Bellarmine in this controuersie laboureth to proue are agreed vpon betweene vs and our aduersaries and therefore we will spend no time in them 1 We teach as well as they that there ought to bee Magistrates Princes and gouernours amongst Christians contrarie to that which the Anabaptists hold that there ought to bee equalitie among Christians The holy Ghost Iudg. 17.6 19.1 maketh this the cause of al disorder At that time in Israel there was no King amongst them but euery man did that which seemed good in his owne eyes 2 We doe hold that euen wicked Kings and Tyrants haue power ouer the goods and liues of men neither that it is lawfull to disobey them but in matters onely belonging to our conscience where it is better to obey God then men Ieremy 27.6 I haue giuen saith the Lord all these lands to Nabuchadnezzar 3 Concerning the power of Princes we grant that they may make lawes and ordinances to gouerne the people by Prou. 8.15 that they may punish the offenders of their lawes Rom. 13. They doe not beare the sword for nought That it is lawful for Christian Princes vpon iust occasion to wage battaile Luk. 3.14 Iohn Baptist doth not condemne the calling of Souldiers but teacheth them to vse it aright These things then being agreed vpon on both sides the seuerall questions wherein we differ from them and they from the truth are these 1 Concerning the authoritie of the Prince in Ecclesiasticall matters three parts of the question First whether he haue power ouer persons Ecclesiasticall Secondly whether ouer their goods Thirdly whether in Ecclesiasticall causes 2 Whether the ciuill Magistrate may prosecute heretikes to death and whether he ought to be the Iudge of heretikes with other like questions 3 Whether the positiue and ciuill lawes of Princes doe binde their subiects and oblige them simply in conscience This matter we haue discussed before Controuer 4. quaest 7. part 1. 4 Whether the Pope ought or may excommunicate the Prince or Emperour or otherwise hath any temporall iurisdiction aboue him this question also is handled before Controu 4. quaest 8. part 1. THE FIRST QVESTION CONCERNING THE AVthoritie of the Prince in Ecclesiasticall matters THis question hath three parts First whether he haue power ouer the persons Ecclesiasticall Secondly whether ouer their goods Thirdly whether the Prince be chiefe in causes Ecclesiasticall THE FIRST PART CONCERNING THE AVTHOritie of the ciuill Magistrate ouer Ecclesiasticall persons The Papists THe Clergie is not bound to keepe and obserue the ciuill and positiue lawes error 98 of Princes if they be contrarie to the Canons of the Church neither ought they for any cause to bee cited before the ciuill Magistrate or to be iudged by him Bellarm. de Clericis cap. 28. It is absurd saith the Iesuite that the sheepe should iudge the
and Church officers their dueties and may in their owne persons execute the one that is spirituall duties that they may as well intermeddle in the other But these two offices of Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall gouernment are distinguished and must not be confounded The Prince though he haue authoritie to command Ecclesiasticall persons yet being a ciuill Magistrate is not to deale with the execution of spirituall dueties Bishops pastors likewise haue a spiritual charge ouer kings princes to shew thē their duties out of Gods word yet because they are persons Ecclesiastical they ought not to meddle with meer Ciuill dueties The Prince hath the soueraigntie of externall gouernement in all causes ouer all persons yet not alike for Ciuill offices he may both command and execute Ecclesiasticall duties he commandeth onely Bishops and pastors haue also a spirituall charge ouer all prescribing out of Gods word as well the duetie of Magistrates as of Ministers but not alike for the one they may fully execute so may they not the other The head in the naturall bodie resembleth the Prince in the commonwealth in some sense the head giueth mouing to the whole bodie and all the parts thereof but to the principall parts in the head the eyes tongue eares it giueth beside the facultie of mouing the sense also of seeing tasting hearing So in the common-wealth by the Princes authoritie all persons are kept in order and vrged to looke to their charge both ciuill officers and spirituall as al the parts of the bodie receiue mouing from the head But the ciuill officers receiue power and authoritie beside and their very offices of the King as the parts in the head receiue sense from their fountaine but Ecclesiasticall Ministers receiue not their offices from the Prince or any mortall man but they haue their calling according to the order of the Church of God Argum. 2. For the space of 300. yeeres the Church after Christ had no Christian gouernours but all Heathen and Idoll worshippers yet then the Church was established and preuailed Ergo Ciuill Magistrates ought not to deale in Ecclesiasticall affayres Bellarmine Ans. 1. Euen then also the Heathen Emperours had authoritie in Church matters and if they had commanded any thing agreeable to true religion they should haue been obeyed as Cyrus in the law which he made for building the temple Ezra 1. Darius the Median for worshipping the true God Dan. 6. Fulk Rom. 13. sect 3. The heathen Emperours then had the same power but they knewe not how to vse it Christian Princes doe succeede them in the same office but are better taught by the word of God how to exercise the sword Secondly we denie not but that in the time of persecution all things necessarie for the spirituall building thereof may be had without the Magistrate as a Vineyard may bring forth fruite without an hedge but it cannot enioy peace nor be in a perfect estate in respect of the externall gouernement but vnder good Magistrates as the Vineyard may soone be spoyled the wild bore and the beasts of the field may breake in vpon it hauing no hedge The child being in the womb though it haue as yet small vse of the head but is fed by the nauell which is in steed of the mouth hath in it selfe the lineaments and proportion of a humane bodie yet it wanteth the perfect beautie till it be borne and come forth and the head receiue his office So may the Church haue a being in persecution and the want of the ciuill head may be otherwise supplied but it is not beautifull till the head be set vp and the sword put into the Christian Magistrates hand Argum. 3. Princes haue no cure nor charge of soules Ergo they are not to meddle with Ecclesiasticall lawes Rhemist annot 1. Corinth 14. sect 16. Ans. Parents haue charge ouer the soules of their childrē for they are charged to bring them vp in the instruction and information of the Lord Ephes. 6.4 Therefore Princes also haue directly charge of the soules of their subiects according to their place and calling by prouiding and making good Ecclesiasticall lawes and compelling them to the true seruice of God As the Ecclesiasticall Ministers in another kind and more properly are said to haue the cure of soules in feeding and instructing the people Fulk ibid. The Protestants THe ciuill Magistrate by the word of God hath power to make and constitute Ecclesiasticall lawes and to establish true religion and see that all persons vnder their gouernment doe faithfully execute their charge To say therefore that the Church officers are to deuise lawes concerning religion and the Prince onely to execute them is to make the Prince their seruant and doth derogate too much from the princely authoritie Neither doe we giue vnto the Prince absolute power to make Ecclesiasticall lawes for first the Prince is not to prescribe what lawes he listeth to the Church but such as onely may require the true worship of God Secondly that it is expedient and meete according to the commendable custome of this land that the godly learned of the Clergie should be consulted withall in establishing of Ecclesiastical ordinances vnlesse it be in such a corrupt time when the Church gouernours are enemies to religion for then the Prince not staying vpon their iudgement ought to reforme religion according to the word of God as we see it was lawfully and godly practised by King Henrie the 8. Thirdly we doe make exception of all such Ecclesiasticall canons and ordinances the making whereof doth properly belong to the office of Bishops and gouernours of the Church for our meaning is not that it is not lawful for Ecclesiastical Ministers to make Ecclesiastical decrees which do properly concerne their office as concerning the censures of the Church excommunication suspension absoluing binding loosing and such like which things are incident to their pastorall office and yet we grant that the Prince hath euen in these cases an ouerruling hand to see that none abuse their pastoral office But that any lawes ought to be made without the authoritie of the prince which the prince is bound to execute we vtterly denie And so we conclude that the ciuill Magistrate hath power ouer all persons and in all causes both temporall and ecclesiasticall in such manner as we haue sayd 1 S. Paul willeth that praiers should be made for Kings and Princes that vnder them we may leade a peaceable life in all godlines and honestie 1. Tim. 2.2 Ergo it is their duetie as well to procure religion by their authoritie as ciuill honestie Againe He beareth not the sword for nought Rom. 13.4 He hath power to punish al euill doers therfore also to correct euill ministers to make Ecclesiastical lawes for otherwise he should haue no ful power to correct the transgressors thereof 2 We reade that Iosua Dauid Salomon Iosia did deale in ecclesiasticall matters which concerned religion and the worship of God
kingdome of God commeth not with obseruation Luk. 17.20 either of time or place And therfore when men say vnto vs Behold here or beholde there we ought not to beleeue them vers 23. As though they would point out Christs comming with the finger either in the East or West Whereas Mathew therefore nameth the East and West in the similitude of the lightening Luke leaueth them out saying As the lightening shineth from one part of the Heauen to the other 17.24 Least we should thinke any great matter to be in nomination of those partes Augustine saith notably Non ab Oriente veniet nec Occidente quare quia Deus iudex est si in aliquo loco esset non esset Deus quia vero Deus iudex est non homo noli illum expectare de locis He will not come either from the East or from the West why so Because God is iudge if he were tied to any place hee were not God but because God is iudge and not a meere man wee must not looke for him from any place The Papists 3. THe Sonne of man shall appeare in the day of iudgement with the signe error 111 of the Crosse borne before him Then shall the signe of the Sonne of man appeare in Heauen Matth. 24.3 that is say they the signe of the Crosse Bellarm. de sanct lib. 2. cap. 28. Rhemist in hunc locum The Protestants Ans. 1. THe signe of the Sonne of man in the Heauens is nothing else but his conspicuous and glorious appearing who shall come in great glorie as a signe in the heauens to bee seene of all the worlde It cannot signifie any such visible signe as they imagine for Mark. 13.26 Luke 21.27 wee reade thus Then shall they see the Sonne of man So then the signe of the Sonne of man is the Sonne himselfe in his glorious appearing Secondly it is great presumption therefore so boldly to affirme that it shall be the signe of the Crosse hauing no Scripture for it Other signes wee finde that Christ hath appeared with as the signe of the rayne-bowe Apocal. 10.1 with a two edged sworde Apocal. 1.16 with a booke in his hand Apocal. 10.2 We haue better reason that Christ may appeare with those signes by the which he hath sometime shewed himselfe then they haue for the signe of the Crosse. 3 It is more like that Christ at his comming should shew the markes and prints of the nailes and speare in his bodie then the signe of the Crosse for those were felt and seene in his bodie after his resurrection so was not the other But it is a loose coniecture and a vaine surmise without any ground of Scripture that the woundes are either now in heauen to be seene in the glorious bodie of Christ or that they shall bee beheld and looked vpon in the daie of iudgement The wicked in deed shall behold him whom they pearced but it followeth not thereupon that he should appeare as pearced How is it possible that either the bodie of Christ being perfectly glorified should still retaine any spots or blemishes or that they could be espyed in so glorious a bodie which with the brightnes thereof shall obscure the Sunne Augustine giueth this iudgement Sic voluit resurgere Christus sic voluit quibusdam dubitantibus exhibere in illa carne cicatrices vulneris vt sanaret vulnus incredulitatis So it pleased Christ to arise and to shew in his flesh vnto some that doubted the skarres of his woundes to heale and take awaie the wound of their incredulitie or vnbeleefe This then being the onelie cause why Christ would at that time haue the printes and markes in his flesh to bee seene namelie to confirme the faith of them which doubted the cause being now ceased for is it to bee thought that there are any doubtfull persons in heauen which may be confirmed by beholding Christs woundes or shall vnbeleeuers finde any reliefe in the day of iudgement The cause being remoued wee haue no warrant to thinke that there are any such skarres either now to bee seene in the glorious bodie of Christ or which shall appeare in the day of iudgement And seeing there is no ground for this opinion the shewing forth also of the signe of the crosse in that day is also but a wandring and a foolish conceite The Papists error 112 4. SVch is their boldnes that they dare assigne the very yeare moneth and day of Christs comming to iudgement for they say that Antichrist shall raigne three yeares and an halfe and one moneth 1290. dayes and counting 45. dayes after that they shal see Christ comming in the cloudes Blessed is hee saith Daniel that waiteth and commeth to the 1335. dayes Dan. 12.12 Bellar. de pontif Rom. lib. 3. cap. 8. The Protestants Ans. 1. THe prophesie of Daniel we haue alreadie shewed Controuersie 4. Quaest. 9. to haue been fulfilled before the first comming of Christ in Antiochus that cruell tyrant and persecutor of the people of God how hee should cause the daily sacrifice to cease 1290. dayes that is three yeares and seuen moneths 2. Macchab. 11.33 And that 45. dayes after Antiochus being dead the Church should finde ease 1. Macch. 6.16 Wherefore seeing this prophesie hath once alreadie had his effect it is not necessarie to looke for any other as Augustine saith of another prophesie of Daniel Quae prophetia si tempore primi aduentus impleta est non cogit intelligi quod etiam de fine seculi implebitur Which prophesie if it hath been fulfilled in or before the first comming of Christ it need not be vnderstoode of the latter 2 This presumption of theirs is flat opposite and contrarie to Scripture which saith That the houre and day of Christs comming is not knowne to the Angels nor to the Sonne of man but to the Father onely Mark 13.33 How then dare they presume beyond the knowledge of Angels Augustine saith Vtiliter latere voluit Deus illum diem vt semper sit paratum cor ad expectandum quòd esse venturum scit quando venturum sit nescit The Lorde to great purpose would haue that day kept secret that our heart should bee in continuall expectation of that which it is sure shall come but knoweth not when it shall come Thus haue I through the Lords gracious assistance now at the length finished and brought to an end this long and tedious worke which I trust shall not be so yrkesome to the Christian Reader as it was wearisome and painefull to the flesh in the collecting and compiling thereof and yet not so painefull but that God hath made me able and willing to endure this and greater paines and that with comfort for the good of his Church I excuse not whatsoeuer hath fallen out of my pen in this worke if I haue failed any where in the manner of handling But as for the matter handled therein I trust I haue throughout maintained the truth in
Prophet in the midst Euen thus with the like spirite of blasphemie doo the Iesuites crie out that the Pope is the chiefe shepheard steward husband and head of the Church vpon earth But we will leaue to charge them so deepely with blasphemie which notwithstanding they cannot auoyde Let vs heare what the fathers of Basile say to this poynt Bellarmine saith the Pope is the husband but they reason cleane contrarie the Church say they is the spouse of Christ the Pope make the best of him you can is but a Vicar but no man dooth so ordaine a Vicar that hee maketh his spouse subiect vnto him but that the spouse is alwaies thought to be of more authoritie then the Vicar forsomuch as she is one body with her husband but the Vicar is not so thus haue they to the full answered the Iesuite ex Aenea Syluio Better arguments they haue none for the Popes prerogatiue then we haue seene The Protestants THat the Pope is by right and ought to be subiect to generall Councels and that they haue authoritie to iudge examine suspend punish depose him if there be iust cause it is proued thus This matter was pithilie disputed vpon by the Fathers of Basile some of whose reasons it shall bee sufficient heere to followe 1 They proue this conclusion out of Scripture First whereas Panormitane had saide that the Pope was Lorde of the Church vnto him Segouius answered that it was the most honourable title of the Bishop of Rome to be called the seruant of the seruants of God and Peter saith hee forbiddeth pastors to behaue themselues as Lords ouer the Clergie 1. Pet. 5. And if Christ the sonne of God came not to be ministred vnto but to minister and serue how then can his Vicar haue any dominion So was Panormitane answered Againe the Diuines thus argued Christ saith to Peter dic Ecclesiae Peter is sent to the Church or Councell Ergo the veritie doth remit the Bishop of Rome to the Councell But to this the Iesuite saith that Peter was not yet entred into his office to bee chiefe Bishop but was as a priuate person So then belike this rule of our Sauiour Christ dic Ecclesiae tell it to the Church did but binde Peter till Christ were ascended and he receiued his Vicar-dome This cauillous answere the Fathers of Basile wisely foresaw and preuented it for they shew how Peter was subiect to Councels euen after the ascension as Act. 11. Peter is rebuked say they by the congregation because he went to Cornelius an heathen man as if it had not been lawfull for him to attempt any great matter without the knowledge of the congregation but that seemeth to make more for the purpose Galath 2. where Paule rebuked Peter to his face because contrarie to the decree of the Councell of the Apostles hee did cogere gentes Iudaizare hee would constraine the Gentiles to doe like the Iewes Ergo Peter was subiect vnto the Councell ex Aenea Syluio Other reasons many were alleaged by the Fathers of Basile First the Bishop of Burgen As in euery well ordered Kingdome the whole realme should be of more authoritie then the King so the Church ought to be of more authoritie then the Pope though he were Prince thereof The Diuines brought these argumēts the Church is the mother of the faithfull and so of the Pope if he be a faithfull man the Pope is then the Churches sonne as both Anacletus and Calixtus Bishops of Rome confessed Ergo how much the sonne is inferiour to his mother so much is the Church superiour to the Pope Secondly the Pope is inferiour to Angels he is not greater then Iohn Baptist of whom it is said that the least in the Kingdome of God is greater then he but the Angels doe reuerentlie accord vnto the doctrine of the Church Ephes. 3.10 Ergo the Pope is bound to doo the same who is lesse then the Angels These Fathers thought none so absurd to denie the Pope to be inferiour to Angels and therefore labour not to proue it Yet Antoninus an olde Papist saith Non minor honor datur Papae quà m Angelis there is no lesse honour due to the Pope then to the Angels Nay another saith I thinke it be Pope Paschalis Datur Episcopis quod ne Angelis vt Christi corpus crearent it is graunted to Bishops which is not giuen to the Angels to create the bodie of Christ. But the Fathers of Basile thought not these men worthie the answere no more doe we and so let thē passe Thirdly the Pope say they being the Vicar of the Church for he is more truely so called then the Vicar of Christ he may be deposed of the Church for a Lord may put out his Vicar at his pleasure Ergo the Pope is vnder Councels 4 If the Councels might not ouerrule the Pope there were no remedie left to resist a wicked Pope Shall we suffer all things say they to run into ruine and decay with him for it is not like that hee would congregate a Councell against himselfe To this the Iesuite answereth that there is no remedie left but to pray to God in such a case who will either confound or conuert such a Pope Here is goodly diuinitie we know that Antichrist shall at length be destroyed at the comming of Christ but if he should be let alone in the meane while and not be bridled he might doe much hurt as he hath done too much alreadie Yet the Iesuite confesseth that a wicked Pope may bee resisted by force and armes and why not I pray you as well by peaceable meanes these sayings are contrarie Bellarm. cap. 19. So then this is Popish diuinitie that be the Pope neuer so wicked doe he neuer so much harme hee is not to bee controuled of any mortall man Such doultish schoole poynts maintained especially by begging friers the fathers of Basile complained of As that they should say that no man ought to iudge the high and principall seate that it cannot be iudged either by Emperour Clergie King or people Other affirme that the Lord hath reserued to himselfe the depositions of the chiefe Bishop Others yet more mad are not ashamed to affirme that the Bishop of Rome though hee carrie soules in neuer so great number to hell yet is he not subiect to any correction or rebuke For all these straunge and blasphemous positions the fathers concluded as yee haue heard that the Pope ought to obey generall Councels 4 Lastly I will adioyne the iudgement of Augustine who writing in his 162. Epistle concerning the Donatists whose cause was heard and determined by the Emperours appoyntment at Rome before Miltiades then Bishop there and other Bishops assistants and yet for all this the Donatists would not bee quiet Thus he saith Putemus illos iudices qui Romae iudicauerunt non bonos iudices fuisse Restabat adhuc plenarium Concilium c. Put case saith hee that the Bishop of Rome