iuxta computum The twelft whether Children are borne in originall sinne and to wash away the same do need Baptism The same Authors denyed it Pelagius and Celestius as S. Augustine doth affirme They deny sayth he that children borne carnally of Adam do contract the infection of the old death in their first natiuity For so they affirme that they are borne without any bond of originall sinne as though there were not any thing to be remitted in their second natiuity But that therefore they are baptized to the end that being adopted by regeneration they maybe admitted to the kingdome of God as translated from good to better not being absolued by this renouation from any euill of the old obligation But this errour was condemned in the Mileuitane Councell cap. 2. and afterwards of Pope Zosinus as S. Augustine also Aug. in l. de pecc orig cap. 6. sequen is witnesse In these and such like Controuersyes which now for breuity I omit three thinges are to be considered First that one part of them who contended is clearely and manifestly condemned Secondly that this condemnation was vttered pronounced by the Catholike Church as iudge which sometymes gaue sentence by the Pope who is the head and pastour of the same Church and sometymes by Councells which represent the whole Church Thirdly that the Lutherans and the Caluinists doe confesse that this condemnation was lawfully pronounced For they confesse that Nouatian Sabellius Samosatenus Arius Nestorius Eutiches Dioscorus and the Monothelits the Macedonians the Donatists and the Pelagians to haue beene iustly condemned that they are and ought to be accounted for Heretiks And that by no other means then by the sentence of the Catholike Church For if the Scripture only should haue been Iudge the Church should not haue giuen sentence at all these Controuersyes would haue continued euen to this present day nor yet would it euer haue beene cleare manifest to all that those Authours afore-named were to be had and accounted for Heretikes Now seeing that they were condemned by the Church the matter is plaine without all doubt Perchance you will say what if the Church her selfe should haue erred in giuing sentence I answere This to be iust as much as though one should say What if Christ his Apostles and Prophets should lye For they tell vs that the Church cannot erre because as Christ himselfe sayth his Church is founded vpon a rocke and Math. 16. 18. 1. Tim. 5. â—5 Isâ— 54. Ibid. v. 12. Ibid. v. 17. the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her She is the piller and firmament of truth to S. Paul And Isaias saith she shall neuer blush nor be confounded And in another place A lasper-stone is in the defense thereof And a little after Euery tongue resisting in iudgment shall be condemned THE VI. ARGVMENT Drawne from the Analogy and proportion of the Ciuill Iudge concerning matters belonging to the common wealth THIS argument which may best illustrate the matter may well be propounded in this manner A manifold Analogy or proportion may be seene betweene thinges apertaining to faith and Religion on the one side thinges meerely Politike and Ciuill on the other First for euen as in politike Ciuill affaires oftentymes controuersyes and contentions do arise which require some iudge who may giue sentence between the contending partyes so falleth it out in matters of fayth and religion 2. As in Ciuill controuersies these three things are distinguished The Iudge the written law and the custome so also in controuersies of faith these three the Iudge the whole Scripture of both testaments and tradition 3. As a secular Prince or Magistrate doth exercise the office of a iudge in deciding of Ciuill controuersies so also the Prince of the Church or Ecclesiasticall Synod doth exercise the like office in decyding controuersies of fayth 4. As the written law is a certaine rule which the secular Iudge doth follow in deciding of Ciuill contentions so also the Scripture of both Testaments is a certaine line or rule which the Ecclesiasticall Iudge doth follow in decyding controuersies of fayth 5. As only the written law is not a sufficient rule for all Ciuill causes but the written law and custome withall so also the Scripture only of both Testaments is not a sufficient and entire rule of all controuersies of fayth vnlesse tradition be adioyned These hitherto are manifest Yet least that there be any doubt therein I will expound them all breifly And first that the secular Prince or Magistrate may vse the office of a iudge in Ciuill causes needeth no long proofe For daily experience doth wittnesse this in all Prouinces and Kingdomes For in euery place Ciuill causes and contentions are brought to the secular Prince or Magistrate whom the parties at variance do acknowledg to be their lawfull Iudge which is well knowne by the Ciuill and Canon law for in each of them there are titles concerning the ordinary Iudge and him who is the iudge delegate Neyther is there any so ignorant and foolish that by the ordinary or delegate iudge vnderstandeth the written law when it is certaine that he is the ordinary who hath the ordinary iurisdiction and power and him to be a iudge delegate who receauing power of the ordinary supplies his office and place Moreouer that the written law cannot be iudge may easily be proued and most plainly in these three cases First when it is obscure and doubtfull for then there is need of some other iudge or interpreter who may expound the meaning of it Secondly when one law seemeth to repugne another which happenth very often For then a iudge is needfull who may reconcile them together Thirdly when the words of the law which are generall ought to be restrained in some particuler case yet they are in no wise limitted Which then happeneth when some particuler case doth occur which the law did not foresee might happen And yet perchance if he had knowne would not haue comprehended it in the law therefore in such a case one must iudge against the words of the law But then who shal be iudge Not the law it selfe for it neuer giueth sentence against it selfe Therefore there must be some other Iudge besides the law Now lastly that only the written law cannot be a sufficient rule for the deciding of all Ciuill controuersies whatsoeuer but besides it also custome is to be admitted is most certaine amongst the Lawyers And especially in two cases First when some controuersy doth arise of the which Leg. 3â— ff de legibus there is no written law for then custome is to be taken for law and ought to be no lesse obserued according to that Those things which are approued by long custome and obserued for many yeares as a secret agreement of the Citizens are to be kept no lesse theÌ„ those things which are written Secondly when there is extant indeed a written law yet there is some doubt
letter and the sense The letter killeth as the Apostle sayth and is cause of many heresies as was shewed by diuers examples The sense oftentymes is obscure and doubtfull both for the apparent contradictions which are found in euery place also for many other causes which before were numbred and therefore there is need of some Iudge who may manifestly desine that this is the lawfull sense and that the vnlawfull Thirdly out of the Controuersies themselues because there are many controuersies of the which no mention is made in the Scripture and so consequently can neyther be defined out of Scripture Fourthly out of the vse and custome of the old TestameÌ„t where the Scripture did not vse the office of a Iudge but high Preist who was Prince of the Sinagogue whose precept was to be obeyed vnder paine of death Fiftly by the vse and practise of the new Testament wherein all Controuersies hitherto haue beene decided by the Prelates of the Church Sixtly out of the proportion of Ciuill causes which are not decided by the written law but by the Prince of the Common wealth nor according to the rule of the written law only but also according to the ancient customes not written The other is to shew that the testimonies of Scripture which are obiected against vs eyther to be nothing to the purpose or to be rather for vs theÌ„ Isa 8. 20. against vs and not to be expounded truly by them as for example To the law testimony is nothing to the purpose because it is not vnderstood of Iâ—an 5. 39. Controuersies of fayth but of the future euents of casuall things And also that other place Search the Scriptures doth rather helpe vs then our aduersaries For Christ when he sayd this to the Iewes did not dispute with them out of Scripture only as our aduersaries would haue vs beleeue but also out of the testimony of S. Iohn Baptist to the which he added the testimony of Miracles and also the voice of God the Father speaking downe from heauen therefore he neuer dreamed that Scripture only was the Iudge of Controuersies The rest as I haue shewed are no better expounded by our aduersaries as out of our confutation the Reader if he bâ— but indifferent may easily perceaue himselfe An Obiection of the vulgar people aginst all that hath beene hitherto sayd MANY that be of the more simple 〈◊〉 thus obiect against vs. The Iudge of Controuersies in matters of fayth ought to be so infallible that he cannot erre Because if he erre all others following him should be deceaued in imbracing his opinion But now it is most plaine manifest of the one part that the scripture is infallible seing it is the very word of God which can by no meanes erre and of the otherside that no man can be infallible is no lesse certaine seing that euery man is a lyar and not any one can be found who is Rom. 3. 4. not subiect to errour According to that of S. Paul God is true but euery man a lyar Therefore the Scripture may be an infallible iudge Men seing they be lyars cannot But the Pope is a man the Church is nothing but a congregation of men Therefore the Pope the Church are lyars and may erre And so consequently none is safe and secure in matters of fayth who followeth their doctrine This obiection if there be any force in it is no lessle against our aduersaries then against vs. For if euery man be a lyar and may erre it followeth also that Moyses all the Prophets Apostles Euangelists Luther also and Caluin al the Lutherans and Calumisticall preachers are lyars and subiect to errour because they are men therefore they are not to be beleeued or trusted in any thing whatsoeuer and they ought to bee doubted of accounted as vncertaine Where then is fayth Neyther doth it help them to say that they preach the word of God and not of man for if they be lyars euen in so saying they may ly Nothing therefore is certaine But God forbid that we should eyther say so or thinke so For it is far otherwise And first we confesse that the scripture is certaine and infallible because it is the word of God But this we add that seing it is obscure the lawfull sense thereof is not manifest to euery one And therefore that there is need of some other iudge who may infallibly deliuer which is the true and lawfull sense of scripture But euery priuat man cannot be this Iudge because otherwise there would be as many diuers Iudges as there be diuers heads and opinions And so no controuersy could euer be composed For euery one would say that he vnderstood it rightly and al other falsly Therfore it is necessary that there be some publique Iudge who with authority may haue power to decide and end the matter betwixt the parties at contention Moreouer we affirme that men may Gen. â—â—1 â— psal â—â— 6. be considered two waies First as they are the Children of Adam subiect to diuers corruptions of nature And so by that meanes may be prone to lying and falsity Secondly as they are directed gouerned by the holy Ghost for the instruction of others and so they may be infallible and voyde of all errour Such an one in the old Testament was Moyses and the whole Senate of the Seniors Such also were the high Priests who followed theÌ„ Such were the Prophets Isaias Ieremy Ezechiel Daniel and Num. 11. 7. Deut. â—â— â— Agga â— 1◠〈◊〉 â—0 7. Ierem. r. 7. Ioan. 15. 16. Ioan. 16. 1â— others Such in the new Testament were the Apostles to whom it was said of Christ I will send you from my father the spirit of truth And also this VVhen that spirit of truth shall come he will teach you all truth But where there is all truth certainly there cannot be any falshood or errour To conclude such hath beene and at this day is the Church which by reason of the perpetuall assistance and direction of the holy Ghost neuer hitherto hath erred nor euer can erre heereafter Matth. 1â— â—8 1. Tim. 3. 1â— Isa 54. 4. Ibid. v. â—2 Ibid. v. 17. For it is built vpon a firme rocke and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it It is the pillar and ground of truth It shall neuer be consounded nor blush The Iasper stone is the munition of it And it shall iudge euery tongue resisting it in Iudgment Therefore it is the infallible Iudge which we seeke But now there is a question whether all who are in the Church haue so much assistance and direction of the holy Ghost that they cannot err or no. Which truly is very easy to be resolued For all certainly haue it but with a certaine kynde of dependance from the Church Therefore as long as they remaine vnited to the Church they cannot erre but if they once depart from it then they beginne to erre
about the true and lawfull sense of Scripture But now letting passe all those which haue beene set abroach in the tyme of Arius Macedonius Donatus and other auncient heretikes Infinite they are that occur in this present tyme of which I will set downe some as for example there is a controuersy 1. In what sense those words of Christ are to be vnderstood This is my body The Lutherans vnderstand it so this bread is my body The Caluinists this bread signifieth my body The Catholikes agree with neither of them 2. How that of S. Iohn is to be vnderstood Ioan. 3. 5â— Vnlesse a man be borne againe of the water and the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God The Catholikes and the Lutherans do vnderstand thereby the necessity of baptisme with water and also out of it do gather that infants without baptisme can in no wise be saued The Caluinists deny all this 3. What Christs meaning was when he spake these words to the young man of whom mention is made in S. Matthew If thou will enter into life keepe the comaundments Caluin interpreteth it to be spoken in iest the Catholikes hould it to haue beene sayd in earnest 4. Whether out of these words Iesus came the doores being shut and stood in the Ioan. 20. 26. midst of them may be gathered that Christ pierced the doores shut The Catholikes affirme it Others deny it And surely Oecolampadius he thinketh that whilest the doores were shut Christ crept in at the window others imagin I know not what chinkes by the which they say he entred in 5. Whether Christ spake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist when he sayd Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sonne of Ioan. 6. 53. man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you The Catholikes affirme it the Lutherans deny it 6. Whether Christ bindeth all lay men to receaue the Chalice when he saith Drinke yea all of this Caluin Cal. lib. 4. Instit c. 17. §. 47. §. 48. holdeth he doth There is a decree sayth he from the eternall God that all drinke And a little after They are wordes of him commaunding Drinke yee all of this Chalice But the Catholikes teach that these words only belonged to the Apostles as S. Marck declareth when he sayth Mark 14. 24. and they all dranke of it 7. Whether sinne he taken properly Rom. 6. 12. of the Apostle Let not sinne therefore raigne in your mortall body The Lutherans and the Caluinists hould that it is and from thence they gather that concupiscense of the which the Apostle there speaketh is originall sinne but the Catholikes teach that the word sinne is there improperly taken to wit for the cause of sinne because concupiscense though it be not properly a sinne yet it doth prouoke to sinne 8. Whether out of that place of S. Paul we account a man to be iustified by Rom. 3 28. fayth without the workes of the law may be gathered that only fayth iustifieth The Lutherans affirme it The Catholikes deny it 9. Whether that place of the Apostle But he shal be saued yet so as by fier be vnderstood of Purgatory fier The Catholikes do affirme it with S. Aug. vpon the 37. Psalme and other more ancient Fathers The Lutherans and the Caluinists deny it 10. Whether it may be gathered out of S. Paul that the Apostles had wiues where he sayth Haue we not 1. Cor. 9. 5. power to lead about a woman a sister as also the rest of the Apostles The Lutherans affirme it out of Luthers Glosse which is this of leading about a woman wiâ—e But truly the Catholikes will not admit this glosse 11. Of what fayth Christ speaketh when he sayth belieue only and she Luc. 8. 50. shal be safe The Lutherans interpret it to be iustifying fayth whose effect is the remission of sinne But the Catholikes vnderstand it of that fayth which Iarus Prince of the Sinagogue did beleeue that his daughter then dead could be raised againe by Christ 12. And what the sense of that place is Do good or euill if you can Out of Isay 41. 23. which Luther proueth that men haue not free will because they cannot do good and ill as they list The Catholikes laugh at this their argument because those words are not spoken to men but to the Idols of the Gentills which although they be worshiped of the Gentills as Gods yet they be not Gods because they can neyther profit their worshippers nor hurt their contemners 13. Whether out of that which is written of S. Iohn Baptist The infant in Luc. 1. 44. my wombe did leape for ioy may be gathered that all infants when they are baptized haue actuall fayth The Lutherans say yea the Catholikes no. 14. Whether God commaunded all to be maried when he sayd Increase Gen. 1. 28â— and multiply The Lutherans hould that in those words are implied a precept to marry But the Catholikes take it as Gen. 9. 1. a blessing giuen to mariage already contracted as appeareth in the text it selfe 15. Whether this place of S. Paul 1. Tim. 2. 5. There is one mediatour of God and men man Christ Iesus doth exclude the inuocation and intercession of Saints as the aduersaries affirme Or do not as we Catholikes maintaine and proue because it doth not exclude the inuocation of Saints vpon earth otherwise the Apostle world not haue sayd Brethren pray for vs. 1. Thess 3. 25. 16. Who are these two witnesses of whom is made mention in the 11. of the Apocalips And I will giue to my two wittnesses and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred sixty daies clothed with sack-clothes Some of our aduersaries say that Luther and Caluin are meant thereby Others the old and the new testament but the Catholikes say Henoch and Helias or Moyses and Helias 17. What that signifieth which is written of Antichrist in the Apocalips And he did great signes so that he also made fier to come downe from heauen Our aduesaries do vnderstand by fier descending Pow. lib. 1. de Ant. cap. 26. Bald. in dispu de Antiâ—h cap. 6. from heauen the Pope his excommunication as Powell the Caluinist and Balduinus the Lutheran do hould and hereby they proue that the Pope is Antichrist The Catholikes contemne these follies The Scripture cannot be the Iudge of these and the like Controuersies IT is certaine that in these and such like Controuersies which are about the sense of the Scripture some certaine iudge is needfull who may decide the same and plainly pronounce that this is true and not the other But now I will proue with two arguments that the Scripture it selfe cannot be this iudge The first is drawne out of that which I sayd before in this manner The Iudge so ought to pronounce sentence that both parties at variance may well vnderstand it otherwise he should pronounce it to no purpose But the Scripture when
these wordes Iosaphat therefore dwelt in Hierusalem and went forth to the people againe from Bersabee vnto mount Ephraim and recouciled them to our Lord the God of their Fathers And he appointed Iudges of the Land in all the fenced Cittyes of Iuda in euery place commanding the Iudges he sayd Take heed what you do for you exercise not the iudgment of man but of our Lord and whatsoeuer you shall iudge it shall redound to you All these words are vnderstood of the lesser Councell But now of the greater In Hierusalem also Iosaphat appointed Leuits Priests and Princes Ibid. v. â— of familyes of Israell that they should iudge the iudgment and cause of our Lord to the inhabitants thereof And he commanded them saying Thus shall you do in the feare of our Lord faithfully and with a perfect hart Euery cause that shall come to you of your brethren that dwell in their Cittyes betweene kindred and kindred wheresoeuer there is question of the Law of the Commandment of Ceremonyes of Iustifications shew it them that they sinne not against our Lord and least there come wrath vpon you and your Brethren so long therefore you shall not sinne And Amarias the Priest and your Bishop shall be chiefe in these thinges which pertaine to God Moreouer Zabidias the sonne of Isinahell who is the Prince in the house of Iuda shal be ouer those workes which pertaine to the Kings office Now therfore that I may repeat in a word that which is sayd The matter was thus done by Moyses in the desert First Moyses alone who was an extraordinary high Priest did iudge all Controuersyes amongst the people Then a while after that he might be released a little from his burden there were added to him Tribunes Centurions about the number of fifty and also Decanes who iudged of the lesser causes and passed ouer the greater only vnto him lastly to his greater comfort 70. Seniors were elected who might also assist him in greater causes After the death of Moyses when the children of Israell were come into the Land of Promise there was a double Tribunall and iudgment constituted The one at HierusaleÌ„ to iudge of more hard causes and the other in euery Citty was placed for those which were more easy This last was giuen from the Councel of Decanes and Tribunes but the first from the Councell of the seauenty Seniors Hither may be adioyned that it was done other wise in the desert vnder Moyses then it was vnder the other high Priests in the Land of promise for ther was a double difference the one by reason of the high Priest the other by reason of the Councell of the Seniors For the high Priest after his entrance into the Land of promise did not decyde Controuersyes but only out of the written Law But Moyses did decyde many out of the liuely voice and oracle of God before the law was yet writen Among other were these three Num. 9. â— First what was to be done with them who for their Legall vncleanes could Num. 15. 32. not celebrate the Pasch with the rest Secondly what punishment was to be layd vpon him who was found gathering Num. 27. 1. wood vpon the Sabaoth Thirdly whether the daughters of Salphaad could haue inheritance amongst the kindred of their Father Of all which there was nothing at all written in the Law Therefore Moyses asked Counsell of God by a liuely voice and receauing an answere did follow the will of God And then first all these were translated into the Law Of the part of the Councell of the Seninors there was this difference The seauenty Seniors who were elected of Moyses receaued the spirit of prophesy euen at their election But whether the rest who succeeded them by course of tyme did receaue the same it is vncertaine But this is very credible that whensoeuer they consulted of hard matters they were helped by the singular assistance of God And that this assistance was graunted especially to the Bishop who was chiefe of them when he did performe the office of a Iudge in giuing of sentence As concerning the which I wil say somthing heereafer AN OBIECTION IT may be you will say that all this is to be vnderstood of Legall Controuersyes in the which the High Priest was the supreme Iudge as it is sufficiently proued but not of Controuersyes in matters of fayth in the which the Scripture alone was to be the iudge I answere This truly is sayd without any ground at all For all Controuersyes whether they were of fayth or of other matters were called Legall for two causes First they did rise out of the Law it selfe not well vnderstood Secondly because they weâ—e to be decyded by the true interpreâ—â—â—â— of the Law Moreouer all of them without any exception did belong to the Bishop euen as to the supreme Deut. 17. 10. Iudge euen those which were of faith and Religion This is manifest out of these words cyted a little before Amarias your Bishop shall be chiefe in these thinges which appertaine to God But Controuersyes of fayth and religion do belong especially to God therefore the Bishop was chiefe in those Controuersyes But what is it to be chiefe in Controuersyes but to play the part of a Iudge Also out of the precedent wordes VVheresoeuer question is made of the Law of the Commandment of ceremonies of iustifications all these questioÌ„s were brought to the Bishop and beside these there were no other therefore there were none exempted from the iurisdiction of the Bishop And it is confirmed by an example For among the Controuersyes of Fayth of which we now especially treate a principal one was concerning the Messias But euen this Controuersy â—as referred to the Councel of Priests â—â—ether that the Messias was borne yet or no in which the High Priest was the chiefe Which to be so appeareth by the Ghospell And Herod the King hearing this was troubled Hierusalem with Matt. 2. 3. him And gathering togeather al the High Priests and Scribes of the people he enquired of them where Christ should be borne But they sayd to him In Bethleem of Iuda for so it is written by the Prophet And thou Bethleem the Land of Iuda art not the least among the Princes of Iuda for out of thee shall come forth the Captaine that shall rule my people Israell In which place three things are to be noted First that King Herod was doubtfull of the place where the Messias was to be borne Secondly that he referred the resolution of this doubt to the Councell of Priests Thirdly that the Priests according to their office resolued this doubt out of the Scripture as the rule to the which they conformed themselues Moreouer that the Scripture neither was nor could be by it selfe a iudge of these Controuersyes may easily be proued For the Scripture which then was extant especially in some of the first ages was no other but the law