that tithes should be payd Praecidite deputate aliquid fixum ex annuis fructib vel quotidianis quaestibus defaulke sayth he and appoynt some certaine portion either of your yearely fruites or your ordinary and daylie gaines Decimas vis decimas exime Will you make choyce to pay tithes then let that be the portion And yet this is no great matter for the Pharisies whose righteousnesse you ought to exceede payed their tithes Tu vix millesimam das Thou scarce payest the thousand part Tamen non reprehendo vel hoc fac sic sitio vt ad istas micas gaudeam Yet I finde not fault doe so still for I so thirst after your well-doing that I refuse not your very crummes We see then that then the payment of tithes was voluntarie Augustine refuseth not the ten hundred that is millesimam partem the thousand part which he calleth their crummes THE SECOND PART BY WHAT RIGHT tithes are due to the Ministers of the Gospel The Papists COncerning tithes or their equiualent due to Christ the priesthood of the error 81 new Testament Rhemist annot Heb. 7.4 this then is their opinion that the priesthood of the Gospell being more excellent then the priesthood of the Law and their sacrifice which they offer vp in the Masse being of greater worthines they may with better right challenge tithes then the priests of the law did for their seruice at the altar So that tithes are due to the Church onely because of the priesthood not for any other duetie appertaining to that office as preaching the word ministring the sacraments or any such Abraham payd tithes they say to Melchisedech which was the priest of the most high God in offering the formes of bread wine wherein Melchisedech did sacrifice Ergo tithes are now due to the priests of the Gospel and new law which are all after the order of Melchisedech Rhemist Hebr. 7. sect 4. 8. Answere First Melchisedechs priesthood consisted not in offering bread and wine to God but brought them foorth to refresh Abraham neither were they formes of bread and wine onely as you imagine but very materiall bread and wine for if Melchisedechs priesthood had consisted therein the Apostle would not haue omitted the chiefe thing wherein Christs priesthood was shewed forth as he doth making no mention at all of it Heb. 7. Secondly againe it is great blasphemie to say that euery popish priest is after the order of Melchisedech nay that the proper act of Christs priesthood consisteth in the perpetuall offering of his bodie blood in the Church for by this reason euery impure priest doth more properly offer the body of Christ in the Masse then it was offered by himself vpon the cros thē the which what greater blasphemie can be vttered And yet they are not ashamed to speak it yea the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse say they was after the order of Aaron and not after the order of Melchisdech and so they preferre euery popish priest offering in the Masse before Iesus Christ sacrificing himself vpon the Crosse contrary to the scripture which maketh this difference between the priesthood of Aaron and the priesthood of Melchisedech that the priests of the law were many because they were taken away by death But Christs priesthood is eternall because he dieth not Heb. 7.23 But if there should be many priestes after Melchisedechs order there should heerein bee no difference at all Wherefore seeing Melchisedechs priesthood onely resteth in Christ and is not translated to any other and that there is now no sacrifice left but spirituall of prayse and thanksgiuing Heb. 13.15 it followeth that by Melchisedechs right no tithes are now due vnto the Church neither in any such regard ought to be challenged The Protestantes TIthes or their equiualent are not due to the Church in respect of any sacrificing priesthood of which sorte there is none in the new testament ordayned to continue but for other pastorall dueties and principally the preaching and dispensing of the word and instructing of the people 1 If there were any such priesthood and tithes in that right did appertaine to the Church it is most like that our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles would haue challenged them But there is no one precept in the new testament concerning paying of tithes but onely for a sufficient maintenance for the ministers of the Gospel 1. Cor. 9.14 Gal. 6.6 Fulk Hebr. 7. sect 4. 2 Saint Paul euery where so oft as he sheweth the duetie of Christians in relieuing and mayntayning their pastors maketh onely mention of sowing of spirituall things 1. Cor. 9.11 and of teaching and instructing Gal. 6.6 Ergo tithes are due vnto Pastors and Ministers onely or especially for their feeding and instructing and sowing spirituall seede which is the word of God 3 There is no such sacrificing priesthood now in the Church as wee haue partly shewed before and shall of purpose more fully declare it afterward for euery where in the new testament spirituall sacrifices are commanded and all Christians are made Kings and Priests vnto God Apocal. 1.6 Other priesthood we read of none Wherefore in that respect tithes cannot be due Lastly Augustine sayth Si mendicum non contemnis quanto magis bonem per quem trituratur haec area If thou despisest not a beggar how much more oughtest thou to haue regard of the oxe that treadeth out the corne on the floore That is the Minister that preacheth the Gospel for so Saint Paul expoundeth it 1. Timoth. 5.17 The Elders sayth he that labour in the word and doctrine are worthie double honour and then it followeth vers 8. for the scripture sayth Thou shalt not muzle the mouth of the oxe that treadeth out the corne Sufficient maintenance therefore to the Ministers is due for their labour and trauaile in the word THE SIXT GENERAL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE SVPERSTITIOVS ORDERS AND SECTS OF MONKES AND FRIERS MOnkes in Latine called Monachi deriued of the Greeke word were such as liued solitarilie thereupon had they their name And they were at the beginning of three sortes some were called Eremites that liued in woods and desarts by themselues there were other which were mued vp and enclosed in cels and wals which had not so much libertie as Eremites had but kept alwayes in their cages and closets and soe in miserie spent their dayes and these were called Anchorites that is separated set apart from all men and liuing by themselues There was a third sorte called Coenobites which liued in companies as it were in Colledges by them selues had all things common And these properly were called Monks Bell. lib. 2. de monach cap. 3. This controuersie hath many questiōs 1 Concerning the beginning original of Monks of their diuers sects 2. partes 2 Concerning Counsels of perfection whether they differ from Euangelicall precepts 3 Concerning vowes in generall three partes First whether it be lawfull for Christians
owne sonnes for to enrich the See of Rome as Augustine very well saith Qui vult exhaeredato filio ecclesiam haeredem facere quaerat alterum qui suscipiat non Augustinum immo deo propitio nullum inueniat He that would make the Church his heire and defeate his own children let him seeke some bodie else to accept of his gift surely Augustine wil not nor I trust any honest man beside The Protestants FIrst we willingly grant that the Church may inioy those teÌ„porall possessions which haue been of old granted vnto it for the better maintenance thereof so they bee not abused to riot and excesse as the Leuites beside their tithes had their cities and fieldes Numb 35. Secondly the iudgement of Ecclesiasticall matters doth of right appertaine to the Church as Amariah the Priest was the chiefe in all matters of the Lord 2. Chron. 19.11 Thirdly we doe not vtterly exclude spirituall persons from temporall causes but as the ciuill Magistrate hath his interest in ordaining of Ecclesiasticall lawes so spirituall persons ought not to be strangers from the ciuill state being meete men for their knowledge and conscience to be consulted withall and conferred with and to be ioyned in Councell with the Magistrate in difficult matters as wee reade Deuter. 17.8 How the high Priest and chiefe iudge did ioyne in mutuall helpe and assistance But that any spirituall person may bee a temporall prince and haue the chiefe gouernement of both states and handle both swordes we say it is contrarie to the word of God for in these three poyntes standeth chiefly the office of the prince in making and ordaining ciuill lawes in hauing power of life and death in proclaiming of warre and waging of battayle with none of these ought Ecclesiasticall persons to deale as we will now shew in order 1 Concerning the making of ciuill lawes and statutes though the Ecclesiasticall bodie according to the ancient custome of this land haue their suffrage and voyce and doe giue consent yet the chiefe stroke in alowing confirming and enacting of such lawes is in the prince and cannot agree or bee matched with any spirituall office Saint Paul saith Who is sufficient for these things that is for the work of the Ministerie 2. Cor. 2.16 If therefore spirituall persons suffice not to execute to the full their spirituall charge though they should bend all their studie and care that way much more insufficient shall they be if they be entangled in temporall affayres for the well guiding and ordering whereof a whole man likewise is scarce sufficient Againe saith he no man that warreth entangleth himselfe with the affaires of this life 2. Timoth. 2.4 By affaires seculare here are not onely vnderstoode as the Iesuite imagineth merchandise traffike buying selling and such like but the care and charge also of ciuill gouernement of making lawes and orders for the ciuill state which must needs bee a great let to the spirituall busines and require greater studie and labor then the other baser workes which are named To this Augustine agreeth Quo iure saith he defendis villas Vnde quisque possidet quod habet Iure humano iure imperatorum quare quia ipsa iura humana per imperatores reges seculi Deus distribuit generi humano tract in Ihoann 6. By what law doest thou defend thy possessions by the lawe of man the lawe of the Emperors for these humane lawes by Gods ordinance are giuen vnto men by the Emperors and Kings of the world See then ciuill lawes and humane constitutions are giuen and made not by the Pope Priest or any other Prelate but onely by Kings and Princes and the ciuill magistrates 2 It were a moÌ„strous an vnnatural thing that any Ecclesiastical gouernor should haue power of life death for he hath no better right to the ciuil sword then the prince to the Ecclesiasticall sword and if it be not lawfull for the ciuill Magistrate to excommunicate which is as the spiâ—tuall sword and the greatest censure of the Church no more is it to be suffered that by the authoritie or commaundement of any Ecclesiasticall person any man should bee put to death The high Priest was not to deale with matters of bloud which touched the life but the offenders were brought to the gates of the citie where the magistrates sate Deuter. 17.5 Not to the temple where the priest ministred Nay we see that in the most corrupt times of the Iewish common-wealth namelie when they put our blessed Sauiour to death the priests did not challenge any such power It is not lawful say they for vs to put any to death Iohn 18.31 But that power was in the temporall Magistrate as Pilate said to Christ Knowest thou not that I haue power to crucifie thee and power to loose thee Ioh. 19.10 Ergo the Pope cannot bee a temporall prince to haue power of life and death 3 If the Pope be a temporall prince then hee may wage battaile which although the Iesuite dare not plainely affirme yet it followeth necessarilie vpon his assertion for it is lawfull for any temporall prince to make warre And it hath been the common practise of Popes and popish prelates so to doe There were great bitter battailes fought betweene Vrbane the sixt and the Antipope Clement in the which on the one side there were 5000. slaine Fox pag. 434. Henry Spenser a lustie young bloud Bishop of Norwich was the Popes Captaine generall in France where he sacked the towne of Grauenidge and put man woman and childe to the sword So Pope Iulius cast his keyes into the Riuer Tybris and tooke himselfe to his sword waged many battailes and at the last was encountred withall by Lewes the French King vpon Easter day where there was of his army slaine to the nuÌ„ber of 16000. But these warlike affaires of the Pope misliked the Papists themselues for hee was therefore condemned in the Councell of Turone in France Anno. 1510. We may see how well these furious Popes doe followe the rule of Christ who coÌ„maunded Peter to put vp his sword into his sheath If it were not lawfull for Peter to strike with the sword how is it lawfull for the Popes that I am sure dare not challenge more to themselues then was lawfull for Peter Thus wee see how absurd a thing it is that the Pope should bee a temporall Prince THE NINTH QVESTION OF THE PRErogatiues of the Pope BEside these priuiledges and immunities of the See of Rome which hitherto we haue spoken of both in spirituall and temporall matters there are other prerogatiues which haue been in times past giuen to the Bishops of Rome most blasphemous wicked which the Papists of this age are ashamed of and therefore passe them ouer with silence for Bellarmine saith nothing of them Wee will therefore spare our labor in confuting of them they are so grosse and absurd but onely bring them forth that the godly reader may vnderstand the
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
God so the manner of celebrating and keeping it holy is to be learned out of the word and neither custome nor authority ought to giue liberty for such workes vpon the Lords day as are not warranted by the word First we graunt that we are not so necessarily tied to the rest of the Sabboth as the Iewes were for those things are abolished which appertained to the Iewish Sabboth First the prescript of the day Secondly the ceremonious exercises of the Sabboth in the sacrifices and other rites of the Law Thirdly the typicall shadowes and significations of their Sabboth as first it betokened their rest in Canaan then the rest and peace of the Church by Christ Hebre. 4.3 5. Fourthly the strickt and precise rest wherein Christians haue more liberty then the Iewes had and againe they obserued their rest as being properly and simply and in it selfe a sabboth daies duty but we doe consider it as being referred to a more principall end as making of vs more fit for spirituall exercises Secondly we allow these workes to be done First opera religiosa or pietatis the religious workes and conferring to piety as the Priestes did slaye the sacrifices vpon the Sabboth and yet brake not the rest of the Sabboth Math. 12.5 so the people may walke to their parish Church though somewhat farre off the Pastor Minister may goe forth to preach yea and preaching is of it selfe a labour of the body to study also and meditate of his Sermon to ring the bels to call the people to the Church all these are lawfull as being helpes for the exercises of religion Secondly opera charitatis the workes of mercy are permitted as to visite the sicke the Phisitian to resorte to his patient yea to shew compassion to brute beastes as to helpe the sheepe out of a pit Math. 12.11 Thirdly opera necessitatis the workes of necessitie as the dressing of meat and such like Math. 12.1.3 Our Sauiour excuseth his Apostles for plucking the eares of Corne when they were hungry As for opera voluntaria workes of pleasure and recreation we haue no other permission to vse them then as they shal be no le ts or impediments vnto spirituall exercises as the hearing of the word and meditating therein and such other Otherwise they are not to be vsed Augustine saith speaking of the Iewes who did greatly prophane their Sabboth in sporting and dalliance Melius toto die foderent quà m toto die saltarēt It were better for them to digge all day then to daunce all day euen so verily it were better for many poore ignorant people that vpon the Sabboth giue themselues to drinking and quaffing gaming if they should goe to plough or cart all the day But as for other seruile workes as to keepe Faires and Markets vpon the Lords day to trauell themselues their seruants and beastes vpon the Sabboth it is flat contrary to the commaundement of God and the practise of the Church Nehemiah 13.16 where there is no extream and vrgent necessitie so that it is not to be doubted but that as the keeping of the Lords day is a moral commaundement so also the manner of the obseruing thereof in sanctifying it and resting therein is morall the ceremonies of the rest being abolished that is the Iewish strictnes thereof and the opinion which they had of their rest as being simply a part of the sanctifying of the Sabboth But we doe consider it as referred vnto more principall duties and obserue it not as of it selfe pleasing God but as making vs more fit for spirituall exercises Contrary to these rules we acknowledge neither power in Ordinaries nor priuiledge in custome to dispence with the sanctification of the Sabboth The Papists THey affirme that the Apostles altered the sabboth day from the seaueth day to the eight counting from the creation and they did it without scripture error 62 or any commaundement of Christ such power say they hath God left to his Church This then they holde that the sabboth was changed by the ordinarie power and authoritie of the Church not by any especiall direction from Christ thereupon it followeth that the Church which they say cannot erre may also change the sabboth to any other day in the weeke Rhemist Apoca. 1. sect 6. The Protestants 1. THe Apostles did not abrogate the Iewish sabboth but Christ himselfe by his death as he did also other ceremonies of the Law and this the Apostles knew both by the scriptures the word of Christ his holy spirite 2. They did not appoint a new sabboth of their owne authoritie for first they knew by the scripture that one day of seauen was to be obserued for euer for the seruice of God and exercise of religion although the prescript day according to the Law were abrogate for the Lord before the morall law was written euen immediatly after the creation sanctified the seauenth day shewing thereby that one of the seauen must be obserued so long as the world endured Secōdly they knew there was the same reason of sanctifiyng the day of Christs resurrection and the restitution of the worlde thereby as of sanctifiyng the day of the Lords rest after the creation of the world Thirdly they did it by the direction of the spirite of God whereby they were so directed and gouerned that although they were fraile men by nature and subiect to error yet they could not decline in their writings and ordinances of the Church from the truth which assurance of Gods spirite in the like measure the Church hath not but so farre forth is promised to be led into all truth as she followeth the rule of truth expressed in the Scriptures Wherefore the Church hath no authority to change the Lords day and to keepe it vpon Munday or Tuesday or any other day seeing it is not a matter of indifferency but a necessary prescription of Christ himselfe deliuered by the Apostles for the Lords day began in the Apostles time and no doubt by their Apostolike authority directed by the spirite of Christ was instituted Act. 20.7 Apocal. 1. ver 10. Neither can there come so long as the world continueth so great a cause of changing the Sabboth as the Apostles had by the resurrection of Christ. Wherfore the law of the Sabboth as it is now kept and obserued is perpetuall The Papists errour 63 4. THey affirme that the keeping of the Lords day in stead of the Iewish Sabboth is a tradition of the Apostles and not warranted by Scripture Rhemist Math. 15. sect 3. The Protestants THe obseruation of the Lords day is not deliuered by blinde tradition but hath testimony of holy Scriptures 1. Corinth 16.2 Act. 20.7 Apocal. 1.10 and the obseruation thereof is according to Gods commaundement not after the doctrine of men Fulk ibid. The Papists errour 64 5. THey teach that the Lords day is commaunded and likewise kept for some mysticall signification not onely for the remembraunce of benefites already
from giuing spirit grace remission iustification and thereupon the entrance into the ioyes of heauen that they were but meere shadowes obscurely representing the graces of the new testament whereas the sacraments instituted by Christ contain and giue grace and iustification Rhemist Heb. 10. sect 3. Argum. 1. They were but shadowes of good things not the image of the things themselues Heb. 10.1 They were but shadowes and representations of the sacraments of the new Testament Ergo they had not the same efficacie or power Rhemist ibid. Ans. 1. Their sacraments were onely shadowes of Christs sacrifice not of our sacraments though these come in the place of the other and are answerable and correspondent vnto them Secondly neither doe the sacraments of the new Testament giue grace or iustification but are onely liuely testimonies of grace and reconciliation wrought by the death of Christ. Thirdly their sacraments were as effectuall to assure the Fathers of grace remission of sinnes by Christ as our sacraments are to vs. Fulk ibid. The Protestants WE doe holde and constantly affirme and teach that the Fathers in the law receiued no lesse the truth and substance of Christ by faith in their sacraments then we doe in ours although in respect of more cleere and lightsome signification our Sacraments doe farre exceede theirs and so also may more liuely stirre vp our faith yet the substance and effect both of their sacraments and ours was all one and the very same Argum. 1. S. Paul speaketh plainely that the Israelites did all eate the same spirituall meat and all drinke of the same spirituall rocke and the rocke was Christ 1. Corin. 10.3.4 Therefore Christ was exhibited as well to them in their sacraments as he is in ours Bellarm. answereth They did all eate the same spirituall meate amongst themselues not the same together with vs. So also say the Rhemists that they amongst themselues did all feede of one bread and drinke of the same rocke The Apostle saith not that they and we doe eate and drinke of the selfesame meate and drink Rhemist in hunc lâ—cum Ans. 1. Yes the Apostle saith so in effect that there is one and the selfe same spirituall meate and drinke to vs all both to them and vs for what doe we eate and drink but Christ and so doe they The rock sayth the Apostle was Christ. Secondly Augustine sayth so expreslie that they did eate the same spirituall meate and drinke the same spirituall cuppe that wee doe Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexerunt eundem quem nos cibum spiritualeÌ„ manducauerunt de vtilitat poenitent cap. 2. They which in the eating of Manna did vnderstand Christ did eate the same spirituall meate that we doe Ergo Christ was as well present by fayth to them in their sacraments as hee is to vs in ours THE THIRD PART OF THE Character or badge which as they say is imprinted in the soule by the sacraments The Papists FIrst there is a certayne seale and spirituall marke or badge imprinted by the sacraments in the soules of the receiuers which can neuer bee blotted error 94 out neither by sinne apostasie or heresie 2. but it perpetually remayneth for the cognisance of their christendome and distinction from others that were neuer of Christs folde by which also they are consecrated and deputed to God Thirdly this indeleble Character is giuen by three sacraments onely Baptisme Confirmation Orders which is the cause they are not reiterable nor euer to be receiued but once Rhemist annotat 2. Cor. 1. sect 7. Trident. Concil sess 7. can 9. Bellarm. lib. 2. de sacram cap. 19. Argum. 2. Corinth 1.22 He hath sealed vs and giuen the earnest of the spirite into our hearts Likewise Ephes. 4.30 Grieue not the spirite of God by whom ye are sealed agaynst the day of redemption This sealing is nothing els as they say but an imprinting in the soule of this indeleble marke or Character Answ. First the Apostle speaketh manifestly of the spirituall and inward seale of the spirite of God wherof Baptisme is an outward seale in our bodies Secondly it is an absurde thing to hold that he that hath vtterly and maliciously renounced Christianitie and blasphemed Christ himselfe should still retayne this Character of Baptisme as a cognisance of his christendome Thirdly Baptisme is not reiterable that is to be iterated or repeated not because it leaueth an indeleble character in the mind of the baptized which is but a meere deuise and fansie but because as it sufficeth once to be borne in the flesh so once to be borne agayne and to be regenerate by the spirit of the which regeneration Baptisme is a seale and pledge it is sufficient As for confirmation and orders we acknowledge them to be no sacraments and therefore to haue no such indeleble character The Protestants THat by Baptisme and some other sacraments there is imprinted in the soule a marke or character which can neuer be blotted out no not by Apostasie and that this is the cause why Baptisme cannot be iterated we holde it to bee a meere deuice and inuention of men Argum. 1. Where the end and fruites of Baptisme are vtterly extinguished there can not remayne any character or badge or signe of Baptisme The fruits of Baptisme are repentance and regeneration by the spirite But it is possible for these in some that are baptized to be vtterly lost as in them that fall away by Apostasie they cannot bee renewed by repentance Hebr. 6.6 therefore in such there is not to bee found any character badge or signe of Baptisme which they haue vtterly renounced onely the memoriall thereof is kept before God they being so much worse then they that were neuer baptized because they haue wilfully reiected their profession Argum. 2. The cause why Baptisme is but once to bee giuen is not as they alleadge because it leaueth such a sure mark behind so deeply dyed in the soule that it cannot be blotted out There are other causes that come nearer the truth 1. As God is but one who maketh a couenant with vs in Baptisme and the fayth but one into the which we are entred by that sacrament so Baptisme is one and the same Ephes. 4.5 2. The institution of God is another cause who hath appoynted the other sacrament often to be receiued 1. Corinth 11.25 but for the iteration of Baptisme we haue no such commandement 3. Baptisme commeth in the place of Circumcision as that was but once administred so likewise it must be in the other 4. In Baptisme God maketh a perpetual couenant with vs which he alwayes remeÌ„breth therfore neede not to be put in minde by the often vsing of that sacrament These and the like reasons may be alleaged why Baptisme is not often to be required and not that which by them without any ground is pretended Augustine is flat agaynst them for the iteration of confirmation Manus impositio non sicut baptismus repeti non potest Quid
lauer of regeneration and word of Sanctification all the sinnes in men regenerate are healed yea euen those which by humane ignorance afterward are committed Non vt baptisma quoties peccatur toties repetatur sed quia ipso quod semel datur fit vt non solum anteà verùm etiam posteà quorumlibet peccatorum venia fidelibus impetretur Not that Baptisme so oft as a man sinneth is to bee repeated but by vertue of that which is once giuen it commeth to passe that the faithfull haue remission of their sinnes not onely before but also after Ergo Baptisme hath it force not onely for the present but it reacheth vnto the time following THE THIRD PART OF THE LIBERTIE and priuiledges obtained by Baptisme The Papists 1. THey haue defined that a man by Baptisme is not onely debitor fidei sed etiam vniuersae legis Christi implendae error 109 not onely a debter of the faith but is made a debter to performe the whole law of Christ Concil Trident. sess 8. can 7. that is Baptisme is not onely a signe of free iustification by faith neither doth he which is baptized professe himselfe onely by faith to bee iustified but partly also by his workes and the keeping of the commandements of Christ. The Protestants Ans. IN Baptisme wee make profession of our obedience to die vnto sinne and rise vp to newnes of life Rom. 6.2 yet not thereby to bee iustified but in being baptized wee shew our faith and hope onely to looke for remission of sinnes and saluation of our soules by the death of Christ. Argum. 1. Circumcision in place whereof Baptisme is giuen to vs is called by the Apostle a seale of the righteousnes of faith Rom. 4 11. not of the righteousnes of workes much more then is Baptisme which is a Sacrament of the Gospell a pledge vnto vs of the iustice of faith Argum. 2. By Baptisme we are freed from the curse of the lawe for it is a Sacrament of the death of Christ and of all the benefites thereof and Christ by his death hath borne for vs the curse of the lawe Galath 3.13 But if by Baptisme we binde our selues to the obseruance of the lawe to bee iustified and finde life thereby we must needes fall into the curse because we are not able to keepe the commandements Wherefore seeing Baptisme deliuereth vs from the curse it also exempteth vs from the workes of the lawe The Papists error 110 2. ALthough Christians are bound by solemne vow in Baptisme to walke in obedience before God and to keepe his commandements yet are they not therefore freed and exempted from the obseruance of the lawes and ordinances of men the which they are bound in conscience to keepe and vnder paine of damnation Bellarm. cap. 16. The Protestants BAptisme onely bindeth vs to keepe the commandements of God and so far forth also to obey men as they commaund things lawfull but wee must not be brought in bondage to mens traditions and obseruations seeing we are the Lords free men and by Baptisme consecrate to his seruice Argum. Math. 28.19 Goe and teach baptizing them c. and teaching them to obserue all that I haue commanded you Ergo Baptisme bindeth vs onely to the obseruation of Gods precepts 1. Corinth 7.23 Yee are bought with a price be not the seruants of men Baptisme is a signe of the death of Christ the price of our redemption Ergo wee are freed from all meere humane seruice in receiuing of Baptisme For this cause is it called the Baptisme of Christ Augustine saith Paulus dixisse legitur euangelium meum baptismum autem Christi nemo Apostolorum ita vnquam ministrauit vt auderet dicere suum Paul is read to haue said My Gospell but neuer any of the Apostles durst call the Baptisme of Christ their Baptisme Ergo seeing it is the Baptisme of Christ and we are onely baptized in his name not in our owne name or the name of men wee must onely hope to bee saued by faith in him and become his seruants wholly THE SEVENTH QVESTION OF THE difference betweene the Baptisme of our Sauiour Christ and the Baptisme of Iohn The Papists THe Baptisme of John they say was of another kinde then Christs Baptisme was neither was it sufficient without Christs Baptisme nor had the error 111 like force or efficacie as his Baptisme had and therefore such as had been baptized of Iohn were afterward admitted to Christs Baptisme Concil Trident. sess 8. canon 1. Bellarm. lib. 1. de baptis cap. 20.21 Argum. 1. Matth. 3.11 Iohn himselfe saith I baptize you with water but hee shall baptize you with the holy Ghost Ergo Iohns Baptisme and Christes not all one for Iohns Baptisme gaue not the holy Ghost Bellarm. ibid. Ans. Iohn speaketh not of diuerse Baptismes but of diuerse operations and ministeries in one and the same Baptisme for Iohn as all other ministers doe did but giue water and Christ working together with them giueth the holy Ghost But it will be answered that Iohn saith not he dooth baptize but hee shall baptize Ergo Christ did not baptize together with Iohn by his spirite Ans. The same Iohn in another place speaketh of Christ in the present tense Iohn 1.33 This is hee which baptizeth with the holy Ghost Ergo Christ did both then baptize with his spirite and afterwards also more manifestly when the giftes of the spirite began to bee shed forth more plentifully vpon men Argum. 2. Saint Paul baptized twelue men at Ephesus with Christs Baptisme that had receiued Iohns before Act. 19.4.5 Ergo Iohns Baptisme was not the same that Christs was Bellarm. Ans. There can be no such thing gathered out of that place for those words in the fifth verse When they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Iesus are part of the narration which Paul maketh of Iohns manner of Baptisme so that the sense is this they that heard Iohns doctrine were baptized in the name of the Lord Iesus It is not so to be read as though they were baptized againe of Paul but he laieth onely his hands vpon them that had before receiued the Baptisme of Iohn The Protestants THat Iohns Baptisme was not diuerse from Christs Baptisme but was all one with it in propertie and effect and that they which were baptized by Iohn were baptized into the name of Christ and therefore needed not againe to bee baptized thus it is made manifest out of Scripture Argum. 1. Iohns Baptisme differed not in the matter of the Sacrament for he baptized with water as Christs Apostles did There was also the same forme of both the word of God for Iohn also taught the people to beleeue in Iesus Christ that was to come Act. 19.4 There was also the same scope and ende of Iohns Baptisme For hee preached the Baptisme of repentance for remission of sinnes Mark 1.4 Ergo it was the same with the Baptisme of Christ. Argum. 2. If
yet after another maner For he is in heauen according to the naturall existence of his body in the sacrament he is really present in his flesh yet sacramentally by his omnipotent power Concil Trid. sess 13. can 1. Argum. 1. The figures must be inferior to the things that are figured and represented the sacraments of the law were figures of the sacraments in the Gospel therfore they ought to be inferior But vnles the bread wine should be the very blood flesh of Christ in the sacrament their sacraments in the law should not only not be inferior but far superior to ours As for example the Paschal Lambe is in nature to be preferred before bread and the slaying of the Lamb did more liuely represent the death of Christ then the breaking of bread the eating of flesh doth also better set forth the spirituall nourishing then the eating of bread Wherefore vnlesse we beleeue a reall presence in the sacrament their sacrifices in dignitie and excellencie should farre exceed and excel ours Bellarm. lib. 1. de sacram Eucharist ca. 3. Ans. 1. It is not true that their sacraments were figures of ours But S. Paul sheweth that both their sacraments and ours doe figure out and represent the same thing as the spiritual eating and drinking of Christ 1. Corint 10.2.3 Our sacraments are indeed figures correspondent and answerable to theirs and theirs also had a certaine reference and relation to ours but they were not types of ours for then our sacraments should bee the body of theirs whereas Christ is the bodie both of their sacraments and ours Saint Peter sayth that Baptisme is an antitypon a figure answerable to the sauing of the eight persons in the flood 1. Pet. 3.21 They are correspondent one to the other and had mutuall relation and respect one to the other But that was not properly a type of Baptisme but both Baptisme and that are figures and signes and liuely representations of our saluation in Christ. 2. If the reall presence of Christ onely commendeth the sacrament and aduanceth it before the rytes of the law which in all other respects are better by this argument Baptisme still remayneth inferior to the sacramēts of the law for you affirme no reall presence in Baptisme as you do in the Eucharist and in all other respects it must needes giue place to Circumcision for the cutting of the flesh is a more liuely representatiō of regeneratiō thē is the washing by water and the flesh of man is in nature more precious then water So by this reason though you haue wonne credite for the Eucharist yet you haue lost it for Baptisme 3 We answere therefore that although the reall presence bee set aparte yet our sacraments are more excellent then theirs First the price and woorth of thinges in their nature are not to be weighed in a sacrament but they must bee considered in respect of the vse to the which they are ordayned by the institution Flesh you say is better then bread so is wine and milke better then water in their nature but in Baptisme water is better then they because Christ hath now set it apart for a more holy vse Secondly the slaying of the Lambe doth more liuely represent say you the death of Christ then the breaking of bread Answ. We graunt that if breaking of bread had beene vsed in the law it had not been then so significant as the slaying of beasts but the breaking of bread now in the light of the Gospell in this abundance of knowledge and instruction being a signe of a thing already done and finished must needes be more pregnant and liuely in representation then the killing of sacrifices in the law which were types of things to come the mystery of the Gospel being not yet opened to the world Wherefore our sacraments are more excellent then theirs in respect of the more cleare light and fuller signification which they haue by the word of God the preaching of the Gospel ioyned vnto thē We neede not deuise any other way of excellencie for our sacraments then this which we haue sayd agreeable to the scriptures 2. Cor. 4.3 Galat. 3.1 The Papists ARgum. 2. Iohn 6.55 Christ sayth My flesh is meate indeed and my blood is drinke in deede he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him First this place must be vnderstoode not of any spirituall eating or drinking of Christ without the sacrament but is properly meant of the manducation and eating of him in the sacrament First Vers. 51. The bread sayth Christ that I will giue he speaketh of a thing to come for the sacrament was afterward instituted but if this bread were to be taken for his word and the eating thereof for beleeuing in him in this sense the bread was giuen already Answ. Christ also speaketh in the present tense vers 32. My father giueth you the true bread from heauen I am the liuing bread that came down from heauen if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer vers 51. Hee sayth not he that shall eate but he that euen now eateth And afterward he speaketh of the time to come The bread that I shall giue because his death and passion was not yet finished therefore he sayth The bread that I shal giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the worlde But he speaketh euery where of the eating of his flesh in the present tense vers 35.50.51.53 which cannot bee vnderstoode of the sacramentall eating the sacrament being not yet instituted but of a spirituall manducation The Papists SEcondly those words being applyed to the sacrament must needes also bee vnderstood properly and literally for the very eating of the flesh of Christ drinking his blood not tropically or figuratiuely 1. The flesh of Christ which Christ promiseth to giue them to be eaten he preferreth before the Manna which their fathers did eate in the wildernes the true bread which he giueth them is more excellent then the bread of Manna But if the bread in the sacrament doe but signifie the flesh of Christ and be not it in very deede it should be no better then Manna which also did signifie and shew foorth Christ Bellarm. cap. 6. Ans. Christ compareth not the spirituall substance of Manna with his flesh and blood but the corporall foode which being receiued into the belly and not receiued into the heart by fayth hath no power to giue eternall life For vers 32. Christ sayth that Moses gaue them not Manna from heauen Ergo he meaneth the corporall foode not the spirituall substance of Manna for as it was a sacrament of Christ it was heauenly bread Againe vers 49. Your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes and dyed He speaketh of the materiall foode for they that did Manna spiritually by fayth died not in soule Ans. Now on the contrary side we will prooue that this place contayned in the sixt
which is vsed in the Sacrament ought to be vnleauened because it is most agreeable to Christs institution who made the sacrament of vnleauened error 117 bread for he instituted his last Supper after he had eaten the Passeouer which was to be eaten with sweet and vnleauened bread according to the Lawa neither was there any leauen to be found in Israel for seuen daies together and not onely Christ but all the Iewes at that time did keepe the Passeouer and the next day after in the which Christ suffered was the first solemne festiuall day of the seuen being the fifteenth day of the moneth as it was commanded Leuiticus 23.5 Rhemist 1. Corinth 11. sect 10. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 7. The Protestants 1. WE deny not but that Christ vsed vnleauened bread at the institution of his last Supper hauing immediately before eaten the Paschall Lambe which we doubt not but he kept according to the Lawe with sweete bread yet in the time they are greatly deceiued affirming that all the Iewes eate the Passeouer like wise ouer eeuen and crucified Christ on the morrow which should haue beene and was vnto them as they say a chiefe festiuall day The truth is that Christ eate the Passeouer the 14 day at eeuen as it is appointed in the Law but the Iewes had a contrary tradition they would in no wise keepe two festiuall daies together and therefore because the sixteenth daie was their Sabboth they would not haue the feast of vnleauened bread vpon the fifteenth day though it were so appointed by the law to auoide the concurrence of two holy daies together but deferred it till the next day which was their Sabboth and eate the Passeouer the eeue before which was the 15. day at night whereas Christ reforming that abuse kept the Passeouer the eeue before according to the Law that is the 14. at night It appeareth then that the next day following which we call Friday wherein Christ was put to death was not kept of the Iewes as a holy day First the text saith they would not put Christ to death vpon the feast day fearing the tumult of the people Mark 14.2 Secondly if they had kept it holy as the Law commaunded they should haue done no seruile labour therein that is no work of the body Leuitic 23.7 But what could be a more seruile worke then to crucifie Christ to carry the Crosse and pitch it in the ground and such like which the Iewes would not haue done vpon that day which they were as straightly to keep as the Sabboth It is also called the preparation of the Sabboth Mark 15.43 Wherein they were wont to prepare against the Sabboth what was needfull but such workes of preparation could not haue bene done in that great festiual day Augustine also saith that the day of Christs suffering was not Pascha sed praeparatio Paschae It was not the Pasch but the preparation to it it is not therefore true that it was kept holy of the Iewes the day of Christs passion neither that they did eate the paschall Lambe the same eeue that Christ did but the night following If they shall obiect that place Mark 14.12 where the Euangelist saith It was the first day of vnleauened bread when Christ eat his passeouer and therefore all the Iewes began then to eate sweet bread We answere that the Euangelist hath relation vnto the right time of keeping the Passeouer as it was prescribed by the Law and obserued by Christ not to the corrupt custome of the Iewes Wherfore we graunt that Christ might eate vnleauened bread but not in such manner and order as they say Secondly it was not of the substance of the institution to eate vnleauened bread no more then to eat it at night and to receiue it sitting we are not more bound to the one then to the other Againe Christ vsed vnleauened bread because it was the vsuall bread at that time so we do vse that which is the vsuall bread in our time And S. Paul speaketh of such bread as was vsuall among the Gentiles when he saith The bread which we break 1. Cor. 10.17 Ergo ordinary bread and leauened to be vsed not vnleauened The Papists 2. COncerning the other element of wine which is vsed in the sacrament error 118 they say it is to be mixed with water and they impudently condemne all those Churches that doe not mixe water with wine in the Sacrament Argum. Water gushed out together with blood out of the side of Christ. Ergo wine and water is to be vsed together in the Eucharist Rhemist 1. Cor. 11. sect 10. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 10. The Protestants 1. WE deny not but that of ancient time in hot Countries especially where their wine was strong they vsed to mixe water with wine in their common drink and thereupon they so vsed it in the sacrament but it was neuer generally the practise of the East Countries so to do for the Armenians and Iberians vsed not of ancient time to put water in the Cup in the ministration Fulk nnot 1. Corinth 1â— sect 10. Secondly Be it that this mixture of wine were conuenient to be vsed you cannot make such a matter of necessitie of it as to charge them with heresie and denounce damnation against them that keepe not that custome especially seeing your Canonists and schoolemen do graunt that it is de honestate tantâ—m of decency onely not of necessitie And yet we are faine to drinke mingled wine many times against our willes for the Minister need put in no water it is mixed to his hands many times The Vintners craft standeth very well with popish profession Thirdly we holde it rather to be a superstitious custome and contrarie to Christs institution for he in his last supper gaue wine not water to be drunk for he calleth it the fruit of the Vine which is wine and not water Fourthly the water and bloud which issued out of Christs side signifie no such thing but rather as S. Iohn expoundeth them by water is betokened our washing from our sinnes whereof Baptisme is a pledge by blood the full satisfaction that Christ hath made for our sinnes whereof the other sacrament is a â—eale 1. Iohn 5.6 This is that Iesus Christ that came by water and blood not by water onely but by water and blood By the which words the Apostles meaning is not that by the water and blood which were shed vpon the crosse we should vnderstand the Sacraments of the Church but those spirituall graces whereof the Sacraments are liuely signes namely the satisfaction and ransome of our sinnes by Christs blood and our ablution and washing from the same Augustine picketh out no such fancie out of this mysterie as you doe for the mixture of wine and water but he doth more fitly apply it to the sacraments of the church E Christi latere dormientis in cruce promanarunt sacramenta ecclesiae in Psal.
thus Isti significati sunt ad Timotheum c. These of whome the Apostle speaketh are signified in another place to Timoth. 2.2.19 The foundation of God remaineth sure the Lorde knoweth who are his Ergo this assurance and confidence is common though not in the like measure to all faithfull Christians Augustine also saith Quia non secundum merita nostra sed illius misericordiam firma est promissio nemo debet cum trepidatione praedicare vnde non potest dubitare Because the promise remaineth stedfast not by our workes but his mercie we must not with trembling and fearefulnes pronounce that whereof wee cannot doubt No maruaile then if Papists doubt of their saluation because their confidence is built vpon their workes but if they would with the faithfull of God renounce their owne workes and be content to submit themselues to the faith of Christ they would not thinke it so strange a thing for Christians to haue a full and stedfast perswasion of their saluation THE SECOND PART OF THE BENEFIT of our vocation to the which belongeth the knowledge of sinne and the lawe THE FIRST QVESTION of sinne THe partes of this question are these first of originall sinne secondly of the difference of sinnes thirdly of veniall sinnes fourthly whether all sinnes be remissible fiftly whether God bee the author of sinne sixtly whether the workes of the not regenerate are sinne THE FIRST PART OF originall sinne The Papists error 59 COncupiscence which wee also call originall sinne remaining after Baptisme is not properly a sinne nor forbidden by commaundement till it raigne in vs and wee obey the desires thereof it is called sinne because it is the matter effect and occasion of sinne Rhemist Rom. 6. sect 6. Concil Trident. sess 5. Argum. Iam. 1.15 Concupiscence when it hath conceiued bringeth forth sinne Ergo it is not sinne of it selfe but when the consent of will commeth sinne is engendred Rhemist The Protestants Ans. THe argument followeth not concupiscence bringeth forth sinne Ergo it is no sinne nay it shall the rather bee sinne as one serpent bringeth forth another so both the mother and daughter are sinne for euill fruites doe shew an euill tree Argum. Saint Paul saith that concupiscence is flatly forbidden by the law which saith Thou shalt not lust Rom. 7.7 And vers 17. He calleth it sinne dwelling in vs though it doe not reigne in vs Ergo it is properly sinne Augustine saith Omnium malorum reatu caret qui baptizatur non omnibus malis He that is baptized is cleared from the guilt of all euils or sinnes but not from the euils themselues Dimittuntur in Baptismo omnia peccata originaliter tracta ignoranter vel scienter adiecta All sinnes are forgiuen in Baptisme both originall and committed ignorantly or wittingly Therefore originall sinne is no otherwaies taken away in Baptisme then other sinnes are but the guilt onely of other sinnes is remitted in Baptisme the blot or staine remaineth still Ergo originall sinne ceaseth in respect of the guilt for neither it nor any other sinnes shall be imputed vnto those which are iustified in Christ But it is a sinne still as the rest are Augustine also dare call it a sinne Concupiscentia peior est ignorantia Concupiscence is worse then ignorance And in another place Ignorantia in ijs qui intelligere noluerunt peccatum est in ijs qui non potuerunt poena peccati But ignorance is in them which are able to learne sinne in those that cannot a punishment of sinne If ignorance be sinne concupiscence worse then ignorance is much more THE SECOND PART OF THE difference of sinnes The Papists SOme sinnes are deadly or mortall because all that doe them are worthie of error 60 damnation others bee veniall that is to say pardonable of their owne nature Rhemist Rom. 1.11 Argum. Sinne when it is finished bringeth foorth death Iam. 1.15 Ergo not all sinne but that which is consummate and perfited is mortall Rhemist ibid. The Protestants Ans. OVt of this place it is gathered that there are degrees of sinne and that the more heynous sinne is worthie of more grieuous death and condemnation but that concupiscence or other lesse sinnes deserue not death it is not hence proued seeing the Scripture saith That the wages of all sinne is death Rom. 6.23 Argum. That no sinne is veniall or pardonable of it owne nature but that the least deserueth death if God should deale with vs according to the exact rule of his iustice it thus appeareth First if all sinnes are not mortall Christ died not for all sinnes for he by his death did satisfie onely for sinnes that deserued death but Christ died for all sinnes Iohn 1.19 Secondly all transgression of Gods lawe is sinne and deserueth the curse of God Galath 3.10 But all sinne is the transgression of the lawe 1. Iohn 3.4 Augustine and other of the fathers doe vse this terme of veniall sinnes but not in their sense as though any sinne in it owne nature deserued pardon but by veniall sinnes they vnderstand the lesser and smaller faultes which are more easilie forgiuen at Gods hand then the greater Sunt venialiae peccata there are certaine veniall sinnes without the which a man cannot liue saith Augustine Propter omnia peccata baptismus inuentus est propter leuia oratio dominica For all sinnes Baptisme is a remedy and the Lords praier for the lesse De symbolo lib. 1.6 By veniall sinnes he vnderstandeth the smaller sinnes which are not pardonable in their owne nature for then it were not necessarie to aske forgiuenes for them in the Lords praier they would vanish away of themselues Wherefore wee cannot receiue this popish distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes as they vnderstand it as the Scripture vseth to speake wee doe not greatly mislike them that is by grace and mercie in Christ all sinnes euen the greatest are not onely pardonable but pardoned vnto vs Isay 1.18 But vnto the wicked and impenitent euery sinne is mortall they shall euen by their idle words be condemned Matth. 12.36.37 THE THIRD PART OF THOSE which they call veniall sinnes The Papists error 61 1. SInne is voluntarie otherwise it is no sinne and therefore the passions that are in men hauing not the consent of wil are farre from sinne and are not imputed to any man neither for them neede hee say vnto God Forgiue vs our sinnes Rhemist Rom. 7. sec. 8.9 The Protestants SInnes done without consent of the inward man are neuer imputed but this must be vnderstoode onely of the regenerate in whome there is a new man borne of the spirite Argum. That inuoluntarie lustes which arise in the heart not hauing the consent of will are in their nature sinne it is euident by Saint Pauls words Rom. 7.20 If I doe that I would not then is it not I any longer that doe it but sinne that dwelleth in mee he calleth it sinne though he consent not vnto it