Church Actes 15. when they came to Ierusalem they were receiued of the Church Philip. 3.6 Paule persecuted the Church how could the church be persecuted how could it receiue the Apostles if it were not visible Bellarmin cap. 12. We answere what goodly reasons here be a particular church such as was at Ierusalem may be seene Ergo the catholike and vniuersall Secondly a particular church may be sometime visible Ergo alwayes Thirdly the church is visible vnto the faithfull as in time of persecution for to Paule it was not knowen when he persecuted it but onely to the brethren Ergo it is visible to the world For these three points they must proue that the catholike church not a particular is visible that the Church is not sometime but alway visible yea and to the world or else they say nothing for shame masters make better arguments 3 He hath set his tabernacle in the sunne Psal. 19. The Church is as a Citie vpon an hill Math. 5. Ergo it is alwayes visible Bellarmin ibid. Rhemist Math. 5. Sect. 3. We answere First the Apostles them selues euen at this time when Christ spake these wordes vnto them were not so in sole or in monte in the sunne or vpon the hill that they were seene of the world nay they were not seene nor acknowledged of the Scribes and Pharisies in Iewrie the Church is seene of the faithfull it is visible to them that search for her out of the Scriptures they that caÌ„ see the mountaine shal see the Citie the mountaine is Christ the Citie is the Church No marueile if the Church be not alwayes visible to the world for they see not neither do they know Christ. Secondly the church is said to be on a hill because the truth seeketh no corners heretikes and false tâ—achers flye into the desert and into secret places Math. 24. ver 26. But the truth is not ashamed the Apostles confessed Christ eueÌ„ before Kings and Princes Marke 13.19 so Augustine expoundeth it Cont. Faustum lib. 13. cap. 13. The Protestantes COncerning the catholike church we hold that because it is an article of our faith it is alwayes vnto the world inuisible and not to be espyed but by the eyes of faith Fulk Math. 5. Sect. 5. Concerning particular churches if by visible they vnderstand that which may be seene so we graunt they are alwayes visible Fulk Act. 11. v. 24. If for that which is actually visible we say it is not so alwayes visible to the world nay it may sometimes be so hid and secret that the members know not one another Fulk in Math. 5. Sect. 3. 1 To the Hebrues it is thus written cap. 13. v. 18.23.24 you are not come to the mouÌ„taine which might be touched but to the Citie of the liuing God the celestiall Ierusalem c. Ergo the church is inuisible and here opposed to the visible hill of Sinay Bellarmine answereth that this is vnderstood of the triumphant church in heauen not of the militant vpon earth To this we make answere the Apostle vnderstandeth the whole vniuersall church in heauen and earth which both make but one familie Ephe. 3.15 for here he nameth not onely the spirites of iust men which are in heauen but the faithfull vpon earth whose names are written in heauen the congregatioÌ„ saith he of the first borne the wordes are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a gathering together collection or coÌ„gregation which must needes be vnderstood of men vpon earth Againe saith he ye are come not ye shall come they had now left the smoking mountaine Sinay and were come to Sion the church vnder the Gospell Wherefore this is a most firme and inuincible argument the catholike church is the vniuersall number of Gods chosen in heauen and in earth Ergo inuisible 2 We will giue an instance In the dayes of Elias the church was not visible for he camplaineth and saith that he was onely left alone 1. King 19.10 Ergo the church is not alway visible The Rhemistes answere First at that time the church was visible in Iudaea the souldiers were numbred to 1000. thousand 2. Chron. 17. We aunswere againe First belike they haue taken a more exact account of them then the Lord him selfe for he saith he had reserued 7000 1. King 19.18 that had not bowed their knees to Baall they say there were ten huÌ„dred thousand Againe Elias if he had knowen such a number could not haue bene left so comfortlesse as in grief of hart to desire to dye But be it graunted that the church was visible in Iudaea at this time though it were not so to Elias yet where was that visible church in the dayes of Achaz and Manasseh when Iudaea fell also to Idolatrie Thirdly to beleeue that there is an holy catholike church is an article of our faith Ergo it is inuisible Bellarmin answereth First the holinesse of the church is inuisible We reply so the church is partly visible partly inuisible by his confession First why theÌ„ do ye define the catholike church to be a visible coÌ„gregatioÌ„ if it be not wholly altogether visible they know that difinitio must coÌ„uenire definito the definitioÌ„ must agree wholly to that which is defined but now it is not for they say the catholike holy church is partly visible as it is a church partly inuisible as it is holy Secondly do we not say in the Creede Credo Catholicam as well as Credo Sanctam I beleeue a catholike church as well as I beleeue the holy church then it is also inuisible as it is catholike because this also is part of the article see I pray you what shifting is here Secondly he answereth that some thing is seene in the church some thing beleeued for we see that visible companie of men which make the church but whether that companie be the true church we do not see it but beleeue it We reply againe First the Iesuite hath not yet proued that some thing is seene in the church some thing beleeued but one thing is seene namely the congregation as they are men another thing is beleeued that they are the church the sight and beliefe now by his owne confession are not both in the church Secondly we denie that the vniuersall coÌ„panie of the catholike church which is the number of the predestinate can be seene therefore all is beleeued and nothing seene Thirdly he saith that by faith we know which is the true church Ergo by faith we know which are the members of the church Ergo by faith the meÌ„bers do know them selues to be of the Church therefore faith is requisite in the true members of the church theÌ„ vnfaithfull men can not be true members of the church which point the Iesuite strongly before maintained against vs. Mendacem oportet esse memorem a lyar had need haue a good memorie lest he tell contrarie tales and so hath the Iesuite here for before he denied
resurrection of Christ. Bellarmine aunswereth first that the Pharisies were priuiledged not to erre onely till the cōming of Christ. We replie againe First after Christ was come they sate in Moses chaire and Christ biddeth they should be heard Math. 23.2 if they erred not afore neither could they now for they were not displaced out of Moses chaire but the truth is they neuer had any such priuiledge not to erre Secondly if the Pharisies were now prone to error then by our aduersaries owne confession they ceased to be the church Ergo the church was not now visible for in them it was not and the Apostles fled from Christ and shifted for them selues how could then the church be visible to the world Secondly the Iesuite aunswereth concerning the Apostles First the Apostles were not yet entred into their office and Bishoprike but onely appointed to it and therefore they might erre We replie againe First they were not onely appointed Apostles but partly already they had exercised their Apostleship for they were sent forth to preach the Gospell and had power and commission to worke miracles and heale diseases Math. 10 how then is not the Iesuite ashamed to say that they were not yet Pastors nor Apostles Secondly if the Pharisies erred and the Apostles erred then all the world was in error Ergo by their saying at this instant there was no church vpon the earth which is a great absurditie for the church erreth not they say Secondly saith the Iesuite the Apostles erred not in faith they were reproued for not beleeuing the resurrection which beliefe because they had not yet receiued they could not loose it We reply First though they had not erred in any materiall point yet if there were any error at all in them it is sufficient for our purpose that they erred it is manifest for they fled away from Christ. Secondly he excuseth them for their infidelitie concerning the resurrection because this faith they had not yet receiued But had not Christ I pray you often instructed them of this matter and if this were no such error in them then Christ was to sharpe in reprouing them for their infidelitie Thirdly it appeareth that they wholly were deceiued concerning the Messiah Luke 24.21 the two Disciples say they trusted that it had bene he that should haue deliuered Israell see then what weake aunswers these are did these felowes thinke that their gloses should not be examined or that their dreames should be taken for oracles 2 The church of the Iewes erred before our Sauiour Christes comming Ergo the true church may erre The proposition is proued In the time of the raigne of good kings they did offer sacrifice vpon hill altars but onely to the Lord which was an error 2. Kings 12.3.14.4 The feast of the Passeouer was not kept so precisely according to Gods word at any time before no not in the raigne of the best kings as it was in the 18. yeare of Iosias raigne 2. King 23.22 The feast of Tabernacles had not bene so solemnly and truly kept from the dayes of Iosua as it was in Nehemiahs time Nehem. 8.18 Ergo all this while the church of the Iewes erred somewhat in the externall worship of God Fulk Ephes. cap. 5. Sect. 4. 3 Augustine saith Quomodo erit Ecclesia in isto tempore perfecta sine macula ruga cuius mēbra non mendaciter confitentur se habere peccata How can the church be perfect in this life without spot or wrincle whose members do truly confesse that they are not without sinne Ergo the church sinneth and is imperfect and why not subiect to error But in the Councell of Basill it was denied as ye heard that the church could sinne THE SECOND PART WHETHER THE visible Church may fayle vpon the earth The Papistes error 17 THey hold that it is impossible that the visible church should vtterly fayle vpon the earth and fall from God but that there shall alwayes be a visible and knowen church vpon the earth hauing a perpetuall succession of Pastors and Doctors where the true worship of God shal be preserued and kept Bellarmin lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 13. 1 These and such places of Scripture they stand vpon Math. 16. the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it Math. 28. I wil be with you to the end of the world Psal. 88. his throne shal be as the Sunne and endure as the Moone Ergo the visible church shall not fayle vpon earth Bellarmin We aunswere that these places must be vnderstood of the catholike and vniuersall church whereof we denie not but euery true particular church is a part This church is the spouse of Christ this church shall not perish this is the kingdome of Christ with this church will he alway be present to the end of the world we denie not but that the inuisible church shall continue vpon the earth so long as the world endureth Secondly those places are vnproperly vnderstood of the visible church for therein are both good and bad how thē can that be the spouse of Christ where there are many infidels and wicked ones which haue not espoused themselues vnto him how can it be called his kingdome whereas it is not of all acknowledged But in the true catholike church all and euery one are espoused to Christ all and euery one haue the kingdome of God within them as it is Luke 17. ver 21. 2 They do abuse that place of S. Paule Ephe. 4.11 he gaue some to be Apostles some Euangelistes some pastors and teachers for the gathering together of the Saints Ergo the church shall alwayes be visible till all the Saintes are gathered together Bellarmin cap. 13. Rhemistes Ephes. 4. Sect. 5. We aunswere this place proueth that the church hath neuer wanted pastors and teachers for the continuance of the truth neither shall euer be without them as the Lord said by the Prophet Isay. 59. ver 21. My spirite which is vpō thee my words which I haue put into thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor the mouth of thy seede for euer We therfore denie not but that in all ages yea in the most ignoraunt times of Poperie God raised vp faithfull teachers vnto his church although they were not mitred and croziard Bishops neither could shew any outward pompe or boast of any glorious successiō Such were Gulielmus de S. Amore Arnoldus de noua villa an 1240. Berengarius Ioachim Abbas in the time of Innocentius 3. Wikclef Bruto Swinderby Badby and others about anno 1400. with many which were not knowen to the world for the truth neuer in any age wanted witnesses By the continuance of the truth and right faith we gather that there haue bene alwayes faithfull teachers though not notorious to the world and shal be but who they were and where they liued what pompe what authoritie they were of it is not materiall to know wherefore an outward visible succession
Spirit was not giuen him by measure Ioh. 3.34 and that the holy Ghost dwelleth in him bodily but it were great blasphemie so to say of any man Apostle or Minister beside which haue receiued of the same grace but not in the like measure that Christ hath but the spirit is giuen to euery one in measure as they haue neede in their seuerall places and callings Secondly though we should grant that the Apostles had the full authoritie of Christ actually to remit sinnes which they shall neuer proue yet it may be doubted whether al Ministers whom they call Priests which name we refuse not if it be taken according to the sense of the originall word Presbyter and not for a sacrificing priesthood haue as full power in this case as the Apostles had nay it is plaine they haue not for the Apostles and other in the Primitiue Church had power to discerne spirits 1. Cor. 12.10 and to giue actually the bodies of the excommunicate to bee vexed and possessed of the diuell 1. Cor. 5.5 and after a strange manner to exercise power ouer their bodily life as Peter did vpon Ananias and Sapphira Act. 5 Yet we rather stand vpon this poynt that neither the Apostles nor any other Ministers haue power actually to remit sinnes then onely as dispensers and stewards in the name of Christ. The Protestants AL the power of binding and loosing committed to the Apostles and to the Ministers of the word and Sacraments is by declaring the will and pleasure of God out of his word both to pronounce forgiuenes of sinnes to all that are truely penitent the reteining of them to the obstinate and impenitent Fulk annot Iohn 20. sect 3. So that Ministers are not made iudges in this case but only as the Lords ambassadors to declare the will of God out of his word 1 There is a notable place for this purpose 2. Corinth 5.18 God hath reconciled vs vnto himselfe through Iesus Christ and hath giuen vs the ministerie of reconciliation So then Christ is the onely author of reconciliation the Apostles are but ministers how then say the Rhemists that Christ himselfe is but a minister also of our reconciliation yet a chiefe minister whereas the Apostle maketh him the author God was in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe vers 19. Wee are but ambassadors for Christ and pray you in Christs stead to bee reconciled vnto God this then is the office of Ministers not to reconcile men vnto God but to pray them to bee reconciled through Christ Christ onely is the reconciler they but ministers of reconciliation They are but messengers and ambassadors onely to declare their Princes pleasure their commission is certaine beyond that they cannot goe Wherefore that is a blasphemous decretal and cleane contrarie to the scripture which is ascribed but falsely to Pontianus Bishop of Rome which sayth that God hath Priests so familiar that by them he forgiueth the sinnes of others and reconcileth them vnto him Fox pag. 59. But S. Paul sayth that God onely by Christ reconcileth vs vnto himselfe 2 Augustine doth very freely vtter his minde concerning this matter who putteth this obiection If men doe not forgiue sinnes then it should seeme to be false which Christ sayth Whatsoeuer you bind in earth is bound in heauen He answereth Daturus erat dominus hominibus spiritum sanctum c. God was to giue vnto men the holy Ghost by whom their sinnes should be forgiuen them Spiritus dimittit non vos spiritus autem Deus est Deus ergo dimittit non vos the spirit therefore remitteth sinne and not you the spirit is God God forgiueth sinnes and not you Here is one argument God onely forgiueth sinnes Ergo not man Againe Quides homo nisi aeger sanandus vis mihi esse medicus mecum quaere medicum O man what art thou that takest away my sinnes but a sicke man thy selfe wouldest thou be my phisition nay let vs both together goe seeke a phisition that may heale vs. Lo another argument He cannot be a phisition to others that needeth a phisition himselfe he cannot reconcile others to God who hath himselfe neede of a reconciler Further he sayth Qui dimittit per hominem potest dimittere praeter hominem non enim minus est idoneus per se dare qui potest per alium dare He that can forgiue sinnes by man can forgiue also without man for he may as well forgiue by himselfe as he can doe it by another Here is then the third argument If man doe actually forgiue sinnes then Christ should not forgiue sinnes without man for the whole power is committed to man Yea the Rhemists affirme the same that it is necessarie we should submit our selues to the iudgement of the Priest for release of our sinnes if it bee necessarie then sinnes cannot be remitted without the Priest then is Christs power limited he cannot forgiue without man which is contrarie to that Augustine affirmeth here THE FOVRTH PART WHETHER STRAIGHT waies whatsoeuer be loosed or bound by the ministerie of men vpon earth be so in heauen The Papists AN expresse power say they is giuen vnto Priests to remit and reteyne error 76 sinnes And Christ promiseth that whose sinnes soeuer they forgiue they are forgiuen of God and whose sinnes soeuer they retaine they are retained of God Rhemist annot Iohn 20. sect 5. Whereby it appeareth it is their opinion which is manifest also by the practise of their Church that at the will and pleasure of euerie priest exercising the keyes vpon earth men are bound and loosed in heauen They ground this their opinion vpon the generalitie of the wordes Whosoeuers sinnes you remit they are remitted Iohn 20.23 and Math. 18.18 Whatsoeuer you binde in earth shall be bound in heauen Answere These places are not so to be vnderstood as though God were bound to ratifie euery decree of men vpon earth for first this power is giuen to all lawfull pastors which doe holde the Apostolike fayth not to Idolatrous ignorant and blasphemous priests such as most if not all of the popish sorte are Secondly they must decree in the earth according to Gods wil Wherefore Iohn 20.22 first Christ breatheth his spirite vpon his Apostles and then giueth them their commission signifiyng hereby that they must execute this power as they shall be directed by Gods spirite and Matth. 18.20 it followeth that they must be assembled in the name of Christ that is according to Christs rule and the direction of his word they must binde and loose and not at their owne discretion The Protestants THat no sentence or decree of men bindeth or looseth before God in heauen but that which is pronounced according to the will and pleasure of GOD and by the warrant of his worde the scripture euery where teacheth vs. 1 Prouer. 26.2 As the sparrow by flying escapeth so the curse that is causelesse shall not come Isay 5.20 Woe vnto them that speake good
men nor Apostolike giftes wee are not to doubt but that this promise and prophesie of the vniuersall preaching of the Gospell is performed already Argum. 2. It appeareth in Ecclesiasticall histories that the Apostles dispersed themselues into all partes of the worlde euery where preaching the Gospell Thomas preached to the Parthians Medes Persians also to the Germanes Simon Zelotes in Mauritania Africa and in Britania Iudas called Thaddaeus in Mesopotamia Mark in Aegypt Bartholomaeus to the Indians Andrew preached to the Scythians Sogdians Aethopians So that there were fewe or no knowen countreyes in the world which heard not of the fame of the Gospell But here two things must be obserued First that the Gospel was to bee preached in the habitable or knowen world the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many countreyes are inhabited now that were not habitable then or at the least not inhabited wherefore it was sufficient that the people of the world heard of the Gospel howsoeuer afterward they were propagated into other vnknowen places Secondly as Augustine sayth Omnes gentes promissae sunt non omnes homines omnium gentium All nations were promised to heare of the Gospel not all the men and inhabitants of euery nation And so we doubt not but the Apostles did lay the foundation of fayth through the whole worlde and were first planters of the Churches in euery nation But their plantings were watered and encreased and continued by others Wherefore seeing the world hath once already beene generally lightened with the truth of the Gospell we are not to looke any more for a solemne legacie and ambassage to be sent from the Lord vnto all nations But those countreyes rather which somtime had the trueth and now haue lost it ought now to seeke vnto those places that haue it as the Queene of Saba went a long iourney to heare Salomons wisdome They therefore that yet doe expect an vniuersall preaching may sooner see Christ comming in the cloudes then haue their expectation satisfied THE SECOND QVESTION OF THE comming of Henoch and Elias before the day of iudgement The Papists error 107 THeir common and receiued opinion is that Henoch and Elias doe yet liue in their bodies in Paradise and shall come in person to oppose themselues against Antichrist and by their preaching to conuert the Iewes Rhemist Apocal. 11. sect 4. Argum. Malachie 4.5 I will send you Eliah the Prophet before the great and fearefull day of the Lorde These are also the two witnesses spoken of Apocal. 11.3 Which shall be slaine and rise vp againe the third day Ergo Eliah and Henoch shall come before the day of the Lorde Bellarm. de Roman pontif 3.6 Ans. First the prophesie of Malachie was fulfilled in Iohn Baptist who came in the spirite of Elias as it is thrise in the Gospell applied once by the Angel Luk. 1.16 twise by our Sauiour Christ Matth. 11.14 17.13 Bellarmine saith it is not properly vnderstoode of Iohn Baptist but onely in an allegorie First the Prophet speaketh of the great and fearefull day of the Lord but the comming of Christ was the acceptable time Ans. Here the Iesuite bewrayeth great ignorance As though the comming of Christ in the flesh as it brought comfort to the Elect to as many as were ordeined to saluation was not also hastening of the iudgement of God against the wicked and therefore Iohn saith The axe was laide to the roote of the tree Matth. 3.10 and that Christ came with his fanne in his hand verse 12. The Apostle Heb. 12.26 applieth that saying of the Prophet Once againe wil I shake not onely the heauens but the earth to the preaching of the Gospell wee see then in what sence the first comming of Christ is called a fearefull and terrible day Ans. Secondly by the two witnesses is vnderstood the small yet sufficient number of the true seruants of God which shall witnesse the truth euen in the whottest persecution of Antichrist there is no mention made of Henoch or Elias And if you will needs vnderstand that literally of their rising againe why not the rest also how fire shall proceede out of their mouthes to consume the wicked and they shall turne water into blood The meaning is nothing else but that God will alwaies haue faithfull witnesses in his Church which shall alwaies stand vp in the stead of the Prophets and holy men gone before The Protestants LIke as the Pharisies deceiued the Iewes with vaine expectation of Elias and so hindred their beliefe in Christ so the Papists would not haue men to acknowledge the manifestation of Antichrist vnder this false pretence that Henoch and Elias must first come before Antichrist bee reuealed which wee doe hold as a Iewish fable and popish dreame Argum. 1. The Prophesie of Elias comming is properly fulfilled in Iohn Baptist and therefore wee are not to looke for any other accomplishment thereof neither now is there any Paradise remaining but Heauen 2. Corinth 12.4 And to affirme that Henoch and Elias went vp to Heauen in their bodies before the ascension of Christ out of Scripture it cannot be proued it is euident that they were taken vp aliue into heauen but not that they continued aliue Argum. 2. The varietie of opinions concerning the personall appearance of Henoch and Elias declare that it is an vncertaine thing and but deuised of men Hilarye saith they shal be Moses and Elias Chrysostome granteth that Elias shall come but not Henoch Iustine thinketh that not onely Henoch and Elias are aliue but all those whose bodies rose at the resurrection of Christ Hippolytus is of opinion that Iohn the Diuine shall come with them and some say Ieremie also whose death is not read of Fulk Apocal. 11. sect 4. And thus it is no meruaile if men run mad as it were in their foolish conceites hauing no warrant for their opinions out of Scriptures The nation of the Iewes wee grant according to the manifest prophesie of Saint Paul shall in the end be conuerted but not in such sort by the personall preaching of Moses and Elias for the Apostle setting downe at large the mysterie of their calling would not haue left out so necessarie a thing Augustine by the two witnesses vnderstandeth the two testaments the Old and the new But hee denieth vtterly that any shall rise before the comming of Christ as the Apostle saith 1. Corinth 15.23 The first fruites is Christ Then they that are Christs at his comming but not before Vnde saith he excluditur omnis suspicio quorundam qui putant hos duos testes duos viros esse ante aduentum Christi coelum in nubibus ascendisse Their suspition therefore or opinion is vtterly excluded which thinke these two witnesses to bee two men which should ascend into heauen before the comming of Christ. Augustine we see is flat against them THE THIRD PART WHETHER THE most grieuous persecutions that euer were shall be toward the end
his Priesthood in setting vp another sacrifice Ergo your spirit is not of God 3 The Catholike Church is so called because it embraceth the whole and onely doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles Ephes. 2. vers 20. But the Romane Church receiueth many things contrary to scripture and addeth many things vnto it as it shall appeare throughout this whole discourse Ergo. 4 The Catholike Church hath the name because it is dispersed ouer the whole earth Acts 1. vers 8. But so was neuer the Romane faith which is now professed as we haue shewed before Quaest. 3. de Eccles. Not. 2. Ergo ex Amand. Polan THE SECOND PART THE CHVRCH OF Rome is not a true visible Church The Papists THeir arguments are as wee haue heard Quaest. 3. of the notes of the Church error 28 grounded vpon their succession miracles gift of prophesiyng answered sufficiently afore Not. 4.5.6 Wee neede not nor must not for breuities sake repeate the same things often Protestants WE denie vtterly that they are a true visible Church of Christ but an Antichristian Church and an assembly of heretickes and enemies to the Gospell of Iesus Christ. 1 That cannot bee a true Church where the word of God is not truely preached nor the Sacraments rightly administred according to Christs institution So are they not in the Popes Church For the word is not sincerely taught but they haue added many inuentions of their owne and doe preach contrarie Doctrines to the Scripture the Sacraments also they haue not kept for first they haue augmented the number they haue made fiue more of confirmation orders penance Matrimonie extreame vnction beside the Sacraments of Christ they haue corrupted In baptisme beside water they vse spittle salt oyle Chrisme contrarie to the institution and they lay such a necessitie vpon this Sacrament that al which die without it say they are damned In the Lordes Supper they haue turned the Sacrament to a sacrifice made an Idol of bread chaunged the Communion into priuate masses taken the cup from the lay people and many other abhominations are committed by them Ergo neither hauing the word nor Sacraments according to the institution they are no true Church 2 They which are enemies to the true Church and doe persecute the members thereof are no true visible Church they cannot be of that Church which they persecute as Bellarmine saith of Paul how could he bee of that Church which he with al his force oppressed de eccles lib. 3. cap. 7. But they persecute the Saints of God are most cruel towards them as their consciences beare them record Ergo. 3 The habitation of Antichrist cannot be the Church of Christ so is theirs the Pope himselfe is Antichrist for who else but hee sitteth in the temple being an enemie to Christ. 2. Thes. 2. Where haue you a citie in the world built vpon seauen hilles but Rome Apocalyps 17.9 But of this matter we shall of purpose intreate afterward Ergo. they are not a true visible Church THE THIRD CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING COVNCELS A Councel is nothing else but an assembly and gathering together of the people of God about the affaires and businesse of the Church and they are of two sortes either vniuersall in the name of the whole Church or particular which are either National when the learned of a whole Realme are called together or Prouincial when as the Churches of one Prouince doo assemble into one place to consult of Religion There may be two especiall occasions of Councels the one for resisting and rooting out of heresies as the Apostles and elders met together Act. 15. against those which would haue imposed the Iewish ceremonies vppon the beleeuing Gentiles So the Councell of Nice was celebrated the yeare of the Lorde 327. to confound the heresie of Arrius who denied Christ as he was God to be equall to his Father In the Councel of Constantinople Anno 383. or there aboute the heresie of Macedonius was condemned which denied the holy Ghost to bee God In the Ephesine Councel the first Nestorius heresie was ouerthrowne which affirmed Christ to haue two persons Anno 434. The Councel of Chalcedon was collected Anno 454. about the heresie of Eutiches which held that there was in Christ but one nature after his incarnation so confounding his humanitie and diuinitie together The other cause of the calling of Councels is to prouide establish holsome Lawes decrees and constitutions for the gouernement of the Church so the Apostles called the brethren together Act. 6. to take order for the poore And in the Councell of Nice an vniforme order was established for the celebration of Easter which before had much troubled the Church The questions betweene vs and the Papists concerning Councels are these First whether generall Councels be absolutely necessarie Secondly by whome they ought to be called Thirdly of what persons they ought to cōsist Fourthly who should bee the president of the Councel Fiftly concerning the authoritie of them Sixtly whether they may erre or not Seauenthly whether they are aboue the Pope Eightly of the conditions to be obserued in generall Councels of these in order THE FIRST QVESTION CONCERNING the necessitie of Councels The assertion of the Papists THey seeme in wordes to affirme that Generall Councels are not absolutelie error 29 necessarie for the Primitiue Church was without any Councel for the space of 300. yeares and more yet they hold that some Councels either generall or particular are of necessitie to be had Bellarmine de concil lib. 1. cap. 11. And yet this is to be maruelled at that they should so much stand for Councels seeing they might vse a farre more compendious way in referring all to the determination of the Pope whome they boldly but very fondly affirme that hee cannot erre Although they seeme not to lay a necessitie vpon Generall Councels yet in truth they doo contrarie for they allowe no Councels at all without the Popes consent and authoritie neither thinke it lawfull for any Nation or Prouince to make within themselues any innouation or change of Religion So in the assembly at Zuricke Anno 1523. For the reformation of Religion Faber tooke exception against that meeting affirming that it was no conuenient place nor fit time for the discussing of such matter but rather the cognition and tractation thereof belonged to a generall Councel Sleid. lib. 3. And further they hold that what hath beene decreed in a Councel cānot be dissolued but by the like Councel as if the Councel of Trent were to bee disanulled it must be done by the like Synod Bellarmine de cōcil lib. 3. ca. 21. Which Councel they affirme to haue been general therefore another general Councel must by their opinion necessarily be expected before it can be reuoked The confession of the Protestants WE doe hold that generall Councels are an holesome meanes for the repressing and reforming both of errors in Religion and corruption in manners and that true generall Councels ought to
shewe of reason can our aduersaries haue to make them proper to the Bishop of Rome 2 The second name is prince of Priests or high and chiefe Bishop which title if it be taken for a chiefe power dominion and soueraigntie is proper only to Christ the chiefe shepheard 1. Pet. 5.4 and cannot in that sense agree to any man If it bee vsed onely as a title of excellencie and commendation so was it in times past ascribed to other excellent and famous Bishops as Ruffinus lib. 2. cap. 26. calleth Athanasius Pontificem maximum chiefe Bishop yea it was in common giuen to all Bishops as Anacletus Bishop of Rome in his second Epistle writeth thus Summi sacerdotes id est Episcopi a deo iudicandi sunt The high Priests that is Bishops saith he are to bee iudged of God If it be taken further for the excellencie of the ministerie of the Gospell and the worthie calling of Christians in this sense the title of summum sacerdotium of the high Priesthood is attributed to all ministers Ecclesiasticall both Bishops and others so Fabianus Bishop of Rome vseth this name Yea the holy Apostle calleth all the people of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a princely royall or chiefe priesthood Ergo the Bishop of Rome hath no especiall or proper interest in this name 3 The third name is to bee called the Vicar of Christ vpon earth Where we are to vnderstand that in respect of the spirituall regiment and kingdome of Christ he needeth no Vicegerent vpon earth for I am with you saith he to the end of the world he himselfe is alway present in power and needeth not in that respect that any man should supplie his roume Petrus scriba martyr Fox pag. 906. If we doe take it for a word of office and publike administration so the Magistrate may bee called the Vicar of Christ in gouerning the people according to the word of God In which sense Eleutherius Bishop of Rome writing to Lucius King of the Britaines calleth him the Vicar of Christ and therfore in his owne kingdome had power out of the word of God to establish lawes for the gouernment of the people So all Bishops Pastors and Ministers in ancient time were called the Vicars of Christ in preaching praying binding and loosing in the name and power of Christ. So Augustine saith or whose worke els it is that Omnis antistes est Christi vicarius Euery pastor and prelate and not the Pope onely is the Vicar of Christ. And this is confessed by our Rhemists annot in 2. Cor. 5.18 that the Bishops and priests of the Church are for Christ and as his ministers that is his Vicars Nay Augustine maketh yet a more generall vse of this word he saith that Homo imperium Dei habens quasi vicarius eius est That man by creation being made Lord of the creatures doth therein represent God and is as his Vicar vpon earth So then all ministers are the Vicars of Christ the ciuill Magistrate likewise in some good sense may bee so called yea in respect of the creatures man generallie is vpon earth in Gods steade Ergo this name cannot be appropriate to the Pope of Rome 4 It is also too huge a name for the Pope or any mortall man to beare to be called the head of the vniuersall Church this is a name only due vnto Christ neither doe the scriptures acknowledge any other head but him Ephes. 1.22.4.15 But say they wee doe not make the Pope such an head as Christ is but only a ministeriall head ouer the militant Church vpon earth We answere First Ergo the Pope by your owne confession is not head of the vniuersall Church whereof the triumphant Church in heauen is a part Secondly the Rhemists confesse that the Church in no sense can bee called the bodie of the Pope Ergo the Pope cannot be any wayes the head of the vniuersall Church Annot. in 1. Ephes. 22. Thirdly the Fathers of Basile vsed this argument The head of the bodie being dead the whole bodie also dyeth but the whole Church doth not perish with the Pope Ergo he is not properly the head of the Church Fox pag. 675. If it shall bee further obiected that the Bishop of Rome hath been called in times past caput Episcoporum the head of all other Bishops we answere that it was but a title of excellencie and commendation not of dominion and power as London is called the head or chiefe citie of England yet are not other cities of the land subiect vnto it or vnder the iurisdiction thereof But we shall haue occasion more fully to discusse this matter afterward 5 They would haue the Pope called the Prelate of the Apostolike See the Rhemists say further that the Papall dignitie is a continuall Apostleship Annot. 4. Ephes. sect 4. We answere First if they call those Churches Apostolicall whose first founders were the Apostles then the See of Antioch Alexandria Constantinople are as well Apostolicall as Rome and this the Iesuite denyeth not Lib. 2. de pontific cap. 31. Secondly those Churches are Apostolicall which hold the Apostolike faith so is not the See of Rome Apostolicall being departed and gone backe from the ancient Catholike faith but those Churches where the Gospell of Iesus Christ is truely preached are indeede Apostolike Thirdly how can the Pope be an Apostle or haue Apostolike authoritie seeing hee preacheth not at all much lesse to the whole world wherein consisted the office of an Apostle Neither can he shewe his immediate calling from Christ as all the Apostles could for seeing he challengeth the Apostolike office by tradition from S. Peter and not by commandement from Christ he can in no wise be counted an Apostle or his office an Apostleship for the Apostles ordayned onely Euangelists and Pastors they had not authoritie to consecrate and constitute new Apostles Our aduersaries for this their Apostleship can finde nothing in scripture nor for a thousand yeeres after Christ in the ancient writers Fulk annot in Ephes. 4. sect 4. 6 Concerning the title of vniuersall Bishop it was thus decreed in the sixt Councel of Carthage as it is alleadged by Gratian Vniuersalis autem nec Romanus pontifex appelletur No not the Bishop of Rome is to be called vniuersall In Gregorie the first his time Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople obtayned of the Emperour Mauritius to be called vniuersall Patriarke but Gregorie would not agree thereunto calling him the forerunner of Antichrist that would challenge so proude a name Bellarmine and other of that sect doe answere that Gregorie found fault with this title because Iohn of Constantinople would haue been Bishop alone and none other to bee beside him but all other onely to bee his deputies and vicars To this wee replie First Iohn did onely challenge a superioritie ouer other Bishops not to be Bishop alone for this had been a thing impossible Secondly if Iohn had sought any such thing
Bellarmine answereth Princes doe rule ouer their subiects as men not as Christians and Kings are set ouer the people not as they are Christians but politike persons so the Prince is head of the kingdome not of the Church De pontif Rom. lib. 1. cap. 7. Ans. Stephen Gardiner taketh away this cauill very sufficiently we will set one Papist against another It is all one sayth he to call the Prince head of the Church of England and head of the Realme of England for if all Englishmen be his subiects why are they not his subiects as they are Christians If the wife or seruant bee subiect to the master or husband being infidels doth their conuersion or name of Christians make them lesse subiect then they were before Haec ille Againe how farre is this I pray you from Anabaptistrie to say that subiects onely as men not as Christians are in subiection to Princes for doth it not followe hereupon that as Christians they ought to haue no superiour or Magistrate 2 It is sufficient for vs that this title more fitly and properly belongeth to euery Prince in his owne kingdome thē to the Pope for the Pope can in no wise be head of the Church he is not the mysticall head neither dare they say so for Christ onely is the head in that manner neither can he be the Ministeriall head of the vniuersall Church for the Catholike Church is a bodie mysticall must needes haue a mysticall head neither is he the politicall head of any particular Church for no Bishop can be a politicall head because he that is the head and chiefe must haue a coactiue power to binde his subiects to obedience so hath not any Bishop The Prince onely beareth the sword and enforceth obedience Againe in a farre diuers sense is the Prince called the head then the Pope was for first the Pope challenged to be head of the vniuersal Church but the prince is chiefe only in his owne kingdome Secondly the Pope would be an absolute head to doe all vpon earth that Christ did yea and more to to bind and loose at his pleasure to depose Kings to dispense with the word of God to constitute and make lawes at his pleasure in so much that one of his clawback flatterers is not ashamed to say of him Christus Papa vnum faciunt consistorium excepto peccato potest Papa quasi omnia facere quae potest Deus Christ and the Pope make but one Consistorie keepe but one court sinne onely excepted the Pope in a manner can doe all things that God can doe But we doe limit the power of the Prince who is not to impose any lawes vpon the Church but such as are agreeable to the word of God neither doe we make him a spirituall officer as the Pope would be but a ciuill gouernour who by positiue lawes is to prouide for the peace and welfare of the Church Lastly S. Peter sayth Submit your selues to the King as the chiefe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or most excelling what is this els but as to the head what is it to be chiefe but to be head But we will not much contend for the name so they will grant vs the thing namely that the Prince is a commander euen in Ecclesiasticall matters as Augustine saith In hoc reges Deo seruiunt si mala prohibeant nō solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verumetiam quae ad diuinam religionem Cont. Crescon lib. 3. cap. 5. In this Kings doe good seruice to God if they forbid euill to be done not onely in matters pertaining to humane societie but in things concerning religion As for the title to bee called head let them cease to call their chiefe Bishop so who hath no right vnto it and we will promise also to lay it downe though in good sense we might vse it though the Pope had neuer layd claime thereunto THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERNING THE authoritie of the Prince in punishing heretikes WE doe willingly grant that obstinate heretikes and peruerters of the faith if they persist in their damnable opinions and remaine incorrigible may and ought to be cut off and punished by death to make others to feare so Seruetus at Geneua and one Valentinus at Berne both monstrous heretikes not amongst the Papists but by the Protestants were worthily put to death In this therfore we and our aduersaries agree that heretikes may be punished by death by the ciuill Magistrate If Luther or any other haue held any priuate opinion to the contrarie let them answere for themselues but although we vary not in the principall yet there are certaine circumstances and accessaries greatly material wherein they both dissent from vs and from the truth 1 They would haue the Magistrate onely to be their executioner the iudgement of heresie they say belongeth to the Church for they cited examined iudged disgraded condemned heretikes and then gaue them ouer to the secular error 102 power this was the common practise of their Church But we hold that the hearing iudgement sentence and condemnation of heretikes belongeth to the ciuill Magistrate as well as the execution because these actions are proper to the ciuill sword which the Magistrate beareth Rom. 13. and Deut. 17.5 The false Prophets and Idolaters were brought to the gates of the citie where the ciuill Magistrate was wont to sit Augustine is of the same mind Cur in veneficos vigorē legū exerceri iuste fatentur in haereticos schismaticos nolunt fateri Cont. epist. Parmen 1.7 Why doe they grant that the vigour of the law may iustly be executed vpon witches and not as well vpon heretikes and schismatikes But the causes of witches are heard iudged and handled before the ciuill Magistrate Ergo also the cause of heretikes Augustines reason is out of the 5. Galath 20. The works of the flesh are manifest which are adulterie fornication idolatrie witchcraft and heresies are also reckoned vp amongst All these are workes of the flesh Ergo the Magistrate being appoynted to punish euill doers hath as full right to deale against them all as some 2 We differ about the way and meanes to try an heretike by They affirme that he is an heretike onely that is so iudged by a generall Councel or the sentence error 103 of the chiefe pastors of the Church they would haue an heretike tryed by the constitutions and Canons of their Church Annot. Tit. 3. sect 2. Rhemist We say that an heretike is to be conuicted by the scriptures and that he that holdeth any opiniō obstinately against the manifest authoritie of scripture may be iudged an heretike without a generall Councel So Augustine writeth answering the Pelagians who obiected that they were condemned without a Synode Ac si congregatione synodi opus erat vt aperta pernicies damnaretur quasi nulla haeresis aliquando nisi synodi congregatione damnata sit As though a Synode neede to be
sect 8. Ans. 1. In this place Christ reproueth the Pharisies for their swearing and condemneth it by this argument that howsoeuer they thought it a smal matter to sweare by the Temple yet in effect they did sweare by God himselfe See thē the boldnes of these men that dare iustifie swearing by creatures by the same reason that Christ condemneth it 2. Our Sauiour saith nothing but this that in euery othe there is an inuocation of the diuine power and therefore whosoeuer sweareth by a creature committeth idolatrie in making it his God The Protestants 1. THat it is great impietie to make vowes vnto Saints it is thus proued Isay 19.21 In that day the Egyptians shal know the Lord and shal do sacrifices and vow vowes vnto the Lord. But sacrifices are not due vnto saintes but onely to God therefore neither vowes Againe the vowes of Christians are not to binde them selues to go in pilgrimage or to offer vnto this Saint or that this Image or that as Augustine saith alius pallium alius oleum alius ceram one voweth a cloke another oyle a third a wax Candle God careth not for these vowes saith he Sed hoc quod hodie redemit ipsum offer hoc est animam tuam But offer and vow vnto God that which as this day hee hath redeemed that is thy soule The vowes therefore of obedience and repentance and all Christian dueties are the true vowes the vowing of body and soule to the seruice of God Rom. 12.1 But this can not bee vowed vnto any but to him that redeemed vs Ergo not to any Saint 2 That wee ought onely to sweare by the name of God the scripture is plaine Deuteron 6 13. Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God and serue him and shalt sweare by his name and by no other Exod. 23.13 But saintes are not to be feared nor serued for the Septuagint translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt worship God which kinde of worship the Papists themselues dare not attribute to saintes Ergo neither are we to sweare by them Againe to sweare is to cal him to witnesse by whome we sweare and so to make him our God for whom we sweare by wee confesse to be a searcher and knower of our hearts and a reuenger of false swearers To sweare then is to call God to witnesse Quid tu facis cum iuras Deum testem adhibes Augustine What doest thou when thou swearest Thou callest God to wintesse But they that sweare by saints call them to witnesse and none els are called to witnesse but they by whom they sweare Ergo they make Saints their Gods seeing God is called vpon in euery oath THE SECOND PART OF THE distinction of the two kindes of worshippe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Papists error 26 THat kinde of worship which is proper to God they say is fitly expressed by the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither is this word vsed but for the worship of God the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for all kind of seruice both of God men so that the religious worshippe which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is onely to be giuen to God the other called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may bee attributed to Angelles and Saintes Bellarmine Cap. 12. The Protestants This distinction is but of late inuented and coyned of our aduersaries somewhat to countenance them out in their idolatrous and superstitious worship of saints We thus do refell it Argum. 1. This distinction helpeth them not for heere are onely two wordes which doo betoken two kinds of worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the religious honor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the ciuil dutie such as seruants performe to their masters They should haue found out three names for their three kindes of worshippe they haue gained nothing by this distinction but that ciuill adoration is due vnto Saints such as is giuen to men vpon earth As for their fayned word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be called a superseruice when they can find it in scripture they shal know more of our minde and yet receiuing this terme it signifieth but a more ciuill seruice it betokeneth not a new kinde of religious worship Argum. 2 Neither are the wordes so vsed as they make vs beleeue for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they make proper for the seruice of God is applyed to men as Leuit. 23. Opus seruile non facietis You shal do no seruil work the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lodouic Viues also sheweth out of prophane authors that somtime the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for the seruice of men or maids to their masters in 10. lib. Aug. de ciuit Dei cap. 1. So contrariwise the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in scripture for the proper seruice of God as Gal. 4.8 Ye did seruice to them that by nature were no gods the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ergo religious seruice is only due vnto God not to Angelles or saints for they are not by nature gods Augustine saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 debetur Deo tanquam Domino 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verò nō nisi Deo tanquam Deo quaest in Exod. 94. Religious seruice is due vnto God as Lord religious worship is onely due vnto God as he is God THE THIRD PART CONCERNING the kissing of holy mens feete The Papists IT is a signe of reuerence done both to Christ and other sacred persons as Prophetes Apostles Popes or others representing his person heere vpon error 27 earth Rhemist act 4. sect 3. Argum. 1. The Shunamite fell downe and embraced Eliseus feete 2. King 4.27 Ergo the Popes feete ought to be kissed Ans. 1 Your popes must be first as holy men as this Prophet was who was thus reuerenced for his holynes before they can challenge the like honor 2 This reuerence to the prophet was voluntary in the woman not looked for or exacted by the prophet as the pope looketh for it of duty 3 Heere is no mention made of kissing of feete but onely that she caught him by the feete which was partly a signe of her ioy that she had met with the prophet partely by this sodain and disordered gesture the prophet perceyued that she was troubled in minde for Gehazi would haue thrust her away but he said Let her alone for her spirite is troubled within her 4 This is no warrant for the pope to offer his feete to be kissed of Kinges and Emperours because the woman fell downe at the prophetes feete think you that if the King of Israel had so done the prophet would haue suffered it Argum. 2. Marie kissed Christs feete Ergo the popes feete ought to be kissed Ans. What arrogancie is this that the pope a mortall and sinfull man should challenge that honor which was done to Christ being God in the flesh and void of sinne He might also
and religious deuotion to the dead bodies of Saints Rhemist Math. 14. sect 2. Their bodies are the temples of the holy Ghost and shall be raised againe to life Ergo they must be adored and worshipped Trident. Concil sess 25. Ans. One answere may serue for all these arguments We denie not but that the dead bodies of the faithfull are to be layd vp with reuerence in hope of the resurrection but it therefore followeth not that they must be abused to idolatrie Iohns disciples buried his bodie but shrined it not to be worshipped Iosias made difference betweene the bones of the idolatrous priests and of the true Prophet the one he burned and thought them vnworthie of honest sepulture the other he suffered to rest and enioy the honour of buriall But of any adoration or worshipping of his bones we reade not The Protestants THe bodies of Martyrs are reuerently to be brought to the ground in testimonie of our hope of their resurrection and their memorie is to be honored as in praising God for their constant martyrdome so the Psalmist sayth Right precious in the sight of God is the death of his Saints Psalm 116. As also in following their steps and propounding vnto vs their good example but to adore and worship their bones to kisse and kneele downe at their sepulchres is to too grosse idolatrie and not to be vsed amongst Christians 1 The Lord did of purpose himselfe burie the bodie of Moses in a secret place which was neuer knowne to the Israelites and this reason is generally rendered by most writers lest the people of Israel should worship his body and so commit idolatrie Ergo the adoration of the bodies of Saints displeaseth God Argum. Caluin Bellarmine answereth that though the people of Israel might by that meanes haue fallen into idolatrie yet the people of God may now more safely honour reliques because they are not so prone to idolatrie Ans. Experience of popish idolatrie proueth the cleane contrarie for the like superstition and worshipping of images was neuer so common and vsuall no not in the most corrupt times of that Church as now it is in poperie 2 Our Sauiour Christ reproueth the Scribes and Pharisees calling them hypocrites because they did garnish the sepulchres of the Prophets whom their forefathers put to death Math. 23.29 But their doctrine they neglected and regarded not Such hypocrites are the Papists at this day who commit a double fault for they contemne the doctrine of the Apostles whose memories they would seeme to honour and againe in the superstitious honour and worship which they yeeld vnto them they exceed the bonds of Christian pietie 3 Their bodies were not to be worshipped when they were aliue much lesse now they are dead What are they now but earth dust and ashes according as the Lord sayd to Adam Thou art dust and to dust shalt thou returne Genes 3.19 What is this els but to worship the earth euen dust and ashes So Augustine saith Timeo adorare terram ne damnet me qui fecit coelum terram I am afraid to worship the earth lest he condemne me that made both heauen and earth Onely in Christ sayth he I finde quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra how the earth that is his body may be worshipped without any impietie namely because of the neere coniunction and vnion of his humane nature with the Godhead in one person for otherwise of it selfe the bodie of Christ is Gods creature and workmanship and not capable of diuine worship This then is the priuiledge that Christ hath more then all Saints and Martyrs beside that in him onely the humanitie is adored THE SECOND PART OF THE TRANSLAtion of the bodies of Saints The Papists IT is an vsuall thing amongst them to translate and carrie from one place to error 32 another the bones and reliques of Saints as they say Iohn Baptists head was translated from Samaria to Alexandria and is now at Amiens in France Rhemist Math. 14. sect 1. So the body of S. Luke was remoued they say from Achaia to Constantinople and from thence to Padua in Italy where now it remaineth Argument in Luk. Rhemist The stone also that hit S. Stephen is now at Ancona in Italy Act. 7. sect 6. Argum. 1. Ioseph gaue charge concerning his bones when he died and they were remoued from Egypt to the land of Canaan at the departure of the Israelites Exod. 13. Heb. 11.22 Ergo the remouing and translation of Saints bodies or reliques lawfull Rhemist Bellarm. cap. 3. Ans. Ioseph gaue commandement concerning his bones to testifie his faith and hope in the promise of God for the inheritance of the land of Canaan they were not remoued to be adored or worshipped Ergo no such translation of reliques is hereby proued Secondly you can shew no such charge that S. Paul Peter or any of the rest gaue concerning the translation of their bodies as Ioseph gaue vnto his posteritie The Protestants WE denie not but that the bodies of the dead before they be interred may bee conueyed vnto the place of their buriall as Iosias was carried being dead by his seruants from Megiddo to Ierusalem where a sepulchre was prepared for him 2. King 23.30 But either for the dead to be remoued to be buried in some one place more then another for the holinesse thereof or the bones of Saints to be raked out of their graues and translated with intent to shrine them and set them vp to be adored they are superstitious customes and not vsed of ancient time among the people of God Argum. 1. That the place profiteth not the dead but vnto them it is all alike wheresoeuer they are buried we haue shewed afore 1. part controuer 9 quaest 2. part 4. The example of Augustines mother is notable and worthie the memorie She had with great care prouided her a sepulchre neere vnto her husband who dyed at Thagasta in Africa and was there buried and was purposed her selfe to lye by him but the Lord so disposed that she left her life at Hostia in Italie and being readie to depart she sayd thus to her sonnes Ponite hoc corpus vbicunque nihil vos eius cura conturbet Burie my bodie where you thinke good take no great care for it And being asked if it grieued her not to leaue her body so farre off from her owne citie she gaue this godly answere Nihil longe est à Deo neque timendum est ne ille non agnoscat in fine seculi vnde me resuscitet August lib. confess 9. cap. 11. No place is neerer to God then other neither am I to feare lest the Lord should not as well raise me vp in this place as in mine owne citie Ergo in respect of the dead it skilleth not where they are buried Argum. 2. The other custome of translating of reliques to be worshipped is farre more impious and superstitious for hereupon it commeth that the people haue been deceiued with false
vsed to crosse the error 44 forehead and other partes to blesse them selues and their meates with crossing and such like Rhemist Argum. 1. Jacob crossed his handes when he blessed his sonnes it is lyke our Sauiour did lift vp his handes in the forme of the crosse when he blessed It is a conuenient memoriall of the death of Christ and therefore to be vsed Rhemist annot Luke 24. sect 5. Ans. 1. Iacob laid his handes after that forme because of the present occasion for the younger sonne that should be the greater was placed at his left hand and the elder at the right 2. Seeing the scripture expresseth not in what manner Christ lifted vp his hands it is great presumption for you to say it was done in the similitude of the Crosse. 3. How can it be a conuenient memoriall of Christs death beeing neither ordained of Christ nor taught by his Apostles so to be Argum. 2. Apocal. 7.3 Hurt not the earth till wee haue sealed the seruants of God in their forehead This is the signe of the Crosse Rhemist ibid. Bellarm. cap. 29. Ans. It is the signe proper to Gods elect and therefore not the signe of the Crosse which many reprobates haue receiued Fulk ibid. The Protestants THough we finde that the signe of the Crosse hath beene of ancient time vsed in Baptisme and is now in some reformed churches without popish superstition yet this ridiculous superstitious abuse of the signe of the Crosse which is common and vsual among the Papists to crosse themselues their foreheads their eies mouth lippes to crosse themselues going foorth and returning home thinking thereby to be sufficiently shended and preserued from euill we do vtterly condemne and haue worthily abolished Argum. 1. This custome of crossing hath no warrant from scripture neyther was practised by the Apostles Valentinus the Heretike was the first that made any great account of it Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 1. therfore not to be vsed amōgst Christians Argum. 2. Math. 23.5 Christ reproueth the Pharisies for their phylacteries that is certain writings of the law in parchment which they bound to their foreheads and for their broad fringes which were notwithstanding cōmanded by the lawe If our Sauiour reproued them for abusing the things rightly instituted at the first much more worthie of blame is the superstition of Christians that hath no ground nor warrant at all Augustine sayth Christus elegit vt in cruce penderet vt ipsam crucem in cordibus fidelium figeret Christ made choise of that kind of death to hang vpon the Crosse that his Crosse might be fixed in faithfull mens hearts he saith not in frontibus in the forehead though in some editions that word be foysted into the text but in cordibus in their hearts THE FOVRTH ARTICLE OF THE POWER and efficacie of the Crosse. The Papists error 45 THe signe of the Crosse say they hath two notable and powerfull effects one is to driue away diuels and euill spirits to heale and cure diseases the other is to sanctifie and blesse creatures as our meates and drinkes which is done by the signe of the Crosse Rhemist 1. Timoth. 4. sect 12.13 Bellarm. cap. 30. Argum. 1. That the signe of the Crosse euen ex opere operato as Bellarmine sayth by the very act and making of the signe yea by a Iew Infidel or Pagan hath power to driue away the diuell they would thus proue it Dauid by his Harpe droue away the euill spirit from Saul the Angel did the like with the fishes liuer in the storie of Toby Rhemist ibid. Ans. First we must haue better scriptures then Apocryphal stories to build our faith vpon The good angels of God haue power from God to driue away euill spirits though they vse no externall signes yet it followeth not that euery man may do that which is granted to the Angels though we should admit the storie Secondly Dauid not so much by the sound of his Harpe refreshed Saul as by his godly songs and musicke chased away the spirit neither did the euill spirit depart from him but he for the while found some ease his phantasticall and melancholy fits which Sathan wrought vpon being by his pleasant harmonie somewhat allayed Thirdly all this being granted yet haue they not proued by these examples that Pagans and Infidels by the signe of the Crosse may chase away euill spirits 2. That things are hallowed and blessed by the signe of the Crosse they also proue it because the Crosse being an holy signe in it selfe doth communicate holines vnto the things signed with the Crosse Bellarm. cap. 130. Ans. First we denie the signe of the Crosse as they vse it to be an holy but rather a superstitious and deceiueable ceremonie Secondly though it were holy yet being abused it cannot transferre any holines to other things for in the law the sacrifices of the wicked though they lay vpon the Altar were not thereby sanctified but were an abomination being not offered in a right faith Nay there is no outward ceremonie so holy as that it can impart the holines to another thing as it is shewed Hagg. 2.13 Though a man did beare holy flesh in the skirt of his garment yet was it not thereby holy The Protestants FIrst it is a deceitfull toy that they beare the people in hand the diuell at the signe of the Crosse will flye away For the weapons of our warfare saith S. Paul are not carnall 2. Corinth 10.4 but the signe of the Crosse is an external and carnall no spirituall weapon and therefore preuaileth not against spirituall powers Act. 19. The diuel would not giue place when Iesus and Paul were named much lesse at the signe of the Crosse. Augustine saith Signum Christi expellit exterminatorem si cor nostrū recipiat saluatorem The signe of Christ doth expell the destroyer when our heart receiueth our Sauiour Tractat. in Iohann 50. So it is not the signe in the forhead but the faith of the heart that maketh Sathan afraid if sometime he auoyd when men signe themselues he is disposed to play with them that he may deceiue them more strongly Secondly we knowe no such meanes to sanctifie creatures by They are blessed and sanctified for our vses as S. Paul saith by the word and prayer 1. Tim. 4. Prayer therefore without warrant of the word is but presumption They therefore hauing no word for their superstitious crossings inuocations incantations popish blessings doe deceiue themselues and others in thinking that the creatures in such order are sanctified vnto them AN APPENDIX CONCERNING THE name of Iesus The Papists THe name of Iesus they say ought to be worshipped by capping and kneeling error 46 thereunto by wearing it in their cappes and setting it vp in solemne places alleadging for their purpose that of S. Paul That at the name of Iesus all things shall bow Philipp 2.10 Yea they say that Protestants by abolishing the name and Image of Christ doe make a way for Antichrist
lier Augustine sayth of Christ Secundum corporalem praesentiam simul in sole luna cruce esse non potest Christ according to his corporall presence cannot be in the Sunne the Moone and vpon the Crosse all at one time And concerning the other poynt he writeth thus Spatia locorum tolle corporibus nusquam erunt quia nusquam erunt nec erunt Take away space of place from bodies and they shall be no where and if they be in no place then are they not at all Argum. 2. The reall and carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament is a thing superfluous needles and vnprofitable First the fauour of God in the remission of sinnes through Christ is as well sealed vnto vs in Baptisme as in the Lords Supper what neede then the carnal presence in the one more then in the other Secondly that Christ is in bodie present in the Sacrament is not perceiued by any sense for they neither tast him see him nor feele him it must be then a worke of faith but by faith Christ is as well apprehended being absent as being supposed in this manner to be present Ergo this kind of presence is needles Argum. 3. It is an inglorious vnworthie and vnseemely thing that the glorious and impassible bodie of Christ should be inclosed in the formes of bread and wine deuoured and chawed eaten and gnawed of mice subiect to mould and rottennes to be spilt vpon the ground burnt in the fire for all these inconueniences must needes follow vpon the carnall presence Bellarm. It is no more inglorious or impossible for these things now to happen to the bodie of Christ thē it was for him to be carried in his mothers womb to be swathed in swadling bands and to be subiect to iniuries which were done to his bodie vpon earth Ans. First as though there be the like reason of the passible bodie of Christ while he liued in the world which was buffeted whipped pearced with nayles crucified and of his glorious and impassible bodie now that it may in like manner be rent and diuided Secondly neither was it possible that Christs passible bodie should be subiect to the like infirmities as to rottennes corruption consumption in the fire as his bodie is now in the Sacrament If it were then verified in Christ Thou shalt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption for his bodie did not putrifie or corrupt in the graue much more is it true in the glorious bodie of Christ that it cannot suffer any such things How then are you not ashamed to affirme that the bread and wine are made in the Sacrament the very bodie and blood of Christ seeing those elements if they be kept long will waxe sower and mouldie and fall to corruption which things once to thinke of the glorious bodie of Christ were great impietie Leaue off for shame then these your grosse opinions so much derogatorie to the glorie and honour of Christ. THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERNING Transubstantiation The Papists IF any man shall say that there remaineth the substance of bread and wine in the Sacrament after the words of consecration or shall denye that the whole error 115 substance of bread is changed and conuerted into the bodie of Christ and the whole substance of wine into the blood of Christ the formes and shewes onely of bread and wine remaining which singular and miraculous conuersion the Church calleth Transubstantiation let him be accursed Concil Tridentin sess 13. can 2. Bellarm. lib. 3. de sacra euchar cap. 19. Rhemist Matth. 17. sect 1. Argum. 1. Christ transfigured his bodie marueilously in the Mount as wee reade Math. 17. sect 1. Ergo he is able to exhibite his bodie vnder the formes of bread and wine Rhemist Ans. First your argument followeth not Christ could giue a glorious forme to his passible bodie Ergo he can take away the essentiall properties of his naturall bodie and yet keepe a true bodie stil. Or thus Christ could glorifie his bodie not yet glorified Ergo he can or will dishonour his glorious impassible bodie by enclosing it vnder the formes of base creatures to be deuoured of dogs and mice which is honoured and worshipped of the Angels and Saints in heauen Secondly the question is not so much of Christs power as of his will therefore you conclude not aright Christ is able to doe it Ergo he will Argum. 2. He that seeth water turned into wine by the power of Christ need not to doubt how he changeth bread into his bodie Rhemist Ioh. 2. sect 2. Ans. First when you can bring any warrant out of scripture for your imagined conuersion as we haue for this miracle we will giue eare vnto you Secondly and when it shall appeare to the senses that the bread is changed into flesh as the water was knowne to be turned into the wine by the colour and tast we shall then no more doubt of this conuersion of the bread then they did of the other of water Thirdly if Christ could alter and change the substances of creatures what reason haue you to giue such an omnipotent power to euery priest with a fewe words to doe as much as Christ himselfe could when he was present Fourthly all this proueth but an abilitie and power in Christ not a will or purpose to worke any such change or conuersion Argum. 3. Though the substance of bread and wine be chaunged yet the formes remaine still for these causes First because if the formes also should be changed there should be no sensible signe left and so no Sacrament Secondly the faith of the receiuer is the better tried this way who beleeueth the flesh of Christ to be present though he see it not Thirdly Christ would not haue the formes altered because man abhorreth to eate humane flesh in the proper shape Bellarm. cap. 22. Ans. First your first reason is insufficient for neither doe the bare and naked signes or accidents of the elements make a Sacrament but the substance of thē for betweene the Sacrament and the thing thereby represented there ought to be some conueniencie and agreement namely as the bodie is nourished by bread and wine so doth the soule feed vpon the bodie and bloud of Christ. But they are not the accidents of bread and wine that nourish vs but the substance Ergo not the accidents but the substance is the visible signe Likewise in Baptisme it is not the forme or outward accident of water that is the signe but the substance of water that washeth 2. It is a more liuely operation of faith to beleeue in Christ absent in heauen then present in earth although he appeare not to the senses And Christ is indeed properly the obiect of faith as he is now in heauen Hope saith the Apostle entreth into that which is within the vaile whither our forerunner Iesus is entred for vs Heb. 6.19 Faith and hope therefore doe leade vs to things within the vaile that is things
in heauen and not vpon the earth 3. What a strange saying is this that Christ giueth his flesh to be eatē in the Sacrament yet hideth it vnder the formes of bread and wine lest men should abhorre to eate it for is it to be thought that Christ would command any vnseemely thing or contrary to humanitie How could the Apostles command the Gentiles to abstaine frō strangled blood Act. 15. whē as by your doctrine they did eate dayly in their assemblies the raw flesh and blood of Christ And how is it that Christ now forgetteth his owne rule He that doth the truth sayth he commeth to the light that his deedes may be made manifest Iohn 3.21 But Christ now flieth the light shrowdeth himselfe vnder the shape of bread and wine and wil not shew his flesh These therefore are but sillie causes which you haue rendered why Christ would haue the substance of bread onely changed and not the accidents The Protestants AS the name of transubstantiation is straunge and newly deuised so is the meaning thereof most vnreasonable that in the Sacrament the substance of bread should be conuerted into the bodie of Christ the formes onely remaining An opinion contrary to scripture reason and common sense Argum. 1. As Christ said Math. 26. pointing to the bread This is my body so he sayth Iohn 6.35 I am the bread but in this place he was not changed into bread why then in the other place should the bread be turned into his body for the speech is all one Argum. 2. The bread in the Eucharist after the consecration is subiect to diuers changes and alterations and so likewise the wine for they may be boyled and made hot they may be infected with poyson for it is certaine that Victor the 3. Pope and Henry the 7. Emperour were poysoned with the Sacrament the wine may waxe sower and turne to vineger the bread may putrifie and breed wormes Ergo the substance of bread and wine remaine still for the accidents cannot be subiect to such alterations and to say that Christs bodie may be thus handled it were great impietie Argum. Pet. Martyris Bellarmine answereth Materia substituitur à Deo in ipso instanti in quo desinunt esse illae species God supplieth some other matter in the very instant when the formes begin to be changed Cap. 24. argum 6. Ans. Is not here good geare thinke you that if a man should come to poyson the Sacrament that is the bread and wine which are alreadie consecrate and made the bodie of Christ God should supplie by a miracle some other matter for him to worke vpon and so God himselfe should be accessarie vnto that wicked act Or if a sillie mouse should be so bold as gnaw vpon a consecrate Host that then likewise some other matter and substance should for that instant be appoynted and so God shall make miracles for mice And why I pray you may not the substance of bread still remaine as well as another substance to be put in the stead thereof Arg. 3. When Christ spake these words Hoc est corpus meum the bread was transubstantiate before or after or while the words were spoken Before they will not say for the elements were not then consecrate nor after for thē Christs words This is my bodie had not been true in that instant when they were spoken Neither was the transubstantiation wrought in the while of speaking for then should it not haue been done all at once but successiuely and one part after another as the words were spoken one after another But this is also contrarie to the opinion of the Papists that would haue it done all together Argum. 4. It is against the nature and propertie of accidents and externall formes to be without a subiect or substance wherein they should rest such are the whitenes and roundnes of the bread the rednes and sweetnes of wine if bread be gone what is become of the roundnes and whitenes and so of the wine If a man aske what round or white thing is this or what red and sweete thing is this shewing the cup what shall be answered we cannot say it is bread or wine for there is none left And I am sure they will not say that the bodie of Christ is either round or white or such like and yet somewhat there must needes be that must take denomination of these accidents Argum. 5. You say the very flesh of Christ that did hang vpon the Crosse is in the Sacrament but that cannot be for that flesh Christ tooke of the Virgine Mary this sacramentall flesh is made of bread Ergo it is not the same flesh which was crucified vpon the Crosse. Bellarm. The bodie of Christ is made of bread but not as any matter or materiall cause thereof but as the wine was made of water by our Sauiour Christ. Ans. And I pray you how was the wine made of the water was not the water the very matter which was turned into wine for one of these three changes and mutations it must needes haue first either the water was annihilate and turned to nothing and so the wine was created of nothing which I am sure you will not graunt secondly or els there was a mixture of wine and water the one being mingled with the other which is likewise false for it was very good and perfect wine neither I thinke will you easily admit that the bodie of Christ and the bread are mingled together in the Sacrament Thirdly there remaineth but the third kind of change that is the conuersion of one substance into another as the water was changed into wine and so is the substance of bread conuerted into the substance of Christs bodie if you will haue any chaunge at all and thus Christ hath gotten by your helpe a breaden bodie another from that which he tooke of the flesh of the Virgine Lastly the diuersitie of opinions which this grosse conceit of the carnall presence of Christ hath hatched doe easily shew and demonstrate vnto vs what we are to thinke of this popish doctrine Some doe hold that the elements doe still remaine in their owne nature in the Sacrament and that together with them the bodie of Christ is carnally present Others doe teach that there remaineth no more bread and wine but onely the verie naturall bodie of Christ of each opinion there are three sorts First of them that hold the elements not to be chaunged 1. Some are of opinion that the bodie of Christ and the elements are locally ioyned together either for that instant onely or els because of the vbiquitie and omnipresence of Christs humanitie of which opinion are the Lutherans 2. Some there were that thought onely so much of the bread to be changed into the bodie of Christ as was receiued of the faithfull and that part which the wicked receiued to be bread still 3. Others taught that the bread was assumed in the Sacrament to the
was the duetie of Angels to worship him Ergo hee merited not his glorification by his death which was due vnto him euen at his first incarnation Argum. 3. If Christ merited his owne glorification then hee also merited the hypostaticall vnion that his manhood should bee ioyned to his Godhead in vnitie of person for his glory maiestie and power giuen to his manhood doth issue and arise from the vniting of his Godhead therewith in one person but his humanity deserued not to be vnited to the Godhead Nemo tam caecus est sayth Augustine No man is so blind that he dare say that Christ by his well liuing merited to be called the Sonne of God And hee prooueth it out of the first of Luk. vers 35. Therefore shall that holy thing bee called the Sonne of God not for any workes going before but because the holy Ghost came vpon her Wherefore the diuine glorie which Christ hath was not merited but his owne it was from the beginning which glory the humane nature in Christ is made partaker of not for any merite but because it is vnited to the Godhead in the same person through the abundant and vnspeakable grace and loue of God vnto mankinde which of his free grace rather tooke vnto himselfe the nature of men then of Angels Wherefore Christ by his perfect obedience and blessed sacrifice hath merited abundantly for vs remission of sinnes and eternall life but by his merites he hath gayned nothing for himselfe neither had he any respect to the bettering of his own estate in his sufferings but onely to pay a raunsome for vs. THE TWENTIETH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE COMMING OF CHRIST TO iudgement which appertaineth to his whole person as he is both God and man THis controuersie hath two partes First concerning the signes which must come to passe before his appearing Secondly of the time and maner of his appearing The first part contayneth three questions Frst whether the Gospell bee already preached to the whole world Secondly whether Henoch and Elias shall come in the flesh before the day of iudgement Thirdly of the great persecutions toward the end of the world THE FIRST QVESTION WHETHER the Gospel be already preached thorough the worlde The Papists error 106 THey denie that the Gospell hath beene already published to all nations of the worlde for there are many great countries which neuer heard of the Gospell as they affirme But before the comming of Christ to iudgement they say it shal be preached to the whole world Bellar. de Roman pâ—ntif lib. 3. cap. 4. Argum. 1. Math. 24.14 Christ sayth This Gospell of the kingdome shall be preached thorough the whole worlde for a witnes vnto all nations then shall the end come The end of the world shall immediately follow the generall preaching of the Gospell which if it hath been performed it is most like to haue been done in the Apostles time then the world should haue ended long agoe Bellarm. ibid. Ans. This word Then doth not alwaies in the scripture signifie a certaine and definite time presently to follow as Math. 9.1 Then he entred into a ship and so forth Luke also setteth foorth the same storie cap. 5.18 Then brought they a man lying in a bed But in saying Then they haue not relation to the same time for they keepe not the same order in rehearsing the storie Matthew setteth downe one thing that was immediatly done by our Sauiour Christ before and Luke another And so is the word Then vsed in other places not to describe a consequence of time with relation to that which went before but absolutely without any such respect to name the time present only wherein any thing is done So tunc then signifieth as much as in illo tempore in that time not which shall immediately follow vpon the generall publishing of the Gospel but which God hath appoynted We must also consider who it is that sayth Then namely God himselfe with whom a thousand yeares is as one day and one day as a thousand yeares Christ Then may come many hundred yeares after and yet it shall be true that then shall the end be But we rather take the first sense that Then is here taken indefinitely as it is thorough the whole chapter as vers 21. Then shall be great tribulation which cannot haue relation to that which he spake of before for then it must be vnderstoode of the destruction of Ierusalem but our Sauiour meaneth by Then the time towards the ende of the world as vers 29. Immediately after the tribulation of those dayes the Sunne shal be darkened Then shall the signe of the Sonne of man appeare Argum. 2. We see the Gospel hath been preached in great countreyes of late which neuer heard the Gospel afore as it is thought Rhemist Math. 24. sect 4. Ans. 1. They speake doubtfully they cannot tell as it is thought say they 2. They meane the preaching of their Friers in those newe found countreyes which was not the preaching of the Gospel but of vile superstition not to conuert the people to God but to robbe and spoyle them and make a pray of them killing slaying them without al mercy reade Benzo in historia noui orbis 3. We deny not but that the Gospell may be reuiued and renued in many countreyes where notwithstanding it was planted many yeares afore As this countrie of ours in ancient time called Britanie was first instructed in the faith by the preaching of Ioseph of Arimathea as Gildas saith or as Nicephorus saith by SimoÌ„ Zelotes yet after that the foundation of the faith thus begun it was confirmed afterward in king Lucius daies by the preaching of Fagane Damiane which at Lucius request were sent into the land from Eleutherius B. of Rome and so may it come to passe in other countreyes a second preaching therefore taketh not away the former but confirmeth and reuiueth it The Protestants THat the Gospell was by the Apostles preached to all the knowen and inhabited nations of the worlde we cannot but affirme being so taught by the scriptures Argum. 1. Our Sauiour saith to his Apostles Ye shal be my witnesses to the vttermost partes of the earth Act. 1.8 which is spoken to the persons of the Apostles not in them to all Pastors and preachers as some expound it for in the same vers there is mention made of the comming of the holy Ghost and howe first they should begin to witnesse at Ierusalem which things were indeede so accomplished in the Apostles Saint Paul also Rom. 10.18 expoundeth that place of the Psalme Their sound is gone forth into all the worlde of the Apostles Agayne seeing the Apostolicall calling and gift is now ceased neither are we to looke that men should be immediatly called from heauen and the preaching of the Gospell to all nations is an Apostolicall worke for the which the Apostles also receiued the gifts of tongues seeing now we haue neither Apostolike