himselfe was no temporall or earthly king and therefore much lesse Peter or the Pope that pretendeth to be Christs Vicar and Peters successour Notwithstanding they that are otherwise minded endevour to proue that Christ was a temporall king and that hee left a kingly power to Peter and his successours First out of Scripture strangely wrested Secondly out of the testimonies of Popes For better authorities they haue none The principall text of Scripture which they alleage is in the Gospell of Saint Matthew where our Sauiour saith All power is given me in heauen and in earth But Bellarmine telleth them and the best Diuines agree with him that that place is not to bee vnderstood of a temporall power such as earthly kings haue but either of a spirituall whereby Christ so raigneth in earth in the hearts of men by faith as hee doth in heaven in the presence of his glorie among the Angels or a diuine power ouer all creatures not communicable to mortall men The former of these interpretations the Authour of the Interlineall Glosse followeth the later Lyra vpon this place his words are Licèt Christus quantum ad diuinitatem ab aeterno haberet hanc potestatem in quantum homo ab instanti conceptionis haberet potestatem in coelo in terra authoritativè tamen executivè non habuit ante resurrectionem suam sed voluit esse passibilitati subiectus propter nostram redemptionem that is Although Christ in that he was God had this power from all eternity and in that hee was man had power both in heauen and in earth from the first moment of his conception in respect of authority yet in respect of the execution and performance of the acts of it he had it not before his resurrection but was pleased to bee subiect to passibilitie for our redemption Let vs come therefore from the Scripture to the testimonies of later Popes for Fathers auncient Councells or auncient Bishops of Rome they haue none to speake for them The first Pope that they alleage is Pope Nicholas in a certaine Epistle of his where he saith as they tell vs that Christ committed and gaue vnto blessed Peter the Key-bearer of eternall life the rights both of the earthly and heauenly Empire To this authority first wee answere that Pope Nicholas hath no such words in any Epistle howsoeuer Gratian who citeth them as the words of Nicholas mistooke the matter Secondly that supposing the words to be the words of Nicholas his meaning may bee that the spirituall power of binding and loosing which Christ left to Peter is not onely of force in earth but in heauen also that being bound in heauen that is bound on earth and they beeing repulsed from the throne of grace in heauen and excluded from Gods fauours that are reiected from the holy Altars and put from the Sacraments of the Church Wherevpon Chrysostome saith that the power of the church directeth and commaundeth the very Tribunall of heauen and addeth that heauen taketh authority of judging from the earth For that the Iudge sitteth on earth and the Lord followeth the sentence of his servants according to that of Christ Whatsoeuer you shall binde on earth shall be bound in heauen Others expound the supposed words of Pope Nicholas of the spirituall power of Peter ouer the good and bad in the visible church the good being named the kingdome of heauen and the bad an earthly kingdome or company But howsoeuer it is most certaine that Pope Nicholas in his Epistle to Michael the Emperour hath the cleane contrary to that which some would charge him with For there hee sheweth that howsoeuer before Christ some were both kings and priests as was Melchisedeck and as likewise some other among the Pagans were yet after Christ none were so Neither did the Emperour take vnto him the rights of the chiefe Priesthood nor the chiefe Priest the name of the Emperour Sed mediator Dei hominum homo Christus sic actibus propriis dignitatibus distinctis officia potestatis vtriusque discreuit vt Christiani Imperatores pro aeterna vita pontificibus indigerent Pontifices pro cursu temporalium tantummodò rerum Imperialibus legibus vterentur that is But the Mediatour of God and men the man Christ did so distinguish and seuer the duties and offices of either of these kinds of power by their proper actions distinct dignities that both Christian Emperours should stand in neede of Bishops for the attaining of eternall life and that Bishoppes should vse the lawes of Emperours for the course of temporall things onely that so both the spirituall action and employment might be free from carnall turmoyles and that he who goeth on warfare vnto God might not at all bee entangled with secular businesses and that on the other side he might not seeme to bee set ouer the things that are Diuine whom the businesses of this world should possesse that both the modestie of each of these orders and degrees might bee preserued and that also no one hauing both these kindes of power should be lifted vp too high The next authoritie is that of Bonifacius the eighth who hath these words speaking of the Church which is one and whereof he supposeth the Bishop of Rome to be the head Wee are instructed by the Evangelicall sayings that in this Church and in the power of it there are two swords to wit a spirituall and a temporall For when the Apostles said Beholde heere are two swords to wit in the Church because they were the Apostles that spake the Lord did not answere that it was too much but that it was enough and therefore surely whosoeuer denyeth the temporall sword to be in the power of Peter seemeth not well to consider the word of the Lord commaunding him to sheathe his sword The answer vnto this authority is easie For Bonifacius as Duarenus noteth was a vaine busie turbulent arrogant and proud man presuming aboue that which was fit and challenging that which no way pertained vnto him and therefore we may justly reject both him and his sayings But for the words of our Sauiour it is euident that they proue no such thing as this Pope would inforce out of them Some saith Maldonatus frō these words would proue that the Church hath two swords the one spirituall the other temporall which whether it haue or haue not cannot be proued out of this place where other swords are meant then either of Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall authority Our Sauiour telleth his Disciples the times approaching will be such as that a man had neede for his owne defence to sell his coate to buy a sword Whereupon the Disciples supposing they should vse materiall swords in their owne defence answere that they haue two swords To whom Christ replyeth that it is enough not confirming their erring opinion but answering them Ironically as Theophylact and Euthymius thinke Or otherwise letting them vnderstand that
same fulnesse of authority in as ample independent sort as before because the benefite of Christ tendeth to no mans hurt grace ouerthroweth not nature therefore still they remaine independent and subiect to none in the same power and in the exercise of it If they shall say they are subject to none while they vse their authority well but that if they abuse it they lose the independent absolutenesse thereof their saying will bee found to bee heteticall For if vpon abuse of independent authority they that haue it lose and forfeit it ipso facto then authority and abuse of authority or at least extreme abuse of it cannot stand together which is contrary to that of Saint Augustine where he saith Nec tyrannicaefactionis perversitas laudabilis erit si regia clementia tyrannus subditos tractet nec vituperabilis ordo regiae potestatis si Rex crudelitate tyrannicâ saeuiat aliud est namque iniustâ potestate iustè velle vti aliud est iustâ potestate iniustè velle vti that is Neither shall the peruersnesse of tyrannicall vsurpation euer be praise worthy though the tyrant vse his subiects with all Kingly clemency nor the order of Kingly power euer be subiect to iust reprehension though a king grow fierce and cruell like a tyrant For it is one thing to vse an vnlawfull power lawfully and another thing to vse a lawfull power vnrighteously vniustly The third reason may bee this If God did giue to the Pope authority to depose Princes erring and abusing their authority hee would giue them the meanes to execute that their authority reacheth vnto to wit ciuill greatnesse armies of Souldiers walled cities towers and strong holds both for defence and offence and all other thinges necessary for the putting downe of wicked Kinges But the Pope as Christs Vicar hath none of these neither was hee at any time as a temporall Prince the greatest monarch of the world and so able to represse the insolencies of all hereticall pagan and wicked Kings hindering the peaceable proceeding of the Gospell of Christ therefore he hath no such authority For to say that God giueth authority not the meanes whereby it may execute and performe that which pertaineth to it is impious The onely meanes the Pope hath to depose Princes are two but neither of them within the compasse of his power to dispose of The first is the raising of subjects against their Prince The second is the raising of neighbour Princes The former of these meanes is very defectiue seeing as Bellarmine rightly obserueth out of Ecclesiasticus Such as the Ruler of a citie is such are they that dwell in it And therefore if the King bee an hereticke the most part of his people will bee so too and rather assist him for the maintenance of his heresie then resist against him for the suppressing of it Which thing as he saith experience teacheth For when Ieroboam became an Idolater the greatest part of the kingdome worshipped Idols When Constantine reigned Christian Religion flourished When Constantius reigned Arrianisme prevailed and ouerflowed all When Iulian swayed the Scepter the greatest part returned to Paganisme So that Iouian being chosen after his death refused to bee Emperour protesting that being a Christian hee neither could nor would bee Emperour ouer infidells Whereupon they all professed that howsoeuer they had dissembled before yet they were still in heart Christians and now would shew it againe So that wee see the first meanes for the suppressing of erring Princes is no meanes or a very vncertaine one And a second is worse then the first For I neuer read in any Diuine of what religion soeuer that one King is bound to make warre vpon another vpon the Popes command for the suppressing of heresie And therefore the Pope may breath out excommunications till he be breathlesse but can goe no farther by any meanes that God hath giuen him Fourthly thus we reason Either the power of the Pope is meerely Ecclesiasticall and spirituall or it is not If it bee not then hath hee ciuill authority from Christ which they deny If it be then can it inflict no punishments but meerely spirituall and Ecclesiasticall For of what nature each power is of the same are the punishments it inflicteth The temporall power inflicteth onely temporall outward and corporall punishments as losse of goods imprisonment banishment or death The spirituall only spirituall as suspension excommunication and the like Now I suppose the losse of a kingdome with all the riches and honour of it captivity banishment or death vpon resistance against the sentence of deposition is a temporall and externall punishment of the worst nature and highest degree that may be Lastly if soueraigne Kings may bee put from their Kingdomes vpon abuse of their authority either they forfeit and lose the right of them ipso facto and are depriued by Almighty God and then the Pope can but declare what God hath already done as any man else may vpon perfect vnderstanding of the case or else other neighbor Kings or their owne subjects are to depose them and the Pope is onely to put them in mind of their duty and as a spirituall pastour to vrge them to the performance of it and then he deposeth thē not but they Or lastly the power of assuming their authority to himself vpon their abuse thereof pertaineth vnto him and then in ciuill authority he is the greatest and ouer all which yet these men deny For hee that is to judge of Princes actions and vpon dislike to limite restraine or wholly take their power from them is supreme in that kinde of authority And if he may take ciuill authority from other and giue it to whom he pleaseth there is no question but hee may giue it vnto himselfe and so hath power vpon all defects of Princes to take into his owne hand that which formerly pertained to them and to doe the acts that were to be performed by them Now as these reasons strongly proue that the Pope cannot depose Princes in ordine ad spiritualia so the weaknes of the reasons brought to proue it will much more confirme the same Their first reason is taken frō the perfection and excellency of the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power which they say is greater and farre more excellent then that which is ciuill Whereunto we answer with Waldensis that though the spirituall power be simply more perfect excellent then the ciuill yet either of these in the performance of things pertaining to them is greater then the other and each of them independent of the other Ambrose was greater then Theodosius in respect of the administration of diuine things might either admit him to or reiect him from the Sacraments But Theodosius in respect of all temporall things was greater then hee and might cōmand him send him into banishment or take away all that he had The Sun is more excellent then the Moon
though the times would be such as that many swords would not suffice to defend them yet that these two were enough because he meant to vse none at all but to suffer all that the malice of his enemies could doe vnto him This Maldonatus deliuereth to be the literall sense of Christs wordes sheweth a mysticall sense of them also out of Beda much more apt then that of Bonifacius Duo gladii saith Beda sufficiunt ad testimonium sponte passi Salvatoris Vnus qui Apostolis audaciam pro Domino certandi evulsà ictu eius auriculâ Domino etiam morituro pietatem virtutemque doceret inesse medicandi Alter quinequaquam vaginâ exemptus ostenderet eos nec totum quod potuere pro eius defensione facere permissos that is Two swords are sufficient to giue testimony vnto our Sauiour that he suffered willingly The one of which might shew that the Apostles wanted no courage to fight for their Master and by the eare that was cut off by the stroke thereof and healed againe by the Lord that he wanted neither piety to compassionate the miserable nor vertue and power to make him whole that was hurt though now hee were ready to dye And the other which neuer was drawne out of the sheath might shew that they were not permitted to doe all that they could haue done in his defence It is not to be denyed but that S. Bernard mystically expounding the words of Christ saith the Church hath two swords of authority But he thinketh it hath them in very different sort For it hath the vse of the one and the benefite of the other The one is to bee drawne by it the other for it So that this is all that hee saith that the sword of ciuill authority is to be vsed by the Souldiers hand at the commaund of the Emperour by the direction and at the suite of the Church From Bonifacius they passe to Innocentius the third who in the vacancy of the Empire willed those that were wronged in their rightfull causes to haue recourse either to some Bishop or to himselfe And Clemens the fifth who professeth to intermeddle with certaine secular businesses affaires and to determine certaine ciuill causes vpon three seuerall grounds Whereof the first is his greatnesse making him superiour to the Emperour The second his being in steed of the Emperour in the vacancy of the Empire And the third the fulnesse of power which Christ the King of Kings and Lord of Lords gaue vnto Peter and in him to his successours Whatsoeuer wee thinke of the former of these two Popes who seemeth to ground his intermedling in ciuill affaires vpon some law of the Empire and concession of ciuill Princes accordingly as we reade of Theodosius that he permitted any Lay-men hauing ciuill differences among themselues to referre the same to Ecclesiasticall Iudges if they listed Which concession proceeding ex pietate not ex debito that is out of piety and not out of any right or necessity that it must bee soe is long since growne out of vse the state of Church-men beeing much changed from that it was when hee granted them that priuiledge as Duarenus sheweth Yet Pope Clemens can by no meanes be excused from hereticall impiety affirming that which is most vntrue as may appeare by the many fold reasons brought before to proue the contrary nor from Antichristian pride in seeking to tread vnderneath his feete the crownes and dignities of Kings and Princes and to lift himselfe vp aboue all that is called God CHAP. 45. Of the Popes vnjust claime to intermeddle with the affaires of Princes and their states if not as soueraigne Lord ouer all yet at least in Ordine ad spiritualia and in case of Princes failing to do their duties THAT Christ was no earthly King that he left no Kingly power to Peter and that the Pope hath no meere temporall power in that he is Christs Vicar or Peters successor it is most euident out of the former discourse and the Cardinall Iesuite confesseth so much and yet he thinketh the Pope hath a supreme power to dispose of all temporall states and things in ordine ad bonum spirituale that is in a kinde of reference to the procuring and setting forward of the spirituall good But this fancy is most easily refuted by vnanswerable reasons presupposing his former concession For first no man can take away limit or restraine any power or the excercise of it but he in whom it is in eminent sort and from whom it was receiued But the ciuill power that is in Princes is not in the Pope neither did it proceede and come originally from him therefore it cannot be restrained limited or taken away by him The maior proposition is euident the assumption is proued because ciuill power is in heathen infidels who no way hold of the Pope Secondly because it is agreed by all Diuines of worth and learning that the ciuill power in the first originall of it is immediately from God or if not immediately by his owne deliuery thereof yet by no other mediation then that of the law of nature and nations The Emperours know saith Tertullian who gaue them the Empire they know that it was euen the same God who gaue vnto them to be men and to haue humane soules They well perceiue that he onely is God in whose onely power they are à quo sunt secundi post quem primi ante omnes super omnes Deos that is After whom they are in order the second but among all other the first before and aboue all Gods And againe Inde est Imperator vnde homo antequam Imperator inde potest as illi vnde spiritus that is From thence is the chiefe ruler and Emperor whence he was a man before hee was an Emperour from thence hath hee his power from whence he receiued the spirit of life The Author of the answer to the reports of a great and worthy Iudge among vs who hath lately written in the defence of the Popes ouerspreading greatnesse seemeth in part to agree with Tertullian and telleth vs that ciuill power is receiued from God not immediately by his owne deliuery thereof but mediately rather by the mediation of the law of nature and nations For by the law of nature God hath ordained that there should be politicke gouernment which the law of nations assuming hath transferred that gouernment to one or more according to the diuers formes thereof And Occam proueth at large that Imperiall power is not from the Pope and that it is hereticall to say that all lawfull ciuil power is from the Pope Our second reason is this Absolute soueraigne ciuill Princes while they were infidels had true dominion rule and authority holding it as immediatly from God not depending on any ruler of the church as hath beene shewed before But when they become Christians they still remaine in the
the influence thereof more powerfull yet is there a kind of influence vpon the waters wherein the Moon is more excellent then the Sun In like sort the power which is spirituall may do greater things then that which is temporall yet the temporall may do those things the spirituall cannot do And therfore it will not follow that the Ecclesiasticall state the principall Ministers of the Church may take vnto themselues the authority of Kings or take vpon them to do the things that pertaine to Kingly offices because they are greater in dignity and haue a greater power vnlesse they had a greater dignity power in the same kind Nowthey who most amplifie the greatnes of Ecclesiasticall power preferring it before the other which is ciuill neuer make the greatnes of it to consist in that in ciuill affaires it may do more then that but in that it hath a more noble object more wonderfull effects We also saith Nazianzen haue power and authority that farre more ample and excellent then that of ciuill Princes insomuch as it is fit the flesh should yeeld to the spirit things earthly to things heauenly Priesthood saith Chrysostome is a Princedome more honourable great then a Kingdome tell not mee of the purple diademe scepter or golden apparell of Kings for these are but shadowes and more vaine then flowres at the spring time If you will see the difference betweene them how much the King is inferiour to the Priest cōsider the manner of the power deliuered to them both you shall see the Priests tribunall much higher then that of the King who hath receiued only the administratiō of earthly things But the Priests tribunal is placed in heauē he hath authority to pronoūce sentence in heauēly affairs And again Earthly Princes haue power to bind but our bodies onely but the bands which Priests can lay vpō vs do touch the soul it self reach euen vnto the heauēs so far forth as that whatsoeuer Priests shal determin here beneath that God doth ratifie aboue in heauen and confirme the sentence of his seruants vpon earth When king Richard the first returning from the holy land was taken and holde as a prisoner by Duke Leopold of Austria and the Emperour Henry the sixth Queene Elenor his mother seeking all meanes to procure his deliuerance among other thinges wrote a letter to the Bishop of Rome intreating him to interpose his authority The words of her letter are these expressing the passion and earnest desire of her heart This onely remaineth ô Father that you draw forth the sword of Peter against malefactors which sword God hath appointed to be ouer nations and kingdomes The Crosse of Christ doth excell the Eagles that are in Caesars Banners the spirituall sword of Peter is of more power then was the temporall sword of Constantine the Emperour and the See Apostolicke is more potent then any Imperiall power or authority and I would aske whether your power be of God or of men did not the God of Gods speake to you in Peter the Apostle saying Whatsoeuer you shall binde vpon earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer you shall loose on earth shall bee loosed in heauen and why then do you so negligently or rather cruelly delay for a long time to lose my sonne or why dare you not do it perhaps you will say that the power giuen you by God of binding and losing is for soules and not for bodies Let it bee so truly it is sufficiont for vs if you will binde the soules of those that hold my sons body bound in prison By all these sayings of them that most admired the excellency of Priesthood it appeareth that the excellencie thereof aboue princely power is in respect of the object thereof which is more noble the effects thereof which are more wonderfull not in respect of greater power authority right to dispose of temporal affaires businesses either simply or vpon any abuse or negligence of ciuil Princes So that from hence it cannot be inferred that the chiefe ministers of the Church may depose the Princes of the world Hugo de sancto Victore sayth There are two kinds of power the one terrene the head whereof is the King the other spirituall the head whereof is the pope To the Kings power those things pertaine that are terrene to the Popes those that are spirituall and looke how much the spirituall life is better then the earthly so much doth the spirituall power excell the earthly in honour and dignity For the spirituall power doth constitute the terrene power that it may be and iudgeth it whether it proceede aright or not But it selfe was first instituted of God and when it goeth aside can bee judged of none but of God onely From hence as Waldensis sheweth some men tooke an occasion of errour affirming that the roote of terrene power doth so farre fotrh depend vpon the Pope that by commission from him the execution of things pertaining thereunto is deriued vnto the Prince and that when the Prince goeth aside or faileth to do his duty the chiefe Bishop may manage the ciuill affaires because hee saith the spirituall power doth institute the ciuil power that it may be But these men presume too farre and in so doing offend because the terrene power of Kings is not reduced into any other originally as hauing authority ouer Kings but vnto Christ onely and yet notwithstanding as the Priest joyneth the man and his wife in marriage and blesseth them that they may be man and wife and joyfull parents of happy children and judgeth afterwards whether they performe the duties of marriage or not So the chiefe Priest setteth the crowne vpon the head of the Empreor anointeth him with holy oyle taketh an oath of him for the defence of the Christian faith and religion putteth vpon him the royall robes and thereby inuesteth him with royall power putteth him in possession of his Imperiall state and dignity But it is not to be imagined saith Waldensis that the imperiall power is from the power of the Church or dependeth of it though certaine solemnities bee vsed by Bishops in the inauguration of Kings and Emperours neither may the chiefe Ministers of the Church any more challenge the disposing or managing of ciuill affaires vpon any defect or failing of ciuill Princes then they may the administration and dispensation of holy things vpon the defect or failing of the Ecclesiasticall Ministers Yet in case of necessity either of these two states may and ought to helpe and succour the other not as he sayth vt vtens potestate sed fraternitatis accessu that is Not as hauing authority or by vertue thereof presuming to doe any thing but as one brother maketh hast to helpe another in danger reaching forth the hand to stay him that is standing and to raise him that is fallen Both the brethren sayth Waldensis both
sort was diuided vpon a meere mistaking and that Athanasius by making either part rightly to vnderstand the other procured a reconciliation Neither neede this to seeme strange for oftentimes controversies are multiplied and by ill handling made intricate that in trueth indeede are no controversies and might easily bee cleared if there were a due proceeding in the discussing of the same So that the Treatiser had no reason to say that an indifferent reader will hardly excuse me frō error in this behalfe Wherefore let vs goe forward and see what other proofes hee bringeth to proue that my assertiō cannot be true First whereas I say there is no difference touching the Sacramēt the vbiquitary presence the like between the Lutherans Sacramētaries as he maketh me to speak he saith I may easily be cōvinced of vntruth because Caluin avoucheth that by the vbiquitary presence Marcion an anciēt heretick is raised vp out of hell a thousand bookes are written about the same point shewing how great dissentions there haue beene in the world touching the same But this proofe is easily disproued for though it bee true that Caluine hath that to imagine that the body of Christ hath no finite dimensions but such as are extended as farre as heauen earth and that it is euery where by actuall position or locall extension is to make it a fantasticall body and to raise vppe the old hereticke Marcion out of hell yet to thinke that Christs body is personally euery where in respect of the conjunction and vnion it hath with God by reason whereof it is no where seuered from God who is euery where neither Calvine nor any other Oxthodoxall Diuine euer condemned So that the Diuines of Germany condemning that kinde of vbiquitary presence that Caluine doth and Caluine allowing that other whereof they speake they must of necessity agree together notwithstanding any thing the Treatiser can say to the contrary but because I haue largely handled this matter touching the vbiquitary presence and the Sacrament in my fifth Booke of the Church and in my answere to Higgons I will no longer infist vpon it but referre the Reader to the former places Secondly whereas I affirme that none of the differences betweene Melancthon and Illyricus except about certaine ceremonies were reall hee sayth whosoeuer readeth the actes of the Synode holden by the Lutherans at Altenberge and the writings of the Flaccians against the Synergists and Adiaphorists shall finde dissentions touching greater matters For the cleering of this objection it must bee obserued that the supposed differences betweene those whom the Treatiser calleth Flaccians and the other whom he nameth Synergists were touching the co-operation of the wil of man with the grace of God in her first conuersion vnto GOD and the necessity of good workes to saluation Concerning the former of these two poynts it was euer agreed on between both these sorts of men that after the first conuersion there is a co-operation of the will of man altered renewed by the worke of Gods Spirit with grace in all ensuing actions of piety and vertue and in this sence both of them as defending a Synergy or co-operation of mans wil with Gods grace might rightly bee named Synergists 2ly It was likewise agreed on by both sorts that man by the fall of Adam and in the state of sinne is not onely wounded in the powers of his soule in respect of things naturall externall and politicall so that hee cannot performe any action so well in any of these kindes of thinges as before hee could but that hee is vtterly spoyled of all power strength and ability to doe any spirituall and supernaturall actions of true vertue and piety and is not onely halfe dead but wholly dead hauing no more power of himselfe to doe any thing that is good then a dead man hath to performe the workes of life Thirdly it was agreed on that there is not left in men corrupted by Adams fall the least sparke of morall or spirituall good desire or inclination which being blowed vpon and stirred may concurre with Gods grace for the bringing forth of any good worke So that neither of them were Synergists in this sense though Illyricus Museus and other supposed that Victorinus and some other did thinke so Fourthly it was with like vnanimous consent agreed on that there remaineth still in man after the fal a desire of good and of that good wherein there is no defect of good no mixture of euill no mutability nor feare of being lost though such be the infelicity of sinfull man that hauing his vnderstanding darkned and his will peruersly inclined he seeketh and supposeth he may finde this good where it is not to be found So that when God commeth to conuert and turne a sinfull man to himselfe he needeth not newly to put a desire of good into him for that is naturally found in him but by inlightning the vnderstanding that it may discerne and see what true good is and where it is to bee found and by turning the will from desiring that as good which is not or not in such degree as is supposed he maketh him a good and happie man that was euill and miserable before Neither doth he create a will in man but changeth the will he findeth in him that it may affect that which it did not and so createth a new will and heart in him that is frameth him to the desire of that from which hee was most averse before There is then no spirituall nor morall good in man when he is to bee conuerted vnto God no knowledge of true and spirituall good nor no desire of the same which being stirred vp may concurre with the grace of God and therefore no synergy or co-operation of any such good knowledge or desire of good with the grace of God in our first conuersion but that confused knowledge of good and naturall inclination to desire it that is found in man before his conuersion when good desires are to be raised in him concurreth with the grace of God directing the vnderstanding to seeke that good where it is to bee found and turning bending and bowing the heart to the loue and liking of it For that man desireth that which seemeth good vnto him he hath of nature that he desireth that which seemeth and is not hee hath from the corruption of nature and it argueth sinfull defect and that hee desireth the true good and rightly it is of grace directing the vnderstanding and turning the will from affecting that which before peruersly it did desire to seeke that which it should and in such sort as it should And so in that hee doth desire and pursue that which he thinketh to be good out of the naturall inclination of his will but that which indeede is and he should thinke to be good out of the motions of the spirit there is a kinde of Synergy or co-operation of the naturall powers of man
of rest till the day of the resurrection Yea it is knowne to all them that haue perused the monuments of Antiquitie that Iraeneus Iustin Martyr Tertullian and sundry others were of opinion that none of the iust are in Heauen till the end and consummation of all things but that they are below in some part of hell or in some hidden inuisible place sequestred from the presence of God till the second comming of the sonne of man Now seeing the inuocation of Saints presupposeth that they pray for vs in particular and particular prayer for vs knowledge of our wants which the presence and sight of God is supposed to afford them if they do not yet enioy the presence of God as many of the Auncient though falsely did thinke wee see not how in their iudgment there should be any safe and fruitfull inuocating of them For the absence from GOD and the not enioying of his sight and presence is the reason alleaged by our adversaries why the Fathers in the time before Christ neither prayed in particular for the Church on earth nor were prayed vnto as being in Lymbus and not in heauen Howsoever it is most certaine if we looke into the auncient practise of the Church that the Saints in their anniuersarie solemnities and holy daies were not prayed vnto but remembred only proposed for imitation rather prayed for then prayed vnto as it appeareth by that Innocentius reporteth that in the Feast of blessed Leo the auncient custome was to pray that the solemnitie of that day and the oblations then offered might bee auaileable to his soule for the encrease and consummation of his glory which since hath beene altered the prayer is now that by his mediation this Festivall solemnity may availe and be to the good of them that obserue and keepe it So that it cannot be shewed by our adversaries that before the auncient Liturgies were abandoned and those brought in by Gregory had gotten into their place there was any invocation of the Saints found in the publique prayers of the Church but when their names were remembred men prayed only to God that he would giue them grace to follow their examples make them partakers of that happinesse which those blessed ones already enjoy And at that time when this alteration began the invocation was not brought into the Liturgie and publique prayers of the Church in direct forme but men prayed still vnto God only though desiring him the rather to respect them for that not only their brethren on earth but they also that are in heauen cease not prostrate before his sacred Majestie to pray for them Neither is there any other forme of prayer found in the Missall but in the sequences and Litanies onely Wherefore to conclude this matter concerning the invocation and adoration of Saints and Angels seeing the Fathers did not in their sette courses of devotion make prayers to the Saints but when they had particular occasions to speake or thinke of them vsed doubtfull compellations desiring them if they had sense of these things to be remembrancers for them vnto God seeing for ought we know the Saints are not particularly acquainted with the state of things here below seeing no degree of spirituall worship is to bee giuen to any creature we invocate them not but pray vnto God onely assuring our selues that if they can heare vs or any way further our suites they will doe it when we pray vnto God as Augustine rightly obserueth We adore them not but rest in the judgment of the same Augustine that the Saints are to be honoured for imitation but not to be adored for Religion that they doe not seeke desire or accept any such honour but will haue vs to worship God onely being glad that we are their fellow-servants in well-doing The Romanists evasion that God is onely to bee adored with that highest kinde of religious worship which is named Latria which yeeldeth to him that is worshipped infinite greatnesse but the Saints may be adored with an inferiour kinde of religious worship named Doulia is directly contrary to Augustine who speaking of Saints Angels saith Honoramus eos charitate non servitute Wee honour them with the honour of loue but not of Doulia or service If they say they haue this distinction frō Austine it is true but he doth not vse it to this purpose to make difference of two sorts of religious or spirituall worship the highest degree whereof should be Latria the lowest Doulia neither doth he anywhere call the honour giuen to Saints Doulia but nameth it the honour of loue and fellowship but he vseh to distinguish religious worship euery degree whereof he calleth Latria from that externall and ciuill worship dutie and seruice that men yeeld to their Princes Masters and Rulers which is fitly named Doulia a seruice but it is servitus corporis non animae a seruice of the body and not of the minde For men notwithstanding this servitude haue their mindes and their thoughts free as being knowne to none nor ouerruled by none but GOD onely But the service of the spirit and minde in the lowest degree that can be imagined is due vnto GOD onely and not to bee giuen to any creature for no creature knoweth the secrets of our hearts no creatute can prescribe lawes touching the inward actions thoughts of the mind not hauing knowledge of them nor power to punish them that should offend It is therefore an impious conceipt of the Papists that the Saints both can and doe know all our inward actions and secret thoughts approuing or reprouing excusing or accusing them and that as presidents of our whole life and conuersation and that therefore they are to bee honoured and worshipped with spirituall service or seruice of the spirit and minde Thus then it is true the Centurie writers report that in the third and fourth age after Christ there were some beginnings of that superstition which afterwards grew to be intolerable in the adoration and inuocation of Saints and Angels but neither they nor wee are so ignorant as to thinke that the inuocation of Saints or the adoration of them preuailed in the Church within the compasse of the first six hundred yeares neither doe they as Bellarmine is pleased to slaunder them taxe that as idolatry in the Romane Church which they find to haue beene the practise of all the Fathers for they finde nothing of the Romish Idolatry in these glorious lights of the Christian world CHAP. 21. Of Martyrdome and the excessiue prayses there◅f found in the Fathers THe next allegation against them is touching Martyrdome which Bellarmine saith they suppose the Fathers did too immoderately and excessiuely magnifie and extoll The reason of this their censure hee thinketh is because they will not admitte it to bee a kinde of Baptisme and to wash away sinne as both the Romanists and the Fathers teach For the better
that should bee in the will but is not when it faileth to bring forth that action that in duty it is bound to doe But some man will say this must not be granted for if wee admitte not the distinction of that which is formall that which is materiall in the sin of commission the difformity the substance of the act that the one is positiue and the other priuatiue God hauing a true efficiency in respect of the substance of the act that which is positiue in it we must acknowledg that he hath a true efficiency in respect of the whole euen the difformity aswell as the substance consequently make him the author of sin They who make this objection seeme to say some thing but indeed they say nothing for this distinction will not cleere the doubt they moue touching Gods efficiency working in the sinful actions of men Whensoeuer sayth Durandus two things are inseperably ioyned together whosoeuer knowing them both that they are so inseperably ioyned together chooseth the one chooseth the other also because though happily he would not choose it absolutly as being evill yet in that it is ioyned to that which he doth will neither can be seperated frō it it is of necessity that he must will both As it appeareth in those voluntary actions that are mixt as when a man casteth into the sea those rich commodities which he hath dearly bought brought from a farre to saue his owne life which he would not doe but in such a case Hence it followeth that the act of hating God sinfull difformity being so inseperably ioyned together that the one cannot bee diuided from the other for a man cannot hate God but he must sin damnably if God doth will the one he doth will the other also This of Durand is confirmed by Suarez who saith he shall neuer satisfie any man that doubteth how God may be cleared from being author of sin if hee haue an efficiency in the sinfull actions of men that shall answere that all that is sayd touching Gods efficiency concurrence is true in respect of the euill motions actions of mens wills materially considered not formally in that they are evill sinfull For the one of these is consequent vpon another For a free and deliberate act of a created will about such an obiect with such circumstances cannot be produced but it must haue difformity annexed to it There are some operations or actions saith Cumel that are intrinsecally euill so that in them we cannot separate that which is materiall from that which is formall wherein the sinfulnes of sin consisteth as it appeareth in the hate of God in this act when a man shall say resolue I will do euill So that it implyeth a contradiction that God should effectually worke our will to bring forth such actions in respect of that which is materiall in them not in respect of that which is formall And this seemeth yet more impossible if wee admit their opinion who think that the formall nature being of the sin of commission consisteth in some thing that is positiue as in the manner of working freely so as to repugne to the rule of reason law of God So that it is cleare in the iudgment of these great diuines that if God haue a true reall efficiency in respect of the substance of these sinful actiōs he must in a sort produce the difformity or that which is formall in thē Wherefore for the clearing of this point we must obserue that there are 3 opiniōs touching Gods cōcurrence with 2d causes in producing their effects The 1st that God hath no immediate influence but mediate only in respect of volūtary agēts And according to this opiniō it is casie to cleare God frō the imputatiō of being author of sin yet to acknowledg his cōcurrence with 2d causes in producing their defectiue effects If the will of the creature saith Scotus were the totall and immediate cause of her action that God had no immediate efficiency but mediate only in respect thereof as some think it were easie according to that opinion to shew how God may bee freed from the imputation of being author of sin and yet to acknowledge his concurrence with second causes for the producing of their effects For whether we speake of that which is materiall or formall in sinne the will onely should be the totall cause of it and God should no way be a cause of it but mediatly in that hee caused and produced such a will that might at her pleasure doe what shee would Durandus seemeth to incline to this opinion supposing that 2d causes do bring forth their actions operations by of themselues that God no otherwise concurreth actiuely to the production of the same but in that he preserueth the 2d causes in that being power of working which at first he gaue them But they that are of sounder judgment resolue that as the light enlightneth the aire with the aire all other inferior things so god not only giueth being power of working to the 2d causes preserueth them in the same but together with them hath an immediate influence into the things that are to be effected by the God saith Caietan being the first cause worketh produceth the effects of all 2d causes immediatly tum immediatione virtutis tum immediatione suppositi that is not onely so as that the vertue power of God the first agent immediatly sheweth it self in the production of the effect but so also that he is an immediate agent between whom the effect produced no secondary agent intercedeth Yet are we not to conceiue that he is an immediate agent immediatione suppositi as he is immediatione virtutis for hee produceth immediatly euery effect of euery 2◠cause in respect of all that is found in any such effect immediatly immediatione virtutis that is so as that his vertue and power more immediatly effectually sheweth it self in the production of euery such effect then the power and vertue of the 2d cause but hee produceth euery effect of euery 2d cause immediatly immediatione suppositi that is as an immediate agent betweene whom and the effect no secondary agent intercedeth not in respect of all that is found in such an effect but of some things only as existence and the last perfection of actuall being For to giue being is proper to God as to make fire is proper to fire So that between God the supreme agent and being communicated to the effects of 2d causes there is nothing that commeth betweene that by force and power of it owne can produce any such effect So that God as an immediate agent bringeth forth such effects and all 2 causes in respect thereof are but instruments only But in respect of those things found in the same effects into which the 2d causes haue an influence by
not be if his concurse were indefinite generall only 3ly If it were as these men imagine the determination of the will of the creature should not bee within the compasse of things ordered by diuine prouidence and so God should not haue particular prouidence of euery particular thing That this is consequent vpon the fancie of indefinite concurse it is euident For if Gods concurse bee indefinite and in generall only then doth hee not truly and efficiently worke that the will of the creature shall in particular encline to and bring forth such an indiuiduall actiō And if he be not the cause that it so enclineth worketh his prouidence extēdeth not to such working seing his prouidence extēdeth to those things only wherein he hath a working So that if these things were soe as these men imagine Gods prouidence should extend it selfe to contingent things in a generality only in that he hath giuen to intellectual creatures a freedome to what whē how it pleaseth thē in particular in respect ofthings of this nature hee should haue a presidence onely and no prouidence Neither doth that which is alleaged by these men touching the indifferēt cōcurse of the Sunne or that of a man offering his concurrence in a generality only proue that Gods concurse is such For the Sunne is a finite and limited thing hauing something in act somthing in possibility so is man likewise therefore they may be determined to produce such such indiuiduall acts by the concurse of some other cause But God is a cause of infinite perfection and a pure act hauing nothing admixt of possibility so that his action and will cannot bee determined limited by any other Wherefore the resolution of the best diuines is that Gods concurse influence is not into the effects of 2d causes only but into the 2d causes thēselues So that he doth not only by an immediate concurse influence concurre with the 2d causes for the bringing forth of such effects as they determine themselues vnto but he hath an influence into the 2d causes thēselues mouing working thē to bring forth effects such effects as he thinketh good to worke thē vnto This is proued by sundry reasons First as we see 2d causes do not only produce some certaine effects operations as within some certaine kind but they giue vnto thē their last actuall perfection to bee But this they cānot giue vnlesse they be made cōpleate in vertue actiue by the first agent because an agent must be no lesse actuall then the effect or operation it bringeth forth But euery created agent is mixed compounded of actuall being possibility is not so actuall as an execution that is a 2d act therefore before it can bring forth any execution or effect it must be made cōpleate in vertue operatiue by the actuall motion of the first agent 2ly To bee is a most vniuersall act the proper effect of God onely therefore if wee will speak formally properly 2d causes in that they giue being to their own effects are but instruments of God whence it will follow that they must be moved by him in nature before they giue being to any of their effects For an instrument doth nothing towards the producing of the effect of the principall agent vnlesse it be actually moued by the principall agent 3ly Euery such thing as is somtimes an agent in act sometimes but potentially only must be moued by some mouer that is a pure act hath nothing mingled with it of possibility before it eā bring forth any actiō But the will of the creature is somtimes actually in actiō somtimes but potētially only therefore it must be moued by the first act before it can bring forth any action Which must bee granted for that otherwise the will of the creature in respect of some actions should bee the first mouer of it selfe and the first determiner That which is wrought by God in and vpon the second causes to make them actually to bee in action is a thing that hath a kinde of incompleate beeing in such sort as colours haue a being in the aire and the power of the act in the instrument of the artificer and so often as 2◠causes whether of naturall or supernaturall order haue in respect of the forme inherent in them a sufficient actiue power in the nature of the first act to bring forth their effects the helpe or precedent motion of God whereby he moueth and applyeth the same actiue powers to operate is not a qualitie but is more properly named a powerfull motion whereby the first and most vniversall agent so worketh vpon them that the 2d causes are actually in action euery one in sort fitting to the nature condition of it And to this purpose it is that Tho Aquinas hath that habituall grace is a quality but the actuall help whereby God moueth vs to will a thing is not a quality but a certain motion of the mind And surely it will easily appeare that there is a great difference between these For the habite doth perfit the power of the soule as a forme or first act implying possibility in respect of actuall operation because the habite doth not determine the power actually to worke but fitteth it only for action inclineth it thereunto But this actuall helpe mouing putting forth the 2d causes into their actions doth not perfit the power of working but makes thē actually to be in action Lastly the habit in respect of the nature of it may be the cause of diuerse actions but that actuall help mouing whereof we speak determineth the will to one individuall action yet taketh not from it a power of dissenting and doing otherwise Alvarez a great learned Archbishop that hath lately written with good allowance of the Church of Rome layeth downe these propositions First that God by an effectuall will predetermined all such acts of men and Angels as are good and all such as are not euill ex obiecto though in individuo they be euill sins ex malâ circumstantiâ Which he proueth out of the 10th of Esay where Almighty God saith Assur is the rod of my wroth he is my staffe I will send him to a deceiptfull nation against the people of my fury will I giue him a command a litle after Shall the axe boast against him that cutteth with it or shall the saw bee lifted vp against him that draweth it as if a rod should be lifted vp against him that lifteth it the staff which is but wood Here it is evident that Assur sinned ex malâ circumstantiâ in subduing the nations and yet it is cleere that God predetermined that he should waste and destroy the nations that he sent him to that purpose and moued him so to doe His 2d proposition is this that whatsoeuer is positiue of being in an act of sin though intrinsecally
vs see how they prooue that they say That they who ordained our Ministers in the beginning of the alteration of Religion had no power so to doe thus they prooue No Bishop may be esteemed and taken as lawfully ordained vnlesse he be ordained of three Bishops at the least and they such as haue beene ordained in like sort and so ascending till we come to the first whom the Apostles did constitute by their Apostolike authority receiued immediatly from Christ the Sonne of God whom the Father sent into the world But the Pastors and Bishops of the reformed Churches had no such ordination therefore they wanted that calling which should make them lawfull Bishops and Pastours It is true that the auncient Canons regularly admit no ordination as lawfull wherein three Bishops at the least doe not concurre But Bellarmine and his fellowes doe not thinke this number of Bishops imposing hands to bee absolutely and essentially necessary For they confesse that by dispensation growing out of due and just consideration of the present occasions and state of things one Bishop alone may ordain assisted with Abbots which are but Presbyters and no Bishops nay which by the course of their profession and originall of their order are lesse interessed in the government of the Church than the meanest Presbyter hauing care of soules Monachus plangentis non docentis officium habet A Monke is a mourner hee is no teacher in the Church of GOD. The Romanists thinking therefore that in some cases the ordination which is made by one Bishoppe alone assisted with Presbyters is lawfull and good cannot generally except against the ordination of the Bishops and Pastours of all reformed Churches For in England Denmarke and some other places they which had beene Bishoppes in the former corrupt state of the Church did ordaine Bishops and Ministers though perhaps precisely three did not alwayes concurre in euery particular ordination But they will say whatsoeuer may bee thought of these places wherein Bishoppes did ordaine yet in many other none but Presbyters did impose handes all which ordinations are clearely voyde and so by consequent many of the pretended reformed Churches as namely those of France and others haue no ministerie at all The next thing therefore to be examined is whether the power of ordination bee so essentially annexed to the order of Bishops that none but Bishops may in any case ordaine For the clearing whereof we must obserue that the whole Ecclesiasticall power is aptly divided into the power of order and jurisdiction Ordo est rerum parium dispariumque vnicuique sua loca tribuens congrua dispositio that is Order is an apt disposing of things whereof some are greater and some lesser some better and some meaner sorting them accordingly into their seuerall ranckes and places First therefore order doth signifie that mutuall reference or relation that things sorted into their seuerall ranckes and places haue betweene themselues Secondly that standing which each thing obtaineth in that it is better or worse greater or lesser then another and so accordingly sorted and placed aboue or below other in the orderly disposition of things The power of holy or Ecclesiasticall order is nothing else but that power which is specially giuen to men sanctified and set apart from others to performe certaine sacred supernaturall and eminent actions which others of another rancke may not at all or not ordinarily meddle with As to preach the word administer the Sacraments and the like The next kind of Ecclesiasticall power is that of Iurisdiction For the more distinct and full vnderstanding whereof wee must note that three things are implyed in the calling of Ecclesiasticall Ministers First an election choyce or designement of persons fitte for so high and excellent imployment Secondly the consecrating of them and giuing them power and authority to intermeddle with things pertaining to the seruice of God to performe eminent actes of gracious efficacie and admirable force tending to the procuring of the eternall good of the sonnes of men and to yeeld vnto them whome Christ hath redeemed with his most precious blood all the comfortable meanes assurances and helpes that may set forward their eternall saluation Thirdly the assigning and diuiding out to each man thus sanctified to so excellent a worke that portion of Gods people which hee is to take care of who must be directed by him in things that pertaine to the hope of eternall saluation This particular assignation giueth to them that had only the power of order before the power of Iurisdiction also ouer the persons of men Thus then it is necessary that the people of God bee sorted into seuerall portions and the sheepe of Christ diuided into seuerall flockes for the more orderly guiding of them yeelding to them the meanes assurances and helpes that may set them forward in the way of eternall life and that seuerall men bee seuerally and specially assigned to take the care and ouersight of seuerall flocks and portions of Gods people The Apostles of Christ and their successours when they planted the Churches so diuided the people of God conuerted by their minsterie into particular Churches that each Citty and the places neere adioyning did make but one Church Now because the vnity and peace of each particular Chuch of God and flock of his sheepe dependeth on the vnity of the Pastour and yet the necessities of the many duties that are to bee performed in Churches of so large extent require more Ecclesiasticall Ministers then one therefore though there bee many Presbyters that is many fatherly guides of one Church yet there is one amongst the rest that is specially Pastor of the place who for distinction sake is named a Bishop to whom an eminent and peerelesse power is giuen for the avoiding of Schismes and factions and the râ—…st are but his assistants and coadiutours and named by the generali name of Presbyters So that in the performance of the acts of Ecclesiasticall Ministry when he is present and will do them himselfe they must giue place and in his absence or when being present hee needeth assistance they may doe nothing without his consent and liking Yea so farre for orders sake is he preferred before the rest that some things are specially reserued to him onely as the ordaining of such as should assist him in the worke of his ministerie the reconciling of Penitents confirmation of such as were baptised by imposition of hands dedication of Churches and such like These being the diuerse sorts and kinds of Ecclesiasticall power it will easily appeare to all them that enter into the due consideration thereof that the power of Ecclesiasticall or sacred order that is the power and authority to intâ—…ddle with things pertaining to the seruice of God and to performe emiâ—…t actes of gracious efficacie tending to the procuring of the eternall good of thâ—… sonnâ—…s of men is equall and the same in all those whom we call Presbyters
of infidels and the like we oppose this proposition That no state of pure or meere nature can be conceiued but that either a man must be lifted aboue himselfe by grace or fall below himselfe by sin And this proposition is proued by vnanswerable reasons For if the principall powers of the soule cannot performe their owne proper actions by any naturall facultie nor without the addition of grace and a kinde of divine force and helpe then can there be no conceipt of a state of pure or meere nature seeing the nature of a thing implieth the powers pertaining to it and a possibility to bring forth the actions of such powers But it is evident that the principall powers of mans soule cannot by any naturall facultie performe their proper actions because the first trueth and chiefest good are the obiects of the reason and the will and these are infinite and the naturall capacitie of reason and the will is finite so that whatsoeuer we vnderstand and conceiue concerning God is so much lesse and commeth so much short of his infinite perfection as the capacitie of our vnderstanding is lesse then the infinite being of God But how then will some man say can man attaine his good beeing so high excellent farre remoued from him and so infinitely beyond without the cōpasse of his naturall facultie The answer hereunto is that though nothing can be lifted vp to be any thing aboue the nature of it yet by forrain helpe a thing may bee carried or lifted aboue it selfe or aboue the nature of it that is aboue that to which the naturall facultie of it extendeth it selfe as a stone may by the hand of man be cast vp on high whether it hath no facultie to moue it selfe so the soule may be raysed and lifted by grace in the acts of her powers aboue that to which by any naturall facultie they can extend themselues For though by nature men cannot know God as he is in himselfe but onely so farre forth as by his effects and glorious workes he may be knowne yet God may present himselfe vnto them in the light of grace as he is in himselfe and make his infinite greatnesse to appeare vnto them and so he must or else man can neuer attaine that which is is his proper good Actus rationalis creaturae sayth Alensis p 3 q 61 memb 1. oportet quod ordinetur ad bonum quod est supra naturam quod est summum bonum infinitum quia ergo non est possibilis extensio rationalis creaturae supra seipsam ideo non est eipossibile per naturā vt ordinet suum actū siue perueniat in suum finem ideo necesse est quod iuuetur à gratiâ The act of a reasonable creature must be directed to a good aboue nature which is the chiefe good and infinite because therefore a reasonable creature cannot raise it selfe aboue it selfe therefore it is not possible that by the power of nature it should order its act or attaine its end and therefore it must be holpen by grace So then there is no immediate knowledge of God as hee is in him selfe no knowledge that in time for his owne sake he made all things of nothing no knowledg how and in what sort wee depend on him how his prouidence reacheth to vs how hee guideth us in all our wayes and consequently how wee should loue him feare him and trust in him and depend vpon him And if within the compasse of nature there bee no such knowledge of God then is there no right loue of God For no man can rightly loue God vnlesse hee rightly know him And if we doe not rightly loue God wee can do nothing well nay wee cannot but continually doe evill For euery thing that a man willeth and affecteth is either God or some other thing besides God If a man loue God not for himselfe but for some other thing this act is sinfull and culpable and not morally good If a man loue any other thing besides God and loue it not finally for God the act of his loue resteth finally in some other thing that is not God and hee loueth it for it selfe without any further reference and soe inioyeth some other thing besides God as if it were the vttermost and most principall good which act is culpable Now if a man remaining within the compasse of nature withour addition of grace cannot but doe euill then can there bee noe state of nature that is not sinnefull without grace and consequently there can bee no state of pure or meere nature seeing euerie thing that is culpable and faulty in any kind is contrary to the nature of the thing wherein it is found and a corruption of nature But that all the principall actions of men without grace are culpable and faulty it is euident because they loue God for some other thing and not for himselfe neuer coming to any knowledge of him as hee is in himselfe and they loue other things for themselues and finally without any reference to God So that grace is necessarily required in man for the performance of his actions so as not to sinne And it is true that Gregorius Ariminensis hath that Adam in the state of his creation was not sufficiently inabled to performe any act morally good or soe to doe any good thing as not to sinne in doing it by any thing in nature if hee had not had speciall grace added Whence it will follow that there is no power to doe good or not to sinne in the nature of a man but from grace that when grace is lost there is an impossibility of doing good and a necessity of doing euill The Papists and wee agree that originall sinne is the privation of original righteousnesse but they suppose there was in nature without that addition of grace a power to doe good and that it was not giuen simply to make man able to do good but constantly and so as to merit heauen so that it being taken away a man may decline each particular sinne and doe the seuerall workes of vertue though neither so as neuer to sinne nor soe as to merit heauen thereby But wee say there neither was nor could be any power in nature as of it selfe to doe any act morally good or not sinnefull that grace was giuen to inable men to performe the actions of their principall powers about their principall obiects and to do good and that it being taken away there is found in them an impotencie to doe any act of vertue and a necessity of sinning in all their morall actions till they be restored again to the state of grace that the difficulty to do good pronenesse to euill contrariety betweene the powers and faculties of the soule and the rebellion of the meaner against the superiour and better are not the conditions of nature as it was or might haue beene in it selfe before the entrance of sinne but that all
darke the length breadth and other dimensions of a thing but not whether it be faire or foule white or blacke So men in this obscurity of discerning may finde out that there is a God and that he is the beginning and cause of all things but they cannot know how faire how good how mercifull and how glorious hee is that so they may loue him feare him honour him and trust in him as God vnlesse they haue an illumination of grace The difference therefore betweene those of the Church of Rome and vs touching originall sinne consisteth in two points First In that they make the former defects of ignorance difficultie to doe good pronenesse to euill contrarietie betweene the powers of the soule and the rebellion of the meaner and inferiour against the better and superiour consequents of nature as it might and would be in it selfe simply considered without all defection and falling from God that originall righteousnesse was giuen to prevent and stay the effects that these naturally would haue brought forth and that these are not the consequents of Adams sinne but that onely the leauing of them free to themselues to disorder all is a consequent of the losse of that righteousnesse which was giuen to Adam and by him forfaited and lost that they proceede from the guilt of sinne but that they make not them guilty in whom they are But we say that these are no conditions of nature simply considered that they cannot bee found but where there is a falling from God that they are the consequents of Adams sinfull aversion from God his Creator that they are a part of original sinne and that they make men guilty of grieuous punishment so long as they remaine in them The second thing is that originall sin is indeed according to their opinion the privation of originall righteousnes but as original righteousnes was not giuen simply to inable men to decline euill and do good but collectiuely constantly and meritoriously to decline euill doe good so the privation of it doth not depriue men of all power of declining euill doing good but only of the power of declining all euill and doing all good collectiuely meritoriously But we say that originall righteousnes was given simply to inable men to decline euill to doe good and that without it the nature of man could not performe her proper and principall actions about her principall obiects So that the privation of it depriveth a man of all power of knowing loving fearing honouring or glorifying God as God and of all power of doing any thing morally good or not sinfull and putteth him into an estate wherein hee cannot but loue and desire things that God would not or so as hee would not haue him yea of louing other things more than God and and so as to dishonour God in any kind rather than not to enjoy the things he desires So that if wee speake of originall sinne formally it is the privation of those excellent gifts of diuine grace inabling vs to know loue feare serue honour and trust in God and to doe the things he delighteth in which Adam had lost If materially it is that habituall inclination that is found in men averse from God carrying them to the loue and desire of finite things more then of God and this also is properly sin making guilty of condemnation the nature and person in which it is found This habituall inclination to desire finite things inordinately is named concupiscence and this concupiscence is two fold as Alensis noteth out of Hugo for there is concupiscentia spiritus and concupiscentia carnis there is a concupiscence of the spirit or superiour faculties of the flesh or inferiour the former is sinne the latter sinne and punishment For what is more iust then that the will refusing to bee ordered by God and desiring what hee would not haue it should finde the inferiour faculties rebellious and inclined to desire things the will would haue to bee declined It remaineth therefore that wee proceede to proue that this doctrine was receiued taught continued in the Churches wherein our Fathers liued died till after Luthers time I haue shewed already that Gregorius Ariminensis professeth that Adam in the state of his creation was not inabled to perform any acte morally good or so to doe any good thing as not to sin in doing it by any thing in nature without addition of grace which thing he proveth out of the master of the sentences whose words are these speaking of the first man before his fall Egebat itaque homo gratiâ non vt liberaret voluntatem suam quae peccati serva non fuerat sed vt praepararet ad volendum efficaciter bonum quod per se non poterat That is The first man needed grace not to free his will for it neuer had been in bondage but to prepare and fit it effectually to will that which is good which of it selfe it could not doe And he confirmeth the same out of Saint August his words are these Istam gratiam non habuit homo primus quâ nunquam vellet esse malus sed habuit in qua si permanere vellet nunquam malus esset sine quâ etiam cum libero arbitrio bonus esse non posset sed eam tamen per liberum arbitrium deserere posset nec ipsum ergo Deus esse voluit sine suâ gratiâ quem reliquit in eius libero arbitrio quoniam liberum arbitrium ad malum sufficit ad bonum auâ—…m parumest nisi adiuuetur ab omnipotenti bono quod adiutorium si homo ille per liberum non deseruisset arbitrium semper esset bonus sed deseruit et desertus est that is The first man had not that grace that might make him so will good as neuer to become euill but truely hee had that wherein if hee would haue continued hee should neuer haue bin euill and without which notwithstanding all the freedome of his will he could not be good yet by the freedome of his will he might loose it wherefore God would not haue him to be without his grace whom he left in the freedome of his will because free will is sufficient of it selfe to doe evill but it is of litle force or rather as the true reading is of no force nothing to do good vnlesse it be holpeÌ„ of the omnipotent good which helpe if maÌ„ had not forsakeÌ„ by his free will he had ever beene good but he forsooke it and was forsaken Thirdly he proueth the same in this sort Si Adam ante peccatum potuisset per suas vires naturales praecise agere actum moraliter bonum ipse potuisset facere se de non bono bonum posito quod aliquando fuisset sine omni actu voluntatis cum suis taÌ„tum naturalibus aut de bono meliorem deo illum non specialiter adiuvante that is If Adam had power before the
beleeued by the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died But they of the Church of Rome at this day dislike this opinion for they suppose that though our will be not free from sinne so as collectiuely to decline each sinne and that though in the state wherein presently we are we cannot but sinne at one time or other in one thing or other yet we may decline each particular sinne divisiuely and doe the true workes of morall vertue Much contending there is hath beene touching freewill wherefore for the clearing of this point two things are to be noted 1 from what and 2dly wherein this liberty may be thought to be The things from which the will may be thought to bee free are fiue 1 The authority of a superiour commander and the duty of obedience 2ly The inspection care gouernment direction and ordering of a superiour 3ly Necessity that either from some externe cause enforcing or from nature inwardly determining and absolutely mouing one way 4ly Sinne the dominion of it 5ly Misery Of these fiue kindes of liberty the 2 first agree only to God so that in the highest degree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is freedome of will is proper to God only and in this sense Calvin and Luther rightly deny that the will of any creature is or euer was free The third kind of libertie is opposite not only to coaction but naturall necessitie also In opposition to coaction the vnderstanding is free for howsoeuer a man may be forced to thinke beleeue contrary to his inclination that is such things as he would not haue to be true yet the vnderstanding cannot assent to any thing contrary to her owne inclination for the vnderstanding is inclined to thinke so of things as they are as they may be made to appeare vnto her to be whether pleasing to nature or not but the vnderstanding is not free from necessitie But the will in her action is free not onely in opposition to coaction but to naturall necessity also Naturall necessitie consisteth herein that when all things required to inable an agent to produce the proper effect thereof are present it hath no power not to bring forth such effect but is put into action by them So the fire hauing fit fuell in due sort put vnto it being blowed vpon cannot but burne The libertie of the will therefore appeareth herein that though all those things be present that are pre-required to inable it to bring forth the proper action of it yet it hath power not to bring it forth and it is still indifferent indeterminate till it determine and incline it selfe God indeed worketh the will to determine it selfe neither isit possible that hee should so worke it and it should not determine it self accordingly yet doth not Gods working vpon the will take from it the power of dissenting and doing the contrary but so inclineth it that hauing libertie to doe otherwise yet shee will actually determine so Here Luther and Calvin are charged with the denyall of this libertie of the will many strange absurdities are attributed to them for first Luther is said to haue affirmed that the will of man is meerely passiue that it produceth not any act but receiueth into it such acts as God alone without any concurrence of it worketh produceth in it But all this is nothing but a meere calumniation for Luther knoweth right well that men produce such actions as are externally good euill willing out of choice confesseth that we doe the good things that God commandeth vs when we are made partakers of his grace but that God worketh vs to doe them Wee beleeue we feare we loue but it is God that worketh vs to beleeue feare loue Certum est nos facere cùm facimus saith Saint Augustine seà Deus facit ut faciamus It is most certain that we doe those things we are said to doe but it is God that maketh vs to doe them not only by perswading inviting inwardly drawing vs by morall inducements but by a true reall efficiencie So that according to Luthers opinion we moue not but as moued nor are actiue but as hauing first bin passiue nor turne our selues but as first wrought vpon and made to turne yet doe wee truely moue our selues and truely freely and cheerefully choose that which is good and turne ou rselues from that which is euill to that which is good Diuines say that facere vt velimus and facere ipsum velle differ very much that is they say it is one thing to make vs to will and another to produce the acte of willing God worketh both but in a different sorte the first sine nobis facientibus nos velle Secundum autem operatur nobiscum simul tempore consentientibus cooperantibus that is God worketh the first of these alone we make not our selues to will the second hee produceth together with vs willing that hee would haue vs and producing that wee doe So that in the former consideration wee are meerely passiue in the latter actiue which neither Luther nor any of his followers ever denyed Calvine they say confesseth that the will concurreth actiuely to the acte which God produceth but without any freedome at all vnlesse wee speake of that freedome which is from coaction It is true indeede that Calvine denyeth vs to bee free from necessity but hee speaketh of the necessity of sinning but hee neuer denyeth vs to bee free from naturall necessitie that is from being put into action so as naturall agents are that is without all choyce and liking ofthat wee incline to doe It is evident that Calvine confesseth the will of man to bee free to doe euill and he denyeth it not to bee free to performe acts civilly good or morally good ex genere obiecto yea hee thinketh that the will freely and out of choyce willeth whatsoeuer it willeth as in the state of auersion it freely willeth that it should not so when God conuerteth it hee turneth the course of the actions and desire of it and maketh it freely and out of choyce to turne to good That men haue lost the freedome from sinne and put themselues into a necessity of sinning Saint Augustine sheweth Libero arbitrio male vtens homo se perdidit ipsum sicut enim qui se occidit vtique vivendo se occidit sed se occidendo non vivit nec seipsum potest resuscitare cum occiderit ita cum libero peccaretur arbitrio victore peccato amissum est liberum arbitrium à quo enim quis devictus est huic servus addictus est Quae sententia cum vera sit qualis quaeso potest servi addicti esse libertas nisi quando eum peccare delectat Liberaliter enim seruit qui sui domini voluntatem libenter facit Ac per hoc ad peccandum liber est qui peccati servus est
vnde ad iustè faciendum liber non erit nisi à peccato liberatus esse institiae caeperit servus Ipsa est vera libertas propter rectè facti laetitiam simul piaservitus propter praecepti obedientiam Sed ista libertas ad bene faciendum vnde erit homini addicto vendito nisi redimat ille cuius illa vox est si vos filius liberaverit verè liberi eritis Quod antequam fieri in homine incipiat quomodo quisquam de libero arbitrio in bono gloriatur opere qui nondum liber est ad operandum benè nisi se vanâ superbiâ inflatus extollat quam cohibet Apostolus dicens Gratiâ salui facti estis per fidem Here wee see necessity of sinning and freedome from naturall necessity doe stand together in the corrupted nature of man Nescio quo prauo miro modo ipsa sibi voluntas peccato quidem in deterius mutata necessitatem facit vt nec necessitas cum voluntaria sit excusare valeat voluntatem nec volnntas cum sit illecta excludere necessitatem Est enim necessitas haec quodam modo voluntaria est favorabilis vis quaedam premendo blandiens blandiendo premens voluntas est quae se cum esset libera servam fecit peccati peccato assentiendo voluntas nihilo minus est quae se sub peccato tenet voluntariè serviendo Vide quid dicas inquit aliquis mihi tune voluntarium dicis quod iam necessarium esse constat Verum quidem est quod voluntas seipsam addixerit sed non ipsa se retinet magis retinetur nolens Bene hoc saltem das quod retinetur Sed vigilanter retine voluntatem esse quam retineri fateris Itaque voluntatem nolentem dicis Non vtique voluntas retinetur non volens voluntas enim volentis est non nolentis Quod 〈◊〉 volens retinetur ipsa seretinet Quid ergo dicet aut quid respondebit ei cum ipsa fecerit Quid fecit Seruam se fecit vnde dicitur qui peccatum facit servus est peccati Propterea cum peccauit peccauit autem cum peccato obedire decrevit servam se fecit Sed fit libera si non adhuc facit Facit autem in eâdem servitute se retinens neque enim non volens voluntas tenetur voluntas enim est Ergo quia volens servam seipsam fecit non modo fecit sed facit Sed non me inquis decredere facies necessitatem quam patior quam in memetipso experior contra quam assiduè luctor Vbinam quaeso hanc necessitatem sentis Nonne in voluntate Non ergo parum firmiter vis quod necessario vis Multum vis quod nolle nequeas nec multum obluctans Porro vbi voluntas libertas quod tamen dico de naturali non de spirituali quâ libertate vt dicit Apostolus Christus nos liberauit Nam de illâ idem ipse dicit vbi spiritus Domini ibi libertas Ita anima miro quodam malo modo sub hâc voluntariâ quâdam malè liberâ necessitate ancilla tenetur libera ancilla propter necessitatem libera propter voluntatem quod magis mirum magisque miserum est eò rea quo libera eoque ancilla quo rea ac per hoc eo ancilla quo libera And afterward Non quod volo hoc ago sed me non alio prohibente quod odi illud facio sed me non alio compellente Atque vtinam haec prohibitio haec compulsio ita esset violenta vt non esset voluntaria forsitan enim sic possem excusari aut certe ita esset voluntaria vt non violenta profecto enim sic possem corrigi It is true that naturall men may doe things that are good ex genere obiecto and performe such externall actions as serue to entertaine this present life but to doe any thing morally good not onely ex genere obiecto but ex fine ci cumstantiis there is no power left in corrupted nature It is excellent to this purpose that wee reade in Saint Augustine Per velle malum rectè perdidit posse bonum qui per posse bonum potuit vincere velle malum Per peccatum igitur liberum arbitrium hominis possibilitatis perdidit bonum non nomen rationem Esse fatemur liberum arbitrium omnibus hominibus habens quidem iudicium rationis non per quod sit idoneum quae ad Deum pertinent sine Deo aut inchoare aut certe peragere sed tantum in operibus vitae praesentis tam bonis quam etiam malis Bonis dico quae de bono naturae oriuntur id est velle laborare in agro velle habere amicum velle habere indumenta velle fabricare domum artem discere diversarum rerum bonarum velle quicquid bonum ad praesentem pertinet vitam c. Malis vero dico vt velle idolum colere velle homicidium And againe de verbis apostoli serm 13. Agis quidem Deo non adiuvante liberâ voluntate sed male Ad hoc idonea est voluntas tua quae vocatur libera malè agendo fit damnabilis ancilla Cum dico tibi sine adiutorio Dei nihil agis nihil boni dico nam ad malè agendum habes sine adiutorio Dei liberam voluntatem quanquam non est illa libera A quo enim quis devictus est huic servus addictus est omnis qui facit peccatum servus est peccati And againe contraduas epistolas Pelag ad Bonifacium lib 1. c. 3. Arbitrium in bono liberum non erit quod liberator non liberauerit sed in malo liberum habet arbitrium And afterward Haec voluntas quae libera est in malis quia delectatur malis ideo libera in bonis non est quia liberata non est And againe De gratia libero arbitrio lib. 1. cap. 15. Semper est in nobis voluntas libera sed non semper est bona Aut enim à iustitiâ libera est quando seruit peccato tunc est mala aut à peccato libera est quando seruit iustitiae tunc est bona Gratia vero Dei semper est bona per hanc fit vt sit homo bonae voluntatis qui prius fuit malae voluntatis And in his booke de correptione gratiâ cap. 1. Liberum arbitrium ad malum ad bonum faciendum confitendum est nos habere sed in malo faciendo liber est quisque iustitiae servusque peccati in bono autem liber esse nullus potest nisi fuerit liberatus And ad Bonifacium lib. 3. cap. 8. Liberum arbitrium captivatum non nisi ad peccatum valet ad iustitiam vero nisi divinitus liberatum adiutumque non valet Again epistola 107. ad Vitalem Liberum arbitrium ad diligendū
disposing the affaires of Princes their States there were euer many worthy men that opposed themselues against his vnjust and Antichristian claimes There are some sayth Waldensis that erre supposing that the roote of all terrene power dependeth in such sort of the Pope that it is deriued vnto Princes by commission from him and that if they abuse the same hee may take the disposing of such affaires as belong vnto them into his own hands This they indeauour to proue because the Ecclesiasticall power is more eminent and excellent than the power of Princes but this their proofe is too weake for let vt runne through all examples of things which are different in degree of excellencie and one of them more worthy than another wee shall see that the Sunne is better than the Moone yet the power and vertue of moystening that is in the Moone is not imparted to it from the Sunne the soule is more excellent than the body yet the body was before the soule came into it and in it many workes of sense are performed which the spirit by it selfe cannot performe gold is better then leade yet doth it not giue being vnto it so that though it were granted that Episcopall dignity is more high and eminent then the authority of Princes yet the first spring of Regall power is in the King from God and not from the Pope There is sayth Waldensis one doctor Adam a Cardinall who in a dialogue betweene a Bishoppe and a King indeauoureth altogether to deriue the authority of Kings from the Papall power both in the being and excercise of it and reserueth onely a power of execution to Princes at the commaund of the high bishop this errour hee condemneth and sayth that howsoeuer the solemnities of the oath vnction crowning and the like are performed to Kings by Bishoppes yet hath not kingly dignity her beginning from Priesthood but by the ministery of Priests Kings receiue it from God and are put in possession of it Fawning and deceitfull flattery sayth Gerson whispereth in the eares of Ecclesiasticall persons especially of the Pope in shamelesse manner saying vnto them O sacred Clergie how great how great is the height and sublimity of thy Ecclesiasticall power how is all secular authority compared thereunto altogether nothing For as all power in heauen and earth was giuen to Christ soe Christ left it all to Peter and his Successours soe that Constantine the Emperour gaue nothing to Pope Syluester that was not his before but onely restored that which had bin vnjustly detayned besides as there is no power but of God so is there none whether Temporall or Ecclesiasticall Imperiall or Regall but from the Pope in whose thigh CHRIST hath written King of Kings and Lord of Lords of whose power to dispute is sacrilegious boldnesse to whom no man may say Sir why doe you so though he alter over-turne waste and confound all States Rules Dominions and Possessions of men whether Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall let me be judged a Lyar saith he if these things bee not found written by them that seeme wise in their owne eyes and if some Popes haue not giuen credit to such lying and flattering wordes Nay I am greatly deceiued if before the holding of the sacred Synode of Constance this tradition did not so farre forth possesse the mindes of very many men rather literall then literate that whosoeuer should haue taught the contrary should haue beene noted and condemned for heresie THE FOVRTH BOOK OF THE PRIVILEDGES OF THE CHVRCH CHAP. 1. Of the divers kindes of the priviledges of the Church and of the different acceptions of the name of the Church NOw it remayneth that wee proceede to the other parts of our first generall diuision to wit the priviledges that pertaine to the Church the diverse and different degrees orders and callings of them to whom the gouernement of it is committed The priviledges that pertaine to the Church are of two sorts The first proper to the best and most essentiall parts of it to wit the elect and chosen of God as are the promises and assurances of euerlasting loue and happinesse the second such as are communicable vnto others not partaking in that highest degree of vnitie the partes of the Church haue amongst themselues or with Christ their head These are specially foure the first the possession of the rich treasure of heauenly trueth whence it is called by Irenaeus Depositoriū diues by the Apostle the pillar and ground of truth The second is the office of teaching and witnessing the same truth The third the authority to iudge of such differences as arise amongst men concerning any part of it The fourth is power to make lawes for the better guiding gouerning of them that professe this truth Touching the first that wee may the better vnderstand in what degree and sort and vpon what assurances the Church is possessed of the knowledge and profession of the truth reuealed in Christ wee must obserue the diverse acceptions of the name of Church for accordingly more or lesse in this kinde is attributed to it and verified of it The Romanistes make the Church to bee of three sorts For there is as they say Ecclesia virtualis repraesentativa essentialis By the name of virtuall Church they vnderstand the Bishoppe of Rome who being by Christes appointment as they suppose chiefe Pastor of the whole Church hath in himselfe eminently and virtually as great certainty of truth infallibility of iudgement as is in the whole Church vpon whom dependeth all that certainety of truth that is found in it By the name of representatiue Church they vnderstand the assembly of Bishops in a generall Councell representing the whole body of the Church from the seuerall parts whereof they come By the name of the essentiall Church they vnderstand the whole multitude of the beleeuers This essentiall Church either comprehendeth all the faithfull that are and haue beene since CHRIST appeared in the flesh or all that are and haue beene since the Apostles time or onely those that now presently liue in the world CHAP. 2. Of the different degrees of infallibility found in the Church IF we speake of the Church as it comprehendeth the whole number of beleeuers that are and haue beene since CHRIST appeared in the flesh it is absolutely free from all errour and ignorance of Diuine things that are to be knowne by revelation Quid enim latuit Petrum c. For as Tertullian sayth rightly and aptly to this purpose What was hidden and concealed from Peter vpon whom Christ promised to build his Church and to whom hee gaue the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen from Iohn the Disciple hee so dearely loued which leaned on his breast at the mysticall Supper and the rest of that blessed company that should after bee manifested to succeeding generations so that touching the Church taken in this sort there is no question but it is absolutely led
to proue that humane lawes doe binde the conscience are so vaine and friuolous that they deserue no answere yet least our aduersaries should thinke wee therefore passe them ouer without examination because wee feare the force and weight of them I will breefely take a view of them and let the Reader see their weakenesse To binde sayth Bellarmine is either the essence or essentiall property of a lawe therefore all lawes whether they bee of God or of men doe binde in the same sort Hee should haue sayd therefore all lawes doc binde whether they bee of God or of men For to say It is the essentiall property of a lawe to binde therefore all lawes doe binde in the same sorte is as if a man should thus reason It is essentiall to all naturall bodies to haue motion therefore the same kinde of motion whereas yet the fire goeth vpward and the earth downewards thinges without life mooue but one way either towards or from the center of the worlde thinges liuing euery way His next reason is more childish then this for hee reasoneth thus If lawes doe binde onely in that they are diuine then all diuine lawes should equally binde This reason concludeth nothing against vs. For first no man sayth that lawes binde onely because diuine for it is essentiall to euery lawe to binde but that they binde the conscience because they are diuine And secondly wee adde that all diuine lawes doe equally binde the conscience For the conscience doth as much feare Gods displeasure and eternall punishment for one sinne as for another though not so great displeasure nor so greiuous punishment And so they equally binde the conscience though there bee no equality either of the sinnes or of the punishment the conscience feareth and seeketh to decline His third reason that Gods commandement maketh those actions that were before indifferent to be actions of vertue therefore men by their precepts doe so likewise is very strange and therefore hee endeauoureth to confirme it The reason sayth hee why Gods precepts and commandements make actions that were indifferent as to eate swines flesh or not to eate it to be actions of vertue is because they are rules of mens manners and conuersation but mens lawes likewise are rules of mens liues manners and conuersation therefore they in like sort make those actions that were before indifferent to be actions of vertue To this wee answere that there are many great differences betweene these two rules First for that the one containeth a certaine and infallible direction the other oftentimes leadeth out of the way Secondly that the lawes of God are rules in such sort that the very thoughts of the heart diuerting from that which they prescribe are sinfull but mens lawes are kept and fullfilled with how bad affections soeuer the things bee done that are prescribed Thirdly because the vse of nothing being lawfull vnto vs in respect of conscience longer nor farther then God the supreme Lord of all alloweth the same it is an action of vertue to abstaine from things denyed vnto vs by GOD either in the first institution of nature or by his positiue lawe but men hauing no such power no such thing is consequent vpon their commaundements or prohibitions Lastly Gods lawe both that which is naturall that is giuen when nature was first instituted and that which is positiue is the rule of mens liues absolutely which if they bee conformed vnto they are morally good if they varie from they are euill and wicked but the lawes of men are rules onely in respect of outward conuersation framing it to the good of the commonwealth Soe that a man euen according to the rules of Philosophy may bee a good Cittizen that is not a good man His next reason is taken from the comparison of a King and his Viceroy the Pope and his Legate and the lawes and edicts of these binding in the same sort To this wee answere that the comparison holdeth not first because the King and his Viceroy command the same things and to the same ends but if wee compare God and men the lawes of God and the lawes of men wee shall finde a great difference betweene them both in the things they commaund and the ends for which they command the one requiring inward actions and the performance of outward with inward affections the other outward onely Secondly because both the King and his viceroy haue power to take notice of all kind of offences committed against both the one and the other and to punish them with the same kind of punishment but there are many offences committed against God by every man whereof men can take no notice and if they could yet haue no power to inflict such punishments as God doth His last reason is taken from that place of the Apostle where he requireth vs to bee subject to power and authority for conscience sake To this wee answere first that it is a matter of conscience to be subject in all things for subjection is required generally and absolutely where obedience is not Secondly we say that it is a matter of conscience to seeke and procure the good of the common-wealth and that therefore it is a matter of conscience to obey good and profitable lawes so farre as we are perswaded our obedience is profitable Thus haue we breefely examined their reasons who thinke that humane lawes binde the conscience the weakenesse whereof I hope all men of any judgment will easily discerne Wherefore to conclude this matter touching the Churches power in making lawes there are three things which we dislike in the doctrine practise of the Romane Church First that they take vpon them to prescribe Ceremonies and observations hauing power to conferre grace for the remission of veniall sinnes and the working of other spirituall supernaturall effects Secondly that they assume vnto themselues that which is proper vnto God seeke to rule in the conscience Thirdly that by the multiplicitie of lawes they dangerously insnare the consciences of men and oppresse them with heauy burdens To this purpose is the complaint that Gerson long since made that the Lawes of the Church were too many and in a great part childish and vnprofitable bringing vs into a worse estate then that of the Iewes as Augustine to Ianuarius complained when things were much better than in latter times they haue beene Neither sayth Gerson are they content to burden vs with the multiplicitie of their lawes but as if they preferred their owne inventions before the Lawes of God they most rigorously exact the performance of the things their owne lawes prescribe neglect the Lawes of God as Christ told the Pharisees and hypocrites of his time pronouncing against them that by their vaine traditions they made the lawes of God of none effect To shew how vnjust and vnreasonable the Romane Lawgiuers are in burdening men with so many traditions the same Gerson fitly obserueth that Adam in
excommunication they may restraine from vse of Sacraments societie of Beleeuers and benefite of the Churches praiers so by Absolution they may free from all these bonds againe Neither is this kinde of binding and loosing lightly to bee esteemed of or little regarded for he that for his contempt and disobedience is debarred from the vfe of the Sacraments from enjoying the societie of the beleeuers and partaking in the benefite of the Churches prayers is vndoubtedly excluded from all accesse to the Throne of grace in Heauen all acceptation there so consequently no lesse bound in Heauen then in Earth and he that is vnloosed from these bonds on Earth is vnloosed and set free in Heauen that without all restraint he may goe boldly to the Throne of Grace to seeke helpe in the time of neede Thus wee see the diuerse kindes of binding and loosing that the Guides of Gods Church haue power and authority by Lawes and precepts censures and punishments to binde those that are committed to their care and trust and when they see cause by reuersing such Lawes and precepts wholly or in part and by diminishing releasing taking away such censures and punishments to vnty them and set them free againe The bond of Diuine Lawes they may no otherwise meddle with then by letting them know who are so bound how straightly they are tyed The bonds of sinne and punishments by Diuine Iustice to be inflicted they haue no power and authoritie to vnloose but they concurre as helpers to the vnloosing of them by the Ministery of the Word vvinning and persvvading men to convert vnto God to cast their sinnes from them and by the Sacraments instrumentally communicating vnto them the grace of repentant conversion and the assurance of remission and pardon In all these kindes of binding and loosing the Apostles were equall seeing our Aduersaries themselues confessing they had the same power of Order and jurisdiction in like extent within the compasse whereof all these kinds of binding and loosing are confined Wherefore let vs proceede to speake of the power of remitting and retaining sinnes giuen to the Apostles by Christ our Sauiour To remit sinne properly is nothing else but to resolue not to punish sinne and therefore hee onely may properly be sayd to remit sinne that hath power to punish it Now as sinne is committed against the prescript of God our Conscience and Men in authority soe GOD the conscience of the Sinner and the Magistrate and Minister haue power to punish sinne GOD with punishments temporall and eternall of this life and that which is to come the Conscience with remorse the Magistrate with death banishment Confiscation of goods imprisonment and the like and the guides of the Church with suspension excommunication degradation and such other censures Hence it followeth that GOD onely is sayd properly to remitte the punishments that his justice doth inflict that the conscience onely vpon repentance canne take away that bitter and aflictiue punishment of remorse wherewith shee is wont to torment and disquiet the minde of the offendour and that the Magistrate and Minister onely haue power to take away those punishments that in their seuerall courses they may and doe inflict Notwithstanding the Minister by the Word perswading men to repentance procuring remission and out of his prudent obseruation of the parties conuersion vnto GOD assuring him that it will goe well vvith him as also by the Sacrament instrumentally communicating to him as well the grace of repentant conuersion as of free remission that soe hee may heare the very sound and voyce of GOD in mercy saying to the heart and spirit of the repentant Sinner I am thy Saluation may bee sayd in a sort to remitte sinne euen in that it is an offence against GOD not by way of authority and power but by winning and perswading the sinner to that conuersion which obtaineth remission from GOD and by the Sacrament instrumentally making him partaker as well of the grace of remission of sinne from GOD as of conuersion from sinne to GOD. There are but foure things in the hand of the Minister the Word Prayer Sacraments and Discipline By the word of Doctrine hee frameth winneth and perswadeth the sinner to repentant conuersion seeking and procuring remission from God By Prayer he seeketh and obtaineth it for the sinner By Sacraments he instrumentally maketh him partaker as well of the grace of remission as conuersion And by the power of Discipline he doth by way of authority punish euill doings and remit or diminish the punishments he inflicteth according as the condition of the party may seeme to require By that which hath beene sayd it appeareth that to bind and loose to remit to retaine sins are equiualent the same saue that to bind and loose is of more ample large extent in that it implyeth in it the binding by precepts lawes the loosing which is by reversing or dispensing with the same And therefore hauing shewed that the Apostles were equall in the power ofbinding and loosing we need ad no farther proofe that they were equall in power of remitting retaining sins Wherefore let vs proceede to the promise of Christ made to Peter that vpon the Rocke mentioned by him he would build his Church and let vs see whether any peculiar thing were promised vnto Peter in that behalfe The Church of God we know is compared in Scripture to a City an House and a Temple and therefore the beginning proceeding and increasing of the same is rightly compared to building Now in building there must be a foundation vpon which all may rest and stay that is put into the same building and the foundation must be sure firme immoueable for otherwise it wall faile and so alll other parts of the building wanting their stay will fall to the ground Now nothing is so firme sure and immoueable as a Rocke and consequently no building so strōg as that which is raised vpon a rockie foundation wherevpon our Sauiour sheweth that a House builded on the sand is easily ruinated soone shaken to pieces but that an House builded vpon a rocke standeth firme notwithstanding the furie and violence of the flouds winds and tempests and compareth a Man rightly grounded and established in his perswasion and resolution to an house so built By a Rocke therefore in this place is meant a sure foundation that will not faile nor be moued or shaken how great a weight soeuer be laid vpon it In a foundation there are three things required The first is that it bee the first thing in the building the second that it beare vp all the other parts of the building the third that it be firme and immoueable For as Christ saith If the eye that is the light of the bodie be darknesse how great is that Darknesse So if that which is to support and beare vp all doe faile shrinke all must needs be shaken and fall a
to him THAT there was no more power and authoritie in Peter then in any of the rest I hope it appeareth by that which hath beene said and therefore it remaineth that now wee examine what was the reason why so many thinges were specially spoken to him why so many wayes hee may seeme to haue beene preferred before the rest and what in trueth and in deede his preeminence and primacie was Touching the speeches of Christ for the most part specially directed to Peter it is most certaine by that which hath beene said that they did giue no singular and speciall power to Peter that was not giuen to euery of the rest And therefore the Diuines doe obserue the difference of the speeches of Christ and note that Christ sometimes directed his speech to particular men precisely in their owne persons as in the remission of sinnes healing the sicke and raising the dead sometimes in the person of all or many others as when he saith Goe and sinne no more which hee is intended to haue done so often as there is the same reason of speaking a thing to one and to others as when a man is induced to doe or not to doe a thing to beleeue or not to beleeue a thing which other in like sort are bound to doe or not to doe to beleeue or not to beleeue as well as hee So it being as necessary for one to watch as another Christ saith That I say vnto you I say vnto all Watch. And so here seeing it is confessed and proued by our Aduersaries themselues that there was nothing promised or performed to Peter that was not in like sort intended vnto and bestowed on euery of the rest it must be graunted that what he spake to him he meant to all and would haue his words so vnderstood and taken The reason why more specially notwithstanding this his generall intendment he directed his speech to Peter then to any of the rest was either because he was more auncient and more ardent in charitie then the rest thereby to signifie what manner of men they should be that should be chosen Pastours of the Church namely men of ripe age and confirmed judgement and full of charitie or lest hee might seeme to bee despised for his deniall of Christ which the Glosse seemeth to import when it saith Trinae negationi redditur trina confessio ne minus amori lingua seruiat quám timori that is Therefore he was induced by Christ thrice solemnly to protest and professe his loue vnto him as he had thrice denied him that his tongue might shew it selfe no lesse seruiceable vnto loue that rested in him then it had done vnto feare or else because he first confessed Christ to bee the Sonne of the liuing God consubstantiall with his Father because he was much conuersant with Christ and acquainted with his secrets counsels or lastly because Christ meant there should bee a certaine order amongst the guides of his Church and some to whom the rest in all places should resort in all matters of importance as to such as are more honourable then other of the same ranke degree who are first to be consulted from whom all actions must take their beginning therefore he so specially spake to Peter whom hee meant in this sort to set before the rest Thus then there is a primacie of power when one hath power to doe that act of ministerie another hath not or not without his consent and when one may by himselfe limite restraine or hinder another in the performance of the acts of ministery and such primacie wee haue shewed not to haue beene in Peter But there is another of order honour which he had whereby he had the first place the first and best employment the calling together of the rest in cases where a concurrence of many was required as for the better sorting out of the worke they had in hand the ioynt decreeing of things to be euery where alike beleeued and practised and in these assemblies thus called the sitting speaking first the moderation and direction of each mans speaking and the publishing and pronouncing of the conclusion agreed vpon if so he pleased In this sense Cyprian saith Erant vtique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis fed exordium ab vnitate proficiscitur that is The other Apostles doubtlesse were that which Peter was hauing the same fellowship both of power and honour but the beginning proceedeth from vnity that the Church may be shewed to be one And in the same sense Hierome saith against Iouinian Thou wilt say the Church is founded vpon Peter it is true it is so and yet in another place the same frame of the Church is raised vpon all the Apostles and all receiue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and the firmenesse of the Church stayeth it selfe equally vpon them all but therefore doth Christ more specially promise to build his Church vpon Peter that hee being constituted and appointed head chiefe amongst them all occasion of Schisme might bee taken away To the same purpose it is that Leo writeth to Anastasius where hee saith Inter beatissimos Apostolos in similitudine honor is fuit quaedam discretio potestatis cum omnium par esset electio vni tamen datum est vt caeteris preemineret that is Amongst the most blessed Apostles like in honour there was a certaine difference of power and when all were equally elected yet it was giuen to one to haue a preeminence amongst the rest In which saying of Leo that it bee not contrary to that of Cyprian who saith that the Apostles were companions and consorts equall both in honour power wee must not vnderstand that one Apostle had more power then another or that power another had not but that in the same power one was so before the rest that hee was the partie to whom they were to resort and without consulting whom first and before all other they might attempt nothing generally concerning the state of the whole Church by vertue of this power In which sense he saith in another place Petro praecaeteris soluendi ligandi tradita est potestas that is The power of binding and loosing was so giuen to Peter that therein hee was before the rest and againe Siquid cum eo commune caeteris Christus voluit esse principibus nunquam nisi per ipsum Petrum dedit quicquidaliis non negavit that is If Christ would haue any thing to be common to the rest of the Princes that is Apostles with Peter he neuer gaue that which he vouchsafed vnto them any otherwise then as by Peter which words must not so bee vnderstood as if Peter had first receiued the fulnesse of power and others from him for all the Apostles receiued their power and commission immediatly from Christ not from Peter as I haue largely
left certaine direction for farre lesser things then these mens gouernment is supposed to be That the gouernment of these supposed Lay-elders is not bounded in the Scripture or Fathers it is most euident neither can any man liuing shew vs any such bounding of the same in either of them The gouernment of the Church is in respect of two sorts of men the Cleargie and the Laytie Touching the former they are to be tryed and approued for their life and learning they are to be ordained with solemne imposition of hands and if they deserue it they are to be suspended from the execution of their office or vtterly depriued and degraded Shall Lay-elders haue as much to doe in all these actions as they to whom the Ministerie of the Word and Sacraments is committed are they competent Iudges of mens learning and aptnesse to teach that neither are Teachers nor learned Can they giue the sacred power of holy ministery to others that haue it not themselues Or is it not a certaine Axiome on the contrary side that the lesser is blessed of the greater Surely they that in England sought to bring in the gouernment of the Church by Lay-elders were of opinion that they ought to haue interest in all these things as well as the Pastours of the Church And indeede admit them to the gouernment of the Church by force of certain doubtfull words of Scripture mentioning gouernment without any distinction or limitation and there is no reason to straighten them but that they should haue their sway in all parts of it But they of Geneva France and other parts exclude these Elders from intermedling in ordination and leaue the power to trye examine approue and ordaine to the Pastours onely Likewise as I thinke they referre the deciding of doubts in matters of Faith and Religion to the Pastours onely and not to the suffrages of Lay-men by multitude of voyces ouer-ruling them Touching the other sort of them of whom the Church consisteth which are Lay-men who are to bee admonished corrected put from the Sacraments yea from the communion of the Church for impiety disobedience and wickednesse and vpon repentance and submission to bee receiued againe doth not the ordering of these men in this sort come within the compasse of the power of the Keyes and of binding and loosing Did Christ leaue these to his Apostles as speciall fauours and are they now transferred from their Successours the Bishops and Pastours of the Church to Lay-men that haue neither part nor fellowship in the worke of the Ministerie Hath GOD committed the dispensation of his Sacraments to the Pastours of the Church Is it on the perill of their soules that they duely giue them or with-holde them as cause shall require And shall there bee in others that are not trusted with them as great a power to direct the vse of this Ministeriall authoritie as in them nay greater the other being more in number and their voyces more to carry any thing that shall bee brought into deliberation Besides all this which hath beene saide there are many more doubts touching the authoritie of these men wherein I feare there wil be none found amongst the friends and fauourers of these Lay-elders that will be able to giue vs any satisfaction For first I would gladly know whether these ruling Elders must bee in euery Congregation with power of ordination and deprivation suspension excommunication and absolution or whether this power bee onely in the Ministers and Elders of diuerse Churches concurring Surely in Geneva there are Elders in the Congregations that are abroad in agro that is in the Country but these haue no power of excommunication much lesse of ordination or deprivation They may onely complaine to the Consistorie of the Cittie Nay they that are in the Congregations within the Cittie haue no separate power with their owne Ministers but a joynt proceeding with the rest of the Ministers and Elders of the other Churches and Congregations all which concurring make but one Consistorie Secondly let them tell vs whether these offices be perpetuall as the offices of Bishops and Pastours or annuall and but for a certaine time But to leaue them in these vncertainties the fourth reason that moueth vs to reject the conceipt of these Lay-elders is because the founders of this new gouernment fetch the patterne of it from the Sanedrim of the Iewes the platforme whereof they suppose Christ meant to bring into his Church when hee said Tell the Church Whereas it is most cleare that that Court was as a ciuill court and had power to banish to imprison yea and to take away life till by the Romanes the Iewes were restrained which made them say in the case of Christ that it was not lawfull for them to put any man to death Our fift and last reason is for that all Fathers and Councels mentioning elders or Presbyters place them betweene Bishops and Deacons and make them to bee Cleargy-men and that in the Acts where the Apostles are said to haue constituted Elders in euery Church Pastours and Ministers are meant and not Lay-men is strongly confirmed by that in the twentieth of Acts where the Elders of the Church of Ephesus conuented before Paul are commanded to feede the flock of Christ ouer which they were appointed ouerseers whence it followeth ineuitably that they were pastours The places of Scripture brought to proue this kinde of gouernment by Lay-elders are specially three The first is that to Timothie Let the Elders that rule well bee esteemed worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the word and doctrine The second is that in the Epistle to the Romanes He that ruleth let him doe it with diligence The third is that to the Corinthians where Gouernours or Gouernments are mentioned The two later allegations are too too weake to proue the thing in question For will any man that knoweth what it is to reason reason à genere ad speciem affirmatiuè that is from the generall to the particular and speciall affirmatiuely Or will euer any man of common sense bee perswaded that this consequence is good There were gouernours in the Primitiue Church mentioned by the Apostles and required by them to rule with diligence therefore they were Lay-gouernours Surely I thinke not Wherefore let vs see if the first place alledged by them yeelde any better proofe Touching this place some interprete it in this sort The Guides of the Church are worthy of double honour both in respect of gouerning and teaching but specially for their paines in teaching so noting two parts or duties of Presbyteriall offices not two sorts of Presbyters Some in this sort Amongst the Elders and Guides of Gods Church and people some laboured principally in gouerning and ministring the Sacraments some in preaching and teaching So Paul sheweth that hee preached and laboured more then all the Apostles but baptized few or none leauing that to bee performed by others
not absolutely disposing thinges according to his owne liking Neither is it to be doubted but that very many followed this latter opinion consequently neuer gaue that fulnesse of power to the Pope that is now claimed howsoeuer they attributed that vnto him as president of Ecclesiasticall meetings which rested not in him alone but in the whole meetings and Assemblies as it is an ordinary thing to attribute that to the president of any company that is done by the whole company and as all the great actions of State are attributed to the Duke of Venice whereas yet he can do nothing but as he is swayed directed by the noble Senatours of that State CHAP. 37. Of the pretended proofes of the Popes vniuersall power taken from his intermedling in auncient times in confirming deposing or restoring Bishops deposed HAuing examined the testimonies of Councels Popes and Fathers Greeke and Latine brought to proue the vniuersality of Ecclesiasticall power claimed by the Pope and found their insufficiencie and weakenesse let vs proceed to see by what other proofes our Aduersaries endeavour to demonstrate and confirme the same The absolute supreme power of Popes they labour to proue by the authority they exercised ouer other Bishops by their lawes dispensations and censures by their Vicegerents which they appointed in places farre remote from them by Appeales brought vnto them by their exemption from beeing subiect to any judgement and by the names and titles that are giuen vnto them Of all these I will entreat in order and first of the authority the Bishoppes of Rome are supposed to haue exercised ouer other Bishops in confirming deposing or restoring them Of confirmation Bellarmine bringeth some few examples but such as will neuer confirme the thing he desireth to proue For touching the confirmation of Maximus in the Bishopricke of Antioch which is the first example that hee bringeth first it was not any confirmation of himselfe in his Bishoply office but onely the determining of certaine differences betweene him and Iuvenall about their limits and the confirmation of the same end and conclusion Secondly this end was not made by Leo alone but by the whole Councell of Chalcedon Neither is the second proofe that the confirmation of the chiefe Bishoppes of the world pertained aunciently to the Pope any better then this For these are the circumstances of that Leo writeth whom Bellarmine citeth in the second place as challenging the right of confirming the Bishop of Constantinople Anatolius the Bishop of Constatinople ambitiously aspâ—…red to be greater then was fit as Leo thought Leo writeth to the Emperour in reprehension of his presumption and saith that he might haue forbornethus ambitiously to aspire higher seeing hee obtained the Bishopricke of Constantinople by the Emperours helpe and his favourable assent The favour that Leo speaketh of was in that Anatolius not hauing passed through the lower degrees of Ecclesiasticall Ministery was somewhat irregularly preferred to bee Bishop of so great a city which he was content to winke at at the Emperours entreaty And as the manner was that the foure Patriarches should vpon notice giuen of their due ordination and Synodall letters containing a profession of their faith mutually giue assent one to another before they were accounted Patriarches and fully possessed of their places by his allowance in the same sort as others were to allow of him as much as in him lay he was content to confirme and make good his ordination though somewhat irregular and defectiue which no way proueth that the confirming of the great Bishops of the world pertained any otherwise to the Bishop of Rome then the right of confirming him pertained vnto them Yet this is in effect all they can say For that Leo willeth the Bishop of Thessalonica to take knowledge of the Metropolitanes chosen in the Provinces subject to him as Vicegerent to the Patriarch of Rome and by his assent to confirme their ordination as likewise that writing to the Bishops of Africa subject to him as Patriarch he telleth them hee is content the Bishop of Salicen turned from Novatianisme shall keepe his place if hee send vnto him the confession of his faith and that Gregory complaineth that the Bishop of Salona within his Patriarchship was ordained without his privity and consent doth no more proue the Pope to be vniversall Bishop then the other Patriarches without whose assent none of the Metropolitanes subject to them might be ordained And this was it that so much grieued Gregory namely that his Bishops thereby putting a difference betweene such as were subject to him in that he was Patriarch of the West and others should so despise and contemne him But let our Aduersaries proue that either Gregory or any of his predecessours euer challenged the confirmarion of Metropolitanes subject to any of the other Patriarches and we will confesse they say something Otherwise all that they bring is idle and to no purpose prouing nothing that wee euer doubted of For we know the Bishop of Rome had the right of confirming the Metropolitanes within the precincts of his owne Patriarchship as likewise euery other Patriarch had and that therefore hee might send the Pall to sundry parts of Greece France and Spaine as Bellarmine alleadgeth being all within the compasse of his Patriarchship and yet not bee vniversall Bishop as Bellarmine would willingly from hence inferre Wherefore seeing our adversaries haue so little to say for the Popes right of confirming Bishops let vs proceede to see what proofes they can produce of his power and authority in deposing them Their first allegation is touching Stephen Bishop of Rome deposing as they suppose Martianus Bishop of Arle in France who had joined himselfe with Novatianus denying reconciliation and the Churches peace to such as hauing fallen and denyed the faith afterwardes repented and turned againe vnto God This allegation is too weake to proue their intended conclusion For it is most certaine by all circumstances of the Epistle of Cyprian cited by Bellarmine that Stephen the Bishop of Rome did not depose Martianus by himselfe alone and therefore Cyprian doth not say to Stephen therefore hath God appointed thee to bee ouer all Bishops that if they fall into heresie or faile in the performance of their duty thou mightst set all right againe but therefore hath God appointed a great number of Bishops that if any one of that company and society fall into here sie and beginne to teare rent and waste the flocke of Christ the rest may helpe and as good and pittifull Pastours gather the scattered sheepe of Christ into the fold againe Neither doth he say to Stephen that hee should suspend Martianus but that he should write to the Bishops of France to doe it and not to suffer him any longer to insult vpon the company of Catholique Bishoppes for that hee was not yet suspended and rejected from their communion But some man perhaps will aske why Cyprian desireth
like For with money they themselues may not meddle Pope Iohn the two and twentieth following Nicholas and finding by experience that these Fryers did but abuse the world with their faire shewes of perfection condemned their hypocrisie and would be no patron of it as his predecessour was First therefore hee shewed that perfection consisteth essentially in charity wich Paule nameth the bond of perfection that the abandoning of propriety in things maketh nothing to perfectiō farther thē it excludeth the care that is wont to be found in men in getting keeping disposing of them weakning the act of diuine loue So that if there be as much carefulnesse in men after the disclaiming of propriety in things as before their seeming pouerty maketh nothing to Christian perfection Now he sayth that after the ordination of his predecessour these Fryers were no lesse carefull in getting and keeping things both by begging judiciall suing and the like meanes then any other mendicants that haue some things as their owne in common And that therefore howsoeuer they pleased themselues their obseruation was of no more perfection then theirs that had something of their owne in common Secondly he shewed that these mendicants hauing the vse of such things as are giuen to them and the Church of Rome the propriety in name and title but not in deede being onely to secure them in the vse thereof and to make no benefit that it is but a single right the Church hath and that they are in trueth and indeede no poorer then they that haue thinges of their owne seeing they may change the vse of one thing for another or at least cause the procurator designed by the Church of Rome to change things into money and buy for them such as they rather desire to haue making vse of all things that come to their hands at their pleasure as much as they that haue them of their owne Thirdly hee pronounced that to thinke that Christ and his Apostles had nothing of their owne in speciall or common and that they had no right to vse such things as they had to sell them giue them or with them to buy other is contrary to the Gospell condemneth Christ and his Apostles of iniustice and ouerthroweth the whole Scripture Yet Pope Nicholas defined that Christ his Apostles had nothing of their own either in speciall or common and that the hauing of a common bagge no way contrarieth this conceit seeing that was but by a kinde of dispensation in the person of the weake and imperfect and to shewe that he disliketh not them that come short of his perfection Thus we see Pope Nicolas erred in a matter of faith patronized hypocrites in their faignes shewes of counterfeit perfection was disliked and contraried by his owne successour Iohn the two and twentieth for the same by reason whereof there grew a maine difference betweene Pope Iohn and the Franciscan Fryers hee charging them with heresie and persecuting them from place to place and they likewise disclaiming him as a damnable heretique and no Pope The principall men on the Fryers part were Michael Caesenas and Occam the great Schoole-man who hath written much against Pope Iohn touching this argument Neither is Pope Iohn though in this point of Christian perfection hee were of a sounder better judgment then his predecessor any happier thē he For he is likewise charged with errour in matter of faith that not vniustly by the same Friers that he so much hated persecuted For as Occam testifieth in his Dialogues hee taught that the soules of the just shall not see God till the generall resurrection and that not faintly or doubtingly but in such passionate and violent manner as not to endure those that thought otherwise Gerson likewise in his sermon vpon Easter day before the French King and his Nobles sayth That the theefe on the crosse in that very hower that Christ spake vnto him was made happy and sawe God face to face according to the promise of Christ made vnto him This day shalt thou bee with mee in Paradice and that thereby the doctrine of Iohn the two and twentieth is proued false that was coudemned by the Diuines of Paris with the sound of trumpets before King Philip vncle to the King before whom then he spake the King rather believing the Diuines of Paris then the Court of Rome Bellarmine to deriue the hate of this matter from the Pope to others would willingly fasten this errour on Caluine and to that purpose alleageth two places out of him But neither of them proueth any such thing For in the first he speaketh not of any stay of the Saints departed without in outward courts out of heauen till the resurrection as the Cardinall strangely misunderstandeth him but sheweth by a most apt comparison that as in the time of MOSES Law the high Priest onely entred into the Holiest of all to make an attonement and all the people stayed without So none but Christ goeth into the presence of God to make peace and to worke the great worke of reconciliation and that all the sonnes of men are to expect without till hee bring them assurance of fauour and acceptation And in the second place where saith that the dead are joyned with vs that liue in the vnity of the same faith his meaning is not that faith opposite to sight is found in the Saints after death as it is in vs but that they haue a cleare view and present enjoying of those things which we beleeue Neither is there any thing found in Caluine that may any way excuse the errour of Pope Iohn Thus then I hope it doth appeare by that which hath beene saide that Popes are subiect to errour that they may become Heretiques and define for heresie and that therefore the second supposed priviledge of the Roman Bishop which is infallibility of judgment is found to haue no proofe at all Wherefore let vs proceede to the third which is his power to dispose of the kingdomes of the World and to ouer-rule the Princes and Potentates thereof CHAP. 44. Of the Popes vniust claime of temporall dominion ouer the whole world TOuching the right and interest of Popes in intermeddling with secular affaires and disposing of the Kingdomes of the world there are three opinions among the Romanists The first is that the Pope is soueraigne Lord of all the world or at least of all the Christian world and that the Princes of the Earth are but his Vicegerēts and Lieuetenants The second that the Pope is not soueraigne Lord of the world nor of any part thereof and that therefore hee may not at his pleasure intermeddle with the affaires of Princes but only in case of some defect foūd in them as when they faile to doe their duty or seeke to hinder the common good especially of the Church The third that hee may not at all
intermeddle with the disposition of earthly kingdomes or restraine or depose Princes how much soeuer they abuse their authoritie The first of these three opinions had anciently and hath presently great patrons and followers Yet Bellarmine very confidently and learnedly refuteth the same First shewing that the Pope is not soueraigne Lord of the whole world Secondly that he is not Lord of the Christian world And thirdly that hee is Lord of no part of the world That he is not Lord of the whole world he proueth because not of those Provinces that are possessed by Infidels which hee demonstrateth First because Christ committed none but onely his sheepe to Peter and therefore gaue him no authoritie ouer Infidels which are not his sheepe whereunto Saint Paul agreeth professing that hee hath nothing to doe to iudge them that are without Secondly because dominion and the right of Princes is not founded in grace or faith but in free will and reason and hath not sprung from the written Law of Moses or Christ but from the law of Nations and Nature VVhich is most cleare in that God both in the Olde and New Testament approueth the Kingdomes of the Gentiles and Infidels as appeareth by that of Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar O King thou art King of Kings For the God of Heauen hath giuen thee a kingdome power and strength and glory and in all places where the children of men dwell the beasts of the field and the fowles of the heauen hath hee giuen into thine hand and hath made thee a ruler ouer them all And that of Christ Giue vnto Caesar the things that are Caesars With whom the Apostle agreeth requiring the Christians of his time not only to pay tribute to Heathen kings but also to obey them for conscience sake which men were not bound to if they had no authority and right to commaund Neither can it be said that heathen princes are the Popes Lieuetenants and theresore to be obeyed for his sake though not for their owne seeing the Pope would haue no such Lieutenants if it lay in him to place them or displace them Lastly hee proueth that the Pope hath no such soueraigne right of commaunding ouer all as is pretended seeing it had beene vaine for Christ to giue him a right to that whereof hee should neuer get the possession And hauing thus proued that Infidels were truely and rightly Lords of the countries subiect to them before the comming of Christ that he found no nullitie in their titles nor euer seized their kingdomes and dominions into his owne hands as some fondly imagine that he did hee proceedeth to proue that Princes when they become Christians lose not the right that they formerly had to their kingdomes but get a new right to the kingdome of heauen For that otherwise Christs grace should destroy nature and his benefits be preiudiciall to such as are made partakers of them Whereas Christ came not to destroy and ouerthrow things well setled before but to perfect them nor to hurt any but to doe good to all For confirmation whereof hee alleageth part of the Hymne of Sedulius which the whole Church doth sing Hostis Herodes impie Christum venire quid times Non eripit mortalia Qui regna dat coelestia that is O impious enemie Herod why doest thou feare Christs comming He will not depriue thee of thy transitorie kingdome vpon earth that giues an eternall kingdome in heauen Whence it followeth that Christ imposed no such hard condition on those kings that were to become Christians as to leaue their crownes dignities And so he commeth to his second proposition that the Pope is not temporall Lord of the Christian world which he confirmeth First because if the Pope were soueraigne Lord of all the Christian world Bishops should be temporall Lords of their cities the places adioyning subiect to them Which neither they will graunt that contend for the soueraigntie of the Pope nor can stand with that of Saint Ambrose who saith If the Emperour aske tribute we deny it him not The Church lands doe pay tribute And againe Tribute is Caesars it is not denied him but the Church is Gods and may not be yeelded to Caesar. And that of Hosius Bishop of Corduba who as we reade in Athanasius telleth the Emperour that God hath giuē him the Empire but that he hath committed to Bishops those things that pertaine to the Church Secondly out of the confession of Popes Pope Leo confessing that Martianus the Emperour was appointed to the Empire by God and that God was the authour of his Empire And Gelasius writing to Anastasius the Emperour and acknowledging that there are two thinges by which principally the world is guided to wit the sacred authority of Bishoppes and the regall power of Princes with whom Gregorie agreeth when hee saith Power ouer all is giuen from heauen to the piety of my Lord. And from hence hee inferreth his third proposition that the Pope is temporall Lord of no part of the world in the right of Peters successour and Christs Vicar For if there were no nullitie in the titles of infidell kings and princes nor no necessity implied in their conuersion of relinquishing their right when they became Christians but that both infidels christians notwithstanding any act of Christ continued in the full possession of princely power right it could not be that Christ should inuest Peter or his successours with any kingly authority seeing hee could giue them none but such as he should take from others Nay hee proceedeth farther and sheweth that Christ himselfe while hee was on the earth was no temporall Lord or King and therefore much lesse gaue any temporall dominion or kingdome to his Apostles That he was no temporall king he proueth because the right to bee a King or Lord in such sort as men are Kings or Lords is either by inheritance election conquest or speciall donation and gift of Almighty God Now that Christ according to the flesh was a King by right of inheritance hee saith it cannot be proued because though hee came of the kingly familie yet it is vncertaine whether he were the next in bloud to Dauid or not And besides the kingdome was taken away from Dauids house before Christ was borne God had foretold that of the house of Ieconiah of which Christ came as we may reade in the first of Saint Matthew there should neuer be any temporall King such as David and the rest that succeeded him were saying Write this man barren a man that shall not prosper in his dayes for there shall bee no man of his seede to sitte vpon the throne of Dauid to haue power any more in Iudah And whereas it might be obiected that the Angell prophecied that the Lord God should giue vnto Christ the seat of Dauid his father the Cardinall answereth out of Hierome vpon the place of Hieremie and
Simeon and Leui Priest-hood and knight-hood Bishoply power and that which is Princely must rise vp together for the rescuing of Dinah their sister out of the hands of him that seeketh to dishonour her Vi charitatis etsi non authoritatis that is By force of charity though not of authority So that according to his opinion the chiefe Ministers of the Church inuest the Princes of the world with their royall authority according to the saying of Hugo but giue them not their authority they may iudge of the actions of Princes but they may not praeiudicare they may not preiudice Princes They may in the time of neede come to the succour and in the time of danger reach forth the helping hand to the ciuill state shaken by the negligence or malice of ciuill princes but it must bee by way of charity not of authority as likewise the ciuill state may and ought to bee assistant to the Ecclesiasticall in like danger defect or failing of the Ecclesiasticall ministers The next argument that our Aduersaries bring is taken from a comparison between the soule and body expressing the difference betweene the ciuill and Ecclesiasticall state found as they say in Gregory Nazianzen But that we may the better vnderstand the force of this argument we must obserue that in the comparison which they bring they make the Ecclesiasticall state and spirituall power like the spirit and diuine faculties thereof and the ciuill state like the flesh with the senses and sensitiue appetite thereof And as in Angels there is spirit without flesh in bruit beasts flesh and sense without spirit and in man both these conjoyned so they will haue vs graunt that there is sometimes Ecclesiasticall power without ciuill as in the Apostles times and longe after sometimes ciuill without Ecclesiasticall as among the heathen and sometimes these two conjoyned together And as when the spirit and flesh meete in one the spirit hath the command and though it suffer the flesh to do all those things which it desireth vnlesse they be contrary to the intendments designes ends of it yet when it findeth them to be contrary it may and doth command the fleshly part to surcease from her owne actions yea it maketh it to fast watch and do and suffer many grieuous and afflictiue things euen to the weakning of it selfe Soe in like manner they would inferre that the Ecclesiasticall state being like to the spirit and soule and the ciuill to the body of flesh the Church hath power to restraine and bridle ciuill Princes if they hinder the spirituall good thereof not onely by censures Ecclesiasticall but outward inforcement also This is the great and grand argument our Aduersaries bring to proue that Popes may depose Princes wherein first wee may obserue their folly in that they bring similitudes which serue only for illustration and not for probation for the maine confirmation of one of the principall points of their faith which whosoeuer denyeth sinneth in as high a degree as Marcellinus that sacrificed vnto Idols and Peter that denied his maister Secondly we see how much Princes are beholding vnto them that compare them to bruit beasts and at the best to the brutish part that is in men common to them with bruit beastes If they say Nazianzen so compareth them they are like themselues and speake vntruly for he compareth not Princes Priestes to spirit and flesh but going about to shew the difference of the objectes of their power maketh the spirit to be the obiect of the one of thē the flesh of the other Not as if Princes were to take no care of the welfare of the soules of their subjects as well as of their bodies but because the immediate procuring of the soules good is by preaching ministration of the Sacraments Discipline which the Prince is to procure and to see wel performed but not to administer these things himselfe as also because the coactiue power the Prince hath extendeth onely to the body and not to the soule as the Ecclesiasticall power of binding and loosing doth Thirdly we may obserue that if this similitude should proue any thing it would proue that the ciuill state among Christians hath no power to do any act whatsoeuer but by the command or permission of the Ecclesiasticall For so it is between the spirit the body sensitiue faculties that shew themselues in it The Philosophers note that there is a double regiment in man the one politicall or ciuill the other despoticall the one like the authority of Princes ouer their subjects that are freemen the other like the authority of Lords ouer their bondmen and slaues The former is of reason in respect of sensitiue appetite which by perswasion it may induce to surcease to desire that which it discerneth to be hurtfull but cannot force it so to doe the other of reason and the will in respect of the loco-motiue facultie and this absolute so that if reason cannot winne a desisting from desire in the inferiour powers that shew themselues in the body yet the will may command the loco-motiue faculty either cause al outward action to cease how earnestly soeuer sensitiue desire carry vnto it or to bee performed how much soeuer it resist against it as it may commaund and force the drinking of a bitter potion which the appetite cannot be wonne vnto and the rejecting putting from vs those things that are most desired Neither can the appetite and sensitiue faculties performe any of their actions without the consent of the will reason For if the will commaund the eyes are closed vp and see nothing the eares are stopped and heare nothing how much soeuer the appetite desire to see and heare Neither onely haue the soules higher powers this commaund ouer the inferiour faculties in respect of things that may further and hinder their own good and perfection as they may command to watch or fast for the prevention and mortification of sin but they may also at their pleasure hinder the whole course of the actions of the outward man withdraw all needfull things from the body and depriue it euen of life it selfe though there be no cause at all so to doe So that if the comparison of the ciuill and Ecclesiasticall state to the soule and body do hold from thence may it be inferred that the Church hath power to commaund in all things pertaining to the common-wealth and that the ciuill magistrates haue none at all For the lower faculties neither haue nor ought to haue any commaund further then they are permitted by the superiour neither can they doe any thing contrary to the liking of the superiour though neuer so just reasonable And so we see how silly a thing it is to reason from these similitudes and that they that so do build vpon the sands so that all the frame of their building commeth to the ground The third reason brought by our Adversaries is this
chiefe-fathers of Israel they came to Ierusalem and all the congregation made a couenant with the King said The Kings sonne must reigne as the Lord hath said of the sons of Dauid Hereupon the King is proclaimed Athaliah is slaine the house of Baal destroied the Altars and idols that were in it broken down In all this narration there is nothing that maketh for the chiefe Priests power of deposing lawfull kings if they become heretiques For first Athaliah was an vsurper no lawfull Queene Secondly here was nothing done by Iehoiada alone but by him and the Captaines of hundreths and the chiefe Fathers of Israel that entred into couenant with him Thirdly there is great difference betweene the high Priest in the time of the Lawe and in the time of Christ. For before the comming of Christ the high Priest euen in the managing of the weightiest ciuill affaires and in iudgement of life and death sate in the Councell of State as the second person next vnto the King by Gods owne appointment Whereas our Aduersaries dare not claime any such thing for the Pope And therefore it is not to bee maruailed at if the high Priest beeing the second person in the kingdome of Iudah by Gods owne appointment and the Vnckle and Protectour of the young king whom his wife had saued from destruction bee the first mouer for the bringing of him to his right and when things are resolued on by common consent take on him not onely to commaund and direct the Priests and Leuites but the Captaines souldiers also for the establishing of their King the suppressing of a bloody tyrant and vsurper For all this might be done by Iehoiada as a chiefe man in that state and yet the Pope be so farre from obtaining that he claimeth which is to depose lawfull kings for abusing their authority that hee may not presume to do all that the high Priests lawfully did and might doe as not hauing so great preeminence from Christ in respect of matters of ciuill state in any kingdome of the world as the high Priest had by Gods owne appointment in the kingdome of Iudah Israel In the old Law saith Occā the high Priest meddled in matters of warre in the judgment of life and death the losse of members vengeance of blood it beseemed him well so to do But the Priests of the new Law may not meddle with things of this nature Wherefore from the power dominion which the high Priest of the old Law had it cannot be concluded that the Pope hath any power in tēporal matters The fifth example is of Ambrose repelling Theodosius the Emperour from the communion of the Church after the bloody and horrible murther that was committed at Thessalonica by his commandement The story is this The coach-man of Borherica the Captaine of the souldiers in that towne for some fault was committed to prison Now when the solemne horse-race and sporting fight of horsemen approched the people of Thessalonica desired to haue him set at liberty as one of whom there would be great vse in those ensuing solemne sports which being denied the citty was in an vprore and Botherica and certaine other of the magistrates were stoned to death and most despitefully vsed Theodosius the Emperour hearing of this outrage was exceedingly moued and commaunded a certaine number to be put to the sword without all iudiciall forme of proceeding or putting difference betweene offendors and such as were innocent So that seauen thousand perished by the sword and among them many strangers that were come into the citty vpon diuerse occasions that had no part in the outrage for which Theodosius was so sore displeased were most cruelly and vniustly slaine Saint Ambrose vnderstanding of this violent and vniust proceeding of the Emperour the next time he came to Millaine and was comming to the Church after his wonted manner met him at the doore and stayd him from entring with this speech Thou seemest not to know O Emperour what horrible and bloudy murthers haue beene committed by thee neither dost thou bethinke thy selfe now thy rage is past to what extremities thy fury carried thee perhaps the glory of thine Imperiall power will not let thee take notice of any fault thy greatnesse repelleth all checke of reason controlling thee but thou shouldest know the frailty of mans nature and that the dust was that beginning whence we are taken and and to which we must returne Let not therefore the glory of thy purple robes make thee forget the weakenesse of that body of flesh that is couered with them Thy subjects O Emperour are in nature like thee and in seruice thy fellowes for there is one Lord and commander ouer all the maker of all things Wherefore with what eyes wilt thou behold his temple or with what feete wilt thou treade on the sacred pauement thereof wilt thou lift vp to him those hands from which the bloud yet droppeth wilt thou receiue with them the sacred body of our Lord or wilt thou presume to put to thy mouth the cup replenished with the precious bloud of Christ which hast shed so much innocent bloud by the word of thy mouth vttering the passion of thy furious minde Depart therefore adde not this iniquity to the rest and decline not those bands which God aboue approueth With these speeches the Emperour was much moued and knowing the distinct duties both of Emperours and Bishops for that he had bin trained vp in the knowledge of heauenly doctrine returned to the Court with teares sighes A long time after for eight moneths were first past the solemne feast of the Natiuity of Christ approached and all prepared themselues to solemnize the same with triumphant ioy But the Emperor sate in the Court lamenting powring out riuers of teares which when Ruffinus maister of the pallace perceiued he came vnto him and asked the cause of his weeping to whom weeping more bitterly then before he said O Ruffinus thou makest but a sport of these things for thou art touched with no sence of those euils wherewith I am afflicted but the consideration of my calamity maketh me sigh and lament for that whereas the doores of Gods Temple are open to slaues and beggars and they goe freely into the same to make prayers vnto their Lord they are shut against me and which is yet worse the gates of heauen are shut against me also for I cannot forget the words of our Lord who saith Whomsoeuer ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heauen To whom Ruffinus replied I will runne if it please thee O Emperour to the Bishop and intreate him to vnloose these bands wherewith hee hath bound thee No saith the Emperour it is to no purpose so to doe for he will not bee intreated I know his sentence is right and iust and that he will not transgresse the law of God for any respect of imperiall power Yet when Ruffinus was
to the whole Church of God to aske forgiuenesse for him because he saw the end of his life was neare at hand And besides all this in great haste put on him an Angelicall vesture or robe and released brake in sunder the bands of all those bitter curses whereunto hee had subiected the Emperour These were the turbulent proceedings of this cursed Hildebrand indeede a brand taken out of the very fire of hell to set on fire the course of nature and to put the whole world into a combustion whereof if this report mentioned by Sigebertus be true it repented him not a little before his death But howsoeuer it is most certaine that his best friends in the end beganne wholy to dislike him when they saw whither his violent and furious passions carried him and what wofull effects followed the same Gerochus saith Auentinus then whom no man was found more earnestly to defend Hildebrand by bookes written to iustifie his proceedings and who published to the world diuers crimes obiected to the Emperour mentioned by no other writer at the last constrained by the force of trueth taxed the pertinacy if not the tyranny of the Pope his adherents in this sort Romani inquit sibi diuinum vsurpant honorem rationem actorum reddere nolunt nec sibi dici aequo animo ferunt cur ita agis Illud Satyricum inculcant Sic volo sic iubeo sit pro ratione voluntas that is The Romanes take vnto themselues the honour that is proper vnto God they will giue no account for any thing they doe they will be subiect to no controll neither canne they endure with any patience that any man should say to any of them sir why doe you so That Satyricall saying they haue often in their mouthes so I will haue it so I command it to bee Let my will stand for a reason for so it shall Thus we see how ill a beginning the Popes made of deposing Emperours and how bad successe they had Which is not to bee maruailed at seeing in these attempts and practises they were contrary to Christ and his Apostles For these as Auentinus noteth acknowledged the Emperours as also all the holy Fathers did to be in the second place and ranke after God and before all mortall men giuen appointed and chosen by the immortall God and honoured them as hauing the crowne set vpon their heads by God himselfe they prayed daily for their prosperity they paid tribute vnto them and proclaimed them rebels against God that refused to bee subiect to them After this bad beginning some two or three other Popes succeeding attempted in like sort as Hildebrand had done to depose such Emperours as they were offended with Concerning whose attempts and practises let the Reader consider the censure of Cardinall Cusanus His words are these Let it suffice the Pope that he excelleth the Emperor as much as the Sun doth the Moone and the soule the body and let him not challenge that which pertaineth not to him neither let him affirme that the Empire is not but by him and in dependance on him and if haply the deposing of some kings Emperours the translation of the Empire moue him so presumptuously for to thinke let him know that if the respect of religion and due consideration of humility hindered not it were easie to answere all those thinges truly most clearely and so that haply these things should no way argue so great a power in the Pope as Pope without the consent or willing acceptation of the parties contending as is imagined For there wanted not in ancient times men to defend Henry the fourth crowned at Basil by the Legates of Rome from the excommunication of Gregory or Hildebrand Yea such there were that were Cardinals at that time and a certaine Councell holden at Rome nay which more is the Generall Councell at Basil holden at that time did the same things concerning the chusing of Honorius Pope for which Henry the Emperour was pronounced excommunicate And in like sort there are found things excellently and strongly written in defence of Fredericke the second a most valiant man and a most constant defender of the Faith as also in defence of other Emperours How much the Popes proceedings against Fredericke the second hindered the course of the sacred warre vndertaken at that time against the Infidels how many things the Pope charged him with which hee vtterly disclaimed how much all Christian Princes in the end beganne to dislike the pride of the Romane Court the Histories of those times do sufficiently make knowne vnto vs. Wherefore to conclude this point touching the Popes pretended power of deposing Princes seeing the first that euer attempted to exercise the same was that brand of hell Gregory the 7. seeing he had so ill successe in this his proud attempt and caused such confusions in the Christian world as the like had seldome or neuer bin before seeing the best learned about those times since condēned the opinion of thē that thinke the Pope may depose Princes as new strange if not hereticall we may safely resolue that the Pope taking vpon him to giue and take away kingdomes which is proper to God is that Antichrist that sitteth in the temple of God as if he were God CHAP. 47. Of the Ciuill dominion which the Popes haue by the gift of Princes HAuing proued that the Popes neither directly nor indirectly haue power ouer Princes the Kingdomes of the world or any thing to do in the managing and disposing of ciuill affaires by vertue of any grant from Christ let vs proceed to see what temporall dominion and ciuill power they haue by the grant of Princes It is the resolued opinion almost of all men saith Cusanus that Constantine the Emperour gaue the whole Empire of the West to Sylvester Bishop of Rome and to his successours for euer so that there can bee no Emperour of the West but such a one as must wholly depend of the Pope and acknowledge that hee holdeth the Imperiall Crowne of him Neither were there many found in auncient times that durst make question of this donation of Constantine yet doth this great Cardinall worthy Diuine professe that hauing sought diligently to find out the original of this supposed grant the certainty of it presupposing that Constantine might make such a grant which yet will neuer be proued he greatly wōdereth if euer there were any such thing For that there is no such thing to be foūd in authenticall bookes approued Histories I haue read ouer saith he againe and againe all the Acts of Popes and Emperours that by any meanes I could meete with the Histories of Saint Hierome who was most diligent in collecting all things the workes of Augustine Ambrose and other learned Fathers and the Acts of Generall Councels which haue beene since the Councell of Nice and can finde no such thing as this supposed donation nor
subscribed in this sort First Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople then Apollinarius of Alexandria after him Domninus of Antioch and last of all the Legates of Eustochius of Ierusalem for the Bishop of Rome was not there in person nor by his Legates In the sixth the Emperour sate in the highest place in the middest His great men and the Consuls sate by him on the left side the Legates of the Bishop of Rome the Vicars of the Bishop of Ierusalem the Bishops that were present out of the Romane Synode On the right side sate first the Bishop of Constantinople next him the Bishop of Antioche then hee that supplied the place of the Bishoppe of Alexandria and so in order the Bishoppes subiect to them yet in subscribing the Bishop of Rome was first Constantinople second Alexandria third Antioch fourth and Ierusalem last In the seauenth the Legates of Adrian Bishop of Rome had the first place and subscribed first after them the Bishop of Constantinople Tharassius and then they that supplyed the roomes of the other three Patriarchicall Thrones But Tharassius rather performed the duty of a President Moderator then the Legates of Rome as I shewed before These are all the Generall Councels that the Greeke and Latine Churches jointly acknowledge by this view which we haue taken of them wee may see how diuersly things haue beene carried both concerning the Presidentship in Generall Councels and the preheminences of the chiefest Bishops in the same Yet as the Graecians were content in the Councell of Florence that the Bishoppe of Rome should haue all such preheminences againe as hee had before the division of the Churches if other matters might bee agreed on So if the Bishoppe of Rome would disclaime his claime of vniuersall jurisdiction of infallible judgement and power to dispose at his pleasure the Kingdomes of the World and would content himself with that all Antiquity gaue him which is to bee in order and honour the first among Bishoppes wee would easily grant him to bee in such sort President of Generall Councels as to sit and speake first in such meetings but to bee an absolute commaunder wee cannot yeeld vnto him Cardinall Turrecremata rightly noteth that the Presidentship of Councels whereof men doe speake is of two sorts the one of honour the other of power Presidentship of honouris to haue preheminence in place to propose things to bee debated to direct the actions and to giue definitiue sentence according to the voyces and judgement of the Councell Presidentshippe of power is to haue the right not onely of directing but of ruling their doings also that are assembled in Councell and to conclude of matters after his owne judgement though the greater part of the Councell like it not yea though no part like it A Presidentshippe of the former sort Antiquity yeelded to the Bishop of Rome when hee was not wanting to himselfe And if there were no other differences betweene vs and him wee also would yeeld it him But the latter kinde of presidentshippe wee cannot yeeld vnlesse wee ouerthrow the whole course of Councels and goe against the streame of all Antiquity This seemeth saith Duarenus to bee consonant vnto the Law of GOD that the Church which the Synode doth represent should haue the fulnesse of all power and that the Pope should acknowledge himselfe subject vnto it For Christ did not giue the power of binding and loosing to Peter alone whose successor the pope is said to bee but to the whole church Although I doe not deny but that hee was set before the rest of the Apostles yet so often as any one was to bee ordained either Bishoppe or Deacon or any thing to bee decreed that concerned the church Peter neuer tooke it to himselfe but referred it to the whole church But heerein did his preheminence stand and consist that as prince of the Apostles it pertained to him to call the rest together and to propose vnto them the things that were to bee handled as with vs at this day the president of the court of parliament calleth together the whole Senate and when occasion requireth beginneth first to speake and doth many other things which easily shew the greatnesse of the person which he sustaineth and yet notwithstanding hee is not greater or superiour to the whole court neither hath hee power ouer all the Senatours neither may hee decree any thing contrary to their judgements But the judgement of all controversies pertaineth to the court it selfe whose Head the president is said to be nay which is more the court commaundeth judgeth and punisheth the president as well as any other if there be cause so to doe And these things truely were likewise in the Ecclesiasticall state heretofore but I know not by what meanes it is now brought about that supreme power ouer all Christians is giuen to one and that hee is set free from all Lawes and canons after the example of the Emperours This is the judgement of the learned and worthy Duarenus yet the Iesuites and Iesuited papists at this day will needs haue the pope to be president of General councels in such sort that hee may conclude of matters after his owne judgement and liking though the greater part of the councell like it not yea though no part like it But this their conceit is easily refuted first by reason then by the practise of the church from the beginning For first either Bishops are assembled in Generall Councels onely as the Popes Counsellers to giue him aduise or they are in joynt Commission with him and sitte as his fellow Iudges of all matters of faith and discipline If onely as Counsellers to aduise him Councels should not consist only or principally of Bishops For as they say commonly that many a doting old woman may be more deuout and many a poore begging Frier more learned thē the Pope himself so there is no questiō but that many other may be as learned and iudicious as Bishops Though saith Austine according to the titles of honour which the custome of the Church giueth men Austine a Bishop be greater then Hierome a Presbyter yet Hierome in worth and merite is greater then Austine In the late Councell of Trent there is no question but that Andradius Vega and other Doctors that were there were euery way comparable with the greatest Bishop or Cardinall yet Bishoppes onely as of ordinary right and some few other by speciall priuiledge gaue decisiue voyces in that Councell other how learned soeuer being admitted onely to discusse and debate matters and thereby to prepare and ripen them that the Bishops might more easily iudge of them and therefore the current of most Papists is against that conceit of making Bishops to bee but the Popes Counsellers onely as appeareth by Andradius Canus Bellarmine and many moe That Bishops saith Melchior Canus are not Counsellers onely to advise but Iudges to determine all matters doubtfull touching
But concerning the Generall Councels of this sort that hitherto haue beene holden wee confesse that in respect of the matter about which they were called so neerely and essentially concerning the life and soule of the Christian Faith and in respect of the manner and forme of their proceeding and the euidence of proofe brought in them they are and euer were expresly to bee beleeued by all such as perfectly vnderstand the meaning of their determination And that therefore it is not to bee maruailed at if Gregory professe that hee honoureth the first foure Councels as the foure Gospels and that whosoeuer admitteth them not though hee seeme to bee a Stone elect precious yet hee lyeth beside the foundation and out of the building Of this sort there are onely sixe the first defining the Sonne of GOD to be co-essentiall co-eternall co-equall with the Father The second defining that the holy Ghost is truely God co-essentiall co-eternall and co-equall with the Father and the Sonne The third the vnity of Christs person The fourth the distinction and diuersity of his natures in and after the personall vnion The fifth condemning some remaines of Nestorianisme more fully explaining thinges stumbled at in the Councell of Chalcedon and accursing the Heresie of Origen and his followers touching the temporall punishments of Diuells and wicked Cast-awayes and the Sixth defining and clearing the distinction of operations actions powers and wils in Christ according to the diuersity of his natures These were all the lawfull Generall Councells lawfull I say both in their beginning and proceeding and continuance that euer were holden in the Christian Church touching matters of Faith For the Seauenth which is the second of Nice was not called about any question of Faith but of manners In which our Aduersaries confesse there may be something inconueniently prescribed and so as to bee the occasion of great grieuous euils and surely that is our conceit of the Seauenth Generall Councell the second of Nice for howsoeuer it condemne the religious adoration and worshipping of Pictures and seeme to allow no other vse of them but that which is Historicall yet in permitting men by outward signes of reuerence respect towards the Pictures of Saints to expresse their loue towards them and the desire they haue of enioying their happie society and in condemning so bitterly such as vpon dislike of abuses wished there might be no Pictures in the Church at all it may seem to haue giuen some occasion and to haue opened the way vnto that grosse Idolatrie which afterwards entered into the Church The Eigth Generall Councell was not called about any question of Faith or Manners but to determine the question of right betweene Photius Ignatius contending about the Bishopricke of Constantinople So that there are but seauen Generall Councels that the whole Church acknowledgeth called to determine matters of Faith and Manners For the rest that were holden afterwardes which our Aduersaries would haue to bee accounted Generall they are not onely reiected by vs but by the Grecians also as not Generall but Patriarchicall onely because either they consisted onely of the Westerne Bishoppes without any concurrence of those of the East or if any were present as in the Councell of Florence there were they consented to those thinges which they agreed vnto rather out of other respects then any matter of their owne satisfaction And therefore howsoeuer we dare not pronounce that lawfull Generall Councels are free from danger of erring as some among our Aduersaries doe yet doe wee more honour esteeme more fully admit all the Generall Councels that euer hitherto haue beene holden then they doe who feare not to charge some of the chiefest of them with errour as both the Second and the Fourth for equalling the Bishop of Constantinople to the Bishop of Rome which I thinke they suppose to haue beene an errour in Faith CHAP. 52. Of the calling of Councells and to whom that right pertaineth FROM the assurance of Trueth which lawfull Generall Councells haue let vs proceede to see by whom they are to bee called The state of the Christian Church the good thinges it enioyeth and the felicity it promiseth being spirituall is such that it may stand though not onely forsaken but grieuously oppressed by the great men of the world and doth not absolutely depend on the care of such as manage the great affaires of the World and direct the outward course of thinges here below and therefore it is by all resolued on that the Church hath her Guides and Rulers distinct from them that beare the Sword and that there is in the Church a power of conuocating these her Spirituall Pastours to consult of thinges concerning her wel-fare though none of the Princes of the World doe fauour her nor reach forth vnto her their helping handes neither need wee to seeke farre to find in whom this power resteth for there is no question but that this power is in them that are first and before other in each company of spirituall Pastors and Ministers seeing none other canne be imagined from whom each action of consequence each common deliberation should take beginning but they who are in order honour and place before other and to whom the rest that gouerne the Church in common haue an eye as to them that are first in place among them Hereupon we shall find that the calling of Diocesan Synodes pertaineth to the Bishop of Prouinciall to the Metropolitane of Nationall to the Primate and of Patriarchicall to the Patriarch in that they are in order honour and place before the rest though some of these as Bellarmine truely noteth haue no commanding authority ouer the rest Touching Diocesan Synodes I shewed before that the Bishop is bound once euery yeare at least to call vnto him the Presbyters of his Church and to hold a Synode with thē and the Councell of Antioch ordaineth that the Metropolitane shall call together the Bishops of the Prouince by his letters to make a Synode And the Councell of Tarracon in Spaine decreeth that if any Bishoppe warned by the Metropolitane neglect to come to the Synode except hee be hindered by some corporall necessity he shall be depriued of the communion of all the Bishops vntill the next Councell The Epaunine Councell in like sort ordereth that when the Metropolitane shall thinke good to call his Brethren the Bishops of the same Province to a Synode none shall excuse his absence without an evident cause Touching Nationall Councels and such as consist of the Bishops of many Provinces such as were the Councels of Africa the calling of them pertained vnto the Primate as it appeareth by the second councell of Carthage in that the Bishop of Carthage being the Primate of Africa by vertue of particular canons concerning that matter by his Letters called together the rest of the Metropolitanes and their Bishops And concerning Patriarchicall councels the eighth
alleaged by Cusanus and greatly approued yea the same Cusanus complaining of the abuses of the Court of Rome in that thinges are carried thither that should bee determined in the Prouinces where they beginne in that the Pope intermedleth in giuing Benefices before they be voide to the preiudice of the originall Patrons by reason whereof young men run to Rome and spend their best time there carrying gold with them and bringing backe nothing but paper and many like confusions which the Canons forbid and neede reformation addeth that the common saying that the secular power may not restraine or alter these courses brought in by Papall authority should not moue any man for that though the power of temporall Princes ought not to change any thing established canonically for the honour of GOD and good of such as attend his seruice yet it may and ought to prouide for the common good and see that the auncient canons be obserued Neither ought any one to say that the auncient christian Emperours did erre that made so many sacred constitutions or that they ought not so to haue done For saith he I read that Popes haue desired them for the common good to make lawes for the punishment of offences committed by those of the cleargie And if any one shall say that the force of all these constitutions depended vpon Papall or Synodall approbation I will not insist vpon it though I haue read and collected foure score and sixe chiefe heads of Ecclesiasticall rules and lawes made by old Emperours and many other made by Charles the Great and his successours in which order is taken not onely concerning others but euen concerning the Bishoppe of Rome himselfe and other Patriarches what they shall take of the Bishoppes they ordaine and many like things and yet did I neuer finde that the Pope was desired to approue them or that they haue no binding force but by vertue of his approbation But I know right well that some Popes haue professed their due regarde of those Imperiall and Princely constitutions But though it were graunted that those constitutions had no further force then they receiued from the canons wherein the same thinges were formerly ordered or from Synodall approbation yet might the Emperor now reforme things amisse by vertue of old canons and Princes constitutions grounded on them Yea if hee should with good aduice considering the decay of piety and diuine worshippe the ouerflowing of all wickednes and the causes and occasions thereof recall the old canons and the auncient and most holy obseruation of the Elders and reiect whatsoever priuiledges exemptions or new deuices contrary therevnto by vertue whereof suites complaintes and controuersies the gifts and donations of benefices the like thinges are vnjustly brought to Rome to the great prejudice of the whole Christian Church I thinke no man could justly blame him for so doing Yea he saith the Emperour Sigismund had an intention so to doe and exhorteth him by no fained allegations of men fauouring present disorders to bee discouraged for that there is no way to preserue the peace of the Church whatsoeuer some pretend to the contrary vnlesse such lewde and wicked courses proceeding from ambition pride and couetousnesse be stopped and the old canons reuiued From that which hath beene obserued touching the proceeding of Christian Kings and Emperours in former times in calling Councels in being present at them and in making lawes for persons and causes Ecclesiasticall it is easie to gather what the power of Princes is in this kinde and that they are indeede supreame Gouernours ouer all persons and in all causes as well Ecclesiasticall as Ciuill which is that wee attribute to our Kings Queenes and the Papistes so much stumble at as if some new and strange opinion were broached by vs. Wherefore for the satisfaction of all such as are not maliciously obstinate refusing to heare what may be said I will endeauour in this place vpon so fitte an occasion to cleare whatsoeuer may bee questionable in this point will first intreat of the power and right that Princes haue in causes Ecclesiasticall then of that they haue ouer persons Ecclesiastical jn treating of causes Ecclesiasticall I will first distinguish the diversities of them the power of medling with them Causes Ecclesiasticall therefore are of two sorts for some are originally and naturally such and some onely in that by fauor of Princes out of due consideration they are referred to the Cognisance of Ecclesiasticall persons as fittest Iudges as the probations of the Testaments of them that are dead the disposition of the goods of them that dye intestat and if there be any other like Causes Ecclesiasticall of the first sort are either meerely and onely Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall or mixt Meerely Ecclesiasticall are of three sorts First matters of Faith and Doctrine Secondly matters of Sacraments and the due administration of them Thirdly the orders degrees ordination of such as attend the Ministery of the word Sacraments Mixtly Ecclesiasticall are of two sorts either such as in one respect belong to one kinde of cognisance and in another to another as marriages which are subiect to ciuill disposition in that they are politicall contracts and to spirituall in that they are ordered by the diuine law or such as are equally censurable by Ciuill Ecclesiasticall authority as murthers adulteries blasphemies the like All which in the time when there is no Christian Magistrate or when there is ouer-great negligence in the ciuill Magistrate are to bee punished by the spirituall guides of the Church Whereupon wee shall finde that the auncient Councels prescribed penance to offenders in all these kindes But when there is a Christian Magistrate doing his duty they are to bee referred specially either to the one or the other of these and accordingly to bee censured by the one or the other as wee see the punishment of adultery vsury and things of that nature is referred to Ecclesiasticall persons the punishment of murther theft the like to the ciuill Magistrate This distinction of causes Ecclesiasticall premised it is easie to see what authority Princes haue in causes Ecclesiasticall For first touching those causes that are Ecclesiastical onely in that they are put ouer to the cognisance of spiritual persons there is no question but that the Prince hath a supreame power and that no man may meddle with them any otherwise then as he is pleased to allow And likewise touching those things which in one respect pertaine to ciuill jurisdictiō in another to spiritual or which are equally censurable by both there is no question but that the Prince hath supreame power in that they pertaine to ciuill jurisdiction So that the onely question is touching things naturally and meerely spiritual The power in these is of two sorts of Order of Iurisdiction The power of Order is the authority to preach the Word minister the Sacraments to ordaine Ministers
Councell against VVickliffe simply but in comparison and so doth Gerson and disliketh it as much as I doe condemning it of partiality To the fifth and sixth I say that Gerson affirmed the one to witte that no good was to bee expected by a generall Councell that the seuerall parts of the Christian world were to reforme them-selues and feared the other namely that too great diuersity would follow vppon such diuided reformations as it will easily appeare to any one that will take the paines to peruse the places cited by Mee Neither was it hast and precipitation as Maister Higgons is pleased to censure it but necessity that made our men to doe as they did hauing no meanes to meete for common deliberation To the seauenth I answere that Gerson Grosthead and the rest were members of the Church that was vnder the Papacie but that they were not of the papall faction nor vassals of the man of sin but men of a better spirit To the eighth I answere breefely that I haue most sincerely and truly alleaged the testimony of Gerson and noe way varied from his intention which that the reader may the better be able to discerne I will first set downe what my allegation is and then what exceptions Higgons taketh to it My words are these Touching the second cause of the Churches ruine which is the ambition pride and couetousnesse of the Bishoppe and Court of Rome Gerson boldly affirmeth that whereas the Bishoppes of Rome challenging the greatest place in the Church should haue sought the good of Gods people they contrarily sought onely to aduance themselues his wordes are these In imitation of Lucifer they will bee adored and worshipped as Gods neither doe they thinke themselues subiect to any but are as the sonnes of Belial that haue cast off the yoake not enduring whatsoeuer they do that a man should aske them why they do soe they neyther feare God nor reuerence men This is my allegation now let vs see what it is that Maister Higgons excepteth against in it Are not these the wordes of Gerson Hee cannot deny but that they are but hee sayth Gerson vttered them when there was a Schisme in the Church It is true hee did soe but what then Did not the true Pope whosoeuer hee was amongst those pretenders take as much on him as the rest and is not this note of disgrace fastned vpon all but that Maister Higgons may know that Gerson spake as much of the Pope simply as I haue cited out of him without any reference to pretenders as hee would faine avoyde the evidence of his heavy sentence let him consider what Gerson hath written in his Tract de potestate Ecclesiae where hee goeth about to stop the mouth of flattery giuing too much to the Cleargy and vile Detraction taking too much from it and bringeth in flattery speaking in this sort to them of the Cleargy especially the Pope O how great how great is the height of thy Ecclesiasticall power O sacred Cleargy how is secular power nothing if it be compared vnto thine Seeing as all power both in Heauen Earth was giuen to CHRIST so CHRIST left it all to Peter and his successors so that Constantine gaue nothing to Pope Sylvester that was not his before but restored to him that which had bin vnjustly with-holden and there is no power temporall or Ecclesiastical imperial or regall but frō the Pope in whose thigh CHRIST did write King of Kings and Lord of Lords of whose power to dispute it is sacrilegious to whom no man may say why doe you so though he ouer-turne teare in sunder and ouer-throw all states possessions and dominions temporall and Ecclesiasticall let Mee be reputed a lyar saith hee if these things bee not found written by them that are wise in their owne eyes and if they bee not found to haue beene beleeued by some Popes He addeth notum est illud satyrici Nihil est quod credere de se Non possit cum laudatur diis aequa potestas That is according to that knowne saying of the Satyricall Poet what should not hee perswade himselfe of himselfe that is magnified as equall to God in power For that of the Comicall Poet is true of the flatterer that he maketh fooles to be starke madde These are the sayings of Gerson which I haue laid downe at large that the Reader may judge whether I haue depraued the intention of Gerson or not and whether Higgons had any cause to traduce Mee in such sort as he doth It seemeth the poore fellow was hired to say something against Mee or else he would neuer haue adventured to vent such fooleries yet the last accusation against Mee is not to be passed ouer Gerson saith the Popes will be adored as God and I feare not to adde that the English Reader may vnderstand Mee that they will be adored and worshipped as God out of these premises he maketh an excellent conclusion comparing Gerson to Dauid that commaunded Ioab to saue the life of Absalom and Luther to Ioab that had no pitty on trayterous Absalom in that the one would haue the Pope well dealt withall though he disliked his faults and the other sought to tread him vnder his feete But let the Reader know that as Gerson so Luther was willing to giue all due honour to the Pope contenting himselfe with that which of right pertaineth to him but if hee dishonour God wrong the Church suffocate and kill her children and heretically refuse to be subiect to the Church and Councell if he challenge infallibility of iudgement from which no man may appeale Gerson will tread him vnder feete and reiect him as an Hereticke as well as Luther The Fourth Part. §. 1. IN the fourth part of this Chapter Master Higgons vndertaketh to proue that I haue abused the name and authority of Grosthead to iustifie the Lutheran reformation which he performeth full wisely in this sort Grosthead was iudged a Catholicke and a good man by some Cardinals in Rome therefore hee could not desire that reformation of things amisse that now is wrought If the consequence of this Argument be denyed hee knoweth not how to proue it but willeth his reader to demaund of Mee whether these Cardinals which iudged Grosthead to bee a Catholicke and of the same Religion with them-selues were not reall members of the Antichristian Synagogue proud Romanists factious Papists c. which question is soone answered For I haue distinguished as he knoweth right well the Church in which the Pope tyrannized and the faction of Papists that flattered him and applied themselues to sette forward his proud and vniust claimes till they lifted him vp into the throne and seate of Antichrist the members of the Church and of the faction and though both these liued for a time in the same outward Communion as did the right beleeuers and they that denied the resurrection of the dead amongst the Corinthians yet did they
laici et omnes templi choro excludebantur Hugo erudit theol de Sacram. fid lib. 2. part 3. c. 4. ut intrinsecus quietius vivant ordines ministerii divini per indulgentiam Monachis conceduntur non ad exercendam praelationem in populo Dei sed ad celebrandam intrinsecus communionem Sacramenti Dei quod tamen in principio non ita fuisse dicunt Monachi quippe et Eremum habitantes olim Presbyteros habuisse dicuntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbytâ—…s â—…y by â—…y aâ—…d 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 alloâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…stus vt Damasâ—… air titulos in vibâ—… Rotâ—… Presbytâ—…s dâ—…it 〈◊〉 in â—…ta 〈◊〉 g 〈◊〉 contra â—…anos h As Christ doth nothing witâ—…ut 〈◊〉 Father so do 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 wheâ—… be Presâ—… Deacon or 〈◊〉 man 〈◊〉 ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haâ—… ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presâ—…rs Dâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…he Châ—…ch Cenâ—… 〈◊〉 1. canâ—… Presbyteri sine conscientiâ—… Episcopi nihil faciunt i Epiphanius haeresi 75. Concilium Anciranum can 13. â—…ero â—…pist 〈◊〉 â—…um quid facit Episcopus exceptâ—… ordinatione quod non facit Presbyter k Concil Carth. 〈◊〉 can 4. â—…arth 3. â—…an 31. 32. 158. l Hiero. contra Luciferianos ob honorem sacerdotij fit vt soli Episcopi manus imâ—…nt 〈◊〉 Thomâ—… 〈◊〉 â—…addit quaest 40. art 5. Bonauen l 4. dist 24. ar 2 q. 3. Dominicus á Soto l. 10. de iustitia 〈◊〉 q. 〈◊〉 aâ—… 2. in 4. dist 24. q. 2. art 3. Armacanus l. 〈◊〉 ostendit nullum praelatum plus habere de potestate sacramenâ—… siuâ—…or â—…nis quà m simâ—…ces sacerdotes Cameracensis in 4. quaest 4. Contarenus de Sacramentis lib. 4. n Contra Luciferianos o Peruenit ad nos quosdam scandalizatos fuisse quod Presbyteros Chrismate tangere in fronte eos qui baptizati sunt prohibuimus c. Greg Ianuario episcopo l. 3. in dict 12. Epist. 26. p Carth. 3. can 32. q Videtur quod si omnes Episcopi essent defuncti sacerdotes minores possent episcopos ordinare Armachanus l. 11. in q. Armenorum cap. 7. Alex de Hales part 4. q. 9. memb 5. art 1. dicunt quidam quod ex demandatione Papae ordinatus potest conferre ordinem quem habet 〈◊〉 Synodus Chalced. can 6 s Episcopus praeter iudicium metropolitani finitimorum episcoporum non ordinandus Concil Laodicen can 12. si episcopus ab omnibus episcopis qui sunt in prouinciâ aliquâ vrgente necessitate non ordinatur certè tres episcopi debent in vnum esse congregati ita vt etiam caeterorum qui absenteâ—… sunt consensum literis teneant Concil Nic. can 4. â— t Concil Antiochenum can 13. u Concil Ancitanum can 13. decrerum Iohannis 3. cp ad Germaniae episcopos Antiochenum can 10. 1 Li. 1. Ep. 4 y Lib. 1 Ep. 4. a 1 Part. l. 5. 28 a Denotis Ecclesiae cap. 8. c Irenaeus l. 4. c. 43. illis Presbyteris obediendum esse dicit qui cum Episcopatus successione Charisma acceperunt veritatis Tertul. de praescrip praeter ter ordinem Episcoporum ab initio decurrentem requirit consanguinitatem doctrinae Aug. Epist. 165. enumeratis episcopis Romanis in hoc inquit ordine nullus inuenitur Donatista b Staplet contro de ecclesia in se quaestione 4. art 2. expositione articuli notabili 5. d Irenaeus l. 3. cap 3. e Lib. 3. cap. 2. a Bellar. de notis Ecclesiae li. 4 cap. 10. nota 7. b Dicunt quidam articulum esse fidei quod Benedictus exâ—…ph grâ—…tia sit Papa quod absque co non stet salus cum tamen salus Ecclesiae in solum Deum ordinetur absolutè essentialiter in hominem Christum de ordinatalege sed accidentaliter in papam mortalem alio quin cum vacat sedes per mortem naturalem vel ciuilem Papae vtpote si sit haereticus depositus quis hominum saluus esse possit Gers. part 1. consid 1. de pace idem pâ—…tte 4. ser. de Angelis papam agnoscere de necessitate salutis esse ambigunt nonnulli sufficere dicentes vt verum Ecclesiae caput Christus agnoscatur c Gers. de modo habendi se tempore schismatis d See cap. 7. e Lib. 1. Ep. 3. f But be will say Cyprian calleth the Rom Church the principall Church whence saceâ—…dotall vnity hath her spring herevnto we answere that the Râ—…m Church not in power of ouerrusing all but in order is the first and principall that therefore while she continueth to hold the trueth and incrocheth not vpon the right of other Churches shee is to haue the priority but that in either of these cases she may be forsaken without breach of that vnity which is essentially required in the parts of the Church g Cyprian l. 4. Epist. 8. h Lib. 2. Ep. 1. i Fiâ—…milianus Cypriano Ep. 75. k In Catalogo scriptorum Ecclesiast l Hiero. Euagrio m Epist. ad Damasum de nomine Hypostasis n Lib. 1. contra Iouinianum o Hiero Euagrio p Epist. 89. ad Episcopos Viennensis prouinciae a 〈◊〉 Tim c. 17. b Revel 2. 6. c Actes â—… 18. d Neâ—… mouere quenquam debet quod conâ—…dem professionem patrum praeposus decreto generalo Consilii quam fide de toto 〈◊〉 existentes conuenitent eâ—…copi quin â—…mo in tractatibuâ—… 〈◊〉 â—…uic â—…ost â—…ptaras 〈◊〉 Conciliorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 art 〈◊〉 1â—… e 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 14 32 33. g P. 3. dialog apolog iudicium de Concilio Constanciensi h See Chap. 35. i That which Illyricus said touching originall sinne which hee affirmed to be an essential corruption was not soe meant as if sinne were a positiue thing or an essence and substance as many did conceiue for he acknowledged that sinne is formally nothing but a want of râ—…ctitude and an aberration but as wee call that action sinne wherein defect and want of rectitude is found so likewise hee feared not to call the essentiall powers of the soule auerse from God and disordered in their motions and inclinations by the name of originall sinne because they are originally sinnefull Smidelinus cleareth Hosiander shewing that his opinion was that by the actiue and passiue righteousnesse of Christ performed in his humane nature as by causes meritorious wee finde fauour with God and haue communion with him and are made partakers of his essentiall righteousnesse not transfusing it into us or confounding it withus as many mistocke him but by such a kind of participation as that is wherein all creatures partake of Gods diuine perfections and that so partaking of his righteousnesse we may do â—…hat is right in his sight k De tâ—…ibuna lib. atque administrationis insulis ad sacerdotium raptus doâ—…ere vos copi quod ipse non didâ—…ci itaque factum est vt prius docere inciperem quà m discerem â—…endum