Spirit was not giuen him by measure Ioh. 3.34 and that the holy Ghost dwelleth in him bodily but it were great blasphemie so to say of any man Apostle or Minister beside which haue receiued of the same grace but not in the like measure that Christ hath but the spirit is giuen to euery one in measure as they haue neede in their seuerall places and callings Secondly though we should grant that the Apostles had the full authoritie of Christ actually to remit sinnes which they shall neuer proue yet it may be doubted whether al Ministers whom they call Priests which name we refuse not if it be taken according to the sense of the originall word Presbyter and not for a sacrificing priesthood haue as full power in this case as the Apostles had nay it is plaine they haue not for the Apostles and other in the Primitiue Church had power to discerne spirits 1. Cor. 12.10 and to giue actually the bodies of the excommunicate to bee vexed and possessed of the diuell 1. Cor. 5.5 and after a strange manner to exercise power ouer their bodily life as Peter did vpon Ananias and Sapphira Act. 5 Yet we rather stand vpon this poynt that neither the Apostles nor any other Ministers haue power actually to remit sinnes then onely as dispensers and stewards in the name of Christ. The Protestants AL the power of binding and loosing committed to the Apostles and to the Ministers of the word and Sacraments is by declaring the will and pleasure of God out of his word both to pronounce forgiuenes of sinnes to all that are truely penitent the reteining of them to the obstinate and impenitent Fulk annot Iohn 20. sect 3. So that Ministers are not made iudges in this case but only as the Lords ambassadors to declare the will of God out of his word 1 There is a notable place for this purpose 2. Corinth 5.18 God hath reconciled vs vnto himselfe through Iesus Christ and hath giuen vs the ministerie of reconciliation So then Christ is the onely author of reconciliation the Apostles are but ministers how then say the Rhemists that Christ himselfe is but a minister also of our reconciliation yet a chiefe minister whereas the Apostle maketh him the author God was in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe vers 19. Wee are but ambassadors for Christ and pray you in Christs stead to bee reconciled vnto God this then is the office of Ministers not to reconcile men vnto God but to pray them to bee reconciled through Christ Christ onely is the reconciler they but ministers of reconciliation They are but messengers and ambassadors onely to declare their Princes pleasure their commission is certaine beyond that they cannot goe Wherefore that is a blasphemous decretal and cleane contrarie to the scripture which is ascribed but falsely to Pontianus Bishop of Rome which sayth that God hath Priests so familiar that by them he forgiueth the sinnes of others and reconcileth them vnto him Fox pag. 59. But S. Paul sayth that God onely by Christ reconcileth vs vnto himselfe 2 Augustine doth very freely vtter his minde concerning this matter who putteth this obiection If men doe not forgiue sinnes then it should seeme to be false which Christ sayth Whatsoeuer you bind in earth is bound in heauen He answereth Daturus erat dominus hominibus spiritum sanctum c. God was to giue vnto men the holy Ghost by whom their sinnes should be forgiuen them Spiritus dimittit non vos spiritus autem Deus est Deus ergo dimittit non vos the spirit therefore remitteth sinne and not you the spirit is God God forgiueth sinnes and not you Here is one argument God onely forgiueth sinnes Ergo not man Againe Quides homo nisi aeger sanandus vis mihi esse medicus mecum quaere medicum O man what art thou that takest away my sinnes but a sicke man thy selfe wouldest thou be my phisition nay let vs both together goe seeke a phisition that may heale vs. Lo another argument He cannot be a phisition to others that needeth a phisition himselfe he cannot reconcile others to God who hath himselfe neede of a reconciler Further he sayth Qui dimittit per hominem potest dimittere praeter hominem non enim minus est idoneus per se dare qui potest per alium dare He that can forgiue sinnes by man can forgiue also without man for he may as well forgiue by himselfe as he can doe it by another Here is then the third argument If man doe actually forgiue sinnes then Christ should not forgiue sinnes without man for the whole power is committed to man Yea the Rhemists affirme the same that it is necessarie we should submit our selues to the iudgement of the Priest for release of our sinnes if it bee necessarie then sinnes cannot be remitted without the Priest then is Christs power limited he cannot forgiue without man which is contrarie to that Augustine affirmeth here THE FOVRTH PART WHETHER STRAIGHT waies whatsoeuer be loosed or bound by the ministerie of men vpon earth be so in heauen The Papists AN expresse power say they is giuen vnto Priests to remit and reteyne error 76 sinnes And Christ promiseth that whose sinnes soeuer they forgiue they are forgiuen of God and whose sinnes soeuer they retaine they are retained of God Rhemist annot Iohn 20. sect 5. Whereby it appeareth it is their opinion which is manifest also by the practise of their Church that at the will and pleasure of euerie priest exercising the keyes vpon earth men are bound and loosed in heauen They ground this their opinion vpon the generalitie of the wordes Whosoeuers sinnes you remit they are remitted Iohn 20.23 and Math. 18.18 Whatsoeuer you binde in earth shall be bound in heauen Answere These places are not so to be vnderstood as though God were bound to ratifie euery decree of men vpon earth for first this power is giuen to all lawfull pastors which doe holde the Apostolike fayth not to Idolatrous ignorant and blasphemous priests such as most if not all of the popish sorte are Secondly they must decree in the earth according to Gods wil Wherefore Iohn 20.22 first Christ breatheth his spirite vpon his Apostles and then giueth them their commission signifiyng hereby that they must execute this power as they shall be directed by Gods spirite and Matth. 18.20 it followeth that they must be assembled in the name of Christ that is according to Christs rule and the direction of his word they must binde and loose and not at their owne discretion The Protestants THat no sentence or decree of men bindeth or looseth before God in heauen but that which is pronounced according to the will and pleasure of GOD and by the warrant of his worde the scripture euery where teacheth vs. 1 Prouer. 26.2 As the sparrow by flying escapeth so the curse that is causelesse shall not come Isay 5.20 Woe vnto them that speake good
whether they that haue the dispensation of the Keyes doe alwaies necessarily bind and loose before God of these in order THE FIRST PART WHEREIN THE AVthoritie and power of the Keyes consisteth The Papists error 73 BY the Keyes and power of binding and loosing they chiefly and principally vnderstand the censures of the Church as Excommunications Anathematismes suspensiōs Degradations the whole Ecclesiastical iurisdictiō Rhemist Annot. Matt. 16. sect 14. Bel. lib. 1. de pontif cap. 13. Secondly they tye remission and retaining of sinnes to their imagined and deuised sacrament of penance saying that where Christ gaue authoritie to remit sinnes to his Apostles Iohn 20.23 he instituted the sacrament of penance Rhemist Iohn 20. sect 3. The sacrifice also and Sacraments of the Church say they are ministred for remission of sinnes Rhemist 2. Corinth 5. sect 3. Thirdly they seeme to grant in words that by preaching also of the Gospell sinnes are reteined and remitted ibid. but they make small account thereof for as we haue heard they make it not of the essence of their priesthood to preach neither doth it properly appertaine vnto that office yea say they absolutiō cānot be rightly sought for at the priests hands but by confession of our sins which is done in penance Rhem. Ioh. 20. sect 5. This then is their opinion that by their deuised ceremonie and Sacrament of penance sinnes are properly forgiuen and that the preaching of the word is not thereto necessarie Their chiefe argument is by abusing that place Iohn 20.23 where they say Christ instituted the Sacrament of penance when he gaue power to his Apostles to remit and reteine sinnes Ans. First your Sacrament of Penance is neither grounded vpon this nor any other place of scripture here in the wordes of Christ there is no institution of a sacrament because there is no visible element giuen whereunto the worde being added may make a sacrament Secondly here the commission is but renewed which was granted before to his Apostles and their successors Matth. 18.18 Fulk Annot. Iohn 20. sect 3. The Protestants THe Keyes of the Church that is the power to bind and loose sinners to open or shut vnto them the kingdome of God consisteth both in the externall discipline and gouernement of the Church lawfully executed according to the word of God as also in preaching of the Gospell by assuring in Christs name all faithfull and penitent persons remission and forgiuenes of their sinnes and in denouncing and threatning the wrath of God against the disobedient and impenitent also as the sacraments are ioyned to the word as seales and pledges of the promises thereof so by the right administration of the sacraments together with the preaching of the word sinnes are retained or remitted The Rhemists therefore doe vs great iniurie in falsely charging of vs that we should hold that the spiritual power of the Church standeth only vpon the preaching of the word whereas wee grant that it is exercised also in the Ecclesiasticall gouernement of the Church both in punishing excommunicating censuring of offenders which is the binding of them and in releasing and absoluing them againe which is the other power of loosing Rhemist 2. Corinth cap. 10. sect 1. Leauing now this part of spiritual power in Ecclesiasticall discipline which is not in this place in question betweene vs wee must touch that other part which is exercised in the word and sacraments 1 That the sacraments doe binde and loose it is proued out of the word of God they doe binde Whosoeuer eateth drinketh vnworthily eateth drinketh his own damnation 1. Cor. 11.29 they doe also loose As oft as ye shal eate this bread and drinke this cup you shewe the Lords death till he come vers 26. But here is a double caution and condition to be annexed First that all Sacraments worke not this effect but onely those of Christs institution which are but two baptisme and the supper of the Lord for Paul saith I haue receiued of the Lord that which I deliuered vnto you 1. Cor. 11.23 If the Apostles would not neither might deliuer any Sacraments but those which were instituted of Christ what great presumption is it in any other to doe it Secondly we must not think that remissiō of sinnes is necessarily tied to the Sacraments as though there could be no remissiō without thē for the grace of remission may be effectual in the name of Christ by the preaching of the word without a sacramēt Ioh. 20. sect 4. Ful. For the word may be preached without a sacramēt but the sacramēt cānot be ministred without the word for that were as though a man should deliuer a seale without a writing Neither is it our meaning that as the Rhemists cauil with vs the sacramēt cannot be administred without a sermon of the death of Christ for though that were alwaies to bee wished yet where it cannot bee had there must and ought to be a briefe shewing and declaration of the death of Christ out of the word so oft as the Sacrament is administred as it is obserued in our Church Fulk Annot. 1. Corinth 11. sect 15. 3 We must take heede we conceiue not thus as though the Sacrament gaue grace by the worke wrought and that by the very vse forme and externall act of the Sacrament wee obtaine remission of sinnes as the Rhemists would beare vs in hand 1. Corinth 11. sect 15. But the Sacraments are onely effectuall to the worthie receiuers and to the worthie receiuing faith is requisite as Saint Paul willeth all men to examine themselues 1. Corinth 11.28 which is as hee himselfe interpreteth it to proue whether they be in the faith 2. Corinth 13.5 These conditions then being obserued we denie not but that there is an exercise of the keyes euen in the Sacraments 2 But chiefely and principallie is this power dispensed by the preaching of the word as Saint Paul saith Wee are the sauour of death vnto death vnto some there is the binding and to other the sauour of life vnto life there is the loosing 1. Corinth 2.16 So our Sauiour Christ saith He that refuseth mee the word that I haue spoken shall iudge him in the last day Iohn 12.48 Here is the power of binding Againe the truth shall make you free Iohn 8.32 Here is the power of loosing Who therefore doubteth this that the preaching of the word is the most proper and principall way and meane for the exercising of this Ecclesiasticall power for seeing faith is the key of heauen thereby wee haue free accesse vnto the throne of grace Rom. 5.2 and faith commeth by hearing Rom. 10.17 and hearing by the word It remaineth that by the word the keyes are dispensed Augustine also subscribeth vnto this for speaking of reformation of life and repentance with remission of former sinnes thus he saith Quid empturus es vt facias quae emplastra quaesiturus ecce cùmloquor muta cor factum est quod tam
vs sustine hath bene mine I haue endured the labour I would abstine might be theirs that they would abstaine from ill speaking Lastly if I haue taken vpon me more then is performed I haue done foolishly for that olde verse might haue warned me sufficiently Sumite materiam vestris qui scribitis aptam viribus But I trust by the gratious assistance of God I haue in some smal measure accomplished that I would and I say with Augustin Gratias ago Deo qui quantum voluit donando quod voluit fari promisit et vâ—i voluit tacendum linguae terminum posuit For it is God that gaue me strength to proceede so far as I haue done and hath set me my bouÌ„ds which I should not passe for no mâ—n may exceede the line and measure of his gifts 2. Corin. 10.14 Thus I end commending these my labours to the charitable and christian iudgement of the Church of God whom I desire to profit and to your Honors protection whom I wish in vertue and honor to tread your Fathers path and both of you to liue so long as it pleaseth God to his glory and the comfort of his Church and afterward to be euerlastingly rewarded in heauen through the onely merits of Christ Iesus to whom be praise for euer Your Honors to commaund in the Lord Christ Andrew Willet HERE ENSVE THE CONTROVERSIES OF THE FIVE OTHER POpish Sacraments Penance Matrimony Confirmation Orders Extreme Vnction THE FOVRTEENTH CONTROVERSIE of popish Penance VNto this controuersie belong these questions following First of the name Penance whether it be rightly giuen 2. Whether that which they call Penance but we much better Repentance be a Sacrament 3. Whether there be any other Sacrament of repentance beside Baptisme 4. Of the essentiall partes of penance as the matter and forme and of the 3. material parts Contrition Confession Satisfaction with an appendix whether repentance goe before faith 5. Of Contrition 1. The cause thereof 2. The quantity thereof 3. Whether it be ioyned with faith 4. Whether it be satisfactory 5. Whether contrition be necessary for venial sinnes 6. Of contrition which onely proceedeth of feare 6. Of Auricular confession 1. Whether it be necessary 2. whether it be a diuine ordinance 3. To whom it is to be made 4. Of the time 7. Of satisfaction with the seuerall branchâ—s of this question 8. First of penall iniunctions 1. Whether necessary 2. By whom to be imposed Secondly of indulgences 1. Whether there be any such 2. The grouÌ„d of them 3. In whose power they be 9. The circumstances of penance 1. Their habite 2. Their workes 3. Of the time of their penance THE FIRST QVESTION OF THE name of Penance The Papists THe Latine word Poenitentia which they translate Penance being deriued of error 1 poena doth signifie say they not onely confession and amendement of life but contrition and sorrow for the offence and painefull satisfaction Bellarm lib. 1. cap. 7. Argum. Math. 11.21 the word must needs signifie sorrowful paineful and satisfactory repentance Rhemist Math. 3.2 The Protestants Ans. THe place quoted out of S. Mathew proueth no such thing where our Sauiour saith that Tyre and Sâ—don would haue repented in sackecloth and ashes which is no satisfaction for sinne but an outward signe of true sorrow for sinne Argum. The Greeke word euery where vsed is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth as Laurentius Valla noteth emeÌ„dationem mentis the change or amendemeÌ„t of the minde and no such outward satisfactory penance as they pretende Wherefore it is more fitly englished Repentance And although the Latine word Poenitentia doe not properly expresse the Greeke word to the which resipiscere resipiscentia repentance and to repent do better answere yet agere poenitentiam in Latine is not to doe penance as the Rhemists translate it but is all one as to say repent yea and so the Rhemists themselues read be penitent Mark 1.15 and not doe penance And Act. 11.18 they translate poenitentiam repentance Augustine thus taketh this word poenitentia Rectè poenitens quicquid sordium contraxit oportet vt abluat saltem mentis lachrymis The true penitent man must at the least wash away his sinnes with the teares of the minde If then repentance be in the soule what is become of this outward satisfactorie penance THE SECOND QVESTION WHETHER THERE be any Sacrament of penance The Papists error 2 CHrist they say instituted the Sacrament of penance when he breathed vpon his Apostles after his resurrection and said vnto them Receiue ye the holy Ghost whose sinnes ye remit they are remitted whose sinnes ye retaine they are retained Ioh. 20.22 The faculty of the Priesthoode coÌ„sisting in remitting of sinnes is heere bestowed vpon the Apostles Rhemist annot Ioh. 20. sect 5. Herevpon they are bolde to conclude that penance is truely and properly a Sacrament Concil Trident. sess 14. canon 1. Bellarm. lib. 1. de poenitent cap. 10. Ans. 1. If the power of remission of sinnes were heere first instituted how could the Apostles baptize or minister the Lords supper before without power to remit sinnes to the penitent Christ therefore in this place doth but renewe and confirme the authority of their Apostleship which was granted to them before Math. 18.18 Secondly this power here giuen is principally exercised by preaching of the word of God and denouncing publikely or priuately the promises of God for remission of sinnes to the penitent or the threates and iudgement of God in binding the sinnes of the obstinate and impenitent So Luke 20.24 Christ commandeth his Apostles to preach repentance and remission of sinnes in his name Thirdly we confesse also a iudiciary power of the keies in binding and loosing which is exercised in ecclesiasticall discipline in punishng and absoluing according to the word of God as the incestuous person was bound when he was deliuered vp to Sathan 1. Cor. 5.5 he was loosed againe when he was restored to the Church 2. Cor. 2.7 But neither this nor the other was commended to the Church as a Sacrament The Protestants TRue repentance we doe acknowledge which is a dying to sinne and a walking in newnes of life Rom. 6.4 But a Sacrament of repentance we finde none in Scripture and therefore we deny it Argum. 1. In euery Sacrament there is an externall sensible element as water in Baptisme bread and wine in the Lords Supper but there is none in their penance Ergo no Sacrament Bellarm. answereth that the words of absolution and confession are the outward signes in penance it is not necessary it should be a visible signe it is a sensible signe being audible cap. 11. Ans. 1. There must be the word beside the element as Augustine saith Accedat verbum ad elementum Let the word be ioyned to the element and it maketh a Sacrament the word it selfe cannot be the element for the same thing cannot both sanctifie and be sanctified And if the audible word be the element by
are Christs Disciples which is an vnreasonable supposition seeing we hold him to be Antichrist and that the Iesuite knoweth Such a Councell was that of the Iewes Iohn 9. where all they were excommunicate that confessed Christ Mark. 14 Christ himselfe was by the Councel condemned It cannot be denied that this Councell erred Let vs heare the papists goodly answeres some say that the Councel erred in a matter of fact de facto non de iure not in a case of right as whether Christ should be put to death as though in condemning him they denied not that he was the Messiah other that they erred in their owne opinion not in the sentence giuen for Christ indeede was guilty of death say they because he did beare our sinnes the Iesuite findeth not much fault with this answere yet it is an open blasphemie as is that also of the papists that the Iewes had sinned mortally if they had not put Christ to death Some of them say the Councel erred not in that which was done but in the maner of iudgement because it was tumultuous disorderly done by suborning of false witnesses and this sayth the Iesuite is probabilis responsio a probable answere sayth hee being most impious and blasphemous But he dare not rest in this answere but findeth out a fourth of his owne that the chiefe priestes and Councels of the Iewes could not erre before the comming of Christ but after he was come they might A blinde popish answere for doth not Christ euery where impugne the traditions and decrees of the Elders as Mark. 7. which our Sauiour should not haue done belike seeing the Elders before his comming could not erre or will they say that those traditions were right and good before and afterward erronious I know not els what they should say 3. We see by experience that many councels haue erred we let pas those which the Iesuite himself cōfesseth to haue erred as the third Coūcel of Antioch where Athanasius was condemned and the Arrian heresie approoued the Councel of Arimine where the same heresie was furthered the fourth Ephesine approuing Eutiches heresie These Councels though they were generall the papists confesse to haue erred and they haue a trick to shift it off but a silly one God knoweth They were not approoued by the Pope saye they As though all verity knowledge in the whole earth were locked vp in the Popes breast But wee will bring an instance of such Councels as the Pope allowed and yet by the papists owne confession erred In the Councell of Naeo-Caesarea confirmed by Leo 4. in the 7. canon second marriage is forbidden In the Councel Toletan 1. the 17. canon it is thus written that one may be admitted to the communion though he haue a concubine modò non sit vxoratus so hee be not wiued the Iesuites poore shift is this that a concubine is here vnderstoode for a wife without a dowrie and further sayth that Agar was Abrahams wife and not his concubine agaynst the scripture for Abraham should haue done euill in sending of her away as he did if she were his wife and the scripture calleth Sara by the name onely of Abrahams wife the other by the name of a bond woman Gen. 21.8.12 In the sixt Synod confirmed by Adrian the 1. canon 72. the mariages betweene Catholikes and hereticks are adiudged to be voyde In the second Councel of Nice act 5. it was concluded that Angels and mens souls are bodily and circumscriptible In the Councel of Rome vnder Pope Stephan the 7. all the acts of Formosus his predecessor were reuoked And in the Councel of Rauenna vnder Iohn 9. Pope Formosus actes were established and Stephans decrees abrogate Lastly in the Councel of Constance they are excommunicate that receiue the sacrament in both kinds the Councel of Basile on the contrary side permitteth and giueth leaue to the Bohemians to vse both kindes One of these Councels must needs erre both of them were confirmed by the Popes the Councel of Constance by Martin the 5. the Councel of Basile by Foelix 5. By this induction of many particulars we inferre and conclude that Councels euen approued by the Pope may and haue erred 4. Lastly Augustines opinion is this that prouincial Councels ought to giue place to general Et ipsa plenaria priora posteriorib emendari and the former general Councels must be amended by the latter The Rhemists haue found out this shift that in matters indifferent which are to be chāged according to time and place Councels may be altered Act. 15. sect 8. But to that it is aunswered that the word emendare signifieth not onely a change but a correcting of that which is amisse And that clause of Augustines must bee put in why Councels must be amended si a veritate deuiatum fit if they swarue from the truth de baptism lib 2. cap. 3. Wherfore we conclude that Councels may erre THE SIXT QVESTION CONCERNING THE AVthority of general Councels whether they may absolutely determine without scripture and necessarily binde all men to the obedience of their Canons The Papists IN words they would seem to magnifie the scripture aboue Councels for error 34 they say that the authority of the scripture depēdeth not in himself of Church Pope or Councels but in respect of vs the word of God is the word of God say they though there be no determination of the Church but we doe not know it so to be but because the Church hath so defined Bellarmine lib. 2. de con cap. 12. Here is a goodly glosse but nothing to the purpose for in that they say the Church hath absolute authoritie to declare and pronounce which is the word which indeed it hath not without testimonie and warrant of the word it selfe by this meanes it commeth about that much is taken for the worde of GOD which is not and so the Church doth not onely declare the worde but maketh that the word which is not First beside the Apocrypha which they make part of the word as we haue shewed afore they hold that their traditions are also the word of God Bellarmine cap. 12. Secondly Gratian is so bolde to affirme that the decretall Epistles of the Popes are to be counted amongst the Canonical scriptures dist 19. can in canonicis that the Canons of Councels are of the same authority dist 20. can decretales And Greg. 1. epist. 24. saith he doth reuerēce the 4. general Councels as the foure Euangelists Thirdly they shamefully affirme that whatsoeuer the pastors and priests do teach in the vnity of the Church is the word of God Rhemens 1. Thes. 2. v. 12. First then they conclude that Councels are not bound to determine according to the scriptures but as iudges may determine of their own authority Secondly that al men are bound of necessity to receiue the decrees of Councels without any further triall or examination They reason thus out of the
scripture 1. Deut. 17.12 He that harkeneth not vnto the priest that man shal die But mark I pray you what goeth before v. 11. according to the law which they shal teach thee according to the iudgement which they shall tell thee shalt thou do see then here is no absolute iudicial power giuen to the priest but according to the law of God 2. The example of the Apostles Act. 15. is as fōdly alleadged where it was decreed saith the Iesuite that the Gētiles shuld not be burthened with ceremonies which saith hee was not determined by the scriptures but by the absolute suffrages of the Apostles Again their decrees were absolutely imposed vpon the Churches without any further examination of the Disciples Ergo we are now also absolutely bound to obey all decrees of Councels Bellar. de concil 1.18 We answere first it is false that this matter was determined without scripture for Iames alleadgeth scripture Peter thus reasoneth we beleeue through the grace of God to be saued as wel as they v. 11. therfore what need this yoke of ceremonies 2. Though there had been no scripture who seeth not that the spirit of God so ruled the Apostles that their writings and holy actions should serue for scripture vnto the ages following Thirdly the Disciples needed not to examine their decrees knowing that they were gouerned by the spirit as they themselues write It seemed good to vs and the holy Ghost yet we see the brethren of Bereae searched the scripture for the trueth of those things which the Apostles preached Act. 17.11 When they can proue such a plenarie power fulnes of the spirit in their pastors and Councels as was in the Apostles we wil also beleeue them The Protestantes WE doe firmly beleeue that neither the Church nor Councels haue any such absolute power to determine without the holy scriptures either beside or agaynst them or to binde other men to obey such decrees Neither that the true Church of God dare or will arrogate such power vnto it self But that Councels are ordayned for the discussing deciding of doubtful matters according to the scriptures and word written 1. If the Apostles preachings might bee examined according to scripture much more the acts of all other Bishops and pastors But that was lawful in the Disciples of Berea Act. 17.11 which are commended for it therefore called noble couragious Christians because of this their promptnes diligence in searching out of the truth Ergo. 2. All things necessarie to saluation to be beleeued are articles of our fayth but al such articles must be grounded vpon the word of God therfore nothing can be imposed as necessary to saluation without the word of God Wherefore it is a blasphemous saying of the papists that the Church may make new articles of fayth Rhemens annot in 1. Tim. 3. sect 9. and Eckius maintained the same poynt agaynst Luther in the disputation at Lipsia and brought forth a new article of faith agreed of in the Councel of Constance that it is de necessitate salutis of the necessitie of saluation to beleeue that the Pope is the head of the Church The fathers of Basile more modest then so concluding that it was an article of fayth to beleeue that Councels were aboue the Pope doe vse this reason those things say they which we alleadge for the superioritie of general Councels are gathered out of the sayings of our Sauiour Christ. Ergo we are al bound to obey them Therefore we conclude that the word of God only written is the rule of fayth and al things necessary to be beleeued Rom. 10.10 Fayth commeth by hearing and hearing by the word Councels are to explane and declare articles of faith not to establish new 3 Lastly we will heare Augustine speake Nec tu debes Ariminense neque ego Nicaenū tanquā praeiudicaturus proferre concilium scripturarum authoritatibus c. Neither must I alleadge the Nicen Councel nor you the Arimine I am neither bound to the one nor you to the other let the matter be tried by Scripture cont Maximu Arrianum lib. 3. cap. 14. By this fathers sentence therefore no man is bound of necessitie to be tyed to Councels but the Scripture onely is absolutely to be beleeued THE SEAVENTH QVESTION WHETHER Councels be aboue the Pope or not The Papists THis is a matter yet not fully determined amongst the Papists Neither are error 35 they all of one opinion In the Councell of Constance and Basile it was fully concluded that the Councell is aboue the Pope Gerson of Paris that was also present in the Councell of Constance and a great dooer against Iohn Hus stifly maintaineth the authoritie of Councels aboue the Pope Other Papists more fauorable to their new God amight say that the Pope is by right aboue the Councell but he may if he wil submit himselfe to the Councell But now commeth in the stoute Iesuite and saith with the rest of the schoolemen that the Pope hath such a soueraigntie aboue the Councell that he cannot be subiect to their sentence though hee would Bellar. de concil lib. 2.14 Yet hee is in a mammering with himselfe for saith he in periculo schismatis when there is a schisme and it is not knowne who is the true Pope in such a case the Councell is aboue the Pope Let vs examine some of his best reasons 1 Now commeth in a great blasphemie All the names saith the Iesuite that are giuen to Christ in the Scriptures as head of the Church are ascribed to the Pope as he is called fidelis dispensator Luc. 12. a faithfull steward in the Lords house pastor gregis Iohn 10. the shepheard of the flocke Caput corporis ecclesiae Ephes. 4. the head of his bodie the Church vir seu sponsus Ephes. 5. the husband or spouse of the Church all these titles saith he are due to the Pope Ergo he is aboue the Church and so consequently aboue generall Councels Bellar. de concil lib. 2.17 O Lord what great blasphemie is here to appropriate the titles of Christ to a mortall man But goe to Bellarmine and the rest of that packe fil vp the measure of iniquitie of your forefathers say with Pope Athanasius that the people of the world are the partes of his bodie with Cornelius the Bishop in the Councell of Trent the Pope being the light came into the world and men loued darkenes rather then light with Pope Calixtus in the Councell of Rhemes who when hee saw the Councell would not consent to excommunicate the Emperour impiously cried out that they had forsaken him as Christ was left of his Disciples with Innocentius the third that all things in Heauen and earth and vnder the earth doe bowe the knee vnto him with Otho no Pope but a Cardinall that sitting amongst his Bishops blasphemously applied to himselfe the vision of Ezechiel cap. 1. resembling the Bishops to the sower faced beasts himselfe vnto God that approched to the
the perfection and authority of the scriptures as also whether it be in the Pope to summone dissolue and confirme Councels which hath been sufficiently declared before in the controuersie concerning Councels Concerning other questions as the canonizing of Saints which they say appertaineth to the Pope the election and confirmation of Bishops pardons and indulgences we shall haue fitter occasion to deale in them in their seuerall places and controuersies At this time wee purpose onely to touch these two poynts aforesaide of the Popes Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE POPE may make lawes to binde the conscience and punish the transgressors thereof iudicially The Papists THat the Pope hath such authorie to make lawes for the whole Church error 49 which shall binde vnder paine of damnation as well as the lawes of God it is the general opinion of the papists Fox 981. articul 13. p. 1101. artic cont Lambert 29. But they put in this clause So they bee not vniust lawes nor contrarie to the diuine law Bellarm. cap. 15. And yet they say that the Pope may make lawes hauing not the authority nor warrant of scripture neither is it necessarie for these lawes to be expressed or diduced out of scripture And these lawes are not onely of externall rites and orders of the Church but euen of things necessary to saluation Bellarm. cap 15. in reprehens Caluini Yea he addeth further that in matters not necessary to saluation he can not be disobeyed without deadly sinne and offence of conscience cap. 16. loc 1. Bulla Leonis 10. aduersus Lutherum Fox p. 1283. col 1. 1. The Apostles prescribed a law concerning the abstaining from blood things strangled and offered to Idols concerning the which Christ gaue them no precept But this law did binde the people in conscience for euery where the Apostles gaue straight charge for the keeping of the decrees Bellarm. Answere First the Apostles commaunded no newe thing but the same which they themselues were taught of Christ that they should take heede of offence the Christians therefore were not bound in conscience any further to keepe the decrees concerning such things then for auoyding of scandal and offence Secondly for afterward the offence being taken away the law also ceased and Saint Paul giueth libertie notwithstanding this law to eate things offered to Idols if it might be done without offence Asking no question sayth he for conscience sake 1. Cor. 10.27 Ergo their consciences were not hereby obliged and bound 3. It is necessary to haue some lawes beside the diuine law for the gouernment of the Church for the word of God is too vniuersal neither is sufficient to direct euery particular action therefore other ecclesiasticall lawes must bee added but euery good and necessary law hath a coactiue and constraining power and bindeth the conscience to obedience Ergo the constitutions of the Popes and Councels which are the only ecclesiastical lawes doe binde the conscience Bellarmin cap. 16. lib. 4. Answere First the word of God contayneth all necessarie rules to saluation wherefore all lawes of the Church concerning matters of faith are but explanations and interpretations of the rules of fayth set forth in scripture if they be godly lawes and so are not the lawes of men but of God and doe bind the conscience to the obseruation thereof as the lawes of the Church which command Christians to resort to the congregation to heare Gods word and reuerently to receiue the sacraments are the very ordinances and commaundements of Christ who enioyned his Apostles to preach and baptize and his faythfull people to heare and to be baptized and therefore in conscience wee are bound to the obedience hereof Secondly there are other ecclesiasticall lawes appoynted for the publique order of the Church concerning externall rites and circumstances of persons and place as the houres of prayer the forme of the leâ—turgie publike seruice the times fittest for the celebration of the sacraments and such like These and such like constitutions do not binde in conscience absolutely in respect of the things themselues which are indifferent but in regarde of that contempt and offence which might followe in the not keeping of them contempt to our superiors whome wee ought in all lawfull things to obey offence in grieuing the conscience of our weake brethren So that euen these constitutions also which are made according to the rules of the Gospell that is vnto edification to the glorie of God and for auoyding of offence doe necessarilie binde vs in conscience not conscience of the thinges themselues which are but externall but conscience of obedience to our Christian Magistrates and conscience in taking heede of all iust offence sic Caluin Institut lib. 4. cap. 10.11 3 But we are not God be thanked driuen to any such straight that if there be neede of any such Ecclesiasticall lawes we should run for succor to the Popes beggerly decretals And yet such Canons as were in force amongst them agreeable to the rules of the Gospell we doe not refuse But if there bee want and penurie of good lawes euery Church hath as full authoritie to make decrees and ordinances for the peace and order and quiet gouernement thereof not as the Pope of Rome hath ouer the vniuersall Church for that by right is none or if it be it is but an vsurped power but as the Bishop of Rome hath in his owne Bishopricke and dioces The Protestants WHat our sentence is of this matter it doth partlie appeare by that which wee haue alreadie saide that the Pope hath no power ouer the whole Church and therefore can make no lawes to binde the conscience or otherwise for the same for it belongeth not to his charge Secondly we say that neither he nor any ecclesiasticall gouernement beside can make lawes of things necessarie to saluation other then those which are in Scripture conteined Thirdly all Ecclesiasticall lawes made concerning externall rites and publike order doe not otherwise binde the conscience then in regarde of our obedience due to Christian Magistrates in lawfull things and for auoyding of scandall and offence But in respect of the things commaunded such lawes doe not binde Caluin loc praedicto 1 Saint Iames saith there is one lawe-giuer which is able to saue and to destroy cap. 4.12 He therefore onely maketh lawes to binde the conscience that is able to saue and to destroy but that cannot the Pope doe Ergo Caluin argum Bellarmine answereth that the lawes of men doe binde vnder paine of damnation in as much as God is offended and displeased with their disobedience and so iudgeth them worthie of punishment cap. 20. All this wee graunt that the lawes of men being good lawes doe binde in conscience in respect of the contempt and disobedience to higher powers but not in respect of the thinges commaunded which in their nature are indiffereÌ„t The Iesuite should haue said that God is offended not onely for their disobedience but simplie
of euill and euill of good Hee that iustifieth the wicked and condemneth the iust they are both an abomination to GOD Prouer. 17.15 Wherefore a priest binding a penitent man and loosing a wicked man doth flatly transgresse the law and rule of Gods word neither shall his sentence be ratified in heauen 2 In saying that whosoeuers sinnes the priest bindeth or looseth his sentence standeth in effect before God they must needes admit one or both of these absurdities either to grant that a Priest cannot erre in dispensing of the â—eyes which were too shamefull a saying to giue so great a priuiledge to euery ignorant and simple priest such as their Church hath great store of which no mortall man can haue Saint Paul giueth warning to Timothie who was more then a common or ordinarie minister that he lay not his handes sodaynly vpon any ad 1. Timoth. 5. vers 22. But if Timothie so excellent a man had been free from erring in executing his function this exhortation of Saynt Paule had been needlesse and superfluous Or else they must say that the iudgement of mens soules is committed vnto them for if looke how they pronounce vpon men on earth euen so it fareth with them before GOD then the saluation and damnation of men dependeth of their sentence But the scripture sayth Doe not iudge thy brother for we shal al appeare before the iudgement seate of Christ Rom. 14.10 Men therefore are not iudges to pronounce who are saued or damned but the iudgement must be committed to Christ. But who knoweth not that the popish Church doth arrogate vnto themselues this power to define who are Saynts in heauen and whose soules are tormented in hell Thus they dealt with Iohn Husse hauing condemned him they set a crowne of paper vpon his head pictured with diuels saying vnto him Now we commit thy soule to the diuel At the burning of that worthie seruant of God and blessed martyr Iohn Frith one Doctor Cooke a fowle mouthed papist bid the people to pray no more for him then they would for a dogge And thus they take the Lords office out of his hand in taking vpon them to be iudges of men 3 I will conclude with Augustines words he sayth that sinnes are forgiuen or not forgiuen non secundum arbitrium hominum sed secundum arbitrium dei orationes sanctorum not after the will and pleasure of men but according to the will of God and at the prayers of deuout and holie men THE FIFT QVESTION CONCERNING the lawfulnesse of mariage in Ministers THis question hath three partes first whether it bee expedient or requisite that all Ministers should be tied vnto single life Secondly whether men twice maried are to be admitted into the ministerie Thirdly whether Ministers hauing entred into holie orders ought to renounce the societie of their wiues before maried THE FIRST PART WHETHER IT BE lawfull for Ministers to marrie The Papists error 77 BEllarmine confesseth that single life is not imposed vpon Ministers by the lawe of God for there is no precept either in the olde or new testament that forbiddeth Ministers to marrie but it is a positiue law of the Church most ancient and most iust kept and obserued euen since the Apostles time And therefore it is not now lawfull for Ministers to marrie cap. 18. lib. de Clericis 1 1. Timoth. 2.3 the Apostle sayth that no man that warreth entangleth himselfe with the affayres of this life But to bee maried and to haue care of houshold are counted amongst the affayres and busines of this life Ergo a Minister who is the Lords souldier ought not to entangle himselfe therewith Bellarmin Ans. First the Iesuite before confessed that they had no scripture against Ministers mariage how is it then that now he pleadeth scripture Secondly we must put the Iesuite in minde of his owne exposition of this place lib. 5. de pontif cap. 10. where this place being alleadged against the temporall dominion of Ecclesiasticall persons he answereth that this place onely forbiddeth negotiationes and mercimonia merchandise and traffick in the worlde not regimen politicum not politicall regiment If then the politicall care of a citie prouince or common-wealth be no impediment in his iudgement to the spirituall warfare much lesse without all question is the domesticall care of one familie the charge of wife and children Thirdly we vtterly denie that mariage is an hinderance or let to the calling of Ministers nay we say that it is an helpe and comfort to those that haue not the proper gifte of continencie 2 The Iesuite giueth diuers instances wherein mariage is a let and impediment to ministers As it hindreth their prayer their preaching their almes and liberalitie to the poore for they haue wife and children to care for Bellarmin Answere First belike you esteeme of mariage as of an vnholie and vnpure thing that a man can neither pray nor doe the office of a Christian performing the duetie to his wife and indeede one of your companions calleth mariage a prophanation of sacred orders Greg. Martin discouer cap. 15. sect 11. Whereas the Apostle calleth it an honourable state Heb. 13. and it was instituted in Paradise whereas before the fall of man there was no vncleane thing Secondly we denie not but that abuse of mariage both in ministers and other lay-men is an impediment to all holie actions and therefore Saint Paul giueth generall Counsell to all both ministers and others that they which haue wiues should bee as though they had none 1. Cor. 7.29 that is should liue soberly in mariage and not giue themselues to the wantonnes of the flesh Thirdly neither doth mariage hinder hospitalitie for Saint Paul requiring that a minister should be harborous 1. Tim. 3.2 giueth also rules concerning the gouernement of his familie his wife and children vers 4.11 For to whom may he better commit the care of houshold affayres then to his wife And that familie which is guided by a carefull godly huswife we see by experience to yeeld more reliefe to the poore and giue entertainement to strangers then those houses which haue none And where it is obiected that Ministers will care altogether for their children It hath been seene that single priests in time of poperie haue been more couetous and greedie to enrich their kinred then maried Ministers haue cared for the prouision of their children 3 Single life by the Apostle is preferred before the maried estate and therefore fittest for Ministers for he that is maried careth for the things of the world 1. Cor. 7 33. Rhemist Ans. First single life is preferred before mariage in all men not onely in Ministers And therefore as lay-men are not bound to single life though it be in it self more conuenient so neither ought ministers to bee 2. Though a thing in it selfe be best yet is it not vniuersally best for euery man as riches are better then pouertie because they are Gods blessing
to disclaime therefore the maintenance which he hath of the Church for the Leuites beside the allotment of the tythes had their proper houses which they might sell and redeeme agayne Leuitic 25.32 As also that place 1. Timot. 3.2 will beare it where the Apostle would haue a Bishop to be harberous and giuen to hospitalitie which he shall be much better able to performe hauing some helpe beside the Church liuing of his owne inheritance So then it is not to be doubted but that Ecclesiasticall persons may together with spirituall liuings retayne their owne proper inheritance referring them both to one and the selfe same end that is to countenance their Ministerie and to be the better able to performe the externall dueties thereof in releeuing the poore helping the needie and such like Thirdly as touching the proper maintenance and reuenew of the Church which is by tithes diuers poynts are agreed of and accorded betweene vs. First that tithes due onely to the Church and cannot be alienated to any other vse nor be turned to the maintenance of lay men for there must be where tithes are payed a matter of giuing and receiuing Philipp 4.15 We giue spirituall and receiue temporall which because lay men doe not performe they haue nothing to doe with the tithe for not keeping the condition they cannot claime the couenant 2 The people are bound in conscience to giue of their goods vnto their lawfull Pastors according to the determination of the Church and the positiue lawes of Princes made in that behalfe the which they are bound to obey and the tenth being the hire of the labourer and the wages of the Lords workeman Math. 10.10 it shall be as great a sinne to defraude the Minister of his portion as to keepe backe the meate or wages from the hireling and labourer Iam. 5.4 3 We vtterly denie also and herein consent with our aduersaries that tithes are not pure almes as some haue been of opinion in times past but are a plaine debt of the people to their Ministers First the wages or reward of the labourer is no almes but his due and of right belonging to him but tithes are so vnto Ministers who labour in the Lords haruest 1. Timoth. 5.16 Ergo no almes Secondly almes doe alway exceede the desert of the almesman they shewe the beneuolence and free heart of the giuer not any merite or worthines in the receiuer but tithes and all other temporall gifts are farre inferiour to the labours of Ministers for what are temporall things to spirituall 1. Cor. 9.11 Ergo no almes Thirdly the tenth is the Lords part and by him it is assigned to his faithfull Ministers which in Gods stead doe teach vs 2. Cor. 5.20 But almes cannot be giuen vnto God Agayne the tenth is as an inheritance to the Church and to bee counted as the corne of the barne or the abundance of the winepresse Numb 18. vers 26.27 It is vnto them as the fruite of the earth and encrease of the ground to the husbandman Therefore to be counted no almes from men but the blessing of God both vpon the pastor and the people 4 We also agree that it is not meete that the maintenance of Ministers should be voluntarie or left to the peoples choise but that it is conuenient iust equall requisite that both by lawes of Princes and constitutions of the Church prouision should be made as there is for the necessarie certayne and competent maintenance of the Church First the tenths in the lawe were established by a perpetuall ordinance Ergo the maintenance of Ministers ought now also to be confirmed by positiue lawes as then tithes were the argument followeth for if their Ministerie deserued such assurance of their maintenāce which did but serue at the Altar much more now doth the Ministerie of the Gospel deserue it And the Apostle also seemeth so to reason 1. Corint 9.14.15 that as they which wayted on the Altar were partakers of the Altar so God hath ordayned sayth he that they which preach the Gospell should liue of the Gospell That is as then the people did not onely giue tithes voluntarily but were bound by lawe to doe it euen so God hath ordayned that Ministers should liue of the people and by this ordinance of God the people may as well be bound vnto it now as they were then Secondly if Ministers bound in conscience to feed and instruct the people may also be enforced and vrged by the constitutions of the Church and lawes of Princes to do that which in conscience they are bound why may not the people likewise be constrayned by publike lawe to performe that dutie to their pastors which their owne conscience doth vrge them vnto Thirdly experience teacheth that men are hardly euen liuing vnder a law brought to pay their rights to the Church no not in those places where they can take no exception against their pastors how much more vnwilling would they be I speake of those which are not yet wonne to a through liking of the Gospel if they were left to their owne libertie 5 We also acknowledge as Bellarmine seemeth to grant cap. 25. that to pay precisely the tenth is not now commanded by the law of God as though that order could not be changed by any humane law as the Canonists hold but men necessarily were bound to pay tithes But thus farre forth we hold that it is groūded vpon Gods law first in respect of the equitie of the law in paying of tithes which is this that the Ministers ought to liue of the people and to haue sufficient competent maintenance by them which equitie and substance of the law is morall and ought alwaies to continue being grounded vpon the law of nature Thou shalt not musle the mouth of the oxe that treadeth out the corne Secondly in as much as the lawe of the land and of the Church doth confirme this ancient constitution of tithes which is left indifferent of itselfe we are bound to obey such lawes being agreeable to the word of God And in this sense also tithes may be sayd to be due by the lawe of God because Gods word commandeth obedience to our Magistrates in all lawfull ordinances 6 Though the lawe of tenths be not now necessarie as it was a ceremonious duetie but it is lawfull either to keepe that or any other constitution for the sufficient maintenance of the Church whether it bee more or lesse then the tenth part yet we doubt not to say that this prouision for the Church maintenance by paying of tithes is the most safe indifferent and surest way and no better can come in the place thereof First it is the most equall way to haue euery thing in the kinde according to the Apostles rule Let him that is taught make his teacher partaker of al his goods Galath 6.6 But this cannot be so conueniently done any other way as by erecting of a set stipend or such like as by
and at the 9. houre Peter and Iohn went vp to pray in the temple Act. 3.1 And Daniel vsed to pray thrice in the day Dan. 6.10 Ergo those times ought to be consecrate to prayer Rhemist Act. 10. sect 6. Ans. First we denye that it can be gathered by any of those places that these houres onely ought to be set apart for prayer Peter and Iohn went vp at the 9. houre which was the time of the euening sacrifice when the religious Iewes went vp to pray Secondly Daniel praied three times a day but at what houres the text speaketh not yet by this example and by the other proofes alleadged we doe gather that at the 3.6.9 houre that is not precisely at any of these times but in the morning when men rise vp to their labours at noone before their repast and at night when they goe to rest it is meete and conuenient that men should make their praiers vnto God and at other times also when they finde themselues fit Thirdly the popish seruice hath nothing but the names of these houres for they are all finished in the forenoone they haue their Nocturnes at midnight their Prime early in the morning whereas the sixt houre is at high noone the ninth houre is the third houre before the Sunnes set Fulk ibid. The Protestants WE denye not but that set times of publike prayer are commendable as we haue our forenoone and afternoone seruice But at vnseasonable houres as at midnight or the rising of the Sunne to call the people together when they cannot cōueniently be assembled is but a superstitious custome Again it is profitable for men in the morning noone euening though not precisely at any set houres to direct their prayers vnto God but so to stint mens prayers as that they ought of necessitie to keepe their houres as though their prayers were then more auaileable it hath no ground out of scripture 1 S. Paul saith Pray continually 1. Thessal 5.17 Ergo it is lawfull to pray at all times and one time as fit for prayer as another if a man be prepared Agayne the same Apostle saith I will that the men euery where lift vp pure hands without wrath and doubting 1. Timoth. 2.8 Out of these words we gather two arguments First prayers are no more bound to times then to places a man may pray euery where Ergo at euery time Secondly a man ought not to pray but when he is voyd of wrath and is otherwise prepared but it may be that at the stinted houres of the 3.6.9 a man may bee in wrath and otherwise not fit therefore he is not necessarily to be tyed to those houres 2 Augustine thus writeth Cum quisque orationem quaerit collocat membra sicut ei occurrerit Cum autem non quaeritur sed infertur appetitus orandi hoc est cum repente aliquid venit in mentem quocumque modo inuenerit hominem non est vtique differenda oratio Lib. 2. ad Simplician quaest 4. When any man desireth to pray let him dispose his bodie as he thinketh best But when as it commeth not of his desire and seeking but suddenly his affection is stirred vp to pray howsoeuer prayer findeth him that is whether standing or sitting he must not in any case deferre it and put it off to another time This then is Augustines minde that a man should pray so oft as he hath a disposition thereunto and not deferre his prayer as they doe which bind themselues to Canonicall houres THE FOVRTH PART CONCERNING THE maintenance of Monkes The Papists error 97 THey neither denie that it is vnlawfull for Monkes to labour with their hands where necessitie bodily strength the order of the Church doth require thē neither doe they confesse that it is necessary for them to worke And so are not ashamed to maintaine their idle slothfull and Epicures life Bellarm. cap. 41.42 Rhemists Thessal 2.3 sect 2. But they may either liue of the lands giuen to their houses or els by their religious begging cap. 44. 1 Monkes are not now bound to worke hauing wherewithall to liue beside of lands giuen vnto them because most of them are Priests and doe serue at the Altar Rhemist ibid. Ans. First we grant that Ministers of the Gospell labouring in the word and Sacraments ought to be maintained by the Gospell But such are fewe or none of your Monkes who being fit for no other seruice either in the Church or commonwealth are thrust into Monasteries by their friends they are idolatrous Priests and serue little better then at Baals altar If any of them be fit for the Ministerie as we denye not but some haue come out of your Cloysters as Luther Bucer P. Martyr by whom the Church of God hath receiued much good but they must come first out of your Dennes and relinquish their Monkish life and labour amongst the people so shal they be no more regular but secular priests as you terme them Secondly the lands which were bestowed vpon them were first giuen vpon an euill intent that by their prayers they should redeeme the soules of their founders who most of them had cōmitted some notable sinne so pro remedio animarū to helpe their soules they built Monasteries So King Ethelstane for killing his brother Edwin built two Monasteries Middleton and Michelney for his soule Fox pag. 152. King Offa for killing Ethelbert a good Prince who came peaceably for the despousage of Atheldred his daughter being pricked in conscience gaue the first Peter pence to Rome pag. 114. Those lands therefore being giuen first for vngodly purposes and continued by them for idolatrous vses ought cleane to bee taken from them and to be bestowed vpon better vses neither is it lawfull for them in that sort to enioy them 2 They proue the impudent begging of Friers which they call religious begging to be lawfull and commendable by the example of Christ who had not a place where to put his head Luk. 9. and of his Apostles that were charged not to possesse gold or siluer in their purses Math. 10. Bellarm. cap. 45. Ans. First I pray you where euer did you reade that Christ went a begging he liued not of almes but gaue almes and Iudas was the almesman though he playd his part but euill Augustine flatly denyeth that you auouch He saith that Christs bagge was as Fiscus regis euen as the Kings Exchequer and that what was giuen him was as due as tribute money to the Prince But the King I trow is not a begger Nisi putetis sayth he quia dominus petebat indigebat cui seruiebant angeli qui de quinque panibus tot millia pauit Vnlesse you thinke sayth he that Christ begged and wanted whom the Angels serued and who fed with fiue loaues not a fewe thousands in Psal. 146. Secondly if the Apostles were beggers then they liued of almes but that is vntrue for Christ saith The labourer is worthie of his hire but the labourers wages
shepheard Bellarm And the Apostle willeth all men to obey their Bishops and ouerseers Heb. 13.17 and to submit themselues vnto them from which rule neither Kings nor Emperours are exēpted Prelates must be obeyed Ergo not obey Rhemist ibid. Ans. First the obedience here required we acknowledge that it ought to be yeelded by Kings Emperours to those that haue the ouersight of their soules for the Prince is bound to receiue and beleeue all true doctrine which is taught by the Pastors and Bishops of the Church agreeable to the word of God vnder paine of damnation and the Pastors are bound vnder the like paine to obey the Princes lawes made according to the word of God Secondly wherefore the spirituall obedience of the ciuill Magistrate to the word of God taught by the Pastors of the Church is no exemption of them from their ciuill obedience for euery soule is subiect to the higher powers Rom. 13.1 Fulk annot 13. Heb. sect 9 The Protestants THat Ecclesiasticall persons are subiect to temporall gouernours and are to be iudged by their lawes the scriptures speake plainly 1 Rom. 13.1 Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers Ergo Bishops yea the Pope himselfe if he haue a soule The like sayth S. Peter 1.2.13 Submit your selues to all manner ordinance Salomon remoued Abiathar from the Priesthood and put in Sadock Paul appealed and submitted himselfe to Caesar. Againe if Priests offend and commit any grieuous sinne as of murther theft who shall punish them The ciuill Magistrate onely beareth the sword They must either grant that priests are no euill doers which were to too grosse or if they be that they are vnder the ciuill Magistrates power for he is the Minister of God to take vengeance vpon euery euill doer Rom. 13.4 In Augustines time the controuersies betweene the Catholike and Donatist Bishops were committed to the iudgement of the Emperour Ait quidam saith he Non debuit Episcopus proconsulari iudicio purgari Quasi verò ipse sibi hoc comparauerit ac non Imperator ita quaeri iusserat ad cuius curam de qua rationem deo red liturus est res illa maximè pertinebat But saith one a Bishop ought not to haue been purged before the Proconsul or ciuill Magistrate As though sayth Augustine the Proconsul did of himselfe intermeddle in this matter and was not commanded rather of the Emperour so to doe vnto whose charge that matter principally appertained and whereof he shall make account vnto God Ergo by his sentence the cause of the Bishop principally was to be iudged by the Emperour THE SECOND PART WHETHER THE PRINCE haue power ouer Ecclesiasticall goods The Papists THe goods of the Clergie both secular and Ecclesiasticall are and ought to error 99 be exempted from paying tribute to Princes yet they haue not this libertie say they by the Lawe of God but by the grant of Princes themselues Rhemist annot Rom. 13. sect 5. Bellarm. de Clericis cap. 28. Genes 47.22 27. The lands of the Priests were exempted from paying tribute Ergo it seemeth that this custome is grounded vpon the law of nature Bellarm. Ans. First the Hebrew word signifieth rather Presidents such as were the Kings officers not Priests as Tremellius sheweth who were maintained by the Kings prouision being officers of his houshold for Genes 41.45 Ioseph is sayd to marrie the daughter of Potyphar prince not priest of On. The same word Cohen is there vsed for it is not like that Ioseph would match himselfe with an idolatrous priests daughter Secondly but be it granted this was but a politike constitution for that coūtrey other Princes are not bound to Pharao his law Thirdly they gaine nothing by this but that it is an humane constitution The Protestants THat Princes haue authoritie to punish Ecclesiasticall persons offending in their goods either by displacing them or by conuerting the Church possessions by them abused to better vses we haue shewed before Contr. 5. quest 6. part 1. And that their goods ought to pay tribute subsidie taxe vnto the prince thus now it is proued 1 Our Sauiour Christ paied poll money Math. 17.25 Rom. 13. Euery soule ought to be subiect to the higher powers and there vers 5. paying of tribute is made a part of subiection the argument therefore thus followeth Clergie men are subiect to Princes therefore they ought to pay tribute 2 Ex concessis we reason thus from their owne confession That which Princes gaue to the Church vpon good cause they may take away but this immunitie not to pay tribute was first granted as they confesse to the Church by Kings and Princes Ergo they haue the same right hauing iust occasion to take it from them againe What Augustines iudgement is we haue seene in the place before alleadged THE THIRD PART CONCERNING THE PRINCES authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall The Papists error 100 THe Prince they say hath no authoritie to giue voyce deliberatiue or definitiue in Councels concerning matters of religion nor to make lawes Ecclesiasticall concerning the same Onely they giue them authoritie to execute the Ecclesiasticall lawes made by the Church Rhemist 1. Corinth 14.16 Bellarm. de pontif lib. 1. cap. 7. 1 Kings and Princes may in their owne persons execute if they will whatsoeuer their inferiour officers do as to heare and determine causes as the Iudges and other Magistrates doe but the Prince cannot execute any Ecclesiasticall function as to preach baptize Ergo he hath no authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall for how can the Prince impart that to others whereof he is himselfe incapable as to giue Bishops and Pastors power to ordaine to preach and such like Bellarm. Rhemist ibid. Ans. First the authoritie of ciuill Magistrates doth not giue any thing to Ecclesiasticall Ministers which appertaineth to their office as to ordaine preach baptize neither is the Prince to deale in these offices yet may the ciuill Magistrates command them to execute their charge and dueties according to the word of God Wherefore it followeth not Princes cannot execute the pastoral dueties themselues Ergo they ought not to see them executed Dauid Salomon Iehosophat Ezechia commanded the Priests to execute their office according to the law of God though it was not lawfull for them neither did they execute any thing proper to the Priests office in their owne persons neither doth any Christian Prince challenge any such right in Ecclesiasticall functions wherefore it is an impudent slander of Bellarmine which he giueth forth of our Queene Iam re ipsa Caluinistis in Anglia mulier quaedam summus pontifex And now sayth he in England the Caluinists haue a certaine woman for their chiefe Bishop De notis eccles lib. 4. cap. 9. 2 It doth not followe that the Prince might as well execute Ecclesiasticall offices as he may ciuill in his owne person if he haue authoritie ouer both No more then it followeth that because Ecclesiasticall persons doe teach both ciuill Magistrates
Bellarmine answereth Princes doe rule ouer their subiects as men not as Christians and Kings are set ouer the people not as they are Christians but politike persons so the Prince is head of the kingdome not of the Church De pontif Rom. lib. 1. cap. 7. Ans. Stephen Gardiner taketh away this cauill very sufficiently we will set one Papist against another It is all one sayth he to call the Prince head of the Church of England and head of the Realme of England for if all Englishmen be his subiects why are they not his subiects as they are Christians If the wife or seruant bee subiect to the master or husband being infidels doth their conuersion or name of Christians make them lesse subiect then they were before Haec ille Againe how farre is this I pray you from Anabaptistrie to say that subiects onely as men not as Christians are in subiection to Princes for doth it not followe hereupon that as Christians they ought to haue no superiour or Magistrate 2 It is sufficient for vs that this title more fitly and properly belongeth to euery Prince in his owne kingdome thē to the Pope for the Pope can in no wise be head of the Church he is not the mysticall head neither dare they say so for Christ onely is the head in that manner neither can he be the Ministeriall head of the vniuersall Church for the Catholike Church is a bodie mysticall must needes haue a mysticall head neither is he the politicall head of any particular Church for no Bishop can be a politicall head because he that is the head and chiefe must haue a coactiue power to binde his subiects to obedience so hath not any Bishop The Prince onely beareth the sword and enforceth obedience Againe in a farre diuers sense is the Prince called the head then the Pope was for first the Pope challenged to be head of the vniuersal Church but the prince is chiefe only in his owne kingdome Secondly the Pope would be an absolute head to doe all vpon earth that Christ did yea and more to to bind and loose at his pleasure to depose Kings to dispense with the word of God to constitute and make lawes at his pleasure in so much that one of his clawback flatterers is not ashamed to say of him Christus Papa vnum faciunt consistorium excepto peccato potest Papa quasi omnia facere quae potest Deus Christ and the Pope make but one Consistorie keepe but one court sinne onely excepted the Pope in a manner can doe all things that God can doe But we doe limit the power of the Prince who is not to impose any lawes vpon the Church but such as are agreeable to the word of God neither doe we make him a spirituall officer as the Pope would be but a ciuill gouernour who by positiue lawes is to prouide for the peace and welfare of the Church Lastly S. Peter sayth Submit your selues to the King as the chiefe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or most excelling what is this els but as to the head what is it to be chiefe but to be head But we will not much contend for the name so they will grant vs the thing namely that the Prince is a commander euen in Ecclesiasticall matters as Augustine saith In hoc reges Deo seruiunt si mala prohibeant nō solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verumetiam quae ad diuinam religionem Cont. Crescon lib. 3. cap. 5. In this Kings doe good seruice to God if they forbid euill to be done not onely in matters pertaining to humane societie but in things concerning religion As for the title to bee called head let them cease to call their chiefe Bishop so who hath no right vnto it and we will promise also to lay it downe though in good sense we might vse it though the Pope had neuer layd claime thereunto THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERNING THE authoritie of the Prince in punishing heretikes WE doe willingly grant that obstinate heretikes and peruerters of the faith if they persist in their damnable opinions and remaine incorrigible may and ought to be cut off and punished by death to make others to feare so Seruetus at Geneua and one Valentinus at Berne both monstrous heretikes not amongst the Papists but by the Protestants were worthily put to death In this therfore we and our aduersaries agree that heretikes may be punished by death by the ciuill Magistrate If Luther or any other haue held any priuate opinion to the contrarie let them answere for themselues but although we vary not in the principall yet there are certaine circumstances and accessaries greatly material wherein they both dissent from vs and from the truth 1 They would haue the Magistrate onely to be their executioner the iudgement of heresie they say belongeth to the Church for they cited examined iudged disgraded condemned heretikes and then gaue them ouer to the secular error 102 power this was the common practise of their Church But we hold that the hearing iudgement sentence and condemnation of heretikes belongeth to the ciuill Magistrate as well as the execution because these actions are proper to the ciuill sword which the Magistrate beareth Rom. 13. and Deut. 17.5 The false Prophets and Idolaters were brought to the gates of the citie where the ciuill Magistrate was wont to sit Augustine is of the same mind Cur in veneficos vigorē legū exerceri iuste fatentur in haereticos schismaticos nolunt fateri Cont. epist. Parmen 1.7 Why doe they grant that the vigour of the law may iustly be executed vpon witches and not as well vpon heretikes and schismatikes But the causes of witches are heard iudged and handled before the ciuill Magistrate Ergo also the cause of heretikes Augustines reason is out of the 5. Galath 20. The works of the flesh are manifest which are adulterie fornication idolatrie witchcraft and heresies are also reckoned vp amongst All these are workes of the flesh Ergo the Magistrate being appoynted to punish euill doers hath as full right to deale against them all as some 2 We differ about the way and meanes to try an heretike by They affirme that he is an heretike onely that is so iudged by a generall Councel or the sentence error 103 of the chiefe pastors of the Church they would haue an heretike tryed by the constitutions and Canons of their Church Annot. Tit. 3. sect 2. Rhemist We say that an heretike is to be conuicted by the scriptures and that he that holdeth any opiniō obstinately against the manifest authoritie of scripture may be iudged an heretike without a generall Councel So Augustine writeth answering the Pelagians who obiected that they were condemned without a Synode Ac si congregatione synodi opus erat vt aperta pernicies damnaretur quasi nulla haeresis aliquando nisi synodi congregatione damnata sit As though a Synode neede to be
wracke And as their cause was not good so neither were the meanes that they vsed for they brought S. George and S. Denys into the field against the Turkes and left Christ at home If the Israelites could not be deliuered from the Philistims by the presence of the Arke but thirtie thousand fell before them and all because of their sinnes let not men thinke that popish Saints can defend them while their liues remaine vnreformed at home 2. That the heathen are not to be prouoked to warre but vpon iust cause that is when they prouoke vs it appeareth by the example of the Israelites who as they came from Aegypt sent vnto the King of Edom and Moab that they might haue leaue to walke through their land but they not granting so much yet the people of God offered them no violence but went a longer iourney about Iudg. 11.17 Augustine sayth Sapiens gesturus est iusta bella sed multo magis dolebit iustorum necessitatem extitisse bellorum A wise man will take iust warre in hand but it more grieueth him that he hath iust cause to warre And what he meaneth by iust warre he further sheweth Iniquitas partis aduersae iusta bella ingerit gerenda sapienti The iniquitie or iniuries of the aduerse part doth giue vnto a wise man occasion of iust warre Iust warre therefore ariseth when men are prouoked by iniuries THE EIGHT QVESTION CONCERNING holy and festiuall dayes THis question hath diuers parts First of holy dayes in generall Secondly of the Lords day Thirdly of the Festiuall dayes of Christ and the holy Ghost Fourthly of Saints holy dayes Fiftly of the time of Lent THE FIRST PART OF HOLY DAIES in generall The Papists error 58 FIrst they hold that holy and festiual daies are in themselues and properly and truely more sacred and holy then other daies are Bellarm. cap. 10. proposit 2. Apocalyps 1.10 I was in the spirit saith the Apostle on the Lords day God reuealeth such great things to Prophets rather vpon holy daies then prophane daies Ergo some daies holier then other Rhemist Apocal. 1. sect 6. The Protestants Ans. FIrst God giueth not his graces in respect of times but according to his owne pleasure Times of praier he chooseth often and of other godly exercises not for the worthines or holines of the times but for the better disposition of his seruants in such exercises to receiue them yet this was not perpetually obserued for God appeared to Moses keeping of sheepe Exod. 3. to Amos following his herd Amos 7. Secondly wee grant that the Lords day being commanded of God and so discerned from other daies may be said to be holier then the rest in respect of the present vse but not in the nature of the day for then could it not haue been changed from the last day in the weeke to the first as water in Baptisme is holier then other waters because of the sacred vse not in it selfe as by a qualitie of holines inherent And as for other festiuall daies which haue not the like institution they are appoynted onely of the Church for Christian policie orders sake for the exercise of religion But this now popish before time Iewish distinction of daies as being by their nature hoâ—â—er then other is flatly against the Apostles rule Rom. 14.5 One putteth difference betweene day and day and Galath 4.10 You obserue daies and moneths times and yeeres Augustine saith Nos dominicum diem pascha celebramus sed quia intelligimus quo pertineant non tempora obseruamus sed quae illis significantur temporibus Cont. Adimant cap. 16. We keepe the Lords day and the feast of Easter not obseruing the times but remembring what is signified by those times that is for what cause they were ordained Ergo obseruers of times are reproued The Papists 2. THey affirme the keeping and sanctification of holy dayes to be necessary errour 59 Rhemist annot Galath 4. sect 5. and that we are bound in conscience to keepe the holy dayes appointed of the Church although no offence or scandale might follow and ensue vpon the neglecting of them Esther 9. Mardocheus and Esther appoint a new festiuall day not instituted of God and bind euery one to the obseruing therof that none should faile to obserue it ver 27. Ergo men bound in conscience to keep festiuall daies Bellarm. ca. 10. The Protestants Ans. FIrst though we refuse not some other festiuall daies yet we acknowledge none necessary more then are of the holy Ghosts appointing in the Scripture Secondly we deny that the constitutions of the Church for holy dayes do bind Christians in respect of the dayes them selues in conscience to keepe them otherwise then they may giue offence by their contempt and disobedience to the holesome decrees of the Church for it selfe in it owne nature is indifferent neither can the Church make a thing necessary in nature which God hath left indifferent nothing bindeth absolutely in conscience but that which is necessary by nature wherefore keeping of holy dayes being not enioyned but left indifferent in the word bindeth no otherwise then we haue said Thirdly the example of Esther sheweth that the Church hath authoritie to appoint for ciuill vses dayes of reioycing that festiuall day then begun did not binde the obseruers in conscience no otherwise then they were bound in all lawfull things to obey their gouernours for their consent was required and they promised both for themselues their seede to keepe that day Esther 9.27 Whereby it appeareth that they were not bound absolutely in conscience to obserue it Augustine speaking of the Sabboth saith thus haec est dies quam fecit Dominus exultemus laetemur in ea This is the day which the Lord hath made let vs reioyce and be glad therein Psal. 118.24 This onely holy day he saith is of the Lords making and therefore of all other necessary to be kept THE SECOND PART OF THE Lords day The Papists THe seuerall pointes wherein our aduersaries and we doe differ about the errour 60 Christian Sabboth are these First the principall exercise of the Sabboth say they is for the people to come to the Church and heare Masse which their abominable and idolatrous sacrifice they make the proper worke of the Sabboth Catechism Roman pag. 649. The Protestants THe Sabboth was ordayned for the people to assemble together to heare the word read Act. 15.21 preached and to receiue the Sacramets Act. 20.7 and to offer vp their praiers these were the proper exercises of the Sabboth as for the popish sacrifice of the Masse we finde no mention at all thereof in Scripture The Papists error 61 2. WE dissent about the rest of the Sabboth they allow such workes to be done vpon the Sabboth as shal be permitted by the Prelates and Ordinaries and such as by long custome haue bene vsed Bellarm. cap. 10. The Protestants WE holde that as the Lords day was instituted of
est vt ieiunium Sabbati horribilius haberetur By the which sayth he it came to passe that the fast of the Sabboth was more abhorred Augustin ibid. But this reason now bindeth not vs because the name and heresie of the Manichees is now worne out and therefore there is no feare of any scandale to arise that way Thirdly we grant that the Lords day is not the fittest time for publique fasts first because it is a day of reioycing so we reade that the people in Nehemiah his time were forbidden to mourne and weepe after the lawe was read vnto them by Ezra because it was a day of ioy and mirth Nehem. 8.11 Secondly the day of solemne and publique fasting ought to be set a part from other dayes and to be proclaimed solemnely and to be spent wholly in spirituall exercises euen as the Sabboth with vacation and rest from other bodily labours as we may reade 2. Chronicl 20.3 Nehem. 9.1 And therefore any day is more fit then the Sabboth because that is a holy day alreadie vnto the Lord but when we will humble our selues before the Lord by fasting and prayer some day would onely for that purpose bee consecrate vnto GOD that may be as a voluntarie sacrifice whereas wee are bound of necessitie to keepe the Lords day But concerning priuate and particular fasts when men by themselues haue occasion to giue themselues to prayer whereof S. Paul speaketh 1. Corinth 7.5 Such priuate exercises may be better performed vpon the Sabboth because of the ordinarie exercises of the word which are notable meanes to kindle and stirre vp true deuotion in him which at that time will humble himselfe yea and publike fasts though not ordinarily yet wheÌ„ there is iust occasion may be kept vpon the Sabboth as we reade Act. 20.7 how that Paul continued his preaching till midnight whereof Augustine writeth thus Necessarius sermo resiciendi corporis causa interrumpendus esse non visus est profecturo Apostolo The necessary preaching of the Apostle he thought not good for the refreshing of their bodies to breake off being readie to depart We conclude therefore that it is lawfull to fast vpon the Lords day though it be not alwaies expedient And Augustine very well determineth this matter Ego in Euangelicis Apostolicis literis video praeceptum esse ieiunium quibus autem diebuâ—â—non oporteat ieiunare quibus oporteat praecepto domini vel Apostolorum non inuenâ—o de finitum I finde both in the Euangelicall and Apostolicall writings that fasting is commanded but vpon what dayes we ought to fast vpon what we ought not I doe not finde it defined Epistol 86. Wherefore to fast or not to fast vpon the Lords day or vpon any other being not determined in scripture is left as a thing indifferent to the Church of God The Papists error 67 8. THe name Sunday is an heathenish calling as al other weeke-daies in our language some imposed after the names of Planets as in the Romanes time some by the name of certaine Idols which the Saxons did worship which names the Church vseth not but hath appoynted to call the first day the Dominike after the Apostle Apocal. 1.10 the other by the name Feries vntill the last of the weeke which she calleth by the old name Sabboth because that was of God not by imposition of the heathen Rhemist annot Apocal. 1. sect 6. The Protestants Ans. FIrst as the name of Sunday and the rest is of the heathenish beginning and therefore were better to be otherwise termed as the first second or third from the Lords day as the Iewes called their daies from the Sabboth so your terme of feries is no lesse heathenish deriued from the word feria or feriae which were so called a feriendis victimis of striking the heathenish sacrifices as Sextus Pompeius sayth Fulk ibid. 2. We haue other names also that might bee reformed as of our moneths as March is so called of Mars Iune of Iuno Ianuary of Ianus which were heathen goddes Iuly and August doe beare the names of men yea and if wee might bee inuentors of newe names the termes of Christmas Michaelmas Candlemas should not stand in force nor any more be vsed which are as offensiue as the rest for as for the names of heathen Idols the most part are ignorant of them but the vulgar terme of Masse is to too well known too much loued of many of our countrey men Now for the name Sunday which is so great a mote in your eye if there were no more but that Augustine sheweth how it might be fauourably expounded Dies magni solis celebramus illius solis de quo dicit scriptura orietur vobis sol iustitiae We doe keepe Sunday holy namely of that great Sunne whereof the scripture speaketh the Sunne of righteousnesse shall arise 3. We wish that all these termes might be layd downe as Augustine sayth Nolumus vt dicant vtinam corrigantur vt non dicant We would not haue men so to speake and I wish they were reformed But seeing by continuall custome mens tongues are inured to such termes let them knowe that they are vsed onely as ciuill names to call things by not for any religion or mysterie in them contained or signified THE THIRD PART OF THE FESTIVAL daies of Christ and the holy Ghost The Papists THE feasts of Easter and Whitsontide and other solemnities of Christ were error 68 prescribed they say by the Apostles Rhemist Matth. 15. sect 2. to be kept vpon certaine dayes and that Peter did appoint that Easter should not be kept the 14. day of the first Moone as the Iewes obserued it but the Lordes day after And of the feast of Pentecost mention is made 1. Corinth 16.8 Ergo these feasts were instituted of the Apostles Bellarm. cap. 12.13 The Protestants Ans. FIrst wee graunt that it is expedient for the Church to keepe the memoriall of the Natiuitie Passion Resurrection Ascension of Christ and of the comming of the holy Ghost and the dayes instituted for the remembrance thereof no doubt ought to be had in greater account then any other holy dayes instituted by the Church Secondly it cannot be proued that they were prescribed by the Apostles or if they were but as indifferent ceremonies which are subiect to alteration and in the which the religion or worship of God dooth not consist Certaine it is that before the time of Constantine the great there were not many festiuall dayes kept in so much that the feasts of the Natiuitie of Christ Easter Pentecost were not vniformally obserued for many yeares after as appeareth by diuerse Councels And before Constantines time there was great contention betweene the Bishop of Rome and the Bishops of the East about the celebration of Easter they alleadging the constitution of Saint Iohn the other of Saint Peter wherefore it is like that the Apostles appointed no such certaine dayes for then the Church would
doe as well belong to the institution as the other Secondly they say that the words of institution doe not serue any thing at all for the instruction of the people to shew them the right vse of the Sacrament but onely for benediction and consecration of the elements Bellarm. cap. 19. Thirdly they doe hold that only by the pronouncing of those words the elements are consecrated whereas by the whole action and cerebration of the Sacrament the giuing receiuing inuocation thankesgiuing according to Christs institution the consecration is performed vpon the elements Fulk 1. Corinth 10. sect 4. Arg. 1. That the words of institution rehearsed do helpe as well to admonish stirre vp the people to a thankful remēbrance of the death of Christ as to consecrate blesse the elemēts it is manifest whereas Christ saith as the words are vsually rehearsed Doe this in remembrance of me and S. Paul saith That by receiuing the sacrament we doe shew forth the Lords death 1. Corinth 11.26 Ergo the people are by the words pronounced instructed and admonished and taught the right vse of the sacrament Argum. 2. that the words of institution doe helpe toward the benediction or consecration of the Elements we deny not but not by them alone but praier also and thankesgiuing and the whole action beside of receiuing To the consecration or sanctifiyng of any creature two things are required the word of God and praier 1. Timoth. 4.5 Neither the word sanctifieth without praier nor praier without the word Ergo to the sanctifiyng cōsecrating of the sacrament the bare rehearsall of the institution sufficeth not without inuocation and praier Augustine saith Accedat verbum ad elementum et fiet Sacramentum Let the word be ioyned to the element and it is become a Sacrament And in an other place he sheweth what word he meaneth Faciente verbo non quia dicitur sed quia creditur hoc est verbum fidei quod praedicamus The word effecteth this not because it is spoken or vttered but because it is beleeued this is the word of faith saith the Apostle which we preach thus farre Augustine tract in Johan 80. Wherefore it is not the muttering of a few words in a strange toung after the manner of enchaunters that by any secret force giuen vnto them hath power to consecrate but the vnderstanding hearing and beleeuing the institution of Christ with calling vpon the name of God and thankesgiuing before him AN APPENDIX OF THIS PART WHETHER THE forme of wordes in the institution of the Sacraments may not be by some addition or other alteration changed The Papists THe words of institution may be changed two manner of wayes either substantially error 89 when the sence is also altered with the words or accidētally whē the elements or syllables are onely changed but the sence remaineth the same If there be a change in the substance of the words the sacrament is imperfect if the alteration be of the forme onely of words and not of the sence the sacramēt is not destroyed but he sinneth that doth so alter them Wherefore it is not lawfull any way at all to alter or change the forme of words Bellarmine cap. 21. li. 1. Argum. It is not lawfull to adde or take to or from the words of scripture much lesse to change the words appointed to be vsed in the Sacrament Bellarm ibid. Ans. To adde or detract to or from the word of God with a purpose and intent to wrest it to a contrary meaning and destroy the true sence thereof cannot be done without great impiety and such is the manner of all heretikes But to alleadge Scripture in keeping still the full sence though we misse of the wordes is not to be counted so heinous a sinne we see the holy Apostles in citing textes of Scripture doe not alwaies binde themselues to the very wordes as Act. 7.43 Heb. 10.5 The Apostle saith A body thou hast giuen me In the Psalme we read Mine eares hast thou opened diuerse wordes yet the same sense Augustine saith very well they that vnderstand the Scripture though they keepe not alwaies the wordes are better then they that read and vnderstand not Sed vtrisque ille melior qui et cum volet ea◠dicit et sicut oportet intelligit But he is better then both that both remembreth the wordes and keepeth the sense too yet he also deserueth praise that beareth the sense in minde though he cannot the words The Protestants NO substantiall change we confesse is to be admitted in the forme of Institution which may alter the sense neither is any particular man by himselfe to make any accidentall change and bring in a new forme of wordes but the publike and vniforme order of the church must be kept yea and the church likewise is bound both to reteyne the true sense and as neere as may be the very words but where occasion serueth to make some small accidentall change of the words the sence being nothing diminished it is not condemned as an vnlawfull and sinfull act Argum. 1. The Euangelists report not all the same forme of words which should be vttered by our Sauiour neither yet S. Paul fully accordeth with them in the precise and strict forme of institution as by comparing of them together it may be seene Mat. 26. ver 27. Take eat this is my body S. Luke cap. 22. This is my body which is giuen for you do this in remembrance of me ver 19. S. Paul Take eat this my body which is broken for you doe this in remēbrāce of me 1. Cor. 11.24 ver 28. This is my blood of the new testament that is shedde for many for the remission of sinnes This cup is the new testamēt in my blood which is shed for you This cup is the newe testament in my bloud this do as oft as you drink it in remēbrance of me If it had beene a sinne to haue missed in some termes and sillables no doubt the spirite of God would not haue suffered these holy writers to haue made the least scape Is it to be thought a sinne in the Church which in stead of Take ye eate ye in the plurall number hath appointed the Sacrament to be ministred particularly in the singular number to euery of the cōmunicants saying Take thou eat thou drinke thou Wherfore all accidentall change of words carieth not with it a guilt of sinne Augustine indeede saith Certa sunt verba euangelica c. The words of the gospell are certaine whereby Baptisme is consecrated But yet he saith else where In ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens aliud virtus manēs In the word spoken the sound which passeth is one thing the vertue or sense of the words which abideth is an other It is then the sence of the words not the sound or sillables that is certaine and permanent THE THIRD PART OF THE INSTRVMENTALL cause of the Sacraments that is the lawfull
sed ad arbitrium Dei orationes sanctorum Sinnes are not loosed or retained at the pleasure of men but according to the will of God and praiers of his Church The Papists error 24 2. THe satisfactorie and meritorious workes of the Saints which doe abound being communicable and applicable to the faithfull that want are the very ground of the indulgences and pardons of the Church and the very treasure thereof and to be dispensed according to euery mans neede by the pastors of the Church 2. Corinth 2. sec. 5. Coloss. 1. sect 4. The Protestants HEre are many blasphemies and vntruthes couched together 1 That a mans penalties may exceede and bee greater then his sinnes and so his abounding may supplie another mans want for thus the Rhemists say which cannot stand with the iustice of God to punish a man more then he hath deserued And it is contrarie to the Scriptures Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified Psalm 143.2 And Iob saith If the Lord should call him to account he should not answere one to a thousand 9.3 2 How can the Church gouernours dispense the merites of one to another Who made them stewards of another mans good Yee say also the contrarie your selues That the abounding passioÌ„s of the Saints are applicable to others by the sufferers intention Rhem. 1. Colo. 2.2 Then not by the Churches dispensation 3 It is a great blasphemie that one may bee holpen by another mans merites and it doth derogate from the death of Christ whose onely merites are the treasure and storehouse of the Church The most righteous man that euer was can but saue his owne soule Ezech. 14.14 And that onely by Christ. Augustine saith Vnusquisque pro se rationem reddet nec alieno testimonio quisquam adiuuatur apud Deum vix sibi quisque sufficit c. Euery man shall giue account for himselfe before God no man is holpen by the testimonie of another the testimonie of his owne conscience doth hardly suffice for himselfe The Papists 3. THe dispensing of pardons and indulgences is onely committed they say error 25 to the chiefe magistrates the Popes and Bishops and as the Bishops in their Diocese haue especiall cases reserued to themselues wherein inferiour Priests are not to deale so the Pope hath also his proper reseruations wherein other Prelates are not to meddle Concil Trident. sess 14. cap. 7. The cases reserued to the Pope are 51. in number Fox pag. 785. The Bishop of Paris ann 1515 reserued these cases to himselfe to dispense in murder witchcraft sacrilege heresie simonie adulterie ex Tileman Heshus loc 9. de poeniten err 63. Likewise the yeares of their pardons are limited Bishops may not exceede 40. dayes pardon the Pope may be lauish in his hundreds and thousands yea and this reseruation of cases standeth not onely with the externall policie of the Church but is of force euen before God Concil Trident. sess 14. cap. 7. The Protestants WE will not much contend with them about reseruation of cases for wee acknowledge no such power to giue pardons or indulgences either in superior or inferior Priests yet wee will shew how this deuise of theirs standeth not with their owne doctrine Argum. 1. It is a greater power to remit the sinne then to release the punishment but euery Priest hath the greater power as they say to remit sinnes yea as fullie as hath the Pope himselfe Allen in his booke of pardons cap. 2. Ergo why haue they not the lesse power which is by indulgence to dispense with the punishment And that of these two the remission of sinnes is the greater it is confessed by the Rhemist 2. Corinth 2. sect 6. Argum. 2. In the point of death the reseruation of cases hath no place but at that time euery Priest may absolue from all manner sinnes and punishment Concil Trident. sess 14 cap. 7. But euery houre is with some and ought to be with all the point of death because we are vncertaine when it commeth and therefore ought alwaies to be in a readines Therefore euen by their owne rule euery Priest hath at all times authoritie to absolue in all cases Againe if those words of Christ be spoken to all ministers and preachers of the Gospell Iohn 20.22 Whose sinnes ye reteine c. which cannot bee denied to them all then is committed equally that power of binding and loosing which is exercised by the preaching of the word THE NINTH QVESTION OF THE ceremonies and circumstances of penance The Papists error 26 1. THey enioyne their penitent Clients to poll their heads and their women to weare a vaile to goe in black to put on sackcloth to looke sowrely and such like presumptions they haue concerning the habite of those that doe penance Bellarm. lib. 1. de poenitent cap. 22. The Protestants OVr Sauiour cleane contrarie biddeth his Disciples not to looke sowrely nor to disfigure themselues when they fast and repent or to shew any other outward token of their sorrow but to doe it secretly betweene themselues and God to wash their face to annoynt themselues with oyle that it appeare not to men that they fast Matth. 6.16.17 Augustine also answering a certaine obiection that young men newly married might make How can I shaue my head or change my habite saith thus Vera conuersio sufficit tibi sine vestimentorum commutatione The true conuersion of the heart may suffice thee without changing of thy vesture The Papists error 27 2. THey enioyned them to fast bread water certaine dayes in the weeke to lie hard to absteine from marriage or to doe some great almes deedes to satisfie for their sinne Bellarm. ibid. to goe a pilgrimage and such like workes of penance were prescribed them The Protestants TRue repentance consisteth not in such outward exercise of the bodie but is a conuersion rather of the heart It was the manner of hypocrites idolatâ—rs and superstitious men to seeke to appease their Gods with afflicting of their flesh as the Gentiles did cut their hayre Deut. 14.1 Baals Priests did launch their flesh 1. King 18.28 Argum. What is to be thought of such punishing of the carkasse Saint Paul sheweth Coloss. 2.23 He calleth it voluntarie religion or superstition in not sparing the bodie when men doe not vse such outward exercises of fasting and abstinence for the chastisement of the flesh to subdue it to the spirit but with an opinion of meriting thereby preferring them before the faith and conuersion of the heart as the papists doe Augustine saith Non sit satis quòd doleat sed ex fide doleat non semper doluisse doleat Let it not suffice to bee sorrowfull but let his sorrowe proceede of faith and let it grieue him that hee is not alwaies grieued for his sinne So then true repentance is especially an inward worke of fayth rather then an exercise of the body and it ought alwayes
bond of mariage which is called repudium First then they affirme that the very bond and knot may bee dissolued in the mariage of Infidels if one of them after mariage become a Christian his reason is because mariage contracted in infidelitie is no sacrament and therefore may be dissolued Bellarmin cap. 12. Argum. Saint Paul sayth If the Infidell partie will departe let him depart a brother or sister is not in subiection in such a case 1. Corinth 7.15 Answ. Saint Paul giueth not liberty to the one partie at their pleasure vtterly to renounce the other as though they were no longer man and wife for Saint Paul had sayd before that if the Infidell partie bee content to dwell with the other he or she is not to be put away But his meaning is that if one partie wilfully depart the other is no longer bound nor in subiection for the performance of the mutuall dueties of mariage The Papists error 30 SEcondly separation from bed and boorde may be admitted they say for diuers causes Concil Trident. sess 24. can 8. Bellarmine nameth three Fornication according to Christs rule Math. 5. Heresie Tit. 3. An heretike must be auoyded Thirdly when one is a continuall offence to another a prouocation to sinne If thine eye offend thee pull it out Math. 5.29 Bellarmin cap. 14. Answ. Fornication we admit is a iust cause of separation and diuorce but not heresie for Saint Paul would not haue a woman to forsake an Infidell 1. Corinth 7.13 therefore not an heretike Wee must auoyd such that is take heede of their poysoned opinions and shun their company also where we are not otherwise bound Neither is the eye to be cut off where there is any hope but who knoweth whether the offensiue partie may returne to grace And this place proueth as well a finall â—utting off of mariage as a separation or disiunction The Protestants FIrst that there is no cause of vtter dissolution of mariage by way of diuorce but onely adulterie and fornication it is plaine by our Sauiour Christes wordes Math. 5.32 19.9 where neither infidelitie nor any cause beside is excepted but onely fornication Secondly Saint Augustine sometime was of opinion that the wife might be dismissed for infidelitie but he reuoketh and retracteth that opinion Lib. retract 1. cap. 19. For elsewhere he flatly concludeth thus A viro non fornicante non licere omnino discedere that it is not lawfull for a woman at all to leaue her husband if he committe not fornication De adulter coniug 1.7 And yet further to make this matter more playne we acknowledge no other cause of lawful diuorse in mariage but that only which is prescribed in the Gospell namely for adultery or fornication Math. 5.32 19.9 There is notwithstanding another cause whereby the mariage knot may bee dissolued though not for fornication as when one of the parties doth wilfullie renounce leaue and forsake the other vpon no iust cause but either of lightnes or for diuers religion as when an Infidel forsaketh a Christian a Papist a Protestant an heretick a true professor or vpon any other vnlawfull or vniust cause for the Apostle sayth playnely A brother or sister is not in subiection in such things 1. Corinth 7.15 that is is freed from the yoke or bond of mariage First it is plaine that the Apostle is so to be vnderstoode in this place for the word which he vseth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no longer a seruant or in subiection which is to be taken in the same sense as if he should say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he or she is no longer bound or tyed which word the Apostle vseth vers 39. And agayne the Apostle hath relation here to the fourth verse where hee sayth the wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath no power of her own bodie the husband likewise But now saith he the infidel partie hauing wilfully separated himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the innocent partie is no longer in subiection that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath now power ouer his owne body and is now become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 free exempt from the mariage knot or bond in which sense the Apostle vseth the word verse 39. Secondly we must know what kinde of desertion it is that causeth a dissolution of mariage and in what manner First it must be malitiosa desertio a malicious departure without any iust cause But when as the husband is absent by consent about necessary affayres as the Merchant beyond the seas or is employed in some waightie busines as in warfare in ambassage or such like or is violeÌ„tly deteined in prison or captiuity amongst the Turks or elswhere In these the like cases the wife is bound to waite expect the returne of her husband vnles she be otherwise aduertised of his death SecoÌ„dly the innoceÌ„t partie must vse all meanes to reconcile reclaime and bring home agayne the wilfull and obstinate partie so departing if it be possible Thirdly if he continue in his obstinacie and departe hauing no purpose to returne the matter must be brought before the iudge or Magistrate in such cases who after publike citation of the obstinate partie and certaine knowledge that he refuseth wilfully to appeare being cited and is not otherwise letted to come may with mature deliberation pronounce the innocent partie free and at libertie to marrie according to Saint Pauls rule A brother or sister is not bound in such things Thirdly neither is Saint Paul contrary to our Sauiour Christ who alloweth no diuorce but onely for fornication for that is a diuers case from this whereof Saint Paul treateth And there is great difference betweene lawfull diuorse and vnlawfull and wilfull desertion for there the innocent partie first claymeth the priuiledge of separation here the guiltie partie first separateth himselfe there diuorse is sued and required here the innocent partie seeketh no diuorse but seeketh all meanes of reconciliation So that properly the setting free the innocent partie in this case cannot be called a diuorse Christ therefore speaketh of lawfull diuorce not of euery dissolution of mariage for then mention should haue beene made in that place of naturall death and departure which is confessed by all to be a dissolution and breaking off of mariage Thus haue I shewed mine opinion with Beza and others concerning thiâ— poynt Herein further as in all the rest referring my selfe to the determination of our Church and the iudgement of our learned brethren Beza 1. Corinth 7. vers 15. Amand. Polan Hemingius Tâ—leman Heshus THE SECOND PART WHETHER IT BE LAWfull to marrie after diuorsement for adulterie The Papists FOr adulterie one may dismisse another but neither partie can marrie again error 31 for any cause during life Rhemist Math. 19. sect 4. no not the innocent partie may marrie againe for the mariage knotte is not dissolued because of adulterie Concil Trident. sess 24. can 7. Argum. 1. Rom. 7.2 The woman