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
and Church officers their dueties and may in their owne persons execute the one that is spirituall duties that they may as well intermeddle in the other But these two offices of Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall gouernment are distinguished and must not be confounded The Prince though he haue authoritie to command Ecclesiasticall persons yet being a ciuill Magistrate is not to deale with the execution of spirituall dueties Bishops pastors likewise haue a spiritual charge ouer kings princes to shew thē their duties out of Gods word yet because they are persons Ecclesiastical they ought not to meddle with meer Ciuill dueties The Prince hath the soueraigntie of externall gouernement in all causes ouer all persons yet not alike for Ciuill offices he may both command and execute Ecclesiasticall duties he commandeth onely Bishops and pastors haue also a spirituall charge ouer all prescribing out of Gods word as well the duetie of Magistrates as of Ministers but not alike for the one they may fully execute so may they not the other The head in the naturall bodie resembleth the Prince in the commonwealth in some sense the head giueth mouing to the whole bodie and all the parts thereof but to the principall parts in the head the eyes tongue eares it giueth beside the facultie of mouing the sense also of seeing tasting hearing So in the common-wealth by the Princes authoritie all persons are kept in order and vrged to looke to their charge both ciuill officers and spirituall as al the parts of the bodie receiue mouing from the head But the ciuill officers receiue power and authoritie beside and their very offices of the King as the parts in the head receiue sense from their fountaine but Ecclesiasticall Ministers receiue not their offices from the Prince or any mortall man but they haue their calling according to the order of the Church of God Argum. 2. For the space of 300. yeeres the Church after Christ had no Christian gouernours but all Heathen and Idoll worshippers yet then the Church was established and preuailed Ergo Ciuill Magistrates ought not to deale in Ecclesiasticall affayres Bellarmine Ans. 1. Euen then also the Heathen Emperours had authoritie in Church matters and if they had commanded any thing agreeable to true religion they should haue been obeyed as Cyrus in the law which he made for building the temple Ezra 1. Darius the Median for worshipping the true God Dan. 6. Fulk Rom. 13. sect 3. The heathen Emperours then had the same power but they knewe not how to vse it Christian Princes doe succeede them in the same office but are better taught by the word of God how to exercise the sword Secondly we denie not but that in the time of persecution all things necessarie for the spirituall building thereof may be had without the Magistrate as a Vineyard may bring forth fruite without an hedge but it cannot enioy peace nor be in a perfect estate in respect of the externall gouernement but vnder good Magistrates as the Vineyard may soone be spoyled the wild bore and the beasts of the field may breake in vpon it hauing no hedge The child being in the womb though it haue as yet small vse of the head but is fed by the nauell which is in steed of the mouth hath in it selfe the lineaments and proportion of a humane bodie yet it wanteth the perfect beautie till it be borne and come forth and the head receiue his office So may the Church haue a being in persecution and the want of the ciuill head may be otherwise supplied but it is not beautifull till the head be set vp and the sword put into the Christian Magistrates hand Argum. 3. Princes haue no cure nor charge of soules Ergo they are not to meddle with Ecclesiasticall lawes Rhemist annot 1. Corinth 14. sect 16. Ans. Parents haue charge ouer the soules of their childrē for they are charged to bring them vp in the instruction and information of the Lord Ephes. 6.4 Therefore Princes also haue directly charge of the soules of their subiects according to their place and calling by prouiding and making good Ecclesiasticall lawes and compelling them to the true seruice of God As the Ecclesiasticall Ministers in another kind and more properly are said to haue the cure of soules in feeding and instructing the people Fulk ibid. The Protestants THe ciuill Magistrate by the word of God hath power to make and constitute Ecclesiasticall lawes and to establish true religion and see that all persons vnder their gouernment doe faithfully execute their charge To say therefore that the Church officers are to deuise lawes concerning religion and the Prince onely to execute them is to make the Prince their seruant and doth derogate too much from the princely authoritie Neither doe we giue vnto the Prince absolute power to make Ecclesiasticall lawes for first the Prince is not to prescribe what lawes he listeth to the Church but such as onely may require the true worship of God Secondly that it is expedient and meete according to the commendable custome of this land that the godly learned of the Clergie should be consulted withall in establishing of Ecclesiastical ordinances vnlesse it be in such a corrupt time when the Church gouernours are enemies to religion for then the Prince not staying vpon their iudgement ought to reforme religion according to the word of God as we see it was lawfully and godly practised by King Henrie the 8. Thirdly we doe make exception of all such Ecclesiasticall canons and ordinances the making whereof doth properly belong to the office of Bishops and gouernours of the Church for our meaning is not that it is not lawful for Ecclesiastical Ministers to make Ecclesiastical decrees which do properly concerne their office as concerning the censures of the Church excommunication suspension absoluing binding loosing and such like which things are incident to their pastorall office and yet we grant that the Prince hath euen in these cases an ouerruling hand to see that none abuse their pastoral office But that any lawes ought to be made without the authoritie of the prince which the prince is bound to execute we vtterly denie And so we conclude that the ciuill Magistrate hath power ouer all persons and in all causes both temporall and ecclesiasticall in such manner as we haue sayd 1 S. Paul willeth that praiers should be made for Kings and Princes that vnder them we may leade a peaceable life in all godlines and honestie 1. Tim. 2.2 Ergo it is their duetie as well to procure religion by their authoritie as ciuill honestie Againe He beareth not the sword for nought Rom. 13.4 He hath power to punish al euill doers therfore also to correct euill ministers to make Ecclesiastical lawes for otherwise he should haue no ful power to correct the transgressors thereof 2 We reade that Iosua Dauid Salomon Iosia did deale in ecclesiasticall matters which concerned religion and the worship of God
Confirmation And thus they preferre their owne inuentions before the ordinance of God no Sacrament before a Sacrament Augustine sheweth what the Sacrament of Vnction is Vnctionis sacramentum est virtus ipsa inuisibilis vnctio inuisibilis spiritus sanctus The sacrament of vnction is the inuisible vertue the inuisible anointing the holy spirite What is become now of your sacrament of vnction THE FOVRTH PART OF THE RITES and ceremonies of Confirmation The Papistes THe ceremonies which they commonly vse in Confirmation are these First error 47 the Bishop must breathe vpon the pot or cruze of Chrisme Seōcdly he saluteth it in these words Aue sanctum Chrisma Haile holy Chrisme Thirdly he giueth a kisse Fourthly he striketh him that is cōfirmed with his hand to teach him patience Fiftly his forehead is bound about least the Chrisme should run downe which teacheth him not to lose the grace of God Sixtly seuen daies together he must neither wash his head nor face And these with such like ridiculous toyes are practised amongst them Bellarm. cap. 13. lib. de confirmat The Protestants 1. SOme of these ceremonies we condemne as ridiculous as the breathing vpon the oyle the striking of the party confirmed which light gestures become not the grauity of the Ministers of the Gospell all things should be done in the Church in decent and comely order 1. Cor. 14.40 Secondly one of them is meerely Idolatrous to salute the oyle as the Angel saluted Mary to say Aue All haile vnto it making an Idoll of it being a thing without sense or life Thirdly all of them are superstitious hauing mysticall and typicall significations and shadowes which agreeth not with the nature of the Gospel for all shadows are now past the body being come Col. 2.17 Lastly they are superfluous cumbersome and burdenous as Augustine saith Ipsam religionem quam Deus paucissimis sacramentis liberam esse voluit onerib premunt They oppresse religion with the burden of ceremonies which God hath left free in few sacramēts Againe who seeth not how thus by their own traditions they doe euacuate the ordinance of God for in stead of catechizing and instructing of the youth in the principles and foundation of religion as of repentance from dead workes faith toward God of the resurrection and eternall iudgement Hebre. 6.2.3 they haue brought in nothing else but oyling greazing annointing of them breathing vpon them crossing and such like and whereas S. Paul giueth Parents a charge to bring vp their Children in the instruction of God Ephes. 6.4 They bid them bring their Children to be anointed crossed chrismated as they call it and they haue done enough THE SECOND QVESTION of Orders THe seuerall partes of this question are these First whether it be a Sacramēt Secondly of the efficacie and vertue thereof Thirdly of the ceremonies THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE receiuing of orders be a Sacrament The Papists THat holy Orders are a sacrament rightly and properly so called it was decreed in the Tridentine Councell sess 23. canon 3. And that not onely the error 48 three higher degrees of Priesthood Deaconship subdeaconship but the foure inferiour orders of Exorcistae Acoluthi Lectores Ostiarij doe belong vnto the same sacrament of Orders and are sacraments as well as the other Bellarm cap. 8. lib. de sacram ordinis Argum. 1. Timoth. 4.14 Despise not that gift which was giuen thee through prophesie with the laying on of hands Holy orders giue grace by an externall ceremonie and worke Ergo it is a Sacrament Rhemist in hunc locum Ans. 1. It cannot be proued out of this place that imposition of hands giueth grace for this was an extraordinary gift which S. Paul speaketh of and doth not alwaies follow imposition of hands Secondly this gift was not giuen by the very ceremony of imposition of hands but through prophesie and reuelation of the holy Ghost for it was reuealed vnto the Church by the spirite of prophecie that Timothie was a chosen vessell of God therefore S. Paul saith That worthie thing which is committed vnto thee keepe through the holy Ghost 2. Tim. 1.14 The holy ghost was both the conferrer of that grace and the preseruer of it Imposition thē of hands was but an outward signe of the presence of Gods spirit vpon those that were lawfully ordeined for al vpon whom hands were laid receiued not the holy ghost but such only as were appointed of God And therefore the Apostle chargeth Timothie to lay hands sodenly on no man 1. Timoth. 5.22 which caueat was not needfull if vpon whomsoeuer he had laid his hands they should immediately receiue the holy Ghost The Protestants YOur seuen popish orders we do not at all receiue into the church much lesse can we abide that they should be sacraments The lawfull ordeining of Pastors teachers and Deacons we doe acknowledge but no sacrificing Priesthoode nor no ministring Deaconship at the Altar such orders as we haue notwithstanding we doe not take to be Sacraments much lesse yours that are vtterly to be abolished Argum. 1. Sacraments must haue their institution from Christ so haue not your orders for Christ instituted onely Apostles and Disciples Presbyters and Deacons were founded by the Apostles who notwithstāding had no commission to constitute new Sacraments As for the other fiue orders of Subdeacons Readers Acoluthi Exorcistes doore keepers they are neither read in Scripture nor ordeined of the Apostles nor heard of for many yeeres after Secondly your Sacrament hath neither outward element nor word of institution if you say laying on of hands is the externall signe we answere that the visible signe in a Sacrament must not onely be an externall action but a materiall element as water in Baptisme and bread and wine in the Lords Supper The forme you say is in these wordes pronounced by the Bishop Accipite potestatem offerendi sacrificium Receiue ye power to offer sacrifice Bellarm. ca. 9. We answere againe that this sacrificing office hath no foundation in Scripture the Ministers of the Gospell are called dispensers of Gods Mysteries namely of the word and Sacraments 1. Corinth 4.1 Ministers for Christ not sacrificers of Christ wherefore neither haue ye any word of institution and consequently no Sacrament And I pray you tell me if you will make euery one of your orders a Sacrament then must you needes haue as many Sacraments as there are orders and so shall you haue sixe Sacraments more then you thought for you doe distinguish all the orders in office and forme of consecration one from another and therefore they cannot all make one Sacrament Augustine saith Christus Sacramentis numer◠paucissimis societatem populi colligauit Christ hath ioyned together his people with most fewe Sacraments and then he nameth Baptisme and the Communion Et si quid aliud in Scripturis canonicis commendatur and if any other be commended in Scripture Ergo there is no Sacrament of orders because it is not found in
commaundement of Christ who inioyned them not to depart from Ierusalem The second Act. 6. congregate by the twelue not Peter onely for the election of Deacons The third which was holden as touching the taking away of circumcision and other ceremonies of the lawe was gathered together by a generall inspiration Act. 15.6 The fourth wherein certaine things contained in the lawe are permitted seemeth to be gathered by Iames. Act. 21.18 Vpon these reasons the Councel thus concludeth that if the Pope would resist and haue no Councel congregate yet if the greater part of the Church doe iudge it necessarie to haue a Councel the Councel may bee congregate whether the Pope will or not Ex Aenea Syluio Fox pag. 676. Col. 2. 5 Augustine saith Catholicos Episcopos partis Donati iussu imperatoris disputando inter se contulisse Breuicul collation lib. 1. cap. 1. That the Catholike Bishops and the Donatists did meete together to dispute at the commaundement of the Emperour There were in that Councel which was at Carthage of the Catholike Bishops 286. and of the Donatists 279. THE THIRD QVESTION OF WHAT PERSONS the Councel ought to consist The Papists WHereas there are foure sorts of men vsually present at Councels the Princes error 31 and Magistrates Bishops and inferiour Ministers and Priests and other lay people of all these Bishops they say onely must haue a deciding or determining voyce Priests and other learned may dispute and haue a consultatiue voyce Princes are there to defend the Councel and see order kept other of the Laitie may be there as officers and ministers as Scribes and Notaries but the suffrages and voyces must onely be giuen by Bishops Eckius loc de concil Bellarm. de concil lib. 1. cap. 15. Let vs see some of their reasons First to teach and to feede is proper for the Pastors only and to establish and decree in Councel is nothing els but to feede and teach Ergo Pastors onely must rule in Councel which none are but Bishops Soli Episcopi pastores sunt sayth the Iesuite neque laici neque ecclesiastici quicunque Onely Bishops are pastors and none other of the Clergie besides and to them onely he sayth that is to bee applyed Act. 20. Take heede to your selues and the flocke ouer the which God hath made you ouerseers I answere First what an absurd saying is this and voyde of sense that the Bishop is the onely pastor of his Diocesse and that euery Minister is not pastor in his owne parish Nay if the Iesuite would speake trueth he shall finde that popish Bishops are neither Pastors nor Doctors for the most of them neither feede nor teach And they be not ashamed to professe it Ann. 1540. or thereabout Thomas Forret Martyr being found fault withall by the Bishop of Dunkelden in Scotland because he preached so oft exhorted the Bishop agayne and wished that he did preach The Bishop answered nay nay let that bee we are not ordayned to preach and in further talke the blind blockish Bishop bewrayed his owne ignorance I thanke God sayth he that I neuer knewe what the olde and newe Testament was Thereupon rose a common prouerbe in Scotland you are like the Bishop of Dunkelden that knewe neither the old nor new lawe Fox Martyrol pag. 1266. With this blind saying of the popish Bishop our countrey men of Rhemes also doe agree which doubt not to say that many which haue no gift to preach yet for their wisedome and gouernment are not vnmeete to be Pastors and Bishops Annot. in 1. Timoth. 5. sect 13. 2 I answere the Iesuite bewrayeth his ignorance in making no difference betweene communis and propria politia ecclesiae the common and speciall policie and office of the Church for there are proper offices and dueties some of Pastors some of gouernours some of other Ministers but this office to be performed in general Councels is not proper to Pastors but common to the whole Church whereupon wee denye that it is Proprium pastorum munus suffragia ferre in concilijs It is not the proper duetie of Pastors to giue voyces and make decrees in Councels 3 By the Iesuites argument the fathers of Basile doe conclude cleane contrarie out of that place 4. Ephes. That because Christ instituted not onely Apostles and Prophets but pastors and teachers for the work of the Ministerie who doubteth say they but that the gouernance also of the Church is committed vnto others together with the Apostles And hence they inferre because the worke of the Ministerie is layd vpon the rest of the Clergie that therefore they ought not to be excluded from Councels Secondly Panormitane in the Councel of Basile thus reasoneth for Bishops that they were the pillars and keyes of heauen and therefore had onely deciding voyces Vnto him answered at that time the wise and couragious Cardinall Arelatensis shewing Augustines iudgement vpon those words I will giue thee the keyes of heauen that the iudiciall power was giuen not onely to Peter but also to the other Apostles to the whole Church the Bishops the Priests Whereupon he inferreth that if the Priests haue a iudicial power in the Church they also ought to haue a determining voyce in Councels Thirdly Lodouicus the Prothonotarie in the same Councel thus argued Albeit sayth hee Christ chose twelue Apostles and 70. Disciples notwithstanding in the setting forth of the Creede onely the Apostles were present thereby giuing example that matters of faith did pertaine onely to the Apostles and so consequently to Bishops To him Arelatensis made this answere First it followed not because the Apostles onely are named that they therefore only were present at the setting forth of the Creede for wee see that Princes beare the name and commendation of many actions which are done notwithstanding by their helpers 2. Lodouicus cannot be ignorant sayth he that there be some articles in the Creede which were not put to by the Apostles but afterward by generall Councels as that part wherein mention is made of the holy Ghost which the Councel of Lions did adde Thus much out of the Councel of Basile The Protestants confession OVr opinion grounded vpon trueth and scripture is this that not onely Bishops but all other pastors admitted to the Councel and the learned and discreete amongst the Lay men ought to haue concluding voyces in Councel and that rather the discussing and consulting of matters pertayneth to the learned Diuines the deciding to all then contrariwise First that inferiour pastors are to bee ioyned with Bishops and Prelates it was amplie proued in the Councel of Basile of the which I haue so often made mention as noble Arelatensis reasoneth thus The dignities of the fathers is not to be respected but the trueth neither will I preferre a lye of any Bishop be he neuer so rich before a veritie or a trueth of a poore Priest this is his first reason that the trueth ought to bee receiued at any mans mouth bee
he neuer so simple and therefore Priests as well as Bishops are to bee admitted to the Councel 2 He declareth the ancient practise of the Church In the Councel of Nice where there were assembled 322. Bishops Athanasius being then onely a Priest withstood the Arrians and infringed their arguments In the Synode of Chalcedon there were present sixe hundred Priests which name is common both to Bishops and Priests When Paul Bishoppe of Antioch preached that Christ was a man of common nature the Councell assembled against him at Antioch where the sayde Paul was condemned neither was there any man which did more confound the sayd Paul then one Malchion Priest of Antioch which taught Rhetorick there Concerning the second part that laye men also with Priests ought to bee admitted first we haue testimonie out of the word of God for it Tit. 3.13 for this cause Zenas the lawyer is ioyned as fellow in commission with Apollos But we haue a more euident place Act. 15.22 It seemed good to the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church here we see that not onely the Elders but the whole multitude were admitted into consultation with the Apostles To this place our aduersaries doe thus aunswere Lodouicus the Prothonotarie first thus rashly and fondly gaue his verdicte in the Councell of Basile that there was no argument to be gathered of the Acts of the Apostles whose examples were more to be maruayled at then to be followed But to this Arelatensis replied that he would stay himself most vpon the Apostles doings for what sayth he is more comely for vs to followe then the doctrine and customes of the primitiue Church And Aeneas Siluius reporteth who writeth of the actes of that Councell that all men impugned this saying of Lodouicus that the Apostles were not to be followed as a blasphemie Wherefore the Iesuite hath found out another aunswere he sayth that none but the Apostles gaue sentence the rest onely gaue consent and inwarde liking and approbation this cauill Arelatensis met withall long before the Iesuite was borne in the forenamed Councell Neither this worde sayth hee It seemed good signifieth in this place consultation but decision and determination And so it doth indeede for seeing there is one worde applyed to them all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 placuit it seemed good to the Apostles Elders and the whole multitude why should it not be taken in the one and selfe same sence and after the same manner vnderstood of them all 2. Seeing the Councel doth represent the whole Church there ought to be present and to giue sentence of all sorts and callings of men and the tather because the matter of fayth and religion is a common cause and as well appertayneth to lay-men as to Bishops it behooueth them also to bee present And further it were more reasonable that princes and temporall Magistrates should binde their subiects to their lawes without their consent then that ecclesiastical persons should lay yokes vpon Christians against their willes for ciuill matters are more indifferent and left to our choyce then spirituall are Yet we see there are no lawes enacted in our Realme but by the high court of Parliament where alwayes some are appoynted for the commons euen the whole neather house without whose consent no acte can passe So it were very reasonable that no law should be layd vpon the Church without the generall consent thereof 3. Lastly Augustines iudgement we heard before alleadged by Arelatensis that seeing the iudicial power of the keies is committed to the whole Church to Bishops to Priests they all ought to bee entertayned in generall Councels THE FOVRTH QVESTION WHO OVGHT to be the president and chiefe moderator in Councels The Papists error 32 WIth one whole consent they all agree and holde that the Pope onelie ought to haue the chiefe place in Councels either himselfe in his owne person or else his Legates and deputies for him they reason thus 1. The Pope is the chiefe pastor of the vniuersall Church for vnto Peter onely it was sayd pasce oues meas feede my sheepe and he is called and saluted in Councels by the name of father and all other both Princes and Bishops are sheepe in respect of him Wee answere first in the Iesuites argument there is petitio principij a foule fault in a good Logician though it bee none in a Sophister still to begge that which is in question for yet he hath not prooued that the Pope is the vniuersall pastor 2. That place feede my sheepe prooueth it not Augustine saith redditur negationi trinae trina confessio ne minus amori lingua seruiat quà m timori in Iohan. tract 123. he recompenceth a threefold deniall with a threefold confession lest that his tongue should be lesse seruiceable to loue then it was to feare so then by this fathers iudgement it was no priuiledge to Peter to bee thrise admonished but he is thereby put in mind of his thrise deniall of Christ. Againe I maruaile the Iesuite can so soone forget himselfe for in the 15. chapter afore he prooued by these words feede my sheepe that Bishops onely were pastors and he can now turne the wordes to serue onely for the Pope 3. What great matter is it for the Pope to be called father seeing he is not ignorant that all Bishops assembled in Councell and other learned are called by that name Nay it is no rare matter for other Bishops to be saluted by the name of Pope as Prosper writing to Augustine twise in one Epistle calleth him beatissimum Papam most blessed Pope Tom. 7.4 Princes and Bishops to the Pope are sheepe sayth the Iesuite 1. For Bishops though he had a iurisdiction ouer all which will stick in his teeth to prooue yet shall they be no more his sheep then Priests are to Bishops and Bishops to their Metropolitanes who cannot be sayd to be their sheepe though they haue some preeminence ouer them for Augustines rule must stand nemo se nostrum episcopum episcoporum constituit De baptism 2.2 No man is a Bishop of Bishops nor shepheard of shepheards Secondly for Princes he hath nothing to doe with any but those in his owne Bishopricke and as they are his sheep one way as they are taught of him so he and his Cardinals are the Magistrates sheepe another way and in respect of the ciuil gouernement he is their shepheard And both he and they prince and priest are sheep-fellows vnder Iesus Christ the chiefe shepheard as Augustine sayth tanquam vobis pastores sumus sed sub illo pastore vobiscum oues sumus in Psal. 126. we are shepheards to you but both you and I are sheep vnder that great shepheard The Protestants WE doe truely affirme that the Soueraigne Maiestie of the Emperour and chiefe Magistrate or his legate if he either be present himselfe or sende ought to be president of the Councel Or else in their absence one to be chosen and elected by the
wrote for him to the Councel to be receiued agayne No maruayle then if licentious fellowes hoping to finde more fauour at Rome did appeale thither As also the ambition of the Bishops of Rome did somewhat helpe forward this matter who were as ready to receiue such appeales as others were to make them 2. Bishop Tunstal doth answere very fully to this poynt that although appeales were made to Rome yet was it not for any iurisdiction that the See had but this was the cause partly for that there were many deuisions and parts taking in the Oriental Churches as also because many were infected with heresies from the which the West Occidētal Churches were more free they were content to referre the cause many times to the Bishop of Rome as being a more indifferent iudge and not like to be partial being no partie in the cause Neither was their 〈◊〉 to the Bishop of Rome singularly but to the whole congregation of the Bishops of Italie and France or of the whole West as it appeareth by the epistles of Basile Tunstal apud Fox 1067. The Protestants That appeales ought not to be made to Rome but that all matters and controuersies may best be ended and determined at home where they doe arise It is thus confirmed 1. This matter was notably handled anno 420. in the sixt Councel of Carthage where Augustine was present with Prosper and Orosius To this Councel Pope Zozimus sent his Legate with certaine requests of the which this was one that it might be lawful for Bishops and priests to appeale from the sentence of their Metropolitanes and also of the Councel to Rome alleadging for him self a decree of the Nicene Councel The Councel of Carthage sent forthwith to the patriarkes of Cōstantinople Antioch Alexandria for a copie of the Coūcel of Nice wherein no such Canon was found that appeales should bee made to Rome but the contrary for in the sixt Canon of that Councel it was founde how all matters and all persons ecclesiasticall both Bishops and others were committed to their Metropolitanes vpon this decree the Councel of Carthage drew out certain reasons why appeales should not be made to Rome First it is not otherwise to be thought but that the grace of God is as ready at hande in one prouince as in another Secondly there is no neede to seeke any outlandish help for the partie grieued may appeale to a prouinciall or generall Councel Thirdly it were not equall nor right to appeale from the Councel to the Bishop of Rome for it is not like that God will inspire his truth vnto the Bishop and denie it to a multitude congregated in his name Fourthly no forraine or outlandish iudgement can be so vpright or iust because the witnesses cannot be present being hindered by infirmitie of sex age sicknes by whom the truth should be discussed Vpon these reasons the Councel concluded that neither any appeales should be made to Rome neither that Legates should be sent from Rome for deciding of matters And this answere they made to Zozimus first to Bonifacius and Celestinus that in short time one succeeded another And for all the B. of Rome his absolution Apiarius was againe called coram and brought to confesse his fault Fox p. 10. col 2. Now out of the Acts of this Councel and their reasons alleadged wee conclude that it is not fit conuenient nor reasonable that appeals should be made to Rome The Iesuite answereth that appeales were forbidden to be made by priests to Rome not by Bishops This is but a vaine shift for the reasons of the Councel are general against all appeales And Apiarius that appealed to Rome was a priest and no Bishop 2. We can bring the decrees of a latter Councell then this of Carthage for in the Councell of Basile it was decreed that no actions or controuersies should be brought from other countries to be pleaded at Rome which were more then foure daies iourney distant from the said court of Rome a few principall matters onely excepted apud Fox p. 697. 3. This also is flatly contrary to the rule of the Apostle that appellations should be made out of the Church a far off Is it so sayth hee that there is not a wise man amongst you no not one that can iudge amongst his brethren 1. Cor. 6.5 Ergo euery Church hath wise men sufficient in it whereby their controuersies may be ended 4. Augustine also thus writeth concerning this matter Miltiades Episcopus Romanus non sibi vsurpauit iudicium de causa Ceciliani sed rogatus imperator iudices misit Episcopos qui cum eo sederent epist. 162. Miltiades Bishop of Rome did not vsurpe or take vpon himselfe to iudge the cause of Cecilian but the Emperour being requested sent other bishops that should sit and determine the cause together with him Out of these words first we note that it had beene vsurpation and presumption for the Bishop of Rome to haue taken vpon him the iudgement of this matter not belonging vnto him vnlesse the Emperor had committed it Secondly that Miltiades did not suffer other Bishops to sitte with him as Bellarmine imagineth but he could not otherwise choyse for they were ioyned in commission by the Emperour to be iudges as well as he Thus we see what small shew or colour of title the Pope hath to heare or receiue appeales from other countries THE THIRD PART WHETHER THE Pope be subiect to the iudgement of anye The Papists error 43 THe Pope neither can nor ought to bee iudged either of the Emperour or anie other Seculare or ecclesiasticall Magistrate no not of any generall Councel Bellarmin cap. 26. Nay hee should doe iniurie vnto GOD to submit himselfe to the iudgement of any Iacobat ex Tilhemann de pontif rom err 34. Beside certayne blinde canons and constitutions and a fewe examples grounded vpon the insolent practises of Popes they haue no other arguments either out of scripture or drawen from reason to confirme this their hideous and monstrous opinion withal Bellarmine reasoneth thus the Prince is not to bee iudged by the commonwealth but is greater then his kingdome the Pope is the prince of the Church Ergo We answere First concerning the Princes high and Soueraigne authority we will not now dispute we make it not infinite the word of God must bee a rule and square both of ciuill and ecclesiasticall iudgement Secondly It is sufficient for vs here to answere that the Iesuite hath sayd nothing for this which he assumeth for a reason is the greatest matter in question between vs and so great an vntruth he hath vttered that he is constrained to leaue scripture and seeke helpe else-where But he shall neuer by any good reason or sufficient authority prooue that the Pope hath any such Princedome in the Church as he would beare vs in hand The Protestants THat the Pope as well as other ecclesiasticall persons ought to be and is by right subiect to the
chiefe citie in all the world this reason was rendered in the Councel of Chalcedon Can. 28. An other cause thereof was the ample priuiledges and immunities which the Emperours endued it withall as Constantine the great and Gratianus the Emperour made a lawe that all men should reteyne that religion which Damasus of Rome and Peter Bishop of Alexandria did hold A third cause was the vnquiet estate of the Greeke Church who often voluntarily referred their matters to the Bishop of Rome as being lesse partiall and a more indifferent Iudge they themselues being diuided and rent into sects And hereupon and other like causes it came about that the Bishop of Rome a little stepped aboue his fellowe Patriarkes but yet had no such preeminent authoritie as to commaund them Fourthly the Pope of Rome being thus tickled with vayne glorie because they were reuerenced of other Churches many matters were committed vnto them and their consent required vnto the decrees of Councels when they were absent Hereupon they laboured euery day more and more to aduance that See taking euery small occasion that might helpe forward their ambicious desire till Anno. 606. or somewhat after Boniface the 3. obtayned of wicked Phocas the Emperour who murthered his master the Emperour Mauritius and his children to come to the Empire and was after slaine himselfe of Heraclius that succeeded him of him I say Boniface for himselfe and his successors obtayned to bee called vniuersall Bishops ouer the whole Church and the See of Rome to haue the preeminence aboue all other Churches in the world Afterward in Pope Zacharie his time the proude and insolent iurisdiction of Rome was established by Pipinus King of France who aspired to the Crowne and obtayned it by the sayd Popes meanes first deposing Childericus the rightfull King and dispensing with the oath which the French men had made before to Childericus Calum Institut 4. cap. 7. sect 17. Thus then it sufficiently appeareth that the primacie of Rome which it now vniustly challengeth ouer other Churches is not of any such antiquitie as they would beare the world in hand neither that it had the beginning from Christ but both the time when and the authors by whom it began may bee easily assigned 2 Wee neede no better argument to proue that the primacie of Rome hath not his originall from Christ then the Iesuites owne confession First he sayth that it doth not depend of Christs institution but ex Petri facto of Peters fact that the Bishop of Rome should bee rather Peters successor then the Bishop of Antioch or any other It is not iure diuino saith he by Gods lawe neither is it ex prima institutione pontificatus quae in Euangelio legitur of the first institution whereof wee reade in the Gospell And agayne Romanum pontificem succedere Petro non habetur expresse in scripturis It is not expressely set downe in scripture that the Bishop of Rome should succeede Peter but it is grounded onely vpon the tradition of Peter Nay he saith further that Peter needed not to haue chosen any particular place for succession and he might as well haue chosen Antioch as Rome Ergo neither is the succession of Rome grounded vpon scripture neither any commandement of Christ for then Peter could not haue had free choyse to appoynt his successor where he would himselfe as the Iesuite saith if he had had any especiall direction or commaundement from Christ. So then marke I pray you they cannot proue out of scripture that the Bishop of Rome ought to succeede Peter in the chiefe Bishopricke but onely that Peter had the chiefe Bishopricke committed to him and his successors in generall whosoeuer they should appoynt Ergo the Bishops of Rome by their owne confession can alleadge no scripture institution or commandement of Christ for the primacie of the Church to bee annexed to the See of Rome and yet agaynst their knowledge they will alleadge scripture to colour the matter withall Bellarm. lib. 2. de pontif ca. 17. 3 Augustine saith Secundum honorum vocabula quae iam ecclesiae vsus obtinuit episcopatus presbyterio maior est The office of a Bishop is aboue the office of a Priest according to the names of honour which the Church by custome hath obtayned If then the difference of those two offices both named in scripture did arise rather and spring of the custome of the Church which thought it good to distinguish them for auoyding of schisme and is not grounded vpon the authoritie of scripture much lesse can the Pope whose neither name nor office is expressed in scripture fetch from thence any shew of proofe for his vsurped primacie THE SIXT PART OF THIS QVESTION CONCERning the proud names and vayne glorious titles of the Pope The Papists BEllarmine setteth downe to the number of fifteene glorious names which error 46 haue been of old giuen as he saith to the Bishop of Rome whereby his primacie ouer other Bishops is notoriously knowne but the principall are these He is called the Pope and chiefe Father the prince of Priests or high Bishop the Vicar of Christ the head of the Church the Prelate of the Apostolike See vniuersall Bishop These sixe names or titles they doe appropriate to the See of Rome Bellarm. de Roman pontif lib. 2. cap. 31. The Protestants WE will shewe by Gods grace that these sixe seuerall titles and names aforesayd are either such as ought not in their sense to be attributed to any Bishop nor any mortall man or els were common in ancient times as well to other Bishops as to him of Rome 1 For the first name of Pope it is deriued from the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the Syracusane language is as much as Father which name was indifferently giuen to other Bishops which were famous in the Church for their vertue and learning As Cypriane Epiphanius Athanasius were called Papae Popes Augustine saluteth Aurelius President of the 6. Councel of Carthage by the name of Pope Epistol 77. Likewise those two epithetes of the Pope as to bee called Beatissim sanctissim pater most holy and blessed father were vsed in the stile of other Bisshops Prosper in his Epistle to Augustine twise calleth him Dominum beatissimum papam Lord most blessed Pope Tom. 7. Hierome calleth Epiphanius Beatum papam blessed Pope Ad Eustach Fabiol Augustine writing to Petrus the Presbyter or Priest being no Bishop yet thus saluteth him Ad sanctitatem tuam scripsit he hath written to your holines Nay in his booke dedicated to Renatus a lay man neither Priest nor Bishop thus he writeth Hinc angor quòd sanctitati tuae minus quà m vellem cognitus sum This grieueth me that I am not so well knowne to your holines as I desire If then these titles of holinesse and blessednesse were not onely giuen to Bishops but Priests also yea vnto lay men of vertuous and holy life what colour or
shewe of reason can our aduersaries haue to make them proper to the Bishop of Rome 2 The second name is prince of Priests or high and chiefe Bishop which title if it be taken for a chiefe power dominion and soueraigntie is proper only to Christ the chiefe shepheard 1. Pet. 5.4 and cannot in that sense agree to any man If it bee vsed onely as a title of excellencie and commendation so was it in times past ascribed to other excellent and famous Bishops as Ruffinus lib. 2. cap. 26. calleth Athanasius Pontificem maximum chiefe Bishop yea it was in common giuen to all Bishops as Anacletus Bishop of Rome in his second Epistle writeth thus Summi sacerdotes id est Episcopi a deo iudicandi sunt The high Priests that is Bishops saith he are to bee iudged of God If it be taken further for the excellencie of the ministerie of the Gospell and the worthie calling of Christians in this sense the title of summum sacerdotium of the high Priesthood is attributed to all ministers Ecclesiasticall both Bishops and others so Fabianus Bishop of Rome vseth this name Yea the holy Apostle calleth all the people of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a princely royall or chiefe priesthood Ergo the Bishop of Rome hath no especiall or proper interest in this name 3 The third name is to bee called the Vicar of Christ vpon earth Where we are to vnderstand that in respect of the spirituall regiment and kingdome of Christ he needeth no Vicegerent vpon earth for I am with you saith he to the end of the world he himselfe is alway present in power and needeth not in that respect that any man should supplie his roume Petrus scriba martyr Fox pag. 906. If we doe take it for a word of office and publike administration so the Magistrate may bee called the Vicar of Christ in gouerning the people according to the word of God In which sense Eleutherius Bishop of Rome writing to Lucius King of the Britaines calleth him the Vicar of Christ and therfore in his owne kingdome had power out of the word of God to establish lawes for the gouernment of the people So all Bishops Pastors and Ministers in ancient time were called the Vicars of Christ in preaching praying binding and loosing in the name and power of Christ. So Augustine saith or whose worke els it is that Omnis antistes est Christi vicarius Euery pastor and prelate and not the Pope onely is the Vicar of Christ. And this is confessed by our Rhemists annot in 2. Cor. 5.18 that the Bishops and priests of the Church are for Christ and as his ministers that is his Vicars Nay Augustine maketh yet a more generall vse of this word he saith that Homo imperium Dei habens quasi vicarius eius est That man by creation being made Lord of the creatures doth therein represent God and is as his Vicar vpon earth So then all ministers are the Vicars of Christ the ciuill Magistrate likewise in some good sense may bee so called yea in respect of the creatures man generallie is vpon earth in Gods steade Ergo this name cannot be appropriate to the Pope of Rome 4 It is also too huge a name for the Pope or any mortall man to beare to be called the head of the vniuersall Church this is a name only due vnto Christ neither doe the scriptures acknowledge any other head but him Ephes. 1.22.4.15 But say they wee doe not make the Pope such an head as Christ is but only a ministeriall head ouer the militant Church vpon earth We answere First Ergo the Pope by your owne confession is not head of the vniuersall Church whereof the triumphant Church in heauen is a part Secondly the Rhemists confesse that the Church in no sense can bee called the bodie of the Pope Ergo the Pope cannot be any wayes the head of the vniuersall Church Annot. in 1. Ephes. 22. Thirdly the Fathers of Basile vsed this argument The head of the bodie being dead the whole bodie also dyeth but the whole Church doth not perish with the Pope Ergo he is not properly the head of the Church Fox pag. 675. If it shall bee further obiected that the Bishop of Rome hath been called in times past caput Episcoporum the head of all other Bishops we answere that it was but a title of excellencie and commendation not of dominion and power as London is called the head or chiefe citie of England yet are not other cities of the land subiect vnto it or vnder the iurisdiction thereof But we shall haue occasion more fully to discusse this matter afterward 5 They would haue the Pope called the Prelate of the Apostolike See the Rhemists say further that the Papall dignitie is a continuall Apostleship Annot. 4. Ephes. sect 4. We answere First if they call those Churches Apostolicall whose first founders were the Apostles then the See of Antioch Alexandria Constantinople are as well Apostolicall as Rome and this the Iesuite denyeth not Lib. 2. de pontific cap. 31. Secondly those Churches are Apostolicall which hold the Apostolike faith so is not the See of Rome Apostolicall being departed and gone backe from the ancient Catholike faith but those Churches where the Gospell of Iesus Christ is truely preached are indeede Apostolike Thirdly how can the Pope be an Apostle or haue Apostolike authoritie seeing hee preacheth not at all much lesse to the whole world wherein consisted the office of an Apostle Neither can he shewe his immediate calling from Christ as all the Apostles could for seeing he challengeth the Apostolike office by tradition from S. Peter and not by commandement from Christ he can in no wise be counted an Apostle or his office an Apostleship for the Apostles ordayned onely Euangelists and Pastors they had not authoritie to consecrate and constitute new Apostles Our aduersaries for this their Apostleship can finde nothing in scripture nor for a thousand yeeres after Christ in the ancient writers Fulk annot in Ephes. 4. sect 4. 6 Concerning the title of vniuersall Bishop it was thus decreed in the sixt Councel of Carthage as it is alleadged by Gratian Vniuersalis autem nec Romanus pontifex appelletur No not the Bishop of Rome is to be called vniuersall In Gregorie the first his time Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople obtayned of the Emperour Mauritius to be called vniuersall Patriarke but Gregorie would not agree thereunto calling him the forerunner of Antichrist that would challenge so proude a name Bellarmine and other of that sect doe answere that Gregorie found fault with this title because Iohn of Constantinople would haue been Bishop alone and none other to bee beside him but all other onely to bee his deputies and vicars To this wee replie First Iohn did onely challenge a superioritie ouer other Bishops not to be Bishop alone for this had been a thing impossible Secondly if Iohn had sought any such thing
eis qui haec curant potestatibus in magno errore est If any man thinke because he is a Christian that he is not bound to pay tribute and taxe and yeelde due honor to the temporall powers for of such Augustine speaketh he is in a great error If all then are subiect to the temporal magistrate that are Christians then all Bishops and Ecclesiastical persons yea the Pope himselfe if he be a Christian. Ergo the Emperor is not subiect to him THE SECOND PART OF THE QVESTION concerning Saint Peters patrimonie whether the Pope may be a temporall Prince The Papists THey say that it is not against the word of God that the Pope should bee error 52 both a temporall and Ecclesiasticall Prince and that both the swordes of spirituall and Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction doe belong vnto him and that hee is the right heire of Saint Peters patrimonie to him belongeth as chiefe Lorde the Imperiall citie of Rome the pallace of Laterane Capua also and Apulia are his distinct 96. Constantin 1 Moses saith the Iesuite was both priest and Prince so was Heli 1. Sam. 4. He iudged Israel fortie yeeres so were also the Macchabees Iudas Ionathan Simon yea Melchisedech long before Moses was Priest and King Ergo the Pope is lawfullie both chiefe Bishop and chiefe Prince also and Lord of that which he now possesseth Bellarmine cap. 9. Ans. Concerning Melchisedech Who knoweth not that hee being King and Priest was a liuelie figure of our Sauior Christs spirituall Kingdome and Priesthoode Heb. 7. And as yet the offices of the spirituall and temporall gouernement were not distinguished for all the Patriarkes Abraham Isaack Iacob the rest were sacrificers therefore wee cannot borrow any examples from them for this matter Moses also did offer sacrifice to God and was chiefe iudge both in spirituall and temporall affaires vnto the people vntill such time as when by Gods commaundement Aaron was chosen to the priesthood vnto whome the charge of sacrifices and vnto his sonnes was committed so Moses remained still Prince of the people whom Iosua succeeded and Aaron was inuested to the priesthoode and so the offices were distinct this example therefore of Moses is extraordinarie and proueth not Concerning the time when Ely iudged Israel which was in the dayes of the iudges we must vnderstand that the gouernement of Israel was very dissolute and men were left to themselues to doe almost what themselues listed as Iud. 17. we reade that Micah set vp an Idoll in his house and the reason is rendered there was no King in Israel but euery man did that which seemed good in his owne eyes Likewise the tribe of Dan offered violence to Micah and robbed him Iud. 18. For there was no King in Israel vers 1. The Leuites wife was most shamefully abused by the Gibeonites for there was no King chap. 19.1 The men of Beniamin tooke them wiues by force for they had no King chap. 21.25 So you see that both religion was corrupted and the maners of the people grew to be outragious and all because there was no perfect distinct gouernement there was no King in Israel In Elie his time the word of God was precious 1. Sam. 3.1 Great was the ignorance of the whole land the licentiousnesse also of his sonnes was a great offence to all Israel and brought a great decay of godlines with it 1. Sam. 2.17.23 Yea they caused the people through their euill example to sinne verse 24. Wherefore Elie his house was iudged of GOD for his remisnes in gouernement in not correcting his sonnes chapter 3.13 And hee that cannot rule his owne house how should hee care for the Church 1. Timoth. 3.5 It cannot now bee proued by the example of Elie that the ciuill gouernement was annexed to the priesthoode by the Lordes appoyntment but it is rather to bee ascribed to the corruption of those times for hauing no King nor Captaine ouer them they were driuen of necessitie to come to the high Priest vnto whome the iudgement of many matters was committed by the lawe of God Deuter. 17.8 Leuit. 13.2 But the priesthood and the ciuill magistracie were two distinct things alwaies from the time of the lawe established It is then no good argument which is drawne from the practise and example of those corrupt times And yet wee say not that these offices were so distinct but that the Lorde might rayse vp some extraordinarie prophet as hee did Samuel who to restore iustice and religion decayed might for a time both iudge the people and offer sacrifice as wee see hee did As for the examples of the Maccabees they moue vs not you must bring better scripture for your purpose the authoritie of those bookes binde vs not and againe we see they did contrarie to the lawe in taking vppon them both offices for the priesthood was annexed to the posteritie of Aaron for euer Numb 3.10 And the scepter was not to depart from Iuda till Christ came Genes 49.10 As the Lorde also had promised to Dauid that the Kingdome should remaine in his seede 2. Chron. 22.3 2 Constantine the great gaue vnto the Pope the chiefe gouernement of the Citie of Rome and other Lordships in Italie yea the soueraigntie ouer the West parts why then is it not lawfull for him to enioy his gift Bellarmine lib. 5. cap. 9. Ans. First the donation of Constantine seemeth to be forged for if Constantine resigned to Siluester the politicall dominion of the west partes how could he then haue distributed his Empire amongst his sonnes as the West part to one the East to the second the middle part to the third Againe the donation saith that Constantine was baptised at Rome by Siluester before the battaile against Maximinus and that then the patrimonie was giuen but it is certaine by stories that he was baptised at Nicomedia by Eusebius Bishop there in the 31. yeere of his raigne wherefore it seemeth to be a forged and deuised thing plur apud Fox pag. 105. 2 Aeneas Siluius saith that Mathilda a noble Dutches in Italie gaue those landes to the Pope which are called S. Peters patrimonie how then can it be true that they were giuen by Constantine Thirdly the popish doctors and Canonists confesse that Constantines grant is not so much to bee counted a donation as a restitution of that which tyrannouslie was taken from him but hee hath his power spirituall and temporall immediatly from Christ you see then that they themselues make no great reckoning of Constantines donation Antoni summa maior 3. part 4 Yet if Constantinus that good Emperor had been so minded to haue bestowed the imperiall dignitie vpon the bishop of Rome there remaineth a great question whether he ought to haue accepted of it or not nay hee should haue refused it for the temporall sword belongeth not to spirituall gouernors At the least it had been a charitable part not to haue suffered the Emperor to disinherite his
so exhorteth the superiour Pastors and Bishops to looke to their Clergie as the Rhemists would haue it for S. Peter speaketh of the whole flocke and congregation which cannot bee vnderstood properly of many Ministers dispersed into seuerall places 2 Neither shall wee finde this word Clerus the Clergie properly applied to the Ministers throughout the newe testament let our aduersaries brag neuer so much of scripture as they doe Galat. 6.6 S. Paul vseth these names of difference 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the teacher and he that is taught and 1. Corinth 14.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the speaker and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the priuate or vnlettered man So that all their names are giuen in respect of their outward ministerie and calling not in regard of any difference before God For before the Lord as there is neither Graecian nor Iewe bond nor free male nor female so neither is there Clerke or lay man 3 Augustine thus writeth concerning this name Cleros qui sunt in ecclesiastici ministerij gradibus ordinati sic dictos puto quia Matthias sorte electus est in Psal. 67. Clerkes which serue in the Ministerie I thinke were so called because Matthias was chosen by lot See then they are not called Clerkes because they are the Lords lot but because they are allotted and chosen out of the people for that seruice as the Leuites are called the peoples gift Numbers 18.6 and the Priests office an office of seruice not of more merite or holinesse or an office of Lordly preeminence but of ministerie and seruice Augustine therefore hath a notable saying Non nos digni qui pro vobis oremus vos indigni qui pro nobis oretis Psal. 68. We are not onely worthie to pray for you and you vnworthie to pray for vs Auditoribus suis quibus verbum praedicauit se commendauit Apostolus ibid. The Apostle commendeth himselfe to their deuout praiers to whom he preached By this their error is confuted that thinke the prayer of a Priest to be the rather heard for the merite and dignitie of his calling howsoeuer els he be affected in his prayer So the Rhemists say that a prayer not vnderstood profiteth by the vertue of the worke wrought and the office of the Priesthood Annot. 1. Corinth 14. sect 10. THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERNING the election and institution of Bishops and Pastors THis question hath two parts First of the election generally of Pastors and Ministers Secondly of the election of the Bishop of Rome THE FIRST PART CONCERNING THE ELEction generally of all Bishops and Pastors The Papists error 67 THey say that the election of Bishops neither belongeth to the Clergie nor the people but wholly appertayneth to the Bishop of Rome as for the people they haue they say nothing at all to doe in the election of their pastors or ordayning of them that neither their suffragium consilium or consensus suffrage counsell or consent is to be required Bellarm. de clericis lib. 1. cap. 7. 8. 1 That the people are to be vtterly excluded thus they would proue it Aaron was onely elected of Moses without consent of the people so were the Apostles by our Sauiour Ergo the peoples consent is not required Bellarm. Ans. Who seeth not that there is great difference betweene ordinary and extraordinary callings such as the calling of the Apostles was and Aarons at the first though the office of the high Priest afterward became ordinarie Also it followeth not the Apostles were chosen without consent of the people when there were yet no faithfull and Christian congregations and because they were pastors of the whole world Ergo as well the peoples consent may be wanting in the election of ordinarie Bishops and Pastors which haue their peculiar proper charges and there being now many faithfull and well instructed congregations It is one thing to appoynt Pastors for the Church not yet planted an other thing to constitute them in a Church alreadie reformed and instructed for we reade of nations that haue been conuerted to the faith by those that had no calling of the Church as a great nation of the Indians was by Aedesius and Frumentinus Ruffin lib. 1.9 and the Iberians by a captiue woman Ruffin 1.10 2 The people cannot iudge who are fit to be pastors and their elections are tumultuous as we may reade how in the election of Damasus there were 137. persons slaine and therefore it is not meete nor conuenient that the matter should be committed to the people either to elect or ordayne but whatsoeuer they did in times past it was either by sufferance or negligence of the Bishops Bellarmin cap. 7. Ans. First meere popular elections were neuer allowed in any well ordered Church neither was the allowāce of their pastors wholly referred to the people neither did they beare the chiefe stroke but the election was moderated by the wisedome and grauitie of the Clergie Fulk Tit. 1. sect 2. Secondly the question is not betweene vs concerning the ordayning of pastors for that belonged only to the Eldership and was done by laying on of their hands 1. Timoth. 4.14 but concerning the electing and choosing of them Thirdly neither doe we dispute whether it be conuenient and necessarie at al times but whether it be lawfull for neither doe we affirme that it is of the essence and substance of the calling of ministers to be chosen by the voyces of the people as though they were no ministers but vsurpers and intruders that are not so called but whether it hath been at any time may yet be lawfull to require the consent of the people Fourthly it is false that the people had this right by vsurpation or els sufferance of the Pastors for Cyprian sayth it did De diuina authoritate descendere lib. 1. Epistol 4. That this custome was grounded vpon diuine authoritie yea it was established by the lawes of Kings as there was a lawe made by Lodouicus Pius King of France that Bishops should bee ordayned by the free election of the Clergie and the people ex Ansigis lib. 1. cap. 20. 3 Therefore say they elections of Bishops ought to bee at the Popes assignement for vnto Peter was committed the care of the vniuersall Church when he bad Peter feede his sheepe Hereupon they are bold to affirme that we haue neither true Bishops nor Ministers because they are not lawfully sent that is as they interprete it from the See Apostolike Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 3.8 Rhemist Rom. 10. sect 5. Answere First the charge giuen to Peter beareth no such sense that because Christ bad him feede his sheepe therefore he and his successors should onely haue authoritie to consecrate Ministers for if Peter had it by this grant other Elders and Pastors had it in like sort to whom it as well appertayned to feede the flocke of Christ 1. Peter 5.2 And agayne not Peter onely but the rest also of the Apostles did ordayne and consecrate Pastors
mihi responsione vestra opus est de hac assensione aliquid acclamate I must needes haue you make some answere and testifie your consent by your acclamation A populo acclamatum est fiat fiat dictum vicies quinquies The people cryed out let it be as thou hast sayd let it be and this was repeated fiue and twentie times Augustin epistol 110. By this example it appeareth though the people made not the choise yet their consent was demanded And thus a Bishop was elected and no word sent vp to Rome at all Neither was it the custome of the Church so to do in those dayes for whereas the Donatists obiected agaynst Cecilianus Bishop of Carthage because he stayed not to be ordayned of the chiefe Bishop of Numidia Vt princeps Episcopus a principe ordinaretur That one chiefe Bishop might bee ordayned of an other Augustine answered that there was another custome of the Catholike Church Vt non Numidiae sed propinquiores Episcopi Episcopum ecclesiae Carthaginis ordinarent That not the Bishop of Numidia but those Bishops that were neerest at hand should ordayne the Bishop of Carthage So we see they were not onely bold to choose an inferiour Bishop as was Eradius of Hippo without the Popes consent but they would aduenture to ordayne a chiefe Metropolitane Bishop euen of Carthage without the Popes leaue THE SECOND PART CONCERNING the election of the Pope THey say that the surest and safest way and simplie the best is that which is error 68 now vsed to choose the Pope by namely by the Colledge of the Cardinals That whosoeuer is by two partes of the sayd Cardinals elected is rightly the successor of Saint Peter and the vndoubted Pope of Rome 1 None can better iudge who is fittest for the papacie then they which are the Popes Counsellers and know the affayres of the Church Ergo the Cardinals the meetest men Answere First you take that for graunted which wee instantly denie that the Cardinals of Rome are alwayes the wisest and most learned as though a Cardinals hat doth bring with it such abundance of vertue and learning nay a title of a Cardinalship is sooner obtayned by fauour than desert by masses of money then weight of learning And good reason seeing that the Cardinals make a gayne of the papacie For an Asse loaden with golde shall sooner enter into the Castle of Saint Angel then any other comming with a cart loade of bookes they that reade Cardinal Wolseyes instructions sent to Stephen Gardiner at Rome what great promises of money and preferment may easily vnderstand the disposition of the Pope-holy Electors of Rome Seeing they make a gayne of the Pope why should not he set Cardinalships to sale for if Iacobus Archbishop of Mentz payd 27000. florences for his pall what thinke you a Cardinals hat is to be valued at which is a higher degree then either Bishop or Archbishop We say then that there may be wiser and more learned men of the Clergie in Rome then the Cardinals and that the whole Clergie may better iudge then a few ambitious Cardinals and are freer from corruption 2 They are not fitter not concerning the affayres of the Church for Bishops are like to know better what appertayneth to the office of a Bishop then priests and Deacons as most of the Cardinals are 2 It appeareth by the continuance to be the best for it hath now endured foure hundred yeeres and by the effect for the See of Rome hath neuer been freer from Schismes then since this order was taken for the Popes election Bellarmin cap. 9. Answere First how can it be of such long continuance seeing by your owne confession it exceedeth not foure hundred yeeres Nay who will not graunt that the ancient order of electing the Bishop of Rome by the whole Clergie and consent of the people of Rome with the confirmation of the Emperour which lasted a thousand yeeres till this new deuice came in place was far more ancient and durable Secondly how well the Cardinals election hath kept the See of Rome from Schisme experience of former times teacheth vs In pope Vrbanus time the 6. there were two popes many yeeres together and one did so deadly pursue the other that Pope Vrbane at once cut off fiue of the Cardinals heads might they not haue great ioy thinke you in choosing such a Pope In the time of Pope Iohn the 23. there were three Popes at once In the Councel of Basile Pope Eugenius was deposed and counted an heretike And yet for all this the Cardinals are the onely preseruers and maintainers of the peace of the Apostolike See The Protestants THough it doe not greatly concerne vs what manner of election is vsed at Rome for vnto vs the electiō of the meanest Bishop in the land is as much yea and more then the glorious enthronizing of the Pope Yet it shall not be amisse briefly to shew how these great antiquaries are become enemies of antiquitie refusing the ancient manner of election which was vsed in Rome for a 1000. yeares together namely that the Bishop there should be elected by the whole Clergy wiht the consent of the people and confirmation of the Emperour 1 It is a playne case that till the yeare 685. in all their elections they wayted for the authoritie of the chiefe Magistrate the Emperour or the deputie of Italie But then came in the constitution of Constantine the 4 that their elections should be firme without the consent of the Emperour Yet for all this constitution anno 810. Pope Adriane gaue vnto Carolus magnus full authoritie to elect the Bishop of Rome and anno 961. Leo the 9. made the same grant to Otho first Germane Emperor This continued in force till Alexander the 2. his time who was elected first without the Emperors consent but afterward repenting of it he protested openly that he would be no longer Pope vnlesse hee had the Emperours consent and thereupon he was deposed by Hildebrand and throwen into prison This was more then a 1000. yeeres after Christ since that time the Emperour hath been excluded and shut out from their elections But all this while notwithstanding though the Emperors consent sometime was not necessary yet the Clergie of Rome and the people retayned their ancient priuiledge still So we see by this new erection of the Colledge of Cardinals there is great iniurie offered to three estates the Emperor the Clergie of Rome the people 2 This new forme of election hath not stood continually in force since it was first founded For in the Councel of Constance sess 40. they proceeded to the election of a new Pope not staying for the rest of the Cardinals but appoynting other electors in their roume In the Councel of Basile the Duke of Sauoy was elected Pope by other electors then Cardinals Nay there was but one Cardinal namely Arolatensis the rest were Bishops Doctors and others And though they
from his whole ministerie But the power before spoken of hee hath at his first receiuing of orders We thus shew it Whatsoeuer belongeth to the office of a Minister set ouer a flocke or charge hee receiueth the power thereof when he is ordayned But to preach the word belongeth to the office of such for preaching is properly the feeding of the people But see the absurditie of the papists they say it is not proper to the priesthood to preach but onely to haue power to sacrifice the body of Christ But it is proper to the Bishop say they to preach We answere First then the Bishop is properly the pastor of euery flocke and congregation in his diocesse for hee that properly feedeth is properly the Pastor And hee that is properly the Pastor hath the charge of soules properly yea more then hath the particular Pastor for he is improperly their Pastor but as it were the Bishops substitute and Vicar But what Bishop in the worlde is able to beare so great a burthen to haue the especiall and proper charge of all the soules in his diocesse It is not to be denied but he hath a charge of their soules as a Christian Prince also hath in some respect of his subiects but to say hee is the proper Pastor and hath the proper principall charge of soules in teaching and feeding of them for the question is now of preaching not of gouerning who is able to abide it Secondly but our Rhemists tell vs another tale that many that are not able to preach are meete enough to bee Bishops 1. Timoth. 5. sect 13. Ergo it is not proper to Bishops neither to preach I pray you then for whom is it proper if neither for Bishops nor inferior Pastors then for none Thirdly they make but seuen orders of Ecclesiasticall Ministers and the priesthood is the chiefe for a Bishop and a priest make but one order as Bellarmin confesseth cap. 11. But to none of all these orders it is proper to preach for seeing it is not proper to the priest none of the inferior orders can challenge it See then what goodly orders these are which leaue the very chiefe parte of the ministery vndone which is the preaching of the word I thinke their meaning is that this preaching is not so necessary a dutie but may be well spared in the Church 2 That which a man is bound to doe vnder paine of the curse of GOD that he may lawfully performe in due order without the leaue of men but a woe is layd vpon them that preach not the Gospell where they are bound 1. Cor. 9.16 Ergo. Argum. Wicliffi 3 A man is bound to giue corporal almes to the poore the needie the hungry the thirstie neither is he to craue leaue of any Ergo much more to teach the ignorant to comfort the weake and doe other dueties appertayning to his charge Argum. Wicliffi Concerning the power of giuing orders As Saint Paul speaketh of the laying on of his handes 2. Timoth. 1.6 so he maketh mention of imposition of hands by the Eldership 1. Timoth 4.14 And the Rhemists vpō that place mislike not the practise of the Church that their Priests doe lay on their handes together with the Bishop vpon his head that is to be ordayned So that by this it is manifest that imposition of hands doth not wholly and folie belong vnto the Bishop seeing the rest of the Elders were wont to lay on their hands likewise or the Bishop in the name of the rest Fulk annot Tit. 1. sect 2. So that the Elders were not excluded THE THIRD PART CONCERNING THE office and title of Cardinals The Papists BEllarmine would faine haue the office of Cardinals as ancient as the Apostles error 72 times and the name to be worthilie appropriated to the See of Rome that as the Pope himselfe by his prudence and holines is tanquam cardo Ecclesiae to the Church as the hingell to the dore vpon the which it is turned and borne vp so his Counsellers and assistants should be called Cardinals hauing the care of the Vniuersall Church but the Iesuite beside some vaine shew of mothworne antiquitie hath not one good argument to proue the name and office of Cardinals to be either ancient or commendable Then especiall office as they are Cardinals is to elect and chuse the Pope and to be assistant vnto him in Counsell for the gouernement of the vniuersall Church Bellarm. cap. 16. The Protestants THat neither the name of Cardinals as proper to Rome is ancient nor their office or either of them lawfull or commendable but vsurped and Antichristian thus briefely it is shewed 1 In Augustines time it was a common name vsually applied both in the good and euill parte to chiefe and principall men of any place or sect as he calleth the ringleaders of the Donatists Cardinales Donatistas Cardinall or captaine Donatists de baptism lib. 1. cap. 6. Surely if it then had been onely due to the assistants of the Romane Bishop Augustine had been much to blame to applie the name to Heretikes 2 Augustine thus writeth to Hierome Quamues secundum honorum vocabula saith hee Episcopatus presbyterio maior sit tamen in multis rebus Augustin Hieronim minor est Though according to the custome of the Church a Bishop be greater then a Priest yet Augustine a Bishop in many things is inferior to Hierome a Priest Now Hierome was a Priest of Rome and a Cardinall as our aduersaries say and therefore they picture him commonly in a red gowne and habite of a Cardinall yet you see Augustine as a Bishop was before him though for his great learning he putteth himselfe behinde him 3 Augustine in another place complaineth of one Falcidius a Deacon of Rome qui duce stultitia saith hee diaconos presbyteris coaequare contendit who being led or carried away with follie did goe about to make Deacons equall vnto Priests Is not the same follie now generally practised in Rome or a greater for they doe not onely preferre Cardinall Deacons before Priests but euen before Bishops and Archbishops in Augustines time this was counted a great follie 4 Concerning the office of Cardinals in the electing of the Pope we haue shewed before quest 2. part 2. that it is of no great antiquitie and that it is iniurious to three estates to the Emperor who was wont to cōfirme the election to the Clergie of Rome who had in times past interest in the election and to the people whose consent was also in time past required But now all these are excluded and the matter is wholly referred to the Chapter of Cardinals THE FOVRTH QVESTION CONCERNING the Keyes of the Church committed for the execution to the pastors and gouernors thereof THis question hath foure partes First wherein the authoritie of the keyes consisteth secondly to whom they are committed thirdly whether there is absolute power of binding and loosing in the Church or ministerially onely fourthly
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
Bellarm. They did it by an extraordinarie authoritie not as Kings but as Prophets Nay it was an ordinarie power for all the good kings of Iuda beside as Iehosaphat Hezekiah and others did take care of religion this was so properly annexed to the kingly office that idolatrous kings also tooke vpon them to command false religion as Ieroboam set vp two golden calues and Ahaz king of Iudah cōmanded Vriah the high Priest to make an Altar according to the patterne which he sent from Damascus 2. King 16.11 This power also was afterward exercised by Christian Kings and Emperours as Constantinus Theodosius Martianus made lawes for the Church Fulk annot 1. Cor. 14. sect 16. Iustinianus the Emperour decreed many things concerning Church affayres as how excommunication should be vsed how Bishops and Priests should be ordained concerning the order and manner of funerals that the holy mysteries should not be done in priuate houses Carolus magnus decreed that onely the Canonical bookes of scripture should be read in the Church he chargeth all Bishops and priests to preach the word Lodouicus Pius his sonne and Emperour after him ordained that no entrie should bee made into the Church by Simonie that Bishops should bee chosen by the free election of the Clergie and the people All these Emperours did lawfully exercise their princely authoritie in Ecclesiastical matters Ergo other princes may doe the same still 3 Augustine saith Epistol 50. Quis mente sobrius c Who in his right wits would say to the King It pertaineth not to you who in your kingdome is religious or sacrilegious to whom it cannot be said let it not pertaine vnto you who in your kingdome will be chast or vnchast And in another place Ad fratres in erem serm 14. Tunc iustitia dicitur gladius ex vtraque parte acutus quia hominis defendit corpus ab exterioribus iniurijs animam à spiritualibus molestijs Then iustice is rightly called a sword with a double edge because it doth both defend the bodie from externall and corporall wrongs and the soule from spirituall vexation That is the sword of the Magistrate serueth as well to prune the Church and to cut off all errors and heresies in religion as to destroy the vices and corruptions in manners AN APPENDIX OR FOVRTH PART OF THE QVEstion whether the Prince in any good sense may be called the head of his kingdome and consequently of the Church in his kingdome The Papists THey do appropriate this title to be called heads of the vniuersall Church to error 101 the Pope of Rome most blasphemouslie for there can be no head of the vniuersal bodie but Christ But for Princes to be called the head that is chiefe gouernours of the Churches in their kingdomes they do abhorre it Whereupon Bellarmine is so saucie as to checke and controule King Henrie the 8. because he was called the head of the English Church 1 The heathen Emperours were not heads of the Church being not so much as members thereof therefore neither Christian Magistrates which doe succeede them in that authoritie Rhemist annot 1. Pet. 2. sect 6. Ans. 1. The argument followeth not they were no true mēbers of the Church therefore could not be heads that is haue the soueraigntie of the externall gouernment for wicked kings and princes doe keepe their magistracie gouernment still who though they be not true members of the Catholike Church yet ought to be obeied as princes 2. Though the metaphorical name of head agreed not vnto them yet were they by Gods ordinance appointed to be heads gouernours of his people protectors of his Church should haue been if they had not abused their authoritie 3. Christian princes though they haue the same authoritie which they had yet now exercising the sword according to Gods law and being Nurses of the Church may vse and retaine those princely titles in deed to be called Patrones and defenders of the faith head that is chiefe gouernours and protectors of the Church which by right had been due vnto the other if they had vsed their authoritie as they should 2 Christian princes are members of the Church Ergo not heads for if they were heads how could the Church stand without them as it did in the time of persecution Ans. First as though the head is not a member and part of the bodie though a principall one so the Prince is a member of the Church but a principall and chiefe member not of the inuisible Church for so Christ is onely head but of a particular visible Church Secondly we denie not but that the inuisible and spiritual Church may consist without the Magistrate but a visible flourishing and wel-gouerned Church cannot want a head or chiefe gouernour that is as a wall or hedge vnto it The Protestants TO bee head of the vniuersall Church is proper onely to Christ and in that sense is not communicable to any creature for he is to his Church as the head to the naturall bodie giuing vnto it influence of grace spirit and life he is therefore the onely mysticall head of the vniuersal Church But in another sense the Prince may be said to be the head and chiefe gouernour of his kingdome of that particular visible Church where he is king We make him neither the mysticall head which is only Christ farre be that blasphemie from vs nor a ministerial head as they make the Pope to be as Christs Vicegerent in the Church but a politicall head to keepe and preserue the peace of the Church and to see that euery member doe his office and duetie But this name we confesse is vnproperly giuen to the Prince neither were we the first inuentors of it for the papists first gaue it to Henry the 8. And there are other titles which doe sufficiently expresse the office of the Prince and may bee more safely vsed If any man thinke it too high a name for any mortall man and so not to be giuen to any we will not greatly contend about it But if any denye it to the Prince as thereby to abridge her of her power in Ecclesiastical matters we doe stand stiffely for it and are bold to affirme that with much better right is this title attributed to the ciuill Magistrate then it was to the Pope yea and that it hath been of old giuen in a modest and sober sense to Kings and Princes and may with a fauourable exposition be still and Princes also may receiue this honour and title at their subiects hands with protestation of their Christian meaning herein 1 This phrase for the King to be called the head is not vnusuall in scripture 1. Sam. 15.17 Saul is sayd to be the head of the tribes Psal. 18.43 Dauid the head of the nations Isay. 9.15 The Prince or honourable man the head of the people yea Princes are called Gods Psal. 82.2 which is a name of greater Soueraigntie then to be called heads
with the like blasphemie challenge to be worshipped because the women in the Gospel caught Christ by the feete and worshipped him Mat. 28.9 We may see by this of what spirit hee is and whether he be not that Antichrist that shal make him selfe as God 2. Thess. 2.4 The Protestants THe kissing of the feete was an humble and lowly gesture which was worthily vsed toward our Sauiour Christ who was God in the flesh and in his body and humanity annexed to his Godhead as God to be worshipped but it is too diuine and too lowly an homage to be offered to any mortall man and holy men in times past refused it when any carried away with immoderat zeal and admiration of their person were ready to giue it vnto them Argum. 1. When Cornelius fell downe at Peters feete the holy Apostle would not suffer him to do it The pope is of a cleane contrary spirite to S. Peter for he refused it beeing offered the Pope holdeth out his toe and offereth it to be kissed and vrgeth men thereunto Argum. 2 If such kissing of feete be commendable how commeth it to passe that the pope only hath holy feete to kisse and not other Bishoppes and Clergy men as well as he Augustine thus wryteth vpon those wordes of the Psalme Worship his foote-stoole reading according to the Septuagint saith he the earth is his foote stoole but wee must not worship the earth Conuerâ—o me ad ChristuÌ„ inuenio quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra suscepit enim de terra terram quia caro terra est in Psal. 98. I turne me saith hee vnto Christ and I finde howe the earth may without any impiety be worshipped for hee tooke earth of earth flesh of the flesh of the Virgin the flesh is earth Out of these wordes I conclude that the flesh the body the humanity ought not in any to be worshipped but onely in Christ for the neare coniunction of the Godhead and humane nature together and therefore consequently no kissing of feete which is an externall act of diuine worship is seemely for any mortall man THE THIRD QVESTION CONcerning the inuocation of Saints THis question hath three partes 1. Whether prayers are to bee made vnto Saintes 2. Whether they do pray for vs. 3. Whether they vnderstand our prayers THE FIRST PART WHETHER prayers are to be made to Saints The Papists error 28 THeir assertion is this Sanctos defunctos piè vtiliter à viuentib inuocari that Saintes departed are with great profite and piety called vpon and prayed vnto and that it is not onely lawfull but godly so to do Rhemist 1. Tim. 2. sect 4. Bellarmine cap. 19. lib. 1. De sanctor beatitud Argum. 1. They say they do not pray vnto saints as authors of any benefite or grace but as intercessors onely Neither do they make them immediat intercessors but onely through Christ concluding al their prayers per ChristuÌ„ Dominum nostrum Bellarm. Ans. 1. It is false that you pray vnto theÌ„ as intercessors onely for you desire them not onely to pray for you but to haue mercy on you for thus they pray O blessed Lady haue mercy vpon vs preserue thy seruants let the merits of S. Marie bring vs to the kingdome of heauen Fulk 1. Timoth. 2. sect 4. 2. It is also false that they make them not immediat intercessors but conclude their prayers per Christum Dominum nostrum For in that blasphemous prayer Tu per Thomae sanguinem quem pro nobis impendit fac nos Christe scandere quò Thomas asceÌ„dit Here they aske life eternal of Christ by the blood of Thomas of Canterbury How then is it true which the Rhemists affirme in word that Christ alone by his merites procureth all grace and mercy towarde mankind ibid when they hope to obtaine their requestes by the merites of Saintes See Fulk annot Iohn 16. sect 3. where diuerse praiers to saints as to S. Marie S. Osmond S. Anne S. Katherine are rekoned vp and none of them concludeth per Christum Dominum nostrum Argum. 2. Exod. 32.13 Moyses thus prayeth Remember Abraham Isaac and Iacob thy seruants Moyses here hopeth to haue his prayers heard by the merits of these holy men Bellarm. Ans. Moyses rehearseth only the couenant which the Lord made with these holy men and their seede as the wordes following do shew To whome thou swarest by thine owne selfe and swarest vnto them I will multiplye your seede Moyses therefore pleadeth not the merits of Abraham Isaac Iacob but vrgeth and presseth the promise of God and couenant made with them Argum. 3. The saints do pray one for another here vpon earth and do one desire an anothers prayers as S. Paul Rom. 15. Ephes. 6. Coloss. 4. and in other places desireth to be assisted by their prayers Ergo much more may we desire the prayers of Saints departed Bellarm. Rhemist Ans. 1. To pray one for another while we liue is a duety of Charitie and commaunded in scripture but to request the prayers of saints departed hath no warrant in the worde 2. Wee do not desire the godly liuing to pray for vs as our Mediators or as though by their worthines we are brought into the fauour of God as you say the saints do and therefore your argument followeth not from the prayer of the liuing to the prayer of the dead 3. We may one pray for another and one request the prayers of another while wee liue because we know our mutuall necessities But the saintes departed knowe not what things are done vpon earth neither are euerie where present to heare our prayers The Protestants THat prayer is onely to be made vnto God and to no other creature beside as being an especiall part of the worshippe of God which we ought not to giue to any other thus it is proued out of the word of God Argum. 1. Rom. 10.14 Howe shall they call vpon him in whome they haue not beleeued But wee must beleeue onely in God and therefore onely pray to God Rhemist answer It is true no more can we pray vnto our lady nor any saint in heauen vnlesse we beleeue they can help vs. Ans. The scripture euery where teacheth that we must beleeue in God and that they are cursed that put any confidence in man Ierem. 17.5 Againe they can haue no assurance to settle their conscience but out of the scriptures They haue a vaine perswasion of the ability of Saintes to helpe them but they haue no ground of any such beliefe out of scripture Argum. 2. Heb. 4.16 Let vs come with boldnes to the throne of grace Ergo we haue no neede of the inuocation of saintes seeing wee haue free and bolde accesse through Christ. Rhemist By this reason we should not pray one for an other while we are aliue Ans. we do not put our confidence in the merite and worthines of other mens prayers as you do in the intercession of saints Againe this mutuall duetie of prayer
not to enter into that holy place and thus according to the places they deuided the congregation as though one part were more holy then the other The people also were made to beleeue that to be buried in the Chauncell but especially vnder the Altar was more auailable for the dead then to be buried in the Church But where learne they that our Churches ought to haue a sanctuary as the Iewish Temple had that was an euident type and is now accomplished in our Sauiour Christ who is now entred into the heauens as the high Priest then entred into the holy place to make atonement for the people Heb. 9.24 This therefore is very grosse to reuiue and renew again Iewish types and figures And if herein they wil imitate the building of Salomons Temple to haue a Sanctuary why doe they not also build toward the West as the Temple was why bring they not their Altar downe into the body of the Church for in their holy place there was no Altar And indeed Altar we acknowledge none as afterward shal be proued But we see no reason why the communion Table may not be set in the body of the Church as well as in the Chauncell if the place be more conuenient and fit to receiue the Communicants But I pray you why is your Altar rather set in your Sanctuary then the Fonte or Baptistery they are both Sacraments as well Baptisme as the Lords Supper why should one be preferred as holier then the other Secondly all things in the Church ought to be done vnto edifiyng and therefore we allow no such partitions as doe hinder the edifiyng of the people and exclude them from hearing as in popish Churches the Priest is pued or mued vp by himselfe a great way off that his voice can hardly be perceiued of the people The Minister is so to stand and turne himselfe as he may be best heard and vnderstood of the people as Ezra had a pulpit of wood to stand in when he read the Law Nehemiah 8. 4. Augustine thus writeth Cum Episcopus solus intus est populus orat eum illo et quasi subscribens ad eius verba respondet Amen While the Bishop or Pastor praieth within the people both praieth together with him and subscribing to his words answereth Amen By this it appeareth that though in Augustines time the Minister had a place for him selfe as it is meete he should yet he so disposed himselfe that his praier was heard of all the people for otherwise how could they pray with him and subscribe or giue assent to his wordes THE SECOND PART OF THE END and vse of Churches THis part hath 3. seuerall pointes First whether the Churches of Christians are built to offer sacrifice in Secondly whether they be in themselues places more holy then others Thirdly whether they may be dedicate to Saintes THE FIRST POYNT OR ARTICLE whether our Churches are for sacrifice The Papists THe principall end of Churches is for the sacrifice of Christians and in that error 49 respect they are truely called Temples they are not onely for prayer the preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments but chiefely for the externall sacrifice of the Masse Bellarm. cap. 4. Argu. 1. The Churches of Christians haue altars therefore sacrifices that they haue altars he thus proueth First 1. Corinth 10.21 You can not be partakers of the Lords table and the table of Deuils by the table here is meant the altar for the table of the heathen was their altar wherein they sacrificed to their Idols Ans. 1. A table is one thing an altar an other and very vnproperlye is an altar called a table this place in any wise mans iudgement maketh more against them then with them Secondly S. Paule speaketh not here of the sacrifices of the heathen nor of their altars but of the feastes which they made in their idolatrous temples which was done vpon tables of such sacrifices as had bene offered to idoles vnto the which feastes S. Paul forbiddeth Christians to come as it appeareth in the rest of the Chapter and more plainely cap. 8.10 Argu. 2. Heb. 13.10 Wee haue an altar of which they haue no power to eate that serue at the Tabernacle that is the altar whereon Christs body is offred Bellarm. Rhemist in hunc locum Ans. The Apostle speaketh expressely of participation of the sacrifice of Christs death as it is manifest in the 2. verses next following which is by a Christian faith and not in the Sacrament onely whereof none can be partakers that remayne in the ceremonial obseruations of the Leuitical sacrifices For the Apostle speaketh manifestly verse 12. of the suffering of Christ without the gate Christ therefore is the altar yea our Priest and sacrifice too You abuse this place to proue your materiall popish altars which are many but the Apostle saith we haue an altar speaking of one The Protestants THe Churches of Christians are the houses of praier made to that end that they should come together to heare the word of God read and preached receiue the sacraments and offer vp their spiritual sacrifices of praise and thanksgiuing other externall sacrifices or altars we acknowledge none Argu. 1. The temple of the Iewes was called an house of praier that is principally for praier Marke â—1 17 Moses was read and preached in their synagogues Act. 15.21 Much more are the Churches of Christians appointed for preaching and praier Act. 20.7 The first day of the weeke which is the Lords day they came together to breake bread and Paul preached vnto them Ergo the administration of the word and sacrameÌ„ts with praier is the chiefe and only cause of the holy assemblies of Christians Argu. 2. Altars we haue none in our Churches S. Paul calleth it the Lords table 1. Corinth 10.21 where wee receiue the sacrament of the bodye and bloud of Christ. And he calleth it bread which is broken 1. Corinthians 11.20 But bread is set vpon Tables not sacrificed vpon Altars Augustine also calleth it Mensam Domini the Lords table Epist. 59. epist. 50. He sheweth howe cruelly the Donatistes handled Maximian a catholik Bishop beating him with Clubbes euen in the church lignis altaris effractis immaniter ceciderunt and wounded him with the wood of the Altar which they had broken downe Where though he improperly call it an Altar yet was it a communion table framed of wood and made to bee remoued not fastened to the wall as their popish Altars were THE SECOND ARTICLE WHETHER Churches are more holy places in them selues The Papists GOd they say rather dwelleth and is present in Churches then els where error 50 and therefore it is more auailable for a man euen to make his priuate prayer in the Church Argum. 1. The Temple of Salomon was ordained euen for the prayers of priuate men and Salomon prayeth vnto God that they might be heard 1. King 8.38 So Anna prayed in the Tabernacle 1. Sam. 1.
annot Hebr. 7. sect 7. Wherefore they which minister vnder the Gospell are worthilie called Priests which word doth so certainely implie the authoritie of sacrificing that it is by vse made the onely English of Sacerdos Rhemist act 14. sect 3. The Protestants FIrst we hold it to be a great blasphemie to say that the Priesthood sacrifice of Christ vpō the Crosse is not that sacrifice or Priesthood into the which the old sacrifice Priesthood was translated changed The Apostle proueth the contrary for that sacrifice whereby the new Testament is established is that whereunto the old sacrifice and Priesthoode is translated but this is done by the singular sacrifice of Christ who is the suretie of a better testament Hebr. 7.23 Ergo his singular sacrifice vpon the crosse is that whereinto the old Leuiticall sacrifices are changed and no other Againe the Priesthoode after Melchisedechs order is that into the which the old Priesthoode is changed but the Priesthoode of Christ vpon the Crosse was after that order Ergo. But here they are not ashamed to denie that the sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse was after Melchisedechs order but doe most impudently and blasphemously affirme that it was after the order of Aaron Heskin lib. 1. cap. 13. And thus euery vile massemonger shall be more properly a Priest after Melchisedechs order then Christ himselfe Secondly none but Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech for vnto whome the Lord saide Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech to him the Lord saith also in the same Psalme Sit thou at my right hand Psal. 110. But this cānot agree to any popish Priest therefore not the other Againe the Apostle maketh this difference betweene the Priesthoode of the lawe and the Gospell because then there were many Priests they being prohibited by death to continue but Christ is the onely Priest of the New Testament because he dieth not Heb. 7 23.24 If they answer as they doe that although there be many Priestes yet it is but one Priesthoode because Christ concurreth with them in the actes of the Priesthoode Rhemist We answer first Christ concurreth with his faithfull ministers in the actes of their Ministerie but no such Priesthoode doe wee acknowledge Secondly so Christ concurred in the actes of the Leuiticall Priesthoode and the sacrifices of the law that were rightly offered wherefore this concurrence of Christ dooth no more take away the multitude of Priests in the Gospell then it did in the lawe Thirdly concerning the name of Priests in their sense as it implieth an authoritie of sacrificing we vtterly abhor it secondly but as it is deriued of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth an Elder we refuse it not but wish rather that it had not bin abused in cōmō speach to signifie popish sacrificers Thirdly as for the word sacerdos which may be englished a sacrificer we finde it no where in the New Testament giuen to the ministers of the Gospell and so much Bellarmine confesseth cap. 17. And therefore vnfitly and vnproperly agreeth vnto them If some of the fathers haue confounded the names of Sacerdos and Presbyter they are not to be commended The word Sacerdos a sacrificer being a proper name of the Leuitical Priests cannot properly be attributed to the Ministers of the Gospell To conclude this word Priest as it is the English of Sacerdos we doe not approue but as it giueth the sense of Presbyter from whence it is deriued we condemne it not for so it signifieth nothing else but an Elder If common vse of speech haue drawne it to a contrarie sense it would be amended Augustine saith Sacerdotiū Iudaeorum nemo dubitat c. No faithful mā doubteth but that the Priesthood of the law was a figure of the royall Priesthoode in the Church whereby all that pertaine to the bodie of Christ are consecrated He acknowledgeth no other Priesthood abiding in the Church then that whereby all Christians are made Priests to offer spirituall sacrifices vnto God through Christ. THE THIRD QVESTION OF THE VERTVE AND efficacie falsely ascribed to the sacrifice of the Masse The Papists 1. THey blasphemously affirme that it is a sacrifice propitiatorie that is auailable error 130 to obtaine ex opere operato by the very worke wrought remission and pardon of all their sinnes Trident. Concil sess 22. can 3. Argum. Christ himselfe sayth in the institution This is my blood shed for you for the remission of sinnes Ergo the sacrifice of the Masse is auaileable for remission of sinnes Bellarm. lib. 2. de miss cap. 2. The Protestants Ans. FIrst Christ instituted no sacrifice as we declared afore but onely a Sacrament in remembrance of his death and passion Secondly the Sacrament rightly administred serueth to assure our faith of remission of sinnes by the death of Christ but it doth not by it owne vertue conferre remission of sinnes neither profiteth by the worke wrought for the Apostle sayth That without faith it is impossible to please God Hebr. 11.6 wherefore no action is accepted of God not proceeding of faith Argum. The Apostle sayth Where there is remission of sinnes there is no more sacrifice for sinne Hebr. 10.18 Seeing then remission of sinnes is fully obtained by the death and sacrifice of Christ there can be no more sacrifice for sinne Ergo the Masse is no sacrifice for sinne The Papists 2. THe sacrifice of the Masse is not onely propitiatorie for sinnes but auaileable error 131 to obtaine all other benefites as peace tranquilitie health and such like Bellarm. cap. 3. Argum. S. Paul willeth That prayers and intercessions should be made for all men especially for Kings that we may leade a godly and a peaceable life 1. Timoth. 1.1 These are the prayers which are made in the celebration of the Masse Bellarm. The Protestants Ans. FIrst the Apostle speaketh generally of al prayers made by whomsoeuer as it appeareth vers 8. Therefore this place is vnfitly applied to the praiers of Priests in the Masse Secondly this place proueth that temporall benefites are obtained by faithfull prayers not by the sacrifice of the Masse which S. Paul neuer knewe Thirdly Augustine indeed expoundeth this place of the publike prayers of the Church vsed in the administration of the Sacrament for he calleth it Domini mensam the Lords table not the altar he meaneth nothing lesse then your popish Masse Argum. It is contrarie to the institution of Christ to applie the Sacrament for any such temporall or external vse It was ordained to be receiued in remembrance of Christs death to assure vs by faith of remission of sinnes and other spirituall blessings not to giue vs assurance of health peace life prosperitie for the obtaining of such blessings according to the will of God other meanes are appoynted The ministerie of the Sacraments no more serueth for such vses then the preaching of the word THE FOVRTH QVESTION FOR WHOM THE sacrifice of
Scripture as we haue said OF THE EFFICACIE WHICH THEY ascribe to this sacrament The Papists THis sacrament of Orders as they cal it giueth a double grace First it giueth error 49 those that are ordayned abilitie and power to execute their office which is to consecrate and offer vp the body and blood of Christ wherein chiefly the priesthood consisteth and not in preaching the worde for they may be priests though they preach not Concil Trident. sess 23. can 1. By holy orders then the holy Ghost is actually bestowed when those wordes are pronounced Accipâ— spiritum sanctum receiue yee the holy Ghost Canon 4. The Protestants FIrst the Gospell alloweth no externall sacrificing priesthood but a spirituall onely whereby euery Christian is made a king and priest to offer spirituall sacrifices of prayse and thankesgiuing vnto God Apocal. 1.6 And the onely essentiall parte of the office of Ministers vnder the Gospell is to be able dispensers of the mysteries of the word and sacraments 1. Corint 4.1 2. Corinth 3.6 So Augustine also sayth Quicunque aut Episcopus aut presbyter frequenter de Deo loquitur quomodo ad vitam aeternam perueniatur annuntiat meritò Angelus Dei dicitur Whosoeuer Bishop or presbyter doth speake freely of God and preacheth the way to eternall life is an Angel of God This then is the onely principall office of true Pastors to teaâ—h the way to the kingdome of God Secondly it is also a great vntrueth that the holy Ghost is straightway giuen to all those vpon whomsoeuer hands are layd and they admitted to Orders For what neede then that triall and examination which ought to bee had of those which are to be ordayned whereof Saint Paul speaketh 1. Timoth. 5.22 if the only laying on of hands can make able Ministers Nostri sacerdotes sayth one super multos quotidie nomen Domini verba benedictionis imponunt sed in paucis effectus est Our priests doe lay the word of blessing vpon many calling vpoÌ„ the name of God but in few followeth any effect of that blessing And he giueth the reason in another place Dei est effectum tribuere benedictionis It belongeth vnto God to giue effect to Priestly blessing Ergo it is not by onely act and vsing of the ceremony bestowed The Papists AN other effect of their sacrament of orders they say is to imprint a certaine error 50 indeleble marke character in him that is ordayned which can neither by sinne Apostasie or heresie bee blotted out Rhemist 2. Corinth 1. sect 7. And therefore a priest once ordayned can neuer lose his orders or become a lay man agayne Concil Trident. sess 24. can 4. Bellarmin cap. 10. The Protestants FIrst the practise of the popish Church is contrary to their owne rules for I would haue them tell me whether they tooke not the priesthood and anoynting from Iohn Husse when with a payre of sheares they clipped off the skin of his head most cruelly as they were busie in disgrading of him in the Councel of Constance Or when they had grosly abused that reuerend father Bishop Cranmer and vnmanerly behaued themselues in his degradation and clapt him in a poore beggerly thread-bare Lay mans gowne did they not thinke that they had dispoyled him of his priesthood What is now become masters of your indeleble character Or is it your meaning that it may bee clipped or scraped off onely but not washt off or lightly rubbed away Your owne cruell deedes doe ouerthrow your popish principles Augustine is agaynst you Constitutum est in ecclesia ne quisquam post criminis alicuius poenitentiam clericatum accipiat ad clericatum redeat aut in clericatu maneat It is a constitution of the Church that no man after publike penance done for some notorious crime should be either made a clerke or returne to his clerkship or priesthood or bee suffered to continue therein If his priesthood were neither restored to him nor hee suffered to remaine therein then surely he had lost his priesthood THE THIRD PART OF THE ceremonies The Papists error 51 THey doe anoynt the handes of such as are ordayned with oyle and doe enioyne them to shaue their crownes And the higher degree of priesthoode they haue so much broader must their shauen crowne bee Tileman Heshus loc 14. Err. 5. Bellarm. cap. 12. The Protestants WE haue the same opinion of these ceremonies as we haue of the popish orders themselues counting them worthy of no place in the Church of God As for the superstitious custome of anoynting it is a Iewish rite better beseeming Aarons order then the Ministers of Iesus Christ Looke howe hee was anoynted so are wee of him it is sayde The spirite of the Lord is vpon mee because hee hath anoynted mee Luk. 4.18 So the inward working of the spirite is our anoynting 1. Iohn 2.27 Agayne in diuers places of the scripture wee reade of ordayning by imposition of handes Act. 13.3 1. Timoth. 4.14 5.22 2. Timoth. 1.6 But there is no mention at all made of anoynting with oyle And as for the shauing of the crowne it it is worse then a Iewish ceremonie for it seemeth to haue taken beginning from the heathen and the Iewes were forbidden to cutte or make balde their heads Deuteronom 14.1 Leuit. 19.28 In so much as it was a signe of more holines amongst them not to suffer the rasor to come vpon their heads as it is to bee seene in the lawe of the Nazarites Numbers 6. The rest of the questions that concerne the calling of ministers wee haue entreated of more at large Controuers 5. of Ecclesiasticall persons THE THIRD QVESTION OF EXTREME VNCtion First whether it bee a sacrament Secondly of the efficacie Thirdly of the ceremonies THE FIRST PART WHETHER EXtreme Vnction be a sacrament The Papists THat extreme Vnction is rightly and properly a sacrament which is error 52 say they the anoynting of those that are extreme sicke to assure them of remission of their sinnes it was concluded in the Chapter of Trent sess 14. can 1. and is generally maintained by the Church of Rome Bellarmin cap. 2. Argum. Iam. 5.14 The sacrament of extreme Vnction in this place is playnely promulgated by the Apostle being instituted before by our Sauiour Christ Mark 6.13 For here is remission of sinnes promised to the outward element that is the anoynting of the sicke with oyle Ergo a sacrament Rhemist Ans. 1. This anoynting of oyle was a signe onely of the miraculous gift of healing that was then in the Church and therefore was no longer to continue then the gift it self But it is not like will they say that euery one of the Elders had this miraculous gift of healing Answer Though euery particular Elder perhaps had it not yet the whole company of the Eldership might haue it as Saint Paul speaketh of the gift of prophesie giuen to the Eldership 1. Timoth. 4.14 And it is not like that the Apostle
but now they doe light them at noone day 3 These offices haue not been in vse these many yeares among the papists themselues for many times the Sexton or his boy doe execute the charge both of Acolites Ostiaries and Readers yea of Deacons and Subdeacons also when the Priest with his boy can dispatch a Masse Neither are these orders retayned amongst them for any especiall seruice or office but onely as praeparatories and steps and degrees to the priesthood Fulk annot 1. Timoth. 3. sect 7. THE SECOND PART OF THE DIFFErence of Bishops and other Ministers The Papists WE differ from them in two poynts First they say that Bishops are not onely in a higher degree of superioritie to other Ministers but they are as Princes of the Clergie and other Ministers as subiects and in all things to bee commaunded by them Secondly they affirme that Bishops are onely properly Pastors and that to them onely it doth appertaine to preach and that other Ministers haue no authoritie without their license or consent to preach at all and that not principally or chiefely but solie and wholie to them appertayneth the right of consecrating and giuing orders For the first for the princely authoritie of Bishops whom they would haue obeyed in all things they wrast these and such like places of scripture as 2. Cor. 1.9 I write vnto you to know whether you will be obedient in all things Ergo they must be absolutely obeyed Answere the Apostle challengeth only obedience in such things as he should commaund agreeable to Gods word for if I my selfe sayth he preach another Gospell holde me accursed Galat. 1. Fulk annot 1. Cor. 2. sect 3. 2 Against an Elder receiue no accusation vnder two or three witnesses 1. Tim. 5.19 Ergo the authority of Bishops is absolute and princelike Videmus Episcopum iudicem esse presbyterorum proinde verum principem wee see the Bishop is the iudge of the Elders Ergo a prince ouer them Bellarm cap. 14. Answere First it followeth not Bishops haue iurisdiction and authoritie ouer other Ministers Ergo they are princes ouer them Can there be no preeminence and superioritie in the Church but it must needes be princelike Is euery iudge a prince ouer those which are brought before him to be iudged 2. Timothie had no such princelike authority for here it is restrained limited a rule is set down by the Apostle which he must obserue Ergo his authoritie was not absolute Thirdly Saint Paul was so farre off from making Timothie a prince in the Church at Ephesus that he would rather haue him not to rebuke but to exhort the Elders as fathers the younger men as brethren cap. 5.1 Where now is his princely authoritie become whereas he maketh his subiects as our aduersaries call inferior Ministers his fathers and brethren For the second the Apostles properly had the preaching of the word committed vnto them Act. 6. For other were chosen to attend vpon tables the Apostles also onelie had the right of laying on of hands Act. 14.23 Ergo It is proper onely to Bishops to preach and to ordayne who are the Apostles successors Bellarmin Answere First Bellarmine denieth that Bishops doe properly succeed the Apostles de pontifice lib. 4.25 because he would magnifie the Pope his ghostly father aboue all Bishops but now forgetting himselfe hee sayth Episcopi propriè succedunt Apostolis Bishops doe properly succeede the Apostles cap. 14. so by this reason euery Bishop hath as ful authoritie as the Pope Secondly euery godly faithful Bishop is a successor to the Apostles we denie it not so are all faithfull and godly pastors Ministers for Christ prayeth for them all indifferently hauing first praied for his Apostles Iohn 17.20 I pray not for these alone sayth our Sauiour but for al them which shal beleeue in me through their word Thirdly at that time when the Deacons were elected the congregation was at Ierusalem neither were there as yet any other Pastors ordained therefore the Apostles only attēded vpon preaching of the word but afterward when they had ordayned Pastors in other Churches to them also fully was committed the word of reconciliation Ephes. 4.11 Christ hath giuen some to be Apostles some Prophets some Pastors and teachers So that Pastors teachers though ordained first by the Apostles yet had their calling of God and together in their calling authoritie and commission to preach neither being once ordayned needed they to expect anie further license from the Apostles And as for the right of ordayning and imposition of handes though it were chiefly in the Apostles yet the Pastors and Elders together with them layde on their handes Act. 13.4 Yea the Rhemists confesse as much that when a Priest is to be ordered the rest of the Priests together with the Bishop doe lay on their hands Annotat. 1. Timoth. 4.18 What doth this else signifie but that they haue some interest in ordayning together with the Bishop The law also must be changed Heb. 7.12 that is the manner and forme of the priesthood But we easily see your drift you would gladly haue vs like of this argument that in stead of a high Priest in the law you might bring a Pope into the Church The Protestantes FIrst though we doe admitte that for auoyding of schisme the Church hath thought it meete there should be difference in degree and a superioritie among Ministers yet your princely dominion which you doe vrge in no wise must be admitted 1 It is contrary to the rule of Christ. Luk. 22.25 the Kings of the nations are Lords ouer them and they that haue authoritie ouer them are called benefactors Here our Sauiour speaketh not of tyrannical dominion for how could tyrants be benefactors but forbiddeth that there should be any such princelike and pompous preeminence among ecclesiasticall persons as there is among secular and ciuill gouernours A superioritie may be graunted but not as the Prince is ouer his subiects it was so in time of popery that the people were halfe subiects to the Prince and halfe subiects to their spirituall gouernours But though we acknowledge other ecclesiasticall fathers and pastors yet we are subiects onely to our prince 2 Saint Peter also is flat against this princely rule and dominion Feede the flock sayth he not as Lords ouer Gods heritage but that you may bee ensamples 1. Pet. 5.3 But are not they I pray you Lords ouer the flock that challenge to be princes Secondly concerning the power of preaching we affirme that euery pastor once ordayned hath sufficient authoritie to preach in his owne flocke and charge as Iohn Husse notably prooued to their face out of a certayne glose in the fift booke of the decretals that when as the Bishop ordayneth anie Priest he giueth him also therewithall authoritie to preach Wee denie not but when there is iust occasion this authoritie maybe restrayned by the Church gouernours and so also may an euill Minister be suspended