it hath nothing to do to iudge of Scripture being the seate of Antichrist neither is the authoritie of that Church to be credited but rather suspected and mistrusted 2 There are certaine writings of the Prophetes not canonicall and other writings of some that were no Prophetes made canonicall Ergo the Church hath authoritie to iudge of Scripture sic Stapleton For the first where he obiecteth that there are many writings of the Prophetes as of Solomon Nathan Ahiia Ieedo 2. Chronic. 9.29 that are lost and if they were extant should not be receiued We aunswere First it is not to be doubted of but some part of the canonicall Scripture is lost Secōdly how proueth he that if they were extant they were not to be acknowledged for Scripture To the second that bookes not made by Prophets are iudged canonicall as of Tobie Iudith We aunswere that these bookes ought not to be canonicall neither that euer they were so taken till of late it was decreed by Councels of no great antiquitie for in the Laodicene Councell and other auncient Councels they were deemed not to be canonicall 3 Certaine bookes of the new Testament before doubted of as the Epistle to the Hebrues the Apocalipse the 2. Epistle of Peter the second of Iohn are receiued into authoritie by the Church and other bookes as the Gospell of Thomas Mathias Andrew Peter were reiected by the authoritie of the Church We answere First we deny not but that the Church is to discerne betweene the true Scriptures forged bookes but this she doth not of her own authoritie but folowing the direction of Gods spirite speaking in those writings for the Church looking into the sacred and diuine matter of the Apostles writings was moued to acknowledge them for the word of God though of some they were doubted of finding the other to be fabulous bookes did by the direction of the same spirite reiect them Secondly Augustine and Hierome thinke that the Canon of Scripture might be confirmed in the Apostles time Iohn being the suruiuer of thē all who both acknowledged the true writings of the Apostles and condemned the contrarie If it be so the spirite of God in the Apostles hauing determined this question already concerning the canonicall Scripture the Church hath no authoritie to alter or chaunge that decree Plura apud Whitacher quaest 3. de Scriptur cap. 5. The Protestantes WE do not despise the sentence of the Church as our aduersaries doe falsely charge vs but we confesse that it is the duetie of the Church to geue testimony to the Scriptures as the Goldsmith doth trie the gold Fulk annot 2. Gal. 2. But the Church ought not to set the Lordes stampe vpon false coyne as the Papistes do in making Apocryphall bookes canonicall Neither doe we onely beleeue the Scripture because of the Churches testimonie nor chiefly but because the spirit of God doth so teach vs and the Scriptures them selues do testifie for them selues so that euerie man is bound to acknowledge the Scripture though there were no publike approbation of the Church Fulk 2. Galat. 6. Whitacher quaest 3. cap. 1. de Scripturis We do reason thus 1 The Iesuite doth reason strongly for vs he bringeth fiue arguments to proue the Scripture to be the word of God veritas vaticiniorum the constant and perpetuall truth of the Prophecies incredibilis scriptorum conspiratio the wonderfull harmonie and consent of holy writers of the Scripture testis est Deus ipse the spirite of God is a principall witnesse vnto vs testis est ipsa Scriptura the Scripture it selfe beareth witnesse as 2. Tim. 3. all Scripture is geuen by inspiration testis est diuinorum numerus infinitus miraculorum lastly the many and great miracles wrought by the Prophetes and Apostles do testifie for the truth thereof He maketh no mention at all of the testimonie of the Church but saith the same that we hold that the spirit of God inwardly working in our harts by the Scriptures them selues which we find to be most perfect consonant true of singular maiestie doth teach vs which is the word of God Bellarmin de verbo Dei lib. 1. cap. 2. 2 The Scripture geueth authoritie to the Church Ergo the Church geueth not authoritie to the Scripture the first we proue by our aduersaries own confession for being asked how they know that the Church erreth not they alledge such places of Scripture as Math. 28.20 I am with you to the end of the world and the like how then doth the Church geue authoritie to Scripture seeing it taketh her warrant and authoritie from thence the Iesuite him selfe saith that nihil est certius vel notius Scripturis nothing is more certaine or notoriously knowen then Scripture and againe sacra Scriptura est regula credendi certissima the holy Scripture is the most certaine rule of faith Bellarm. de verbo 1.2 If the authoritie of Scripture then be most certaine what reason is it that they should depend vpon the iudgement of the Church which is nothing so certaine the lesse certaine ought rather and so doth indeed depend of the more certaine the Church vpon the Scripture not contrariwise for the Scriptures are the foundation of the Church Ephe. 2.20 3 To beleeue the Scripture is a worke of faith the Church can not infuse faith into vs but the spirite of God Ergo the spirite of God not the Church teacheth vs to beleeue Scripture argum Whitach 18. 4 If the Scriptures depend vpon the approbation of the Church then the promises of saluation and eternall life conteined in the Scriptures do so likewise but it is absurde to thinke that the promises of God do stand vpō the allowance of men Ergo neither the Scriptures argum Caluini 5 The Scripture is the chief iudge and ought so to be in all cōtrouersies we may appeale from the Church to the Scripture not from the Scripture to the Church the Church is subiect to the Scriptures the rule of faith is in the scriptures not in the Church for the cōpanie of faithful which is the Church are ruled by faith they do not ouerrule faith neither are a rule thereof the Church is a point of beliefe as in the Creede not a rule or measure thereof Ergo the Church is not the chief iudge of Scripture but it selfe to be iudged by scripture Whitach argum 16. 6 We haue euident places of scripture Iohn 5.34 saith Christ I receiue no witnes of men but the scripture is the voyce of Christ and of the same authoritie Ergo. Ver. 36. I haue a greater testimonie thē of Iohn the scriptures do testifie of me Ver. 39. The testimony of the scriptures is greater thē the record of Iohn Ergo then of the Church 1. Iohn 5.6 the spirite beareth witnesse that the spirite that is the doctrine of the spirit is the truth And. ver 9. if we receiue the witnesse of man the witnesse of God is greater Ergo not the iudgement of the Church
Prophet in the midst Euen thus with the like spirite of blasphemie doo the Iesuites crie out that the Pope is the chiefe shepheard steward husband and head of the Church vpon earth But we will leaue to charge them so deepely with blasphemie which notwithstanding they cannot auoyde Let vs heare what the fathers of Basile say to this poynt Bellarmine saith the Pope is the husband but they reason cleane contrarie the Church say they is the spouse of Christ the Pope make the best of him you can is but a Vicar but no man dooth so ordaine a Vicar that hee maketh his spouse subiect vnto him but that the spouse is alwaies thought to be of more authoritie then the Vicar forsomuch as she is one body with her husband but the Vicar is not so thus haue they to the full answered the Iesuite ex Aenea Syluio Better arguments they haue none for the Popes prerogatiue then we haue seene The Protestants THat the Pope is by right and ought to be subiect to generall Councels and that they haue authoritie to iudge examine suspend punish depose him if there be iust cause it is proued thus This matter was pithilie disputed vpon by the Fathers of Basile some of whose reasons it shall bee sufficient heere to followe 1 They proue this conclusion out of Scripture First whereas Panormitane had saide that the Pope was Lorde of the Church vnto him Segouius answered that it was the most honourable title of the Bishop of Rome to be called the seruant of the seruants of God and Peter saith hee forbiddeth pastors to behaue themselues as Lords ouer the Clergie 1. Pet. 5. And if Christ the sonne of God came not to be ministred vnto but to minister and serue how then can his Vicar haue any dominion So was Panormitane answered Againe the Diuines thus argued Christ saith to Peter dic Ecclesiae Peter is sent to the Church or Councell Ergo the veritie doth remit the Bishop of Rome to the Councell But to this the Iesuite saith that Peter was not yet entred into his office to bee chiefe Bishop but was as a priuate person So then belike this rule of our Sauiour Christ dic Ecclesiae tell it to the Church did but binde Peter till Christ were ascended and he receiued his Vicar-dome This cauillous answere the Fathers of Basile wisely foresaw and preuented it for they shew how Peter was subiect to Councels euen after the ascension as Act. 11. Peter is rebuked say they by the congregation because he went to Cornelius an heathen man as if it had not been lawfull for him to attempt any great matter without the knowledge of the congregation but that seemeth to make more for the purpose Galath 2. where Paule rebuked Peter to his face because contrarie to the decree of the Councell of the Apostles hee did cogere gentes Iudaizare hee would constraine the Gentiles to doe like the Iewes Ergo Peter was subiect vnto the Councell ex Aenea Syluio Other reasons many were alleaged by the Fathers of Basile First the Bishop of Burgen As in euery well ordered Kingdome the whole realme should be of more authoritie then the King so the Church ought to be of more authoritie then the Pope though he were Prince thereof The Diuines brought these argumēts the Church is the mother of the faithfull and so of the Pope if he be a faithfull man the Pope is then the Churches sonne as both Anacletus and Calixtus Bishops of Rome confessed Ergo how much the sonne is inferiour to his mother so much is the Church superiour to the Pope Secondly the Pope is inferiour to Angels he is not greater then Iohn Baptist of whom it is said that the least in the Kingdome of God is greater then he but the Angels doe reuerentlie accord vnto the doctrine of the Church Ephes. 3.10 Ergo the Pope is bound to doo the same who is lesse then the Angels These Fathers thought none so absurd to denie the Pope to be inferiour to Angels and therefore labour not to proue it Yet Antoninus an olde Papist saith Non minor honor datur Papae quà m Angelis there is no lesse honour due to the Pope then to the Angels Nay another saith I thinke it be Pope Paschalis Datur Episcopis quod ne Angelis vt Christi corpus crearent it is graunted to Bishops which is not giuen to the Angels to create the bodie of Christ. But the Fathers of Basile thought not these men worthie the answere no more doe we and so let thē passe Thirdly the Pope say they being the Vicar of the Church for he is more truely so called then the Vicar of Christ he may be deposed of the Church for a Lord may put out his Vicar at his pleasure Ergo the Pope is vnder Councels 4 If the Councels might not ouerrule the Pope there were no remedie left to resist a wicked Pope Shall we suffer all things say they to run into ruine and decay with him for it is not like that hee would congregate a Councell against himselfe To this the Iesuite answereth that there is no remedie left but to pray to God in such a case who will either confound or conuert such a Pope Here is goodly diuinitie we know that Antichrist shall at length be destroyed at the comming of Christ but if he should be let alone in the meane while and not be bridled he might doe much hurt as he hath done too much alreadie Yet the Iesuite confesseth that a wicked Pope may bee resisted by force and armes and why not I pray you as well by peaceable meanes these sayings are contrarie Bellarm. cap. 19. So then this is Popish diuinitie that be the Pope neuer so wicked doe he neuer so much harme hee is not to bee controuled of any mortall man Such doultish schoole poynts maintained especially by begging friers the fathers of Basile complained of As that they should say that no man ought to iudge the high and principall seate that it cannot be iudged either by Emperour Clergie King or people Other affirme that the Lord hath reserued to himselfe the depositions of the chiefe Bishop Others yet more mad are not ashamed to affirme that the Bishop of Rome though hee carrie soules in neuer so great number to hell yet is he not subiect to any correction or rebuke For all these straunge and blasphemous positions the fathers concluded as yee haue heard that the Pope ought to obey generall Councels 4 Lastly I will adioyne the iudgement of Augustine who writing in his 162. Epistle concerning the Donatists whose cause was heard and determined by the Emperours appoyntment at Rome before Miltiades then Bishop there and other Bishops assistants and yet for all this the Donatists would not bee quiet Thus he saith Putemus illos iudices qui Romae iudicauerunt non bonos iudices fuisse Restabat adhuc plenarium Concilium c. Put case saith hee that the Bishop of Rome
and therefore hee loued much To the third wee answere that by the Iesuites owne confession Iames who was as they say Bishoppe of Ierusalem had the primacie there how then can they now giue it to Peter The Protestants THat Peter had no such iurisdiction ouer the Apostles as to bee called the head and Prince of them but that to them all indifferentlie were the keyes committed and did all faithfullie execute their Apostleship without any subiection of each to other but ioyned the right hands of fellowship together we thus confirme it out of the holy Scripture and necessarie arguments deriued out of the same 1 Ephes. 2.20 Apocalips 21.14 The Church is said to bee built vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Ergo no primacie of power amongst the Apostles they all founded the Church Bellarmine confesseth that in respect of their doctrine there was no difference betweene Peter and the rest for they all were first planters of Churches they all preached the Gospell by reuelation But in respect of gouernement they were not equall they had chiefe authoritie committed to them as Apostles and Embassadors of Christ But Peter as ordinarie pastor Wee answere First by his owne confession the Apostles had chiefe authoritie as Apostles but there was no higher authoritie or power then of the Apostleship but as they were Apostles they were equall saith the Iesuite Ergo there could be no superioritie for the calling of the Apostles was the highest in the Church 2 To preach the Gospell and to haue iurisdiction of gouernement do both belong to the power of the keyes but the keyes were equallie committed to all Ergo they had all equall power both to preach and to gouerne That they all had the power of the keyes equallie graunted vnto them wee haue proued before out of Matth. 18.18 2 Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that Iames was Bishop and ordinarie pastor at Ierusalem and saith with Anselme and Thomas Aquinas that therefore he is named first by Saint Paule Gal. 2. Bellarm. cap. 19. Therefore at Ierusalem Peter was to giue primacie to the ordinarie pastor there If they answere that Rome was then the chiefe citie and therefore Peter being Bishop of Rome was to haue the preeminence To this we replie that Ierusalem was rather to be preferred in respect of place which was chosen by the Lord himselfe to be the chiefe citie of his Church But Rome through the tyrannie and vsurpation of the Romans ouer other countries was aduanced to that dignitie not by the election of God But Bellarmine answereth that Peter was Bishop of the whole Church and so of Ierusalem too We answere he now saith lesse for Peter then if hee called him as he was the Apostle of the whole world for it was more to be an Apostle thā a Bishop Diuers were called in the Apostles times episcopi ouerseers or Bishops that were not Apostles as the pastors of Ephesus Act. 20.28 Wherefore now hee hath saide iust nothing in seeking to aduance Peter hee hath disgraced him in pulling him downe from his high Apostleship to the chaire of a Bishop 3 Peter had no superioritie ouer Paul for they ioyned right handes of fellowship and this allotment was made betweene them that Paule should bee the chiefe of the Gentiles and Peter of the circumcision Galath 2.9 Ergo. Bellarmine answereth First they were ioyned as fellow-laborers in the preaching of the Gospell but Peter might for all this bee greater in the office and power of gouerning Wee answere yea but the text saith that Paule onelie was not appointed to preach to the Gentiles but hee had the chiefe Apostleship Now to the Apostleship belongeth not onely the function of preaching but the whole vse of the keyes and power of iurisdiction Ergo in all respects Saint Paule ouer the Gentiles had the chiefe Apostleship But let any man say that this was a humane compact amongst themselues and Paul had his lotte at Peters assignement the text sheweth that the Lorde himselfe had made this distribution For when they sawe saith Saint Paul that the Gospell ouer the vncircumcision was committed to mee verse 7. So then the Apostles did but confirme by their consent that distribution which they sawe the Lord himselfe had appoynted Further saith the Iesuite the diuision was not so made but that it was lawfull for Peter also to preache to the Gentiles Wee answeare wee graunt it and for Paule to preache to the Iewes yet that distinction remayned still that Peter was chiefe of the circumcision Paule of the vncircumcision Againe saith hee but Peter had the more excellent lotte for Christ himselfe first preached to the Iewes Wee answere wee denie not but that hee had the first lotte in order for to the Iewes was the Gospell first offered but Paul had the larger and more glorious lotte the Church of the Iewes now decaying and the Gentiles beginning to be planted in their roome But howsoeuer it was it cannot bee denied but that Paule was chiefe towards the Gentiles And therefore the Church of Rome might with better right haue deriued their authoritie from S. Paul then from Peter Both of them they cannot make patrons of their See seeing by their owne rules the Pope cannot be successor to them both Further out of the same place Galath 2.11 an other thing commeth to bee obserued that Peter was rebuked of Paule and in such sort that it appeareth there was no great inequality between them for he doth it to his face openlie before all men and at Antioch in Peters owne Bishopricke as they say can it be now thought that Paul was any thing inferior to Peter Bellarmine and the Iesuits answere that the Pope may bee rebuked of an inferior and ought to take it patiently if it be done in zeale and loue Aunswere First wee doe not simplie thus conclude because Paul reprehended Peter therefore he was not his superior but because of the manner as we shewed it was done in such sorte so plainely so openly without any submission or crauing of pardon that there can appeare no inequalitie at all betweene them Secondly although they seeme heere to graunt that the Pope may be rebuked yet is it otherwise in their Canon lawe which saith that though the Pope doe leade innumerable soules to hell no mortall man may presume to reprooue his faultes part 1. distin 4. cap. Si Papa Fulk Annot. in Gala. 2. sect 8. 4 Lastlie what reason was there why Christ should giue the supremacie to Peter ouer the rest Christ was no acceptor of persons if hee had bene Iohn should haue bene preferred whom he loued most If deserts be weighed I think Peter deserued no more then the rest of his fellowes Nay I thinke the wisedome of the Spirit foreseeing the questions that should afterward arise in the Church about Peter hath so disposed that this Apostles infirmities both in number more and weight greater then any of the rest should be euidentlie set forth in
that he defloured virgins that he lay with Stephana his fathers concubine likewise with Ramera and Anna and her Neece for these beastlie parts and such like he was deposed there was no heresie obiected agaynst him And thinke you not he was worthily vnpoped yet the Papists thinke no for they admit no cause of depriuation but heresie This deuillish Pope through the harlots of Rome for he was well beloued of them recouered his Popedome agayne but at the length the Lord himselfe displaced him for in the tenth yeere of his Popedome being founde without the citie with an other mans wife hee was so wounded of her husbande that within eight dayes after hee dyed Fox pag. 159. Boniface the 7. tooke Pope Iohn the 15. who was made Pope a little before and hee expelled yet recouering the Papacie by force hee tooke him put out his eyes and threwe him in prison where he was famished Likewise was Iohn the 18. serued by Gregorie the 5. his eyes were thrust out first and he afterward slayne I meruaile how our Catholikes can excuse these furious outrages of their ghostly fathers of Rome In the Councel of Brixia Gregorie the 7. was deposed not for heresie but for other abominable vices as maintayning of periurie and murthers for following Diuinations Dreames Sorcerie Necromancie Fox p. 181. Pope Iohn the 23. deposed in the Councel of Constance Eugenius in the Councel at Basile yet neither of them for heresie And yet our aduersaries would still make vs beleeue that Popes cannot be deposed for any crime but heresie 2 We can haue no better argument then from our aduersaries themselues It is a sport to see what diuers opinions they hold and doe runne as it were in a maze not knowing which way to get out Pighius thinketh that the Pope cannot possiblie fall into heresie and therefore for no cause may bee deposed Some other thinke that the Pope for secret and close heresie is actually deposed of GOD and may also bee deposed and iudged of the Church thus holdeth Iohann de turre cremat Caietanus is of opinion that for manifest and open heresie the Pope is both alreadie by right deposed and may also actually be deposed of the Church But Bellarmine confuteth all these There is a fourth opinion most grosse that the Pope neither for secret nor open heresie is either alreadie of right deposed or may be actually depriued of the Church Lastly commeth in the nice and daintie Iesuite with his quirkes and quiddities who sayth that the Pope in case of manifest heresie ceaseth to bee Pope and is euen now deposed and if after the Church proceede agaynst him they iudge not the Pope for now hee is no Pope Which opinion how absurd it is I haue declared before THE FIFT PART CONCERNING THE ORIGInall and beginning of the primacie of Rome The Papists THey doe boldly affirme without any ground that the primacie of that See error 45 hath his beginning from no other but Christ they are the Iesuites owne words Romani pontificis ecclesiasticum principatum authore Christo principium accepisse that the princely dignitie of the Bishop of Rome acknowledgeth no other author or beginner thereof but Christ Bellarm. cap. 7. lib. 2. 1 They would build the primacie of the Romane Church vpon certaine places of scripture as Math. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church Luk. 22. I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy faith should not faile Iohn 21. Christ sayd to Peter feede my sheepe Ergo Peter and Peters successors haue their primacie from Christ Bellarm. To these places Tunstal and Stokeslie two Popish Bishops yet in this poynt holding the truth did properly make answere in their Epistle sent to Cardinall Poole To the first They affirme out of the ancient expositors that it is ment of the faith which was then first confessed by the mouth of Peter and not of Peters person Further confirming out of S. Paul that neither Peter nor no creature beside could bee the foundation of the Church for no other foundation can any man lay sayth the Apostle besides that which is layd Iesus Christ 1. Cor. 3. To the second they answere that Christ speaketh onely of the fall of Peter which hee knewe in his godlie prescience giuing an inkling vnto him that after his fall hee should bee conuerted and strengthen his brethren for if it were ment also of Peters successors they must first faile in faith and after confirme their brethren To the third The whole flock of Christ was not committed to Peter to feede for he himselfe testifieth the contrarie exhorting all Pastors to feede the flocke of Christ which was giuen them in charge by Christ as it followeth in that place when the chiefe shepheard shall appeare ye shall receiue the incorruptible Crowne of eternall glorie He calleth not himselfe the chiefe shepheard but onely Christ. It is euident therefore say they that your 3. scriptures ment nothing lesse then such a primacie ouer all Fox pag. 1067. 2 There can bee no time assigned since Christ say they when this primacie should begin nor no author named that brought it in Ergo it must needes bee attributed to Christ he must of necessitie bee found the author thereof We answere the time may bee assigned the authors named when and by whom this pretensed and vsurped authoritie was brought in as euen now wee will shewe The Protestants THat the vsurped iurisdiction of Rome tooke not the beginning from Christ nor his Apostles neither was heard of for many yeres after we thus are able to proue it 1 Before the Nicene Councel which first deuided the regiment of the Church into foure Patriarchal seates Rome had small or no preeminence So Aeneas Syluius witnesseth who afterward was Pope of Rome and called Pius the 2. Ante Nicenum concilium sibi quisque viuebat ad Romanam ecclesiam paruus habebatur respectus Epist. 301. Before the Nicene Councel euery Bishop liued to himselfe there was no great respect had to the Church of Rome What more euident testimonie can wee haue then of a Pope himselfe Yet the Iesuite sayth that it is false in part which hee writeth He is somewhat mannerly in making him but halfe a lyer yet I wonder that he will confesse any vntruth at all in his ghostly fathers words Bellarm. cap. 17. lib. 2. Secondly in the Councel of Nice there was no primacie of power giuen to Rome ouer the whole Church but the other Patriarkes of Alexandria Antioch Ierusalem were priuiledged in like manner in their confines as the Bishop of Rome was in his They had all equall authoritie giuen them in their owne prouinces Sic Tonstall Stokesli ad Poolum Thirdly afterward there was a certayne primacie of order graunted vnto the Patriarke of Rome aboue other Patriarkes as to haue the first place to sit first to giue his sentence first One cause hereof was for that Rome was then the Emperiall and
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
saepe tam diu clamatur vt fiat in Psal. 63. What medicine or plaister wilt thou buie to heale thy sinne Behold euen now while I preach vnto thee change thy heart and it is already done which we so often call vpon you to be done See then by the preaching of the word our heart is chaunged our life amended and our sinne remitted THE SECOND PART TO WHOM THE authoritie of the keyes is committed The Papists error 74 THe authoritie and power of excommunication say they is not in the whole Church but onely in the Prelates neither was the power of binding and loosing giuen vnto the whole church but in their own name not in the name or right of the Church doe the pastors and Prelates exercise this power Remist 2. 1. Corinth 5. sect 3. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Clericis cap. 7. The Church is sayd to binde and loose because the Prelates doe binde loose as a man is said to speake and see though he onely speake with the tongue and see with the eyes 1 They seeme to proue it by S. Paules example 1. Corinth 5. I absent in bodie but present in spirit haue decreed S. Paul vseth here his Apostolike power in sending his letters and Mandatum to haue the incestuous person excommunicate Ergo the right was in him and not in the Church and so consequently in the Bishops his successors Ans. First S. Paul sendeth no Mandatum but sheweth his Apostolike power in decreeing the incestuous person worthy of excommunication and requiring the same to be executed by the Church Fulk 1. Corin. 5. sec. 2. Secondly though Paul gaue the sentence yet was it done both in the power of Christ and the name of the whole Church for he had decreed onely that he should be excommunicate it was not actually done but to the due performing thereof there is required the congregating of the Church in Christs name the presence of Paul in spirit by his apostolike power that it should be done in the name of Christ. Al this sheweth that Paul gaue sentence in the name of the whole Church 2 Paul they say by the preeminent power of his Ministerie pardoneth the incestuous person whom he had excommunicate Rhemist argument in 1. ad Corinth Ans. The text is plaine that he consenteth the Church should pardon him 2. Corinth 2.10 To whom you forgiue any thing I forgiue also Heere not Paul onely but the whole Church pardoneth Fulk ibid. 3 The Iesuites simile may bee returned vpon his owne head for as the eye and tongue in the bodie are but instruments of the life and power of the soule which quickneth the whole bodie so the gouernours of the Church do execute the discipline of the Church by the spirit of Christ which is giuen to the whole bodie The Protestants THe authoritie of excōmunication pertaineth to the whole Church although the execution and iudgement thereof to auoyd confusion be committed to the gouernours of the Church which exercise that authoritie as in the name of Christ so in the name of the whole Church Fulk totidem verbis annot 1. Cor. 5. sect 3. 1 Math. 18.17 If he wil not heare thee tell the Church this place proueth that although the exercising of the keyes be referred to the gouernours of the Church yet the authoritie and right is in the whole Church for the keyes were giuen to the whole Church The pastors and gouernours though they be excellent and principall members of the Church yet are they improperly called the Church Argument Illyrici 2 We conclude the same also out of S. Paules words 1. Cor. 2.21 All things are yours whether Paul Apollos or Cephas whether things present or things to come and ye are Christs and Christ Gods Ergo whatsoeuer power is in the Church it is the Churches not onely the common vse and the benefite thereof because it may be answered that although the keyes be onely granted to the Prelates yet they vse them to the good of the Church but the right also and possession thereof euen as the Church is the inheritance and proper possession of Christ. 3 Augustine consenteth Ecclesia quae fundatur in Christo claues ab eo regni coelorum accepit in Petro. Tract in Iohann 124. The Church which is founded vpon Christ receiued in Peter the keyes of the kingdome of heauen But the whole Church and not onely the Pastors is founded and builded vpon Christ Ergo. THE THIRD PART WHETHER THE PASTORS of the Church haue any absolute power to remit sinnes otherwise then as Ministers onely The Papistes error 75 THey spare not to say that Priests haue full right to remit sinnes and are not ministers onely thereof and dispensers but haue full power as Christ had and he that doubteth of their right herein may as well doubt whether Christ had authoritie as man to remit sinnes Rhemist annot Iohn 20. sect 3. And againe they call it an expresse power and commission yea a wonderfull power which is giuen vnto Priests to remit sinnes and therfore it followeth necessarily that men should submit themselues to their iudgement for release of their sinnes Annot. Iohn 20. sect 5. 1 They reason thus out of our Sauiours owne words Iohn 20.21 As my father hath sent me so I send you He sheweth his fathers commission giuen to himselfe and then in plaine termes most amply imparteth the same to his Apostles But Christ had full right to remit sinnes Ergo also the Apostles and their successors for they haue the same power that Christ had Rhemist annot Iohn 20. sect 3. Ans. First it is great presumption and spoken without any ground to say that Christ by sending his Apostles into the world gaue them as full large and ample commission as he himselfe had for neither the Pope in whom remaineth as they say the Apostolike authoritie by their owne confession can doe all that Christ did as to ordaine and institute Sacraments and Christ say they might forgiue sinnes without the Sacraments which the Pope cannot doe and so consequently neither the Apostles whose full iurisdiction he hath in this behalfe Bellarm. de pontif lib. 5. cap. 4. Secondly the power therefore here granted to the Apostles is in the name of Christ to declare and pronounce remission of sinnes according to the wil of God not properly in their owne power to release or absolue sinners 2 He breathed vpon them and gaue them the holy Ghost vers 22. Therefore he that denieth the Priests authoritie to forgiue sinnes he must denye the holy Ghost to be God and not to haue power to remit sinnes Rhem. ibid sect 4. Ans. What a blasphemous consequence is this The holy Ghost hath absolute power to forgiue sinnes Ergo the Apostles also and all other Priests haue the same power First by this meanes they make no difference betweene the fulnes of power in our Sauiour Christ and the communication of that power to other Ministers of Christ it is sayd that the
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
QVESTION OF THE NATVRE and definition of a Sacrament WE thus define a Sacrament to be an outward sensible signe representing an holy inward and spirituall grace instituted of Christ to be vsed in that manner he hath appoynted to seale vnto vs the promises of God and to assure vs of the remission of sinnes by the righteousnes of faith in Christ Rom. 4.11 Some things there be in this definition that are agreed vpon betweene vs and our aduersaries as that the Sacraments are outward signes of spirituall and holy graces and that there must be a conueniencie and agreement betweene the signe and the thing signified that not euery thing may be represented by a Sacrament but an holy and spirituall grace that a Sacrament ought to be instituted by a diuine not an humane authoritie Bellar. de Sacram. in gener lib. 1. cap. 9 The seuerall poynts then wherein we dissent from them and which they mislike in this definition are these First concerning the authoritie of instiâ—uting a Sacrament which we affirme to be deriued onely from Christ and manifestly to be proued out of the scriptures Secondly of the forme and manner of celebrating the Sacraments Thirdly of the instrumental or ministerial cause which is the Minister Fourthly of the vse and end of a Sacrament whether it be a scale of the promises of God and instituted for that end THE FIRST PART OF THE EFFICIENT CAVSE that is the author or institutor of a Sacrament The Papists THey doe willingly grant that neither the Apostles then had nor the Church error 87 now hath authoritie to institute Sacraments but that this power is onely in Christ and that the Apostles did but declare and deliuer that which they receiued of Christ yet for the triall of this they refuse to be iudged by the expresse word of God but flie vnto their traditions which they call the word of God not written Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacram. cap. 14. 23. Argum. The sacrament of Baptisme and of the Eucharist were instituted without expresse warrant of scripture for at that time the newe testament was not written when Christ ordained those mysteries Ergo for the other Sacraments we need not the expresse coÌ„mandement of scripture Bellar. lib. 1. cap. 14. Ans. First the traditions of our Sauiour giuen vnto the Apostles concerning those two Sacraments were afterward written by the Apostles and expressely set downe in scripture therefore we doubt not but that they were of Christs institution But your traditions being not committed to writing concerning your other forged sacraments are iustly suspected seeing the Apostles should haue as well been charged with all the sacraments if Christ had instituted theÌ„ as with only two Secondly how then followeth it the word of God was sometime vnwritten therefore it is so still or Christ who was the author of the word written might institute sacraments without expresse scripture Ergo the testimonie of scripture is not necessarie now The Protestants WE hold no sacraments to be of Christs institution but those onely which the scripture testifieth to haue been commanded by Christ as Baptisme Math. 28.19 the Lords Supper Luk. 23.19 The other which haue no testimonie of scripture were not appoynted by Christ. Argum. 1. S. Paul saith That the scriptures are able to make the man of God absolute and perfect to euery good worke 1. Timoth. 3.17 But how can the Minister of God be perfectly furnished and prepared for the worke of the ministerie if he haue not sufficient direction out of the scriptures concerning the sacraments of the Church for how can he absolutely execute euery part of his office if he faile in the right vse of the sacraments Ergo seeing the scriptures are able to make him perfect from thence he receiueth sufficient instruction for the sacraments Argum. 2. Augustine saith Christus sacramentis numero paucissimis obseruatione facilimis c. Christ hath ioyned his people together by the sacrameÌ„ts few in number easie in obseruation such are Baptisme and the partaking of his bodie and blood then it followeth Et si quid aliud in scripturis canonicis commendatur And if any other sacrament be commanded in the canonicall scripture Epistol 118. Ergo we must attend vpon the scripture and written word of God if we will be instructed aright concerning the Sacraments THE SECOND PART OF THE FORME OF A Sacrament and the manner of consecration The Papists THe Sacrament is not consecrated say they by al the words of the institution error 88 but by a certain forme of speech to be vsed ouer the elemeÌ„ts as these words to be said ouer the bread This is my body the like ouer the wine This cup is the new testament c. And in Baptisme these In the name of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost These are the formes of the Sacrament and very words of consecration though spoken in a strange tongue without further inuocation of the name of God or giuing of thankes or without a Sermon which we require as they say as necessarie to the essence of a sacrament Rhemist 1. Corinth 11 sect 11.15 Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacrament cap. 19. Argum. S. Paul sayth The cup of blessing which we blesse 1. Corinth 10.16 The Apostle referreth the benediction or blessing to the cup or Chalice which is nothing els but the consecration thereof Rhemist ibid. Ans. First wee denie not but that to blesse here doth signifie to sanctifie or consecrate but that is not done by a magicall murmuration of words ouer the Sacrament but by the whole action according to Christs institution in distributing receiuing giuing of thankes Secondly as for the words which Christ vttered in the institution we rehearse them not as a magicall charme to be sayd ouer the bread and wine to conuert their substance but to declare what they are made to vs by force of Christs institution namely his bodie and blood The Protestants WE doe not hold that it is an essentiall part of the Sacrament alwayes to haue a sermon before it as they vnderstand a sermon which notwithstanding were most conuenient and alwaies to bee wished but this wee affirme that the Sacrament cannot be rightly ministred vnlesse there be a declaration and shewing forth of the Lords death not only in the visible action of breaking distributing the elements but also in setting forth the end of the Lords death out of the word of God with an exhortation to thankfulnes which is alwaies obserued amongst vs in the dayly celebration and receiuing of the Sacrament Concerning the words of the institution we also grant that they are necessarily to be vsed in the celebration of the Sacrament but not as the Papists vse them For first they make them not all of one value but out of the whole institution picke out certaine consecratorie words as they call them as This is my bodie This is the cup whereas the other words Take ye eate ye drinke ye doe this in remembrance
he in the beginning of Manasses raigne and so to dye about 7. yeares before Iosias yet for all his scanning is driuē to this shift that the many yeares peace after her death must be vnderstood of poore 7. yeares Thirdly if all this happened in Manasses time whom the Chaldeans tooke and carried away prisoner and had much troubled and afflicted the country of Iudaea what neede had Holofernes to enquire so curiously of Achior the Ammonite of the country their Citie people kings and such like seeing they had knowen the country to well before in spoyling and wasting of it as the Iewes by wofull experience had felt OF THE BOOKE OF WISEDOME The Papistes OVr aduersaries reason thus they say that S. Paul Rom. 11.34 vsing this speach who hath knowen the Lordes minde or bene his counseller doth alledge it out of the 4. Chapter of this booke v. 13. Ergo it is Canonicall We aunswere First the Apostle seemeth not in that place to cite any testimonie though the wordes which he vseth may els where be found Secondly though the like wordes are read in the booke of Wisedome yet is it not necessarie the Apostle should borrow them frō thēce but rather they are alledged out of the 40. of Esay 13. Where the Prophet saith who hath instructed the spirit of God or was his counseller And this also is the opiniō of the Rhemistes that S. Paul in that place vseth the Prophets wordes The Protestantes OVr reasons against the authoritie of this booke are these and such like 1 Because this booke is not found in the Hebrue but written onely in Greeke wherefore it is not Canonicall seeing the Iewes had all the oracles of God 2 Philo a Iew is thought by the Papistes them selues to be the author of this booke who liued after Christ in the time of Caligula neither him selfe was a Christian or beleeued in Christ therefore an vnlike man to be a writer of Canonicall Scripture Bellarmine saith it was another Philo who was more auncient Indeed Iosephus maketh mention of a Philo before this time but he was an Heathen and no Iew. 3 If this booke were written by Solomon why is it not extant in Hebrue for Solomon wrote in Hebrue not in Greeke Many of the Papists also do proue that it was not written by Solomon for though Solomon in the 2. Chapter be brought in praying vnto God that is no good argument to proue Solomon the author for the author might speake in the person of Solomon OF THE BOOKE CALLED Ecclesiasticus The Papistes THey haue none but common and generall arguments for the authoritie of this booke as that it was of old read in the church diuerse of the fathers alledged testimonies out of it All this proueth not as we haue shewed before that it was Canonicall but that it was well esteemed and thought of because of many wholesome and good precepts which are conteined in it The Protestantes WE do thus improue the authoritie of this booke 1 The author in the Preface saith that he trāslateth in this booke such things as before were collected by his grandfather in Hebrue and excuseth him selfe because that things translated out of the Hebrue do loose the grace and haue not the same force so then it appeareth that this booke can not be Canonicall being imperfect neither was his grandfathers worke which is now lost to be thought any part of the Scripture seeing he was no Prophet him selfe but a compiler and a collector of certaine things out of the Prophetes 2 He exhorteth his countrymen to take it in good worth and so craueth pardon but the spirit of God vseth not to make any such excuse whose works are most perfect and feare not the iudgement of men 3 This booke saith cap. 46. v. 20. that Samuell prophesied after his death from the earth lift vp his voyce Whereas the Canonicall Scripture saith not that it was Samuell but that Saul so imagined and thought it to be Samuell 1. Sam. 28. And Augustine thinketh it was phantasma Samuelis but a shew onely and representation of Samuell and an illusion of the deuill Lib. ad Dulcitiū quaest 6. For it is not to be thought that the deuill cā disease the soules of any men much lesse of Saints departed OF THE TWO BOOKES OF the Machabees OVr Argumentes against the authoritie of this booke are these ensuing for our aduersaries bring nothing on their part but such Argumentes drawen from testimonies authorities as do generally serue for all the Apocrypha which are aunswered afore 1 Iudas is commended 2. booke chap. 12. for offring sacrifice for the dead which was not commanded by the law neither is it the custome of the Iewes so to do to this day againe they were manifest Idolaters for there were foūd iewels vnder their coates consecrate to the Idols of the Iamnites And our aduersaries graunt them selues that prayer is not to be made for open malefactors dying impenitently 2 Lib. 2. cap. 2. many things are reported of the arke the holy fire the altar the tabernacle which should be hid by Ieremie in a caue and that the Lord would shew the people these things at their returne Here are many things vnlikely and vntrue First it is found saith the text in the writings of Ieremie but no such storie is there found Secondly Ieremie was in prison till the very taking of the Citie and the Citie being taken the temple was spoyled the holy things defaced and carried away how could they then be conueyed by Ieremie Thirdly in their returne they found neither arke nor fire nor any such thing but saith the Iesuite the Iewes in their conuersion to God in the end of the world may haue them againe as though whē they shal beleeue in Christ they will any more looke backe to the ceremonies or rites of the law for what vse then I pray you shall they haue of altar or sacrifice or any such like 3 There is a great disagreeing in the storie betweene the two bookes cōcerning the death of Antiochus Lib. 1. cap. 6. v. 6.16 It is said that Antiochus dyed for grief in Babylon hearing of the good successe of the Iewes Lib. 2.1 ver 16. Antiochus was with the rest of his souldiers slayne in the temple of Nanea and his head cut of throwen forth Chap. 9. the same Antiochus falling sicke by the way dyed with a most filthie and stincking smell cōsumed of wormes How could this man dye thrise in Babylon in Nanea and by the way in a straunge coūtrey It is confessed by the Iesuite that it was the same Antiochus who saith he lost his armie in the temple and sickned by the way and dyed at Babylon But the storie saith that their heads were cut of I thinke thē he could not liue and that he dyed in a straunge country therefore not at Babylon in his bed These things hang not together 4 Further the author of these bookes saith that he
which is contrarie We aunswere whatsoeuer is imposed as necessarie to saluation beside the Scripture praeter Scripturas is also contra Scripturas contrarie to Scripture as are all Popish traditions which they lay a necessitie vpon both beside and contrarie to Scripture Neither did those false Apostles against whom S. Paule writeth so much bring in another or cōtrary Gospell as the Apostle saith ver 7. as they did labour to corrupt and peruert that Gospel which S. Paul taught Therfore all traditiōs whether praeter or cōtra beside or contrarie to Scripture are notablie by this place ouerthrowen 2 Iohn 20.31 these things are written that ye might beleeue that Iesus Christ is the sonne of God that in beleeuing ye might haue life through his name Ergo the Scriptures conteine all things necessarie to saluation for they suffise to worke in vs faith and faith bringeth vs to eternall life First Bellarmine aunswereth that Iohn speaketh onely of that which he had written Aunswere If this one Apostles writings were able to worke faith the whole body of Scripture much more but he rather speaketh of all other holy writings of the Apostles for he was the suruiuer of them all acknowledged their writings and approued them Secōdly saith he the Apostle saith not that those writings onely suffise but they are profitable and referred to this end to worke faith Aunswere The Scripture is not one of the meanes but the sole whole and onely meanes for if they perfectly worke faith what neede any other helpes but the first is true for they doe beget in vs a perfect faith which shall bring vs to eternall life Ergo they are the onely meanes of faith 3 The whole Scripture saith S. Paule is profitable to teach to improue to correct and instruct in righteousnesse 2. Tim. 3.16 Ergo it conteineth all things necessarie for what els is requisite besides these foure to teach the right faith improue error to instruct in righteousnes and vertue to correct vice First they aunswere the Apostle meaneth as well euery booke of Scripture as the whole euery part therfore hath this perfection as well as the whole But you will not say that euery booke conteineth all things necessarie to saluation therefore this perfection is not so to be taken We aunswere First S. Paule vnderstandeth the body of Scripture as ver 15. thou hast knowen the Scriptures he speaketh of them all Secondly if euery part had these vtilities you might as well conclude that euery word and sillable hath them for they are parts of Scripture Thirdly it appeareth by these foure great vtilities here set downe that the Apostle meaneth not any part or partes of Scripture but the whole for euery part of Scripture is not profitable for all these endes but the whole Secōdly they say it foloweth not the Scripture is profitable therfore sufficient they also graunt it is profitable Aunswere but we conclude out of S. Paule that the Scripture is not onely profitable but sufficient as it foloweth v. 17. that the man of God may be absolute perfectly instructed to euery good worke If then the scriptures are able perfectly to instruct vs then are they sufficient then neede we no other helpes 4 Lastly Augustine thus writeth in Psal. 66. Ne putetis saith he ex alijs Scripturis petendum quod forte hic deest Thinke not saith he that it is to be found in any other writings if it be not in Scripture And in another place In Euangelio quaeramus nam si ibi non inuenimus vbi inueniemus Let vs saith he seeke to be resolued in the Gospell if we finde not there where shall we find it Ergo by the iudgemēt of Augustine there is no truth necessary to be knowen which is not to be found in the Scripture THE THIRD PART OF THE SEVENTH question whether there be any traditions beside Scripture concerning faith and manners The Papistes error 13 THey vnderstand by this word tradition doctrine preceptes and ceremonies with other vsages of the Church which are not written in the scriptures They do not say that all their traditiōs are necessary but they make diuerse kindes of them some are vniuersall obserued in the whole Church some particular some are free some necessarie some are Apostolicall inuented by the Apostles some Ecclesiasticall by the Church so thus they conclude all traditions decreed in Councels and iudged Apostolicall whatsoeuer the Church of Rome receiueth as Apostolicall are not to be doubted but to be Apostolicall indeed Secondly all Apostolicall traditions are of equall authoritie with the writings of the Apostles Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 2. 9. and they are that part of the word of God which is vnwritten as well as the scriptures are that part which is written Let vs see what arguments they bring for these traditions 1 They geue an instance of certaine traditiōs as the Baptisme of infants and the not rebaptising of those which were before Baptised by heretikes We aunswere these two customes of the Church are grounded vpon scripture for as childrē were in the time of the law Circūcised so are they now vnder the Gospell Baptised and that promise Gene. 17. I will be thy God and the God of thy seede as it belonged to them and their children so doth it appertaine to vs and our children Concerning the other point that they whom heretikes haue once Baptised ought not to be Baptised againe S. Augustine doth proue it out of the scripture Ephe. 4. there is one Faith one Baptisme Ergo not to be repeated But now they come in with other traditions as the Lenton fast which they vse most fondly and superstitiously the eight Ecclesiasticall orders Bishops Prists Deacōs Subdeacons Acolythistes Readers Exorcistes Doore-keepers the worshipping of Images with many other these they would face vs out to be Apostolical traditions and to haue bene vniuersally obserued which are but their vayne brags and Thrasonicall crakes they shall neuer proue them vniuersall much lesse Apostolicall And because they finde no scripture to establish these their superstitious fantasies by they flye vnto tradition which is their onely hauen where they hope to finde succour but all in vayne Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 9. Consul Whitacher quaest 6. cap. 4. 2 They proceede and alledge scripture for their traditions as that place Iohn 16.12 I haue many things to say but you can not beare them now Ergo say they there are many traditions not written We aunswere First it foloweth not because Christ declared not all things at that time that therefore he kept them from his Apostles all together Nay whatsoeuer afterwardes the Apostles learned of the spirite of God they had heard before of Christ for it was the office of the spirite but to put them in remembrance of Christes sayings Iohn 14.26 which they had heard before but vnderstood them not and so forgat them Wherefore these things which Christ forbeareth to speake are the same things which are cōteined in
Notes we would desire no better arguments then those which our aduersaries alleadged against vs for first our notes are proper onely to the Church and cannot bee found in any place where the Church of God is not Secondly they are most notorious markes and a man by the Scriptures may more easely knowe what true doctrine is and which are the right Sacraments then which is the true Church Thirdly these markes can not be absent from the Church but doe alwayes accompanie it and it is no longer a true Church then it hath those markes 2 We are able out of the Scriptures to proue these marks which may stand in stead of many reasons Iohn 10. my sheepe heare my voyce Ephes. 5. clensing it by the washing of water through the word Ergo the Word and Sacraments are true notes of the Church Bellarmine answereth to the first place that the hearing of the word is not a visible note of the Church but a signe vnto euery man whereby he may knowe his election Wee replie agayne looke which way a man is knowne to bee a member of the Church by the same way the Church also it selfe is discerned if the hearing of the word doe make one a sheep of Christ then doth it also shew which is the flocke and fould of Christ As I knowe my hand or foote to bee a part of my bodie because it hath life and motion of the bodie euen so the bodie is discerned from a carkas because it moueth and liueth To the second place he answereth very simply that the Apostle there sheweth not which is the Church but what good Christ hath wrought for his Church We replie againe But the Church is best knowne by the benefites that Christ hath bestowed vpon it amongst the which the Word and the Sacraments are not the least Ergo by these the Church is knowne and in that place by the Apostle described And let the reader iudge whether that place of the Apostle where there is direct mention made of the word and sacraments be not fitly applied to our purpose concerning the description of the Church 3 Let Augustine speake In scripturis didicimus Christum in scripturis didicimus ecclesiam epistol 166. In the scripture we doe learne Christ in the scripture let vs likewise learne the Church His argument is this Looke how Christ is knowne so is his Church but Christ is onely knowne by his word Ergo so is his Church The fourth question of the authoritie of the Church THe Papists affirme that the authoritie of the Church consisteth in these fiue poynts First in authorising the scriptures and defining which are Canonicall Secondly in giuing the sense of the scripture Thirdly in determining matters besides scripture Fourthly in making lawes constitutions for the Church Fiftly in exercising of discipline Concerning the two last we doe not greatly stand with them We acknowledge the Church hath authoritie to make decrees and constitutions but so as the Apostles did Visum est nobis spiritui sancto It seemed good to vs and the holy Ghost the Church must be directed by the wisedome of the spirit speaking in the scriptures We also acknowledge the holesome power of the Church in exercising of holy discipline but it must be done in the name and power of Christ. 1. Cor. 5.4 not according to the will of men Concerning the two first we haue alreadie shewed that neither the Church doth giue authoritie to the word of God but doth take her authoritie from thē for the scriptures are of sufficient credite of themselues 1. controu quaest 4. Neither that the sense of scripture dependeth vpon the interpretation of the scripture but that the word expoundeth it selfe 1. controu quaest 6. There remaineth therefore onely one poynt to be discussed of the authoritie of the Church namely in deciding of matters beside the scriptures which are of two sorts either necessarie appertayning to faith or indifferent concerning ceremonies of both these in their order THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE CHVRCH hath authoritie in matters of faith beside the scriptures The Papists WE ought to take our faith and al necessarie things of saluation at the hands error 24 of our superiours Rhemist Act. 10. sect 8. In poynts not decided by scripture wee must aske counsaile of the Church Praefat. sect 25. The Church is the onely piller and stay to leane vnto in all doubts of doctrine without the which there can be no certaintie nor securitie we must therefore beleeue it and trust it in all things annot 1. Timoth. cap. 3. sect 9. Yea it hath authoritie say they to make newe Articles of faith as in the Councell of Constance it was decreed to be necessarie to saluation to beleeue the Pope to be head of the Church In the Councell of Basile it was made an Article of the faith to beleeue that the Councell was aboue the Pope and therfore Pope Eugenius in not obeying the Councell was adiudged to be an heretike 1 Vpon these words in the Gospel Iohn 15.27 the spirit shall testifie of me and you shall beare witnesse also they conclude thus Ergo the testimonie of the trueth ioyntly consisteth in the holy Ghost and Prelates of the Church Rhemist Iohn 15. sect 8. We answere The witnesse of the spirit and of the Apostles is all one witnesse for the spirit first testifieth the trueth to the Apostles inwardly and the Apostles inspired by the spirite did witnesse it outwardly so the Pastors of the Church witnessing with the spirit which is not now inspired by reuelation but onely found in the scriptures are to bee heard but if the spirit testifie one thing in the word and they testifie another there we must leaue them 2 The Church erreth not Ergo we must heare her in all things Rhem. 1. Timoth 3. sect 9. We answere First the Church may erre if she followe not the scriptures Proued before 2. controu quaest 2. Secondly so long as the Church heareth Christs voyce we are likewise to heare hers and so long as she is preserued from error she will not swarue from Christs precepts neither impose any thing vpon her children without the warrant of her spouse The Protestantes THat the Church hath no such power to ordaine articles of faith or impose matters to be beleeued necessarie to saluation not contayned or prescribed in the holy scriptures We prooue it thus and wee are sure that the true Church of Christ will neuer chalenge any such prerogatiue 1. All truthes and verities in the scriptures are not so necessary to saluation that the ignorance thereof should bring perill of damnation Ergo much lesse are any verities out of scripture of any such necessitie the first is manifest for to know the iust chronologie of time or space of yeares from the beginning of the world to Christ is a veritie in scripture yet not necessary so to beleeue that Marie continued a virgin euer after the birth of our Lord was thought by
and the rest iudged corruptly there remayned yet another remedie A generall Councell might haue beene called where the iudges and the cause might further haue been tried and examined their iudgement if there were cause reuersed Whereby it appeareth say the fathers of Basile that not onely the sentence of the Pope alone but also the Pope with his Bishops ioyned with him might be made frustrate by a Councell Here the Iesuite paltreth saith that a matter determined by the Pope in a particular Councell may be called againe in question by the Pope in a general Councel First what neede that seeing that a particular Councel hauing the Popes authoritie as the Iesuite confesseth cannot erre Againe Augustine saith vbi cum ipsis iudicibus causa possit agitari In the which generall Councell the cause and the former iudges of the which Miltiades was one may bee tryed and examined so that the Pope himselfe might be adiudged by the Councell and not the cause onely Vpon the Premisses we truely and iustly conclude that the Pope is and of right ought to be subiect to generall Councels THE EIGHT QVESTION OF THE CONditions and qualitie of generall Councels The Papists THeir vnreasonable and vnequall conditions are these and such like as followe 1 That the Pope onely should haue authoritie to summon call proroge dissolue and confirme Councels and he onely to bee the iudge president and moderator in Councels or some at his appoyntment 2 They will haue none to giue voyces but Bishops and such as are bound by oath of alleageance to the Pope 3 That the Councell is not bound to determine according to Scripture but to follow their traditions and former decrees of Councels 4 That no Councell is in force without the Popes assent yea the Pope himselfe say they by his sole authotitie may abrogate and disanull the canons and decrees of Councels These and such other conditions the Papists require in their Councels So they wil be sure that nothing shall be concluded against them The Protestants OVr conditions which we would haue obserued and kept in generall Councells are these most iust and reasonable 1 That the Pope which is a party should be no iudge for it is vnreasonable that the same man should be both a partie and a iudge and therefore he ought not to meddle with calling and appoynting Councels with ruling or moderating them seeing it is like he would worke for his owne aduantage 2 That such a time and place be appointed as when and where the Churches of Christendome may most safely and conueniently meete together not at such a time as Paulus the third called a Councell when all Princes in Christendome were occupied in great affaires nor such a place as he thē appointed at Mantua in Italie whither Princes could not come without perill of iourney and danger of life being penned in by the Popes garrisons Thus Pope or Bishop Leo for then there were no Popes writ to Martianus the Emperour to haue the Councell remoued from Calchis to Italie but hee preuayled not So Pope Eugenius would haue dissolued the Councell at Basile and brought it vnder his owne nose 3 We would haue it a free Councell where euery man might fully vtter his minde and that there should be a safe conduct graunted to al to come and goe which the Pope for all his faire promises is vnwilling to doe as it was flatly denyed to Hierome of Prage in the Councell of Constance to whome it was answered that he should haue safe conduct to come but none to goe Neither if they should giue a safe conduct were they to bee trusted for it cannot bee forgotten to their perpetuall infamie that they brake the Emperour Sigismunds safe conduct graunted to Iohn Husse in the Councell of Constance saying that faith was not to be kept with Hereticks 4 That the matter should not bee left wholie to Bishops and Prelates but that the learned of the Clergie and Laitie besides should giue voices seeing the cause of religion is common and concerneth all But most of all that nothing bee carried with violence or popularitie against the Scriptures but euery matter determined according to the truth thereof Such a Councell wee refuse not nay wee much desire which is the true generall Councell that is not generall where all men cannot speake no freedome nor libertie graunted for men to vtter the trueth where all thinges are partially handled and are swayed by one mans authoritie Wherefore the Rhemists slander vs in saying wee raile vppon general Councels annot in Act. 15.10 and that we refuse them 2. Galath 2. Whether wee or they are enemies to true generall free holy indifferent Councels let all men iudge THE FOVRTH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE BISHOP OF ROME COMMONLIE CALLED THE POPE THis great and waightie controuersie conteineth tenne seuerall questions 1 Whether the regiment of the Church be Monarchicall 2 Whether Peter were the Prince of the Apostles and by our Sauiour Christ made head of the Church 3 Whether Peter were at Rome and dyed Bishop there 4 Whether the Bishop of Rome be the true successor of Peter 5 Concerning the primacie of the Bishop of Rome sixe partes of the question First whether hee haue authoritie ouer other Bishops Secondly whether appeales are to be made to Rome Thirdly whether the Pope be subiect to the iudgemēt of any Fourthly whether he may be deposed Fiftly what primacy he hath ouer other Churches Sixtly of his titles and names 6 Whether the Bishop of Rome may erre and likewise whether the Church of Rome be subiect to error 7 Of the spiritual iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome two parts First whether he can make lawes to binde the conscience Secondly whether other Bishops doe receiue their iurisdiction from him 8 Of the Popes temporall iurisdiction two parts First whether hee haue authoritie aboue Kings and princes Secondly whether he be a temporal prince 9 Of the prerogatiues of the Pope 10 Concerning Antichrist nine parts First whether Antichrist shall be some one singular man Secondly of the time of his comming Thirdly of his name Fourthly of his nation and kinred Fiftly where his place and seate shall be Sixtly of his doctrine and manners Seuenthly of his miracles Eightly of his kingdome and warres Ninthly whether the Pope bee the very Antichrist of these in their order THE FIRST QVESTION WHETHER THE Regiment of the Church be Monarchicall error 36 WE are not ignorant that the Philosophers made three formes and states of gouernement in the commonwealth the Monarchical when as the principall and soueraigne power rested in one as in the King Queene or Emperor as Rome sometime was ruled by Kings and many yeares after by Emperors Secondly the Aristocratical when the commonwealth was gouerned by an assembly and Senate of nobles as the Romanes had a long time their Consuls and Senators Thirdly the Democratical which is the popular state when the people and multitude bare the greatest sway as
sometime in Rome also tribuni plebis the officers for the people had the chiefe authoritie Now of all these in common-wealth matters the first kinde is the best and safest the Monarchical or princely gouernement The question now is whether the same forme ought to bee reteyned in Church-gouernement and in this question certaine things are to bee obserued First that wee haue not to deale in this place with that part of Ecclesiasticall regiment wherein the prince hath interest as in ordayning Ecclesiasticall Lawes and seeing to the execution thereof but the question is onely of that regiment Ecclesiasticall which is proper to the gouernors of the Church which consisteth in the ministerie of the word and Sacraments in ordaining and electing of Church-ministers in the dispensing of the keyes of the Church in the Ecclesiasticall censures and discipline and such like whether in the Church there ought to bee one chiefe Bishop from whom all other receiue this power in the premisses Secondly the question is not of the spirituall gouernement of Christ who is the chiefe Monarch and King of his Church but of the outward and externall regiment vpon earth Thirdly wee speake not of the state of any particular Church either nationall prouinciall or oppidall but of the generall state of the Church whether ouer all Churches there ought to be one chiefe Bishop These things premised wee come now to the question The Papists THat there ought to bee one chiefe Monarch and high Bishop ouer all the Church in all Ecclesiasticall matters for the deciding of controuersies preseruing the vnitie of the Church from whom all other Ecclesiasticall Ministers doe receiue their power and authoritie they thus would proue 1 The militant Church is in all things answerable and correspondent to the triumphant companie in Heauen as Heb. 8.5 Moses was bid to make all things according to the paterne shewed in the Mount But in heauen there is beside God himselfe a Monarch and chiefe commaunder of the Angels euen Michael the Archangel Reuel 12.7 Michael and his Angels fought Ergo it ought to be so vpon earth We answer First the Church vpon earth neither is nor can be altogether like to the celestiall congregation for there is no temple Reuel 21.22 There shall enter no vncleane thing and many such like differences there are We are bid to follow them in holines and obedience so farre wee must imitate the Angels as in the Lords prayer 3. Petit. As for imitation and conformitie in other things we haue no such commaundement we are promised hereafter to be like them but that is not yet Neither doth that place proue any such thing Heb. 8. For how followeth it Moses was shewed a paterne to make the Tabernacle by Ergo the Church hath a paterne of her gouernement from Heauen When they can shew any such paterne reuealed in the word for their dreames and phantasies we wil not beleeue for the Church as Moses had for the Tabernacle then they shall say somewhat 2 It is a vaine controuersie so to descant of the Angels as to appoynt them a Captaine and commaunder and to make nine orders or bands of them as our Rhemist annot 1. Ephes. vers 21. These are but their dreames they haue not a worde in Scripture for it And concerning Michael they are much deceiued for in that place Apocal. 12.7 Christ is called Michael Michael and his Angels fought against the Dragon And who I pray you is the chiefe Captaine of the Church against the diuell and his hoast but Christ And so is it expounded verse 10. Now is saluation in Heauen and the strength and Kingdome of our God and the power of his Christ Here hee is called Christ who before is Michael In other places also Michael is vnderstood to be Christ as Dan. 10.21 there is none that holdeth with mee but Michael your Prince here Michael is the prince of the Church and not of the Angels And that Michael is not the prince of the Angels as our aduersaries meane taking Michael for an Angell it is proued out of the 13. verse Michael one of the chiefe princes the Angels are all called princes and not one to bee prince aboue them Likewise the nature and signification of the word Michael agreeth hereunto for it is compounded of three hebrue particles as much as to say one that is equall vnto GOD which name in that sense cannot bee giuen vnto any creature Further Epistle Iud. 9. there is mention made of Michael the Archangell who stroue against the diuell and saide the Lord rebuke thee Sathan where the Apostle alludeth to that place of Zacher 3.2 where the very same words are found but there the prophet calleth him Iehouah that spake those words and here the Apostle calleth him Michael so that in this place it must needes bee vnderstoode for Christ. But to conclude we denie not but that Michael may bee the name of some glorious Angell but out of these places it cannot bee proued And againe we will not stand with them but that there may be degrees of excellencie amongst the Angels as there shall be amongst the Saints but that any one hath any such soueraigne and commaunding authoritie ouer the rest it is a curious and presumptuous surmise 2 The Church of the olde Testament was a figure of the Church vnder the New but they had a high Priest aboue the rest Ergo there ought to be now We answere First we graunt the high Priest was a figure but neither of Peter nor Pope but onely of Christ for in two things did the high Priest resemble Christ in offering of sacrifice so hath Christ offered vp himselfe Heb. 7.27 and in entring into the sanctuarie to make attonement for the people so Christ is entred into the Heauens to appeare in sight for vs before God as the apostle saith Heb. 9.24 I trow in neither of these the high priest could be a type either of Peter or Pope 2 Neither doth it follow because there was an high priest in one countrey therefore there ought to bee one ouer the Churches in al countries as the Iesuite frameth an other argument by a comparison because a bishop is ouer his diocesse a Metropolitane ouer his prouince there may bee as well a Pope ouer the whole Church For by the same reason because a Lorde may bee the chiefe in his seignorie a Duke in his prouince a Prince in his Kingdome therefore there ought to bee an Emperour ouer all the world or as Master Caluine saith because one fielde is committed to one Husbandman to dresse and to till therefore the whole Worlde may which were a thing impossible The Protestants THat there ought not to be any one chiefe Bishop Pope or prelate to exercise iurisdiction ouer the whole Church wee doe thus make it good 1 We acknowledge no head of the Church but Christ neither doth the Scripture attribute this title of Maiestie ouer the whole Church but onely to Christ. If
names of some other Apostles as Iames and Iohn were called Boanerges the sonnes of thunder Mark 3. Therefore this was no such preeminence to Peter neither is it true that Peter was almost called by no other name for he is oftē in the Gospel after this called by his old name Simon Mat. 16.17 17 25. Fulk Annot. in Ioh. 1. sec. 7. Secondly againe saith Bellarmine the text is aedificabo I will build my Church but if Christ be here taken for the rocke his Church was built alreadie for many beleeued in him But Peter was not made the foundation of his Church till afterward after his resurrection and therefore hee saith I will build Wee answere First it is a corrupt glosse to say the Church of Christ was not builded till after the resurrection for seeing that many beleeued before in Christ and made a Church either they must graunt that the Church was without a foundation or else that the foundation was changed from Christ to Peter Secondlie it is taken therefore for the enlarging and increasing of the Church of GOD. It followeth not because Christ saith I will build and his Church was begun to bee built alreadie that therefore another kinde of building must bee excogitate no more then because Christ gaue his spirite to the Apostles Matth. 10.1 and againe Iohn 20.22 and yet biddeth them stay at Ierusalem till they should receiue the holie Ghost Acts. 1.7 that therefore they should looke for another holy Ghost or as though they had not receiued the holy Ghost before But as the sending of the holy Ghost is meant for the increase and more plentifull measure thereof so is the building of the Church here taken for the increase of the building Wee yet further answere with Augustine super hanc petram quam confessus es aedificabo ecclesiam vppon this rocke which thou hast confessed will I build my Church so that in this place is meant not Peter to bee the rocke but either Christ whome he confessed or his saith whereby he confessed him which commeth all to one effect There is no great difference whether wee say the Church is builded vppon Christ or faith is the foundation of the Church for faith is an apprehension of Christ but of the person of Peter it can no more bee vnderstoode then of the rest of the Apostles who in some sence are called the foundation of the Church namely in respect of their holy Apostolick doctrine vpon the which the Church is built Ephes. 2.20 Bellarmine and the Iesuites denie not but here is relation also to the faith of Peter but faith considered in his person We answere if they meane Peters particular faith which was a proper adiunct to himselfe the vniuersall Church cannot be built vpon that faith seeing when Peter dyed his faith also as a proper accident to his person ceased if they vnderstand that generall faith whereby Peter in the name of all the rest made this confession then they all are as well made pillars and foundations of the Church as he because it was their generall confession Fulk annot in 16. Matth. sect 8. 3 Another place which our aduersaries mightely vrge are those words which follow verse 19. I will giue vnto thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen whatsoeuer thou shalt binde in earth shal be bound in Heauen Ergo Peter had especiall iurisdiction giuen him more then any of the rest Bellarmine cap. 12. Wee answere First as Peter confessed in the name of all the rest so this power is geuen him not onelie for the rest as the Rhemists falslie charge vs that we make Peter a proctor for others but together with the rest Peters person must be excluded for immediately after he deserued for a certaine slip of his person to bee called Sathan it were an vnfit match the same person at the same time to be honoured with the glorious title of the rock of Christ and to sustaine so great a rebuke as to bee called Sathan Secondlie here is no more promised to Peter then vnto all the rest of the Apostles Matth. 18.18 They likewise haue authoritie giuen them to binde and loose and it is performed to them all alike Iohn 20.23 2 By the keyes here cannot be vnderstoode that large iurisdiction which the Papists dreame of as not onely the authoritie and chaire of doctrine iudgement knoweledge discretion betweene true and false doctrine all which we graunt together with Peter to haue been giuen to al the Apostles besides But say they hereby is signified the height of gouernement the power of making lawes of calling Councels and confirming them of ordeyning Bishops and Pastors finally to dispense the goods of the Church spirituall and temporall all this is added without ground neither had either Peter or any of the Apostles this ample authoritie no nor the Bishops of Rome for many hundred yeares after Christ. For this plenarie power of the keyes when they signifie a soueraigne and chiefe and surpassing power are so onely giuen vnto Christ and to no mortall creature He is saide to haue the keye of Dauid who openeth and no man shutteth who shutteth and no man openeth Apocalip 3.7 Fulk Annot. 16. Matth. sect 13. Lastly I will oppose the iudgement of the Fathers of the Church who alleadge out of Augustine that Peter receiued the keyes for the whole Church and out of Ambrose that when Christ said to Peter pasce oues the blessed Apostle toke not charge of them alone saith he but together with vs and we together with him Fax pag. 675. 4 Other arguments they alleadge for the primacie and preeminence of Peter as Matthew 10. Hee is named in the first place Bellarmine cap. 18. Wee answere this mought bee because Peter was the most auncient in yeeres or one of the first that was called But howsoeuer it was it is no great matter for this order is not alwaie kept as Galath 2. Paul nameth Iames first Iames Cephas Iohn saith hee verse 9. the Iesuits best shift is heere to denie the text saying it should bee read Cephas Iames Iohn vnlesse Iames bee named first because he was Bishop of Ierusalem Marke I pray you Ergo at Ierusalem Peter was not before Iames but next vnto him therfore not prince of the Apostles Bellarm. cap. 18. Againe say they Peter standeth vp in the election of Matthias Acts 1. preacheth the first Sermon Acts 2. Acts. 15. Peter speaketh first Wee answere to the first Wee denie not a primacie of order to haue been in Peter but it followeth not that hee which speaketh first or giueth the first voyce should bee the head and commaunder of the rest to the second wee also graunt that Peter in zeale promptnes and forwardnes was not behinde any of the Apostles but euen with the first for in him was that saying of Christ verified vppon the woman Shee loued much because much was forgiuen her Luk 7 So was it with Peter to whome Christ forgaue much
they were of the Gentiles and part of his charge and vnlesse they can proue that Paul resigned ouer his lot vnto Peter that he also should be the chiefe Apostle of the Gentiles as he was of the Iewes Peter should haue intruded himselfe into Paules charge not in preaching to the Gentiles for both Paul might preach to the Iewes and Peter to the Gentiles but in taking vpon him to be the chiefe Apostle of the Gentiles which was giuen before to S. Paul 2 The Rhemists themselues graunt that the Church of Rome was founded both by Peter and Paul annot in 2. Gal. sect 6. B. Tunstal a strong champion of theirs but varying from them in this opinion shewed in a letter of his to Cardinall Poole how in times past both Peter and Paul were counted Patrones of the Church of Rome and principes apostolorum the chiefe of the Apostles Eusebius sayth that Clement was the third Bishop after Peter and Paul Alexander succeeded in the fift place after Peter and Paul If therefore the Bishops of Rome challenge any preeminence of authoritie from Peter they may doe it as well from Paul for they both founded that Church preached there and both there suffered Fox pag. 1066. 3 No Apostles were Bishops for they were diuers offices Eph. 4.11 he gaue some to be Apostles some to be Pastors Doctors Ergo they were diuers offices and the same were not Apostles and Pastors or Bishops for both are all one The offices were much different Apostles were immediatly called of God Bishops and Pastors were ordayned by the Apostles the Apostles calling was general ouer the whole world the Pastors were obliged to their dioces parishes particular Churches the office of the Apostles was extraordinarie but for a time the calling of Pastors was to endure euer in the Church Wherfore it can in no wise be that the Apostles were Bishops of any certaine places Irenaeus saith that Fundata ecclesia beati apostoli Lino officiū episcopatus iniungunt the Church of Rome once founded the holy Apostles layd the charge of the Bishopricke vpon Linus Whereby it appeareth that they onely reteyned their Apostleship inioyned them of Christ Tunstal ex Fox pag. 1066. It had therefore been contrarie to the commaundement of Christ who sayd Ite in vniuersum mundum goe into all the world if they should haue left their calling and bound themselues to any peculiar Church Ergo we conclude that neither Peter nor Paul were Bishops of Rome THE FOVRTH QVESTION WHETHER THE Bishop of Rome be the true successor of S. Peter The Papists error 40 THey doe generally hold that the Bishops of Rome being lineally descended by succession from Peter they haue the same primacie apostolike authoritie iurisdiction ouer the whole Church which Peter had Bellar. lib. 2. de pont c. 12. They are very barren and scant of arguments in this place to maintaine and vphold this succession by and in the end the Iesuite runneth to tradition and at the length he thus concludeth that it is not de iure diuino it is not necessarie by the lawe of God that the Romane Bishop should be Peters successor but it dependeth onely vpon the ordinance of Peter and is proued by tradition not diduced out of scripture That it was necessarie for Peter to haue a successor they say it is proued out of scripture which we also graunt that all faithfull Pastors and Ministers are the Apostles successors though they haue not their plenarie and Apostolike power but that the Pope ought to bee and is his successor it standeth vpon tradition We see then the grounds of their opinion scripture they haue none but blind tradition vnlesse therefore they could bring better stuffe for the Papall succession we will not spend any time in confuting nothing The Protestants THat the Pope or Bishop of Rome neither can is or ought to be S. Peters successor in his high and Apostolike authoritie primacie and iurisdiction ouer the whole Church which Peter himselfe neuer had thus we declare it 1 The Pope though hee were Peters successor yet can hee not receiue that from him which he neuer had but Peter had neuer any such primacie of power as we haue shewed before Quaest. 1.2 Ergo he is not here in his successor 2 That primacie which Peter had could not bee conueyed to any other namely his primacie of confession which he first of all the Apostles did vtter concerning Christ proceeding from faith did adhere so to his person that it could not bee deriued to any successor of his for Peters faith was a proper adiunct to himselfe Argument Tonstalli Fox pag. 1066. Agayne how can he haue the Apostolike authoritie being not an Apostle But an Apostle he is not for Christ onely made Apostles the Apostles did not ordayne other Apostles Argum. Nili 3 He succeedeth not Peter rightly in place for seeing Peter sate at Antioch why may not that Church challenge succession as well as Rome Why might not also other Churches haue Apostolike succession as Alexandria from Peter and Marke Herusalem from Iames Constantinople from Andrew Further they haue no certaine succession from Peter Tertullian maketh Clement the next successor to Peter Optatus first nameth Linus then Clement Irenaeus after Peter placeth Linus and Cletus and Clement in the fourth What certaintie therefore can they haue of so vncertaine succession Fulk annot in Rom. 16. sect 4. 4 It skilleth not who commeth in the place roome of the Apostles They that will be their true successors must followe their example and walke in their steps teaching their doctrine and embracing their holie vertues Wherfore the Pope is not Peters right successor swaruing both from his doctrine example Non sanctorum filij sunt qui tenent loca sanctorum sed qui exercent opera eorū They are not the children of the Saints which occupie the same places but they which doe their workes Lambert So Bernard writing to Eugenius chargeth him that in respect of his pompe and pride he did rather succeede Constantine then Peter Iohann Huss pag. 610. 5 All good Bishops and Pastors are as well the Apostles successors as the Pope nay rather then he being a wicked man Iohn Huss articul 4. Fox pag. 590. Lambert pag. 1120. Nay they haue greater and more excellent titles then to be called the Apostles successors for those that walke in obedience vnto Gods commandements our Sauiour calleth them his sisters kinsfolkes and brethren Math. 12.50 Ergo the Pope is not the right successor of Peter Lastly of this matter Augustine thus writeth Cathedra tibi quid fecit ecclesiae Romanae in qua Petrus sedit in qua hodie Anastasius sedet vel ecclesiae Hyerosolymitanae in qua Iacobus sedit in qua hodie Iohannes sedet What hath the Sea of Rome done vnto thee wherein sometime Peter sate where Anastasius now sitteth or what hath the Church or chaire of Ierusalem committed where
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
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
yet is it not best for euery man to be rich God seeth it good that some men should be poore So single life is the best for those that haue the gift of chastitie that can with a quiet conscience liue single otherwise matrimonie were much better for Saint Paul that wisheth that euery one would liue single as hee did yet afterward sayth It is better to marrie then to burne So that by the Apostles iudgement to marrie is best for him that hath not the gift of continencie Iewel pag. 232. defens Apolog. The Protestants THat it is not onely lawfull but conuenient that all men both Ministers and others that haue not receiued a proper gift of continencie should marrie and that it is agreeable and consonant to the word of God thus wee shew it 1 The scriptures are most playne for the mariage of Ministers 1. Timoth. 3.2 Saynt Paul sayth a Bishop and generally euery Minister may be the husband of one wife and verse 11. their wiues are described howe they ought to behaue themselues Let their wiues be honest Ergo it is lawfull for them to bee maried Bellarmine answereth that Saynt Paul speaketh of the wiues which they had before their calling and ordayning not those which they should marry after But there appeareth no such thing out of the text Nay Saint Paul say wee had libertie as well as others to leade about a sister a wife euen after hee was an Apostle 1. Corinth 9. Wherefore it is as lawfull afterward as afore Bellarmine answereth We must thus read a Sister a woman and it is like they were women that did minister vnto the Apostles and followed them We replie First the word Sister doth implie a woman and therefore it had been an improper and needlesse speech to say a sister a woman therefore we must rather read a sister a wife Secondly if they were other women which ministred of their substance what neede the Apostles to be mayntained of the Churches if they ministred but in their seruice and attendance who were more fit to doe it and to follow them from place to place then their wiues Thirdly the phrase of leading about a sister importeth a superioritie and authority such as the husband hath ouer his wife Another place we haue Hebr. 13.3 Mariage is honourable among all men Ergo amongst Ministers Bellarmin If it were meant of all mariages then to marrie within the degrees of consanguinitie were also honourable Answere This is a very childish cauill First hee might haue read further And the bedde vndefiled Saint Paul therefore speaketh of lawfull mariage and indeede the other ioyning and coupling of men and women together contrarie to GODS lawe is not to bee counted Matrimonie or Wedlocke but Incest rather and Fornication as the brother to marrie his brothers wife and such like Secondly Saint Paul sayth not all mariages are honourable but mariage is honourable for all men the generalitie is not of the thing but the persons Wherefore we doe fittly conclude out of this place that marriage is lawful and commendable euen among ministers argum Caluin Further Saint Paul saith For auoyding of fornication let euery man haue his owne wife 1. Corinth 7.2 Here is no restraint for Ministers Bellarm. this is to be vnderstoode of those that haue not made a vow of continency Answer First our Sauiour Christ commaundeth no such vowes it is a cruell Antichristian yoke laide vpon Ministers to binde them when they receiue orders to vowe single life therefore your Antichristian decree ought not to abridge the generall libertie granted by the Apostle Secondly the end of marriage is generall to auoyde fornication and therefore the remedie also is generall for euerie man hauing not a proper gift of continencie may be in danger of that inconuenience if he be denyed the ordinarie helpe Melancthon Againe 1. Timoth. 4. to forbid marriage is called a doctrine of diuels but the Popish Church forbiddeth marriage Bellarm. Wee doe not forbid marriage to any but we require single life of all that are entred into orders which it is at their owne choyce to receiue or to refuse Ans. First it is necessarie that some should receiue orders and be consecrate to the Church ministerie wherefore requiring this condition of all such to liue single though particularly you prohibite not this man or that to marrie yet generally you prohibite the whole calling which is worse Secondly if you say you doe not forbid marriage simplie to all no more did the Manichees for they suffered their scholars and auditors to marrie And Saint Augustines words are generall Ille prohibet matrimonium qui illud malum esse dicit he forbiddeth marriage that thinketh it is euil you therefore forbidding marriage must needs hold opinion that is wicked and euill 2 This restraint of the marriage of Ministers hath not been of ancient time in the Church but imposed vpon the Church of late 1000. yeere after Christ Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus anno 180. had seuen of his progenitors before him Bishops of the same See In the Nicene Councel Paphnutius stoode vp and stayed the decree that should haue past for restraining of the marriage of Ministers and it is saide Synodus landauit sententiam Paphnutij The Synod commended Paphnutius sentence Sozomen lib. 1. cap. 11. Gregorie the father of Gregorie was Bishop of Nazianzum The Greeke Church neuer yet receiued this popish decree of single life and their Bishops are married at this day Bellarmine saith that the Church of Rome hath dispenced with them cap. 18. Ergo if the Pope would dispence with the Latine Church it might be lawfull enough then for Ministers to marrie wherefore it is but a humane constitution Againe it is false that they haue dispenced with the Greeke Church they care not for their dispensations but vse their owne Christian libertie neither was the Greeke Church euer subiect to the Bishop of Rome Thus we see that in times past marriage was lawfull for all men vntill Pope Nicholas the second Alexander the second and Gregorie the seuenth that notable sorcerer and adulterer for these three comming together one not long after another began by publike decree to restraine Priests marriage not long after them Anselme began to play the Rex here in England anno 1104. who stoutely proceeded in his vngodly purpose and enacted that married Priests should either leaue their wiues or their benefices At which time 200. Priests at once came barefoote to the Kings palace to make complaint And for all Anselmes Popelike and outragious proceedings against married Priests yet they continued married well nie two hundred yeeres after Anselmes time doe what he could and thus it is manifest that the restraint of Ministers marriage is no ancient thing but then began most to be vrged when Antichrist fullie was reuealed to the world when as the orders of Friers came in and were confirmed and priuiledged vnder Boniface 8. about anno 1300. 3 What
so fayne themselues vnlesse it be for fornication then without consent the marriage knot is broken 3 Peter left not the companie of his wife after he was made an Apostle for he had a daughter called Petronilla of whom the popish legends write much holines which must needes be borne after he was called Peter And agayne it is proued by her age for she was so young in the persecutioÌ„ vnder Domitian that Flaccus the Countie desired her in marriage but if she had been borne before Peters Apostleship she must haue been threescore yeere old at that time or hard vpon Fulk Math. 8. sect 3. 4 Augustine thus writeth of this matter Vna sola esse causa posset qua te id quod vouisti non solum non hortaremur verumetiam prohiberemus implere si forte tua coniux hoc tecum suscipere animi seu carnis insâ—rmitate recusaret Epistol 45. There may be one cause and no more which would make me not only to moue you to performe that which you haue vowed but to disswade and forbid you namely if your wife by reason of her weakenes should refuse to beare the yoke with you Therefore by Augustines sentence neither ought a Minister that is married performe the vow of continencie which he made without consent of his wife for he speaketh generally of vowes made by those that are ioyned in Wedlocke THE SIXT QVESTION CONCERNING THE maintenance of the Church by tithes COncerning the maintenance of the Church there are diuers poynts wherein we our aduersaries agree The maintenaÌ„ce of the Ministers of the Church is either by temporal possessions which haue been bestowed vpon the Church by the gift of deuoute and religious men or els they haue inheritance from their friends and a patrimonie of their owne or els they liue of the tithes and oblations of the people 1 We grant and agree vnto them that the Church Ministers beside the portion of tithes may lawfully enioy temporall lands which the Church of ancient time hath been endowed withall But we yeeld vnto them vpon certaine conditions First there must be a moderation vsed in all such gifts which are bequeathed to the Church for Ecclesiasticall persons ought not to be too greedie and hastie in receiuing whatsoeuer in simplicitie and blind deuotion any man shall giue vnto them as if they see that others are empouerished by the gift whereby they are enriched Thus the Priests offended in our Sauiour Christs time who allured the people to bring their offerings to the Altar though their parents wanted in the meane time whom they were bound to relieue by the law of God This also was a common practise in time of Poperie So the priests might be enriched they cared not greatly though all the stock of their patrones and founders were vndone who because they were vnsatiable had no measure in entising simple men to giue ouer their lands and Lordships into their hands the statute of Mortmaine was made not without iust cause to be a rule vnto theÌ„ that otherwise could not rule themselues Augustine doth highly commend Aurelius Bishop of Carthage and worthely for this one act A certaine rich man of Carthage hauing no children gaue all his substance to the Church reseruing onely the vse thereof for his life time afterward the man had children Reddidit Episcopus nec opinanti ea quae donauerat The Bishop restoreth vnto him that which hee gaue not looking for it nor making any account of it In potestate habuit Episcopus non reddere sed iure fori non iure poli It was in the Bishops power not to restore the gift but by the lawe of the court not by the lawe of heauen I pray you how many such examples can ye shewe me in the time of popish superstition This then is the first thing required that although it be lawful for the Church to enioy the bequests of their benefactors yet it should be done with some limitation As the Leuites beside their tithes had cities appoynted them but the number was set downe they should not exceede 48. in all and to euery citie was a quantitie and circuite of ground allotted which should in length and bredth contayne euery way 3000. cubites Numb 35. vers 5.8 2 It must also be prouided that the gifts and legacies bestowed vpon the Church bee for the maintenance of pietie and true religion and to good vses not to nourish idolatrie and superstition or if they be giuen through ignorance of the time to such vnlawfull purposes they ought by the Prince to be conuerted to better and more godly vses As now in England the lands of Colledges which were first giuen to maintaine that abominable Idoll of the Masse are turned to the maintenance of learning and true religion So was the lawe of Moses that the gold and siluer brasse yron tinne lead which the Israelites should receiue of the heathen first should passe through the fire and so bee made cleane and fit for holy vses Euen thus according to this lawe the lands consecrate to superstition hauing now passed through the fire of Gods word and triall of the truth may safely be vsed to the glorie of God in aduancing and setting forward true religion and vertue 3 Another thing must bee required that Church-men ought not to abuse the possessions of the Church to maintayne pride idlenes and ryotous liuing for in case they doe notoriously spend and wast the Church goods the Prince by whose authoritie they were giuen to the Church may iustly take from them their superfluities not leauing the Church destitute of sufficient maintenance This is notably proued by Iohn Husse in the defence of Wickliffes articles And we haue seene the practise thereof in England in the late suppression of Abbeyes wherein though some of those lands might otherwise haue been disposed of yet the prouidence of God notably appeared in bringing desolation vpon those Cels of sinne and vncleane cages of birdes neither hath this been an vnusuall and vnaccustomed practise in the Church for Princes to correct the misdemeanour of Priests by cutting them short of their temporalties for in Augustines time the Christian Emperours dispossessed the Donatists of their Churches and possessions and gaue them to the Catholike Bishops And at that time the Donatists cryed out as the Papists doe now Quid mihi est imperator What hath the Emperour the King to doe with our lands Augustine answereth Secundum ius ipsius possides terram by the lawe of Princes the Church enioyeth her possessions Recitemus leges imperatorum videamus si voluerint aliquid ab haereticis possideri Let vs then rehearse the lawes of Emperours and see whether they suffer heretikes to enioy the Church possessions Secondly concerning the second kind of maintenance which ariseth by the proper and peculiar inheritance which Church ministers haue we also yeeld our consent that a Minister to whom some inheritance is befallen is not bound
God so the manner of celebrating and keeping it holy is to be learned out of the word and neither custome nor authority ought to giue liberty for such workes vpon the Lords day as are not warranted by the word First we graunt that we are not so necessarily tied to the rest of the Sabboth as the Iewes were for those things are abolished which appertained to the Iewish Sabboth First the prescript of the day Secondly the ceremonious exercises of the Sabboth in the sacrifices and other rites of the Law Thirdly the typicall shadowes and significations of their Sabboth as first it betokened their rest in Canaan then the rest and peace of the Church by Christ Hebre. 4.3 5. Fourthly the strickt and precise rest wherein Christians haue more liberty then the Iewes had and againe they obserued their rest as being properly and simply and in it selfe a sabboth daies duty but we doe consider it as being referred to a more principall end as making of vs more fit for spirituall exercises Secondly we allow these workes to be done First opera religiosa or pietatis the religious workes and conferring to piety as the Priestes did slaye the sacrifices vpon the Sabboth and yet brake not the rest of the Sabboth Math. 12.5 so the people may walke to their parish Church though somewhat farre off the Pastor Minister may goe forth to preach yea and preaching is of it selfe a labour of the body to study also and meditate of his Sermon to ring the bels to call the people to the Church all these are lawfull as being helpes for the exercises of religion Secondly opera charitatis the workes of mercy are permitted as to visite the sicke the Phisitian to resorte to his patient yea to shew compassion to brute beastes as to helpe the sheepe out of a pit Math. 12.11 Thirdly opera necessitatis the workes of necessitie as the dressing of meat and such like Math. 12.1.3 Our Sauiour excuseth his Apostles for plucking the eares of Corne when they were hungry As for opera voluntaria workes of pleasure and recreation we haue no other permission to vse them then as they shal be no le ts or impediments vnto spirituall exercises as the hearing of the word and meditating therein and such other Otherwise they are not to be vsed Augustine saith speaking of the Iewes who did greatly prophane their Sabboth in sporting and dalliance Melius toto die foderent quà m toto die saltarēt It were better for them to digge all day then to daunce all day euen so verily it were better for many poore ignorant people that vpon the Sabboth giue themselues to drinking and quaffing gaming if they should goe to plough or cart all the day But as for other seruile workes as to keepe Faires and Markets vpon the Lords day to trauell themselues their seruants and beastes vpon the Sabboth it is flat contrary to the commaundement of God and the practise of the Church Nehemiah 13.16 where there is no extream and vrgent necessitie so that it is not to be doubted but that as the keeping of the Lords day is a moral commaundement so also the manner of the obseruing thereof in sanctifying it and resting therein is morall the ceremonies of the rest being abolished that is the Iewish strictnes thereof and the opinion which they had of their rest as being simply a part of the sanctifying of the Sabboth But we doe consider it as referred vnto more principall duties and obserue it not as of it selfe pleasing God but as making vs more fit for spirituall exercises Contrary to these rules we acknowledge neither power in Ordinaries nor priuiledge in custome to dispence with the sanctification of the Sabboth The Papists THey affirme that the Apostles altered the sabboth day from the seaueth day to the eight counting from the creation and they did it without scripture error 62 or any commaundement of Christ such power say they hath God left to his Church This then they holde that the sabboth was changed by the ordinarie power and authoritie of the Church not by any especiall direction from Christ thereupon it followeth that the Church which they say cannot erre may also change the sabboth to any other day in the weeke Rhemist Apoca. 1. sect 6. The Protestants 1. THe Apostles did not abrogate the Iewish sabboth but Christ himselfe by his death as he did also other ceremonies of the Law and this the Apostles knew both by the scriptures the word of Christ his holy spirite 2. They did not appoint a new sabboth of their owne authoritie for first they knew by the scripture that one day of seauen was to be obserued for euer for the seruice of God and exercise of religion although the prescript day according to the Law were abrogate for the Lord before the morall law was written euen immediatly after the creation sanctified the seauenth day shewing thereby that one of the seauen must be obserued so long as the world endured Secōdly they knew there was the same reason of sanctifiyng the day of Christs resurrection and the restitution of the worlde thereby as of sanctifiyng the day of the Lords rest after the creation of the world Thirdly they did it by the direction of the spirite of God whereby they were so directed and gouerned that although they were fraile men by nature and subiect to error yet they could not decline in their writings and ordinances of the Church from the truth which assurance of Gods spirite in the like measure the Church hath not but so farre forth is promised to be led into all truth as she followeth the rule of truth expressed in the Scriptures Wherefore the Church hath no authority to change the Lords day and to keepe it vpon Munday or Tuesday or any other day seeing it is not a matter of indifferency but a necessary prescription of Christ himselfe deliuered by the Apostles for the Lords day began in the Apostles time and no doubt by their Apostolike authority directed by the spirite of Christ was instituted Act. 20.7 Apocal. 1. ver 10. Neither can there come so long as the world continueth so great a cause of changing the Sabboth as the Apostles had by the resurrection of Christ. Wherfore the law of the Sabboth as it is now kept and obserued is perpetuall The Papists errour 63 4. THey affirme that the keeping of the Lords day in stead of the Iewish Sabboth is a tradition of the Apostles and not warranted by Scripture Rhemist Math. 15. sect 3. The Protestants THe obseruation of the Lords day is not deliuered by blinde tradition but hath testimony of holy Scriptures 1. Corinth 16.2 Act. 20.7 Apocal. 1.10 and the obseruation thereof is according to Gods commaundement not after the doctrine of men Fulk ibid. The Papists errour 64 5. THey teach that the Lords day is commaunded and likewise kept for some mysticall signification not onely for the remembraunce of benefites already
the Apostles writings Secondly if there were other matters which Christ vttered not how foloweth it nay what great presumptiō is it to say that those trifles and apish toyes which the Papistes vse in their Idolatrous sacrifice and their other beggarly ceremonies which boyes may well laugh at are those profoūd matters which the Apostles were not then able to conceiue 3 That of all other they take to be an inuincible place 2. Thess. 2.15 keepe the instructions or traditions which ye haue bene taught either by word or by Epistle Ergo there are traditions besides scripture We aunswere when S. Paule wrote this Epistle all the scriptures were not writtē wherefore besides these two short Epistles which do not conteine the summe of the Gospell nor all necessarie preceptes he by his preaching supplied what was wanting and so declared vnto them the whole mysterie of the Gospell as he saith 1. Thess. 2.2 these he calleth his traditions because yet he had not written his other Epistles wherein those instructions and traditions are conteined This then is but a weake argument the Thessalonians had other instructiōs and traditions beside the two Epistles writtē vnto them Ergo they had other traditiōs beside all the writings of S. Paule and the other Apostles this is their mayne and waightie argument The Protestantes FIrst we graunt that all things are not written which our Sauiour Christ and the Apostles taught and that it was the Gospell which they preached as well as this which is written yet in substance they preached the same Gospell which now is expressed in the scripture neither was there any necessarie precept deliuered in their Sermons which is not now to be found in the scriptures Secondly we denie not but there were certaine rites and orders ordained by the Apostles in diuerse churches which were not cōmitted to writing because they were not to continue and endure for euer in the Church as that precept Act. 16. that the Gentiles should abstaine from strangled and from bloud Thirdly we also graunt that the Church may vse externall rites and orders either left by tradition or ordained by the Church for decencie and comelynesse and tending to edification But we constantly affirme that there are no traditions in the Church of God necessarie to saluation beside scripture wherein all things are conteined necessarie to saluation both concerning faith and manners 1 It is not lawfull as to take ought from the word of God so to adde any thing vnto it Deut. 12.32 Apocal. 22.18 But they which bring in traditiōs necessarie beside the scriptures do adde vnto them Ergo. To the proposition the Iesuite aunswereth that all addition to the word of God is not forbidden for the Prophets did write after Moses the Apostles after the Euangelistes We aunswere that those holy men had authoritie from God to compile scripture if the Papistes haue the like Apostolike authoritie for their traditions let them shew it and we will beleeue them Secondly the Prophetes did but explane Moses and expound the law and the Apostles did as it were set forth their Commentaries vpon the Gospell this therefore was no addition because they did not derogate from the perfection of the scriptures any way To the assumptiō they aunswere that their traditions are but expositiōs of Scripture We aunswere their traditions are cleane contrarie to Scripture as the worshipping of Images and the sacrifice of their Masse and they adde to Scripture making it vnperfect saying it doth not conteine all things necessarie to saluation Wherefore they can not escape that curse which they runne into that adde to the word of God 2 All traditions among the Iewes besides the law were condemned Math. 15.3 Ergo all vnwritten traditions now must be abolished The Iesuite aunswereth First Christ condemned not the auncient traditions of Moses but those which were newly and lately inuented Aunswere first the Scripture maketh no mention of any such traditions of Moses Christ biddeth them search the Scriptures not runne vnto traditions Secondly these seemed to be auncient traditions bearing the name of Elders traditions and they were in great authoritie amongest the Iewes most like because of some long continuance Secondly saith he Christ findeth fault with wicked and impious traditions Aunswere First their traditions were not openly and plainly euill and pernicious but had some shew of holynesse as the washing of pots and tables and beds I would the Papists did not here take thē selues by the nose whose traditions come nearer to open impietie and blasphemie then theirs did Secondly Christ in opposing the Scripture against traditions therein condemneth all traditions not written besides the Scripture 3 If Paule preaching the whole Gospell Act. 20.27 did say none other things then Moses and the Prophetes then all things necessarie to saluation are conteined in the Scriptures For it can not be said to be a whole and perfite Gospell if any thing necessarie to saluation be wanting But Paule preached nothing but out of Moses and the Prophetes Act. 26.22 Ergo much more now is the Scripture a perfect rule of faith we hauing beside Moses and the Prophetes the holy writings of the Euangelistes and Apostles 4 Last of all although we might multiplie many arguments but these I trust strongly concluding out of Scripture may serue as a sufficient bulwarke against all Popish paper bullets Let vs heare in the knitting vp the iudgement of Augustine In his rebus inquit in quib nihil certi statuit Scriptura mos populi Dei vel instituta maiorum pro lege tenenda Epist. 86. In all those things saith he speaking of externall rules and ceremonies of the which we haue no certaine rule out of Scripture the custome of the people of God and the godly constitutions of our forefathers must stand for a law but concerning matters of faith and good maners the Scriptures do giue certaine rules as in another place In ijs quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt inueniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque viuendi De doctrin Christian. 2.9 all things appertaining to faith and the rule of life are plainlie expressed in the Scripture Ergo by the sentence of Augustine traditions besides scripture haue nothing to do with the doctrine of faith and manners but do consist onely in externall rites and customes of the Church THE SECOND GENERALL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE CHVRCH HAuing now finished the questions betweene our aduersaries and vs concerning the Scriptures and word of God which all do belong to the Propheticall office of Christ in the next place such controuersies are to be handled as do concerne the Kingly office of Christ. And seeing the Church of Christ is his kingdome where he ruleth and raigneth we must intreat of the Church and first in generall of the whole and in speciall of the partes and members This present controuersie concerning the Church in generall standeth vpon fiue principall questions 1 Of the definition of the Catholike Church two partes
bee much desired and conueniently expected that is such a Councell where euery man franke free may vtter his minde without feare an holy Councel where euery mā may goe about to set vp godlines not to oppresse the trueth Such a Councell King Henrie the eight of worthie memorie in his protestation for the Church of England for not comming to the Councell of the Pope truely affirmeth that he desired and craued nothing so oft of God but because there is no hope of any such Councel seeing the Pope would be the chiefe doer in it and it is too vnreasonable that the same man should be both a partie and a iudge we doubt not but that it is lawfull by the word of God for euery Prince Duke Lord within his owne seignorie without any further delay or expectation by the aduice and Counsaile of the learned and godlie of the land according to Gods Lawe to reforme their Church First because all delay in matters of the Church are dangerous and inconueniences are at the first hand to be met withall as we see Act. 6. and Act. 15. immediatlie when any question did arise the Apostles assembled together In the Councel of Basile where it was decreed that the Pope was subiect to the Councels Panormitane a stiffe champion on the Popes side would haue the decree stayed till the returne of the Princes Embassadors But Arelatensis that worthy Cardinall stepped vp and shewed what danger there might be in a small delay by the example of Hannibal who deferring his going but one day to Rome was driuen cleane out of Italy hauing been very like to haue taken the citie if he had vsed the opportunitie But without all controuersie matters of faith ought not to be delayed which could not be auoyded if a generall Councel should alwaies be waited for Secondly a Prince hath the like authoritie in his dominion as the housholder hath in his house But euery man ought to reforme his house without any further delay aduisement or consultation as Iosua sayth I and my house will serue the Lord 24. vers 15. Wherefore the Prince may and ought to performe the like in his countrie Lastly we finde by experience that the Lord hath blessed such reformations which haue been made by Princes in their owne territories as that in Zuricke anno 1523. at Berne 1528. and the most happie reformation of our Church of England begun by King Henrie the 8. encreased by that most vertuous Prince King Edward the 6. and prosperouslie continued and established by our gracious Soueraigne Queene Elizabeth I will adde the testimonie of Augustine who answering to the Pelagians which obiected that they were condemned by certaine single Bishops in their owne Diocesse without a Synode he sayth thus Ac si congregatione synodi opus erat vt aperta pernicies damnaretur quasi nulla haeresis aliquando nisi synodi congregatione damnata sit c. cont 2. Epistol Pelag. lib. 4. cap. 12. As though saith he a Synode or Councel were alwayes necessarie to condemne a knowne heresie Nay wee finde that more heresies without comparison haue been in the same places condemned where they first sprang without any such necessitie more so then otherwise THE SECOND QVESTION BY WHOSE AVthoritie Councels ought to be called The Papists THey doe generally hold that generall Councels ought onely to be called and appoynted by the Popes authoritie or his assignment their goodly reasons error 30 are these 1 Councels ought to bee congregate in the name of Christ that is by him that hath authoritie from Christ so to congregate them see here is a goodly exposition to assemble in the name of Christ is to assemble by the authoritie of the Pope so belike where Christ saith wheresoeuer two or three are gathered together in my name c. Christ will not bee present with them vnlesse we send vp to Rome for license that two or three may come together 2 Generall Councels should be appoynted by them that haue generall authoritie to commaund men to come to the Councell but this authoritie ouer the whole Church neuer any Emperour had in such ample manner as the Pope hath Ergo. Answere first it is a great vntruth that the Popes spirituall iurisdiction which he falsely challengeth was at any time greater then the Emperours dominion for Constantine ruled ouer both the West and East Churches but the Churches of Greece were neuer nor are not to this day subiect to the sea of Rome For Pope Eugenius would haue dissolued the Councell of Basile vnder this pretence because the Greekes which should come vnto the Councell for the vniting of their Church would not passe the Alpes but this vniting neuer went forward Anno. 1431. Agayne if the commaundement of one Emperour or Potentate bee not large enough to appoynt a generall Councell as in these dayes it is not it may bee done by the consent and agreement of Princes The Protestants WE hold it as a fond and ridiculous assertion that generall Councels should be ruled at the Popes becke but that this authoritie is due and hath been of olde vnto Christian Princes and Magistrates and the Pope in so doing doth but vsurpe vpon their right 1 That the Pope hath not absolute authoritie to call remoue dissolue or establish Councels it is proued out of scripture for Act. 6.2 the twelue Apostles and not Peter onely whose successor the Pope doth falsely chalenge to be called the multitude together about the election of Deacons 2 The Councels in times past were sommoned by the Emperours which our aduersaries themselues cannot denie as the Nicene first by Constantine the great Constantinopolitane 1. by Theodosius the elder Ephesin 1. by Theodosius the younger Chalcedonens by Martianus But say our aduersaries these Councels were not appoynted without the consent of the Bishops of Rome I meruaile they are not ashamed so to say for when Theodosius called the Councell of Chalcedon Leo then Bishop of Rome neither liked the time for hee would haue had it deferred nor the place being desirous to haue it in Italy yet he was content to obey the Emperours commaundement and sent his Agents to the Councel there to appeare for him Epist. 41.47.48 ad Martianum This was alleadged by Tonstal and Stokeslie two archpapists in their Epistle to Cardinall Poole 3 It is a good reason which was alleadged in the Councell of Basile that if Popes onely should call Councels there should be no meanes left to withstand a wicked and vicious Pope Who would thinke say they that the Bishop of Rome would congregate a Councel for his owne correction or deposition 4 The Pope hath no more authoritie nor by their leaue nothing like as Peter had but he challenged not this dignitie amongst the Apostles to summon Councels We reade of foure onely Councels of the Apostles say the fathers of Basile for this also is their argument the first was for the choosing of Matthias Act. 1. congregate at the
sometime Iames sate and Iohn now sitteth In those words Augustine ascribeth as much to the succession of other Apostolicall Churches as he doth to the succession of the Bishops of Rome And therefore Canisius craftely leaueth out the one half of the sentence cōcerning the Church of Ierusalem Neither is it true which our aduersaries say that Peters Sea remaineth still at Rome when all other Apostolicall Sees are gone for euen to this day the See of Antioch standeth and hath a Patriark likewise the See of Alexandria The See of Constantinople neuer wanted successors to this day nor the Church of Ephesus In India and Aethiopia there hath been alwaies a succession in those Churches planted by the Apostles and is at this day Fulk 2. Thess. 2. sect 7. Wherefore they haue no cause to bragge of their succession which is found in other places as well as at Rome THE FIFT QVESTION CONCERNING THE primacie of the See of Rome THis question hath diuers partes which must be handled in their order First whether the Bishop of Rome haue authority ouer other Bishops Secondly whether appeales ought to be made to Rome from other countries Thirdly whether the Pope be subiect to the iudgemēt of any Fourthly whether he may be deposed Fiftly what primacie he hath ouer other Churches how it began Sixtly of the titles and names giuen to the Bishops of Rome THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE BISHOP of Rome hath authoritie ouer other Bishops The Papists error 41 THey doubt not to say that the Bishop of Rome hath authoritie and ought so to haue to ordaine and constitute Bishops to depriue and depose them to restore them likewise to their former dignities and this power hee exerciseth ouer the vniuersall Church The Iesuites principall only argument is drawen from certain examples how the Bishops of Rome haue in times past constituted deposed and restored some Bishops in the Greeke Church as in the patriarchal Seas of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch Ergo hee hath power ouer all Bishops We answere First It was not done by the absolute authority of the Roman Bishops any such constitution or deposition though perhappes their consent and allowance were required as Leo writeth thus to Martianus the Emperour about the ordayning of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople Satis sit quod vestrae pietatis auxilio mei fauoris assensu episcopatum tantae vrbis obtinuit It is sufficient that by your godly helpe and my fauourable assent he hath obtained so famous a Bishoprick Whether was greater now the help and furtherance of the Emperor or the base assent of Leo Secondly wee denie not but that the Pope sometimes what by sufferance of others what by his owne intrusion hath vsurped this power ouer other Bishops by this ought not to make a law that which is once or twise done by a false title cannot prooue the iustnes of the title Thirdly that the Bishop of Rome hath no such authoritie it appeareth by this that he doth not neither of many yeares hath constituted or ordayned the patriarks of the Greeke Church they came not vp to Rome nor yet sent thither for their palls as other Archbishops here in the West parts haue done paied full dearely for them being made slaues to the beast of Rome The Protestants THat the Pope neither hath nor yet ought to haue any such authority ouer other Bishops but that euery one in his owne precinct and iurisdiction hath the chiefe charge It is thus proued 1. Peter was not chiefe neither did exercise iurisdiction ouer the twelue Ergo neither the Pope ought to doe ouer other Bishops The antecedent or first part is thus confirmed The heauenly Hierusalem which is the Church of God is described Apocal. 21. not with one foundation onely of Peter but with 12. foundations after the number of the Apostles argument Tunstalli To this purpose also hee alleadgeth in saying out of Hierome contra Iouinian All the Apostles receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and vpon them all indifferently and equally is the strength of the Church grounded and established Fox p. 1066. 2. Till the yeare of the Lord 340. there was no respect had to the Church of Rome but euery Church was ruled by their owne gouernment afterward followed the Councel of Nice wherein was decreed that the whole Church should be deuided into foure circuites or precincts ouer the which there were foure Metropolitanes or patriarkes set first the Bishop of Rome next the Bishop of Alexandria the third was the Bishop of Antioch the fourth the Bishop of Ierusalem and not long after came in the Bishop of Constantinople in the roume of the B. of Antioch All these had equall authoritie in their prouinces and one was not to deale within anothers charge Ergo the Bishop of Rome had not then the iurisdiction ouer the whole Church argument Nili plura Fox p. 9. 3. We will adioyne the testimonie of the fathers of Basile which were all of the Popish sect what haue the Bishops been in our daies say they but only shadowes might they not haue been called shepheards without sheepe what had they more then their Miters and their staffe when they could determine nothing ouer their subiects Verily in the primitiue Church the Bishops had the greatest power and authoritie but now it was come to that poynt that they exceeded the common sort of priests onely in their habite and reuenewes What plainer testimonie can we haue then from the papists themselues Augustine also agreeth to their sentence habet omnis episcopus saith he pro licētia libertatis potestatis suae arbitrium propriū tanquam iudicari ab alio nō possit quomodo nec ipse potest alium iudicare sed expectemus vniuersi iudiciū domini nostri Iesu Christi Euery Bishop is priuiledged by his own authoritie to follow his owne iudgement neither is subiect to the iudgement of other Bishops as he is not to iudge them but they all must be referred to the iudgement of Christ See then in this place Augustine setteth Bishops in the highest roume in the Church and sayth they haue no iudge aboue them but Christ. THE SECOND PART CONCERNING APpeales to bee made to Rome The Papists SVch say they is the preeminēt authority of the Bishop of Rome that appeals error 42 may be made vnto him from all Churches in the world and that all ought to stand to his sentence and determination For the proofe hereof they bring no scripture nor any sound argumēt but stand chiefly vpon certain odde examples of some that haue appealed to Rome which we denie not to haue been done but our answere more at large is this 1. One cause of these appeales was both for that they which were iustly cōdemned of other Churches found greater liberty and fauour at Rome as Apiarius did who being condemned in the 6. Aphricane Councel for his detestable conditions found fauour with Zosimus Bishop of Rome who
iudgement and authoritie of the Emperor King Prince or other supreame magistrate and may also by generall Councels be corrected and censured thus it is proued 1. Peter was iudged of Paul Galat. 2. and of him iustly reproued Ergo the doings of the Pope may be iudged and censured Bellarmine answereth that it was not iudicialis censurae but fraterna correptio it was no iudiciall censure but a brotherly reprehension We replie First publike censure and reprehension is a part of ecclesiasticall iudgement and discipline therefore Peter being publikely rebuked was therby iudged also of Paul Secondly the question is not onely concerning publike open iudgement but whether it be lawfull to call the Popes doings into question whether his decrees are absolutely to be receiued without any scāning or discussing or making any doubt thereof for this we hold that it is the duety of all Christians to examine and trie the trueth of all things which they are to receiue and beleeue though they sit not formally and iudicially as in consistories to iudge their spirituall pastors so the Beraeans iudged of the Apostles doctrine so may the Popes decrees be examined and iudged Thirdly the Iesuite granteth that the Pope may be rebuked and brotherly reproued but the Extrauagant denieth it non est qui audeat dicere domine curfacis sic none dare say vnto him sir why doest thou so 2. Euery soule must be subiect to the higher powers Ergo the Pope Rom. 13.1 Bellarm. answereth that the Apostle here speaketh of all superiours both spirituall and temporall and therefore it cannot bee concluded that the Pope ought to obey but hee must bee obeyed because hee is also a spirituall power We replie Saint Paul in this place speaketh onely of the ciuill Magistrate First he calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princes which is not meant of ecclesiasticall or Church gouernors nor so taken in any place of scripture Secondly they are sayd to beare the sword Thirdly tribute is payde to them those thinges agree not to ecclesiasticall gouernors so the Iesuite is answered THE FOVRTH PART WHETHER THE Pope may be deposed from his papacie The Papists SOme of them holde that the Pope ought not neither can be deposed for heresie error 44 because it is not possible for the Pope to fall into heresie Pighius the Iesuite confesseth this to be a probable opinion but himselfe defendeth it not he confesseth also the opinion of Caietanus that the Pope may be deposed for manifest and apparant heresie Bellarmines opinion is this that the pope can not be deposed for any cause but heresie and not for all heresie but that which is manifest and apparant Neither is he then deposed by any act of the Church but is of himselfe deposed and ceaseth any more to bee pope so the Church may afterward punish him but he is then no Pope for as soone as he is become an hereticke his popedome in the very Acte is gone from him Bellarmin cap. 30. He reasoneth thus A manifest hereticke is not so much as a member of the Church much lesse can he be pope who they say is the heade of the Church and therefore in such a case the pope is deposed without anie sentence and if afterward the Church proceede against him they doe not iudge the Pope for he had lost his papacie before We answer First if a manifest hereticke be actually deposed it is by the secret iudgement and sentence of God for by no other authority can he be deposed as they hold but before God manifest heresie and close and secret heresie is all one therefore the Pope is also actually deposed for secret heresie and not onely for manifest and so some of the papists think as Iohann de Turre veniata Secondly what call you manifest heresie or how is hee knowen to bee a manifest hereticke Can hee bee an heretick before hee bee conuinced shall iudgement passe against him vncondemned A murtherer is a dead man by lawe yet hee liueth till iudgement passe vpon him so is the Pope beeing an heretick yet Pope till he be iudicially proceeded against as a murtherer dead by right is in act yet liuing till by law he is depriued of his life An heretick sayth Saint Paul after two or three admonitions auoyd that is saith the Iesuite he is now excommunicate before the sentence of the iudge Be it so but hee must first be admonished and if he still continue obstinate then he is a manifest heretike so before the Pope can be knowen to be a manifest heretick he must be found obstinate he cannot be obstinate vnlesse he refuse to be admonished if he be admonished then is he iudged Thirdly an heretick ceaseth not to bee a priest as they speake no not after heresie is knowen for manifest heretickes may baptize The Donatists in Augustines time were manifest hereticks and yet the Church did not baptize againe after them If a manifest heretick cease not to be a priest neither ceaseth he to be Pope there is like reason of both for if an heretick because he is not a member of the Church can not be a Pope neither also can he retayne the priesthood Lastly who seeth not what bare and friuolous shifts those are one saith the Church may iudge the Pope not as he is Pope but in respect of his person an other sayth that they may iudge the man which was Pope but hee is then no Pope because his heresie tooke from him the papacie Why masters what iugling is here is the Pope one thing and the Popes person an other By the same reason you may say that the Pope neither eateth nor drinketh nor sleepeth nor dieth and so make a god of him because it is the popes person that doth all this and not the Pope And by this shift you make no difference betweene an heretick Bishop o◠heretick priest and heretick Pope for by the same reason none of them all shall be subiect to the iudgement of the Church for we may say that a manifest heretick whether Bishop or priest hath lost by that very act of falling into heresie his priesthood and Bishoprick and then is neither Bishop nor priest And so you may conclude altogether that neither Pope Bishop nor piest can bee deposed from heresie The Protestants WE doubt not to say that the Pope both lawfully hath been depriued somtime by the Emperour somtime by generall Councels not onely for hesie but for other notable crimes and may still bee proceeded agaynst by the same right as well as any other Bishop or Prelate 1 Diuers examples wee are able to bring forth how the Pope hath been deposed for other crimes beside heresie Pope Iohn the 13. was deposed in a generall Councel by the consent of Otho the Emperour for other matter beside heresie as that he ordayned Deacons in a stable that he committed incest with two of his sisters that playing at dice he called to the diuell for helpe
more then was in the fountaine or originall seeing he receiued all from thence 3 What maketh this place I pray you for the power of externall iurisdiction Here it is saide that God gaue of his spirit to seauentie Elders and rulers of the people and enabled them for their office endued them with wisdome and knowledge and dexteritie in iudging of the people this maketh nothing for their purpose vnlesse they will also say that there is a secret influence of knowledge and wisdome deriued from the Pope to all other Bishops whereby they are made able to execute their office but I trow they will not say so for Alphonsus de castro truly saith of the Popes of Rome constat plures eorum adeo esse illiteratos vt grammaticam penitus ignorent it is certaine that many of them were so vnlearned that they hard and scant knew their grammar 4 The argument followeth not from one particular countrie as this was of the Iewes to the vniuersal Church that because the seauentie Elders receiued iurisdiction from Moses yet that cannot be proued out of this place for they were rulers before and commaunders of the people the were now but inwardly furnished and further enabled yet it were no good reason that therefore the Ecclesiasticall Ministers ouer the whole Church should receiue their power from one 5 Neither doth it follow that because the Prince and ciuill Magistrate may bestowe ciuil offices create Dukes Earles Lords constitute Iudges Deputies Lieutenants by his sole authoritie that by the same reason Ecclesiasticall ministers should receiue their power office from their superiors for although the Church from ancient time hath thought it good to make some inequalitie and difference in Ecclesiasticall offices for the peace of the Church yet the superiors haue not such a soueraigntie and commaunding power ouer the rest as the Prince hath ouer his subiects The Protestants THat Bishops haue not their Ecclesiastical iurisdiction from Rome but do as well enioye it by right of their consecration election institution in their owne precinctes circuites prouinces cities townes yea as the Pope doth in his Bishopricke and by much better right if they be good Bishops and louers of the truth thus briefely it is proued 1 The Apostles had not their iurisdiction from Peter but all receiued it indifferently from Christ this the Iesuite doth not barely acknowledge but proueth it by argument against the iudgement of other Papists cap. 23. Ergo neither Bishops are authorised from the Pope though he were Peters successor for if he were to graunt it for disputation sake he is no more to the Bishops of the Church then Peter was to the Apostles If hee gaue not the keyes to the Apostles neither doth the Pope Saint Peters successor to the Bishops the Apostles successors for they may with as great right challenge to bee the Apostles successors as he can to be Saint Peters Nay the Apostles gaue no power or iurisdiction to the Elders and pastors whom they ordained Act. 20.28 Take heede to the flocke ouer the which the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops or ouerseers and Ephes. 4.11 Hee hath giuen some to bee Apostles some Prophets some pastors and teachers so then the pastors and teachers though ordained by the Apostles yet had their calling and office frō God and not from the Apostles much lesse now can they receiue their power from any no not from the Pope for he is no Apostle no nor Apostolike man hauing left the Apostolike faith 2 Augustine saith Solus Christus habet authoritatem praeponendi nos in ecclesiae suae gubernatione de actu nostro iudicandi de baptis 2.2 Onely Christ hath authoritie saith hee to preferre vs to the gouernement of the Church and to iudge of our dooings the pastors then of the Church haue the keyes of the spirituall regiment from Christ himselfe not from the Pope or any other THE EIGHT QVESTION OF THE temporall iurisdiction and power of the Bishop of Rome THis question hath two partes first whether the Pope in respect of any spirituall error 51 iurisdiction haue also the chiefe soueraigntie in temporall and ciuill matters and so to be aboue Kings and Emperors secondly whether the Pope or any Bishop may be the chiefe Lord and prince ouer any Countrie Citie or Prouince THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE Pope directly or indirectly haue authoritie aboue Kinges and Princes The Papists THe Papists of former times were not ashamed to say that the Pope is the Lord of the whole Church as Panormitane in the Councell of Basile Fox page 670. Yea Pope Innocentius the third said writing to the Emperor of Constantinople that as the Moone receiued her light from the Sunne so the imperiall dignitie did spring from the Pope and that the papall dignitie was seuen and fortie times greater then the imperiall yea Kinges and Emperors are more inferior to the Pope then lead is to golde Gelasius distinct 96. But our later papists ashamed of their forefathers arrogancie in wordes seeme to abate somewhat of their proud sentence but in effect say the same thing For they confesse that the Emperor hath his office and calling of God and not from the Pope neither that the Pope directly hath any temporall iurisdiction but indirectly hee may depose Kinges and princes abrogate the lawes of Emperors and establish his owne he may take vnto himselfe the iudgement of temporall causes and cite Kings to appeare before him yet not directlie saith the Iesuite as hee is ordinarie Iudge ouer the Bishops and whole Clergie yet indirectlie as hee is the chiefe spirituall Prince hee may doe all this if hee see it necessarie for the health of mens soules And so in effect by their popish indirect meanes they giue him as great authoritie as euer hee vsurped or challenged Bellarmine lib. 5. cap. 6. 1 The Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power doe make but one bodie and societie as the spirite and the flesh in man Now the Ecclesiastical power which is as the soule and spirite is the chiefe part because it is referred to a more principall end namely the safetie and good of the soule the other is as the flesh to the spirite and respecteth but a temporall end as the outward peace and prosperitie of the common-wealth Ergo the spirituall power is chiefe and may commaund the other Bellarm. cap. 7. Ans. First it is a very vnfit and vnproper similitude to compare these two regiments to the soule and the bodie for by this meanes as the spirite giueth life to the bodie and euery parte thereof so the ciuill and temporall state should receiue their office and calling from the Ecclesiasticall which the Iesuite himselfe denieth and so directly the one should rule the other for the soule directly I trow not indirectly moueth the body and gouerneth it But if wee will speake as the Scripture doth we make all but one bodie and it is the spirit of Christ who is the head that giueth
The Beast in the Apocalypse to the which a mouth was giuen speaking blasphemies doth occupie Peters chayre Ioachim Abbas sayth Antichristus iam pridem natus est Romae Antichrist a good while since was borne at Rome The Bishops in the Councel at Reynspurge say thus Hildebrandus Papa sub specie religionis iecit fundamenta Antichristi Hildebrand vnder colour of holines hath layd a foundation for Antichrist Nay long before any of these Gregorie the 1. first of all the Gregories and the best of all the Popes that haue followed him thus prophecied of his successors Ego fidenter dico quòd quisquis se vniuersalem sacerdotem vocat vel vocari desiderat in elatione sua Antichristum praecurrit I speake it confidently that whosoeuer calleth himselfe vniuersall Priest or desireth so to bee called in the pride of his heart is the forerunner of Antichrist But the Popes of Rome are now called vniuersall Bishops or Priests Ergo they are either Antichrists or the forerunners of Antichrist But it is not like that Antichrist should haue so many forerunners and so many yeeres almost a thousand since Boniface the 3. was first called vniuersall Bishop Ergo Antichrist is alreadie come and hath been a good while and where els should he be but there where his forerunners were namely at Rome Now therefore seeing wee haue so many witnesses the scripture reason experience authorities to prooue the Pope Antichrist who will either bee so simple as seeing so good grounds not to beleeue it or so scrupulous hauing such certayne euidence to doubt thereof And thus at the length by Gods gracious assistance wee haue finished and brought this great question concerning Antichrist to an end as also the whole controuersie as touching the Bishop or Pope of Rome THE FIFT GENERAL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING SPIRITVAL PERSONS COMMONLY CALLED THE CLERGIE HAuing now sufficientlie handled the controuersie of the chiefe member of the militant Church which our aduersaries say is the Pope wee must come in the next place to speake of the middle parts which are those whom they call Clericos Clerkes and they are of two sorts Secular which haue any publique function in the Church or Regular which liue according to some rule and they are called Monachi Monkes First then of their secular Clerkes This controuersie conteyneth sixe questions 1 Of the name and title of Clerkes or Clergie men 2 Concerning the election of Bishops and Ministers first of all in generall secondly of the election of the Bishop of Rome 3 Concerning Ecclesiasticall orders First in generall secondly of the difference of Bishops and other Ministers Thirdly of Cardinals 4 Concerning the keyes of the Church and the power of binding and loosing the question deuided into foure parts 5 Concerning the marriage of Ministers three parts of the question 6 Of the maintenance of the Church by tythes in two parts THE FIRST QVESTION CONCERNING THE name of Clerkes or Clergie men The Papists error 66 THis name Clergie in Latine Clerus is a name made proper to the Spiritualtie by vse of antiquitie and agreeably to Scriptures they are so called because they are the Lords lot and consecrate to the diuine seruice the rest are called popular or lay men which meddle not with any function of the Church 1 This word say they hath been vsed by all antiquitie and thereby Church Ministers only signified Ergo it is a fit and decent name Bellar. lib. 1. de Clericis cap. 1. Rhemens 1. Pet. 2.3 Ans. First the Fathers vsed this name Clergie but not as it is now vsed of the Papists which doe hereby as it were exclude the people of God from the Lords inheritance counting them as Asses and Dogs in respect of the Clergie they vsed it as a ciuill indifferent name for an outward distinctiō of their callings not as a name of more holines and so we refuse it not 2 What though by custome continuance this name hath been somewhat abused we will learne herein to speake of the scriptures and not of men Secondly we mislike this name say our aduersaries because we would haue no difference betweene the people and Clergie Rhemist ibid. Ans. It is a great slander because we make no such difference as they doe as to make the Clergie onely Gods lot and portion and to count the people as vnholy and to preferre euery ignorant doltish Masse priest before the best and deuoutest of the people therefore they imagine we make no difference at all We doe distinguish the calling of the one and the other none of the lay sort to be so hardie as to meddle with the word or Sacraments which are committed to the Ministers which you notwithstanding permit them to doe and the people euery where to reuerence their Pastors and to yeeld due obedience vnto them But that the calling of the one before God in it selfe is more meritorious then the other that we doe not neither dare affirme 3 The Leuites in the time of the lawe were seuered out from the rest of the Lords people and he was their lot and inheritance and they the Lords lot Deut. 18.2 And as the Leuites were then so are the Ministers of the Gospell now Bellarm. Ans. First the Lord is rather sayd to be their lot because they had the Lords portion and liued of the Altar then they are sayd to be the Lords lot for the whole nation was holie vnto God and a kingdome of Priests Exod. 19.6 Secondly it followeth not that because there was a legall and ceremoniall difference then betweene the Priests and the people that therefore it ought to be so now Nay rather the contrarie followeth because there was such a difference then that therefore the Priesthood of the lawe being ceased there ought to bee none such now for Christ hath made vs all Kings and Priests to God his father Apocal. 1.6 And we are al a royall priesthood and holy nation 1. Pet. 2.9 Now though there be a difference of callings amongst men yet before God we are all Priests alike and there is but one Priest for vs all to Godward euen Christ Iesus our Lord. The Protestants THe name of Clerkes or Clergie men if it be not vsed as a name in it selfe of greater holines and merite and so is in effect a proude excluding of the rest of Christians from the Lords inheritance we refuse it not though there are better names and titles to call the Ministers of the Gospell by yet being taken as it is in Poperie we doe vtterly refuse and reiect it First 1. Pet. 5.3 The Apostle exhorteth the pastors and teachers to feede the flock of Christ non vt dominantes Cleris not as Lords ouer Gods Clergie inheritance Here S. Peter calleth the whole flocke the Clergie wherefore it appeareth that this difference was not knowne in the Apostles time of lay and Clergie men And it is agaynst all sense that Saint Peter should vnderstand here the inferiour Ministers and
vs sustine hath bene mine I haue endured the labour I would abstine might be theirs that they would abstaine from ill speaking Lastly if I haue taken vpon me more then is performed I haue done foolishly for that olde verse might haue warned me sufficiently Sumite materiam vestris qui scribitis aptam viribus But I trust by the gratious assistance of God I haue in some smal measure accomplished that I would and I say with Augustin Gratias ago Deo qui quantum voluit donando quod voluit fari promisit et vâ—i voluit tacendum linguae terminum posuit For it is God that gaue me strength to proceede so far as I haue done and hath set me my bouÌ„ds which I should not passe for no mâ—n may exceede the line and measure of his gifts 2. Corin. 10.14 Thus I end commending these my labours to the charitable and christian iudgement of the Church of God whom I desire to profit and to your Honors protection whom I wish in vertue and honor to tread your Fathers path and both of you to liue so long as it pleaseth God to his glory and the comfort of his Church and afterward to be euerlastingly rewarded in heauen through the onely merits of Christ Iesus to whom be praise for euer Your Honors to commaund in the Lord Christ Andrew Willet HERE ENSVE THE CONTROVERSIES OF THE FIVE OTHER POpish Sacraments Penance Matrimony Confirmation Orders Extreme Vnction THE FOVRTEENTH CONTROVERSIE of popish Penance VNto this controuersie belong these questions following First of the name Penance whether it be rightly giuen 2. Whether that which they call Penance but we much better Repentance be a Sacrament 3. Whether there be any other Sacrament of repentance beside Baptisme 4. Of the essentiall partes of penance as the matter and forme and of the 3. material parts Contrition Confession Satisfaction with an appendix whether repentance goe before faith 5. Of Contrition 1. The cause thereof 2. The quantity thereof 3. Whether it be ioyned with faith 4. Whether it be satisfactory 5. Whether contrition be necessary for venial sinnes 6. Of contrition which onely proceedeth of feare 6. Of Auricular confession 1. Whether it be necessary 2. whether it be a diuine ordinance 3. To whom it is to be made 4. Of the time 7. Of satisfaction with the seuerall branchâ—s of this question 8. First of penall iniunctions 1. Whether necessary 2. By whom to be imposed Secondly of indulgences 1. Whether there be any such 2. The grouÌ„d of them 3. In whose power they be 9. The circumstances of penance 1. Their habite 2. Their workes 3. Of the time of their penance THE FIRST QVESTION OF THE name of Penance The Papists THe Latine word Poenitentia which they translate Penance being deriued of error 1 poena doth signifie say they not onely confession and amendement of life but contrition and sorrow for the offence and painefull satisfaction Bellarm lib. 1. cap. 7. Argum. Math. 11.21 the word must needs signifie sorrowful paineful and satisfactory repentance Rhemist Math. 3.2 The Protestants Ans. THe place quoted out of S. Mathew proueth no such thing where our Sauiour saith that Tyre and Sâ—don would haue repented in sackecloth and ashes which is no satisfaction for sinne but an outward signe of true sorrow for sinne Argum. The Greeke word euery where vsed is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth as Laurentius Valla noteth emeÌ„dationem mentis the change or amendemeÌ„t of the minde and no such outward satisfactory penance as they pretende Wherefore it is more fitly englished Repentance And although the Latine word Poenitentia doe not properly expresse the Greeke word to the which resipiscere resipiscentia repentance and to repent do better answere yet agere poenitentiam in Latine is not to doe penance as the Rhemists translate it but is all one as to say repent yea and so the Rhemists themselues read be penitent Mark 1.15 and not doe penance And Act. 11.18 they translate poenitentiam repentance Augustine thus taketh this word poenitentia Rectè poenitens quicquid sordium contraxit oportet vt abluat saltem mentis lachrymis The true penitent man must at the least wash away his sinnes with the teares of the minde If then repentance be in the soule what is become of this outward satisfactorie penance THE SECOND QVESTION WHETHER THERE be any Sacrament of penance The Papists error 2 CHrist they say instituted the Sacrament of penance when he breathed vpon his Apostles after his resurrection and said vnto them Receiue ye the holy Ghost whose sinnes ye remit they are remitted whose sinnes ye retaine they are retained Ioh. 20.22 The faculty of the Priesthoode coÌ„sisting in remitting of sinnes is heere bestowed vpon the Apostles Rhemist annot Ioh. 20. sect 5. Herevpon they are bolde to conclude that penance is truely and properly a Sacrament Concil Trident. sess 14. canon 1. Bellarm. lib. 1. de poenitent cap. 10. Ans. 1. If the power of remission of sinnes were heere first instituted how could the Apostles baptize or minister the Lords supper before without power to remit sinnes to the penitent Christ therefore in this place doth but renewe and confirme the authority of their Apostleship which was granted to them before Math. 18.18 Secondly this power here giuen is principally exercised by preaching of the word of God and denouncing publikely or priuately the promises of God for remission of sinnes to the penitent or the threates and iudgement of God in binding the sinnes of the obstinate and impenitent So Luke 20.24 Christ commandeth his Apostles to preach repentance and remission of sinnes in his name Thirdly we confesse also a iudiciary power of the keies in binding and loosing which is exercised in ecclesiasticall discipline in punishng and absoluing according to the word of God as the incestuous person was bound when he was deliuered vp to Sathan 1. Cor. 5.5 he was loosed againe when he was restored to the Church 2. Cor. 2.7 But neither this nor the other was commended to the Church as a Sacrament The Protestants TRue repentance we doe acknowledge which is a dying to sinne and a walking in newnes of life Rom. 6.4 But a Sacrament of repentance we finde none in Scripture and therefore we deny it Argum. 1. In euery Sacrament there is an externall sensible element as water in Baptisme bread and wine in the Lords Supper but there is none in their penance Ergo no Sacrament Bellarm. answereth that the words of absolution and confession are the outward signes in penance it is not necessary it should be a visible signe it is a sensible signe being audible cap. 11. Ans. 1. There must be the word beside the element as Augustine saith Accedat verbum ad elementum Let the word be ioyned to the element and it maketh a Sacrament the word it selfe cannot be the element for the same thing cannot both sanctifie and be sanctified And if the audible word be the element by