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
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
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
the perfection and authority of the scriptures as also whether it be in the Pope to summone dissolue and confirme Councels which hath been sufficiently declared before in the controuersie concerning Councels Concerning other questions as the canonizing of Saints which they say appertaineth to the Pope the election and confirmation of Bishops pardons and indulgences we shall haue fitter occasion to deale in them in their seuerall places and controuersies At this time wee purpose onely to touch these two poynts aforesaide of the Popes Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE POPE may make lawes to binde the conscience and punish the transgressors thereof iudicially The Papists THat the Pope hath such authorie to make lawes for the whole Church error 49 which shall binde vnder paine of damnation as well as the lawes of God it is the general opinion of the papists Fox 981. articul 13. p. 1101. artic cont Lambert 29. But they put in this clause So they bee not vniust lawes nor contrarie to the diuine law Bellarm. cap. 15. And yet they say that the Pope may make lawes hauing not the authority nor warrant of scripture neither is it necessarie for these lawes to be expressed or diduced out of scripture And these lawes are not onely of externall rites and orders of the Church but euen of things necessary to saluation Bellarm. cap 15. in reprehens Caluini Yea he addeth further that in matters not necessary to saluation he can not be disobeyed without deadly sinne and offence of conscience cap. 16. loc 1. Bulla Leonis 10. aduersus Lutherum Fox p. 1283. col 1. 1. The Apostles prescribed a law concerning the abstaining from blood things strangled and offered to Idols concerning the which Christ gaue them no precept But this law did binde the people in conscience for euery where the Apostles gaue straight charge for the keeping of the decrees Bellarm. Answere First the Apostles commaunded no newe thing but the same which they themselues were taught of Christ that they should take heede of offence the Christians therefore were not bound in conscience any further to keepe the decrees concerning such things then for auoyding of scandal and offence Secondly for afterward the offence being taken away the law also ceased and Saint Paul giueth libertie notwithstanding this law to eate things offered to Idols if it might be done without offence Asking no question sayth he for conscience sake 1. Cor. 10.27 Ergo their consciences were not hereby obliged and bound 3. It is necessary to haue some lawes beside the diuine law for the gouernment of the Church for the word of God is too vniuersal neither is sufficient to direct euery particular action therefore other ecclesiasticall lawes must bee added but euery good and necessary law hath a coactiue and constraining power and bindeth the conscience to obedience Ergo the constitutions of the Popes and Councels which are the only ecclesiastical lawes doe binde the conscience Bellarmin cap. 16. lib. 4. Answere First the word of God contayneth all necessarie rules to saluation wherefore all lawes of the Church concerning matters of faith are but explanations and interpretations of the rules of fayth set forth in scripture if they be godly lawes and so are not the lawes of men but of God and doe bind the conscience to the obseruation thereof as the lawes of the Church which command Christians to resort to the congregation to heare Gods word and reuerently to receiue the sacraments are the very ordinances and commaundements of Christ who enioyned his Apostles to preach and baptize and his faythfull people to heare and to be baptized and therefore in conscience wee are bound to the obedience hereof Secondly there are other ecclesiasticall lawes appoynted for the publique order of the Church concerning externall rites and circumstances of persons and place as the houres of prayer the forme of the leâ—turgie publike seruice the times fittest for the celebration of the sacraments and such like These and such like constitutions do not binde in conscience absolutely in respect of the things themselues which are indifferent but in regarde of that contempt and offence which might followe in the not keeping of them contempt to our superiors whome wee ought in all lawfull things to obey offence in grieuing the conscience of our weake brethren So that euen these constitutions also which are made according to the rules of the Gospell that is vnto edification to the glorie of God and for auoyding of offence doe necessarilie binde vs in conscience not conscience of the thinges themselues which are but externall but conscience of obedience to our Christian Magistrates and conscience in taking heede of all iust offence sic Caluin Institut lib. 4. cap. 10.11 3 But we are not God be thanked driuen to any such straight that if there be neede of any such Ecclesiasticall lawes we should run for succor to the Popes beggerly decretals And yet such Canons as were in force amongst them agreeable to the rules of the Gospell we doe not refuse But if there bee want and penurie of good lawes euery Church hath as full authoritie to make decrees and ordinances for the peace and order and quiet gouernement thereof not as the Pope of Rome hath ouer the vniuersall Church for that by right is none or if it be it is but an vsurped power but as the Bishop of Rome hath in his owne Bishopricke and dioces The Protestants WHat our sentence is of this matter it doth partlie appeare by that which wee haue alreadie saide that the Pope hath no power ouer the whole Church and therefore can make no lawes to binde the conscience or otherwise for the same for it belongeth not to his charge Secondly we say that neither he nor any ecclesiasticall gouernement beside can make lawes of things necessarie to saluation other then those which are in Scripture conteined Thirdly all Ecclesiasticall lawes made concerning externall rites and publike order doe not otherwise binde the conscience then in regarde of our obedience due to Christian Magistrates in lawfull things and for auoyding of scandall and offence But in respect of the things commaunded such lawes doe not binde Caluin loc praedicto 1 Saint Iames saith there is one lawe-giuer which is able to saue and to destroy cap. 4.12 He therefore onely maketh lawes to binde the conscience that is able to saue and to destroy but that cannot the Pope doe Ergo Caluin argum Bellarmine answereth that the lawes of men doe binde vnder paine of damnation in as much as God is offended and displeased with their disobedience and so iudgeth them worthie of punishment cap. 20. All this wee graunt that the lawes of men being good lawes doe binde in conscience in respect of the contempt and disobedience to higher powers but not in respect of the thinges commaunded which in their nature are indiffereÌ„t The Iesuite should haue said that God is offended not onely for their disobedience but simplie
Augustine taketh it But here first I oppose our Rhemists iudgement against Bellarmine for they denie that this place serueth to describe Antichrist belonging onely to the Apostles times Bellarmine saith it doth most properly decipher Antichrist 2. The great Antichrist shall denie Christ no otherwise then other Antichrists and heretikes did in the Apostles time for they are all Antichrists 1. Iohn 2.18 and he giueth one rule to know them all by vers 22. But the Antichrists then denyed not Christ apertly but couertly Ergo so shall the great Antichrist The first is true that the olde heretikes did not plainly denie Christ to bee come in the flesh but some denied his humanitie some his diuinitie some his person Augustine sayth Arriani hoc negant licet verbis fateātur the Arrians deny that Christ is come in the flesh though they confesse it in word for he that doth not confesse that Christ is equall vnto God denieth Christ in the flesh and so of other heretikes The second also is as true that Antichrist who is no other but the Pope shall also cunningly and couertly denie Christ for he that denieth the offices of Christ denieth Christ As Augustine sayth of Peters deniall Quicquid eius negauit ipsum negauit Tract in Iohann 66. whatsoeuer hee denyed of or belonging to Christ he denied Christ. So the Pope denieth Christ to bee our Prophet King and Priest His propheticall office he defaceth and in effect denieth in disgracing the scriptures saying they are imperfect and conteine not all matters necessary to saluation that their authoritie bindeth vs not without his allowance His Kingly office in making himselfe Christs Vicar and Vicegerent vpon earth in making new lawes sacraments ordinances beside Christs as necessarie to saluation as the rules of the Gospell His priesthoode in setting vp a new propitiatorie sacrifice in the abominable Masse beside the onely sacrifice of attonement vpon the Crosse in making other mediators and intercessors beside Christ and such like whereof wee shall haue occasion to entreat afterward more at large Ergo the Pope in denying the offices of Christ denieth Christ and so is Antichrist 2. Hee shall make himselfe Christ and Messiah which the Iesuite would prooue out of Iohn 5. ver 43. If another come in his name him will yee receiue But the Pope commeth not in his owne name but in the name of Christ hee calleth himselfe Christs Vicar Ergo hee can not bee Antichrist Bellarm. Answere First It is not necessarie that Antichrist should openly professe himselfe to be Christ in name but he shall doe it opere indeede and that closely and couertly for those whom Christ calleth pseudochristos false Christs Matth. 24.23 Iohn calleth Antichristos Antichrists 1. Iohn 2.18 False prophets therefore are false Christs Antichrists yet all those false prophets and heretikes did not in name and outward profession make themselues Christs 2. The Pope of Rome in effect maketh himselfe Christ for who but Christ is the head of the Church who but Christ is superiour to the Angels and to commaund them who but Christ can make sacraments and articles of fayth But all this the Pope taketh vpon himselfe to doe yea the Iesuite is not ashamed to say that he hath the same office which Christ had being vpon earth lib. 5. de pontif cap. 4. And whereas they say the Pope commeth in the name of Christ it shall as much profite him it being not in trueth but in colour onely and shew as it shall profite the false prophets to say in the day of the Lorde Haue not wee in thy name prophecied and cast out diuels Matth. 7.22.23 to whome Christ shall make answere Verily I know you not 3. Antichrist shall openly name himselfe God and commaund men to worship him as God 2. Thessal 2.4 But this doth not the Pope Ergo hee is not Antichrist Bellarm. Answere First If Antichrist should be such an one you might haue found amongst the Emperors of Rome diuers Antichrists for such an one Caligula was that commaunded temples to be erected in his name and his images to be set vp to be worshipped yea in the temple at Ierusalem 2. Saint Pauls wordes will not beare any such sence he shall sitte 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as God and your vulgar Latine hath ostendens se tanquam sit Deus shewing himselfe as though he were God that is in deede and effect not in open profession for hee should sit and be worshipped in the temple as God howe then can it bee called the temple of God being thus a temple of most grosse Idolatrie 3. The Pope in effect maketh himselfe a god vpon earth for he can dispence against the law of nature the law of GOD agaynst both new and olde testament as we haue shewed before quest 9. of this Controuersie yea Bellarmine sayth he may by his Apostolike authoritie dispence with the precepts of the Apostles cap. 14. He is able to change the nature of things and of nothing to make thinges to bee of wrong to make iustice c. Pope Nicholaus distinct 96. yea it is sayd of the Pope that hee is neither GOD nor man but a middle thing betweene both Pope Boniface I pray you then what is he he is no Angel for he is aboue them and commaundeth them Papa Angelis praecipit the Pope commaundeth Angels He must then either be a God or a diuell by your owne confession choose which you will Nay they doe make him a playne God Es alter Deus in terris an other God vpon earth and they salute him by these names Dominus deus noster Papa our Lord god the Pope Thus it is proued that the Pope both by his deedes as also by his titles doth make himselfe god vpon earth 4. Antichrist say they shall take away all worship yea of Idols and shall commaund nothing to be worshipped but himselfe 2. Thessal 2.4 the worde is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 numina all things that are worshipped But so doth not the Pope for he prayeth to Saints adoreth the bodie of Christ on the altar Ergo. Bellarm. cap. 14. Rhemist 2. Thess. 2. sect 10. Answere First the text prooueth not that hee shall take away all Idols or thinges worshipped but shall exalt himselfe agaynst them and make smal account of them The place also of Daniel is playne 11.37 Hee shall not regarde the God of his fathers nor care for any God but shall magnifie himselfe aboue all And in his place shall he honour the God Mauzzim and the God which his fathers knew not shall hee honour with golde and siluer Out of this place we gather two thinges first that Antichrist shall bring in a strange God which his fathers neuer knew so hath the Pope inuented a breaden God which he honoureth with golde and precious stones making more account of it then of any image or relique whatsoeuer Secondly yet he shal magnifie himself aboue all such Gods Images Roodes
so well knowne in stories that I neede not come to particulars 6 Antichrist is called a wicked man and a man of sinne vers 3.8 And where shall you finde more wicked men then among the Popes Siluester the 2. gaue his soule to the diuell to obtayne the Papacie Fox pag. 167. Benno reporteth of Hildebrand that he poysoned sixe Popes to come to the Popedome Pope Stephen and Sergius tooke vp the bodie of Formosus and mangled it cutting off his head and fingers and so cast it into Tibris Fox pag. 120. We haue heard before what a holy Father Pope Iohn the 13. was he lay with his owne sister and with his fathers Concubines playing at dice called for the diuell was slayne in adulterie And was it not I pray you a common prouerbe in England He that goeth to Rome once seeth a wicked man he that goeth twise learneth to know him he that goeth the third time bringeth him home with him Fox pag. 841. argument Illyrici The third place we doe take out of the Apocalyps chap. 9. where is a playne storie set downe of the Pope 1 vers 1. He is a starre fallen from heauen he is departed from the ancient faith of Rome to superstition and idolatrie 2 He hath the key of the bottomlesse pit who giueth the crosse keyes in his armes but the Pope who sayth hee may euacuate all Purgatorie at once if hee will but he Who sayth he may Pleno iure currus animarum plenos secum ad tartara detrudere by full right carrie downe to hell with him charriots Ioden with soules cap. si Papa distinct 42. Is not this the Pope who then more fitly may be sayd to haue the key of the bottomlesse pit 3 There arise out of the bottomlesse pit a great flocke of Locusts that is the innumerable sort of begging Friers for they are in euery respect described First compared to Locusts for their number vers 3. There were an 100. diuers sorts of Friers Fox pag. 260. Secondly they had power giuen them for fiue moneths that is as Walter Brute expoundeth it taking a moneth for thirtie dayes a day for a yeere as it is prophetically taken an 150. yeeres for so long it was from the beginning of the Friers vnder Innocent the 3. anno 1212. to the time of Armachanus who preached disputed and wrote agaynst the Friers about anno 1360. Fox pag. 414. Thirdly they shall sting like Scorpions not slay all at once but venome and poyson the conscience with the sting of their pestilent doctrine Fourthly other parts also of the description agree as vers 7. They are as horses prepared to battaile that is stoute ambitious their haire as the haire of women that is they shall be effeminate and giuen to the lusts of the flesh their teeth as the teeth of Lions they by valiant begging shall deuoure the portions of the poore as it was well proued in King Henry the 8. dayes in the Supplication of beggars that the summe of the Friers almes came to a great summe in the yeere for the fiue orders of Friers had a penie a quarter for euery one of euery housholder throughout England that is for them all twentie pence by the yeere suppose that there be but ten housholds in euery towne and let there be twentie thousand parishes and townes in England it will not want much of twentie thousand pound Thus had they Lions teeth that is consuming and deuouring Lastly they haue a King vers 11. whose name is Abaddon a destroyer for the Pope their chiefe prince and patron hath by his Antichristian doctrine layd wast the Church of God Argument Chytraei The fourth place of scripture wee will take out of the 17. of the Apocalyps there the seate of Antichrist is described First vers 5. It is called Babylon the citie which raigneth ouer the Kings of the earth vers 18. This can be no other but Rome which then had the Empire of the whole world Secondly It is the citie built vpon seuen hils or mountaynes vers 9. that is no other but Rome Thirdly the whore which is Antichrist shall sit vpon the beast with seuen heads and ten hornes that is shall succeede in the Empire and haue the authoritie thereof so hath the Pope Fourthly the ten hornes that is the Kings of the earth shal giue their authoritie to the beast but afterward shall deuoure her flesh Euen so the Kings of the earth by their sword maintayned the authoritie of the Pope But now being taught by the Gospell they are made the Lords free men and begin to subdue their neckes from his yoke The fift place is 1. Iohn 2.22 Who is a lyar but he that denyeth that Iesus is Christ the same is Antichrist that denyeth the father and the sonne Euen so the Pope of Rome though not openly and apertly yet closely and subtilly is an enemie vnto the whole trinitie He exalteth himselfe aboue God the father because he taketh vpon him to dispense not onely agaynst the lawe of nature but agaynst the lawe of God the morall law and agaynst the precepts both of the old and new testament but a lawe cannot be dispensed withall but by the same authoritie or greater Agaynst Iesus Christ he exalteth himselfe and all his offices he denyeth him to be the onely Prophet saying the scriptures are vnperfect and that their traditions are also necessarie to saluation Agayne he maketh other bookes scripture then those which are Canonicall His kingly office he doth arrogate to himselfe in making lawes to binde the conscience in ordayning other Sacraments in granting Indulgences and Pardons saying that he is the head of the Church His Priesthood he is an enemie vnto constituting another priesthood after the order of Melchisedech then that of our Sauiour Christ which begun vpon the Crosse and remayneth still in his person being incommunicable to any other creature yet they make euery sacrificing Priest to bee of the order of Melchisedech He impugneth the office of the holy spirit counting that prophane which the holy Ghost hath sanctified as marriage and meates arrogateth in all things the spirit of truth not to erre applieth the merites of Christs passion after his owne pleasure by Pardons Indulgences by ceremonies and Sacraments of his owne inuention Fulk 2. Thess. 2. sect 10. Ergo we conclude out of S. Iohn that seeing he denieth Iesus to be Christ he is Antichrist Sixtly S. Paul sayth that Antichrist shal be an aduersarie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Thess. 2.4 An aduersarie in doctrine teaching cleane contrarie to the Gospell of Christ so doth the Pope 1 The scripture sayth wee ought to put our trust onely in God and not in man Ierem. 17.7 and to call vpon God onely in the day of trouble Psal. 50.15 and to worship him in spirit and truth Iohn 4.24 The Papists say cleane contrarie that we must call vpon Saints and beleeue they can helpe vs and they teach vs to fall downe before
shepheard Bellarm And the Apostle willeth all men to obey their Bishops and ouerseers Heb. 13.17 and to submit themselues vnto them from which rule neither Kings nor Emperours are exēpted Prelates must be obeyed Ergo not obey Rhemist ibid. Ans. First the obedience here required we acknowledge that it ought to be yeelded by Kings Emperours to those that haue the ouersight of their soules for the Prince is bound to receiue and beleeue all true doctrine which is taught by the Pastors and Bishops of the Church agreeable to the word of God vnder paine of damnation and the Pastors are bound vnder the like paine to obey the Princes lawes made according to the word of God Secondly wherefore the spirituall obedience of the ciuill Magistrate to the word of God taught by the Pastors of the Church is no exemption of them from their ciuill obedience for euery soule is subiect to the higher powers Rom. 13.1 Fulk annot 13. Heb. sect 9 The Protestants THat Ecclesiasticall persons are subiect to temporall gouernours and are to be iudged by their lawes the scriptures speake plainly 1 Rom. 13.1 Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers Ergo Bishops yea the Pope himselfe if he haue a soule The like sayth S. Peter 1.2.13 Submit your selues to all manner ordinance Salomon remoued Abiathar from the Priesthood and put in Sadock Paul appealed and submitted himselfe to Caesar. Againe if Priests offend and commit any grieuous sinne as of murther theft who shall punish them The ciuill Magistrate onely beareth the sword They must either grant that priests are no euill doers which were to too grosse or if they be that they are vnder the ciuill Magistrates power for he is the Minister of God to take vengeance vpon euery euill doer Rom. 13.4 In Augustines time the controuersies betweene the Catholike and Donatist Bishops were committed to the iudgement of the Emperour Ait quidam saith he Non debuit Episcopus proconsulari iudicio purgari Quasi verò ipse sibi hoc comparauerit ac non Imperator ita quaeri iusserat ad cuius curam de qua rationem deo red liturus est res illa maximè pertinebat But saith one a Bishop ought not to haue been purged before the Proconsul or ciuill Magistrate As though sayth Augustine the Proconsul did of himselfe intermeddle in this matter and was not commanded rather of the Emperour so to doe vnto whose charge that matter principally appertained and whereof he shall make account vnto God Ergo by his sentence the cause of the Bishop principally was to be iudged by the Emperour THE SECOND PART WHETHER THE PRINCE haue power ouer Ecclesiasticall goods The Papists THe goods of the Clergie both secular and Ecclesiasticall are and ought to error 99 be exempted from paying tribute to Princes yet they haue not this libertie say they by the Lawe of God but by the grant of Princes themselues Rhemist annot Rom. 13. sect 5. Bellarm. de Clericis cap. 28. Genes 47.22 27. The lands of the Priests were exempted from paying tribute Ergo it seemeth that this custome is grounded vpon the law of nature Bellarm. Ans. First the Hebrew word signifieth rather Presidents such as were the Kings officers not Priests as Tremellius sheweth who were maintained by the Kings prouision being officers of his houshold for Genes 41.45 Ioseph is sayd to marrie the daughter of Potyphar prince not priest of On. The same word Cohen is there vsed for it is not like that Ioseph would match himselfe with an idolatrous priests daughter Secondly but be it granted this was but a politike constitution for that coūtrey other Princes are not bound to Pharao his law Thirdly they gaine nothing by this but that it is an humane constitution The Protestants THat Princes haue authoritie to punish Ecclesiasticall persons offending in their goods either by displacing them or by conuerting the Church possessions by them abused to better vses we haue shewed before Contr. 5. quest 6. part 1. And that their goods ought to pay tribute subsidie taxe vnto the prince thus now it is proued 1 Our Sauiour Christ paied poll money Math. 17.25 Rom. 13. Euery soule ought to be subiect to the higher powers and there vers 5. paying of tribute is made a part of subiection the argument therefore thus followeth Clergie men are subiect to Princes therefore they ought to pay tribute 2 Ex concessis we reason thus from their owne confession That which Princes gaue to the Church vpon good cause they may take away but this immunitie not to pay tribute was first granted as they confesse to the Church by Kings and Princes Ergo they haue the same right hauing iust occasion to take it from them againe What Augustines iudgement is we haue seene in the place before alleadged THE THIRD PART CONCERNING THE PRINCES authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall The Papists error 100 THe Prince they say hath no authoritie to giue voyce deliberatiue or definitiue in Councels concerning matters of religion nor to make lawes Ecclesiasticall concerning the same Onely they giue them authoritie to execute the Ecclesiasticall lawes made by the Church Rhemist 1. Corinth 14.16 Bellarm. de pontif lib. 1. cap. 7. 1 Kings and Princes may in their owne persons execute if they will whatsoeuer their inferiour officers do as to heare and determine causes as the Iudges and other Magistrates doe but the Prince cannot execute any Ecclesiasticall function as to preach baptize Ergo he hath no authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall for how can the Prince impart that to others whereof he is himselfe incapable as to giue Bishops and Pastors power to ordaine to preach and such like Bellarm. Rhemist ibid. Ans. First the authoritie of ciuill Magistrates doth not giue any thing to Ecclesiasticall Ministers which appertaineth to their office as to ordaine preach baptize neither is the Prince to deale in these offices yet may the ciuill Magistrates command them to execute their charge and dueties according to the word of God Wherefore it followeth not Princes cannot execute the pastoral dueties themselues Ergo they ought not to see them executed Dauid Salomon Iehosophat Ezechia commanded the Priests to execute their office according to the law of God though it was not lawfull for them neither did they execute any thing proper to the Priests office in their owne persons neither doth any Christian Prince challenge any such right in Ecclesiasticall functions wherefore it is an impudent slander of Bellarmine which he giueth forth of our Queene Iam re ipsa Caluinistis in Anglia mulier quaedam summus pontifex And now sayth he in England the Caluinists haue a certaine woman for their chiefe Bishop De notis eccles lib. 4. cap. 9. 2 It doth not followe that the Prince might as well execute Ecclesiasticall offices as he may ciuill in his owne person if he haue authoritie ouer both No more then it followeth that because Ecclesiasticall persons doe teach both ciuill Magistrates
and Church officers their dueties and may in their owne persons execute the one that is spirituall duties that they may as well intermeddle in the other But these two offices of Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall gouernment are distinguished and must not be confounded The Prince though he haue authoritie to command Ecclesiasticall persons yet being a ciuill Magistrate is not to deale with the execution of spirituall dueties Bishops pastors likewise haue a spiritual charge ouer kings princes to shew thē their duties out of Gods word yet because they are persons Ecclesiastical they ought not to meddle with meer Ciuill dueties The Prince hath the soueraigntie of externall gouernement in all causes ouer all persons yet not alike for Ciuill offices he may both command and execute Ecclesiasticall duties he commandeth onely Bishops and pastors haue also a spirituall charge ouer all prescribing out of Gods word as well the duetie of Magistrates as of Ministers but not alike for the one they may fully execute so may they not the other The head in the naturall bodie resembleth the Prince in the commonwealth in some sense the head giueth mouing to the whole bodie and all the parts thereof but to the principall parts in the head the eyes tongue eares it giueth beside the facultie of mouing the sense also of seeing tasting hearing So in the common-wealth by the Princes authoritie all persons are kept in order and vrged to looke to their charge both ciuill officers and spirituall as al the parts of the bodie receiue mouing from the head But the ciuill officers receiue power and authoritie beside and their very offices of the King as the parts in the head receiue sense from their fountaine but Ecclesiasticall Ministers receiue not their offices from the Prince or any mortall man but they haue their calling according to the order of the Church of God Argum. 2. For the space of 300. yeeres the Church after Christ had no Christian gouernours but all Heathen and Idoll worshippers yet then the Church was established and preuailed Ergo Ciuill Magistrates ought not to deale in Ecclesiasticall affayres Bellarmine Ans. 1. Euen then also the Heathen Emperours had authoritie in Church matters and if they had commanded any thing agreeable to true religion they should haue been obeyed as Cyrus in the law which he made for building the temple Ezra 1. Darius the Median for worshipping the true God Dan. 6. Fulk Rom. 13. sect 3. The heathen Emperours then had the same power but they knewe not how to vse it Christian Princes doe succeede them in the same office but are better taught by the word of God how to exercise the sword Secondly we denie not but that in the time of persecution all things necessarie for the spirituall building thereof may be had without the Magistrate as a Vineyard may bring forth fruite without an hedge but it cannot enioy peace nor be in a perfect estate in respect of the externall gouernement but vnder good Magistrates as the Vineyard may soone be spoyled the wild bore and the beasts of the field may breake in vpon it hauing no hedge The child being in the womb though it haue as yet small vse of the head but is fed by the nauell which is in steed of the mouth hath in it selfe the lineaments and proportion of a humane bodie yet it wanteth the perfect beautie till it be borne and come forth and the head receiue his office So may the Church haue a being in persecution and the want of the ciuill head may be otherwise supplied but it is not beautifull till the head be set vp and the sword put into the Christian Magistrates hand Argum. 3. Princes haue no cure nor charge of soules Ergo they are not to meddle with Ecclesiasticall lawes Rhemist annot 1. Corinth 14. sect 16. Ans. Parents haue charge ouer the soules of their childrē for they are charged to bring them vp in the instruction and information of the Lord Ephes. 6.4 Therefore Princes also haue directly charge of the soules of their subiects according to their place and calling by prouiding and making good Ecclesiasticall lawes and compelling them to the true seruice of God As the Ecclesiasticall Ministers in another kind and more properly are said to haue the cure of soules in feeding and instructing the people Fulk ibid. The Protestants THe ciuill Magistrate by the word of God hath power to make and constitute Ecclesiasticall lawes and to establish true religion and see that all persons vnder their gouernment doe faithfully execute their charge To say therefore that the Church officers are to deuise lawes concerning religion and the Prince onely to execute them is to make the Prince their seruant and doth derogate too much from the princely authoritie Neither doe we giue vnto the Prince absolute power to make Ecclesiasticall lawes for first the Prince is not to prescribe what lawes he listeth to the Church but such as onely may require the true worship of God Secondly that it is expedient and meete according to the commendable custome of this land that the godly learned of the Clergie should be consulted withall in establishing of Ecclesiastical ordinances vnlesse it be in such a corrupt time when the Church gouernours are enemies to religion for then the Prince not staying vpon their iudgement ought to reforme religion according to the word of God as we see it was lawfully and godly practised by King Henrie the 8. Thirdly we doe make exception of all such Ecclesiasticall canons and ordinances the making whereof doth properly belong to the office of Bishops and gouernours of the Church for our meaning is not that it is not lawful for Ecclesiastical Ministers to make Ecclesiastical decrees which do properly concerne their office as concerning the censures of the Church excommunication suspension absoluing binding loosing and such like which things are incident to their pastorall office and yet we grant that the Prince hath euen in these cases an ouerruling hand to see that none abuse their pastoral office But that any lawes ought to be made without the authoritie of the prince which the prince is bound to execute we vtterly denie And so we conclude that the ciuill Magistrate hath power ouer all persons and in all causes both temporall and ecclesiasticall in such manner as we haue sayd 1 S. Paul willeth that praiers should be made for Kings and Princes that vnder them we may leade a peaceable life in all godlines and honestie 1. Tim. 2.2 Ergo it is their duetie as well to procure religion by their authoritie as ciuill honestie Againe He beareth not the sword for nought Rom. 13.4 He hath power to punish al euill doers therfore also to correct euill ministers to make Ecclesiastical lawes for otherwise he should haue no ful power to correct the transgressors thereof 2 We reade that Iosua Dauid Salomon Iosia did deale in ecclesiasticall matters which concerned religion and the worship of God
Bellarm. They did it by an extraordinarie authoritie not as Kings but as Prophets Nay it was an ordinarie power for all the good kings of Iuda beside as Iehosaphat Hezekiah and others did take care of religion this was so properly annexed to the kingly office that idolatrous kings also tooke vpon them to command false religion as Ieroboam set vp two golden calues and Ahaz king of Iudah cōmanded Vriah the high Priest to make an Altar according to the patterne which he sent from Damascus 2. King 16.11 This power also was afterward exercised by Christian Kings and Emperours as Constantinus Theodosius Martianus made lawes for the Church Fulk annot 1. Cor. 14. sect 16. Iustinianus the Emperour decreed many things concerning Church affayres as how excommunication should be vsed how Bishops and Priests should be ordained concerning the order and manner of funerals that the holy mysteries should not be done in priuate houses Carolus magnus decreed that onely the Canonical bookes of scripture should be read in the Church he chargeth all Bishops and priests to preach the word Lodouicus Pius his sonne and Emperour after him ordained that no entrie should bee made into the Church by Simonie that Bishops should bee chosen by the free election of the Clergie and the people All these Emperours did lawfully exercise their princely authoritie in Ecclesiastical matters Ergo other princes may doe the same still 3 Augustine saith Epistol 50. Quis mente sobrius c Who in his right wits would say to the King It pertaineth not to you who in your kingdome is religious or sacrilegious to whom it cannot be said let it not pertaine vnto you who in your kingdome will be chast or vnchast And in another place Ad fratres in erem serm 14. Tunc iustitia dicitur gladius ex vtraque parte acutus quia hominis defendit corpus ab exterioribus iniurijs animam à spiritualibus molestijs Then iustice is rightly called a sword with a double edge because it doth both defend the bodie from externall and corporall wrongs and the soule from spirituall vexation That is the sword of the Magistrate serueth as well to prune the Church and to cut off all errors and heresies in religion as to destroy the vices and corruptions in manners AN APPENDIX OR FOVRTH PART OF THE QVEstion whether the Prince in any good sense may be called the head of his kingdome and consequently of the Church in his kingdome The Papists THey do appropriate this title to be called heads of the vniuersall Church to error 101 the Pope of Rome most blasphemouslie for there can be no head of the vniuersal bodie but Christ But for Princes to be called the head that is chiefe gouernours of the Churches in their kingdomes they do abhorre it Whereupon Bellarmine is so saucie as to checke and controule King Henrie the 8. because he was called the head of the English Church 1 The heathen Emperours were not heads of the Church being not so much as members thereof therefore neither Christian Magistrates which doe succeede them in that authoritie Rhemist annot 1. Pet. 2. sect 6. Ans. 1. The argument followeth not they were no true mēbers of the Church therefore could not be heads that is haue the soueraigntie of the externall gouernment for wicked kings and princes doe keepe their magistracie gouernment still who though they be not true members of the Catholike Church yet ought to be obeied as princes 2. Though the metaphorical name of head agreed not vnto them yet were they by Gods ordinance appointed to be heads gouernours of his people protectors of his Church should haue been if they had not abused their authoritie 3. Christian princes though they haue the same authoritie which they had yet now exercising the sword according to Gods law and being Nurses of the Church may vse and retaine those princely titles in deed to be called Patrones and defenders of the faith head that is chiefe gouernours and protectors of the Church which by right had been due vnto the other if they had vsed their authoritie as they should 2 Christian princes are members of the Church Ergo not heads for if they were heads how could the Church stand without them as it did in the time of persecution Ans. First as though the head is not a member and part of the bodie though a principall one so the Prince is a member of the Church but a principall and chiefe member not of the inuisible Church for so Christ is onely head but of a particular visible Church Secondly we denie not but that the inuisible and spiritual Church may consist without the Magistrate but a visible flourishing and wel-gouerned Church cannot want a head or chiefe gouernour that is as a wall or hedge vnto it The Protestants TO bee head of the vniuersall Church is proper onely to Christ and in that sense is not communicable to any creature for he is to his Church as the head to the naturall bodie giuing vnto it influence of grace spirit and life he is therefore the onely mysticall head of the vniuersal Church But in another sense the Prince may be said to be the head and chiefe gouernour of his kingdome of that particular visible Church where he is king We make him neither the mysticall head which is only Christ farre be that blasphemie from vs nor a ministerial head as they make the Pope to be as Christs Vicegerent in the Church but a politicall head to keepe and preserue the peace of the Church and to see that euery member doe his office and duetie But this name we confesse is vnproperly giuen to the Prince neither were we the first inuentors of it for the papists first gaue it to Henry the 8. And there are other titles which doe sufficiently expresse the office of the Prince and may bee more safely vsed If any man thinke it too high a name for any mortall man and so not to be giuen to any we will not greatly contend about it But if any denye it to the Prince as thereby to abridge her of her power in Ecclesiastical matters we doe stand stiffely for it and are bold to affirme that with much better right is this title attributed to the ciuill Magistrate then it was to the Pope yea and that it hath been of old giuen in a modest and sober sense to Kings and Princes and may with a fauourable exposition be still and Princes also may receiue this honour and title at their subiects hands with protestation of their Christian meaning herein 1 This phrase for the King to be called the head is not vnusuall in scripture 1. Sam. 15.17 Saul is sayd to be the head of the tribes Psal. 18.43 Dauid the head of the nations Isay. 9.15 The Prince or honourable man the head of the people yea Princes are called Gods Psal. 82.2 which is a name of greater Soueraigntie then to be called heads
Basile to be no necessarie poynt to saluation if wee did hold her to haue beene a virgin afore and many such other poyntes there are in scriptures which a man may be ignorant of without perill of saluation Ergo much more may we be ignorant of vnwritten verities or rather Popish fables 2. The Church hath no more authoritie then the Apostles nor yet in all things so much But they had no power to make articles of faith for Saint Paul deliuereth that which he had receiued concerning the sacrament he durst not adde vnto it as the Papists haue been bolde to doe since 1. Cor. 11. Ergo the Church may explane and open articles of fayth out of the scriptures but not make new 3. We prooue it by the confession of our aduersaries The fathers of Basile that concluded it was an article of the Christian fayth to beleeue the superioritie of the councel did gather it out of the saying of Christ dic ecclesiae and therfore enforced it as an article Whereby wee gather that they helde that the Church could establish no article of fayth without scripture Bellarmine likewise sayth that the Church is not now gouerned by newe reuelations but wee ought to be contented with those decrees which wee haue receiued from the Apostles Ergo as D. Whitakers doth strongly conclude the Church cannot coyne new articles of faith 4. Lastly we haue before prooued at large out of the worde of God that the scriptures containe all things necessary to saluation and therefore all articles of fayth must be deriued from thence 1. controu quaest 7. And so we conclude with Augustine Linguae sonos quibus inter se homines sua seusa communicēt pacto quodā societatis sibi instituere possunt Quib. autē sacris diuinitati congruerent voluntatem dei sequuti sunt qui rectè sapuerunt Quae omnino nunquam defuit ad salutem iustitiae pietatique hominum Men sayth he may deuise among themselues what language they will vse to expresse their minde But howe to serue God wise men euer followed the will and commaundement of GOD which neuer hath failed men in all necessary matters concerning righteousnes and godlines By this fathers sentence the scriptures which containe the will of God containe all necessary things Ergo we neede not seeke elswhere AN APPENDIX OR MEMBER OF THIS part of the question whether we are to beleeue in the Church The Papists WE ought to beleeue and trust the Church in all things yea to beleeue in the Church Rhemist 1. Tim. 3. sect 9. the scripture also vseth this speech error 25 to beleeue in men annot in 10. Rom. sect 41. 1. Exod. 14.31 they beleeued in God and Moses Ergo. We answere your owne vulgar text hath it crediderunt deo Mosi seruo eius they beleeued God and his seruant Moses that is hauing seene the great power of God in the destruction of the Aegyptians in the red sea according to the word of Moses they gaue credite vnto Moses which spake vnto them from God 2. Philem. v. 5. Hearing of thy loue and fayth which thou hast toward the Lord Iesus and vnto all the saints See say they here is faith toward the saints Wee answere there is no man that is not peruersly disposed but may easily distinguish the Apostles wordes to attribute fayth to Iesus Christ and loue to the saynts Which may appeare by the altering of the preposition as they themselues read in their owne translation loue and fayth in Iesus Christ and toward the sayntes so it must needes bee thus vnderstoode fayth in Christ and loue toward the sayntes this therefore is but a sophisticall cauill The Protestants THis word Credo beleeue is taken three wayes for there is credere deo to beleeue God that is to trust him in all things credere deum to beleeue God to be credere in deum to beleeue in God as our creator Lord and redeemer So we doe credere ecclesiam we beleeue there is one holy Catholicke Church credere ecclesiae we doe also beleeue and giue credence to the Church following the word of God But we do not in any wise credere in ecclesiam beleeue in the Church 1. We must not beleeue or put any confidence in a creature the Church is but a creature Ergo for to beleeue in God is onely proper to the Godhead and therefore Iohn 14.1 where Christ sayth ye beleeue in God beleeue also in me we doe necessarylie out of these words inferre that Christ is God because we are commaunded to beleeue in him 2. Fayth is of things that are absent and not seene but the Church is present alwayes vpon earth and alwayes visible as our aduersaryes hold how then can it bee an obiect of our fayth We can not beleeue in that which is visible seene for it is agaynst the nature of fayth 3. Augustine sayth sciendum est quòd ecclesiam credere non tamen in ecclesiam credere debemus quia ecclesia non est deus sed domus dei De tēpore serm 131. We must know that we are to beleeue there is a Church not in the Church for the Church is not God but onely the house of God THE SECOND PARTE OF THE QVESTION concerning the ceremonies of the Church The Papists THey doe holde that the Church of God may vse and blesse diuers elements error 26 and creatures for the seruice of God as holy water to driue away diuels the hallowing of salt waxe fire palmes ashes oyle creame milke honey Rhemist 1. tim 4. sect 12. 13. Yea that the Church may borrow rites and ceremonies of the Iewes ibid. sect 18. Yea by the creatures thus blessed or rather coniured they say remission of sinnes is obtayned sect 14. 2. Remission of sinnes was annexed to the oyle wherewith the sicke were annoynted Iames 5. Ergo remissions of sinnes may be applied by the like consecrated elements Rhemist 1. Tim. 4. sect 14. We answere First it followeth not because the creature of oyle was vsed in the miraculous gift of healing which ceremonie was no longer to continue than that miraculous gift indured it followeth not that other elements may be vsed so now there being not the like occasion seeing all such myraculous giftes are now ceased Secondly it was not the oyle whereby their sinnes were forgiuen them neither was it applied to that ende it was onely a pledge vnto them of their bodily health but the prayer of fayth shall saue the sick sayth the Apostle v. 15. for God hath promised to heare the faythfull prayers of his children both for themselues and others 3. Saint Paul vsed imposition of hands which was a ceremonie of the law vsed in consecrating of Priestes Ergo it is lawfull to borrowe ceremonies of the Iewes We answere It followeth not because Christ and the Apostles by the spirite of God retayned some decent actions vsed in the lawe therefore now the Church at her libertie may take of
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
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
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
for not doing the things commaunded which he durst not say As when the Magistrate for some profitable and politike end commaundeth vpon some dayes abstinence from flesh it is not the eating or not eating of flesh that simplie displeaseth and offendeth God but the contempt of the lawe and wilfull and obstinate disobedience to the magistrate for otherwise the vse of the creature is free and indifferent 2 Wee will beate the Iesuite with his owne staffe hee saith not that all lawes doe binde the conscience but onely iust lawes in the which fower cōditions are required First that they be made for some profitable end so are not popish lawes which nourish superstition and haue no edifying and some of them doe commaund plaine idolatry open impietie as the worshipping of images the adoration of the Masse such like Secondly saith he they must not be contrarie to Gods law but such are many of their ordinances yea the most of them Thirdly they must be made by him that hath authoritie therefore none of the Popes lawes binde the vniuersall Church for it is not subiect to him Fourthly the forme and manner of imposing such lawes must be orderly but their lawes are most disordered imposed vpon the Church violently without their consent or any good proceeding Thus you see euen by their owne confession their lawes cannot binde One thing more I must needes tell them of If they would needes haue their lawes to binde men in conscience they should haue made fewer of them now they are so many that if the breach of them were an offence of conscience doe men what they could they should dailie make shipwrack of their conscience It is a true saying that is reported of one Thomas Arthur a good Christian it is an homely speech because the matter was somewhat homely yet hee did hit the marke Like as saith he crosses were set vp against the walles of London that no man should pisse there and while there were but a few men for reuerence of the crosses would not pisse against the wall but when in euery corner they set vp crosses men of necessitie were faine to pisse vpon the wall and crosses too So saith he if there had been fewer lawes of the Church they would haue been better kept but now they are so manie that men cannot chose but breake them 3 The Pope hath no power to correct the transgressors of his lawes ouer the whole Church Ergo hee cannot make lawes to binde the whole Church The argument followeth for hee that hath absolute power to make lawes hath also power to commaunde obedience to the lawes so made The first is thus proued the Pope indeede hath taken vppon him many times to thunder out his excommunication against other Churches but it was an vsurped and tyrannicall power and many times resisted and controuled Pope Victor Anno 200. would haue excommunicate the East Churches about the keeping of Easter but hee was stayed by Irenaeus The Councell of Constance did sende out excommunications against Pope Benedict sess 36. In the Councell of Basile Pope Eugenius cited Cardinall Iuliane with the rest of the fathers there assembled to come to Bononia vnder great penaltie they likewise cited Eugenius vnder the like penaltie either to come or send to Basile Fox pag. 668. Pope Leo the tenth in his fumish Antichristian Bull excommunicated and condemned Luther Luther with better right pronounceth sentence of excommunication against him being an aduersarie to Christ in these words according to the power and might that the spirit of Christ and efficacie of our faith can doe in these our writings if you shall persist still in your furie we condemne you together with this Bull and all the decretall and giue you to sathan to the destruction of the flesh that your spirit in the day of the Lord may be deliuered in the name which you persecute of Iesus Christ our Lorde Fox page 1286. Thus you see what small force there is of these popish leaden Bulls and presumptuous excommunications for it falleth out iustlie by them as the wise man saith As the Sparrow and the Swallowe by flying escape so the curse causelesse shall not come Now seeing therefore the Pope fayleth of power and strength to see his lawes executed in the vniuersall Church it cannot bee that his lawes should vniuersally binde Lastly let Augustine speake he thus defineth sinne peccatum est dictum factum vel concupitum contra legem aeternam Dei sinne is any thing done saide or coueted against the Lawe of GOD therefore the transgression simplie of the lawe of man is not sinne but as thereby also the Lawe of God is transgressed Ergo simplie it bindeth not the conscience for sinne onely bindeth and toucheth the conscience THE SECOND PART OF THIS QVEstion whether all Bishops doe receiue their Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction from the Pope The Papists THey denie not but that the power of order as they call it which consisteth error 50 in the administration of the Sacraments is equallie distributed to all Bishops and that they as well as the Pope doe receiue it immediatly by their consecration of God but the power both of externall iurisdiction which standeth vpon Ecclesiasticall censures constitutions and decrees and internall iurisdiction which is exercised in binding and loosing is deriued say they from the Pope to all other Bishops 1 God tooke of the spirite that was in Moses and distributed it among the seuentie Elders that were chosen to beare the burthen of gouernement with Moses and to bee his helpers the Lorde tooke of his spirite not by diminishing it but by deriuing of his vertue to the rest but the Pope is now in the roome and place of Moses in the Church Ergo from him to the rest is this an authoritie deriued Answer First Moses example was extraordinarie he was a figure of Christ not of the Pope Deuteron 18. vers 15. The Pope might with better right stand vpon Aarons example who was high Priest not lay claime to Moses office who was the Prince and Captaine of the people for the Pope I trow would be chiefe Bishop and not Emperor too Secondly the meaning is not that God deriued Moses spirit to the rest but bestowed the like gift of prophesying vpon them as Moses had surely neuer any mortall man had the spirite in such aboundance that it could bee deuided into seuentie portions and one Prophet to make many The like phrase is vsed 2. King 2.15 Where the Prophets saide that the spirit of Eliah did rest on Elisha that is God endued him with an excellent spirit of prophesying as Elias had If they will vnderstand this place also of deriuing of spirits how then shall that be taken in the 9. verse where Elisha praieth that this spirit might be doubled vpon him If his spirit were deriued from Eliah how could it be doubled vpon him How could it be multiplied and increased how could he haue
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
effectuall power to euery parte Ephes. 4.15.16 2 It is false that the ciuill magistracie onely concerneth the outward and temporall commoditie onely for vnto Princes also is committed the chiefe care of religion and the worship of God They are to see true religion aduaunced yea to watch ouer Ecclesiasticall ministers and to charge them to looke to their offices the Prince is Gods minister for the wealth both of the soules and bodies of his subiects And therefore Saint Paul exhorteth to pray for Kings and gouernours that wee may liue not onely a peaceable life but in all godlines and honestie 1. Timoth. 2.2 Ergo it is parte of the magistrates office as to procure the peace of the people so to haue a care of their godlie life Wherefore it is false as the Iesuite supposeth that the chiefe ende of the ciuill gouernement is onely outward and temporall Ergo his argument is nothing worth 2 Azariah the high Priest droue Vzziah the King out of the temple when hee would haue burned incense and caused him to goe out of the citie and dwell apart 2. Chron. 26. Iehoiada likewise deposed Athalia 2. King 11. Ergo the Pope may depose wicked and vngodly Princes Bellarmine cap. 8. Answere First wee denie that there is now or ought to bee any such high Priest in the Church of God to haue the chiefe authoritie in spirituall matters as there was in the lawe for hee was the type and figure of Christ who is our high Priest and chiefe Bishop Secondly these examples doe not excuse the Popes tyrannie who hath deposed rightfull Kinges and Emperors and better then himselfe as Pope Zacharie deposed Childericus the French King and set vp Pipinus Gregorie the seuenth set vp Rodolphus against Henricus the fourth the Emperor Pope Paschalis set vp the sonne of the saide Henricus against his father But we will answere more particularly to these examples To the first First it was not the sole act of Azariah the high Priest but there were 80. Priests that ioyned with him beside and they all spake to the King this example therefore maketh nothing for the sole authoritie of the Pope who saith that he may depose the Emperor himselfe without any Councell Innocent 4. Secondly they did not depose Vzziah they onely withstoode him according to the lawe of God because hee vsurped the priests office so ought faithfull Bishops and pastors euen to reproue the greatest Magistrates for the manifest contempt and open breach of Gods lawe Neither did they constraine the King to goe forth before they saw the iudgement of God vpon him for the text saith they compelled him to go forth because the Lord had smitten him they saw the leprosie to rise vp in his face vers 20. This therefore was the extraordinarie iudgement of God and not of the high priest Thirdly he was not deposed from the Kingdome though he dwelt alone his son did execute the office only for him and raigned after him for being a leper by the law he was to dwell apart Leuit. 13.46 Here was nothing done we see by the sole authoritie of the high Priest but they had the manifest and direct lawe of God vnto the which their Kings also were subiect To the second example we answere First Athaliah was a tyrant and an vsurper and ought not to raigne and therefore was iustly deposed Secondly Iehoiada did it not by his owne power but assembled the Fathers and Princes of the land 2. Chron. 22.2 He shewed them the young King and they made a couenant with him Iehoiada onely gaue directions the King being now knowen vnto them vnto the Captaines and gouernours Thirdly they had the flat word of God for that action The Kings sonne must raigne as the Lord hath saide concerning the sonnes of Dauid ver 3. So when the Pope hath any such warrant from God he may doe as Iehoiada did The Protestants THat the Pope or any other person Ecclesiasticall hath no manner of temporall iurisdiction either directly or indirectly ouer Kings Princes Emperors but ought of right to bee subiect to them and their lawes it is thus proued 1 By the same reason whereby the Iesuite proueth that the Pope directlie hath no temporall iurisdiction we will conclude that neither indirectlie can he haue any and so none at all Christ while he liued vpon earth tooke vpon him no temporall iurisdiction either directly or indirectly he refused to bee a King Iohn 6. Nay hee would not bee a Iudge in ciuill matters as in deuiding the inheritance being thereto required Luke 12.13 Hee payed poll money Matth. 17. hee did submit himselfe to the iudgement of Pilate an heathen Iudge therefore seeing Christe vsed no such temporall iurisdiction neither can any Minister of Christe for the seruant is not aboue the Master Onely Antichrist dare presume beyond the example of Christ. 2 The Fathers of Basile doe vrge that place of Saint Peter 1. Epist. 5.2 against Panormitane who had vnaduisedly sayd that the Pope was Lorde of the Church But the Apostle saith Feede the flocke of Christ not by constraint but willinglie not as Lordes ouer the Lordes inheritance verse 3. But the Pope contrariwise vseth all forceable constraining and tyrannicall meanes killing slaying imprisoning deposing those that will not obey him who calleth himselfe chiefe Lorde and Magistrate of the whole Worlde Surely this is Antichrist and not the Minister of Christ or successor of Saint Peter whose counsaile he refuseth to followe and obey 3 Let but the stories of former times bee searched there wee shall finde how wickedly and insolently the Popes behaued themselues towards Kings and Emperors Pope Alexander caused Henry the second to doe penance for Beckets death and to bee displed of the Monkes Innocent the third caused King Iohn to kisse the feet of the Bishop of Canturburie his own subiect Alexander the third did tread vpon Emperor Frederick his neck Pope Innocent spoyled Frederick the second of his Empire caused him to bee poysoned and his sonne Conradus to be beheaded and these Emperors were deposed by the Popes in order Henricus 4. Henricus 5. Frederick 1. Philippus Otho the 4. Frederick 2. and Conradus his sonne It is not good they say to put a sword into a mad mans hand and thinke you not that these Popes vsed the temporal sword very discreetely which they thus vsurped making fooles and slaues of Emperors as Pope Adriane did that rebuked Frederick the first because he held his stirrup on the wrong side and did excommunicate him for setting his name before the Popes in writing Thâ— very insolent diuellish and Antichristian practise of this their temporal power sheweth from what originall it commeth euen from the father of pride Lastly Augustine saith writing vpon those words Rom. 13. Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers Si quis putat quia Christanus est non sibi esse vectigal reddendum aut tributum aut non esse exhibendum honorem debitum
abomination of the whore of Babylon There are three monstrous and shameful prerogatiues which the Canonists ascribed to the Pope in times past and they are these his power dispensatiue his power exemptiue his power transcendent so we will call them at this time error 53 First his prerogatiue in dispensing was wonderfull it would offend a Christian eare to heare what his grosse Canonists are nothing ashamed to say Papa potest dispensare contra ius diuinum the Pope may dispence against the Lawe of God contra ius naturae against the Lawe of nature contra Apostolum against the Apostle contra nouum testamentum against the new Testament Nay Papa potest dispensare de omnibus praeceptis veteris noui testamenti the Pope may dispence with all the Commaundements both of the olde and new lawe What intolerable blasphemies are here The practises also of Popes are agreeable hereunto for did not the Court of Rome dispence with King Henry the eights marriage with his brothers wife but that vngodly dispensation at the last was ouerthrowne and it was well concluded by act of Parliament Anno. 1533. That no man had authoritie to dispence with Gods lawes error 54 2 Concerning his power exemptiue the Pope say they is not bound to any lawe No man is to iudge or accuse him of any crime either of adulterie murther simonie or such like If he fall into adulterie or homicide hee cannot bee accused but rather excused by the murthers of Sampson theftes of the Hebrues the adulterie of Iacob As Oziah was stricken for putting his hand to the Arke inclining no more must subiects rebuke their Prelates going awry by the inclination of the Arke the fall of prelates is vnderstoode This generally is the opinion of the Canonists but the Iesuites doo holde the contrarie that it is lawfull euen for an inferior priest to rebuke the Pope Rhemist Annot. in 2. Galath sect 8. Wherefore seeing they confute themselues they neede not any other refutation error 55 3 Concerning the third power which we call Transcendent One saith that non minor honor Papae debetur quà m Angelis that there is no lesse honor due to the Pope thē to Angels Another saith Papatus est summa virtus creata The Popedome is the highest power that was created of God aboue Angels or Archangels Againe those wordes of the Psalme thou hast put all things vnder his foote as sheepe and oxen fowles of the ayre fishes of the sea they thus blasphemouslie applie to the Pope by sheepe and oxen vnderstanding men liuing vpon the earth by the fowles of the ayre the Angels in Heauen whom they say the Pope may commaunde by the fishes the soules in purgatorie Ouer all these the Pope say they hath absolute power who may if it please him release all purgatorie at once What horrible blasphemies are here Yet our Rhemists and other Iesuites are somewhat more modest which confesse that the Pope is but Christs Vicar in the regiment of that part which is on the earth Annotat. 1. Ephesians sect 5. Seeing then they confute themselues wee will not further trauaile herein but proceede THE TENTH QVESTION CONCERNING Antichrist and whether the Pope be that great aduersarie vnto Christ. THis question is deuided into many partes First whether Antichrist shall bee some one singular man Secondly of the time of his comming and continuing Thirdly of his name Fourthly of what nation or kinred hee shall come Fiftly where his place and seate shall bee Sixtly of his Doctrine and manners Seauenthly of his miracles Eightly of his Kingdome and warres Ninthly whether the Pope bee the very Antichrist This then is a most famous question and worthie throughly to bee discussed euery poynte therefore must be handled in order The Papists THey hold that Antichrist whose comming is foretolde in the Scripture shall error 56 be one particular man not a whole bodie tyrannie or Kingdome as the truth is Bellarm. cap. 2. lib. 3. 1 They vrge the words of our Sauiour Iohn 5.43 I come in my Fathers name and ye receiue me not if another come in his owne name him will ye receiue Here Christ say they speaketh of another that shall come namely Antichrist for here one is opposed to one namely Antichrist to Christ not a Kingdome to a Kingdome or sect vnto sect but one person to another Bellarmine cap. 2. lib. 3. Ans. First here is not so much an opposition of persons as there is of doctrine as to preach in the name of God and to preach in the name of men and though Christ be the chiefe doctor and teacher that came in the name of his Father yet all true preachers beside doe come in the same name for so our Sauiour saith of his Apostles He that receiueth you receiueth me and he that receiueth me receiueth him that sent me Matth. 10.40 Therefore he that receiueth the Apostles receciueth God they also then doe come in the name of Christ and so Christ and all the faithfull make but one Iohn 17.21 2 Neither doth Christ here speake of one speciall enemie but of all false prophets for it is not vnusuall in the Scripture in the singular number to expresse a multitude being of the same kinde as Iohn 10.11.12 There is a comparison betweene Christ the true shepheard and the hireling where by the name of hireling all false shepheards and spirituall theeues are vnderstood and so is it in this place therefore they cannot conclude out of this place that Antichrist shall be but one man 2 An other proofe is out of 1. Iohn 2.18 the Antichrist shal come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greeke article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresseth some singular notable person Bellarmine ibid. Ans. It is false The Greeke article doth not alwaies in scripture assigne some particular person as Matth. 4.4 Man shall not liue by bread onely the Greeke text hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man and yet is it vnderstood not of any one man but of all in generall so 2. Tim. 2.17 The man of God that is euery faithfull minister or good Christian yet is it expressed with the article Fulk Annota 2. Thess. 2. sect 8. 3 Apocal. 13.18 It is the number of a man the proper name of Antichrist is set downe Ergo but one man Bellar. ibid. Rhemens 2. Thes. 2. sect 8. Ans. The name here mystically described which shal conteine 666. in number for so the Greek letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe signifie being nūbred doth not expresse any particular name of one man but rather of the whole societie and bodie of Antichrist for it is said to be the number of the beast Now by the beast is vnderstoode the Romane Empire the name whereof is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latinus which letters doe arise in computation to the whole number of 666. And this name Irenaeus thinketh to agree best to this place Further seeing the Rhemists themselues by the best do vnderstand
from his whole ministerie But the power before spoken of hee hath at his first receiuing of orders We thus shew it Whatsoeuer belongeth to the office of a Minister set ouer a flocke or charge hee receiueth the power thereof when he is ordayned But to preach the word belongeth to the office of such for preaching is properly the feeding of the people But see the absurditie of the papists they say it is not proper to the priesthood to preach but onely to haue power to sacrifice the body of Christ But it is proper to the Bishop say they to preach We answere First then the Bishop is properly the pastor of euery flocke and congregation in his diocesse for hee that properly feedeth is properly the Pastor And hee that is properly the Pastor hath the charge of soules properly yea more then hath the particular Pastor for he is improperly their Pastor but as it were the Bishops substitute and Vicar But what Bishop in the worlde is able to beare so great a burthen to haue the especiall and proper charge of all the soules in his diocesse It is not to be denied but he hath a charge of their soules as a Christian Prince also hath in some respect of his subiects but to say hee is the proper Pastor and hath the proper principall charge of soules in teaching and feeding of them for the question is now of preaching not of gouerning who is able to abide it Secondly but our Rhemists tell vs another tale that many that are not able to preach are meete enough to bee Bishops 1. Timoth. 5. sect 13. Ergo it is not proper to Bishops neither to preach I pray you then for whom is it proper if neither for Bishops nor inferior Pastors then for none Thirdly they make but seuen orders of Ecclesiasticall Ministers and the priesthood is the chiefe for a Bishop and a priest make but one order as Bellarmin confesseth cap. 11. But to none of all these orders it is proper to preach for seeing it is not proper to the priest none of the inferior orders can challenge it See then what goodly orders these are which leaue the very chiefe parte of the ministery vndone which is the preaching of the word I thinke their meaning is that this preaching is not so necessary a dutie but may be well spared in the Church 2 That which a man is bound to doe vnder paine of the curse of GOD that he may lawfully performe in due order without the leaue of men but a woe is layd vpon them that preach not the Gospell where they are bound 1. Cor. 9.16 Ergo. Argum. Wicliffi 3 A man is bound to giue corporal almes to the poore the needie the hungry the thirstie neither is he to craue leaue of any Ergo much more to teach the ignorant to comfort the weake and doe other dueties appertayning to his charge Argum. Wicliffi Concerning the power of giuing orders As Saint Paul speaketh of the laying on of his handes 2. Timoth. 1.6 so he maketh mention of imposition of hands by the Eldership 1. Timoth 4.14 And the Rhemists vpō that place mislike not the practise of the Church that their Priests doe lay on their handes together with the Bishop vpon his head that is to be ordayned So that by this it is manifest that imposition of hands doth not wholly and folie belong vnto the Bishop seeing the rest of the Elders were wont to lay on their hands likewise or the Bishop in the name of the rest Fulk annot Tit. 1. sect 2. So that the Elders were not excluded THE THIRD PART CONCERNING THE office and title of Cardinals The Papists BEllarmine would faine haue the office of Cardinals as ancient as the Apostles error 72 times and the name to be worthilie appropriated to the See of Rome that as the Pope himselfe by his prudence and holines is tanquam cardo Ecclesiae to the Church as the hingell to the dore vpon the which it is turned and borne vp so his Counsellers and assistants should be called Cardinals hauing the care of the Vniuersall Church but the Iesuite beside some vaine shew of mothworne antiquitie hath not one good argument to proue the name and office of Cardinals to be either ancient or commendable Then especiall office as they are Cardinals is to elect and chuse the Pope and to be assistant vnto him in Counsell for the gouernement of the vniuersall Church Bellarm. cap. 16. The Protestants THat neither the name of Cardinals as proper to Rome is ancient nor their office or either of them lawfull or commendable but vsurped and Antichristian thus briefely it is shewed 1 In Augustines time it was a common name vsually applied both in the good and euill parte to chiefe and principall men of any place or sect as he calleth the ringleaders of the Donatists Cardinales Donatistas Cardinall or captaine Donatists de baptism lib. 1. cap. 6. Surely if it then had been onely due to the assistants of the Romane Bishop Augustine had been much to blame to applie the name to Heretikes 2 Augustine thus writeth to Hierome Quamues secundum honorum vocabula saith hee Episcopatus presbyterio maior sit tamen in multis rebus Augustin Hieronim minor est Though according to the custome of the Church a Bishop be greater then a Priest yet Augustine a Bishop in many things is inferior to Hierome a Priest Now Hierome was a Priest of Rome and a Cardinall as our aduersaries say and therefore they picture him commonly in a red gowne and habite of a Cardinall yet you see Augustine as a Bishop was before him though for his great learning he putteth himselfe behinde him 3 Augustine in another place complaineth of one Falcidius a Deacon of Rome qui duce stultitia saith hee diaconos presbyteris coaequare contendit who being led or carried away with follie did goe about to make Deacons equall vnto Priests Is not the same follie now generally practised in Rome or a greater for they doe not onely preferre Cardinall Deacons before Priests but euen before Bishops and Archbishops in Augustines time this was counted a great follie 4 Concerning the office of Cardinals in the electing of the Pope we haue shewed before quest 2. part 2. that it is of no great antiquitie and that it is iniurious to three estates to the Emperor who was wont to cōfirme the election to the Clergie of Rome who had in times past interest in the election and to the people whose consent was also in time past required But now all these are excluded and the matter is wholly referred to the Chapter of Cardinals THE FOVRTH QVESTION CONCERNING the Keyes of the Church committed for the execution to the pastors and gouernors thereof THis question hath foure partes First wherein the authoritie of the keyes consisteth secondly to whom they are committed thirdly whether there is absolute power of binding and loosing in the Church or ministerially onely fourthly
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
is earned and deserued it is no almes The Protestants FIrst we say that no idle persons ought to be maintained in a Christian commonwealth but they that haue not any other necessary calling should labour with their hands and therefore Monkes that are fit for no other seruice in the Church ought to labour and worke 1 Saint Paul giueth a general rule He that will not worke let him not eate 2. Thessal 3.10 speaking of those that haue no necessarie calling in the Church Ergo Monkes must worke or els by S. Paules rule not eate The Rhemists answere that this is but a naturall admonition or counsel Nay it is a precept and commandement that all in their seuerall places and callings should labour none liue idlely for S. Paul saith not this I counselled you but this I warned you of or denounced vnto you and he calleth those that followed not this rule inordinate walkers 2 Againe if you will needes haue Monks let them be as they were in times past for then they were lay men and laboured with their hands till anno 606. when Boniface made a decree that Monkes might vse the office of preaching and Christening but before that Monks were forbidden by the generall Councel of Chalcedon not to entermeddle with matters Ecclesiasticall Fox pag. 154. But perhaps they will say as they doe that some of them work as their Nunnes And I pray you why not their Monkes too I thinke their great bellies hinder them Neither are their Monkes altogether idle for some of them in painting caruing grauing and garnishing their Idols are very cunning But according to the saying they might better be idle then ill occupied and as good neuer a whit as neuer the better 3. Neither is it to be permitted that Friers should get their liuing by begging for what are they els but valiant beggers First there ought to be no beggers in the common-wealth as Deuteron 15. Though the Lord say that they should neuer be without poore or beggers which should want their helpe vers 11. Yet vers 5. this charge is giuen that by them that is their default there should not be a begger in Israel they should so prouide for the poore that they neede not go a begging There are also positiue lawes to restraine the number of beggers and therefore there is no reason that by a number of idle vagrant persons belli-god Friers that begging order should be enlarged Secondly but seeing it can not bee chosen but there must needes be some beggers they ought not to bee young sturdie lubbers that are able to worke as most of the Friers were but such as are described Luk. 14.21 where the King saith to his seruants Goe out quickly and bring hither the poore the maimed the halt the blinde Ergo such lusty fellowes ought to liue by the sweate of their browes not to eate vp the bread of the poore Lastly in the sermons Ad fratres in eremo which are ascribed to Augustine thus we reade Eia fratres mei semper boni aliquid facite quem tadet orare vel psallere non desistat quem taedet orare vel psallere manibus laborare non desistat My brethren alwaies bee ye doing of some good if you bee wearie of praying sing if of singing then labour with your hands And in the same place old men onely of 80. yeere old are exempted from working And in another place Augustine sheweth that the Monkes in his time did so plye their worke Vsque adeo vt etiam naues oneratas in ea loca mittant qua inopes incolunt that they sent shippes laden with necessaries vnto those places where the poore inhabited De morib eccles cap. 32. Ergo in Augustines time Monkes liued not by begging but with labour of their hands Thus by Gods goodnes we haue finished this question and this whole Controuersie One other question remaineth whether the Monasticall life be meritorious or not which we haue referred to another place when we shall come to the question of Virginitie in generall and the priuiledges thereof THE SEVENTH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE MAny things which Bellarmine in this controuersie laboureth to proue are agreed vpon betweene vs and our aduersaries and therefore we will spend no time in them 1 We teach as well as they that there ought to bee Magistrates Princes and gouernours amongst Christians contrarie to that which the Anabaptists hold that there ought to bee equalitie among Christians The holy Ghost Iudg. 17.6 19.1 maketh this the cause of al disorder At that time in Israel there was no King amongst them but euery man did that which seemed good in his owne eyes 2 We doe hold that euen wicked Kings and Tyrants haue power ouer the goods and liues of men neither that it is lawfull to disobey them but in matters onely belonging to our conscience where it is better to obey God then men Ieremy 27.6 I haue giuen saith the Lord all these lands to Nabuchadnezzar 3 Concerning the power of Princes we grant that they may make lawes and ordinances to gouerne the people by Prou. 8.15 that they may punish the offenders of their lawes Rom. 13. They doe not beare the sword for nought That it is lawful for Christian Princes vpon iust occasion to wage battaile Luk. 3.14 Iohn Baptist doth not condemne the calling of Souldiers but teacheth them to vse it aright These things then being agreed vpon on both sides the seuerall questions wherein we differ from them and they from the truth are these 1 Concerning the authoritie of the Prince in Ecclesiasticall matters three parts of the question First whether he haue power ouer persons Ecclesiasticall Secondly whether ouer their goods Thirdly whether in Ecclesiasticall causes 2 Whether the ciuill Magistrate may prosecute heretikes to death and whether he ought to be the Iudge of heretikes with other like questions 3 Whether the positiue and ciuill lawes of Princes doe binde their subiects and oblige them simply in conscience This matter we haue discussed before Controuer 4. quaest 7. part 1. 4 Whether the Pope ought or may excommunicate the Prince or Emperour or otherwise hath any temporall iurisdiction aboue him this question also is handled before Controu 4. quaest 8. part 1. THE FIRST QVESTION CONCERNING THE AVthoritie of the Prince in Ecclesiasticall matters THis question hath three parts First whether he haue power ouer the persons Ecclesiasticall Secondly whether ouer their goods Thirdly whether the Prince be chiefe in causes Ecclesiasticall THE FIRST PART CONCERNING THE AVTHOritie of the ciuill Magistrate ouer Ecclesiasticall persons The Papists THe Clergie is not bound to keepe and obserue the ciuill and positiue lawes error 98 of Princes if they be contrarie to the Canons of the Church neither ought they for any cause to bee cited before the ciuill Magistrate or to be iudged by him Bellarm. de Clericis cap. 28. It is absurd saith the Iesuite that the sheepe should iudge the
be lawfull to worship them Fourthly what manner of worship it should be THE FIRST ARTICLE OF THE DIFFErence betweene Idols and Images The Papists THere is great difference say they betweene an Image and an Idoll an Image called in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the true similitude of a thing an Idoll 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 error 38 in Greeke translated simulachrum doth represent that which is not as were the Idols of Venus Minerua women Goddesses which was a meere deuised thing Images they confesse they haue but no Idols Bellarm. cap. 5. First S. Paul sayth 1. Corinth 10. That an Idoll is nothing that is doth represent a thing that is not as such were their heathenish Idols Bellarm. Ans. First the place is not so vnderstood for the Apostle sayth That things offered to Idols also are nothing which were not made to represent any thing But his meaning is this that of themselues they are nothing to breede offence neither were it needfull to shunne eating of Idoll sacrifices or to abhorre an Idoll but that they are abused and turned to the seruice of diuels as it followeth in the next verse Therefore an Idoll is not sayd to be nothing because it representeth a thing imagined but that of it selfe being but wood or stone or such like it were not offensiue if it were not abused to idolatrie Secondly all the portraictures of the Heathen were not Idols in this sense for Iupiter Mars Apollo Hercules whose images they had were men sometime liuing Thirdly you haue images representing nothing as the pictures of Angels of God the Father of the holy Ghost which haue no shape nor likenes Againe you haue also your imagined Saints as S. George S. Christopher for there were neuer any such and therefore you haue Idols as well as the Heathen The Protestants THough the name Idoll haue an odious signification in the English tongue yet neither the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor the Latine simulachrum doe sound so euill vnto the eares and in many places of the scripture we may in differently reade idoll or image for all worshipping of Images is idolatrie If we will distinguish them they are thus rather to be seuered An Idoll is that image which is set vp with an intent to be worshipped an Image is a generall name as well to vnlawfull pictures set vp for idolatrie as lawfull which haue but a ciuill vse But that the Papists Idols are images thus we proue it Argum. 1. The scripture calleth the Gentiles Idols images Rom. 1.23 there the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vsed Ergo idoll and image are taken for one they haue images set vp for religious or rather irreligious vses Ergo Idols Arg. 2. Apocal. 9.20 There is mention made of Idols of gold siluer brasse which cannot be vnderstood of the Idols of the Gentiles which were abolished long agoe and that prophecie is to be vnderstood of men liuing after the opening of the seuenth seale which is toward the end of the world Wherefore it must needes be vnderstood of the Papists who are the onely knowne people in the world that worship images Ergo they haue Idols Augustine taketh imago and simulachrum which is the Latine for the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all one for the loue of the dead sayth he images were first made whereof the vse of simulachers or Idols doe arise THE SECOND ARTICLE WHETHER IT BE lawfull to haue the images of the Trinitie of Christ or of the Angels The Papists error 39 THat Images may haue a good ciuill vse as for decencie or comelines of some worke or for vtilitie of storie it is of neither part denied but they further affirme that it is lawfull to expresse the Trinitie by pictures as God like an olde man and with the world in his hand Christ as he walked vpon the earth the holy Ghost in the likenes of a Doue the Angels with wings and these pictures they say are very meete and profitable to be set vp in Churches Rhemist Act. 17. sect 5. Arg. 1. To paint the Trinitie or any one of them as they appeared visiblie is no more inconuenient then it was vndecent for them so to appeare Rhem. ibid. Ans. You flatly controll the law of God which simply forbiddeth any similitude to be made of things in heauen or in earth to worship God by And Deut. 4.15 God expresly declareth that he would not appeare in any visible shape when he gaue the law lest the people should abuse that shape to make an image of God after it Lastly the argument followeth not for God sawe it was conuenient sometime by visible signes to appeare vnto men and yet seeth it to be inconuenient for pictures to be made to resemble him by for els he would neuer haue forbidden it Arg. 2. The angels were pictured in forme of Cherubims Ergo Spirits may be portraicted Ans. When you can shewe an expresse commandement for your images as the Israelites had for them we will yeeld that they are lawfully made Againe how followeth it God may command images to be made for the vse of religion Ergo men may for the law bindeth not the Lord who is the lawmaker But the law sayth thou shalt not make to thy selfe that is by thine owne authoritie any grauen image The Cherubims also were not made publikely to be seene and gazed vpon by the people but were set in the holy place so are not your pictures and images which are set vp openly in your Churches to entise people to idolatrie The Protestants TO set forth the Godhead and diuine nature by any picture or image is impossible and therefore both vnlawfull and inconuenient but to bring them into Churches and to make them for some vse of religion is a high steppe vnto grosse superstition 1. Such images of the Trinitie among the Papists are made to resemble the diuinitie and Godhead for to what purpose els should such images be made Fulk Act. 17. sect 5. They picture God the Father like an old man because in that forme he appeared to Daniel but how knowe they whether it were God the Father rather then God the Sonne who is as old as God the Father or then the whole Godhead They commend also the image of God the Father with the world in his hand which is a lying image and maketh simple people to beleeue that the world was made onely by God the Father which was the worke of the whole Trinitie Some of the Papists themselues as Abulensis Durandus Peresius doe hold that the image of God ought not to be made and that it is rather tolerated then allowed in the Church As for the images of Christ in the forme of a Lambe and the holy Ghost in shape of a Doue Bartholomaeus Caranza a papist sheweth that they were forbidden in the sixt generall Synode Canon 28. And this Bellarmine denyeth not Concerning the picture of Christ as he was man the Papists
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
bodie to abstayne from hurtfull meates as likewise to keepe a temperate and sober dyet and to take heede of surfetting and drunkennesse These kindes of abstinence in making difference of meates wee mislike not but for pietie or religions sake to distinguish them it is to too great superstition The Papists FOurthly their religious kinde of fasting they holde not to bee a generall error 77 abstinence from all meates and drinkes but onely from some certaine kindes as from flesh and wine as Timothie refrayned from drinking of wine and in steade thereof vsed water 1. Timothie 5. verse 23. Rhemist The Protestants Ans. FIrst for chastising of the bodie it is lawfull to abstayne either wholly for a time or in respect of the quantitie or qualitie of the meates which may more prouoke carnall lusts not in the prohibition of the whole kind as the Papists doe of all flesh bee it neuer so grosse or small in quantitie Likewise it is lawfull for chastising of a mans body to abstaine from any kinde as of wine fruites spices flesh so that the vse of them be not forbidden as though in the very abstinence there were religion Fulk ibid. 2 But the true and properly religious fast of Christians is a generall abstinence from all meats and drinkes during the time of such fasting Esther 4.16 Nehemiah 9.4 Where the manner of their fast is described howe the lawe was read vnto them foure times in the day and as oft did they worship the Lord and confesse their sinnes It was the custome of the Church also in Augustines time in the dayes of fast not to abstaine onely from flesh or some certayne kinde of meate as the Papists vse but altogether to continue fasting till the eeuen Rogo vos fratres sayth he vt in isto sacratissimo tempore exceptis dieb dominicis nullus prandere praesumat I pray you brethren that in this holy time none of you presume to dine at all except it be vpon the Lords daies Ergo they that wil keepe a true religious fast if they are able ought for the time wholly to absteyne The Papists error 78 FIftly they erre in affirming fasting to be a meritorious worke Rhemist 1. Corinth 15. vers 32. Anna Tobie Iudith Esther serued and pleased God by fasting Annot. Math. 15. sect 3. The Protestants Ans. FIrst we doubt not but that fasting is a worke acceptable to God being referred to the right end as to chastise and humble the bodie 1. Corinthians 9.27 and to make our prayers more feruent 1. Corinthians 7.5 But otherwise there is no holinesse or vertue in fasting of it selfe neither is it by the worke wrought of any merite or worthines For our prayers which are a more principall worke then fasting is yet of themselues by any worthynes in them are not regarded of God for Salomon sayth When thou hearest haue mercie 1. King 8.30 It is of the Lords mercy that our prayers are heard not of any worthynes in them Augustine sayth very well Si volumus bene ieiunare à cibis ante omnia ieiunemus à vitijs Quid prodest pallidum esse ieiunijs si odio inuidia liuescas What doth it helpe to fast from meate if wee fast not from sinne What auayleth it to be pale and wan with fasting if thou frettest with hatred and enuie Ergo the externall or outward acte of fasting of it selfe is litle or nothing worth The Papists error 79 SIxtly and lastly they grieuously offend in their fastings in laying so straight and hard a yoke vppon mens shoulders as charging them vnder payne of damnation to keepe their fasting dayes making it deadly sinne yea heresie to transgresse them as one Laurence Staple was troubled and persecuted anno 1531. because in Lent hauing no fish hee did eate egges butter and cheese nay they were so cruell that hardly they suffered women in child-bed to haue flesh in their houses As anno 1532. two young Gyrles were constrayned to abiure because they were found vppon Saint Peters eeuen eating broth made of mutton their mother lying in childe-bed Howe was poore Frebarne tossed too and fro and brought into great daunger because a pigge was found in his house in Lent time for the which his wife longed The Protestants Ans. FIrst no positiue law not grounded vppon scripture can so binde any person that in the breaking of such hee shall sinne deadlie And of this sorte is the fast of Lent and other dayes for religion which were ordayned without authoritie of scripture Lambert ad articul 17. And seeing the rest of the Sabboth being the commaundement of GOD might yet vpon necessarie cause be broken as wee haue shewed how much greater libertie ought the people to haue had in the obseruation of those dayes which were onely inioyned by men for who seeth not that the rest in the Lords day being Gods owne appoyntment ought more surely to binde then fasting vpon forbidden dayes enforced by men yet was it counted an heynous sinne to eate flesh vpon a day interdict and a small offence or none to violate the rest of the Sabboth 2 Saint Paul could see no such necessitie of fasting and abstinence when hee willeth Timothie to drinke wine and no longer water for his infirmities sake 1. Timoth. 5.23 But if there were religion in fasting and abstinence it ought not to be intermitted for the bodily health for the lesse principall is to giue place to the greater In Augustines time also there was no such necessitie Qui ieiunare non praeualet in domo sua praeparet quod accipiat He that is not able to fast let him prepare in his house for his owne eating And agayne Si possibilitas non fuerit ieiunandi sufficit eleemosyna sine ieiunio If a man haue not possibilitie to fast in stead of fasting let him giue almes What is become now of your Lent and Imber fastes which you prescribe as necessary to be kept of all THE NINTH QVESTION CONcerning the Virgine Marie THis question standeth of many parts 1. Whether the B. Virgin Marie were conceiued without sin Secondly whether she vowed Virginitie before the Angel was sent vnto her Thirdly of the assumption of her body into heauen Fourthly of the dignitie and preeminence that shee hath as they affirme aboue all other Saints yea and the Angels to Fiftly of the merites of the virgin Marie and of the Aue Maria. THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE Virgin Marie were voyde of original and actuall sinne The Papists error 80 1 AL men are borne in sinne Christ onely excepted and his mother for his honor Rhemist Rom. 5. sect 9. Answ. it is no more dishonour for Christ to be borne of a sinner then to haue taken his flesh and lineally descended according to his humanity of Thamar that committed incest with Iuda and Rahab which was an harlot Math. 1.3.5 Secondly it maketh more for the honor of God that Christ was borne without sinne
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
annot Hebr. 7. sect 7. Wherefore they which minister vnder the Gospell are worthilie called Priests which word doth so certainely implie the authoritie of sacrificing that it is by vse made the onely English of Sacerdos Rhemist act 14. sect 3. The Protestants FIrst we hold it to be a great blasphemie to say that the Priesthood sacrifice of Christ vpō the Crosse is not that sacrifice or Priesthood into the which the old sacrifice Priesthood was translated changed The Apostle proueth the contrary for that sacrifice whereby the new Testament is established is that whereunto the old sacrifice and Priesthoode is translated but this is done by the singular sacrifice of Christ who is the suretie of a better testament Hebr. 7.23 Ergo his singular sacrifice vpon the crosse is that whereinto the old Leuiticall sacrifices are changed and no other Againe the Priesthoode after Melchisedechs order is that into the which the old Priesthoode is changed but the Priesthoode of Christ vpon the Crosse was after that order Ergo. But here they are not ashamed to denie that the sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse was after Melchisedechs order but doe most impudently and blasphemously affirme that it was after the order of Aaron Heskin lib. 1. cap. 13. And thus euery vile massemonger shall be more properly a Priest after Melchisedechs order then Christ himselfe Secondly none but Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech for vnto whome the Lord saide Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech to him the Lord saith also in the same Psalme Sit thou at my right hand Psal. 110. But this cānot agree to any popish Priest therefore not the other Againe the Apostle maketh this difference betweene the Priesthoode of the lawe and the Gospell because then there were many Priests they being prohibited by death to continue but Christ is the onely Priest of the New Testament because he dieth not Heb. 7 23.24 If they answer as they doe that although there be many Priestes yet it is but one Priesthoode because Christ concurreth with them in the actes of the Priesthoode Rhemist We answer first Christ concurreth with his faithfull ministers in the actes of their Ministerie but no such Priesthoode doe wee acknowledge Secondly so Christ concurred in the actes of the Leuiticall Priesthoode and the sacrifices of the law that were rightly offered wherefore this concurrence of Christ dooth no more take away the multitude of Priests in the Gospell then it did in the lawe Thirdly concerning the name of Priests in their sense as it implieth an authoritie of sacrificing we vtterly abhor it secondly but as it is deriued of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth an Elder we refuse it not but wish rather that it had not bin abused in cōmō speach to signifie popish sacrificers Thirdly as for the word sacerdos which may be englished a sacrificer we finde it no where in the New Testament giuen to the ministers of the Gospell and so much Bellarmine confesseth cap. 17. And therefore vnfitly and vnproperly agreeth vnto them If some of the fathers haue confounded the names of Sacerdos and Presbyter they are not to be commended The word Sacerdos a sacrificer being a proper name of the Leuitical Priests cannot properly be attributed to the Ministers of the Gospell To conclude this word Priest as it is the English of Sacerdos we doe not approue but as it giueth the sense of Presbyter from whence it is deriued we condemne it not for so it signifieth nothing else but an Elder If common vse of speech haue drawne it to a contrarie sense it would be amended Augustine saith Sacerdotiū Iudaeorum nemo dubitat c. No faithful mā doubteth but that the Priesthood of the law was a figure of the royall Priesthoode in the Church whereby all that pertaine to the bodie of Christ are consecrated He acknowledgeth no other Priesthood abiding in the Church then that whereby all Christians are made Priests to offer spirituall sacrifices vnto God through Christ. THE THIRD QVESTION OF THE VERTVE AND efficacie falsely ascribed to the sacrifice of the Masse The Papists 1. THey blasphemously affirme that it is a sacrifice propitiatorie that is auailable error 130 to obtaine ex opere operato by the very worke wrought remission and pardon of all their sinnes Trident. Concil sess 22. can 3. Argum. Christ himselfe sayth in the institution This is my blood shed for you for the remission of sinnes Ergo the sacrifice of the Masse is auaileable for remission of sinnes Bellarm. lib. 2. de miss cap. 2. The Protestants Ans. FIrst Christ instituted no sacrifice as we declared afore but onely a Sacrament in remembrance of his death and passion Secondly the Sacrament rightly administred serueth to assure our faith of remission of sinnes by the death of Christ but it doth not by it owne vertue conferre remission of sinnes neither profiteth by the worke wrought for the Apostle sayth That without faith it is impossible to please God Hebr. 11.6 wherefore no action is accepted of God not proceeding of faith Argum. The Apostle sayth Where there is remission of sinnes there is no more sacrifice for sinne Hebr. 10.18 Seeing then remission of sinnes is fully obtained by the death and sacrifice of Christ there can be no more sacrifice for sinne Ergo the Masse is no sacrifice for sinne The Papists 2. THe sacrifice of the Masse is not onely propitiatorie for sinnes but auaileable error 131 to obtaine all other benefites as peace tranquilitie health and such like Bellarm. cap. 3. Argum. S. Paul willeth That prayers and intercessions should be made for all men especially for Kings that we may leade a godly and a peaceable life 1. Timoth. 1.1 These are the prayers which are made in the celebration of the Masse Bellarm. The Protestants Ans. FIrst the Apostle speaketh generally of al prayers made by whomsoeuer as it appeareth vers 8. Therefore this place is vnfitly applied to the praiers of Priests in the Masse Secondly this place proueth that temporall benefites are obtained by faithfull prayers not by the sacrifice of the Masse which S. Paul neuer knewe Thirdly Augustine indeed expoundeth this place of the publike prayers of the Church vsed in the administration of the Sacrament for he calleth it Domini mensam the Lords table not the altar he meaneth nothing lesse then your popish Masse Argum. It is contrarie to the institution of Christ to applie the Sacrament for any such temporall or external vse It was ordained to be receiued in remembrance of Christs death to assure vs by faith of remission of sinnes and other spirituall blessings not to giue vs assurance of health peace life prosperitie for the obtaining of such blessings according to the will of God other meanes are appoynted The ministerie of the Sacraments no more serueth for such vses then the preaching of the word THE FOVRTH QVESTION FOR WHOM THE sacrifice of
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
onely faith but loue or charitie obtaineth remission of sinnes Bellarm. ibid. Rhemist in hunc locum The Protestants Ans. THe argument is not from the cause to the effect but from the effect to the cause for Christ doth not reason thus she loued much therefore many sinnes are forgiuen her but contrariwise Many sinnes are forgiuen her therefore she loueth much As the next words declare to whom little is remitted he loueth little And our Sauiour sayth in plaine words in the last verse That her faith had saued her whereof her loue was an effect Argum. That the contrition of the heart is no meanes of our iustification nor a meriting cause or procuring of remission of sinnes Saint Paul sheweth Rom. 4.5 6. To him that beleeueth faith is counted for righteousnes And Dauid declareth the blessednesse of that man to whom God imputeth righteousnes without workes It is faith then onely that obtaineth remission of sinnes and a man is iustified without any respect had to his workes Therefore neither contrition nor any other worke inward or outward procureth remission of sinnes but faith onely is the meane So Augustine sayth Opera sequuntur iustificatum non praecedunt iustificandum Workes followe a man alreadie iustified they goe not before to iustification De fide operib cap. 14. Therefore the worke of contrition is not auaileable to iustification The Papists 5. COntrition they say is not necessarie for veniall or small offences neither error 11 is a man bound thereunto So. lib. 4. distinct 17. articul 3. The Protestants THis assertion is cleane contrarie to scripture for the Prophet Dauid praieth not onely to be kept from presumptuous sinnes Psalm 19.13 but euen to be cleansed from his secret faults vers 12. Augustine agreeth Non solum propter vitae huius ignorantiam sed etiam propter ipsum puluerem mundi huius qui pedibus adhaerescit quotidianam habere debemus poenitentiam Not only for the ignorances of this life but euen for that drosse and dust of the world which hangeth vpon our feete we ought daily to repent vs. He meaneth the lesser and smaller scapes of our life The Papists error 12 6. THere is a kind of cōtrition that proceedeth only from the feare of punishmēt when a man doth leaue sinning not for any loue or delight he hath in God but onely for feare of damnation Euen this contrition also is good and profitable yet this seruile feare is at length cleane driuen out by charitie But there remaineth still in the godly an awe and feare of God and his iudgements with mistrust and feare of hell and damnation as Math. 10. Feare him that can cast bodie and soule into hell Rhemist Iohn 4. sect 6. Bellarm. lib. 2.17 The Protestants FIrst we acknowledge that the feare of punishment is necessarie in the beginning to make a way for true loue to enter as the bristle or needle as Augustine sayth maketh roome for the thred to enter We also confesse that there is a continuall feare and reuerence of God in the godly such as children haue of their parents but as for any mistrust or feare of hell and damnation after loue be once entred and we made the children of God which breedeth terror and anxietie of conscience it is cleane expelled and thrust out of the doores by loue Argum. So saith the Apostle There is no feare in loue but perfect loue casteth out feare and maketh vs to haue confidence in the day of iudgement 1. Ioh. 4.17 18. But he that feareth damnation and is afraid of the day of iudgement cannot haue confidence in that day So Augustine Quid dicimus de illo qui caepit timere diem iudicij si perfecta in illo esset charitas non timeret What say we to him that feareth the day of iudgement if loue were perfect in him he would not feare it THE SIXT QVESTION OF AVRICVLAR Confession the second part of penance The Papists error 13 NOne can rightly seeke for absolution at the Priests hands vnlesse they confesse particularly at the least all their mortall sinnes whether they be committed in mind heart will and cogitation onely or in word and worke with all the necessarie circumstances and differences of the same Rhemist Ioh. 20. sect 5. And this sacramentall confession as they call it must be made secretly to the Priest Concil Trident. sess 14. can 6. Argum. 1. This wonderfull power of remitting and retaining of sinnes which was giuen to the Apostles and their successors Ioh. 20.22 were giuen them in vaine if no man were bound to seeke for absolution at their hands which can not be had of them without distinct vtterance to them of our sinnes for they cannot rule the cases of conscience vnlesse they haue exact knowledge and cogitation of their sinnes Rhemist ibid. Ans. 1. God hath not made his ministers in Christs stead iudges of cases of conscience as though there were in them an actual power to remit and absolue sinnes but their office is onely to declare and set forth vnto all penitent persons the promises of God for remission of sinnes the seueritie of Gods iudgement against impenitent persons which is especially performed in the preaching and applying of the word either publiquely or priuately as S. Paul calleth the Gospell committed vnto him The word of reconciliation 2. Cor. 5.16 2. A man therefore may by their ministerie which are the preachers of reconciliation finde remission of sinnes without a particular declaration thereof neither is it necessarie for them to haue so exact a knowledge of our sinnes seeing they are not absolute iudges of the conscience but the ministers and ambassadors of reconciliation 2. Corinth 5.20 3. And Ministers are not to stay while suite is made vnto them for their helpe but they ought to exhort and desire men to be reconciled to God by their ministerie Argum. 2. As the Priests in the law had onely authoritie to discerne the leprosie of the people and therefore Christ sendeth the lepers to the Priest Luk. 17.14 so men must reueale the spirituall leprosie of sinne to the Priest Rhemist ibid. Ans. First the leprosie was not healed by the Priest but onely declared to be healed so sinnes are declared to be forgiuen by the Priest not properly forgiuē Secondly the Priest receiued not knowledge of all diseases but of this that was contagious therefore it would not followe hereupon that all sinnes are to be confessed to the Priest but such as are notorious where publique confession is by Church discipline inioyned and such confession we denie not Thirdly the argument followeth not from the Priests of the law to the Ministers of the Gospell for the Priesthood of the law is translated wholly vnto Christ who hath all knowledge to discerne and power to heale our spirituall diseases The Protestants COnfession of sinnes such as the scripture alloweth we doe acknowledge as namely these foure kinds There are priuate confessions either to God alone as Daniel confesseth
sed ad arbitrium Dei orationes sanctorum Sinnes are not loosed or retained at the pleasure of men but according to the will of God and praiers of his Church The Papists error 24 2. THe satisfactorie and meritorious workes of the Saints which doe abound being communicable and applicable to the faithfull that want are the very ground of the indulgences and pardons of the Church and the very treasure thereof and to be dispensed according to euery mans neede by the pastors of the Church 2. Corinth 2. sec. 5. Coloss. 1. sect 4. The Protestants HEre are many blasphemies and vntruthes couched together 1 That a mans penalties may exceede and bee greater then his sinnes and so his abounding may supplie another mans want for thus the Rhemists say which cannot stand with the iustice of God to punish a man more then he hath deserued And it is contrarie to the Scriptures Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified Psalm 143.2 And Iob saith If the Lord should call him to account he should not answere one to a thousand 9.3 2 How can the Church gouernours dispense the merites of one to another Who made them stewards of another mans good Yee say also the contrarie your selues That the abounding passioÌ„s of the Saints are applicable to others by the sufferers intention Rhem. 1. Colo. 2.2 Then not by the Churches dispensation 3 It is a great blasphemie that one may bee holpen by another mans merites and it doth derogate from the death of Christ whose onely merites are the treasure and storehouse of the Church The most righteous man that euer was can but saue his owne soule Ezech. 14.14 And that onely by Christ. Augustine saith Vnusquisque pro se rationem reddet nec alieno testimonio quisquam adiuuatur apud Deum vix sibi quisque sufficit c. Euery man shall giue account for himselfe before God no man is holpen by the testimonie of another the testimonie of his owne conscience doth hardly suffice for himselfe The Papists 3. THe dispensing of pardons and indulgences is onely committed they say error 25 to the chiefe magistrates the Popes and Bishops and as the Bishops in their Diocese haue especiall cases reserued to themselues wherein inferiour Priests are not to deale so the Pope hath also his proper reseruations wherein other Prelates are not to meddle Concil Trident. sess 14. cap. 7. The cases reserued to the Pope are 51. in number Fox pag. 785. The Bishop of Paris ann 1515 reserued these cases to himselfe to dispense in murder witchcraft sacrilege heresie simonie adulterie ex Tileman Heshus loc 9. de poeniten err 63. Likewise the yeares of their pardons are limited Bishops may not exceede 40. dayes pardon the Pope may be lauish in his hundreds and thousands yea and this reseruation of cases standeth not onely with the externall policie of the Church but is of force euen before God Concil Trident. sess 14. cap. 7. The Protestants WE will not much contend with them about reseruation of cases for wee acknowledge no such power to giue pardons or indulgences either in superior or inferior Priests yet wee will shew how this deuise of theirs standeth not with their owne doctrine Argum. 1. It is a greater power to remit the sinne then to release the punishment but euery Priest hath the greater power as they say to remit sinnes yea as fullie as hath the Pope himselfe Allen in his booke of pardons cap. 2. Ergo why haue they not the lesse power which is by indulgence to dispense with the punishment And that of these two the remission of sinnes is the greater it is confessed by the Rhemist 2. Corinth 2. sect 6. Argum. 2. In the point of death the reseruation of cases hath no place but at that time euery Priest may absolue from all manner sinnes and punishment Concil Trident. sess 14 cap. 7. But euery houre is with some and ought to be with all the point of death because we are vncertaine when it commeth and therefore ought alwaies to be in a readines Therefore euen by their owne rule euery Priest hath at all times authoritie to absolue in all cases Againe if those words of Christ be spoken to all ministers and preachers of the Gospell Iohn 20.22 Whose sinnes ye reteine c. which cannot bee denied to them all then is committed equally that power of binding and loosing which is exercised by the preaching of the word THE NINTH QVESTION OF THE ceremonies and circumstances of penance The Papists error 26 1. THey enioyne their penitent Clients to poll their heads and their women to weare a vaile to goe in black to put on sackcloth to looke sowrely and such like presumptions they haue concerning the habite of those that doe penance Bellarm. lib. 1. de poenitent cap. 22. The Protestants OVr Sauiour cleane contrarie biddeth his Disciples not to looke sowrely nor to disfigure themselues when they fast and repent or to shew any other outward token of their sorrow but to doe it secretly betweene themselues and God to wash their face to annoynt themselues with oyle that it appeare not to men that they fast Matth. 6.16.17 Augustine also answering a certaine obiection that young men newly married might make How can I shaue my head or change my habite saith thus Vera conuersio sufficit tibi sine vestimentorum commutatione The true conuersion of the heart may suffice thee without changing of thy vesture The Papists error 27 2. THey enioyned them to fast bread water certaine dayes in the weeke to lie hard to absteine from marriage or to doe some great almes deedes to satisfie for their sinne Bellarm. ibid. to goe a pilgrimage and such like workes of penance were prescribed them The Protestants TRue repentance consisteth not in such outward exercise of the bodie but is a conuersion rather of the heart It was the manner of hypocrites idolatâ—rs and superstitious men to seeke to appease their Gods with afflicting of their flesh as the Gentiles did cut their hayre Deut. 14.1 Baals Priests did launch their flesh 1. King 18.28 Argum. What is to be thought of such punishing of the carkasse Saint Paul sheweth Coloss. 2.23 He calleth it voluntarie religion or superstition in not sparing the bodie when men doe not vse such outward exercises of fasting and abstinence for the chastisement of the flesh to subdue it to the spirit but with an opinion of meriting thereby preferring them before the faith and conuersion of the heart as the papists doe Augustine saith Non sit satis quòd doleat sed ex fide doleat non semper doluisse doleat Let it not suffice to bee sorrowfull but let his sorrowe proceede of faith and let it grieue him that hee is not alwaies grieued for his sinne So then true repentance is especially an inward worke of fayth rather then an exercise of the body and it ought alwayes
Pastors and of the election of the Pope pag. 197 3 Of Ecclesiasticall degrees and orders 3. parts 1 Of the seuen degrees of popish priesthood p. 199 2 Of the difference of Bishops and other Ministers pag. 201 3 Of the office of Cardinals pag. 205 4 Of the keyes of the Church 4. parts 1 Wherein the authoritie of the keyes consisteth pag. 206 2 To whom the authoritie of the keyes â—s committed p. 208 3 Whether the Pastors of the Church haue absolute power to remit sinnes pag. 210 4 Of the effect of binding and loosing pag. 212 5 Of the marriage of Ministers three parts 1 The marriage of Ministers lawfull pag. 214 2 Men may be admitted to Orders after second marriage pag. 219 3 Whether perpetuall abstinence be required in married Ministers pag. 221 6 Of the maintenance of Ministers by tithes two parts 1 Whether the paiment of tithes bee necessarie pag. 228 2 By what right tithes are due pag. 229 The sixt controuersie of Monkes and Friers sixe questions 1. quest Of the originall of Monkes and of their diuers sects pag. 232 2 Of the difference betweene Euangelicall Counsels and precepts pag. 236 3 Of vowes in generall three parts 1 Whether it be lawfull for Christians to vow pag. 239 2 Wherein lawfull vowes consist pag. 241 3 Whether voluntarie vowes properly be any part properly of the worship of God pag. 242 4 Of Monasticall vowes 3. parts 1 Of the vow of voluntarie pouertie pag. 244 2 The vow of Monasticall obedience p. 246 3 Of the vow of chastitie pag. 247 5 Of Monasticall persons foure parts 1 Whether the younger sort ought to professe Monkerie pag. 251 2 Whether children may be made Monkes without their parents consent pag. 253 3 Whether married persons may with mutuall consent become votaries pag. 254 4 Whether marriage not consummate may without consent bee broken for the vow of continencie pag. 256 6 Of the rules and discipline of Monasticall life foure parts 1 Of the solitarie austere life of Monks pag. 257 2 Of the habite and shauing of Monkes pag. 259 3 Of their Canonicall houres pag. 261 4 Of the maintenance of Monkes pag. 262 The seuenth generall controuersie of the Ciuill Magistrate foure questions 1 Of the authoritie of the Prince in Ecclesiasticall matters foure parts 1 His authoritie ouer Ecclesiasticall persons pag. 266 2 Ouer Ecclesiasticall goods pag. 267 3 In causes Ecclesiasticall pag. 268 4 Whether the Prince may be sayd to bee the head of the Church in his kingdome pag. 271 2 The authoritie of the Prince in punishing heretikes 1 Whether the iudgement of heresie any way belongeth to the Prince pag. 274 2 How an heretike is to be tried pag. 275 3 How heretikes are to be examined and punished Ibid. 3 Whether the positiue lawes of Princes doe binde in conscience 4 Whether the Prince may be excommunicate of the Pope THE SECOND BOOKE CONTAINETH SIXE CONTROVERSIES The first controuersie which is the eight in the whole is concerning Angels three questions 1. quest Of the hierarchie of Angels 2. parts 1 Of the degrees of Angels p. 291 2 Whether Michael be the Prince of the Angels pag. 292 2 Of the ministerie of Angels three parts 1 Of their externall ministerie in the protection of the Church pag. 293 2 Of their spirituall office about our prayers pag. 295 3 Whether Angels know our hearts pag. 296 3 Of the worship of Angels 2 parts 1 Of their worship in generall pag. 299 2 Of the inuocation of Angels pag. 300 The ninth generall controuersie concerning Saints departed two parts 1. part Of those that suffer punishment being departed two questions 1 Of Limbus Patrum and of the apparition of Samuel pag. 302.305 2 Of Purgatorie foure parts 1 Whether there be any Purgatorie pag. 307 2 Of the circumstances of Purgatorie pag. 310 3 Of prayer for the dead p. 312 4 Of burials funerals p. 315 2. part Of the Saints that are in ioy and blisse after their departure 9. quest 1. quest Of the blessed estate of the Saints and of Canonizing of Saints pag. 320 2 Of the adoration of Saints 3. parts 1 Whether they are to bee adored and of othes vowes made to Saints pag. 325 2 Of the diuers kindes of worship pag. 330 3 Of the kissing of holy mens feete pag. 331 3 Of the inuocation of Saints three parts 1 Whether prayers are to be made vnto them pag. 332 2 Whether they pray for vs pag. 334 3 Whether they vnderstand our praiers p. 335 4 Of the reliques of Martyrs foure parts 1 Of the worshipping of Reliques pag. 338. 2 Translation of Reliques pag. 340. 3 Preseruing of Reliques pag. 342. 4 Miracles of Reliques pag. 343. 5. question 1. Of Images foure parts 1 Of the difference of Idols Images p. 347 2 Whether it bee lawfull to haue Images pag. 348 3 Whether to be worshipped pag. 350 4 What manner of worship it should be p. 353 2. Of the signe of the Crosse 4. parts 1 Of the Crosse whereon Christ suffered p. 355 2 Of the image of the Crosse. pag. 357 3 Of the signe of the Crosse. pag. 359 4 Of the power or efficacie of the Crosse. p. 360 5 An appendix concerning the name of Iesus pag. 361 6. quest Of Temples and Churches fiue parts 1 Of the situation and forme of Churches pag. 3â—2 2 Of the ende and vse of Churches three parts pag. 365 1 Whether they are built for sacrifice pag. 365 2 Whether they be holy places in theÌ„selues pag. 367 3 Whether they may be dedicate to saints pag. 368 3 Of the adorning of Churches pag. 370 4 Of the dedication of Churches pag. 372. 5 Of thinges hallowed for Churches pag. 373 7 Of Pilgrimages and Processions and of the holy land pag. 375 8 Of holy and festiuall daies fiue parts 1 Of holy dayes in generall 378 2 Of the Lords day 379 3 Of the festiuall dayes of Christ and the holy Ghost pag. 386 4 Of the festiuities of Saints 1 The number of them 2 The manner of keeping them pag. 388 3 Of their vigils p. 391 5 Of Lent and Imber daies pag. 392 9 Of the Virgin Mary 1 Whether she were conceiued without sinne pag. 398 2 Whether she vowed virginitie pag. 400 3 Of her assumption into heauen pag. 401 4 Of the worship due vnto her pag. 402 5 Of the merites of the virgine and of the Aue Maria. pag. 404 The tenth controuersie hath but one question concerning the mediation and intercession of Christ. pag. 406. The eleuenth controuersie concerning the Sacraments in generall three questions 1. quest Of the definition and nature of a Sacrament 1 Of the efficient cause or institutor of the sacrament pag. 408 2 Of the forme manner of consecration pag. 409 3 Of the instrumentall cause which is the Minister pag. 413 4 Of the vse whether the Sacraments be seales pag. 414 2. quest Of the efficacie and vertue of the Sacraments 1 Whether the SacrameÌ„ts
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