belongeth to our Sauiour Christ and which Saint Paul ascribeth to him and so I will reconcile Luther which saith faith is the rocke vnto Caluin which affirmeth that this rocke is Iesus Christ As a gold ring of very small weight hauing a precious stone in it of great value may be iustly estimated at an high price not for the due value of the gold it selfe but for the worth of the precious stone which is set in it it may be said to be worth an hundred pounds so faith is said to saue though saluation belong to Iesus Christ and to be the foundation of the Church though Christ be properly that foundation because he is the obiect of our faith and our Sauiour Christ and faith are so inseparably ioyned together that they cannot be diuided one from the other or conceiued one without the other Thus haue I briefly declared how the Church is not founded vpon S. Peter But suppose it could be proued how can it be deriued from him to the Pope The office of Apostleship was personall and died with S. Peters person The Apostles were equall in authority It was said to them all Go and preach as well as to Peter That which was said seuerally to Peter To thee will I giue the keyes was said ioyntly to all the Apostles Whose sinnes ye remit they shall be remitted And this confession of Peter was made in the name of them all so saith Theophilact and Saint Ambrose But if it were granted that Saint Peter was aboue all the rest of the Apostles this giueth no preheminence to the Pope being no Apostle For Apostleship consisteth in these things They were immediatly called of God they saw our Sauiour in the flesh they could giue the holy Ghost by imposition of hands the Spirit of God did so direct them that in their writings they could not erre which things belonged personally vnto them but are not left hereditary to the succeeding ages The foundation being thus shaken the building falleth of it selfe That I may come nearer to the man of Rome to discusse this question whether there ought to be one head ministeriall of the Church vniuersall militant vpon the earth or no Bellarmine to proue the affirmatiue part argueth out of Aristotle in this manner A Monarchy is the best most absolute state of gouernment therefore the gouernment of the vniuersal Church ought to be monarchicall I answer It is a fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi in so much as Aristotle his Antecedent and Bellarmine his Consequent are not vnderstood Ad idem secundum idem c. A Monarchy is the best state of ciuill gouernment and for one country but not of Ecclesiastical gouernment nor for the whole world No one secular Prince is sufficient to gouerne a world neither if any one man could be supposed sufficient could it stand with iustice that one should gouerne a world because no man can attaine to be such a Monarke but by oppression and violent inchroching vpon the dominions of other Princes Againe a Monarchy is the best state of ciuill gouernment of one country but the Ecclesiasticall gouernment cannot simply be so but onely when the Church so gouerned is in such a country as is subiect to one secular Prince and not in an Aristocraticall or Democraticall state because the Ministers of the Church must be subordinate to the supreme secular magistrates and the Ecclesiasticall gouernment of the Church must be subordinate and answerable to the ciuill gouernment of the country where that Church is Againe as one man cannot gouerne the ciuill state of the world so much lesse can one man be head of the whole Church all authority both ciuill and Ecclesiasticall being deriued from our Sauiour Christ which is both the head of the Church and the Prince of the Kings of the earth and all power is giuen to him from God his Father both in heauen and earth Our Sauiour Christ is considered two manner of wayes as he is God so is hee the King of the whole world by the right of his creation as he is the Redeemer so is he the Head of the vniuersall Church by right of his redemption as he is God he hath his Vicegerents ouer the world and they be his secular Magistrates Ego dixi vos dij estis I haue said ye are Gods But as hee is the head of the Church he hath no Copartener nor Vicegerent no copartener for so he were an vnperfect mediator no vicegerent among men for no man is able to supply his place in that behalfe which I proue by this argument The office and worke of his mediation proceedeth from his two natures God and Man which concurre in one action of the same person so that he which supplyeth his office must be of an infinite power which is not to be found in any man besides himselfe Now lest it should be obiected that he hath said of Ministers also Ego dixi vos dij estis I haue said ye are Gods as well as of Princes and therfore it should be concluded that they are his vicegerents for the Church as Princes for the common wealth I answer the argument doth not hold For as both Princes Ministers haue their authority deriued from him so after a different manner Princes as vicegerents Ministers onely as actiue instruments For the keyes of the Church being in number but two the one of the Word Sacraments the other of Gouernment In the opening and shutting with these keyes which is the execution it selfe are to be considered two things the actiue instrument and the principall agent The Ministers are onely the actiue instruments to preach to the outward eares of men when God alone giueth the gift of Faith conuerteth the heart inwardly as the principall agent they conferre the outward elements only in the ministration of the Sacraments hee alone sealeth remission of sinnes and giueth inward graces they lay hands vpon men to ordeine them Ministers which is the outward calling he doth call them inwardly and make them able by giuing them his holy Spirit they testifie and pronounce before the congregation in iure fori that wicked men are excommunicated out of the Church but God onely ratifieth it in iure poli and cutteth them off from being members of Christ and shutteth the kingdome of heauen against them From the Head to all the members must be such an influence as possible cannot be from any sinfull man as I haue deliuered in my former Treatise Thus you see how idly and weakly the Popes supremacy is by them defended And therefore vnlesse stronger arguments be alledged and more substantially proued they cannot iustly blame vs for withdrawing our neckes out of the obedience to the sea of Rome CHAP. 2. Of Image Worship BEcause they write that worshipping images they commit no idolatry in that they distinguish betweene an image an idoll that an image is the representation of somthing that
can neither be effectuall nor yet made with a good conscience That they cannot be effectuall it is the doctrine of Saint Iames Euery thing which we aske must be asked in faith and not with doubting c. That such prayers are made with an ill conscience and are sinne it is the doctrine of Saint Paul He that doubteth is condemned because hee doth it not of faith and whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne Let euery man bee fully perswaded in his minde But we cannot be assured that they heare vs seeing there is no ground nor proofe thereof in the holy Scriptures neither can the classicall Authors and and maintainers of that doctrine yeeld any plaine or firme reason to satisfie either vs or their owne selues how it may be so that we should beleeue it and subscribe vnto it He alledgeth many arguments in defence of inuocation of Saints as mediators to pray for vs which arguments haue bene alledged long before his time by Eckius and other Catholicke Doctors And they haue bene long since ansered by Peter Martyr Caluin Kemnitius other Protestant writers before his booke came forth Now it was to be expected for the Catholike credit of Bellarmine so great a Doctor that he should not haue produced these old arguments againe whose answers were published in print so long since for that is no cunning but he should haue bene furnished with new stuffe or at the least haue replyed vpon the answers hic labor hoc opus est which he hath not done The answers therefore being so sufficient that hee doth not reply vpon them as his proofes are but the same which were before so it shall be sufficient to answer them as they were answered before and so to satisfie old arguments with old answers Saints saith Bellarmine do pray for the good estate of the whole Church in generall and for such men in particular as do pray vnto them and we ought to pray vnto them that they would particularly pray for vs. And that I may speake to these three propositions although I deny not the first that Saints do pray for vs in generall yet I will examine the validity of his arguments which he alledgeth for proofe thereof to shew how weake the grounds are which they build vpon and so I will in order descend to the rest only to set downe his arguments and Kemnitius his answers to those arguments published in print long before for the satisfaction of others by whom they were before obiected as followeth That Saints departed do pray generally for the whole Church BEll Hieremy 15. The Lord said to me though Moses and Samuel should stand before me yet my affection could not be towards this people Therefore Moses and Samuel being dead both then could and vsually at other times did pray for the people alioqui inepta esset Dei loquutio otherwise God had spoken these words impertinently as if a man had said If my Oxe pray for thee he shall not preuaile meaning that Oxen cannot pray Kemnitius We deny not but Saints departed do pray for the whole Church but it cannot be proued by this text First a conditionall proposition proueth nothing vnlesse the condition were performed but Moses and Samuel did not thē stand before God therfore they made no intercession for the people Secondly by the confession of the Church of Rome they were then in Limbus as all other Saints departed vntill the death of our Sauiour Christ therefore they could make no intercession Thirdly the idolatry of the people was so odious in the sight of God that if Moses and Samuel had bene aliue to make intercession for the people as in their life time they did yet God would not heare them Fourthly this supposition was made of Moses and Samuel being aliue and not after their death To which I adde my owne answer this argument is a fallacy called the ignorance of the Elenche Bellarm. 2. Maccab. 15. Iudas in a vision saw Onias the Priest and Ieremy the Prophet pray for the people but that booke of Maccabes is held for Canonicall Concil 3. Carthag cap. 47. Kemnitius First that is but a dreame and not a story is related to animate the Souldiers to fight valiantly Secondly notwithstanding the relation of this dreame neither Iudas Maccabeus nor yet his army did inuocate Onias or Ieremy but onely God Thirdly that booke is vnderstood to be Canonicall for examples of life but not for ' points of doctrine and therefore maketh not for this purpose Bellarm. Apoc. 5. 8. The 24. Elders fell downe before the throne hauing their phials full of odours which were the praiers of Saints Kemnitius These praiers as they were their owne and not of other men which were made vnto them so they were onely a thankesgiuing to God for their owne redemption for the redemption of the whole Church but no intercession Bellarm. 2. Pet. 1. 15. I will endeuour therefore alwaies that ye may be able to haue remembrance of these things after my departure Kemnitius Saint Peter did this endeuour by his epistle while he liued not by his praiers after he was dead Bellarm. Luk. 16. The glutton in hell praied for his kindred much more do the iust in heauen pray for the whole Church Kemnit First we must not forsake the Scriptures to receiue instruction from them which are damned in hell which being forsaken of God seeke for comfort any where rather then at the hands of God Secondly this is but a parable and not a story Thirdly if it were a story yet this prayer is not heard Fourthly he saw Abram whom he prayed vnto and receiued answer from him what is this to Saints departed whom we see not neither heare them make any answer Fifthly the glutton remembred in what state he left his kindsfolks when he departed but they might haue repented after his departure for any thing that hee knew This proueth not that the dead know the state of them which are aliue neither yet that they pray for the Church in generall That Saints departed do pray for particular men which pray to them BEllarm The Saints do not onely pray forvs but also take charge ouer men and whole Countries and Prouinces as the Angels do Concerning the Angels we haue proofe Toby 12. Zach. 1. Apoc. 8. Dan. 10. Psal 19. Matth. 18. And much more the Saints departed which are as the Angels Luk. 20. and haue a prerogatiue aboue Angels because they are members of the body of Christ and are neerer vnto vs and better able to haue a feeling of mens infirmities being men themselues Kemnit The booke of Toby is not Canonicall to proue any point of faith but onely for examples of good life That Angell in Zachary is our Sauiour Christ which maketh intercession for his Church and his praier is his owne which is there mentioned and not the praier of the Church The Angel in the Apocalips which offereth the praiers
before one another in order but not in time because they are eternall the other three though in Gods booke they be also eternall in respect of his determination yet in respect of the men that are called iustified and glorified as they are acts proceeding from his decrees to execute and accomplish that in them which God hath decreed not only in order but also in time they follow after as they are not in eternity but in time These things being duly considered let vs come to the state of the question Our doctrine is that God by eternall decree hath ordeined some to saluation others to damnation the cause which moued him so to do being not in them but only in himselfe and that is onely his will and pleasure The subiects therefore of this disputation are two sorts of men Paucitas saluendorum the paucity or small remnant of them which are saued And concerning them Bellarmine his defence is all one with ours that they are saued no cause being in themselues but onely in God without any foresight of any thing in them He saith it is a doctrine consonant to Scriptures to the tradition of the Church to reason grounded vpon Scriptures and Fathers The difference betweene him and vs is only concerning them which are comprehended in the second ranke which is numerositas damnatorū the great multitude of them which are damned Of them he saith Caluiniani contendunt homines ante praeuisionem paccati ad mortem destinatos quod cum Dei iustitiâ pugnat It cānot stand with the iustice of God to ordeine men to destruction without foresight of some cause to be in themselues Our answer is God ordeined them to destruction of his owne will not for their sinnes and yet not being without sinne but bringing with them into the world from their natiuity and conception sufficient matter of condemnation before his decree should be put in execution as the Hebrues when they were in Aegypt did both build for Pharaoh and also finde straw their selues to make morter for the building We distinguish inter vasa ipsa vniuersam massam betweene the vessels in particular which are made to condemnation and the whole lumpe out of which they are fashioned and framed Though they were ordeined to damnation for no iniquity which was particularly in themselues yet that there might be no iniustice with God he had a generall respect to the mould of iniquity whereof they were made He hated Esau in his owne person not for any thing that was in Esau but there was matter enough in the whole lumpe out of which he was created wherefore he should hate him Saint Augustine saith Merito iniustum videretur quod fiunt vasa ad perditionem nisi esset in Adam vniuersa massa damnata It might seeme iniustice that any should be vessels ordeined to destruction had it not bene so that the whole lumpe out of which those vessels were formed had bene damned before in Adam So he maketh the foundation of this decree to be the fall of Adam and yet so that the fault and guilt of condemnation should rest in themselues and yet this fall of Adam not to be an antecedent or cause of this decree but a consequent or sequele of that decree But concerning the vessels in particular which are comprehended in this lumpe the Apostle saith God hated Esau that his purpose might remaine according to election not by workes but by him that calleth where he plainly deliuereth this doctrine That God in this reprobation of Esau respected nothing in his person but the cause which moued him to this hatred was onely in himselfe If the aduersay alledge as vsually he doth that albeit God did no hate him ex operibus for his euill workes which were in in him because then he was vnborne yet he did hate him ex praeuisis operibus because he foresaw those euill workes which afterward when he should be borne he would commit I answer That obiection is preuented and fully satisfied by the words themselues in that which followeth after Concerning the words themselues Saint Augustine saith Si futura opera quae Deus vtique praesciebat vellet intelligi nequaqum diceret non ex operibus sed ex futuris operibus eoque modo istam solueret quaestionem immò nullam omnino quam solui opus esset faceret quaestionem If the Apostle had vnderstood foresight of workes to be any cause he had not said as he did NOT OF WORKES but he would rather haue said God hated him because of the workes which he foresaw in him and so he would not onely haue resolued this question but also haue made it so plaine that it should haue bene without question But in the words which follow Saint Paul expresseth his owne meaning to be as I haue deliuered first by making answer to this obiection Is there iniquity with God God forbid For flesh would obiect that it were iniustice condemnare hominem non natum to condemne the child vnborne To which obiection he answereth It is no iniquity which answer in defence of Gods iustice had bene needlesse and the obiection as fruitlesse if it were so that God did in his decree condemne him out of a foresight of sinne which he knew he would commit forasmuch as God in his foresight could not be deceiued and his decree was not to be executed vntill the sinne were committed and that were in mans iudgement no iniquity or iniustice Secondly he cleareth the matter by inlarging that point to make it more apparant to mans capacity where he saith He will haue mercy vpon whom he will haue mercy and where he will he hardeneth And againe it is not in him that willeth meaning mans indeuours nor in him that runneth meaning the workes of man but in God that sheweth mercy There he reacheth that the onely law of iustice and rule whereby God in his predestination and reprobation is directed and the highest cause which moueth him thereunto is onely his will Non potest iniuste agere cuius volunt as est iusticiae regula He cannot do iniustice which is tyed to no other rule of iustice but his will Whatsoeuer is the will of God the same with him is iustice Hauing thus layed open the state of the question and shewed briefly what is our defence let vs examine what may be said against vs. Our aduersaries which we are to conclude withall are Bellarmine and Becanus two famous Iesuites Bellarmine seemeth in words somewhat to discent from vs by wilfull mistaking both of vs and of Saint Augustine from whom he would deriue the grounds of his disputation as a man that will not see that which plainly he seeth He goeth about the bush by sleights and subtilties that he might at the least beare the world in hand he standeth in opposition against vs but when he commeth to the point he discenteth not from vs. As for Becanus which hath written after
him he would be thought to see more then others did before and therefore feedeth his owne phantasie with new trickes and busieth the reader with strange conceipts farre fetched and nothing pettinent to the matter In his whole tract hee beateth the ayre and fighteth with his owne shadow but commeth nothing neere vnto that which is cardo questionis prora quasi puppis totius controuersiae the maine matter now in controuersie betweene him and vs. But that we may first come to Bellarmine Of reprobation he speaketh thus Causâ reprobationis partim ad solam Dei voluntatem partim ad peccata prauisareferenda est The cause of reprobation is partly the meere will of God and partly the foresight of sinne In these termes he seemeth to impugne vs. But afterward he explaneth his meaning by a distinction saying Reprobatio duos actus comprehendit vnum negatiuum alterum affirmatiuum Negatiuus est Non habet Deus voluntatem eos saluandi quantum ad illum actum nulla datur eius causa ex parte hominum Affirmatiuus est Habet Deus voluntatem eos damnandi huius causa est praeuisio peccati There are two acts of God in his reprobation the first negatiue the other affirmatiue His negatiue act is this He hath no will to saue them and of that act there is no cause at all in men but onely in himselfe The affirmatiue act is this He hath a will to damne them and the cause of this is the foresight of sinne For proofe of the negatiue saith Bellarmine God hated Esau antequam aliquid mali agisset non solum coram hominibus sed etiam in praescientià Dei before he had done any euill not onely in the sight of men but also in the fore-knowledge of God He hated him saith he not for originall sinne for then should he as well haue hated Iacob because originall sinne was common to them both nor because he was worthy of hatred for so they were both and so he should haue hated all men and elected none because all were worthy of hatred By the way saith he it is to be noted that these words to hate to harden which in termes are affirmatiue in sense are negatiue as odisse est nolle diligere indurare nolle misereri to hate is not to loue to harden is not to be willing to shew mercy Againe saith he that a man is hardned though it be a punishment for sinnes past yet it is an effect of this reprobation so that God doth harden him because from eternity he appointed him to be a reprobate Last of all saith he facere vasain contumeliam to make men vessels of dishonour though being vnderstood in this sense deputare ad contumeliam to depute them to dishonour and shame is affirmatiue yet being thus vnderstood Facere vasa qualia requirit totius massae conditio sic relinquere nihil aliud addere to make them such vessels as the nature and condition of the whole lumpe requireth and so to leaue them and do no further act is negatiue and of all these there is no cause in men but onely in God But for proofe of the affirmatiue which is Habere voluntatem damnandi to haue a will to damne them saith he that is by reason of the foresight of sinne we haue instance Ite maledicti in ignem aternum Go ye cursed into euerlasting fire the cause of this damnation is shewed to be in themselues I was hungry and ye gaue me no meate c. Bonus Deus est iustus Deus est God is good and God is iust he can saue though men haue not deserued saluation because he is good but he cannot condemne them vnlesse they haue deserued condemnation because he is iust Condemnare aliquem sine culpà est punire sine causà quod iniustum est To condemne a man without fault is to punish without cause and that cannot stand with iustice So farre goeth Bellarmine Now that I may speake to euery point I will first repeate his words Reprobation saith he hath two parts one negatiue that God will not saue the cause of that is in God the other affirmatiue that God will condemne the cause thereof is in man First I say this is no lawfull distinction to make a diuersity of that which is an identity for there is aequipollentia in re they be different onely in termes but are equipollent one to the other in substance He sheweth out of Saint Augustine that to hate and to harden which in termes are affirmatiue are in matterall one with nolle diligere nolle misereri not to loue not to haue mercy which are negatiue But after the same manner I come vpon him Deus vult damnare God will condemne is a proposition in voyce affirmatiue and equiuolent to this Deus non vult saluare God will not saue which is negatiue And as there is no meane betweene loue and hatred mercy and induration but he that is not loued of God is hated he that findeth no mercy is hardned So in Gods predestination there is no meane or third thing betweene saluation and damnation but necessarily by this decree he that is not saued must be damned he that is not separated from the lumpe of iniquity must be left to continue in the lumpe of iniquity no meane betweene separation from it and continuance in it But secondly to leaue his idle termes to himselfe which sauour of subtiltie and not of substance and which make that to seeme darke and obscure which is as cleere as the day light I will shew plainely out of himselfe that in doctrine he consenteth with vs For concerning this affirmatiue act God will condemne Esau which he saith is an act of Gods reprobation let him acquit himselfe if he can I would know whether he will haue it to be a part of reprobation as it is in ipso decreto in the decree it selfe or in decreti executione in the execution of the decree in intention or in action one of them it must be The decree it selfe which is Gods intention is eternall the action which is the execution of his decree is temporall If he meane it is to be referred to the decree it selfe I proue by his owne argument that then the cause why he would condemne Esau was not in Esau but only in God For he framed his argument to proue the negatiue part in this manner That God would not saue Esau it was not because he foresaw sinne in him for then he should not haue saued Iacob for he foresaw sinne in Iacob as well as in Esau So I come vpon him with his owne argument That God would condemne Esau it was not because he foresaw sinne in him for then he would haue condemned Iacob because he did foresee sin in Iacob as well as in Esau Therefore as Bellarmine inferreth the cause was onely in God that he would not saue Esau So I inferre the cause