lawfull for any to inuent allegories of scripture as it seemeth good to them selues THE SECOND PART OF THE SIXTH QVEtion to whom the chief authoritie to expound Scripture is committed The Papistes error 9 IT was decreed in the Councell of Trent that scripture should be expoūded as the Church expoundeth it and according to the common and consonant cōsent of the fathers Sect. 4. The Rhemistes say that the sense of the scriptures must be learned of the fathers and pastors of the Church Praefat. Sect. 18. If the fathers agree not the matter is referred to a generall Councell if there it be not determined we must haue recourse to the Pope and his Cardinals The Iesuite dare not referre the matter to the Pope alone to expound scripture but ioyneth the Colledge of Cardinals with him Bellarm. lib. 3. de script cap. 3. 1 They obiect that place Deut. 17.9 where the people are commaunded to resorte vnto the Priest or Iudge in doubtfull matters Ergo there ought to be a chief and supreme iudge in Ecclesiasticall matters Bellarm. We aunswere First here the ciuill Magistrate and the Iudge are ioyned together as ver 12. Wherefore if they will gather hereby that the Pope must be supreme Iudge in all Ecclesiasticall matters then the Emperour ought to be as well in ciuill Secōdly the text saith they shal come to the Priests ver 9. assigning many not to one onely Priest Thirdly they must iudge according to the law v. 11. not as they list thē selues Fourthly here is no mentiō made of doubts in interpreting scripture but of controuersies that may fall out betweene man and man either Ecclesiasticall to be decided by the Priest or ciuill by the Magistrate Fiftly we graunt that in euery country there ought be a supreme and high seate of iudgement for determining of controuersiall matters betweene men but it foloweth not that there should be a supreme iudge ouer the whole Church especially in such matters as this concerning the sense of the scriptures which i◠not commited to the iudgement of men neither is any such controuersie named in that palce ver 8. 2 Ecclesiastes 12.11 The wisemā cōpareth the wordes of the wise to nayles which are fastned geuen by one pastor Ergo the Pope is supreme iudge We aunswere the wise men are here vnderstood to be the Pastors and Ministers of Gods word but this one pastor signifieth neither the high Priest in the old law nor the Pope in the new but Iesus Christ the high shepheard for our soules What great boldnesse is this to attribute that to the Pope which is onely proper to Christ 3 They also picke out some places in the new Testament as Math. 16.19 to thee will I geue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen Christ saith so to Peter Ergo the Pope hath authoritie to expound scripture We aunswere First by the keyes here is meant commission to preach the Gospell not onely to expound doubtes Secōdly they were geuen to all the Apostles not to Peter onely Math. 28. v. 18.19 Thirdly the Pope is not successor of Peter no more then any other godly Bishop nor so much vnlesse he folow Peters steps So they abuse that place Math. 18.17 he that will not heare the Church c. Ergo the Bishops and chief pastors must expound the doubt in scriptures Aunswere First our Sauiour speaketh here of the discipline of the Church of correctiōs and admonitions not of interpreting scripture which dependeth not vpō the will fantacie of Pope Cardinals or Popish Councels but must be tryed by the scriptures them selues Secondly we must geue eare to the Church but with a double condition we must be sure it is the Church of God secōdly we must not heare them cōtrary to the scriptures but so long as they do teach the doctrine of Christ. The Protestants WE haue a more compendious way to come to the vnderstanding of the scripture It were to lōg whē we doubt of any place to stay till we haue the generall consent of the pastors of the Church or to expect a generall Councell or go vp to Rome And it were to much to trouble the Popes grauitie with euery questiō The Lord hath shewed vs a more easie and ready way see that we neede not ascend to heauen or cōpasse the earth or passe the Alpes but the word of God is amongest vs the scriptures them selues and the spirite of God opening our harts do teach vs how to vnderstand them the interpretation of Scripture is not assigned to any succession of pastors or tryed to any place or persons Our arguments folow some few of them 1 That onely hath power to geue the sense of Scripture which doth beget vs faith the spirite onely by the Scriptures begetteth faith Rom. 10.17 faith commeth of hearing the word Ergo the spirit of God is the onely interpreter of scripture The proposition also is cleare for seeing the Scripture is the true sense and meaning therof if any should geue the sense of the scripture but that which worketh faith then vpon him should our faith be grounded If the Pope therefore geue the sense of Scripture and our faith ariseth of the Scripture vnderstood then our faith is builded vpon the Popes sense argum Whitach 2. 9. 2 The Scriptures cā not be interpreted but by the same spirit wherewith they were writtē but that spirite is found no where but in the Scriptures Ergo. The first part the Papistes them selues graunt the second is thus proued the spirite of the Apostles is not geuen by secret inspiration that sauoureth of Anabaptisme where is it thē to be found whether is it like that S. Peters spirite should be found in the Popes chaire or in his Epistles or if they haue S. Peters spirite where is S. Paules found but in his writings Yet it is all one spirite appeareth not els where but in the Scriptures where euery man may finde it as wel as the Pope the spirituall man iudgeth all things 1. Cor. 2.15 you haue an oyntment from him that is holy and you haue knowen all things and ver 27. you need not that any mā teach you By these places it is euident that euery faithfull man by the spirite of God may vnderstand the scriptures 3 The doctrine of the Church must be examined by the Scriptures Ergo the scriptures are not to stand to the iudgement of the Church The former part is proued by the example of the Berrheans Act. 17.11 If they did well in examining Paules doctrine much more may the decrees of the Pope Church Coūcels be examined by the scriptures But they knew not whether Paule was an Apostle or not therefore they might examine his doctrine saith the Iesuite Answere it is no matter for the person of Paule they examined his doctrine which dependeth not vpon the person Secondly they could not be ignoraunt of his Apostleship who was famous throughout the Churches Thirdly they doubted onely whether Paul was an
it is not like that the Chalcedone Councel and the Emperour would haue yeelded to so vnreasonable a matter as they did Thirdly Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria doth call the sayd Gregorie vniuersall Pope which name he vtterly refuseth and yet Eulogius had no such meaning to make him Bishop or Patriarke alone but onely to giue him a preeminence aboue the rest This modest and humble Bishop of Rome Gregorie in stead of the title Vniuersall brought it into the Popes stile to be called Seruus seruorum dei seruant to Gods seruants Ergo wee conclude with Gregorie that this title Vniuersall is an Antichristian name and that it hath misliked the ancient Bishops of Rome themselues and how other Patriarkes and Bisshops haue challenged that ambitious name and title as well as the Popes of Rome THE SIXT QVESTION WHETHER THE Pope may erre or not The Papists THey denye not but that both the Pope by himselfe and together with a error 47 whole Councel may bee deceiued in matters of fact that is in historicall poynts and the truth of things that are done because it dependeth of the testimonie and information of men But in matters of faith and doctrine the Pope determining with the Councel is not subiect to error yea the Pope by himselfe alone decreeing any thing concerning faith cannot bee deceiued Bellar. lib. 4. de pontific cap. 1â— No nor yet in precepts of manners prescribed to the Church by the Pope is there any feare or daunger of error cap. 5. Yea it is probable sayth he that the Pope not onely as Pope cannot erre but not as a priuate person is it like he should fall into heresie or hold any obstinate opinion contrarie to the faith cap. 6. 1 Luke 22.31 Simon I haue prayed for thee that thy faith faile not Christ here prayeth for Peter and his successors that they might not at any time erre or be deceiued in matters of faith Bellar. cap. 3. Rhem. annot in Luk. 22. sect 11. We answere First this was a particular prayer for Peter that his fayth should not fayle in that great and dangerous tentation into the which our Sauiour foresaw hee should fall For if it were to be vnderstood of Peters successors they also must first be sifted by Sathan as Peter was and deny Christ and so being conuerted strengthen their brethren if they will vnderstand one parte of Peters successors I pray you why not all Secondly Our Sauiour prayeth likewise for all his Apostles that they might be sanctified in the truth yea for al that should beleeue by their preaching yet is not euery Christian priuiledged from all error of fayth Thirdly after this Peter himselfe erred and was reprehended of Saint Paul Fulk annot in Luk. 22. sect 11. 2. The high Priests that sate in Moses chayre were priuiledged not to erre Ergo much more now are the chiefe pastors of the Church free from error Bellarm cap. 3. Rhemist Luk. 22. sect 11. We answer the high Priests had no such priuiledge for some of them fell into strange errors Vriah the high Priest set vp an idolatrous altar at the Kinges commaundement 2. King 16. Eliashib was ioyned in Affinitie with Tobiah the Ammonite contrary to the law of God Fulk ibid. The Protestantes THat the Popes and Bishops of Rome haue not onely erred in manners but euen in fayth and not onely priuately and personally as men but pulikely and iudicially as Popes that they haue by their publike and open preaching defence allowance and consent approued and established erronious and some hereticall opinions thus we trust to make it playne and euident to all men 1. Peter erred Ergo the Pope may though he were Peters successor First Peter erred in denying of Christ the Iesuite answereth First he began not yet to be the chiefe Bishop which he entred not into till after the resurrection when Christ sayd vnto him Feede my sheepe Iohn 21. therefore all this while he might erre A goodly answere I pray you tell me was not the Church before Christs passion and after built vpon the same rocke I trow they cannot denie it but Peter was not the rock before therefore not after If he were therefore called a rock because of his confession of Christ why should he not then rather straight after his confession take possession of his office then immediately after his deniall of Christ Surely this is but a silly shift Secondly sayth the Iesuite Peter fayled in charitie when he denied Christ not in fayth cap. 3. and if he fayled in fayth he lost the confession of fayth and not fayth it selfe We answere First and can a true fayth then bee separated from loue by your doctrine The Apostles knew no such fayth Saint Iames sayth it is a dead fayth that is without the works of loue and the fayth of diuels that is no faith Iames 2.17.19 If then Peters loue failed his fayth also fayled Secondly we doe not say that Peters fayth was lost and vtterly extinguished for Christ prayed for him but whether it were an error in fayth which Peter fell into for it is not all one to erre in fayth or cleane to lose fayth Thirdly hee lost the confession of fayth he denied Christ in word Ergo he denied the fayth howsoeuer he thought in heart for these two are the principall fruites of fayth to Beleeue with the heart and Confesse with the mouth Rom. 10. and where either of these is wanting there can not be a right fayth for he that putteth away a good conscience maketh shipwrack also of faith 1. Tim. 1.19 But the Iesuite I see hath a queazie stomack let him cough vp lustily and say with one of his fellowes Petrus non fidem Christi sed Christum salua fide negauit Peter denied not the fayth of Christ but his fayth remayning sound and whole hee onely denied Christ. Loe here is newe popish diuinitie that a man may denie Christ and yet not denie the faith Secondly Peter erred in constraining the Gentiles to doe as the Iewes Bellarmine saith it was an error in example conuersation not in fayth or doctrine cap. 7. We answere First in this example of Peter there was also included an error in fayth for how should the Gentiles better know Peters iudgement then by his example by the which they fell into an error of fayth and were constrayned to conforme themselues like to the Iewes thinking that the Iewish ceremonies were necessary to bee retayned Secondly Saint Paul himselfe sayth they went not the right way to the truth of the Gospell Ergo they erred from the trueth of the Gospell and so in fayth Thirdly the diuines of Paris doe attribute to Peter an error in fayth Fulk annot 4. Galat. sect 9. 2. We can produce many examples of the Popes which haue erred iudicially namely openly haue maintayned errors To let passe Marcellinus who sacrificed to Idols as a slippe of his person and he afterward repented him of his fall
yet after another maner For he is in heauen according to the naturall existence of his body in the sacrament he is really present in his flesh yet sacramentally by his omnipotent power Concil Trid. sess 13. can 1. Argum. 1. The figures must be inferior to the things that are figured and represented the sacraments of the law were figures of the sacraments in the Gospel therfore they ought to be inferior But vnles the bread wine should be the very blood flesh of Christ in the sacrament their sacraments in the law should not only not be inferior but far superior to ours As for example the Paschal Lambe is in nature to be preferred before bread and the slaying of the Lamb did more liuely represent the death of Christ then the breaking of bread the eating of flesh doth also better set forth the spirituall nourishing then the eating of bread Wherefore vnlesse we beleeue a reall presence in the sacrament their sacrifices in dignitie and excellencie should farre exceed and excel ours Bellarm. lib. 1. de sacram Eucharist ca. 3. Ans. 1. It is not true that their sacraments were figures of ours But S. Paul sheweth that both their sacraments and ours doe figure out and represent the same thing as the spiritual eating and drinking of Christ 1. Corint 10.2.3 Our sacraments are indeed figures correspondent and answerable to theirs and theirs also had a certaine reference and relation to ours but they were not types of ours for then our sacraments should bee the body of theirs whereas Christ is the bodie both of their sacraments and ours Saint Peter sayth that Baptisme is an antitypon a figure answerable to the sauing of the eight persons in the flood 1. Pet. 3.21 They are correspondent one to the other and had mutuall relation and respect one to the other But that was not properly a type of Baptisme but both Baptisme and that are figures and signes and liuely representations of our saluation in Christ. 2. If the reall presence of Christ onely commendeth the sacrament and aduanceth it before the rytes of the law which in all other respects are better by this argument Baptisme still remayneth inferior to the sacramēts of the law for you affirme no reall presence in Baptisme as you do in the Eucharist and in all other respects it must needes giue place to Circumcision for the cutting of the flesh is a more liuely representatiō of regeneratiō thē is the washing by water and the flesh of man is in nature more precious then water So by this reason though you haue wonne credite for the Eucharist yet you haue lost it for Baptisme 3 We answere therefore that although the reall presence bee set aparte yet our sacraments are more excellent then theirs First the price and woorth of thinges in their nature are not to be weighed in a sacrament but they must bee considered in respect of the vse to the which they are ordayned by the institution Flesh you say is better then bread so is wine and milke better then water in their nature but in Baptisme water is better then they because Christ hath now set it apart for a more holy vse Secondly the slaying of the Lambe doth more liuely represent say you the death of Christ then the breaking of bread Answ. We graunt that if breaking of bread had beene vsed in the law it had not been then so significant as the slaying of beasts but the breaking of bread now in the light of the Gospell in this abundance of knowledge and instruction being a signe of a thing already done and finished must needes be more pregnant and liuely in representation then the killing of sacrifices in the law which were types of things to come the mystery of the Gospel being not yet opened to the world Wherefore our sacraments are more excellent then theirs in respect of the more cleare light and fuller signification which they haue by the word of God the preaching of the Gospel ioyned vnto thē We neede not deuise any other way of excellencie for our sacraments then this which we haue sayd agreeable to the scriptures 2. Cor. 4.3 Galat. 3.1 The Papists ARgum. 2. Iohn 6.55 Christ sayth My flesh is meate indeed and my blood is drinke in deede he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him First this place must be vnderstoode not of any spirituall eating or drinking of Christ without the sacrament but is properly meant of the manducation and eating of him in the sacrament First Vers. 51. The bread sayth Christ that I will giue he speaketh of a thing to come for the sacrament was afterward instituted but if this bread were to be taken for his word and the eating thereof for beleeuing in him in this sense the bread was giuen already Answ. Christ also speaketh in the present tense vers 32. My father giueth you the true bread from heauen I am the liuing bread that came down from heauen if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer vers 51. Hee sayth not he that shall eate but he that euen now eateth And afterward he speaketh of the time to come The bread that I shall giue because his death and passion was not yet finished therefore he sayth The bread that I shal giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the worlde But he speaketh euery where of the eating of his flesh in the present tense vers 35.50.51.53 which cannot bee vnderstoode of the sacramentall eating the sacrament being not yet instituted but of a spirituall manducation The Papists SEcondly those words being applyed to the sacrament must needes also bee vnderstood properly and literally for the very eating of the flesh of Christ drinking his blood not tropically or figuratiuely 1. The flesh of Christ which Christ promiseth to giue them to be eaten he preferreth before the Manna which their fathers did eate in the wildernes the true bread which he giueth them is more excellent then the bread of Manna But if the bread in the sacrament doe but signifie the flesh of Christ and be not it in very deede it should be no better then Manna which also did signifie and shew foorth Christ Bellarm. cap. 6. Ans. Christ compareth not the spirituall substance of Manna with his flesh and blood but the corporall foode which being receiued into the belly and not receiued into the heart by fayth hath no power to giue eternall life For vers 32. Christ sayth that Moses gaue them not Manna from heauen Ergo he meaneth the corporall foode not the spirituall substance of Manna for as it was a sacrament of Christ it was heauenly bread Againe vers 49. Your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes and dyed He speaketh of the materiall foode for they that did Manna spiritually by fayth died not in soule Ans. Now on the contrary side we will prooue that this place contayned in the sixt
people What this singulatim credere meaneth he sheweth a few lines after Quicquid cum loquor agnoueris in te quisquis expertus â—s crede contingere omnibus qui de manu inimicoruÌ„ precioso sanguine redimuntur That which I say thou that hast the experience thereof in thy selfe knowe that it is common to all that are redeemed by that precious blood Ergo euery man must haue a particular feeling and experience of his redemption in himselfe The Papists 2. FAith a man may feele and knowe to bee in himselfe because it is an act onely of vnderstanding but a man cannot bee assured thereby that error 77 his sinnes are forgiuen him or that he is in the state of grace Rhemist 2. Corinth 13. sect 1. The Protestants Ans. WE see what a poore miserable faith the faith of popish Catholikes is They say it is but a bare act of the vnderstanding which bringeth with it no certaintie or assurance of saluation But the Apostle Hebr. 11.1 defineth faith after another sort It is the ground of things hoped for and the euidence of things not seene Faith then hath two parts as it worketh the euidence and knowledge of heauenly things in the vnderstanding so also it begetteth a strong hope and perswasion in the heart of the promises of God it is not therefore onely an act of the vnderstanding Argum. But that by a liuely and true faith men may knowe that they are in grace and may bee assured of saluation Saint Paul teacheth Proue your selues whether you be in the faith know ye not how that Iesus Christ is in you vnlesse yee be reprobates 2. Corinth 13.5 By faith therefore wee may knowe whether Christ bee in vs Ergo whether wee are in the state of grace for Christ dwelleth onely by faith in the elect and such as shall be saued Ephes. 3.17 Augustine Vnusquisque inspiciat se intus appendat se probet se in omnibus factis suis fides quae operatur per dilectionem si in vobis est iam pertinetis ad praedestinatos Let euery man looke into himselfe examine proue himselfe if faith working by loue bee in you euen now yee doe belong to the number and companie of the predestinate Ergo by a liuely faith men may bee assured of their election THE SECOND PART OF THE DIVERS kindes of faith The Papists error 78 1. THere is a kind of faith called fides implicita the faith of simple men and idiots who although they are not able to giue a reason of their beleefe yet it is enough for them to say they are Catholike men that they wil liue and dye in that faith which the Catholike Church doth teach Rhemist Luk. 12. sect 3. This implicite faith which they say is sufficient for common Catholikes is nothing els but to beleeue as the Church beleeueth though they knowe nothing themselues particularly The Protestants AS before they spoyled faith of the better part thereof which is a stable and certaine perswasion of the heart so now also they robbe it of the other part which is an euidence and light of spirituall knowledge for faith cannot stand with ignorance but necessarily bringeth with it an illumination of the mind as it worketh stablenes in the heart Argum. Wherefore it is not enough for a Christian to say he beleeueth as the Catholike Church beleeueth for we must be readie to giue account to euery one that asketh of that hope that is in vs 1. Pet. 3.15 Ergo euery true Christian must be able to giue account of his beleefe Augustine writeth Ita apud omnes vulgatam confirmatam esse catholicam fidem vt nec notitiam possit fugere popularem That the Catholike faith was so common and so plaine that it could not bee hid euen vnto the popular sort For now in these dayes the prophecie of Ieremie ought to bee fulfilled They shall all knowe me from the least of them to the greatest Hebr. 8.11 The Papists error 79 2. THey affirme that the faith of miracles spoken of 1. Corinth 12.9 is of the same substance with the common iustifying faith it differeth onely in an accidentall qualitie of more feruor deuotion and confident trust Rhemist ibid. Yea that faith which Saint Iames calleth a dead faith is notwithstanding a true faith and the same which is called the Catholike faith and which the Apostle defineth Hebr. 11. and in substance all one with that which iustifieth Rhemist Iam. 2. sect 11. The Protestants FIrst the faith of miracles and the iustifying faith are not all of one nature because the faith of miracles may bee in wicked men Matth. 7.23 The iustifying faith can be in none but those that shall be saued Mark 16.16 They that beleeue shall bee saued But what intolerable boldnes is this to ascribe greater confidence and trust to that faith which may be in wicked men then to the true iustifying faith in the elect Secondly the dead faith that Saint Iames treateth of is not of the same nature with the iustifying faith nor that faith which is handled Heb. 11. For by that faith the Patriarkes pleased GOD and beleeued that hee was a rewarder of those which sought him verse 6. But this dead faith hath no such operation Againe it is great blasphemie to make this dead faith and a liuely iustifying faith of one and the same kinde and nature for as a dead man cannot be said properly to bee a man no more can a dead faith bee properly called a faith Nay further the faith of diuels and the faith of Saints cannot bee of one nature and substance but this dead speculatiue faith may be in diuels Iam. 2.19 Ergo it is a blasphemous assertion that these two faiths are all of one Augustine saith Discerne fidem tuam a fide daemonum daemones credunt quod oderunt distinguit Apostolus fides quae operatur per dilectionem Discerne thy faith from the faith of diuels the diuels beleeue that which they hate The Apostle doth distinguish them faith which worketh by loue Ergo a dead faith which is fruitelesse and worketh not by loue is the faith of diuels and so not of one nature with a true iustifying faith THE THIRD PART WHEther charitie be the forme of iustifying faith The Papists IT is so affirmed by our Rhemistes Iam. 2. sect 11. Faith being formed error 80 and made aliue by charitie iustifieth Loue is not as the instrument whereby faith worketh but as the proper forme Tapper ex Tileman Heshus de fide err 7. Argum. Saint Iames saith As the bodie without the spirite is dead so faith without workes is dead 2.26 But the soule or spirite giueth the forme and life to the bodie Ergo so doe the workes of charitie to faith Rhemist The Protestants Ans. WE must consider of what kinde of faith Saint Iames speaketh not of a liuely or iustifying faith but of a dead faith which in deede is no faith neither can possiblie receiue any
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
liuing single if he haue the gift he ought to doe it for hauing not the gift and yet presuming he burneth in lust and so is set further backe in the course of godlines Caluin argument 2 We are bound to loue God with all our heart with all our soule with all our strength Therefore whatsoeuer thing there is whereby wee may expresse the loue of God we are bound by commandement to doe it it is not left to our owne will for not to loue God more then thou doest if it be in thy power it is a grieuous sinne Martyris argument Bellarmine answereth thus Qui deum diligit super omnia etiamsi eum non tam ardenter amet quà m forte posset vel non faciat pro eo omnia quae posset ille habet deum pro summo bono cap. 13. He that loueth God aboue all things although he loue him not so entirely as perhaps he may neither doth all things for his sake that lie in his power yet for al this he esteemeth of God as his chief good I pray you see what contradictorie speeches these be The Iesuit sayth a man may loue God perfectly and aboue all and yet not loue him so much as he is able that is imperfectly so a man by his Monkish diuinitie may loue God aboue all and yet not loue him aboue all for if he did he would refuse to do nothing for Gods loue that is in his power 3 Luk. 17.10 When you haue done all those things which are commanded you say we are vnprofitable seruants and did nothing but that which was our duetie to doe Ergo we are bound to doe all things that are to be done and we cannot doe that which we ought much lesse more then wee ought to doe Martyris argument Bellarmine answereth First Christ sayth when you haue done all which I commanded you not which I counselled you Ans. As though the argument followeth not strongly you cannot doe the lesse that is keepe my commandements therefore you cannot doe the more that is speaking now as the Iesuite doth the Counsels of perfection which are more then the precepts It is a precept of necessitie to dispense our goods to the vse of the poore it is a counsell of perfection as they say to giue all away to the poore But if a man cannot performe the first that is keeping his goods to vse them aright much lesse is hee able with a resolute minde to giue them all away Secondly he answereth Christ biddeth them to say so as shewing their humilitie not that they were indeede vprofitable seruants A poore shift as though Christ enuied the good of his seruants or would obscure their wel-doing and doth not rather aduance it to the vttermost and make the most of the seruiceable workes of his children as wee see Matth. 25.34 And Christ being a faithfull Prophet would not surely deceiue his Disciples and tell theme one thing and himselfe knowe and thinke another But these Frierlike mists and smoake of Locusts is not able to dimme the cleere light of this scripture which sheweth that when we haue done all wee can doe wee come farre short of our duetie 4 Augustine though sometime he seeme to make some difference betweene a precept and a Counsel Praeceptum est saith he cui non obedire peccatum est Consilium quo si vti nolueris minus boni adipisceris non mali aliquid perpetrabis De virginit cap. 15. A precept is that which not to obey is sinne A Counsel is that which if thou wilt not followe thou doest not commit any euill yet thou hast the lesse good Though he seeme in words I say to make difference yet his meaning is this That a precept is of things necessarie as to followe vertue to eschue vice A Counsel is of things indifferent as to vse or not to vse as to eate or not to eate flesh But yet the occasion may so serue that euen this counsel is necessarie for we ought not to eate flesh to offend our brother Multa facienda sunt non iubente lege sed libera charitate Many things are to be done sayth he not by force of any lawe but by the rule of charitie that is we haue no particular law but the generall rule of charitie A Counsel then is seene in things indifferent which are alwaies lawfull but not alway expedient and it is nothing els but a particular application of the generall rule of charitie Charitie wisheth that nothing should be done to offend our brethen 1. Cor. 10.32 The scripture likewise giueth libertie to eate flesh there is no generall precept or prohibitione yet the Apostle giueth counsel that is according to the rule of charitie sayth that although all things are cleane Malum tamen est homini qui per offensionem manducat yet it is euill to the man that eateth with offence Roman 14.20 Here we see the transgression of an Apostolicall Counsel is sinne And though we be not bound by any particular precept at this time or that to abstaine from flesh yet qua facienda sunt libera charitate the things that are to be done in the dutie of loue doe as well binde vs as if we had a direct commandement for loue is the fulfilling of the commandements yea it is one of the great commandements to loue one another Yet the counsel or libertie concerning indifferent things remaineth in it owne nature free still as the Apostle counselleth to eate not asking any question in such a case it is neither euill not to eate nor good to eate but if any man be present that may take offence by our eating then is it euill to eate So Augustine cōcludeth Multa mihi videntur licere non expedire quae per iustitiā quae coram deo est permittuntur sed propter offensionē hominū vitanda sunt Many things are lawful but not expedient lawful before God but not expedient because of the offence of our brethen De adulter coniug lib. 1. cap. 14.17 Thus we see Augustine doth nothing fauour the popish distinction of precepts and counsels for by his sentence euen Counsels that is the libertie and freedome of things indifferent are restrained and made necessarie in the externall vse by the rule of charitie THE THIRD QVESTION CONCERNING vowes in generall THis question hath three parts first whether it bee lawfull for Christians to make vowes Secondly in what things lawfull vowes consist Thirdly whether voluntarie vowes be any part of the worship and seruice of God THE FIRST PART WHETHER VOWES PERtayned onely to the old law and are not now permitted vnto Christians The Papists THey hold it as lawfull and as free a thing for Christians to bind themselues by vowes vnto God as it was vsed and practised of the Iewes in the time of the error 85 lawe 1 Isay 19.21 They shall knowe the Lord in that day and doe sacrifice and oblation and vow vowes vnto God and performe them This
vsed to crosse the error 44 forehead and other partes to blesse them selues and their meates with crossing and such like Rhemist Argum. 1. Jacob crossed his handes when he blessed his sonnes it is lyke our Sauiour did lift vp his handes in the forme of the crosse when he blessed It is a conuenient memoriall of the death of Christ and therefore to be vsed Rhemist annot Luke 24. sect 5. Ans. 1. Iacob laid his handes after that forme because of the present occasion for the younger sonne that should be the greater was placed at his left hand and the elder at the right 2. Seeing the scripture expresseth not in what manner Christ lifted vp his hands it is great presumption for you to say it was done in the similitude of the Crosse. 3. How can it be a conuenient memoriall of Christs death beeing neither ordained of Christ nor taught by his Apostles so to be Argum. 2. Apocal. 7.3 Hurt not the earth till wee haue sealed the seruants of God in their forehead This is the signe of the Crosse Rhemist ibid. Bellarm. cap. 29. Ans. It is the signe proper to Gods elect and therefore not the signe of the Crosse which many reprobates haue receiued Fulk ibid. The Protestants THough we finde that the signe of the Crosse hath beene of ancient time vsed in Baptisme and is now in some reformed churches without popish superstition yet this ridiculous superstitious abuse of the signe of the Crosse which is common and vsual among the Papists to crosse themselues their foreheads their eies mouth lippes to crosse themselues going foorth and returning home thinking thereby to be sufficiently shended and preserued from euill we do vtterly condemne and haue worthily abolished Argum. 1. This custome of crossing hath no warrant from scripture neyther was practised by the Apostles Valentinus the Heretike was the first that made any great account of it Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 1. therfore not to be vsed amōgst Christians Argum. 2. Math. 23.5 Christ reproueth the Pharisies for their phylacteries that is certain writings of the law in parchment which they bound to their foreheads and for their broad fringes which were notwithstanding cōmanded by the lawe If our Sauiour reproued them for abusing the things rightly instituted at the first much more worthie of blame is the superstition of Christians that hath no ground nor warrant at all Augustine sayth Christus elegit vt in cruce penderet vt ipsam crucem in cordibus fidelium figeret Christ made choise of that kind of death to hang vpon the Crosse that his Crosse might be fixed in faithfull mens hearts he saith not in frontibus in the forehead though in some editions that word be foysted into the text but in cordibus in their hearts THE FOVRTH ARTICLE OF THE POWER and efficacie of the Crosse. The Papists error 45 THe signe of the Crosse say they hath two notable and powerfull effects one is to driue away diuels and euill spirits to heale and cure diseases the other is to sanctifie and blesse creatures as our meates and drinkes which is done by the signe of the Crosse Rhemist 1. Timoth. 4. sect 12.13 Bellarm. cap. 30. Argum. 1. That the signe of the Crosse euen ex opere operato as Bellarmine sayth by the very act and making of the signe yea by a Iew Infidel or Pagan hath power to driue away the diuell they would thus proue it Dauid by his Harpe droue away the euill spirit from Saul the Angel did the like with the fishes liuer in the storie of Toby Rhemist ibid. Ans. First we must haue better scriptures then Apocryphal stories to build our faith vpon The good angels of God haue power from God to driue away euill spirits though they vse no externall signes yet it followeth not that euery man may do that which is granted to the Angels though we should admit the storie Secondly Dauid not so much by the sound of his Harpe refreshed Saul as by his godly songs and musicke chased away the spirit neither did the euill spirit depart from him but he for the while found some ease his phantasticall and melancholy fits which Sathan wrought vpon being by his pleasant harmonie somewhat allayed Thirdly all this being granted yet haue they not proued by these examples that Pagans and Infidels by the signe of the Crosse may chase away euill spirits 2. That things are hallowed and blessed by the signe of the Crosse they also proue it because the Crosse being an holy signe in it selfe doth communicate holines vnto the things signed with the Crosse Bellarm. cap. 130. Ans. First we denie the signe of the Crosse as they vse it to be an holy but rather a superstitious and deceiueable ceremonie Secondly though it were holy yet being abused it cannot transferre any holines to other things for in the law the sacrifices of the wicked though they lay vpon the Altar were not thereby sanctified but were an abomination being not offered in a right faith Nay there is no outward ceremonie so holy as that it can impart the holines to another thing as it is shewed Hagg. 2.13 Though a man did beare holy flesh in the skirt of his garment yet was it not thereby holy The Protestants FIrst it is a deceitfull toy that they beare the people in hand the diuell at the signe of the Crosse will flye away For the weapons of our warfare saith S. Paul are not carnall 2. Corinth 10.4 but the signe of the Crosse is an external and carnall no spirituall weapon and therefore preuaileth not against spirituall powers Act. 19. The diuel would not giue place when Iesus and Paul were named much lesse at the signe of the Crosse. Augustine saith Signum Christi expellit exterminatorem si cor nostrū recipiat saluatorem The signe of Christ doth expell the destroyer when our heart receiueth our Sauiour Tractat. in Iohann 50. So it is not the signe in the forhead but the faith of the heart that maketh Sathan afraid if sometime he auoyd when men signe themselues he is disposed to play with them that he may deceiue them more strongly Secondly we knowe no such meanes to sanctifie creatures by They are blessed and sanctified for our vses as S. Paul saith by the word and prayer 1. Tim. 4. Prayer therefore without warrant of the word is but presumption They therefore hauing no word for their superstitious crossings inuocations incantations popish blessings doe deceiue themselues and others in thinking that the creatures in such order are sanctified vnto them AN APPENDIX CONCERNING THE name of Iesus The Papists THe name of Iesus they say ought to be worshipped by capping and kneeling error 46 thereunto by wearing it in their cappes and setting it vp in solemne places alleadging for their purpose that of S. Paul That at the name of Iesus all things shall bow Philipp 2.10 Yea they say that Protestants by abolishing the name and Image of Christ doe make a way for Antichrist
we made partakers of the bodie and blood of Christ but this fayth the wicked cannot haue The first part is proued out of the Gospell He only that drinketh of the blood of Christ shall neuer thirst agayne Iohn 4.14 He that shall neuer thirst must beleeue in Christ Iohn 6.35 Ergo he onely that beleeueth doth drinke the blood of Christ. So Augustine saith Nolite parare fances sed cor non quod videtur sed quod creditur pascit doe not prepare your iawes but your heart it is not that which is seene but what is beleeued that nourisheth Ergo Christ must bee receiued by faith therefore Infidels or vnbeleeuers cannot receiue him Argum. 2. Whosoeuer eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh his blood shall haue eternall life Iohn 6.54 But the wicked haue not eternall life Ergo they neither eate nor drinke Christ. Augustine sayth De mensa dominica sumitur quibusdam ad mortem quibusdam ad vitam res verò cuius sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit From the Lords table some doe receiue vnto life some vnto death but the thing whereof it is a sacrament worketh in all to life in none to death whosoeuer are partakers of it But the bodie and blood of Christ are the things signified in the sacrament Ergo whosoeuer receiueth them hath life thereby the wicked then receiue them not THE SECOND PART OF THIS CONTROVERSY CONCERNING the Popish Masse THis part likewise comprehendeth diuers questions 1 Of the diuers representations of the death and sacrifice of Christ. 2 Of the sacrifice of the Masse the name thereof and of the sacrificing priesthood 3 Of the vertue and efficacie which they falsely ascribe to the Masse 4 For whom the sacrifice of the Masse is auaileable whether for the quicke and the dead 5. Of priuate Masses 6. Of the manner of saying and celebrating Masse 7. Of the ceremonies which they vse in the idolatrous sacrifice of the Masse some goe before some are obserued in the celebration thereof 8. Of the forme of the Masse which consisteth partly of the Canon and of the preface to the Canon where we are to shew the foule and heretical blasphemies which in great number are belched out by them in the Masse Of these now in their order THE FIRST QVESTION OF THE DIVERS representations of the death of Christ. The Papists THey are not contented with that one liuely representation of the death of Christ which is exhibited in the Lords Supper but they haue brought in error 126 two more beside that and so make three in all the first say they is simplex repraesentatio a simple and plaine representation of the death of Christ which is done so often as the Sacrament is receiued the second is Repraesentatio ad vinum A liuely and full representation of Christs death which they doe vse yearely to set forth by solemne gestures apparell and other ceremonies vpon Good Friday as it is commonly called before Easter when they doe make nothing else but a Pageant play of the Sacrament the third representation is also a sacrifice beside and that is the sacrifice of the Masse Bellarm. de Missa lib. 1. cap. 1. The Rhemists make a fourth representation beside which is in the solemne receiuing of the Communion at Easter So then first Christs death is shewed forth by the Sacrament of the Eucharist all the yeare long as it hangeth in the pixe or when it is carried to house the sicke Catechism Rom. pag. 408. Secondly it is represented once in the yeere by their solemne Pageant vpon good Friday when there is no Sacrament consecrated but an histrionicall expressing by certaine gestures and actions the manner of Christs crucifying Thirdly in the continuall sacrifice of the Masse Christ his death is represented And lastly in the solemne receiuing at Easter for then especially the mysterie of Christ our Paschall lambe is commended to the people to be eaten with all sinceritie in the Sacrament and so doe the Rhemist expound that place of Saint Paul Let vs keepe feast or holy day not with the leauen of malitiousnes 1. Cor. 6.8 literally applying it to the feast of Easter Rhemist in hunc locum The Protestants FIrst we are taught by the word of God that by eating the bread and drinking of the cup in the Sacrament not by gazing looking lifting vp turning hanging vp bread in pixes or by any such meanes but onely as we haue saide is the Lords death shewed forth and represented 1. Corinth 11.26 Wee acknowledge therefore one onely Sacramentall representation of Christ and no more in the Lords Supper the sacrifice of the Masse we iudge to bee an abominable idol as afterward shall be shewed Secondly it is a foule absurditie to make any representation of Christs death by bare gestures shewes and actions of the bodie without any Sacrament as they doe in their popish pageants vpon Christs Passion daye for at that time there is no Sacrament consecrated Eckius cap. 15. But the Priest by certaine gestures and motions of the bodie in bowing bending casting abroade his armes and such like dooth resemble Christ crucified Bellarm cap. 1. But to call this a liuely representation being done without a Sacrament and the other in the Sacrament simplicem repraesentationem but a simple and plaine representation is too great presumption wherein they prefer their owne superstitious deuises before the ordinance of Christ. Thirdly that place of Saint Paul is vnfitly applied to the celebration of Ester Augustine expoundeth it far otherwise Diem festum celebremus non vtique vnam diem sed totam vitam in azymis synceritatis veritatis Let vs keepe holy day not one onely day but all our life long in the vnleauened bread of purenes and trueth So then in Augustines iudgement the Apostle had no relation to any certaine time which he would haue kept holy but to the reformation of the whole life THE SECOND QVESTION OF THE sacrifice of the Masse and the Priesthoode thereto belonging THE FIRST PART OF THE name and terme of Masse The Papists error 127 THere are diuerse opinions amongst them concerning the originall of this name Some say it is called Missa the Masse Quia oblatio preces ad Deum mittantur Hugo de S. Victore Others quod Angelus a Deo mittatur quisacrificio assistat Because an angell is sent of God to bee assistant at the Masse Thom. Aquinas 3. part quaest 83. artic 4. Some of the hebrue worde Missath Deut. 16. which signifieth an oblation Some ex missis donarijs symbolis of the giftes and offerings sent or put in before the Communion But what beginning soeuer it had they doe now generally take the Masse for that solemne action whereby the Sacrament is made a sacrifice and offered vp to God Bellarm. lib. 1. de missa cap. 1. The Protestants WE doe not greatly force vpon this name for both the name
redeeme his brother or giue a price to God for him Psalm 49.8 Augustine vpon those words Iohn 16.23 Whatsoeuer yee shall aske in my name he will giue it you Exaudiuntur quippe omnes sancti pro seipsis non autem exaudiuntur pro omnibus vel amicis vel inimicis c. The Saints are heard praying for themselues but they are not heard praying for all their friends or enemies because it is not said simplie He will giue but He will giue to you Ergo much lesse can they satisfie for others if their praiers bee not heard alwaies for others THE EIGHT QVESTION OF INDVLgences and penall iniunctions THE FIRST PART WHETHER PEnall and painefull workes are necessarie vnto repentance The Papists NOt onely amendement and ceasing to sinne or repentance in heart before error 21 God is alwaies enough to obteine full reconcilement but there must bee outward penaltie correction and chastisement beside Rhemist 2. Corinth 2. sect 2. Argum. The incestuous person was rebuked of many 2. Corinth 2.6 which word implieth beside his inward repentance outward correction and chastisement The Protestants Ans. WEe acknowledge that in notorious sinnes and offensiue to the Church as this of the young mans was inward repentance is not sufficient but that after sharpe discipline by the outward testification of sorrow and publike confession satisfaction must bee made to the Church but it followeth not that this course should be taken for all sinnes which a man repenteth him of And yet wee graunt that outward signes of our sorrowe are alwaies necessarie in true repentance not as satisfactorie meanes to redeeme our sins but onely as infallible tokens and effects of our repentance As Augustine saith Satis durus est cuius mentis dolorem oculi carnis nequeunt declarare Hee is hard harted the griefe of whose minde the eyes of his flesh doe not shew forth de poenitent cap. 9. Argum. There are but two essentiall partes of repentance and true conuersion vnto God To turne from our sinnes and leade an holy life So saith the Lord by the Prophet If the wicked will returne from his sinnes and keepe all my statutes Ezech. 18.21 This is all God requireth without any other penall workes wherefore ceasing from sinne and amendement of life which necessarilie include the true sorrow and conuersion of the heart are sufficient for repentance THE SECOND PART BY WHOM penall workes are to bee inflicted The Papists error 22 THe priests onely they say haue power to enioyne workes of penance as affliction of bodie mulct penaltie correction by almes-deedes fasting abstinence and such like Conc. Trid sess 14 can 15. Rhemist 2. Corinth 2. sect 2. Argum. To them is giuen authoritie to binde and loose Ergo to enioyne penance Bellarm. cap. 5. lib. 4. The Protestants Ans. 1. SOme kinde of mulctes Church discipline is not to deale withall as bodily punishment and pecuniarie fines which are to be imposed at the discretion of the magistrate Secondly we grant a wholsome vse of the keyes in Church discipline in punishing and clensing of notorious offenders in the open face of the congregation but priuately to enioyne men penance for their secret sinnes is an Antichristian yoke Argum. True repentance is a free worke not of compulsion or coaction Saint Paul exhorteth men to iudge themselues that they bee not iudged 1. Corinth 11.31 But now when penance is laid vpon a man and not voluntarilie taken of himselfe hee is iudged rather of another hee doth not iudge himselfe Augustine saith Quem poenitet punit seipsum prorsus aut punis aut punit Deus vt ille non puniat puni tu Hee that repenteth punisheth himselfe either thou punishest or God if thou wilt not haue God to doe it punish thy selfe A man therefore must punish himselfe he must not be punished of another in his repentance to Godward for of outward chastisement to the world now is not the question THE THIRD PART OF PARDONS and Indulgences The Papists 1. THe principall Magistrates of the Church are no lesse authorized to pardon then to punish to remit the temporall punishment due to sinners error 23 the offence being first forgiuen which wee call an Indulgence or pardon Rhemist 2. Corinth 2.4 Concil Trid sess 25. Argum. To whome you forgiue any thing I forgiue also 2. Corinth 2.10 Here the Apostle forgiueth the young man a peece of his punishment when he might haue kept him longer in penance for his offence Rhemist ibid. Ans. 1. Wee denie not but that the Church may release such publike exercise of humiliation which is enioyned offenders for triall of their repentance and some satisfaction of the Church when it seeth that they are sufficiently humbled But it followeth not that the Church therefore may dispence with any necessarie part of repentance towards God Secondly whereas you say the Apostle notwithstanding his rebuke was sufficient might haue kept the young man still in temporall punishment it is cleane contrarie to the Apostles owne rule who perswadeth the Corinthians to forgiue him least he should bee ouercome of too much heauines vers 7. The Apostle therefore would neither forgiue nor release him before they had forgiuen him and hee had satisfied the whole Church verse 10. Neither would hee keepe him longer in punishment hauing once sorrowed sufficiently verse 6. The Apostle therefore did neither binde nor release him at his owne pleasure but as hee sawe repentance to bee wrought in the offender The Protestants THe power which the Pope and popish Bishops doe challenge vnto themselues in giuing Pardons and Indulgences is most blasphemous 1 They doe take vpon them to release both the punishment of this life and the paines of purgatorie also and say that their pardons profite both the dead and the liuing Bull. Leon. 10. 2 They pardon not only the punishment but the sin both past and to come for dayes yeares hundreds thousands of yeeres how so euer the Rhemists would beare vs in hand that an indulgence is a release but of the punishment Such was the first Iubile pardon granted by Boniface 8. an 1300. And another by Leo the 10. an 1513. See also the Boston pardons graunted by Pope Innocent Pope Iuâ—ye Pope Clement which gaue them release of all their sinnes for fiue hundred yeares Fox pag. 1178. 3 And which filled vp the measure of iniquitie they set their pardons to sale as in Pope Leo his time his pardoners for ten shillings would giue to any man power to deliuer one soule at his pleasure out of purgatorie Argum. The scripture saith that God onely forgiueth sinnes Mark 2.7 And that Christ no otherwise then as God forgaue sinnes vers 10. His Apostles onely as his ministers and Ambassadors and in his name declare and pronounce remission of sinnes 2. Corinth 5.19 Wherefore there is no such power giuen vnto men at their pleasure to binde or loose Augustine saith Non secundum arbitrium hominum tenentur aut soluuntur peccata
our mindes our willes are altogether passiue in respect of the generall power and naturall motion of willing thinking and vnderstanding they are also actiue The seuerall poynts then wherein we and our aduersaries dissent about free will are these 1. They say that man was neuer without free will but it is made more free by grace Rhemist Iohn 8. sect 2. that is our free will is not altogether corrupt but there remaineth some freedome therein euen before grace Ans. Cleane contrarie to S. Paul who denieth that in his flesh dwelleth any good thing Rom. 7.18 but sayth he by nature was wholly sold vnto sinne vers 14. How then can there remaine any goodnes in our will without grace Augustine consenteth Laborant homines inuenire in voluntate quid boni sit nostrum quod non sit ex Deo quod quomodo inueniri possit ignoro Men doe labour to finde some goodnes in the will that is of our selues and not of God but I am altogether ignorant how any such thing should be found 2. The beginning of our calling and the first motions and stirrings of the heart are of grace but to consent is wholly in our power so belike God beginneth the good worke and we continue it This is right the old Pelagian heresie Gratiam Dei non ad singulos actus dari That the grace of God need not be giuen at euery assay but it is enough if God giue a hint and shewe vs the beginning and we will performe the rest This heresie is confuted by Augustine Epistol 106. And in another place Nos eam gratiam volumus saith he qua non solum reuelatur sapientia sed amatur non suadetur bonum sed persuadetur We vnderstand that grace by the which wisedome is not only reuealed but loued we are not moued and stirred only to good things but throughly perswaded Wherefore it is not God that beginneth the good worke in vs onely but also continueth and finisheth it for all things are by Iesus Christ 1. Corinth 8.7 no good thing in vs but by him 3. They also renew another heresie of the Pelagians who taught That what men are commanded to doe by free will facilius impleri per gratiam is but more easily performed by grace What els doe the Rhemists say giuing this note that although the Gentiles do especially beleeue by Gods grace yet they doe beleeue by their free will Act. 13.2 So grace helpeth them only more especially fully or easely to beleeue Whereupon it followeth that they may beleeue without grace though not so especially Now then we are to proue against our aduersaries that our free will hath no power at all of it selfe to will or doe that which is good no further then it is guided and not onely in part assisted but wholly directed by the spirit of God Argum. 1. Philipp 2.13 God worketh in vs both the will and the deede yea and the thought to 2. Cor. 3.5 He sayth not God and we worke but he himselfe worketh he is all in all Argum. 2. Iohn 6.44 No man commeth to me vnlesse my father draw him But he is not drawne that giueth assent of his owne accord for so they say that God first toucheth the heart with his spirit and then it is in the power of man to giue consent But the scripture speaketh otherwise how that God draweth vs he draweth our will and maketh vs to giue assent vnto his grace He it is that taketh away the stonie heart and giueth an heart of flesh Ezech. 11.19 Ergo he prepareth and addresseth the will wholly For like as a stone hath no fleshy nature in it no more hath the naturall will of men any goodnesse dwelling therein Augustine Quicquid vult bonum quicquid potest à Domino est quia sine me ait Dominus nihil potestis facere Iohn 15. Whatsoeuer a man either willeth or is able to doe it is of God as the Lord sayth in the Gospell Without me you can doe nothing Ergo without grace the will is able to doe nothing it is then wholly corrupt in it selfe It followeth therefore that our will and Gods grace worke not together but God by his spirit worketh alone in vs. THE SECOND QVESTION of Faith THe parts of the question First what faith is Secondly of the diuers kindes of faith Thirdly of the forme of faith Fourthly how we are iustified by faith Fiftly whether faith be meritorious Sixtly whether it be in our owne power Seuenthly whether faith may be lost Eightly whether wicked men haue faith THE FIRST PART WHAT FAITH IS whereby we are iustified The Papists error 76 IVstifying faith or faith that iustifieth is not that assured beleefe and confidence of the heart whereby we are perswaded that our sinnes are forgiuen vs in Christ Concil Trident. sess 6. can 13. It is a generall or vniuersall beleeuing the articles of Christs death and resurrection not any fond speciall faith fiducia or confidence of each mans owne saluation Rhemist Rom. 4. sect 9. Argum. Abrahams faith was nothing els but his beleefe of a certaine article reuealed vnto him from God and credite giuen to Gods speeches Rhemist ibid. Ans. Abrahams faith was not onely a generall or historicall beleefe that Gods speeches were true but a sure confidence and trust in God that his promises pertained vnto him and that he himselfe should bee blessed in that promised seede as our Sauiour testifieth Iohn 8.56 Abraham desired to see my day and he sawe it and was glad For whereof sprang that exceeding ioy in Abraham but vpon that certaine hope and perswasion which he had of his owne saluation in Christ The Protestants A Iustifying faith is not onely a generall beleefe of the articles of faith that Christ was borne dyed rose againe for them that beleeue but it is an assured and stedfast confidence whereby euery faithfull man particularly doth applie to himselfe the generall promises of God for the hope of remission of his sinnes in Christ that Christ dyed rose againe and did all the rest euen for him Argum. 1. Saint Iames sayth The diuels also doe beleeue that God is and doe tremble yea no doubt but they beleeue the word of God is true and confesse all the articles of the faith for they acknowledge Christ to be the Sonne of the liuing God Mark 5.7 But the faith of diuels is no iustifying faith Ergo neither this historicall and generall faith Argum. 2. Saint Paul was saued by no other faith then the common iustifying faith of all Christians but this faith wrought a particular perswasion in him From henceforth is layd vp for me a crowne of righteousnes 2. Timoth. 8. Ergo such ought the faith of all Christians to be Augustine sayth Nos non simul omnes sed paulatim singulatim credentes congregamur in vnam quandam ciuitatem We sayth he not beleeuing all at once but euery man asunder and by himselfe are gathered into one