body who would haue the verie flesh of Christ present in the Sacrament for this is against the article of the Creede that Christ is ascended into heauen and there sitteth till his comming againe in iudgement Concerning these meanes thus writeth Augustine Rarissime inuenitur ambiguitas in verbis proprijs quam non aut circumstantia ipsa sermonis qua cognoscitur Scripturarum intentio aut interpretum collatio aut praecedentes soluat inspectio de doctrin Christ. lib. 3.4 There is almost no ambiguitie in any word properly vsed that is not metaphoricall or borrowed which may not either by the circumstance of the place the conference and comparing of interpreters or by looking into the originals easily be taken away Augustine we see approueth this methode though our aduersaries like it not Besides these prayer must be vsed before we enterprise any thing that the Lord would direct vs. And they which cā not so easily take this course which is prescribed shall do well to seeke helpe of learned and godly expositors or to consult with their Pastors and Ministers Ex Whitacher quaest 5. cap. 9. THE SEVENTH QVESTION CONCERNING the perfection and sufficiencie of Scripture THis question is deuided into three parts First whether the Scriptures be absolutely necessary Secōdly whether they be sufficient without vnwritten traditions Thirdly whether there be any traditions of faith and manners beside the Scriptures THE FIRST PART OF THE NEcessitie of the Scriptures The Papistes THe Iesuite laboureth to proue that the Scriptures are not simply necessarie error 11 which we denie not for meate is not simply necessarie for God may preserue man without so in respect of God nothing is simply necessarie God is not necessarily tyed to vse this or that meanes but his argumentes do tend to this end to shew that the scriptures are not necessarie at all and may be spared in the Church so saith Petrus a Soto the Scripture was not alway extant and it is not necessarie vnto faith And the Scripture it not now so necessarie since Christ as it was afore Tilman de verbo Dei error 17. 1 There was no Scripture from Adam to Moses for the space of two thousand yeares and yet true Religion was kept and continued and why might not true Religiō be as well preserued a 1500. yeare after Christ without scripture as afore We answere It foloweth not because in times past God taught his church by a liuelie voyce that the written word is not necessarie now for the Lord saw it good that his word should be left in writing that we might haue a certaine rule of our faith in this corrupt and sinfull age And what els is this but to cōtroll the wisedome of God saying it is not necessarie or needfull for the Church which the Lord saw to be needfull for if the Lord had thought it as good for vs to be taught without Scripture as in that simple and innocēt age of the world I meane innocent in respect of vs he would not haue moued and stirred vp his Apostles to write 2 After the time of Moses when the law was written yet there were many that feared God amongest the Gentiles which had not the Scriptures as Iob and the other his friends Ergo the scripture not necessarie The Iewes also them selues vsed traditions more then Scriptures as Psal. 44. v. 1.2 the fathers did report the workes of God to their children by the negligence also of the Priests the law was lost as 2. King 22. we read that the volume of the law was found which had bene missing a long time We answere First euē the faithfull amōgest the Gētiles did read the scripture as the Eunuke Act. 8. had the booke of the Prophet Isay. Secondly the Iewes declared the workes of God vnto their children but the same were also written as how the heathen were cast out before them and of their deliuerāce out of Egypt those were the things they heard of their fathers as we read Psal. 44. 78. yet all these things are recorded in the bookes of Moses Thirdly what though the Priests were negligent in preseruing the scriptures it is no good argument to proue that therefore they are not necessarie neither was the whole booke of the law lost but either Moses owne manuscript or the booke of Deuteronomie Yet he hath proued nothing 3 The Church after Christ wanted the Scriptures many yeares Ergo they are not necessarie We aunswere it is a great vntruth for the old Testamēt the Church could not be without and the new Testament was written not long after in the age of the Apostles whose liuely voyce and preachings were vnto them as their writings are now to vs. See now what strong arguments they bring the scriptures were not necessary in the time of the Patriarkes when God taught them by his owne voyce they were not necessarie in the time of the Prophetes and Apostles when they had mē inspired of God to teach them Ergo they are not now necessarie when neither God teacheth from heauen neither haue we any Prophetes or Apostles to instruct vs by heauenly reuelations nay rather because they were not necessarie then when they had other effectuall meanes notwithstanding they are necessarie now seeing there is no other way of instruction left vnto vs. The Protestantes THat the scriptures are necessarie for the people of God the reading preaching and vnderstanding whereof is the onely and ordinarie meanes to beget faith in vs we thus proue out of the Scriptures them selues 1 The scriptures conteine necessarie knowledge to saluation which can not be learned but out of the scripture Ergo they are necessarie The knowledge of the law is necessarie but that onely is deriued from the Scripture as the Apostle witnesseth Rom. 7.7 he had not knowen lust to be sinne vnlesse the law had said thou shalt not lust And if the right knowledge of the law is not learned but out of the scripture much more the knowledge of the Gospel is more high and mysticall and more straunge vnto our nature 2 That whereby we are kept frō error and doubtfulnes in matters of faith is necessarie but this is performed by the scripture Ergo. First the Scripture keepeth vs from error Math. 22.29 ye erre not knowing the scriptures saith our Sauiour The ignoraunce of scripture was cause of their error Secondly if our knowledge were onely builded vpon tradition without scripture we should be doubtfull and vncertaine of the truth so S. Luke saith in his Preface to Theophilus I haue written saith he that thou mightest be certaine of those things whereof thou hast bene instructed Hence we conclude that although we might know the truth without scripture as Theophilus did yet we can not know it certainlie without 3 If the scriptures be not necessarie then we may be without them but this can not be Ergo the scriptures can not be spared for then God had done a needlesse and superfluous worke in stirring vp
enim est aliud nisi oratio super hominem The imposition of hands is not as Baptisme neuer to be iterated agayne for what is it else but prayer ouer a man De baptism contr Donat. lib. 3. cap. 16. Confirmation in his opinion may be iterated and therefore imprinteth no such character THE FOVRTH PART OF THE necessitie of the sacraments THey willingly graunt that no sacraments are absolutely necessary in their nature but in respect of the institution and commmandement of God for he is as able to work without sacraments as with them In this poynt wee are agreed the poynts of difference are these The Papists 1 THese 3. sacraments are absolutely and simply necessary as they are instituted error 95 of God Baptisme vnto all Penance to those that fall after Baptisme Orders simply necessary to the whole Church And thus they vnderstand necessary that without the which a man cannot bee saued without the rest of the sacraments men may be saued so there bee no negligence or contempt Bellarm. lib. 1. de sacram cap. 22. The Protestants THough the sacraments being appoynted for our comfort are necessary and profitable as holesome meanes to be vsed for the increase of our fayth and much to be desired and sought for yet God hath not layd such a necessitie vpon any of them as that the want of them should cause hazard of saluation The thiefe vpon the Crosse was saued both without Baptisme and Penance I pray you what penance did Peter after his thrise deniall of Christ but that he wept bitterly and earnestly repented him of his fall Such repentance we holde to be necessary but a sacrament of penance we acknowledge none So the ordaining of ministers to preach is the ordinarie meanes to beget men vnto the fayth yet many haue beene called without such preaching as Paul was conuerted by the voyce of Christ from heauen Nabuchadnezzar was called by the great myracle of the preseruation of the three children in the fierie ouen So Augustine sayth Vndique vocat nos Deus ad poenitentiam vocat per lectorem vocat per tractatorem vocat per intimam cogitationem vocat per flagellum correptionis vocat per misericordiam consolationis God calleth vs euery way to repentance he calleth by the reader by the preacher by the inward thought by the scourge of correction by the mercy of consolation in Psal. 102. God therefore may call and instruct vs by more wayes then one he is not tied to any The Papists 2 THe sacraments of the new law are necessary to saluation that is it is impossible to obtayne the grace of iustification by fayth alone without the celebrating of the sacraments sine sacramentis aut eorum voto or at least hauing a will purpose and desire to celebrate and vse them Concil Trident. sess 7. can 4. The Protestants A Necessitie of the sacraments we grant as also of other profitable meanes as of preaching the word of prayer and the like but no simple or absolute necessitie as wee haue sayde neyther are the sacraments necessarie at all being ordayned for no such vse to bee meanes to apply the grace of iustification vnto vs but our iustification is onely applyed and apprehended by fayth as Saynt Paul concludeth Rom. 3.28 that a man is iustified by fayth onely without workes of the law yea all workes whatsoeuer are excluded as destroying grace Rom. 11. ver 6. The sacraments are profitable instruments to stirre vp the gift of fayth and other graces in vs but not by their proper work to iustifie vs. Augustine sayth Primò fides catholica Christiano necessaria est per ipsam renascimur in baptismate salutem aeternam impetramus First of al the catholike fayth is necessarie for a Christian by the which in Baptisme wee are borne agayne and obtayne eternall saluation He sayth not that Baptisme but that fayth is necessarie and that it is fayth which giueth life to the sacrament it worketh not by it owne proper act THE THIRD QVESTION OF THE number and order of the sacraments THE FIRST PART OF the number The Papists THeir generall sentence and opinion is this that there are seuen sacraments error 96 neither more or lesse Baptisme the Eucharist Confirmation Penance Matrimonie Orders extreame Vnction If any man say that any of these are not truely and properly sacraments or that they are not all of Christs institution let him be anathema or accursed Concil Trid. sess 7. can 1. Argum. The number of seuen is mysticall prophetical perfect the Prophet commaunded Naaman to wash himselfe seuen times 2. King 4. The Altar must be cleansed seuen daies Exod. 29.37 Iob offered seuen bullocks seuen rammes for his friends Iob 42. So in the Apocalyps 7. Churches 7. Angels 7. starres 7. Candlesticks 7. thunders and the like And why not also seuen sacraments Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 26. Rhemist annot Apocal. 1. sect 3. Answ. First the number of seuen is sometime applyed to describe mysteries of wickednesse as well as of godlinesse As the beast with seuen heades Apoc. 17.8 is called a mysterie or as your vulgar Latine hath it a sacrament And with greater reason may we conclude that this beast with seuen heads is Antichrist with his seuen Popish sacraments then you out of Naamans seuen times washing can picke out seuen sacraments But if you will needs make a mysterie of seuen it may as well be a mysterie of iniquitie as of godlines euen the mysterie of the beast with seuen heads as wee haue sayd Secondly what though the number of seuen and of some other numbers be sometime mysticall and significatiue when it pleaseth the Lorde in his word so to applie and appoynt them doth it therefore follow that men vpon their owne heads may superstitiously apply numbers to sacraments prayers fastings times as though there were any religion in numbers or that the Lord had the rather respect vnto such things because of the number The Protestants THis worde or name Sacrament may be taken two wayes first generally for any mysticall signe or symbole which may represent an holy thing and so we will graunt that there may bee not onely seuen Sacraments but seuen and seuen which are more properly symboles and signes then sacraments As the couering of the head in the woman is a symbole of subiection 1. Cor. 11.10 the Sabboth day a symbole or sacrament of the heauenly rest Heb. 4. In this sense Augustine calleth the mysterie of the Trinitie a sacrament yea hee sayth the sacrament of fire because therein in some sorte by the vndeuided and inseparable properties thereof the heate light and shyning brightnesse the Trinitie sayth he is shadowed foorth Wherefore euery signe or symbole of a holy thing that hath a spiritual signification either found in scripture or deuised by men is not by and by a sacrament Secondly if we will take a sacrament in the strict and proper sense there are especially three things required thereunto
godly men there remaineth doubt mistrust feare error 72 of hell and damnation and the feare of Gods iudgements causeth iust men to humble themselues least they should be damned And so S. Paul saith Worke out your saluation with feare and trembling Philipp 2. Rhemist 1. Iohn 4. sect â— The Protestants Ans. WE acknowledge a dutifull reuerence feare of God alwaies remaining in the godly but it is farre from that seruile and slauish feare which is caused onely by the remembrance of hell fire and eternall iudgement Augustine doth thus resemble the matter The chaste wife saith he and the adulterous doe both feare their husbands sed casta timet ne discedat vir adultera ne veniat But the chaste wife is afraid least her husband should depart the adulterous is afraid least he should come Such a feare as is in the chaste wife we graunt to be in the children of God but not the other 2. We also confesse that the horror of hell is profitable to make a way and entrance for the calling of worldly and hard harted men as the needle or bristle as Augustine saith maketh a way for the thread But in a man already called this feare is expelled by loue as the Apostle saith 1. Ioh. â— â—8 For we must be of those that loue the appearing of Christ 2. Tim. 4.8 Not of that number which feare it and wish it were prolonged August Si possumus efficere fratres vt dies iudicij non veniret puto quia nec sic erat male viuendum If we could bring it about that the day of iudgement should not come at all we ought not for all that to liue ill His meaning is that we ought not to liue well onely for feare of Gods iudgements THE FIFTH PART OF THE VSE of the Law The Papists error 73 THe law they say is by Christ Ministratio vitae effecta made the ministration of life Andr. lib. 5. in qua omnis nostra salus consistit wherein consisteth our saluation Catech. Colom ex Tileman de leg loc 3. err 14. they call it Verbum fidei and verbum Christi the word of Christ and the word of Faith to be obeyed and followed of all Christians that which Christ vttered to the yong man Math. 19.17 If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements Concil Trident. sess 6. cap. 7. So their opinion is that the law is made vnto vs a meane and instrument of our saluation The Protestants Ans. FIrst our Sauiour vttered those words to the yong man onely to humble him thereby and to teach him to know him selfe for otherwise the Apostles should haue taught contrary doctrine to their master who exhort men onely to beleeue and they shal be saued Act. 16.31 Argum. The Law was not ordeined to saue men but it serueth onely as a Schoolemaster as S. Paul saith to bring vs to Christ Galath 3.24 It also reuealeth and discouereth sinne Rom. 7.7 The Apostle also calleth it the killing letter and ministery of condemnation 2. Cor. 3.6.9 How then can it procure our saluation therefore what can be more opposite and contrary to Scripture then this assertion of theirs Let Augustine speake Testimonium legis eis qui ea non legitimè vtuntur testimonium est quo conuincantur eis qui legitimè vtuntur testimonium est quo demonstratur quò liberandi confugere debeant peccatores The testimonie of the law to them which vse it not aright is a testimony to conuince them to them which doe a testimony to teach them to whom sinners ought to flie for their deliuerance Ergo the law doth not it selfe worke our deliuerance but sendeth vs to our deliuerer THE THIRD PART OF THIS controuersie of Iustification THe particular questions are these First of Free will and the power thereof Secondly of Faith Thirdly of good workes Fourthly of the manner of our iustification THE FIRST QVESTION of Free will THe parts of this question First whether free will in spirituall things were vtterly extinguished by the sinne of Adam Secondly of the power and strength of free will in vs. THE FIRST PART WHETHER FREE WILL be vtterly lost by the transgression of Adam The Papists FRee will is not vtterly extinguished but onely abated in strength and attenuated error 74 Concil Trid. sess 6. cap. 1. The Rhemists also gather by the parable of the man in the Gospell that lay for halfe dead Luk. 10. vers 30. that neither vnderstanding nor free will and other powers of the soule are vtterly extinguished and taken away but wounded onely by the sinne of Adam Rhemist ibid. The Protestants Ans. IT is but a feeble collection and of small force which they draw from this allegorie for allegories and similitudes as they know themselues right well doe not hold in all things but wherein onely they are compared neither doe they necessarily conclude Argum. But that we are altogether dead in sinne by the transgression of Adam the scripture speaketh plainly in many places without allegorie Ephes. 2.1 5. When we were dead in our sinnes he hath quickened vs in Christ. Likewise Coloss. 2.13 he sayth not as in the parable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they left him for halfe dead but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plaine dead men indeed Augustine sayth Cum peccauit primus homo non in parte aliqua sed tota qua conditus est natura deliquit When the first man sinned he did not offend in any one part but wholly in that nature wherein he was created And in another place Natura tota fuit per liberum arbitrium in ipsa radice vitiata Our nature wholly was corrupted by free will in the very roote or originall that is in Adam Ergo all the powers both of bodie and soule wholly corrupt and decayed in spirituall things THE SECOND PART OF THE POWER AND strength of free will in man The Papists THey say not that a man by his free will only is able to liue well or to obtaine error 75 eternall life but yet by the power of free will stirred prepared and assisted by the grace of God he is able to doe it The first stirring then and motion of the heart they say is of God Then it is the part of free will to apprehend the grace offered and to giue consent vnto it and to worke together with it Trid. Concil sess 6. cap. 5. can 4. Eckius setteth downe foure steps or degrees to iustification The beginning of our calling is onely of God by inspiring of grace into vs this is the first degree The second is in our owne power to giue assent vnto grace once inspired Thirdly to obtaine that which by so assenting we doe desire is onely of Gods gift and this is the third degree gratiae gratum facientis of grace which maketh vs gracious or acceptable The fourth degree of perseuerance in the grace of saluation receiued is partly in our power and free will partly of the grace of God
IVSTIFIcation onely by fayth The Papists error 94 FAyth is not the only cause of our iustificatiō but there are other also as hope charitie almes deedes and other vertues Rhemist Roman 8. sect 6. Yea workes are more principall then fayth in the matter of iustification Iam. 2. sect 7. Whosoeuer therefore sayth that a man is iustified onely by fayth and that nothing els is required to iustification we pronounce him accursed Trident. Concil sess 6. can 9. Argum. 1. Rom. 8.24 We are saued by hope Ergo not onely by fayth Rhemist Answ. 1. We are sayd to be saued by hope not because wee are thereby iustified but because by hope we do expect and waite for our saluation which is not yet accomplished as it followeth vers 25. If wee hope for that wee see not then doe we with patience abide for it Argum. 2. Galath 5.6 Fayth that worketh by charitie Fayth then hath her whole actiuitie and operation toward saluation of charitie It doth not therefore iustifie vs alone but fayth and charitie together of the which charitie is the more principall Rhemist ibid. Answ. We graunt that it is a working fayth that doth iustifie as the Apostle here sayth but not as it worketh but as it apprehendeth and beleeueth Charitie is a principall effect of fayth and followeth it how then can fayth receiue actiuitie from charitie the effect doth not giue life to the cause You know Augustine often sayth Opera non praecedunt iustificandum sed sequuntur iustificatum Workes goe not before vnto iustification but followe in him that is already iustified But if charitie should beget fayth then workes proceeding of charitie should goe before fayth by the which wee are iustified The Apostle sayth Without fayth it is impossible to please God Hebr. 11.6 Ergo neither doth charitie please God without fayth Fayth giueth actiuitie to charitie how then can it receiue that which it giueth Argum. 3. Iam. 2.24 We see how that of deedes a man is iustified and not of fayth onely Ergo we are not iustified by fayth onely Rhemist Answ. Saint Iames is not contrary to his fellow Apostle Saint Paul who concludeth Rom. 3.28 that We are iustified by fayth without workes that is as much to say as by fayth onely And he excludeth not onely workes of nature or of the law but euen workes of grace which God hath ordayned Ephes 2.10 Therefore S. Iames in saying we are not iustified by faith onely meaneth not that iustification whereby we are made iust before God for then he should impugne Saint Pauls principles But by iustifiyng or being iustified he vnderstandeth nothing els but to be declared iust as well before men as in the sight of God which declaration is testified and shewed forth by our workes proceeding of faith Thus the word iustified is taken Rom. 3.4 That thou maist be iustified in thy words that is knowne or declared to be iust Augustine also sayth Iustificabuntur id est iusti habebuntur They shall be iustified that is counted iust as we also say Sanctificetur nomen id est sanctum habeatur Let thy name bee sanctified that is reputed and acknowledged to be holy amongst men The Protestants WE are not enemies to good workes as our aduersaries falsely charge vs nay we preach good workes we exhort to good workes we establish good workes teaching the right vse of them out of the word of God which is not to concurre or be ioyned with faith in our iustification but to follow necessarily and issue out of faith as liuely testimonies thereof to the glorie of God the example of others and our comfort but faith it is onely which as a liuely instrument ordained of God doth assure vs of our iustification by grace in Christ. Argum. 1. Saluation is ascribed onely to beleefe Mark 16.16 Act. 16.31 But it is the propertie of faith onely to beleeue not of hope or charitie the effect of hope is by patience to abide Rom. 8.25 The operations also of loue are set forth 1. Corinth 13. Where amongst other Loue is sayd to beleeue all things that is mutuall loue amongst men is not mistrustfull but taketh all things in good part but to beleeue the things of God it is the propertie onely of faith as Augustine vpon those words of the Apostle How shall they call vpon him on whom they haue not beleeued In his duobus tria illa intuere fides credit spes charitas orant In these two behold those three faith beleeueth hope and charitie pray Faith therefore onely beleeueth and so consequently onely iustifieth Enchirid. cap. 7. Argum. 2. Our iustification and saluation is of the meere grace and mercie of God not at al of any merite or desert in vs Ergo we are iustified only through faith for it is of grace that we are saued through faith Ephes. 2.8 That all is to bee ascribed onely to the mercie and grace of God the Apostle euery where sheweth Rom. 9.12 It is not in him that willeth or runneth but in God that sheweth mercie We are iustified freely by grace Rom. 3.24 What hast thou that thou hast not receiued Augustine saith Intelligenda est gratia Dei per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum qua sola liberamur à malo We must vnderstand the grace of God by Iesus Christ by the which we are onely deliuered from euill Si quid boni est magni vel parui donum tuum est nostrum non est nisi malum si quid boni vnquam habui à te recepi If there bee any good in vs much or little it is thy gift nothing is ours but the euill in vs Ergo all good things are of God and onely of his grace and therefore our iustification Argum. 3. There are many euident places which doe attribute our iustification to faith without workes Rom. 3.28.11.8 Ephes. 2.8.9 In all these places in plaine termes We are sayd to bee iustified by faith without workes As for those friuolous euasions that the Apostle speaketh of the first iustification not of the second or of the workes of nature or of the lawe not of grace we haue answered before Quaest. 2. part 3. artic 3. If they will oppose that saying of S. Iames. 2.24 we answere with Augustine Nec Apostoli sunt inter se aduersi ille dicit Abrahae opus omnibus notum in filij immolatione magnum opus sed ex fide laudo fructum boni operis sed in fide agnosco radicem The Apostles are not contrarie one to the other he sayth Abrahams worke was knowne to all in offering vp his sonne a great worke but of faith I praise the fruite but it was rooted in faith His meaning then is this that Abraham was iustified that is declared to men to be iust by this worke HERE FOLLOW SVCH CONTROVERSIES AS doe arise betweene the Protestants and Papists about the natures of Christ. WE haue now through Gods gracious assistance entreated of all those
Basile to be no necessarie poynt to saluation if wee did hold her to haue beene a virgin afore and many such other poyntes there are in scriptures which a man may be ignorant of without perill of saluation Ergo much more may we be ignorant of vnwritten verities or rather Popish fables 2. The Church hath no more authoritie then the Apostles nor yet in all things so much But they had no power to make articles of faith for Saint Paul deliuereth that which he had receiued concerning the sacrament he durst not adde vnto it as the Papists haue been bolde to doe since 1. Cor. 11. Ergo the Church may explane and open articles of fayth out of the scriptures but not make new 3. We prooue it by the confession of our aduersaries The fathers of Basile that concluded it was an article of the Christian fayth to beleeue the superioritie of the councel did gather it out of the saying of Christ dic ecclesiae and therfore enforced it as an article Whereby wee gather that they helde that the Church could establish no article of fayth without scripture Bellarmine likewise sayth that the Church is not now gouerned by newe reuelations but wee ought to be contented with those decrees which wee haue receiued from the Apostles Ergo as D. Whitakers doth strongly conclude the Church cannot coyne new articles of faith 4. Lastly we haue before prooued at large out of the worde of God that the scriptures containe all things necessary to saluation and therefore all articles of fayth must be deriued from thence 1. controu quaest 7. And so we conclude with Augustine Linguae sonos quibus inter se homines sua seusa communicēt pacto quodā societatis sibi instituere possunt Quib. autē sacris diuinitati congruerent voluntatem dei sequuti sunt qui rectè sapuerunt Quae omnino nunquam defuit ad salutem iustitiae pietatique hominum Men sayth he may deuise among themselues what language they will vse to expresse their minde But howe to serue God wise men euer followed the will and commaundement of GOD which neuer hath failed men in all necessary matters concerning righteousnes and godlines By this fathers sentence the scriptures which containe the will of God containe all necessary things Ergo we neede not seeke elswhere AN APPENDIX OR MEMBER OF THIS part of the question whether we are to beleeue in the Church The Papists WE ought to beleeue and trust the Church in all things yea to beleeue in the Church Rhemist 1. Tim. 3. sect 9. the scripture also vseth this speech error 25 to beleeue in men annot in 10. Rom. sect 41. 1. Exod. 14.31 they beleeued in God and Moses Ergo. We answere your owne vulgar text hath it crediderunt deo Mosi seruo eius they beleeued God and his seruant Moses that is hauing seene the great power of God in the destruction of the Aegyptians in the red sea according to the word of Moses they gaue credite vnto Moses which spake vnto them from God 2. Philem. v. 5. Hearing of thy loue and fayth which thou hast toward the Lord Iesus and vnto all the saints See say they here is faith toward the saints Wee answere there is no man that is not peruersly disposed but may easily distinguish the Apostles wordes to attribute fayth to Iesus Christ and loue to the saynts Which may appeare by the altering of the preposition as they themselues read in their owne translation loue and fayth in Iesus Christ and toward the sayntes so it must needes bee thus vnderstoode fayth in Christ and loue toward the sayntes this therefore is but a sophisticall cauill The Protestants THis word Credo beleeue is taken three wayes for there is credere deo to beleeue God that is to trust him in all things credere deum to beleeue God to be credere in deum to beleeue in God as our creator Lord and redeemer So we doe credere ecclesiam we beleeue there is one holy Catholicke Church credere ecclesiae we doe also beleeue and giue credence to the Church following the word of God But we do not in any wise credere in ecclesiam beleeue in the Church 1. We must not beleeue or put any confidence in a creature the Church is but a creature Ergo for to beleeue in God is onely proper to the Godhead and therefore Iohn 14.1 where Christ sayth ye beleeue in God beleeue also in me we doe necessarylie out of these words inferre that Christ is God because we are commaunded to beleeue in him 2. Fayth is of things that are absent and not seene but the Church is present alwayes vpon earth and alwayes visible as our aduersaryes hold how then can it bee an obiect of our fayth We can not beleeue in that which is visible seene for it is agaynst the nature of fayth 3. Augustine sayth sciendum est quòd ecclesiam credere non tamen in ecclesiam credere debemus quia ecclesia non est deus sed domus dei De tēpore serm 131. We must know that we are to beleeue there is a Church not in the Church for the Church is not God but onely the house of God THE SECOND PARTE OF THE QVESTION concerning the ceremonies of the Church The Papists THey doe holde that the Church of God may vse and blesse diuers elements error 26 and creatures for the seruice of God as holy water to driue away diuels the hallowing of salt waxe fire palmes ashes oyle creame milke honey Rhemist 1. tim 4. sect 12. 13. Yea that the Church may borrow rites and ceremonies of the Iewes ibid. sect 18. Yea by the creatures thus blessed or rather coniured they say remission of sinnes is obtayned sect 14. 2. Remission of sinnes was annexed to the oyle wherewith the sicke were annoynted Iames 5. Ergo remissions of sinnes may be applied by the like consecrated elements Rhemist 1. Tim. 4. sect 14. We answere First it followeth not because the creature of oyle was vsed in the miraculous gift of healing which ceremonie was no longer to continue than that miraculous gift indured it followeth not that other elements may be vsed so now there being not the like occasion seeing all such myraculous giftes are now ceased Secondly it was not the oyle whereby their sinnes were forgiuen them neither was it applied to that ende it was onely a pledge vnto them of their bodily health but the prayer of fayth shall saue the sick sayth the Apostle v. 15. for God hath promised to heare the faythfull prayers of his children both for themselues and others 3. Saint Paul vsed imposition of hands which was a ceremonie of the law vsed in consecrating of Priestes Ergo it is lawfull to borrowe ceremonies of the Iewes We answere It followeth not because Christ and the Apostles by the spirite of God retayned some decent actions vsed in the lawe therefore now the Church at her libertie may take of
he neuer so simple and therefore Priests as well as Bishops are to bee admitted to the Councel 2 He declareth the ancient practise of the Church In the Councel of Nice where there were assembled 322. Bishops Athanasius being then onely a Priest withstood the Arrians and infringed their arguments In the Synode of Chalcedon there were present sixe hundred Priests which name is common both to Bishops and Priests When Paul Bishoppe of Antioch preached that Christ was a man of common nature the Councell assembled against him at Antioch where the sayde Paul was condemned neither was there any man which did more confound the sayd Paul then one Malchion Priest of Antioch which taught Rhetorick there Concerning the second part that laye men also with Priests ought to bee admitted first we haue testimonie out of the word of God for it Tit. 3.13 for this cause Zenas the lawyer is ioyned as fellow in commission with Apollos But we haue a more euident place Act. 15.22 It seemed good to the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church here we see that not onely the Elders but the whole multitude were admitted into consultation with the Apostles To this place our aduersaries doe thus aunswere Lodouicus the Prothonotarie first thus rashly and fondly gaue his verdicte in the Councell of Basile that there was no argument to be gathered of the Acts of the Apostles whose examples were more to be maruayled at then to be followed But to this Arelatensis replied that he would stay himself most vpon the Apostles doings for what sayth he is more comely for vs to followe then the doctrine and customes of the primitiue Church And Aeneas Siluius reporteth who writeth of the actes of that Councell that all men impugned this saying of Lodouicus that the Apostles were not to be followed as a blasphemie Wherefore the Iesuite hath found out another aunswere he sayth that none but the Apostles gaue sentence the rest onely gaue consent and inwarde liking and approbation this cauill Arelatensis met withall long before the Iesuite was borne in the forenamed Councell Neither this worde sayth hee It seemed good signifieth in this place consultation but decision and determination And so it doth indeede for seeing there is one worde applyed to them all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 placuit it seemed good to the Apostles Elders and the whole multitude why should it not be taken in the one and selfe same sence and after the same manner vnderstood of them all 2. Seeing the Councel doth represent the whole Church there ought to be present and to giue sentence of all sorts and callings of men and the tather because the matter of fayth and religion is a common cause and as well appertayneth to lay-men as to Bishops it behooueth them also to bee present And further it were more reasonable that princes and temporall Magistrates should binde their subiects to their lawes without their consent then that ecclesiastical persons should lay yokes vpon Christians against their willes for ciuill matters are more indifferent and left to our choyce then spirituall are Yet we see there are no lawes enacted in our Realme but by the high court of Parliament where alwayes some are appoynted for the commons euen the whole neather house without whose consent no acte can passe So it were very reasonable that no law should be layd vpon the Church without the generall consent thereof 3. Lastly Augustines iudgement we heard before alleadged by Arelatensis that seeing the iudicial power of the keies is committed to the whole Church to Bishops to Priests they all ought to bee entertayned in generall Councels THE FOVRTH QVESTION WHO OVGHT to be the president and chiefe moderator in Councels The Papists error 32 WIth one whole consent they all agree and holde that the Pope onelie ought to haue the chiefe place in Councels either himselfe in his owne person or else his Legates and deputies for him they reason thus 1. The Pope is the chiefe pastor of the vniuersall Church for vnto Peter onely it was sayd pasce oues meas feede my sheepe and he is called and saluted in Councels by the name of father and all other both Princes and Bishops are sheepe in respect of him Wee answere first in the Iesuites argument there is petitio principij a foule fault in a good Logician though it bee none in a Sophister still to begge that which is in question for yet he hath not prooued that the Pope is the vniuersall pastor 2. That place feede my sheepe prooueth it not Augustine saith redditur negationi trinae trina confessio ne minus amori lingua seruiat quà m timori in Iohan. tract 123. he recompenceth a threefold deniall with a threefold confession lest that his tongue should be lesse seruiceable to loue then it was to feare so then by this fathers iudgement it was no priuiledge to Peter to bee thrise admonished but he is thereby put in mind of his thrise deniall of Christ. Againe I maruaile the Iesuite can so soone forget himselfe for in the 15. chapter afore he prooued by these words feede my sheepe that Bishops onely were pastors and he can now turne the wordes to serue onely for the Pope 3. What great matter is it for the Pope to be called father seeing he is not ignorant that all Bishops assembled in Councell and other learned are called by that name Nay it is no rare matter for other Bishops to be saluted by the name of Pope as Prosper writing to Augustine twise in one Epistle calleth him beatissimum Papam most blessed Pope Tom. 7.4 Princes and Bishops to the Pope are sheepe sayth the Iesuite 1. For Bishops though he had a iurisdiction ouer all which will stick in his teeth to prooue yet shall they be no more his sheep then Priests are to Bishops and Bishops to their Metropolitanes who cannot be sayd to be their sheepe though they haue some preeminence ouer them for Augustines rule must stand nemo se nostrum episcopum episcoporum constituit De baptism 2.2 No man is a Bishop of Bishops nor shepheard of shepheards Secondly for Princes he hath nothing to doe with any but those in his owne Bishopricke and as they are his sheep one way as they are taught of him so he and his Cardinals are the Magistrates sheepe another way and in respect of the ciuil gouernement he is their shepheard And both he and they prince and priest are sheep-fellows vnder Iesus Christ the chiefe shepheard as Augustine sayth tanquam vobis pastores sumus sed sub illo pastore vobiscum oues sumus in Psal. 126. we are shepheards to you but both you and I are sheep vnder that great shepheard The Protestants WE doe truely affirme that the Soueraigne Maiestie of the Emperour and chiefe Magistrate or his legate if he either be present himselfe or sende ought to be president of the Councel Or else in their absence one to be chosen and elected by the
episcoporum grauiorem authoritatem per concilia licere reprehendi si in eis à veritate deuiatum sit That the decrees of all Bishops whatsoeuer not excluding Popes may be corrected either by the sentence of wiser men in that poynt wherein they erred or by the better aduised sentence of other Bishops or by Councels may be reuersed where they doe erre Ergo it is possible for Popes by his iudgement to erre A PART OR APPENDIX OF THIS QVEstion whether the Church of Rome may erre or not The Papists THey doe not onely affirme that the Pope cannot erre but that the Church error 48 of Rome also caÌ„not be deceiued in matters of faith so long as the Apostolike See remayneth there which they say is like there to remaine to the ende of the world Bellarm. lib. 3. de pontif cap. 4. Hereupon Panormitane doubteth not to say that he would preferre the iudgement of the Cardinals of Rome before the iudgement of the whole world this he sayd standing vp in the Councel of Basile Fox pag. 669. ex Aenea Syluio 1. The Rhemists vpon those words of Saint Paul Rom. 1.5 your fayth is published through the whole world doe thus inferre See say they the great prouidence of God in the preseruation of the Romane common faith In times past the Romane fayth and Catholike all one Ergo that See cannot erre in faith We answere they must proue their Romish faith and popish religion to be the same which was praysed and commended by the Apostle or els they gayne nothing but that shall they neuer doe 2. So long as the Apostolike See remayneth at Rome it shall be preserued from error but that is like there to remaine till the worlds end for it onely remayneth when all other Apostolique Sees are gone and it is very probable that if this See could haue been ouerthrowen it should haue been done by the incursion and inuasion of the Gothes Vandals Turkes the emulation of Princes diuisions and schismes of Popes themselues yet for all this it standeth still and hath so continued almost 1600. yeres and shall so continue still Ergo the Romane Church can not erre Bellarmin lib. 2. cap. 4. Rhemist annot in Thessal 2. sect 7. We answere First it is a great vntruth that all other Apostolike Sees are gone for there is a succession at Antioch Alexandria Constantinople Ephesus euen at this day Secondly it is false that the See of Rome hath continued in that religion it now professeth which indeed is no religion but superstition and heresie these 1600. yeres for first till Gregories time which was 600. yeeres after Christ none of the popes would be called vniuersall Bishops and it was more then 300. yeeres from Gregorie the 1. to Siluester the 2. when sathan is thought fully to be let loose for he by the diuel was aduanced to the papacie All these yeeres therefore you must strike off in your account Thirdly that the See of Rome which is the seate of Antichrist hath continued many yeeres we graunt for it is the iust iudgement of God vpon the world because they loued not the trueth that they should be deluded a long time and deceiued by Antichrist and beleeue lies so did Saint Paul prophesie 2. Thessalonians 2.10 11. And wee grant also that that Antichristian See shall in some sorte remayne till the comming of Christ whom hee shall destroie with the brightnes of his appearing as Saint Paul sayth You haue gayned therefore nothing by this but that Rome is the seate of Antichrist Fulk annotat in 2. Thessalonians 2. sect 7. The Protâ—â—tants IT is euident and plaine and neede not much proofe that the Romane Church as also any particular visible Church maie not onely erre in faith but fall cleane away into heresie and Idolatrie as we see it come to passe in the Church of Rome 1. The Church of Rome hath no better assurance of their continuance then the Church of the Iewes had before Christ no nor yet so great for they were a peculiar and chosen nation But Iudah fell and transgressed and committed Idolatrie in the raigne of Ahaz and therefore the Prophet Esay complayneth and sayth From the sole of the foote to the head there is nothing sound cap. 1. ver 6. Neither are they better then the Church of Ephesus was in Saint Iohns time who was as able I think to keepe that Church from error as the Pope is to keepe Rome yet the Lord threatneth to remoue his candlestick froÌ„ amongst them vnles they did amend Reue. 2.5 Ergo the Church of Rome may erre 2. The Pope may erre as we haue before shewed Ergo the Church of Rome for the Apostolike See as they say is the cause that no error can approch or come neere them Therefore me thinketh the Iesuite committeth a foule absurditie in saying the Church of Rome cannot so much as erre personally and yet they grant that the Pope may erre personally So by this reason the body shuld haue a greater priuiledge then the head the Church of Rome should bee freer from error then the Pope who should preserue it from error this sure is a great absurditie in Popish diuinitie Bellarmin cap. 4. 3. It is confessed by our aduersaries themselues that the Church of Rome may erre as the Councel at Rome vnder Adriane the second erred sayth the Iesuite in determining Honorius to bee an heretick one of his predecessors cap. 11. The Councel of the Italian Bishops at Brixia erred in condemning Gregory the seuenth who was if you will beleeue Harding a vertuous and an holy man Nay Paulus Iouius a popish Bishop confesseth that Adrianus 6. was made Pope mira pudenda Senatorum factiosorum suffragatione through the strange and shamefull suffrages of factious Cardinals because they preferred a stranger before their owne order But our aduersaries haue a trick to shift off all this that hath been saide They erred in a matter of fact not in any poynt of fayth Yet they cannot so closely conuey the matter away for Panormitane euen in such questions also preferreth the iudgement of the Cardinals before the whole world speaking in the defence of Eugenius who was challenged in the Councel of Basile for the dissolution of the Councel which he did saith Panormitane with the aduice of the Cardinals whose iudgement he so much esteemeth in this matter which concerned not faith namely for the dissoluing of the Councel THE SEVENTH QVESTION OF THE spirituall iurisdiction and power of the Bishop of Rome THis question hath two partes the first whether the Bishop of Rome haue a coactiue and constrayning power to make lawes to binde the conscience and to punish the transgressors Secondly whether other Pastors and Bishops haue their iurisdiction immediatly from God or from the Pope Other questions also there are which belong to this matter as whether the Pope be the chiefe iudge in controuersies of fayth which we haue already handled entreating of
the perfection and authority of the scriptures as also whether it be in the Pope to summone dissolue and confirme Councels which hath been sufficiently declared before in the controuersie concerning Councels Concerning other questions as the canonizing of Saints which they say appertaineth to the Pope the election and confirmation of Bishops pardons and indulgences we shall haue fitter occasion to deale in them in their seuerall places and controuersies At this time wee purpose onely to touch these two poynts aforesaide of the Popes Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE POPE may make lawes to binde the conscience and punish the transgressors thereof iudicially The Papists THat the Pope hath such authorie to make lawes for the whole Church error 49 which shall binde vnder paine of damnation as well as the lawes of God it is the general opinion of the papists Fox 981. articul 13. p. 1101. artic cont Lambert 29. But they put in this clause So they bee not vniust lawes nor contrarie to the diuine law Bellarm. cap. 15. And yet they say that the Pope may make lawes hauing not the authority nor warrant of scripture neither is it necessarie for these lawes to be expressed or diduced out of scripture And these lawes are not onely of externall rites and orders of the Church but euen of things necessary to saluation Bellarm. cap 15. in reprehens Caluini Yea he addeth further that in matters not necessary to saluation he can not be disobeyed without deadly sinne and offence of conscience cap. 16. loc 1. Bulla Leonis 10. aduersus Lutherum Fox p. 1283. col 1. 1. The Apostles prescribed a law concerning the abstaining from blood things strangled and offered to Idols concerning the which Christ gaue them no precept But this law did binde the people in conscience for euery where the Apostles gaue straight charge for the keeping of the decrees Bellarm. Answere First the Apostles commaunded no newe thing but the same which they themselues were taught of Christ that they should take heede of offence the Christians therefore were not bound in conscience any further to keepe the decrees concerning such things then for auoyding of scandal and offence Secondly for afterward the offence being taken away the law also ceased and Saint Paul giueth libertie notwithstanding this law to eate things offered to Idols if it might be done without offence Asking no question sayth he for conscience sake 1. Cor. 10.27 Ergo their consciences were not hereby obliged and bound 3. It is necessary to haue some lawes beside the diuine law for the gouernment of the Church for the word of God is too vniuersal neither is sufficient to direct euery particular action therefore other ecclesiasticall lawes must bee added but euery good and necessary law hath a coactiue and constraining power and bindeth the conscience to obedience Ergo the constitutions of the Popes and Councels which are the only ecclesiastical lawes doe binde the conscience Bellarmin cap. 16. lib. 4. Answere First the word of God contayneth all necessarie rules to saluation wherefore all lawes of the Church concerning matters of faith are but explanations and interpretations of the rules of fayth set forth in scripture if they be godly lawes and so are not the lawes of men but of God and doe bind the conscience to the obseruation thereof as the lawes of the Church which command Christians to resort to the congregation to heare Gods word and reuerently to receiue the sacraments are the very ordinances and commaundements of Christ who enioyned his Apostles to preach and baptize and his faythfull people to heare and to be baptized and therefore in conscience wee are bound to the obedience hereof Secondly there are other ecclesiasticall lawes appoynted for the publique order of the Church concerning externall rites and circumstances of persons and place as the houres of prayer the forme of the leâ—turgie publike seruice the times fittest for the celebration of the sacraments and such like These and such like constitutions do not binde in conscience absolutely in respect of the things themselues which are indifferent but in regarde of that contempt and offence which might followe in the not keeping of them contempt to our superiors whome wee ought in all lawfull things to obey offence in grieuing the conscience of our weake brethren So that euen these constitutions also which are made according to the rules of the Gospell that is vnto edification to the glorie of God and for auoyding of offence doe necessarilie binde vs in conscience not conscience of the thinges themselues which are but externall but conscience of obedience to our Christian Magistrates and conscience in taking heede of all iust offence sic Caluin Institut lib. 4. cap. 10.11 3 But we are not God be thanked driuen to any such straight that if there be neede of any such Ecclesiasticall lawes we should run for succor to the Popes beggerly decretals And yet such Canons as were in force amongst them agreeable to the rules of the Gospell we doe not refuse But if there bee want and penurie of good lawes euery Church hath as full authoritie to make decrees and ordinances for the peace and order and quiet gouernement thereof not as the Pope of Rome hath ouer the vniuersall Church for that by right is none or if it be it is but an vsurped power but as the Bishop of Rome hath in his owne Bishopricke and dioces The Protestants WHat our sentence is of this matter it doth partlie appeare by that which wee haue alreadie saide that the Pope hath no power ouer the whole Church and therefore can make no lawes to binde the conscience or otherwise for the same for it belongeth not to his charge Secondly we say that neither he nor any ecclesiasticall gouernement beside can make lawes of things necessarie to saluation other then those which are in Scripture conteined Thirdly all Ecclesiasticall lawes made concerning externall rites and publike order doe not otherwise binde the conscience then in regarde of our obedience due to Christian Magistrates in lawfull things and for auoyding of scandall and offence But in respect of the things commaunded such lawes doe not binde Caluin loc praedicto 1 Saint Iames saith there is one lawe-giuer which is able to saue and to destroy cap. 4.12 He therefore onely maketh lawes to binde the conscience that is able to saue and to destroy but that cannot the Pope doe Ergo Caluin argum Bellarmine answereth that the lawes of men doe binde vnder paine of damnation in as much as God is offended and displeased with their disobedience and so iudgeth them worthie of punishment cap. 20. All this wee graunt that the lawes of men being good lawes doe binde in conscience in respect of the contempt and disobedience to higher powers but not in respect of the thinges commaunded which in their nature are indiffereÌ„t The Iesuite should haue said that God is offended not onely for their disobedience but simplie
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
prophecie is concerning Christians which should in the time of the Gospell make vowes vnto God Bellarm. cap. 17. Ans. The Prophet doth by the externall seruice of God vsed in the Church at that time set foorth the spirituall worship of God in the Church of Christ for Iewish vowes shall be no more then in force then their sacrifices and oblations Also vers 19. the Prophet sayth that an Altar shall bee set vp in Aegypt and vers 18. They shall speake the language of Canaan But these things were not literally but mystically performed neither is it necessarie the other should 2 Psal. 76.11 Vow vnto God and performe Ergo vowes now are lawfull Bellarm. ibid. Ans. It appeareth by the text that it was a commandement vnto the Iewes and for that time for it followeth Al ye that are round about him that is the Leuites and Priests that dwelt round about the temple And bring presents to him that ought to be feared but now Christians bring no such externall presents and gifts therefore it cannot be properly vnderstood of them The Protestants WE do not condemne al vowes neither denye but that a Christian in some cases may vow as presently it followeth to be shewed But Iewish vowes are vtterly vnlawfull such as the vowes of the Nazarites were Numb 6. as to abstaine from wine and strong drinke not to shaue their haire and such like if we place religion in such vowes 1 Their vowes were ceremonious and consisted in externall rites which were shadowes and significations of spirituall things as not to cut their haire not to touch any dead thing to abstaine from wine and strong drinke But all shadowes are now gone and abolished and such externall vsages are vnprofitable as were those precepts of the false Apostles Touch not tast not handle not which all perish with the vsing and are the commandements of men as S. Paul sayth Coloss. 2.21.22 Such precepts notwithstanding Monkes Friers at this day doe binde themselues vnto for it is not lawfull for them to touch siluer nor to tast flesh according to the strict and superstitious rules of their Patrones 2 The Nazarites were by their vowes separated vnto God Numb 6.2 that is were counted as more holy during their vowes and better accepted of before God But now God is not pleased by any such externall rites or bodily seruices In Christ Iesu neither circumcision auaileth any thing nor vncircumcision but faith that worketh by loue Galath 5.6 3 S. Paul sayth He that is circumcised is bound to keepe the whole law Galath 5.3 He that keepeth any one ceremonie of the lawe doth make himselfe a seruant to the whole lawe for if after the profession of the Nazarites they will vow not to drinke wine not to shaue their heads hereby the better to please God why are they not also purified and bring an offering according to the law as Paul did who because of the infirmitie of the Iewes was agreed with foure other men which had a vow to bee purified according to the law But this S. Paul did being amongst the Iewes who cryed out against him as a breaker of the lawe lest he should be scandalous vnto them Augustine thus notably writeth concerning this matter Sicut defuncta corpora necessariorum officijs deducenda erant quodammodo ad sepulchrum non deserenda continuò vel sicut canibus proijcienda The ceremonies of the lawe sayth he were not presently to be cast off but as dead bodies must bee brought to the graue with some seemely pompe of their friends and not to be cast vnto dogs Thus he sayth that in the Apostles time all Iewish ceremonies were not in act abolished though they were alreadie as dead carkasses that is by right depriued of life yet they required some space to bee honourably layd downe and as it were buried But whosoeuer would now goe about to renew the Iewish ceremonies againe sayth he Tanquam sopitos cineres eruens non erit pius deductor vel baiulus corporis sed impius sepulturae violator He should as it were rake in dead mens ashes and not be a seemely bringer of the bodie to the ground but a wicked violator of Christian buriall Euen so Augustine maketh it as wicked a part to bring in vse any Iewish rites as to pull one honestly buried out of his graue THE SECOND PART WHAT THINGS MAY lawfully be vowed by Christians The Papists THey hold that the proper vowes of Christians are voluntarie not of such error 85 things which Christians are bound in duetie to doe but of such as they may leaue vndone if they will such as are their popish vowes of continencie and voluntarie or rather wilfull pouertie 1 Deuteron 23. When thou shalt vow a vow vnto God thou shalt not bee slack to pay it it should be sinne vnto thee but when thou abstainest from vowing it shall be no sinne vnto thee By this the Iesuite proueth that the vowes of Christians are voluntarie and not of necessarie dueties for it were sinne to leaue any thing vndone that we are in duetie bound vnto cap. 19. Ans. First We denie not but that the Iewes had voluntarie vowes and might binde themselues by vow to performe many things which being not vowed it was no sinne to leaue vndone As the Nazarites vowes concerning abstinence from wine and strong drinke which things other might lawfully vse without sinne if they were not professed Nazarites But these ceremoniall lawes doe nothing appertaine to Christians Secondly it may also be vnderstood of necessarie vowes which we are bound vnto of duetie and then the sense is this If you abstaine from vowing ye sinne not that is not so hainously as after the vowe made as Pagans and Infidels doe sinne in transgressing Gods law but a Christian sinneth more after publike profession and promise made of obedience vnto Gods commandements The Protestants WE hold that to vow is not a thing simply forbidden Christians but our vowes are limited and restrained for they are either such as directly or immediatly are referred to the worship of God whereby wee binde our selues more straightly to serue him and such vowes are onely of such things as are commanded and necessarily to be done and in this sense there is but one common vow of all Christians and that is our solemne promise made in baptisme which the Papists denie properly to be a vow Bellarmin cap 19. There is another kind of vowes that directly concerneth not the worship of God which may be of things not commanded of the which we will entreate in the next section Now wee are to proue that Baptisme is the onely proper vow of Christians which directly toucheth the seruice and worship of God 1 Circumcision was a generall vow of the Iewes for thereby they bound themselues to keepe the whole law Galath 5.3 Ergo Baptisme is the vowe of Christians which commeth in the place of circumcision And againe it appeareth by this that because Christians transgressing doe
and Church officers their dueties and may in their owne persons execute the one that is spirituall duties that they may as well intermeddle in the other But these two offices of Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall gouernment are distinguished and must not be confounded The Prince though he haue authoritie to command Ecclesiasticall persons yet being a ciuill Magistrate is not to deale with the execution of spirituall dueties Bishops pastors likewise haue a spiritual charge ouer kings princes to shew thē their duties out of Gods word yet because they are persons Ecclesiastical they ought not to meddle with meer Ciuill dueties The Prince hath the soueraigntie of externall gouernement in all causes ouer all persons yet not alike for Ciuill offices he may both command and execute Ecclesiasticall duties he commandeth onely Bishops and pastors haue also a spirituall charge ouer all prescribing out of Gods word as well the duetie of Magistrates as of Ministers but not alike for the one they may fully execute so may they not the other The head in the naturall bodie resembleth the Prince in the commonwealth in some sense the head giueth mouing to the whole bodie and all the parts thereof but to the principall parts in the head the eyes tongue eares it giueth beside the facultie of mouing the sense also of seeing tasting hearing So in the common-wealth by the Princes authoritie all persons are kept in order and vrged to looke to their charge both ciuill officers and spirituall as al the parts of the bodie receiue mouing from the head But the ciuill officers receiue power and authoritie beside and their very offices of the King as the parts in the head receiue sense from their fountaine but Ecclesiasticall Ministers receiue not their offices from the Prince or any mortall man but they haue their calling according to the order of the Church of God Argum. 2. For the space of 300. yeeres the Church after Christ had no Christian gouernours but all Heathen and Idoll worshippers yet then the Church was established and preuailed Ergo Ciuill Magistrates ought not to deale in Ecclesiasticall affayres Bellarmine Ans. 1. Euen then also the Heathen Emperours had authoritie in Church matters and if they had commanded any thing agreeable to true religion they should haue been obeyed as Cyrus in the law which he made for building the temple Ezra 1. Darius the Median for worshipping the true God Dan. 6. Fulk Rom. 13. sect 3. The heathen Emperours then had the same power but they knewe not how to vse it Christian Princes doe succeede them in the same office but are better taught by the word of God how to exercise the sword Secondly we denie not but that in the time of persecution all things necessarie for the spirituall building thereof may be had without the Magistrate as a Vineyard may bring forth fruite without an hedge but it cannot enioy peace nor be in a perfect estate in respect of the externall gouernement but vnder good Magistrates as the Vineyard may soone be spoyled the wild bore and the beasts of the field may breake in vpon it hauing no hedge The child being in the womb though it haue as yet small vse of the head but is fed by the nauell which is in steed of the mouth hath in it selfe the lineaments and proportion of a humane bodie yet it wanteth the perfect beautie till it be borne and come forth and the head receiue his office So may the Church haue a being in persecution and the want of the ciuill head may be otherwise supplied but it is not beautifull till the head be set vp and the sword put into the Christian Magistrates hand Argum. 3. Princes haue no cure nor charge of soules Ergo they are not to meddle with Ecclesiasticall lawes Rhemist annot 1. Corinth 14. sect 16. Ans. Parents haue charge ouer the soules of their childrē for they are charged to bring them vp in the instruction and information of the Lord Ephes. 6.4 Therefore Princes also haue directly charge of the soules of their subiects according to their place and calling by prouiding and making good Ecclesiasticall lawes and compelling them to the true seruice of God As the Ecclesiasticall Ministers in another kind and more properly are said to haue the cure of soules in feeding and instructing the people Fulk ibid. The Protestants THe ciuill Magistrate by the word of God hath power to make and constitute Ecclesiasticall lawes and to establish true religion and see that all persons vnder their gouernment doe faithfully execute their charge To say therefore that the Church officers are to deuise lawes concerning religion and the Prince onely to execute them is to make the Prince their seruant and doth derogate too much from the princely authoritie Neither doe we giue vnto the Prince absolute power to make Ecclesiasticall lawes for first the Prince is not to prescribe what lawes he listeth to the Church but such as onely may require the true worship of God Secondly that it is expedient and meete according to the commendable custome of this land that the godly learned of the Clergie should be consulted withall in establishing of Ecclesiastical ordinances vnlesse it be in such a corrupt time when the Church gouernours are enemies to religion for then the Prince not staying vpon their iudgement ought to reforme religion according to the word of God as we see it was lawfully and godly practised by King Henrie the 8. Thirdly we doe make exception of all such Ecclesiasticall canons and ordinances the making whereof doth properly belong to the office of Bishops and gouernours of the Church for our meaning is not that it is not lawful for Ecclesiastical Ministers to make Ecclesiastical decrees which do properly concerne their office as concerning the censures of the Church excommunication suspension absoluing binding loosing and such like which things are incident to their pastorall office and yet we grant that the Prince hath euen in these cases an ouerruling hand to see that none abuse their pastoral office But that any lawes ought to be made without the authoritie of the prince which the prince is bound to execute we vtterly denie And so we conclude that the ciuill Magistrate hath power ouer all persons and in all causes both temporall and ecclesiasticall in such manner as we haue sayd 1 S. Paul willeth that praiers should be made for Kings and Princes that vnder them we may leade a peaceable life in all godlines and honestie 1. Tim. 2.2 Ergo it is their duetie as well to procure religion by their authoritie as ciuill honestie Againe He beareth not the sword for nought Rom. 13.4 He hath power to punish al euill doers therfore also to correct euill ministers to make Ecclesiastical lawes for otherwise he should haue no ful power to correct the transgressors thereof 2 We reade that Iosua Dauid Salomon Iosia did deale in ecclesiasticall matters which concerned religion and the worship of God
congregate or called to condemne such open wickednes as if neuer any heresie had been condemned but in a Synode or Councel Cont. 2. epistol Pelag. lib. 4. cap. 12. This is that heretical opinioÌ„ as they call it which the Councel of Constance condemned in Iohn Husse him together with it because he said That an heretike whatsoeuer he be ought first to be instructed and taught with Christian loue gentlenes by the holy scriptures by reasons drawn out of the same before he suffer corporall or bodily punishment Fox pag. 610. articul 18. Which his saying is grounded vpon that rule of the Gospell Math. 18.15 That if we see one offend we should first tell him priuatly then before 2. or 3. lastly declare it to the Church and if he will not heare the Church that is by scripture conuincing him then continuing obstinate let him be as a publicane This rule the papists kept not in their bloudie persecutions here in England They put many hundreds to death were not able to coÌ„uince any one of heresie but in disputation were themselues put to silence and made ashamed Their onely arguments were the fire and fagot 3 Againe they vsed vnlawfull waies and vniust in sifting and examining by error 104 cruel tormeÌ„ts the poore innocents brought before them neither shewing accusers nor witnesses Iohn Browne Martyr appearing before Warrham and Fisher two bloudsuckers was burned with hot coales his bare feet being set vpon theÌ„ Fox p. 1292. Cutbert Symsons fingers were grated with an arrow and he himself piteously racked to be made betray his innoceÌ„t brethren p. 2032. Tomkins hand was burned by Bonner till the sinewes sparkled againe pag. 1533. And these were the witnesses and accusers that were brought against them This was cleane contrarie to the law of Moses At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall he that is worthie of death dye Deuteron 17.6 Augustine saith Quis iudex accusantis sumat personam c. What Iudge would take vpon him to be an accuser Our Lord Christ knewe Iudas to be a theefe sayth he yet because he was not accused he did not cast him off He counteth it a very vnnaturall thing for the Iudge to be an accuser and to proceede without witnesses which although in some criminall cases is more tolerable yet in the cases of life and death ought in no wise to be vsed The same iudgement also Augustine giueth of that cruell custome of tormenting men to conuince them by their own mouth which was inuented by the heathen but neuer more cruelly practised then among the papists Hoc intolerabile est saith he rigandum fontibus lacrymarum cum propterea torqueat iudex accusatum ne occidat nesciens innocentem fit per ignorantiam vt tortum innocentem occidat quem ne innocentem occideret torserat How intolerable a thing is it and to be much lamented that while the Iudge tormenteth the partie accused lest vnwittingly he should put an innocent man to death it falleth out that he adiudgeth to death a man both innocent beside tormented whom lest he should slay as an innocent he before put to torment His meaning is that when a man is put to the racke or otherwise tortured that he might confesse the truth and cleere himselfe it commeth to passe that through extremitie of the payne he maketh himselfe guiltie and so the innocent is both wrongfully tormented and vniustly put to death Which kind of forcing men by torture though in some dangerous cases as of high treason and such like where there is great perill in the concealing of the truth and no other way to sift it out may be admitted yet to vse it as an ordinarie course as the papists did and in causes of religion it is to too shameful and of all Christians to be abhorred 4 Where haue they learned so hotly and fiercely to pursue simple men and women to death for none or very small offences which they notwithstanding error 105 falsely called heresie Was it heresie for Iames Brewster to heare one Sweeting to reade many good things out of a certaine booke or for the same Sweeting when as the sayd Iames should say Now the sonne of the liuing God helpe vs to answere Now almightie God so doe yet for these heresies were they both condemned and burnt in Smithfield Anno. 1511. Fox pag. 818. A woman of Auspurge had like to haue been burned for asking a priest that carried the Host to a sicke man with Taper-light what he meant to goe with a light at noone day if Mary the Emperours sister had not made sute for her Anno. 1550. Anno 1525. a Monke burned in France because he had forsaken his abominable order and married a wife pag. 896. Iohannes de Cadurco being at a feast where it was agreed that euery one should bring forth this posie or sentence because he brought forth this Christ reigne in our hearts and prosecuted it out of the scriptures was burned Anno. 1533. pag. 897. A Tailour burned at Paris anno 1549. for working vpon an holy day ex Iohan. Crispin Fox p. 903. Ralfe Hare constrained to abiure for saying before the Bishop of Winchester The Lord is my witnes It is Symbolum Haereticorum saith Winchester a marke to know heretikes by to say the Lord the Lord page 1225. One Thomas Sanpaulinus Matyr because he rebuked a man for swearing was thereupon suspected to be a Lutheran examined condemned and burned at Paris anno 1551. pa. 904. Many such like examples might be produced of holye Martyres which for these and such other great heresies were put to death And as the offences were very smal as we see so their maÌ„ner of proceeding was most cruell void of all humanity They spared not women with childe We haue not forgotten that famous example of their crueltie which shall be remeÌ„bred to their perpetuall shame and infamie Howe they burned 3. simple women in the Isle of Garnsey anno 1556. which had submitted theÌ„selues to their mercie one of the three was great with childe which brast out of her wombe in the midst of the fire and was throwne in againe pa. 1944. They had no compassion of the tender age of children In the towne of Byrbroke while Richard Chapman did pennaunce in the Church beeing inioyned to kneele barefoote and bare legged all the sermon while vppon the colde steps of the Church a little boy for giuing him his hat to kneele vpon was had into the vestrie and piteously scourged pa. 1047. Cruel Bonner burned Richard Mâ—kins a childe of 15. yeeres for speaking against the sacrament of the aultar who notwithstanding at the stake was taught to speak much good of the B. of London and so did pa. 1202. John Fâ—ttie his childe being of 8. yeere oulde for saying to one of the Bishoppes Chaplens that he had Balaams marke was scourged so cruelly that within 14 dayes hee died Nay such was their cruelty they
God so the manner of celebrating and keeping it holy is to be learned out of the word and neither custome nor authority ought to giue liberty for such workes vpon the Lords day as are not warranted by the word First we graunt that we are not so necessarily tied to the rest of the Sabboth as the Iewes were for those things are abolished which appertained to the Iewish Sabboth First the prescript of the day Secondly the ceremonious exercises of the Sabboth in the sacrifices and other rites of the Law Thirdly the typicall shadowes and significations of their Sabboth as first it betokened their rest in Canaan then the rest and peace of the Church by Christ Hebre. 4.3 5. Fourthly the strickt and precise rest wherein Christians haue more liberty then the Iewes had and againe they obserued their rest as being properly and simply and in it selfe a sabboth daies duty but we doe consider it as being referred to a more principall end as making of vs more fit for spirituall exercises Secondly we allow these workes to be done First opera religiosa or pietatis the religious workes and conferring to piety as the Priestes did slaye the sacrifices vpon the Sabboth and yet brake not the rest of the Sabboth Math. 12.5 so the people may walke to their parish Church though somewhat farre off the Pastor Minister may goe forth to preach yea and preaching is of it selfe a labour of the body to study also and meditate of his Sermon to ring the bels to call the people to the Church all these are lawfull as being helpes for the exercises of religion Secondly opera charitatis the workes of mercy are permitted as to visite the sicke the Phisitian to resorte to his patient yea to shew compassion to brute beastes as to helpe the sheepe out of a pit Math. 12.11 Thirdly opera necessitatis the workes of necessitie as the dressing of meat and such like Math. 12.1.3 Our Sauiour excuseth his Apostles for plucking the eares of Corne when they were hungry As for opera voluntaria workes of pleasure and recreation we haue no other permission to vse them then as they shal be no le ts or impediments vnto spirituall exercises as the hearing of the word and meditating therein and such other Otherwise they are not to be vsed Augustine saith speaking of the Iewes who did greatly prophane their Sabboth in sporting and dalliance Melius toto die foderent quà m toto die saltarēt It were better for them to digge all day then to daunce all day euen so verily it were better for many poore ignorant people that vpon the Sabboth giue themselues to drinking and quaffing gaming if they should goe to plough or cart all the day But as for other seruile workes as to keepe Faires and Markets vpon the Lords day to trauell themselues their seruants and beastes vpon the Sabboth it is flat contrary to the commaundement of God and the practise of the Church Nehemiah 13.16 where there is no extream and vrgent necessitie so that it is not to be doubted but that as the keeping of the Lords day is a moral commaundement so also the manner of the obseruing thereof in sanctifying it and resting therein is morall the ceremonies of the rest being abolished that is the Iewish strictnes thereof and the opinion which they had of their rest as being simply a part of the sanctifying of the Sabboth But we doe consider it as referred vnto more principall duties and obserue it not as of it selfe pleasing God but as making vs more fit for spirituall exercises Contrary to these rules we acknowledge neither power in Ordinaries nor priuiledge in custome to dispence with the sanctification of the Sabboth The Papists THey affirme that the Apostles altered the sabboth day from the seaueth day to the eight counting from the creation and they did it without scripture error 62 or any commaundement of Christ such power say they hath God left to his Church This then they holde that the sabboth was changed by the ordinarie power and authoritie of the Church not by any especiall direction from Christ thereupon it followeth that the Church which they say cannot erre may also change the sabboth to any other day in the weeke Rhemist Apoca. 1. sect 6. The Protestants 1. THe Apostles did not abrogate the Iewish sabboth but Christ himselfe by his death as he did also other ceremonies of the Law and this the Apostles knew both by the scriptures the word of Christ his holy spirite 2. They did not appoint a new sabboth of their owne authoritie for first they knew by the scripture that one day of seauen was to be obserued for euer for the seruice of God and exercise of religion although the prescript day according to the Law were abrogate for the Lord before the morall law was written euen immediatly after the creation sanctified the seauenth day shewing thereby that one of the seauen must be obserued so long as the world endured Secōdly they knew there was the same reason of sanctifiyng the day of Christs resurrection and the restitution of the worlde thereby as of sanctifiyng the day of the Lords rest after the creation of the world Thirdly they did it by the direction of the spirite of God whereby they were so directed and gouerned that although they were fraile men by nature and subiect to error yet they could not decline in their writings and ordinances of the Church from the truth which assurance of Gods spirite in the like measure the Church hath not but so farre forth is promised to be led into all truth as she followeth the rule of truth expressed in the Scriptures Wherefore the Church hath no authority to change the Lords day and to keepe it vpon Munday or Tuesday or any other day seeing it is not a matter of indifferency but a necessary prescription of Christ himselfe deliuered by the Apostles for the Lords day began in the Apostles time and no doubt by their Apostolike authority directed by the spirite of Christ was instituted Act. 20.7 Apocal. 1. ver 10. Neither can there come so long as the world continueth so great a cause of changing the Sabboth as the Apostles had by the resurrection of Christ. Wherfore the law of the Sabboth as it is now kept and obserued is perpetuall The Papists errour 63 4. THey affirme that the keeping of the Lords day in stead of the Iewish Sabboth is a tradition of the Apostles and not warranted by Scripture Rhemist Math. 15. sect 3. The Protestants THe obseruation of the Lords day is not deliuered by blinde tradition but hath testimony of holy Scriptures 1. Corinth 16.2 Act. 20.7 Apocal. 1.10 and the obseruation thereof is according to Gods commaundement not after the doctrine of men Fulk ibid. The Papists errour 64 5. THey teach that the Lords day is commaunded and likewise kept for some mysticall signification not onely for the remembraunce of benefites already
lauer of regeneration and word of Sanctification all the sinnes in men regenerate are healed yea euen those which by humane ignorance afterward are committed Non vt baptisma quoties peccatur toties repetatur sed quia ipso quod semel datur fit vt non solum anteà verùm etiam posteà quorumlibet peccatorum venia fidelibus impetretur Not that Baptisme so oft as a man sinneth is to bee repeated but by vertue of that which is once giuen it commeth to passe that the faithfull haue remission of their sinnes not onely before but also after Ergo Baptisme hath it force not onely for the present but it reacheth vnto the time following THE THIRD PART OF THE LIBERTIE and priuiledges obtained by Baptisme The Papists 1. THey haue defined that a man by Baptisme is not onely debitor fidei sed etiam vniuersae legis Christi implendae error 109 not onely a debter of the faith but is made a debter to performe the whole law of Christ Concil Trident. sess 8. can 7. that is Baptisme is not onely a signe of free iustification by faith neither doth he which is baptized professe himselfe onely by faith to bee iustified but partly also by his workes and the keeping of the commandements of Christ. The Protestants Ans. IN Baptisme wee make profession of our obedience to die vnto sinne and rise vp to newnes of life Rom. 6.2 yet not thereby to bee iustified but in being baptized wee shew our faith and hope onely to looke for remission of sinnes and saluation of our soules by the death of Christ. Argum. 1. Circumcision in place whereof Baptisme is giuen to vs is called by the Apostle a seale of the righteousnes of faith Rom. 4 11. not of the righteousnes of workes much more then is Baptisme which is a Sacrament of the Gospell a pledge vnto vs of the iustice of faith Argum. 2. By Baptisme we are freed from the curse of the lawe for it is a Sacrament of the death of Christ and of all the benefites thereof and Christ by his death hath borne for vs the curse of the lawe Galath 3.13 But if by Baptisme we binde our selues to the obseruance of the lawe to bee iustified and finde life thereby we must needes fall into the curse because we are not able to keepe the commandements Wherefore seeing Baptisme deliuereth vs from the curse it also exempteth vs from the workes of the lawe The Papists error 110 2. ALthough Christians are bound by solemne vow in Baptisme to walke in obedience before God and to keepe his commandements yet are they not therefore freed and exempted from the obseruance of the lawes and ordinances of men the which they are bound in conscience to keepe and vnder paine of damnation Bellarm. cap. 16. The Protestants BAptisme onely bindeth vs to keepe the commandements of God and so far forth also to obey men as they commaund things lawfull but wee must not be brought in bondage to mens traditions and obseruations seeing we are the Lords free men and by Baptisme consecrate to his seruice Argum. Math. 28.19 Goe and teach baptizing them c. and teaching them to obserue all that I haue commanded you Ergo Baptisme bindeth vs onely to the obseruation of Gods precepts 1. Corinth 7.23 Yee are bought with a price be not the seruants of men Baptisme is a signe of the death of Christ the price of our redemption Ergo wee are freed from all meere humane seruice in receiuing of Baptisme For this cause is it called the Baptisme of Christ Augustine saith Paulus dixisse legitur euangelium meum baptismum autem Christi nemo Apostolorum ita vnquam ministrauit vt auderet dicere suum Paul is read to haue said My Gospell but neuer any of the Apostles durst call the Baptisme of Christ their Baptisme Ergo seeing it is the Baptisme of Christ and we are onely baptized in his name not in our owne name or the name of men wee must onely hope to bee saued by faith in him and become his seruants wholly THE SEVENTH QVESTION OF THE difference betweene the Baptisme of our Sauiour Christ and the Baptisme of Iohn The Papists THe Baptisme of John they say was of another kinde then Christs Baptisme was neither was it sufficient without Christs Baptisme nor had the error 111 like force or efficacie as his Baptisme had and therefore such as had been baptized of Iohn were afterward admitted to Christs Baptisme Concil Trident. sess 8. canon 1. Bellarm. lib. 1. de baptis cap. 20.21 Argum. 1. Matth. 3.11 Iohn himselfe saith I baptize you with water but hee shall baptize you with the holy Ghost Ergo Iohns Baptisme and Christes not all one for Iohns Baptisme gaue not the holy Ghost Bellarm. ibid. Ans. Iohn speaketh not of diuerse Baptismes but of diuerse operations and ministeries in one and the same Baptisme for Iohn as all other ministers doe did but giue water and Christ working together with them giueth the holy Ghost But it will be answered that Iohn saith not he dooth baptize but hee shall baptize Ergo Christ did not baptize together with Iohn by his spirite Ans. The same Iohn in another place speaketh of Christ in the present tense Iohn 1.33 This is hee which baptizeth with the holy Ghost Ergo Christ did both then baptize with his spirite and afterwards also more manifestly when the giftes of the spirite began to bee shed forth more plentifully vpon men Argum. 2. Saint Paul baptized twelue men at Ephesus with Christs Baptisme that had receiued Iohns before Act. 19.4.5 Ergo Iohns Baptisme was not the same that Christs was Bellarm. Ans. There can be no such thing gathered out of that place for those words in the fifth verse When they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Iesus are part of the narration which Paul maketh of Iohns manner of Baptisme so that the sense is this they that heard Iohns doctrine were baptized in the name of the Lord Iesus It is not so to be read as though they were baptized againe of Paul but he laieth onely his hands vpon them that had before receiued the Baptisme of Iohn The Protestants THat Iohns Baptisme was not diuerse from Christs Baptisme but was all one with it in propertie and effect and that they which were baptized by Iohn were baptized into the name of Christ and therefore needed not againe to bee baptized thus it is made manifest out of Scripture Argum. 1. Iohns Baptisme differed not in the matter of the Sacrament for he baptized with water as Christs Apostles did There was also the same forme of both the word of God for Iohn also taught the people to beleeue in Iesus Christ that was to come Act. 19.4 There was also the same scope and ende of Iohns Baptisme For hee preached the Baptisme of repentance for remission of sinnes Mark 1.4 Ergo it was the same with the Baptisme of Christ. Argum. 2. If
chapter of Iohn cannot be so vnderstoode as they expound it First Christ speaketh not onely of the sacramentall eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood but generally of the spirituall participation by fayth whether in the sacrament or without which is wrought in vs by the holy Ghost 1. If it be vnderstoode of the sacrament then it will follow that no man can be saued vnlesse he doe receiue the sacrament for Christ saith vers 53. Except you eate my flesh and drink my blood you cannot haue life in you This I am sure they will hardly grant that the Eucharist also should bee necessarie as they make Baptisme to saluation 2. If Christ hath relation to the sacrament then must it of necessitie bee ministred in both kindes for in euery place he ioyneth both these together the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood Augustine also thus writeth vpon these wordes Hoc est manducare illam escam illum bibere potum in Christo manere illum manentemin se habere This it is to eate that flesh and to drinke that drinke to abide in Christ and to haue him abiding in vs but this may be done without the sacrament Ergo it is not necessary to vnderstand it of the sacrament Secondly though we should graunt that this whole treatise Iohn 6. may fitlie be referred to the sacrament yet the wordes must be taken figuratiuelie for the spirituall eating and drinking of Christ in the sacrament and not otherwise 1 Vers. 35. Christ so expoundeth his owne words I am the bread of life he that commeth to me shall not hunger and he that beleeueth in me shall not thirst To eate then and to drinke Christ is to beleeue in him 2 Christ vnderstandeth another manner of eating of his flesh then the Capernaites did But they imagined that Christ would giue his very flesh and blood to bee eaten And therefore they went away offended and sayd This is an hard saying vers 60. Therefore Christ to correct their erronious conceit sayth vnto them that his words were spirite and life that is spiritually to be vnderstoode verse 63. So Augustine interpreteth those wordes of Christ as if he had sayd Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum You must vnderstand spiritually that which I haue sayd You shall not eate this body which you see nor drinke that blood which shall be shed for you Sacramentum vobis aliquod commendaui spiritualiter intellectum viuisicabit vos I haue commended a certaine mystery and sacrament vnto you which being spiritually vnderstood shall quicken you The Papists ARgum. 3. Christ in the institution of this sacrament sayd vnto his Apostles after hee had giuen thanks and blessed Hoc est corpus meum This is my bodie that is that which is contayned in this bread or vnder the formes of this bread is my very body Bellarm. cap. 9. So that these wordes must needes be taken properly not to bee a trope or figure 1 It is not the manner of the scriptures to set down flatte precepts and commaundements and directorie rules in obscure termes or figuratiue speeches but plainely and euidently therefore it is not like that Christ being now to prescribe vnto his Apostles the perpetuall lawe and forme of this sacrament would speake obscurely 2 Though he spake by parables and signes to the Pharisies yet there was no cause why he should so doe none being present but his Apostles Bellarmin ibid. Ans. 1. It is very well that you will now though I thinke vnawares grant vnto vs that the precepts and rules in scripture are set downe simply and playnely wherefore the scriptures cannot bee so hard and obscure as you would beare vs in hand they are for if the precepts and rules of fayth be euidently in scripture expressed as you seeme to confesse what reason haue you to keepe back the people from the reading of scripture 2 It is false that the scriptures vse no figures nor tropes in the declaration of the lawes and sacraments of the Church for sayth not Saint Paul speaking of the sacraments of the Iewes Petra erat Christus the rock was Christ 1. Cor. 10.4 that is signified Christ Likewise in the 17. vers We that are many are one bread that is our spirituall vnitie and coniunction is represented in that we are partakers of one bread 3 Sometimes our Sauiour would speake darkely being alone with his Apostles thereby to stirre them vp more diligently to attend vnto his wordes as when he biddeth them beware of the leauen of the Pharisies Mark 8.15 Yet this speech of our Sauiour Christ vttered in the hearing of his Apostles This is my bodie was neither so darke nor obscure that the Apostles neede much bee troubled about the vnderstanding Nay many things being spoken in borrowed and metaphoricall wordes are vttered with greater grace and carrie a fuller sense When Christ sayd I am the doore Iohn 10.9 I am the vine Iohn 15.1 he spake by figure as he doth here for neither was he a vine or a doore as the bread was not his bodie Yet which of the Apostles was there that vnderstoode him not when he called himselfe a vine and a doore Neither could they doubt of our Sauiour Christs meaning here Contra. Now on the other side we will make it playne that these words of Christ are spoken tropically 1 Where Christ sayth according to Saint Luke This cuppe is the new Testament in my blood Luk. 22.23 we must needes admitte a double trope or figure for first the cuppe is taken for that which was contayned in the cuppe Secondly the wine in the cuppe was not the newe Testament but a signe of the new Testament If then in one parte of the sacrament hee spake by a figure why not also in the other when he sayth This is my bodie that is a liuely signe and seale thereof 2 It is no vnusuall phrase in the scripture to say this is that is signifieth as Genes 17.10 Circumcision is called the couenant it selfe where it was a signe onely of it And Exod. 12.11 the Lambe is called the Lords passeouer which it betokened onely In the same sense Christ sayth This is my bodie that is exhibiteth and representeth vnto you my bodie Augustine so expoundeth these wordes Non dubitauit Dominus dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum daret signum corpus sui Christ doubted not to say This is my bodie when hee gaue a signe and sacrament of his bodie The Protestants THat Christ is present with all his benefites in the sacrament wee doe willingly graunt neither doe we thinke that the elements of bread and wine are bare and naked signes of the bodie and blood of Christ but Christ is verily by them exhibited vnto vs and spiritually by fayth we are truely made partakers of his precious bodie blood not that Christ descendeth from heauen to vs but we ascend by faith and in spirit vnto him yea we confesse
nomine armamini sed contra Ecclesiam dâ—micatis You are armed with the name of the Church and yet you fight against the Church This difficult matter being thus by me enterprised I haue exposed my selfe to the obloquie and euill speech of two sortes of men against whom in the defence of this work I must craue your Honors aid and protection The first sort is of our hollow harted Countrimen that haue English faces but Romish harts who will forge cauillations I know against these labours of mine and not cease to accuse me of lying and falshood as not hauing truly and indifferently set down the opinions of the popish Church To meete then with those slanderous accusations let such men know that I haue beene most carefull and circumspect in this behalf throughout this whole work not to charge them with any opinions which I haue not gathered out of their owne writings and alleadged their owne Authors for them so that with a good conscience I can protest before God that one day shall open the secrets of our harts that to my knowledge I haue not any where vsed any forgerie cauilling or deceit in setting downe their assertions and I would to God their writers were as free from this fault and as indifferent in alleadging the sentence of our Church as we doe deale plainely with them But as for them it is a shame to see how without all feare the Rhemists in their annotations vpon the new testament doe bely and slander our Church I will for example sake note a fewe places They charge vs to say that God is the author of sinne annot Math. 13. sect 2. which blasphemie is further off from vs then it is from them though we graunt that nothing is done in the world beside the will of God not by his permission onely That we affirme all things to be easie in Scripture annot Luk. 6. sect 1. whereas we say onely that the doctrine of faith is plainly declared in Scripture and deny not but that many things are therein hard to be vnderstood That we should say that the preaching of the Law and the iudgement to come maketh men hypocrites Act. 24. sect 2. whereas we holde the preaching of the Law to be necessary to bring men to repentance but iustification by keeping the Law which they teach we vtterly condemne That we condemne good workes as sinfull Pharisaicall hypocriticall annot Rom. 2. sect 3. whereas we acknowledge them to be the good gifts of God the fruits of iustification the way wherein all Christians must walke to saluation we onely exclude them from being any cause of our iustification before God That we allow no fasting but morall temperance and spiritual fasting from sinne Act. 13. sect 5. whereas we doe acknowledge a Christian vse of fasting and abstinence from all meates and drinkes for the taming of the flesh and making vs more fit to pray not an abstinence from flesh onely as they do superstitiously practise That we should say man hath no more free will then a peece of clay Rom. 9. sect 7. whereas we onely say that our free will hath no power or strength at all to will or doe the thing that good is without the grace of God That Caluine holdeth Christians children to be so holy that they neede no baptisme annot 1. Cor. 7. sect 11. Whereas Caluine clean contrary reasoneth thus against the Anabaptists That children ought therefore to be baptized because they are holy as S. Paul saith And such slanderous accusations they haue published against vs which would require a seuerall treatise to be set forth at large Let indifferent men now iudge comparing their writings with ours which of vs hath dealt most vntruly and vnfaithfully each with other and whether we haue not more iust occasion to complaine of them then they of vs. But to let accusations goe I would desire them rather to listen to the words of exhortation that they would but indifferently weigh with an equal balance of Christian iudgemeÌ„t what is set downe on both partes in this booke I trust if they be not wilfull and obstinate in their opinions that they may in time conceiue some better liking of the truth Augustine in a certaine place maketh mention of drunken Polio who one a time came from his pots and riotous company to Xenocrates schoole to laugh the graue Philosopher to scorne but it fell out to his good farre otherwise Ad extremum totum se illi ad quem deridendum venerat discipulum tradidit But Polemo being cleane changed by Xenocrates speech became his Scholler whom he went to scorne and whereas he came drunke he returned sober So I wish that our English recusants would but take vp this and such other bookes into their hands if it were but to scorne them God may so worke with them that their scorning shal be turned into a loue and lyking of the truth And I further say vnto them as Augustine to the Pelagians Quod dicimus orent vt aliquando intelligant non litigent vt nunquam intelligant quod dicimus intendant non contendant illuminentur non calumnientur An other sort of men there is beside these Right honorable against whom I must arme my selfe they are such as are giuen to extenuate disgrace and discommend the labours of others Me thinkes I heare them thus to giue out of me He hath taken a matter in hand aboue his strength some of his writings are extant already we know what he can doe he is like to perform no great matter and what doth he he doth but abridge other mens writings he bringeth nothing of his owne To these accusations I thus answere First I confesse my streÌ„gth to be small of it selfe yet God by weake meanes may worke great things Some Pamphlets of mine I coÌ„fesse are abroad vnworthy this learned age though perhaps befitting the person that wrote them his time age and the occasion considered But I say rather with August I count my self in the number of those qui scribendo proficiunt et proficiendo scribunt which profit in writing and by profiting write Secondly coÌ„cerning my labour paines taken in this work I boast not he that thinketh it light let him trie first himselfe before he giue his iudgement the waight of this burthen he onely knoweth that felt it and God that gaue strength to beare it but as for my part I hunt not for the praise of men I desire onely to profit the church of God I had rather men should holde their peace then flatter It is very well said of him Si inter quos viuis te recte viuentem non laudauerint illi in errore sint si autem laudauerint tu in periculo es I had rather other meÌ„ should be in a small error then I in great danger Epictetus wise saying is much commended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sustine abstine sustaine and abstain I would we might part it betweene
is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liueth nothing but death dissolueth the bond betweene man and wife therefore not lawfull to marry againe after diuorse Rhemist ibid. Ans. Saint Paul must be expounded by our Sauiour Christ who maketh exception of fornication Math. 5. Neither doth Saint Paul denie that mariage may be dissolued while they liue without breaking of wedlock but that although the knot holde during their life yet by death it is dissolued Againe Saint Paul hauing no occasion to intreat of diuorse speaketh of mariage as it standeth whole and sound by the ordinance of God that if a woman ioyne her selfe to another man her former wedlock being not lawfully dissolued she is a wedlock breaker Arg. 2. 1. Corinth 7.11 If she depart let her remayne vnmaried or be reconciled Ergo the parties separated for fornication may not marry again Rhemist Ans. Saint Paul speaketh of other separations which are caused by dissentions in mariage and not of diuorse for adulterie for he sayth If she depart not If she be put away neither was it so vsual a thing for reconciliation to be sought after solemne diuorse Againe he sayth Let not the woman depart as being in her choyce whether she would depart or not but in the case of fornication she was to depart or rather be put away whether she would or not The Protestants FOr no other cause in the world but only for fornication may there be either a finall separation or cleane dissolution of mariage by way of diuorse But for that cause our Sauiour hath graunted libertie both to dissolue matrimonie and to marrie againe Argum. Math. 5.32 Whosoeuer putteth away his wife except it bee for fornication committeth adulterie Ergo for fornication it is lawfull for a man to dismisse his wife Likewise Math. 19.9 Whosoeuer shal put away his wife except it be for whoredome and marrie another committeth adulterie Ergo for adulterie it is lawful for the man both to put away and renounce his wife and the wife likewise her husband for there is the like reason for both and for them to marrie agayne This libertie graunted by our Sauiour Christ by no humane law can be restrayned or cut off Argum. 2. Saint Paul sayth Let euery man haue his wife and euery woman her husband for auoyding of fornication and it is better to marrie then to burne Wherefore it is lawfull the first mariage according to the word of God being broken both for men and women to vse the remedie agaynst incontinencie and to be maried agayne for he speaketh generally of all Augustine sayth that he which putteth away his wife for adulterie and marieth another Non est aequandus ei is not in the same case with with him which for any other cause putteth away and marieth agayne But if it bee as lawfull for other causes to be diuorsed as for heresie infidelitie as the Iesuite telleth vs there should be no difference made betweene the second mariage of the one and the other Augustine in the same place though he bee elsewhere resolute against mariage after diuorse yet graunteth that it is not playne out of scripture whether he be an adulterer that marieth againe after diuorse for adulterie Sed quantum existimo venialiter ibi quisque fallitur but as I thinke we are euery one of vs herein deceiued I end this poynt better allowing Pollentius iudgement for this matter then Augustines betweene whom there is much discoursed of both sides Si mulier à viro non fornicante discesserit non ei licere alteri nubere propter praeceptum si autem à fornicante non ei expedire propter opprobrium If a woman departe from her husband being no adulterer it is not lawfull to marrie another because of the commaundement but if he be an adulterer it is lawful to marrie but not expedient alwayes because of the shame and reproch Ad Pollent lib. 1. cap. 6. THE THIRD QVESTION OF THE degrees in mariage prohibited FIrst of the supputation of degrees Secondly whether the degrees forbidden Leuit. 18. may be dispensed with Thirdly whether any other degrees may by humane law be prohibited beside those THE FIRST PART OF THE SVPPVtation and account of degrees THe degrees are either of consanguinitie which is of diuers persons comming of the same stock and blood or of affinitie which ariseth of mariage as when the kinsmen of either partie that is maried are by mariage allied to the other though not of his blood as Laban the brother of Rebecca was allied by mariage as also by blood vnto Isaac though not so neerely In both these kindes of kindred there is a right line both vpward and ascending as in consanguinitie the Father or Mother Grandfather Grandmother and so forth in affinitie the Father in law and mother in law the stepfather or stepmother as also descending as the sonne the sonnes sonne the sonne in law or daughter in law and their sonnes and daughters There is also a collaterall line in consanguinitie as brother and sister brother and sisters children vncle or aunt in affinitie the brothers wife sisters husband the vncles wife or aunts husband Now our aduersaries set downe these rules to know the degrees by The Papists error 32 1 IN the right line there are so many degrees as persons Abraham Isaac 1. Iacob 2. except the first from the which wee beginne the account as in this example Iacob is in the second degree from Abraham Answer We see no reason why the first should be left out for looke how many generations so many degrees But euery person is a generation And this is the manner of account in scripture as Math. 1. there are 14. generations reckoned from Abraham whereof Abraham maketh one Iudg. 14. Enoch the seuenth from Adam Adam being the first himselfe in that number Thus the scripture numbreth inclusiue not exclusiue inclusiuely comprehending also the number from whom the account beginneth And thus Abraham must be counted the first degree and Iacob not in the second but the third from him The Papists error 33 2 IN the collaterall line if the parties bee equally distant from the roote or stock of the generation looke how many degrees distant they are from the stock so is the distance betwene themselues Bathuel Rebecca Iacob Laban Rachel Iacob and Rachel are in the second degree because each of them is remoued from Bathuel in the second degree Bellarm. cap. 26. The Protestants Answ. NEither doe we allow this rule but rather follow the account of the ciuill law which in the collaterall line maketh so many degrees as persons excepting the stock which is not to bee counted in collaterall degrees because we begin not to number there Wherefore according to the rule afore sayd how many generations so many degrees According then to the account of the ciuill law which we here follow Iacob and Rachel are not in the second but the fourth degree each from other
Rachel 1. Laban 2. Rebecca 3. Iacob 4. For in collateral degrees we count not the distance from the roote or stocke but the mutuall distance from themselues And by this reason if Cosin germanes be but in the second degree there should be no degree beyond the second forbidden Leuit. 18. for there is no degree forbidden beyond this neither is this by name and directly forbidden The Papists 3. THeir third rule is this In collaterall degrees vnequall Thare Abraham Aram. Sara error 34 that is when both are not alike distant from the stocke they shall differ in that degree in the which the further of them is remoued from the stocke as in this example Sara is distant two degrees from the stocke and as many from Abraham Bellarm. ibid. The Protestants Ans. NEither is this rule perfect for by this reason he that is indeed a degree further off shall be in the same degree for if the vncle and the nephew be remoued but the second degree and Cosin germanes are but distant in the second degree as they say the vncles sonne shall be in the same degree with his cosin as his father is which is not to be admitted Wherefore in collaterals we preferre the Ciuill account of degrees that is so many persons the stocke of the kinred excepted so many degrees These then are the rules of marriage 1. In the right line ascending and descending all degrees are forbidden 2. In collateral consanguinitie the prohibition reacheth to the third degree as it is not lawfull to marrie the vncle or the Aunt who are in the third degree from their nephew 3. In collateral affinitie the prohibition is extended to the fourth degree for affinitie is alwaies a degree beyond that consanguinitie by the which it commeth in as it is vnlawfull to marrie the vncles wife Leuit. 18.14 which is in the fourth degree from her nephew being one degree beyond her husband who is the vncle in the third degree And this is to be obserued that there is no affinitie in the first or second degree but the neerest is in the third as the wiues or husbands father brother or daughter which are all in the third degree the husband is in the first the wife the second and they in the third THE SECOND PART WHETHER ANY OF THE degrees prohibited in the law may be dispensed withall The Papists THey say not that the Pope may dispense with all but with some of them Concil Trid. sess 24. can 3. As they tooke vpon them to dispense with King error 35 Henry the 8. marriage with his brothers wife their reason is because some of those prohibitions were only iudicial and positiue constitutions not grounded vpon the law of nature Argum. 1. If it be the lawe of nature not to marrie within those degrees it should haue been in force before the law was made but so was it not for Abraham married his brothers daughter and Iacob two sisters Bellarm. cap. 27. Ans. 1. As Augustine sayth of the marriage and copulation of Adams children brothers and sisters together Factum est compellente necessitate It was for necessitie sake because there were then no more women so also may it be in some sort true of those Patriarkes that hauing a necessitie to marrie amongst their owne kinred and not with the Gentiles there was no choise to be had of women of their owne kinred further off in degree 2. Although this example of theirs both in marrying many wiues and so neere of kinne cannot be altogether excused or iustified in them yet because the law of nature was not yet so cleerely knowne as afterward by the giuing of the law which is nothing els but an exposition of the law of nature the offence was not so great in them but might better be tolerated because as Augustine sayth it was neither Contra morem illorum temporum nec contra praeceptum Neither against the custome of those times nor against any flat precept And to conclude although those holy men had their imperfections yet we must not iudge them in these things according to the euil and corrupt disposition of men in these daies which might vse this great libertie in marriage better then many vse lawfull marriage now as Augustine sayth Castiùs habebant plures quà m nūc multi vnam They vsed many wiues more chastely then many now liue with one De bon coniug cap. 10. The Protestants WE affirme that it is vtterly vnlawfull for any Christian to marrie within the degrees prohibited neither can any humane power dispense with such marriages but the equitie of that lawe being grounded vpon nature is in force for euer Wherefore the Pope of Rome sheweth himselfe plainly to be Antichrist in dispensing against the law of God Argum. 1. Leuit. 18.24 The reason of that law is giuen concerning the forbidden degrees They should not defile themselues in any one of those things because the Gentiles defiled themselues thereby and were cast out before them for it Wherefore it is a naturall and perpetuall law otherwise the Gentiles had not been bound vnto it Argum. 2. Mark 6.18 Iohn sayth to Herode It is not lawfull for thee to haue thy brothers wife Ergo the law was not abrogate being in force in our Sauiour Christs time Neither are they to alleadge that Herodes brother was yet liuing or that he had a child by Herodias and therefore it was not lawfull for him to marrie her for all this being graunted which cannot be proued yet it is plaine out of the text that Iohn reproueth him in no other name but because he married his brothers wife Augustine is against them who speaking of the marriage of Consobrines or Cosin germanes which had been sometime in vse Quia id nec diuina prohibuit nondum prohibuerat lex humana It was as yet thought lawfull because neither the diuine law forbad it neither was it yet prohibited by mans law If that then be thought lawfull which Gods law manifestly forbiddeth not that sure is vnlawful which it plainly forbiddeth Wherfore to marrie within any of the degrees directly forbidden Leuit. 18. is vtterly vnlawfull THE THIRD PART WHETHER ANY OTHER DEgrees may be by humane law prohibited beside those directly forbidden in the law The Papists 1. THey affirme that by the law of Moses those degrees onely are vnlawfull to marrie in which are directly and by name set downe therefore it is error 36 not vnlawfull by Moses law for the vncle or Aunts husband to marrie his niece because it is not by name prohibited as Abraham married his brother Arams daughter for Sara was his niece The marriage also of Cosin germanes was lawfull by Moses law and practized Numb 36. The daughters of Zelophehad married their vncles sonnes Therefore by Moses law no degrees are forbidden which are not directly named Bellarm. cap. 27. The Protestants 1. COncerning Abrahams marriage what is to be thought we haue shewed before but it is a
plaine case that the vncle is no more to marrie his niece then the nephew his Aunt and this being by name prohibited Leuit. 18 14.20.2 the other also is necessarily included for the same rules for degrees of kinred doe proportionably hold both in men and women wherefore such marriage is vnlawfull neither to be contracted and if it be to be dissolued 2. Concerning the marriage of brothers and sisters children there is a greater question First it cannot be proued that Zelophehads fiue daughters married their vncles sonnes that is their Cosin germanes for the Hebrewes call the nephewes sonnes as Iethros daughters are called the daughters of Raguel their grandfather Exod. 2.17 So it is very like that their husbands were their vncles sonnes sonnes as in the 12. verse it may be gathered where the text sayth They were married into the families of the sonnes of Manasses therfore not into one familie But as touching the question in hand the marriage of Cosin germanes seemeth also by some analogie to be forbidden by Moses law for if the degrees of affinitie be limited to the fourth degree as it is not lawfull for a man to marrie his wiues daughters daughter Leuiticus 18.17 why should not the line of consanguinitie hold to the fourth degree likewise And so neither the sonne to marrie his fathers brothers daughter or the daughter the sonne for heere are also foure degrees the sonne one the father two the fathers brother three the brothers sonne foure Yet this we grant that this analogie or proportion is not so strong nor doth conclude so necessarily as the other Wherefore we thus determine of this matter that it is well that the marriages of Cosin germanes are restrained by humane lawe and so they ought to be which kind of marriages may lawfully be hindered and the contract loosed but the marriage being consummate and finished it is not for this cause to be dissolued Augustine also writeth very well of this matter Quis dubitet honestiùs hoc tempore consobrinarum prohibita esse coniugia etiamsi id diuina lex non prohibeat cuius enim debet causa propinquitatis verecundum honorem ab ea contineat quamuis generatricem libidinem Who doubteth but that the marriage of Cosin germanes is honestly forbidden though the diuine lawe doe not prohibite it for to whom a man oweth a shamefast reuerence for kinred sake he ought to refraine his lust The Papists error 37 2. IT is lawful for the Church to restraine other degrees of affinitie and consanguinitie besides those prescribed by Moses and that the decrees of the Church in such cases doe bind in conscience Concil Trident. sess 24. can 3. As to prohibite marriage vnto the seuenth degree in naturall kinred Also their Canons doe make a spirituall kinred that commeth in by Baptisme Confirmation and suffer not the godfather to marrie the godchild or the godfather the godmother Likewise they haue found out an affinitie that commeth in by espousals onely of Matrimonie which bindeth say they in the first degree by the Canon law which is the first and second by the Ciuill law as that it is not lawfull for the brother to marrie her which was espoused to his brother Also another kinred and affinitie by fornication vnlawfull fleshly knowledge which bindeth in the 2. degree Canonicall which is the 3. and 4. Ciuil as it is not lawfull for the sonne to marrie his fathers bastard Bellarm. cap. 24. cap. 30. The Protestants 1. TO forbid more degrees in marriage then are either directly or by necessarie consequence prohibited in the law is a meere Antichristian yoke layd vpon the people of God for the Lord the author of that lawe best did knowe both what persons were fit for marriage and how farre the line of marriage was to extend 2. The inuention of spirituall kinred is but a popish tricke to get the more monie for their dispensations for by this reason no Christians ought to marrie together because they are all of one spirituall kinred in Christ. 3. The new affinitie that commeth by espousals is also but an humane inuention for the law speaketh onely of the kinred of the flesh which ariseth of carnall knowledge and copulation not an intent or purpose onely of marriage Leuit. 18.6 4. The last we admit for the sonne of the father begotten out of marriage is of his fleshly kinred though not lawfully and therefore in marriage matters there is respect also to be had euen of this kinred of the flesh as Ruben is cursed of his father because he lay with his concubine Genes 49.4 which notwithstanding was not his fathers wife THE FOVRTH QVESTION OF OTHER impediments of marriage THere are some impediments which may hinder and dissolue the contract of marriage before it be consummate but not after some which both may error 38 hinder the contract and dissolue the matrimonie euen after carnall knowledge The Papists 1. BEllarmine reckoneth vp diuers impediments of both kinds which may disanull the contract of marriage and dissolue the matrimonie it selfe but he maketh no mention of the consent of the parents And indeed it is their opinion that it is not a necessarie thing to be respected in marriage neither that children are bound to require the consent of their parents Cap. 19. The Protestants FIrst we doe not say that the want of the parents consent may dissolue marriage consummate after mutuall coniunction but that it may breake off the contract and espousals Secondly neither haue the parents power to bestow their children in marriage without their consent Genes 24.57 Thirdly neither must the parents exercise a tyrannicall power ouer their children in forbidding them marriage but must alway haue respect vnto their neede And thus doing their consent is necessarie and without it the contract hath no validitie 1. Corin. 7.37.38 The parent hath power to giue in marriage or not to giue There are also other causes which may dissolue contracts and espousals made as if the honest and lawfull condition propounded in the contract be not kept or if there be an error in the person he heareth afterward of her dishonestie whom he tooke for an honest woman both these may make voyd the contract error 39 but not the marriage if they be once ioyned together The Papists 2. THey set downe many impediments which may make a nullitie of marriage it selfe after it be consummate some of them we acknowledge as afterward it shall appeare but these following we doe renounce First the vow of chastitie and entring into Orders doe loose the bond of marriage Secondly if one marrie with an Infidel the marriage is not onely vnlawfull but actually voyd Bellarm. cap. 23. Thirdly he that marrieth her with whom he committed adulterie before is loose euen after marriage and the matrimonie voyd Bellarm. cap. 22. The Protestants 1. COncerning the inualiditie of vowes to disanull marriage we haue declared the truth before Controu 6. de Monachis For
thus Isti significati sunt ad Timotheum c. These of whome the Apostle speaketh are signified in another place to Timoth. 2.2.19 The foundation of God remaineth sure the Lorde knoweth who are his Ergo this assurance and confidence is common though not in the like measure to all faithfull Christians Augustine also saith Quia non secundum merita nostra sed illius misericordiam firma est promissio nemo debet cum trepidatione praedicare vnde non potest dubitare Because the promise remaineth stedfast not by our workes but his mercie we must not with trembling and fearefulnes pronounce that whereof wee cannot doubt No maruaile then if Papists doubt of their saluation because their confidence is built vpon their workes but if they would with the faithfull of God renounce their owne workes and be content to submit themselues to the faith of Christ they would not thinke it so strange a thing for Christians to haue a full and stedfast perswasion of their saluation THE SECOND PART OF THE BENEFIT of our vocation to the which belongeth the knowledge of sinne and the lawe THE FIRST QVESTION of sinne THe partes of this question are these first of originall sinne secondly of the difference of sinnes thirdly of veniall sinnes fourthly whether all sinnes be remissible fiftly whether God bee the author of sinne sixtly whether the workes of the not regenerate are sinne THE FIRST PART OF originall sinne The Papists error 59 COncupiscence which wee also call originall sinne remaining after Baptisme is not properly a sinne nor forbidden by commaundement till it raigne in vs and wee obey the desires thereof it is called sinne because it is the matter effect and occasion of sinne Rhemist Rom. 6. sect 6. Concil Trident. sess 5. Argum. Iam. 1.15 Concupiscence when it hath conceiued bringeth forth sinne Ergo it is not sinne of it selfe but when the consent of will commeth sinne is engendred Rhemist The Protestants Ans. THe argument followeth not concupiscence bringeth forth sinne Ergo it is no sinne nay it shall the rather bee sinne as one serpent bringeth forth another so both the mother and daughter are sinne for euill fruites doe shew an euill tree Argum. Saint Paul saith that concupiscence is flatly forbidden by the law which saith Thou shalt not lust Rom. 7.7 And vers 17. He calleth it sinne dwelling in vs though it doe not reigne in vs Ergo it is properly sinne Augustine saith Omnium malorum reatu caret qui baptizatur non omnibus malis He that is baptized is cleared from the guilt of all euils or sinnes but not from the euils themselues Dimittuntur in Baptismo omnia peccata originaliter tracta ignoranter vel scienter adiecta All sinnes are forgiuen in Baptisme both originall and committed ignorantly or wittingly Therefore originall sinne is no otherwaies taken away in Baptisme then other sinnes are but the guilt onely of other sinnes is remitted in Baptisme the blot or staine remaineth still Ergo originall sinne ceaseth in respect of the guilt for neither it nor any other sinnes shall be imputed vnto those which are iustified in Christ But it is a sinne still as the rest are Augustine also dare call it a sinne Concupiscentia peior est ignorantia Concupiscence is worse then ignorance And in another place Ignorantia in ijs qui intelligere noluerunt peccatum est in ijs qui non potuerunt poena peccati But ignorance is in them which are able to learne sinne in those that cannot a punishment of sinne If ignorance be sinne concupiscence worse then ignorance is much more THE SECOND PART OF THE difference of sinnes The Papists SOme sinnes are deadly or mortall because all that doe them are worthie of error 60 damnation others bee veniall that is to say pardonable of their owne nature Rhemist Rom. 1.11 Argum. Sinne when it is finished bringeth foorth death Iam. 1.15 Ergo not all sinne but that which is consummate and perfited is mortall Rhemist ibid. The Protestants Ans. OVt of this place it is gathered that there are degrees of sinne and that the more heynous sinne is worthie of more grieuous death and condemnation but that concupiscence or other lesse sinnes deserue not death it is not hence proued seeing the Scripture saith That the wages of all sinne is death Rom. 6.23 Argum. That no sinne is veniall or pardonable of it owne nature but that the least deserueth death if God should deale with vs according to the exact rule of his iustice it thus appeareth First if all sinnes are not mortall Christ died not for all sinnes for he by his death did satisfie onely for sinnes that deserued death but Christ died for all sinnes Iohn 1.19 Secondly all transgression of Gods lawe is sinne and deserueth the curse of God Galath 3.10 But all sinne is the transgression of the lawe 1. Iohn 3.4 Augustine and other of the fathers doe vse this terme of veniall sinnes but not in their sense as though any sinne in it owne nature deserued pardon but by veniall sinnes they vnderstand the lesser and smaller faultes which are more easilie forgiuen at Gods hand then the greater Sunt venialiae peccata there are certaine veniall sinnes without the which a man cannot liue saith Augustine Propter omnia peccata baptismus inuentus est propter leuia oratio dominica For all sinnes Baptisme is a remedy and the Lords praier for the lesse De symbolo lib. 1.6 By veniall sinnes he vnderstandeth the smaller sinnes which are not pardonable in their owne nature for then it were not necessarie to aske forgiuenes for them in the Lords praier they would vanish away of themselues Wherefore wee cannot receiue this popish distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes as they vnderstand it as the Scripture vseth to speake wee doe not greatly mislike them that is by grace and mercie in Christ all sinnes euen the greatest are not onely pardonable but pardoned vnto vs Isay 1.18 But vnto the wicked and impenitent euery sinne is mortall they shall euen by their idle words be condemned Matth. 12.36.37 THE THIRD PART OF THOSE which they call veniall sinnes The Papists error 61 1. SInne is voluntarie otherwise it is no sinne and therefore the passions that are in men hauing not the consent of wil are farre from sinne and are not imputed to any man neither for them neede hee say vnto God Forgiue vs our sinnes Rhemist Rom. 7. sec. 8.9 The Protestants SInnes done without consent of the inward man are neuer imputed but this must be vnderstoode onely of the regenerate in whome there is a new man borne of the spirite Argum. That inuoluntarie lustes which arise in the heart not hauing the consent of will are in their nature sinne it is euident by Saint Pauls words Rom. 7.20 If I doe that I would not then is it not I any longer that doe it but sinne that dwelleth in mee he calleth it sinne though he consent not vnto it
works which were done of the heathen without faith and of carnal men before they are called how goodly soeuer they seeme in the sight of men are nothing els but peccata speciosa glorious and goodly sinnes Argum. Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne Rom. 14. And without faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 6.6 Seeing then they could not please God with their faithlesse workes they must needs be in danger of his wrath Augustine writeth thus Si ad consequendam beatam vitam quam nobis fides quae in Christo est promittit nihil prosunt homini virtutes nullo modo possunt verae esse virtutes If mens vertues helpe them not towards the attaining of eternall life which is promised onely by faith in Christ they cannot be said truely to be vertues but such are the workes of men before they haue faith Ergo if they be not vertuous actions what are they els but vicious and sinfull THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERNING the law with the seuerall partes thereof THe partes of this question are these First whether it be possible in this life to keepe the law Secondly whether iust men doe sinne Thirdly of the workes of supererogation Fourthly whether God be to be serued for hope of reward or feare of punishment Fiftly of the vse and office of the Law THE FIRST PART WHETHER IT BE possible in this life to keepe the Law The Papists 1. IF any man say that the precepts and commandements of God vnto a man error 66 iustified and in the state of grace are impossible to be kept let him be accursed Concil Trid. sess 6. can 18. Argum. Rom. 8.4 That the righteousnes of the Law might be fulfilled in vs Ergo the law of God by the grace of Christ may be kept and the keeping therof is our iustice S. Iohn also saith The commandements of God are not heauy 1. Ioh. 5.3 And our Sauiour saith His yoke is sweete and his burden light Ergo the commandements of God are possible to be fulfilled in this life The Protestants Ans. FIrst the Apostle saith not that the law is fulfilled by vs but in vs by Christ who is made our righteousnes and sanctification by faith 1. Cor. 1.30 The law remaineth still impossible to be kept by vs through the weakenes of our flesh neither doth God giue vs ability to keep it but Christ hath fulfilled it for vs we notwithstanding being bound to walke in obedience to the commandements of God which is farre off from perfection or keeping the law as Gods iustice requireth 2. To him that is borne of God and his sinnes pardoned by the grace of Christ the commandements of God are not grieuous not because they can perfitly be fulfilled but because strength is giuen to keepe them in part and the curse of the law is taken away and our transgressions answered in Christ. Argum. 1. If it were possible for any man to keepe the law it is possible in this life to be without sinne But if any man say he hath no sinne he is a liar 1. Ioh. 1.8 Argum. 2. S. Iames saith 2.10 If a man should keepe the whole law and yet faile in one point is guiltie of all He then that will keepe the law must keep it perfectly and not faile in the least point but so is no mortall man able to doe wherefore it is an horrible blasphemie to say that it is possible for any mortall man to keepe the whole law Augustine thus expoundeth that place Philip. 3.15 Let vs as many as be perfect be thus minded by the which place the Rhemists would proue a perfection of iustice in this life Potest quis esse perfectus iustitiae cognitor licet non sit perfectus effector A man may know the rule of iustice perfectly though he be not a perfect doer he vnderstandeth a perfection of knowledge not a perfection of iustice The Papists 2. THey say that those sinnes which they call veniall that is the lesser smaller error 67 offences doe not hinder the iustice of men but that they may truly be called and are indeede iust for all those sinnes and may notwithstanding them keepe the law of God and be free from the curse thereof which is laide vpon mortall and great sinnes not veniall and smaller offences Rhemist 1. Iohn 1. sect 5. Galath 3. sect 4. The Protestants THat men are iust before God for all their daily transgressions of frailetie and manifolde infirmities by the righteousnes of Christ made theirs by a liuely faith we deny not but that there is no perfect inherent iustice in themselues neither that they can perfectly keepe the law because of those sinnes thus we proue it out of the word of God Argu. They which doe but in the least point break the law are subiect to the curse thereof for it is written Cursed is he that continueth not in all things written in the law to doe them Galath 3.10 And what is to be vnderstoode by all things our Sauiour declareth Math. 5. where he sheweth how murder may be committed in the affection and in the tongue and adulterie likewise in the eye Ergo the smaller offences are also transgressions of the law from the which seeing the most righteous men vpon earth are not free they cannot perfectly keep the law nor by their own iustice escape the curse thereof Augustine Custodit vias Dei qui non sic exorbitat vt eas relinquat sed in eis currendo proficit et si aliquādo vt infirmus titubat proficit tamen minuēdo peccata He is saide to keepe the waies of God which doth not so turne aside out of them that he altogether leaue them but doth dayly profite and goe forward in keeping of them and although he sometime stumble yet he profiteth by diminishing of his sinnes As he therefore that stumbleth and is turned sometime out of the way doth not perfectly keepe the way no more doth the righteous man perfectly keepe the law of God which he transgresseth by his daily sinnes In isto ergo conflictu induimur ea iustitia qua ex fide viuitur In this conflict therefore let vs put on the righteousnes of faith he giueth counsell that men should leaue their own righteousnes and rather labour to liue by faith and be counted righteous in Christ. THE SECOND PART WHETHER iust men doe sinne The Papists error 68 1. A Iust man in his good workes doth not sinne so much as venially that is not in the least manner no not at all Concil Trident. sess 6. can 25. Whervpon it followeth that the good works of righteous men are so perfect that the least imperfection or blot cannot be found in them The Protestants THe most righteous men vpon earth haue not onely their infirmities and are in danger to sinne dayly but euen their best and most holy workes are blemished with some infirmitie and haue a smacke of sinne Argum. Iob saith If I wash my selfe with snowe
hath receiued a true liuely faith and is thereby iustified before God can neuer fall away neither can that faith vtterlie perish or faile in him for He that beleeueth is alreadie passed from death to life Iohn 5.24 If then it be possible for a man to be brought from life to death from heauen back againe to hell then may a faithfull beleeuer become also a faithlesse infidell Augustine doth plainely set downe his sentence of this matter Horum fides quae per dilectionem operatur profectò aut omnino non deficit aut siqui sunt quorum deficit reparatur antequam vita ista finiatur Their faith which worketh by loue either neuer faileth at all or if it doe fayle in any it is repaired againe before their life be ended THE EIGHT PART WHETHER wicked men may haue a true faith The Papists THe certaintie of remission of sins with a sure confidence and trust in Christ error 85 may be found euen amongst schismatikes heretikes and wicked men Conc. Trident. sess 6. cap. 9. The Protestants IT is impossible that a true liuelie faith whereby wee are iustified before God which worketh in vs a sure confidence and trust in God should enter into the heart of a wicked man Argum. Christ saith Hee that beleeueth in mee shall neuer thirst Iohn 6.35 And verse 40. This is the will of God that hee that beleeueth in me should haue eternall life Ergo if wicked men and reprobates may haue this faith they also shall haue euerlasting life which is a thing impossible Augustine Nostra fides .i. catholica fides iustos ab iniustis non operum sed ipsa fidei lege discernit quia iustus ex fide viuet The Catholike faith discerneth iust men from vniust not by workes but by the lawe of faith for the iust shall liue by faith If then the difference betweene the godlie and wicked be onely faith if the one may haue faith as well as the other there should bee no difference betweene them THE THIRD QVESTION OF good workes THe parts of this question first what workes are to be counted good works secondly whether there are any good workes without faith thirdly of the vse and office of good workes whether they bee applicatorie expiatorie meritorious fourthly of the distinction of merites fiftly the manner of meriting THE FIRST PART WHICH BE the good workes of Christians The Papists THey doe not onely call them good workes which are commanded of God error 86 but which are also enioyned by the Church and the gouernours thereof and that euen by such workes men are iustified Concil Trident. sess 6. cap. 10. Tapper ex Tileman loc 11. Err. 1. The Protestants SAint Paul defineth good workes otherwise namely those which God hath ordeyned that we should walke in them Ephes. 2.10 They are not the precepts of men but the commandements of God in his word the doing whereof hath the name of good workes As for the traditions and iniunctions of men not warranted by Gods word they are so far from being commended or commanded that our Sauiour calleth the doing thereof but a Worshipping of God in vaine Mark 7.7 Augustine vpon those words in the 103. Psalme vers 18. The louing kindenes of the Lorde is vpon those that keepe his couenant and thinke vpon his commandements to doe them saith thus Vide vt praecepta teneas sed quomodo teneas non memoria sed vita Memoria retinentibus mandata eius non vt reddant ea sed vt faciant ea See that thou keepe Gods commandements but how not in thy memorie but in thy life not to say them by rote but to doe them Ergo they are Gods commandements which we must thinke of to doe them for vnto such the blessing is promised not to the obseruers of mens precepts or traditions THE SECOND PART WHEther there bee any good workes without faith The Papists THough they dare not altogether iustifie the workes of the heathen and infidels error 87 yet they doe excuse them and doe blame vs for saying that infidels doe sinne in honoring their parents in fighting for their Countrey and such like They therefore doe discharge the heathen of sinne in these workes of theirs Rhemist Rom. 14. sect 4. The Protestants THese workes are not sinne in themselues but in infidels they are because they proceede of infidelitie Argum. It is the rule of the Gospell that a corrupt tree cannot bring foorth good fruite Matth. 7.18 But all infidels are corrupt trees being without faith Ergo they can bring forth no good fruite The Pelagians thought to haue posed Augustine with the same question which the papists propound to vs. Was it sinne in the heathen say they to clothe the naked Augustine answereth Non per seipsum factum peccatum est sed de tali opere non in domino gloriari solus impius negat esse peccatum The fact of it selfe is not sin but in doing any such thing not to reioyce in the Lord none but wicked men will denie it to be sinne THE THIRD PART OF THE vse and office of good workes THey make a threefold vse of good workes as they call them first by them the merites of Christ they say are applied vnto vs secondly they doe purge our sinnes thirdly they are meritorious THE FIRST ARTICLE WHEther bona opera be applicatoria The Papists BY any worke proceeding of faith and charitie the merite of Christs passion error 88 is applied to vs Soto ex Tilemann loc 11. err 21. Men by their sufferings and other workes may applie to themselues the generall medicine of Christs merites and satisfaction Rhemist annot 1. Coloss. sect 4. The Protestants IT is the propertie of faith onely to apprehend and applie vnto vs the benefits of Christs passion and all other his merites Argum. Rom. 10.7.8 We neede not saith the Apostle to ascend to heauen or descend into the deepe to bring Christ from thence it is the word of faith which wee preach By faith then we doe scale the heauens and beholde Christ it is not the doctrine of works but the word of faith that performeth this And therefore the Apostle defineth faith to be the ground of things hoped for and the euidence of things not seene Heb. 11.1 This definition cānot agree vnto works or vnto any other thing but faith for then it were no good definition nor yet description Ergo faith onely is the euidence of things inuisible and therefore onely applieth Christs precious merites which are things beleeued and not seene Augustine thus also describeth faith Rerum absentium praesens est fides rerum quae foris sunt intus est fides rerum quae non videntur videtur fides Faith maketh things absent present things without vs to bee within vs things not seene to bee seene Ergo faith onely hath this applicatorie power to applie Christs merites not present nor seene and to make them as our owne THE SECOND ARTICLE WHEther bona