the time of Esdras till Christ and in our Sauiours time the Scriptures were not in the vulgare toung but onely in the Hebrue which the Iewes vnderstood not after the captiuitie Ergo it is not now necessary to haue them in the vulgare toūg That the people vnderstood not Hebrue the Iesuite proueth out of the 8. of Nehemiah where it is said that Esdras did expoūd the law to the people because they vnderstood it not We answere that the text saith cleane contrary that he read the law before the people that vnderstood it v. 3. and they might geue the sense though the people vnderstood the language Concerning the places obiected out of the Gospell to proue the Iewes spake another language thē Hebrue as it appeareth by those speaches Marc. 5. Talitha cumi Math. 27. Golgotha which sauour not of the Hebrue toung we answere that although they spake not pure Hebrue but many straunge wordes were vsed yet they vnderstood the Hebrue for why els doth Christ bid the people to search the Scriptures And they were not the Iewes but the Romane souldiers that vnderstood not the voyce of Christ vpon the Crosse saying he called for Elias 2 The Apostles saith the Iesuite wrote their Epistles onely in Hebrue or Greeke and not in the vulgare tounges of the natiōs to whom they preached Ergo it is not necessary that the scriptures should be in the vulgare toung We answere First it had bene an infinite labour for the Apostles to haue left their writings in euery language neither was it necessary seeing out of the original they might be trāslated into euery language Secōdly they preached the same things vnto the Gētiles in their own toūgs which they afterward left in writing Thirdly the Greeke toūg wherein they wrote was vniuersally knowen and few countryes were ignorant of it especially in the East parts 3 There is no cause say they why the Scriptures should be translated if it be for the vnderstanding of the people they vnderstād them not being translated neither We aunswere many things they may easely vnderstand and for the harder places they are nearer the vnderstanding of them being translated then before for then they haue two great lets the toung vnknowen and the obscure and hid sense now they need not to labour for the toung but onely for the sense 4 The Scriptures are occasion of offence and heresie being not right vnderstood Ergo. First because many surfet of meats and drinkes it is no reason that sober men should be forbidden the vse of them no more for heretikes wicked mens sakes ought the people of God to be barred from Scripture Secondly more haue perished by ignorance in Scripture then by misunderstanding it and the Scripture was ordained of God to meete with offences and to confute heresies 2. Tim. 3.15 Wherefore these men make them selues wiser then God that thinke the Scripture is an occasion of those diseases for the which it is apppointed a remedie The Protestantes WE do beleeue and hold that it is requisite expedient and necessarie for the Scriptures to be vttered and set forth in the vulgare and commō speach and that none vpon any occasion ought to be prohibited the reading thereof for knowledge and instructions sake and that Christian Magistrates ought to prouide that the people may haue the Scriptures in their mother knowē toung Wherefore great wrong was offered to the people of England that diuerse 100. yeares till king Henrie the eight could not be suffred to haue the Scriptures in English And how I pray you did the Papistes storme when as Tindals translatiō came forth some affirming that it was impossible to haue the Scriptures trāslated into English some that it would make the people heretikes others that it would cause thē to rebell Fox pag. 117. col 1. What fowle and shamefull slaunders were these For the vulgare translations of Scripture we reason thus 1 It is Gods commandement that the Scriptures should be read before the people that they may learne to feare God Deut. 31. vers 11.12 The people are commanded to write the law vpon their gates and in their houses to conferre and talke with their children and teach them the law Deut. 6.6.7.8 And our Sauiour biddeth the people search the Scripture Iohn 5. v. 39. Ergo what God hath commaunded no man ought to prohibite or forbid the people therfore must not be kept from reading of Scripture 2 Without Scripture there is no faith faith is necessarie for all people Ergo the knowledge of the Scripture that faith cōmeth by the scriptures read Iohn 20.31 these things are written that ye might beleeue Iesus Christ to be the sonne of God Againe the weapons of Christiā men are not denied to any whereby they should fight against their spirituall enemies but the word of God is a speciall part of our harnesse and a principall weapon euen the sword of the spirite Ergo. 3 The Gospell may be preached in the vulgare toung as our blessed Sauiour and the holy Apostles taught the people Ergo the word of God may be read and writtē in the vulgare toung The proposition our aduersaries graunt that Sermōs may be made in the vulgare toung but it foloweth not say they that therefore Scripture should be in the mother toung Rhem. 1. Cor. 14.8 But I pray you how can the preacher alledge Scripture in his Sermō vnlesse it be recited in the vulgare toung or how should the people know they preach the word vnlesse they may compare their doctrine with Scripture as the Berrheans did Act. 17. 4 We haue the practise of the Church of God in times past for our warrant for in Chrisostomes time the people had vulgare translations whereupon he exhorteth them to get them Bibles or at the least the new Testament the Actes of the Apostles the Gospels Homil. 9. Epist. ad Coloss. We heard before that the Armenians Sclauonians Gothes had the Scripture in their own language so many hundred yeares ago in England king Alured translated the Psalter a copie whereof was found in Crowland Abbey called S. Guthlakes Psalter as M. Lābert witnesseth and Bede our learned country man translated S. Iohns Gospell Fox pag. 1115. col 2. The Rhemistes also confesse that more then 300. yeare ago the Italians had the Bible translated and the French men aboue 200. yeares ago Praefatan Testam 4. sect Why should not the people of God haue the same libertie now freely to read the Scriptures as they haue had in times past 5 Let vs heare Augustines opinion Lectiones diuinas saith he in Ecclesia sicut consuestis audite in domib vestris relegite I would haue you both to attend vnto the publike readings in the Church and in your house to read ouer againe the holy lessons but how could the people read them at home if they were not in their vulgare toung AN APPENDIX OR PART OF THIS question concerning publike prayers and diuine seruice in the
Apostle but we are sure the Pope is none neither successor of any Apostle but very Antichrist Ergo we haue more iust cause to examine his decrees 4 Lastly let Augustine speake Nouit charitas vestra omnes nos vnum magistrum habere sub illo condiscipulos esse nec ideo magistri sumus quia de superiore loco loquimur vobis sed magister est omnium qui habitat in nobis omnib You know brethren saith he that we are all felow scholers vnder one maister and though we speake to you out of an higher place yet are we not your master he is the teacher and master of vs all that dwelleth in our harts Ergo the spirite of God speaking in the scriptures is the chief and best interpreter thereof THE THIRD PART OF THE SIXTH QVEstion concerning the meanes or methode to be vsed in interpreting of Scripture The Papistes error 10 OVr aduersaries prescribe this methode and course to be takē in expounding of scripture which consisteth in foure rules the generall peactise of the Church the consonant interpretation of the fathers the decrees of generall Councels lastly the rule of faith consisting partly of the scriptures partly of traditions vnwrittē Stapleton Cōcerning the three first we haue already touched them in part they appeare to be insufficient First the Councels and fathers he made chief interpreters of Scripture before and now they are but meanes what other chief iudge then is there to vse these meanes surely none but the scriptures Secondly these meanes are most vncertaine the practise of the Church is often changed fathers agree not in their expositiōs and Councels can not alwayes be had Concerning the rule of faith consisting of vnwritten verities he groundeth it falsely vpon that place Rom. 12.6 let vs prophecie according to the rule of faith and Gal. 6.16 as many as walke according to this rule This rule was a certaine platforme of Religion geuen by the Apostles before the Scriptures were written according to the which say they the Scriptures were afterward compiled by the Apostles Rhemens in Rom. 12.6 Answere S. Paul meaneth no other rule but that which is set downe in his writings no other forme of doctrine but that conteined in his Epistles as in the 6. to the Galathians speaking of this rule he alludeth to the former verse where he saith he reioyced in nothing but in the Crosse of Christ his rule therfore is to receiue Christ onely without the ceremonies or workes of the law against the which heresie he disputeth in the whole Epistle But of all other it is a great blasphemie to say that the Apostles set downe the Scriptures by a rule as though the spirite of God by whom they spake had neede of any such direction The Protestantes WHen we say that the scriptures must expound them selues our meaning is that by certaine compendious and ready meanes we should labour to vnderstand the scriptures by them selues the meanes are especially these foure First to haue recourse to the originall toung as in the old Testament to the Hebrue in the new to the Greeke as 1. Tim. 2.15 through bearing of children they shal be saued if they continue in faith and loue In the English it is doubtfull whether this clause if they continue in faith be referred to children or to those that beare them but read the Greeke and the doubt is remoued for bearing of children is all one word in the originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that it must needes be vnderstood of the women for this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bearing of children is in the singular number that which foloweth of the plurall and it is but an action not a person so that it should be improperly sayd if they continue that is in bearing of children Stapleton obiecteth against this meane that it is not now needefull seeing there is a perfect and absolute translatiō authorised by the Councell of Trent he meaneth the vulgare Latin We answere First it is no perfect but an erronious translation and verie corrupt Secondly if it were neuer so perfect yet for more certaintie it is profitable to search the originall euery man will trust his owne skill rather then another mans Thirdly the Councell did fondly in authorising an old blind translation before the authenticall copies of the Hebrue and Greeke 2 Secondly the scope of the place the circumstance of it with that which goeth before and commeth after must be wayghed which will bring great light to the place we haue in hand an example we haue 1. Pet. 4.8 loue couereth multitude of sinnes the Papistes gather out of these words that loue doth iustifie vs before God and taketh away our sinnes but by the circunstance of the place the Apostole saying immediatly before haue feruent loue among you it is euident he vnderstandeth brotherly loue amōgest our selues whereby faultes are buried forgeuen and forgotten Stapleton obiecteth that this is but an vncertaine way and many times fayleth for the scripture passeth many times from one matter and argument to another how then can it helpe to consider the circumstance of the place being of a diuerse matter We answere we say not that any of these meanes serueth for euery place but when one fayleth to vse another when the circumstance helpeth not to runne to the originall if there we find no succour to cōpare places together and when we may to vse them all or the most 3 Thirdly the conference of places is very profitable as Iames. 2.21 Abraham was iustified by workes compare it with that place Rom. 4.2 there S. Paule saith flatly that Abraham was not iustified by workes Wherfore seeing one Apostle is not contrary to the other we must needs gather that this word iustified is diuersly taken Paule saith that Abraham was not iustified that is made righteous before God by his workes Iames saith he was iustified that is declared to be iust before men and so Thom. Aquinas expoundeth it Stapleton obiecteth that this meanes in cōparing of places is of it selfe many times of smal force Answere as though we affirme that these meanes must be vsed asunder and not rather ioyntly together and where one fayleth another to helpe Secondly some things are found but once in the scriptures Aunswere they are then either very plaine or not greatly necessarie Thirdly heretikes haue erred in comparing of Scripture Answere they compared them not diligently nor with a syncere minde but corruptly and negligently 4 The fourth rule is the analogie and proportion of faith which is nothing els but the summe grounds of Religiō gathered out of scripture such as are conteined in the Creede the Lordes Prayer the ten Commaundements and in our whole Catechisme We must take heede that in the interpretation of Scripture we swarue not from this rule of faith nor impugne any principle of Religion Wherefore the Papistes interpretation of those wordes of Christ we do reiect Hoc est corpus meum this is my
the Prophets and Apostles to write S. Paule saith that what soeuer is writtē is written for our learning that through patience and cōsolation of the scriptures we might haue hope Rom. 15.4 The Lord saw in wisedome that his people could not be without the Scriptures which are necessarie for their learning for their comfort and to strengthen their hope how then dare our aduersaries say that the scriptures are not necessarie seeing these things wrought in vs by the scriptures knowledge consolation hope are most necessarie 4 Let Augustine now put in his verdict Illud credo quod etiā hinc diuinorū eloquiorum clarissima authoritas esset si homo illud sine dispendio salutis ignorare non posset de peccator merit remiss lib. 2.36 I thinke saith he that euen concerning this matter speaking of the originall or beginning of the soule the Scriptures would not haue bene silent if we might not safelie be ignoraunt of this matter without daunger of saluation Ergo whatsoeuer is necessarie to saluatiō is onely to be found in scripture for other matters there not expressed there in no daunger in not knowing them therfore the Scriptures by this Fathers iudgement are most necessary THE SECOND PART OF THE SEVENTH question of the sufficiencie of Scripture The Papistes THey do straungely affirme that the Scriptures conteine not all things necessarie error 12 to be knowen cōcerning faith and manners and that they are not sufficient without traditions Bellarm. cap. 3.4 Lindanus a Papist saith that the scriptures conteine not all things necessarie to saluation Andradius that their approued traditions are of equall authoritie with the Scripture Ex Tilman de verbo error 2. 1 First the Iesuite thus reasoneth against the sufficiencie of Scripture There are diuerse bookes of canonicall Scripture lost and perished Ergo that part of canonical scripture which remaineth is not sufficiēt that much is lost he thus proueth 1. Chron. cap. vlt. mention is made of the bookes of Nathan Gad. 2. Chron. 9. of the bookes of Ahiiah Ieedo in the new Testamēt Col. 4. of the Epistle of S. Paule to the Laodiceans all those bookes are lost We aunswere First we denie not but that some bookes are now wanting which were part of canonicall scripture yet that which remaineth is sufficiēt as some of Solomōs bookes are perished which he wrote of herbes plāts and many of his Prouerbes the Lord saw that they were not so greatly necessarie for vs to saluation Secondly there is not so much wanting as the Iesuite would beare vs in hād for the books of the Prophets which he nameth are the same with the bookes of the Chronicles of the Kings which no doubt were writtē by those Prophetes And as for the Epistle of S. Paule to the Laodiceās there was neuer any such the text is written from the Laodiceans it was the Epistle rather of the Laodiceans to S. Paule vnto the which he partly maketh aunswere in the Epistle to the Colossians and therefore he would haue it read also in their Church 2 If the Apostles had any such meaning to contriue in the scriptures the summe of faith and all necessarie knowledge it is very like Christ would haue geuen them some expresse commaundement so to do but we read not of any such strict commaundement Ergo they had no such purpose Bellarmine We aunswere First they them selues dare not denie but that the Apostles wrote by the instinct of the spirite what is that els but the commaundement of God Actes 16.6 Paule was forbidden of the holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia and ver 10. when he had seene a vision of a man of Macedonia appearing vnto him the Apostle concludeth that they were called of God wherefore what they did by the secret mouing of the spirite was done at the cōmaundement of God Secondly Apocal. 11.1.14.13 Iohn is biddē to write that which he saw no doubt the other Apostles had the like cōmaundement 3 There are many points which we ought in no wise to be ignoraunt of which the scriptures speake either obscurelie of or not at all First these things are obscurely and doubtfully set downe in Scripture the equalitie of the persons in Trinitie the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne the doctrine of originall sinne We aunswere First if these things be found at all in the Scriptures it is sufficient concerning the question we haue in hand Secondly the Scripture doth manifestly declare the truth in all those points the equalitie of the persons is directly proued 1. Iohn 5.7 the procession of the spirite Iohn 15.26 the spirit is there said to be sent frō the Father the Sonne And Ioh. 14.26 Original sinne is described plainly by the Apostle Rom. 5.12 though the name be not found in Scripture Secondly there are diuerse things necessarie to be knowen not at all declared in Scripture First as that Marie continued a perpetuall Virgine We answere the Scripture saith euery where she was a Virgine neither maketh mention of any children she had and therefore out of the Scripture we gather that she continued Secondly Basile saith that it is sufficient to know she was a Virgine before the birth of Christ. Secondly to know that the Pasch or Easter must be kept vpon the Lordes day is necessarie Aunswere there is no such necessiitie in it to saluation neither needed the Church so much to haue contended about it in times past these are the mightie weapons which our aduersaries vse The Protestantes WE do not affirme as our aduersaries charge vs that all things necessarie to saluation are expressely conteined in scripture that is in so many words but this we hold that all things which are necessarily to be knowen of vs are either expresly declared in Scripture or necessarily concluded out of Scripture and so conteined in them We also graunt that it was not Gospell onely which was written but all that Christ and his Apostles taught by liuely voyce the whole summe whereof and substaunce is conteined in the written word and so we conclude that nothing necessarie to saluation either concerning faith or manners is els where to be found but in the holy Scriptures 1 S. Paule saith if we or an Aungell preach vnto you otherwise then that which we haue preached let him be accursed Ergo the Scripture conteineth all things necessarie First the Iesuite aunswereth that S. Paule speaketh not onely of his writings but also of his preachings which were not written We aunswere that the summe of all S. Paules preachings is conteined in his Epistles and other holy writings for S. Paule confirmed his doctrine out of the scriptures as Act. 17.10 the Berrheans examined his doctrine by the scriptures and found it to be consonant and to agree in all things Secondly he condēneth those which preach any thing not besides or otherwise but contrarie and therefore not any other doctrine besides Scripture is forbidden but that
which is contrarie We aunswere whatsoeuer is imposed as necessarie to saluation beside the Scripture praeter Scripturas is also contra Scripturas contrarie to Scripture as are all Popish traditions which they lay a necessitie vpon both beside and contrarie to Scripture Neither did those false Apostles against whom S. Paule writeth so much bring in another or cōtrary Gospell as the Apostle saith ver 7. as they did labour to corrupt and peruert that Gospel which S. Paul taught Therfore all traditiōs whether praeter or cōtra beside or contrarie to Scripture are notablie by this place ouerthrowen 2 Iohn 20.31 these things are written that ye might beleeue that Iesus Christ is the sonne of God that in beleeuing ye might haue life through his name Ergo the Scriptures conteine all things necessarie to saluation for they suffise to worke in vs faith and faith bringeth vs to eternall life First Bellarmine aunswereth that Iohn speaketh onely of that which he had written Aunswere If this one Apostles writings were able to worke faith the whole body of Scripture much more but he rather speaketh of all other holy writings of the Apostles for he was the suruiuer of them all acknowledged their writings and approued them Secōdly saith he the Apostle saith not that those writings onely suffise but they are profitable and referred to this end to worke faith Aunswere The Scripture is not one of the meanes but the sole whole and onely meanes for if they perfectly worke faith what neede any other helpes but the first is true for they doe beget in vs a perfect faith which shall bring vs to eternall life Ergo they are the onely meanes of faith 3 The whole Scripture saith S. Paule is profitable to teach to improue to correct and instruct in righteousnesse 2. Tim. 3.16 Ergo it conteineth all things necessarie for what els is requisite besides these foure to teach the right faith improue error to instruct in righteousnes and vertue to correct vice First they aunswere the Apostle meaneth as well euery booke of Scripture as the whole euery part therfore hath this perfection as well as the whole But you will not say that euery booke conteineth all things necessarie to saluation therefore this perfection is not so to be taken We aunswere First S. Paule vnderstandeth the body of Scripture as ver 15. thou hast knowen the Scriptures he speaketh of them all Secondly if euery part had these vtilities you might as well conclude that euery word and sillable hath them for they are parts of Scripture Thirdly it appeareth by these foure great vtilities here set downe that the Apostle meaneth not any part or partes of Scripture but the whole for euery part of Scripture is not profitable for all these endes but the whole Secōdly they say it foloweth not the Scripture is profitable therfore sufficient they also graunt it is profitable Aunswere but we conclude out of S. Paule that the Scripture is not onely profitable but sufficient as it foloweth v. 17. that the man of God may be absolute perfectly instructed to euery good worke If then the scriptures are able perfectly to instruct vs then are they sufficient then neede we no other helpes 4 Lastly Augustine thus writeth in Psal. 66. Ne putetis saith he ex alijs Scripturis petendum quod forte hic deest Thinke not saith he that it is to be found in any other writings if it be not in Scripture And in another place In Euangelio quaeramus nam si ibi non inuenimus vbi inueniemus Let vs saith he seeke to be resolued in the Gospell if we finde not there where shall we find it Ergo by the iudgemēt of Augustine there is no truth necessary to be knowen which is not to be found in the Scripture THE THIRD PART OF THE SEVENTH question whether there be any traditions beside Scripture concerning faith and manners The Papistes error 13 THey vnderstand by this word tradition doctrine preceptes and ceremonies with other vsages of the Church which are not written in the scriptures They do not say that all their traditiōs are necessary but they make diuerse kindes of them some are vniuersall obserued in the whole Church some particular some are free some necessarie some are Apostolicall inuented by the Apostles some Ecclesiasticall by the Church so thus they conclude all traditions decreed in Councels and iudged Apostolicall whatsoeuer the Church of Rome receiueth as Apostolicall are not to be doubted but to be Apostolicall indeed Secondly all Apostolicall traditions are of equall authoritie with the writings of the Apostles Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 2. 9. and they are that part of the word of God which is vnwritten as well as the scriptures are that part which is written Let vs see what arguments they bring for these traditions 1 They geue an instance of certaine traditiōs as the Baptisme of infants and the not rebaptising of those which were before Baptised by heretikes We aunswere these two customes of the Church are grounded vpon scripture for as childrē were in the time of the law Circūcised so are they now vnder the Gospell Baptised and that promise Gene. 17. I will be thy God and the God of thy seede as it belonged to them and their children so doth it appertaine to vs and our children Concerning the other point that they whom heretikes haue once Baptised ought not to be Baptised againe S. Augustine doth proue it out of the scripture Ephe. 4. there is one Faith one Baptisme Ergo not to be repeated But now they come in with other traditions as the Lenton fast which they vse most fondly and superstitiously the eight Ecclesiasticall orders Bishops Prists Deacōs Subdeacons Acolythistes Readers Exorcistes Doore-keepers the worshipping of Images with many other these they would face vs out to be Apostolical traditions and to haue bene vniuersally obserued which are but their vayne brags and Thrasonicall crakes they shall neuer proue them vniuersall much lesse Apostolicall And because they finde no scripture to establish these their superstitious fantasies by they flye vnto tradition which is their onely hauen where they hope to finde succour but all in vayne Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 9. Consul Whitacher quaest 6. cap. 4. 2 They proceede and alledge scripture for their traditions as that place Iohn 16.12 I haue many things to say but you can not beare them now Ergo say they there are many traditions not written We aunswere First it foloweth not because Christ declared not all things at that time that therefore he kept them from his Apostles all together Nay whatsoeuer afterwardes the Apostles learned of the spirite of God they had heard before of Christ for it was the office of the spirite but to put them in remembrance of Christes sayings Iohn 14.26 which they had heard before but vnderstood them not and so forgat them Wherefore these things which Christ forbeareth to speake are the same things which are cōteined in
Notes we would desire no better arguments then those which our aduersaries alleadged against vs for first our notes are proper onely to the Church and cannot bee found in any place where the Church of God is not Secondly they are most notorious markes and a man by the Scriptures may more easely knowe what true doctrine is and which are the right Sacraments then which is the true Church Thirdly these markes can not be absent from the Church but doe alwayes accompanie it and it is no longer a true Church then it hath those markes 2 We are able out of the Scriptures to proue these marks which may stand in stead of many reasons Iohn 10. my sheepe heare my voyce Ephes. 5. clensing it by the washing of water through the word Ergo the Word and Sacraments are true notes of the Church Bellarmine answereth to the first place that the hearing of the word is not a visible note of the Church but a signe vnto euery man whereby he may knowe his election Wee replie agayne looke which way a man is knowne to bee a member of the Church by the same way the Church also it selfe is discerned if the hearing of the word doe make one a sheep of Christ then doth it also shew which is the flocke and fould of Christ As I knowe my hand or foote to bee a part of my bodie because it hath life and motion of the bodie euen so the bodie is discerned from a carkas because it moueth and liueth To the second place he answereth very simply that the Apostle there sheweth not which is the Church but what good Christ hath wrought for his Church We replie againe But the Church is best knowne by the benefites that Christ hath bestowed vpon it amongst the which the Word and the Sacraments are not the least Ergo by these the Church is knowne and in that place by the Apostle described And let the reader iudge whether that place of the Apostle where there is direct mention made of the word and sacraments be not fitly applied to our purpose concerning the description of the Church 3 Let Augustine speake In scripturis didicimus Christum in scripturis didicimus ecclesiam epistol 166. In the scripture we doe learne Christ in the scripture let vs likewise learne the Church His argument is this Looke how Christ is knowne so is his Church but Christ is onely knowne by his word Ergo so is his Church The fourth question of the authoritie of the Church THe Papists affirme that the authoritie of the Church consisteth in these fiue poynts First in authorising the scriptures and defining which are Canonicall Secondly in giuing the sense of the scripture Thirdly in determining matters besides scripture Fourthly in making lawes constitutions for the Church Fiftly in exercising of discipline Concerning the two last we doe not greatly stand with them We acknowledge the Church hath authoritie to make decrees and constitutions but so as the Apostles did Visum est nobis spiritui sancto It seemed good to vs and the holy Ghost the Church must be directed by the wisedome of the spirit speaking in the scriptures We also acknowledge the holesome power of the Church in exercising of holy discipline but it must be done in the name and power of Christ. 1. Cor. 5.4 not according to the will of men Concerning the two first we haue alreadie shewed that neither the Church doth giue authoritie to the word of God but doth take her authoritie from thē for the scriptures are of sufficient credite of themselues 1. controu quaest 4. Neither that the sense of scripture dependeth vpon the interpretation of the scripture but that the word expoundeth it selfe 1. controu quaest 6. There remaineth therefore onely one poynt to be discussed of the authoritie of the Church namely in deciding of matters beside the scriptures which are of two sorts either necessarie appertayning to faith or indifferent concerning ceremonies of both these in their order THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE CHVRCH hath authoritie in matters of faith beside the scriptures The Papists WE ought to take our faith and al necessarie things of saluation at the hands error 24 of our superiours Rhemist Act. 10. sect 8. In poynts not decided by scripture wee must aske counsaile of the Church Praefat. sect 25. The Church is the onely piller and stay to leane vnto in all doubts of doctrine without the which there can be no certaintie nor securitie we must therefore beleeue it and trust it in all things annot 1. Timoth. cap. 3. sect 9. Yea it hath authoritie say they to make newe Articles of faith as in the Councell of Constance it was decreed to be necessarie to saluation to beleeue the Pope to be head of the Church In the Councell of Basile it was made an Article of the faith to beleeue that the Councell was aboue the Pope and therfore Pope Eugenius in not obeying the Councell was adiudged to be an heretike 1 Vpon these words in the Gospel Iohn 15.27 the spirit shall testifie of me and you shall beare witnesse also they conclude thus Ergo the testimonie of the trueth ioyntly consisteth in the holy Ghost and Prelates of the Church Rhemist Iohn 15. sect 8. We answere The witnesse of the spirit and of the Apostles is all one witnesse for the spirit first testifieth the trueth to the Apostles inwardly and the Apostles inspired by the spirite did witnesse it outwardly so the Pastors of the Church witnessing with the spirit which is not now inspired by reuelation but onely found in the scriptures are to bee heard but if the spirit testifie one thing in the word and they testifie another there we must leaue them 2 The Church erreth not Ergo we must heare her in all things Rhem. 1. Timoth 3. sect 9. We answere First the Church may erre if she followe not the scriptures Proued before 2. controu quaest 2. Secondly so long as the Church heareth Christs voyce we are likewise to heare hers and so long as she is preserued from error she will not swarue from Christs precepts neither impose any thing vpon her children without the warrant of her spouse The Protestantes THat the Church hath no such power to ordaine articles of faith or impose matters to be beleeued necessarie to saluation not contayned or prescribed in the holy scriptures We prooue it thus and wee are sure that the true Church of Christ will neuer chalenge any such prerogatiue 1. All truthes and verities in the scriptures are not so necessary to saluation that the ignorance thereof should bring perill of damnation Ergo much lesse are any verities out of scripture of any such necessitie the first is manifest for to know the iust chronologie of time or space of yeares from the beginning of the world to Christ is a veritie in scripture yet not necessary so to beleeue that Marie continued a virgin euer after the birth of our Lord was thought by
third of Iohn the last Chapter of Marke We differ not then in the new Testament vnlesse it be concerning the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews which ouer aduersaries stoutly affirme to be S. Pauls which we deny not neither certainly can affirme it seeing in some Greeke copies it is left out and in the Syriacke translation But it mattereth not who was the author seeing we receiue it as canonicall for the title is no part of the booke and so neither of Scripture and we receiue many bookes in the old Testament the authors whereof are not perfectly knowne So then all the question is about the Apocrypha of the old Testamēt they are called Apocrypha because they are hid and obscure not because their authours are vnknowne for as I sayd we knowe not by whom certaine Canonical bookes were written neither are they so called because of some vntruthes conteined in them contrary to Scripture as the most of them haue for it foloweth not that euerie booke which hath no vntruth or lye should straight wayes be taken for Scripture but they are therfore iudged and called Apocrypha because they were not in former time receiued into publike and authentick authoritie in the Church neither to be alledged as grounds of our faith though they may be read for example of life and may haue other profitable vse But the Canonicall Scripture onely hath this priuiledge to geue rules of faith and thereupon it hath the name that we may be bold to beleeue and ground our faith vpon the canonicall holy Scripture which is the onely word of God Wherefore out of this number of Canonicall Scripture we exclude all the books afore named therfore let not the reader be deceiued that although they be ioyned in one volume with the Scripture to think that they are for that of the same authoritie and credit with the rest first we will shew one reason in general and afterward come vnto the particular books in order 1 All canonical scripture in the old Testament was written by Prophets we haue a sure word of the prophetes saith S. Peter 2.1.19 and S. Paule Rom. 16.26 calleth them the Scriptures of the Prophets But none of those bookes aforenamed of Tobias Iudith and the rest were written by the Prophets for they were all written since Malachies time who was the last Prophete as the Church complaineth Psal. 74.9 There is not one Prophete nor any that can tell vs how long Ergo none of these bookes are canonicall 2 All the canonicall bookes of the old Testament were acknowledged of the Iewes and Hebrues for they were then onely the Church of God and where should Scripture be found but in the Church to them sayth S. Paule were committed the oracles of God Rom. 3.2 But the Iewes receiued none of these books for none of them are written in the Hebrue toung neither did they receiue them with the like authoritie as other bookes of Scripture and this some of the Papists can not denie Ergo thy are not Canonicall 3 There is no Scripture of the old Testament but it hath approbation of the new for as the Prophetes beare witnesse to Christ so he againe doth witnesse for the Prophets and therefore it is a true proposition of Caietane though he be controlled and checked of Catharinus an other Papist for it that there is no Scripture which was not either written or approued by the Apostles but in the whole new Testament you shall not find one testimony cited either in the Gospel or the Epistles out of any of the Apocrypha as out of other bookes of Scripture therefore hauing no approbation of the new Testament we conclude they are none of the old 4 It shall appeare in the seuerall discourse of the particular bookes that there is somewhat euen in the bookes themselues to be found that barreth them from being Canonicall OF THE BOOKE OF BARVCH The Papistes THis is their best reason for the authoritie of this booke because Baruch was Ieremies scribe and therfore Baruch can not be refused vnlesse also we doubt of Ieremie Bellarm. lib. 1. de verbo Dei cap. 8. The Protestantes THis booke was neither written by Ieremie nor Baruch first because it is in Greeke if either Ieremie or Baruch had written it it is most like they would haue written in Hebrue Secondly the phrase and manner of speach sheweth that it was neuer written in Hebrue for in the 6. Chapter in the Epistle of Ieremie it is said that the Israelites should be in captiuitie seuen generations that is 70. yeares but it can not be found in any Hebrue booke that generation is taken for the space of 70. yeares OF THE SEVEN APOCRYPHAL Chapters of Esther The Papistes ONe of their chief Arguments besides testimonies and authorities which would make to great a Volume is this which is common also to the rest of the Apocrypha they are read in the Church haue bene of auncient time Ergo they are Canonicall I aunswere that it is no good argument Hierome saith plainly Legit Ecclesia sedeos inter Scripturas Canonicas non recipit Praefat. in lib. Solomon The Church indeede saith he readeth them yet for all that they are not Canonicall And Augustine was wōt to read vnto the people the Epistles of the Donatistes and his aunsweres vnto them Epist. 203. The Protestantes THe most of our reasons against the authoritie of the 7. Chapters added to Esther for of the 10 first Chapters which are found in the Hebrue we make no doubt at all are drawen from the matter of the booke it selfe 1 In the second of the Canonicall Esther ver 16. it is said that the conspiracie of the two Eunuches against the king was in the 7. yeare of Assuerus but in the 11. Chap. ver 2. of the Apocryphall Esther we read that Mardocheus did dreame of this conspiracie in the secōd yeare Bellarmine aunswereth that both are true for the dreame was in the secōd yeare the conspiracie in the seuēth so belike there was fiue yeares betweene But in the 11. Chapter it is said that Mardocheus was much troubled about that dreame and the next night after his dreame the conspiracie was enterprised 2 The true history of Esther saith that Mardocheus had no reward at that time of the king cap. 6.3 but the forged storie saith that at the same time the king gaue him great gifts which can not be meant of that great honor which afterward was bestowed vpon Mardoche for then Haman being hanged the same day could worke him no despite wheras the forged story saith that after the king had rewarded him then Haman began to stomach him because of those two Eunuches 3 Againe the storie which is added was written many yeares after Mardoches Esthers death vnder the raigne of Ptolomaeus Cleopatra as it appeareth cap. 11.1 it is not like therefore to be a true storie Bellarmins ridiculous cōiecture is this that there were two stories
it hath nothing to do to iudge of Scripture being the seate of Antichrist neither is the authoritie of that Church to be credited but rather suspected and mistrusted 2 There are certaine writings of the Prophetes not canonicall and other writings of some that were no Prophetes made canonicall Ergo the Church hath authoritie to iudge of Scripture sic Stapleton For the first where he obiecteth that there are many writings of the Prophetes as of Solomon Nathan Ahiia Ieedo 2. Chronic. 9.29 that are lost and if they were extant should not be receiued We aunswere First it is not to be doubted of but some part of the canonicall Scripture is lost Secōdly how proueth he that if they were extant they were not to be acknowledged for Scripture To the second that bookes not made by Prophets are iudged canonicall as of Tobie Iudith We aunswere that these bookes ought not to be canonicall neither that euer they were so taken till of late it was decreed by Councels of no great antiquitie for in the Laodicene Councell and other auncient Councels they were deemed not to be canonicall 3 Certaine bookes of the new Testament before doubted of as the Epistle to the Hebrues the Apocalipse the 2. Epistle of Peter the second of Iohn are receiued into authoritie by the Church and other bookes as the Gospell of Thomas Mathias Andrew Peter were reiected by the authoritie of the Church We answere First we deny not but that the Church is to discerne betweene the true Scriptures forged bookes but this she doth not of her own authoritie but folowing the direction of Gods spirite speaking in those writings for the Church looking into the sacred and diuine matter of the Apostles writings was moued to acknowledge them for the word of God though of some they were doubted of finding the other to be fabulous bookes did by the direction of the same spirite reiect them Secondly Augustine and Hierome thinke that the Canon of Scripture might be confirmed in the Apostles time Iohn being the suruiuer of thē all who both acknowledged the true writings of the Apostles and condemned the contrarie If it be so the spirite of God in the Apostles hauing determined this question already concerning the canonicall Scripture the Church hath no authoritie to alter or chaunge that decree Plura apud Whitacher quaest 3. de Scriptur cap. 5. The Protestantes WE do not despise the sentence of the Church as our aduersaries doe falsely charge vs but we confesse that it is the duetie of the Church to geue testimony to the Scriptures as the Goldsmith doth trie the gold Fulk annot 2. Gal. 2. But the Church ought not to set the Lordes stampe vpon false coyne as the Papistes do in making Apocryphall bookes canonicall Neither doe we onely beleeue the Scripture because of the Churches testimonie nor chiefly but because the spirit of God doth so teach vs and the Scriptures them selues do testifie for them selues so that euerie man is bound to acknowledge the Scripture though there were no publike approbation of the Church Fulk 2. Galat. 6. Whitacher quaest 3. cap. 1. de Scripturis We do reason thus 1 The Iesuite doth reason strongly for vs he bringeth fiue arguments to proue the Scripture to be the word of God veritas vaticiniorum the constant and perpetuall truth of the Prophecies incredibilis scriptorum conspiratio the wonderfull harmonie and consent of holy writers of the Scripture testis est Deus ipse the spirite of God is a principall witnesse vnto vs testis est ipsa Scriptura the Scripture it selfe beareth witnesse as 2. Tim. 3. all Scripture is geuen by inspiration testis est diuinorum numerus infinitus miraculorum lastly the many and great miracles wrought by the Prophetes and Apostles do testifie for the truth thereof He maketh no mention at all of the testimonie of the Church but saith the same that we hold that the spirit of God inwardly working in our harts by the Scriptures them selues which we find to be most perfect consonant true of singular maiestie doth teach vs which is the word of God Bellarmin de verbo Dei lib. 1. cap. 2. 2 The Scripture geueth authoritie to the Church Ergo the Church geueth not authoritie to the Scripture the first we proue by our aduersaries own confession for being asked how they know that the Church erreth not they alledge such places of Scripture as Math. 28.20 I am with you to the end of the world and the like how then doth the Church geue authoritie to Scripture seeing it taketh her warrant and authoritie from thence the Iesuite him selfe saith that nihil est certius vel notius Scripturis nothing is more certaine or notoriously knowen then Scripture and againe sacra Scriptura est regula credendi certissima the holy Scripture is the most certaine rule of faith Bellarm. de verbo 1.2 If the authoritie of Scripture then be most certaine what reason is it that they should depend vpon the iudgement of the Church which is nothing so certaine the lesse certaine ought rather and so doth indeed depend of the more certaine the Church vpon the Scripture not contrariwise for the Scriptures are the foundation of the Church Ephe. 2.20 3 To beleeue the Scripture is a worke of faith the Church can not infuse faith into vs but the spirite of God Ergo the spirite of God not the Church teacheth vs to beleeue Scripture argum Whitach 18. 4 If the Scriptures depend vpon the approbation of the Church then the promises of saluation and eternall life conteined in the Scriptures do so likewise but it is absurde to thinke that the promises of God do stand vpō the allowance of men Ergo neither the Scriptures argum Caluini 5 The Scripture is the chief iudge and ought so to be in all cōtrouersies we may appeale from the Church to the Scripture not from the Scripture to the Church the Church is subiect to the Scriptures the rule of faith is in the scriptures not in the Church for the cōpanie of faithful which is the Church are ruled by faith they do not ouerrule faith neither are a rule thereof the Church is a point of beliefe as in the Creede not a rule or measure thereof Ergo the Church is not the chief iudge of Scripture but it selfe to be iudged by scripture Whitach argum 16. 6 We haue euident places of scripture Iohn 5.34 saith Christ I receiue no witnes of men but the scripture is the voyce of Christ and of the same authoritie Ergo. Ver. 36. I haue a greater testimonie thē of Iohn the scriptures do testifie of me Ver. 39. The testimony of the scriptures is greater thē the record of Iohn Ergo then of the Church 1. Iohn 5.6 the spirite beareth witnesse that the spirite that is the doctrine of the spirit is the truth And. ver 9. if we receiue the witnesse of man the witnesse of God is greater Ergo not the iudgement of the Church
was lawfull for them to read the scriptures much more for all Christians The Iesuite aunswereth that our knowledge is greater then theirs not in all scripture but in the misteries for our redemption onely We answere this is all we desire for if the misterie of saluation and redemption be plainly opened in the scripture why should not the people be admitted to the reading of the word to be confirmed in the knowledge of their redemption who seeth not what sillie aunsweres these be 4 Augustine thus writeth of this matter In ijs inquit quae aperte in Scripturis â—osita sunt inueniuntur ea omnia quae fidem continent moresque viuendi De doctrin Christia lib. 2. cap. 9. The plaine and easie places of scripture conteine all things necessarie vnto faith and good life Ergo the doctrine of saluation in the scriptures is not hard and difficult but easie of good Christians to be vnderstood THE SIXT QVESTION CONCERNING the interpretation of Scripture THis question doth diuide it selfe into three partes First concerning the diuerse senses of the scripture Secondly to whoÌ„ the chief authoritie to expound scripture is committed Thidly what meanes must be vsed in the interpretation of scripture THE FIRST PART OF THE SIXTH QVEstion of the diuerse senses of Scripture The Papistes error 7 THere are two straunge Assertions of our aduersaries coÌ„cerning this matter First they affirme that the scripture may haue diuerse senses and meanings in the same place The sense of the scripture is either literall say they historicall which is the first most proper sense or spirituall that is an higher sense deriued out of the other and it is of three kinds Allegoricall Tropologicall Anagogicall they shew by particular instance and induction that the scripture besides the literall sense may haue these also The Allegoricall sense is when besides the plaine historicall and literall meaning somewhat is signified which by an allegorie is referred vnto Christ or the Church as Gal. 4. beside the truth of the storie of the bond and free woman S. Paule applieth it vnto the two Testaments Ergo one place may haue more senses then one The Tropologicall sense is when as there is somewhat signified appertaining to manners as Deut. 25. Thou shalt not mussell the mouth of the oxe that treadeth out the corne this by S. Paule is applied to the Ministers of the Gospell 1. Cor. 9. Ergo the scripture hath diuerse senses The Anagogicall sense is wheÌ„ the place is applied to decipher set forth the kingdome of heauen and eternall things as Psal. 94. I sware vnto them if they should enter into my rest this is literally vnderstood of the rest in Canaan spiritually of life eternall Ergo many senses thus reasoneth Bellarmin lib. 3. de Scriptur cap. 3. The Protestantes WE affirme that of one place of scripture there can be but one sense which we call the literall sense when as the wordes are either taken properly or figuratiuely to expresse the thing which is meant as in this place the seede of the woman shall breake the Serpents head the literall sense is of Christ who should triumph ouer Sathan though it be spoken in a borowed and figuratiue speach There can be therefore but one sense which is the literall as for those three kinds they are not diuerse senses but diuerse applicatioÌ„s onely and collections out of one and the same sense 1 It shall appeare by a seuerall induction of all these kindes In the first example of the Allegoricall sense Galathes 4 the Apostle saith not that there is a double sense but that it may be allegorically applied which is historically set downe There is then but one sense of the place part whereof consisteth in the storie part in the allegorie so that the whole sense is conteined in them both Concerning the second exaÌ„ple of the Tropologicall there is not a twofold sense of that place but one whole generall sense that as the mouth of the oxe was not to be musled so the Minister of the Gospell must be prouided for Likewise of the Anagogicall kind it is not one sense to vnderstaÌ„d the rest of Canaan an other of the kingdome of God but there is one whole sense that as they for their Idolatrie were depriued of the land of promise so we should take heede lest by our disobedience we lose the hope of the kingdome of heaueÌ„ So we coÌ„clude that those are not diuerse senses but one sense diuersly applied 2 The literal sense is the onely sense of the place because out of that sense onely may an argument strongly be framed wherefore seeing allegories and tropes do not coÌ„clude they are not the senses of the place An allegorie or type may be part of the literall sense and then it concludeth but when an allegorie is framed beside the literall sense it concludeth not and therefore is no part of the sense as to reason thus the oxes mouth must not be musled Ergo the Minister must be maintained it foloweth well because it is part of the sense but allegories deuised beside the sense proue not though they may illustrate The Papistes THeir other assertion is this that it is lawfull to allegorise scripture both in the old and new Testament Bellarm. lib. 3. cap. 3. They reason thus Rhemens error 8 annot Heb. 4. ver 5. The Apostle applieth the rest of the Sabboth to the eternall rest Ergo the like applications of the fathers are lawfull See annot Heb. 7.2 the Apostle say they findeth great misteries euen in the very names Ergo it is lawfull to make allegories The Protestantes WE say it is daungerous to make allegories of Scripture without the warrant and direction of Gods spirite this was the occasion that diuerse of the auncient fathers greatly erred as the Iesuite him selfe repreheÌ„deth Papias Iustinus Lactantius for allegorising that place Reuel 20. which made them fall into the error of the Chiliastes by false interpreting of the thousand yeares there mentioned To their argumeÌ„ts our learned countryman D. Fulk answereth First it foloweth not because it was lawfull for the Apostles gouerned by the spirite to make allegories that it is therfore lawfull for others Secondly wheÌ„ the fathers or any other writers can be assured of the same spirite which the holy writers had and of the like dexteritie in vnderstanding and expounding Scripture they may likewise be bold to make allegories Let vs heare what Augustine saith of this matter Sicut mihi multum errare videntur qui nullas res gestas aliquid aliud praeter id quod eo modo gesta sunt significare arbitrantur ita multum audere qui prorsus ibi omnia significationib allegoricis inuoluta esse contendunt As they are much deceiued which thinke that the stories in the scripture do signifie no other thing but that which was done so they are to rash and bold that would draw all things to allegories which they read in scripture Ergo it is not
lawfull for any to inuent allegories of scripture as it seemeth good to them selues THE SECOND PART OF THE SIXTH QVEtion to whom the chief authoritie to expound Scripture is committed The Papistes error 9 IT was decreed in the Councell of Trent that scripture should be expoūded as the Church expoundeth it and according to the common and consonant cōsent of the fathers Sect. 4. The Rhemistes say that the sense of the scriptures must be learned of the fathers and pastors of the Church Praefat. Sect. 18. If the fathers agree not the matter is referred to a generall Councell if there it be not determined we must haue recourse to the Pope and his Cardinals The Iesuite dare not referre the matter to the Pope alone to expound scripture but ioyneth the Colledge of Cardinals with him Bellarm. lib. 3. de script cap. 3. 1 They obiect that place Deut. 17.9 where the people are commaunded to resorte vnto the Priest or Iudge in doubtfull matters Ergo there ought to be a chief and supreme iudge in Ecclesiasticall matters Bellarm. We aunswere First here the ciuill Magistrate and the Iudge are ioyned together as ver 12. Wherefore if they will gather hereby that the Pope must be supreme Iudge in all Ecclesiasticall matters then the Emperour ought to be as well in ciuill Secōdly the text saith they shal come to the Priests ver 9. assigning many not to one onely Priest Thirdly they must iudge according to the law v. 11. not as they list thē selues Fourthly here is no mentiō made of doubts in interpreting scripture but of controuersies that may fall out betweene man and man either Ecclesiasticall to be decided by the Priest or ciuill by the Magistrate Fiftly we graunt that in euery country there ought be a supreme and high seate of iudgement for determining of controuersiall matters betweene men but it foloweth not that there should be a supreme iudge ouer the whole Church especially in such matters as this concerning the sense of the scriptures which i◠not commited to the iudgement of men neither is any such controuersie named in that palce ver 8. 2 Ecclesiastes 12.11 The wisemā cōpareth the wordes of the wise to nayles which are fastned geuen by one pastor Ergo the Pope is supreme iudge We aunswere the wise men are here vnderstood to be the Pastors and Ministers of Gods word but this one pastor signifieth neither the high Priest in the old law nor the Pope in the new but Iesus Christ the high shepheard for our soules What great boldnesse is this to attribute that to the Pope which is onely proper to Christ 3 They also picke out some places in the new Testament as Math. 16.19 to thee will I geue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen Christ saith so to Peter Ergo the Pope hath authoritie to expound scripture We aunswere First by the keyes here is meant commission to preach the Gospell not onely to expound doubtes Secōdly they were geuen to all the Apostles not to Peter onely Math. 28. v. 18.19 Thirdly the Pope is not successor of Peter no more then any other godly Bishop nor so much vnlesse he folow Peters steps So they abuse that place Math. 18.17 he that will not heare the Church c. Ergo the Bishops and chief pastors must expound the doubt in scriptures Aunswere First our Sauiour speaketh here of the discipline of the Church of correctiōs and admonitions not of interpreting scripture which dependeth not vpō the will fantacie of Pope Cardinals or Popish Councels but must be tryed by the scriptures them selues Secondly we must geue eare to the Church but with a double condition we must be sure it is the Church of God secōdly we must not heare them cōtrary to the scriptures but so long as they do teach the doctrine of Christ. The Protestants WE haue a more compendious way to come to the vnderstanding of the scripture It were to lōg whē we doubt of any place to stay till we haue the generall consent of the pastors of the Church or to expect a generall Councell or go vp to Rome And it were to much to trouble the Popes grauitie with euery questiō The Lord hath shewed vs a more easie and ready way see that we neede not ascend to heauen or cōpasse the earth or passe the Alpes but the word of God is amongest vs the scriptures them selues and the spirite of God opening our harts do teach vs how to vnderstand them the interpretation of Scripture is not assigned to any succession of pastors or tryed to any place or persons Our arguments folow some few of them 1 That onely hath power to geue the sense of Scripture which doth beget vs faith the spirite onely by the Scriptures begetteth faith Rom. 10.17 faith commeth of hearing the word Ergo the spirit of God is the onely interpreter of scripture The proposition also is cleare for seeing the Scripture is the true sense and meaning therof if any should geue the sense of the scripture but that which worketh faith then vpon him should our faith be grounded If the Pope therefore geue the sense of Scripture and our faith ariseth of the Scripture vnderstood then our faith is builded vpon the Popes sense argum Whitach 2. 9. 2 The Scriptures cā not be interpreted but by the same spirit wherewith they were writtē but that spirite is found no where but in the Scriptures Ergo. The first part the Papistes them selues graunt the second is thus proued the spirite of the Apostles is not geuen by secret inspiration that sauoureth of Anabaptisme where is it thē to be found whether is it like that S. Peters spirite should be found in the Popes chaire or in his Epistles or if they haue S. Peters spirite where is S. Paules found but in his writings Yet it is all one spirite appeareth not els where but in the Scriptures where euery man may finde it as wel as the Pope the spirituall man iudgeth all things 1. Cor. 2.15 you haue an oyntment from him that is holy and you haue knowen all things and ver 27. you need not that any mā teach you By these places it is euident that euery faithfull man by the spirite of God may vnderstand the scriptures 3 The doctrine of the Church must be examined by the Scriptures Ergo the scriptures are not to stand to the iudgement of the Church The former part is proued by the example of the Berrheans Act. 17.11 If they did well in examining Paules doctrine much more may the decrees of the Pope Church Coūcels be examined by the scriptures But they knew not whether Paule was an Apostle or not therefore they might examine his doctrine saith the Iesuite Answere it is no matter for the person of Paule they examined his doctrine which dependeth not vpon the person Secondly they could not be ignoraunt of his Apostleship who was famous throughout the Churches Thirdly they doubted onely whether Paul was an
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
the Apostles writings Secondly if there were other matters which Christ vttered not how foloweth it nay what great presumptiō is it to say that those trifles and apish toyes which the Papistes vse in their Idolatrous sacrifice and their other beggarly ceremonies which boyes may well laugh at are those profoūd matters which the Apostles were not then able to conceiue 3 That of all other they take to be an inuincible place 2. Thess. 2.15 keepe the instructions or traditions which ye haue bene taught either by word or by Epistle Ergo there are traditions besides scripture We aunswere when S. Paule wrote this Epistle all the scriptures were not writtē wherefore besides these two short Epistles which do not conteine the summe of the Gospell nor all necessarie preceptes he by his preaching supplied what was wanting and so declared vnto them the whole mysterie of the Gospell as he saith 1. Thess. 2.2 these he calleth his traditions because yet he had not written his other Epistles wherein those instructions and traditions are conteined This then is but a weake argument the Thessalonians had other instructiōs and traditions beside the two Epistles writtē vnto them Ergo they had other traditiōs beside all the writings of S. Paule and the other Apostles this is their mayne and waightie argument The Protestantes FIrst we graunt that all things are not written which our Sauiour Christ and the Apostles taught and that it was the Gospell which they preached as well as this which is written yet in substance they preached the same Gospell which now is expressed in the scripture neither was there any necessarie precept deliuered in their Sermons which is not now to be found in the scriptures Secondly we denie not but there were certaine rites and orders ordained by the Apostles in diuerse churches which were not cōmitted to writing because they were not to continue and endure for euer in the Church as that precept Act. 16. that the Gentiles should abstaine from strangled and from bloud Thirdly we also graunt that the Church may vse externall rites and orders either left by tradition or ordained by the Church for decencie and comelynesse and tending to edification But we constantly affirme that there are no traditions in the Church of God necessarie to saluation beside scripture wherein all things are conteined necessarie to saluation both concerning faith and manners 1 It is not lawfull as to take ought from the word of God so to adde any thing vnto it Deut. 12.32 Apocal. 22.18 But they which bring in traditiōs necessarie beside the scriptures do adde vnto them Ergo. To the proposition the Iesuite aunswereth that all addition to the word of God is not forbidden for the Prophets did write after Moses the Apostles after the Euangelistes We aunswere that those holy men had authoritie from God to compile scripture if the Papistes haue the like Apostolike authoritie for their traditions let them shew it and we will beleeue them Secondly the Prophetes did but explane Moses and expound the law and the Apostles did as it were set forth their Commentaries vpon the Gospell this therefore was no addition because they did not derogate from the perfection of the scriptures any way To the assumptiō they aunswere that their traditions are but expositiōs of Scripture We aunswere their traditions are cleane contrarie to Scripture as the worshipping of Images and the sacrifice of their Masse and they adde to Scripture making it vnperfect saying it doth not conteine all things necessarie to saluation Wherefore they can not escape that curse which they runne into that adde to the word of God 2 All traditions among the Iewes besides the law were condemned Math. 15.3 Ergo all vnwritten traditions now must be abolished The Iesuite aunswereth First Christ condemned not the auncient traditions of Moses but those which were newly and lately inuented Aunswere first the Scripture maketh no mention of any such traditions of Moses Christ biddeth them search the Scriptures not runne vnto traditions Secondly these seemed to be auncient traditions bearing the name of Elders traditions and they were in great authoritie amongest the Iewes most like because of some long continuance Secondly saith he Christ findeth fault with wicked and impious traditions Aunswere First their traditions were not openly and plainly euill and pernicious but had some shew of holynesse as the washing of pots and tables and beds I would the Papists did not here take thē selues by the nose whose traditions come nearer to open impietie and blasphemie then theirs did Secondly Christ in opposing the Scripture against traditions therein condemneth all traditions not written besides the Scripture 3 If Paule preaching the whole Gospell Act. 20.27 did say none other things then Moses and the Prophetes then all things necessarie to saluation are conteined in the Scriptures For it can not be said to be a whole and perfite Gospell if any thing necessarie to saluation be wanting But Paule preached nothing but out of Moses and the Prophetes Act. 26.22 Ergo much more now is the Scripture a perfect rule of faith we hauing beside Moses and the Prophetes the holy writings of the Euangelistes and Apostles 4 Last of all although we might multiplie many arguments but these I trust strongly concluding out of Scripture may serue as a sufficient bulwarke against all Popish paper bullets Let vs heare in the knitting vp the iudgement of Augustine In his rebus inquit in quib nihil certi statuit Scriptura mos populi Dei vel instituta maiorum pro lege tenenda Epist. 86. In all those things saith he speaking of externall rules and ceremonies of the which we haue no certaine rule out of Scripture the custome of the people of God and the godly constitutions of our forefathers must stand for a law but concerning matters of faith and good maners the Scriptures do giue certaine rules as in another place In ijs quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt inueniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque viuendi De doctrin Christian. 2.9 all things appertaining to faith and the rule of life are plainlie expressed in the Scripture Ergo by the sentence of Augustine traditions besides scripture haue nothing to do with the doctrine of faith and manners but do consist onely in externall rites and customes of the Church THE SECOND GENERALL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE CHVRCH HAuing now finished the questions betweene our aduersaries and vs concerning the Scriptures and word of God which all do belong to the Propheticall office of Christ in the next place such controuersies are to be handled as do concerne the Kingly office of Christ. And seeing the Church of Christ is his kingdome where he ruleth and raigneth we must intreat of the Church and first in generall of the whole and in speciall of the partes and members This present controuersie concerning the Church in generall standeth vpon fiue principall questions 1 Of the definition of the Catholike Church two partes
Church Actes 15. when they came to Ierusalem they were receiued of the Church Philip. 3.6 Paule persecuted the Church how could the church be persecuted how could it receiue the Apostles if it were not visible Bellarmin cap. 12. We answere what goodly reasons here be a particular church such as was at Ierusalem may be seene Ergo the catholike and vniuersall Secondly a particular church may be sometime visible Ergo alwayes Thirdly the church is visible vnto the faithfull as in time of persecution for to Paule it was not knowen when he persecuted it but onely to the brethren Ergo it is visible to the world For these three points they must proue that the catholike church not a particular is visible that the Church is not sometime but alway visible yea and to the world or else they say nothing for shame masters make better arguments 3 He hath set his tabernacle in the sunne Psal. 19. The Church is as a Citie vpon an hill Math. 5. Ergo it is alwayes visible Bellarmin ibid. Rhemist Math. 5. Sect. 3. We answere First the Apostles them selues euen at this time when Christ spake these wordes vnto them were not so in sole or in monte in the sunne or vpon the hill that they were seene of the world nay they were not seene nor acknowledged of the Scribes and Pharisies in Iewrie the Church is seene of the faithfull it is visible to them that search for her out of the Scriptures they that caÌ„ see the mountaine shal see the Citie the mountaine is Christ the Citie is the Church No marueile if the Church be not alwayes visible to the world for they see not neither do they know Christ. Secondly the church is said to be on a hill because the truth seeketh no corners heretikes and false tâ—achers flye into the desert and into secret places Math. 24. ver 26. But the truth is not ashamed the Apostles confessed Christ eueÌ„ before Kings and Princes Marke 13.19 so Augustine expoundeth it Cont. Faustum lib. 13. cap. 13. The Protestantes COncerning the catholike church we hold that because it is an article of our faith it is alwayes vnto the world inuisible and not to be espyed but by the eyes of faith Fulk Math. 5. Sect. 5. Concerning particular churches if by visible they vnderstand that which may be seene so we graunt they are alwayes visible Fulk Act. 11. v. 24. If for that which is actually visible we say it is not so alwayes visible to the world nay it may sometimes be so hid and secret that the members know not one another Fulk in Math. 5. Sect. 3. 1 To the Hebrues it is thus written cap. 13. v. 18.23.24 you are not come to the mouÌ„taine which might be touched but to the Citie of the liuing God the celestiall Ierusalem c. Ergo the church is inuisible and here opposed to the visible hill of Sinay Bellarmine answereth that this is vnderstood of the triumphant church in heauen not of the militant vpon earth To this we make answere the Apostle vnderstandeth the whole vniuersall church in heauen and earth which both make but one familie Ephe. 3.15 for here he nameth not onely the spirites of iust men which are in heauen but the faithfull vpon earth whose names are written in heauen the congregatioÌ„ saith he of the first borne the wordes are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a gathering together collection or coÌ„gregation which must needes be vnderstood of men vpon earth Againe saith he ye are come not ye shall come they had now left the smoking mountaine Sinay and were come to Sion the church vnder the Gospell Wherefore this is a most firme and inuincible argument the catholike church is the vniuersall number of Gods chosen in heauen and in earth Ergo inuisible 2 We will giue an instance In the dayes of Elias the church was not visible for he camplaineth and saith that he was onely left alone 1. King 19.10 Ergo the church is not alway visible The Rhemistes answere First at that time the church was visible in Iudaea the souldiers were numbred to 1000. thousand 2. Chron. 17. We aunswere againe First belike they haue taken a more exact account of them then the Lord him selfe for he saith he had reserued 7000 1. King 19.18 that had not bowed their knees to Baall they say there were ten huÌ„dred thousand Againe Elias if he had knowen such a number could not haue bene left so comfortlesse as in grief of hart to desire to dye But be it graunted that the church was visible in Iudaea at this time though it were not so to Elias yet where was that visible church in the dayes of Achaz and Manasseh when Iudaea fell also to Idolatrie Thirdly to beleeue that there is an holy catholike church is an article of our faith Ergo it is inuisible Bellarmin answereth First the holinesse of the church is inuisible We reply so the church is partly visible partly inuisible by his confession First why theÌ„ do ye define the catholike church to be a visible coÌ„gregatioÌ„ if it be not wholly altogether visible they know that difinitio must coÌ„uenire definito the definitioÌ„ must agree wholly to that which is defined but now it is not for they say the catholike holy church is partly visible as it is a church partly inuisible as it is holy Secondly do we not say in the Creede Credo Catholicam as well as Credo Sanctam I beleeue a catholike church as well as I beleeue the holy church then it is also inuisible as it is catholike because this also is part of the article see I pray you what shifting is here Secondly he answereth that some thing is seene in the church some thing beleeued for we see that visible companie of men which make the church but whether that companie be the true church we do not see it but beleeue it We reply againe First the Iesuite hath not yet proued that some thing is seene in the church some thing beleeued but one thing is seene namely the congregation as they are men another thing is beleeued that they are the church the sight and beliefe now by his owne confession are not both in the church Secondly we denie that the vniuersall coÌ„panie of the catholike church which is the number of the predestinate can be seene therefore all is beleeued and nothing seene Thirdly he saith that by faith we know which is the true church Ergo by faith we know which are the members of the church Ergo by faith the meÌ„bers do know them selues to be of the Church therefore faith is requisite in the true members of the church theÌ„ vnfaithfull men can not be true members of the church which point the Iesuite strongly before maintained against vs. Mendacem oportet esse memorem a lyar had need haue a good memorie lest he tell contrarie tales and so hath the Iesuite here for before he denied
Was not here great amitie and loue thinke you amongest the Popes Another notable example of their vnitie we haue in Pope Vrbanus time the 6. against whom stood vp a contrarie Pope in Fraunce named Clement it is worth the noting what coyle these two popes kept between whō many battailes were fought many thousands slaine Pope Vrbane beheaded fiue Cardinals together after long torments Bishop Aquilonensis because he did ride no faster was had in suspition and slayne and cut in peeces by Vrbans souldiers at his commaundement behold here I pray you the vnitie of these Catholikes We will adioyne one other example no longer since then in king Henry the eights time The Duke of Bourbon being the leader of the Emperors armie layd siege to Rome and sacked it the souldiers brake in vpon the Pope which was Clement the seuenth being at Masse slew diuerse of the Priests and one Cardinall called Sanctorum quatuor they layd siege to the Castle of S. Angell so long till the Pope yeelded him selfe The souldiers dayly that lay at the siege made iestes of the Pope sometime they had one riding like the Pope with a whore behind him sometimes he blessed sometime he cursed sometime with one voyce they would call him Antichrist See here is their Catholike obedience to their chief Bishop Thus much concerning their vnitie and concord in life Let vs likewise take a view of their vnitie in doctrine We heard before how Pope Stephen and Sergius abolished the decrees of Formosus how then saith the Iesuite that the decrees of Popes do consent together The Councell of Basile and Constance before that decreed that the Pope should be subiect to generall Councels but this Canon was afterward reuersed and now generally the Papists hold the contrary that the Pope is aboue Councels Let vs see the consent of their writers Bellarmin lib. 1. de verbo cap. 12. maintaineth against Lyranus Driedo Genebrard and others that Iudith was in Manasses time Against Alphonsus de Castro that heretikes are no members of the Church Lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 4. Against Iohannes de turre cremata that faith is not necessarie to make one a member of the Church Lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 10. And euery where the Iesuite taketh great libertie to confute and controll other his felow Papistes belike hauing found out some starting holes that they either knew not or were ashamed to creepe into as the Iesuite doth But saith he we denie not but that we haue dissentions but they are not in materiall points but in such things as appertaine not to faith I meruaile he blusheth not thus to say him selfe knowing the contrary Is it not a substantiall point and belōging to faith to know which bookes are canonicall Scripture which are not But in this question they do much disagree Caietanus the Cardinall saith that we must acknowledge no Scripture but that which was either written or approued by the Apostles But Catharinus a Papist doth reiect that opinion Hugo Cardinalis Arias Montanus do hold no bookes of the old Testament to be canonicall which are written onely in Greeke the Papistes now generally hold the contrary Ex Whitacher 1. contr c. quaest cap. 6. Bellarmin saith that all those opinions which the Church holdeth as articles or preceptes of faith were deliuered by the Apostles that the Church must not now seeke for new reuelations but content her selfe with the Apostolike traditions and doctrine de Scriptur lib. 4. cap. 9. Out of the which words it doth necessarily folow that the church is not now to foūd any new article of faith but this generally is denied by the Papistes and Stapleton an English Papist is not ashamed to say that the Church may adde more bookes to the canonicall Scripture by her absolute authoritie Further to beleeue that the virgine Marie was without sinne yea conceiued without originall sinne is now amongest the Papistes receiued for an article of faith and therefore in Paris none are admitted to be Doctors of Diuinitie which doe not first confirme this article by their oth Yet this was a great question betweene the Scotistes and Thomistes and a great and hote contention arose about this controuersie anno 1476. betweene the Dominicke Friers who affirmed that she was conceiued in sinne and the Franciscanes that held the contrary But these Franciscanes had the vpper hand and foure of the other order were condemned and burned for it at Berne and yet for all this our aduersaries will say still that they varie not in matters of faith Thus we haue seene what is to be thought of Popish vnitie Now to answere briefly to their false accusation whereby they charge vs with manifold schismes and dissentions yea Bellarmin is not ashamed to say that an hundred seuerall sectes are sprong amongest vs. cap. 10. lib. 4. de Eccles. 1 We say with S. Paule oportet haereses esse 1. Cor. 11. there must be heresies and diuisions in the Church And it is a signe we haue the truth when the deuill goeth about by schismes and contentions to hinder the preaching thereof We answere to you as Augustine did to the paganes Non proferant nobis quasi concordiam suam hostem quippe quem patimur illi non patiuntur Let them not boast of their concord and cast in our teeth the dissention of Christians the enemie assaulteth not them as he doth vs Quid ibi luchri est quia litigant vel damni si litigant the deuill shall get nothing if they should disagree nor lose any thing by their agreement for he hath sure hold enough of them already consenting all in Idolatrie But amongest Christians he laboureth to hinder the truth by discord because he can not otherwise withdraw them frō the true Religion Hearken now ô ye Papistes if you consent together it is in euill so long it pleaseth the deuill well enough he should destroy his owne kingdome in sowing dissention amongest you for you fight for him He vseth to cast fire brands amongest good Christians to withstand by this meanes the proceeding of the Gospell 2 It is a great sclaunder that there are so many diuisions amongest vs an hundred saith the Iesuite but he shall neuer proue ten He might haue bethought him selfe of a full hundred of sectes amongest his owne darlings the Monkes and Friers as M. Fox hath faithfully gathered the number pag. 260. 3 Those few schismes and dissentions which we haue and yet to many we must needes confesse are not about points of faith and articles of Religion but concerning some things belonging to discipline and Church gouernement which matters we denie not but haue bene somewhat to hotely and egerlie folowed of some amongest vs but God be thanked this contention hath not bene pursued by fire or death as the Franciscanes did persecute the poore Dominickes nor yet to the pronouncing of ech other heretikes as Eugenius your Pope was condemned as an hereticke in the Councell of
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
his Priesthood in setting vp another sacrifice Ergo your spirit is not of God 3 The Catholike Church is so called because it embraceth the whole and onely doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles Ephes. 2. vers 20. But the Romane Church receiueth many things contrary to scripture and addeth many things vnto it as it shall appeare throughout this whole discourse Ergo. 4 The Catholike Church hath the name because it is dispersed ouer the whole earth Acts 1. vers 8. But so was neuer the Romane faith which is now professed as we haue shewed before Quaest. 3. de Eccles. Not. 2. Ergo ex Amand. Polan THE SECOND PART THE CHVRCH OF Rome is not a true visible Church The Papists THeir arguments are as wee haue heard Quaest. 3. of the notes of the Church error 28 grounded vpon their succession miracles gift of prophesiyng answered sufficiently afore Not. 4.5.6 Wee neede not nor must not for breuities sake repeate the same things often Protestants WE denie vtterly that they are a true visible Church of Christ but an Antichristian Church and an assembly of heretickes and enemies to the Gospell of Iesus Christ. 1 That cannot bee a true Church where the word of God is not truely preached nor the Sacraments rightly administred according to Christs institution So are they not in the Popes Church For the word is not sincerely taught but they haue added many inuentions of their owne and doe preach contrarie Doctrines to the Scripture the Sacraments also they haue not kept for first they haue augmented the number they haue made fiue more of confirmation orders penance Matrimonie extreame vnction beside the Sacraments of Christ they haue corrupted In baptisme beside water they vse spittle salt oyle Chrisme contrarie to the institution and they lay such a necessitie vpon this Sacrament that al which die without it say they are damned In the Lordes Supper they haue turned the Sacrament to a sacrifice made an Idol of bread chaunged the Communion into priuate masses taken the cup from the lay people and many other abhominations are committed by them Ergo neither hauing the word nor Sacraments according to the institution they are no true Church 2 They which are enemies to the true Church and doe persecute the members thereof are no true visible Church they cannot be of that Church which they persecute as Bellarmine saith of Paul how could he bee of that Church which he with al his force oppressed de eccles lib. 3. cap. 7. But they persecute the Saints of God are most cruel towards them as their consciences beare them record Ergo. 3 The habitation of Antichrist cannot be the Church of Christ so is theirs the Pope himselfe is Antichrist for who else but hee sitteth in the temple being an enemie to Christ. 2. Thes. 2. Where haue you a citie in the world built vpon seauen hilles but Rome Apocalyps 17.9 But of this matter we shall of purpose intreate afterward Ergo. they are not a true visible Church THE THIRD CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING COVNCELS A Councel is nothing else but an assembly and gathering together of the people of God about the affaires and businesse of the Church and they are of two sortes either vniuersall in the name of the whole Church or particular which are either National when the learned of a whole Realme are called together or Prouincial when as the Churches of one Prouince doo assemble into one place to consult of Religion There may be two especiall occasions of Councels the one for resisting and rooting out of heresies as the Apostles and elders met together Act. 15. against those which would haue imposed the Iewish ceremonies vppon the beleeuing Gentiles So the Councell of Nice was celebrated the yeare of the Lorde 327. to confound the heresie of Arrius who denied Christ as he was God to be equall to his Father In the Councel of Constantinople Anno 383. or there aboute the heresie of Macedonius was condemned which denied the holy Ghost to bee God In the Ephesine Councel the first Nestorius heresie was ouerthrowne which affirmed Christ to haue two persons Anno 434. The Councel of Chalcedon was collected Anno 454. about the heresie of Eutiches which held that there was in Christ but one nature after his incarnation so confounding his humanitie and diuinitie together The other cause of the calling of Councels is to prouide establish holsome Lawes decrees and constitutions for the gouernement of the Church so the Apostles called the brethren together Act. 6. to take order for the poore And in the Councell of Nice an vniforme order was established for the celebration of Easter which before had much troubled the Church The questions betweene vs and the Papists concerning Councels are these First whether generall Councels be absolutely necessarie Secondly by whome they ought to be called Thirdly of what persons they ought to cōsist Fourthly who should bee the president of the Councel Fiftly concerning the authoritie of them Sixtly whether they may erre or not Seauenthly whether they are aboue the Pope Eightly of the conditions to be obserued in generall Councels of these in order THE FIRST QVESTION CONCERNING the necessitie of Councels The assertion of the Papists THey seeme in wordes to affirme that Generall Councels are not absolutelie error 29 necessarie for the Primitiue Church was without any Councel for the space of 300. yeares and more yet they hold that some Councels either generall or particular are of necessitie to be had Bellarmine de concil lib. 1. cap. 11. And yet this is to be maruelled at that they should so much stand for Councels seeing they might vse a farre more compendious way in referring all to the determination of the Pope whome they boldly but very fondly affirme that hee cannot erre Although they seeme not to lay a necessitie vpon Generall Councels yet in truth they doo contrarie for they allowe no Councels at all without the Popes consent and authoritie neither thinke it lawfull for any Nation or Prouince to make within themselues any innouation or change of Religion So in the assembly at Zuricke Anno 1523. For the reformation of Religion Faber tooke exception against that meeting affirming that it was no conuenient place nor fit time for the discussing of such matter but rather the cognition and tractation thereof belonged to a generall Councel Sleid. lib. 3. And further they hold that what hath beene decreed in a Councel cānot be dissolued but by the like Councel as if the Councel of Trent were to bee disanulled it must be done by the like Synod Bellarmine de cōcil lib. 3. ca. 21. Which Councel they affirme to haue been general therefore another general Councel must by their opinion necessarily be expected before it can be reuoked The confession of the Protestants WE doe hold that generall Councels are an holesome meanes for the repressing and reforming both of errors in Religion and corruption in manners and that true generall Councels ought to
scripture 1. Deut. 17.12 He that harkeneth not vnto the priest that man shal die But mark I pray you what goeth before v. 11. according to the law which they shal teach thee according to the iudgement which they shall tell thee shalt thou do see then here is no absolute iudicial power giuen to the priest but according to the law of God 2. The example of the Apostles Act. 15. is as fōdly alleadged where it was decreed saith the Iesuite that the Gētiles shuld not be burthened with ceremonies which saith hee was not determined by the scriptures but by the absolute suffrages of the Apostles Again their decrees were absolutely imposed vpon the Churches without any further examination of the Disciples Ergo we are now also absolutely bound to obey all decrees of Councels Bellar. de concil 1.18 We answere first it is false that this matter was determined without scripture for Iames alleadgeth scripture Peter thus reasoneth we beleeue through the grace of God to be saued as wel as they v. 11. therfore what need this yoke of ceremonies 2. Though there had been no scripture who seeth not that the spirit of God so ruled the Apostles that their writings and holy actions should serue for scripture vnto the ages following Thirdly the Disciples needed not to examine their decrees knowing that they were gouerned by the spirit as they themselues write It seemed good to vs and the holy Ghost yet we see the brethren of Bereae searched the scripture for the trueth of those things which the Apostles preached Act. 17.11 When they can proue such a plenarie power fulnes of the spirit in their pastors and Councels as was in the Apostles we wil also beleeue them The Protestantes WE doe firmly beleeue that neither the Church nor Councels haue any such absolute power to determine without the holy scriptures either beside or agaynst them or to binde other men to obey such decrees Neither that the true Church of God dare or will arrogate such power vnto it self But that Councels are ordayned for the discussing deciding of doubtful matters according to the scriptures and word written 1. If the Apostles preachings might bee examined according to scripture much more the acts of all other Bishops and pastors But that was lawful in the Disciples of Berea Act. 17.11 which are commended for it therefore called noble couragious Christians because of this their promptnes diligence in searching out of the truth Ergo. 2. All things necessarie to saluation to be beleeued are articles of our fayth but al such articles must be grounded vpon the word of God therfore nothing can be imposed as necessary to saluation without the word of God Wherefore it is a blasphemous saying of the papists that the Church may make new articles of fayth Rhemens annot in 1. Tim. 3. sect 9. and Eckius maintained the same poynt agaynst Luther in the disputation at Lipsia and brought forth a new article of faith agreed of in the Councel of Constance that it is de necessitate salutis of the necessitie of saluation to beleeue that the Pope is the head of the Church The fathers of Basile more modest then so concluding that it was an article of fayth to beleeue that Councels were aboue the Pope doe vse this reason those things say they which we alleadge for the superioritie of general Councels are gathered out of the sayings of our Sauiour Christ. Ergo we are al bound to obey them Therefore we conclude that the word of God only written is the rule of fayth and al things necessary to be beleeued Rom. 10.10 Fayth commeth by hearing and hearing by the word Councels are to explane and declare articles of faith not to establish new 3 Lastly we will heare Augustine speake Nec tu debes Ariminense neque ego Nicaenū tanquā praeiudicaturus proferre concilium scripturarum authoritatibus c. Neither must I alleadge the Nicen Councel nor you the Arimine I am neither bound to the one nor you to the other let the matter be tried by Scripture cont Maximu Arrianum lib. 3. cap. 14. By this fathers sentence therefore no man is bound of necessitie to be tyed to Councels but the Scripture onely is absolutely to be beleeued THE SEAVENTH QVESTION WHETHER Councels be aboue the Pope or not The Papists THis is a matter yet not fully determined amongst the Papists Neither are error 35 they all of one opinion In the Councell of Constance and Basile it was fully concluded that the Councell is aboue the Pope Gerson of Paris that was also present in the Councell of Constance and a great dooer against Iohn Hus stifly maintaineth the authoritie of Councels aboue the Pope Other Papists more fauorable to their new God amight say that the Pope is by right aboue the Councell but he may if he wil submit himselfe to the Councell But now commeth in the stoute Iesuite and saith with the rest of the schoolemen that the Pope hath such a soueraigntie aboue the Councell that he cannot be subiect to their sentence though hee would Bellar. de concil lib. 2.14 Yet hee is in a mammering with himselfe for saith he in periculo schismatis when there is a schisme and it is not knowne who is the true Pope in such a case the Councell is aboue the Pope Let vs examine some of his best reasons 1 Now commeth in a great blasphemie All the names saith the Iesuite that are giuen to Christ in the Scriptures as head of the Church are ascribed to the Pope as he is called fidelis dispensator Luc. 12. a faithfull steward in the Lords house pastor gregis Iohn 10. the shepheard of the flocke Caput corporis ecclesiae Ephes. 4. the head of his bodie the Church vir seu sponsus Ephes. 5. the husband or spouse of the Church all these titles saith he are due to the Pope Ergo he is aboue the Church and so consequently aboue generall Councels Bellar. de concil lib. 2.17 O Lord what great blasphemie is here to appropriate the titles of Christ to a mortall man But goe to Bellarmine and the rest of that packe fil vp the measure of iniquitie of your forefathers say with Pope Athanasius that the people of the world are the partes of his bodie with Cornelius the Bishop in the Councell of Trent the Pope being the light came into the world and men loued darkenes rather then light with Pope Calixtus in the Councell of Rhemes who when hee saw the Councell would not consent to excommunicate the Emperour impiously cried out that they had forsaken him as Christ was left of his Disciples with Innocentius the third that all things in Heauen and earth and vnder the earth doe bowe the knee vnto him with Otho no Pope but a Cardinall that sitting amongst his Bishops blasphemously applied to himselfe the vision of Ezechiel cap. 1. resembling the Bishops to the sower faced beasts himselfe vnto God that approched to the
and therefore hee loued much To the third wee answere that by the Iesuites owne confession Iames who was as they say Bishoppe of Ierusalem had the primacie there how then can they now giue it to Peter The Protestants THat Peter had no such iurisdiction ouer the Apostles as to bee called the head and Prince of them but that to them all indifferentlie were the keyes committed and did all faithfullie execute their Apostleship without any subiection of each to other but ioyned the right hands of fellowship together we thus confirme it out of the holy Scripture and necessarie arguments deriued out of the same 1 Ephes. 2.20 Apocalips 21.14 The Church is said to bee built vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Ergo no primacie of power amongst the Apostles they all founded the Church Bellarmine confesseth that in respect of their doctrine there was no difference betweene Peter and the rest for they all were first planters of Churches they all preached the Gospell by reuelation But in respect of gouernement they were not equall they had chiefe authoritie committed to them as Apostles and Embassadors of Christ But Peter as ordinarie pastor Wee answere First by his owne confession the Apostles had chiefe authoritie as Apostles but there was no higher authoritie or power then of the Apostleship but as they were Apostles they were equall saith the Iesuite Ergo there could be no superioritie for the calling of the Apostles was the highest in the Church 2 To preach the Gospell and to haue iurisdiction of gouernement do both belong to the power of the keyes but the keyes were equallie committed to all Ergo they had all equall power both to preach and to gouerne That they all had the power of the keyes equallie graunted vnto them wee haue proued before out of Matth. 18.18 2 Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that Iames was Bishop and ordinarie pastor at Ierusalem and saith with Anselme and Thomas Aquinas that therefore he is named first by Saint Paule Gal. 2. Bellarm. cap. 19. Therefore at Ierusalem Peter was to giue primacie to the ordinarie pastor there If they answere that Rome was then the chiefe citie and therefore Peter being Bishop of Rome was to haue the preeminence To this we replie that Ierusalem was rather to be preferred in respect of place which was chosen by the Lord himselfe to be the chiefe citie of his Church But Rome through the tyrannie and vsurpation of the Romans ouer other countries was aduanced to that dignitie not by the election of God But Bellarmine answereth that Peter was Bishop of the whole Church and so of Ierusalem too We answere he now saith lesse for Peter then if hee called him as he was the Apostle of the whole world for it was more to be an Apostle thā a Bishop Diuers were called in the Apostles times episcopi ouerseers or Bishops that were not Apostles as the pastors of Ephesus Act. 20.28 Wherefore now hee hath saide iust nothing in seeking to aduance Peter hee hath disgraced him in pulling him downe from his high Apostleship to the chaire of a Bishop 3 Peter had no superioritie ouer Paul for they ioyned right handes of fellowship and this allotment was made betweene them that Paule should bee the chiefe of the Gentiles and Peter of the circumcision Galath 2.9 Ergo. Bellarmine answereth First they were ioyned as fellow-laborers in the preaching of the Gospell but Peter might for all this bee greater in the office and power of gouerning Wee answere yea but the text saith that Paule onelie was not appointed to preach to the Gentiles but hee had the chiefe Apostleship Now to the Apostleship belongeth not onely the function of preaching but the whole vse of the keyes and power of iurisdiction Ergo in all respects Saint Paule ouer the Gentiles had the chiefe Apostleship But let any man say that this was a humane compact amongst themselues and Paul had his lotte at Peters assignement the text sheweth that the Lorde himselfe had made this distribution For when they sawe saith Saint Paul that the Gospell ouer the vncircumcision was committed to mee verse 7. So then the Apostles did but confirme by their consent that distribution which they sawe the Lord himselfe had appoynted Further saith the Iesuite the diuision was not so made but that it was lawfull for Peter also to preache to the Gentiles Wee answeare wee graunt it and for Paule to preache to the Iewes yet that distinction remayned still that Peter was chiefe of the circumcision Paule of the vncircumcision Againe saith hee but Peter had the more excellent lotte for Christ himselfe first preached to the Iewes Wee answere wee denie not but that hee had the first lotte in order for to the Iewes was the Gospell first offered but Paul had the larger and more glorious lotte the Church of the Iewes now decaying and the Gentiles beginning to be planted in their roome But howsoeuer it was it cannot bee denied but that Paule was chiefe towards the Gentiles And therefore the Church of Rome might with better right haue deriued their authoritie from S. Paul then from Peter Both of them they cannot make patrons of their See seeing by their owne rules the Pope cannot be successor to them both Further out of the same place Galath 2.11 an other thing commeth to bee obserued that Peter was rebuked of Paule and in such sort that it appeareth there was no great inequality between them for he doth it to his face openlie before all men and at Antioch in Peters owne Bishopricke as they say can it be now thought that Paul was any thing inferior to Peter Bellarmine and the Iesuits answere that the Pope may bee rebuked of an inferior and ought to take it patiently if it be done in zeale and loue Aunswere First wee doe not simplie thus conclude because Paul reprehended Peter therefore he was not his superior but because of the manner as we shewed it was done in such sorte so plainely so openly without any submission or crauing of pardon that there can appeare no inequalitie at all betweene them Secondly although they seeme heere to graunt that the Pope may be rebuked yet is it otherwise in their Canon lawe which saith that though the Pope doe leade innumerable soules to hell no mortall man may presume to reprooue his faultes part 1. distin 4. cap. Si Papa Fulk Annot. in Gala. 2. sect 8. 4 Lastlie what reason was there why Christ should giue the supremacie to Peter ouer the rest Christ was no acceptor of persons if hee had bene Iohn should haue bene preferred whom he loued most If deserts be weighed I think Peter deserued no more then the rest of his fellowes Nay I thinke the wisedome of the Spirit foreseeing the questions that should afterward arise in the Church about Peter hath so disposed that this Apostles infirmities both in number more and weight greater then any of the rest should be euidentlie set forth in
Scripture We will brieflie runne them ouer not to derogate from the blessed memorie of so excellent an Apostle but a litle to stay and bridle the preposterous zeale of our aduersaries who doe ascribe more vnto him then euer he would haue challenged to himselfe To let passe the smaller slippes and scapes of this Apostle as his rashnesse in aduenturing beyond his strength to walke vppon the Sea Matth. 14. Secondlie his vnaduised speech in the Mountaine Math. 17. let vs make three Tabernacles thirdlie his ignorance Matth. 19. In saying to Christ how often shall I forgiue my brother till seuen times Fourthlie his impatiencie as in drawing out his sworde and cutting off Malchus eare Fifthlie his timorousnesse in flying from Christ at his apprehension Sixtlie his curiositie Iohn 21. In asking concerning Iohn what shall this man doe To let passe these as common infirmities There are fower great faultes which Peter fell into much amplified and stoode vppon by the fathers 1 He deâ—orted our Sauiour from his passion with these words Master fauour thy selfe Math. 16. and was therefore called Sathan an aduersarie to the death of Christ and so to the redemption of man Augustine chargeth him with great forgetfulnes hauing made so notable a confession of Christ before and noteth him for some sparkes of distrust and infidelitie Ille Petrus qui iam eum confessus fuerat filium dei timuit ne sicut filius hominis moreretur in Psal. 138. The same Peter sayth he which a little before had confessed him to be the Sonne of God feared lest he should dye and perish as a man 2 In promising rashly not to denye Christ yea vnto death whereas Christ had foretold him of his fall before Augustine noteth great presumption Petrus ex egregio praesumptore creber negator effectus Epist. 120. cap. 14. Peter of a great presumer is become a desperate denyer 3 The third great sinne was committed by Peter in denying of Christ and that thrice yea with an oath at the instance of a mayden and in a very short while before the cocke crewe twise Mark 14.72 The Iesuite answereth that this was no hinderance to Peters primacie but a furtherance and a confirmation of it But whether it were a let to his primacie or not let all men iudge seeing it had been sufficient to haue hindered his saluation and destroyed his faith without the great mercie of God Let vs heare Augustines iudgement of Peters fall Some man may excuse Peter and say that he did nothing but as Christ forewarned him What then sayth he if Peter therefore did not amisse because his fall was foretold by Christ Rectè etiam fecit Iudas qui tradidit dominum quia hoc praedixerat dominus then Iudas did well too sayth he in betraying of Christ for this also Christ shewed afore But some agayne may say he denyed not Christ for hee sayd hee knewe not the man Quasi vero sayth he qui hominem Christum negat non Christum neget as though hee that denyeth the man Christ doth not flatly denye Christ. Christ also taketh away all doubts saith he when he thus said to Peter the cock shall not crowe till thou hast denyed me thrice he sayth not till thou hast denyed the man but me Agayne Ipse potius redarguit defensores suos Peter himselfe doth confute his maintayners and defenders Agnouit planè peccatum suum infirmitas Petri Peters owne conscience gaue him that hee had sinned for he went out and wept bitterly But if by this meanes his primacie was confirmed he had occasion to reioyce and not to weepe Yea he wept bitterly his sinne was very great how then dare one of your sect say with a blasphemous mouth Petrus non fidem Christi sed Christum salua fide negauit Peter denyed not the faith of Christ but his faith remayning safe and sound he denyed Christ The ancient writers durst not so extenuate Peters fall no nor Peter himselfe that wept full sore as these men presume to doe 4 The last fault noted in Peter was that for the which he is reproued of Paul Act. 2. Tush saith Bellarmine it was a very small and light offence Yea was it so smal a fault to constrayne the Gentiles to doe like the Iewes for this was the poynt as S. Paul writeth Galath 2.14 And Augustine saith Petrus non obiurgatus a Paulo fuit quòd seruabat consuetudinem Iudaeorum in qua natus educatus fuit sed quòd eam gentibus imponere volebat Exposit. ad Galat. Peter was not rebuked of Paule because hee kept the custome of the Iewes wherein hee was brought vp but because he would lay it vpon the Gentiles Was this leuissimum peccatum a small transgression S. Paule should greatly haue been to blame for rebuking Peter openly and so plainly for so small an offence and should haue done agaynst his owne rule Galath 6.1 But Peter did it of a good mind sayth Bellarmine Yea did then he was worthie to be excused not worthie of blame as S. Paule writeth He might also doe it ignorantly and vnwittingly saith hee How can that be seeing he was one that made the decree Act. 15 That no yoke should be layd vpon the Gentiles other then there expressed and now contrarie to that decree hee constrayneth the Gentiles Iudaizare to play the Iewes These things doe not hang together I will now conclude out of Augustine as hee alleageth out of Cyprian Nec Petrus cum secum Paulus de circumcisione disceptaret postmodum vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter vt diceret se primatum tenere De baptis 2.2 Howsoeuer it was Peter when Paule reasoned thus with him did not stand vpon his pantofles chalenge any primacie to himselfe But it is very like if there had been any such primacie in Peter of power and iurisdiction a primacie of order wee graunt as Cyprian in that place calleth Peter primum the first that this sharpe reprehension of Paul should either haue been spared or els not done in that vehement manner THE THIRD QVESTION CONCERNING Peter his being at Rome THis question hath two parts first whether Peter were at all at Rome or not Secondly whether he were Bishop of Rome THE FIRST PART WHETHER PETER were at Rome error 38 OVR aduersaries would seeme to prooue it by these and such like arguments 1 Out of that place of S. Peter 1.5.13 the Church that is at Babylon saluteth you Babylon here say they is taken for Rome from whence Peter wrote his Epistle Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 2. de pontif Rhemens argum in 1. Epist. Petri. We answere First it is a sillie argument for them hereby to proue Peters being at Rome for thus much they haue gayned by it that Rome is Babylon and so the seate of Antichrist Reuel 18. Secondly there were two Babylons one in Syria the other in Aegypt from either of which S. Peter might dare his epistle and it is most like that he
Angels for they dare set downe the very day of Christs comming which shall be as Bellarmine presumptuously imagineth iust 45. dayes after the destruction of Antichrist And to this purpose he abuseth that place of Dan. 12.11 where mention is made of 1290. dayes that is as he fondly interpreteth three yeeres and an halfe the iust time of Antichrists raigne But blessed is he that commeth sayth the Prophet to 1335. dayes that is sayth Bellarmine to 45. dayes after the destruction of Antichrist and then Christ commeth cap. 9. What intolerable boldnes and presumption is this contrarie to the saying of Christ to attempt to declare the very houre of his comming Agayne the prophecie of Daniel had no such meaning for he onely speaketh of the afflictions of the Church before the comming of Christ as Iohn prophecieth of the troubles that came after Daniel therfore in that place receiueth instructions concerning the cruell persecution of the Iewes vnder Antiochus Epiphanes the beginning and the end thereof There are three times reuealed vnto him The first is of a time two times and halfe a time or rather the deuiding of time or as Tremellius more agreeable to the Hebrew a part or parcel of times so long should the temple be defiled and the abomination set vp in the temple that is three yeeres and certayne dayes And so it came to passe for this desolation began in the temple the 145. yeere of the raigne of the Greekes the fifteene day of the moneth Casleu 1. Macchab. 1.57 when Antiochus caused the daylie sacrifice to cease and incense to bee burnt to Idols And iust three yeeres and ten dayes after which is to bee reckoned for the odde parcell of times Ann. 148. the 25. day of Casleu they began to offer sacrifice in the temple according to the lawe 1. Macchab. 4.52 The second time reuealed is of a 1290. dayes Dan. 12.11 which maketh three yeeres seuen moneths and odde dayes which is the time counting from the desolation when as the sacrifices should be restored and confirmed by the Kings graunt and Letters Patents which accordingly came to passe ann 148. the fifteenth of the moneth Xanthicus which was the last moneth but one as it is recorded 2. Macchab. 11.33 The third time is described by dayes 1335. Dan. 12.12 Blessed is hee that should liue to see that time namely when the Church of the Iewes should fullie bee deliuered by the death of Antiochus which was in the beginning of the next yeere which was 149. 1. Macchab. 6.16 Thus wee see these times were fully accomplished vnder the tyrannie of Antiochus wherefore these prophecies being once fulfilled they cannot bee drawne to signifie any other time but by way of similitude and comparison Neither is that any thing worth which the Iesuite obiecteth out of S. Paul 2. Thess. 2.8 Then shall the wicked man bee reuealed whom Christ shall consume with the spirit of his mouth As though presently after the reuelation of Antichrist Christ should come And therefore Antichrist must not be expected or looked for before the end of the world for the whole time from the first comming of Christ to his second is in the scripture called nouissima hora the last times 1. Ioh. 2.18 And therefore Antichrist at what time soeuer he is reuealed after the ascension of Christ he commeth in the last times whose vtter ruine and destruction shall be reserued for the glorious appearing of Christ as the Apostle there speaketh 3 Whereas the scripture sayth that Sathan must bee bound for a thousand yeeres and after let loose agayne Apocal. 20.2 And it is playne that the thousand yeeres since Christ are expired more then fiue hundred yeeres agoe It followeth hereupon that Antichrist is alreadie come for he must bee reuealed with the loosing of Sathan Our aduersaries haue nothing to answere but this that by this 1000. yeeres a certayne time is not ment but the whole space during the time of the newe Testament till the comming of Antichrist Rhemist Reuel 20. sect 1. To whom wee answere that by the same reason neither shall their 42. moneths shewe any certayne time but the whole space so long as Antichrist shall raigne and this number of moneths as of dayes weekes houres the scripture euery where taketh mystically in prophecies but when thousands or hundred yeeres are mentioned they are alwaies taken literally as Isay. 7.8 it is prophecied that Ephraim that is Israel should vtterly cease to bee a people within 65. yeeres which euen so came to passe counting from the fourth yeere of the raigne of Ahaz King of Iuda to the 25. yeere of Manasses when the remnant of Israel was carried away THE THIRD PART CONCERNING THE NAME character and signe of Antichrist The Papists THey stoutly affirme that Antichrist shall be one particular man consequently error 58 they also hold that he shall haue a certayne name as Christ is called Iesus so Antichrist must also haue a proper name but what that name shall be no man can tell vntill hee come but it shall consist of certayne letters that in number make sixe hundred sixtie sixe Bellarm. cap. 10. Rhemist annot Apocal. 13. sect 10. 1 Apocal. 13.18 Count the number of the beast for it is the number of a man and his number is 666. Hereupon they conclude that Antichrist shall haue a certayne name which conteyneth that number Bellarm. ibid. Answere First it is the number of the beast and yet of a man Ergo it cannot bee the name of any one man for by the beast the Iesuites themselues vnderstand a companie or multitude Rhemist Apocal. 13. sect 1. Wherefore it must be such a name as agreeth to a companie or succession of men and such is the name Latinus as afterward we will shewe Secondly it must bee a name by number shewing the time not an idle number signifying nothing the time of his comming is set downe to be 666 But the name of their Antichrist cannot shew any such time seeing there are yeeres more then twise 666. gone alreadie and yet they say their Antichrist is not yet come 2 Antichrist shall haue a name as Christ had but it is not necessarie to bee knowne otherwise then Christ his name was which was described by Sibil by the number of 888. as Antichrists is by 666. yet was not his name Iesus perfectly knowne before his comming neither is it necessarie that Antichrists should before that time Iesus in Greeke letters thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maketh as you see 888. Bellarm. cap. 10. Answere First you must proue Antichrist to be one singular man as Christ was and then striue for his name Secondly you doe euill to match Sibils prophecie and Iohns reuelation together as though her coniecture of the name of Christ by the number 888. were of like authoritie with Iohns prophecie of 666. Thirdly it is false that the name Iesus was onely by Sibil signified by these numbers for Augustine alleadgeth certayne verses of
be adored And thus it is lawfull profitable and expedient for the Church to Canonize Saints Bellarm. cap. 7. Argum. 1. The Patriarkes and Prophets were Canonized for Saints in the old law Heb. 11. So Act. 7. Stephen other were Canonized therfore it is credible that the Lord would haue the same order still continued in his Church Bellarm. cap. 7. Ans. First neither in the old nor the new lawe were any set vp to be Saints with intent to be worshipped called vpon temples to be consecrated in their names but onely the scripture giueth testimonie of them as of holy and faithfull men and so may we also honour the blessed Martyrs whom the cruell Emperours of Rome and since them the Popes of Rome haue sent through fire and other torments to heauen Secondly when they haue as good testimonie for their Saints as we haue for the holy Patriarkes and Prophets they may be bold to pronounce them to be holy blessed Thirdly your argument followeth not vnles you will say that the Church may doe all things now which the Prophets and Apostles did then They may as well make scripture and more Canonicall bookes by the same reason as make and Canonize new Saints The Protestants THat none of the Saints are to be adored or worshipped their images or reliques or praiers to be made vnto them or any such honor to be giuen them it shall afterward appeare more at large And therefore they ought not to be Canonized to any such end or purpose We also grant that the number of Gods Saints and elect is encreased daylie and we are sure in generall as the scripture testifieth that the death of his Saints is precious in the sight of God Psal. 116.15 And that all are blessed that dye in the Lord But particularly we are not able certainly to determine of any the matter is to be left wholly vnto God and we in the meane time to hope the best Argum. 1 If the Church hath authoritie to Canonize Saints determine of the election or saluation of men then may we as well iudge of the condemnation of those that are lost for if it be knowen to the Church who are Saints in heauen they also may as wel define who are damned in hell But this none can doe nay it were great rashnes and want of charity for any so to take vpon them S. Paul saith Why condemnest thou another mans seruant hee standeth or falleth to his owne master Rom. 14.4 No man can iudge whether the seruant stand or fall but his Master Ergo if the Church presume to determine of the election or damnation of those that are departed she is nowe a Mistres and Lady rather of the Saintes then they Lords or patrones to her as the Papistes holde they are Argum. 2 Iudge not saith S. Paul 1. Corinth 4.5 before the time vntill the Lord come The iudgement then of men who are saued and who are condemned is reserued for the comming of Christ Therefore it is great presumption for men to preuent the time and to take vpon them to bee Iudges in Gods place Againe our Sauiour Christ saith that To sit at his right hand or left in his kingdome was not his to giue meaning as he was man but it shal be giuen to them for whome it is prepared of my Father Math. 20.23 How then is it in the power of any sinfull man to giue vnto any a seat either at the right hand or left hand of Christ in the kingdome of God Argument Gualter Bruti Fox page 487. Augustine also consenteth Non separatio iam cuique tuta est illius erit separatio qui non nouit errare Nos in hac vita difficile est vt nos ipsos nouerimus quantò minùs debemus de quoquā praeproperam ferre sententiam It is not safe for men now to make separation of the good and bad it belongeth to him that can not erre We in this life do hardly know our selues howe much lesse ought we to iudge rashly of others exposit in Psalm 139. Here are two reasons giuen why it is not lawfull for men to iudge of the election or reprobation of men first their iudgement is subiect to error and therefore the matter must be referred to God who erreth not Secondly we can not iudge our selues much lesse can we iudge of others Ergo no man liuing ought or is able to define either who are Saints in heauen or who are damned in Hell AN APPENDIX OR THIRD PART of other circumstances which belong to the Canonizing of Saints The Papists THey say that it doth appertaine onely to the Pope to Canonize a Saint for error 24 the whole Church and that none ought to be acknowledged for Saints but they that are so Canonized by him And that herein the Pope is of so infallible a iudgement that he can not erre in Canonizing of Saints because that ordinarily none are Canonized by the Pope for saintes which haue not beene knowne to worke miracles Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 8.9 10. The Protestants FIrst if saintes were to be registred and Canonized as they say yet it should not belong to the Pope but to the whole Church Argum. 1 The Pope hath no authoritie ouer the whole Church no nor yet in any other Bishoppes dioces no more then they haue in his Let him be content with his owne dioces and it were to be wished that he could rule that well the whole world is too large a prouince for him 2 The whole Church hath power to excommunicate and deliuer vp to sathan 1. Corinth 5. 4. and to cut off the prophane and wicked from the Church of God as heathen and publicanes Math. 18.17 Ergo to iudge who are members of the Church and saintes of God is a matter which appertaineth to the whole Church 3 Before Anno. 800. in the time of Carolus magnus there was no saint publiquely Canonized by the pope as Bellarm. confesseth but the truth is this custome of Canonizing saints beganne not till more then 1000. yeare after Christ til Alexander the 3. his time and Gregorie the 7. I pray you then were there no saints before if there were who canonized them Secondly So much as is to be knowne of saints and holy men euery Christian is to acknowledge without any publike decree or determination of the Pope or any other for the word of God giueth rules whereby we may discern the righteous from the vnrighteous Christ speaking of false prophets sayeth By their fruites ye shall know them Math. 7.16 And againe he fayth thus to his Apostles By this shal men know that you are my disciples if you loue one another Iohn 13.35 By these rules it is easie for euery Christian to iudge who for the present time are the true disciples of Christ who otherwise Thirdly it is a most impudent and shameles saying that the Pope can not erre in canonizing of Saintes 1 Miracles are no sufficient proofe of a saint for
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
knowne in time of persecution exercebant patientiam Ecclesiae they did proue the patience of the Church but now as Augustine saith exercent sapientiam they doe exercise the wisedome of the Church Let not the number and multitude offend vs of those which doe band themselues against the Church for so it must be Christs flocke is but a little flocke Let vs not be afrayd of their wisedome power or strength the scripture teacheth vs that they in their generation are wiser then the children of light yet the Lord our God that is with vs and fighteth for vs is wiser and stronger then they Let them not deceiue vs with a shew of holinesse for Sathan can transforme himselfe into an Angel of light neither let it moue vs because they endure some trouble and losse of their goods and imprisonment of their bodies for their religion which is falsely so called for S. Peter saith That men may suffer as euill doers and so doe these And S. Augustine saith Si poenae martyres faceret omnes carceres martyribus pleni essent omnes catenae martyres traherent If the punishment onely and not the cause made Martyrs al prisons should be full of Martyrs and all that are bound with fetters and chaines should be Martyrs But let vs not stumbling at any of these stones be constant in the faith and go forward in the profession of the Gospel which is grounded vpon the Scripture sealed with the blood of Martyrs waited and attended vpon these many yeeres as the mistresse with the handmaid with peace prosperitie and abundance of all blessings With them there is no peace to be had their owne Doctors teach that no reconciliation can be made betweene vs And indeed so it is for there is no fellowship betweene light and darknesse The Israelites were commanded not to sow their ground with diuers seedes nor to plough with an oxe an asse What is this els but that the Church of God cannot consist of beleeuers Idolaters of true Christians and hypocrites Catholikes and Heretikes Protestants and Papists Their seede and ours is diuers they sow the doctrine of men and humane traditions we sow the seede of Gods word The oxe is onely fit for the Lords plough that chaweth the cud and deuideth the hoofe the asse doth neither Who is he that deuideth the hoofe chaweth the cud Augustine telleth vs Fissa vngula pertinet ad discernendū quid dextrū quid sinistrū ruminatio pertinet ad eos qui cogitant postea quid audierint He deuideth the hoofe that deuideth and discerneth what is good what euill and they chaw the cud that do meditate of that which they heare out of the word But such are not the common Catholikes among Papists for they do not allow euery one the mistresse the mayd the ploughman and artificer to talke of Scripture or moue questions and doubts in Religion and so make them asses not oxen to chaw the cud They say it belongeth not to euery Christian to discerne betweene true and false doctrine but they must take their faith of their superiours and obey them in all things and so neither would they haue them deuide the hoofe taking from them their discerning iudgement There is no agreement therefore to be looked for at their hands no more then yron or clay can be tempred together Their old vessels cannot receiue the new liquor of the Gospell but they must first become new themselues they must first put off their beggerly ragges of Popish ceremonies and superstitions or els they shall neuer put on Christ And to be short Reuertantur illi ad te ne tu reuertaris ad illos Let them returne vnto vs we will not returne to them as the Lord saith to Ieremie But lest now we should be thought to speake without booke deepely charging our aduersaries with heresie lyes false doctrine and prouing nothing we will take some paynes of set downe some principall opinions of the Papists which haue in the purer ages of the Church been condemned for heresies Marcellina the companion of Carpocrates the archheretike worshipped the Images of Iesus and Paul and offered incense vnto them August heres 7. So the Papists do worship the Images of Saints and in the second Nicene Councel it was decreed that the Image of God should be worshipped with the same honour that God himselfe was The Heracleonites did anoynt their sicke which lay a dying with oyle and balme Heres 16. So the Papists haue found out extreme vnction and made it a Sacrament The Caians did hold that the sinne of Iudas in betraying Christ was a benefite to mankind Heres 18. The Papists come somewhat neere One of them affirmeth that the Iewes had sinned mortallie if they had not crucified Christ Ex Iuell defens Apolog. p. 676. The Pepuzians iudged heretikes because they permitted women to be Priests Heres 27. So it was decreed in the Florentine Councel among the Papists that in the case of necessitie not only a lay man but an heretike pagan and a woman to may baptize The heretikes called Angelici were condemned because they worshipped Angels Heres 39. So the Rhemists teach that Angels may be worshipped Annot. in Apocal. 3 sect 6. There was a sect of heretikes that walked with bare feete because God sayd to Moses put off thy shooes c. Heres 68. And so are there of Friers that goe barefoote as the Friers Flagellants and Franciscanes The Priscillianists did make the Apocrypha that is bookes not Canonicall of equall authoritie with Scripture Heres 70. So doe the Papists the bookes of Tobie Iudith Machabees and others which are not found in the Canon of the Hebrue they make thē bookes of Canonical Scripture and part of the word of God yea they say that whatsoeuer the Pastors of the Church doe teach beside Scripture in the vnitie of the Church is to be taken for the word of God Rhemist annot 1. Thessal cap. 2 sect 12. An Archheretike called Marcus did hold that Christ did not verily suffer and indeed but in shew onely and appearance Heres 14 The Appollinarists also affirmed that Christ tooke humane flesh without a soule Heres 55. I pray you how farre are the Papists from these heresies for they affirme that Christ suffered not in soule Nay the Rhemists hold that it is a blasphemous assertion so to say Annot. Hebr. 5. v. 7. What is this els but either with Marcus to say that Christ suffered but in shewe and that he felt nothing in soule when he cryed out vpon the Crosse My God my God why hast thou forsaken me for if there were no such matter indeed Christ must haue vttered those words only in outward shew and pretense Againe they cannot shift off handsomely from them the Appollinarists heresie for why did Christ take vpon him our flesh and soule but to redeeme man that was lost both in bodie and soule and therefore he must needes haue
aduersaries the Papistes that holding all those bookes to be Scripture which we do acknowledge doe adde vnto them other bookes which are not canonicall so that they offend not as other heretikes in denying any part of the Scripture but which is as bad in adding vnto it for both these are accursed Reuel 22.18 First of all breifly before we proceed let vs see who they were that offend in the first kind Some heretikes generally reiected the whole Scripture some certaine partes thereof The Sadducees receiued no Scripture beside the fiue bookes of Moses the Maniches condemned the whole old testament and so did wicked Marcion The bookes of Moses the Ptolemaites refused the booke of the Psalmes the Nicolaitanes and the Anabaptistes in our dayes there wanted not which condemned the booke of the Preacher and the Canticles as wanton and lasciuious bookes and the Anabaptists are not here behind with their partes The holy and excellent booke of Iob hath also found enimies and some of the Rabbins which do thinke that the storie is but fained which heresie is confuted Ezech 14.14 for there Noah Iob Daniel are named together so that it is manifest that such a man there was The new testament the Maniches most impiously affirmed to be full of lies Cerdon the heretike condemned all but Lukes Gospel The Valentinians could away with none but Iohns Gospell The Alogians of all other hated Iohns writings The Ebionites onely admitted Matthewes Gospell The Acts of the Apostles the Seuerian heretikes contemned The Marcionites the Epistles to Timothie to Titus to the Hebrues The Ebionites could not away with any of S. Paules workes ex Whitakero cont 1. de Script cap. 3. Vnto these adde the Zwencfeldians and Libertines that refuse to be iudged by the Scripture calling it a dead letter and flie vnto the inward and secret reuelations of the spirite And by your leaue the Papists are not far from this heresie some of them although the Iesuite crie neuer so much with open mouth that wee belye them De verbo Dei lib. 1. cap. 1. Take but a litle paines to peruse that worthy learned mans and reuerent fathers defence of the Apologie p. 521. there you shall find how that Lodouicus a Canon Lateran in Rome said in the Councell of Trent that the Scripture is but mortuum atramentū dead inke The Bishop of Poitiers sayd that it was but res mammis muta a dead and dumbe thing Albertus Pigghius that the Scriptures were but muti Iudices dumbe Iudges Eckius calleth it Euangelium nigrum theologiam atramentariam the blacke Gospell and inkie diuinitie and it is nasus cereus a nose of wax saith he And now in cometh Hosius with his part that it is but lost labor which is bestowed in the Scripture for the Scripture is a creature and a certaine bare letter But the Iesuit saith that we abuse the name of that man for those are not his owne words but he reporteth them of Zuinckfeldius Be it so for this time though M. Iewell bestowe some paines to proue them to be according to his owne meaning Though these be not Hosius owne wordes yet these are not much better yea far worse who speaking of Dauids writing of the Psalmes sayth thus Quid ni scriberet scribimus indocti doctique poemata passim why might not he write sayth he being a temporall Prince as Horace saith we write ballades euery body both learned and vnlearned p. 522. I pray you now how much do these Papists differ from the Libertines and Zuinkfeldians vnlesse it be in this that the Libertins cleaue to secret reuelations the Papistes are pinned vpon the Popes sleeue affirming that it is no Scripture nor Gospel without the determination of the Church Nay one of them saith determinatio Ecclesiae appellatur Euāgelium the determination of the Church is called the Gospell Iohannes Maria will you yet heare of greater impietie Anno Domini .1240 or thereabout there was a booke set forth by the Friers called Euangelium aeternum full of their owne fables and abominable errors they taught that Christes Gospell was not to be compared vnto it and that the Gospel of Christ should be preached but fifty years This booke with much a do was condemned by the Pope but after long disputation and it was burnt secretely lest the fryers should haue bene discredited and withall the booke of Guilielmus de S. amore which he had written against the Friers and disputed against their Gospell was commanded to be burned with the other Besides these heresies their opinion also is to be reiected that thynke that the holy writers might in some things be deceiued as mistaking one thing for another or fayling in their memorie To this opinion Erasmus enclined whom Bellarmine taketh paine to confute lib. 1. cap. 6. He might as well haue turned his argument vpon Melchior Canus their owne champion who thinketh that Stephen Act. 7. in telling so long a storie might forget him selfe in some things Cau. lib. 2. cap. 18. ex Whitakero but now to the question The Papists Assertion THere are certaine bookes annexed to the old Testament which the Papists error 1 them selues do not acknowledge for canonicall as the Prayer of Manasses the two bookes of Esdras commonly called the third and fourth of Esdras also other which are not vsually in our English Bibles as an appendix to the booke of Iob the 151. Psalme a booke called the Pastor All these by our aduersaries are reiected The question betweene vs is concerning these books first certaine peeces ioyned to canonicall bookes as seuen Chapters of Esther certaine stories annexed to Daniel as of Bel the Dragon of Susanna the Song of the three children also the Epistle of Baruch ioyned to Ieremy Thē folow certaine whole books as Tobie Iudith the Wisedome of Salomon Ecclesiasticus two bookes of the Machabees these six bookes with the other three appendices or peeces of books the Papists hold to be canonicall and of as firme authority as any part of the Scripture Arguments they haue none beside cartaine testimonies of some fathers and Councels which we purpose not to deale withall leauing them to our learned country men who haue taken in hand to discusse these controuersies to the full The Protestants confession WE are agreed concerning the new testamēt that all the books therof as they stand are to be receiued of all for Scripture for as for those forged Gospels of Thomas S. Andrew of Nicodemus and the like though the Church were troubled with them in times past yet their memory being now worne out there is no question of thē Concerning the bookes on both sides acknowledged if some one man seeme to doubt of some one part as Luther doth of the Epistle of Iames and Iude it ought no more to preiudice vs then Catetanus opinion doth hurt them who called more bookes in question then Luther did as the Epistle of Iames of Iude the second of Peter the second and
but the witnesse of the spirite doth certifie and assure vs of the truth and authoritie of scripture 7 I will adde one saying out of Augustine Mihi certum est nusquam a Christi authoritate discedere non enim reperio valentiorem Contra Academic lib. 3. cap. 20 I am resolued for no cause to leaue the authoritie of Christ speaking in the scriptures for I finde none more forcible Ergo the authoritie of scripture is aboue the Church which is denied by the Rhemistes annot 2. Gal. sect 2. THE FIRST QVESTION CONCERNING the perspicuitie and playnnes of the Scripture The Papistes OVr aduersaries do hold that the scriptures are most hard difficult and obscure error 6 Bellarmine saith necessario fatendum est Scripturas esse obscurissimas it must needes be graunted that the scriptures are most obscure de verbo Dei lib. 3. cap. 1. They do not onely affirme that some things are obscure in the scriptures but that they are all hard and doubtfull and vncertaine and compare thē therfore to a leaden rule which may be turned euery way Petrus a Soto And to a nose of wax Lindanus a Papist ex Tilmanno de verbo Dei error 5. Our Rhemistes say it is all one to affirme some things to be hard in a writer and the writer to be hard so they conclude that the scriptures are both in respect of the matter and manner very hard and therfore daungerous for the ignoraunt to read them Rhemens annot in 2. Pet. 3. ver 16. 1 They obiect that place 2. Pet. 3.16 where the Apostle saith speaking of S. Paules Epistles that many things are hard Ergo the Epistles of S. Paule are hard and so the scriptures this is Bellarmine and the Iesuites argument We answere First he saith not that Paules Epistles are hard but many things which he entreateth of Secondly they are hard not to all but the vnstable and vnlearned do peruert them Thirdly We denie not but that some places in the scripture are obscure and haue neede of interpretation but it foloweth not that therefore the whole scripture is obscure and because of some hard places that the people should be forbidden the reading of all 2 The scriptures are obscure both in the respect of the matter and manner first the matter is high and mysticall as of the Trinitie of the incarnatiō of the word of the nature of Angels such like We aunswere these mysteries may be said to be obscure three diuerse wayes First in their owne nature so are they hard indeed for by humane reason we can not attaine to the depth of thē Secondly in respect of their handling in the scripture so are they not obscure for all these things are plainly declared in the word as the nature of such deepe mysteries will afoord Thirdly in respect of vs so must they needs be obscure if men be not cōtented with the knowledge in the word but curiously search further Luther therefore doth aptly distinguish of these things he saith that res Dei the things of God are obscure the very depth of his mysteries can not be comprehended of vs but res Scripturae these things as they are opened in scripture are plaine if we will content our selues with that knowledge Secondly saith Bellarmine the maner of handling is hard and obscure there are many tropes metaphores allegories Hebraismes which can not easily be vnderstood We aunswere First many of these are rather ornamentes of the scripture as tropes metaphores then impediments to the reader Secondly though the phrase of scripture seeme hard at the first yet by further trauell in the scriptures it may become easie and plaine for all things are not vnderstood at the first Thirdly we denie not but that some places are obscure and had neede to be opened 3 If the scriptures be not hard what need so many Commētaries and expositions Rhemist 2. Pet. 16. We aunswere First so many Commentaries are not requisite some may be spared Secondly expositions are needfull for the vnderstanding of darke places but many things are plaine inough without expositions and may be vnderstood of the simple The Protestantes WE do not hold that the scripture is euery where so plaine and euident that it need no interpretation as our aduersaries do slaunder vs and therefore here they do fight with their owne shadow Bellarm. lib. 3. de verbo cap. 1. We confesse that the Lord in the Scriptures hath tempered hard things and easie together that we might be exercised in the Scriptures and might knocke labour by prayer and studie for the opening of the sense and that there might be order kept in the Church some to be hearers some teachers expounders by whose diligent search and trauell the harder places may be opened to the people But this we affirme against our aduersaries first that all points of faith necessarie to saluation are plainely set forth in the Scriptures secondly that the Scriptures may with great profit be read of the simple and vnlearned notwithstanding the hardnesse of some places which in time also vsing the meanes they come to the vnderstanding of Ex Fulk annot 2. Pet. 3.16 Whitacher quaest 4. cap. 1. 1 First that which we maintaine is euident out of the scripture Deut. 30.11 the commaundement which I commaund thee is not hid from thee nor farre of And as it foloweth thou needest not ascend to the heauens or go beyond the sea the word is neare vnto thee euen in thy mouth and hart to do it argum Brentij Ergo the scriptures are plaine First the Iesuite aunswereth that it is meant onely of the decalogue and the ten commandements that they are easie not of the whole Scripture As though if the commandements be easie the rest of the scriptures be not likewise as the Prophets and historicall books being but commētaries and expositions of the decalogues S. Paule Rom. 10.6 vnderstandeth this place of the whole doctrine of faith who better knew the meaning of Moses then the Iesuite 2 2. Cor. 4.3 If our Gospell be hid it is to them onely that are lost Ergo the Scriptures are plaine to the faithfull The Iesuite aunswereth S. Paule speaketh of the knowledge of Christ not of the Scriptures First it is manifest out of the 2. verse that S. Paule speaketh of that Gospell which he preached to the Corinthians which is the same he wrote vnto them wherefore if the Gospell preached were easie and plaine why is not the Gospell written by him I meane the doctrine of faith being the same which he preached Secondly if they graunt that the knowledge of Christ is easie we aske no more for this is that we say that the doctrine of faith and saluation is plainly expressed in Scripture 3 This is the difference betweene the new Testament and the old the old is compared to a clasped booke Isay. 29.11 the new to a booke opened Apoca. 5. the knowledge of Christians farre exceedeth the knowledge of the Iewes it
mysterie of antiquitie which began euen to worke in his dayes 2. Thess. 2.7 Secondly we also aunswere that all these things the authors of their sectes the time the persons that withstood them may manifestly be detected first concerning the time we haue a manifest Prophesie Apocal. 20. that Sathan should be bound a thousand yeares and afterward let loose when no doubt Antichrist should begin to shew him selfe to the world Cōcerning this space of a thousand yeares there are two probable opinions some thinke they are to begin immediatly after our Sauiour Christes time and so counting a thousand yeares all which time Sathan must be bound then Antichrist should begin to appeare Thus Iohn Wicliffe expoundeth it Others say the thousand yeares ought to begin after the three hundred yeares expired of persecution for all that while it is most like Sathan was let loose when he raged with opē mouth like a Lion against the Church and Saints of God of this opinion was Walter Brute somewhat after Wicliffes time who by this meanes maketh the Prophesie of Daniell of 1290. dayes and that in the Apocalipse 12. of 1260. dayes to agree with the thousand yeares of Sathans binding for taking euery day for a yeare we shall come to .1290 yeares after Christ when the thousand yeares must be expired beginning from the three hundred yeares of persecution If we count the thousand yeares from Christ we shall come to the time of Hildebrand the seuenth who was Pope of Rome a thousand yeares after Christ and vpward by whom the mariage of Ministers is thought first to haue bene forbidden if we begin after the ceasing of persecution which continued three hundred yeares we shall fall into the yeare .1300 about the time of Iohn Wicliffe whē the great rabble of Monkes and Friers began to swarme and superstition to encrease But we will take a litle payne briefly to touch the authors of many superstitions in Poperie and of their erronious and hereticall opinions Anno. 420. Zosimus Bishop of Rome did chalenge a prerogatiue aboue other Churches that it might be lawfull to make appeales frō other Churches to that sea and to set the better colour vpon it he falsely alledged a decree of the Nicene Coūcell but there was no such thing found there wherefore it was decreed in the Councell of Carthage at that time that none should appeale ouer the seas to Rome Bonifice the third purchased of the wicked Emperour Phocas the title of vniuersall Bishop Transubstantiation was first concluded against Berengarius anno 1062. vnder Leo the ninth but not publikely enacted before anno 1216. vnder Innocentius the third The Dominicke Friers brought in the same time and their Sect established by Innocentius the third Auricular confession also was brought in anno 1215. vnder the same Pope Mariage first prohibited by Nicholas the secōd Alexander the second Gregorie the seuenth about the yeare 1070. The Communion in one kinde forged and inuented and decreed in the Councell of Constance not aboue two hūdred yeares ago By these few examples it may appeare that it is false which the Iesuite saith that the authors of their sectes and heresies cā not be shewed Now we will briefly declare what oppugners and gainsayers they haue had in all ages since their grossest opinions began to be receiued Such were Bertramus and Berēgarius about pope Hildebrands time that mightily impugned the grosse opinion of Trāsubstantiatiō Robertus Gallus 1291. Robert Grosthead Bishop of Lincolne who was called malleus Romanorū the mallet or hammar of the Romanes anno 1250. Franciscus Petrarcha 1350. Iohannes de rupe Scissa who Prophesied against the Pope 1340. with many other which ceased not to crye out against the abhominable vices and erronious opinions of the Church of Rome Wherefore it is a great vntruth which the Iesuite doth so stifly auouch that we can not set down the pedegree discent of their church and faith and how it hath continually bene resisted 3 Now whereas they say that they can name the ringleaders of our sect we haue none other maisters and authors of our faith then our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles by whose holy writings we refuse not to be tryed But you flye from the light you disgrace the Scriptures making them imperfect and insufficient this the true Disciples of Christ would not do you are the Disciples of Christ as the Pharisies bragged that they were the Disciples of Moses And as then the true church was not in those that sat in Moses chaire though they could alledge great antiquitie but in Christ and his Apostles so is not now the true Church to be discerned by custome or number of yeares but by that truth which was taught and preached by our blessed Sauiour and his Apostles Of Vniuersalitie Note 2. OVr Church is vniuersall say they both in respect of time person place error 19 it hath alwayes bene in the world in all countrys and nations it hath florished Ergo it is the true Church That it is vniuersall they first proue by the name of Catholike which is say they by Gods prouidence appropriat to them which name they affirme without ground to haue bene imposed by the Apostles vpon true beleeuers Rhem. in Act. cap. 11. Sect. 4. We aunswere First the name of Christians is a more honorable title then the name of Catholikes for it is manifest Act. 11.26 that this name was vsed in the Apostles time and by the Apostles them selues allowed but it is not certaine that the name Catholike came from the Apostles Againe many heretikes chalenged this name to be called Catholikes who did not so easily obtaine to be called Christians which ancient and honorable name the Papistes do despise for in Italie and at Rome it is vsed as a name of reproch to signifie a dolt or a foole Fulk in Acts. 11.26 2 We say that you doe vsurpe this name as the Donatistes in Augustines time would be called Catholikes for what is the name of Catholike without the Catholike doctrine They are the true Catholikes that professe the auncient and Apostolike faith to vs therefore be it knowen to you this name of better right appertaineth then to you ô ye Papists yet we haue better argumentes to proue our Church by then by sillables and titles Quasi nos saith Augustine huius nominis testimonio nitamur ad demonstrandam Ecclesiam non promissis Dei As though we saith he do leane vpon this name to proue our Church by and not rather vpon the promises of God Secondly they proue their vniuersalitie by the multitude of people that haue receiued the Romish faith and their Church say they hath replenished the greatest part of the world They would proue this by the propagation of the Church in the Apostles time in Tertulian Irenaeus Hierome Augustine yea and afterward in Gregories dayes yea and now also besides many great countryes in Europe they haue of their church in
commaundement of Christ who inioyned them not to depart from Ierusalem The second Act. 6. congregate by the twelue not Peter onely for the election of Deacons The third which was holden as touching the taking away of circumcision and other ceremonies of the lawe was gathered together by a generall inspiration Act. 15.6 The fourth wherein certaine things contained in the lawe are permitted seemeth to be gathered by Iames. Act. 21.18 Vpon these reasons the Councel thus concludeth that if the Pope would resist and haue no Councel congregate yet if the greater part of the Church doe iudge it necessarie to haue a Councel the Councel may bee congregate whether the Pope will or not Ex Aenea Syluio Fox pag. 676. Col. 2. 5 Augustine saith Catholicos Episcopos partis Donati iussu imperatoris disputando inter se contulisse Breuicul collation lib. 1. cap. 1. That the Catholike Bishops and the Donatists did meete together to dispute at the commaundement of the Emperour There were in that Councel which was at Carthage of the Catholike Bishops 286. and of the Donatists 279. THE THIRD QVESTION OF WHAT PERSONS the Councel ought to consist The Papists WHereas there are foure sorts of men vsually present at Councels the Princes error 31 and Magistrates Bishops and inferiour Ministers and Priests and other lay people of all these Bishops they say onely must haue a deciding or determining voyce Priests and other learned may dispute and haue a consultatiue voyce Princes are there to defend the Councel and see order kept other of the Laitie may be there as officers and ministers as Scribes and Notaries but the suffrages and voyces must onely be giuen by Bishops Eckius loc de concil Bellarm. de concil lib. 1. cap. 15. Let vs see some of their reasons First to teach and to feede is proper for the Pastors only and to establish and decree in Councel is nothing els but to feede and teach Ergo Pastors onely must rule in Councel which none are but Bishops Soli Episcopi pastores sunt sayth the Iesuite neque laici neque ecclesiastici quicunque Onely Bishops are pastors and none other of the Clergie besides and to them onely he sayth that is to bee applyed Act. 20. Take heede to your selues and the flocke ouer the which God hath made you ouerseers I answere First what an absurd saying is this and voyde of sense that the Bishop is the onely pastor of his Diocesse and that euery Minister is not pastor in his owne parish Nay if the Iesuite would speake trueth he shall finde that popish Bishops are neither Pastors nor Doctors for the most of them neither feede nor teach And they be not ashamed to professe it Ann. 1540. or thereabout Thomas Forret Martyr being found fault withall by the Bishop of Dunkelden in Scotland because he preached so oft exhorted the Bishop agayne and wished that he did preach The Bishop answered nay nay let that bee we are not ordayned to preach and in further talke the blind blockish Bishop bewrayed his owne ignorance I thanke God sayth he that I neuer knewe what the olde and newe Testament was Thereupon rose a common prouerbe in Scotland you are like the Bishop of Dunkelden that knewe neither the old nor new lawe Fox Martyrol pag. 1266. With this blind saying of the popish Bishop our countrey men of Rhemes also doe agree which doubt not to say that many which haue no gift to preach yet for their wisedome and gouernment are not vnmeete to be Pastors and Bishops Annot. in 1. Timoth. 5. sect 13. 2 I answere the Iesuite bewrayeth his ignorance in making no difference betweene communis and propria politia ecclesiae the common and speciall policie and office of the Church for there are proper offices and dueties some of Pastors some of gouernours some of other Ministers but this office to be performed in general Councels is not proper to Pastors but common to the whole Church whereupon wee denye that it is Proprium pastorum munus suffragia ferre in concilijs It is not the proper duetie of Pastors to giue voyces and make decrees in Councels 3 By the Iesuites argument the fathers of Basile doe conclude cleane contrarie out of that place 4. Ephes. That because Christ instituted not onely Apostles and Prophets but pastors and teachers for the work of the Ministerie who doubteth say they but that the gouernance also of the Church is committed vnto others together with the Apostles And hence they inferre because the worke of the Ministerie is layd vpon the rest of the Clergie that therefore they ought not to be excluded from Councels Secondly Panormitane in the Councel of Basile thus reasoneth for Bishops that they were the pillars and keyes of heauen and therefore had onely deciding voyces Vnto him answered at that time the wise and couragious Cardinall Arelatensis shewing Augustines iudgement vpon those words I will giue thee the keyes of heauen that the iudiciall power was giuen not onely to Peter but also to the other Apostles to the whole Church the Bishops the Priests Whereupon he inferreth that if the Priests haue a iudicial power in the Church they also ought to haue a determining voyce in Councels Thirdly Lodouicus the Prothonotarie in the same Councel thus argued Albeit sayth hee Christ chose twelue Apostles and 70. Disciples notwithstanding in the setting forth of the Creede onely the Apostles were present thereby giuing example that matters of faith did pertaine onely to the Apostles and so consequently to Bishops To him Arelatensis made this answere First it followed not because the Apostles onely are named that they therefore only were present at the setting forth of the Creede for wee see that Princes beare the name and commendation of many actions which are done notwithstanding by their helpers 2. Lodouicus cannot be ignorant sayth he that there be some articles in the Creede which were not put to by the Apostles but afterward by generall Councels as that part wherein mention is made of the holy Ghost which the Councel of Lions did adde Thus much out of the Councel of Basile The Protestants confession OVr opinion grounded vpon trueth and scripture is this that not onely Bishops but all other pastors admitted to the Councel and the learned and discreete amongst the Lay men ought to haue concluding voyces in Councel and that rather the discussing and consulting of matters pertayneth to the learned Diuines the deciding to all then contrariwise First that inferiour pastors are to bee ioyned with Bishops and Prelates it was amplie proued in the Councel of Basile of the which I haue so often made mention as noble Arelatensis reasoneth thus The dignities of the fathers is not to be respected but the trueth neither will I preferre a lye of any Bishop be he neuer so rich before a veritie or a trueth of a poore Priest this is his first reason that the trueth ought to bee receiued at any mans mouth bee
they were of the Gentiles and part of his charge and vnlesse they can proue that Paul resigned ouer his lot vnto Peter that he also should be the chiefe Apostle of the Gentiles as he was of the Iewes Peter should haue intruded himselfe into Paules charge not in preaching to the Gentiles for both Paul might preach to the Iewes and Peter to the Gentiles but in taking vpon him to be the chiefe Apostle of the Gentiles which was giuen before to S. Paul 2 The Rhemists themselues graunt that the Church of Rome was founded both by Peter and Paul annot in 2. Gal. sect 6. B. Tunstal a strong champion of theirs but varying from them in this opinion shewed in a letter of his to Cardinall Poole how in times past both Peter and Paul were counted Patrones of the Church of Rome and principes apostolorum the chiefe of the Apostles Eusebius sayth that Clement was the third Bishop after Peter and Paul Alexander succeeded in the fift place after Peter and Paul If therefore the Bishops of Rome challenge any preeminence of authoritie from Peter they may doe it as well from Paul for they both founded that Church preached there and both there suffered Fox pag. 1066. 3 No Apostles were Bishops for they were diuers offices Eph. 4.11 he gaue some to be Apostles some to be Pastors Doctors Ergo they were diuers offices and the same were not Apostles and Pastors or Bishops for both are all one The offices were much different Apostles were immediatly called of God Bishops and Pastors were ordayned by the Apostles the Apostles calling was general ouer the whole world the Pastors were obliged to their dioces parishes particular Churches the office of the Apostles was extraordinarie but for a time the calling of Pastors was to endure euer in the Church Wherfore it can in no wise be that the Apostles were Bishops of any certaine places Irenaeus saith that Fundata ecclesia beati apostoli Lino officiū episcopatus iniungunt the Church of Rome once founded the holy Apostles layd the charge of the Bishopricke vpon Linus Whereby it appeareth that they onely reteyned their Apostleship inioyned them of Christ Tunstal ex Fox pag. 1066. It had therefore been contrarie to the commaundement of Christ who sayd Ite in vniuersum mundum goe into all the world if they should haue left their calling and bound themselues to any peculiar Church Ergo we conclude that neither Peter nor Paul were Bishops of Rome THE FOVRTH QVESTION WHETHER THE Bishop of Rome be the true successor of S. Peter The Papists error 40 THey doe generally hold that the Bishops of Rome being lineally descended by succession from Peter they haue the same primacie apostolike authoritie iurisdiction ouer the whole Church which Peter had Bellar. lib. 2. de pont c. 12. They are very barren and scant of arguments in this place to maintaine and vphold this succession by and in the end the Iesuite runneth to tradition and at the length he thus concludeth that it is not de iure diuino it is not necessarie by the lawe of God that the Romane Bishop should be Peters successor but it dependeth onely vpon the ordinance of Peter and is proued by tradition not diduced out of scripture That it was necessarie for Peter to haue a successor they say it is proued out of scripture which we also graunt that all faithfull Pastors and Ministers are the Apostles successors though they haue not their plenarie and Apostolike power but that the Pope ought to bee and is his successor it standeth vpon tradition We see then the grounds of their opinion scripture they haue none but blind tradition vnlesse therefore they could bring better stuffe for the Papall succession we will not spend any time in confuting nothing The Protestants THat the Pope or Bishop of Rome neither can is or ought to be S. Peters successor in his high and Apostolike authoritie primacie and iurisdiction ouer the whole Church which Peter himselfe neuer had thus we declare it 1 The Pope though hee were Peters successor yet can hee not receiue that from him which he neuer had but Peter had neuer any such primacie of power as we haue shewed before Quaest. 1.2 Ergo he is not here in his successor 2 That primacie which Peter had could not bee conueyed to any other namely his primacie of confession which he first of all the Apostles did vtter concerning Christ proceeding from faith did adhere so to his person that it could not bee deriued to any successor of his for Peters faith was a proper adiunct to himselfe Argument Tonstalli Fox pag. 1066. Agayne how can he haue the Apostolike authoritie being not an Apostle But an Apostle he is not for Christ onely made Apostles the Apostles did not ordayne other Apostles Argum. Nili 3 He succeedeth not Peter rightly in place for seeing Peter sate at Antioch why may not that Church challenge succession as well as Rome Why might not also other Churches haue Apostolike succession as Alexandria from Peter and Marke Herusalem from Iames Constantinople from Andrew Further they haue no certaine succession from Peter Tertullian maketh Clement the next successor to Peter Optatus first nameth Linus then Clement Irenaeus after Peter placeth Linus and Cletus and Clement in the fourth What certaintie therefore can they haue of so vncertaine succession Fulk annot in Rom. 16. sect 4. 4 It skilleth not who commeth in the place roome of the Apostles They that will be their true successors must followe their example and walke in their steps teaching their doctrine and embracing their holie vertues Wherfore the Pope is not Peters right successor swaruing both from his doctrine example Non sanctorum filij sunt qui tenent loca sanctorum sed qui exercent opera eorū They are not the children of the Saints which occupie the same places but they which doe their workes Lambert So Bernard writing to Eugenius chargeth him that in respect of his pompe and pride he did rather succeede Constantine then Peter Iohann Huss pag. 610. 5 All good Bishops and Pastors are as well the Apostles successors as the Pope nay rather then he being a wicked man Iohn Huss articul 4. Fox pag. 590. Lambert pag. 1120. Nay they haue greater and more excellent titles then to be called the Apostles successors for those that walke in obedience vnto Gods commandements our Sauiour calleth them his sisters kinsfolkes and brethren Math. 12.50 Ergo the Pope is not the right successor of Peter Lastly of this matter Augustine thus writeth Cathedra tibi quid fecit ecclesiae Romanae in qua Petrus sedit in qua hodie Anastasius sedet vel ecclesiae Hyerosolymitanae in qua Iacobus sedit in qua hodie Iohannes sedet What hath the Sea of Rome done vnto thee wherein sometime Peter sate where Anastasius now sitteth or what hath the Church or chaire of Ierusalem committed where
shewe of reason can our aduersaries haue to make them proper to the Bishop of Rome 2 The second name is prince of Priests or high and chiefe Bishop which title if it be taken for a chiefe power dominion and soueraigntie is proper only to Christ the chiefe shepheard 1. Pet. 5.4 and cannot in that sense agree to any man If it bee vsed onely as a title of excellencie and commendation so was it in times past ascribed to other excellent and famous Bishops as Ruffinus lib. 2. cap. 26. calleth Athanasius Pontificem maximum chiefe Bishop yea it was in common giuen to all Bishops as Anacletus Bishop of Rome in his second Epistle writeth thus Summi sacerdotes id est Episcopi a deo iudicandi sunt The high Priests that is Bishops saith he are to bee iudged of God If it be taken further for the excellencie of the ministerie of the Gospell and the worthie calling of Christians in this sense the title of summum sacerdotium of the high Priesthood is attributed to all ministers Ecclesiasticall both Bishops and others so Fabianus Bishop of Rome vseth this name Yea the holy Apostle calleth all the people of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a princely royall or chiefe priesthood Ergo the Bishop of Rome hath no especiall or proper interest in this name 3 The third name is to bee called the Vicar of Christ vpon earth Where we are to vnderstand that in respect of the spirituall regiment and kingdome of Christ he needeth no Vicegerent vpon earth for I am with you saith he to the end of the world he himselfe is alway present in power and needeth not in that respect that any man should supplie his roume Petrus scriba martyr Fox pag. 906. If we doe take it for a word of office and publike administration so the Magistrate may bee called the Vicar of Christ in gouerning the people according to the word of God In which sense Eleutherius Bishop of Rome writing to Lucius King of the Britaines calleth him the Vicar of Christ and therfore in his owne kingdome had power out of the word of God to establish lawes for the gouernment of the people So all Bishops Pastors and Ministers in ancient time were called the Vicars of Christ in preaching praying binding and loosing in the name and power of Christ. So Augustine saith or whose worke els it is that Omnis antistes est Christi vicarius Euery pastor and prelate and not the Pope onely is the Vicar of Christ. And this is confessed by our Rhemists annot in 2. Cor. 5.18 that the Bishops and priests of the Church are for Christ and as his ministers that is his Vicars Nay Augustine maketh yet a more generall vse of this word he saith that Homo imperium Dei habens quasi vicarius eius est That man by creation being made Lord of the creatures doth therein represent God and is as his Vicar vpon earth So then all ministers are the Vicars of Christ the ciuill Magistrate likewise in some good sense may bee so called yea in respect of the creatures man generallie is vpon earth in Gods steade Ergo this name cannot be appropriate to the Pope of Rome 4 It is also too huge a name for the Pope or any mortall man to beare to be called the head of the vniuersall Church this is a name only due vnto Christ neither doe the scriptures acknowledge any other head but him Ephes. 1.22.4.15 But say they wee doe not make the Pope such an head as Christ is but only a ministeriall head ouer the militant Church vpon earth We answere First Ergo the Pope by your owne confession is not head of the vniuersall Church whereof the triumphant Church in heauen is a part Secondly the Rhemists confesse that the Church in no sense can bee called the bodie of the Pope Ergo the Pope cannot be any wayes the head of the vniuersall Church Annot. in 1. Ephes. 22. Thirdly the Fathers of Basile vsed this argument The head of the bodie being dead the whole bodie also dyeth but the whole Church doth not perish with the Pope Ergo he is not properly the head of the Church Fox pag. 675. If it shall bee further obiected that the Bishop of Rome hath been called in times past caput Episcoporum the head of all other Bishops we answere that it was but a title of excellencie and commendation not of dominion and power as London is called the head or chiefe citie of England yet are not other cities of the land subiect vnto it or vnder the iurisdiction thereof But we shall haue occasion more fully to discusse this matter afterward 5 They would haue the Pope called the Prelate of the Apostolike See the Rhemists say further that the Papall dignitie is a continuall Apostleship Annot. 4. Ephes. sect 4. We answere First if they call those Churches Apostolicall whose first founders were the Apostles then the See of Antioch Alexandria Constantinople are as well Apostolicall as Rome and this the Iesuite denyeth not Lib. 2. de pontific cap. 31. Secondly those Churches are Apostolicall which hold the Apostolike faith so is not the See of Rome Apostolicall being departed and gone backe from the ancient Catholike faith but those Churches where the Gospell of Iesus Christ is truely preached are indeede Apostolike Thirdly how can the Pope be an Apostle or haue Apostolike authoritie seeing hee preacheth not at all much lesse to the whole world wherein consisted the office of an Apostle Neither can he shewe his immediate calling from Christ as all the Apostles could for seeing he challengeth the Apostolike office by tradition from S. Peter and not by commandement from Christ he can in no wise be counted an Apostle or his office an Apostleship for the Apostles ordayned onely Euangelists and Pastors they had not authoritie to consecrate and constitute new Apostles Our aduersaries for this their Apostleship can finde nothing in scripture nor for a thousand yeeres after Christ in the ancient writers Fulk annot in Ephes. 4. sect 4. 6 Concerning the title of vniuersall Bishop it was thus decreed in the sixt Councel of Carthage as it is alleadged by Gratian Vniuersalis autem nec Romanus pontifex appelletur No not the Bishop of Rome is to be called vniuersall In Gregorie the first his time Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople obtayned of the Emperour Mauritius to be called vniuersall Patriarke but Gregorie would not agree thereunto calling him the forerunner of Antichrist that would challenge so proude a name Bellarmine and other of that sect doe answere that Gregorie found fault with this title because Iohn of Constantinople would haue been Bishop alone and none other to bee beside him but all other onely to bee his deputies and vicars To this wee replie First Iohn did onely challenge a superioritie ouer other Bishops not to be Bishop alone for this had been a thing impossible Secondly if Iohn had sought any such thing
abomination of the whore of Babylon There are three monstrous and shameful prerogatiues which the Canonists ascribed to the Pope in times past and they are these his power dispensatiue his power exemptiue his power transcendent so we will call them at this time error 53 First his prerogatiue in dispensing was wonderfull it would offend a Christian eare to heare what his grosse Canonists are nothing ashamed to say Papa potest dispensare contra ius diuinum the Pope may dispence against the Lawe of God contra ius naturae against the Lawe of nature contra Apostolum against the Apostle contra nouum testamentum against the new Testament Nay Papa potest dispensare de omnibus praeceptis veteris noui testamenti the Pope may dispence with all the Commaundements both of the olde and new lawe What intolerable blasphemies are here The practises also of Popes are agreeable hereunto for did not the Court of Rome dispence with King Henry the eights marriage with his brothers wife but that vngodly dispensation at the last was ouerthrowne and it was well concluded by act of Parliament Anno. 1533. That no man had authoritie to dispence with Gods lawes error 54 2 Concerning his power exemptiue the Pope say they is not bound to any lawe No man is to iudge or accuse him of any crime either of adulterie murther simonie or such like If he fall into adulterie or homicide hee cannot bee accused but rather excused by the murthers of Sampson theftes of the Hebrues the adulterie of Iacob As Oziah was stricken for putting his hand to the Arke inclining no more must subiects rebuke their Prelates going awry by the inclination of the Arke the fall of prelates is vnderstoode This generally is the opinion of the Canonists but the Iesuites doo holde the contrarie that it is lawfull euen for an inferior priest to rebuke the Pope Rhemist Annot. in 2. Galath sect 8. Wherefore seeing they confute themselues they neede not any other refutation error 55 3 Concerning the third power which we call Transcendent One saith that non minor honor Papae debetur quà m Angelis that there is no lesse honor due to the Pope thē to Angels Another saith Papatus est summa virtus creata The Popedome is the highest power that was created of God aboue Angels or Archangels Againe those wordes of the Psalme thou hast put all things vnder his foote as sheepe and oxen fowles of the ayre fishes of the sea they thus blasphemouslie applie to the Pope by sheepe and oxen vnderstanding men liuing vpon the earth by the fowles of the ayre the Angels in Heauen whom they say the Pope may commaunde by the fishes the soules in purgatorie Ouer all these the Pope say they hath absolute power who may if it please him release all purgatorie at once What horrible blasphemies are here Yet our Rhemists and other Iesuites are somewhat more modest which confesse that the Pope is but Christs Vicar in the regiment of that part which is on the earth Annotat. 1. Ephesians sect 5. Seeing then they confute themselues wee will not further trauaile herein but proceede THE TENTH QVESTION CONCERNING Antichrist and whether the Pope be that great aduersarie vnto Christ. THis question is deuided into many partes First whether Antichrist shall bee some one singular man Secondly of the time of his comming and continuing Thirdly of his name Fourthly of what nation or kinred hee shall come Fiftly where his place and seate shall bee Sixtly of his Doctrine and manners Seauenthly of his miracles Eightly of his Kingdome and warres Ninthly whether the Pope bee the very Antichrist This then is a most famous question and worthie throughly to bee discussed euery poynte therefore must be handled in order The Papists THey hold that Antichrist whose comming is foretolde in the Scripture shall error 56 be one particular man not a whole bodie tyrannie or Kingdome as the truth is Bellarm. cap. 2. lib. 3. 1 They vrge the words of our Sauiour Iohn 5.43 I come in my Fathers name and ye receiue me not if another come in his owne name him will ye receiue Here Christ say they speaketh of another that shall come namely Antichrist for here one is opposed to one namely Antichrist to Christ not a Kingdome to a Kingdome or sect vnto sect but one person to another Bellarmine cap. 2. lib. 3. Ans. First here is not so much an opposition of persons as there is of doctrine as to preach in the name of God and to preach in the name of men and though Christ be the chiefe doctor and teacher that came in the name of his Father yet all true preachers beside doe come in the same name for so our Sauiour saith of his Apostles He that receiueth you receiueth me and he that receiueth me receiueth him that sent me Matth. 10.40 Therefore he that receiueth the Apostles receciueth God they also then doe come in the name of Christ and so Christ and all the faithfull make but one Iohn 17.21 2 Neither doth Christ here speake of one speciall enemie but of all false prophets for it is not vnusuall in the Scripture in the singular number to expresse a multitude being of the same kinde as Iohn 10.11.12 There is a comparison betweene Christ the true shepheard and the hireling where by the name of hireling all false shepheards and spirituall theeues are vnderstood and so is it in this place therefore they cannot conclude out of this place that Antichrist shall be but one man 2 An other proofe is out of 1. Iohn 2.18 the Antichrist shal come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greeke article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresseth some singular notable person Bellarmine ibid. Ans. It is false The Greeke article doth not alwaies in scripture assigne some particular person as Matth. 4.4 Man shall not liue by bread onely the Greeke text hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man and yet is it vnderstood not of any one man but of all in generall so 2. Tim. 2.17 The man of God that is euery faithfull minister or good Christian yet is it expressed with the article Fulk Annota 2. Thess. 2. sect 8. 3 Apocal. 13.18 It is the number of a man the proper name of Antichrist is set downe Ergo but one man Bellar. ibid. Rhemens 2. Thes. 2. sect 8. Ans. The name here mystically described which shal conteine 666. in number for so the Greek letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe signifie being nūbred doth not expresse any particular name of one man but rather of the whole societie and bodie of Antichrist for it is said to be the number of the beast Now by the beast is vnderstoode the Romane Empire the name whereof is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latinus which letters doe arise in computation to the whole number of 666. And this name Irenaeus thinketh to agree best to this place Further seeing the Rhemists themselues by the best do vnderstand
will say perchance that this Pope was chosen in a schisme for they holde the Councel of Basile to be schismaticall yet they can not neither doe deny but that Pope Martin the 5. who was chosen at Constance was rightfully Pope 3 In Augustines time the rest of the Bishops of Italie neere vnto Rome should seeme to haue had some interest in the election of the Bishop Romanae ecclesiae Episcopum non ordinat Episcopus aliquis metropolitanus sed de proximo Ostiensis Episcopus The B. of Rome is not ordained by any Metropolitane but by the Bishop of Ostia that is neere at hand Breuicul collation lib. 2. cap. 5. THE THIRD QVESTION CONCERNING THE degrees and orders of ecclesiasticall ministers THis question hath 3. parts first of the 7. degrees of popish priesthood Secondly of the difference and distinction of Bishops other Ministers Thirdly of the institution of Cardinals a new degree of the popish Clergie THE FIRST PART OF THE SEVEN degrees or orders Ecclesiasticall The Papists THough they haue diuers degrees of dignitie in the Church as Popes Cardinals Patriarkes Primates and such like yet they make but seuen error 69 Ecclesiasticall orders which are conferred solemnlie by certayne rites and ceremonies by their Bishops And they are these Ostiarij doore-keepers Exorcistae Exorcists Lectores Readers Acolythi Attenders Subdiaconi Subdeacons Diaconi Deacons and the highest degree Sacerdotes Priests vnto the which all the other are but rises and steppes All these they maintaine to be Ecclesiasticall orders and to be retayned in the Church Bellarm. cap. 11. Rhemist 1. Tim. 3. sect 7. They haue no proofe nor warrant out of scripture for these friuolous orders but onely a shew of antiquitie as they alleadge certaine Canons out of the 4. Councel of Carthage where such offices are reckoned vp Rhemist ibid. Answere First to let passe this that the Councel may be suspected for the credite thereof seeming wholly to be patched out of the Popes decrees Secondly we denie not but they had such offices as Readers to reade the text of the scriptures exorcists to cast out diuels which was an extraordinary gift for that time Acoluthists young men appoynted to attend vpon the Bishop for their better instruction Doore-keepers that kept the entrie of the Church that no heathen person or excommunicate should enter But these were both diuers offices then are now appoynted for them in the popish Church for they make them now all or the most ministers and seruitors for the idolatrous seruice of the Masse which in those dayes was not heard of neither though there were such offices and seruices in the Church were they made orders and degrees of the ministerie 3 They had other offices beside which now are not in vse no not amongst the papists for they had also singers labourers confessors diggers or Sextons so that if you will make all those offices vsed in time past in the Church so many orders of the ministery you must make ten or eleuen more then you doe acknowledge or vse in your Church Fulk annot 1. Tim. 3. sect 7. The Protestantes THe question is not betweene vs and our aduersaries in this place concerning the titles and dignities annexed to the ministerie as of Bishops Archdeacons Deanes Prouosts but of the seuerall orders of the Ministery For Bishops and other ministers doe not differ in order but in office of gouernment They holde that there are seuen seuerall such orders which haue their seuerall rites of consecration and peculiar offices in the Church allotted them But we content ourselues with those orders onely and degrees as necessary which the holy scripture hath commended Fulk ibid. 1 As for the names and offices of Subdeacons Readers Exorcists Acolythi doore-keepers we haue no such warrant out of the scripture to make them orders of the Church and therefore we condemne them All necessary orders for the edifying building of the Church the scripture hath prescribed vs Eph. 4.11 there are al offices set down needful for the doctrine instruction edifying of the Church Fulk Ephes. 4. sect 4. Wherefore away with these popish orders inuented by men But as for vnable offices and seruices which shall be thought meete for the affayres and busines of the Church they may bee retayned and kept but not as new orders of the ministerie 2 These offices are first Idolatrous as they are nowe vsed among the papists for the Deacons Subdeacons Acolythi were to attend vpon the Priest at Masse Secondly some of their offices were ridiculous as to sweepe the Church to driue out dogs and to holde a fly-flap of Peacoks feathers to keep the flies from falling into the coÌ„munion cup. Thirdly they were distinguished by ridiculous ornaments attire which were proper to euery one of them as it shall appeare now in their description From the Priest when he was disgraded they tooke the Chalice patine and host that he should haue no power any more to offer sacrifice they scraped his nayles with a peece of glasse and so tooke away his annoynting and lastly they tooke away his priestly ornameÌ„ts the Cheâ—ile which signified charitie the Stole that represented the signe of our Lord. FroÌ„ the Deacons in their disgradation they tooke first the booke of the Gospels and so all power to read the Gospels Then they tooke away his Dalmatike a signe of his Leuiticall office and the white Stole behinde his backe that signified innocencie From the Subdeacon they tooke the book of the Epistles that he should haue no more power to reade them also the emptie Chalice and Subdeacons vesture his office was to serue and minister to the Deacons at the Altar The Acolythi did light the candles in the Church and brought wine and water to the altar in pitchers and bottels and in his degradation there was taken from him an emptie flaggon or bottle and a candlestick with a waxe candle put out The order of exorcisme was taken away by depriuing him from power to reade in the booke of exorcismes From the Reader they tooke the booke of Church lectures or lessons Last of all from the doore-keeper was taken the keyes of the Church And so was hee depriued of all power to open or shut the Church doores and to ring the bels Ex Fox pag. 2134. Thus we see how much these offices are degenerate from the ancient vse First they are all but Ministers and attendants for the abominable sacrifice of the masse which in those dayes was not knowen for the Acoluthus or waiter waiteth vpon the Subdeacon the Subdeacon vpon the Deacon and all of them vpon the Priest at Masse Secondly whereas then the Exorcists had a peculiar grace of God to cast out diuels their Exorcists do but reade certaine exorcismes in bookes their Readers onely read the text of scripture now they reade the legends of popish saints Then in time of persecution when Christians assembled in the night the wayters had the charge to light the candles
whether they that haue the dispensation of the Keyes doe alwaies necessarily bind and loose before God of these in order THE FIRST PART WHEREIN THE AVthoritie and power of the Keyes consisteth The Papists error 73 BY the Keyes and power of binding and loosing they chiefly and principally vnderstand the censures of the Church as Excommunications Anathematismes suspensiōs Degradations the whole Ecclesiastical iurisdictiō Rhemist Annot. Matt. 16. sect 14. Bel. lib. 1. de pontif cap. 13. Secondly they tye remission and retaining of sinnes to their imagined and deuised sacrament of penance saying that where Christ gaue authoritie to remit sinnes to his Apostles Iohn 20.23 he instituted the sacrament of penance Rhemist Iohn 20. sect 3. The sacrifice also and Sacraments of the Church say they are ministred for remission of sinnes Rhemist 2. Corinth 5. sect 3. Thirdly they seeme to grant in words that by preaching also of the Gospell sinnes are reteined and remitted ibid. but they make small account thereof for as we haue heard they make it not of the essence of their priesthood to preach neither doth it properly appertaine vnto that office yea say they absolutiō cānot be rightly sought for at the priests hands but by confession of our sins which is done in penance Rhem. Ioh. 20. sect 5. This then is their opinion that by their deuised ceremonie and Sacrament of penance sinnes are properly forgiuen and that the preaching of the word is not thereto necessarie Their chiefe argument is by abusing that place Iohn 20.23 where they say Christ instituted the Sacrament of penance when he gaue power to his Apostles to remit and reteine sinnes Ans. First your Sacrament of Penance is neither grounded vpon this nor any other place of scripture here in the wordes of Christ there is no institution of a sacrament because there is no visible element giuen whereunto the worde being added may make a sacrament Secondly here the commission is but renewed which was granted before to his Apostles and their successors Matth. 18.18 Fulk Annot. Iohn 20. sect 3. The Protestants THe Keyes of the Church that is the power to bind and loose sinners to open or shut vnto them the kingdome of God consisteth both in the externall discipline and gouernement of the Church lawfully executed according to the word of God as also in preaching of the Gospell by assuring in Christs name all faithfull and penitent persons remission and forgiuenes of their sinnes and in denouncing and threatning the wrath of God against the disobedient and impenitent also as the sacraments are ioyned to the word as seales and pledges of the promises thereof so by the right administration of the sacraments together with the preaching of the word sinnes are retained or remitted The Rhemists therefore doe vs great iniurie in falsely charging of vs that we should hold that the spiritual power of the Church standeth only vpon the preaching of the word whereas wee grant that it is exercised also in the Ecclesiasticall gouernement of the Church both in punishing excommunicating censuring of offenders which is the binding of them and in releasing and absoluing them againe which is the other power of loosing Rhemist 2. Corinth cap. 10. sect 1. Leauing now this part of spiritual power in Ecclesiasticall discipline which is not in this place in question betweene vs wee must touch that other part which is exercised in the word and sacraments 1 That the sacraments doe binde and loose it is proued out of the word of God they doe binde Whosoeuer eateth drinketh vnworthily eateth drinketh his own damnation 1. Cor. 11.29 they doe also loose As oft as ye shal eate this bread and drinke this cup you shewe the Lords death till he come vers 26. But here is a double caution and condition to be annexed First that all Sacraments worke not this effect but onely those of Christs institution which are but two baptisme and the supper of the Lord for Paul saith I haue receiued of the Lord that which I deliuered vnto you 1. Cor. 11.23 If the Apostles would not neither might deliuer any Sacraments but those which were instituted of Christ what great presumption is it in any other to doe it Secondly we must not think that remissiō of sinnes is necessarily tied to the Sacraments as though there could be no remissiō without thē for the grace of remission may be effectual in the name of Christ by the preaching of the word without a sacramēt Ioh. 20. sect 4. Ful. For the word may be preached without a sacramēt but the sacramēt cānot be ministred without the word for that were as though a man should deliuer a seale without a writing Neither is it our meaning that as the Rhemists cauil with vs the sacramēt cannot be administred without a sermon of the death of Christ for though that were alwaies to bee wished yet where it cannot bee had there must and ought to be a briefe shewing and declaration of the death of Christ out of the word so oft as the Sacrament is administred as it is obserued in our Church Fulk Annot. 1. Corinth 11. sect 15. 3 We must take heede we conceiue not thus as though the Sacrament gaue grace by the worke wrought and that by the very vse forme and externall act of the Sacrament wee obtaine remission of sinnes as the Rhemists would beare vs in hand 1. Corinth 11. sect 15. But the Sacraments are onely effectuall to the worthie receiuers and to the worthie receiuing faith is requisite as Saint Paul willeth all men to examine themselues 1. Corinth 11.28 which is as hee himselfe interpreteth it to proue whether they be in the faith 2. Corinth 13.5 These conditions then being obserued we denie not but that there is an exercise of the keyes euen in the Sacraments 2 But chiefely and principallie is this power dispensed by the preaching of the word as Saint Paul saith Wee are the sauour of death vnto death vnto some there is the binding and to other the sauour of life vnto life there is the loosing 1. Corinth 2.16 So our Sauiour Christ saith He that refuseth mee the word that I haue spoken shall iudge him in the last day Iohn 12.48 Here is the power of binding Againe the truth shall make you free Iohn 8.32 Here is the power of loosing Who therefore doubteth this that the preaching of the word is the most proper and principall way and meane for the exercising of this Ecclesiasticall power for seeing faith is the key of heauen thereby wee haue free accesse vnto the throne of grace Rom. 5.2 and faith commeth by hearing Rom. 10.17 and hearing by the word It remaineth that by the word the keyes are dispensed Augustine also subscribeth vnto this for speaking of reformation of life and repentance with remission of former sinnes thus he saith Quid empturus es vt facias quae emplastra quaesiturus ecce cùmloquor muta cor factum est quod tam
yet is it not best for euery man to be rich God seeth it good that some men should be poore So single life is the best for those that haue the gift of chastitie that can with a quiet conscience liue single otherwise matrimonie were much better for Saint Paul that wisheth that euery one would liue single as hee did yet afterward sayth It is better to marrie then to burne So that by the Apostles iudgement to marrie is best for him that hath not the gift of continencie Iewel pag. 232. defens Apolog. The Protestants THat it is not onely lawfull but conuenient that all men both Ministers and others that haue not receiued a proper gift of continencie should marrie and that it is agreeable and consonant to the word of God thus wee shew it 1 The scriptures are most playne for the mariage of Ministers 1. Timoth. 3.2 Saynt Paul sayth a Bishop and generally euery Minister may be the husband of one wife and verse 11. their wiues are described howe they ought to behaue themselues Let their wiues be honest Ergo it is lawfull for them to bee maried Bellarmine answereth that Saynt Paul speaketh of the wiues which they had before their calling and ordayning not those which they should marry after But there appeareth no such thing out of the text Nay Saint Paul say wee had libertie as well as others to leade about a sister a wife euen after hee was an Apostle 1. Corinth 9. Wherefore it is as lawfull afterward as afore Bellarmine answereth We must thus read a Sister a woman and it is like they were women that did minister vnto the Apostles and followed them We replie First the word Sister doth implie a woman and therefore it had been an improper and needlesse speech to say a sister a woman therefore we must rather read a sister a wife Secondly if they were other women which ministred of their substance what neede the Apostles to be mayntained of the Churches if they ministred but in their seruice and attendance who were more fit to doe it and to follow them from place to place then their wiues Thirdly the phrase of leading about a sister importeth a superioritie and authority such as the husband hath ouer his wife Another place we haue Hebr. 13.3 Mariage is honourable among all men Ergo amongst Ministers Bellarmin If it were meant of all mariages then to marrie within the degrees of consanguinitie were also honourable Answere This is a very childish cauill First hee might haue read further And the bedde vndefiled Saint Paul therefore speaketh of lawfull mariage and indeede the other ioyning and coupling of men and women together contrarie to GODS lawe is not to bee counted Matrimonie or Wedlocke but Incest rather and Fornication as the brother to marrie his brothers wife and such like Secondly Saint Paul sayth not all mariages are honourable but mariage is honourable for all men the generalitie is not of the thing but the persons Wherefore we doe fittly conclude out of this place that marriage is lawful and commendable euen among ministers argum Caluin Further Saint Paul saith For auoyding of fornication let euery man haue his owne wife 1. Corinth 7.2 Here is no restraint for Ministers Bellarm. this is to be vnderstoode of those that haue not made a vow of continency Answer First our Sauiour Christ commaundeth no such vowes it is a cruell Antichristian yoke laide vpon Ministers to binde them when they receiue orders to vowe single life therefore your Antichristian decree ought not to abridge the generall libertie granted by the Apostle Secondly the end of marriage is generall to auoyde fornication and therefore the remedie also is generall for euerie man hauing not a proper gift of continencie may be in danger of that inconuenience if he be denyed the ordinarie helpe Melancthon Againe 1. Timoth. 4. to forbid marriage is called a doctrine of diuels but the Popish Church forbiddeth marriage Bellarm. Wee doe not forbid marriage to any but we require single life of all that are entred into orders which it is at their owne choyce to receiue or to refuse Ans. First it is necessarie that some should receiue orders and be consecrate to the Church ministerie wherefore requiring this condition of all such to liue single though particularly you prohibite not this man or that to marrie yet generally you prohibite the whole calling which is worse Secondly if you say you doe not forbid marriage simplie to all no more did the Manichees for they suffered their scholars and auditors to marrie And Saint Augustines words are generall Ille prohibet matrimonium qui illud malum esse dicit he forbiddeth marriage that thinketh it is euil you therefore forbidding marriage must needs hold opinion that is wicked and euill 2 This restraint of the marriage of Ministers hath not been of ancient time in the Church but imposed vpon the Church of late 1000. yeere after Christ Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus anno 180. had seuen of his progenitors before him Bishops of the same See In the Nicene Councel Paphnutius stoode vp and stayed the decree that should haue past for restraining of the marriage of Ministers and it is saide Synodus landauit sententiam Paphnutij The Synod commended Paphnutius sentence Sozomen lib. 1. cap. 11. Gregorie the father of Gregorie was Bishop of Nazianzum The Greeke Church neuer yet receiued this popish decree of single life and their Bishops are married at this day Bellarmine saith that the Church of Rome hath dispenced with them cap. 18. Ergo if the Pope would dispence with the Latine Church it might be lawfull enough then for Ministers to marrie wherefore it is but a humane constitution Againe it is false that they haue dispenced with the Greeke Church they care not for their dispensations but vse their owne Christian libertie neither was the Greeke Church euer subiect to the Bishop of Rome Thus we see that in times past marriage was lawfull for all men vntill Pope Nicholas the second Alexander the second and Gregorie the seuenth that notable sorcerer and adulterer for these three comming together one not long after another began by publike decree to restraine Priests marriage not long after them Anselme began to play the Rex here in England anno 1104. who stoutely proceeded in his vngodly purpose and enacted that married Priests should either leaue their wiues or their benefices At which time 200. Priests at once came barefoote to the Kings palace to make complaint And for all Anselmes Popelike and outragious proceedings against married Priests yet they continued married well nie two hundred yeeres after Anselmes time doe what he could and thus it is manifest that the restraint of Ministers marriage is no ancient thing but then began most to be vrged when Antichrist fullie was reuealed to the world when as the orders of Friers came in and were confirmed and priuiledged vnder Boniface 8. about anno 1300. 3 What
second marriage be then doe they disallow second marriage because a man is thereby disabled to be a Minister if not simply yet they make it lesse lawful nay more offensiue and subiect to obloquie and reproch But the scripture maketh no difference betweene first second marriage S. Paul saith For auoiding of fornication let euery man haue his own wife he saith not his first wife but generally so that it is lawfull for auoiding of fornication to marrie the second or the third wife as well as the first 2 If it be as lawfull to marrie the second wife as the first if it be for auoiding of fornication then secōd marriage doth no more hinder the receiuing of orders then the first but the antecedent is true for what should make the second marriage lesse lawful not any dutie that the wife or the husband oweth to the partie deceased for they are free in that respect set at libertie Rom. 7.3 Neither is the end of marriage made frustrate more now then before for hee that marrieth the second time may haue as good cause to doe it for auoiding of fornication as he had at the first 3 Second marriage make the worst of it you can is not so great a blot as fornication or adulterie or to haue a Concubine but these were no lets of priesthood in poperie Nay we reade that Augustine in the purer age of the Church that confesseth he had two Concubines yet afterward was made presbyter and at the last a Bishop for all that Wherefore there is no reason that exception should be taken against a twice married man seeing a fornicator is free Lastly of this opinion Augustine seemeth to be That it is as lawfull to marrie the second time the third as the first Ait Apostolus mulier alligata est viro quamdiu vir eius viuit non dixit primus secundus tertius aut quartus The woman is bound sayth the Apostle so long as her husband liueth he sayth not the first husband second third or fourth So the woman is as free after the first or second husbands death as when she was a virgin Yet if she can content her selfe with her widowes estate and haue the gift of continencie she shall do better not to marrie But if she haue not it is better to marrie S. Paul sayth not the first second or third time but so often as she hath neede rather then to burne THE THIRD PART WHETHER MINISTERS ought to refrayne the companie of their wiues being entered into orders The Papistes THey confesse that Peter and other of the Apostles were married but after their calling they had no companie with their wiues Rhemist Math. 8. sect 3 error 79 And so ought the Ministers of the Gospell sayth Bellarmine be kept from the vse of their wiues to whom they were married before their calling 1 The Priests of the lawe were bound to withdrawe themselues during the time of their seruice while they attended vpon the sacrifice and to forbeare the companie of their wiues much more the Priests of the lawe that must alwayes offer sacrifices must be alwayes free from matrimonie Rhemist Luk. 1. sect 10. Ans. 1. The Leuiticall priesthood did represent and shadowe forth the priesthood of Christ and their legall cleansings washings abstinence purifyings did shewe forth the holines and perfection of the priesthood of Christ wherefore the lawe of their abstinence doth no more binde vs then other of their legall purifications they haue their end in the priesthood of Christ. 2. We acknowledge no sacrificing priesthood in the newe testament nor any sacrifice in the Church for sinne but onely that sacrifice of atonement vpon the Crosse but our sacrifices are spirituall of praise and thanksgiuing therefore the argument followeth not from the priests of the law to those that are no priests Fox pag. 1166. 3. Purenes of life we grant is as much required now in Ministers of the Gospell as it was then in the priests of the lawe therefore they ought as well to haue libertie to marrie seeing matrimonie is the best remedie agaynst fornication and vncleannes of life 2 Another argument they picke out of S. Paules words 1. Corinth 7.5 Defraude you not one another vnlesse it bee by consent for a time that you may giue your selues to prayer If the lay man cannot pray vnlesse he abstaine from his wife the Priest that must alwaies pray must alwaies abstaine Rhemist Ans. 1. The lay man is bound to offer prayers alwaies as well as the Priest and so by this reason neither ought any lay man to performe his duetie to his wife if it were an hinderance to praier 2. S. Paul speaketh not here of all praier but of a speciall kind which to be made more feruent requireth fasting and abstinence which kind is not alway necessarie but vpon some certaine occasion 3. It is so farre off that a lay man cannot pray vnlesse he abstaine from his wife that many times he prayeth more quietly then he that is vnmarried or abstaineth if he haue not dominion ouer his lust Fulk annot 1. Cor. 7.5 The Protestants NEither the Apostles forsooke the companie of their wiues after they were called and chosen of Christ neither ought the Ministers of the Gospell to renounce abandon and forsweare the societie and fellowship of their wiues but rather to liue with them in all temperance and sobrietie for the good example of others 1 It is proued out of the 1. Cor. 9.5 that Peter the other Apostles did leade about their wiues in their companie and S. Paul there sayth that he also might vse the same libertie Likewise 1. Timoth. 3.5 S. Paul giueth rules concerning the house and familie of the Minister his children the behauiour of their wiues vers 11. But where I pray you is it fitter for the Ministers wife and children to be then with her husband By these places it is apparant that Ministers wiues were not excluded from their husbands companie as a thousand yeere after more it was decreed by Anselme that they should not dwell in house with their husbands nor talke with them without two or three witnesses Fox pag. 1167. 2 It is cleane contrarie to the scripture First our Sauiour sayth whosoeuer putteth away his wife except it be for fornication causeth her to commit adulterie Math. 5.32 By this rule therefore a Minister ought not for any other cause to put away and dismisse his wife but for fornication Ergo it is not lawfull because of his calling or vpon any other colour to send her away Secondly S. Paul sayth They ought not to defraud one another but for a time and that with consent 1. Corinth 7.5 Therefore if the wife will not consent her husband cannot goe from her nay though there be consent yet they must be asunder but for a time they cannot by consent altogether breake off and dissolue their marriage which was made before God though they would neuer
obedience seing they are inioyned things not commanded by God nay contrary to his commandements The Protestants NO obedience to any ruler either spirituall or temporall is to be yelded vnto but for the Lords sake and in such matters wherein we haue the warrant of Gods word for our obedience 1 Coloss. 3.23 Seruants be obedient to your masters and whatsoeuer you do doe it heartily as to the Lord But if any thing be inioyned vs which is not warranted by the word of God we cannot with a good conscience obey as before the Lord. Agayne Saint Paul saith Coloss. 2.18 Let no man at his pleasure beare rule ouer you or beguile you or as the Rhemists translate seduce you wilfully Ergo no man must impose rules of life beside the Gospel for this were to rule ouer men at their pleasure 2 Augustine sayth Cum homo conster anima corpore oportet nos ex ea parte quae ad hanc vitam pertinet subditos esse potestatibuâ— ex illa parte qua credimus deo ad eius regnum vocamur non oportet nos cuiquaâ— esse subditos Seeing a man doth consist both of bodie and soule in regard of that parte which the affayres of this life concerne we ought to be subiect to the higher powers but in respect of that part whereby we beleeue and are called to the kingdome of God we must be obedient to none August in 13. ad Rom. Therefore no man may impose any new religion vpon vs which altogether toucheth the conscience THE THIRD PART CONCERNING THE vow of continencie or chastitie The Papistes THe vow of chast and continent life is commendable and meritorious they say in all that doe take it vpon them and after the vow made they are sure error 89 to receiue that high gift of continencie if they duely labour for it Rhemist annot 1. Corinth 7. ver 7. But whosoeuer marrieth after the vow made sinneth damnably and turneth back after Sathan Rhemist annot 1. Tim. 5. sect 12. 1 Math. 19.12 Some haue made themselues chaste or as the Rhemists doe very homely translate it haue gelded themselues for the kingdome of heauen this proueth the vowes of chastitie to be both lawfull and meritorious Rhemist in hunc locum Ans. This is meant onely of those that haue the gift of continencie who if they be sure they haue receiued it may vow and purpose single life but without such assurance no man can vow continencie lawfully Secondly but as for meriting it commeth neither by being maried or vnmaried but is the free gift of God through Christ. Fulk ibid. 2 1. Timoth. 5.12 Hauing damnation because they haue cast away their first fayth that is the vow of continencie which they made to Christ it cannot be meant of the first fayth in baptisme for that is not lost by mariage Rhemist And againe vers 15. They are turned back after sathan we may here learne for those to marrie which are professed is to turne back after Sathan Rhemist in eum locum Answer First Saint Paul speaketh not here of widowes alreadie chosen but to be chosen hee would haue younger widdowes to bee chosen because they woulde waxe wanton and marrie and therefore it is not like that by the first fayth heere is meant the vowe of chastitie seeing there is no cause that these younger widdowes shoulde make any vowe beeing excluded by the Apostle from Church seruices Secondly vers 14. Saint Paul himselfe Counselleth the younger widdowes to marrie therefore it is not like they were votaries Thirdly by the first fayth is vnderstood the Christian fayth which the younger widowes waxing wanton and lasciuious nor carying to match with Infidels were in danger to breake as the Apostle telleth them of some that had done so already and were turned backe after Sathan Fourthly we say not that the fayth of baptisme is broken by all mariage but with ioyning with Infidels Fiftly it appeareth what breach of faith Paul meaneth when he sayth They waxe wanton and idle and are busie-bodies goe from house to house and speake things vncomely verse 13. Which is a sliding back from the Christian fayth when our life iarreth with our profession not a breach of any vow of continencie Fulk 1. Timoth. 5. sect 10.12 The Protestants OVr sentence then appeareth to be this that the vow of continencie cannot lawfully be made of all neither is indifferently to be required of them seeing all are not indued with that gift Fulk Math. 19.6 And that it is better euen for vowed persons hauing rashly presumed beyond their strength to marrie rather then to burne Fulk 1. Cor. 7. sect 8. 1 The scripture euery where commaundeth such to vse the benefite of mariage that haue not the gift to liue single 1. Cor. 7.2 For auoyding of fornication let euery man haue his wife and ver 9. If they cannot abstaine let them marrie Wherefore they transgresse the commandement of God and presume rashly that hauing not this gift doe vow virginitie Bellarmin Answer First Saint Paul wisheth men to marrie not for euery temptation of lust but when they are ready to fall into externall workes of vncleannes as into fornication and therefore hee sayth For auoyding of fornication let euery one haue his wife For Saint Paul felt the pricke of the flesh that is the lust of concupiscence and was buffeted of it yet maried not for all that cap. 30. Rhemist annot 1. Corinth 7. sect 8. Answere First we say not that for euery light temptation which by resisting may be ouercome in those that haue the gift of continencie a man is to desire mariage but when he is continually enflamed with lust so that the will doth consent though he be not yet so ouercome that he fall in outward vncleannes and this is the Apostles meaning when hee sayth It is better to marrie then to burne that is with inward lust when his minde is disquieted And such a man as doth burne with secret concupiscence still wrastling with that fire and not being able to quench it if he refuse to vse the lawfull remedie of mariage is in danger also to fall into outward fornication 2 Concerning Pauls example First the place is not so to be vnderstoode of the lust of concupiscence for it is not like that the Apostle being kept vnder with hunger colde imprisonment should bee so greatly tempted that way But either it may be vnderstood of the particular temptation to pride and vainglorie as he him selfe expoundeth it vers 7. lest I should be exalted out of measure through the abundance of reuelations Or else generally Saint Paul vnderstandeth by flesh the whole masse of corruption and whatsoeuer was in him that resisted the spirite In this sense he crieth out Roman 7. Who shall deliuer me from this body of death Caluin 2 Though we yeeld that Saint Paul was tempted of his concupiscence yet he ouercame and subdued it obtayning from God after some striuing grace and power to quench
the secret fire And so we denie not but that men ought by fasting and prayer to labour for that precious gift But if they feele the fire to burne within them still then are they to vse the remedie prescribed by Saint Paul that is to marrie Secondly sayth Bellarmine Saint Paul giueth libertie of mariage onely to those which were free and had not vowed continencie cap. 31. Answere First the Apostles words are generall Let euery man haue his wife I say the Rhemists he speaketh of those that were maried before their conuersion that they might still vse and keepe their wiues Yea but Saint Paul speaketh of all vnmaried in the verse next before It is good not to touch a woman I trow he meaneth not it is good for a man that is maried not to touch his wife Secondly it is a generall libertie which he granteth to all ver 9. If they cannot conteine let them marry but many votaries cannot contayne as it may appeare by the vnchast liues of your Monkish rabble therefore hauing the disease they may vse the remedie that is marrie Argum. 2. Virginitie and continent life is onely to be required of those which haue the gift of continencie But all haue not that gift Ergo the vow of Virginitie is not indifferently to be made by any That the gift of continencie cannot be had or obtayned of all neither resteth in our free wil it is plaine by scripture 1 Math. 19.12 He that is able to receiue this gift let him receiue it Ergo all are notable to receiue it Bellarmin First though they are not able to receiue it yet yet they may if they will and aske for it by prayer for the text is Some haue made themselues chaste for the kingdome of God whereby it appeareth that it is in the will of man cap. 31. Answer Hee speaketh cleane contrary to the text for Christ sayth None receiue it but to whom it is giuen and the wordes are qui capere potest not qui velit hee that can receiue not hee that will receiue And they are sayd to make themselues chaste not because it is in their owne choyce but being enabled of God and hauing receiued power ouer their will they are sayd to make themselues chaste hauing receiued power by the spirit of God So our Sauiour sayth Come vnto me all ye that are laden Math. 11. yet no man commeth to Christ but his father first draweth him Iohn 6.44 Wherefore it being a peculiar gift of God all cannot haue it neither are sure to obtaine it though they aske it by prayer because wee haue no promise to bee heard Rhemist When a man is bound to abstaine by vow or other necessarie occasion as imprisonment banishment sicknes no doubt if he labour for the gifte of continencie he may haue it Ans. They that binde themselues to a rash vowe haue no promise to be heard praying for continencie Secondly they that are driuen vnto any such necessitie as you speak of which they are not a cause of themselues neither can auoide as in long and perpetual sicknes it is certaine that God will giue the gift being sought by lawful meanes But as for banishment and imprisonment they are not of such necessitie but that the husband is bound to follow the wife and the wife her husband Fulk 1. Cor. 7.6 Neither are many of those meanes commendable which were vsed in Monkerie for some of them were superstitious and vnlawfull as they vsed Phisick and medicine to correct or slake and extinguish nature in them Francis was wont to couer his bodie with yce and snow others did whip themselues This was not to subdue and tame the bodie but to destroy and kill the bodie and make it vnfit for other dueties The scripture prescribeth no other meanes but prayer and fasting and labour in our vocation Some of them againe vsed externall exercise of their bodie as by fasting by lying harde by watching which in themselues were not amisse but they leaue the chiefe and principall which is the spirituall meanes for the outward exâ—rcise of the flesh without this is little worth Coloss. 2.23 Bellarmin To beleeue is no lesse the gift of God then to liue chaste yet we exhorte all men to beleeue and they doe vowe and promise it in baptisme why may they not as well vowe continencie although it be a peculiar gift cap. 31. Ans. They are both indeed the giftes of God but one is necessarie to saluation namely to beleeue and is promised to all that will seeke for it But the other gift is not necessary neither hath any such promise Secondly Saint Paul calleth this a proper gift But if all men were capable of it how could it be called a proper gift One after this manner another after that sayth the Apostle But if euery man might attaine to that one gift of continencie they should not all haue their proper gift but all one gifte and after the same manner And though Saint Paul should meane that to liue chastely in wedlock be also a proper gift of God as Bellarmine vrgeth and we denie not yet it remaineth still that the other is a more singular and proper gift and is not therefore commonly and indifferently bestowed vpon all Thirdly Saint Paul sayth that a man may marrie his Virgin if neede so require 1. Corinth 7.37 But if euery one labouring for the gift of continencie might obtayne it there should then be no necessitie of mariage which the Apostle here affirmeth Lastly the Rhemists say that the marriage of those that haue vowed is the worst sorte of incontinencie and fornication 1. Corinth 7. sect 8. Augustine saith cleane contrarie Non ipsae nuptiae talium damnandae iudicantur sed damnatur propositi fraus damnatur fracta votifides postremò damnantur tales non quia coniugalem fidem posterius inierunt sed quia continentiaa primam fideÌ„ irritam fecerunt de bono viduitat cap. 9. The mariages of such are not condemned but the violating of their vow is condemned not because they afterward entred into the league of mariage but because they did break the first fayth of continencie Augustine sayth not that such mariages are no mariages but plaine adultery fornication But maketh the mariage lawful reproueth their rashnes before in making and their vnstedfastnes nowe in breaking their vowes THE FIFT QVESTION CONCERNING Monasticall persons which do enter into that profession THere are foure sortes of people which the papists do offer great wrong vnto in drawing them to the profession of monkery First vnto the yonger sort which haue libertie to marrie Secondly to the children and sonnes whom they make Monks without consent of their parents Thirdly they say maried persons by mutual consent may betake themselues to a Monks habite Fourthly if mariage be contracted not consummate or finished they may one leaue another without consent first had THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE younger sorte are to bee admitted to professe
shepheard Bellarm And the Apostle willeth all men to obey their Bishops and ouerseers Heb. 13.17 and to submit themselues vnto them from which rule neither Kings nor Emperours are exēpted Prelates must be obeyed Ergo not obey Rhemist ibid. Ans. First the obedience here required we acknowledge that it ought to be yeelded by Kings Emperours to those that haue the ouersight of their soules for the Prince is bound to receiue and beleeue all true doctrine which is taught by the Pastors and Bishops of the Church agreeable to the word of God vnder paine of damnation and the Pastors are bound vnder the like paine to obey the Princes lawes made according to the word of God Secondly wherefore the spirituall obedience of the ciuill Magistrate to the word of God taught by the Pastors of the Church is no exemption of them from their ciuill obedience for euery soule is subiect to the higher powers Rom. 13.1 Fulk annot 13. Heb. sect 9 The Protestants THat Ecclesiasticall persons are subiect to temporall gouernours and are to be iudged by their lawes the scriptures speake plainly 1 Rom. 13.1 Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers Ergo Bishops yea the Pope himselfe if he haue a soule The like sayth S. Peter 1.2.13 Submit your selues to all manner ordinance Salomon remoued Abiathar from the Priesthood and put in Sadock Paul appealed and submitted himselfe to Caesar. Againe if Priests offend and commit any grieuous sinne as of murther theft who shall punish them The ciuill Magistrate onely beareth the sword They must either grant that priests are no euill doers which were to too grosse or if they be that they are vnder the ciuill Magistrates power for he is the Minister of God to take vengeance vpon euery euill doer Rom. 13.4 In Augustines time the controuersies betweene the Catholike and Donatist Bishops were committed to the iudgement of the Emperour Ait quidam saith he Non debuit Episcopus proconsulari iudicio purgari Quasi verò ipse sibi hoc comparauerit ac non Imperator ita quaeri iusserat ad cuius curam de qua rationem deo red liturus est res illa maximè pertinebat But saith one a Bishop ought not to haue been purged before the Proconsul or ciuill Magistrate As though sayth Augustine the Proconsul did of himselfe intermeddle in this matter and was not commanded rather of the Emperour so to doe vnto whose charge that matter principally appertained and whereof he shall make account vnto God Ergo by his sentence the cause of the Bishop principally was to be iudged by the Emperour THE SECOND PART WHETHER THE PRINCE haue power ouer Ecclesiasticall goods The Papists THe goods of the Clergie both secular and Ecclesiasticall are and ought to error 99 be exempted from paying tribute to Princes yet they haue not this libertie say they by the Lawe of God but by the grant of Princes themselues Rhemist annot Rom. 13. sect 5. Bellarm. de Clericis cap. 28. Genes 47.22 27. The lands of the Priests were exempted from paying tribute Ergo it seemeth that this custome is grounded vpon the law of nature Bellarm. Ans. First the Hebrew word signifieth rather Presidents such as were the Kings officers not Priests as Tremellius sheweth who were maintained by the Kings prouision being officers of his houshold for Genes 41.45 Ioseph is sayd to marrie the daughter of Potyphar prince not priest of On. The same word Cohen is there vsed for it is not like that Ioseph would match himselfe with an idolatrous priests daughter Secondly but be it granted this was but a politike constitution for that coūtrey other Princes are not bound to Pharao his law Thirdly they gaine nothing by this but that it is an humane constitution The Protestants THat Princes haue authoritie to punish Ecclesiasticall persons offending in their goods either by displacing them or by conuerting the Church possessions by them abused to better vses we haue shewed before Contr. 5. quest 6. part 1. And that their goods ought to pay tribute subsidie taxe vnto the prince thus now it is proued 1 Our Sauiour Christ paied poll money Math. 17.25 Rom. 13. Euery soule ought to be subiect to the higher powers and there vers 5. paying of tribute is made a part of subiection the argument therefore thus followeth Clergie men are subiect to Princes therefore they ought to pay tribute 2 Ex concessis we reason thus from their owne confession That which Princes gaue to the Church vpon good cause they may take away but this immunitie not to pay tribute was first granted as they confesse to the Church by Kings and Princes Ergo they haue the same right hauing iust occasion to take it from them againe What Augustines iudgement is we haue seene in the place before alleadged THE THIRD PART CONCERNING THE PRINCES authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall The Papists error 100 THe Prince they say hath no authoritie to giue voyce deliberatiue or definitiue in Councels concerning matters of religion nor to make lawes Ecclesiasticall concerning the same Onely they giue them authoritie to execute the Ecclesiasticall lawes made by the Church Rhemist 1. Corinth 14.16 Bellarm. de pontif lib. 1. cap. 7. 1 Kings and Princes may in their owne persons execute if they will whatsoeuer their inferiour officers do as to heare and determine causes as the Iudges and other Magistrates doe but the Prince cannot execute any Ecclesiasticall function as to preach baptize Ergo he hath no authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall for how can the Prince impart that to others whereof he is himselfe incapable as to giue Bishops and Pastors power to ordaine to preach and such like Bellarm. Rhemist ibid. Ans. First the authoritie of ciuill Magistrates doth not giue any thing to Ecclesiasticall Ministers which appertaineth to their office as to ordaine preach baptize neither is the Prince to deale in these offices yet may the ciuill Magistrates command them to execute their charge and dueties according to the word of God Wherefore it followeth not Princes cannot execute the pastoral dueties themselues Ergo they ought not to see them executed Dauid Salomon Iehosophat Ezechia commanded the Priests to execute their office according to the law of God though it was not lawfull for them neither did they execute any thing proper to the Priests office in their owne persons neither doth any Christian Prince challenge any such right in Ecclesiasticall functions wherefore it is an impudent slander of Bellarmine which he giueth forth of our Queene Iam re ipsa Caluinistis in Anglia mulier quaedam summus pontifex And now sayth he in England the Caluinists haue a certaine woman for their chiefe Bishop De notis eccles lib. 4. cap. 9. 2 It doth not followe that the Prince might as well execute Ecclesiasticall offices as he may ciuill in his owne person if he haue authoritie ouer both No more then it followeth that because Ecclesiasticall persons doe teach both ciuill Magistrates
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
notwithstanding for popish inuocation of Angels for the Angel here coÌ„mendeth not the prayers of the Saints by his merit but by the much incense giuen vnto him to ad to the prayers of the Saints to make them acceptable which is the sweete smell and sauour of the precious dâ—ath and merites of Christ. Fulk in hunc locum Augustine indeede sometime ascribeth such an office vnto the Angelles to carry vp our prayers to Heauen as their charge is to carry vp our soules not as mediatours or intercessors but as the Lords messengers and agents here vpon earth to reporte vnto him our affaires dicuntur Angeli preces nostras vota Deo offerre non vt deum doceant qui omnia antequam fiant nouit sed vt super his dei voluntatem consulant The Angelles are said to offer vp our prayers and vowes vnto God not to informe or instruct the Lord but onely to consult and know his pleasure tom 9. de dilection Cap. 3. in Psalm 74. for the Angels haue two offices the one to execute the commaundement of God in the world and to attend vpon him to receiue their charge Math. 18.10 the other to returne vnto God as faithfull messengers the successe of their busines in the worlde Zechar. 1.10 Now whether the Angelles be appointed of God to report vnto him our sayings and doings as other affaires of our life the scripture no where euidently sheweth Neither if it were graunted would it any thing helpe their popish inuocation of Angelles Rhemist alleadge Tob. 12.12 to proue the offering of our prayers by Angelles Answer It is neither canonicall Scripture nor agreeable vnto it Fulk annot Coloss. 2. sect 3. The Protestants THe scripture alwayes maketh Christ our onely Mediator neither Angelles nor Saints by whome our prayers and all other spirituall sacrifices are offered vnto God Fulk ibid. 1 Hebrew 13.15 Let vs by him offer the sacrifice of praise alwayes to God 1. Peter 2.5 You are an holy priesthoode to offer vp spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God by Iesus Christ. Ergo Christ Iesus is our onely Mediator Secondly Galatian 3.19 The Lawe was ordayned by Angelles in the hand of a Mediator Ergo the Angelles are one office and the Mediator another Augustine sayeth Quòd non aliquem ex Angelis dicit Mediatorem sed ipsum Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum habes alio loco vnus inquit Deus vnus mediator Dei hominum homo Christus Iesus That the Apostle calleth not any of the Angels but only Iesus Christ our Lord Mediator we haue in another place There is one God saith he and one Mediator of God and man the Man Iesus Christ. AN APPENDIX OR THIRD PART of this question whether Angelles or Saints know our heartes The Papists THe Angelles and other Celestiall spirites doe knowe our heartes and inwarde repentance And betweene the Angelles and the blessed soules of Saintes there is no difference in this case the one being as highly exalted and neere God as the other in whome and by whome only they see and know our affaires Luke 15.10 There is ioy in heauen in the presence of the Angelles ouer one sinner that repenteth Ergo they know our repentaunce Rhemist Lu. 15. Sect. 2. Ans. 1 Our heartes and inward repentance are not knowen to the Angelles but by the fruites and true effectes thereof 2 Although the elect after the resurrection shal be like in glorie to the Angelles yet it followeth not that they shall be like in all thinges much lesse that their soules now in heauen be in all thinges like vnto the Angelles whose presence and Ministerie God vseth in the preseruation of his chosen 3 That all thinges done in the worlde may be seene in God as in a glasse is but a prophane speculation and the deuise of an ydle braine Fulk ibid. Argum. 2 Abraham had knowledge of things in earth which were not in his time as that they had Moyses and the Prophetes bookes which hee neuer sawe Luk. 16. ver 29. Rhemist Answere First In this narration many thinges are spoken parabolically out of the which we must not ground any doctrine not taught els where in scripture for you may aswell say that soules haue fingers and tounges and that elementall water wil quench hell fire as that Abraham knew what books were written after his death Secondly Albeit that the doctrine of the Church comprehended in the scriptures might be reuealed to Abraham after his death yet it followeth not that he knew all thinges as you affirme the saintes doe by beholding the Maiestie of God Fulk annot ibid. The saintes therefore in heauen knowe so much as the Lord thinketh good to reueale vnto them they knowe not all things The Protestants WE deny not but that as Prophetes and holy men in this life may knowe many secret thinges reuealed vnto them by the spirit of God as Peter found out the secret fraude of Ananias Sapphirae Eliseus being absent found out Gehezi his corruption yea hee could tell what was doone in the King of Syria his chamber so the Lord may reueale vnto the saintes in heauen at his pleasure some thinges done vpon earth But that they receiued any such gift of God to know all thinges done vpon earth it is a great vntrueth and cleane contrary to the scriptures 1. Salomon sayeth in his prayer vnto God Heare thou in heauen in thy dwelling place and giue vnto euery man according to his wayes as thou knowest his heart for thou onely knowest the hearts of all the children of men 1. King 8.39 Out of this place we thus reason he only knoweth the heart that is the Iudge of all men and a rewarder of them according to their wayes But the Lord onely is iudge Ergo. Againe the wordes themselues be plaine that God onely knoweth the heart so that what knowledge of secrets the Saintes haue it is by reuelation not by searching the heart Againe S. Paul saith No man knoweth the thinges of man saue the spirit of man which is in him so the thinges of God knoweth no man but the spirite of God 1. Corinth 1.11 the Rhemist aunswer that no man knoweth the secrets of the heart naturally but by extraordinary gift he may as the Prophets did Ans. No man euer had or can haue a generall gift to know the heart but when God seeth it good to reueale it for otherwise the comparison holdeth not The spirit of God onely knoweth the things of God which also is giuen to men to know but not by receiuing any gift to search and looke into the nature and heart as it were of God for then should they knowe all the secrets of God which neuer any did but onely by reuelation of the spirite which openeth Gods secrets vnto them so farre as it is conuenient and needfull Euen after the same manner the spirite of God may reueale the secrets of the heart of man not by giuing them a generall gift
which is nothing but aduocation Dan. 10.23 Math. 18.10 Rhemist annot 1. Iohn 2. sect 5. Ans. First the argument followeth not for the Angels at the appoyntment of God may serue for our protection and defence though they be not aduocates for vs to obtaine remission of our sinnes Secondly the places alleadged proue no such aduocation of Angels but onely defence and protection Dan. 10.23 The Angel was readie at the first praiers of Daniel but he was letted a while This proueth that angels may knowe our praiers when it pleaseth God and be ministers of his helpe vnto vs which we denye not not that they are our aduocates The Protestants THat angels are not to be worshipped nor inuocated as mediatours intercessors or aduocates the scripture speaketh euidently 1 Coloss. 2.18 Let no man beguile you in the humblenes and worshipping of Angels Ergo not lawfull to pray vnto them or to worship them Rhemist The Apostle speaketh heere against the wicked doctrine of Simon Magus that affirmed that the angels both ill and good were mediators for vs vnto God and against the superstition of the Iewes that worshipped the angels by whom the law was giuen Ans. The Apostle condemneth both these superstitions as likewise the popish inuocation of angels because all will-worship is forbidden which is not after the prescript of Gods word Coloss. 2.23 Fulk in hunc locum 2 If any man sinne sayth the Apostle we haue an aduocate with the father Iesus Christ the Iust he is the propitiation for our sinnes Iohn 2.2 Ergo Christ onely is our aduocate Rhemist Christ is our aduocate in the highest degree because by himselfe and his owne merites without the assistance of any other he obtaineth pardon for vs. The other as angels and Saints are as secondary intercessors that obtaine not any thing by their owne merites but onely through Christ. Ans. First he onely and properly is an aduocate that can pleade the iustice of his clients cause which euery one that prayeth for vs cannot doe for though the angels and Saints departed should pray for vs which we knowe not by the scriptures as our brethren vpon earth doe yet should they not be mediatours and aduocates but petitioners and intreators for vs Fulk ibid. Secondly we gather many strong arguments out of this place for the sole sufficient aduocation of Christ. First the Sonne is the best and onely sufficient aduocate with the father therefore where we may haue free and bold accesse to the Sonne Heb. 4.16 what need haue we of the seruants helpe 2. He is the only aduocate that is iust and righteous before God so onely is Christ the angels are imperfect in his sight Iob. 4.18 Ergo. Thirdly he must be our aduocate that is also the propitiation for our sinnes Ergo onely Christ. Augustine saith Dicitis angelos nos colimus vtinam illos coleretis facile ab illis disceretis illos non colere But ye will say ye worship not images but Angels I would you did truely worship and reuerence them for you should soone learne of the Angels not to worship the Angels in Psal. 96. THE NINTH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING SAINTS DEPARTED THis Controuersie hath two parts first of those that being departed suffer some punishment after this life Secondly of those that are straight receiued to ioye in heauen The first part hath two questions first of the place of darknesse where the faithfull remained till the comming of Christ as the Papists imagine Secondly of Purgatorie THE FIRST QVESTION OF LIMBVS PATRVM where the Patriarkes were imagined to be The Papists THey haue deuised and imagined in their foolish conceit foure infernall and subterrestrial places Hell Purgatorie Limbus infantium where children remaine dying without baptisme and Limbus Patrum where the Fathers were before Christs comming These places they distinguish three waies first by the situation Hell is lowest Purgatorie is next Limbus infantium in the third place Limbus Patrum vppermost Secondly they differ in measure of punishment some of them haue poenam damni and poenam sensus a double punishment both of losse in that they are excluded heauen and of paine also as Hell and Purgatorie the other two Limbi are but dungeons of darknes onely where they suffer no other smart or paine but are onely absent from God Thirdly they differ in time and continuance say they Hell and the dungeon of children shall abide for euer but Purgatorie and the dungeon of the fathers are temporall the one that is Limbus Patrum is many yeeres agoe dissolued and Purgatorie also shall cease say they at the comming of Christ Ballarm de purgat lib. 2. cap. 6. This then is their opinion that the Patriarkes and Prophets before Christs comming were not in heauen but were kept in an infernall place of darknesse yet without paine and were deliuered by Christs descending into hell Bellarm. de Christi anima lib. 4. cap. 11. Rhemist Heb. 9.8 Argum. First Heb. 11.40 God prouiding a better thing for vs that they without vs should not be perfect That is say the Rhemists the Fathers of the law could not be admitted to the ioyes of heauen till the Apostles and other of the new lawe were associate with them and a way made into heauen by the death and ascension of Christ Rhemist ibid. Ans. First by this reason the Patriarkes could not enter into heauen before the death of the Apostles if there were no enterance found vnlesse they were associate with them Secondly if the way were not opened before Christs ascension then the Patriarkes could not ascend before where were they then al those 40. daies for they were deliuered out of Limbus Patrum before Christs resurrection Thirdly there is therefore no such meaning of this place but it is to be vnderstood of the resurrection when as all the elect shall be consummate together and enter bodie and soule into heauen Fulk 2 Zachar. 9.11 I haue loosed thy prisoners out of the pit where there is no water That is out of Limbus Patrum Bellarm. de Christi anima lib. 4. cap. 11. Ans. Augustine giueth a cleane contrarie sense of the place by the pit without water he vnderstandeth Humanae miseriae siccam profunditatem sterilem vbi non sunt fluenta iustitiae sed iniquitatis lutum The drie and barren dungeon of humane miserie where there are no springs of iustice but the puddle and mire of iniquitie That is the Prophet speaketh of the deliuerance of the people from their cruel and vniust bondage and captiuitie 3 1. Pet. 3.19 In the which spirit he also went and preached vnto the spirits that were in prison which sometime had been disobedient in the daies of Noe. This place proueth euidently sayth Bellarm. that Christ descended into hell and deliuered the fathers from thence De Christi anima lib. 4.13 Ans. The place can haue no such meaning First by the spirit here the humane soule of Christ cannot be vnderstood but is diuine
with the like blasphemie challenge to be worshipped because the women in the Gospel caught Christ by the feete and worshipped him Mat. 28.9 We may see by this of what spirit hee is and whether he be not that Antichrist that shal make him selfe as God 2. Thess. 2.4 The Protestants THe kissing of the feete was an humble and lowly gesture which was worthily vsed toward our Sauiour Christ who was God in the flesh and in his body and humanity annexed to his Godhead as God to be worshipped but it is too diuine and too lowly an homage to be offered to any mortall man and holy men in times past refused it when any carried away with immoderat zeal and admiration of their person were ready to giue it vnto them Argum. 1. When Cornelius fell downe at Peters feete the holy Apostle would not suffer him to do it The pope is of a cleane contrary spirite to S. Peter for he refused it beeing offered the Pope holdeth out his toe and offereth it to be kissed and vrgeth men thereunto Argum. 2 If such kissing of feete be commendable how commeth it to passe that the pope only hath holy feete to kisse and not other Bishoppes and Clergy men as well as he Augustine thus wryteth vpon those wordes of the Psalme Worship his foote-stoole reading according to the Septuagint saith he the earth is his foote stoole but wee must not worship the earth Conuerâ—o me ad ChristuÌ„ inuenio quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra suscepit enim de terra terram quia caro terra est in Psal. 98. I turne me saith hee vnto Christ and I finde howe the earth may without any impiety be worshipped for hee tooke earth of earth flesh of the flesh of the Virgin the flesh is earth Out of these wordes I conclude that the flesh the body the humanity ought not in any to be worshipped but onely in Christ for the neare coniunction of the Godhead and humane nature together and therefore consequently no kissing of feete which is an externall act of diuine worship is seemely for any mortall man THE THIRD QVESTION CONcerning the inuocation of Saints THis question hath three partes 1. Whether prayers are to bee made vnto Saintes 2. Whether they do pray for vs. 3. Whether they vnderstand our prayers THE FIRST PART WHETHER prayers are to be made to Saints The Papists error 28 THeir assertion is this Sanctos defunctos piè vtiliter à viuentib inuocari that Saintes departed are with great profite and piety called vpon and prayed vnto and that it is not onely lawfull but godly so to do Rhemist 1. Tim. 2. sect 4. Bellarmine cap. 19. lib. 1. De sanctor beatitud Argum. 1. They say they do not pray vnto saints as authors of any benefite or grace but as intercessors onely Neither do they make them immediat intercessors but onely through Christ concluding al their prayers per ChristuÌ„ Dominum nostrum Bellarm. Ans. 1. It is false that you pray vnto theÌ„ as intercessors onely for you desire them not onely to pray for you but to haue mercy on you for thus they pray O blessed Lady haue mercy vpon vs preserue thy seruants let the merits of S. Marie bring vs to the kingdome of heauen Fulk 1. Timoth. 2. sect 4. 2. It is also false that they make them not immediat intercessors but conclude their prayers per Christum Dominum nostrum For in that blasphemous prayer Tu per Thomae sanguinem quem pro nobis impendit fac nos Christe scandere quò Thomas asceÌ„dit Here they aske life eternal of Christ by the blood of Thomas of Canterbury How then is it true which the Rhemists affirme in word that Christ alone by his merites procureth all grace and mercy towarde mankind ibid when they hope to obtaine their requestes by the merites of Saintes See Fulk annot Iohn 16. sect 3. where diuerse praiers to saints as to S. Marie S. Osmond S. Anne S. Katherine are rekoned vp and none of them concludeth per Christum Dominum nostrum Argum. 2. Exod. 32.13 Moyses thus prayeth Remember Abraham Isaac and Iacob thy seruants Moyses here hopeth to haue his prayers heard by the merits of these holy men Bellarm. Ans. Moyses rehearseth only the couenant which the Lord made with these holy men and their seede as the wordes following do shew To whome thou swarest by thine owne selfe and swarest vnto them I will multiplye your seede Moyses therefore pleadeth not the merits of Abraham Isaac Iacob but vrgeth and presseth the promise of God and couenant made with them Argum. 3. The saints do pray one for another here vpon earth and do one desire an anothers prayers as S. Paul Rom. 15. Ephes. 6. Coloss. 4. and in other places desireth to be assisted by their prayers Ergo much more may we desire the prayers of Saints departed Bellarm. Rhemist Ans. 1. To pray one for another while we liue is a duety of Charitie and commaunded in scripture but to request the prayers of saints departed hath no warrant in the worde 2. Wee do not desire the godly liuing to pray for vs as our Mediators or as though by their worthines we are brought into the fauour of God as you say the saints do and therefore your argument followeth not from the prayer of the liuing to the prayer of the dead 3. We may one pray for another and one request the prayers of another while wee liue because we know our mutuall necessities But the saintes departed knowe not what things are done vpon earth neither are euerie where present to heare our prayers The Protestants THat prayer is onely to be made vnto God and to no other creature beside as being an especiall part of the worshippe of God which we ought not to giue to any other thus it is proued out of the word of God Argum. 1. Rom. 10.14 Howe shall they call vpon him in whome they haue not beleeued But wee must beleeue onely in God and therefore onely pray to God Rhemist answer It is true no more can we pray vnto our lady nor any saint in heauen vnlesse we beleeue they can help vs. Ans. The scripture euery where teacheth that we must beleeue in God and that they are cursed that put any confidence in man Ierem. 17.5 Againe they can haue no assurance to settle their conscience but out of the scriptures They haue a vaine perswasion of the ability of Saintes to helpe them but they haue no ground of any such beliefe out of scripture Argum. 2. Heb. 4.16 Let vs come with boldnes to the throne of grace Ergo we haue no neede of the inuocation of saintes seeing wee haue free and bolde accesse through Christ. Rhemist By this reason we should not pray one for an other while we are aliue Ans. we do not put our confidence in the merite and worthines of other mens prayers as you do in the intercession of saints Againe this mutuall duetie of prayer
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
of a woman which was a sinner and more setteth foorth his power then otherwise lest he should be thought to haue deriued his puritie from his mother 2 They holde that there was no actuall sinne in the Virgin Marie no not the lest and smallest sinnes which they call venial Rhemist 1. Iohn 1. sect 5. She was especially protected and preserued from sinning by the grace of God Ans. That God is able clearely to rid his children from sinne to preserue them from falling thereinto we denie not but seeing you haue no scripture for this priuiledge that should be bestowed onely vpon Marie to be free from sin but rather the contrary is proued out of scripture That all haue sinned Rom. 3.23 it is too rash and bolde an assertion contrary to the will of God to ascribe any thing to his power He is as able to exempt all from sinning as one vnlesse therefore you can shew some especiall warrant out of Gods word for Maries freedome by your reason all the children of God shall bee freed from sinne as wel as Marie because God is able to doe it The Protestants THat the Virgin Marie was both conceiued in sinne and was also subiect to actuall sinnes in her life as other of the children of God thus out of the scripture we doe declare it 1 How els can the word of God be true that sayth All haue sinned Rom. 3.23 5.12 They will answere that Marie had an especiall priuiledge then let them shew it out of the word of God and we will beleeue otherwise the general conclusion must stand that all haue sinned Againe Marie her self in her song calleth Christ her Sauiour Luk. 1.47 Ergo she was a sinner for how els could she be saued from her sinnes which she had not If they answere as they doe that Christ was her Sauiour onely because hee preserued her from sinne Wee doe thus replie First that a Sauiour in scripture is defined to be he that saueth the people from their sinnes Math. 1.21 not that preserueth onely Secondly if Marie were free from originall sinne as they say she was she needed not a Sauiour to keep her from sinne for she might haue preserued herselfe Arg. 2 Marie dyed Ergo she was a sinner for sinne brought death into the world Rom. 1.5 If she had had no sinne she had not dyed Christ indeede though he were no sinner yet he bare our sinnes and therefore dyed for vs. Christ checked and rebuked his mother Iohn 2.4 Woman what haue I to doe with thee Ergo it seemeth she was not without fault Rhemist answere It was rather a doctrine to others to teach them not to do any thing for respect of kinred against reason then a reprehension to Mary Wee replie But I pray you how could the Apostles learne to beware of that fault if it had beene no fault in Marie How could they be admonished in her if she were not first her selfe admonished And the maner of speech sheweth it was a rebuke Christ saluting her by no other name then if he had spoken to any other woman Argum. 3. The Papists themselues are in a stagger and dare not constantly affirme that Marie was conceiued without sinne but put in this clause as many godly deuout men iudge Rhemist Rom. 5. sect 9. And Bellarmine sayth in maiori parte Ecclesiae piè credi that the greater part of the Church doth so godly beleeue yet he dare not determine vpon it himselfe de cult sanctor lib. 3. cap. 16. But why are they afrayd to holde it as an vndoubted trueth seeing Pope Sixtus hath clearely determined that it was so forbidding the Dominick Friers to preach the contrary and hereupon erected a new holy day of her conception Here then they are driuen to a great straight for either they must abolutely hold that she was not conceiued in sin agaynst the Master of sentences and Thom. Aquinas with other schoolemen or els holde the contrary and so confesse the Pope to haue been in error Augustine sayth beatior Maria percipiendo fidem Christi quà m concipiendo carnem Christi Materna propinquitas nihil Mariae profuisset nisi foeliciùs Christum corde quà m carne gestasset Marie was more happy in perceiuing the fayth of Christ then in conceiuing the flesh of Christ neither had it profited her to be the mother of Christ if she had not more happily borne him in her heart then she did in her wombe But what neede had Marie to beleeue in Christ if she had been pure from her natiuity and had no sinnes to be forgiuen her Augustine yet more playnly sayth Maria ex Adam mortua propter peccatum Adae Adam mortuus est propter peccatum caro domini ex Maria mortua est propter delenda peccata Marie dyed being borne of Adam because of the sinne of Adam Adam dyed because of his owne sinne Christ dyed in the flesh to take away our sinnes Ergo Marie by his sentence was borne in the sinne of Adam THE SECOND PART WHETHER Marie vowed Virginitie before the Annuntiation The Papists error 81 THey would gather and conclude so much out of the answere of Marie to the Angell who told her she should conceaue and beare a sonne How can this be sayth she seeing I know no man That is she plainly declareth she could haue no childe by knowing a man because of her vow for otherwise she needed not haue asked such a question how a woman might haue a sonne promised her if she had maried to haue carnal copulation Rhemist Luk. 1. sect 13. Bellarmin de Monachis cap. 22. Ans. First Ambrose maketh this to be the cause why Marie so answered she had read the prophesie of Esay that a virgin should conceiue bring forth a sonne and therefore knew very wel that this holy childe should be otherwise conceiued then by the knowledge or helpe of man Fulk ibid. Secondly as also the Angel deliuering at once his whole message and shewing what maner of childe it should be euen the Sonne of the most high who should sit on the throne of Dauid and of his kingdome there should be no end that is that the childe should be the Sonne of God she straightwayes conceiued that such a holy seede could not be borne of man and therefore asketh how without man he might be borne Sic Caluin Beza The Protestants THat Marie as she was an entire Virgin before the birth of Christ so that she continued also a Virgin all her life after we doe verily think and condemne their opinion that holde the contrarie but that she vowed or purposed Virginitie before the message of the Angel was brought vnto her it is rashly without scripture nay rather agaynst it affirmed Argum. 1. The text is playne that they had a purpose to consummate their mariage When as Marie was betrothed to Ioseph before they came together Math. 1.18 Ergo there was a meaning to come together if she
QVESTION OF THE NATVRE and definition of a Sacrament WE thus define a Sacrament to be an outward sensible signe representing an holy inward and spirituall grace instituted of Christ to be vsed in that manner he hath appoynted to seale vnto vs the promises of God and to assure vs of the remission of sinnes by the righteousnes of faith in Christ Rom. 4.11 Some things there be in this definition that are agreed vpon betweene vs and our aduersaries as that the Sacraments are outward signes of spirituall and holy graces and that there must be a conueniencie and agreement betweene the signe and the thing signified that not euery thing may be represented by a Sacrament but an holy and spirituall grace that a Sacrament ought to be instituted by a diuine not an humane authoritie Bellar. de Sacram. in gener lib. 1. cap. 9 The seuerall poynts then wherein we dissent from them and which they mislike in this definition are these First concerning the authoritie of instiâ—uting a Sacrament which we affirme to be deriued onely from Christ and manifestly to be proued out of the scriptures Secondly of the forme and manner of celebrating the Sacraments Thirdly of the instrumental or ministerial cause which is the Minister Fourthly of the vse and end of a Sacrament whether it be a scale of the promises of God and instituted for that end THE FIRST PART OF THE EFFICIENT CAVSE that is the author or institutor of a Sacrament The Papists THey doe willingly grant that neither the Apostles then had nor the Church error 87 now hath authoritie to institute Sacraments but that this power is onely in Christ and that the Apostles did but declare and deliuer that which they receiued of Christ yet for the triall of this they refuse to be iudged by the expresse word of God but flie vnto their traditions which they call the word of God not written Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacram. cap. 14. 23. Argum. The sacrament of Baptisme and of the Eucharist were instituted without expresse warrant of scripture for at that time the newe testament was not written when Christ ordained those mysteries Ergo for the other Sacraments we need not the expresse coÌ„mandement of scripture Bellar. lib. 1. cap. 14. Ans. First the traditions of our Sauiour giuen vnto the Apostles concerning those two Sacraments were afterward written by the Apostles and expressely set downe in scripture therefore we doubt not but that they were of Christs institution But your traditions being not committed to writing concerning your other forged sacraments are iustly suspected seeing the Apostles should haue as well been charged with all the sacraments if Christ had instituted theÌ„ as with only two Secondly how then followeth it the word of God was sometime vnwritten therefore it is so still or Christ who was the author of the word written might institute sacraments without expresse scripture Ergo the testimonie of scripture is not necessarie now The Protestants WE hold no sacraments to be of Christs institution but those onely which the scripture testifieth to haue been commanded by Christ as Baptisme Math. 28.19 the Lords Supper Luk. 23.19 The other which haue no testimonie of scripture were not appoynted by Christ. Argum. 1. S. Paul saith That the scriptures are able to make the man of God absolute and perfect to euery good worke 1. Timoth. 3.17 But how can the Minister of God be perfectly furnished and prepared for the worke of the ministerie if he haue not sufficient direction out of the scriptures concerning the sacraments of the Church for how can he absolutely execute euery part of his office if he faile in the right vse of the sacraments Ergo seeing the scriptures are able to make him perfect from thence he receiueth sufficient instruction for the sacraments Argum. 2. Augustine saith Christus sacramentis numero paucissimis obseruatione facilimis c. Christ hath ioyned his people together by the sacrameÌ„ts few in number easie in obseruation such are Baptisme and the partaking of his bodie and blood then it followeth Et si quid aliud in scripturis canonicis commendatur And if any other sacrament be commanded in the canonicall scripture Epistol 118. Ergo we must attend vpon the scripture and written word of God if we will be instructed aright concerning the Sacraments THE SECOND PART OF THE FORME OF A Sacrament and the manner of consecration The Papists THe Sacrament is not consecrated say they by al the words of the institution error 88 but by a certain forme of speech to be vsed ouer the elemeÌ„ts as these words to be said ouer the bread This is my body the like ouer the wine This cup is the new testament c. And in Baptisme these In the name of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost These are the formes of the Sacrament and very words of consecration though spoken in a strange tongue without further inuocation of the name of God or giuing of thankes or without a Sermon which we require as they say as necessarie to the essence of a sacrament Rhemist 1. Corinth 11 sect 11.15 Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacrament cap. 19. Argum. S. Paul sayth The cup of blessing which we blesse 1. Corinth 10.16 The Apostle referreth the benediction or blessing to the cup or Chalice which is nothing els but the consecration thereof Rhemist ibid. Ans. First wee denie not but that to blesse here doth signifie to sanctifie or consecrate but that is not done by a magicall murmuration of words ouer the Sacrament but by the whole action according to Christs institution in distributing receiuing giuing of thankes Secondly as for the words which Christ vttered in the institution we rehearse them not as a magicall charme to be sayd ouer the bread and wine to conuert their substance but to declare what they are made to vs by force of Christs institution namely his bodie and blood The Protestants WE doe not hold that it is an essentiall part of the Sacrament alwayes to haue a sermon before it as they vnderstand a sermon which notwithstanding were most conuenient and alwaies to bee wished but this wee affirme that the Sacrament cannot be rightly ministred vnlesse there be a declaration and shewing forth of the Lords death not only in the visible action of breaking distributing the elements but also in setting forth the end of the Lords death out of the word of God with an exhortation to thankfulnes which is alwaies obserued amongst vs in the dayly celebration and receiuing of the Sacrament Concerning the words of the institution we also grant that they are necessarily to be vsed in the celebration of the Sacrament but not as the Papists vse them For first they make them not all of one value but out of the whole institution picke out certaine consecratorie words as they call them as This is my bodie This is the cup whereas the other words Take ye eate ye drinke ye doe this in remembrance
doe as well belong to the institution as the other Secondly they say that the words of institution doe not serue any thing at all for the instruction of the people to shew them the right vse of the Sacrament but onely for benediction and consecration of the elements Bellarm. cap. 19. Thirdly they doe hold that only by the pronouncing of those words the elements are consecrated whereas by the whole action and cerebration of the Sacrament the giuing receiuing inuocation thankesgiuing according to Christs institution the consecration is performed vpon the elements Fulk 1. Corinth 10. sect 4. Arg. 1. That the words of institution rehearsed do helpe as well to admonish stirre vp the people to a thankful remēbrance of the death of Christ as to consecrate blesse the elemēts it is manifest whereas Christ saith as the words are vsually rehearsed Doe this in remembrance of me and S. Paul saith That by receiuing the sacrament we doe shew forth the Lords death 1. Corinth 11.26 Ergo the people are by the words pronounced instructed and admonished and taught the right vse of the sacrament Argum. 2. that the words of institution doe helpe toward the benediction or consecration of the Elements we deny not but not by them alone but praier also and thankesgiuing and the whole action beside of receiuing To the consecration or sanctifiyng of any creature two things are required the word of God and praier 1. Timoth. 4.5 Neither the word sanctifieth without praier nor praier without the word Ergo to the sanctifiyng cōsecrating of the sacrament the bare rehearsall of the institution sufficeth not without inuocation and praier Augustine saith Accedat verbum ad elementum et fiet Sacramentum Let the word be ioyned to the element and it is become a Sacrament And in an other place he sheweth what word he meaneth Faciente verbo non quia dicitur sed quia creditur hoc est verbum fidei quod praedicamus The word effecteth this not because it is spoken or vttered but because it is beleeued this is the word of faith saith the Apostle which we preach thus farre Augustine tract in Johan 80. Wherefore it is not the muttering of a few words in a strange toung after the manner of enchaunters that by any secret force giuen vnto them hath power to consecrate but the vnderstanding hearing and beleeuing the institution of Christ with calling vpon the name of God and thankesgiuing before him AN APPENDIX OF THIS PART WHETHER THE forme of wordes in the institution of the Sacraments may not be by some addition or other alteration changed The Papists THe words of institution may be changed two manner of wayes either substantially error 89 when the sence is also altered with the words or accidētally whē the elements or syllables are onely changed but the sence remaineth the same If there be a change in the substance of the words the sacrament is imperfect if the alteration be of the forme onely of words and not of the sence the sacramēt is not destroyed but he sinneth that doth so alter them Wherefore it is not lawfull any way at all to alter or change the forme of words Bellarmine cap. 21. li. 1. Argum. It is not lawfull to adde or take to or from the words of scripture much lesse to change the words appointed to be vsed in the Sacrament Bellarm ibid. Ans. To adde or detract to or from the word of God with a purpose and intent to wrest it to a contrary meaning and destroy the true sence thereof cannot be done without great impiety and such is the manner of all heretikes But to alleadge Scripture in keeping still the full sence though we misse of the wordes is not to be counted so heinous a sinne we see the holy Apostles in citing textes of Scripture doe not alwaies binde themselues to the very wordes as Act. 7.43 Heb. 10.5 The Apostle saith A body thou hast giuen me In the Psalme we read Mine eares hast thou opened diuerse wordes yet the same sense Augustine saith very well they that vnderstand the Scripture though they keepe not alwaies the wordes are better then they that read and vnderstand not Sed vtrisque ille melior qui et cum volet ea◠dicit et sicut oportet intelligit But he is better then both that both remembreth the wordes and keepeth the sense too yet he also deserueth praise that beareth the sense in minde though he cannot the words The Protestants NO substantiall change we confesse is to be admitted in the forme of Institution which may alter the sense neither is any particular man by himselfe to make any accidentall change and bring in a new forme of wordes but the publike and vniforme order of the church must be kept yea and the church likewise is bound both to reteyne the true sense and as neere as may be the very words but where occasion serueth to make some small accidentall change of the words the sence being nothing diminished it is not condemned as an vnlawfull and sinfull act Argum. 1. The Euangelists report not all the same forme of words which should be vttered by our Sauiour neither yet S. Paul fully accordeth with them in the precise and strict forme of institution as by comparing of them together it may be seene Mat. 26. ver 27. Take eat this is my body S. Luke cap. 22. This is my body which is giuen for you do this in remembrance of me ver 19. S. Paul Take eat this my body which is broken for you doe this in remēbrāce of me 1. Cor. 11.24 ver 28. This is my blood of the new testament that is shedde for many for the remission of sinnes This cup is the new testamēt in my blood which is shed for you This cup is the newe testament in my bloud this do as oft as you drink it in remēbrance of me If it had beene a sinne to haue missed in some termes and sillables no doubt the spirite of God would not haue suffered these holy writers to haue made the least scape Is it to be thought a sinne in the Church which in stead of Take ye eate ye in the plurall number hath appointed the Sacrament to be ministred particularly in the singular number to euery of the cōmunicants saying Take thou eat thou drinke thou Wherfore all accidentall change of words carieth not with it a guilt of sinne Augustine indeede saith Certa sunt verba euangelica c. The words of the gospell are certaine whereby Baptisme is consecrated But yet he saith else where In ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens aliud virtus manēs In the word spoken the sound which passeth is one thing the vertue or sense of the words which abideth is an other It is then the sence of the words not the sound or sillables that is certaine and permanent THE THIRD PART OF THE INSTRVMENTALL cause of the Sacraments that is the lawfull
Augustine Si Laicus baptismum dederit nulla cogente necessitate alieni muneris vsurpatio est If a Lay man doe baptize where there is no necessitie it is an vsurping of another mans office But there is no such necessitie to cause him so to doe Ergo. THE FIFT QVESTION OF SVCH AS are to be admitted to baptisme Of the Baptisme of Infants part 1. THat infants are to bee baptized it is fully agreed and concluded betweene vs. Which point we doe strongly maintaine by the Scriptures against the Anabaptists of our age But herein we dissent from our aduersaries The Papists error 104 1. THey affirme that the Baptisme of children and infants is grounded vpon tradition and not vpon Scripture Bellarmine lib. 4. de verbo dei cap. 9. The Protestants IT were very hard if we had no more certaine ground for the baptizing of infants then tradition which is but a feeble weapon to fight against heretikes withall we haue manifest proofes out of Scripture for it First they belong vnto the couenant Genes 17. I will bee thy God and the God of thy seede Ergo they haue right to the signe of the couenant Secondly they are called holy which are borne of faithfull parents 1. Cor. 7.14 Ergo are not to be denied Baptisme Thirdly they are redeemed by the blood of Christ who died for all the children of God Iohn 11.52 To them belongeth the kingdome of God Ergo also Baptisme which is a pledge of remission of sinnes and eternall life Fourthly it is also proued by the practise of the Apostles who baptized whole families with all that thereunto belonged Act 16.33 Fiftly Augustine also proueth it out of Scripture by comparing our Baptisme with the circumcision of the Iewes Veraciter coniâ—cere possumus quid valeat in paruulis baptismi sacramentum ex circumcisione carnis quam prior populus accepit How auailable Baptisme is in little ones we may gesse by the circumcision which the former people in the lawe receiued Ergo not onely by tradition but chiefely by Scripture the lawfulnes of childrens Baptisme is confirmed The Papists 2. BAptisme they say giueth grace and faith to the infant that had none before error 105 Rhemist Galath 3. sect 6. This then is their opinion that infants though actually fully they haue not faith as other haue yet there is a certaine habite of faith and hope infused into them in Baptisme so that partly they doe beleeue of themselues and partly by the faith of others namely of them that bring them to Baptisme Bellarm. lib. 1. de baptism cap. 11. Argum. Without faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 Rom. 3.28 We hold that a man is iustified by faith Ergo children if they haue no faith are neither iustified neither yet doe please God Bellarm. Ans. First these places doe as wel proue that children haue an absolute perfit and actuall faith for it is a perfect faith that iustifieth vs and maketh vs acceptable to God which I am sure our aduersaries will not yeeld vnto Secondly the iustification and saluation of children dependeth of the free election of God Rom. 9.11 And that which faith worketh in those that are of vnderstanding the spirit of God is able to effect in infants by some secret way best knowne to himselfe The Protestants THat infants neither haue faith in themselues nor yet are profited or furthered to their saluation by the faith of others it is thus proued Argum. 1. Saint Paul saith Faith commeth by hearing and hearing by the word of God Rom. 10.17 But infants can neither heare nor vnderstand the word of God Ergo no faith is wrought in them Argum. 2. There is no habituall or potentiall faith that pleaseth God but the iustifying faith is alwaies actuall working by loue Galath 5.6 Ergo children haue either no faith or it must needes bee an actuall or working faith Argum. 3. Infants are not iustified nor relieued or helped forward towards their saluation by the faith of their parents or Godfathers when they are baptized for the Scripture saith The iust shall liue by faith Rom. 1.17 that is by his owne faith not the faith of another Augustine denieth that children are illuminate in their mindes when they are baptized Si illuminati essent ipsum baptismum laeti susciperent cui videmus eos cum magnis fletibus reluctari If they were illuminate they would ioyfullie receiue Baptisme which we see them to striue against with great crying And why should the Apostle say Bee yee not children in vnderstanding 1. Corinth 14.20 if so be their mindes were illuminate Wherefore that saying in the Gospell saith hee This is the light that lighteth euerie one that commeth into the world Iohn 1.9 Whereby they would proue that children doe receiue light at their verie first comming into the world is thus to bee vnderstoode Quia nullus hominum illuminatur nisi lumine illo veritatis because no man is lightened but onely by that light What now is become of that lumen fidei the light of faith which you say is infused into children in Baptisme AN APPENDIX OF THE POpish vse in baptizing of Bels. The Papists error 106 THey begin now to be ashamed of the blinde practises of their superstitious and ignorant forefathers for Bellarmine flatly denieth that bels are baptized amongst them but they are onely consecrate and halowed for diuine vses as other Church vessels are lib. 4. de Roman pontific cap. 12. The Protestants IT is a great shame for them to denie so manifest a thing For in the halowing of bels first there were Godfathers chosen secondly they gaue names to the bels thirdly the bels had new garments put vpon them as is accustomed to bee done to Christians in their Baptisme Fourthly the baptizing of bels was onely permitted to the Bishops suffragane whereas their Priests and Deacons did vsually baptize infants all this sheweth that it was not onely a Baptisme which they bestowed vpon bels but in a more principall kinde then common Baptisme was This was one of the greeuances which the Princes of Germanie complained of in the assembly at Noremberge that the suffraganes exacted of the people such great summes of money for the baptizing of bels with what face then can they denie this vngodlie custome of theirs in Christening and baptizing of bels THE SIXT QVESTION OF THE effects and fruites of Baptisme THe partes of this question are these first whether our sinnes are wholly remitted and cleane taken away in Baptisme Secondly whether Baptisme serueth onely for the remission of sinnes that are past Thirdly of the liberties and priuiledges which are obtained by Baptisme which partes are now seuerally to be handled THE FIRST PART WHETHER IN BAPtisme our sinnes be cleane taken away The Papists THe sinnes which are past they affirme not onely by the grace of Christ error 107 receiued in Baptisme to be forgiuen and pardoned and no more imputed but euen wholly to be rased
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
Masse is not of that nature for it is made by the ministerie of man for euery one of their sacrificing Priests is able to make the bodie of Christ but this bodie which Christ had to offer was made onely by God without the helpe of man as the Apostle saith Againe say if you dare that the bodie which you offer is the true Tabernacle and temple of God for then it would followe that God dwelleth in temples made with hands that is by the ministerie of man contrarie to the Scriptures seeing you affirme that the bodie of Christ is no otherwise present but by the ministerie of the Priest And what a goodly Tabernacle is this for God thinke you which you shut vp in a pixe and hang vp in your Churches A mouse may eate it the fire may consume it corruption may take it would God suffer his Tabernacle thus to be defiled Wherefore vpon these premises we conclude that what you offer in your popish sacrifice cannot be the proper gift belonging to Christes Priesthoode Argum. 3. The Apostle saith Hebr. 13.10 Wee haue an altar whereof they haue no power to eate which serue in the Tabernacle Ergo we haue not onely a common table to eate meere bread vpon but a verie altar in the proper sense to sacrifice Christs bodie vpon Rhemist annot Hebr. 13. sect 6. Ans. First the Apostle speaketh of the sacrifice of Christs death whereof we are made partakers by faith which they can reape no benefite by which remaine in the ceremoniall obseruations of Leuiticall sacrifices Christ therefore is our Priest altar and sacrifice for verse 12. the Apostle maketh mention of the suffrings of Christ he meaneth not then the Communion table which is vnproperly called an altar or any materiall altar beside but the altar onely of Christs death Secondly if wheresoeuer in Scripture this worde altar is read it must be taken for a proper materiall altar we shall haue also a material altar in heauen Apoc. 8.3 which I am sure they wil not grant Thirdly the Apostle saith We haue an altar which is but one whereas popish altars are many it cannot therefore be vnderstoode of such altars The Protestants THat there are spirituall sacrifices remaining yet vnto Christians in the exercise of religion we doe verily beleeue being so taught by the Scriptures such are the sacrifices of praise and thankesgiuing Heb. 13.15 The sacrifice of almes and distribution verse 16. the mortifying also of the flesh is a kinde of crucifying and so a spirituall sacrifice Galat. 6.14 And in this sense wee denie not but that the Sacrament may be called a sacrifice that is a spirituall oblation of praise and thankesgiuing but that there is a proper and externall sacrifice as in the lawe of Goates and Bullocks vpon the crosse of the bodie of Christ so in the Eucharist of the same bodie and flesh of Christ we doe hold it for a great blasphemie and heresie Argum. 1. The very flesh and true naturall bodie of Christ is not as wee haue shewed before at large in such carnall and corporall manner present in the Sacrament therefore it cannot in the Sacrament be sacrificed and offered vp Argum. 2. This sacrificing of the bodie and blood of Christ is contrarie to Christs institution for he saith onely Take yee eate yee drinke yee he saith not Sacrifice yee or lift vp and make an oblation of my bodie Neither doe those wordes hoc facite doe this giue them any power to sacrifice for to whome he saith Eate yee drinke yee to the same also he saith Doe yee Wherefore if doe yee be as much as sacrifice yee all Christians for whome it is lawfull to eate and drinke the Sacrament by this rule haue authoritie to sacrifice Againe the words are Doe this in remembrance We remember things absent and which are alreadie done and past if then there be a present sacrifice in the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ it cannot properly be said to be a memorie of his sacrifice Argum. 3. The Apostle saith that Christ neede not to offer himselfe often but that he hath done once in the end of the world Heb. 9.26 And with one offering hath hee made perfite for euer them that are sanctified 10.14 Ergo Christ cannot be sacrificed againe for that were to make his sacrifice vpon the crosse imperfect Bellarmine answereth that the Apostle here speaketh of the bloodie and painefull sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse which was sufficient once to bee done but this taketh not away the vnbloodie sacrifice which is but an iteration of the former whereby the fruite and efficacie of that first oblation is applied vnto vs Bellarm. lib. 1. de miss cap. 25. Ans. First the Apostle excludeth all manner iterations of the sacrifice of Christ for otherwise if Christ should now bee often howsoeuer sacrificed the difference would not hold betweene the sacrifices of the lawe which were often done and the sacrifice of Christ which was once to be performed for their sacrifices were also in a manner iterations and commemorations of the sacrifice of Christ. The Apostle then thus reasoneth They had many iteratiue and commemoratiue sacrifices of Christs death Ergo we haue not now Secondly that is but a foolish and false distinction of the bloodie and vnbloodie sacrifice as they vnderstand it for there can be no proper vnbloodie sacrifice of Christ neither could he be offered vp otherwise then by dying Heb. 9.27.28 Therefore he is not offered vp in the Sacrament because now he dyeth not Thirdly neither neede wee inuent a new kinde of sacrifice for the application of Christs death for to that end Christ hath appointed the preaching of the word and instituted the Sacraments wherby the death of Christ with al the benefites thereof are most fruitefully applied vnto vs Galath 3.1 1. Corinth 11.26 Argum. 4. Augustine in a certaine place allegorizing the parable of the prodigall child thus writeth Vitulum occidit quando in sacramento altario memoriam passionis in mente renouauit He slew the fat calfe when hee renewed in the Sacrament of the altar the memorie of his passion in his minde Hee calleth it the Sacrament not the sacrifice of the altar and it onely bringeth to our minde the memorie of Christs passion and sacrifice there is then no oblation or sacrifice in the Sacrament but onely a commemoration of Christs sacrifice which we denie not AN APPENDIX OR THIRD PART OF the name and office of Priestes The Papists AS they doe falsely teach and perswade that there is yet remaining a proper error 129 externall sacrifice for Christians vnder the Gospell so also they maintaine a sacrificing Priesthoode And further they say that the Leuiticall Priesthoode was not translated into the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse but is properly turned into the Priesthoode and sacrifice in the Church according to Melchisedechs rite in offering vp the bodie and blood of Christ in the formes of bread and wine Rhemist
whose merites and praiers namely of the Saints grant we may be defended Thus the merites and praiers of Christ are excluded 4. We beseech thee saith the Priest to receiue this oblation which we beseech thee in all things to make blessed Heere the Priest is made a mediator betweene Christ and his Father desiring God to sanctifie the body blood of his sonne 5. Who the next day afore he suffered But the Scripture saith The same night For this is my body Heere they haue put in enim of their owne and left out quod pro vobis datur Such is their boldenes that they are not ashamed to change the words of our Sauiour Christ. 6. He saith further The holy bread of eternall life which vouchsafe thou with a pleasant countenaunce to beholde The bread of eternall life is Christ himselfe if this be he how dare ye presume to offer him vp to his Father 7. As thou didst vouchsafe to accept the righteous giftes of Abel and the sacrifice of Abraham Heere the sacrifice of Christ is compared to the sacrifice of beastes and the Priest seemeth to attribute as much efficacie to the one as to the other 8. And the holy sacrifice which thy high Priest Melchisedech did offer vnto thee This is a plaine vntruth and a flat lie as we haue shewed alredy that Melchisedech sacrificed bread and wine 9. Command thou these to be brought by the hands of thy holy Angell vnto the high altar in heauen What an absurd thing is this that he should desire that to be carried into heauen which he eateth and deuoureth And if this be the body of Christ what need the help of an Angell to carry it vp to heauen is not Christ able to lift vp his own body or what need that to be conueied to heauen which was neuer from thence 10. As many of vs as shall receiue thy Sonnes body and blood And yet for the most part none receiue but the Priest and when the people doe communicate the wine they haue not how then can he say As many 11. Remember O Lord the soules of thy seruants which rest in the sleepe of peace and graunt them a place of refreshing and rest Heere is an other error contrary to the Scriptures in praying for the dead and the praier also is contrary to it selfe for first he saith they rest in peace and yet afterward praieth for their refreshing 12. Vouchsafe to giue some portion with thy Saints And why doth he not rather pray to be admitted to the fellowship of Christ 13. Deliuer vs by the blessed intercession of the Virgine What then is become of Christs mediation and intercession 14. Let this mingling together of the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ be vnto me saluation of minde and body Then is not Christs blood shed vpon the Crosse the full sufficient and perfect saluation of mankinde if there be an other saluation beside 15. Grant me so worthily to take this holy body and blood that I may merite to receiue forgiuenes of sinnes O sinfull man how canst thou merite that which is Christs onely gift 16. Let the priest bow himselfe to the host saying I worship thee I glorifie thee I praise thee What monstrous Idolatry is this thus to worship a piece of bread 17. Let this communion purge vs from sinne If they meane the principall purging of our sinne so doth Christ onely purge vs Heb. 1.3 If they vnderstand the instrumental meanes of our purgation so are we purged and iustified onely by faith Rom. 3.28 18. Respect not my sinnes but the faith of thy Church By this reason one may be profited by an others faith which is contrary to the Scriptures the Iust shal liue by faith his owne and not an others 19. Let vs worship the signe of the Crosse What I pray you wil not these Idolaters worship 20. Let this sacrifice which J haue offered auaile to obtaine remission of sinnes If the Masse be auaileable for this end wherefore then died Christ Thus we see with how many and what great and horrible blasphemies this popish nay rather diuelish canon of the Masse is stuffed indeede it is an epitome and abridgement of Papistrie the marrow sinewes and bones of their idolatrous profession yea the very darling of the popish Church it is the very proper badge and marke of a papist He that hateth the Masse hateth the whore of Babylon he that loueth the Masse cannot loue the truth If then I should be demaunded at once which of all popish blasphemies and heresies I thinke most abominable contrary to the faith and to be abhorred of all good christians though I know that there are many of this kinde yet I would redily answere the Masse the inuention whereof I am wel assured cannot be ascribed but to the deuil himselfe the author of all lies and blasphemies I conclude therefore with that saying of Gregorie as he said concerning the word Antichristus so may I in as good sense of this word Missa as it is now vnderstoode of Papists Si spectes quantitatem vocis duae sunt syllabae si pondus iniquitatis est vniuersa pernicies If you marke the quantitie of the word it standeth but of two syllables but if we respect the waight of iniquitie it containeth all impietie and vngodlines Soli Deo immortali Patri Filio cum Spiritu sancto sit honor et imperium sempiternum THE THIRD BOOKE OR CENTVRIE CONTAINING A THIRD HVNDRED OF POPISH ERRORS AND HERESIES ABOVT the controuersies of the fiue Popish Sacraments and of the benefites of our redemption and concerning the person of Christ CONSISTING OF SEVEN SEVERAL CONTROVERSIES THE 14 15.16 17 18 19 20. in number Jmprinted at London by Thomas Orwin for Thomas Man 1592. To the right honorable Sir Robert Cicil Knight one of her Maiesties most honorable priuie Councell BOth that general loue right honorable which the Church of God doth beare to your worthie and honorable Father for his sincere and sound affection to religion and the dutifull reuerence which our vniuersitie of Cambridge and generally the whole company of Students doth owe vnto him as their singular good Patrone haue moued and caused me at this time to cōmend this last part of this worke to your Honor his sonne of whose loue also vnto the Gospell following your Fathers steppes we are all perswaded and conceiue no lesse hope of your honourable fauour to learning I haue as your Honor seeth vndertaken an hard peece of worke and thrust my shoulders vnder an heauy burthen for in this worke I haue taken vpon me to discouer and lay open all popish Heresies and Errors to portraite and decipher the whole body of papistrie to spread abroad the whore of Babylons skirtes that her filthines may appeare to vncouer her whorish face which masked vnder the visour of the Church and religion for we may say to them as Leo Bishop of Rome did sometime to certaine Heretikes Ecclesiae
Confirmation And thus they preferre their owne inuentions before the ordinance of God no Sacrament before a Sacrament Augustine sheweth what the Sacrament of Vnction is Vnctionis sacramentum est virtus ipsa inuisibilis vnctio inuisibilis spiritus sanctus The sacrament of vnction is the inuisible vertue the inuisible anointing the holy spirite What is become now of your sacrament of vnction THE FOVRTH PART OF THE RITES and ceremonies of Confirmation The Papistes THe ceremonies which they commonly vse in Confirmation are these First error 47 the Bishop must breathe vpon the pot or cruze of Chrisme Seōcdly he saluteth it in these words Aue sanctum Chrisma Haile holy Chrisme Thirdly he giueth a kisse Fourthly he striketh him that is cōfirmed with his hand to teach him patience Fiftly his forehead is bound about least the Chrisme should run downe which teacheth him not to lose the grace of God Sixtly seuen daies together he must neither wash his head nor face And these with such like ridiculous toyes are practised amongst them Bellarm. cap. 13. lib. de confirmat The Protestants 1. SOme of these ceremonies we condemne as ridiculous as the breathing vpon the oyle the striking of the party confirmed which light gestures become not the grauity of the Ministers of the Gospell all things should be done in the Church in decent and comely order 1. Cor. 14.40 Secondly one of them is meerely Idolatrous to salute the oyle as the Angel saluted Mary to say Aue All haile vnto it making an Idoll of it being a thing without sense or life Thirdly all of them are superstitious hauing mysticall and typicall significations and shadowes which agreeth not with the nature of the Gospel for all shadows are now past the body being come Col. 2.17 Lastly they are superfluous cumbersome and burdenous as Augustine saith Ipsam religionem quam Deus paucissimis sacramentis liberam esse voluit onerib premunt They oppresse religion with the burden of ceremonies which God hath left free in few sacramēts Againe who seeth not how thus by their own traditions they doe euacuate the ordinance of God for in stead of catechizing and instructing of the youth in the principles and foundation of religion as of repentance from dead workes faith toward God of the resurrection and eternall iudgement Hebre. 6.2.3 they haue brought in nothing else but oyling greazing annointing of them breathing vpon them crossing and such like and whereas S. Paul giueth Parents a charge to bring vp their Children in the instruction of God Ephes. 6.4 They bid them bring their Children to be anointed crossed chrismated as they call it and they haue done enough THE SECOND QVESTION of Orders THe seuerall partes of this question are these First whether it be a Sacramēt Secondly of the efficacie and vertue thereof Thirdly of the ceremonies THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE receiuing of orders be a Sacrament The Papists THat holy Orders are a sacrament rightly and properly so called it was decreed in the Tridentine Councell sess 23. canon 3. And that not onely the error 48 three higher degrees of Priesthood Deaconship subdeaconship but the foure inferiour orders of Exorcistae Acoluthi Lectores Ostiarij doe belong vnto the same sacrament of Orders and are sacraments as well as the other Bellarm cap. 8. lib. de sacram ordinis Argum. 1. Timoth. 4.14 Despise not that gift which was giuen thee through prophesie with the laying on of hands Holy orders giue grace by an externall ceremonie and worke Ergo it is a Sacrament Rhemist in hunc locum Ans. 1. It cannot be proued out of this place that imposition of hands giueth grace for this was an extraordinary gift which S. Paul speaketh of and doth not alwaies follow imposition of hands Secondly this gift was not giuen by the very ceremony of imposition of hands but through prophesie and reuelation of the holy Ghost for it was reuealed vnto the Church by the spirite of prophecie that Timothie was a chosen vessell of God therefore S. Paul saith That worthie thing which is committed vnto thee keepe through the holy Ghost 2. Tim. 1.14 The holy ghost was both the conferrer of that grace and the preseruer of it Imposition thē of hands was but an outward signe of the presence of Gods spirit vpon those that were lawfully ordeined for al vpon whom hands were laid receiued not the holy ghost but such only as were appointed of God And therefore the Apostle chargeth Timothie to lay hands sodenly on no man 1. Timoth. 5.22 which caueat was not needfull if vpon whomsoeuer he had laid his hands they should immediately receiue the holy Ghost The Protestants YOur seuen popish orders we do not at all receiue into the church much lesse can we abide that they should be sacraments The lawfull ordeining of Pastors teachers and Deacons we doe acknowledge but no sacrificing Priesthoode nor no ministring Deaconship at the Altar such orders as we haue notwithstanding we doe not take to be Sacraments much lesse yours that are vtterly to be abolished Argum. 1. Sacraments must haue their institution from Christ so haue not your orders for Christ instituted onely Apostles and Disciples Presbyters and Deacons were founded by the Apostles who notwithstāding had no commission to constitute new Sacraments As for the other fiue orders of Subdeacons Readers Acoluthi Exorcistes doore keepers they are neither read in Scripture nor ordeined of the Apostles nor heard of for many yeeres after Secondly your Sacrament hath neither outward element nor word of institution if you say laying on of hands is the externall signe we answere that the visible signe in a Sacrament must not onely be an externall action but a materiall element as water in Baptisme and bread and wine in the Lords Supper The forme you say is in these wordes pronounced by the Bishop Accipite potestatem offerendi sacrificium Receiue ye power to offer sacrifice Bellarm. ca. 9. We answere againe that this sacrificing office hath no foundation in Scripture the Ministers of the Gospell are called dispensers of Gods Mysteries namely of the word and Sacraments 1. Corinth 4.1 Ministers for Christ not sacrificers of Christ wherefore neither haue ye any word of institution and consequently no Sacrament And I pray you tell me if you will make euery one of your orders a Sacrament then must you needes haue as many Sacraments as there are orders and so shall you haue sixe Sacraments more then you thought for you doe distinguish all the orders in office and forme of consecration one from another and therefore they cannot all make one Sacrament Augustine saith Christus Sacramentis numer◠paucissimis societatem populi colligauit Christ hath ioyned together his people with most fewe Sacraments and then he nameth Baptisme and the Communion Et si quid aliud in Scripturis canonicis commendatur and if any other be commended in Scripture Ergo there is no Sacrament of orders because it is not found in
would haue promised health by calling for the Elders if the gift had not beene generall in euery congregation Ans. 2. Neither is remission of sinnes annexed to the element but to the generall doctrine of prayer made in fayth The prayer of fayth saith the Apostle shall heale the sicke The Protestants EXtreme Vnction is no conuenient ceremonie at all to be vsed in the Church as tending to superstition and breeding a vayne confidence in terrene elements much lesse is it to be holden for a sacrament Argum. 1. It hath no institution from Christ For they themselues confesse that Mark 6.13 there is but a preparatiue to the sacrament of extreme Vnction Rhemist the promulgation and publishing thereof is set forth by the Apostle Iam. 5. But this is not to be admitted that Christ was a preparer of sacraments onely and that they were perfited and finished by his Apostles Nay they were not to adde any thing to the institution of sacraments but to take them as Christ deliuered them 1. Cor. 11.23 Agayne the place in Iames maketh nothing for their popish aneeling for the Apostle would haue al the Elders called but one priest is sufficient to bring your oyntment box Secondly if any man be sick sayth Saint Iames though it be not deadly or mortall sicknes but whensoeuer he is sicke But your Vnction is neuer ministred before the poynt of death Thirdly here health is certainely promised But not one amongst tenne recouereth after your popish aneeling Argum. 2. Christ vsed sometime clay and spittle sometime other elements in healing the diseased as the Apostles vsed oyle why I pray you then may not they be sacraments as well as this For they were signes of healing but for a time no more was the anoynting with oyle Augustine sayth De latere Christi in cruce sacramenta ecclesiae profluxerunt The sacraments of the Church issued out of Christs side vpon the Crosse There gushed out â—â—is side water and blood but wee reade not that any oyle was shedde from 〈◊〉 therefore by Augustines argument Vnction is no sacrament THE SECOND PART OF THE effect and vertue of extreme Vnction The Papists error 53 FIrst it giueth health of body Secondly it wipeth away the reliques of sinne And therefore the priest thus sayth Per istam sanctam Vnctionem suam pijssimam misericordiam indulgeat tibi Deus quicquid deliquisti per visum c. By the vertue of this holy oyntment and the most merciful fauour of God the Lord forgiue thee what thou hast offended by thy sight hearing c. Bellarm. cap. 7.8 The Protestants 1 YOur popish aneeling is not able to heale the bodie as wee see by daylie experience for more die then liue after your anoynting And they that doe recouer should doe as well without your aneeling Wherefore this anoynting of oyle is not like to that vsed by the Apostles for then health certainly followed Iam. 5.14 2 It is also a great blasphemie to ascribe remission of sinnes to a terrene and beggerly element The Apostle saith not the oyle but the Prayer of fayth shall saue the sicke The scripture also testifieth that the Iust shall liue by fayth Rom. 1.17 And we walke by faith not by sight 2. Corinth 5.7 But he that ascribeth remission of sinnes to oyle or any other externall element walketh by sight not by fayth THE THIRD PART OF THE MINISTER of extreme Vnction and the ceremonies The Papists FIrst they giue power only vnto their anoynted Masse priests to aneele the sicke with oyle Lay men haue no authoritie to doe it nor whosoeuer are error 54 no Priests Concil Trident. sess 14. can 4. Secondly for the rite and ceremonie the Priest comming to the sicke must anoynt his fiue senses his eyes eares nostrels mouth and hands also the reines which is the seate of concupiscence and his feete which are the instruments of execution Bellarmin cap. 10. The Protestants 1 THis anoynting which Saint Iames speaketh of was done by the whole company of Elders in euery congregation which were not all the Pastors of the Church Yea and it appeareth by their own Canons Innocent 1. Epist. 1. cap. 8. that it was lawfull for lay men and all Christians to vse this anoynting see Fulk annot Iam. 5. sect 5. 2 What neede the body be anoynted in so many places It is meere superstition of the like minde was Peter sometime when he sayd to Christ who would wash his feete Lord not my feete onely but my hands and my head To whom Christ answered He that is washed neede not saue to wash his feete but is cleane all Iohn 13.9 Where although the words of Christ haue a spirituall meaning yet we see the euident and playne practise of them in Baptisme In the which sacrament we doubt not but that infants are thorougly baptized though euery part be not touched with water And euen so if your aneeling were a sacrament why might it not suffice in some one part of the bodie to be anoynted and not in so many This we are sure of that nowe you speake without booke For the Apostle maketh no mention of anoynting eyes hands or mouth but onely generally of anoynting the sick And thus it appeareth that your extreme Vnction is no sacrament nor any of the other foure which you haue inuented THE CONCLVSION OF THIS treatise concerning the sacrament THus I trust we haue made it pliane by scripture and euidence of argument that there are but two sacraments onely Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord left and enioyned to the people of God by our Sauiour Christ for foure things are required to make a sacrament First the authority of Christ in commanding it Secondly the element or external signe as the matter Thirdly the word of institution as the forme Fourthly the end and vse to be a seale of our fayth for remission of sinnes 1 Concerning the efficient cause we finde that two sacraments onely in the new testament are commanded by Christ to be vsed for euer in the Church Baptisme and the Lords Supper which both by his owne example and presence as also his precept and commandement were established 2 There must be an outward visible elementall signe as is water in Baptisme bread and wine in the Lords Supper But so is there not in the fiue popish sacrameÌ„ts For in some there is no signe at all as in Matrimonie where they are driuen to say that the parties that are maried are the signes In some there is a signe but not visible as in absolution the audible voyce of the priest ponouncing the words of absolution is they say the outward signe But in all the sacraments of Christs institution we finde a visible signe In some there is an outward signe but it is an action or gesture only no material element which is not sufficient so is the imposition of hands in giuing of Orders In some there is a materiall signe as Chrisme in Confirmation oyle in extreme Vnction
WOrkes done before iustification though they suffice not to saluation error 93 yet be acceptable preparatiues to the grace of iustification and such as moue God to mercie As were the almes deedes and prayer in Cornelius Act. 10. sect 5. Rhemist The Protestants Ans. COrnelius prayers and almes were not without fayth as Augustine confesseth Non sine aliqua fide donabat orabat He did not giue almes pray without some fayth And he proueth it by that saying of the Apostle Rom. 10.14 How shall they call on him in whom they haue not beleeued Seeing then Cornelius had fayth his iustification also was begun for so soone as fayth commeth it iustifieth These were not then workes preparatiue to fayth and iustification but the fruites of his fayth and iustification begun Argum. Before fayth come there can be no workes of preparation acceptable to God because Without fayth it is impossible to please God Hebr. 11.6 Augustine also sayth Ea ipsa opera ante fidem quae videntur hominibus laudabilia inania sunt those very workes which seeme to be commendable before fayth are altogether vaine and vnprofitable If they be vaine they are no preparations to fayth THE SECOND PART OF THE two kindes of iustification The Papists error 94 THere is a first iustification which is meerely of grace without workes as when an Infidel is made iust who had no acceptable workes before to be iustified by The second iustification is that wherein hee that is in Gods grace daylie proceedeth in by good workes Rhemist Rom. 2.3 This iustification and sanctification are all one Concil Trident. sess 6. cap. 7. And it is augmented and increased by the merite of worke sess 6. can 24. Argum. Of the first iustification S. Paul speaketh where he saith We are iustified by fayth without workes Rom 3.28 Of the second Saint Iames intreateth A man is iustified by workes and not of fayth onely 2.24 Rhemist Ans. This your deuice of first and second iustification is but a new deuice not yet 60. yeare olde your second iustification is nothing els but the effect fruits of iustification before God and a declaration that wee are iust before men Saint Paul and Saint Iames do speake of one and the same iustification by faith But they take the word diuersly for Saint Iames by iustifiyng meaneth nothing els but a testifiyng or declaration of our iustification before men And in this sense is the word taken Math. 11.19 Wisdome is iustified of her children that is declared to be iust The Protestants FIrst iustification and sanctification are two diuers things We are iustified by fayth onely by the imputation of the righteousnes of Christ Roman 4.7 We are sanctified when by fayth working by loue we walke in newnes of life These two are perpetually distinguished in the scriptures I meane iustification and sanctification 1. Corinth 1.30 6.11 and Galath 5.25 If wee liue in the spirite let vs walke in the spirite Our iustification is the liuing in the spirit our sanctification the walking in the spirite Secondly our workes can be no cause of the increase of our iustification and the grace of God in vs But both our iustification and sanctification are the free gifts of God For what hast thou that thou hast not receiued 1. Corint 4.7 This was the olde Pelagian heresie that the grace of God is giuen according to our workes confuted by Augustine Epistol 106. Gratia iam non erit gratia quia secundum merita datur nam merces fidei auctae erit merces coeptae Thus grace shal be no grace for it is giuen according to merite for the increase of fayth or iustice is made the hyre or wages of fayth that is begun Thirdly the scripture speaketh but of one iustification which glorification followeth Rom. 8.30 Whom he iustified them also hee glorified vnles you will haue another iustification to come after our glorificatiō Likewise Rom. 4. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen ver 7. The iustification in remission of sinnes doth make a man blessed Ergo it is the onely sufficient iustification And Augustine accordingly sayth Donando delicta fecit se debitorem coronae by forgiuing our sinnes he hath made himselfe a debtor for the crowne or reward We see heauen is promised at the first remission of our sinnes what neede then any other iustification Wherefore it is a false and blasphemous decree in the Councel of Trent that wee are not iustified onely by remission of our sinnes sess 6. can 11. THE THIRD PART OF inherent iustice The Papists THey teach that men are not iustified by the onely imputation of the righteousnes error 95 of Christ Trid. Concil sess 6. can 11. Neither that wee are formally made iust by the righteousnes of Christ can 10. but by iustice inherent in vs whereby we are not onely reputed and accounted iust but are truely called iust and are so indeede sess 6. cap. 7. Rhemist Rom. cap. 2. sect 4. Argum. Rom. 2.13 Not the hearers of the law but the doers are iustified Ergo we are iustified by an inherent iustice Rhemist Ans. 1. Saint Paul speaketh of the iustification of the law and proueth by this argument that none could be iustified by the law because none were able to doe it And without performing of the law there was no iustification by the law what is this to the iustification of fayth 2. But if we will vnderstand it of the true iustification of Christians it must so be taken as August saith Non vt factorib iustificatio accedat sed factores legis iustificatio praecedat not that iustification doth come to the doers but that it goeth before the doers of the law The Protestants WE acknowledge an inherent iustice in all faithful men beleeuers but it is imperfect not able to iustifie them before God it is no other then sanctification which is a fruit of iustification But that iustice whereby we are iust before God not falsely accounted but made truly iust by God is by the righteousnes of Christ onely which we apprehend by fayth Argum. That iustice whereby we haue peace with God is the only iustice whereby we are iustified before God for vntil we are cleared and made iust before God it is impossible to haue peace with him But this is onely the iustice of faith Rom. 5.1 Ergo by this iustice onely are we iust before God August hath a good speech Si dixerimus quod nihil iustitiae habemus aduersum Dei dona mētimur si enim iustitiae nihil habemus nec fidem habemus si autem fidem habemus iam aliquid habemus iustitiae If we say we haue no iustice at all in vs we do belye the good gifts of God for if we haue no iustice we haue no faith But if we haue faith then haue we some iustice in vs. Here Augustine acknowledgeth no inherent iustice but onely the iustice of fayth THE FOVRTH PART OF
was the duetie of Angels to worship him Ergo hee merited not his glorification by his death which was due vnto him euen at his first incarnation Argum. 3. If Christ merited his owne glorification then hee also merited the hypostaticall vnion that his manhood should bee ioyned to his Godhead in vnitie of person for his glory maiestie and power giuen to his manhood doth issue and arise from the vniting of his Godhead therewith in one person but his humanity deserued not to be vnited to the Godhead Nemo tam caecus est sayth Augustine No man is so blind that he dare say that Christ by his well liuing merited to be called the Sonne of God And hee prooueth it out of the first of Luk. vers 35. Therefore shall that holy thing bee called the Sonne of God not for any workes going before but because the holy Ghost came vpon her Wherefore the diuine glorie which Christ hath was not merited but his owne it was from the beginning which glory the humane nature in Christ is made partaker of not for any merite but because it is vnited to the Godhead in the same person through the abundant and vnspeakable grace and loue of God vnto mankinde which of his free grace rather tooke vnto himselfe the nature of men then of Angels Wherefore Christ by his perfect obedience and blessed sacrifice hath merited abundantly for vs remission of sinnes and eternall life but by his merites he hath gayned nothing for himselfe neither had he any respect to the bettering of his own estate in his sufferings but onely to pay a raunsome for vs. THE TWENTIETH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE COMMING OF CHRIST TO iudgement which appertaineth to his whole person as he is both God and man THis controuersie hath two partes First concerning the signes which must come to passe before his appearing Secondly of the time and maner of his appearing The first part contayneth three questions Frst whether the Gospell bee already preached to the whole world Secondly whether Henoch and Elias shall come in the flesh before the day of iudgement Thirdly of the great persecutions toward the end of the world THE FIRST QVESTION WHETHER the Gospel be already preached thorough the worlde The Papists error 106 THey denie that the Gospell hath beene already published to all nations of the worlde for there are many great countries which neuer heard of the Gospell as they affirme But before the comming of Christ to iudgement they say it shal be preached to the whole world Bellar. de Roman pâ—ntif lib. 3. cap. 4. Argum. 1. Math. 24.14 Christ sayth This Gospell of the kingdome shall be preached thorough the whole worlde for a witnes vnto all nations then shall the end come The end of the world shall immediately follow the generall preaching of the Gospell which if it hath been performed it is most like to haue been done in the Apostles time then the world should haue ended long agoe Bellarm. ibid. Ans. This word Then doth not alwaies in the scripture signifie a certaine and definite time presently to follow as Math. 9.1 Then he entred into a ship and so forth Luke also setteth foorth the same storie cap. 5.18 Then brought they a man lying in a bed But in saying Then they haue not relation to the same time for they keepe not the same order in rehearsing the storie Matthew setteth downe one thing that was immediatly done by our Sauiour Christ before and Luke another And so is the word Then vsed in other places not to describe a consequence of time with relation to that which went before but absolutely without any such respect to name the time present only wherein any thing is done So tunc then signifieth as much as in illo tempore in that time not which shall immediately follow vpon the generall publishing of the Gospel but which God hath appoynted We must also consider who it is that sayth Then namely God himselfe with whom a thousand yeares is as one day and one day as a thousand yeares Christ Then may come many hundred yeares after and yet it shall be true that then shall the end be But we rather take the first sense that Then is here taken indefinitely as it is thorough the whole chapter as vers 21. Then shall be great tribulation which cannot haue relation to that which he spake of before for then it must be vnderstoode of the destruction of Ierusalem but our Sauiour meaneth by Then the time towards the ende of the world as vers 29. Immediately after the tribulation of those dayes the Sunne shal be darkened Then shall the signe of the Sonne of man appeare Argum. 2. We see the Gospel hath been preached in great countreyes of late which neuer heard the Gospel afore as it is thought Rhemist Math. 24. sect 4. Ans. 1. They speake doubtfully they cannot tell as it is thought say they 2. They meane the preaching of their Friers in those newe found countreyes which was not the preaching of the Gospel but of vile superstition not to conuert the people to God but to robbe and spoyle them and make a pray of them killing slaying them without al mercy reade Benzo in historia noui orbis 3. We deny not but that the Gospell may be reuiued and renued in many countreyes where notwithstanding it was planted many yeares afore As this countrie of ours in ancient time called Britanie was first instructed in the faith by the preaching of Ioseph of Arimathea as Gildas saith or as Nicephorus saith by SimoÌ„ Zelotes yet after that the foundation of the faith thus begun it was confirmed afterward in king Lucius daies by the preaching of Fagane Damiane which at Lucius request were sent into the land from Eleutherius B. of Rome and so may it come to passe in other countreyes a second preaching therefore taketh not away the former but confirmeth and reuiueth it The Protestants THat the Gospell was by the Apostles preached to all the knowen and inhabited nations of the worlde we cannot but affirme being so taught by the scriptures Argum. 1. Our Sauiour saith to his Apostles Ye shal be my witnesses to the vttermost partes of the earth Act. 1.8 which is spoken to the persons of the Apostles not in them to all Pastors and preachers as some expound it for in the same vers there is mention made of the comming of the holy Ghost and howe first they should begin to witnesse at Ierusalem which things were indeede so accomplished in the Apostles Saint Paul also Rom. 10.18 expoundeth that place of the Psalme Their sound is gone forth into all the worlde of the Apostles Agayne seeing the Apostolicall calling and gift is now ceased neither are we to looke that men should be immediatly called from heauen and the preaching of the Gospell to all nations is an Apostolicall worke for the which the Apostles also receiued the gifts of tongues seeing now we haue neither Apostolike
come after him which should preach the same fayth that hee had taught and should conuert many from their errors And many such examples wee haue of holy martyrs and worthy Prophets But we hereby doe not proue our Church Yet this I hope hath not been out of the way to haue aunswered a little to our aduersaries vaine and vntrue bragges Hitherto we haue touched the principall notes and markes whereby the Papists doe decipher out their Church vnto vs Now it followeth that we declare the right and certaine signes of the true Church Of the true and infallible Notes of the Church of Christ. THe outward tokens whereby the true visible Church is discerned are not many in number as our aduersaries doe reckon vp many the Iesuite no lesse than 15. supplying belike in number that which they want in waight Neither in this place doe we speake of the vniuersal Catholike inuisible Church which is beleeued and not seen being an article of our faith but of particular visible Churches which are discerned and knowen by these two essentiall markes the true preaching of the word and right vse of the sacraments Some also doe adde a third namely ecclesiasticall discipline Beza confess de eccles art 7. Hooper vpon the Creede articul 72. But this partly is comprehended in the 2. former for there cannot be hearing preaching of the worde the frequenting of the sacraments vnlesse there bee an exercise of Church discipline partly also we say that it is not so essential a note as the other are for the absence of the other make a nullity of the Church If the word or sacramēts in substance be corrupted the Church also is defaced but if there be not an exact forme of discipline it doth not straightway cease to be a Church Wherfore we conclude that the true preaching of the word and right vse of the sacraments are the only necessary and essentiall notes of the Church Where these two are rightly vsed according to Gods worde there is a right Church as here in England God be blessed Where they are falsely and impurely handled there is a false and corrupt Church as among the Papists where they are not at all in vse there is no Church as amongst the Turkes Iewes and Infidels First we will examine our aduersaries arguments and then bring foorth our owne The Papistes 1. BEllarmine thus argueth the true notes of the Church ought to be proper and particular not common and generall as these are for euery sect of hereticks doe chalenge to themselues the right preaching of the word and vsage of the sacraments Ergo they are no true notes We answere 1. It skilleth not how many do lay clayme to those notes the word of God it self is a manifest iudge where pure doctrine is taught and the sacraments rightly kept according to the institution It is no matter howsoeuer Papists and other heretickes doe make their bragges the scriptures themselues can soone decide this question 2. I maruaile they are not ashamed to obiect that our notes are common seeing theirs are most common for not only assemblies of hereticks but euen the heathen and Idolatrous Gentiles might as well prooue themselues to be the Church by those popish notes of vniuersalitie for Idolatrie had ouer-spread the whole world of vnitie they all consented to persecute the Church of Christ of antiquitie for the worship of Idols continued aboue two thousand yeares of succession for the monarch of the Assyrians endured 1300. yeares their kings all this while one succeeding another They had also Prophets and such as wrought miracles Our aduersaries may be now ashamed to cast vs in the teeth that our notes are common when as theirs doe well agree to the Synagogues of Sathan and assemblies of Infidels 2. Sayth he the note or the marke must be better knowen and more notorious then the thing marked or notified by it so are not these for we know not which is the worde of God nor what bookes are canonicall and to be taken for scripture but by the Church We answere the Iesuite still beggeth that which is in question a foule fault in a professed disputer for haue we not largely prooued before 1. contr quaest 4. that the Church dependeth vpon the authoritie of the scripture and not contrariwise and that there is no more certaine and euident and vndoubted thing in the whole world vpon the which a man may bee bolde to builde and ground his faith then vpon the scriptures This sure is a childish and ridiculous argument to take that as graunted which is most of all in controuersie 3 The true notes sayth hee are inseparable from the Church it is neuer without them But many true Churches haue wanted these The Church of the Corinthians was a true Church and yet they beleeued not the resurrection cap. 15. The Galathians were a true Church and yet they held that Moses lawe was to bee obserued together with the Gospell And the Corinthians likewise did not sincerely obserue the Sacraments 1. Corinth 11. Ergo they are no true signes We answere First this argument may with better right bee returned vpon their owne head for many true Churches haue wanted their markes Christ and his Apostles had neither succession from Aaron nor vniuersalitie and yet they made the true Church The Church of the Iewes after Malachies time had no Prophets nor miracles for the space of 400. yeares before Christ yet were they the true Church and so of the rest of your notes the Church of Christ hath many times wanted them Secondly It was not the whole Church of Corinthus that doubted of the resurrection but certaine false Apostles that laboured to seduce others 1. Corinth 15.34 Some of you sayth the Apostle haue not the knowledge of God he saith not all So likewise amongst the Galathians there were false teachers that stood for the lawe of Moses Galath 5.9 a little leauen doth marre the whole lumpe It was not therefore a publike doctrine in the Church but secretly taught by false Apostles Thirdly there may be some error in the Church but being not fundamental such an one as destroyeth faith it doth not dissolue the Church as there was some abuse amongst the Corinthians in receiuing the Sacrament but the forme and institution and substance of the Sacrament was kept Nay yet to graunt a little more though the error bee daungerous and of great waight and moment and such an one as being stifely maintained would destroye the faith and Church too yet if they haue fallen into it rather of ignorance then any other cause and doe not continue in it but doe submit themselues to bee reformed by the word it ceaseth not for all that to be a Church So the Corinthians referred themselues wholly and their opinions to the iudgement and determination of the Apostle Hetherto our aduersaries haue sayd nothing agaynst vs now wee will say somewhat for our selues The Protestants 1 FOr the sufficiencie of these