in whom alone they are exactly fulfilled not onely according to the mysticall but for the most part according to the most exquisite literall sense Not that either all or most passages of Scriptures which are first literally verified of some other and after exactly fulfilled in Christ haue as some great Diuines thinke two literall senses albeit this may sometimes happen though very seldome but that of one and the same litterall sense there may be and vsually are two or more obiects one more principall and proper the other either lesse principall or lesse proper Thus it alwaies not onely is but of necessitie must be wheresoeuer the tearmes wherein it pleaseth the Spirit of God to expresse himselfe containe in them a multiplicitie of significations or importances whether aequiuocal analogicall or ad vnum Now of all tearmes vsed in Scripture this word Church as was obserued before hath the greatest varietie of significations or importances And by consequence it must haue one principall obiect of which all the principall attributes or titles of the Church are punctually and accurately verified and other obiects lesse principall to which notwithstanding the same name or titles are in some measure often communicated 3 Hence it may to the obseruant Reader appeare that Bellarmines exception or argument against Caluine which being drawne into forme stands thus The word Church in Scripture doth alwaies import a visible companie of men Therfore it doth not belong to an inuisible Congregation is no better then this The holy ointment did bedeaw or besprinkle Aarons garments Ergo It was not powred vpon his head or it did not madifie or supple some other parts of his body whereas the truth is vnlesse the ointment had first beene plentifully poured vpon his head it could not haue run downe his necke vnto the skirts or rather the brimmes of his vesture Answerable to this representation we say that all the glorious prerogatiues titles or promises annexed to the Church in Scriptures are in th first place and principally meant of Christs liue-mysticall body But being in abundant measure bestowed on it they descend by analogie or participation vnto all and euery one that hath put on Christ by profession without respect of person place or dignitie All the difference in the measure of their participation or manner of their attribution ariseth from the diuers degrees of similitudes or proportion which they hold with the actuall live-members of Christs mysticall body in matter of faith or conuersation Such as haue the true modell or draught of that Catholique faith without which no man can be saued imprinted in their vnderstandings albeit not solidly ingrossed or transmitted into their hearts or affections are to bee reputed by vs who vnderstand their externall profession better then their inward disposition true Catholiques ttue members of Christs body and heires of promise Although in very deede and in his sight that knowes the secrets of mens hearts many of them be members of Christs body onely in such a sense as foetus conceptus non animatus As an humane body shaped or organized but yet not quickened with the spirit of life is tearmed a man 4 The conclusion touching this point which Bellarmine his followers are bound to proue if any thing they meane to proue to the purpose is this That vnder the name or titles of that Church wherunto the assistance of Gods spirit for its direction or other like prerogatiues are by Gods word assured the visible Church taken in that sense in which they alwaies take it is either literally and punctually meant or necessarily included The visible Church in their language is a Societie or Body Ecclesiastique notoriously knowne by the site or place of its residence or by their dignitie order and offices which are the perpetuall gouernours of it Ecclesia saith Bellarmine est tam visibilis quam est Regnum Galliae aut Respublica Venetorum And againe that Church whereof Christ is King is as visible in his absence by the presence of his Vicar generall as the Kingdome of Naples in the absence of the King is by the presence of his Viceroy Vnto the attributes or prerogatiues bestowed on the Church in the Apostles or Nicene Creede or vnto the promises annexed vnto it in the Scripture the visible Church as we say taken in the Romanists sense hath no claime or title saue onely in reuersion or by reflection that is The true mysticall body of Christ is onely instated in the blessings prerogatiues or promises made vnto the Church from this Body or rather from Christ which is the head of it the said blessings immediately and successiuely descend in different measure vnto the seuerall members of it or vnto such as are no solid members of Christ in practice or conuersation yet true Catholiques in opinion and loue vnfaigned vnto the Catholique faith And from indiuiduals thus habitually qualified the Church visible or representatiue deriues its right interest in the promises made vnto the Church generally or indefinitely taken Wheresoeuer two or three thus qualified are gathered together in Christs name that is not for any priuate ends or sinister respects but for meere loue of truth the presence of Christs spirit is by promise annexed vnto them Though a thousand Bishops Prelates or Clarkes not thus qualified be assembled for their own gaine or dignities or if their consultations be managed by superiour power or faction they haue no like interest in the former promise For any Church visible or representatiue whose indiuiduals are not thus farre qualified the greater part whereof for number or more principall for authority may be infideles aut haereti ci occulti that is Heretiques Infidels or Atheists in harts To vsurpe an absolute infallibilitie in iudgement of matters sacred is no better then blasphemie for any such Church to expect the extraordinary assistance of Gods spirit in their consultations is but the dregs and reliques of Simon Magus his sin But of the diuers acceptions of this word Church in what sense it is said visible or inuisible true or false wee are to speake hereafter Sect. 2. chap. 1. CHAP. VI. Containing the speciall points to be beleeued concerning this Article of the One Holy Catholique Church How euery one is so to moderate his assent or beliefe concerning it that he neither incline vnto presumption nor fall into despaire 1 THe speciall points which wee are in this article to beleeue are these First that as Christ whilest he liued on earth was a King albeit his Kingdome was not earthly nor of this world so he hath still a Kingdome or at least a great part of his Kingdome here on earth the members or Citizens of which Kingdome whilest liuing in this world are not of this world their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as our Apostle speakes is in heauen that is the Societie or Corporation whereof they are actuall and liue-members is translated from earth to heauen and their demeanour or conuersation here
of the Churches or the Popes absolute infallibility in matters of faith and manners is an errour in it selfe ex specie hereticall and more deadly then heathenisme and includeth infidelitatem prauae dispositionis infidelity of contradiction as malignant as the infidelity of the Iewes and the consequent of it is an entire Apostasie from the Apostolike faith This I haue elsewhere endeauoured to shew at large the summe of which worke shall by Gods assistance bee recollected in this Treatise I now meddle onely with this transcendent heresie as it is diffused through other errours The very participation of it is as the Pharisaicâ—ll leauen by which all other erroneous opinions or coniectures which that Church hath suâ—ked either from Heretikes of old or from some mistakings or misreadings of ancient Fathers are malignified and made much worse then they were in their first Authors Our first instance shall be in the manifold and daily transgressions of that rule of faith giuen by our Apostle Rom. 14. verse 5. into all which transgressions this doctrine doth leade and draw them blindfold as the Philistines did Sampson after they had put out his eyes The Apostles rule is Let euery man be fully perswaded in his owne minde And this full perswasion or assurance of faith is in the cases there mentioned necessary because whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne verse 23. This last Maxime is most vndoubtedly true and the former precept most exactly to be obserued in such cases as the Apostle there speakes of that is where the positiue practice vnlesse our warrant bee authentique in it selfe and euident to vs is very dangerous or deadly whereas on the contrary the forbearance of such practice is either safe or not preiudiciall to our soules but to our bodies onely or estate temporall But in what cases doth the authoritie of the Romish Church where it beares sway draw men to transgresse the former rules of faith or conscience In many 10 To rob God of his honour or doe him preiudice in his glorious titles of mercy bounty and the like is vnquestionably a grieuous sinne and being such no doctrine or practice ought to bee admitted or imposed vpon vs which with probabilitie may induce or inferre it especially if the end or benefit for whose attainement the suspected doctrine or practice is imagined behoofefull or vsefull may as certainely be obtained by some other more safe and no lesse effectuall or conuenient meanes If from these grounds wee should enter friendly conference with an ingenuous Papist and tell him as the truth is that we Protestants doe teach That good workes are most necessarie to saluation and that the more such workes we doe the greater certainely shall be our reward so wee doe them in sinceritie and acknowledgement of our bounden dutie towards God humbly confessing our selues after we haue done all euen our very best to bee vnprofitable seruants It from these allegations we shall thus inferre that glory honour immortality and eternall happinesse in the life to come being all that hee seekes after by wel-doing seeing wee seeke for the very selfe same things by a safer and lesse suspitious way why should hee not be content to abandon all conceit of merit and to renounce the tearme as an offensiue and suspicious title for a poore suppliant to vse before the Almighty Maiesty of God To this and like Quaeries all the answer you shall get is this and this you shall haue from the more iudicious and ingenuous secular Papists that for their owne parts they could be wel content to relinquish the opinion or terme of Merit so they were left vnto themselues but they must vse the one and maintaine the other in obedience to the Church So strong a hand hath the Church his mother ouer his faith and conscience that hee had rather aduenture to stand vpon reall termes of meum and tuum or come to iuridicall contestation with God his Creator and Redeemer than disobey or dissent from her in the vse of words or in matters of conceit or opinion onely 11 Again no Christian denies that our Sauiour is able to heare our prayers at all times in all places that he is more fauourable and compassionate vnto vs then any Saint in Heauen or earth can be that his Father alwaies heareth him It is likewise a fundamentall article of our beliefe that wee ought at all times to pray vnto him that he would pray vnto his Father for vs that it is our duty to offer vp our praiers and the best sacrifice of our soules and spirits in honour of his great and glorious name that to come vnto the Father by his mediation is to worship him in truth and spirit All these positions are ex fide de fide points of necessity to be beleeued And if we were alwayes imployed in some of these practices happy were we although we did nothing else No Saint we may bee sure would bee offended with vs for praying continually vnto Christ vnto whom they contiuall pray or giue thanks But whether in praying vnto Saints as the Romanists doe wee doe not offend both Christ and them is not so clear and vnquestionable 12 To request the Saints deceased to pray for vs without expresse warrant or assurance that they can hear our praiers is superstitious to offer vp our praiers vnto them by way of Honour or tribute without assurance of faith is flat Idolatry Yet admitting it were lawfull not onely to pray but to offer our praiers vnto their Images yet to fall down before them and worship them is certainly a practice so quite contrary to the rule of faith and Gods holy commandements that he which feareth God who hath expressed himselfe in this point aboue others to be a iealous God would in ordinary discretion and reason before hee durst aduenture vpon so dangerous a practice demand as expresse a dispensation or countermand to the former precept as Abraham had to assure him he should not commit murder by sacrificing his only sonne Lastly admitting the invocation of true and vnquestionable Saints as for example the Apostles and the adoration of their Images to be no sacrilege or wrong to God yet to honor euery one whoÌ„ the Pope shall canonize for a Saint with all the former points of honour which they exhibit to S. Peter S. Paul c is a great wrong vnto those glorious Saints an heresie or rather an Idolatry ex specie deadly And yet for aduenturing vpon all these dangerous practices they haue no other assurance of faith or warrant of scripture besides their vnwarrantable and blind beleife of the Chruch and Popes infallibility Nor can the ingenuous Papists giue vs any other answer to such reasonable demands as were now proposed in this point of Inuocation of Saints or adoration of Images then was giuen before That Hee doth all this in obedience to his mother the Church I should proceed to the like faithlesse and desperate practices in the
from the Holy Catholike Church of former times from which the Gouernors of the present visible Church haue swearued in this particular Of this case thus propounded in Thesi Athanasius his case was the Hypothesis The then Church representatiue or visible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had condemned him in one or two generall Councells for an hereticke and being so condemned he was vtterly excluded and perpetually cut off from all communion in things sacred with the visible Church or its members so long as he maintained that doctrine which it condemned Which doctrine it is certaine hee neither did nor would recant whatsoeuer the then visible Church did or might determine to the contrary 3 If either the name Catholike or the thing signified by it be to be valued for the time present by the multitude of suffragants or number of suffrages giuen ex cathedra Athanasius and his followers were no more Catholiks then Wickliffe and Hus with their followers in their times were For one Bishop that did maintaine or fauour Athanasius doctrine there were more then forty did oppugne it And yet he boldly pronounceth that the faith professed by him was the onely true Catholike faith without which no man could be saued which whosoeuer did not keepe holy and vndefiled was to perish euerlastingly Suppose not ten in all the Christian world besides had resolutely imbraced the same faith which Athanasius did so much magnifie or suppose all were they more or few which did imbrace or professe it had beene with him condemned for heretikes and vtterly cut off from all communion with the visible Church all either banished into seuerall Hands or shut vp into seuerall prisons all this notwithstanding they had still remained the onely true visible members of the Holy catholike Church which these times afforded And for this reason were they to bee accounted the onely true visible members of the Holy Catholike Church because they onely were contented rather to be cut off from the present visible church then to communicate with it in such doctrines or opinions as either contradict or defile the chatholike primitiue faith 4 That which some Romanists in this point reply to wit that Iulius then Bishop of Rome did not consent to Athanasius his condemnation but entertained him in his exile may for ought I know or at this present haue to say against it bee as true in part as it is impertinent Sure I am that the Bishop of Rome did not so resolutely and manfully oppose the Arian faction or the then erring visible Church as Athanasius did That confession of the catholike faith which the Church of Rome her selfe retaineth in her Lyturgy as a Trophie of the victory which the catholike faith in the issue obtained ouer the potent Arian heresie was neither conceiued published nor commended to the Christian world by the Bishop of Rome but by the exiled Athanasius This worthy Bishop saw almost all the Prelates in the world besides for the present to bee set against him How these or their successors or such as liued after him would be affected he knew not in respect of the truth of his doctrine hee cared not as being confident that his doctrine was truly catholike and authenticke without the ratification or proposall of the then Bishop of Rome or his successors or of any visible church succeeding he knew Christs Apostles and their immediate successors had imbraced it For such as liued with him or were to come after him at their perills be it if they imbrace it not Though not ten of that age or any age after him were to be saued yet of these few not one as he protests could otherwise bee saued then by beleeuing as he did and as former Saints of God had done If the then Bishop of Rome did receiue Athanasius in the name of an Orthodox or Catholike and bid God speed vnto his labours all that can hence be inferred is this That Athanasius was to the Bishop of Rome a visible member of the holy catholike Church and the Bishop of Rome a visible member of the same church to Athanasius But neither of them not both of them the then visible church nor any members of it As many as after this time became true members of the holy catholike Church became not such by holding vnion with the then visible Church but by adherence to that catholike faith which Athanasius and other visible members of the holy catholike Church then taught The holy catholike militant Church hath continued one and the same since its Foundation not by continuation of one and the same visible Church but by continuation of one and the same catholike Apostolike faith throughout al ages which faith hath been sometimes maintained but oftē oppugned by churches visible or represētatiue 5 It is one thing to say the Holy catholike Church hath beene in all ages visible another thing to say the visible Church hath beene in all ages catholike We may and ought to grant that in euery age since the Apostles time there haue beene many not onely true but visible members of the one holy catholike Church that is such as were able out of Scriptures to make demonstration vnto the observant that their doctrine was orthodoxall consonant to the orthodoxall faith doctrine of the primitiue Church howsoeuer contradicted ecclipsed by the present visible churches wherin they liued till Luther Christian Princes by Gods appointment vnited the visible members of the Holy catholike Church into visible Churches A pregnant instance of the former distinction wee haue gathered to our hands in that famous Dialogue between Constantius the Emperor and Liberius then Bishop of Rome The Emperor hauing as the Romanists since haue done mispictured the regiment of Christs body or Church by the regiment of common weales wherin Lawes are made by the whole consent or by the consent of the greater part of the body politike presseth Liberius with this argument Doth so great a part of the world reside in thee Liberius that thou alone darest vndertake the defence of this impious man Athanasius to the disturbance of the peace of the Empire and of the world Hereto Liberius answers Be it so as you say that I alone defend Athanasius yet the cause of faith shall hereby suffer no detriment for the times heretofore haue beene wherein three onely were found that durst resist the Kings command To this reply Eusebius the Eunuch reioynes Do you Liberius make the Emperor another Nebucodonozer I do not so but thou Eusebius deales no lesse vniustly than Nebucodonozer did in thus condemning a man who hath not had a iudiciall tryall 6 So long as Liberius stood to this confession he was a visible member of the Catholike Church But when he sought to purchase the Emperours sauour by subscription to Athanasius his condemnation and communion with the Arians although hee might by this dealing regaine his former dignities and become a principall member of the then visible Church
had deliuered this sentence ex cathedra It is expedient for vs that one man die for the people and that the whole nation perish not Iohn 11. ver 49. And vpon his authority or warrant they aduentured to put the Lord of glory to death Had not this false Apostaticall Priest beene in vero sacerdotio a chiefe officer in the house of God neither could so cleer a truth as he vttered haue beene inuerted to such a pernitious end as it was spoken by him apprehended by others nor could hee haue conceiued or vttered so cleare a truth of himselfe as S. Iohn instructs vs he did This he spake not of himselfe but being high Priest that same yeer he prophesied that Iesus should die for the Nation Ioh. 11.51 Other Acts of his priesthood tooke their validity from his office not from his person this speculatiue truth tooke its poysonous operation from his person not from his office although he could not haue borne so bitter enmity vnto Christ vnlesse he had beene in that office Now albeit we grant that Caiaphas did prophesie by vertue of his place or Priestly office yet no Romanists as I hope will deny that Caiaphas in the preposterous application of his propheticall sentence might well brooke the name of Antichrist at the least that hee was a type or shadow of the Antichrist to come who was to sit as Caiaphas did in the Temple of God or if so they will haue it in S. Peters chaire that hee may wrest diuine truths authoritatiuely to as wicked ends as Caiaphas did 5 But may it not hence bee inferred that as the Sanedrin was the onely visible Church which God had here on earth so the Romish Church from which Luther did separate himselfe was the onely true visible Church of Christ at the time of his separation This may be granted de facto but not de iure For there was an expresse Law of God that there should be no more visible Churches then one before our Sauiours death and resurrection after which there were to bee as many visible Churches de iure as there were seuerall independent Soueraignties I haue heard indeed of some French Catholikes as they would bee accounted which vse this as an argument whether intended by them ad homines to delude the obiecter onely or ad rem to the matter it selfe I know not But this argument they vse to proue that their Church as opposed to Reformed Churches is the true Church because the Pope is Antichrist Antichrist as the Apostle teacheth is to sit in the Temple of God and the Temple of God no question is the true Church whence seeing hee sits in their Church they inferre that theirs is the true Church not ours But as in most other arguments concerning the Church so in this they cozen themselues with the fallacy à dicto secundùm quid ad dictum simpliciter First both letter of Scripture and analogie of faith doe teach that Antichrist is to sit as Caiaphas did in a true Church yea to be a chiefe Officer of some Church otherwise he could not be a principal Rebell or notorious Traitor against Christ But in that he was to be such a rebell and such a Traitor it is not conceiuable that the Church which wholly submits herselfe to him as to her head should bee the true Church much lesse the onely Church of Christ The former argument will hold thus farre The Pope is Antichrist ergo the Church of Rome is a true Church secundùm quid that is in opposition to the Synagogue of Iewes of Turkes or other professed Infidels But if we speake absolutely or compare it with Churches truly Christian it is no true Church of Christ but the Synagogue of Satan Or as he said of his sordid Hosts entertainment that there was so much fire as a man could not haue truly said in strict propriety of logicke phrase there was no fire that is there was so much as if hee had beene bound by couenant of Lease neuer to haue suffered the fire to goe out hee might haue saued his lease from forfeiture and yet there was no fire but a mocke-fire to the entertaining of a stranger so much as was a greater eyesore to him that had sought comfort or refreshing from it then if there had been none at all In like manner there is so much of the true Church in the present Romish visible Church as a man cannot say it is no Church at all so much true doctrine in it as sufficeth to support the title of Antichrist and to make it the very seat of all abominations or impieties more then natural For as the mingling of the Traditions of men with Moses doctrine did make the leuen of Pharises to be so malignant and distastfull to God and all good men so is it the mixture or making vp of the doctrine of Christ and of Deuills in one and the same Liturgy which makes Antichristianisme in graine And as elswhere is obserued the Idolatry of the Romish Church is so much worse then the Idolatry of the Heathens by how much that Churches generall beliefe of one God of the glorious Trinity and of the redemption of mankind is better then the Heathens beliefe or knowledge of the same points 6 But when it is said that Antichrist is to sit in the Temple of God it is not meant onely that hee should sit in the present visible Church but that he should be an vsurper of that chaire which sometimes had beene the seat of Gods Saints and bee an intruder into that Church which had beene Holy and Catholike before his intrusion and which still retaines the rootes and stemmes of Catholike faith into which it shall be his and his followers continual care to ingraffe the doctrine of Deuills and to exercise their spirituall whoredomes in the Oratories of God CHAP. XIX Whether our Forefathers in separating themselues or suffering themselues to be separated from the Romish Church did any otherwise then Gods Prophets or our Sauiours Disciples had their case and opportunity beene the same would haue done 1 BVt here againe the Author of the Antidote or the blinde Guide of faith will obiect That neither the Prophets of old nor our Sauiours Disciples before his death did separate themselues from the present visible Church If not to beleeue as the Church visible and representatiue for the time present did if not to communicate with her in matters of fact or practice were to bee separated from the present visible Church as this Authors words elsewhere imply the Prophets out of all question did either separate themselues or suffer themselues to be separated from the visible Church wherein they liued Ezekiel and Daniel would neuer haue consented to the Priests and Rulers in their persecutions of Ieremie as a false Prophet or Traytor Our Sauiours Disciples before his death stood excommunicated by the visible Church of the Iewes they were as farre from communicating with
especially in matters sacred if it be explicite and compleate consists of foure distinct tearmes In this present Allegorie of the Apostle as in the like vsed by sacred Writers the two first tearmes haue a literall proper or historicall sense the other two haue a borrowed metaphoricall or symbolicall sense Or to speake more significantly perhaps to some men the two first tearmes besides their historicall or natiue signification haue a symbolicall or emblematicall importance that is the realities or matters historically related or literally expressed are as types and shadowes of some more principall euents to ensue though not literally expressed or foretold but by way of hieroglyficall embleme And in this Allegorie the historicall and proper tearmes are Hagar the Handmaid and Sarah her Mistresse The Allegoricall tearmes by these foreshadowed are the two testaments the one from Mount Sinai whereof Hagar the Handmaid is the type the other from heauen established by our Sauiours blood whereof Sarah the Mistresse and the Free-woman is the type Thus much is cleare from the Apostle himselfe The difficultie which hath puzled many good interpreters in the exposition of this Text herein consists namely how and in what manner the other tearmes which are here interserted as Mount-Sinai or Hagar in Arabia the Ierusalem that now is and the Ierusalem which is aboue are reducible to the foure former tearmes wherein the Allegorie properly consists To proue that Hagar Sarahs Hand-maid was the type of the Testament giuen vpon Mount Sinai the Apostle thus inferres or rather interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia This inference to a meer Artist may well seeme strange for it is meerly equiuocall And whatsoeuer sensus mysticus parabolicus or allegoricus be certainely sensus aequiuocus non est sensus argumentativus the equiuocall sense can bring forth no sound Argument 2 To this we answer that many things which are aequiuoca casu in respect of men are aequiuoca à consilio in respect of Gods prouidence And diuers prophesies which haue beene conceiued and expressed in tearmes equiuocall haue beene remarkeably fulfilled according to the different or contrary significations of one and the same propheticall word as on the contrary one and the same Euangelicall word or attribute of Christ may according to its different or equiuocall significations comprise the literall significations of two or more prophesies conceiued in distinct tearmes no way equiuocall or coincident in the originall Instance was elsewhere giuen in the Latine Nazarenus or Nazareus truely verified of Christ both as he was the rod of Iesse and as hee was the Idaea of legall Nazarites To these the instance of our Apostle in this place is parallel That the same mountaine which the Hebrewes call Sinai should by the Arabians be called Agar and bear the same name which Agar Sarahs Hand-maid did was meerely accidentall or casuall in respect of men But that God should promulge his law and enter a couenant with his people vpon this Mount did by the disposition of his All-seeing prouidence enigmatically portend what the Apostle by an Analogie of interpreting Scriptures well known in his time inferres to wit that such as did adhere vnto the law or first couenant as to their mother scorning or loathing the sincere milke of the Gospell or new Testament should by so doing become rather children of Abraham by Agar the Bond-woman then by Sarah the Free-woman as anon shall be declared But besides this equiuocation of the word Agar and the doubtfull signification of the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is an Amphibologie in their reference or coniunction which many good Interpreters not well obseruing haue left the streame or current of the Apostles words much troubled in translations though in a manner cleere in the Fountaine 3 Most of the Antient with some moderne make the Mount Agar the intire subiect of this proposition as if he had said in English This mount Agar bordereth vpon Ierusalem whereas the Apostles meaning is that Agar Sarahs Handmaid did border vpon or answer vnto the then Ierusalem The vulgar Latine speaking of this Mount saith continuatus est Erasmus confinis est Ierusalem which I wonder at if we haue his last corrections seeing a learned man did admonish him to amend it Aquinas to iustifie the sense of the vulgar translation giues this reason why Mount Agar might be said to be continuatus Ierusalem because the iourney or pilgrimage from this mountaine was continuall But Sepul veda very well replies that there was neuer any iourney lesse continuate then the Israelites iourney from mount Agar to Ierusalem For it was a continuall wandring vp and downe neither was the Ierusalem whereof the Apostle speakes but the whole land of Promise the terme or period of the Israelites wandring pilgrimage Some others whom Luther followeth haue taken some paines in Geographie to shew that the mountaines in Arabia are continuate vnto that part of Iudaea wherein Ierusalem stands but how true soeuer this may be in Geographie it cannot be more true then impertinent to our Apostles meaning For Agar or Sinai is not such a generall name of the whole mountaine-country in Arabia as Wold or chilterne is in English It is the proper name of that one famous Mount on which the Law was giuen betwixt which and Ierusalem there be so many other hils and mountaines that it cannot be said in any Geographicall sense to border vpon Ierusalem True it is that the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth sometime signifie as much as to border or trench vpon yet this is but a secondarie or deriuatiue signification The reason of this deriuatiue or borrowed speech is because such as are properly termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is such as march together in battle array are vicini or neere one to the other Our two later English translations render it better answereth to Ierusalem or as Beza ex aduerso respondet But neither as I thinke referre this word answering to Geographicall situation In which sense the Latine respondet is at least by Poets sometimes vsed So Creete is said to answer to Athens Contra elata mari respondet Cnosia tellus 4 But our later English by this word answering meaneth it to be in the same ranke with Ierusalem Howbeit to speake in the proper tearmes of Art militarie such as are in the same ranke are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are next in the same file that is in eadem serie incipiendo a fronte ad â—ergum in the same line or row from Front to Reere As when Souldiers march tenne in brest and thirty deepe they are said to bee thirty rankes and tenne Files and yet thirty in File and but tenne in Ranke The first and second in the same File are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first and second in the next File to these are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with these or
Masse for which they can haue no true assurance or warrant from God or his Lawes but onely rely vpon the supposed infallibilitie of this Church which notwithstanding may be manifestly conuinced of grosse and stupid heresie in the doctrine of â—ransubstantiation But because the doctrine is ex specie hereticall and the practice deadly I shall reserue the refutation of both the explication of the ancient and orthodoxall opinions concerning the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament or communication of his body and blood vnto a peculiar Treatise 13 Generally the more dangerous or deadly any practice doth seeme to bee whilest wee compare it with the ordinary common rule of mans actions the more euidently it ought to appeare vnto him that vndertakes it by what speciall rule or warrant it is exempted from the common rule or generall prohibition of other facts and practices in nature and appearance like it If a Iudge should charge the Sheriffe or other inferiour officer to see execution done vpon some malefactor it were no wisedome for the inferior Officer to aduenture vpon the Iudges command vnlesse hee knew that the Iudge had speciall commission and warrant from the King to sentence him to death and that hee had legally so sentenced him Yet would it be a point of ill manners and indiscretion for an inferior Iustice or officer to require the like speciall warrant or expresse rule of Law for whipping a vagrant person or putting some idle fellow in the stocks The Iudges word or command might in this case be a suffâ—cient warrant especially to one not skilfull in the Lawes nor too scrupulous in yeelding obedience to such as are skilfull in them It is nicitie ill manners and indiscretion to exact an expresse rule of scripture or faith for standing at the Creed for kneeling at the Lords board for vsing the Cap and Surplice In these cases consent of the Church or tradition will suffice so there be not any expresse Law or commandement to the contrary He that exacts in these points as expresse rules of faith or warrant of scripture for his obedieÌ„ce to ecclesiasticall authority as hee would or as euery man ought to doe for aduenturing vpon worshipping of Images inuocation of Saints or the like hath made his braine or fancy the chiefe seat or mansion of his Religion which should bee seated in the heart To runne thus farre in seeming opposition to the Romanist is not truly to oppose him but to meet with him in the point of disobedience to Gods Lawes The one by disobeying the Church in these cases wherein it hath authority to command obedience disobeyes those Lawes or mandates of God which giue the Church authority to make Lawes in things indifferent neither expresly forbidden nor commanded by the Law of God The other by vowing absolute blinde obedience to the Church disobey Gods particular and expresse Lawes euen the most fundamentall Lawes of pâ—ety and religion the lawes of nature and of Nations 14 To kill a priuate man without warrant of authority is a heynous and fearefull sinne but farre more hainous to kill a Prince or to raise tumults in a State or incense the multitude to take armes against their soueraigne Lord yet vpon these and worse practices will any well catechized Romanist aduenture without any further warrant then the Churches command or approbation which hee beleeues to bee infallible But that the Church hath absolute infallibility and full power to command his conscience or authorize his action in these cases what speciall warrant hath hee from God or his Lawes The best they bring is this Tu es Petrus super hanc petraÌ„ aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church But doth this place either proue Peter to be the Rocke on which the church is built or the Popes to be Peters perpetual successors in that confession which Peter then vttered which was the rocke indeed on which Christs Church is built and which did make Peter to be such a rocke or liuing stone as hee was in the house of God I could bee content to try this issue with any Iesuit whether he could by better probabilitie from this Text inferre that the Pope is Peters successor in the infallibility of holy doctrine then I shall inferre from another Text following in the same Chapter that the Pope is the first borne of Sathan perpetually obnoxious to the check which our Sauiour gaue vnto Peter Get thee behind me Sathan thou art an offence vnto me for thou sauourest not the things that bee of God but those that bee of men Matt. 16.23 This was but a friendly checke of Peter but will proue the iudiciall censure of the Pope and his Disciples vnlesse they recant this wicked doctrine Our Sauiour bestowed the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Rocke vpon the sonne of Iona as the Iesuits will haue it in the former place whilest hee vttered that worthy confession Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God By faithfull adherence to this confession hee became a liuing stone a part of the foundation of Christs Church the first in order of twelue But nominis omen habuit hee did best brooke this name after our Sauiours resurrection A little after the vttering of the former confession when out of his kind nature as wee would tearme it but certainly our of a carnall imagination as the Spirit would censure it he sought to disswade his master from suffering death and so to hinder him from dissoluing the works of Sathan and ouerthrowing his Kingdome our Sauiour calls him Sathan as if he had said Peter thou counsellest me to that very thing whereunto Satan himselfe so I would giue him audience would perswade me with more Rhetorick then thou hast What if I should say That all the Popes are Peters successors and that so much may bee proued out of this 16 chapter of S. Matthew will it therefore follow that none of them are Antichrists or Sonnes of Satan No distingue tempora concordabunt scripturae distinction of times is the reconciliation of scriptures The first and ancient Popes were Peters successors in the former confession all or most of them liuing stones in the house of God The later Popes are Peters successors in counselling Christs Church to vndertake those practices in Christs name wherunto the Deuill doth alwayes counsell men by internall suggestions of the flesh Peters temporary infirmity is become their hereditary heresie Certainly their succession in Peters chaire doth no more argue theÌ„ to be his successours in the stability of faith than succession in Moses chaire proues the Scribes and Pharises to haue beene Moses true Disciples or theÌ„ the Iewes lineall descent from Abraham proues then to be Abrahams childreÌ„ The Analogie of faith will warrant this doctrine for conclusion That these later Popes and their followers are of their father the Deuill for they goe about to murther Kings and Princes which